Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora (Hesperia Supplement 31)

J

ohnK. Papadopoulos

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

I* S. Dow, Prytaneis: A Study ofthe Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors (1937) 2* 3" 4* 5* 6* 7* 8* 9*

R. S. Young, Late Geometric Graves anda Seventh-Century Wellin theAgora (1939) G. P. Stevens, The Setting of the Periclean Parthenon (1940) H. A. Thompson, The Tholos ofAthens and Its Predecessors (1940) W. B. Dinsmoor, Observations on the Hephaisteion (1941) J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (1941) G. R. Davidson and D. B. Thompson, Small Objectsjom the Pnyx: I (1943) Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (1949)

J. V.A. Fine, Horoi: Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient

Athens (1951) 10" L. Talcott, B. Philippaki, G. R. Edwards, and V. R. Grace, Small Objectsjom the Pnyx: I1 (1956) ll* J. R. McCredie, Fortij?ed Military Camps in Attica (1966) 12* D. J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution ajer Sulfa (1967) 13 J. H. Oliver, MarcusAurelius:Aspectsof Civic and CulturalPolicy in the East (1970) 14 J. S. Traill, The Political Organization ofAttica (1975) 15 S. V.Tracy, The Lettering of an Athenian Mason (1975) 16 M . K. Langdon, A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (1976) 17 T. L. Shear Jr., Kallias ofSphettos and the Revolt OfAthens in 268 B c (1978) 18* L. V.Watrous, Lasithi:A History ofsettlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (1982) 19 Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and Topography Presented to Eugene iZnderpool (1982) 20 Studies in Athenian Architecture, Scu(pture, and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson (1982) 21 J. E. Coleman, Excavations at Pylos in Elis (1986) 22 E. J. Walters, Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress $Isis (1988) 23 C. Grandjouan, Hellenistic ReliefMoldsjom theAthenian Agora (1989) 24 J . S. Soles, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs of Bronze Age Crete (1992) 25 S. I. Rotroff and J. H. Oakley, Debrisjom a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora (1992) 26 I . S. Mark, The Sanctuary ofAthena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and Chronology (1993) 27 N . A. Winter, ed., Proceedings of the International Conference on Greek Architectural Terracottas ofthe Classicaland Hellenistic Periods, December 12-15, 1991 (1994) 28 D. A. A m p and P. Lawrence, Studies in Archaic Corinthian iZse Painting (1996) 29 R. S. Stroud, The Athenian Grain-Tax Law of374/3 B.C. (1998) 30 J. W. Shaw, A. Van de Moortel, P. M . Day, and V. Kilikoglou, A L M I A Ceramic Kiln in South-Central Crete: Function and Pottery Production (2001)

* Out ofprint

Hesperia Supplement 31

The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in the Area of the ClassicalAthenian Agora

TheAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens 2003

Copyright O 2003 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens All rights reserved.

To order, contact: (in North America) The David Brown Book Company www.davidbrownbookco.com Tel. 800-791-9354 (outside North America) Oxbow Books www.oxbowbooks.com Tel. +44 (0) 1865-241-249

Out-of-print Hesperia supplements may be purchased from: Swets & Zeitlinger Backsets Department PO. Box 810 2160 S Z Lisse The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Coverphotograph:The City of Theseus, by Petros Moraites, ca. 1865-1870. Courtesy The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection (92.R.84)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Papadopoulos, John K., 1958Ceramicus redivivus : the early Iron Age potters' field in the area of the classical Athenian agora /John K. Papadopoulos. p. cm.-(Hesperia Supplement ; 31)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 0-87661-531-0 (alk. paper)

1.Agora (Athens, Greece) 2. Athens (Greece)-Antiquities. 3. Pottery, Greece-Greece-Athens. 4. Iron age-Greece-Athens. I. Title. 11. Hesperia (Princeton, N.J.). Supplement ; 31.

For my parents,

ANNA,who is no more, and JACK

CONTENTS

ix xvii xix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION Chapter 2

T H EM A T E R I AALN D I T S C O N T E X T : S E L E C TC A T A L O G OUFEE A R L Y IRON AGE TEST-PIECE AN SD O T H E RP O T T E R S D' E B R I S F R O M T H E A R E AO F T H E C L A S S I C A ALG O R A Chapter3

THEM A T E R I AALN D I T SI N T E R P R E T A T I O N : N O T E SO N T H E P O T T E R SR'E F U S EF R O M T H E A R E AO F T H E C L A S S I C A ALG O R A AND THE FIRING OF ATHENIAN POTTERY

1 91

Chapter 4

T E S T - P I E C EI NS L A T E RP E R I O D S : CATALOGU AN ED D I S C U S S I O N Chapter 5 CERAMICU RE SDIVIVUS A: C O N T R I B U T ITOON T H E T O P O G R A P HS IC TU ADLYO F E A R L Y ATHENS

271

Appendix

E S T I M A T I OON F C E R A M IFCI R I N G TEMPERATURES BY M E A N S O F T H E R M O M E C H AA NNI A C LAYLS I S by Michael R. Schilling

317

ILLUSTRATIONS

The area of the Athenian Agora in 1959 after the reconstruction of the Stoa of Attalos Plan of early Athens showing the Acropolis, the original Kerameikos, including the cemeteries of the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age periods, and the likely location of the Old Agora Section through typical well Plan of the area of the Classical Agora showing deposits with significant Early Iron Age potters' refuse Selection of potters' test-pieces published in Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, pl. 16 Sketch showing method of handling test-piece Selected Corinthian pinakes from Penteskouphia Modern potter's tools: a) poker; b) slice; c) tongs Piccolpasso 1548, folio 34, various potters' tools (vedetta, caccia bragie,forcina, trainello) Piccolpasso 1548, folio 35, the firing of a potter's kiln Piccolpasso 1548, folio 29, the firing of the kiln and the use of the trainello Piccolpasso 1548, folio 50, potter extracting test-piece from the top of the kiln Fragmentary maiolica dish used as a test-piece for lustre firing Two fragmentary test-pieces from Deruta, late 15th century, used to test the second or gloss firing of maiolica Test-piece from Deruta, 16th-17th century, as previous Fragmentary test-piece of a plate from Deruta, early 16th century, used to test the third or lustre firing of maiolica As previous Ancient Chinese test-pieces from Shanxi Province The Kolonos Agoraios and the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 1870

ILLUSTRATIONS

Well N 12:3: 1-3

Pit or well L 11:l: 4-5

Pit or well L 11:l: 6

Pit orwell L 11:l: 7

Pit or well L 11:l: 8-9

Pit or well L 11:l: 10-13

Pit or well L 11:l: 14-17

Pit or well L 11:l: 18-19

Pit or well L 11:l: 20-22

Pit or well L 11:l: 23-25

Pit or well L 11:1: 26-28

P it or well L 11:l: 29

Pit or well L 11:l: 30

Pit or well L 11:l: 31-32

Pit or well L 11:l: 33

Pit or well L 11:l: 34-35

Pit or well L 11:l: 36-39

Pit orwell L 11:l: 40-41

Pit or well L 11:l: 42-44

Pit or well L 11:l: 45-47

Pit or well L 11:l: 48-50

Pit or well L 11:l: 51

Pit or well L 11:l: 52-55

Pit or well L 11:l: 56

Pit or well L 11:l: 57

Pit or well L 11:l: 58-59

Pit or well A 205: 60

Pit or well A 20:s: 61-63

Pit or well A 20:s: 64-66

Plan and section of wells K 12:l and K 12:2

Wells K 12:l and K 12:2 during excavation in 1934

Well K 12:l: 67-69

Well K 12:l: 70

Well K 12:l: 71-72

Well K 12:l: 73

Well H 16-17:l: 74-76

Well H 16-17:l: 77

Well H 16-17:l: 78

ILLUSTRATIONS

Well P 8:3: 79 Well K 12:2: 80 Well L 6:2: 81-82 Well L 6:2: 83 Well L 6:2: 84 Well L 6:2: 85 Well L 6:2: 86 Well L 6:2: 87 Well L 6:2: 88 Well L 6:2: 89 Well M 13:l: 90 Well M 13:l: 91 Well M 13:l: 92 Late Geometric grave N 11:l partly superimposed over well N 11:5 Well N 11:s: 93 Well N 11:s: 95 Well N 11:5: 94,96-99 Well N 11:5: 100 Well N 11:5: 101 Well N 11:s: 102 Deposit G 15:s: 103 The temple on Kolonos Agoraios and the west side of the Classical Agora, ca. 1858 View of the Tholos and general area around it on the west side of the Agora, after excavation and completion of conservation work. View from the southeast, May 3, 1950. Plan showing the remains of 7th-century house, kiln H 12:17, and the Tholos Cemetery in relation to the later Tholos of Athens Plan and section of kiln H 12:17 Sketch plan and section of kiln H 12:17 Kiln H 12:17 and its relationship to Building A Kiln H 12:17 and its relationship to later structures Kiln deposit H 12:17, context a: 104 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 105, 113, 117 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 106,112,116 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 107, 118 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 108 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 109 Kiln deposit H 12:17: 110-111

XI

XI1

ILLUSTRATIONS

2.75. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 114

2.76. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 115

2.77. Deposit S 17:2, cuttings F 1-F 3

2.78. Plan with deposit S 17:2, cutting F 1, and section across n A

(Panathenaic) Way cut 111

2.79. Deposit S 17:2, cutting F 3, cleared to lower layer 2.80. Deposit S 17:2, cutting F 3

2.81. General area of deposit S 17:2 after excavation, showing cuttings

north of Poros Aqueduct

2.82. Deposit S 17:2: 119-122

2.83. Deposit S 17:2: 123-125

2.84. Production discards in deposit S 17:2: 126-127,130,132,135 2.85. Deposit S 17:2: 126

Deposit S 17:2: 127

Deposit S 17:2: 128

Deposit S 17:2: 129

Deposit S 17:2: 130

Deposit S 17:2: 131

Deposit S 17:2: 132-134

Deposit S 17:2: 135

Deposit S 17:2: 136

Deposit S 17:2: 137

Deposit S 17:2: 138

Deposit S 17:2: 139

Deposit S 17:2: 140

Deposit S 17:2: 141

Deposit S 17:2: 142

Deposit S 17:2: 143

Deposit S 17:2: 144

Deposit S 17:2: 145

Deposit S 17:2: 146

Deposit S 17:2: 147

Deposit S 17:2: 148

Deposit S 17:2: 149-150

2.107. Deposit S 17:2: 151-156

2.108. Inventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (i) standing

human figures: T 3623, T 3589, T 3625, T 3620, T 3622, T 3624,

T 3621

2.109. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (i) standing human figures

ILLUSTRATIONS

2.110. Fragmentary terracotta T 3648, standing human figure, originally

one of several on ring from deposit S 17:2

2.111. Inventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (ii) seated

human figures: T 3627, T 3626, T 3649, T 3628, T 3629

2.112. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (ii) seated

human figures

2.113. Inventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (iii) chariot

groups:T 3616,T 3617; (iv) animals: T 3618 (horse),T 3619

(ram), T 3651 (couchant quadruped),T 3650 (bird); (v) votive

plaque: T 3615; (vi) votive shield: T 3630

2.114. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:

(iii) chariot groups 2.115. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:

(iv) animals (mostly horses) 2.116. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:

(iv) animals (mostly horses) 2.117. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:

(iv) animals (mostly horses' legs) 2.118. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:

(v) votive plaques; (vi) votive shields; (vii) miscellaneous 2.119. Uninventoried clay objects: possible kiln firing supports(?) from

deposit S 17:2

2.120. Uninventoried lumps of clay from deposit S 17:2: possibly kiln

lining(?)

3.1. Black-glazed sherd with graffito scene of daemons or goblins

in a workshop

3.2. Shoulder of Athenian black-figured hydria depicting a pottery in

operation

3.3. Athenian black-figured skyphos, ca. 500 B.C.

3.4. Boiotian black-figured skyphos from Exarchos

3.5. Corinthian pinax from Penteskouphia

3.6. Detail of Athenian red-figured calyx-krater

3.7. Athenian red-figured hydria known as the "Caputi Hydria"

3.8. Both sides of Corinthian pinax from Penteskouphia

3.9. Terracotta model of a possible potter's kiln

3.10. Plan and section of Early Iron Age kiln, Torone

3.11. Plan and section of Late Minoan IIIC kiln, Kavousi, Vronda

3.12. Plans and sections of Classical kilns 1-3, Sindos

3.13. Reconstructions of typical Greek kilns

3.14. Plan and section of typical Roman kiln

3.15. Late Byzantine or Turkish potter's kiln at Corinth

3.16. Selected material from votive deposit H 17:4 (published in Burr

1933), as displayed in the Agora Museum

XIV

ILLUSTRATIONS

Details of Athenian black-figured lip cup, ca. 550 B.C. Drawings of pivoted multiple brush developed by James Vedder showing two methods of attaching the brushes

A1 A 2 -A5 Fragments of Athenian red-figured test-pieces: A6-A10

A11 A12a and A12b A13 Athenian red-figured test-pieces, Athens, Agora: A14-A20 Athenian red-figured test-pieces, Athens, Agora: A21-A23 Athenian Hellenistic test-pieces from the Pnyx, Athenian Agora: A24-A30 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C1-C3 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C4, C7, C19, C21, C22, C25 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 4 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 5 Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 6 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 7 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 8 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 9 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C10 Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 1 1 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C12, C14-C16 Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C13 A variety of Corinthian test-pieces and other production discards, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C17-C18, C20, C23, C26 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C19-C20 Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C 2 1 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C24-C27 Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Vrysoula: C28-C32 Potter's test-piece, Thasos, Phari kiln site: M 3 Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M4-M5 Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M6-M9 Lucanian red-figured test-piece, Metaponto: M I 1 Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M12, M16-MI8 Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M19-M20

ILLUSTRATIONS

Bastoncelli test-pieces, Taranto, Via Leonida, 52: M24

Red-figured kylix, ~ossibletest-piece: M25

Unfinished red-figured pyxis lid

Athenian black-glazed two-handled mug

Paestan red-figured hydria of special shape

Empty pits in bedrock in Sector n@ on the Kolonos Agoraios

The Athenian Acropolis, ca. 1890

"Le Temple de Jupiter Olympien et 1'Acropolis d'Athknes," by

Louis Dupre, 1819

The City ofTheseus, ca. 1865-1870

Plan of Athens with the Piraeus and Phaleron, showing the Long

Walls connecting the city with its harbors

General view of Athens, showing the primary routes in and out

of the city

Athenian Agora horos stones: I 7039, I 5510, I 5675

I5510 in situ

I 7039 in situ

Athenian Agora, detail of the Lithos

Athenian Agora, remains of the Stoa Basileios after excavation

Kerameikos horos stone, Athenian Agora I 5770

Kerameikos horos stone in situ after excavation

Kerameikos horos stone fragments, Athenian Agora I 6835

Schematic plan of Athens showing the location of main clusters

of Early Iron Age tombs around the Athenian Acropolis

The Athenian Acropolis in prehistoric times

The Athenian Acropolis around the time of the Greek War of

Independence

"L'Acropole d'Athknes, vue du Muskon," by Otto Magnus Von

Stackelberg, 1834

The Acropolis of Athens from the southwest. Engraving dated

1687.

View of the Parthenon from the east in 1765, by William Pars

"View of the Parthenon from the Propylaea." Edward Dodwell,

1805.

a) The Parthenon, 1848. Salt print, Rev. George Bridges; b) The

Parthenon, 1842. Photograph Noel-Marie-Paymal Lerebours;

engraving, FrCdCric Martens.

General view of the Athenian Acropolis and the South Slope from

the southwest, ca. 1860

As previous, but ca. 1880, with the soil dumps and Frankish Tower

removed

XV

XVI

Al.

ILLUSTRATIONS

DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of an 800°C Amaroussi ceramic block T G , D T G , DTA, and E G A curves for modern Kalogreza (a) and Amaroussi (b) clays Schematic diagram of Mettler TMA40 from owner's manual SEM photomicrographs of modern clays: a) unfired Kalogreza; b) Kalogreza fired to 900°C; c) unfired Amaroussi; d) Amaroussi fired to 900°C DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of blocks of 800°C-fired Amaroussi clay of various sizes and weights DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of powder Amaroussi clay fired to 800°C Overlays of D S and dDS curves for a block of marble and for powdered marble Overlays of T G and D T G results for a block of marble and for powdered marble DS and dDS curves for Agora test-piece 1 (P 32358) T G , DTG, and E G A (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora test-piece 1 (P 32358)

All.

DS and dDS curves for Agora test-piece 4 (P 17264)

A12.

T G , D T G , and E G A (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora test-piece 4 (P 17264)

DS and dDS curves for Athenian Agora test-piece 49 ( P 20481)

T G , DTG, and E G A (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora

test-piece 49 (P 20481)

SEM images for test-pieces before and after refiring to 900°C for

24 hours: a) 32 before firing and (b) after; c) 35 before firing and

(d) after

C O L O RP L A T E S

following page 3 8

1. Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l: 4-5,31-32 Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l (42) and pit or well A 20:s (61-63) 2. Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l (6-7,9) cut from the same vessel, probably a large amphora Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l: 18-19 Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l (14,20,35, SO), well K 12:l (67), and well M 13:l (90)

Test-pieces from deposit S 17:2, cutting F 1: 119-122

TABLES

3.1. Test-Pieces by Firing Stage 3.2. Test-Pieces according to Shape 4.1. Corinthian Test-Pieces according to Shape 4.2. Corinthian Test-Pieces Arranged Chronologically A l . Dilation/Sintering Results for Selected Athenian Agora Test-Pieces

A2. DilatiodSintering and Thermogravimetry Results for Athenian Agora Test-Pieces

FOREWORD

1.See, for example, ~ 1992.

~

Finding a suitable title for this volume has not proved easy. The original subtitle, though cumbersome, accurately conveyed its entire contents: The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in the Area of the Classical Agora, the Firing of Athenian Painted Pottery, and the Topography $Early Athens. In the interests of potential readers and librarians the subtitle has been shortened, but the range of themes covered remains the same. Ceramicus Redivivus comprises both a study of certain aspects of the techniques of Athenian pottery production, and a study of Athenian topography. It begins with an overlooked group of material from a variety of Early Iron Age contexts in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora. This material not only sheds light on contemporary and later pottery firing techniques, it also allows for a reevaluation of the character of various aspects of Athenian topography pertaining to the Kerameikos, the Agora, and the Acropolis, from prehistory into the historic era. This study represents the results of almost a decade of intermittent work in the Athenian Agora. With an interest in various aspects of ancient pottery production, I had begun work, in the late 1980s, on a number of finds from kilns and associated deposits of various periods in the area of the Athenian Ag0ra.l During that time I was invited by the then director of the Agora Excavations,T. Leslie Shear Jr., to work on a general study of potters and pottery production in this area from prehistory through the Ottoman period. It was also during this time that I first met Evelyn Lord Smithson, and was quickly introduced to the handful of Early Iron Age test-pieces on display in the Agora Museum. Following the untimely death of Evelyn Smithson in 1992, I was invited by Homer Thompson to take on the study of the Early Iron Age material from the Athenian Agora that had been originally entrusted to Evelyn. In many ways this volume represents a fusion of my interests in Early Iron Age potters with my new commitment to the material of this period from the Agora. In the process of going through all of the relevant deposits stored in the basement of the Stoa of Attalos, I soon came across numerous uninventoried test-pieces and a wide range of other potters' discards of various ~ periods. ~These ranged d in date from ~ the earliest ~ stages of ~ the Proto-~ geometric period through Late Geometric and into the Protoattic period.

XX

FOREWORD

Indeed, the evidence for Early Iron Age potters' activity in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora was so great that it soon became evident that it warranted its own study, separate from the final publication of all the Early Iron Age material from the Agora. Not only was the material in question of significance in its own right for the information it had to offer on the production, especially the firing, of Athenian pottery, it also contributed to the discussion surrounding a long-standing problem ofAthenian topography, namely the relationship-and confusion-between the Agora and the Kerameikos. A number of literary testimonia pointed to the existence of the Agora in the Kerameikos, and it was clear that this early evidence for potters' activity in the area was of direct relevance to this problem. Following an introduction and catalogue of the material, the ensuing chapters thus deal with both the evidence for early pottery production and the topographical ramifications, which suggest that this area was the original Kerameikos of at hen^.^ M y first debt of gratitude goes to the three past and present directors of the Agora Excavations, each of whom have given freely of his time, wisdom, and energy. To the late Homer Thompson I owe the invitation to take on the study of the Early Iron Age material and, indeed, my thanks for entrusting this most important material to my care. To T. Leslie Shear Jr. I am grateful for permission to work on potters' activity in the Agora and for facilitating my research in the Stoa of Attalos. To John McK. Camp I1 I am grateful for continued assistance, both intellectual and material, particularly with regard to funding the later stages of the drafting work required for this volume. For their encouragement of my work I shall always be grateful. Both Leslie Shear and John Camp have tutored me in the topography of the Classical Agora and have generously shared their thoughts on a wide variety of issues having to do with the history and topogyaphy of Athens. where, in the followyng pages, I have questioned some of their conclusions, I have done so hesitantly and with great reservation. They, along with the names that follow, should not be held in any way responsible for the thoughts expressed in this volume and for any errors or shortcomings. I owe an enormous debt ofgratitude to my collaborators,Anne Hooton, Craig Mauzy, and Michael Schilling. Since 1993 Annie Hooton has devoted herself to drawing the Early Iron Age pottery from the area of the later Athenian Agora, not only all of the material catalogued in this volume, but all of the pottery and other small finds from tombs. She has worked quietly and painstakingly on this material, and it would not be an exaggeration to state that she probably knows Athenian Protogeometric and Geometric pottery as intimately as anyone alive or dead. Her work was made possible only because of a generous grant from the Institute for Aegean Prehistory. I am grateful to the INSTAP committee and to Malcolm Wiener personally for funding this work. To Craig Mauzy I owe a debt of gratitude that goes beyond his skill as the photographer and manager of the Athenian Agora: he has been a loyal and dependable friend for close to two decades. O n account of the large number of previously uninventoried pieces presented in this volume, the task of preparing the photographs was more exacting than normal, not least because of the character of the mate-

2, F,,a published g-reatly expanded in Chapter 5 of the present volume, see Papadopoulos 1996.

FOREWORD

XX I

rial in hand. All of the Agora pieces presented in this study were photographed by Craig Mawy, often with the assistance of Marie Mauzy, and he has graciously overseen the printing of some of the other images from the Archives of the Agora Excavations. In comparison to the often spectacular finds from the more recent excavations in the Agora and the wealth and variety of material studied by others, the small lumps, along with the bits and pieces resented here, must have been a source of amusement for Craig. H e bore all this stoically. I am also grateful to Marie Mauzy for the color photographs presented in Plates 1 and 2. In 1994 I had applied, through the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, to sample a number of the pieces presented in this volume for scientific analysis in the laboratories of the Getty Conservation Institute. For permission to sample this material, I am grateful to the Greek Ministry of Culture and especially to the successive Ephors of the Acropolis, Petros Kalligas and Ismene Triandi. Although the scientific study presented in the Appendix was initiated by myself and David Scott, the various analyses were carried out and prepared for publication by Michael Schilling. His contribution to this volume is an important one. In addition to David Scott, others at the Getty Conservation Institute who have contributed to this endeavor are listed more fully in the Appendix. Among others, I would like to thank in particular Eric Doehne and Bill Ginell. The staff of the Agora Excavations has endured my annual visits and sometime strange requests with customary hospitality and good humor. Jan Jordan and Sylvie Dumont, in particular, have assisted me in ways too numerous to mention here. Their help has always been greatly appreciated. Richard Anderson contributed in a variety of ways, not least by preparing some of the site plans for this volume. Other Agora staff members who have assisted in different ways include Giorgos Dervos, the late William Dinsmoor Jr., Kyriaki Moustaki, Alice Paterakis and her conservation staff, and Maria Stamatou. Among my colleagues in the First Ephoreia I owe thanks to Eleni Foka, Evangelia Koranti, Alkestis Choremi, and Vasso Christopoulou. One of the great privileges and pleasures of working in the Stoa of Attalos is the opportunity to discuss a variety of issues with like-minded devotees ofbroken pots, and over the years the South Workroom has served as something of a cult center for such scholars. For hours of fruitful discussion I am grateful to a number of colleagues and friends who have taught me a great deal: Walter Gauss,John Hayes, Mark Lawall, Kathleen Lynch, and Susan Rotroff. Other regular visitors to the Agora who have assisted me in various ways include Judith Binder, Patricia Butz, Michael Djordjevitch, Kevin Glowacki, Eve Harrison, Lisa Little, Margaret Miles, Ione Mylonas Shear, Deborah Ruscillo, David Scahill, Geoffrey Schmalz, and Barbara Tsakirgis. In addition to those already named, numerous scholars have answered a wide variety of queries on different topics, assisted with obtaining illustrations, and discussed with me, in person or in writing, a range of issues connected with this study. For assistance with regard to matters Early Iron Age (including Protoattic), I am grateful to Richard Catling, Nicolas Coldstream, the late William Coulson, Alan Johnston, Nota Kourou, Susan

XXII

FOREWORD

Langdon, Lila Marangou, Carol Mattusch, Ian Morris, Andreas Nitsche, Axel Rugler, Florian Ruppenstein, Ken Sheedy, and Berit Wells. For assistance on technical aspects of pottery production I am grateful to Eleni Aloupi, Francine Blonde, Richard Jones, George Kacandes, Maria Chiara Monaco, Jacques Perreault,Toby Schreiber,Jim Vedder, and Ian Whitbread. I am especially grateful to Richard Jones for reading an early version of the Appendix and to George Kacandes for providing sizeable samples of clays from Amaroussi and Kalogreza. For help with later Athenian and other Greek pottery, I am grateful to John Boardman, Brigitte Bourgeois, Francesco D'Andria, Susanne Ebbinghaus, Wilfred Geominy, Hans-Rupprecht Goette, Dick Green, Leslie Hammond, Ian Jenkins, Anneliese KossatzDeissmann, Donna Kurtz, Elizabeth Milleker, Heide Mommsen, Mary Moore, John Oakley, Massimo Osanna, Michael Padgett, Stavros Paspalas, Alain Pasquier, Enza Cilia Platamone, Ted Robinson, Demetrios Roubis, Michalis Tiverios, Despoina Tsiafakis, Christiane Tytgat, Effie and Panos Valavanis, and Raimund Wunsche. For the Corinthian material presented here I owe a great deal to Nancy Boohdis and Charles K. Williams 11. For permission to publish the illustrations ofthe Lucanian test-pieces from the Potters' Quarter ofMetaponto I am especially grateful to Francesco D'Andria, who generously provided the original photographs. For initiating me into the mysteries of later glazed wares, I am grateful to Pamela Armstrong, Guy Sanders, and especially Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi for Byzantine and post-Byzantine glazed wares. For Italian maiolica, I am most grateful to my friend and colleague Catherine Hess (Department of European Sculpture and Works ofArt at the J. Paul Getty Museum), who, in addition to her direct assistance,pointed me to the good services ofAlan Caiger-Smith (at the Pottery, Aldermaston, Berkshire) and Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi (at the Museo Regionale della Ceramica in Deruta). The latter have all contributed a good deal of their time and expertise. For teaching me about glass furnaces and metalsmelting installations, I am grateful to Karol Wight and Philip de Barros, respectively.I am also grateful to Claire Lyons for assistance with the Gary Edwards photographs in the Getty Research Institute used in this study, and to Patrick Finnerty for inking some of the illustrations. Special thanks are owed to the staff of the Publications Office of the American School of Classical Studies for the care they bestowed on this volume during its production. Worhng with them has been a privilege and a great pleasure. I am also grateful to the anonymous referees who read this manuscript and whose insightful comments greatly improved it. For discussions on various aspects of the topography of early Athens, I am gateful to a good many friends and colleagues, including many of those already named. In addition to the latter, I would like to thank Manolis Korres, Stephen Miller, Keith Stanley, and the late Antony Raubitschek. There are some final debts of gratitude. To Marion True I owe thanks for granting me time during the summer months to continue my work in the Stoa of Attalos and for her unfailing support of my research. A special debt is owed to my wife, Sarah Morris; she has assisted me in numerous ways and has read and reread various versions of this study. Her encouragement, counsel, and wisdom have been a constant source of inspiration.

FOREWORD

XXIII

As close friends of the late Evelyn Smithson, Eve Harrison and Susan Rotroff have followed the progress of my work with a keen interest; most of all, I am gateful to both for being there when needed. To Evelyn Smithson I owe much more than I can express in words. In many ways this is the first of the volumes on the Early Iron Age from the Athenian Agora, although it includes a great deal of later material well beyond the domain of that originally allotted to Evelyn, and beyond the usual scope ofvolumes in the Athenian Agora series. In the original scheme, Evelyn, on the basis of her unpublished notes, had planned to catalogue only a small quantity of the test-pieces from well L 11:1, but there was little else in her notes to point to any direction the presentation of this material might take. She had certainly never planned a separate study of the potters' material, and how exactly she planned to present this material in her intended volume for the Athenian Agora series will never be known. Evelyn was a perfectionist, and I hope that my decision to present this material in the current volume would have met with her approval. I am happy that the initial stages of this study began while Evelyn was still alive, and enjoyed her blessing. I only regret that she did not live to see the result. -Los Angeles, December 6,1999

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

CHAPTER I

One of the chiefproblems confronting the student ofAthenian topography is to reconcile the testimonies of ancient writers with the remains brought to light in the excavations. Too often the evidence at his command is insuficient to give a clearpicture of aparticular section of the city andyet too substantial to be ignored.Any new light, however dim, is welcome, even ifin some cases it merely accentuates the obscurity created by the paucity and irreconcilability of the evidence.'

KERAMEUS, KERAMEIA, KERAMEIKOS, AGORA: S E T T I N G T H E MATERIAL A N D T O P O G R A P H I C STAGE

1. Broneer 1949, p. 47. 2. Paus. 1.3.1; see further Agora 111, pp. 221-224; Vanderpool1974a; cf. Vanderpool1949; Papadopoulos 1996. 3. For a plan of all graves, wells, and other deposits of the period ("Submycenaean" through the 7th century B.c.),see Agora VIII, pl. 45. For the earlier agora, see Agora 111, pp. 224225, no. 731 (with discussion); Agora XIV, p. 19; Oikonomides 1964, passim; Papadopoulos 1996. 4. See Agora XIV, p. 10. 5 . Agora VIII, p. 107, fig. 7; see also Fig. 2.31 (showing wells K 12:l and K 12:2).

It is the aim of this volume to contribute to our knowledge of the Athenian potter (xepap~hq),the art of pottery production (x~papeia),and the location of the Potters' Quarter ( x e p a p ~ ~ x in o ~an ) area that was to become, more than five hundred years later, the Agora of the Classical city of Athens. Some seven decades of excavations in the area of the Athenian Agora (Fig. 1.1), in the district known to Pausanias as Kerameik~s,~ have yielded significant deposits from the Early Iron Age (Fig. l.2).3 In addition to numerous graves of the period, there are more than thirty-five well and other deposits that cover the time conventionally defined as "Submycenaean" through "Late G e ~ m e t r i c . "Recovered ~ from these deposits were a large number of pots and other small finds, the largest single component of which is thought to represent domestic debris deposited at the time the well in question was abandoned: broken pots, organic rubbish, and discarded small finds such as broken tools, damaged items of personal use, and so on. In many, but not all, wells the lowest deposit comprised material dating to the period of use, namely, complete or semicomplete vases used to draw water; such Early Iron Age progenitors of the bucket or pail had been inadvertently dropped by their owners. A schematic section through a typical well (Fig 1.3) was published by Eva Brann;j a typical refuse pit, in this case for potters' debris (deposit S 17:2),is illustrated later in this volume (Figs. 2.77-2.81). Closer scrutiny of the relevant deposits

CHAPTER I

2

--

- .

--

--

-

-

. .

Figure 1.1.The area of the Athenian Agora in 1959 after the reconstruction of the Stoa of Attalos (view from west)

0

GEOMETRIC GRAVES

o

EARLY IRON AGE WELLS

AREOPACOS

Figure 1.2. Plan of early Athens showing the Acropolis, the original Kerameikos, including the cemeteries of the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age periods, and the likely location of the Old Agora. Prepared by Richard Anderson, in part from an earlier plan by John Travlos, with additional information from Agora VIII, Agora XII, Agora XXIII, and Shear 1993

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.3. Section through typical well. Agora VIII, p. 107,fig. 7

indicated that a few of the so-called wells were in fact dug as rubbish pits. Some of the wells and pits also yielded industrial debris, including a small quantity of discarded metalworkers' m01ds.~ Prominent among the industrial debris is a large quantity of potters' refuse.' Among the items clearly discarded by potters are test- or drawpieces, unfinished and unglazed pots-or parts of pots-and obvious waste r ~The . ~ latter are discards that have been intensely affected by high heat, usually to the point that the clay has vitrified or has melted out of shape,9 or where several pots have been fused together.1° In addition to the more obvious wasters, many fragmentary pots and sherds preserve serious cracks, dents, and other flaws that occurred during the process of forming, drying, or firing the vase and would have rendered them likely or possible discards. These nonobvious wasters are best described as "production discards." This material is substantial enough, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to deserve separate treatment in the present volume. 6. Especially in well U 26:4, the socalled Klepsydra Well: see Smithson 1982; Mattusch 1977, p. 341, note 2, B 1621 (cf. B 1622, B 1623); see further discussion under 88; see also Agora XIV, pp. 187-191. 7. This material is briefly noted in Agora XIV, p. 186; see also Thompson 1984, p. 8; Coldstream 1977, p. 311. 8. For wasters generally see Rye

1981, pp. 110-111. 9. See Morgantina 111,pls. 39:b, 40:a-b; Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991, pp. 488-489, figs. 5 and 7; p. 492, fig. 10; p. 512, fig. 39; p. 513, fig. 42; p. 517, fig. 52. 10. See Morgantina 111,pls. 38:a-b, 39:a; Empereur, Kritzas, and Marangou 1991, p. 489, fig. 7, bottom right.

4

CHAPTER I

5

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.4 (opposite). Plan of the area of the Classical Agora showing depositswithsignificantEar1~Iron Age potters'refuse. Richard Anderson

refuse comes from pit or well The largest single group of L 11:1, the so-called Odeion Well. O f a total yield of 1,972 p'ieces, some 202 fragments (or about 10 percent of the deposit) could be classified as potters' waste with certainty; other pieces might, if complete, display flaws or damage sufficiently serious for them to qualify as discards, and it is not impossible that the entire deposit represents rubbish from a potter's establishment. Similar material was noted in a number of other deposits, although-with the exception of deposits H 12:17 and S 17:2-never in the quantity of deposit L 11:l. Chronologically, these deposits cover all of the discerned phases of the Early Iron Age; their locations are illustrated in Figure 1.4. The well groups and other deposits that have yielded potters' waste include, in chronological order:'' Well N 12:3 Pit or well L 11:l Pit or well A 2 0 5 Well K 12:l Well H 16-1 7: 1 Well P 8:3 Well L 6:2 Well M 13:1 Well N 115 Deposit G 155 Kiln deposit H 12:17 Deposit S 17:2

"Submycenaean"-Early Protogeometric Early-Developed Protogeometric Developed Protogeometric Developed Protogeometric Late Protogeometric/Early Geometric Early Geometric Middle Geometric Middle Geometric Late Geometric Mixed Protogeometric-Late Geometric Late Geometric and Protoattic Protoattic

In addition to the above, there are a number of poorly fired vessels in well K 12:2 (Early Geometric),12 but nothing, with the possible exception of 80 (P 20618), that would qualify as an obvious waster.13 The full publication of the material from these deposits will appear in the forthcoming, long-delayed, volume on the Early Iron Age in the Athenian Agora series. The present study aims to present and discuss, by means of selected material from these deposits, two aspects that the potters' refuse 11. Evelyn Smithson's division of the Early Iron Age into distinct phases is the same as that of Coldstream (1968, pp. 8-28) for the Early and Middle Geometric phases, since the latter followed the system worked out as a result of the study of the finds from the Athenian Agora (see Brann 1961a, p. 95). In her unpublished notes, Smithson did, however, tentatively divide the Protogeometric period into four phases labeled P G I-IV, on the basis of the internal evidence provided by the Agora graves and deposits, particularly the well deposits. Within this four-part division she saw a good deal of chronological overlap between the various discerned phases. For exam-

ple, she considered what is traditionally defined as "Submycenaean" to overlap with the earliest "Protogeometric" (this phase she labeled P G I). Indeed, she found the term "Submycenaean" confusing and of no practical application to domestic deposits: see Smithson 1977; 1982, p. 141, note 5. Smithson's P G 11-111 phases roughly coincide with what is elsewhere defined as earlier and Middle Protogeometric. P G I V represents Late Protogeometric. I n addition to Protogeometric I-IV, she discerned a phase that others would call "Submycenaean," but which she preferred to refer to as "Final Mycenaean." A t the time of her death in 1992 she was happy with the discerned subdivisions of Early and

Middle Geometric, but was still concerned about those of the earlier period, especially the relationship between her P G I and Final Mycenaean. Although the Agora graves of the period are not as numerous as those of the Kerameikos (see Agora XIV, pp. 9-18), the well deposits of the period are unique inasmuch as nonhnerary deposits of this period are exceedingly rare. They provide quantitatively substantial groups of pottery not matched in size by grave groups. 12. Specifically listed as Early Geometric I in Coldstream 1968, p. 10. 13. The deposit is discussed more fully in the catalogue below (pp. 10C101).

6

CHAPTER I

casts some light upon, which cannot be discussed in detail in the final publication. The first aspect is technical and deals with the production of pottery, primarily the firing of Athenian Protogeometric and Geometric pottery. The second considers the topographical implications of these finds, particularly for this area of ancient Athens.

FROM T H E ATHENIAN KERAMEIKOS T O CIPRIANO PICCOLPASSO AND ALEXANDRE BRONGNIART: PROLEGOMENA T O T H E PRODUCTION O F ATHENIAN POTTERY IN T H E EARLY IRON AGE With regard to the firing techniques of Athenian Early Iron Age pottery, special emphasis will be given in this volume to the test-pieces, also referred to as trial or draw-pieces.14These were studied as a group in 1960 by Marie Farnsworth in the first published article fully devoted to these objects, which presented a catalogue of ten test-pieces (Fig. 1.5) found in the excavations of the Athenian Agora,15the Pnyx,16and the Potters' Quarter at Corinth.'' The pieces assembled by Farnsworth range in date from Protogeometric to Hellenistic and fall into four distinct chronological groups: Protogeometric, Protocorinthian, 4th-century Attic (red-figure), and Hellenistic.'' Farnsworth noted that such aids to correct firing were presumably used during almost the entire history of pottery, but due to poor survival and chance recovery, only the evidence from these periods has been identified.19 By focusing her attention on the test-pieces, Farnsworth went on to describe and discuss the three-part firing process for Greek pottery (oxidization, reduction, reoxidization), our understanding of which was first established by Gisela Richter, and is now standard information in all textbooks.20 In 1962 Brann published a handful of Protoattic test-pieces from the Athenian Agora (119-122 be lo^).^' In discussing these she states: "There is evidence that in the Protoattic period, as in the Protogeometric period, there was a special interest in improving paints. The evidence for both periods is alike, namely trial pieces. Such trial pieces were, of course, used 14. Winter 1959, p. 33, fig. 15; Farnsworth 1960;Agora VIII, p. 27; Noble 1988, p. 153. Leach's definition reads: "Small pieces of clay with pigment and glaze upon them which can be withdrawn from a kiln during the firing as a guide to temperature and atmosphere" (1976, p. 282). 15. Farnsworth 1960, pl. 16. Aside from the pieces published by Farnsworth, the material from the Athenian Agora is unpublished, although many of the test-pieces

presented here have been on display for quite some time in the Agora Museum. A number of the Protogeometric test-pieces (see catalogue below) were analyzed by neutronactivation analysis and the results published in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983. 16. Edwards 1956, p. 88, pls. 35: 12,38: 19,45: 71,47: 87,48: 98. 17. Newhall 1931, pp. 8-9, fig. 3; Corintb XV, iii, p. 246, and discussion under numbers 439,542,1025,1206,

1297,1300,1368,1387,1389,1393, 1404,1409,1513,1548,1589,1965. See also Corintb XV, i-ii, passim, for further background. 18. Farnsworth 1960, p. 72. 19. Farnsworth 1960, p. 72. 20. Farnsworth 1960; Richter 1923; see also Winter 1959, 1978; Noble 1988, pp. 148-167; Scheibler 1995, pp. 98-107; Jones 1986, pp. 798-805. 21. Agora VIII, pp. 103-104, pl. 40; Agora XIV, p. 186, pl. 92:b.

INTRODUCTION

7

Figure 1.5. Selection of potters' testpieces published in Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, pl. 16

22. Agora VIII, p. 27. 23. Fiieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983.The Protogeometric and Subgeometric potters' debris accounted for only a small portion of this study. 24. See Agora XIII. 25. Mackenzie 1903, esp. p. 165. 26. For Athenian black-glaze see Noble 1988,pp. 79-97; Jones 1986, pp. 798-819. 27.Tonks 1908; 1910. 28. Foster 1910.

at every firing in any period, but it is perhaps not wholly accidental that the large lots from the Agora are of these key period^.'"^ Most of the testpieces assembled by Farnsworth and later by Brann appeared in a larger neutron-activation study of material from the Athenian Agora conducted by Dominique Fillieres and her collaborator^.^^ Although some form of testing the progress of the firing may well have occurred during many periods, it is not accidental that the largest single group of potters' test-pieces is of the Protogeometric period and comes from a district generally referred to as the Kerameikos (see below). In this respect the comparative evidence of the firing of Mycenaean decorated pottery, ofwhich there is no shortage from the is important. It was stated, at least as early as 1903 and evidently first by Duncan Macken~ie:~that the composition of Mycenaean and Attic black glazes was identi~al:~a thesis subsequently established by the analyses of Oliver Tonks2' and W i a m Foster.28Despite this similarity, Mycenaean potters

8

CHAPTER I

do not appear to have had any real preference for black over red.29By early Protogeometric we see a very clear preference for black, at least in Athens. Since one of the most important functions of test-pieces is to check the reduction phase of the three-part firing prior to reoxidization (see Chapter 3), it would seem natural that test-pieces were more commonly used in those periods when the desired result was a good black paint against the natural red of the clay body3' Here was the genesis, the prototype of Indeed, the similarity between the black used on the later dlack-gl~ss.~~ Athenian Protogeometric and much of Geometric pottery, on the one hand, and Archaic and Classical black-gloss, black- and red-figured pottery, on the other, is marked, particularly in the case of later Protogeometric and Early Geometric pottery. It should be noted, however, that, falling between the Geometric and Archaic traditions, the fabric and paint of Protoattic is different from both the earlier and the later pottery. In the words of Brann, Protoattic pottery has a "soft, chalky fabric" and a "light, almost pastel-colored paint which distinguishes Protoattic from Geometric finds."32 The test-pieces that feature prominently in the following pages are scraps of pottery, most often cut from wheel-thrown or partially thrown pots damaged during the process of forming or decorating, with holes cut into them before firing and covered with paint. Many of the vessels from which test-pieces were cut were first decorated canonically, whereas other test-pieces are covered with paint in a manner that bears no relation to 29. Furumark (1972, pp. 13-14) notes that during Late Helladic I the paint of Mycenaean decorated pottery was lustrous, varying from black to red, sometimes thin and brownish; during Late Helladic 11-1IIA:l it continues to be lustrous, varying from black to red, whereas in Late Helladic IIIA:2-IIIB the paint is more often red than black (a phenomenon considered by Furumark to be due to firing at a high temperature). During Late Helladic IIIC, Furumark states, the paint is usually black or brown, sometimes red, and mostly thin and washy. H e adds that in Late Helladic IIIC the paint is often only slightly lustrous or quite dull, but in other cases lustrous. A cursory review of the fired color of the paint on a series of complete Mycenaean vessels, as well as sherds, from the North Slope of the Athenian Acropolis now stored in the Agora ~ u s e u myielded interesting results. A total of 103 whole pots and sherds were examined, of which 12 were not painted (unglazed Mycenaean fine ware; handmade or coarseware pottery was not included). O f the remainder, the paint on about 40 pieces

had fired red or reddish brown; that on 34 pieces was black or dark brown; and in the case of 15 pieces, the paint was either two-toned (redblack), or else one side of the piece was fired fired black and the other red. It is worth stressing that the paint on very few Mycenaean pots ever achieves the good lustrous black of the best Protogeometric and Geometric pottery. The importance of this material lies in the fact that the pottery was, for the most part, produced in Athens. For the excavations of the Mycenaean Fountain, see Broneer 1939; for the excavations and finds from the North Slope, see Broneer 1932,1933,1935,1937, 1938; Morgan 1935; Pease 1935; Hansen 1937; Schweigert 1938; Roebuck 1940. See also Broneer 1956 and Gauss 2000. For intentional and accidental red in later periods, see Richter 1951, 1954; Farnsworth and Wisely 1958; von Bothmer 1958. 30. Controlled reduction firing was well established by the Middle Bronze Age in the Aegean in the case of Minyan pottery, and it is possible that controlled reduction firing may have

already been achieved in the Neolithic. The fired result seen, however, in the prehistoric red and yellow burnished wares, on the one hand, and the gray and black, on the other, is different from that of Protogeometric and later painted pottery in that the surface and the clay body are fired to one color. For the various red and gray or black burnished wares of the Neolithic period, as well as gray and yellow Minyan pottery from the Athenian Agora, see Agora XIII, esp. pp. 4-10,60-61; see further Jones 1986, pp. 411-420. 31. As Jones (1986, pp. 804-805) stresses, the term "black glaze" is incorrect because the silica content is insufficient and the temperature is not high enough for fusion to occur in order to create a true vitreous glaze. After reviewing the manner in which the term has been used, including alternative terms, such as "engobe," "Glanzton layer," and "sinter layer," he states: "Under these circumstances, it is strongly recommended that the more general term 'gloss' be adopted, as was advocated by Bimson (1956)." 32. Agora VIII, p. 20.

INTRODUCTION

9

1959, p. 33,fig.15

decoration. Other test-pieces were fashioned from clay readily available, but damaged pottery nevertheless accounts for the vast majority of the test-pieces from the area of the Classical Athenian Agora. They were placed inside the kiln and withdrawn with hooks through "spy-holes" at intervals during the firing in order to test the progress of the kiln. The manner of handling a generic test-piece with a slightly hooked rod is illustrated by Adam Winter (Fig. 1.6).33The existence of potters' hooks is attested iconographically on the well-known Corinthian pinakes from Pentesk~uphia~~a few of which are assembled in Figure 1.7-which depict potters performing various duties, particularly tending their kilns.35Potters' hooks are most clearly visible on one of the pinakes now in the Louvre and on two in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin (Fig. 1.7:b-d). As Ninina Cuomo di Caprio has shown, the two types of potters' tools most often depicted on the Corinthian pinakes are the hooked sticks and a long rod (Fig. 1.7: a-f), with a round or rectangular plate at one end set at an angle of 90°.36 These tools, particularly the hooks, are not unlike some modern potters' tools, especially the so-called slice (Fig. 1.8:b).37A variety of related

33. Winter 1959, p. 33; with regard to test-pieces, Winter states: "ijber den Zustand der Ware im Ofen konnten allein nur Zugproben Auskunft geben. Das waren kleine, gehenkelte u t ~ d bemalte Dine, Geschirrchen oder auch nur aufstellbare Tonkringel, - wie sie zuweilen heute noch benutzt werden, die man beim Einsetzen so @nstighinstellte, dab, sie der Brenner spater mit einem langen diinnen Haken aus der Glut des laufenden Brandes herausholen konnte. Das geschah im allgemeinen durch ein Loch in der Zumauerung der Einsetzoffnung oder hier beim kaminlosen antiken Ofen durch die 0ffnung des Abzuges." 34. For the pinakes generally, especially those with scenes of laborers, see Payne 1931, pp. 116-117. Although well known and often illustrated, the Penteskouphia pinakes have had an interesting, if dark, history. The most useful introduction to the history of the pinakes is von Raits 1964; Geagan (nCe von Raits) 1970, pp. 31-33. Over a thousand fragments of pinakes were excavated, by persons unknown, in 1879 at a site near Penteskouphia (or Pente Skouphia), a few kilometers to the southwest of Ancient Corinth. The fragments were purchased by the then Antiquarium der Koniglichen Museen in Berlin, although a small number made their way t i Paris. Furtwangler (1885, pp. 47-105, nos. 347-955;

pp. 999-1000, nos. 3920-3924) catalogued many of the Berlin fragments (all those with the prefix F). Pernice (1897) succeeded in making many joins and entered 186 pieces into the inventory (all those with the prefm I); see also Pernice 1898. Frankel published the inscriptions (in I G IV [1902]) as well as drawings of those better preserved (for bibliography see Geagan 1970, p. 32, note 4). I n 1905 a systematic excavation in the same area was sponsored by the American School of Classical Studies under the supervision of 0 . M. Washburn (see Washburn 1906, pp. 19-20). These excavations brought to light about 400 more fragments of pinakes, now in the Corinth Museum (these have the prefix C-63- in the inventory numbers). A few of these, mostly joining with fragments in Berlin and Paris, were published in Geagan 1970, pp. 31-48, but the main group remains, on the whole, unpublished. Geagan (1970, p. 32) also mentions that "in the years since then [1905], archaeologists visiting the site have added another 150 pieces to the collection"; she further notes (p. 32, note 1) that four other fragments are in the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Almost forty additional fragments of pinakes are published in Corinth XV, iii, pp. 239245, these found in various areas of the Potters' Quarter at Corinth. The latter

Figure 1.6. Sketch showing method of handling test-piece. After Winter

comprise the bulk of those inventoried and add considerably to the corpus of Corinthian pinakes. As stated by Jack Benson (Corinth XV, iii, p. 239): "Although there is no technical evidence that pinakes were actually made in the Potters' Quarter, the presence of many fragments in various areas of the site must surely furnish a strong presumption that this branch of the ceramic industry was also cultivated there."The majority of the fragments are dated to the Middle Corinthian period on the basis of both style and context (where applicable). One fragment, however, is assigned to the Middle Protocorinthian period (Corinth XV, iii, pp. 239-240, no. 1320, pl. 55) and is considered earlier than any of the Penteskouphia pinakes. Further fragments of pinakes were found at Perachora: see Perachora 11, pp. 234-238, nos. 2267-2276, pls. 79-80. For a useful survey of painted pinakes, see Boardman 1954, esp. pp. 186-195. 35. Many, though not all, of the

pinakes that depict potters are illus-

trated in Cuomo di Caprio 1984,

pp. 78-80, nos. 1-18; of these, the

following show hooks clearly: nos. 2,5,

and 12. For representations of ancient

potters, see Burford 1972, figs. 13-19;

Ziomecki 1975.

36. Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 81.

37. See Cox 1938, p. 168.

CHAPTER I

I0

a. Paris, MusCe du Louvre MNB 2856. Photo P.Lebaube

cs %-,

c. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 802B

d. AntikenSamdung, StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 909B. Photo Ingrid Geske

-.

"

- -. -.A

f-'

b. Paris, MusCe du Louvre MNB 2858. Photo M. and P.Chuzeville

3..

> g *

*

-

,..

r2p<%:

:,

B

e. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 827B.

f. Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 811.

Photo Isolde Luckert

Photo Isolde Luckert

1.7. Selected Corinthian pinakes from Penteskouphia

INTRODUCTION

II

B Figure 1.8 (above). Modem potter's tools: a) poker; b) slice; c) tongs. After Cox 1938, p. 168, fig. 73

Figure 1.9 (rig&). Piccolpasso 1548, folio 34, various potters' tools (vedetta, caccia bra& forcina, trainello). Courtesy V & A Picture Library, Victoria and Albert Museum

38. Piccolpasso 1548, folio 34; see the facsimile edition, Lightbown and Caiger-Smith 1980; see also the earlier edition by Rackham and van de Put (1934); Conti 1976. 39. Lightbown and Caiger-Smith 1980, pp. 69-71. 40. Theforcina is not unlike the ~LXOGAL,a double-pronged tool used by storage-jar makers of the Koroni district of Greece today for loading and unloading the kiln; see Blitzer 1990, p. 709, pl. 108:a. 41. Piccolpasso 1548, folio 35, shows theforcina; folio 29 illustrates the use of the trainello. 42. Piccolpasso 1548, folio 35 (sections 98-100); Lightbown and Caiger-Smith 1980, p. 69.

tools are also illustrated by Cipriano Piccolpasso in his treatise of 1548 on the potter's art (Fig. 1.9).38Although there are no hooks, two of the tools illustrated by Piccolpasso-the caccia bragie ("ember chaser") and the trainello (rake)-are not unlike the larger of the rod tools illustrated on the Penteskouphia plaques.39Piccolpasso clearly depicts the use of theforcina (a large two-pronged fork), which is being wielded by one of the workmen firing the kiln in Figure l.10;40and the use of the trainello is also clearly depicted in Figure 1.11,4lwhile the manner in which the caccia bragie is employed is hlly described." The remaining implement, the vedetta, is used as follows: Let the fire die down somewhat, then take the vedetta (which is an instrument of iron as thick as the little finger, and two paces long, at the end of which is a tube somewhat thicker than the iron, inside which are put some pieces of willow wood, very dry and expressly cut, called the sticks, or other soft wood), and opening the spy-holes thrust this iron inside with the wood in the top of it. This will

I2

CHAPTER I

Figure 1.10. Piccolpasso 1548, folio 35, the firing of a potter's kiln. Courtesy V &A Picture Library, Victoria and Albert Museum

immediately catch fire, and thus you will be able to see your wares as if you had them in your hand.43 In the case of the latter firing, Piccolpasso does not refer to test-pieces, since using a flaming stick, along with an experienced eye, was probably a 43. Piccolpasso 1548, folios 65-66 good way of judging the maturity of the glaze. Piccolpasso does, however, (section 228); Lightbown and Caigermention test-pieces in the lustre firings and even shows a naked man exSmith 1980, p. 110. tracting a test-piece from the top of the kiln (Fig. 1.12).+"'he tool de44. Piccolpasso 1548, folio 50 picted is a pair of pinchers, or tongs (see Fig. 1.8), and Piccolpasso adds (sections 174-176); Lightbown and that other potters are "in the habit of leaving a spy-hole in one of the sides Caiger-Smith 1980, p. 91; see also Caiger-Smith 1985, p. 149, fig. 93. and pulling out a sample or piece ofware through it."4SA typical test-piece 45. Lightbown and Caiger-Smith of this type oflustre firing is the fiagrnentary maiolica dish, made in Deruta 1980, (Fig. 1.13), now in the Museo Internazionale delle Ceramiche in F a e n ~ a . ~ ~ p. 91. 46. Caiger-Smith 1985, p. 135, In describing the dish, Alan Caiger-Smith states: "This piece, painted with color plate XXII; Fiocco and Gherardi the head and shoulders of a young girl, must have been imperfect after the 1988, pp. 299-300, no. 230. See also blue line-drawing had been fired in, and was used as a trial for lustre pigRavanelli Guidotti 1995.

INTRODUCTION

I3

Figure 1.11.Piccolpasso 1548, folio 29, the fiting of the kiln and the use of the trainello. Courtesy V & A Picture Library, Victoria and Albert Museum

47. Caiger-Smith 1985,p. 135. I am grateful to Alan Caiger-Smith for bringing this vase to my attention. 48. I am most grateful to Professors Guilio Busti and Franco Cocchi for the illustrations of and the information on the Deruta test-pieces presented here. For published accounts of some of this important material, see, in particular, Busti and Cocchi 1987,esp. pl. 1X:d for test-pieces; 1992,esp. pp. 90-91, figs. 44,45,52. 49. See Caiger-Smith 1985, pp. 127-154; Hess 1999. 50. The test-piece in Fig. 1.15 has the following dimensions: H. 0.080; D. (rim) 0.050; D. (body, max.) 0.060 m.

ment. Instead of being carefully filled in, the lustre was applied with broad random strokes."47The random nature of the strokes of glaze is remarkably similar to that of Early Iron Age test-pieces such as, among others, 4 and 5. Among the 15th- and 16th-century potters'debris excavated at Deruta, Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi distinguish two types of test-piece~.~~The first of these is used for the second firing of maiolica, the gloss or glaze firing; it is important to stress that unlike ancient Greek ceramics, which were produced in a single firing, Italian maiolica vessels were produced in multiple firings.49Test-pieces for the glaze firing consist of small vases, thrown on the wheel, approximately 10 cm in height and 5 cm in diameter, glazed and painted with symmetricalvertical lines, alternating in blue and orange (Figs. 1.14-1.15). Some of these, according to the context in which they were found, probably date to the last quarter of the 15th century (Fig. 1.14), while others are later (Fig. 1.15).50 Oral tradition attests that this type oftest-piece was still used in Deruta until the early years of the 20th century, that is, until the introduction of

I4

CHAPTER I

Figure 1.12. Piccolpasso 1548,folio 50, potter extractingtest-piece from the top of the kiln.Courtesy V & A Picture Library, Victoria and Albert Museum

-. -. ,

-/.-

-

7

- -

",

\

Figure 1.13 far leJ)).Fragmentary maiolica dish used as a test-piece for lustre firing. Museo Intemazionale delle Ceramiche, Faenza. Courtesy Museum

Figure 1.14 (IeJ),above). Two

fragmentary test-pieces from Demta,

f~

late 15th century, used to test the second or gloss firing of maiolica. 1

Courtesy Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi

Figure 1.15 (leJbelow).Test-piece from Demta, 16th-17th century, as previous. Courtesy Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.16 (above). Fragmentary test-piece of a plate from Deruta, early 16th century, used to test the third or lustre firing of rnaiolica. Interior (left) and exterior (right).

I5

/

Courtesy Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi

=-

Figure 1.17 (right). As previous. Interior (left) and exterior (right).

I I

Courtesy Giulio Busti and Franco Cocchi

modern tools and industrial procedures, particularly the pyrometer. Most of the test-pieces of this type found intact among potters' debris preserve markings in the glaze showing where they had come into contact with some other object or surface. Such markings, one typically at the mouth of the vessel and another on the body, indicate that the test-pieces were placed in a horizontal position in the firing chamber of the kiln. Busti and Cocchi believe that these test-pieces were placed close to the door of the firing chamber in order to facilitate their extraction with an iron pole. Another type of test-piece, used for the lustre firing,5l consists of fragments, usually plates originally destined to be lustred but damaged in the second firing, on which were applied brush strokes of lustre (Figs. 1.16-1.17).52 These pieces are dated to the last quarter of the 15th and the first quarter of the 16th century on the basis of their context and on account of the nature of their decoration. Such test-pieces must have been placed close to the top of the kiln and were most probably extracted with pinchers, as is indicated by Piccolpasso (Fig. 1.12). For ancient kilns, the use of rods to withdraw pottery from the kiln is depicted, albeit in a very different manner, on a Roman gem showing what is often identified as a youthful potter (or metalworker or glas~maker?)~~ 51. That is, the third firing of rnaiolira: see Caiger-Smith 1985, pp. 127-154. 52. The dimensions of the test-piece illustrated in Fig. 1.16 are ca. 0.120 x 0.060 m. For similar published testpieces, see Busti 1995, esp. pp. 52-53.

53. The possibility that the scene represents a metalworker, rather than a potter, cannot be categorically dismissed. A similar problem exists with the well-known, and often depicted, scene on the Caputi hydria (Fig. 3.7): J. R. Green's (1961) suggestion that the

scene represents metalworkers, not potters or painters, was dismissed by Noble (1988, p. 205, ch. 3, note 11). Alternatively, the gem may show a glassmaker-rather than a potter or metalworker--taking a glass vessel out of an annealing oven.

16

CHAPTER I

sitting in front of a schematic kiln or oven removing an amphora with two rods.54Iron wire was also widely used in the 19th century A.C. to withdraw test-pieces from the kiln.55Some of the kilns on the Penteskouphia pinakes also depict side openings or doors that are probably spy-holes, rather than doors through which pottery was loaded (Fig. 1.7:a-c, e); it is also possible that these openings were used by potters to better regulate the flow of gases during the firing.56The possibility that Greek kilns were equipped with spy-holes is further suggested by the closing lines of Epigrammata Homerica 14:

Gisela Richter's translation reads: "And the man who peeps over, may his whole face burn on account of t h i ~ . " ~Marjorie ' Milne's translation reads: "And if anyone bends over to look into the spy-hole, may his whole face be scorched" [italics are mine].58Although a "spy-hole" is not mentioned in the text, its existence is assumed by both Milne and N ~ b l e . ~ ~ T h e critical verb is r j n ~ p x v nwhich ~ ~ , normally means to pop up, to bob up, or to peep over.60The only other orifice of a Greek I l n that a potter could effectively "peep over" is the opening at the top of the kiln dome. Since all known Greek kilns are of a simple updraft type,61peeping over this opening would result in serious first-degree burns, if not death. Milne also warns that when "a kiln is being fired under reducing conditions, with a lack of oxygen in the kiln, and the spy-hole is suddenly opened, there is often a delayed burst of blue flame from the spy-hole. If the potter is unwary and has his eye too close to the hole he will be burned seri~usly."~~ Many of the Penteskouphia kilns are depicted with flames emanating from the vent at the top of the kiln dome.63Since it is highly unlikely that any potter would peep over or into the top opening, the presence of a spy-hole is a reasonable assumption, and one in keeping with the iconographic evidence of the Penteskouphia plaques. In any case, test-pieces as firing aids are well known in other potteryproducing cultures, as they are to modern potters. In China, for example, a variety of temperature-measuring tools from ancient kiln sites in Shanxi Province are illustrated and discussed by Sui Jisheng (Fig. 1.18).64The earliest type appears to be the so-called huozhao,which is a piece of sample 54. Bliimner 1879, pp. 51-52, fig. 12 (with references to earlier literature); Richter 1923, pp. 78-79, fig. 81. The current location of the gem is not known and, as such, its authenticity cannot be verified. 55. Brongniart 1898, p. 193. 56. For representations of kilns with spy-holes see kchter 1923, pp. 76-77, figs. 72-79; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 78-80, esp. nos. 1-2,5-6,8,16; Noble 1988, p. 151, figs. 231-233,235; see also Manvitz 1960, cols. 231-234, figs. 99-102; Ziomecki 1964, p. 25, fig. 14. These spy-holes seem too

small to permit the loading of the kiln and it is clear that the upper parts of many Greek kilns, especially those of the Early Iron Age, were not permanent structures, but simple, temporary domes remade for each firing: see Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 75, 81; Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 20; cC Davaras 1980, pp. 123-124; HomannWedeking 1950, p. 168. On the subject of luln domes generally see Orlandos 1955, pp. 87-93, esp. pp. 91-92. 57. Richter 1923, p. 95. In the second line, Richter has i x i o s a ~ v s 'a, reading found only in inferior manu-

scripts, while Milne (in Noble 1988, p. 196) argues for the more correct Bxioswvs'.

58. In Noble 1988, p. 191. 59. See Noble 1988, p. 196. 60. LSJ, s.v. c j x ~ p x d n ~ w . 61. See Papadopoulos 1989a, pp. 20-23,28; 1992, pp. 217-219. 62. Milne, quoting Noble, in Noble 1988, p. 196. 63. See Cuomo di Caprio 1984, pp. 78-80, nos. 2,4-5,7-8,12-13; cf. nos. 1,3,6,9. 64. Sui 1986, p. 312.

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.18. Ancient Chinese testpieces from Shanxi Province. After Sui 1986, p. 312, figs. 22-24

clay with a small hole at one end; although not illustrated by Sui, this type of potter's test-piece is virtually identical to a large number of "rectangular plaques" recovered in the 1980s from the Archaic kiln site at Phari on the southwest coast of the island of T h a s o ~Another type of ancient Chi.~~ nese test-piece is the clay ring, which is only partially covered with testpaint (Fig. 1.18:a). The latter is virtually identical to the test-piece illustrated by Winter (Fig. 1.6). Similar test rings, along with Seger cones,66 are among the more common types of implements used for testing of pottery firing in the United States today.6' The function of modern test rings is not limited to testing the firing. As Bernard Leach explains: Samples of clay when brought in, if fairly free from impurities such as gravel, roots, dead leaves, etc., should be damped down under wet cloths until soft, and then rolled between the palms of the hands, doubled and re-rolled for a few minutes to obtain a fairly even consistency. These rolls can be cut into pieces about three inches long and one-third of an inch thick, and then bent into rings with the ends overlapping and flattened by one finger on a dry table to form bases for them to stand on. If the rings split in bending, it is an indication that the clay is too "short" for throwing purposes, and had better be discarded unless mixed with a more plastic clay. The next step is to dry the rings thoroughly and fire them up to the temperature and atmosphere necessary for the kind of ware desired. For this and many other purposes a bench test kiln is almost indispensable. It will thus be possible to get an idea of the colour the clay will give under clear glazes, its contraction, and its resistance to heat.68 Related rings are very common among the kiln furniture of ancient Greek l l n s of various periods, but these are usually stacking rings used to assist the firing of certain types of pottery as well as other terracottas, such 65. Peristeri et al. 1985, p. 32, fig. 5, illustrated and discussed in further detail in Chapter 4 under M3 (pp. 260261). 66. For Seger cones (named after the ceramic chemist) see Bourry 1911, pp. 240-243; Leach 1976, pp. 166-175, 233-234,251-253,259-260. Accord-

ing to Norton (1956, p. 192), such pyrometric cones "are small pyramids of ceramic material made in a graded series, so that at certain temperatures and times they soften and bend. It should be emphasized that these cones do not measure temperature as such, but rather measure temperature and time

combined, which, after all, is what the

potter needs to know." For temperature

equivalents for Orton standard

pyrometric cones, see Fraser 1974,

p. 138, table 1; also pp. 87-89.

67. Cardew 1969, p. 205, fig. 10.21.

68. Leach 1976, pp. 46-47.

18

CHAPTER I

as figurines, loomweights, and spindle whorl^.^^ Closest to the Chinese rings are a number of clay rings, again from the kiln site at Phari on Thasos, referred to as kiln firing supports (nfih~vccoqpiyp-ccc) in an early preliminary report.'' As the size of Chinese lulns gradually increased through time, a longer test-piece that could be more easily extracted was developed. This was the so-called lazhu (Fig. 1.18:b), a ceramic stick about 15-20 cm long, tapering toward a point at one end, the opposite end bent over to form an elbow, which facilitated extraction from the kiln; the sharp end would be covered with test-paint." In general principle, the lazhu is not unlike the clay rods, referred to as dastoncelli, found among the potters' debris at ancient Taranto.j2Another tool used as an aid to correct firing in ancient and modern Chinese kilns is the so-called yellow-clay cone (Fig. 1 . 1 8 : ~ap)~ proximately 7-8 cm long. It is described by Sui as being "made of raw black glaze."73Five of these cones were usually placed in a kiln before firing, with the optimal result judged by the degree of fusion of the cones. In modern Europe, no reliable pyrometer for measuring very high temperatures existed until the end of the 19th century7"n order to remedy this situation, Alexandre Brongniart, for many years director of the porcelain works at Skvres, used a simple, effective method based on a system of test-pieces (rnont~es).~~ Writing in the middle of the 19th century, Brongniart enumerated the various techniques by which potters judge the luln firing. The relevant passage contains much useful information, some of which has been overlooked by scholars working in the field; since Brongniart is not often cited in recent archaeological literature, it is worth quoting the relevant passage in full. H e writes:j6 Here are three means ofjudging the fire, that is to say of presuming to what degree of temperature it has been carried, but none of these is absolutely reliable. In the first, which is not the most uncertain, but which depends entirely upon the individual, the conclusion is drawn from the color of the fire. A skillful burner, who has a great amount of practice, will rarely make a mistake, but this power of judging is altogether a personal quality, which cannot be transferred to anyone -else." The second, which is the most used, because it is available for a larger number of people who can easily acquire the habit of using it, is that of test or trial pieces. These are pieces of ware which are touched with a color that will change - its tint in a definite manner according to the degree of temperature to which it is exposed. These little morsels of pottery used as trial pieces are burned in the mufflei8 along with the painted goods. At Sevres and in the majority of the ateliers for firing painted porcelain, the color that is used for this purpose is carmine, which is made from the purple of Cassius as described on page 38.'9 This color is painted on a small piece of porcelain and introduced in the middle of the muffle by means of an iron wire; under the influence of the different degrees of heat it takes the following tints: 1.In the fire that is known as "gold on tender ground" it

69. For the various types of ancient Greek pottery stacking rings see Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 214-215, fig. 7, pl. 50:b-c; also Yntema 1994, p. 43, fig. 3. Note also the ring illustrated in Piccolpasso 1548, folio 15; see Lightbown and Caiger-Smith 1980, p. 39. 70. Peristeri et al. 1985, p. 32, fig. 3. Only two examples of such rings are illustrated in the first preliminary report. Francine Blonde informs me (pers. comm.) that none are covered with paint; hence they must have served as stacking rings, not test-pieces. 71. Sui 1986, p. 312, fig. 23. 72. Dell'Aglio 1996, esp. pp. 70-71, no. 43. See discussion in Chapter 4 under M24 (pp. 265-266). 73. Sui 1986, p. 312, fig. 24. 74. See Preaud 1997, esp. p. 154. 75. Preaud 1997, p. 154; for Alexandre Brongniart see pp. 24-73. 76. Brongniart 1898, pp. 192-194. There are useful details also in Brongniart and Riocreux 1845. 77. Note also the comment in Leach 1976, p. 188, note 3: "In country potteries in the East, and even in England, the experienced stoker depends upon his eyes, and cones and pyrometers are not used." 78. That is, muffle kilns: see Brongniart 1898, pp. 180-188. 79. Brongniart 1898, p. 38.

INTRODUCTION

19

becomes a reddish brown, dirty, brick-red, color with scarcely any gloss. 2. In the fire called "retouching" it is of a fine rose tint, where the color is thin and rather brick-like in the thick places. 3. In the fire called "first painting" it becomes a rose color inclined to purple. 4. In the fire called "gold on white" it is a rose, with a slight inclination to violet. 5. In the fire for "fillets of gold" or for the substantial gilding for the borders of plates, it takes a violet tint, which becomes more and more pale and deteriorates in proportion to the increase of temperature to which it is exposed. 6. In the "matt gold" fire, the rose tint and even the violet tint have almost disappeared. These are the principal tints, but they are linked together by a number of intermediate shades. A multitude of causes, apparently very slight, have an influence independent of the temperature, upon the variations of tint which this delicate color is capable of taking. In the first place, the manner in which it is ground, more or less finely, in the water or oil used as a medium and the quantity, more or less, of fat oil. Then the way in which it is used. Touches of the same carmine, but laid on in different ways by different painters, although burned together and, consequently at the same temperature, will show different tints. I t is affected by: The thickness of the touch; in the same touch of color the thicker part has a rather bricky tint, entirely different to the thin part. The impurity of the fire, that is to say a disengagement of vapor or of smoke produced by a smothered fire, will cause this color to pass from rose to dirty violet, from glossy to dull, with a dull grey aureole. The duration of the fire, without increase of temperature, produces notable alterations in the color. . . .O' The third method would be much more exact if it could be brought to perfection. This is the p y r ~ m e t e r . ~ ~ 80. Brongniart (1898, p. 194) here proceeds to describe the steps he took in order to make this method as exact and as generally useful as possible (essentially quality control and record keeping). 81. Brongniart (1898, pp. 195-196) then describes various attempts at pyrometers. 82. Preaud 1997, p. 154. 83. Tonks 1908, p. 421. 84. Tonks 1908, p. 421; cf. the comments in Bourry 1911, pp. 240241. 85. Richter 1923, p. 36.

Brongniart's focus was on measuring temperature as precisely as possible. Hence, several test-pieces were placed inside the kiln at each firing, and these were withdrawn when exact information on the temperature reached was required.'* An alternative method ofjudging the temperature of the fire was suggested by Oliver Tonks in 1908.83O n the basis of firing temperature estimates or temperature ranges for Greek black-gloss current at the turn of the century (i.e., 950-106S0C),Tonks noted that 1065" and 950°C represent, respectively, the melting points of gold and silver. H e went on to suggest that Greek potters may have used these metals in much the same way as modern potters use cones to regulate the kiln temp e r a t ~ r eAlthough .~~ this suggestion was viewed as ingenious by Richter,85 it is clear that Greek potters had a much simpler, and far less expensive, method for judging when their pottery was optimally fired. Moreover, the purpose of test-pieces in the ancient Greek world was not specifically to

20

CHAPTER I

measure firing temperature per se, but rather to test whether one or other of the phases of the three-phase firing cycle, particularly reduction and reoxidization, had been successfully completed (see Chapter 3). In addition to the test-pieces, some of the more obvious wasters are listed in the catalogue (Chapter 2), as are a few less certain or possible pieces. The latter are included to draw attention to the fact that, in some cases, what is normally interpreted as fragmentary pottery discarded as part of normal domestic use could, in fact, be potters'debris. A classic case in point is 101,a fragmentary skyphos published by Eva Brann as an ordinary drinking the discovery of joining fragments of the piece in 1995 established it, however, as a waster or production discard.87A number of other pieces that are considered production discards are therefore included in the catalogue. A total of 156 pieces, including test-pieces, wasters, and other production discards, are included in the catalogue (Chapter 2). I refer to the pottery presented in this study as Athenian, not ~ttic,becauseit was clearly produced in the potters' quarter of Athens, immediately to the north and west of the Acropolis. The term "Athenian" also distinguishes this pottery from other possible workshops in Attica, although it is possible, if not probable, that much of the pottery found in east and west Attica, at sites as far afield as Thorikos and Eleusis, was produced in Athens. This said, it is also highly likely that Athenian potters exploited clay beds well beyond the confines of the later city of Athens (see below). The results of the scientific analysis on a sample of the material published in this volume, carried out by Michael Schilling, are presented here in an appendix. The focus here is on firing and firing-temperature estimates. We have purposely avoided a more thorough scientific study focusing on the provenance of the clay. One reason for this is that elemental analysis formed the basis of the study by Fillieres and her collaborators,88 but, more important, it is very probable that ancient Athenian potters, like their modern traditional counterparts, got clay from a variety of places in Attica and outside it. For example, some modern Attic potters obtain red clays from Kalogreza and Boyati and white clay from Iraklion, and also use the clay of Cape Kolias on the south coast of A t t i ~ a ; 'buff-colored ~ clay comes from modern Challus on E ~ b o i a . ~ ' Potters often mix these clays in order to achieve better consi~tency,~~ an ethnographic fact usually overlooked in many chemical analyses of ancient pottery. Consequently, an overly detailed chemical or elemental analysis of ancient pottery may well obscure or complicate the issue of provenance rather than solve it. Be that as it may, the results of Schilling's analysis suggest that firing temperature estimates for Athenian Early Iron Age pottery, as well as black-figure, red-figure, and black-gloss, may be too high. The estimation of ceramic firing temperatures presented in the Appendix suggests firing temperatures for the test-pieces in the range of 700-850°C. A commentary on all the material presented in Chapter 2, along with the analysis in the Appendix, as well as more general notes on the firing of Athenian pottery, is presented in Chapter 3. Test-pieces of later periods are presented and discussed in Chapter 4; the focus here is primarily on test-pieces from Athens during the Classical and Hellenistic periods, though material from other sites, especially Corinth and Metapontion, is also included.

86. Brann 1961a, p. 127, no. M9, pl. 19. 87. See further discussion below, p. 121. 88. Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983. 89. For a discussion of the ancient literary sources referring to Kolias, see Raubitschek 1974. 90. See Valavanis 1990, pp. 35-36; Schreiber 1999, p. 6. 91. Schreiber 1999, p. 6. The same is true in antiquity: Geoponica VI.3.(1) states: "Not all earth is suitable for pottery, but with regard to potter's clay, some prefer the yellowish red, some the white, and others mix the two" (translation in Richter 1923, p. 88).

INTRODUCTION

21

T H E ORIGINAL KERAMEIKOS O F ATHENS

92. Desborough 1952, p. 1. 93. Burr 1933. 94. See Thompson 1968, esp. pp. 58-60; 1978. 95. See, among many others, Desborough 1952, p. 1; 1972, pp. 261265,362; Snodgrass 1971, p. 363; 1980, pp. 29-34,154-157; Coldstream 1977, p. 315; Camp 1986, pp. 24,33; Morris 1987, p p 63-69; Whitley 1991, pp. 6164; Coldstream 1995, p. 393; Agora XV, pp. 9-18;Agora XXVII, pp. 1196. A feature stressed as early as 1949, in Young 1949a, esp. pp. 275279. 97. See, among others, Krause 1975; Cavanagh 1977; Morris 1987, 1992; Whitley 1991; Stromberg 1993; Houby-Nielsen 1995. Much of what is known of Athenian burial customs at this time is still based on Kurtz and Boardman 1971. 98. See the comments in Papadopoulos 1993. 99. Young 1939, pp. 6-138, esp. pp. 6-13; Agora XIV, p. 11, fig. 5; Morris 1987, pp. 126-127. 100. Young 1951b, pp. 69-72,131134;Agora XIV, pp. 11,15-16, fig. 6; Morris 1987, pp. 134-135, fig. 46. For family tombs in Classical Athens, see Humphreys 1978,1980,1993. 101. A preliminary overview of my thoughts on the topography of early Athens was presented in Papadopoulos 1996.

The firing of Athenian pottery is, however, only one aspect of this study. The potters' debris published below, previously overlooked by scholars, has a direct bearing on many assumptions that are currently held concerning the nature and use of the area of the Classical Athenian Agora in the Early Iron Age. For example, it is commonly assumed that the area immediately north of the Areiopagos, part of which was later to become the Agora of the Classical period, was a settlement area during the Early Iron Age. This conclusion was reached largely on the basis of the existence in the area of the numerous unpublished pits and wells.92This assumption appeared to be confirmed by the early discovery of an apparently elliptical structure thought to be a Geometric house,93though continued excavations in the area failed to bring to light any other buildings of the period. Despite the more recent deconstruction of this structure as a "house,"94the belief that this area was largely devoted to settlement has never been seriously q~estioned.~' In this context, two important factors have not received the attention they deserve. The first is the existence in this area of significant evidence of potters' debris, which indicates that pottery establishments, including kilns, were scattered over part, if not much, of the area. The second aspect is the location of graves in the same area. Well over one hundred graves of the period conventionally defined as "Submycenaean" through "Late Geometric" have been excavated in the area of the later Athenian Agora.These burials, coupled with the discovery of numerous pits cut into bedrock in immediate proximity to known tombs and of similar or identical configuration, suggest that the area was originally much more densely filled with graves.96Moreover, these full-fledged cemeteries did not suddenly appear at the dawn of the Early Iron Age, but were located in the same area where Mycenaean tombs were already well established. Despite numerous volumes and papers devoted to the analysis and reanalysis of Athenian graves, the focus has largely been on the inferences one can extract from the similarities and differences among tombs within a given cemetery or well-defined burial area.97The existence of several large, distinct cemeteries, as opposed to smaller discrete burial plots, in this area and the reality of the continuation of a pattern begun in the Bronze Age have been overlooked and in part denied.98It is only at the very end of the era, in the Late Geometric and Archaic periods, that clearly defined small burial plots, or grave precincts, appear. One of these, published by Rodney Young in 1939, is Late Geometric, and it is located on the edge of two large, earlier cemeteries, one on the north slopes of the Areiopagos and another on the Kolonos A g o r a i o ~The . ~ ~other, published by Young in 1951, dates to the 6th century B.C. and was located on the west slope of the Areiopagos, in an area that was not used earlier for burials.100In both cases, these plots were specially sited in those few remaining places where there were no earlier tombs. The topographical ramifications of this study will be considered more fully in Chapter 5.O n the basis of the material evidence for potters' activity it is argued that the area of the Classical Athenian Agora was the original Kerameikos-the Potters' Quarter-of Athens.lol I t is now clear that

22

CHAPTER I

those parts of the area not destroyed by later building activity were completely covered with tombs, and that many of the pits and wells were not filled solely with domestic debris, but with potters' waste. Now that the solitary so-called house of the period actually excavated can no longer be taken as evidence for habitation, the most blatant constructed feature in the entire area is the Late Geometric and Early Archaic potter's kiln located near the later tho lo^.^^^ In short, it was here that the Early Iron Age potters' workshops, kilns, and installations were located. The reason it later became an Agora or civic center is that it was one of the few areas in Athens not h&ly built over or occupied by the living. The much earlier tombs were not a problem for the civic builders, and the potters could be pushed further to the northwest-as indeed they were-but the name of the region was never lost, and thus derives the apparent confusion between Agora and Kerameikos in our literary sources (to be explored more fully in Chapter 5). These conclusions raise two important related questions, on which the material presented here has direct bearing. The first is, when did the Agora become an agora? The second is, where was the Protogeometric and Geometric settlement of Athens? I do not think the Agora was a formal marketplace until after the Persian Wars, that is, not in the 6th century B.C. as is commonly maintained. The evidence at hand, presented in Chapter 5, supports a date for the formalization of the Agora as an agora only after the Persian destruction of Athens and the Athenian victory at Salamis. Rather than beginning with a review of the same literary evidence presented elsewhere,lo3however, my approach will be to begin with the archaeological material, in an attempt to understand a number of related issues. In order to answer the question of when this area was formally made into the commercial and civic center of Athens, one must first determine when it stopped being used for pottery production and other industrial activity, and when it ceased to be a burial ground. As for where the settlement of Athens was located during the Early Iron Age, it will be argued that it was where it always was in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages: on, and immediately around, the Athenian Acropolis.

102.Thompson 1940, pp. 6-7; the kiln and its associated deposits are fully described below (ChaDter 2). 103. See especially Agora 111 and Oikonomides 1964. ~

L

,

CHAPTER 2

Select Catalogue of Ear4 Iron Age Test-Pieces and Other Potters' Debrisfiom the Area of the ClassicalAgora

Kal rp6sov dipXoo qAbv t@ydi(~tvx~puiv.

First begin to work the clay with your hands.'

I. Sophokles, Fragments 438; for

text and translation, see Richter 1923,

p. 88.

All the material presented in the following catalogue comes from the area of the American School excavations in the Classical Agora, northwest of the Athenian Acropolis (Fig. 2.1). The material selected for this study is presented according to deposit, but the deposit descriptions given below do not aim to be exhaustive. Rather, each gives basic information that reflects its bearing on the current study. A hlfer description of the deposits and their contents will be published in a forthcoming volume in the Athenian Agora series. In the case of deposits containing a large number of selected pieces, such as L 11:1, the test-pieces are presented first, followed by wasters and other potters' debris. An attempt has been made to describe in summary the nature of the potters' debris that was not catalogued. Within each deposit the order of arrangement of the test-pieces corresponds, as far as possible, to the shape of the original vessel from which the test-piece was cut, with the large closed vessels presented first. The illustration of the test-pieces in inked drawings has posed a number of problems not commonly encountered in dealing with painted or plain pottery. Wherever possible individual test-pieces, as well as fragments of test-pieces, have been drawn according to the shape of the original vessel from which they were cut. The majority of test-pieces from the Agora were cut from vessels whose shape can be determined, or whose general form can at least be discerned (such as "large closed vessel," "small open vessel," and so on). In the case of some pieces cut from the body of a large closed vessel, the orientation of the fragments is difficult to establish with certainty, particularly when they are not canonically decorated. These instances are hlly described in the catalogue, and occasionally two versions are presented as inked drawings. The question of orientation was complicated on occasion by the fact that the original vessel had been damaged or distorted prior to its being cut to make a test-piece.

24

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.1. The Kolonos Agoraios and the Athenian Acropolis, ca. 1870.View from the northwest. Albumen print, Anonymous. The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (04.03.04).

On some pieces the paint, whether applied as part of the canonical decoration of the original vase or as noncanonical test-paint, was worn to such an extent that determining the original scheme was not straightforward. In more diff~cultcases, such as 10, I have opted to represent only those traces of paint actually preserved, since there was no other viable solution. In other cases, such as 12, where the broad sweep of paint was reasonably preserved but not very clear, I made a reconstruction of the original scheme, which explains why a drawing and photograph of the same piece may look somewhat different in terms of the preserved paint. Although test-pieces are rendered as fragments of vessels, they are not, sensu strich, pots and therefore I have not rigidly adhered to the normal convention of depicting the paint on the exterior in solid ink and that on the interior as letrat~ne.~ In cases like 31,42,62,63, and 122, solid ink for the paint on the exterior and letratone for the paint on the interior was a straightforward, conventional choice. With such as 4 and 5 it seemed pedantic to distinguish between interior and exterior paint since the paint was never part of any canonical decorative scheme, and with test-pieces there is no real interior or exterior. In the case of still other pieces, such a distinction was more difficult. For example, in the case of 17, 21,22,40,81, and others, I wanted to make clear the difference between the paint applied on the interior of the piece, especially where it was applied as part of the decoration of the vessel, as opposed to the paint on the edges of the cut-down test-piece; here a combination of solid ink and letratone seemed a useful visual solution. In other cases, however, I have not applied this solution, and occasionally letratone is used instead of solid ink and vice versa in a rather arbitrary fashion. In some cases solid ink would have obliterated important details, such as draw-hole edges. In other

2. Letratone is the commercially available shading represented by closeset rows of dots that has been used for the drawings presented in this study.

25

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

cases, such as 4,31,61, letratone has been used to indicate either an area possibly painted but unclear (such as 61), or else an area restored in plaster and painted in by the conservator (4 and 31). The primary guiding principle was to render each drawing as clear and as usable as possible. All measurements given herein are in meters. The following abbreviations have been used: Diam. = diameter est. = estimated fr(r). = fragment(s) H . = height L. = length

max. = maximum p. = preserved T h . = thickness W. = width

WELL N 12:3 (1-3) Section n: well at 15/MT. Cleared 5-10 June, 1935, by A. W. Parsons.

Early Protogeometric (PG I) well near the east end of the Middle Stoa. The well was located 90 m east of the Heliaia Well, opening in bedrock beside the stylobate of the Middle Stoa, roughly 25 m from its northeast ~ o r n e rAn . ~ Early Classical drainage ditch cut 0.50 m into the top of the shaft, scattering Protogeometric sherds through the Archaic levels around the mouth; a few sherds as late as the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. had penetrated the top meter of the shaft. The shaft was unusually narrow and the sides were irregular; it had a diameter of 0.85 m at the top, narrowing to 0.65 m at the bottom; its depth below the surrounding bedrock reached 5.10 m. The fill was uniform and, in comparison to some other wells, contained relatively little pottery, much of it fragmentary and largely considered to be domestic debris, especially that from the upper 2.0 m of the deposit. From the level of the third meter down came several complete, or nearly complete, vessels-including two wheelmade oinochoai and a number of handmade pitchers/jugs4-which probably represent the period of use deposit. Below this, the lowest part of the fill was mostly sterile. Only a few fragments of belly-handled amphoras and lekythoi, along with pieces of human bone, suggest cemetery debris.' The three fragmentary test-pieces, the earliest of those presented here, represent the only certain evidence of industrial debris recovered from this deposit. 3. Opposite Middle Stoa pier 20 (from the west). 4. P 6225, P 6227 (wheelmade oinochoai); P 6226 (handmade twohandled jar); P 6228, P 6229, P 6230 (handmade one-handled jardpitchers). 5. T h e fill of this well is not the onlv one to contain clear evidence of earlierJ damaged - or destroyed tombs. This is a feature common to many deposits.

1( P 32358)

Fig. 2.2

Test-piece fragment cut from lower body of open or closed p.H.: 0.035; p.W.: 0.057; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.022-0.025. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including

26

CHAPTER 2

:,*

*;/:a

, ~

/ Figure 2.2. Well N 12:3: 1-3.

about one-quarter of draw-hole. Piece cut from the lower body of a large closed vessel, or else a large open vessel such as krater. Surfaces much worn. Lower wall rising at angle of about 45"; vessel thick-walled. Clay core at all breaks but one fired light gray, close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2-6/2. Reserved surfaces and remaining break (or possible edge) fired close to reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6. Preserved interior evidently reserved. Traces of red paint on upper part of exterior, much worn: either an irregular swirl of paint or else a horizontal band (shown as the latter on Fig. 2.2). Agora sample no. 872.

Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

2 (P 32359)

Fig. 2.2

Test-piece fragment cut from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.049; p.W.: 0.045. Single fr., much worn, preserving small portion of test-piece; no clear edges preserved. Possible portion of draw-hole preserved to one side (uncertain). Piece cut from shoulder of large closed vessel. Sloping wall, thinner in section toward top. Clay body and surfaces evenly fired light gray throughout, close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2, the result of reduction firing. No clear traces of paint on preserved exterior. Traces of reddish brown, rust-colored, paint on interior, much worn and with a tendency to flake. Area of paint preserved near center of fragment, with smaller area below. Paint probably irregularly applied, but original scheme of application unclear due to poor state of preservation. Agora sample no. 873.

3 (P 32360)

Fig. 2.2

Fragmentary open vessel (one-handled cup) used as test-piece. H.: 0.076; Diam. (base): 0.043; Diam. (rim): 0.088. Five joining and one nonjoining frr. preserving portion of open vessel; complete profile preserved. Vessel probably originally intended as one-handled cup, but with conical foot never attached, used as testpiece. No clear edges or draw-hole preserved. Flat, thin-walled, base; curved body rising fairly steeply and thickening at point of max. Diam. Offset vertical rim, terminating in plain rounded lip. Clay body evenly fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6-6/6. Reserved surfaces closer to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior fired red, thickly applied on interior, with pronounced tendency to flake. Paint on exterior variously applied, thinly and thickly. Interior painted solid. Exterior painted with broad intersecting bands as shown. Portion of underside also painted. Agora sample no. 874.

PIT OR WELL L 11:l (4-59) Section nA: "well" in Odeion trench L. Discovered June 8,1946, and excavated July 3-4,1946, by Homer A. Thompson. Deposit noted in Thompson 1950, p. 37 ("a shallow well of the time transitional between the Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods"). For the existence of wells in the area immediately southwest, see also Shear 1935, pp. 362-363.

Shallow, irregularly cut shaft in bedrock, located near the center of the Classical Agora, underlying the later Odeion. I t has a diameter of ca. 0.90 m and a depth of only about 2.0 m. There was no concentration of the normal "water-jars" used to draw water, nor any accumulation of water when the shaft was excavated; only very slight seepage of water was noted

28

CHAPTER 2

at the time of excavation.The excavator considered the "well" to have probably been unfinished, but there are no clear indications as to why; the possibility that the shaft represents an ancient rubbish pit intentionally dug not only cannot be dismissed, but seems very likely. In the notebook the excavator writes: "The well is a very rough bit of work: irregular in cutting both in the horizontal and vertical; ca. 0.90 m in mean diameter. Soft gray bedrock to b ~ t t o m .The " ~ fill is described as "soft brownish earth, abundant pottery and bits of mudbrick."' The fill yielded a total of 1,972 pieces of pottery; it represents a uniform dump of material assignable to the Protogeometric 11 phase. The deposit is therefore relatively early in the Protogeometric period, but slightly later than that from well N 12:3 (see previous section). Prominent among the pottery recovered from the shaft was potters' refuse, including testpieces, wasters, unfinished pots, and at least one possible kiln firing support.8Apart from a few animal bones and fragments resembling mud brick and scraps of clay lining-the latter conceivably from the superstructure of a kiln-much if not all of the material may be discarded potters' waste. The certain discards include test-pieces, unfinished or wholly unglazed pots, and obvious wasters. Other likely discards have serious cracks, mends, or dents. Many other pieces-perhaps even all the pottery from the deposit-might, if complete, reveal flaws or damage sufficiently serious to have caused them to be discarded. In addition to the pieces catalogued below, there are a good many fragments of certain and probable test-pieces stored in the context lots. Fifty-six test-pieces and other potters' refuse are presented below, and there are more than 40 additional fragments of certain test-pieces (i.e., indicated by presence of draw-hole, cut edge, or test-glaze) and some 60 or more fragments of probable test-pieces (joining fragments are counted as one); it is therefore possible that there are as many as 150, and probably more, fragments of test-pieces from this deposit. In addition to 53-57 there is at least one other certain waster fragment (not catalogued). The large quantity of potters' refuse and the uniformity of the fill may suggest that the material derives from a single potter's establishment. If so, the variety of output is of interest: heavy-duty and fine-decorated vases, large and miniature, cooking pots, and little toy cart wheels (so-called votive wagons). There is no guarantee that the potter's establishment was adjacent, or that the pit, if ever a well, was planned to serve it, though water in quantity is essential to pottery making. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine that material of this sort was intentionally transported from any great d i ~ t a n c e . ~ I t should be noted that the kiln near the later Tholos (Figs. 2.1642.167) is located at a distance ofjust under 100 m to the west-southwest of well L 11:l(Fig. 1.4). Moreover, kilns tend to be located in the same spot over generations on account of practical considerations, not least of which is distance from settlement areas. The 7th-century date for the Tholos kiln (see deposit H 12:17 below, pp. 126-143) represents its latest use; it is clear that the luln was in use for some time before that date.

6. Notebook nA 111,p. 518. 7. Notebook nA 111,p. 518. 8. For kiln firing supports, see Papadopoulos 1992. 9. See discussion in Papadopoulos 1996, p. 124. The source of any fill is debatable. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that although fill elsewhere in the area of the Athenian Agora has been shown occasionally to have been hauled in from a distance, that distance is rarely great. One of the two Early Iron Age instances known to me is the case of the dumped road fill of the mid 7th century beside the Tholos cemetery. This fill contained sherds that joined fragments in the Protoattic votive deposit on the Areiopagos, about 100 m to the southeast (deposit H 17:4):Young 1939, p. 10. The other case is that of sherds joining pyre debris in grave H 16:6 (the tomb of the "Rich Athenian Lady"), which were found in 4th-century B.C. dumped filling above that deposit, 15 m to the south: Smithson 1968, p. 79. In both cases the distance involved is not substantial.

29

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

4 (scale 1:4)

5 (scale 1:3) Figure 2.3. Pit or well L 11:l: 4-5. Scale as noted

TEST-PIECES 4 (P 17264)

Fig. 2.3., PI. 1

Test-piece fragment cut from body of large closed vessel. H.: 0.205; max. W.: 0.113; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020. Five joining frr.preserving virtually intact test-piece, with paint preserved on all edges, except for the top left-hand corner (as shown on interior) which appears to be broken. One missing fragment, including about one-quarter of draw-hole, restored in plaster. Test-piece cut from body of large closed vessel. Lower preserved wall curving out and up; upper preserved wall curving in. Clay body and all reserved surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint mostly fired black; reddish brown where more dilute. Exterior reserved (except possibly for very slight dribbles of paint, very difficult to see). Interior painted with broad vertically and

3"

CHAPTER 2

horizontally intersecting lines. Paint is in places thickly applied, where there is a tendency to flake, elsewhere more dilute. Paint cracked at certain points. The piece appears to have been nearly optimally fired, but not quite. Agora sample no. 857.

5 (P 17265)

Fig. 2.3, P1. 1

Test-piece fragment cut from body of large closed vessel.

p.H.: 0.142; max. p.W.: 0.080.

Three joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece; similar to

4, but with paint preserved only on one edge, with likely edge on opposite side; lower edge, as drawn, broken. Draw-hole not preserved. Shape similar to 4. Clay body and reserved surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior uniformly fired red. Although clearly the result of oxidization, the test-piece may have been drawn from the kiln at an advanced stage of firing, suggesting a purely oxidizing atmosphere or, alternatively, that the piece was drawn from the kiln during the initial oxidizing phase, prior to reduction. It is also conceivable, but less likely, that the paint never properly sintered during a reduction phase, thereby turning red upon reoxidization. Paint mostly rather thickly applied, slightly cracked at certain points on exterior, with a tendency to flake. Interior and exterior painted with broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines (worn in parts). There are numerous parallel minute hair-line fractures visible on the exterior of the central part of the fragment as reserved. This splitting is confined to the surface and does not extend into the clay body to any depth. Agora sample no. 858. The following were probably cut into test-pieces from the same original vessel, most probably a large amphora: 6 7a 7b-c 8 9

neck, including junction with shoulder body shoulder, including junction with neck body, near base base

Together 6-9 represent at least five separate test-pieces, and probably more if 7b-c were originally from different test-pieces. They were cut from various parts of a large closed vessel, probably a belly-handled amphora, damaged prior to firing.'' 6 ( P 20476)

Fig. 2.4, P1.2

Test-piece cut from shoulder and neck of large closed vessel (amphora).

10. A composite drawing of these fragments in order to give an idea of the form of the original vessel has proved to be technically difficult because the precise orientation of the body fragments, especially 7a and 8, is impossible to determine with absolute certainty. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is some distortion or warping among the various testpieces, particularly the body fragments. There is also a good deal of warping or distortion at the juncture of shoulder and neck. It is most likely that the original vessel sprang out of shape during drying and was subsequently cut down into test-pieces. The result of such distortion is that the creation of a composite drawing made by matching the preserved components of the pot is not straightfonvard. Moreover, although a good portion survives of the neck, upper shoulder, lower body, and base of the vessel, the main central part of the body is not well represented. It is not clear, for example, whether the horizontal bands on 8 correspond in any way with those on 7a, nor is it clear whether there are only two registers decorated with sets of mechanically drawn circles. O n account of these problems a composite drawing has not been attempted.

3I

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

\

Figure 2.4. Pit or well L 11:l: 6. Scale

-

POSSIBLE

BLE EDGE

EDGE

p.H.: 0.110; max. p.W.: 0.128; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020; est. Diam. (neck at juncture to shoulder): 0.110 (this diameter is not identical with that of To-c [estimated at 0.1251, but it is clear that there is some warping or distortion of the original vessel at this very point, and it is likely that the pot sprang out of shape here). Three joining frr. preserving portion of shoulder and neck of large closed vessel, probably an amphora. About two-thirds of draw-hole preserved on neck Dribbles of paint on edges at both sides would suggest that the original size of the test-piece was not significantly larger than the fragment as preserved. Shoulder sloping in to neck; neck becoming vertical. Thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck on interior would indicate that the neck was made separately from the body and subsequently attached or else that the neck could have been thrown onto the leather-hard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. Wheel-marks prominent on interior. Clay and reserved surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Preserved interior painted solid except for upper part of neck. Paint extends onto draw-hole edge, and several other edges as shown. Paint

32

CHAPTER 2

thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, fired black (reduced and reoxidized). Paint only very slightly cracked where thickest. Exterior reserved. Test-piece optimally fired. Cf. especially the fabric, paint, and feel of 9. Agora sample no. 860.

7 (P 17261)

Fig. 2.5, P1.2

Fragmentary test-pieces cut from shoulder and body of large closed vessel (amphora). Fr. a: p.H.: 0.104-0.110; p.W.: 0.109; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.032. Fr. b + c: p.H.: 0.054; p.W.: 0.178; est. Diam. (base of neck): 0.125. Fr. a: two joining frr. preserving portion of body, perhaps broken on all sides, including about one-quarter of draw-hole. Two of the preserved edges (the left and lower left as presented in the upper version on Fig. 2.5) have fired a color similar to the reserved surfaces of the vase (the same color also occurs at the edges of the draw-hole), whereas all other breaks/edges have fired light gray. It is therefore likely that the left and lower left sides represent original edges of the test-piece. Fr. b: four joining frr. preserving portion of shoulder at juncture with neck. Fr. c (which joins with fr. b): two joining frr. as b. Large closed vessel, almost certainly amphora, with curved shoulder; neck becoming vertical. Thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck indicates that neck was made separately from body and subsequently attached or else that the neck could have been thrown onto the leatherhard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. Eight frr. in all; frr. b and c join. Frr. a and b reduced; fr. c oxidized. All of the fragments seem to derive from the same original vase which was later cut to produce at least five and possibly more test-pieces (cf. 6, 8-9). It is clear that frr. a and b were drawn out of the kiln during the reduction phase, whereas fr. c may have broken away from b during removal, remained in the luln, and been subsequently reoxidized. It is also possible that frr. b and c were never part of the one test-piece, but represent two test-pieces drawn from the kiln at different times. Frr. a and b: clay body and surfaces mostly reduced, in parts fired light gray, close to light gray and gray 7.5YR N7/ and N6/, in parts gray-buff, not unlike pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2. The paint on both fragments, on interior and exterior, fired reddish brown to brown. Much of the paint on exterior, especially for the circles, is worn, leaving only a figitive gray where the paint once was. Fr. c oxidized (i.e., reoxidized) with clay body and all reserved surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6. Small portion of paint preserved on exterior, as well as that better preserved on interior, fired black, shading to dark brown where more dilute. Fr. a: preserved interior painted solid. Exterior canonically decorated with probably two (rather than one) horizontal bands, poorly preserved, above which is portion of one preserved set of mechanically drawn circles (set comprising 10 circles).ll The joining fragments of b and c

11.The orientation of fr. a is problematic and is presented in two versions on Fig. 2.5. The more likely is the upper version, which would therefore place the mechanically drawn circles on the belly of the vase, below which are two horizontal bands (cf. Desborough 1952, pl. 4, no. 918 [26]). If such is the case, then the fragment more likely derives from a bellyhandled amphora. The alternative version (i.e., that the fragment derives from the shoulder of the vase) is less likely, both on the evidence of frr. b + c, which shows that the juncture of shoulder and neck are close to the circles, and the fact that the decoration, at this orientation, is rare for both neck- and belly-handled amphoras. It is also possible that the circles were painted after the fragments had been cut down as test-pieces, though this seems less likely given the canonical nature of the decoration. For the drawing of circles see Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.5. Pit or well L 11:l: 7. Scale 1:3

33

34

CHAPTER 2

preserve, on exterior, traces only of horizontal band at juncture of shoulder and neck, and small portion of one set of mechanically drawn circles. The four preserved outer circles of fr. b + c have the identical diameter and configuration of the four outer circles on fr. a, and were clearly executed with the same pivoted multiple brush. Interior, below juncture of shoulder and neck, preserves parts of two swirls of paint, as shown. Shape, fabric, and paint similar to 6. Fr. a analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 565 (Agora sample no. 500).12

8 (P 17266)

Fig. 2.6

Test-piece cut from lower body of large closed vessel (amphora). p.H.: 0.093; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.015-0.020/0.025. Six joining frr. preserving portion of body, near base, of large closed vessel (amphora). The exact orientation of this piece is problematic, though it clearly derives from the lower body of the vase, very close to the base. The warping of the original vessel has added to this problem, and it may be that the profile of the lower body was originally slightly more vertical than that presented on Fig. 2.6. Test-piece preserves one entire draw-hole. O n the upper part of the fragment as drawn is what resembles part of a second draw-hole, with substantial chipping in the immediate area. The edge of this possible draw-hole, along with the exposed clay at the chips, has fired the same color as the true edges elsewhere on the piece. Since the top edge is almost certainly an edge, the position of a draw-hole at this point makes no sense, unless the drawhole, or abortive draw-hole, was first cut out on the lower wall of the original vessel, prior to the cutting out of the test-piece itself. Alternatively, the potter in cutting out the test-piece may have encountered resistance at this point and was forced to cut down and across, with the result that the ragged edge resembles a draw-hole. Such an explanation would also account for the chipping at this edge. Surfaces on interior and exterior rather worn. The regularity of the sides as shown on Fig. 2.6 would indicate that these are original edges of the test-piece, though there are no traces of paint on the edges. These edges have fired the same color as the surface of the piece, whereas the breaks reveal a light gray core. Body, near base, rising with a gentle curve (precise orientation not certain). Wheel-marks prominent on interior. Clay core and limited parts of surface fired light gray, close to light gray 7.5YR N7/-N6/, in parts darker, close to gray 7.5YR N5/. Clay surfaces and original edges fired something like pink 7.5YR 7/4 and very pale brown 10YR 7/3-7/4. Fabric very similar to 7 and probably cut from the same original vessel. Paint on exterior very poorly preserved, mostly flaked or worn off. Traces of paint indicate presence of two (rather than one?) horizontal bands that represent canonical decoration; the precise width of the lower band, if a band, is not clear. Traces of paint on exterior fired red to reddish brown (bands of paint mainly indicated by very faint fugitive

12. The sample numbers on the Agora inventory and the BNL numbers given in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983 are not the same.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

8 (photos 1:4;drawings 13)

Figure 2.6. Pit or well L 11:l: 8-9. Scale as noted

9 (scale 1:2)

35

36

CHAPTER 2

area of gray where paint has peeled). Paint on interior fairly thickly applied, with a very pronounced tendency to flake. The irregularly applied paint shown on Fig. 2.6 is partly conjectural as much of the paint has peeled and the surface is rather worn. Where the paint has peeled, the surface is light gray, similar in color to the clay core. Preserved paint fired red to reddish brown, in parts brown, and was probably applied in broad swirls or sweeps. This is one of the largest of the Agora test-pieces. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 569 (Agora sample no. 502). 9 (P 17262)

Fig. 2.6, P1.2

Test-piece cut from base and lower body of large closed vessel (amphora). p H . : 0.055; est. Diam. (base): 0.151; L. x W. (max.): 0.120 x 0.101; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.023. Single fr. preserving portion of base and lower body, broken and cut down to form test-piece; almost two-thirds of draw-hole preserved. At least one edge preserved, indicated by very small dribble of paint. Low ring foot; thick underside. Lower wall curving, almost flaring, upward; wheel-marks prominent on interior. Clay body and reserved surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6. Paint on interior and exterior fired black. Paint on interior thickly applied, cracked, and with a tendency to flake. Exterior canonically decorated: reserved except for band on foot. Interior, as preserved, painted solid, with paint dribbling down onto edge of draw-hole as well as onto one edge (two of the sides are probably the original edges of the cut-down test-piece). The piece appears to have been optimally fired. Small impression, perhaps of cloth(?), preserved at one point on lower wall on exterior, which is rather faint. It resembles a human fingerprint, but is clearly not. ~ g o r saample no. 856. 10 (P 32365)

Fig. 2.7

Test-piece cut from neck of large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.103; L. (edge to edge across top): 0.146. Single fr. preserving large portion of test-piece, including top edge, parts of both side edges, and possible, but uncertain, edge of draw-hole toward bottom break. Piece cut from neck of large closed vessel, probably amphora (original diameter of neck across the top approximately 0.20 [est.]). Rim of original vessel never attached. Surfaces rather worn, with little of the paint surviving. Neck becoming vertical; thick-walled, with wheel-marks prominent on interior. Top edge articulated (as 12), probably to accommodate attachment of rim.

Figure 2.7 (opposite). Pit or well L 11:l:10-13. Scale 1:3

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

37

38

CHAPTER 2

Clay body and surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 714. Interior reserved. Traces of paint, fired red, over parts of exterior and top edge as shown, but surfaces extremely worn, with paint very poorly preserved. Surface powdery to touch. Agora sample no. 883.

11 (P 32387)

Fig. 2.7

Fragmentary test-piece cut from neck of closed vessel (amphora). p.H.: 0.080; L. (edge to edge): 0.098; est. Diam. (neck at top): 0.110; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020-0.025. Five joining frr. preserving large portion of test-piece, including three edges and almost one-half of draw-hole. Piece cut from neck of closed vessel, probably amphora. Cylindrical neck, becoming vertical toward top. Juncture of neck and shoulder not preserved. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 714, in parts slightly lighter, approaching pink 7.5YR 814. Paint on interior and edges thickly applied, with brush-marks visible at points; paint well adhering; fired black. Preserved interior painted solid, with paint extending onto much, but not all, of draw-hole edge. Substantial remains of paint on top and both side edges. Exterior reserved. For shape cf. 10 and 12. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 898. 12 (P 32366)

Fig. 2.7

Test-piece fragment cut from neck of closed vessel. p.H.: 0.086; est. Diam. (draw-hole): difficult to determine accurately. Originally single fr., now three joining frr., preserving portion of test-piece, including part of top edge and draw-hole (fragment was inadvertently broken during sampling and now consists of three joining frr.). Piece cut from vessel similar to 10, but of smaller dimensions. Rim of original vessel never attached. Neck becoming vertical, flaring slightly toward top; wheel-marks prominent on interior (original est. Diam. of neck at the top: ca. 0.095). Top edge articulated as 10. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Interior reserved. Paint on exterior very worn, but enough traces survive to indicate a broad sweep of paint on right side of fragment as reconstructed in Fig. 2.7. Paint, as preserved, mottled red and black. Cf. 10. Agora sample no. 884.

Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:1, interior view (left) and exterior view (right)

Test-pieces from pit or well L 11:l cut from the same vessel, probably a large amphora, interior view

I

-

-

'lest-pleces mom plt or weu L 11:1,extenor view

Test-pieces from pit or weh L 11:1(14, LU, s>,>u),well K 12:l (67), and well M 13:1(90), interior view (left) and exterior view (right)

Test-pieces from deposit S 17:2, cutting F 1

39

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

13 (P 20475)

Fig. 2.7

Test-piece cut from shoulder and neck of large closed vessel (probably amphora). p.H.: 0.082; p.W.: 0.111; Diam. (neck at preserved top): 0.152; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.019. Four joining frr. preserving substantial portion of test-piece cut from shoulder and neck of large closed vessel. Entire draw-hole preserved on upper shoulder near juncture of shoulder and neck. Paint extends onto lower edge of fragment at one point, and also partly over the preserved edge at the top. Shoulder curving in to vertical neck; juncture of shoulder and neck marked by a substantial thickening on interior suggesting that the neck was made separately from the body and subsequently attached or else that the neck was thrown onto the leather-hard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. Wheel-marks prominent on neck interior. Clay body and surfaces where not painted almost entirely oxidized, fired reddish buff, close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior fired black. Paint fairly thickly applied, slightly cracked on upper part of exterior, but otherwise well adhering. Interior, as preserved, painted solid on body below juncture of shoulder and neck (noncanonical); neck interior reserved. Paint on exterior irregularly applied (noncanonical) on lower neck, extending onto shoulder on either side, and partly onto the edge of draw-hole, as shown. Piece appears to have been optimally fired. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 557 (Agora sample no. 504).

14 ( P 20478)

Fig. 2.8, P1.2

Test-piece cut from shoulder of large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.045; L. x W . (max.): 0.078 x 0.060; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from upper shoulder, including juncture with neck, of large closed vessel, perhaps an amphora. Portion of draw-hole, approximately one-quarter of arc, preserved on one side. The regularity of the top edge of the fragment may suggest that this was an original edge of the test-piece, though no paint is preserved on it. Shoulder curving in toward neck (itself not preserved). Thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck as 13. Clay body and surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Preserved exterior decorated with one partially preserved set of mechanically drawn concentric circles (7 circles), with dot at center over pivot-point impression. Most of interior painted solid, except for

CHAPTER 2

40

17

Figure 2.8. Pit orwell L 11:l: 14-17. Scale 1:3

4I

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

upper part of fragment on one side. Paint on interior, which has partially peeled, was probably applied as a broad band; paint extends onto edges of draw-hole. Paint on interior thickly applied, slightly cracked, and with a tendency to flake. Paint on interior fired black; dark deep red, where best preserved, for circles on exterior. The difference between the black and red here may be due to the fact that the paint was more dilutely applied for the circles. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 559 (Agora sample no. 506).

15 (P 32370)

Fig. 2.8

Test-piece fragment cut from large neck-handled amphora or hydria. p.H. (including handle): 0.116. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, cut from large neckhandled amphora or hydria. Fragment preserves small portion of shoulder, including point of juncture to neck (itself not preserved), and a large part of one vertical handle. The point ofjuncture of shoulder and neck, only fractionally preserved, is very smooth and may possibly represent an edge of the test-piece, though this is not certain. Shoulder curving inward; thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck. Large vertical handle, oval in section. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6. Paint on interior and exterior fairly thickly and evenly applied, mostly fired black, shading to dark red at one small point on exterior. Irregular band (noncanonical) on exterior below handle. Thick, vertically and horizontally intersecting lines on interior. Agora sample no. 888.

16 (P 32373)

Fig. 2.8

Test-piece fragment cut from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.023; p.L.: 0.075. Originally single fr., now three joining frr., preserving small portion of test-piece; no clear edges preserved, though some of the breaks seem rather regular as if cut. There are some pronounced inclusions visible along the breaks; one of these, along the top edge, may possibly be paint, though this is not absolutely certain. Piece cut from shoulder, at juncture with neck, of large closed vessel, probably amphora. Sloping shoulder, thickening at juncture with neck. Clay body fired light gray, close to light gray 7.5YR N7/; reserved surface on exterior fired closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2 and very pale brown lOYR 7/3. Preserved paint on interior and exterior thickly applied, with a tendency to flake (particularly pronounced on interior). Paint fired black. Exterior canonically decorated: broad band at juncture of shoulder and neck, below which is the outer arc of set of mechanically drawn circles or

42

CHAPTER 2

upright semicircles. To right vertical tremulous line and four preserved vertical stripes ("necklace" pattern: Furumark 1972, p. 411, fig. 73, motif 72, esp. nos. 11-14, referred to as "Tassel Pattern." Mountjoy 1986, p. 157, fig. 200, nos. 26-27 [both listed under Furumark motif 721 distinguishes between "Tassel" and "Necklace7'pattern). Paint on interior very worn and mostly flaked; interior painted solid except for upper part of fragment as shown (noncanonical). For decoration cf. the wasters 55 and 56; cf. also Kerameikos I, inv. 522, pl. 29; inv. 587 ( T 20), pl. 45; inv. 195 and 584 ( T 21), pl. 46; inv. 563 (Grab 13), inv. 530 (Grab 3), inv. 549 (Grab 4), pl. 54; inv. 544 (Grab IS), pls. 55,58; inv. 578 (Grab 16), pl. 56; inv. 565 (Grab 6), ~ 157; . inv. 765, pl. 66 and especially the oinochoe inv. 545, pl. 68 (note also inv. 732 [Grab 171, pl. 69). Kerameikos IV, inv. 1069 (Grab 34), inv. 2008 (Grab 40), inv. 906 (Grab 31), pl. 5; inv. 2027 (Grab 48), pl. 10; inv. 1098 (Grab 45), pl. 11; pl. 13; inv. 1076 (Grab 37), pl. 14. Agora sample no. 890.

17 ( P 32378)

Fig. 2.8

Test-piece fragments cut probably from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.043; p.L.: 0.079; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, including large part of one edge (at top) and almost one-half of draw-hole. Exact orientation of fragment uncertain; piece cut from shoulder of large closed vessel or else from lower body of open or closed pot (shown as shoulder fragment on Fig. 2.8, which is the more likely alternative). Curved shoulder or lower wall. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6. Paint on interior, exterior, and preserved edge fired red. Interior evidently painted solid, but much worn. Traces of paint on exterior, extremely worn; original scheme difficult to reconstruct; perhaps painted solid, perhaps decorated canonically (not indicated on Fig. 2.8). Paint on preserved edge better preserved, thickly applied and much cracked, though well adhering. Paint on interior extends only slightly onto drawhole edge. Agora sample no. 893.

18 (P 17263)

Fig. 2.9, P1.2

Test-piece cut from body of large closed vessel (perhaps amphora). p.H.: 0.122; max. W.: 0.129; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.022. Sixjoining frr. preserving substantial portion of test-piece cut from body of large closed vessel. Draw-hole preserved at center and toward upper right of fragment as shown; another possible or partially cut drawhole to right (0.026 from that preserved entirely). It seems reasonably clear, on the basis of the preserved edge to right of, and below, the second hole, that this was an incomplete or abortive draw-hole. The clay body of the piece has split at this point, and it is possible that the potter in cutting the piece met resistance similar to that described for 8. Clear

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

43

19

Figure 2.9. Pit or well L 11:l: 18-19. Scale 1.3

edges of test-piece preserved on left and on lower right of fragment indicated by traces of paint. Lower part of fragment as preserved may have been an original edge of test-piece (paint does not extend this far down). There are several minute hair-line fractures on the exterior surface at the lower edge. This splitting is largely confined to the surface and does not penetrate the clay body to any great depth. These fractures are probably the result of cutting the lower edge of the piece. For similar fractures, but on the central portion of the exterior of the test-piece, see 5. Fragment probably cut from central portion of body of vessel; as preserved lower wall rises vertically, upper wall curves in. Clay body and surfaces where not painted evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. There are a few substantial blow-outs. Preserved interior reserved except for two minuscule dots of paint: one representing an extension onto the interior from the exterior and the painted edge; the other extending onto interior from the painted edges of the central draw-hole. There are, however, remnants of the "deposit"

44

CHAPTER 2

Farnsworth speaks of on the interior. The nature of this "deposit" is unclear, but it is confined to that area which has the two preserved dots of paint. Perhaps the "deposit" represents the fugitive remnant of where more thickly applied paint has worn, or peeled, off(?). Paint on left and on lower right edges only partially preserved. The manner in which the paint is applied on the exterior is interesting. There is a clearly defined broad horizontal band on the upper body which is probably part of the original canonical decoration of the vase. The paint defining this band is mostly not as thickly applied as it is elsewhere on the piece; streaking visible on the band suggests that it was painted while the pot was in the process of being slowly turned. Broad irregular sweeps of paint were subsequently added, particularly a broad vertical stripe to the left of the draw-hole and partly over the horizontal band above, and another horizontal sweep below the draw-hole. Lower portion of piece not painted. Paint has a tendency to flake where thickest and is generally much cracked. The paint has mostly fired dark brown approaching black on the left side of the piece, with red patches here and there; red on the right, with occasional darker patches. Paint on left edge and on drawhole edge fired dark brown approaching black; red on lower right edge and for both of the small dots of paint preserved on the interior. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 566 (Agora sample no. 501). -

19 (P 17267)

-

Fig. 2.9, P1.2

Test-piece cut from upper body of medium-size closed vessel (amphora or oinochoe). p.H. (including handle): 0.095; W. (edge to edge): 0.167; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020. Eleven joining frr. preserving most of original test-piece, cut from portion of shoulder of medium-size closed vessel. Piece preserves about one-third of shoulder, including lower part of one handle (side opposite handle is not preserved and, as such, it is uncertain whether the original vessel was one- or two-handled). Fragment preserves entire draw-hole and parts of at least two edges: (1) top left edge (indicated by paint; lower left edge clearly a break); (2) top right edge (indicated by paint); most of the right edge is probably original. There are no clearly preserved traces of paint on the top or bottom edges, both ofwhich are rather irregular, but both may represent original edges. Preserved body curved. Lower handle attached directly to shoulder; handle oval in section. Clay body and surfaces where not painted, or where paint has flaked off, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint irregularly applied on both interior and exterior, cracked where thickest, and with a tendency to flake. Paint on interior and exterior mostly fired dark brown approaching black, especially where thickest; streaks of red where more dilute. Exterior: broad and irregular sweeps of paint as shown. Lower preserved fragments reserved, as are portions of the surface toward top left corner. Paint covers edges of draw-hole. Interior: paint less well preserved and somewhat more

45

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

extensively flaked. Interior appears to have been painted solid, though portions of the lower wall may(?) have been reserved (so too a small portion toward one side), though this is uncertain. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 568 (Agora sample no. 503).

20 (P 20480)

Fig. 2.10, P1.2

Test-piece cut from shoulder and neck of medium-size closed vessel. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, pl. 16, no. D. p.H.: 0.060; max. p.W.: 0.060; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020-0.025. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from shoulder, neck, and lower handle attachment of medium-size closed vessel. About one-quarter of draw-hole preserved immediately to right of handle. Shoulder curving in to vertical neck; thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck on interior indicates that the neck was made separately and subsequently attached or else that the neck was thrown onto the leather-hard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. Lower handle attachment at shoulder; vertical handle, oval in section. Clay and surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior fired red, with occasional darker spots visible on interior. Paint has a tendency to flake but is not really cracked. Exterior canonically decorated: broad horizontal band at juncture of shoulder and neck; small trace of paint above. Painted band, partially preserved, encircling base of handle. Traces of paint, perhaps parts of two vertical stripes, on outer face of handle (conceivably the lower preserved terminations of cross?). Interior painted solid (not canonical); paint dribbling slightly onto draw-hole edge. It is unclear whether the piece was drawn from the kiln at an advanced stage of oxidization, prior to reduction, or whether the glaze failed to sinter during the reduction and subsequent reoxidization phases. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 561 (Agora sample no. 508).

21 (P 32371)

Fig. 2.10

Test-piece fragments cut from medium-size closed vessel. p.H.: 0.076. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, including two edges that meet at an apex (cf. 4 and 5); small portion of draw-hole preserved on lower fragment. Piece cut from upper body of medium-size closed vessel, perhaps an oinochoe. Wall at lower part of fragment preserves mid-point, or point of maximum diameter, of original vessel; upper wall sloping. Wheel-marks prominent on interior. Clay body and surfaces where paint has worn fired between light brown and pink 7.5YR 6/4-7/4.

46

CHAPTER 2

Paint on interior and exterior irregularly applied, much worn, and with a tendency to flake where thickest. Paint fired black where preserved. There are enough traces of paint on exterior to indicate that much, if not all, of exterior was painted solid. Interior painted solid except perhaps for upper part of fr. (restored as painted solid on Fig. 2.10). Substantial traces of paint on both side edges and on draw-hole edge.

Figure 2.10. Pit or well L 11:l:20221 Scale 1:2

47

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

22 (P 32372)

Fig. 2.10

Test-piece fragment cut ~ r o b a bfrom l ~ closed vessel. p.H.: 0.041; p.L.: 0.076. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including part of one edge and about one-third of draw-hole. Piece cut from shoulder of a medium-size to large closed vessel, rather than from lower body of an open pot. Sloping shoulder. Clay body fired light gray, in the range of 7.5YR 7/2-6/2, N7/-N6/. Reserved surfaces, including preserved edge, fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Exterior reserved except for possible minute dribbles of paint (some of these may be little more than inclusions visible on the surface). Interior painted with broad diagonally intersecting lines. Paint extends over preserved edge and onto edge of draw-hole. Paint on interior very poorly preserved, worn, with a tendency to flake. Where preserved paint fired redlight red; interior surface where paint has worn, or flaked off, fired light gray. Agora sample no. 889.

23 (P 32379)

Fig. 2.11

Test-piece fragment cut probably from small to medium-size closed vessel. p.H.: 0.025; max. p.L.: 0.025. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving very small portion of testpiece. Piece cut from shoulder of small to medium-size closed vessel, probably oinochoe rather than small amphora. Although wheel-marks are prominent on the interior, the exact orientation of the fragment is not absolutely certain and is presented in two versions in Fig. 2.11. O f these, the top is more likely. Shoulder curved, rather steep, relatively thin-walled. Clay body fired light gray at points. Elsewhere clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Clear traces of slip on exterior only, lighter in color to body clay, approaching off-white. Exterior canonically decorated: portion of one set of mechanically drawn circles partly overlapping broad horizontal band below; preserved set comprises at least six circles. Paint fired black where thickest on band; red where more dilute (for both circles and band). Irregular sweep of paint on interior, mottled red and black. Preserved paint on interior more thickly applied than that on exterior. Although full circles are ubiquitous on a variety of Protogeometric closed vessels, circles that partly overlap the band below are a rare decorative feature for certain shapes, such as amphoras, but less unusual for oinochoai. This fragment is particularly revealing since if the irregular sweep of paint on interior was not preserved, the fragment would be impossible to distinguish as a test-piece. To what extent other, similarly canonically decorated, fragments from this deposit represent test-pieces or other potters' waste remains difficult to establish with certainty.

48

CHAPTER 2

--

ED<>E

EDGE

EDGE

25

Fig. 2.11 Test-piece fragment cut probably from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.052. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including part of one edge indicated by very slight traces of paint. Piece cut from lower body of large closed vessel, such as amphora, rather than from lower wall of large open vessel, such as krater, on account of at least two pronounced wheelmarks on interior. Such pronounced wheel-marks on the interior are usually smoothed away in the case of open vessels. Thick wall, rising steeply. The greater part of clay body has fired close to gray/light gray 10YR 6/1, as has part of reserved surface toward upper part of fr. Outer/exterior skin of clay body, most of reserved surfaces on lower wall, and clay at preserved edge fired close to light brown and pink 7.5YR 6/4-7/4. Paint on interior and exterior, including traces at edge, fired black; thickly applied and well adhering. Portion of horizontal band on upper part of preserved fragment on exterior (canonical decoration). Broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines on interior. Piece pulled from kiln prior to the successful completion of the reoxidizing phase, probably during final stages of reduction cycle or during the early stages of reoxidization.

Figure 2.11. Pit orwell L 11:l:2325. Scale 1:2

49

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

25 (P 32386)

Fig. 2.11

Test-piece fragment cut perhaps from shoulder of small to mediumsize closed vessel. p.H.: 0.022; max. p.L.: 0.037. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including possible edge, the surface of which has fired differently from that of the obvious breaks. Piece cut from body of unidentified vessel, perhaps from shoulder of small to medium-size closed vessel(?). Piece shown as shoulder fragment on Fig. 2.11, but exact orientation and original shape of vessel uncertain. Fragment slightly thicker walled at one end. Clay body fired close to gray and light gray 10YR 6/1. Reserved surfaces, including possible edge, fired closest to very pale brown 10YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior fairly thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, fired black; paint very worn on interior. Surface where paint has wordflaked off fired light gray. Broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines on exterior; broad sweep of paint on interior, perhaps originally part of intersecting lines as on exterior.

26 ( P 32374)

Fig. 2.12

Test-piece fragment cut from large open or closed vessel. p.H.: 0.061; p.L.: 0.078. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including one edge with paint. Piece cut from body, including handle stump, of large bellyhandled amphora or krater. Thick wall, rising steeply; portion of lower attachment of large horizontal handle preserved. Inner clay core at handle where thickest fired light gray. Elsewhere clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow and pink 7.5YR 7/6-7/4. Paint on interior and exterior thickly applied, much worn, with a tendency to flake; fired red. Interior probably painted with broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines. Traces only of paint on exterior and on preserved edge. It is possible that the traces of paint on exterior originally defined a horizontal band. Cf. 27 and 28.

27 ( P 32375)

Fig. 2.12

Test-piece fragments cut from large open or closed vessel. p.H.: 0.063. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, including about one-quarter of draw-hole. Piece cut from body of large closed vessel such as amphora, or conceivably an open vessel such as krater. Exact orientation of fragments uncertain, but piece probably cut from lower wall, below point of maximum diameter of vessel, rather than from shoulder.

5O

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.12. Pit orwell L 11:l:2628. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Thickish wall, rising steeply; fragment clearly from large vessel. Clay and paint as 26. Exterior reserved; broad sweep of paint on upper part of preserved interior. No traces of paint on draw-hole edge. Fragment perhaps cut from same original vessel as 26(?). Agora sample no. 891.

28 (P 32376)

Fig. 2.12

Test-piece fragment cut from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.060; p.L.: 0.067. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including part of one edge with paint and about one-third of draw-hole. Piece probably cut from lower wall of large closed vessel rather than krater. Fragment perhaps cut from same original vessel as 26 and 27, but this cannot be established with certainty. Thick wall, rising steeply. Clay core fired light gray; remainder of clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to reddish yellow and pink 7.5YR 7/6-7/4. Exterior evidently reserved, but worn; traces of slip on exterior, lighter in color to body clay, approaching off-white; one possible, but very slight, trace of paint on exterior. Paint on interior rather worn; in parts thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, elsewhere more dilute. Paint fired red to reddish brown. Broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines on interior, as shown. Paint on interior extends onto part of preserved top edge. Slight traces of paint on draw-hole edge. Cf. 26 and 27. Agora sample no. 892.

29 (P 17250)

Fig. 2.13

Test-piece cut from rim and upper body of krater. H.: 0.112; est. Diam. (rim): 0.220-0.230. Six joining and nonjoining frr. preserving most of test-piece, including parts of all four edges; central portion, with presumed drawhole, not preserved, restored in plaster, as are other missing fragments. Test-piece cut from rim and upper body, including handle stump, of krater. Exterior surface worn. Vertical upper body curving slightly in to neck; tall vertical neck, offset from body, flaring slightly toward rim. Short, outturned, almost horizontal rim, flat on top, with rounded outside edge. Handle stumps for one horizontal handle attached to upper wall, very poorly preserved. Clay at all edges except one, as well as reserved surfaces, fired close to very pale brown lOYR 7/4; remaining edge fired closer to light reddish brown SYR 6/4. Paint on exterior worn and much peeled; dull, fired black. Exterior canonically decorated, at least in part. One partially preserved set of mechanically drawn concentric circles, comprising eight circles with small dot at center. Possible, but uncertain, horizontal band on outside edge of rim (not shown in Fig. 2.13). The remainder evidently

s2

CHAPTER 2

EDGE

EDGE

Figure 2.13. Pit or well L 11:l:29.

reserved; there are no traces of the arch and bows extending - onto body from handle, which are common on most canonically decorated open vessels. Paint on interior somewhat better adhering, more thickly applied, though peeled in parts. Paint variously fired red, black, and dark reddish brown with a maroon tinge. Five roughly parallel broad horizontal sweeps of paint; no traces of vertical sweeps. The paint from some of the bands extends onto both side edges. The bottom edge appears to have been intentionally cut. Draw-hole probably originally at center, in the area not preserved and restored in plaster. The dirty off-grayish clay color indicates reduction firing, as does the black paint on exterior. The red and black, often mottled two-tone, on interior would indicate that the piece was drawn from the kiln during the earlier stages of reduction firing (the interior paint still partly oxidized), or that a high enough temperature had not been reached for sintering to occur. For the shape in Athenian Protogeometric, see Desborough 1952, pp. 92-98, pl. 12 (lower left and center).

30 (P 20666)

Fig. 2.14

Test-piece fragment cut from rim and upper body of krater. p.H.: 0.059; p.W.: 0.033; est. Diam. (rim): 0.280-0.300. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from rim and upper body of krater, including small portion of handle stump. No clear edges, apart from rim, or draw-hole preserved. Upper body sloping slightly in to short, outturned, almost horizontal rim, flat on top, with rounded outside edge. Small portion of stump of horizontal handle preserved at lower break. Clay body at breaks fired gray, close to gray 5YR 6/1. Reserved

Scale 1:3

53

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

\

Figure 2.14. Pit or well L 11:l: 30. Scale 1:2

surfaces on exterior and rim top fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4 and very pale brown 10YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior rather thickly applied, somewhat peeled on exterior only, fired black. Portion of broad sweep of paint on exterior; interior painted solid, preserved rim top reserved. Test-piece pulled from kiln during reduction phase. 31 (P 17242)

Fig. 2.15, P1.l

Test-piece cut from body and rim of skyphos. p.H.: 0.120; est. Diam. (rim): 0.208; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.023. Seven joining frr. preserving large portion of body and rim of skyphos, including one handle attachment. About three-quarters of draw-hole preserved; missing fragment at draw-hole restored. Test-piece virtually complete except for upper right edge as shown (Fig. 2.15). There are clear, but minor, traces of paint along the left edge and possible but very slight traces of paint along the right and bottom edges. Shape as 32: lower body curved, upper wall vertical, rim gently flaring to rounded lip; juncture of body and rim define something of a gentle S-profile. Small portion of lower left attachment of horizontal handle preserved to right of draw-hole. Clay body and reserved surfaces oxidized, clay evenly and consistently fired close to pink 5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior much worn, with a tendency to flake; uniformly fired red. Preserved interior painted solid except for thin reserved band at lip, which is not very clear but is indicated by traces of slip. Exterior: partial, broad loop extending from near rim, around drawhole, and continuing below handle stump. Only very slight traces of paint on edges/breaks, though these are much worn. Paint visible at points along edge of draw-hole. Agora sample no. 854. 32 (P 20474)

Fig. 2.15, P1.l

Test-piece cut from body and rim of skyphos. p.H.: 0.124; est. Diam. (rim): 0.230; max. p.W.: 0.130; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.0294.030. Ten joining fir. preserving almost complete test-piece, including entire draw-hole, cut from body and rim of skyphos. Traces of paint

CHAPTER 2

54

LIKELY

meE

-LIKELY

32

visible along both lateral edges, and a slight trace of paint at one point along the more crudely cut lower edge. Lower wall thickening slightly toward base; lower wall curved, upper wall vertical, rim gently flaring to rounded lip;juncture of body and rim define something of a gentle S-profile, as 31. Clay body and reserved surfaces mostly reduced, fired light gray, in parts a dirty gray-buff, between light gray and pinkish gray 7.5R N7/-7/2.

ED&E

Figure 2.15. Pit or well L 11:l:31321 Scale 1:3

THE MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

55

Figure 2.16. Pit orwell L 11:l: 33. Scnlc 1:2

Wide loop of paint surrounding draw-hole on both interior and exterior (as shown). Paint fired a slate brown-gray, in parts approaching black; almost entirely reduced. Paint very worn in parts; in parts thickly applied, with a tendency to flake. Paint much cracked on interior and exterior. Surface, particularly on lower half of exterior, bears numerous small fractures. Agora sample no. 859. 33 (P 17237)

Fig. 2.16

Test-piece cut from skyphos. H.: 0.150; Diam. (base): 0.060; est. Diarn. (rim): 0.140-0.160 (distorted].

s6

CHAPTER 2

Twelve joining frr. preserving almost complete test-piece, cut from skyphos. About one-third of the rim, almost one-half of the body, including stumps of one handle, and complete base of original vessel preserved. What appears now as a break is almost certainly a cut edge. Two missing fragments restored in plaster. Tall conical foot. Lower wall rising up to vertical upper wall; gently flaring rim, with rounded lip. Stumps of horizontal handle preserved, attached to upper wall. Rim slightly distorted by having been pushed in at one point, which would account for the subsequent use of the vessel as a test-piece. Clay body fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6-6/6 for most of core; outer skin of clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior irregularly applied, with brush-marks and streaks visible all over. Paint has a tendency to crack and flake where thickest; elsewhere fairly well adhering, despite irregularity of application. Paint variously fired from black through dark reddish brown, thinning to red where more dilute. Paint irregularly applied over upper half of vessel on exterior. Area below handle arch reserved. Lower wall and base reserved, except for dribbles of paint on foot exterior. Interior painted solid, but in broad sweeps of paint varying from very thick to thin. Portion only of irregular reserved band at rim, not continuous around the vessel. The fact that the area below the handle arch is reserved is an important detail since it indicates that the handle was originally attached to the piece prior to painting and therefore probably also attached during firing. The absence of a draw-hole would suggest that it was probably drawn from the kiln by the handle. Piece almost optimally fired, but not quite. The sections of paint fired red may be the result of incomplete sintering. Slight traces of potter's fingerprint at one point. For shape, see Desborough 1952, pp. 77-92, pls. 10-11.

34 (P 17239)

Fig. 2.17

Test-piece fragment cut from rim and upper body of skyphos. p.H.: 0.047; p.W.: 0.075; est. Diam. (rim): ca. 0.170. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from rim and upper body of skyphos, including one very small portion of handle stump. Small portion of one edge preserved, indicated by dribble of paint, in addition to the rim. Vertical upper wall; flaring rim, with plain rounded lip. Small portion of stump of horizontal handle attached to upper wall. Clay body at breaks fired close to gray 5YR 6/1. Reserved surfaces on interior and exterior and on part of preserved edge fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4 and very pale brown lOYR 7/4. Paint on interior and exterior thickly applied and well adhering, fired black, in parts with a slight sheen. Exterior in part canonically decorated, with portion of one set of mechanically drawn concentric circles reserved at lower break, including parts of the five outer

a-( mED 57

THE MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

EDGE,

Figure 2.17. Pit or well L 11:l: 3435. Scale 1:2

35

circles. Above, broad sweep of test-paint. Interior painted with broad horizontally and vertically, or diagonally, intersecting lines. Piece pulled from the kiln probably during the very early stages of reoxidization or the final stage of reduction. This piece appears to have been originally designed as a classic example of an Attic "circles skyphos": see Desborough 1952, pp. 80-85, types 1-11, with various examples on pls. 10-11. The majority of "circles skyphoi" have a broad band on the rim exterior and, usually, a thinner band, sometimes bands, below. A broad sweep of paint, as on this piece, leaving the rim exterior reserved is not normal.

35 (P 20479)

Fig. 2.17, P1.2

Test-piece cut from body, including handle stump, of open vessel (skyphos or hater).

93

CHAPTER 2

Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, no. E. p.H.: 0.074; p.W.: 0.055; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.023. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from body and lower handle attachment of medium-size to large open vessel, probably a large skyphos rather than small krater. Fragment preserves about one-half of circumference of neatly cut draw-hole, but no clear edges. In this particular instance the draw-hole appears to have been cut after the paint was applied; this is often the case for pieces that have first been canonically decorated and later cut down for use as test-pieces. In many other cases the opposite is true, that is, that the draw-hole was cut prior to the application of paint, especially for those pieces never canonically decorated. Clay and surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Exterior painted in canonical form for skyphoi/kraters: lower preserved portion decorated with band or area painted solid, above which is a thick horizontal band, above which, in turn, is a thinner band. Vertical stripe of paint (bow), following contour of handle, extends over the top two horizontal bands below. Paint on exterior fairly thickly applied, though worn, mostly fired red, except for slight patches of darker browdblack on lower right corner of fragment (paint mostly oxidized). Interior painted solid, fired black (reduced and reoxidized). Paint only very slightly cracked on interior, otherwise thickly applied and well adhering. The discrepancy between the mostly red exterior and black interior is in this case interesting. It is clear that the interior was subject to all three phases of the firing cycle (oxidization, reduction [sintering], and reoxidization); the red on the preserved exterior suggests that this portion of the fragment was in a part of the kiln not subjected to the reduction atmosphere. Traces of graffito, incised after firing (conceivably modern?), on body immediately below handle stump. Although very likely to be modern, the positioning of the incised lines immediately below or near a handle is similar to the positioning of many Early Iron Age potters' marks (see Papadopoulos 1994))which were executed prior to firing, as well as the few contemporary post-firing marks (Catling 1996). Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 560 (Agora sample no. 507).

36 (P 32380)

Fig. 2.18

Test-piece fragment cut from open vessel (skyphos). p.H.: 0.062; max. p.L.: 0.067. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including one edge with paint. Piece cut from body, including handle attachment, of skyphos (rather than small to medium-size amphora or hydria later painted on interior for use as test-piece). Preserved wall rising steeply. Portion of one horizontal handle attached to body. Preserved handle stump oval in section.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

\

'

DRAW-HOLE

Figure 2.18. Pit or well L 11:l: 3639. Scale 1:2

59

60

CHAPTER 2

Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on interior, exterior, and preserved edge evenly fired black; paint thickly applied and well adhering; slight cracking of paint at and near edge. Preserved interior painted solid. Broad sweep of paint, as shown, on exterior (noncanonical decoration). Piece optimally fired. C f 37. Agora sample no. 894. 37 ( P 32381)

Fig. 2.18

Test-piece fragment cut from open vessel (probably skyphos). p.H.: 0.061. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including part of drawhole or edge (perhaps draw-hole rather than edge?). Piece cut from body, including portion of one handle, of skyphos rather than small to medium-size belly-handled amphora or hydria (cf. 36). Preserved wall rising steeply. Thickish horizontal handle, round in section, attached to body; upper attachment of handle partly split from body. Clay body and reserved surfaces as 36. Clear traces of slip on reserved parts of exterior, lighter in color than body clay, approaching off-white. Paint on interior, exterior, side or draw-hole edge fired black; dark brown where more dilute. Paint more thickly applied on interior, well adhering; wordflaked on exterior. Parts of two diagonal stripes below handle on exterior, the uppermost of which terminates before the break (noncanonical decoration). Broad and irregular sweep of paint on interior. Traces of paint on draw-hole edge. Fragment similar to 36, but probably not from the same vessel. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 895. 38 (P 32383)

Fig. 2.18

Test-piece fragment cut from small open vessel (skyphos). p.H.: 0.038; p.L.: 0.057. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including possible edge, the surface of which has fired differently from those of the obvious breaks. Piece probably cut from body and handle of skyphos, rather than small belly-handled amphora or hydria. The handle, if complete, may have served to draw the test-piece from the kiln. Wall rising steeply. Small horizontal handle, round in section. Clay body at breaks mostly fired close to gray/light gray and light brownish gray lOYR 6/1-6/2. Reserved surfaces, including possible edge, fired close to very pale brown lOYR 7/3-7/4. Paint on interior thickly applied, partly cracked, and with a tendency to flake; fired black. Broad and irregular sweep of paint, probably originally part of vertically and horizontally intersecting lines. Exterior

6I

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

reserved. Slight traces of slip, lighter than color of body clay, approaching off-white, preserved at points on exterior, particularly near handle attachments, and perhaps also on reserved surface on interior. Piece pulled from kiln at a more-or-less similar stage as 24. Agora sample no. 896. Fig. 2.18 Test-piece fragment cut from open vessel. p.H.: 0.048; max. p.L.: 0.047. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including about onequarter of draw-hole. Piece cut from upper body, near rim, of open vessel, probably skyphos. Upper wall rising vertically; gently flaring rim; lip not preserved. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 7/4-8/4. Exterior reserved. Paint on interior thickly applied, slightly cracked, and with a tendency to flake; fired black. Broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines on interior. No paint on preserved draw-hole edge. Piece perhaps cut from the same original vessel as 38, though this could not be established with certainty. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 897. Fig. 2.19 Test-piece cut from body of open vessel. p.H.: 0.048; p.W.: 0.061. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from body of open vessel, probably a skyphos, including portion of handle scar. Portion of two edges of test-piece preserved, indicated by traces of paint. Draw-hole not preserved. Lower wall curving up to vertical upper wall (not preserved). Thickening of clay body to one side and presence of scar indicate position of original handle. Most of clay body and interior surface where paint has worn fired light gray, close to 7.5YR N7/; smaller part of clay body and exterior surface fired a dirty buff-gray, something like very pale brown 10YR 7/3-7/4. Clay and surfaces reduced. Preserved exterior reserved. Interior appears to have been painted solid, although the way the paint has peeled gives the impression of vertically and horizontally intersecting lines (cf. 4,5,90). Enough paint survives, however, to suggest that the preserved interior was painted solid, though the paint may well have been applied in broad crisscrossing brush-strokes. Paint fired black. Slight traces of black paint on two edges as shown. Test-piece probably cut from the same original vessel as 41. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 563 (Agora sample no. 510).

CHAPTER 2

62

EDGE WITH TRACES

I

/

Figure 2.19. Pit or well L 11:l: 4041. Scale 1:2

41 (P 20483)

Fig. 2.19

Test-piece cut from body of open vessel. p.H.: 0.040; p.W.: 0.038; est. Diam. (draw-hole): ca. 0.018(?). Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from body of open vessel. Very small portion of arc of draw-hole preserved at lower right side of fragment, as shown. Clear edge of test-piece preserved on side opposite draw-hole, indicated by paint. Clay body and interior surface where paint has peeled fired light gray, close to light gray 7.5YR N7/. Exterior surface fired pinkish gray 5YR 7/2-7.5YR 7/2. No trace of paint on exterior. Interior, as preserved, appears to have been painted solid, but is much worn and peeled. It is possible that the interior was painted with vertically and horizontally intersecting lines, though difficult to establish with certainty (cf. 40). Paint extends partly on to edge of draw-hole and over much of the preserved edge. Paint on interior and on edge fired deep slate gray, approaching black at one point. Piece drawn from kiln during the reduction phase. Test-piece probably cut from the same original vessel as 40. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 564 (Agora sample no. 511). 42 (P 17245)

Fig. 2.20, P1.l

Test-piece cut from one-handled cup. H.: 0.096; Diam. (base): 0.046; est. Diam. (rim): 0.103; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.015. Four joining frr. preserving complete test-piece, including drawhole. Test-piece cut from a one-handled cup; fragments preserve the greater part of the vessel, including entire base, about one-half of body, including lower handle attachment, and approximately one-third of rim. There is enough preserved of the side of the vessel opposite the handle

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

44

Figure 2.20. Pit or well L 11:l:4244. Scale 1:2

(j 3

64

CHAPTER 2

to indicate that it was never a two-handled shape. The minor chipping on the foot represents damage during manufacture, as the damaged area was covered with paint. The cut edge extending from the rim to the bowl of the cup is covered with paint. Conical foot. Lower wall curved, upper wall vertical, offset at juncture with rim. Gently flaring rim with rounded lip. Vertical handle, only the lower stump ofwhich is preserved, attached to body. Clay body and most surfaces where not glazed fairly evenly fired to a buff-gray, close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2. Clay mostly reduced. Paint on interior and exterior resembles the "glaze or deposit" referred to by Farnsworth for 67 (cf. 18).Interior painted solid, mostly fired brown to reddish brown and in parts a rust-red/brown. There is no reserved disk at the center of the floor, nor any reserved band at lip, which indicates that the vessel was not canonically decorated. Paint on exterior irregularly applied as shown, dribbling onto edges of draw-hole; there are also traces of paint on underside. Paint on exterior fired rustbrown, but evidently more dilutely applied than on interior and difficult to see in parts. Paint on edges fired brown, approaching black. Paint, like fabric, mostly reduced. For shape, see Desborough 1952, pp. 98-101, nos. 1104 (45), 1082 (371, pl. 11. Agora sample no. 855. 43 ( P 17244)

Fig. 2.20

Test-piece cut from one-handled cup. H.: 0.091; Diam. (base): 0.043; Diam. (rim): 0.104-0.108. Eight joining frr. preserving greater part of test-piece cut from onehandled cup. Two small missing fragments restored in plaster. Piece preserves entire base, about two-thirds of body, almost one-half of rim, and complete handle. About one-half of trimmed edge preserved on one side; remainder of edge largely broken. Conical foot; shallow groove at juncture of foot and wall. Lower wall curving up to vertical upper wall. Gently flaring rim with rounded lip. Vertical handle attached from mid-point of body directly to lip. Clay body at breaks, edges, and reserved surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 714. Paint on interior and exterior irregularly applied, with brush-strokes and streaks visible all over. Paint mostly fired dark, almost chocolate, brown, approaching black only at certain points, thinning to reddish brown where more dilute. Paint has a tendency to crack and partly flake where thickest; elsewhere better adhering. Broad sweeps of paint cover the upper half of the exterior; two smaller dribbles on reserved lower wall, the smaller ofwhich preserves portion of the potter's fingerprint (cf. 33). The sweeps of paint on the exterior terminate in the small area below the handle arch, where there is a small reserved area. Interior painted solid. Unlike 42, with its draw-hole, this piece was probably withdrawn from the h l n by its handle. Piece almost optimally fired.

T H E M A T E R I A L A N D ITS CONTEXT

44 (P 32368)

Fig. 2.20

Test-piece fragment cut from one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.035; Diam. (base): 0.040. Single fr. preserving entire base and small portion of lower body of small open vessel, probably one-handled cup. No edges or draw-hole preserved. Tall conical foot; lower wall curved, gently flaring. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2, the result of reduction firing. Paint on interior and exterior mostly fired dark reddish brown; black on one small part of exterior. Paint much worn, with a tendency to flake. Vessel canonically decorated: interior painted solid except for small reserved disk at center. Preserved exterior painted solid, though it is possible that the lower part of the foot was reserved. Cf. 42. Agora sample no. 886.

45 (P 32369)

Fig. 2.21

Test-piece fragment cut from small open vessel. p.H.: 0.055; max. p.L.: 0.077. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving portion of test-piece; no clear edges or draw-hole. Piece cut from body of small open vessel, probably one-handled cup rather than skyphos. Fragment preserves small portion of lower stump of handle. Lower wall rising at angle of about 45"; upper wall becoming vertical. Too little is preserved of handle stump to determine exact form of handle. Clay body and surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Exterior reserved; upper part of interior painted. Paint fairly thickly applied, only minimally cracked, with a slight tendency to flake; fired red. Agora sample no. 887.

46 (P 32367)

Fig. 2.21

Test-piece fragment cut from small open vessel. p.H.: 0.028; p.L.: 0.058; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.014. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including about one-half of draw-hole. Piece cut from lower body of small open vessel (skyphos or cup). Lower wall gently curving. Draw-hole smaller than average. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Interior painted solid; exterior reserved. Paint on interior thickly applied, fired black. Draw-hole clearly cut after the paint was applied. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 885.

66

CHAPTER 2

47

Figure 2.21. Pit or well L 11:l:4547. Scale 1:2

Fig. 2.21 Test-piece fragment cut from open vessel. p.H.: 0.031; max. p.L.: 0.033; est. Diam. (rim): 0.240. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece. Fragment cut from upper body and rim of open vessel. Upper wall rising vertically; small knobbed rim, flat on top and with rounded outside edge. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 712 and grayllight gray 10YR 6/1-7/1, the result of reduction firing. Preserved exterior reserved. Paint on interior fairly thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, fired mottled two-tone: black and dark red/ reddish brown. Broad and irregular sweep of paint on interior. Wall thickness suggests a small open vessel, but the form of the lip is not standard for skyphoi or cups; the piece is more likely from a krater; cf. 29 and 30. 48 (P 32377)

Fig. 2.22

Test-piece fragment cut from open vessel. p.H.: 0.033; max. p.L.: 0.058. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including about onequarter of draw-hole. Piece cut from body of open vessel and includes part of an offset near rim. Original shape of vessel not clear: conceivably a skyphos, but other open vessels, such as kalathoi, cannot be excluded.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.22. Pit or well L 11:l:4850. Scale 1:2

67

50

The offset may be the result of misforming and therefore not part of the original shape of the vessel. Wall sloping at angle of about 45". Pronounced offset toward top of fragment. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Exterior reserved except for traces of paint on upper body, above offset. The upper part of this area preserves traces of thick paint, below which there are only faint traces, as shown. Preserved paint on exterior fired red. Interior painted solid; paint rather thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, fired dark red on upper part, thinning to light red below. No preserved paint on draw-hole edge.

68

CHAPTER 2

49 (P 20481)

Fig. 2.22

Test-piece cut from body of unidentified vessel. p.H.: 0.028; p.W.: 0.055. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from body of unidentified vessel (the original vessel may well have been of open or closed form, but more likely derives from an open shape). One original edge of test-piece preserved (at top, as shown), roughly cut in a serrated, or notched, fashion and covered with paint. One other edge indicated by traces of paint. Flaring wall, probably from an open vessel. Clay and surfaces, where not painted, oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Exterior canonically decorated: thick horizontal band, above which is a thinner band, and below which is another band or area painted solid. Decoration on exterior similar to 35, and may indicate an open vessel. Preserved interior painted solid; paint extends onto preserved serrated edge and partly onto the other partially preserved edge. Paint on exterior fired both red and black: red toward the middle, black toward preserved edge. Paint on interior fired black. The red on the exterior may have been caused by the fragment being protected, either touching or being placed too close to a vessel in the kiln or the kiln wall; this is further indicated by a globule of clay on exterior where the test-piece appears to have touched another pot or the kiln wall. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 562 (Agora sample no. 509). 50 (P 20477)

Fig. 2.22, P1.2

Test-piece fragment cut from body of unidentified vessel. p.H.: 0.052-0.056; L. x W . (max.): 0.056 x 0.056; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.025-0.029. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from body of unidentified vessel, including almost one-half of drawhole. Wall thickness might indicate a large closed vessel, or else a large open vessel such as a krater. Orientation of piece unclear (two alternatives presented in Fig. 2.22). Prominent wheel-marks on interior, coupled with a thickening of the wall on one side, may suggest a closed rather than open vessel form. Clay body and surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Interior, as preserved, painted solid; exterior reserved. Paint on interior fired a good red, mostly thickly applied, and well adhering, the result of an oxidized atmosphere. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 558 (Agora sample no. 505).

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

69

Figure 2.23. Pit orwell L 11:l: 51. Scale 1:2

51 (P 17236)

Fig. 2.23

Child's feeder; possible test-piece. Vessel mentioned in Smithson 1961, p. 170, under no. 53. H.: 0.090; Diam. (base): 0.041; Diam. (rim): 0.040. Intact, except for missing handle, spout, and chips at rim. Low ring base; ovoid body; vertical neck with flaring rim; rim chamfered on exterior. Underside very poorly finished. The floor appears to have been punctured in the process of turning the foot (perhaps originally intended as a conical foot?) and the hole was plugged with a wad of clay and roughly smoothed on the underside, giving the appearance of a hollowed or low ring base. The plug of clay is clearly visible on the interior and is shown on the profile drawing. Clay body at rim and at broken handle and spout fired light gray 7.5YR N7/. Reserved areas of surface, including underside and rim, fired closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2, the result of reduction firing. Paint, which has fired black, applied in very irregular brush-strokes covering entire exterior body except for rim. Paint thickly applied in parts, where there is a tendency to flake, in other parts more dilute. Paint cracked at neck and toward base. Interior and underside reserved. Vessel clearly reduced, but it is uncertain whether it ever served as a test-piece. The manner in which the paint has been applied in broad swirling brush-strokes is similar to that of many test-pieces. The punctured, repaired, but poorly finished underside would indicate that the piece was never intended to be a finished product. It is possible that the vessel was drawn from the kiln by its handle, which was subsequently lost, though the handle and spout may well have broken prior to firing; alternatively, the vessel may have been extracted by means of a rod inserted into its interior. The fabric and feel is similar to 61 (well A 205). The vessel is of similar proportions to the small oinochoe, suspended on a kiln, on one of the Corinthian pinakes from Penteskouphia (Staatliche Museen, Berlin, no. 827B or F 843; Noble 1988, p. 151, pl. 235; Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 80, no. 16).

70

CHAPTER 2

52 (P 20543)

Fig. 2.24

Unfinished base fragment. H.: 0.048; Diam. (resting surface): 0.138; Diam. (at top): 0.046. Two joining frr. preserving full height and about one-third of circumference of tall conical foot. Base clearly made separately from the body of the vessel, but never attached. Tall conical foot with flat resting surface; partial groove on resting surface. Base intended for fairly large vessel. Clay particularly fine, relatively, but not totally, free of impurities, with the usual dusting of fine mica. Clay body and all surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 714-716. Fragment fired; burnished on both exterior and underside prior to firing but never painted. Surfaces bear a noticeable sheen (burnishing), which is somewhat worn. The fragment as it exists suggests that it was never attached to the bowl of the vessel and was therefore not broken during or after firing. The purpose for firing the piece is unclear. It may have served as a testpiece, presumably a fragment surviving from a once-whole base with draw-hole, such as three of the four test-pieces of the 7th century published in Agora VIII, pp. 27,103-104, nos. 633,635, pl. 40 (see 119-121 below), though the total absence of paint would render such a hypothesis unlikely. Alternatively, the fragment, as found, may have served as a kiln firing support (cf. Papadopoulos 1992; Winter 1972). It may also have been intended for some other purpose as a finished product, perhaps as a lid? Agora sample no. 868.

53 (P 32388)

Fig. 2.24

Waster fragment. p.H.: 0.045; p.L.: 0.048. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of body of wheelmade closed vessel; original shape undetermined, probably an amphora or else hydria or oinochoe. Fr. misformedldistorted and partly vitrified due to excessive heat. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired in the range of 10YR 711-712, 611-612 (gray, light gray, light brownish gray). Numerous blow-outs, particularly visible on interior surface and along the breaks. Interior reserved. Portions of two horizontal bands on upper part of preserved exterior. Paint fired brown with a purplelmaroon tinge. Agora sample no. 899.

54 (P 32389)

Fig. 2.24

Waster fragments. p.H.: 0.056; p.L.: 0.060. Two joining frr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of body of unidentified (closed?) wheelmade vessel.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.24. Pit or well L 11:l: 5255. Scale 1:2

7I

72

CHAPTER 2

Frr. misformed/distorted and vitrified due to excessive heat. Fragments preserve portion of body, but distortion is so great as to make it impossible to determine original form of vessel. Clay body and most surfaces fired closest to gray 10YR 6/1. Portion of surface on exterior fired reddish brown approaching maroon, not unlike reddish brown 5YR 5/3. Numerous blow-outs, particularly evident along breaks. No clear traces of paint preserved. Agora sample no. 900. 55 (P 32390)

Fig. 2.24

Waster fragment. p H . : 0.033; p.L.: 0.033. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of shoulder, near juncture with neck, of large closed vessel. Fr. slightly vitrified on exterior surface due to excessive heat, but not significantly distorted as 53 and 54. Shoulder curving in to neck; fragment thicker-walled near juncture with neck. Occasional blow-outs visible along breaks. Inner two-thirds of clay body and interior surface fired close to very pale brown 10YR 7/3-7/4. Outer skin of clay core and exterior surface fired close to gray and light brownish gray 10YR 6/1-6/2. Interior reserved. Paint on exterior well adhering, fired very dark reddish brown to dark gray, approaching black. Horizontal band at top, near juncture with neck, below which is preserved portion of a "necklace" pattern (parts of four vertical stripes preserved). For decoration see 16 and 56. Agora sample no. 901. 56 (P 17228)

Fig. 2.25

Damaged oinochoe; possible waster or production discard. H. (to top of handle): 0.288; Diam. (base): 0.100; Diam. (neck): 0.085. Reconstructed from many joining frr. preserving almost complete vessel, except for damaged upper neck and rim; rim not preserved except at juncture with handle. Vessel mended in antiquity. Minor missing parts of body restored in plaster. Surface rather worn. Low ring foot, the edge of which is much chipped. Convex underside bulging at the center beyond the level of the foot and resulting in a rather unstable vessel when placed upright. Ovoid body; vertical neck, made separately from the body and subsequently attached, flaring toward rim, which is not preserved, except at the point where the handle is attached. Slight ridge at juncture of shoulder and neck on exterior. Alternatively, the neck could have been thrown onto the body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. The upper part of the neck was clearly damaged during or before firing, with one side of the neck slightly pushed in. This distortion appears to be the result of an accident during manufacture and not the normal forming of the trefoil

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

73

Figure 2.25. Pit orwell L 11:l: 56. Scale 1:4

of the mouth. An attempt was then made to mend the pot after firing by attaching the fragments of the broken rim. To this end, two holes (Diam.: 0.003-0.0035) were drilled on one side of the neck, ca. 0.050 apart. Portion of a third drill-hole is preserved about 0.50 from the central hole, but right on the break. The latter suggests that the broken and mended neck has since been slightly chipped and that most of the edge as preserved is broken and not intentionally trimmed. Vertical handle attached from shoulder directly to rim. Wheel-marks very prominent on neck interior, and there is a substantial overhang at the juncture of shoulder and neck on the interior. There is also a small hole on the shoulder at one point where the wall is very thin and this most probably occurred during manufacture, rather than representing use or postdepositional damage.

74

CHAPTER 2

Clay body, where visible, evenly and consistently fired close to pink and light reddish brown 5YR 7/4-6/4. Occasional large blow-outs visible all over the surface. Paint much worn, but probably originally quite thickly applied, with a tendency to flake; uniformly fired black with a matt finish where best preserved. Thin horizontal band at juncture of foot and wall; lower outside edge of foot reserved. Two bands of medium thickness around lower wall. Thick band framed by one thinner band above and one below on lower shoulder near point of max. Diam. Shoulder decorated with two sets of mechanically drawn concentric circles placed next to one another on the side directly opposite the handle. Each set consists of six circles with the center painted solid. The outer circle of each set touches that of its neighbor. The central "full moon" of each set covers the prominent pivot of the multiple brush device, which indicates that the decoration was executed while the clay was moist-to-leather-hard, rather than leather-to-bone-hard (see Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998). Horizontal band immediately above circles, at juncture of shoulder and neck. O n either side of the central circles, a row of nine "drop-shaped" strokes hang pendant from the band above (necklace pattern: Furumark 1972, motif 72, which is especially common in Mycenaean from L H IIIC Middle through Late and into "Submycenaean"; see also Mountjoy 1986, p. 157, no. 27; p. 183, no. 21; p. 195, no. 11.). Exterior face of handle decorated with St. Andrew's cross; lower handle attachment ringed. The decoration of the upper handle attachment extends onto the small portion of rim exterior actually preserved (which would be normal). Thick band on rim interior, mostly not preserved. The combination of faulty base and the neck damaged during manufacture and subsequently mended, coupled with a wall-thickness much less than normal, suggests that this vessel may have been a discard or a "factory second" either sold and later discarded or simply discarded, despite the attempt to mend it. For the shape and decoration cf. especially Kerameikos I, inv. 545, pl. 68.

57 (P 17248)

Fig. 2.26

Krater rim fragments; possible waster or production discard. p.H.: 0.121; est. Diam. (rim): 0.300. Nine joining frr. preserving portion of rim and upper body, including part of one handle stump, of krater. Surface and breaks much worn, powdery to touch. Almost vertical, slightly inward-sloping upper wall. Horizontal, slightly downturned rim, tapering to rounded outside edge. Portion of stump of horizontal handle preserved on one side. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 and light red 2.5YR 6/6. Traces of self-slip, off-white, preserved on exterior. Paint on interior and exterior much worn, but evenly fired red. Interior painted solid. Upper wall on exterior decorated with one preserved set of mechanically drawn concentric circles (six circles), with

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.26. Pit or well L 11:l:57. Scale 1:3

75

quatrefoil filling ornament. Two bands below rim, one only partially preserved. Preserved paint on handle suggests canonical arches and bows (cf. P 23313 from well J 14:2). Rim top decorated with strokes arranged in groups round rim; preserved group includes at least ten strokes. The poor finishing of the piece recommends it as an uncertain, but possible, waster or production discard. For basic form, decoration, and size cf P 23313. For the shape and decoration see especially Kerameikos I, pl. 51 (top left). 58 (P 32391)

Fig. 2.27

Kiln firing support. H.: 0.022; max. Diam.: 0.051; max. Diam. (perforation):0.011. Single fr. preserving intact object; slightly chipped. Piece pierced vertically and perhaps formed from damaged conical foot of Protogeometric open vessel, such as skyphos or one-handled cup. Shape roughly conical, with flat bottom, irregularly cut or formed. Sides slightly concave. Top (as shown in Fig. 2.27) either broken or irregularly cut as bottom; pierced vertically, with hole wider at top. Clay body, where visible, and surfaces fired close to light gray/gray 10YR 7/1-6/1; perhaps overfired/vitrified, or the result of reduction firing. No clearly preserved traces of paint (therefore unlikely test-piece), but there are remnants on the interior, on the exterior, and even in the obvious chips of a reddish-colored deposit or residue, which is perhaps incrustation. It is similar to the "deposit" Farnsworth 1960, p. 75 (under A.) speaks of (cf. discussion under 42 and 67). Such "doughnut-shaped" rings are used in other cultures as testpieces: see Sui 1986, p. 312, fig. 22, but these have to be painted or

76

CHAPTER 2

partly ~ainted.For similar rings used as firing supports in the Archaic kilns of Phari on Thasos, see Peristeri et al. 1985, esp. p. 32, fig. 3. For similar, but later, kiln firing supports from the Athenian Agora (and elsewhere), see Papadopoulos 1992, p. 214, fig. 7, pl. 50:b-c; cf. Boersma et al. 1990,p. 90, fig. 7.

59 (P 21091)

Fig. 2.27

Small handmade disk. H.: 0.015; Diam.: 0.077; Diam. (central raised disk): 0.033. Single fr. preserving almost complete object, except for chipping on one side. Circular, flat bottom; flaring or beveled sides. Slightly raised central disk on top, surrounded by broad concave edge. Coarse clay with many small to medium-size and occasional larger white and dark (red, dark gray, and black) inclusions,but only a dusting of mica. Clay body and surfaces fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4; in parts closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 6/2. Surfaces only very crudely smoothed. The beveled sides and the general form of the disk suggest a lid, but there is no true knob to facilitate lifting (cf., for example, the distinctive lids used for Late Roman amphoras, e.g.,Agora V, pl. 14, esp. no. K 199; cf. pl. 26, no. M 316; a number of similar lids are also published in Torone I, fig. 149, pl. 82, nos. 14.392-394, and see further Papadopoulos 198913,esp. pp. 83-87, figs. 1l:a-e). Knobless lids are known in Attic Fine Handmade Ware, but these are rare and are normally equipped with tie-holes (see, for example, Reber 1991, fig. 9, nos. 7-8). Moreover, the fabric of this piece is not consistent with Attic Fine Handmade Ware. It is possible that the original knob was broken or damaged during, or after, manufacture, but this is unlikely given the neatly smoothed, albeit crude, surface on top, which seems intentional. It is possible that the terracotta served another finction, perhaps even as kiln furniture, such as a firing support or separator (spacer) during firing (cf. Sui 1986; Lao, Ye, and Cheng 1986,esp. pp. 318-319, various examples figs. 1-6). Since so much of this deposit is connected with potters7 activity, the piece is tentatively presented here as potters' debris.

Figure 2.27. Pit or well L 11:l: 5859. Scale 1:2

77

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

PIT OR WELL A 20:s (60-66) Section EE: it-well at [ 1 0 2 ] - 1 0 6 / ~ ~ - A ~The . ' ~ northern half was cleared May 1020,1940, by Henry S. Robinson; the southern half was cleared July 11-19, 1946, by Rodney Young.

13.Young 1951a, p. 144: "just to the north of House A" (marked "P" on plans, figs. l , 7 , pp. 136,189). It opened directly below the west face of blocks forming the west wall of the south branch-of the Great Drain. A narrow balk left to retain the loose refilling in the northern half "showed ominous cracks" and could not be cleared; its width was probably less than 0.50 m. Young did ;he initial sorting and supervised the mending of the pottery from the southern half in 1946. Since some ioins were found between containers from the upper and lower levels, he combined all levels, but no sherds were discarded. Young noted, however, that most of the joins came from the same container and that a number of pots must have entered the deposit whole or as substantial fragments. Robinson's 1940 pottery, less in quantity and more fragmentary, was combined with Young's in 1948 and the aggregate reexamined for joins; none were found. 14.Young 1951a, pp. 145,148,253254. 15.Notebook 2s 111,p. 564. Further on, on p. 566 of the same notebook, the G o photographs show a good accumulation of water in the shaft; cf. the section in Notebook EE I, p. 106.

Developed Protogeometric (PG II/III) pidwell in the Areiopagos valley. The deposit lay along the natural line of drainage through the valley between the Hill of the Nymphs and the Areiopagos.14A sandy water-laid deposit left by one of many floods in this area covered the mouth and reached into the first meter of the shaft; it contained material considered to be Persian destruction debris and a sprinkling of Protogeometric sherds. The shaft was an elongated pit in bedrock, ca. 2.70-3.50 m east-west at the surface of the bedrock, and probably not less than 3.00 m north-south; it had a maximum preserved depth of ca. 3.50 m. When Young first came upon the southern half of the deposit, previously partly cleared by Robinson six years earlier, he referred to it as a pit, and the fact that the deposit was dug during two different seasons by different excavators did not help clarify matters. The irregularity of the original cutting led Young to refer continuously to the deposit as a pit. In the notebook he writes: "Whatever the shape of this pit it found water at the depth reached. . . .There was probably more water in Protogeometric times than now, and the pit must have served as a well."15 If indeed this was a well, its location may have been chosen for the convenience of a potters' workshop nearby, and perhaps also because of a belief that proximity to natural drainage would guarantee a high water table. In addition to the test-pieces catalogued below, there are perhaps as many as eleven fragments of test-pieces, some certain, others less likely, stored in the context lots.

60 ( P 17442)

Fig. 2.28

Test-piece cut from rim and body of kantharos or one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.087; est. Diam. (rim): 0.140-0.142. Five joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from rim and upper wall of medium-size vertical-handled open vessel (kantharos rather than one-handled cup). The fragment preserves on one side small parts of the stumps of one vertical handle. No trace of the draw-hole or any clear edges preserved, although the regularity of the edges, particularly the lower edge and the side of the handle, may indicate that these were intentionally cut (this could not be established with certainty). The draw-hole may have been located in the missing triangular part at the center of the piece, now restored in plaster. Upper wall curving in to short offset rim; interior face of rim obliquely cut. Clay body evenly fired close to reddish yellow SYR 7/6-6/6. Paint on exterior rather thickly applied with broad streaky brushstrokes. Paint on interior and exterior fired red. k m and body on exterior painted solid, except for reserved area below the arch of the handle (only partially preserved); further reserved areas where test-paint

78

CHAPTER 2

was more carelessly applied. Interior painted solid except for reserved rim decorated with a continuous row of short vertical strokes or blobs (22 preserved).

Figure 2.28. Pit or well A 20:s:60. scale 1:2 - --. -. -

Another kantharos fiom the same deposit (P 17441),canonically decorated and of more standard shape, but clearly misfired, may have served as a test-piece or else represents a possible production discard.

Test-piece cut from unfinished one-handled cup. H.: 0.090; Diam. (base): 0.048; est. Diam. (rim): 0.100. Single piece preserving entire base, about one-third of body and rim, and complete handle of a poorly made cup. Abnormally thick disk base; underside very poorly finished, preserving remnants of string-marks (not very clear), the result of the removal, with a taut string or wire, of the pot from the potter's wheel (cf. 78). Body curving up to rim which is slightly offset on exterior (such offsets are standard for Attic Protogeometric one-handled cups, cf. 62 and 63; Papadopoulos 1994, p. 447, fig. 6, no. B1, pl. 114). Gently flaring rim with rounded lip. Vertical handle attached from lower body directly to rim; handle oval in section with groove on exterior face toward one side. Clay body and surfaces variously fired between light gray and a dirty buff-gray, difficult to give an accurate Munsell designation, but clearly the result of reduction firing. The average fired color of the clay is closest to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2-6/2.

Figure 2.29 (opposite). Pit or well A 20:s: 61-63. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

79

80

CHAPTER 2

Paint on interior and exterior fairly thickly applied, much cracked, with a pronounced tendency to flake. Surface where paint has flaked off more noticeably gray than the reserved surfaces. Paint on exterior fired black, irregularly applied on either side of the handle as shown, not unlike the "sausage motif" of Toronean Protogeometric (Papadopoulos 1988, p. 86, no. 60) or of Ithakan and West Greek Middle and Late Geometric (Robertson 1948, p. 104; Coldstream 1968, pp. 227,396, pl. 49:f). Interior painted solid, except for irregular reserved area at center of floor, which is quite different from the common reserved disks on the interior of Protogeometric open vessels. Paint on interior in parts fired black, elsewhere a dark reddish brown and in parts a mottled twotone. The piece, as preserved, could easily have been drawn from the kiln by its handle. Fabric and feel very similar to 51 (from well L 11:l; note that wells L 11:l and A 20:s are more-or-less contemporary). Agora sample no. 861. 62 (P 17437)

Fig. 2.29, P1. 1

Probable test-piece fragments cut from one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.061; est. Diam. (rim): 0.100. Three joining frr. preserving about one-quarter of body and rim of one-handled cup. Uncertain test-piece: no evidence of draw-hole or of any paint on the edgeshreaks. Nevertheless, the fabric, clay, paint, and feel of this piece are virtually identical to 61, and the absence of a reserved band on rim interior and reserved disk at center of floor (standard for canonically decorated cups) would argue for its being a test-piece. The break at juncture of foot and body seems rather regular (cf. 63) and may suggest that the base was never attached or was perhaps intentionally removed. Lower wall, near base, abnormally thick. Lower wall flaring out to vertical upper wall, curving in. Gently flaring rim with rounded lip; rim offset from body by very slight groove on exterior. Clay body and surfaces where paint has worn or flaked off fired light gray, closest to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2 and gray/light gray 5YR 7/1-6/1. Fabric and other details as 61, clearly the result of reduction firing. Paint on interior and exterior fairly thickly applied, much cracked at points on interior, slightly cracked on exterior, with a slight tendency to flake. Paint on exterior fired black; preserved exterior painted solid except for lower part of wall. The paint on exterior appears to have been applied in an irregular manner similar to 61. Preserved interior painted solid; there is no evidence of a reserved disk at center of floor, nor of a reserved band at rim. Paint on interior fired a dark reddish brown to red, similar to that on part of the interior of 61. R m interior fired a mottled two-tone, redhlack. The fragment may have served as a test-piece without a draw-hole as 61. Agora sample no. 862.

8I

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

63 ( P 17438)

Fig. 2.29, PI. 1

Possible test-piece (or possible wasteddiscard) fragments cut from one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.064; est. Diam. (rim): 0.090. Two joining frr. preserving almost one-half of body and rim of onehandled cup, but nothing of base. Possible test-piece as 6 1 and 62, or else a waster; no preserved draw-hole. There are no traces of paint on the breakdedges, but the neatness and regularity of the edges may suggest that they were intentionally cut. The juncture of base and body is similar to 62 and may also be intentional. There is a large spall on the exterior, which is almost certainly a firing defect rather than a later chip. Toward the center of the spall is a smaller depression which represents the void left by a large inclusion. For spalls see Noble 1988, p. 165. Lower wall flaring out to vertical upper wall. Gently flaring rim with rounded lip; rim offset from body. Clay body fired light gray throughout, close to gray/light gray and pinkish gray 7.5YR N7/-N6/-7.5YR 7/2 and light gray 5YR 7/1, the result of reduction firing. Paint on interior and exterior uniformly applied, consistently fired black. Paint more regular and well adhering than that on 61 and 62. Paint on rim interior at one point somewhat cracked, as it also is at one point on exterior. Interior painted solid except for reserved disk at center of floor. The disk is very regular and is consistent with those normally found on the interior of Attic Protogeometric open vessels. Exterior painted solid. This piece is a less likely test-piece than 62. The large spall on the exterior, combined with the reduction firing and minor cracking to paint, may have rendered the piece a production discard (waster). Agora sample no. 863. 64 (P 17443)

Fig. 2.30

Probable test-piece cut from one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.082; est. Diam. (rim): ca. 0.140. Single fr. preserving about one-quarter of upper body and rim, including stumps of vertical handle, of one-handled cup. Uncertain test-piece, as there is no draw-hole or any clear edges indicated by paint, although the piece may have been drawn from the kiln by its handle, now lost, as 61. However, the fabric, paint, and abnormally tall rim are suggestive of a test-piece (cf. 62 and 63). Moreover, all of the preserved edges seem neat and regular, as if they had been intentionally cut, though the piece is worn and the neatness of the edges/breaks may be the result of weathering. Rim very worn in comparison to body. The possibility that the piece is a waster. or discard cannot be discounted. Upper wall curving in to very tau flaring rim, offset from body as shown, and tapering slightly to a rounded lip. Upper and lower attachment of vertical handle preserve4 remainder of handle lost. Clay more micaceous than normal, with a sprinkling of fine silvery mica noticeable on surfaces, but less so on breaks. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6.

82

CHAPTER 2

83

T H E M A T E R I A L A N D ITS C O N T E X T

Figure 2.30 (opposite). Pit or well

A 20:s: 64-66.

Scale 1:2

Paint on interior and exterior thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, evenly fired red to reddish brown. Preserved upper body to offset with rim painted solid. Minor traces of paint, barely visible, may suggest that the rim was decorated, though it is also possible that these are accidental and that the rim was reserved. Bar of paint on preserved upper attachment of handle. Interior painted solid except for thin reserved band at lip, though at one point there is a trace of paint that may suggest that this reserved band is only weathering. One-handled cups, or even skyphoi, with such proportionately tall rims are rare in Attic Protogeometric, though a few of the earlier examples can be tall-rimmed: see Desborough 1952, pl. 1, G 82 e (Heidelberg Tomb B = Kerameikos I, pl. 37, top left).

65 ( P 17439)

Fig. 2.30

Fragmentary one-handled cup; possible test-piece or production discard. H.: 0.107; Diam. (base): 0.050; Diam. (rim): 0.098. Reconstructed from joining frr. preserving entire base, much of lower wall, about one-half of upper wall and rim, and handle of cup. Missing parts restored in plaster. Surfaces worn. Uncertain test-piece: no preserved draw-hole or any clear edges, though the piece could have been removed from the kiln by its handle. Tall conical foot, rather thicker on underside and at juncture with body than is customary. Lower wall flaring out to vertical upper wall, which curves in to gently flaring rim with rounded lip; rim offset from body as shown. Vertical handle attached from body directly to lip. Center of floor on interior poorly finished. Clay body where visible and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 5YR 7/4 and 7.5YR 7/4. Paint where preserved thickly applied, in parts cracked, and with a pronounced tendency to flake. Paint on interior and parts of exterior irregularly applied, with brush-marks clearly visible; fired black. Lower outside edge of foot reserved; remainder of foot and body painted solid. Rim decorated with tremulous line approaching zigzag, framed by one band below and two above; at points the band below appears to merge with the solid paint of the body. Traces of paint on handle, but any decoration on handle mostly not preserved. Interior painted solid except for reserved disk at center of floor and likely band at lip (much worn). The condition of the paint is suggestive of either a test-piece (well fired) or a production discard.

66 (P 17440)

Fig. 2.30

Likely test-piece cut from one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.078; Diam. (at juncture ofbase and body): 0.022; est. Diam. (rim): 0.100. Single fr. preserving about one-half of lower body, including juncture with foot, and about one-third of rim. Likely cut edge on one side.

84

CHAPTER 2

Juncture of foot and body preserved, but nothing of the foot proper, which originally would have been a tall cone. The preserved edge of the juncture of foot and body is such as to suggest that the foot may have been broken during manufacture, or drying, and was cut away. Shape as 65, but with no preserved handle. Clay core fired light gray where thickest; elsewhere clay body and reserved surfaces fired as 65. The curved edge that was probably trimmed has fired evenly across the section. Paint irregularly applied with brush-marks and streaks visible all over, mostly rather thickly applied. Paint on interior and much of exterior fired black, thinning to brown where more dilute; red over part of exterior. Decoration as 65, but with tremulous line on rim evidently framed by two thin bands below and one or two above. Interior solid, except for small reserved dot at center of floor and reserved band at rim. Piece almost optimally fired, except for the red on the exterior.

WELL K 1 2 : l (67-73) Section M: well at 70/!dE. Deposit first noted March 22 and 27,1934; cleared March 29-April 14,1934, by Dorothy Burr [Thompson].16

The material from this well has been assigned to the Protogeometric I11 phase, which represents a developed, though not the latest, stage of the period. The fill of the well yielded at least nine test-pieces.17 K 12:1 is one of two early wells that were located near the center of the later Agora, beneath the Civic Offices (Figs. 2.31-2.32).18 The stylobate of an Early Roman building intersected K 12:2, which is of Early Geometric date (see below); Protogeometric well K 12:l was located about two meters to the south. By the Early Roman period the shafts of both wells had been cut down to bedrock. Turlush storage pits overlay both wells and extended down into the ragged mouth of K 12:1, which opened in bedrock as an irregular pit, ca. 2.00 x 2.40 m, narrowing to 1.00-1.20 m at the bottom. The shaft was about 4.80 m deep from the level of the surrounding bedrock.19 O f the nine test-pieces recovered from this well, only four are catalogued here. The remaining five fragments are small and much worn, and add little to the corpus of test-pieces from the site. They include: two body fragments (from different pieces); one body fragment preserving the thickening for a handle; and two handle fragments (from different vessels). In addition to the clear test-pieces, two badly fired one-handled cups are presented below as either possible test-pieces or wasters. These pieces highlight the fact that although many fragments may represent potters' debris, unless some clear feature is preserved-such as a draw-hole, edge, or substantial vitrification-they can pass unnoticed, perceived as merely poorly fired vessels. A third cup, well fired, is also presented for the sake of comparison and because it preserves an unusual drilled hole at the base of its handle.

16.The shaft lay under the porch of the Civic Offices, 17.5 m north of Middle Stoa pier 9 (from the west). The Middle Stoa terrace was built along the line of an earlier east-west road that may have been in service during the life of the well. 17.The piece published by Farnsworth (1960, p. 75, no. A, pl. 16) is wrongly stated to derive from well L 11:l. In her notes, Smithson considered this deposit to be a "potter's well." 18.This well is mentioned in Shear 1935, pp. 362-363. 19.That is, 54.45 m above sea level. A number of complete vessels from the deposit, primarily oinochoai, may have been part of the period of use material, but because several joins were noted throughout the deposit, all of the pottery was combined, without a record of the depth noted. It is therefore not possible to establish beyond doubt whether the complete vessels were indeed period of use, or if the entire fill was deposited at one time.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.31. Plan and section of wells K 12:l and K 122. Richard Anderson

1

Figure 2.32. Wells K 12:l (in foreground) and K 12:2 (in center) during excavation in 1934. View from south.

t

I

8~

86

67 (P 20426)

CHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.33, P1.2

Test-~iecefragment cut probably from shoulder of medium-size to large closed vessel. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, no. A, pl. 16. P.H.: 0.060; P.W.: 0.077; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.035-0.040 (the diameter of the draw-hole is impossible to determine with accuracy, but it is clearly slightly larger than normal). Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from body of undetermined shape, probably a medium-size or large closed vessel. About onefifth to one-quarter of draw-hole preserved on lower portion of fragment as shown. Two edges (the top and top right as seen from the exterior of the fragment on Fig. 2.33) have fired the same color as the reserved surfaces on the interior and exterior, as well as the edge of the draw-hole, and therefore may represent original edges of the test-piece. Fragment either from lower body of an open vessel or else the upper body or shoulder of a medium-size to large closed vessel, the latter more likely. Farnsworth (1960, p. 75) considers the fragment to be from the wall of a medium-size closed vessel, and this is the way it is presented here. Most of clay body and exterior surface evenly fired light gray, close to light gray 7.5YR N7/. Interior surface where not painted fired close to dirty gray-buff, something like very pale brown 10YR 7/3. Fired color the result of a reduced atmosphere in the kiln. Traces of a wide swirl of paint on exterior, much worn and very poorly preserved, fired a dull orange-brown as preserved (the drawing of the exterior is only tentative). Clear traces of paint, though slight, on draw-hole edge. Paint on interior more thickly applied and much better preserved, though with a tendency to flake, fired a slate brownish gray, in parts approaching black. The preserved interior appears to be painted with broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines. Agora sample no. 864.

68 (P 32355)

Fig. 2.33

Test-piece fragment cut from neck and handle of neck-handled amphora or hydria. p.H.: 0.078; p.W.: 0.072; est. Diam. (neck at top): 0.138. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece, including top edge (indicated by paint on edge). Fragment preserves portion of neck and vertical handle of neck-handled amphora or hydria. Vertical neck, flaring toward rim; upper part of handle attached to neck, oval in section. Wheel-marks and smears prominent on roughly finished interior. Clay body and all surfaces evenly and consistently fired throughout, close to reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6. Paint on interior and exterior fired black, thinning to dark brown on interior where more dilute; paint thickly applied on exterior, with a tendency to flake. Handle canonically decorated with intersecting stripes

Figure 2.33 (opposite). Well K 12:1: 67-69. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

87 POSSIBLE EDGES

88

CHAPTER 2

preserved on handle arch. Traces of paint on outer handle face on one side. Paint on top edge extends onto upper preserved neck. Horizontal band, much worn, on upper part of interior. Traces of vertical stripe on one side of interior as shown. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 869. 69 (P 32356)

Fig. 2.33

Test-piece cut from neck-handled amphora or hydria. p.H. (body): 0.031; p.H. (including handle): 0.051; max. p.W.: 0.058. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece; no clear edges or drawhole preserved. Piece cut from shoulder and handle of large neckhandled amphora or hydria as 68, but judging from handle size probably not from the same vessel as 68. Sloping shoulder; thick, vertical handle, oval in section. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly and consistently fired red throughout, close to pink 7.5YR 7/4-8/4. Interior painted solid (noncanonical); paint thickly applied, but rather worn and mostly flaked, fired black to very dark reddish brown. Exterior canonically decorated: vertical stripe on either side of handle; band enclosing lower handle attachment. Paint on exterior fired black on one side, dark reddish brown to red on the other. Piece almost optimally fired, but not quite.

Cf. 68.

Agora sample no. 870.

70 (P 21084a-b)

Fig. 2.34

Two test-pieces cut from rim and upper body of krater. Fr. a: p.H.: 0.062; est. Diam. (rim): 0.300. Fr. b: p.H.: 0.070. Two nonjoining frr. cut from rim and upper wall of large krater. Fr. a (itself consisting of two joining frr.) preserves small portion of stump of horizontal handle; fr. b (single fr.) preserves portion of the painted decoration suggesting proximity to handle, but from the opposite side of the vessel. Neither fragment preserves draw-hole or any clear edges, but their use as test-pieces is suggested by the streaky and irregular nature of the paint and the application of part of the painted scheme on fr. a, which is noncanonical decoration. Vertical upper wall; offset rim, flaring slightly to thickened lip. Stump of horizontal handle preserved on fr. a, attached relatively high on body, just below rim. Wall thickness at lower break, especially on fr. b, is very thin for a vessel of this size. Fabric somewhat atypical: clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Paint on both fragments on interior and exterior irregularly applied with streaks and brush-strokes visible all over. Paint fired black where

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

a9

Figure 2.34. Well K 12:l: 70. Scale 1:2

thickest, thinning to brown where more dilute. Broad band on uppermost wall, extending onto much of offset rim. Broad sweep of paint on exterior follows the contour of the horizontal handles on both fragments. Remainder of handle-zone, as preserved, reserved. Thin reserved band on upper part of rim, above which is a very thin band at lip. O n fr. a there is one comparatively broad vertical stroke on the reserved band at the rim, which is unique and does not appear to be canonical decoration. Preserved interior and rim top painted solid.

CHAPTER 2

Two of the following cups are presented as possible test-pieces or production discards (71, 72). Both vessels are poorly fired (though 72 is much better fired than 71), but neither preserves a draw-hole or clear edge to establish them as test-pieces. This is not to say that they could not have served as test-pieces, only that they are not obviously so. They are presented here as possible, not certain, potters' debris. The fragmentary cup 73 is almost perfectly fired and attests the high level of skill of Athenian Protogeometric potters. As stated above, it is presented on account of a drilled hole at the base of the handle, the function of which is not clear. 71 (P 3959)

Fig. 2.35

Fragmentary one-handled cup. H.: 0.089; Diam. (base): 0.045; Diam. (rim): 0.088-0.090. Two joining frr, preserving about two-thirds to three-quarters of base, body, and rim. Handle not preserved except for very slight thickening at rim where the upper part of the handle was once attached. Surfaces worn, powdery to touch. Missing fragment from base restored in plaster. There is a large hair-line crack about 0.045 m long on the main part of the bowl of the vessel, but it does not run through the piece. Tall conical foot; lower wall curving up to vertical upper wall. Offset rim, flaring slightly to rounded lip. Wheel-marks prominent on upper wall on interior. Point ofjuncture of body and foot-plate visible on underside. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6-6/6 and pink 5YR 7/4. Paint mostly thickly applied, better adhering on interior; paint in parts cracked and with a tendency to flake. Mostly fired red to reddish brown, except for small areas of black on interior and exterior. Lower outside edge of foot reserved; remainder of foot and body painted solid. Reserved rim decorated with tremulous line approaching zigzag framed by one thin band above and one below. Interior painted solid except for small reserved dot at center of floor and thin reserved band at lip. Cf. 72,73; also Kerameikos IV, pl. 24 (Grab 37, inv. 1082; Grab 45, inv. 1104). 72 ( P 3958)

Fig. 2.35

Fragmentary one-handled cup.

H.: 0.090-0.092; Diam. (base): 0.049; est. Diam. (rim): 0.092-

0.095. Seven joining frr. preserving entire base, over one-half of body, including lower handle attachment, but only very small portion of rim. Portion of lower body restored in plaster. Shape as 71. Clay body fired close to light reddish brown 5YR 6/3 and reddish brown 5YR 5/3; reserved surface on underside closer to pink 5YR 7/4. Prominent spa11 or blow-out on foot.

9I

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.35. Well K 12:l: 71-72. Scale 1:2

Paint variously applied and adhering: on foot streaky, with brushmarks visible; paint on most of body on interior and exterior somewhat more thickly applied, with a pronounced tendency to flake. Paint on uppermost body and rim rather better adhering. Paint fired black, thinning to brown where more dilute. Decoration as 71, but with comparatively shorter tremulous line approaching zigzag on rim fi-amed by two thin bands below and one thicker band above. Interior painted solid except for small reserved dot at center of floor and band at rim. Cf. 71,73. 73 (P 3960)

Fig. 2.36

Fragmentary one-handled cup. H.: 0.096; Diam. (base): 0.052; Diam. (rim): 0.098. Eight joining frr. preserving entire base, but just under one-half of body and rim and complete handle. Condition good. Shape as 71,72; handle set slightly askew. Small hole drilled through vessel at base of handle (Diam.: 0.002-0.003) after firing. Viewing the hole &om interior and exterior clearly shows that it is not one continuous hole, but two holes of similar diameter that do not quite match up. The hole appears to have resulted fi-om being drilled from

92

CHAPTER 2

both the interior and the exterior. It seems unlikely that this is a mending hole meant to attach the handle, since the upper attachment of the same handle is neither mended nor broken, and there is no corresponding hole on the body of the vessel. Clay body where visible at chips and reserved surfaces fired close to pink and reddish yellow 5YR 7/4-7/6. Paint of excellent quality, uniformly applied and well adhering, fired black with a good lustre; paint thinning to light brown where more dilute. Decoration as 72, with tremulous line approaching zigzag on rim framed by two thin bands below and two bands merging into one above. Interior as 72. Handle barred, with lower attachment ringed. The exact function of the drilled hole at the base of the handle is uncertain. It is not an obvious mending hole, unless the clamp or tie was excessively long. Apart from this, the fabric and paint are optimally fired.

Figure 2.36. Well K 121: 73. scale 1:2

WELL H 16-17:l (74-78) Section El? pidwell in 53-55/Ir-IE.Z0 Cleared June 15,1932, by Homer A. Thompson.

Late Protogeometric/Early Geometricz1well located on the lower north slopes of the Areiopagos, in the area of the later so-called Geometric Oval 20. Originally designated as 53/IA, but later amended. 21. The date of well H 16-17:l is interesting. By far the majority of material recovered from the deposit, both inventoried and in context, belongs to the Late Protogeometric period. A number of vessels, however, may be assigned to Early Geometric (especially Early Geometric I). Of the better preserved oinochoai and

amphoras, including the material from the period of use deposit, the following are best assigned to Late Protogeometric: P 979, P 1029, P 1030, P 1031, P 1035, P 1036, P 1038. Of these, P 979 is mentioned in Desborough 1952, p. 50, while P 1029 is referred to as Late Protogeometric in Smithson 1961, p. 162, under no. 26. The following pieces might be better assigned to the early stages of Early Geometric:

P 1028, P 1033, P 1034, P 1037, P 1039, P 1040, P 1044. Of these P 1040 and P 1044 are referred to in Desborough 1952, pp. 10,13, and 83; on p. 83 Desborough makes references to "very late contexts" and to "the end of the transitional phase from Protogeometric to Geometric." P 1040 is also referred to in Blegen 1952, p. 282, where it is listed as belonging to the latest phase of Protogeometric.In

93

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

addition to these, a number of nearly complete vessels appear to be earlier Protogeometric, say Developed to Late Protogeometric, including P 1041, P 1042, and P 1043. Three fragmentary "Circles" skyphoi from the well (P 1045, P 1046, P 1047) are all noted in Desborough 1952, pp. 80-83. A one-handled cup, P 1048, with a flat disk base is referred to in Blegen 1952, p. 284, and Smithson 1961, p. 166, under nos. 43-44, as belonging to the "latest of the pure Protogeometric wells." Whether this well is assigned - as latest Protogeometric or transitional Late Protogeometric/Early Geometric is a moot The fact that the deposit is not referred to in Coldstream 1968 seems to imply that Coldstream preferred not to see it as Early Geometric. 22. The identification of the oval structure published in Burr 1933 as a house was shown to be incorrect and reinterpreted as a shrine by Thompson (1968, esp. pp. 58-60; 1978). 23. The excavator noted that the fill of the well was polluted by a nearby modern cesspool to the north, and I suspect that the decision to avoid the north part of the shaft derived from this. 24. The fragments are numbered: CT' 169-57, CT' 169-62, cT'169-63.

House, now clearly not a house.22When first encountered the well appeared as an irregular cutting in the soft bedrock, with a maximum length of 3.30 m and a width of about 1.75 m. The broad mouth closed irregularly in to a smaller shaft or pit, the bottom of which was reached at a depth of 4.50 m from the level of the surrounding bedrock. The south wall of the shaft was undercut by over half a meter, and from the north side the excavator decided not to remove all of the soft filling through fear of collapse and of causing damage to the underground water channel that passed close by.23 The fill itselfwas described as a hard gray clay with a few small stones. The uppermost few centimeters had been disturbed in later times and yielded some sherds of Roman date. At a level below 0.50 m from the top of the shaft, the material recovered was consistently Late Protogeometricl Early Geometric in date. No clear stratification was noted, although in the lower 2.0 m the pottery recovered was less fragmentary and consisted primarily of large oinochoai and amphoras. The latter indicated period of use material, namely, vessels used to draw water that had been inadvertently dropped by their owners, and verified that the cutting was indeed a well, rather than a deep pit. In addition to the pieces catalogued here, there are perhaps as many as three fragments of possible potters' waste from this well stored in the context lots.24

74 (P 32363)

Fig. 2.37

Test-piece fragment cut from neck of closed vessel. p.H.: 0.049; max. p.L.: 0.058. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of testpiece; no clear edges preserved. Piece cut from neck, near juncture with shoulder, of closed vessel (amphora or hydria). Neck becoming vertical; juncture with shoulder preserved at lower edge. Clay and reserved surfaces evenly fired throughout close to pink 7.5YR 8/4-7/4; reserved surfaces well finished (smoothed/burnished). Paint on interior and exterior fired black, thinning to dark brown where more dilute; paint well adhering. Horizontal band on lower neck on exterior, near juncture with shoulder, perhaps part of canonical decoration, but rather irregular. Irregularly applied paint on lower portion of interior as shown. Piece optimally fired. Agora sample no. 881.

75 (P 32361)

Fig. 2.37

Test-piece fragment cut probably from open vessel. p.H.: 0.042; p.W.: 0.045. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece; no clear edges or draw-hole preserved. Piece probably cut from body of open(?) vessel, conceivably a skyphos. Slightly curved wall, rising steeply.

94

CHAPTER 2

/

I

INTERIOR

LIKELY EDGE

- '

-

/

76

I IKELY EDGE

Figure 2.37. Well H 1 6 1 7 : l : 74-76. Scale 1:3

Clay body fired pinkish gray 7.SYR 7/2-6/2; reserved surfaces fired closer to very pale brown 10YR 7/4. 1nteriorVand exterior painted with broad vertically and horizontally, or diagonally, intersecting lines. Paint on exterior fired dark brown to black, fairly dul1,matt; paint fired black on interior, thickly and well applied with a notable sheen. Piece perhaps removed from the kiln during the earlier stages of reoxidization or final stages of reduction. Agora sample no. 879.

76 (P 32362)

Fig. 2.37

Test-piece fragment cut from lower body of open or closed vessel. p.H.: 0.060; max. p.L.: 0.064. Two joining fir. preserving portion of test-piece, including one likely edge, the surface of which has fired differently fiom that of the

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

95

-*

z 7%--L",

i, I

'\

F i-a r e 2.38. Well H 16-17:l: 77. Scale 1:2

obvious breaks. Piece probably cut from lower body of large open or closed vessel. Lower wall rising steeply. Clay body fired light gray 7.5YR N7/; reserved surfaces fired closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2 and very pale brown 10YR 7/3. Broad, irregular sweep of paint on interior. Three horizontal bands on lower part of exterior (canonical decoration), above which is a broad sweep of paint (noncanonical).Paint on interior thickly applied, slightly cracked, with a tendency to flake; fired black. Surface on interior where paint has worn or flaked light gray (different fiom color of reserved surface). Paint on exterior fired light pinkish red, but mostly worn/ flaked; surface light gray where paint is not preserved. Agora sample no. 880.

77 (P 32364)

Fig. 2.38

Test-piece(s) fi-agments cut from small to medium-size closed vessel. p.H.: 0.054; Diam. (base): 0.091. Fr. a: four joining frr.; fr. b: one fi.now joined with fr. a. Total of five frr. preserving base and portion of lower body of closed vessel (small

96

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.39.Well H 1&17:1: 78. Scale 1:2

amphora, hydria, or oinochoe). Vessel clearly broken and damaged during manufacture on wheel at point where frr. a and b join, and subsequently used as test-piece, conceivably as several test-pieces. Disk base, crudely pushed up on underside, chipped prior to application of paint and with clay splitting on interior; lower wall rising steeply. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 5YR 7/3. Interior reserved. Irregularly applied paint on exterior over parts of lower wall and on underside, as shown. Paint on underside extends onto broken surface. Paint fired reddish purple. Agora sample no. 882.

78 (P 20631)

Fig. 2.39

Base fragment from open vessel; unfinished. p.H.: 0.050; Diam. (base): 0.065. Single fr. preserving entire base and very small portion of bowl. Deep hair-like cracks in bowl extend through sides into base. Uncertain test-piece, but clearly an unfinished product and a useful parallel to 61 (well A 205). Base solid (unfinished; never hollowed out), spool-shaped, with symmetrically concave sides. Underside preserves clear string-marks, the result of the base having been removed from the wheel by a taut string or wire. The base was probably originally intended to be a medium-size to large conical foot, turned in one piece with the bowl (or part of the bowl), but imperfectly drawn in at the top.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

97

Clay at breaks on bowl evenly and consistently fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4 and light reddish brown 5YR 6/4. Self-slip on surface of foot lighter, close to pink 7.5YR 7/4-8/4. Piece well fired, even though flawed. Paint on interior and exterior fairly thickly applied, with a most pronounced tendency to flake (most of paint has peeled off). Base canonically decorated, even though unfinished: broad band on lower foot. Preserved interior painted solid except for a small, irregular, reserved "disk" at center, more triangular than circular (cf. the irregular reserved area at the center of the floor on 61). Paint on interior and exterior evenly and consistently fired black. This piece is interesting since in its unfinished state it is an unlikely waster or production discard (cf. 52):if the flaw (i.e., the cracks or some other fault) was noticed by the potter, who therefore left the base unfinished, then it is most unusual that the vessel was fired. The fact that it is not only fired, but well fired, would suggest that it served some function in the kiln, conceivably as a test-piece, such as 61. If the piece is complete in its present state, then it may have possibly served as a firing support in the kiln. Agora sample no. 865.

WELL P 8:3 ( 7 9 ) 25. The strict chronological division between what scholars have previously called "Mycenaean IIIC Late," "Submycenaean," and "Protogeometric" is not as clear-cut in Athens as some scholars have maintained (e.g., Mountjoy [Mountjoy and Hankey 19881).A good deal more overlap between these phases should have been anticipated. 26. Wells P 7:3, Q8:9, R 9:2, R 1 0 5 , and R 12:2:Agora VIII, pp. 107-108,130-131; also Brann 1961a. 27. The evidence is well summarized by Townsend in Agora XXVII, pp. 9-12. The Mycenaean nonfunerary deposits include: 0 7:14 ("the Mycenaean Gully and Deposit in front of the Northeast Stoa"); P 8:9 ("Mycenaean Bothros Opposite Stoa Pier 17"); and the so-called Kylix Deposit (0 7:4). For the publication of these deposits see Agora XIII, pp. 248-253,110-111. 28. The oinochoai include: P 23699, P 23708, P 23712, P 23714, P 23715, P 26606, and 79 catalogued below; there was also an amphora (P 23707), a hydria (P 23713), and two coarseware vessels (P 23698 and P 23709). 29. The well is listed in Coldstream 1968, p. 10, as one of the significant Attic Early Geometric I groups.

Section C: Geometric well opposite Stoa of Attalos pier 18. First discovered December 17,1953; cleared January 7-8,1954, by Homer A. Thompson and Eugene Vanderpool.

Irregular shaft, approximately 1.0 m in diameter, dug to a depth of 5.30 m below the surface of the surrounding bedrock. Well located opposite pier 18 of the later Stoa ofAttalos and first noted below the floor of one of the so-called Predecessors.This area, south of the Eridanos, east of the Panathenaic Way, and more or less under the Stoa of Attalos, represented one of the greatest concentrations of Mycenaean graves north of the Acropolis. During the final stages of the Bronze Age, in the so-called Submycenaean period, the area continued to be used for burials (e.g., graves 0 7:l and 0 7:16), as it was in the Protogeometric period (graves 0 7:6,O 7:11, Q8:5, Q 8 : 6 , Q8:7, Q8:12).25By Late Geometric times, however, there are no known graves in this area, but there are at least five wells.26O f earlier periods, there are only two significant nonfunerary deposits, well P 8:3 and "Submycenaean" well 0 8:5, although there are, in addition, a number of Mycenaean nonfunerary deposit^.^' Despite the fact that a period of use deposit was not discerned at the time of excavation, several complete or near-complete vessels, predominantly oinochoai, encountered at a level below the uppermost 2.0 m or so of the well suggest period of use material.28Some Classical, chiefly 4thcentury B.c., material was noted in the uppermost fill of the well, but below this the deposit was uniformly Early G e o m e t r i ~ . ~ ~ Among both the material inventoried from the deposit and that stored in context, there is no clear potters' refuse. The solitary piece catalogued

98

CHAPTER 2

below, 79, is intact except for relatively minor chipping at the rim and was recognized by Smithson as being "overfired, nearly a Fehlb~and."~~ Although overfired to the point of partial vitrification, the piece may have seen normal household use before it was inadvertently dropped into well P 8:3.31 Alternatively, the piece may have been intentionally discarded in the well as a waster or production discard, or was used, on account of its state, only for the most menial of tasks, such as drawing water from wells. I n any case, this was the only piece from this deposit that could be classified potentially as potters' debris. The inclusion of this piece in this study is important, because had only fragments of it been found, they would most probably have been classified as full-fledged wasters. 79 (P 23700)

Fig. 2.40

Oinochoe; overfired to the point of partial vitrification. Smithson 1974, pp. 382-383, noted under no. Ph. II/NM 15315. H.: 0.192; Diam. (base): 0.054; max. L. (rim): 0.065. Intact, except for almost one-half of chipped lip, not preserved.

Low ring foot with narrow, flat resting surface; slight groove at

juncture of foot and wall on exterior. Round body, narrow vertical neck,

flaring to trefoil mouth; rounded lip. Vertical handle attached from shoulder directly to lip. Clay overfired to the point of partial vitrification, with numerous blow-outs visible all over the surface of the vessel. Only minor distortion or warping to body, particularly at shoulder. I t is clear that the vessel was not fired long enough at a high enough temperature to witness the wholescale "melting" of the clay. The broken rim may have been the result of firing rather than use, but this cannot be established with certainty. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired gray to gray/brown. Fabric appears to be more vitrified toward base. Paint rather streaky on body and neck, fired black. The paint on the shoulder defining the semicircles stands out in slight relief, due to overfiring, and can be easily felt by touch. Paint on foot most noticeably vitrified. Exterior face of foot and body to shoulder painted solid, except for thin reserved band on lower wall. Two thin painted bands define lower shoulder, from the uppermost ofwhich spring four sets of mechanically drawn, concentric semicircles, each set comprising eleven arcs with small dot at center. One of the sets to the side of the handle (the last drawn by the potter), unable to clear the handle attachment, was terminated against a diagonal line, or radius, drawn from the handle attachment to the ground-line below. Neck and rim on exterior painted solid. Handle barred, with lower attachment ringed. Only thin, partial band on rim interior. For a full discussion of the shape, referred to as "48-Type oinochoe," see Smithson 1961, pp. 157-158, nos. 6-11, esp. p. 157, under the small trefoil-mouthed oinochoai; see additional notes in Smithson 1974, pp. 382-383, under no. Ph. II/NM 15315, with references to Agora P 27109 (grave M 23:l bis) andqAyiouMdrgxov (Stavropoullos 1966, pl. 51:p).

30. Smithson 1974, p. 382, under Ph. 11-NM 15315. 31. The deposit also yielded a number of vessels mended with drill holes, now stored in context. A small quantity of human bone may indicate that a tomb, or tombs, in the vicinity had been disturbed.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

99

For the curtailed semicircles on another "48-Type" oinochoe, see Smithson 1974, p. 382, pl. 79:d, Ph. 11-NM 15315 (= Rhomaios and Papasppidi 1932, p. 3, pl. 1[I], no. 6; cf. Poulsen 1905, p. 80). The standard number of sets of semicircles on "48-Type" oinochoai is four, and Smithson suggests that poor spacing, perhaps more common in Early Geometric as the concentric mechanically drawn circles and semicircles were dropped from the repertory, produced such fractions. It should be noted, however, that such fractions are known on Developed Protogeometric vessels, including Agora P 29768 (grave T 151-1) (see Shear 1973b, p. 399, note 86, pl. 73:c [oinochoe]) and Kerameikos I, pl. 56, inv. 560 ([grave P G 181, illustrated in Papadopoulos 1994, pp. 455456, no. E2, fig. 15, pl. 119:c [amphora]). As far as I know, curtailed semicircles on Athenian Early Iron Age pottery exist only on these four vessels.

CHAPTER 2

I00

WELL K 12:2 (80) Section M: "Protogeometric" well at 70/MH. Cleared intermittently between April 2 and 26,1934, by Dorothy Burr [Thompson]. Coldstream 1968, pp. 10,13.

As noted in the Introduction (p. 5), there are a number of poorly fired vessels in well K 12:2 (Figs. 2.31-2.32), chronologically assigned by Coldstream to the Early Geometric I period,32but nothing, with the exception of 80, that would qualify as an obvious waster. The poorly fired pieces that have been inventoried include: P P P P P P P

3687 3688 3939 3941 3965 20610 20617

oinochoe oinochoe oinochoe fragmentary oinochoe one-handled cup skyphos fragment fragment of one-handled cup

T h e piece catalogued here, 80 (Fig. 2.41), is a fragment of a onehandled cup preserving less than one-half of the body (lower wall to rim), including handle scars, but nothing of the base, which was probably originally a conical foot. The clay body is in part reduced and the paint has mostly fired brown, in places approaching black. I t is not inconceivable that the fragment was once a test-piece, although there is no draw-hole and no trace of paint on the edgeshreaks, and it is canonically decorated. The cup, described below, is stylistically earlier than the other material in the deposit and thus must represent earlier residual material dumped into the well. Apart from the inventoried pieces listed above, there are, among the many sherds from the deposit stored in context, a few that are very poorly fired, including some that may even be fragments from wasters or production discards. The fragmentary state of the material is such, however, as to render any statement uncertain. Apart from these few pieces, there is nothing else in the deposit that would clearly qualiij as potters' debris. 80 (P 20618)

Fig. 2.41

Fragmentary one-handled cup. p.H.: 0.073; est. Diam. (rim): 0.096-0.098. Single fr. preserving almost one-half of rim and body of cup, including the upper and lower handle stumps, but nothing of the handle. Foot not preserved. Vessel poorly fired or else fire-affected. Uncertain whether it represents a test-piece or a production discard. The edgeshreaks are worn but regular, suggesting that they may have been cut prior to firing, though this is uncertain. There is no evidence of paint on any of the edgedbreaks, nor any draw-hole, but if a test-piece, it may have been removed from the kiln by the handle, now lost.

32. Coldstream 1968, p. 10.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

I01

Figure 2.41. Well K 12:2:80. Scale 1:2

Although the foot is not preserved, the portion of the base plate that survives suggests a tall conical foot. Lower wall rises steeply to a vertical upper wall. Tall, offset rim flaring slightly to a rounded lip. Vertical handle attached from body to rim, not preserved. Clay at breaks variously fired from gray through to red, something like red 2.SYR 6/6, elsewhere closer to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Color probably the result of reduction firing with inadequate reoxidization. Paint originally quite thickly applied, especially on interior, and variously adhering: flaked over parts of exterior; somewhat better adhering on interior, where, however, it is much cracked. Paint fired black on interior; dirty brown on exterior, in places approaching black. Vessel canonically decorated. Exterior body and lower rim painted solid; two reserved bands on upper rim. Interior painted solid, except for reserved band at rim. The overall scheme of the vessel, the tall offset rim, and the narrow base plate suggesting a conical foot place the vessel firmly in the Protogeometric period, probably Late Protogeometric. For the basic shape see discussion under 71-73; cf Kerameikos IV, pl. 24 (Grab 37, inv. 1082; also Grab 45, inv. 1104), but without the zigzag on rim exterior. In addition to cups, cf kantharoi such as Kerameikos I, pl. 70 (Grab 20, inv. 730); Kerameikos IV, pl. 21 (Grab 44, inv. 2026).

WELL L 6:2 (81-89) Section H: Geometric well at 60/I. Cleared June 11-21,1935, by James H. Oliver. Shear 1936, pp. 31-33; Young 1949b; Coldstream 1968, pp. 16,21.

Clearance of late walls immediately to the south of the Athens-Piraeus Railway led to the discovery of this well, which is located only about 50 m south of the Eridanos River and about 12 m east of the southeast corner of the Peribolos of the Twelve Gods. The mouth of the well, measuring 1.60 m east-west by 1.15 m northsouth, was encountered at a depth of 6 m below the modern level, and its shaft extended to a depth of 5.50 m. Two distinct dump fills were noted in this well: the earlier dates, for the main part, to Middle Geometric I, though it also yielded some earlier material, including some late Early Geometric 11;the later fill, comprising the upper deposit, is assigned to Middle Geometric 11. The test-pieces,

I02

CHAPTER 2

wasters, and other industrial debris presented here were encountered in both the upper and lower fills. The pieces presented below represent the only clear evidence of potters' debris from this deposit. In addition to the fragmentary pottery, including potters' debris, recovered from the shaft, two vases that were practically complete were found at a depth of 3.50 m. One of these is a large o i n ~ c h o e and , ~ ~ the other a hater remodeled into its present form from an original hydria that appears to have been damaged prior to firing (89).34The latter represents a classic case of a damaged vessel that was salvaged by the potter and remodeled to serve a function different from that of the original vessel.35It is presented here in order to complement the picture of potters' activity in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora. The well also yielded the small imported glass-paste amulet published by Young.36

81 ( P 26132)

Fig. 2.42

Test-piece cut from body of open vessel (skyphos?). p.H.: 0.040; p.W.: 0.061; est. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.020-0.025. Single fr. preserving portion of one original edge of test-piece (indicated by paint) and about one-third of the circumference of the draw-hole. Fragment appears to have been cut from the body of an open vessel, perhaps a skyphos. Body curved, thin-walled. Clay body evenly fired gray throughout, close to light gray 7.5YR N7/. Surfaces, where not painted, fired a dirty buff-gray, something like very pale brown 10YR 7/3-7/4. Fired clay color the result of a reduced atmosphere in the luln. Paint on interior, exterior, and along preserved edge fired black. Paint thickly applied, especially on interior, and well adhering; brushmarks visible on exterior. Broad band of paint preserved on exterior set obliquely to the line of the wheel-marks. Exterior conceivably painted with vertically and horizontally intersecting lines. Dribbles of paint on edge of draw-hole. Interior painted solid. Piece conceivably cut from the same original vessel as 82, but this is uncertain, especially since the wall thickness of 82 is considerably greater. Piece reduced but not reoxidized. Agora sample no. 866. 82 (P 32349)

Fig. 2.42

Test-piece fragments cut probably from open vessel. First basket (well L 6:2). p.H.: 0.030; max. p.L.: 0.079-0.080. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including part of one edge (indicated by paint on edge) and small portion of draw-hole. Piece probably cut from the lower body of an open(?) vessel. Curved wall, rising steeply.

33. Shear 1936, p. 32, fig. 31; Papadopoulos 1998, pl. 16:c. 34. Shear 1936, p. 32, fig. 32; Papadopoulos 1998, p. 110, fig. 1, pl. 15:a. 35. This piece is the focus of Papadopoulos 1998. 36. Young 1949b, pp. 427-428.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.42. Well L 6:2: 81-82. Scale 1:2

Clay body fired light gray 7 . m N7/-N6/; reserved surfaces, including preserved edge, closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2. Paint on interior and exterior thickly applied and well adhering, with brush-marks visible at points, fired black with a lustrous sheen. Most of preserved exterior painted solid except for small area near drawhole, which may indicate that the original scheme was broad intersecting lines. Preserved interior painted solid. Paint dribbling onto edge and onto part of draw-hole. Piece perhaps cut from the same vessel as 81, though the wall thickness of the latter is less. Piece reduced but not reoxidized. Agora sample no. 875.

83 (P 6413)

Fig. 2.43

Waster. L. x W. (max.): 0.200 x 0.205. Large and heavy waster consisting of parts of several pots fused together and subsequently burned and melted out of shape to the point of vitrification. Most of the base of one large vessel is preserved, either a krater with low ring foot or, more likely, an amphora; portions of at least one vessel, and probably two or three more, adhere to the underside of the larger base. Waster mostly fired a dark gray approaching black, shading into light gray at points; small parts of the surface have fired a reddish brown, something like reddish brown 5YR 5/3 and pink 5YR 7/3. Clean breaks fired very dark gray to black. Waster fired to an extremely high temperature. Cf. Perachora 11, p. 528, nos. 4143-4144, pl. 131. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 68, BNL no. 555 (Agora sample no. 499).

104

CHAPTER 2

+ . .

..

,.. -- - . .. .

-.,.

Figure 2.43. Well L 6:2: 83. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

84 (P 32351)

1°5

Fig. 2.44

Waster fragment. First basket (well L 6:2). p.L.: 0.050. Single fr. preserving greater part of small horizontal handle, perhaps of skyphos. Fragment much distorted, misformed, and heavily vitrified due to excessive heat. Agora sample no. 876.

Figure 2.44.Well L 6:2: 84. Scale 1:2

h +. ".\:<<"

* + ;

"

\

P .

\

fragment b

Figure 2.45. Well L 6:2: 85. fiagrnent a

Scale 1:3

85 (P 32354)

Fig. 2.45

Waster fragments. Fourth, fifth, and eighth baskets (well L 6:2). Fr. a: p.H.: 0.190; fr. b: p.H.: 0.100. A total of eleven frr. (fr. a: six joining frr.; fr. b: five joining frr.) preserving portion of body of large closed vessel, probably amphora. Fragments slightly distorted due to excessive heat; exterior surface, particularly on fi. b, vitrified and cracked. Curved wall from central portion of body of vessel. Clay body fired two-tone: interior surface and corresponding inner part of clay body fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4; outer part of clay body and exterior surface variously fired grayish brown and light brownish gray 1OY.R5/2-6/2. Exterior canonically decorated (banded), with two partially preserved horizontal bands, widely spaced, on body. Paint fired black where least vitrified (fr. a); pinkish red where most vitrified (fr. b). The painted band on the body of the more heavily vitrified fr. b stands out slightly as a raised band. Cf. 92 (well M 13:l). Agora sample no. 878.

106

CHAPTER 2

86 (P 32350)

Fig. 2.46

Kiln firing support (wedge) (?). First basket (well L 6:2). H.: 0.047; lower edge as shown: 0.033 x 0.014. Intact. Roughly triangular-shaped terracotta, intentionally cut from body of large wheelmade vessel (wheel-marks clearly visible on one side). Short end and one of the long ends cut straight, the other slightly stepped as shown. Clay fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. For related, but not identical, kiln firing supports or wedges of later date, see Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 212-213, figs. 5-6, pls. 49:b-c, 51:b-c.

Figure 2.46.Well L 6:2:86. Scale 1:2

Figure 2.47.Well L 6:2:87. Scale 1:2

87 (P 32352)

Fig. 2.47

Possible test-piece fragments (?). Fifth basket (well L 6:2). Fr. a: p.H.: 0.035;p.L.: 0.075. Fr. b: p.H.: 0.030; p.L.: 0.038. Two nonjoining frr.perhaps cut from a wheelmade vessel and reformed to current shape. Clearly not from a handle, the fragments resemble a rim, but not of any identifiable form. Fragments flaring as shown, with rounded lip. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint only on one side of both fragments, applied in an irregular fashion with much streaking visible. Paint mottled reddish brown to black (black where thickest). The fragments are clearly not from any standard Early Iron Age vessel form. Although possible test-pieces, there are no edges or a drawhole to establish them as such. They are also different to the later "firing rings" common in potters' debris of the Classical period, for which cf. Himera 11, pls. 101:5 ( H 66.87), 101:ll ( H 66.77,l-2; 47,l-3). Agora sample no. 877.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

88 (P 32353)

Figure 2.48. Well L 6:2: 88. Scale 1:2

Fig. 2.48

Possible metalworker's mold fragment (?). "Sherds found in examining fill from well [L 6:2]." max. p.L.: 0.047. Single fr. preserving parts of at least four edges, with notable concavity on one side. Clay different from that normally used for pottery and not well baked; containing considerably more inclusions than normal. Clay fired close to pink 7.5YR 8/4-7/4. The piece is probably a fragment of a mold. For similar molds of later date see Mattusch 1977, pl. 85, nos. C16-Cl7; pl. 90, no. H5. There is a very similar mold (identified as such by Carol Mattusch) from one of the "Submycenaean"wells (well U 26:4): Mattusch 1977, p. 341, note 2, Agora B 1621 (cf. also B 1622, B 1623 [all three from well U 26:4]). C f also the later B 1584 and B 1600 (= T 4053).

89 (P 6163)

Fig. 2.49

Large closed vessel (hydria) remodeled into krater. Papadopoulos 1998, pp. 110-112, fig. 1, pl. 15:a. H.: 0.325; Diam. (base): 0.150; Diam. (rim): 0.265. Reconstructed from frr., complete, except for a few missing body h., restored in plaster. Condition quite good. Ring foot; lower wall rising steeply, upper wall curving in; plain chamfered lip. Two horizontal handles, round in section, attached at point of max. Diam. Clay body not visible. Reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Small portion of exterior on one side fired closer to reddish yellow 5YR 6/6-7/6. Paint on exterior fairly evenly applied, well adhering, generally fired black, shading to brown where more dilute. Paint on interior more thickly applied at floor and to one side; paint cracked where thickest, with a tendency to flake, fired black. Interior painted solid except for reserved disk at center of floor (Diam.: 0.028). Exterior banded: exterior of foot and lower wall painted solid, except for lowest edge of foot, which is reserved. Five horizontal bands on lower wall. Belly zone, on both sides of the vessel, defined by three thin vertical stripes, near the handles on either side. Handles decorated with arches and bows. Central portion of belly zone decorated with three close-set horizontal bands. Four horizontal bands on upper body, above which is a thicker band extending to rim. Outer edge of rim top painted, inner edge reserved. It is clear that the vessel was originally a hydria, such as Kerameikos V, i, pl. 50, inv. 783 (Grab 89) (= Papadopoulos 1998, pp. 113-114, fig. 2, pl. 15:b, c [left]); cf inv. 784 (= Papadopoulos 1998, pl. 15:c [right]). The upper body, including upper shoulder, neck, and rim, must have been damaged at some stage prior to firing and the vessel was subsequently pared down, resulting in the neatly chamfered rim, and painted on the interior, in order to be used as a krater. The vessel is m y discussed in Papadopoulos 1998.

108

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.49. Well L 6:2: 89. Scale 1:4

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

WELL M 1 3 : l (90-92) Section MC: Geometric well south of Middle Stoa pier 14. First noted June 15, 1965, and cleared August 3-5,1965, by Homer A. Thompson and Emily T. Vermeule. Coldstream 1968, p. 21.

Well M 13:l is located at a distance of 3.80 m from the south foundation of the Middle Stoa, directly south of Stoa pier 14.The very top of the well had been cut down in the leveling program of the early 6th century B.C. As encountered, the mouth was funnel-shaped, 1.60 m wide at the bedrock surface, narrowing to 1.00 m at a depth of about 1.20 m; the upper walls of the shaft had apparently caved in. The upper fill was described as gray clay with a few field stones and very few sherds. At a depth of about 2.50 m a human skull was dis~overed,~' and slightly firther down, at 3.00 m, was the skull of a dog.38Pottery was more numerous and much better preserved at a depth of over 3.50 m. The bottom of the shaft was reached at a depth of 6.15 m, where its diameter was still a regular 1.00 m. The fill of the lowest few centimeters was described as black and organic, and the excavator further noted that very little water had seeped into the shaft. There was no regular system of footholds, but several isolated holes were noted at various points. The fill of this well is dated to the Middle Geometric I1 period.39 The three pieces catalogued below represent the only clear evidence of potters' refuse from this context.

90 (P 27446) 37. T h e skull was examined by J. Lawrence Angel and pronounced to be that of an adult woman. 38. The skull of the woman, surely, and that of the dog, probably, derive from nearby disturbed earlier burials. There is at least one Late Geometric grave (grave N 11:l: Agora VIII, p. 129, with earlier references) only a short distance to the north-northeast, and a whole group of "Submycenaean," Protogeometric, Early Geometric, and Middle Geometric graves to the south (see Agora VIII, pl. 45). For the incidence of dogs buried in human graves in Athens and in the Greek world generally, see Day 1984. For the general phenomenon of skeletons in wells, see Papadopoulos 2000b. 39. Coldstream 1968, p. 21.

Fig. 2.50, PI. 2

Test-piece cut from body of unidentified vessel or else from clay specifically formed for use as test-piece. L. x W . (max.): 0.058 x 0.043. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of testpiece; draw-hole and edges not preserved. The fragment preserves no clear wheel-marks and appears to be handmade, or else greatly distorted in the process of manufacture. It is possible that the fragment does not derive from a pot (the piece is not from any obvious shape or part of a vessel), but was simply a piece of clay so formed to serve as a test-piece. Orientation of fragment and shape not obvious. Clay body and all surfaces oxidized, evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on both sides fired black, fairly thickly applied and well adhering, with a slight metallic lustre, most notable on the concave side. Both sides painted with broad vertically and horizontally intersecting lines as shown. Test-piece optimally fired.

I10

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.50. Well M 13:l: 90. Scale 1:2

This is one of the very few test-pieces from the Agora Early Iron Age deposits that is not clearly cut from an already formed pot. Agora sample no. 867. 91 (P 27439)

Fig. 2.51

Fragmentary small oinochoe or olpe; possible test-piece. p.H.: 0.099; Diam. (base): 0.051-0.053. Reconstructed from joining frr. preserving entire base and most of body and neck, as well as lower handle attachment of small oinochoe; missing parts of body restored in plaster. There is also one nonjoining fr. preserving small portion of upper neck and rim, which establishes the vessel as having a trefoil mouth. Flat disk base, slightly hollowed out to create a false ring foot; shallow groove at juncture of base and body on exterior. Ovoid body; vertical neck, flaring to trefoil mouth, with rounded lip. Small vertical handle, only the lower attachment of which is preserved. Although trefoil-mouthed, the vessel appears to have been damaged at the neck; there is a small dent under the lower handle attachment and some warping on the upper neck and mouth. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow and pink 5YR 7/6-7/4. Paint irregularly applied, with brush-marks and streaks visible all over; paint somewhat thicker on neck, where there is a slight metallic sheen. Paint fired between brown and reddish brown, with a maroon tinge in parts. Preserved exterior, including outer edge of foot, neck, and rim, painted solid. No traces of paint on preserved interior at rim or neck If the vessel did serve as a test-piece, it could have been withdrawn from the kiln either by the handle, now lost, or by inserting a rod into its mouth. Cf. 51 and 114. For related small oinochoai and trefoil olpai of the late 8th and 7th century B.c., see Agora VIII, pls. 4-5 (various examples).

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

I11

Figure 2.51. Well M 13:l:91. Scale 1:2

Figure 2.52. Well M 13:l:92. Scale 1:3

92 (P 32357)

Fig. 2.52

Waster fragments from amphora base and body. p.H.: 0.140; Diam. (base): 0.125. Eleven joining frr. preserving much of base and portion of lower body of amphora. Vessel distorted out of shape, in part the result of contact with another vessel in the kiln or the kiln wall, and partly vitrified due to excessive heat. Low ring base; lower wall rising steeply, but distorted. Clay variously fired, hard and rather brittle; blow-outs prominent, particularly on interior surface and along breaks. Clay body mostly fired gray 10YR 5/1-611. Interior surface fired closer to light brownish gray

I12

CHAPTER 2

lOYR 6/2; exterior surface mostly very pale brown 10YR 7/4, shading to pink 7.5YR 7/4, but gray to light gray in parts. Exterior canonically decorated: horizontal band at juncture of base and lower body. Paint dull, fired gray, approaching black; paint cracked in parts, but mostly well adhering. Agora sample no. 871.

WELL N 11:s (93-102) Section 0 : well at 69/AE. Cleared June 25-28,1952, by Evelyn Lord Smithson. Thompson 1953, p. 39; Brann 1961a, pp. 125-127;Agora VIII, p. 130 (with references); Coldstream 1968, p. 55, no. 6, p. 83.

Late Geometric well, published by Brann (Brann well M),40described as: ~ ~ well is listed by "Depth 4.50 m, uniform fill. Later 8th century B . C . "The Coldstream as one of the significant deposits of the Attic Transitional Late Geometric IIa-b period.42Well N 11:s was one of several early wells excavated in 1952 in the area immediately to the east of the later O d e i ~ nA. ~Late ~ Geometric grave of a child (grave N 11:1), thought to be of a girl, was partly superimposed over the well (Fig. 2.53).4 The mouth of the well as encountered measured 0.98 m (north-south) by 1.20 m (east-west), but quickly assumed a more consistent diameter of 0.95 m. At a depth of 4.0 m the shaft narrowed to 0.85 m and at the bottom, at a depth of 4.50 m, it had a diameter of 0.65 m. A period of use water pot ( P 22443)45and the neck of large SubDipylon amphora P 2243546were found near the bottom of the shaft. Such a context for the large amphora neck fragment, from a vessel normally used as a burial marker, led Brann to suggest that it may have served as a lining for the well.47The fill of the well contained other funerary debris, however, including human bone, thought to be from nearby disturbed tombs, as well as two substantial bases of funerary amphoras, both pierced on the undersides and both uninventoried. The fill yielded material of the Late Geometric period, the latest of which is probably of the very late 8th century B.c., perhaps even of the early 7th century B . c . A ~ ~number of obvious chronological problems are raised by this deposit, which includes material conventionally of the very late 8th and perhaps early 7th century, but also some earlier Late Geometric material, and the Late Geometric grave (grave N 11:l) superimposed above it, dated to the third quarter of the 8th century B . c . ~ ~ 40. Brann 1961a, pp. 125-127. 41.Agora VIII, p. 130. 42. Coldstream 1968, p. 83. The amphora neck from the grave marker ( P 22435) is listed by Coldstream under the Sub-Dipylon Group (Late Geometric IIa): Coldstream 1968, p. 55, no. 6. 43. Thompson 1953, p. 39. 44. Noted in Thompson 1953, p. 39; more fully published in Brann 1960, pp. 413-414; Agora VIII, p. 129. 45. Brann 1961a, p. 125, no. M 3.

46.Agora VIII, p. 65, no. 303, pl. 17. 47. Brann 1961a, p. 125; Agora VIII, p. 65. 48. Including Phaleron cups such as Agora VIII, p. 53, no. 180, pl. 10. For a discussion of Phaleron cups (named after the Phaleron Cemetery, where they were found in great numbers) and their chronology, see Young 1942, pp. 46-47; Agora VIII, p. 53. 49. I hope to explore this chronological problem more fully elsewhere.

Particularly odd is the presence of fragments of large funerary amphoras, which normally serve as funerary markers. Two of the uninventoried base fragments clearly were pierced after firing, which suggests that they were indeed used as burial markers. If so, then they stood for a relatively short period of time before they, and the tombs they marked, were violated and the burial markers used as fill for an abandoned well.

113

THE MATERIAL AND I T S CONTEXT

Figure 2.53.Late Geometric grave N 11:1 partly superimposed over well N 11:s.View from southeast. In addition to the pieces catalogued below, there are a number of possible but not obvious wasters inventoried but not presented here, or else stored in context. Some of these have possible splits at various parts of the body of the vessel, but in many cases it is uncertain whether these are the result of a production accident, or simply derive from wear or later damage. Other pieces are poorly fired, some underfired, and others fire-damaged or scarred, but these are not overfired to the point of vitrification, which would make them obvious wasters. A classic case of an unassuming waster or production discard is represented by skyphos 101. The vessel was originally published by Brann as a perfectly normal drinking but joining fragments of the pot recovered recently from context show it to be a waster. It is not possible to quantify the exact proportion of potters' debris in this deposit.

93 (P 32434)

50. Brann 1961a, p. 127, no. M 9, pl. 19.

Fig. 2.54

Fragmentary waster from large closed vessel. p.H.: 0.160-0.170; Diam. (base): 0.107-0.110. Four joining frr. preserving entire base and most of lower body of large closed vessel, probably an amphora, though possibly a hydria or even a very large oinochoe. Lower body misformed/distorted due to excessive heat. Portion of lower wall substantially vitrified; base and part of body less vitrified, but nevertheless clearly excessively fired. Ring foot; broad groove at juncture of foot and lower wall on exterior. Lower wall rising steeply, but much distorted. Wheel-marks prominent on interior and exterior. Clay body uniformly fired dark gray, close to dark gray SYR 4/1 and 7.5YR N4/. Reserved surfaces on body substantially vitrified, fired close to gray/light gray 7.5YR N6/; elsewhere closer to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Numerous blow-outs visible on surfaces and breaks, including one substantial blister and several points where the clay has split.

114

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.54.Well N 11:s:93. Scale 1:3

Exterior painted, but in part very poorly preserved due to firing. Paint dull, fired dark gray approaching black. Paint not preserved on side most heavily vitrified. Two broad horizontal bands on lower wall, the lower of which extends onto exterior face of foot. Numerous thin horizontal bands above, at least eleven preserved. For similarly banded amphoras see Agora VIII, pl. 1,nos. 2,8,1011;for oinochoe see pl. 4, no. 42 (though these rarely have ring feet as 93). Cf. Brann 1961a, pl. 13, nos. R 1,P 2; pl. 15, no. Q3.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

94 (P 32435)

Fig. 2.56

Waster fragments. p.H.: 0.100; max. p.W.: 0.092. Four joining frr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of upper body and shoulder of large closed vessel similar to 93, and conceivably from the same vessel, though this could not be established with certainty. Fragment only partially affected by excessive heat, but not vitrified or distorted as 93. Clay body and surfaces partly blackened due to direct contact with fire. Curved shoulder. Occasional blow-outs visible on surface and along breaks. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Interior reserved. Paint on exterior very poorly preserved and mostly flaked; fired dark brown approaching black where visible. Lower fragment decorated with numerous thin bands (13 preserved). Reserved band on shoulder decorated with zigzag, clearly visible on one side of the fragment, but mostly not preserved on the other. Traces of horizontal bands above and of another possible zigzag at upper break. Cf. the amphora Agora VIII, pl. 1, no. 11. For large oinochoai with banding and zigzags see esp. Brann 1961a, p. 141, no. Q 3 , pl. 15. 95 (P 22438)

Fig. 2.55

Waster from oinochoe. Brann 1961a, p. 126, no. M 5, ~ 1 . 1 6Brann . describes the vessel as follows: "Double handle. Body banded, on neck a panel with animal to right. From an oinochoe like P 7. Either potter's refuse or the result of a house fire." (P 7 = P 21436 [Brann 1961a, no. P 7, pl. 151.) Such warping could not have been caused by a "house fire." p.H.: 0.112; Diam. (neck): 0.047-0.058 (on account of warping). Three joining frr. preserving lower portion of neck and much of upper body, including lower handle, of medium-size oinochoe. Circular disk of clay on shoulder directly opposite handle. This is clearly not a handle scar and has been painted over, nor is it clearly the result of a firing accident. The disk may have been an intentional plug, though it does not show on the interior. The pot may conceivably have been designed as an amphora, but changed to an oinochoe prior to painting and firing. If this is the case, the potter did not go to lengths to smooth this blemish away. Fabric substantially vitrified and shape greatly distortedwarped by excessive heat. Shoulder curving in to neck; thickening at juncture of shoulder and neck, indicating that the neck was made separately and subsequently attached or else that the neck was thrown onto the leather-hard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. Vertical neck. Double handle. The individual elements of such handles were probably pulled, rather than rolled, as in the case of later Classical vessels, for which see Schreiber 1999, pp. 23-26. Occasional blow-outs on surface and along breaks. Clay split at a number of points. The interior, in particular, is so vitrified that parts of it

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.55. Well N 11:s:95.

resemble slag/glass. Clay body evenly fired gray 7.5YR N6/; reserved surfaces fired closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 6/2. Interior reserved. Paint on exterior poorly preserved due to excessive heat, though scheme of design is reasonably clear. Paint, as preserved, fired reddish black. Body banded with numerous thin bands (at least 1718 bands preserved). Shoulder painted solid, with paint extending onto

Scale 1:2

Figure 2.56 (opposite).Well N 11:s: 94,96-99. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

117

118

CHAPTER 2

thickening at juncture with neck. Design on neck fragmentary, but clearly comprising a panel with an animal (horse or deer?) to right, probably grazing. Possible rosette(?) in field below animal, only partially preserved. Vessel very close to another oinochoe, Brann 1961a, p. 137, pl. 15, no. P 7 ( P 21436); cf. also P 6 (P 21428) and p. 129, pl. 15, no. N 7.

96 (P 32436)

Fig. 2.56

Waster fragment. p.H.: 0.050; p.W.: 0.068. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of lower wall of large vessel of undetermined shape; original vessel either open (e.g., krater) or closed (e.g, amphora); it is difficult to determine whether the interior was originally painted. Fragment partly vitrified due to excessive heat, but not substantially distorted. Lower wall rising steeply. Clay body evenly fired close to gray N6/; interior fired white: it is not obvious whether the interior was painted. The white resembles the color of decalcinated lime, and the color and texture of cremated bone. Reserved surface on exterior fired closer to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2. Interior possibly painted, but uncertain. Paint on exterior poorly preserved, fired grayish black. Three horizontal bands, above which are the lower parts of two diagonal lines.

97 (P 32437)

Fig. 2.56

Production discard fragments from kotyle. p.H.: 0.063-0.065; est. Diam. (rim): 0.210-0.220(?). This diameter is only an estimate and is probably affected by the warping visible on the fragment. Most contemporary kotylai have a significantly smaller rim diameter. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of rim and upper wall of kotyle. Fragments only partially affected by excessive heat, not substantially vitrified, but partly distorted/warped; at least one split in clay visible on interior. Upper wall becoming vertical, terminating in plain rounded lip. Slight thickening suggests position of one handle. Occasional, though not numerous, blow-outs visible on surface and along breaks. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired evenly close to light brown and pink 7.5YR 6/4-7/4. Paint on interior somewhat better preserved than on exterior, where it has largely flaked. Paint as preserved fired dark brown approaching black. Interior painted solid except for reserved lip, which is decorated with sets of short vertical strokes, evidently arranged in groups of five

119

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

(one group of five strokes preserved, with two strokes of another group at break). Lower wall on exterior painted solid, above which are five thin horizontal bands. Rim decorated with groups of five vertical lines framing metope with double-axe motif. To left traces of paint, very poorly preserved, suggest either vertically set tremulous lines or else stylized birds(?). Decoration on lip exterior not clear, possibly two, rather than one, thin horizontal bands. For vertical tremulous lines cf. Agora VIII, pl. 9, no. 154; for stylized birds pl. 9, no. 163. For the general shape see Agora VIII, pp. 49-50, pl. 9. 98 (P 32438)

Fig. 2.56

Production discard fragment from kotyle. p.H.: 0.046-0.048; Diam. (rim): not possible to measure due to warping. Single fr. preserving portion of rim and upper body of kotyle, similar to 97, but clearly from another vessel. Preserved fragment bears no prominent signs of vitrification, but is significantly distorted/warped due to excessive heat. Shape as 97, but with rim very slightly offset as shown. Clay and paint as 97. Interior painted solid, except for reserved band at lip decorated with one preserved set of five vertical strokes. Paint on exterior much worn, especially at middle of fragment. Lower wall painted solid; area above very poorly preserved: evidently with horizontal bands, but it is not clear how many bands there are. Rim decorated with lozenge chain and vertical strokes (four preserved to left of fragment). Two thin horizontal bands at lip. Cf. 97. 99 ( P 32439)

Fig. 2.56

Possible production discard fragments from skyphos. p.H.: 0.086; est. Diam. (rim): 0.075-0.080. Two joining frr. preserving portion of rim and body, including one handle, of skyphos. Fabric and feel similar to 97 and 98, with fireaffected discoloration, but no vitrification or any obvious distortion. Conceivably not a production discard. Lower wall rising to vertical upper wall; offset, flaring rim, with rounded lip. Horizontal handle attached to upper wall. Clay and paint as 97, though with paint on interior rather irregularly applied. Interior probably painted solid, but irregularly applied. Possible, but not certain, reserved band(s) at rim. Lower body on exterior painted solid, above which is a thin horizontal band. Upper wall decorated with ten vertical lines framing handle, to the left of which is a double horizontal row of zigzags. Two horizontal bands on rim. Handle painted, with attachments ringed. For the general shape see Agora VIII, pp. 46-48, pl. 8.

I20

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.57. Well N 11:s: 100. Scale 1:2

Fig. 2.57 Fragmentary production discard from oinochoe. p.H.: 0.110; Diam. (base): 0.096. Four joining frr. preserving entire base and part of lower body of oinochoe. During the course of manufacture or firing, the vessel developed a large crack or split along the base, rendering it useless for liquids. The edges of this crack preserve traces of weathering different from the clear breaks. It appears as if the clay simply pulled apart at this point. Piece otherwise well fired. Flat disk base, very slightly pushed up on underside; lower wall rising steeply. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/4-7/6. Interior reserved. Underside reserved, except for slight traces of paint. Paint on exterior well adhering, fired reddish brown,

T H E M A T E R I A L A N D ITS CONTEXT

I21

approaching black at a few points only. Lower wall mostly painted solid, with paint tending to streak near juncture with base; small portion of lower wall reserved. Banding above (at least eight horizontal bands preserved). Cf. Agora VIII, pl. 4, no. 42. Occasionally pieces cracked or damaged in the manner of 100 were deposited in tombs. A classic case is that of the offerings placed in the unpublished Protogeometric child inhumation in the area of the later Athenian Agora, tomb C 11:2. Most of the six vases deposited in the grave were damaged, particularly the lekythos ( P 7075) and the one-handled cup (P 7076). For further notes on damaged vessels, see Papadopoulos 1998, pp. 115-116. The following skyphos was ~ublishedin Brann 1961a, p. 127, pl. 19, no. M 9, and was described as follows: "On shoulder, in center, zigzags; at sides, crude vertical lines. Reserved line on rim, inside. Streaky brownish black glaze, worn. Type of R12; late and careless." There was nothing inherent in the vessel to suggest that it was a waster or production discard. During sorting of the context lots of this well in May 1995, six more joining fragments of the skyphos were located (labeled 0 1177 in order to distinguish them from the fragments previously joined) and, after some difficulty, were joined with the fragments previously catalogued. Despite attempts to join the fragments correctly, it was clear that the vessel had sprung out of shape during the firing and could not have been used as a normal drinking vessel.jl 101 (P 22431; 0 1177)

51. I am grateful to the Agora Conservator, Alice Paterakis, for struggling with this piece far more than was necessary.

Fig. 2.58

Skyphos. H.: 0.073; Diam. (base): 0.046; Diam. (rim): 0.098. Ten original joining frr., to which six more are now added, preserving almost complete skyphos. Vessel slightly dented on one side either prior to firing or during loading of kiln; rim sprung out of shape as shown. Flat disk base preserving string-marks around outer edge. Lower wall rising steeply; upper wall vertical; gently flaring rim with rounded lip. Horizontal handles attached to upper wall well below rim. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint applied rather carelessly, streaky, worn, and tending to flake; fired brown, approaching black where thickest. Interior painted solid, except for reserved band at lip, which is partial. Three horizontal bands on rim exterior. Handle zone decorated with vertical stripes, except near handle, where the decorative scheme is unclear. O n one side there appears to be a tremulous line or zigzag; on the other careless chevrons. For "chevron skyphoi" generally, including Athenian types, see Descoeudres and Kearsley 1983, pp. 11-29.

I22

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.58. Well N 11:s: 101. Scale 1:2

102 (P 32441)

Fig. 2.59

Possible kiln firing support(?). H.: 0.063; max. L.: 0.072. Single piece preserving probably intact object. Roughly wedge-shaped. Clay rather coarse, with straw impressions visible. Surfaces evenly fired close to reddish yellow 7.5YR 6/6-7/6. Conceivably a kiln firing support, similar to later examples published in Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 212-213, figs. 5-6, pls. 49:&c, 51:b-c. The lack of curvature and the fact that the sides appear to be edges, rather than breaks, precludes its being a hearth rim. The piece, if fragmentary, may derive from the clay lining of a house roof or ceiling, though this seems highly unlikely.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.59.Well N 115:102. Scale 1:2

Although not unlike 86 in form, the fabric and feel of 102 are very different. Pieces similar to 102 were encountered among - the potters' waste of deposit S 17:2 (see below). Of the inventoried pieces from this deposit, the following are poorly fired and conceivably misfired: P 22424 (M 10) Small unglazed kantharos. P 22430 (M 4) Neckless trefoil oinochoe, assigned by Brann to the workshop of Athens 897.52 P 22437 (M 6) Small neckless trefoil o i n o c h ~ e . ~ ~

DEPOSIT G 15:s (103) Section A 27-30/CT-ICT. Cleared March 8-16,1932, by Lucy Talcott. 52. Brann 1961a, p. 126, no. M 4, pl. 15 (=AgoraVIII, p. 72, no. 361, pl. 21), described as: "Fabric discolored." See also Coldstream 1968, p. 79, no. 39. For the workshop of the Painter of Athens 897 see also Cook 1947, pp. 144-146; Davison 1961, pp. 45-48, 146-147. 53. Described in Brann 1961a, p. 126 as: "Black glaze, much discolored and worn." 54. Examples entered on the inventory include P 663, P 4557, and P 4558. 55. There is at least one poorly fired vessel entered on the inventory, a kantharos (P 4559), though it is neither an obvious waster nor a clear test-piece.

Thin, light reddish colored deposit, rarely more than 0.10 m in depth, overlying bedrock in the area immediately to the west of the South Stoa and just over 50 m south of the later Tholos. The deposit as excavated extended horizontally for about 10 m east-west, though its north and south boundaries were not accurately determined at the time of excavation.The deposit was in parts disturbed by later building activity, though the excavator was careful to keep the material from this deposit separate from that overlying it. The diagnostic pottery recovered from the deposit is primarily Protogeometric, but there is quite a bit of Early, Middle, and Late Geometric material scattered throughout the deposit, as well as some later, 6th-century B.c., pottery. Prominent throughout the deposit were quite a number of pierced disks, many cut from Protogeometric vessels.54The quantity of potters' refuse was minimal: apart from the test-piece presented below there is nothing that could be classified as potters' debris.s5

124

CHAPTER 2

103 (P 4563)

Fig. 2.60

Test-piece fragments cut from rim and upper body of skyphos. Fr. a: p.H.: 0.086; est. Diam. (rim): ca. 0.160. Fr. b: p.H.: 0.051. Fr. c: p.H.: 0.046. Three groups of nonjoining frr. Fr. a: reconstructed from four joining frr.; fr. b: a single fr.; fr. c: five small joining frr. No evidence of drawhole(s) on any of the three fragments, nor any clear edges on frr. b and c, though fr. a preserves a likely edge on one side, indicated by the fact that it has fired differently from the obvious breaks (all breaks and edges were closely studied prior to mending). The fragments as preserved are probably from two or three test-pieces cut from the same vessel. Preserved lower body curving up to vertical upper body. Tall, almost vertical rim, slightly flaring to lip, which is obliquely cut on the interior. Rim slightly offset from body, with rather irregular exterior surface. Horizontal handle, round in section, attached to upper wall just below rim. O n fr. a, clay body at breaks fired gray; likely edges and much of reserved surface on interior fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4, with self-slip slightly lighter where better preserved, fired closer to pink 7.5YR 8/4. Exterior (mis)fired mostly gray/brown, so too the exteriors of frr. b and c, though their interiors have fired as fr. a. Paint very poorly preserved on all three fragments and mostly flaked on exterior; somewhat better adhering on interior, though still peeled. Design on exterior mostly discernible from where the paint has peeled. Wherever preserved on exterior, paint fired black to reddish brown; red on one point on fr. b. Paint on interior of all three fragments fired bright red, with a good sheen, except for the band at lip on fr. a, fired black; maroon on fr. b. O n exterior of fr. a only slight traces of paint preserved below handle and at one small point on handle arch; possible, but uncertain, traces of paint on rim. Thin reserved band on rim interior (part of canonical decoration); reserved band below unusual. Design on frr. b and c as shown: five thin bands on rim, a sixth below at juncture with body. Upper body decorated with at least two and probably more tremulous lines approaching zigzag, set in panels or metopes defined by vertical lines (six visible on fr. b; at least three, poorly preserved, on fr. c). Small portion of preserved lower body on fr. c decorated with thin horizontal band above an area painted solid. Interior of fr. b painted solid, except for thin reserved band at rim; reserved band on interior of fr. c. Such tall rims are occasionally found on Late Geometric kantharoi: cf. Kerameikos V, i, pl. 88, inv. 1229, though they are not usual. The shape of 103 is clearly a skyphos, not a tall-rimmed skyphoid pyxis, the so-called Pyxidennapfe of Kerameikos V, i, pl. 98. For tall banded rims on skyphoi approaching 103, see Kerameikos V, i, pl. 99, inv. 343; and especially Brann 1961a, p. 140, no. P 18 (Agora P 21429), with a rim almost as tall as 103, and also poorly fired; cf. also pp. 144-145, no. R 12 (Agora P 22450), pl. 19, with a less tall rim and a style clearly Corinthianizing. Brann 1961a, well P (deposit R 9:2) is dated "second half of 8th into early 7th century B.c." (Agora VIII, p. 131); Brann well R

Figure 2.60 (opposite). Deposit G 15:s: 103. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

125

LIKELY EDGE

LIKELY

fragment a

I/

fragment b I

fragment c

I

/

(deposit N 11:6) is dated "later 8th into 7th century B.c." (Agora VIII, p. 130).The decoration of 103 is canonically Late Geometric, though the reserved band(s) on the interior are not normal for skyphoi. The clear edge on fr. a, the unusually tall rim, and the poorly fired paint on all three fragments suggest that 103 is a test-piece or fragments of several test-pieces.

126

CHAPTER 2

-

-

J

,

. -,

P

Figure 2.61. The temple on Kolonos Agoraios and the west side of the Classical Agora, ca. 1858. View from the southeast. Albumen print from wet-collodion negative, Dimitris Constantine.The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (03.13).

Figure 2.62. View of the Tholos and general area around it on the west side of the Agora, after excavation and completion of conservation work View from the southeast, May 3,1950.

KILN DEPOSIT H 12:17 (104-118) Section Z: Tholos area; from kiln in house of 7th century B.C. to southeast ofTholos. Excavated June 1-7,1938, by Homer A. Thompson. Published in Thompson 1940.

A succinct summary of this important deposit, located on the west side of the Agora near the 1aterTholos (Figs. 2.61-2.63), was published by Brann, as follows: "H 12:17. Filling of kiln in 7th-century house; Hesperia Supplement IV, pp. 6-7. The kiln is in building A and was abandoned along with the house. Second and third quarters of 7th century B . c . " ~ ~ Brann published only three vessels from the "kiln," including a Corinthianizing kotyle (here 104) and two Protoattic amphora fragments

56. Agora VIII, p. 129.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.63. Plan showing the remains of 7th-century house, kiln H 12:17, and theTholos Cemetery in relation to the later Tholos of Athens. Agora VIII, p. 110, fig. 9

57. The kotyle is Agora VIII, p. 51, no. 164; the amphora fragments are Agora VIII, pp. 75-76,94, nos. 398 and 554.

127

(110 and 111)." In fact, these three pieces represent almost all that was inventoried from the deposit; the only other piece entered on the inventory was P 13328 (109), a small skyphos virtually identical to the many found in deposit S 17:2 (see below, pp. 159-165). All four of these pieces are included in the present study in order to give an idea of the range of material from the kiln and to facilitate easier cross-reference. Despite their context, only one of Brann's pieces is clearly potters' waste, kotyle 104 (from the floor paclung of the kiln), which must be a waster or production discard (the two amphora fragments and the skyphos were recovered from the fill of the kiln). In 1996 all of the context lots for the kiln and the material directly associated with it were reexamined, and more pieces were added to the inventory. As with deposit S 17:2 (see below, pp. 143-186), much material of interest remains in context. Here, only the obvious potters' waste, as well as the four previously published pieces, are presented. An excellent description of the kiln (Figs. 2.63-2.67) was published by Thompson, and this is here quoted in part, since the original remains are no longer preserved. Thompson writes: A clue to the purpose of the building is afforded by a small luln that has appeared in the second compartment from the west. This establishment suffered severely when it was abandoned together with the house, and subsequently it lost much of its north side by the cutting of a well in the fifth century before Christ. Yet enough remains to show the scheme: a round combustion chamber, ca. 1.33 m. in diameter, with a column at its center to support an upper floor, and, to the north, a firing-room of irregular shape. The sidewalls have been broken down to the level of the

128

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.64 (le?). Plan and section of kiln H 12:17. Thompson 1940, p. 6 , fig. 5

Figure 2.65 (above). Sketch plan and section of kiln H 12:17. Agora Excavation Notebook Z XIV, p. 2634

contemporary floor of the surrounding yard and retain no trace of the upper floor of the round chamber. The floor of the yard sloped down steeply from south to north, so that it gave support to the wall of the round chamber yet permitted of firing at the mouth of the lesser chamber. The walls of the round part are covered inside with a layer of clean clay 0.03 m. thick. The central column is built up of crude brick. It too was surfaced with clay, in two layers to a total thickness of ca. 0.05 m. The floor was also finished with a layer of clay 0.05-0.15 m. thick, carefully laid and tramped above a thin layer of ash and charcoal. This flooring continued in the area of the firing-room as well. The wall surfacing, however, stopped at the mouth of the round chamber. Over the floor of both chambers was found a layer of ash and charcoal; above this, tumbled fragments of the upper walls, the whole sealed under a hard-tramped sandy floor that had formed after the abandonment of the kiln.j8 Since Thompson was interested primarily in the architecture of the later Tholos, he provided only a brief description of the kiln and its stratification, leaving it to others to deal more directly with the material recovered from the kiln itself. The pottery was encountered in two distinct deposits: material recovered from the clay floor packing of the luln (context a below), and material filling the remainder of the kiln chamber (context P below). The latter was considered to represent the "destruction" fill, leading to the excavator's conclusion that the kiln was abandoned along with the "house."j9Together, the material (especially the obvious potters' waste)

58.Thompson 1940, p. 6. 59. Thompson 1940,p. 7.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

129

Figure 2.66. Kiln H 12:17 and its relationship to BuildingA, fiom east. Street wall of Building A at lower left. Thompson 1940, p. 5, fig. 4

Figure 2.67. Kiln H 12:17 and its relationship to later structures. View from northeast.

60. Thompson 1940,p. 7.

from the floor packing of the kiln and from the "destruction" fill suggests that the installation was in use from the Late Geometric period into the Protoattic period. Although the latest diagnostic pottery is of the 7th century B.c., there is clearly Late Geometric material throughout.Thompson also writes: "Wasters, to be sure, were not found around it. But in the next compartment to the northeast appeared the exiguous remains of a claylined basin such as is used in modern Greek potteries for the washing of clayn60Although some wasters or production discards have been now identified, nothing survives today of the basin described by the excavator. In addition to the material from the kiln, potters' waste was also noted in the deposits overlying the kiln (context y below), but only the more important pieces have been selected for presentation. The relevant material is best listed by reference to its context.

CHAPTER 2

Context a:Materialfiom the "FloorPacking of the Kiln"

The context pottery (lot B 483) includes: 16 rim and body frr. (many joining) of a large dinos/krater (production discard). 2 base frr.; 3 handle frr.; 11rim frr.; 46 body frr. (mostly production discards), including one large body fr. of a Late Geometric closed vessel. A small piece of "mud brick," perhaps from the kiln floor or superstructure. Context p: Material in the "Fill of the Furnace"

The context pottery (lot T 482), which was in quantity large in comparison to the material from the floor packing of the luln, included proportionately less material that could be classified as potters' waste; not all of the pottery recovered from this deposit need be directly associated with the kiln or pottery production. The only figured pieces from the fill are 110 and 111, neither ofwhich is clearly potters' debris (see below). Nevertheless, the deposit did yield quite a bit of potters' waste, including: 19 rim frr.; 5 base frr.; 13 handle frr.; 193 body frr., including some possible, but uncertain, production discards. 2 joining frr. of a small conical oinochoe. 4 joining frr. preserving portion of shoulder and most of neck of large amphora mended in antiquity (at least 5 mending holes preserved). 1body fr. of a large Late Geometric closed vessel. 1small terracotta figurine (cf. those from deposit S 17:2). The obvious potters' debris includes:

5 rim frr., 1handle fr., 5 base frr. (2 joining), 13 body frr. (2 joining) of obvious wasters or production discards. 1possible test-piece fr. (noncanonical paint on interior). 1small "handle" looped over, with the ends fused together. 1large piece of "mud brick" perhaps from the kiln floor or superstructure. There were also 16 or so pieces of "pla~ter."~' Context y:Material Stratzj-ied in the Area Immediately above the Kiln

During the excavations of 1938, a balk referred to as a "martyra," ca. 0.40 m wide, was left along the south side of "trench U" and along the north face of the cross-wall in the so-called south Archaic house. O n June 1,1938, the decision was made to excavate this ba1k"in order to clear up if possible the relations among the various early walls in this region." The

61. A number of ancient kilns have been interpreted as lime kilns (e.g., Warren 1981, pp. 76-78; cf. Orlandos 1955, pp. 138,147; Levi and Laviosa 1986, pp. 46-47), although it is often difficult to distinguish lime and pottery kilns on the basis of kiln structure (see discussion below, pp. 201-209). A number of modern lime kilns, such as those of Torone (unpublished), used from the late 19th century onward for melting ancient fortification blocks to lime, are more substantial than most known ancient kilns. See also Asine I, p. 67, fig. 67. It should be stressed, however, that the plaster found in the "fill of the furnace" of kiln H 12:17 is not of the type normally associated with lime kilns.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS C O N T E X T

I3I

careful clearance of this balk provided important supplementary information on the stratigraphy of this area. From top to bottom, the first deposit encountered (layer a) was the firm-packed gray clay overlying the luln. It yielded no potters' waste.62 Below this, hard-packed brown clay (layer b) was interpreted as the floor packing. The context pottery from this deposit included quite a few fragments of black-figure but no obvious potters' debris.63The level below (layer c) appears to have been leveling fill. The context lot for layer c (box 475) yielded no clear potters' debris, although three small sherds are conceivably from production discards or poorly fired vessels. The deposit (layer d) below this was a firm-packed fine earth above what was thought to represent an earlier surface. The latest diagnostic pottery here continued to be of the 6th century B.c., but the deposit did yield a likely potters' test-piece (113), as well as a poorly fired olpe or oinochoe (114), conceivably a production discard and perhaps a test-piece. In addition to these two pieces, layer d (box 476) also yielded: 4 rim frr.; 2 base frr.; 3 handle frr.; 38 body frr. ofwhich only one was perhaps a production discard; 1roof-tile fr.

62. The relevant material is stored in box 473. 63. T h e deposit (box 474) did yield a large complete vertical handle of the type associated with "SOS" amphoras, for which see Johnston and Jones 1978. It has irregularly applied paint on the handle arch and prominent irregular brush wipings on the inner face, as well as the fingerprints of the maker. Such irregularly applied paint on the handles is a common feature of SOS amphoras. 64. The remaining fragments in "pit in alley, layer c" include: 1 handle fr.; 1 base fr.; and 8 body frr. 65. Terracottas were produced in addition to pottery, for example, in the Sindos and Torone kilns: Despoine 1982; Papadopoulos 1989a. See discussion below in Chapter 3, pp. 217-219. 66. "Pit in alley, layer e" also yielded: 2 rim frr.; 7 base frr.; 2 handle frr.; 42 body frr., including a few possible, but uncertain, production discards.

Layer e, immediately below, was essentially a continuation of the previous layer (d). It was during the clearance of this deposit that the preserved top of the kiln was first encountered. The pottery from this deposit was said to be of the early 6th century B.c., but nothing was actually kept. Having thus come down onto the kiln, the excavators stopped and dug its contents separately. In order to better define the total extent of the "furnace," they decided to excavate a small "pit" or test-trench in the "alley: to the southwest of the south column base." This extension, referred to as "pit in the alley," measured ca. 0.80 x 1.80 m. It was hoped that its excavation would define the west extent of the kiln. In this area, layers a and b had already been removed, as had part of layer c. What remained of the latter yielded only a minor quantity of material, amounting to twelve sherds in all (box 477). O f these, two joining fragments were of a waster fired to the point of excessive vitrification (115).6Cayerd of the "pit in alley" was also a small lot, which yielded, not counting minor chips, the following (box 478):

3 rim frr.; 1 handle fr.; 26 body frr., mostly small. O f these pieces a few are conceivably from production discards. The only catalogued piece from "pit in alley, layer d" is an intact terracotta spindlewhorl, bead, or button (116). Although there is nothing to recommend this piece as potters' waste, the fact that two pyramidal loomweights were associated with the kiln, including one from the floor packing, may indicate that such terracottas, in addition to loomweights, were also produced therein.65 Layer d, like layer c, was fill immediately above a presumed floor or surface. "Pit in alley, layer enwas also regarded as material stratified above a floor. The context lot (box 479) included a test-piece (117) cut from the lower wall of a large closed "Pit in alley, layer f " appears in Thompson's unpublished section through the luln (Fig. 2.65); in the relevant notebook, the deposit is

CHAPTER 2

I32

described as "hard and gravelly"; alternatively: "Layer (f) is 0.20 m of fine brown earth above a floor smooth and level and sandy in parts."'j7The pottery from the deposit is referred to as "advanced 7th century B.c." Although this date is based on the latest diagnostic material, the deposit also yielded some full-fledged Late Geometric pottery.'j8 "Pit in alley, layer g" is described in the excavation notebook as "ca. 0.25 m of gravelly earth above a smooth, level and firm gravelly floor." It also appears in Thompson's unpublished section drawing (Fig. 2.65); the deposit was dated by Thompson to the mid 7th century B.C.The only item catalogued from it here (118) is a fragmentary waster of a skyphos. In addition, the context lot (box 481) yielded: 1terracotta figurine fr.; 1lid fr.; 8 rim frr.; 3 handle frr.; 31 body frr., including at least one, and perhaps more, production discards. The pieces catalogued below are presented in the order of their threepart stratification as described above (a,@, and y). In addition to presenting the obvious potters' waste, the following selection represents an attempt to give an impression of the chronological range of the material associated with the kiln. Although the kiln was clearly used in the 7th century B.c., it was also in use during the Late Geometric period.

104 (P 13329)

Fig. 2.68

Kotyle (Attic Corinthianizing); production discard. Agora VIII, p. 51, no. 164, pl. 9. H.: 0.130; Diam. (base): 0.050; Diam. (rim): 0.140-0.145. Reconstructed from many joining frr. preserving about one-half of base and lower wall and most of upper wall and rim, including both handles. Missing parts restored in plaster. Some fragments more worn than others. Flat disk base, only slightly articulated from body as shown and very slightly pushed up on underside. Thin-walled body, with lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall, terminating in plain vertical rim, with rounded lip. Two horizontal handles, circular in section, attached to upper wall. Body and rim slightly distorted. Standard Athenian clay, with a small quantity of primarily white inclusions and a fine dusting of mica. Reserved and worn surfaces on upper body fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4; closer to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6-6/6 toward lower body. Paint rather worn in parts, mostly fired red; two-tone red and black in area near one handle. Painted ring, only partially preserved, on underside. Very thin band on lower and upper edge of articulated foot on exterior, which at one point dribbles down as if to suggest that the entire face of the foot was painted solid, which it is not. Tall rays on lower wall. Central portion of wall decorated with very broad band or area painted solid, framed by three thin bands below (which at one point merge to form two) and three thin bands above, with perhaps a fourth

67. The relevant text is in Notebook Z XIV. I n the section drawing on p. 2634 (Fig. 2.65), layer f is described as "hard and gravelly"; the section drawing is the same as that presented in Thompson 1940, p. 6, fig. 5, but without any indication of layers. O n p. 2632 layer f is described as "fine brown earth." 68. The context lot (box 480) for "pit in alley, layer f " yielded: 9 rim frr.; 4 base frr.; 4 handle frr.; 39 body frr. Several of these pieces are conceivably, but not certainly, production discards. Nothing from this deposit is catalogued in the present study.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

I33

Figure 2.68. Kiln deposit H 12:17, context a:104. Scale 1:2

framing the upper edge of the solid area. Reserved panel on upper wall and rim decorated with a row of squiggles, framed at the handles on either side with groups of vertical lines (13 verticals where most clearly preserved). Two very thin bands at rim. Horizontal band on outer face of each handle, terminating at the point of attachment. Interior painted solid, except for two thin reserved bands at rim. Paint at very center of floor peeled, but it is likely that there was no reserved disk. For kotylai of this shape, both Corinthian and Corinthianizing, see discussion in Agora VIII, pp. 49-51 and cf pl. 9, nos. 153-168. For further bibliography see Kerameikos V, i, pp. 72-73, note 104. Brann believed that the Athenian versions of the kotylai were copied directly from Corinthian imports, with minimal lag in time between prototype and copy. I would prefer the scenario where a Corinthian potter or potters set up shop in Athens. This kotyle is dated by Brann to the first half of the 7th century B.c., following the absolute dating of Byvanck (1936-1937, p. 223) (cf also Cook 1972, p. 49, fig. 4A). The combination of context, poor firing, and slight distortion suggests that this piece was a likely production discard, though not an

I34

CHAPTER 2 DGE

\

A

. 1 ,

i

EDGE

117

obvious waster. The slight distortion is noticeable both vertically and at the rim, despite the restorations in plaster. Two parts of the vessel join only at the rim, with a joining surface of less than 0.010. It is therefore possible, and perhaps highly likely, that the vessel sprung out of shape during the firing. Cf. 105 and 108. 105 (P 32487)

Fig. 2.69

Test-piece fragment cut from base of Corinthianizing kotyle. p.H.: 0.025; Diam. (base): 0.052; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.018. Single fr. preserving about one-half of test-piece, including more than one-half of draw-hole, cut from the base of a Corinthianizing kotyle like 104. Although there is no preserved paint on the cut edges, most of the upper edges are certain because they have fired differently from the obvious breaks. Shape as 104. Clay at obvious breaks fired gray; reserved surfaces and edges fired a dirty gray/brown not unlike very pale brown and light yellowish brown 10YR 7/4-6/4. Reserved surfaces gray where paint has peeled.

.

' *I

"

\

Figure 2.69. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 105,113,117. Scale 1:2

I35

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

116

Figure 2.70. Kiln deposit H 12:17:

106,112,116. Scale 1:2

Paint largely peeled, with a pronounced tendency to flake, fired brown to light reddish brown where preserved. Partial painted ring on underside, obliterated by draw-hole. Paint on lower body very worn, especially on outside face of foot, but clearly originally rays as 104.At one point there appears to be solid paint, instead of neatly defined rays, and it is possible that test-paint was added by the potter to an already canonically decorated piece. Interior painted solid. Cf. 104 and 108. 106 (MC 1372)

Fig. 2.70

Small pyramidal loomweight. H.: 0.047; L. x W. (base): 0.032 x 0.028. Intact, except for minor chipping. Small and rather crudely formed pyramidal loomweight, with single, roughly elliptical,suspension hole. Clay body where visible at chips and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4 toward upper part; discolored gray toward bottom. Surfaces crudely smoothed. Cf. 112 (MC 1373) and Brann 1961a, no. P 28; Brann writes: "Weights of truncated pyramidal shape occur in Mycenaean (see Broneer 1939,p. 410, fig. 92:f), Protogeometric and later contexts but become frequent only in the 7th century B.c.; a shape development is hard to establish"; cf R 22. See also Brann 1961b,under no. G 49; cf nos. H 67-H 70, S 23; Agora VIII, p. 124 for a listing of all published loomweights and spindlewhorls from the Agora; see also Burr 1933, p. 602, fig. 70, nos. 244-253.

107 (P 32500)

Fig. 2.71

Late Geometric plate fragments; waster. p.H.: 0.034; est. Diam. (rim): 0.170. Two frr., probablyjoining, preserving small portion of rim and upper body of shallow plate. Upper body near rim badly discolored,

1 3 ~

CHAPTER 2

118

Figure 2.71. Kiln deposit H 12:17:

107,118. Scale 1:2 though not quite overfired to the point of vitrification. Though probably joining, there appears to be some distortion to the fragments, and it is possible that the vessel split or sprung out of shape during firing. Shallow sloping wall, thickening near middle of fragments as preserved; rim flat on top. Clay body and reserved surfaces mostly misfired grayhrown; close to reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4 where less badly misfired. Fabric dense, with few visible impurities, but many pinprick blow-outs. Paint variously fired from red to brown through black, mostly well adhering, except toward rim on exterior. Row of leaves on lower preserved exterior, in double outline with stroke at center (see Coldstream 1968, p. 396, "Leaves: triple outline"); above these at least three thin bands, possibly more, below row of dots; two thin bands at rim. Interior painted solid except for reserved band near midpoint of fragment as preserved. Rim top reserved. For the basic shape cf. 124 and Agora VIII, pp. 45-46, nos. 113-119, pl. 7; cf also some of the bowls with return handles, Agora VIII, pp. 4445, nos. 105-112, pl. 7. Concerning plates, Brann notes that they are rare in the 7th century B.C. This piece is stylistically Late Geometric.

108 (P 32495)

Fig. 2.72

Fragmentary Corinthianizing kotyle; likely waster. p.H.: 0.103; est. Diam. (rim): ca. 0.160. Seven joining frr. preserving less than one-half of rim and upper body of kotyle, but nothing of the base or handles. Vessel misfired and evidently partially warped; likely waster or production discard. Shape as 104. Clay body and reserved surfaces variously fired/misfired, with directly joining fragments fired to different shades, and therefore broken

-

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.72. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 108. Scale 1:2

I3 7

during firing. The fragments resemble pyre debris, where heavily burnt sherds often join directly with fragments less affected or unaffected by fire; for such pyre debris, see Smithson 1968. As preserved clay body and reserved surfaces variously fired in the range of reddish yellow and yellowish red 5YR 6/6-96 and pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on exterior mostly flaked, though somewhat better adhering near rim; mostly fired red on upper part of fragments, black where preserved on the rays. Preserved paint on interior more irregularly applied, with brush-marks and streaks clearly visible; fired black Decoration similar to 104, but with multiple thin bands (about 23) instead of area painted solid. Rays widely spaced on lower body. Squiggles framed by verticals on upper wall and rim; thin bands at lip. Two reserved bands on rim interior; remainder of interior probably painted solid, but with paint only preserved on upper half of fragment. Paint at lowest preserved point much cracked. Cf. 104. Especially close are Agora VIII, pl. 9, no. 160 (Attic imitation of Middle Protocorinthian) and no. 156 (Protocorinthian). Kotylai with multiple bands above the rays and below the rim are earlier than those with the same area painted solid; see Agora VIII, pp. 49-51.

13~

CHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.73 Fragmentary skyphos. H.: 0.062; Diam. (base): 0.0364.037; est. Diam. (rim): 0.100. Reconstructed from two joining frr. preserving all of base and lower wall but less than one-half of rim and upper wall, including one complete handle and small portion of the second; there is also a small, nonjoining fr. preserving portion of rim. There is a large split or tear on the underside, which does not extend through the thickness of the fragment; apart from this there is nothing to suggest that this piece was potters' waste. Flat base; lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall; flaring rim, almost outturned, tapering to rounded lip. Horizontal handles attached near mid-point of vessel. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint well adhering, but somewhat irregularly applied, with brushmarks and streaks visible all over. Paint fired from black to reddish brown with a maroon tinge. Lower wall reserved; remainder of body to rim, including handles, painted solid except for reserved handle zone and small area under handle arches. Outside edge of lip reserved. Interior painted solid except for reserved rim decorated with three very thin bands (only two are shown on the drawing; the third, extremely thin, is right at the edge and cannot be distinguished in a drawing from the line of the rim). For a full discussion of this type of "Subgeometric" skyphoi and their development, see Agora VIII, p. 48 and cf especially pl. 8, nos. 138-142. See also Young 1939, pp. 201-203.

110 (P 13326)

Fig. 2.74

Fragment of large closed vessel. Agora VIII, p. 94, no. 554, pls. 34,44. p.H.: 0.065; p.W.: 0.117. Four joining frr. preserving very small portion of upper body, at shoulder, of large closed vessel. The fragment is poorly fired and most of the paint has peeled, though apart from these details there is nothing to establish this piece as potters' waste and it may well be intrusive to the deposit. Curved shoulder. Fabric containing noticeable red inclusions, but only a little,

Figure 2.73. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 109. Scale 1:2

I3 9

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.74.Kiln deposit H 12:17: 110-111.Scale 1:2

111

extremely fine, mica. Clay body and reserved surface on interior fired close to light brown 7.SYR 6/4 and pink 5YR 7/3. Paint mostly peeled, fired black wherever preserved. Open muzzle of lion to right in solid black, teeth only in outline, incision at edge and interior of muzzle. Tendrils, only partially preserved, at right, as if the lion is attacking the tendril. The fragment is M y discussed in Agora VIII, p. 94; the piece is assigned by Brann to the Middle Protoattic period and dated to the third quarter of the 7th century B.C. Since other material recovered from the fill of the kiln is clearly not potters' waste, this fragment may represent intrusive material. C f the lion on the fragmentary amphora or olpe in, Langdon 1976, pp. 12-13, no. 1,fig. 5, pl. 2.

111 (P 13327)

Fig. 2.74

Body fragment of closed vessel. Agora VIII, pp. 75-76, no. 398, pls. 23,43 (attributed to the Analatos Painter, specifically "Late Analatos Painter"). p.H.: 0.025; p.W.: 0.043. Upper body, at shoulder, of medium-size to small closed vessel. There is nothing whatsoever about the piece to recommend it as potters' waste and it is highly unlikely that it was (see discussion, pp. 222-223). Curved shoulder. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint well adhering, mostly,firedblack, but in parts two-tone black and red. Brann (Agora VIII, p. 76) describes the iconography as follows: "Charioteer with long hair and dotted torso to right. White line (?)on outline skirt. Behind, horse with reins and reserved eye."These details are accurate except for the reins, only one of which is barely visible. The piece is attributed to Late Analatos Painter and compared by Brann with Kiibler 1950, p. 50, figs. 32-34; also with Agora VIII, p. 76, no. 399, pl. 23. Given the size of the fragment, this is an attribu: tion that never ceases to amaze me.

CHAPTER 2

112 ( M C 1373)

Fig. 2.70

Small pyramidal loomweight. H.: 0.054; L. x W. (base): 0.034 x 0.031. Intact, but cracked and ready to break apart. Form as 106. Reserved surfaces evenly fired close to light red 2.5YR 6/6 and reddish yellow 5YR 6/6. Surfaces crudely smoothed. Cf. 106.

113 (P 32498)

Fig. 2.69

Likely test-piece cut from base and lower body of small open vessel. Tholos trench U; martyra along south side, layer d. p.H.: 0.033; Diam. (base): 0.025. Single fr. preserving portion of likely test-piece cut from the base and lower body of small open vessel. Although no draw-hole or clear edges survive, the paint is not part of any canonical decorative scheme and there are noticeable smears of clay to one side. Flat base; lower wall rising steeply. Clay body fired close to light red 2.5YR 6/6-6/8; reserved surfaces lighter, closer to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6. One fairly large inclusion erupting onto interior. Paint in places much peeled, especially on interior; elsewhere well adhering; details as presented in Fig. 2.69 are clear. Paint fired red, in places with a good sheen where thickest and best preserved. Underside reserved, except for irregular paint near edge on one side as shown. Paint on exterior irregularly applied, with brush-marks and streaks visible and irregular reserved areas. Interior painted solid. For the shape cf. 109, but smaller. Fabric, shape, and feel very close to 3 (Early Protogeometric). 114 (P 32501)

Figs. 2.75

Fragmentary oinochoe or olpe; possible production discard rather than test-piece. Tholos trench U; martyra along south side, layer d. p.H.: 0.086; Diam. (base): 0.045-0.046. Reconstructed from five joining frr. preserving entire base and lower body, about one-half of upper body, and only very small portion of lower neck of small oinochoe or olpe. Nothing of the rim or handle survives. Vessel as preserved poorly fired/misfired, with paint irregularly applied. Although no draw-hole or clear edges survive, the vessel is either a test-piece as 51 (cf. 91) or a possible production discard. The latter seems more likely on account of the large blow-outs or spalls (see below). Moreover, joining fragments have fired slightly differently from one another and it is possible, if not likely, that the vessel broke apart in the kiln.

I4I

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Y

-

"Q--

Figure 2.75. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 114. Scale 1:2

a

2.76. Kiln deposit H 12:17: 115. Scale 1:2

Flat disk base, only very slightly pushed up on underside, articulated from body by groove. Rounded body; lower neck vertical, beginning to flare toward top. Too little of the lower neck survives to establish whether the rim is trefoil or a plain round mouth. Clay body and reserved underside fired close to red and reddish brown 2.SYR 5/6-5/4. There are several large blow-outs or spalls visible on the exterior and interior, one of which has blown a small hole right through the thickness of the vessel. Paint very irregularly applied, with brush-marks and streaks visible all over. Although well adhering, the paint appears to have been applied rather dilute and has fired more or less the same reddish brown color as the body clay. At one point near the break the brush-marks run vertically, whereas elsewhere they are horizontal or diagonal, and this would indicate the approximate position of the missing handle. Underside reserved. Preserved exterior, including foot, painted solid, as is neck on interior as shown. Cf. 51 and 91. For the shape cf. Agora VIII, pp. 37-38 under Subgeometric oinochoai and especially pl. 4, nos. 63 (oinochoe) and 64 (olpe).

115 (P 32499)

Fig. 2.76

Waster fragments. Tholos trench U; "pit in alley," layer c. p.H.: 0.061; p.W.: 0.089; Th. (wall): 0.013. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of body of large closed vessel, overfired to the point of vitrification. Thick-walled closed vessel; body slightly curved; fragments from near mid-point or lower body of large closed vessel.

142

CHAPTER 2

Clay body and reserved interior fired gray. Heavily vitrified exterior preserves numerous bubbles/blisters, some of which have burst. Fabric on exterior has a glasslike structure. It is impossible to determine whether the exterior was ever painted. Cf. other wasters such as 53-55,83-85,92. 116 (MC 1374)

Fig. 2.70

Spindlewhorl, bead, or button. Tholos trench U; "pit in alley," layer d. H.: 0.033; Diam.: 0.048-0.049. Intact, except for very minor chips. Roughly biconical, with comparatively narrow hole pierced vertically (Diam.: 0.006). Reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4 and reddish yellow 5YR 7/6. Surfaces roughly smoothed. See the discussion in Brann 1961b, under nos. S 25-S 27, which outlines the development from the standard Geometric double cone to the Classical single cone type; cf. Burr 1933, p. 602, fig. 70, esp. no. 255. Although there is nothing to suggest that this terracotta is potters7 waste, small objects such as these may have been made and fired in the kiln in addition to the terracotta loomweights 106 and 112. 117 ( P 32496)

Fig. 2.69

Test-piece cut from lower body of large closed vessel. Tholos trench U; "pit in alley," layer e. p.H.: 0.039; p.W.: 0.050. Single fr. preserving very small portion from lower wall of large closed vessel. Although there is no preserved draw-hole or any clear edges, the fragment is clearly a test-piece on account of the irregularly applied test-paint on the interior. Lower wall rising steeply. Original vessel quite large, probably an amphora. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4, except for one corner, which was slightly discolored gray. Paint well applied and mostly well adhering, fired black. Two thin bands on preserved lower wall on exterior, part of canonical decoration. Irregularly applied test-paint on interior as shown, which bears no relationship to decoration. Piece more or less optimally fired. 118 ( P 32497) Rim and handle fragments from skyphos; waster. Tholos trench U; "pit in alley," layer g.

Fig. 2.71

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS C O N T E X T

I43

p H . : 0.047; est. Diam. (rim): 0.108. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of rim and upper body of skyphos, including both stumps of one handle. Although the piece is not as heavily vitrified as 115, the two joining fragments have fired differently from one another and it is therefore likely that the vessel broke apart in the hln, with the fragments variously fired and subsequently discarded. The clay of both fragments is much discolored and parts show signs of the early stages of vitrification. Upper wall curving in to slightly flaring rim, tapering slightly to rounded lip. Horizontal handle attached to upper body below rim. Clay misfired: clay body and reserved surfaces mostly fired close to reddish brown 2.5YR 5/4, which is atypical for Athenian clay. The reserved surface, but not the body clay, has fired a lighter color over parts only of one of the joining fragments, closer to very pale brown 10YR 7/4-7/3. Occasional, but prominent, blow-outs. Paint largely peeled on exterior; better adhering on interior; fired black. Three thin bands on lower fragment as preserved on exterior above a thicker band or area painted solid. Handle zone decorated, near the handle, by a group of verticals (10 preserved), framed by one thin band above and the uppermost of the three below; area below handle arch reserved. Three thin bands on rim exterior. Interior painted solid, except for a thin reserved band at lip. For shape and decoration cf. 101 (well N 11:s); typically Late Geometric.

D E P O S I T S 17:2 (119-156) Section nA: Circular Pit and Irregular Cutting (Panathenaic Way cut IV, cuttings F 1 and F 3). Cleared May 26-29,1959, by Homer A. and Dorothy B. Thompson.

Three of the test-pieces presented here were published and illustrated in Agora VIII, pp. 103-104,131, pl. 40; a fourth, from the same deposit, was also noted and illustrated in Agora XIV, pl. 92:b.69Brann (Agora VIII, p. 131) describes the context as follows:

69. See also Thompson 1960,esp. p. 322. 70. The depth of the pit was 0.66 m; the depth of the cutting 0.53 m. 71. Well R 17:s is dated to the second quarter of the 7th century B.C. and said to be "the only Agora group of this date" Agora VIII, p. 131).The obvious chronological implications of this statement have never been adequately addressed.

Circular pit and irregular cutting north of it. Diameter of pit: ca. 0.80 m. Dimensions of irregular cutting: ca. 1.00 x 1.20 m.70The pit was dug into bedrock and filled with red earth which was packed with undisturbed pottery. O n top were small sherds and broken figurines; below were stacked skyphoi, mostly on the east side. A t the bottom was a filling of earth and small stones. The pit was wellcut, perhaps as a bedding for a pithos. The irregular cutting contained a similar filling but the pots were stacked, not dumped. The presence of ochre, of trial pieces, and of lumps of burnt clay suggest that both cuttings contained refuse from a nearby workshop. This was probably the same establishment to which the well R 17:5 belonged. Second half of the 7th century B.c."

I44

CHAPTER 2

0

2m

1

approx

Section across

PA way cut

E l

looking N.

DEPOSIT S17:Z

The circular pit is referred to in the notebook as cutting F 1,and the irregular cutting north of it is called cutting F 3 (Figs. 2.77-2.81)." In dealing with this deposit more recently, Margaret Miles writes: Of special interest is a pit of discards from a potter's workshop found just to the north of the area of the Eleusinion (S 17:2). A carefully cut pit was discovered in the bedrock in the course of the Roman Panathenaic Way, northwest of the lowest terrace of the Eleusinion, and nearby was an associated well with household debris and more potter's discards. The fill in the pit contained neatly stacked pots and ocher, trial pieces, and lumps of burnt clay. Discarded pieces from the dump include many terracotta figurines and other votive objects, many of them similar to those found within the area of the sanctuary. The fill dates to the second half of the 7th century B.C. The potter's workshop is a likely source of manufacture of at least some of the terracotta objects found in the early sanctuary.73 A reexamination of this deposit in the light of the current study and in the light of the ongoing debate concerning the provenance of the Middle Protoattic Black-and-white Style74brings into focus a number of problems. Indeed, this deposit turns out to be one of the most underappreciated "Protoattic" deposits in Athens and Attica. The entire deposit (that is, including all of the material stored in context) is potters' debris. Apart from the test-pieces catalogued below, the material includes numerous complete or near-complete skyphoi, kotylai, and cups (especially skyphoi such as 109, from the fill of the kiln [see above]) and numerous fragments of similar vessels. There are, in addition, approximately 290 fragments of terracotta figurines, as well as other terracottas, such as spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons, stored in context. Some of the terracotta figurines are clearly misfired and not one is intact, nor could any of the fragments be reconstructed to yield a complete figurine; they, along with the majority of

Figure 2.77 (above, leftl. Deposit S 17:2, cuttings F 1-F 3, from southwest. Cutting F 1is in the central foreground. Figure 2.78 (above, righd. Plan with deposit S 17:2, cutting F 1, and section across IIA (Panathenaic)Way cut 111, looking north. Inked by Richard Anderson

72. See Notebook n A VI, pp. 10151026. 73. Agora XXXI, pp. 17-18. 74. See Morris 1984; for the opposingview see esp. Walter-Karydi 1997.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.79 (Zej?). Deposit S 17:2, cutting F 3, cleared to lower layer, from west-southwest Figure 2.80 (iigbd.Deposit S 17:2, cutting F 3, from west

Figure 2.81. General area df deposit S 17:2 after excavation, showing cuttings north of Poros Aqueduct. View h m north.

I45

pottery in the deposit, are best seen as production discards. The deposit as a whole suggests, if not establishes, three crucial points:

1.That the Kerameiko~hatis, a full-fledged potters' q u a r t e r continues in this area (the Classical Athenian Agora) well into the 7th century B.C. (according to the conventional chronology). 2. The deposii is, so far as I can tell, exclusively "Subgeometric" in style. If Brann's date of the second half of the 7th century is accepted, even bearing in mind the problems associated with the conventional chronology, and if this deposit is representative, then this potter's establishment is not producing any of the larger, more glamorously decorated vases normally associated with Protoattic. Be that as it may, it is clear that a truly Geometric style persists well into the Archaic period. 3. The large quantity of terracotta figurines establishes that the same "workshopnmade both pots and figurines, as well as lamps and other small terracotta objects. There is, in this particular case, no distinction between potter, coroplast, and lamp maker.

Test-piece cut from base of open vessel (probably kotyle). Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 633, pl. 40; Agora XIV, p. 186, pl. 92:b; Agora XXXI, p. 17, note 17. p.H.: 0.029; Diam. (base): 0.060-0.061; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.018. Single fr. preserving virtually intact test-piece, except for minor chipping. Paint extends over all edges except one. Draw-hole cut in bottom before firing; draw-hole edges covered with paint. Fragment preserves base and lower wall of vessel. Disk base, articulated from body by a shallow groove on exterior and hollowed out on the underside to forma false ringfoot. Draw-hole near

14~

CHAPTER 2

EDGE

I

/

I

h /, 2 9'

I

I47

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.82 (opposite). Deposit S 17:2:119-122. Scale 1:2

center of underside. Lower wall rising fairly steeply. Interior very poorly finished. Although similar bases are sometimes found on closed vessels (cf. the base of the jug 126 = Agora VIII, no. 628), they are standard for 8th- and 7th-century kotylai (cf. generally Agora VIII, pl. 19; cf. also the base of 121). Clay body and surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 8/4-7/4. Clay slightly more micaceous than the common Protogeometric and Geometric fabric. Paint on interior and exterior evenly applied and uniformly fired black; dark brown where more dilute. Interior painted solid, paint extending over all edges except one and onto edge of draw-hole. Underside irregularly painted, as shown; dribbles of paint extending over outside edge of foot at points, with further dribbles on lower wall. Piece appears to have been optimally fired. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 570 (Agora sample no. 512). 120 (P 26580)

Fig. 2.82, P1.2

Test-piece cut from base of open vessel (probably kotyle). Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, p. 104, no. 635, pl. 40;Agora XIV, p. 186, pl. 92:b. p.H.: 0.024; Diam. (base): 0.060; max. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.021. Single fr. preserving entire base and portion of lower wall. Most of test-piece preserved intact. One edge is clear (covered by paint); other edges are probably breaks, though some may be original but unpainted edges. Draw-hole preserved entirely. Disk base (as 119), partially hollowed out on the underside to create a false ring foot. Draw-hole cut near center of underside. Lower wall rising steeply. Interior more carefully finished than 119. Clay body and surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink and light brown 7.5YR 7/4-6/4. Clay somewhat micaceous as 119. Paint on interior and exterior carelessly applied, with a tendency to flake. Paint mostly fired red, darker brown where thickest on interior and exterior; approaching black on one small spot on exterior. About one-half of interior painted as shown. Most, but not all, of underside painted, as is a portion of the lower wall. Small splashes of paint elsewhere. Edge of draw-hole partially painted. There is a horizontal band that runs around part of the lower foot on exterior, though it is not continuous. Cf. 119 and 121. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 572 (Agora sample no. 514). 121 (P 26581)

Fig. 2.82, P1.2

Test-piece cut from base of open vessel (probably kotyle). Cutting F 1. Agora XIV, p. 186, pl. 92:b. p.H.: 0.030; Diam. (base): 0.053; max. Diam. (draw-hole): 0.017. Single fr. preserving most of base, except for minor chipping, and lower part of body. Much of test-piece preserved intact. There are no

148

CHAPTER 2

traces of paint on any of the breakdedges, but some, though not all, of the edges may be original. Draw-hole preserved entirely. Disk base as 120, partly hollowed out on the underside to create a false ring foot. Draw-hole cut near center of underside, but toward one side. Lower wall rising steeply. Interior well finished, though there is a prominent scratch at one point (prefiring). Underside, in comparison, roughly finished, with some globules of clay not smoothed. Clay body and surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Clay somewhat micaceous as 120. Interior reserved. Exterior canonically decorated except, perhaps, for the underside. Paint on exterior, including underside, mostly fired red, in parts brown to dark brown. Horizontal band over most of foot exterior. From this band emanate eight rays placed more or less symmetrically around lower wall. Above rays, thin horizontal band above which, in turn, is another band or area painted solid (the latter only partially preserved). At least one of the rays extends partially over the thinner, lower, band. Rather broad ring around outer part of foot on underside, though outermost edge of underside is reserved. Thinner ring toward center, mostly obliterated by the cutting of the draw-hole. Smaller inner ring, or painted dot, toward center, mostly destroyed by draw-hole. No traces of paint on draw-hole edge. It is reasonably clear that the inner rings on the underside are part of the canonical decoration of the vessel, because both are interrupted by the cutting for the drawhole. It is not certain whether the outer ring is decorative or represents test-paint. It is clear that the exterior of the vessel was canonically decorated prior to the cutting down of the pot for use as a test-piece. The interior, however, was never painted. Shape and decoration are consistent with Attic imitations of Corinthian kotylai of the 8th and 7th centuries B.c.: cf., generally, Agora VIII, pl. 9. For the decorative scheme cf. also the Middle Protoattic kotyle Agora VIII, p. 89, no. 512, pl. 31. The painted rings on the underside, though crudely done, are also consistent with the decorated undersides of kotylai. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 573 (Agora sample no. 515). 122 (P 26579)

Fig. 2.82, P1.2

Test-piece cut from skyphos. Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 634, pl. 40; Agora XIV, p. 186, pl. 92:b. p.H.: 0.051; est. Diam. (base): 0.040; est. Diam. (rim): 0.076; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.014. Single fragment preserving about one-third to one-half of skyphos, including complete profile and stump of one handle. Most if not all of original test-piece preserved intact. The edges, although bearing no paint, are rather regular and all of them, except possibly the upper right and left, may represent original edges. Draw-hole preserved entirely. Flat disk base; lower wall rising steeply; upper wall vertical. Small flaring rim, flat to obliquely cut on top.

I49

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Clay body and surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to pink 7.5YR 714. Clay somewhat micaceous as previous examples. Paint on interior and exterior rather unevenly applied, mostly fired dark brown approaching black, thinning to brown where more dilute; paint particularly dilute on lower wall on exterior. Interior painted solid, but rather irregularly applied; reserved band at rim top. Exterior, as interior, canonically decorated. Underside reserved. Possible, but unclear, very thin reserved band on lower wall at juncture with base (not shown on Fig. 2.82). Lower wall painted solid but in dilute paint, mostly worn, clearly extending onto lower handle attachment. Handle zone reserved. Upper body and rim painted (this also extends onto the uppermost part of the preserved handle attachment). The draw-hole, as well as what I take to be edges rather than breaks, was cut after the paint was applied and while the fabric was probably leather-to-bone hard. This would account for the fact that there is no paint on the "edges" or on the ragged edge of the draw-hole. This would also account for Brann's statement (Agora VIII, p. 103), clearly wrong, that the "hole [was] c u t . . . perhaps after firing." For similar Subgeometric skyphoi from the same deposit see 135144. Analyzed in Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 66, BNL no. 571 (Agora sample no. 513).

123 (P 32502)

Fig. 2.83

Test-piece cut from lower body of small open vessel (skyphos or kotyle) . Cutting F p.H.: 0.041; max. p.W.: 0.051; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.010. Single fr. preserving much of small test-piece, including threequarters of draw-hole and parts of four edges (indicated by paint), cut from the lower body of a small open vessel. Lower wall rising steeply; vessel thin-walled. Clay body evenly fired close to pink and light brown 7.5YR 7/46/4. Spa11 visible on exterior surface. Paint originally fairly thickly applied, especially on interior; much peeled on exterior. Mostly fired red on interior, approaching black at one point; red and black on exterior. Preserved interior and exterior painted solid. This is clearly not canonical decoration as the paint was applied after the test-piece was cut from the original vessel, with much paint on the preserved cut edges, and on the edge of the draw-hole. Cf. especially 122.

124 (P 32503)

75. In the Agora Archives 123-125 are listed as deriving from deposit S 17:2, cuttings F 1 and F 3. They were taken from context tin nA 175 in September 1996; all of the material from tin n~ 175 comes from pit F 1.

Fig. 2.83

Test-piece fashioned from small plate. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.032-0.034; Diam. (base): 0.053; est. Diam. (rim): 0.140. Four joining frr. preserving entire base, much of lower body, and less than one-half of upper body and rim, including portion of one handle, of small plate. Draw-hole, completely preserved, cut into center of base. It is unclear whether the test-piece was originally fashioned from more

CHAPTER 2

Is0

125

of the plate than is currently preserved, or whether the preserved breaks are in fact edges. Surfaces worn, powdery to touch. Flat disk base, only slightly articulated from body; shallow curved body; small, very slightly outturned rim, with top edge obliquely cut, tapering to rounded outside edge. What survives of the handle suggests a horizontal handle, perhaps of ribbon type, attached to uppermost wall, immediately at and below rim. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired closest to pink 7.5YR 8/4. Fabric contains rather more fine silvery mica than normal, and white inclusions (lime?) are visible on the surface, including one large impurity (0.009 long).

Figure 2.83. Deposit S 17:2: 123125. Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Is1

Paint variously applied and adhering, with brush-marks and streaks visible all over; much peeled on interior and exterior. Paint variously fired: approaching black at a few points where thickest, light red to light reddish brown where more dilute, grayhlack at points on interior. Underside reserved, so too the lower exterior edge of foot; thick band on upper foot, extending onto lower body; thinner band above. Thick tremulous/wavy line on upper body immediately below rim, which extends onto preserved outside face of handle, framed by two thin bands below and one above, the latter extending onto outside edge of rim top; remainder of rim reserved. Interior painted solid except for reserved band on body, as shown. For small plates of this type see Agora VIII, pp. 45-46, pls. 7,42, nos. 113-119, especially pl. 7, nos. 115-116,119. For similarly thick tremulous/wavy line below rim cf. the "wash bowl," Agora VIII, p. 46, pl. 7, no. 120.

125 (P 32504)

Fig. 2.83

Test-piece cut from upper body, neck, and rim of aryballos. Cutting F 1. p.H.: 0.036; Diam. (rim): 0.045. Single fr. preserving significant part of test-piece cut from the upper body, neck, and rim of a small Subgeometric aryballos. It is not clear how much larger the original test-piece was since the preserved bottom edge appears to be broken, but it is clear that the handle, attested only by the very small preserved portion of the upper attachment, had broken off some time prior to the painting of the vessel. Most of the side of the rim where the handle was attached was also broken off, probably at the same time as the handle, as was part of the rim on the side opposite the handle. With the rim thus broken, the vessel was subsequently painted, with the paint extending over virtually all of the edges of the rim previously broken. There is no trace of a draw-hole, though the mouth of the vessel could have easily served as such. Upper shoulder curving in to short, inward-sloping neck. Broad horizontal rim, flat on top and with chamfered, round-mouth lip where preserved. Clay body and reserved surfaces on interior fired close to pink 5YR 7/3 and light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Clay dense, with few visible impurities. Paint rather thickly applied on exterior, rim top, and broken edges of rim, with a tendency to flake. Paint mostly dull, fired black, in places with a mottled black to purplish marooddark red. In places the purple/ red appears almost as an intentionally added purple or red, especially on the inner part of the rim top, but similar discoloration on the exterior body indicates that this is due to firing and not an intentionally added color. Entire exterior, including body, neck, and rim (top, bottom, and broken edges), painted solid, with paint extending onto upper neck on interior. Remainder of interior reserved. Despite the discoloration, the piece is well fired. Cf. the jug-aryballoi 128 and 129. For the shape cf. Agora VIII, p. 38, pl. 4, nos. 65-68. Brann (Agora VIII, p. 1) lists the aryballos as a non-Athenian shape.

152

CHAPTER 2

It is worth noting that all of the pottery in this deposit is more poorly fired than standard Protoattic from funerary and nonhnerary contexts elsewhere in Athens,76as well as that from the sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymetto^.^' Although, generally speaking, it is never as well produced as the best Protogeometric and Geometric pottery, normal Protoattic is, on the whole, both better painted and better fired than the material in this deposit. The production discards in deposit S 17:2 are presented below according to shape, beginning with closed vessels, then open shapes, followed by lamps, loomweights, spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons, and terracotta figurines. A summary is also provided of the uncatalogued material in this deposit.

Figure 2.84. Production discards in deposit S 17:2. Left to right: 126,

126 (P 26591)

Figs. 2.84-2.85

Jug (oinochoe). Cutting F Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 628, pl. 40, labeled: "Potter's refuse, not a recognizable Attic shape and probably unfinished." H.: 0.127; Diam. (base): 0.065-0.066; Diam. (rim): 0.070. Complete, except for handle and corresponding part of rim. What survives is intact. Surface worn. Flat disk base, very slightly pushed up on underside, articulated from body as shown. Ovoid body, with point of max. Diam. set quite high. Vertical neck, flaring slightly to flat rim; round mouth. Vertical handle, not preserved, attached from upper body directly to rim. Handle thin in section, judging from the lower attachment, although it is likely that the handle was cut, or was broken off, before firing. Vessel crudely made and very roughly finished. There is a small hole on upper body near the handle, perhaps the result of a blow-out, that would have rendered the vessel useless for liquids. Vessel does not stand steadily on its base. Clay containing many small inclusions of various colors, primarily white and red, and quite a bit of fine silvery mica. Clay body and surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4 and very pale brown 10YR 7/4. Vessel not painted. Jugs of this type, of a fabric standard for wheelmade and painted pottery (i.e., not coarse or cooking ware) that

127,132,135,130.

76. See, for example, Young 1939; Agora VIII. 77. Langdon 1976. 78. Both 126 and 127 are listed as being found below the stacked pots in cutting F 1.

I53

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.85. Deposit S 17:2:126. Scale 1:2

are undecorated are extremely rare, further verifying that the pot is a production discard. For related jugdpitchers, normally banded, with a wavy line on the shoulder, cf Agora VIII, p. 41, pl. 5, nos. 87-90, esp. no. 87, which has a similarly tall neck. 127 (P 26592)

Figure 2.86. Deposit S 17:2:127. Scale 1:2

Figs. 2.84,2.86

Olpe. Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 629, pl. 40. H.: 0.094; Diam. (base): 0.044; Diam. (rim): 0.042. Complete, except for missing handle and small chip at rim. Surface worn. Flat disk base, very slightly pushed up on underside. Body almost spherical. Narrow neck, flaring to plain rim, with rounded lip; round mouth. Vertical handle, as 126 but less wide, not preserved, attached from shoulder directly to lip. Fabric as 126, but with some larger white inclusions, including a large one on lower body, creating a noticeable spall. Clay body and surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint mostly flaked and does not survive over about one-half of vessel. Paint cracked where thickest, with a pronounced tendency to flake; elsewhere more irregularly applied, with brush-marks visible. Paint fired weak red. Exterior painted solid except for lowest edge of foot; reserved band on body near point of max. Diam. Painted band on rim interior (no actual paint survives on the edge of the lip on the interior or exterior, though this is perhaps due to wear). In discussing this olpe, Brann (Agora VIII, p. 103, under no. 629) states that such small olpai are really an East Greek type, and she cites Agora VIII, p. 58, no. 228 (P 26476), pl. 13 as an imported East Greek vessel that would have served as a prototype. The form is, however, well established in the Attic repertoire, with 91 (fiom well M 13:l [Middle Geometric 111) and 114 from kiln deposit H 12:17 serving as more

I54

CHAPTER 2

\ '

Figure 2.87. Deposit S 17:2: 128. I

I I

suitable prototypes. Cf. also the Protogeometric child's feeder, 51 from well L 11:1, which is of almost identical form. Fig. 2.87 Fragmentaryjug-aryballos. Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, pp. 39-40, no. 78, fig. 3, pl. 5. p.H.: 0.110; Diam. (rim): 0.070-0.076. Reconstructed from many frr. preserving over one-half of the upper body and most of the neck, rim, and handle. Surfaces very poorly preserved, with much of the paint flaked. Condition may be the result of poor firing or misfiring. Missing parts restored in plaster. Rounded shoulder. Neck made separately from the body and subsequently attached, or else neck was thrown onto the body by attaching a coil, with a pronounced ridge at juncture of body and neck on exterior, corresponding to a thickening of clay on interior. Neck

Scale 1.2

I55

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

sloping inward, flaring out to broad horizontal, round-mouth, rim, with rounded lip. Broad vertical strap handle attached from upper shoulder directly to lip. Vessel conceivably slightly warped during manufacture, though this is diff~cultto establish on account of its fragmentary state (the evident warping is perhaps the result of the manner in which the vessel was mended). If warped, the warping is primarily confined to the rim. A few joining fragments, particularly at the rim and upper handle, have fired differently from one another, suggesting that the vessel may have broken up into fragments during firing. Clay body not visible due to mending. Reserved surfaces on interior evenly fired close to pink and light brown 7.5YR 7/4-6/4. Self-slipped surface on exterior slightly lighter. Paint mostly flaked, best preserved only on part of neck and rim, fired black. Body near point of max. Diam. banded (at least four bands preserved near lower break). Hanging rays on shoulder (eight in all). Neck painted solid, except for uppermost part at juncture with rim. Underside of rim reserved. Rim top banded (there are three clear rings and probably a fourth, mostly flaked, at the edge). Tightly curled spiral ornament on handle as shown; dotted motifs on body at base of handle, only partially preserved. This vessel is very similar to another partially preserved jugaryballos, Brann 1961b, pp. 362-363, no. H 14 (with full discussion and references), pl. 75. See further discussion of the type, and its Corinthian pedigree and Ithakan parallels, in Agora VIII, pp. 39-40.

Figure 2.88. Deposit S 17:2: 129. Scale 1:2

/

129 (P 26570)

Fig. 2.88

Upper body, neck, and rim fiagment of aryballos or jug-aryballos. Cutting F 1. p.H.: 0.049; D i m . (rim): 0.048. Single fr. preserving all of neck, rim, and handle, but only small portion of upper body. Surfaces worn. Shape slightly larger than 125 and slightly smaller than 128. Upper shoulder curving in to short, inward-sloping neck Broad horizontal rim, flat on top, with chamfered, round-mouth, lip. Vertical strap handle attached from upper shoulder to lip. Vessel poorly fired. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to light gray and very pale brown 10YR 7/2-7/3. Several prominent blowouts, especially visible on exterior. Very poorly preserved traces of paint on exterior of shoulder, neck, and rim indicating that the vessel was decorated, though too little

Is6

CHAPTER

2

survives to establish the exact nature of the decoration. On Fig. 2.88 it is indicated as solid (cf 125), except for the uppermost neck, and perhaps also the lip, which are reserved. Rim top either banded (as 128) or, more probably, painted solid. Handle probably decorated as shown, with triangles set laterally (combination dogtooth and gear pattern); band or ring at lower handle near attachment. Of the surviving traces on the body, neck, and rim, the paint appears to be black, although the preserved paint on the handle is clearly red. The poor state of preservation of the paint appears to be the result of poor firing rather than weathering. Cf. 125 and 128.

130 (P 26583)

Figs. 2.84,2.89

Figure 2.89. Deposit S 17:2:130. Scale 1:2

Fragmentary bowl; misfired. cutting F 3. Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 632, pl. 40. p.H.: 0.063; Diarn. (rim): 0.150. Eighteen joining frr. preserving most of rim and upper body, but only a small portion of lower body and base of bowl. Surfaces somewhat worn. Wheelrnade hemispherical round-bottom bowl. Upper wall rising vertically to plain rim, with rounded lip. Enough survives of the lower body to suggest that the vessel never had a foot. Clay body and surfaces fired gray, in places close to gray 5YR 5/1, elsewhere gray lOYR 5/1, the result of reduction firing. Clay quite dense, with fewer impurities and a dusting of fine silvery mica. No traces of paint. At certain points, especially on the upper body and rim on the exterior, the surface appears to have been slightly burnished, producing a dark color, approaching black, with a faint lustre. In discussing this vessel, Brann (Agora VIII, p. 103) writes: "Bowls with round bottom are not usually made in the 7th century (though see Brann F 26), and this one is probably an experiment. Misfired." F 26 = Brann 1961b, p. 335, pl. 75, no. F 26 (said to be handmade), decorated with bands. Cf. also F 24 ("phiale mesomphalos") and F 25 ("banded bowl," also referred to as a "footed pseudo-phiale"). It is not impossible that 130 had an omphalos at the center of the floor, though the thickening of the wall toward the base argues against one. Analyzed in F i e r e s , Harbottle, and Sayre 1983, p. 68, BNL no. 574 (Agora sample no. 516).

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

I57

Figure 2.90. Deposit S 17:2:131. Scale 1:2

131 (P 26582)

Fig. 2.90

Plate. Cutting F 1. H. (including handle): 0.032; Diam. (base): 0.058; Diam. (rim): 0.142. Complete, except for one missing handle and chips at rim. Shape as 124: flat disk base; shallow body. Rim continues line of the contour of the body (i.e., not slightly outturned as 124), flat on top. Two small horizontal handles (one complete, the other only partially preserved), round in section, attached to rim. Vessel poorly fired. Clay slightly coarser than normal, with many small white inclusions erupting onto the surface, producing a number of small spalls, and quite a bit of mica. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired closest to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint dull, rather thickly applied over parts of interior, variously fired from red through black, with various shades of brown. Two rings on underside: one at center, the other around the edge. Broad band on lower body and exterior face of foot; two thin bands on body. Wavy line on rim. Outside faces of handles painted. Interior, including rim top, painted, except for two reserved rings, one around center of floor (which is only partial), the other set about midway. It is exactly from this type of plate that the test-piece 124 was cut.

One-Handled Cups 132 (P 26569)

Figs. 2.84,2.91

One-handled cup. Cutting F 1. Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 630, pl. 40. H. (including handle): 0.052; H. (to rim): 0.048; Diam. (base): 0.047; Diam. (rim): 0.094. Three joining fir. preserving complete cup, except for chips at rim. Flat disk base, only very slightly articulated from body. Lower wall rising at angle of about 45"; upper wall curving in to offset rim. Flaring

CHAPTER 2

IS8

134

Figure 2.91. Deposit S 17:2: 132134. Scale 1:2

rim, with rounded lip. Vertical strap handle attached fi-om body directly to lip and rising slightly about level of rim. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to light red 2.5YR 6/6 and reddish yellow 5YR 6/6. Dull paint, more thickly applied and well adhering on interior; flaked on certain parts of exterior, evenly fired a dark brick red. Interior, exterior, and outer handle face painted solid. In discussing this cup, Brann (Agora VIII, p. 103) states: "glaze is misfired (though rather pretty) and it is probably a potter's reject." For the basic type of cup, see discussion under Agora VIII, p. 53, no. 186, where Minoan and Mycenaean vessels of metallic origin are cited. 133 (P 26586)

Fig. 2.91

One-handled cup. Cutting F 1." H. (including handle): 0.053; H. (to rim): 0.050; Diam. (base): 0.040-0.041; Diam. (rim): 0.094-0.095. Complete, except for chipping at rim. Two holes on body are clearly the result of a maliciously wielded archaeological hand-pick.

79.133 and 134, but not 132, are listed as being found below the stacked pots in cutting F 1.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Shape as 132, except that the foot is fractionally taller and more clearly articulated from the body. Clay and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 714. Dull paint, mostly well adhering, especially on interior; somewhat flaked on exterior. Variously fired from black through red, in parts mottled two-tone. Decoration as 132. Cf. 132. 134 (P 26587)

Fig. 2.91

One-handled cup. Cutting F 1. H . (to rim): 0.050; Diam. (base): 0.040; Diam. (rim): 0.097.

Complete, except for missing handle and chips at rim.

Shape as 132.

Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to light yellowish

brown and very pale brown 10YR 614-7/4. Paint dull, mostly well adhering on interior, fired a dark slate gray, approaching black toward rim. Paint on exterior mostly flaked over much of upper body, above a diagonal line; better adhering, though still flaked, below. Color as interior. Interior and exterior painted solid as 132.

Skyphoi

The following skyphoi represent only a sample of the more numerous examples of the shape encountered in this deposit. All are potters' discards, some preserving cracks and other damage that would have rendered them useless for holding liquids, while others are poorly finished or badly painted or fired. Skyphoi of this type continue into the Archaic period as so-called Subgeometric survivals (see Agora X I , p. 261, pl. 17, nos. 364-377, with discussion on p. 87); they continue well into the 5th century B.C. (cf. discussion in Agora VIII, p. 48, pl. 8 [various examples], and especially Boulter 1953, pp. 75-76). The order in which the following skyphoi are presented is arbitrary. 135 (P 26568)

80.135 is listed as being "from five stacked skyphoi."

Figs. 2.84,2.92

Skyphos. Cutting F 1.*O Agora VIII, p. 103, no. 631, pl. 40;Agora XXXI, p. 17, note 17. H.: 0.047-0.049; Diam. (base): 0.036; Diam. (rim): 0.083-0.084. Two joining frr. preserving complete vessel except for minor chip. O n the side opposite the chipping, the vessel is cracked at the rim. This is an ancient tear, since incrustation has penetrated the fissure (see Fig. 2.92). Vessel crudely made. Flat disk base; lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall. Rim very slightly flaring, terminating in slightly thickened and rounded lip. Two small horizontal handles, round in section, attached to upper body. Interior poorly thrown, with lumps and other irregularities visible all over.

160

CHAPTER 2

Reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7 . m 7/4. Paint irregularly applied, especially on exterior, with a tendency to flake. Paint fired brown to reddish brown on exterior, with two spots of red, one at the crack. Paint on interior more evenly and thickly applied, fired red. Interior and exterior painted solid, except for reserved handle zone on exterior. Handles painted only on upper faces and at the lower attachments, below the level of the reserved band. Lower wall at juncture with base reserved on one side of the vessel only. Paint on rim top mostly worn. For the general form, cf. 109 from the kiln; the test-piece 122 from deposit S 17:2 was cut from this type of skyphos. For similar cracks see esp. 141,142, and 144. For similarly damaged pots from the Late Minoan IA kiln at Kommos, see Shaw et al. 2001, p. 26, fig. 25.

Figure 2.92. Deposit S 17:2: 135. Scale 1:2

\

Figure 2.93. Deposit S 17:2: 136. Scale 1:2

136 (P 26588)

Fig. 2.93

Skyphos. Cutting F H.: 0.050-0.052; Diam. (base): 0.038; Diam. (rim): 0.086. Five joining frr.preserving complete skyphos, except for both missing handles. Shape as 135. Rim slightly thickened on interior, almost vertical, very slightly flaring on exterior, with two shallow grooves on outer face. Clay body, as visible, and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7 . m 7/4. Dull paint, more evenly applied and better adhering than most examples from the same deposit, but variously fired from red through black; mostly red. Decoration as 135. c f 135. 137 (P 26577) Skyphos. Cutting F

Fig. 2.94

81.136 is listed as being from "belowstacking,"as were the terracotta loomweights 152 and 154. 82. Both 137 and 138 are listed as being "frompots in packed area," as was the lamp 149.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

161

H.: 0.046; Diam. (base): 0.036-0.037; Diam. (rim): 0.084-0.085. Two joining frr. preserving much of skyphos, except part of rim and upper body on one side. Shape as 135. Base poorly finished. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint rather irregularly applied, but mostly well adhering, streaky on exterior, especially toward lower body, more thickly applied on interior, where paint has cracked over much of the upper body. Paint variously fired from black through different shades of brown to reddish brown. Decoration as 135, except that the lower body is clearly reserved at the juncture with base. Clear reserved band on rim top. C f 135.

Figure 2.95. Deposit S 17:2:138. Scale 1:2

138 (P 26578)

Fig. 2.95

Skyphos. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.048-0.050; Diam. (base): 0.036-0.037; Diam. (rim): 0.088. Single fr. preserving complete base and over one-half of body and rim, including one complete handle. Vessel cracked at one point near lower wall, probably during manufacture/firing, though in this case it is not absolutely clear whether the damage was during manufacture or is postdepositional. Shape as 135. Rim slightly flaring, obliquely cut on interior (not rounded as 135). Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4 and light reddish brown 5YR 6/4. At least one spall on exterior. Fabric slightly harder and more brittle than previous examples. Paint on exterior mostly well adhering, slightly flaked at one point, variously fired from black through reddish brown. Paint on interior more irregularly applied and less well adhering, fired dark brown approaching black. Decoration as 135, but with traces of paint on underside and no reserved band on lower wall. Reserved handle zone comparatively narrow; reserved band on rim top. Cf. 135.

162

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.96. Deposit S 17:2: 139. Scale 1:2

139 (P 26572)

Fig. 2.96

Skyphos. Cutting F H.: 0.049-0.052; Diam. (base): 0.044; Diam. (rim): 0.085-0.092. Reconstructed from eleven joining frr., complete except for small missing fragments of base, body, and one handle. Shape as 135 and 138, but somewhat more distorted. Viewed from above, the rim is warped, representing damage sustained during drying or firing. It is possible that the vessel shattered or cracked during firing. Fabric unusually light colored, almost Corinthian in its paleness, with small to medium, and one larger, inclusions erupting onto surface, and a dusting of very fine mica. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired closest to very pale brown 10YR 8/3-7/3. Paint largely fugitive and mostly flaked; decoration as 135. Virtually no paint survives on the interior. Paint reddish brown wherever it is preserved on the exterior. For similarly pale-colored fabric, cf., among others, the test-piece 124 and the kotylai 146,147, and 148, all from the same deposit. 140 (P 33022)

Fig. 2.97

Skyphos. Cutting F H.: 0.050-0.052; Diam. (base): 0.036-0.037; Diam. (rim): 0.091. Intact, except for missing handles. Surface, especially on exterior, somewhat worn in parts. Shape as 135; rim obliquely cut on interior as 138. Clay containing many white inclusions erupting onto surface, some creating spalls. Fabric somewhat more micaceous than normal. Vessel

83.Skyphos 139 and kotyle 147 are listed as being "from eight stacked

skyphoi." 84.The following skphoi were taken from context tin nA 175 (pit F 1) in July 1998:14O-l44, as were the following- kotylai: - 146,148;and terracotta loomweight 153.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

1 ~ 3

Figure 2.97. Deposit S 17:2:140. Scale 1:2 \

poorly fired. Clay body not visible; reserved surfaces variously fired from pink 7.5YR 7/4-8/4 (where the preserved paint has fired dark brown approaching black) through to a red color, closest to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6, though in places approaching light red 2.5YR 6/6-6/8 (where paint has fired red). Paint poorly fired and much flaked, dull throughout, and in places irregularly applied. Paint fired red on one side of exterior and on the lower half on the opposite side; brown, approaching black above. Paint at center of interior somewhat thicker, with a tendency to crack, fired black; red above. Lower wall on exterior reserved (this reserved area is larger than on the other skyphoi from this deposit); remainder painted solid, except for reserved handle zone. Interior painted solid. Likely reserved band on rim, though rim is extremely worn. Cf. discussion under 135.

Figure 2.98. Deposit S 17:2:141. Scale 1:2

141 (P 33025)

Fig. 2.98

Skyphos. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.048-0.051; Diam. (base): 0.036-0.037; Diam. (rim): 0.0860.087. Six joining frr. preserving complete skyphos, except for missing fragment of rim. Vessel warped during manufacture, with a prominent teadsplit at the center of one side of the vase. Shape as 135 and 140, with lip more rounded. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to very pale brown 10YR 7/4. Several of the larger inclusions have erupted onto the surface, creating a number of spalls. Paint irregularly applied on exterior, dull, streaky, with brush-marks clearly visible. Paint on interior more thickly applied, especially toward center of floor, where there is a tendency for the paint to crack Paint on interior and exterior fired from dark brown to black; one spot of red/ reddish brown on interior. Decoration as 135.

164

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.99. Deposit S 17:2:142. Scale 1:2

142 (P 33023)

Fig. 2.99

Skyphos. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.045-0.049; Diam. (base): 0.036-0.037; Diam. (rim): 0.0840.085. Two joining frr. preserving about three-quarters of vessel, including complete profile; one handle not preserved. The two fragments join along the line of an ancient tear in the fabric. Once mended, it was clear that the vessel had split at the lower body sometime during manufacture (Fig. 2.99). Shape as 135. Clay body in places fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6; elsewhere clay body and reserved surfaces fired closer to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on exterior in places irregularly applied, dull, variously fired from red through reddish brown to black. Paint on interior more thickly applied, with a tendency to flake, especially on one of the two fragments. Paint on interior fired red, with one small spot of black Decoration as 135; clear reserved band on lower wall and another at lip.

Figure 2.100.Deposit S 17:2:143. Scale 1:2

143 (P 33026)

Fig. 2.100

Skyphos. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.048; Diam. (base): 0.038-0.040; Diam. (rim): 0.084-0.087. Five joining frr. preserving complete skyphos, except for one missing handle. What survives of the surface of the base suggests that it was damaged (chipped) during manufacture, rather than this being postdepositional chipping.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

165

Shape as 135, with very slightly flaring rim and rounded lip. Clay body, as visible, and reserved surfaces fired close to very pale brown 10YR 7/4. Paint on exterior dull, irregularly applied, streaky, with brush-marks visible; flaked in parts. Paint on exterior mostly fired brown approaching black, with a spot of reddish brown approaching red. Paint on interior thicker, somewhat better adhering, mostly fired red, mottled redhlack at points. Decoration as 135; reserved band at lip.

Figure 2.101. Deposit S 17:2:144. Scale 1:2

144 (P 33024)

Fig. 2.101

Skyphos. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.0434.044; Diam. (base): 0.0334.035; Diam. (rim): 0.079. Five joining frr. preserving complete base and about one-half of body and rim. Vessel appears to have cracked or split during manufacture, resulting in a prominent tear on one side of the surviving handle. Shape as 143; almost plain vertical rim. Clay body fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 and reddish yellow 7.5YR 7/6; reserved surfaces closer to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on exterior irregularly applied, in places streaky; paint dull, mostly fired dark brown approaching black; in places reddish brown to red. Paint on interior more thickly and evenly applied, fired red; small spot of two-tone red and black. Decoration as 143.

85. For laterA~~~~ kotylai, referred to as skyphoi of Corinthianshape, see Oakley 1988, esp. p. 165.

The kotylai in this deposit are of similar shape and decoration, all closely following Corinthian prototypes. Their similarity to Corinthian originals extends, in most cases, to the fabric, which is unusually pale for standard Athenian. Some of the kotylai, especially 147, are almost indistinguishable from true Corinthian. All four catalogued specimens are, however, clear discards and all were manufactured in Athens. It is worth remembering that other vessel forms in the same deposit, including skyphoi and plates, share a similarly pale fabric, and some of these are shapes not commonly found in the contemporary Corinthian repertoire. Be that as it may, the Corinthian influences on the pottery in this deposit are straightforward and it is likely that this deposit represents material in part produced by a potter who had relocated from Corinth to the Kerameikos in Athens. Very similar Athenian Corinthianizing kotylai were also found in the kiln deposit H 12:17 (cf. 104,105, 108).85In discussing the pale, almost whitish clay used for some of the Protoattic terracottas, Brann (1961b, p. 373, discussion under no. H 70) refers to the white earth of Tatoi, which was mixed with red clay in Attic potteries of the 1950s, the 1960s, and earlier.

166

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.102. Deposit S 17:2: 145. Scale 1:2

Fig. 2.102 Kotyle. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.080-0.082; Diam. (base): 0.053; Diam. (rim): 0.113. Reconstructed from many frr. preserving almost complete kotyle, except for parts of rim and one handle. The vessel is poorly fired and seems slightly warped, with some joining fragments not mending flush with one another, suggesting the possibility that the vessel split or cracked during drying or firing. Low spreading ring foot, with center of underside very slightly raised. Lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall, terminating in plain rim with rounded lip. Two horizontal handles, of which only one is preserved, round in section, attached to uppermost wall. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly fired close to very pale brown 10YR 7/6. Paint very poorly fired over parts of vessel and much flaked on upper body and rim. Paint on exterior variously fired from black through dark brown and one spot of red. Paint on interior mostly fired dark grayish brown. Two rings on underside, with dot at center, as shown. Thin band on exterior face of foot. Lower wall decorated with rays (ten in all). Remainder of wall to rim painted solid. Three bands of added red superimposed over the black; one immediately above the rays, two together just below handles. Dot rosette, in added white (fugitive) at center of rim on one side; the corresponding opposite side of the vessel is chipped and very worn. For Attic kotylai imitating Late Protocorinthian and Early Corinthian, see Agora VIII, p. 51, nos. 166-168, pl. 9; see also p. 50, no. 157, pl. 9 for a Late Protocorinthian import to Athens. Stylistically, 145 is best accommodated in Early Corinthian. 146 (P 33027)

Fig. 2.103

Kotyle. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.083; Diam. (base): 0.057; Diam. (rim): 0.112-0.113. Reconstructed from many joining frr.preserving most of vessel, except for portion of upper body, rim, and handle on one side. Fragment

167

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.103. Deposit S 17:2:146. Scale 1:2

preserving handle is split at one point in such a way as to indicate damage during manufacture. Low ring foot, with shallow groove on outer face and small ridge at juncture with wall. Lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall, terminating in plain rim with rounded lip. Handle as 145. Clay body and reserved surfaces on one side of the vessel fired in the range of very pale brown lOYR 7/3-7/4,8/3-8/4; elsewhere closer to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint on exterior irregularly applied, especially on upper parts of vessel, streaky, with brush-marks clearly visible; better applied and adhering on lower half. Variously fired from red through black, but much flaked over about one-third of upper body and rim. Paint on interior somewhat better applied, with a tendency to flake in parts. Paint fired red over much of interior, in parts reddish brown approaching black. Large dot, partly flaked, at center of underside; ring around inner edge of resting surface. Thin band on lower foot exterior, another on the ridge at juncture with wall. Lower wall decorated with rays (eight in all); thin band above. Remainder of wall to rim painted solid; band of added red superimposed on lowest part of this area; partial reserved band above the added red, confined only to a small part of the vessel. Any paint on the handle has flaked completely. Interior painted solid. Cf. 145. 147 (P 26573)

Fig. 2.104

Kotyle. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.073-0.077; Diam. (base): 0.061-0.062; Diam. (rim): 0.1030.107. Reconstructed from ten joining frr., almost complete; small portion of rim, body, and both handles not preserved. Surfaces very worn, with little of the painted decoration surviving. Low ring foot, with very broad resting surface, slightly obliquely cut. Lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall, terminating in plain rim with rounded lip. Two horizontal handles, round in section, attached immediately below lip. Vessel thin-walled and

168

CHAPTER 2

poorly formed, with rim uneven and slight warping to upper body and rim. Clay body and reserved surfaces evenly and consistently fired close to very pale brown lOYR 7/3-8/3. This is a color well within the range of Corinthian, and at the pale end of the range for Athenian. Some small white inclusions and a dusting of fine mica. Paint mostly not preserved, largely visible as a fugitive ghost (the drawing presented in Fig. 2.104 is therefore tentative). Best preserved, though still largely lost, is the band of added red. Original color of paint cannot be accurately established. Painted decoration on foot exterior cannot be determined. Lower wall decorated with rays; thin band above. The remainder of the wall to rim appears to be painted solid, but even this is not absolutely clear. The lower part of this area of solid paint has a band of added red. There is possibly a very thin reserved band above the band of added red, though if this is the case, the band is only partial, as on 146. &rtually nothing of the paint survives on the interior, though it is likely that the interior was painted solid. Cf. esp. 146, also 145. The fabric of this piece raises a number of problems. Macroscopically, the fabric seems Corinthian and had it been found in another context, the vessel may well have been classified as a Corinthian import. It is, however, identical to the fabric of the skyphos 139 and several other vessels, including the test-piece 124, at least so far as can be established by visual inspection. The skyphos 139, in particular, is a type not generally associated with Corinth, but well established in Athens and Attica (for a related, though not identical, form in Corinthian, see Corinth VII, ii, pls. 68-69, various examples under the heading of blackglaze cups). The damaged state of 147 and its context establish the vessel as a production discard of a potter's establishment in the area of the later Athenian Agora. Alternatively, the vessel may represent a poorly made Corinthian import used as a model by an Athenian potter, but this seems highly unlikely on account of the other, non-corinthiantype, vessels from the same deposit. John Hayes has even suggested (personal communication) the possibility of clay imported from Corinth. The possibility that a Corinthian potter migrated to Athens is very appealing; whether he or she exploited local clay beds, or ones at a greater distance, is another matter. Cf 145-146,148.

Figure 2.104. Deposit S 17:2: 147. Scale 1:2

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

169

Figure 2.105. Deposit S 17:2:148. Scale 1:2

148 (P 33028)

Fig. 2.105

Fragmentary kotyle. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.064; Diam. (base): 0.043; Diam. (rim): 0.090. Eleven joining frr.preserving entire base and lower wall, but only small portion of upper body and rim; both handles missing. Vessel poorly made and fired, with virtually none of the painted decoration preserved. Flat disk base (no articulated foot on underside). As far as I know, this is one of the few kotylai of the period with such a base (cf. 104, 105); it has the appearance of not having been properly finished. Lower wall rising steeply to vertical upper wall, terminating in plain rim, with rounded lip. The vessel is proportionately squatter than other kotylai. Pale fabric, similar to 139 and 147, fired close to very pale brown 1oYR 7/3. Paint virtually all flaked off, hgitive in parts, elsewhere not visible. One small section at rim preserves traces of black paint. Decoration shown on Fig. 2.105 tentative. There is a clearly preserved thin band on the outside face of the foot. Lower wall decorated with rays. Wall to rim above rays appears to be painted solid, though this is not absolutely certain. There is a possible band of added red at the lower edge of the area painted solid (not indicated on drawing), but this is only suggested by the way the paint has weathered. Interior evidently painted solid. Cf 145-147. Inventoried Pottery Not CataloguedAbove

86. Joining fragments of one handle were found in context in July 1998 and subsequently mended. 87. There are more possible fragments from the same vessel stored in context.

Kotyle (P 26556): Agora VIII, p. 89, no. 512, pl. 31.86Nothing about the piece suggests potters' debris. Bowl (P 26594): Agora VIII, pp. 44-45, no. 109, pl. 6. Very poorly fired or misfired; possible production di~card.~' Lebes or krater (P 26724): Agora VIII, p. 44, no. 103, pl. 6. Vessel is poorly fired; possible but uncertain production discard. Pyxis lid (P 26593): Not published. Vessel is not well fired; possible but uncertain production discard. Jug neck (P 26585): Agora VIII, p. 93, pl. 34, no. 548. Nothing about the piece suggests potters' debris. Foot of standed vessel (P 26586): Not published. Nothing about the piece suggests potters' debris.

170

CHAPTER 2

The deposit as a whole yielded two complete and two fragmentary lamps, one of which appears to have been damaged during manufacture (149). The two lamps catalogued below show no sign of having been used, whereas it is clear that L 5367 and another fragment in context were clearly used, as there are fire scars around their nozzles. 149 (L 5366)

Fig. 2.106

Lamp, wheelmade and painted. Howland type 3. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.032; p.L. (including handle): 0.113; Diam. (base): 0.0600.062. Nozzle missing, otherwise intact. The nozzle is broken in such a way as to suggest either an intentionally cut edge, as on test-pieces, or, more likely, that the damage was sustained prior to firing. No preserved burning. Flat disk base, which is not perfectly even. Flaring walls spreading to form a saucerlike body, terminating in plain rim with rounded lip. The nozzle is pinched in to form the distinctive cocked hat form. Small horizontal handle, round in section, opposite nozzle. Clay body, as visible, and reserved surfaces fired close to very pale brown 10YR 7/3. Clay relatively dense, with few visible impurities and a dusting of fine mica. Circular area at center of interior painted. Paint mostly dull, though with remnants of faint lustre where thickest, partially flaked; fired black. Narrow band of paint, fired as on interior, on handle top following the contour of the handle. In dealing with the paint on this type of lamp, Howland (Agora IV, p. 12) writes: "glaze is used on the interior and economically around the outer edge of the rim. It will be half a century before glaze will be added to the complete exterior of lamps to serve a decorative as well as useful function." A rare example of type 3 and the only one known to me with a horizontal handle. In Agora IV, Howland catalogued only two examples of type 3 (p. 12, nos. 23,24) and listed two other inventoried examples. H e also made reference to a then-unpublished type 3 lamp from Mount Hymettos, citing Blegen 1934, pp. 10-28. This must be the fragmentary lamp subsequently published in Langdon 1976, p. 69, no. 309, pl. 26 (see also the type 1lamp, p. 69, no. 306, pl. 25). For contemporary Athenian lamps see further Brann 1961b, pp. 341-342, nos. F 57 (type I),F 58 (type 9), pls. 84, 89, p. 357, no. G 56 (Type 9, East Greek), pls. 86, 89, pp. 371-372, no. H 62 (type 2A), pls. 84, 89;Agora VIII, pp. 27,124. The type is generally dated as "late third quarter and last quarter of the 7th century B.c." The uninventoried lamp rim fragment in context is also of type 3; it has two patches of burning, indicating that it was used.

'7'

THE MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.106. Deposit S 122: 149150.Scale 1:2

150 (L 5362)

Fig. 2.106

Lamp, wheelmade and painted. Howland type 4. Cutting F 1. Howland 1963, no. 75. H.: 0.033; L. (including handle): 0.112; Diam. (base): 0.0434.047. Two joining fir. preserving complete lamp, except for small fragment missing from under nozzle. No preserved burning. Flat disk base; walls rising steeply to broad overhanging rim. Small horizontal handle, round in section, attached to upper body and rim. Clay contains noticeable white inclusions, some of which have erupted onto the surface. Clay body and reserved surfaces mostly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Most of interior painted solid, as is the rim near the nozzle, and the upper face of the handle. Paint mostly well adhering, fired red to reddish brown. Cf. Howland type 4, Agora IV, pp. 12-13. This type of lamp is longlived (late 7th into the second quarter of the 6th century B.c.), and it held the field with few other varieties of painted competitors.

CHAPTER 2

172

UncataloguedLamps

L 5367: type 8. Fr. preserving rim and nozzle. Evidence of burning on nozzle indicates that it was used, perhaps in the potter's workshop if not in the home. There is nothing about the piece to suggest potters' waste, though only the nozzle survives. Context: type 3. Fr. preserving rim and nozzle. There are two patches of burning, one at the nozzle, another on the rim to one side. In discussing type 8 lamps, Howland (Agora IV, p. 19) states: "One, 58, is the result of caprice on the part of a workman who was surely a potter rather than full-time lamp-maker." What is clear in this early period is that potter, coroplast, lamp maker, and loomweight and spindlewhorl maker can be one and the same person.

T E R R A C O TLTOA O M W E I G H T SS,P I N D L E W H O R L B SE , ADS, AND BUTTONS 151 ( M C 1487)

Fig. 2.107

Small pyramidal loomweight. Cutting F 3.88 H.: 0.050; L. x W . (base): 0.033 x 0.030; L. x W . (top): 0.018 x 0.016. Intact, except for large spall on bottom, creating a prominent krater around a large inclusion. Loomweight of crudely pyramidal form, though with sides much rounded. Single, roughly elliptical suspension hole. Surfaces very pale, close to very pale brown 10YR 8/3, in places approaching white 2.5Y 8/2. Surfaces crudely smoothed. Cf. 106 and 112, both from kiln deposit H 12:17. 152 ( M C 1074)

Fig. 2.107

Small pyramidavrectangular loomweight.

Cutting F 1.

H.: 0.047; L. x W . (base): 0.029 x 0.027; L. x W . (top): 0.023 x

0.020. Intact, except for minor chipping. Small and rather crudely formed loomweight of pyramidal form, almost rectangular, with single suspension hole. Reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4-8/4. Surfaces crudely smoothed. Cf. 106, with references cited there, though 152 is somewhat more rectangular; cf. also 151. For truncated pyramidal loomweights that are almost rectangular, see Brann 1961b, p. 373, no. H 70, pl. 84; for further discussion see Brann 1961a, p. 141, no. P 28, pl. 23; see also Burr 1933, p. 602, nos. 244-253, fig. 70.

88. Removed from context sack n A 177 (cutting F 3) in July 1998.

I73

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.107. Deposit S 17:2:151156. Scale 1:2

153 (MC 1486)

Fig. 2.107

Small rectangular loomweight. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.048; L. x W. (base): 0.033 x 0.028. Single fr. preserving over one-half of loomweight. The missing part may represent damage during manufacture(?). Small and rather crudely formed loomweight of more-or-less rectangular form. Single suspension hole, partially preserved. Fabric slightly coarser, with more inclusions of various colors erupting onto the surface. Clay body and most of reserved surfaces fired gray, close to light gray 10YR 7/1-7/2, elsewhere closer to very pale brown 10YR 7/3-7/4 on the surface. For loomweights of rectangular form, cf esp. Brann 1961a, p. 146, no. R 24, pl. 23. See also discussion under 152.

I74

154 ( M C 1075)

CHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.107

Conical loomweight. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.056; Diam. (base): 0.042; est. Diam. (top): 0.020. More-or-less complete, although bottom is very rough, as if broken or damaged. Elsewhere minor chipping. Conical loomweight, with single, roughly circular suspension hole. Bottom either broken or damaged during manufacture. Impressed star rosette (originally eight-pointed), only partially preserved due to chipping, on top. Reserved surfaces, including damaged bottom, evenly fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4, in places closer to light reddish brown 5YR 6/4, in places almost approaching light reddish brown 2.5YR 6/4. For a similar conical loomweight, see Brann 1961b, p. 378, no. S 24, pl. 88. In discussing S 24, Brann cites comparanda in Corintb XII, pp. 147-161, and notes that the type may have been borrowed from Corinth, a good possibility given the nature of some of the pottery in this deposit, which is clearly Corinthianizing, particularly the kotylai. Conical loomwieghts of this type are rare in Athens at this time. For the impressed decoration, which is punched, cf. a similar star rosette (sixpointed) on the pyramidal loomweight Brann 1961b, p. 378, no. S 23, pl. 88; also Burr 1933, p. 602, nos. 246-249, fig. 70; cf. also the letters and symbols incised on conical loomweights from Corinth compiled in Corintb X I , p. 151, fig. 24. For stamp impressions on coarseware pottery and implements, see discussion in Pfaff 1988, pp. 39-40; cf. Papadopoulos 1994, pp. 470-471. 155 ( M C 1488)

Fig. 2.107

Spindlewhorl, bead, or button. Cutting F H.: 0.035; Diam.: 0.043-0.044. Intact. Roughly biconical, though rounded, with comparatively narrow hole (Diam.: 0.005). Reserved surfaces mostly fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 6/6, discolored brownish gray on one side. Surfaces roughly smoothed. Standard Geometric and Subgeometric biconical spindlewhorl, bead, or button; cf. 116.

156 ( M C 1489)

Fig. 2.107

Conical spindlewhorl, bead, or button. Cutting F 1. H.: 0.019; max. Diam.: 0.040. Intact, except for very minor chipping. Surfaces much worn. Conical form, with broader side slightly concave; relatively large hole. Reserved surfaces evenly fired/misfired gray, close to light brownish gray and light gray 10YR 6/2-7/2.

89.155 and 156 were removed from sack 176 (cutting F 1) in July 1998.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

I75

Traces of paint surviving on the lateral sides, and perhaps also on the broader side, suggest that the object was decorated. Too little is preserved to establish whether the terracotta was painted or decorated with various motifs. What little survives of the paint has fired black. For the basic form see Brann 1961b, p. 378, nos. S 26 and S 27, pl. 88; S 27 has painted hooks between bands, as well as circles and dots in a brownish paint. In discussing this type of "spindlewhorl," Brann (1961b, p. 378) states: "S25-27 show the development from the standard Geometric double cone toward the classical single cone which must have taken place about this time. S26 provides the perfect transitional piece."The latter (S 26 [MC 10591) also has traces of painted decoration.

In addition to the pottery, lamps, terracotta loomweights, spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons, the deposit contained a large quantity of small terracotta figurines. These are similar to those dedicated in the nearby E l e u s i n i ~ n , ~ ~ as well as to other contemporary deposits throughout the area that was later to become the Athenian A g ~ r a ; similar ~' terracottas are also known from the Athenian Acropolis, and elsewhere in Attica, including Eleusis and Menidi, to mention only a few sites.92 O f the terracottas in deposit S 17:2, only a small quantity were inventoried, primarily the better-preserved pieces. As I was going through all of the terracottas in this deposit it was soon apparent that not one was preserved complete. This, coupled with the fact that only a very small proportion of the terracottas in the deposit preserves any traces of paint, suggests that the terracottas also were production discards.93The Protoattic votive deposit published by Dorothy Burr [Thompson] provides a glimpse of what the complete, well-manufactured, examples of such terracottas would have looked like (Fig. 3.16).94O f the pieces preserving paint, the manner of decoration is standard: the terracotta is covered with a good, thick white slip, over which details are added in a paint that is normally red. In a few cases, the paint may have been applied directly onto the clay, without the white slip. In the section that follows, my aim is not to provide a detailed catalogue and discussion of the terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2, but rather to simply list and illustrate them en masse. Perhaps more than 90.Agora XXXI, pp. 16-17,24, fig. 4, pls. 24-26, esp. deposits T 19:3, T 20:2, T 20:3, T 20:4. 91. E.g., Burr 1933, pp. 604-621, figs. 72-86. 92. Wolters 1899, pp. 121-122; further references in Burr 1933. Among individual terracottas from the Acropolis that I have seen, the following are similar to the standing human figures (i):Acropolis Museum inv. 10404,10360,10386; while inv. 12955 is close to the terracotta chariot groups (iii). The standing

figurines (i) are also close to those found in the cavity of "base A" in the Poros Naiskos underneath the marble temple of Athena Nike: Travlos 1971, pp. 150-151, figs. 200201. Frederick Cooper (1988) cogently points out that base A under Athena Nike may be the fourth, missing, base of the Tetrastylon in the Sanctuary of Aphaia on Aigina, brought to Athens and set in its current location as a commemorative monument. For similar figurines from Eleusis see, most recently, Kokkou-Vyridi 2000. For

related figurines outside of Attica

see, among others, Dorpfeld 1927,

Beil. 76:c, nos. 3 , s (standing human

figures from Leukas).

93. Brann (Agora VIII, p. 22)

points out that the "white piping and polychrome technique" of the terracottas is also used for the special kind of contemporary grave pottery found in the tombs of the "Kerameikos," for which see esp. Hampe 1960; see further Kistler 1998. 94. Burr 1933, pp. 604-621.

17~

CHAPTER 2

anything else, the importance of this deposit lies in the fact that it establishes that potter, lamp maker, and coroplast were one and the same person or, at least, that all of these different types of objects were produced in the same workshop and fired in the same kilns. This is further verified by the incidence of terracotta loomweights and spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons associated with the kiln (deposit H 12:17), and this is a situation paralleled elsewhere in the Greek world, including the case of the Late Geometric kiln at T o r ~ n eas, ~well ~ as the 4th-century B.C. kilns at Sindos in M a ~ e d o n i a . ~ ~ Of the material listed below, the vast majority derives from cutting F 1. After initial sorting in 1959 the uninventoried terracotta figurines were separated from theremainder of the material and bagged together in sack n A 176. According to the records, d of the material in sack n A 176 derives from cutting F 1.Among the inventoried terracottas, the following were pulled from sack n A 176 and derive from cutting F 1:T 3589, T 3648, T 3649, T 3650, and T 3651. Only one of the inventoried terracottas, the fragmentary votive plaque, definitely comes from cutting F 3. The remainder of the inventoried terracotta figurines are simply stated as deriving from cuttings F 1and F 3. &ong the terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2, the following types may be distinguished:

Figure2.108-InventoriedterraCotta 17:2: f:Mnes (I) standing human figures. Scale 1:2

6) Standing Human Figures A total of seven inventoried pieces (Fig. 2.108) and at least 56 fragments in context (Fig. 2.109) represent standing human figures. Of the inventoried pieces (T 3589, T 3620, T 3621, T 3622, T 3623, T 3624, T 3625), only four (T 3623, T 3624, T 3625, and T 3589) preserve paint; one of these (T 3589) may belong with the ring group T 3648 (Fig. 2.110), although this could not be established with certainty. Indeed, many of these standing figures may have originally been part of a group of figures standing on a circular, flattened ring such as T 3648 (Fig. 2.110). Surviving impressions on the ring of the latter indicate that there were, originally, at least two figures standing on the ring, and perhaps as many as four.97It is worth noting that there are no certain examples of rings like T 3648 in context. Of the 56 pieces in context, only about ten preserve any traces of paint.

95. Papadopoulos 1989a. 96. Despoine 1982. 97. There are no preserved traces of paint on T 3648.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.109. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (i) standing human figures

Figure 2.110. Fragmentary terracotta

T 3648, standing human figure, orig-

I77

The figures, as preserved, share the same elongated, columnar form, with spreading base and pinched face.Judging from comparanda, the majority appear to be male, though sex is not blatantly shown, except, perhaps, for the indication of a beard in some cases (e.g., T 3622, among other~).~"ome figures preserve parts of a headdress (e.g.,T 3589,T 3622; cf. T 3624, T 3625). The degree of modeling in the faces can vary from piece to piece: on T 3620, for example, nose, mouth, and chin are clearly indicated, whereas such detail is rare on other pieces. Some of these figures, such as T 3621, for instance, may derive from chariot groups (see below). The arms of the figures may be extended sideways or f o ~ a r d s , 9 ~ or else one arm is bent, either at the shoulder or at the elbow (usually the right), the other extended farther from the bodylooAs noted by Burr, the basic form of these figures appears to be descended from the Mycenaean standing goddess type.lol

6;)Seated Human Fipres

inally one of several on ring from deposit S 17:2

Five inventoried examples ( T 3626, T 3627, T 3628, T 3629, T 3649) may be classified as seated human figures (Fig. 2.111). Of these, only one ( T 3629) preserves paint; the remainder may never have been decorated and were thus, conceivably, unfinished. There are approximately a dozen

98. Cf. Burr 1933, pp. 615-616, fig. 82, nos. 295-298; see further Lindos I, pl. 87, no. 1962 (the sex on another terracotta from Lindos, pl. 87, no. 1958,

is clearly female);Vanderpool 1939,p. 264, fig. 19; Palaiokrassa 1991, pls. 1213, nos. El-El5 (various examples from the Sanctuaryof Artemis Mou-

nichia at Piraeus). 99. Cf. Burr 1933, p. 615, no. 298. 100. Cf. Burr 1933, p. 615, no. 296. 101. Burr 1933,p. 615.

17~

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.111. Inventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: (ii) seated human figures. Scale 1:2

f

!

P C ?$?+$

other fragments of similar seated figures in context (Fig. 2.112), none of which preserve any traces of white slip or red paint. Figures of this type are broader than those of the previous category, and share a number of characteristic features: the figure sits with arms extended to the arms of a throne, which is supported behind by a narrow back and a tripod prop. The figures are all thought to be female, primarily because of the seated posture, the broad garment, and the possible indication of long hair on some pieces, though, as with the standing figures, sex is not blatantly rendered, and both the seated and standing types share the normal pinched face. All of the preserved thrones are three-legged. Once more, a Mycenaean pedigree can be detected, since these Subgeometric seated figures are closely related to Mycenaean terracotta figures of females seated on tripod thrones, which a number of scholars have compared to the Pythia seated on a tripod cauldron at Delphi.lo2A number of Late Geometric seated figures from grave XI1 in the Grave Precinct in the area of the later Athenian Agora are published by Rodney Young.lo3

Figure 2.112. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:(ii) seated human figures. Scale 1:2

102. seeH, 1982;~~~~d~ 1986;Morris 1992b,p. 210, pl. 51:b; Papadopoulos 2002, pp. 32-34. 103.Young 1939, pp. 62-65, figs. 40-41, nos. XI1 19-23, including a fragmentary terracotta of a figure enthroned on a four-legged throne (XI 23). seedsop d a ; o ~ a s s a1991, pl. 13,esp. no. E14.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

Figure 2.113. Inventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2: ( i ) chariot groups:T 3616,T 3617; (iv) anima1s:T 3618 (horse),T3619 (ram), T 3651 (couchant quadruped), T 3650 (bid); (v) votive plaque: T 3615; (vi) votive shield:T 3630. Scale 1:3

*-

" - -i

T 3616

-el

1

*

' r &

77*:-;, ,

I79

T 3618

i

I

rcT "

97'r

".

T 3619

T 3615

5 ; ; ; ; 1 Figure 2.114. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 122: (iii) chariot groups

fiig Chariot Groups Two inventoried terracottas (T 3616,T 3617) comprise a single charioteer driving a chariot (Fig. 2.113); both preserve traces of white slip and red paint. T 3616 is a four-horse chariot (quadriga);T 3617 preserves only two horses, and depicts, most probably, a biga, rather than being a broken figurine. There are, in addition to these, at least 15 fragmentary examples in context that are clearly from similar chariot and ;further 25 smaller fragments. Of the latter, some may be from animals, but the 40 fragments assembled in Figure 2.114 all probably derive from chariot groups rather than portraying single animals. Among these, only about six preserve any trace of slip and/or paint and the majority appear to be

180

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.115. Uninventoried like T 3616, in that the group consists of a four-horse chariot and charioteer. These three-dimensional chariot groups are highly stylized, with only a very schematic chariot. The driver stands on a narrow bar, which is set against the hind legs of the group of four horses, with his hands resting simply on the animals' backs. Both driver and horses are decorated with whikslip and red bands. A number of similar chariot groups published by Burr are decorated with alternating red and blue bands.lo4Although threedimensional terracotta chariot or chariot-group figurines, and plastic vases, are not common in Mycenaean material culture,losdepictions of chariots feature prominently i n - ~ ~ c e n a ewall a n painting and dn pictorial vases,lo6 as they do in Geometric times.lo7

terracottafigurinesfiomde~osit S 17:2:(iv) animals (mostly horses). Scale 1:2

fiv) Animals

Several different species of animals can be discerned among the inventoried pieces (Fig. 2.113), whereas only the horse can be identified with absolute certainty among the more numerous examples of animals in con104. Burr 1933, pp. 615-616, nos. 299-301, fig. 82, with references to similar figurines from Eleusis, Menidi, and the Athenian Acropolis, on which see esp. Wolters 1899, p. 122, fig. 26. Note also the fragment of a base upon which the body of a chariot is preserved: Burr 1933, pp. 619,621, no. 328, fig. 85.

105. See, for example, Vermeule 1972, pl. XLI:d, with discussion on p. 222. 106. See, among others, Crouwel 1981; Drews 1988,1993; Hiller 1999; Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1999. 107. For Geometric chariots see Snodgrass 1971, pp. 432-434;

Coldstream 1977, esp. pp. 110-114, 117-119,348, fig. 111; Ahlberg 1971, passim, esp. pp. 84-88; Crouwel 1992. For a fragmentary Late Geometric terracotta group of chariot and charioteer, see Young 1939, pp. 65-67, no. XI1 24, fig. 42; cf. p. 67, no. XI1 25 (chariot fragments).

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

181

Figure 2.116 (n'ght). Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:(iv) animals (mostly horses) Figure 2.117 (above). Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 122: (iv) animals (mostly horses' legs) text (Figs. 2.115,2.116), although some ofleg fragments (Fig. 2.117) may well be from other species. The inventoried pieces include: Horse (T 3618); no traces of paint. Ram (T 3619), indicated by the large rounded horns and short, fat tail. Slipped, but no visible traces of paint. Couchant quadruped ( T 3651), perhaps a ram, but conceivably a goat, or other species; no preserved slip or paint. Bird (T 3651). This terracotta has a large white inclusion (0.004 in diameter) embedded deep in the body of the clay that has created a large spall; this may have destroyed the terracotta during firing, thus rendering it a discard.

108. Burr 1933, pp. 617-620, nos. 304-324, figs. 83-86. 109. Burr 1933, p. 620, nos. 325 (bird), 326 (possible fragmentary snake), fig. 86. 110. Young 1939, pp. 61-63, nos. XI1 18 (horse), XI1 14 (bird), XI1 15-17 (dogs) (all with references), fig. 40.

There are no definite examples of rams, couchant quadrupeds, or any other four-legged species among the fragments in context. All of the uninventoried diagnostic pieces are horses, and given the sheer quantity of horses' heads and necks, the number of other possible animals is unlikely to exceed a handful. Of the pieces illustrated on Figures 2.115 and 2.116, 122 fragments are probably horses; one fragment (Fig. 2.115) preserves the body of a quadruped with a short tail that is unlikely to be a horse. Among this total of 123 pieces, only about a dozen or so preserve clear traces of slip, paint, or both. Some 89 fragments of legs are assembled on 2.117; these are either from animals or else the tripod throne legs of seated figurines. Among these numerous legs, only about five preserve slip or paint. Birds are not clearly attested among the fragments of animals in context, though it is possible that one or two of the pieces listed under standing human figures are, in fact, fragments of birds. Among the animals from the votive deposit published by Burr, the horse, whether alone or in groups of four, clearly predominates;lo8the only other animals include a bird and a fragment of a possible snake.'09 The slightly earlier, Late Geometric, tomb material published by Young included, in addition to a horse and a bird, several fragments of terracotta dogs."O

182

CHAPTER 2

(v) Votive Plaques

Only one inventoried example ( T 3615), preserving a small portion of a corner of a votive plaque, with very poorly preserved traces of white slip and red paint (Fig. 2.113, top right). The fragment preserves a small suspension hole at the corner. Judging from almost-complete contemporary examples, such suspension holes were restricted to the upper corners."' At least four fragments of similar plaques, three of which preserve a suspension hole, were noted in context (Fig. 2.118, top left); of these, only one preserves traces of slip. The function, iconography, technique, and polychromy of such plaques are discussed by Burr.'12

Figure 2.118. Uninventoried terracotta figurines from deposit S 17:2:(v)votive plaques (four fragments,top left);(vi)votive shields (threefragments,bottom right);(vii)miscellaneous

(vi) Votive Shields There is only one inventoried fragment of a small votive shield ( T 3630), with comparatively well preserved traces of white slip and red paint (Fig. 2.113, bottom right). Fragments of three similar shields, one with traces of white slip and possible paint, were noted in context (Fig. 2.118, bottom right). Fragments of about 33 wheelmade terracotta shields were found in the votive deposit published by Burr, some very well preserved,with elaborate decoration; similar shields are known from the cemetery at Eleusis, the dromos of the Menidi tholos tomb, and the Athenian Acropolis.l13 Some 39 complete or fragmentary shields from the Potters' Quarter at Corinth are published by S t i l l ~ e l l . ~ ' ~

(vii) Miscellaneous A number of different types of terracottas are assembled together on Fig. 2.118, together with the uninventoried fragments of votive plaques and shields. All of these are uninventoried and are stored in context. These

111. Burr 1933,pp. 604-605, no. 277, figs. 72-73. 112. Burr 1933,pp. 604-609, nos. 277-280, figs. 72-74; note also the terracotta plaque fragment in Young 1939, pp. 121-122, no. B 49, fig. 87; for related plaques from the settlement and sanctuary at Zagora, see esp. Cambitoglou et al. 1981, pp. 91-92, nos. 288,289, fig. 49. 113. Burr 1933,pp. 609-614, nos. 281-294, figs. 75-81; cf. Wolters 1899, esp. p. 119,fig. 25; see further Dragendorff 1897, p. 8, note 24. 114. Corinth XV, ii, pp. 216-231, with full references and comparanda.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

183

Figure 2.119. Uninventoried clay objects: possible kiln firing supports(?)from deposit S 17:2. Scale 1:2

pieces are the only examples of each respective type encountered among the material from deposit S 17:2. They include: Two fir. of comparatively large flattened pieces of clay (Fig. 2.118, bottom left). They are different from the fragments of votive plaques; although their function is not immediately clear, they are perhaps related to the terracottas associated with some of the terracotta groups of horses published by B ~ r r . " ~ Three clay balldpellets (Fig. 2.118, top, center).'16 Thimble-shaped object, as well as two other similarly shaped frr., the latter slipped and painted (Fig. 2.118, middle row, center). All three are probably bases of figurines, particularly those of human figures of standing type (i), though this remains uncertain. Two thin curved pieces of clay, resembling human arms on some terracotta figurines, but not clearly arms, as well as a small leaf-shaped piece of clay, perhaps an animal leg (Fig. 2.118, middle row, bottom). Five small unidentified lumps of clay (Fig. 2.118, top right); one (conceivably from a horse figurine?)with traces of paint.

115. Burr 1933, p. 618, no. 304, fig. 84; d.also p. 619, no. 328, fig. 85, with discussion on p. 621. 116. For a similarly undecorated clay ball of Late Geometric date from well S 18:1, see Brann 1961a, p. 123, no. 44 (MC 455) (with references), pl. 22. See also discussion, including similar balls fi-om the Isis Grave and grave a at Eleusis, in Young 1939, p. 192, C 176; and various examples, mostly with painted dots, in Kerameikos V, i, pl. 15. These balls are of a fabric and style different from those of Attic Fine Handmade Incised Ware, such as Burr 1933, pp. 565-566, nos. 94-95, fig. 24. 117. Such as those assembled in Papadopoulos 1992.

All of the following pieces are currently stored in context. The possible kiln firing supports all derive from cutting F 1, as do all of the larger lumps of clay, except for the second smallest, which was simply labeled as deriving from either cutting F 1or F 3.

KiZn Firing Supports(q Three pieces of roughly wedge-shaped, coarse clay objects (Fig. 2.119) are virtually identical in shape, fabric, and feel to 102 (Fig. 2.59). All three share a common fabric, with numerous straw impressions visible. As with 102, they are unlikely hearth rims, and their common shape and size seem to preclude the possibility that they derive from the normal clay lining of a house roof or ceiling, though such an interpretation cannot be categorically dismissed. They are all poorly fired, or underfired, but very different from the larger lumps of clay (see below) that probably derive from the lining of a kiln. Their common shape and fabric supports the interpretation of their being kiln firing supports, though they are not identical to later, and better-known, firing they are also different from other likely kiln

CHAPTER 2

184

- .

-

)L

.

, b

-{+ .

>

,>9 . ~ & 2

-

*

- & - ( '

. ,+

..+*--w"e9&-<

-

<

- ..+.

i'.'

,

.-

3

*(

&--S

'

+,

firing supports, such as 86, though they are related in shape.This said, it is important to note, first of all, that later kiln firing supports are of very different shapes and sizes depending on the nature of the pottery being fired and vary also according to regional customs, as well as individual potter's, or workshop, preferences. Second,very little is known of pre-Classical kiln furniture.These three pieces are presented here as likely, though not certain, kiln firing supports.

Lumps of Clay: Kiln Lining(g There are five pieces that are best described as lumps of coarse clay (Fig. 2.120). They share a common fabric, with numerous small to very large inclusions of various size and color, as well as some straw or straw impressions. All are variously fired, often better fired on one side. The fabric is friable, with a tendency to crumble easily. What appear to be clear edges are preserved on one piece, though there are possible edges on other pieces as well. The fabric is generally coarser than that of the possible kiln firing supports noted above. The maximum dimensions of the five pieces are as follows: 0.119,0.117, 0.112,0.075,0.068.

Figure 2.120. Uninventoriedlumps of clay from deposit S 172: possibly kiln lining(?). Scale 1:2

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

185

The pieces generally resemble the fragments of clay lining encountered in the Late Geometric potter's kiln at Torone.'l8

Two objects, both from cutting F 1: CT 692. Large, oval-shaped grinder made of Aiginetan

andesite. L.: 0.395; W.: 0.155. Convex back; concave grinding surface, smoothed from use, especially toward the ends. Context. Roughly doughnut-shaped object, which may have served as a weight/loomweight(?). H.: 0.036; Diam.: 0.065; Diam. (hole): 0.009. Type of stone uncertain.

Material from tins n A 175 and n A 179, including that labeled "8 stacked skyphoi," as well as the material below that level.

All of the skyphoi, cups, kotylai, and plates stored here are poorly fired or manufactured, and are identical to those catalogued above as production discards. Unless otherwise noted, joining fragments are counted as one.

118. See Papadopoulos 1989a. 119. For which see generally Johnston and Jones 1978; Papadopoulos and Paspalas 1999.

Skyphoi: 10 complete or substantially preserved vessels; 26 rim frr., some of which join (2 of these with handles); 6 handle frr.; 4 base frr.; at least 10 body frr. (more below). One-handled cups: 3 substantially preserved vessels; 5 rim frr. (2 of these with handles); 2 base frr. Kotylai (many of the following fragments join): 12 rim frr.

(3 of these with handles); 6 base frr.; 14 body frr.

Plates: 5 rim frr.; 4 base frr. (2 of which are from the same

vessel). In addition, some 30+ frr. or chips that derive either from skyphoi, cups, or kotylai. Other (of these, few show clear signs of being potters' waste, though many are poorly fired): 3 rim and 1base frr. SOS amphora^;"^ 1large krater rim fr.; 3 frr. of bowl; 1 rim fr. unidentified vessel (or terracotta); 9 body frr. closed vessels (one of which is a neck similar to P 26585; another polychrome); 1 small kalathos(?) rim and body fr.; 1earlier (Geometric) skyphos rim and handle fr.; 1earlier decorated skyphos/ bowl rim fr., perhaps Mycenaean(?); 1lamp fr. (Howland type 3) noted above (p. 172).

CHAPTER 2

Material from sack IIA 177.

All of the skyphoi, cups, kotylai, and plates stored here are poorly fired or manufactured, and are identical to those catalogued above as production discards. Skyphoi: 1rim, 2 base, 1handle, and 1 possible body frr. One-handled cups: 3 frr. preserving complete profile; 1 rim fr. (with handle); 2 base frr. Kotylai: 3 base frr.; 2 body frr. (1 with portion of handle). Plates: 5 rim frr. (2 of these with handle); 2 base frr.; 1 rim fr. Late Geometric plate (residual). Other: 9 joining frr. preserving amphora neck and rim (not clearly potters' debris); 2 rim, 1base, and 1body frr. kraters (some poorly fired); 5 body frr. closed vessels (decorated; some poorly fired); 1body fr. open vessel; 2 lid knob frr., plus 1other that is perhaps related; 1rim fr. medium-size closed vessel (oinochoe or jug). Two unidentified coarseware frr., one with a pierced hole (resembling prehistoric baking dishes [Pfanne]). Bone: pig foot fr., with cut marks on one side (identified by Lynn Snyder).

OTHER PROTOATTIC D E P O S I T S WITH P O T T E R S ' D E B R I S Fragments of numerous vessels very similar to the discards in deposit S 17:2 were recovered from deposits and other cuttings in the area of S 17:2 (see Fig. 2.81 for some of the other cuttings in the area).120One of the associated cuttings, designated IIA cut 111, yielded many fragments of skyphoi, kotylai, and one-handled cups, along with numerous terracotta figurines, identical, or very similar, to material in S 17:2. This deposit also yielded a small fragment of a test-piece cut from the base of a small plate (cf. 124), with draw-hole cut in the center of the underside, as well as a nearly complete jug, the surface of which is pocked full of spalls (production discard).

Brann well S.12' Depth 7.55 m. Mostly uniform dumped fill, dated by Brann to the second quarter of the 7th century B.C. and stated to be the only Agora group of ;his date. Period of use filling thought to be latter part of the 7th century.122 With regard to a number of pieces from the well-and without delving into the chronological problems this deposit brings to light-Brann writes:123"It is possible that the well belonged to a potter's establishment

120. Material stored in sack IIA 174. 121. Brann 1961b, pp. 374-379. 122 Brann 1961b, pp, 374-379; ~111, p, 131, 123. Brann 1961b, p. 375.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS CONTEXT

187

where both ochre and grinders would have been used. The unusually great number and variety of loomweights and spindlewhorls both in the well and in the house deposit (which also contained many terracottas, more ochre, and trial pieces) may then be thought of as part of the stock or be noted, however, that only a small product of this w ~ r k s h o p . "It' ~should ~ fraction of this deposit was published by Brann; among the published pieces were a number of imports, including Prot~corinthian,'~' Corinthian coarseware,126Argive monochrome,12' and East Greek.'28 Among the unpublished pottery, quite a number of pieces are poorly fired, but of these none are obvious wasters or production discards. In addition to the pottery, the deposit yielded a large number of loomweights and spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons, of which only a few were p ~ b 1 i s h e d .The l ~ ~ inventoried examples include: Rectangular loomweights: M C 1041, M C 1044 Pyramidal loomweights: M C 1042, M C 1048, M C 1050, M C 1051, M C 1054, M C 1055 (Brann 1961b, no. S 23), M C 1057, M C 1064 Discoid loomweight: M C 1043 (Brann 1961b, no. S 22) Conical spindlewhorls: M C 1040 (Brann 1961b, no. S 27; painted), M C 1049, M C 1059 (Brann 1961b, no. S 26), M C 1060 (Brann 1961b, no. S 25), M C 1061 Biconical spindlewhorls: M C 1052, M C 1053, M C 1058, M C 1062. M C 1063 Other inventoried material in the deposit includes a lump of yellow ochre ( M C 1056)130and two terracotta figurines ( T 3586, T 3601). In addition to the inventoried pieces, a good deal of fragmentary pottery and other small finds from well R 17:5 is stored in three context tins, though apart from a few poorly fired scraps of pottery, there is no blatant potters' debris.131

Brann well or pit O;132deposit centrally located in the area earlier used for potters' activity.The published description reads: "Depth 0.90 m; unstratified. Later 8th into early 7th century B.c."'~~ 124.The loomweights and spindlewhorls from the well include Brann 1961b, nos. S 22-S 27; the "house deposit" refers to deposit S 17:2, discussed above, pp. 143-145. 125. Brann 1961b, p. 377, no. S 19. 126.Agora VIII, p. 59, no. 241, pl. 13. 127.Agora VIII, p. 58, no. 234, pl. 13. 128. Brann 1961b, pp. 377-378, nos. S 20-S 21;Agora VIII, p. 58, no. 228, pl. 13.

129. Brann 1961b, p. 378, nos. S 22S 27. 130. See Brann 1961b, p. 375 (noted). 131.The context lot contains at least one more rectangular loomweight, two biconical spindlewhorls, and two or three terracotta disks cut from sherds of pottery. The deposit also contained over a dozen grindstones or hammerstones, in addition to stones of uncertain function. O f the pottery recovered, a high propor-

tion of vessels, especially larger ones, had been mended in antiquity with rivet holes. 132. Brann 1961a, pp. 131-136. 133. See Brann 1961a, pp. 131-136, where the depth is given as 0.040 m; also Agora VIII, p. 129, where the depth is stated to be 0.090 m. The confusion goes back to the excavation notebook (Notebook QA 11,p. 378), where the depth of the well or pit is stated to be both 0.040 and 0.090 m.

188

CHAPTER 2

Quite a number of pots from this deposit are misfired or poorly fired. In most cases, however, it is impossible to determine whether this is simply poor firing or whether the damage is enough to have resulted in a production discard.The following inventoried pieces are most poorly fired: P 17175 (Brann 1961a, no. 0 26)

P 17176 (Brann 1961a, no. 0 27)134

The deposit also yielded two fragmentary "basket bowls" (P 17189 and P 17190),13jas well as a curious base ( 2 ) fragment of an unidentified vessel form that was conceivably a fragment of a test-piece (P 17205), though this could not be established with certainty.136

Also centrally located in an area of established potters' activity, this well was dug to a depth of 6.95 m, with a diameter of about 1.10 m; it narrows toward the bottom and is partly collapsed at the top.13' It has six footholds on the south side and three on the north, spaced at intervals of about 0.50 m; little water was encountered at the time of excavation. The fill, described as uniform, yielded a number of poorly fired pieces. Some of these may represent production discards, and one or two may even be test-pieces, but their state of preservation renders any conclusion uncertain. The following pieces are simply listed here as poorly fired or misfired pots: P 22428 (Brann 1961a, no. R 11): skyphos P 22442 (Brann 1961a, no. R 7): small round-mouthed oinochoe P 22445 (Brann 1961a, no. R 14): one-handled cup P 22446 (Brann 1961a, no. R 10): skyphos P 23884 (Brann 1961a, no. R 6): trefoil o i n ~ c h o e l ~ ~

Among other deposits, it is worth mentioning well I 13:4, excavated in July and August 1996.139The well was cut into bedrock 9.25 m deep, and was oval in shape, measuring 0.90 x 1.00 m. Footholds were cut at inter134. Cf. also P 17171 (Brann 1961a, no. 0 31) and P 17191 (Brann 1961a, no. 0 14). 135.Thompson 1947, p. 210, pl. 46:4 (left); Brann 1961a, p. 133, nos. 0 12 and 0 13, pl. 18;Agora VIII, p. 62, no. 271, pl. 16 (with references); Camp 1990, p. 232; 1999, p. 262, fig. 9. 136. If fragment P 17205 does indeed derive from a pot, then the vessel was handmade, with a flat bottom and a virtually straight-sided lower wall. Both the preserved interior and the

exterior are covered with irregular bands and strokes, rather different from the normal configuration of testpaint on the other pieces presented in this study. At one point, at least, the paint appears to extend over a chip at the upper break, but the nature of the fragment is such that it is unclear whether this is indeed an edge, or whether the surface is the result of the crude manner in which the piece was made. I have decided against including this piece in the current study because I am not convinced that it is a test-

piece. Moreover, in fabric and feel the fragment has much in common with Mycenaean decorated pottery and terracottas, and it is not inconceivable that the fragment is an earlier, residual, find in this deposit. 137.Thompson 1953, p. 39 (F on pl. 16:a); Brann 1961a, pp. 143-146; Agora VIII, p. 130. 138. Cf. also the two miniature one-handled cups ("Phaleron cups") P 22425 (R 17) and P 22426 (R 16). 139. Camp 1999, pp. 260-262.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS CONTEXT

189

vals on opposite sides all the way down the shaft. There was no obvious period of use fill at the bottom of the well. Upon abandonment, the well was filled with a large number of rocks and with mud. T h e associated pottery-which included some 45 catalogued pieces, mostly fragments-was assigned to the Late Geometric period, and was dated by the excavator to the years around 700 B . C . , 'although ~~ some of it is better assigned to the earlier years of the 7th century B.C.Among the fragments of pottery recovered from the dump fill, there are only two pieces that qualify as potters' debris, both being wasters. They include:

140. Camp 1999, p. 262.

Lot no. 67W: two joining frr. preserving small portion of shoulder and lower neck of medium-size closed vessel; heavily vitrified. Lot no. 75W: base fr. of medium-size to large closed vessel, vitrified, but not as badly as the previous. Painted band at juncture of foot and body.

CHAPTER

3

Notes on the Potters'Re3seJi-om the Area of the ClassicalAgora and the Firing ofAthenian Pottery

Thefiring is no smallpart of thepotteri craft.

Not too little or too muchfire should be built under thepots,

butjust enough.'

1. Geoponica 6.3.(5). For text and translation see Richter 1923, p. 94. 2. Farnsworth 1960, p. 72; see also Farnsworth and Wisely 1958; Farnsworth 1959. 3. See esp. Farnsworth 1959; Noble 1988, pp. 157-165. 4. Richter 1923, p. 36. 5. The poem is translated by M . J. Milne, with text and notes, in Noble 1988, pp. 186-196; see further Richter 1923, pp. 94-95; WilamowitzMoellendorff 1916, pp. 17-18. 6. Milne in Noble 1988, p. 190: "Then do I summon the ravagers of kilns, both Syntrips and Smaragos and Asbetos too, and Sabaktes and Omodamos, who makes much trouble for this craft." 7. LSJ, S.V.C vvrp~Q. 8. LSJ, S.V.Zy&pccyoq. 9. Milne in Noble 1988, p. 194. 10. LSJ, S.V.& ~PEuTo<. 11. LSJ, S.V.o npdtxq~. 12. LSJ, S.V.'Qy06ccyo5.

"Anyone who attempts to fire pottery in a manner similar to the ancient Greek method soon becomes acutely and painfully aware of the pitfalls of oxidation and r e d ~ c t i o n . "So ~ states Marie Farnsworth in her seminal paper on test-pieces. Indeed, the pitfalls of pottery production are many and mishaps all too ~ o m m o nAs . ~ Richter adds: "A good potter, however, will soon learn to bear such mishaps philosophically; and it is certainly true that one often learns much more from failures than from successes. Moreover, the element of uncertainty lends spice to the raft."^ However philosophical an ancient potter may have been, the fact that there are no fewer than five named ravagers of kilns in the poem K&p~vos, preserved in the pseudo-Herodotean L@ ofHomer, bears ample testimony to the havoc that may befall the firing of any pottery kiln.5T h e five ravagers are named individually: avyxahho 6$ Z T C E Lxapivov ~~ Gqhq6jpa~

Crjv-cp~p'6 p G ~Cp6rpayov ss xai "Aap~sovt6h Cap6rxrrjv

'Qpo6apov 8'. 02 T ~ L -chxvq~ ~ E xaxk nohhtr no pi<^^.^

T h e ravagers' names-the "lubber fiends" as they are rendered in Liddell and Scott-are of interest in themselves. Crjvsp~r),from o r j v s p ~ r (ruin, )~~ destruction), he who breaks the pots (Smasher);' Cp6rpayoS (Crasher), as in o p a p a y ~ o( ~ r a s h )"A~PETov, ;~ Stephanos' emendation for & a p ~ o s o v , ~ as in unquenchable, inextinguishable;1° Cap6rxqS (oap&
192

CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.1. Black-glazed sherd with graffito scene of daemons or goblins in a workshop. Last quarter of the 5th century B.C. From the workshop of Pheidias, Olympia. Courtesy DAI-Athen

Figure 3.2. Shoulder of Athenian black-figured hydria depicting a pottery in operation. Munich, Glyptothek und Museum antiker Kleinkunst, inv. 1717 (J. 731). Courtesy Museum

Iconographically, a number of representations can be tied to these, and other related daemons, albeit loosely. For example, the idiosyncratic scene incised on a fragmentary black-glazed pot fiom the Workshop of Pheidias at Olympia (Fig. 3.1) is cogently discussed by Wolfgang Schiering against the backdrop of daemons, including our five ravagers, pottery production, paoxavta, and the Zcpogot TOG x u g 6 ~ (see below).13The interpretation of this as an apotropaic workshop scene, where two goblins-they who bedevil craftsmen-are shown defacing the guardian of the workshop, is largely determined by the context of the find: a sculptor's workshop.14 The herm on the Olympia fragment, even though he wears a craftsman's pilos,15 together with the goblin's left hand ominously aimed at his genitals, also reminds us of the mutilation of the Herms in Athens in 415 B.c., an event implicated in the Athenian disaster in Sicily.I6 A related protector of workshops," and especially a potter's workshop, appears on the shoulder of a well-known black-figured hydria in Munich (Fig. 3.2).18The scene depicts various aspects of pottery produc-

13. Schiering 1964. 14.The fragment is discussed in detail in Morris 1992a,p. 224. 15. Schiering 1964, esp. pp. 243245. 16. See Morris 1992a,p. 224; Osborne 1986; also Agora XI, p. 141, note 241. For a different type of interpretation of the mutilation of the Herms, see Keds 1985,ch. 16. 17. For hems connected with scenes of manufacturing, see Crome 1935-1936. 18.The hydria has been published on numerous occasions; see, among others: Furtwangler and Reichhold 1904,p. 159; Richter 1923,p. 64, fig. 58; Noble 1988,pp. 12,23,150,figs. 1,6, 230; Schreiber 1999,p. 15, fig. 2.9.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

33'

blaCkkfi@red

skyphos, ca. 500 B.C. Harvard University Art Museums no. 1960.321 (formerly D. M. Robinson Collection). Courtesy Harvard UniversityArt Museums

19. See Wrede 1928;Webster 1972, esp. pp. 137-139; Agora XI, pp. 130-

132;Eisman andTumbull1978, pp. 398-399; see also Mattusch 1997, pp. 64-65, figs. 4547. 20. ABV, p. 520, no. 26; Robinson 1938,I11 He, pls. 1-2. 21. See Ziomecki 1975,pp. 23-25; Eisman andTumbull1978, p. 395, ill. 1,p. 396, figs. 1-4; Scheibler 1987, p. 72, note 54; 1995,pp. 110-111, fig. 102. 22. Bliimner 1889,p. 151; see further Richter 1923,p. 75, fig. 71; Scheibler 1995,p. 120,fig. 108.

I93

tion, from the throwing of a pot on the wheel and the decoration or finishing of the vase, to its being carried toward the kiln for firing. At the far right of the scene, a fireman is stoking or raking out the kiln, toward the top of which is a bearded mask. The identity of the bearded head is unclear, although the deity most often represented by a mask is Dionysos; other possibilities include Hermes, a silen, or a satyr.19 Whether this is Dionysos or a satyr's head, there can be no coincidence in the fact that the apotropaic device oversees what requires most protection in the workshop: the firing of the kiln. Herms also appear in another work setting, one on either side of the Athenian black-figured skyphos attributed to the Theseus Painter and dating to ca. 500 B.C. (Fig. 3.3)F0Although for many years thought to represent potters working away on piles of clay (Fig. 3.3: a, c)-an interpretation largely inspired by the two seated men, one under each handle, tending an amphora as if working on it (Fig. 3.3:b, d)--the scene has more recently been reinterpreted in the context of a harvest festi~al.2~ The association of pottery making and havoc is much better rendered on the Boiotian black-figured skyphos first published by Hugo Bliimner (Fig. 3.4).22 Five figures-two seated, two standing, and one hangingare shown in a potter's workshop, dispersed around a potter's wheel, a table, and stacks of skyphoi, in various acts of damaging pottery. Are these

I94

CHAPTER

3

potters or the five daemons who ravage pottery?23In one recent study, Michtle Daumas prefers to see the vase in a somewhat different light, against the backdrop of the Kabeirion at Thebes, cult, mysteries, and initiation. She writes: L'analyse des vases mis au jour Cabirion de Thtbes a permis d'ttablir, en raison de la qualit6 de l'argile employte et de la cuisson hltive, qu'ils ttaient rtalists sur place lors de la fete annuelle rtunissait probablement les initits, les mystes et leurs mystagogues, comme certaines reprtsentations permettent de le comprendre. Si la sctne figurte sur notre vase se refere bien, par tous les dttails que nous avons relevts, i l'un de ces ateliers de potiers Venus fabriquer dans l'enceinte du sanctuaire les vases servant au culte, la tenue, vestimentaire du maitre potier se comprend aistment. Elle est celle d'un initit des Cabires, autorist i participer au fonctionnement des mysttres et exerqant une sort de pretrise. Le terrible chiitiment auquel est soumis le jeune homme suspendu au plafond est peut-Ctre li6 A son manque de discretion i propos du dtcor des vases fabriqu6s par l'atelier, lors de la c6ltbration des mysttres. En effet, quand bien mCme le droit grec permettait, du moins i Athtnes, de soumettre les esclaves i la torture lors de certains procts et accordait aux maitres tous les moyens de correction, il semble diff~cileque dans la vie quotienne on les ait chiiti6s ainsi sans motif particulitrement grave.24

Figure 3.4. Boiotian black-figured skyphos from Exarchos. Athens, Nationd Museum, inv. 1114-2624 (442). Photos courtesy Museum; drawing after Blumner 1889, p. 151

23. The resemblance between the Olympia fiagment and the skyphos is further suggested by a number of shared similarities. For example, the posture of the crouching or seated daemon on the Olympia fragment is mirrored in the gestures of the two seated figures bn the skyphos. Moreover, whatever is actually held by the daemon on the right hand side of the Olympia fragment is matched by the weapon used by the figure on the far right of the skyphos. 24. Daumas 2000, p. 120,with further references andclarification in the notes; see also Daumas 1998, pp. 114-116.

-

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

I95

As ingenious as this interpretation is, it does not account for all of the details of the iconography of the skyphos. In another recent study published independently in the same year, David Jordan discusses the scene in the context of ancient brutality, as a representation of a potter's workshop with a torture scene.2i H e writes: The scene is obviously a pottery workshop. Above the painter who sits peacefully at the wheel we behold something gruesome. No doubt as punishment for some wrongdoing, one of the workers has been suspended face down from the ceiling. His left foot is tied against the ceiling itself; his right foot hangs lower, from a cord. His hands also hang from cords. Another cord from the ceiling is around his neck, strangling him so badly that his tongue hangs out. As if this were not enough, another cord, attached to his penis, is stretched tight and tied to a ring or a hook in the floor. In front of the victim and facing him stands another worker swinging a long, thin object, a leather thong or a stick, in his upraised right hand.26

25. Jordan 2000, pp. 100-101, figs. 5-8. 26. Jordan 2000, p. 100. 27. These are conveniently outlined in Jordan 2000, p. 101, notes 29-33; see further Bliimner 1889, pp. 150-156; Collignon and Couve 1902, pp. 347348, no. 1114; Walters 1905, pp. 135136; Scheibler 1995, p. 120; HalmTisserant 1998, pp. 44-45. 28. The other, less likely, possibility is that this is a "ribbon" tying her hair and extending on both sides of her head. 29. Such an interpretation does not mean that vessel could not have been used at the Kabeirion at Thebes. 30. See, however, the recent paper by Faraone (2001), which discusses at length this collection of curses against kilns.

It is generally assumed that the figure with the stick or leather thong is focusing his attention on the hanging figure, though this is not absolutely clear, and the skyphos held by the seated figure may be a viable alternative. Other scholars have argued that the right hand of the suspended figure is free and begging for mercy, while another interpretation has the victim vomiting into the skyphos below.27But the suspended figure is not the only one with a tongue-or vomit-emanating from the mouth. The seated female(?) who brandishes the triangular object also seems to have her tongue and her target appears to be the male standing to the left, delicately balancing a stack of skyphoi. Despite some differences of opinion on the details of the scene, there is general agreement that the suspended figure is mortal, either a slave or an apprentice, and all the other figures are seen as artisans, employees, even the owner of a pottery workshop. Alternatively, if one follows the interpretation of Daumas, both the suspended figure and those all around are taking part in the Kabeiric mysteries. But neither cult nor torture fully explains the enigmatic scene. Taken as a whole, the iconography, however gruesome, has a comic flavor to it and the overall message seems to be one of havoc, of delicate pots potentially to be destroyed byVthebumbling characters all round.This, coupled with the general appearance of the figures, and seen in the light of related representations, such as Figure 3.1 and the variety of apotropaic devices commonly found in scenes of pottery production (see below), might argue that the figures are not human, but daemons in a workshop.29The fact that there are five figures on the skyphos may be mere coincidence, but the number matches the five ravagers of kilns individually named in the poem Kiln. Whatever the interpretation, the language of the poem K & p ~ v oiss of further interest, since it appears to be in the formula of a curse, a feature that has been generally o v e r l o ~ k e dAs . ~ ~David Jordan has argued, the Classical and Hellenistic curse tablets with known findspots generally come

19~

CHAPTER

3

from cemeteries, sometimes from chthonic sanct~aries.~~ Such an association with death and the underworld is well reflected by the increasing number of curse tablets from the Athenian Kerameik0s.3~ And several have also been found in wells in the area of the Classical Agora (the original Kerameikos of at hen^)?^ Curses, potters, and death thus share a physical proximity to one another. More than this, the language of the poem highlights the superstitious aspect of pottery firing, especially when coupled with the daemons on Figures 3.1 and 3.4, and with scenes such as the ithyphallic satyr standing on thepraefirnium of a kiln on one Corinthian pinax from Penteskouphia (Fig. 3.5)34-"placed there to ward off the evils that may befall the pottery during f~ring"~~-andthe bearded head on the kiln on the black-figured hydria in Munich (Fig. 3.2). Devices (known as pamavia) to avert the evil eye were also used by bronzeworkers to protect their furnaces. Pollux (Onomasticon 7.108), writing in the 2nd century A.c., states: i v qv yshoia siva llgb 66 s6v xayivwv sois ~ a h x ~ 6 03305 xasags&v,q b.rct.rcharcsiv,id [email protected] x a k i s o 66 pam&via.

Figure 3.5. Corinthian pinax from Penteskouphia.Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 683 + F 757 + F 829. Courtesy Museum

It was the custom for bronze casters to hang something ridiculous in front of their furnaces, or to mould something upon them, in order to avert envy. These were called p a o ~ a v i a . ~ ~ The same is true in later periods. For example, Anna Shepard writes: Firing is the inevitable and relentless test to which the potter must subject the product of her skill and patience. Up to this point the clay yields to her will; she shapes it as she pleases and derives the enjoyment of creative activity in decorating it; but to keep and use it, she must trust it to the fire where she cannot decide whether it will be a thing of pride or a handful of potsherds for the scrap heap. It is understandable that the task of firing is approached with misgiving and anxiety, and it is no wonder that superstitions grow up about it. Yuman potters, according to Rogers (1936), considered it bad luck to watch or go near the "kiln" until the fire was entirely out. Cushing (1920, p. 314) tells of the Zuni's concern for the effect of noise. When the vessel was being finished and decorated, there was no laughter or singing, and conversation was carried on in whispers or by signs because it was feared that the "voice" might enter the vessel and then, during firing, escape with a loud noise and such violence that the vessel would be shattered?' In addition to the ethnographic (Yuman and Zuni) material noted by Shepard, it is worth mentioning the evidence of the plaques dedicated to the god Poseidon at Penteskouphia. It is no accident that the majority of the sixty or so Penteskouphia plaques depicting craftsmen show the potters or firemen precisely at the moment of tending their kilns?8 It is even possible, on the basis of the internal details of their iconography-such as the flames emanating from the tops of the kiln domes, as well as the disposition of the craftsmen, and the tools they hold--that many of the plaques

31. Jordan and Rotroff 1999,p. 153. 32. See Jordan and Rotroff 1999, p. 153;Kerameikos 111,pp. 89-100; Kerameikos XIV,pp. 142-151; Jordan 1983; Costabile 1998. 33. Jordan 1980; 1985. 34. Pernice 1898;Cuomo di Caprio 1984,p. 82, no. 10. 35. Cuomo di Caprio 1984,p. 79. 36. Text and translation in Richter 1923,p. 96. 37. Shepard 1976,pp. 74-75. 38. See Figs. 1.7:a-f and 3.5. The other "potters"' activities shown on the plaques include the mining of clay (see Noble 1988,p. 15, fig. 3) and the collection of fuel dung (Fig. 3.8, right; Cook 1961,pl. ?a), discussed in further detail below.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

I97

specifically depict the critical reoxidization phase of the firing process. As votive dedications to Poseidon, these plaques offer a cogent illustration of the part of the craft that the potters themselves considered most likely to fail (if not the most hazardous) and therefore most in need of divine protection and help. In his Three Booth ofthe Potteri Art of 1548, Cipriano Piccolpasso invokes the name of god on numerous occasions, but nowhere more often than in his passages on the firing of a kiln. In the Second Book, for instance. he writes: Take those vessels that were filled with sand and lees, as herein was mentioned in our discourse. Lay these, I say, beneath the kiln, resting against the back wall, and arrange them one above the other. Having done this, involung the name of God, take a fistful of straw [and], making the sign of the cross, kindle the fire.39 At the end of the Third Book, in describing the manner of firing the finished ware, Piccolpasso writes:

39. Translated by Lightbown and Caiger-Smith (1980, pp. 68-69). 40. Translated by Lightbown and Caiger-Smith (1980, p. 109). 41. For the trepidation of old potters who, "before each firing, were wont to consult the moon and the stars and evoke the aid of the gods," see Cox 1938, p. 152; also Jewitt 1878. 42. See also Scheibler 1995, pp. 116-117, fig. 106. 43. See Jung 1995. For potters' dedications on the Acropolis, see Wagner 2000. 44. Beazley 1944, pp. 93-95; the hydria was found in tomb of a woman at Ruvo and was formerly in the Caputi Collection: ARV2,p. 571, no. 73 (with full references), p. 1659. Among many others, see Richter 1923, p. 71, fig. 66; Noble 1988, pp. 13, 117, figs. 2,206, pp. 205-206, note 11; Scheibler 1995, p. 119, fig. 107; Papadopoulos 1997, pls. 175:a, b. 45. Richard Green's suggestion (1961) that the scene depicts metal workers, and not potters, was convincingly dismissed in Noble 1988, p. 205, note 11. 46. Beazley 1944, p. 95.

When all this has been done, prayers are offered to God with the whole heart, ever thanking Him for all that H e gives us. Fire is taken, having an eye however to the state of the moon, for this is of the greatest importance, and I have heard from those who are old in the art and of some experience that, if the firing takes place at the waning of the moon, the fire lacks brightness in the same manner as the moon its splendour. In doing this, therefore, pay attention to it, especially when it is in the rainy signs, which would be very perilous and must be allowed to pass over, remembering always to do all things in the name of Christ Jesus. When the fire has been lit . . .j0 In the same way that Piccolpasso invokes the Christian god, so too did Greek potters look to their deities for divine help and inspiration." This is clearly seen in the case of the votive plaques from Penteskouphia and, for example, on two Athenian red-figured vases. The first, a calyxkrater in the Museo Regionale della Ceramica in Caltagirone (Fig. 3.6), depicts a quiet scene of a potter, shown as a bald, older man, forming a large open vessel on a wheel, which is being turned by his youthful assistant.j2Athena looks on in a dignified manner--in keeping with her role as patron goddess of the city-appearing more as if she is reading an erected stele (like the one on the celebrated "mourning Athena" relief)43than looking on two artisans going about their business. Quite a different Athena appears on the shoulder of the red-figured hydria attributed to the Leningrad Painter and once in the Torno Collection in Milan (Fig. 3.7).'jThe scene is an idealized representation of a potter's workshop;35 it verges on the operatic. John Beazley described it thus: But the picture may be looked at from another angle. There is something dream-like about it. It is a wish-picture. I do not refer merely to the presence of the goddess Athena and her messengers, but to something else.46

19~

CHAPTER

3

Figure 3.6. Detail ofAthenian redfigured calyx-krater. Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della Cerarnica, inv. 961. Courtesy Museum and Regione Sicilia BB.CC.AA. Photo: Michelangelo Bellofiore.

A striding Athena in full garb (center) approaches a youthful "master painter," asJoseph Noble calls him, ready to crown him with a laurel wreath, "apparently as a reward for the excellence of his workn4' This handsome "master painternis seated on a chair of "extreme delicacy and of a far higher quality than the rude stools customarily used in the shop."48Even the table beside him is a fine work of craftsmanship, and his neatly draped clothing is more in keeping with that of an upper class Athenian dandy than a potter working away. O n either side of him two male assistants are similarly approached, this time by Nib also brandishing wreaths. The assistant on the left looks up, as if surprised; the assistant to the right is too engrossed in his work to notice the approachingNike. Tucked away in the far right corner, almost forgotten and certainly uncrowned, sits a woman, referred to as the "Potter-Painter's Wifenby Ina Kehrberg, apparently painting a volute-hater (Fig. 3.7:b).49Although she has no Nike, her stool, which has a cover on it, stands on a platform, a "dais," as described by BeazleyS0Whatever this may say about the role of women in Classical Athens,5l the presence of this female figure proves the existence of women potters--or vase-painters, as Beazley preferreds2-in Athens.53 Together, scenes such as that on the Caputi Hydria and the krater in Caltagirone provide a fleeting glimpse of Athenian potters in their own image: representation that virtually amounts to self-expression. Whether pots such as these were ever treasured as as some scholars have maintained, or, as others insist, they were nothing more than saleable bala~t,5~ the point of both the Caputi Hydria and the Caltagirone krater

47. See Noble 1988,p. 205, note 11. 48. Noble 1988,p. 205, note 11. Note the far simpler furniture in Fig. 3.6. 49. Kehrberg 1982;see further Papadopoulos 1997,p. 453, pls. 175:a, b. 50. Beazley 1944,pp. 94-95. 51. For which see, among others, Gould 1980; DuBois 1988;Humphreys 1993;Veyne, Lissarrague, and FrontisiDucroux 1998. 52. Beazley 1944,p. 95. 53. See further Papadopoulos 1997 (with references), including discussion of female potters in the Neolithic period and in the Linear B tablets. Note also another representation of a female potter, the small terracotta, now in the Louvre, showing a woman forming a large pot; see Metzler 1969, p. 147, fig. 6. 54. Beazley 1945. 55. Gi 1987.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

I99

Figure 3.7. Athenian red-figured hydria known as the "Caputi Hydria," once Milan, Torno Collection, now Vicenza, Banca lntesa Collection C 278: a) shoulder; b) detail. CourtesyJ. R. Green

56. Vitelli 1993. 57. Richter 1923,pp. 87-105. 58. Richter 1923,pp. 87-98. 59. See Richter 1923,pp. 98-104. 60. See Richter 1923,p. 103,with references to IG and CIG. 61. Works and Days 25.

seems straightforward:"Power to the potters," to borrow a phrase used by K. D. Vitelli in quite a different c0ntext.5~ In addition to the evidence of the iconography, it is important to bear in mind references to the potter's craft-xcgapeia-in ancient literature. Admirably collected by Richter, the information derived from ancient literature on the subject of potters and pottery production is not as meagre as scholars have assumed:' Avariety of literary testirnonia cover topics ranging from the preparation of the clay and the fashioning of pots, whether on the wheel or by hand, to the firing of pottery and the porosity of the ware.58Particularlywell represented are passages dealing with the status of potters in ancient authors such as Pindar, Simonides, Aristophanes, Isokrates, Plato, Aristotle, Athenaios, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Juvenal, Martial, and Quintilian, to mention only a Individual potters, including Euphronios, Mnesiades, and Sesames, are known from various ins~riptions,~" and the individuality of potters is well reflected in Hesiod's often-quoted passage: xegapeb~xegapei x o ~ k eIndeed, ~ . ~ ~ the prehistory of potters in Greek language can be taken back to an even more remote

200

CHAPTER

3

past with references to potters (ke-ra-me-we), including Kerameia (ke-rame+) as a feminine personal name at Knossos, in the Linear B tablets.62 The various technical and iconographic studies on the production of Greek pottery have focused on Athenian and Corinthian black- and redfigure.63After all, there are no representations of potters by potters in earlier ceramics. Against this background, the material presented in Chapter 2 shows that many of the innovations referred to in the context of Archaic and Classical pottery production were already in place by the earliest stages of the Protogeometric period, and it is these developments that then defined the character of Athenian ceramics from the Early Iron Age through the end of the Hellenistic period. The various categories of material presented in Chapter 2 include test62. See Papadopoulos 1997, esp. pieces, wasters, and other production discards, as well as kiln firing suppp. 459-461; Palaima 1997. 63. Among others, Richter 1923; ports and related types of kiln furniture. The material recovered from any Noble 1988; Scheibler 1995; Schreiber pottery production site can easily be sorted into these categories, and most 1999. For the bibliography prior to also appear in modern traditional pottery workshop^.^^ This is not gener1910, see Solon 1910. ally true for test-pieces, however, since much of the available ethnographic 64. For modern traditional pottery record for modern Greece is based largely on modern traditional pithos production in the Mediterranean see, production, or else on pottery that is either undecorated or else decorated among many others, Lisse and Louis 1956; Pieridou 1960; Hampe and with glaze very different from that produced in the Early Iron Age, ArWinter 1962,1965; Hankey 1968; chaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods. Indeed, few modern traditional Voyatzoglou 1973,1974,1979-1980, pottery-producing societies in the world use test-pieces as aids to correct 1984; Cuomo di Caprio 1985;Jones firing, apart from the examples discussed in Chapter Instead of test1986, pp. 849-880; Blitzer 1981,1990. pieces, a number of modern traditional potters use small sample vessels in 65. See, among many others, evidence collected in Saraswati and order to gauge the progress of firing. This is well recorded, for example, in Behura 1966; Sinopoli 1991, pp. 33-42; Harriet Blitzer's fundamental study of the storage-jar makers of the Koroni d i s t r i ~ tIn . ~dealing ~ with these sample vessels ( 6 & i y p a ~ aalso , ~ L X E ) & X L GKramer I ) , 1997 (India); Vossen 1972; Vossen, Sesefia, and Kopfe 1980 Blitzer writes: (Spain); Vossen and Ebert 1976 (MoAt the front of the firing chamber, directly in sight of the aperture of the firing-chamber door were placed small sample vessels ( b s i y y a ~ a that ) the potter regularly observed to gauge the progress of the firing.67 These 8 ~ I y p a ~ care x not test-pieces per se, nor were they removed from the kiln at different stages during the firing. In other cultures a variety of different methods were used by potters to determine the progress of the firing. In her standard overview, Ceramicsfor theArchaeologist, Shepard writes: "Potters have different bases for judging when firing is completed. They may burn a predetermined amount of fuel, or judge by the appearance of the fire or of the pottery, or be guided by time."68In a similar vein, I know of no kilns in the ancient Near East that have yielded pottery testpieces, at least none that have been p ~ b l i s h e dIt . ~is~ for this reason that the special focus of this chapter, along with Chapter 4, is the test-pieces. Before dealing with the test-pieces and other potters' debris from the area of the later Athenian Agora, and the evidence they yield regarding the firing of pottery, it is important to establish first the basic type of kiln current in the Early Iron Age.

rocco); Rye and Evans 1976 (Pakistan); and see more generally Rhodes 1968, esp. pp. 3-55; Rye 1981, passim; Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, pp. 15-17,113131, esp. 130. An interesting point made by Norton (1956, p. 193) is that even among modern craft or artist potters, test-pieces, despite their obvious advantages, are not regularly used. 66. Blitzer 1990. 67. Blitzer 1990, p. 696, pl. 106:c-d. 68. Shepard 1976, p. 86. She goes on to state (p. 86): "Maria Martinez of San Ildefonso, famous for her lustrous black ware, follows a careful routine and times the different stages. O n the other hand, a Santa Clara potter explained that she knew when the pottery was hot enough by its color." 69. None are listed in, for example, Woolley 1934; Miiller-Karpe 1988; or Anderson 1989.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

EARLY IRON AGE KILNS There is a growing literature on ancient lulns, described as "bewildering" in one recent volume.70Lists of kiln sites in Greece have been compiled by a number of authors;" those of Italy have been assembled and studied by Ninina Cuomo di C a p r i ~ ; ~and ' classifications have also been published for Roman kilns in Britain73and G a ~ l , 'as~ well as medieval kilns in the British Isles." Although a variety of kiln types were used in the ancient Greek worldfrom circular to rectangular, large and small-all presently known Greek kilns, particularly those of mainland Greece, are of a simple updraft variety.76This is the case from the earliest known lulns of the Early Bronze Age right through the Roman period.77The same is true for the Levant. In a recent overview, Ann Killebrew writes: "All the Late Bronze and Iron Age kilns thus far excavated in ancient Canaan, Israel, Philistia, and Phoenicia belong to the updraft type, some with evidence of a double chamber and others apparently with a single chamber."78The technically superior and more complex downdraft kilns, such as those of the Far East, along with simple downdraft kilns and muffle-kilns, are unattested in ancient Greece.79 This said, the exception to the rule appears to be some of the earlier Minoan pottery kilns with multiple subfloor channels or flues, some of which have the firing chamber not directly in front of the flues, but at the far corner, on the side opposite the openings of the flues.80The firing

70. Orton, Tyers, and Vince 1993, p. 130. 71. Bliimner 1879, pp. 23-29; Robinson 1938, pp. 11-12; Cook 1961; Ziomecki 1964, pp. 25-31,36, note 93; Davaras 1973, pp. 79-80; see also Davaras 1980, pp. 124-126; Despoine 1982, pp. 80-81, notes 1-10; Momigliano 1986; Papadopoulos 1989a, pp. 4344; Seifert 1993; Michaelidis 1993; note also the comments in Levi and Laviosa 1986, esp. pp. 32-42. The most recent overview of Greek kilns is the unpublished paper by McLoughlin (1991). Also compiled are the iconographic representations of kilns; see esp. Cuomo di Caprio 1984. 72. Cuomo di Caprio 1971-1972; 1978-1979; 1979; 1992; Morgantina 111; see also Fourmont 1992. For recent overviews of kilns in southern Italy, see Barra Bagnasco 1996 (Lokroi); Giardino 1996 (Herakleia); Osanna 1996 (Metaponto); Dell'Aglio 1996 (Taranto).

73. Swan 1984; see also Corder 1957; Peacock 1982, pp. 67-70. 74. Duhamel1973. 75. Musty 1974; McCathy and Brooks 1988, pp. 40-54. 76. See Rhodes 1968, pp. 13-17; Noble 1988, pp. 148-153; Papadopoulos 1989a, pp. 20-21. 77. Although a number of Neolithic fire-installations have been discussed in the context of pottery firing (e.g., Olynthus I, fig. 16; Deshayes 1974), most of these are hearths. The Neolithic pottery production area at Dimini, published by Chourmouziades (1977), includes a structure with a heat-retaining wall for open pit firing. It is worth adding that experimental studies of Neolithic pottery production indicate that open firing (whether an open fire with wood fuel over the top, or a bonfire with cakes of dung acting as a temporary dome) was the normal procedure; see Vitelli 1984; cf. Rhodes 1968, pp. 3-13. The earliest

known kiln in Greek lands remains the one from Aghios Mamas (Early Bronze Age) excavated by Walter Heurtley; see Heurtley and Radford 1927-1928, pp. 153-155, figs. 6-7; Heurtley 1939, pp. 5-7, figs. 31,33; Jones 1986, p. 783, fig. 9.5:b. 78. Killebrew 1996, p. 153 (with references). 79. For these various types of kilns, see Rhodes 1968; Cardew 1969, pp. 170-212; Leach 1976, pp. 178213; see also Bourry 1911, pp. 191-232. 80. See esp. the reconstruction of the Minoan-type kiln excavated in Miletos: Niemeier 1997, p. 350, pl. CXLV1:a. Niemeier refers to a similar configuration on a Late Minoan I kiln at Vathypetro excavated by Spyridon Marinatos; see Neimeier 1997, p. 350, note 42. Other recently presented contributions to Minoan kilns include Carinci 1997; Shaw et al. 1997,2001; Vallianou 1997.

202

CHAPTER

3

chamber is then connected to the kiln proper by means of an external channel. Such a configuration is best illustrated in the reconstructed kiln C at Miletos, first excavated in the 1950s but recently reconstructed on paper by Wolf-Dieter Niemeier.81If this reconstruction is correct, and the evidence presented seems compelling, then it is possible that a more complex firing system was intended.82 A related Late Minoan I A luln from Kommos, now fully published by Joseph Shaw and his collaborators, has a similar, though not identical, scheme.83It differs from the Miletos kiln in that the firing chamber or pit was located in front of the four channels, on the west side, and it has a vent on the east side. The latter, when opened during the firing, would have created a strong cross-draft, and the Kommos luln is thus a good example of a type of cross-draft kiln popular in Crete during the Neopalatial period.84This type of kiln, however, does not survive the Neopalatial period, and it stands in stark contrast to the more normal circular updraft kilns of the contemporary Greek mainland and those of the Late Minoan 111 period.85 With the exception of some of the larger rectangular l ~ l n sas , ~well ~ as the massive circular kilns used specifically for firing transport amphora~,~ ' those with a permanent or semipermanent stone-constructed and exterior,88the majority of Greek kilns were small, were circular or elliptical in shape, and had apraejiurnium and a simple, temporary domed sup e r s t r u c t ~ r eThe . ~ ~ temporary dome would have been of clay, conceivably 81. Niemeier 1997, p. 350. 82. The Miletos kilns are producing interesting evidence suggesting that Minoan and Mycenaean kilns and firing technology, although sharing much in common, are different in certain important respects. The material from the potters' quarter at Miletos, when fully published, will constitute an important contribution to the prehistory of pottery manufacture in the Aegean. 83. Shaw et al. 2001. I am grateful to Joseph Shaw for allowing me to use this manuscript prior to its publication. 84. Shaw et al. 2001, pp. 1-24. 85. Shaw et al. 2001, p. 136. 86. These are quite common, particularly in Italy: see Cuomo di Caprio 1992, p. 71, fig. 2 (type 2). In Greece rectangular kilns can be further divided into several varieties. These include, first of all, large and irregularly shaped kilns in which a freestanding rectangular pier supports the floor, such as Classical kiln 4 at Sindos: Despoine 1982, pp. 74-76, figs. 10-11, pls. 9-10, 1l:b; cf. also the Atalante kilns: Lambropoulou 1983. Secondly, there are a number of kilns of rectangular or

horseshoe shape, with a more complex system of subfloor flues, of which the Late Minoan IB-I1 kiln near the Villa at Aghia Triada on Crete can be cited as a typical example: Levi and Laviosa 1986, pp. 7-21, figs. 1-15,33, pl. 1; see also the Stylos kiln: Davaras 1973, pp. 75-79, fig. 1, pls. 39-42; Warren 1981, pp. 75-79, figs. 6-9. The latter type is largely Minoan. The standard rectangular kiln of the Classical period is best typified by the examples from Olympia: Kunze and Schleif 1944, esp. pp. 23-31, figs. 10-13, pl. 11; for the location of the Olympia kilns, see Kunze 1958, pls. 2,4; cf. Orlandos 1955, p. 74; Pella: Pella I, pl. 21:b; and Miletos: Kleine 1979, pp. 111-115, pls. 27:l-4. Note also the kilns recently uncovered at Troy, among which is a rectangular kiln: Rose 1998, pp. 98101, figs. 25-26. For the kilns of Miletos see, most recently, Niemeier 1997. 87. Among many others, note especially the massive circular kiln, measuring some 7 meters in diameter, excavated in the area of the "New Cemetery" in Rhodes, found with its

firing load of amphoras stacked upside down: Zervoudake 1985, pp. 400-401, pls. 208:y8,209:c(y. See also the complex of kilns associated with Corinthian B amphoras dating from the 5th to 3rd centuries B.C. excavated in the suburb of Figareto near Corfu Town: Preka-Alexandri 1992, esp. p. 48 (the large kiln 6); Whitbread 1995, pp. 43, 260-261. The largest kiln of this type known to me is a massive circular kiln of the Roman period found in Alexandria (Egypt), made for the firing of transport amphoras; it measures about 12 meters in diameter: Empereur 1998, pp. 218-219; El-Ashmawi 1998. 88. Good examples of this type include the kilns of Phari, particularly the larger kiln 1: Blonde and Perreault 1992, pp. 13-14, figs. 1-4; also one of the three kilns at Vamvouri Ammoudia on Thasos: Garlan 1986, esp. fig. 8 (with reference to further examples from Crimean Chersonesos published by Borisova); kiln 6 at Figareto on Korkyra: Preka-Alexandri 1992, pp. 42,48, fig. 1. 89. See esp. Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 20.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

Figure 3.8. Both sides of Corinthian pinax fiom Penteskouphia.Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz, F 893. Courtesy Museum. Photo: Ingrid Geske-Heiden

90. See Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 75; Jones 1986, p. 873; Davaras 1980, pp. 123-124; Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 168; Orlandos 1955, pp. 8793, esp. 91-92; Papadopoulos 1992, p. 219. 91. See Cook 1961, pl. 7:a; Hampe and Winter 1965,p. 230' '@' '% 147. 92. Ducrey and Picard 1969, pp. 802-803, fig. 12 (kiln no. 1). 93. Caiger-Smith 1973, p. 211. 94. Cook 1984.

203

mixed also with turf, straw, and even wasters from previous firings.%Dung was also probably used in the construction of such a dome, and perhaps also used as &el. This is suggested by the scene depicted on one side of a pinax from Penteskouphia (Fig. 3.8, right), which shows a man standing directly behind a massive boar.g1With his left hand he appears to hold his nose, whiie his right hand is outstretched as if ready to collect any falling dung. In the kilns, the updraft would have been facilitated by a small opening at the top of the temporary dome, as is illustrated on the Penteskouphia plaques (Fig. 1.7:a-d), as well as by an actual fragmentary clay "chimney''-nothing more than a simple opening-found associated with one of the Archaic kilns at Lato on Crete.92The temporary nature of all p r e Industrial Revolution kilns is a feature stressed by Alan Caiger-Smith, who writes: The idea of a long-lasting kiln is a modern concept. . ..Only when the science and structure of kilns became subtle and complex in the early nineteenth century did people consider how to preserve them by building iron bands and frames around them and by using materials which could withstand many firings. Thus virtually all that remains of any old kilns is the hearth and the foundations of the walls.93 The manner in which a typical small ancient Greek kiln was constructed is discussed by Robert Cook, who uses the example of F. J. Watson's Calke Wood kiln.94As Cook notes, the normal way of making such a kiln was usually to dig two pits, each about 40-60 cm deep, one for the kiln proper and the other for stoking from, the two being connected by a

204

CHAPTER

3

tunnel (praef~rnium).~~ The main pit or shaft would have been used for stacking or, in the case of kilns with firing floors, for facilitating the circulation of the hot air, which would have passed upward from the fire shaft and escaped through the opening at the top of the luln dome. The pits of most Greek kilns were ~ l a y - l i n e dThe . ~ ~ tunnel would have been built of clay and arched, as in the case of several preserved Greek kilns.9i The advantages of this simple updraft system are numerous: the fire could be easily controlled and regulated and the sunken shaft allowed for better heat retention throughout the firing process. In order to improve the draft and obtain the optimum result, a long praefurnium is an advantage. Cuomo di Caprio notes the variable lengths ofpraefurnia of Greek lulns, which "may be anything from a few dozen centimetres to several metres: in the first case it is just an entrance to the combustion chamber, in the second case it is a fire tunnel in the true sense of the The most blackened and conspicuously burned part of any ancient Greek kiln was near the arch of the opening or ~ r a e f u r n i u r n . ~ ~ Whether or not the luln was equipped with a firing floor, either perforated,loOwhich is most common in Greek kilns with floors, or else composed of individually made fire-bars,lO' the manner of stacking would have been the same. Pots of various shapes and sizes would have been accommodated together in the kiln first by being nestled in one another-open vessels in stacks together, smaller pots in larger ones, and so on-and then stacked to form something of a hemisphere.lo2It is exactly this manner of stacking-and kiln-that is illustrated in section on the well-known fragment of a pinax from Penteskouphia now in Berlin (Fig. 3.8, left).lo3The potter who painted this pinax clearly shows a perforated floor supported by a pillar, the fire coals in the opening (shown to the left of the supporting pillar), the small circular fire chamber with pottery stacked, and an opening at the top of the kiln dome.lo4It is even possible that the small, roughly triangular-shaped object(s) near the opening at the top are test-pieces. The small size of these kilns can be gleaned by comparing the scale of the potters shown tending them on the Penteskouphia plaques (Fig. 1:7:a-e), as well as by the remains of lulns in the archaeological record.lo5 95. Cook 1984, p. 63. 96. See discussion in Thompson 1940, p. 6; Davaras 1980, pp. 115-117; Cook 1984; Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 20. 97. See, for example, Davaras 1980, p. 115, pls. 6:c-f. 98. Cuomo di Caprio 1984, p. 74; note especially the long fire tunnels in the kilns at Lokroi Epizephyrioi: Cuomo di Caprio 1974, esp. pp. 45-47, figs. 1,2,4; pp. 48-50, figs. 5-6. 99. See discussion in Davaras 1980, pp. 115-117; Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 20. 100. Sometimes the firing floor was quite substantial, with prominent, wellpreserved perforations, as in the case of the Roman kiln at Kalo Chorio, Istrona, in east Crete, published in Davaras 1975. For perforated firing floors in

modern traditional kilns, see Hampe and Winter 1962, p. 35, fig. 25; 1965, pl. 20: no. 5. 101. For these, see Corder 1957, p. 20, fig. 10; Hampe and Winter 1962, pls. 2-3. 102. Cook 1984; Noble 1988, p. 155; Papadopoulos 1992, p. 218. 103. This pinax has been published on numerous occasions. For useful reconstructions of what the entire pinax may have looked like, see Hampe and Winter 1965, pp. 230-231, figs. 146149; Rhodes 1968, p. 15, fig. 17; Noble 1988, p. 152, figs. 237-238; see also Scheibler 1995, p. 103, figs. 95-96. 104. What appears to be a pot is also shown to the right of the central floor support. With regard to this,

Noble (1988, p. 207, note 13) writes: "Roland Hampe reported to me that he and Adam Winter observed in the town of Camerota, Provincia di Salerno in Southern Italy, that it was the practice to place unfired pots behind the pillar in the firing pit as shown on this pinax. Therefore, the boat-shaped object may be another vase being fired." 105. See Rhodes 1968, p. 17. Note the dimensions compiled by Cook (1961, pp. 65-67); a representative selection from this work of the diameters of kiln shafts includes: B1 = 1.20 m; D5 = 1.50 m; E l =1.80 m; F2 = 1.33 m. Of Davaras's type A kilns, the kiln at Achladia, Siteia, has an overall length of about 2.0 m, and the round kiln at Palaikastro a maxi-

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

205

Mention should also be made in this context of a small terracotta figurine from the Potters' Quarter at Corinth interpreted as a model of a potter's kiln (Fig. 3.9).lo6The published description by Agnes Newhall Stillwell is worth quoting in part: (KN-181). Kiln(?).H. 0.032.L. 0.055.Base broken on sides. Edges of perforated top probably broken. Hard red clay. Object formed of rough cylinder, slightly flaring at top and hollow inside, resting upright on flat rectangular base. Holes punched in flat top of cylinder. Attached to one side is a semi-cylindrical extension, with hollow interior joining hollow of main cylinder.'07

Figure 3.9. Terracotta model of a possible potter's kiln. Corinth, KN-181. Courtesy Corinth Excavations, ASCSA

mum diameter, including shelf,of 2.68 m: Davaras 1980, pp. 118,121, figs. 3,s. The Late Minoan IIIC kiln at Kavousi (see below) has an internal diameter of between 1.90 and 2.70 m. The diameters of the three circular kilns at Sindos measure as follows: kiln 1= 1.65-2.00 m; kiln 2 = 1.30-155 m; kiln 3 = 1.20 m. The firing chamber of the diminutive Late Geometric kiln at Torone has a diameter of 0.80 m, one of the smallest known; see Papadopoulos 1989a,p. 22. 106. Con'nthXV, ii, pp. 208-209, no. XXXIII-7 (KN-181), pl. 45. 107. Corinth XV, ii, p. 208. 108. Corinth XV, ii, p. 209, note 32 (with references to terracotta models of baking ovens).

Although stating that the identificationofthis object is uncertain, Stillwell points out the resemblance of the terracotta to the kilns represented on the Penteskouphia pinakes. She also notes that the much-chipped upper edges of the main cylinder make it probable that they originally continued into a domed roof like those represented on the pinakes. She hrther stresses that the shape of the object is more like the kilns on the pinakes than the baking ovens represented in other terracotta groups.'08 Whether or not this object depicts a potter's kiln, its similarity to the kilns on the Penteskoupia plaques, and especially to the details of that in Figure 3.8, is remarkable. Simplicity of design is well reflected in a number of ancient kilns, particularly of the common round or oval variety. Among the earliest are kilns without a supported firing floor, many ofwhich date to the Bronze Age, though Early Iron Age and Archaic examples are also known.lo9 This early type is essentially replaced by kilns with a supported firing floor, the earliest of which date to the Late Bronze Age, and these continue into the Classical, Hellenistic, and later periods. The firing floor itself can be supported only by the edge of the combustion chamber (that is, with no separate support),'1° or else with a pillarlike support near the center.'ll An Early Iron Age example that is probably of the former type is the small 8th-century B.C.kiln at Torone (Fig. 3.10);"2 a good example of 109. See, among many others, the Early Bronze Age kiln at Aghios Mamas: Heurtley and Radford 19271928, pp. 153-155, figs. 6-7; Heurtley 1939, pp. 5-7, figs. 31,33; Jones 1986, p. 783, fig. 9.5%; the kilns at Achladia: Davaras 1980, p. 121, fig. 5; Palaikastro: Davaras 1980, esp. pp. 118-119, figs. 3-4; Lato, kiln 3: Ducrey and Picard 1969, esp. p. 805, figs. 1,1417. 110. Good examples of this type include: Dragendorff 1913, esp. pp. 338-339, figs. 3-4 (Tiryns, Late Helladic 111); Villard and Vallet 1953, figs. 1-2. 111.Examples include: Levi 1958, pp. 268-269, figs. 104-105, with discussion on pp. 272-274 (Phaistos, Geometric); Ducrey and Picard 1969,

pp. 793-807, kiln 1; Krause 1981, esp. p. 84, fig. 8 (all associated material appears to be prehistoric, though the kiln is considered to be of Classical date); Despoine 1982, pp. 62-73, fig. 2 (three kilns of Classical date); HomannWedeking 1950, pp. 165-169, fig. 1 (Knossos, Classical); Rhomaios 1908, p. 177, fig. 1 (Aghios Petros, Kynouria, 3rd century B.c.); Schiering 1979, pp. 83-87, fig. 1, pl. 13. 112. See Papadopoulos 1989a. It is possible, however, that the pieces of clay I originally interpreted as parts of the collapsed firing floor are in fact bricklike supports used to stack and separate the pottery, though the original interpretation still seems the more compelling.

dark red clay lining

yellow clay lining

I KP- 1

A

i

fire-mouth

Figure 3.10. Plan and section of Early Iron Age kiln, Torone. After Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 19, ill. 11

Figure 3.11. Plan and section of Late Minoan IIIC kiln, Kavousi, Vronda. After Gesell, Day, and Coulson 1988, p. 292, fig. 15

THE MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION . --

Figure 3.12. Plans and sections of Classical kilns 1-3, Sindos. After Despoine 1982, pp. 62-63, figs. 2-3

113. Gesell, Day, and Coulson 1988, pp. 290-293, fig. 5, pl. 79; see also Day, Coulson, and Gesell 1989. 114.This type appears to be common in the Mycenaean mainland: see, for example, Blegen and Lang 1960, p. 155, pl. 40 (where it was originally dated to Late Helladic IIIB, but later redated Early Mycenaean in Blegen et al. 1973, p. 19, figs. 44-45); Akerstriim 1952, p. 37, fig. 9 (= Ziomecki 1964, p. 24, fig. 13) (Berbati, Mycenaean). The same type of supporting wall is also found in the Classical period, as the 4th-century B.C. kiln from Olympia establishes: Kunze and Schleif 1938-1939, pp. 34-35, figs. 21-22 (kilns), 20 (kiln firing supports); also illustrated in Scheibler 1995, p. 102, fig. 93. 115.Winter 1959, p. 31, fig. 14. 116. Rhodes 1968, p. 14, fig. 15.

T

e--

- _ i-

the latter type is the Kavousi kiln (Fig. 3.11), which dates to the very end of the Bronze Age,"3 and the 8th-7th-century B.C. kiln from the area of the Athenian Agora presented in more detail above (Figs. 2.63-2.67). An alternative type of floor support is a constructed wall extending from the back of the combustion chamber and following the line of the praefurnium."" The Torone, Kavousi, and Athenian Agora kilns exemplify the basic type of potter's kiln current from the very end of the Late Bronze Age through the Early Iron Age. Essentially, the same type of kiln, with variations, continued throughout the Classical period, as the kilns of Sindos, among many others, serve to illustrate (Fig. 3.12). With the exception of the larger rectangular and other kilns referred to above, the basic type of kiln current in Greece from the Late Bronze Age through the Hellenistic period is typified by the reconstructed generic examples published by Adam Winter (Fig. - 3.13:a)lUand Daniel Rhodes (Fig. 3.13:b)."6 Centuries later, in the Roman period, improvements were few and the same type of kiln

CHAPTER

208

3

floor

fire

/ Il post

Figure 3.13. Reconstructions of typical Greek kilns: a) by Adam Winter (after W ~ n t e r1959, p. 31, fig. 1 b) by Daniel Rhodes (after Rhodes 1968, p. 14, fig. 15)

firing pit

fire mouth

Figure 3.14. Plan and section of typical Roman kiln. After Rhodes 1968, p 16,fig 18

saw service for the firing of pottery throughout the Roman Mediterranean and Britain. The plan and section of the kiln shown in Figure 3.14 illustrate a typical example of a circular kiln in the Roman world.'17 This basic type continued into the late Byzantine or earlyTurkish period, as the kiln from Corinth, illustrated in Figure 3.15, establishes."' In describing the latter, Charles Morgan I1 may well have been describing a luln several millennia earlier; he writes: Circular in form, it had a firing pit at the west lined only with small stones. The firing chamber of the kiln itself was something over a metre in height, constructed of small bricks, tiles, and stones, lined with cement. A central circular pier supported a crude vault and a cement floor, 1.65m in diameter, which was perforated by an inner and an outer ring of irregular holes. . . .This was covered with a dome of small bricks and tiles, some fragments of which remain. Sherds found on this floor, and in the chamber beneath it, indicate a date at the end of the Byzantine or the beginning of the Turkish p e r i ~ d . " ~ O n the basis of all known excavated kilns, it is reasonable to conclude that it was in such simple fire installations that the finest examples of Greek pottery were produced. Related to potters' kilns are a number of other furnaces, used, for example, for the production of lime, for smelting metal, or else for the production of glass. In specific cases there has been some confusion in the literature as to whether a particular installation was used for pottery production or for something else. Although the actual hrnaces may be similar to pottery kilns in their overall shape and size, lime kilns, along with smelting and glass furnaces, leave a very different imprint on the landscape. For example, the volume of iron-working slag associated with metal smelting, sometimes in excess of 10,000 cubic meters per production site,

117. Rhodes 1968, p. 16, fig. 18. 118. Morgan 1936, p. 470, fig. 4; CorinfbXI, pp. 16-17, figs. 9-10. 119. Morgan 1936, p. 470.

THE MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

209

Figure 3.15. Late Byzantine or Turkish potter's kiln at Corinth. Courtesy Corinth Excavations,ASCSA

120. See especially de Barros 1986 and 1988. 121. See de Barros 1986, pp. 152153, fig. 3:a-b, photos 1-2. 122. E.g., Rickard 1939, p. 99, figs. 5-7. 123. Compare west African smelting furnaces, such as those in de Barros 1986, pp. 153-154, photos 1,2, with those depicted in Burford 1972, figs. 29 (Athenian black-figured oinochoe in the British Museum), 35 (Athenian redfigured chous in the American School of Classical Studies at Athens), 3 9 4 0 (the well-known Berlin Foundry cup). 124. See, for example, Rickard 1939; de Barros 1986, p. 156, fig. 4; 1988, p. 94, fig. 2. As is the case with pottery production, smelting sites are usually located close to a source of water. 125. E.g., Warren 1981, pp. 76-78; cf. Orlandos 1955, pp. 138,147; Levi and Laviosa 1986, pp. 46-47. 126. See Weinberg 1988, esp. pp. 24-37 (with references). 127. See, most recently, Jackson, Nicholson, and Gneisinger 1998;Jackson, Cool, and Wager 1998; Freestone and Gorin-Rosen 1999. 128. For ancient representations of glassmakers, see Stem 1995, esp. p. 40, figs. 26 (terracotta figure from Giza, Egypt, dating to the early third millennium B.c.)and 27 (two Roman lamps dating to the middle or second half of the 1st century A.c.). For glassblowing more generally, see Stem 1999.

even in the traditional communities of sub-Saharan Africa, is very different from the debris associated with pottery producti~n.'~~ Moreover, ironsmelting furnaces, although related in form to ancient Greek pottery kilns, are usually smaller in diameter and proportionately taller121or squatter.lZ2 Indeed, it is remarkable how similar the iron-smelting furnaces of traditional west Africa are to the metal furnaces depicted in Archaic and Classical representations.lZ3Smelting also requires specialized tools, such as tuy6res (bellows), anvils, and so on, that often survive in the archaeological record, and smelting sites are often, though not always, located close to ore deposits.lZ4 Similar distinctions exist between pottery and lime production sites and, indeed, a number of ancient Greek kilns have been interpreted as lime kilns.125Although it is often difficult to distinguish between lime and pottery kilns on the basis of furnace structure alone, particularly when we have only poorly preserved substructures, there are a number of differences. Many modern lime kilns, such as those oflorone, for instance, used fiom the late 19th century onward for converting the ancient fortification blocks and other limestone and marble pieces to lime, are considerably more substantial than most ancient potters' kilns. Furthermore, lime kilns are often situated differently fiom pottery kilns, being located close to the source of stone, and they leave a very different type of waste material, which often survives in the archaeological record. Consequently, it is the area close to a kiln or furnace, rather than the structure itself, that often provides the critical evidence for use. The same holds true for glass production sites, as the Late Roman glass factory at Jalame in Palestinelz6and other sites have established.lZ7Moreover, as ancient representations of glassblowers show, the production of glass vessels requires that the glassmaker constantly maneuver the vessel into and out of the furnace or annealing oven at various times throughout the production process,128and therefore glass furnaces as structures are not the same as pottery kilns.

210

CHAPTER

3

TEST-PIECES: N O T E S O N T H E F I R I N G O F A T H E N I A N EARLY I R O N A G E P O T T E R Y Firing was the mostly costly and lengthy phase of pottery production. It was also, as we have seen, the one requiring the most divine assistance and human supervision. The kiln, a simple updraft affair, hlly loaded, sealed, and heated, could not be reopened, nor could pots be removed without damage, until the firing had been completed. By that time, mistakes were irremediable. The test-pieces presented in Chapter 2 were cut from pots that had been damaged before firing; before being placed in the kiln they were smeared with samples of the actual paint to be fired. The test-pieces were removed with a hook or rod at intervals throughout a firing session through a small spy-hole or opening in the kiln. Although the test-pieces served as checks of the temperature and atmospheric conditions generally, what the potters were most eager to learn was whether the paint had fired the required black. In order to achieve this result the firing was done, as we now know, in three stages:129 1. Firing under oxidizing conditions 2. Firing under reducing conditions 3. Reoxidization (followed by gradual cooling of the kiln) It is now well established that a three-stage single firing cycle was utilized by the ancient potters and that the firing temperatures were not especially high.130The process by which these conclusions were reached, however, represents one of the longest and most sustained scholarly inquiries in archaeology. As Richard Jones so nicely puts it: Attic B G [black gloss] occupies a special place in the history of the techniques of Greek vase painting and, more generally, in the history of ancient technology. This has arisen partly through the appreciation of its exceptional qualities that match, if not enhance, the aesthetic value of the vase as a whole. But above all . . . it was the enigmatic quality of BG and the knowledge that it represented in effect a lost technical tradition which fascinated and intrigued alchemists and later natural scientists. Attic BG, to be sure, was the first material of Greek antiquity to receive the attention of scientists, and there now exists an extensive bibliography of dispersed publications relating to its scientific study.13' A substantial literature dealing with the technological side of Greek pottery-specifically the composition of black gloss-had been amassed by the late 19th and early 20th centuries.132This originated as early as 1752 with the work of pioneers such as the Comte de Caylus, Marquis d ' E ~ t e r n a y , later l ~ ~ described as "a remarkable genius."134The subsequent contributions of, among others, Emile Durand-Greville, Oliver Tonks, William Foster, and Charles Binns and A. D . Fraser13' added new insights. But it was not until the experimental work ofTheodor Schumann in 1942 that a black as good as the ancient Greek was r e p r 0 d ~ c e d .Jones l~~ described the achievement thus: the "long-awaited breakthrough came in

129.As described by Noble (1988, p. 167). The temperature estimates given by Noble are more fully discussed and amended in the Appendix. 130. See esp. Jones 1986, p. 804. 131.Jones 1986, pp. 798-799. 132. For useful summaries and overviews of this literature, see Birch 1858; Bliimner 1879, esp. pp. 32-46; Walters 1905, pp. 202-231. See also Reichhold in Furtwangler and Reichhold 1904, passim. 133. de Caylus 1752, pp. 80-88, esp. 87-88. 134. Binns and Fraser 1929, p. 1. 135. Durand-Greville 1891,1892; Tonks 1908,1910; Foster 1910; Binns and Fraser 1929. 136. Schumann 1942,1943; see also the summary in Weickert 1942.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

211

T A B L E 3.1. T E S T - P I E C E S BY F I R I N G STAGE

3,5,10,17,20,26,27,28,31,45,48,50,57,60,64,77,113

Oxidization

1,22,120,121 2 , 7 , 8,29,32,42,44,67,70,76,105 16,30,40,41,47,51,61,62,63,81, 82 21,24,25,34,38,75,80

Reduction

a) b) c) d)

Reoxidization

a) 4,12,14,15,18,19,23,33,35,43,49,66,69,71,87,91,103,

123,124 b) 6,9,11, 13,36,37,39,46,65,68,72,73,74,78,90,117,119,

122,125

1942 when Schumann prepared a B G mixture from a highly dispersed (peptised) clay slip from a German clay and successfully reproduced the BG effect on pottery by a three-stage single firing in the sequence: oxidization, reduction and reo~idization."'~~ The more recent work on black gloss, including the fundamental contributions of Winter, Noble, and Michael Tite and his collaborators, is well summarized by Jones.138 Against the backdrop of this scholarly endeavor, the Early Iron Age test-pieces from the area of the Classical Athenian Agora establish that the controlled three-stage single firing was a reality even in the earliest stages of the Protogeometric period. The results of Michael Schilling's analyses (see the Appendix) further indicate that the firing temperature may have been even lower than previously assumed. The estimation of ceramic firing temperatures presented in the Appendix suggests firing temperatures for the test-pieces in the range of 700-850°C. In Table 3.1 I have arranged a group of test-pieces according to the stage at which I think they were removed from the luln. In tabulating these pieces, I based my choices purely on visual criteria; they are therefore largely subjective. The more problematic pieces are discussed more fully in the accompanying commentary.

137.Jones 1986, p. 800. 138. See Jones 1986, pp. 801-805. See further Winter 1959,1978; Noble 1988; Tite, Bimson, and Freestone 1982. To Jones' overview add, among other important recent contributions, Maniatis, Aloupi, and Stalios 1993. 139.This may indicate that these pieces were removed from the kiln during the very earliest stages of reduction.

The pieces listed here-all test-pieces except perhaps for 57-are clearly the result of firing in an oxidizing atmosphere. The clay body and reserved surfaces of these pieces are fired a reddish color, more-or-less that of the natural clay; the paint is red. Many of the pieces, if not all of them, were probably removed from the kiln during the initial oxidizing phase, prior to reduction. The potter(s) likely did this to test the level of firing before embarking on the reduction phase. Alternatively, it is possible, though less likely, that some of the pieces never properly sintered during the reduction phase-thereby turning red upon reoxidization-or that the reduction phase was a failure. O f the pieces listed under this category, only 45,60, and 77 are very slightly darker,'39while 20 has some minor spots of black on the interior. The reddish purple paint of 77 is odd, and it may be that this piece was reduced and reoxidized, with the paint not properly sintering.

212

CHAPTER

3

At this point, the clay body and reserved surfaces are mostly fired gray, while the paint, depending on when exactly the piece was removed from the kiln, can be variously fired from red through reddish brown to black. Reduction is a critical phase in the firing, and the large number of reduced test-pieces is ample proof of this fact. The pieces listed are further subdivided into one of four categories: (a) Early stages of reduction. Here the clay body and reserved surfaces begin to turn gray, but still, essentially, retain some or much of the color of the natural clay. The paint is red or reddish brown. (b) A somewhat more advanced stage of reduction. The clay body and reserved surfaces are mostly gray, though with traces of natural clay color here and there on a few pieces. The paint is variously fired red to reddish brown, occasionally approaching black. Often the paint is two-toned, sometimes with a maroonish tinge. Phases a and b are very similar to one another, and it may be best to regard them as one. (c) Fully reduced. Clay body and reserved surfaces gray; paint black. (d) Beginning stages of reoxidization. Here the paint is black, but the clay body is only beginning to turn back to its natural color; often the clay body along with the reserved surfaces can be two-toned. The pieces listed under this heading perhaps better belong with those listed in the following category, but I have preferred to list them here, since most of them are still largely the result of reduction firing and many of them resemble more closely the color and texture of the pieces of category b above.

As with the reduction phase, reoxidization represents a critical stage in the firing cycle, especially as it is the final, and definite, phase of the process. The reoxidized test-pieces can be broadly grouped into one of two categories: (a) Partial reoxidization. This represents the phase immediately following reduction stage d. Here, the clay body and reserved surfaces have essentially turned back to red, but in all cases the paint has not completely sintered or fused, and is variously fired between red and black; often the paint is a characteristic reddish brown. Since the ultimate aim of three-stage firing is to produce a good black, this stage was probably very carefully monitored by potters until the right result was achieved, thus the number of surviving reoxidized test-piece~.'~~ (b) Optimally fired. Clay body and reserved surfaces red (natural color of the clay); paint black.141

140.This category thus includes a number of poorly fired vessels, such as 71 and 103, where the paint was inadequately sintered and is variously fired red or mottled red and black. It also includes a number of borderline pieces that could just as easily be listed under phase b; h l l descriptive details of clay and paint are presented in the catalogue. 141. I use the term "optimal" essentially to refer to the color of the fired paint, and not to its texture. In the case of some test-pieces, the paint has peeled or lacks the good sheen or lustre of the best Athenian Protogeometric and Geometric pottery.

T H E MATERIAL A N D ITS INTERPRETATION

213

TABLE 3.2. TEST-PIECES ACCORDING T O SHAPE C L O S E DV E S S E L S Large-size (mostly amphoras) Medium-size (amphoras or oinochoai) Oinochoai and related Aryballos

O P E NV E S S E L S Kraters Skyphoi (including probable skyphoi) Kotylai (Corinthianizing) Kantharos or cup One-handled cups Plate Undetermined

UNDETERMINED Amphora(?) or hater(?) Unidentified

142. Schreiber 1999, pp. 72-87. 143. the neck have been thrown onto the leather-hard body by attaching a coil to the upper edge of the finished body. 144.Desborough 1952, passim; Coldstream 1968, passim.

In terms of shape, the test-pieces are cut from a variety ofvessels that were already thrown, and some partly decorated. In many cases it is not possible to determine the actual shape of the vessel from which the testpiece was cut, but only one test-piece, 90, was fashioned from clay and not from an already damaged pot. The shapes from which the Early Iron Age test-pieces were cut are tabulated above (Table 3.2). As the list shows, there is a wide variety of shapes. Among the closed vessels, larger amphoras (or hydriai) are particularly well represented throughout the Early Iron Age. As with the amphoras of the Archaic and Classical periods, these were made in parts.142 The neck, together with the rim, was thrown separately from the body and subsequently attached to it,143and often the base was also made separately. Consequently, larger amphoras were particularly vulnerable to damage during joining and/or drying, accounting for the large number of testpieces cut from them. Such larger vessels naturally provided a greater surface area for making smaller sherds. Indeed, in the case of one damaged Protogeometric amphora (see above, p. 30), a number of test-pieces had been cut from it (6,7a-c, 8,9) and were recovered from the same deposit (pit or well 11:l). In comparison, small closed vessels (small amphoras, oinochoai, even an aryballos) are less common largely because smaller pots . are less susceptible to damage. The same, however, does not appear to be true in the case of open vessels, since test-pieces cut from large pots, like kraters, are outnumbered by smaller pots, such as skyphoi and one-handled cups. Here there are two important points to bear in mind. Whereas large closed vessels, especially amphoras, are common throughout the Early Iron Age, large open vessels, such as haters, are in comparison rare.144Thesecond point is that not only

2I4

CHAPTER

3

are smaller drinkingvessels more common than larger open forms, but the majority of the test-pieces cut from skyphoi and cups derive from open vessels with tall conical feet. Although it is one of the hallmarks of the Protogeometric style, particularly Athenian Protogeometric,14jthe juncture of the foot and body was a particularly weak point, a feature which would have sent a higher proportion of tall-footed vessels to the scrap heap. This said, a few test-pieces cut from open vessels with tall conical feet were damaged at points other than the juncture of foot and body (e.g., 33,42,43). Also worth noting here are two pieces (61, 78) that preserve bases that were evidently originally intended as conical feet but were never hollowed out. Another interesting piece is 52, which appears to be a fragment of a large, tall conical foot that may have been used as a kiln firing support (see below, pp. 216-217). Although it is not a test-piece, special mention should also be made here of the large hydria, 89, that was damaged prior to firing and subsequently remodeled into a krater, a bucket by any other name.146The vessel, which saw service prior to its being deposited in well L 6:2, shows how common such damage was to the juncture of neck and shoulder of larger closed vessels. In this particular case, however, the potter was loath to discard or cut down for test-pieces an otherwise healthy pot, so s/he decided to trim off the damaged upper half and recast the remainder into an idiosyncratic krater. In terms of the paint preserved on the test-pieces, in the majority of cases the pot from which the test-piece was cut was first decorated canonically, at least in part, with more paint added after it had been cut. Approximately fifty of the test-pieces are thus painted. Just over thirty test-pieces were cut from vessels that were never canonically decorated, and in these cases the test-paint has been applied in a manner that bears no resemblance to standard decoration. Only two test-pieces (122, 124) were cut from vessels that were canonically decorated and had no additional test-paint. Many of the test-pieces preserve remains of a slip on their reserved surfaces. This slip is usually slightly lighter in color than that of the clay body of each piece. O n a few fragments, the slip is somewhat thicker, though only slightly, and sometimes it approaches an off-white color noticeably lighter than that of the body clay. As many of the test-pieces preserving slip were cut from the body of a pot, misformed or damaged, with the test-paint subsequently applied, it is clear that in the majority of cases the slip is a "self-slip," rather than a true slip carefully prepared and consciously applied. The surface may have been highlighted by various gradations of burnishing.147The term "self-slip is here preferred to alternatives primarily in order to avoid confusion, and also because it has been previously used in the 1 i t e r a t ~ r e .There l ~ ~ are various ways in which "self-slip" can originate. First, as described by Owen Rye, water added during forming produces a slurry, which is distributed over the surface of the pot.149 Second, shortly after throwing, the potter may finish the surface of the pot with wet hands, a wet sponge, or something similar. This process may create a thin layer of slip. In both cases, the slip is not consciously applied, but originates during the process of manufacture from the clay from which the pot was thrown. As such, the term "self-slip" is not an inaccurate one.

145. See esp. Desborough 1952, pls. 10-12 (various skyphoi, cups, and kantharoi). 146. Fully published in Papadopoulos 1998. 147. For burnishing see Noble 1988, p. 127; Schreiber 1999, pp. 39-48. 148. E.g.,Agora V, p. 5 ; see further Papadopoulos 198913, p. 85, note 61. 149. Rye 1981, pp. 58-95, esp. p. 75.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

WASTERS AND PRODUCTION DISCARDS

150. See especially Morgantina 111, pp. 18,47-48,91-92,157-158; pls. 3841. 151. Agora X I , p. 2. 152. Papadopoulos 1998, pp. 115116. 153. See Papadopoulos 1998, p. 116, note 41 for examples.

In Chapters 1and 2 I have distinguished between wasters and production discards. Such a distinction may seem pedantic, but it is an important one, since the latter is a category of material easily overlooked, particularly when fragmentary. Moreover, the identification of wasters and production discards in contexts that are not clearly or directly connected with a kiln often requires some caution. The obvious wasters are straightforward, and they are a category of material associated with any pottery production site.''" The classic example from the Athenian Agora is 83, a large and heavy mass of clay formed of several pots fused together and subsequently burned and melted out of shape to the point of vitrification. Determining whether the vessels that make up this waster are amphoras or kraters is not easy. The same deposit, well L 6:2, dating to the Middle Geometric period, also yielded a number of other wasters, including the vitrified and cracked body fragments of a large closed vessel (85) and a small handle fragment (84), part of which almost has the appearance of slag. Large wasters were also recovered from the Middle Geometric well M 13:l (92) and the Late Geometric well N 11:s (93, 95); the latter deposit also yielded a number of smaller wasters (94, 96). Three similarly small waster fragments were recovered from the earlier Protogeometric well L 11:1(53-55). Severalwasters were also among the debris associated with the kiln H 12:17, some from the fill of the kiln (107, 108), others from the stratified deposits immediately overlying it (115, 118). But fragments are, as Brian Sparkes and Lucy Talcott warn, "dangerous allies,"'5' and the classic case in point is the virtually intact trefoil oinochoe 79. Although overfired to the point of partial vitrification, with numerous blowouts visible all over and some minor distortion to the body, the vessel did not shatter or melt during firing. It appears to have been recovered from the kiln and was used for drawing water, before its owner inadvertently dropped it into well P 8:3. Had only fragments of this oinochoe been recovered they would surely have been classified as wasters. The oinochoe from well P 8:3 was not the only damaged vessel to have seen service prior to being discarded. I have listed a number of such damaged Early Iron Age vessels elsewhere.lS2They illustrate that potters were not averse to salvaging damaged pots and then selling them either to unsuspecting customers or to more demanding clients at a discount. The fact that some damaged vessels were found in graves may even suggest that "factory seconds" were occasionally palmed off on a dead relative.'j3 Another point worth noting is that in many modern traditional pottery workshops, potters are more likely to use damaged or less well made pots for their own purposes, and especially for vessels used in the workshop. Consequently, it is common to find used, damaged, or misfired pots near a production site. What I have collectively labeled as "production discards" is a much more disparate group, and some of the pieces are only tentatively listed under this heading. Individual pieces are discussed more fully in the catalogue, but it is important to single out some of the more diagnostic production discards here. One of the most important pieces has been known for quite some time, having been published as a perfectly healthy skyphos

216

CHAPTER

3

(101).lj4Many years after its publication, several more fragments of the skyphos were identified in the Agora context lots. After numerous attempts to join the new fragments with the old, it became clear that the vessel had sprung out of shape during firing and could not have been used as a normal drinking vessel. The identification of such a piece as a "waster" could not have been anticipated, and had only fragments of the vessel been recovered, there would be nothing inherent to suggest either a "waster" or a "production discard," as indeed it was published. The point to be made here is that the quantity of potters' refuse from the area of the Classical Athenian Agora may, in fact, be much greater than the material selected above indicates. This is particularly so in the case of the material from L 11:1, all of which, just under two thousand pieces, may represent potters' refuse. In addition to the numerous testpieces, luln firing supports, and obvious wasters recovered from this deposit, I have singled out only two pieces as possible production discards (56,57). O f these 57 may simply be a fragment of a poorly fired and finished krater; there is nothing about the piece to establish it as a production discard, except its poor condition, though its context is suggestive. A closer look at 56, however, uncovers a number of interesting flaws, which are fully described in the catalogue. The combination of a faulty base coupled with a wall thickness much smaller than normal, including a hole at one point, suggest that the oinochoe was a discard, despite an attempt to mend its rim. A number of production discards are catalogued under well N 11:s (97-100) also; of these 100 is of interest as it preserves a crack at the center of the underside made during the manufacture of the vase that would have rendered the vessel-an oinochoe-unsuitable for liquids. A number of production discards are also listed under the various deposits associated with the kiln (104,109,114). The largest single group of production discards comes from deposit S 17:2 (126-148). All of these preserve serious cracks, dents, or other flaws that had occurred during the process of forming, drying, or firing, or else the vessels were unfinished or very poorly fired. They are described in detail in the catalogue.

KILN FIRING SUPPORTS A N D RELATED OBJECTS Kiln firing supports and related kiln furniture have been conveniently assembled and discussed in a number of studies.1ssThe six pieces noted under this heading are of interest as they are among the earliest known or published examples of kiln firing supports. The doughnut-shaped ring 58 appears to be an early form of the later Classical and Hellenistic stacking rings that are a common feature of kiln sites.lS6In a similar vein, the small triangular pieces of clay (86, 102) may be precursors of the later firing support wedges.'j7 As is noted above, the fragment 52 appears to be part of a large and tall conical foot of a type attached to a larger Protogeometric open vessel. Clearly made separately from the body of the vase, the foot was never attached, nor was it ever painted. It may have served as a kiln

154. Brann 1961a, p. 127, no. M9, pl. 19. 155. See especially Kalogeropoulou 1970; Papadopoulos 1992 (with full references). 156. D'Andria 1975, esp. pp. 415417 (various examples); Papadopoulos 1992, p. 214, fig. 7, pl. 50:b-c; Dell'Aglio 1996, p. 69, nos. 4-18, p. 71, nos. 44-50. 157. For which see Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 212-213, figs. 5-6, pls. 49:bc, 51:b-c.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

158. See Mattusch 1977, p. 341, note 2. 159. See, for example, Kalogeropoulou 1970; Papadopoulos 1992. 160. Noble 1988, p. 155. 161. See, for example, Blitzer 1990, . Blitzer states: "Broken p. 696, ~ 1109:f. pots might be used as kiln separators where necessary, and in the case of pitharia, baked and unbaked rectangular solids of clay (vraxaxla) were sometimes used." 162. See Monaco 1999, p. 113, pl. 7. 163. Noble 1988, p. 155. For the use of stilts, saggars, etc., see Piccolpasso 1548, p. 15; Cox 1938, p. 114, fig. 54; and esp. Barka, Ayers, and Sheridan 1984, pp. 478-480, figs. 257-270. For various late glazed pottery, see CaigerSmith 1973 and 1985. 164. See Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, esp. pp. 188-189,222-223,243-265 (for wasters and kiln firing supports); see also Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1986; 1989-1990, esp. p. 41, fig. 2; also p. 36, fig. 1; see further Kalogeropoulou 1970. 165. Brann 1961a, under no. P 28; see also Brann 1961b, under no. G 49 (cf. nos. H 67-H 70, S 23); Agora VIII, p. 124; see also Burr 1933, p. 602, nos. 244-253, fig. 70. 166. See Papadopoulos 1989a, pp. 26,35,42, ills. 40-43, nos. T / C 1-2.

217

firing support, but it also may have been intended for some other purpose, such as a lid. I am not sure what function the small handmade terracotta disk 59 served. Although it resembles some lids, the comparanda are not really close and the piece may have been used as a kiln firing support or spacer. T h e small clay fragment 88 is most probably a piece from a metalworker's mold.ls8 The low number of true luln firing supports in the Early Iron Age deposits, especially when compared to the much larger quantities of testpieces, as well as wasters and production discards, is a notable feature. Indeed, the quantities of firing supports in production sites where they are used can be considerable, and in many cases they are associated with the production of terracotta figurines or special vessels, such as very large pots and pithoi.1s9 The dearth of firing supports in Early Iron Age and in many Archaic and Classical kiln sites is due to the nature of the black paint or gloss. Greek black gloss did not melt in the firing process and, as such, it was possible for potters to stack their vases directly one on top of the other (cf. Fig. 3.8, left) without them sticking to each other.160 If firing supports were required, then broken pieces of pottery would have sufficed, as they do in many modern traditional pottery workshops.161Exceptions to this rule include a number of supports or spacers of the later 4th century B.C. used for firing kantharoi and kalyx-cups.162Consequently, ancient Greek potters, unlike many of their medieval and modern counterparts, had little need for the various types of supports, stilts, separators, props, pads, and saggars found in kiln sites producing pottery decorated with brightly colored glazes containing a higher percentage of silica, such as tin- or leadglaze pottery and other related lustre wares.163A number of sgraffito workshops at Thessalonike, Serres, Mikro Pisto (Thrace), Veroia, and Trikala recently published by Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi and her collaborators shows the various types of kiln firing supports used for Byzantine glazed ceramics.l'j4

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES, LAMPS, LOOMWEIGHTS, AND SPINDLEWHORLS A total of six loomweights are catalogued, two associated with the kiln H 12:17 (106,112), the remainder from deposit S 17:2 (151-154). All are therefore late, either Late Geometric or, more likely, Subgeometric. O f these, three are pyramidal (106,112,151), two are more rectangular than pyramidal (152,153), and one is conical (154). In discussing the pyramidal weights, Bran0 notes: "Weights of truncated pyramidal shape occur in Mycenaean (see Broneer 1939, p. 410, fig. 92:f), Protogeometric and later contexts but become frequent only in the 7th century B.C."'~' More recent finds have verified this general trend. For example, two larger and somewhat cruder pyramidal loomweights were found associated with the Early Iron Age kiln at Torone and assigned to the Late Geometric period.166Four pyramidal weights of similar form, two ofwhich are also of comparable size, are known from the settlement at Lefkandi

218

CHAPTER

3

and have been assigned to Late G e ~ r n e t r i c ; an ' ~ ~additional eight similar weights (at the least) were found at Zagora,l@also of the 8th century B . c . ' ~ ~ Closely related to the pyramidal loomwieghts and of similar date are those of truncated pyramidal form that are almost rectangular (e.g., 152),170and those of rectangular shape (153).171The conical loomweight 154 stands somewhat apart from the others, as it is a form rare in Athens at this time. In discussing this type, Brann notes that it may have been borrowed from Corinth, a good possibility given the nature of the Corinthianizing pottery of contemporary date current in Athens (see below).172Comparanda for the incised decoration on the top of 154 are given in the catalogue. A number of uncatalogued loomweights are listed in Chapter 2 (p. 187). There are three catalogued small terracottas best described as spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons (116,155,156),designations that cover the range of likely possibilities, and several more in context. One was recovered from the deposits associated with theTholos kiln (116), and the other two from deposit S 17:2.Two are of the standard biconical form (116,155), and one is of the conical variety (156). In discussing these common types, Brann outlines the development from the standard Geometric double cone to the Classical single cone type, which must have taken place in the course of the 7th century.173Consequently, examples such as 156 are considered perfect transition pieces.174 Deposit S 17:2 also yielded two complete and two fragmentary lamps, of which two are catalogued here (149, 150). One is a rare example of Howland type 3, and the only one known to me with a horizontal handle (149),175and the other an example of Howland type 4 (150).176Examples such as 149 are generally dated to the last quarter of the 7th century B.c., whereas the more common type 4 (150) is much longer-lived, dating from the late 7th to the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. Comparanda and further discussion are provided in the catalogue. The terracotta figurines and other clay objects from deposit S 17:2 are fully discussed in the catalogue above and do not require separate comment here. All of the material from this deposit represents production discards from a potter's workshop. In contrast, the Protoattic votive deposit published by Burr (Fig. 3.16) provides a good idea ofwhat complete examples of such terracottas, used as votive offerings, would have looked like.177Indeed, deposit S 17:2 may well have been part of the workshop 167. Lepandi I, pp. 82-83, pls. 64:p-s, 70:l-n (where Popham and Sackett note that the pyramidal loomweight is an innovation at Lefkandi, introduced in Late Geometric, and further note-erroneously-that evidence for its use elsewhere is generally later than at their site). In addition to the earlier Iron Age examples cited by Brann, see the weight from tomb V at Marmariane (Heurtley and Skeat 1930-1931, p. 41); cf. Lefkandi I, p. 83, note 5. 168. Zagora I, p. 61; Cambitoglou

et al. 1981, pp. 75-76, fig. 39. 169. Note also two Geometric pyramidal loomweights from Corinth: Pfaff 1988, p. 79, nos. 118-119, pl. 32 (with references to a further three, and possibly four, similar weights from that site). It is worth emphasizing that Bronze Age pyramidal loomweights are often comparable, especially to the larger type, such as those of Torone; see, for example, Heurtley 1939, p. 203, fig. 67:11, mm; Aslanis 1985, pl. 83, esp. nos. 1-2. 170. Brann 1961b, p. 373, no. H 70,

pl. 84; for further discussion, Brann 1961a, p. 141, no. P 28, pl. 23; see also Burr 1933, p. 602, nos. 244-253, fig. 70. 171. See esp. Brann 1961a, p. 146, no. R 24, pl. 23. 172. Brann 1961b, p. 378, no. S 24, pl. 88; Corinth H I , pp. 147-161. 173. Brann 1961b, p. 378, discussion under nos. S 25-S 27, pl. 88; cf. Burr 1933, p. 602, esp. no. 255, fig. 70. 174. Brann 1961b, p. 378. 175. Cf. Agora IV, p. 12, nos. 23,24. 176. Cf. Agora IV, pp. 12-13. 177. Burr 1933.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

lqgure3.16. selected mate*d from deposit H 17~4 (published in Burr 1933), as displayed in the Agora Museum

=I9

that produced the terracotta figurines found in the Protoattic votive deposit, as well as those found in the Eleusinion, and perhaps also those found on the Acropolis and at sites as far afield as Eleusis and Menidi.178 The importance of the material from deposit S 17:2 lies in the fact that it establishes that pottery, lamps, and terracotta loomweights, as well as spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons, in addition to a wide variety of terracotta figurines, were all produced in the same workshop.179The distinction between potter, coroplast, and lamp maker in this early period is, therefore, a modem one that does not reflect ancient reality. A similar situation appears to be the case also in later periods, as pottery wasters have been found together with figurine and other terracotta wasters, molds, and associated material at numerous kiln sites in Greece and southern Italy during the Classical and Hellenistic periods.lS0 178. See discussion above, pp. 175183, for full references. 179. Cf. also the case of the Late Geometric kiln at Torone (Papadopoulos 1989a). 180. Among many other sites see, for example, Papadopoulos 1989a, p. 23 (pottery and loomweights in the Early Iron Age kiln at Torone); Despoine 1982, esp. pls. 12:a-d (pottery, loomweights, and figurines in Classical kilns at Sindos); D'Andria 1975, esp. pp. 420-423 (pottery and terracottas in the Metaponto kilns); Giardino 1996 (pottery and terracottas in the Herakleia kilns); Dell'Aglio 1996 (pottery

and terracottas in the Taranto kilns). Note also the case of the recent excavations in the potters' quarter at Sagalassos in Pisidia in southwestTurkey, which have shown that the potters of Sagalassos throughout the Roman period were involved in the production of a wide variety of ceramic products, including tableware sets, oil lamps, figurines and oinophoroi (fabric I), containers (fabric 2), tiles, bricks and water pipes (fabric 3), cooking pots and amphoras (fabric 4), and pithoi (fabric 5); see Poblome, Schlitz, and Degryse 1998 (with references).

CHAPTER

220

3

TECHNICAL INNOVATIONS AT T H E DAWN O F T H E PROTOGEOMETRIC PERIOD I n dealing- with technical innovation and economic . progress in the ancient world, Moses Finley wrote: "We are too often victims of that great curse of archaeology, the indestructibility of pots."lgl This statement was to gain resonance, since Athens was coupled with technical innovations in pottery not only to define the so-called Protogeometric style-seen by some as the "first Greek ~ t y l e " ~ ~ ~ - btou testablish the city as the home of that style.lg3Vincent Desborough contended that Athenian potters invented the Protogeometric style, and that the most diagnostic feature of the style, the use of the multiple brush to draw concentric circles, was adopted in other parts of Greece soon after its invention in Athens.lg4The process, however, by which such an innovation spread was never explained. For ~ e s b o r o u ~this h , was a technical innovation of the first order, one that went with another innovation: the faster potter's whee1.1g5Desborough's view was quickly accepted by the Early Iron Age establishment,lX6but by arguing for the priority of Athens over other regions, Desborough was to begin a fashion with a tenacious life of its own. As my colleagues and I have argued elsewhere, the race was now on and the field was open to similar arguments for the priority of one region over others as to the "invention" of the Protogeometric style.lX7 The challenge to the accepted view came in 1980 in a paper in which Harrison Eiteljorg I1 cogently argued that the speed of the potter's wheel was not a factor and that a multiple-brush compass could not have been used effectively on typical Early Iron Age pottery.lX8Eiteljorg was correct in his conclusions with regard to the speed of the potter's wheel; he convincingly argued that the very notion of fast and slow potters' wheels derives from the specious idea of the tournette, and he concluded that Late Mycenaean, Submycenaean, and Protogeometric pots must have been made on essentially similar wheels.lX9Such potters' wheels continued into later periods and are well illustrated on a number of Archaic and Classical pots (e.g., Figs. 3.2,3.6); the potter's wheel appears very clearly on both sides of a lip cup now in Karlsruhe (Fig. 3.17).lg0The prehistory of the potter's wheel, especially in Minoan Crete, has been well documented.lgl Indeed, Doniert Evely has established that the Prepalatial "mats" turned manually were replaced by the freely revolving wheel during the period of the creation of the first palaces, and that a wheelhead incorporating a fly-wheel effect was devised at the time just before the construction of the Neopalatial buildings.lg2 Eiteljorg, however, was less convincing in his assumptions about the multiple brush. In fact, it is remarkably straightforward to replicate the concentric circles and semicircles on Protogeometric pottery with an implement best described as a "pivoted multiple b r u s h (Fig. 3.18).193Whether the pivoted multiple brush was first invented in Athens, Macedonia, Thessaly, Cyprus, or Phoenicia is a question that will probably continue to exercise scholars, but another innovation can now be added at about the same time when the pivoted multiple brush comes into favor. -

181. Finley 1965, p. 41; 1983, p. 190; quoted and discussed in Sparkes 1996, pp. 1-2. 182. E.g., Murray 1975. 183. For a recent discussion, see Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998, esp. pp. 510-511. 184. Desborough 1948; 1952, pp. 298-299; 1964, pp. 164,261-263; 1972, p. 145. 185. Desborough 1972, p. 145. 186. Boardman 1960, pp. 86-87; Coldstream 1968, pp. 335-336; Finley 1970, p. 81; Snodgrass 1971, p. 74; Cook 1972, pp. 6-9. 187. Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998, p. 511. 188. Eiteljorg 1980. 189. Eiteljorg 1980, pp. 445-449, esp. 449; for the tournette and notes on the potter's wheel, see Childe 1954. 190. Fully published in Metzler 1969; more recently discussed in Sparkes 1991, p. 14, fig. 11.3; Scheibler 1995, pp. 80,83, figs. 68,71. 191. See Evely 1988; and, most recently, Vallianou 1997, esp. pls. C X X V I I I - c m . 192. Evely 1988. 193. Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998.

T H E M A T E R I A L A N D ITS I N T E R P R E T A T I O N

Figure 3.17. Details of Athenian black-figuredlip cup, ca. 550 B.C. Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, inv. 67/90. Courtesy Museum

OLIVE WOOD

Figure 3.18. Drawings of pivoted multiple brush developed byJames Vedder showing two methods of attaching the brushes. After Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998, p. 524, fig. 18

221

222

CHAPTER

3

The controlled three-stage single firing using test-pieces in order to achieve a good consistent black is a feature that can be documented this early only in Athens. If this is indeed a technical innovation, it is important to heed Finley's warning. Determining the place where the pivoted multiple brush or the controlled three-stage firing was first invented probably does not matter a great deal for those formulating conclusions of political, social, economic, or ethnic i m ~ 0 r t a n c e .As l ~ ~the following section indicates, potters, like other artisans, moved a great deal throughout the Mediterranean, particularly in the Early Iron Age world system that had emerged at the end ofthe second millennium B.c.'~'A potter moving from, say, Athens to Euboia in the Protogeometric period, or from Corinth to Athens in the Early Archaic period and setting up shop or working with other potters in that region is not the same as Athenian hegemony over Euboia, or Corinthian political or economic control over Athens. In this sense, Eiteljorg's attempt to divorce what were perceived to be technological advances from an assumed center of development and to open the field to a critical rethinking was both timely and well conceived. Such technological innovations are-like storms in teacups-highly localized. They belong in the potter's workshop.

A PROTOCORINTHIAN-PROTOATTIC

EPILOGUE It is fitting to end this brief survey with a look at the kiln excavated by Homer Thompson in the area under the later Tholos of Athens, since it provides such an illuminating context for the firing of Athenian Early Iron Age pottery. Collectively, the material catalogued from the kiln and its associated deposits ( H 12:17) includes all the likely items one would expect in a production site: wasters (107,115,118), test-pieces (108,113, 117), loomweights (106, 112), and spindlewhorls (116). Apart from the wasters, the pottery recovered from the kiln includes a typical Athenian Subgeometric skyphos (109), a plain olpe (114), and two kotylai (104, 108), all of which are production discards. There were, in addition, two small fragments, one minuscule, of the Protoattic style (110, I l l ) , neither of which preserved any clear sign to suggest it was a genuine production discard. The smaller of these pieces ( I l l ) , was even attributed to the Analatos Painter.'96If one does not question this attribution, it may be tempting to assign the kiln to none other than the Analatos Painter, and to thereby clinch the matter of where in Athens one of the more prominent potters was producing his/her wares. There are, however, a number of drawbacks to this conclusion. First of all, the size and condition of the pieces are such that the attribution does not inspire confidence. They are smaller than the other fragments recovered from the fill of the kiln, and particularly troubling is the fact that they are not test-pieces, wasters, or clear production discards. The possibility that they were intrusions cannot be altogether excluded. More important, the most prominent pottery recovered from this luln, located in the heart of

194. Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998, p. 529. 195. See Sherratt and Sherratt 1993; cf. Sherratt and Sherratt 1991; Papadopoulos 1997. For mobility of people and ideas in the Early Iron Age see also Burkert 1984; Purcell1990; Morris 1992a; 1992c, pp. xvii-xviii; Horden and Purcell2000. 196.Agora VIII, pp. 75-76, no. 398, pls. 23,43. For the Analatos Painter, see Sheedy 1992.

T H E MATERIAL AND ITS INTERPRETATION

223

what was to be the later civic center of Athens, consists of Corinthianizing kotylai, including two production discards (104,108) and a test-piece cut from the a kotyle base (105). If this was the kiln of the Analatos Painter, then the pioneer of Protoattic was remarkably well versed in producing standard Corinthian wares of no great distinction. The Tholos kiln brings to the fore one of the most interesting and enduring aspects of Athenian pottery production: the phenomenon of Corinthianizing. In studying the kotyle 104, which she dated to the first half of the 7th century B.c., Brann believed that the Athenian versions of the kotylai were copied directly from Corinthian imports, with minimal time between prototype and copy.19' A more penetrating analysis, one involving direct human agency, was provided by Tom Dunbabin. In publishing an Athenian bowl formerly in the possession of Humfry Payne, Dunbabin writes: But this vase, though Attic, is not painted in Attic style. The animals are pure Corinthian, the use of filling ornament is Corinthian. Payne pointed this out to me, and indicated the workshop in which the painter was brought up; it is that of the Sphinx Painter.19'

197.Agora VIII, p. 51. 198. Dunbabin 1950, p. 194, with reference to Payne 1931, p. 31, note 1 199. Dunbabin 1950, p. 196; for 6th-century "Corintho-Attic" vases, see Smith 1944, esp. pp. 252-253. 200. Dunbabin 1950, p. 200; Plutarch, Solon 24. 201. See Papadopoulos 1997, pp. 454-455. 202. Macdonald 1981, passim. 203. Agora VIII, p. 24.

Dunbabin went on to place Payne's bowl at the head of a Corinthianizing current that reached its flood in the second quarter of the 6th century B . c . ' ~and ~ from there saw this trend against the backdrop of Solon's offer of Athenian citizenship to immigrants who came to practice a trade.200 Whatever the complexities of Solonian economics, and whatever the realities of Solon's reforms, Dunbabin's model of the relocation of potters from Corinth to Athens is compelling. Moreover, this Corinthian vasepainter worked in Athens a generation before Solon's reforms and the material from the Tholos kiln now takes the reality of Corinthian-trained potters in Athens to an even earlier time. Indeed, CmigrC potters are very closely connected with Athens.'O1 For example, in 1981 Brian Macdonald suggested that potters emigrated from Athens to Lucania and Apulia, Etruria, Sicily and the Lipari Islands, Olympia, Corinth, Old Smyrna, and Olyntho~.~O~ Macdonald's focus, however, was primarily on the emigration of potters from Athens, particularly during, or immediately after, the Peloponnesian War. The evidence of potters migrating to Athens is just as compelling. In addition to Plutarch's statement about Solon and the offer of citizenship to artisans, Brann has discussed several Protoattic painters either as foreigners or, at least, well traveled. She writes: The Ram Jug Painter shows some signs of having learned abroad about such things as Cycladic outline protomes and the use of brown paint, but one likes to think of him as an Athenian, albeit a traveler. The Polyphemos Painter, on the other hand, was an Aeginetan, or at least he worked in Aegina.203 There is, moreover, the evidence of words, including names, written on vases. Athenian pottery is full of misspellings, intrusive foreign letters not known in Attic dialect, and foreign sounding names. Paul Kretschmer,

224

CHAPTER

3

for instance, listed Gaurion [Gauris], Myspios, Oltos, Priapos, Oreibelos, Taleides, Thypeithides [Typhaithides], Chelis, Sakonides, Psiax, Hilinos, and Phintias as being either foreign names or at least not demonstrably TOthese Alan Boegehold adds Amasis, whose name suggests Egypt, Sikanos and Sikelos, presumably from Sicily, Kolkhos from Kolkhis, "the Lydian," "the Sc~thian,"Thrax, Mys, Syriskos (the little Syrian), and Wekhekleide~.~" Boegehold also discusses a number of instances of wellknown vase-painters, including Exekias and the Brygos Painter, who use non-Attic letters either in their signatures or for words painted on their pots, as well as instances of spellings that are wrong for even a possible example of a corrected spelling, namely, the case of the "Net[t]osn Painter's n a m e - ~ a s e . ~ ~ ~ The Corinthian-trained, as opposed to "Corinthian," potter who set up his workshop and kiln in the Athenian Kerameikos sometime in the earlier 7th century B.c., immediately under the later Tholos of Athens, may be among the earliest metoikoi in Athens that we can identify. I refer to this potter as "Corinthian-trained," since the identity of those who produced pottery in the Potters' Quarter at Corinth is, at best, ~ncertain.~" Whatever his/her identity, the relocation of potters explains this phenomenon more cogently than processes of imitation.209 If the contents of the Tholos kiln are viewed in light of the potter's debris recovered from deposit S 17:2, and against the backdrop of the ongoing debate as to the provenance-Athenian or Aiginetan-of especially the Middle Protoattic Black-and-white Style,210then an interesting picture emerges, however incomplete it may be. Collectively, the kiln deposit H 12:17 and deposit S 17:2 are, to my knowledge, the only certain 7th-century deposits in Athens that contain potters' refuse. Taking the material from both deposits together, one recognizes a noticeable absence of what we refer to as Protoattic pottery. In addition to producing pottery of a strong Corinthian flavor, the stock-in-trade of both "workshops," if they may be termed as such, was a style that can be described only as Subgeometric. Where we may have expected some of the more glamorously decorated Protoattic vessels to have been made, we find instead a truly Geometric style persisting well into the Archaic period coupled with clear Corinthian overtones. It would be wrong to press this evidence too far, particularly on account of its paucity, and it is possible, though highly unlikely, that elemental analysis can contribute substantially to the debate, given the fact that potters often mix clays from various regions (see Chapter 1).What can be said at this stage is that the very small part of the Athenian Kerameikos of the Early Iron Age that has been exposed has yielded straightforward evidence for the production of Protogeometric, Geometric, and Subgeometric pottery. Similarly, the later Kerameikos, further to the northwest, has furnished abundant evidence of kilns and associated workshop deposits of Athenian black-figured, red-figured, and later pottery. The Athenian Potters' Quarter, however, has still to hrnish hard evidence for the production of Protoattic pottery.

204. Kretschmer 1894, pp. 74-75. 205. Boegehold 1983, p. 90. 206. Boegehold 1983, p. 90; for the Attic dialect see Jeffery 1990, pp. 6678. 207. Boegehold 1962; cf. Threatte 1980, pp. 24,540. 208. See Morris and Papadopoulos 1998. 209. See further Papadopoulos 1997, where Bronze Age examples are discussed, including the evidence in the Linear B tablets for the relocation of potters. 210. Morris 1984; Walter-Karydi 1997; Kyrkou 1997, esp. p. 432.

CHAPTER

4

T E S T - P I E C EI NS LATERP E R I O D S

Catalogue and Discussion

For in the market-place one dusk of day I watched the potter thumping his wet clay And with its aU obliterated tongue It murmur'd "Gently, brother, gently pray!"'

1.Omar Khayyam, Rubdiydt 36 (trans. E. FitzGerald). 2. ~~~~~~~~~h1960, p. 72; B~~~~ in Agora VIII, p. 27.

This chapter aims to bring together well-known and previously unknown test-pieces of later periods in order to help contextualize the Early Iron Age test-pieces from the area of the Classical Agora. A comparison of the Athenian Protogeometric and Geometric test-pieces with those of the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods presented below shows that the basic technique for testing the progress of the firing for various Greek black-figured, red-figured, black-gloss, and Hellenistic pottery was the same as that already well established during the early stages of the Early Iron Age. The aim of the Protogeometric potter was the same as his/her Classical or Hellenistic counterpart: to achieve a good glossy black. The means by which this was achieved involved the use of small scraps of pottery as test-pieces. As noted by both Farnsworth and Brann, test-pieces were probably used by potters to test the firing of their wares in many other periods as well2To my knowledge, there are no test-pieces that predate those of the Athenian Protogeometric period published here. For the reasons outlined in Chapters 1 and 3, this is perhaps not coincidental, since it is in the Protogeometric period that potters in the Greek world were first attempting to achieve a good lustrous black paint consistently. Be that as it may, earlier examples may well surface in the future. It is also worth noting that there are no known Early Iron Age test-pieces contemporary with the Athenian examples assembled in this volume. The examples presented below are arranged according to fabric and date. The list includes most published test-pieces known to the author, though I am sure I have overlooked many examples. Most of the pieces presented below have been published before, though not all have been correctly identified as test-pieces. The list of previously unpublished testpieces does not pretend to be exhaustive; it includes only such pieces as were known to me and were available for publication. It has to be stressed that the catalogue given here does not aim to present the definitive

226

CHAPTER

4

publication of these pieces. Rather it aims to present similar potters' testpieces for comparison with the earlier Athenian examples presented above. I have studied the majority of the pieces presented below in person. For the few, such as some of those in Germany, France, and Belgium (A2A l l ) , that I have not personally inspected, I have relied on the published descriptions of others, preferring to quote these authors at length rather than introduce errors or inconsistencies. Firsthand inspection is critical in the case of potters' test-pieces, especially in order to establish whether the draw-holes are pre- or postfiring, since not all sherds with neatly cut holes were used to test the progress of firing pottery. A good case in point involves the fragments of Classical pottery from the Pantanello sanctuary in the chora of Metaponto, all of which have holes that are postfiring and the result of cult a~tivity.~ In the case of a number of fragments published especially in preliminary reports it is impossible to determine, on the basis of the published illustrations and descriptions, whether the pieces in question are potters' test-pieces or sherds or pots with postfiring holes4 Such uncertain examples have not been included in the catalogue below. The list begins with Athenian test-pieces of the Classical period and continues with Athenian examples of the Hellenistic period. These are numbered consecutively, with the prefut A. Although examples from Corinth are earlier, including a number that can be dated as early as Early Protocorinthian or Subgeometric, I begin with the Athenian in order to establish a continuity in the tradition in Athens from the earliest stages - of the Early Iron Age into the Hellenistic era. The catalogue includes some pieces from the area of the Athenian Agora, as well as a number of others now in various museums or collections around the world. In the case of the latter, the provenance of some is known, or it can be reconstructed, such as those associated with the workshop of the Painter of the Athens Dinos.' The earliest examples among the Athenian pieces presented below are 5th century and all are red-figure. I know of no Athenian black-figured potters' test-pieces. Consequently, there is something of a gap between the latest test-pieces presented in Chapter 2 and those presented below. Although the style of black-figure, with its boldly incised figures against the natural color of the clay body of the vase, represents a development on what went b e f ~ r e in , ~ terms of essential techniques in pottery firing there is no change. For this reason, black-figured test-pieces were probably very common in Athens, even though none have yet been found. The dearth of black-figured test-pieces is, in part, the result of their identification. Red-figured test-pieces are easily identified in the first instance by the fact that the background was not filled in. This feature is eliminated in the case of black-figure, so the only way to recognize a black-figured test-piece is through the presence of a draw-hole or paint on an edge,

3. Carter 1994, pp. 187-188,190, ill. 7.14 (at least two examples, center left). I n discussing these Carter (1994, pp. 187-188) writes: "The numerous 'Ionic cups' of sixth-century date which were deposited around the spring had their bottoms more or less carehlly

perforated. There are literally hundreds of examples of this practice. The most obvious interpretation is that they were used for libations on the site." With reference to similar practice elsewhere, including at Halieis. 4. A good example of these are the

fragments from Kastraki in Lakonia published in de la Geni?re 1995, pls. 64:a, 65:d. 5. See Oakley 1992. 6. See Cook 1972, esp. pp. 41-46; Sparkes 1996, esp. pp. 10-15.

TEST-PIECES

7. The only possible unfinished black-figured vessel known to me is a skyphos in the Olympia Museum, depicting a bull. I have not seen the skyphos in the flesh, and I take it to be the same as the skyphos noted in ABE p. 521 (by the Theseus Painter or near him); I owe my knowledge of the existence of this vessel to John Boardman and Donna Kurtz. The skyphos is complete, so it is an unlikely test-piece, though the body of the bull appears to be unfinished. I wonder, however, whether the vessel is truly unfinished or whether an area of added white, or some other color, has flaked off, exposing what seems to be an "unfinished" area below, as in the case of the torso of the central warrior on the black-figured amphora in New York ( ~ e t r o i o l i t a n~ " s e u mof Art acc. no. 98.8.13) published in Noble 1988, p. 105, fig. 181(?). 8. Dunbabin 1950; also Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 68-69; Coldstream 1968, pp. 91-92,98-111; Morris and Papadopoulos 1998, esp. p. 254. 9. See Hayes 1972, pp. 8-14 316318. See also the comments in Papadopoulos 1995, esp. p. 223.

I N LATER PERIODS

227

features easily overlooked in the case of fragmentary piece^.^ It should be noted, however, that the early stages of Athenian black-figure production are exactly the time when Corinthian test-pieces are found in quantity (see below). This is precisely the time when Corinth exerted some influence on Athenian pottery production, as the evidence of the Late Geometric and Early Archaic kiln H 12:17 in the area of the later Tholos of Athens e~tablishes.~ Some of the red-figured examples presented below may be fragments from unfinished vessels that were never proper test-pieces, that is, fragments specifically designed as aids to correct firing (e.g., among others, A21, A23). The problem of red-figured pots not finished due to forgetfulness on the part of the potter, or else pots, or surfaces of pots, used for "practice sketches1' by potters, is discussed more fully at the end of this chapter. In the catalogue below I have not consciously included any fragments that cannot be test-pieces. The Athenian red-figured potters' test-pieces are followed by several examples of the Hellenistic period from the Pnyx. There are likely to be numerous additions to those presented below among the deposits from the Pnyx and elsewhere in Hellenistic Athens, published and unpublished. The pieces selected below (A24-A30), therefore, represent only a small sample. They are presented in order to establish continuity in the basic tradition of pottery manufacture between the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Although the style of the moldmade bowls is radically different from that of black- and red-figured pottery, achieving a good black gloss remains the constant goal of Athenian pottery production from the earliest stages of the Early Iron Age right through the Hellenistic era. I know of no Athenian test-pieces of the Roman period. This may be the random result of the processes of survival and recovery, though it is far more likely that test-pieces were no longer required once red-gloss vessels became popular at the expense of the standard earlier black-glaze of the Classical and Hellenistic period^.^ As the critical aim of the three-stage firing was to achieve a good, lustrous black, the careful testing of pottery was probably not as necessary in the Roman period, when oxidized red wares were in vogue. As was the case in the Early Iron Age, the Classical and Hellenistic potters' test-pieces of Athens are scraps of pottery cut from pots damaged prior to firing and then equipped with a draw-hole. The Classical and Hellenistic test-pieces range in size from relatively large pieces (e.g.,A12a) to ones that are smaller (e.g., A26a, A27). Few, however, of the red-figured examples are complete. The draw-holes on these later test-pieces are, on average, smaller than those of the Early Iron Age. The Athenian examples are followed in the catalogue by those from ancient Corinth. Most of these derive from the excavations of the Potters' Quarter, though some of the later pieces are from the so-called Vrysoula Classical Deposit. The Corinthian test-pieces, numbered consecutivelywith the prefuc C, range in date from Early Protocorinthian/Subgeometric through the Classical period and include some of the most eccentric examples of test-pieces known. As with the Athenian pieces, the Corinthian examples are cut from scraps of pottery, some decorated canonically prior to firing, others covered with test-paint, which bears no resemblance to decoration, and equipped with a draw-hole. They are described more fully

228

CHAPTER

4

below. A possible parallel for one of the Corinthian test-pieces (C8) is offered by a fragmentary kyathos from Aetos on Ithaka, the body ofwhich is boldly crosshatched in a manner reminiscent of many of the Early Iron Age test-pieces.'' Unfortunately, there appears to be no draw-hole, nor any mentioned traces of paint on any of the edges to establish the Ithakan example as a test-piece." In describing the vessel, Martin Robertson writes: "The very small 359 is footless, and its wretched decoration runs over the base; I know of nothing like it. However wretched, the piece is of especial interest because if a test-piece, then we have clear evidence for the production of Corinthian type pottery on the island of Ithaka."12 Under the category of "Miscellaneous'' I have listed a varied selection of test-pieces from Greece and southern Italy (numbered with the prefut M). M y aim in this section was not to provide an exhaustive list of every test-piece in captivity. Consequently, I have neglected much in Greece and southern Italy, and I have not made a thorough search of other areas, such as Black Sea sites in the former Soviet Union, that have produced a wealth of information on pottery production.13 M y aim, rather, was to draw attention to some pieces that are of particular interest. For example, the pieces presented in the catalogue from Knossos in Crete ( M I ) and Sindos in Macedonia (M2) are of the same basic type as those from Athens and Corinth. They serve to illustrate that the common type of testpiece cut from a damaged pot and equipped with a draw-hole prior to firing is found over much of Greece in pottery workshops that were aiming to produce a good black paint. Two alternative types of test-pieces are presented, from Thasos in the northern Aegean and Taranto in southern Italy. The kiln and pottery workshop site at Phari on Thasos has produced a large number of idiosyncratic small, rectangular clay bars or plaques with a small hole at one end that were used as test-pieces. One example (M3) serves to illustrate the type. A related, but different type of test-piece is known from Taranto. Referred to as bastoncelli, these are rods of clay, circular in section, some slightly curving at one end, and thus resembling small hooks. Several such pieces from the recent excavations at ancient Taras are described and illustrated under M24. I have also presented in the catalogue a number of the Lucanian redfigured test-pieces of the 4th century B.C. published by Francesco D'Andria from the Kerameikos at Metaponto (M4-M23). These provide useful comparanda to the Athenian red-figured test-pieces and, indeed, highlight the close relationship between the pottery workshops of Athens and those of a number of sites in southern Italy. The close relationship between Athenian potters and those working in the area of Metaponto is not a phenomenon that begins in the Classical period, but one with an established Early Iron Age ancestry. As Martine Denoyelle has cogently argued, the Analatos Painter, one of the great pioneers of the Protoattic style, may have spent the later part of his working career producing pottery at the settlement at Incoronata in the chora of the later city of Metapontion.14 The catalogue ends with a possible Campanian red-figured test-piece that raises the issue, mentioned above and discussed briefly at the end of this chapter, of unfinished red-figured vases that are not testpieces.

10. Robertson 1948, p. 69, no. 359, pl. 22. 11. Although it is tempting to list this fragmentary kyathos as a test-piece, the lack of clearly diagnostic features makes it difficult to do so, as does the fact that there are no other clear potters' test-pieces among the published finds from Aetos. 12. Robertson 1948, p. 69. Catherine Morgan (2001, p. 197) also assumes that this is "the one local testpiece." Although I have not listed this fragmentary kyathos in the catalogue below, I am fairly certain that it is a potter's test-piece. If so, the ramifications for the distribution of Corinthian-type pottery in the West are significant. 13. For a useful bibliography on kiln sites in Russia, see Ziomecki 1964, p. 36, note 93. The most recent and fullest overview, with useful illustrations, of kilns in the northern Black Sea is Bobrinskii 1991. 14. Denoyelle 1996. See also the case of the later Pisticci Painter, one of the pioneers of the Lucanian red-figure style: Denoyelle 1997.

TEST-PIECES

I N LATER PERIODS

ATHENS

15. Hartwig 1899, pp. 164-166, note 21, figs. 4-6. The pieces include A1-A5 in the present study. 16. Hartwig 1899, pp. 164-166, note 21.The other test-pieces in Bonn (see below) were not included in Hartwig's study. Many other scholars subscribed to this view that Athenian pottery was fired several times, including, among others, Walters (1905, pp. 221-222) and Herford (1919, pp. 13-14). As an exception, Richter (1923, p. 38, note 1) listed Karl Reichhold (1919, p. 152) as a scholar who thought there was only one firing. 17. Richter 1923, p. 41, note 3; the pieces added include New York, Metropolitan Museum acc. no. 11.212.9 (M25) below (Fig. 4.34), and the lid of a pyxis in the British Museum (Room of Greek and Roman Life, no. 426) (Fig. 4.35 below). 18. Richter 1923, pp. 41-44. 19. Beazley 1944, p. 121, note 1. 20. Hartwig (1899, pp. 164-165, note 21) began his list of five fragments of unfinished Attic pots with "ein grosseres, noch unveroffenlichtes Stiick im Nationalmuseum zu Athen." Hartwig provided no illustration or inventory number.

In 1899 Paul Hartwig published five fragments of Attic red-figured pottery which he considered " ~ n f i n i s h e d .This " ~ ~ conclusion was reached from the fact that those background areas that should have been covered with black on all five fragments were reserved, even though the details of the figures, including in some cases, relief lines and the outline of black, appeared rather well executed. O n the basis of these five fragments, Hartwig went on to argue that red-figure potters fired their vessels several times in order to achieve the final product.16 In 1923 Gisela Richter turned her attention to the same unfinished pieces, and added a further two pieces to the list.17 She cogently argued that there was no reason for Athenian potters to have fired their vases before and after the painting of the background, and she went on to suggest that such unfinished pieces, including the virtually complete M25, were more likely test-pieces.'' Although it is clear that not all unfinished red-figured pots are test-pieces (see discussion following- M2S), Richter was correct in her assumption that Athenian pottery was only fired once, and she was also correct in suggesting that Hartwig's five fragments were more probably test-pieces (at least two of the pieces-A4 and AS-preserve portions of draw-holes or edges). Most of these were also assembled and discussed by John Beazley, who wrote: "Fired sherds with unfinished drawings on them are rightly explained as trial-pieces to test firing conditions in the furnace."19Because of their importance, I have decided to present all five of Hartwig's fragments here (Al-AS), and to add several others that have come to light since then. The five pieces published by Hartwig include: A1 Athens, National Museum, inv. 2202 Fig. 4.1 Test-piece or fragment of unfinished Nicole 1911,pp. 234-235, fig. 6, no. 1077 (with further references); mentioned in Hartwig 1899, p p 164-165; Richter 1923, p. 41, note 3; Beazley 1944,p. 121, note 1. No preserved draw-hole, but possible edge (or edges). T h e fragment is described as follows by Nicole: "L'interCt de ce tesson reside dans la technique. Le vase avait subi une premitre cuisson qui a donne l'argile un ton bistre sans eclat. Sur le biscuit, le tableau est rest6 a 1'Ctat d'ebauche. Le contour des figures est rechampi sur le fond d'un large trait de pinceau qui forme une zone de protection exterieure. L'esquisse est sommaire dans certaines parties du dessin telles

que la main droite du personnage feminin, ou le corps du personnage place a gauche de l'hermts. Le sujet de la representation a cinq personnages est le culte rendu a un hermis barbu, ithyphallique, vu de profil a droite, peint en couleur de surcharge blanche ainsi que la plinthe un degre qui lui sert de base. Agauche, un jeune homme drape, appuye dans une pose un peu alanguie contre la statue, tient sa main droite sur la hanche. A droite, unefemme drapie, tournee vers l'hermts, tient une corbeille a offrandes sur l'avant-bras gauche, et de la main droite dispose une couronne sur la tete du terme. Entre la statue et ce dernier personnage, le paintre semble avoir eu le dessein de figurer un autel d'ou s'elevent des flammes. A droite du group central, derritre chaque

CHAPTER

figure, personnage fragmentaire tour& dans le mtme sens." O f interest is the fact that the added white appears on this piece, as it does on the test-pieces A12 and A19, before the completion of the relief-line work and filling in of the background, which suggests that added color was applied quite early in the overall decoration of a vase.

4

known trial-piece, is stated here to have a white slip, but I did not notice this. I t is said to have been found in Melos, which though possible seems unlikely. In any case it is by an Attic artist of the school of the Penthesilea painter: I have named him the Aberdeen painter. . . . Perhaps worth recalling that the trial-piece in Wurzburg [A3 below] is by another Penthesilean, the painter of Bologna 417)."

A2 Skvres, MusCe CCramique, inv. 2543

Fig. 4.2

Test-piece fragment or fragment of unfinished cup. Massoul 1935, p. 38, no. 11, pl. 21; Beazley 1944, p. 121, note 1; A R Y , p. 921, no. 37 (21), attributed to the Aberdeen Painter (with 111 references to earlier bibliography) and stated to be a triaLpieie.The published description, by Madeleine Massoul, is worth citing in W: "Fragment de coupe (2543). Argile jaune rose, micacCe. Engobe blanc sali, un peu rosC. Lustre noir brun, rougeatre par places. IntCrieur: conversationde deux Cphkbes drapCs. Revers: six fillets parallkles un peu rougis. Haut. 0,09. Larg. 0,065. Inv. S h e s , 2543. Milo. Don J.-J. Dubois, conservateur des Antiquites du Louvre, 1839. Ce fiagment a Ctt bien souvent citC dans les ouvrages " de dramographie, avec d'autres spCcimens du mCme genre, comme 'rate' de fabrication o; comme essai de cuisson (Brandprober). Mais ce n'est pas certain. I1 faudrait en ce cas admettre qu' iMilo, d'oa provient celui-ci, il y ait eu une fabrique de vases de style attique, ce qui n'est pas du tout prouvk." Massoul goes bn to give the lengthy bibliography associated with this piece up to 1926. The fact that the fragment is said to have been found on Melosalthough this seems unlikely (see Beazley 1936, p. 252)-makes it a more probable unfinished Athenian red-figured cup, rather than a testpiece. In discussing the piece Beazley (1936, pp. 252-253) adds: "the well-

A3 Wiirzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, inv. 635 (no. 495) Fig. 4.2

Figure 4.1. A1 (Athens, National Museum, inv. 2202). Courtesy Museum

Fragment of test-piece cut from a Hartwig 1899, p. 165, note 21, fig. 4; Langlotz 1968, p. 98, no. 495, pl. 217; Beazley 1944, p. 121, note 1 ; A R Y , p. 916, no. 173 (65), attributed to the Painter of Bologna 417, listed among the cups "decorated inside only," and stated to be a trialpiece. Greatest dimension: 0.077. No preserved draw-hole, but possible edge (or edges) at upper right and perhaps left. The fragment is described as follows by Langlotz (1968, p. 98): "Frgm. Einer unvollendeten Schale. Aus Athen. Slg. Faber. U.I. 156. Gr. Ausd. 7,7 cm. Maander noch nicht eingezeichnet, nur zwei konzentrische Kreise vorhanden. Jungling (Mantel) im Gesprach. Die Bedeutung des Bogens links unter nicht mehr zu erkennen. Da die Konturen nicht mit einer Relieflinie, sondern nur mit dem breiten Pinsel gezogen sind, wird das Stiick der Zeit 470/60 angehoren." A4 Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. F 3362 Fig. 4.2 Fragment of a test-piece cut fiom a krater. First illustrated at the conclusion of Sitte 1898 (p. 306), but selected and described by Winter on p. 320 of the same volume;22 Hartwig 1899, p. 165, fig. 5, note 21;

21. Since its publication in Langlotz 1968, the piece was broken and currently only the lower right of the original fragment survives. I am grateful to Anneliese Kossatz-Deissmann for details of this piece and for procuring for me a photograph of it in its current state. 22. Although illustrated on the final page of Camillo Sitte's paper in the Festschr@fir Otto BenndorJ;the testpiece has nothing to do with that study. A number of illustrations, termed vignettes, were selected and placed throughout the Festsrhr9, and described by Robert von Schneiders and Franz Winter (see von Schneiders and Winter 1898).The published description by Winter reads as follows: "Diese Scherbe gehorte, der Rundung der Flache nach, zu einem grossen, kraterformigen Gefasse. Das Gefass ward zerbrochen, ehe es ganz fertiggestellt war. Innen wares bereits gefirnisst, und aussen die figiirliche Malerei schon ausgefiihrt und eingebrannt, aber es fehlte noch das Abdecken des Grundes. Nach dem Zerbrechen ist schwarzer Firniss uber die Bruchrander und auch uber die Bildflache ausgelaufen. Da, wie das ubrige, auchdieser Firniss eingebrannt ist, muss die Scherbe nachtraglich noch einmal in den Ofen gekommen sein. Als Scherbe ist sie auch auf die Burg gerathen, vermuthlich auf dieselbe

231

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

A2 (Skvres, Muste Ctramique, inv. 2543). Drawing by Patrick Finnerty after Massoul 1935, pl. 21, no. 11

A3 (Wiirzburg,Martin von Wagner Museum, inv. 635). Drawing by Patrick Finnerty, based on Langlotz 1968, pl. 217 and Hartwig 1899, p. 165 (left), and photograph of the piece in its current state (right)

A4 (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, inv. F 3362). Courtesv Museum

A5 (Bonn, AkademischesKunst-

Figure 4.2. A2-A5 Beazley 1944,p. 121, note Marwitz 1960,cols. 223-224, fig. 92; Sparkes 1991,p. 24, fig. 11.9; Scheibler 1995,p. 90, fig. 81. Ca. 460 B.C. p.H.: 0.065; p.L.: 0.090 (dimensions according to Winter). Portion of likely draw-hole preserved at lower left edge of fragment.

Female facing left, holding phiale. Although the piece is stated to be from the Athenian Acropolis (Winter 1898,p. 320), Hartwig (1899, p. 165,note 21) has the following to say about its provenance: "ein aus Athen stammendes Fragment eines haters im Berliner Museum, einst bei Rhusopulos und

sicher nicht von der Akropolis zu Athen."

Weise wie die durch die eingeritzten Namen genauer gekennzeichneten 6srpaxa. Das Stiick in seinern unfertigen Zustande ist fiir die Technik der Vasenmalerei interessant.Man sieht hier einrnal ganz deutlich den breiten Urnriss, den man irnrner urn die Figurenherurngezogen hat, urn beirn nachherigen,Abdecken die Gefahr einer Verletzung der Contouren zu ver-

ringern. Ferner beweist die Scherbe, dass nach dern ersten Brennen des noch unbemalten Gefasses die Malerei nicht in Einern vollsthdig, sondern in Absatzen ausgefiihrtwurde, und das dernentsprechendnachher noch ein rnehrrnaligesBrennen stattfand.Hoch 0.065, breit 0.09 rn. Berlin,Antiquarium, Inv. 3362.1896 im Kunsthandel erworben, nach Angabe des friiheren

museum, inv. 306). Courtesy Museum

A5 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. 306

Fig. 4.2

Fragment of a test-piece cut from the upper body of a bell-hater. Greifenhagen 1938,p. 21, no. 3, pl. 19;24Beazley 1944,p. 121,note 1;

Besitzers von der Athenischen Akropolis starnrnend." 23. Beazley (1944, p. 121,note 1) stresses that A4 and A5 are not from the same vessel. 24. Although published in the same fascicule of the CVA as the pieces listed under the Painter of the Athens Dinos (see below), the piece is clearly not associatedwith that deposit.

CHAPTER

232

ARV, p. 610, no. 18 (with further references), where it is listed under the manner of the Niobid Painter, and stated to be a trial-piece; Prange 1989, p. 211, cat. no. GN 32. About one-quarter to one-third of draw-hole preserved at lower left

4

and paint extending onto edges (described by Greifenhagen) establish the fragment as a test-piece. From Athens, dated ca. 460450 B.C.

Potters'Debrisfiom an Athenian Red-Figured Pottery Workshop of the Painter of the Athens Dinos (ca. 420-410 BE.) T h e deposit in question, or at least part of it, was originally published by Adolf Greifenhagen in 1938, in the first fascicule of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum for Germany. T h e deposit as a whole was later examined by John Oakley, who noted that despite almost a century of scholarship devoted to reconstructing the ancient Athenian pottery industry, this deposit had surprisingly been overlooked as an important source of informat i ~ n .T ~ h' e details of the deposit discussed by Oakley are worth citing in

full:

I n 1904 the Akademisches Kunstmuseum of Bonn University acquired 466 fragments which were part of a waste deposit from an Attic red-figure pottery workshop. Included among the fragments were many test-pieces and a number of poorly fired ones, clearly indicating the nature of the deposit, although the Bonn purchase represented only a portion of the find. T h e deposit was found during the building of an Athenian house in the vicinity of the "Piraeusbahnhof," the electric railroad station located near the Hephaisteion on modern Hermes Street. Adolf Greifenhagen published 279 of these fragments in 1938 in the first volume of the Corpus VasorumAntiquorum from Germany. H e noted that many of the fragments were by the Painter of the Athens Dinos, who was active in Athens around 420-410 B.C. Although he did not include in his publication all the fragments with little or no decoration, or with small bits of hastily drawn mantle figures, every important piece was published. Greifenhagen's publication remains today as the only substantial publication of remains from an Athenian redfigure or black-figure workshop.26 Oakley also notes two other important deposits, both of which remain unpublished. T h e first appears to be material from the workshop of the Brygos Painter, discovered in 1967 at 2 Marathon Street, just over 500 m northwest of the northwest corner of the Athenian A g ~ r a . T ~ h' e second was discovered in 1853 during the construction of a house located somewhere along Hermes Street; part of this deposit was purchased by Jena University, and contained material by the potter who came to be known as the Jena Painter, and other potters of the same workshop.28Both deposits may contain test-pieces, but this is uncertain.

25. OaMey 1992,pp. 195-196. 26. Oakley 1992,p. 195. 27. OaMey 1992, pp. 196-197, note 4, with references to the preliminary reports of the finds and a series of articles by J.-J. Maffre, who publishes some of the vases. 28. OaMey 1992, pp. 196-197 and for the location see fig. 1, no. 3. Unfortunately, the exact location of the house along Hermes Street was not recorded, and the street runs for a distance between 1.5 and 2 km,from Syntagma Square to Piraeus Street, with its midpoint just north of the Agora. For the Jena Painter and his circle, see, most recently, Paul-Zinserling 1994; Geyer 1996, esp. pp. 1-8.

TEST-PIECES

233

I N LATER PERIODS

As for the fragments published by Greifenhagen, many of them may be from test-pieces, but few actually preserve side edges or draw-holes to establish them as such, rather than as wasters or poorly fired or broken pots.29H e cites at least five fragments that are probably test-pieces. Two of these preserve draw-holes and are clearly test-pieces, and he compares another three to these. Greifenhagen describes them as follows:30 1-5. Fehlbrande. Grauer, nicht geniigend geharteter Ton. Firnis schwarz und stumpf bis matt-glanzend. Die runden Locher (1 und 2) sind als "Brennlocher" nicht verstandlich, da sie bei einem grossen offenen Gefass sich eriibrigen und es unbenutzbar machen wiirden. . . . Nr. 2 ist innen ungefirnisst. Wenn das Stiick-wie es den Anschein hat-zu einem krater gehorte, wurde dieser also nur aussen bemalt, dann zerbrochen und zu Brennproben verwendet. Vielleicht wurden solche Scherben zum Brand an einer Stange (aus gebranntem Ton) aufgereiht, wodurch sich die Locher erklaren wiirden.". . . Nr. 2 ist innen ungefirnisst. Wenn das Stiick-wie es den Anschein hat-zu einem krater gehorte, wurde dieser also nur aussen bemalt, dann zerbrochen und zu Brennproben verwendet. Vielleicht wurden solche Scherben zum rand an einer Stange (aus gebranntem Ton) aufgereiht, wodurch sich die Locher erklaren wii~-den.~~ A6 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. 1216.152

29. The fragments published in Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 6 (inv. 1216,224. 442-445), pl. 38, for example, are specifically listed by Greifenhagen as wasters (Fehlbrande). 30.1 have not had occasion to study these pieces in the flesh. 31. Greifenhagen also referred to holes in lekythoi, listing a number of examples, and citing the discussion in Pfuhl1923, p. 562 under no. 604, which, in turn, referred to Riezler 1914, p. 92, fig. 50, pl. 7:f, no. 41. Here there seems to be some confusion in differentiating between air-holes or vents on lekythoi and the draw-holes found on test-pieces. It is important to stress that the holes on lekythoi were made to facilitate easier pouring of liquid contents, and were not related to the firing process. 32. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44.

Fig. 4.3

Test-piece fragment cut from body of krater. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 1, pl. 38. p.H.: 0.072. Fragment preserves about onehalf of draw-hole. There is a portion of a draped human figure preserved on the exterior.

A7 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. 1216.153-154

Fig. 4.3

Fragmentary test-piece cut from krater. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 2, pl. 38. p.H.: 0.097. Originally four joining frr., one of which is now lost, preserving much of test-piece, including complete draw-hole. Interior unpainted; portion of draped human figure preserved on exterior.

A8 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum, inv. 1216.190

Fig. 4.3

Small fragment of production discard or possible test-piece. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 3, pl. 38. p.H.: 0.043. Small fragment, broken on all sides, preserving small portion of

body of krater. Compared to A6 by

Greifenhagen.

Portion of draped human figure preserved on exterior.

A9 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum inv. 1216.435,346

Fig. 4.3

Fragments of production discard or possible test-piece. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 4, pl. 38. p.H.: 0.067.

Two joining Err., broken on all

sides, preserving small portion of

body of krater. Portion of nude youth throwing spear preserved on exterior.

=34

CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.3. Fragments of Athenian red-figured test-pieces, Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum:A6-A10. Photo: Wolfgang Klein. Courtesy Museum

A10 Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum inv. 1216.155, 439-441 Fig. - 4.3 Fragments of production or possible test-piece. Greifenhagen 1938, p. 44, no. 5, pl. 38.

Originally four joining frr., one of which is now lost, preserving small portion of body of krater. Portion of draped human figure on exterior, stylistically very similar to A6, and perhaps from the same vessel.

Other A l l Brussels, MusCe du Cinquantenaire, inv. A 1392

Fig. 4.4

Fragment of test-piece or unfinished krater. D'Andria 1975, p. 376, note 23; p. 380, no. 51, fig. 33. Fr. preserving small portion of test-piece or body fiagment of an

unfinished krater. No preserved draw-hole. Portion of satyr preserved on exterior. D'Andria (1975, p. 376, note 23) states: fi. attico . . . Ovviamente di provenienza ateniese e relativo ad un cratere a campana con figura di sileno, in argilla grigiastra."

Figure 4.4. A l l (Brussels,MusCe du Cinquantenaire, inv. A 1392). Courtesy Museum

Deposit 0 17:2 Dealer's dump [modem], material otherwise not related to the area.

At least ten test-pieces were found during the American excavations in the area of the Athenian Agora, but in a modern context, dating to either the late 19th or the early 20th century. T h e material derives from deposit 0 17:2, being the fill beneath a modern house floor, evidently the shop of an antiquities dealer; this material is otherwise not related to the Agora area.33 I n addition to the test-pieces and various vessels of Athenian manufacture, the deposit included Corinthian, Boiotian, and other fabrics. Of this material, only the Boiotian has been properly published.14The material from 0 17:2 is later than the Bonn material presented above. Dealers' dumps, such as deposit 0 17:2, along with related units, including K 14:l

33. Cleared as Section Y lo/@. Cf. similar dumps located in the area and designated deposits 14:1 and N 10:i (both modem contexts). 34. Ure 1962.

TEST-PIECES

235

IN LATER PERIODS

and N 10:1, have been generally neglected by students of the history of collecting, and deserve to be better known and more fblly published. In 1960 Farnsworth published two of the test-pieces from deposit 0 17:2 that happened to join, and described them as follows:35"Two ad-joining fourth-century Attic draw-pieces. These draw pieces are from an unfinished red-figure bell-krater with a diameter of 0.28 m. Several joining fragments preserve a little more than half the circumference and give the lower part of the figured scene which shows a goddess rising. To either side of her there is a dancing Pan; next to the handle at the left and probably on the right there is a female figure seated on a box. I is the larger piece and has a well preserved hole; it is underfired and the glaze is partially brownish red and partially black; the black glaze on the inner surface is badly peeled [wherever it is peeled on the interior the surface is gray]. H is well fired; the glaze is black both inside and outside except for the lines which are intentionally brown and has not peeled. The fabric of both pieces is pinkish buff." There are, in fact, at least three test-pieces cut from this same krater, presented below as A12a, A12b, A13. A12a corresponds with Farnsworth fragment I, and A12b with fragment H, while A13 represents portion of a third test-piece. A fuller description of the iconography of the original vessel is provided by Mary Moore.36 A12a (P 25582a)

Fig. 4.5

not painted, indicates that the original vessel was damaged sometime prior to the completion of the figured scene and was subsequently cut down to make several test-pieces. This is one of the largest testpieces from any period. Test-piece cut from the same original vessel as A12b-A13. In discussing A12-A13, Noble (1988, p. 153) writes: "An excellent pair of such test ~ i e c e swas found in-the Athenian Agora. They are fragments of an unfinished red-figured bellkrater apparently broken during decorating. A hole is preserved in the larger piece [A12a]. They were withdrawn from the kiln at different times. The larger piece was removed first because it is underfired with a brownish color ranging to black in parts. The smaller fragmentary piece was removed later; it was correctly fired."

Test-piece cut from bell-krater. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, pl. 16, fr. I; Agora XXX, p. 216, no. 536, pl. 56; Noble 1988, p. 153, figs. 239240. Mid 4th century B.C. p.H.: 0.107; p.L.: 0.245; Diam. (body, est.): ca. 0.280; Diam. (drawhole): 0.012-0.013; p.L. (A12a and A12b): 0.261. Reconstructed from four joining frr. preserving complete test-piece.37 Although there is no clear paint preserved on the edges, all the edges appear to have been cut. The reserved surfaces have fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4, shading to light brown 7.5YR 6/4, except where the paint has peeled on the interior and is fired gray. The central figure in the iconographic composition, the "goddess rising ( A p h r ~ d i t e [ ? ] ) , " ~ ~

is in added white, with details, such A12b (P 25582a bis) Fig. 4.5

as her fingers and necklace, in added

gold/yellow (cf. A19). Although the Test-piece fragments cut from

lower wall on the exterior has been bell-hater.

painted solid, many other parts of Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, fr. H,

the figured composition that should pl. 16;Agora XXX, p. 216, no. 536,

have been painted are not. This, pl. 56 (left); Noble 1988, p. 153,

coupled with the fact that part of the figs. 239-240.

upper preserved body on interior was Mid 4th century B.C.

-

35. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, nos. H and I, pl. 16. Comments in square brackets [ ] are mine. 36.Agora XXX, p. 216, no. 536. 37. For several years A12a and A12b were joined, although the point of contact was so small that the fragments eventually broke apart, with the result that one of the fragments of A12b is currently joined with A12a. 38.AgoraXXX, p. 216.

236

CHAPTER 4

--. .

Figure 4.5. A12a and A12b: various views, exterior and interior p.H.: 0.080; pL.: 0.125; p.L. (A12a and A12b joined): 0.261. Now six joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including very small part of one edge (where it joins with A12a); no draw-hole or other edges preserved. Scars survive at the top of the fragment indicating the of a horizontal handle, now lost. The fragment is not as well fired as is noted in Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, since the clay body has fired gray, although paint and reserved surfaces are well fired. Reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.SYR 714. Test-piece cut from the same original vessel as A12a, A13. A13 (P 25582b)

Fig. 4.6

Test-piece fragment cut from bell-hater. Agora XXX, p. 216, no. 536 (not illustrated). Mid 4th century B.C. p.H.: 0.073; p.W.: 0.153. Although there are no clearly preserved edges or draw-hole, the piece is clearly unfinished and is almost certainly a test-piece. Presumed to have been a testpiece cut from the same hater as A12a and A12b; this cannot be

established with certainty, though it seems most likely. Reserved surfaces and breaks fired close to reddish yellow 5YR 616-7/6. Piece optimally fired: painted black, with a good sheen. Mantel figure(s) on exterior (part of one preserved), with what appears to be a large aryballos behind. At extreme left a small, unidentified detail in added white (referred to as a "little bit of a bouhanion" by Moore). The reserved area, clearly unfinished, between this and the mantel figure is above the handle (the scar of the lost handle is preserved at the lower central portion of the fragment). Interior painted solid, except for the uppermost part, which is reserved. Test-piece probably cut from the same vessel as A12a and A12b. A14 (P 25583a)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut from bell-hater. Agora XXX, p. 215, no. 529 (not illustrated). Ca. 350 B.C. p.H.: 0.023; p.W.: 0.042; Diarn. (draw-hole): 0.011-0.012. Fr. of test-piece cut fiom wall, near rim, of bell-hater. Approxi-

~i~~ 4.6. ~ 1 3merior : and interior

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.7. Athenian red-figured test-pieces, Athens, Agora: A14A20, interior and exterior

mately one-third of draw-hole preserved; no clear edges, except for draw-hole edge, which is partially painted. Clay body reduced (gray); reserved surfaces, partially reoxidized, fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Paint black, with a good sheen. Exterior: portion of floral decoration (laurel) near rim (unfinished). Preserved interior painted solid. Probably cut from the same vessel as A15. A15 (P 25583b)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut fiom bell-hater. Agora XXX, p. 215, no. 529 (not illustrated). Ca. 350 B.C. p.H.: 0.067; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.012. Fr. of test-piece cut from wall of large open vessel (probably bellhater), and perhaps the same original vessel as A14 (P 25583a). About onethird to one-half of draw-hole and portion of one edge (top left when viewed fiom exterior) preserved. Clay body reduced (gray>;reserved surfaces partially reoxidized as A14.

23 7

Paint black. Exterior: small portion of drapery (or feathers of a wing); relief lines quite flat. Preserved interior painted solid. Probably cut from the same vessel as A14. A16 (P 25584)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut fiom bell-hater. Agora XXX, p. 215, no. 531 (not illustrated). Ca. 350 B.C. p.H.: 0.028; p.W.: 0.085; D i m . (draw-hole): 0.015-0.016. Fr. of test-piece cut from rim and upper body of bell-hater. About one-half of draw-hole preserved; rim forms one edge, and another edge is indicated by paint (lower left on side opposite draw-hole when viewed from the exterior). Rolled rim; small ridge on exterior immediately below. Clay body at breaks reduced (gray); surfaces and edges mostly reoxidized, fired as Al4-A15. Paint black, with a good sheen. Exterior: portion of floral decoration (laurel wreath) below rim. Preserved interior, rim top, and much of drawhole edge painted solid.

CHAPTER

A17 (P 25585)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut from bellhater. Agora XXX, p. 211, no. 486 (not illustrated). First quarter of 4th century B.C. p H . : 0.071; p.W.: 0.84. Fr. of test-piece cut from body, near rim, of bell-hater. Portion of draw-hole preserved at upper left (when viewed from exterior), and two lower edges indicated by paint. Clay body at breaks, and on those parts of surface where paint has ~ e e l e dreduced , (gray); elsewhere reserved surfaces and edges mostly reoxidized, fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint much peeled on interior and parts of exterior; fired black, rather dull. Relief lines for drapery. Exterior: design not fully finished; upper part of cloaked youth, wrapped in himation, facing right; possible box (cista) on wall to right. Most of interior, including small parts of both edges painted; lower part of interior reserved, but only a thin strip. A18 (P 25586)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut from bell-hater. Agora XXX p. 215, no. 530 (not illustrated). Ca. 350 B.C. p.H.: 0.048; p.W.: 0.060; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.011-0.012. Fr. of test-piece cut from body of bell-hater. About one-half of drawhole and portion of one likely edge (that to the right, opposite the drawhole, indicated by the color of firing) preserved. Clay body at breaks reduced (gray); reserved surfaces and likely edge ~ a r t i a lreoxidized, l~ fired close to light brown 7.5YR 6/4, approaching very pale brown and light yellowish brown 10YR 7/4-6/4. Paint black, rather dull. Relief lines for drapery. Exterior: part of standing draped figure (woman?); peserved interior painted solid. A19 (P 25587)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece fragment cut from bell-hater. A R P , p. 1454, no. 24; Agora XXX, p. 215, no. 525 (not illustrated).

4

Ca. 350 B.C. pH.: 0.050; P.W.: 0.070; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.017. Fr. of test-piece cut from body, near rim, of bell-hater. About onethird of draw-hole and portion of two likely edges preserved (the lower edges opposite the draw-hole, indicated by manner of firing). Clay body at breaks reduced (gray); reserved surfaces and edges mostly reoxidized, fired close to pink and light reddish brown 5YR 6/4-7/4 and pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint black, mostly with a good sheen; details in added white. Male figure (horseman) wearingpetasos in added white. Preserved interior painted solid. The fragment is listed by Beazley in ARV2, p. 1454, attributed to the Filottrano Painter. The entry in full reads: "24. Athens, Agora, P 25587, fr., from Athens. A, (horseman: raised right hand, petasos, and part of the head remain: as the second Dioskouros on the last)."39I cannot see the "part of another figure behind him" referred to by Moore.

A20 (P 25588)

Fig. 4.7

Test-piece frr. cut from bellhater. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, no. G, ~ 116;40 . Agora XXX, p. 215, no. 528 (not illustrated). Ca. 350 B.C. p.H.: 0.57; p.W.: 0.082; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.012-0.013. Two joining frr. preserving good portion of test-~iece,cut from body of bell-hater. About one-half of drawhole and three possible edges preserved. If the top, bottom, and right side are indeed edges, then as much as one-half or more of the test-piece survives. Piece optimally fired; reserved surfaces, including all possible edges and the obvious break, evenly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. The paint is an excellent black; brown/reddish brown for a few of the dilute lines on the exterior. Relief lines on exterior lower right are extremely flat. Part of cloaked figure; design unfinished(?). According to Oakley (pers. comm.), there is a diptych (writing slate) to the left of the figure.

39.The second Dioskouros on the last refers toARV2, p. 1454, no. 23 (= Cambridge 43.6). Beazley does not refer to the added white, nor to the fact that this fragment is a test-piece. 40. Farnsworth described the piece as follows: "Fourth-century Attic drawpiece. This red-figured bell-krater fragment (one of several from a deposit in the Athenian Agora, 0 17:2; as also H and I) is from the upper wall toward the rim and is decorated with part of a cloaked figure, very coarsely rendered, with some lines to the left. It is probably from a pot spoiled before finishing, for the boy's head is drawn very high up and the lower edge is in part cut. The withdrawing hole, unglazed, is about half preserved at the left. The inner surface is completely covered with a good black glaze and the black glaze used for the figure is equally good (well sintered); the fabric is pinkish buff (oxidized)."

TEST-PIECES

239

I N LATER PERIODS

Other Deposits T h e r e are n o certain test-pieces noted among the published black-figure XXIII. Only one from the area of the Classical Athenian Agora in Agora piece is mentioned as a possibility. I n discussing the undersize Panathenaics, Moore and Pease Philippides state: "Bothmer has suggested orally that these undersized but inscribed Panathenaics could be tkst vases instead of prizes awarded in the games."" T h i s is highly unlikely, and a number of scholars have suggested alternative, and more convincing, explanation^.^^ I n addition t o the red-figured test-pieces from deposit 0 17:2,a handful of possible, but fragmentary test-pieces were recovered from scattered contexts. I n each case, the deposit in question yielded only a single test-piece, and there was certainly n o consistent pattern of potters'waste as there was in earlier periods in the area. T h e following pieces are all previously published in Agora XXX.43 -

A21 (P 17882)

41. Agora XXIII, p. 13, note 4. 42. E.g., Vos 1981; for further discussion see Agora XXIII, pp. 12-17; cf. Tiverios 1977. For Panathenaic amphoras as competition samples and as xccpcx6~iyya~a, see Valavanis 1997; for Panathenaics see, most recently, Bentz 1998. 43. Since each fragment was found in the general area of a given grid reference, and not in a specific closed deposit, their respective deposits are not listed in the deposit summaries in Agora XXX, pp. 359-367. 44. Section 00 no. 142. Late fill on Asteroskopeion Street. 45. Section A 168 02/IA at 60. 46. Section KTA no. 440. From the Areiopagos dump: Agora Excavations, exact provenance unknown.

-

Fig. 4.8

Body fragment unfinished bellkrater; possible test-piece. Area of D-E 16.44 Agora XXX, p. 205, no. 431, pl. 51. Probably late 5th or early 4th century B.C. p.H.: 0.055; p.W.: 0.075 Single fragment, broken on all sides, with no draw-hole, nor any clear edges; named a test-piece by Moore because decoration on exterior is unfinished. Piece almost optimally fired, except that part of the paint on the exterior has fired brown. Decoration on exterior described as follows: "Rider (his legs with boots; part of body, right foreleg of mount) to right. Preliminary sketch." Preserved interior painted solid. his piece is best seen as a fragment of an unfinished krater; possible, but uncertain, test-piece.

A22 (P 342)

Fig. 4.8

Floor fragment unfinished plate (type B). Likely test-piece. Area of G 13.45 ARVZ, p. 1256, no. 5; LezziHafter 1988, p. 353, no. 298, pl. 187:f; Agora XXX, p. 293, no. 1201, pl. 113. Ca. 430-420 B.C. p.L.: 0.053. Single fr., broken on all sides, preserving small portion of floor and underside of plate. No draw-hole, nor are clear edges preserved, but the fragment is almost certainly a test-piece,

not only because of the decoration on the interior, which is unfinished, but also because of the "splotches of paint on underside" and interior, which is test-paint, applied irregularly. The paint has not fired red as stated by Moore, but mostly black, thinning to brown where more dilute. Piece almost optimally fired. Decoration described by Moore as follows: "Interior: youth (most of head, chest, right arm) to left, right arm outstretched, a himation over his left shoulder." The area of paint to the left of the youth is likely test-paint, which is most thickly applied toward the center. The fragment, referred to as a trial-piece by Beazley, is attributed to near the Eretria Painter (ARVZ, p. 1256, no. 5); Beazley lists the fragment as a stemless cup or plate.

A23 (P 25812)

Fig. 4.8

Floor fragment unfinished stemless cup; unlikely test-piece. Area O ~ A - v1 i 2 8 . ~ ~ ARVZ, p. 1527, no. 14, where it is assigned to the Group of Vienna 116; AgoraXXX, p. 315, no. 1396, pl. 129. Second quarter of the 4th century B.C. p.L.: 0.098; Diam. (base): 0.080. Single fr. preserving most of the base, but only a small portion of the body. No draw-hole, nor any edges. Although stated to be a possible testpiece by virtue of the background not being completely painted, there is nothing- about the piece to recommend it as a test-piece. A

240

CHAPTER 4

A22, interior and exterior

Piece optimally fired. Decoration described by Moore as follows: "Interior: youth (feet missing) to right, wrapped in a himation. Background not glazed (try-piece[?]).

Two reserved lines on tondo border.. . .Two bands alternating with two concentric circles on underside of floor."

Figure 4.8. Athenian red-figured test-pieces, Athens, Agora: A21423

In Agora XII, under the general heading of "imported miscellaneous shapes," reference is made to a fragmentaryopen pot dating to the second quarter of the 4th century B.C. In describingthe vessel, SparkesandTalcott write: "No parallels have, however, appeared for the shapeor for the decoration of the walls, and the pot looks as if it had been spoiled in making or used as a try-piece, hence improbable as an imp~rt."~' Made of coarse, thick-walled fabric that is poorly fired, there is nothing about the vessel to establish it as a test-piece, although the pot may well have been intended to serve some industrial use, as Sparkes and Talcott suggest.

The Hellenistic pottery found in the excavations conducted on the Pnyx included a good deal of potters' debri~."~ Indeed, all of the Hellenistic pottery and associated small finds from the Pnyx published by Roger Edwards are of importance for our understanding of the production of fine pottery in Hellenistic Athens.49In dealing with the context of this material, Edwards, in his introduction, provides the following overview; he writes:

All the fragments of bowls presented here, and a large majority of the moulds, come from a deposit of earth that overlay the unfinished foundations of the East Stoa on the hilltop to the south of the Assembly Place. Since no trace of kilns or other fmed features of a pottery-making establishment came to light in the vicinity, it may be assumed that the mass of broken pottery and moulds was brought from some distance to be used together with earth in a levelling operation possibly, though by no means certainly,to be connectedwith some adjustment of the city wall which passed through this area. Although the deposit was laid down in layers, the stratificationwas of no value for our immediate purpose since bowls which can be recognized on evidence from other sites as among the earliest and the latest of the type were found indiscriminately together.'Nor were they accompaniedwithin this deposit by external evidence of chronological value.The few moulds which

47. Agora X I , p. 357, no. 1724, fig. 13, pl. 79. 48. For the excavations on the Pnyx, see Kourouniotes and Thompson 1932; the small finds are published in detail in two volumes: Davidson and Thompson 1943;Talcott et al. 1956; the Hellenistic material is presented in Edwards 1956. See also the various papers in ForsCn and Stanton 1996. 49. The significanceof this potters' debris has been discussed in Edwards 1956 and in Agora XXII, esp. pp. 4-5.

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

were found elsewhere than in the area of the East Stoa lay in disturbed contexts; the majority of them had probably drifted down the hill slopes from the great deposit over the East S t ~ a . ~ ~ The material published by Edwards included molds (57 examples in all),51pottery wasters," stacking rings,53and test-pieces (see below). O f these, only the test-pieces are presented here, primarily for comparison with the earlier examples of the Early Iron Age and Classical periods, and to show continuity of practice over almost a millennium of pottery production in Athens. Since all of the pieces are fully and admirably described by Edwards, my entries focus only on those aspects of particular interest to this study; further details, particularly on shape, design, and iconography, are found in Edwards; the order of presentation of the test-pieces follows that of the original p u b l i c a t i ~ nI. have ~ ~ also added another fragment published by Edwards, but not as a test-piece (A30). Having gone through all of the Hellenistic bowls from the Pnyx in September 1996, I could find no obvious test-pieces that were overlooked in the original publication, although it is possible that a few of the more fragmentary examples were test-pieces. Much of the remainder of the material represents clear production discards. A30 is either a waster or, conceivably, a test-piece. O n virtually all of the Hellenistic test-pieces presented below, the fabric is reduced and appears as gray in the breaks. The reserved surfaces, however, are usually fired a dirty gray brown, close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 6/2-7/2, sometimes closer to light brown 7.5YR 6/4. Such a fired color is standard for the following pieces, unless otherwise noted. This suggests that all of the test-pieces were withdrawn from the kiln sometime during the reduction stage, or else early in the reoxidization stage, and that none of the pieces is completely reoxidized. A24 (PN-P 442)

50. Edwards 1956, p. 84; the excavation of the East Stoa on the Pnyx and its description is fully published in Thompson and Scranton 1943, esp. pp. 280-286. For further discussion, see Agora XXIX, pp. 20-23; Rotroff 1996; Rotroff and Camp 1996. 51. See the list in Edwards 1956, p. 109 (those pieces marked "M"). 52. Edwards 1956, p. 87 and discussion under nos. 59,68 (among others). 53. Edwards 1956, p. 108, nos. 121122, fig. 5, pl. 50; p. 89, fig. 3 for use; also Agora XXII, pp. 4-5; Papadopoulos 1992, pp. 214-215, fig. 7, pl. 50:b-c. 54. Edwards 1956, pp. 91-92,95, 101-102,104, nos. 1-2,19, 71,87,98.

Fig. 4.9

Test-piece fragment, cut from moldmade bowl; rim and wall fragment. Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 91, no. 1, pl. 35. D.H.: 0.071. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from the rim and upper wall of bowl. Portion of likely draw-hole preserved immediately to left of Athena's head; likely edge on opposite side of the fragment (right side when viewed from the exterior). Clay body at breaks fired gray; gray-brown on likely edges. Paint much peeled, especially on exterior, variously fired black, brown, and gray. Interior painted solid, so too the exterior except for the top right

corner of the fragment, which never appears to have been painted. Piece reduced, but not reoxidized.

A25 (PN-P 441 [fr. a]; PN-P 394 [fr. b])

Fig. 4.9

Two fragmentary test-pieces cut from moldmade bowl. Fr. a: Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11; fr. b: Pnyx, East Stoa, northeast corner, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 92, no. 2, pl. 35. Fr. a: p.H.: 0.065; Diam. (drawhole): 0.014-0.015. Fr. b: p.H.: 0.028 (most of the piece is resting surface); max. p.L.: 0.084; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.014. Fr. a: two joining frr. preserving about one-half of test-piece, including about one-half of draw-hole and likely edges on all sides except the

CHAPTER

4

Figure 4.9. Athenian Hellenistic test-pieces &om the Pnyx, Athenian Agora: A24430

one preserving draw-hole, cut from upper wall of bowl. Draw-hole edge and the likelv side edges fired grayibrown, as opposed to the light gray of the obvious breaks. Paint much ~eeledon interior and exterior, variously fired from black through dark reddish brown. Piece reduced. but not reoxidized. Fr. b: two joining frr. preserving about one-half of a second test-piece, cut from the base and lower body of the same original vessel as fr. a. About one-half of draw-hole preserved, as are the edges, indicated by firing, on all sides except those framing the draw-hole. Fabric, paint, and firing as fr. a. '2

A26 (PN-P 434a-d)

Fig. 4.9

Four test-pieces cut from moldmade bowl. Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 95, nos. 19a19d, pl. 38. Frr. a-d all appear to have been cut from the same damaged bowl.

Fr. a: p.H.: 0.021; max. L.: 0.098; Diarn. (draw-hole): 0.0160.017. Six joining frr. preserving virtually complete test-piece, except for minor chips, cut from the base of a bowl. Draw-hole cut into center of medallion. Edges deliberately cut, but with no visible paint on edges. Production smears visible in clay on interior. Paint on interior and exterior much peeled, fired from black through reddish brown on exterior, black on interior. Fabric and paint reduced, but not reoxidized. Fr. b: p.H.: 0.058; Diam. (drawhole): 0.0164.017. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, including two edges, indicated by paint, and about one-third of draw-hole, cut from the rim and upper body of bowl. Clay body fired gray. Paint variously fired from reddish brown through black, though much peeled; paint on interior much cracked.55 Piece reduced. Fr. c: p.H.: 0.030; p.L.: 0.045.

55. Edwards' comment (p. 95) that "the glaze on b) is grayish and has peeled so as to expose in part the clay and in part a previous coat of glaze (?)" appears to be mistaken in that it is unlikely there were ever two or more distinct coats of paint.

243

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including part of draw-hole and minor part of one edge. Fabric fired gray. Virtually no preserved paint on interior; paint on exterior mostly peeled, fired black through brown. Piece reduced. Fr. d: max. p.L.: 0.044. Two joining frr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from body toward lower wall of bowl. One minor possible edge; possible but uncertain draw-hole. Clay body fired gray. Paint largely peeled on interior and exterior, fired reddish brown wherever preserved.

A27 (PN-P 393)

Fig. 4.9

Test-piece cut from base of moldmade bowl. Pnyx, East Stoa, northeast corner, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 101, no. 71, pl. 45; Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, no. C, pl. 16.j6 p H . : 0.022; max. L.: 0.087; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.015. Four joining frr. preserving complete test-piece cut from the base of a bowl. Draw-hole cut into center of medallion. Fabric reduced, mostly fired close to pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/2. Paint largely peeled, especially on interior, mostly fired a dull black wherever preserved. Piece reduced, but not reoxidized. 56. Farnsworth (1960, p. 75)

describes the piece as follows: "This draw piece found on the Pnyx is a base and wall fragment [of a Megarian bowl] decorated with leaves and tendrils. The medallion was a gorgoneion, surrounded by a raised line and a groove from which spring tiny leaves. A lifting hole was cut through the medallion while the clay was soft. On the wall lotus petals alternate with elaborate tendrils. The fabric is soft, pale gray clay; the glaze is a dull black and largely peeled, more so on the inner surface than on the outer."

A28 (PN-P 443)

Fig. 4.9

Test-piece cut from base of moldmade bowl.

Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 102, no. 87, pl. 47. p H . : 0.014; max. L.: 0.076; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.015. Six joining frr. preserving virtually complete test-piece, except for minor chips, cut from the base of a bowl. Draw-hole cut into medallion, slightly off-center. Traces of paint on several edges. Clay reduced (gray). Paint, somewhat peeled on interior and exterior, variously fired from black through red. Exterior painted solid. Irregularly applied swirl of paint near center of floor on interior, with smaller spots and dribbles of paint elsewhere. Paint mostly reduced, but inadequately sintered.

A29 (PN-P 430)

Fig. 4.9

Fragment of probable test-piece cut from base of moldmade bowl. Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11. Edwards 1956, p. 104, no. 98, pl. 48. p H . : 0.026; max. p.L.: 0.069. Three joining frr. preserving small portion of probable, but uncertain, test-piece. Fragments preserve small portion of base and lower wall of bowl. No draw-hole or any clear edges preserved, though, as stated by Edwards: "the condition of the clay and glaze makes it very probable that this fr. is part of a testpiece." Clay body fired gray. Paint on exterior much peeled, fired from black through brown; brown to reddish broGn and better adhering on interior. piece reduced, but not reoxidized.

T h e following piece (A30) is described by Edwards as follows: T h e medallion is an eight-petalled rosette surrounded by a raised band, a groove and a row of beading, and one of tiny painted leaves with hatched borders, points down. Above are the lower parts of a row of ribbed leaves. A s noted above . . . one of t h e four joining frr. which make u p this piece is fired black, the others red o n the exterior, brown to black o n the interior. T h e red-glazed frr. must have been separated

244

CHAPTER

4

from the black after breakage and subjected to refiring; possibly the result of a breakage in the kiln. Such a stark color differentiation between directly joining fragments can only be the result of variances in firing. The two most common probabilities are: (1)breakage in the kiln, or (2) breakage and subsequent burning of part of the bowl sometime later. With regard to the second possibility, it is very common to see such variances in pottery that has been broken and burned as part of a cremation funerary ritual." In most such cases, however, the fire-affected fragment is normally gray or else blackened, which is not the case here. Given the quantity of potters' debris from this deposit, it is more likely that A30 represents a production discard or waster that had broken in the kiln, with its various parts differently fired. An alternative scenario is that the joining fragments were intentionally cut as separate test-pieces that were then withdrawn from the kiln at different times. Such a possibility seems less likely given the fact that there are no clear edges whatsoever, nor any trace of a draw-hole. Be that as it may, the fragment fired black is optimally fired and can be taken as a useful standard that the potters were aiming to achieve. A30 (PN-P 427)

Fig. 4.9

Production discard fragment, preserving base of moldmade bowl. Pnyx, East Stoa, east end, layer 11. Edwards 1956,p. 99, no. 59, pl. 43.

p H . : 0.017; max. p.L.: 0.080. Clay body on all joining frr. fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4. Paint variously fired, as described above.

CORINTH The Potters' Quarter at Corinth, in the western part of the city, has produced a wealth of evidence firmly establishing that the pottery known as Protocorinthian and Corinthian was made continuously at the site.j8Such evidence, from at least the Late Geometric period through the Middle Corinthian period and then again in the 5th century B.c., includes wasters and other pottery discards, including misfired and defective vases, trialpieces, and so on.59There is even evidence to suggest that at Corinth, as in Early Iron Age Athens, and elsewhere, pottery was made in the same workshops as a variety of terracotta figurines and other objects.60 The site itself lies about a mile to the west of the presumed ancient agora of the city, and is situated on a long, tongue-shaped plateau. The latter represents one of a series of ridges to the west and northwest of Acr~corinth.~lThe site is skirted by two ravines to the east and west, which meet at the northern end of the plateau. In her introduction to the presentation of the material from the Potters' Quarter, Agnes Newhall Stillwell notes that although there is no water now in the upper part of the east ravine, a fairly good spring emerges further down. She also notes that most of the clay used in the Potters' Quarter probably came from the west side of the hill, while other clay beds were located further to the west.'j2Indeed,

57. A classic case in point involves much of the pottery from the pyre debris of the so-called Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady: Smithson 1968; Liston and Papadopoulos forthcoming. 58. See Corinth XV, i; Corinth XV, ii; Corinth XV, iii; Williams 1984. For the Corinthian pottery industry see further Wilisch 1892; Salmon 1984. 59. Corinth XV, iii, pp. 246-253. 60. Corinth XV, i, p. 46; Corinth XV, iii, p. 246; the terracotta figurines are presented in detail in Corinth XV, ii. 61. Corinth XV, i, p. 3. 62. Corinth XV, i, p. 3.

TEST-PIECES

63. Corinth XV, i, p. 3. 64. Newhall 1931, esp. pp. 6-10; the test-piece is illustrated on p. 8, fig. 3, the work of the "apprentice" on p. 9, fig. 4. With regard to the latter, Newhall writes: "whose decoration is without doubt the work of an apprentice, probably his first effort, to judge by the result."This statement is perhaps a little unfair, for the quality of draughtmanship is excellent compared to some South Italian red-figured pottery of the 4th century B.C. 65. Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, pl. 16, nos. B (KP-1383),F (KP-1383),and J (KP-1389);nos. B and J were cut from the same original vessel and are now joined together (C7). 66. Corinth XV, iii. 67. Corinth XV, iii, pp. 246-253.

I N LATER PERIODS

245

Stillwell believed that a major contributing factor to the collapse of so much of the rock ledge at the top of the plateau was the quarrying of clay out of the side of the hill.63 Further research on the nature of these clay deposits and the firing of Corinthian pottery is being undertaken by the current Director of the Corinth Excavations, Guy Sanders. I n 1931 Newhall [Stillwell] published a single test-piece from the Corinthian Kerameikos and made reference to various other defective vases, including wasters, as well the work of a potter whom she considered an apprentice, a conclusion based on the quality of the decoration of a ~ k y p h o s Some . ~ ~ thirty years later, in 1960, Farnsworth published a total of three test-pieces from the Potters' Quarter at C ~ r i n t hThis . ~ ~ represented the tip of a very large iceberg. I t was not until 1984, well after the untimely death of Newhall [Stillwell], that the pottery from the Potters' Quarter was published in full.'j6I n this definitive publication of over 2,300 pieces, Jack Benson was concerned with all of the pottery from the Potters' Quarter, not just certain aspects of it. Consequently, the test-pieces, wasters, and other potters' discards were presented throughout the volume, although many of these were collected and presented as chapter VI on "defective vases."'j7 T h e character of the potters' debris from the Corinthian Kerameikos is such that it deserves a separate, detailed, study of its own, which is well beyond the scope of the present study. I t is therefore important to stress that the following catalogue does not aim to be a complete list of Corinthian test-pieces, let alone other potters' debris, but is highly selective, focusing primarily on some of the more interesting test-pieces. T h e list is based on that provided by Benson. I n the index to Corinth XV, iii, Benson listed 16 "try-pieces." Several other test-pieces, including one of the three published by Farnsworth, are not specifically indexed as test-pieces, but appear in Benson's catalogue. These are either listed or briefly mentioned below. All of the pieces in Corintb XV, iii are fully described by Benson. Consequently, my entries focus only on those aspects of particular interest to this study; further details, particularly on shape, design, and iconography, are found in Benson. T h e order of presentation of the test-pieces follows that of the original publication, beginning with the indexed test-pieces, followed by those that were not indexed. Pieces indexed by Benson as "try-pieces" that are clearly not are listed separately below.

C l (KP-884)

Fig. 4.10

Test-piece(s) cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. East Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 113, no. 542, pl. 26. pH.: 0.124. Reconstructed from many joining frr., and partly restored in plaster, preserving large part of vessel, except for handles. Directly joining pieces variously fired, some oxidized,

others partially reduced. It is not clear whether the preserved joining fragments represent one large test-piece, or two or more broken and restored test-pieces. The problem, in part, is that there is no preserved draw-hole(s) and the modern restoration obscures many of the likely or possible edges. That the fragments represent at least one testpiece is clear because of paint on one

of the visible edges.

CHAPTER

246

4

C2 The original vessel appears to have been at least partly distorted or warped during manufacture. Paint variously fired from black through red, mostly a dirty smoky brown. The piece is compared by Benson to C12 (KP-2266) and others. C2 (KP-1924)

Fig. 4.10

Test-piece fragment cut from lid. Middle Corinthian. Outside South Long Building. Corinth XV, iii, p. 236, no. 1300, pl. 54. H.: 0.014; est. Diam. (lid rim): 0.090. Single fr. preserving small portion of flanged lid and about onehalf of small draw-hole (Diam.: 0.007-0.008). Clay fired gray; paint black. C 3 (KP-1388)

Fig. 4.10

Test-piece cut from base of pointed aryballos. Late Protocorinthian. Road Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 248, no. 1368, pl. 57. p.H.: 0.030. Single fr. preserving portion of lower body of aryballos. Noncanonical decoration. Clay body and reserved surfaces reduced, fired gray. Paint fired black, thinning to dark reddish brown at one point. Three broad, irregular vertical stripes, with large horizontal stripes toward top, near break, conceivablypart of vertically and horizontally intersecting test-paint.

C 4 (KP-1344) Figs. 4.11-4.12 Test-pieces cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1385, pl. 57. Fr. a: p.H.: 0.098; p.L.: 0.112. Five joining frr. preserving greater part of test-piece, cut from the rim and upper body of kotyle. Clear edges, indicated by paint, on all four sides (rim and remaining cut edges). No preserved draw-hole, nor any real space for one. The piece is virtually complete, except for the top left corner (when viewed from the exterior) and small chips. I t is therefore ~ossiblethat the piece was withdrawn by its handle, now lost. Benson states: "Another group of sherds, KP 1385, of very similar kind and decoration weie thought by the excavator to belong to the same vase." The various fragments are illustrated in Figs. 4.11-4.12. Body rising to vertical rim, with thin. rounded I&. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to very pale brown lOYR 8/4, in parts closer to pink 7.5YR 8/4. Paint mostly thickly applied, very cracked, with a tendency to flake at points. Paint fired black, though red to reddish brown where most cracked. Irregular blobs of test-paint on interior and exterior. Piece virtually optimally fired.

C5 (KP-1391)

Fig. 4.13

Test-pieces (probably more than one) cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I.

Figure 4.10. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C1-C3

TEST-PIECES

247

I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.11. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C4, C7, C19, C21, C22, C25 -~

if d@ e

-_

A

I,?.

ykw

CS.' . e , >" $

r,

-.\7k% . --.

--

--

Figure 4.12. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C4

.

-

248

CHAPTER

4

interior and exterior

F

Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1387, pl. 57. p.H. (illustrated frr.): 0.090. Many frr., joining and nonjoining, preserving various parts of body and rim, but nothing of the base. Only main piece illustrated. Possible draw-hole at middle of right side of illustrated fragments. Clear drawhole on one of the nonjoining (not illustrated) fragments (Diam.: 0.012). Paint on some of the edges of the nonillustrated fragments. Clay and surfaces mostly fired gray. Paint peeled in places, cracked elsewhere, fired black. Canonical decoration on exterior. Broad, irregular sweeps of paint, both vertical and diagonal, on interior (noncanonical).

C6 (KP-1428)

Fig. 4.14

Test-piece fragment cut from body of kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1389, pl. 58. p.H.: 0.058; p.W.: 0.064. Single fi. preserving portion of test-piece, including parts of two edges, more or less painted solid, and about one-half of draw-hole, the preserved edge of which is also painted solid. Almost vertical wall. Clay body and reserved sur-

faces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/48/4. Paint on interior, exterior, and edges fired red; dark brown approaching black only on small part of lower body on interior. Paint slightly peeled on exterior only. Exterior perhaps originally canonically decorated, or at least partially so, but with test-painted added. Three very thin bands on lower body, in part painted over. Irregularly applied paint above. Interior painted solid. Benson describes a panther on the exterior, which is difficult to make out. C7 (KP-1383)

Figs. 4.11,4.15

Two vitudy complete testpieces cut from rim and upper body of convex pyxis (now joined together). Middle Corinthian. East Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 251, no. 1393, pl. 58; Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, nos. B (reduced) and F (oxidized),pl. 16. p.H.: 0.061; Diam. (draw-holes): 0.011. Two test-pieces cut from the same pyxis and now joined; both virtually complete, with draw-hole at center of each. One of the test-pieces is reduced, the other oxidized; neither is optimally fired. Paint on all visible edges of both pieces.

Figure 4.14. Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C6

TEST-PIECES

I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.15. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C7

Figure 4.16. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C8 Upper body curving in to knobbed rim, flat on top, with chamfered inside and outside edges. On the reduced test-piece ciav body and reserved surfaces fired gray; paint black to dirty reddish brown. o n the oxidized G ~ t - ~ i e clay c e body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4; paint mostly red, but in limited parts fired black. Broad, irregular stripes of test-paint on interior and exterior of both pieces. It is clear that the original pyxis was damaged " and then cut into a number of test-pieces, each of which was subsequently individually painted. C8 (KP-1052a, b)

68. KP-1448 and KP-1449 were not separately catalogued in CorinthXV, iii.

Fig. 4.16

At least three test-pieces (probably more), cut from a damaged vessel described as a bowl. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corintb XV, iii, p. 252, no. 1404, pl. 58. p.H (as reconstructed): 0.090; Diam. (base): 0.087; Diam. (drawholes): 0.013-0.014 and 0.019, respectively. Now reconstructed fiom many joining frr. One complete draw-hole

and another almost complete; possible remains of a third drawhole, only a very small portion of which is preserved. The base plate may have been a separate test-piece altogether. Paint extends over many of the visible breaks/edges, especially on the chipped sections of the underside. Flat disk base, with prominent groove on underside setting off foot. Rounded body, c u ~ n in g to plain rim with chamfered lip. This chamfer is more likely the cut edge of the original vessel, rather than its rim. In describing the shape, Benson writes: "The shape is uncertain. It is not a common bowl type and looks somewhat like the body of a flatbottomed aryballos. If it was, the upper edge must have been trimmed away intentionally. Fragments of three or four flat-bottomed aryballoi which had been used as try-pieces were found in the East Deposit. Of these, KP 1448 and KP 1449 are similarly cross-hatched.n68 Clay body and reserved surfaces mostly fired close to pink 7.5YR 7/4; clay body at base, where thickest, fired light gray. Paint mostly fired black; red for part of one test-piece and very small

CHAPTER

.

4

Figure 4.17. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C9

-

s

part of another. Exterior, including underside, crosshatched with broad, irregular bands. The separate testpieces (three certainly, a fourth if the base plate was a separate test-piece, as seems likely) were painted after they were cut, as the paint extends over some of the edges and the crosshatching of the various pieces, subsequently joined, does not correspond. Interior reserved. Cf. Robertson 1948, p. 69, no. 359 (from Ithaka), pl. 22. C9 (KP-2394a, b)

Fig. 4.17

Two test-pieces cut from the same (or two virtually identical) small to medium cylindrical o i n o ~ h o e . ~ ~ Late Corinthian 111. From north of stele-shrine A. CorinthXV, iii, p. 253, no. 1409 (not illustrated). Fr. a: p.H.: 0.030; Diam. (shoulder): 0.052; Diam. (neck, at preserved break): 0.017.

Fr. b: p.H.: 0.019; Diam. (base): 0.056; Diam. (draw-hole): 0.0140.015. Fr. a consists of four joining frr. preserving shoulder, small portion of lower neck, which served as the draw-hole, and lower handle. Fr. b is a single fragment preserving complete, or almost complete, test-piece cut from the base. Flat disk base, with outside edge articulated from body and slightly beveled. Tall cylindrical body; sharply carinated shoulder, made separately from the body; neck becoming vertical. Vertical handle, oval in section. Clay body and reserved surfaces on both fragments fired close to pink 7 . m 7/4-814. Paint on both fragments variously fired from black, through reddish brown to red. Paint not thickly applied, only slightly peeled on interior of fr. b. Mostly canonical

69. The upper part of the vessel resembles some lekythoi.

=5'

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.18. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C10

decoration on exterior: thick bands or areas painted solid on body alternating with thinner bands. Strokes or very thin petals on shoulder, emanating from band encircling neck. Five irregular blobs of test-paint on interior of fr. a; three or four similar blobs on interior of fr. b, as well as on underside. Paint on underside very dilute, fired red, almost an orange wash. Blobs of testpaint on interior extend onto the edges of fr. b and some of the edges of fr. a. For the type, see Corinth XV, iii, p. 194, no. 1025 (KP-118), pl. 45; Pemberton 1970,pp. 286-287, no. 40, pl. 69. Cf also Corinth XV, iii, p. 253, no. 1410 (KP-2557), which has a misshapen trefoil mouth and smears on interior and exterior. C10 (KP-257)

Fig. 4.18

Test-pieces (at least two) cut from aryballos. Early Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 284, no. 1548, pl. 63. H. (as restored): 0.091. Reconstructed from many joining frr. preserving much of body, but nothing of the neck, mouth, or handle; all missing parts restored in plaster. Vessel clearly cut into at least two test-pieces, indicated by two draw-holes (Diam.: 0.0110.012). Spherical body, with small depression at center of bottom. Exact form of neck, mouth, and handle uncertain. Clay body, visible only at spall on body, which was created by a large

Figure 4.19. Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C11

white inclusion, fired something like pink 7.5YR 7/4. Preserved body painted black. Body divided vertically by incised lines, which end at small depression at center of bottom. Broad added purple stripe on alternate sections (two solid black sections together on one side). The vessel must have been damaged during drying, perhaps with the neck, mouth, and handle breaking away, and was subsequently cut into at least two test-pieces, both of which appear to be optimally fired, or almost so. C l l (KV-1309)

Fig. 4.19

SmaWminiature handleless bowl, used as test-piece. Rectangular South Pit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 331, no. 1965, pl. 72. H.: 0.023; Diam. (base): 0.024; Diam. (rim): 0.044; Diam. (drawhole): 0.009-0.011. Intact, except for minor chip at rim. Draw-hole cut near center of underside. Flat disk base; body carinated, with shallow lower wall; tall, flaring upper wall, tapering toward plain rim with rounded lip. Shape similar to Corinth XV, iii, p. 331, no. 1962 (KV-751), pl. 72. Reserved surfaces fired close to white and very pale brown lOYR 8/2-8/3, almost white 2.SY 812 (classic Corinthian fabric). Paint mostly peeled, but clearly fired black wherever preserved. One side dipped vertically, as shown.

T h e following pieces, some not seen by me, are clearly test-pieces, as can be determined from their published descriptions and illustrations. For hrther details the reader is referred to the individual catalogue entries in Corinth XV, iii. C12 (KP-2266)

Fig. 4.20

Test-piece cut from kotyle; Middle Corinthian. East Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 113, no. 544, pl. 26. Draw-hole cut near center of test-piece.

C13 (KP-182)

Fig. 4.21

Kotyle used as test- or practicepiece. Early Protocorinthian/ Subgeometric. Northwest Angle Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 247, no. 1361, pl. 57; Boardman 1960, p. 88; Papadopoulos, Vedder, and Schreiber 1998,p. 513, fig. 2.

CHAPTER

252

.---

I

F

4

?.

q ~ l ' ~ ~ f [ f [ ~ ! @ ,~ ,\ ~ j ~ : *~ l ' a ~ 1

53,,-\*?? '

h.

,

*

-

,-

*

- &;m:

--+-

C12

Figure 4.20 (ref,). Corinthian testpieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C12, C14-Cl6 Figure 4.21 (helow). Corinthian testpiece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C13

C14 -*-= Y

Reconstructed from many joining fm.; missing handles and body fn: restored in plaster. The kotyle appears to have been damaged during manufacture and was subsequently used as a practicepiece for the use of a multiple brush. The fact that the vessel was fired indicates that it was also used as a test-piece. C14 (KP-1354)

Fig. 4.20

Test-piece cut from cup. Early Protocorinthian/Subgeometric. Pavement Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 248, no. 1365, p1.57. Part of rim dented. Paint on edge indicates test-piece. C15 (KP-1706)

Fig. 4.20

Probable test-piece cut from aryballos. Early Corinthian. Aryballos Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 249, no. 1374, pl. 57. Noncanonical decoration,which is unfinished, and a probable drawhole cut through the bottom indicate a test-piece. C16 (KP-1431)

Fig. 4.20

Test-piece cut from alabastron. Early Corinthian.

e

Well I.Corinth XV, iii, p. 249, no. 1376, pl. 57. Draw-hole cut through center of test-piece; paint on lower edge. C17 (KP-1430)

Fig. 4.22

Test-piece cut from neck and rim of alabastron. Early Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 249, no. 1377, p1.57. Paint on broken edge of rim (cf. Chapter 2,125). C18 (KP-1389a)

Fig. 4.22

Test-piece fragment cut from rim of kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Road Deposit. CorinthXV, iii, p. 249, no. 1381a, pl. 57; Farnsworth 1960, p. 75, no. J, pl. 16. The piece is described by Farnsworth as follows: "This fragment from the potters' quarter at Corinth is different from the others in that it has both black glaze and accessory red. All the round applications are black and all the elongated ones are red. The fabric is pinkish buEV7O In his description Benson notes that there are black spots and short red lines also on the interior (noncanonical decoration), but that these are rougher than those on the exterior.

70. The piece is published by Benson as Middle Corinthian and is not ProtoCorinthian as stated by Farnsworth. *enson the _terior frapent, and worth the interior.

TEST-PIECES

253

I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.22. A variety of Corinthian test-pieces and other production discards, Corinth, Potters' Quarter, some of which are catalogued here: C17-C18, C20, C23, C26

Figure 4.23. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C19-C20

-- *

a

C19 (KP-1339)

Figs. 4.11,4.23

Fragmentary test-piece cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1383, pl. 57. Noncanonical decoration on interior and exterior and paint on edges indicate test-piece. Broad irregular sweep of paint on interior of nonjoining fragment.

C20 (KP-1342)

-

.--

Figs. 4.22,4.23

Fragmentary test-piece cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1384, pl. 57. Described as "unfinished." Irregular daubs of paint on interior (noncanonicaldecoration) and on edges indicate test-piece. Likley draw-hole cut in center of fragment.

CHAPTER 4

254

Figure 4.24. Corinthian test-piece, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C21, interior and exterior I

C27

C26 C21 (KP-1356)

Figs. 4.11,4.24

Possible test-piece fragment cut from kotyle. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1386, pl. 57. Benson describes thin vertical strokes and row of dots on the interior (Fig. 4.24); the preserved exterior is canonically decorated. Such noncanonical decoration on the interior establishes the fragment as a test-piece. C22 (KP-1680)

Fig. 4.11

Test-piece cut from base of kotyle. Middle Corinthian. West edge of hi. Corinth XV, iii, p. 250, no. 1390, pl. 58. Virtually complete test-piece, with draw-hole cut in center of base and edges painted over. C23 (KP-2285)

Fig. 4.22

Lid fragments of unfinished pyxis, perhaps used as test-piece. Middle Corinthian. East Deposit. Corinth XV, iii, p. 251, no. 1396, pl. 58. Frr. of pyxis lid, with part of decoration on top unfinished; conceivably used as test-piece, though no draw-hole or any clear edges survive.

Cf. CorinthXV, iii, p. 291, no. 1591,pl. 64. C24 (KP-1427)

Fig. 4.25

Test-piece(s) cut from neck and rim of conical oinochoe. Middle Corinthian. Well I. CorinthXV, iii, p. 251, no. 1397, pl. 58. In describing the piece, Benson writes: "Broken edges of lip and handle painted black. . . Although the broken edges of both lip and handle are painted, they nevertheless fit together. The paint was doubtless used to mend the vase." Although it is highly unlikely that paint was used for mending, the paint on the broken edges would indicate a test-piece or parts of two test-pieces. C25 (KP-2304)

Figs. 4.11,4.25

Likely test-piece cut from neck and rim of round-bodied oinochoe. Middle Corinthian. East Deposit. CorinthXV, iii, pp. 251-252, no. 1398, pl. 58. Neck partially canonically decorated on either side with eye in outline, with circle in center. Irregular vertical and horizontal streaks on exterior would indicate likely test-piece.

Figure 4.25. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Potters' Quarter: C24-C27

TEST-PIECES

IN LATER PERIODS

C26 (KP-1426)

Figs. 4.22,4.25

Likely test-piece fragment cut from base of round-bodied oinochoe. Middle Corinthian. Well I. Corinth XV, iii, p. 252, no. 1399, pl. 58. Fragment described as follows: "Apparently the vase was discarded before the painting of the rays was complete."The unfinished state of the decoration, coupled with smears, plus the fact that it was fired, indicates that the fragment is most likely from a test-piece.

255

C27 (KP-673)

Fig. 4.25

Fragmentary kotyle used as likely test-piece. Late Corinthian 111. Terracotta Factory. Corinth XV, iii, p. 253, no. 1408, pl. 58. Poorly made, with several smears and adhering bits of clay. Interior painted solid; irregular blobs of paint on rim, and some on body on exterior. The state of this kotyle, coupled with the noncanonical decoration, prompted Benson to suggest that the vessel was perhaps the first attempt of an apprentice. It is much more likely a damaged vessel that was used as a test-piece, probably intended to be withdrawn by its handle(s), now missing.

T h e following pieces, listed as test-pieces by Benson, are not obvious test-pieces: Corinth XV, iii, p. 96, no. 439 (KP-1719), pl. 94. North Dump. Rim and body frr. alabastron. Benson (Corinth XV, iii, p. 96) writes: "The orange-red paint may indicate that the fragment was used as a try-piece." Not an obvious testpiece. In Corinth XV, iii, p. 408, the oinochoe no. 1025 (KP-118) is listed as a "try-piece," although from the published description of the vessel (p. 194, no. 1025) it is clear that it is not a test-piece, but is listed as comparandum for C9 (no. 1409). Corinth XV, iii, p. 222, no. 1206 (KP-1943 + KP-2380), pls. 50, 118. Neck and body frr. uncertain shape (compared to an oinochoe). In describing the piece, Benson writes: "The red interior is puzzling unless the frr. were later used as a trypiece." If the vessel is an oinochoe, as Benson suggests, then it may have been used as test-piece, but it is also likely that the original vessel was not an oinochoe, but an open shape. Corinth XV, iii, p. 235, no. 1297 (KP-1925), pl. 110. Although listed as a "try-piece" in the index to Corinth XV, iii, it is clear from the published description that the fragment was not a test-piece, though other fragments from the same area may have been. Corinth XV, iii, p. 277, no. 1513 (KP-264), pl. 62. Although listed as a "try-piece" in the index to Corinth XV, iii, it is clear from the published description that the fragment was not a test-piece, though an unpublished comparandum was a likely test-piece. Corinth XV, iii, p. 291, no. 1589 (KP-559), pl. 64. Although listed as a "try-piece" in the index to Corinth XV, iii, it is clear from the published description that the fragment was not a test-piece, though a comparandum might have been.

CHAPTER

256

4

Named after a spring located in a ravine descending from Acrocorinth, Vrysoula lies below Anaploga and above the crossroads west of Koklunovrysi, east of the plataeu on which the Potters' Quarter is situated." The majority of the material from this deposit, published in detail by Elizabeth Pemberton, is dated to the third and early fourth quarters of the fifth century B.c.'~The presence of test-pieces, at least one waster, and three molds out of a total of ten terracottas suggests that the deposit was probably created with the discards of a potter's e~tablishment.'~ The deposit is located only a short distance (several hundred meters) north of the excavations at the Potters' Quarter and, indeed, as Pemberton states: "the pottery originally may have been buried at the top of the cliff and through erosion or other causes became dislodged and thrown down the ~lope."'~ Pemberton noted a total of 15 test-pieces, of which she published -only five." The same five pieces are catalogued below, in the order presented by Pemberton. In discussing them, Pemberton states: "The conditions tested by 146 [C28] and 147 [C29] were good, since the glaze is mostly black; 148 [C30] and 149 [C31] show less favorable conditions. No. 150 [C32] with a mottled gray color of the fabric apparently tested the first stage, for the clay did not oxidize nor the glaze inter."'^ C28 (C-64-175)

Fig. 4.26

Test-piece cut from small ovoid lekythos. Pemberton 1970, p. 302, no. 146, pl. 75. p.H. (with handle): 0.051; Diam. (neck): 0.011-0.014; Diam. (body): 0.048-0.049. Test-piece, reconstructed from three joining frr. complete, except for minor chipping at lower edge. Piece could have been withdrawn from the kiln either by the handle or by the opening of the neck. Upper body curving in to narrow vertical neck. Vertical handle attached from shoulder to neck. Clay body and reserved surfaces fired close to pink 7.5YR 8/4. Test-paint well applied and well adhering, fired black, with a good sheen. Thin band on shoulder fired red (part of canonical decoration). Test-paint consists of three irregular vertical strokes on exterior and three on interior, some of which extend onto the lower edge. Small drip of paint at one point on handle. For shape cf. Pemberton 1970, pp. 274-276,287, nos. 6-15,42-46, pls. 67, 70.

C29 (C-64-359)

Fig. 4.26

Test-piece fragments cut from convex broad-bottomed oinochoe. Pemberton 1970, p. 302, no. 147, pl. 75. p.H.: 0.015; est. Diam. (base): 0.050-0.055. Reconstructed from two joining frr. preserving small portion of testpiece, cut from the base and lower body of oinochoe. Paint on underside extends onto chipped surface, which is possibly associated with a drawhole, otherwise not preserved, cut into the center of the underside. Flat disk base; convex body, with lower part faceted. Clay body and reserved surfaces as C28. Paint well applied and well adhering, fired dark reddish brown approaching black. One long stroke and part of another on underside, the longer one extending onto chipped surface. Two preserved irregular vertical strokes on lower body, dribbling onto exterior face of foot. Interior reserved. For shape cf. Pemberton 1970, pp. 283-284, nos. 26-32, pl. 69.

71. Pemberton 1970, pp. 265-266, fig. 1. 72. Pemberton 1970, p. 268. 73. Pemberton 1970, p. 269; the test-pieces are nos. 146-150 in Pemberton's catalogue, the waster no. 151 ( ~ 175). . 74. Pemberton 1970, p. 267. 75. Pemberton 1970, pp. 266-267, note 3. 76. Pemberton 1970, p. 302. The paint of C28 (146) and C30 (148) has fired black; C29 (147) reddish brown and C31 (149) red; only C32 is reduced.

TEST-PIECES IN LATER PERIODS

257

Figure 4.26. Corinthian test-pieces, Corinth, Vrysoula: C284232

C28

C30 (C-64-360)

Fig. 4.26

Test-piece fragment cut from footless vessel. Pemberton 1970, p. 302, no. 148, pl. 75. p.H.: 0.022. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, cut from the base and lower body of flat-bottomed vessel. Flat base; body rising steeply. Fabric as C 2 8 4 2 9 . Paint fired black. Portion of irregular vertical stroke on exterior, extending slightly onto underside. Smaller dribble of paint to left and horizontal stroke to right at upper break. Interior reserved. C31 (C-64-362)

Fig. 4.26

Test-piece fragment cut from base and lower body of skyphos. Pemberton 1970, p. 302, no. 149, pl. 75. p.H.: 0.021; Diam. (base): 0.070. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, cut from base and lower body of skyphos. No drawhole or clear edges preserved.

Ring foot; thin-walled body. Fabric as C28-C30. Paint somewhat peeled, mostly fired red, in some parts approaching dark reddish brown. Portion of one irregular stroke or blob on exterior; parts of two irregular sweeps of paint on interior, as shown (Fig. 4.26). C32 (C-64-363)

Fig. 4.26

Test-piece fragment cut from body and handle of uncertain vessel. Pemberton 1970, p. 302, no. 150, pl. 75. p.H.: 0.032. Single fr. preserving small portion of test-piece cut from the body of an unidentified shape. One edge (top right) partially preserved, fired as reserved surfaces. Vertical wall, slightly curving; small handle, which seems more horizontal than vertical, to judge from the preserved scar. Pemberton states that the shape is an ovoid lekythos, but this seems unlikely. Even though the interior is relatively poorly finished, with striations visible, it is not quite the same as

CHAPTER

258

the interiors of average ovoid lekythoi. Although the ovoid lekythos cannot be ruled out, an open vessel form is possible. Clay body fired gray; reserved surfaces, including possible edge, fired close to pink and light brown

7.5YR 7/4-7/5.

4

Paint on interior mostly ~ e e l e d , leaving a gray shadow. Paint on exterior better adhering, though slightly flaked. Paint fired red to reddish brown. Broad, irregular stroke on exterior set vertically below handle; similar stroke on interior set diagonally.

P e m b e r t o n also publishes a waster o f a possible blisterware vessel: 1970, p. 302, no. 151 (C-64-369), pl. 75.

TABLE 4.1. C O R I N T H I A N T E S T - P I E C E S A C C O R D I N G T O SHAPE Alabastron Aryballos Bowl CUP Kotyle Lekythos (ovoid) Lid Oinochoe Pyxis Skyphos Uncertain

C16, C17 C3, C10, C15 C8; C l l (miniature) C14 C1, C4, C5, C6, (212, C13, C18, C19, (220, (221, C22, C27 C28 C2, C23 C9 (cylindrical); C24 (conical); C25, C26 (roundbodied); C29 (convex) C7 C31 C30. C32

TABLE 4.2. C O R I N T H I A N TEST-PIECES ARRANGED CHRONOLOGICALLY Early Protocorinthian/Subgeometric Late Protocorinthian Early Corinthian Middle Corinthian

Late Corinthian I11 Classical Uncertain

C13, C14 C3 C10, C15, C16, C17 C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C12, C18, C19, C20, C21, C22, C23, C24, C25, C26 C9, C27 C28, C29, C30, C31, C32 C11

TEST-PIECES

I N LATER PERIODS

MISCELLANEOUS

In 1950 Betty Homann-Wedeking published a kiln site on the lower southeast slope of Monasteriako Kephali, by Knossos, which represents one of the earliest and fullest accounts of any kiln site, and its associated material, in Classical lands." In presenting the pottery, Homann-Wedeking divided it into three broad categories: 1.The pottery from the kiln;

2. The pottery from the kiln surface; 3. The stratified pottery from a nearby cistern. The pottery from the kiln and the surface around it was assigned to the 5th century B.c.,whereas that from the cistern is mainly Hellenistic." In addition to wasters and kiln furniture, including kiln props and stacking rings, at least one test-piece was found.This was recovered from among the material around the kiln surface, and is thus assigned to the late 5th century B.C.In describing the piece, Homann-Wedeking notes that both the edges of the fragment as a whole and the edges of the hole bored though it were covered with glaze.79

M1

77. Homann-Wedeking 1950. 78. Homann-Wedeking 1950, pp. 175-176. With regard to the pottery it is noted (p. 165, note 3): "Mr. Piet de Jong tells me that almost all the pottery has now disappeared." 79. Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 171. 80. Despoine 1982. 81. Despoine 1982, pp. 62-73, figs. 2-3. 82. Despoine 1982, pp. 74-80, figs. 10-11. 83. Despoine 1982. O n the basis of the evidence recovered from each kiln, it is clear that pottery, along with a variety of terracottas, was fired in kiln 4: Despoine 1982, p. 79; in the case of kilns 1-3, only pottery could be clearly associated with each kiln: Despoine 1982, pp. 68,71,73. 84. Despoine 1982, p. 66, fig. 5, pl. 2:01, pl. 8:a-p.

Not illustrated

Test-piece cut from base and lower body of cup. Knossos, h l n site at SE slope of Monasteriako Kephali. Homann-Wedeking 1950, p. 171, figs. 4:a and 5.

p.H.: ca. 0.050. Virtually complete test-piece cut from the base and lower body of a black-glaze cup (of a type with offset rim); edges covered with paint; draw-hole cut through base and lower body.

The Classical kilns of Sindos, published in meticulous detail by Aikaterina D e ~ p o i n eare ,~~ now among the most fully known from anywhere in Greece. Discovered in 1980 in the industrial zone to the west ofThessalonike, in close proximity to the Archaic and Classical cemetery, the four kilns were excavated in the course of 1981 and the entire site, including the excavated tombs, was subsequently backtilled in 1982 in preparation for the construction of a road. Of the excavated kilns three are of circular or elliptical form (kilns 13),81and one (kiln 4), by far the largest, was r e c t a n g ~ l a rTogether, .~~ these four kilns produced evidence that not only pottery was manufactured at the site, but also terracotta figurines and other terracotta objects, such as loomweights and spindlewhorls, beads, or buttons." Recovered from the various kilns were a good number of pottery wasters and other production discards, as well as a variety of pieces of kiln furniture, including stacking rings and other firing supp~rts,~%nd large, bricklike pieces of rough clay ( x h i v O p ~ ~which ), formed the supported floor of the firing chamber on

CHAPTER

260

4

which the pottery was stacked." Among this debris was at least one certain test-piece, presented below, with fragments of others very likely being test-pieces as well. M2

Not illustrated

Test-piece cut from the base of black-glazed cup. Sindos, kiln 4. Despoine 1982, p. 77, fig. 13, no. 3; pl. 12:y, no. 3. Single fr. preserving possibly complete test-piece, cut from the base of a black-glaze open vessel,

with a relatively large draw-hole cut into the center of the floorhnderside. There are no visible traces of paint on any of the edges or breaks on the lower wall. This test-piece is very similar to some of the earlier Athenian examples presented above, especially

105,119-121,124.

In 1985 the Ephoreia of Kavala in collaboration with the ~ c o l franpise e d'Athenes initiated excavations at the site of Phari, on the southwest coast of Thasos. The first campaign revealed part of a 6th-century B.C.pottery workshop, including the remains of a kiln and parts of several associated structure^.^^ Continued excavations in 1986 and 1987 saw the kiln completely uncovered, and a second, smaller kiln was found less than 5 m to the south.87In the eastern sector of the site, a portion of a rectangular structure was found built over a deposit of Lakonian-type tiles,88and immediately to the south a group of structures, including a cistern and a settling basin, made up a "decantation" complex for the purification or levigation of clay.89 A good deal of both decorated and plain pottery was recovered from the site, including wasters and other production discards, indicating that the workshop was active between the last quarter of the 6th and the first half of the 5th century B.c.~'A very small portion of this pottery has been published in the preliminary reports.91In addition to the pottery, the excavations brought to light a good amount of kiln furniture, including stacking rings, and other h l n firing supports such as clay pads.92There is also mention of a large quantity of rectangular "plaques" with a circular hole at one end, considered to be likely test-pieces, only one of which was illustrated in the first preliminary report.93This is an important addition to the corpus of known test-pieces, as it represents a type that is not common in 85. Despoine 1982, p. 69, fig, 7, p. 76, fig. 12, pls. 1:F-E, 5:a, 7:y, l l : a , y. 86. Peristeri et al. 1985. 87. Peristeri, Blonde, and Perreault 1986, p. 72, fig. 1; see, most recently, Blonde, Perreault, and Peristeri 1992, esp. pp. 11-18, figs. 1-8. 88. Peristeri, Blonde, and Perreault 1986, pp. 75, 80, fig. 4 (cover tile). For the tiles see further Perreault 1990. 89. Peristeri, Blonde, and Perreault 1986, pp. 76-78, figs. 5-7. For the

modern Greek method of cleansing clay, see Schreiber 1999, pp. 6-8, figs. 1.4-1.7. 90. The pottery is most fully published in Blonde, Perreault, and Peristeri 1992; see also Peristeri, Blondt, and Perreault 1986, p. 80. 91. Peristeri et al. 1985, pp. 35-37, figs. 7-11; Peristeri, Blondt, and Perreault 1986, pp. 78-79, figs. 8-10. 92. Peristeri et al. 1985, p. 32, figs. 3 (stacking rings) and 4 (clay pads); these

are further discussed in Papadopoulos 1992. 93. Peristeri et al. 1985, pp. 31-32, fig. 5 (M3).On the analogy of the Chinese test-pieces discussed in Sui 1986, it is conceivable that some of the oqpiypara) stacking rings (~cfih~va from Phari (e.g., Peristeri et al. 1985, p. 32, fig. 3) are test-pieces, if some were partialy covered with paint, such as Sui 1986, p. 312, fig. 22 (Fig. 1.18:a above).

TEST-PIECES

I N LATER PERIODS

261

many other ceramic workshops, including those of Athens and Corinth; details and comparanda are given in the catalogue entry below. The importance of the potter's workshop at Phari for our understanding of ancient pottery production, particularly for the Archaic period, cannot be underestimated, and the fidl publication of the material associated with the workshop will add significantly to our knowledge of the firing process. I t is perhaps worth adding here that the layout of the workshop is not unlike that of the Late Helladic pottery workshop at Berbati in the Argolid."

Figure 4.27. Potter's test-piece, Thasos, Phari kiln site: M3. Courtesy F. Blonde

M3

Fig. 4.27

Terracotta bar used as test-piece. Phari, kiln site, associated with the large kiln. Peristeri et al. 1985, p. 32, fig. 5. Two joining fir. preserving complete test-piece consisting of a rectangular bar. with small circular " hole at one end, covered with paint. Such test-pieces are not common in other production centers

94. For Berbati see Akerstriim 1952;also the discussion in Ziomecki 1964, pp. 24-26, fig. 13. 95. D'Andria 1975. For a brief overview, see Osanna 1996. 96. LCS, passim; D'Andria 1975. 97. See further Denoyelle 1997, esp. pp. 395,404.

in Greece, but an identical type of test-piece, referred to as huozhao, is known from the ancient Chinese kilns in Shanxi Province (Sui 1986, p. 312). Cf. also the related ceramic stick test-pieces, known as lazhu, with one end bent over (Sui 1986, p. 312, fig. 23 [Fig. 1.18:b]), which are very similar to the so-called bastoncelli test-pieces from Taranto discussed below.

The potters' quarter of the ancient city of Metapontion, fully presented in meticulous detail by Francesco D'Andria, is among the most fully documented pottery production sites in southern Italy and The kilns and associated deposits of the Kerameikos of Metaponto have yielded a large quantity of potters' debris, including wasters and other production discards, stacking rings (some inscribed), unfinished vases, and test-pieces. The potters' debris is, for the main part, Classical, though some of the material is Hellenistic. The excavations of the 5th- and 4th-century B.C. kilns, as well as the associated dumps of potters' refuse, have brought to light material attributed to the Amykos, Creusa, Dolon, and Anabates Painters. These vasepainters, none ofwhom is known from a signed work, were all considered by Dale Trendall as "pupils" or "followers" of the Pisticci Painter, the pioneer of Lucanian r e d - f i g ~ r e Consequently, .~~ Trendall's stylistic classifications now have a geographical and contextual realiW7 The deposits associated with the kilns yielded, in addition to pottery, lamps, terracotta figurines, and other clay objects, including several loomweights. Among the many pieces illustrated and published by D'Andria, a good many of the production discards may well have been test-pieces. In the following list, only those pieces that are most clearly

262

CHAPTER 4

test-pieces are included. Many of the Metaponto test-pieces resemble the Athenian red-figured examples in that the draw-holes were cut near the center of the piece, whereas other pieces resemble their Athenian counterparts in the fact that the decoration is unfinished. A number of the more complete test-pieces, however, particularly those cut from the rims of bellhaters, have a draw-hole toward one side, near the edge (see especially M10-M12). These particular test-pieces have the added advantage of allowing, albeit slightly, more of the surface of the test-piece to reach a deeper point in the kiln. In this they resemble the ancient Chinese lazhu test-pieces (Fig. 1.18:b), as well as the bustonceZZi fromTaranto (see below), where the length of the test-piece was important. I t is possible that many of the more fragmentary Athenian red-figured examples had a similar configuration. T h e order of the Metaponto examples follows that of D'Andria.

Test-piece fragment cut from krater(?). D'Andria 1975,pp. 392-393, no. 101, fig. 43. Max. dimensions: 0.059 x 0.036. Fr. preserving small portion of test-piece, including part of drawhole.

D'Andria 1975, pp. 394-395, no. 120, fig. 44. Max. dimensions: 0.080 x 0.054. Two nonjoining fir. preserving small portion of test-piece or portion of body of unfinished krater. Cf. also D'Andria 1975, pp. 394-395, no. 121, fig. 44, which appears to be a fragment of a waster, rather than a test-piece or unfinished vessel.

M5 Metaponto, inv. 29256 Fig. 4.28

M8 Metaponto, inv. 29006 Fig. 4.29

Test-piece cut from body of bellkrater. D'Andria 1975,pp. 393-394, no. 111, fig. 43. Max. dimensions: 0.083 x 0.072. Two joining frr. preserving complete test-piece.with draw-hole cut near the center of the piece and ~ a i nextending t onto the edges.

Test-piece fragments cut from bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 394-395, no. 125, fig. 44. Max. dimensions: 0.086 x 0.050. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, including about one-quarter of draw-hole.

M4 Metaponto, inv. 29260/1

Fig. 4.28

M6 Metaponto, inv. 29036 Fig. 4.29 Fragment of test-piece or unfinished hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 394-395, no. 119, fig. 44. Max. dimensions: 0.035 x 0.050. Small fr. preserving small portion of test-piece or portion of body of unfinished vessel (krater?). Compared by D'Andria to the work of the Dolon Painter. M7 Metaponto, inv. 29286/1

Fig. 4.29

Fragments of test-piece or unfinished bell-hater.

.

Fragment of test-piece or unfinishid bell-hater.D'Andria 1975, pp. 395,397, no. 126, fig. 44. Max. dimensions: 0.047 x 0.060. Small fr. preserving small portion of test-piece or portion of body of unfinished krater.

MI0 Metaponto, inv. 29084

Not illustrated

Test-piece cut from the rim of a bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 129, fig. 45.

_

-

I

4

M9 Metaponto, inv. 29037 Fig. 4.29

.,$a,

M5 Figure 4.28. Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M4-MS. Courtesy F.D'Andria

263

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

Figure 4.29. Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M b M 9 . Courtesy E D'Andria

Max. dimensions: 0.285 x 0.065. Three joining fm. preserving complete test-piece with draw-hole cut near edge of one side.

Single fr. preserving small portion of possible test-piece cut fiom rim of krater or else fragment of an unfinished hater.

M I 1 Metaponto, inv. 29083/1

M14 Metaponto, inv. 29307/2

Fig. 4.30

Test-piece cut fiom the rim of a bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 130, fig. 45. Max. dimensions: 0.260 x 0.070. Single fr. preserving complete test-piece with draw-hole cut near edge of one side and thickly applied test-paint on edges. M12 Metaponto, inv. 2908312 Figure 4.30. Lucanian red-figured test-piece, Metaponto: M11. Courtesy F. D'Andria

Fig. 4.31

Test-piece cut from the rim of a bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 131, fig. 45. Max. dimensions: 0.250 x 0.065. Single fr. preserving complete test-piece with draw-hole cut near edge of one side. M13 Metaponto, inv. 29307/1

Not illustrated

Fragment of test-piece or unfinished bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 132, fig. 45.

Not illustrated

Fragment of test-piece or unfinished bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 133, fig. 45. Single fr. preserving greater part of test-piece cut from rim of krater or else fragment of an unfinished krater. M I 5 Metaponto, inv. 29307/3

Not illustrated

Fragments of possible test-piece cut from bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 134, fig. 45. Two joining fir. preserving small portion of possible test-piece. M16 Metaponto, inv. 29308/2

Fig. 4.31

Test-piece fragment cut from rim of bed-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 135, fig. - 45. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from the rim of a bell-hater, including complete drawhole, probably cut near one edge,

264

CHAPTER

4

I T "

b

Figure 4.31. Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M12, M16M18. Courtesy F. D'Andria like M10-M12. Prominent vertical incised line to left of draw-hole. M I 7 Metaponto, inv. 29308/3

Fig. 4.31

Test-piece fragment cut from rim of bell-krater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 136, fig. 45. Single fr. preserving portion of test-piece cut from the rim of a bellhater, including complete draw-hole. Vertical incised line (cf M16) appears to have been intersected by draw-hole (guidance groove?). M18 Metaponto, inv. 293084

Fig. 4.31

Test-piece fragment cut from rim of bell-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 396-397, no. 137, fig. 45. Single fi. preserving almost complete test-piece, cut fiom the rim of a bell-hater, including about onehalf of draw-hole cut near the edge on one side (d:MIO-M12); traces of test-paint visible on lower edge. M19 Metaponto, inv. 29005 Fig. 4.32 Fragmentary test-piece cut from calyx-hater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 397-398, no. 142, fig. 46. Max. dimensions: 0.140 x 0.127. Seven joining frr. preserving greater part of large test-piece cut

from the body of a calyx-hater, including most of draw-hole cut near the center and toward the lower edge of the piece. In discussing the style of the piece, D'Andria (1975, p. 397) states: "Cattiva qualiti del disegno su schemi del Pittore di Dolone: LCS, no. 536, Bari."

M20 Metaponto, inv. 29068 Fig. 4.32 Fragmentary test-piece or unfinished fragment of calyx-krater. D'Andria 1975, pp. 397-398, no. 143, fig. 46. Max. dimensions: 0.116 x 0.065. Three joining fir. preserving portion of possible test-piece cut from the body of a calyx-hater, or else body frr. of an unfinished vessel. M21 Metaponto, inv. 29027

Not illustrated

Test-piece fragment cut from skyphos. D'Andria 1975, pp. 403-404, no. 166, fig. 52. Max. dimensions: 0.078 x 0.068. Single fragment preserving portion of test-piece cut from the body of a skyphos, including part of draw-hole at lower break. In discussing the style of the piece, D'Andria (1975, p. 404) states: "Per la resa delle ali cfr. LCS, no. 518, Varsavia, Pittore di Dolone."

Figure 4.32. Lucanian red-figured test-pieces, Metaponto: M19-M20. Courtesy F. D'Andria

TEST-PIECES

M22 Metaponto, inv. 29345

M23 Metaponto, Not illustrated

Fragments of test-piece or unfinished skyphos. D'Andria 1975, pp. 405-406, no. 186, fig. 53. Max. dimensions: 0.087 x 0.050. Two joining frr. preserving portion of test-piece, with possible cut edges, or else body frr. of an unfinished skyphos.

98. See esp. Dell'Aglio 1996, p. 50. 99. Dell'Aglio 1996. 100.For the kilns see Dell'Aglio 1996, pp. 51-67; for the kiln furniture pp. 68-79. 101.Dell'Aglio 1996, pp. 70-71, no. 43.

265

I N LATER PERIODS

inv. 29288

Not illustrated

Fragment of test-piece or unfinished cup. D'Andria 1975, pp. 405-406, no. 191, fig. 53. Max. dimensions: 0.063 x 0.042. Single fr. preserving portion of possible test-piece or else fragment of an unfinished cup.

Excavations in and around Taras have brought to light a great deal of evidence of potters' and coroplasts' activity in the city, particularly in the eastern sector of ancient Taranto, outside the primary zone of h a b i t a t i ~ nA .~~ useful overview of the evidence for pottery and terracotta production was published by Antonietta Dell'Aglio as part of the I Greci in Occidente exhibition in the Duomo ~ f T a r a n t oT. h~e~material includes several kilns and a large variety of luln furniture dating to the later Classical and Hellenistic periods.'OO Among the kiln furniture there is a wide variety of stacking rings (some with dipinti), numerous different types of kiln firing supports, some larger lumps of clay, and molds for terracotta figurines (many inscribed). There is, in addition, among the material excavated in 1988 at the site of Via Leonida, 52, several clay rods referred to as bastoncelli. Some 14 or 15 examples were on display, of which only four were published (under M24).1°' Dated generally to the 5th-4th centuries B.c., the bastoncelli are rods of clay, circular in section, ranging in length from about 6 to 12 cm as preserved. Most are fragmentary, and only three among the some 15 examples on display clearly preserve a terminal, but at only one end of the rod; two of the four examples published by Dell'Aglio preserve the irregularly formed terminal at one end of the preserved rod. Most of the bastoncelli are straight, but two are curved at one end, at which point both are broken, ll of them are covered with paint, the and thus resemble small hooks. A color of which is variously fired. Some are optimally fired, with a good black paint and a reddish-pink clay body visible in the break, others are oxidized (clay body and paint fired red), and a few are victims of reduction firing not properly reoxidized. The paint on the latter is fired a dirty gray/ black, the clay body gray. These bastoncelli are clearly test-pieces that had been pulled from the kiln at various stages of a firing in order to test the firing cycle and subsequently ended up among other debris from the same potter's kiln. Although I know of no similar examples from other Classical sites in Greece and Italy, the Tarantine bastoncelli closely resemble the Chinese lazhu ceramic stick test-pieces published by Sui (Fig. 1.18:b). The Ch'inese examples, which measure 15-20 cm in length and are thus of similar size to those ofTaranto, differ slightly from the Tarantine in that they are equipped with a small elbow at one end, a feature that facilitates their extraction

266

CHAPTER

4

from the kiln. They are otherwise identical in principle. Related, but somewhat larger, clay rods, along with smaller S-shaped pieces of clay are known from Byzantine workshops in northern Greece, especially at Seres.lo2The four published bastoncelli from Taranto are listed here under M24. M24 Taranto, inv. 196.080-196.083 Fig. 4.33 Bastoncelli. Four examples, all fragmentary. Dell'Aglio 1996,pp. 70-71, no. 43.

Described as follows: "Argilla giallina, vernice nera, nero-bruna, rossastra, grigia; H maximin cm 11.5/6.7.A sezione circolare, con estremita rastremate irregolari, tavolta lievemente ripiegati. In due casi, a sezione. Mutili."

I n her 1923 study h c h t e r listed, in addition to the five test-pieces assembled by Hartwig (Al-AS), two additional examples. One of these, M25, an unfinished kylix in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, is described by Richter as follows:

Figure 4.33. Bastoncelli test-pieces, Taranto, Via Leonida, 52: M24. After Dell'Aglio 1996, pp. 70-71, no. 43 (drawing Patrick Finnerty)

It is not so fragmentary as the pieces in the other museums, being complete except for portions of the rim. The foot is very roughly turned, very different from the average kylix foot, as if it had not been worth while to spend much time on this product. The decoration itself is also quite cursory. This suggests that the piece was merely a "test," such as potters use often nowadays for making trials of their clay body, or their glaze, or their kiln. T h e kylix is, ' as a matter of fact, too soft fired, and the glaze has turned reddish in parts. May we be permitted the guess that this was a trial to test out a new luln?lo3 Although poorly made and not perfectly fired, M25 is a possible but unlikely test-piece. I t does, however, bring to the fore the fact that not all unfinished red-figured vessels are test-pieces (see below). The kylix is different from all other known red-figured test-pieces, primarily because it is so well preserved, rather than the more common scraps of pottery cut from previously damaged vessels. This said, it should be noted that some of the Early Iron Age pieces presented above, especially 33, 42-43, 51, 61, 65, and 91, are almost complete vessels that did serve as test-pieces. What is unclear is whether the rim of M 2 5 was damaged prior to firing, in which case it would qualify as a test-piece, or whether this simply represents postdepositional breakage. Although it is probable that the kylix is a perfectly healthy Campanian red-figured pot-perhaps not the finest example of the South Italian potters' craft, but certainly superior to many of its compatriots-the possibility that it is a test-piece cannot be dismissed. I t is for this reason that it is listed here. M25 New York, Metropolitan Museum, acc. no. 1911.212.9 Fig. 4.34 Fragmentary unfinished kylix; possible test-piece.

Rtchter 1923, p. 43, figs. 47-48; Beazley 1944, p. 121, note 1 (ca. 400 B.c.); Noble 1988,pp. 106-107, figs. - -

182-183. Fragmentary kylix, almost complete except for parts of rim and

102.Papanikola-Bakirtzi 1999, pp. 222-223, figs. 1-2. These rods are thought to have been inserted close together in holes in the walls of the kiln, creating a sort of shelf on which the vases were stacked. A similar method of stacking using rods is known in Islamic workshops: Naumann 1971, esp. figs. 7-9, pl. 56:l. The smaller S-shaped pieces were set between vases in order to prevent them from adhering to the shelves. It is noteworthy that the glazed pottery produced at Serres lack the familiar scars left by tripod stilts, so it seems clear that an alternative method of stacking was employed. 103. Richter 1923,pp. 42-44, with figs. 47-48.

TEST-PIECES I N LATER PERIODS

both handles. No preserved drawholes or handles to assist in extraction fiom the kiln. Decoration at center of interior unfinished: woman sitting on rock. Although the details of her face and

267 garment are neatly rendered, the background was never filled in. Similarly unfinished is the decoration on the exterior, and the foot is poorly made, different fiom the standard kyliu foot.

UNFINISHED RED-FIGURED VASES THAT ARE NOT TEST-PIECES

Figure 4.34. Red-figured kylix, possible test-piece: M25. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1911.212.9. Courtesy Museum

Figure 4.35. Unfinished red-figured pyxis lid. London, British Museum F 504 VA (31), B-3768. @The British Museum

As stated above, not all unfinished red-figured vessels are test-pieces. T h e Campanian kylix, M25, provides a possible example, though in this case, the vessel may conceivably have been broken while being decorated and subsequently served as a test-piece designed as an aid to correct firing.lo4 One should always be careful, however, with Campanian and other late red-figure workshops, since many pieces are poorly made and areas that should have been painted, particularly background areas, were not.lo5This is probably the result of simple forgetfulness on the part of the potter. A classic case in point is a complete Campanian column-hater in S2vres (inv. 6898).lo6T h e obverse of the vase is completely decorated and perfectly normal (for Campanian), as is the reverse, except for the fact that the background to the two youths was never filled in. There is no possibility that this complete h a t e r was ever a test-piece, nor can the reverse be classified as a practice-piece (see below). I t is almost certainly the result of an oversight by the potter. A similar situation involves one side of the earlier Athenian red-figured column-hater by the Painter of Bologna 228, where the three figures-Dionysos and maenads--are outlined in black glaze but the relief lines were omitted.lo7Thepyxis lid in London, also mentioned by Richter, is similarly the probable result of an oversight (Fig. 4.35), particularly as there is no evidence of a draw-hole or any obvious way of extracting the vessel from the kiln. Furthermore, the drawing in this case seems rather too complete for it to qualify as a practice-piece.lo8Another example that can be mentioned in this context are the fragments of a red-figured h a t e r found in the area of the settlement east of the fortress hill at Eleutherai (Gyphtokastro), evidently unfinished as the background had not been filled in.lo9 A closely related phenomenon is that of practice sketches. One of the finest examples of this genre is a black-glaze two-handled mug in Princeton 104. See Noble 1988,pp. 105-107. 105.There are also a number of vessels especially among late red-figure in southern Italy that are decorated in an idiosyncratic abbreviated outline style; see, for example, Trendall 1983, p. 261, no. 4/1030, pl. 30 by the Vitulazio Painter. 106. Massoul 1935,p. 81, pl. 41: no. 10 (obverse),no. 14 (reverse). 107.New York, Metropolitan

Museum 29.131.7;ARV, p. 511; discussed and illustrated in Noble 1988, p. 107, fig. 184. 108. Richter 1923,p. 41, note 3, listed as British Museum, Room of Greek and Roman Life, no. 426. The vessel is briefly noted in an early catalogue of the British Museum, but was not illustrated. 109. Ober 1987,p. 216, no. 11.27, pl. 29.

268

Underside, with unfinished practice sketch

CHAPTER

4

Side view

(Fig. 4.36).'1° o n the broad, flat underside of the pot is an unfinished figure of an Amazon on horseback, ofwhich only the head of the rider was completed in red-figure technique. A few of the remaining contours of the horse and rider were partially drawn in relief lines,"' the remainder visible only as faint preliminary sketch lines.There are also traces of the potter's fingerprints on the underside of the vessel. O n the interior of the mug faint traces of another sketch can be discerned,including a few relief lines. The figure, barely visible in good raking light and virtually impossible to render adequately photographically,may be a dancing satyr next to a calyx-krater, that was subsequently covered over with black glaze.'12 In discussing both sketches, Michael Padgett writes: "Because one design was covered up and the other left unfinished, it is probable that these were practice sketches made to test compositions intended for use elsewhere. The Amazon was not effaced, either from forgetfulness or because the artist wished to see how the completed head would turn out after firing."l13Padgett goes on to list a number of other vases with painted figures on their undersides.lI4 Another red-figured vessel that should be mentioned in this context is the amusing hydria of special shape-perhaps best described as a compartmented pyxis-listed by Trendall under the early vases by the Paestan potter Asteas (Fig. 4.37).'15The body of the hydria was cut right around at a point just above the horizontal handles,'16 with the result that the upper part of the vessel served as a lid.The interior of the lower half of the vessel was then divided into three compartments, one filling half the available space,the other two a quarter each. Each compartment, thus defined, was 110.The vessel is published in Knauer 1992, pp. 382-383, fig. 8; Russell 1994, pp. 40-41, no. 20 (described by Padgett); Padgett 1996, p. 80, fig. 12. 111. For relief lines in red-figure, see esp. Seiterle 1976,1987; Kunisch 1994. 112. Russell 1994,p. 40. I am grateful to Michael Padgett for providing further details about this vessel.

113. In Russell 1994, p. 41. 114. In Russell 1994, p. 41; these include, among others, Attic black- and red-figure, Apulian and Campanian red-figure, a series of small bowls and plastic vases. See, in particular, Greifenhagen 1971;ABc p. 265; Aurigemma 1960,pls. 172,223; 1965,pls. 5,130; RVAp I, p. 417, no. 17,pl. 151:l;Trendall 1983, p. 155, no. 764a (underside

Figure 4.36. Athenian black-glazed two-handled mug. T h e Art Museum, Princeton University, Museum purchase, Classical Purchase Fund (Y1987-70). Courtesy Museum

of lid); Burow 1986,pp. 55-56, pl. 24:l-4. 115.Trendall 1987,pp. 77-78, pl. 37, no. 2/86. The hydria, published by Trendall as "once London Market," is now in Tampa, Museum of Art. 116. Compare the much earlier Athenian Middle Geometric hydria published in Papadopoulos 1998.

TEST-PIECES

Figure 4.37. Paestan red-figured hydria of special shape. Tampa Museum of Art, Museum purchase and Judith R. Blanchard Memorial Fund, inv. 89.98. Courtesy Museum

117.See Trendall 1987,p. 77.

I N LATER PERIODS

269

equipped with a small, flat lid, each with two small holes facilitating its removal. Although the exterior of the hydria was decorated in normal redfigure technique, each of the three internal lids was similarly decorated, but with the background never filled in.The largest of the lids is decorated with a phylax figure, the other two with human heads, one male and one female; the lid with the female head has a matching head on both sides."' Had these lids been found as fragments, they may very well have been labeled test-pieces, which they cannot be.

CHAPTER

5

C E R A M I C URSE D I V I V U S A Contribution t o the Topographical Study of Early Athens

Td 62 xwplov c5 K ~ ~ a p ~ c xTBBp2u q &opa EXEC&nd f p o q Kqdpoo, Aiovciaoo TE ~Ivacxal 'ApidSqs xal ~ o h o kyophvoo. o n&v 6h Emiv Ev &el@ xaAoopPq oroa paot'kcos, EvOa xaOe~cpaoli\Ebq Evcaoolav dipxwv xaAoopdqv p a o k l a v . (Paus. 1.3.1) The district of the Kerameikos takes its namefiom the hero Keramos, the reputed son of Dionysos anddriadne. First on the right is the so-called Stoa Basileios, where the Basileus sits holding the annual ofice of the so-called kingship. This quote, taken from Pausanias' description of Athens, exemplifies some of the contradictions between ancient texts and modern scholarship. I n much of the modern literature concerning the topography of Athens the location of the Stoa Basileios in the Kerameikos would seem odd, even contrary to what has virtually become modern common knowledge. Moreover, the Stoa Basileios is not the only monument that modern topographers would place in the Athenian Agora and that ancient texts specifically locate in the Kerameikos. The list is long, and includes such wellknown and conspicuous Athenian landmarks as the Stoa of Attalos, the Bema, and the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, to mention only a few. Nor does Pausanias stand alone; references to buildings and other monuments that stood in what can be termed the "Agora-in-the-Kerameikos" are found in numerous ancient authors, spanning many centuries. It will emerge that there is a good deal of ambiguity in the extant texts concerning the marketplace within the potters' field. Yet much of this ambiguity rests squarely in the context of modern scholarship. I doubt whether there was ever any confusion in Pausanias' mind about where the Agora or the Kerameikos was located, and even less so to an Athenian of the Archaic or Classical period. Few areas of Classical archaeology have received the continued attention bestowed on the topography of early Athens-ancient and modernand even fewer have remained so controversial. T h e bibliography on the subject is daunting, and one of the results of its sheer quantity is that there has been something of a tendency to argue by response to previous scholarship rather than by a more straightforward assessment of the evidence in

272

CHAPTER

5

hand. The written word-ancient and modern-has loomed large in this scholarly endeavor, so much so that the material record has often been shaped and defined by the literary evidence.' Rather than privileging written documents over archaeological material, I will begin with the material record, particularly the potters' debris-test-pieces, wasters and other production discards, kiln furniture and the like-presented in this volume. This is material that derives from wells and pits interspersed among one of the heaviest concentrations of burials in the ancient city. Although excavated over the course of decades, this is a single and large body of new material that has a direct bearing on several issues concerning the history and topography of Athens. Using this excavated evidence as the starting point, the study in this chapter aims to move forward in time from prehistory into history. The early history and topography of Athens has fallen victim to a methodology that insists on beginning in the familiar landscape of the 5th century B.C.and from there working back in time, aided by literary testimonia. Here the opposite approach is used, ending rather than beginning in the 5th century B.c., and thereby allowing an earlier period its legacy and influence on the cultural landscape of a later time. The literary evidence will not be eschewed. O n the contrary, it will feature prominently in the following pages, with testimonia being scrutinized both for what their authors said and wished to say, and also for the unarticulated assumptions these writings carry. The literary evidence is not the focus but rather a corollary of archaeology, put to the service of the material record.

PITS, W E L L S , POTTERS' A C T I V I T Y , AND T O M B S The prevalent view that the area that was to become the Classical Athenian Agora was settled in the Early Iron Age was briefly noted in Chapter 1. The existence of pits and wells generally suggested habitation, and the presence of tombs was explained by there being various hamlets, each with its own family burial plot. The scenario is presented most succinctly by John Camp, as follows: To the Dark Ages should be dated the beginning of regular and extensive habitation in what was later to become the Agora. The evidence is indirect but clear that starting in the years around 1000 B.C.and continuing down to 600 B.C.the area was used for houses as well as burials. Later quarrying and leveling of the Agora have removed all trace of actual structures from these early periods, but the shafts of wells sunk in the bedrock remain. The assumption is that each well stood in the courtyard of a private house and that they can be used to indicate the probable location and density of prehistoric houses now lost. Together with the burials they show a pattern of increasing population in this part of Athens from 1000 to 700 B . C . ~

1. See Papadopoulos 1999, esp. pp. 385-386. 2. Camp 1986, p. 33; elsewhere (p. 24) he states: "The wells which reflect the positions of early houses were dug deep into bedrock and give some idea of the density of habitation when the area was being used as a residential district from about 1000600 ~ . c . " T h eassumption of the importance of wells as denoting evidence for habitation is most recently argued by Rhys Townsend. In discussing the history of the area on the east side of the Agora in Agora XXVII, p. 11, Townsend writes: "From the Protogeometric through Late Geometric periods, the Agora came to be used more and more for habitation. Again, no actual structures remain in the section to the east of the Panathenaic Way." In Agora XXVII, p. 12, Townsend notes that the total absence of wells from one very large area "is exceptional and may signal that the land was considered to be not particularly desirable real estate." Although no domestic structures of the Early Iron Age have actually been found in the area, Townsend concludes (Agora XXVII, p. 12): "Nevertheless, for a time in the second half of the 8th century, when the land further west grew increasingly

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

273

This scenario has never been seriously questioned, and its acceptance has been equally upheld by prehistorians whose work shows a concern for social issues and by more traditional classical scholar^.^ Among others, Ian Morris writes: "Young wished to believe that this area had been given over entirely to burials after 900 B.c., but this was obviously not so. The settled area north of the Areopagus included small type A plots, scattered along the paths, between houses and well^."^ Such an assumption can no longer be maintained. First of all, the Early Iron Age graves are in fact part of several large cemeteries that dominate the area; in this Rodney Young's belief that the area was largely given over to tombs after 900 B.C.was probably much closer to the truth. There are at least three, and probably four, well-defined burial grounds, most of which begin in the Late Bronze Age and continue throughout the Early Iron Age (Fig. 1.2 [p. 21). One cemetery is located on the north slopes of the Areiopagos, another on the Kolonos Agoraios, and a third along the south bank of the E r i d a n ~ s most , ~ heavily concentrated in the area beneath and around the north end of the later Stoa of Attalos. A fourth cemetery, thus far known only from a few tombs, is currently being excavated on the north side of the E r i d a n ~ sThese . ~ Mycenaean, Protogeometric, and Geometric graves are not arranged in small, discrete plots, but are part of large burial grounds.' Despite considerable destruction of earlier burials by building activity in the Classical period and later, as well as the fact that many earlier tombs are now located, and effectively hidden, beneath later monuments, it is nevertheless remarkable how extensive these cemeteries are. Moreover, a careful study of the excavation notebooks of the Agora Excavations reveals that in many areas where bedrock was exposed numerous destroyed, looted, or damaged burial pits were in fact encountered. One such area was the Kolonos Agoraios (Fig. 5.1); here a large number of empty pits were found cut into bedrock, and these had both a configuration very similar to those of the better-preserved tombs nearby and crowded with houses, habitation necessarily spread eastward. The area did not long remain settled, however; around 700 B.c., a drought closed the wells and forced abandonment of the structures they served, both here and throughout the region of the Agora." For the drought, see Camp 1979. 3. See, among others, Desborough 1952, p. 1; 1972, pp. 261-265,362; Snodgrass 1971, p. 363; 1980, pp. 2934,154-157; Coldstream 1977, p. 315; 1995, p. 393; Morris 1987, pp. 63-69; Whitley 1991, pp. 61-64; see also Kerameikos I. 4. Morris 1987, p. 65; Morris' comments are very closely echoed by James Whitley (1991, pp. 61-64). See, however, Young 1949a, esp. pp. 275-279; cf.

Camp 1986, pp. 24,33;AgoraXIV, pp. 9-18; Agora XXVII, pp. 11-12. 5. For the position of the Eridanos River in relation to the area of the Athenian Agora, see, most recently, Shear 1997, pp. 514-521; for the history of the Eridanos in the area of the German Kerameikos excavations, see Knigge 1991, pp. 56-67. The early contribution by Dorpfeld (1888) is still useful. 6. I had speculated on the existence of this cemetery in Papadopoulos 1996, p. 121; cf. Little and Papadopoulos 1998, p. 376, note 3. The idea of a large cemetery extending, along the Eridanos, from the area of the German excavations in the Athenian Kerameikos to the area of the American

excavations in the Athenian Agora was first suggested by Wilhelm Kraiker in Kerameikos I, pp. 3, 132. For a preliminary report on some of the tombs most recently excavated in the area of the Classical Agora, north of the Eridanos, see Camp 1999, pp. 263-265. 7. For the Late Bronze Age tombs see Agora XIII; for graves of the Early Iron Age see Agora VIII. For later burials see Young 1951b; the existence of the so-called pyre burials intra urbem has been rightly viewed with skepticism (see Agora XIV, p. 16; Knigge and Kovacsovics 1981, p. 388), and most recently rejected in Jordan and Rotroff 1999, p. 147; cf. Shear 1973a, p. 151, note 68. For burials within the city see also the comments in Winter 1982.

=74

CHAPTER

5 Figure 5.1. Empty pits in bedrockin Sector II@ on the Kolonos Agoraios (nestanding for llhmcla @quchv). Note the proximity of bedrock here to the modem surface.

identical dimension^.^ It is interesting - to note that the same area in and around the so-called Hephaisteionwas used for burials at a much later date.9 Second, not only were many of the various pits and wells in the area, as is outlined in Chapter 2, filled with potters' debris, but it is likely that these wells, including those largely filled with domestic debris, served pottery establishments rather than private dwellings. The importance of a ready water supply to a potter's workshop cannot be stressed enough and any pottery industry in the area of the later Athenian Agora would have been well watered by a combination of the Eridanos, numerous wells, and several natural lines of drainage in what was always a low area of Athens 8. The Early Iron Age cemetery, along with the pits in bedrock representinglooted and destroyed earlier tombs, will be discussed in more detail in the forthcoming volume on the Early Iron Age tombs. 9. Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 6-30, for the medieval and Protestant graves;

burials in the "Theseion" probably ceased soon after the outbreak of the War of Independence (Dinsmoor 1941, p. 30). The earliest burial in this area is the solitary Neolithic grave published in Agora XIII, pp. 92-93. This tomb was originally published in Shear 1936, pp. 20-21, figs. 17-18, as Neolithic.

It was subsequently assigned to the Middle HelIadic period by Sara Immenvahr in Agora XIII, pp. 92-93, and in Immerwahr 1973, p. 4, figs. 3-4, but was later reassigned to the Neolithic period in Immerwahr 1982; the tomb is further discussed in Little and Papadopoulos 1998, p. 382.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

10. For the importance of water supply to a pottery industry, see Cuomo di Caprio 1992; for the procurement of water and the elaborate later waterworks in the area of the Agora see the useful overview in Lang 1968. 11.Thompson 1940. 12. Burr 1933. 13.Thompson 1968, esp. pp. 58-60; 1978. See also Lalonde 1968. 14. See esp.Thompson 1978; Wycherley 1978, esp. pp. 143-200. See also Liston and Papadopoulos, forthcoming. 15. For other inner-city heroa, see, for example, Bruneau 1970; Williams 1981; and further discussion in Papadopoulos 2000a. 16.The bibliography on the Early Iron Age hero and heroa has become extensive. Among numerous other contributions see, in particular, Coldstream 1976; Snodgrass 1988; Morris 1988; Whitley 1988; Antonaccio 1992,1994,1995. Later periods have been less well served, although the work of Susan Alcock is an important exception to this trend; see Alcock 1991. 17.Young 1939. 18. See the plan of wells and burials inAgo?-aVIII, pl. 45; cf. Agora XIIT, p. 10. 19.Note especially discussion of pieces such as 101 (pp. 121-122). 20. Camp 1979. 21. Although the theory is cogently rejected by Ian Morris (1987, pp. 158161).

275

prone to flooding." More significantly, one of the very few structures of the period to have survived the vicissitudes of the later building activity of the area was the kiln near the 1aterTholos (Chapter 2)." Here it is worth stressing that the identification of the solitary "house" of the period, excavated in the 1930s and ~ r o m p t l ypublished by Dorothy Burr,I2 has been correctly debunked and reinterpreted as an early shrine.'' Indeed, the so-called Geometric House has been considered a "hero-shrine," located as it is near earlier burials, including some of the most prominent Mycenaean chamber tombs in Athens, as well as rich Early Iron Age burials, such as that of the so-called Rich Athenian Lady.lThis is one of several inner-city version^'^ of early heroa that are more commonly found in the Early Iron Age and later countryside." When comparing the pattern of distribution, as it is preserved, of the potters' deposits with that of the tombs (Figs. 1.2, 1.4 [p. 4]), it is clear that this was not a random distribution. The deposits containing potters' debris tend to be concentrated in the central portion of the area, essentially between the Kolonos Agoraios, the south bank of the Eridanos, and the Areiopagos north slope cemeteries. This central area, later built over by the Middle Stoa and Odeion, was relatively, if not totally, free of tombs. There are also diachronic factors at play. For example, Protogeometric potters' deposits are rarely sited in close proximity to contemporary burials, but have a tendency to cluster in those areas where there were earlier Mycenaean graves. In a similar vein, the latest burials in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora, including the one clearly defined small burial plot in the area," occupied precisely those areas where there were no earlier tombs or deposits with concentrations of potters' refuse. In fact, the majority of the Late Geometric burials cluster on the west and northwest slopes of the Areiopagos and on the southeast slopes of the Kolonos Agoraios.That is to say, as the earlier burial grounds were filled with tombs over time, later burials occupied what little ground was left. A few isolated Late Geometric graves are scattered elsewhere in the area, but never in places of concentrations of earlier tombs. A number of Early Iron Age wells in the area contain little or no obvious potters' debris. All of these are, however, located in close proximity to wells with potters' material, including the large Protogeometric potters' deposit (L 11:1), the kiln (H 12:17), and the 7th-century potter's dump (S 17:2), and most of these would have served the same pottery establishment^.^^ Moreover, as was stressed in earlier chapters (1 and 2), much of the discarded fragmentary pottery usually interpreted as the result of normal domestic use was, in fact, potters' debris.lYThe interpretation proposed here, that many of the wells were associated not with domestic habitation but with pottery workshops, brings to mind the issue of a drought, explored by Camp.20The latter correctly observed that many wells in the area of the Classical Agora were closed sometime around 700 B.c., that some of these were considerably deeper than normal, and that shortly afterward the number of graves declined rather drastically. O n the basis of this and other evidence, Camp concluded that there was a drought, shortly before 700 B.C.Whatever the reality of the drought theory, widely accepted by many archaeologist^,^^ the pattern seen in the area of the Classical Agora has little to do with population estimates, settlements, or demography, and much to do with potters and their industry.

276

CHAPTER j

T h e pattern of burials and potters' activity seen in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora is not unique. Indeed, the location of pottery workshops, particularly kilns, on the site of an earlier cemetery, or the establishment of a burial ground on the site of earlier potters' activity, is well known at a number of sites in the Greek world, including, among many others, Argos, Sindos, Rhodes, Atalante, Torone, and, of course, the area of the German Excavations in the later Kerameikos of Athens.22T h e primary reason kilns and tombs are so often found in such close proximity is that both are usually sited outside the main area of habitation of any settlement.2Woreover, the term "potters' field" in English tradition has come to mean a public burial place for paupers, unknown persons, and crimithis usage ultimately derives from the passage in Matn a l ~ . Although ~' thew 27:7, which refers to the purchase of a potter's field for use as a graveyard, the association of potters' quarters and burial grounds has a much older ancestry. Here it is worth noting that pottery and death find an appropriate, if coincidental, association in the stele of Keramo, the earliest known Attic inscribed g r a v e s t ~ n e . ~ ~ The extent ofboth the potters'activity and the cemetery grounds northwest of the Acropolis and east of the Kolonos Agoraios was so great in the Early Iron Age that it left essentially no room for any real form of concentrated habitation. In this context it is worth stressing another important diachronic factor, the location of kilns and potters' activity in the so-called Kerameikos in the Archaic and Classical periods. As Richard Wycherley points out, in all extant literary authorities it is always "Kerameikos" or "the Kerameikos"; the convenient terms "Inner Kerameikos" and "Outer Kerameikos" are inventions of modern topographer^.^^ Despite more than a century of excavations in and around Athens, there is, to my knowledge, only minor evidence for potters' workshops of the Archaic and Classical periods within the fortified city of Athens, with the exception of that area just within and around the Dipylon Gate, the area that is universally known as the Kerameikos. T h e evidence for pottery activity in the Archaic and Classical periods was collected by Robert and more recently amplified by John Oakley and Efi Baziotopoulou-Valavani.28T h e latter, in 22. At Argos, Protogeometric kilns, or industrial furnaces not necessarily of potters, were found in close proximity to Submycenaean and Protogeometric tombs: Courbin 1963, pp. 71-72; also noted in Desborough 1964,p. 278. For the kilns of the late Classical period at the site of the Archaic and Classical cemetery at Sindos in Macedonia, see Despoine 1982; for Torone and references to Rhodes, Atalante, and other examples, see Papadopoulos 1989a,p. 13, notes 8-10, pp. 43-44; for Atalante, see further Lambropoulou 1983. For kilns in the area of the German excavations in the Kerameikos, see Cook 1961, kilns GI-G6, H2-H6,

J1-J4; Kerameikos X, pp. 142-143,173175. Many more kilns, particularly of the Late Roman period, have been excavated recently: see Papadopoulos 1989a,p. 13, note 9; see also Zachariadou, Kyriakou, and Baziotopoulou 1992, esp. pp. 54-55, fig. 1, for the association of pottery kilns and tombs. 23. For the location of cemeteries outside areas of habitation, see Kurtz and Boardman 1971,pp. 188-189; Morris 1987,p. 65. 24. Colman 1997, pp. 113-114. 25. See Jeffery 1990,pp. 71,76, no. 8, pl. 2; see also Jeffery 1962,p. 129; Morris 1987, p. 53. 26. So states Wycherley (Agora111,

p. 224).The only ancient reference that I am aware of that alludes to two Kerameikoi (6 yiv Zvdov q <.rc6A~w<, 6 d i EEw) is Kallikrates-Menekles, FGrHist 370 F4b, Harpokr. s.v. K ~ p a p ~ i x oThis q . is further discussed by Siewert (1999,p. 3),who cogently argues that, in this context, "der Kerameikos sei identisch mit dem Demos," that is, the Kerameikos is here equated with the deme Kerameis. 27. Cook 1961. 28. Oakley 1992; BaziotopoulouValavani 1994. For kilns and potters' activity in the area of the German excavations of the Kerameikos see, most recently, Monaco 1999 and 2000.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

29. Baziotopoulou-Valavani 1994, p. 46, fig. 1; see also Zachariadou, Kyriakou, and Baziotopoulou 1992. 30. Oakley 1992, p. 197; Stavropoullos 1967; Andreiomenou 1968. 31. The evidence for Classical and Hellenistic areas of pottery and coroplastic activity is now fully discussed in Monaco 2000. Her overview of the Early Iron Age deposits, however, is based entirely on the evidence presented in my earlier paper, Papadopoulos 1996, which is greatly supplemented here. 32. Cuomo di Caprio 1992. 33. For an overview see Papadopoulos 1992. 34.Agora XIV, p. 186; Shear 1933, esp. p. 472. 35.Agora XIV, p. 186. 36. Thompson 1937, esp. pp. 8,20 (with fig. l l ) ,47-53;Agora XIV, p. 186. A sample of the clay was subsequently analyzed by Fillieres, Harbottle, and Sayre (1983,pp. 60,69) and was shown to be silt that had accumulated through time, rather than prepared clay. 37. Monaco 1995; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 1. 38. This would suggest that the deposit is more in keeping with the material from the public dining place published in Rotroff and Oakley 1992. For further consideration of the links and differences between symposion and syssitia, see Steiner 2002. 39. Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 3; Agora notebook BT', pp. 942-943.

277

particular, documents numerous ~ o t t e r sworkshops ' of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.in the area to the northwest of the city, in the immediate vicinity of the Dipylon Gate and extending for some distance to the northwest.29Kilns and related evidence for potters7activity of the 4th century are noted for the same area, as well as that to the southwest of the city, outside the fortification wall proper but within the area protected by the "Themistoklean" Long Walls. By the Hellenistic period, a huge factory for the production of moldmade "Megarian" bowls was sited in the area just south of what is today Syntagma Square.30There is also the evidence of Hellenistic potters' debris, including test-pieces, dumped in the area of the Pnyx discussed above (Chapter 4, A24-A30).31 Such a pattern of Hellenistic or later pottery kilns and workshops located in an area formerly part of the civic center of a city is known at a number of other sites, and is perhaps best documented at Morgantina in Whereas the evidence for pottery workshops, including kilns, of the 6th century B.C.and later is substantial in the area of the Dipylon Gate and to the northwest, the evidence for potters' activity in the area of the Athenian Agora during the 6th through 4th centuries B.C.is very limited.33For example, what appears to have been a mass of refined potter's clay was dumped into a well at the north foot of the Areiopagos that was closed in the middle of the 6th century B . c . In ~ ~discussing this deposit, Homer Thompson writes: "Why the clay was discarded is not clear, but it came, no doubt, from a near-by shop."35Unfortunately, the clay described does not appear to have been saved from the excavation and there is no further information about the deposit that could establish it as potter's debris. If indeed discarded potter's clay, then this would represent among the latest evidence in the 6th century B.C. for potters' activity in this area. Another deposit commonly cited as belonging to a potter's shop is one from the east side of Kolonos Agoraios, an area mostly leveled to make way for the construction of the Stoa of Zeus in the 430s B.C.What survived of this presumed pottery shop was a deep terracotta basin full of potter's clay and a large quantity of associated fragmentary, but very fine, black-gloss pottery.36In reviewing the evidence, Maria Chiara Monaco, following the earlier work of Susan Rotroff and John Oakley, cogently argued that the material from this deposit does not represent the remains of a potter's shop, but rather that it should be connected with the syssitia, or common mess.37Her interpretation is in keeping with the nature of the deposit, and there is certainly nothing inherent in the associated pottery to recommend it as a potter's wares rather than pottery connected with the sy~sitia.~~ What appear to be repositories of potter's clay were excavated in the south area of the so-called Roman propylon in 1972, in the area behindwest of-the Royal Stoa. Briefly noted, but never fully published,39these remains of a potter's establishment represent the earliest evidence for human activity in the area, other than a series of disturbed burials probably of the Final Mycenaean or Submycenaean period. What survived of the presumed potter's establishment were two containers filled with what the excavator interpreted as pottery clay. One was a simple pit in bedrock, about 0.90 m in diameter, while the other was more elaborate. A small

278

CHAPTER

5

depression was dug into bedrock and the upper half of an amphora (P 29981) was set into it, upside down. Into this was set, in turn, the broken and misfired black-figured column-hater P 29982, which was filled, in the excavator's words, with "solid, pure potter's clay."40The hater dates to ca. 540-530 B.c., and although no clear floors were associated with the workshop, the amphora, which is pre-Persian, and the krater indicate that this potter's establishment functioned in the later Archaic period.41Moreover, the presence of this damaged black-figured krater reused as a pottery-clay container constitutes the best evidence currently available for a pottery workshop in the area of the Classical Agora that produced later6th-century B.C.Athenian black-figure. Other instances of a deposit of the Late Archaic or Early Classical period in the area of the Athenian Agora suggested as evidence for the proximity of potters' shops include the so-called Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft, one of the most controversial deposits in the area.42This was a pit measuring 1.20 x 2.40 m and sunk to a depth of 19.60 m, and was located on Kolonos Agoraios, northeast of the H e p h a i ~ t e i o nThe . ~ ~ existence in the fill of several misfired or poorly fired vases, coupled with products recognized as the work of the same potter's hand, was taken as evidence that some of the potters of the period lived and worked close by and shared a common dump for their waste.44Although a few of the pots were poorly fired, and several of those recovered may have been produced by the one potter, there is nothing in the deposit to indicate potters' debris as opposed to normal domestic discard. Similarly, Sally Roberts has argued that the mass of pottery from the so-called Stoa Gutter Well appears to have been the contents of various pottery workshops destroyed at the time of the Persian sack of Athens.45She writes: The vast number of lekythoi and variety of cups and "symposion ware" are suited to the market of the time. The number of misfires . . . seems to indicate the proximity of pottery-making shops. This is confirmed by numerous groups of closely associated vases such as the cups from related workshop^.^^ It should be stressed, however, that the pottery referred to as "misfired" both in the Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft and in the Stoa Gutter Well is in reality better described as poorly fired, and there is certainly nothing in the deposit resembling wasters or even production discard^.^' Here the example of the almost complete oinochoe, 79, from the Early Geometric well P 8:3 is worth bearing in mind, since in this case even a very badly fired vessel may have seen service before being discarded or inadvertently dropped by its owner in the process of drawing water from a well. Indeed, had 79 been preserved only in small fragments, the vessel would probably have to be described as a full-fledged waster. Moreover, the existence of several broken but otherwise healthy pots produced by one potter and discarded into the same deposit does not, by itself, establish that deposit as a potters' dump, nor does it establish the proximity of pottery-making workshops. A more reasonable interpretation is that the pots were bought as a set from the same workshop and subsequently discarded, as is suggested for example in the case of the contents of the Late Archaic well J 2:4.48

40. Notebook BT', p. 943, at H/174/18. Although a sample of clay was kept, this was subsequently never analyzed and a recent search was unable to locate it. 41. Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 3, with note 5. 42. Shear 1933, pp. 456-460; Vanderpool1938,1946; Agora XIV, p. 186. See, more recently, Francis and Vickers 1988, pp. 146-151; Gill 1988; Shear 1993, esp. p. 384, note 4. 43. Vanderpool1938; cf. Thompson 1984, p. 8. 44. Agora XIV, p. 186; see also Colman 1997, pp. 113-1 14; Papadopoulos 2000b, esp. p. 112. 45. Roberts 1986, pp. 1-9, esp. p. 4. 46. Roberts 1986, p. 4. 47. I am grateful to Kathleen Lynch for discussing both deposits with me. 48. Camp 1996, pp. 242-252, esp. p. 246. This well and its contents will be published in detail by Kathleen Lynch; see, in the meantime, Lynch 1999.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

49. The evidence is summarized in Agora XIV, p. 187, with more recent bibliography in Nicholls 1995, pp. 484492. 50. For the molds used in the production of the relief-decorated bowls found in the Agora, see Thompson 1934, pp. 451-459; Agora XXII; Agora XXIX, passim. 51. For molds used in the production of terracotta figurines, see, in particular, Agora XIV, p. 187; Thompson 1952,1957,1959;Young 1951a, pp. 249,268; Nicholls 1995. 52. Shear 1975, pp. 346-361, figs. 4, 5, pls. 77-81; Nicholls 1995, p. 405; cf. Camp 1986, p. 143. 53. Nicholls 1995, p. 405. 54. Grandjouan 1989. Note also the more recently excavated coroplast's debris in pit J 1:1,which represents material deposited in the second half of the 1st century A.c.: Camp 1996, pp. 239-241. 55. Thompson 1966, p. 43; Agora XIV, p. 186. 56. Young 1951a, p. 286;Agora XIV, p. 186. 57.Agora XXIV, pp. 120-121. 58. Frantz 1942, esp. p. 2; Agora XIV, p. 186.

279

Although direct evidence for potters' activity in the area of the Agora during the Late Archaic and Classical periods is now on the wane, there is quite a bit of evidence for the activity of coroplasts in the area during the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods.49The critical evidence is furnished by scores of molds used for the production of both terracotta figurines and the characteristic hemispherical, relief-decorated ("Megarian") bowls.50Numerous such molds were found in abandoned cisterns and rubbish dumps of buildings that, as has been argued, must also have contained the craftsmen's workshop^.^^ The more recent publication of the terracottas from well U 13:1, which range in date from ca. 470-460 to ca. 380/370 B.c., includes a minimum of forty molds ofvarious kinds.52In his detailed publication of this deposit, kchard Nicholls concludes: "This find, the largest by far of Attic terracotta molds of this date, indicates that some of the material for these layers of the fill was probably from the vicinity of a major terracotta fact01-y."~~ Mention should also be made of the interesting group of over one hundred fragments of molds for rectangular relief plaques of the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C.from the Agora published by Claireve G r a n d j ~ u a n . Unlike '~ poorly fired pottery, which may or may not represent material intentionally discarded by potters, the figurine, plaque, and pottery molds represent a crucial aspect of terracotta production and in themselves are direct evidence for terracotta manufacture in the vicinity. As for later post-Classical and post-Hellenistic pottery production in the area, the available information indicates that there was something of a revival of this area for industrial activity. Among the better-documented deposits, a rectangular potter's kiln and two associated clay pits dating to the 1st and 2nd centuries A.C.were built in the ruins of the old Heliaia.55 Another luln, dating to the 9th or 10th century A.c., for the production of pottery or roof tiles was uncovered along the west foot of the Areiopago~.'~ Several additional tile lulns in the area of 7th-century A.C.occupation are considered by Alison Frantz to be adjuncts to contemporary construction activities rather than commercial enterprises.'' Among the latest evidence for potters' activity in the area are two lulns that were destroyed to make way for the Church of the Vlassarou in the 17th century.58It is worth stressing that all of these post-Hellenistic deposits of pottery production date to a time when the area was no longer the agora or civic center of the city. The evidence presented above suggests that although there is some evidence for pottery activity in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora extending sometime into the 6th century B.c.,by the end ofthat century, and certainly by the early 5th) the potters, along with their workshops and kilns, are largely established farther to the northwest of the city, in the area of the Dipylon Gate and beyond. From the earliest stages of the Early Iron Age through the 7th century B.C.and extending into the 6th century, the broad pattern of use of this area is one of large areas of tombs and deposits, including a luln, with substantial evidence of potters' activity. When the material evidence is viewed against the backdrop of the extant ancient literary sources on the Kerameikos, it becomes clear that the area of the Classical Athenian Agora was the original Kerameikos-the Potters' Quarter of Athens.

280

CHAPTER

5

T H E ORIGINAL KERAMEIKOS O F ATHENS AND T H E CREATION O F T H E CLASSICAL AGORA One of the many problems that has plagued discussion of early Athenian topography is the siting of the Classical Agora of the city within an area otherwise known as Kerameikos. The testimonia pertaining to the problem were gathered in summary form by W y ~ h e r l e y ,and ~ ~ the passages dealing with the "Agora-within-the-Kerameikos" were ably discussed by Eugene Vanderpo01.~~ It was clear that "Kerameikos" was associated with many aspects of the city, from processions and the distribution of meat, to pottery and prostitution. It was also clear from the ancient literary and epigraphical sources that the district Kerameikos occupied a large area in the northwest part of the city-to the northwest of the Acropolis-including the agora, extending to the main cemetery of the Classical city, and reaching as far as the Academy6' But it was the particular usage of the term "Kerameikos" in association with the Agora that troubled a number of scholars. In reviewing the available literary evidence on the Kerameikos, Wycherley concluded: Perhaps the truth of the matter is something like this. Throughout antiquity the name Kerameikos meant, essentially, "Potters' Quarter," a very extensive district in the northwest. A particular official usage is attested by the boundary stones (and possibly I G 112968), and people used the name in various ways with special reference. But Kerameikos does not mean literally the cemetery, or the agora, save that Pausanias, perhaps with misguided precision, takes it in the latter sense. These usages are colloquialisms or metaphors, varying in relative frequency in different epochs. Similarly "Covent Garden" can mean now a vegetable market, now an opera house, while all the time it is in fact a London square, but no longer a garden.62 The same literary testimonia relevant to the problem were also gathered and discussed from a quite different perspective by A. N. Oikonomides, who attempted to distinguish between those references he believed had to do with the "Agora in the old town" and those referring to the "later Agora in K e r a m e i k ~ s . "The ~ ~ latter was generally equated with the area north and west of the Acropolis and east of the ~ o l o n o Agoraios, s that is, the area excavated by the American School of Classical Studies since 1931. Disagreement, however, arose over the existence and nature of the "Old Agora." In Wycherley's view, the only definite information on an "Old Agora" in all of classical literature was the fragment ofApollodoros quoted in Harpokration, which referred to Aphrodite pan demo^.^^ The passage is worth quoting in full: x6rvGujyoq ' A q p o G i ~Tx~piGujq6v TG x a ~ & ~ a ~ p o x h d o u~i q. yv.iioloq. 'AxohMGwpoq dv TQ x ~ p0i ~ 6 xvdrvGujyov cpujolv 'A0.ijvujol xhuj0ujva~+qv & ( P L ~ Q U ~ E ~ O GXIEVQ ~*V &pxaIav &YOQ&V 8 ~ TO & bvsa60a x6rv~aTOV Gujyov ouv6ryso0a~TO x a h a ~ b v6v ~ a i q ixxhujoialq, 6q ix6rhouv hyop6rq.

59. Agora 111,pp. 221-224. 60. Vanderpool1974a. 61. Apora XIV., D. 186; T h o m ~ s o n 1984, p.?. 62. Agora 111,p. 224. 6 3 Oikonomides esP. PP. ixxii, 1-50 for the Agora in the old town, and 5 1-1 11for the testimonia referring to the Agora in the Kerameikos. 64. Agora 111,pp. 224-225; FGrHist 244 F113; see further Beschi 1969b, esp. pp. 517-528; Simon 1970; 1983, pp. 48-49; Kolb 1981, p. 20; Robertson 1992, esp. p. 49. L

1964j

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.2. The Athenian Acropolis. General view from the west, ca. 1890. Collotype,Anonymous. The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (06.11.17).

65. Trans. Wycherley in Agora 111, p. 224, no. 731. 66. Oikonomides 1964, p. xviii. 67. Wycherley 1966; 1978, p. 65. 68. Oikonomides 1964, pp. vii-viii. See also Travlos 1960, pp. 24,28, where Travlos refers to an "Agora of Theseus," which he located to the west and north of the Acropolis. Cf. Gardner 1902, pp. 126-127; note, however, the view of Martin (1951, pp. 256-261). 69. See Judeich 1931, p. 285; Robertson 1998, p. 285, fig. 1.

281

Pandemos Aphrodite: Hyperides in his speech against Patrokles, if it is genuine. Apollodoros in his work on the Gods says that the title Pandemos was given to the goddess established in the neighborhood of the old agora because all the Demos gathered there of old in their assemblies, which they called a g ~ r a i . ~ ~ Oikonomides not only queried the quantity of testimonia with direct bearing on the problem, but claimed that the testimonia referring to the Agora in the Kerameikos either were not properly collected or were miswhich led to hrther discussion interpreted by Wycherley in Agora 111,66 and debate?' For Oikonomides, the Old Agora was to be found in the area to the southwest of the entrance to the Acropolis (Fig. 5.2).68 This was a conclusion based on speculation, since there was no firm archaeological evidence for an early Agora in this area. Oikonomides was perhaps following the passage in Harpokration just cited, which places the Old Agora in close proximity to the Sanctuary of Aphrodite Pandemos. The site of the shrine of Aphrodite is f ~ e dapproximately, , by the testimony of Pausanias (1.22.3) and by inscriptions at the southwest corner of the Acrop01is.~~ Although the nature and exact location of an old agora continue to exercise scholars working on the topography of early Athens, few scholars would now seriously doubt that there was an earlier Agora at a site other

282

CHAPTER

5

than that of the Classical successor. This is perhaps best typified in the work of Thompson and Wycherley, who came to accept the existence of an early Agora, more or less where Oikonomides suggested: The Agora as a great center of community life developed slowly in the course of the 6th century B.C. Athens presumably had a simple agora before this time, but we know almost nothing about it . . . the west of the Acropolis, not far from its entrance, would be appropriate for a simple prototype of the Athenian Agora, and the saddle between the Acropolis and the Areopagus, where the ground is comparatively level, is perhaps the most suitable spot.'O There has been at least one recent attempt to reestablish the Old Agora only on the location of the Classical s u c c e ~ s o rbut, , ~ ~ more definitively, the recently proposed relocation of the Aglaureion must carry with it the siting of a number of important early monuments.72The discovery of an inscription found in association with its original base places the Sanctuary of Aglauros not, as previously thought, on the northwest slope of the Acropolis, but near the prominent natural cave on the east side of the rock (Figs. 5.3-5.4).73 This identification of the Sanctuary of Aglauros, if it is accepted, would thus relocate several important monuments of old Athens that are well known from our literary sources-the Anakeion, the Theseion, the Prytaneion, to mention only a few, and with them, presumably, the Old Agora-to the east (whether northeast or southeast) of the 70.Agora XIV, p. 19. Note also Thompson 1962, p. 21, where it is stated: "There appears to have been an earlier, less formal Agora just outside the entrance of the Akropolis." The notion of the slow development during the 6th century B.C. of the area northwest of the Acropolis as a civic center is echoed in Camp 1986, passim. 71. See Kenzler 1997. It is unfortunate that Ulf Kenzler's contribution could not take into consideration the earlier work of both Papadopoulos (1996) and Robertson (1996); see now also Robertson 1998. Kenzler's attempt to deconstruct the existence of an earlier Agora at a place other than the Classical Agora-by suggesting that the position of the Aglaureion (whatever its real location) provides no compelling evidence-involves serious difficulties: see Shear 1994; Miller 1995a, 1995b; Papadopoulos 1996; Robertson 1984, pp. 386,392-393; and esp. Robertson 1996, 1998; cf. also Robertson 1986, pp. 157-168; 1992, pp. 4358. Moreover, his comparison of the Athenian Agora with the marketplaces of other cities is of little consequence to what happened in Athens. It should also be noted that the Shrine of Aglau-

ros is, most probably, on the east side of the Acropolis, not on the northeast, as Kenzler insists (see below). Apollodoros' statement, in Harpokration, that the title Pandemos was given to the Goddess established in the neighborhood of the Old Agora does not negate the existence of the Old Agora to the east of the citadel. First, the passage clearly states that the Shrine was in the neighborhoodof the Old Agora ( x ~ p i r j v apxmlav hyopriv). Second, as Robertson (1998, pp. 291-292) cogently argues, the usual approach to the Acropolis is on the south side of the Acropolis and, as such, it would be normal for anyone to approach the entrance of the Acropolis from the Agora, passing by the Asklepieion, and the old shrines of Ge Koutrophoros, Demeter Chloe, and Aphrodite Pandemos. It was on the south side of the Acropolis, along with the rock itsel6 that the primary habitation of Athens was focused. Kenzler thus overlooks the fact that the later Panathenaic Way is not the only approach to the Acropolis. For the remains of important civic or religious buildings of the Roman period to the east of the Acropolis, near the Monument of Lysikrates and the later

Figure 5.3 {opposite, upper). "Le Temple de Jupiter Olympien et I'Acropolis d'Athknes," by Louis DuprC, 1819.The view shows the prominent cave behind the Shrine of Aglauros. Eliot 1968, pl. 41:b Figure 5.4 {opposite, lower). The City ofTheseus, ca. 1865-1870. View from the southeast showing the Arch of Hadrian and the southeast slope of the Athenian Acropolis. Albumen print, Petros Moraites. The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (06.02.08).

Church of Aghia Aikaterini, see Korres 1988; Lippolis 1995; Schmalz 1998. It is this latter area that is the most likely candidate for the Old Agora, located on the east-southeast slopes of the Acropolis (see below). 72. See esp. Schnurr 1995a, 1995b; Papadopoulos 1996; Robertson 1998. 73. Dontas 1983; cf Miller 1978, pp. 41-54; 1995a. The great cave was partially excavated by Oscar Broneer and published in 1936: Broneer 1936; Pease 1936. Broneer, the excavator of the North Slope, continued to accept the consensus then current, which placed the sanctuary on the northwest slope: Broneer 1933,1935,1938.The great cave is illustrated in Travlos 1971, p. 407, and see pp. 72-73,578 for the earlier literature on the Sanctuary of Aglauros. The fullest overview of the literary evidence for the Aglaureion is Ervin 1958; see also the more recent comments in Cucuzza 1996. See further Judeich 1931, p. 303; Wycherley 1978, pp. 176-177; Robertson 1986, esp. pp. 157-169; Holscher 1991, esp. p. 359; Schnurr 1995b. For the most recent discussion, with further references, see Shear 1994; Schnurr 1995a.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

283

284

CHAPTER

5

Acropolis and therefore closer to the primary area of early habitation to the south of the citadel (see below).j4 It is remarkable that the later inscription on the Arch of Hadrian announcing the "City of Theseus" (Fig. 5.4) faces exactly the area of the presumed Old Agora, with the Shrine of Aglauros and the Acropolis behind. In this context it is worth mentioning the idea, first suggested by Kohler and later established by Vanderpool, that the Tholos in the area of the later Athenian Agora was the Prytanikon, as opposed to the Prytaneion, which was located e l ~ e w h e r eGeoffrey Schmalz's recent identification of .~~ the lost Prytaneion with the Ionic peristyle complex under the plateia of Aghia Aikaterini, near the Monument of Lysikrates, directly east of the Acropolis is of interest.j6Schmalz argues that this building may have been reconstructed in the Augustan Age, and its archaizing style is certainly suggestive; he also musters supportive epigraphical evidence, such as the archon lists found close by and the dedication of an Augustan epimeletes p~ytaneiou.~~ Such a location for the Prytaneion would place the Archaic Agora on fairly level ground close to all the principal landmarks of early Athens.78 These early monuments include what was regarded in antiquity as the "front" of the Acropolis (i.e., the east flank of the citadel),79the Sanctuary and Theater of Dionysos, the various shrines along the South Slope of the Acropolis-e.g., Ge Koutrophoros, Demeter Chloe, Aphrodite Pandemos-as well as those of the Ilissos River valley. Indeed, such a location would place the Archaic Agora close to the oldest and most venerated of all Athenian public fountains, the Enneakrounos-Kallirrhoe, which was situated, as Thucydides (2.15.4-5) tells us, by the banks of the I l i s s ~ s . ~ ~ Moreover, the Temple of Olympian Zeus-one of the most ambitious architectural projects initiated by the Peisistratids-was sited in direct relationship to the old civic center of Athens. If the portion of the Ionic building that survives immediately to the west of the Church of Aghia Aikaterini in Plaka, near the Monument of Lysikrateslglis to be equated with the Roman rebuilding of the Prytaneion, then the precise location of the Old Agora is established. 74. See esp. Shear 1994; Schnurr 1995a. 75. Kohler 1871, p. 340; Vanderpool 1935; Dow 1937, pp. 27-28; Thompson 1940, p. 44; Miller 1978. Indeed, the theory that places the Prytaneion in the "Old Town" section of Athens was first proposed well over a century ago by Curtius (1865, pp. 5468), who believed it was south of the Acropolis. 76. Schmalz 1998. 77. Schmalz 1998, with discussion of earlier interpretations of the building. 78. I n Plutarch's Kimon 4.7 (481a) reference is made by the poet Melanthios to the "Agora of Kekrops." There

is also the fragment by Pindar of the dithyramb For the Athenians that refers to the Agora as the "ompha/osof the city": Pindar fr. 75 (= Snell 1964, fr. 75, p. 82). 79. Dontas 1983, pp. 60-61. 80. For the EnneakrounosKallirrhoe spring, located southeast of the Olympieion in the Ilissos riverbed, opposite the Church of St. Photini, see Travlos 1971, pp. 204-205, figs. 267268; see also Skias 1893; Nikolai'dou 1893. 81. It should be stressed that the area immediately around the Monument of Lysikrates was an important public area in the Classical period. The excavations by Manolis Korres in the

Plateia Lysikratous in the early 1980s revealed a number of important cult sites of the 5th century B.c., in addition to a long and narrow stoa of the 4th century B.c.; see esp. Korres 1988. There is also evidence for a substantial water-channeling project in this area in the Archaic period that is linked with the Peisistratids (Djordjevitch, personal communication). More recent work in the area, particularly along the Street of the Tripods, has brought to light a number of substantial structures, in addition to several choregic monuments and further evidence of water channeling (Kawadias, personal communication).

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

82. The equation of the Altar of Pity with the Altar of the Twelve Gods was first suggested by WilamowitzMoellendorff (1880, p. 201, note 4) and subsequently discussed by Crosby (1949, p. 102) and Thompson (1952, esp. p. 49). 83. Not one of the monuments in the Old Agora-the Prytaneion, the Theseion, the Anakeion, etc.-has been identified in the area of the Classical Agora. 84. Agora XIV,p. 1; see also von Eickstedt 1991, esp. pp. 1-6; Garland 1987. 85.Judeich 1931, pp. 69,430; Agora XIV,p. 1, note 3; von Eickstedt 1991, p. 4. 86. O n the historical problems associated with Late Archaic and Early Classical Athenian history, see Badian 1971, esp. pp. 9-17.

185

This location for the original Agora of Athens also accounts very nicely for all the apparent confusion generated by modern readings of Pausanias, and vindicates many of the arguments first laid out by Oikonomides. Pausanias' "tour" of the Classical Agora-i.e., the Agora-in-the-Kerameikos-begins with the Stoa Basileios (1.3.1),which he specifically places in the district Kerameikos, and ends with the Stoa Poikile (1.15-16). Pausanias then moves to the area at the "front" (east) of the Acropolis and begins his account of the Archaic Agora, which he refers to as the agora ("marketplacen) at 1.17.1, as opposed to Kerameikos.There, among other things not universally known, is the Altar of Pity, which is sometimes erroneously equated in modern scholarship with the Altar of the Twelve Gods.82After noting this altar Pausanias visits the Gymnasium of Ptolemy, located "not far from the Agora" (1.17.2: iv 6b TO yupvaoiq @< 6 ~ 0 ~ 6 5 6 x i ~ o v r ~ onohv. i , II~ohepaiou),and the Sanctuary ofTheseus, which is "beside the gymnasium"(l.17.2: npo5 6i TO yupvaoiq Ovjoto5 i o ~ i vi~pov). H e then visits the Sanctuary of the Dioskouroi (1.18.1)-i.e., the Athenian Anakes and hence the Anakeion-and the precinct ofAglauros, which is "above the Sanctuary of the Dioskouroi" (1.18.2: 6nbp 8i T ~ A~ooxoljpwv V TO iepov 'Ayharjpou ~ i p e v ioo~~ ~and v ) then the Prytaneion, which is "hard iov by" or "right next to" the Anakeion (1.18.3: nhujoiou 62 n ~ u ~ a v ~ionv). Having visited these monuments, as well as the Sanctuary of Serapis and several other minor monuments, Pausanias moves on to the Arch of Hadrian, the Olympieion, and the Ilissos River. Such a separation of the two Agoras-that in the Kerameikos and the older Agora to the east of the Acropolis-does away with all the apparent contradictions and confusion in the text and renders Pausanias' account both internally logical and topographically accurate.83 Consequently, there appears to have been something of a major shift of focus for the civic center from the general area of the east or southeast of the citadel to the northwest in historical times. Such a shift goes handin-hand with two important developments in the history of the city that left their imprint on its topography. The first and arguably more important is the move from Phaleron to Piraeus for the principal harbor of the city. Whereas the old road from Phaleron to Athens approached the city from the south, the systematic development of Piraeus would have greatly increased traffic through the area west and northwest of the Acropolis, thereby favoring the location of the Classical Agora.84The development of Piraeus as the main harbor ofAthens has been linked with the archonship ofThemistokles (493/2 B.c.) and would have been greatly precipitated by the realities of the Persian attack in 480." In fact it seems that a shift from Phaleron to the Piraeus was much more likely after Salamis, rather than in the 4 9 0 ~ . 'It~ was to Phaleron, for example, that Hippias led the remnant of the Persian fleet after Marathon and, independently, that the defenders of the city-old men, women, and children-marched to frighten off the Persians. It was also to Phaleron that the Marathonomachoi marched. Clearly Phaleron was the harbor of Athens before and during the Persian Wars. The relocation of the primary harbor of the city from Phaleron to Piraeus has enormous topographical ramifications since it imposes a radical change on the routes by which goods were transported to and from the city.

286

CHAPTER

5

The second important historical development that would have topographical ramifications is the relationship between Athens and Eleusis. Although it would be difficult to argue for any significant exploitation of the Piraeus before the early 5th century B.c., the Athenian domination of Eleusis appears to have enjoyed an earlier history in Athenian t r a d i t i ~ n . ~ ' According to Thucydides, Pausanias, and others, Athenian tradition puts the subjugation of Eleusis in the time of Erechtheus, while admitting that its effective incorporation into the city-state of Athens was the result of the synoilusmos of T h e s e u ~More . ~ ~ recently, a number of scholars have queried the chronology of the incorporation of Eleusis into Attica and the influence of Athens in the sanctuary at Eleusis, stressing in particular that the issue should be considered independently from the evidence gleaned from the Hymn t o Demete~.~' T h e latter, as Margaret Miles stresses, has been regarded as our primary "text" for the Eleusinian Mysteries." Kevin Clinton argues that the foundation of the Mysteries in the hymn is secondary to other aspects of the cult of Demeter, which are probably connected to the T h e s m o p h ~ r i aMost . ~ ~ recently, Judith Binder's penetrating overview of the archaeological and literary evidence reaffirms Ferdinand Noack's thesis that the cult of Demeter and Kore was first established at the Telesterion site in the Early Archaic period.y2Whatever the diachronic vicissitudes of Athenian hegemony over Eleusis and its fertile plain, particularly in the light of the Persian defeat-after which time Athenian hegemony over Eleusis was assured-Athenian domination of her neighbor would have given greater importance to the roadway leading northwest of the Acropolis and with it the siting of the Classical Agora.93 The effect that the shift in focus from Phaleron to Piraeus coupled with the importance of Eleusis had on major thoroughfares to and from Athens can be quickly appreciated by viewing any plan of Athens and its surrounds (Fig. 5.5). Following the normal route from Phaleron to Athens, one would arrive in the south quarter of the city, especially the southeast, and from there gain access to any part of the town. Coming from the Piraeus, however, particularly following the course of the Classical Long Walls (s& pcrxph ~ ~ i mone ) ,would arrive in the southwest corner of Athens. Here, the location of the Mouseion Hill (now the Philopappos Hill)y3 would naturally force one around the hill, to the northwest. Any goods carried to and from Athens and Piraeus would have to follow this route, skirting the west side of the Hill of the Muses. 87.Agora XIV, p. 1, note 2. 88.Thuc. 2.15.1-2; Paus. 1.5.2, 1.27.4,1.36.4, 1.38.3; cf.Apollodoros 3.15.4-5; Plut., Theseus 10.3;Agora XIV, p. 1. Note also the testimony of Herodotos (1.30),where, according to Solon, the man more blest than all his fellows was Tellos, who, among other things, attacked and routed the enemy in a battle between the Athenians and their neighbors at Eleusis, and there nobly died. See also Travlos 1984 for Athens and Eleusis in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.

89. See esp. Clinton 1986 and, more generally, 1992; Shapiro 1989, p. 67; cf. also Simms 1975. For an overview see, most recently,Agora XXXI, esp. pp. 21-23. 9O.Agora XXXI, pp. 21-22. 91. See Clinton 1986;Agora X X X I , p. 22. For the Thesmophorion and Eleusinion in Athens, see, most recently, Osanna 1995; cf.Thompson 1936. For the Homeric Hymn to Demeter see Richardson 1974, pp. 12-30; Foley 1994, pp. 169-178. 92. Binder 1998; cf Noack 1927.

This view argues against the history of the sanctuary as formulated by George Mylonas (1961, pp. 3,7,3351) and John Travlos (1988, pp. 91-92, figs. 108-124). Supportive material evidence for an Early Archaic date is now fully presented in KoWcou-Vyridi 2000. 93.Agora XIV, p. 1, note 2; Mylonas 1961, esp. pp. 21-29. 94. For the Hill of the Muses and the Monument of Philopappos, see Travlos 1971, pp. 462-465.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

287

Figure 5.5. Plan ofAthens with the Piraeus and Phaleron, showing the Long Walls connecting the city with its harbors. From Travlos 1960, p. 49, fig. 19

In his account of the transportation of grain from Piraeus to the Aiakeion in the Classical Agora, Ronald Stroud noted that the two most logical routes from the commercial harbor-Kdrv8crpoq--would have been the hamaxitos road, which was located just outside the north Long Wall, and the road that was framed by the two Long Walls.95While the latter is more direct, it is also steeper, whereas the hamaxitos road, seeking level terrain, approached the city from the northwest and thus avoided the rocky barrier of the Mouseion, the Pnyx, and the Hill of the Nymphs.96Traveling from Piraeus to Athens via the hamaxitos, one could enter the city either from the Demian Gate, the Piraeus Gate, or, hither north, the Sacred Gate, or the Dipy10n.~~ Coming from Phaleron, however, no hilly barrier was encountered and one would enter Athens near the southeast at a point close to the Archaic Agora.98 A similar pattern endured into later times, well after the time when the 5th-century fortifications contributed to the defense of the city. This is perhaps best seen in the plan of Athens and its surrounds prepared by Jacob Spon in 1676 and published in 1678 (Fig. 5.6).99The Chemin du Phalere, along with the Chemin de Munychia, clearly enter the city of Athens at the southeast corner, precisely where the Old Agora would be located.lOThe Chemin du port, along with the Chemin de Salamina and 95. Stroud 1998, pp. 104-105. 96. Stroud 1998, p. 105. 97. Stroud 1998, pp. 104-107, fig. 7. 98. The gate that offers the most direct route from the old harbor at Phaleron into Athens is the Halade Gate (= gate XI1 inTravlos 1971, pp. 168-169, fig. 219), which is approached by a road that largely follows, or runs parallel to, the

modern Leophoros Syngrou. Alternatively, there is the South Gate a little to the west (= gate XIII) and the Itonian Gate to the east (= gate

XI). 99. Spon 1678; see further Travlos 1960, pp. 176-177, fig. 116. See also De Laborde 1854; Omont 1898. 100. As does the Chemin duport Lyon par Za marine.

288

CHAPTER

5

Chemin d'Eleusine, is shown entering the city from the west and northwest, precisely where the Classical Agora was located. Spon also records the Rue du piree ou Mami teichi exactly to the north and west of the Mouseion Hill.lol Indeed, Spon's plan clearly stresses the Hill of the Muses in the topography ofAthens and how it effectively divides the roads leading from Phaleron to the south and east of the hill, on the one hand, and the roads from the Piraeus to the north and west, on the other. A further ramification of the shift from Phaleron to the Piraeus is brought up by Mark Lawall (personal communication), whose preliminary study of all the securely dated pre-500 B.C. contexts in the area of the Athenian Agora has shown them to be very poor in terms of imported amphoras.'02 In contrast, the so-called Persian Sack wells witness an increase in the quantity of imports.'03 Rather than suggesting increased Athenian import activity in the early 5th century B.C. or a sudden rise in sympotic activity and the consumption of foreign wine in the city more generally, the increase of foreign imports into the Classical Agora may reflect the fact that more goods were being funneled into the area precisely because of the shift to the Piraeus as the main harbor of the city. Whatever the nature and precise location of the Old Agora-though there is now little doubt that it should be to the east of the Acropolis, not far from the Monument of Lysikrates-current consensus has come to accept the later "Agora-within-the-Kerameikos" as its Classical successor. This is well stated by two successive directors of the Athenian Agora excavations. Homer Thompson writes: The Potters' Quarter (Kerameikos) of ancient Athens occupied a large area in the northwestern part of the city. From the literary

Figure 5.6. General view ofAthens, showing the primary routes in and out of the civ.Jacob Span, 1676.

101. For Celebi,s accounf of ~~h~~~and ~~~i~~in the 17th centuly, see Bire 1959. 102. I am grateful to both Mark Lawall and Kathleen Lynch for discussion of these and other issues. 103. Cf. Shear 1993, pp. 429-480.

289

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

and epigraphical evidence, the district is known to have embraced the Agora or city center, and to have extended outward to include the principal cemetery of the city, reaching even the famous gymnasium, the Academy. The sheer extent of the district is enough to attest the importance of the [potters'] industry in the life of the city."" More recently, T. Leslie Shear Jr. states: Let us return now to the familiar ground northwest of the Akropolis where sixty years of excavations have revealed in detail the archaeological history of the civic center. That this is the Agora of classical Athens is a central fact in the archaeology of the city. From the fifth century B.C.until the Roman conquest, the area between the Areopagus and the Eridanos River teamed with the political, cultural, and commercial activities that made Athens the greatest polis of Greece.'Os Shear goes on to discuss the pertinent question of when, and in what circumstances, this district became the Agora.lo6H e notes that the private fields and family cemeteries of the Early Iron Age only gradually gave way over time to the public space and open square of the Classical marketplace.lO'The date for this event is usually stated to be sometime in the 6th century B.C.One view holds that the Agora northwest of the Acropolis was established at the time of Solon, another that it was largely the work of Peisistratos and his sons.''* In various quarters, however, the debate has turned toward the period from 500 B.c.-or slightly earlier, during the time of the reforms of Kleisthenes in 508/7 B.c.-to the end of the Persian Wars.'09 One fact that has emerged fairly clearly is, as Stephen Miller notes, that there are no demonstrablypublic buildings on the west side of the Classical Agora that clearly predate 500 B.c."' Most important, to my mind, is that a date of 500-480/79 would be in keeping with the date of the Agora horos inscriptions (Figs. 5.7-5.9), which in themselves represent the most explicit evidence for the establishment or formalization of the marketplace.l1' This is to say that the Agora was not the formal marketplace until that time when these horos inscriptions were erected. Both T. Leslie Shear Jr. and John McK. Camp I1 date these to ca. 500 B . C . ' ~The ~ letter-forms and the material evidence associated with these boundary stones cannot provide a more precise date and, as such, a date shortly after 480 B.C.is just as valid as one around 500 B.C. 104.Thompson 1984, p. 7; cf. Agora

XIV, p. 186. 105. Shear 1994, p. 228. 106. Shear 1994. 107. Shear 1994, p. 228; cf. Agora XIV, pp. 1-19; Camp 1986, pp. 1960. 108. Agora XIV, pp. 19,25-26 (Solon); for the Peisistratids, see Camp 1994, esp. pp. 9-12; cf. Shear 1978. 109. See esp. Francis and Vickers

1988; Gadbery 1992; Shear 1993, 1994. The fullest and most recent overview is Miller 1995a, esp. p. 224, note 4. See further Thompson 1981, pp. 345-346; 1982, pp. 136-137; also Camp 2001, p. 260. 110. Miller 1995a, p. 224; cf. Camp 1986, pp. 48-57; Shear 1994, p. 245. For some of these buildings see, most recently, Miller 1995b; Shear 1995.

111. For horos inscriptions generally, see Fine 1951; see also Ober 1995. 112. Shear 1978; Camp 1994. The two Agora boundary stones in situ are Agora inv. I 5510 and I 7039 (Agora XIX,p. 27, nos. H25, H26); a third horos inscription in the same series is H27 (inv. I 5675); see also Thompson 1968, esp. pp. 61-64.

290

CHAPTER

5

Figure 5.7 (above). Athenian Agora horos stones: I 7039,I 5510,15675. W.B.DinsmoorJr.

Figure 5.8 (ley). I 5510 in situ Figure 5.9 (right). I 7039 in situ

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.10 (left). Athenian Agora, detail of the Lithos. Background: north wall of the Stoa Basileios; foreground: terracotta drain of the 4th century B.C. Figure 5.11 (right). Athenian Agora, remains of the Stoa Basileios after excavation. View from the south. T h e Lithos is visible at upper right.

291

on the basis of the evidence at hand.'13 Whatever the exact date of the establishment of the Classical Agora as a civic center, a related issue, well discussed by Shear, is the Lithos (Figs. 5.10-5.11).l14 Shear states: When the Basileus moved his seat from the archaic Boukolion to the newly built Stoa Basileios, ca. 500 B.c., the Lithos was transported to its new site in front of the stoa. Here it served as a very tangible symbol of that sacred trust which the laws imposed on Athenian magistrates, laws that they swore to obey as they stood on the Lithos in front of the actual texts themselves displayed on the kyrbeis. The archons of Aristotle's day swore the same oath as they had in Solon's day; and the great stone itself formed the physical link between them and their predecessors and the law-giver himself115 The pottery and other material associated with the placing of the Lithos and the construction of the Stoa Basileios await publication in M.Until then, the date of these events remains speculative, though it is likely that the detailed publication of this material will indicate a date ape7 480 B.C. Be that as it may, the L i t h o s 6 Aieo~,always with the definite article-measures 2.95 x 0.95 m. The great stone is of special interest because if Emily Vermeule's suggestion-that this was the lintel block of a Mycenaean tholos tomb--is correct, then the massive stone predates even the legendary Solon, and makes the link to the past even more symbolic

113. Cf. Francis and Vickers 1988; Gill 1988,1993. I hasten to add that I do not subscribe to all of the arguments presented by Francis and Vickers, particularly as the authors did not consult the relevant pottery deposits. G i s conclusions suggest that the Temple of

Aphaia may be later than the Persian Wars, though the argument is essentially circular, as the chronology of the pottery found on Aigina continues to rely heavily on parallels from contexts in the Athenian Agora. In any case, it is hoped that the work of Kathleen Lynch

and Mark Lawall will shed light on these deposits and their chronology. 114. Shear 1994, p. 245. 115. Shear 1994, p. 245; the stone is described and illustrated on pp. 242245, figs. 15-16; see also p. 238, figs. 13-14; cf. Camp 1986, pp. 101-102.

292

CHAPTER

5

and real. Vermeule's ingenious suggestion has entered general Agora lore (without due credit).l16Although there are no known tholos tombs in Athens, the possibility of a now-vanished tholos tomb is strengthened by the two tholos tombs at Thorikos and one each at Marathon and Menidhi, the latter in the northwestern suburbs of modern Athens.'" An alternative suggestion that may be ventured is that rather than representing a lintel block of a Mycenaean tomb, the Lithos was the threshold of a Mycenaean gate: one of the legendary, if formulaic, gvvia nvhijv of the Athenian Acropolis.l18 The reason why the Lithos, and with it the seat of the basileus, was moved to this quiet corner of Athens, under the shadow of the Kolonos Agoraios, just south of the E r i d a n ~ s , may ~ ' ~ never be known, but there is now good evidence to suggest why this area would have been known to any Athenian as the Potters' Quarter. The name Kerameikos as applied to the original Potters' Quarter was never lost and continued to be used for the same area of the Athenian Agora. Nowhere is this more explicit than in the discovery of a Kerameikos horos inscription at the northwest corner of the Classical Agora (Fig. 5.12).120The stone, which is dated to the 4th century B.c., was found in situ in March 1939 (Fig. 5.13), facing north onto the ancient street that led to this point from the Dipylon Gate.12' The stone is located precisely where Pausanias is likely to have entered "the Agora," perhaps inspiring him to write that upon entering the "Kerameikos," the first building on the right is the so-called Stoa Basi1ei0s.l~~ A second Kerameikos horos inscription, albeit fragmentary, was found out of its original context near the Classical Agora in 1959 (Fig. 5.14).12Thefragment, as Gerald Lalonde notes, represents the fifth known example of a distinctive series of opisthographic horoi of the Kerameikos.12" In addition to the epigraphic evidence, the name Kerameikos is used with special reference to the Classical Agora in a variety of ancient aut h o r ~O. n~ this, ~ ~ Pausanias is most clear. For example, in 1.2.4 he states:

There are stoas from the gate to the Kerameikos. 116.The suggestion is mentioned, for example, in Camp 1986, pp. 101102. 117. See AgoraXIII, p. 150 (with references); Camp 1986, p. 26. See also Pantelidou 1975, passim; Mountjoy 1995, esp. p. 18. It should be noted that many of the richest chamber tombs in Athens have been found in the area south of the Acropolis (references in Mountjoy 1995; see also Mountjoy 1981), and it is possible that a tholos tomb may have been located in this area, although it should be stressed that tomb I in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora is among the richest

chamber tombs in Athens. For Thorikos see, in particular, Servais and Servais-Soyez 1984. The most recent discussion of the tholos tombs at Thorikos, Menidhi, and Marathon, along with tomb cult elsewhere in Attica, is Antonaccio 1995, pp. 102126. 118. For the ivvicc .rcuhov see, among others, Harrison 1906, pp. 3334; Travlos 1971, pp. 52-54. I am grateful to Walter Gauss for his insights and for discussing with me many of the issues related to the Lithos, especially on the site of the great stone. 119. For some recent thoughts on

the topography of this general area, see Osanna 1992. 120. Shear 1940, pp. 267-268, fig. 4, p. 299; Agora 111, p. 223; Agora XIX, p. 28, no. H30, pl. 2. 121.Agora XIX, p. 28. 122. Paus. 1.3.1 (quoted in the beginning of this chapter); see further Vanderpool 1949; cf. Vanderpool 1974a. Note also the comments in Harrison 1894, pp. 14-15,23, 113. 123.Agora XIX, p. 28, no. H31, pl. 2. 124.Agora XIX, p. 28 (with references). 125. See Agora 111, pp. 221-224.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.12 (lep). Kerameikos horos stone, Athenian Agora I 5770 Figure 5.13 (centm). Kerameikos horns stone in situ after excavation

Figure 5.14 (right). Kerameikos horos stone fragments, Athenian Agora I6835

293

The gate in this context can only be the Dipylon Gate. At 1.3.1, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, Pausanias specifically notes that upon entering the Kerameikos, "the first building on the right is the Stoa Basileios." In the same passage Pausanias further notes that the district Kerameikos takes its name from the hero Keramos. As Wycherley adds, some ancient commentators state that there was a deme called Kerameikos, although the name of the deme was actually Keramei~.'~~ In 1.14.6 Pausanias writes: x b vmo&v T$V xahovpfv~/vBaoih~tov Tnkp 8i.sbv K ~ p a p ~ ~ xai va6q Bmtv 'Hqaiosov. The Temple of Hephaistos is above the Kerameikos and the Stoa Basileios.

126.Agora 111, p. 221; see further Camp 1986, p. 21, fig. 6. For the deme Kerameis, see Whitehead 1986, p. 475 (with full references). For other boundary stones of land held by demes, phatries, and gene, see Raubitschek 1974. The most recent discussion of the deme Kerameis "und die Ortsbezeichnung 'Kerameikos,"' is Siewert 1999, esp. pp. 3-4, where it is stated: "'Kerameikos' kann also dasselbe wie der Demos 'Kerameis."' 127.Agora 111, p. 221.

Similarly, in 1.20.6, where Pausanias says that Sulla imprisoned his opponents in "the Kerameikos" and executed every tenth man, he is referring to the Kerameikos in the same sense as above, with reference to the area of the Classical Agora.'27 Elsewhere, Pausanias (8.9.8) says: xai 64 x d rjjq Bv K ~ p a p ~ t xypacpflq, Q q sd Lpyov E ~ X E sd 'ABqvaiov Bv Mawtv~ia. There is also a copy there of the painting in the Kerameikos which represented the engagement of the Athenians at Mantineia. This painting in the Kerameikos of the Battle of Mantineia was already described by Pausanias as being in the Stoa of Zeus, yet another building of the Classical Agora that was also "in the Kerameikos."

=94

CHAPTER

5

Pausanias, however, is not alone. Although, as Wycherley stresses, the name Kerameikos is not simply synonymous with Agora in Roman times, and the use of the name with reference to the cemetery continues, a number of monuments can still fairly certainly be placed both in the Classical Agora and in the Kerameikos.12' For example, Arrian, in Anabasis 3.16.8, writes: nohh& 62 xcti &Aha xcc~~Aficp0q ctri-coij. ooct Zhptqq &nor?j<'Ehhk605 6ywv fihO~, T& TE &Ah@xcti 'Appo6iou xcti 'Ap~o~oysi~ovoq ~~ xcthxcti E~XOVE<. xai T C ( ~ T C ('SAOqvctio~<6~tiown h p n 'Ahh(ctv6poq. cti E ~ X O V E < f, i ~ V L ~ iEq V xcti vUv xctiv-cct~'AOtvqo~vbv K~pctps~xQ noh~v,x c t ~ c t v ~ ~ xp&h~mct pb TOU p q ~ p 6 0 v[oh] . pctxp&v T ~ V c t ~ 0~ctiv

bv 'Eh~uoivt. Erj6ctvdpwv TOU pwpoij. 6 o - c 6~ i~p ~ p 6 q ~miv 018s TOG Erj6ctvhpov TOV Popov i n i TOG 6ctnh6ou bv~ct.

Many of the things that Xerxes brought with him from Greece were found there [in Susa], including the bronze statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton. The latter Alexander sent back to Athens, and the statues now stand in the Kerameikos, where we go up to the Acropolis, not far from the altar of the Eudanemoi, just opposite the Metroon. Whoever has been initiated into the Mysteries of the goddesses at Eleusis knows that the altar of Eudanemos is on flat ground.lZ9 Perhaps the most revealing testimony is that of Athenaios (Deipnosopbistae 5.212e-f), who virtually equates the Classical Agora with the Kerameikos: nhfipqq 6' fiv xcti 6 K E Q C ~ ~ E& LD X T ~OV xai ~ ~ ~ V WxctiV C ~ ~ ) T O X ~ ~ET~OS< hxxhqoiccv T ~ oxhwv V ouvdgopfi. 6 62 p6h~< npo?jh8~6opvcp0iv TO 6fipq ~ E ~ O V T6W x 6V1 0. ~ 0 ~ po6psvo~6no T ~ ~V b 6 o x ~ p s nap& ~. o6v hni TO o n s v 6 o v ~ oxBv ~ ngoo&$ctoOct~Yljq b o 8 ? j ~ o&vaP&< < PUjpct TO npb Y l j ~'A ~ ~ b h o u~ o ~&x o~6 o p q p ~ v o~vo i 'Popctiwv 0~2x5hni TOVTOU xcti np~~Phil)ct<

TO nh?j805. o-cpcc~qyoi~ xvxhq8bv " & v ~ Q E <'Aeqvctio~. . ."

& C E L&vctPhhl)ct<. T'

T$V

The Kerameikos was full of citizens and foreigners, and the crowds converged spontaneously upon the place of assembly. H e [Athenion] made his way forward with difficulty, with a bodyguard of men who wished to seem important in the eyes of the people; each one was eager to touch his garments. Mounting the platform [p?jpct] built by the Roman generals in front of the Stoa of Attalos, he took his stand on it and looked at the crowd all round. Then raising his eyes he said, "Men of Athens . . ."I3' We find mention then of such quintessentially Athenian Agora monuments as the statues of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, the Stoa of Attalos, and the Bema standing in the Agora-Kerameikos, as well as the bronze statue of Lykourgos. The latter was placed, according to Pausanias (1.8.2), with Amphiaraos, Eirene, and so forth, "after the Eponymoi," whereas in Plutarch the same statue stands in the Kerameikos, and was set up in accordance with a decree passed in the archonship of A n a ~ i k r a t e s . 'Ac~~ cording to the Suidas (s.v. Demosthenes) a bronze statue of Demosthenes was erected in the Agora, whereas according to Zosimos, the same statue

128.Agora 111, pp. 221-222. 129.Agora 111,p. 94, no. 260, p. 221 130.Trans. Wycherley in Agora 111, p. 46, no. 99. 131. Plutarch, Vit.X Orat. 843c; see .,ggora 111, pp. 212-213, nos. 158 and 704, p. 221.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

295

was set up in the Kerarneik~s.'~~ With regard to the Agrippeion, a building that is probably to be equated with the so-called Odeion in the middle of the Agora,133Philostratos states:

They assembled in the theatre in the Kerameikos called the Agri~pei0n.l~~ The Leokorion also appears in our ancient literary sources as being both Morein the Agora and in the Kerameikos,13jas does the Stoa P0iki1e.l~~ over, there are several further passages, however ambiguous, assembled by Wycherley where Kerameikos may naturally be taken to mean Agora.13' It should also be noted, however, that in Alkiphron, the Kerameikos and the Agora are distinguished from one another, and from the law courts as ~ ~ 1 1 . ~ 3 ~ An important implication of the literary and epigraphic evidence combined with the archaeological material and the conclusions presented above is that, whatever date one advocates for the establishment of the Classical Agora, this was one of the few areas of ancient Athens that was never heavily built up before the 5th century B.C.It was close to the Acropolis, and large enough and sufficiently free of substantial earlier building to appropriate as a commercial and civic area. When exactly this occurred will remain an issue of contention, though I believe, with Miller, that the establishment of this area as an Agora happened only after the Persian destruction of Athens in 480 B . c . ' ~It~must be stressed that such a conclusion does not in itself call into question the significance of some of the important early monuments in the area, such as the Altar of the Twelve Gods (whatever its precise date),140the Southeast Fountain House,la and 132. See discussion in Agora 111, p. 21 1, under no. 699. 133. See Travlos 1971, pp. 365-377. 134. Vitae Sophistarum 2.5.4 (571); see Agora 111, p. 162, no. 522. 135. See Agora 111, pp. 110-111, nos. 323 (Demosthenes, Konon) and 326 (Harpokration). 136. See Lucian, Iupiter Tragoedus 15-16 (Agora 111, p. 38, no. 76, p. 222), where Zeus, taking a stroll in the Kerameikos, came to the Stoa Poikile. Similarly, in Lucian, Piscator 13 (Agora 111, pp. 38-39, no. 78, p. 222), Plato, waiting for Philosophy to arrive in the Stoa Poikile, awaits "her here in the Kerameikos." 137.Agora 111, pp. 222-223. 138. Alkiphron, Epistles 2.3.11 (4.18.11 Loeb); see further discussion in Agora 111, pp. 163-164, no. 529. 139. Cf. Miller 1995a. 140. Gadbery 1992; cf. Gadbery 1986; Francis and Vickers 1988. Laura

Gadbery has effectively shown, on the basis of stratigraphy and associated pottery, that the early parapet or peribolos constructed by the younger Peisistratos in 522/1 B.C. was renovated in the last third of the 5th century B.C. and that the Leagros base was moved to its present location in connection with this renovation (the altar itself does not survive except for fragments). Gadbery (1992, p. 452) also argues that the later parapet was not constructed until the later 4th century B.C. 141. It would seem that the dating evidence for the earliest phase of the Southeast Fountain House is not without its problems. Thompson assigned the first phase of the fountain to the second half of the 6th century B.c.,primarily on the evidence of the masonry style or polygonal stonework of what he took to be the original parts of the building. Thompson (1953, p. 32) stated: "A date in the second half of

the 6th century is suggested for the fountain house by the material and the stone work of the original parts which have much in common with the Old Temple on the Acropolis and, still more, with the Old Temple of Dionysos below the Theatre. Such a date would be congruent with the little pottery that has as yet been found in association with the first period."The little pottery noted does not provide a firm date, and it does not need to be stressed that buildings, particularly ones poorly preserved, cannot be dated on the basis of the style of their masonry. Moreover, stonework related to that of the Southeast Fountain House is found in many parts of the Greek world, including the area of the later Athenian Agora, in post-Archaic contexts. I am grateful to David Scahill for bringing the problematic evidence for the original date of the Southeast Fountain House to my attention.

CHAPTER

296

5

Building F (which is most probably a potter's workshop), among several others.14*Although there are problems with all three buildings, either in terms of chronology or in the interpretation of their function, the important point is that these monuments do not, by themselves, denote the siting of the Archaic Agora. The placement of the Altar of the Twelve Gods as the "zero-mile marker" or, for that matter, the location of the Southeast Fountain House, would be perfectly logical along a road as prominent as that which became the Classical Panathenaic Way. Indeed, as Margaret Crosby noted, this "altar stood close to the point where the highways leading in from the country turned in to the city proper."143O f these buildings only the Altar of the Twelve Gods is stated by an ancient source to be in the Agora: Thucydides (6.54) notes that the altar was dedicated by the younger Peisistratos, the son of Hippias, when he was archon in 522/1 ~.c.~"Thucydides places this monument in the Agora because in his dayi.e., the 5th century after 480 B.c.-this was the Agora. It is also worth stressing that the suggestion that the altar was moved to its current location was first made by Homer Thompson, the field archaeologist who largely oversaw its e x c a v a t i ~ n . ' ~ ~ 142. For these structures, see, in particular, Camp 1986, pp. 35-60; see also Angiolillo 1992. Whatever the interpretation of Building F, there are serious problems with the restoration of such an elaborate internal colonnade in any structure of the Archaic period. he full account of the excavation and reconstruction of Building F is provided in Thompson 1940, pp. 15-33. Since the floors of the building were as much as 0.80 m below the original ground level of the overlying Tholos, Building F was largely investigated by means of four small trenches cut through - the Tholos floor to bedrock and, from their sides, tunneling under the floor (Thompson 1940, pp. 15-17). Poorly preserved and never fully exposed, the original building is not as grand as it is often made out; compare, for example, the published photographs (e.g.,Thompson 1940, pp. 17,19, figs. 14-15) with the elaborate restored black-line ground plan that is usually published (Thompson 1940, p. 16, fig. 13).Although it was originally interpreted as the predecessor of the ~ h o i o s~, h o m ~ s later o n suggested that this was the residence-even palaceof Peisistratos (Thompson 1962, p. 21, though cf. p. 46). This later interpretation, which was never hlly explained, has come to be generally accepted: Boersma 1970, pp. 16-17; 2000; Shear 1978, pp. 5-7; Camp 1986, pp. 44-

45; and, most recently, Scheffer 1990, pp. 185-186. There are serious difficulties with this interpretation, however, that go beyond the poor state of preservation and the elaborate nature of the reconstructed colonnade. Charlotte Scheffer has even gone so far as to compare the reconstructed groundplan of Building F with that of the Regia in Rome and a number of other buildings in Italy. This similarity in plan may be more apparent than real, and it is even possible that Building F was reconstructed with the Regia in mind. I t is notable that the suggestion that Building F was the residence of Peisistratos first appeared, with little scholarly backing, in the 1960s, more or less at the time of renewed excavations at the Regia, for which see Brown 1974-1975; Coarelli 1983, pp. 56-79. For the earlier literature on the Regia, dating back to 1885, see Nash 1981, p. 264. T h e likelihood is great that Building F, with its courtyard, is not a residence but a potter's workshop. Rather than being thought to resemble the colonnaded courtyards of substantial later Classical and Hellenistic villas or houses, the courtyard of Building F might better be reconstructed as a shed or lean-to. The shade provided by it would have been idealfor various duties carried out in a potter's workshop, from the manufacturing of pottery to the storage of the wares. In addition to the - -

Tholos kiln in the immediate vicinity, described in detail in Chapter 2, which establishes the presence of potters' activity in the same area during the 8th and 7th centuries B.c., several other installations contemporary with Build. . ing F might be connected with potters' activity, perhaps even the small structure H (Thompson 1940, pp. 2426, fig. 20), interpreted as a bread oven. Before we posit any new interpretation for Building- F or accept it as the residence of the Peisistratids, however, it is important that the actual physical remains of the b u i l d i n r n o t just its restored ground plan-are carefully scrutinized, along with its associated deposits. As far as I am aware, this has not been done since the original publication in 1940. Although such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present study, it is nevertheless worth bearing in mind that Building F, like the potter's kiln (H 12:17), need not be a civic building. 143. Crosby 1949, p. 103. 144. See Camp 1986, p. 42; Gadbery 1992, pp. 449-450. 145.Thompson (1952, p. 51) argues that the Altar of Pity must have been moved and perhaps set up in the peribolos originally designed for the Altar of the Twelve Gods; he also notes that the two may have stood together in the same enclosure for a time. As for the movement of altars in Athens, A

A

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

=97

In so many ways, our understanding of the development of the area that was to become the Classical Agora has fallen victim to a view that assumes that earlier buildings constructed in the same location as civic buildings must have had a similar function. Close scrutiny of the pre-Classical material record in this area, however, shows that there is very little, if anything, of a clearly civic nature and a great deal of evidence for industrial activity, including Early Iron Age pottery workshops and Archaic bronzecasting establishments. An early-5th-century B.C.date for the establishment of the Agora would also accord nicely with the systematic exploitation of the Piraeus as the main harbor of the city, as is argued above, thereby increasing traffic through the west and northwest part of Athens. The scenario presented in this study is as follows: the relocation of the Litbos, the establishment of the Stoa Basileios, and, most important, the erection of the Agora boros inscriptions would now be dated shortly after 480, rather than 500 B.C. It is exactly this period-that is, from the time of Kleisthenes down to 480 B.c.-about which we know virtually nothing, as Ernst Badian reminds us.146Moreover, the so-called Persian Sack wells and related deposits, whatever their precise date,'" may just as reasonably be viewed as "Agora creation" deposits. Indeed, they can be considered "Agora creation" deposits precisely because the Persians destroyed Athens, and thus their number, their uniformity in terms of content, and their location, precisely in the area that was to become the Classical Agora.

T H E CITY ON T H E H E I G H T S : T H E EARLY IRON AGE SETTLEMENT O F ATHENS One question remains: if the area of the later Agora was not taken up by domestic buildings, but rather by industrial establishments and graves, during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, where was the settlement of Athens during the Early Iron Age? The most elegant and straightforward answer would be that it was where it always was: on, and immediately around, the Acropolis. First of all, there is, despite the small quantity actually published, quite a bit of Early Iron Age material from the hill itself,'48 as well as its immediate surrounds. It is worth emphasizing that in the excavations on the Acropolis in October 1888, approximately 1,000 fragments of pottery belonging to the so-called Dipylon Class were found in the "Perser~chutt."'~~ Although it is often assumed that most of this pottery is Late Geometric,lsothe existence of Submycenaean and Thompson (1952, pp. 50-51, note 18) elaborates: "That the transplanting of altars was tolerated in Athens is sufficiently proven by the history of the great marble altar to the east of the Metroon which, though made in the fourth century B.c.,reached its present position in the first century B.c.,having previously stood, as it seems, on the Pnyx. . . . In the case of the sanctuary of

Ares, both temple and altar, built originally in the fifth century B.c., migrated to their present positions in the time of Augustus." 146. Badian 1971, p. 1; see also Papadopoulos 1999. 147. See Shear 1993; cf. Francis and Vickers 1988; Cook 1989; also Amandry 1988. 148. Graef and Langlotz

1909; see also Brommer 1972; note also the Early Iron Age material found in the fill of the fountain: Broneer 1939, esp. pp. 401-405, figs. 84-87. See also Gauss and Ruppenstein 1998. 149. Graef and Langlotz 1909, p. 23. For the Dipylon Class see Poulsen 1905. 150. E.g., Hurwit 1999, p. 89.

298

CHAPTER

5

Protogeometric material on the hill would indicate that the possibility of earlier material cannot be altogether excluded. Less than one-tenth of this pottery has ever been published, and, until it is, our knowledge of its nature and precise date must remain incomplete.lj1 It is also worth stressing that the Early Iron Age material on the Acropolis represents among the latest remains on, or near, the surface of the rock prior to the major building activity beginning in the 6th century B.C. Such remains on the surface would have been more completely cleared or destroyed than some of the earlier material, such as stretches of the Cyclopean wall-which was still in use-and early burials dug into bedrock. Moreover, given the number of joining fragments of pottery from the Acropolis and the North Slope, it is possible that some of the Early Iron Age pottery from the area immediately around the hill may represent debris from the Acropolis itselfls2 It is also significant that Early Iron Age burials are located on all sides of the Acropolis (Fig. 5.15),lS3as if emanating from the center, just as the tombs of the Mycenaean era surround it.lS4Indeed, if one omits the traces of settlement that were mapped out by Morris largely on the basis of the evidence of the wells in the area of the Classical Agora,lS5then one is essentially left with Early Iron Age burials surrounding the Acropolis.The pattern seen in Figure 5.15 is only partial, based on the chances of discovery and preservation as well as publication. The heavy concentration of tombs to the northwest of the Acropolis is the result of decades of systematic excavations by the American School and the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut in the area, respectively, of the Classical Agora and the Kerameiko~.'~~ 151. Cf. Hurwit 1999, p. 89. 152. See, in particular, Pease 1935, for black-figured pottery, some of which joins with fragments from the Acropolis; for the Geometric pottery, see pp. 239-241, fig. 14; Roebuck 1940, esp. pp. 162-163, fig. 13. There are even joining fragments among the pottery recovered from the Acropolis and the cave on the east slope of the Acropolis (above the Shrine of Aglauros): Pease 1936. For fragments of the Erechtheion found in the excavations of the North Slope of the Acropolis, see, most recently, Glowacki 1995. For Geometric and "Primitive" terracottas from the North Slope, see Morgan 1935, pp. 193-197. 153. Much of the literature on Early Iron Age burials is summarized in Morris 1987, esp. pp. 76-87; see also Kurtz and Boardman 1971; Bohen 1997, esp. p. 46, fig. 1. To the north and west of the Acropolis, the cemeteries of the Kerameikos are best known (Kerameikos I, IV, V.l; Brouskare 1979; for graves hrther to the northwest, see Morris 1987, pp. 76-87; Alexandre

1968), along with some of those in the area of the later Agora (e.g., Young 1939,1949a; Blegen 1952; Smithson 1968,1974). To the south of the citadel much of the material has appeared in preliminary reports of the Greek Archaeological Service, although occasionally some of the tombs are more hlly published, e.g., Brouskare 1980. There are also the so-called Heidelberg Graves: Styrenius 1967, pp. 52-55; Desborough 1952, pp. 2,70-71, pl. 1 (Heidelberg grave B); Canciani 1966, pp. 33-36, pls. 101, 102:l-3 (Heidelberg graves A and B). One of the largest Early Iron Age cemeteries in Athens, and probably the largest of the Protogeometric period, was uncovered at the corner of Vas. Sophias Avenue and Herodou Attikou Street, to the east of the Acropolis. Perhaps containing 62 graves, it remains unpublished. In addition, the recent excavations for the Athens Metro have uncovered various Early Iron Age tombs: Parlama and Stampolides 2000, pp. 44-50,162165,269-290. 154. For Mycenaean tombs in

Athens, see, most recently, Mountjoy 1995. 155. See Morris 1987, pp. 64,66, figs. 17-18. 156.The map (Fig. 5.15) is only a partial representation of the minimum number of Early Iron Age burials. It does not aim to be comprehensive. It is based largely, but not exclusively, on Morris 1987, pp. 62-69, and does not include some of the most recently discovered material. O f the latter, it is important to consider the new material from the Metro excavations, including Protogeometric tombs in the Makriyianni Street (Acropolis) station, southeast of the Acropolis: Parlama and Stampolides 2000, pp. 44-50; as well as Submycenaean tombs in Syntagma Square, east of the Acropolis: Parlama and Stampolides 2000, pp. 162-165. There are also additional tombs, particularly of the 7th century B.c., from the excavations for the Kerameikos Station: Parlama and Stampolides 2000, pp. 269-290.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

+ Submycenaean A Protogeometric

Early and Middle Geometric Late Geometric

Figure 5.15. Schematicplan of Athens showing the location of main clusters of Early Iron Age tombs around the Athenian Acropolis

157, See Gauss and Ruppenstein 1998. 158. Gauss and Ruppenstein 1998.

@& The pattern around the Acropolis appears to be repeated on the rock, for although there are Early Iron Age-mostly "Submycenaean"-tombs on the ~ c r o ~ o l ithey s , are virtually all located aroun-d the edge of the citadel, as the recent work of Walter Gauss and Florian Ruppenstein has established.'j7 T h e total number of graves on the Acropolis assembled by Gauss and Ruppenstein stands at nineteen, ofwhich eighteen are cist tombs and one is a pithos burial. O f these, seven tombs can be dated "Submycenaean" with confidence and a hrther four are likely to be of that date, bringing the total number of probable "Submycenaean" graves on the rock to eleven. Four of the remaining graves are assigned to the Middle Helladic or Shaft Grave period, as is, in all probability, the pithos burial. T h e three remaining graves cannot be dated.'j8 Most important, all the graves but one of those assembled by Gauss and Ruppenstein are burials .. of children or infants (at various times in the Bronze and Early Iron Age periods it was customary to bury children within a settlement). This fact thereby establishes that the Acropolis was the settlement of Athens at

30°

CHAPTER

5

least during the Middle Helladic period and in the early stages of the Early Iron Age.159 The manner in which early tombs surround the Acropolis might also account for the enigmatic Delphic response at the time of the Persian Wars recorded in Herodotos (7.140), which described Athens as circular or "wheel-shaped" ( n o h ~ T o ~~ O ~ O E LThis reference ~EO ~ ) . led Gardner and other scholars to support the existence of a fortification wall around the city at the time of the Persian invasion (see below).160Arguably the most important literary evidence, however, is the testimony ofThucydides, which agrees well with the material evidence presented above. A t 2.15.3, Thucydides states: To 62 ngo fi txxgonoh~~ fi v5v obou nohy ?v, xui sd bx' u 6 d p ~ngoq VOTOV p61h~o~u TET~U~~~VOV. Before this [i.e., the synoikismos of Attica under Theseus] what is now the Acropolis was the city, together with the region at the foot of the Acropolis toward the south.16' At 2.15.6 he continues:

And, finally, the Acropolis, because the Athenians had there in early times a place of habitation, is still to this day called by thempolis or city.162 With regard toThucydides 2.15.3-6, Gardner states: "In this passage Thucydides makes two distinct statements, and quotes evidence to prove them: (1) that the early city was mainly in the Acropolis; (2) that such portion of it as was outside the Acropolis lay to the The proof cited by Thucydides is straightforward. In addition to the sanctuaries ofAthena and other deities on the Acropolis, the primary sanctuaries of the Athenians outside the Acropolis are situated mostly in the southern quarter of the city,Thucydides specifically mentions the sanctuaries of Olympian Zeus, Pythian Apollo, Earth (Ge), and Dionysos Lim159. For general discussion of intraas opposed to extramural burial in the Greek world, and the reasons for it, especially in the case of children, see Young 1951b; Nilsson 1955, p. 175; Burkert 1977, p. 295; SourvinouInwood 1981, p. 36; 1983, esp. pp. 43, 47; 1995, esp. pp. 433-439; Jordan and Rotroff 1999. 160. Gardner 1902, pp. 45-46. 161. Trans. C. F. Smith. 162. Trans. C. F. Smith. For Thuc. 2.15.3-6, see further Gomme 1956, pp. 49-61; cf. Harrison 1906,

esp. pp. 7-8; Dorpfeld 1937, pp. 5-22. their parishes have an established The Acropolis as polis is also echoed in worship of other gods nevertheless hold Pausanias (1.26.6), who states: ' I ~ p h Athena in honor. But the most holy y6v sij5'AOqvSXq i o r ~ v TE ahh? T C O A L ~ symbol, that was so considered by all xai 9 n6oa Byoioq fl- xai yhp Koo~q many years before the unification of the 0 ~ o b qxa0iorrjx~vahhouq iv r o i ~ parishes, is the image of Athena which S$yo~qo f p ~ ~oO6iv v , T Ltooov $v 'A€)?is on what is now called the Acropolis, v6v ayouo~vi v r ~ y -a. sb SB 6 y ~ L j ~ a ~ o vbut in early days the Polis [City]; trans. i v xo~v@ nohhoi~npor~povvoy~o06v W. H. S. Jones). By referring to an Lrao~v7 ouvijh0ov a n 0 rGv Ssjywv iosiv ayahpa on the Acropolis before the 'A0qv6q ayahya iv sa vuv Fxxpoxdh~~. unification of Attica, Pausanias is TOTE 66 hvoya
CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

301

nais, in whose honor were celebrated the more ancient Di~nysia.'~~Thucydides goes on to state (2.15.5): ~ ' ~ Q U 6h T Uxcri L dMcr is@&scr6-q hpxuiu. xui xp4v.n -@ vGv phv T ~ ~ug6rvvov V o f i ~ oxsuao6rv~ov o~ 'Evvsuxporjvc; xcrhoupkv~.s b BE n6rhcr~( P ~ V E Q T~ V~ nV~ y O v06oOv Kcrhh~ppofii)vopuopiv~i x ~ i v o i TE i ~ o6cq v s&~n h ~ i o ~ o~ uS Li U w 6 v ~ oxui . vGv LTL hnb so6 drpxc?iou XQO TE ycrp~x6vxui i q dhha T ~ ~VE Q vopi<ssu~

~ V 50 fi6crs~ )pqoOcrL. In that quarter [i.e., south of the Acropolis] are also situated still other ancient sanctuaries. And the fountain now called Enneakrounos, from the fashion given it by the tyrants, but which anciently, when the springs were uncovered, was named Kallirrhoe, was used by the people of those days, because it was close by, for the most important ceremonials; and even now, in accordance with the ancient practice, it is still customary to use its waters in the rites preliminary to marriages and other sacred ~eremonies.'~'

164. For these, see generally Travlos 1971; for the sanctuaries on the South Slope of the Acropolis, see, in particular, Beschi 1969a. 165.Trans. C. F. Smith. For the Enneakrounos, see esp. Levi 1963; cf. Levi 1933; see also Beschi 1969a, 1969b. See also Dorpfeld 1894 and the discussion above. 166. Cf. Cornford 1907, pp. viii-ix. 167. Eiteljorg 1993, esp. pp. 85-86. 168. Eiteljorg 1993, pp. 85-86; cf. Vermeule 1986, esp. p. 78. See further Stevens 1946, esp. pp. 73-77; Iakovides 1962,1973; Bundgaard 1974,1976; Wright 1980, esp. pp. 64-65, note 18; 1994. 169. Hurwit 1999, p. 88. 170. Camp 1984, p. 41. 171. Personal communication. 172. Mylonas Shear 1999.

As the testimony of an Athenian born before Aeschylus was dead,'66 Thucydides' account is in this case compelling, as it refers to the topography of the pre-Periklean town in which he was brought up. Indeed, the Athens that Thucydides knew as a boy was remarkably prehistoric in its overall appearance. As Harrison Eiteljorg reminds us, the Athenian Acropolis before the Periklean building program, which truly transformed it, was remarkable in neither size nor grandeur.16' In his study of the west end of the citadel, Eiteljorg also points out how "Mycenaean" the Acropolis was in its appearance as late as the first half of the 5th century B.c.'~*In the words of Jeffrey Hurwit, "there is no question that the massive Cyclopean wall of the citadel survived the end of the [Mycenaean] era more or less intact, and that it would have been the most formidable and striking feature of the Acropolis throughout the Dark Age (and beyond)-a colossal and still very finctional relic."'69 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that both the Mycenaean fortifications and the Pelargikon were still viable defensive systems in the 5th century B.c., functional and formidable, but hardly relics. Using the testimony of Herodotos (9.13) and Thucydides (1.93.1-2), Camp has argued that whatever remained of the early fortifications, particularly the Pelargikon (see below), may have been included in the complete and deliberate destruction of the walls of Athens after the Persian capture of the city. Alternatively, the Athenians themselves may have used the wall as a quarry for the hastily built post-Persian circuit.liO Here it is worth noting that in the latest reconstruction of the west entrance of the Mycenaean Acropolis, Michael Djordjevitch"' and Ione Mylonas Shear,172independently of one another, convincingly argue that the west Cyclopean wall was both multiphased and more substantial than previously assumed. Among other things, not only does such a restoration make the bastion of the Athena Nike temple an integral part of the Mycenaean fortification, but it avoids the necessity of restoring extramural

CHAPTER

302

5

terraces; it also brings the actual entrance system more in line with that of Tiryns.li3 It is exactly this entrance to the Acropolis that the Persianswho had already occupied the Areiopagos-attempted to assail, to little effect as it turned out, since the Athenian defense was finally breached by a few soldiers who had scaled the cliff on the east side of the Acropolis above the shrine of Aglauros (see Figs. 5.3-5.4).l7"n this way, Noel Robertson correctly interprets Herodotos' words "in front of the Acropolis, but in back of the gates and the usual as~ent.""~ And as was noted above, the east side of the Acropolis was considered the "front" in antiquity. Herodotos' account of the Persian sack of Athens (8.52-53) bolsters our impression of the Mycenaean character of the Acropolis fortifications in the early 5th century. As for earlier times, Homer's testimony is clear on several points: that Erechtheus' citadel was well built and that Athena herself made him dwell in Athens, "in her own rich sanctuary": Gijpov 'EpsxOijoq psyah.ijsopoq. 6v nos' 'AOfivq

Oph+~Atoq Ovy6rqp. shxs 62 <~i6opoqepovpcr

x&6 6' i v 'AO.ijv1~E ~ V h@, i v niovt vq@.

EvOa 6 i ytv ~ a v p o t oxai t hpv~toiqih6rovsat

xoGpo~'AOqvaiov X E ~ L T E ~ ~ O ~ ivtavs6v~ ~ V W V

(Iliad2.546-552)176 T ~ a6O' V f i y ~ p o v ~vibq v ' ~ E T E MsvsoOsljq ~ O And they that held Athens, the well-built citadel, the land of greathearted Erechtheus, whom of old Athena, daughter of Zeus, fostered, when the earth, the giver of grain, had borne him; and she made him to dwell in Athens, in her own rich sanctuary, and there the youths of the Athenians, as the years roll on in their courses, seek to win his favor with sacrifices of bulls and rams;-these again had as leader Menestheus, son of Peteos.17' Much of the discussion of the topography of Athens in the Early Iron Age, Archaic and Early Classical periods has focused on the meaning, exact size, and location of the Pelasgikon/Pela~gikon,~as well as its relationship to a real or mythical Archaic peribolos This is not the 173. Mylonas Shear 1999; for the Nike Bastion and an overview of past literature and an account of recent work, see Mark 1993 and 1995; see also the references cited in note 168 above. 174. Hdt. 8.52-53. For useful commentary see Camp 1984, p. 41, and esp. Robertson 1998, p. 284. The cliff on the east side of the Acropolis is, in reality, not as difficult to scale as most commentators seem to think. The passage to the prominent cave is straightforward, and immediately above the cave the bedrock forms a small saddle. This area was protected by the massive wall on the east side of the

rock, which is at this point at its highest (see Fig. 5.4). There are also rock-cut steps north of the entrance to the cave, discussed and well illustrated in Broneer 1936, pp. 252253, fig. 4. 175. Robertson 1998, p. 284, note 12. For the Persian ascent of the Acropolis see further Jeppesen 1979, p. 391; 1987, p. 40; see also Jeppesen 1983, for hrther clarification of his ideas concerning the location and identification of the Erechtheion. 176. Cf. Od. 7.81. 177. Trans. A. T. Murray. 178. Among earlier writers see, in particular, Curtius 1891, p. 47; Har-

rison 1906, pp. 22-36; Dorpfeld 1937. Among more recent contributions, see esp. Iakovides 1962, esp. pp. 179-199, 231-235; 1973, pp. 113-140; Beschi 1969a, esp. pp. 390-397 (with references to earlier literature); 1969b; Travlos 1971, pp. 52,55-56,91; and, most recently, Camp 1984. 179.The evidence has most recently been gathered in Weir 1995; Weir uses much of the same evidence already discussed in Judeich 1931, pp. 120124; Lauter-Bufe and Lauter 1975; Travlos 1960, pp. 40-46, pl. 11; Vanderpool1974b; Walter 1949; Winter 1971, pp. 61-64; 1982; Young 1948; 1951b, p. 132.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

180. Most recently in Weir 1995. 181. Harrison 1906, p. 31; von Gerkan 1924, esp. p. 26; Dorpfeld 1937, pp. 25-29. 182. Beschi 1969a; Camp 1984; Robertson 1998. 183. Camp 1984, esp. p. 37; for a summary of earlier literature and the consensus that the Pelargikon served a dual function, see Iakovides 1962, pp. 179-181. For the waterworks at the northwest end of the Acropolis, see, most recently, Tanoulas 1997. 184. Camp 1984, p. 41. 185.Travlos 1971, pp. 52-57, esp. p. 57, fig. 67. Among earlier contributions, see, in particular, Robert 1880, pp. 173-194; White 1894; Koster 1909; Heberdey 1910; Wide 1912; Dorpfeld 1929; Keramopoullos 1932, 19341935. 186. Hdt. 8.51. Cf. Camp 1984, p. 41; Robertson 1998, p. 284. 187. See Iakovides 1973; see also Iakovides 1999. In comparison to Tiryns (citadel and Unterburg), for example, the Acropolis of Athens is both longer and considerably wider. 188. See, most recently, Demakopoulou and Divari-Valakou 1999. 189. See discussion in Cambitoglou and Papadopoulos 1993, esp. pp. 293, 301. For general overviews of Early Iron Age settlements, see Snodgrass 1971, pp. 408-413,421-429; Coldstream 1977, pp. 303-316; see also Fagerstrom 1988; Mazarakis Ainian 1997.

3O3

place to embark on a lengthy analysis of the extant literary evidence. With regard to the existence of an Archaic fortification wall predating the 5thcentury fortifications of the city, it has to be stressed that no archaeological evidence survives for such an early wall and that even the literary information is inconclusive. Despite the arguments in favor of a peribolos wall,lgO the evidence presented by the disbelievers-including Jane Harrison, Armin von Gerkan, and Wilhelm Dorpfeld-is still compelling.lgl With regard to the Pelargikon, I subscribe to the arguments presented by Luigi Beschi and John Camp, along with some of those published by Noel Robertson.lg2Beschi's fundamental restoration of the Telemachos stele and relief (IG 1124960-4961), depicting a stork (~r~Accpyo~) in a treea straightforward pictorial reference to the Pelargikon-coupled with the evidence mustered by Camp concerning the defense of water supplies, is persuasive. The Pelargikon, originally built in the Mycenaean period as a further line of defense, as well as to bring a secure water supply within the circuit of the fortifications,lg3not only extended to the west and northwest of the entrance to the Acropolis, but swung around to the south, as far east as the Asklepieion. For Camp, who argues that one of the most important functions of the Pelargikon was to ensure a secure water supply, the collapse of the Mycenaean fountain and the continued use of the Klepsydra cuttings suggest that the Pelargikon be dated to the early years of the 12th century B.C. H e goes on to argue that the eight Archaic wells immediately to the northwest of the Acropolis "suggest its use by the Peisistratids in the 6th century, before it ceased to function as a viable fortified area in the fifth."lg4 John Travlos refers to the Cyclopean wall around the citadel itself as the Pelargikon, and to the lower wall protecting the west entrance of the Acropolis as the Outer Pelargikon (Fig. 5.16).lg5The exact line of the latter cannot be established with certainty, but the probable line as presented by Travlos cannot be too far from the mark. It is possible, however, that the Pelargikon was even more extensive. Kevin Glowacki has intimated that the Pelargikon perhaps even enclosed the entire Acropolis, more-or-less following the line of the Peripatos along the North Slope (personal communication). Indeed, there are plausible surface indications at the east end of the Acropolis that may suggest the existence of a substantial wall or other constructed feature at this point. The latter, whether defensive in character or a terrace retention wall, can be established only with further excavation. Whether or not there ever was an Archaic peribolos wall, the fortified citadel presented in Figure 5.16 was also the fortified polis of the Early Iron Age, as Thucydides tells us. The success of the Acropolis fortifications in withstanding even the might of the Persian army is well reflected in Herodotos' account (8.51-53), already referred to, and in this case the few defendants on hand were mostly temple-stewards and needy men.lg6 The Bronze Age citadel on the Acropolis is similar in size to other Mycenaean centers, including Mycenae and Tiryns,18' and is considerably larger than the citadel at Midea.lg8It is larger, often much larger, than most known Early Iron Age settlements in Greece and the Aegean.lg9

CHAPTER

89. Caves 90. Springs 91. Neolithic wells 92. Neolithic house 93. Caves with Early ~'elladicpottery 94. Middle Helladic wells

95. Middle Helladic graves 96. Late Helladic wells 97. Late Helladic graves 98. Peripatos 99. Mycenaean ascent 100. Mycenaean palace

5

101. Pelargikon Wall 102. Acropolis entrance 103. Postern gate 104. Stairway to the Mycenaean spring 105. Probable line of the Outer Pelargikon 106. Geometric graves

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.16 (opposite). The Athenian Acropolis in prehistoric times. Travlos 1971, p. 57, fig. 67

190. For Athens in the Ottoman period see, most recently, Mackenzie 1992. 191.Travlos 1971, pp. 323-331. For the Hypapanti Wall see, most recently, Marx 2001, esp. pp. 233-237,248-250. 192. See Travlos 1971, pp. 72-75. 193. For the latter seeTravlos 1971, pp. 138-142. 194. For the Stoa of Eumenes, see Travlos 1971, pp. 523-526; and pp. 378-386 for the Odeion of Herodes Atticus. 195. Dupre 1825. 196. Von Stackelberg 1834. 197. Robertson 1998, p. 285, fig. 1. 198.Travlos 1960, pp. 204-207. 199. See Anderson 1954-1955; Morris 1992a, p. 179.

3O5

In its overall layout, the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Acropolis bears a striking resemblance to that of the citadel at the time of the Greek War of Independence in terms of its defensive principles (Fig. 5.17).190 The so-called r s i x o ~s q ' ~Ynccnccvsq~,for example, essentially follows the presumed line of the Pelargikon on the north and northwest of the rock, and encloses not only the Klepsydra (v-cdtn~ccTOG vspoG),19' but another spring to the north and east, not far from the church of Aghios Nikolaos. The Klepsydra itself is both fortified in its own right and equipped with a set of stairs allowing access to the top of the hill, in a manner not unlike the Mycenaean fountain excavated by Oscar Broneer.I9' In a similar vein, , the south side of the Acropolis, not only the s s i x o ~TOG C ~ p n s v r < ion mirrors the resumed line of the Pelargikon, but also brings within the defenses a supplemental water supply, including the prominent well marked on the ~ l a (Fig. n 5.17), the Ottoman successor to the Asklepieion spring house.193Camp's arguments with regard to water and the Pelargikon are equally cogent for both the prehistoric period and the Ottoman. In the same way that the Ottoman builders exploited substantial earlier structures, such as the remains of the Stoa of Eumenes, particularly its great retaining wall, and the Odeion of Herodes A t t i ~ u s , as ' ~part ~ of their own fortifications, so too did Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman builders conceivably use earlier fortification lines. The basic line of the Ottoman fortifications around the west, northwest, and south sides of the Acropolis, as illustrated by early travelers such as Louis Duprt (Fig. 5.3)195and Baron Otto Von Stackelberg (Fig. 5.18),196 is unlikely to be too far from the line of the Pelargikon. Moreover, the fortified kastro (i.e., the outer defenses) of the Ottoman Acropolis could be approached by one of the three gates on the north, south, and west sides. Although the main entrance was on the north side, through the gate known among Athenians of the time as the Xcrhcropivv 4j Kcxrovpujyivq noprcc, there were also important approaches both from the south and the west. This feature echoes Robertson's arguments for an approach to the Acropolis in antiquity from the south.19' A more uncanny resemblanceperhaps more apparent than real-between the ancient and Ottoman Acropolis is the number of gates. As Travlos outlines, there are a total of nine gates to the Ottoman fortifications on and around the A c r ~ p o l i s . The '~~ figure nine exactly matches the ancient Enneapylon, which probably refers to the fortifications of the Mycenaean and Early Iron Age citadel together with the Pelargikon. It is possible that this in itself is a literary construct, the number nine repeated not only in other toponyms such as the Enneapylos and Enneakrounos (see above), but also in terms such as bvviopo<, as in cycles of time, a formulaic epithet popular in dactylic poetry: the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "forty days and forty nights."'99The same number in Athenian tradition appears, however, elsewhere, as in the ivvicx ~ ~ X O V Treferred E S , to, for example, in Thucydides (1.126.8). In the latter passage, Thucydides explicitly states that at this time-that is, before the legislation of Solon-the nine archons transacted most of the public business. More than this, the precept of the Ottoman Acropolis helps us visualize two potentially important aspects of the Early Iron Age settlement of

3 0 ~

CHAPTER

5

Figure 5.17. The Athenian Acropolis

around the time of the Greek War of

Independence. After Travlos 1960,

p. 205, fig. 138

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.18. "L'Acropoled'Athknes, vue du Muston,"by Otto Magnus Von Stackelberg, 1834. Eliot 1968, pl. 43:b

200. This engraving, found among the papers of Gravier d'ortitres, shows the Acropolis before the explosion that same year that destroyed part of the Parthenon. 201. Dodwell 1819-1821. 202. The image is published and discussed in Szegedy-Maszak 1987,

3O7

Athens. The first is that the Acropolis was a substantial domestic quarter in its own right. Figure 5.17 clearly shows the extent of habitation, and various illustrations of the citadel in the 17th (Fig. 5.19),2"" 18th (Fig. 5.20), and early 19th centuries (Fig. 5.21)201depict clearly the extent of the housing on the rock. Remnants of some of these houses, as well as portions of streets or paths, were still visible in the salt print taken by the Reverend George Bridges in 1848 (Fig. 5.22:a). They are similarly visible in the slightly earlier engraving, dating to 1842,by Fredtric Martens after a daguerreotype by Noel-Marie-Payrnal Lerebours, showing the Parthenon and its immediate surrounds from the northwest (Fig. 5.22:b).202Both these images were taken within a decade of the invention of photography. The main area of habitation in Athens from the 13th century A.C. onward was, to be sure, on the north side of the Acropolis, thus sited in part to conceal the extent of the main settlement from view fiom the sea.203 Despite this and the fact that those who lived on the citadel at this time represented an elite in a colonial context, it is nevertheless important to bear in mind the potential of the Acropolis, together with the area of the presumed Pelargikon, to accommodate a substantial number of people. It is also worth noting that almost all of the prominent Frankish and Ottoman structures on the citadel were cleared in the course of the p. 128, fig. 1.As Szegedy-Maszak (1987, p. 128) elaborates,Joly de Lotbiniere, in a note accompanying the view of the Parthenon replicated in Figure 5.22:b, states: "This view was made in the autumn of 1839; I mention this fact because it was the first time the image of the Parthenon was fxed

on a plate by Daguerre's brilliant invention, and because each year can bring new changes in the appearance of these famous ruins." 203. For Athens between 1204 and 1833, see esp. Travlos 1960, pp. 163234. See also Gregoroviou and Lamprou 1904; Kampouroglou 1922.

3 0 ~

CHAPTER

5

~gr

-24 -cssB

mkihm

,~ . .

Figure 5.19 (above). The Acropolis of Athens from the southwest. Engraving dated 1687. Dkpartement des Manuscrits, Bibliothkque Nationale, Paris. Figure 5.20 (left). View of the Parthenon from the east in 1765, by William Pars. Stuart and Revett 1787, vol. 11, pl. 1

19th century, as part of an official policy of the modern Greek state, in an attempt to bring back to life the Classical Acropolis.204The result was not only the destruction of the later Athenian Acropolis, but a 19th-century restoration defined by the neo-Classical sensitivities of the archaeologists of the time.205 The pace and extent of the 19th-century interventions on the citadel can be gleaned by comparing two photographs of the Acropolis South Slope taken, respectively, in ca. 1860 (Fig. 5.23) and in ca. 1880 (Fig. 5.24). The earlier view, by Dimitris Constantine, shows the Frankish Tower and the soil dumps generated by the excavations of the Athens Archaeological Society. Some twenty years later, as the photograph by Constantine Athanassiou (Fig. 5.24) shows, not only were the soil dumps gone-the earth and debris dumped over parts ofMakriyianni, to the south and south-

204. See esp. McNeal1991; also Travlos 1981; and, most recently, Bastea 2000 and Athanassopoulou 2002. For a useful summary of excavations in Athens, particularly in the 19th century, but also extending into the 20th, see PapageorgiouVenetas 1994, pp. 269-321; Mallouchou-Tufano 1994 and 1998. 205. See esp. McNeal1991; cf. Hurwit 1999, p. 301. For a useful overview of excavations and restorations on the Acropolis, see Mallouchou-Tufano 1994.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.21. "View of the Parthenon fiom the Propylaea." Edward Dodwell 1805. Eliot 1968, pl. 46:a

206. Hurwit 1999, p. 299. 207. See Bundgaard 1974; also Hurwit 1999, p. 299. 208. See, for example, Shapiro 1989, p. 5. 209. See, most recently, Hurwit 1999, pp. 89-94; see also SourvinouInwood 1993. For a recent overview of cult activity on the Acropolis and the fact that the rock continued to be referred to as polis, see Papachatzis 1989.

3O9

west of the Odeion of Herodes Atticus-but so too was the FrankishTower, the latter a project largely financed by Heinrich Schliemann in 1875.'06 Moreover, both photographs predate the massive excavations conducted by Panayiotis Kawadias, with Wilhelm Dorpfeld and Georg Kawerau, which revealed the substantial Archaic podium of the Parthenon, the temple best known as the Dorpfeld Foundations, the Chalkotheke, the Sanctuary of Artemis Brauroneia, the Temple of Roma and Augustus, the Archaic korai, and a plethora of pre-Persian p~ttery.'~'As a consequence, virtually no trace survives today of numerous substantial structures that were standing intact less than tko hundred years ago. The fact that several centuries of use and occupation are now lost from human view provides a poignant illustration of what probably happened to the remains of the Early Iron Age once the Archaic and Periklean building programs got under way. The example of the Ottoman Acropolis highlights another fact, that sanctuary, citadel, and habitation can happily coexist and that what was the pattern in the Classical period need not have been so in earlier or later times.This raises the problematic issue ofwhen, exactly, the Acropolis was an exclusively sacred zone, even though it is clear that throughout its entire history the rock never lost its strategic importance. In this sense it was always a fortified citadel with-or-and a sanctuary.Although some scholars have argued that the Acropolis is first set aside as the principal sanctuary ~ ~ others asof Athena in the second quarter of the 6th century B . c . , ~ and sume that the citadel became a sanctuary by 750 B.C. or s ~ the : ~evidence ~ at hand is certainly not conclusive.

31°

a

CHAPTER

5

b

Even in the Archaic and Early Classical periods, when there is a comparative wealth of literary, epigraphical, and archaeologicalevidence, there are unresolved issues. For example,what exactly is the Hekatompedon?Despite well over a century of scholarship on the issue, and even with the aid of the well-known Hekatompedon Inscription (IG 131, 36 no. 4), normally dated to 485/4 B.c.-though an earlier date is possible and perhaps preferable-the situation is far from clear. The Hekatompedon Inscription explicitly indicates that the Hekatom~edonis not the same as the Old Temple of Athena and should not be conhsed with it.210Whether it is conceived of as a temple (or part of a temple), a platform (as the penetrating analysis of Renate Tolle-Kastenbein suggests),2'l a precinct, or a space212-perhaps even the entire sanctuary-establishing the exact nature of use of the Acropolis in the period between ca. 700 B.C.and the aftermath of the Persian destruction is based on incomplete evidence and conjecture. Without pressing the evidence too far, the Hekatompedon Inscription, particularly metope B, lines 9-11, clearly refers to an area, defined by variouslandmarks, that was to be partic~larlyvenerated.~~~ Coupled with this is the fact that one of the landmarks-whether, depending on how the missing parts of the inscription are restored, the Kekropion or the "lower sanctuary"-stood "outside"or "below" or "to the south"of the temple (vE~s).~'~ Whatever its restoration and thus its reading, the Hekatompedon Inscription certainly leaves room for an interpretation that allows for areas on the Acropolis that were "sacred," as well as areas outside these, at the 210. See Travlos 1971,p. 258 (with references to earlier literature); also Dinsmoor 1947; Plommer 1960; Beyer (with Preisshofen) 1977, esp. pp. 74-84 on the Hekatompedon Inscription and the topography of the Acropolis. For the most recent translation and overview of the inscription, see Ntmeth 1993.The

Hekatompedon Inscription will be the focus of Patricia Butz's forthcoming study. For a useful summary of the earlier literature, see Hurwit 1999, pp. 111-112,115-116,161-163. 211. Tolle-Kastenbein 1993; see also Drerup 1981. 212. The evidence and relevant literature are well laid out in Petersen

Figure 5.22. a)The Parthenon, 1848. View from the northwest. Salt print, Rev. George Bridges.The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards couection, no. 92.R.84 (02.02); b)~h~ parhenon,1842.photograph,~ ~ ~ l - ~ ~ ~ i ~ - p ~ Lerebours;engraving,Frkdkric Martens.The 1. Paul G e t ~ M u seum, ~os&eles 84.XB:1187.24.

1909, esp. pp. 230-231. See also discussion in Dinsmoor 1947,pp. 118127. 213. See esp. Dinsmoor 1947, pp. 118-121; Ntmeth 1993. 214. Ntmeth (1993, p. 78) translates the relevant passage as "[siidlich?] vom Tempel." Cf. Dinsmoor 1947, p. 120.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

Figure 5.23. General view of the h~~.~~~li~ ~ and the ~ southi ca. 1860. Slopefrom hesouhwest, Albumen print, Dimitris Constantine. The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (04.01.01). ~

311

time the~inscription was carved and erected (late 6th or early 5th century ~ B.c.).~"It has to be stressed, however, that the fragmentary nature of the inscription is such that any number of interpretationsis possible.The problematic nature of our knowledge of the Acropolis in the Archaic period is well put by Hugh Plommer: "The literature on the Acropolis seems to me as untidy as the site."216And William Bell Dinsmoor urged scholars to strive to place themselves "in the position of an Athenian, not of the age of Perikles, but rather of 485/4 B.c., before the existence of the Parthenon and the Ere~htheion."~~' For the earlier periods, the problems are exacerbated precisely because most scholars work from the familiar ground of the 5th-century Acropolis and extrapolate back in time, rather than working forward from the Mycenaean period. In his cursory review of the Late Geometric pottery from the Acropolis, Hurwit enumerates four possibilities of how that pottery got there. The first is that in the 8th century B.C. part of the Acropolis 215. The date of the inscription is not as sacrosanct as many scholars assume. The conventional d a t e 485/4 ~ . c . - i based s on how the name of the archon is restored (usually as

@-[t?ioxp]a[r]o~). Other possibilities, well laid out in NCmeth 1993,p. 81, can be entertained. 216. Plommer 1960,p. 127. 217. Dinsmoor 1947,p. 119.

312

CHAPTER

5

was still used as a hamlet and cemetery; he later states that this suggestion is out of the que~tion,2~* although with little good reason. A second possibility is that the pottery represents dedications at the primeval cult-place known as the Tomb of Kekrops or, third, that the pieces were won as prizes in athletic contests or games and subsequently-and appropriately-dedicated to the g o d d e s ~ . ~ ~ final ~ T hsuggestion e is that this material had nothing to do with the Acropolis in its initial use, but was fill brought in by later builders.220 Despite the fact that the vast majority of the Early Iron Age material from the rock is unpublished, the available material taken togetherpots, plaques, stone inscriptions, and a wealth ofbronzes, including tripod cauldrons, which first appear on the Acropolis around 750 B.c.-may equally suggest that the citadel in the Late Geometric period followed a pattern that was probably established in the prehistoric era: a fortified settlement with an intramural sanctuary. It is also worth noting that if the Acropolis was exclusively a sanctuary in the Late Geometric period, then it was a sanctuary larger than most contemporary settlements. To be sure, the majority of Athenians at this time lived well beyond the Acropolis as they did

Figure 5.24. As previous, but ca. 1880,with the soil dumps and Frankish Tower removed. Albumen print, ConstantineAthanassiou. The Getty Research Institute, Gary Edwards Collection, acc. no. 92.R.84 (04.01.07).

218. Hurwit 1999, pp. 89-90. 219. Here it is worth noting that although there is much to recommend the idea of the Tomb of Kekrops as a focus for cult activity on the rock, the notion of Athenian athletic or other contests before 566 B.C. involves a series of slippery assumptions. More particularly, this represents another case of social realities of the historic era imposed on the prehistoric landscape. 220. Hurwit 1999, pp. 89-90.

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

3I3

throughout prehistory, tending their fields, as is clear inThucydides' (1.126) account of the Kylon episode: oi 6 i 'AfJqvcriot crio06pevot ipo-jfJeo6rv TE navBqp~'1hx 56v &yp6v i n ' cri)~oi)qxcri npoo~crfJ~
221. Trans. Steven Lattimore. 222. For a recent overview of the Kylon affair see Harris-Cline 1999. It is unfortunate that this paper, published soon after the studies of Papadopoulos 1996 and Robertson 1998, could not make use of the conclusions presented therein. 223. Hunvit 1999, p. 95. 224. Morris 1984; Osborne 1989; Whitley 1994. 225. Hurwit 1999, p. 98. 226. Papadopoulos 1999, p. 383. 227. See esp. Pantelidou 1975.

As has been alluded to above, perhaps the greatest problem facing the study of the topography of the Athenian Acropolis is the fact that the vast majority of scholars begin in the familiar terrain of the 5th century B.C. and work back, aided by the literary testimonia, such as they are. This insistence on the primacy of the later literary record in determining the prehistoric landscape, however, allows the social, political, economic, and physical realities of the historic era to infiltrate and thus define and shape the prehistoric past.226If, however, the opposite approach is adopted, working forward in time from the prehistoric era and using and comparing the material record, such as it is, then a somewhat different vista emerges. From the Neolithic era through the Mycenaean period, the citadel of the Acropolis formed part of the settlement of Athens.227It is clear that throughout the prehistoric period other areas around the rock were also settled, particularly to the south, but the Acropolis was the nucleus, the focus, of the Bronze Age settlement: first and foremost a citadel. It was also inhabited in the early stages of the Early Iron Age, as the work of Gauss and Ruppenstein establishes, and probably continued to be so for some time. When, exactly, the top of the hill was cleared of houses will remain an issue of contention. But ifwe look at the evidence presented in this volume, particularly the combination of large cemeteries and potters' workshops in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora, then we have important material evidence, the full significance of which has never been

3I4

CHAPTER

5

appreciated. The fact that the area to the north of the Areiopagos and northwest of the Acropolis was not, as previously assumed, inhabited, but continued to be used as a potters' field through the 7th century B.C.and perhaps into the 6th century, if not later, provides something of a chronological framework. When this is coupled with the evidence for the establishment of the Agora in the same area in the early 5th century B.c., as the Agora horos stones indicate (Figs. 5.7-5.9), then perhaps we have captured the moment with a little more precision. The watershed-the crucial or dividing point-in Athenian history and topography becomes the Persian sack of the city and the aftermath of the Athenian victory at Salamis. From this perspective the association of the Agora as "civic center" is divorced from particular literary events and reforms, especially those to do with the development of democracy in the 6th century. More particularly it is divorced from Archaic literary personages whose ghosts still haunt the physical and topographical history of the city: Solon, the Peisistratidai, Kleisthenes. The significance of the Athenian victory over the Persians at Marathon and Salamis cannot be underestimated, both in terms of Athenian self-esteem and as an event appropriated by later cultures. In 1846 John Stuart Mill penned his classic statement, published in the October issue of the Edinburgh Review:"The battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of Hastings. If the issue of that day had been different, the Britons and the Saxons might still have been wandering in the There are still further ramifications of an Early Iron Age Acropolis settlement and a Kerameikos immediately to the northwest, in the area that was to become the Classical Agora. The synoikismos of Attica has challenged philologists and archaeologists to pinpoint the likely occasion on the basis of material culture and literary t e ~ t i m o n i aSome . ~ ~ ~ scholars place the "unification" in the Late Bronze Age,230while others prefer a post-Mycenaean consolidation of regional A t t i ~ a , and ~ ~ lsome argue for a specifically Geometric date.232Whatever the vicissitudes of Athenian hegemony over Attica, the evidence presented in this volume suggests that Athens itself was not a series of disparate hamlets, but an urban nucleus, the focus ofwhich was the Acropolis. This evidence bolsters the view that the synoikismos was, like Theseus, a specifically Athenian invention of the historical era, a construct with no prehistoric foundation. This is well put by Sarah Morris, who writes: Like the historicity of the "Minoan thalassocracy," there may not be a configuration of evidence proving or disproving a historical occasion for the unification of Attika. This myth must have developed no earlier than the Kleisthenic reforms and for the express purpose of attributing a recent and radical reorganization of Attika to a mythical precedent. The pattern-the invention of a legendary event to complement recent political or historical events-originates with and for the sake of Athenian constitutional democracy. It becomes an organic component of Athenian

228. Mill 1978 [1846], p. 273. For Mill on democracy, ancient and modern, see, most recently, Urbinati 2002. 229. Morris 1992a, p. 338. 230. For example, Padgug 1972, pp. 140-143. 231. Thomas 1982. For a review of the literature, see Van Gelder 1991. 232. Diamant 1982. See further Wade-Gery 1931, pp. 9-10, with note 6, suggesting that the tradition of the synoikismos of Attica derives from explaining the festival of the Synoikia, rather than the other way round. I n this ingenious scenario, Wade-Gery argues that "synoikismos" means the gathering of the (great) houses of Athens, which marks the establishment of a Pan-Attic aristocracy, rather than the combination of several smaller communities to form a single larger community. Such a meaning is very different from that of the historic synoikismoi of the 4th century B.c., such as those of Halikarnassos and Megalopolis in the 370s B.c.,or Kassandreia later in the 4th century. Considered unconvincing by Diamant (1982, p. 45, note 43), WadeGery's idea is worth revisiting, particularly if the myth(s) of the synoikismos is no earlier than the festival of the Synoikia. It is also worth bearing in mind that for the unions of communities in the Hellenistic period, usually instigated by a king, the word sympoliteia is often used instead of synoikismos.For both terms, see further Giovannini 1971; Moggi 1976; see also Te Riele 1987.

3I5

CERAMICUS REDIVIVUS

mythmaking, and inaugurates a specific species of myth rooted in history.233 Furthermore, the fact that there was no radical change - in the location of the Athenian settlement between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age may contribute to challenging another long-held assumption, that the formation of the polis be placed in the Early Iron Age.234This is not the place to enter into lengthy exegesis, and the fact that there was change between the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age is i n c ~ n t r o v e r t i b l eNev.~~~ ertheless, the structure of the archaeological record is suggestive. Just as the focus of the Mycenaean settlement of Athens, the palace, was on the same rock on which the Neolithic through Middle Bronze Age settlements were located, so too was the town of the Early Iron Age. - The same pattern is observed with regard to death: the overlap of Protogeometric and Geometric burials with Mycenaean tombs, both in the area of the Classical Agora and to the south of the Acropolis, is remarkable. Taking cemetery and settlement evidence together allows one to posit some form of continuity and thereby to open the door to an interpretation that seeks the origins of the Greek city, at least in the case of Athens, in an older, more prehistoric past. The fundamental change in Athenian topography comes in the aftermath of the Persian Sack. Having twice defeated the might of the Persian military machine virtually single-handedly and in their own territory, the Athenians did much more than come of age. They emerged as a major player on the world stage, ready to take on the Lakedaimonians-and all the Peloponnesians for that matter-on their own terms, ready to dispel the Persians from Europe, ready to embark on empire, and ready to provide their city with an architectural presence that would ensure its later archaeological visibility. In the period immediately following Salamis, the social, political, and architectural reforms of Kimon and Perikles irrevocably transformed the landscape of central Athens, sweeping away much that went before. This is well reflected in the passage in which the Athenian historian Thucydides becomes, albeit for a brief moment, an archae0 1 o g i s t . ~At ~ ~1.10.2Thucydides states:

233. Morris 1992a, pp. 338-339. 234. Snodgrass 1977; de Polignac 1984; Morris 1987, esp. pp. 171-210. 235. Cf. van Effenterre 1985; Hooker 1988; Deger-Jalkotzy 1991; various papers in Musti et al. 1991; Muhly 1992; Morris 1992a. 236. Papadopoulos 1999.

A c t x ~ 8 c t ~ p 0 ~piv i w yixp ~ ei 7j nohi< ipypwfkiy. heicp0eiy 8 i T& TE iepix xcti ~ i j xaTcxoxeuij< < rix tB&cpy.nohh$v Bv oipai 2LnioTiav - 6 j ~ Buv&pew
ev

For if the city of the Lakedaimonians should be deserted, and nothing should be left of it but its temples and the foundations of its other buildings, posterity would, I think, after a long lapse of

CHAPTER

5

time, be very loath to believe that their power was as great as their renown. (And yet they occupy two-fifths of the Peloponnesus and have the hegemony of the whole, as well as of their many allies outside; but still, as Sparta is not compactly built as a city and has not provided itself with costly temples and other edifices, but is inhabited village-fashion in the old Hellenic style, its power would appear less than it is.) Whereas, if Athens should suffer the same fate, its power would, I think, from what appeared of the city's ruins, be conjectured double what it is.237 Physically and spiritually, the Athenian Acropolis ceased to be just a citadel and just a sanctuary, it became the focus of a new Athenian identitynever to be lost from human view or memory-and it was to become the enduring symbol of the nascent Greek state after the War of Independence in 1834.

237. Trans. C. F. Smith.

APPENDIX

By Michael R. Schilling Senior Scientist The Getty Conservation Institute The purpose of this study was to estimate the firing temperatures of a set of pottery fragments by means of thermomechanical analysis (TMA).l The set consisted largely of potters' test- or draw-pieces from the Protogeometric, Geometric, and Protoattic periods that have come to light in various deposits in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora, which are presented in Chapter 2. The set also included, for reference purposes, several fragments of Attic red- and black-figured vessels. Knowledge of the firing temperature of ceramics is important primarily because it provides information on the technological capabilities of ancient potters. Furthermore, thermoluminescence dates of pottery may be corrected if the original firing temperatures are known2 Although firing temperature estimates have been obtained for Aegean prehistoric pottery, as well as for Archaic and Classical pottery, the only study of Early Iron Age pottery that exists to date focused on a sample of Protogeometric pottery from A ~ i n eThe . ~ consensus range for firing temperature estimates for fine decorated pottery of the Late Bronze Age is 800-1050°C. The range for Classical black-gloss and black- and redfigure is 850-110O0C, whereas that of the Asine Protogeometric is 600800°C.Thus the present study provides an important control group representing ceramics from this period. 1.This study represents the culmination of an idea born some fourteen years ago: to use T M A to estimate firing temperatures. The author is deeply indebted to all of the colleagues, both past and present, at the Getty Conservation Institute who have made important contributions over the many years since then. Alberto Tagle, director of the Scientific Program, and Frank Preusser, former director of the Scientific Program, oversaw the development and validation of the T M A method. G C I senior scientists James Druzik, Charles Selwitz, and William Ginell generously provided valuable ideas, criticisms, and suggestions that helped

clarify this extremely challenging topic. I am especially grateful to David Carson, G C I research assistant, for his fine work on the scanning electron microscope, and also to Ginell for making the high-quality tube furnace used to fire the ceramics. David Scott, head of GCI's Museum Research Laboratory, invited me to work on the test-pieces. Lastly, my sincerest thanks go to John Papadopoulos, who made the arrangements to obtain the Agora samples and who demonstrated the patience of Job in waiting for the final report. This work is dedicated to him. 2. Handy and Gaines 1975. 3. Hulthen and Olsson 1983.

APPENDIX

POTTERS' TEST-PIECES As is discussed above, typically test-pieces either are scraps of pottery cut from larger vessels or are formed from pieces damaged in the process of throwing or drying. Holes were cut into the pieces before firing in order to facilitate their withdrawal from the kiln by means of a hook. The pieces were covered with broad splashes of engobe (paint or gloss), placed in the kiln along with the pottery, and subsequently withdrawn at intervals to test the progress of firing.4Afterward they were discarded, into a number of dump fills and into disused wells. Test-pieces revealed a great deal of practical information to the ancient potters. Pieces withdrawn during the oxidation cycle of the firing appear orange-red, whereas those removed during the reduction phase are gray in color. The primary purpose of the test-pieces was to show if the engobe had turned the intended black color during the reduction phase of firing, and whether it had yet fused, which would permanently seal in the black color. They also indicated if the coarser clay body was sufficiently porous to allow restoration of its original red color. It is clear from close examination of the test-pieces that some examples were pulled out of the kiln while there was still too much oxygen in the reduction cycle, whereas others appear to be optimally fired, with the engobe properly fused. Refiring experiments of ancient black-gloss sherds that were performed by Noble revealed that the appearance of the black-gloss was unchanged at 94S°C, but became slightly iridescent at 1000°C and turned red at 1050°C. In firings of modern Attic clay, the color became brownish red at 825°C and became a good-quality red at 945°C.' From these results Noble concluded that the firing cycle of Attic red-figured and black-figured ceramic ware was as follows: (1) firing up to 800°C under oxidizing conditions; (2) firing between 800°C and 945°C under reducing conditions, then cooling to 900°C; (3) firing at 900°C under oxidizing conditions (i.e., reoxidization at 900°C); (4) gradual cooling of the furnace in oxidizing conditions before the finished ceramic was r e m ~ v e d . ~

During firing, clays undergo numerous changes both in chemical composition and in physical dimensions. Heating to approximately 150°C is sufficient to remove adsorbed moisture. At higher temperatures, clays lose hydroxyl groups in the form of water: decomposition of kaolin clay occurs from 400°C to 600°C, whereas mica and monmorillonite lose structural hydroxyl groups up to 800°C. Above this temperature range, a contraction occurs for kaolin and an expansion for montmorillonite and illite, which continues at a reduced rate until a rapid shrinkage begins; this is associated with either vitrification or the formation of high-temperature phases (e.g., spinel or mullite). Depending on the concentration of fluxing agents (such as calcium oxide), vitrification occurs in the range of 700-950°C to form a glassy phase in the ceramic matrix.' In ceramics made from clays high in lime content, other temperaturedependent reactions may occur. Calcite loses carbon dioxide above 600°C

4. See Chapters 1 and 3; also Noble 1960; 1988, p. 153. 5. See Noble 1960; 1988, pp. 154155. 6. Noble 1988, p. 167. In Noble 1960 (p. 318) it appears as 875°C instead of 900°C for stages (2) and (3). 7. Tite 1969; Greene-Kelly 1957.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

319

to form calcium oxide. Calcined limestone that is present in fired ceramics will rehydrate and eventually revert to calcium carbonate if the vessel has not been fired above 850°C.8Above that temperature, calcium oxide reacts with clay minerals to form calcium silicates and calcium aluminum silicates (such as diopside, wollastonite, gehlenite, and anorthite), all ofwhich are minerals with high coefficients of thermal expan~ion.~ Loss of hydroxyls from the crystal lattice will result in a disordering of the lattice, making identification by X-ray diffraction difficult, if not impossible. Because dehydration of clay minerals and, occasionally, crystallization of new phases have already occurred during firing, differential thermal analysis (DTA) is seldom applied to fired ceramics.'O However, rehydroxylation may occur over long periods of time, depending on the type of clay and the original degree of crystallization.ll Thus, ceramics that were originally fired below the range of 700-800°C may gradually reacquire many of the characteristics of unfired clay, making identification by DTA possible.12Firing temperatures above which clay minerals cannot be reformed (or rehydroxylated) by steam treatment (ca. 100 hours at 200°C) are 950°C for illite, 900°C for montmorillonite, and 1000°C for kaolin.13

8. Matson 1971. 9. Heimann and Franklin 1979. 10. Palmiter and Johnston 1988. 11. Handy and Gaines 1975. 12. Kingery 1974. 13. Hill 1953. 14. Palmiter and Johnston 1988. 15. Heimann and Franklin 1979; Palmiter and Johnston 1988;Jones 1986.

Archaeothermometry, which is the estimation of original firing temperature, involves the study of changes that occur with temperature variation in selected properties of a ceramic, especially those changes that are related to a specific temperature range.The actual measurement of the change may be precise, but the results may be influenced by the residence time at the maximum temperature, the atmosphere inside the kiln, and changes that occur in the composition of the ceramic during burial.14This point will be discussed in more detail below. One approach to archaeothermometry involves assessing temperaturedependent properties of a model clay, followed by deductions about the state of transformation that was reached for sherds made from similar clays. A second approach involves refiring sherds and subsequently monitoring changes that may occur in a selected property with temperature. Many physical and chemical properties of clay may change with temperature, including color, density, strength, mineralogical composition, texture, elasticity coefficient, magnetic properties, electronic structure, and the coefficient of expansion. Over the years, all of these parameters have been investigated using numerous analytical techniques in efforts to determine the firing temperature of ceramic bodies. Although a thorough discussion of each is beyond the scope of this study, interested readers are encouraged to consult reviews on this subject to obtain detailed technical information." One point that emerges from nearly every analytical study on fired ceramics is that the term "firing temperature" is somewhat of a misnomer. As clays are fired, the changes in physical and chemical properties brought about by heating involve quite complex kinetic processes. Accordingly, exposure to high temperature for a short period of time may produce the same extent of change in a given property as does a longer exposure at a lower temperature. As a result, it is more proper to think in terms of the

APPENDIX

320

"equivalent firing temperature" of a ceramic, as it is impossible to determine the actual thermal profile experienced by a ceramic vessel during its manufacture.The concept of equivalent firing temperature is a crucial one, and must always be kept in mind when dealing with this subject.16Many researchers in the field take a somewhat conservative approach by reporting firing temperature ranges for a given vessel.

DILATOMETRY AS A T O O L F O R ESTIMATING FIRING TEMPERATURES In dilatometry, a ceramic block (measuring approximately 1 cm x 1cm x 2 cm and weighing roughly 5 grams) is slowly heated and its length is recorded as a function of temperature by means of a photocell or a movable rod. The block expands upon heating until the temperature within the block reaches the original firing temperature. As heating continues above the firing temperature, the ceramic will begin to sinter anew, causing the block to shrink. The result of a dilatometric measurement is a dilatiodsintering (DS) curve. The traditional procedure for determining firing temperature from D S curves is to draw one tangent line to the expansion curve before sintering, and a second tangent after sintering. The sintering temperature, defined as the intersection of the two tangent lines, is referred to as the firing temperature. It should be noted that the onset of sintering occurs somewhat below the temperature at the intersection of the tangent lines. The basic problem in dilatometry is to find the relationship between the sintering temperature and the original firing temperature. Unfortunately, sintering kinetics are affected by heating rate, time at maximum temperature, the mineralogy of the ceramic, and the amount of glassy phase. Because the original firing conditions that were used in antiquity cannot ever be known, it is necessary to invoke the concept of equivalent firing temperature, Teq,which is the constant temperature that causes the same amount of sintering as was achieved during the original firing. To obtain an estimate ofTeqfrom the shrinkage temperature, T,, it is necessary to determine the correction factor that compensates for the sintering kinetics of the ceramic and the measurement accuracy of the dilatometer. The correction factor may be obtained by refiring the ceramic for a period of time in the dilatometer to a temperature, T,', that is 2040°C higher than the shrinkage temperature. By reanalysis of the ceramic in the dilatometer, the new shrinkage temperature, T,', is measured and the correction factor, (Tcf- T,'), is found. Thus: Equation 1: Teq= Ta+ (Te' - T,') Figure A1 shows the D S curves for the firing and refiring of a test specimen. This procedure is suitable for ceramics fired within the vitrification range. Although one hour is the most common refiring time, it should be noted that changing the refiring time from 15 minutes to three hours may increase Teqby 30°C.Thus, when reporting firing temperature data, it is important to also state the refiring protoco1.l'

16. Tite 1969. 17. Tite 1969.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

321

s a m p l e : B O O C r e s t , ( 6 x 6 ~ 8 1rnl block. 661 mg, 6.2400 mm

Onret 8 7 2 . 3 0 'C

m 0

v ' , ''

600 ' ' 8 '

700

'

1'

" 8 '

800

' /

850 't'"

80

'

I

100

80000mO

' " ' Y W /" 8 ' 120

700

600 140

' t

' ' t '

160

800

' : ' ',, 180

500

,

I , '

200

' :

' ,,"

mi?

%mi>"-l

dDS Curve

\

0.00-

Figure A l . DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of an 800°C Amaroussi ceramic block. DS peak apex and dDS onset tangents are indicated.

18. Freeman 1958. 19. Heimann and Franklin 1979. 20. Tite 1969. 21. Kingery 1974.

Onret 8 4 8 . 4 4 'C

3

02-

0.04

Several sources of error exist in dilatometric estimates of firing temperature; these relate primarily to: (a) firing kinetics; (b) reformation of clay minerals during burial; (c) production of gases during DS measurements. O n a fundamental level, ceramic blocks must be heated very slowly in a dilatometer in order to maintain minimal internal thermal gradients. Otherwise, the furnace temperature may greatly exceed that of the ceramic block, causing the measured sintering temperature to be above the original firing temperature. It is possible to correct for this "temperature overshoot" by using the firing and refiring procedure described above. As mentioned earlier, the shrinkage of ceramics upon firing is dependent upon the heating profile and the time at a given temperature.18 Heimann was able to extend the measurement range of firing temperatures by introducing a new calibration method.19 In replicate studies of a Roman terra sigillata plate, Heimann found the second sintering temperature to be more precise than the first. Therefore, the second sintering temperature was used in a calibration curve versus Te¶ to estimate the firing temperature, which was linear over the range of 700-1200°C. To explain these findings, Heimann reasoned that sintering kinetics are exponentially related to temperature. Thus, the standard correction factor from refiring experiments is the error between the experimentally obtained refiring rate and the ancient rate of firing. This error increases for lower fired ceramics, because the time that is required to attain a state of equilibrium increases greatly at lower temperatures. Adsorption of water by the glassy and amorphous phases leads to a reduction in Teq, because the water is driven off during the measurement cycle.20Additionally, ceramics that were originally fired below the range of 700-800°C may gradually reacquire many of the characteristics of unfired clayz1If these samples are measured in the dilatometer, reactions of the newly formed clay minerals may produce features in the D S curve that overlap with the normal profile of expansion and contraction.

322

APPENDIX

Bloating is caused by the expansion of gases released during heating from organic matter, carbonates, and sulfides, which leads to increased porosity and a large, irreversible expansion.22In fact, for ceramics with very high calcite content, it may be impossible to estimate firing temperatures either from dilatometry or from refiring experiments. Such was the case for an ancient Roman facing brick that was found in Berala, near O~tia.~" In a study of a set of ancient potsherds from Iraq andTurkey, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine the internal morphology that developed during firing, the pore structure, and the extent ofvitrificat i ~ nThe . ~ original ~ firing temperatures were estimated by refiring and reexamining the sherds, and heating rates of 200°C per hour and soaking times of one hour at the peak temperature were employed in the refiring experiments. For calcareous clays, it was discovered that if the soaking times were on the order of five minutes, or if the heating rates were 800°C per hour, firing temperature would have to be higher by 50°C to achieve the same extent of vitrification observed in the sherds. Furthermore, if clays were fired in a reducing atmosphere, firing temperatures lower by approximately 50°C would produce an equivalent ~itrification.~'

T H E USE O F OTHER THERMOANALYTIC M E T H O D S FOR TESTING CERAMICS To determine if ceramic specimens contain carbonates or other materials that evolve gases during heating, thermogravimetry (TG) may be used. T G is an extremely useful technique for analyzing clays and clay minerals in which sample weight is monitored as a function of temperature. Accordingly, reactions that lead to weight loss (e.g., evaporation of adsorbed water, dehydroxylation of clay minerals, decarboxylation of calcite) are indicated as weight-loss steps on the T G curve. The magnitude of a weightloss step relates to the percentage of a given component in a sample. It is common to include the first derivative of the T G curve, abbreviated as D T G , along with the T G data because of the ease of comparison to DTA curves. T G may be interfaced with other thermal analysis methods to increase the amount of useful information that can be obtained. For instance, instruments that combine T G and differential thermal analysis (DTA) are quite commonly used for analysis of minerals. And by coupling T G with evolved gas analysis (using a mass spectrometer), it is also possible to identify the type of gas that is evolved during a weight-loss step. This is an important feature in testing ceramics, because the weight-loss steps for dehydroxylation of clays and decarboxylation of calcite may overlap, making it difficult to identifj exactly which of the two reactions is occurring. But when evolved gas analysis (EGA) of clays is performed simultaneously, one can observe separate peaks for water and carbon dioxide, making it possible to assess the precise nature of the weight-loss reaction. Figure A2:a-b illustrates curves for the T G , D T G , DTA, and E G A of two modern clays.

22. Tite 1969; Maggetti and Rossmanith 1981;Johnson et al. 1988. 23, Cole and Crook 1962. 24. Tite and Maniatis 1975. 25. Tite and Maniatis 1975.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Figure A2. TG, DTG, DTA, and EGA curves for modem Kalogreza (a) and Amaroussi (b) clays

-

,J

Sample: Kalogrera clay, 45.1850 mg

10-

coa 700 000 PO0 'C 30 . 100 100 100 400 LOO 600 I . . . . 8 . ' . " : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : : : : : : ; : : : : : '

0

100

30

I . .

0

7

.

8

SILrnple:

h c o u a a i clay, 65.5720 mg

100

9

400

100

600

SO0

CQZ

900

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

90

100

'C

I.ln

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS A N D DILATOMETRY

F ! e wbaring lol Magnellc

mmplMRllm

Figure A3. Schematic diagram of Mettler TMA40 from owner's manual

A thermomechanical analyzer, or TMA, is a laboratory instrument that functions very much like a dilatometer. The basic design of a dilatometer is modified to construct the TMA, which can then accommodate much smaller samples. For example, the T M A can measure sample pieces ranging in size from tiny, submillimeter chips to blocks up to 1 cm3 in size. Moreover, it is possible to measure powdered samples if they are placed between two rigid, inert discs prior to testing. A schematic representation of the Mettler TMA4O is shown in Figure A3. For DS measurements of ceramics, as little as 20 micrograms of ceramic powder appear to be a sufficient quantity. One important feature of modern T M A equipment is the capability it provides of mathematically manipulating the DS data by computer. For example, a usefbl corollary to DS data is the first derivative of the DS curve, which may be abbreviated as dDS. Interestingly, for some samples

324

APPENDIX

of ancient ceramics with relatively high lime content, the onset of sintering is much more clearly evident in the dDS curve than in the original D S curve. T M A and dilatometry have been used in other studies of ancient earthen materials. Mavroyannakis measured thermal expansion coefficients . ~ ~ in a of ancient Greek potsherds, including some from A m a r o ~ s s iAnd paper by Widemann, Boller, and Bayer, T M A and other thermal analysis techniques were used to study Q n Dynasty terracotta warriors from China." However, a published study that established T M A as a routine tool for estimating firing temperatures was lacking.

O U T L I N E O F STUDY Before analyzing the test-pieces under study here, it was necessary to establish that TMA could be used for determining firing temperature. To this end, test specimens of fired ceramics were prepared in order to test the accuracy and reliability of the method. Samples of modern clays from Amaroussi and Kalogreza were fired at various temperatures (700°, 80O0, 850°, and 900°C) in a small, custom-built electric furnace that was regulated by a platinum-rhodium thermocouple and a CN382 electronic controller, both manufactured by Omega. Following a published protocol,28 heating rates of roughly 80O0C/hour were employed, followed by soaking times of 24 hours at the maximum furnace temperature. Shorter soaking times gave less consistent results, evidently due to the lime content of the clays. D S curves were obtained from block and powder samples of these fired test specimens. Firing temperatures were estimated using the intersection of tangent lines at the peak apex and also, for comparison, from the onset of change in the dDS curves. Next, D S measurements were made on a set of 800°Cblocks ofvarious sizes and weights in order to assess if firing temperature estimates might be affected by sample size. Then for a small number of test-pieces, D S measurements were made on small blocks and the corresponding powder samples in order to determine if blocks and powders of ancient pottery yielded comparable D S curves. Firing temperatures were estimated both from the extrapolated apex and the onset of change in the dDS curves. Additionally, thermogravimetric analyses were performed on a number of samples to check if carbonates or hydroxylated clays were present. Finally, D S curves were measured on a small sample of powder for each test-piece in the set.

Each sample that was tested was examined for color and for the presence of a paint layer. Small blocks approximately 1 mm on a side were cut or fractured from the samples with the aid of a sharp scalpel. To make a block suitable for T M A testing, any major irregularities were abraded with a metal file to produce a pair of roughly parallel faces on the block. Powdered samples were produced by crushing small bits that were made during block preparation. It was quite evident from the sample preparation

26. Mavroyannakis 1981. 27. Widemann, Boller, and Bayer 1988. 28. Heimann and Franklin 1979.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

325

step that none of the pieces had been fired to very high temperatures, because all were relatively easy to cleave, scratch, and abrade. A Mettler TG50 thermobalance with TClOA controller was used to perform thermogravimetric analyses (TG). Also employed in this study was a MettlerTGA851, which simultaneously performed differential thermal analysis (DTA),T G , and evolved gas analysis by a Balzers Thermostar mass spectrometer. Uncovered alumina or platinum crucibles with a nominal capacity of 150 pl were used to contain the samples. T G measurement data recorded for an empty crucible served as a blank, and were subtracted from the sample measurement data. T M A studies were conducted using a Mettler TMA40 thermomechanical analyzer with a Mettler TClOA or TC15 controller. Blocks were placed directly between the T M A fused silica platform and the probe, whereas powders were placed between alumina or fused silica disks. T M A measurement data recorded for two clean alumina or fused silica disks served as a blank analysis for subtraction from measurement data obtained from powder samples. It was found that the expansion curve for two alumina disks is featureless except for a small, constant slope; this produces a slight negative offset in the dDS curve. In most instances, T G and T M A measurement data were recorded between 20" and 100O0C,with heating rates of either 5" or 1O0C/minute. The T G and T M A furnaces were purged with dry air that was set to a nominal flow rate of 100 mllminute.

CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION

29. Schilling 1990. 30.Johnson et al. 1988.

The TG results for unfired Kalogreza and Amaroussi clays (Fig. A2:a-b) show that approximately 10% of the starting weight was lost over a series of four discrete weight-loss steps upon firing to 1000°C.Evolved gas analysis revealed that (1) water was desorbed during the first weight-loss step; (2) smectitic minerals dehydrated during the second step; (3) dehydroxylation of the silicate lattice occurred during the third step; (4) carbon dioxide was evolved over the fourth step. These findings are in keeping with other thermoanalytic studies of clay minerals.29 However, the two clays differed greatly in their carbonate contents. Between 600°C and 750°C, the carbon dioxide weight losses for Kalogreza and Amaroussi clays were 1.4% and 3.8%, respectively; these values correspond to respective calcite contents of 3.5% and 10% by weight. Thus, the firing process for Amaroussi clay should be more affected by carbonates than would Kalogreza clay. Interestingly, the DTA results for the Amaroussi clay showed an exothermic peak, which was taken as evidence for combustion of a small amount of organic materials. In the light of a study of the retention by fired pottery of organic substance^,^^ this finding suggests that organic material that is naturally present in the raw clay minerals could contaminate potsherds. Regarding the accuracy of the T M A method for estimating firing temperatures, the most consistent firing temperature estimates were obtained for the block samples, whereas the results for the powders were

APPENDIX

326

A

Unfired

1 opm

C

Unfired

10pm

6

Fired at 900 "C

topm

D

Fired at 900 O C

I 0pm

somewhat more variable. For both clay specimens, the firing temperature estimate for each block was within ?2O0Cof the known soaking temperature, which is consistent with the accuracy limits of dilatometrY3lRegarding the powder samples, the results for both clays that were fired to 700°C and 800°C were also within 220°C of the known soaking temperatures, and the same was also true for the 900°C Kalogreza specimen. However, a measured firing temperature of 820°Cwas determined for Amaroussi clay that was fired to 900°C. Evidently, the higher lime content in Amaroussi clay acted as a flux, thus lowering the apparent firing temperature of the powder. SEM was used to examine the fired Kalogreza and Arnaroussi clays to look for evidence of the effects of calcite on vitrification. Figure A4 shows the results for the unfired clay plus the samples fired at 800°C and 900°C. Vitrificationwas not evident for the 800°Csamples of either clay, whereas Amaroussi clay fired to 900°C showed clear evidence of vitrification but Kalogreza clay did not. According to Tite, extensive vitrification in calcareous clays can be achieved at a comparativelylow firing temperature of 850°C.32It appears

Figure A4. SEM photomicrographs ofmodem clays:a) unfiredKdogreza;b) ~d~~~~~ firedto 9 0 ~ ~ ; ,) UnfiredAmaroussi;d) Amaroussi fired to 900°C

31.Tite 1969. 32. Tite 1969.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

F'

327

Sample: BlOC test, ( S x S x 8 1 "33 block, 641 rg, 5 . 2 4 0 0

1

siuaple: 8 1 0 C rest. , z x z x i ~ "33

moct,

1 ru block, 1 5

6 7 ng, 3.1100

w,

l

.

5

*

0

2

h

y

l

Figure AS. DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of blocks of 800°C-fired Amaroussi clay of various sizes and weights

Sample: 8OOC test, powder 1, 23.8000e-03 mm 2nset 0 0 1 05 'C

O r s e t 8 4 7 . 1 2 'C

Figure A6. DS and dDS curves for firing and refiring cycles of powder Amaroussi clay fired to 800°C. DS peak apex and dDS onset tangents are indicated.

33. Palmiter and Johnston 1988.

as a network of smooth-surfaced glass filaments forming an open or cellular structure over the fracture surface. Interestingly, the same extent of vitrification was observed in calcareous clay fired to 850°C as in refractory clay fired between 950 and 1000°C. Because the SEM images of calcareous ceramics show little variability in the extent of vitrification up to high temperature, a broad firing temperature range of 850-1050°C was reported for these ancient sherds. It has also been reported that SEM is not an ideal tool for determining firing temperature of pottery fired below 800°C, because evidence of vitrification appears only at higher temperature^.^^ Figure A5 shows the D S and dDS results for the set of 800°C Amaroussi ceramic blocks of various sizes that were tested to demonstrate the effects of sample size on the firing temperature measurements. For comparison, Figure A6 gives the same results for the 800°C-fired Amaroussi powder. No significant variation was observed in the measured sintering temperature for the set of samples. This is a somewhat surprising result,

APPENDIX

328

TABLE A l . DILATION/SINTERING RESULTS F O R SELECTED A T H E N I A N AGORA TEST-PIECES Cat. No. (Inv.No.)

% CO,

5 ( P 17265)

0

18 ( P 17263)

4

9 ( P 17262)

3

42 (P 17245)

2

4 ( P 17264)

0

49 ( P 20481)

2

41 ( P 20483)

0

Powder Apex dDS

Block Apex dDS

First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature First heating After refiring to 850°C Corrected firing temperature

Extrapolated apex and dDS onset temperatures for firing and refiring cycles, with corrected firing temperatures (all given in "C). Where no entry appears, the graphical evaluations were inconclusive.

because one might expect sintering kinetics to be quite sensitive to temperature gradients within the sample whereas the linear coefficient of thermal expansion is not dependent on the rate of heating. Essentially, Figure A5 demonstrates that a thermomechanical analyzer can be considered to be a dilatometer in the context of assessing firing temperatures of minute block samples. Table A1 lists the results of the comparison study for block and powder samples from the Agora test-pieces. For a given piece of ceramic, small blocks and powder samples gave nearly identical firing temperatures and, moreover, consistent results were obtained between the evaluation of the extrapolated apex and compared to the dDS curves. The fact that firing temperatures may be ascertained either from extrapolated apex or from dDS measurements is convenient because for some samples the peak apex may be skewed and asymmetrical, making it difficult to accurately orient the tangent lines. The exact cause of this feature is currently unknown, but it may be related to evolution of gases during heating. I t should be stated, however, that apex measurements are comparatively more reliable because the peak maximum is the most prominent feature in most D S curves. However, onset data from dDS curves may

34. Heimann and Franklin 1979.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

t

marbie b l o c k f o r c e r m c s . 3 1 8390

3-11

TG far c s r m c s . 1.1730

S n n p : ~ . xarall pa*dsr

200

100

; ;

i

:

~

~

300

i

i

:

~

:

~

i

.

~

:

i

~

~

~

~

~

;

;

~

i

:

100

f

~

~

mJ

"~

EGA for C 0 2

Figure A7. Overlays of DS and dDS curves for a block of marble and for powdered marble

Sample: marble powder between two quart= dioks, 39.0000e-03 am

1

1



1

Sample: marble block between two quartz dioks, 1.1347 am

Sample; marble powder between two quartz dioks, 39.0000e-03 am

Figure A8. Overlays of TG and DTG results for a block of marble and for powdered marble

provide useful alternatives for more problematic samples, and can be used as a check for consistency in the measurement. Carbonates that are present in ceramics may influence the shape of the D S curves. Overlays of D S curves and T G results for a block of marble and for powdered marble are illustrated in Figures A7 and A8. Because the carbon dioxide weight loss is nearly complete below 700°C, it is apparent that decarboxylation proceeds much more rapidly from the small powder sample. In contrast, for the marble block the weight loss continues well above 900°C and onset of decarboxylation is shifted to higher temperatures. Considering that many ceramics (including the test-pieces listed in Table A l ) are fired below 900°C, decarboxylation may. -present a serious problem for dilatometric analysis of large ceramic blocks, whereas the effects are likely to be less severe for small blocks or powders tested in the TMA. Firing temperature and T G results for a selection of test-pieces are listed in Table A2. Typical D S profiles plus curves for T G , D T G , and

:

i

;

:

;

APPENDIX

330

TABLE A2. DILATION/SINTERING A N D T H E R M O GRAVIMETRY RESULTS FOR A T H E N I A N AGORA TEST-PIECES Cat No./Inv No.

Color

Apex eCorr.) dDS (kCorr.)

EARLY P R O T O G E O M E TPG R I CI1: ( W E L LL 4 (P 17264) 5 (P 17265) 6 (P 20476) 7 (P 17261) 8 (P 17266) 9 (P 17262) 10 (P 32365) 11 (P 32387) 12 (P 32366) 13 (P 20475) 14 (P 20478) 15 (P 32370) 16 (P 32373) 17 (P 32378) 18 (P 17263) 19 (P 17267) 20 (P 20480) 22 (P 32372) 27 (P 32375) 28 (P 32376) 31 (P 17242) 32 (P 20474) 35 (P 20479) 36 (P 32380) 37 (P 32381) 38 (P 32383) 39 (P 32384) 40 (P 20482) 41 (P 20483) 42 (P 17245) 44 (P 32368) 45 (P 32369) 46 (P 32367) 49 (P 20481) 50 (P 20477) 52 (P 20543) 55 (P 32390)

Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray-orange Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray-orange Orange-red Gray Gray Gray Gray Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Orange-red Gray-orange

770 (-20) 780 (-30) 800 830 760 780 (-10) 730 (-20) 840 730 (-40) 840 820 780 (-20) 740 (-40) 740 (-40) 770 (-20) 780 810 840 820 840 780 (-30) 720 (-40) 760 (-40) 850 850 840 700 (-40) 780 (-20) 750 (-20) 730 (-40) 740 (-50) 770 (-10) 810 770 (-10) 810 840 800

% WL

% CO,

2 2 6 4

0 0 3 2

7

3

2 5 4

0 3 2

4 4 7 5

1 4 3 1

9 6 6

4 2 2

7 3 8

3 0 2

5 4

2 1

II:I)

790 790 760 700 (t60) 790 770 770 750 770 780 (t30) 780 770 (+lo) 760 (to) 790 790 780 740 790 780 (+O) 790 760 (-20) 760 780 780 760 790 770 (t40) 770 (+lo) 780 760 790 (t20) 780 770 760

DEVELOPE PD R O T O G E O M E TPG R I CII/III : ( W E L LA 61 (P 17436) 62 (P 17437) 63 (P 17438)

Gray Gray Gray

640 (-80) 720 (-40) 820

770 750 760

7 5 3

20:s)

2 0 0

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

TAB L E A 2 -Continued Cat No./'Inw No.

Color

Apex

fi Corr.)

dDS (2 Corr.)

D E V E L O P PERDO T O G E O M E T R PG I CI11 : ( W E L LK 67 (P 20426) 68 (P 32355) 69 (P 32356)

Gray Orange-red Orange-red

750 750 (-40) 820

740 780

780

% WL

% CO,

12:1)

10

4

3

0

9

0

0

0

LATEP R O T O G E O M E T R I C / E A GR EL OYM E T R I C ( W E L LH 1 6 - I ~ : I )

74 (P 32363) 75 (P 32361) 76 (P 32362) 77 (P 32364) 78 (P 20631)

Orange-red Gray-orange Gray Orange-red Orange-red

760 (-40)

740 (-40) 760 840 700 (-30)

780

760

770

780

M I D D L EG E O M E T R I1/11 C ( W E L LL 6 : 2 ) 81 (P 26132) 82 (P 32349) 83 (P 6413) 85 (P 32354) 85 (P 32354) 87 (P 32352)

Gray Gray "Waster, black" Black layer Red core Orange-red

770 (-30) 840 840 810 750 (-30)

760 790

> 1000 770

770

750

A T T I CB O D YF R A G M E N T S Black-figure Black-figure B F or R F Red-figure Black-gloss Red-figure

Red clay core Red clay core Red clay core Red clay core Red clay core Red clay body

860 820 760 (-20)

840 810 (to)

810 (to)

750

750

770

Firing temperatures from extrapolated apex and dDS onset evaluations are given in "C. Where no firing temperature estimate appears, the graphical evaluations were inconclusive. DS tests that were performed on sample blocks appear in the apex and dDS columns, with correction factors given within parentheses. The firing temperatures that are reported as such have been corrected. Powder samples were tested for all other entries. Total weight loss over the temperature range 30-1000°C and weight loss for carbon dioxide are given in weight percentages.

APPENDIX

332

Sample: P1039, block, no disks, refire BSOC, 1.1663 m

i 10C

100500

200400

f ' , ',

0

'

:I,'

10

, Y , ' ,'

100

600

,'0

,' ,' ' ,'

I'

30

,' !

550

800 $ '

,' ,' '

# '

0

#'

,'Y , , 0

,

700

80001600600600

,

60

0

80

800 50

100

llO rrn

Figure A9. DS and dDS curves for Agora test-piece 1 (P 32358). D S peak apex and dDS onset tangents are indicated.

1 lP323581, 6.7 mg

--&

91-

90-

100

200

300

400

100

LOO

'00

o 100

-

anln^-l

71"

\

-3.4-

-0.8-

100

200

300

600

500

ROO

PO0

Figure A10. TG, DTG, and EGA (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora test-piece 1 (P 32358)

E G A (for carbon dioxide) are shown in Figures A9-A14. Firing temperatures for the test-pieces varied in the 700-850°C range, regardless of time period, context, or fragment color. This range overlaps with the published findings of 600-800°C for the Asine Protogeometric pottery.35Figure A15 shows SEM images for 32 (gray in color) and 35 (orange-red), before and after refiring to 900°C for 24 hours. Vitrification has increased in both pieces after refiring, which is in keeping with the estimated firing temperatures for both pieces. Also, areas of agglomeration are present in the gray sample that may be due to remineralization. Perhaps the most startling aspect of the measured firing temperatures for the test-pieces is that they overlap with the results for the six later Attic vase fragments of the 6th and 5th centuries B.c., which include examples of black-figured, redfigured, and black-gloss pottery. As discussed in Chapter 3, these results appear to confirm that the firing technology employed by Athenian potters in the Archaic and Classical periods dates back at least as early as the Protogeometric period.

35. Hulthtn and Olsson 1983.

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

333

Figure A11.DS and dDS curves for Agora test-piece 4 (P 17264).DS peak apex and dDS onset tangents are indicated.

Figure A12. TG, DTG, and EGA (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora test-piece 4 (P 17264)

36. Tite 1969. 37. Kingery 1974.

Nearly all of the test-pieces lost from 2% to 5% ofweight between 20" and 200°C, presumably through desorption of moisture and as evidenced by a change in slope in the D S curves for these samples. Studies have shown that moisture desorption has only a slight effect on the first sintering temperature, since the reduction in the first sintering temperature due to the effect of adsorbed moisture is only 10°C for most ceramics.36 None of the samples tested showed any evidence of dehydroxylation, which would appear as a weight-loss step for water at approximately 400500°C. Considering the fact that clays fired below 700-800°C may rehydroxylate during burial13'one may conclude from the TG results alone that the test-pieces were fired somewhat above the range of 700-800°C. Carbon dioxide evolution by the samples at high temperatures was quite prominent and somewhat variable, but the origin of the carbon dioxide is somewhat puzzling. The most likely source appears to be carbonate minerals formed by remineralization of the naturally occurring lime in the clays. Organic materials adsorbed into the pores of the pottery may be

APPENDIX

1

I

Samale: P204B1, black, no disks, reflre 850C. 0 . 6 3 7 0 mm

Figure A13. DS and dDS curves for Athenian Agora test-piece 49 (P 20481). DS peak apex and dDS onset tangents are indicated.

2.9

... :LL

5:)

4Ci

'ii

100

803

3:i

\

0

40

100

nil

*T,.-"-.-

-

.

DTG

.co

2iC

... :L"

4i:

3::

:c>

L n

1 -

SO: J:

O

100

O

O

loo

' '

'

'..

responsible for the small weight losses occurring below 50OoC,which would be consistent with the results for unfired Amaroussi clay (Fig. A2:b). One other intriguing, yet unconfirmed, possibility is that carbonates may have been generated by the reducing gas atmosphere in the kiln formed by reaction of the clay minerals with the gas atmosphere of the kiln during the reduction phase of firing. This could partially explain the agglomerated areas in the gray sample (Fig. A15:a). There is clearly a place for T M A determination of firing temperature in the realm of ancient ceramic studies. Due to the limited variation in the extent ofvitrification for calcareous ceramics, only broad firing ranges may be reported in SEM studies. Moreover, SEM is not an ideal tool for determining firing temperature of pottery fired below 800°C because such samples exhibit little or no evidence ofvitrification. Ultimately, the present study confirms that T M A testing of tiny ceramic blocks is of practical benefit for these two scenarios, which may be problematic for the SEM.

Figure A14. TG, DTG, and EGA (for carbon dioxide) curves for Agora test-piece 49 (P 20481)

THERMOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS

335

d

B

Original Firing (-800 'C)

1 Dpm

C

Original Firing (-800 ' C )

10pm

Fired at 900 ' C

10pm

D

Fired at 900 O C

10pm

Figure A15. SEM images for testpieces before and after refiring to 900°Cfor 24 hours: a) 32 before firing and (b) after; c) 35 before firing and (d) after

As shown by this study, it is quite possible to perform a sintering temperature measurement on ancient potsherds using only a minute fragment taken from a broken edge. And for ceramics with low lime content, only a minute scraping of powder is required, thereby leaving the sherd virtually intact. These findinxs - fully validate the use of T M A as a substitute for dilatometry, obviating the need for removing large quantities of ceramic during sampling.They also demonstrate that firing temperature estimates obtained by T M A are reliable.

Agora = The Athenian Agora: Results ofExcavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies atdthens, Princeton I11 = R. E. Wycherley, Literary and Epigraphical Testimonia, 1957. IV = R. H. Howland, Greek Lamps and Their Survivals, 1958. V = H . S. Robinson, Pottery of the Roman Period: Chronology, 1959. VIII = E. T. H. Brann, Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery, Mid 8th to Late 7th Century B.c.,1962. XI = E. B. Harrison,Archaic and Archaistic Scu(pture, 1965. XI1 = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, Sth, and 4th Centuries B C , 1970. XI11 = S. A. Immerwahr, The Neolithic and Bronze Ages, 1971. XIV = H . A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, TheAgora of Athens: The History, Shape, and Uses ofan Ancient City Center, 1972. XIX = G . V. Lalonde, M . K. Langdon, and M . B. Walbank, Inscriptions: Horoi, Poletai Records, andLeases of Public Lands, 1991. XXII = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls, 1982. XXIII = M . B. Moore and M . 2.Pease Philippides, Attic BlackFigured Pottery, 1986. XXIV = A. Frantz, Late 1988. A n t i g u i t y : ~ .267-700, ~. XXVII = R. F. Townsend, The East Side of the Agora: The Remains beneath the Stoa ofAttafos, 1995.

XXIX = S. I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, 1997. XXX = M . B. Moore, Attic RedFigured and White-Ground Pottery, 1997. XXX = M . M . Miles, The City Eleusinion, 1998. Ahlberg, G. 1971. Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek GeometricArt (SkrAth 4".16), Stockholm. ~kerstriim,A. 1952. "En Mykensk krukmakares verkstad fran de Svenska utgravningarna i Grekland aven 1935-1938," in Arkeologiska Forskningar och Fynd: Studier utgivna med anledning av H. M . Konung Gustaf VlAdoCfssjuttioarsdag 11.11.1952, Stockholm, pp. 32-46. Alcock, S. E. 1991. "Tomb Cult and the Post-Classical Polis," AJA 95, pp. 447-467. Alexandre, 0.1968. "Nuxrep~v$ hvctoxacp$ oxayyaro<xara y+jxo< Yfj< 6606 Kp~e<+j,"Re4 1, pp. 20-30. Amandry, P. 1986. "Sieges myceniens tripodes et trepied delphique," in Oihia trrv ~ i r q . MuAuvav A; Athens, pp. 167-184. 1 9 8 8 . "A propos de monuments de Delphes: Questions de chronologie (I)," BCH 112, pp. 591610. Anderson, C. P. 1954-1955. "Cycles of Nine," CJ50, pp. 131-138. Anderson, W . P. 1989. "The Pottery Industry at Phoenician Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon), with Parallels to Kilns from Other East

REFERENCES

Mediterranean Sites," in Cross-Craft and Cross-Cultural Interactions in Ceramics (Ceramics and Civilization 4),ed. P. E. McGovern, Westerville, Ohio, pp. 197-215. Andreiomenou, A . 1968.'"A0fival'Arrixfi: 23.'0605 "00wvo5 4," ArchDelt 21,1966,B'1 [1968],p. 80. Angiolillo, S. 1992."Hestia, l'edificio F e l'altare dei 12 Dei ed Atene," Ostraka 1,pp. 171-176. Antonaccio, C . M . 1992."Terraces, Tombs, and the Early Argive Heraion," Hesperia 61,pp. 85-105. . 1994."Contesting the Past: T o m b Cult, Hero Cult, and Epic i n Early Greece,"AJA 98,pp. 389-410. . 1995.A n Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Ear4 Greece, Lanham, M d . Asine I = 0.Frodin and A. W.Persson, Asine: Results of Swedish Excavations, 1922-1930,Stockholm 1938. Asine 11, fasc. 4:2= B. Wells,Asine 11: Results of the Excavations East of thedcropolis, 1970-1974,fasc. 4: The Protogeometric Period, part 2: A n Ana(ysis of the Settlement, Stockholm 1983. Aslanis, I . 1985.Kastanas, Ausgrabungen in einem Siedlungshugel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Makedoniens, 1975-1979: Diefiuhbronzezeit(irhen Funde und Befunde, Berlin. Athanassopoulou, E. F. 2002." A n 'Ancient' Landscape: European Ideals, Archaeology, and Nation Building in Early Modern Greece," Journal of Modern Greek Studies 20, pp. 273-305. Aurigemma, S. 1960.La necropoli di Spina in &lle Trebba 1 (Scavi di Spina I.1), Rome. . 1965.La necropoli di Spina in &lle Trebba 2 (Scavi di Spina I.2), Rome. Badian, E. 1971."Archons and Strategoi,"Antichthon 5,pp. 1-34. Barka, N . F., E. Ayres, and C . Sheridan. 1984.The "Poor Potter" of Yorktown: A Study of a Colonial Pottery Factory 3:Ceramics (Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia,Yorktown Research Series no. 5),Denver. Barra Bagnasco, M . 1996."I1 ceramic0 di Locri: Struttura e technologie," in Lippolis 1996,pp. 27-34.

Bastea, E. 2000.The Creation $Modern Athens: Planning the Myth, Cambridge. Baziotoupoulou-Valavani, E. 1994. "Avctoxacpiq oc a0qvaixa xcpaylxdc ~ p y c t o ~ p l ctpxdixhv ct xal xhctoolxhv Xpovwv," in Coulson et al. 1994, pp. 45-54. Beazley, J. D. 1936.Review o f Massoul 1935 in JHS 56,pp. 252-254. . 1944."Potter and Painter in Ancient Athens," ProcBritAc 30, pp. 87-125. . 1945." T h e Brygos Tomb at Capua," AJA 49,pp. 153-158. Bentz, M . 1998.Panathendische Preisamphoren: Eine athenische &sengattung und ihre Funktion vom 6.bis 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (AntK-BH 18), Basel. Beschi, L. 1969a."I1 monument0 di Telemachos, fondatore dell'Asklepieion ateniese," ASAtene 45-46 (n.s. 29-30), 1967-1968 [1969], pp. 381-436. . 1969b."Contributi di topografia ateniese," ASAtene 45-46 (n.s. 29-30),1967-1968 [1969], pp. 511-536. Beyer, I., with F. Preisshofen. 1977. "Die Datierung der grossen Reliefgiebel des Alten Athenatempels der Akropolis,"AA, pp. 44-84. Bimson, M . 1956." T h e Technique o f Greek Black and Terra Sigillata Red," AntJ 36,pp. 200-204. Binder, J. 1998." T h e Early History o f the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Eleusis," in Ancient Greek Cult Practicefrom the Archaeological Evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult Organized by the Swedish Institute atdthens, 22-24 October 1993,ed. R . Hagg, Stockholm, pp. 131-139. Binns, C . F., and A . D . Fraser. 1929. " T h e Genesis o f the Greek Black Glaze," AJA 33,pp. 1-9. Birch, S. 1858.History ofAncient Pottery: Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, London. Bire, K. E. 1959.Ta a m x a roc E/3Alc( To~A~prrlj, Athens. Blegen, C . W .1934."Inscriptions on Geometric Pottery from Hymettos," AJA 38,pp. 10-28.

. 1952."Two Athenian Grave Groups o f about 900 B.c.," Hesperia 21,pp. 279-294. Blegen, C . W . , and M . Lang. 1960. " T h e Palace o f Nestor Excavations o f 1959,"AJA64,pp. 153-164. Blegen, C . W . , M . Rawson, W.Taylour, and W.P. Donovan. 1973.The Palace ofNestor at Pylos in Western Messenia 111:Acropolis and Lower Town; Tholoi, Grave Circle, and Chamber Tombs; Discoveries outside the Citaded Princeton. Blitzer, H . 1981." T h e Archaeology o f a Potter's Workshop: Reflections on the Aegean Bronze Age Record," AJA 85,p. 222 (abstract). . 1990."KOPRNEIKA: StorageJar Production and Trade in the Traditional Aegean," Hesperia 59, pp. 675-711. Blonde, F., and J. Y . Perreault, eds. 1992.Les ateliers depotiers duns le mondegrec aux 9oques gtfomltrique, archai'que et classique.Actes de la table ronde organisle d l $colefiangaise dZth2nes (2 et 3 octobre 1987) (BCH Suppl. 23),Paris. Blondt, F., J. Y . Perreault, and C . Peristeri. 1992." U n atelier archai'que a Phari (Thasos)," in Blonde and Perreault 1992,pp. 11-40. Bliimner, H . 1879.Technologic und Terminologieder Gewerbe und Kunste bei Griechen und Romern 11, Leipzig. . 1889."Scenen des Handwerkes,"AM 14,pp. 150-159. Boardman, J. 1954."Painted Votive Plaques and an Early Inscription from Aegina," BSA 49,pp. 183-

201.

. 1960." T h e Multiple Brush," Antiquity 34,pp. 85-89. Bobrinskii, A. A . 1991.Goncharnye masterskie igorny YostochnoiEvropy (Akademia nauk SSSR, Institut arkheologii),Moscow. Boegehold, A. L. 1962." T h e Nessos Amphora: A Note on the Inscription," AJA 66,pp. 405-406. . 1983."ANew Black Figure Potter,"AJA 87,pp. 89-90. Boersma, J. S. 1970.Athenian Building Policyjom 561/0 t o 40574B c, Groningen. . 2000."Peisistratos' Building Activity Reconsidered," i n Peisistra-

REFERENCES

Cambitoglou, A., S. Peirce, 0 . Segal, and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1981. Archaeological Museum ofAndros: Guide to the Findsjom the Excavations at the Geometric Town of Zagora, Athens. Camp, J. McK., 11. 1979. "A Drought in the Late Eighth Century B.c.," Hesperia 48, pp. 397-411. . 1984. "Water and the Pelargikon," in Studies Presented to Sterling Dow on His Eightieth Birthday (GRBS Monograph lo), Durham, pp. 37-41. . 1986. TheAthenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens, London. . 1990. The Athenian Agora: Guide, 4th ed., rev., Athens. . 1994. "Before Democracy: Alkrnaionidai and Peisistratidai," in Coulson et al. 1994, pp. 7-12. . 1996. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1994 and 1995," Hesperia 65, pp. 231-261. . 1999. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1996 and 1997," Hesperia 68, pp. 255-283. .2001. The Archaeology of Athens, New Haven. Canciani, F. 1966. C M , Heidelberg, Universitat 3 [Deutschland 271, Munich. Cardew, M . 1969. Pioneer Pottery, New York. Carinci, F. M . 1997. "Pottery Workshops at Phaestos and Haghia Triada in the Protopalatial Period," in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 317-322. Carter, J. C. 1994. "Sanctuaries in the Chora of Metaponto," in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne, Oxford, pp. 161-198. Catling, R. W . V. 1996. "A TenthCentury Trade-Mark from Lefkandi," in Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (BAR-IS 638), ed. D. Evely, I. S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt, Oxford, pp. 126-132. Cavanagh, W. G . 1977. "Attic Burial Customs, c. 2000-700 B.c." (diss. Bedford College, University of London).

Childe, V. G . 1954. "Rotary Motion," in A History ofAncient Technology I: From Early Times to the Fall of Ancient Empires, ed. C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, and A. R. Hall, Oxford, pp. 194-204. Childs, W . A. P., ed. 1978.Athens Comes ofige: From Solon to Salamis. Papers of a Symposium Sponsored by the A M , Princeton Society and the Department ofArt andArchaeology, Princeton University, Princeton. Chourmouziades, G . 1977. "'Eva EL&%EU~&VO EpyaffTfipl0%Epa!.lE!%fi< ffT0 N E O ~ L ~A~p+,v~,"leeq !XO 10, pp. 207226. Clinton, K. 1986. "The Author of the Homeric Hymn of Demeter," OpAth 16, pp. 43-49. . 1992. Myth and Cult.. The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries (SkrAth 8".11), Stockholm. Coarelli, F. 1983. Ilforo romano: Periodo arcaico, Rome. Coldstream, J. N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Development, London. . 1976. "Hero-Cults in the Age of Homer," JHS 96, pp. 8-17. . 1977. Geometric Greece, London. ,1995. "The Rich Lady of the Areiopagos and Her Contemporaries: A Tribute in Memory of Evelyn Lord Smithson," Hesperia 64, pp. 391-403. Cole, W., and D. Crook. 1962. "A Study of Fired-Clay Bodies from Roman Times," Transactions ofthe British Ceramic Society 61, pp. 299315. Collignon, M., and L. Couve. 1902. Catalogue des vasespeints du Musie National dxthenes (BEFAR 85), Paris. Colman, P. 1997. Corpses, Cofins, and Crypts:A History of Burial, New York. Conti, G . 1976. Cipriano Picco&asso, L i tre libri dell'arte del Yasaio, Florence. Cook, J. M . 1947. "Athenian Workshops around 700," BSA 42, pp. 139-155. Cook, R. M. 1961. "The 'Double Stoking Tunnel' of Greek Kilns," BSA 56, pp. 64-67.

. 1972. Greek Painted Pottery, 2nd ed., London. . 1984. "The Calke Wood Kiln," in Brijder 1984, pp. 63-66. . 1989. "The Francis-Vickers Chronology," JHS 109, pp. 164-170. Cooper, F. A. 1988. "The Tetrastylon in Greek Architecture,"AJA 92, p. 280 (abstract). Corder, P. 1957. "The Structure of Romano-British Kilns,"ArchJ64, pp. 10-27. Corinth = Corinth: The Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies atdthens, Princeton VII, ii = D. A. Amyx and P Lawrence, Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well, 1975. XI = C . H . Morgan 11, The Byzantine Pottery, 1942. XI1 = G . R. Davidson, The Minor Objects, 1952. XV, i = A. N. Stillwell, The Potters' Quarter, 1948. XV, ii = A. N. Stillwell, The Potters' Quarter: The Terracottas, 1952. XV, iii = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The Potters' Quarter: The Pottery, 1984. Cornford, F. M . 1907. Thucydides Mythistoricus, repr. 1971, Philadelphia. Costabile, F. 1998. "La triplice defixio del Kerameikos di Atene, il process0 polemarchico ed un logografo attico del IV sec. a.C.: Relazione preliminare," Minima epigraphica et papyrologica 1, pp. 9-54. Coulson, W . D. E., 0 . Palagia, T. L. Shear Jr., H . A. Shapiro, and F. J. Frost, eds. 1994. The Archaeology of Athens andAttica under the Democracy. Proceedings of an International Conference Celebrating 2,500 Years since the Birth of Democracy Held in Greece at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 4-6 December 1992 (Oxbow Monograph 37), Oxford. Courbin, P 1963. "Stratigraphie et stratigraphie: Mkthodes et perspectives," in ~ t u d e asrchiologiques, ed. P. Courbin, Paris, pp. 59-102. Cox, G . J. 1938. Potteryfor Artists, Craftsmen, and Teachers, New York.

REFERENCES

Crome,J. F. 1935-1936. "IIIIIAPXEIOI EPMAI," A M 60-61, pp. 300-313. Crosby, M . 1949. "The Altar o f the Twelve Gods in Athens," in Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia Suppl. 8), Princeton, pp. 82-103. Crouwel,J. H . 1981. Chariots and Other Means $Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Allard Pierson Series 3), Amsterdam. . 1992. Chariots and Other Wheeled Ehicles in Iron Age Greece (Allard Pierson Series 9), Amsterdam. Cucuzza, N . 1996. "C:Ag(aurion,Pisistrato e il xpoxvhov r i j ~'Axpoxoh~wg di Atene,"AnnArchStorAnt n.s. 3, pp. 91-97. Cuomo di Caprio, N . 1971-1972. "Proposta di classificazione della fornaci per ceramica e laterizi nell'area italiana," Sibrium 11, pp. 373-464. . 1974. "Fornaci per ceramica a Locri," Klearchos 1974, pp. 43-65. .1978-1979. "Updraught Pottery Kilns and Tile Kilns in Italy in Pre-Roman and Roman Times," Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 910, pp. 23-31. ,1979. "Pottery and Tile-Kilns in South Italy and Sicily," in Roman Brick and Tile: Studies in Manufacture, Distribution, and Use in the Western Empire (BAR-IS 68), ed. A . McWhirr, Oxford,pp. 73-95. . 1984. "Pottery Kilns on Pinakes from Corinth," in Brijder 1984, pp. 72-82. . 1985. La ceramica in archeologia:Antiche techniche di lavarazione e moderni metodi d'indagine, Rome. . 1992. "Les ateliers de potiers en Grande Grece: Quelques aspects techniques," in Blondt and Perreault 1992, pp. 69-85. Curtius, E. 1865.Attische Studien 11, Gottingen. . 1891. Die stadtgeschichte von Athen, Berlin. Cushing, F. H . 1920. Zuni Breadstuff (Indian Notes and Monographs 8), New York. D'Andria, F. 1975. "Scavi nella zona del Kerameikos (1973)," in Metaponto I (NSc Suppl. XXIX), D. Adameste-

Dell'Aglio, A. 1996. "L'argilla:Taanu, D. Mertens, and F. D'Andria, ranto," in Lippolis 1996, pp. 50-79. Rome 1980, pp. 355-452. Demakopoulou, K., and N . DivariDaumas, M . 1998. Cabiriaca: Recherches Valakou. 1999. "The Fortifications sur l'iconographie du culte des Cabires, o f the Mycenaean Acropolis o f Paris. Midea," in Laffineur 1999, pp. 205.2000. "La reprksentation d'un 215. atelier de potier du Cabirion de Denoyelle, M . 1996. "Le peintre Thebes sur un skyphos beotien?" in d'Analatos: Essai de synthese et 'A yaOo5 Saipwv. Mythes et cultes: perspectives nouvelles," AntK 39, ~ t u d e d'iconographie s en l 'bonneur de pp. 71-87. Lilb Kahil (BCH Suppl. 38), Paris, . 1997. "Attic or Non-Attic? pp. 117-123. Davaras, K. 1973. " M ~ v w ~x $~ p a - y ~ ~ x $ T h e Case o f the Pisticci Painter," in Oakley, Coulson, and Palagia xaylvo< ci
REFERENCES

1 8 9 4 . "'H 'Evv~dtxpovvoqxai $ Kahh~pp6q,"ArchEph,cols. 1-10. . 1927.Alt-Ithaka: Ein Beitrag zur Homer-Frage. Studien und Ausgrabungen auf der Insel LeukasIthaka, Munich. . 1929. "Die dtesten Stadtmauern Athens," in FestschrF WaltherJudeich zum 70. Gerburtstag, Weimar, pp. 1-12. . 1937.Aft-Athen undseine Agora: Untersuchungenuber die Entwicklung der altesten Burg und Stadt Athen und ihrespolitischen MitteFunktes, des Stadtsmarktes I, Berlin. Dow, S. 1937. Prytaneis:A Study ofthe Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors (Hesperia Suppl. I), Princeton. Dragendorff, H . 1897. "Zwei altattische Malereien auf Marmor," JdI 12, pp. 1-8. . 1913. "Tiryns: Vorbericht iiber die Grabungen 1913,"AM 38, pp. 329-354. Drerup, H . 1981. "Parthenon und Vorparthenon: Zum Stand der Kontroverse,"AntK24, pp. 2138. Drews, R. 1988. The Coming ofthe Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, Princeton. . 1993. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B c., Princeton. DuBois, P. 1988. Sowing the Body: Psychoana(ysis andAncient Representations $Women, Chicago. Ducrey, P., and 0.Picard. 1969. "Recherches a Lat6," BCH 93, pp. 792-822. Duhamel, P. 1973. "Les fours ctramiques gallo-romains," in Recherches d'archeblogie celtique etgallo-romaine (Hautes etudes du monde grecoromaine 5), ed. P.-M. Duval, Paris, pp. 141-154. Dunbabin,T. J. 1948. "The Early History of Corinth,"JHS 68, pp. 59-69. . 1950. "An Attic Bowl," BSA 45, pp. 193-202. Dupre, L. 1825. Voyage a Atbenes eta Constantinope; ou, collection deportraits, de vues et de costumesgrecs et ottomans,peints sur les lieux, d'apres

nature, lithograpbib et coloritfsaccompagnid'un text orni de vignettes, Paris. Durand-Griville, E. 1891. "La couleur du decor des vases grecs," RA 18, pp. 99-118. . 1892. "De la couleur du decor des vases grecs (deuxieme article)," R4 19, pp. 363-383. Edwards, G . R. 1956. "'Hellenistic' Pottery," in Small Objectsfrom the Pnyx: I1 (Hesperia Suppl. lo), L. Talcott, B. Philippaki, G. R. Edwards, and V. R. Grace, Princeton 1956, pp. 79-112. Eisman, M. M., and L.Turnbull. 1978. "Robinson's Kiln-Skyphos,"AJA 82, pp. 394-399. Eiteljorg, H., 11. 1980. "The Fast Wheel, the Multiple-Brush Compass, and Athens as the Home of the Protogeometric Style,"AJA 84, pp. 445-452. . 1993. The Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis before Mnesicles (AIA Monographs n.s. I), Boston. El-Ashmawi, F. 1998. "Pottery Kiln and Wine Factory at Burg ElArab," in Commerce et artisant dans I'Alexandrie hellinistique et romaine. Actes du Colloyue d'Ath2nes organisi par le CNRS, le Laboratoire de ciramologie de Lyon et l 7?colefranFaise dythenes, 11-12 dicembre 1988 (BCH Suppl. 33), ed. J.-Y. Empereur, Paris, pp. 55-64. Eliot, C. W. J. 1968. "Gennadeion Notes, 111: Athens in the Time of Lord Byron," Hesperia 37, pp. 134158. Empereur, J.-Y. 1998. Alexandria Rediscovered, New York. Empereur, J.-Y., and Y. Garlan, eds. 1986. Recherches sur les amphores griyues (BCH Suppl. 13), Paris. Empereur, J.-Y., Ch. Kritzas, and A. Marangou. 1991. "Recherches sur les amphores cretoises, 11: Les centres de fabrication d'amphores en Crete centrale," BCH 115, pp. 481-523. Ervin, M . 1958. "The Sanctuary of Aglauros on the South Slope of the Akropolis and Its Destruction in the First Mithridatic War (Evidence from Archaeological and Literary Sources)," APXEIOIV UOIVTOT 1958, pp. 129-165.

Evely, D. 1988. "The Potters' Wheel in Minoan Crete," BSA 83, pp. 83126. Fagerstrom, K. 1988. Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times ( S I M A81), Goteborg. Faraone, C. A. 2001. "A Collection of Curses against Kilns (Homeric Epigram 13.7-23)," in Antiyuity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday, ed. A. Y. Collins and M . M . Mitchell, Tiibingen,

pp. 435-449.

Farnsworth, M . 1959. "Types of Greek Glaze Failure,"Archaeology 12, pp. 242-250. . 1960. "Draw Pieces as Aids to Correct Firing," AJA 64, pp. 72-75. Farnsworth, M., and H . Wisely. 1958. "Fifth Century Intentional Red Glaze," AJA 62, pp. 165-173. Fillieres, D., G . Harbottle, and E. V. Sayre. 1983. "Neutron-Activation Study of Figurines, Pottery, and Workshop Materials from the Athenian Agora, Greece,"JFA 10, pp. 55-69. Fine, J. V. A. 1951. Horoi Studies in Mortage, Real Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient Athens (Hesperia Suppl. 9), Princeton. Finley, M . I. 1965. "Technical Innovation and Economic Progress in the Ancient World," Economic History Review 18, pp. 29-45. . 1970. Ear4 Greece: The Bronze andArchaicAges, New York. . 1983. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, New York. Fiocco, C., and G. Gherardi. 1988. Ceramiche umbre dal medioevo allo storicismo (Catalogo generale delle raccoltes), Faenza. Foley, H . P., ed. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays, Princeton. Forstn, B., and G. Stanton, eds. 1996. The Pnyx in the History ofAthens. Proceedings of an International Colloyuium Organized by the Finnish Institute at Athens, 7-9 October 1994 (Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 2), Helsinki.

REFERENCES

Foster, W . 1910. " T h e Composition o f Some Greek Vases,"Journalof the American Chemical Society 32, pp. 1259-1264. Fourmont, M . 1992. "Les ateliers de Selinonte (Sicilie),"i n Blonde and Perreault 1992, pp. 57-68. Francis, E. D., and M . Vickers. 1988. " T h e Agora Revisited: Athenian Chronology c. 500-450 B.c.," BSA 83, pp. 143-167. Frantz, A. 1942. "Turkish Pottery from the Agora," Hesperia 11, pp. 128. Fraser, H . 1974. Electric Kilns, New York. [Originally published as Kilns and Kiln Firing for the Craft Potter, London 1969.1 Freeman, I . 1958. "Firing-Shrinkage Characteristics o f Some Brick Clays," Transactionsofthe British Ceramic Society 57, pp. 316-339. Freestone, I . C., and Y . Gorin-Rosen. 1999. " T h e Great Glass Slab at Bet She'arim, Israel: A n Early Islamic Glassmaking Experiment?" JGS 41, pp. 105-116. Furtwangler, A. 1885. Konig(iche Museen zu Berlin: Beschreibung der Vasensammlung im Antiquarium, Berlin. Furtwangler, A., and K. Reichhold. 1904. Griechische VasenmalereiI , Munich. Furumark, A. 1972. Mycenaean Pottery I : Anabsis and Classijcation, repr. Stockholm. Gadbery, L. M . 1986. "Moving the Leagros Base,"AJA 90, p. 194 (abstract). ,1992. " T h e Sanctuary o f the Twelve Gods in the Athenian Agora: A Revised View," Hesperia 61, pp. 447-489. Gardner, E. A . 1902.AncientAthens, New York. Garlan, Y . 1986. "Quelques nouveaux ateliers amphoriques i Thasos," in Empereur and Garlan 1986, pp. 201-276. Garland, R. 1987. The Piraeus,from the Ffth to the First Century B c , Ithaca. Gauss, W .2000. "Neue Forschungen zur prahistorischen Akropolis von Athen," in OsterreichischeForschungen zur&iischen Bronzezeit 1998.Akten der Tagung am Institut fur Klassische Archaologie der Uni-

versitat Wien, 2-3 Mai 1998 (Wiener Forschungen zur Archaologie 3), ed. F. Blakolmer, Vienna, pp. 167-189. Gauss, W . , and F. Ruppenstein. 1998. "Die Athener Akropolis in der friihen Eisenzeit,"AM 113, pp. 160. Geagan, H . A . 1970. "Mythological Themes i n the Plaques from Penteskouphia," A4 (JdI 85), pp. 31-48. Gesell, G . C., L. P. Day, and W . D. E. Coulson. 1988. "Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, 1987,"Hesperia 57, pp. 279-301. Geyer, A . 1996. Der Janaer Maler: Eine Tbpferwerkstatt im klassischenAthen, Wiesbaden. Giardino, L. 1996. "L'argilla: Herakleia," in Lippolis 1996, pp. 35-43. Gill, D. W .J. 1987. " M E T R U . M E N E C E : A n Etruscan Painted Inscription on a Mid-Fifth Century B.C. RedFigure Cup from Populonia," Antiquity 61, pp. 82-87. . 1988. " T h e Temple o f Aphaia on Aegina: T h e Date o f the Reconstruction," BSA 83, pp. 169177. ,1993. " T h e Temple o f Aphaia on Aegina: Further Thoughts on the Date o f the Reconstruction," BSA 88, pp. 173-181. Giovannini, A. 1971. Untersuchungen uber die Natur und die Anfange der bundesstaatlichen Sympolitien in Griechenland, Gottingen. Glowacki, K. 1995. "ANew Fragment o f the Erechtheion Frieze," Hesperia 64, pp. 325-331. Gomme, A . W . 1956.A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 11: The Ten Years' War, Books 11-III, Oxford. Gould, J. P. 1980. "Law, Custom, and Myth: Aspects o f the Social Position o f W o m e n in Classical Athens," JHS 100, pp. 38-59. Graef, B., and E. Langlotz. 1909. Die antiken Vasen von derAkropolis zu Athen 1.1, Berlin. Grandjouan, C . 1989. Hellenistic Relief Molds from the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 23), Princeton. Green, J. R. 1961. " T h e Caputi Hydria," JHS 81, pp. 73-75. Greene-Kelly, R . 1957. " T h e Montmorillonite Minerals (Smectites),"

chapter V in The Dgerential Thermal Investigation of Clays, ed. R. Mackenzie, London, pp. 140164. Gregoroviou, Ph., and S. Lamprou. 1904. Tc7~0phrrjq scoA~wq'AtI+~wv, Athens. Greifenhagen,A. 1938. C M , Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1 [Deutschland I], Munich. . 1971. "Attisch schwarzfiguren Prachtschalen mit bemalter Standfliche," JdI 86, pp. 80-102. Hagg, R., ed. 1983. The Greek Renaissance in the Eighth Century B c.: Tradition and Innovation. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 1-5 June 1981 (SkrAth 4.30), Stockholm. Halm-Tisserant, M . 1998. Rialitis et imaginaire des supplices en Grke antique (Collection d'etudes anciennes: Strie grecque 125), Paris. Hampe, R. 1960. Ein fruhattischer Grabfund, Mainz. Hampe, R., and A. Winter. 1962. Bei Tdpfern und Topferinnen in Kreta, Messenien und Zypern, Mainz. . 1965. Bei ToFfern und Zieglern in Suditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland, Mainz. Handy, J., and A. Gaines. 1975. " T h e Thermal Behaviour o f Clays and Possible Methods o f Determining Firing Temperatures o f Pottery," Museum Applied Science Centerfor Archaeology Newsletter 11. Hankey, V . 1968. "Pottery-Making at Beit Shebab, Lebanon," PEQ 100, pp. 27-32. Hansen, H . D. 1937. " T h e Prehistoric Pottery on the North Slope o f the Acropolis, 1937,"Hesperia 6, pp. 539-570. Hansen, M . H., and K. Raaflaub, eds. 1995. Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis (Historia Einzelschriften 95), Stuttgart. Harris-Cline, D . 1999. "Archaic Athens and the Topography o f the Kylon Affair," BSA 94, pp. 309-320. Harrison, J. E. 1894. Mythology and Monuments ofAncient Athens, New York. . 1906. Primitive Athens as Described by Thucydides, Cambridge.

REFERENCES

Hartwig, P. 1899. "Die Anwendung der Federfahne bei den griechischen Vasenmalern,"JdI 14, pp. 147-166. Hayes, J. W . 1972. Late Roman Pottery, London. Heberdey, R. 1910. "Das Westtor der Pelasgerburg von Athen," OJh 13, pp. 1-4. Heimann, R., and U. M . Franklin. 1979. "Archaeo-Thermometry: The Assessment of Firing Temperatures of Ancient Ceramics," Journal of the InternationalInstitute for Conservation-Canadian Group 4, pp. 23-45. Herford, M . A. B. 1919. A Handbook of Greek Vase Painting (Publications of the University of Manchester 122), Manchester. Herrmann, H.-V. 1982. "Zur Bedeutung des delphischen Dreifusses," Boreas 5, pp. 54-66. Hess, C. 1999. Maiolica in the Making: The GentilUBarnabeiArchive (Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, Bibliographies and Dossiers 4), Los Angeles. Heurtley, W . A. 1939. Prehistoric Macedonia:An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Greek Macedonia (West of the Struma) in the Neolithic, Bronze, and Early Iron Ages, Cambridge. Heurtley, W . A,, and C. A. R. Radford. 1927-1928. "Two Prehistoric Sites in Chalcidice," BSA 29, pp. 117186. Heurtley, W . A., andT. C. Skeat. 1930-1931. "The Tholos Tombs at Marmariane," BSA 31, pp. 1-55. Hill, R. 1953. "The Rehydration of Fired Clay and Associated Minerals," Transactions ofthe British Ceramic Society 52, pp. 589-613. Hiller, S. 1999. "Scenes of Warfare and Combat in the Arts of Aegean Late Bronze Age: Reflections on Typology and Development," in Laffineur 1999, pp. 319-330. Himera I1 = N. Allegro, 0 . Belvedere, N. Bonacasa, R. M. Bonaca Carra, C. A. di Stefano, E. Epifanio, M . T. Manni Piraino, A. Tullio, and A. Tusa Cutroni, Campagne di scavo 1966-1 973, Rome 1976. Holscher, T. 1991. "The City of Athens: Space, Symbol, Structure," in City-States in ClassicalAntiquity and Medieval Italy, ed. A. Molho,

K. Raaflaub, and J. Emlen, Stuttgart, pp. 355-380. Homann-Wedeking, B. 1950. "A Kiln Site at Knossos," BSA 45, pp. 165192. Hooker, J. T. 1988. "From Mycenae to Homer," in Studies in Honour of T B. L. Webster 11, ed. J. H . Betts, J. T. Hooker, and J. R. Green,

Bristol, pp. 57-64.

Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford. Houby-Nielsen, S. H . 1995. "'Burial Language' in Archaic and Classical Kerameikos," Proceedings ofthe Danish Institute at Athens 1, pp. 129-191. Howland, R. H . 1963. Lampsfrom the Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk Y), Princeton. Hulthen, B., and S. Olsson. 1983. "The Asine Pottery: A Technological Study," in Asine 11, fasc. 4:2, pp. 137-148. Humphreys, S. C. 1978. Anthropology and the Greeks, London. ,1980. "Family Tombs and Tomb Cult in Ancient Athens: Tradition or Traditionalism?" JHS 100, pp. 96-126. . 1993. The Family, Women, and Death: Comparative Studies, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor. Hurwit, J. M . 1999. The Athenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, and Archaeologyjom the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge. Iakovides, S. E. 1962. ' H p u x q v a ~ x $ drxporro;l~qs 6 v 'ABgv6v, Athens. . 1973. Ai puxqva~xnidrxporroA~iq,Athens. . 1999. "Late Helladic Fortifications," in Laffineur 1999, pp. 199204. Immerwahr, S. A. 1973. Early Burialsfrom the Agora Cemeteries (AgoraPicBk 13), Princeton. . 1982. "The Earliest Athenian Grave," in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented to Homer A. Thompson (Hesperia Suppl. 20), Pr~nceton, ' pp. 54-62. Jackson, C. M., H . E. M . Cool, and E. C. W . Wager. 1998. "The Manufacture of Glass in Roman York," JGS 40, pp. 55-61.

Jackson, C. M., P. T. Nicholson, and W . Gneisinger. 1998. "Glassmaking at Tell el-Amarna: An Integrated Approach," JGS 40, pp. 11-23. Jeffery, L. H . 1962. "The Inscribed Gravestones of Archaic Attica," BSA 57, pp. 115-153. . 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece:A Study ofthe Origin of the Greek Abhabet and Its Developmentjom the Eighth to the F F h Centuries B c , rev. ed., with a supplement by A. W. Johnston, Oxford. Jeppesen, K. 1979. "Where Was the So-Called Erechtheion?"AJA 83, pp. 381-394. . 1983. "Further Inquiries on the Location of the Erechtheion and Its Relationship to the Temple of the Polias, 1: npocsro y~aiov and ~ p o m o y ~ o v , " A J87, A pp. 325333. . 1987. The Theory of the Alternative Erechtheion, Aarhus. Jewitt, L. F. W. 1878. The Ceramic Art of Great Britainjom Pre-Historic Times Down to the Present Day, Being a History ofthe Ancient and Modern Pottery and Porcelain Works of the Kingdom and of Their Productions of Every Class, London. Johnson, J., J. Clark, S. Miller-Antonio, D. Robins, M . Schiffer, and J. Skibo. 1988. "Effects of Firing Temperature on the Fate of Naturally Occurring Organic Matter in Clays,"JAS 15, pp. 403-414. Johnston, A. W., and R. E. Jones. 1978. "The 'SOS' Amphora," BSA 73, pp. 103-141. Jones, R. E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper I), Athens. Jordan, D. R. 1980. "Two Inscribed Lead Tablets from a Well in the Athenian Kerameikos,"AM 95, pp. 225-239. . 1983. "New Archaeological Evidence for the Practice of Magic in Classical Athens," in &axs~xoi so5 XI1 A~eOvodqCuv&GpiouKAnoixrj; Xpxarohoyioc;. X & j v n ,4-1 1

Z~rrs~p,Bpiou 1983, A', Athens, pp. 273-277. . 1985. "Defixiones from a Well near the Southwest Corner of

REFERENCES

the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 54, pp. 205-255. ,2000. "A Personal Letter Found in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 69, pp. 91-103. Jordan, D. R., and S. I. Rotroff. 1999. "A Curse in a Chytridion: A Contribution to the Study of Athenian Pyres," Hesperia 68, pp. 147-154. Judeich, W . 1931. Topographie won Athen (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 3.2.2), 2nd ed., Munich. Jung, H . 1995. "Die sinnende Athena: Zur Deutung der Reliefs Athen, Akropolismuseum 695," JdI 110, pp. 95-147. Kalogeropoulou, A. 1970. "From the Techniques of Pottery,"& 3, pp. 429-434. Kampouroglou, D. 1922. Ai ~cthctiai ;I6qvn~,Athens. Kehrberg, I. 1982. "The PotterPainter's Wife: Some Additional Thoughts on the Caputi Hydria," Hephaistos 4, pp. 25-35. Kenzler, U. 1997. "Archaia Agora? Zur urspriinlichen Lage der Agora Athens," Hephaistos 15, pp. 113136. Kerameikos = Kerameikos: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Berlin I = W . Kraiker and K. Kubler, Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10.Jahrhunderts, 1939. 111 = W . Peek, Inschriften, Ostraka, Fhchtafeln, 1941. IV = K. Kiibler, Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10.Jahrhunderts, 1943. V, i = K. Kubler, Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8.Jahrhunderts, 1954. X = W. Hoepfner, Das Pompeion und seine Nachfo(gerbauten, 1976. X V = W . Kovacsovics, S. C. Bisel, C. Dehl-von Kaenal, and F. Willemsen, Die Eckterrasse an der Graberstrassedes Kerameikos, 1980. Keramopoullos, A. 1932. "To Hehapylxov," PraktAkAth 7, pp. 110-124. . 1934-1935. "To IIchapylxov. T O 'Aoxhqxr.cZov.ai 6601 ai Zxvriyouoct~xpbq rdt rIpoxvhala,"ArchEph, pp. 85-116. Keuls, E. 1985. The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, New York.

Killebrew, A. 1996. "Pottery Kilns from Deir el-Balah and Tel MiqneEkron: Approaches to the Study of Firing Technology during the Late Bronze and Iron Age Periods in Canaan, Ancient Israel, Philistia, and Phoenicia," in Retrieving the Past: Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodology in Honor of Gus W Van Beek, ed. J. D. Seger, Winona Lake, Ind., pp. 135-162. Kingery, W . 1974. "A Note on the Differential Thermal Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics," Archaeometry 16, pp. 109-112. Kistler, E. 1998. Die "opferrinnenZeremonie": Bankettideologie am Grab, Orientalisierung und Formierung einer Adelsgesellschaft indthen, Stuttgart. Kleine, J. 1979. "Milet: Bericht iiber die Arbeiten im Siidschnitt an der hellenistischen Stadtmauer 19681973," IstMitt 29, pp. 109-159. Knauer, E. F. 1992. "Mitra and Kerykeion: Some Reflections on Symbolic Attributes in the Art of the Classical Period,"A4, pp. 373-399. Knigge, U. 1991. The Athenian Kerameikos: History, Monuments, Excavations, Athens. Knigge, U., and W . Kovacsovics. 1981. "Kerameikos: Tatigkeitsbericht 1 9 7 9 , " M UdI 96), pp. 385-396. Kohler, U. 1871. "Studien zu den attischen Psephismen, X I , " Hermes 5, pp. 331-341. Kokkou-Vyridi, K. 2000. &xbi,ucq scupdq 6uo~Gvoso rcAcoripro s7jq 'E;lcuoivctq,Athens. Kolb, A. F. 1981.Agora und Theater: Elks und Festversammlung ( A F 9),

Berlin. Kontorli-Papadopoulou, L. 1999. "Fresco Fighting-Scenes as Evidence for Warlike Activities in the Late Bronze Age Aegean," in Laffineur 1999, pp. 331-338. Korres, M . 1988. "IIhasela Auo~xpri~ouq,"ArchDelt3 6,1981, B'1 [1988], pp. 5-7. Koster, A. 1909. Das Pelargikon: Untersuchungen zur attesten Befestigung der Akropolis von Athen (Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes 71), Strassburg. Kourouniotes, K., and H . A. Thompson. 1932. "The Pnyx in Athens," Hesperia 1, pp. 90-217.

Kramer, C. 1997. Pottery in Rajasthan: Ethnoarchaeology in Two Indian Cities, Washington, D.C. Krause, C. 1981. "Eretria: Ausgrabungen 1979-1980,"AntK24, pp. 70-87. Krause, G. 1975. Untersuchungen zu den altesten Nekropolen am Eridanos in Athen ( H B A 3), Hamburg. Kretschmer, P. 1894. Die griechische Vaseninschrzften ihrer Sprache nach untersucht, repr. 1969, New York. Kiibler, K. 1950.Altattische Malerei, Tubingen. Kunisch, N. 1994. "Uber das rotfigurige Zeichnen," AntK 37, pp. 81-90. Kunze, E. 1958. VZ. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Obmpia, Berlin. Kunze, E., and H. Schleif. 1938-1939. "Die 'Siidhalle': Der Baubefund," in III. Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Obmpia, Berlin, pp. 30-37. . 1944. "Die Palaestra," in Ill Bericht uber die Ausgrabungen in Obmpia, Berlin, pp. 8-31. Kurtz, D. C., and J. Boardman. 1971. Greek Burial Customs, London. Kyrkou, M . 1997. "H xpw~oarrlxlj xpoxhqq: N ~ c qxcpaylx6q yaprupleq," in Oakley, Coulson, and Palagia 1997, pp. 423-434. Laffineur, R., ed. 1999. Polemos: Le contexteguerrier en ~ ~ri l2ge i e du bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre igienne internationale, Universite'de Liige, 14-1 7 avril1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liege. Laffineur, R., and P. P. Betancourt, eds. 1997. TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th InternationalAegean Conference, Philade(phia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 (Aegaeum 16), Liege. Lalonde, G. V. 1968. "A FifthCentury Hieron Southwest of the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 37, pp. 123-133. Lambropoulou, L. 1983. "Auo xepayer.xoi xhipavor. o q v AraAavq 16, pp. 74-79. Aoxpi60<,"& Lang, M . 1968. Waterworks in the Athenian Agora (AgoraPicBk l l ) , Princeton. Langdon, M . K. 1976.A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesperia Suppl. 16), Princeton.

REFERENCES

Langlotz, E. 1968. Griechische Vasen in Wurzburg. Martin Von WagnerMuseum der Universitat Wiirzburg, Rome. Lao Fasheng, Ye Hongming, and Cheng Zhuhai. 1986. "Ancient Long Kiln and Kiln Furniture in Zhejiang Province," in Scientificand Technological Insights on Ancient Chinese Pottery and Porcelain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ancient Chinese Pottery and Porcelain Held in Shanghaij-om November 1-5,1982 (Shanghai Institute o f Ceramics, Academia Sinica), Beijing, pp. 314-320. Lauter-Bufe, H., and H . Lauter. 1975. "Die vorthemistokleische Stadtmauer Athens nach philologischen und archaologischen Quellen," AA 90, pp. 1-9. Leach, B. 1976.A Potter1 Book, 2nd ed., London. Lefiandi I = M . R. Popham, L. H . Sackett, and P. G . Themelis, eds., The Iron Age (BSASuppl. 1I), Oxford 1979/1980. Levi, D. 1933. "Abitazioni preistoriche sulle pendici meidionali dell'Acropolis,"ASAtene 13-14,1930-1931 [1933], pp. 411-498. . 1958. "Gli scavi a Festos nel 1956 e 1957,"ASAtene 35-36 (n.s. 19-20), 1957-1958 [1958], pp. 193-361. . 1963. "Enneakrounos," ASAtene 39-40 (n.s. 23-24), 19611962 [1963], pp. 149-171. Levi, D., and C . Laviosa. 1986. "11 forno minoica da vasaio di Haghia Triada," ASAtene 57-58 (n.s.4142), 1979-1980 [1986], pp. 7-47. Lezzi-Hafter, A. 1988. Der EretriaMaler: Werke und Wegfahrten, Mainz. Lightbown, R., and A. Caiger-Smith. 1980. The Three Books of the Potter? Art:A Facsimile of the Manuscript in the Victoria andAlbert Museum, London, London. Lindos I = C . Blinkenberg, Lindos, Fouilles de IYcropole, 1902-1 914: Lespetits objets, Berlin 1931. Lippolis, E . 1995. "Tra il ginnasio di Tolomeo ed il Serapeion: La ricostruzione topografica di un quatiere monumentale di Atene," Ostraka 4, pp. 43-67.

, ed. 1996. I Greci in Occidente: Arte e artigianato in Magna Grecia, Naples. Lisse, P., and A. Louis. 1956. Lespotiers de Nabeul: ~ t u d de e sociologie tunisienne (Publications de 1'Institut des belles lettres arabes 23), Tunis. Liston, M . A,, and J . K. Papadopoulos. Forthcoming. "The 'Rich Athenian Lady' Was Pregnant: T h e Anthropology o f a Geometric Tomb Reconsidered," Hesperia. Little, L. M., and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. "ASocial Outcast in Early Iron Age Athens," Hesperia 67, pp. 375-404. Lynch, K. M . 1999. "Black-Figure, RedFigure, and Communal Drinking in a Late Archaic Athenian Home," AJA 103, p. 298 (abstract). Macdonald, B. R. 1981. "The Emigration o f Potters from Athens in the Late Fifth Century B.C. and Its Effect on the Attic Pottery Industry,"AJA 85, pp. 159-168. Mackenzie, D. 1903. "The Pottery o f Knossos," JHS 23, pp. 157-205. Mackenzie, M . 1992. TurkishAthens: The Forgotten Centuries, 1456-1 832, Reading. Maggetti, M., and M . Rossmanith. 1981. "Archaeothermometry o f Kaolinitic Clays," Revue d'arche'ometrie 3, pp. 185-194. Mallouchou-Tufano, F. 1994. "The History o f Interventions on the Acropolis," in The Acropolis Restoration: The CCAM Interventions, ed. R. Economakis, London, pp. 69-85. . 1998. 'H &vnurj;lwmjTGV E rr$V E ~ T E ~ ) ~ drpxcziwv , U V ~ , Uiwv EAAoiScz (1834-1 939): To @yo njq dv ;1O$vcrig ~pxcriohoyix$q 'Ercripeinq xcri njg 'Ap~crio;loyix$q Tz7p~uiczg,Athens.

Maniatis, Y.,E. Aloupi, and A . D. Stalios. 1993. "New Evidence for the Nature o f the Attic Black Gloss,"Archaeometry 35, pp. 23-34. Mark, I . S. 1993. The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and Chronology (AIAMonograph n.s. 2 and Hesperia Suppl. 26), Princeton. . 1995. "Levels Taken on the Nike Bastion," Hesperia 64, pp. 383389.

Martin, R. 1951. Recherches sur l'agora gricque, Paris. Marwitz, H . 1960. "Zur griechischen Vasentechnik," OJh 45, cols. 207264. Marx, P. A . 2001. "Acropolis 625 (Endoios Athena) and the Rediscovery o f Its Findspot," Hesperia 70, pp. 221-254. Massoul, M . 1935. CVA, Sevres 1 [France 131, Paris. Matson, F. 1971. "AStudy ofTemperatures Used in Firing Ancient Mesopotamian Pottery," in Science anddrchaeology,ed. R. Brill, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 65-78. Mattusch, C . C . 1977. "Bronze and Ironworking in the Area o f the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 46, pp. 340-379. . 1997. The Victorious Youth, Los Angeles. Mavroyannakis, E. 1981. "Preliminary Measurements o f Thermal Expansion Coefficient o f Ancient Terracottas," in Preprints of the International Council of Museums, Committeefor Conservation, 6th Triennial Meeting, vol. 2, pp. 1-6. Mazarakis Ainian, A . 1997. From Rulers' Dwellings t o Temples: Architecture, Religion, and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B c) ( S I M 121),Jonsered. McCarthy, M., and C . Brooks. 1988. Medieval Pottery in Britain: A D 9001600, Leicester. McLoughlin, B. 1991. "The Kilns o f Ancient Greece: A Typology" (B.A. [Hons.]diss., University o f Sydney). McNeal, R. A . 1991. "Archaeology and the Destruction o f the Later Athenian Acropolis,"Antiyuity 65, pp. 49-63. Metzler, D. 1969. "Eine attische Kleinmeisterschale mit Topferszenen in Karlsruhe," AA 84, pp. 138-152. Michaelidis, P. 1993. "Potters'Workshops in Minoan Crete," SMEA 32, pp. 7-39. Mill, J . S. 1978 [1846]. "Grote's History o f Greece [I],"in Collected Works ofJohn Stuart Mill XI: Essays on Philosophy and the Classics, ed. J. M . Ronson, Toronto.

REFERENCES

Miller, S. G. 1978. The Prytaneion:Its Function andArchitectural Form, Berkeley. . 1995a. "Architecture as Evidence for the Identity of the Early Polis," in Sourcesfor theAncient Greek City-State. Symposium,August 24-27,1994 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2), ed. M. H . Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 201-242. . 1995b. "Old Metroon and Old Bouleuterion in the Classical Agora of Athens," in Hansen and Raaflaub 1995, pp. 133-156. Moggi, M . 1976. I sinecismi interstatali greci 1: Dalle origini a1338 a. C., Pisa. Momigliano, N. 1986. "Fornaci minoiche per ceramica a Creta," RdA 10, pp. 75-78. Monaco, M . C. 1995. "Syssitia: Ceramica da mensa dall'angolo nordoccidentale dell'agora ateniese," AnnArchStorAnt n.s. 2, pp. 133-140. . 1999. "Fornaci da ceramica e scarti di produzione di eta classica e tardo-classica," A M 114, pp. 105116. ,2000. Ergasteria: Impianti artigianali ceramici adAtene ed in Attica dalprotogeometrico alle soglie deA2llenism0,Rome. Morgan, C. 2001. "Figurative Iconography from Corinth, Ithaka, and Pithekoussai: Aetos 600 Reconsidered," BSA 96, pp. 195-227. Morgan, C. H., 11. 1935. "The Terracotta Figurines from the North Slope of the Acropolis," Hesperia 4, pp. 189-213. . 1936. "Excavations at Corinth, 1935-1936,"AJA 40, pp. 466-484. Morgantina I11 = N. Cuomo di Caprio, Fornaci e ofticine da vasaio tardoellenistiche, Princeton 1992. Morris, 1. 1987. BurialandAncient Society: The Rise of the Greek CityState, Cambridge. . 1988. "Tomb Cult and the 'Greek Renaissance': The Past in the Present in the 8th Century B.c.," Antiquity 62, pp. 750-761. . 1992. Death Ritualand Social Structure in ClassicalAntiquity, Cambridge. Morris, S. P. 1984. The Black and White Style:Athens andAigina in the Orientalizing Period (Yale Classical Monographs 6), New Haven.

. 1992a. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Princeton. .1992b. "Prehistoric Iconography and Historical Sources: Hindsight through Texts?" in EIKRIV. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th InternationalAegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8), ed. R. Laffineur and J. L. Crowley, Liege, pp. 205-212. . 1 9 9 2 ~"Introduction. . Greece beyond East and West: Perspectives and Prospects," in Greece between East and West:10th-8th Centuries B c. Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, March 15-16th, 1990, ed. G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru, Mainz, pp. xiii-xviii. Morris, S. P., and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. "Phoenicians and the Corinthian Pottery Industry," in Archaologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, ed. R. Rolle, K. Schmidt, and R. F. Docter,

Gottingen, pp. 251-263.

Mountjoy, P. A. 1981. Four Early Mycenaean Wellsjom the South Slope of the Acropolis at Athens (Miscellanea graeca 4), Gent. . 1986. Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification ( S I M 73), Goteborg. . 1995. Mycenaean Athens ( S I M - P B 127),Jonsered. Mountjoy, P. A., and V. Hankey. 1988. "LH IIIC Late versus Submycenaean: The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed,"JdI 103, pp. 1-37'. Muhly, J. D. 1992. "The Crisis Years in the Mediterranean World: Transition or Cultural Disintegration?" in The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B c j o m beyond the Danube to the Tigris, ed. W . A. Ward and M . S. Joukowsky, Dubuque, Iowa, pp. 10-26. Miiller-Karpe, A. 1988. Hethitische Topferei der Oberstadt von Hattusa: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis spatgrossreichszeitlicher Keramik und TLipferbetriebe unter Zugrundelegung der Grabungsergebnisse won 1978-82 in Bogazkoy (Marburger Studie zur Vor- und Friihgeschichte lo), Marburg.

Murray, R. L. 1975. The Protogeometric Style: The First Greek Style ( S I M PB 2), Goteborg. Musti, D., A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M . Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M . E. Giannotta, eds. 1991. La transizione dal miceneo all'alto arcaismo: Dalpalazzo alla citta. Atti delconvegno internazionale, Roma, 14-1 9 marzo 1988, Rome. Musty, J. W . G . 1974. "Medieval Pottery Kilns," in Medieval Pottery j o m Excavations: Studies Presented to Gerald Clough Dunning, ed. V. I. Evison, H . Hodges, and J. G . Hurst, London, pp. 41-65. Mylonas, G. E. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton. Mylonas Shear, I. 1999. "New Evidence for the Mycenaean Entrance to the Athenian Acropolis,"AJA 103, p. 327 (abstract). Nash, E. 1981. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, New York. Naumann, R. 1971. "Brennofen fiir Glasurkeramik," IstMitt 21, pp. 173-190. Nemeth, G. 1993. " ~ b e r s e t z u nund ~ Datierung der HekatompedonInschrift,"JdI 108, pp. 76-81. Newhall, A. E. 1931. "The Corinthian Kerameikos,"AJA 35, pp. 1-30. Nicholls, R. V. 1995. "The SteleGoddess Workshop: Terracottas from Well U 13:l in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 64, pp. 405-492. Nicole, G . 1911. Catalogue des vases peints du Musie nationald;4thtnes: Supple'ment, Paris. Niemeier, W.-D. 1997. "The Mycenaean Potters' Quarter at Miletus," in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 347-351. Nikolai'dou, G . 1893. "n~pi Kahhlppoqq 4~xczi 'Evveczxporivou," ArchEph, pp. 177-186. Nilsson, M . P. 1955. Geschichte der griechischen Religion (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft 5.2), Munich. Noack, F. 1927. Eleusis: Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des Heiligtums, Berlin. Noble, J. V. 1960. "The Technique of Attic Vase-Painting," AJA 64, pp. 307-318. . 1988. The Techniques of PaintedAttic Pottery, 2nd ed., rev., London.

REFERENCES

Norton, L. H . 1956. Ceramicsfor the Artist Potter, Cambridge, Mass. Oakley,J. H . 1988. "Attic Red-Figured Skyphoi of Corinthian Shape," Hesperia 57, pp. 165-191. . 1992. "An Athenian RedFigure Workshop from the Time of the Peloponnesian War," in Blondt and Perreault 1992, pp. 195-203. Oakley,J. H., W . D. E. Coulson, and 0 . Palagia, eds. 1997. Athenian Potters and Painters: The Conference Proceedings (Oxbow Monograph 67), Oxford. Ober, 5. 1987. "Pottery and Miscellaneous Artifacts from Fortified Sites in Northern and Western Attica," Hesperia 56, pp. 197-227. . 1995. "Greek Horoi: Artifactual Texts and the Contingency of Meaning," in Methods in the Mediterranean:Historical andArchaeological Views on Texts andiirchaeology (Mnemosyne Suppl. 135), ed. D. B. Small, Leiden, pp. 91-123. Oikonomides, A. N. 1964. The Two Agoras in Ancient Athens: A New Commentary on Their History and Dewelopment, Topography, and Monuments, Chicago. Olynthus I = G. E. Mylonas, The Neolithic Settlement, Baltimore 1929. Omont, H . 1898.Athenes aux XU? siicle, Paris. Orlandos, A. K. 1955. Td: Ljhixd: C?op?< s&v drpxaiwv 'EM4vwv I, Athens. Orton, C., P. Tyers, and A. Vince. 1993. Pottery in Archaeology, Cambridge. Osanna, M . 1992. "11 culto di Hermes Agoraios ed Atene," Ostraka 1, pp. 215-222. . 1995. "Thesmophorion e Eleusinion ad Atene: Problemi topografici e culturali," Ostraka 4, pp. 103-118. . 1996. "L'argilla: Metaponto," in Lippolis 1996, pp. 44-49. Osborne, R. 1986. "The Erection and Mutilation of the Hermai," PCPS 11, pp. 47-73. 1 9 8 9 . "A Crisis in Archaeological History: The Seventh Century in Attica," BSA 84, pp. 297-322. Padgett, J. M . 1996. "Attic Vase Paintings: Drawings in Clay," Drawing: The International Review Published by the Drawing Society 17:4-6, pp. 80-84.

Padgug, R. 1972. "Eleusis and the Union of Attica," GRBS 14, pp. 135-150. Palaima, T. G . 1997. "Potter and Fuller: The Royal Craftsmen," in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 407412. Palaiokrassa, L. 1991. To icpo q 5 ;Ipsipibo<Mouvixia~Athens. Palmiter,T., and P. Johnston. 1988. "Techniques for Archaeothermometry," in Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology (Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 123), Pittsburgh, pp. 135-139. Pantelidou, M . A. 1975. Ai rcpoiuropixcti 'ABrjvcci,Athens. Papachatzis, N . D. 1989. "X0ov~cq Aarpeieq OT$V'Axponoh~j5 6 ~ 'AOqv6v,"ArchEph 128, pp. 1-14. Papadopoulos, J. K. 1988. "The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone," in Macedoniafrom the Mycenaean Era to the Time ofAlexander the Great, Thessalonike, pp. 82-86. . 1989a. "An Early Iron Age Potter's Kiln at Torone," MeditArch 2, pp. 9-44. . 1989b. "Roman Amphorae from the Excavations at Torone," ArchEph 128, pp. 67-103. . 1992. "AACAKA,Tuyeres, and Kiln Firing Supports," Hesperia 61, pp. 203-221. . 1993. "To Kill a Cemetery: The Athenian Kerameikos and the Early Iron Age in the Aegean," J M 6, pp. 175-206. . 1994. "Early Iron Age Potters' Marks in the Aegean," Hesperia 63, pp. 437-507. . 1995. "A Pergamene Cup with ¶ csvvovor.ac3sr.xri,"in Classicaldrt in the Nicholson Museum, Sydney, ed. A. Cambitoglou and E. G . D. Robinson, Mainz, pp. 223235. . 1996. "The Original Kerameikos of Athens and the Siting of the Classical Agora," GRBS 37, pp. 107-128. . 1997. "Innovations, Imitations, and Ceramic Style: Modes of Production and Modes of Dissemination," in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 449-462. 1 9 9 8 . "A Bucket, by Any Other Name, and an Athenian

Stranger in Early Iron Age Crete," Hesperia 67, pp. 109-123. . 1999. "Archaeology, MythHistory, and the Tyranny of the Text: Chalkidike, Torone, and Thucydides," OJA 18, pp. 377-394. 2000a. "A Toronaian Horseman-Hero and Some of His Trojan Mates," in MTPTOZ: Mv4pv 'louAia
REFERENCES

Payne, H. H. G. 1931. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period, Oxford. Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Pottery in the Roman World:A n Ethnoarchaeological Approach, London. Pease, M . Z. 1935. "The Pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis," Hesperia 4, pp. 214-302. . 1936. "The Cave on the East Slope of the Acropolis, 11: The Pottery," Hesperia 5, pp. 254-272. Pella I = D. PapakonstantinouDiamantourou, 'lorop~x$2rriuxdAthens 1971. r r q ~ i xqcxi polprdp~o l~, Pemberton, E. G. 1970. "The Vrysoula Classical Deposit from Ancient Corinth," Hesperia 39, pp. 265307. Perachora I1 = H . G. G. Payne,T. J. Dunbabin, et al., Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations ofthe British School ofArchaeology at Athens, 1930-1 933 11: Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objectsfrom the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia, Oxford 1962. Peristeri, K., F. Blonde, and J. Y. Perreault. 1986. "06too5 1986-1987: AsOsspq xar s p i q avccoxcccp~xfi ipcuvcc sou ccpxalxo~ccy'fs~nhaorsiou o q 0 f q Cx&hcc<Map~hv," Re4 19, pp. 71-80. Peristeri, K., F. Blonde, J. Y. Perreault, and M . Brunet. 1985. "Ociooq 1985: n p h q O.VC(OXG((PLX~ E ~ E V V &EVG( ~. spyaoqpl ay'f~~o7~hcco~rxljq oq 0 i q 'Qcipl' Cxcihaq Maprhv,"Re4 18, pp. 29-38. Pernice, E. 1897. "Die korinthischen Pinakes im Antiquarium der Koniglichen Museen," JdI 12, pp. 948. . 1898. "Ein korinthischer Pinax," in Festschrftfur Otto BenndorJ zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet von Schulern, Freunden und Fachgenossen, Vienna, pp. 75-80. Perreault, J. Y. 1990. "L'atelier de potier archai'que de Phari (Thasos): La production de tuiles," Hesperia 59, pp. 201-209. Petersen, E. 1909. "Hekatompedon," Klio 9, pp. 229-247. Pfaff, C. A. 1988. "A Geometric Well at Corinth: Well 1981-6," Hesperia 57, pp. 21-80.

Pfuhl, E. 1923. Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich. Piccolpasso, C. 1548. I tre libri dell'arte delvasaio, Urbino. Pieridou, A. 1960. "Kvxp~ccxfiAoiixfi Kypriakai Spoudai ay'f~ro7~hccmrxfi," 24, pp. 153-165. Plommer, W . H . 1960. "The Archaic Acropolis: Some Problems," JHS 80, pp. 127-159. Poblome, J., M. Schlitz, and P. Degryse. 1998. "Recycling Misfired Pottery: A Standard Practice of the Potters at Ancient Sagalassos?" Forum Archaeologiae 9/XII/1998. Poulsen, F. 1905. Die Dipylongraber und die Dipylonvasen, Leipzig. Prange, M . 1989. Der Niobidenmaler und seine Werkstatt: Untersuchungen zu einer Vasenwerkstattfruihklassischer Zeit, Frankfurt. Preaud, T. 1997. The Sivres Porcelain Manufactory: Alexandre Brongniart and the Triumph ofArt and Industry, 1800-1847, New Haven. Preka-Alexandri, K. 1992. "A Ceramic Workshop in Figareto, Corfu," in Blonde and Perreault 1992, pp. 4152. Purcell, N. 1990. "Mobility and the Polis," in The Greek City: From Homer to Alexander, ed. 0 . Murray and S. Price, Oxford, pp. 29-58. Rackham, B., and A. van de Put, trans. and eds. 1934. Cipriano Piccolpasso, The Three Books of the PotteriArt, London. Raubitschek, A. E. 1974. "Kolieis," in Bradeen and McGregor 1974, pp. 137-138. Ravanelli Guidotti, C. 1995. "'Prove' di lustro a Faenza," CerarnicAntica 5:s (49), May, pp. 38-47. Reber, K. 1991. Untersuchungen zur handgemachten Keramik Griechenlands in der submykenischen, der protogeometrischen und der geometrischen Zeit (SIMA-PB 105), Jonsered. Reichhold, K. 1919. Skizzenbuch griechischer Meister: Ein Einblick in das griechische Kunststudium auf Grundder Vasenbilder,Munich. Rhodes, D. 1968. Kilns: Design, Construction, and Operation, London. Rhomaios, K. A. 1908. "Ein Topferofen bei H. Petros in der Kynuria," A M 33, pp. 177-184.

Rhomaios, K. A,, and S. Papaspyridi. 1932. CVA, Athtnes, Musee National 1 [Grkce I], Paris. Rice, P. 1984. Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology ( UCLAMon 24), Los Angeles. Richardson, N. J., ed. 1974. Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford. Richter, G. M . A. 1923. The Craft of Athenian Pottery: An Investigation of the Technique of Black-Figured and Red-FigwedAthenian Vases, New Haven. . 1951. "Accidental and Intentional Red Glaze on Athenian Vases," BSA 46, pp. 143-150. . 1954. "Red-and-Black Glaze," Nederlands KunsthistorischJaarboek 5, pp. 127-135. Rickard, T. A. 1939. "The Primitive Smelting of Iron," AJA 43, pp. 85101. Riezler, W., ed. 1914. Weissgrundige attische Lekythen nach AdolfFurtwanglersAuswahl, Munich. Robert, C. 1880. DerAufgang zur Akropolis (Philologische Untersuchungen I), Berlin. Roberts, S. R. 1986. "The Stoa Gutter Well: A Late Archaic Deposit in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 55, pp. 1-74. Robertson, M . (with W . A. Heurtley). 1948. "Excavations in Ithaca, V: The Geometric and Later Finds from Aetos," BSA 43, pp. 1-124. Robertson, N. 1984. "The Ritual Background of the Erysichthon Story,"AJP 105, pp. 369-408. . 1986. "Solon's Axones and Kyrbeis and the Sixth-Century Background," Historia 35, pp. 147176. . 1992. Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual (Phoenix Suppl. 31), Toronto. . 1996. "Athena's Shrines and Festivals," in WorshippingAthena: Panatheneia and Parthenon, ed. J. Neils, Madison, pp. 27-77. 1 9 9 8 . "The City Center of Archaic Athens," Hesperia 67, pp. 283-302. Robinson, D. M. 1938. CVA, Robinson Collection 3 [U.S.A. 71, Cambridge, Mass.

REFERENCES

Roebuck, C. 1940. "Pottery from the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937-1938," Hesperia 9, pp. 141260. Rogers, M . J. 1936. Yuman Pottery Making (San Diego Museum Papers 2), San Diego. Rose, C. B. 1998. "The 1997 PostBronze Age Excavations at Troia," Studia Troica 8, pp. 71-113. Rotroff, S. I. 1996. "Pnyx, 111: Pottery and Stratigraphy," in Forsen and Stanton 1996, pp. 35-40. Rotroff, S. I., and J. McK. Camp 11. 1996. "The Date of the Third Period of the Pnyx," Hesperia 65, pp. 263-294. Rotroff, S. I., and J. H . Oakley. 1992. Debrisfrom a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 25), Princeton. Russell, P. J. 1994. Ceramics and Society: Making and Marketing Ancient Greek Pottery, Tampa. Rye, 0 . S. 1981. Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction (Manuals on Archaeology 4), Washington, D.C. Rye, 0 . S., and C. Evans. 1976. Traditional Pottery Techniques of Pakistan: Field and Laboratory Studies (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 21), Washington, D.C. Salmon, J. B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History ofthe City to 338 B c, Oxford. Sarawasti, B., and N. K. Behura. 1966. Pottery Production in Peasant India (Anthropological Survey of India, Memoir 13), Calcutta. Scheffer, C. 1990. "'Domus Regiae'A GreekTradition?" OpAth 18, pp. 185-191. Scheibler, I. 1987. "Bild und GeFass: Zur ikonographischen und funktionalen Bedeutung der attischen Bildfeldamphoren," JdI 102, pp. 57118. . 1995. Griechische Ttipferkunst: Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der antiken Tongefasse, 2nd ed., Munich. Schiering, W . 1964. "Klassische Firniskerarnik mit eingeritzten Darstellungen," in A. Mallwitz and W . Schiering, Die Werkstatt des Pheidias (OlForsch5), Berlin, pp. 237-247.

. 1979. "Milet: Eine Erweiterung der Grabung ostlich des Athenatempels," IstMitt 29, pp. 77108. Schilling, M . 1990. "Effects of Sample Size and Packing in the Thermogravimetric Analysis of Calcium Montmorillonite STx-1," Clays and Clay Minerals 38, pp. 556-558. Schmalz, G. C. R. 1998. "A New Prytaneion for Augustan Athens?" AJA 102, p. 408 (abstract). Schnurr, C. 1995a. "Die alte Agora Athens," ZPE 105, pp. 131-138. . 199513. "Zur Topographie der Theaterstatten und der Tripodstrasse in Athen," ZPE 105, pp. 139-153. Schreiber, T. 1999. Athenian Vase Construction:A Potter? Anabsis, Malibu. Schumann, T. 1942. "Oberflachenverzierung in der antiken Topferkunst, Terra sigillata und griechische Schwarzrotmalerei," Berichte der deutschen keramischen Gesellschaft 23, pp. 408-426. . 1943. "Terra sigillata und die Schwarz-Rot-Malerei der Griechen," FuF 19, pp. 356-358. Schweigert, E. 1938. "Inscriptions from the North Slope of the Acropolis," Hesperia 7, pp. 264-310. Seifert, M . 1993. "Pottery Kilns in Mainland Greece and on the Aegean Islands," RdA 17, pp. 95105. Seiterle, G . 1976. "Die Zeichentechnik in der rotfiguren Vasenmalerei," A n t W 7 , pp. 3-10. . 1987. "Das Linierhaar des Andokides-Malers," in Die grossen Adenteuer derdrchaologie, ed. R. Portner and H . G. Niemeyer, Salzburg, pp. 3659-3666. Servais,J., and B. Servais-Soyez. 1984. "La tholos 'oblongue' (tombe IV) et le tumulus (tombe V) sur le Vklatouri," in Thorikos VIII: 1972/1976. Rapportpri'liminaire sur les 9',1@, 11' et 12' campagnes de fouilles, H . F. Mussche, J. Bingen, J. Servais, and P. Spitaels, Ghent, pp. 14-71. Shapiro, H . A. 1989. Art and Cult under the Tyrants in Athens, Mainz. Shaw, J. W., A. Van de Moortel, P. M . Day, and V. Kilikoglou. 1997.

"A L M IA Pottery Kiln at Kommos, Crete," in Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 323-331. . 2001. A L M L 4 Kiln in SouthCentral Crete: Function and Pottery Production (Hesperia Suppl. 30), Princeton. Shear, T. L. 1933. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Second Report: The Campaign of 1932," Hesperia 2, pp. 451-474. . 1935. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Seventh Report: The Campaign of 1934," Hesperia 4, pp. 340-370. . 1936. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Ninth Report: The Campaign of 1935," Hesperia 5, pp. 1-42. . 1940. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Eighteenth Report: The Campaign of 1939," Hesperia 9, pp. 261-307. Shear, T. L., Jr. 1973a. "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1971," Hesperia 42, pp. 121-179. . 1973b. "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1972," Hesperia 42, pp. 359-407. . 1975. "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1973-1974," Hesperia 44, pp. 331-374. . 1978. "Tyrants and Buildings in Archaic Athens," in Childs 1978, pp. 1-19. . 1993. "The Persian Destruction of Athens: Evidence from Agora Deposits," Hesperia 62, pp. 383-482. . 1994. '"Ioovoyouq r' 'AOsjvccq i.rcorrjo&qv:The Agora and the Democracy," in Coulson et al. 1994, pp. 225-248. . 1995. "Bouleuterion, Metroon, and the Archives at Athens," in Hansen and Raaflaub 1995, pp. 157-190. . 1997. "The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1989-1993," Hesperia 66, pp. 495-548. Sheedy, K. A. 1992. "The Late Geometric Hydria and the Advent of the Protoattic Style,"AM 107, pp. 11-28. Shepard, A. 0. 1976. Ceramicsfor the Archaeologist (Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 609), Washington, D.C.

REFERENCES

Sherratt, A., and S. Sherratt. 1991. "From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Mediterranean Bronze Age Trading Systems," in BronzeAge Trade in the Mediterranean. Papers Presentedat the Conference Held at Rewley House, Oxford, in December 1989 ( S I M 90), ed. N. H . Gale, Jonsered, pp. 351-386. . 1993. "The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium B.c.," WorldArch 24, pp. 361-378. Siewert, P. 1999. "Literarische und epigraphische Testimonien iiber 'Kerameikos' und 'Kerameis,"' A M 114, pp. 1-8. Simms, R. M . 1975. "The Eleusinia in the Sixth to Fourth Centuries B.c.," GRBS 16, pp. 269-279. Simon, E. 1970. "Aphrodite Pandemos auf attischen Miinzen," SNR 49, pp. 5-24. . 1983. Festivals ofAttica:An Archaeologica/ Commentary, Madison. Sinopoli, C. M . 1991.Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics, London. Sitte, C. 1898. "ijber die Bemalung figuraler Plastik im griechischen Alterthume," in Festschr$ fur Otto BenndorJ zu seinem 60. Geburtstage gewidmet won Schulern, Freunden und Fachgenossen, Vienna, pp. 301-306. Skias, A. 1893. ''riapi @q iv x o i q rob 'IhlooG hvaoxacpYJq,"Prakt, pp. 111-136. Smith, H . R. W . 1944. The Hearst Hydria: An Attic Footnote to Corinthian History, Berkeley. Smithson, E. L. 1961. "The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea Ionia, 1949," Hesperia 30, pp. 147-178. ,1968. "The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 B.c.," Hesperia 37, pp. 77-116. . 1974. "A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus: 1897,1932, 1947," Hesperia 43, pp. 325-390. . 1977. "'Submycenaean' and L H IIIC Domestic Deposits in Athens,"AJA 81, pp. 78-79. . 1982. "The Prehistoric Klepsydra: Some Notes," in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topograpy Presented to Homer A. Thompson (Hesperia Suppl. 20), Princeton, pp. 141-154.

Snell, B. 1964. Pindari Carmina cum Fragmentis, Leipzig. Snodgrass, A. M . 1971. The Dark Age of Greece:An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B C , Edinburgh. . 1977. Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State, Cambridge. . 1980. Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment, London. . 1988. "The Archaeology of the Hero," AnnArchStorAnt 10, pp. 1926. Solon, M . L. 1910. Ceramic Literature: Analytical Index to the Works Published in All Languages on the History and Technology of the Ceramic Art, London. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. 1981. "To Die and Enter the House of Hades: Homer, Before and After," in Mirrors OfMortality: Studies in the Social History OfDeath, ed. J. Whaley, London, pp. 15-39. . 1983. "A Trauma in Flux: Death in the Eighth Century B.C. and After," in Hagg 1983, pp. 3348. . 1993. "Early Sanctuaries, the Eighth Century, and Ritual Space," in Greek Sanctuaries:New Approaches, ed. N. Marinatos and R. Hagg, London, pp. 1-17. . 1995. "Reading"Greek Death: To the End of the Classical Period, Oxford. Sparkes, B. A. 1991. Greek Pottery: An Introduction, Manchester. . 1996. The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery, London. Spon, J. 1678. Vqyage d'ltalie, de Dalmatie, de Grice et du Levant,fait au anni'es 1675 et 1676, Lyon. Stavropoullos, Ph. 1966. '"Avaoxcccpai xai suxaia ai)p$pcc~adv~oqq q xaplpcsp~x.?q56vqq @q xohswq TDV 'AOqvDv: Xy. Mkpxou 6-8-1G12," ArchDelt 19,1964, B'1 [1966], pp. 55-57. . 1967. "'A0$va~-'Arr~x$:2 9. Ecvocpc?v~o< 4," ArchDelt 20,1965, B'1 [1967],pp. 94-96. Steiner, A. 2002. "Private and Public: Links between Symposion and Syssition in Fifth-Century Athens," Ck4nt 21, pp. 347-380. Stern, E. M . 1995. The Toledo Museum ofArt, Roman Mold-Blown Glass:

The First through Sixth Centuries, Rome. . 1999. "Roman Glassblowing in a Cultural Context,"AJA 103, pp. 441-484. Stevens, G. P. 1946. "Architectural Studies concerning the Acropolis of Athens," Hesperia 15, pp. 73-106. Stromberg, A. 1993. Male or Female? A Methodological Study of Grave Gfts as Sex-Indicators in Iron Age Burials j o m Athens (SIMA-PB 123), Jonsered. Stroud, R. S. 1998. TheAthenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 B c (Hesperia Suppl. 29), Princeton. Stuart, J., and N. Revett. 1762-1816. The Antiquities ofAthens, 4 vols., London. Styrenius, C.-G. 1967. Submycenaean Studies: Examination of Findsjom Mainland Greece with a Chapter on Attic Protogeometric Graves (SkrAth 8".7),Lund. Sui Jisheng. 1986. "A Preliminary Study on Kiln Furniture and Setting Methods in Ancient Shanxi," in Scient8c and TechnologicalInsights on Ancient Chinese Pottery and Porcelain. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ancient Chinese Pottery and Porcelain Held in Shanghaijom November 1-5,1982 (Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Academia Sinica), Beijing, pp. 306-313. Swan, V. G . 1984. The Pottery Kilns of Roman Britain, London. Szegedy-Maszak, A. 1987. "True Illusions: Early Photographs of Athens," GettyMusJ 15, pp. 125138. Talcott, L., B. Philippaki, G . R. Edwards, and V. R. Grace. 1956. Small Objectsfrom the Pnyx: I1 (Hesperia Suppl. l o ) ,Princeton. Tanoulas, T. 1997. "Y8pccuhlx& tpya o q Pops~Fus~x$ n c p ~ o dq q Axpoxohqq," in Apxaior EMrjv~xijT q v o Aoyior. Proceedings of the First International Conference, Thessalonike, September 1997, Athens, pp. 557567. Te Riele, G.-J. M.-J. 1987. "HClisson entre en sympolitie avec Mantinte: Une nouvelle inscription d'Arcadie," BCH 111, pp. 167-190. Thomas, C. G. 1982. "Theseus and Synoicism," S M E 2 22, pp. 337-349.

REFERENCES

Thompson, D. B. 1952. "Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas, I, A: The Late Fourth Century B.c.,the Coroplast's Dump," Hesperia 21, pp. 116-164 (repr. in Thompson, Thompson, and Rotroff 1987). . 1957. "Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas, 11,A: The Early Third Century B.c., Group B," Hesperia 26, pp. 108-128 (repr. in Thompson, Thompson, and Rotroff 1987). . 1959. "Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas, 11, B: The Altar Well," Hesperia 28, pp. 127-152 (repr. in Thompson, Thompson, and Rotroff 1987). Thompson, H . A. 1934. "Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery," Hesperia 3, pp. 311-476 (repr. in Thompson, Thompson, and Rotroff 1987). ,1936. "Pnyx and Thesmophorion," Hesperia 5, pp. 151-200. . 1937. "Buildings on the West Side of the Agora," Hesperia 6, pp. 1-226. . 1940. The Tholos ofAthens and Its Predecessors (Hesperia Suppl. 4), Princeton. . 1947. "The Excavation of the Athenian Agora, 1940-1946," Hesperia 16, pp. 193-213. . 1950. "The Odeion in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 19, pp. 31-141. . 1952. "The Altar of Pity in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 21, pp. 47-82. . 1953. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1952," Hesperia 22, pp. 25-56. . 1960. "Activities in the Athenian Agora: 1959,"Hesperia 29, pp. 327-368. . 1962. TheAthenian Agora: A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 2nd ed., rev., Athens. . 1966. "Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1960-1965," Hesperia 35, pp. 37-54. . 1968. "Activity in the Athenian Agora: 1966-1967," Hesperia 37, pp. 36-72. . 1978. "Some Hero Shrines in Early Athens," in Childs 1978, pp. 96-108.

and Exploring the Old," Hesperia . 1981. "Athens Faces Adver50, pp. 391-407. sity," Hesperia 50, pp. 343-355. . 1984. "H A0$va x a rj~ EA~ucsivcc . 1982. "The Pnyx in Models," mov 8" x a ~7" x . X . cciwva,"ASAtene in Studies in Attic Epigraphy, 61 (n.s. 45), 1983 [1984], pp. 323History, and Topography Presented 338. to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia . 1988. Bildlexicon zur TopoSuppl. 19), Princeton, pp. 133graphie des antiken Attika, Tiibingen. 147. . 1984. "The Athenian VaseTrendall, A. D. 1983. The Red-Figured Vases of Lucania, Campania, and Painters and Their Neighbors," in Sicib: Third Supplement, London. Rice 1984, pp. 7-19. . 1987. The Red-Figured Vases of Thompson, H . A., and R. L. Scranton. 1943. "Stoas and City Walls on the Paestum, London. Urbinati, N. 2002. Millon Democracy: Pnyx," Hesperia 12, pp. 269-383. From the Athenian Polis to RepresenThompson, H . A,, D. B. Thompson, tative Government, Chicago. and S. I. Rotroff. 1987. Hellenistic Ure, A. D. 1962. "Boeotian Pottery Pottery and Terracottas, Princeton. from the Athenian Agora," Hesperia Threatte, L. 1980. The Grammar ofAttic 31, pp. 369-377. Inscriptions 1: Phonology, Berlin. Tite, M . 1969. "Determination of the Valavanis, P.1990. "'Eva apxaio ~pyacsriproo q v E X O pas," ~ Firing Temperature of Ancient Ceramics by Measurement of Archaiologia, September 1990, Thermal Expansion: A Reassesspp. 31-41. ment," Archaeometry 11, pp. 131. 1997. "Bdtxxroq. Kirsoq xcc~ .rcavaOrjvaLxoi aycpop~iq:CXL$EL~ 143. y ~q a 80p$ rov assrxhv xcpay~xhv Tite, M., and Y. Maniatis. 1975. "Examination of Ancient Pottery ~pyacsqpiwvrou 40u a ~x. X . , " in Using the Scanning Electron Oakley, Coulson, and Palagia 1997, Microscope," Nature 257, pp. 122pp. 85-95. Vallianou, D. 1997. "The Potters' 123. Quarter in L M I11 Gouves," in Tite, M . S., M . Bimson, and I. C. Freestone. 1982. "An Examination Laffineur and Betancourt 1997, pp. 333-344. of the High Gloss Surface Finishes on Greek Attic and Roman Samian Vanderpool, E. 1935. "Tholos and PryWares," Archaeometry 24, pp. 117tanikon," Hesperia 4, pp. 470-475. 126. . 1938. "The Rectangular Tiverios, M . 1977. "~ava8rjva~x$," Rock-Cut Shaft: The Shaft and ArchDelt 29,1974, A' [1977], Its Lower Deposit," Hesperia 7, pp. 142-153. pp. 363-411. Tolle-Kastenbein, R. 1993. "Das 1 9 3 9 . "An Alabastron by the Hekatompedon auf der athener Amasis Painter," Hesperia 8, pp. Akropolis," JdI 108, pp. 43-75. 247-266. Tonks, 0 . S. 1908. "Experiments with . 1946. "The Rectangular Rockthe Black Glaze on Greek Vases," Cut Shaft: The Upper Fill," AJA 12, pp. 417-427. Hesperia 15, pp. 265-336. . 1910. "Experiments with . 1949. "The Route of Pausanias Mycenaean Glaze,"AJA 14, in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia pp. 417-421. 18, pp. 128-137. Torone I = A. Cambitoglou, J. K. . 1974a. "The 'Agora' of Papadopoulos, and 0 . Tudor Jones, Pausanias 1,17,1-2," Hesperia 43, eds., The Excavations of 1975-1 978, pp. 308-310. Athens 2001. . 1974b. "The Date of the Travlos, J. 1960. ~ o A E o ~ o ~ L x $ ~ ~ & A L < L ~ Pre-Persian City Wall of Athens," r 6 v 'Ab'qv6v, Athens. in Bradeen and McGregor 1974, . 1971. PictorialDictionary of pp. 156-160. Ancient Athens, New York. van Effenterre, H. 1985. La citigrecyue: . 1981. "Athens after the Des origines a la d$zitede Marathon, Liberation: Planning the New City Paris.

REFERENCES

Winter, F. E. 1971. Greek FortiJications (Phoenix Suppl. 9), Toronto. . 1982. "Sepulturae intra urbem and the Pre-Persian Walls of Athens," in Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool (Hesperia Suppl. 19), Princeton, pp. 199-205. Wolters, P. 1899. "Vasen aus Menidi, 11,"JdI 14, pp. 103-135. Woolley, C. L. 1934. "The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish," Iraq 1, pp. 146-162. Wrede, W. 1928. "Der Maskengott," A M 53, pp. 66-95. Wright, J. C. 1980. "Mycenaean Palatial Terraces," A M 105, pp. 59-86. . 1994. "The Mycenaean Entrance System at the West End of the Akropolis of Athens," Hesperia 63, pp. 323-360. Wycherley, R. E. 1966. "ArchaiaAgora," Phoenix 20, pp. 285-293. . 1978. The Stones ofAthens, Princeton.

Yntema, D. 1994. "Valesio (Brindisi): La fornace di un deramista coroplasta del I11 secolo a.C.," in Scritti di antichita in memoria di Benita Sciarra Bardaro, ed. C. Marangio and A. Nitti, Fasano, pp. 39-45. Young, R. S. 1939. Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Century Well in theAgora (Hesperia Suppl. 2), Athens. . 1942. "Graves from the Phaleron Cemetery,"AJA 46, pp. 23-57. . 1948. "Burials within the Walls of Athens,"AJA 52, pp. 377-378. . 1949a. "An Early Geometric Grave near the Athenian Agora," Hesperia 18, pp. 275-297. . 1949b. "An Early Amulet Found in Athens," in Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia Suppl. 8), Princeton, pp. 427-433. . 1951a. "An Industrial District of Ancient Athens," Hesperia 20, pp. 135-288.

. 1951b. "Sepulturae intra urbem," Hesperia 20, pp. 67-134. Zachariadou, O., D. Kyriakou, and E. Baziotopoulou. 1992. "Ateliers de potiers a l'angle des rues Lenormant et de Constantinople (premier rapport)," in Blond6 and Perreault 1992, pp. 53-56. Zagora I = A. Cambitoglou, J. J. Coulton, J. Birmingham, and J. R. Green, Excavation of a Geometric Settlement on the Island of Andros, Greece, Sydney 1971. Zervoudake, E. 1985. "Aw~sxdrvvjocc: NCo vsxposacpsio,"ArchDelt 33, B'2, 1978 [1985], pp. 400-401. Ziomecki, J. 1964. Die keramischen Techniken im antiken Griechenland (Rag+. Zeitschrift f i r Kunstgeschichte und Archaologie 6:1/2), Basel. . 1975. Les reprisentations

d'artisans sur les vases attiques

(Bibliotheca antiqua 13), trans. J. Wolf, Wroclaw.

A22

72

71

73

103

89

83

110

111

109

104

56

51

33

34

31

43

42

57

29

7

9

18

4

5

8

19

61

62

63

65

66

sub 60

60

64

CONCORDANCES

CONCORDANCES

CONCORDANCES

PN-P 393 PN-P 394 PN-P 427 PN-P 430

A27 A25 A30 A29

PN-P 434

PN-P 441

PN-P 442

PN-P 443

ACADEMY OF PLATO, 280,289

Acrocorinth, 244. See also Corinth

Acropolis. See Athenian Acropolis

Aegean, 228,303,317

Aeschylus, 301

Aetos (Ithaka), 228

Africa, sub-Saharan, traditional iron-

working communities in, 208-209

agalma (&ycrhycr),300162,313

Aghia Aikaterini, church and plateia of,

282", 284

Aghia Photini, church of, 28480

Aghios Nikolaos, church of, 305

Aglaureion/Sanctuary of Aglauros, 282,

283 (Figs. 5.3-5.4), 284,285, 2981i2,

302

Agora. See Athenian Agora

agorai, 280-281

Agrippeion. See Odeion of Agrippa

Aiakeion, 287

Aigina, 223. See also Aphaia, sanctuary/

temple

air-holes on lekythoi, 23331

alabastron/alabastra, Corinthian, 255,

258 (nos. C16, C17)

Alexander the Great, 294

Alexandria (Egypt), 20P7

Alkiphron, 295

Altar of the Eudanemoi, 294

Altar of Pity, 285,296'"

Altar/Peribolos of the Twelve Gods,

101,285,295,296

altars, movement of, in Athens, 29614j

Amaroussi (clay source), 323 (Fig. A2), 324,325,326 (Fig. A4), 327 (Figs.

A5-A6), 334

Amasis Painter, 224

Amazon, 268

Amphiaraos, statue of, 294

amphoras: Athenian black-figured,

227'; Early Iron Age, 16,25,30, 93,

112,126,127,130,186,213,215

(nos. 6-11,13-16,18,19,23,24,

26,27,53,68,69, 74, 77, 83, 85,

92,93,117); Panathenaic, 23942;

SOS, 185; transport, 202,278,

288

Amykos Painter (Lucanian), 261

Anabates Painter (Lucanian), 261

Anakeion, 282,285

Anakes, 285

Analatos Painter, 139,222-223,228

Anaxikrates, 294

ancient texts and modern scholars,

contradictions between, 271-272

annealing ovens, 208-209. See also glass

Anonymous, 24 (Fig. 2.1), 281 (Fig.

5.2)

anorthite, 3 19

anvils, 209

Aphaia, sanctuary/temple, 17j9', 29113

Aphrodite Pandemos, Sanctuary of,

280-281,282", 284

Apollodoros, 280-281, 28271,28688

apotropaic devices associated with

pottery production, 191-200. See

also baskania

apprentice potter, 245

Apulia, 223

archaeological evidence shaped or

defined by literary evidence, 272

archaeothermometry, 319

Archaic, 21-22,25,109,123,143-144,

200,205,209,213,222,224,225,

227,259,271,276,278,279,286,

297,309,310,311,314,332

archons/archonship, 285,291,294,296,

305, 311215;archon lists, 284. See also

ennea archontes

Areiopagos, 21,77,92,273,275,277,

279,282,289,299 (Fig. 5.15), 302,

314

Ares, Sanctuary/Temple of, 296-29714' Argolid, 261 Argos, 276 Ariadne, 271 aristocracy, pan-Attic, 314232 Aristogeiton and Harmodios, statues of, 271,294 Aristophanes, 199 Aristotle, 199,291 Arrian (Anabasis), 294 Artemis Brauroneia, Sanctuary of, 309 aryballos/aryballoi (including jugaryballoi): Corinthian, 258 (nos. C3, C10, C15, cf. C8); Early Iron Age, 213 (nos. 125,128,129) "AoP~sov[&op~osov](unquenchable, inextinguishable), 191 Asine, 317,332 Asklepieion (Athens), 303 Asteas (Paestan vase-painter), 268 Atalante, 20286,276 Athanassiou, Constantine, 308,312 (Fig. 5.24) Athena, 197,198 (Fig. 3.6), 199 (Fig. 3.7:a), 300,302 Athenaios, 199,294 Athena Nike, temple of, 301; poros naiskos below, 17S9' Athenian Acropolis, 2 (Fig. 1.2), 20, 22,23-24 (Fig. 2.1), 97, 175,182, 276,280,281 (Fig. 5.2), 282,283 (Figs. 5.3-5.4), 284-286,288,289, 292,294,295,297-316 (Figs. 5.155.24); agalma (statue of Athena), 30016', 313; Archaic podium of Parthenon, 309; pwyoq (altar), 313; child graves, 299; cist graves, 299; Cyclopean wall, 298,301,303; Dorpfeld foundations, 309; early habitation on and immediately around, 272-279,282", 284,297316; exclusively sacred zone established in the Classical period, 309; as fortified settlement with intramural sanctuary in Early Iron Age, 312; Frankish tower and other contemporary structures, 307-309; "front" (east end), 284-285,302; interventions (19th century), 308312 (Figs. 5.19-5.24); Middle Helladic graves, 299-300; Mycenaean fortifications (including gates), 292, 301-305 (Fig. 5.16); Mycenaean fountain, 303-305; Mycenaean palace, 315; Mycenaean terraces, 301-302; North Slope excavations, 282", 298,303; Old

Temple of Athena, 310; Peripatos, 303; pithos burial, 299; sanctuary of Athena, 309; South Slope, 284, 300-305; Submycenaean graves, 299-300; tripod cauldrons, 312; as urban nucleus in Early Iron Age, 312-314. See also Parthenon; Chalkotheke; Artemis Brauroneia, Sanctuary of; and other monuments listed individual4 Athenian Agora, 1 , 2 (Fig. 1.1), 4 (Fig. 1.4), 5-6,21-22,23-189,196,216, 223,226,234-238,239,271-316, 317; cemeteries and graves in the area of, 1-2 (Fig. 1.2), 21-22,25, 97,196,272-279,280,289,294, 297,298,299 (Fig. 5.15), 313,315; Civic Offices, 84; creation of the Classical Agora in the early 5th century B.c.,21-22,271-316; domestic debris, 1-3,25; horos stones, 289-290 (Figs. 5.7-5.9), 297,314; industrial establishments, evidence for, 3,272-279,297; omphalos of the city, 284"; as place of assembly, 294; See also Bema; Middle Stoa; Old Agora; and other monuments listed individually Athenian black-figured pottery, 8,20, 192 (Fig. 3.2), 193 (Fig. 3.3), 221 (Fig. 3.17), 200,224,225,226,278, 317,318,332 Athenian red-figured pottery, 6,8,20, 198 (Fig. 3.6), 199 (Fig. 3.7), 200, 224,225,226,227,228,229-240 (Figs. 4.1-4.8), 317,318,332 Athenian topography, 1-6,21-22,271316 Athenion, 294 Athens, 1-6,21-22,23-189,271-316; Archaic peribolos wall, lack of evidence for, 302-303; Byzantine and post-Byzantine habitation north of the Acropolis, 307; clay beds, 20; continuity from the Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age, 315; creation ofpolis in the Bronze Age, 314-315; drought hypothesis, 2722,275; early habitation on and immediately around the Acropolis, 272-279, 282", 284,297-316; Early Iron Age cemetery at the corner of Vas. Sophias Avenue and Herodou Attikou Street, 298lS3;Early Iron Age settlement of, 297-316; and empire, 315; fortifications of, 276-

277,287,300,301,302,303,305, 312; and identity, 316; Ionic peristyle complex (Augustan), 284; Metro, 298lS3,'j6;Mycenaean graves, 2 (Fig. 1.2), 273,275,291-292,298,315; Mycenaean nonfunerary deposits, 97; National Museum, 194 (Fig. 3.41, 229-230 (Fig. 4.1); in Ottoman period, 305-309 (Fig. 5.17);polis, 286,289,300,315; pre-Persian deposits/material, 278,288,309; public dining place, 27738;Syntagma Square, 23228,277, 298lS6;and water supply/channeling, 274, 2751°, 284", 303,305; as a "wheel-shaped" city, 300. See also Demian Gate; Dipylon Gate; Halade Gate; Piraeus Gate; Sacred Gate; South Gate; teichos tes Hypapantes; teichos tou Serpenhe Athens Archaeological Society, 308

athletic contests, 312

Attic clay, modern, 318,322. See also

Amaroussi; Boyati; Kalogreza;

Iraklion

Attic dialect, 223

Attic Fine Handmade (Incised) Ware,

76

Attica. See synoikismos, of Attica

Augustus/Augustan, 284,296"'

BADIAN, ERNST,297

baking dishes (Pfanne), 186

Basileus, 271,291,292. See also Stoa

Basileios

baskania (paoxav~a),192,196

bastoncelli, 18,228,261,262,265-266

(Fig. 4.33). See also test-pieces

Baziotopoulou-Valavani, Efi, 276

beads. See spindlewhorls, beads, and

buttons

Beazley, Sir John, 197-198,229-231,

239

Belgium, 226

bellows. See tuyires

Bema, 271,294

Benson, Jack, 245-246,248-249,252",

254-255

Berala (near Ostia), 322

Berbati, Late Helladic pottery

workshop, 261

Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche

Museen, 9, 10 (Fig. 1.7:~-f),196

(Fig. 3.5), 204,230-231 (Fig. 4.2)

Beschi, Luigi, 303

Bible. See Matthew, Book of

biga. See chariots

Binder, Judith, 286

Binns, Charles, 210

Black-and-white style. See under

Protoattic pottery

black-figured pottery. See under

individual styles: Athenian; Boiotian;

Corinthian

black-glazed/gloss pottery, 7,8, 19,20,

192 (Fig. 3.1),210,225,268 (Fig.

4.36), 277,317,318,332

Black Sea, 228

Blitzer, Harriet, 200

bloating of clay, caused by expansion of

gases, 322

Bliimner, Hugo, 193-194

Boegehold, Alan, 224

Boiotian black-figured pottery, 194

(Fig. 3.4),234

Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum,

231-232 (Fig. 4.2),233-234 (Fig.

4.3)

boundary stones. See horos stones/

inscriptions

bowls: Athenian Corinthianizing, 223;

"basket bowls" (Early Iron Age),

188; Corinthian, 258 (nos. C8,

C11); Early Iron Age, 169, 185

(no. 130); Hellenistic moldmade

("Megarian bowls"), used as test

pieces, 227,240-244,277,279

(nos. A24-A30)

Boyati (clay source), 20

Brandprober, 230 (no. A2). See also test-

pieces

Brann, EvaT. H., 1,6,7,8,20,112,

126-127,218,223,225

Bridges, Reverend George, 307,310

(Fig. 5.22:a)

Britons and Saxons, 314

Broneer, Oscar, 305

Brongniart, Alexandre, 6,18-19

Bronze Age, 21,97,200-201,205,207,

273,277,299,300,305,311-315,

317

bronzeworkers, 297. See also metal-

workers

Brussels, Musee du Cinquantenaire,

234 (Fig. 4.4)

Brygos Painter, 224,232

Building F, 296; as a potter's workshop,

29614'

burnish(ing), S30,214 (nos. 52,74)

Burr, Dorothy. See Thompson, Dorothy

Burr

Busti, Giulio, 13,14 (Figs. 1.14-1.15),

15 (Figs. 1.16-1.17)

buttons. See spindlewhorls, beads, and

buttons

Byzantine, 208-209,266

Byzantine pottery workshops, 266

CAIGER-SMITH, ALAN,203

calcareous clays, 322,326,327,334

calcite, 318,322,326

calcium carbonate, 319

calcium oxide, 318, 319

calcium silicates, 319

Calke Wood kiln, 203-204

Caltagirone, Museo Regionale della

Ceramica, 197,198 (Fig. 3.6)

Camp, John McK., 11,272,275,289,

301,303,305

Campanian red-figured pottery, 228,

266-267 (Fig. 4.34)

Canaan, 201

Caputi Hydria, ISs3,197, 198, 199

(Fig. 3.7)

carbon dioxide, 322,325,329,333

cart wheel, miniature, 28

Chalasmene porta. See Xahaoyivq ij

Kasovpqyivq nopsa

Chalkis (Euboia; clay source), 20

Chalkotheke, 309

chariots, 179-180

Chelis, 224

child's feeder, 69 (no. 51; cf. 127)

China, 324. See also cones, Chinese;

test-pieces, Chinese

choregic monuments, 28481.See also

Lysikrates, choregic monument of

Classical, 20,25,97,200,205,207,209,

213,218,219,225-228,241,259,

261,265,271,273,276,278,279,

305,309,310,313

clay: bloating of, 322; calcareous,

322,326,327,334; carbonates in,

322,324,325,329,333,334;

discarded, 277-278; fluxing agents

in, 318,326; hydroxylated, 318,

319,324; lime content of, 318,

324,326,333,335; physical and

chemical properties of, 319;

purification of, 260; repositories

of, 277

clay slip. See slip

Clinton, Kevin, 286

Cocchi, Franco, 13, 14 (Figs. 1.14-

1.15),15 (Figs. 1.16-1.17)

Comte de Caylus, Marquis d'Esternay,

210

cones: Chinese, 17-18 (Fig. 1.18:~);

Orton standard pyrometric, 1766;

Seger, 17

Constantine, Dimitris, 126 (Fig. 2.611,

308,311 (Fig. 5.23)

continuity from the Bronze Age into

the Early Iron Age, 315

Cook, Robert M., 203,276

cooking pots, 28

Corfu, 202"

Corinth, 6,20,218,222,223,226-228,

244-258,261; Kokkinovrysi, 256;

Late Byzantine or Turkish potter's

kiln, 208-209 (Fig. 3.15); Potter's

Quarter, 6,205, 182,224,227,244-

258; terracotta model of kiln, 205

(Fig. 3.9); Vrysoula, 227,256-258

(Fig. 4.26). See also Acrocorinth

Corinthian black-figured pottery, 200,

223,234. See also Corinthian

pinakes; Penteskouphia pinakes

Corinthian blisterware, 258

Corinthianizing pottery, 126,132-135

(Figs. 2.68-2.69), 136-137 (Fig.

2.72), 165-169 (Figs. 2.102-2.105),

218,222-224

Corinthian pinakes, 9-10 (Fig. 1.7),

196 (Fig. 3.5), 203 (Fig. 3.8), 196-

197,204. See also Penteskouphia

pinakes

Corinthian pottery, 244-258

Corinthian-trained potters, 223-224

coroplast(s), 145, 150,176,219,265,

279, 27731

Covent Garden (London), as analogy

for Athenian Kerameikos, 280

Crete, 220; Neopalatial, 202,220;

Prepalatial, 220

Creusa Painter (Lucanian), 261

Crosby, Margaret, 296

Cuomo di Caprio, Ninina, 9,201,204

cups: Athenian black-figured lip cup,

220-221 (Fig. 3.17); Athenian red-

figured cup fragments used as test-

pieces, 230,239 (nos. A2, A3, cf.

A22, A23); Athenian (other), 278;

Corinthian, 258 (no. C14); Cretan

(Knossian) black-glazed cup frag-

ment used as test-piece, 259 (no. MI);

Early Iron Age (one-handled cups),

84,90-92,100,113,144,157-159,

185,186,188,213-214 (nos. 3,42,

43,44,45,46,6&66,71,72,73,80, 132, 133,134, cf. 58); Lucanian red-

figured cup fragment used as test-

piece, 265 (no. M23); Macedonian

(Sindos) black-glazed cup fragment

used as test-piece, 259-260 (no. M2)

curses, potters, and death, 191,195-196

Cyprus, 220

daemons. See goblins associated with kilns

daguerreotype, 307

D'Andria, Francesco, 228,261-262

Daumas, Michkle, 194, 195

dDS (first derivative of DS curve). See

under DS curve

defective vases, 244-245. See also

production discards; wasters

de Jong, Piet, 259'8

Dell'Aglio, Antonietta, 265

Delphi, 178; and Delphic response, 300

Demeter: cult of, 286; Hymn to Demeter,

286; and Kore, cult of, 286

Demeter Chloe, shrine of, 282", 284

Demian Gate, 287

democracy, development of, 314. See

also Mill, John Stuart

demography, 275

demos, 280-281

Demosthenes, 294; bronze statue of,

294

Denoyelle, Martine, 228

Deruta, 12-13,14 (Figs. 1.14-1.15), 15

(Figs. 1.16-1.17)

Desborough, Vincent R. d'A., 220

Despoine, Aikaterina, 259

Deutsches Archaologisches Institut,

298; excavations in the Kerameikos,

276

differential thermal analysis. See DTA

dilatiodsintering curve. See DS curve

dilatometry/dilatometer, 320-325,328,

329,335; difficulties with, 321-322,

329,335

dinos: Athenian red-figure, 226,232;

Early Iron Age, 130

Dinsmoor, William Bell, 311

Dionysia, 301

Dionysos, 193,267,271, 29514, 300

Dionysos, Sanctuary and Theater of,

284, 29514'

Dionysos Limnais, Sanctuary of, 300-

301

diopside, 319

Dioskouroi, Sanctuary of the, 285. See

also Anakeion

dipinti, 265

Dipylon Gate, 276,277,279,287,292-

293

Dipylon pottery, 112,297

divine inspiration/intervention in

pottery production, ancient and

modern, 197-199

Djordjevitch, Michael, 28481,301

Dodwell, Edward, 309 (Fig. 5.21)

Dolon Painter (Lucanian) 261,262 (no.

M6), 264 (nos. M19, M21)

Dorpfeld, Wilhelm, 303,309. See also

Athenian Acropolis, Dorpfeld

foundations

drawing conventions used in this study,

23-25

drought hypothesis, 2722,275

DS (dilatiodsintering) curve, 320,321

(Fig. Al), 323,324,327 (Figs. A5-

A6), 328 (Table A l ) , 329 (Fig. A7),

330-331 (Table A2), 332 (Fig. A9),

333 (Fig. A l l ) , 334 (Fig. A13);

dDS (= first derivative of the DS

curve), 323,324,327 (Figs. A5-

A6), 328 (Table A l ) , 329 (Fig. A7),

330-331 (Table A2), 332 (Fig. A9),

333 (Fig. A l l ) ; 334 (Fig. A13)

DTA (differential thermal analysis),

319,322,323 (Fig. A2), 325

D T G (first derivative of the T G curve),

322,323 (Fig. A2), 329 (Fig. A8),

332 (Fig. AlO), 333 (Fig. A12), 334

(Fig. A14). See also T G

Dunbabin, Tom, 223

dung, 203 (Fig. 3.8, right)

Duprt, Louis, 282-283 (Fig. 5.3), 305

Durand-Greville, Emile, 210

201,205,213,215,217,220,222, 225,226,227,228,241,266,272, 273,275,276,279,289,297,298, 299,300,303,305,309,312,313, 314,315,317 ~ c o l feranpise dlAthi.nes, 260

Edwards, Roger, 240-244

EGA (evolved gas analysis), 322,323

(Fig. A2), 325,332 (Fig. AlO), 333

(Fig. A12), 334 (Fig. A14)

Egypt, 224

Eirene, statue of, 294

Eiteljorg, Harrison, 11,220,222, 301

Eleusinian Mysteries, 286,294 Eleusinion, 144,219 Eleusis, 20,175,182,219,286,294;

Chemin d'Eleusine, 288 (Fig. 5.6);

Isis grave and grave cc, 183lI6;

Telesterion, 288

Eleutherai, 267

tmigrt potters, 223-224

empire, Athenian, 315

engobe (paint or gloss), 318

ennea archontes (ivvicc &pXovs~q), 305

Enneakrounos-Kallirrhoe, 284,301,305

enneapylon (dvv~ccnuhwv), 292,305

enneoros (ivviwpo~),305

ephoroi toupyros (i'cpopo~so6 nupoq),

192 Epigrammata Homerica, 16

epimeletesprytaneiou, 284

Eponymoi, 294

"equivalent firing temperature," concept

of, 320

Erechtheion, 2981i2, 311

Erechtheus, 286,302 Eridanos River, 97,101,273,274,275, 289,292,299 (Fig. 5.15) ethnography: and pottery production,

ll", 196, 2006'+68,203-204; and

metalworking, 208-209

Etruria, 223

Euboia, 222. See also Chalkis; Letkandi Eudanemoi, Altar of the, 294

Euphronios, 199

Evely, Doniert, 220

Evliya Celebi, 2881°'

evolved gas analysis. See E G A

Exarchos, 194

Exekias, 224

FAENZA, MUSEOINTERNAZIONALE

DELLE CERAMICHE,

12,14 (Fig. 1.13) Farnsworth, Marie, 6,7,191,225,235, 238", 245,252 feeder. See child's feeder Fehlbrand/Fehlbrande, 98,233. See also

production discards; wasters

female potters, 195, 198-199 (Fig. 3.7),

200

Figareto (Corfu), kiln site, 202" figurine molds, 265,279 figurines, terracotta, 145,175-183, 217-219 (Fig. 3.16), 259,265,279; animals, 180-181 (Figs. 2.113, 2.115-2.116); chariot groups, 179180 (Figs. 2.113-2.114); miscellaneous, 182-183 (Fig. 2.118); seated human figures, 177-178 (Figs. 2.111-2.112); standing human figures, 176-177 (Figs. 2.1082.110); votive plaques, 182 (Figs. 2.113,2.118), 219 (Fig. 3.16), 279; votive shields, 182 (Figs. 2.113, 2.118), 219 (Fig. 3.16) Fillieres, Dominique, 7,20 fingerprints, 36 (no. 9), 56 (no. 33), 64

(no. 43), 13163,268

Finley, Moses, 220,222 firing cones. See cones firing of pottery, 210-214,317-335 firing temperature of ceramics,

estimates of, 20,211,317-335;

results for Early Iron Age pottery

similar to those for Athenian black-

figure, red-figure, black-gloss

pottery, 332

"firing temperature of clay" as a

misnomer, 319-320

fluxing agents for clay (e.g., calcium

oxide), 318,326

Foster, William, 7,210

Foundry Painter and cup, 209123

France, 226. See also test-pieces, French

Frankish tower, 307,308,309

Frantz, Alison, 279

Fraser, A. D., 210

furnaces. See kilns; smelting furnaces.

See also annealing ovens Furumark, Arne, 8" GADBERY, LAURA, 295140

Gardner, Ernest Arthur, 300

Gaurion/Gauris, 224

Gauss, Walter, 292'18, 299, 313

gehlenite, 319

Ge Koutrophoros, shrine of, 282'l, 284,

300

Geometric/Subgeometric, 1,5,21-22, 84,92,93,97,100,101,109,112, 123,181,215,218,225,226,227, 244,273,275,278,297,311,312, 314,317 Geometric/Subgeometric pottery, 5,6, 8,92-97,100-126,126-143,224, 311. See also Geometric/

Subgeometric

"Geometric house" (in the area of the later Athenian Agora), reinterpreted as hero-shrine, 21-22,9293,275 glass: ancient representations of

glassmakers, 20912'; glassblowers,

209; glass furnaces/annealing ovens,

and differences to potters' kilns,

208-209; glassmaker, 15

Geoponica, 191'

Germany, 226,232

Glowacki, Kevin, 303

goblins associated with kilns, 191-196.

See also "Aop~sov;Cccpdtxq~; Cydtpccyoq; C6vsp~Q;'Oyo6ccyoq

graffito, 58 (no. 35)

Grandjouan, Claireve, 279

Greek War of Independence, 305,306

(Fig. 5.17)

Green, J. Richard, 19745

Greifenhagen, Adolf, 232

Gymnasium of Ptolemy, 285

Gyphtokastro, 267

HADRIAN, ARCHOF, 282-283 (Fig. 5.4), 284,285 Halade Gate, 287y8 Halikarnassos. See synoikismos, of Halikarnassos

hamaxitos road (Athens to Piraeus), 287

Hampe, Roland, 204'04

Harmodios and Aristogeiton, statues

of, 271,294 Harpokration, 27626,280-281,282'l

Harrison, Jane, 303 Hartwig, Paul, 229,266 Harvard University Art Museums, 193

(Fig. 3.3)

harvest festival, mistaken for pottery

production, 193

Hastings, battle of, 314. See also Mill,

John Stuart

Hebrew "forty days and forty nights,"

305

Heidelberg graves A and B

("Submycenaean"),298153

Hekatompedon, 310; Hekatompedon

inscription, 310-311

Heliaia, 279; Heliaia well, 25

Hellenistic, 6,20,205,207,219,225, 226,227,240-244,259,261,265, 277,279,305 Hellenistic pottery, 6,225,227,240244 (Fig. 4.9). See also Hellenistic Hephaisteion, 274,278,293 Herakleia, pottery and terracotta kilns,

219180

Hermes, 193

herms, 192-193

Herodotos, 28688,300,301,302,303,

313

hero-shrinedheroa, 275

Hesiod, 199

Hilinos, 224

Hill of the Muses (= Mouseion, Philopappos Hill), 286,287,288; view from, 307 (Fig. 5.18). See also Philopappos Monument Hill of the Nymphs, 77,287 Hippias, 285,296 Homann-Wedeking, Betty, 259

Homer, 302. See also L y e $Homer horos stones/inscriptions, 280,289-290 (Figs. 5.7-5.9), 292-293 (Figs. 5.12-5.14), 297,314. Seealso Athenian Agora, horos stones; Kerameikos, horos stones Howland, Richard Hubbard, 171-172,

218

huozhao. See test-pieces, Chinese Hurwit, Jeffrey, 301,311,313 hydrialhydriai: Early Iron Age, 102,

213,214 (nos. 15,53,68,69,74,77,

89 [hydria remodeled into hater],

93); Athenian black-figured hydria,

192-193 (Fig. 3.2); Paestan red-

figured hydria of special shape, 268-

269 (Fig. 4.37). See also Caputi

Hydria

hydroxyls/hydroxylated clays, 318 , 319,

324

Hypapanti wall. See teichos tes Hypapantes Hyperides, 280-281

IDENTITY, ATHENIAN, 316

Ilissos River, 284,285,299 (Fig. 5.15)

illite, 318

Incoronata (Basilicata), 228

invention of history (mythmaking),

Athenian, 314-315

Iraklion (clay source), 20

Iraq, 322

Islamic pottery workshops, 2661°2

Isokrates, 199

Israel, 201

Ithaka, 228

JALAME ( PALESTINE), Late Roman glass factory, 209

Jena Painter, 232

Jones, Richard E., 210,211

Jordan, David, 195

jug. See oinochoe

jug-aryballos. See aryballos

Juvenal, 199

KABEIRIC MYSTERIES, 194-195

kalathos, 185 (cf. no. 48)

Kallikrates-Menekles, 27626

Kallirrhoe. See Enneakrounos-

Kallirrhoe Kalo Chorio, Istrona (Crete), 204'0° Kalogreza (clay source), 20,323 (Fig. A2), 324-325,326 (Fig. A4)

kalyx-cups, 217

Kaminos (Kiln) poem, 191,195-196

Kantharos (commercial harbor). See

under Piraeus kantharodkantharoi, 123,213, 214l'j (no. 60) kaolin, 318,319 Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum, 220-221 (Fig. 3.17) Kassandreia. See synoikismos, of Kassandreia Kastraki (Lakonia), 226' Kavala, Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, 260

Kavousi, 206-207 (Fig. 3.11)

Kawadias, Panayiotis, 309

Kawerau, Georg, 309

Kehrberg, Ina, 198

Kekrops, 28478;"Agora of Kekrops,"

284"; Kekropeion (tomb of Kekrops), 310,312 Kenzler, Ulf, 282" kerameia, 1, 199,200

Kerameikos, 1 , 2 (Fig. 1.2), 6-7,20-22,

23-189,196,224,232-234,271-

316 (Fig. 5.15); and distribution of

meat, 280; horos stones, 292-293

(Figs. 5.12-5.14); inner and outer

Kerameikos, 276; original

Kerameikos, 21-22,271-316; and

prostitution, 280

Kerameis (deme), 27626,293

ke-ra-me-ja (Linear B), 200

kerameus, 1,199; X E P C X ~ EX~E P) C~X ~ E L

XOT~EL (Hesiod), 199

ke-ra-me-we (Linear B), 200

Keramo, stele of, 276

Keramos (hero), 271,293 Killebrew, Ann, 201

kilns: ancient Greek, 15-17,22,28,

126-143 (Figs. 2.63-2.67, kiln

deposit H 12:17), 201-209 (Figs.

3.8-3.13), 193,217,225-269,275,

279, 296142,317,319,334; ancient

Near Eastern, 200,201; Byzantine/

Turkish, 209 (Fig. 3.15); Chinese

downdraft, 201; cross-draft, 202;

downdraft, 201-209; in Italy, 201;

maiolica (16th century A.c.), 12-14

(Figs. 1.10-1.12); medieval (British

Isles), 201; Minoan, 201-202;

muffle, 1878,201-209; Roman, 201,

207-208 (Fig. 3.14); stacking of

pottery in, 203-204,259-260,

266Io2;updraft, 201-209. See also

lime kilns; representations of kilns;

spy-holes in kilns

kiln bricks, 128, 205112,209. See also

plinthres

kiln domes, 10 (Fig. 1.7), 196,201-209 kiln firing floor, 205,259-260 kiln firing supports (xth~vccoqpiy~ C X T 18,75-76,106,122-123, CX), 183-184,216-217,259,260,265, See also pads; props; separators; stilts kiln lining, 184-185,206 (Fig. 3.10) Kimon, 28478,315

Kleisthenes, 289,297,314 Klepsydra, 303,305; Klepsydra well, 36; VTC~TCLCY 506 V E P O305-306 ~, (Fig. 5.17) Knossos, 200,228,259. See also Monasteriako Kephali Kolias, Cape, 20

Kolkhos/Kolkhis, 224

Kolonos Agoraios, 21,24 (Fig. 2.1), 126 (Fig. 2.61), 273-274 (Fig. 5.1), 275,276,278,280,292 Kommos, 202

korai, 309

Kore, 286. See also Demeter Koroni, storage-jar makers, 114', 200

Korres, Manolis, 284" kotylelkotylai: Corinthian, 258 (nos.

C1, C4, C5, C6, C12, C13, C18,

C19, C20, C21, C22, C27); Early

Iron Age (Athenian Corinthianizing),

126,127,144,165-169,185,186,

213,222,223 (nos. 97,98,104, 105,

108,119,120,121,123,145-148)

Kraiker, Wilhelm, 2736

kraters: Athenian red-figure fragments used as test-pieces, 232,235 (nos. A l , A4-All, A12a, A12b, A13, A14-A20); Athenian black-figured column-hater, 278; Athenian redfigured calyx-hater, 197-198 (Fig. 3.6); calyx-hater on the interior of a black-glazed mug, 268; Campanian red-figured column-hater, 267; Early Iron Age, 102,185,186,213216 (nos. 1,26,29,30,35,47,50, 57, 70,83,89,96); Lucanian redfigured, 262 (nos. M5, M7-MI8 [bell-haters], M19, M20 [calyxkraters], M4, M 6 [haters of uncertain form]) Kretschmer, Paul, 223 kylix, Campanian red-figured, 266-267

(Fig. 4.34) (no. M25)

Kylix Deposit, Mycenaean, 972'

Kylon, 313

kyrbeis, 291

LAKEDAIMONIANS, 315

Lalonde, Gerald, 292

lamp maker, 172,219 lamps, 145,170-172 (Fig. 2.106), 217-

219

Lato, Archaic kilns, 203

Lawall, Mark, 288, 291113

law courts, 295

lazhu. See test-pieces, Chinese

Leach, Bernard, 614, 17

Leagros base, 295'"

lebes/hater, Early Iron Age, 169

Lefkandi, 217

lekythos/lekythoi: air-holes in, 23331;

Athenian Late ArchaidEarly

Classical, 278; Corinthian, 258

(nos. C28, cf. C32); Early Iron Age,

25

Leningrad Painter, 197

Leokorion, 295

Lerebours, Noel-Marie-Paymal, 307,

310 (Fig. 5.22:b)

letratone, 24-25

levigation of clay. See purification of clay lids: Athenian red-figured pyxis lid, 267

(Fig. 4.35); Corinthian, 258 (nos.

C2, C23); Early Iron Age, 132,169,

186,217 (cf. nos. 52,59); Paestan

red-figured, 268-269 (Fig. 4.37). See

also pyxis

L @ ofHomer, 191

lime content of clay, 318,324,326,333,

335

lime kilns, 208-209

Lindos, 17798

Linear B, 199-200. See also ke-ra-me-ja,

ke-ra-me-we Lipari Islands, 223

Lithos, the, 291 (Figs. 5.10-5.11), 292,

297

Lohoi Epizephyrioi, kilns with long

fire tunnels, 20498

London: British Museum, 267 (Fig. 4.35); Victoria and Albert Museum, 11 (Fig. 1.9), 12 (Fig. 1.10), 13 (Fig. 1.11), 14 (Fig. 1.12) Long Walls, "Themistoklean" (TL?paxpL? raim), 277,286-287 (Fig. 5.5) loomweights, terracotta, 135 (Fig. 2.70,

nos. 106,112), 145,150,172-175

(Fig. 2.107, nos. 151-154), 176,

217-219,222,259

Lotbiniere, Joly de, 307202

Lucania, 223,228

Lucanian red-figured pottery, 261-265

Lydos (the Lydian), 224

Lykourgos, statue of, 294

Lynch, Kathleen, 278j8,2881°2,291113

Lysihates, choregic monument of,

282", 284,288. See also Plateia Lysikratous MACDONALD, BRIAN, 223

Macedonia, 176,220,228,259, 27622

Mackenzie, Duncan, 7

maenads, 267

maiolica, 12-15

Mahiyianni district, 2981j6,308

Mantineia, battle of and painting in

Kerameikos, 293

Marathon, 285,292,314

Marathonomachoi, 285

marble used for thermoanalytical

analysis, 329 (Figs. A7-A8)

Martens, Frkdkric, 3-7,310 (Fig. 5.22:b)

Martial, 199

Massoul, Madeleine, 230

mass spectrometer (Balzers

Thermostar), 322,325

Matthew, Book of, 276

Megalopolis. See synoikismos, of

Megalopolis

"Megarian bowls." See under bowls

Melos, 230

memory and archaeological visibility,

314-316

Menestheus, 302

Menidi, 175,182,219,292

metalworkers, 15,196, 19745,297; and

molds, 3,107 (Fig. 2.48), 217; and

smelting, 208-209; and tools (anvils,

tuykres), 209. See also bronze-

workers; Foundry Painter and cup

Metapontion/Metaponto, 20,226,

261-265; chora, 226,228;

Kerameikos, 228,261-262; kilns,

219 180.See also Pantanello sanctuary

Metroon, 294, 296-297'j5

mica, 23-189 (under individual

catalogue entries), 318

Middle Stoa, 25,109,275

Midea, 303

Mikro Pisto (Thrace), 217

Milan, Torno Collection, 197,199

(Fig. 3.7)

Miles, Margaret M., 286

Miletos, 202

Mill, John Stuart, 314

Miller, Stephen, 289,295

Miln, Marjorie, 16, 1915

Minoan thalassocracy, historicity of,

314

misfired pottery, not clearly discards,

278

Mnesiades, potter, 199

modern Greek state, official archaeo-

logical policy, 308

moldmade bowls. See under bowls

Monaco, Maria Chiara, 277

Monasteriako Kephali, 259

montmorillonite, 318,319

montres, 18-19. See also test-pieces,

French

Moore, Mary, 235,239

Moraites, Petros, 282-283 (Fig. 5.4)

Morgan, Charles, 11,208

Morgantina, 297

Morris, Ian, 273, 27S21,298

Morris, Sarah P., 313, 314

M[o]unychia, Chemin de, 287-288 (Fig.

5.6). See also Piraeus, Sanctuary of

Artemis Mounychia

Mouseion. See Hill of the Muses

mullite, 318

multiple brush, 220-222 (Fig. 3.18),

252 (Fig. 4.21, no. C13). See also

pivoted multiple brush

Munich, Glyptothek und Museum

antiker Kleinkunst, 192 (Fig. 3.2),

193

Mycenae, 303

Mycenaean: figurines, 177,178;

fortifications of Athenian Acropolis

(including gates), 292,301-305

(Fig. 5.16); graves, 2 (Fig. 1.2), 21,

97,273,275,291-292,298,315;

loomweights, 217; material culture,

180; nonfunerary deposits in

Athens, 97; palace on Athenian

Acropolis, 315; pictorial vases, 180;

potters, 7; pottery, 7, 829,185,220;

pottery workshop at Berbati, 261;

the Lithos as a lintel block of a

Mycenaean tholos tomb or

threshold block of gate, 291-292;

wall painting, 180

Mylonas Shear, Ione, 301

Mys, 224

Myspios, 224

Mysteries. see Eleusinian Mysteries;

Kabeiric Mysteries

22,274*, 313,315

NEOLITHIC, Net[t]os Painter, 224

neutron-activation analysis, 7

New Testament Bible, 276

New York, Metropolitan Museum of

Art, 266-267 (Fig. 4.34)

Nicholls, Richard, 279

Niemeier, Wolf-Dieter, 202

Nike/Nikai, 198-199 (Fig. 3.7)

Noack, Ferdinand, 286

Noble, Joseph Veach, 16,198,211,235,

318

VTC~TCLCY TOG v~poi).See Klepsydra

OAKLEY, JOHN,232,276,277 Odeion of Agrippa, 275,295; Odeion well, 5,27 Odeion of Herodes Atticus, 305,309 Oikonomides, A. N., 280,281,282,285 oinochoe/oinochoai: "48-Type," 98-99; Corinthian, 255,258 (nos. C9, C24, C25, C26, C29); Early Iron Age, 25,93,97,100,102, 123,130,131, 186,188,213,215,216,278 (nos. 19,21,23,53,56,77,79,91,93,95, 100,114,126)

Old Agora (Archaic Agora), 2 (Fig.

1.2), 280,281,282,284,285,287,

288,299 (Fig. 5.15). See also

Athenian Agora

Oliver, James H., 101

olpe/olpai, Early Iron Age, 131,222

(nos. 91,114,127)

Oltos, 224 Olympia, 223; museum, 227'; Workshop of Pheidias, 192 (Fig. 3.1) Olympieion, 283 (Fig. 5.3), 284,285, 300 Olynthos, 223 Omar Khayyim, 225' Oreibelos, 224 Osborne, Robin, 313 Ostia, 322 oxidization, reduction, reoxidization, 211-213. See also three-part firing process PADGETT, MICHAEL, 268 pads, 217,260 Paestan red-figured pottery, 268-269 (Fig. 4.37) Painter of the Athens Dinos, 232-234 Painter of Bologna 228,267 Palestine, 209 Pan, 235 Panathenaic games, 239. See also amphoras, Panathenaic Panathenaic Way, 144,282", 296 Pantanello sanctuary (chora of Metaponto), 226 Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Demetra, 217 Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, Dtpartement des Manuscrits, 308 (Fig. 5.19); Louvre, 9,10 (Fig. 1.7:a, b) Pars, William, 308 (Fig. 5.20) Parsons, A. W., 25 Parthenon, 307-312 (Figs. 5.19-5.24) Patrokles, 280-281 Pausanias, 1, 12,271,280,281,285, 286,292,293,294, 30016' Payne, Humfry, 223 Pease Philippides, Mary Zelia, 239 Peisistratids, 284,289, 296142,303,314; Peisistratos (the elder), 289, 29614*, 314; Peisistratos (the younger), 29514', 296. See also Hippias; tyrants Pelargikon/Pelasgikon, 301,302,303, 304 (Fig. 5.16), 305. See also Telemachos stele and relief pelargos (n~Accpyoq),303 Pelasgikon. See Pelargikon Peloponnese/Peloponnesians, 315-316 Peloponnesian War, 223 Pemberton, Elizabeth, 256,258 Penteskouphia pinakes, 9-10 (Fig. 1.7), 11,16, 196-197 (Fig. 3.5), 203 (Fig. 3.8), 204,205. See also Corinthian pinakes peptised clay slip, 211 Perikles/Periklean, 301,309,311,315 periodization, 511,9725,9221

Perserschutt. See Persian, sack/destruction debris Persian: sack/destruction debris, 77, 278,285,286,288,295,297,301, 302,303,310,314,315; Wars, 289, 29l1I3,300,314 Peteos, 302 Phaleron, 285-286,287 (Fig. 5.5), 288; cemetery, l1248;Chemin du Phalere, 287-288 (Fig. 5.6) Phaleron cups, 11248,188138 Phari (Thasos), 17,202", 228,260-261 Pheidias, 192 (Fig. 3.1) Philistia, 201 archon, Philokratos (@-[~hoxp]&[r]o~), 311215 Philopappos Monument, 28694.See also Hill of the Muses Philostratos, 295 Phintias, 224 Phoenicia, 201,220 Piccolpasso, Cipriano, 6,11-14 (Figs. 1.9-1.12), 15,197 Pindar, 199, 284i8 Piraeus, 101,285-286,287 (Fig. 5.5), 288,297; Chemin duport, 287-288 (Fig. 5.6); Kantharos (KdtvOccpoq), commercial harbor, 287; PiraeusAthens railway, 232; Rue dupiree ou Macri teichi, 288 (Fig. 5.6); Sanctuary of Artemis Mounychia, 17798 Piraeus Gate, 287 Piraeus Street (Athens), 23228 Pisticci Painter (Lucanian), 261 pitchersljars, handmade, 25 pithos/pithoi. See storage jars/pithoi pithos burial, 299 pits. See wells and pits Pity, Altar of, 285, 29614j pivoted multiple brush, 220-222 (Fig. 3.18). See also multiple brush Plaka, 282", 284 plaques, votive, 182,218-219 plates: Athenian red-figured fragment used as test-piece, 239 (no. A22); Early Iron Age, 165,185-186,213 (nos. 107,124,131) Plateia Lysikratous, 284'l Plateia Theseiou, 274 (Fig. 5.1) Plato, 199 plinthres (nhivOp~S),259 Pliny the Elder, 199 Plommer, Hugh, 311 Plutarch, 199,223, 284i8, 28688,294 Pnyx, 6,227,240-244,277,287, 29614j Pollux (Onomasticon), 196 Polyphemos Painter, 223

population estimates, 275 porosity of pottery, 199,318,333 Poseidon, 196,197 post-Byzantine, 208-209 potters: and apprentices, 245; bearing mishaps philosophically, 191; Corinthian-trained, 223-224; and curses and death, 191,195-196; and divine inspiration/intervention, 197-199; and "factory seconds," 215; and fingerprints (see fingerprints); and forgetfulness, 266269; and idealized representations of workshops, 197-199 (Fig. 3.7, cf. Fig. 3.6); in Linear B tablets, 199-200; mixing clays, 20; and oral tradition, 13; and selfexpression, 198; and status, 199; and torture, 195; Yuman, 196; Zuni, 196 potters' debris/refuse, 1-6,21-22,23189,261,272-279 potters' field, 271,276 potters' quarter. See Kerameikos potters' tools: caccia bragie ("ember (twochaser"), 11 (Fig. 1.9); G~xorih~ pronged tool), 11"; forcina (nvopronged fork; cf. GLXOU~L), 11 (Fig. 1.9); hooks, 9,10 (Fig. 1.7:b, c, d), 317; long rods with round or rectangular plate at one end (cf trainello), 9, 10 (Fig. 1.7:a, d, e, f), 11; poker, 11 (Fig. 1.8:a); rods, 15; slice, 9,11 (Fig. 1.8:b); tongs or pinchers, 11 (Fig. 1.8:c), 12,15; turning mats, 220; trainello (rake), 11 (Fig. 1.9), 13 (Fig. 1.11); vedetta, 11-12 (Fig. 1.9) potters' wheel, 220-221 (Fig. 3.17). See also turning mats potters' workshops, 272-279,297,313; idealized representations of, 197199 (Fig. 3.7, cf. Fig. 3.6). See also potters pottery shapes, 213 (Table 3.2), 258 (Table 4.1) pottery techniques, 6-20,191-224; firing, 210-214,317-335. See also three-part firing process practice pieces and sketches, 227,267268 praefurnium, 196,202,204,207 prehistory into history, historical method, 272,313 preliminary sketch, 268 Priapos, 224 Princeton University Museum, 267268 (Fig. 4.36)

production discards, 3,5,20,23,69-76, 97-99,118-122 (Figs. 2.56-2.58), 126-143,132-134 (Fig. 2.68), 143169,215-216,248,261,272. See also Fehlbrand; wasters props, 217,260 Propylon, Roman (near Classical Agora), 277 Protoattic, 5,126,138,139,218,219, 222-224,317 Protoattic pottery, 5,126-143,143169,186,189,219 (Fig. 3.16), 222224,228; Black-and-white style (Middle Protoattic), 224. See also Protoattic Protocorinthian pottery, 6,222-224, 226-227,244-258 Protogeometric, 5,25,27,77,84,92, 93,97,123,200,220-222,225,273, 275,297,317,332 Protogeometric pottery, 5-8,25-99, 214,216,220-222,224,297-298, 317. See also Protogeometric

Prytaneion, 282,284,285; Roman

rebuilding(?) of, 284

Prytanikon, 284

pseudo-Herodotos, 191

Psiax, 224

purification of clay, 260

pyrometer, modern, 15, 1766.See also

under cones

Pythia, 178. See also Delphi

Pythian Apollo, sanctuary of (in

Athens), 300

pyxis/pyxides: Athenian red-figured

pyxis lid, 267 (Fig. 4.35); Corin-

thian, 258 (nos. C7, C23); Early

Iron Age, 169 (cf. no. 103);Paestan

red-figured, 268-269 (Fig. 4.37)

representations of potters (ancient), 10-

14 (Fig. 1.7), 192-200 (Figs. 3.2,

3.5-3.7, cf. 3.3 and 3.4), 203 (Fig.

3.8, right), 221 (Fig. 3.17)

Rhodes, Daniel, 207,208 (Fig. 3.13:b)

Rhodes, new cemetery kiln site, 2028'

Rich Athenian Lady, tomb of, 2g9,

244ji, 275

Richter, Gisela M . A,, 6,16,19,191,

199,229,266

Roberts, Sally, 278

Robertson, Martin, 228

Robertson, Noel, 282", 302,303,305

Robinson, Henry S., 77

Roma and Augustus, Temple of, 309

Roman, 84,93,200,2028', 207,208,

219180,227,294,305

Roman brick, analysis of, 322

Rotroff, Susan I., 277

Royal Stoa. See Stoa Basileios/Royal

Stoa

Ruppenstein, Florian, 299,313

Rye, Owen, 214

Crxpdtxqq (shatterer, destroyer), 191

Sacred Gate, 287

Sagalassos (Pisidia), potters' quarter,

219180

saggars, 217

Sakonides, 224

Salamis: battle of, 285,314, 315;

Chemin de Salamina, 287-288 (Fig.

5.6)

sample vessels (d~iyyascc,y~xpdtx~a),

200, 23942

Sanders, Guy D. R., 245

satyr, 193,196

scanning electron microscope. See SEM

Scheffer, Charlotte, 296142

Schiering, Wolfgang, 192

QNDYNASTY TERRACOTTA WARRIORS, Schilling, Michael, 20,211,317-335

Schliemann, Heinrich, 309

324

Schmalz, Geoffrey, 284

quadriga. See chariots

Quintilian, 199

Schumann, Theodor, 210-21 1

SEM (scanning electron microscope),

RAM JUGPAINTER, 223

317', 322,326 (Fig. A4), 327,332,

Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft, 278

334,335 (Fig. A15); not ideal for

determining firing temperatures of

red-figured pottery. See under individual

styles: Athenian; Campanian;

pottery under 800"C, 334

Lucanian; Paestan

separators, 217,260

refiring experiments, 318,319,320,

Serapis, Sanctuary of, 285

321,322

Serres, 217,266

Regia (Rome), 29614*

Sesames, potter, 199

relief lines in red-figured pottery, 268

Sevres, 18,230-231 (Fig. 4.2), 267

representations of kilns (ancient), 10

sgraffito pottery workshops, 217

(Fig. 1.7), 192 (Fig. 3.2), 196 (Fig.

Shaft Grave period, 299

3 3 , 2 0 3 (Fig. 3.8, left), 205 (Fig.

Shear, T. Leslie, Jr., 289,291

3.9)

Shepard, Anna, 196,200

shields, votive, 182,218-219 Sicily, 223,224,261,277; and Athenian

disaster (415 B.c.), 192

Sikanos, 224

Sikelos, 224

silen, 193

Simonides, 199

Sindos, kiln site, 175,207 (Fig. 3.12),

21918', 228,259-260,276 sintedsintering, 831,30 (no. 5), 52 (no.

29), 56 (no. 33), 58 (no. 35), 211,

212,243 (no. A28), 256,320,321,

324,327,328,333,335

skyphos/slqhoi: Athenian black-

figured, 193 (Fig. 3.3); Boiotian

black-figured, 194-195 (Fig. 3.4);

Corinthian, 245,258 (no. C31);

Early Iron Age, 20,100,113,121,

127,132,143,144,159-165,185,

186,188,213-214,215-216,222

(nos. 31-40,46,48,75,81,84,99,

101,103,109,118,122,124,135-

144, cf. 58); Lucanian red-figured,

264-265 (nos. M21, M22)

slag, 208,215

slip, 21 1,23-189 (under individual

catalogue entries); self-slip, 214

Cycipccyoq (crasher), 191

smectitic minerals, 325

smelting furnaces, similarities and

differences to potters' kilns, 208-

209

Smithson, Evelyn Lord, 511, 112

Smyrna, 223

Solon, 223, 28688,289,291,305,314

Sophokles, 23'

Southeast Fountain House, 295,296;

problematic evidence for an Archaic

date, 29514'

South Gate, 28798

South Italy, 219,228,261,266

Soviet Union, former, 228

Sparkes, Brian, 215,240

Sparta, 315-316

Spartans. See Lakedaimonians

spindlewhorls, beads, and buttons, 135

(Fig. 2.70, no. 116), 145,150, 172-

175 (Fig. 2.107, nos. 155,156), 176,

217-219,222,259

spinel, 318

Spon, Jacob, 287,288 (Fig. 5.6)

spy-holes in kilns, 12, 16,210;

representations of kilns with spy-

holes, 1656,10 (Fig. 1.7:a-c, e)

stacking of pottery in kilns, 203-204,

259-260, 2661°2.See also kilns

stacking rings, 241,259,260,261,265

stele, 276

Stillwell, Agnes Newhall, 182,205, 244,245 stilts, 217,260 Stoa of Attalos, 2 (Fig. 1.1), 97,271, 273,294 Stoa Basileios (Royal Stoa), 271,277,

285,291 (Figs. 5.10-5.11), 292,

293,297

Stoa of Eumenes, 305

Stoa Gutter Well, 278

Stoa Poikile, 285,295

Stoa of Zeus, 277,293

stoas, 292. See also Middle Stoa

storage jardpithoi, 114', 143,200

Street of the Tripods. See Tripods,

Street of the

Stroud, Ronald, 287

Stuart, James, and Nicholas Revett, 308

(Fig. 5.20) Submycenaean/Final Mycenaean, 1,5, 27,97,107,220,277,297,299 Submycenaean pottery, 5,25,220,297. See also Submycenaean/Final Mycenaean Suidas, 294

Sui Jisheng, l 6 , 1 7 (Fig. 1.18), 18,265

sulfides, 322

Sulla, 293

Susa, 294

sympoliteia, 3 14232

symposion/sympotic activity, 27738,278,

288

Synoikia, festival of the, 314232

synoikismos: of Attica, 286,300,314;

of Halikarnassos, 314232;of Kas-

sandreia, 314232;of Megalopolis,

3 14232

C ~ V T ~(smasher), LJ, 191

Syriskos (the little Syrian), 224

syssitia (common mess), 277

Szegedy-Maszak, Andrew, 307202

TALCOTT, LUCY,123,215,240

Taleides, 224

Taranto/Taras, 18,228,262,265-266;

lulns, 219"' technical innovations at the beginning

of the Protogeometric period, 220-

222

teichos tes Hypapantes (rsiXo5T ~ S ~ ~ X C ( T C G),( 305 V T ~ ~ ~ teichos tou Serpentze (TEI~OS TOG

Cspxsvr
Telemachos stele and relief, 303. See

also Pelargikon

Telesterion. See Eleusis, Telesterion

Tellos, 28688

Temple of Jupiter. See Olympieion

Temple of Olympian Zeus. See Olympieion

terracotta factory, 279

terracotta figurines. See figurines,

terracotta terracotta loomweights. See loomweights, terracotta

terra sigillata, 321

test-pieces: Athenian Early Iron Age, 3,

6-10 (Figs. 1.5-1.6), 12,20,23-27

(Fig. 2.2), 29-68 (Figs. 2.3-2.22),

77-84 (Figs. 2.28-2.30), 84-90

(Figs. 2.33-2.34), 93-97 (Figs.

2.37-2.39), 102-103 (Fig. 2.42),

106,109-111 (Figs. 2.50-2.51),

124-125 (Fig. 2.60), 126-143,143-

169,200,204,210-214,272, plates

1,2, cf. 100-101 (Fig. 2.41);

Athenian Hellenistic, 240-244 (Fig.

4.9); Athenian red-figured, 225-240

(Figs. 4.1-4.8); Chinese, 16-18

(Fig. 1.18), 261,262,265; common

shapes from which test-pieces were

cut, 213-214; Corinthian, 244-258

(Figs. 4.10-4.26); Cretan Classical,

259; French (montres), 18-19;

Macedonian Classical, 259-260;

maiolica, 12-15; and modern

traditional potters, 200; South

Italian, 261-265 (Figs. 4.28-4.32

[Lucanian]), 265-266 (Fig. 4.33

[Apulian]), 266-267 (Fig. 4.34

[Campanian]); Thasian Archaic,

260-261 (Fig. 4.27). See also

bastoncelli; Brandprober

test-rings, 17

test-vases, 239,266

T G (thermogravimetry), 322,323 (Fig.

A2), 324,325,329 (Fig. A8), 330-

331 (Table A2), 332 (Fig. AlO), 333

(Fig. A12), 334 (Fig. A14)

tiles, roof, 279; Lakonian type, 260

Thasos, 17,228,260-261

Thebes, Kabeirion, 194

Themistokles, archonship of, 285

thermoanalytical methods, 322,325

thermogravimetry. See T G

thermoluminescence dating, 317

thermomechanical analysis. See T M A

thermomechanical analyzers, 323 (Fig.

A3), 325

TheseionJSanctuary ofTheseus, 2749,

282,285. See also Plateia Theseiou

Theseus, 314; "Agora ofTheseus,"

2816'; "City of Theseus," 282-283

(Fig. 5.4), 284; and synoikismos of

Attica, 286,300, 314

Theseus Painter, 193 (Fig. 3.3)

Thesmophoria, 286

Thesmophorion, 28691

Thessalonike, 217,259

Thessaly, 220

Tholos, and Tholos kiln, 22,28,123,

126-129 (Figs. 2.62-2.67), 218,

222,224,275,284,296'''

Thompson, Dorothy Burr, 84,100,143,

175,177,181,182,218,275

Thompson, Homer A., 27,92,97,109,

126-129,143,222,277,282,288,

29S1'I, 296

Thorikos, 20,292

Thrax, 224

Three Books ofthe Potter j.Art. See

Picolpasso, Cipriano

three-part firing process (oxidization,

reduction, reoxidization), 6-8,20,

197,210-214,222,227,318

Thucydides, 284,286,296,300,301,

303,305,313,315-316

ThypeithideslTyphaithides,224

Tiryns, 302,303

Tite, Michael, 211,326

T M A (thermomechanical analysis),

317,323,324,325,328,329,334,

335

Tolle-Kastenbein Renate, 310

Tonks, Oliver, 7,19,210

Torone, 276; Geometric potter's kiln,

175,205,206 (Fig. 3.10), 207,217,

219180;lime hlns, 209

torture in the pottery workshop(?), 195

Travlos, John, 287 (Fig. 5.5), 303,304

(Fig. 5.16), 305,306 (Fig. 5.17)

Trendall, Arthur Dale, 261

Trikala, 217

tripod cauldrons, 312. See also Pythia

Tripods, Street of the, 28481

Turkey, 322

Turkish, 84,208-209

turning mats (Minoan), 220

tuyeres (bellows), 209

Twelve Gods, Altar of the, 101,285,

295,296

tyranny of the text, 271-272,313

tyrants, 301. See also Peisistratids

POTTERY: Early Iron Age,

70-71 (Fig. 2.24, no. 52), 96-97

(Fig. 2.39); red-figured vases, 228,

229,253,261-265,267-269

UNFINISHED

VANDERPOOL, EUGENE, 97,280,284

Vedder, James F., 221 (Fig. 3.18)

Vermeule, Emily Townsend, 109,291-

292

Veroia, 217

Vicenza, Banca Intesa Collection, 199

(Fig. 3.7)

Vitelli, K. D., 199

vitrifiedlvitrification, 3,23-189 (under

individual catalogue entries), 215,

320,322,326,327,332,334

Vlassarou, church of the, 279

von Bothmer, Dietrich, 239

von Gerkan, Armin, 303

Von Stackelberg, Baron Otto, 305-306

(Fig. 5.18)

votive plaques, 182,218-219

votive shields, 182,218-219

votive wagons, 28

Vrysoula. See Corinth, Vrysoula

WASTERS,

3,5,20,23,69-76,97-99,

103-105 (Figs. 2.43-2.45), 111-112

(Fig. 2.52), 113-118 (Figs. 2.54-

2.56), 126-143,143-169,215-216,

222,241,244,261,272,278. See also

Fehlbrand production discards

water jars/pots, 27, 93, 112

Watson, F. J., 203

weight loss of clay during heating, 322,

325,329,333,334

Wekhekleides, 224

wells and pits, 1-6,21-22,23-189,

272-279,317; and fill brought in

from a distance, 28

Winter, Adam, 9 (Fig. 1.6), 17, 204104,

207,208 (Fig. 3.13:a), 211

wollastonite, 319

women and pottery production. See

female potters

Wiirzburg, Martin von Wagner

Museum, 230-231 (Fig. 4.2)

Wycherley, Richard E., 276,280,281,

282,293,294,295

Xcthctoyivq ij Ka~oupqyfvqTCO~TCK, 305

Xerxes, 294

X-ray diffraction, 319

YOUNG, RODNEY S., 21,77,178,181,

273

Yuman potters, 196

ZAGORA (Andros), 218

Zeus, 302. See also Stoa of Zeus

Zosimos, 294

Zuni potters, 196

'Qy66ctyo< (fierce conqueror, raw

tamer), 191

I S B N 0-87bbL-531-0