THE OF
OF THE
JOURNAL
CL A S S I C A L
AMERICAN
STUDIES
AT VOI,UME
SCHOOL A THENS 70:
NUMBER
JANUARY-MARCH
.'
,/
,)
,
'
,w'
\
\
~~~Th
*!
S
200I
'
/
)~~~~~~~~~~~~lsia ~~~~~~~20
tde
tqhn
Schoolof AZmericane
I
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is a research and teaching institution dedicated to advanced study of the archaeology,art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world. Established in 1881 by a consortium of nine American universities, the School now serves graduate students and scholars from more than 150 affiliated colleges and universities, acting as a base for research and study in Greece. The main buildings of the School and its library are located in Athens, with administrative and publications offices in Princeton, NewJersey. As part of its mission, the School directs ongoing excavationsin the Athenian Agora and at Corinth and sponsors all other American-led excavations and surveys on Greek soil. It is the official link between American archaeologists and classicists and the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and, as such, is dedicated to the wise management of cultural resources and to the dissemination of knowledge of the classical world. Inquiries about membership in the School or participation in the Summer Sessions should be sent to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterlyby the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 and devoted primarily to the timely publication of reports on School-sponsored and School-directed projects,Hesperiawelcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology,art, epigraphy,history, and literature,from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperiais a refereedjournal.
VOLUME
70:
NUMBER
JANUARY-MARCH
I
2001
THE
JOURNAL
OF CLASSICAL
PUBLICATIONS STAFF
PETER
OF THE STUDIES
AMERICAN
SCHOOL
AT ATHENS
SCHULTZ
The Akroteria of the Temple of Athena Nike
1
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
KerriCox INTERIM
WAYNE
E.
LEE
EDITO R, Hesperia
M. B. Richardson ASSOCIATE
EDITOR
Michael Fitzgerald EDITORIAL
Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part IV: Change and the Human Landscape in a Modern Greek Village in Messenia
49
ASSISTANT
SuzanneAbrams PRODUCTION
MANAGER
SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVE
COORDINATOR
JordanPeled
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE CarolC. Mattusch(Chairman) GeorgeMasonUniversity DariceBirge LoyolaUniversityof Chicago JackL. Davis Universityof Cincinnati JeniferNeils CaseWesternReserveUniversity JamesP.Sickinger FloridaStateUniversity KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia StephenV.Tracy(ex officio) The Ohio StateUniversity
ALEC
BLAMIRE
Athenian Finance, 454-404
B.C.
99
Submissions: Manuscripts and communications should be addressed to Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens, 6-8 Charlton Street, Princeton,New Jersey08540; tel. 609-683-0800; fax 609-924-0578; e-mail
[email protected] photocopies of illustrationsmust be submittedin triplicate;originalartworkand photographsshould not be sent unlesspriorarrangementsaremadewith the Editor.A short abstractsummarizingthe majorconclusionsof the articleshould also be included.Articles are submittedto a double-blindreviewprocessand authorsarerequestedto preparetheir manuscriptsaccordingly,without their name or affiliationappearing. The style for manuscriptpreparation,notes, bibliography,and other informationon submissionscanbe foundin the GuidelinesforAuthorspublished in Hesperia 62, 1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School'swebsite (www.ascsa.org);or by writing to ASCSA Publicationsat the above address. The AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies at Athens will not knowinglyprint in Hesperia or any of its other publicationsthe announcementor initial scholarlypresentationof anyobjectacquiredafterDecember30,1973, by anymeans other than through an officially sanctioned excavationor survey,unless the objectwas partof a previouslyexistingcollectionor was legallyexportedfrom the countryof origin. Subscriptions:The annualsubscriptionprice,payablein advancein dollars,is $60.00 for individuals,$70.00 for institutions, and $33.00 for studentswith valid I.D. Canadaand other countriesadd $10.00 postage.We acceptVISA and MasterCard.Published quarterly.Reprintsof Hesperia 1-41, Index Volume 1 (Hesperia1-10 and Supplements 1-6), and Supplements 1-12 and Supplement 18 should be orderedfrom Swets and Zeitlinger,b.v., P.O. Box 810, 2160 SZ Lisse, Netherlands. Single issues (currentand back numbers when available)of Hesperia 42 and following areavailablefor $15.00 each plus postagefromthe AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton,NewJersey 08540-5232 U.S.A. OrderIndex Volume2 and Supplements13 and following from (in the U.S.) the David Brown Book Company,P.O. Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, fax (860)945-9468; (outside North America) Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford oxl 1HN, UK, fax +44 (0) 1865 794449.
Copyright ? 2001 The American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc., Ann Arbor,Michigan. Design by Ellen McKie. Periodicalspostage paid at Princeton,New Jersey,and at additionalmailing offices. Postmaster. Send addresschanges to Hesperia, American School of
ClassicalStudies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton, NewJersey 08540-5232 U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0
HESPERIA Pages
70 (200I)
4
T
0
TEMPLE
For OlgaPalagia
tERIA
AKRO
FTH E OF
ATH
ENA
N
IKIE
ABSTRACT Recent examination of the extant akroteria bases of the Temple of Athena Nike (Acropolis 2635,2638,4291, and 15958a-p) and of the relevant inscriptions (IG I3 482, IG 112 1425, et al.) has revealed new evidence from which several conclusions can be made regarding the crowning sculpture of this important building. In addition to suggesting the technique by which the akroteria of the Nike temple were gilded, the new evidence demonstrates the size of the akroteria and allows the dominant interpretation of the central akroterion as a Bellerophon/Chimaira group to be rejected. Based on evidence gained from the akroteria bases, three hypothetical restorations of the central roof sculpture are proposed: a tripod, a trophy flanked by Nikai, and a composition based on the other well-known, gilded akroterion of the late 5th century B.C., the Nike erected by Paionios of Mende over the Spartan shield on the east facade of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.
The Temple of Athena Nike (Fig. 1) was completed at some time in the late 420s B.C., an exquisite jewel in the crowning reconstruction of the Athenian Acropolis initiated by Perikles and his circle in the middle of the 5th century.' While the dates and phases of construction within the sanctuary of Athena Nike remain controversial, it is almost certain that her cult was fully active by 424/3: a decree confirming the salary of the priestess of Athena Nike (IG I3 36) was passed in this year, and the remaining epigraphical and physical evidence strongly suggests that the final phase of the temple's construction was begun at this time.2 In its fin1. Earlyversionsof this paperwere presentedat the American School of ClassicalStudies,Athens, in February 1999; at the Annual Meeting of the ArchaeologicalInstitute of America in San Diego in January2001; and at the Institute of ClassicalStudies, London, in January2001. For acknowledgments, see pp. 41-42. 2. Completion in the mid to late 420s: Furtwangler1895, pp. 443-444; Dinsmoor 1939, pp. 124-125; 1950,
pp. 185-186; Shear 1963, p. 388; Boersma 1970, pp. 75, 84-86; Miles 1980, p. 323; Wesenberg 1981, pp. 4751; Mark 1993, p. 86; Giraud 1994, p. 48; Wesenberg 1998, p. 239; Hurwit 1999, p. 211. The comprehensivetreatment of all epigraphicaland archaeological data is Giraud 1994. Some physicalevidence,all epigraphical testimony,and most secondary literatureis collected and reinterpreted by Mark (1993). For measured
objectionsto Mark'schronologysee Giraud 1994, pp. 43-48; Wesenberg 1998; Hellman 1999, p. 26; and now, most vividly,Shear 1999, pp. 121-125. Hurwit's (1999, p. 211) opinion that the Nike temple is generallyPeriklean in form is in my opinion correcteven if IG I3 35 (the Nike Temple Decree) is dated to the mid-420s, as arguedby Mattingly (1982; 1996, pp. 461-471, 522).
2
PETER
SCHULTZ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. , . .. ... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... ; g ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... .
; : : ..
... . ... . ... . ... . .............................................. . ......... ... ..... ... . ........................
... .. . .... X.....
1> The *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fgr ...
....
,
,
.
., ..,
,-
--
....
....
.., _... e
....
.
.........
W&
....
sTssmple
of Aten
...............................
u
........................
_s
...................
l
SCSA,...........Alison...Frantz...Collection*
A
.......|..,,,,,t..>lX|
s............ 4 r ._ !..........||ss e
..
. .....
.
l
.....
.
.
:
.
.
A
ss
se,
..>
..............
. ..
i
. *
A
;
...
..a''..
8 ....s.s
...
t
i
i
,
S
<
"'''''
rres#
w<
..,. .... .
__
C :.R
C es
.
_
0
t
|
;
4
i
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
s
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _
:--
t
K
3,t
.
..
...
:'.....
.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
' 'X'. ' ' r.|d'. ,,.,,,'.... i.,''.'. _' '> ' .,s
t
w
L
.
.
S
.
,,._
a,
:.;.QW . r.--:q: .................................. ......... fl<eE ................................... -.-XiMt X ..........
..... .....
w............................~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . ...
..
.. ' . S.',
E.:.:.; ..r,C-.-. ..i. . -........jljZX o.......... i....g
ished state, the Nike temple's sculpturalprogramoccupied one of the most prominent architecturalpositions on the Acropolis. Because of its location, atop the Mycenaean bastion which overlooked the West Slope's great ramp, the Nike temple's parapet,friezes, pediments, and akroteriawere in an ideal position both to capture the attention of all who entered Athena's great sanctuaryand to projecta definite, readablemessage towardthe population of the surrounding city.3This article will examine the physical and epigraphicalevidence as it pertainsto the finished appearanceof the crowning elements of this decorative program-the Nike temple's akroteriawith the goal that this examination might lead to a better understanding of the sculpturalprogram as a whole.
THE GILDING OF THE SCULPTURE Several entries from the treasury lists of the Hekatompedon that record gilding from the Nike temple's akroteriaprovide a good starting-point for analysis.4A piece of gold plate from the temple's akroteriaenters the treasury records as early as 382/1 (IG 1121412, lines 27-28) and is recorded
3. Sculpturalprogram:Simon 1985; Stewart 1985; Ridgway 1999, p. 91; and Rolley 1999, pp. 109-115. Parapet: Jameson 1994; Simon 1997; Holscher 1997; Brouskari1999 with bibliography; andThone 1999, pp. 64-73. Frieze:Felten 1984, pp. 118-131, and Harrison 1997, both with bibliography. Pediments:Despinis 1974; Brouskari 1989; and Ehrhardt1989. 4. Gilding of the Nike temple's akroteria:Thompson 1940, pp. 187194, esp. p. 199;Thompson 1944, p. 181, note 31; Boulter 1969, esp. pp. 133-134; Harris 1995, V. 29, 7677; and now Hamilton 2000, AA 85 and AB 49. The treasuryrecordswhich definitely recordgold from the Nike temple akroteriaare:IG 112 1412, lines 27-28; 1415, line 8; 1421, lines 59-61; 1424a, lines 106-107; 1425, lines 101102; and 1428, lines 125-126.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
3
NIKE
until 350/49 (IG JJ2 1436, lines 66-67), after which the entry is lost.5The most complete reference is found in IG 1121425, lines 101-102, xpcovmov F GTa0OV:-v - I 1.This N-xr%, ?CTYqxT%oV X70 T&OV%Xpbo)YpLboVIT0 VSG T precise description leaves little doubt about the provenience of the gold recorded, and the original positioning of this gold on the Nike temple's crowning sculpture has never been subject to question.6 Such certainty does not applyin the case of the two other entries from the Hekatompedon treasurylists (IG 112 1425, lines 103-104, 105-106) that have consistently been connected with the Nike temple's crowning sculpture. These two
entriesdescribe,respectively,xpevmov?S7C6-qXT0V Ou0c T)g T&g 1CL VSc)L,
coOiOV
HFF III I and
1TSOV
XPVtOV
a
I80g
I1
S7CLV%XTOV GC70 TGOV
I aCxpb)TYpLC)V, cIoTGOov:-: AFI. While the entries do not state specifically that the recorded gold comes from the Nike temple, the consistent position of the listings in the inventories suggests that the gold is from
that source.When
'TSP0V XPl)FOV
S7CLT%XT0VTX07COV OXpbO)TYpL)v
first
enters the inventory (IG 112 1415, line 8, 375/4 B.C.) it is recorded on the same line as the gold from the Nike temple's akroteriaand follows immeis implied.7 diately upon it, raising the possibility that TO vs& Tyg N-xrk Although the proximity of the entries within the records does not necessarily attest the proximity of the named items on the building, it is worth noting that the treasurersof Asklepios and Artemis Brauronia almost always recordedtheir inventories in a manner that reflectedthe time at which the objects were dedicated and the place from which they were dedicated, a practice that Richard Hamilton has recently documented in the treasury lists of Delos also.8It is not unreasonable to suggest that these otherwise nondescript pieces of gold would have been placed near each other in the lists and in the treasury,if only to facilitate the precise recording of the 5. It is uncertainwhether IG 112 1435 and 1436, inscriptionssometimes associatedwith the Nike temple'sakroteria (Thompson 1940, pp. 187-194, esp. p. 199;Thompson 1944, p. 181, note 31; Boulter 1969, esp. pp. 133134), pertainto the building'sroof sculpture.After IG 112 1428, lines 125126 (367/6 B.C.), the orderof the lists was changed (see note 7 below).The new total listed for "gold"in IG 112 1435 seems to be one talent, one hundred drachmas,far more than the three drachmasand five obols found on ICG12 1425. No referenceto the Nike temple is preservedon these two inventories. 6. It is remotelypossible that IG 112 1425, lines 101-102, refersto gold taken from gilded ships'akroteriaand possiblystoredin the Nike temple's cella,perhapslike those seen by Pausanias(10.11.5) in the Stoa of the Athenians at Delphi. However,if they were ships'akroteria,the occasionfor their capturemight be expectedto be mentioned (see Harris 1995, IV. 1, 5, 10; V. 2, 18, 21), and the lack of any
such modifying clause,as well as the consistentwording of the lists, argues againstthe hypothesis.Athena Nike did have her own treasure(IG F3373, 376, 377, 379), but there is no evidence that ships'akroteriawere ever included among it. It is also possible that a gilt attachmentmight be the subjectof lines 101-102, but that only its fabric was mentioned in the inventory.This is unlikely,as gold attachments,when they areincluded in the treasurylists (wreaths,leaves from wreaths,etc.), are specificallylisted as such (see Harris 1995, V. 94-96). Obviously,the use of the genitive pluraldemonstratesthat more than one of the Nike temple's akroteriawas gilded, a point confirmed by the physicalevidence;see below, pp. 15-18. 7. The next inscriptionin which a referenceto the temple akroteriais found, ICG12 1421 (374/3), does not preservethis referenceto E-repov xpoa(ov &iWrIxtov,but it appearsagain in IGC 12 1423, although separatedfrom the Nike temple referenceby four lines
recordingx(puoaov ?iWrnX10ov&i0 t1 &aiso
-rg
7 TpLO 1CL
Vet'L.
This orga-
nization of the lists is preservedup to 12 1428), afterwhich E-rCepov 367/6 (ICG X7ovPDOL ?7C)1XTOV
cX70O TLoV (Xx9&)-
-Mp(ovdirectlyfollows the referenceto the Nike temple akroteriaup to 350/49, afterwhich the referenceis lost. In 367/6, the shield'sgold is mentioned before the complete referenceto the akroteria.This, in itself, need not excludethe possibilitythat the shield's gold came from the Nike temple. Indeed, it is possible that the masons preservedor abridgedthe original wording of previousdecrees,slightly shifting the orderof the items listed. 8. The treasuresof Asklepios: Aleshire 1989, p. 103. The treasuresof Artemis Brauronia:Linders 1972, pp. 68-70. Lindersshowed that the items sacredto Artemis Brauroniathat were kept in Athens were recordedon stelai in an orderdictatedby their physicallocation. Delian treasures: Hamilton 2000, pp. 183-186.
4
PETER
SCHULTZ
treasures.If gold from different akroteriathan those TO vec'o T)g NMkqgwas referredto in IG 112 1425, lines 105-106, it seems likely that an identification of their source would have been stated.9 The same can be said for the gilding from the shield (IG 112 1425, T)L Vecok is &C o -o T woop oT) lines 103-104, cited above). While o&c6 p hardly a precise statement regardingthe shield's location, the entry's consistent position near the entry xpovr6ov?S167XCLTOV Ou0cTGoVaxpCObTpLOV To Veto tNMkqg is suggestive. Moreover, the presence of at least fifty-one pairs of deep cuttings made to hold shields and arranged in three even courses on the three sides of the Nike temple bastion allows the possibility that this otherwise puzzling entry refers to a gilded shield hung "before the temple" and that it was the gold from this shield that was recorded in the Hekatompedon treasurylists.10 That the akroteriaof the Nike temple were gilded seems certain;the process by which they were gilded, however, is another matter. Patricia Boulter, citing Bluimmer,argued that the word ?S7C67TX(TV referred to a method of gilding involving heat, and concluded that gold leaf was fused to the bronze akroteriaby the use mercurygilding.1"This reconstruction is need not refer to a specific procedureof problematic.The term 6%-cr0x-cov gilding: the word is used within the treasury records to denote any gold which was used to overlay another object. Diane Harris translatesxpeuaov ?tV-qXT-coVas both "gold foil" and "gold leaf," and, in the inventories, the
Figure 2 (opposite).Half-life-size bronze female head (Agora B 30) from the Agora, Athens. Courtesy ASCSA, Agora Excavations
andanygilded(_c7xpuaog)orgold distinctionbetweenxpovr6ov ?c16T-qXToV object is made only when the gilding has become separated (x0c-6cxpooCo0) from its original position.12 Bltimmer did note that the term 76-ct-x-ov refers to some form of mercurygilding, but he referredspecifically to Roman technique and made no such claim for 5th-century B.C. metalurgy.'3 It is now known that mercurygilding was not invented until the 2nd century A.C.14 Moreover, it would have been difficult for the 6 drachmas and 3 9. Harris 1995, p. 23. 10. The pairsof cuttings and the suggestion that they held shields was first put forwardby Petersen(1908, pp. 14-15). He was followed by Dinsmoor (1926, p. 3, note 2). Since then, the fasteningshave receivedlittle attention. Athena has long been recognizedas the patronof war spoils (II. 10.460), and sacrificeswere made to her in this capacityat Olympia (Paus.5.14.5). Similardedicationsmay have formed an importantcomponent of the adornment of the so-called Chalkothekeon the Acropolis (Downey 1997). Dedicated booty such as shields would surely have been granteda prominentposition nearthe temenos of Athena Nike, the goddess of martialtriumph.A set of votive shields that hung from the bastion wall would not only have symbolicallyreaffirmedthe bastion'soriginal role as a defensive tower but also
would have coveredthe finely worked, but otherwise unremarkable,poros sheathing of the bastion itself Mark (1993, pp. 69-70) contributedimportant remarksregardingthe sheathing but did not mention the cuttings. It has been suggestedthat this series of cuttingswas made to hold victory wreaths(Judith Binder,pers. comm.). This is possible, although I doubt that the cuttingswere initially carvedfor this purpose.Their substantialsize (on average,ca. 0.07 m in height and ca. 0.015 m in width) and depth (on average,ca. 0.075 m), suggests that they were meant to carryheavyobjects. The space between the rows (ca. 0.93 m from the top courseto the middle course,ca. 1.03 m from the middle to bottom course),leaves plenty of room for large objectssuch as shields. 5thcenturyhoplawere roughly circular(or sometimes oval) and measureda little less than one meter in diameter.The
famous Spartanshield taken after Sphakterialike those seen by Pausanias (1.15.5) in the Painted Stoa provides the best contemporaryevidence,and measures0.83 x 0.95 m. A shield of this size could easily have been fastened to the bastionwall by means of two substantialpins. Sphakteriashield: Shear 1937, pp. 347-348, and Snodgrass[1967] 1999, p. 53. See also below,pp. 35-36 and note 123. 11. Boulter (1969, p. 134, note 6), citing Blimmer 1884, p. 291, note 3. See now Vittori 1978; Oddy 1985, 1990, 1991; Anheuser 1996. 12. "Foil"is the form of gold plate strong enough to supportits own weight. "Leaf"cannot stand on its own and folds beneath its own weight. See Oddy 1985, p. 65. I thank Diane Harris for discussingthese entrieswith me. 13. Bliimmer 1884, p. 291, note 3. 14. Haynes 1992, p. 113.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
5
obols of gold positively associated with the Nike temple in the treasury records to have broken from the akroteria and to have been recovered if this gold had been applied as leaf.15Gold applied as leaf, if it had been worn or scratchedoff the sculpture,would have been recoveredin the form of very thin flakes, not much thicker than ca. 1/900 mm-small enough to be blown about by the wind and washed away by rain, properties that would have made the recovery of even a modest 6 drachmas and 3 obols improbable at best.16 A much more likely method of gilding is the mechanical application of gold foil as seen on the famous late 5th-century B.C. female head (Fig. 2) and on the equally well-known late-4th-century B.C. rider's leg, both from the Athenian Agora.17In this procedure, gold foil was folded into deep grooves cut around prominent areas of the sculpture. Gold wire was then hammered into the grooves, locking the gold into position. The gold was then burnishedover the surfaceof the underlying statue,fixing it tightly in place while faithfully reproducing the features of the bronze core. The conclusion that this was the method by which the akroteria of the Nike temple were gilded is attractive because it proposes the use of a late-5thcentury procedure and makes more plausible the recording of the recovered gold.18 15. Examplesof smallerobjects gilded with leaf are common. A gilt copperwreathwas found in an early4th-century tomb at Olynthus (Olynthus X, p. 158, no. 505, pl. XXVIII) and two pairs of gilt greaveswere found in the antechamberof Tomb II and in the socalled "Prince'sTomb"at Vergina(Andronikos 1984, pp. 186,216). Evidence of gold leaf gilding on a modest sculpturalscale is demonstratedby an early Classicalbronze statuetteof Athena (H. 0.37 m) found north of the Erechtheion in 1887 and by anothersmall Athena statuette (H. 0.288 m) with a gilded aegis, found the same year east of the same building. See Stais 1887, with pl. 4; Studniczka1887, esp. cols. 142144 and pl. 7. There are severalliteraryreferences to earlygilded statues,although,again, the method by which they were gilded is uncertain:the three gilded bronzes owned by King Kroisosof Lydia in the mid-6th centuryB.C. (Moses of Chorene 2.11.103), the gilded statue dedicated at Delphi by Gorgias of Leontini
(483-376 B.C.; Paus.10.18.7),the set of gilded Nikai akroteriamade by Paionios for the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (Paus.5.10.4), and the gilded statue of Phryne made by Praxitelesand dedicated at Delphi (Paus. 10.15.1). See Haynes 1992, p. 112, and Mattusch 1996, p. 28, nos. 43, 44, 46. Alexander(1979, p. 67) has shown
that anothermethod of gilding was describedin the Papyrusof Leyden but there is no evidence I know of which suggests that this type of "lead-alloy" gilding was practicedon a monumental scale in 5th-centuryAthens. On the possibilityof leaf gilding of monumental statuarysee note 32 below. 16. Kluge and Lehmann-Hartleben 1927, pp. 31-34; Oddy,Vlad, and Meeks 1979, p. 182; Oddy 1990, p. 108. Pliny (HN31.19.61) notes in his description of gilding techniquesthat a single ounce of gold could yield 750 micro-thin gilding leaves each about 10 cm square. Theophilus(SchedulaDiversarumArtium 1.23) demonstratesthe fragilityof gold leaf, as opposed to gold plate, in his descriptionof a medievalcraftsman hammeringthe gold leaf between two sheets of parchmentso that the thin leaf would not stick to his hammer.I thank James Muhly for his assistancewith bibliographyconcerningthese topics. 17. Agora head (Agora B 30): Shear 1933. Agora leg (Agora B 1384): Shear 1973, pp. 165-168. Mattusch (1996, pp. 121-129) gives full discussionof the bronze head and leg, as well as the problemsassociatedwith their dates, findspots, and attributions.While the bronze head is consistentlydated to the late 5th century(e.g., Ridgway1981, p. 124; Boardman[1985] 1995, p. 176, fig. 138), Mattusch has raisedthe possibilitythat it might belong to the
well-known Antigonid chariotgroup dedicatedafter the defeat in 307 B.C. of Cassander'sforces by Demetrios Poliorketes.Given the fragmentary condition of the head and the leg, any certainconclusion as to the original provenienceof these pieces must await the discoveryof furtherevidence;see Houser 1979, p. 222; 1987, pp. 255281; and below, note 127. 18. A small (H. ca. 11.5 cm) 2nd-
centuryB.C. youthfromthe Pergamene Asklepieion shows an identicalgilding technique;see Deubner 1989 and Sharpe2000. This same method of gilding is describedby Pliny (HN 34.63), who recallsa story in which Nero ordereda statue of Alexanderto be gilded. According to the tale, the addition of the gold so ruined the aestheticvalue of the piece that Nero orderedthe gilding to be removed. Pliny then notes that in its new condition, the statuewas considered more valuableeven though it retained scarsfrom the incisions into which the gold had been fastened.While Hill (1969, pp. 71-72) believed that the statuewas originallygilt and that the story was invented by Pliny to discredit Nero, there can be no question that the cuttings describedby Pliny arethe same type as those found on the Agora head and leg. Apparently,this method of gilding survivedeven after mercury gilding techniqueswere well known.
6
PETER
SCHULTZ
THE CENTRAL AKROTERION BASE In additionto the evidencefrom the Hekatompedonlists, two joining apexblocksthatforma single,centralakroterionbase(Acropolis15958ocf3;Figs. 3-6) comprisethe most concreteevidencefrom which conclusionscanbe drawnregardingthe appearance andcompositionof the Nike The right-handblockpreservesmostof the temple'scrowningsculpture."9 easternandsouthernplinthfaces.The left-handblockpreservesa portion of the easternplinthface andthe bottomof the plinth'snortheastcorner. The two blocks are nearlyidenticalin length, measuring0.432 m and 0.431 m, respectively, andtheyjoin to forma long basemeasuring0.863 m (Fig.
3).20
The base was carved in one piece with the sima (Figs. 3-4, 6),
andthe uppersurfacewaspitchedslightlyto allowrainwaterto drainfrom the blocks.Althoughthe marblein its currentstate,eroded0.005-0.01 m in some places,does not allowfor the precisemeasurementof this angle, the preservedsurfacedoes show a slight deviationfromthe horizontal,a well-knownpracticalrefinementseen in otherAcropolisarchitecture. Althoughthe lengthof the baseis certain,its width is not.The plinth of the left block(cc)has a preservedwidth of ca. 0.26 m; the plinthof the right block (j3)is preservedto a width of ca. 0.24 m. Both blocks,their front faces preserved,arebrokenat the rearalong a roughline running throughone majorsocket(C), throughtwo deepchannels(B andD), and throughtwo smallerdowel cuttings(A and E) (all cuttings,Figs. 3, 5). If the axisof these cuttingsis consideredthe probablecenterof the base, the width may be restoredto ca. 0.50-0.60 m. This width corresponds to the rangedictatedby Orlandos'sand Giraud'sreconstructionsof this 19. The base was first drawnby G. P Stevens (1908, fig. 7), who noted that the cuttingsfound on its surface indicatedthe presenceof"akroteriaof some sort"(p. 404). He was followed by Orlandos (1915, pp. 42-44, pl. 5), who brieflymentioned the blocks and showed them as separatebases,in profile, on a restoredview of the temple'seast side. Later,Orlandos (1947-1948, pp. 30-33, figs. 20,25, and 29) publisheda photographof the fragmentsjoined as one base and two drawingsof the Nike temple'sroof with fragmentsrestoredto the superstructure. At this time, Orlandosbelieved that the two fragmentsbelonged to opposite sides of the temple, thinking that the upper surfacesof the fragmentsdid not form a perfectjoin. The blocks were republishedby Boulter (1969) with a plan by W. B. DinsmoorJr.(Fig. 3). Boulterwas the first to note that the two fragmentsformed one base.The
join has been independently verifiedby Giraud (1994, p. 213, nos. 23-24, pls. 222-236; restored plans, pls. 212-213, 216-217). The base is now located in the last basement chamberof the lower east Acropolis storeroom. 20. It is not unusualfor the central akroterionbase of a building to be carvedin two pieces.The centralbase for the Propylaiaand that for the Hephaisteionwere carvedin this fashion, and there are other examples.A twopiece akroterionbase divides the weight of the crowningapexblock and thereby facilitatesthe final arrangementof the sima. See Dinsmoor 1976, p. 236, fig. 11; Danner 1997, p. 15, fig. 1:8. I thankTasos Tanoulasfor discussing with me the akroterionbases of the Propylaia,and RichardAnderson for discussingwith me the akroterionbases of the Hephaisteion.
THE
Figure3. The east centralakroterion baseof the Templeof AthenaNike (Acropolis15958a-f3), annotated; actualstateplan.After Boulter 1969, fig. 1 (drawing
Figure 4. The east central akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike (Acropolis 15958a-P), front view. Boulter
-
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
:
-'
by W. B. DinsmoorJr.,
1969). Courtesy Tessa Dinsmoor.
After
AKROTERIA
1969, pl. 36:b
Figure 5. The east central akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike (Acropolis 15958a-P), rear view. After Boulter 1969, p. 37:b
.-..
-.-
~~~~~~.
"" w .... _..: . . . ..:..j
.....'*;...:::. ;.t. ,....
.::.:..... ....
NIKE
7
8
PETER
SCHULTZ
base.2'This width would have allowed ample room for sculptureand would have allowed the greater part of the base's weight and the weight of the akroterionto be supported by the tympanum wall in accordancewith ancient practice.22 In addition to suggesting a plausible width for the base, these cuttings comprise the only primary evidence from which any reconstruction of the central akroterion can be derived and, as such, deserve careful scrutiny. Socket C, the large central socket, is the most significant point of attachment. The socket is a circularhole, 0.206 m deep with a preserved diameter of ca. 0.085 m. The sides of C were gouged out by scavengersin search of lead, and only faint traces remain of what was once a thick dowel setting. The socket fully penetrates the base, and whatever rested in it was fastened into the uppermost block of the tympanum wall at an unknown height (Fig. 5). Two shallow cuttings, B and D, shared lead with C, a fact not readily apparentin Dinsmoor's drawing (Fig. 3) but clearly evident on the base itself (Fig. 5). B and D are pour-channels for lead, a fact borne out by their very narrow width (0.027 and 0.019 m) as well as by their varying depths (ca. 0.145 and ca. 0.125 m). Their presence indicates that the central post requiredadditional lead fastening near its resting place in the tympanum wall. A similar structuralconsideration might also explain H, a roughly sloped cutting 0.06 m wide that also shared lead with C and would have provided further horizontal support for the central element.23 Together, B, C, D, and H form one major fastening point, with C as the primary socket. Deep, circularcuttings like socket C are not commonly found on statue bases, but when they do occur there is little question as to the basic shape of the object they held. The Palm Tree of Nikias, dedicated on Delos in 417 B.C., presents a much larger version of this type of socket, in which a round, bronze post penetrated three courses of masonry and was socketed into a fourth.24A similar type of construction was probably used for the bronze mast dedicated by the Aeginetans after the battle of Salamis and 21. Orlandos (1947-1948, fig. 20) restoredthe width of the base to ca. 0.60 m, while Giraud (1994, pl. 222) restoredthe width to 0.48 m. Giraud's restoredwidth, based upon the known width of the bases of the Nike temple's lateralakroteria,is confirmedby his recent observationthat socket C lies in the middleof the centralbase. The centralakroterionbase of the Nike temple thus differsfrom known central akroterionbases that were wider than their accompanyinglateralbases. Dinsmoor (1976, esp. figs. 7 and 11), for example,showed that the central base of the Hephaisteion measured 1.644 x 1.312 m while the one extant lateralbase of that same temple measured0.444 x 0.463 m. In the restored axonometricdrawingsof the central
base publishedhere (Figs. 12, 14, and 18), the 0.12-m discrepancybetween the widths restoredby Orlandosand Giraudis indicatedby a dashedline towardthe rearof the block. 22. Centralbase supportedby tympanum:Aegina,pls. 34-35; Dinsmoor 1976, p. 239; Giraud 1994, pls. 157-160 and 222-225. The back half of any given centralakroterionbase acted as a counterweightto the front. The Nike temple'scentralbase is broken along the line of cuttings and along the underlyingtympanumsupport. 23. Giraudmade this observationto me while examiningthe base in January 1999. 24. Picardand Replat 1924, with fig. 3; Amandry 1954, esp. pp. 307-309 and fig. 12; DelosXXXVI, fig. 22.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
9
for the bronze palm tree dedicated at Delphi by the Athenians after the land and sea victories of Eurymedon; in both cases a bronze post penetrated multiple masonry courses and came to rest in a socket near the base of the monument.25Similar round sockets held the central cauldron supports for tripods and also thick stone tenons, such as that which supported the restored trophy on the Theban victory monument erected at Leuktra after 371 B.C. and Sulla's stone trophy set up after the battle of Chaironeiain 86 B.C.26 Many exampleson a smallerscale also exist.27Socket C of the Nike temple'scentralakroterionbase must have supporteda similar vertical shaft, the vertical and lateralloads being distributed onto the base, the raking sima, and ultimately the tympanum wall.28 There are two other points of possible attachment near the broken rear edge of the base. These are a pair of smaller,oval dowel holes, A and E, shallower in depth (0.057 and 0.061 m) than socket C, and set 0.27 and 0.22 m away from the socket. While their small size seems to rule out any major structuralfunction, their roughly symmetrical placement relative to socket C suggests that they could have held other minor decorative elements, if these elements had been further supported by another fastening or by the member inserted into socket C itself. In addition to the central cuttings B, C, D, and H and the two subsidiary dowel holes at the rear of the base, two other significant points of attachment are preserved on the base. The first is a large cutting F on the left-hand block. It is trapezoidal in shape, ca. 0.06 x 0.07 m, and has a depth of 0.071 m. Its center rests 0.11 m from the left side of the block and 0.12 m from the front. F has been thoroughly robbed of its lead, a fact which accounts for its badly damaged interior. Cutting F is mirrored by the remains of a second socket, K, on the right-hand block, its center set 0.09 m from the right side of the block and ca. 0.12 m from the front profile. The depth of K (ca. 0.08 m) and its placement are nearly identical to those of F and the two cuttings appearto have had similar dimensions. The depth of these cuttings in comparison with the other dowel holes on the base, as well as their symmetrical placement relative to the outer edges
25. Aeginetan mast:Hdt. 8.122; Amandry 1954, pp. 303-307; Gauer 1968, pp. 73-74; Brogan 1999, pp. 46, 49. Eurymedonpalm:Paus. 10.15.4-5; Amandry 1954, esp. figs. 1-2; Gauer 1968, pp. 105-107; Lacroix1992, esp. pp. 168-170; Brogan 1999, pp. 49-50; Jacquemin1999, no. 81. 26. Theban trophy:Daux 1959, pp. 675-679; Polito 1997, pp. 80-81 and note 56, with bibliography.Trophy of Sulla:Camp et al. 1992, pp. 443445. 27. In their examinationof the base blocks for Pheidias'Great Bronze Athena, Stevens and Raubitschek (1946, esp. figs. 4-5) noticed two sets of deep (0.10-0.135 m) circular
cuttings and noted that these sockets must have held some sort of large dowel.They concludedthat the sockets held Persiantrophiesset up aroundthe giant statue.The low statuebase set over the south terracewall of the Athenian Treasuryat Delphi also shows deep, round cuttings of this sort.These cuttings have recentlybeen interpreted as sockets for trophieserectedon the base in a phase immediatelypreceding the erectionof the well-known tenfiguredstatuegroup. See Staihler1992, p. 8; although note FdD II, 8, pp. 6163, esp. 62, and now Amandry 1998, pp. 83-84, for the debate on the function of these sockets. Even more recently,Stewart(forthcoming)has
suggestedthat the unusuallydeep sockets atop the altarat Pergamon (see Hoepfner 1996, pp. 128-129, esp. note 32; figs. 11-12) might have been cut to receivethe bottom of trophies. Furthercomparisonfor this type of socket is providedby the largelead pour-holes found on the so-calledType A pillarbases noted by Dinsmoor (1923) and illustratedbyWillemsen (1963, fig. 3). 28. Demosthenes Giraudand Manolis Korresagreedthat these cuttings must have formed a single large fasteningthat held a major verticalelement (pers.comm.,January 1999; March 1999).
IO
PETER
SCHULTZ
of the base, suggest that they held significant objects, but nothing more certain can be said on the basis of the physical evidence alone. Three more cuttings deserve mention. The first two are a pair of symmetrical cuttings, G (Fig. 6) and I, which, like F and K, almost mirror each other in terms of their relativelocations.29Both are set 0.09 m distant from the central axis of the base and 0.07 m from the front of their respective blocks. G and I are of an unusual type, tapering from an identical depth of ca. 0.005 m at the front to nearly identical depths of 0.044 and 0.040 m, respectively,at the rear (Fig. 6). At this deepest point, the cuttings are ca. 0.025 m wide. At first glance the cuttings recall the unusual pour-channels under the Parthenos base, noted by G. P. Stevens in 1955.30 This identification is impossible, however, since cuttings G and I are not connected to another bedding. The cuttings are, instead, for fastenings of some sort. Their size as well as their unusual graded depths indicate that they are subsidiary,and that they could not have held a vertical element. They might have held a decorativecomponent or a minor structuralmember which could have provided further support for the major centralfastening. The final fastening point, cuttingJ, is a round socket 0.025 m in diameter with a maximum depth of 0.012 m. It is the only other cutting on the upper surface of the base that is large enough to have held any substantial decoration, and it is the only socket departing from the symmetrical arrangement of cuttings.3' The dimensions of these central blocks and their group of symmetrical cuttings reveal severalfacts from which some initial conclusions can be drawn. First, the central akroterion of the Temple of Athena Nike was bronze. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of gold foil in the treasury records, since 5th-century marble architectural sculpture is not normally gilded, and by the depth of the cuttings.32If the sculpture had 29. The cuttingswould be identicalif not for a small,very shallow trapezoidal cutting stamp (0.029 x 0.037 m) in front of G. This gouging, however,is not an originalcutting.Its depth of 0.015 m is far too shallow for any sort of attachment. It is too small to be a bedding of any sort. It is for these reasonsthat Stevens (1908, fig. 7) omits it from his drawingof the block. 30. Stevens 1955, pp. 273-274, fig. 21. 31. The surfaceof this base, like the surfacesof the lateralbases,is covered with small ring-shapedholes, most clearlyillustratedby Fig. 9. While Giraud(1994, pp. 214-216) had previously explainedthese holes as fastening points for obeloi(spikesto preventbirds from roosting),I originallythought that they might have been indicativeof some sort of elaborateprop system for the crowningdecoration,perhapslike the supportarmaturethat Phyllis Lehmann
(Samothrace III, pp. 351-353, note 184) proposedfor the elaboratefloral akroterion of the Hieron at Samothraceor the prop system that Rene Valois (Delos VII, p. 107) discoveredin his investigation of the centralfloralakroterionof the Stoa of Philip V on Delos. I realized that this was impossibleafter considering the very shallow depth of the holes on the Nike temple'sbase (ca. 0.005 m). They could have held nothing more substantialthan pins and are not deep enough to give any sort of supportto any structuralelement. For further discussionof the ring-shapedholes, see pp. 15-17 and note 53 below.There are other,smallerholes on the uppersurface of the centralbase (especiallyto the left of cutting G), but they are not of the same type. See Ridgway1990, p. 588, on obeloi. 32. One possible exampleof leaf gilding of marbleon a monumental sculpturalscale in the 5th centurymight
G
'
/
X
'
Figure6. The southeastblockof the eastcentralakroterionbaseof the Templeof AthenaNike (Acropolis 15958a), annotatedsectionof actual stateplan.After Boulter 1969, fig. 2 (drawingbyW. B. Dinsmoor Jr.,1969). CourtesyTessa Dinsmoor.
be the pedimentalsculpturesof the Parthenon.At the beginning of the 19th century,E. D. Clarkewas told by membersof the team working for Giovanni BattistaLusieri (Elgin'sagent) that the artistsdrawingthe sculpture had observedtracesof gilding on the statuesalong with tracesof paint (Clarkeas cited by Palagia[1993] 1998, p. 12). There are other examplesof leaf gilding of exteriormarble.One Neoptolemos offeredto gild an altarof Apollo in the Athenian Agora (Plut., Mor. 834F-844A);IG I3 343,line 10 (Harris 1995, IV. 20) recordsa gilt kore in the treasuresof the Parthenon; Fengler (1886, pp. 21-33) providesthe best discussionof the possible gilding of marblearchitecturaldetails on both the Propylaiaand the Parthenon;and Paton (1927, pp. 230-231) gives a full discussionof the gilding of the Ionic capitalsof the Erechtheion.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
II
been marble, a shallow, flat bedding carved to hold a plinth would be expected. Second, the sculpturewas probablysome sort of symmetricalgroup or some object which requiredmultiple, symmetrical points of connection to its base. As noted, the major central socket demonstrates the presence of a heavy,vertical element, while the other pairs of symmetrical cuttings suggest the presence of separate figures or structuralmembers somehow connected to the central post.33 Finafly,judging from the restored dimensions of the blocks (0.863 x ca. 0.60 m) and the depth of the fastenings, it seems that the symmetrical group or object was rather large. A comparison with roughly contemporarycentralakroterionbases from Attica and elsewhereon the Greek mainland is informative. The central akroterion of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous,probablydepicting the abductionof Oreithyiaby Boreas,rested on a plinth measuring 0.66 x 0.41 m; the supporting block would not have been much larger, ca. 0.717 x ca. 0.45 M.34 The central akroterion of the west facade of the Athenian temple on Delos, showing the abduction of Kephalos by Eos, rested on a marble post 0.424 x 0.32 m, set into a base 33. Evelyn Harrisonkindly pointed out to me that this broadrangeof cuttings raisesthe possibilityof multiplephasesof use for the base. Severalfeaturesof the base seem to stand againstthis. As noted, the base was carvedin two pieces, the lower surfacesof which are not only unevenly brokenbut are also carvedalong the apex angle of the Nike temple'ssima. The inherentinstabilitythat would have been createdby their broken, uneven bottoms rendersthe blocks unsuitablefor use outside their originallyintended architectural context.While this problemcould have been solved by clampingthe two blocks together,no evidenceof such reinforcement exists. Another solution to this problem, that the blockswere held together in a second base, also makeslittle sense, given that the presenceof a largeblock necessaryto hold them togetherwould make the reuseof the damagedbase redundant.It is possible,however,that the base had multiplephases of use in situ and that new elementswere added while it remainedin place on the Nike temple.The rigid symmetryof the cuttings seems to weigh againstthis possibility.However,if I were determined to reconstructmultiplephases for the base in situ, I might consider cuttingsA, E, F, J,and K as later,since they are not as rigidly symmetricalas G and I.
I find it almost impossibleto believe that centralstrut C and its pourchannelscould belong to any hypothetical laterphase, since the object held in this socket was fastened directly to the tympanumwall. Given that such structuraluse of the tympanumwall is a regularand expectedfeatureof akroterialcompositions(see note 22), we can presumethat socket C, at least, is original.Moreover,since the base is so long, it is unlikelythat this massive post was the only object originally intended to be placed on top of the Nike temple.While the evidence for multiple sculpturalphases in situ is lacking,the base was certainlyused for building materialduringthe construction of the Turkishfortifications.It is this reuse that is responsiblefor the relativelypoor condition of the blocks. 34. Rhamnouscentralakroterion (Athens NM 2348): Gerokostopoulos 1890, p. 151, no. 14; Karusu1962, esp. p. 179; Despinis 1971, pp. 162164; Delivorrias1984; Schauz 1980, p. 105, note 173; Miles 1989, pp. 212214; Danner 1989, pp. 25-26. Since the provenienceof this base has been consideredcontroversial(Mark 1993, p. 78, note 48), it might be appropriate to reviewthe known facts.NM 2348 was originallyfound in Rhamnous by Gerokostopoulosand recordedin his October catalogue(1890, p. 151, no. 14). Later,Karusu(1962, p. 179) found the base in the Acropolis
Museum with a pencil-writtennote that stated that the piece had come from Rhamnous.She followed Gerokostopoulos,attributedthe base to the Nemesis temple, and identified the figuresas Boreasand Oreithyia. Despinis (1971, pp. 162-164) agreed with this attribution,cited Gerokostopoulos,and made some significant remarksregardingthe Nemesis temple's angle akroterion.Harrison(apud Schauz 1980, p. 105, note 173), however,privatelyquestionedthe associationof the base with the Nemesis temple, preferringat the time to place it on the Temple of Ares in the Athenian Agora. She identified the feet as belonging to Peleus and Thetis. She was followed by Schauz (1980, p. 105), Miles (1989, pp. 212-214), and Danner (1989, p. 25). As the catalogueof Gerokostopoulosshows, the fragmentarysculptureis from Rhamnous,not from the Agora, althoughits status as an akroterion,of course,might be questioned.In any case, the present comparisonof base sizes is unaffected by the questionof the provenienceof NM 2348; Peter Gandy (1817, p. 45) measuredthe centralakroterionbase of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous and reportedit to be 0.717 m in length, and this is the length I have used in the text, above.
I2
PETER
SCHULTZ
restored by Hermary to dimensions of ca. 0.60 x 0.40 m.35The central base of the east facade of the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros, which held the 0.55 x 0.45-m plinth of the Apollo and Koronis akroterion,measured 0.622 x 0.51 m.36 A significant point becomes apparent from these comparisons. The central akroterionbase of the Nike temple is considerably larger than the other central bases noted above. This observation acquires special import when the small stylobate size of the Nike temple (5.39 m) is compared to the much larger stylobate dimensions of the Temple of Nemesis (9.99 m) and of the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros (11.76 m). Whatever object was supported by the Nike temple's central akroterion base thus required an area physically larger than the bases of the these larger,roughly contemporarytemples. A comparison of the relationship between the base lengths and akroterion heights of these sculpturalgroups can provide some general parameters for the possible height of the central element of the Nike temple akroterion.7 On the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, a group ca. 1.7 m tall stood on a base measuring 0.717 x ca. 0.45 m, presenting a ratio of sculpture height to base length of ca. 2.4: 1.38 On the west side of the Temple of the Athenians on Delos, a complex sculptural group with a restoredheight of ca. 1.80 m was set on a base ca. 0.65 m in length, providing a ratio of ca. 2.8: 1.39 The height of the Apollo and Koronis group at the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros was ca. 1.25 m, making the ratio of sculptureheight to base length (0.622 m) about 2.01: 1.40 A ratio of about 2: 1 between sculpture height and base length is found in 5th- and 4thcentury freestanding sculpture.41If the symmetrical object or group placed on the Nike temple's central akroterion base followed this general paradigm, then it is appropriateto restore the Nike temple's central crowning sculpture,held on a base 0.863 m in length, to a total height of ca. 1.7 m, or about the height of a life-sized figure.42 If the restored height of ca. 1.7 m is provisionally accepted for the akroterionof the Nike temple, then the resulting ratio of akroterionheight 35. Athenian temple on Delos, centralakroterion(A 4281 and A 4282): Wester 1969; Delos XXXMV, p. 24 and pls. 19 and 21; Danner 1989, p. 23; Marcade1996, p. 66. I thank Giannis Gramatakisand Panayotis Alexiou of the ArchaeologicalMuseum on Delos for their helpfuilcomments duringmy visits to Delos in May of both 1999 and 2000. 36. Roux 1961, p. 104; Danner 1989, p. 19;Yalouris1992, pp. 17-19. 37. The importanceof base length to the determinationof akroterion height was first discussedby Peter Danner (1988). The relationshipdoes not exist in a vacuum,however,and the relationshipof any given akroterionto the architectureupon which it rests
must also be considered.Caution should also be takenwhen comparing bases that held differentakroterion types (floral,single-figured,groups, etc.). Here, all comparandacome from late-5th- and early-4th-century akroterionbases that held sculptural groups.A comparisonof sculpture height to base length does have the advantageover ratiosof akroterion height to tympanumheight, since it is groundedin the structuralneeds of the sculptureas opposed to an arbitrary and-as Danner (1988; 1989, pp. 6970, 88-89) and Lehmann (Samothrace III, pp. 351-353, esp. note 185; p. 386, note 235) have shown-misleading rule of thumb. See below,notes 44 and 46. 38. Above, note 34.
39. Above, note 35. The exact height of the Kephalosand Eos group that adornedthe west apex of the Athenian temple on Delos is disputed, but the proportionsof its figuresare very close to those of the east group, which showed Oreithyiabeing abductedby Boreas.The actualheight of the Oreithyiagroup,as given by Marcade(1996, p. 66) is ca. 1.70 m. 40. Roux 1961, p. 104;Yalouris (1992, pp. 17-19) discussesthe figures in their preservedstate. 41. Palagia1994, p. 115. 42. Obviously,if the proportions of the akroterionbases noted above areused as comparanda,the size of the Nike temple'scrowningsculptureincreasesdramatically.
THE
TABLE 1. PROPORTIONAL 525-360 ARCHITECTURE,
Building
Date
AKROTERIA
OF THE
SW
MH
AKROTERIA
MH: TH LH:TH
LH
NIKE
OF ATHENA
OF SELECTED
RELATIONSHIPS B.C.
TH
TEMPLE
Siphnian Treasury, Delphi*
525
0.73
6.22
-
0.95
-
1.30: 1
-
490
0.72
5.79
0.72
0.65
1.00: 1
0.90: 1
0.90: 1
Athenian Treasury, Delphi*
480
0.73
6.87
-
1.25
Temple of Zeus, Olympia Temple of Poseidon, Sounion
465 440
3.44 1.45
27.68 ca. 3.75 13.47 ca. 1.35
-
Parthenon,Athens
440
3.47
30.88 ca.3.86
-
Nemesis Temple, Rhamnous Temple of Athena Nike, Athens* Athenian Temple of Apollo,.Delos Nereid Monument, Xanthos* Temple of Asklepios, Epidauros The Heroon of Perikle,Limyra*
430 425 420 400 390 360
1.04 0.52 0.98 0.95 1.15 0.65
9.99 5.39 9.69 6.80 11.76 6.84
-
1.71: 1
-
1.09: 1 0.93: 1
-
-
1.11:1
-
-
1.63: 2.35: 1.84: 1.53: 1.09: 2.43:
1 1 1 1 1 1
1.71: 1.38: 1.37: 0.69: 1.88:
1 1 1 1 1
TO
LH:MHSW:TH
Temple of Artemis, Paros*
ca. 1.7 ca. 1.22 ca. 0.89 1.3 ca. 1.8 1.45 1.3 ca. 1.25 0.79 1.58 1.22
I3
0.72: 0.72: 0.90: 0.63: 0.77:
1 1 1 1 1
8.52: 1 8.05: 1 9.41: 1 8.05: 1 9.29: 1
SW:MH -
8.04: 1 -
7.38: 1 9.98: 1
8.90:1
8.00:1
9.61: 1 10.37: 1 9.89: 1 7.16: 1 10.23: 1 10.52: 1
5.88: 1 4.42: 1 5.38:1 4.69: 1 9.41: 1 4.33: 1
All dates are approximate. All dimensionsare in meters to the closest centimeter. TH = Tympanumheight SW = Stylobatewidth *=
43. Praschniker1919, p. 27; 1929, p. 18; Gropengiesser1961, p. 51. 44. Against Vitruviusas a reliable sourceof data for Greek architecture, see Altekamp 1991, p. 310, note 1048. Against Vitruviusas a reliablesourceof data for some Roman architecture,see Scotton 1999. Ratio of height of akroterionto tympanumof 2.43: 1 at the Heroon of Periklein Limyra: Borchhardt1976, pp. 81-97; Danner 1989, pp. 27-28; and see Table 1. 45. The Parthenon,1.11 : 1; the Temple of Athena on Kea, 1.25: 1. The Temple of Aphaia at Aegina is close to 1.125: 1, at 1.13 : 1. So, too, the Calssicaltemple at the Argive Heraion, 1.3: 1, and the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, 1.09: 1. 46. Danner (1989, p. 70) rightly summarizes:"Die Schwankungen zwischen Akroter- und Tympanonhohe sind bei tetrastylenGebaiudenso grog, dag sich keine einheitlicheTendenz feststellenlglt. Die Mittelakroterhohe betragtseit spatarchaischerZeit 100 bis 243%,die Seitenakroterhohe78 bis 188%derTympanonhohe."
MH = Middle akroterionheight LH = Lateralakroterionheight
tetrastyleor distyle in antis
to tympanum height is 3.26: 1. This rather astonishing relationship is at odds with the "canonical"proportion of ca. 1.125: 1 codified by Vitruvius (3.5.12) and others.43As Table 1 shows, however, Vitruvius' theoretical proportion has limited basis in ancient practice:ratios of akroterionheight to tympanum height as high as 2.43: 1 are securely attested.44Indeed, the theoretical dictum set by Vitruvius seems to apply only to buildings of large size (over 10 m wide).45Technical considerations can account for this application of the ca. 1.125: 1 ratio to larger buildings. If the Parthenon, for example, was crowned by a central akroterion substantially taller than the tympanum-say, double or triple the tympanum's height-this akroterionwould be seven to ten and one-half meters tall. This height is questionable on aesthetic grounds, and also on practical grounds, since it would entail the -restructuringof the entire facade to support the weight of the massive crowning sculpture.The architects of smaller buildings such as the Nike temple, however, need not have been troubled by this concern, as sculpture twice or three times the tympanum'sheight would still be of "normal"size: one to one and one-half meterstall.The largecentralakroteria from smaller buildings, such as the Athenian temple on Delos and the Nemesis temple at Rhamnous, support this hypothesis. The proportions of most tetrastyle or distyle in antis architecture(Table 1) also consistently contradict Vitruvius' axiom regardingthe relationship between the height of akroterionand tympanum.46Of course,none of these tetrastyleor distyle in antis monuments were so prominently displayedatop a 10-m-high poros
I4
PETER
SCHULTZ
"tower"like the Nike temple, for which the issues of visibility must have played an unprecedented role in the design of the building.47 Still, a ratio of 3.26: 1 for akroterionto tympanum height is unknown, and architectural comparanda cannot be ignored in proposing a reconstruction of the Nike temple's akroterion.The akroteria of the Athenian temple on Delos, built immediately following the Nike temple and attributed to the same architect, offers a control to the restored height of ca. 1.7 M.48The Athenian temple's central akroterion on the west facade, ca. 1.8 m in height, was set over a tympanum 0.98 m in height. The ratiois 1.83: 1. If this ratio is applied to the Nike temple's tympanum (0.52 m), the result is a central akroterionof ca. 0.95 m. The range (ca. 0.95-ca. 1.7 m) can be further narrowedby a comparison with the akroterion: tympanum ratio of the Athenian Treasuryat Delphi, a building remarkablysimilar in scale to the Nike temple although constructed some sixty years before. Danner has conservatively restored the lateral akroteria of the Athenian treasury to a height of 1.25 m.49The tympanum of that little building is 0.735 m. The resulting lateral akroterion: tympanum ratio is 1.7: 1. When this ratio is applied to the tympanum of the Nike temple (0.52 m) it yields a lateral akroterion height of ca. 0.88 m, a size comparableto that dictated independently by the lateral bases themselves.50 The Athenian temple on Delos again offers a control. The ratio between the height of the central akroterion and the lateral akroterion of that temple is 1.38: 1. If this ratio is then applied to the restoredheight of the Nike temple'slateralakroteria(ca. 0.88 m) the result is a centralcrowning sculpture of ca. 1.22 m. The height of the central akroterion of the Nike temple should thus fall somewhere between ca. 1.22 and 1.7 m. While the exact height of the Nike temple's central crowning sculpture must remain speculative pending the discovery of further evidence, the massive size of the base, the great depth of the fastenings, and the need for an easily seen composition erected at the top of the towering Nike temple bastion suggest that this figure of ca. 1.22 m should be taken as the minimum possible height of the central element." 47. A similarconcernregardingthe visibilityof the crowningsculptureseems to have been in the minds of the designers of the Heroon of Periklein Limyra (Borchhardt1976, pp. 81-97; 1990, p. 75, fig. 32; 1993, pp. 48-49, pl. 16), and Ridgway(1997, p. 94) has suggested that the prominentposition of the Heroon probablyaccountsfor the large compositionsof its akroteria.See also Table 1 and below,p. 39 and note 133. Andrew Stewartnoted to me that the height of the Nike temple bastion might have inspiredKallikratesto commission large sculpturesfor the centralakroterion on the assumptionthat the sculptures' relationshipto the building from the vantage of the Great Rampwould have seemed less radical.Plato'sSophist (235E-236A) provesthatjust such proportionalcompensationtook place a
generationor so laterwithin the context of monumentalsculptureand wall painting. On the problemsand significance of visibilitywithin the traditionof Greek architecturalsculpturesee Ridgway1999, pp. 74-102. 48. Shear 1963; Giraud 1994, pp. 38-43. 49. Danner 1989, p. 29. Athenian treasuryat Delphi: FdD II, 8, pp. 43-44; FdD II, 9, pp. 182-187; Ridgway1993, p. 304 and note 58. Delphi Museum 848, the least damaged"Amazon"akroterion from the Athenian treasury,has a preservedheight of ca. 0.97 m. 50. See below,pp. 15-18. 51. Korres(pers.comm.) pointed out to me that the length of the base alone provesthat it would be impossible for the Nike temple'scentralakroterion to have been of "canonical"proportions.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
I5
THE LATERAL AKROTERIA BASES As in the caseof the centralakroterion,fragmentsof akroteriabases-six fragmentsof at leastthreeof the originalfourangleakroteriabases-representthe onlyphysicalevidenceforthe compositionof the Nike temple's lateralsculpture:Acropolis2635, 2638, 4291; Giraud158oc,,3, and y.52 Two majorfragmentsfrom the northeastlateralbase recentlyjoined by Giraud(Acropolis4291 andGiraud158y) (Figs.7-8) providethe clearest pictureof the Nike temple'scornerdecoration.Like the centralblock,the northeastcornerbasewas carvedin one piece with the sima.The base's uppersurfaceis carvedat a slightslopeto allowrainwaterto runfromthe top of the block.The baseis basicallysquare,measuring0.476 x 0.485 m. The only significantpoint of attachmentis a largesocket(A) carvedinto the centerof the top surface.As preserved,the widestdimensionof socket A is 0.25 m, and its maximumdepthis ca. 0.185 m, with both measurements includingdamagesustainedduringthe robbingof lead.Two large dowelholes (B and C) positionedon eitherside of the centralsocketand preservedto depthsof ca. 0.040 and 0.042 m, respectively,seem to have been carvedto stabilizethe centralelementfastenedin A. The top surface of the base and sima is furthermarkedby twenty ring-shapedcuttings rangingfrom0.020 to 0.025 m in diameter(Figs.7-9). They areconsistentlyca.0.005-0.010 m deepandarearrangedaroundsocketA in roughly the shapeof anoval.These curiouscuttingshavebeenexplainedby Giraud as fasteningpointsfor obeloi,an opinionconfirmedby the smallhole (D) that preservescleartracesof an iron obelosembeddedin lead.53 Assumingthat the fourlateralakroteriabaseswere identical,an assumptionsupportedby the remainsof at leasttwo of the bases,the dimensionsandcuttingsof Acropolis4291 + Giraud158y revealseveralcharacteristicsof the Nike templelateralakroteria.Like the centralakroterion, 52. Acropolis 2635 (Giraud 1994, p. 215, no. 26), lost after the restoration effort in the 1930s, was rediscoveredin 1986 nearthe Pinakothekeand was moved to the Nike temple'scelia,where it was identified by Giraud.The fragmentis now kept to the east of the Nike temple'scelia,below the temporaryreconstructionworkshop. Acropolis2638 (Giraud1994, p. 216, no. 27, pls. 157,223-224,226) was originallyfound in the 1930s on the Nike temple bastion nearthe Mycenaeanwall. It was subsequently publishedby Orlandos(1947-1948, pp. 30-33, fig. 26). The fragmentis now kept to the east of the Nike temple'scella, below the temporary reconstructionworkshop. Acropolis4291 (Giraud1994, p. 214, no. 25) was identified by Giraud in 1988 east of the so-called Arrhephorion. It was rejoinedwith Giraud
158y in 1999 and is kept to the east of the Nike temple'scelia,below the reconstructionworkshop. Giraud158cc,f, and y (Giraud 1994, pls. 157-158) are the designations of three previouslyunnumbered fragmentsthat were initiallyreassembled as one base by Orlandos (1947-1948, fig. 20) and were assigned to the northeastcornerof the Nike temple. Giraud 158cc,the cornerof the base,was first drawnand publishedby Stevens (1908, fig. 6; here, Fig. 9). Orlandos (1915, fig. 10) publisheda small drawingof the base in his report on his own reconstructionwork. Orlandos (1947-1948, fig. 20) later supplementedthis drawingwith a plan and an elevationof the temple'seast side that included a good drawingof the base, as he had restoredit, in situ. Boulter (1969, pl. 35:b) publisheda photographof Giraud 158cc,f3,and y,
but was unableto examine the base herself;she remarkedthat the fragment earlierdrawnby Stevens had been lost, but that fragmentwas, in fact, Giraud 158oc,as seen in her photograph. Giraudhas since rejoined158y with Acropolis 4291 and has restoredit to the northeastcorner(Fig. 8). Giraud 158ccand D are now assignedto the southwest corner.The fragmentsare located to the south of the temple, on top of the modernbastion. 53. See note 31 above.According to Giraud,a sharppin, or obelos,was insertedinto the center of each ringshaped cutting. Lead was then poured into each cutting, securingeach of the pins in place.When lead hunterslater removedthe pins, no damagewas causedto the marbleas the lead was held in shallow depressionsand was easily removedusing the leverage suppliedby the pins themselves.
PETER
SCHULTZ
.4.~~~~~~1
0 _
10 L
20
50
40
30 _
CM A.ZIRO 02001
Figure 7. The northeast lateral akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike (Acropolis 4291 + Giraud 158y), actual state plan. DrawingbyD. Giraud,2000
Figure 8. The northeast lateral akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike (Acropolis 4291 + Giraud 158y), oblique view. by D. Giraud,2000 Photograph
\ \
_ \ \|
~~~~~~~~~~~~oblique ~~~~~~~~~~~~~After
/
5 \
~~~~~~~~~~~~by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Archives,
Figure 9. Fragment of the southwest lateral akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike (Giraud 158a), view, from the southwest. Stevens 1908, fig. 6 (drawing G. P. Stevens, 1908). CourtesyASCSA, G. P. Stevens Papers.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
I7
the lateral sculptureswere made of bronze. This is suggested by the use of the genitive plural in the Hekatompedon lists (Xpomov s&ctx-rov orc6 tc3v 0xpoxP ptto -6 vexx-Cr Ntxrs), by the absence of any trace of a plinth cutting for a marble statue, and by the nature of the base'sprimary socket, which was intended to hold a heavy bronze dowel.54 This lateral base, like the central base, is disproportionatelylarge. At 0.476 x 0.485 m, the Nike temple lateral akroterion base is only slightly smaller than the lateral akroteriabases from the Stoa of Zeus in Athens (ca. 0.60 x 0.43 m), the lateralbase of the Temple of Apollo at Bassai (0.48 x 0.29 m, as preserved), and the west angle akroterionbase of the Temple of Asklepios at Epidauros (0.522 x 0.54 m).55 The Nike temple's lateral base is slightly largerthan the lateral bases of the Hephaisteion (0.444 x 0.463 m).56 Given this impressive size and using the same principle by which the central akroterion was restored-a general ratio of 2: 1 between akroterionheight and base length-the Nike temple'sangle akroteria should be allotted a minimum height of ca. 0.85-0.95 m. This measurement would make the Nike temple's lateral akroteriaroughly comparable to those found on the corners of the Athenian treasury at Delphi, would render the ratio between the height of the angle akroteriaand middle akroterion on the Nike temple identical to that on the Athenian temple on Delos (1.38: 1), and would coincide very closely with the height of the Nikai found on the parapet below (ca. 0.88 m).S7 In addition to satisfying the need for highly visible sculpture on the towering Nike temple bastion, the restoration of imposing lateral and central akroteriamay also account for the otherwise stout proportions of the Nike temple's columns. It has been frequently observed that the Nike temple'sIonic column proportions areunusuallystocky for so small a building: 1 : 7.82 bottom diameters as opposed to the more frequent Ionic ratio
54. Figurallateralakroteriasupported by single struts:D1sos XXV, pp. 25,28-29 (for Delos Museum A 4279, A 4283); Delivorrias1974, pp. 122-123, figs. 39-40 (for Athens NM 1723); Danner 1989, pp. 27-28, 86; Harrison1990, pp. 177-179, figs. 14:a-b (for Athens NM 1723). See also Thompson 1940, p. 199; Dinsmoor 1950, p. 187; and Boulter 1969, p. 138. 55. Stoa of Zeus:The Nike that may have adornedthe Stoa of Zeus (Agora S 312; Fig. 24) was carvedwith a solid marbleplinth that measured 0.503 x 0.35 m and that would have fit into a base as small as 0.60 x 0.43 m. As Harrison(1990, p. 178) has shown, however,this plinth was recut,making a clearassessmentof the relationship between base and statue height problematic. Harrisonassignedthe piece to the centralakroterionof the Temple of Ares. See also Delivorrias1974,
pp. 137-142, and Ridgway1981, pp. 62, 212, 228. Temple of Apollo at Bassai:BassitasI, pp. 279-282; Ak 1. The akroteriaof the Temple of Apollo at Bassaiwere, of course,floral,a fact that explainsthe unusuallynarrow preserveddimensionsof the lateral base. I am indebted to Christopher Pfaff for discussingthis base with me. 56. Dinsmoor 1976, p. 233. Harrison (1990, p. 177, note 35) suggested that the Hephaisteion'slateralakroteria were floral.The oval plinth bedding, however,suggests a freestandingmarble figure.The fragmentaryNikai (Athens NM 4839 and 4840) attributedto the Hephaisteionby Delivorrias(1974, pp. 40-44, pls. 12-14) are,to my mind, currentlythe best candidates.I also like Delivorrias'sattributionof the so-called Agora Nereid (Agora S 182) to the centralbase of the Hephaisteion.Any objectionto this placementmust be on
grounds otberthan size, since the restoredheight of the Nereid (ca. 1.60 m) is only 0.07 m tallerthan the tympanum, and that is within the range of "canonical"ratiosbetween the height of centralakroteriaand tympana (see Table 1). Dinsmoor (1976, p. 236, fig. 11) showed that the centralbase of the Hephaisteion measured1.644 x 1.312 m. This is a huge base (longer than the height of the building'stympanum) and providesmore than enough room for the Nereid from the Agora. Unfortunately,Delivorrias (1997, p. 100) has recentlyquestioned his attribution. 57. Athenian treasury:see above, note 49. Athenian temple on Delos: see above,note 35. ParapetNikai:Thompson 1940, p. 204; and now Brouskari 1999, pp. 117-224, for full measurements of all fragments.
I8
PETER
SCHULTZ
of over 1: 9.58W. B. Dinsmoor thought that the Nike temple's heavy columns were carved to bring the Ionic temple into harmony with the high, heavy bastion on which it stood, while A. C. Orlandos hypothesized that the Nike temple's thick Ionic was influenced by the Doric proportions of the Propylaia.59F. Studniczka attributed the heavy columns to a lingering archaicinfluence, while I. M. Shear pointed out that they were a response to the temple's small size and position.60Another complementary possibility is that the architect of the Nike temple designed the columns with the temple's disproportionatelyheavy entablatureand large akroteriain mind, thickening the Ionic order to complement his temple's monumental surroundings and to support and aesthetically harmonize the imposing roof and its sculpture.
THE SUBJECT OF THE NIKE TEMPLE AKROTERIA Of the subject of the Nike temple's central and lateral akroteria,nothing certain can be said, given the loss of all traces of the original sculpture. Andreas Linfert was the first to attempt a reconstruction of the akroteria by placing three marble sculptures (Athens NM 3043; Acropolis 6463; and the Finlay Group in the Louvre, Ma 859) on the two lateralbases and the centralbase, respectively.6'In supportof this hypothesis,Linfert pointed to similarities in style between these three pieces and the Nike temple's frieze and parapet.While there is certainly some correspondence in style between Linfert's proposed sculptureand the Nike temple parapet,subsequent scholarship has rejected his hypothesis for various reasons.62The most compelling objection to this reconstruction,however,is that the Nike temple's akroteriabases were meant to hold bronze sculpture,not marble. A year after Linfert proposed this reconstruction,Boulter ingeniously connected to the Nike temple akroteria a fragmentary Attic inscription that mentioned Bellerophon, Pegasos, and the Chimaira.This inscription, IG 3 482 (Fig. 10), is a small fragment of a stele, found on the Acropolis.63 It was dated by D. M. Lewis to 425-415 and in IG 3 is classed among rationesincertae. 58. Indeed, the ratio of base to height seems the heaviestof any extant Ionic columns:Ilissos temple,1: 8.25; Propylaia,1: 9.89; Erechtheionnorth portico, 1: 9.35. See Dinsmoor 1950, pp. 186, 340; Shear 1963, p. 379; Mark 1993, p. 73. But see Korres1996 for the full context. 59. Dinsmoor 1950, p.128; Orlandos 1947-1948, p. 38. 60. Studniczka1916, p. 200; Shear 1963, p. 379, esp. note 38. See also Korres1996. 61. Linfert 1968. Athens NM 3043: Karusu1968, pp. 61-62. Acropolis 6463: Brouskari1974, p. 171. Finlay
Group,Ma 859: Hamiaux 1992, p. 139. 62. Athens NM 3043: Delivorrias 1974, p. 192; Danner 1989, p. 92. NM 3043 preservesno trace on its bottom for a metal attachmentsuch as Linfert (1968, p. 430) claimed.Rather,a deep socket has been cut into the backs of the lower legs of the figure as if to secureit to both a verticaland a horizontal surface.The roughlypointed treatment on the back of NM 3043 is not found on any other marbleakroterionthat I have examinedand seems, at least to my eyes, inappropriatefor a figure so easily visible from the western approachto the Acropolis.Acropolis 6463: Brouskari
(1974, p. 171) noted that Acropolis 6463 was a relief fragment,not a freestandingpiece nor akroterion,and that it dated from the 2nd centuryA.C. This observationwas confirmedby Danner (1989, p. 92). Finlay Group, LouvreMa 859: Neuman 1964, esp. p. 140, pl. 79; Wester 1969, p. 117; Danner 1989, p. 92; and Hamiaux 1992, p. 139. Both Danner (1989, p. 92) and Hamiaux (1992, p. 139) knew that the Nike temple'sakroteriawere bronze. 63. EM 6736a. Line 6: The photo shows the first alpha,restoredin IG I3.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
I9
4'l
_
Figure10. Fragmentary building account(IG13482; EM 6736a)from theAthenianAcropolis.Courtesy
i
Museum,Athens Epigraphical
STOIX.
[J]AI/[---------]
5
AI-++-D1[..... .] ./[--BseXkpop6vrs;, Itl]yaoC, XQatpa [- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a]xsc][x]potirepLov,Nrxs[-----------[adkaLov to6rov T [--------a6vurav] [x]p6eaaoLovTTTT [----------------I vacat
64. For bibliography,see IG I, Supplement,p. 178, no. 331f; IG 12 380+; IG IF482. 65. Boulter 1969, p. 135. 66. Boulter 1969, pp. 135136. Wurzburgfragment:Wurzburg H 4696, 4701. LIMC V, p. 630, s.v. Iason2; CVA,Wiirzburg,Martin von Wagner Museum 4 [Deutschland71], pl. 52 [3577]. 67. My readingof this fragmentary stone is indebted to many conversations with Michael Dixon, John Morgan,T. Leslie ShearJr.,and Ronald Stroud, whom I here thank for their tireless patience in answeringquite literally hundredsof questions regardingAttic epigraphy.
Soon after its discovery, this inscription was associated with the Erechtheion as part of that temple's building accounts.64Boulter, however, argued against this assignment. She suggested that the fragment's letter forms found their closest parallelsin inscriptions of the mid-420s and she called attention to differences between the format of the Erechtheion accounts and that preserved in IG I3 482.65Instead of associating the decree with the Erechtheion, Boulter argued that IG I3 482 was an account for the Nike temple in general and for the central akroterion in particular.To supporther hypothesis, Boulter noted that Bellerophon had a strong mythical connection to Athena, that Pegasos was a common apotropaic shield device, that Pegasi were sculpted for the helmet of the Athena Parthenos and, most important, that a Bellerophon akroterion is painted on a wellknown mid-4th-century Gnathian red-figured amphora fragment in Wurzburg (Fig. 11).66 Boulter'sconclusion is questionable and can be challenged on epigraphical, iconographic, and, most important, structural grounds. The size of the stele from which IG IP 482 comes cannot be determined without discoveryof further evidence.67While the letters are carved stoichedon, there is no evidence of line length, and it is all but impossible to assess the connection between the X[IaoLpa(together with the rightly restored BsXXepoyovtr; and [Jik]yaao;), the [&x]pootopLov,and the frag-
PETER
20
SCHULTZ
.......__.....
Figure11. Gnathianred-figured amphorafragment(WuirzburgH 4696 + 4701), Bellerophonand Pegasosas centralakroterion. CourtesyMartin-von-Wagner-Museum, Universityof Wuirzburg.Photo by K. Ohrlein.
mentary totals preserved.68 A date of ca. 425-415, reached on the basis of letter forms, is not enough to rule out a connection of the fragment to the Erechtheion, and the closest parallels to IG IF482 do, in fact, come from the Erechtheion accounts.6 Since such significant sections of the fragment are missing, there is no way to be certain of the relationship between the hypothetical BeXXepogo6v-re; group and the single NLxe4-- -]I listed, nor is it absolutely certain that a Nike akroterion is referredto at all. The preserved NLxe4 -- I]could referto any statue of the personification erected in the late 5th century, of which several are known, in which case the [a'x]po-re'pLovmight refer to the tips of the sculpture'swings.7 It is even or possible that NLx4[ -- I]is the start of a craftsman'sname such as NLXxe;a NLxe'ta.. In short, there is nothing within the inscription to require that the stele documented expenses for the Nike temple. Still, Boulter's hypothesis cannot be dismissed on simple epigraphical grounds. The impressive fragmentary totals listed on IG IF 482 correspond well with the cost of a set of large gilt bronze sculptures and the most naturalreading of [a'x]potrepLov NLxe[- - - ], setting aside the punctuation in IG, is that the 68. This is nowheremore clearthan in a comparisonbetween Boulter's punctuationof the text and that of Lewis in IG I3.As recordedabove, Lewis places a comma between [ax]pottpLov and NLx4[--- -]; Boulter
does not, and the choice allows for very differentconclusions. 69. Paton (1927), pp. 383, 389. If the fragmentaryinscriptionmust be used to restorethe centralakroterionof a majorAcropolis building, the Erechtheionseems a much better
candidate.As descendantsof Poseidon, Bellerophonand Pegasoshave a strongericonographicconnection to the Erechtheionthan to any other building on the Acropolis.Indeed, the Ehoiai (Hes. fr.43a; Gantz 1992, p. 314) shows that Beilerophonreceivedthe winged horse from his fatherPoseidon as a gift, not that he capturedit with the aid of Athena. Unfortunately,there is no positive evidenceyet publishedconcerning the Erechtheion'sakroteriaor their bases. Floral akroteriawere attri-
buted to that building by Praschniker (1929, pp. 15-19) and laterby Delivorrias(1974, pp. 191-192), who noted that Praschniker'spieces might be Roman copies. A more definite answerto the question of the Erechtheion'sakroteriaawaitsthe final publicationof the restorationreportsof the late AlexandrosPapanikolaou. 70. For dedicationsof Nikai see IG I3 468; IG 112 403; Paus.4.36.6.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
2I
inscription refers to some sort of Nike akroterion.7'These are the problems and ambiguities that motivated Lewis's placement of the fragment within the rationesincertae. Another objection to the restoration of a Bellerophon group atop the Nike temple is that the restorationrepresentssomething of an iconographic problem, a fact long acknowledgedby scholarsexamining the Nike temple's sculpturalprogram.72At the very best, Bellerophon has a tenuous iconographic connection to Athens. In one version of his mythic cycle, Pindar (01. 13.63-92) tells how Bellerophon slept within a sanctuaryof Athena and that the goddess woke him and armed him with a divine bridle with which he might capture Pegasos.73In addition, Bellerophon and Pegasos appeartogether with Athena on a few south Italian vases.74These connections, however, seem to be countered by the fact that Bellerophon is one of the most unpopular heroes in Attic art:he appears on a grand total of six Athenian vases and never in 5th-century Attic sculpture.75Boulter'sreference to the Wuirzburgamphora fragment (Fig. 11) does not counter these statistics since the vase was made almost a century after the Nike temple; was Gnathian, not Athenian; and, more important, represents a purely fictional Theaterszene(note the Ionic capitals combined with the Doric frieze), a fact that has been acknowledged by most scholars who have discussed the vase since 1934.76 While Bellerophon certainly was a heroic figure and, in his role as Greek monster-slayer,could have reflected5th-century Athens'well-known obsession for the symbolic representation of its victory over the barbarian Persians, Bellerophon was marked by two fairly significant flaws: hubris and his Corinthian lineage.77Pindar (Isthm. 7.43-48) describes Bellerophon's pride and his failed attempt to ride Pegasos up to the heights of Olympos, and Homer (II. 6.200-202) notes that this attempt made him hateful to all the gods and that he was cast down and doomed to wander the earth as a shunned cripple. This version of the myth, complete with Bellerophon'sfall to earth, was current in Athens at the time of the Nike 71. In the Hellenistic period, a lifesize bronze statue cost 3,000 drs. (Diog. Laert.6.35; Harrison1977a, pp. 139146; Stewart1990, p. 67). If the Nike temple'scentralakroterionwas a sculpture group ca. 1.2-1.7 m tall, a very rough minimum cost could be given as 3,000 drs.If the centralakroterionon the opposite apexof the building and also the angle akroteria(half-life-size = ca. 1,500 drs.) are considered,a minimum total of three talentsis reached. This amountreflectsthe cost of the bronze.If the gilding which covered the statuesand the cost of laborare considered,the total amount spent on these akroteriacould easily have reachedand surpassedthe four talents preservedin IG I3 482. If significant attachmentswere made to these sculptures,as Giraudhas suggestedto me,
the amount could have been notably more. Boulter arguedthat the large amountlisted in IG IF482 might have pertainedto other sculpturaladornment of the Nike temple. If I have estimated the height of the akroteriacorrectlyand if IG IF482 happensto treatthe Nike temple'sroof sculpture,then there is no need to make that claim.The amounts listed in IG IP482 correspondclosely to the approximatecost of the gilt bronze sculpture.The problem,of course,is the fragmentarynatureof the inscription. There is no positive connection linking the stone to the Nike temple and, even if there was, the totals arefragmentary and can only providethe lowest possible total for the account. 72. Below, note 81. 73. For the other dominantversion of the story see note 69 above.
74. LIMC VII, s.v.Pegasos;Boulter 1969, p.135. 75. Boulter 1969, p. 136, note 19. See also Brommer1955. 76. Ridgway(1999, p. 28, note 24), in her discussionof the Wuirzburgfragment in the context of Euripides'Ion (lines 200-205), cites Roux's(1984, p. 7) conservativereadingof the text but does not mention that the play'sreferenceto Bellerophonand the Chimairais made within the context of the Apollo temple'sfictional metopes, not its fictional akroterion.FollowingZeitlin (1994, p. 297, note 28), Ridgwaycarefully points out that there is no physicalevidence for a Bellerophongroup at Delphi. There is no physicalevidencefor a Bellerophongroup in Athens, either. 77. Castriota1992, pp. 138-183, and note 81 below.
22
PETER
SCHULTZ
temple's construction, as fragments of Euripides' Bellerophontes(ca. 425) demonstrate.78The placement of this hero on the preeminent Athenian victory monument-a hero who, in addition to being quite unpopular in Athens, was known primarily for his destruction of the Chimaira and his hubristic charge toward Olympos-seems slightly out of place and even oddly ironic given the contemporaryhistorical circumstancesin which the Athenian Empire was immersed. This general iconographic problem with Bellerophon is aggravatedby the hero'sCorinthian origin and political affiliations. It is well known that Bellerophon had strong connections to Corinth and that he had enjoyed great popularity there since the 6th century and perhaps earlier.79For late 5th-century Athens, however,therewas no city more hated.80Indeed, Kraay has suggested that a unique issue of Poteidaiancoins, picturingBellerophon riding Pegasos, was minted specifically to pay the Corinthian soldiers dispatched in 432 B.C. to aid Corinth in rebellion against Athens, making the use of this emblematic Corinthian hero on the preeminent Athenian war monument all the more unlikely.8' Bellerophon as the central akroterionfor the Nike temple, finally,represents something of a structuralproblem in light of the central base and its cuttings. There is no evidence for the existence of rearing, gilt bronze horses in the Classical period, and the length: width ratio of the Nike
- 78. Fromwhat can be gleaned from the fragments,Euripides'Bellerophon rides to Olympos so that he might challengethe gods for some wrong done to him or to his wife, Stheneboia. This trek is followed by the traditional results,recountedby Pindar and Homer, of the hero being cast down from Olympos and of Pegasosbeing made to pull Zeus' chariot as punishment for his own equine pride. Cropp and Fick 1985, p. 77; Gantz 1992, p.315. 79. CorinthVI, pp. 2-3; Gantz 1992, pp. 312-316. 80. Thuc. 1.121-122. 81. Kraay1976, pp. 84-85; Salmon 1984, p. 294; Calciati 1990, pp. 566567. Some good hypotheseshave been developedto explainthe placement of Bellerophonon the Temple of Athena Nike. Simon (1985, pp. 272273) noted the Chimaira'straditional point of origin in Lyciaand explained the presenceof the Bellerophonconflict as an allusionto the Athenian victory over Persia.Noting that the presenceof Bellerophonon the Nike temple was difficultto explain,
Boardman([1985] 1995, pp. 149, 170) agreedwith Simon and suggested that the Chimairamight be read as a mythic analogfor the multiheaded armiesof Darius and Xerxes.The implicationof both these hypotheses, that the Athenians chose a Corinthian as their representativehero, is left unexplained.More recently,Holscher (1997, pp. 145-146) explainedthe presenceof Bellerophonon the Nike temple as a direct allusionto the PeloponnesianWar:"InAthen konnte das Motiv des Bellerophondamals sogar eine spezifischeBedeutung gehabt haben:Die Chimairawurde seit Homer in Lykienlokalisiert,und eben nach Lykien hatte Athen zu Beginn des PeloponnesischenKriegeseine Flotte unter dem FeldherrnMelesandros geschickt."This hypothesisis hardto reconcilewith the historicalfacts. While a representationof the Chimaira might again symbolize Lycia,Holscher does not mention that Melesanderand a part of his men were slaughteredon the very mission that he describes (Thuc. 2.69). There is no reasonfor the Athenians to commemoratethis defeat. Stewart's(1985, p. 58) brieflystated
hypothesis,that the "quintessentially Peloponnesian"Bellerophonwas somehow appropriatedby the Athenians, is the only explanationthat avoidsthe iconographicpitfalls noted above.This notion of heroic appropriation has historicalprecedent.In the Archaicperiod,the Athenians laid claim to Salamisand Aegina by introducingcults of Eurysakesand Aiakos into Athens. See Kearns1989, pp. 46-47; Stroud 1998, pp. 88-89. The Spartansalso introducedthe cult of Athena Alea to assertrights in Tegea (Xen., Hell. 6.5.27). Palagia (2000, p. 68) has recentlysuggested that the presenceof Helen on the cult statue base of Nemesis at Rhamnous might constitute an attemptto summon awaythe greatestdeity of the enemy duringtimes of war.However, since no cult of Bellerophonwas introducedinto Athens in the 5th century,it is difficultto bring the argumentin line with the mentioned comparanda.The discoveryof new evidence,however,might change the picturedrastically.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
23
temple's central akroterion base fails to correspond to that of any freestanding equestrian statue base from the 6th to the 4th century.82These problemsarecompounded by the evidencegained from the cuttings.Boulter argued that the four "shallowercuttings towards the front of the blocks"have been used to support she can mean only cuttings F-G-I-K-would a Chimaira, while a rearing Pegasos would have been supported by a central strut C beneath the animal's body.83This is impossible. Even if the clear differences between F, K and G, I are wrongly ignored, any beast set into these cuttings would stand with all four paws in a direct line, an awkward and unstable pose unprecedented on quadruped bases.84This pose also gives the Chimaira a maximum possible width of ca. 0.18 m, the distance between the edge of the base and Boulter'sproposed vertical support for Pegasos'sbody. A hypothetical Chimaira of this size would present an unimpressivefoe whose sausagelikeproportions not only fail to correspond with the massive size of the base but also fail to meet the need for a large, easily readablecomposition on the Nike temple bastion.85These problems are further compounded by the undeniable symmetrical arrangement of the cuttings, which demand a symmetrical composition; by the fact that cuttings A, E, and J are left unexplained; and, finally, by the graduated depths of cuttings G and I, which rule out the fastening of feet of any sort,
82. This ratio is almost alwaysat least 2: 1. An early-5th-centurybronze quadrupeddedicatedby Timarchos and signed by Onatas restedon a column capital-base(DAd 236, pp. 272-273; EM 6263) measuring0.345 x 0.155 m (2.2: 1), while anotherearly-5thcenturybronze equestriangroup (DAd 88, pp. 95-96; EM 6261) was held on a base measuring0.72 x 0.32 m (2.25: 1). A mid-5th-centuryplinth from the Acropolis (DAA 135, pp. 146152; Acropolis571) that originally supportedbronze sculpturesof a man standingby a horse measured1.80 x 0.87 m (2: 1), while the colossal,late5th-centurybronzeTrojanhorse made by Strongylionand seen by Pausanias 176, pp. 208-209) stood (1.23.8; D on a base ca. 5.05 x 1.79 m (2.8: 1). This same length-to-width ratio can be observedin Sicilian and South Italian bases that held equestrianakroteria;see Szeliga 1981; Goldberg 1982, p. 200; Danner 1997, pp. 46-49,62-68. While the examplesabove representonly a few instancesof an obviousparadigm, they do serve as fair comparisonto the Nike temple'scentralbase that was rectangular,but only barelyso, measuring0.863 x ca. 0.60 m (1.4: 1) or, with the width as restoredby Giraud,
0.863 x ca. 0.48 m (1.8: 1). In orderto follow precedent,any hypothetical equestriangroup that sat upon this base would first have had to be mounted with its broadside to the front of the temple-a departurefrom all Sicilian and South Italian comparanda-and, second,would have had to be mounted on a base the dimensions of which fail to correspondwith any known equestrianmodels. I thank Catherine Keesling for discussingwith me these dedicationsand their bases. 83. Boulter 1969, p. 140. The marblehorses that adornedthe corners of the AthenianTreasuryat Delphi were supportedby columns of this sort (FdD II, 8, pp. 43-44; FdD II, 9, pp. 182-187; Ridgway1993, p. 304 and note 58); so, too, the marblehorses of the Parthenon'swest pediment and the horses of the Dioscuri from the Ionic Temple of Marasain South Italy (Palagia[1993] 1998, p. 45). 84. Above, note 82, for examples. In these instances,the horse'slegs are positioned to either side of an imaginaryaxis runningthroughits torso. 85. The length of the Chimaira would have been dictatedby the length of the base, 0.863 m., certainly
exceedingthat length.
24
PETER
SCHULTZ
human or monster. When taken in conjunction with the lack of any solid epigraphicalevidence and with the dubious iconographic connection, these technical problems seem firmly to preclude the placement of a Bellerophon group on the Nike temple's apex or, at the very least, on the extant base.86 While a Bellerophon and Pegasos group can be ruled out as a probable central akroterion, there remain several plausible alternate restorations, founded on the evidence of the cuttings on the base, which can bring the reconstructionof the Nike temple's crowning sculptureback into line with the known primary evidence and with the rest of the temple's decorative program. One attractivepossibility is that the Nike temple's central akroterion base held a large gilded tripod (Figs. 12-13). Under this hypothesis, the central bronze support for the tripod, undoubtedly sculpted, would coincide with central socket C (Fig. 12). The two front feet of the tripodwould be placed in sockets F and K.87The third leg of the tripod could be restored on the missing part of the blocks.88As can be seen from the restored axonometricplan in Figure 12, this solution allows the front of the tripod's cauldron to extend over the sima edge in accordancewith contemporary practice and follows quite closely the pattern of dowel holes discussed by Shear in connection with the early-4th-century tripod base on the Monument ofthe Eponymous Heroes.89While pour-channelsB, D, and H might seem large for a simple tripod, these deep grooves might have been necessaryif the tripod had an unusuallylarge footbase, not an impossible propo-
86. At the outset of my research, I wanted to keep Boulter'sBellerophon group on the Nike temple'scentralbase since her hypothesiswas then considered the last word on the matter.The only possible comparandafor such a compositionwas JuirgenBorchhardt's (1990, p. 75, fig. 32; 1993, pp. 48-49, pl. 16) plastic model of a hypothetical Bellerophongroup restoredon the south facade of the Heroon of Perikle in Limyra,a restorationbased on two strangelyshapedmarblefragments identified as horse'shooves (Borchhardt 1976, p. 89, fgts. 5-6, and p. 95). On the basis of this model, I ignored the comparandafrom Italy (above,note 82) and positioned my Pegasosperpendicular to the axis of the temple. I placed a strutunder the body of Pegasosin C and one pair of Chimairapaws in sockets F and K. I then invented two correspondingpaws on the missing side of the base. After making a model (on the kind adviceof Mary Sturgeon),I soon realizedthat this hypothetical statuewas impossibleto restoreon the Nike temple'scentralakroterionbase.
My forced compositionwas completely irreconcilablewith the base'sproportions (they are simply too short for an equestrianstatue;see above,note 82), did not accountfor cuttingsA, E, G, I, or J, and left no room on the south side of the blocks for Pegasos'hooves (never mind the fact that therewere no fastening points for these hooves in the first place!).I also realizedthe obvious fact that this reconstructionfailed to addressthe undeniablesymmetrical arrangementof the dowel holes. This being said, the possibility, howeverslight, should be allowedthat a Bellerophongroup stood on the opposite, no longer extant,centralbase. While this would have thrown the building'sroof out of balance, some might feel that the fragmentary evidence of IG I3 482 is strong enough to supportthe reconstruction.See below,pp. 30 and 35, for another explanationfor the puzzling content of this inscription.Another possible option is that the hypothetical Bellerophon/Chimairagroupwas somehow divided among the lateraland
centralbases-but the squarelateral bases seem firmlyto rule out this suggestion. 87. The centralpost need not have been a plain column and would probablyhave consisted of some sort of sculptedfigure or group.Pausanias saw such tripodson his visit to the SpartanSanctuaryof Apollo at Amyklai,three of which were supported by female deities or personifications. See Paus.3.18.7; Amandry 1988; Pollitt [1965] 1990, pp. 26, 3435; Brogan 1999, pp. 47-48. It is also known that Lysandercommissioned two tripods to celebratevictories over the Athenians at Ephesos and Aigospotamoi,both of which had female sculpturessomehow incorporatedinto the tripods'structureas supportingelements (Paus.3.18.7). 88. Giraud'srestorationof the base's width to 0.48 m rules out this possibility, since the base would be too narrow to supportthe tripod'sthird leg. See above,note 21, however. 89. Shear 1970, pp. 163-165, fig. 8. See also Mattusch 1994.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
OF ATHENA
TEMPLE
NI KE
25
_ F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S
(C\
0
.
2 ,'"'nf
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
_<'t
Figure 12 (opposite).Central akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike, reconstruction. Tripod, from the northwest and northeast. Axonometric drawingby M. Djordjevitch,2000
Figure 13 (above).The Temple of Athena Nike with central akroterion restored as tripod, east elevation. Drawing by M. Djordjevitchand D. Giraud, 2000
3
sition if the central cauldron supportwas elaboratelysculpted. Holes A, E, G, I, and J are not immediately explained. In his still seminal study of the tripods at the Ptoion in Boeotia, P. Guillon deduced that a tripod's height would never be less than twice the distance between two feet.90By this rule, a restored tripod on the Nike temple's central base should be at least 1.3 m high-twice the distance between cuttings F and K-a height that corresponds closely with the height of ca. 1.22 m hypothesized above.9"While it cannot account for all the major cuttings on the base, a tripod is an attractivegeneral and traditional symbol of victory, one that would encompass agonistic as well as martial triumph, a sphere over which Athena Nike held power.92Gilded tripods are known among late-5th-century akroteria, among which the bronze tripods made by Paionios for the Temple of Zeus at Olympia provides the one prominent, contemporary example (Paus. 5.10.4). A large 90. Guillon 1943, p. 47; also Amandry 1988, pp. 112-113, 121-124. 91. The differencebetween the cuttings typicallyfound on tripod bases and those found on the centralakroterion base of the Nike temple is the depth of the fastening.The central columns of tripodsare typicallyset in shallow,concavehollows, not in
massiveholes like that seen on the Nike temple'scentralbase.The need for a securefastening of the tripod to its base in such a high position might explain this discrepancy. 92. Shear 1970, pp. 169-170; Mark 1979, pp. 294-296; Morgan 1990, pp. 43-47; Hurwit 1999, pp. 228-232; and Papalexandrou1999.
26
PETER
SCHULTZ
golden tripod could pointedly refer to the famous permanent war votives on Marathon and Salamis and, more specifically,to the gilded tripod set up in 478/7 at Delphi in commemoration of the Greek victory at Plataia.93 Another possibility is that the central base held a commemorative trophy shown being set up, or otherwise flanked, by Nikai (Figs. 14-15). Parallels for the iconography are found on the Nike temple parapet (Fig. 16), the Trophy Painter's name vase (ca. 450 B.C.; Fig. 17), several 4thcentury relief bases from the Acropolis, and a host of 5th- and 4th-century gems and coins.94The sculpturalinspiration for the flanking Nikai could have been the Nike in the hand of the Pheidian Parthenos or the akroteria of the Parthenon proper,if Korres'srestoration of Nikai lateral akroteriais followed, although it can fairly be assumed that their hairstyle, drapery, and pose would have followed the style of the female figures of the east frieze and of the Nikai of the parapet.95The precedent for the sculptural representation of weapons and armor in bronze is provided by numerous dedications in Delphi, Olympia, and Athens, and Pausanias(5.27.11) saw a sculpted bronze trophywith a shield in the very center of the Altis, set up by the Eleans to commemorate a late-5th- or mid-4th-century victory over Sparta.96The Nike temple parapet provides the immediate iconographic parallel.97 Under this hypothesis, central socket C would have held the main post of a trophy while cuttings F and K would each have held a single foot of two Nikai (Fig. 14). The shape of cuttings F and K corresponds with that of dowel holes where a single lead tenon was used to attach a sculpture's heel to its base.98The cuttings' placement suggests either a pair of striding figures moving away from the central trophy or moving toward it. In either case, cuttings A and E could easily have held the sculptures'nonweight-bearing legs with a simple dowel (Figs. 14 and 18). Unfortunately,
i0
"
O
5~~~~~~~0 cm
Figure 14. Central akroterion base of the Temple of Athena Nike, reconstruction. Trophy and flanking Nikai, from the northwest and northeast.Axonometric drawingby M. Djordjevitch,2000
93. Delphic tripod:Hdt. 9.81; Paus. 10.13.9; Vanderpool1966;West 1967; Gauer 1968, pp. 90-91; West 1969; Ridgway1977; Laroche 1989; Bommelaerand Laroche 1991, pp. 165-167; Stahler 1992, pp. 13-22; Brogan 1999, pp. 49-52. 94. Parapet,Nike setting up a trophy:see now Brouskari1999, pp. 171-177, pls. 18, 25, 36-40. Trophy Painter:Boston 20.187, red-figured pelike assignedby Beazley and Caskey (1963, pp. 65-66) to ca. 450-440. See, there assembled,most vases showing trophies,none dated before the middle of the century.Fourout of ten Attic examplesshow a Nike erectingthe trophy.Acropolisreliefs:Walter 1923, pp. 190-193; Mark 1979, pp. 206-211. Gems and coins: Kekulevon Stradonitz 1881,p. 1;Woelcke 1911, pls. X:7, XI:2; Boardman1970, pls. 206,223,
226, 229, 293, 298. The fundamental articleon the Greek trophyis still Woelcke's(1911). The earliest representationof a battlefieldtrophy with Nikai is found on a late-6thcenturyblack-figuredfragmentfrom the sanctuaryof the Kabeiroinear Thebes. Immediatelyto the right of this trophyis a wing that, considering its height, must surelybelong to a Nike stepping awayfrom the trophyshe has just erected.This opinion was first voiced by Bruns (1940, p. 123, pl. 19:7) and was reaffirmedbyJanssen (1957, pp. 61-62). Isler-Kerenyi(1970) has collected other examplesandThone (1999, pp. 63-64, 69; pl. 6:2-3) gives furthercomparandaand a discussionof the iconographictype. 95. Nike in the hand of the Parthenos:Harrison1996, pp. 51-52. ParthenonNike akroterion:Korres
1991, fig. 3; 1994b, pp. 61-64, fig. 8; Korres,Panetsos,and Seki 1996, p. 25. 96. Dedication of arms:Hdt. 1.92; Paus. 10.8.4-8 (golden shield of Kroisos);Paus. 6.19.12 (Megarian shield of ca. 510); Paus.5.10.4 (Spartan shield at Olympia afterTanagra;see below,pp. 31-32); Paus. 10.19.3 (Athenian shields at Delphi). Brogan. (1999, pp. 44-47) gives an extensive list. Olympia trophy:see below,note 107. 97. Thone 1999. 98. Single tenon, mounted in sculpture'sheel: DAA 120, pp. 124-125 et al.; Formigli1984, with figs. 19, 36; Haynes 1992, pp. 102-103, fig. 8; Keesling 1995; Hausmann 1997, pl. 21; Petrakos1997, pp. 79-80, 127-128, 140-141, figs. 2, 6, 8.
THE
OF THE
AKROTERIA
.....
0
........
..
~ ~~~1
w-
.....
''
2
~~~.. ...
TEMPLE
..
.....
Ew
'
OF ATHENA
_
NIKE
27
I
3
...
,-w
s-r----
t
Figure15. The Templeof Athena Nike with centralakroterionrestored as trophyandflankingNikai, east elevation. Drawing by M. Djordjevitch and D. Giraud,2000
99. Acropolis 994; Carpenter1929, pl. VII. Brouskari(1999, pp. 171-177, pls. 36-40) gives complete details and bibliography.Extrapolationfrom the Nike's two-dimensionalreliefgives a foot placementidenticalto that dictatedby the centralbase'scuttings.
damage to the blocks has eliminated all surface detail, and no weathering traces of the proposed feet remain on the base. Even so, a tentative foot size of ca. 0.15 m, or about half-life-size, can be restored if the hypothetical Nikai's heels areplaced in the relative center of cuttings F and K and if the feet are extended diagonally to the edge of the base. A restored height for the flanking Nikai of ca. 85-95 m (or half-life-size) is consistent with this size of foot, the depth of the cuttings, the proposed height of the lateral akroteria,the height of the Nikai on the parapet,and, interestingly, the length of the central base itself (0.863 m). The Nike from the parapet in the act of setting up a trophy, sculpted by Carpenter'sMaster B (Fig. 16), offers a nearly perfect parallel for these proposed flanking figures in terms of pose and scale, and her basic stance has been used to restore the exact position of the feet in the cuttings A, E, F, and K.99 In addition to accounting for the central post and the major flanking cuttings, a restored trophy also explains cuttings G and I and hole J. As noted above, cuttings G (Fig. 6) and I are marked by a distinctive slope to their floors, a featurewhich makes any sort of traditional tenon impossible to restore. If, however, a half-life-size shield (like that held by Acropolis 998 and 1004 from the parapet)is restoredleaning against the centralpost and supported by two heavy pins fastened to the bottom of the shield's back at a ninety-degree angle (Fig. 14), the mysterious slope of cuttings G and I is explained and the proposed composition is brought in direct line with the iconographic precedent provided by the Trophy Painter's name
SCHULTZ
PETER
28
.-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. . ......
..
..................
13~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
.
...
,
| ................... .
|
|
t
'
fi.
.:.':
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..E' ....h .. ..
. .. .......... -:..w
..
... ....:
.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ......
..*.
--
--
vase and other sources.100If the trophy was depicted in the process of being set up, the shield would have stood at the base of the central post.101 Hole J can then be read as a socket for fastening a spear angled against the trophy proper or held by a Nike.102 This reconstruction is attractive for several reasons beyond its ability to account for all of the base's cuttings. The proposed akroterion arrangement follows a traditionalheraldicakroterioncompositional type namely, two women flanking a large vertical element like that seen on the Aphaia temple at Aegina or that proposed by Korres for the H-architecture, and can be viewed as a developed version of this Archaic model. 103This reconstruction also allows those who wish to associate IG I 482 with the Nike temple to do so, since it enables Bellerophon and Pegasos to be restored as a device on the shield at the base of the trophy, the shield becoming the shield of a defeated Corinthian.104 A late-fifth-century incised grave stele of Athanias, now in the Getty Museum, preserves this shield device and offers a comparandum for the proposed shield's relief composition.105 A 100. The half-life-size shield is based on the size of the flankingNikai and the size of the shields on the parapet(Acropolis998, 1004). A halflife-size shield (ca. 0.50 m) is also almost exactlythe height of the tympanum(0.52 m). Cuttings G and I find a nice parallel on the statue bases for zanes set up in the Altis by Athens during the 112th Olympiad. See OlympiaII, p. 151, fig. 92:7. Since Pausaniasreports(5.17.1) that the statue of Zeus in the Temple of Hera was armed,it seems appropriate that severalof the statuesdedicatedto
him by dishonest athletes should also have been shown in this guise, with shields at their feet. 101. Note 94 above. 102. Spearholes within the context of architecturalsculpture:Carpenter 1933, p. 23; Harrison 1967, p. 36; Shear 1970, p. 176, fig. 8; Palagia[1993] 1998, p. 28. 103. Aegina,pls. 50-55; Korres 1997a, p. 234. Courby(Delos XMI, pls. 14-15) proposeda similarcomposition-central element with two flanking figures-for the centralakroterion of the Athenian temple on Delos.
Figure 16 (left). Parapet of the Temple of Athena Nike, Nike setting up a trophy (Acropolis 994). CourtesyDeutschesArchiiologisches Institut,Athens(neg.72/2983) Figure 17 (?ight). Red-figured pelike (Boston 20.187), Nike setting up a trophy.CourtesyMuseumof FineArts, withpermission. Boston.Reproduced ?2000, allrightsreserved.
104. As it has long been believed that Corinthianbronze workshopswere responsiblefor the manufactureof the shield dedicatedby the Spartansafter Tanagraat Olympia, the presenceof the Corinthiandevice in the subordinate position on the shield is thus appropriatelyironic. See Jeffery 1980. 105. Getty Museum 93.AA.47; Gilman 1997, pp. 50-51. A similar Bellerophon/Chimairacomposition is preservedin a circularfield on a redfiguredepinetronin the National Museum, Athens NM 2179; Boulter 1969, fig. 36:a.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
0
Figure18. Centralakroterionbase of the Templeof AthenaNike, reconstruction."Paioniostype"Nike over shield, with flanking Nikai, from the northwest and northeast. Axonometric drawingby M. Djordjevitch,2000
0
50 cm
OF ATHENA
NIKE
29
PETER
30
SCHULTZ
restored shield at the trophy'sbase can also explain the puzzling reference to xeuctov -ciO Tn5p6 -cCtveco in the HezCL'-CX-CoV&OC6T-iornt58o~ katompedon treasurylist IG 112 1425, lines 103-104, and this entry'sconnection to the preceding entry xpom`ovS(n-CqX-coV anOi -c6ov&XpCO-cptcov TO VecO-c Ntxks (lines 101-102): the gold might have come from the akroterion'sshield, not a shield from the bastion wall or elsewhere, a nice explanation as to why "the gold from the shield on the temple" is so consistently associatedwith the gold from the Nike temple's akroteria.'06The reconstructedtrophy would have been acceptable as a symbol for Athena in her guise as Nike, as it has long been known that a trophy was not always placed on the spot where the battle's course turned toward victory but was sometimes a general thank offering made to the god who granted victory; witness the Elean dedication of a sculpted bronze trophy with an inscribed shield in the Altis sometime after 421.l7 A trophy being set up by Nikai might have provided the basis for Aristophanes' famous reference to this same act in Lysistrata(lines 317-318) produced in 411 B.C., and the sculptural composition would have been more than appropriate when juxtaposed against the famous and permanent Athenian war monuments at Marathon, Salamis, and the trophies set up around the base of the Great Bronze Athena. Such an arrangement might even have served as the conceptual model for the Nikai erecting trophies on the parapet.108 The restoration of either a tripod or a trophy as the Nike temple's central akroterionsolves the problem of central socket C, but neither may be satisfactory to some. While there is evidence of gilded tripods serving as temple akroteriain the late 5th century (a practice to be made famous within the context of later choregic monuments) and while there are undeniable iconographic comparandafor Nikai erecting trophies within the context of the Nike temple's own decorative program,it is not known that either hypothesis was ever the subject of a central akroterioncomposition of a temple. While the lack of absolute iconographic parallel should not rule out the preceding hypotheses (indeed, none of the Nike temple'ssculptural decoration was canonical), it does require that other possibilities be explored. A third possible solution to the problem is offered by the other famous gilded Nike akroterion known from the 420s: the Nike cast by Paionios which crowned the apex of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Pausanias (5.10.4) notes: There is a gilded cauldronat Olympia at either edge of the temple roof and a Nike, also gilded, standingover the center of the pediment. 106. Of course,,poq with the dative can mean "before"or"on"as translated by Hamilton (2000, AB 50). See above, pp. 3-4. 107. Elean trophy:Paus.5.27.11. Pausaniassaw other permanenttrophies outside battlefieldcontexts,one in the Agora of Argos to commemorate a victory over the Corinthians (2.20.1) and anotherin the Altis to commemoratea victory over the
Arkadians(6.21.2). See Rouse 1902, p. 99, and Pritchett 1972, pp. 248,253, 258-259. 108. Robert 1929, pp. 15-16; Vanderpool1966;West 1969; Wallace 1969; Petrakos1995, pp. 27-30; Korres 1997b, p. 104; Brogan 1999, pp. 51-52. Trophieson the base of the Bronze Athena: Stevens and Raubitschek1946; Hurwit 1999, p. 25.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
3I
A dedicatedgold shield with the Gorgon cast on it stood at the feet of the Nike.'09 It is generally accepted that the gilded shield on top of the Zeus temple'spediment was dedicated by the Spartansafter their defeat of the Athenians at Tanagra in 457 and that the gilded Nike akroterion, made by Paionios, was added later, possibly raised above the shield after 421 to celebrate various victories of the Quadruple Alliance (Mantineia, Argos, Elis, and Athens)."0 Based on the blocks used during the 4th-century reconstruction of the Temple of Zeus, Peter Grunauerprovided a convincing technical reconstruction of that temple's central akroterion composition."' In his analysis of the temple's east facade, Grunauer discovered that a fragment of the pedimental apex block (Zeustempel fgt. 2142) also served as the central akroterionbase (Fig. 19:a).The fragment was marked by two unusual features.The first was the trace of a wide flat bedding, in the right half of the block, which measured ca. 0.30 m from the center of the base. Grunauer restored this bedding to a width of ca. 0.60 m. on the grounds that the bedding would have been placed symmetrically on the base."12The second was a deep (ca. 0.35 m) central socket, ca. 0.10 m in diameter, which Grunauer noted must have held a heavy post of some sort, possibly a stone or bronze tenon which secured a block on top of the apex block."13 Working with this physical evidence, and with Pausanias' description as a guide, Grunauer restored the Spartan shield fastened to this central block. He then restoredthe gilded Nike akroterionof Paionios on top of the block on which it would have been placed at the completion of the 4th-century reconstruction of the temple's east facade."14 A similar method might have been used to attach a gilded statue onto the central post set in cutting C of the Nike temple's central akroterion
109. Olympia akroterion:Olympia V, no. 253; Pomtow 1922; HofkesBrukker1967, pp. 10-12; Holscher 1974; Ridgway1981, pp. 108-111; Clairmont1982; ML, pp. 79,223-224; SEG XXII 413; Jeffery,LSAG2, p. 129; Pollitt [1965] 1990, pp. 71, 186, note 31; Stewart 1990, pp. 8992; Rolley 1994, pp. 363-364; 1999, pp. 123-124. 110. The date for the contest for the akroterionof the Temple of Zeus at Olympia is based on the common view that the Nike of Paionioswas made sometime after425 (almost certainly ca. 421, following the Peace of Nikias) and that its famous base refersto an event that had alreadytakenplace, namely the battle of Sphakteria. See Paus.5.26.1; OlympiaIII, pp. 182194; OlympiaV, no. 253; ML, pp. 79, 223-224; H6lscher 1974, p. 82; Ridgway1981, pp. 108-111; Board-
man [1985] 1995, p. 36; SEGXXXII 413; Jeffery,LSAG2, p. 129; Pollitt [1965] 1990, pp. 71, 186, note 31; Stewart 1990, pp. 89-92; Ridgway 1999, p. 29, note 28. However,if line 4 of the base'sinscriptionwas carved later,as suggestedby Pomtow (1922, p. 57), then the contest for the akroteria was obviouslyconductedafterthe erection of the marbleNike and its pillar. While Meiggs and Lewis (ML, pp. 79, 223-224) have concludedthat line 4 is, in fact, original,their readinghas not been universallyaccepted,most notably byJeffery (1980, p. 1234, note 4). 111. Grunauer1981, pp. 270-272. Since it is known that other architecturalsculpturefrom the Temple of Zeus was repairedand restoredto the facade afterthe 4th-century earthquake,it seems safe to assumethat the akroterialsculpturewas restoredas well. See Grunauer1981, pp. 279-280;
Kyrieleis1997, p. 14. I thank Ben Millis for photographingthe 4thcenturybase in the springof 1999 and Ahmad Sadriand Lou Lombardifor many helpful comments made while I examinedthe base in situ duringMay of 1999 and 2000, respectively. 112. Grunauer1981, p. 271, pl. 26. 113. The apex block is very badly damagedand has been subjectto heavy weatheringsince the originalexcavation of the temple in the 19th century. The stepped cuttings behind Grunauer'scentralpost are not analogousto pour-channelsB and D of the Nike temple'scentralakroterionbase.These two stepped cuttings may have held anotherdowel for the crowningmarble member,but they are not pourchannels. 114. Grunauer1981, pl. 29.
32
PETER
SCHULTZ
STATUE BASE
STATUE BASE
30! cm
60cm POUR-CHANNEL POURCHANNEL -I
I
'
LI
I
Li-F-SOCKET
-SOCKET-
B
A 0
i
m
0
1m
Temple of Olympian Zeus, Olympia, Zeustempel fgt. 2142 (after Grunauer 1981,fig.
Temple of Athena Nike 91)
base (Figs. 18-20). Since the central akroterionwas a half-life-size bronze, no bedding for a second marble member would have been necessary.The post could have been given a modest decorative capital and the bronze Nike could have been attached directly to it. As noted, the post was rooted 0.206 m into the base and was fastened further,to an unknown depth, into the tympanum wall. This deep cutting would have provided more than enough support for a half-life-size Nike. If this seems implausible,it might be argued that the presence of wide pour-channels B and D suggest that there was some sort of secondarymarblemember atop the centralakroterion base, even if no shallow bedding is preservedon the badly damaged blocks. The lengths of B and D, which extend 0.15 m from the central post, indicate that lead was not funnelled directly into the socket but rather was introduced into the socket from a distance. The presence of a crowning block atop the central base might explain this otherwise puzzling procedure.115As can be seen from Dinsmoor's state plan of the Nike temple's central akroterionbase (Fig. 6) and the axonometric drawing (Fig. 18), the size of cuttings B, D, G, and I suggest restored horizontal dimensions of ca. 0.30-ca. 0.23 m for the hypothetical crowning block. If Giraud's restored base width is used (0.48 m; see above, note 21), that crowning block is exactly 0.10 m from both the front and the back of the base when centered over C. This "Paionios type" restoration solves the problem of the cuttings (Fig. 18). C, of course,would have held the central post or a massive dowel secured into the marble base, while the unusual sloping cuttings G and I would have held the bottom of the shield below the flying Nike. Cuttings A, E, F, and K can then be read as attachment points for the feet of symmetrical Nikai flanking the central post, similar to those proposed for the
(see note 19)
Figure 19. Restored sections, apex block and central akroterion base. Drawing by M. Djordjevitch,2000
Figure 20 (opposite).The Temple of Athena Nike with central akroterion restored as Nike over shield, with flanking Nikai, east elevation. Drawing by M. Djordjevitchand D. Giraud, 2000
115. Lead was poureddirectly aroundthe deep dowel fastening noted by Stevens and Raubitschek(1946, esp. figs. 4-5) on the base blocks for Pheidias'Great Bronze Athena. This same procedureseems to have been used to erect the posts held in the row of deep sockets in the low base set over the south terracewall of the Athenian Treasuryat Delphi: FdD II, 8, pp. 6163, esp. 62; Stihler 1992, p. 8; Amandry 1998, pp. 83-84. The deep sockets on top of the GreatAltar at Pergamon, discussedby Stewart(forthcoming), might also have receivedlead directly into their sockets.The pour-channels seen in the drawingsin Hoepfner 1996, pp. 128-129, fig. 12, esp. PA 7 and PA 14, might belong to a second phase.
'I
'':
- i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
/
WA;giL
;
'''
<:I t::
2
I
1
elh
e
S1
I
zte
9
X fXi
j
/
A
,
J
z
*
a
a
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_ _,_ I , ,, I ,. , @i. . - fl tt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I
1
0 t
t
,_
____
3
2 i
_
M
34
PETER
u
SCHULTZ
. ... .. ..',,,,...;'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~............
Figure 21. Parapet of the Temple of Athena Nike, Nike standing before a bull (Acropolis 7098). Courtesy Deutsches Archolo Isches Institut,Athens (neg. 72/2979)
trophy except stepping away from the central figure toward the Athenian skies.16 The feet of the Nike standing before a bull on the Nike parapet sculpted by Master F (Fig. 21; Acropolis 7098) match cuttings A, E, F, and K when extrapolated into three dimensions, and her pose has been used, above, for restoring those of the flanking Nikai.117 The sculptural inspiration for the Nike flying over the shield could have been the Nike in the hand of the Pheidian Parthenos, the akroteriaof the Parthenon proper, or the akroterion of Paionios at Olympia, probably closely related to his famous marble Nike (Fig. 22).118 The asymmetrical cutting J can be explained as the fastening point for a spear-end and, on this evidence, it can 116. Placing a total of three Nikai on each apex may seem extravagant. This did not seem to concern the designers of the parapetor of earlierakroterion compositions,some of which had as many as three Nikai on the same facade. See Danner 1989, pp. 42-46, and now VokotopoulouandTsigarida (1993), who discuss an imposing new group of Late Archaic Nike akroteria now in the PolygirosMuseum, Chalkidiki. I thank Antonis Kapetanakifor his helpful comments made while I examinedthis group in summer2000. In any case, as noted, the building was aestheticallyand structurallyprepared to supportsuch an imposing composition (see above,pp. 17-18). Naturally,if this arrangementholds, then the six Nikai on the Nike temple's
apices might be matchedwith the four on the corners.Ten gilded Nikai would have obviouslyrecalledthe ten Athenian tribes establishedby Kleisthenes,a numberand referencethat seems to have been of particularinterestto Pheidias, as witnessed in his design of the Parthenonfrieze. See Harrison 1984, pp. 230-234; Beschi 1984, p. 187; Politt 1997, p. 55; and Hurwit 1999, p.223. 117. Acropolis 7098: Brouskari (1999, pp.210-213, pl. 61) gives complete details and bibliography. 118. Pheidian Nike: Harrison 1996, pp. 51-52. Parthenosakroteria: Korres,Panetsos,and Seki 1996, p. 25. Date of Olympia akroterion:see above, note 110.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
35
Figure22. The Nike of Paionios, Olympia.OlympiaMuseum. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut, Athens (neg. Hege 663)
119. The lefthand flankingNike of Fig. 20 is restoredcarryinga helmet. The righthandflankingNike holds a pomegranate.This reconstructionis based on the known attributesheld in the hands of the xoanonin the ceila below (FGrHist373 F2; Mark 1993, pp. 123-125) and on the presenceof similarattributesdepicted in vase painting (e.g., LIMC VI, p. 105;ARV2, p. 822). The lefthand Nike is restored touching the shield in a mannercomparable to that displayedby the Parthenos (Harrison 1996, figs. 5-9) and a similar stance is seen in the vases (e.g., LIMC VI, p. 311;ARV2, p. 615). The righthand Nike rests her spearlike LeQuire's Parthenos(Harrison 1996, fig. 9). A wreath has been restoredin the crowning Nike's right hand after the Nike in the hand of the Parthenos(Harris 1995, V. 94-96; IG IP342, lines 2-4) and after examplesin contemporaryred-figure vase painting (e.g., LIMC VI, p. 310; ARV2, p. 613). The phiale in her left hand is also based on contemporary Attic vases (e.g., LIMC VI). 120. See note 10 above.
be supposed that the flanking Nikai may have been carrying weapons to dedicate to the goddess, just as they do on the parapet."l9 This solution is appealing because it accounts for all the cuttings on the Nike temple's central akroterionbase, follows the evidence of the only architecturalcomparanda(Fig. 19:a-b), and is iconographically appropriate to the building. The "Paionios type" reconstruction allows those who wish to associate IG I3 482 with the Nike temple to do so by placing the Corinthian hero on the shield at the foot of the post, here again the shield being the shield of a defeated Corinthian. The restored shield beneath the flying Nike again nicely explains the Hekatompedon inventory references to "the gold from the shield on the temple" and this entry's consistent The connection to "the gold from the akroteriaof the Temple of Nike."''20
36
PETER
SCHULTZ
Figure23. "PaioniosType" Nike monumentsof the late 5th century B.C.
1. The Monumentof the Messenians and Naupaktians, Olympia (afterHerrmann1972)
2. The gildedNike akroterionof Paionios,the Templeof Zeus, Olympia(afterGrunauer1981) 3. The Monument of the Messenians and Naupaktians, Delphi (after Pomtow
..________
1922 andJacqueminand Laroche1982)
-A--
4. TheTempleofAthena Nike, Athens
- --- -
1. 2b_
0
2~
0
-
m
I
Ut
3
I
m
oH
233
0
_-W~
I
--1
|
2 m
Note change in scale. Drawing by M. Djordjevitch,2000
association of a composition type invented by Paionios in the mid-420s, a soaring Nike over a shield, is more than appropriatefor the Nike temple and lends further strength to the hypothesis, since most scholars identify Paionios with Carpenter'sMaster B of the Nike temple parapet.'2'Moreover, it is an undisputed fact-established by the well-known inscription on the base of the marble Nike at Olympia-that Paionios was the acknowledged masterwhen it came to the design of gilded Nikai akroteria."22 Indeed, if the above proposition is tentatively accepted, the Nike temple's central akroterion becomes one of several "Paionios type"victory dedications designed and erected by Paionios for Athens or her allies after 425, a set that plausibly includes Paionios' triangularpillar monument at Delphi, his marble Nike at Olympia, and his gilded bronze central akroterionfrom the Temple of Zeus (Fig. 23).123 121. Master B as Paionios:Carpenter 1929, pp. 23-35; Hofkes-Brukker 1967, pp. 41, 57-58; Ridgway1981, p. 110; Stewart1985, p. 68; Rolley 1999, p. 124. Against the attributionsee now Brouskari1999, pp. 59-60. 122. See note 110 above. 123. Messenian and Naupaktian pillarmonumentsat Delphi: Pomtow 1922;Jacqueminand Laroche 1982; Jacquemin1999, no. 342; and Rolley 1999, p. 124. The Nike temple'sNikai were exactlyone-half the scale of these other,more famous,"Paioniostype" Nikai.Jacqueminand Laroche(1982, pp. 201-204, figs. 5-6) argued,on the basis of the very puzzling cuttings on the surfaceof the Messenian monument at Delphi, that this monument supporteda tripod.While there are some problems in placing a tripod into these strange cuttings, the Jacquemin/Larochehypo-
thesis works nicelywith my first reconstructionand does nothing to disassociate Paionios from the project:Paionios made the gilded bronze tripodsthat crownedthe cornersof the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, and so it is entirely reasonableto suppose that he carriedout a similarprogramfor the Temple of Athena Nike at Athens. See above, pp. 25-26. Locally,the Nike temple'scentral akroterionmight have been readas the sculpturalanalogfor the entire bastion, since the Nike temple itself was positioned directlyover a single dedication of ninety-nine shields attachedto the tower'sporos sheathing.That the bastion'sshields were hung as a single dedication is suggestedby the precisionwith which the horizontalrowswere cut.Two options seem particularlytempting with regardto the originalcontext of the
dedication.The first is that the shields belonged to the famous dedicationof Persianarmsmade by Alexanderafter Granicusin 334 (Arr.,Anab. 1.17). The second is that these shields came from the majorityof the 120 Spartans capturedat Sphakteriaand returnedto Athens by Kleon in 425 (Thuc. 4.38.5). Kagan (1974 [1991], pp. 247-252) gives a vivid accountof the reactionin Athens at the time. Pausanias(1.15.5) saw some of these shields hung in the Painted Stoa but he doesn'tsay how many.Certainly, there could be no better place in all of Athens to show off the spoils from what Thucydides (4.40) thought was the most spectacularconflict of the war.I will discussthe iconographicand historical ramificationsof this restorationin a futurestudy.
THE AKROTERIA
OF THE TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
37
....... . ;.: :.; i'''i15 1''j. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ S
..... .. ..
Figure 24 (left). Nike akroterion (Agora S 312) from the Agora, Athens. CourtesyASCSA,Agora Excavations Figure 25(right). Parapet of the Temple of Athena Nike, Nike leading a bull (Acropolis 972). CourtesyASCSA,AlisonFrantzCollection
As for the subject matter of the angle akroteria,little can be said with certainty.Most scholars agree that the lateral bases held Nikai, and this is probably correct.'24The hypothesis is appropriate for the little building, corresponds nicely with the physical evidence, and is in line with what has been arguedabove.These Nikai could have mirroredthe Nikai lateralakroteria of the Parthenon proposed by Korres.'2'Like the proposed trophy and Nikai of the central base, the Nikai on the Nike temple's roof might have served as the inspiration for the Nikai of the parapet that, soon after, was installed atop the bastion. These Nikai should probably be restored holding wreaths or spoils of war to be dedicated to Athena.126 As to the appearanceof these bronze Nikai angle akroteria,the well-known marble Nike akroterionfrom the Agora (Fig. 24) or a freestandingversion of Master 124. Thompson (1940, p. 199); Dinsmoor (1950, p. 187); Boulter (1969, p. 138); Boersma(1970, p. 179); Danner (1989, p. 86); Boardman, ([1985] 1995, p. 149); and, more recently,Holscher (1997, p. 145); Hurwit (1999, p. 230); Ridgway(1999, p. 102, note 39); and Thone (1999, p. 62) have all believed that the angle akroteria were golden Nikai. 125. Korres1991, fig. 3; 1994b, pp. 61-64, fig. 8; Korres,Panetsos,and
Seki 1996, p. 25; Hurwit 1999, pp. 169, 187,212,230. 126. Isler-Kerenyi(1969, pp. 101103) arguedthat Nike's status as a singlepersonificationwould have made her inappropriateas angle akroteria since there would be four.A glance at the parapetshows that this position, at least in regardto the late 5th century,is untenable.See Danner (1989, pp. 4246) for other examplesof multiple Nikai as angle akroteria.
38
PETER
SCHULTZ
B's Nike leading a bull (Fig. 25) supported by a single bronze strut might provide the basic arrangement of the body while the well-known head from the Agora discussed above (Fig. 2) provides a nice general model for their gilded heads.'27
THE NIKE TEMPLE AND ATHENIAN IN THE LATE 5TH CENTURY
NIKE
In addition to the seven battlefield trophies noted by Thucydides as having been erectedby Athens in the yearsimmediately preceding the completion of the Nike temple and the famous golden tripod at Delphi, the Athenians were enormouslyproud of the permanent,marblevictory monuments
127. Agora B 30: above,p.5 and note 17. Lateralakroteriasupportedby single struts:Delos Museum A 4279, 4283 (DelosXXXIV,pp. 25,28-29); Athens NM 1723 (Delivorrias1974, pp. 122-123, figs. 39-40; Harrison 1990, pp. 177-179, fig. 14:a-b). Several freestandingfemales from the Nereid Monument are supportedin a similar manner:BM 909-911, 915, and 918 (XanthosVIII, pls. 78-80, 86-101). The mannerof gilding appliedto the Agora head matches the proposed processby which the Nike temple akroteriawere gilded and the size of the piece, about half-life-size, corresponds nicely with what has been extrapolated from the akroterionbases.The Agora head is almost alwaysdated to the late 5th century(althoughsee note 17 above)and is often thought of as belonging to an akroterion,its lack of small details and its pronounced featuressuggestingthat it was meant to be seen from a distance(Houser 1979, p. 222; Ridgway1981, p. 124; Mattusch 1996, pp. 121-129; Brogan 1999, p. 325). Of course,these interesting coincidencesall suggest the possibility that the Agora head might originally have belonged to one of the Nike temple'sakroteria.The fact that fragmentsof the Nike temple parapet (Harrison1960, pp. 376-377 and pl. 83) and of the Nike temple frieze (Harrison1972b) have been found over the courseof the excavationsin the Agora make this an intriguing possibility,but nothing certaincan be
said unless furtherevidenceis discovered. Thompson (1940, p. 199) considered and rejectedthis possibility,based on 1) the notion that the details on the back of the Agora head would not have been visible to the viewer,2) his opinion that the gold leaf found on the Agora head was too thick to be applied to architecturalsculpture,and 3) "the fact that [the head having] been strippedof its gold would scarcelyhave justified the complete discardingof the statue as an akroterion."The first point has no basis in the ancient evidence, since the backs of most figuralakroteria of the late 5th centurywere finished, sometimes quite beautifully.The second point is contradictedby the evidencediscussedabove,esp. pp. 4-5. The final point incorrectlyassumesthat the head was thrown awayby someone who caredabout its originalpurpose. Thompson himself demonstratedthat the piece had been robbedfor its preciousmetals.I doubt that the thieves were concernedwith their stolen piece'spotentialfor reuse. (Interestingly,Thompson [1940, p. 204] thought that the Agora head was strippedof its gold by the Athenian tyrantLachares[ca. 300-295]. He was followed by Harrison [1977b, p. 424] and Habicht [1997 (1999), p. 86]. A very specific referencein Demosthenes' AgainstTimocrates[24.121]to the plunderingof &a axpcr'ptom-cISNtkxt before the summerof 353 is consistently ignored in the literature.)
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
39
that they had established at Marathon, Salamis, and Psyttaleia.'28These three columnar offerings may have replicated the Kallimachos column or another important pillar dedication set up on the Acropolis immediately after Marathon, and they have been plausibly restored as being topped by These permanent markersattested to the Nikai or trophies of some sort.129 everlasting areteof the Athenian citizen and importantly, as Wallace has shown, were always placed within prominent geographical settings to maximize their dramatic impact.'30Indeed, the monuments on Salamis and Psyttaleia were established in their respective positions not only to mark the general site of the Persian naval defeats but also to be highly From visible from Athens in general and from the Acropolis in particular."3' their prominent positions in the Attic countryside, these trophy monuments captured the imagination of the Athenian population. The sophist Kritias refers to Athens merely as "that city which set up the white trophy at Marathon,"while in at least three passages, in the Knights, the Wasps, and the Lysistrata,Aristophanes attributesgreat virtue to those who strive to be worthy of the blazing Marathon monument.'32The 4th-century orators took up this motif and used the Marathon and Salamis trophies as superlativephysical embodiments of metaphysicalvirtue to which all might aspire.'33It is no wonder that Demosthenes (Rhod.35) chooses this closing to his plea for Rhodian freedom: "Consider,then, that your ancestors set the trophies up not that you might gaze at them in awe but that you Implicit in this might imitate the valor of those who erected them."1134 testimony is the prominent placement and powerftil psychological impact of these Athenian victory dedications; even well into the 4th century,the Athenian trophy monuments were highly visible, well-known objects of wonder.
128. PeloponnesianWar battlefield trophies set up by the Athenians: Thuc. 1.105.6, set up nearMegarain ca. 460 to markthe defeat of the Corinthians;Thuc. 1.63.1, set up near the Isthmus of Poteidaiain 433 to markthe defeat of the Poteidaians; Thuc. 2.84.4, set up near the Gulf of Patrasat Molykreionin 429 to mark the defeat of the Peloponnesianfleet; Thuc. 2.92.4-5, set up at Antirrhion to markthe "defeat"of the Peloponnesian fleet at Naupaktosin 429; Thuc. 3.91.5, set up nearTanagrato markthe defeat of the Tanagransin 426; Thuc. 3.109.2, set up nearOlpai to markthe defeat of the Peloponnesiansin 426; Thuc. 4.12.8 and 4.14.5, two trophies set up at Sphakteriaafter the defeat of the Spartansin 425. 129. For the marbletrophiessee
West 1969; Korres1997b, p. 107; and now Brogan 1999, pp. 51-52. Marathon dedication,restoredby Vanderpool with a Nike setting up a trophy: Paus. 1.32; Vanderpool1966; and now Petrakos1995, pp. 27-30. Salamisand Psyttaleiadedications:Paus. 1.36; P1.,Menex.245a; Plut., Arist.9; Wallace 1969. There was a trophy dedicationat Plataia,but its date of establishmentand location areuncertain;it is not mentioned in Herodotus'detaileddescription(9.85) of the battlefieldand was not placed where the Persianswere routed. See Paus. 9.2.4-5; Robert 1929, pp. 1516. Kallimachosmonument:ML, pp. 33-34, no. 18; Korres1994a, p. 178. 130. Wallace 1969. 131. The Acropolis'aesthetic
commandof the sea and of the Salamis/Acropolisaxiswas important alreadyin the mid-5th century. As Hurwit (1999, p. 230), following Djordjevitch(1994), has most recently pointed out, the Great Bronze Athena was aligned so that it might greet the Panathenaicprocessionand gaze out on the site of the great navalvictory. 132. Kritias:Vanderpool1966, p. 102, note 19; the translationis that of B. Rogers,cited by Vanderpool (1966, p. 102, note 18). Trophyat Marathon:Knights1334; Wasps711, fgt. 413 K (cited in West [1969]); Lys.285. 133. West 1969. 134. See also Plut., Them.3.4; Plut., Mor. 84C, 185A, 80GB;Phld., Rhet.2.205.32.
40
PETER
SCHULTZ
Whichever of the three proposed restorations for the Nike temple's central akroterion is preferred,it is appropriate to understand the architecture of the Nike temple, and its crowning sculpture,within the context of this type of permanent, prominent, Athenian war votive. The Nike temple's central roof sculpture-whether a large tripod, a trophy, or a "Paionios type" Nike-standing high above the city of Athens uses the same allegoricalvocabularyevidenced at Marathon, Salamis, and the other prominent sites on which the Athenians erected monuments to their military triumphs. The bright gilding of the akroteria and, more important, their impressive size allowed them to be distinguished amid the surrounding monumental topography of the west slope of the Acropolis. Indeed, because of their location-both joined to and apart from Athena's great temenos-the meaning of these crowningsculptures,whatevertheir original form, was defined by their relationship to other prominent Athenian victory dedications both on and off the great rock. If a tripod is restored on the Nike temple centralakroterionbase, then the Athenian tripod at Delphi and the tripods of the Eponymoi become the dominant referents. Likewise, a restored trophy would recall the Athenian monuments at Marathon and Salamis and the parapet wall immediately below. A "Paionios type"Nike directly alludes to (and inspired?) Paionios' Nikai at Olympia and maybe even his monument at Delphi (Fig. 23), all monuments to the later battles of the Archidamian War. Large flanking Nikai on the lateral bases would have served as successive exclamation points to an already powerful statement. These external referents are matched and amplified by the obvious elaboration and repetition of victory themes found internally on the Acropolis itself: the Nike in the hand of the Parthenos, the Nike that may havebeen held in the hand of Pheidias'Great Bronze Athena, the Nike seen on east metope 4 of the Parthenon, the Nike who drives Athena's chariot in the west pediment, the golden Nikai dedicated in 426/ 5, the large bronze Nike dedicated after Sphakteriain 425 and, of course, the veritable crowd of Nikai decorating the Nike temple's own parapet which directly imitated the akroteriain size and may have followed them in pose and form if not in style.135In every case, the meaning of the Nike temple'scrowning sculptureforms and is informed by Athenian war monuments in both periphery and polis. This constant reference to martial achievementwas reinforcedrepeatedlywithin the Nike temple'sown sculpturaldecorationnot only by the allusionin the pediments to possibly mythical combats and, on the frieze, to historical Athenian victories, but also by the carving of at least five and probably as many as twelve trophies being gloriously erected by Nikai on the parapetwall.136
135. Nikai: Hurwit 1999, p. 230, with references.Parapet:above,note 3. 136. Harrison1972a and 1997. Pemberton(1972, p. 304) rightly identified the tree hung with a helmet on block I of the west frieze as a trophy. I thank Ian Jenkins,Assistant Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, for his kind permis-
sion to inspect and measurethis block. Some scholars(Kardara[1961, p. 85]; Simon [1985, p. 276]) have also identified the sculptedrelief on the south side of Nike east frieze block B as a trophy.It is not. This fragmentary reliefwas identified as a leg by Ross (Ross, Schaubert,and Hansen 1839, p. 12), an opinion recentlyconfirmed
by Harrison(1997, pp. 112-113). On both the originalblock and cast, a lower leg and lower left knee, as well as tracesof a right heel, can be clearly seen. I thank Evelyn Harrisonfor discussingwith me these aspectsof the frieze.
THE
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
OF ATHENA
NIKE
4I
ACKNOWLED GMENTS I am gratefulto the FulbrightFoundationfor supportthat allowedme to undertakepreliminaryresearchfor this projectin Athens in 1997, andto the KressFoundationfor supportthat enabledmy continuedresearchas KressFellowat the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesin 1998-1999. I am also gratefulfor the supportprovidedby the AmericanSchoolthat allowedme to continuemy researchas G. P. StevensFellow in 19992000. Severalfriendsand colleagueshave providedhelpful commentson the text andI havegainedmuchfromtheirinsights,suggestionsandcriticisms:DeborahBrown,MichaelDixon,DianeHarris,EvelynB. Harrison, IanJenkins,JohnMorgan,JamesMuhly,lone Shear,JuliaShear,T. Leslie gratefulto ShearJr.,RonaldStroud,andMarySturgeon.I amparticularly Nancy Bookidis,Thomas Brogan,CarolLawton,and ChristopherPfaff for theircommentson earlydraftsof this article.The kind and generous commentsof RichardAnderson,CarolineHouser,CatherineKeesling, JeniferNeils,andAndrewStewartinspiredmanychangesin the finaldraft, and to them I extendmy heartfeltthanks.All errorsfoundhereinaremy own. I wasgraciouslyassistedin myworkby severalfriendswithinthe Greek AntiquitiesServicewithoutwhose supportthis projectwould havebeen impossible:VassilikiGeorgakaof the First Ephorateof Prehistoricand ClassicalAntiquities;ManolisKorres,Professorof the Historyof Architecture,AthensTechnicalUniversity;MariaParaskiof the ParthenonRestorationProject;TasosTanoulas,Directorof the PropylaiaRestoration Project;IsmeneTrianti,formerEphorof the Acropolis;ChristinaVlasopoulouof the FirstEphorateof PrehistoricandClassicalAntiquities;and EliasVoutselasof the EpigraphicalMuseumin Athens.GiannisGramaMuseumon Delos were takisandPanayotisAlexiouof the Archaeological also of great assistance.I am happyto thank Nancy Winter of the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat AthensandChristinaZioga of the DeutschesArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, for their kind and patient help.Hans Goette andNelli Lazaridouat the DeutschesArchaologisches Institut,Athens,CraigMauzyat the AgoraExcavationsof the American School, and Marie Mauzy at the AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies graciouslyhelped me with photographs.In additionto contributingto andDavidScahillmade manyof the drawingsherein,MichaelDjordjevitch of my reconstructions, comments on the architectural aspects important andfor this I offerheartfeltthanks. I am deeplygratefulto CharalambosKritzas,Directorof the EpigraphicalMuseum,Athens,forthe rightsto publishthe photographof IG IP482 andto AlcestisChoremi,Ephorof the Acropolis,forpermissionto publishphotographsof Acropolis15958oc-. I owe a specialthanksto DemosthenesGiraud,Directorof Restoration of Ancient Monumentsfor the GreekMinistryof Cultureand the architectin chargeof the NikeTempleRestorationProject,who hasserved as both mentor and critic of my work. In addition to his constant help, Dr. Giraud was kind enough to allow me constant access to the physical evidence, to make several drawings for this article, to review multiple drafts
42
PETER
SCHULTZ
of this text, and to offer continuous insight on the construction process of Classical buildings in general and the Nike temple in particular. Finally, it is with a deep sense of gratitude that I offer my thanks to Olga Palagia,Professor of Classical Archaeology at the University of Athens. Dr. Palagia has given steadfast advice, encouragement, and criticism and, in her capacity as my dissertation advisor,has shown me nothing but persevering generosity, kindness, and honest support. This project could not have been completed without her.
REFERENCES Aegina = A. Furtwaingler, E. R. Fiechter,and H. Thiersch. 1906. Aegina:Das HeiligtumderAphaia, 2 vols., Munich. Aleshire, S. B. 1989. TheAthenian Asklepieion:ThePeople,Their Dedications,and theInventories, Amsterdam. Alexander,S. M. 1979. "Ancient and Medieval Gilding on Metal," in Early Technologies, D. SchmandtBesserat,ed., Malibu, pp. 65-71. Altekamp,S. 1991. Zugriechischer Architektur-ornamentik im sechsten undfiunftenJahrhundert v. Chr.: Exemplarische archdologische Auswertungdernichtdorischen Blattornamentik, Frankfurt. Amandry,P. 1954. "Notes de topographieet d'architecture delphiques,"BCH 78, pp. 297-315. . 1988. "Trepiedsde Delphes et du Peloponnese,"BCH 111, pp. 79131. 1998. "Le'socle marathonien' et le tresordes Atheniens,"BCH 122, pp. 75-90. Andronikos,M. 1984. Vergina:The RoyalTombsand theAncientCity, Athens. Anheuser,K. 1996. "Coldand Hot MercuryGilding of Metalworkin Antiquity," Bulletinof theMetals Museumof theJapanInstituteof Metals26, pp. 48-52. BassitasI = E A. Cooper,TheArchitecture,Princeton1996. Beazley,J.D., and L. D. Caskey.1963. Attic VasePaintingsin theMuseumof FineArts,Boston,Boston. Beschi, L. 1984. "I1fregio del Partenone: Una propostadi lettura," RendLinc8.39, pp. 173-195. H. 1884. Technologie Bliummer, und
Terminologie der Gewerbe undKiinste bei Griechen undRomern IV, Leipzig. Boardman,J. 1970. Greek Gems and Finger Rings, London. [1985] 1995. GreekSculpture. The Classical Period, repr.London. Boersma,J. S. 1970. Athenian Building Policyfrom 561/0-405/4 (Scripta Archaeologica Groningana 4),
Groningen. Bommelaer,J.,and D. Laroche.1991. Guide de Delphes: Le site, Paris. Borchhardt,J. 1976. Die Bauskulptur des Heroons von Limyra (IstForsch32), Berlin. . 1990. "Das Heroon von Limyra,"in Gotter,Heroen, Herrscher in Lykien, Vienna, pp. 75-78. . 1993. Die Steine von Zemuri, Vienna. Boulter,P. 1969. "The Akroteriaof the Nike Temple,"Hesperia 38, pp. 133140. Brogan,T. 1999. "HellenisticNike: Monuments Commemorating Military Victoriesof the Attalid and Antigonid Kingdoms,the Aitolean League, and the Rhodian Polis, ca. 307-133 B.C." (diss. Bryn Mawr College). Brommer,E 1955. "Bellerophon," MarbWPr.
Brouskari,M. 1974. TheAcropolis Museum, Athens. . 1989. "Ausdem Giebelschmuckdes Athena-NikeTempels,"in Cain, Gabelmann, and Salzmann1989, pp. 115-118. . 1999. T6 OtocxLo-Ioro vco5 A (ArchEph 137), O'AOdqv,N(xrjp Athens. Bruns, G. 1940. Das Kabirenheiligtum bei Thebai, Berlin.
THE
Buitron-Oliver,D., ed. 1997. The Interpretation ofArchitectural Sculpturein Greeceand Rome, Hanover.
Cain, H.-U., H. Gabelmann,and D. Salzmann,eds. 1989. Festschrift fzir Nikolaus Himmelmann, Mainz Calciati,R. 1990. Pegasi, Mortara. Camp,J., M. Ierardi,J.Mclnerney, K. Morgan, and G. Umholtz. 1992. "ATrophyfrom the Battle of Chaironeiaof 86 B.C.,"AJA 96, pp. 443-455.
Carpenter,R. 1929. The Sculptureof the Nike TempleParapet, Cambridge, Mass. 1933. "The Lost Statuesof the East Pediment of the Parthenon," Hesperia 2, pp. 1-88. Castriota,D. 1992. Mythos, Ethos and Actuality, Madison. Clairmont,C. 1982. "Sparta's'Golden Phiale'at Olympia,"ZPE 48, pp. 79-85. Corinth VI = K. M. Edwards,Coins, 1896-1929, Cambridge,Mass.
1933. Coulson,W. D. E., 0. Palagia, T L. ShearJr.,H. A. Shapiro,and F. Frost,eds. 1994. TheArchaeology ofA4thensandAttica under the Democracy,Oxford.
Cropp,M., and G. Fick. 1985. Resolutions and Chronologyin Euripides: The Fragmentary Tragedies (BICS Supplement43), London. DAA = A. E. Raubitschek,Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis,
Cambridge,Mass., 1949. Danner,P. 1988. "Die Mag3eder Akrotereim Verhaltniszur Architekturin der griechischen Baukunstder archaischenund klassischenZeit," OJh 58, pp. 4151. . 1989. GriechischeAkrotereder archaischenundklassischen Zeit (RdA
Supplement5), Rome. .1997. WestgriechischeAkrotere, Mainz am Rhein. Daux, G. 1959. "Chroniquedes fouilles en 1958,"BCH 83, pp. 563-793. Delivorrias,A. 1974. Attische Giebelskulpturen undAkrotere desfunften Jahrhunderts (Tiibinger Studien zur Archdologie undKunstgeschichte 1),
Tuibingen. .1984. "'Av9Lo1vu;
XaL
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
yOpG O&TrO TvXpaCvcXyv&xCsL; -qv cF-, avnucoaq, -cv [vqj1,&) too aovxtoq-ce; OCpcxpLokoyLxo6GrooXoc[lob," Horos
ep,uyjveotLx;
2, pp. 83-102. . 1997. "The SculptedDecoration of the So-Called Theseion: Old Answers,New Questions," in Buitron-Oliver1997, pp. 82107. Delos VII = R. Valois,Lesportiques au sud de hieron,premierepartie: Leportique de Philippe, Paris 1923. De,losXII = F. Courby,Les temples d'Apollon, Paris1931. Ddos XXXIV = A. Hermary, La sculpturearchaique et classique,
Paris 1984. Ddos XXXVI = P. Fraisseand C. Llinas, Documents d'architecture hellenique et hellenistique, Paris 1999. Despinis, G. 1971. ZvofpoA7u7 MEA7 -ro roV E-pyovo
Ayopcxp-roov,
Athens. .1974. "Ta yXo-t tv ast(4Ut&Ov
toib vaoi3 -Mcj'AONvd;
Nftx-," ArchDelt 29, pp. 1-24. Deubner,0. 1989. "Einehellenistische Bronzefiguraus dem Asklepieion von Pergamon,"FestschriftfutrJale Inan, N. Basgelen and M. Lugal, eds., Istanbul,pp. 13-16. Dinsmoor,W. B. 1923. "ANote on the New Bases at Athens,"AJA27, pp.23-24. .1926. "The SculpturedParapet of Athena Nike,"AJA30, pp. 1-31. .1939. "Archaeologyand Astronomy,"ProcPhilAs 80, pp. 95-173. .1950. TheArchitectureof Ancient Greece,3rd ed., New York. .1976. "The Roof of the Hephaisteion,"AJA80, pp. 223246. Djordjevitch,M. 1994. "Pheidias's Athena PromachosReconsidered" (paper,Washington,D.C., 1993), abstractin AJA98, p. 323. Downey, C. 1997. "The Chalkotheke on the Athenian Acropolis:Form and Function Reconsidered"(paper, New York1996), abstractin AJA 101, pp.372-373. Ehrhardt,W. 1989. "DerTorsoWien I 328 und derWestgiebel des Athena-Nike-Tempelsauf der Akropolisin Athen,"in Cain,
OF ATHENA
NIKE
43
Gabelmann,and Salzmann1989, pp. 119-127. et FdD II, 8 = J. Audiat, Topographie sanctuaired'Apollon. architecture, Le tresordesAtheniens,Paris1933. et FdD II, 9 = J. Pouilloux,Topographie La regionnorddu architecture. sanctuaire,Paris1960. tektonische Felten,F 1984.Griechische Zeit, Friesearchaischer undklassischer Waldsassen-Bayern. Fengler,L. 1886.DorischePolychromie, Berlin. Formigli,E. 1984. "Latechnica di costruzionedelle statue di Riace," in Due bronzida Riace(BdA,Serie speciale3), Rome, pp. 107-145. of Furtwangler,W. 1895. Masterpieces GreekSculpture,London. Gandy,P.1817.The UneditedAntiquitiesofAttica,London. Gantz,T. 1992.Early GreekMyth, Baltimore. ausder Gauer,W. 1968. Weihgeschenke Perserkriegen (IstMitt-BH2), Tiibingen. Gerokostopoulos,A. 1890. "Tebxo; nv6 'Ox-,co3ppou: E'uoaycoyiq TVoL V1oOOE0LoLs," LTC'OV aPXaU0VFV
ApxatoAoytxov.
of the Gilman, B., ed. 1997. Masterpieces J.Paul GettyMuseum,Los Angeles. Giraud,D. 1994. Meidr7 a Oxxaz&aGWaef&?ToV vaoV -rgfAO7v&w NMxnv,Athens.
Goldberg,M. 1982. "ArchaicGreek Akroteria,"AJA86, pp. 193-206. Gropengiesser,H. 1961. Die pflanzlichen Akrotereklassischer Tempel,Mainz.
Grunauer,P 1981. "ZurOstansicht des Zeustempels,"in OlBer 10, A. Mallwitz, ed., Berlin, pp. 256301. Guillon, P 1943. Les trepieds du Ptoion, Paris 1943. Habicht, C. 1997 [1999]. Athensfrom Alexander toAntony, Cambridge, Mass. Hamiaux,M. 1992. Musee de Louvre: Les sculpturesgrecquesI, Paris. Hamilton, R. 2000. TreasureMap: A Guide to the Delian Inventories,
Ann Arbor. Harris,D. 1995. The Treasuresof the Parthenon and Erechtheion,
Oxford.
44 Harrison,E. 1960. "New Sculpture from the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 29, pp.369-392. . 1967. "Athenaand Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon,"AJA71, pp. 27-58. . 1972a. "The South Frieze of the Nike Temple and the Marathon Paintingin the Painted Stoa,"AJA 76, pp. 353-378. . 1972b. "ANew Fragment from the North Frieze of the Nike Temple,"AJA76, pp. 195-197. .1977a. "Alkamenes'Sculptures for the Hephaisteion,PartI: The Cult Statues,"AJA81, pp. 137178. . 1977b. "Alkamenes'Sculptures for the Hephaisteion,PartIII: Iconographyand Style,"AJA81, pp.411-426. 1984. "Time in the Parthenon in Parthenon-Kongress Basel, Frieze," ReferateundBericht4, E. Berger,ed., Mainz, pp. 230-234,416-418. . 1990. "Repair,Reuse, and Reworkingof Ancient Greek in Marble:ArtHistorical Sculpture," onAncient and ScientficPerspectives Sculpture,M. True andJ. Podany, eds., Malibu, pp. 163-184. .1996. "Pheidias,"in Personal Stylesin GreekSculpture(YCS30), 0. PalagiaandJ.J. Pollitt, eds., Cambridge,pp. 16-65. . 1997. "The Glories of the Athenians:Observationson the Programof the Temple of Athena Nike,"in Buitron-Oliver1997, pp. 109-125. Hausmann,H. 1997. Der Tibinger Waffenlaufer, Tiibingen. Haynes,D. 1992.TheTechniqueof Greek BronzeStatuary,Mainz. Hellman, M.-C. 1999. Choixd'inscriptionsarchitecturales grecques,Lyon. Hill, D. K. 1969. "BronzeWorking: Sculptureand Other Objects," in TheMusesat Work. Arts, Crafts, and Professionsin AncientGreeceand Rome, C. Roebuck,ed., Cambridge, Mass., pp. 60-95. H6lscher,T. 1974. "Die Nike der Messenierund Naupaktierin Olympia:Kunstund Geschichte im spaten 5. Jahrhundertv. Chr.,"AM 89, pp. 70-111.
PETER
SCHULTZ
. 1997. "Ritualund Bildsprache zur Deutung der Reliefs an der Bruistungum das Heiligtum der Athena Nike in Athen,"AM 112, pp. 143-163. Hoepfner,W. 1996. "Dervollendete AA 1996, pp. 115Pergamonaltar," 134. Hofkes-Brukker,C. 1967. "Vermutete Werke des Paionios,"BABesch 42, pp. 10-71. Houser, C. 1979. "AnHonorary Statue in the Agora of Athens"(paper, London 1978), abstractin Greece andItaly in the ClassicalWorld, J. N. Coldstreamand M. A. R. Colledge, eds., London, p. 222. .1987. GreekMonumental BronzeSculptureof theFifth and FourthCenturiesB.C.,NewYork. Hurwit,J. 1999. TheAthenianAcropolis: History,Mythology,andArchaeology from theNeolithicEra to thePresent, Cambridge. Isler-Kerenyi,C. 1969. Nike:Der Typus derlaufendenFliige(frauin archaischer Zeit, Zurich. .1970. "Nike mit dem Tropaion,"ArheoloskiPregled10, pp.5764. Jacquemin,A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales a Delphes,Paris. Jacquemin,A., and D. Laroche.1982. "Notes sur trois piliersdelphiques," BCH 106, pp. 192-204. Jameson,M. H. 1994. "The Ritual of the Athena Nike Parapet,"in Ritual, Finance,Politics:AthenianDemoPresentedto David craticAccounts Lewis, R. Osborne and S. Hornblower,eds., Oxford, pp. 307-324. Janssen,A. 1957. Het antiekeTropaion, Ledeberg. Jeffery,L. H. 1980. "SomeNike Statues at Olympia in the Late Fifth Century B.C.," in PiAl'6xXcrp,v,FestschriftE. Manni, Rome,pp.12331239. Jeffery,LSAG2 = L. H. Jeffery,The LocalScriptsofArchaicGreece,2nd ed., rev.A. W. Johnston,Oxford 1990. Kagan,D. 1974 [1991]. The ArchidamianWar,repr.Ithaca. 'O Kardara,C. 1961. "FXaxUOx7L;: -r6OE'Va Naos6xcark 'Apxycxo; Cp6poOU
T
fc HapOEvC0Vo;,"
THE
ArchEph, pp. 61-158. Karusu,S. 1962. "EinAkroterklassischerZeit,"AM 77, pp. 178190. . 1968. Collection of Sculpture: Catalogue, NationalArchaeological Museum, Athens. Kearns,E. 1989. The Heroes ofAttica (BICS Supplement57), London.
Keesling,C. M. 1995. "Monumental PrivateVotiveDedications on the Athenian Acropolis,ca. 600-400 B.C." (diss. Universityof Michigan). Kekulevon Stradonitz,R. 1881. Reliefs an der Balustrade derAthena Nike,
Berlin. Kluge, K., and K. Lehmann-Hartleben. 1927. Die antiken Grossbronzen,
Berlin. Korres,M. 1991. "Acropole,travauxde restaurationdu Parthenon,"BCH 115, pp. 837-839. 1994a. "RecentDiscoverieson the Acropolis,"in AcropolisRestoration: The CCAMInterventions,
R. Economakis,ed., London, pp. 175-179. .1994b. "The Architectureof the Parthenon,"in TheParthenon and Its Impact on Modern Times,
P.Tournikiotis,ed., Athens, pp. 5497. .1996. "Ein Beitragzur Kenntnisder attische-ionischen Architektur,"in Saule und Gebdlk, Diskussionen zur archdologische Bauforschung,E.-L. Schwander,ed.,
Mainz, pp. 90-113. .1997a. "Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis,"in Kult und Kultbauten auf derAkropolis,
W. Hoepfner,ed., Berlin,pp. 218243. . 1997b. "AnEarlyAttic Ionic Capitalon the Acropolis,"in Greek Offerings:Essays on GreekArt in Honour ofJohn Boardman,
0. Palagia,ed., Oxford,pp. 95107. Korres,M., G. A. Panetsos,andT. Seki, eds. 1996. The Parthenon:Architecture and Conservation, Athens. Kraay,C. M. 1976. Archaic and Classical Greek Coins, London. Kyrieleis,H. 1997. "Zeusand Pelops in the East Pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia,"in Buitron-
AKROTERIA
OF THE
TEMPLE
Oliver 1997, pp. 12-27. Lacroix,L. 1992. "Aproposdes offrandes a l'Apollon des Delphes et
du temoignage de Pausanias,"BCH 116, pp. 157-176. Laroche,D. 1989. "Nouvellesobservations surl'offrandede Platees," BCH 113, pp. 183-198. Linders,T. 1972. Studies in the Treasure RecordsofArtemis Brauronia Found in Athens (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet iAthen 4, 19),
Stockholm. Linfert,A. 1968. "Vierklassische Akrotere,"AA83, pp. 427-434. Marcade,J. 1996. Sculpturesddiennes, Paris. Mark, I. 1979. "Nike and the Cult of Athena Nike" (diss. New York University). . 1993. The Sanctuary ofAthena Nike in Athens.-ArchitecturalStages and Chronology (Hesperia Supple-
ment 26), Princeton. Mattingly,H. 1982. "The Athena Nike Temple Reconsidered,"AJA86, pp. 381-385. 1996. The Athenian Empire Restored.Epigraphical and Historical Studies, Ann Arbor.
Mattusch, C. C. 1994. "The Eponymous Heroes:The Idea of SculpturalGroups,"in Coulson et al. 1994, pp. 73-81. . 1996. ClassicalBronzes: TheArt and Craft of Greekand Roman Statuary, Ithaca.
Miles, M. M. 1980. "The Date of the Temple on the Ilissos River," Hesperia 49, pp. 309-325. . 1989. "AReconstructionof the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous," Hesperia 58, pp. 131-249. Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C.,
Cambridge. Neuman, G. 1964. "Ein spatklassisches Skulpturenfragmentaus Athen," AM 79, pp. 137-148. Oddy,W. A. 1985. "Vergoldungenauf prahistorischenund klassischen Bronzen,"in ArchaologischeBronzen, antike Kunst, moderne Technik,
H. Born, ed., Berlin, pp. 64-70. . 1990. "The Gilding of Bronze Sculpturein the ClassicalWorld,"
OF ATHENA
NIKE
in Small Bronze Scuipturefrom the Ancient World,M. True and J. Podany,eds., Malibu, pp. 103124. . 1991. "Gilding:An Outline of the TechnologicalHistory of the Plating of Gold on to Silveror Copper in the Old World," Endeavor 15, pp. 29-33. Oddy,W. A., L. B. Vlad, and N. D. Meeks. 1979. "The Gilding of Bronze Statuesin the Greek and RomanWorld,"in The Horses of San Marco, Venice,J. and V. Wilton-Ely, eds., Milan, pp. 182-186. Olynthus X = D. M. Robinson,Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds,
Baltimore1941. Olympia II = F. Adler et al., Die Baudenkmaler von Olympia, Berlin
1892. Olympia III = G. Treu,Die Bildwerke von Olympia in Stein und Thon,
Berlin 1897. Olympia V = W. Dittenbergerand K. Purgold,Die Inschriften von Olympia, Berlin 1896.
Orlandos,A. C. 1915. "ZumTempel der Athena Nike,"AM 40, pp. 2744. . 1947-1948. "Nouvelles observationssurla constructiondu temple d'AthenaNike,"BCH 7172, pp. 1-38. Palagia,0. 1994. "No Demokratia,"in Coulson et al. 1994, pp. 113-122. [1993] 1998. The Pediments of the Parthenon, repr.Leiden. .2000. "Meaningand Narrative Techniquesin Statue-Basesof the Pheidian Circle,"in Wordand Image in Ancient Greece,N. K. Rutter and B. A. Sparkes,eds., Edinburgh, pp. 53-78. Papalexandrou,N. 1999. "Warriors, Youths,andTripods:The Visual Poetics of Powerin Geometric and EarlyArchaicGreece"(paper, Washington,D.C., 1998), abstract in AJA 103, p. 330. Paton,J. M., ed. 1927. The Erechtheum, Cambridge,Mass. Pemberton,E. 1972. "The East and West Friezesof the Temple of Athena Nike,"AJA76, pp. 303-310. Petersen,E. 1908. "Nachlesein Athen," JdI23,pp.12-44.
46
PETER
Petrakos,B. 1995. 'OMcapOqx6v, Athens. .1997. 01 Ewriypaxq,zoiOV Athens. 'Qpo2Ptob,
Picard,C., andJ. Replat. 1924. "Recherchessurla topographiedu hieron Delien,"BCH 48, pp. 218221. Polito, E. 1997. FulgentibusArmis: Introduzione allo studio deifregi d'armi antiche (Xenia Antiqua 4),
Rome. Pollitt,J. J. [1965] 1990. TheArt of Ancient Greece:Sourcesand Documents, rev.ed., Cambridge.
1997. "The Meaning of the ParthenonFrieze,"in BuitronOliver 1997, pp. 51-65. Pomtow,H. 1922. "Die Paionios-Nike in Delphi,"JdI37, pp. 55-112. Praschniker,C. 1919. "Die Akroterien des Parthenon,"OJh 13, pp. 9-35. . 1929. Zur Geschichtedes Akroters (Schrtftenderphilosophischen Fakultdt der deutschenUniversitdt in Prag 5), Briinn. Pritchett,W. K. 1972. The GreekState at WarII, Berkeley.
Ridgway,B. S. 1977. "The Plataean Tripod and the SerpentineColumn,"AJA81, pp. 374-378. . 1981. Fifth Century Styles in GreekSculpture,Princeton. . 1990. "Birds,'Meniskoi,'and Head Attributesin Archaic Greece,"AJA94, pp. 583-612. . 1993. TheArchaic Style in Greek Sculpture,2nd ed., Chicago. . 1997. Fourth Century Styles in GreekSculpture,Madison. 1999. Prayers in Stone: Greek Architectural Sculpture,ca. 600-100 B.C.E., Berkeley. Robert,L. 1929. "Recherchesepigraphiques,"REAI31, pp. 13-20. Rolley,C. 1994. La sculpturegrecque,I,
Des origines au mileu du Vesiecle,
Paris. . 1999. La sculpturegrecque,II, Laperiode classique,Paris. Ross, L., E. Schaubert,and C. Hansen. 1839. Der TempelderNikeApteros, Berlin. Rouse,W. D. 1902. Greek Votive Offerings:An Essay in the History of GreekReligion, Cambridge. Roux, G. 1961. L'architecturede
SCHULTZ
lArgolide aux IVe et Ille sieclesavantJ. -
C., Paris. .1984. "Euripidetemoin de Delphes,"in Me'morialAndr,'-Jean Festugiere (Cahiers d'Orientalisme 10), E. Lucchesi and H. D. Saffrey,eds., Geneva, pp. 3-12. Salmon,J. B. 1984. WealthyCorinth, Oxford. SamothraceIII = P. Lehmann, The Hieron, Princeton 1969. Schauz,H. L. 1980. Greek Sculptural Groups, Princeton. Scotton, P. D. 1999. "How Normal is Normal?The 'Normal'Basilicaof Vitruvius"(paper,Washington,D.C., 1998), abstractinAJA 103, pp. 311312. Sharpe,H. F. 2000. "ARareHellenistic Bronze in the IndianaUniversityArt Museum,"in From the Parts to the Whole,Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress 1 (JRA Supplement
39), C. C. Mattusch, A. Brauer,and S. E. Knudsen,eds., Portsmouth,R.I., pp. 250-253. Shear,I. M. 1963. "Kallikrates," Hesperia 32, pp.375-424. .1999. "The WesternApproach to the Athenian Acropolis,"JHS119, pp.86-125. Shear,T. L. 1933. "The Campaignof 1932," Hesperia 2, pp. 519-527.
.1937. "The Campaignof 1936," Hesperia6, pp. 333-351. Shear,T. L., Jr. 1970. "The Monument of the EponymousHeroes in the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 39, pp.145-222. .1973. "The Athenian Agora: Excavationsof 1971,"Hesperia 42, pp.121-179. Simon, E. 1985. "Ladecorazione architettonicadel tempietto di Atena Nike sull'Acropolidi Atene," Museum Patavinum 3, pp. 271-
288. .1997. "AnInterpretationof the Nike Temple Parapet,"in BuitronOliver 1997, pp. 127-142. Snodgrass,A. [1967] 1999. Arms and Armour of the Greeks,repr.London. Stais, B. 1887. "'AyoaXVtLoC'AOqv&; 96 'Axpono'X6?o,"ArchEph 5, cols. 31-34. Stahler,K. 1992. Griechische GeschichtsbilderklassischerZeit,
Munster.
THE
Stevens, G. P 1908. "The Cornice of the Temple of Athena Nike,"AJA 12, pp.399-405. . 1955. "Remarksupon the ChryselephantineStatue of Athena,"Hesperia 24, pp. 240-276. Stevens, G. P., and A. E. Raubitschek. 1946. "The Pedestalof the Athena Promachos,"Hesperia 15, pp. 107114. Stewart,A. 1985. "History,Myth, and Allegory in the Programof the Temple of Athena Nike, Athens," in PictorialNarrativein Antiquity and theMiddleAges(Studiesin the HistoryofArt 16), H. L. Kesslerand M. S. Simpson, eds., Hanover, pp.53-73. .1990. GreekSculpture. An Exploration,New Haven. . Forthcoming."On the Functions and Reconstructionof the GreatAltar of Pergamon,"in FromSperlongato Pergamon, N. T. de Grummondand B. S. Ridgway,eds., Berkeley. Stroud,R. 1998.TheAthenianGrainTaxLaw of 374/3 B.C.. (Hesperia Supplement29), Princeton. Studniczka,R 1887. "'AyaXxa'Itta ix -c; -6v 'AOdjvCov 'AOI7v&; 'AxpoinX6?co;,"ArchEph 5, cols. 133154. . 1916. "Zu den Friesplatten vom ionischenTempel am Ilissos," JdI31, pp. 169-230.
AKROTERIA
OF THE
Szeliga, G. N. 1981. "The Dioskouroi on the Roof: Archaic and Classical EquestrianAcroteriain Sicily and South Italy"(diss. Bryn Mawr College). Th6ne,C. 1999.Ikonographische Studien zu Nike im 5. Jahrhundertv. Chr., Heidelberg. Thompson, D. B. 1944. "The Golden Nikai Reconsidered,"Hesperia 13, pp. 173-209. Thompson, H. A. 1940. "AGolden Nike from the Athenian Agora,"in AthenianStudiesPresentedto W S. Ferguson(HSCP Supplement 1), Cambridge,Mass., pp. 183-210. Vanderpool,E. 1966. "AMonument to the Battle of Marathon,"Hesperia 35,pp.93-106. Vittori, 0. 1978. "InterpretingPliny's Gilding:ArchaeologicalImplications,"RdA 2, pp. 71-81. Vokotopoulou,I., and E. B. Tsigarida. 1993. "NEoaPo6ocq,"ArchDelt 48, p. 350. Wallace,P.W. 1969. "Psyttaleiaand the Trophiesof Salamis,"AJA73, pp.293-304. derReliefs Walter,0. 1923.Beschreibung im kleinenAkropolismuseum in Athen, Vienna. Wesenberg,B. 1981. "ZurBaugeschichte des Niketempels,"JdI96, pp.28-54. . 1998. Review of I. S. Mark, TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in
PeterSchultz AMERICAN
54 SOUIDIAS IO6-76
SCHOOL STREET
ATHENS
GREECE
[email protected]
OF CLASSICAL
TEMPLE
STUDIES
AT ATHENS
OF ATHENA
NIKE
47
Athens:Architectural Stages and Chronology,in Gnomon 70, pp. 233-
240. West, W. C. 1967. "GreekPublic Monuments of the PersianWar," (diss.Universityof North Carolina, Chapel Hill). 1969. "TheTrophiesof the PersianWars,"CP 64, pp. 7-19. Wester,W. 1969. "Die Akroterfiguren des Tempels der Athener auf Delos" (diss. Universityof Heidelberg). Willemsen, F. 1963. "Archaische Grabmalbasenaus der Athener Stadtmauer," AM 78, pp. 104-153. Woelcke, K. 1911. "Beitragezur Geschichte derTropaions,"BJb 120, pp. 127-235. Xanthos VIII = W. Childs and P. Demargne,Le monument des NJ`rdides.Le decorsculpt, Paris1989. Yalouris,N. 1992. Die Skulpturen des Asklepiostempelsin Epidauros (AntP
21), Berlin. Zeitlin, F. 1994. "The Artful Eye: Vision, Ecphrasis,and Spectaclein EuripideanTheater,"in Art and Text in Ancient Greek Culture, S. Goldhitl and R. Osborne,eds., Cambridge, pp. 138-196,295-304.
HESPERIA
70 (200I)
Pages49-98
A
P
YLO
R[C
RCHAE
IONAL
OLOICAL
P ROJ
CT,
PART
CHANGE
AND
THE
LANDSCAPE VILLAGE
IV HUMAN
IN A MODERN
GREEK
IN MESSENIA
ABSTRACT This articlepresentsthe resultsoffieldwork,interviews,and archivalresearch into how land use and agriculturalchoices in the post-1829 erahave affected the landscape aroundthe village of Maryeli in Messenia, Greece. Although relativelyisolated,and neverdemographicallysignificant,Maryeli'slandscape bearsvisible marksof the ebbs and flows of world trade.While in manyways the methods of land use in Maryeli are still visibly preindustrial,the goals of land use have long been "modern"in their relationshipto capitalismand internationalmarketforces.Those goals repeatedlyhave reshapedthe land.
1. Davis et al. 1997; Zangger et al. 1997.
From 1992 to 1994 the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) conductedan intensive archaeologicalsurveyin southwestMessenia, Greece. Some of the results of that project have already been published in this journal.' During PRAP's final field season, our experiences while fieldwalking in and around the small mountain village of Maryeli encouraged us to conduct a deeper investigation of that village and its surroundingarea (see Figs. 1 and 3). A first, unthinking look at Maryeli seemed to reveal a kind of "pristine"landscape, one conforming to all the stereotypes of a remote peasant village. The survey team found a village tightly nucleated around a central spring, and comprised of homes that were excellent examples of 19th- and early-20th-century Peloponnesian architecture (see Fig. 2). Furthermore,Maryeli's many abandoned fields, relatively limited bulldozer use, and numerous preconcrete field structures all contrasted sharply with most of the other areas in which PRAP had worked. While less prosperous and less demographically robust than the study region as a whole, Maryeli's better-preserved material record of the prewar era provided an excellent opportunity to examine change and the human presence in the landscape since Greek independence in 1829. Studies of modern Greek villages typically have fallen into one of two camps: the ethnographic or the ethnoarchaeological.The ethnographers, relying on interviews, participant-observation,and local statistics (particularly of landholding patterns), have tended to emphasize such things as village belief systems, social structures, and kinship networks. Recent ethnographic work of a materialist vein has correctly pointed out the tre-
5o
WAYNE
E. LEE
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :.:...:.. ..':..
W
\..-:..i'.;.^ :.S _ _ - | I| _ | | -all
^
MP M
wI
KpIi:;ss_i_a
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~u _~~~~~~~~~U :''n,1
\
'.\.
A
Ay_a_ ,, Marat
:
g:::
.:C
::::::
Koypaso
s
K
s
b
;
i' @
_
'
N
i il
;2ls:'
.
sA
rz ia s0i200
z
t~_;Peninsula_
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[$
Robertson$
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. S _ ~# < ~ EvB2~ I
is
.>it
..
.... .
.
ZL
R.
e
l
J.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
RRIver
5I
------%
oundaXry
'2 [
Figure3. Maryeliandtheboundaries
Tou
ni*
of KondogonaikaandMaryelaika. Surveyareashaded;elevationsin meters.See note 12. W.Lee mendous mutability of the Greek village, and how such social structures have shifted, whether actively or passively, in response to the pressures of modernization.2 Ethnoarchaeologists, on the other hand, were initially drawn to studies of modern practices (usually agricultural) primarily to build or test models of parallel ancient practices.3The gap between the two camps has narrowedin recent yearsas ethnoarchaeologistshave tapped into the efforts of ethnographers and have acknowledged that the Greek village is not static, and that there is need for significant caution in the use of modern studies as analogs for ancient practices. Meanwhile, ethnographers have begun extending their coverage into the past, acknowledging the earlier incorporation of Greece into the world system.4As Sue Sutton has pointed out, "eventhe most seemingly isolated villages today have long been affected by the marketization of the Greek economy.... To assert that contemporary villages are only just now becoming aware of, or involved in, the forces of change is to follow a very selective application of historical principles."5 Thus while the ethnoarchaeologists have been draggedtowardthe new ethnographiesin their acknowledgmentof change, there has also recently been a call for the ethnographersto provide a deeper historical understanding of material or ecological concerns.6Within these two bodies of work, however, there are relatively few studies that focus on modern material culture over the last 150 years, and most of those are not well integrated into a narrativeof economic change.7 2. Examplesof classicvillage ethnographiesinclude McNall 1978; Du Boulay 1974; Friedl 1962; Campbell 1964; Herzfeld 1985; Hart 1992. For materialist work see: Bialor 1976; Allen 1976, 1997; Aschenbrenner1986; Slaughter and Kasimis 1986; Forbes1976, 1989, 1997; Shutes 1994, 1997, 1999. 3. See, for example,Chang 1981, 1993 (her forthcomingwork calls for much more caution in using ethnoarchaeologicalparallels);Aschenbrenner 1972; Foxhall 1996; Halstead 1987; Murrayand Kardulias1986; Wagstaff
and Cherry 1981. For other views on the problemsof acceptingthe modern Greek village as timeless, see Sutton 1994 and Fotiadis 1995. 4. Sutton 1988, esp. pp. 197,204; Sutton in Wright et al. 1990; Bennett 1988, p. 229; Davis and Sutton 1995, p. 121; Halstead 1987, p. 78; Botsas 1987, p. 212; Costa 1988; Athanassopoulos 1997. 5. Sutton in Wright et al. 1990, p.595. 6. Karduliasand Shutes 1997, p. xiii. Hart 1992 is one of the few true ethno-
graphiesto spend much time on any aspect of materialculture,in her case domestic architectureand furnishings. 7. Stedman 1996; Clark 1994-1995; Wagstaff 1965a, 1965b. While Sutton's regionallandscapestudies are well integratedinto a narrativeof economic change,they focus mostly on settlement location ratherthan specific issues of materialculture;Sutton 1988, 1991. Whitelaw 1991, dealingwith modern Kea, is an exceptionin its treatmentof both materialcultureand economic change.
WAYNE
52
S Marveli
E.
LEE
~~~~~~~~~~~\
g
Venetian provinces, after Sauerwein 1969 \Navarino
~
.
~
Arcadia
Andrussa
Maryell L
~/
~~~~ ~~E-
!
\ t-
;Methoni
Kalamata
Koroni
1829 provinces,afterBoryde Saint-Vincent1834
Ep. Trifylias
/
,Ep.
Messini
4. Boundaries,southwest
NavarinoFigure Modern eparchies
Messenia. W. Lee
The present study,like Sutton's,begins with the ethnographers' Leeatrarcr stdforces on local social Movdernceparchie Fo of and ecoGreeinepenenc. international over the impact concern while nomic structures (particularly agricultural choices), pushing back
the timescalefromthe traditionalpostwaremphasisto the beginningof of human construction in, and modification of, the landscape, and archival
Messenia W.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
53
data and interviews are used to supplement that record.8Along the way, we contribute to the notion that the Greek village and the Greek "peasant" are far from timeless, and we also explore the way the human landscape can reveal processes of economic change.9 In the end, we find that while we can describe the landscape of Maryeli as more "preindustrial"(less affected, for example, by mechanized farming or modern irrigationprojects) than other areasof Europe (or even of Greece), to term it precapitalist or unaffected by the industrialization of other countries would be most unwise. In a nutshell, while in many ways the methodsof land use in Maryeli are still visibly preindustrial,the goals of land use have long been "modern" in their relationship to capitalism and international market forces.10Although the means of land use have somewhat restricted the ability of the villagers of Maryeli physically to transformtheir landscape, nevertheless it has changed, in accordanceboth with their own goals and with their relationship to the wider world. Before moving on to the results of the investigation, it is essential to point out the limits of this project. The region covered by fieldwork (the "areasurveyed")was determined initially by the coverage of the standard PRAP intensive survey,carriedout in 1994.11Unfortunately that area did not include the entire village territoryof Maryeli (Maryelaika;that is, the land outside the village proper,but still "of"the village), largely because of the project'spermit boundary.The surveyed areadid, however, encompass a significant percentage of Maryelaika, and also a large portion of the cultivable territory of Papaflessas (that is, Kondogonaika).12In addition to the region'sthick vegetation and the permit boundary,two other problems surfacedin the course of this study.First, there is no land register available for Maryeli, which prevented a thorough study of land ownership. Second, despite the shifting of provincialboundariesover the last 300 years,Maryeli has always lain at the extremity of the various provinces (see Fig. 4). Regional archivaldata, therefore, may not reflect Maryeli itself very well. Finally,while this article claims to be a microstudy of one village, there is only so much archival data available for that one village. So at times this study is about two or three villages (Maryeli, Papaflessas,and Ayii Apostoloi), at times it is about their immediate vicinity (called the deme of Voufrasouor Voufradosfrom 1840 to 1912), at times it is about the region now known as Pylia, at times Messenia, and occasionally it is about the whole Peloponnese. While a shift in this way from the local to the regional is unavoidable, it is also my belief that doing so contributes to breaking down the stereotype of the isolated village. 8. The interviewswere conductedby William Alexanderduringthe summer of 1995 in Maryeli,Papaflessas,and Ayii Apostoloi. It is worth pointing out that severalof our primaryinformants were from seventy to ninety yearsold. 9. We have also createda catalogue of the materialelements in the landscapeover the last 200 years, in fiullawarenessof the fact that much of that recordis now rapidlydisappearing. We will publish the detaileddata
on the PRAP Web site (http:// classics.lsa.umich.edu/PRAP.html) in the nearfuture.It will include a gazetteerof all the items discussed below,and a more detaileddiscussion of how chronologicaldeterminations were made. 10. Friedl (1962, p. 23) and Sutton (1988, p. 204) also discussthis distinctionbetween means and goals. 11. Davis et al. 1997, pp. 400-402, describesPRAP's overallgoals and
field-walkingtechniques. and 12. The words "Maryelaika" specificallyreferto "Kondogonaika" all the land owned by the villages (see Fig. 3 for the boundaries).Maryelaika comprisesapproximately4.41 km2, of which 2.52 was coveredin the detailed survey.Although Kondogonaikais much larger(7.35 kM2), much of it is extremelysteep, and some of the best fields are containedin the 1.08 km2 included in the surveyarea.
54
TOPOGRAPHIC, DEMOGRAPHIC
WAYNE
E.
LEE
HISTORICAL, AND BACKGROUND
Maryelilies in the rough hill countrythat rises as one progresseswest fromthe valleyof the PamisosRiverup into the Aigaleo,the westernmost mountainrangeof the Peloponnese(Fig. 1). Lyingfifteenkilometerseast of Gargalianiandtwenty-eightkilometerswest of Kalamata,it is virtually atthe geographiccenterof theMessenianpeninsula.Maryeli,at420 meters abovesealevel,is virtuallyhiddenon the slopesof a narrowvalleybetween ProfitisIlias (610 masl) to the east and higher successiveridgesof the Aigaleanrangerisingimmediatelyto the west.An outcropof that range, the nearlycircularhill Koutsouveri(530 masl),cuts off Maryelifromthe north, and only to the northeastdoes Maryeliface a somewhatgentler rollingvista,leadingawayinto the heartof Messenia.It is in this direction that most of Maryeli'smore accessiblefields lie, and here also that the Velikaruns,an unusuallyswift-flowing,perennialriverthat providesthe villagerswith water,waterpower,andgood bottomland(Fig. 3). The relative easeof movementforeastboundtraffichasled Maryeli'sresidentstraditionallyto lookfirsteasttowardmodernAristomenis(formerlyMustapha Pasha),and then south to moreregionalmarketsor portsat Petalidiand Messini (formerlyNisi).13 On the ridge 200 metersaboveMaryeli,to the west, are the joint formerlyandstilloccasionallyknown villagesof Ano andKatoPapaflessas, jointly as Kondogoni (Fig. 3).14 They, and particularlytheir modern offshootAyii Apostoloi,foundedin the 1970s, providea point of comparisonto the villageof Maryeli. Detailsof the earlyhistoryof Maryelimustremainobscure.As a villagethatwassmallandwell removedfromthe maincommunicationroute betweenKalamataand Pylos,it neverfiguredin the accountsof the early moderntravelers.Local traditionassertsa foundingdate"sometimedurwhen two shepherdbrothers(namedMaryeli)fled ing the Tourkokratia" theirhomein northernGreeceandarrivedin Messenia.They purportedly receivedpermissionfrom the localTurkishaga in Kefalovryso(formerly Halvatso)to settlewheretheypleasedbetweenHalvatsoandPylos.'5Venice conqueredthe Peloponnesein the mid-1680s,but Maryelidoes not appearin the Venetiancensusof 1689 (althoughKondogonidoes);Maryeli is listed,however,in the censusof 1700 (with twelveresidents)as partof the territorioof Modon.16 13. Many Greekvillageswith Turkishor other "non-Hellenic"names were renamed,particularlyduringthe first decadesof this century.Where relevantI have noted both names. 14. In this paperI will referto the villages (Kato and Ano) jointly as Papafiessas. 15. Foundinglegend as told by villagers.The etymology of Maryeli is unclear,but I was intriguedto discover the village of MargelliSin south-central Albania duringfieldworknearApollo-
nia (Fier) in the summerof 1999. 16. Panagiotopoulos1985, pp. 226, 266; Topping 1972. See also Dokos 1971-1972, p. 135, for the Venetian ecclesiasticalsurveythat recordedtwo churcheswithin Maryeli'sterritory. One is the hilltop shrine to Profitis Ilias, which probablypredatedthe village,and the other is dedicatedto Panayiaand may be the churchin the middle of the village, now called a family"chapel"of the Maryeli family and still dedicatedto Panayia.
55
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE W +agstaff(1977) - - U - Kremmydas(1972)
,l
Voufados -0-
Pylia
-
Maryeali-U- Papaflessas 1
600000 50000 -500
450001 500000-I
400000t-
f - - - - - - -
-7--
-- - - - -
- - -
-----
40000.370001k
-4
-
30000 300000
-400
-- - -" -----
00
I
j
--2O
20000 t10 200000 1500004
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~100100000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50 0ooo 100000
s o
---------------
-
1520 1540 1560 1500 1600 1620 1640 1600 10
1700 7-9 17 0 170 17_0 1
Figure 5 (left). Peloponnesian population, 1520-1850. Based on Kremmydas1972 and Wagstaff 1977
Figure 6 (right). Regional population, 1821-1991. Maryeli and Papaflessas read from the right vertical axis; the others read from the left vertical axis. Based on Rangavis 1853-1854, 11, p. 578; Chouliarakes19731976, 1, pp. xxiv-xxv,27; M?yacAL E2&Arypx6 Eyxvxio7rTa0Cx-(,s.v. Maryeli and Kondogoni; NSSG 1971-1991
17. Specificallyhe said:"The kazasi [of Andrussa]extends in that direction to within a few miles of Navarin" (Leake 1830, 1, pp. 365-366). The expedition scientifiquede Moree'scatalogue of villages,using the Turkish administrativedivisions,includes
-
0 1 1_7 .0 1 040
11 4 18211 031
-*
---- --
-p
1-51 106 10 101-1
-0-----
-2 911901 91-1-1
194119511- 91 .9}
11991
The Ottoman Empire recaptured the Morea from the Venetians in 1715, reestablishing a dominion that lasted until Greek independence in 1829. Archival research in Istanbul by Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr, another PRAP team member, is ongoing; at the moment, little can be said about Maryeli during this period. Leake's description of the region seemingly would place Maryeli within the Turkish kazasi (an administrativeunit) of Andrussa (Fig. 4: Venetian provinces).'7 Local information becomes more availablewith the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence in 1821. We know, for example, that although the Peloponnese saw significant fighting, Maryeli avoided the main dangers of the war until the campaigns of Ibrahim Pasha, beginning in 1825. Ibrahim Pasha's Egyptian army quickly overran most of the Morea but was unable to establish order in the countryside. During the summer of 1826, recognizing this failure, Ibrahim Pasha instead set out to devastate the country.For six months his troops systematicallyravagedthe Peloponnese, and Messenia, his base of operations, suffered a disproportionate share of the damage. Local tradition affirmsthat Ibrahim Pasha destroyed Maryeli during this period, and burned the nearbymonastery at Karamitsa (see Fig. 15).18 One writer reportedin 1842 that Messenia lost some 60,000 fig and olive trees during the rampage.'9 Following independence, Greece experiencedsignificant demographic expansion under the new monarchy.The population doubled under Otho (1833-1862), then tripled under George (1863-1913). This growth occurred without territorial expansion until 1864, when the Ionian islands were added to the Greek kingdom;Thessaly and Arta were added in 1881. In general this national population growth was less dramatic in the Peloponnese and in Messenia (see Figs. 5, 6). Maryeli appears in the written record of this period only as an entry in the various redrawingsof provinMaryeli in Andrussa(modernAndrousa); Chouliarakes1973-1976, 1, p. 32. 18. Earlyin this period of conquest therewas a battle fought between Ibrahim'sarmyand a force of some 3,000 Greeksunder the commandof Dikaios, a priest popularlyknown as
PappaFlesas. Finlay 1898, VI, pp. 366367; Phillips 1897, pp. 177-179; Petrounakou1901. Kondogonilaterwas renamedPapaflessasin the priest's honor. 19. Strong 1842, pp. 179-180; Finlay 1898, VI, p. 399.
56
WAYNE
E. LEE
cial boundariescarriedout by the new Greek state between 1836 and 1882. Initially Maryeli was in the Demos of Skarmingos within the Eparchy of Pylia, then in 1840 it was reorganized into the Demos of Voufrasou (later renamed Voufrados)within the Eparchy of Pylia (hereafterabbreviatedas Ep. Pylia).The deme system was abolished in 1912, replacedby the smaller koinotites-typically encompassing one or two villages, with the koinotita taking the name of the largest. In 1912 the koinotita of Kondogoni included Maryeli, Kondogoni, and Maniaki (cf Fig. 3); the last of these villages split off at an uncertain date, though not later than 1961.20 The Peloponnese suffered through the "currantcrisis"of 1893 (discussed more fully below), but avoided most of the disruptions of World War I and the catastrophic defeat by Turkish nationalist forces in 19211922 along with its subsequent exchange of populations.21World War II, reverberationsof which continue to be felt in the Greek countryside, was a different experience entirely.22The occupation and the civil war, the latter lasting until 1949, severely depressed the agricultural economy, not only through the normal disruptions of violence and conscription, but also through the loss of normal markets.Additionally, among wartime population losses, famine, and the onset of emigration, the demographic expansion of the Peloponnese had ended. The cost of reconstruction, added to the cost of fighting a civil war, was simply beyond the means of the restored Greek government. In fact, reconstruction proved to be beyond the means of a war-weary Great Britain, which historically had assumed responsibility for Greece's stability.The early onset of Cold War tensions led the United States in March 1947 to affirm its commitment to Greece and to begin a program of civil and military aid that was in large measure responsible for ending the civil war and restarting the Greek economy.23 By the early 1950s the economy had recovered to its prewar level, and through the painful devaluation of the currency in 1952, the Greek government managed to claim a budget surplus in 1953. American civil aid ended in 1962, and it is in the late 1950s and early 1960s that "postwar Greece"can truly be said to have begun.24 The demographic history of the region is critical to understanding its development. All available data indicate that the populations of Maryeli and Papaflessas have grown and declined together (see Fig. 6). Maryeli and Papaflessaswere both tiny villages when they are first detected in the Venetian census of 1700 (12 and 20 people, respectively), and neither village appearsever to have exceeded 400 individuals throughout its history.25In general the Peloponnese had gone through a long period of demographic stagnation, culminating and initially worsening under the Venetian conquest. Venetian initiatives, succeeded by improved Ottoman administration,encouraged a rebound in the population (see Fig. 6).26 Part of the explanation for that rebound should be credited to the improved access of Greek merchants to international trade over the course of the 18th century,and their use of resulting profits to stimulate native productive industries.27 Statistics for the region are increasingly reliable beginning in 1822, although, with the exception of 1851, village figures areunavailablefor the
20. Chouliarakes1973-1976, 1, pp. 120,125-126,139,216,238-239; II, pp. 32-33. The designation"Voufrasomesou was changed to "Voufrados" time between 1896 and 1907. In the is used for presentstudy,"Voufrados" statistical series.
21. Greece absorbed1,069,957 refugeesafter the 1921-1922 catastrophe, but only some 3,720 were sent to Messenia, and 3,587 of those were settled, at least initially,in Kalamata. NSSG 1931, p. 39. 22. Aschenbrenner1987; Laiou 1987; Mazower 1993. 23. Sweet-Escott 1954, p. 104. Between 1947 and 1949 Greece received $300 million in U.S. economic aid. In 1948 fully a third of the population was still on relief,and in 1949 agriculturaloutput was up to only 70% of prewarlevels. Kourvetarisand Dobratz 1987, p. 51. 24. Woodhouse 1968, pp. 258-259, 261,265-267,282; Kourvetarisand Dobratz 1987, p. 53. 25. Populationin 1700 from Panagiotopoulos 1985, pp. 226,265-266. 26. Populationestimatesfor the 18th century,even at a regionallevel, aregenerallymerelyeducatedguesses based largelyon travelers'reports(see Fig. 5). Kremmydas1972; Frangakis and Wagstaff 1987;Topping 1976; Wagstaff 1977. 27. Mouzelis 1978, pp. 8-11.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
57
period 1832-1879.28 Comparing the sparse data for the village itself with regional information confirms a general picture of slow expansion in the 19th century.A noticeable "hesitation"in regionalgrowth is evident around the period of the revolution, a trend partly explained by the loss of virtually all of the Peloponnesian Muslim population.29 Beginning in 1879, population figures for Maryeli and Papaflessas exist in a fairly continuous sequence, with both climbing to historic highs in the census of 1928. This population expansion matches the growth in Ep. Pylia over the same period, and reflects the success of the region's agriculturaleconomy. Since World War II, international emigration and migration to Athens have created a steady decline in population until the most recent census (1991), which showed a slight upturn.30
MATERIAL
28. Chouliarakes1973-1976, 1, passim;Belia 1978, pp. 284-285; Rangavis1853-1854, 11, pp. 573-578; NSSG; unpublishedcensus accountof Maryeli and Papaflessasfor 1991 from manuscriptcensus housed at the Nomarchyof Messenia'sstatisticsoffice in Kalamata. 29. For example,the populationof Ep. Pylia in 1821 was 14,031, of whom fully 7,343 were Muslims. Chouliarakes 1973-1976, I, p. 27. Most of those individualsleft Greece after the War of Independence.Pre-independence Androusa,for example,had a largely Turkishpopulation:Leake (1830, 1, pp. 365-366) indicatedthat it had 250300 Turkishfamilies and only 3 or 4 Greek. Similarly,the sourceused by Belia (1978, pp. 284-285) reporteda 1786 populationof 800, but according to the Frenchexpedition,Androusain the 1830s was left with only 146 people;Bory de Saint-Vincent 1834, p. 64. 30. For post-World War II populationmovementsin general,see Baxevanis1972; NSSG (Atlas), p. 214; InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development 1966. 31. For the extent of Maryelaikaand Kondogonaika,and the areaof each included in the survey,see note 12.
REMAINS
IN THE LANDSCAPE
With this background,we can turn to the resultsof the ethnoarchaeological study of the Maryeli area and to an examination of the human effects on this local landscape. Agricultural activity dominates that impact, but is in turn contingent upon individual choices conditioned by factors both natural (topography,climate) and structural (subsistence needs, the market, industrialization, land tenure systems, population levels). The challenge is to identify,where possible, the combination of factors that created particularconfigurations in the landscape.To answer this challenge in the case of Maryeli, two broad categories of evidence will be examined: material remains in the village of Maryeli and its surrounding hinterland, and the record of crop selection and agriculturalproduction in the area. From these two categories of evidence, the degree to which Maryeli has long been affected by, and involved in, wider economic systems of exchange will be measured and explored. The following brief review of material remains is divided into five sections: constructions in the countryside, agriculturalprocessing facilities, water supply and management, roads, and houses. CONSTRUCTIONS
IN THE
COUNTRYSIDE
TERRACES
Description of the landscape must begin with the fields themselves, and around Maryeli there has been significant creation of fields through terracing (see Fig. 7). Terracing to increase the area of cultivable land is a common feature of Peloponnesian agriculture.In recent years the standard stone terraces have been supplemented or "repaired"by bulldozing. There is little evidence, however, that bulldozing has enlarged the total area available for cultivation; rather, it simply has replaced the far more laborious process of building or repairing stone terrace walls. Terracing has been critical to the spread of cultivation in the survey area.Terraced
fieldsmakeup 2.9 km2 out of a 4.1 km2 surveyedarea(not all of which is cultivable).31 With the exception of one small side valley, which contains
58
WAYNE
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _
E. LEE
Stone tFguee.reracngrsrvycre.se not e 3 o _z e 3.a.eL
_Blld
several cross-channel or "check-dam"-styleterraces,all of the region'ste rraces are the common "contour"style, built parallel to the contours of tlle hillsides and to each other.32Figure 7 highlights two concentrations of unterraced areas with no remaining evidence of cultivation: one in the immediate vicinity of the village on the slopes of Profitis Ilias, and the other in the flatlands and low hills near the Velika River.The unterraced and uncultivated areas near the village are generally extremely steep, even compared to the slopes to the west, and would have been exceptionally difficult to terrace.The situation near the Velika is less clear. Some of the knobby hills have nearly clifflike slopes, but in general the majority of the "blankspaces"are relativelyflat areasthat were probablyunder cultivation at one time, but have been abandoned long enough to erase the evidence. In sum, the overall picture is one in which virtuallyevery availableareahas at one time been under cultivation at the cost of extensive terracing.
e
32. Wagstaff (1992, p. 155) defines these types. Exact slope and corresponding terracedimension datawere not collected,but can be characterized as extremelyvariablethroughoutthe region.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
59
Unfortunately, there is little hope of establishing a chronology for the spread of that terracing.33First, the quality of terrace construction varies widely from field to field, leading to different rates of deterioration. In fact, some of the apparentlyoldest terraces (a tentative assumption based on the weathering and encrustation of the stones, and their position in remote, long overgrown fields) are-counterintuitively--in the best condition, not least because they were constructed more sturdilyfrom heavier stones.34Rapid vegetative regrowth in this well-watered region has protected the abandoned stone terracesfrom suffering much erosion. While time and roots have torn down many of the actualterracewalls, the maquis has held the soil in place. That has not been the case where the villagers have opted to reworkthe terraceswith bulldozers.Those areasare eroding quite rapidly.35This brings us to the second chronological difficulty: the bulldozing of terraces has obscured or destroyed the original stonework, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the ages of terraces in the region. In general, those areasthat retain evidence of traditional stone terracing tend to be more distant from the village, on the steeper slopes, and many of them are now out of cultivation.The most heavily cultivated areas show the greatest reliance on now bulldozed terraces that were probably once made of stone. The exception are the fields belonging to Papaflessas just north of Ayii Apostoloi. There the traditional stone terraceshave continued in areasunder cultivation, but the recent cutting of a road through the middle of those fields may change the situation by allowing easier bulldozer access. There are a few safe chronological conclusions. Given what we know of the demographic history of Maryeli-that its highest population level came in the 1920s and 1930s-it is likely that many of the most difficult or remote terraces belong to this period, chronologically coinciding with the area's agricultural expansion (that expansion is discussed below).36 The motivation for successful cash cropping combined with demographic expansion led to the use of fields, usually after terracing,that had been on slopes too difficult of access to encourage previous cultivation.A bulldozer was first used in the village in the 1950s and was initially employed for roadwork only.37Stone terrace construction theoretically could have continued well into that decade; certainly some walls show signs of relatively recent repairwork and one villager specifically remembers a few stone terraces still being built by the villagers as late as about 1940. 33. For one attemptto define an abandonmentsequenceof earlymodern terraces,see Whitelaw 1991, pp. 406410. During the survey,we originally classifiedterracesaccordingto their condition, as derivedfrom Whitelaw. Given the difficultiesin using that informationtowardestablishinga chronology of terracing,only bulldozed and stone terracesare distinguishedin Fig. 7. See also Wagstaff 1992, pp. 159-160, but the lack of any truly old olive trees
(discussedbelow) aroundMaryeliprevents the use of his dating technique. 34. The description"longovergrown"refersto those areaswhere lowlying maquis (particularlythe prickly oak and velanidiaoak) has progressed to forest. 35. Forbes(1997, p. 196) reacheda similarconclusion about the difficulty of dating terraces,and of the consequencesof bulldozing. 36. Similarly,Allen (1997, p. 263),
Forbes(1997, p. 196), and Foxhall (1996) all arguethat the relatively recentexpansionof terracingis partlya resultof modern demographicpressure and changingeconomic goals. 37. The first tractorarrivednot much later.Given the difficultterrain, and the relativelack of permanent residents,no one in Maryeli has ever owned either a bulldozeror a tractor, althoughboth have been hired to work suitableareas.
6o
WAYNE
E. LEE
Pre-World WaryeIMaryewI
_____
___
yii__Apostoloi
Pre-Worid War II FIELD
BUILDINGS
All (old and new)
(Spitakia)
A wide variety of storage buildings, stables, and shelters lie scattered throughoutthe fieldsof Maryelaikaand Kondogonaika(see Figs. 8, 9).38 These buildings,which tend to be extremelysimple and small,are here subdividedinto the "older" spitakiacomposedof rubblemasonry,and the "newer,"postwar versions, which use obviously modern materials. Seasonal residences (kalyves)are treated separately.39 The stone buildings occasionally have cut corner-blocks,but most often are made of purely rubble masonry.They also usually have a peaked, tiled roof. The newer buildings tend to be constructed of cinderblock,with a wide variety of roofing materials, the most common being corrugated steel or vinyl. Interior partitions separating storage from stable areas are normally found only in the newer, larger buildings. Both old and new spitakiaare frequently found in association with crop processing facilities (alonia, threshing floors, etc.; see below). 38. In the present context, the word "shelter"refersto a hut, often with a bed, used for the Mediterraneansiesta. In many cases such use is combined with anotherpurpose (stable,storage, etc). Classifyinga building as a shelter
Apostoloi
___Ayii
ratherthan as a seasonalresidenceis difficult.Where lacking direct information,I generallyused the lack of a second room as a defining characteristic. 39. See "Houses,"below.
Figure 8. Distribution of spitakia, survey area. Kalyves are excluded. W. Lee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... .. :.....
Figure 9. Spitaki pre-Worid War II. W. Lee
6i
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
\
Ayii Apostoloi
Figure10. (left)Distributionof alonia(15 total);(right)distribution of threshingfloors(14 total).Marked fieldsarethose of currentor confirmedformervineyards.W.Lee
Figure11.Aloni,with currants spreadout to dry.W.Lee
AGRICULTURAL
X
PROCESSING
yii Apostoloi
FACILITIES
Alo n ia The Greekword aloni (pl. alonia)refersto almost any kind of flat area used for processingthe harvest.In this region,threetypesappear:drying racksfor figs, dryingracksfor currants,and threshingfloors.As the first two arephysicallyindistinguishable,they are consideredhere as a single entity,and are referredto as alonia.The expression"threshingfloor"is preferredfor those structuresspecificallybuilt to processgrain(although they couldbe used for otherpurposesas well). Figs andcurrantsaroundMaryeliareoften foundin adjoiningfields, and aloniaadjacentto such areascan be used for either crop,although, sinceboth cropsareharvestedand driedoverthe sameperiod,it is necessary to provide sufficient space for processingthe two crops at once (see Figs. 10, 11).The dryingprocessis similarforboth.Typicalaloniaare simpleflat spots with an arrangementof racksto supporta cloth cover. More elaboratealoniawith concreteplatformsare found elsewherein Messenia,althoughnot in Maryelaika. After the harvest,which stretchesover August and September,the figs and currantsarecarriedto the dryingracks.There the fruitis spread
WAYNE
62
E. LEE
out on sheets. Another cloth can be stretched over the fruit to protect the crop from rain. A batch is normally left to dry for ten to twelve days, before another is harvested and brought to the aloni.0 It is extremely easy for an abandoned aloni to disappearin the undergrowth, and it is likely that many former alonia have been missed. Therefore, the number and extent of alonia shown in Figure 10 (left) is probably much smaller than it would have been even as late as 1973. Aerial photographs from that year (taken during the late summer drying season) in a few instances show white drying-sheets in locations now apparentlylacking alonia.Additionally, a number of the field buildings have a stone patio which could have served as an aloni; the 1973 photos support this supposition.41Threshing floors, the next category of agriculturalprocessing facility to be explored,although unquestionablydesigned for threshing grain, can also be employed as drying platforms. In general, the alonia that survive or are still in use are those readily accessible by road (see Fig. 10). More remote alonia have faded from use. Despite the ease with which alonia have disappeared,their widespread presence attests to Maryeli's historic participation in the production of currantsand figs. The exact chronology of the rise and fall of the production of currantswill be explored below through production statistics.This local evidence on the ground, however-specifically the decline in the numbers of alonia in Maryelaika even since 1973-shows Maryeli to be in line with the later-20th-century regional downward trend in currant production. THRESHING
FLOORS
Threshing floors are among the more impressive of the agriculturalprocessing structuresfound in the countryside. The typical threshing floor is a stone-paved circle approximatelyten to thirteen meters in diameter;some have large flagstones set upright at the edge of a portion of the circle to help contain the chaff during winnowing. These stone circles are quite common around Maryeli (see Fig. 10), and it is possible that even more, made of stamped dung and earth, have disappeared,preserved only in village memory. The design of the floor reflects the use of a threshing technique that has remained relatively stable in Greece for centuries. The 17th-century description by travelerBernard Randolph discusses Greek threshing techniques in terms that easily could have appliedto pre-World War II Maryeli: They reap their Corn much in the manner as we do, but have no Barns, only Threshing-floors, (which the Turks call Chirman). They are on high Ground, and open to the Winds. Here they tread it out with Horses, which are made fast to a Post, round which the Corn is put; the Horses trampling upon it make great dispatch; with the Wind they cleanse it, and send it home to their Houses.42 Although other descriptionsof threshing in Greece have included a threshing "sledge"dragged behind the animal, or long sticks or knotted cords, living memory in Maryeli does not record such enhancements, and threshing remained dependent on an animal'shooves.43
40. For fig drying,some farmers formerlypreferredusing shallow, stackablewooden crates (kalamota) laid out on the floor of an aloni, but these have been almost supersededby the greaterease offeredby nylon tarpaulins. Interviews;Burlumi 1911, pp. 12-13; Kanasi1930, pp. 27-28. 41. The photographsshow distinct white spots on patios nearspitakia, cloths laid out to dry the fruit. 42. Randolph 1689, p. 17. Scrofani (1801, III, p. 64) providesa nearly identicaldescriptionfor the 18th century. 43. See Halstead andJones 1997 for detailed descriptionsof the threshing processin two island communities. Such sledgeswere not unknown in Messenia. PRAP fieldwork,in fact, found at least one threshingsledge "tooth"of worked stone nearthe village of Metamorfosis.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
63
Olive
4
#5. )5 5.5
Figure presses,
12. survey
Distribution area.
of W.
miffs
and
*.~0
025
%F*ilometers5~~5504
Lee
44. Pers.comm. with Siriol Davies, based on her researchin the Venetian archives. 45. One examplegiven of such a favorwas that the borrowerwould lay leftover strawin the stable of the threshing floor'sowner. 46. This suppositionis supportedby village testimony.Prior to World War II, communitiesin the region made wine themselves and sold some small amounts to other villages to the east, as far as Kalamata(areastowardHora had their own vineyards).After the war,the villagersbegan selling their grapesto the Yialovawinery.Also comparethe small numberand simplicityof the wine pressesdiscussedhere to the elaborateand numerousexamples describedby Whitelaw (1991, pp. 421424) for the much more activewineproducingeconomy on Kea. See also Sutton 1991, p. 390.
5.
5..
press
I4.
4
0.
5.4135:55455,5. .045.s\
'7f5'5555A~5*5)55
I
I
The physical distribution of the floors in the landscape, specifically their often very close proximity to each other, led us to suppose that they were privately owned, with each farmer constructing one sufficient to his own needs. This contrasted, however,with the understanding that threshing floors were communally owned during the Venetian period.44 The villagers confirmed the private ownership theory, but pointed out that even in a small village like Maryeli there were not enough threshing floors to accommodate every farmer.Families that did not possess one could use a neighbor's in exchange for minor chores or favors.45At any rate, the sheer number of threshing floors around Maryeli provides ample evidence of the former importance of cereal production (discussed below). WINE
PRESSES
Wine presses in this area are extremely simple and small, clearly inadequate and too few in number for any serious production of wine for market-unlike the relatively vast number of drying floors for currants (see Fig. 12).46There are essentially two types found in the area:an open cisternlike press and the basket-style press (whose poor durabilityhas left only one example extant, though informants attest to their common use). Aside from those wine presses shown on the distribution map, it should be noted that some growershad presseswithin their house compounds. Those presses, largely through reuse for other purposes, have disappeared.
64 OLIVE
WAYNE E. LEE PRESSES
Only two olive presses were found within the survey area (see Fig. 12), and both are presently nonfunctional. The larger of the two was owned by the Maryeli village church, and sits on the edge of the village nucleus. The building is now mostly a ruin, although its circular stone press is still in situ with as many as six millstones scattered around the interior.This mill was reportedlyin use until approximatelythirty yearsago.47It is constructed of simple stone masonry without any of the embellishments one associates with Langadian house masonry (for a discussion of the Langadian masons, see the section on houses, below).48The smaller press building, in the village center, belonged to the Maryeli family, and is still a well-preserved building containing a variety of pressing equipment (see Fig. 13). The building itself is a simple rectangular structure of rubble stone masonry offering few clues to its construction date. Both presses operated by keeping 10% of the oil produced (5% to the owner, 5% to the press workers). The leftover olive pulp was used as fuel or pig feed.49
.. .........:
.
: :< ;<
!E>~~~~~~~~~~ | .....
:....
Figure 13. An upright stone olive press in the Maryeli family press house. W. Lee
GRAIN
MILLS
The swiftness and reliability of the Velika River, especially before modern waterlines began pumping out the water and lowering the river'sflow, made it an ideal power source for grain mills. Between Palio Loutro (the headwaters of the Velika;see Fig. 14) and the southeast extremity of Maryelaika there were at least eight mills, two in Maryelaika itself (Fig. 12).5?Once again the Maryeli family owned one of those mills, and the church, this time the monastery at Karamitsa, the other. The mills were badly damaged by a flood in 1936, after which the villagers took their grain to Vlasi or Platanovrysi. The Maryeli family mill was rebuilt and operated until the 1965 flood, which wiped out all the mills on the upper Velika;with the decline in regional grain production at that time (discussed below) there remained no motivation to rebuild, and today both mills are in an advanced state of ruin. WATER
SUPPLY
AND
MANAGEMENT
Most farming societies dedicate significant effort to making water conveniently available, and such efforts are usually visible in the landscape. A passing glance at the cities of antiquity attests to the ancient Greeks' investment in water management, and in the 18th century Scrofani commented on the great ability of both the Greeks and the Turks to manage water.5'Such ability finds expression even in a small village like Maryeli.52 Within the survey area there are four types of "water artifact":wells, cisterns, springhouses, and water channels/pipelines (see Fig. 14). Surprisingly,only three wells were detected during the survey.They are all circular,rubble stone shafts, and are still in use for watering animals. Variously shaped plaster-lined cisterns are somewhat more common. The cisterns in this area were not normally used to provide drinking water for people or animals; instead they functioned to hold and redistribute runoff into productive fields (especially market gardens). The farmers cut channels upstream from a cistern, diverting water from the seasonal torrents
47. Informationon the decline of the presswas obtained from interviews. 48. "Langadian" is the common anglicizationof Langadini. 49. This presspayment system was describedin interviews. 50. Aschenbrenner's(1986, p. 13) studyvillage, Karpofora,had access to a similarset of mills, the siting of which he dates to the 18th century.Cf. Bialor 1976, pp.229-230. 51. Scrofani1801, III, p. 88. For the ancient Greeks'sophisticatedmanipulation of the water supply,see Crouch 1993. 52. Settlement sites were often determinedby the availabilityof water (although not always,as Papaflessas illustrates);see Wagstaff 1982, pp. 78, 81. The founding legend of Maryeli includes the decisivenessof water in determininglocation.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
Figure 14. Water facilities. The thick black line indicates the probable path of the "Turkishwater channel"; see
note 56. W. Lee
53. Attested by reportand by the relocationof the outlet pipes. 54. Cf. Bialor 1976, p. 228; Clark 1994-1995, p. 521.
out of the steep-banked creek bottoms and into the cistern, whose outlets were channeled into the fields. Those cisterns and water channels associated with springhouses performed a similar function of collecting surplus water for agriculturalpurposes. Springs have always been fundamental to the Greek view of the land, and they are often protected carefullyand enhanced by the construction of springhouses. Maryeli currently has three springhouses. The one in the center of the village continues to provide a good flow of water, although apparentlysomewhat less abundantly than formerly.53The present building is a plain, rectangular,concrete structure (essentially a roof supported by two pillars and a wall, with pipes protruding from the latter). A successful emigrant to the United States sent home the money for its construction in 1948. Representing the first use of concrete in the village, it replaced an older double-arched stone structure.The water, after leaving a shallow pooling area under the shelter (useful for doing washing and watering animals), passes under the concrete roadwayand gathers in a cistern from which it can be redirected to nearby gardens and for watering animals. Although the village homes are now supplied with water via a modern pipeline (originating from the Velika headwaters near Palio Loutro), the central spring continues to be used for watering animals and for some other domestic chores.54
66
WAYNE
E. LEE
Although not exactly from a spring "house,"traces remain of a constructed water channel (now dry) emptying into the dry streambed approximately 250 m northeast of the village. About 50 m uphill from the stream,the channel originates at a 2.5-m-high, mossy terracewall. Within memory, this channel carrieda heavy flow of "warm"water that the villagers used for a variety of activities, although not for drinking. This spring has since dried up, although informants report that four to five years ago a heavy rain caused it to run again briefly. The third springhouse, built in August 1994, lies immediately beside a tributary of the Velika at a place called Kefalovryso ("springhead,"not the village of the same name), very close to the boundary of Maryelaika and approximately 1.5 km from any habitations. Several of the local villages (Platanovrysi,Horeftra, and Aristomenis) had designs on this water supply,planning to set up a pumphouse to use this spring'swater for irrigating fields to the south. The Mayor of Maryeli, VasilisDimitrakopoulos, hoped to improve his village'sclaim by building a springhouse there, in the eventual hope of having the government provide a grant for pumping water to Maryeli'solive groves.Three Northern Epirote masons were brought in at a cost of 350,000 drachmas to build the stone fountain, which required 26 tractorloadsof stone from Aristomenis. This stands as a classic example of staking claim by improvement;it remains to be seen, however, who will ultimately win that dispute. The style of construction also serves notice of how changing aesthetics have affected the landscape.The springhouse in the village center was reconstructedin concrete in 1948 as a symbol of modernity and progress, whereas the new one at Kefalovryso was built along traditional lines despite the heavy cost. In this respect the new springhouse reflects a growing trend in ruralMessenia to celebrate and preserve traditional architecture, even though it is usually beyond the means of most private individuals to recreatesuch now-expensive techniques in new buildings. Neither Papaflessasnor Ayii Apostoloi has springs within the village. These villages are now supplied by the modern pipeline installed in the early 1960s, partially indicated in Figure 14 by the line of valve stations.55 Papaflessasformerly relied on the springhouse at the turnoff of the modern road to Maryeli (the springhouse indicated just north of Kato Papaflessas in Fig. 14). The foot- and donkey path leading directly up the hillside from the springhouse to Kato Papaflessasis still quite visible. Finally, and possibly most revealing of the Turkish influence on this relatively remote area, the villagers of Maryeli pointed out the very faint remains of what they call the "Turkishwater channel" (see Fig. 14). Its visible remnant is a narrow (about 30 cm wide) shallow ditch whose remains frequentlyfade into the ground, and thus proved impossible to trace over its entire length. Tradition holds that the channel begins at the springs in Palio Loutro ("oldbath"),snakes around the Papaflessasmountain, cuts across Maryelaika, and then passes beyond the knowledge of the villagers near the point where the Maryeli-Aristomenis road crosses the Velika River.56
Villagers pointed out several locations where they definitely remembered seeing the channel. A search around Palio Loutro revealed not one
55. The stationsshown on Fig. 14 markthe line that suppliesMaryeli and Ayii Apostoloi. A branchof that line suppliesPapaflessas.The point of origin is the Velikaheadwatersat Palio Loutro. 56. In Fig. 14, water channel markersalong the length of the "Turkishwater channel"indicate attestedor verifiedpoints of its course. The remainderis suppositionbased on elevation.The channel may well actuallyend nearthe crossingof the Velika,becauseat that point it is approachingthe same elevationas the river.I would like to acknowledgethe assistanceof ProfessorJoost Knauss from the TechnicalUniversityof Munich in analyzingthe probable courseand fate of the water channel.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
67
but several similarly sized channels, some with simple stone linings still preserved(such stone is neither apparentnor rememberedelsewhere along the water channel's length). With this information a probable course for the channel was plotted, which covered a straight-line distance of 10.1 km over a total elevation drop of ca. 200 m. The resulting 2% gradient is well within the norm for an uncovered irrigation or drainage ditch. The assumed course does not, however, maintain that gradient consistently. Such variations in gradient have created places where the ditch alternately dug itself deeper or silted up. Presumablythese defects eventually renderedthe channel inoperable. Dating a feature such as this channel with any certainty is, of course, impossible, but the traditional association with the Turks is neither unlikely nor without precedent. The 18th-century travelerScrofani ascribed to the Moreots the ability to distribute water over distances of "eight, ten and even twenty miles."57According to Peter Topping, a comparablylong (8.5-km) example of such a work exists on the plain of Pila, though he is not exact about its location.58Within the PRAP survey area there is a similar, though much shorter, water channel associated with Turkish remains near the village of Metamorfosis.5' 57. Scrofani1801, III, p. 88. 58. Topping may be referringto the channel associatedwith the wellknown aqueductoutside the modern town of Pylos that carriedwater to the fort at Neokastro.Topping 1972, p. 77. 59. For a brief discussionof the evidencefor the Turkish"bath"and water channel at this location see Davis et al. 1997, p. 480. 60. Belia 1978; Leake 1830, I, pp. 354,395-398, and foldout map. To clarify:the road cutting acrossthe southwestMessenian peninsulafrom Kalamatato Navarino (by way of Karpofora) existedin the late 18th century, but it was not apparentlythe main route of travel.Both Leake and the 1786 Frenchmilitarysurveydiscussed by Belia emphasizeAndrousaas the waypointbetween Kalamataand points west and north. See also Depping 1830, II, p. 125, and Bory de Saint-Vincent 1835, unnumberedmap of the Peloponnese. 61. Kremmydas1972, pp. 159,260. 62. See Kremmydas1972, p. 191 for their importancein the 18th century, and Kremmydas1980, pp. 84-85 for their decline and Kalamata'srise.The roadswere neververy good. The Venetiansin 1699 complainedabout the bad roadsaroundNavarino.Siriol Davies (pers.comm.). See also McGrew 1985, p. 5.
ROADS
There are two stories to tell regardingwhat are collectively called "roads." The first involves the long-range routes of communication between major markets that in turn connect into the wider Messenian network. The second is the development of local pathways and field access routes.Together, these two stories of road development speak not only to the role of the village in a broader world and how that broader world has reshaped the village, but also about changes in the practice of agricultureover time. REGIONAL
NETWORKS
Travelers'accounts allow a reconstruction of the majorroutes of travel and communication in southwest Messenia at the start of the 19th century. The major nodes of communication were Methoni, Koroni, Navarino (Pylos), Arkadia (Kyparissia),Kalamata,Androusa, Leondari, and on to Tripolis in the central Peloponnese. A French military report from 1786 and Leake's experience in 1805 both affirm that Androusa was the nexus of travel through southwest Messenia.60This is essentially the road network as mapped by Vasilis Kremmydas in his work on the 18th-century Greek economy, and not surprisingly the important road termini correspond to the ports he identified as being the most active centers of commerce.6' By the end of the first third of the 19th century, however, the declining importance of Androusa (which had lost most of its primarily Turkish population) and the rising importance of Kalamata led to the dominance of the direct Kalamata-Navarino route following a path similar to the modern road. As a not surprising corollary,the condition of the roads leading to Navarino, Methoni, and Koroni declined as those ports yielded their preeminence to Kalamata during the 19th century.62During his travels in
68
WAYNE
E. LEE
Kato Voutaina
4P ta
4P Lutro
isi
Fes
X
Ano
sas #At
a
Man ki
. .....
0*Touloup
eli-
-
fl sas
4
to Hora 4Meta
Ka
--
Monastery
-nsn)rs
.-
--Diodia"
to ndrousa
.
XyiiApO
0
Hanitou Barkas
ani
sis
....
7A
)
River
."ground
-
1804, William Gell was able to report that some of the bridges on the Navarino-Gargalianiroadwere still intact, and that the Navarino-Methoni road was old but "veryperfect, consisting of small stones very well united, not more than six feet broad-perhaps Venetian."63EdwardDodwell, however, in the same decade found all the bridges on the coastal road north of Arkadia (Kyparissia)to be broken down.64Shortly after the war for independence, Perdicaris described the last westerly stretch of the KalamataNavarino/Pylos road as "oneof the worst and most perilous roads that is to be met in the Kingdom of Greece." By 1858, moreover,Wyse described Messenia's western roads as "quite as wretched as in the worst parts of Greece,"while Clark for the same period simply said that there were no practicable roads at all around Navarino and "so Kalamata engrosses all the export trade of Messenia."65 The early years of the Greek kingdom saw little improvement in the roadsystem.As of 1913 only some 4,000 km of roadhad been built throughout Greece.66Beginning in 1923 the government began spending $2-3 million annually for roadworkand by 1929 there were 198,000 kilometers of "highway."67 It was during this period, in 1925, that the Kalamata-Pylos route was made into an all-season, wagon-width roadway.68And it was only in the early 1950s, with the funding of the U.S. Aid Mission, that many of the current wheel-capable access roads were built to reach villages.69
Figure 15. Local intervillage road networks, early 20th century. Routes marked have been verified on the or by testimony. W. Lee
63. Gell 1817, pp.51,53. 64. Dodwell 1819,11, p. 349. He reckonedit a twenty-hourjourneyon the coast roadfrom Arkadiato Modon (Methoni). 65. Perdicaris1845,11, p. 193; Wyse 1865,11, p. 236; Clark 1858, p.227. 66. NID 1944,11, pp. 204,212; Mears (1929, p. 153) claimed there were only some 500 miles of improved roadin 1912. Mouzelis (1978, p. 18, note 90) claims that there were 620 km of roadin 1880 and 2,128 km in 1909.
67. Mears 1929, pp. 153-154. 68. Aschenbrenner1987, p. 109; 1986, pp. 78-88. 69. McNeill 1978, pp. 91-92; Hart 1992, p. 57; Clark 1994-1995, p. 521; Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 15-16.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
LOCAL
__
Figure16.Theauthoron a VenetoTurkishbridgenearStrefi. W. Alexander
69
NETWORKS
How and when this regionalroad networkconnectedwith Maryeliand the surroundingvillagesis not entirelyclear.Some conclusions,however, are possible (see Fig. 15). Local intervillageroadswere originallysmall foot- or donkeypaths,laboriouslyconstructedwith a single or a double wall, creatinga pathwide enoughfor a heavilyladendonkey,and known as dromakia or kalderimia. In someplacestheywerecobbled,andin others their constantuse and their tendencyto becomewasheshas worn them down to bedrock.Kalderimiafrequentlyfollow the most directrouteto a location,with slightregardfor the steepnessof the path,easilytraversable by donkey.Where a modernroadwill follow a circuitouspath through valleysor alongthe shouldersof a mountain,a kalderimiwill shoot almost straightup the mountainside.70 Survivingsectionsof kalderimia providethe outlineof the olderintervillagelocalnetwork.Combiningthose survivingsectionswith the villagers'memoryof the routesthey followedto differentmarketsearlyin this centuryallowsa reconstructionof those routes,as foundin Figure15. For example,travelsouth and west towardthe marketat Hora followedthe kalderimi(still partiallyintact)that led up the mountainfromMaryelito Papaflessas.From there, survivingsections-combined with the aerial photographsof 1945-attest to a connectionto TouloupaHani andfrom thereto Metamorfosisand on to Hora.Alternatively,a southboundtravelercouldopt for Ayii Apostoloi(remainsof the kalderimibetweenthere and KatoPapaflessasstill survive),wheretherewas anotherhani,now in ruins,calledtheHani touBarkas.Fromthere,connectionsexistedto Milioti or Vlasi. There area varietyof old intervillageroutesrunningnorth and east out of Maryelitowardthe lower hill countryand leading eventuallyto Androusa.Accordingto the villagers,and in some places confirmedby visibleremains,therewereoncewithinMaryelaikaat leastthreeandpossiblyfourbridgesacrossthe Velika.All of thesebridgesseeminglydateto theTurkishperiod.71The villagersrememberthem asbeingin ruinsby the earlypartof this century,theirformersitesthen remainingin use as fords, keepingthe old roadsin their formerplace.Numerousvillagersrecalled travelingto nearbyvillagesvia theseroutesandalsorecalledthe passingof othervillagersthroughMaryelito connectto the routeleadingto the market 70. This is not to say that the kalderimia are constructedwithout a
carefulregardfor topography,merely that they take more radicalpaths than modern roads. 71. The dimensions of the survivingbridge abutmentspointed out by the villagersareconsistent with the kind of bridges found elsewherein the Peloponneseand describedby Clark (1858, p. 214) on the road from
Kalamatato Nisi (now Messini) as "steep-pitched,narrowbridgeswithout parapets,"that is, not designed for wagons. An exampleof a large VenetoTurkishbridge survivesoutside the nearbyvillage of Strefi (see Fig. 16), and may form an importantlink in the route to Nisi describedin the text. See Petronotis 1986, pp. 66, 67 for further illustrations.
70
IJ~~~~~~~~~~~~ 017 \ Ana @\ %.Dg
>
_
(
=
S
\
Key road
~
~
0 .75 | . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~survey
<)AX
\
_><<
<
_)
7
) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Class
5
rad Figurel17. Existing
area.W. Lee
road network,
fullyasphalted(orcon-
t
)
E. LEE
XouClass1:
w)
< k\
\
\
WAYNE
s
\\
c LassClass
modern roads ~~~~~~~~~~~~~crete)
2: well-gradeddirtor gravel 3: roughlybulldozedfield
Class4:dromakiaorkalderimia road, used for travel to the currantmarkets at Nisi at Hora.72The "main"~ (now Messini) and Petalidi, described by the villagers as having been a "pebbleroad"or a "narrowpath,"is the one shown in Figure 15 passing by the Karamitsa Monastery, then briefly following the Velika River until turning toward Aristomenis.73This route proceeded from Aristomenis through Diodia, Sterna, Manesi, Spitalion, Pilalistra,Mavrommation, and then Nisi/Messini (approximately23 kmnon the ground, and remembered as a six-hour trip with a loaded donkey). The modernization of these local roads occurred slowly (see Fig. 17). The existing well-graded dirt road that connects Papaflessas to Maryeli was built before 1940 by government-sponsored wage-work for the villagers. This road appears on the 1945 aerial photographs, and has changed little since. The development of a new marketin Aristomenis around 1970 probably indicates how far paved roads had reached by that date. The old 72. Interestingsupportfor this formerlyextensivemovement between Maryeli and points north and east is found in the village register,which, besides Maryeli and Athens, for the period from 1898 (the earliest)through 1938 lists birthplacesin Sterna,Voutaina, Aristomenis,Palio Loutro,Platanovrysi, and Kefalovryso-all nearbyvillages to the
north or east. revLxov[toYjtP(ov 8-nvo6tov (KotLv6tsL; Mapyr)Lou), kept in the
village office. 73. Just east of ProfitisIlias, where the modern roadwinds between two hills, one can see where the old road follows a differentroute aroundthe hills before the routesconvergeagain.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
7I
road north and east out of Maryeli toward Aristomenis was bulldozed to wagon width in the 1950s. As late as 1982, Papaflessas apparentlymanaged without an asphalt access road.The current east-west road through Ayii Apostoloi was built by "personalinitiative"in the 1930s, widened for wheeled traffic later (after the war?), and then paved in the 1970s.74 Even this relatively slow encroachment of modern roadways has had profound effects on the geography of the region. For Maryeli and the surrounding villages to the north and east, the existence of asphaltroads (Class 1 in Fig. 17) and the availabilityof cars has rerouted communication onto fewer paths. Traffic out of and into Maryeli now mainly flows along the single paved road to Aristomenis, more occasionally along the dirt road from Papaflessas.The village network of kalderimia(Class 4), which formerly reached over bridges across the Velika to neighboring villages, has been largely replacedby roughly truncated bulldozed field roads (Class 3), both of which are distinctly discernible as a separateentity cut off from the broadernetwork.The currentroad system revolves arounda series of larger trunk roads (Class 2-well-graded dirt or gravel) that branch out from the village to access the major cultivable areas,tending to peter out either one field away from the Velika or at the edge of the village territory.Similarly, the less developed pathways (Classes 3 and 4), which branch out yet further from the trunk lines, tend to die out at the edge of a given field, at the river,or at the Maryelaika boundary. The multiple crossings of the Velika are no longer tended, and where once the villagers of Platanovrysi and Voutaina regularlytraveled through Maryeli en route to the market at Hora, now they are confined to the asphalt corridorsaround it. While this shift presents no economic hardship, because the speed of motorized travelon asphalt roads greatly exceeds that possible on the older direct footpaths, it has changed the way villagers interact.Where, before, whole families driving flocks or carryinggoods to and from the market could mingle and socialize in the villages they passed through, those opportunities have now shrunk to chance meetings on the streets of the largertowns, and the use of trucks has reduced the number of people requiredfor those market tasks.75Stanley Aschenbrenner noted a similar phenomenon at Karpofora. He found that until about 1970, Karpoforans maintained social and kinship ties almost exclusively with villages within 6 or 7 km (not counting those who emigrated from the village). The availabilityof roads greatly broadened that network of relationships,with Kalamata,Messini, and Athens figuringincreasinglyprominently.76
LOCAL
74. The uncertaintyin these dates arisesfrom the fact that they arebased on villagers'memories. 75. See abovefor Maryeli's residents'nativityin nearbyvillages. 76. Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 8-9.
NETWORKS:
THE
RISE
OF AYii
APoSTOLOI
The founding of Ayii Apostoloi is particularlyrevealingof the consequences of roads and wheels. The land around Ayii Apostoloi belongs to the twin villages of Papaflessas(Ano and Kato), and in fact some of the present-day houses began as seasonal structuresused by the villagers when they came down to work their lower fields. In the 1960s, in response to the improving road network and the availabilityof buses, a movement developed in Papaflessas to relocate the village to this lower site, already called Ayii
72
WAYNE
E. LEE
Apostoloi after the chapel there. Neither the upland villages nor the proposed lower location had good access to water at that time, but the villagers believed that water could be brought down to Ayii Apostoloi from the springs at Palio Loutro, as indeed proved the case. The founding of this new settlement was not without incident, meeting some hostility from some members of the original villages who attempted to block the move. Only after several years and much political maneuveringwere the residents of Ayii Apostoloi recognized as a de facto synoikismos,or settlement, although the new village remains an administrative part of the koinotitaof Papaflessas.77 This small community has developed its particularmorphology both because of the controversyover the move and because of the impact of the road network. For years the road running through Ayii Apostoloi was the only wagon-sized, all-season road in the area.Asphalt paving broughtwith it the all-important public bus route with its connection to Athens, the center of the nation'spost-World War II economic recovery,and to growing regionalurbancenterslike Kalamata.Participationin the rapidlychanging Greek economy required access to the cities and to those areas that began to encourage tourism. More and more rural inhabitants now have cars, but for a long time and to many people, "access"meant the bus. Although it goes without saying that hundreds of pounds of dried fruit cannot be transported to market by bus, government checks or the profits derived from local markets can-allowing people to take home the enticements of a consumer economy.78 The irresistiblelure of the roadjunction constantly visible from their old village drew people to Ayii Apostoloi. The efforts of the anti-move faction within Papaflessas prevented an official acquisition of land for a nucleatedvillage, which was the pro-move faction's original intent.79Instead, individuals built on land that they alreadyowned in the vicinity, or improved on already extant seasonal residences. Of necessity, then, the village of Ayii Apostoloi developed in a scatteredfashion, and given people's preference for being near the road, it became almost linear in form (see Fig. 18).8oA new dirt road was bulldozed into the heart of the fields, occasionally following the line of the old kalderimia,to serve those whose plots did not front on the paved road. Aschenbrenner has expressed some concern that ethnographers, and even the Greeks themselves, have overemphasized the role of new roads in leading to village movement or creation. In his own study village, he argues, the road was but one factor in the creation of Rizomilo, on the modern Kalamata-Pylos road, as an outgrowth of the older home village of 77. There was extensivecontroversy and factionalismwithin the village over the questionof the proposedmove. The dictatesof space here do not allow for a fullerdiscussionof the internalcomplexities of this controversy. 78. Cf. Aschenbrenner1986, p. 9; Allen 1976, p. 177. 79. A design for the new village, contractedin 1981, planned a relatively
traditional(i.e., nucleated)layoutwith modern improvements.It would have had its own small road network,a plateia (villagesquare),and 73 building plots. 80. In his categorizationof Balkan settlement types, Beuermannidentifies the "street-and-linesettlement"as the arrangementof 25-30 houses along a road:Beuermann1956, cited in Wag-
staff 1969, p. 310. Beuermannexplained these types of settlementsas consequencesof wartime refugee displacementcrystalizingaround wayside chapelsand hania. Although Ayii Apostoloi has both of those, it instead representsa case where the road itself, coupledwith village factionalism, dictatedthis style of settlement.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
--
73
~~~~
4,- ~the "contagion"house
oPa a lessaI
Figurel18. Distribution of houses,
includingformerand current||0\\1 seasonal
residences,
M aryeli
and
A y ii A p o sto lo i. W . L ee
,
A< \I
XA
A
/S
,/
L- X
ost+
( \\
n
( 1
l )
Sb AK_
X \
Karpofora.Aschenbrenner cites other factors such as the desire for a new home or a largerlot, but nevertheless the location of the road determined both the physical location and the layout of the new village. 81. Wagstaff 1965b; Petronotis 1986; Stedman 1996; Clark 19941995; Hart 1992; Mikeli 1981; Moutsopoulos 1993. Also helpful is Konstantinopoulos1983. Fred Cooper of the Universityof Minnesota is currentlyconductinga surveyof medievalthroughmodernvernacular architecturein the Peloponnese, althoughno detailshave as yet been published.See http://clvl.cla.umn.edu/ marwp.index.html.There are numerous local studies of vernaculararchitecture for other regions of Greece (particularly the north and the islands)but they are not applicableto this study. 82. The chronologyof house details given in Fig. 20 is derivedfrom lintel dates,interviews,Petronotis1986, and Konstantinopoulos1983. A more detaileddescriptionof the houses and the chronologicalreconstruction brieflydescribedhere will be available in the Web site catalogue(http:// classics.lsa.umich.edu/PRAP.html).
HouS
ES
Traditional architecture is a relatively well-studied field in Greece; this description of the houses in and around Maryeli adds regional details to an existing broader picture.8"This particularanalysis also shows how the architectureof one smallvillage has developed in responseto outside forces. Homes in Maryeli, like the crops the villagerschose and the fields in which they grew them, changed in response to national and international pressures.Within the survey area,there are essentially two groups of residential structures:the dense grouping of "traditional"houses comprising the nucleated village of Maryeli, and the scattering of seasonal residences belonging to Papaflessas, around which coalesced the new village of Ayii Apostoloi (see Figs. 18 and 19). MARYELI
S
HouS
ES
There is a relativelyclear pattern of chronological development and elaboration in the construction techniques of Maryeli's houses (see Fig. 20).82 That pattern, as we shall see, particularlywhen viewed in conjunction with the periods of active building, reflects Maryeli's participation in the larger economic and demographic trends of Greece. Working from travelers'
74
WAYNE
4~~~~~~
--~~
tS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Y~~~~~~~~~~ '\
/
*
LEE
a
!
t
E.
S
a~~~~~adtecnra
pig | Maryeli,ncludi Igthtwochrychl
\
95
e
Yeer.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M71. 757ITE7SK
.. . . . .
a
.~- a i N4
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....
a we
O
06
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
*
ffbCU
s
,
i
"
"
s
E
z
I
"
?
,
;
g
<
~~~~~~~Figure209.Chronltogyofhousei details, twotchuche ~~~~Maryeli. inldigte
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
75
descriptions of Peloponnesian homes, from other architecturalstudies in Arkadia, the Argolid, and central Greece, and from the testimony of the villagers, we can tentatively date the oldest extant buildings in the village to the early part of the 19th century.3 Those houses follow a classic Peloponnesian design, designated by Petronotis as an anogokatogomakrynari:a narrow rectangular plan divided into two rooms, with a half-basement where the slope of the hill allowed (see Figs. 21 and 22).84 Virtually all of Maryeli's houses, including these earliest ones, have some exterior details in common. The walls are rubble stone masonry anchored on the corners, and at the door and window frames, by larger cut stone blocks. All of the roofs are tiled, in recent yearswith different forms of tile. Although there is wide variety in some particular details, this general style of masonry is distinctive of Peloponnesian traditional architecture and characteristicof the work practiced by groups of traveling masons. In Maryeli the villagers claim that their houses were built by the Langadian masons-probably the most prolific group of traveling builders in the Peloponnese." The Langadians reached the peak of their dominance of the building trade in the late 19th century.After the first decade of the 20th century,their numbers dwindled rapidly due to changing economic conditions and their own out-migration (primarilyto America).86 Maryeli is geographically somewhat remote from the Langadian home village of Langadia in Arkadia (some 80 km as the crow flies), and was less of an economic draw than the busier centers of Messenia. As a result, we would predict a relativelylate arrivalof Langadian-built homes to Maryeli, or at most only a few dating before the late 19th century. Similarly,there should be few from after about 1920, when the Langadians'numbers had dropped off significantly.87The lintel dates and other clues we have sup83. Randolph1689, p. 19;Jameson, Runnels,and van Andel 1994, p. 133; Williams 1820,11, p. 228; Clark 1858, pp. 263-265; Barrington1850, pp. 170-171; Perdicaris1845,11, p. 79. These travelers'descriptionsare in accordwith the conclusionsof Argyris Petronotis(1986, p. 18 and passim)in his study of Arkadiantraditionalarchitecture.They also dovetailwell with Stedman'sstudy (1996) of severalvillages in centralGreece, Clark'sstudyin Methana (1994-1995), and Hart'sin Zarakas(1992). Note that the "oldest" houses in Maryeli uniformlylack lintel stone dates, the earliestof which is 1869. 84. Hart (1992, pp. 58-62) outlines a similarhouse layoutfor her village in Zarakas,and while she establishesa sequenceof development,she does not pin it to actualdates.Wagstaff defines
this whole class of house styles as a "mountainhouse,"but his definitionis not as specificas Petronotis'.Wagstaff 1965b, p. 60. 85. See Konstantinopoulos1983 for an outline of the activitiesand reach of the Langadianmasons.The Langadians are also creditedwith building the homes of nearbyKarpofora(savethree). Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 12, 86. 86. Konstantinopoulos1983, pp. 94-96. 87. Veryfew new homes were built in Maryeli afterabout 1920, until after 1973, when the availabilityof concrete led to the complete replacementof one home in concrete,discussedbelow. That one home, like similarlyconstructednew homes in Ayii Apostoloi (also discussedbelow), is significantly largerthan the older homes.
76
WAYNE
E. LEE
upperstory
<>mwu uphill
raised wood floor
dirtfloor
interior walls plastered
porch scaffoids
hic
<=%a
uphill
Sas
Figure21. Plan of a two-room
|
t
lower story
IM=-m
anogokatogomakrynari-style house, structure 1023. R.J. Robertson
Figure 22. A two-room anogokatogo makrynari-style house, north face. -
_
W.
77
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
Figure23. Elevationof a four-room anogokatogo-style house, structure
A'f
1035. R. J. Robertson
Figure24. Plan of a four-room anogokatogo-style house, structure 1035. R. J. Robertson
* -
1
~~~g'*
lower"fx
88. There is no way to prove that all of the houses showing this generalstyle were Langadian-built,but many probablywere. At least two of the village houses (structures1010 and 1042) have tile rosettes,which, accordingto Petronotis, were a particularsignatureof the Langadians;Petronotis 1986, p. 68. Lintel dates may indicate date of marriage and not the date of construction. In at least one case in Maryeli, a lintel date indicated the addition of an upper floor to an older structure.Generally, however,when lintel dates existed, the villagerswere able to connect them to actualconstruction.
hay
0
n=00=00
5
in
port that chronology.88For convenience, however, throughout this article all houses built with the distinctive cut stone corners are described as "Langadian." By the middle of the 19th century,Maryeli's homes began to undergo some elaboration both in the plan and in the details of construction. The narrow rectangulardesign expanded to allow for four rooms (see Figs. 23 and 24). Along with the enlarging of the floor plan came enhancements in the masonry--including the innovation of archedbasement entrances and door frames built two cut-stones wide (referredto as "double stone door frames").Additionally, a much more sophisticated basement construction appeared.In the new design, half of the under-house space consisted of a conical stone barrelvault, built into the upper slope and under the room with the fireplace (see Fig. 24).
78
WAYNE
TABLE 1. HOUSES
BUILT IN MARYELI,
A
A-B
1800-1850
No. houses built
4
B
B-C
1850-1900
2
4
E. LEE
BY PERIOD C
C-D
1900-1920
10
9
D
E
F
1920-1940 1940-1973
3
In the first two decades of the 20th century,furtherimprovements appeared.89Some of the houses were now built in an L-shape, with the crook of the "L"enclosed as a courtyard.Some of the largerbuildings now began to have finished ground-floor rooms, as opposed to merely unfinished storage or stable space. This period also saw the appearanceand proliferation of elevated balconies. Many of these homes bear witness to the full scope of the Langadians'creative skills in the use of various kinds of arches over doors and windows, and in the insertion of tile vents through the stonework along the roofline.90 After about 1920 there was a significant dropoff in the number of houses built in Maryeli (see Table 1: categories C-D), a dropoff that (as we will see) coincided both with a significant fall in currant production and with the decreasing availabilityof Langadian masons." The relatively few homes that have been built since then mostly reflect the availabilityof modern materials (airbrick, concrete, cinderblock, corrugated vinyl roofing), securely dating them to a period afterWorld War II. Maryeli has one completely new building constructed in reinforced concrete, built on the site of a preexisting building. Ready availabilityof modern materials has also led several villagers to add to or renovate their houses, making them "conglomerate"in their building materials.Traditional elements are visible, but modern additions have obscuredmany featuresthat might have allowed a more precise dating.92 Within or quite close to the village, there are few completely nonresidential buildings (discounting small sheds built immediately adjacent to the houses). There are two olive-press buildings (discussed above), one family "chapel,"a village office (formerly the school), and a church associated with the village cemetery. Even the two village kafenia(coffeehouses) operate out of houses rather than from separate structures. In general terms, the state of the homes in the village may be described as follows: There are 43 buildings that are now or were once residences. At present, 25 are still actively used as dwellings or are maintained for that purpose-often remaining empty, with their owners residing in Athens or elsewhere. The declining population has left 10 houses completely unused or in ruins. One is being restored, one is under construction, and eight have been converted into sheds or stables.The decision of whether to abandon a building or to reuse it seems to depend entirely upon the family'scontinued presencein the village ratherthan the structure's age; some of the oldest buildings are still lived in or used in some fashion. Before I proceed to describe the other major cluster of houses in this study, those around Ayii Apostoloi, two other dwellings are worth mentioning. In general, the villagers of Maryeli did not use seasonal residences (kalyves).Their fields were neither so far away nor so difficult to reach as to require actual in-field residences, as opposed to mere shelters. Infor-
3
1
1
89. Clark (1994-1995, pp. 516-519) found similardevelopmentsin Methana over the mid-19th centuryto the early20th, althoughwithout as much change in floor plan. 90. "Tile vents"are holes in the masonry,lined with tile and placedjust below the roofline of the house, which allow rising hot air to escape. 91. Clark (1994-1995, p. 524) found a paralleldropoffin house constructionin Methana after 1911 and up until 1948. 92. For similarpostwararchitectural developmentsin other villages,see Allen 1976, pp. 186-187; Aschenbrenner1986, p. 86; Hart 1992, pp. 5862; Clark 1994-1995, pp. 519-522.
CHANGE
AND
THE
HUMAN
79
LANDSCAPE
~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ _ field wall .low
partition window
concrete terrace 5
0
...........
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
.
:~~~~~~~~~~~~ .......... .: ,-:........
.
..
-. W
.. ..
...
Figure 25. Seasonal residence
(kalyva), structure 41. Plan,R.J.
LeeS
Robertson;photograph,W.
mants report that there were, however, a couple of such residences at the extreme edge of Maryelaika near the monastery. One of these, destroyed in the flood of 1964/1965, was constructed to house the seasonal labor hired by the Maryeli family.The other dwelling outside the nucleated village is the so-called contagion house, apparently built by the villagers to house a victim of tuberculosis. Isolated on a knoll amidst Maryeli's fields (see Fig. 18), it was built "sometimebefore World War II"of simple rubble stone-and-mortar construction, and is today in ruins. AYii
93. Clark (1994-1995, p. 513) found that kalyvesin Methana were built in high-elevation fields in the period beforevillagerscould afford even to purchasedonkeys and thus commute to their fields.
APOSTOLOI
South of Maryeli lies a group of fields where villagers from Papaflessas have built a number of scattered seasonal residences for use during heavy periods of labor.93Although some now lie in ruins, over the last thirty years some of these kalyves have been transformed into permanent residences while other new houses have been added with the development of the synoikismosof Ayii Apostoloi (see above). Specifically, there are ten buildings in this area that were probably once used as seasonal residences. Two are in ruins, four are still used for occasional siestas, for storage, or for stables, while four others have been enlarged or incorporated into full- or nearlyfilll-time residences.Few featuresallow us to date Papaflessas'kalyves, but from a villager'sremarks,one building could be approximately80 years old (see Fig. 25).
8o
WAYNE
E. LEE
Most of these kalyvesare simple rubble-and-mortar masonry. A few have Langadian "touches"such as cut stone corners, although these are done more crudely than those of the homes of Maryeli. These structures are often found in association with alonia or with threshing floors, as are other nonresidential field buildings in this area.These buildings are concentrated in the many small valleys that dissect the region, and often sit on well-drained knolls above a watercourse. All ten seasonal residences discussed above were built before the introduction of concrete (ca. 1948); all are constructed of stone rubble,with occasional later modern modifications. In other words, the need for new seasonal residences ceased at least before the introduction of concrete, or at the earliest, around the time of World War II. The decline of seasonal residences presumably resulted from the failing population followed by the increased availabilityof motorized transport. As for the modern homes of Ayii Apostoloi, they exemplify a trend today common to many areasof southwest Messenia. When a new house goes up outside traditionalvillage boundaries, it tends to follow a particular design, here called the compound. The houses are usuallywidely spaced from each other and are inside large fenced compounds, rather than the small walled courtyardscharacteristicof older village homes. Usually the inside of the compound is heavily cultivated.In Ayii Apostoloi the relative scarcityof water has favored"dry"cultivation (olives, vines) although some people have chosen to create vegetable gardens. The houses are framed with reinforced concrete, filled in with airbrick,plastered over, and alternatively flat-roofed or tiled, according to the resourcesof the owner. Generally these homes are much larger than traditional stone homes: in part owing to the amenability of concrete and brick to larger-scale construction, in part owing to the greateravailabilityof space outside the nucleated village, and overall reflecting the growing affluence of Greece itself Unusually,in Ayii Apostoloi the homes are mostly single-story, whereas elsewhere in southwest Messenia, even if in an unfinished state, they are clearly meant to be two-story. The compounds provide ample space for the proliferation of small, cheaply made outbuildings; cinderblock construction with corrugated steel roofs is especially common.
CROP SELECTION AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION Although a wide range of agricultural and pastoral practices have been known in Messenia-including the cultivation of grapes, fodder crops, marketvegetables, silk, and more-the region'smost consistent and bestdocumented products have been currants,wheat, olives, and figs; they will constitute the core of this study.94The sources for a regional history of 94. Focusingon these four products allowsus to take the longest possible view of Messenian agriculture,because they have persistedthe longest within our two-centuryframe of reference. While other crops (e.g., silk) may have enjoyedperiods of prominence,these four are our best indicatorsof long-
term regionalagriculturaltrends.The natureof the evidence is admittedly weighted towardthem becauseof their use as exportsat varioustimes;travelers (and consularrepresentatives)emphasized those items that broughtwealth throughtrade.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
8I
agriculturalproduction before the end of the 18th century are slim.95What is clear, however, is that well before 1800, the Peloponnese, and perhaps Messenia in particular,had begun to participate seriously in a domestic and international agriculturalmarket, owing largely to the suitability of Messenian produce for export.96Admittedly, to speak of Messenia as an export region in the 18th century does not mean that every locale within Messenia fully participated. Production for export varied from locale to locale. Fig cultivation, for example, remained confined during this period to a fairly narrowgeographic area in and around the Pamisos River valley (e.g., Kalamata and Androusa). Oil and grain, while more broadly based, still varied according to a locale's ability to produce sufficient surplus for market. Commercial agriculture continued in the early 19th century, when Leake observed how, despite the inadequacyof the road network, Kalamata served not only as the external port for much of the surroundingarea,but also as the chief place for the interchangeof commoditiesbetween the interiorof the Morea and the Southerncoast. A fair is held every Sunday,at which maize, wheat, barley,cheese ... arebrought for sale from the districtsof Karitena,Londari,Arkhadia,Andrussa,Tripolitza,and Mistra.97
Thus, even before the War of Independence, Maryeli was situated within what was potentially a relatively commercialized area of Greece. After independence the trend of Messenian commercialized agriculture continued, combined with subsistence production, although there was a decline in the ability of the areato produce sufficient wheat for export.98 Perdicaris,writing in 1845, confirmed the relative prosperity of Messenia in his comparison of the abundantmarketsof Kalamatawith the depressed areas of Arkadia and the Mani.99 Nevertheless, by the end of the 18th century, the commercial strength of the Messenian ports had alreadyde95. Although Messenian commercial agriculturepredatesthe 18th century,that subjectlies beyond the scope of this paper.Methoni and Koroniwere criticalports on Venetian routesto and from the Levant in the 14th and 15th centuries,and in the late 17th centuryMessenia was exporting significantquantitiesof produceto Venice,particularlyolive oil. Siriol Davies (pers.comm.). 96. This statementis based on an analysisof cropproductionfiguresfor southwestMessenia found in a variety of sources.See Belia 1978, pp. 284285, and also the detailedaccounts of SaverioScrofaniand F. C. H. L. Pouqueville,discussedin combination with other evidenceby Kremmydas (1980). Additionally,Leake'searly-
19th-centuryaccountsprovideregional details.Maryeli'slocation at the nexus of the Venetianand Ottoman provinces of Methoni, Navarino,and Andrussa dictatesan examinationof all three regions.In general,however,20thcenturyMaryeli'sagriculturalpatternis more akin to that of the Kalamataupland region (i.e., Androusa)than to Pylia (i.e., Navarino).See also McGrew 1985, pp. 5-6. Furtherevidencefor the commercializationof Messenian agriculturecomes from Kremmydas'study of commercein 18th-centuryPeloponnesian ports. He found that the five key ports were Patras,Nafplia,Navarino, Methoni, and Koroni (Kalamataand Petalidiwere still minor ports at this time). Of those, the three Messenian entrepotscombined to outweigh any
other port, making southwest Messenia a majorcenterof the exporttrade.The significanceof these figuresarisesfrom the close proximityof the three Messenian ports, all servicinga relatively small area,unlike Patrasand Nafplia, each of which serviceda much larger hinterland.Kremmydas1972, p. 29. Petalidiis not much of a port now,but in the late 19th and early20th century it held tremendousimportancein the Messenian currantmarket. 97. Leake 1830, 1, p. 346. 98. Productionfiguresare available for 1835 in Strong 1842, p. 127. For 1860, figuresarefrom Mansolas 1867, pp. 75,78. 99. Perdicaris1845, 11, p. 172.
82
WAYNE
E. LEE
clined relative to Patrasand Corinth, despite Kalamata'sgrowth and eventual dominance in Messenia.'00 To sum up: the products of southwest Messenia (particularlywheat, olives, and figs) were in international demand and were availablein some surplus, prior to independence. The Messenian market share of exports from the Morea declined as the 18th century ended, however, and as the 19th century advanced,the curranttrade originally centered in the northern Peloponnese came to dominate the wider Peloponnesianand Messenian economy. The most significant local development underlying all these changes in crop choice and commercial marketing was the radical change in land tenure and distribution that followed the Greek War of Independence. When Leake described the state of the Messenian countryside around Androusa (which included Maryeli), he attributed the "usual aspect of Turkishdesolation"to the tsiftlik systemwhich predominatedin that area.0' Although a complex, variable,and evolving institution, tsiftliks (or ciftliks) in this period in the Peloponnese were commercially run estates on land granted by the Ottoman state, but long since free of the state's interference. The growth of the landlords'independence led them to make harsher and harsher demands on the peasant sharecropperswho worked the land. These demands are often blamed for a general movement of population from the lowlands to the mountains in the 18th century.102 By the end of the 19th century,things were very different. Although there is some disagreement in modern scholarship, landholding is agreed to have become much more broadly based, thanks to Greek land-redistributionprojects in 1835 and 1871. According to FrederickStrong'sstatisticalstudy of Greece, published in 1842, the Department of Pylia'sworking population was 57% "agriculturalists"(farm labor), while 11% were small landed proprietors and 0.3% were large landholders.'03The British consul in Patras,writing in 1891, described the peasants of mid-century as having been primarily pastoral,whereas in his time they had become landed proprietors.He attributed this change to the land distribution and to the success of farmers in converting that land to currantproduction.104 Unfortunately,it will probablynever be possible to determine whether the lands in and aroundMaryeliwere included in the redistributionschemes of 1835 and 1871 (although it is worth remarkingthat the majorityof the Peloponnese was). The 1835 law was extremely unsuccessful, resulting in 100. Kremmydas1980, pp. 84-85; see also Leake 1830, I, p. 346. 101. Leake 1830, I, p. 353. 102. Sutton 1988, p. 190. This supposed movementof populationis disputed by Frangakisand Wagstaff (1987). For a good generaldiscussionof the tsiftlik system,see Stoianovich 1953. 103. Strong 1842, p. 186. It is worth pointing out that the neighboring Departmentof Messenia (not the modern inclusiveNomarch of Mes-
senia) was much more balanced,with 38%agriculturalists,44%smalllanded proprietors,and 1.3%largelandholders. The Peloponneseas a whole was, respectively,47%,20%,and 1.4%. 104. BCR for 1891, pp. 8-9. The history of the redistributionof land afterindependenceis describedin McGrew 1985. The question of whether the Peloponnesebecame dominatedby small landholdersor remainedin the grip of largerlandlordsand merchants is debated.Franghiadis,for example,
makes a strong case that wealthier farmersworked aroundthe distribution laws to gathermore land into fewer hands, convertingmany smaflholders into sharecroppers.It remainstrue, however,that the Peloponneseexperienced a significant,if incomplete,shift in favorof the peasantsmaflholders. See Franghiadis1990, pp. 80-83; Sutton in Wright et al. 1990, p. 597; Mouzelis 1978, pp. 11-16; Seferiades 1999, pp. 281-285; Sutton 1988, p.193.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
83
only 1% of available national lands being redistributed, and only 6,970 stremmata in Ep. Pylia.105Additionally, in a study of the occupations of 998 men sworn into state service in Messenia between 1851 and 1860, the Demos of Voufrasou(which included Maryeli and Papaflessas)appearsto have been behind other areasof Messenia in the privateownership of land. In Messenia as a whole, 775 office-holders were characterized as "landowners"(ktimatiai), while only 70 were listed as "farmers"(yeoryi)-apparently individualswho worked on rented land. In Voufrasou,however,only 2 of 26 were landowners, and the rest farmers (with one "other").'06 The redistribution law of 1871 was much more successful, and it is very possible that Maryeli'sfarmersbenefited from that round of land distribution. CURRANTS
How much effect this land redistribution had upon Maryeli can be determined only by returning to the history of currantfarming in the Peloponnese. The northern coast of the Peloponnese had long been known for its currants,but the crop remained largely restricted to that region until after independence.'07Independence, its success as a cash crop, and land redistribution all combined to foster the spread of currant production in the Peloponnese.108The major change in the international currant market, however, occurred in 1877. In that year French vineyards were first seriously damaged by phylloxera,raising demand for Greek currantsfrom 881 tons (English) in 1877 to 70,401 tons in 1889.109 Ironically,this disasterin France occurred just in time to save the Greek currant farmers from a disastrous overproduction.The land redistribution in 1871 had dramatically increased new plantings of currants,all of which began to bear fruit in 1876-1877 (newly planted currantsrequire5-7 yearsbefore bearing)."10 The new French demand created an inflated price, and Greek farmers hurried to borrow money to buy yet more land, to plant yet more currants. It was during this period that farmersin Messenia and the rest of the southern Peloponnese began to move wholeheartedly to the currant;the lesser-quality, lower-priced fruit produced in the south was perfect for wine blending."' To give just one example, Karpofora,the Messenian village studied by Aschenbrenner,planted its first currantsin 1880.112 Alexis Franghiadisattributesthe steep rise in the Messenian population in 18611891 to the migration of peasants from the interior highlands down onto 105. Of the 17,400,000 stremmata of nationalland in the Peloponnesein 1833 (3,300,000 more were private,with their sum being the total areaof the Peloponnese),by 1857 only 189,351 stremmatahad been redistributedor sold to privatepersons.Of those, 6,970 were in Ep. Pylia, 3,7500 in Triphyllia, and a mere 1,351 in Ep. Messenia. McGrew 1985, pp. 87, 173-174. See also Strong 1842, p. 220. (The stremma[pl. stremmata]is the traditionalGreek measureof farmland,and its modern version [since 1829] is equivalentto 0.1
hectares.) 106. Giannakopoulos1991-1992, pp. 328, 346-348. 107. There is some confusionas to exactlywhen large-scalecurrantfarming was introducedin Messenia. Strong's 1840 surveyof currant-producingregions definitelyexcludedMessenia, although Mansolas'publicationof agriculturalstatistics for 1860 indicatesthat Messenia had shifted 36,159 stremmatato currant fields. Strong 1842, p. 174; Mansolas 1867, pp. 72-73. 108. Much of the following (except
where otherwise noted) derivesfrom the descriptionof the currantcrisisin BCR for 1891-1894, passim. 109. Until the Frenchcrisis,the crop had been exportedprimarilyto England, and to secondarymarketsin the U.S. and elsewherein Europe. Demand had increased,but at a relativelyslow pace. 110. Burlumi1899. 111. Franghiadis1990, pp. 26-27. 112. Aschenbrenner1972, p. 49; 1986, p. 12.
84
WAYNE
E.
LEE
the coastal,and relativelyunoccupied,lands of Messenia in orderto participate in the currantboom."3 The explosion of currantproduction even led to the cutting down of olive groves to make way for the new cash crop."14 The decision to switch cultivable land to currantswas not one made lightly, despite the apparentlyrising value of currantsas a cash crop.The labor requirements for currants (as for all viticulture) were significantly higher than for competing crops. It has been calculated that currantsrequired 14.5 nine-hour work days per stremma, whereas wheat required only 2.6 and olives only 3.5.115This calculation does not include the additional preparatorywork necessary to ready some fields for viticulture, such as terracing. Currantsrequired a much greater investment in shaping the land than did cereals or pastoralism. In areas like Maryeli, the expansion of cultivable area beyond subsistence needs pushed currantsup the steep 113. Franghiadis1990, p. 31. Renhillsides and mandated the building and maintaining of ever more ternell Rodd,writing in 1892, described races."16Abandoned vineyards, and other areas around Maryeli pointed the Messenian plain as the most prosperousagriculturalareain the Peloponout by the villagers as former currantfields, occupy sometimes startlingly nese. Rodd 1892, pp. 66-67. steep hillsides. Finally, all that investment in labor and capital had to wait 114. BCR for 1892. five to seven years from planting to the first full harvest. None of these 115. Pepelasisand Yotopoulos1962, difficulties deterred Peloponnesian farmers from moving to currantprop. 164. See also Wagstaff 1965c. I have duction, particularlyduring the boom caused by the disaster in France. used the calculationsfor 1955, and have The significant labor investment in currantsmay in fact help explain why added together the workdaysof man and "supplementary" (women, elders, the farmers tenaciously held onto this crop even in the much less certain The coefficients children). representthe times to follow. numberof nine-hourworkdaysper Unfortunately, French demand did not remain at a steady rate. Restremmato producethe volume of agricovering from the phylloxeraoutbreak,the French in 1892 began restrictculturaloutput for that year.These coing the importation of currants.Prices throughout Greece fell so far that efficientsarevariabledependingupon production costs in 1893 exceeded the selling price."17Messenian currant the yield (the largerthe harvest,the more time necessaryto processit), but growerswere particularlyhard-hit since the traditionalmarketin England they serve as a good comparative for the currantas a dried fruit in mincemeat pies and currantloaves prebaseline. ferred the more succulent fruit produced in the northern Peloponnese. 116. Franghiadis1990, pp. 76-77. The "currantcrisis"quickly became severe enough to warrantgovernment 117. BCR for 1893, pp. 6-9. intervention."18 118. In 1896 the Greek government tried to restrictthe supplyof currants, Notwithstanding the crisis and government attempts to limit producand therebyincreasethe price,by itself tion, the currantretained a dominant role in the local agriculturaleconomy. buying up the surplus.This retention Peloponnesian production of the fruit began to level out in the early years law,and the 1899 establishmentof a of the 20th century, but Messenia saw a rapid increase in the years after currantbank,met with limited success. 1913 (see Fig. 26). While World War I dramatically restricted Greece's In 1905 the governmentestablisheda ability to marketits currants,it also saw an initial steep rise in their price."19 privilegedtwenty-yearmonopoly to guaranteea minimum price;at the same Despite market uncertainty, high prices encouraged Messenian farmers time, the governmentalso restrictedthe who had not alreadygone over to currantsto do so. In the postwar years expansionof currantplantations.BCR those prices were maintained artificially through export limitations. Alfor 1905. though the nominal price of currants remained high, farmers were in119. See Mazower 1991, pp. 51-53, creasingly unable to sell their entire crop at the listed price. Eventually 79-83 for the currantmarketduring World War I. Aschenbrenner(1986, even those prices could not be sustained, particularlyin the face of falling p. 12) noted a wave of new currant British demand and rising Californian and Australian competition. The plantingsin Messenia beginning in price and production boom lasted through the 1920s, but the huge fall in 1910. prices associated with the Great Depression in the early 1930s led to a 120. Mazower 1991, p. 85; Mears seriesof violent outbursts,even rebellions,by Peloponnesianand Messenian 1929, pp. 64-66; Seferiades1999, currantgrowers in 1934/1935.120 pp. 297-298, 317-320.
85
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE ...- -
80000
300000
-----
250000
*0
.40000
--
E*
-------
-------
150000 E
30000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 100000
i~50000
Figure 26. Currant production, Messenia and Pylia. Data in Figs. 2629 are compiled
from GSE 1911-1994;
BCR for 1874-1914; Kilimi 1939; Strong1842; Mansolas 1867
01880
-
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
----
1950
0 1960
1970
1980
1990
Year Messenian
metrictons
Pylian metrc tons
Stremmata of currantsInMessenia
Despite this boom-and-bust market, currantproducers were slow to change crops. The labor investment in vineyards, together with the vivid memory of boom times, helped currantsto persist in the countryside, and Greek and Messenian currantproduction continued unabated right up to the eve of World War
JJ 121
Maryeli and its neighboring communities entered the currantmarket around the beginning of the 20th century.Presumablythe relativeremoteness of Maryeli and the surroundingcommunities initially insulated them from the regional move to currants.Exactly when they began to grow currantsis unclear,but the 1911 statistics for the Koinotita Kondogoni (which included Maryeli; Kondogoni, soon to be renamed Papaflessas; and Maniaki; hereafter K. Kondogoni) showed 634 stremmata alreadyunder mature currants.122Those 634 stremmata should be compared to the 749 stremmata of wheat under cultivation at the same time. The surrounding Demos of Voufrados had already had a somewhat longer experience of currantproduction, for it was represented in the bylaws of the society of Messenian currantgrowersin 1898.123Village memory unequivocallypoints to currantsas the primary cash crop of the pre-World War II era, and it is significant that Maryeli and the surroundingregion peaked demographically during this period (see Fig. 6). ParallelingMaryeli's turn to currants and the simultaneous demographic expansion was the rapid appearanceof many of the well-crafted stone-masonry homes in Maryeli during the period from 1900 to 1920 (see Table 1). 121. A similaradherenceto a cash crop with a history of boom times is documentedfor earlycolonial Virginia and the productionof tobacco.The initially high prices savedthe colony and saw virtuallyeverypropertiedcolonist invest in tobacco farming.The laterfall in prices had only a minimal impact on total productionand the colony strug-
gled to find ways to recreatethe boom times. Morgan 1975, pp. 108-130. 122. Although the deme system was not abolisheduntil 1912, the 1911 agriculturalstatisticswere reported accordingto the new koinotita system, presumablybecausepublicationdid not occuruntil 1914. Chouliarakes19731976,11, pp. 32-33; GSE 1911.
The word koinotitaor kinotisis often consideredto indicate one village,but actually,especiallyduringthis period, it could encompassseveralvillages under one administrativeunit. 123.Kazoracacrtx6ov woo araqu$txov Meaumvt'a6 p. 3. ZVv8cqupov
86
E. LEE
WAYNE _300000
35000 -
30000
--
--
-25
_-
--
-
30000
-
---
250002
-200000 --------
20000 _1
E E of cultivat150000 tons
Metric
2
wheat
Stremmata
of
wheat
under
100000 o
10000
-I--
I
---
I
-+------
I
I
I -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~00
~ __________
-o-Metic onsof
LC)
_ ___________
hea
-U
N-
CD
Stemmtaof
______
I---
?-
co
-
0)
____Figure
wheat under cultivation
27. W heat production,
MVessenia
WHEAT
The history of the other three principal crops in the period up to World War II is somewhat less clear, in part because of the dominance of currants. Wheat's very ubiquity has reduced its visibility in the historical record.'24Its universal presence in the landscape in the past led observers to comment on it only when it was produced in sufficient abundance for export. Wheat clearly outweighed, however, any other cereals in this century in the region around Maryeli. In the 18th century wheat was also an important Peloponnesian export, declining in the early 19th century.The expansion of the currantmarket,and the success of the peasantry'sparticipation in it, led to another decline in grain production toward the end of the 19th century,although wheat of course remained a subsistence crop.'25 Motivation to plant cereals continued to be undercut by the government's tithe on grain, which lasted until 1880.126The availabilityof cash from the selling of currants also allowed the peasants to consume their own grain ratherthan sell it to the cities (and further switch land from grain to other crops), and the urban areas consequently began to have to import grain from outside Messenia.'27 With the end of the tithe, and with the 1893 currant bust, wheat began to regain importance. It was, however,planted on fallow land rather than as an actual replacement for currants.'28In K. Kondogoni in 1911, of the 2,044 cultivated stremmata reported, 749 were in wheat (36%), the largest single item (see Table 2). Wine grapes and currantsfilled most of the remaining fields. In the rest of the Peloponnese, wheat also continued to be the dominant crop (as measured by stremmata in production).'29 The beginning of the 20th century,however,representedthe pre-World War II peak for Messenian wheat production. Wheat production soon began to slide due to ongoing investment in currants(currantproduction rose in almost direct proportion to wheat's decline; cf. Figs. 26 and 27), combined with the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 and World War I. Other scholars, noting the disruption that occurredin all aspects of national agricultural output during this period, have attributed the decline to the mobilization of soldiers, the fighting in northern Greece, requisitioning, and the malnutrition of remaining farmers due to wartime shortages.'30
124. K. Kondogoni had 749 stremmataof wheat in 1911, only 2 stremmataof barley,and no other cerealsor pulses.This dominanceof wheat appliesto the region at large,if less obviously,and continued through 1961; GSE 1911; NSSG (Atlas), pp.303-306. 125. BCR for 1880; Franghiadis 1990, p. 50. 126. Other cropswere not so taxed, and the bureaucraticinefficiencyof the system led to waste, as grain rotted waiting for the collector;BCR for 1880. 127. Franghiadis1990, pp. 36-37. 128. BCR for 1903, pp. 3-4. 129. GSE 1911. 130. Mazower 1991, p. 52.
87
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
TABLE 2. STREMMATA Stremmataof K. Kondogoni Voufrados Workdaycoefficient per stremmata
Wheat
IN CULTIVATION OtherCereals
FOR TWO REGIONS
Currants
WineGrapes
YoungVines
749
2
634
539
99
11,598
7,191
4,952
3,592
600
14.5
7.5
2.6
IN 1911 Olives
Figs
927
305
3.5
12.1
Messenian farmers at this time, however, radicallyincreased currantoutput, indicating not a lack of ability to farm so much as a conscious decision to keep up their cash crops. The need for subsistence production was beginning to pale compared to the attractions of the market. In the 1920s and 1930s a growing Peloponnesian population brought more and more land under cultivation, and technological improvements increased the wheat yield.'3' More importantly,and just in time to make a differenceduringthe coming worldwide depression,the Greek state stepped up incentives for wheat production, inspired by a fear of a repeat of the instability demonstrated during World War I and the famines and food shortages it engendered.32 The government'sefforts bore the desired fruit, with the area devoted to wheat cultivation rising by 46.7% from the late 1920s to the early 1930s.'33This is the era remembered by the villagers as that when grain and currants were "everywhere."Given the population peak reached in this period (Fig. 6), and the cash motivations to increase cultivated area (initially for currants,and then for grain after 1928), it is almost certain that the early 1930s were the years when the expansion of Maryeli's cultivable land through terracing reached its greatest extent. OLIVES
AND
FIGS
Olives do not appear at all in the 1911 agricultural statistics for K. Kondogoni, and are quite minor in the rest of the Demos of Voufrados (see Table 2). Nor does the region around Maryeli have examples of the very old, gnarled olive trees common to other areasof Messenia.'34These indicators would seem to contradict the traditional notion of nearly universal olive oil production in Messenia, but the two olive presses associated with the village may help clarify this seeming contradiction. The smaller, family-owned press building, dateable to the late 19th or early 20th century, and too small to contain animal-driven presses, may represent an era of small-scale household production of olive oil, production 131. Jameson,Runnels, and van Andel 1994, p. 145. 132. In 1927 Greece imported 411,000 tons of wheat (and 67,000 tons of flour)while producing352,000 tons;Turner1928, p. 9. In 1928 the Greek governmentfounded the Organizationfor the Concentrationof Wheat, an agencythat pursuedthe policy of purchasinglocal wheat at double the price paid for imported. See also Cumberbatch1934, p. 36.
133. Mazower 1991, pp. 238-240. Almost all the crops saw a rise in cultivatedarea;wheat'srise was more dramaticthan some, less so than others. This rise took place without national territorial expansion.
134. Only 10 fields out of 306 surveyedcontained any "old"olives as defined by their trunkdiameter.All of those old olive fields were in Kondogonaika,and totaled only 0.08 km2.
88
WAYNE
.
45000 45000
-
---------
40000
-
35000---
25000---
E
20000
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
-
-----
5000,
----
,
-
1921
,
,.
1931
-
----------------------
----
0 1911
-
----------------------
--
---------
-----
-----
.-
-
---
15000 --10000
--
LEE
---
30000 --0 *
- -
E.
- -- - - -- , ---'
-
1941
--
-
1951
1961
1971
1981
1991
Figure 28. Olive/olive oil production, Messenia. See note 136.
_ Year Olive oi
r--_Olives 60000
50000
40000
2 30000
-
------
-----
.
-
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
a
-- - . - -
- - -
- - -
20000
0 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 Year
L-tPeloponnese -}es-e....
Figure 29. Fig production, Peloponnese and Messenia. After 1947, figures include only dried figs.
that the village did not report to the agriculturalauthorities.135 The larger, church-owned press building, which seems to date ca. 1920-1940, may reflect the upturn in regional commercial olive growing that took place at that time (see Fig. 28).136 Figs too were an important crop in Messenian history (see Fig. 29), beginning at least as early as the 17th century, but they apparentlyhave a shorter history in the uplands aroundMaryeli.137In general the villagers recall figs and olives as relatively insignificant crops until well after the peak of currantsand wheat. In the post-World War II era, however, both crops have achieved prominence in the local landscape (see discussion below). 135. The nearbyvillage of Karpofora seems to confirmthis pattern,with oil productionfrom 1850-1912 increasing,but primarilyfor subsistence. It was only at the end of this period that largerolive mills became available. Aschenbrenner1986, p. 13. 136. Given the lack of better local
recordsof the use of the two mills and of actuallocal productionfigures,this correlationbetween the building of the press and the increasein olive production must remainsupposition.Production figuresfor olives have not been kept in uniform terms:early-20thcenturystatisticstend to count olive
production;there are few to no surviving statisticsfrom the war era;and more recentstatisticshave differentiated between table olives and olive oil. Fig. 28 reflectsthe varianceamong these statistics. 137. For the history of Messenian fig productionsee Kanasi1930.
89
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
REVIEWING THE VILLAGE ECONOMY BEFORE
WORLD
WAR
II
On the eve of WorldWar II, Maryeliand Papaflessasenjoyeda flexible and successfulvillage economy(measuringsuccessby demographicexpansionandan acceleratedrateof buildingconstruction)thatnevertheless rodea fragileinternationalmarket(in the caseof currants)or was depenThe dent on state protectionism(in the case of currantsand wheat).138 villagersremainedkeenlyawareof theirdependenceon thatinternational market,and adjusted,if slowly,as outsideinfluencesimpingedon the viabilityof theirproducts.This awarenessanduseof the worldmarketmight extendbackto prerevolutionary times,giventhe relativeaffluenceandcommercialorientationof Messeniaas a whole.Demographicpatterns,however,revealthe significantimpactof late-19th-centuryeconomicchanges. Regionalpopulationfigures(see Fig. 6) reflectslow but steadygrowthin the post-independenceera,and then take off in the wake of the second land distribution,that of 1871, and the succeedingcurrantboom. The delayin the beginningof Maryeli'sand Papaflessas'growth spurtuntil aroundthe turnof the centuryreflectedtheirrelativelylate entryinto the currantmarketcomparedto the rest of Pylia.This is exactlythe period (1880-1920) that Suttonrefersto as the "periodof maximumvillagecreation in recentGreekhistory."'39 While Maryeliwas by no meansa new creation,its growthreflectedthe broadernationaltrend. The archaeologicalevidencesupportsthis view of a take-offin the localeconomyat the end of the 19th centuryandin the firstdecadesof the 20th century.A spateof new Langadianhomes appearedin Maryelibetween 1900 and 1920. Otherswere renovated.The Maryelifamilyitself movedinto a new, much largerhome.140The living-spaceof homes,increasingover the courseof the 19th century,reachedits greatestpoint duringthe early20th century,not to rise againuntil the more affluent The factthat periodof the 1980s andthe availabilityof cheapconcrete.14' most, if not all, of this constructionwas conductedby professionalmigrantbuilders(the Langadians),who werepresumably paidat leastin part in cash,furthercementsthe perceptionof Maryeli'saccessto widermarkets.The roadnetwork,its growthsomewhatbehindthat in agriculture and living-space,gainedwagon-width,wheel-capablestretchesin addition to the extantcriss-crossingvillagekalderimia,althoughthis change wouldnot takefirmhold until afterthe war. 138. Mouzelis (1978, p. 91) and Seferiades(1999, p. 284) have argued that the condition of the peasantryin generalwas not so rosy.They posit that the late-19th- and early-20th-century shift from subsistenceto cash cropping resultedfrom the increasingpressureof taxationand not from the attractionsof the market.Seferiadesalso points to the heavyout-migrationduringthis period as evidencefor the difficultconditions of the peasantry.As will be seen in the following analysis,however,the demographicand materialevidence points to prosperitythrough the 1920s,
with a decline in the 1930s. That 1930s decline does accordwell with Seferiades'portraitof the even greatereconomic pressureon the peasantryin that decade.Also probablycontributingto village prosperitywere the remittances of successfulemigrantsabroad.While incontrovertiblyimportantto Greece as a whole, in Maryeli such a factorproved impossibleto measure,nor did it figure in the villagers'memories of the era. 139. Sutton 1988, p. 199. 140. The originalMaryeli home (structure1030), supposedlyone of the oldest in the village,was incorporated
into the courtyardof the newerlarger house (structure1036), and used partly as a bakehouseand partlyas a guest house. 141. Bialor (1976, p. 229) reached a similarconclusion about the effect of high currantprices on the expansionof constructionand renovationof homes in his study region in the northern Peloponneseduringthe late 1920s and early 1930s. Aschenbrenner(1986, pp. 12, 15) also recordsan expansionof constructionin Karpofora/Rizomilo from 1923-1928 (unrelatedto the refugeesof 1922).
90
WAYNE
E. LEE
The propped-up currantmarket did not long survive the onset of the worldwide depression of the 1930s, and despite the violent reaction of currant growers to falling prices, the depression marked the end of currant-based prosperity.The material evidence reflects that downturn. No new construction in Maryeli can be firmly attributedto the 1930s, and the workmanship of what might possibly have been built at that time was clearly inferior to that of the Langadians. Similarly,the regional population peaked at the end of the decade, beginning a slow decline that would speed up in the postwar years. Thus Maryeli, despite its small size and isolated location, was very much integrated into the international market during the latter part of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. As Table 2 demonstrates, in terms of sheer labor, an overwhelming amount of farming effort in 1911 was devoted to cash crops for marketing outside the region, and outside Greece itself. In the case of K. Kondogoni, the 1,272 stremmata of grapes and currantswould have required 13,236 nine-hour work days, while the 749 stremmata of wheat would have requireda mere 1,947.142 Whether the general policies of state protectionism and land redistribution were "right"or "wrong"for the country as a whole, clearlythe result was an agriculturalpopulation that could survive in the world market by employing traditional farming techniques and by dedicating the majority of their labor to cash crops. During the period from the War of Independence to the outbreakofWorld War II, the villagers of Maryeli and Papaflessas filled their landscape with ever more elaborate stone houses, terraces,field buildings, threshing floors, and other agriculturalfacilities. The villagers expanded the cultivated area to its largest extent and the village population reached its highest level. This crowded landscape resulted from Maryeli's success in exploiting the potentials of an international market, despite that market's fluctuations. Such reliance on cash cropping could not, however,have occurredwithout state intervention in the form of guaranteed markets and land redistribution.In fact, the artificialprotection of traditional small-scale production by farmersmixing subsistence and cash cropping, and still reliant on four-legged transportation up through the 1930s and beyond, provides one explanation for what then happened to the rural Peloponnese in the post-World War II era. After the war, a crisis-strapped state, the decline of traditional currant markets, and the related demographic downturn combined to again rewrite the human landscape.'43 AFTER
WORLD
WAR
II
The severe constriction of Greek agricultureduring the Axis occupation was only partiallyrelieved in the postwar decade.'44Maryeli itself had been occupiedby Italiansand,later,Germans,and although the regionwas spared the worst of the guerrillawar against the Nazis, the end of the occupation in 1945 quicklyturnedinto a civilwar.The internecinestrifelasting through 1949 hampered recovery,and then, beginning in the 1950s, demographic change became the dominant variable in Peloponnesian (and Messenian) history. Migration out of the countryside into Athens or abroad set the tone for everything else. A quick look at Messenian production figures reveals a period of steady output from 1955 through 1967, followed by a
142. Comparinglocal productionto populationand per capitaconsumption revealsthat the areaprobablyproduced just enough wheat for its own subsistence needs.This calculationwas done for Voufrados:populationin 1907 = 9,497; probablewheat yield in 1911 = 1,043,820 kg; i.e., producing110 kgs of wheat per person comparedto a per capitawheat consumptionin Greece in 1954 of 147 kg/year.The per capita consumptionfigureis the earliestone available;it declined slowly to 103 by 1988. The multiple conversionsneeded to get from stremmataof olives or wine grapesto liquid measuresmakes them unlikelyto be helpful. For per capita consumptionsee OECD 1968-1988. Wheat yield is calculatedfrom stremmatain cultivationin 1911 (see Table 2) times the averageyield for that year in Messenia (source:GSE 1911). 143. Unfortunately,although not surprisingly,there arevirtuallyno agriculturalor demographicstatistics availablefor the region from the war yearsor, in some cases,for severalyears thereafter.This study thereforeskips to the postwarera. 144. National Bank of Greece 1950, pp. 2-3, contains agriculturalstatistics for the whole of Greece, comparing 1939 to 1949. In terms of stremmata under cultivation,wheat had declined by 67%,and currantsby 24%.The latter'sdecline is in part attributableto the voluntaryuprootingof 120,000 stremmataof currantsduringthe war (p. 7). Aschenbrenner(1986, pp. 15-16) describesKarpoforaas having revertedto subsistencefarming.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
9I
steep drop in everything except olives (Figs. 26-29). The ruralpopulation alreadyhad begun to fall by 1951. By 1961 the trickle of emigration had become a torrent.145 Emigration had immediate consequences for agriculture.For example, the market for currantshad virtually disappearedby the end of the German occupation. The late 1950s saw a small revival,but prices stayed low due to Australian competition and that country'spreferentialstatus within the British Commonwealth.'46By 1961 the number of stremmata under currants had dropped 34% since 1938, and although some regions successfully substituted sultanas (a kind of raisin), this did not occur in Maryeli.'47Population again was a key factor here: a typical family could work only approximately 10 stremmata of currantswithout hiring wage labor-and the pool of such labor was declining.'48Before the war 60% of the Greek population worked in agriculture;by 1951 this proportion had dropped to 55.6%, and in 1984 it reached 30%.149 The residents of Maryeli and Papaflessasspecified this exact problem in their memories of the end of currantproduction. Villagers departed in droves for Australia or Athens in the late 1950s and 1960s, rendering unavailablethe labor necessary for widespread viticulture. Currantprices remained low, and the governmentinitiated a programof subsidiesfor farmers to uproot currants.All these factors led to the abandonment of many vineyards and grainfields, and the substitution of other, less labor-intensive, crops-particularly olives. 50 To the villagers, the advantagesof olives were obvious, and as a result, olive trees have come to dominate the landscape around Maryeli (see Fig. 30).'5 Landowners could reside in Athens, retain their village lands, keep olives on them, and hire someone to do the occasional necessary work. Olives require one of the lowest number of workdays per stremma (3.5) of any of the familiar Mediterranean crops.'52Moreover, data collected by the FAO comparing income from various crops in 1962 (adjusted for yield and labor) revealed the cash potential of olives as far ex145. There are two kinds of rural emigration:ruralto domestic urban, and international.To give an example only of permanentinternational emigration:Messenia recorded433 emigrantsin 1959,2,414 in 1963, growing to 3,410 in 1964. Baxevanis 1972, p. 41. See also NSSG (Atlas), p. 214; InternationalBank for Reconstructionand Development 1966, p. 13. In more recentyearsemigrationhas shifted somewhatfrom single men departingoverseasto whole families moving within Greece to Athens or to other large cities.Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 100-111. 146. McNeill 1978, pp. 147, 161, 169. 147. NSSG (Atlas), p. 314. 148. McNeill 1978, pp. 146-147. Aschenbrenner(1986, pp. 21-22)
found duringhis study that one-third of the householdswere still producing currants,but that to do so required much greaterresortto hired laborthan before the war. 149. Kourvetarisand Dobratz 1987, p. 122; Sweet-Escott 1954, pp. 131, 177. 150. The villagersalso reportedthat in Maryeli,wheat production(including subsistence,not just that for market) ceased not laterthan about 1973. See Costa 1988, p. 175 for a similar shift to olive productionafterWorld War II in Kefallonia.For similarpatterns in Crete, Nemea, the Mani, and elsewherein Messenia, see, respectively, Herzfeld 1991, pp. 29-33; Sutton in Wright et al. 1990, p. 601; Allen 1997, p. 262; Aschenbrenner1986, p. 113. 151. A vast numberof the olive
fields shown in Fig. 30 are comprisedof young to very young olive trees;many in fact are newly planted saplings.Olive treeswere classifiedinto old, mature, young, and baby,each defined according to trunkdiameter.There were 10 fields with "old,"93 fields with "mature," 76 fields with "young,"and 14 fields with "baby"olives. Fields with olives in severalstages of developmentwere counted once for each stage they contained. 152. This statementis confirmed by the statementsof the farmersstill working in Maryeli,severalof whom hire out their time to tend the olives of villagersnow living elsewhere.See Table 2 for work effort per stremma.Cf. Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 18-19.
~~~~~~~~~WAYNE E. LEE
92
I jal
Smal w 1 V&b
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I QS_\.-, Ij I
.
W\/I\1
1
fi -
/
L1
"IJ <_
_ WS \ XNN
_
rl
k\
hN\ \
_~~~
1
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
Figure 30 (opposite).Crops currently cultivated, survey area. Mixed-crop fields are shown for each crop they contain. W. Lee
93
ceeding that of wheat or currants."53 The profitability of olives has been further stimulated by a rise in the demand for cooking oil and by EEC programs encouraging olive oil consumption and subsidizing its production through direct payments to farmers.'54The ongoing improvement in roads has also made it easier to buy cheap bread brought in from Greece's northern breadbasket.'55Subsistence farming is no longer necessary in a now largely cash-crop economy complemented by the cash provisions of government pensions or emigrant remittances. Figs also have become more important to Maryeli in recent years, despite the relative decline of the Messenian share in overall Greek fig production (see Figs. 29, 30). The rationalefor their appearancein Maryeli is similar to that of the olive; figs require more care than olives, but much less than vineyards, and as a cash crop they outperform wheat.'56 THE
POSTWAR
LANDSCAPE
How are these postwar agriculturalchanges visible in the landscape?The answer is complicated. Despite the enormous drop in agriculturalproduction over the last thirty years, field buildings have continued to appear(see above and Fig. 8). There are two ways to explain this seeming contradiction. The packageable and transportablenature of modern materials such as brick and concrete, together with a road network on which to move them, makes construction relatively cheap and quick. On the other hand, many of these buildings may not actually be as "new"as they appear.The availability of materials may have led the villagers to create permanent buildings in place of older field structureswhose simple brushwood materials have left no mark on the landscape and would not have been visible in the 1973 aerial photo. A number of "modern" field buildings have foundations that hint at a much older origin. At any rate, this is one case in which the material evidence appears to belie predictions based solely on demographic trends.'57 If this proliferation of buildings is surprising in this particularlandscape, an examination of the fields provides a clearerpicture of the decline of Peloponnesian agriculture, especially when considered together with the empty or crumbling houses in Maryeli. Active farming in the 1990s 153. FAO 1965, III, p. 10. 154. EEC Commission Regulation No. 2941/80 of 13 November 1980; EEC Commission RegulationNo. 1348/81 of 20 May 1981; EEC Commission RegulationNo. 3137/81 of 30 October 1981. 155. Greece'sbreadbaskethad moved decisivelynorth into Thessaly and Macedonia.There, mechanized farmingon largerfields enabledthe drop in price of grain.FAO 1965,111, p. 10; Aschenbrenner1986, p. 23. 156. Aschenbrenner(1986, p. 20) found virtuallyeveryhousehold
producingsome figs in the 1980s. 157. Other village studies have noted an increasein home construction not necessarilyrelatedto demographicexpansion,but to increasing prosperitygenerally,a rise in consumerism,and the relativecheapness and availabilityof modern materials. It is importantto note that such constructionis often paid for by prosperity achievedoutside the village, either by migrationor by taking advantage of a nearbytourist economy.See Hart 1992, p. 4; Clark 1994-1995, pp. 521522; Aschenbrenner1986, pp. 27-28.
94
WAYNE
E. LEE
has retreated to relatively few areas,while other fields run riot with wild vegetation. In Maryeli itself the villagers could name only three currently working farmers,although some residents who owned land but were now too old to farm continued to hire outside labor to work their fields.'58The remaining active farmers in Maryelaika and Kondogonaika either work fields immediately adjacent to the road network or hire a bulldozer to cut a better access path to the more remote fields. Actively cultivated fields tend to run in strips along either side of wheel-capable roads. Only rarely now are the old kalderimiaused for field access. Other landscape changes mirrorthe development of agriculturaltechniques. Despite the late arrival and limited use of bulldozers, the old terrace systems are being "repaired" with borrowed bulldozers, rather than by shoring up the stone terracewalls. The soil that villagers have labored to preserve over at least the last century will soon begin to disappear.
CONCLUSION The landscape of Maryeli, now and always,is a product of individual, usually agriculturally-oriented,decisions. Those decisions, for at least the last hundred and fifty years (and probably for much longer), have been informed by local experienceof national and internationalforces.The region's long history of agriculturalproduction for international markets has significantly affected crop selection and the consequent shaping of the land to suit a given crop. In the early 20th century, the modern state's capacity-however awkward-to provideincentives and tradeprotection allowed the villagersto produceprofitablydespite their continued use of older techniques and small-scale production. The growing availabilityof cash from the very beginning of the 20th century has also played a role in the developing landscape. Cash crops, government allowances, and emigrant remittances have long enabled contract construction and equipment hire. The late 20th century,however,has seen greaterrelianceon the extravillage sources of cash, and these have contributed much to the rising local standard of living. The latter half of the 20th century has also seen another rewriting of the landscape as roads have changed local priorities, allowing easier access to building materials and extraregionalproduce, even leading to a redistribution of local population. Those roads have also, however, redirected human relationships, leaving neighboring and once linked villages now more cut off from each other, each village focusing instead on regional urban centers like Kalamata, and above all on the all-important Athens conurbation. Yet another force in the landscape has appearedin more recent years: a renewed interest in traditionalism. Hart's recent work in the southern Peloponnese found a new nostalgia for village life, especially since the midto late 1980s, derived from disillusionment with the cities. That nostalgia had physical consequences in a new minor boom in house construction and renovationin her studyvillage.'59That nostalgia is also archaeologically visible in Maryeli in the revivalof traditional architecture.The villagers of
158. We did not surveythe livelihoods of all the nonfarmingresidents, but the majoritywere clearlyretired, and presumablyreceivinga pension. 159. Hart 1992, pp. 4, 70. See also Clark'sevidence of an upsurgein new constructionin the 1980s (althoughnot necessarilytraditional);Clark 19941995, pp. 521-522. Particularly importantin this regardis Herzfeld's detailedanalysisof the relationship between modern forcesof tourism and archaeologicalconservationand the desirefor modernizationof homes in Rethymnos,Crete;Herzfeld 1991, esp. p. 36.
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
95
Maryeli are investing in restoring their traditional homes, and in building a new springhouse with old techniques. Several of them now report regretting their previous decisions to cover their old stone homes with stucco. Traditional-style renovation and construction are expensive, and it remains to be seen how far such a desire will go, but the landscape has alreadybeen transformed because of this developing attitude. For archaeologists,Maryeli's is a cautionarytale. Reasons for particular configurations of the human landscape here are not always easy to ascertain-even when archivalevidence is available.The proliferationof field spitakia, for example, does not reflect demographic expansion. Old, even ancient, agriculturaltechniques do not imply a subsistence economy. More roads do not necessarily mean greater local interconnectivity. Buildings that look old may not be. Maryeli is remote; it looks old; it is now surrounded by olives-that most ancient of Greek crops.Timeless, however, it is not.
ACKNOWLED GMENTS This project was undertaken as a part of the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP), and as such owes thanks to all those organizations that supported it. Major finding for PRAP was provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory.For details of those institutions' support and the support received from other organizations, see Davis et al. 1997, p. 488. There are a host of people due acknowledgment for their invaluable help in producing this little part of PRAP, although as always they bear none of the burden for any errorsherein. I especially appreciate the continued support of all of the project's directors, and particularlythe close involvement of Jack Davis, Sue Alcock, and John Bennet. I cannot possibly thank William Alexander enough; his unstinting efforts interviewing the villagers and transcribingvillage records made this whole paper possible. Sue Sutton and the anonymous reviewers for Hesperia contributed numerous valuable comments. I also would like to acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the members of "L"team, who initially surveyed the area around Maryeli with me. Rhonda Lee has helped with translations from the French and in editing. Demetra Kontaxi, Athanasios Lianos, Vasiliki Skaltsi, and Pandelis Douvas, all officials at the nomarchy offices in Kalamata,were very helpful, as were the staff at the Gennadeion Library in Athens. Finally, and above all, this article is dedicated to the villagers of Maryeli and Ayii Apostoloi, whose hospitality cannot be praisedtoo highly. Of particularnote were Kosta and PanayiotaAlexopoulos, VasilisDimitrakopoulos, Christos Aristoumenopoulos, Vasilis Papadopoulos, Pavlos Yiannopoulos, and especiallyTetaMaryeli. Space preventslisting the names of all the other villagers, but I thank them all.
96
WAYNE
E.
LEE
REFERENCES Allen, P 1976. "Aspida:A Depopulated Maniat Community,"in Dimen and Friedl 1976, pp. 168-198. . 1997. "FindingMeaning in Modificationsof the Environment: The Fields and Orchardsof Mani, in Karduliasand Shutes 1997, pp.259-269. Aschenbrenner,S. 1972. "AContemporaryCommunity,"in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 47-63. . 1986.Life in a ChangingGreek Village:KarpoforaandIts Reluctant Farmers,Dubuque. . 1987. "The Civil War from the Perspectiveof a Messenian Village," in Baerentzen,latrides, and Smith 1987, pp.105-126. Athanassopoulos,E. F. 1997. "LandscapeArchaeologyof Medieval and Pre-modernGreece:The Case of Nemea,"in Karduliasand Shutes 1997, pp.79-105. Baerentzen,L, J. 0. latrides,and 0. L. Smith, eds. 1987. Studiesin the Historyof the GreekCivil War, Copenhagen. Barrington,R. 1850. Extractsfrom a Journalof a Pilgrimage,London. Baxevanis,J.J. 1972. Economyand PopulationMovementsin the Peloponnesos of Greece,Athens. BCR= Diplomaticand ConsularReports on Tradeof PatrasandDistrict.For theYears1886-1899, London18871899. Continued underthe title Tradeof theMoreaand Provincesof AcarnaniaandEtolia, 1900-1914. Belia, E. 1978. "E8oyeL 7tepL Meatoo -q,vLaaxroFoC?XLx6v 16o,uvN%oC 1786,"in Hpaxztxd Too A')ivv08p(OV Meamqv1caxxwvx2ov&5v,
Athens, pp. 283-288. Bennett, D. 0. 1988. "The Poor Have Much More Money: Changing Socio-Economic Relationsin a GreekVillage,"Journalof Modern GreekStudies 6, pp. 217-243. Beuermann,A. 1956. "Typen LandlicherSiedlungen in Griechenland,"Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 100, pp. 278-285. Bialor,P. 1976. "The Northwestern Cornerof the Peloponnesos:Mavrikion and Its Region,"in Dimen and Friedl 1976, pp. 222-235.
Bory de Saint-Vincent,J. B. G. M. 1834.ExpAditionScientfiquede Morde,SectiondesSciencesPhysiques II Geographie et Geologie,Paris. 1835.ExpcditionScientofquede Morde,SectiondesSciencesPhysiques, Atlas, Paris. Botsas, E. N. 1987. "Greeceand the East:The TradeConnection, 18511984,"Journalof ModernGreek Studies5, pp. 207-236. Burlumi,T. A. 1899. "The Overproduction of Currants,"Economic Journal9, pp. 633-650. 1911. Historyof Currantsand of the CurrantVine,pamphlet. Campbell,J. K. 1964. Honour,Family, and Patronage:AStudyofInstitutions andMoral Valuesin a Greek MountainCommunity,Oxford. Chang, C. 1981. "The Archaeologyof ContemporaryHerding Sites in Greece"(diss. State Universityof New Yorkat Binghamton). .1993. "PastoralTranshumance in the SouthernBalkansas a Social Ideology: EthnoarchaeologicalResearchin Northern Greece,"AmericanAnthropologist 95, pp.687-703. . Forthcoming."The Material Cultureand Settlement History of Agro-Pastoralismin the Koinotis of Dhidhima:An Ethnoarchaeological in ContingentCountryPerspective," side:Settlement,Economy,andLand Usein the SouthernArgolidSince 1700, S. B. Sutton, ed., Stanford. Cherry,J. F.,J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,eds. 1991. as Long-Term LandscapeArchaeology History:NorthernKeosin the Cycladic Islands,Los Angeles. Chouliarakes,M. 1973-1976. Fea)ypxqt, e6iAt
C1O1X)T7XZ XXI w2unOvapucx,
-rfe, E2J{c8cos,1821-1971,
3 vols., Athens. Clark,M. H. 1994-1995. "From Sheltersto Villas: Changing House and Settlement Formon Methana, 1880-1987,"ModernGreekStudies Yearbook10/11, pp. 511-536. Notes Clark,W. G. 1858.Peloponnesus: of Studyand Travel,London. Costa,J. A. 1988. "The History of Migration and PoliticalEconomy in RuralGreece:A Case Study,"
Journal of Modern GreekStudies 6,
pp. 159-185. Crouch,D. P. 1993. WaterManagement in Ancient Greek Cities, Oxford. Cumberbatch,A. N. 1934. Economic Conditions in Greece,London. Davis,J. L., and S. B. Sutton. 1995. "Responseto A. J. Ammerman, 'The Dynamics of Modern Land Use and the Acconia Survey',"JAM 8, pp. 113-123. Davis,J. L., S. E. Alcock,J. Bennet, Y. G. Lolos, and C. Shelmerdine. 1997. "The Pylos RegionalArchaeological Project,Part I: Overview and the ArchaeologicalSurvey," Hesperia 66, pp. 391-494. Depping, G. B. 1830. La Grece;ou, Description topographiquede la Livadie, de la Moree, et de lArchipel,
2 vols., Paris. Dimen, M., and E. Friedl,eds. 1976. Regional Variations in Modern Greece and Cyprus:Toward a Perspective on the Ethnography of Greece(Annals of
the New YorkAcademy of Science 268), New York. Dodwell, E. 1819.A Classical and TopographicalTour through Greece during the Years1801, 1805, and 1806, 2 vols., London. Dokos, K. 1971-1972. "H?v eX0oirovvqoo
eXXX%o6otLrxL
7tepLODoOLtX XoXta
tLv Z?pLo8oov -t Bevet-oxpor'ocg,"
Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbucher21, pp. 43-168. Du Boulay,J. 1974. Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village, Oxford.
FAO = Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. 1965. Economic Survey of the Western Peloponnesus, Greece,6 vols., Rome. Finlay,G. 1898. A History of Greece, 7 vols., Oxford. Forbes,H. 1976. " 'We Have a Little of Everything':The Ecological Basis of Some AgriculturalPracticesin Methana,Trizinia,"in Dimen and Friedl 1976, pp. 236-250. . 1989. "Of Grandfathersand GrandTheories:The Hierarchised Orderingof Responsesto Hazard in a Greek RuralCommunity,"in Bad YearEconomics: Cultural Responsesto Risk and Uncertainty,
97
CHANGE AND THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE
P. Halstead andJ. O'Shea, eds., Cambridge,pp. 87-97. .1997. "A'Waste'of Resources: Aspects of LandscapeExploitation in Lowland GreekAgriculture," in Karduliasand Shutes 1997, pp. 187-214. Fotiadis,M. 1995. "Modernityand the Past-Still-Present:Politics of Time in the Birth of RegionalArchaeological Projectsin Greece,"AJA99, pp. 59-78. Foxhall,L. 1996. "Feelingthe Earth Move: CultivationTechniqueson Steep Slopes in ClassicalAntiquity," in HumanLandscapesin Classical Antiquity:Environmentand Culture, G. Shipley andJ. Salmon, eds., London, pp. 44-67. Frangakis,E., andJ. M. Wagstaff.1987. "SettlementPatternChange in the Morea, A.D. 1700-1830," Byzantine andModernGreekStudies11, pp. 163-192. Franghiadis,A. 1990. "PeasantAgricultureand ExportTrade:Currant Viticulturein SouthernGreece, 1830-1893" (diss. European UniversityInstitute, Florence). Friedl,E. 1962. Vasilika:AVillagein ModernGreece,NewYork. Gell,W. 1817.Itineraryof theMorea, London. FevLx6ov [qcp4ov 8%o'tov (KoLvotLtLr
Village office, Maryeli, MotpyeXLoo), Greece. Giannakopoulos,T. 1991-1992. "I8LOXtyrcau XXL OLoXtrGcXL
Mea-
too l9oo xocat6 t-o , rqvoLC wx vog, H&{OWOv Xxa 19,
pp. 303-426. GSE = National StatisticalServiceof Greece. 1911-1994. FeawpyitxeO -re E2AAakos,Athens. axza-TOfTCxg [Exact titles vary byyear.]
Halstead, P. 1987. "Traditionaland Ancient RuralEconomy in MediterraneanEurope:Plus ,Ca Change?"JHS107, pp. 77-87. Halstead, P., and G. Jones. 1997. "AgrarianEcology in the Greek Islands:Time Stress,Scale, and Risk,"in Karduliasand Shutes 1997, pp.271-294. Hart, L. K. 1992. Time, Religion, and Social Experience in Rural Greece,
Lanham,Md. Herzfeld, M. 1985. The Poetics of Manhood: Contest and Identity in a
Cretan Mountain Village, Princeton. . 1991. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town, Princeton.
InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development. 1966. The Development of Agriculture in Greece,
Washington,D.C. Jameson,M. H., C. N. Runnels,and T. H. van Andel. 1994. A Greek Countryside: The SouthernArgolid from Prehistory to the Present Day,
Stanford. Kanasi,N. 1930. H Meao7v(c'xx a6xt, Athens. Kardulias,P. N., ed. 1994. Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Area, Lanham,Md.
Kardulias,P. N., and M. T. Shutes, eds. 1997. Aegean Strategies: Studies of Culture andEnvironment on the European Fringe, Lanham,Md. Ka-razcxOaztxOv Too Zzcx6Ctxov L2k5v&q[ovMeam7vaCX,Kalamata
1898. Kilimi, P 1939. Fewlxovouxact
M?A?zat
c Meam7vcx,Athens.
Konstantinopoulos,C. 1983. Ot
7Xapa-
aouCaxo6 xz6a?e: -l He0A0{o 0VV,Uao,
Athens. Kourvetaris,Y. A., and B. A. Dobratz. 1987. A Profile of Modern Greece, Oxford. Kremmydas,V. 1972. To euw6plo -re HEA0owovV,'aov azo 18 aodvwa(1715-
1792), Athens. 1980. )2vyx6pwc1xXI ?yF0plO aztv wPOowccaUc-daOXeHE{o0wovv'ao, 1793-1821, Athens.
Laiou, A. E. 1987. "PopulationMovements in the Greek Countryside duringthe Civil War,"in Baerentzen, latrides,and Smith 1987, pp. 55-104.
Leake,W. M. 1830. Travels in the Morea, 3 vols., London. . 1846. Peloponnesiaca.-ASupplement to Travels in the Morea,
London. Mansolas,A. 1867. Ho2tzeto ypaVyxa6 Athens. wAr,poyopc'ct 7rqp1'E.&frko;og, Mazower,M. 1991. Greeceand the Inter-war Economic Crisis, Oxford. . 1993. Inside Hitler's Greece, New Haven. McDonald, W. A., and G. R. Rapp, eds. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition, Minneapolis. McGrew,W. W. 1985. Land and Revo-
lution in Modern Greece,1800-1881,
Kent State. McNall, S. G. 1978. The GreekPeasant, Washington,D.C. McNeill, W. H. 1978. The Metamorphosis of Greecesince World WarII,
Chicago. Mears, E. G. 1929. GreeceToday: The Aftermath of the Refugee Impact,
Stanford. Mikeli, P.A., ed. 1981. To ERA27vzxo' ACatx6a'wTC,Athens. Morgan, E. S. 1975. American Slavery, American Freedom, New York. Moutsopoulos,N. K. 1993. BaAxavtx' 9cco 71x apx'tzexTov'x47 E2Jod&4,Athens. Mouzelis, N. P. 1978. Modern Greece,
New York. Murray,P., and P.N. Kardulias.1986. "AModern-Site Surveyin the SouthernArgolid, Greece,"JFA 13, pp. 21-41. National Bank of Greece. 1950. Greek Economy in 1949, Athens. NID = Naval IntelligenceDivision. 1944. Greece,3 vols., London. NSSG = National StatisticalService of Greece. 1931-. Statistical Yearbook of Greece,Athens. NSSG (Atlas) = National Statistical Serviceof Greece. 1964. Economic and SocialAtlas of Greece,Athens. OECD = Organisationfor Economic Cooperationand Development. 1968-1988. Food Consumption Statistics, Paris. Panagiotopoulos,V. 1985. H27ovquo% xat otxtcyo6 -as H02AowOV,Vcyov, Athens. 13o0-18o,; xtW&v$x,,
Pepelasis,A. A., and P. A. Yotopoulos. 1962. Surplus Labor in GreekAgriculture, 1953-1960 (Research Monograph Series 2), Athens. Perdicaris,G. 1845. The Greeceof the Greeks,2 vols., New York. Petronotis,A. 1986. Arcadia. Greek TraditionalArchitecture, P. Ramp, trans.,Athens. Petrounakou,P. 1901. izTov Mavcax, Athens. Phillips,W. A. 1897. The Warof Greek Independence,London. Randolph,B. 1689. The Present State of the Morea, London. Rangavis,I., ed. 1853-1854. Ta E2AJ{v2xd,3 vols., Athens. Rodd, R. 1892. The Customs andLore of Modern Greece,Chicago.
98
WAYNE
Sauerwein,F. 1969. "Das Siedlungsbild der Peloponnesum dasJahr 1700," Erdkunde 23, pp. 237-244. en Grece, Scrofani,S. 1801. Voyage 3 vols., Parisand Strasbourg. Seferiades,S. 1999. "SmallRural Ownership,SubsistenceAgriculture,and PeasantProtestin Interwar Greece:The AgrarianQuestion Recast,"JournalofModernGreek Studies 17, pp. 277-323. Shutes,M. T. 1994. "ProductionOriented Ethnography:The CulturalAnthropologist'sRole in UnderstandingLong-TermSocial Change,"in Kardulias1994, pp.337-352. .1997. "WorkingThings Out: On Examiningthe Relationships between AgriculturalPracticeand Social Rules in Ancient Korinthos, Greece,"in Karduliasand Shutes 1997, pp.237-257. . 1999. "Goodnessof Fit: On the Relationshipbetween EthnographicData and World-Systems in World-Systems Theory," Theoryin Practice,P.N. Kardulias,ed., Lanham,Md., pp. 25-36. Slaughter,C., and C. Kasimis.1986. "SomeSocial-Anthropological Aspects of Boeotian RuralSociety: A Field-Report,"Byzantineand ModernGreekStudies10,pp.103160. Stedman,N. 1996. "Land-Useand Settlement in Post-medievalCentral Greece:An Interim Discussion,"in TheArchaeology ofMedieval Greece,P. Lock and G. D. R. Sanders,eds., Oxford,pp. 179-192. Stoianovich,T. 1953. "LandTenureand Related Sectorsof the Balkan Economy,1600-1800,"Journalof EconomicHistory13,pp.398-411. Strong,F. 1842. Greeceas a Kingdom;or, A StatisticalDescriptionof That
WayneE. Lee UNIVERSITY
OF LOUISVILLE
DEPARTMENT
OF HISTORY
I03A
GOTTSCHALK
LOUISVILLE,
HALL
KY 40292
[email protected]
E. LEE
Country,London. Sutton, S. B. 1988. "What Is a 'Village' in a Nation of Migrants,"Journalof ModernGreekStudies6, pp.187215. .1991. "Population,Economy, and Settlement in Post-revolutionary Keos:A CulturalAnthropological Study,"in Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991, pp. 383-402. .1994. "SettlementPatterns, Settlement Perceptions:Rethinking the Greek Village,"in Kardulias 1994, pp. 313-336. Sweet-Escott, B. 1954. Greece: A PoliticalandEconomicSurvey, 1939-1953, London. Topping, P. 1972. "The Post-Classical Documents,"in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 64-80. .1976. "Pre-modernPeloponnesus:The Land and the People underVenetianRule, 1685-1715," in Dimen and Friedl 1976, pp. 92108. Turner,R. M. A. 1928. Report on EconomicConditionsin Greece, London. Wagstaff,J. M. 1965a. "HouseTypes as an Index in Settlement Study: A Case Study from Greece,"Transactionsand Papersof theInstituteof BritishGeographers 37, pp.69-75. 1965b. "TraditionalHouses in Modern Greece,"Geography50, pp.58-64. .1965c. "AnOutline of the Agriculturein the Mani Region of SouthernGreece,"TVjdschrift van hetKoninkli/kNederlandsch Genootschap 82.3, Aardrijkskundig pp.270-280. . 1969. "The Study of Greek RuralSettlements:A Review of the Literature,"Erdkunde 23.4, pp. 306317. . 1977. "Warand Settlement
Desertion in the Morea, 1685of theInstituteof 1830,"Transactions 3.3, newseries, BritishGeographers pp. 295-308. . 1982.TheDevelopmentofRural Settlements:AStudyof theHelos Plain in SouthernGreece,Amersham, England. Terraces: . 1992. "Agricultural The VasilikosValley,Cyprus,"in Pastand PresentSoilErosion: and Geographical Archaeological M. Bell andJ. BoardPerspectives, man, eds., Oxford, pp. 155-161. Wagstaff,J.M., andJ. Cherry.1981. "Settlementand Population Change,"in An IslandPolity: of Exploitationin TheArchaeology Melos, C. RenfrewandJ. M. Wagstaff,eds., Cambridge,pp. 136155. Whitelaw,T. M. 1991. "The Ethnoarchaeologyof Recent RuralSettlement and Land Use in Northwest Keos,"in Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991, pp. 403-454. Williams, H. W. 1820. Travelsin Italy, Greece,and theIonianIslands,2 vols., Edinburgh. Woodhouse, C. M. 1968. Modern Greece,London. Wright,J. C.,J.T. Cherry,J.L. Davis, E. Mantzourani,S. B. Sutton, and R. F. SuttonJr. 1990. "The Nemea ValleyArchaeologicalProject: A PreliminaryReport,"Hesperia 59, pp. 579-659. Wyse,T. 1865.An Excursionin the in theYear1858, 2 vols., Peloponnesus London. Zangger,E., M. Timpson, S. B. Yazvenko,F. Kuhnke,andJ. Knauss. 1997. "The Pylos Regional ArchaeologicalProject,Part II: LandscapeEvolution and Site Preservation,"Hesperia 66, pp. 549642.
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
Pages99-I26
454-404
B.nC.
ABSTRACT This paperpresents a surveyof Athenian financialhistory from the transfer of the Delian Treasuryin, probably,454 to the end of the PeloponnesianWar some fiftyyearslater,in the hope that futureresearchwill profitfrom an overview of the achievementsof 20th-century scholarship.'
From 431 onward, sufficient evidence survives for me to offer a chronological presentation of the topic of 5th-century Athenian finance, but before this date the situation is very different, and readersmay find it helpful to have before them a summary of the main premises upon which my reconstruction is based. These are five in number:
1. Of the many scholarswhose publications are drawnupon I have learned most from the work of W. S. Ferguson, A. W. Gomme, and the editors of the AthenianTributeLists. 2. I am extremelygratefulto George Huxley and RobertParkerfor their comments on a preliminarydraft of this paper,and to the two anonymous readersfor criticismand helpful suggestions.
1. At some date in the 440s, probablybetween the conclusion of the Peace of Kallias and the inception of the Acropolis building program, the decision was taken to merge the funds of the Delian League with the funds of Athena. 2. Total centralized resourcesfollowing this merger amounted to the sum of 9,700T. 3. This 9,700T reserve became the main source of funding both for the Periklean building program and for military and naval expeditions. 4. Capital expenditure on the building program was offset by annual transfersof surplus imperial income to a total of 3,000T. 5. These 3,OOOTformed part of the 6,OOOTreserve of 431. Athenian finance is, however, a notoriously problematic subject, and I must make it clear to nonspecialist readers that the above premises are, all five of them, controversial,and that alternativereconstructionsareequally possible given a different set of assumptions.2
ALEC
IOO
BLAMIRE
454-431 CAPITAL THUC.
RESOURCES
AND
EXPENDITURE
2.I3.3
According to the manuscript text, Perikles, in the course of his review of Athenian resources in spring 431, reminds his audience that there still remained on the Acropolis 6,OOOTof coined silver,and Thucydides, in an editorial comment, proceeds to explain that the whole amount had once been as much as 9,700T, but had been reduced to its present level by expenditure on the Propylaia and the other buildings and by costs incurred at Poteidaia. 9,700T is a colossal sum of money, but perhaps credible on the assumptions that it representsthe combined funds of Athena and the Delian League3 and that a special audit was held, and the result made public, when the decision was taken to merge these two collections of money. The editors of TheAthenianTributeLists, finding it impossible to believe that Athenian resources could ever have amounted to as much as 9,700T, prefer to adopt the variant text preserved in a scholium to Ar., Plut. 1193, according to which Perikies reports that there was a regular standing amount of 6,OOOTon the Acropolis, and Thucydides provides the additional information that the current balance was in fact 300T below this level because of extra disbursements for the Propylaia and the other buildings and for Poteidaia.4The only documentary support for this reading is the fragmentary Papyrus Decree (Strasbourg Papyrus Graeca 84) on the bold assumption that, despite its reference (line 5) to the year of [Eu]thydemos, archon in 431/0, the decree in fact dates to 450/49, so that "the talents stored up in the state treasury to a total of 5,000 [collected] according to the assessment of Aristeides" (lines 6-8) represents the current balance of the league funds transferredfrom Delos some four years earlier.5Both the variant text quoted by the scholiast, and the above interpretation of the Papyrus Decree, should, in my view, be rejected. THE
FUNDING
OF THE BUILDING
PROGRAM
Apart from the chryselephantine statue of Athena, which involved an outlay of between 700T and 1,OOOT(IG 13 460), the cost of the Periklean 3. Neither resourcecan be precisely quantified.For the tributereservewe have only the unreliabletestimony of Diodorus Siculus,who gives variant figuresof 8,000T (12.38.2) and 10,OOOT (12.40.1-2, 12.54.3, 13.21.3) for the total sum accumulatedin the league treasuryat the time of its transferto Athens. This took place in, probably, 454, shortlybefore the publicationin 453 of the first quota list auditedby the Logistaiin Athens (ATL list 1 = IG 13 259), but see, in favorof an earlier date, Pritchett 1969; Robertson1980, pp. 112-119. For the funds of Athena, which must certainlyhave amountedto
a four-figuresum, see Ferguson1932, pp. 153-154; Pritchett 1974, pp. 101104. 4. See ATL III, pp. 118-132. The editorspresentan impressivearrayof arguments,but, with the notable exception of Rhodes (1988, pp. 194-195), few historiansare now preparedto entertain the scholiast'sreading.For objectionsto the scholium, see in particularGomme (1953-1954 and in HCTII, pp. 26-33); Huxley 1983, pp. 200-201; and KalletMarx 1993, pp. 101-103. 5. See Wade-Gery and Meritt 1957. Accordingto their reconstruction, Perikles,in the year of Euthynos,450/
49, moved a decreefor the funding of the building programwhich included two main provisions:(a) the 5,OOOT of accumulatedtributein the state treasurywere to be carriedup to the Acropolis and given to Athena, and were subse(b) an additional3,OOOT quently to be carriedup duringthe courseof the forthcomingbuilding operations.This reconstructionwas accepted,with some reservations,by Meiggs (1972, pp. 515-518), but the objectionsto it are formidable:see Huxley 1983, pp. 201-202; KalletMarx 1989a, pp. 254-256; and Fornara and Samons 1991, pp. 93-96.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
IOI
B.C.
building program cannot be estimated from what survives of the published accounts, but the manuscript text of Thuc. 2.13.3 would seem to imply total expenditure of about 3,OOOT,allowing some 700T for initial expenses at Poteidaia,6and a sum of precisely 3,OOOTis recorded as voted to, and recently received by,Athena in the first Kallias decree of, probably, 434/3 (IG I3 52A, lines 3-4). Both the date and the interpretation of this text are controversial,7but one possible explanation of the large sum voted is that the Ekklesiahad earlier approved a budget of 3,OOOTfor the forthcoming building program on condition that the capital outlay was recovered from the annual surpluses left unspent by the Hellenotamiai.8If so, the most likely context for the introduction of such a repayment scheme is the extended debate on the funding and potential cost of the Periklean building program (Plut., Per. 12.1-4,14.1-2), which presumably dates to the interval between the conclusion of the Peace of Kallias in, perhaps, 449/8 (Diod. Sic. 12.4),9 and the inception of the Parthenon in 447/6 (IG 13436). Despite Plutarch'sapparent implication that a state of war with Persia still existed at the time of this debate, the termination of hostilities by mutual consent would seem to have constituted a necessary precondition for the decision to draw upon the tribute reserve,and it was probably now that the accumulated funds of the Delian League were transferred from the custody of the Hellenotamiaito the treasuryof Athena.10The fact that Athena's 3,OOOTare specifically recorded as paid entirely in Attic currency (IG 1352A, line 4) could perhaps be taken to indicate that the decree for the allied adoption of Athenian coins, weights, and measures (IG 13 1453) was already in force,"'but both the date and the content of the decree are the subject of continuing controversy.12 THE
FUNDING
OF MILITARY
AND
NAVAL
EXPEDITIONS
Our earliest surviving record of military expenses (IG 13 363) lists three payments, totaling over 1,400T, made by the Treasurersof Athena to the 6. See Gomme in HCT II, pp. 2023. Heliodoros, the authorof a lost work concerningthe Athenian Acropolis,is reportedto have quoted for the cost of the a sum of 2,OOOT Propylaiaalone (FGrHist373 F 1; for the text, see Keaney1968). This testimonyis perhapscredibleon the assumptionsthat the figure quoted derivesfrom an official recordand that it representsthe total sum spent on the Acropolisbuildingprogramas a whole: see ATL III, p. 124, note 15; ML, pp. 164-165. In this case, if building expensesamountedto some 3,OOOT in were spent on other all, about 1,OOOT projects.For surveysof the Periklean buildingprogram,see Boersma1970, pp. 65-81; Knell 1979. 7. See below, note 23. 8. See ATL III, pp. 326-328; Lewis in CAHV2,p. 125 with note 24.
Gomme (in HCT II, pp. 31-32) takes these 3,OOOT to representa single credittransferfrom the state treasury, but it is difficultto believe that so large a sum could have been accumulated from surplusdomestic revenue. 9. For differingviews on the credibility of this date, see Badian 1993, pp. 48-49, 58-60; Pritchett 1995, pp. 167-171. 10. See, briefly,Lewis in CAHV2, pp. 125-127; and, for a fuller discussion, Samons (1993), who rightly argues,againstGomme (in HCT II, p. 26), that Athena now became the legal owner of this money.It must howeverbe conceded that there is no directevidencefor any such merger. The treasuryof Athena certainly constitutedthe main sourceof funding for the Acropolisbuilding program,but it was by no means the only source,and
a case can be made for supposingthat the Parthenonat least was paid for without recourseto the tributereserve: see Kallet-Marx1989a; Giovannini 1990. 11. See Starr(1970, pp. 64-72), who believes that the measurewas introduced soon afterthe Athenians had completedthe task of recoiningthe large accumulationof non-Attic silver found in the league treasuryafterits transferfrom Delos. 12. For full discussion,see now Figueira(1998, pp. 319-423, 431-465), who argues,againstthe consensus,that the decreedid not in fact prohibitallied minting of silver,as section 12 had been thought to establish,but merelystipulated that any city which did mint in silvermust at the same time accept Attic coin as valid local tender.
I02
ALEC
BLAMIRE
generals engaged in suppressing the revolt of Samos during the two years 441/0 and 440/39,13 and the stipulated source of funding for these operations would seem to confirm that the tribute reserve was no longer in the custody of the Hellenotamiai.14We have no information about the financial arrangementsfor Phormion's mission to Amphilochia ca. 438 (Thuc. 2.68.7-8)15 or for Perikles'expedition to the Black Sea ca. 436 (Plut., Per. 20.1-2),16 but the grants of 26T and 50T voted to the two squadronssent to Corcyra in 433 were funded, once again, by the Treasurersof Athena (IG 13 364). These two payments, which should have been affordablefrom current income, would seem to indicate that it was now official policy for expeditions to be funded from reserve,17 and it is a reasonable inference that this practice dates from the transfer of the tribute reserve to the treasury of Athena. If so, expeditionary costs become a significant factor in our financial equation. CONCLUSION
On their surrenderin 439, the Samians had agreed to repay the costs of the war over a period of time (Thuc. 1.117.3). We have no evidence as to the precise terms negotiated, but special payments from Samos are mentioned in a decree of 426 (IG P368, lines 21-24) and are subsequently recorded as a source of funding in the treasurers'accounts for 423/2 (IG I3 369, lines 42-43), 418/17 (IG 13 370, lines 18-19), and 414/13 (IG 13 371, lines 16-17). Since these payments represent income of Athena, they are probablyto be identified as annual installments of the war debt, and their lengthy duration perhaps suggests that the settlement of 439 had provided for the indemnity to be repaid at a fixed rate of 50T per annum over a period of twenty-six years,18which would have left a sum of 1,OOOTstill outstanding in 431.19If this assumption is correct, and if we allow a no13. For the chronologyof these three payments,see Fornara1979; Lewis in CAHV2,p. 502. 14. See Stevenson 1924;ATL III, p. 337. But the implicationthat the funds of Athena now constitutedthe only availablereserveis by no means universallyaccepted:Gomme (19531954, pp. 16-17; and in HCTII, pp. 31-32) arguesfor a substantial reservein the state treasury;KalletMarx (1989a, pp. 259-260) believes that the tributereservein fact remained in the hands of the Hellenotamiai. These theories,if correct,would have majorimplicationsfor our understanding of Athenian finance. 15. This episode is timeless in Thucydides,and the question of its date remainscontroversial:see Hornblower1991, pp. 353-354. 16. The approximatedate of this expeditionis no longer in doubt:see
Stadter1989, pp. 216-217; Lewis in CAHV2,p. 146, note 113. 17. During each of the three years 435/4, 434/3, and 433/2 what appears to be money left unspentby generalson campaignwas paid in to the Hellenotamiai and was transferredby them to the Commissionersfor the Propylaia (IG 13 464, lines 105-108; 465, lines 128-130; 466, lines 144-145). We have howeverno evidence to determinethe originalsourceof funding, and the sums transferredmay in fact represent the tithes set aside for Athena from the sale of booty broughthome by the generals.For full discussion,see ATL III, pp. 329-332; Thompson 1970a. 18. See ATL III, pp. 334-335. If, as the editorsof ATL assume,the payment of 414/13 representsthe final installmentof the series,the moneys from Samos subsequentlyrecordedas paid by voucherin the treasurers'
accountsfor 410/9 (IG P3375, lines 2021, 34-37) constituteda different categoryof revenue,probablyfunds collected at Samos for use in the field. 19. For a differentview, see Gomme (in HCT II, pp. 17-18, 33), who argues from the silence of Thucydides at 2.13.3 that the indemnity had been paid in full by 431, and interpretsthe laterpaymentsfrom Samos as contributions to the imperialbudget in lieu of tribute.This reconstructionwould requirethe assumptionthat the Athenians had insisted on a substantial down paymentin 439, as Plutarch(Per. 28.1) perhapsimplies;cf. the terms imposed upon Thasos after her surrenderin 463/2 (Thuc. 1.101.3). For furtherdiscussion,see Shipley 1987, p. 118; Stadter 1989, p. 256, both skeptical of the notion that the Samians were allowedas long as twenty-six years to dischargetheir debt.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I03
tional sum of 2,OOOTfor military and naval expeditions, and for other capitalexpenses such as colonization20and shipbuilding,21then Thucydides' figures are at least possible.22 THE KALLIAS
DECREES
In, probably,434/3 the Ekklesiapassed two important decrees concerning the organization, management, and use of sacred resources.23The first of these (IG 13 52A) provides for the repayment of debts to the gods now that the 3,OOOTvoted to Athena have been brought up to the Acropolis (lines 2-4).24 The debts in question are to be repaid from the funds alreadyearmarked for this purpose, namely, the moneys now with the Hellenotamiai, other moneys in the same fund, and the sum realized by the dekatewhenever it is sold (lines 4_7).25 The precise sum owing is to be calculated by
the thirty Logistai 26 after due search of the records (lines 7-13), which suggests that some of the loans were by no means recent. We learn from the second decree (IG 13 52B, lines 21-23) that a sum of 200T had apparently alreadybeen voted to cover the estimated cost of repayment, and a later clause in decree A (lines 30-32) stipulates that any money left over is to be spent on the dockyard27and walls. Whereas the 3,OOOTvoted to Athena had been paid entirely in Attic silver (lines 3-4), the foreign coins listed in an inventory of 429/8 (IG I3 383, lines 15-35) suggest that the debt to the other gods may have been repaid in a variety of different currencies.28The decree says nothing about interest, but the Logistaimay have 20. See Jones 1957, pp. 168-174; Brunt 1966. 21. See Blackman1969, pp. 208212; Gabrielsen1994, pp. 131-132. 22. Cf. the calculationsof Unz (1985, pp. 26-27 with note 24), who suggestsa figureof at least 1,OOOT for the combinedcost of (a) military campaignsundertakenbetween 448/7 and the Thirty Years'Peace of 446/5, and (b) Perikles'subsequentexpedition to the Black Sea. 23. Until comparativelyrecent times therewas a generalconsensusamong historiansthat these decreesshould be assignedto 434/3: see ML, pp. 157161, and Meiggs (1972, pp. 519-523, 601), who examines,and in my view refutes,the case for dating them as late as 422/1 or 418/17. 434/3 still seems to me the most probabledate for Kallias to have moved these decrees,but see Kallet-Marx(1989b), who presents strong argumentsfor dissociatingthe two texts and for assigningdecreeA to summer431, soon after Perikleshad presentedhis reviewof Athenian resourceson the eve of war. 24. We have no evidence to
determinehow recently,or for what purpose,this money had been voted to Athena. For the hypothesis,accepted here, that the 3,OOOT were voted some time beforethe inception of the Acropolis buildingprogramand were paid in a series of annualinstallmentsto offset expenditurefrom reserve,see ATL III, pp. 326-328; Lewis in CAH V2,p. 125 with note 24. Proponentsof a later date for the decreeexplainthese as a sum recentlyvoted for the 3,OOOT replenishmentof a reserveheavily depletedby expendituresincurred duringthe courseof the Archidamian War:see Mattingly 1968, pp. 460-465 (= 1996, pp. 227-232), and 1975 (= 1996, pp. 353-360), arguingfor 422/1; Fornara1970, arguingfor 418/ 17. That so large a sum could have been raisedby 418/17 is perhapsconceivable, but, on Mattingly'sdating of the debecree, the sourceof these 3,OOOT comes a majordifficulty,which he does not, in my view, satisfactorilyresolve:cf. also Meiggs 1972, pp. 521-523. 25. In common with those of other taxes,the contractfor the collection of this otherwiseunattesteddekatewas
presumablysold at auction to the highest bidder (see Langdon 1994, pp. 258-261), but we have no means of determiningwhether it constituted an imperialtax regularlyadministered by the Hellenotamiaior a domestic tax, the revenuefrom which was, on this particularoccasion,to be earmarkedfor the repaymentof the debt to the gods. The formeris the view of the editors of ATL (III, p. 326), who supposethat the tithe was levied on the cargoesof merchantships passing throughthe Bosporos (cf. Cawkwell 1975, p. 54, note 4), but Mattingly (1968, pp. 471473 [= 1996, pp. 240-242]) presentsa strong case for supposingthat the tax was levied and collected locally,and suggests the mining industryas a possible source. 26. A boardof public auditors first attestedin 454/3 (ATL list 1 = IG1 3 259, prescript):see Rhodes 1972, p. 111. 27. Total outlayon the dockyards was afterwardsestimatedat 1,OOOT (Isok. 7.66). 28. See Eddy 1973, p. 49.
ALEC
I04
BLAMIRE
been expected to allow for this as a matter of course, and we should not necessarily assume that none was payable, despite the apparent lack of urgency in settling the debt. The remainder of decree A is concerned with the establishment, on the model of the Treasurersof Athena, of a new financial board, the Treasurersof the Other Gods, to assume responsibility for the management of funds currently housed in local sanctuaries, most, but not all, of which were now to be concentrated on the Acropolis.29These new treasurersare to be selected by lot whenever the other magistracies are filled,30and they are to keep in the Opisthodomos the sacred moneys entrusted to them,3" sharing responsibilityfor security (cf.Ath. Pol. 44.1) with the Treasurersof Athena (lines 13-18). On receipt of these temple propertiesfrom the various local officials responsible for their safekeeping,32the new board is to count and weigh them on the Acropolis in the presence of the Boule,and is then to prepare a comprehensive inventory to be published on a single stele-with the property of each god separatelylisted, silver and gold distinguished-and a summation of total resources (lines 18-24). In future years, each successive board of treasurersis to publish an audited record of capital balance, income received, and expenditure incurredduring its term of office from Panathenaia to Panathenaia (lines 24-30), and these instructions are duly observed in the only surviving document from the series, a combined inventory and statement of income and expenditure for the year 429/8 (IG 13 383).33 The prescript contains a reference to the previous year'sboard (lines 9-10)34-the fourth to hold office, on the orthodox dating of the first Kallias decree. The second decree (IG 13 52B), the text of which has sustained considerable damage, includes the following provisions: 1. The Pro[pylaia], the golden Nikai, and their marble [bases] are to be completed (lines 2-3). The number of Nikai under 29. Some temples, including those at Eleusis and Rhamnous,were totally exemptedfrom the forthcomingmove, and the rest apparentlywere permitted to keep some funds on site (IG P3383, lines 186-187), presumablyto defray local expenses. 30. The decreesays nothing about qualificationfor office, but the Treasurersof Athena were chosen exclusivelyfrom the highest propertyclass (Ath.Pol. 8.1, 47.1), and the same rule may have appliedalso to the new board.We have no contemporary evidence to determinepreciselywhen magistracieswere filled at this time, but, in the 4th centuryat least, generals and other militaryofficerswere normallyelected in the seventhprytany (Ath.Pol. 44.4). For a recentdiscussion see Cawkwell(1997, pp. 107-1 10), who boldly assignsthe decreeto the interval between the debate on Corcyra'sappeal
for help againstCorinth (Thuc. 1.44) and the end of the Panathenaicyear 434/3. 31. Probablyto be identified as the reconstructedwestern chamberof the Dorpfeld temple destroyedin 480/79: see Dinsmoor 1947, pp. 127-140; Harris 1995, pp. 1-5, 40-41. 32. Listed in lines 18-19 as "the presenttamiai,epistatai,andhieropoioi in the temples,who now have chargeof the treasures,"a formulationwhich, quite clearly,implies that these treasureshad not yet been broughtup to the Acropolis at the time when the decreewas passed:see Kallet-Marx 1989b, pp. 105-108. 33. For discussionand analysisof this complex document,see Ferguson 1932, p. 97, note 2; Thompson 1967, pp. 231-234; and Linders 1975, pp. 1438. Detailed accountsof income and expendituremust also have been
preparedby the Treasurersof Athena for purposesof audit (cf.Ath. Pol. 54.2), but these were apparentlynever published.The financialrecordswhich they did set up (IG P3364-382) are, technically,not accountsat all, but statementsof loans to the Athenian state,with each transactionprecisely dated by the prytanycalendarfor subsequentcalculationof interestby the Logistai:see Ferguson1932, pp. 96100; Davies 1994, pp. 207-208. 34. This fact should be sufficientto establishthat the decreewas passed no laterthan summer430, in advanceof the Panathenaicyear430/29: see Kallet-Marx1989b, pp. 105-108. Mattingly (1968, pp. 458-460 [= 1996, pp. 225-227]) argues,in my view implausibly,that decreeA did not in fact institute the treasurersof IG I3 383, but called instead for the reorganization of this boardof officials.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I05
commission is not specified, but at least two were subsequently dedicated ca. 430 (IG I3 467), and two more in 426/5 (IG I3 468).35Work on the Propylaia continued through 433/2 (IG I3 466), but operations were apparentlythen suspended to conserve resourcesfor the impending war.36 2. An annual budget of 10T is to be allocated for what appearsto be supplementary building work on the Acropolis, perhaps concerned primarilywith security.The plan is to be preparedby the architect of the Propylaia, and operations are to be supervised by the Treasurersof Athena and the Commissioners for the Propylaia (lines 4-12). 3. Apart from this special fund, no sum in excess of 10,000 drachmas may be drawn from the treasuryof Athena without a previous vote of indemnity (lines 12-19).37 These restrictions on capital expenditure perhaps explain why a rider to a decree of ca. 432 concerning the public water supply (IG I3 49, lines 14-16) proposes that any work undertaken should be charged to the currentyear'stribute. 4. [The money owed to the gods (?)] is to be deposited with the Treasurersof Athena by the Hellenotamiaiduring the course of the year,38and, once the debt has been repaid from the 200T voted for this purpose, the administration of Athena's treasuryis to be located on the right of the Opisthodomos, that of the other gods on the left (lines 19-25).39 5. The Treasurersof Athena currentlyin office are to complete the weighing and counting of the sacred treasuresin their custody, in cooperation with the four boards of treasurerswho held office during the previous Panathenaic quadrennium (lines 2629). This instruction has been thought to anticipate the publication of the three series of extant Parthenon inventories (IG 13 292-362), which begin in 434/3,40 but is perhaps more plausibly interpreted as a reference to certain stocks of unweighed bullion and uncounted money currentlyheld in the Opisthodomos.41 35. See Thompson 1970c. 36. See Boersma 1970, pp. 70,200201. 37. No votes of indemnity arein fact recordedeither in the treasurers' accountsfor 433/2 (IG I3 364) or in what is preservedof their accountsfor succeedingyearspriorto the second prytanyof 418/17 (IG I3 370, line 15). Mattingly (1968, pp. 450-451 [= 1996, pp. 215-216]) includes this negative evidence among his argumentsfor dating the decreeto 422/1, but the sporadicrecordingof the sanctionis probablyto be explainedas a peculiarity of emphasis:see Ferguson1932, p. 17, note 2; Thompson 1967, pp. 221-223. 38. The restorationof this clause
(lines 19-21) is problematic,and a case can be made for an alternativetext wherebythe Hellenotamiaiareto deposit either their receiptsor their surpluseswith the Treasurersof Athena: see Ferguson1932, pp. 157159; Gomme in HCTII, pp. 433-434. 39. On the solitary,and apparently superfluous,referenceto the Opisthodomos in the accountsof the Logistaifor the quadrennium426/5423/2 (IG 13 369, lines 19-20), see Samons 1993, p. 130, note 10. 40. Although not inscribedin their presentform until the beginning of the Panathenaicyear432/1, at earliest:see Samons 1997. 41. See Samons 1996.
io6 PERIKLES'
ALEC
REVIEW
OF RESOURCES
BLAMIRE
IN 431
INCOME
"They had on average 600T of tribute coming in annually from their allies, to say nothing of their other revenue" (Thuc. 2.13.3). The pre-war quota lists imply receipts of under 400T,42but allowance can be made for non-tributary sources of overseas income, such as Amphipolis (Thuc. 4.108.1), Samos (IG P368, lines 21-24), and sacred estates in allied territory (Hill B96).43A considerablepart of the incoming tribute for the year was presumably reserved for recurrent expenses, such as salaries of overseas magistrates (Ath. Pol. 24.3: cf. IG P334, lines 5-11); maintenance of the fleet,44dockyards,and walls; and the program of naval training introduced by Perikles (Plut., Per. 11.4).45 The "otherrevenue,"not quantified by Perikles, comprised domestic income paid into the treasuryof the Kolakretai,46 which amounted to some 400T per annum if we accept the figure of 1,OOOTquoted by Xenophon (An. 7.1.27) for combined overseas and domestic income in 431. It was derived from such sources as taxes, court fees, mining concessions, market tolls, harbor dues, rents, fines, and confiscations (Ar., Vesp.658-659). Of these the two most lucrative were probably the silver mines at Laureion, the revenue from one of which, the Hephaistikon, had helped to defray the cost of the Acropolis building program (IG P3444, lines 249-250; 465, lines 126-127), and the contract for the collection of the 2% customs duty levied at the Peiraieus,which was sold for 30T in 402/1 and for 36T a year later (Andok. 1.133-134).47 The harbor dues payable by shipowners and merchants at Sounion (IG P3 8), Phaleron (IG P3 130), and the Peiraieus (IG P3133) provided ongoing financial support for local cults.48 We know nothing about the mechanics of 5th-century domestic finance, but, since the Kolakretaiappear to have served for a term of only one prytany (IG P373, lines 25-29; cf IG P3 36, lines 4-10),49 they must have worked to a budgeted routine of some kind. Court fees, for example, seem to have been reservedexclusivelyfor the funding ofjurors'pay ([Xen.], Ath. Pol. 1.16; Poll. 8.38).5? Because of the large number of civilian sti42. For the theory that income from tributewas significantlyhigher than the figuresimplied by the quota lists, see Gomme in HCTI, pp. 273-279; French 1972; and, especially,Unz (1985), who arguesthat the lists record only the quotaspaid to Athena on the surplus of each year'stribute,namelythe money that was actuallysent to Athens and not expendedin the field. 43. See Gomme in HCT II, pp. 1719; Meiggs 1972, p. 258. Kallet-Marx (1993, pp. 99-101), reluctantto believe that Periklescould have used the technicaltermphoros to include revenue other than tribute,takes him to mean that 600T came in annuallyfrom the
empire,the greaterpart of which consisted of tribute.For this interpretation, which is perhapsbetter suited to the word order,see also Huxley 1983, p. 198. 44. For the financialresponsibilities of individualtrierarchsin connection with the commissioningand upkeep of ships, see Gabrielsen1994, pp. 19-39, 105-125. 45. For a more detailed analysisof the Athenian budget, coveringboth imperialand domestic expenses,see Podlecki 1998, pp. 165-168. 46. For these pre-Kleisthenic officials,and their functionsunder the 5th-century democracy,see ATL III,
pp. 359-366; Rhodes 1972, p. 102 with note 5; and Harding 1994, pp. 91-94, 134-138. 47. The 1%tax at the Peiraieus mentionedby [Xenophon],A4th.Pol. 1.17, seems from the context to have been duty levied on the propertyof disembarkingpassengers. 48. See Parker1996, p. 125. 49. See Wilhelm 1939. 50. See Harrison1971, pp. 92-94; Kallet-Marx1994, pp. 246-248. For the theory,not acceptedhere, that tributewas used to fund political pay in Athens, see Finley 1981, pp. 41-61; Fornaraand Samons 1991, pp. 67-74.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I07
pends and other domestic expenses (Ath. Pol. 24.3), the revenues administered by the Kolakretaimay have been regardedas unavailablefor purposes of war.5" COINED
RESERVES
"There still remained, on the Acropolis, 6,OOOTof coined silver"(Thuc. 2.13.3). This total may represent the combined funds of Athena and the Other Gods now housed together in the Opisthodomos,52but the subsequent referenceto "theconsiderablesums of money from the other temples" (Thuc. 2.13.5) would seem to imply that Perikles is here thinking exclusively of the funds of Athena.53It follows, if so, that the reserve funds on the Acropolis totalled well over 6,OOOTat the time of the review, since 766T were borrowed from the treasury of the Other Gods during the seven years 433/2-427/6 (IG 13 369, lines 102-105).54 At least half of Athena's 6,OOOTreserve comprised Attic coin paid in prior to the first Kallias decree (IG P352A, lines 3-4). Non-Attic silver,gold, and electrum made up the remainder,but we have no means of estimating the sum of these holdings.55 UNCOINED
RESERVES
"They had in addition uncoined gold and silver in private and public dedications, sacredvessels used in processions and competitions, Persian spoils and other treasuresof like nature,worth not less than 500T" (Thuc. 2.13.4). The figure quoted is many times greater than the Parthenon inventories lead us to expect, but is perhaps credible on the assumption that it encompasses dedications and other treasures not included in these inventories, and also reserves of unwrought gold and silver bullion.56The gold plate weighing 40T or more on Pheidias' statue of Athena is separately itemized (Thuc. 2.13.5). 51. So ATL III, p. 333, but Gomme (in HCT II, p. 19) rightly objectsthat we have no realidea of the total annual cost of these recurrentcommitments: cf. alsoJones 1957, pp. 5-6; Podlecki 1998, pp. 166-167. The 150T per annum quoted forjurors'pay in the 420s (Ar., Vesp.661-663) is certainlyan inflated figure:see Sinclair1988, p. 225; Kallet-Marx1994, p. 247, note 62. 52. So ATL III, p. 333; Gomme in HCT II, pp. 23-24. 53. So Rhodes 1988, pp. 194-195; Cawkwell 1997, pp. 107-108. 54. The loss of the total interest figurefor the Other Gods in the accountsof the Logistai(IG I3 369, line 120) makesit impossibleto determine how earlythese loans began, but expensesincurredbefore the outbreak
of war in 431 were perhapsfunded exclusivelyfrom the treasuryof Athena: see Cawkwell 1997, p. 108. 55. See Mattingly 1968, pp. 462463 (= 1996, pp. 229-230). Part of the tributereceivedin 453 had been paid in Kyzikeneelectrumstaters(ATLlist 1 = IG I3 259, postscript,lines 10-13), and, in the case of certainHellespontine cities, paymentsin this currency apparentlycontinuedto be acceptable: see Eddy 1973; Figueira1998, pp. 274279. A supplyof electrumwas in fact given to the first boardof Parthenon commissioners(IG I3 436, lines 31-32), but, for whateverreason,the coins remainedunused and the experiment was not repeated. 56. See Gomme in HCT II, p. 23; Mattingly 1968, pp. 456-459 (= 1996, pp. 222-225); and Harris 1990-1991.
io8 FUNDS
ALEC
OF THE
OTHER
BLAMIRE
GODS
The "considerablesums of money from the other temples" (Thuc. 2.13.5) are,we have suggested, probablyto be identified as the funds of the Other Gods now housed in the Opisthodomos. The fact that these resourcesare left unquantified is, however, a matter for some surprise,given the comprehensive yearly accounts to be drawn up and published under the terms of the first Kalliasdecree (IG 13 52A, lines 24-30), and this omission could, quite legitimately, be taken to imply that the funds in the local sanctuaries had not yet been brought up to the Acropolis and counted.57 LOANS
AND
INTEREST
"These resources might be used for their safety on condition that no less was replaced afterwards"(Thuc. 2.13.5). This proviso probably refers specifically to the state's obligation to replace any dedications removed for melting,58but we know from the accounts of the Logistai (IG 13 369, lines 98-111) that, with effect from the financial year 433/2, payments from the sacred treasurieswere also treated as loans to the state. The Athenians had, in addition, contractedto charge themselves interest on all such loans, at one drachma a day for one talent down to the end of the financial year 427/6, and one drachma a day for five talents thereafter,which represents a reduction from 6%to a purely nominal 1.2%per annum.59If we are right in supposing that the 6,OOOTreserve of spring 431 does not include the funds of the Other Gods, the total sum availablefor loan by the two boards of sacredtreasurersat the beginning of the financial year 433/2 was probablyof the orderof 7,600T, allowing some 6,700T for the funds of Athena60 and some 900T for the funds of the Other Gods. Our records show some loans made direct to generals, and others to the Hellenotamiaifor transferto the generals, and there is evidence to suggest that the term of office served by the Hellenotamiai may have been changed from the civil to the Panathenaic year so as to correspond with the term of office served by the two boards of sacred treasurers(cf. IG P3 369, lines 25-29; ICG3 377, lines 23-25).61 The change of sacredtreasurers took place on 28 Hekatombaion, and these texts have been thought to establishthat outgoing boardsof Hellenotamiaiwere still in office on Prytany 1.26 = (?)14 Hekatombaion 424, and on Prytany 1.20 = 20 Hekatombaion 406.62
57. See Mattingly 1968, pp. 456458 (= 1996, pp. 222-224); KalletMarx 1989b, pp. 109-110. The editors of ATL (III, p. 333), who include the centralizedfunds of the Other Gods reserve,assumethat in the 6,OOOT Periklesis thinking of extramoney potentiallyavailablefrom sources which had been exemptedfrom the provisionsof the first Kalliasdecree. These included the treasuryof the two goddesses at Eleusis, in which 90T of
coined silverhad accumulatedby the end of the ArchidamianWar (IG IF385, lines 5-6), and that of Nemesis of Rhamnous,whose resources in the 440s had amountedto over 9T (IG I3 248, line 38). 58. See Gomme in HCT II, p. 26; Hornblower1991, p. 255. 59. See West 1930, pp. 234-235; ATL III, pp. 342-343. 60. This estimate assumes high initial expensesat Poteidaia:
cf. Gomme in HCT II, pp. 21-22; Kallet-Marx1993, p. 104. 61. See Meiggs 1972, p. 234. 62. So Meritt 1928, pp. 18-19; 1932, p. 126; and 1964, p. 212, but see the objectionsof Pritchett (1977c), who believes that the Hellenotamiai took up office on Prytany1.1, the first day of the new financialyear.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I09
43 1-421 PERIKLE
S
During the three financial years preceding the death of Perikles in autumn 429, the Athenians borrowed over 3,800T from the sacred treasuries:an estimated 1,145T in 432/1, 1,370T in 431/0, and an estimated 1,300T in 430/29.63 Capital on this enormous scale was needed to fund operations at Poteidaia, which finally surrenderedin winter 430/29 after a siege costing at least 2,OOOT(Thuc. 2.70.2; Isok. 15.113), and to pay for the expensive naval expeditions mounted against the Peloponnese in 431 (Thuc. 2.23.2) and again in 430 (Thuc. 2.56.1-2).64 Such levels of expenditure could not be sustained indefinitely, and Athenian anxiety about the potential cost of the war, should it prove to be protracted, is illustrated by the decision, taken as early as summer 431, to set aside an iron reserve of 1,OOOTfrom the funds on the Acropolis, to be used only in the event of an enemy fleet attacking Athens (Thuc. 2.24.1).65 Thucydides nowhere explainsthe principlesof Athenian war finance,66 but, in the early years at least, as he perhaps implies at 2.24.1, it seems likely that the reserveson the Acropolis were to constitute the main source of funding for the war,67with any surplus imperial revenue perhaps transferred to the sacred treasuries at the end of each financial year, thereby reducing the debt to Athena and the Other Gods.68The surpluses available for transferwere, however, very much smaller than in pre-war years, since 40T of tribute had been lost in consequence of the revolt of Poteidaia and her local allies in 432,69 and 30T more after the expulsion of the population of Aigina in 431 (Thuc. 2.27.1). No attempt seems to have been made to compensate for these losses in the assessment of 430,70but firm action was now taken against defaulters.In autumn 430 a squadron of six ships was sent out to collect money in Karia and Lykia (Thuc. 2.69.1),71 and a fragmentary decree (IG I3 60), now thought to date no later than 430,72 provides for the mobilization of a much larger force of thirty ships and 1,200 hoplites to ensure that bothphoros and epiphorai 7 are collected 63. See ML, p. 217. 64. Fourteenpayments-ten for Macedon and Poteidaia,and four for the Peloponnese-are recordedin the treasurers'accountsfor 432/1 (IG I3 365), but the totals, and half the individualfigures,aremissing:see Thompson 1968. By contrast,the accounts for 431/0 (IG I3 366) arelost apartfrom the summation(lines 9-15), which recordsexpenditureof over 1,267T, plus two supplementarygrants, one of 50T, for new triremes:see ATL III, p. 342; Gomme in HCTII, pp. 144-145. 65. See Kallet-Marx1993, pp. 110i11. 66. See Gomme in HCTI, p. 26,
excellenton the whole question of Thucydides'treatmentof the financial aspectof the war,and not, in my view, invalidatedby the counterargumentsof Kallet-Marx(1993). See also,for pertinentcriticismof Thucydides, Hornblower1991, pp. 341-342; Lewis in CAHV2,p. 385. 67. On the primacyof the reservein Perikleanfinancialstrategy,see Kagan 1974, pp. 36-40; Kallet-Marx1993, pp. 196-198. 68. We have no directevidencefor any such transfers,but the possibility that some were made within this period is not excludedby the accountsof the Logistai(IG I3 369), which supplyno details of financialtransactionseffected
before 426/5: see Kallet-Marx1989b, pp. 102-103. 69. See Gomme in HCTI, pp. 210212; Meiggs 1972, pp. 309-310. 70. See Meiggs 1972, pp. 310-311, 531-532. 71. For the scale of defaultin this part of the empire,see Meiggs 1972, pp. 246-247, 306-307. The tribute which was lost amountedto no great sum, but this was, perhaps,less importantthan the exampleto be set: see Rhodes 1988, p. 249. 72. See Meritt 1953. 73. Probablyto be interpretedas the interestchargedon late paymentsof tribute:seeATL I, pp. 450-453; Meiggs 1972, pp. 432-433.
IIO
ALEC
BLAMIRE
in full. The quota list for 431/0 is lost, but the scale of this expedition seems to indicate that there had been a significant shortfall in revenue.74 KLEON
I have suggested that the war had thus far been funded mainly, if not exclusively,from capital,but the unexpected revoltof Mytilene in 428 seems to have served as the catalyst for a reappraisalof financial strategy.Faced with the prospect of another long and expensive siege, the Athenians, in autumn 428, for the first time levied an eisphora,or property tax, which raised 200T,7s and they also imposed a special levy on their allies (Thuc. 3.19.1).76 These emergency measures may well have been proposed by Kleon, the most influential politician of the day (Thuc. 3.36.6), if 428/7 was the year in which he claimed credit for the amount of money which he had succeeded in raising as a member of the Boule (Ar., Eq. 773-776).77 In addition, there is a strong case for supposing that the next assessment of tribute, not due until 426, was brought forward by two years to provide additional revenue.78The overall level of increase cannot be inferred from the figures preserved in the fragmentary quota list for 428/7 (ATL list 27 = IG P3283), but the state is estimated to have borrowed no more than 300T from the sacred treasuriesduring the course of the two years 428/7 and 427/6, compared with 600T in 429/8.79 Imperial income had evidently now become the primary source of funding for the war, with the drain on the reservelimited to the amount needed to make up any deficit. No new assessment of tribute seems to have been made at the Great Panathenaia of 426,80 but a decree moved by Kleonymos in the second prytany of 426/5 provided for the appointment of foreign nationals to assumepersonalresponsibilityfor the collection of tributein cities throughout the empire, with the aim of ensuring that the current assessment was realized in full without further recourseto expensive naval expeditions (IG P368: cf. Antiph. F 52 Thalheim). This measure may have improved the machinery of collection,8"but the increased level of borrowing in 426/5, six loans totaling 262T (IG P3369, lines 2-16), served to reinforcethe case 74. Money-collecting ships were again sent out in 428, to raise extrafunds for the siege of Mytilene (Thuc. 3.19.1), and in 425/4 (Thuc. 4.50.1; 4.75), probablyin connection with the new assessmentof tribute (IG I3 71): see generallyKallet-Marx 1993, pp. 160-164; Hornblower1996, p. 206. 75. The significanceof the eisphora of 428 is disputed.Taken literally, Thucydidesappearsto mean that it was the first ever to be levied in Athens, but eisphoraiare attested as an established institutionin the second Kalliasdecree (IG I3 52B, lines 17 and 19). Historians who date this decreeto 434/3 accordingly supposethat the eisphoraof 428 was either (a) the first of the war
(Gomme in HCT II, p. 278; Meiggs 1972, pp. 256-257, 519-520), or (b) the first to raise as much as 200T (Hornblower1991, pp. 403-404). Those who advocatea later date for the decreeconclude that the eisphora of 428 was indeed the first ever to be levied: see Mattingly 1968, pp. 451-456 (= 1996, pp. 216-222); Kallet-Marx 1993, pp. 134-136. 76. See Kallet-Marx1993, pp. 136137. 77. See Gomme in HCT II, pp. 278-279; Meiggs 1972, p. 318. Kleon, or possibly Lysikles(cf. schol. P1.,Menex.235e), should perhaps also be creditedwith the establishment of the Poristai, an emergency financialboardfirst attestedin 419
(Antiph. 6.49), and still officiatingin 405 (Ar.,Ran. 1505): see Andrewesin HCT V, p. 111; Rhodes 1981, p. 356. 78. See ATL III, p. 70; Meiggs 1972, pp. 532-534. 79. These estimatesassumethat the rate of interestpayableto Athena and the Other Gods remainedunchanged until the end of the financialyear427/ 6: see ML, p. 217. 80. See Meiggs 1972, pp. 322-323. 81. But perhapsnot to the extent that Kleonymoshad anticipated:see Fornaraand Samons (1991, pp. 179181), who arguethat the Kleinias decree (IG I3 34) should be dated to the 420s and interpretedas an attemptto rectifyshortcomingsin the procedure introducedby Kleonymos.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
III
for a new assessment, and this was duly introduced in autumn 425 through an enabling decree moved byThoudippos (IGI3 71), who is probablyto be identified as a son-in-law of Kleon (cf. Isai. 9.17-20).82 The reassessment of 425 aimed to bring in a grand total of between 1,460T and 1,500T (IG I3 71, line 181).13 We have no documentary evidence for the amount of tribute actually collected,84but the return evidently proved insufficient to balance the Athenian budget without further recourse to the reserve, since 130T had to be borrowed in 425/4, 163T in 424/3,85 and as much as 253T, including loans of 6T from Athena Nike and 55T from the Other Gods, in 423/2 (IG 13 369, lines 16-48 [loans from Athena Polias], lines 51-97 [loans from Athena Nike and the Other Gods]).86 Rising costs and an upturn in public expenditure at home (cf. Plut., Arist. 24.5) may help to explain why capital continued to be withdrawn from the sacred treasuries.Jurors'pay was certainly increased,from two obols to three obols a day (Ar., Eq. 797-800; schol. Vesp.88, 300), building operations continued,87 and the maintenance of war orphans (Thuc. 2.46.1; 1th. Pol. 24.3) now represented an increasingly expensive commitment.88Significantly,the reassessmentdecree providesfor the generals to submit annual estimates, and, if the current year'stribute proves insufficient to cover anticipated expenses, to apply for an extra levy (IG I3 71, lines 46-50). The decree also prescribes,in the strongest possible terms, that there must in future be a new assessment of tribute every four years, at the time of the Great Panathenaia (IG 13 71, lines 26-33). An assessment was accordingly due in summer 422, and three fragments survive of an assessment list (IG I3 77) which is now thought to date to 422. Only one district total, that of the Hellespont, is preserved, a sum of [1]96T (IG 13 77, col. IV, line 13), compared with 250+T in the assessment of 425 (IG I3 71, col. III, line 123). If this level of reduction is typical, the total sum levied may have been scaled down from 1,460+T in 425 to a more realistic figure of about 1,000T in 422, with the island districtperhapsmore favorablytreated than the rest of the empire.89Apart from featuring a special clause concerning six Chalkidianstatescurrentlyin revoltfrom Athens (Thuc. 5.18.5), 82. But see, againstthe consensus, Bourriot 1982, pp. 410-418. 83. For full discussion,see Gomme in HCTIII, pp. 500-504; Meiggs 1972, pp. 324-332. 84. The figureof 2,000T quoted by Aristophanes(Vesp.656-660) for total income from all sourcesin 422 accuratelyreflectsthe scale of the new assessment,but can be no guide to the precisesum realized:see Gomme in HCT III, pp. 503-504, contrathe view expressedinATL III, pp. 344-345. On the silence of Thucydides and its possible implications,see Kallet-Marx 1993, pp. 164-170; Hornblower1996, pp. 94-96.
85. Comprisingfour payments recordedas made to the Hellenotamiai of the previousyear,D[- - - and colleagues,and to the new ones], Charopidesof Ska[mb]onidaiand colleagues(IG I3 369, lines 25-36). This is usuallytaken to mean that the Hellenotamiaiof 425/4 had left office afterthe first paymenton Prytany1.26, but see Pritchett 1970, pp. 98-103, for the suggestionthat they were continued in office for a second year,serving jointly with the incoming board. 86. The two supplementaryloans from the Other Gods, 31T on Prytany 1.25 and 24T on PrytanyX.20, probablyreflectthe escalatingcost of
operationsin the Thracewarddistrict: see Gomme in HCTIII, pp. 627-630. 87. See Miles 1989, pp. 221-235. 88. See Stroud 1971, pp. 288-290. 89. See ML, pp.226-227; Meiggs 1972, pp. 340-343. For the islands,cf the quotalists for 417/16 and 416/15 (ATLlists 38-39 - IG I3 288-289). The expressions"250+T,""1460+T," e.g., areintended to indicate"anysum greaterthan 250T,""anysum greater than 1460T";the expressions"27T+," "3T+,"e.g., which are used elsewhere in this article,indicate a sum between the one stated and the next highest incrementin numbersof talents.
II2
ALEC
BLAMIRE
the tribute assessment of 422 was not affected by the Peace of Nikias.90 There could clearly be no question of any return to pre-war levels of assessment until the debt to the sacred treasuries had been repaid. As regards imperial revenue other than tribute, an estimated 70T had been lost when Amphipolis fell to Brasidas in winter 424/3 (Thuc. 4.108.1),9' but this may have been counterbalancedby a gain of 90T if, as seems likely,the rent formerly payable to the 2,700 cleruchs on Lesbos (Thuc. 3.50.2) was transferredto the state treasurywhen these settlerswere subsequentlywithdrawn, possibly in 425 or 424.92 CAPITAL
AND
INCOME
Tribute was due for payment at the Dionysia in time for the opening of the campaigning season (schol. Ar.,Ach.504; cf. Isok. 8.82), yet every spring during the quadrennium 426/5-423/2, at precisely the time of year when this incoming tribute should have been availablefor the war effort, a sum of 100T was disbursedby the Treasurersof Athena (IG I3 369, lines 12,22, 33, 44). These payments evidently reflect an agreed procedure,whereby a fixed sum was to be released from reserve at the beginning of each new campaigning season, and their timing has been thought to imply that incoming tribute in excess of the budgeted requirementsof the Hellenotamiai was now being banked with Athena immediately after the Dionysia, to be borrowed back at interest as required.93In this case, however, we should have expected the principal to be reduced each year by the amounts paid in, yet no such adjustments appear in the accounts of the Logistai. The simpler, and more probable, view is that the war continued to be funded from a combination of capital and disposable income, with Athena now making a fixed contribution of 100T at the beginning of the campaigning season, followed by smaller payments as need arose.94 THE
RESERVE
IN 422
By the end of the financial year 423/2, when the Logistai closed their accounts for the quadrennium,the debt to the sacred treasurieshad reached a figure of 5,600T, plus accumulated interest of, perhaps, 1,400T (IG I3 369, lines 112-123). On the assumption that the base figure in 433/2 had been 7,600T, total remaining reserves amounted to at least 2,000T,95the equivalent of two years'revenue from the empire, and capital of this magnitude will readilyexplain why financial exhaustion is not included among the Athenian motives for peace in 422/1 (Thuc. 5.14.1-2).96 90. This is establishedby figures preservedin ATL list 33 = IG I3 287, now redatedfrom 422/1 to 418/17: see Meritt and McGregor 1967; Meiggs 1972, pp. 340-343. The editors of ATL (III, pp. 347-353) had earlier dated IG I3 77 to 421, and arguedfor a generalreductionin tributelevels after the Peace of Nikias. 91. See ATL III, p. 339, note 58;
Kallet-Marx1993, pp. 175-176. 92. See Kagan 1974, pp. 166-167. 93. See Gomme in HCTII, pp. 433-435. 94. See ML, pp. 216-217. 95. Considerablymore, if we allow for savingsfrom currentincome: cf. Gomme in HCTIII, pp. 687-689. Using differentarithmetic,the editors of ATL (III, pp. 341-345) arriveat the
much lower figure of 1,444T, which would have left a disposablereserveof under 500T, since the emergencyfund of 1,OOOT set aside in 431 continued to be protectedby specialsanctions (Thuc. 2.24.1, 8.15.1). 96. See Kagan1974, pp. 336-337; Kallet-Marx1993, pp. 178-180.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
II3
421-410 AFTER
97. See Meiggs 1972, pp. 340-343; Andrewesin CAHVW,p. 441. 98. Paymentscontinue to be preciselydated by the prytanycalendar, which implies that, technicallyat least, they constitutedloans at interest:see Thompson 1967, p. 227; ML, p. 234. On the questionof the 9T "advanced" to the athlothetaiin the second prytany of 415/14 (IG 3 370, lines 66-68), see Davison 1958, pp. 31-32; Lewis 1959, p. 246. 99. Two paymentsto an occupation force on Melos are partlypreservedin the accountsfor 415/14 (IG I3370, lines 69-72), but the recordof interveningexpensesis lost. 100. For full discussion,see Figueira 1998, pp. 424-430. 101. See ATL III, pp. 346-347, 353-356.
THE PEACE OF NIKIAS
A new assessment of tribute was due at the Great Panathenaia of 418, and five fragments survive of what is now agreed to be the quota list for 418/17 (ATL list 33 = IG I3 287). Extrapolation from the three preserved figures in the Hellespontine panel (col. II, lines 9-11) seems to establish that the level of tribute set in 422 had been broadly maintained after the Peace of Nikias, so that a return of 1,200T a year (Andok. 3.9) is by no means impossible if taken to refer to overseas income as a whole.97No trace has survived of the record of expenditure for the quadrennium422/1-419/18, but in 418/17 the Treasurersof Athena made four payments totaling 56T for operations in Thrace and the Argolid (IG I3 370, lines 1-23). Of these the second involved a previousvote of indemnity,and the fourthwas funded from current income in the form of the money from S[amos].98Three furtherpayments followed in 417/16 (IG 3 370, lines 24-35), all involving the vote of indemnity, but the figures are lost apartfrom a sum of 10T, the first of two payments for the Melian expedition.99The proceduresgoverning withdrawal of capital prescribed by the second Kallias decree (IG I3 52B, lines 12-19) were evidently now being strictly observed pending liquidation of the debt to Athena, and it is significant that the financial assistance against Spartawhich was promised to Argos in the treaty of 416 was to be funded from tribute (IG I3 86, lines 11-12). For no very obvious reason, the funds for the Argolid voted in the second prytany of 418/17 were paid, mainly if not entirely, in Kyzikene electrum staters (IG I3 370, lines 11-15), the first recordedinstance of the use of this currencyin Athenian war finance. A question raised by the treasurers'accounts for 418/17 and 417/16 is whether the seven payments attested are to be understood as a record of total military expenditure or as supplements to a military budget funded in the first instance from imperial income. The latter would seem the likelier interpretation,since the initial payment of 10T for the Melian expedition is extremely small in relation to the size of the force mobilized (Thuc. 5.84.1). One other financial document survives from this period, a small fragment of a coinage decree (IG I3 90) now thought to date ca. 416. It seems to have been mainly concerned with the exchange of gold for silver, but the text is too poorly preserved for us to assess its significance.100 During these yearsof relativepeace, surplusimperialrevenuewas regularly availablefor transferto reserve, and it is clear that by 415 substantial savingshad been accumulated(Thuc. 6.12.1,26.2). Andokides (3.8) claimed that the Peace of Nikias had in fact enabled the Athenians to deposit as much as 7,000T on the Acropolis. The historical errorsin this speech are so gross and extraordinarythat one hesitates to attach any credence to the figure quoted, but it could perhaps represent the target set in a lost decree of 421 which provided for the phased repayment, with interest, of the loans made by the two boards of sacredtreasurersfrom 433/2 to the end of the Archidamian War.10'How far achievement matched aspiration is impossible to determine, but if, say, 500T a year had been saved since 421,
ALEC
II4
BLAMIRE
total resourceson the eve of the Sicilian Expedition would have amounted to over 5,500T, inclusive of the 2,000+T remaining on hand at the end of the Archidamian War. THE
SICILIAN
EXPEDITION
Hard figures for the cost of the great Sicilian Expedition of 415 were not available to Thucydides (cf. 6.31.5), but a fragmentary inscription (IG I3 93, lines 47-49) may tell us that a sum of 3,OOOTwas eventually set aside to fund the enterprise, once the three generals had finalized their requirements under the plenary powers voted to them (Thuc. 6.26.1).102 Such a massive capital investment may have seemed justified at the time, since it was expected to yield a dividend in the form of extra imperial revenue (Thuc. 6.24.3), but the Athenians were not to know that their remaining reserves would subsequently be depleted by, perhaps, as much as 500T through furtherpayments to the forces in Sicily: 300T in spring414 (Thuc. 6.94.4; IG13 370, lines 73-74), 120T in winter 414/13 (Thuc. 7.16.2; IG13 371, lines 6-8),103 and a third payment, figures lost, in spring 413 (IG I3 371, lines 12-13).1o4Part of this outlay may have been recouped from the sales of confiscatedpropertyrecordedon the Attic Stelai(IG 3 421-430),1o5 but by summer 413 the Athenians, for the first time in the war, found themselves in serious financial difficulties (Thuc. 7.28.4, 8.1.2: cf 7.27.12). THE
AFTERMATH
OF SICILY
Once it became clear that the Sicilian Expedition had ended in total disaster, extra revenue for the military budget needed to be generated as a matter of urgency and, probablyin autumn 413, the decision was taken to replace the annual tribute with an ongoing 5% levy on seaborne trade throughout the empire (Thuc. 7.28.4).106The introduction of this harbor tax was accompanied by constitutional change and cuts in public expenditure at home (Thuc. 8.1.3: cf. 8.4),107but any savings achieved were largely neutralized by the effects of the occupation of Dekeleia, which Sparta and her allies had seized and fortified in spring 413 (Thuc. 7.19.1). Essential supplies from Euboia now had to be transportedby sea, and the extracosts 102. The treasurers'accountsfor 416/15 appearto have included only relativelysmall sums disbursedin connectionwith costs incurredduring the mobilizationof the fleet (IG I3370, lines 49-58): see Ferguson(1932, pp. 159-162), who inferredthat surplus imperialrevenueaccruingafterthe Peace of Nikias had been used to createa separateimperialfund on deposit with the Treasurersof Athena, from which majorexpensescould be met without furtherrecourseto the funds of Athena herself 103. For the figure,fully preserved
in only one manuscriptof Thucydides and restoredin IG IP371, see Dover in HCT IV, p. 393. 104. See ATL III, pp. 356-357. 105. See Lewis 1966. 106. The inception of this 5%levy cannot be preciselydated,but Thucydides appearsto imply that it was introduced, not in 414 when a regularassessment of tributewas due, but some time later than the Spartanoccupation of Dekeleia in spring413: see Dover in HCT IV, p. 402; Meiggs 1972, pp. 438439. Although Thucydidesdescribes the new tax as a substitutefor tribute,it
may also have been payableby Aigina (cf. Ar., Ran. 363) and other Athenian settlementsabroad:see Meiggs 1972, p.369. 107. It may have been now that navalpay was reducedfrom one drachmato a more affordablethree obols a day (Thuc. 8.45.2: cf. 6.31.3): see Andrewesin HCTV, pp. 97-99, contrathe view of Pritchett (1974, pp. 14-29), who believes that the threeobol ratewas standard,and the onedrachmarate exceptional.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
II5
incurred, combined with loss of internal revenue, had already begun to impose severe strainson the domestic budget (Thuc. 7.28.1-4). More than 20,000 slaves deserted (Thuc. 7.27.5), and, as pressureon the countryside intensified, the silver mines at Laureion seem to have gone out of production (Xen., Vect.4.25: cf. Thuc. 6.91.7). Electrum had occasionally been disbursed during the quadrennium 418/17-415/14 (IG I3 370, lines 1314, 57-58, 64-65), but in 413/12 the Treasurersof Athena paid out the enormous sum of 61,697 [Kyzikene] staters (IG I3 372, line 4), the equivalent of 250+T and a sure indication that stocks of silver were now rapidly running out.108We do not know how this money was to be spent, but timber for shipbuilding was probably the most urgent priority after the losses sustained in Sicily (Thuc. 8.1.3). THE
108. See Ferguson1932, p. 75, note 3; Andrewesin HCTV, p. 194. Some Attic coin continued to be disbursed,but the figuresare lost apart from a sum of 13+T (IG I3 372, line 2), the final paymentof the year. 109. For ship numbers,see Andrewesin HCTV, pp. 27-32. 110. So Rhodes 1981, p. 382. Each of these officialswas to receive three obols a day,which may represent a reducedrate of pay:see Jones 1957, p. 136, note 5; Sinclair1988, p. 66, note 84. 111. If, as seems likely,these treasurershad taken up office on 1 Hekatombaion411, at the same time as the new archon,any earlierexpenditure authorizedby the FourHundred would have been recordedin the lost accountsfor 412/11: see Ferguson 1932, pp. 145-146 with note 1; Andrewesin HCTV, pp. 193-195. 112. See Andrewesin HCTV, pp. 195-196. 113. See Andrewes 1953.
OLIGARCHIC
REVOLUTION
Faced with the revolt of Chios, their most powerful ally, in summer 412, the Athenians finally turned to the protected fund of 1,OOOTwhich they had set aside in the first year of the war, and voted to make this money available for the immediate mobilization of naval reinforcements (Thuc. 8.15.1; Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 138). The accounts for 412/11 are lost, but the costs incurred during the first year of the Ionian War were undoubtedly substantial,'09and the oligarchic revolution was largely motivated by the hope of attracting Persian money to Athens through the influence of the exiled Alkibiades (Thuc. 8.47-48.3). Alkibiades, however, proved unable to deliver (Thuc. 8.56), and, by the time the Four Hundred seized power on 22 Thargelion 411 (Ath. Pol. 32.1), capital resourceswere apparentlyclose to exhaustion (cf. Thuc. 8.76.6). All availablerevenue was accordingly now requisitioned for the military budget, and civilian stipends were duly abolished for the duration of the war except for those of the nine archons and the prytaneis (Ath. Pol. 29.5), who were presumably The parexempted as nominal and effective heads of state, respectively."10 tially preservedaccounts of the treasurersof the Four Hundred (IG F3373) include a payment of 27T+ dated 21 or 22 Hekatombaion 411, the first of the new civil year.This was evidently a military payment, probably connected with operations close to home, but we have no evidence to determine its precise purpose."' The Five Thousand, who succeeded the Four Hundred about the end of Metageitnion 411, renewed the ban on civilian stipends (Thuc. 8.97.1; Ath. Pol. 33.1) and appointed new treasurersto replace the board which had served under the Four Hundred,"12 but, apart from a tiny fragment (IG I3 374), their accounts are lost. What little evidence we have suggests that the limited resources available to the Five Thousand were reservedfor the military budget at home, leaving the generals in the Hellespontl" to fund their operations from emergency levies (Xen., Hell. 1.1.8, 12). During their brief regime, the Four Hundred had published a "constitution for the future,"under which the sacred funds of Athena and the Other Gods were to be managed by a single board of ten treasurers,and imperialand all other secularfunds by a single boardof twenty Hellenotamiai (Ath. Pol. 30.2). The reforms envisaged in this document evidently en-
II6
ALEC
BLAMIRE
tailed (a) the merging of the two collections of sacred funds in the Opisthodomos, in consequence ofwhich the Treasurersof the Other Gods were to be abolishedand their duties transferredto the Treasurersof Athena, and (b) the merging of the imperial and domestic revenues in the state treasury,114in consequence of which the Kolakretaiwere to be abolished and their duties transferredto an enlarged board of Hellenotamiai.Whatever the thinking behind this abstruse document, the idea that the two central treasuriesof Athens should each be managed by a single board of officials seems eminently sensible. Both reforms were in fact subsequently implemented, but not as the package which we might have expected. The next surviving accounts of the Treasurers of Athena (IG I3 375) establish that a board of twenty Hellenotamiai,probablytaken two from each tribe,"5was in place by 410/ 9, the first full year of the restored democracy.A decree of 410/9 (IG I3 102, lines 34-36) confirms that the Hellenotamiainow pay for the setting up of stelai, a duty previously discharged by the Kolakretai,who are last attested, and last attested in that role, in a decree of 418/17 (IG I3 84, lines 26-28).116 The sacred treasurers,on the other hand, continued to function as two separateboardsuntil, probably,the beginning of the new Panathenaic quadrennium on 28 Hekatombaion 406, when the Treasurersof Athena finally assumedresponsibilityfor the managementof the funds of the Other Gods, henceforth officiating either as "The Treasurersof the SacredProperties of Athena and the Other Gods" (IG 112 1370, lines 1-2) or as "The Treasurersof Athena and the Other Gods" (Andok. 1.77)."l An earlier amalgamation had perhaps been ruled out by the constitutional commissioners appointed after the deposition of the Four Hundred (Thuc. 8.97.2). FUNDS
OF THE
OTHER
GODS
The Treasurersof the Other Gods had earlier funded the two cult statues commissioned for the Hephaisteion in 421/0 (IG 13 472, lines 1-20), and, under the provisions of a decree of 418/17, were to receive the annual rent from the newly leased temenosof Kodros, Neleus, and Basile (IG 13 84, lines 15-18). We have no information about their contribution to the military budget after the Peace of Nikias, but all available reserves in the Opisthodomos were presumablydrawnupon in the later stages of the war, and some of the non-Attic currencydisbursed by the joint boards of 406/ 5 and succeeding years may well have come from the treasuryof the Other Gods."8 114. Both types of revenuewere now collected and paid in by the Apodektai(Poll. 8.97), a boardof public receiversapparentlyattributedto Kleisthenesby Androtion (FGrHist 324 F 5), but, apartfrom a dubious restorationin the StandardsDecree (IG I3 1453, section 6), not attested before 418/17 (IG I3 84, lines 15-18): see Harding 1994, pp. 90-94. We know nothing about the administrationof the state treasury,but the two collectionsof
money had evidentlybeen kept separate,to be drawnupon by the Hellenotamiaiandthe Kolakretai, respectively:see Rhodes 1972, p. 102 with note 7, contra the view expressed inATL III, pp. 360-361. 115. So Meritt (1932, pp. 98-103; 1971, pp. 106-107), but see the objections of Pritchett (1970, pp. 104-116; 1977c), who arguesthat the Hellenotamiai were now elected irrespectiveof tribe.
116. Some historiansaccordingly infer that the Kolakretaimay already have been abolished,and the reform implemented,before the oligarchic revolutionof 411: see Pritchett 1970, p. 111; Harding 1994, pp. 91-94. 117. See Ferguson1932, pp. 3-7, 104-109; Thompson 1970b, pp. 61-63. 118. See Woodward1963, pp. 154155.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
II7
410/9-404/3 410/9 THE ACCOUNTS
All payments in 410/9, the first full year of the restored democracy, are funded from epeteia,the annual income of Athena Polias and Athena Nike (IG I3 375, lines 3-5). This is usually,and quite reasonably,taken to imply that the democrats had inherited an empty treasury,1"9 but not all of the balance in hand at the end of the financial year 410/9 need necessarily have been newly accumulated,120 and it is possible that a formal decision had been taken to fund the currentyear'sexpenditurewithout recourse to what was left of the reserve. The payments recorded in IG I 375 fall into six main categories: 1. The Great Panathenaia of 410: just over 6T paid in Prytany II (lines 5-7). 121 2. Two military payments: 6T to Hermon, commander at Pylos (line 10), and 3,740 dr. to Eukleides, the general from Eretria (lines 17-18). The latter is entered as a book-transaction, presumably representing money collected and spent in the field. 3. A record, again in the form of book-transactions, of moneys collected and disbursed at Samos (lines 20-21, 34-37): about 96T in all.122Samos was at this time the main base for naval operations in the Aegean, and the bulk of this money may have been transferredto Thrasyllos, by previous arrangementwith the home authorities, when he visited the island at the beginning of his Ionian expedition of summer 409 (Xen., Hell. 1.2.12).123
4. Fodder for the cavalry:six payments, amounting to over 16T, in Prytanies I, III, IV, and VII. For whatever reason, these are the only accounts in which sitos features as an item of expenditure, and the extent to which these payments reflect the size of the Athenian cavalryin 410/9 is disputed.124 5. The diobelia,a dole introduced by the influential Kleophon 119. See ML, p. 258; Andrewesin CAHV2,p. 485. 120. The balanceinherited,and disbursed,by the treasurersof 409/8 comprisedAttic, non-Attic, and uncoined silver(IG I3376, lines 66-85), three electrumcurrencies(lines 95105), and two types of gold bullion (lines 105-116), to a total value of some 350T: see Ferguson1932, pp. 36-37. 121. It is commonly assumedthat paymentsfor the Panathenaiawere made in advanceof the festivalto cover its estimatedcost: see Meritt 1928, pp. 93-95; Dover in HCT IV, p. 266. If this was the case in 410, then one of two conclusionsmust foliow: either the
treasurersof 410/9 enteredupon office before28 Hekatombaionor their recordincludes paymentsmade by the outgoing board.For a differentview, see Pritchett (1977c), who arguesthat paymentsfor a festivalwere not normally made until afterthe event, to enable the athlothetaito balancetheir books in caseswhere income had failed to coverexpenses.This is a tenable hypothesis,but, on balance,I preferthe theory that it had become established practice,when the year'saccountswere preparedfor publicationby the Logistai, for paymentsmade between Prytany1.1 and 28 Hekatombaionto be attributed to the incoming board:see Meritt
1971, pp. 104-107,114-115. 122. See ATL III, pp. 365-366, whose editorsinfer that all imperial revenue,whether broughtto Athens or spent in the field, was now deemed to constituteincome of Athena.This is acceptedby Thompson (1967, pp. 226231), but see the objectionsof Pritchett (1977a, pp. 33-38), who concludes,in my view rightly,that the imperial revenuesremainedat the disposalof the Hellenotamiai. 123. See Andrewes 1953, pp. 5-6. 124. See Bugh 1988, p. 60, note 86; Spence 1993, pp. 100-101.
ALEC
II8
BLAMIRE
(Ath. Pol. 28.3): five payments, again amounting to over 16T, in Prytanies III, IV, V, and VII. If, as seems likely, this dole was restricted to citizens not otherwise in receipt of money from the state,'25civilian stipends must alreadyhave been reinstated, funded as before from the domestic revenue collected by the Apodektai,but now paid by the Hellenotamiai. 6. Purpose unspecified: sixteen payments, amounting to about 38T, in Prytanies VI-X. With the exception of the sum of 3T+ disbursed on Prytany VIII.12 (lines 27-28), which is recorded in another text as paid to the general Oinobios (IG P3101, line 47),126 the destination of these payments is impossible to determine, but distribution of the diobeliamust have continued at regularintervals, and this duty may have been specifically assigned to the HellenotamiaiDionysios and Thrason. If this assumption is correct, the total cost of the dole in its first year of operation amounted to over 34T.127 Total expenditure adds up to about 180T-approximately 84T from epeteia, and some 96T from the Samian collections-but, for whatever reason, these accounts do not include the money collected and spent by the generals in the Hellespont.128 Previouslydependent on emergency levies (Xen., Hell. 1.1.8, 12), Alkibiades and his colleagues had now provided themselves with a regularsource of income by establishing a fortified customs station at the southern entrance to the Bosporos, where they proceeded to collect a 10% duty on the cargoes carried by Pontic shipping (Xen., Hell. 1.1.22). THE
PROPOSED
RECONSTRUCTION
OF THE
RESERVE
In the third prytany of 410/9 a decree was passed which endorsed a proposal, submitted by a board of syngrapheis,that as much capital as possible should henceforth be accumulated on the Acropolis for the repayment of the debt to Athena (IG F399).129 We have no information about the specific measures adopted, but this decree provides an acceptable context for the first of the two eisphorailevied by the restored democracy (Lys. 21.3), and there is evidence to suggest that the decision may now have been taken to abolish the 5% harbor tax introduced in 413 and to reimpose tribute. Five fragments survive of a late assessment list (IG F3100), which perhaps dates to 410,130 and in 409/8 the generals in the Hellespont negotiated an agreementwith the satrapPharnabazos,whereby Kalchedon was to pay her regulartribute plus the arrearswhich had accumulatedsince her defection (Xen., Hell. 1.3.9).'3' A recent revivalof the tribute system, with the prospect of a significant increase in imperial revenue,perhaps explains the decision to reintroduceloans at interest with effect from PrytanyVI. 1, the midpoint of the financial year.'32 409/8 The accounts for 409/8 (IG 3 376) appearfrom the concluding entry (lines 63-64) to have been concerned exclusively with the war effort, and each
125. See Buchanan1962, pp. 35-48; Rhodes 1981, pp. 355-357. 126. Probablyin connectionwith operationsin the Thracewarddistrict: see Andrewes 1953, pp. 7-8. 127. So Andrewes 1953, pp. 5-6, but see the reservationsof Pritchett (1977a, p. 41). 128. For possible explanations,see Andrewes 1953, pp. 5-6; Thompson 1967, pp. 229-231. 129. See Ferguson1932, p. 34; ATL III, pp. 363-366. 130. See ATL III, pp. 91-92; Meiggs 1972, pp. 369-370, 438-439. 131. But see Mattingly (1967, pp. 13-14 [= 1996, pp. 205-208]), who arguesagainstthis supposed revivalof the tributesystem. In his view,IG I' 100 should be dated to 418, and the paymentsfrom Kalchedon treatedas a specialcase. 132. This follows from the fact that the prytany,but not the day,is given in the recordof paymentsfor the first half of the year (IG I3375, lines 1-14), whereasthe exact date,which was necessaryfor the calculationof interest on loans, is quoted for all payments made in the second half of the year (lines 14-40): see Thompson (1967, pp. 226-231), who infers that payment of interest had been suspendedby the Five Thousand.
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
II9
item of expenditure is this year charged either to the epeteiacollected by the treasurerscurrentlyin office, or to the capital balance inherited from the previous year's board, or to a combination of both. The text is too poorly preserved for us to identify the precise destination of any of these payments, but the package of funds for the Peloponnese put together early in the year (lines 3-11) is probably to be connected with Anytos' abortive expedition to relieve Pylos (Diod. Sic. 13.64.5-7; Ath. Pol. 27.5).133 Outside the military budget representedby these accounts, the diobeliacontinued to be a recurrentcommitment (cf. Ath. Pol. 28.3), presumablyfunded by the Hellenotamiaifrom their own resources;approvalwas given for the resumption of work on the Erechtheion (IG F3474); and two more Nikai appearto have been commissioned at about this time (IG F3469, lines 2637), perhaps as a thanks-offering for the great victory at Kyzikos in spring 410. Disappointingly few figures are preserved in the record of payments, but the summation establishes the surprising fact that the total sum of money passing through the accounts of 409/8 was well in excess of 400T.134 Between 50T and 100T of silver were disbursed from epeteia(lines 8591), and the overall total for silver, inclusive of expenditure from capital account (lines 66-85), adds up to a sum of [3]60T (lines 91-94). Three electrum currencies(lines 95-105, 122-125)"'1 and two types of gold bullion (lines 105-122)136 were also disbursed, to a total value of, perhaps, 80T. Some of this bullion is recorded as sold by the Hellenotamiai (lines 110-116), and the rest was presumablyexchanged for silver currencywith other financial boards. In addition, silverwareof some kind was removed from the Parthenon (lines 14-15), the earliest recorded instance of the appropriation of temple property by the state. Expenditure on the scale indicated by these accounts is difficult to reconcile with the plan approved in the third prytany of 410/9, whereby a new reservewas to be established on the Acropolis, but financial strategy had perhaps been overridden by financial necessity. 408/7
133. See Ferguson1932, pp. 43-45; Thompson 1971, p. 586, note 35. 134. See Ferguson1932, pp. 36-37, estimatingcapitalexpenditureat 350T and expenditurefrom epeteia at 89T, which is extremelyclose to the correspondingfigure for 410/9. 135. See Woodward1914, pp. 278280; Bogaert 1963, pp. 105-107; and Thompson 1971. 136. See Wade-Gery 1930; Thompson 1964, pp. 105-111. 137. See Thompson 1964, pp. 104105. The 90T of coined silverwhich the two goddesses had once possessed (IG IP385, lines 5-6) had evidently long since disappeared.
The accounts for 408/7 are lost, but the extent to which the state had depleted its currency reserves is illustrated by a decree of 408/7 which requiredthe Eleusinian epistataito hand over from the treasuryof the two goddesses to the Treasurersof Athena a sum of 3T 2,000 dr. in exchange for a stated quantity of gold bullion deposited in the Opisthodomos as a pledge (IGI3386,lines 173-183).'3 The lOOTwhichAlkibiades collected in Karia and brought home with him in summer 407 (Xen., Hell. 1.4.812) were presumablyput to reserve, but the bulk of this money may have been set aside to fund the armamentwhich he proceeded to assemble some two months later, comprising 1,500 hoplites, 150 cavalry,and 100 ships (Xen., Hell. 1.4.21). There is certainly no indication that the treasurersof 407/6 inherited any part of this windfall. 407/6 Our next surviving set of accounts, the notoriously problematic IG F3377, is interpreted by most historians as an inverted record of funds disbursed
I20
ALEC
BLAMIRE
during the second, eighth, ninth, and tenth prytanies of 407/6 and the first two prytanies of 406/5, the final payment on Prytany 11.1 = 8 Metageitnion (lines 26-27) having been appended in error,since it dates to the Panathenaicyear406/5. On this reading,the lower text (lines 28-52) records payments made between Prytany 11.13 and Prytany 11.36, 407/6; the upper text (lines 1-27) payments made between Prytany VIII.23, 407/6, and Prytany 11.1, 406/5.138 The sums disbursed by the treasurersare small, particularly in the second prytany of 407/6, when twelve separate payments for the diobelia, all apparently funded from incoming epeteia, add up to less than 2,500 dr.'39This alreadysuggests financial constraint, and, whatever the explanation of the intervening hiatus, it is clear from the record of expenditure in the last three prytanies of 407/6 (lines 1-23) that shortage of funds had become a factor of critical significance. The Logistai, for the only time on record, are now actively involved in the payment process, and, with effect from Prytany IX.7, the dole seems to have been reduced to a single obol (lines 9-11).140 In the first prytany of 406/5 we find the two-obol rate restored (lines 23-25), possibly through the influence of Archedemos the Blear-eyed, chief administratorof the diobeliain 406/5 and a leading politician (Xen., Hell. 1.7.2),141 but no trace survivesof any grant for the Great Panathenaiaof 406. Total expenditure on the diobelia,up to and including the payment made on Prytany 1.20, may have amounted to 171/4T(line 26),142exactly half the figure inferred for 410/9, but fodder for the cavalry, 138. The main argumentsin favor of this readingare the irregularlayout of the text and the orderof tribesin prytany:see Ferguson1932, pp. 2632; Meritt 1932, pp. 116-127; 1964, pp. 200-212; and 1974. Against it are the facts that it leaves the entry in lines 26-27 unaccountedfor and that it fails to explainwhy the first of the two masonswho cut this inscriptionshould have begun in the middle of the stone and then continued at the top. For a differentreading,see Pritchett (1970, pp. 22-38; 1977b), who interpretsthis document as a consecutiverecordof paymentsmade duringthe last three prytaniesof the financialyear 408/7 and the first two prytaniesof the financialyear407/6, discountingthe theory of Ferguson(1932, p. 27, note 1) that in 408/7 the prytanieswere filled in reversetribalorder.Pritchett'sreading does at least explainthe inclusion of a paymentof 1T made after the Panathenaiaon Prytany11.1= 8 Metageitnion (lines 26-27), and derives additionalsupportfrom the fact that the same tribe is in prytany,and officiatingduringthe same month,
both above and below the vacantspace which separatesthe upperand lower texts. On the other hand, this interpretationwould entail the conclusion that the Hellenotamiai Lysitheos and Protarchosservedfor a second term of office. We know nothing about the regulationsgoverningthe appointment of Hellenotamiai,but such iteration seems unlikelyin the case of financial officials:see Develin 1989, p. 175. Pritchettpresentsa cogent case,but, on balance,I am inclined to accept Meritt'sinterpretationof this document, though not without considerable misgivings. 139. Three differentHellenotamiai are named as recipientsof these payments:Lysitheos ofThymaitadai, ThrasylochosofThorikos, and Protarchosof Probalinthos.The purpose of the laterpaymentsrecordedin the uppertext is not alwaysspecified, but grantsfor the diobelia, or for the single-obol allowancewhich temporarilyreplacedit, were certainlypaid to at least four membersof the board: Lysitheos,Protarchos,Athenodoros of Melite, and [Kephali]onof Kopros.
The involvementof so many officers, and the fact that Protarchosalso receiveda grant for the garrisonat Thorikos (lines 19-20), are difficult to reconcilewith the theory of Andrewes (1953, p. 5 with note 16) that the principleof differentiationby function continued to apply. 140. So Meritt 1974, pp. 260-263, but Pritchett (1977a, pp. 45-46) prefers to identify the obolosas the daily allowanceto war orphansquoted in a decreeof 403 (SEG XXVIII 46, lines 9-10). 141. Meritt (1974, pp. 263-264) makesArchedemosa Logisteswith specialresponsibilityfor the diobelia, but Pritchett (1977a, p. 42) identifies him, in my view more plausibly,as the chairmanof a boardof epimeletai. Kallikratesof Paiania,who subsequentlyabolishedthe diobelia,after first promisingto increasethe grant to three obols (Ath.Pol. 28.3), presumably servedin the same capacity. 142. This seems the likeliest interpretation,since 171/4Tis too small for a grandtotal, and, on the evidence of other preservedfigures,too high for
ATHENIAN
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I2I
the other main item of expenditure in 410/9, does not feature in these accounts, and the omission perhaps suggests that the hippeis, like the trieropoioi(IG F3117, lines 4-9), were now given a fixed allocation for which revenue in the state treasuryhad been earmarkedin advance.Konon presumably received a grant from some source when he assumed command of the Aegean fleet in spring 406 (Xen., Hell. 1.5.18), but the only item of military expenditurewhich can be identified in these accounts is a payment of 1T to the garrison atThorikos (line 20), a defensive outpost of Laureion which had been fortified in 409 (Xen., Hell. 1.2.1). Toward the end of the period covered by these accounts, a relief force of 110 ships had to be commissioned at short notice to sail to the rescue of Konon, trappedwith his fleet in the harborat Mytilene (Xen., Hell. 1.6.1524). Extra resourceswere needed to meet the cost and, late in the year of Antigenes, 407/6, the Ekklesiaapprovedproposals to begin melting down the eight golden Nikai (Hellanikos, FGrHist 323a F 26; Philoch., FGrHist 328 F 141),'43together with the dedications housed in the three chambers of the Parthenon, to provide both an emergency gold currency and additional supplies of silver.'44The first repository to be raidedwas, apparently, the Pronaos, stripped of its silverware during the opening month of the year of Kallias, 406/5 (IG F3316), shortly before the amalgamation of the two boards of sacred treasurers,which, we have suggested, probably took place at the time of the Great Panathenaia of 406.'45 406/5 In the first month or so of 406/5 the Ekklesiaagreed to the introduction of a second emergency currencyin the form of bronze coins plated with silver (Ar.,Ran. 725-726 with schol.;Ar.,Eccl. 815-816).146Thistoken money was evidently designed to facilitate domestic retail transactions,for which the new gold coins were unsuitable because of their high value,147and we may assume (cf. Ar., Ran. 718-726) that civilian stipends and the dole were now paid, mainly if not exclusively,in bronze, with silver and gold reserved for foreign exchange and the war effort.148We have no evidence to determine what was done about money currently in circulation, but a decree may have been passed requiring small silver to be exchanged for a single payment,but this line of argument would have to be abandonedif Pritchett (1977a) is correctin reading figuresof 11/2T and 1O+Tfor the paymentsmade on PrytanyVIII.23 (lines 3-4) and PrytanyX.23 (lines 2022): see his table of loans (p. 34), with his comments (p. 33, note 2). Three paymentsof more than lOT each in the closing months of the year are,in his view, scarcelycompatiblewith the financialcrisis of summer406, and provideadditionalconfirmationthat these are the accountsof the previous year. 143. The Nikai, made to a standard
design and each of them weighing approximately2T, were collectively worth about 192T on a gold to silver ratio of 12:1:see Thompson 1970c; Harris 1995, pp. 272-275. Only one of the originaleight (Harris 1995, pp. 131-132, no. 91) survivedthese melting operations,which continued into 404/3 (IG I3380, lines 23-28): see generallyHarris 1990-1991. 144. For the theory that the decree for the conversionof these properties was not in fact moved until earlyin the year of Kallias,406/5, see Ferguson 1932, pp. 8-15, 85-95. 145. This inferenceis based on the
assumption,probablethough not certain,that the six treasurersnamed as handing over the silverwareof the Pronaosbelonged to the boardwhich left office on 28 Hekatombaion406: see Treheux1965, pp. 5-38; Thompson 1965. For the amalgamationof the two boardsof sacredtreasurers,see above, p. 116. 146. See generallyFigueira1998, pp.497-511. 147. The smallestdenomination,the hemiobol, being the equivalentof one silverdrachmaon a mint ratio of 12:1: see Thompson 1964, pp. 111-112. 148. See Thompson 1966.
I22
ALEC
BLAMIRE
bronze within a specified period, on the firm understanding that these tokens would be redeemed by the state as soon as it was in a position to do so.'49Such a measure would have brought in substantial extra revenue to supplement whatever had so far been raised from the appropriation of temple properties, and the fragmentaryaccounts for 406/5 (IG F3378) do in fact reveal that the reserve of electrum and silver in the Opisthodomos was not drawn upon until 27 Mounychion 405 (lines 19-25).15o Some degree of financial recoverywould seem to be indicated, and what survives of the record of expenditure from epeteiapoints in the same direction. A large payment of 30T was made late in the financial year (line 14), and the athlothetaialso received a grant for the Lesser Panathenaia of 405 (lines 14-15). We have no idea of the scale on which silver and other currencies were being privatelyhoarded at this time, but the orator Lysias claimed to have had three talents of silver, four hundred Kyzikene staters, one hundred Persian darics, and four silver cups secreted in a strongbox at home (12. 10-11).151
405/4 The treasurersof 405/4 published two complementary accounts (IG F3 379) inscribed back to back on the same stele.The obverse (lines 1-79) carriesa recordof gold and silver dedications handed over for melting, and of payments made in currencies which included Attic gold staters and Persiandarics.The reverse(lines 80-116) is a recordof quantities of barley and wheat distributed on specified days over a period of at least three prytanies.'52These distributionsevidently coincided with the siege of Athens in winter 405/4, when the threat of starvation hung over the city for three months or more (Xen., Hell. 2.2.10-11, 16,21), and we may assume that the emergency measures approved by the Ekklesiain anticipation of this siege (Xen., Hell. 2.2.4) had included the transferof all availablestocks of grain to the custody of the sacred treasurersfor subsequent distribution to the people. Some silver continued to be disbursed (lines 103-104), but, in the case of jurors at least, grain was now being allocated in lieu of cash payments (lines 100-101), and it was probably now that the diobeliawas formally abolished by Kallikrates (Ath. Pol. 28.3), to be replaced, like jurors'stipends, by payments in kind.'53At the same time, under the terms of an amnesty decree proposed by Patrokleides, citizen rights were restored to all who had lost them, including those registered as state debtors (Andok. 1.73, 77-79; Xen., Hell. 2.2.11). Earlier,after the decisive Athenian defeat at Aigospotamoi in the late summer of 405, all of Athens' remaining allies had deserted her with the exception of the Samians (Xen., Hell. 2.2.6), and a decree rewardingthe Samians for their loyalty provides our last extant record of the activities of the Hellenotamiai(IG F3127, lines 38-40) prior to the abolition of the office in, probably,404.154 404/3 The sacred treasurerscontinued to make payments for public purposes under the oligarchicregimes of 404/3, and,just as the previousyear'sboard, used both sides of a steleto post their accounts (IG I3 380).'IQThe obverse
149. See Giovannini 1975, p. 190; Kroll 1976, pp. 336-337. 150. See Ferguson1932, pp. 75-77. 151. See Millett 1991, pp. 169-170; Figueira1998, pp. 100-101. 152. For discussionand analysisof these fragmentaryaccounts,see Ferguson1932, pp. 77-84; Woodward 1956, pp. 109-121. 153. See Ferguson1932, pp. 82-84; Rhodes 1981, pp. 355-357. 154. The Hellenotamiaiare mentioned in a decreeof 403 (SEG XXVIII 46, line 18), but this was, almost certainly,an allusionto the fact that they had previouslyadministered the fund for war orphans:see Stroud 1971, pp. 292-295. 155. See generallyWoodward 1963, pp. 144-155; Krentz1979.
ATHENIAN
156. See Thompson 1966, pp. 338339; Krentz 1979, pp. 61-63. 157. No figuresarepreservedin what survivesof the interveningrecord of payments(lines 10-16). 158. Woodward(1963, p. 150) boldly restoredline 11 to show the diobeliabeing distributedas earlyas PrytanyVI, midwinter404/3, but see the objectionsof Krentz(1979, p. 60). 159. So Woodward(1963, p. 150 with note 10), followed by Develin (1989, p. 186). Both rely on the fact that two of these officialscome from the same tribe,and assumea system of rotationwherebya section of the annualboard,probablyfour in number, was selected to servicetreasurygrants each prytany. 160. For the theory that the Kolakretaihad been revivedas earlyas 410, in connectionwith the reintroduction of jurors'pay,see ATL III, p. 364. 161. See Harris 1995, pp. 29-32. 162. See Ferguson1932, pp. 128140. 163. See Jones 1957, pp. 102-103. 164. Neither initiativecan be preciselydated. ForAssembly pay, which had risen from one obol to three obols by 392 (Ar.,Eccl.289-310), see Hansen 1989, pp. 147-151; Gauthier 1993. On the demise of the bronze currency,which had ceased to be legal tender by 392 (Ar.,Eccl.821-822), see Giovannini 1975, p. 190 with note 19; Kroll 1976, pp. 338-341; and Figueira 1998, pp.510-511.
FINANCE,
454-404
B.C.
I23
(lines 1-22) carries a dated record of payments, all perhaps funded from epeteia,with a total entered for each prytany.The reversecontains particulars of at least one Nike removed for melting by decree of the Boule (lines 23-28), possibly to pay for the upkeep of the Spartan garrison on the Acropolis (Xen., Hell. 2.3.13-14; Atb. Pol. 37.2),156 and also what appears to be either a summation of total expenditure for the year or a record of disbursements from reserve (lines 30-35), including payments in the silver staters of Aigina and Corinth and in the electrum currencyof Phokaia. No disbursements of any kind are recorded as having been made during the first four prytanies of the year (lines 1-5), during which time public expendituremust have been funded exclusivelyfrom state income, but three or more payments amounting to just under 4T are recorded in Prytany V (lines 5-10), and upwards of ten, one in excess of 2T, in Prytany X (lines 16-22).157The frequency of these later payments suggests that a regular allowance of some kind was now being distributed,possibly the daily grant to war orphans cited in a decree of 403 (SEG XXVIII 46, lines 9-10), or even the diobelia, temporarily revived to relieve public hardship.'58Payments are made to officials who appear to have served for a term of only one prytany (line 11), but their precise numberis uncertain.They aresometimes identified as the last Hellenotamiaito hold office,'59 but this board should have been redundant after loss of empire, and service for a single prytany perhaps suggests that the financial intermediaries of this document are in fact Kolakretai,revived by the Thirty to replace the Hellenotamiai.'60If so, the reform proved short-lived, since in 403/2 the sacredtreasurersthemselves provided funds for such domestic purposes as the award of crowns and the publication of decrees (Tod 97, lines 18-20,26-28). EPILOGUE
Under the second restoreddemocracyof 403/2 the treasuresremoved from the Parthenon were graduallyreplaced,'61 but the cash debt to Athena was written off, and, although the Opisthodomos remained in use (Dem. 24.136), the sacred treasurersceased to play any major role in public finance.'62Instead, it became the responsibility of the Apodektaito distribute incoming revenue among the various spending departments according to a fixed schedule of allocations, and two consecutive days were set aside for this purpose each prytany (Ath. Pol. 48.1-2).163The evolution of this system cannot be traced, but it was certainly in place by 386 (Tod 116, lines 18-22), and may have been introduced soon after 403/2 under the revision of the legal code prescribedby the decree ofTeisamenos (Andok. 1.83-84). Meanwhile, as we have seen, funds continued to be disbursedby the sacred treasurers,and they apparentlypublished at least one more set of accounts (IGI3 382). This includes a payment in Attic gold staters (lines 7-8), which is consistent with the fact that at least one Nike had been melted down for currency in 404/3 (IG I3 380, lines 23-28). Whatever system was in operation during the 390s, financial recovery seems to have been rapid, since the state was now able to budget both for the introduction of Assembly pay (Ath. Pol. 41.3) and for the demonetization of the bronze currencyintroduced in 406 (Ar., Eccl. 821-822).164
I24
ALEC
BLAMIRE
REFERENCES Andrewes,A. 1953. "The Generalsin the Hellespont 410-407 B.C.,"JHS 73, pp. 2-9. Badian,E. 1993. FromPlataeato Potidaea:Studiesin theHistoryand Historiography of thePentecontaetia, Baltimore. Blackman,D. 1969. "The Athenian Navy and Allied Naval Contributions in the Pentecontaetia,"GRBS 10, pp.179-216. Boersma,J. S. 1970. AthenianBuilding Policyfrom 561/0 to 405/4
B.C.,
Groningen. Bogaert,R. 1963. "Le cours du statere de Cyzique auxVe et IVesiecles avantJ.-C.,"AntCl 32, pp. 85-119. Bourriot,F. 1982. "Lafamille et le milieu social de Cl6on,"Historia 31, pp.404-435. Brunt, P.A. 1966. "AthenianSettlements Abroadin the Fifth Century B.C.," inAncientSocietyand Institutions:StudiesPresentedto VictorEhrenbergon His 75th Birthday, Oxford,pp. 71-92. Buchanan,J.J. 1962. Theorika:AStudy ofAMonetary Distributionsto the AthenianCitizenryduringtheFifth and FourthCenturiesB.C., Locust Valley,N.Y. Bugh, G. R. 1988. TheHorsemenof Athens,Princeton. Cawkwell,G. L. 1975. "Thucydides' Judgementof PericleanStrategy," YCS 24, pp. 53-70. and the .1997. Thucydides PeloponnesianWar,London. Davies,J. K. 1994. "Accountsand Accountabilityin ClassicalAthens," in Ritual,Finance,Politics:Athenian DemocraticAccounts Presentedto David Lewis, Oxford,pp. 201-212. Davison,J. A. 1958. "Notes on the Panathenaea,"JHS78, pp. 23-42. Develin,R. 1989. AthenianOfficials 684-321 B.C., Cambridge. Dinsmoor,W. B. 1947. "The Hekatompedonon the Athenian Acropolis,"AJA51, pp. 109-151. Eddy, S. K. 1973. "SomeIrregular Amounts of AthenianTribute," AJP 94, pp. 47-70. Ferguson,W. S. 1932. TheTreasurers of Athena, Cambridge,Mass.
Figueira,T. 1998. The Power ofMoney: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire, Philadelphia. Finley,M. I. 1981. Economy and Society ofAncient Greece,London.
Fornara,C. W. 1970. "The Date of the CalliasDecrees,"GRBS 11, pp. 185-196. . 1979. "On the Chronology of the SamianWar,"JHS99, pp. 719.
Fornara,C. W., and L. J. Samons. 1991. Athensfrom Cleisthenesto Pericles, Berkeley. French,A. 1972. "TheTributeof the Allies,"Historia 21, pp. 1-20. Gabrielsen,V. 1994. Financing the Athenian Fleet: Public Taxation and SocialRelations, Baltimore.
Gauthier,P. 1993. "Surl'institutiondu misthos de l'assembleed'Athenes (Ath. Pol. 41,3)," in Aristote et Athenes, M. Pierart,ed., Paris,
pp. 231-250. Giovannini,A. 1975. "Athenian Currencyin the Late Fifth and Early FourthCentury B.C.," GRBS 16, pp. 185-195. 1990. "Le Parthenon,le tresor d'Athena,et le tributdes allies," Historia39, pp. 129-148. Gomme, A. W. 1953-1954. "Thucydidesii 13,3,"Historia 2, pp. 1-21. Hansen, M. H. 1989. TheAthenian Ecclesia II:A Collection ofArticles, 1983-89, Copenhagen. Harding, P. 1994. Androtion and the Atthis, Oxford.
Harris,D. 1990-1991. "Gold and Silver on the Athenian Acropolis: Thucydides 2.13.4 and the InventoryLists,"Horos 8-9, pp. 7582. . 1995. The Treasuresof the Parthenon andErechtheion, Oxford. Harrison,A. R. W. 1971. The Law of Athens II, Oxford. Hill = G. F. Hill, Sourcesfor Greek History between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars,new ed.,
R. Meiggs and A. Andrewes,eds., Oxford 1951 Hornblower,S. 1991. A Commentary on ThucydidesI, Oxford.
ATHENIAN
. 1996.A Commentary on ThucydidesII, Oxford. Huxley,G. L. 1983. "Thucydideson the Growth of Athenian Power," Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy
83, pp. 191-204. Jones, A. H. M. 1957. Athenian Democracy, Oxford. Kagan,D. 1974. TheArchidamian War, Ithaca. Kallet-Marx,L. 1989a. "DidTribute Fund the Parthenon?"ClAZnt8, pp. 252-266. .1989b. "The KalliasDecree, Thucydides,and the Outbreak of the PeloponnesianWar,"CQ, n.s. 39, pp. 94-113. 1993. Money, Expense, and
FINANCE,
454-404
the PeloponnesianWar,"BCH 92, pp.450-485.
. 1975. "The Mysterious3000 Talents of the First KalliasDecree," GRBS 16, pp. 15-22. .1996. TheAthenian Empire Restored:Epigraphic and Historical Studies, Ann Arbor. Meiggs, R. 1972. TheAthenian Empire,
Oxford. Meritt, B. D. 1928. TheAthenian Calendar in the Fifth Century,
Cambridge,Mass. .1932. Athenian Financial Documents of the Fit#h Century, Ann Arbor. . 1953. "AnAthenian Decree (IG i2.97),"in Studies Presented
Naval Power in Thucydides'History 1-5.24, Berkeley.
to David Moore Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday II, G. E.
. 1994. "MoneyTalks:Rhetor, Demos, and the Resourcesof the Athenian Empire,"in Ritual,
Mylonas, ed., St. Louis, pp. 298303. 1964. "AthenianCalendar Problems,"TAPA95, pp. 200-260. . 1971. "The Chronology of the PeloponnesianWar,"PAPS115, pp. 97-124. .1974. "The Choiseul Marble: The Text of 406 B.C." in Melanges
Finance, Politics.:Athenian DemocraticAccountsPresented to David Lewis, Oxford,pp. 227-251.
Keaney,J. J. 1968. "HeliodorusF 1 and PhilochorusF 41,"Historia 17, pp. 507-509.
Knell, H. 1979. PerikleischeBaukunst, Darmstadt. Krentz,P. 1979. "SEGCXXI,80 and the Rule of the Thirty,"Hesperia 48, pp. 54-63. Kroll,J. H. 1976. "Aristophanes' 7covV)p
x? c xo: A Reply," GRBS 17,
pp. 329-341. Langdon,M. 1994. "PublicAuctions in Ancient Athens,"in Ritual, Finance, Politics:Athenian DemocraticAccounts Presented to DavidLewis, Oxford,
pp. 253-265. Lewis, D. M. 1959. "Lawon the Lesser Panathenaia,"Hesperia 28, pp. 239247. .1966. "Afterthe Profanation of the Mysteries,"in Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to VictorEhrenberg on His 75th Birthday, Oxford,pp. 177-191. Linders,T. 1975. The Treasurersof the Other Gods in Athens and Their Functions, Meisenheim am Glan.
Mattingly,H. B. 1967. "TwoNotes on Athenian FinancialDocuments," BSA 62, pp. 13-17. . 1968. "AthenianFinance in
hellMniquesoffertsa GeorgesDaux,
Paris,pp. 255-267. Meritt, B. D., and M. E McGregor. 1967. "The Athenian Quota-List of 421/0 B.C.," Phoenix 21, pp. 85-91. Miles, M. M. 1989. "AReconstruction of the Temple of Nemesis,"Hesperia 58, pp. 131-249. Millett, P. 1991. Lending and Borrowing inAncientAthens, Cambridge. Parker,R. 1996. Athenian Religion:A History, Oxford. Podlecki,A. J. 1998. Perikles and His Circle, London. Pritchett,W. K. 1969. "TheTransfer of the Delian Treasury," Historia 18, pp. 17-21. .1970. The ChoiseulMarble (University of California Publications: Classical Studies 5), Berkeley. .1974. The GreekState at WarI,
Berkeley. 1977a. "Loansof Athena in 407 B.C.," Ancient Society 8, pp. 3347. .1977b. "The Choiseul Marble: A Palimpsestwith Graffiti,"BCH 101, pp. 7-42.
B.C.
I25
. 1977c. "The Hellenotamiai and Athenian Finance,"Historia 26, pp. 295-306. . 1995.Thucydides'Pentekontaetia and OtherEssays,Amsterdam. Rhodes, P.J.1972. TheAthenianBoule, Oxford. . 1981.A Commentaryon the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia, Oxford. HistoryII, .1988. Thucydides: Warminster. Robertson,N. D. 1980. "TheTrue Nature of the 'Delian League,'478-
461 B.C.,"AJAH5, pp.64-96, 110133. Samons, L. J. 1993. "AthenianFinance and the Treasuryof Athena," Historia 42, pp. 129-138. .1996. "The'KalliasDecrees' (IG i3 52) and the Inventoriesof Athena'sTreasurein the Parthenon,"CQ, n.s. 46, pp. 91-102. . 1997. "ANote on the ParthenonInventoriesand the Date of IG i3 52B," ZPE 118, pp. 179182. Shipley,G. J. 1987. A Historyof Samos 800-188 B.C., Oxford. Sinclair,R. K. 1988. Democracyand ParticipationinAthens,Cambridge. Spence, I. G. 1993. TheCavalryof ClassicalGreece.ASocialandMilitary Historywith ParticularReferenceto Athens,Oxford. on Stadter,P.A. 1989. A Commentary Plutarchs Pericles,Chapel Hill. Starr,C. G. 1970.Athenian Coinage 480-449 B.C., Oxford. Stevenson,G. H. 1924. "The Financial Administrationof Pericles,"JHS44, pp. 1-9. Stroud,R. S. 1971. "GreekInscriptions: Theozotides and the Athenian Orphans,"Hesperia 40, pp. 280-301. Thompson, W. E. 1964. "Gold and Silver Ratios at Athens duringthe Fifth Century,"NC, seventh ser.,4, pp. 103-123. . 1965. "The Date of the Athenian Gold Coinage,"AJP86, pp. 159-174. . 1966. "The Functionsof the EmergencyCoinages of the PeloponnesianWar,"Mnemosyne, ser.iv, 19, pp. 337-343. . 1967. "Notes on Athenian
I26
ALEC
Finance,"C/Meda28, pp. 216-239. . 1968. "The Chronology of 432/1," Hermes 96, pp. 216-232. . 1970a. "ARubricin the PropylaiaAccounts,"CQ, n.s. 20, pp. 39-40. . 1970b. "Notes on the Treasurers of Athena,"Hesperia 39, pp. 5463. . 1970c. "The Golden Nikai and the Coinage of Athens,"NC, seventh ser., 10, pp. 1-6. . 1971. "The OfficialTariffof the KyzikeneStaterat Athens," AntC/ 40, pp. 574-588.
Treheux,J. 1965. Etudes sur les inventaires attiques (Annales de /'Est
Memoire 29: Etudes d'arch6ologie classique3), Paris. Unz, R. K. 1985. "The Surplusof the Athenian Phoros,"GRBS26, pp. 21-42. Wade-Gery,H. T. 1930. "The Ratio of Silverto Gold duringthe
Alec Blamire 5
CAULFIELD
BURY
ST.
SUFFOLK ENGLAND
CLOSE
EDMUNDS IP33
2LA
BLAMIRE
PeloponnesianWar:IG i2.301," NC, fifth ser., 10, pp. 16-38, 333334. Wade-Gery,H. T., and B. D. Meritt. 1957. "AthenianResourcesin 449 and 431 B.C.," Hesperia26, pp.163197. West, A. B. 1930. "Cleon'sAssessment and the Athenian Budget,"TAPA 61,pp.217-239. Wilhelm, A. 1939. "AttischeUrkunden, Xi: IC i2 70,16,166," SBWien, 217.5, pp. 52-72. Woodward,A. M. 1914. "Notes and Queries on Athenian Coinage and Finance,"JHS34, pp. 276-292. 1956. "TreasureRecordsfrom the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia25, pp. 79-121. . 1963. "FinancialDocuments from the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 32, pp. 144-186.
HESPERIA
SUPPLEMENTS
Aspectsof Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast, 13 MarcusAurelius: by James H. Oliver (1970). $15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,byJohnS.Trail (1975). $15.00 15 TheLetteringof an AthenianMason,by StephenV.Tracy(1975). $15.00
16 A Sanctuaryof Zeuson MountHymettos,byMerleK.Langdon(1976). $15.00 17 Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 286 B.C., byT. Leslie ShearJr.(1978). $15.00 Presentedto Eugene 19 Studiesin Attic Epigraphy,History,and Topography (1982). $15.00 Vanderpool Presentedto and Topography Sculpture, 20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, HomerA.Thompson(1982). $15.00 21 Excavationsat Pylosin Elis, byJohnE. Coleman(1986).$25.00 22 Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressofIsis, by ElizabethJ. Walters (1988). $40.00 23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfromtheAthenianAgora,by ClaireveGrandjouan
(1989).$25.00 at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries BronzeAgeCrete,byJeffreyS. Soles(1992). $35.00 25 Debrisfrom a PublicDining Placein theAthenianAgora, by Susan I. Rotroff andJohn H. Oakley (1992). $35.00 Stagesand Chronol26 TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in Athens:Architectural ogy, by Ira S. Mark (1993). $50.00 on GreekArchitectural 27 Proceedings of theInternationalConference Terracottas of the ClassicalandHellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991, edited by Nancy A. Winter (1994). $120.00 28 Studies in Archaic Corinthian VasePainting, by D. A. Amyx and Patricia Lawrence(1996). $65.00 29 The Athenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 $35.00
B. C.,
by RonaldS. Stroud(1998).
H THE OF
ESPER
JOURNAL
OF THE
C LAS SI C AL
AMERICAN
ST UD I ES
s
i~~
ATH
EN S
~~VOLUME 70: NUMBER 2001 ~~~~~~~~~~~APRIL-JUNE
1111. |
AT
SCHOOL
~~~
;
r $
~~~~01
2
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is a researchand teaching institution dedicated to advanced study of the archaeology,art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world. Established in 1881 by a consortium of nine American universities, the School now serves graduate students and scholars from more than 150 affiliated colleges and universities, acting as a base for research and study in Greece. The main buildings of the School and its library are located in Athens, with administrative and publications offices in Princeton, New Jersey. As part of its mission, the School directs ongoing excavations in the Athenian Agora and at Corinth and sponsors all other American-led excavations and surveys on Greek soil. It is the official link between American archaeologists and classicists and the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and, as such, is dedicated to the wise management of cultural resources and to the dissemination of knowledge of the classical world. Inquiries about membership in the School or participation in the Summer Sessions should be sent to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterlyby the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 and devoted primarily to the timely publication of reports on School-sponsored and School-directed projects,Hesperiawelcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology,art, epigraphy,history, and literature,from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperiais a refereedjournal.
THE
PUB LI CATION S STAFF
OF THE
JOURNAL
AMERICAN
OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES
JOHN MCK. CAMP
II AND JOHN
SCHOOL
AT ATHENS
H. KROLL
The AgoraMint andAthenianBronzeCoinage
127
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
KerriCox
MARK
INTERIM ED I TO R, Hesperia
M. B. Richardson EDITOR, Hesperia TraceyCullen ASSOCIATE
EDITOR
L.
LAWALL,
KATHLEEN SUSAN
M.
JOHN
LYNCH,
I. ROTROFF,
AND
K. PAPADOPOULOS, BARBARA
TSAKIRGIS,
CAMILLA
MACKAY
Notes fromthe Tins: Researchin the Stoa of Attalos,Summer1999
163
* Michael Fitzgerald EDITORIAL
ASSISTANT
SuzanneAbrams PRODUCTION
MANAGER
SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVE
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
Late ArchaicPolychromePotteryfromAiani
183
COORDINATOR
JordanPeled
PUB LI CATION S COMMITTEE Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago JackL. Davis Universityof Cincinnati JeniferNeils Case Western ReserveUniversity JamesP. Sickinger Florida State University KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V. Tracy (ex officio) The Ohio State University
PATRICIA
A.
MARX
Acropolis625 (EndoiosAthena)and the Rediscovery of Its Findspot
221
Submissions: Manuscripts and communications should be addressed to Dr. TraceyCullen, Editor,Hesperia, American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, 6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton,NewJersey08540; tel. 609-683-0800; fax 609-924-0578; e-mail
[email protected] photocopies of illustrationsmust be submittedin triplicate;originalartworkand photographs should not be sent unless prior arrangementsare made with the Editor. A shortabstractsummarizingthe majorconclusionsof the articleshould alsobe included.Articles aresubmittedto a double-blindreviewprocessand authors arerequestedto preparetheir manuscriptsaccordingly,without their name or affiliationappearing.The style for manuscriptpreparation,notes, bibliography,and other informationon submissionscan be found in the Guidelinesfor Authors published in Hesperia 62, 1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School'swebsite (www.ascsa.org);or by writing to ASCSA Publicationsat the above address. The AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies at Athens will not knowinglyprint in Hesperia or any of its other publicationsthe announcementor initial scholarlypresentationof anyobjectacquiredafterDecember30,1973, by anymeans other than through an officially sanctioned excavationor survey,unless the objectwas partof a previouslyexisting collectionor was legallyexportedfrom the countryof origin. Subscriptions:The annualsubscriptionprice,payablein advancein dollars,is $60.00 for individuals,$70.00 for institutions,and $33.00 for studentswith valid I.D. Canadaand other countriesadd $10.00 postage. Ordersshould be sent to Hesperia, SubscriberServices,P.O.Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529; tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outside U.S.) 781-828-8450; fax 781-828-8915; e-mail
[email protected] Hesperia 1-41, Index I, and Supplements 1-12 and 18 should be ordered from Swets and Zeitlinger,b.v.,P.O.Box 810,2160 SZ Lisse, Netherlands.Single issues (current andback numberswhen available)of Hesperia 36 and following areavailable for $15.00 each plus postage from the David Brown Book Company, P.O. Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779; tel. 800-791-9354, 860-945-9329; fax 860-945-9468; or (outside North America) Oxbow Books, Park End Place,Oxford OX1 1HN, UK; tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249; fax +44 (0) 1865794449. Index II and Supplements13 and following are also available.
Copyright ? 2001 The American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc., Ann Arbor,Michigan. Design by Ellen McKie. Periodicalspostage paid at Princeton,New Jersey,and at additionalmailing offices. Send addresschanges to Postmaster: Hesperia,American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton, New Jersey08540-5232 U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pagesi27-162
TH
AGO
F
AN
ATH
RO
n
1 ZE
(
A
M V\
I
T
ENIAN
COINI
1AGE
ABSTRACT
1. The site was first excavatedby M. Crosbyin 1952, with preliminary notices publishedin H. A. Thompson 1953, p. 29, and H. A. Thompson 1954, pp. 45-48. Furtherwork was done by D. B. Thompson in 1959, with the resultspublishedin H. A. Thompson 1960, pp. 343-344. Additionalwork done in 1978 was publishedin Camp 1978 and Camp 1979. More synthetic accountsappearin Camp 1986, pp. 120-135, and Camp 1990, pp. 162163. See alsoJ. KrollinAgoraXXVI, pp. 292-295. In the presentstudyboth authorscollaborated,J. Camp being largelyresponsiblefor the reportof the building and the excavationsof 1978 andJ. Krollfor the reportof the unfinishedcoin blanksand associated bronze debris.We areindebted to the Agora photographer,CraigMauzy,for new photographs,to Anne Hooton for inking the drawings,to the Solow Art and ArchitectureFoundationfor assistingthe final stages of Kroll's contributionwith a summerresearch fellowship,and to the anonymous readersof the manuscriptfor some very helpful recommendations.
The large squarebuilding in the southeast corner of the Athenian Agora, excavatedin the 1950s and in 1978, servedas the Athenian mint for the striking of bronze coins from the 4th through the late 1st century B.C.The bestpreservedpartofthe building,the southwestroom, producedampleevidence ofindustrialactivity,includingunstruckbronze coin blanksand rod segments fromwhich the blankshad been chopped.The buildingwas constructednear the end of the 5th or at the start of the 4th century B.C., but whether it was originallyintended for the coining of bronze is uncertain. In 1952 and 1953 a large square building of Classical date was found at the southeast corner of the Agora square (Figs. 1 and 2); further excavations were carried out in 1959 and 1978. Though poorly preserved, the building has been identified as a mint on the basis of large amounts of industrialdebrisfound in the area,together with numerousunstruckbronze coin blanks, or flans.1We present here an account of the surviving remains and related small finds, the results of metallurgical analyses of a selection of the blanks and of Athenian bronze coins, and consideration of the role of the building in the history of Athenian coinage.
THE BUILDING AND THE EXCAVATIONS OF 1978 THE SITE
The building lies immediately west of the Panathenaic Way and east of the Archaic Southeast Fountain House. For most of its extent, it rests directly on bedrock that slopes down relatively steeply toward both the west and north. Floor levels were not preserved throughout most of the building, but the lowest course of foundations lies some 3.35 meters lower at the northwest corner than at the southeast corner. Bedrock within the building rises as high as 67.82 masl in the southwest quadrant, 68.60 in
0 Q CJ
15:2
_66,853
167068
0~~
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L
5
10
6773 15
5 312
7,1(03
5
Q0
I
,
*
,
. I
01
I
20
m'NBD.,JR5|
~
~
~
0
l
2ool ~~~~~~~~rca
Figure 1. Agora Mint, actual state plan. After a drawingby W. B. DinsmoorJr., 1978
~
Qj3
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I29
Figure2. AgoraMint. Churchof the Holy Apostlesat upperleft, foundations of SoutheastTempleat upper right.Aerialview,1979. the central room along the south, and 69.00 masi in the southeast room, where it appears to have been dressed down. The limited depth of fill has fonanhuet_nueacniuu floofwtrithguerhn contributed to the poor state of preservation of the building; later kilns desired. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and casting pits, a lime-slaking pit, and cuttings for Jpithoi go deep into bedrock at various places. There are no traces of an immediate predecessor on the site. A few very short stretches of rubblewalls and severalwells in the vicinity suggest that there were modest private houses in the area until the middle years of the 6th century B.C. The first obviously public building is the Southeast Fountain House, which should be dated to the years around 530-520 B.C., lying just west of our building, with its floor level some 1.80 m lower than the level of bedrock in the southwest quadrant of the Mint. A narrow space was left between the two buildings; as the fountain house is set on a more northeasterly orientation than the Mint, the space is wedge-shaped, with the narrow end opening toward the north. This areawas paved with poros slabs, and a well-cut open gutter made of poros blocks was laid running along its south side from the southeast corner of the fountain house to the southwest corner of the Mint, at which point it turned north and ran along the entire length of the Mint's west wall. At the northwest corner of the Mint, it turned east and continued at least partway along the north wall (Fig. 3). It is not clear whether this gutter was designed simply to carryoff drainagewater,but its origin at the corner channel-which p1robably-ranwirth-i tesut wa'terc %,
n
as
alofn the4-N
I30
JOHN
11
t
4
MCK.
8
MI '
CAMP
II
AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
~~~~~~~~ H A IO N
-
Figure 3. Agora Mint, northwest corner with poros water channel; mortared rubble masonry of the phaion, above. View from northwest.
Figure 4. Agora Mint, west wall under the western apse of the Church of the Holy Apostles. View from south.
s | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I3I
The level of the poros paving is intermediate between the floor levels of the two buildings, lying some 0.64 m above that of the fountain house and ca. 1.17 m below the level of bedrock in the southwest quadrantof the Mint. At some point the paving was covered with a thick layer of waterproof cement made of small rounded pebbles set in a hard white mortar. This layer,together with its packing, is ca. 0.16 m thick, bringing the floor level flush with the rim of the poros gutter. The poros slabs and cement floor could represent two distinct building phases, though they might equally well be regarded as part of a single operation. DESCRIPTION
OF THE
REMAINS
The building itself is in a poor state of preservation,with the wall blocks extensively robbed out, and only the partially preserved lowest course of foundations gives some idea of the plan. The northern half, in particular, has suffered; here, the northeast corner was overlaid by the Southeast Temple in the early 2nd century A.C., while the northwest corner was first covered by the hemicycle of a huge nymphaion, also of the 2nd century A.C.,
2. For the date of the Southeast Temple:Dinsmoor 1982, pp. 431-433; for the Nymphaion:Agora XIV, pp. 202-203; and for the Holy Apostles:AgoraXX.
and then by the Church of the Holy Apostles in ca. A.D.
1000
(Fig. 4).2 The foundations are of well-cut squaredblocks of easily worked, light poros (L. 1.20-1.30, W. 0.60-0.65, H. 0.48 m; i.e., 4 by 2 by 1.5 ancient feet). For the most part they are laid as headers, though for at least part of the length of the west wall they were set as a double row of stretchers. The overall dimensions of the building correspond nearly to a square, measuring 27.20 m north-south and 28.90 m east-west. In addition, the irregularareabetween the east wall and the PanathenaicWay was at least partially enclosed by walls at the south and east. Of the interior arrangements,only those of the south half of the building may be restoredwith any degree of confidence. In the southwest quadrant there was a large room measuring ca. 14.00 m east-west by 11.00 m north-south (Fig. 5). Near the midpoint of the room, on its east-west line, two poros blocks remain in situ in an appropriateposition to have carried interior supports. The southern block was moved when it was incorporated into a Roman wall, though it should lie close to its original position. To the east, in the southeast quadrant of the building, there are two smaller rooms set side by side along the south wall. The western room measures ca. 5.00 m east-west by 3.90 m north-south; the eastern room measures ca. 4.20 m east-west by 3.90 m north-south. In the western room, the eastern parts of the west foundations are made up of irregular blocks of Acropolis limestone, the only use of a material other than poros in the surviving foundations. To the north of these three southern rooms only a few blocks survive of the west and north walls of the building. Two poros blocks lying just outside the western wall (Figs. 4 and 6) perhaps indicate the position of an entrance on that side. Within the northeast quadranta single poros block remains in situ, oriented east-west and lying about 6 m from the line of both the east and north walls. It may well be that a large part of the northern half of the building was an open-air courtyard,perhaps with a light colonnade, but not enough survives to allow more than this tentative suggestion.
I32
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II
AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
cetryBC
Figure5. Balloonview of Agora Mint, southwestroom In addition to the poros gutter along the outside of the west and north walls, several other hydraulicinstallations in the immediate areashould be noted. The east branch of the so-called Great Drain passed under the building: on the south, it ran under the east side of the central room, where the drain and room shared a common eastern wall, and just north of the north wall of the room, it turned to a northwesterly orientation and passed through and outside of the north half of the building. Not enough survives in this area to show what channels of the Mint, if any, may have emptied into the large drain. A well (Q 15:2) some 6 m north of the building, west of the Panathenaic Way and within the open square of the Agora, might be associated with the Mint in some way.The Mint is the building closest to the well, which should presumablybe thought of as a public well, and a huge mass of materialwas thrown into the shaft when the well went out of use apparently at the end of the 5th century B.C., just as or soon after the Mint was built. Finally, within the northeast quadrant of the Mint was excavated a bottle-shaped Hellenistic cistern (Q_16:1), in use in the 3rd century
B.C.3
3. Only a handfulof pottery (lot HA 168) and three cataloguedobjects (basin:P 26660, casserole:P26661, and a storagejar:P26662) were recovered
from the cistern;they provideno useful informationabout the use of the building.For well Q-15:2, see Agora XII, 2, p. 397.
THE
MINT
AGORA
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
I 66'\\,0o2f
I33
COINAGE
67,50~~~~~~~
_ 1X j~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_?-
-I :
\'
Oc
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 65-
*
DS~~~~~~~~~~
1,'
SE
1979~
,
,
E
_ 0
97
AI)N
20 20
G9 E A T 0 R
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~8796.9 TH E M IN T
Figure 6. Agora Mint, restored plan. AfteradrawingbyW.B.DinsmoorJr., 1979
SOUTHWEST ROOM: INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATION S
(Figs.
5 and 7)
The large southwest room is the best-preserved part of the building and here were found installations and small finds which lead to the identification of the building as a mint. In all, ten pits and two water basins were uncovered in the eastern part of the room, where the latest floor levels were preserved, along with lumps of bronze and slag together with some ash and flecks of carbon. Here, too, were found dozens of coin blanks, scattered throughout the fill and in the pits. The pits seem to break down into three distinct types; in general, they seem also to represent a distinct chronological sequence. The features of each group may be characterized as follows: GROUP
1 (PITS
A-E)
(Figs.
7-9)
These pits are irregularor round in shape, measuring 0.50-0.72 m across and ca. 0.30-0.45 m deep. Characteristicof these pits are the large, thickwalled terracotta basins apparently set down into them, their inner
JOHN
134
MCK.
CAMP
II
AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
Figure7. Southwestroom.Pits A, B, E, F, andJ in foreground;eastwall beyond. View from west.
'v'::t'-~
-
-4ii|II_X
I
ibS
Figure8. Cross-sectionthroughpits A, B, andJ,looking north
I
im
0''5 iZ
ffi |
_;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T . ~~~
111
~
_
~~
~~~P312adP110,sfuni
iu Viwfrmsotwet
Figure 9. Pit A, detail of basins
THE
g
;
GROUP G
.;
a /
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I35
surfacesdisplaying ample signs of burning. Pit A had two basins preserved in situ, one nestled within the other (P 31129, P 31130). Pits B and C had - < >fragments O of similar basins in their fill, though not in situ. Another large > distinguishing feature is the date of the material in the fill of these pits, which suggests a terminus ante quem in the early 3rd century B.C. Pit D, which had no fragments of basins, went out of use at this time.4
A
F t
AGORA
2 (PITs
F-I)
(Figs.
10-13)
-
'-
P^-
-
\
v
:
-
H
-' \ X
I0
Only one pit of this type was fully preserved. It was shallow, 0.65 m in diameter, and was lined at the bottom with red clay or mudbrick. Above were three very thin packed floor levels (ca. 0.008-0.01 m thick) made up of fine, flakey,grayish-brown silt. Cut through the bedrock at the bottom, and covered by the top two floor surfaces,was a hole ca. 0.05 m in diameter that led to a horizontal channel cut through bedrock, measuring 0.10 m high and 0.08 m across, its top the original red clay floor of the pit. It ran westward from under pit F toward the south end of pit E. Pottery associated with pit F was generally nondescript and not readily datable.5
A,
f
im
_
Figure10. Southwestroom.Plan showingthe eastwall (atright);pits F andJ, tracesof pits G, H, andI (at left).
Figure11. Pit F, detailof hole (at center) and channel(at right). View fromnorthwest.
4. Pottery lots: A = VA 284, B = rIA 285 and 286, C = rIA 287, D = VIA283,
and E = HIA281. The pits weregiven numbersas excavated;the correspondence of the notebookdesignationswith the lettersusedhereis as follows:pit A = 5, pit B = 6, pit C = 7, pit D = 4, pitE=E2, pit F = 1, and pitJ = 3. S. I. Rotroff and
J. Hayes kindlyprovidedexpertisein datingthe Hellenisticand Romanpottery. 5. Potterylot VIA280. Generally nondescriptpotterywith fragmentsof a casserole.
Three more pits (G, H, and I; Figs. 10 and 14) attributed to this same series were largely overlaid by pit J of the next group and were put out of use by it. Their western edges could be made out projecting beyond the limits ofJ. As restored,they align with pit F in a north-south line, ca. 0.50 m apart, some 0.15 m from the foundations of the east wall of the southwest room. From their position and apparentsimilarity it seems likely that they are contemporary with pit F. GROUP
3
(PIT
J)
(Figs.
14 and 15)
The third type is represented by a single example, which differs radically from the other pits in shape, composition, and date. It takes the form of an
JOHN
I36
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
Figure 12. Cross-section through pit F, looking north
*5
0
1m
X
m
F
E
|= _
JI -~_M:al -
-
-
0
I b
.5
|
1m
elongated rectangle with rounded corners, measuring ca. 0.55 m wide by 2.30 m long, set in a north-south orientation along the east wall of the room. The flooring was reported to consist of numerous very thin, compacted layers of clay and ash with an admixture of corroded bronze, measuring altogether some 0.025-0.04 m in thickness. Pottery from levels associated with pit J suggests that it went out of use in the late 3rd/early 2nd century B.c.6 As noted, it overlies pits G, H, and I and therefore postdates them, as well as-perhaps though not certainly-pit F. It is assumed that these pits, with their evidence of burning and their green discoloration, were somehow used in the processing of metal, primarily bronze if we mayjudge both from the actual material found as well as analysisof numerous samples taken from in and around the pits. At first glance, some of the pits might seem to represent the bases of furnaces or ovens used in some way in the preparationof the bronze. The analysis of the minute layers making up the successive floors of pit J, however, revealed no evidence of pyrotechnology, and if there were furnaces in the building, they must be sought elsewhere. The floors of pit J, on analysis, prove to have been built up of successive layers of plaster ratherthan clay.7 A series of shallow cuttings set into the foundations of the east wall may well have supported additional equipment or some superstructureover the pits (Figs. 7, 10, and 14). Opposite the southern half of pit F there is a rectangularcutting in the east wall measuring 0.45 m east-west by 0.40 m north-south. The southern 0.24 m is 0.05 m deep, while the northern 0.16 m is 0.18 m deep. Part of a similar rectangularcutting lies 1.97 m to
Figure 13. Cross-section through Roman industrial pit (atfar left), pit E, and pit F; looking north
6. Potterylot HA 282. Coarsewares with fragmentsof a largebasin. 7. Eleven separatelayersof pit J were recognized,rangingin thickness from 0.9 to 3.7 mm. The analysiswas carriedout in 1997 by Roger Doonan, formerlyof the Fitch Laboratoryof the British School of Archaeologyin Athens. No analysiswas performedon the "furnaces" reportedfrom the excavationsin the 1950s (Thompson 1954, p. 46); it may well be that the originalexcavatorsfound pits similarto these and assumed,as did Camp initially,that they were evidenceof pyrotechnology.The thin layersof pit J are all of a greenishcolor,which looked as though it were createdby bronze corrosion,though Doonan'sanalysis showed that the layersthemselvesdid not contain significantamounts of bronze, certainlynot enough to indicate the melting or working of bronze.
THE
Figure 14. Southwest room. East wall, pits F and J at right. View from north.
01_
Figure 15. PitJ View from southwest.
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I37
I38
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II
AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
the south, opposite the southern half of pit H. It measures 0.44 m eastwest and the preserved north-south dimension is 0.14 m; the adjoining block to the south, which would have carriedthe south half of the cutting, is missing. The depth of the cutting is 0.17 m. Two smaller cuttings survive between these two, opposite the north half of pit J. The southern of the two is rectangular,measuring 0.14 m east-west by 0.15 m north-south, its western edge set in some 0.22 m from the edge of the foundations. It is 0.14 m deep. The fourth cutting lies ca. 0.45 m to the north, in an area where the foundations are somewhat battered. As preserved,it is rounded or oval, measuring 0.16 m by 0.12 m, and is 0.18 m deep. It is set ca. 0.19 m from the edge of the foundations.
Figure 16. Southwestroom,remains of northernplaster-linedbasin.View fromnorthwest. _l I|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' _l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fgr
_I_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r
C,
7 Sotws lse-iedbsn soteat
rom sou|th iwfo
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I39
As well as these three series of pits and the cuttings apparently used for industrial activity there were also two water basins built within the southwest room which take the form of rectangularpits cut into bedrock, their bottoms and sides coated with a layer of waterproof cement. The northern one was largelydestroyedby a later casting pit and only the southeast corner is preserved,its eastern edge lying some 1.90 m from the eastern foundations of the room (Fig. 16). The southern basin, measuring 1.10 m long by 0.60 m wide and at least 0.80 m deep, is set on an east-west orientation, its eastern side lying some 1.33 m from the line of the east wall of the room (Fig. 17). THE
BLANKS,
FROM
THE
RODS,
SOUTHWEST
AND
WEIGHTS(?)
QUADRANT
In addition to these various indications of industrial activity in the 3rd to 1st centuries B.C., the identification of the building as a mint, as noted, rests primarily on dozens of small bronze objects consisting mainly of unstruck coin blanks, but also pieces of the bronze rods from which the flans were struck, as well as small bronze rectangles which may have been weights. These objects were found around and in most of the pits of all three periods. Pits G and I were not excavated because of their poor state of preservation and relation to pit J. Of the eight remaining pits, all but pits C and D had small bronze objects found in them and/or embedded in their floors. A detailed analysis and catalogue is presented in the second part of this article (see also Table 1); the distribution of these finds is summarized below: Pit A: 21-35 (Fig. 18): 12 blanks, 1 rod, 2 weights(?) Pit B: 36-55 (Fig. 19): 20 blanks Pit E: 56-60 (not illustrated):3 blanks, 2 rods(?) Pit F: 61-83 (Fig. 20): 18 blanks, 2 rods, 3 weights(?) Pit H: 84-102 (Fig. 21): 15 blanks, 2 rods, 2 rod fragments(?) Pit J: 103-127 (Fig. 22): 14 blanks, 5 rods, 4 rod fragments, 2 weights(?)
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Figure 18. Blanks and other bronze
debris(pitA). Scale
1:1
31
32
33
34
35
JOHN
I40
MCK.
CAMP
44
43
AND
JOHN
45
KROLL
40
46
54
62
63
64
66
67
68
69
72
77
81
49
55
Figure 19. Blanks (pit B). Scale 1:1
61
76
42
48
51
71
41
47
53
52
50
H.
39
38
37
36
II
73
78
82
65
70
74
75
79
80
83 Figure 20. Blanks and other bronze
debris(pit F). Scale 1:1
AGORA
THE
MINT
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
88
87
86
85
AND
COINAGE
89
I4I
90
84
95
94
93
92
96
97
91
102
100
98
101
99 Figure 21. Blanks and other bronze debris (pit H). Scale 1:1
*
*9^^
6
* 115
111
110
109
122
121
0 *11 119
118
124
123
S
Figure 22. Blanks and other bronze debris (pitJ). Scale 1:1
113
112
117
116
107
106
105
104
103
16127
108
114
120
125
I42
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II
AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
In addition to these fairly well defined pits, two other distinct groups of flans were found in shallow depressions in bedrock in the same general area: From grid-square MA/113: 128-148 (Fig. 23): 20 blanks, 1 rod From grid-square MI/lll: 149-161 (Fig. 24): 13 blanks Miscellaneous findspots: 162-169 (Fig. 25): 6 blanks, 2 rods Thus from 1978 we have a total of 149 blanks, rod fragments, and weights(?),8all but eight of them from pits or distinct groups. Pottery found with these different deposits suggests that they were being prepared or used in the building throughout most of the Hellenistic period, from the late 4th or early 3rd century into the 2nd century B.C. CHRONOLOGY
AND
FUNCTION
OF THE
BUILDING
The date of the building is based on ceramic evidence from earth brought in to raise the floor level in the southwest corner.Here, fill as deep as 1.00 m was encountered over bedrock, about half representing preexisting fill and half representingconstruction fill. The two fills are close in date, coming down into the last quarterof the 5th century B.C., and we would probably not be far off in dating the construction of the building to the last decade of the century.9 As we have seen from the evidence of the pits in the southwest quadrant, the building was in use through the Hellenistic period. The uppermost floors are generally not well preserved and the evidence for the date of the abandonment of the building is indirect. The latest preserved undisturbed floor levels in use would seem to date no earlier than the late 2nd century B.C.10Three kilns or firing pits seem to represent the earliest activity in the area after the building went out of use and therefore represent a terminus ante quem; they date to the late 1st century-early 2nd century A.C.11 The building was therefore abandoned presumably in the 1st century B.C. or the 1st century A.C. As noted, the northeast part of the building was covered by the so-called Southeast Temple early in the 2nd century A.C. and the northwest corner was overlaid by a large nymphaion of Antonine date. The identification of the building as a mint seems clear, given the dozens of unstruck flans and other signs of industrial activity.This makes 8. To these may be addedthose found in 1953 (1-11), 1959 (12-20), nine found in miscellaneouslate contexts in the vicinity (170-178), and three more from the Agora excavations, though not nearthe building (179181). These bring the total in the catalogueto 181 pieces, all but three found in or aroundthe building. 9. Potterylots IIA 293-298. The ceramicmaterialwas plentiful;several
thousandsherdswere saved,representing characteristiccoarse- and fineware shapes:lekanai,Chian amphoras, "Pheidias"mugs, late red-figured pieces, lamps, askoi,bowls, cooking wares,skyphoi,and lekythoi. Characteristicpieces representedby multiple examplesinclude all-blackCorinthianstyle skyphoi (Agora XII, p. 83, no. 321: 425-400 B.C.), "Pheidias"mugs (Agora XII, pp. 72-74), saltcellars(Agora XII,
no. 915: 425-400 B.C.), olpai (Agora XII, no. 273: ca. 400 B.C.), andType 23 A lamps (Agora IV, no. 216, last quarter of the 5th centuryB.C.). 10. Potterylot IIA 277, with a longpetaledMegarianbowl (Agora XXII, pp. 34-37). 11. Potterylots VIA289 and 290, andT 26, with alpha-globulelamps: Agora VII, pp. 15-17 and 106-107.
129
128
AND
ATHENIAN
131
130
137
136
135
MINT
AGORA
THE
BRONZE
133
132
138
COINAGE
139
I43
134
141
140
t~ 144
143
142
145
147
146
148
Figure 23. Blanks and rod segments (grid-square MA/113). Scale 1:1
156
152
151
150
149
153
159
158
157
154
160
155
161
Figure 24. Blanks (grid-square
MF/1 1).
Scale 1:1
162
Figure 25. Blanks and rod segments (miscellaneousfindspots).Scale1:1
163
164
165
~ 166
167
168
169
I44
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
it one of the few recognized mints from antiquity,joining only a handful of examples from other sites.'2 Analyses of assorted materials and samples recovered in the building have revealed only the slightest traces of silver.'3It seems certain that the famous silver coinage of Athens which was a mainstay of the economy from the 6th to 1st centuries B.C. was not struck here. The so-called argyrokopeion,attested in literature and inscriptions, must be sought elsewhere.'4What the analyses do show is that most of the material is largely copper, with lesser amounts of iron and tin, and lesser amounts still of lead. It seems likely, therefore, that bronze was the primary commodity being worked in the building, perhapswith some iron. Less certain, however, is how to correlate this information and the history of the building with the recognized development of Athenian bronze coinage. As noted, the initial construction can be dated to the years around 400 B.C., whereas the earliest Athenian bronze coinage is now usually dated no earlier than the middle years of the 4th century B.C."5Owing to the Athenians' reluctance to attach their name and coin types to a coinage of base metal, the earliest regularbronze coinage with the AOE ethnic and Athena/owl types did not appear before the third quarter of the 4th century.16 It was preceded by fourteen separately marked "Eleusinian"bronze issues, which, while inscribed EAEYEI and having the types ofTriptolemos and a piglet, were nevertheless struck by the city of Athens, in all probability at the same mint later used for the AOE bronze. But on current evidence the Eleusinian bronze is unlikely to have begun before the 350s.17 The bronze coinage inscribed ZAAA for Salamis and designed with the sword and shield of Ajax begins earlier,however, and in the most recent discussion of it, Martha Taylor has plausibly argued that it too was struck by and presumablyin the city of Athens, rather than on the island of Salamis as the ethnic would have one believe.'8If so, it might have been minted in the Agora Mint. Several specimens come from contexts of the
12. Other recognizedmints include Olbia (Koscjusko-Valjuzinic 1915), Halieis (Dengate 1975; Boyd and Rudolph 1978, pp. 339 and 347), Pella (Oikonomidou 1993), Nea Paphos (Nikolaou 1972a and 1972b;Nikolaou and M0rkholm 1976, pp. 9-10), and, from the Late Roman period, Thessaloniki(Velenis 1996). 13. Materialfrom the building has been analyzedon variousoccasions under assortedprocedures.For analyses of the bronze blanksand rod ends, see pp. 146-157 below.Thirteen samples, taken fromnnot just blanks and bars,but also slag,the basins in the pits, and the floor of pit J, were analyzedby the late K. Konophagosof the Polytechnic Universityand H. Badeka,using X-ray fluorescence,in December of 1978 and Januaryof 1979. Additional analysisby R. Doonan of the Fitch Laboratorywas
carriedout on the floors of pit J in 1997 (above,note 7). 14. For the literaryand epigraphical sourceson the argyrokopeion,see Agora III, pp. 160-161, to which add Agora inscriptionsnos. I 6236 (Hesperia 32, 1962, p. 31, no. 29) and I 7495 (unpublished),both of the 4th century B.C. As indicatedby their generally differentartisticstyles, iconography, administrativemarkings,and circulation, Athens' silverand bronze coinages routinelywere administeredand struck independentlyof one another(see Agora XXVI, p. 14, note 46; p. 15; and p. 31, note 38); it is not surprisingthat they were minted in separateplaces. The possibilitythat earlyAthenian silvercoinagewas struckin south Attica, nearthe sourcesof silver,has been raisedby the recentpublication of what might be a Late Archaic
bronze die from Sounion (Kalligas 1997). The dies for Athenian gold
coinageof 406 B.C. werededicatedon the Acropolis (Harris 1995, p. 119, no. 34). 15. This despite an emergencyissue of bronze-platedcoinage in 406/5 B.C.: Ar., Ran. 725-726, with scholia, and Ekkl. 815-822; also references to kollyboi(Tod 1945), which some scholarshave identifiedwith small bronze tokens. For recent discussions of the kollyboiand the 4th-century date for the earliestofficialAthenian bronze issues, see AgoraXXVI, pp. 2427. 16. AgoraXXVI, pp. 30-31. 17. AgoraXXVI, pp. 27-30, and, for the strikingin the same mint as the Athena/owl bronze,p. 32. 18. Taylor 1997, pp. 188-195.
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I45
early 4th century and perhaps the late 5th century,implying that the coinage began around 400 B.C.,19in which case it becomes tempting to associate the construction of the Mint with the inauguration of this earliest conventional Attic bronze coinage. This presents an alternativeto the earlier suggestion that the building was constructed for the manufacture of public weights, tokens, and measures and only subsequently employed for the minting of bronze coins.20 Since the ceramic evidence allows that the Mint could have been constructed as early as the 410s, and since one cannot rule out the possibility-despite the absence of silver-working evidence from the remaining, essentially Hellenistic, floors, furnishings, and debris of the buildingthat the structuremight have been intended or was used originally for the coining of silver, two further hypotheses deserve mention, both of which would give a date of ca. 414 B.C. for the building of a new mint. This was when the Spartansoccupied Dekeleia, endangering Athens' control of the countryside;if the city had been refining or minting silver at Sounion (see note 14 above) or elsewhere in the mining distinct, it would presumably have had to move all such operations into the city at this time. Or, should the problematic "StandardsDecree" prove to date as late as ca. 414 or shortly before,21the construction of a new mint would have been appropriate for the massive recoining of silver that the decree envisaged. On either scenario, however, it is doubtful that much silver would have been coined after 414, since the silver mines themselves had to be abandoned at that time, and the decree, if so late in date, could hardly have been put into effect after Athens' catastrophic losses at Syracuse in 413. Athens herself stopped minting silver at or before the end of the Peloponnesian War. Shut down by 404, the Mint would have been reopened in the next century for the coining of bronze. So far as the date of construction and original purpose of the structure are concerned, therefore, we can offer theories but no answers.There are simply too many unknowns, even, in our view, for favoring any one of these solutions over the others. Fortunately for the rest of the building's long history, the evidence to which we now turn is more than sufficient to show that it served as the mint for Athens' bronze coinages of the 4th through 1st centuries B.C. 19. To the three specimenscited in AgoraXXVI, p. 215, with contexts of the late 5th or early4th centuries, a fourth specimen should be added. Coming from a context in the Kerameikos dating to 400 B.C., it will be publishedin U. Knigge'sfinal report from the Bau Z excavations.Since these finds aRlowthat the coinage could have begun slightly before 400, they raisethe question of whether the bronze coins referredto in Ar., Ran. 725-726 and Ekkl.815-822 might in fact be Salaminianbronze coins and not subaeratereplicationsof conventional Athenian silvercoins, as is usuallyassumed(Kroll 1976 and
1996b;AgoraXXVI, pp. 7-8, 25 [where the Salaminianinterpretationis raised but rejected,perhapstoo summarily]). 20. Camp 1986, pp. 129-130. Many of these weights, tokens, and measures carriedstampsand/or inscriptions indicatingtheir public nature.We have no informationas to how and where these items were produced,whether by the state or privateindividuals,but some measureof official control over their productionand validationmust have been necessary.Two cylindrical dry measuresof bronze, one inscribed as "public"(demosion),were found in well Q_15:2, just north of the Mint (B 1082 and B 1082bis= AgoraX, DM 42
and 43, p. 52, pl. 14). The Athenians did not employ stampedbronze allotmentplates until after388 B.C., probablyin the early370s (Kroll 1972, pp. 4-7, 87-90). 21. Figueira(1998, pp. 431-465) presentsa lengthy reviewof the chronologicalevidence and favorsa date in the early440s. But an increasing numberof scholarshave been returningto the more traditionaldating in the twenties or teens; see, e.g., Fornaraand Samons 1991, pp. 98-102; Vickers 1996; and, in supportof ca. 414 (as earlierWeil 1906 and 1910, Gardner1913, andJohnston 1932), Kallet2001, chapter5.
I46
JOHN
THE UNFINISHED AND ASSOCIATED
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
COIN BLANKS BRONZE DEBRIS
The notablegroupof ten unstruckcoin blanksand the shortlength of a bronzerod fromwhich theyhadbeen chopped(1-11; see Fig. 26, below, andTable1) cameto light duringthe secondseasonof excavationof the building,in 1953.Sincethenthe totalof coinblanks,rodends,andrelated bronzescrapfromwithin the Mint has risento 169 pieces, 149 of them recoveredduringthe finalexplorationof the floorsin 1978.Find contexts andcomparisonof the blankswith Athenianbronzecoinsby weight and alloyindicatethat the blanksrangein date fromthe late 4th or early3rd centuryto the end of Athens'Hellenisticbronzecoinagein the late 1st centuryB.C. The compositionof the blanks'alloyshas provedto be an especially usefulchronologicalindex.As shownin Table2, which lists allAthenian bronze coins that have been metallurgicallyanalyzed,the percentages of tin andleadin the coin alloysdisplaya pronouncedshift overtime. In the alloysof the 4th- and3rd-centurybronzecoinage(AgoraXXVI:Periods I andII) the levelsof tin arerelativelyhigh, roughlyin the rangeof 8 to 12 percent,while the percentagesof lead,between0 and3 or 4 percent, areextremelymodest.In the late bronzecoinageof the secondhalfof the 1st century(PeriodsIVB-E), however,the patternis reversed:the alloy was cheapened,and softenedfor ease of striking,with a heavyadmixture of lead,normallyfallingin the rangeof 10 to 20 percent,at the sametime thatthe tin percentagesdeclinewell belowtheirformerlevels.The analyses collatedin Table2 cautionthat one cannotexpectexactmetallurgical consistencywithin a given periodor coin variety:a given coinagewould havebeen mintedfromnumerousbatchesof alloy,which arelikelyto differamongthemselvesto somemeasurabledegree(seeTable2, variety153, with its five analyzedspecimens).In the case of some lst-century B.C. coinagespartiallyoverstruckon earlier,obsoletecoinsthathadbeenwithdrawnfromcirculation,the inclusionof suchblanksof olderalloywould have producedeven greaterdiscrepancies,apparentlyexplaining,for example,the extremelylow lead contentof two of the threeanalyzedspecimens of the concludingAugustancoin varieties157 and 158. Making allowancesfor such anomalies,however,the overalldeductionnevertheless holds that Atheniancoins and coin blankswith a high lead content characteristically belong to the last decadesof the 1st centuryB.C. and later.22
One of the Agorablankswas chemicallyanalyzed,soon afterits reThe nineteenotherblanks coveryin 1953, at the Ohio StateUniversity.23 whosemetalliccompositionsarerecordedin Tables1 and3 wereanalyzed at the FitchLaboratoryat the BritishSchoolof Archaeologyin Athensin 1996, along with twenty-two Athenian bronze coins24that supplement
the samplingof Atheniancoins analyzedby E. R. Caleyin the 1930s and by a studentof Caley'sin the 1950s.25Altogether,the analysesconfirm that the heavilyleadedpiecesandthe rod segmentfromthe 1953 excavations belong to one of the final phases of Athens' Hellenistic coinage of the last half or third of the 1st century B.C. (Periods IVB-E); that the
22. Exceptionsarefound in Period III, which culminatedin the Mithradaticstar-in-crescentissue of 87/6 B.C. (variety97), an emergencyissue minted duringthe Sullansiege of Athens;its softened,heavilyleadedalloyis thought to have facilitatedstrikingwhile increasingthe coins'weight and acceptability(Agora XXVI,p. 70). It is unlikely,however,that any such special historicalcircumstancewill accountfor the anomalouslyhigh lead content of two specimensof the fractionalvarieties 99 and 100, which suggestthat the Atheniansemployedheavilyleaded bronzein the manufactureof minor denominationalcoinagesbefore extendingits use to the main, larger bronzedenominations.More analyses of the PeriodIII coinageareneeded,but in the meantime,see the parallel inconsistencybetween some large- and small-denominationblanks(note 28 below). 23. Caley and Deebel 1955. 24. R. Doonan performedthe analysesusing InductivelyCoupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry,a techniquethat requireddrilling a slight turningof 0.2-0.4 g from the edge of each coin (see Hughes, Cowell, and Craddock1976, pp. 22-26). Full resultsarereportedbelow in Table 3 and in Doonan'sLaboratoryReport on file at the Fitch Laboratory.Besides Doonan, we have to thank,for their effortsin facilitatingthe project, I. K. Whitbread,Director of the Fitch Laboratory;A. Paterakis,Conservator of the Agora Excavations;and authoritiesof the Ephoreiaof Classical Antiquities;and, for funding,the UniversityResearchInstitute of the Universityof Texas at Austin. 25. Caley 1939;Thompson 1941, pp. 229-230; Thompson 1961, pp.638-640.
THE
TABLE 1. UNSTRUCK FROM THE MINTa EXCAVATED
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
COIN BLANKS AND RELATED
BRONZE
BRONZE
COINAGE
I47
DEBRIS
IN 1953
cornerof thesouthwest room,"immediately beneaththelatestancient Rodendand10 choppedblanksfoundoutsidethe northwest reproduced in Lang1960,fig.13;AgoraXIV,pl.33:c;Kleiner1975, groundlevel"(Thompson1954,46-47,pl. 14:b,photograph Fig. 26 to barebronze. fig.3;Thompson1976,fig.78).Agora XXVI, pp.292-293,pl.32:d,Group1.All stripped 1-11 B 1046
12-14 x 7-10
13 x 24 EXCAVATED
7.58 g 7.14 6.78 6.78 6.48 6.03 5.93 5.10 3.12
16.95
(Pb24.03,Sn 6.50,Cu 67.60)
fgt.cuton bias fgt. cuton bias;destructively analyzedin 1954 (Pb25.63,Sn 7.08,Cu 66.53) rodend
IN 1959
in the ancientfloor"in the southwestquadrant (Thompson1960, 9 pieces,including7 blanksand1rodsegment"imbedded Fig. 27 p. 343).AgoraXXVI,p. 293, pl.32:e,Group2.bAll strippedto barebronze. 12 B 1237 13B 1238 14 B 1239 15 B 1240 16 B 1241 17 B 1242 18 B 1243 19 B 1245 20 B 1244 EXCAVATED
PIT A
15 x 9 9x7 llxll 15 x 10 12 x 10 12 x 8 12 x 9 13 x 10 15 x 6
5.33 5.32 7.60 8.96
(Pb 1.17,Sn 10.99,Cu 86.06)foundwith 13 and14 fgt. rodsegment nowmissing;foundwith 16 and17 nowmissing smoothon bothsides (Pb 1.73,Sn 8.97,Cu 89.89)smoothon one side (Pb 18.41,Sn 8.18,Cu 72.13) pickedup on surface
IN 1978
(POTTERY
12 blanks 21 B 1708 22B 1709 23B 1710 24 B 1711 25B 1712 26B 1713 27 B 1714 28B 1715 29 B 1717 30 B 1718 31 B 1719 32 B 1720
7.70 g 1.85 6.94
THROUGH
EARLY
3RD
CENTURY
B.C.)
13 x 4 12x7 10x6 10x8 10x8 11x8 9x5 12x6 11 x 8 to 1
3.50 g 3.44 3.42 2.94 2.43 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.58
miscuton bias
11 x 5 to 1 11 x 6 to 1 12 x 7 to 1
1.52 1.50 1.35
miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias
(Pb0.47,Sn 9.26,Cu 90.93)
Fig.
18
I48
JOHN
1 rod segment 33 B 1716
10 x 11
2 rectangularweights(?) 34 B 1721 15 x 9 x 5 35B 1722 15x10x4
PIT B
(POTTERY
20 blanks 36B 1744 37 B 1745 38B 1746 39 B 1747 40B 1748 41B 1749 42 B 1750 43 B 1751 44B 1752 45 B 1753 46B 1754 47B1755 48B 1756 49B 1757 50 B 1758 51B 1759 52 B 1760 53 B 1761 54 B 1762 55 B 1763 PIT
E
(2ND
3 blanks 56 B 1646 57B 1647 58B 1648
THROUGH
13x9 18 x 5 14x9 11 x 8 13x8 15x8 20 x 7 14 x 7 15x7 12 x 8 12x7 13x8 13x7 15x7 14 x 6 20x4 15 x 6 14 x 7 12 x 6 13 x5
CENTURY
(2ND
18 blanks 61 B 1651 62B 1652 63 B 1653 64 B 1658 65B 1659 66 B 1660 67 B 1661a 68 B 1661b 69 B 1777 70 B 1778
16 x 6 16x5 17 x 6 16 x 6 16x7 17 x 6 17 x 7 18 x 7 14 x4 24 x7
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
3.56 1.97 1.98
EARLY
3RD
one edge broken away
CENTURY
Fig. 19
B.C.)
(Pb 0.50, Sn 9.33, Cu 87.97) flattened?;strippedto baremetal
flattened?
before strippedto bare metal flattened;before strippedto baremetal broken Not
B.C.)
5.30 g 4.80 4.45
15 x 6 13x7 17x6
CENTURY
CAMP
7.54g 7.37 7.02 6.88 6.80 6.75 6.65 6.49 6.36 6.34 6.26 6.14 6.03 5.77 5.62 5.55 5.48 5.35 5.11 4.45
2 rod or blank fragments 59B 1649 11x7 60 B 1650 11 x 5
PIT F
MCK.
illustrated
(Pb 0.74, Sn 9.14, Cu 88.96)
2.13 2.02
Fig. 20
B.C.)
6.06 g 5.89 5.21 5.15 5.11 5.09 5.80 6.25 3.21 7.29
(Pb 0.65, Sn 11.01, Cu 88.57)
THE
71 B 1779 72B 1780 73 B 1781 74B 1662 75 B 1782 76 B 1784 77 B 1783 78 B 1785 2 rod segments 79 B 1654 80 B 1655
21 x 5 16x6 16 x 5 12x8 18x5 14 x 8 to 1 13 x 7 to 1 12 x 7 to 1
6.53 4.98 4.72 1.23 3.66 2.21 3.84 2.49
15 x 14 15 x 10
8.30 6.63
3 rectangularweights(?) 81 B 1656 16 x 10 x 7 82 B 1657 15 x 10 x 7 83B 1786 10x8x6
PIT H
(2ND
CENTURY
1.93 2.28 1.83
6.45 g 5.45 5.41 5.02 4.59 4.47 4.26 3.78 3.26 2.76 5.09 4.26 3.98 2.90 1.42
2 rod segments 99B1693 100 B 1694
17x12 12 x 20
9.11 10.09
2 rod fragments(?) 101 B 1695 102B 1696
19 x 14 14x10
13.06 6.00
14 blanks 103 B 1663 104 B 1664 105B 1665 106B 1666 107 B 1667 108 B1671 109 B1672 110 B 1705
TO
AND
ATHENIAN
LATE
18 x 4 16 x 6 16x8 14x6 18 x 3 19 x7 1Sx5 17 x 6
3RD
BRONZE
COINAGE
I49
(Pb 1.05, Sn 9.02, Cu 88.83) strippedto baremetal fgt. fgt. miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias
one edge partiallybroken away
Fig. 21
18 x 5 12 x 9 10 x 13 11 x 9 12 x 8 11 x 8 10 x 10 14x7 11x7 10 x 8 14 x 10 to 1 13 x 9 to 1 13 x 6 to 1 13 x 8 to 1 13 x 7 to 1
(POTTERY
MINT
B.C.)
15 blanks 84 B 1683 85 B 1684 86 B 1685 87 B 1686 88 B 1687 89 B 1688 90 B 1689 91 B 1690 92B 1691 93 B 1692 94 B 1697 95 B 1698 96 B 1699 97 B 1700 98 B 1701
PIT J
AGORA
OR EARLY
6.54 g 6.48 6.28 5.75 5.39 8.75 9.71 7.50
(Pb 1.46, Sn 11.62, Cu 87.02)
miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias
2ND
CENTURY
B.C.)
(Pb 2.44, Sn 10.44, Cu 86.59) partiallydisintegratedafterrecording
flattened;smooth on both sides
(Pb 1.55, Sn 7.72, Cu 90.85)
Fig. 22
I50
JOHN
111 B 1706 112 B 1707 113 B 1676 114 B 1677 115 B 1678 116 B 1681
MCK.
CAMP
15 x 5 14 x 4 13 x 9 to 1 13 x 8 to 1 16 x 8 to 1 14 x 6 to 1
6.05 4.79 4.09 3.21 3.00 2.42
5 rod segments 117B 1668 118 B 1675 119 B 1680 120B1702 121 B 1703
14x13 14 x 10 15 x 10 11x16 12x13
6.43 9.00 4.47 6.44 7.43
4 rod fragments(?) 122 B 1669 123 B 1673 124 B 1674 125B 1679
17 x 10 20 x 16 18 x 9 14x8
6.09 9.16 8.93 2.73
2 rectangularweights(?) 126B 1670 20x9x6 127B 1682 13x9x6
4.14 2.02
FROM
GRID-SQUARE
18 x 4 20 x 6 17x6 13x6 17x4 13 x6 13x4 12 x 4 13 x 4 13 x 6 13 x 4 12 x 5 12x5 13 x4 15 x 4 12x3 14x4 11 x 3 11x3 13 x4
7.36 g 7.12 6.98 6.06 4.84 4.03 3.58 3.32 3.29 3.22 3.15 3.03 2.97 2.93 2.75 2.63 2.58 2.26 2.22 1.53
1 rod segment 148B 1728
16x11
9.93
GRID-SQUARE
13 blanks 149 B1764 150 B1765
JOHN
H.
KROLL
(Pb 2.39, Sn 10.26, Cu 84.72) strippedto barebronze (Pb 0.63, Sn 9.07, Cu 84.6) miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias miscut on bias
(Pb 2.00, Sn 9.74, Cu 86.69)
MA/II3
20 blanks 128 B 1723 129 B 1724 130B 1725 131 B 1726 132 B 1727 133B 1729 134B 1730 135 B 1731 136 B 1732 137 B 1733 138 B 1734 139 B 1735 140B 1736 141 B 1737 142 B 1738 143B 1739 144B 1740 145 B 1741 146B 1742 147B 1743
FROM
II AND
MF/III
13 x5 12 x7
3.88 g 3.70
Fig.
23
Fig.
24
(Pb 2.81, Sn 9.98, Cu 86.81)
broken
THE
151 B 1766 152 B 1767 153B 1768 154 B 1769 155 B 1770 156 B 1771 157 B 1772 158 B 1773 159B 1774 160B 1775 161B 1776
MISCELLANEOUS
12 x 5 10x5 12x4 11 x 4 12x5 12 x 3 11 x 4 10x3 9x4 8x7 8x5
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
11x7 13 x 7 19 x6 11 x4 18 x 4 15x4
2 rod segments 168 B 1789 169 B 1791
9x11 15 x 12
IN VARIOUS
COINAGE
I5I
(Pb 0.16, Sn 6.81, Cu 91.89)
Fig.
FINDSPOTS
6 blanks 162B 1645 163 B 1787 164B 1790 165 B 1792 166 B 1793 167B 1794
EXCAVATED
3.08 2.82 2.68 2.62 2.51 2.46 2.42 1.37 2.59 2.53 2.15
AGORA
5.69g 4.87 9.54 2.09 3.07 3.61
25
flattened strippedtobare metal
3.98 11.60
YEARS
Blanks and 1 rod segment individuallyfound nearthe Mint in disturbedor Late Roman contexts.All strippedto barebronze. 170-171 B 1068
13 x 7
6.51 g
13 x 7
7.03
AgoraXXVI, pl. 32:e (two flans)
172 B 1069
12 x 7
6.57
173 B 1220
10 x 11
6.94
(Pb 1.50, Sn 10.71, Cu 87.97) rod segment
174 B 1221 175 B 1223 176 B 1253 177B 1281 178 B 1642
16 x 6 11x7 12 x 5 13x9 10 x 6
8.88 4.04 4.92 9.53 3.55
(Pb 17.93, Sn 6.06, Cu 74.28) flattened (Pb 0.91, Sn 9.86, Cu 87.85) smooth faces Thompson 1954, note 20, no.2
Flans of similartype from other areasin the Agora. Disturbedor late contexts. 179 B 1639 180 B 1640 181 B 1643
11 x 9 18 x 6 9x5
5.80 9.50 2.54
Thompson 1954, note 20, no. 1 Thompson 1954, note 20, no.3
a Each item is listedwith its B(ronze)inventorynumber,size in millimeters(diameteror width x thickness),andweight in grams.Percentagesof lead, tin, and copperarelisted for pieceswhose compositionhas been analyzed.In severalcases,uncleanedblanksillustratedin the 1:1 photographsappear to be largerthan the recordeddimensions indicate (see especiallyno. 102). This is the result of the two-dimensionalphotographicimage, which sometimes shows not only the object'sroundupperface, from which the diameterwas taken,but also some of the object'slateralsurfacebehind (cf. the photographsof nos. 12-20 and 165, where the upperand lateralsides can be distinguished).
b Two errorsin Agora XXVI need to be corrected:on p. 293, under "Group2," read "Six of them"(for "Six others"),and on same page and on pl. 32:e, readB 1244 for B 1245,and B 1245for B 1244.
JOHN
I52
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
TABLE 2. METALLURGICALLY
ANALYZED
no. Variety
Diam.
PERIOD
KROLL
ATHENIAN
Avg.wt.
%Pb
BRONZE %Sn
COINSa %Cu
Reference
I
MID-4TH-MID-3RD
CENTURY
B.C.
38 41
Pigleton mysticstaff,EAEVEIabove owl,on mysticstaff Double-bodied
15-18 13-15
3.20g 2.14
42 43 44
Same,butno symbol Same,butowlon Eleusisring 2 owlsoverEleusisring
11-15 10-14 13-15
1.75 1.85 2.70
46 50
2 owls,no symbol Owll.
13-15 14-16
2.34 3.53
51 52 53 54 57 58
Pigletin wheatwreath,EAETEIbelow Owl r.in olivewreath,A0H Owl r.in wheatwreath Owl r.in olivewreath,A-O Owl r.,wreathsymbol Owl r.,grain-earsymbol
15-17 13-15 12-15 12-14 13-15 13-15
3.73 2.40 2.37 2.34 2.13 2.27
PERIOD 229-CA.
H.
0.05 1.28 0.00 3.21 1.51 1.68 1.29 1.73 4.18 5.36 1.55 9.22 5.70 1.36 3.18 0.84 5.78
10.78 8.25 9.93 5.42 11.32 10.49 10.67 10.57 12.76 12.49 10.57 8.41 10.24 9.80 10.08 15.43 9.10
88.94 90.30 90.04 91.23 87.06 87.51 87.49 87.28 82.23 81.73 87.38 82.33 83.57 88.81 86.01 83.42 84.72
(xi.1) (viii.4) (viii.2) (viii.5) (viii.1) (v.8) (v.9) (v.7) (v.1) (v.2) (ix.2) (v.3) (v.5) (v.4) (v.11) (v.10) (v.12)
(Thompson 1941,p. 230) (vi.3) (iv.4)
II I83
B.C.
66
Zeus/AthenaPolias
19-22
9.43g
4.27
10.74
84.77
79 84
StandingZeus,prow eagle FZ, cornucopia,
16-20 16-20
5.00 6.65*
0.22 2.73
11.10 10.56
88.74 86.38
6.54 0.01 0.54 0.20 1.85
6.52 10.40 9.40 10.60 8.12
82.47 89.64 89.54 89.03 88.69
13.26 13.71
7.56 9.04
78.21 76.80
10.04
7.28
80.26
(xi.3) (v.13) (v.14) (iv.5) (Thompson 1961,p. 639) (vi.6) (Thompson 1961,p. 639) (Thompson
9.54 18.42 20.84 1.10
9.64 7.22 7.85 11.86
80.54 74.57 70.92 86.97
(vii.6) (vii.7) (ix.5) (ix.4)
5.15 7.49
9.89 9.77
84.96 82.26
(vi.4) (A-1304)
PERIOD i66-86
III
B.C.
86 89
Demeter/piglet snake Zeus/Athena, wheat-ear,
17-19 17-20
6.15*g 5.97*
94
FZ, 2 pilei
16-19
6.04*g
97
FZ, starandcrescents
17-21
7.65*
1961, p. 639)
99
2 owlsoverthunderbolt
105 Apollo/amphora 106 Kore/piglet PERIOD 86-42 115
12-18
2.84
10-12 9-12
1.72 1.45
19-22
10.82*g
IVA
B.C.
NS Athena/owl on amphora,no symbol
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
%Sn
%Cu
I53
Reference
Diam.
128 129 131 135
15-17 14-17 14-16 10-11
4.35 4.09 3.89 1.70
2.23 12.60 4.64 4.89
10.77 7.95 11.13 8.02
86.38 79.73 81.72 86.21
(0-885) (110-446) (EA-116) (H'-3796)
10.61 9.93 18.69 13.83 16.79
9.31 8.54 12.95 7.30 9.20
80.73 81.25 67.17 78.25 72.01
17.61 18.82 17.29 6.06 16.13 8.43 22.73
8.66 7.54 6.13 8.83 5.11 9.20 6.29
72.80 73.16 74.56 84.03 77.52 83.12 70.25
PERIOD
%Pb
COINAGE
Varietyno.
Demeter/Triptolemos,poppy symbol Dolphin/plemochoe Apollo/cicada Apollo/2 wheat-ears
Avg. wt.
BRONZE
ATHENIAN
IVB B.C.
42/I-32
137 138
NS Athena/FZ NS Athena/tripod
18-21 17-21
9.42* g 8.67*
139
Gorgoneion/Athenacharging
18-21
8.54*
140
Young Dionysos/Athena charging
17-20
6.31*
141 142 143 144
Young Dionysos/kantharos Dionysos/Athena NS Athena/Apollo Delios Zeus/beardedDionysos
13-15 11-14 17-20 15-19
2.60 1.39 5.48* 6.33*
145
Zeus/eagle
13-15
3.24
11.09 20.21 11.45
7.41 7.12 9.24
80.02 71.69 77.76
(11-400) (vi.5) (11-567) (ix.8) (Thompson 1961, p. 639) (IIA-163) (xi.9) (E-546) (H'-3475) (K-1195) (00-1135) (Thompson 1941, p. 230) (AA-56) (ix.1) (00-501)
19-20 18-20
8.09*g 8.51*
10.45 8.28
8.75 8.30
80.48 82.80
(ix.10) (E-1265)
(Thompson 1941, p. 229) (F-392) (H-1474) (X-32) (FF-29) (vi.7) (Thompson 1961, p. 639) (Thompson 1961, p. 639) (Thompson 1961, p. 639) (B'-1039) (IIA-298) (-153)
PERIOD
IVC
3I-EARLY
20S
146 147
B.C.
Athena in Cor. helmet/Demeter Athena in Attic helmet/Nike
PERIOD MID-20S-I9
IVD B.C.
149
NS Athena/Athena advancing,owl
18-20
7.80* g
18.68
6.89
73.60
150 151 152 153
Demeter/poppy and wheat-ears NS Athena/Athena advancing,snake NS Athena/owl on prow NS Athena/sphinx
13-15 19-20 17-20 17-20
3.26 7.53* 7.48* 7.57* g
23.71 15.49 7.50 20.46 20.38 15.02
5.54 6.29 9.10 5.71 6.84 6.12
68.42 77.31 82.62 71.66 71.24 77.86
15.38
6.09
78.12
19.18
7.32
72.75
23.10 14.96 17.41
6.31 6.98 7.79
68.22 76.23 73.77
154 156
Triptolemos/mysticstaff and wheat-ear NS Athena/2 owls on thunderbolt
14-15 15-19
3.47 2.97
I54
JOHN
MCK.
Varietyno.
PERIOD
IVE B.C.
157 158
NS Athena/owl on amphora, snake Same, but cicada symbol
PERIOD
II AND
Diam.
CA.
I5-IO
CAMP
16-19 16-19
JOHN
6.42* g 6.20*
185 230 240
Athena/bucranium Athena/owl Theseus/bucranium
23-26 10-12 9-13
7.40 g 1.49 1.37
271
Athena/Triptolemos
21-23
20-22 20-22 20-23 20-22
305 325 332 386
A.D.
%Pb
%Sn
%Cu
Reference
4.60 17.72
8.59
85.14
6.02
75.75
(00-252) (Thompson 1961, p.639)
5.06
11.29
81.39
(P-456)
V
CENTURY
CA.
KROLL
Avg. wt.
2ND
PERIOD
H.
A.C.
10.35
7.72
6.71
26.51 13.78 18.60 23.03
6.84 8.06 7.70 5.93
81.44 66.25 77.66 73.01 70.55
(viii.lO) (viii.8) (viii.9) (iv.7)
5.29 g 5.02 5.95 4.46
23.03 32.51 29.32 29.18
5.93 3.89 4.10 3.75
70.55 63.23 66.05 66.19
(iv.8) (iv.9) (iv.10) (iv.il)
(vii.1)
VI 264-267
Athena/Athena standing Athena/"Promachos" Athena/"Promachos" Athena/agonistic table
aChronologicalperiods,varietynumbers,diameters(in millimeters),and averageweights aretakenfromAgoraXXVI. Weights arethe averageof the best-preservedAgora excavationspecimensor, in the case of weights markedby asterisks,hoard coins that were recoveredfrom outside the Agora. Alloy percentagesare recordedindividuallyfor each specimen that has been analyzed.Agora coins analyzedin 1996 are referencedby their Agora inventorynumbers,which begin with a Greekletteror letters.Referencesthat begin with Romannumeralsareto analyseslisted in the tablesin Caley 1939. Additional analysesare reportedin Thompson 1941 and 1961.
numerous blanks and rod fragments excavatedfrom below the floor of the Mint in 1978, all with a very low lead content, belong to earlierphases of the coinage; and that the seven blanks recoveredin 1959 "imbeddedin the ancient floor"of the southwest room (Fig. 27) are a mixed lot that include some pieces with earlier,low readings of lead (12, 18) and at least one with a later, high reading of 18.4 percent (19). Analyzed blanks from the vicinity of the Mint prove similarly to have different alloy types and therefore to be from different phases of the Hellenistic coinage (173-175). THE 1953 ROD
SEGMENT
AND
BLANKS
(1-11)
(Fig.
26)
The eight blanks, two imperfectly chopped halves, and rod segment found together "immediatelybeneath the latest ancient ground level"outside the northwest corner of the southwest room constitute the only assemblage of metal debris from the Mint that has been studied and published in any detail. The pieces were cleaned to bare metal, and one of the two miscut fragments was sent to the Ohio State University for destructive analysis, which provided a lead reading of 25.63 percent and a lead/tin ratio of 3.62:1, figures that matched previously analyzed coins of the same weight of the later 1st century B.C.26 Kroll provisionallyproposed to associate the blankswith variety 144 of ca. 32 B.C. (Zeus head/beardedDionysos head),27
26. Caley and Deebel 1955. 27. AgoraXXVI, p. 293.
THE
Figure 26. Blanks and rod end, excavated in 1953. Scale 1:1
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
eggs.
BRONZE
COINAGE
I55
e.g~q~
although this would mean that the blanks and rod belonged not to the last issue or issues struck at the Mint, as one would expect from the blanks' early appearancein the clearing of the building, but to a variety that was minted some two decades before the last issue. Now that a larger sampling of the alloys of the later-lst-century B.C. coinage is available for comparison and reveals how widely lead percentages varied within the period and even within single issues, it becomes apparent that the heavily leaded 1953 blanks might very well belong to any one of four late-lst-century varieties of similar weight. As the weight of the eight complete blanks averages6.48 g, the four matching coin varieties are 140 (Young Dionysos/Athena charging), avg. wt. 6.31 g (of 11 slightly worn hoard specimens) 144 (Zeus/bearded Dionysos), avg. wt. 6.33 g (18 slightly worn hoard specimens) 157 (Athena/owl on amphora, snake), avg. wt. 6.42 g (49 slightly worn hoard specimens) 158 (Athena/owl on amphora, cicada), avg. wt. 6.20 g (58 slightly worn hoard specimens)
14
13
12
17
18
The last two varieties, which date roughly to the penultimate decade of the 1st century B.C., are the concluding varieties of the Hellenistic coinage. While one cannot be certain that the 1953 blanks were preparedfor the last of these issues, the possibility has far more to recommend it than Kroll's former attribution to one of the earlier issues with the head of Dionysos. Light facets on the sides of the blanks and of the piece of rod show that the rod was shaped by forging. Facets around the circumferences of the blanks' faces reveal further that the rod was deeply scored by blows of a flat chisel, usually five blows, before a final blow chopped off each piece. Breakage from the chopping has left the central surface of the faces rough and irregular,and this together with the thickness of the blanks makes it clear that they needed to be flattened and widened by hammering before they would have been ready to be struck between dies. These eight complete blanks are therefore unfinished. The two unusable half-pieces have a wedge-shaped profile from being chopped on a bias, the result, presumably,of careless positioning of the chisel. THE
19
20
Figure 27. Blanks and rod segment, excavated in 1959. Scale1:1
1959
BLANKS
AND
FINISHED
BLANKS"
As stated, the blanks and rod segment recovered from the floor of the Mint in 1959 (12-19; Fig. 27) are a mixed lot, two pieces having a low lead content, one a high percentage of lead. The most interesting is blank 17, which has been hammered flat, and hence is finished. A few other finished
I56
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF ICP ANALYSIS THE ATHENIAN AGORA Varietyno.
Sn
UNFINISHED
Zn
BLANKS
(SEE
TABLE
Pb
JOHN
H.
KROLL
OF BRONZE
Cu
BLANKS AND COINS FROM
Ni
Fe
Ag
Total
I)
5 12 18
B 1046e B 1237 B 1243
6.496 10.990 8.976
0.123 0.178 0.216
24.035 1.176 1.729
67.604 86.060 89.891
0.055 0.034 0.028
0.259 0.662 0.287
0.054 0.031 0.054
98.628 99.131 101.182
19 21 39 56 61
B 1245 B 1708 B 1747 B 1646 B 1651
8.188 9.262 9.333 9.138 11.008
0.255 0.190 0.163 0.781 0.699
18.412 0.473 0.496 0.738 0.647
72.125 90.938 87.969 88.960 88.569
0.087 0.021 0.017 0.082 0.057
0.542 0.150 0.128 0.139 0.837
0.041 0.033 0.034 0.078 0.038
99.649 101.067 98.141 99.917 101.856
73 84 103 110 111 112 118 128 151 173 174 175
B 1781 B 1683 B 1663 B 1705 B 1706 B 1707 B 1675 B 1723 B 1766 B 1220 B 1221 B 1223
9.025 11.620 10.438 7.723 10.261 9.072 9.743 9.984 6.809 10.709 6.057 9.856
0.158 0.181 0.173 0.152 0.173 0.264 0.176 0.146 0.190 0.189 0.139 0.156
1.050 1.461 2.441 1.554 2.398 0.630 2.000 2.814 0.161 1.505 17.930 0.913
88.830 87.020 86.592 90.852 84.716 84.611 86.691 86.808 91.889 87.966 74.280 87.850
0.024 0.021 0.026 0.033 0.029 0.012 0.021 0.034 0.012 0.036 0.067 0.028
0.194 0.357 0.237 0.152 0.222 5.138 0.106 0.119 0.088 0.186 0.210 0.071
0.037 0.070 0.028 0.043 0.056 0.043 0.033 0.029 0.156 0.030 0.049 0.043
99.318 100.730 99.936 100.510 97.855 99.770 98.770 99.934 99.307 100.621 98.734 98.917
14.822 4.022 4.354
75.960 86.420 85.262
0.059 0.053 0.048
0.239 0.290 0.318
0.047 0.026 0.025
98.345 99.758 98.860
FINISHED
BLANKS
Z-2079 Z-2091 Z-2101
(SEE
NOTE
7.083 8.794 8.704
z8) 0.135 0.153 0.146
blanks were excavated in or around the Mint in 1978 (39?, 42?, 54, 107, 164; see also 174, 176). To these may be added twenty-five finished coin blanks that were recovered in a mixed 3rd-century A.C. fill at the southwest side of the Agora square between the Middle Stoa and the Tholos, presumably brought there in redug, transported earth.28Technique, size, and metallic composition imply that they were intended for one of Athens' Hellenistic coinages and ought to have originated in the Mint. THE
1978
BLANKS,
ROD
SEGMENTS,
AND
BALANCE
WEIGHTS(?)
The numerous blanks excavatedin 1978 from pits in the floor of the Mint were chopped from forged bronze rods in the same manner as the unfinished 1953 blanks. Short ends of the rods were found with them, as were
28. AgoraXXVI, p. 294, pl. 32:f. Three of the blankswere analyzedin 1996: Z-2091 and Z-2101, two of the twenty-two AE 2 module pieces (avg. wt. 6.95 g) = Pb 4.02, Sn 8.79, Cu 86.42, and Pb 4.35, Sn 8.70, Cu 85.26. Z-2079, one of the three AE 3 pieces (wt. 2.72.9 g) = Pb 14.82, Sn 7.08, Cu 75.96. The contrastbetween the modest amount of lead in the largerdenomination and the heavyleading in a contemporarysmallerdenominationis paralleled in the few analyzedcoins from PeriodIII (see note 22 above),the period to which on the basis of size and weight these finished flans most likely belong.
THE
Varietyno.
Sn
COINS
(SEE
TABLE
115 128 129 131 135 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 147 149 150 151 152 153 154 156 157 158
A-1304 0-885 lIO-446 EA-116 H'-3796 11-400 11-567 IIA-163 E-546 H'-3475 K-1195 00-1135 AA-56 00-501 E-1265 F-392 H-1474 X-32 FF-29 B'-1039 IIA-298 F-153 00-252 P-456
AGORA
Zn
Pb
0.141 0.161 0.197 0.177 0.157 0.181 0.177 0.133 0.131 0.151 0.133 0.153 0.139 0.163 0.138 0.119 0.173 0.163 0.117 0.151 0.141 0.149 0.176 0.187
7.492 2.229 12.595 4.640 4.888 10.615 18.687 17.608 17.285 6.063 16.127 8.425 11.090 11.445 8.282 23.708 15.483 7.504 20.468 23.100 14.960 17.407 4.599 5.063
MINT
Cu
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
Ni
Fe
Ag
0.035 0.064 0.053 0.415 0.048 0.065 0.041 0.098 0.068 0.051 0.062 0.063 0.042 0.056 0.055 0.077 0.105 0.049 0.076 0.074 0.061 0.099 0.058 0.053
0.068 0.317 0.235 0.103 0.072 0.051 0.099 0.026 0.354 0.056 0.089 0.113 0.645 0.076 0.090 0.240 0.122 0.074 0.070 0.149 0.187 0.217 0.201 0.586
0.037 0.019 0.080 0.031 0.029 0.028 0.128 0.016 0.070 0.028 0.036 0.058 0.025 0.069 0.052 0.057 0.047 0.020 0.056 0.039 0.045 0.034 0.031 0.030
I57
Total
2)
9.772 10.766 7.945 11.126 8.020 9.313 12.948 8.663 6.130 8.834 5.113 9.204 7.412 9.237 8.298 5.543 6.293 9.098 5.712 6.308 6.983 7.784 8.594 11.290
82.255 86.380 79.731 81.723 86.207 80.732 67.174 72.795 74.555 84.030 77.517 83.120 80.016 77.760 82.796 68.417 77.307 82.616 71.663 68.219 76.230 73.771 85.139 81.390
99.801 99.945 100.837 98.214 99.420 100.986 99.255 99.340 98.596 99.213 99.080 101.136 99.370 98.806 99.713 98.160 99.531 99.526 98.164 98.042 98.611 99.461 98.799 98.604
This table presentsin fill the resultsof the metallurgicalanalysesperformedon these specimensat the Fitch Laboratoryin 1996.
occasional unusable pieces that had been miscut on a bias. With the exception of three to five pieces that appear to have been flattened or smoothed by hammering (39?, 42?, 54, 107, 164), the blanks are relatively thick, seem to have rough surfaces, and are apparentlyunfinished. However,because they are made of a much finer, nearlylead-free, alloy than the blanks excavatedin 1953, and were found in a far more corroded state, the extent to which they could prudently be cleaned for examination has been limited. Whether their more advanced corrosion is due to their higher copper content or to their deeper deposition in the building floor, many of the blanks are blistered and mineralized to their core, and the original surfaces of some of the more intact pieces are roughened and distorted by particles of redeposited copper.Unlike the well-preserved blanks that were chemically stripped to solid, bare, brown-black metal in the 1950s, nearly all of the blanks and related pieces from the 1978 excavations retain their envelope of green corrosion products after having been chemically stabilized to halt any further spreading of bronze disease. Two-thirds of the 1978 material was recoveredwith context pottery from closed pits. In all these deposits, save one, the ceramic dating agrees with the dating suggested by the alloy of the blanks: none of the pits were closed later than the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., and none of the
I58
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
analyzed blanks has an elevated level of lead. Moreover, the weights of the blanks from pit A are all appropriate for the smaller bronze denominations (the AE 3 [2-4 g] dichalkon and the AE 4 [1-2 g] chalkous) minted by Athens in the later 4th and early 3rd centuries, the time of the latest ceramic finds in the pit. Pits E, F, H, andJ date on the basis of ceramics to the 2nd century B.C., when the bronze coinage of the city was struck predominantly in three denominations: the newer and largerAE 2 hemiobol [5-7 g], the AE 4 chalkous, and its AE 3 double; all the blanks from these pits are of AE 2 and 3 weight. The one discrepancybetween the numismatic and the ceramic evidence occurs with pit B and its twenty-three AE 2 blanks. Since Athens did not strikeAE 2 hemiobols until after229 B.C.,29 the pit must have been open much later than is suggested by the latest sherds, which are of the earlier 3rd century. The chopping of blanks from rods and the wide weight tolerances of survivingbronze coins generallyattest that speed in productionwas a greater desideratum than exactitude in weights. But if we are correct in identifying as balance weights the seven small bronze rectangles found with the blanks, it follows that, as one might expect, the weights of the blanks were routinely checked on a sampling basis.We areunable to suggest what else the rectangularstrips could be, especially since five of them (34, 35, 81, 83, and 127) are of virtually the same weight, between 1.8 and 2.0 g, and the sixth (126) is a very close double at 4.1 g. With allowance made for minor weight loss from corrosion and from chipping at the edges, the double- and single-weight rectangleswould representthe mass of a drachm (4.3 g) and of a hemidrachm (2.15 g), respectively,in Athens' preciousmetal weight system, the system generally employed for weighing small units. At 2.28 g, however, the slightly incomplete seventh bronze rectangle (82), stands apart. Although several techniques were employed for the manufacture of bronze coin blanks in antiquity,30the proceduredocumented by the debris from the Athenian mint-chopping from a rod and then flattening with a hammer-is well attested at other Greek sites. Dozens of bronze rod segments, chopped blanks, and blanks that had been finished by hammering have been excavatedat Argos from a small pocket of earth beneath the floor of a temple;3' at Halieis in the Argolid from a mint;32at Pella, both from the overbuilt remains of a mint33and more recently from the Pella
29. Agora XXVI, pp. 38, 48-53. 30. Hill 1922, pp. 1-13; Hackens 1975, pp. 4-7. 31. Consolakiand Hackens 1980. Despite the title of their paper,the authorsdo not discussthe possibility that the temple might have once served as a mint. Rather,they supposethat the minting debrishad been dedicatedin the temple upon the hypothetical terminationof a coinage,similarlyto the coin dies that were dedicatedon the
Athenian Acropolis in 404 B.C. or to those dedicatedin a Delian temple in 166 B.C., when the dies were retiredand had to be removedfrom the secular world. But far from being analogousto dies that had been used for precious metal coinages,the blanks,rod ends, and other smallpieces of bronze scrap in the Argive deposit appearto comprisesweepingsfrom the floor of a mint. If the minting did not take place within the building itself, perhapsthe
debriswas broughtin with some earth filling that originatedin or neara mint. 32. Dengate 1975; Boyd and Rudolph 1978, p. 339. A full accountof the mint and blanksis scheduledto appearin the second volume of the final publicationsof the Halieis excavation. 33. Oikonomidou 1993; Oikonomidou,Touratsoglou,et al. 1996, p. 80, fig. 1.
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
BRONZE
COINAGE
I59
agora;and at Olynthos.34The brief publication of the mint at Chersonesos in the Crimea illustrates two of the forty-three blanks excavated in the building; both had been flattened, but the author had reason to believe that all of these blanks,too, had been cut from a rod.35Whether the twentythree flat bronze coin blanks found in excavations at Laos in South Italy had been cast, as was proposed in their publication,36or had been cut and hammered is unclear from the photographs. But the slightly split circumferences of some of the twenty-five finished blanks from a curious hoard, possibly that of a thief, at Pergamon37stronglyimplies that these Pergamene blanks had been hammered. A final group of chopped coin blanks, silver blanks from Euboia, provides information that the same technique was sometimes employed in the manufactureof coins in precious metal, if only for smaller denominations.38The earliest of the chopped and hammered bronze blanks date from the 4th century B.C. (Halieis, Olynthos); the lstcentury blanks from the Agora Mint are apparentlythe latest. The technique, however, was not practicable for larger bronze coins like those of Hellenistic Egypt and Syria, which were struck from cast blanks. Blanks that have been cast are usually identifiable from their beveled sides and from the presence of a small cavity in the center of one or, in some cases, both faces of the resulting coin.39 Cast blanks with central 34. OlynthusIII, p. 5 and p. 120, fig. 2; pl. XXVI, nos. 975-979. Sixteen rod ends and chopped blanks (D. M. Robinson's"cylindricalflans") were found in 1928 in a small dish in house B iii 2, together with fourteen flans that "arefairlyflat, but convexon one side"(e.g., OlynthusIII, nos. 968974). One assumesthat all of this materialmust derivefrom the same minting operation,in which case the wider,flat pieces, hammeredover a slightly concavedepressionto produce convexityon one side, would represent the finished, hammeredstage.A second group of bronze blanks,excavatedin 1938 from the floor of the nearbyhouse A iv 7, consistedof fourteensimilar "flansthat areflat on one side and convexon the other"(OlynthusXII, p. 73; OlynthusXIV, pp. 403-406, pl. 173:23-25). The slight convexity, and the slight outwardtaperingof the sides of these blanksfrom the convex (obverse)to the flat (reverse),led Robinson to suggest that the blanks were cast in individual,open molds. But the very slight tapering,like the convex surface,could also have resulted from hammering.None of these finished blanksis perfectlycircular;all have irregular,some nearlyovoid
circumferences,attestingthat they were either cast from irregularlyshaped molds or owe their irregularityto chopping and hammering,which, in light of the 1928 find, seems more likely.Since both houses are adjacentto the "openarea,"probablyan agora, house A iv 7 may have servedas the bronze mint. The contents of the dish in B iii 2 appearto be debrissavedfrom a mint. As one sees from the cast bronze blanksexcavatedat Ai Khanoum (Bernard1985, pp. 83-84, pl. 11, nos. 225-234), Nea Paphos (Nikolaou 1972a and b; Voegtli 1973; Nikolaou and M0rkholm 1976, pp. 9-10, figs. 10, 11; Oikonomidou,Touratsoglou,et al. 1996, p. 80, fig. 2), and from the Late Roman matricesfor castingblanksat Thessaloniki (Velenis 1996), blanks that were cast in series (en chapelet) have circumferencesthat are frequently as irregularas blanksthat were chopped and hammered. 35. Koscjusko-Valjuzinic 1915. 36. Cantilena 1989. 37. Voegtli 1990, pp. 48-51. 38. Four of the six Euboianblanks at the American Numismatic Society are illustratedin Consolakiand Hackens 1980, fig. 14; one of the two
at the BritishMuseum is in Hill 1922, pl. 1:6;and one at the formerSeltman collection is in Seltman 1933 [1955], pl. 1:4.All are essentiallyidenticalin size and weight, as well as in manufacture,havinglateralfacets from the forged rod and chisel-cut facets around the circumferenceof their circularfaces. The blanksarefrom a hoard (IGCH, no. 194; Chalkis environs,1913) that was said to contain 120 blanks.The ticket for the two British Museum pieces states that they are"fromEuboia, Eretria(?),from a hoard";whence presumablythe Eretrianattributionin Hill 1922, p. 11, and in Thompson 1954, p. 46. 39. Such cavitieswere clearlyin place before the blankswere struck, havingbeen formed either during casting,by a protuberancein the center of each mold, or after casting,by a punching tool. The purposeof the cavitiesis still under discussion.See now Bouyon, Depeyrot, and Desnier 2000, pp. 14-28, 77, 87-89, with summariesof the earlierliterature.For cast Greek blanksthat may have been put into productionwithout a central cavity,see the blanksfrom Ai Khanoum and Nea Paphos cited above, note 34.
i6o
JOHN
MCK.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
KROLL
cavities appearin Greece during the second half of the 1st century B.C., in bronze coinages of Lakedaimon,Corinth, Patras,and severalother mints.40 They were later adopted at Athens when the city revived the striking of a bronze coinage in the first half of the 2nd century A.C.41 It is unknown where in Athens this Hadrianic and Antonine coinage was manufactured. Although one cast and punched blank that can be associated with the coinage has turned up in the Agora excavations,42the old bronze mint in the southeast corner of the Agora square had by this time been demolished and was overlain by the Southeast Temple and the later Antonine nymphaion. A third method of blank preparation,that of sawing the blank disks from a rod, was employed for Athens' last bronze coinage, of the middle of the 3rd century A.C., and is very well documented by an Agora find of thirty-eight miscut or otherwise unusable sawn blanks and four misstruck or broken specimens of the coinage.43Since this material was found together in a pit in the floor of the RectangularPeribolos or "Heliaia"at the southwest corner of the Agora square, there can be no doubt that the structure,44which had been converted to industrial use during the Roman period, served as the mint for this brief but massive, final coinage of the Classical city.
REFERENCES Agora III = R. E. Wycherley,Literary andE.pigra.phicalTestimonia, 1957,
repr.Princeton 1973. Agora IV = R. H. Howland, Greek Lam.psand Their Survivals, 1958,
repr.Princeton 1966. Agora VII = J. Perlzweig,Lamps of the Roman Period: First to Seventh Century after Christ, 1961, repr.Prince-
ton 1971. Agora X = M. Lang and M. Crosby, Weights,Measures, and Tokens,
Princeton 1964. Agora XII = B. A. Sparkesand L. Talcott,Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B. C.,
2 vols., Princeton 1970. Agora XIV = H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley,TheAgora ofAthens: The History, Sha.pe,and Uses of an Ancient City Center, Princeton 1972. Agora XX = A. Frantz, The Churchof the HolyAypostles,Princeton 1971. Agora XXII = S. I. Rotroff,Hellenistic Pottery:Athenian and Im.ported Moldmade Bowls, Princeton 1982. Agora XXVI = J. H. Kroll,with contributions by A. S. Walker,The Greek Coins, Princeton 1993.
Bernard, P 1985. Fouillesd'AiKhanoum IV: Les monnaieshorsdestr6sors, Paris. Bouyon, B., G. Depeyrot, andJ.-L. Desnier.2000.Systemeset technologie desmonnaiesde bronze,4es. avantj; C.-3e S. apresj -C., Wetteren. Boyd,T. D., and W. W. Rudolph. 1978. "Excavationsat Porto Cheli and Vicinity,PreliminaryReportIV: The LowerTown of Halieis, 19701977,"Hes.peria47, pp. 333-355. Caley,E. R. 1939. The Com.position of AncientGreekBronzeCoins, Philadelphia. Caley,E. R., andW. H. Deebel. 1955. "ChemicalDating of Bronze Coin Blanksfrom the Athenian Agora," TheOhioJournalof Science55. 1, pp. 44-46. Camp,J. McK. 1978. "The Mint of Ancient Athens," TheAthenian (August),pp. 22-25. 1979. "Die Ausgrabungder antikenMuinzstatteAthens," SchwMbl(August),pp. 52-55. .1986. TheAthenianAgora: Excavationsin theHeart of Classical Athens,London.
40. Kroll 1996a, p. 51. 41. Agora XXVI, pp. 113-114. 42. Agora XXVI, pp. 294-295, pl. 33:a (B 1641). 43. Agora XXVI, p. 295, pl. 33:b (B 1254, with coins K-1641-1644). 44. Now recognizedas the Aiakeion (Stroud 1998, pp. 85-104).
THE
AGORA
MINT
AND
ATHENIAN
Camp,J. McK. 1990. TheAthenian Agora:A Guide to the Excavation and Museum, 4th ed., rev.,Athens.
Cantilena,R. 1989. "Rinvenimentodi un officina monetale a Laos,"in Laos I: Scavi a Marcellina 19731985, E. Greco, S. Liooino, and
A. Schnapp,eds., Taranto,pp. 2537, 87-88. Consolaki,H., andT. Hackens. 1980. "Un ateliermonetairedans un temple argien?"Etudes argiennes (BCH Supplement4), Paris, pp.279-284. Dengate,J. 1975. "The Mint of Ancient Halieis"(lecture,Washington,D.C. 1975), abstractin Summaries of the PapersPresentedat the 77th General Meeting of theArchaeologicalInstitute of-America,December28-30, 1975,
New York,p. 4. Dinsmoor,W. B. 1982. "Anchoring Two Floating Temples,"Hesperia 51, pp. 410-452. Figueira,T. 1998. The Power ofMoney. Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire, Philadelphia.
Fornara,C. W., and L. J. Samons. 1991. Athensfrom Cleisthenesto Pericles, Berkeley. Gardner,P. 1913. "Coinageof the Athenian Empire,"JHS 33,
pp. 147-188. Golenko, K. 1975. "Nordliches Chiron 5, Schwarzmeergebiet," pp. 497-633. Hackens,T. 1975. "Terminologieet techniquesde fabrication,"in Numismatique antique: Problemes et me'thodes,Etudes d'archeologie classiqueIV, Nancy-Louvain,
pp.3-21. Harris,D. 1995. The Treasuresof the Parthenon and Erechtheum, Oxford. Hill, G. F. 1922. "AncientMethods of Coining,"NC, ser.5, no. 2, pp. 1-42. Hughes, M. J., M. R. Cowell, and P T. Craddock.1976. "Atomic AbsorptionTechniquesin Archaeology,"Archaeometry 18, pp. 19-38. IGCH = An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, M. Thompson,
0. Morkholm, and C. M. Kraay, eds., New York1973. Johnston,J. 1932. "AnInternational Managed Currencyin the Fifth
BRONZE
COINAGE
i6i
Century,"Hermathena 47, pp. 132157. Kallet,L. 2001. Money and the Corrosionof Power in Thucydides:The Sicilian Expedition and ItsAftermath,
Berkeley. Kalligas,P. G. 1997. "ABronze Die from Sounion,"in Numismatic Archaeology,ArchaeologicalNumismatics: Proceedingsof an International ConferenceHeld to Honour Dr. Mando OeconomidesinAthens, 1995 (Oxbow Monograph75),
K. A. Sheedy and C. Papageorgiadou-Banis,eds., Oxford, pp. 141-147. Kleiner,F 1975. Greekand Roman Coins in theAthenianAgora (Excavationsof the AthenianAgora,PictureBook no. 15), Princeton. D. N. 1915. Koscjusko-Valjuzinic, "Observationson the Techniqueof Minting in ChersonesosTaurika:1. The Remains of a PresumedMint in Chersonesos"(in Russian), Numizmatichesky Svornik, Moskau 3, pp. 162-165; abstractin Golenko 1975, p. 575, no. 286. Kroll,J. H. 1972. Athenian Bronze Allotment Plates, Cambridge. . 1976. "Aristophanes'7cov1poc XaxoCa: A Reply," GRBS 17,
pp.329-341. . 1996a. "Hemiobolsto Assaria: The Bronze Coinage of Roman Aigion,"NC 156, pp. 49-78. . 1996b. "The PiraeusHoard of Plated Drachms andTetradrachms (IGCH46)," in Xapcxax-x'p me AyxCx)
MdcvTcto
Oexovop('6ov, Athens, pp. 139-146. Lang, M. 1960. TheAthenian Citizen
(Excavationsof the Athenian Agora, PictureBook no. 4), Princeton. Nikolaou, I., and 0. M0rkholm. 1976. Paphos I:A Ptolemaic Coin Hoard, Nicosia. Nikolaou, K. 1972a. "Discoveryof a PtolemaicMint at Nea Paphos,"in HpOCx-ctxa 101'81EOV5
Kvo7poAoytxo0 aVom3p6oo, Awxcdu('c4 14-19 Arp6A1Mov 1969 1: V. Karageorghis ApXct'ov I-'oc,
and A. Christodoulos,eds., Nicosia. . 1972b. "Decouvertd'un Hotel des Monnaies de 1'epoque
I62
JOHN
MCK.
ptolemaiquea Paphos (Chypre)," Bulletin de la SocietMfranfaisede numismatique 27, pp. 310-315.
Oikonomidou,M. 1993. "Evoc GV aPxcLO HEAXoc,ApXgal MaxE8ovca:
VOkLGa[tOXOTnSLO
Thessaloniki,pp. 1143-1154. Oikonomidou,M., I. T. Touratsoglou, et al. 1996. Coins and Numismatics, Athens. Olynthus III = D. M. Robinson, The Coins Found at Olynthus in 1928,
Baltimore1-931. Olynthus XII = D. M. Robinson, Domestic and PublicArchitecture,
Baltimore1946. Olynthus XIV = D. M. Robinson, Terracottas,Lamps, and Coins Found in 1934 and 1 938, Baltimore1952. Seltman C. 1933 [1955]. Greek Coins,
repr.London. Stroud,R. 1998. The Athenian GrainTax Law of 374/3
B.C.
(Hesperia
Supplement29), Princeton. Taylor,M. C. 1997. Salamis and the Salaminioi: The History of an UnofficialAthenian Demos,
Amsterdam. Thompson, H. A. 1953. "Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1952," Hesperia 22, pp. 25-56. . 1954. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:1953,"Hesperia 23, pp. 31-67.
CAMP
II AND
JOHN
H.
. 1960. "Activitiesin the Athenian Agora: 1959,"Hesperia 29, pp. 327-368. .1976. TheAthenianAgora:A Guide to the Excavation and Museum,
3rd ed., Athens. Thompson, M. 1941. "SomeAthenian 'Cleruchy'Money,"Hesperia 10, pp. 199-236. . 1961. The New Style Coinage of Athens, New York. Tod, M. N. 1945. "EpigraphicalNotes on Greek Coinage I: KOAATBOE," NC, ser.6, no. 5, pp. 108-116. Velenis, G. 1996. "No VLGuVOcTcxoneL'O a-r-v
apxacdC
ayop6
tS
(??SGocOVCLx-," in Xapaxxp.
w ui A9tp&V Otxovojilov,
Mdovr&
Athens, pp. 49-60. Vickers,M. 1996. "Fifth-Century Chronology and the Coinage Decree,"JHS 114, pp. 171-174.
Voegtli,H. 1973. "Eine Ptolemaische Schrotlingsgussformaus Nea Paphos auf Zypern,"SchwMbl23, no.89,pp. 9-10. . 1990. "ZweiMiinzfunde aus Pergamon,"SNR 69, pp. 41-51. Weil, R. 1906. "Das Miinzmonopol Athens im ersten attischen Seebund,"ZJN25, pp. 52-62. . 1910. Das Miunzrechtder IYMMAXOIim ersten attischen Seebund,"ZfN28, pp. 351-364.
John McK. Camp H AMERICAN
SCHOOL
54 SOUIDIAS
IO6-76
OF CLASSICAL
STREET
ATHENS
GREECE
agora@agathe .gr
John H. Kroll UNIVERSITY
OF TEXAS
DEPARTMENT AUSTIN,
TEXAS
AT AUSTIN
OF CLASSICS 787I2-II8I
jkroll@utxvms. cc.utexas. edu
KROLL
STUDIES
AT ATHENS
HESPERIA Pages
163-1r82
70
T
(2001)
tS
RESEARCH
ATTALOS,
FROM THE H TIN IN
THE
SUMMER
STOA
OF
1999
Reportsof the resultsof Americanexcavationsandsurveysin Greeceappearperiodicallyin the pagesof thisjournal,and studiesof majorclasses of artifactsfromtheseexcavationsarealsopublishedhere.Manydetailsof the archaeological record,however,lie hiddenwithin the sheervolumeof finds fromthe manydecadesof excavations.The notes in this collection areintendedto bringsome of these detailsto the foreground. The title "Notesfromthe Tins"pointsup the authors'primarysource of new data:the thousandsof formerolive-oil,motor-oil,andfeta cheese tins that storethe uninventoriedcontextpotteryfromthe Agoraexcavations.Althoughsome of the objectsdiscussedherewereuncoveredin locations other than these tins, the referenceto these containersis a reminderthat researchinto excavationslong pastinvolvesthe digging,and sometimesthe dirt,that is characteristic of excavations. The firstnoteisJohnPapadopoulos's commentaryon twophotographs of the first teams of scholarswho workedat the Americanexcavations. This note highlightsthe immenseachievementsof ourpredecessorsand reaffirmsourbeliefthattheywouldencourageandevendemandthe thorough and criticalreexaminationof theirresultsthat we engagein today. The remainingfivenotes,presentedin approximately chronologicalorder, reportnew discoveriesamongthe ceramicfindsfrompastexcavations.In some casesthese finds representtypeshithertounknown,or unknownat of the objector of the contextof Athens;in othercasesthe reconsideration discoveryprovidesinformationaboutthe use of ceramictypesin ancient dailylife.The artifactspresentedhereconstitutenew evidencefor ancient activitiesaroundthe Agoraandfor Classicaland medievalsocialhistory. The authorswouldlike to thankJohnMcK. CampII, Directorof the Agora Excavations,for his interestin this projectand for permissionto studythe materialpresented.Line drawingsarethe work of the authors exceptwherenoted.With the exceptionof Figures1 and2, photographs areby CraigMauzyandarereproduced herewithpermissionof the American Schoolof ClassicalStudies,AgoraExcavations.
M.L.L.
I64
MARK
L. LAWALL
ET AL.
FACELESS ARCHAEOLOGY: TWO EARLY PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STAFF OF THE ATHENIAN AGORA IN THE 1930S JOHN K. PAPADOPOULOS
In his forewordtoJohnCamp'sTheAthenianAgora, Colin Renfrewstated: "Theexcavationsof the Agoraof Athens havebeen one of the greattriumphsof urbanarchaeologyof recentyears,bringingto life in a remarkableway manyaspectsof the worldof ClassicalAthens,which had hitherto been glimpsedonly in the often slight and scantypassingreferences preservedin the writingsof the Classicalauthors."'As Renfrewwent on to note, this achievementwas all the greatersince,unlikethe locationof monumentsthathad neverbeenlost to humanview,that of the Athenian Agorawasuncertain.Not onlydid the excavationsbringto lightthe heart of the Classicalcity,they alsorepresenteda remarkable feat of diplomacy, at the requestof the GreekGovinvolvingthe successfulexpropriation, ernment,of over360 individualproperties.2 Initiatedin 1931,'the excavations continuedat a staggeringpace until they were suspendedon April 22, 1940, in the courseof the tenth season,"becauseof the uncertaintyof politicalconditions"and"inorderto facilitatethe departurefromAthens of the membersof the staff,who desiredto leavebeforeMediterranean The pace and extent of the waterswere closed to Americanshipping."4 excavationscan be gleanedfromthe fact that in the first nine seasonsof excavation(1931-1939), some 246,000 tons of earthhad been removed fromwithinthe zone of the Americanexcavations.5 In this seriesof noteson materialfromthe tins of the Agora,it seemed to return,albeitbriefly,to the 1930s andto the teamthatwas appropriate assembledto embarkon the projectof unearthingthe marketplaceand civiccenterof ClassicalAthens (Figs.1-2). To be sure,this choiceof topic was determinedin partby a senseof nostalgiaanda desireto look backas the new millenniumwas entered-and, with it, the eighth decadeof the Agoraexcavations.But my intentionwas notjust to worshiparchaeological ancestors;6 I had a curiosityto gaze on the facesof thosewho contributed to this fadingeraof Hellenistarchaeology:to seethe youngscholars whose careersestablishedthe Agora'sfame. Apartfromthe numeroustins of contextmaterialin the basementof the Stoa of Attalos,the filingcabinetsof the Archivesof the AgoraExcavationscontaindocumentationimportantfor the historyof archaeology. Within this wealth of historicalmaterialare photographsof the Agora 1. In Camp 1986, p. 7. I am grateful to JanJordanand Sylvie Dumont for archivalassistancein the Agora, to Craig Mauzy for his photographic skills, and to Mark Lawallfor initiating this series of notes. The drawings identifyingthe individualsin Figs. 1 and 2 arethe work of Anne Hooton, to whom I am, once more, most grateful.Specialthanks are due to Dia
Philippidesand her mother,Mary Zelia Pease Philippides,for clarifyinga number of details, and to Judith Binder for a delightfulafternoonof Athenian reminiscences. 2. See Shear 1939, p. 201; for the land prices,see Shear 1933a, p. 96; for the negotiations,see Capps 1933, p. 90; cf. Morris 1994, pp. 34-35; for further informationon the plans and funding
for the excavations,see Shoe Meritt 1984, p. 175. 3. Capps 1933; Shear 1933a. For furtherbackground,see Lord 1947, pp. 231-244; Shoe Meritt 1984, pp. 175-202. 4. Shear 1941, p. 1; Shoe Meritt 1984, p. 175. 5. Shear 1940, p. 262. 6. Cf. Dyson 1989, p. 215.
NOTES
FROM
THE
I65
TINS
Figure 1. The staff of the Agora Excavations in 1933: (1) Charles Spector; (2) Piet deJong; (3) Joan Bush [Vanderpool]; (4) Arthur Parsons; (5) Elizabeth Dow; (6) Eugene Vanderpool; (7) Mary Zelia Pease [Philippides]; (8) Virginia Grace; (9) Gladys Baker; (10) James Oliver; (11) Homer Thompson; (12) LucyTalcott; (13) Benjamin Meritt; (14) Josephine Shear; (15) T. Leslie Shear; (16) Dorothy Burr [Thompson]
CA/"''\t
7. AgoraXIV, pl. 112:a.
A-
\
team in the course of different years. Few of these have been published; an exception is a splendid photograph of the excavation staff and workforce in 1933 that appeared in Agora XIV.7 Of the early group-photographs, two stand out (Figs. 1-2). Both of these mounted photographs document
I66
MARK
9 7
~~~~~~~ 1
8
L. LAWALL
ET
AL.
Figure 2. The staff of the Agora Excavations in 1934: (1) Gladys (2) Joan Vanderpool; (3) Lucy Talcott; (4) T. Leslie Shear;
16 ~~~~~~~Baker; 13 14
10
1~~~~5
17(5) 18
/
JosephineShear;(6) Dorothy [Thompson]; (7) Sophokies ~~~~Burr (8) Piet de Jong; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Lekkas;
2
6
Catharine Bunnell; (10) Alison ~~~~(9) Frantz; (11) DorothyTraquair; (12) Rodney Young; (13) Eugene Vanderpool; (14) James Oliver; (15) Arthur Parsons; (16) Sterling Dow; (17) Charles Spector; (18) Homer Thompson
members of the staff of the early Agora excavations as weli as scholars working on Agora material.Annotations on the photographs do not indicate their dates, but it is clear on the evidence of Shear's preliminary reports that Figure 1 was taken in 1933 and Figure 2 in 1934.8 8. See especiallyShear 1933b; 1935a, p. 311; 1935b, pp. 340-341; 1936, pp. 1-2. A numberof internal detailsverify the dates suggested for these photographs.For instance, Waage,who does not appearin Figs. 1 and 2, had alreadyleft the staff by 1932 and Simpkin died in 1933. Alison
Frantz,seen in Fig. 2, worked for a time as an assistantto Lucy Talcott in 1934, and then as photographerfrom 1935 on. Before the 1935 campaign had begun, Charles Spector,shown in both photographs,was called home by illness in his family and was replaced by a young Greek architect,John Trav-
los, not pictured,"who did such satisfactorywork that his services [were] engaged for anotherseason"(Shear 1936, p. 1). Each of the photographs illustratedhere was accompaniedby a sheet of tracingpaperlisting the names of those appearingin them. In the photographs,the name of Charles
NOTES
FROM
THE
I67
TINS
Edward Capps, in his foreword to the first excavation report, listed the fellows and staff of the excavations up to the third campaign, which was to begin in January 1933. Seven appointments had been made, as follows:9 1929-1932: Homer A. Thompson, Frederick 0. Waage III, Mary Wyckoff [Simpkin] 1931-1934: Dorothy Burr [Thompson], Eugene Vanderpool 1932-1935: James H. Oliver, Arthur W. Parsons The staff for the third campaign was as follows: T. Leslie Shear,Directorof Excavations Richard Stillwell, Director of the School; SupervisingArchitect A. D. Keramopoullos, University of Athens; representingthe ArchaeologicalSocietyof thens Benjamin Dean Meritt, Epigraphy Hetty Goldman, Pottery Josephine (Mrs. T. Leslie) Shear, Coins Homer A. Thompson, SpecialFellow Dorothy Burr [Thompson], AgoraFellow Eugene Vanderpool,AgoraFellow James H. Oliver,AgoraFellow Arthur W. Parsons,AgoraFellow Lucy Talcott, Records Mary Zelia Pease, Fellow, Coins Charles Spector, Fellow in Architecture Virginia Grace, Records Elizabeth F. Dow, Records Gladys Baker, Coins Piet de Jong, Artist andArcbhitect Joan Bush [Vanderpool], Photography H. Wagner, German Archaeological Institute, Athens; Photography All of the 1933 staff listed above, except for Stillwell, Keramopoullos, Goldman, and Wagner, appear in Figure 1, and many, but not all, also appear in Figure 2. Those that appear in Figure 2 but not in Figure 1 are Catharine Bunnell, Alison Frantz,DorothyTraquair,RodneyYoung, Ster-
Spectorwas addednext to that of 'Mike'Levenson(Fig. 1) and M Levinson(Fig. 2) by a hand other than that which wrote the remainderof the names."Levenson/Levinson"should referto Mitchell Levensohn,who later published,togetherwith Ethel Levensohn,some inscriptionsfrom the South Slope of the Acropolis;see Levensohn and Levensohn 1947. Although the Levensohnswere in
Athens in 1932, Mitchell Levensohn is not listed as a memberof the'Agora team in either 1933 or 1934, and there is no apparentreasonwhy he should be picturedin these photographs.On the sheet of paperaccompanyingFig. 2, the tall woman illustratedin the back row, third from the left, is identified as "K.Bonnell Detweiler."It appearsthat this name was addedlater and, again, by a hand other than that which listed
the rest of the names.This should refer to CatharineBunnell,who was a memberof the team in 1934, and thus to the person illustratedin Fig. 2. Despite having a certainsuperficial resemblanceto Mary Zelia Pease [Philippides],this is not she; I am gratefulto Dia Philippidesfor confirming that her mother does not appearin Fig. 2. 9. Capps 1933, pp. 94-95.
i68
MARK
L. LAWALL
ET
AL.
ling Dow,'0 and Sophokles Lekkas. Lekkas, who had acquiredhis skill and experience in the service of many campaigns at Corinth, served as the head foreman of the Agora, in charge of all labor operations." The composition of the staff not only reflected the academic priorities of the period, but in many ways helped to define the trajectoryof the project as a whole. It is well beyond the scope of this note to provide even cursorybiographical sketches of the members of the team, or to appraise criticallythe contributions of the early excavations. Severalpatterns, however, had clearly emerged in the early 1930s. One of the most blatant was the division of labor along gender lines. Women were largely responsible for the administration of the records and the study of small finds-what may be termed "indoor"work.'2 Men, on the other hand, devoted themselves to more "outdoor"activities, including the study of architecture,and assumed the primaryresponsibilityfor the excavations.The heavy reliance on epigraphers, a field dominated by men, was apparent from the start, and this was to have, for better or worse, an enduring legacy.'3The Agora excavationswere, from the very beginning, an exercise in historical archaeology. A good deal can be said about the nature, make-up, strengths, and shortcomings of the Agora staff and excavations, and indeed recent years have seen no shortage of criticaloverviews.'4Virtually all of the staff members who appear in Figures 1 and 2 went on to distinguished careers in Classics or classical archaeology and, as such, they helped mold later generations of American scholars in these fields. Most will remain faceless names behind scholarly monographs and studies. Collectively and individually, they contributed to shaping the course that Greek archaeology was to take, not only in North America. The story, however, is much more than an American story, and it is important to consider the contributions of these young scholars in the context in which they worked. By the 1930s, Greece, and especially Athens, was inundated by the refugees of the Asia Minor Crisis.'5The countrywas in a cripplingfinancialstate,16and the governmentlacked the means to undertake a project as costly as that of excavating the ancient Agora. In letters, George Seferis and George Katsimbalis were laying the foundations for the "fabledGeneration"of Greek poets and writers, who, when joined by Lawrence Durrell and Arthur Miller, invented a paradise that influenced later generations of Greek and Anglo-American writers.'7 In popular culture the songs of Sophia Vembo were at the top of the charts, heard everywhere, and Rembetika had become established, with names like Markos Vamivakarisbeginning to rise.'8At a time when Europe was about to explode, T. Leslie Shear had assembled a young and talented team. They were part of the "practicalmeasures"that had been taken to "enablethe American School of Classical Studies at Athens to discharge creditablythe heavy responsibilities"which it had assumed for the excavations of the Agora.19 As Edward Capps concluded in his foreword to the first excavation campaign: "What the outcome may be, as measured in terms of scientific gain, txbactx 0szv sv yoovccatxstcxt."20
10. These five appearon the roster of the staff of the Agora Excavations for the first time in Shear 1935b, p. 341 (i.e., for the campaignof 1934). 11. See Shear 1933a, p. 101; Shear 1933b, p. 451. 12. Cf. Dyson 1998, p. 184. 13. See, for example,Shear 1935b, p.341. 14. Morris 1994; Dyson 1998, pp. 179-184. 15. Hirschon 1989; for historical background,see Llewellyn Smith 1973. 16. See especiallyMazower 1991; cf; Clogg 1986, esp. pp. 116-125. 17. Keeley 1999. 18. See especiallyHolst 1975 (with bibliography). 19. Capps 1933, p. 95. 20. Capps 1933, p. 95.
NOTES
FROM
THE
I69
TINS
A LATE ARCHAIC
PUNIC AMPHORA
MARK L. LAWALL
The studyof Punic importsto Greecetends to be associatedmorewith Corinthand sites fartherwest than with Athens. Corinth's"PunicAmphoraBuilding,"in use betweenca. 450 and430 B.C., preservedstratified layersof brokenPunic amphoras.2' Similarjarsappearat Olympia.22 The publishedAthenianexamplesareeitherextremelyfragmentary(e.g., one mid-5th-centuryhandlepublishedby VirginiaGraceand anotherpublishedby SusanRotroffandJohn Oakley),or aredatableto ca.200 B.C. or later.23 Studyof the uninventoriedcontextpotteryfoundin excavationsof the AthenianAgorasupportsthe conclusionthatPunicimportswererare in mid-5th-centuryAthens andweremoreintensivelyimportedonlymuch later.24
The fragmentpresentedhere-the earliestPunic amphorafragment from a well-datedcontextin mainlandGreece-attests to Late Archaic Athenian-Punictrade. Deposit G 6:3 Punic amphorarim
K
5 cm Figure 3. Punic amphora rim, Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft, upper fill, ca. 500-480 B.C.
Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft, upper fill Tin A42025 P.H. 12.9; est. Diam. (rim) 12.0 cm. Preserves ca. 1/8 of the circumference of the rim in complete profile, ca. 1/6 of the circumference in the lower part of the rim. Below the rim, the profile of the neck is complete down to a carinatedjoin with the body of the jar. A small fragment of wall (H. ca. 4.5 cm) extends below the carination. Of the handles, only the upper attachment
Fig. 3 point of one of the originaltwo is preserved. Out-thickened,folded-down rim,offset and anglingup fromthe neck.Uneven,scraped,horizontal ridgingaroundthe neck.Upper handleattachmentoverlaps junctureof neckandbody. Clay:Darkred,micaceous, fairlyhardandfine-grained;sparse to moderatescatterof largeblack bits, some grayish;densepackingof verysmall,yellowishlime infills. 5YR 6/6.
The RectangularRock-Cut Shaft has been the subject of chronological debate concerning the deposits associated with the Persian Sack of Athens in 480/479 B.c. The association is supported for the upper fill of the shaft by the presence of ostrakalikely to have been used between 487 and 482 B.C.26 Similarities noted by T. Leslie Shear between the shaft's 21. Williams 1978, pp. 15-20; Williams 1979, pp. 107-124; Munn 1983, pp. 260-279, 379-386, pls. 2442; and Williams 1995, pp. 41-42. Williams and Fisher (1976, p. 107, nos. 29-30, pl. 20) illustratetwo further examplesfrom the associated"amphora pit." 22. OlForsch V, p. 236, pl. 78; OlForschVIII, pp. 131-132, pl. 22:3.
23. Grace,in Boulter 1953, pp. 109-110, no. 107, pl. 40; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 125, no. 355, pl. 60; for the laterPunic jars, see Grace 1956, pp. 94-97. 24. This statementis based on my study of the context tins from more than 150 Late Archaic through Hellenistic deposits.The fragment discussedin this note has not, to my
knowledge,been mentioned in publication or previouslyrecognizedas Punic. 25. No Agora inventorynumber has been assignedto this piece.Those amphorafragmentsfrom the context tins that I am preparingfor publication arebagged separatelywithin the tins. 26. Vanderpool1946, p. 266.
I70
MARK
L. LAWALL
ET
AL.
Figure 4 (left). Punic amphora. Ramon Torres Type T-10.2.2.1, second half 6th century to ca. 510 B.C., from La Cueva deljarro. Adapted from RamonTorres1995, pp. 77,232, and 561, no. 419, fig. 198; not to scale
Figure 5 (right). Punic amphora. Ramon Torres Type T-11.2.1.3, ca. 510-400 B.C., from Villaricos. AdaptedfromRamonTorres1995,pp.74, 235,and562,no.425,fig. 199;not to scale
upper fill and many other fills of proposed "PersianSack"date in the Agora support the likelihood that all were deposited around the same time, and the Persian Sack was a likely occasion for such a large-scale cleanup.27The shaft provides an important dated context for the Punic fragment. All of the amphora forms that are stored among the inventoried and context pottery from the RectangularRock-Cut Shaft are dated to before ca. 480 or before ca. 500 B.C. If we can accept the date "beforeca. 480 B.C." for the upper fill of the shaft, the Punic amphora fragment, found in that fill, is most likely to date before ca. 480 B.C. The fragment may, in fact, be classified with a group of Punic amphoraswhose dates of production begin in the late 6th century B.C. The triangularcross-section of the rim, the simple interior profile of the mouth rounding up to the top edge of the rim, and the clear offset ridge at the transition from the rim to the neck distinguish this fragment as one of two types proposed byJ. Ramon Torres: type T-10.2.2.1 (Fig. 4) and type T-11.2.1.3 (Fig. 5). The estimated rim diameter of the Agora fragment fits either type; the position of the handle also allows the two possibilities. The slope of the Agora fragment, however, from carination to rim, falls somewhere between the wide, gradually rising curve of T-10.2.2.1 and the steeper slope ofT-11.2.1.3.28 The fragment might represent an early form of T-11.2.1.3. RamonTorres suggests dates between ca. 510 and 400 B.C. for typeT11.2.1.3.29Theclosest parallelfor the Agora fragmentis ajar from Villaricos that lacks a specific provenience (Fig. 5).3? Other published T-11.2.1.3 pieces are from poorly dated contexts: two jars from the Tagomago shipwreck, which was not studied archaeologically and whose "cargo"spans the 5th century,3'and amphoras found in late-6th- and early-5th-century contexts at Ampurias and Cadiz, for which neither the pieces in question nor the evidence for their dates is published.32The example from Athens, therefore, apart from representing one of the earliest Punic amphoras so far attested in Greece, is also the earliest example for which the chronological evidence is well documented. The profiles of the example from the Agora and of those from the much later5th-century Punic Amphora Building at Corinth illustrate a slow rate of change in the general form of this type.33
27. See Shear 1993 for bibliography on the debate and for Shear'sresponse. 28. This intermediateposition of the fragmentfrom the Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft is furtherdemonstratedby comparisonof the ratio between the rim diameterand the height from carinationto the top of the jar.This ratio is ca. 8:5 in T-10.2.2.1 (RamonTorres1995, no. 419), ca. 6:5 in T-11.2.1.3 (RamonTorres1995, no. 425), and ca. 7:5 in the Agora fragment. 29. RamonTorres1995, p. 235. 30. RamonTorres1995, p. 74. 31. RamonTorres1995, p. 72; cf. Parker1992, pp. 417-418. 32. RamonTorres1995, p. 38 (Ampurias);p. 85 (Cadiz). 33. See note 21 abovefor supportof a date between ca. 450 and 430 B.C. for the stratifiedfills in the Punic Amphora Building that include the Punic amphoras.
NOTES
FROM
THE
TINS
I7I
Beyond providing points of chronology, this fragment and other Punic amphoras "from the tins" provide evidence for the study of trade between the eastern and western Mediterranean and for the topic of GreekPunic interaction.Investigations into the lattertopic have focused on Punic interaction with nearby Greek colonies.34Increasingly,however, archaeologists have highlighted the Phoenicians as central players in trade between East and West, especially in the Early Iron Age.35The presence of Late Archaic through Hellenistic Punic amphoras in mainland Greece encourages further attention to Phoenician roles in Classical and Hellenistic trade across the Mediterranean.36
PELIKAI WELLS KATHLEEN
IN USE DEPOSITS
M.
OF ATHENIAN
LYNCH
During the study of a recently excavatedwell deposit, J 2:4 (ca. 480 B.C.), I was surprised to find a number of pelikai in the period of use deposit, that is, in the material at the bottom of the well which was thrown in or fell in while the well was in use.37Although vase painting suggests that pelikai could be used as water jars, this note is the first to present archaeological evidence from wells of the Athenian Agora to support this use. The pelike is a pear-shaped amphora that first appears around 520 B.C., at which time it could be completely black-glazed or decorated with either black-figured or red-figured scenes.38The pelike's primaryfunction is traditionally described as a container for oil, and figured pelikai often feature images relating to the use or sale of oil.39 Brian Sparkes and Lucy Talcott extrapolatefrom the oil-themed images the same function for blackglazed versions of the shape.40The likelihood that the shape was multifunctional, however, has not been overlooked. Dietrich von Bothmer, in his study of Archaic red-figured pelikai, noted that the shape may have also been used for holding wine,41and one pelike features a black-figured scene in which a pelike is being used for fetching water.42
34. E.g., Krings1998. 35. E.g., Morris and Papadopoulos 1998. 36. Archaeologicalevidenceidentifying an active role for Phoenicians shipping Greek objectshas focused on finds from or near Spain (e.g., De Hoz 1987). Lack of other evidenceis lamented (Habermann1986). 37. For well J 2:4, see Lynch 1999 and Camp 1996, pp. 242-252. For pelikaiin wellJ 2:4, see Lynch 1999, pp.91,283-284. 38. "Pelike"is the conventionalname appliedto this specific shape,although in antiquityit describeda varietyof
forms;see Richterand Milne 1935, pp. 4-5; Kanowski1983, pp. 113-114. 39. Shapiro1997. 40. AgoraXII, p. 49. The authors do not comment on the preservation or frequencyof the vessels in the Agora use deposits. 41. Bothmer 1951, p. 44. 42. Berlin, StaatlicheMuseen, Antikensammlung3228. CVA,Berlin 7 [Germany61], pls. 28:1 and 29:1. Illustratedin Shapiro1997, fig. 1; Shapiro notes the importanceof this image for documentingthe use of pelikai for fetching water (p. 64). A fragmentary kraterattributedto Lydos (New York,
Met. Mus. of Art 1997.388a-eee; 1997.493; 1996.56ab) may preservea second exampleof the pelike depicted in use as a waterjar.At the far left of the fragment,under the handle, satyrspreparea kraterof wine. One satyrpours liquid from an amphora;anothersatyr, now missing,pouredliquid from a second vessel.The depiction of this second vessel is also fragmentary:only the rim, the top of one handle, and the representationof liquid flowing from it arepreserved; however,in comparisonwith the profile of the amphoraheld by the other satyr, the roundedrim and long handle form suggest the profile of a pelike.
I72
MARK
L. LAWALL
P 12571
P 32405
P 32467
P 32754
ET
AL.
Figure6. Examplesof pelikaifrom In their presentation of black-glazed pelikai, Sparkes and Talcott list seven from the use deposits of Archaic Agora wells and one from the use deposit of a well of the late 5th century B.C.43 There are, in addition, two black-figured pelikai which have been found in use deposits.44Of these ten pelikai, four are intact (for one example, Agora XII, no. 16, P 12571, see Fig. 6). The more recently excavated well J 2:4 adds three blackglazed pelikai found in use-deposit context (Fig. 6): one intact (P 32405);46 one broken but nearly complete (P 32467);47 and a third missing its rim, neck, and upper handles (P 32754).48 A fourth pelike from well J 2:4, a red-figured version, was not found in the use deposit.49 The states of preservationof the pelikai from Agora use deposits provide clues to their function. In the Archaic and Classical periods the ves43. AgoraXII, nos. 14-16, 19-21, 24 (from Archaicwells) and no. 25 (from a late-5th-century B.C. well). The American School of ClassicalStudies'excavationsof wells on the North Slope of the Acropolis also found two pelikai in period of use deposits,AP 2213 (Well A) and AP 2244 (Well B); Roebuck 1940, pp. 249-250, no. 309. The lattermay not be Attic; see Agora XII, p. 50, note 5. 44. Agora XXIII, no. 391; P 12562.
45. Agora XII, nos. 16, 19, and 21; P 12562. 46. P 32405, Camp 1996, pl. 71:a, bottom row,second from left. 47. P 32467, H. 0.24, Diam. 0.177 m; mended from many pieces, severalbody fragmentsmissing. 48. P 32754, preservedH. 0.254, Diam. 0.216 m. 49. P 32418, Camp 1996, no. 27, pl. 73.
use deposits. Scaleca. 1:5
NOTES
FROM
THE
TINS
I73
sels of choice for fetching water from Athenian wells were the "cooking" ware household shapes, the kados and hydria.50In excavations of wells in the Athenian Agora we find in use deposits a large number of water vessel bases and a fair number of intact vessels. This is because these thin-walled vessels often broke in the course of everydayuse. A vessel would be tied to a rope and lowered down below the water level.5"Occasionally the clay vessel would hit the side of the well shaft and break. Since the rope was tied around the neck or handles, or both, the rim of the broken vessel could be hoisted back out and disposed of elsewhere, while fragments of the bottom and body of the-vessel would sink to the bottom of the well. Sometimes, instead, the rope would break or the knots would give way, and the whole vessel would slip into the water and gently sink to the bottom, remaining intact. Since the black-glazed pelikai from the use deposit of wellJ 2:4 and their companions published inAgora XII are preservedin the same states as the "cooking"ware water vessels, we can conclude that these pelikai were also used to fetch water and were not thrown into the well as refuse. This brief note is meant to remind us that archaeologicalevidence can contribute valuable information about the use of pottery even when, as in the case of pelikai, iconographic evidence for a different function abounds. The functions and roles of ancient pottery, including figured wares, were flexible, and any storage or pouring shape that could hold water was a candidate for well-duty.
A CHIMNEY POT FROM THE NORTH THE ACROPOLIS
SLOPE OF
BARBARA TSAKIRGIS
In 1938, a unique terracottaobject (Agora inv. A 958) was recoveredfrom a well on the north slope of the Acropolis (Agora deposit T 24:3).52 Identified as a chimney pot, this piece has appearedin the pages of the Agora guide but nowhere else.53This note reintroducesthe chimney pot and compares it to more recent finds from the Agora. 50. These vessels are made of a gritty fabricsimilarto that used for cooking shapes.See AgoraXII, pp. 3436, 200-203. The kados has a wide mouth and is particularlysuited to fetching water from a well, as opposed to the hydria,which has a narrow neck and handlesbetter suited to bringingwaterfrom a nearbyfountain. Fragmentsof hydriaiof cooking-ware fabricarevery common in use deposits, an indication that these vesselswere also used for fetching water from wells. 51. For example,see a red-figured
cup tondo with a woman standing beside a wellhead,holding a rope tied to a kados equippedwith a bail handle,Milan, Civico Museo Archeologico 266, ARV2 379, 145, ARVAdd2 226. Illustratedin Sparkes1996, fig. 111.12. 52. Deposit T 24:3, a well on the northwestslope, was filled by the late 6th or early5th centuryB.C. In addition to pottery,the well containedmuch building debris,including roof tiles and water pipes. 53. Camp 1990, p. 281.
I74
MARK
AL.
ET
L. LAWALL
._
;..
XX
;_ i|I _
X
*Ca _
_
.
ik
IE
,
IL
@
Ii l E. s
i fi . | tS |
,t X ... 9,
SgE
I
g
g
I
W
vii
|
.igatg,tiB
t
gX
L
!,a S;
.:!:FF p
. .,.
(A2S
.
k
a
I
;:;
I ii
gga
,i |
WS. .F
tS
L
|- r lL I
s l ls -
.'
|
,
|
|
W
L .
. i
.,A
g_
_
Agorainv.A 958 ChimneyPot Deposit T 24:3 P.H. 0.48; Diam. (bottom of stand) 0.53; Diam. (top of stand) 0.35; Diam. (cover) 0.495 m. A roughly conical stand with an attached overhanging cover. Much of the bottom edge and most of the stand are restored in plaster.The top of the stand is pierced with eight triangularholes (H. ca. 0.06 m), alternately upright and pendant, located high on the stand at the
potA 958.Scale Figure7.Chimney 15 Fig.7 juncture of the stand and the cover. The cover,which is slightly peaked at its center, has an edge fashioned as a drip, nearly equal in height to that of the holes. The cover was attached to the stand with four struts; only their points of attachment on the edge of the cover are preserved. Soft, pinkish-buff clay. A streakybrownish slip is well preserved on the top and rim of the cover and on the interior of the stand.
At the time of the excavation of the chimney pot, the excavatornoted that the clay presented no soot or discoloration produced by smoke, and brought into question the identification. The objection is weakened by the evidence of a pair of opaion tiles (A 428, A 429), probablyfrom the kitchen of the Tholos, which also bear no traces of soot or smoke.54The chimney pot may have evacuated smoke from an unknown public building or house, but since built-in hearths are rare in public buildings and probably also in Athenian houses, in only one of which a hearth has been found,55it may instead have served another function of ventilation.
54. Thompson 1940, p. 79, fig. 61. Note that these opaion tiles have a thin, brownishslip, as does the pot A 958. 55. Shear 1973, p. 147.
NOTES
56. Discussion and a drawingof the Pompeianpot arein Wikander 1983, p. 89; Durm 1905, fig. 363. 57. Shear 1969, p. 408. 58. There areopaion tiles from Olynthos, but no chimneypots; the kitchens there often had a flue large enough to have servedto evacuate smoke from a brazier(Cahill 1991, pp. 322-334). Hoepfner and Schwandner (1994, p. 328) speakof openings but no chimneypots in the roofs of "hearthrooms." 59. Svoronos-Hadjimichalis1956, p. 504. Hoepfner (1999) reconstructs similarvessels as chimneypots in his drawingsof the hearthsand their surroundingsin the houses at Emporio (p. 161) and Zagora(p. 166). 60. E.g., the Baths of Maxentius, Herrmann1976, p. 412; the largebaths in Hadrian'sVilla, Mirich 1933; the Hunting Baths at Lepcis Magna, Ward-PerkinsandToynbee 1949, pl. 37:d.
FROM
THE
TINS
I75
Since the bottom edge is not fully preserved, we cannot determine precisely how the pot was positioned on the building's roof If its base was notched, the pot could have rested on a ridge pole. A somewhat similar pot, attached to a pan tile, was recoveredfrom Pompeii, and the Athenian example could have been similarly attached, albeit to a pan tile of considerablesize and thickness.56Both the Athenian and the Pompeian examples have the disadvantagethat, if they were placed on a slope, rainwatercould have entered through the pierced holes. Excavations in the Agora subsequent to the discovery of this pot have recoveredtwo objects similar enough in form to A 958 to suggest that the three served a similar function. The first (A 2715), a fragmentary piece, is a short, conical stand of heavy terracotta,oval in section and flaring at the bottom. The stand is pierced with three large holes, and a fourth is probably to be restored.The stand has a fixed, domed cover with an upturned edge, and a peaked ridge runs acrossthe diameter of the dome. The better-preserved second example (A 3671) is of equally heavy material, has a fixed cover,and has four holes aroundthe circumferenceof the stand. On one side is preserveda section of a ridge, running down from the crown and between two of the holes, and which is intentionally notched just before the now broken flaring edge. The arrangementmimics the features of a helmeted face. Neither object is glazed or slipped, nor bears any traces of soot. The findspots of pots A 958 and A 2715 are not helpful in providing clues to their identification: pot A 958 was discovered in a well which appearsto have been closed about 500 B.C., and A 2715 was found in the Herulian destruction debris overlying the block of Classical houses on the north slope of the Areopagus. The dispersal of the destruction debris was great enough that the terracotta object could have come originally from this spot or from anywhere along the north slope. Pot A 3671, on the other hand, also found in Herulian destruction debris, seems to have been found in context, over the firing chamber of a Roman bath southwest of the Agora. In the preliminarypublication of the bath, the excavator,T. L. Shear Jr., proposed that A 3671 was a ventilator,57hesitating to call it a chimney pot due to the absence of soot on the interior and around the holes. To my knowledge, chimney pots or their remains have not been recognized in Archaic or Classical houses or public buildings.58It is possible that damaged pithoi or other large vessels could have served this purpose, as they still do today on some Aegean islands.59 Roman baths in the West had vent holes to evacuate smoke,60but the builder of the Southwest Baths near the Agora may have taken inspiration for such ventilators from objects closer to home. Having seen earlierGreek ventilators such as these pots from the Agora, the builder improved on them by fashioning the lid in the form of a helmeted head, perhaps in an attempt to scare away any small birds looking for a protected roost. The metal, birdlike tops of many modern Greek chimneys are striking parallels for this apotropaic
function.
I76
MARK
L. LAWALL
ET
AL.
A NEW TYPE OF BEEHIVE SUSAN I. ROTROFF
The ancient Greek ceramic beehive was first recognized in 1959, and its identification was confirmed, in 1973, by study and publication of a large collection of hives from the Vari House and other sites in Attica.61It consists of a deep, narrow,and slightly tapering vessel, usually between ca. 0.25 and 0.40 m in diameter and between 0.36 and 0.60 m in height, with a flat or rounded base and a profiled lip. It can easily be identified, even in small fragments, from the combing that covers half the circumference of the interior surface.According to the usual reconstruction, the hives were positioned horizontally, the combed side up; the combing was probably thought to aid the bees in the attachment of their combs to the ceramic wall. The hives were closed with flat covers, each pierced with small holes for tying it to the hive; a small crescent-shaped cut-out at the edge of the cover served as a flight hole. The hives could be enlarged by the addition of extension rings, which also have combing on the inner surface. Recently, Gundula Luidorf,using hives, extension rings, and covers from both excavation and survey in Attica, has published a detailed typology of this common artifact, tracing its history from the Classical to the Late Roman period.62Although there are small differences in proportions, shape of rim and floor, and details of combing, all of the hives she publishes conform to the model described above.63 Bees apparently were kept in the city as well as in the country, for hives are remarkably common in Hellenistic contexts at the Athenian Agora. During the summer of 1999, in the course of routine examination of pottery from Hellenistic deposits from past excavations,fragments of a new type of hive, unlike any in Liidorf's catalogue, came to light. Agora inv. P 33333 Beehive Deposit N 10:2 P.H. 0.148; est. Diam. at top of fragment 0.29 m. One-fourth of bottom and part of lower wall preserved.64 Hole 0.029 m in diameter at center of floor. Underside curves into wall. Shallow, irregularvertical combing on interior wall, extending partway onto floor and ending in
Fig. 8 deepgouges.Two to threehorizontal, wheelrungroovesat baseof interior wall.Hard,highlyfired(or burned) fabric,light redon interiorsurface and at core(2.5YR6/6), with a gray bandbeloweachsurface,brown(ca. 7.5YR5/3) on most of exterior surface,with some large,shiny,gray inclusions(0.04-0.2 cm across).
The hive comes from a fill that contained a large collection of coarse pottery,including many complete or nearly complete transport amphoras. Twenty-nine of these are stamped, and the stamps suggest a date in the third quarterof the 3rd century B.C. for the fill.65The hive may have been old when discarded,but a date sometime in the 3rd century is likely.The fabric is harderthan that of other Attic hives and is partiallyfired gray;the hive could be an import.66 The new hive conforms to the known type in shape-a deep cylinder-and in the combing of the surface,although the combing is less regular
61. Broneer1959, p. 337;Jones et al. 1973, pp. 397-414, 443-452. 62. Luidorf1998/1999. 63. The type was also widespreadon the nearbyisland of Kea (Sutton 1991, pp. 260-263, figs. 5:9, 5:10). 64. Although they were placed horizontallywhen in use, the hives are describedin their verticalposition to allow the clear applicationof standard ceramicdescriptiveterms. 65. Deposit N 10:2.The date is based on an unpublishedanalysisof the stampsby the late Virginia Grace that is housed in the Agora archives. 66. Sutton (1991, p. 262) suggests that some of the hives on Kea are imports.
NOTES
FROM
THE
TINS
I77
Figure 8. Beehive P 33333. Scale2:5 Figure 8. Beehive P 33333. Scale2:5
67. Here and elsewhere(9.15.11), Columella'stext in fact suggestshives with two openings,both back and front.Tubularhives open at both ends have been found in IberianValencia (Bonet Rosado and Mata Parrefio 1997), but there is no evidencethat Attic beekeepersever developedthis convenientform of hive. 68. The tomb of Pabesaat Assasif, illustratedin Forbes1957, pp. 82-83, fig. 17.
than usual and ends in deep gouges in the floor; possibly it was created with a handful of brush ratherthan with a comblike tool. What makes this hive unique, however, is the hole at the center of the floor, a feature that is preserved on no other extant Attic hive. This can only be the flight hole, the aperturethrough which the bees came and went. While it is true that the floors of Greek hives are rarelyfully preserved, in all instances where they are present, they are solid. The presence of a flight hole in all known hive coversfurthersuggests that hive floors were normallysolid.This newly recognized fragment from the Agora offers the first evidence for the existence of a hive with a pierced floor. Of course, we have no idea what the other end of the hive would have been like, but it was probablylike that of other hives-a wide, open mouth to be closed by a flat cover.Unlike standardhive covers,this one would not have needed a flight hole; a plain, flat disk would have sufficed. The beekeeper could have used a standardcover,plastering over its holes with clay or dung, or could have devised a lid made of perishable materials.Archaeologists should be on the lookout, however,for plain disks that might have capped a hive of this design. The standardAttic hive would of necessity have been tended from the front, that is, from the same end that the bees entered. The beekeeper would have approachedthis new type of hive, however,from the back, that is, from the end opposite the flight hole. Ancient sources, in fact, outline just such a procedure.Columella (de re rustica9.15.5-6) describes opening and smoking a hive from the back, forcing the bees to the front and out through the flight hole; routine maintenance is also to be performed from the back end of the hive (9.7.2).67Pliny (HN11.10.24) recommends harvesting from the back of the hive, where, he says, the richest combs are located; elsewhere (21.47.80) he discusses the desirability of a movable cover at the back of the hive. An Egyptian tomb painting of the Saite period68seems to show the same procedure,with the beekeeperworking at the open end of the hive while bees congregateat the other,slightlyrounded end, presumablyjustoutside their flight hole.The new hive from the Agora is our sole piece of evidence that this method of harvesting was sometimes practiced in Attica as well.
I78
MARK
PROTOMAIOLICA CAMILLA
IN FRANKISH
L. LAWALL
ET
AL.
ATHENS
MACKAY
ImportedItalianpotteryof the 13th and 14th centurieshasbeen foundat many sites in Greece,notablyin the FrankishPeloponnese.69 At some sites underFrankishrule,such as Corinth,Italianimportsareabundant. AlthoughAthens and the FrankishMoreawerecloselyalliedin the 13th andearly14th centuries,politicalaffiliationclearlydid not affectdomestic potteryconsumptionin Athens. In directcontrastto the Morea,Athens ignored, or was ignored by, the market for Italian finewares.The piece of protomaiolica presented here is the only such piece catalogued from the Athenian Agora, and its uniqueness points up the adherence to a local ceramic tradition in medieval Athens.70
3 cm Figure9. Protomaiolicaplate P 33347. Scae 1:1 Agora mnv.P 33347 Protomaiolica plate SectionRho 789 Est. Diam. 0.24 m. Smallfragmentof out-turned flaringrim of a bowl.White glaze insideand extendingoveredge of lip. Medium-hardlight brown(1OYR 7/3-7/4) sandyclaywith no visible
Fig. 9
inclusions, tiny pores; rough break. Interlocking leaf pattern around rim in black manganese with three concentric black bands around lip. Trace of light blue within leaf pattern. Probably from Brindisi.7'
This piece comes from a mixed context in a medieval house excavated in 1936. Most of the pottery that was saved is glazed, and slip-painted and sgraffito bowls predominate.72Although at least one piece from this context must date to the 15th century,the majority is contemporarywith this
69. I thank Mark Lawallboth for suggestingthis note and for considerable help along the way.For sites in Greece (mostly in the Peloponnese and in Epirus)where Italian pottery has been found, see PatitucciUggeri 1997, pp. 9-10, with bibliography. 70. I have emptied dozens of tins and boxes of pottery from medieval levels all over the Agora, and this is the only piece of medievalItalian pottery I have seen. Although few examplesof any type of pottery from medievallevels have been publishedor
even catalogued(especiallyfrom the 13th and 14th centuries),much was, in fact, savedduringthe courseof excavations. 71. The proposedprovenience is based on fabric,shape,and decoration. For Brindisiprotomaiolica,see PatitucciUggeri 1997, pp. 24-35, esp. fig. 9, nos. 676, 677, with similar decoration;publishedalso in Otranto II, pp. 157-158, fig. 6:24, nos. 676, 677. 72. It is not possible to tell from the excavationnotebooks exactlyhow
much pottery from each context was saved,but in the case of Section Rho, it appearsas though most, if not all, of the glazed sherdsover a certainsize were saved,although this is only speculation.There are at least 28 tins and boxes from Frankishthrough early Ottoman levels;Tin 2, from which this piece was taken, contains the pottery from "House C, below floor."A good sense of the type of glazed pottery from Tin 2 can be gleaned from Waage 1933, figs. 12, 13, and 18:e, f.
NOTES
73. For discussionof the dates of protomaiolicamanufacturedin Brindisi, see PatitucciUggeri 1997, pp. 3435. The 15th-centurypiece is a squared rim from a green-glazedsgraffitobowl like that from Athens publishedin Waage 1933, figs. 14:b,d and that from Boiotia publishedin Vroom 1998, no. 3.8. Such green or brown and green sgraffitobowls were manufacturedin the Agora startingin the 15th century; a kiln excavatedin the Agora preserves wastersof this type. 74. See, e.g., the late-13th-century deposit discussedin Williams et al. 1998, p. 255, in which a high proportion of the glazed wareswas imported from Italy. 75. For Epirus,see Papadopoulou andTsouris 1993;Tsouris 1996. 76. See Armstrong1993; no. 51, a protomaiolicabowl, is similarto the one presentedhere. 77. Oikonomou-Laniado1993. Finds presentedinclude protomaiolicas from Brindisiand southernItalian lead-glazed"RMR"wares;mentioned also are archaicmaiolicasand roulette (Veneto)ware. 78. For Merbaka,see Sanders1989. 79. See Nicol 1984. 80. I specifyfinewaresbecausethe materialsavedfrom the earlyexcavations in the Agora is almost exclusively glazed pottery. 81. These Athenian wareswere also used in Boiotia and Corinth. See Vroom 1998, p. 529, with mention of Corinth;all of the potteryin her group 3 may have been made in Athens.
FROM
THE
TINS
I79
protomaiolica bowl, which dates to the second half of the 13th or to the very early 14th century.73 Potteryavailablein late- 13th-centuryAthens, and in Attica and Boiotia in general, is markedly different from pottery availablein Frankish towns in the Peloponnese. Certainly,in Corinth by the late 13th century,Frankish tastes in ceramics ran heavily to the Italian.74Very little Italian pottery seems to have been imported to the Greek mainland apart from the Peloponnese and also Epirus, where Italian imports have been found in excavationsin Arta and areimmuredin severalchurches.75Athens, of course, had no direct access to the Ionian Sea. Unfortunately, the picture of ceramic use in Frankish Athens is limited because material from medieval levels on the Acropolis excavated in the 19th century was not saved;pottery used in the lower city of Athens may not be exactly representative of pottery used on the Acropolis, where the western elite based themselves.Thebes, the principal city of the FrankishDuchy of Athens, has the same pattern of ceramic use as Athens, in spite of the fact that its wealth, from its silk industry in particular,would presumably have enabled it to import Italian wares had there been the desire.76 Until the Catalan conquest of Athens in 1311, the lordship of Athens (which included the cities of Athens and Thebes) had ties to the Morea. Nauplion and Argos, for instance, were fiefs of Athens, and Argos did import Italian pottery in the second half of the 13th and into the 14th century.77One might thus expect more Italian pottery to have been found in Athens, given the proximity of Athens and Argos and given the ease of approaching Athens by sea, but perhaps Italian pottery in Argos and the Argolid (like the bowls in the church at Merbaka) was brought by land from the north coast of the Peloponnese.78Finds from Epirus demonstrate that political affiliation is not necessarily an indicator of patterns of consumption in medieval Greece: Epirus, at the time that Italian pottery began to be imported, was under Greek control, although with close Italian connections.79 The Duchy of Athens, although nominally closely affiliated with the Morea, maintained an uneasy associationwith the principalitythroughout the late 13th century, and ceramic use in Athens may show Athens' (and Thebes') independence from the Frankishtastes and customs of the Morea. This independence, at least insofar as ceramic use is concerned, continued into the Ottoman period. Throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, finewares in use in Athens appear to have been mostly locally manufactured.80By the Catalanperiod, glazed wareswere carelesslymade and decorated, and variety in the colors of glazes diminished until pale yellow was the predominant color.At some point in the 15th century,there is a marked change in the pottery. New shapes and new decorative techniques appear (such as the aforementioned bowl rim, note 73). Whatever the impetus, the new types too were locally manufactured.8" Whether for geographical or political reasons, or due to local taste, Athens maintained its own traditions from Frankish to Ottoman times, when many other parts of Greece, both Frankish and Greek, were importing increasing amounts of pottery from Italy. But in the 13th century, as this one piece indicates, the occasional piece of Italian protomaiolica could be found in Frankish Athens.
I80
MARK
L. LAWALL
ET AL.
REFERENCES Agora XII = B. A. Sparkesand L. Tal-
cott,Blackand Plain Potteryof the 6th, 5th, and4th CenturiesB.C., Princeton 1970. AgoraXIV = H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley, TheAgoraofAthens: TheHistory,Shape,and Usesof an AncientCity Center,Princeton1972. AgoraXIII = M. Moore and M. Z. P. Philippides,Attic BlackFiguredPottery,Princeton1986. Armstrong,P. 1993. "ByzantineThebes: Excavationson the Kadmeia,1980," BSA 88, pp. 295-335. Bonet Rosado,H., and C. Mata Parrefio.1997. "The Archaeologyof Beekeepingin Pre-RomanIberia," JMA 10, pp. 33-47. Bothmer,D. von. 1951. "AtticRedFigure Pelike,"JHS71, pp. 40-47. Boulter,C. G. 1953. "Potteryof the Mid-Fifth Centuryfrom a Well in the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 22, pp. 59-115. Broneer,0. 1959. "Excavationsat Isthmia:FourthCampaign, 1957-1958," Hesperia 28, pp.298343. Cahill, N. D. 1991. "Olynthus:Social and SpatialPlanning in a Greek City"(diss. Universityof California, Berkeley). Camp,J. McK. 1986. TheAthenian Agora:Excavationsin theHeart of London. ClassicalAthens, .1990. TheAthenianAgora:A Guideto theExcavationandMuseum, 4th ed., rev.,Athens. . 1996. "Excavationsof the Athenian Agora, 1994 and 1995," Hesperia65, pp. 231-261. Capps, E. 1933. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, First Report:Foreword,"Hesperia 2, pp. 89-95. Clogg,R. 1986.A ShortHistoryof ModernGreece,2nd ed., Cambridge. De Hoz, J. 1987. "Laepigrafiadel Sec y los grafitosmercantilesden occidente,"in El BarcodeEl Sec(Calvia, Mallorca),Estudiode losmateriales, A. Arribas,G. Trias,D. Cerda,and J. De Hoz, eds., Mallorca,pp. 605655. Durm,J. 1905. Die BaukunstderEtrusker.Die BaukunstderRomer,2nded., Stuttgart. Dyson, S. 1989. "Complacencyand
Crisis in Late Twentieth Century ClassicalArchaeology,"in Classics. A Disciplineand Professionin Crisis? P Culham, L. Edmunds,and A. Smith, eds., Lanham,Md., pp.211-220. . 1998.Ancient Marbles toAmeri-
canShores.ClassicalArchaeology in the UnitedStates,Philadelphia. Forbes,R. J. 1957. Studiesin Ancient Technology 5, Leiden. Gelichi, S., ed. 1993. La ceramicanel mondobizantinotraXI e XVsecoloe i suoirapporticonl'Italia,Florence. Grace,V. R. 1956. "The CanaaniteJar," in TheAegeanand theNearEast: StudiesPresentedto Hetty Goldman, S. Weinberg,ed., Locust Valley, pp. 80-109. Habermann,W. 1986. "Die athenische Handelsbeziehungenmit Agypten, Karthago,und Kyrenewahrend des 5. Jahrhundertsv. Chr.," Miinsterische Beitragezur antiken Handelsgeschichte 5(2), pp. 96-105. Herrmann,J.J. 1976. "Observationson the Baths of Maxentius,"RM 83, pp. 401-424. Hirschon, R. 1989. Heirsof the Greek Oxford. Catastrophe, Hoepfner,W., ed. 1999. Geschichtedes 5000 v. Chr.-500 n. Chr., Wohnens, Stuttgart. Hoepfner,W., and E.-L. Schwandner. 1994.Haus und Stadtim klassischen Munich. Griechenland, Holst,G. 1975.Roadto Rembetika: Musicof a GreekSub-Culture.Songs ofLove, Sorrow,andHashish,Limni (Euboia). Jones,J. E., A. J. Graham,and L. H. Sackett. 1973. "AnAttic Country House below the Cave of Pan at Vari,"BSA 68, pp. 355-452. Kanowski,M. G. 1983. Containers of ClassicalGreece:AHandbookof Shapes, St. Lucia, Queensland. Keeley,E. 1999.InventingParadise: 1937-1947, New TheGreekJourney, York. Krings,V. 1998.Carthageet les Grecsca. 580-480 av.J -C., texteset histoire, Leiden. Levensohn,M., and E. Levensohn. 1947. "Inscriptionson the South Slope of the Acropolis,"Hesperia 16, pp. 63-74. Llewellyn Smith, M. 1973. Ionian
NOTES
Vision: Greecein Asia Minor, 19191922, London. Lord, L. E. 1947. A History of the American Schoolof Classical Studies atAthens, 1882-1942:An Intercollegiate Project, Cambridge,Mass.
Ludorf,G. 1998/1999. "Leitformender attischenGebrauchskeramik: Der Bienenkorb,"Boreas 21/22, pp. 41169. Lynch, K. M. 1999. "Potteryfrom a Late ArchaicAthenian House in Context"(diss. Universityof Virginia). Mazower,M. 1991. Greeceand the Interwar Economic Crisis, Oxford. Mirich, H. D. 1933. "The Large Baths at Hadrian'sVilla," VIMR 11, pp. 119-126. Morris,I. 1994. 'Archaeologiesof Greece,"in Classical Greece:Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies,
I. Morris, ed., Cambridge,pp. 8-47. Morris, S. P., andJ. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. "Phoeniciansand the Corinthian PotteryIndustry,"in ArchdologischeStudien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt, R. Rolle and
K. Schmidt,eds., Gottingen, pp.251-263. Munn, M.-L. Z. 1983. "Corinthian Tradewith the West in the Classical Period"(diss. Bryn Mawr College). Nicol, D. M. 1984. The Despotate of Epiros, 1267-1479, Cambridge. Oikonomou-Laniado,A. 1993. "La ceramiqueprotomajoliqued'Argos," in Gelichi 1993, pp. 307-315. OlForschV = A. Mallwitz and W. Schiering,Die Werkstattdes Pheidias in Olympia, Berlin 1964. OlForschVIII = W. Gauer,Die Tongefasseaus den Brunnen unterm Stadion-Nordwall und im Suidost Gebiet, Berlin 1975. Otranto II = E d'Andriaand D. Whitehouse, eds., The Finds, Lecce 1992.
Papadopoulou,B., and K. Tsouris.1993. "LateByzantine Ceramicsfrom Arta: Some Examples,"in Gelichi 1993, pp. 241-261. Parker,A. 1992. Ancient Shipwrecksof the Mediterranean and Roman Provinces (BAR-IS 580), Oxford. PatitucciUggeri, S. 1997. Laprotomaiolica: Bilancio e aggiornamenti,
Florence. RamonTorres,J. 1995. Las dnforas fenico-pinicas del Mediterrdnea central y occidental,Barcelona.
FROM
THE
TINS
Richter,G. M. A., and M. Milne. 1935.ShapesandNamesof AthenianVases,NewYork. Roebuck,C. 1940. "Potteryfrom the North Slope of the Acropolis, 19371938,"Hesperia 9, pp. 141-260. Rotroff,S. I., andJ. H. Oakley.1992. Debrisfroma PublicDining Placein theAthenianAgora(HesperiaSupplement 25), Princeton. Sanders,G. D. R. 1989. "Three PeloponnesianChurchesandTheir Importancefor the Chronologyof Late 13th and Early 14th Century Potteryin the EasternMediterranean," in Recherches surla c&ramique byzantine, V. Deroche andJ.-M. Spieser,eds., Athens, pp. 189-199. Shapiro,H. A. 1997. "CorrelatingShape and Subject:The Case of the Archaic Pelike,"inAthenianPottersand Painters, W. D. E. Coulson et al., eds., Oxford,pp. 63-70. Shear,T. L. 1933a. "The American Excavationsin the Athenian Agora, First Report:The Progressof the First Campaignof Excavationin 1931,"Hesperia 2, pp. 96-109. 1933b. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Second Report:The Campaignof 1932," Hesperia 2, pp. 451-474. . 1935a. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:The Campaignof 1933,"Hesperia 4, pp. 311-339. 1935b. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:The Campaignof 1934,"Hesperia 4, pp. 340-370. 1936. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:The Campaignof 1935,"Hesperia5, pp. 1-42. 1939. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, Sixteenth Report:The Campaignof 1938," Hesperia 8, pp. 201-246. . 1940. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:The Campaignof 1939,"Hesperia 9, pp. 261-308. 1941. "Excavationsin the Athenian Agora:The Campaignof 1940,"Hesperia 10, pp. 1-8. Shear,T. L., Jr.1969. "The Athenian Agora:Excavationsof 1968,"Hesperia 38, pp. 382-417. . 1973. "The Athenian Agora: Excavationsof 1971,"Hesperia 42, pp. 121-179. .1993. "The PersianDestruction of Athens: Evidence from the Agora Deposits,"Hesperia 62, pp. 383-482.
i8i Shoe Meritt, L. 1984. History of the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens,1939-1980, Princeton. Sparkes,B. A. 1996. TheRed and the Black,London. Sutton, R. F.,Jr. 1991. "CeramicEvidence for Settlement and Land Use in the Geometric to Hellenistic in LandscapeArchaeology Periods," as Long-TermHistory:Northern Keosin the CycladicIslandsfrom EarliestSettlementuntilModern Times,J. F. Cherry,J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,eds., Los Angeles, pp.245-263. Svoronos-Hadjimichalis,V. 1956. "L'evacuationde la fumee dans les maisonsgrecquesdes Ve et IVe siecles,"BCH 80, pp. 483-506. Thompson, H. A. 1940. The Tholos of AthensandIts Predecessors (Hesperia Supplement4), Athens. Tsouris,K. 1996. "GlazedBowls in the Late Byzantine Churchesof NorthWestern Greece,"Archeologia Medievale 23, pp. 603-624. Vanderpool,E. 1946. "The Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft:The Upper Fill," Hesperia15, pp. 265-336. Vroom,J. 1998. "Medievaland PostmedievalPotteryfrom a Site in Boeotia:A Case Study Exampleof Post-classicalArchaeologyin Greece,"BSA 93, pp. 513-546. Waage, F. 1933. "The American Excavations in the Athenian Agora, First Report:The Roman and Byzantine Pottery,"Hesperia 2, pp. 279-328. Ward Perkins,J. B., andJ. M. C. Toynbee. 1949. "The Hunting Baths at LepcisMagna,"Archaeologia 93, pp.165-195. Wikander,0. 1983. "Opaiakeramis: Skylight-Tilesin the Ancient World,"OpRom 14, pp. 81-99. Williams, C. K., II. 1978. "Corinth, 1977: ForumSouthwest,"Hesperia 47, pp. 1-39. . 1979. "Corinth,1978: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 48, pp.105-144. 1995. "Archaicand Classical in Corintoe l'Occidente Corinth," (AttiTaranto34), pp. 31-45. Williams, C. K., II, andJ. E. Fisher. 1976. "Corinth,1975: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 45, pp. 99-162. Williams, C. K., II, L. M. Snyder, E. Barnes,and 0. H. Zervos. 1998. "FrankishCorinth:1997,"Hesperia 67, pp.224-281.
MARK
I82
L. LAWALL
Mark L. Lawall UNIVERSITY
OF MANITOBA
DEPARTMENT
OF CLASSICS
R3T 2M8
MANITOBA
WINNIPEG, CANADA
[email protected]
anito b a. c a
John K. Papadopoulos THE J. PAUL GETTY I200
GETTY
LOS
ANGELES,
MUSEUM
CENTER
DRIVE,
SUITE
CALIFORNIA
IOOO
90049-I687
edu
JPapadopoulos@getty.
Kathleen M. Lynch UNIVERSITY
OF MISSOURI-ST.
DEPARTMENT NATURAL
800I ST.
OF ART BRIDGE
MISSOURI
LOUIS,
AND
LOUIS ART
HISTORY
ROAD 63I2I
kathleenmlynch@hotmail.
corm
Barbara Tsakirgis UNIVERSITY
VANDERBILT DEPARTMENT
OF CLASSICAL TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE,
STUDIES
37235
barbara.
[email protected]
Susan I. Rotroff WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT
OF CLASSICS
BOX
CAMPUS ST.
LOUIS,
IO50
MISSOURI
[email protected].
63I30
edu
Camilla MacKay AMERICAN 54
SOUIDIAS
IO6-76
SCHOOL STREET
ATHENS
GREECE
[email protected]
OF CLASSICAL
STUDIES
AT ATHENS
ET
AL.
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
PagesI83-219
LAIT
A
C H A IC
POLYCHROM[ POT
FROM
AlAN
I
ABSTRACT Excavationsat the necropolisofAiani have yielded fifty-six locally produced polychrome vases dated to the second quarterof the 5th century B.C. The shapes and decoration appear to have no immediate predecessors,and no descendants,in the local tradition, and no close parallelsin Macedonian or foreignwares.Some influenceoflocal terracottaproductionand certainrelationships with various wares produced in Central Greece, Attica, and East Greece can be traced,but the manufactureof this pottery owes less to direct imitation than to the experimentationand inventivenessof the local potters. This articlepresentsthis interestinggroup of pottery and examinesthe society that producedand used it. 1. The polychromevases are cited in the text by the serialnumbersof the catalogue,pp. 199-209. Other finds are identified by the inventorynumbersof the Aiani ArchaeologicalMuseum. The built cist tombs and graveenclosuresare cited by capitalGreek letters (Z, H, 0, 1, IA), the excavationsections by Latin numerals(I-VI), and the trenchesand squaresby Arabic numerals;for example,pit grave11I.23/ 24/30/31 is in section III, at the junction of four squares. 2. On the historyof Upper Macedonia and the kingdom of Elimiotis until the middle of the 5th century,see Hammond and Griffith 1979, pp. 14-31, 63-65, 95-96; and Hammond 1989, esp. pp. 89-99. 3. For the kings of Lower Macedonia and their relationswith the upper kingdoms,see Hammond and Griffith 1979, pp. 98-104, 647-662; Hammond 1989, pp. 43-48, 106-108; and Hatzopoulos and Loukopoulou1992.
The Late Archaic polychrome vases presented here were discovered in the necropolis of Aiani in Western Macedonia (Fig. 1) during four seasons of excavation, from 1988 to 1990 and in 1996.1
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND THE NECROPOLIS
CONTEXT:
AIANI
The city of Aiani was the capital of the ancient kingdom of Elimeia, or Elimiotis, which occupied the middle valley of the Haliacmon River in Upper Macedonia, the mountainous area of modern Western Macedonia.2 During the Persian occupation of Macedonia from ca. 512 B.C., when Darius I confirmed his control of Thrace, until the end of the Persian Wars in 479 B.C., the Temenid kings of Lower (i.e., coastal) Macedonia gradually gained control of the upper kingdoms, particularly during the reign of Alexander I (498-454 B.C.) to whom Xerxes gave the rule over Western Macedonia. After Xerxes' flight, Alexander continued his policy of expansion, which was completed a century later by Philip II with the incorporation of the Upper Macedonians into his kingdom.3
I84
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
L-~~jL
<:;]
-
The location of Aiani, near the Haliacmon river and severalmountain passes, was ideal for trade and communication with the rest of Upper Macedonia, Lower Macedonia, Epirus, and Central and Southern Greece. Among the natural resources of the area are thickly wooded mountains and rich mineral deposits, which may have included gold from the Haliacmon River.4 Excavations of the Aiani necropolis have revealed twelve built chamber tombs and smaller cist tombs of the 6th and 5th centuries, as well as numerous pit graveswith inhumations dating from the Bronze Age to the Late Hellenistic period.5 Some of the built tombs were surrounded by enclosures made of regular stones. All the built tombs were looted in antiquity, but several pit graves remained intact or only partly disturbed by later burials or by ancient looters. The necropolis has yielded large amounts of pottery, both local and imported.6The earliest post-Bronze Age imported pottery includes vases of the Middle and Late Corinthian period and some Attic fragments that
Figure1. Map of Macedoniaand Thrace
4. For the naturalresourcesof the area,see Hammond 1972, pp. 12-16. The areaof Elimiotis may have been of some importancefor the tradeof Macedoniantimber,which could have reachedthe sea via the Haliacmon River.It seems likely that as earlyas the second half of the 6th century, Athens relied heavilyon Macedonia for her ship-timber.For the tradeof Macedonianfir and pine see Meiggs 1982, pp. 123-128, 144-147,325,424, 432-433, 444. The Department of Geology at the Universityof Thessaloniki has initiated a researchprogram on the mineraland gold sourcesalong the valleyof the Haliacmon River. Preliminaryreportsmention finds of
funerarymouthpieces,metal vessels and weapons,ivory artifacts,and terracotta figurines.Illustrationsof these finds can be seen in the works cited above. 6. The bulk of the pottery from the necropolisis not yet published. A few local and Attic vases are published in Kefalidou1998 (a large blackfiguredamphorawith komastsdancing arounda flute-player);KaramitrouMentessidi and Kefalidou1999 (mainly local pottery);and Kefalidou2001 (fragmentsof at least two Panathenaic prize-amphoras,including one of the earliestPanathenaicsfound in Macedonia, attributedto the Eucharides Painter).
platinummineralsand indicationsof ancient exploitationof the Haliacmon gold. I owe this informationto Professor Michalis Vavelidis,directorof the program. 5. Generalinformationon the site of Aiani and preliminaryreportson the excavationof the settlementand the necropoliscan be found in KaramitrouMentessidi 1993; 1996; see also Greek Civilization,nos. 1-4, 63-71, 142152, 348-352; ESL Supplement2, III, 1996, pp. 204-210, s.v. Kozani; annualreportsin ArchDelt,1983present;and in AEpyoMocx,1988present.The finds, as yet unpublished, include marblepalmette stelai and statues,jewelry,gold and gilded
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I85
can be dated to ca. 580-560 B.C. The amount of imported Attic pottery increases through the second half of the 6th and the early 5th century,and seems to slow around the middle of the 5th century.At approximatelythe same period, during the first half of the 5th century,local potters produced black-figured vases as well as the polychrome pottery presented here.7
FINDSPOTS AND DATE OF THE POLYCHROME VASES
3
12
13
Figure 2. Aiani. Cist tomb 0: aryballoi
7. The local black-figuredvases are of variousshapes,includingjugs with cutawayneck, skyphoi,hydrias,and amphoras;for their clay,see below, p. 186 and note 10. Their decoration consists primarilyof floraland linear patternsbut includes a few human figures,e.g., two satyrswith a maenad, two dancers,and two archers.The decorationof the vases is of two
Aryballoi 1 and 2 were found in pit grave IV.44 (see below, Appendix 1 (A), Fig. 10), which contained the burial of a young man, aged twenty to thirty-five years. The grave was partially disturbed, but three clusters of offerings remained in the pit. The two aryballoiwere found near a bronze strigil and an Attic black-figured lekythos (96/14151) with a "chimney" mouth, produced by the Workshop of the Haimon Painter. A second lekythos (96/14152), with almost identical decoration, was found near the pelvis of the deceased. Next to the head, in a disturbed area of the burial, were sherds of an Attic black-glazed lekythos (96/14147) together with three terracottafruits (96/14371-14373; see Appendix 3). In pit grave V1.2 (see below, Appendix 1 (B), Fig. 11) a young adult woman was buried with numerous offerings. Among them is a bronze phiale, containing the polychrome aryballos9, two terracottafemale figurines, and a terracottafruit (88/10626; see Appendix 3). In the same grave there was also an Attic black-figured white-ground lekythos (88/10627) of the early 5th century and three Attic black-figured lekythoi (88/1110111103) with upright lyre palmettes, attributed to the Beldam Workshop. Another black-figured lekythos (88/10628) with upright palmettes, a local hydria (88/10624), and a terracotta "egg"(88/11888), all found near the skeleton's feet but in a slightly disturbed spot on the edge of the pit grave, probably belong to the same burial. The imported Attic pottery found with aryballoi 1, 2, and 9, dating from ca. 490 to ca. 460 B.C., provides a date for the polychrome vases within the first half of the 5th century. Confirmatory evidence for the date of the polychrome vases is provided by the pottery from cist tomb 0 (Fig. 2). Although the tomb was robbed in antiquity, the pottery from its earth fill forms a homogeneous assemblage that includes six polychrome aryballoi (3,5, 12,13,36,37) and Attic pottery of the first half of the 5th century.8
distinctivetypes:carefullydrawn,with incision and with added red and white; and carelesslydrawn,with no incision and with no added colors.The shapes and decorationof these vases are quite distinct from those of the usual contemporarylocal wares,which are monochromein red, brown,or gray slip, and I have suggestedelsewhere that the black-figuredpotterywas the
outcome of interactionbetween local and immigrantpotters,the latter probablyAttic or Attic-trained (Karamitrou-Mentessidiand Kefalidou 1999, pp. 545-551). 8. The Attic pottery includes fragmentsof a black-figuredpalmette lekythos and other lekythoi, a whiteground alabastronof the Negro Group, and sherdsof a red-figuredpelike.
i86
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
The remainder of the polychrome vases were found in contexts not clearly datable, either in large pits of disturbed burials or in the fill of built cist tombs and graveenclosures.The complete phormiskoi 41 and 42, however, found next to each other and certainly belonging to the same disturbed burial, are almost identical to the dated aryballoi 1 and 2 and were apparentlymade at the same time and by the same workshop. A jug with cutaway neck (53) and a base of a large closed vase (56) were found inside built cist tomb I, in a mixed fill that contained two groups of pottery, one of the late 6th century and another of the Hellenistic period.9The later vases are certainly an intrusion. If we accept that the earlier group of pottery suggests a dating for the jug and the closed vase, we might have an indication that the large polychrome vases are somewhat earlier than the aryballoi and phormiskoi, but we cannot be sure. In any case, the production of polychrome pottery seems to have been confined to the first half of the 5th century, since no polychrome vases have been found in burial contexts dating after the middle of the century.
DESCRIPTION
OF THE POLYCHROME
VASES
CLAY
All of the polychrome vases found in the Aiani excavations are made of local clay.The local clay is rather distinctive, quite clean and containing silver mica. Its color, when fired, usually varies from reddish-yellow to yellowish- or grayish-brown.The analysis of its composition'0 shows that it derives from the surroundingarea,which is of a ratherdistinctive type of geology-very rich in magnesium minerals, mainly dolomite, magnesite and chrysotile, providing diopside and enstatite when burnt. The clay analysis of a number of samples taken from local vases, terracottas,and kilns has shown that the local clay is of two main types: Type A, used mainly for the local black-figuredwares, has high concentrations of magnesium mineralsand medium to high concentrationsof astrites; Type B, used mainly for the polychrome vases and the terracottafigurines, but also for a few black-figuredvases, has medium concentrations of magnesium minerals, high concentrations of astrites, and some asbestite. SHAPES
The polychrome group includes forty handleless aryballoi,seven examples of the shape conventionally called phormiskos," two jugs with cutaway neck, and several fragments from uncertain shapes. Four aryballoi, two phormiskoi, and one jug are complete, either discovered intact or subsequently mended, and another seven aryballoipreserve a complete profile. ARYBALLOI
(1-40)
The bases of the aryballoiareflat or nearlyflat.The body is full and rounded, and the turn to the shoulder can be quite angular(e.g., 1, 2, and 9) or form
9. Last quarterof the 6th century: an Attic black-figuredoinochoe depicting Dionysos among maenads (88/11253) and sherdsof an Attic black-glazedplemochoe (88/11240). Hellenistic:fragmentsfrom a plate and from a so-called Macedonianamphora. 10. Analysis of the claywas carried out in 1996, in the "KentroLithou" at Athens, under the directionof chemist K. Kouzeli.The methods used were X-ray diffraction,electron microscopeanalysis,and X-ray microanalysis.For details see KaramitrouMentessidi and Kefalidou1999, pp.551-553. 11. The term phormiskos-"little basket"or "littlepouch"-is conventionallyused to describea group of closed vases, some of which resemble small pouches of cloth, leather,or rush. On the shape,function, and possible prototypesof clay phormiskoi,see below,pp. 187-189, 195-198.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I87
a soft curve (e.g., 3 and 6). The shoulder slopes softly, and the neck is short and cylindrical.The mouth is narrow,usuallywith an inward-sloping rimdisk, although three of the vases display a flat rim (1, 2, and 27). The height of the aryballoi varies from 5.6 cm to approximately 9.5 cm, the majority measuring about 7-8 cm. The aryballos is a new shape in the local repertoire. Except for the polychrome examples, no locally made aryballoihave been found so far in the excavations of Aiani or the area of Elimiotis in general. Their shape, although very simple, appearsto have no close parallels.Despite the presence of imported potential prototypes,such as Corinthian'2and East Greek faience"3and glass aryballoi,'4the local potters did not attempt to imitate these. Probably some inventive Elimeian craftsmen, having in mind the generalprofile,size, and function of importedexamples,modeled this simple shape, much like their Boiotian and other colleagues who had also produced handleless aryballoi.'5 PHORMISKOI
(41-47)
From Rhodes to South Russia and from mainland Greece to Egypt, Italy, and Sicily there are, as yet, about ninety vases, including a few metal examples, that can be described as phormiskoi, i.e., sack-shaped or bottleshaped vases with an elongated neck, closed on top except for suspension holes (see Appendix 2).16There is great variety in their size, manufacture (handmade,wheelmade or moldmade), shapes (variousprofiles,and shapes of necks and neck-finials, usually with a rounded or conical bottom, but also some, including the Aiani ones, with an almost flat resting surface), and decoration (e.g., black-figured, polychrome-on-white, plain white,
12. The Corinthianpottery from Aiani (mostly aryballoiand a few kotylai)is not published. 13. The faience aryballoifrom Aiani are not published.Similar vases have been found in many graves in Northern Greece:see, e.g., M. Tiverios in 6V,3o5,no. 160; Sismanidis1986, p. 800; and KoukouliHryssanthakiet al. 1997, p. 642, fig. 12. These vases seem to have been produced in severalworkshops,especially in Naukratisand Rhodes:see Webb 1978, pp. 5, 9-10; and Cook and Dupont 1998, pp. 140-141. For imports of Egyptian faience into Macedonia see Tiverios 1993. 14. Glass and polychromeclay aryballoiare similarin the shape of their mouth and neck, as well as in generalprofile,but the glass vases have two handles and a roundedbase. For
similaritiesin their decoration,see below, note 32. The glass vases found at Aiani are not published;for illustrationof two of the vases, an aryballos and an amphoriskos,see KaramitrouMentessidi 1996, fig. 21. Some glass alabastraand miniaturetrefoil-rim oinochoai have also been found. For similarexamplesof Archaic and Classicalcore-formedglass vases from many gravesin Macedonia,see, e.g., Filow 1927, pp. 94-96, nos. 141-144, fig. 112; Z6v6os, nos. 17-23,44, 307308, 339-340,379-380; Sismanidis 1986, p. 800; Ignatiadou1998, pls. 2-3 and pl. 5; and Kaltsas1998, p. 276. These core-formedglass vases were producedin severalworkshops,among which Rhodes and the other islands of the Dodecanese seem to have played a prominentrole:see Grose 1989, pp. 93-121; Weinberg and McClellan
1992, pp. 19-20, nos. 6, 8, 13-16, 19-20,23-24. 15. The shape of the aryballosis possiblyan imitation of small leather pouches:see Hommel 1978, esp. pls. 8-10. For some Boiotian handleless examplessee CVA,Frankfurt4 [Germany66], pl. 43:7-12, fig. 16; CVA,Louvre 17 [France26], pl. 15:1; and Andreiomenou1995, p. 168, pl. 26, fig. 18:c. For some local moldmade Macedonianexamplessee Tiverios 1990a, p. 23 (with furtherreferences), pl. 7:b. 16. A variationon the form is found in some Boiotian phormiskoithat have a smali hole piercedthrough their bottom, and in some extraordinary exampleswith doorlikeopenings on their body.For these exceptionalforms, see below,pp. 195-196.
I88
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
5a
and also impasto and bucchero). It is therefore unlikely, as discussed below, that they all had the same function. Except for a few early phormiskoi from Italy and some 4th-century and Hellenistic examples, the majority of phormiskoi date to the 6th and 5th centuries.'7Aside from the seven Aiani vases and one from Vitsa in Epirus (see Appendix 2, no. 6), I know of no other phormiskoi found in Northern Greece. The Aiani phormiskoi are wheelmade, as are all of our polychrome vases. They are among the smallest examples of this shape: the two complete vases, 41 and 42, are 8.7 cm tall, and the fragments of the rest belong also to small vases.'8The phormiskoi arehollow inside, in contrast to some other small phormiskoi that are solid or have a solid neck." Their base is almost flat and they have a sagging, pear-shaped body, with its maximum diameter close to the base. The neck is quite tall and narrow, its finial either rounded or conical. On each, a suspension hole is pierced horizontally near the top of the neck; vase 43, exceptionally,has a second hole on 17. Notice that the Geometric vase from Eleusis (Skias 1898, p. 111, fig. 31), althoughincluded in the list of phormiskoiin Brocato and Buda 1996 (no. 16), is not a phormiskosbut a roundedrattle,as alreadypointed out by Hampe (1976, note 12); see also below,notes 67 and 70. Furthermore, the so-called Geometric phormiskos fromTiryns, listed in Brocato and Buda 1996 (no. 11), is not a phormiskos but a "bottle,"open at the top. The shape formerlyreferredto as the "Corinthianphormiskos"is a bottle with stopper;some of the stoppersare preserved,sometimes with holes below the lip. For this shape see Jucker 1963; Payne [1931] 1971, pp. 313314; Hampe 1976, pp. 200-201; Amyx 1988,1, pp. 152, 201, 228-230; II, pp. 501-502, 655-657; and Neils 1992, p. 233. The so-called phormiskos from Patra(now in Amsterdam,Al-
lard Pierson Museum 783), mentioned by Hampe (1976, note 12) and Touchefeu-Meynier(1972, p. 99, fig. 8), is a Corinthianbottle with its stopperpreserved;see Amyx 1988, I, p. 152, no. 8. 18. The largestphormiskoiare 29 and 28 cm tall, the first from Lokri Epizephyrii(Orsi 1913, p. 27, fig. 32), the second from Metaponto (now in the TampaMuseum of Art, 86.114: Hampe 1976, pp. 193, 196). The smallestphormiskosknown to me is 4.8 cm in height and comes from the Perachorasanctuary(now in Athens, National Museum 17169); it is mentioned in PerachoraI, p. 102, no. 324, where its height is wrongly recordedas 4.2 cm. 19. Some examplesare in Hampe 1976, pp. 195-196; to these add the Perachoraminiaturesolid vases, above, note 18.
Figure 3. Clay phormiskoi from Latium and Etruria. AfterBrocatoand Buda 1996, fig. 2
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I89
the top of the curved finial, creating a small depression. The flat base of the Aiani phormiskoi, which allows the vases to stand on their own, is rare among phormiskoi, and finds its closest comparandain locally made early phormiskoi from Latium and Etruria that are similar also in dimensions and profile (Fig. 3).20 OTHER
SHAPES
(53-56)
The jug with cutaway neck is one of the most traditional shapes in Macedonian pottery from the Early Bronze Age until at least the late 4th century B.C.21The jug 53 has a flat base and ovoid body. The tall neck projects almost vertically,and the spout turns slightly outward.The handle is approximatelyrhomboid in section, with a central ridge.The spout fragment 54 belongs to a similar,perhaps slightly largerjug. Fragment 55, part of a vertical round handle, is probably from a jug. Fragment 56, which belongs to a large closed vase, preserves a torusbase in one degree, concave beneath, with a raised ring at the join of base and body. DECORATION
The decoration of the Aiani polychrome vases is very similar to that on some terracottafigurines.22After firing, the vases were coveredwith a powdery chalky-white slip23and then decoratedwith matt colors:black (which varies from charcoal to very dark), red (bright, sometimes with a brick tint), and blue (bright and light).24 Since most of the conservation work is yet to be done, we have refrained from taking samples for pigment analysis. Recent researchon ancient painting techniques in Macedonia has revealed that the pigments used in the paintings of the 5th and 4th century derive from naturally occurring minerals (e.g., red, yellow, or brown ochre, cinnabar,and malachite); they are organic (e.g., violet lake, carbon black, bone black) or artificially made (e.g., Egyptian blue, white lead). On the Aiani polychrome vases, white and black areprobablyasbestite and carbon, respectively,both 20. The Italian examplesare impasto, bucchero,and Italo-Geometricwares, most of them dating to the 8th and 7th centuries:see Brocatoand Buda 1996. Phormiskoiwith a ratherflat resting surfaceare also found among the Attic black-figuredexamples.See the two vases in Brussels,Musees RoyauxA1012 and A1013: CVA,Brussels3 [Belgium 3], pl. 27:2-3; andTouchefeu-Meynier 1972, figs. 9-10; also, the phormiskosin Bonn, AkademischesKunstmuseum 667: Greifenhagen1935, pp. 487-488, no. 52, fig. 62. 21. For this shape see Andronikos 1969, pp. 194-201; Vokotopoulou1975,
pp. 65-69; 1986, 1, pp. 236-241; Parovic-Pesikan1993; and KaramitrouMentessidi and Kefalidou1999, pp. 544-545. 22. The connectionsbetween polychromewhite-groundvases and terracottafigurinesare discussedby Wehgartner(1983, pp. 3-4, 22) and Kurtz(1984, p. 318). Generalinformation on the polychromedecorationof terracottasis presentedby Higgins (1954, p. 7; n.d., pp. 69-70, 82). 23. The white is often smearedwith the other colors and has a pink-brown or grayishtint. 24. Higgins (n.d., pp. 69-70) notes
that on Boiotian terracottasthe white slip was appliedbeforefiring and the colorswere appliedafterfiring,in a temperatechnique.This may also be the case of the phormiskoifrom Perachoraand Boiotia, and also of at least some examplesfrom Lokris (see Appendix 2, nos. 7-10, 13-19). They all have a quite well preservedthick layerof white slip, while the rest of the colors arebarelyvisible, almost transparent.I havevisuallyinspected these vases in the National Museum, Athens, and in the Lamia Museum, but determinationof the techniquewill requirearchaeometricexamination.
EURYDICE
I90
KEFALIDOU
of which occur in local sources;blue must be Egyptian blue; the source of the red is uncertain.25 All the colors arevery fragile, the white, red, and black usually surviving better than the blue.26At least two sizes of brushes were used, a thick brush for the wider bands and a very thin brush mainly for the black outlines. ARYBALLO
I
A white slip completely covers almost all the vases. The body is decorated with simple linear and floral patterns. The decoration of neck, mouth, shoulder, and base is more or less standard: a) Almost all the vases have a red neck and mouth (inside and out). Aryballoi 7 and 33 have a white mouth, and aryballos 13 has a blue mouth. A b) common shoulder decoration is a band of pointed leaves radiating from the base of the neck. The leaves on aryballoi 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 21, and 22 are renderedwith a black outline and are alternatelyfilled with red and reserved in white; on aryballos 3, the leaves are filled with red and blue. The leaves on aryballos 18 resemble reverseddouble chevrons and are rendered in red. Under the leaves of aryballoi 6 and 11 is a band of red dots and groups of thin black lines. c) On most of the aryballoi there is a red band, single or framed by thin black or red lines, around the edge of the curve of the shoulder. On aryballoi 6 and 11 the edge is decorated with thin black lines. d) The base is usually reservedwhite. Exceptions are the black base of aryballos 1; the red bases of 2, 7, 19, 20, and 49, the last belonging either to an aryballosor a phormiskos; and a blue eight-leaf rosette on aryballos3. The body decoration of the polychrome aryballoi can be divided into at least five groups (see the catalogue, pp. 199-203, for full descriptions): GroupI Parallellines and bands The shoulder and body of the two complete aryballoi, 1 and 2, and possibly of some fragmentaryexamples (16, 17, 18, 19, and 21), are decorated with parallel lines and bands in black, red, and blue.27Lines and bands of various colors appearon other aryballoi,usually high on the body or low and toward the base (5, 6, 7, and 8). GroupII patterns Various"net"or checker On the body of aryballoi3 and 4, a "net"is renderedwith black lines on the white ground. The squares on 3 are alternatelyfilled with blue color and red x's; the squares on 4 are alternatelyfilled with red color and reserved. The fragmentaryaryballoi 5 and 6, on which red dots are painted at regularintervals, possibly had a checker pattern, but no lines of a net are preserved.
25. See Forbes1965, pp. 215-225 (red and blue), 232-236 (blackand white);Wehgartner1988; and Koch 1996, pp. 31-53. Importantresultsof recentresearchon pigments and paints were presentedat the International Conferenceon Color in Ancient Greece (Thessaloniki,April 2000). Of the numerouspapersrelevantto our discussion,that by Brecoulakiand Perdikatsis(2000) helpfullysummarizes the resultsof their investigationof a greatnumberof painted monuments. For the possible local sourcesof pigments in the areaof Elimiotis, see Hammond 1972, p. 13. 26. Not all of the colors adherewell to the walls of the vases, and extreme cautionwas taken duringexcavationto preventthe colors from attachingto the surroundingsoil. Special conservation treatmentwill be needed to stabilize the paint without alteringits color or texture.The polychromevases are currentlystoredin acid-freepaperin a dark,controlledenvironment. 27. The same decorationis applied on the complete phormiskoi41 and 42.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I9I
GroupIII Panels Five poorly preserved aryballoi (7-11) bear decoration resembling vertical panels disposed around the body.The extremely bad condition of the painting prevents us from distinguishing the height and width of the panels; the dimensions of the panels on aryballos 9 that are represented in Figure 7 are only suggestive. The panels alternate in red and blue (aryballoi 8, 9, and 11), red and reserved (10), or blue and reserved (7). GroupIV Bichromedecoration This group is representedby the two smaller aryballoi (12, 13), which were probably too small to receive more elaborate decoration.28Covered with white slip, vase 12 has a red neck and mouth, and vase 13 has a blue neck, blue mouth, and red body. GroupV Variouspatterns In this group belong a) many of the shoulder fragments with radiating leaves described above;b) aryballos20, on which we can discern a floral pattern (perhaps a lotus flower) renderedwith a red line on the white ground; c) various sherds with lines and bands; and d) fragments 23-40, mainly of mouths painted red. The horizontal bands of Group I areparalleledin numerous examples in other fabrics,such as the Corinthian,29Lakonian,30and Boiotian banded aryballoi,3"and also the polychrome glass aryballoifound at Aiani.32Variations of the checker or net patterns of Aiani Group II are found as secondary decoration on black-figured and polychrome phormiskoi33as well as on Late Corinthian trefoil-mouth squat jugs.34The panels of alternating colors on the aryballoi of Group III are reminiscent of paneled decorations on Corinthian vessels.35 Secondary decoration on the Aiani polychrome aryballoi also finds parallels.The alternating painted and reserved pointed leaves around the shoulder are seen on a number of East Greek pomegranate aryballoi,36 28. A similarbichromedecoration, with the additionof some details in red, is also appliedon the jug with cutawayneck 53. 29. See CorinthXV, iii, nos. 15511559, 1601; CVA,Kassel1 [Germany 35], pls. 9:11-12, 10:1-2; and CVA, Kiel 2 [Germany64], pl. 31:1. See also the recentlyfound examplesfrom Boiotia in Andreiomenou1995, pp. 160, 167, and pl. 24. 30. Margreiter1988, pp. 87-88, pl.53. 31. CVA,Louvre 17 [France26], pl. 15:1; CVA,Frankfurt4
[Germany66], pl. 43:7-12, fig. 16. 32. See note 14. The glass aryballoi are decoratedwith alternatingbands of straightor wavy horizontallines in varioustones of yellow,blue, brown, and white, on blue or white ground. 33. See Neils 1992, figs. 1, 8, 10, 11; Andreiomenou1996, fig. 80; and Athens, National Museum 11197,11198, and 11200 (Appendix2, nos. 14,15, and 17). 34. See Hornbostel et al. 1980, pp. 47-48, no. 35; CorinthXV, iii, nos. 1651-1652 and no. 1666 (bowl). 35. CorinthXV, iii, nos. 1548-1550
and no. 1560 (alabastron);.fIvc5os nos. 247-248; CVA,Erlangen 1 [Germany67], pl. 24:11; CVA,Giessen 1 [Germany70], pl. 13:1-3. 36. See, e.g., Higgins 1959, nos. 1652 and 1653, pls. 19 and 20; Ducat 1966, pp. 142-143, nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6; Muthmann 1982, p. 79, fig. 64; and Chamayand Maier 1984, pp. 90-91. Cf also the blackpointed leaves aroundthe neck of some black-figured phormiskoi:Bothmer 1961, pls. 76, 78; Touchefeu-Meynier1972, figs. 4-7; and Hampe 1976, fig. 1.
EURYDICE
192
KEFALIDOU
and the geometrical patterns on a pomegranate-shaped aryballosin a private collectionin Basel areclosely comparableto the decorationon aryballos 3: squares with x's and a white rosette on the surface of the base.37The rosette suits this rounded surface well, and variations of this pattern are extremelycommon on the bottoms of Corinthian alabastraand aryballoi,38 Attic black-figured eggs,39and many phormiskoi.40 PHORMISKOI Decoration was applied on the same powdery chalky-white slip that was used on the aryballoi.The necks of 43, 44, and 45 only preserve traces of the white slip, but the better-preserved41, 42, 46, and 47 indicate that the neck was usually painted red. The preserved parallel bands in red, black, and blue on the body of the two complete phormiskoi, 41 and 42, are similar to those on the aryballoiof Group I, above. On vase 42, one can dimly discern a patterned row of red x's, but since the vase has not been cleaned, it is not certain if the apparent pattern is, instead, a poorly preserved red band.41 The fragmentaryphormiskoi 43-47 preserve only slight traces of red, black, and blue, with the addition of two black lines on vase 46. OTHER
SHAPES
Decorating the white body of jug 53 are a blue neck, spout, and handle. The interior of the spout and the edge of the rim are red. A thin red line circles the body at two points, toward the base and near the neck, and the lower line is accompanied by a band of red dots. The spout fragment 54 has a similar decoration: blue outside, with red inside and on the edge of the rim. The handle fragment 55 is blue. Finally, fragment 56 belongs to the blue base of a large closed vase, probablywith a white body, and preserves a raised, red-painted ring at the juncture of body and base. The local taste for polychromy can be traced back to the Late Bronze Age tradition,when an important Elimeian workshop specialized in mattpainted vases, most of the known specimens found in the necropolis of Aiani. The earlier decoration consists of geometrical patterns rendered in red and black over a pale yellowish slip.42The gap in time between the matt-painted vases and the Late Archaic polychrome vessels is too great for continuity in local tradition to be suggested. However, matt-painted pottery continued to be produced locally through the Iron Age, when the decoration was restrictedto black patterns on the naturalcolor of the clay. 37. For this aryballossee Schefold 1960, p. 124, no. I 41, pl. on p. 124; and Muthmann 1982, pp. 78-79, figs. 61-63. The aryballoswas found in Attica or Boiotia and follows the traditionof the lineardecorationseen on severalGeometricpomegranate vases (for the latter see Langdon 1993, pp. 93-95, no. 22, with earlierbibliography).Similargeometricalpatternsare also found on some Boiotian terracotta poloi decoratedwith panels in floral
and lineardesigns:see, e.g., Higgins n.d., p. 82, fig. 87; CVA,Louvre 17 [France26], pl. 15:3-4, fig. 6. 38. Illustrationscan be found in Amyx 1988, III, pls. 33:4, 35:1, 36:12, 39:3, 40:1, 42:2, 43:1-4, 48:1, 61:2, 127:2, 128:2 (alabastra)and pls. 38, 44:2, 46:1, 47:2-4, 108:2 (aryballoi). 39. Lullies 1949, pp. 63-65, nos. 33-43, pls. 11-13. 40. See Hampe 1976, fig. 1; Andreiomenou 1996, fig. 80; and the Boiotian
and Lokrianphormiskoiin Appendix 2, nos. 4, 5, 8, 14-18, 20-22. 41. The x's are shown in the drawingof vase 42 in Fig. 8; they are hardlyvisible in the photograph(also Fig. 8). 42. The local matt-paintedwares are not published.Some referencesand illustrationscan be found in Greek Civilization,nos. 64, 66-69; Karamitrou-Mentessidi1999, pp. 126-141.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I93
Tradition dies hard in Macedonia, as is attested by the continuity of jugs with cutaway neck, and later generations were familiar with the Bronze Age pottery, finding it in the area of the necropolis when digging to bury their own dead. The terracotta-like decoration of our vases encourages comparison with the Archaic and Classical figurines and plastic vases from the Aiani necropolis.Most of these terracottasbelong to the so-called "eastern-Ionian" type, and they usually represent female figures, although male figures, dwarves, birds, horses, and other animals are also found.43The repetition of the same types, the color of the clay, and the results of clay analysis of a few samples indicate that most of the terracottaswere locally made. Their decoration, over a white ground, includes colorful renderings of eyes, hair, earrings,and necklaces;clothing; and saddles and reins. Some of the geometrical patterns painted on the garments of the female figurines, which resemble the motifs on woven wool textiles, arepreserved also in the linear patterns on the polychrome vases.44 A group of local terracottasdepicting fruits seems particularlyclosely relatedto the polychromevases.These pieces-probably representingapples (see Appendix 3)-are contemporary with the polychrome pottery,45 wheelmade, from the same clay as the polychrome vases, and decorated with the same white slip. The makers of these terracottas appear to have been very familiarwith the contemporarypolychrome vases, and probably produced both wares.46 The polychrome technique, both in white-ground and not, has a long history in several Greek pottery workshops from as early as the middle of the 7th century.47A number of local Archaic workshops, mainly in Boiotia and Lokris, produced white-ground polychrome wares that can be comparedwith the Aiani pottery.Specialmention must be made of the "Boiotian Kylix Style-Class II"from the Rhitsona graves;48the related"polychrome group"from the cemetery of Akraiphia;49and, finally, several polychrome 43. The Aiani terracottasand plasticvases are not published. Some illustrationscan be found in Karamitrou-Mentessidi1993, pp. 7778, figs. 10, 13-16; GreekCivilization, nos. 146-147. For similarterracottas found throughoutMacedoniaand Thrace, see Z6'v5os,nos. 46, 173-175, 251-257,394,395,397-401,413, 414; Sismanidis1986, pp. 794-795; Giouri and Koukouli-Hryssanthaki 1988, p. 370, figs. 15, 19-21; KoukouliHryssanthaki1988, p. 410, fig. 5; Skarlatidouand Ignatiadou1997, p. 484, fig. 13;Tsimpidou-Auloniti 1997, p. 252; and Kaltsas1998, pp.270-273. 44. See, e.g., the black net and the red x's on the garmentsof the figurine illustratedin Karamitrou-Mentessidi 1996, frontispiece. 45. Severalterracottafruitsof
similarshape have been found in the necropolis,mostly in disturbedpits but also some in pit graves;see Appendix 1 (A-D). 46. Many ancientworkshops turned out a varietyof products.See AgoraVII, pp. 59-62; Higgins 1954, p. 5; Kurtz 1984, p. 318; and Biers 1994, pp. 512-513. Note also the molds for terracottasfound in the destructionlayer of an Athenian potteryworkshop: Baziotopoulou-Valavani1994, p. 49. 47. On the origins,evolution,and varietiesof the white-groundtechnique (polychromeand not), see Kurtz 1975, pp. 9-20, 133-136; Wehgartner1983, pp. 3-29; Kurtz1984, pp. 318-323; and Schaus 1988, pp. 107-111. See also Koch 1996 for earlywhite-ground vase painting and a detailed account of the literaryand archaeological evidencefor earlyGreek painting
on wood, stone, terracottas,and vases. For polychromyin East Greek pottery (purple,white, and brown),see Lemos 1991; Cook and Dupont 1998, pp. 7176, 114-115. 48. See Burrowsand Ure 19071908, pp. 309-318. 49. The group includes small or miniatureamphoras,hydrias, trefoil-mouthjugs, plates,bells, and phormiskoi.Some discussionand a few illustrationscan be found in Andreiomenou1988, p. 11, pls. 1:6c and 2:1; 1996, pp. 176 and 215, notes 71 and 187, figs. 31 (third from left), 80, and 103. I would like to thank A. Andreiomenouand K. Rhomiopoulou, formerEphors of Antiquities, for useful informationand bibliographicalreferenceson Boiotian polychromewares.
I94
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
vases, including phormiskoi, from sites in Boiotia50and Lokris.5"To these we may add four polychrome phormiskoi, from Olbia, Egypt, the Paris Market, and a privatecollection.52All these vases preservefragileterracottalike decoration, sometimes only in traces,in red, yellow, gray,black, and, in at least one case, green,53over a white slip. Common patterns are petals and leaves, palmettes and double volutes, hatched triangles and nets, lines, bands, and dots. The relationship among the polychrome vases of Aiani, Lokris, and Boiotia is a puzzling issue. The vases are more or less contemporary and their technique54and funerary (or votive) use are close, but the shapes differ, even among the phormiskoi. The relationship between these polychrome wares and the well-known Attic white-ground lekythoi decorated with non-ceramic colors is also uncertain. Examples of the Attic technique are very rare in the first half of the 5th century,55and it is difficult to determine their relation to the Archaic polychromes of Central and Northern Greece. We may suggest, however,that the Boiotian, Lokrian, and Macedonian polychromes are early examples of what Athenian potters would later attempt-vases for the grave, with fugitive colors. It may be, instead, that the traditions do not overlap. The Aiani polychromes had a short life, only within the first half of the 5th century. The examples from Boiotia stand at the end of a long tradition of colorful Boiotian cups. The local pottery from Lokris, which has not yet been studied, apparently attests an important polychrome production closely related to the Boiotian wares. Finally, following an early tradition of non-ceramic colors-applied, for example, on the well-known elaborate polychrome vases from the Kerameikos-Attic workshops of the 5th century seem to have made a new start, probably due in part to changes in Attic funerarycustoms in the two decades following the PersianWars.56
50. FromThebes, probably Boiotian:Mannheim, Reiss Museum Cg 177: CVA,Mannheim 1 [Germany 13], pl. 11:9;Neils 1992, p. 232, fig. 12. ProbablyfromTanagra,now in the Universityof Heidelberg: Hampe 1976, p. 196, fig. 4 (center). From the Kabeirionat Thebes, once in the Rubensohncollection:Hampe 1976, p. 195, note 12. FromThespiai, now in Thebes, ArchaeologicalMuseumThP425 andThP248: Schilardi 1977,11, pp. 176-177, nos. 431-432. From Rhitsona:Burrowsand Ure 1907-1908, p. 280, no. 377, pl. XII:c. More examplesfrom Boiotia:Appendix 2, nos. 14-22. 51. Severalphormiskoifrom Halai: Goldman andJones 1942, p. 382. Plates and a hydriafrom the gravesin Triantaphyllia: ArchDelt37,
1982 [1989] B' 1 X9o0Vxoc, pp. 182 (graverI 15), 183 (graverI 24), 185 (graverI 49), and 186 (graverI 51). More examplesfrom Lokris:Appendix 2, nos. 7-10. 52. From Olbia:Pharmakowsky 1912. From Egypt, now in Bonn, AkademischesKunstmuseum667: Greifenhagen1935, p. 484, note 5. From the ParisMarket,now in Erlangen:Appendix 2, no. 4. From a privatecollection,now in Prague: Appendix 2, no.5. 53. PhormiskosfromThespiai: Schilardi1977, II, p. 177, no. 431. 54. Cf., however,the comments on the white slip, note 24 above. Also, there is no yellow or green color on the Aiani vases and no blue on the Boiotian and Lokrianvases,but these distinctionsareprobablymattersnot
of taste but of the availabilityof naturalor artificialpigments in each area. 55. Wehgartner1983, pp. 20-29, esp. p. 22. See also the standardarticle on the decorationof Attic whitegroundlekythoi,Noll, Holm, and Born 1974. I owe this referenceto E. Aloupi, chemist-archaeometrist, who was very kind to discusswith me variousaspectsof the polychrome wares. 56. I thankJohn Oakley for showing me his unpublishedarticle"Die Urspriungeder attisch-weissgriindigen Lekythos,"where he discussesearlier views on the beginnings of Attic white-groundlekythoi and proposes a convincinginterpretationof the domestic scenes depicted on most of them.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I95
FUNCTION OF THE POLYCHROME VASES The find contextsandfugitivecolorof the polychromevasesindicatethat theywerenot producedforeverydayusebutwereproducedexclusivelyfor funerarypurposes.The peopleof Aiani followeda commonGreektradition:in someperiodsandforcertainreasonsthe white-groundsurfacewas consideredappropriatefor pots of funeraryuse, probablybecausethe resultingresemblanceto marble,alabaster,or some otherpreciousmaterial madethevasesappearmoreelaborateandexpensivethantheyreallywere.57 Thereis not enoughevidenceto connectthe polychromevasesof Aiani with a specificgroupof deceased,thatis, peopleof a certainstatus,sex,or age.One aryballoswas foundin a woman'sburial,anothertwo in a man's burial.Bothwereyoungadultsandtheirgraveswereveryrichin offerings, but severalcontemporarygravesof young adultsthat presentnumerous offeringscontainno polychromevases. The aryballoi, jugs,andlargeclosedvasemusthaveheld somekindof oil, used duringthe funeral.The use of the perfumed perhaps liquid, phormiskoiis less clear,andcanbe approachedbest throughthe evidence of examplesfoundoutsideAiani.58 and the the decorationwith funerarysubjects,60 The find contexts,59 presenceof fugitivecolorsuggestthatphormiskoiwereproducedto serve mainlyas offerings,most often in gravesbut occasionallyin sanctuaries. haveidenSomescholars,consideringthemto be nonfunctionalsimulacra, tifiedthemasimitationsof realphormiskoi-i.e., pouches-that probably containedastragaloi(knucklebones). Others,interpretingthemto be functionalvases,havesuggestedthat they aresprinklersor rattles. of phormiskoias sprinklersshouldbe abandoned. The interpretation The phormiskoicouldnot havebeenfilledwith liquidexceptby the use of a syringedirectedthroughthe tiny suspensionholes,andthe emptyingof the contents,throughthe sameholes,wouldhavebeenverydifficult.6" The interpretationof phormiskoias imitationsof pouchesof cloth, is supportedby the evidenceof sixvases.Two of theseare leather,or rush62 clayphormiskoithat depictastragaloiin reliefin a recessedfield,appear57. Cf. the interesting,though in some cases far-fetched,argumentsin Vickers 1984. 58. The phormiskoiin the National Museum, Athens, and in the museumsof Lamia and Rhodes (see Appendix2, nos. 7-19) constitutea ratherlarge corpus of materialand will be publishedin a separatestudy.Here they areused only as comparandain regardto their shape, decoration,and function. 59. The majorityof phormiskoicome from graves.A few were found in sanctuaries,mostly of chthonic deities.These are a) Three examplesfrom the Kabeirion of Thebes: phormiskosonce in the Rubensohncollection:Hampe 1976, p. 195, note 12; phormiskosin the Universityof Heidelberg collection:
Hampe 1976, p. 196; and phormiskosin Athens, National Museum 10399/10: Schmaltz 1974, p. 141 and p. 184, no. 390. b) An unknown numberfrom the sanctuaryof Persephonein Lokri Epizephyrii: Orsi 1913, p. 27, note 1. c) Two miniature examplesfrom the sanctuaryof Hera in I, p. 102, no. 324, Perachora:Perachora pl. 115. Only four phormiskoiwere found in excavationsof settlements:a)Phormiskos in Museo Archeologico di Morgantina59.2151: Neils 1992, p. 225. b) Phormiskosfrom Palatino:Brocato and Buda 1996, no. 38. c) Two phormiskoi from the Agora at Athens: Appendix 2, nos. 1-2 (note that one of these shows women mourning). 60. For the funerarysubjectson Attic and other phormiskoi:Touchefeu-
Meynier 1972; Ruihfel1984, pp. 37-41; Shapiro1991, pp. 636-638; Neils 1992, p. 233. 61. For the interpretationof phormiskoi as sprinklers,or ardania,see Brommer1959;Jucker1963, p. 47; and Shapiro1991, p. 637. Hampe (1976, pp. 198-202) convincinglyarguesagainst this view; cf. also the argumentsof Schilardi(1977, I, p. 469) and Neils (1992, p. 233). 62. Hampe (1976, esp. pp. 195-202) arguesfor the interpretationas astragal bags, and he is followed by most scholars; see, e.g., Vokotopoulou1986, p. 55, no. 1; Neils 1992, pp. 232-234; and cf. Brocato and Buda 1996, pp. 79-82. For the materialof originalastragalsackssee also below,pp. 197-198 and note 81.
i96
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
ing to provide a view of their contents.63Another four phormiskoi, three made of clay and one of silver, have openings on their body, and were therefore used as containers:the doorlike openings on two of the clay examples were once attached to the vases with threads,64a violin-shaped opening is found on the third clay example,65and a hinged flap covers the opening of the elaborate silver phormiskos.66 The interpretation of some phormiskoi as rattles is supported by a wide range of evidence. At least twelve phormiskoi are reported to have a pellet inside of them and to produce a rattling sound when shaken.67My test of several intact phormiskoi yielded the following results. The Aiani vase 41 makes no sound. Vase 42 produces a sound that is too light to be intentional and that is probably caused by a small piece of clay that has separatedfrom the interiorwall or by an intrusivebit of soil. The Perachora examples (Appendix 2, no. 13, and note 18) are miniature and solid. The only intact Lokrian example (Lamia Museum A5187; Appendix 2, no. 8). makes no sound. Of the four intact Boiotian phormiskoi in the National Museum in Athens (nos. 11197-11199 and E1189; Appendix 2, nos. 1416, 18), only no. 11198 rattles. Finally, a loud and clear rattle is produced by the Erlangen polychrome phormiskos (Appendix 2, no. 4). There are, therefore,at least fourteen rattlingphormiskoi,68and this numbercan probably be increased by a test of additional vases. Although phormiskoi must be included among the very few shapes that produce sound, the capacity to rattle is not a sine qua non for the shape.69Furthermore,when a rattling vase is also a functional vase it is difficult to tell the purpose for which the sound-making pellet was inserted, whether for sound or for a more practical purpose such as stirring the contents or stopping the flow of a liquid. In the case of our "nonfunctional"phormiskoi, however, the production of noise was apparentlya primary intent. On the interpretation of phormiskoi as pouches, the rattling might have been attributed to the presence of astragaloi. Further support for the interpretation of phormiskoi as rattles might come from the evidence for ancient clay gourd-shaped rattles.70Clay rattles 63. Phormiskosin Paris,Louvre CA 943, and in Mannheim, Reiss Museum Cg 177. For these vases see Touchefeu-Meynier1972, p. 97, fig. 14; Hampe 1976, esp. fig. 2; and Neils 1992, pp.232-234, fig. 12. 64. Phormiskosfrom Metaponto (Hampe 1976); phormiskosfrom Morgantina(Neils 1992). Both of the phormiskoiwere found in fragments. Although it was suggestedthat they had containedknucklebones,the openings of these and of the other two similarphormiskoicould have been used for the insertionof other small objectssuch as pebblesor beads. 65. Adriani et al. 1971, p. 24, no. 37, pl. 13:d. 66. Silverphormiskosfrom the Taman peninsulain South Russia,now in the Hermitage:illustratedin Phar-
makowsky1913, fig. 18;Jucker1963, pl. 18:1;see also Neils 1992, p. 232. 67. Brocatoand Buda (1996, pp. 8284) mention twelve rattlingexamples (but no. 16 in their list is not of a phormiskos shape,cf. note 17 above)and anotherten which perhapsrattle.We should also add the phormiskosin Praguethat is reportedto have a pellet inside (Appendix2, no. 5). For remarks on the rattlingsound, see Hampe (1976, p. 198), who gives some examplesof rattling phormiskoibut argues(although unconvincingly)that the sound is accidental. 68. To these we may also add the two phormiskoirecentlyfound at lalysos (Appendix2, nos. 11-12), which according to the excavator,T. Marketou, producea rattlingsound (pers.comm.). 69. Rattlingvases of other shapes
include some vases of the "Talcott Class"and some hollow-rimmedkantharoi;Sparkes1977, pp. 15 and 24. I would like to thank Elisabeth Stasinopouloufor her suggestionson the "TalcottClass." 70. For examplesof clay gourdshaped and other rattles,see Buchholz 1987, pp. 101-105 (with bibliography); Goldman andJones 1942, pp. 378, 382; Schilardi1977, 1, pp. 465-466; II, pp. 175-176, nos. 428-430; III, pl. 55. See also the two clayvases found in a child'sburialin Olbia (Pharmakowsky 1912): one has the usual phormiskos shape;the other,with the oblong body of a phormiskos,formerlyhad a wooden handle and was certainlyused as a rattle (cf. the examplesin Goldman and Jones). Cf. also the roundedGeometric rattlefrom Eleusis (note 17, above).
POLYCHROME
::I
Figure 4. Modern gourd-rattle from Cyprus
71. I thank Stelios Psaroudakis, Lecturerof Ancient Greek Music at the Universityof Athens, for useful informationon rattlesmade from gourds.For realgourd-rattlessee Buchholz 1987, with extensive bibliography. 72. Schmidt 1977, p. 18. 73. Higgins n.d., p. 174, fig. 213 and fig. on p. 162; note that the head of Eros is a later addition.The rattle looks suspiciouslylarge in proportion to the piece; there is no mention, however,that it might be fake. 74. Examplesin Schmidt 1977, pp. 16-19. 75. On the "RattleGroup"see Kurtzand Boardman1971, pp. 60-61,
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I97
can be expected to have imitated examples made from gourds (Fig. 4), although we have no ancient Greek testimony for the existence of a musical instrument or noise-making device made of a dried gourd.71In shape, the phormiskos is quite similar to depictions of rattles on stone funerary stelai72and possibly on a Boiotian terracotta.73Depictions of rattles appear also on vases, where they are usually held by children74and, less often, by adults, as in the well-known Late Geometric "Rattle-Group"vases, which present variationsof the same ritual scene: two or more seated figures (usually male) hold in each hand, and apparentlybrandish, a pair of rounded or ovoid objects having a handle and a second projection.The most common interpretation of these "Rattle-Group" scenes is that the gourd-shaped rattles are being shaken to provide music or to banish evil spirits, probably during a funeral.75 Finally, the interpretationof phormiskoi as rattles finds support in the excavation of pairs of phormiskoi from single burials.76The phormiskoi may have been used together, one in each hand, as they are in the "RattleGroup"scenes. The two intact Aiani phormiskoi, 41 and 42, although they are not from an undisturbed grave, were found lying side by side, are exactly the same size, and are almost identical in shape and decoration, and it therefore seems quite probable that they belong to the same burial.77If we accept this interpretation, the phormiskoi that do not produce noise, including those from Aiani, areperhaps to be interpreted as nonfunctional simulacraof rattles,while the rattlingexamplesmight have been used briefly during the funeral, perhaps in some ritual similar to the one shown on the "Rattle-Group"vases. The fragility of the colors seems to preclude the interpretation that they were used outside of a funerary context. It is worth remarkingthat numerous clay phormiskoi have distinctive gourdlike details. In many cases there is a small plastic projection, vertical or slightly bent, at the top of the finial, which can only be interpreted as an imitation of the stalk of gourds (see Fig. 4).78 Other phormiskoi have plastically rendered neck finials that might be imitations of stoppers, perhaps of leather, of containers made from gourds.79Ancient vessels made from gourds are of course lost. There is, however, at least one literary reference
76-77; Buchholz 1987, pp. 105-109; Rombos 1988, pp. 283-315; Rystedt 1992; Langdon 1993, pp. 91-93, no. 21; and Parker1996, pp. 282-283. 76. See, e.g., the vases from Olbia (see note 70); the pair from a pithos burialin Triantaphyllia(Appendix2, nos. 9-10); the vases from Halai (Goldman andJones 1942, p. 382, no. 1: burialswith two or four phormiskoi);and the examplesfrom the Thespian Polyandrion(two phormiskoiin the burialand two probablyin the pyre:Schilardi1977, 1, p. 468). 77. The fragmentsof anothertwo phormiskoi,44 and 45, were found in pit IV.35/36/45, but we cannot be sure
that they originallybelonged to a single burial. 78. Illustrationscan be found in Burrowsand Ure 1907-1908, pl. 12:c;Touchefeu-Meynier1972, figs. 1-3 and possiblyfig. 13; Hampe 1976, figs. 1, 4-5; Schilardi1977,111, pl. 55, nos. 431-432; Shapiro1991, figs. 7-9; and 'Epyo Y7rtoupyd(oo Hottrtqa,o6 2, p. 140, fig. 3. Stalk-like projectionsare also found on all the Boiotian phormiskoi(in the National Museum, Athens, and elsewhere)and on the Lamia vase no. A5188;see Appendix 2, nos. 4, 5, 9, 14-19, 22. 79. See CVA,Mannheim 1 [Germany 13], pl. 11:9; Hampe 1976, p. 195; and Touchefeu-Meynier1972, p. 99.
I98
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
to a xoX.oxovOocp6touLvoc (gourd-made arytaina) on a papyrus fragment, and another reference to the emptying and modeling of an extraordinary gourd intended to serve as a boat for xo?oxovOosLpoc-cod(gourd-pirates).80 In addition, the doorlike openings on some phormiskoi may be interpreted as imitations of the openings that were cut on the side of real gourd-vessels in order to facilitate their use. These gourd-vessels could have served a number of functions: dippers, rattles, containers of almost any given liquid or solid, as well as containers of astragaloi.81Phormiskoi show many variations in manufacture,shape, size, and decoration, and it is therefore difficult to decide if they all had the same function.82
CONCLUSIONS The polychrome vases from the necropolis of Aiani are a significant contribution to our still limited knowledge of the local pottery production in Macedonia during the first half of the 5th century B.C. The polychrome series includes two newly introduced local shapes, the aryballos and the phormiskos. Also new is the terracotta-like linear decoration with nonceramic colors over a powdery white ground, although there had been a local tradition of linear vase decoration and of polychrome terracottas of the "east-Ionian"type. Prior to full publication of the Aiani excavations, only a few suggestions can be made about the circumstances that stimulated the local potters to experiment with new shapes and techniques in the Late Archaic period. Elimeia was the southernmost of the Upper Macedonian kingdoms, very close to Thessaly, allowing for easy contact with the south. Communication had been established through trade and travel, and perhaps also through the immigration of craftsmen. Furthermore,in the period of the Pax Persica(ca. 512-479 B.C.) and again during the reign of Alexander 1 (498-454 B.C.), the kingdom of Elimeia came into still closer contact with both Lower Macedonia and East Greece, as is suggested by the historical sources83and by excavated evidence of imported finds and
80. Adespota Papyracea (SH), fr.960, 7, and Lucian, Ver.hist. 2.37, respectively. 81. The dried shell of gourdswas widely used all over the world until recentyears.In the EasternMediterranean,we know of gourd-madewineor waterflasks,drinkingvessels, dippers,varioustoys (such as cartsand lanterns),even life jackets (made of severalgourdstied together),as well as cartridgecontainers.It is interestingto notice that the knucklebone-bagsheld by some boys on Boiotian terracottas have a roundedor ovoid shape and a smooth polished surface,and look
more like gourdsthan like soft and sagging pouches:see, for example,the illustrationsin Higgins n.d., pls. 183184. 82. See Touchefeu-Meynier(1972, pp. 96-102), who distinguishesamong the differentshapes of phormiskoias probablyreferringto differentuses; and Brocatoand Buda (1996), who group the phormiskoiaccordingto provenance,shape,rattling,and iconography. 83. For the Persianoccupationof Macedonia see Hammond and Griffith 1979, pp. 56-69, and Hammond 1989, pp. 42-48. See also note 2 above.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
I99
local imitations.84These contacts should be viewed within the wider context of an intense movement of people and traded goods in the Aegean that has become increasingly apparentwith archaeological investigations in Macedonia and Thrace.85 Only two decades ago Nicholas Hammond could remark that little was known of the situation in Upper Macedonia during the 6th and early 5th century.86Our understanding has increased since then, but much research remains to be done to illuminate the Upper Macedonian society of Elimiotis during the Late Archaic period.
CATALO GUE The pottery presented in the catalogue is divided first by shape and, in the case of aryballoi, next by decoration. To the extent possible, complete or better-preserved examples are mentioned before fragmentary ones. The vases are assumed to be of the standardshapes described in the text unless noted otherwise. The composition of the clay is the same for all of the vessels, and only the color is stated. ARYBALLOI PARALLEL
1
84. Apart from the finds already discussed(faienceand glass vases, "Ionian"cups, and "east-Ionian" terracottas),the Aiani excavationshave also yielded severalexamplesof "Ionian"linearstyle wares and some buccherovases.The latter arebriefly mentioned in Karamitrou-Mentessidi and Kefalidou1999, p. 538. It is significantthat, at the same time, the East Ionic Greek dialect and alphabet spreadconsiderablywithin Macedonia: see Panayotou1996, with referencesto the Ionic and other earlyGreek inscriptionsfrom Upper Macedonia and Aiani. 85. Tiverios 1986, pp. 81-85; 1989, pp. 57-63; 1993; 1997, pp. 415-416, 418; 2000. Vokotopoulou1993, esp. pp. 185-186 (for the possible existence of an Ionian trade-station[emporio] in Sani, Chalkidike);1996. Papadopoulos 1996 and 1997. 86. In Hammond and Griffith 1979, p. 63.
(1-40) LINES
96/14149
AND
BANDS
Figs. 6, 10
Complete. H. 7.0, Diam. base 3.1, Diam. mouth 2.8 cm. Flat rim. Pit grave IV.44 (found together with 2). White ground. Red on mouth and neck, black on lower body and base. On the body and shoulder, alternating bands and lines (six red and three black). Clay: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6). CHECKER
3
2
96/14150
Figs. 6, 10
Complete. H. 7.0, Diam. base 3.1, Diam. mouth 3.2 cm. Flat rim. Pit grave IV.44 (found together with 1). White ground. Red on mouth, neck, lower body, and base. On the body and shoulder, alternating bands and lines (four red and three blue). Clay: reddish yellow (5YR 7/6).
PATTERN
88/10619
Figs. 2, 6
Joined fragments, almost complete, only small parts of body missing. H. 9.0, Diam. mouth 3.5, max. Diam. 7.8 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with
5, 12, 13, 36, 37). White ground. Red on mouth and neck, black line around the base of neck. On the shoulder, a band of leaves with black outline, filled alternatelywith red and blue. Red band on the curve of the shoulder. On the belly a black
net forming squares filled alternately with blue and red x's. A band of red circles surrounds the lower body. On the surface of the base, a blue rosette with eight leaves. Clay: light yellowish brown (1OYR 6/4). 4
88/10618
Fig.7
Eight fragments: seven from body, one preserving part of mouth and neck. Max. H. of mouth fragment 2.2, Diam. mouth 3.4, max.
200
EURYDICE
dim.of fragmentwith checker pattern 4.1 cm. Tomb Z (found together with 34,35,43,51). White ground. One fragment preserves the pattern of a black net
KEFALIDOU
formingsquaresfilledalternately with redand reservedin white. Other fragmentspreservetracesof white, red,andblack. Clay:pink (5YR7/4).
On the next two vases no net pattern is preserved. Several red dots at regularintervals around the body resemble the x's on aryballos3 and may indicate the existence of a checker pattern, now lost. 5
6
88/14364
Joined and nonjoining fragments preserving parts of shoulder, body, and base. Max. H. of joined base and body fragments 5.0 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with 3, 12, 13, 36, 37). White ground. A red band and two red lines on the curve of the shoulder. On the belly, red dots at regularintervals. On the lower body, a blue band with three black lines on each side. Clay: pale brown (1OYR6/3).
88/9878
Fig. 7
Joined fragments preserving mouth, shoulder, and part of body; base missing. Max. H. 9.5, Diam. mouth 3.8 cm. Section I, east side. Traces of white. Red on mouth and neck. On the shoulder, a band of leaves in black outline, alternately filled with red and reserved. Lower on the shoulder, three black lines, then a band of red dots, and four black lines on the curve of the shoulder. On the belly, red dots at regular intervals. Clay: pink (7.5YR 7/4).
PANELS
7
90/11464
Fig. 7
Joined and nonjoining fragments preserving mouth, base, and parts of body; profile almost complete. Est. H. 8.5, Diam. mouth 3.1 cm. Area IV.35/36/45. White ground. White mouth. On the shoulder, two red bands alternating with two sets of two black lines. On the body are panels with black outline, filled with blue or reserved in white. Traces of vertical red bands. On the lower body, three black lines and two red bands, alternately. Red on the surface of the base. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2). 8
88/9879
Joined and nonjoining fragments preserving parts of base, body, neck, and mouth; profile almost complete. Est. H. 9.4, Diam. mouth 3.8 cm. Section I, east side. White ground. Red mouth and neck. On the shoulder, a band of
leavesin blackoutline,alternately filledwith red andreservedin white. Red bandamidblacklines (one aboveandtwo below)on the curveof the shoulder.On the belly, tracesof panelsfilledwith red and On the lowerbody, blue,alternately. nearthe base,redbandamidblack lines (one aboveandtwo below). Clay:light brown(7.5YR6/4). 9
88/10625
Figs. 7, 11
Joinedfragmentspreservingthe vasecomplete,exceptsome chips. H. 8.3, Diam. mouth3.8 cm. Pit graveVI.2 (foundinsidea bronzephiale). White ground.Red mouth andneck.On the shoulder,a band of leavesin blackoutline,alternately filledwith red andreservedin white. Red bandon the curveof the shoulder.On the belly,tracesof panels alternatelyfilledwith red andblue. Clay:light brown(7.5YR6/4).
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
20I
10 90/10634b
11
Seven fragments from the body. Max. dim. of joining decorated fragments 7.8 cm. Area VI.3/4/12/13. White ground. On two joining body fragments, traces of panels alternately filled with red and reserved in white. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2).
Six fragments, some joined, preserving part of body and shoulder. Max. p.H. 7.2 cm. Grave enclosure IA (fill). White ground. On the shoulder, a red leaf, probably belonging to a leafband. Below, three groups of three black lines each. Amid the two lower groups, a band of red dots. On the belly, red and blue panels alternate. Clay: light brown (7.5YR 6/4).
BICH
12
88/11277b
ROME
88/11234
Fig. 2
13
88/14363
Figs. 2, 7
Joined fragments preserving the profile complete; missing small part of mouth and much of body. H. 5.6, Diam. mouth 2.8 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with
Joined fragments from mouth, neck, and body, preserving the profile almost complete, except for the base. Max. H. 5.4, Diam. mouth 2.5 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with
3, 5, 13, 36, 37).
3, 5, 12, 36, 37).
White ground. Red mouth and neck. Clay: yellowish brown (1OYR
White ground. Blue mouth and neck, red body. Clay: yellowish brown (1OYR
5/4).
5/4).
VARIOUS
From the following aryballoi,only fragmentssurvive,mainlyfrom the shoulder (with leaf band) and the body (with varioushorizontal bands and lines). There are also severalmouths and other fragmentsthat preserveonly traces of colors; some may belong to aryballoi found in the same trench. 14 88/9748
16 88/9850a
Joined fragments preserving mouth, neck, parts of shoulder and body. Max. H. 5.4, Diam. mouth 3.3 cm. Area 1.13. White ground. Red mouth. On the shoulder, traces of leaves with black outline, filled with red. On the body, traces of red. Clay: very pale brown (1OYR 7/3).
Five fragments from shoulder, body, and base. Max. dim. of largest fragment (shoulder) 4.4 cm. Section I, east side. White ground. On the shoulder, black parallel lines. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2).
15
88/9749e
Fragment from shoulder.Max. dim. 2.7 cm. Area 1.13. White ground. Traces of leaves with black outline, alternately filled with red and reserved in white. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2).
17
89/10049a
Joined and nonjoining fragments from mouth, neck, and body. Max. p.H. 7.6 cm. Area IV.6/7/16/26. White ground. Red mouth and neck. On the shoulder, traces of a red leaf with black outline. Red on one body fragment, four black lines on each of another three body fragments. Clay: light yellowish brown (1OYR6/4).
EURYDICE
202
18 89/10049b Two joined fragments from shoulder. Max. dim.: H. 2.3, L. 4.6 cm. Area IV.6/7/16/26. White ground. Traces of red leaves resembling double angles or reversed double chevrons. Below, three black lines, a red band, and another two black lines. Clay: pale brown (1OYR 6/3).
largest (base) fragment 3.8 cm. Grave enclosure IA (fill). White ground. On a shoulder fragment, part of a band of leaves with black outline, alternately filled with red and reserved in white. Clay: reddish yellow (7.5YR
6/6).
20
88/10767
Joined and nonjoining fragments preserving large part of body and base. Max. p.H. 5.1 cm. Section VI, northwest part. White ground. On the belly, traces of red leaves or flowers (lotus flowers?) painted in outline. On the base, traces of red. Clay: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6). 21
88/11175b
One fragment from shoulder, one from body. Max. dim. of the larger (shoulder) sherd 4.7 cm. Trial section in grave enclosure Z, west side. White ground. Black line on the lower end of the neck. On the shoulder, a band of leaves with black outline, alternatelyfilled with red and reserved in white. Below, on the curve of the shoulder, three black lines and a red band. Three black lines on the upper part of the body. Clay: pink (7.5YR 8/4). 22
88/11277a
Seven fragments from base, body, and shoulder. Max. H. of
88/9749a
23
Diam. mouth 3.6 cm. Area 1.13. Red. Clay: reddish yellow (7.5YR
19 90/10659b Ten fragments from shoulder, body, and base. May belong with 29. Max. dim. of largest fragment: H. 3.9, L. 6.1 cm. Area VI.12. White ground. On two fragments, red bands amid groups of black lines. Red on other fragments, traces of blue on one. A solid red circle covers most of the surface of the base. Clay: pale brown (1OYR 6/3).
KEFALIDOU
7/6). 24
88/9479b
Four fragments from the edge of the mouth. Est. Diam. 3.5 cm. Area 1.13. Red. Clay: reddish yellow (7.5YR
6/6). 25
88/9479c
One fragment from neck and shoulder, and four from body. Max. p.H. 2.5 cm. Area 1.13. Traces of red. Clay: pink (7.5 YR 7/4). 26
88/9749d
Fourteen parts of body or bodies, some joined. Some may belong to aryballoi 23-24. Area 1.13. Traces of white, red, and black. Clay: pale brown (1OYR 6/3). 27
89/10042a
One fragment preserving part of the mouth, and six fragments from body. Max. H. of mouth fragment 1.2 cm. Area IV.6/7/16/26. White ground. Red mouth. Traces of red on one body fragment. Clay: pink (7.5YR 7/4). 28
89/10043
Six fragments from body and shoulder. Max. dim. of the largest fragment 3.0 cm. Area IV.6/7/16/26.
White ground. Clay:light brown(7.5YR6/4). 29 89/10049c Two fragmentsfromthe edge of the flat rim.Max. dim.3.5 cm. AreaIV.6/7/16/26. Red. Clay:light yellowishbrown (1OYR6/4). 30 90/10634a One fragmentfrommouth andthreefrombody.Diam. mouth 3.7 cm. AreaVI.3/4/12/13. White ground.Red mouth. Clay:verypalebrown(1OYR 7/3). 31 90/10659a Mouth brokenin two fragments.May belongwith 19. Diam. 3.8 cm. AreaVI.12. Red on white ground. Clay:palebrown(1OYR 6/3). 32 88/10777 Mouth and neck.Max.H. 1.7, Diam. mouth3.5 cm. Junctionof sectionsIV andVI. Red. Clay:light yellowishbrown (1OYR6/4). 33 88/11175a Mouth and neck.Max.H. 2.0, Diam. mouth3.5 cm. Trialsectionin graveenclosure Z, west side. Tracesof white inside. Clay:pink (7.5YR8/4). 34 88/14360 Mouth andpartof neck.Max. H. 2.0, Diam. mouth3.5 cm. TombZ (foundtogetherwith 4, 35, 43, 51). Red on white ground. Clay:light reddishbrown(5YR 6/4).
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
203
AIANI
35 88/14362a
38
Three fragments from mouth and one from base. Max. dim. of base fragment 7.0 cm. Tomb Z (found together with 4,34,43,51). White ground. Red mouth. Clay: pinkish gray (5YR 6/2).
Joined and nonjoining fragments preserving parts of base, body, and shoulder. Max. H. 5.8 cm. Section I, east side. White ground. Red band amid black lines on curve of shoulder. Traces of red and black on body. Clay: pink (7.5YR 7/4).
36
88/14365a
Mouth fragment. May belong to aryballos 5. Max. dim. 2.1 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with
3,5,12,13,37). Red. Clay: light brown (7.5YR 6/4). 37
39
88/14368b
Ten fragments from body, some joining. Max. H. 5.4 cm. Section I, east side. White ground. Traces of red and black. Clay: pale brown (1OYR 6/3).
88/14365b
Mouth fragment. Max. dim. 1.2 cm. Tomb 0 (found together with 3,5,12,13,36).
Red. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2).
PHORMISKOI
41 96/14374
Fig. 8
Figure 5. Aiani, phormiskoi 96/14375
40
88/14368c
Nine sherds from body. Max. dim. of largest fragment 3.0 cm. Section I, east side. White ground. Traces of red and black. Clay: grayish brown (1OYR 5/2).
(41-47)
Complete. H. 8.7, max. Diam. 6.2 cm. Area IV.54 (found together with 42). White ground, red neck. Around the body, parallel lines and bands in red, black, and blue. Red dot on exterior, in center of base. Clay: pink (5YR 7/4). 42
88/14367
Fig. 8
Complete. H. 8.7, max. Diam. 6.5 cm. Produces a light rattle when shaken. Area IV.54 (found together with 41). White ground, red neck. Around the body, parallel lines and bands in red, black, and blue. Toward the shoulder, probably a row of red x's. Clay: pink (5YR 7/4).
the base. On the top of the rounded finial, a hole creating a small depression. Tomb Z (found together with 4,34,35,51). Traces of white ground. Traces of blue on one wall fragment. Clay: grayish brown (1OYR 5/2). 44
90/11515
Nine fragments, some joining, preserving parts of base, body, and neck. Max. dim. 7.7 cm. Area IV.35/36/45. Traces of white ground. Traces of black and red on wall fragments. Clay: brown (1OYR5/3). 45
90/11516
Figs.5,8
Fragment preserving neck and part of shoulder. Max. H. 6.4 cm. Area IV.35/36/45. Traces of white ground. Clay: pink (7.5YR 8/4).
43 88/11140 Seven fragments: one from the neck (max. H. 4.1 cm), five from the body (two joining), one from
46
90/10660
Figs. 5, 8
Fragment preserving neck and part of shoulder. Max. H. 4.9 cm.
EURYDICE
204
AreaVI.12. Tracesof white ground.Red on the neck,two parallelblacklines on the shoulder. Clay:reddishyellow(5YR6/6).
PHORMISKOI
OR ARYBALLOI
47
KEFALIDOU
90/14369a
Very small fragment from the area around the suspension hole. Max. dim. 1.0 cm. Area VI.12. Traces of red. Clay: light brown (7.5YR 6/4).
(48-52)
The followingareverysmallfragments. 48
90/10634c Three fragments from body. Area IV.3/4/12/13. Traces of white and red. Clay: reddish yellow (7.5YR
6/6). 49
90/10776
Fourteen fragments from base and body. Area between section VI and grave enclosures H and IA. White ground. Red on some fragments and on base. Clay: varies from light brown to reddish yellow (7.5 YR 6/4, 6/6, 6/8). 50
90/14260 Seven fragments from bodies. Area IV.35/36/45. On some, traces of white, red,
OTHER
53
SHAPES
88/10621
andblue.On one, two redbandson white ground. Clay:variesfrompinkishgrayto reddishyellow(7.5YR6/2, 6/4, 6/6). 51 88/14362b Threefragmentsfrombodyor bodies;one or two maybelongto 34. TombZ (foundtogetherwith 4, 34, 35,43). Tracesof white,red,andblack. Clay:light reddishbrown(5YR 6/3-6/4).
52 90/14369b Nineteenfragmentsfrombodies; some maybelongto phormiskoi46 or 47, foundin the samepit of disturbedburials. AreaVI.12. On some,tracesof white,red, andblack. Clay:variesfrompinkto light brown(7.5YR7/4-6/4).
(53-56) Fig. 9
Jug with cutaway neck. Joined fragments preserving most of the vase. H. 17.8, Diam. base 5.4, Diam. neck 4.0, Diam. belly 11.3 cm. Tomb I (found together with
spoutandthe innersurfaceof neck and spoutarered.The plasticring at the baseof the neckis red andthere is a bandof reddots aroundthe shoulder.A thin redline surrounds the vasejust abovethe base. Clay:pink (7.5YR7/4).
56). Base flat. Ovoid body, its maximum diameter toward the shoulder. Handle rhomboid in section, with ridge in center.The neck rises almost vertically,the spout turns outward, the rim is plain. Small plastic ring between neck and shoulder. White ground. The handle and the outer surface of neck and spout are blue. The edge of the rim of the
54 88/10413a Partof the spoutof a jug with cutawayneck.Max. H. 4.1 cm. Chancefind fromthe necropolis area. White ground.The outersurface is blue,the innersurfaceandthe edge of the rim of the spoutarered. Clay:palebrown(1OYR6/3).
POLYCHROME
1
Fiue
.Ain, rblli
Sae
:
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
205
2
EURYDICE
206
KEFALIDOU
6
7
9
3Fgr
.Aai
ayali
cl
:
207
FROM AIANI
POTTERY
POLYCHROME
_|_
_*_ _H,
_
_
__
_v
X
'
W+*. Ff#,
.
9_
.
f
.,
{'S7"_ ..
*i.
*1 ._
i....9.,,,,
41
_E
_5_
_'_
^
v
_''')_
'a
_llb
4ly A
eX's
_W<'
_
7S fl;-a.
-
_
]
?
_LiS OL>','4'J'
_
_!.zk
i
_
f
_
Y,
K
42
_l
_ 45 Scaleca.1:2 Figure8.Aiani,phormiskoi.
s
46
S
208
EURYDICE
_
_
KEFALIDOU
s~~~~~~~5
-
@
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fgr
.Aai
ug(3
n
~~~~~~coevese (56). Scale,,, i Ca. 1:
56
aeo
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
55 88/10413b Part of a vertical handle, oval in section, probably from a jug. Max. L. 4.8 cm. Chance find from the necropolis area. Blue on white ground. Clay: pinkish gray (7.5YR 6/2). 56
88/10620
Fig. 9
AIANI
209
body of a closed vase. H. 3.6; est. Diam. base 12.0 cm. Tomb I (found together with
53). Torus-base in one degree, concave beneath, with a raised ring at the join of base and body. White ground. Blue base, red ring. The small surviving part of the body is reserved in white. Clay: reddish yellow (5YR 6/6).
Part of base and lower part of
ACKNOWLED GMENTS I wouldlike to thankProfessorJohn Oakleyfor his supportandvaluable suggestionsduringthe writing of this article,for bibliographicalreferences,andforhis meticulousreadingof the text.My thanksalsoto ProfessorMichalisTiverios,who madehelpfulcommentson an earlierversion. I am especiallygratefulto ElizabethLangridge-Noti,who correctedand improvedan earlydraftof my Englishtextandmadecriticalremarks.I am alsodeeplygratefulfor the valuableremarksmadeby the two anonymous readersfor Hesperiaand to Molly Richardsonfor final revisions.In the courseof my research,manyof my colleaguesin the GreekMinistryof Culturegrantedme permissionto studyunpublishedvases,facilitatedmy work in manyways, and discussedwith me variousissues of the polychromepottery:in the NationalMuseum,Athens, Niki Prokopiouand ElissabethStasinopoulou,Keepersof the VaseCollection,and Christina AvronidakiandMariaZamanou.In the LamiaMuseum,MariaPapakonstantinou,Directorof the Ephoreia;FanouriaDakoronia,formerEphor; and KaterinaStamoudiand PolyxeniBougia,Keepersof Antiquities.I wouldalsoliketo thankthe Ephoreiaof the Dodecaneseforpermissionto studythe lalysosvases,andToulaMarketouin the RhodesMuseumfor helpful information.My warmestthanksto VictoriaSabetai,from the ResearchCenterfor Antiquityof the Academyof Athens,for important informationon unpublishedvasesfromherexcavationsin Akraiphia;and to MartinBoss for allowingme to see the phormiskoiin the collectionof the ArchaeologicalInstitutein Erlangen-Niirnberg. I wasa memberof the Aianiprojectfrom1989 to 1999.Permissionto publishthis materialwas grantedby the directorof the Aiani excavations, G. Karamitrou-Mentessidi. The difficulttaskof producingaccuratecolor drawingsof the polychromevaseswas carriedout by the artistsMaria Kriga(aryballoi1, 3, 4, 9;jug53;fragment56) andArgyrisPafilis(aryballos 13; phormiskoi41, 42). Stella Zoulaki made the drawingin Figure 3, George Zografidisproducedthe map (Fig. 1), ChristoforosGiavanidis took most of the photographs,and Helena K. Berry,osteoarchaeologist, informedme aboutthe ageandsexof the two skeletonsin pit gravesIV.44 andVI.2. My warmthanksto all of them.All photographsand drawings arecourtesyof the 17th Ephoreiaof PrehistoricandClassicalAntiquities. This articleis dedicatedto the peopleof modernAiani andespecially to the studentsfromthe village.
EURYDICE
2IO
KEFALIDOU
APPENDIX 1 DATIN6 CONTEXTS: POTTERY FRUITS AND TERRACOTTA FROM FOUR PIT 6RAVES
A. Pit Grave IV.44
(Fig. 10)
Figure 10. Aiani. Pit grave IV.44: 96/14371, (top eraoafruits 96/14373; lekythos 96/14152; (bottom)aryballoi 2, 1; lekythos -
Polychrome aryballoi 1 and 2. Lekythos 96/14151, by the Haimon Workshop: H. 11.4, Diam. mouth 2.5, Diam. base 2.5 cm. Quadriga to the right, two women mounting, a third woman behind the horses, and another woman sitting on a folding chair in front of the horses. For vases with similar subjects by the Haimon Workshop see ABV539, no. 1, 542, no. 120; Paralipomena, 269,271-273; BeazleyAddenda,134; and CVA,Leiden 2 [Netherlands 4], pls. 94:1-3 and 7-10, 95:4-12, 96:7-9 and 12-13. Vases of the Haimon Workshop are quite common in the necropolis of Aiani (see below) and in other cemeteries of Macedonia and Thrace (see, e.g., Kallipolitis 1973, p. 138 and note 1, pl. 70:a; Z('v3og, nos. 2 and 517; Tiverios 1991, pp. 301-302, figs. 12-13; Kaltsas 1998, pp. 241-242, 244; Pantermali and Trakossopoulou 1998, p. 207; and Poulios 1998, pp. 417-418, figs. 6-8). Lekythos 96/14152, by the Haimon Workshop: max. H. 12.1, Diam. base 3.2 cm. Almost complete, but missing a large
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~96/14151.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
2II
part of the "chimney"mouth. Decoration as on lekythos 96/14151 (see above). Black-glazed lekythos 96/14147, twelve sherds from base and body: max. H. of fragment with base 6.2, Diam. base 5.5 cm. Three terracottafruits (all wheel made, with white slip): 96/14371 (H. 4.6),96/14372 (fragmentary),96/14373 (H. 4.4 cm). B. Pit Grave VI.2
(Fig. 1)
-
Figure11. Aiani. Pit graveVI.2: lekythoi88/10627,88/11101-11103; aryballos 9.
In thegrave Polychrome aryballos 9. Terracotta fruit 88/10626 (fragmentary,wheelmade, white slip). Black-figured white-ground lekythos 88/10627 (H. 27.5 cm). Athena mounting quadriga;behind the horses, Artemis and Apollo playing the lyre; in front a male figure with himation, holding a staff The body decoration can be connected with the Workshop of the Athena Painter (see Haspels 1936, I, pp. 147-165, 254-262) but the shoulder palmettes resemble the style of the Gela Painter: cf. Haspels Kurtz 1975, pp.of102 1936, I,white-ground woksopar tHis7. exmles.Lkythoi thckfiued 17-18, fig. 9:b. pp. 206-207; 88/11 101: of the Bbeind eldamMacedonia;see, Three Are.g.,an freqentl Workshop: 1) lekythoicemetries; palmettefoundting H. 17.2, Diam. base 4.1, Diam. mouth 3.4 cm. 2) 88/11102: H. 17.8, Diam. base 4.2, Diam. mouth 3.5 cm. 3) 88/11103: H. 11.2, Diam. base 3, Diam. mouth 2.7 cm. For the palmette lekythoi of this workshop, see Haspels
2I2
EURYDICE
KEFALIDOU
Zd(3oc, nos. 3, 36, 68; Moshonissiotou 1991, p. 288, fig. 15 (center); Pantermali and Trakossopoulou 1998, p. 208; and Kaltsas 1998, p. 242. In a disturbedarea on the edgeof thegrave Palmette lekythos 88/10628: H. 12.3, Diam. base 3.3, Diam. mouth 3.5 cm. Hydria 88/10624: H. 21.0, Diam. belly 18.0, Diam. base 8.0, Diam. mouth 10.8 cm. Decorated with horizontal bands, wavy lines, and zigzag patterns; see Karamitrou-Mentessidi and Kefalidou 1999, p. 549, no. 11, fig. 13. Terracotta"egg"88/11888: L. 8.8 cm. Handmade, decorated with three red lines over a white slip. For clay, stone, and real eggs as grave offerings, see Nilsson 1908; Greifenhagen 1935, pp. 487-488, no. 52, fig. 62; Lullies 1949, pp. 63-65, nos. 33-43, pls. 11-13; Kurtz and Boardman 1971, pp. 77, 149, 215; ArchDelt 37, 1982 [1989] B' 1 XpovLx6, p. 183; 'Epyo rvovopye6ov Hottriapouo 2, p. 140, fig. 3; Kaltsas 1998, p. 302; and Sabetai 2000, p.508. Comparable to our "egg is one example from Rhitsona: Ure 1934, p. 72, no. 121:35, pl. MX (with red,black,and yellow lines on white ground). A second terracotta"egg"was found in pit grave 1.22; see below. C. Pit Grave III.23/24/30/31
Terctafut8/97 Leyhsfo teWrso
(Fig. 12)
.5.
m(hemd,wiesi) f h amnPine,8/95 Figure12. Aiani. Pit grave III.23/24/30/31:lekythos89/9965; cup 89/9966;terracottafruit 89/9967.
Partially disturbed, with a cluster of finds in situ.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
2I3
H. 20.0, Diam. base 5.3, Diam. mouth 3.8 cm. Herakles fighting the boar, between Amazons on horseback; quiver and bow, cloth suspended, ivy on the background;one club is suspended, another is held by Herakles. For similar vases attributed to the Haimon Workshop see ABV546-547, nos. 229-239; Paralipomena,277; BeazleyAddenda,134; and CVA,Geneva 2 [Switzerland 3], pl. 76:16-18. Small stemless "Ionian"cup 89/9966: H. 4.9, Diam. base 4.5, Diam. mouth 8.7 cm. Decoration with horizontal bands. For these cups and their distribution see Cook and Dupont 1998, pp. 129-131 (examples dating from the late 7th until the middle of the 6th century); Isler 1978, pp. 77-81, pls. XXXII:3-XXXVIII:34; and Martelli Cristofani 1978, esp. pp. 163-166,195-204, pls. LXXXVI:64-LXXXIX:89. The abundance of these cups throughout Macedonia and Thrace during the 6th and 5th centuries shows that there were numerous workshops producing them. For some examples see flvdos, nos. 74 and 415; Tiverios 1988, p. 252, fig. 19; 1990b, pp. 75-76; Koukouli-Hryssanthaki 1983, pp. 139-140; Sismanidis 1986, p. 793; Vokotopoulou 1996, pp. 326-327; Tzanavari and Lioutas 1997, p. 271; Kottaridi 1997, p. 87; and Kaltsas 1998, pp. 225-228. D. Pit Grave 1.22
(Fig. 13)
Figure 13. Aiani. Pit gave 1.22: hydria88/9815;terracottafruit 88/9812; cup-skyphoi88/9813, 88/9814; terracottaegg 88/9811. pp4152 Terracotta fruit 88/9812: H. 5.2 cm (wheelmade, white slip). Terracotta"egg"88/9811: L. 7.1 cm (handmade, white slip). Local hydria 88/98 15: H. 15.2, Diam. base 6.4, Diam. belly 13.5, Diam. mouth 7.9 cm. Red slip. Local black-figured cup-skyphos 88/9813: H. 5.1, Diam. base 4.4, Diam. mouth 8.8 cm. Local black-figured cup-skyphos 88/9814: H. 5.0, Diam. base 4.5, Diam. mouth 8.4 cm. For the local vases see Karamitrou-Mentessidi and Kefalidou 1999,
214
EURYDICE
APPENDIX 2 CATALOGUE
KEFALIDOU
OF PHORMISKOI
Most known phormiskoi are listed and discussed (with bibliography) in Touchefeu-Meynier 1972; Hampe 1976; Schilardi 1977, I, pp. 467-472 and II, pp. 176-178; Neils 1992; and Brocato and Buda 1996. To these we should add, apart from the seven Aiani examples, the following vessels: 1-2. Fragments from two black-figured phormiskoi from the Agora at Athens: Agora XXIII, pp. 48,253, nos. 1258-1259, pl. 88 (no. 1259 shows women mourning). 3. Two fragments from a black-figured phormiskos in Tiubingen, Eberhard-KarlsUniversity, S101507 and 101707A. Depictions of Odysseus and the Sirens or Charon, and either Polyphemos or Sisyphos alone: CVA,Tiibingen 3 [Germany 47], pl. 22:6-7. 4. White-ground polychrome phormiskos in Erlangen, bought in the Paris Market in 1907: Griinhagen 1948, p. 72. It is probably Boiotian because its shape and decoration are similar to phormiskoi from Boiotia, mentioned below (nos. 14-22). 5. White-ground polychrome phormiskos in CVA,Prague, Universitat Charles 2 [Czech Republic 3], pl. 57:4. Although it is published as "Ionian,"it is probably Boiotian because its shape and decoration are similar to phormiskoi from Boiotia, mentioned below (nos. 14-22). I thank Victoria Sabetai for this reference. 6. Phormiskos from a grave in Vitsa (in Epirus), now in Ioannina, Archaeological Museum 2026, early 6th century: Vokotopoulou 1986,1, p. 55, no. 1, pl. 77:b. 7. Lamia Museum A10186, from a grave in Lamia:ArchDelt48, 1993 [1998], B' 1 XpoVLxoc, p. 201. 8. Lamia Museum A5187, from a grave in Halai: ArchDelt42, 1987 [1992], B' 1 XpoVLxoc,p. 229, pl. 134:A. 9-10. Lamia Museum A5188 and probably A10299, from a pithos burial in Triantaphyllia:ArchDelt37, 1982 [1989] B' 1 XpoVLxoc, p. 183 (grave rl 24). 11-12. Two Late Archaic phormiskoi found in disturbed burials at Jalysos in 1998: 'Epyo YrovpyE1'ov Ho2cTtoylo62, p. 140, fig.3. 13. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 17169A; one of the two miniature examples from the sanctuaryof Hera at Perachora.Mentioned, together with the published phormiskos (now in Athens, National Archaeological Museum 17169), in PerachoraI, p. 102, no. 324, pl. 115. 14-17. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 11197-11200, from graves atTanagra.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
2I5
18. Athens, National Archaeological Museum E1189, Empedocles collection, probably from Boiotia. 19. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 11196, from Thebes. 20-21. Thebes Museum, two phormiskoi found in 1995 at Akraiphia (Grava) in 5th-century contexts (grave T 4 and pyre 1128, respectively):ArchDelt50,1995 [2000], B' 1 XpoVLoX6c, p. 302; and Sabetai 2000, pp. 508-509. I thank the excavator, Victoria Sabetai, for this information. 22. A growing number of phormiskoi from Late Archaic graves in Akraiphia in Boiotia: Andreiomenou 1988, p. 11; 1996, pp. 215 and 217, notes 187-188, figs. 80 and 81:b.
APPENDIX 3 TERRACOTTA
87. See, e.g., Ure 1934, p. 72, nos. 18262 and 18264, pl. XVII; Goldman andJones 1942, p. 382; Higgins 1954, nos. 198-200, pl. 34; Schmaltz 1974, p. 141 and p. 184, no. 386; and Kaltsas 1998, p. 71, no. 21, and p. 275. 88. SNGCop679-692; Baumann 2000, pp. 32-33 and no. 57, pp. 50-51 and no. 118. 89. It is quite difficultto distinguish among the differentspecies since all these fruits are similarin shape and size. In ancientliteraturethe word ViXov(apple)is used as a generic term for the apricot,quince,citron,peach, and pomegranate,in additionto naming the genuine apple;see Littlewood 1968. 90. See, e.g., Baumann1993, p. 142, pl. 278. My thanks to C. Bourbouand E. Tegou for bibliographicalreferences on the "lotus-fruit."
FRUITS
The Aiani necropolis has yielded several terracotta fruits (as yet unpublished), some of which are closely related to the polychrome vases. They are contemporary with the polychrome vessels (see the grave contexts in Appendix 1); they are wheelmade, in contrast to the majority of similar objects from elsewhere that are moldmade or handmade; have a vent hole at the bottom; and are hollow inside; also, they are made of the same clay as the polychrome vases (see above, p. 186 and note 10). Finally, they are coveredwith the same white slip as the polychrome pottery,lacking, however,traces of other colors. It seems very probablethat they were produced by the same potters who made the polychrome vases (see above,p. 193 and note 46). The local potters hand-finished the pieces, impressing four or five vertical ridges around the body of the terracottas in order to give some plasticity to their rounded shape. This rendering produces a peculiar multilobed shape in comparison to the softly curved bodies of similar moldmade or handmade terracotta fruits.87The lobes of the Aiani fruits remind us of the similarlyrenderedmultilobed apples, quinces, and pomegranates depicted on coins, especially those from Melos.88 The Aiani examples probablyrepresent apples.They are certainly not pomegranates and they are too broad and flat to be considered quinces.89 They look very much like the Japanese persimmon (called "lotus-fruit" in modern Greek). It would probably be anachronistic, however, to identify them as persimmons; as far as I have been able to check, we cannot be surewhether the oriental persimmon (diospyroskaki)was cultivated this early in the Eastern Mediterranean.90
EURYDICE
2I6
KEFALIDOU
REFERENCES Adriani,A., et al. 1971. Odeon ed altri "monumenti"archeologici, Palermo. AEpyoMcxx= To qcpXcxzoAoytx6 dpyo o-r Mcxxs3ovicxXOCl (Pro9pdx@7 ceedings of the Annual Conference), Thessaloniki 1988-. AgoraVII = J. Perlzweig, Lampsof the RomanPeriod,Princeton1961. AgoraXXIII = M. B. Moore and M. Z. Pease-Philippides,Attic Black-FiguredPottery,Princeton 1986. Amyx, D. A. 1988. CorinthianVasePaintingof theArchaicPeriod,3 vols., Berkeley. Andreiomenou,A. K. 1988. "Bom-uxoc To oyyeca -oo 5ou ox. 7r.X.oc7t6
Bothmer,D. von. 1961. AncientArt from New YorkPrivate Collections,
New York. Brecoulaki,H., and V. Perdikatsis. 2000. "AncientWall-Painting on Macedonian ChamberTombs and Cist Graves,IV-III CenturyB.C.: A ComparativeStudy on the Use of Color"(paperat "Colorin Ancient Greece,International Conference,"organizedby the J. Paul Getty Museum and the Aristotle Universityof Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki2000). Brijder,H. A. G., ed. 1984. Ancient Greekand Related Pottery: Proceedings of the International VaseSymposium inAmsterdam, 12-15April
in vrxpoeoccrto erq;AxpoL9a.oas," 1984 (AllardPierson Series 5), Hpax-wTXA Too XII AwJ6cvo6l2vc6p6ou KAarccnx Apxaooy6o Amsterdam. Brocato,P., and C. Z. Buda. 1996. (A Ova,4-10 Zir-rzqp60ov 1983) II, "Phormiskoso platage?Crepundia? Athens, pp. 7-14. 1995. "Ev opXocxov vexpoSulla funzione di un oggeto fittile in p tipvX; wpLo;N is cxcfpov t rr ambito Greco, Etrusco,e Latino," Eeo6caocHlopCou. AnnArchStorAnt 3, pp. 73-90. AyLac O?qP(Ct)v: -n, E-OCxpetC'ax; Brommer,F. 1959. "Geometrische Mepo; I," in Errr-ov7np Boc,rtx&5v MrXrz50v 2.1, pp. 139Sprenggefasse,"Ad, pp. 1-4. 244. Buchholz, H. G. 1987. "Rasselnund
.1996. "Tovexpotwps(ov-nj Aypo
[email protected]. Axpoxu(ocq: M po; I,"ArchEph 1994 [1996], pp.155-254.
Andronikos,M. 1969. Bspy(va I: To vexpo0a-xdv zcov-6iV43&ov -ni; ?V A0'vocr. ApouxLo(BLPMo0fO'x AoyLx'; E-coupdoaq62), Athens. Baumann,H. 1993. Greek Wild Flowers and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece,
W. Stearnand E. Stearn,trans., London. .2000. Pflanzenbilder auf griechischenMiinzen, Munich.
E. 1994. Baziotopoulou-Valavani, or of0YqvaXxa xrpacJLXxa "AvoaxuxgFsq XOXL X?XaCLX63)v Spy(oX-nPL(X(XPXaCLX&v
Xpovwv,"in ArchaeologyofAthens and Attica under the Democracy:Proceedings of an International Conference Celebrating2500 Yearssince the Birth ofDemocracy in Greece,Athens, December 1992, W. D. E. Coulson et
al., eds., Oxford,pp. 45-54. Biers,W. R. 1994. "MassProduction, StandardizedParts,and the Corinthian 'Plastic' Vase," Hesperia 63,pp.509-516.
Schellen, Reifen,Wippen, und Schaukeln,"in Sport und Spiel (ArchHom), S. Laser,ed., Gottingen, pp. 100-109.
Burrows,R. M., and P. N. Ure. 19071908. "Excavationsat Rhitsonain Boeotia,"BSA 14, pp. 226-318. . 1909. "Excavationsat Rhitsona in Boeotia,"JHS29, pp. 308-353. Chamay,J., andJ.-L. Maier. 1984. Ceramiquescorinthiennes: Collection du docteurJean Lauffenburger (Hellas
and Roma 3), Geneva. Cook, R. M., and P. Dupont. 1998. East GreekPottery, London. Corinth XV, iii = Agnes N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The Potters' Quarter: The Pottery, Princeton 1984. Ducat, J. 1966. Les vasesplastiques rhodiens archatquesen terre cuite (BEFAR 209), Paris. 'Epyo Yiroopyotbou Hotriupo6O 2 = To 'Epyo zoo Tirovpy-t'OvHoririajmo UzIoy o rlgc( z)roAizIzcICx7, xA77povop.uzo 1998, Athens 1999. Filow, B. D. 1927. Die archaische Nekropole von Trehenischteam Ochrida-See, Berlin.
POLYCHROME
Forbes,R. J. 1965. Studiesin Ancient Technology 3,2nd ed., Leiden. Giouri, E., and H. KoukouliHryssanthaki.1988. "Avocaxoccpq cqv cpV XpXoc OLo6jx," AEpyoMacx 1,
1987 [1988], pp. 363-387. Goldman, H., and R.Jones.1942. "Terracottasfrom the Necropolis of Halae,"Hesperia11, pp. 365-421. GreekCivilization= GreekCivilization: Macedonia,KingdomofAlexanderthe Great (Catalogueof the Exhibition in Marche Bonsecours,Montreal, 1993), Athens 1993. Greifenhagen,A. 1935. "Attische schwarzfigurigeVasenim Akademischen Kunstmuseumzu Bonn," AA, pp. 407-493. Grose, D. F. 1989. EarlyAncientGlass, New York. Grunhagen,W. 1948. AntikeOriginalarbeitenderKunstsammlung des Instituts(Archaologisches Institutder UniversitttErlangen),Nuremberg. Hammond, N. G. L. 1972. A History of MacedoniaI: HistoricalGeography andPrehistory,Oxford. . 1989. TheMacedonianState, Oxford. Hammond, N. G. L., and G. T. Griffith.1979.A HistoryofMacedoniaII: 550-336 B.C., Oxford. Hampe, R. 1976. "TdnernerPhormiskos aus Metapont,"AA, pp. 192202. Haspels, C. H. E. 1936. Attic BlackFiguredLekythoi,2 vols.,Paris. Hatzopoulos, M. B., and L. D. Loukopoulou,eds. 1992. Philip of Macedon, Athens. Higgins, R. A. 1954. Catalogueof the in theDepartmentof Terracottas GreekandRomanAntiquities,British MuseumI, Oxford. 1959.Catalogueof the Terracottasin theDepartmentof Greekand RomanAntiquities,BritishMuseum II, Oxford. . n.d.Tanagraand theFigurines, London. und Hommel, H. 1978. Bocksbeutel Aryballos,Heidelberg. Hornbostel,W., et al. 1980. Aus Graiber undHeiligtiimern:Die Antiken SammlungWalterKropatscheck (Exhibition Catalogue,Museum fiir Kunstund Gewerbe,Hamburg), Mainz.
POTTERY
FROM
Ignatiadou,D. 1998. "Xstpoiotoea yOOctvaayyeto WMiroocpxoc(o vexpo-ctazto
oe?pN5 q8g
23-28, 1990-1995 [1998], pp. 223234. Isler,H. P. 1978. "Samos:La ceramica arcaica,"in Les ce'ramiquesde la Grece de l'Est et leur diffusion: CentreJean Berard, Institutfranfais de Naples, 69juillet 1976 (Colloques Inter-
nationauxdu CNRS 569), Paris, pp. 71-84. Jucker,I. 1963. "Frauenfestin Korinth," AntK6, pp. 47-61. Kallipolitis,V. 1973. "Xacxoovx6Z6v)) ex AOtCLxi; UV5Yfla yOvaOLXda;
pp. 130MaoXr8ov,ao;,"ArchEph, 142. Kaltsas,N. E. 1998. 'AxavOof; I: H cXvacixxqCOTvVeXpO-ccxdOxa-i TO 1979 (Publicationsof ArchDelt 65),
Athens. Karamitrou-Mentessidi,G. 1993. Aocv'S 1990," "Avaoxcagx9 AEpyoMaxx4, 1990 [1993], pp. 75-92. . 1996. Aiani:Archaeological Guide, Athens. . 1999. BO'ov-NMvcatOpezvlc,
Thessaloniki. Karamitrou-Mentessidi,G., and E. Kefalidou.1999. "TotLx6rpyaXctaTQL aOXaLXW.X
XCXL xaax1xi;
tov xepc1axq; acrormv ALav' XOXL No,uoKoCavb " in Ancient Macedonia VI: Papers Read at the Sixth International Symposium, Thessaloniki, 15-19 Octoher1996 I, Thes-
saloniki,pp. 537-562. Kefalidou,E. 1998. `A-r-nx6;Ve?tXvo6ATAcvf7," sop(po;aopopa;otpoo -trrv
in Mvde'oXdo pv.: T6ou ov7y ivgir M. )2yavOov, Thessaloniki, pp. 115-125. .2001. "New Panathenaic Prize-Amphorasfrom Aiani in Upper Macedonia,"in Panathenafka: Symposion zu den Panatheniischen Preisamphoren,Rauischholzhausen, 25-29 Novemher 1998, M. Bentz
and N. Eschbach,eds., Mainz, pp. 11-17. Koch, N. J. 1996. De Picturae Initiis: DieAnfange dergriechischenMalerei im 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Studien
zur antikenMalereiund FarbgebungIII), Munich. Kottaridi,A. 1997. "BepyLvot 1997,"
AIANI
2I7
AEpyoMax10, 1996 [1997] A', pp. 79-92. Koukouli-Hryssanthaki,H. 1983. "AvaoaxcctpLxe?pwvr; aTcv ApXata
Tpcy6ko,"in AncientMacedoniaIII: PapersReadat the ThirdInternational 21-25 Symposium,Thessaloniki, September 1977, Thessaloniki, pp. 123-146. 1988. "Avaaxocqx a-Yca ocpxodac AEpyoMaxx1, 1987 [19881, 'AP&qpa," pp. 407-420. Koukouli-Hryssanthaki,H., et al. 1997. "ApxptoXoymxi;XOXL yew[)op(poA-coMXca 0 -coo
XoytLxe; 'pevr5
AEpyoMacx10, 1996 E-cpoV6va," [1997] A',pp. 639-661. Kurtz,D. C. 1975. AthenianWhite Lekythoi,Oxford. . 1984. "Vasesfor the Dead: An Attic Selection, 750-400 B.C.," in Brijder1984, pp. 314-328. Kurtz,D. C., andJ. Boardman.1971. GreekBurial Customs, London.
Langdon, S., ed. 1993. FromPastureto Polis:Artin theAge ofHomer, Columbia,Mo. Lemos, A. A. 1991. ArchaicPotteryof Chios,2 vols., Oxford. Littlewood, A. R. 1968. "The Symbolism of the Apple in Greek and Roman Literature,"HSCP 72, pp. 147-181. Lullies, R. 1949. "Attisch-SchwarzfigurigeKeramikaus dem Kerameikos,"Jd161-62,1946-1947 [1949], pp. 55-75. Margreiter,I. 1988. Friihelakonische bis Keramikdergeometrischen archaischen Zeit, Waldsassen. Martelli Cristofani,M. 1978. "La ceramicagreco-orientalein Etruria," de la Grecede l'Est in Les c&ramiques et leurdiffusion:CentreJean Berard, InstitutfranfaisdeNaples,6-9juillet 1976 (Colloques Internationauxdu CNRS 569), Paris,pp. 150-212. Meiggs, R. 1982. Treesand Timberin theAncientMediterraneanWorld, Oxford. Moshonissiotou, S. 1991. "O'ipTEMv8o;.Avaaxc9tLxe'apac1;pYjrS -c i5;ispto); eaa?X0oVwx-,%"AEpyoMax 2, 1988
acya 86o vexpo-ccagea
[1991], pp. 283-293. Muthmann, F. 1982. Der Granatapfel: SymboldesLebensin deralten Welt, Bern.
EURYDICE
2I8
Neils, J. 1992. "The Morgantina 96, pp. 225-235. Phormiskos,"4AJA Nilsson, M. P 1908. "Das Ei im Totenkultder Alter,"ArchRW 11, pp.530-546. Noll, W., R. Holm, and L. Born. 1974. "Die Malerei auf polychromen attischenLekythoi als Dokument antikerkeramischerTechnik," NeuesJahrbuchfirMinerologie. Abhandlungen122.2, pp. 119144. Orsi, P. 1913. "LocriEpizephyrii,"NSc Supplement,pp. 3-54. Panayotou,A. 1996. "Dialectal Inscriptionsfrom Chalcidice, Macedonia,and Amphipolis,"in InscriptionsofMacedonia:Third InternationalSymposium on Macedonia,Thessaloniki 1993, Thessaloniki,pp. 125-163. Pantermali,E., and E. Trakossopoulou. 1998. "Kcxpoxtoopviaxt 1994: H cxvocaxcxp'trm ITr EHKA," AEpyoMax 8, 1994 [1998],
pp.203-215. Papadopoulos,J. K. 1996. "Euboiansin Macedonia?A Closer Look," OJA 15, pp. 151-181. . 1997. "PhantomEuboians," JMA 10, pp. 191-219. R. 1996.AthenianReligion: Parker, A History,Oxford. Parovic-Pesikan,M. 1993. "Les cruches a bec-verseur (prochoi) du VIe-IVe
siecle avantnotre ere dans l'int6rieur des Balkans,"in Ancient Macedonia V:Papers Read at the Ffith International Symposium, Thessaloniki, 1015 October1989 III, Thessaloniki,
pp. 1239-1248. Payne,H. [1931] 1971. Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period, repr.College Park. PerachoraI = H. Payne et al., The Sanctuaries ofHera Akraia and Limenia:Architecture, Bronzes, Terracottas,Oxford 1940.
Pharmakowsky,B. 1912. "Archaologische Funde im Jahre1911, Russland,"AA, pp. 353-356. . 1913. "ArchaologischeFunde im Jahre1912, Russland,"AA, pp. 178-188. Poulios, V. 1998. " ox cxvxoxaxpn c-rovsXpoTcxCpYo 7S acpxacxuc Fcx(O'poo,"AEpyoMaxx 9, 1995 [1998], pp. 411-422.
KEFALIDOU
Rombos,T. 1988.TheIconography of II Pottery, AtticLate Geometric Jonsered. Rtihfel,H. 1984. Das Kind in der Kunst(Kulturgeschichte griechischen der Antiken Welt 18), Mainz am Rhein. Rystedt,E. 1992. "Notes on the Rattle Scenes on Attic GeometricPottery," OpAth 19.10, pp. 125-133. Sabetai,V. 2000. "IHouxE'xz tX(ES in E7T?,p6 V5 Axpcuqp'coc," Bot&rtx&v M&i&? v 3, E-locxpc,dcx pp. 494-535. Schaus,G. P. 1988. "The Beginning of Greek PolychromePainting,"JHS 108, pp. 107-117. Schefold,K. 1960. Meisterwerke griechischerKunst, Basel. Schilardi,D. U. 1977. "TheThespian Polyandrion(424 B.C.): The Excavationsand Finds from a Thespian State Burial,"3 vols. (diss. PrincetonUniversity). Schmaltz,B. 1974. Terrakottenaus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben, Berlin. Schmidt, R. 1977. Die Darstellung von Kinderspielzeug und Kinderspiel in dergriechischenKunst (Raabser
Marchen 3), Vienna. Shapiro,H. A. 1991. "The Iconography of Mourning in Athenian Art,"AJA 95, pp. 629-656. Z1'v8os-Z('v8o;(ExhibitionCatalogue, ArchaeologicalMuseum of Thessaloniki),Athens 1985. Sismanidis,K. 1986. "To cpX~axo6 vexpotapoco
-rqS Aytca$ HocxpcxoCXO'
in Aye1T0S: OEaoc?Xov6xr%," Ttn-rixo5; -14'yo yta -Iov xaOnyrq Av8,povtxo II, M. Tiverios, Mcxv62un
S. Drougou, and C. SaatsoglouPaliadeli,eds., Thessaloniki, pp. 787-803. Skarlatidou,E., and D. Ignatiadou. 1997. "Hp6-rCOoo 1sp6Ca[ICx-rCO OCTO Trv
cvacaxoxpn
too
ccpxacxoo
vEXpotaCYpsoo oG-C-q 06P[ (LYS1),
AEpyoMaxx 10, 1996 [1997] A', pp. 477-490. Skias,A. N. 1898. "H'cvapXacxvE?zsccv 'cxx Nexpo7o-to,"ArchEph, pp.29-122. Sparkes,B. A. 1977. "Quintainand the Talcott Class,"AntK20, pp. 8-25. Tiverios, M. 1986. "Archaische Keramikaus Sindos",Mcxx?0ovixo 25, 1985-1986 [1986], pp. 70-87.
. 1988. "Oo-rpOcxOc 'cs to Kocpoaoopvaxt," AEpyoMaxx 1, 1987 [1988], pp. 247-260. . 1989. "Ootp0cxOcMM'tq acvn oto Tcrj SH?aSvrj: IlpTIpiyC sT6OpLot&v Fs?XvLxcv acxyysLCvxac otov aCocxcLi6 tIS XOCX&X'," Eyvalcx'o(.E7rluLyovtxr Egp6q,oc's i sIOV Trq7OLPOiOu(pOyx oAnXi Hav&wuc7acpjlov Apwn-o-rc&i&(ov ' ucxci0ov1'xr. Tji a Icnop(c'axxxt 1, Thessaloniki, ApcXaoAoy1'(c6
pp. 31-64. 1990a. "Avcoxocxp-Ev6' vsXpot-pscoo -too 5u oc 7.X. a-qv ToO ApXoaoC'ApytXo: H [tzrq vexpot-mpscoo,"ArchDelt 39, 1984 [1990] A',pp. 5-47. 11990b."Aco TOCOCTCopEv6CpLcx EVO6 TCposkX?-votCxo6
cspo6
'7tspc
-cov y0p[oc6ov x6?Aov,"'in Mv'ir, A.Aacscp(8n: H6At,;xax X,pcx urv ApXac'dMaxc8ovl'c xa Opa&xn. Hpcaxvtxc'ApXac1oAoy1xoo Zvv&8p1'Ov, Kapafca, 9-10 Macov 1986 (RecherchesFranco-Hell6-
niques 1), Thessaloniki,pp. 71-88. . 1991. "E x OC xEpac[Lx -ToO 60x xoc 5?? occ. 7t.X. cout TcvAo," AEpyoMaxx2, 1988 [1991],
pp. 297-306. ..1993. "ZNv3o$-Acyowro$, in Ancient Macedonia V Papers Read at the Fifth International Symposium, Thessaloniki, 10-15 October1989 III,
Thessaloniki,pp. 1487-1493. . 1997. "Etta Xpo'vucx acpxxco?OoycxCv
PSOVC)V
O cY q
M
tpac7r,o AyXCXoo-Ucv8oo," AEpyoMaxx 10, 1996 [1997] A', pp. 407-425. . 2000. "AO-v&cxo?X68 otov
xcxt Too OEP[LoaxoX XO?too [L0X? -cov 60 ocx.7r.X.," in M6po,-w:Mvrgn Boxo-w7roviov, ThessaloIovAc'ax; niki, pp. 519-527. Touchefeu-Meynier,0. 1972. "Un nouveau'phormiskos'a figures noires,"RA, pp. 93-102. Tsimpidou-Auloniti,M. 1997. "Tocxqxo'6 t6poS octov'Ay.AOcxvdcH o?oxXMpcoaoto Eoc)c?aoov6xrjn: 7, 1993 zpeovcxg," AEpyoMaxx 7qrj [1997], pp. 251-264. Tzanavari,K., and S. Lioutas. 1997. As-u6t: Mc7pca "Tpacrewcx stn nopoomocacr,"AEpyoMcxx 7, 1993
[1997], pp. 265-278.
POLYCHROME
POTTERY
FROM
AIANI
Ure,P.N. 1934.AryballoiandFigurines from Rhitsonain Boeotia,Cambridge.
2I9
1996. "Citiesand Sanctuaries of the Archaic Periodin Chalkidike," BSA 91, pp. 319-328. Vickers,M. 1984. "The Influence of Exotic Materialson Attic WhiteWebb,V. 1978.ArchaicGreekFaience, Ground Pottery,"in Brijder1984, Warminster. pp. 88-97. Wehgartner,I. 1983. AttischeweissVokotopoulou,J. 1975. XaAxad Kop,vgrundigeKeramik,Mainz. . 1988. "NeueUntersuchungen Otovpyd;Hpo',o0t (BcPo0qXTqj sv AO'vcuSApX7o?ooytx'nEt pscxg 82), zur weissgrundigenLekythenAthens. inAncientGreekand bemalung," .1986. B6iuca:Ta v&xpo-acxqda RelatedPottery:Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium,Copenhagen, August ytax;yoAouctx'4;x4Lr s (Publications of ArchDelt 33), 3 vols., Athens. 31-September4, 1987, J. Christiansen .1993. "ApXa0xo cSpo cOY av)q andT. Melander,eds., Copenhagen, pp. 640-651. XccXxt&xcn,"inAncient Macedonia V: PapersReadat theFifth International Weinberg,G. D., and M. C. McClellan. Symposium, 10-15 in AncientGreece Thessaloniki, 1992.GlassVessels October1989 I, Thessaloniki, (Publicationsof ArchDelt 47), pp.179-236. Athens.
Eurydice Kefalidou 25TH
OF PREHISTORIC
EPHOREIA
CLASSICAL RETHYMNON 74IO0
AND
ANTIQUITIES ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RETHYMNON
GREECE
[email protected]
MUSEUM
HESPERIA
Pages
70
(2001)
221-254
A
C
RO
PG
Li
(EIOIOS
ANED OF
ATH
ENA)
REDISCOVER
THE
ITS
1 62.5
FINDPOT
ABSTRACT Acropolis 625, a monumentalArchaic statue of Athena seated, is the earliest extantidentifiableAthenian statueofAthena, and maybe the one by Endoios that Pausaniassawnearthe Erechtheion.Itwas found on the AcropolisNorth Slope at the beginning of the Greek Revolution.This paperpinpoints its exact findspot, and revealsthat the statue was built-right side up and facing forward-into a previouslyunknown Late Antique wall of ca. A.D. 270-300, later incorporatedinto a mid-18th centuryTurkish outwork,just inside the new Turkishnorth gate. The wall was dismantledca. 1822-1824. Acropolis 625 (Fig. 1), a marble statue of Athena seated, often attributed to Endoios, is the oldest extant monumental Athenian statue of Athena, and, as such, is a major work of Archaic art. Although scholars have explored its date, attribution, dedication, and relationship to other Archaic seated figures, some other aspects of this badly battered work have yet to be addressed. Among these is the mystery of its findspot, which is given only in vague terms in 19th- and 20th-century texts and catalogues.This article focuses on rediscoveringthe precise findspot of Acropolis 625, and in so doing reveals not only unexpected new knowledge about the history of the statue since Late Antiquity, but also new topographicalinformation about the Acropolis North Slope.' 1. For statuesof Athena on the Acropolis,see Ridgway1992 and Hurwit 1999, pp. 12-34. Ridgway (1990, pp. 602-605) interpretssome ArchaicAthenian koraias representations of the goddess. The readerwill please note that there are many ancient spelling and grammaticalforms in the English and German quotationsfound in this article.I have renderedthem precisely as they were written, except to change the archaicletter I into "s.'
ANCIENT ATHENA
LOCATION
OF THE
ENDOIOS
In Book 1 of his Descriptionof Greece,written ca. A.D. 155-160, Pausanias mentions a statue of a seated Athena located on the Athenian Acropolis and accompanied by an inscription which read that it had been made by Endoios and dedicated by Kallias: Endoios was an Athenian by birth and a pupil of Daidalos, who also, when Daidalos was in exile because of the death of Kalos,
PATRICIA
222
A.
MARX
followed him to Crete. Made by him is a statue of Athena seated, with an inscription that Kallias dedicated the image, but Endoios made it.2 Pausanias saw the statue on the Acropolis somewhere near the Erechtheion.3 Athenagoras, writing about two decades later (ca. A.D. 177), also lists a seated Athena by Endoios, which could be the same statue referred to by Pausanias: For the one in Ephesos of Artemis, and the one of Athena [or rather Athela, since she is athela the unsuckled, as they the more mystical sense (*) for thus (*)] the old one from olive wood and the seatedonewere made by Endoios, a student of Daidalos. [Italics mine] Acropolis 625 has long been considered the Endoios Athena, and its stylistic qualities agree with the dates when Endoios was known to be working in Athens, ca. 530-500 B.C.5 Relatively recently, however, J. A. Bundgaard obliquely questioned the attribution based upon the reported findspot of the statue.6His views will be presented in the course of the discussion below, along with newly discovered evidence for the exact findspot of the statue.
THE REPORTED FINDSPOT In 1843 Adolf Scholl, in editing Carl Otfried Muller's last papers, wrote that the statue was "Angeblich unter der Akropolis, am Ausgang der Aglauros-Grotte geftunden.(Zugang zu den Propylien)."7George Scharf Jr., citing Scholl, wrote in 1851: "The statue was discovered,it is believed, at the Aglaurium. This locality is situated immediately at the foot of the Acropolis, underthe Temple of Minerva Polias."8The rock cleft to which 2. Paus. 1.26.4-5 (trans.Jones [1918] 1978, p. 135). On the date of Pausanias'svisit to Athens, see Habicht 1985, pp. 10-11. Despite the spurious associationwith Daidalos, the other informationis reliable:Pausaniassaw both the statue and its dedicatory inscription. 3. Pausaniasmentions the statue immediatelybefore discussingthe Erechtheion,which is usuallyidentified as the Ionic temple on the north side of the Acropolis (Fig. 2). According to Jeppesen(1979, p. 381 and note 1: citing Paton 1927, p. 585, appendix A), Spon (1678, pp. 159-160; 1679, p. 122) was the first writerto label this temple "theErechtheion."In the Classicalera it was known as the new
temple "withinwhich is the old statue" (IG IP474, line 1). 4. Legatiopro Christianis17.3/17.4 (Marcovich1990, p. 54, passage17.3; Schoedel 1972, p. 34, passage17.4). The translationis mostly mine, with some relianceon Schoedel 1972, p. 35, and with the kind assistanceof A. J. Seltman. See Marcovich1990, p. 1, for the date.This passageis partlycorruptin the existing manuscriptand contains certaindifficulties,some of which I have reviewedelsewhere(Marx 1993, pp. 250-251 and notes 104-106). See also Viviers 1992, pp. 59-61. 5. Endoios'ssignatureis preserved at least three times in Athens in letterforms dating ca. 530-500 B.C.: Raubitschek 1949, pp. 492-495; Jeffery
1962, pp. 127 and 130. On the date of Acr. 625, see below,note 92. 6. Bundgaard1974, p. 16, and p. 31, note 58. Keesling (1999, pp. 524-525), more recently,is also cautiousaboutthe attribution. 7. Miiller-Scholl 1843, p. 24. The discussionof the statue,which is referredto as "ThronendePallas," begins on p. 23, and is numbered1.3. In his foreword,Scholl notes that Muller made a trip to Greece in 1840. The inventorynumber625 is based on the numberin Kastriotes'1895 catalogue(p. 26). The statuewas thereforenot referredto as Acr. 625 until after Kastriotes'publication. 8. Scharf1851, p. 191.
ACROPOLIS
625 AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
223
Figure 1. Acropolis 625, front view. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut, Athens, neg. Schrader97
9. Breton 1868, pp. 175-176; Travlos 1960, p. 194;Tanoulas1987, p. 450. Although Dontas (1983, p. 58) thought Wordsworth(1836, pp. 85-88) was the first to identify this particular "cave"as that of Aglauros,Leake (1821, pp. 125-130) had alreadydone so: K. Glowacki (pers.comm.). Wordsworth (1836, preface,p. vi) was in Athens in 1832-1833. For good photographsof the cleft as it appearstoday, see Dontas 1970, p. 168, figs. 3-4; Hopper 1971, p. 49. 10. Broneer 1939. 11. Dontas 1983, pp. 50-53, supportedby Miller 1995, p. 211 and p. 236, note 83, and by Hurwit 1999, p. 101 and p. 340, note 8. The stele is Acr. 13371. Early proponentsof an East Slope Aglaurionwere Wilkins (1816, pp. 61-64) and Hawkins (1818, pp. 492-493). The East Slope cave was partlyexcavatedby Broneerin 1936 (Broneer 1936). The location of the Aglaurion is important,for Pausanias (1.18.1-5) places the Archaic agoranear it. Travlos(1960, p. 35, fig. 14: nos. 15-20, and 1971, p. 578), identifying the Mycenaeanfountain with the Aglaurion,placed the Archaic agoraon the North Slope. Now Miller (1995, pp. 201-216 and p. 243, fig. 1) places this agoraat the base of the North Slope on its easternaspect; and Luce (1998, pp. 10-22, and p. 15, fig. 2) proposesan agoradating to the 7th centuryB.C. on the East Slope.
Scholl and Scharf refer lies below the triglyphs built into the North Citadel Wall, west of the Erechtheion, and was regardedfor a long time as the cave of Aglauros.9It is distinguished by a secret passage containing steps, which allowed communication with the Acropolis. Oscar Broneer found a Mycenaean fountain there in 1937-1938.10 On April 16, 1980, a "stelestill fastened to its base,"and inscribed with a decree from the 3rd century B.C. stating that it was to be set up in the sanctuary of Aglauros, was found below the large cave on the East Slope." Since the discovery of this in-
PATRICIA
224
A.
MARX
Odeion of Perikles
~~~~~~
S~~~~~~~~~
Of ~~~~~~~~~~~~Dion
/17P
Sanct.ofPateo
Erosand(Aphrodite
MycenaeanC1 Fountain Modern Road
Figure2. Plan of Acropolisin the
2ndcenturyA.C. Modernroadand captions added. From Hopper 1971, p.208
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FFINDSPOT
225
scription, the cleft in the North Slope is no longer generally regarded as the Aglaurion. It will be referred to here, therefore, as the Mycenaean fountain (Fig. 2). Later in the 19th century the findspot of Acropolis 625 was given even more vaguely. Milchhofer wrote: "Es soil am Nordfusse der Berg gefunden sein";Kastriotes simply reported that it was found on the North Slope.12 Over the centuries the North Slope had been covered with silt and debris,which had washed down from above.'3What did 19th-century scholars mean by the "foot"of the North Slope? Were they referringto the level of the ancient peripatos-which was mostly obscured-or more likely the level of a path where a modern road is today?'4Portions of both lie directly below the Mycenaean fountain (Fig. 2). If Acropolis 625 is indeed the Endoios Athena, how and when did it arriveat the foot of the North Slope? And did it lie on the surface (Henri Lechat) or was it buried in the soil (Andreas Rumpf)?'5 Charles-Ernest Beule and Heinrich Heydemann both wrote that the statue may have been thrown down from above. They were followed by Lechat and Hans Schrader.'6Thus Guy Dickins subsequently wrote: "It was found on the surface of the slope below the Erechtheum, and therefore must at some time have been rolled over the edge of the Acropolis.'7 Both Schrader and Dickins also added that the weathered condition of the statue showed that it had stood in the open for centuries. Acropolis 625, therefore, had not been part of the so-called Persian debris, and thus couldbe the statue of Athena by Endoios mentioned by Pausanias." Bundgaard provisionally accepted Dickins's statement about the findspot of Acropolis 625, but explained its weathered condition differently.He postulatedthat the statue was buriedin the "Persiandebris"northeast of the Erechtheion next to the North Citadel Wall. A large portion of this wall was rebuilt in the Byzantine era or later.Bundgaard speculates that it collapsed sometime in Late Antiquity, at which time the Classical fill was disturbed. He believes that Acropolis 625 was part of the 5thcentury B.C. deposit behind this wall, and that at some point it lay "exposed in the breach for a long time before tumbling down."'9Hence its badly weathered state. If buried in the 5th century B.C., Acropolis 625 could not have been the statue of Athena by Endoios seen by Pausanias. 12. Milchhofer 1881, p. 53; Kastriotes 1895, p. 27. See also Sybel 1881, p.339, no.5002. 13. See Broneer1938, p. 164, also explaininghow ancient and later materialsbecame mixed. From the 1830s on, earlyexcavatorsalso dumpedlarge quantitiesof debrisonto the slopes: Beck 1868, pl. 9 (North Slope) and pls. 20-21 (South Slope).The process continues:Dontas 1970, p. 167 and fig. 1. 14. In geological terms this path is much closer to the summit than to the base of the Acropolis.The modern
roadwas reconstructedand improved ca. 1938: Shear 1938, pp. 330-332. 15. Lechat 1903, p. 441 and note 2. Rumpf (1938, p. 44) wrote:"die thronendeAthena, die 1821 am Nordabhangder Akropolis ausgegrabenwurde." 16. Beuk 1868, p. 441; Heydemann 1874, p. 227; Lechat 1903, p. 441; Schrader1909, p. 45. 17. Dickins 1912, p. 162. 18. Dickins 1912, pp. 160 and 162; Schrader1909, p. 45. Others concur, e.g., Brouskari1974, p. 73. 19. Bundgaard1974, pp. 15-16.
Broneer(1933, p. 351) dates this part of the Acropoliswall as Byzantineor later.The Byzantinerepairwas extensive and lay above the sanctuaryof Eros and Aphrodite,as well as a Mycenaean staircase,excavatedby Broneer(1932, 1933). The wall repairis renderedas a hatched grid in Travlos'smaps for Broneer(Broneer1933, pl. XI, and 1935, pl. I). The deposits of so-called Persiandebrison the Acropolis contain both Archaicand 5th-century B.C. Classicalmaterials:Hurwit 1989, p. 63 and note 74.
PATRICIA
226
A. MARX
About the findspot Bundgaard states in a note: Dickins refers to Gerhard,Annali d. I. 1837 p 106 who writes that he knew the figure from a sketch by Gell. But Gell left Greece [in] 1803. And about the finding spot: La figure ["] qu'on voyait autrefois parmi les decombres de l'enceinte de l'Acropole."20 Gell is Sir William Gell, a British artist and topographer,who traveled extensively in Greece between 1801 and 1812, and who is discussed at length below. Bundgaard gives the impression that Gell had left Greece for good in 1803, which is not correct,21 and that Eduard Gerhard, for some reason, could not have seen any sketches by Gell.22The last sentence in Bundgaard'sfootnote belongs to a letter written by Gerhard in 1837. Here are the relevant sentences in full: Je me trouvai surtout frappe 'ala vue d'une statue de Minerve assise, de grandeur naturelle, qu'on voyait autrefois parmi les decombres de l'enceinte de l'Acropole; maintenant elle est transferee a l'entree du grand emplacement des fouilles actuelles. Nous la connaissions auparavant,mais d'une maniere trop imparfaite, par une esquisse de Sir William Gell.23 Gerhard makes a number of significant statements here. We will explore them in the course of the discussion below.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PRECISE FINDSPOT All who have ventured opinions regarding how Acropolis 625 arrived at the foot of the North Slope have assumed that it was found where it had fallen or had been thrown down from above, and they also seem to believe that this was a fairly"recent"event. The evidence demonstrates otherwise. The exact location of the findspot can be pieced together from a variety of sources:accounts of early travelers,early maps of Athens and the Acropolis, and existing ruins on the North Slope. This evidence indicates not only that the statue was probably brought to that spot deliberately,but that it was brought there much earlier than has been supposed. Among the early travelers, the testimonia of William Gell, Edward Dodwell, Richard Chandler, and John Cam Hobhouse are paramount. We shall begin with Gell. SIR WILLIAM GELL (1777-I836) In a book published in 1819, Sir William Gell, born in 1777 and knighted in 1803, wrote the following in a chapter about Athens: The temple of Minerva Polias, Neptune Erectheus, and Pandrosus, is on the north of the Parthenon. The salt spring might possibly be discovered by excavation.There is a fountain of brackishwater below the rock, which may proceed from that source; and near it in
20. Bundgaard1974, p. 31, note 58. This note goes with the statementon p. 16 that "accordingto Dickins," Acr. 625 "wasfound on the slope below the Erechtheum." 21. AdmiralL. Gell, in a letter written to Philip Gell and dated November 10, 1805, states that he has just receiveda letter fromWilliam from Greece, datedJuly 3. Admiral Gell's letter has been pasted into Milnes 1834, p. 124, in the libraryof the British School at Athens. 22. Gerhardand Gell probablymet in Italy.Gell settled there in 1820, where he was "alion in Roman and Neopolitan Society"(Miller 1972, p. 25), and died in Naples in 1836 (Williamson 1964, p. 224). A. Krug, Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Berlin, has kindly informedme (pers. comm.) that Gerhardwent to Italy in 1819 and lived in Rome until 1833. 23. Gerhard1837, p. 106. Gerhard's lengthy letter is dated Berlin, November 1837. It dealswith the Athena on pp. 106-107.
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
227
a wall is a very ancient statue of Minerva. Below this temple, in the wall surrounding the Acropolis, are triglyphs, either originally placed as ornaments of the wall, or those of the old hecatompedon destroyed by the Persians, as are probably the pieces of unfluted columns near. Below the back front of the propylxa is the cave of Pan, and the holes for votive offerings yet remain. Stuart talks of a source [of water] near it.24 Gell was in Greece in the years 1801-1802 and 1805-1806, and then in 1811-1812 he was sent there by the Society of Dilettanti, along with Francis Bedford and John Peter Gandy-Deering.25 Gell took notes and made drawings,many ofwhich arein the possession of the British Museum's Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. The contents of thirteen of his sketchbooks, which date from 1801 to 1806, were published in 1900 by Laurence Binyon, who numbered the sketches within each book.26 One of Gell's drawings,book no. 8 LB 18, is labeled: "STATUE IN THE WALL OF THE ACROPOLIS Minerva Polias. 27 This sketch, which is reproduced here for the first time, shows a statue of Athena, clearly identifiable as the one now known as Acropolis 625, built into a wall right side up and front forward (Fig. 3). Athena is seated, her right foot drawn back. Her knees and muscular calves press through her drapery,a series of vertical folds gathered between them. She wears a poncho aegis with outwardly scalloped edges and a huge round (defaced) gorgoneion on its front center. No doubt both the statue and the wall in the sketch are those to which Gell referredin his written account, even though he does not describe the Athena as seated. This is also likely to be the sketch seen by Gerhard (above, p. 226), which he knew by 1828, for at that time he wrote about a
24. Gell 1819, p. 46. For Gell's knighthood, see Miller 1972, p. 25. Binyon (1900, p. 185) gives his year of birth as 1777. RegardingStuart,see below, note 39. 25. Gell 1810. Regardinghis mission for the Society of Dilettanti, see Binyon 1900, p. 185; Miller 1972, p. 25; Madden 1861, p. 79. Deering's name appearsin a varietyof ways, includingJohn P. Gandy Dering, John P. Gandy,John Peter Deering, andJ. P. Gandy-Derry.The Society of Dilettanti was formedin 1734, and comprised54 noblemen and gentlemen, including the Earl of Sandwich and Revett:Churton (below,note 62) in Chandler 1825, I, p. vi. 26. Binyon 1900, pp. 185-213. See also Hasluck 1911-1912, pp. 272-273. are Some of the Binyon "sketchbooks" actuallyloose sketchesthat were at some time bound togetherinto books. The BritishMuseum also has six other
sketchbooks,three traveldiaries,and one accountbook by Gell, which may be from the Dilettanti mission of 1811-1812: 1. D. Jenkins,pers. comm. The British School at Athens also possesses six sketchbooksby Gell. The contents of two of these aregiven in Woodwardand Austin 1925-1926a and 1925-1926b. 27. Binyon 1900, p. 199: "(18) STATUE OF ATHENE POLIAS in the wall of the Acropolis.Pen and ink."The sketch is 11.5 cm high and 19 cm wide, and is situatedat the top of a rectangular page, 39 cm high and 21.3 cm wide, which is bound in backward.I thank L. Burn for these precisemeasurements (pers.comm.). Sketcheson pages of differentsizes were bound together in book no. 8. The lines of the drawing are much darkerand firmerthan they appearin the photograph.The inscriptionis in Gell's hand.
PATRICIA
228
A.
MARX
N.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i*
-r4L STATUe I %4;
'
e'i s
T
- t
:
OFTH V.
Figure3. Sketchby Gell. Acropolis 625 built into a Late Antique wall. CourtesyThe British Museum
sketch by Gell of a statue of Minerva that once served as a filling in a wall of the Acropolis.28 The condition of the statue in the early 19th century was apparently not much different from what it is today (cf. Figs. 1 and 3). Athena lacks her head, but her neck and the strands of hair falling over her breasts remain. The head was hacked off at the back and sides with downward blows, and the entire surface of the resulting hollow is badly weathered, as are the neck and much of the front of the statue. Gell left out Athena's shoulders, which were and are still intact; the upper arms were broken with downward blows from the sides and back.The elbows were recovered separately,but the circumstancesregardingtheir discovery areunknown to me. The elbows are present in a drawing dating to 1836, and in the oldest published image, an engraving, dating to 1843.29The missing forearms were severed below the elbows. The right side of the chair is gone (viewer's left),30as are its legs; the knob of the left front leg, surroundedby the seat cushion, is extant. These depredations clearly took place before the statue was built into the wall, as they could not have occurred afterward.The snakes of the aegis, which were added separatelyin bronze, were also removed at some time. In his sketch Gell deviated slightly from the actual remains. He did not indicate the neckline of the aegis, which is in such low relief and now so battered that it is difficult to discern. He indicated only two strands of hair falling over Athena's chest on either side, whereas the statue has four per side. In order to show the movement of the right leg, he raised that knee higher than the left-on the statue the right knee is actually a bit lower than the left-and showed a nonexistent weight-shift onto her left buttock. Finally, Gell captured the sloping aspect of the plinth when seen from the front, but appears to have added a molding to the right front corner.
28. Gerhard1828, p. 127, note 23: "Stattdes vermeintlichenMinervenbildes im Metroon (CREUZER Symb.II. 687, vgl. oben Taf. I. Anm. 73) kennen wir aus einer Skizze Sir w. GELLSeinen ahnlichenMarmorsturz,der noch vor wenigen Jahreneiner Mauer der Akropolis zur Fullung diente."Boardman (1978, p. 82) must have been referring to this sketch when he wrote that the ruined state of Acr. 625 might be "due to re-use as building materialin late antiquity."
29. For the engravingfrom the 1836 drawing,by Schaubertor Hansen, intended for pl. 19 of Ross'sneverpublishedvol. II (for vol. I, see Ross [1839]), see Junker1995, p. 756, and p. 757, fig. 1, lower right.That of 1843 appearsin Muller-Scholl 1843, pl. 1:1, and Gerhard1844, pl. 1:4.Scharf (1851, p. 193) publishedthree new engravedviews of the statue. 30. This has been replacedby modern materials,not shown here. The right side was brokenand repaired in antiquity,probablyat the time of the PersianWars:Langlotz in Schrader, Langlotz, and Schuchhardt1939, p. 109. The clamp-hole for the repair is clearlyvisible in an excellentphotograph in Schrader1909, p. 43, fig. 37.
ACROPOLIS
625 AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
229
Figure 4. Acropolis 625. Drawing from Fig. 1, with measurements corresponding to its placement in Fig. 3.
31. The height of Acr. 625, including the plinth, is cited as 1.47 m in Leonardos's19th-centuryhandwritten inventory(shown to me by ChristinaVlassopoulou),and by Langlotz in Schrader,Langlotz, and Schuchhardt1939, p. 109. The height, taken at the back centerof the statue, was confirmedin April 2000 by Notios Giannoulatos,who took a number of measurementsof the statue in my presence.Gell makesthe block directly to Athena'sleft the same height as the other two mentioned here,but in this case the distancebetween the given points on the statueis only about 52 cm (Fig. 4). 32. On the Post-HerulianWall, which was begun in the reign of Probus,see Frantzin AgoraXXIV, pp. 5-11 and pls. 5-14, with appendix by Travlos,pp. 125-141. Fowden (1990, p. 494) dates it ca. A.D. 276-305, and Sironen (1994, p. 21) in the 270s and 280s A.C. This wall was once thought to have been built by Valerian
in the mid-3rdcenturyA.C., andis referredto as such in older accounts. 33. Camp 1986, p. 197.
The wall seems to have been a Late Antique creation.It is made up of blocks of stone (poros and marble?)of a variety of dimensions, which are not neatly arrangedin courses and have fill between. Some may have once been finely dressed orthostates and Doric architraves.The long, thin stones on the bottom and upper right could have been stelae or thin sections from a pseudo-isodomic wall. One large block next to Athena reaches from just above the goddess's right ankle to the top of her lap, or approximately 79 cm in height (Figs. 3-4). The large rectangularblock beneath her is of a similar height. It is possible, therefore, that her lap was about 160 cm from the ground.3" What was the date of this wall and where did it stand? One thinks of the Post-Herulian Wall, built ca. A.D. 270-285, which protected the North Slope and town below it but not the Classical Agora.32The west section began with the new "Beule Gate" and extended from the northwest corner of the Acropolis down the North Slope, continued along what had once been the colonnade of the west stoa of the Library of Pantainos, and utilized the back wall of the Stoa of Attalos, before turning east and incorporating into it the south wall of the Library of Hadrian (Fig. 5).33 After proceeding some way to the east, the wall turned south again and ended at
230
PATRICIA
A. MARX
~~~THERU A~~POT-HEULA
OF
ATALOS
ROMN AOLIBRARY
f
Tower of7/
PANTAINOS t-
ift
t
1
i
om~~~~~~~~~ra
STREET THETRIPO v
-.
POST-HERULIAN
WALL
WEST GATE_t4 HYPAPANT-e
\_
e
Ej
NT
Figu
5.Atens ca AD. 300 (from
5), combinedwith the Acropolis ca. 1750(from hopper 1971, 2 rTravos 1960, p. 205).Gates I-5in mediea Propaa. Agora XXIV, pl.
pR
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
23I
Figure 6. Section of Post-Herulian Wall. CourtesyAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations
the northeast corner of the Acropolis.~ Manolis Korres has shown re cently that it enclosed important monuments of the South Slope as well.3 The Post-Herulian Wall was double-faced with fill between built of blocks and column drums from earlier structures many from the Classical Agora-that had been destroyed or heavily damaged in the Herulian invasions of ca. A.D. 267 (Fig. 6). Sculptureswere used in this wall, but built into it so that they were largely hidden, and the wall itself underwent repairs in the Byzantine era.36 The wall in Gell's sketch cannot be part of the Post-Herulian Wall, however, because the evidence in Gell's written account, as well as in those of Dodwell and Chandler discussed below, places Gell's wall elsewhere on the North Slope. Since Gell's wall resembles Post-Herulian construction (cf. Figs. 3 and 6) it is certainly Late Antique in date, perhaps ca. A.D. 300. It is evident, then, that sometime during Late Antiquity, Acropolis 625 was severely damaged; her head, forearms, and the front half of her left foot were deliberately hacked off, and the gorgoneion defaced. The perpetratorswould have been enemies either of Athens or of the cult of Athena. As a result she could no longer have stayed on the Acropolis, but rather than being buried, as many other damaged statues had been, she was valued highly enough to be moved and built into a new wall.37 Returning to the passage in Gell (above, pp. 226-227), we find that he is discussing both the Erechtheion and parts of the North Slope. He mentions the Athena as being built into a wall near a "fountain of brackish 34. Travlosin AgoraXX1V, pp. 125, 138, and plan pl. 5. 35. Korres1988, pp. 18-19: Odeion of Herodes Atticus, Stoa of Eumenes, andTemple of Asklepios. See also Fowden 1990, p. 494; Tanoulas 1997,11, p. 305. 36. Camp 1986, pp. 197-198. For
a stele built horizontallyinto the wall with only one thin edge showing, see Shear 1939, pp. 217-218 and fig. 14. For a colossal female statue built into its south tower,and there used as a stretcher,see Shear 1935, pp. 384-387 and figs. 11-14. For one of the Byzantine repairs,dating to the 13th
centuryA.C., see Thompson 1959, p. 95 and pl. 14:b. 37. Statuesdamagedin war,and those "rituallyslain"by the Greeks themselves,were normallyburied or reusedas building material:Keesling 1999, pp. 513-516 and notes 15-18 and 26-32.
PATRICIA
232
_D
A.
n
MARX
_
Figure 7. Ancient sarcophagus that served as part of a Turkish fountain,
built by 1764. CourtesyAmerican School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, Agora Excavations
[salty] water."He describes this fountain as being "below the rock,"and believes that the water in the fountain ultimately came from the famous salt sea of Poseidon (Paus. 1.26.5), the source of which he hoped would be discovered one day by excavation. Finally, citing James Stuart, he mentions a source of water near the cave of Pan (Fig. 10: letter e). TURKISH
FoUNTAIN
When Gell visited Athens in the early 19th century,the Turks had been in control of the Acropolis for some time.38The fountain of brackish water to which he refers was Turkish, built between 1753 and 1765.'9 It was located near the Hypapanti wall, a new fortification wall on the North and West Slopes. The source of water was the spring Klepsydra(Fig. 2), whose ancient fountain was hidden by debris. Klepsydra'swater has been descrie "vrsneatquity as brackish and unfit for drinking."4 the Turkish fountain Arthur W. Parsons reported: Regarding Its remains lie less than 100 meters east of Kiepsydra,against the Turkish wall, facing the cobbled path which in Turkish times was the main road between the town and the kastro.There is not much left of it now: only the ancient marble sarcophaguswhich formed its
38. Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire from 1456/1460 to 1833. The Turksheld the Athenian Acropolis fromJune 1458 until late September 1687, when it was capturedbrieflyby the Venetians,who left in April 1688. The Turksheld it again until June 10, 1822-when it was liberatedby the Greeks-and fromJune 5,1827, to March 31, 1833. See Miller 1893, pp. 546-551; Travlos1981, pp. 391395; Tanoulas1987, pp. 416-418, 441, 459-461; Paton 1951, pp. 3-19;
MacKenzie 1992, pp. 107-124. 39. An earlierTurkishfountain had existed on the North Slope (Parsons 1943, p. 259) and was seen by Wheler (1682, p. 383) in 1675. About this earlierfountain,Leake (1841, p. 171, note 1) wrote:"In the time of Stuart, the Turkishfountain no longer flowed, and the waterwas conveyedby pipes to a mosque in the bazar"(Leake was in Athens in 1807 [1841, pp. 169-170, note 4]). Stuartindicatedthe stream of water on his 1753 plan of the Acro-
polis (Fig. 10): Stuartand Revett 1787, p. V, and text p. v. The new fountain was in place in 1765 when Chandler (1825, II, p. 74) visited. It was built, therefore,sometime between 1753 and 1765. 40. Parsons1943, p. 205, also explaining that Klepsydra'swaterwas not icy cold and had a high lime content. Wheler (1682, p. 383) reports that the Consul told him it "wasnot very good to drink."
ACROPOLIS
625 AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
233
I,
Figure 8. North Slope of the Acropolis seen from the Hephaisteion with much of the Hypapanti wall in good condition. Courtesy Deutsches Archaologisches Institut, Athens, neg. THES.2343
basin, with a little rubble and mortar masonry built into either end, which served to support the superstructure.The water of Klepsydra was brought to it in a rectangularterracotta channel which is still in place."41 The fountain has not changed much since Parsons photographed it in 1939 (Fig. 7), except that it has lost a few marble fragments from the front wall of the sarcophagus. HYPAPANTI
WALL
The Hypapanti wall42began southwest of the Propylaia at the western portion of the Serpentzes wall just below the western Serpentzes gate,43 and extended around to enclose about one-third of the North Slope (Fig. 5). Much of the lower section of the wall, which served as a retaining wall, remains and is immense and impressive (Fig. 8). There was a gate in the Hypapanti wall due west of the western batteries. Another part of the wall began at the steep rock face of the North Slope, just to the west of the cleft with the Mycenaean fountain, and ran straight down the sharp incline, incorporating into it the eastern wall of the small Byzantine church 41. Parsons1943, p. 260. Parsons discoveredthe remainsof this fountain in 1939: Shear 1940, pp. 296-297. 42. On the Hypapanti(i.e., "Candlemas")wall, so-named after a small churchnearby,see Burnouf 1877, pp.26-27, 31; Travlos1960, p. 194; Tanoulas1987, pp. 449-450; Matton and Matton 1963, p. 76, fig. 10, and p. 80. The Hypapantichurch,which dated to the mid-17th century,was destroyedin 1938: Shear 1939, pp. 220-221. Its section and plan can be found in Travlos1960, p. 178 and
p. 189, figs. 126-127. The church overlappedthe Eleusinion (Agora XXXI, p. 73, fig. 10). For its topographical relationshipwith the Hypapanti wall, see Travlos1972, pl. 15. 43. The western Serpentzesgate was the first of five gates in the medievalbatteriesof the Propylaia.In 1805 a barrel-vaultedpassagewas built behind it, afterwhich it became known as the Tholikon gate:Tanoulas1987, pp. 432-433 and p. 438, fig. 6; Tanoulas 1997,11, p. 291; Travlos1960, pp. 204-205 and fig. 10: no. 5. The
Serpentzeswall guardedthe South Slope. Its western portion existed in 1670, and the remainderwas built sometime between 1674 and 1687. See the drawingsof the Acropolis and the South Slope in Omont 1898, pls. 29-29bis (dated 1670-one by an Italian[?],the other by Felix Perin) and 31 (Nointel in 1674 and D'Ortieres in 1687); and Matton and Matton 1963, pls. 27-28. See also Travlos1960, pp. 178 and 204; Tanoulas1987, p. 432; Miller 1893, p.546.
PATRICIA
234
M~~~
~
Thm_
A.
MARX
_-ys
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
'
/
*
~Figure9. Hypapantiwall,western face of partof HW1,just below peripatos,June 1994
A
Figure10.Detail fromthe planof the Acropolis by Stuart 1753
(from
Stuartand Revett 1787, p. V). Medieval
a
N ** lee
00
batteriesat the Propylaia,andTurkish wallson the North andWest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Slopes
of Aghios Nikolaos;the churchitself was convertedinto a fort."4 JUSt below Aghios Nikolaos, the Hypapanti wall turned toward the northeast, flanking a path to a gate at the foot of the North Slope. This gate exited into the medieval town of Athens, and was now the first gate through which visitors normally passed in order to visit the Acropolis. It is usually referred to as the north gate (Fig. 5). 44. Travlos 1960, p. 194. On Stuart's plan (Fig. 10) the churchis labeled b, and in Stuartand Revett's1787 text, p. v, it is describedas "Asmall Fort facing that Gate."The church-fort became known as vThr6x-tob Xtov-copoov,
"Bastionof the Lion":Travlos1960, p. 204 and p. 205, fig. 138. I thank T. Tanoulasfor translatingthe word vata6m(pers.comm.). See also Trikoupes 1857, pp. 74-75, recountinga battle of 1826-1827 fought at this spot; Parsons1943, p. 260, note 169; and
Matton and Matton 1963, p. 76, fig. 10 and p. 80. 45. Travlos1960, p. 194. On p. 204 he reportsthat Athenians called it the "Chalasmene"or "Katouremene" gate. Today it is also sometimes referredto as the Liontarigate:Tanoulas1997,11, p. 289. The path to the north gate from the town was "steep"and "ill-paved": Hobhouse 1817, p. 278. Stuartand Revett (1787, text p. v, letter a; Fig. 10) describethe gate as:"Alittle Gate lying North of the Acropolis:it is the
entranceto a kind of Outwork,through which it was necessaryto pass before we came to the Propyloea,and got up into the Fortress."Dodwell, Chandler, and Hobhouse used this gate. Their accountsaregiven below. One can infer from Clarke 1818, pp. 211-215, and Williams 1820, pp. 295-296, that they also used it, for they talk of a steep ascent and of passing the cave of Apollo and Pan on the way to the Propylaia. Laurent(1821, p. 101) also came this way.
625
ACROPOLIS
Figure 11. Sketch map of ruins on the North Slope. Not to scale
|
AND
ITS
N 41
46. Travlos1960, p. 194. 47. Tanoulas1997, I, pp. 67-79. See the appendixbelow,pp. 248-250, for the accountsof severalearly travelerswho visited Athens ca. 1740. 48. Stuartand Revett 1787, text p. v, letters c.c.c.: "The Wall of the Outwork rudelybuilt, and of little strength,but with a numberof small Aperturesin it, evidentlyleft, that the garrisonmight dischargetheir Musketrythroughthem on the enemy in case of an attack."There is an excellent photographof part of the Hypapantiwall by FredericBoissonnas in Picard [1929], pl. 11. Boissonnas (1858-1946), a Swiss photographer, spent time in Greece duringthe first two decadesof the 20th century.In 1907 he took a seriesof photographsof the Acropolis:PEI 1985, s.v.Boissonnas. 49. Dontas 1970, p. 167 and figs. 12; Dontas 1972, p. 25, pls. 34, 38:cx-t; Dontas 1974, p. 27, pl. 38; Dontas 1983, pp. 48-50.
235
FINDSPOT
Gate ~~~~~~~~~~~~~North I
//
The Hypapanti wall, 70-80 cm thick, was constructed mostly of fieldstones, but also small bits of marble and poros, and had musketry holes (Fig. 9). It was built in the mid-18th century,46possibly before 1740,47 and appears on Stuart's plan of the Acropolis, drawn up in 1753 (Fig. 10).48 For the sake of clarity in the ensuing discussion, I have numbered the parts of this wall above and below Aghios Nikolaos as follows (Fig. 11): Hypapanti wall, section one: HW1 Hypapanti wall, section two: HW2 Hypapanti wall, section three: HW3 Hypapanti wall, section four: HW4 The modern retaining wall that intersects HW1 was begun in 1969-1970 for the restoration of the ancient peripatos along the North Slope.49 The north gate no longer exists; a narrow modern road (Theorias) covers the spot where it once stood. There is a gate in the Acropolis fence
236
PATRICIA
~
A. MARX
.
Figure 12. Looking toward the area of the north gate in April 2000: old marble steps, Hypapanti wall, gate in modern fence, modern road
_% i
Figure 13. Looking up from the north gate, toward the southeast in April 2000: old marble steps flanked by the Hypapanti wall, north retaining wall of Aghios Nikolaos
here. Across the road is the Kanellopoulos Museum, and next to it a steep staircase covers the medieval path into town (Fig. 12). Plans indicate that the gate was formed by the terminations of the Hypapanti wall.50Wooden doors may have completed the gate, as on otherTurkishgates to the Acropolis.5"The only possible artistic representation of the north gate known to me occurs in a panoramic engraving of Athens by Johann Heinrich Schilbach, dated ca. 1823.52In the right background is a tiny view of the northern and western sides of the Acropolis (Fig. 14). Here one can see HW1, HW3, HW4, Aghios Nikolaos as a fortress, and what might be the western half of the north gate. 50. On Stuart'splan (Fig. 10) the wall forms short returns,but on Fauvel's(below,note 73) it does not. Stuartorients the gate incorrectly, towardthe northwest.Le Roy (1758, pl. III between pp. 6-7) gives a better orientationon his plan of 1755 (Tanoulas1987, p. 443, fig. 32).
51. The first and second gates (Fig. 5) are so describedby Hobhouse (1817, p. 279); and the second gate is picturedby Stilling (1853: inside) and Winstrup (1850: outside) in Bendtsen 1993, pp. 87-88, figs. 19-20. 52. On Schilbach,see Nagler
1910-1912,XVII,pp.198-200.
This print is one that Schilbach distributedhimself (p. 199, no. 1). The date is given on the back of a photographof the print in the Photoabteilung,Kastenno. 45, Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, neg. AKR.482.
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
237
Figure 14. Detail of an engraving by Schilbach, ca. 1823. CourtesyDeutsches ArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, neg. AKR.482
The Turkish fountain was located just inside the south face of the Hypapanti wall-somewhat to the west of the north gate (Fig. 11)-and was no doubt the "fountainof brackishwater"mentioned by Gell. Somewhere nearby,according to Gell, a statue of Athena was built into a wall. But where exactly?For further clues to the location of the statue we must turn to Dodwell and Chandler. EDWARD
DODWELL
(1767-I832)
Accompanying Gell on some of his Greek travels was Edward Dodwell, who also published his account in 1819. Dodwell visited Athens briefly in 1801 and then for a much longer time in 1805-1806.53 The following description comes from his stay in 1805: In going from the town to the Acropolis the first gate which is passed is at the foot of the rock, and faces nearly N.E.; on the wall to the left is a female statue of white marble, sitting on a thronos.It is headless, and much ruined, but it is evidently of the ancient iAginetic style: near it is the fragmented statue of a horse. On the right hand is a modern wall, perforated with loopholes for musketry,and separating the Acropolis from the Areiopagos. The small stream alreadymentioned runs down the declivity towards the town in an easterly direction.54
53. Dodwell 1819,1, pp. 2, 76, 526; Dodwell 1819, II, p. 460; Gell 1823, p. 291. Dodwell (1819,1, p. ix) had intended to publish earlier,but was detained for a long time by the French governmentunder Napoleon Bonaparte. In orderto visit Greece, Dodwell (1819, II, pp. 462 and 466-467) had obtained a leave of absencefrom his status as a
:risonerof war and surrenderedhimself ioluntarilyat the end of his travelson August25, 1806. 54. Dodwell 1819, 1, p. 310. The iccount of his 1805-1806 trip begins on .76. Dodwell is probablyusing the Zreekword thronosin its most basic neaning,as a "seat"or a "chair": LSJ,s.v. 9p6vos. The horse may have been the same
one Newton (1856, p. 73) saw stored next to(?) Acr. 625 nearthe guardhouse at the Propylaiain 1852. He describesit as Archaic,with "forelegs and all the hind-quarters"missing, and reports that Pittakis thought it belonged to the Hekatompedon.One possibilityfor Newton'shorse is Acr. 6454, recently publishedin Moore 1995, figs. 1-3.
238
PATRICIA
A.
MARX
The "firstgate"is the north gate, the wall on the left is HW2 and the wall on the right HW3, and the stream is Klepsydra,which Dodwell describes elsewhere as "brackish."55 The sculptureswere located just inside the north gate, built into HW2 (Fig. 11). Dodwell does not identify the female statue as Athena, but his description of the figure accords well with Acropolis 625.56
Much of HW1 survives in good condition.57Dodwell mentions it and describes it as modern (i.e., Turkish).58Very little of HW2 remains, only a large chunk below Aghios Nikolaos, which resembles an "iceberg." This huge wall fragment is located just before HW2 turned toward the northeast (Figs. 11-13).59 Although it is of Turkish construction, it includes a large reused marble block, about 1.5 meters from ground level (Fig. 13). Seven steps, each made of reused marble blocks, embrace the incline between the "iceberg"and HW3.60 These steps could be Late Antique, but it is impossible to say when they were built. They run up against natural rock on both sides. HW3 abuts some of the steps but does not overlap them. By referringto both HW1 and HW3-4, but not HW2 just inside the north gate, as "modern,"Dodwell implies that at least part of HW2 was not modern. It may,therefore, have included part of an antique wall, and it was this older wall that would have contained the statue of a seated female, and is most likely the same wall as in Gell's sketch. The slope is gentle 55. Dodwell (1819, I, pp. 304-305) mentions the same streamin connection with the cave of Apollo and Pan, saying on p. 305: "Belowthis place rises the small streamwhich is mentioned by Pausanias,and which Stuartdescribesas passing nearthe tower of the Winds. The water is of a brackishtaste."Did Dodwell taste the water from the Turkish fountain?Or did he simply report what he had heardabout it? Parsons (1943, p. 261), noting that Dodwell did not mention the fountain itself, thought perhapsit "wasnot in working orderat the time of his visits."Gell (1819, p. 46), however,does mention the fountain. The situationseems analogousto that of Spon andWheler, who visited Athens togetherwhen an earlierTurkishfountain stood on the North Slope (above, note 39). Spon (1679, pp. 79-210 [chapteron Athens]) does not mention a fountain,but Wheler (1682, p. 383) does, noting Spon'sfailureto do so. 56. Although a numberof other fragmentarystatuesof seated female figureshave been recoveredfrom the Acropolis,it is unlikelythat any of them could have been the statue seen by Dodwell. The better-preservedones,
Acr. 618, 620, and 655, were found on top of the citadel in the excavations north and east of the Erechtheion: Langlotz in Schrader,Langlotz, and Schuchhardt1939, pp. 107-116, cat. nos. 57-66. Acr. 618 (cat. no. 61) and Acr. 655 (cat. no. 57) were found in the excavationsof 1887: Dickins 1912, pp. 148-150 and 193-194. Acr. 620 (cat. no. 59) was found north of the Erechtheionin March 1838: Dickins 1912, pp. 152-153. For excellent illustrationsof Acr. 618, Acr. 620, and Acr. 655, see Brouskari1974, figs. 90, 83, and 210. Acr. 618 and Acr. 620 are preservedonly below the waist.The small statuetteAcr. 655 is preserved from the shouldersdown. 57. Old photographs-such as a calotypetaken by Normand in 1851 (Daux 1956, pl. 12, and p. 619, note 1; Ecole francaisd'archeologie,Athens, neg. no. R.1545.1); and Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, neg. nos. THES.2343 (Fig. 8), AKR.323, AKR.509, AKR.617, and AKR.2014/15 (an aerialview)-show that HW1 was continuous,as does Dodwell's testimony (below,note 58). Sometime after the excavationsof the 1930s and before
1969, a breachwas made in this wall at the level of the peripatos.In 1970 the foundationsof the Hypapantiwall, and partsof the wall itself, were strengthenedand reinforced:Dontas 1972, p. 26. 58. Dodwell (1819, I, pp. 299-305) came upon HW1 after making a circuit of the Acropolis slopes, beginning on the south and moving counter-clockwise to the east and then the north.After he visited a sanctuaryon the North Slope, he states (p. 302): "Atthe distanceof a few paces furtheris a naturalcavern, containingno tracesof antiquityexcept some votive niches;and here all further progressis impeded by a modernwall which joins the rock." 59. There is a gap today between the northeastend of Aghios Nikolaos and the "iceberg."Some of this nowmissing wall section still existed in the early20th centuryand appearsin a photographtaken by Boissonnas: Picard [1929], pl. 10:A. 60. The steps are indicatedin a cursoryway in Travlos1960, p. 205, fig. 138, and Parsons1943, p. 263, figs. 41-42.
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
239
FINDSPOT
here, as it is under the wall in Gell's sketch (cf. Figs. 3 and 12), and cuttings in the rock are consistent with foundations for a wall of this nature. Fountain and outwork were built in the mid-18th century. Both the antique wall fragment and its monumental seated Athena would have been extremely impressive in the compressed areabetween the two portions of the Hypapanti wall inside the north gate. This would have been a crowded and busy area,which explains why Gell did not attempt a more polished study, and why others did not even attempt to draw her at all. Combining all the evidence presented so far, the following is clear. Acropolis 625 was once embedded in a Late Antique wall, on the North Slope of the Athenian Acropolis, which was located just inside the north gate of a towering Turkish outwork, not far from a Turkish fountain. RICHARD
CHANDLER
(1738-I8IO)
In 1764, almost forty years beforeGell and Dodwell visited Athens, Richard Chandler, a noted scholar,was sent by the Society of Dilettanti to Asia Minor and Greece, along with Nicholas Revett, the architect, and William Pars, the painter. Chandler was in charge, and their mission was to study and record the antique monuments of Greece and the Near East. They left on June 9, 1764, for Asia Minor; in August 1765 they sailed for Athens. After spending more than twelve months in Greece, they returned to England in November 1766.61Chandler's account of Asia Minor was published in 1775, and that of Greece in 1776. They were combined into a two-volume work in 1817, and were republished in 1825.62 Chandler deals with the Acropolis and its slopes in volume II, chapters 9-12. Although Chandler apparentlyentered the Acropolis via the western gate in the Hypapanti wall, when he descended, he headed toward the north gate, for he planned to make a complete circuit of the Acropolis slopes in a clockwise fashion.63Chandler mentions the Propylaia and the caves of Apollo and Pan below [on the North Slope], and then states the following: By the road-side, before you come to the town, is a fountain, in the wall on the left hand, supplied probablyby the same spring as the well once in the temple of Neptune [i.e., Erechtheion]; for the water descends from the Acropolis, and is not fit for drinking. Farther on is a statue of Isis inserted in the wall on the right hand; a ruined church; and the gateway of the out-work next the town. We shall turn up on the right, and keep in the outskirt, on the side of the hill.64
61. Churton (below,note 62), pp. vi-vii; Chandler1825, I, pp. xviixviii, xxii (dedicationand preface written in 1775). 62. NUC 103, p. 208. For the 1825 edition, Churton wrote the introduction (pp. iii-xiv), and Ellis gave the printersa transcriptof Revett'snotes,
which Revett had added to Chandler's originalmanuscripts.Revett'scomments appearas footnotes.The manuscriptsarekept in the BritishMuseum: Churton in Chandler1825, p. vi, note c. Chandlerdied in 1810: Churton in Chandler1825, p. xii. 63. Chandler1825,11, pp. 47 and
73. On p. 73 he describesthe path to the north gate as "theway most frequented"but also mentions a differentpath leading from the Propylaia"towardthe temple of Theseus"(i.e., the Hephaisteion). 64. Chandler 1825, 11, p. 74.
PATRICIA
240
A. MARX
The Turkish fountain was on Chandler'sleft, next to the Hypapanti wall (HW4). The ruined church of Aghios Nikolaos was on his right, as was a statue of a female figure, which he identified as Isis, but which was probably Acropolis 625, for to my knowledge no sizable statue of Isis has ever been found in Athens.65The importance of Chandler'saccount should not be underrated.He was the first to mention the new Turkish fountain and to associate it spatially with a female statue in the wall, a ruined church, and the north gate.66
J. C. HOBHOUSE (1786-I869) John Cam Hobhouse, who visited Greece in 1809-1810, and who later became the first Baron of Broughton, confirms the location of the fountain: There are two roads of ascent to the gate of the citadel; one over the burying-ground to the left of the Odeum, the other up a steep illpaved path, commencing from about the middle of the back of the town. There is a wall, making an out-work to the citadel, on your right hand, all the way as you advance towards the entrance of the fortress.Just after you enter the gate of this out-work, there is a niche on the right, where, in 1765, was a statue of Isis. A modern stone fountain is a little above this, and hither the inhabitants of the citadel come for water, as there is no well on the hill.67 The Odeion is that of Herodes Atticus on the South Slope, and the burial ground the Turkish cemetery, which lay on the West Slope immediately outside the Hypapanti wall.68By passing through the Turkishburialground first, one could enter the western gate in the Hypapanti wall, as had Chandler in 1765. Note that Hobhouse, however, entered by way of the north gate, and his mistaken impression that Chandler's"Isis"had once filled a niche in HW3 or HW4, rather than HW2.69 65. ChristinaVlassopoulouassures me that there is no statueof Isis in the Acropolisstoreroom(pers.comm.). For small images currentlyin Athens, see LIMC V, 1990, nos. 10a, 47, 106, 213, 273, s.v.Isis (T.T.Tinh). The cults of Isis and Serapiswere practicedon and nearthe Acropolis:Dow 1937, pp. 208-209 (Serapeiononce near modernMitropoleos Square),pp. 214215 (South Slope of the Acropolis),and pp. 225-227 (images).Women wearing a garmentwith an Isis knot appeared often on late Attic gravestelai,beginning in the Augustan era:Walters 1988, pp. 91-111. I am gratefulto J. Binder for this last reference.One such stele was found recentlyin the excavationsfor the new subway: GoulandrisMuseum 2000, pp. 196-
197, cat. no. 179. A fragmentof another was found by Broneeron the eastern section of the North Slope on April 5, 1939, and is in the Agora storeroom(AS 204). In Late Antiquity,Isis was conflatedwith Athena and others,and took on attributessuch as the aegis:LIMC V, 1990, pp. 793-795, s.v.Isis (T.T.Tinh). By Chandler'sday the art and artifacts of Egypt had alreadyexcited curiosity and collecting fervor:Hobson 1987, pp. 25-26. 66. Regardingthe olderTurkish fountain,see above,note 39. Although the churchhad been convertedinto a fortressby the time of Stuartand Revett'svisit in 1751-1753 (above,note 44), Chandlerrecognizedit as a church. 67. Hobhouse 1817, p. 278. On
p. 279 he mentions the cave of Apollo and Pan. 68. Regardingthe cemeterysee Hobhouse 1817, p. 279; Chandler1825, II, pp. 72-73; and a lithographshowing the west side of the Acropolisin Stuart and Revett 1787, between pp. iii and iv. The lithographis reproducedin color in Economakis1994, p. 70, top. 69. Turner(1820, p. 323), who visited Athens in May 1814 (p. 470), made the same error,for he states that when on May 17 he went to the Acropolis with Lusieri,the artist:"We ascended it by a tolerablegood road.To our right, as we went up, was a fountain (said to flow from a sourcenear the temple of Neptune Erechtheus above)in a wall nearwhich was a statue of Isis."
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
24I
THE DATE OF THE FIND The north gate and part of the walls next to it were apparentlydestroyed during the early years of the Greek Revolution, which began in 1821.70 On June 10, 1822, the Greeks took the Acropolis from the Turks, and searched for a source of water. Cyriacus Pittakis soon found Klepsydra, and in September 1822 the general Odysseus Andritzos had it enclosed in a new bastion to protect it.71The Turkish fountain further down the slope was now defunct. Then, in a letter written on April 15, 1824, George Gropius, the Austrian consuil-of Athens, reported the following: The wall which enclosed the paved way leading to the first gate of the Acropolis, as also the houses in this part of the upper town, have been demolished, because they were too near, and thus interfered with its defence. It is proposed to convert this space into an esplanade and public promenade, commencing at the temple of Bacchus and terminating at the cave of Pan. A new entrance will be made to the town, between the rocks of the Areopagus and the new bastion, the wall is also to be taken a little further out.72 Gropius is speaking of the North Slope, for the only walls near the upper town of Athens enclosing a "pavedway leading to the first gate of the Acropolis" were HW2 and HW3. The houses were those which existed close to the north gate. They appear in another sketch by Gell (Fig. 15), and as city blocks on Louis FranSois Sebastien Fauvel'splan of Athens.73These houses had been badly damaged in the War for Independence and a letter written by George Waddington from Athens in February1824 makes clear that Andritzos had alreadydetermined not to restore them: That part of the town which lay immediately under the northern or Pelasgic wall of the citadel, where the house of poor Lusieri will be 70. MacKenzie 1992, pp. 107-108: uprisingin Patrason March 25, 1821; Greek armyreachesAthens on May 7, 1821. 71. On the discoveryof the spring Klepsydra,see Wordsworth1836, pp. 83-84; Waddington 1825, p. 90; Raybaud1825, pp. 433-434. The bastion of Odysseuscarriedhis name and the date of its erection.Wordsworth 1836, p. 84, contains a facsimileof the inscription.Burnouf(1877, p. 17) says that he dismantledthis bastion in 1874. The remainderwas destroyedin 1888 by the GreekArchaeologicalService: Parsons1943, p. 195;Tanoulas1987, p. 476. 72. "Extractof a Letter from M. Gropius,AustrianConsul at Athens, relativeto the present State of the ancient Remainsin that City,"dated
Athens, April 15, 1824, as quoted in Blaquiere1825, II, p. 158. Blaquiere (1825, I, p. 99) reportsthat this letter was part of his personalcorrespondence. Miller 1972, p. 25, gives Gropius'sfirst name. 73. Gell's sketch,book no. 5, LB 23, measures22.6 cm in height and 56.5 cm in width. I thank L. Burn for these measurements(pers.comm.). Fauvelcame to Greece in 1780 and over the next four decadesspent much of his time there,especiallyin Athens: Lowe 1936, p. 207; Miller 1972, pp. 16-17; Raybaud1825, p. 83. His plan of Athens, which dates to the late 18th century(Matton and Matton 1963, p. 330), was first publishedby Olivier ([1801]-1807, atlaspl. 49). It was copied by Hawkins (1818, opposite p. 480) and by Coubault (Tanoulas1997, 11, fig. 22).
PATRICIA
242
A.
MARX
.....
........
.-
recollected as very distinguished, has naturally suffered the most severely.It is the intention of Odysseus not to permit its restoration; because the existence of buildings so near to this most accessible side of the Acropolis would facilitate the approaches of an enemy.74
cv
N
Figure 15. View of the Acropolis from the north, by Gell, ca. 18011806, book no. 5, LB 23. Courtesy The British Museum
If my interpretation of Gropius'sletter of May 1824 is correct, the part of the Turkish outwork containing the Late Antique wall was demolished between 1822 and 1824, and at that time the statue was freed from its confinement. This occurred a good ten years before any scientific excavations began on the Acropolis, and the findspot was soon forgotten. The date of the find was not published until 1912, when Dickins reported that Acropolis 625 was discovered in 1821.75By the time Gerhard visited Athens in 1837, the statue was stored near the Propylaia.76 The plans to turn the space into a public promenade were necessarily shelved as the war resumed. The Turks retook the Acropolis in 1827, and relinquished it finally in 1833.77 By 1835, excavations on the Acropolis had already covered both the North and South Slopes with dirt. On the North Slope, the remains of HW2 and HW3 were covered, leaving the "entrance"now at about the marble steps (Fig. 11),78 and it may be this spot that became known as the Liontari gate, after the name for Aghios Nikolaos when it was a Turkish fortress-"Bastion of the Lion."79 74. Waddington 1825, pp. 89-90. Raybaud(1825, p. 434), on his last visit to Athens in 1822, also reported the destructionof a Turkishwall (Hypapanti?)aroundthe foot of the Acropolis. 75. Dickins 1912, p. 160: "Found on the N. slope of the Acropolisbelow the Erechtheumin 1821."In 1939 Langlotz repeatedDickins'sinformation in Schrader,Langlotz, and Schuchhardt1939, p. 109: "Gef. 1821 am Nordabhangunterhalbdes Erechtheions."Dickins does not cite a referencefor the date, but perhapshe had heardthat the statuewas found
at the beginning of the Greek Revolution. 76. Gerhard1837, p. 106. According to Scharf(1851, p. 190), in June 1840 Muller talked about the statue as having been "latelydiscoveredon the Acropolis."In 1909 Schrader (1909, p. 45) thought that Acr. 625 had been found shortlybefore 1837. 77. See above,note 38. 78. See a lithographfrom Ferdinand Stademann's1835 drawing, "Panoramaof Athens,"in Stademann 1841, pl. I; and a watercolorof 18501851 byWinstrup in Bendtsen 1993, p. 83, fig. 14. Stademanncame to
Athens with King Otto I in 1832: Nagler 1910-1912, XIX, p. 277. The ruins of the medievalmonasteryin front of Aghios Nikolaos (not yet published,but identified for me by VasiliBarkas[pers.comm.]) had also been coveredin the same way.See an 1834 drawingby Hansen in Bendtsen 1993, p. 87, fig. 18, andTanoulas1997, II, fig. 67. Today the remainsof HW3 are less than 2 m high, whereasthose of HW4 and beyond to the west are immense. Eventuallymost of HW1 was also coveredin dirt:Beck 1868, pl.9. 79. See above,note 44.
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
243
The destruction of Gell's wall happened before the invention of photography in 1839.80 The only possible visual records of its location would be in drawings, paintings, or the graphic arts. I have not been able to find any extant identifiable renderings of HW2 or of the antique wall fragment with embedded statue within a larger context than in Gell's sketch (Fig. 3). SUMMARY
80. See the chapterson Talbot and Daguerrein Gernsheimand Gernsheim 1969, pp. 65-83. Although experimentsin capturingimages had been made for some time, it was not until 1839 that both Talbot (calotype) and Daguerre(daguerrotype)invented reliablemethods that gave enough sharpness,detail,and contrast.On earlyphotographersin Greece, see BenakiMuseum 1985. The earliest photographsof the Acropolis date to the 1840s:Tanoulas1997,11, p. 294. 81. Even after 1750 most travelers do not mention either the wall or the statue,althoughthey must have seen it. We are most fortunateto have the accountsof Gell, Dodwell, and Chandler,Gell's sketch,and Stuart's plan.
OF THE
EVIDENCE
Sometime at the beginning of the 19th century (1801-1806), Gell drew a sketch of part of a Late Antique wall containing an Archaic statue of a seated Athena known today as Acropolis 625. In a written account, published in 1819, he mentioned a fountain of brackish water on the North Slope and stated that near it in a wall was a statue of Minerva. This fountain was mentioned by severalother travelers.Both Chandlerand Hobhouse described it as being not far from a gateway, in a relatively new Turkish outwork, leading from the town to the Propylaia.The ruins of the fountain are stll in situ. The gateway, or north gate, and accompanying wall were built ca. A.D. 1740 as a new entrance and pathway to the Acropolis. Although all of the extant remains of this wall show Turkish construction, not all of it was Turkish. Dodwell, after he entered the north gate, saw an ancient wall (fragment) to his left, containing a statue of a seated female, most probablyAcropolis 625. There is a shelf at this spot with a gentle incline, just as the ground below the wall slopes in Gell's sketch. Furthermore,the existing fragment of HW2 (the "iceberg")contains a large marble block. This block may have been reused from adjacent ruins of an ancient wall. Finally,when the 19th-century accounts that place the findspot at the exit to the Mycenaean fountain are combined with those that say the statue was found at the foot of the North Slope, we have the location rediscovered here. The Late Antique wall containing Acropolis 625 lay just outside the medieval town of Athens. Until the north gate and its attendant walls were built, it was outside the path used by medieval travelersto the Acropolis, who, until then, approachedthe Acropolis from the west. Early travelers who visited Athens before 1740 may have never seen the wall or the statue. Chandler,who visited Athens in 1765, was the first to mention it."
THE SIGNIFICANCE ACROPOLIS
OF THE FINDSPOT OF
625
As noted above, the exact findspot of Acropolis 625 is given variously in 19th- and 20th-century sources.It is said to have been found at the foot of the North Slope in three different places:at the entranceto the Mycenaean fountain (Scholl), below the Erechtheion (Dickins), and northeast of the Erechtheion below the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite (Bundgaard). Scholars have also assumed incorrectlythat it was found where it had fallen from above, and seemingly at some fairly recent time. But, as revealed here, Acropolis 625 most probablyremained on the Acropolis until it was
PATRICIA
244
1
A.
MARX
12
~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~Figure
16. Lowerbackof Acropolis 625, showingthe aegis,June 1994
strengthening 'ts attributio t Endoios--and shortly afterwardwas taken down to the North Slope, where it was built into a wall. The statue occupied a lofty position, right side up, facing forward,the front exposed to the elements for centuries.2 Its placement thus was quite unusual, not only because in antiquity statues built into walls were often treated as any other building block, but also because this one had been "killed"by the hacking off of its head and arms.Theremutlatedin Late Antiquity-thereby
fore,it
must have still been highly venerated.
Who was responsible for the desecration of the statue, and who for saving it? I am tempted to assign the destruction to the Herulians, because the wall in Gell's sketch is definitely Post-Herulian in character. Although the Herulians are responsible for much destruction in the Classical Agora, their presence on the Acropolis is more controversial.83It is also possible that laterbarbarianinvaders-such as Alaric and the Visigoths in A.D. 395-396, or the Vandals in A.D. 467 or 47684-were responsible for the mutilation of Acropolis 625. The Christians are also suspect, for they took over the Acropolis in the 430s and soon after removed the Parthenos from the Parthenon. 85
82. The heavilyweatheredstate of the front half of the statue and its relativelysmooth back (cf. Figs. 1 and 16) correspondneatlywith its position in the wall, where the back of the statue was shelteredfrom the elements. A recent chance find providesan interesting parallel.It is a Late Archaicbronze head, complete with eyes and eyelashes, that was, at some time in Late Antiquity,leaded into a stone block so that only the face showed:Goulandris
Museum 2000, pp. 198-203, cat. no. 181. The face is very brown and weathered,but the rest of the head preservesa good green patina. 83. Those who believe that the Heruliansinflicted damageon the Acropolis,pointing to the Parthenon in particular,includeTravlos(1971, p. 444; 1973, pp. 218-222); Korres(in Korresand Bouras 1983, pp. 136-137; Korres1996, pp. 140-143); Hurwit (1999, p. 286 and p. 361, notes 12 and
13.) Against this view see Frantz 1979; and Frantz,in AgoraXXIV, pp. 2-5. J. Binder concurswith Frantz(pers. comm.). 84. Frantz,in AgoraXXIV, pp. 4956. 85. Miller 1893, pp. 541-542. J. Binder (pers.comm.) favorsthe Christiansas the culpritsand reminds me of the great destructionsthey wrought on the Acropolis,including defacingthe Parthenonmetopes.
ACROPOLIS
625 AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
245
Despite Christian gains, the ancient gods were still worshiped in Athens in Late Antiquity, especially Athena. It was said that in A.D. 395/6 Athena herself, along with Achilles, appeared on the walls of her city to save it from Alaric.86In the 4th and 5th centuries the NeoPlatonic school flourished there.87Whether it was Herulians, other barbarians, or Christians who despoiled Acropolis 625, she was still revered enough by pagan Athenians to be saved, perhaps in part because of her fame as a work by Endoios, and because of her obvious antiquity.88 The Late Antique wall containing Acropolis 625 stood on a shelf in a prominent position on the steep North Slope, well within the protection of the Post-Herulian Wall. It lay directly below the cleft supporting the Mycenaean fountain with its secret passage to the Acropolis and was less than 100 m above the Street of the Tripods and about 150 m above the Roman Market. What is most striking, however, is that it was built in a religiousareaof greatantiquity,the Pelargikon.Above it, along the peripatos, about 135 m to the west, were the ancient caves of Pan and Apollo, and about 100 m to the east, the Sanctuary of Eros and Aphrodite. The Eleusinion lay about 80 m lower, to the northwest (Fig. 5).89 It is most likely that the new wall had a religious function as well. The sanctity of the North Slope continued in the Byzantine era, when a number of small churches were built there, including one (Aghios Nikolaos) close to the wall containing Acropolis 625. Although partsof the North Slope have been excavated,neitherAghios Nikolaos nor the areas around it have been thoroughly explored.90The 86. Zosimus 5.6.1-3, a historian writing ca. A.D. 500: Fowden 1990, pp. 495 and 501; Frantz1979, p. 398. The city did not escape some destruction, however:Frantz,in AgoraXXIV, pp. 51-53. On Christiangains, see Fowden 1990 and Miller 1893, p. 542. For continuedfaith in Athena, see Proclus'sHymntoAthenain Saffrey 1994, pp. 48-51. On the endurance of polytheism in Late Antiquity,see Fowden 1998. I am gratefulto Marie Spiro for this last reference. 87. Frantz,in AgoraXXIV, pp. 57-58. Tanoulas(1997, II, p. 284) believes that Athens remaineda centerof pagan cultureuntil A.D. 529, when Justinian shut down the Athenian philosophical schools.Those who believe that paganism was alreadyseriouslyon the wane in Athens by the early5th centuryA.C. include Fowden (1990) and Hurwit (1999, p. 286). 88. Although Acr. 625 could have eventuallytaken on a new or augmented paganidentity-such as Isis, Demeter/ Ceres,or Cybele-in her own city, she was mostly likely still regardedas Athena. Becauseof its scale and batteredcondition it is doubtfulthat Acr. 625 was ever
given a Christianidentity. 89. On the Eleusinion,which lay just inside the Post-HerulianWall, see AgoraXXXI. 90. Kavvadias(1896, 1897a, 1897b, 1897c) began excavationson the North Slope in 1896. He concentratedon the northwestcaves and on the area between the Areopagusand the North Slope. Kavvadias1898, cols. 17-18, no. 15, mentions excavationsof the Serapheim church(i.e., Aghios Nikolaos), but an accountwas neverpublished. Among three inscribedfragmentsfrom blocks reusedfor a building of ca. A.D. 250-300, which Frantz,in AgoraXXIV, pp. 61-62 and note 30, would like to see as headingsfrom alcovesin a library,one was found in the "excavations"of the churchof Aghios Nikolaos. Eleni Papafloratouand Anthi Evert, two of the architectsin charge of turningthe North Slope into an archaeologicalpark,have made reconstructiondrawingsof the church, which they kindly showed to me in April 2000. In 1931 the American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens began a series of excavationson the North Slope.
K. Glowackiinforms me (pers. comm.) that Broneerwas responsible for the easternhalf of the North Slope, and Parsonsfor the areawest of Aghios Nikolaos, which falls into Agora section OmicronAlpha (OA).Part of section OA,which now lies under the modernroad and which includedpart of the Post-HerulianWall, was excavatedin 1937: Shear 1938, pp. 330331 and fig. 13. This areais further west than the Turkishnorth gate. Agora notebooks OAI-XIII, and his own 1943 publication,show that Parsonsdid a thoroughjob in excavating Klepsydrain 1937-1939 but never got a chance to proceedeast of the Turkishfountain.He mentions it along with Aghios Nikolaos in Agora notebook OAXI, p. 2088. The areafrom Klepsydrato HW1 was reexcavatedin the 1960s and 1970s: Platon 1968, pp. 43-44; Papapostolou1968, pp. 3435; Dontas 1972. Both Aghios Nikolaos and the areaaboveit were cleaned and strengthenedin the excavations of 1967-1970, at which time a variety of sculpturaland inscribedfragments, dating from the Archaicthrough Hellenistic periods,were found.
246
PATRICIA
A. MARX
existence of a Late Antique wall and its placement here were unreported by modern scholarsuntil now, and it provides an important new fragment of topographical information for an area of the North Slope that is not well understood. There is much yet to be done before the Late Antique wall can even be tentatively identified. Most of Roman and Late Antique Athens is today beneath Plaka, and the identities of some of its famous exposed structuresare unknown or in dispute.9' Not only is the study of Roman and Late Antique Athens just coming into its own, but the North Slope itself needs more attention.
THE HISTORY OF THE ENDOIOS ATHENA IN BRIEF In the late 6th century,ca. 525 B.C.,92 a seated statue of Athena was sculpted by Endoios and dedicated on the Acropolis by Kallias.The exact location where it stood is unknown. The statue survived the Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480/479 B.C. Pausanias saw it in the vicinity of the late-5thcentury Classical Erechtheion ca. A.D. 155-160. Later the statue was deliberately mutilated, the head and arms broken off, and the gorgoneion defaced, probably in the Herulian invasions of A.D. 267 or the somewhat later Christian depredations. The statue was then taken down from the top of the Acropolis rock and built into a wall on the North Slope. A fragment of this wall still containing the Athena was incorporated into a Turkish outwork sometime around 1740. The ancient goddess, now much weathered as well as battered, greeted visitors to her citadel after they entered the new Turkish gate. Gate and wall were destroyed by the Greeks between 1822 and 1824, and the statue was "found."In truth, it had never been "lost."The statue was then moved to the Propylaia-most likely in 1837 when Pittakis began storing sculpture there-where it rested near the guardhouse,built in 1834.93It stayed there from 1837 through 1878,94 the year in which the Acropolis Museum was built. Milchhofer and Ludwig von Sybel report that it was located in the first room of the museum,95 which has since been enlarged and renovated. Today Athena sits at the back center of the fourth room, flanked by a semicircle of korai (and one clothed youth), commanding the attention of all who visit. 91. E.g., Karivieri1994; Hoff 1994. Recent subwayexcavationshave been a bonanzafor Athenian topographical studiesand archaeologicalfinds: Stavrakakis2000; GoulandrisMuseum 2000. Continuous occupation of the city from the Neolithic to the presentday has been confirmed,and many impressiveRoman and Late Antique structureshave come to light. 92. The date of this statue has been hotly debated.For example,Lechat
(1903, pp. 416 and 441) placed it after 480 B.C., while Viviers (1992, pp. 6566, and p. 164, note 54) placesit ca. 540-520 B.C. I agreewith Brouskari (1974, p. 73), who dates it ca. 525 B.C. 93. On the erectionof the guardhouse below the southwest side of the Propylaia"setin the first low battery over the Tholikon"(in the vicinity of the earlierTurkishguardhouse),and on Pittakis'sactivities,see Tanoulas1987, pp. 462 and 470.
94. Gerhard(1837, p. 106-above, p. 226 and note 23) says that she "has been transferredto the great site of the presentexcavations"(i.e., the Propylaia).Muller-Sch6ll (1843, p. 24above,page 222) says"(Movedto the Propylaia)."Saulcy(1845, pp. 270-271) and Newton (1856, pp. 66 and 73) add that it was nearthe lodge of the guards. 95. Milchhofer 1881, p. 53; Sybel 1881, p. 339, no. 5002.
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
247
ACKNOWLED GMENTS The researchfor this article was begun in 1994 and was carriedout under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens under the directorshipsof William D. E. Coulson and James D. Muhly, and the Acropolis Ephoreia under Alike-Ismene Triantis. I thank Dr. Triantis for granting me permission both to study the statue in detail and to visit the North Slope. The latter was cleaned in 1999, under the supervision of Michael Alexandros-Mantis, who kindly gave me permission to revisit it in April 2000. I also thank Christina Vlassopoulou, whose assistance was invaluable,and the entire Acropolis staff. Further researchwas conducted at the British Museum in London, with the aid of Lucilla Burn and Ian D. Jenkins; the libraryof the British School at Athens; the libraryand photo archives of the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut at Athens; the Gennadeion; and the Libraryof Congress and the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington, D.C. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the numerous individuals who have assisted me in this endeavor.In particular this paper has benefited greatly from consultations with Tasos Tanoulas, Kevin Glowacki, Judith Binder, and Marie Spiro, and from the comments of the anonymous Hesperiareferees.This work would not have been possible without the support of my family,the technical assistance of my sister,Anita Marx, and the kind hospitality of my good friends Dermot and Sue Bassett and Xeni Constantinou. I thank all those institutionswhich have granted me permission to use their photographs, especially the British Museum for permission to publish the Gell drawings.
248
PATRICIA
A.
MARX
APPEN DIX DATE OF THE HYPAPANTI WALL
Tasos Tanoulas dates the Hypapanti wall ca. 1743, about the same time as the third battery of the Propylaia.96There are three early travelerswho visited Athens ca. 1740 and give evidence for the Propylaiabatteries, but they are of less help in establishing the existence of the Hypapanti wall. It is worth reviewing the relevantwritings of all three men here in the original English. JOHN
MONTAGUE
(FOURTH
EARL
OF SANDWICH,
1718-1792)
Montague visited Athens in 1738 and 1739.97 In his written description of Athens, he traces a large clockwise circle around the Acropolis, visiting the temple of Theseus (Hephaisteion), the temple of Jupiter (Library of Hadrian), the Tower of the Winds, the Lanthorn of Demosthenes (Monument of Lysicrates),the Ilissos Temple, the Pantheon of Hadrian (Temple of Zeus Olympeios), the Arch of Hadrian, and the [Thrasyllos] Monument. He then mentions the Theater of Bacchus (Odeion of Herodes Atticus) and says opposite it lies the Musaeum (Philopappus Hill).98After describing the latter he returns to the Theater of Bacchus, and states: Above this theatre is the only entrance into the citadel; it being on all other sides defended by a high rock mostly perpendicular,and surroundedby a wall partly ancient and partly modern. After you are past the second gate, on your right-hand is a beautiful bassrelievo representing several combatants, some on foot and others on horseback;it probablybelonged to the temple of Victory, which as Pausanias reports, stood on the very spot of ground where this bassrelievo is now stuck into the wall.99 "The only entrance"is most likely the guard'sshed, and the "secondgate" that below the Nike bastion (Fig. 5). Montague may have entered the Serpentzes through its eastern gate.100He gives no indication that the Hypapanti wall existed, but his account was presumablywritten long after his visit; his book was published posthumously in 1799. RICHARD
POCOCKE
(1704-1765)
Pococke visited Athens in 1740,101and describes it in chapter 10 of his book.'02 First he locates Athens and the Acropolis in general terms:
To the west of mount Hymettus, which was famous for its honey and fine marble, there is a range of lower hills; that which is nearest to Athens is mount Anchesmus [now called Tourkovounia]:Athens
96. Tanoulas1997,11, p. 289. 97. The family name is now spelled Montagu, but it appearsas Montague in his book (1799, p. i), and I use that spelling here. 98. Montague 1799, pp. 48-60. 99. Montague 1799, p. 61. 100. Tanoulas1997, 1, p. 67. 101. Tanoulas1987, p. 443; Tanoulas1997,1, pp. 67-68. 102. Pococke 1745, pp. 160-170.
AC RO PO LI S
Figure~
17
~
Deai
~
of plan
Pook publishedby^Q
~
6 25
A ND I TS F IN DS P OT
249
~
of Athen
in''1745 pl ~ 65
e
l|
was about a mile to the south west of it, on a hill, which on every side, except to the west, is almost perpendicularrock; it is about three furlongs in length, and one in breadth; this hill was the antient Acropolis, first called Cecropia; to the north of which the present city of Athens is built; a plan of it may be seen in the sixty-fifth plate, as the antient city in length of time probably extended all around it; the walls, I suppose being those modern ones with which it was defended when it was under the Venetians.103 Pococke gives the correct orientation of Anchesmus, but the Acropolis is more than a mile to the southwest. Unfortunately, his plan, which was taken from Fanelli, was already fifty years out of date.'04The Hypapanti wall does not appearon it, and there is nothing in Pococke's text to suggest that it yet existed. Regarding the approachto the Acropolis Pococke states:
103. Pococke 1745, pp. 160-161. 104. Pococke 1745, p. 161, note a; Fanelli 1707, plan opposite p. 317. A detail of Fanelli'splan showing the Acropolis is publishedin Omont 1898, pl. 45, upperleft; and Tanoulas1987, p. 426, fig. 11. Pococke has changed the lettering and numbering.Fanelli creditsthe Count of San Felice, but Omont (1898, pp. 17-18) says this plan is derivedfrom Verneda.Fanelli nevervisited Athens:Tanoulas1987, p. 421, note 13; Matton and Matton 1963, p.331. 105. Pococke 1745, p. 161.
The ascent A, to Acropolis is at the west end; there are three gates to be passed through in the way to the top of the hill; the propylaeum was probably about the third gate, which was built at a great expense; there is a small square tower c, remaining a little way within it, which seems to be of great antiquity.105 The third gate was just below the Nike bastion, the second was through the guard'sshed, and the first was the western gate in the Serpentzes wall (Fig. 5). The path labeled A on Pococke's plan (Fig. 17) began at the Areopagus and ended at the west entrance to the Serpentzes. The entire path is to the west of the Acropolis. CHARLES
PERRY (I698-1780)
The exact years in which Perrywas in Athens are hard to pin down. In his dedication,he seems to hint that he was there at the same time as Montague: "'Tis from the Moment I first met with Your Lordship in those Parts, that
250
PATRICIA
A.
MARX
I date my good Fortune and Happiness."''06 His book was ready for printing in December 1742, but he decided to wait for the arrivalof two additional plates.107 Regarding the Acropolis in general he states: The Acropolis, or Citadel, (at this Day commonly called the Fortress)which is the Seat and Theatre of so many precious Remains, deserves likewise that we give a brief Description of it. The Acropolis, or Fortress,is situate upon the Summit of a Rock, in a very considerable Elevation above the circumjacent Plains. The Top or Summit of the Rock, where all these Remains of Antiquity are, does not terminate in a Point, nor yet in a conical or convex manner,but it leaves a spacious Plain or Flat. The extent of this plain Space is about three quartersof a Mile in Circumference,as we guess. The Rock is extremely steep, being of almost a perpendicularAscent, on all its sides, except only to the North-west, where we enter, and ascend it. Its Figure is an oblong Square, only that its Angles are somewhat obtuse. The Rock is flanked all around with a tolerable good Wall, which, at the Northwest End, where we enter it, is of a good Height, Thickness, and Strength.'08 Both the last sentence here and Perry'srepeated emphasis on entering at the northwest end may indicate the presence of the north gate and Hypapanti wall.109Further on Perry states: Of the Fortress, or Citadel: We enter'dthe Way that leads up to the Fortress, at the Foot of the Rock it stands upon, and mounted all the Way up to the Top of it, on the West Side, inclining to the Northward. Having pass'dthrough the most advanced Port, or Gate, the first thing of Note, which we saw,was a Piece of BassoRelievo, representingTwo Persons Hand in Hand. Having passed through the Second Port, we saw some imperfect Vestiges of the antient Propylees;which, according to some Historians, was so grand and sumptuous a Fabric, as to have cost an immense Sum of Money the building; and yet this (according to the strict and just Sense of the Word) could be no other than an Appendage, or Ante-part of some more considerable edifice. Upon the Third Gate is an Eagle, carved in Marble; which may be supposed to imply the Subjection of Athens to the Roman yoke, or Government, at that Time.110 Tanoulas interprets this part of Perry'saccount sequentially. Having entered at the north gate, Perryclimbed the North Slope around to the West side, and entered the western gate in the Serpentzes wall."'1The phrase "inclining to the Northward"makes little sense, however,unless Perrywas inside the medieval Propylaiabatteries and climbing from the third to the fourth gate (Fig. 5).112The first sentence here was probablya general overview, before enumerating the gates.
106. Perry1743, p. 2 [dedication]. 107. Perry1743, pp. xvii-xviii, pls. XXXI and XXII. 108. Perry1743, p. 492. 109. But see Wheler 1682, p. 358, which also discussesthe entranceas being at the northwestend of the rock. The Hypapantiwall did not exist when Wheler visited Athens. 110. Perry1743, p. 503. Much of this section is a paraphrasefrom Wheler 1682, p. 358, and, as Tanoulas (1997, 1, p.83, note 42) has observed, from Spon and Fanelli.Tanoulas(1987, p. 434) explainsthe "eagle"as actually being a Nike figure,from the Nike Balustrade,in ruined condition. 111. Tanoulas1997, 1, pp. 69-70. 112. Hobhouse (1817, p. 279) uses the word "inclining"to describethe ascentfrom the second to third gate. PaceTanoulas1997, 1, p. 69.
ACROPOLIS
625 AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
25I
REFERENCES Agora XXJV = A. Frantz,LateAntiqUity:A.D. 167-700, with contribu-
tions by H. A. Thompson and J. Travlos,Princeton1988. Agora XXI = M. M. Miles, The City Eleusinion, Princeton1998. Beck, H. 1868. Vuesdthenes et de ses monuments,photographies d'aspres nature, Berlin. BenakiMuseum. 1985. Athens, 18391900:A PhotographicRecord, Athens. Bendtsen,M. 1993. Sketchesand Measurings: Danish Architects in Greece,1818-1862, Copenhagen. Beule, C.-E. 1868. Histoire de l'artgrec avant Pericles, Paris. Binyon, L. 1900. Catalogue of Drawings by British Artists andArtists of Foreign Origin Workingin Great Britain, Preserved in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum II, London. Blaquiere,E. 1825. Narrative of a Second Visit to Greece,Including Facts Connectedwith the Last Days of Lord Byron: Extractsfrom Correspondence, OfficialDocuments & c., London,
facsimilerepr.Folcroft,Penn., 1976, 2 vols. in one. Boardman,J. 1978. GreekSculpture:The Archaic Period, London. Breton,E. 1868. Athenes, 2nd ed., Paris. Broneer,0. 1932. "Erosand Aphrodite on the North Slope of the Acropolis,"Hesperia 1, pp. 31-55. . 1933. "Excavationson the North Slope of the Acropolisin Athens, 1931-1932," Hesperia 2, pp. 329-417. . 1935. "Excavationson the North Slope of the Acropolisin Athens, 1933-1934," Hesperia 4, pp. 109-188. . 1936. "The Cave on the East Slope of the Acropolis,I: The Site," Hesperia 5, pp. 247-253. . 1938. "Excavationson the North Slope of the Acropolis, 1937,"Hesperia 7, pp. 161-263. . 1939. "AMycenaeanFountain on the Athenian Acropolis," Hesperia 8, pp. 317-433. Brouskari,M. S. 1974. Movocu'ov Axpo7wrdE?-:H7ptypaq9tx6 xacx-aoyo0;S
Athens.
Bundgaard,J. A. 1974. The Excavations of the Athenian Acropolis 1882-1890: The Original Drawings Editedfrom the Papers of GeorgKawerau,
Copenhagen. Burnouf,E. 1877. La Ville et lAcropole d'Athenes aux diverses epoques,Paris. Camp,J. M. 1986. The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens, London. Castren,P., ed. 1994. Post-Herulian Athens: Aspects of Life and Culture in Athens, A.D. 26 7-529, Helsinki. Chandler,R. 1825. Travels in Asia Minor and Greece:By the Late Richard Chandler,D.D., 2 vols., new
ed., Oxford.Introductionby R. Churton. Clarke,E. D. 1818. Travels in Various Countries of Europe, Asia, andAfrica
VI, ii, 4th ed., London. Daux, G. 1956. "L'Athenesantiqueen 1851: Photographiesd'Alfred Normand,"BCH 1956, pp. 619624. Dickins, G. 1912. Catalogue of the AcropolisMuseum I: Archaic Sculpture,
Cambridge. Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and TopographicalTour through Greece, during the Years1801, 1805, and 1806, 2 vols., London. EXINS A' Dontas, G. 1970. "EL&qaGLU AAA 3, aCP7capoxoy L9gr
pp. 167-170. xXL . 1972. "ApcxaL6oqre ArchDelt25, 1970 pvv%tdAO-1v'v," B'1 [1972], pp. 24-29. xXL . 1974. "ApXxaLco-Mr ArchDelt 26, 1971 pv- ta AO-vc'v," B'1 [1974], pp. 26-29. . 1983. "TheTrue Aglaurion," Hesperia 52, pp. 48-63. Dow, S. 1937. "The Egyptian Cults in Athens,"HTR 30, pp. 183-232. Economakis,R., ed. 1994. Acropolis Restoration: The CCAMInterventions, London. Fanelli,Francesco.1707. AteneAttica: Descritta da Suoi Principii sino all'acquistofatto dall'Armi Venetenel 1687, Venice.
Fowden, G. 1990. "The Athenian Agora and the Progressof Christianity,"JRA3, pp. 494-501.
. 1998. "PolytheistReligion and Philosophy,"in CAHXIII: The Late Empire, AD. 337-425, A. Cameron and P. Garnsey,eds., pp. 538-560. Frantz,A. 1979. "DidJulianthe Apostate Rebuildthe Parthenon?" AJA 83, pp. 395-401. Gell, W. 1810. The Itinerary of Greece, with a Commentary on Pausanias and Strabo, and an Account of the Monuments ofAntiquity at Present Existing in That Country; Compiled in the Years1801-1802, 1805-1806,
London. . 1819. The Itinerary of Greece; Containing One Hundred Routes in Attica, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, and Thessaly, London. . 1823. Narrative of a Journey in the Morea, London. Gerhard,E. 1828. Prodromus mythologischerKunsterklrung, Munich.
. 1837. "Surles monumens figuresexistantactuellementen Grece," AdI 9, pp. 103-150. 1844. Uber die Minervenidole Athens, Berlin. Gernsheim,H., and A. Gernsheim. 1969. The History of Photography: From the Camera Obscurato the Beginning of the Modern Era, New
York. GoulandrisMuseum. 2000. H w7rdA XOCIC)aOw7V7v6A77: Evp'Va-ca
=a
ICS xVaCXOEp -cOo Mv'rPpowo2r0tctxo6
Athens. Cot)vAO7v&)v, 2C7po96p(IOV Habicht, C. 1985. Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece,Berkeley. Hasluck,F W. 1911-1912. "TopographicalDrawings in the British Museum IllustratingClassicalSites and Remainsin Greece andTurkey," BSA 18, pp. 270-281. Hawkins,J. 1818. "On the Topography of Athens,"in Memoirs Relating to European andAsiatic Turkey,and Other Countries of the East; Edited from ManuscriptJournals, 2nd ed.,
R. Walpole, ed., London, pp. 480521. [lst ed. London 1817.] Heydemann,H. 1874. Die antiken Marmor-Bildwerke in der sog. Stoa des Hadrians, dem Windthurm des Andronikus, dem Waerterhduschenauf derAkropolis und der Ephorie im
252
PATRICIA
Cultusministerium zuAthen) Berlin. Hobhouse,J. C. 1817. AJourney throughAlbania and Other Provinces of Turkeyin Europe andAsia, to Constantinople, during the Years1809 and 1810 1, Philadelphia. Hobson, C. 1987. The Worldof the Pharaobs:A Complete Guide to Ancient Egypt, London.
Hoff, M. C. 1994. "The So-Called Agoranomionand the Imperial Cult in Julio-ClaudianAthens," AA 1994, pp. 93-117. Hopper,R.J. 1971. TheAcropolis, New York. Hurwit,J. M. 1989. "The KritiosBoy: Discovery,Reconstruction,and Date,"AJA93, pp. 41-80. .1999. TheAthenian Acropolis: History, Mythology, andArchaeology from the Neolithic Era to the Present, Cambridge.
Jeffery,L. H. 1962. "The Inscribed Gravestonesof ArchaicAttica," BSA 57, pp. 115-153. Jeppesen,K. 1979. "WhereWas the So-Called Erechtheion?"AJA83, pp. 381-394. Jones,W. H. S. [1918] 1978. Pausanias: Description of GreeceI, repr. Cambridge,Mass. Junker,K. 1995. "LudwigRoss und die PublikationseinerAusgrabungen auf der Athener Akropolis,"AA, pp. 755-762. Karivieri,A. 1994. "The So-Called Libraryof Hadrianand the TetraconchChurchin Athens," in Castren 1994, pp. 91-113. Kastriotes,P. 1895. Kacc-raoyo,;-rob Athens. Movocuovorr 'Axpo7r6E), Kavvadias,P. 1896. "Funde,"AM21, pp. 460-462. . 1897a. "Acropole d'Athenes.
Note de M. Cavvadias,du 10 Janvier(21 XII) 1897,"BCH 1896 [1897], pp. 382-383. 1897b. "'ErLypocxcx'L
rC'Ano'XwvL '0to avcxOtc,rLxoL MccxpcdL,"ArchEph1897, cols. 8792. 1897c. "TonoypacpLx'AOvov: -r_Irv'Axpo7oroXLv Ka-ra6-ci cvacxoxpa , ArchEph 1897, cols. 131. 'AOv v," 1898. "'EmLypopoL ArchEph 1898, cols. 10-22. Keesling,C. M. 1999. "Endoios's
A. MARX
Painting from the Themistoklean Wall:A Reconstruction,"Hesperia 68, pp. 509-548. Korres,M. 1988. "EpyxaxEa-rx pv%cix,"ArchDelt35, 1980B'1 [1988], pp. 9-21. . 1996. "The Parthenonfrom Antiquity to the 19th Century,"in TheParthenonandIts Impactin ModernTimes,P.Tournikiotis,ed., Athens, pp. 136-161. Korres,M., and Ch. Bouras.1983. MEA,v7 a,W7OXaCIaXcrECc)x IOV
HIcxpeOvovoSI, Athens. Laurent,P. E. 1821. Recollectionsof a Classical Tour through VariousParts of Greece,Turkey,and Italy, Made in the Years1818 & 1819, London. Leake,W. M. 1821. The Topographyof Athens, with Some Remarks on Its Antiquities, London. .1841. The TopographyofAthens, with Some Remarks on Its Antiquities
I, 2nd ed., London. Lechat, H. 1903. Au musee de lAcropole d'Athenes, Lyon. Le Roy,J. D. 1758. Les ruines desplus beaux Monuments de la Grace,Paris. [2nd ed. publishedin 1770.] Lowe, C. G. 1936. "Fauvel'sFirst Trip through Greece,"Hesperia 5, pp. 206-224. Luce,J.-M. 1998. "Thesee,le synccisme et l'Agorad'Athenes,"RA, pp. 3-31. MacKenzie,M. 1992. TurkishAthens: The Forgotten Centuries, 1456-1832,
Reading. Madden, F. 1861. Catalogue of the Manuscript Maps, Charts, and Plans, and of the TopographicalDrawings in the British Museum III, London. Marcovich,M. 1990. Athenagoras: Legatio pro Christianis, Berlin.
Marx, P. A. 1993. "The Introduction of the Gorgoneion to the Shield and Aegis of Athena and the Question of Endoios,"RA, pp. 227268. Matton, L., and R. Matton. 1963. Athenes et ses monuments du XIlIe siecle a nosjours, Athens. Milchh6fer,A. 1881. Die Museen Athens, Athens. Miller, H. H. 1972. Greecethrough the Ages:As Seen by Travelersfrom Herodotus to Byron, New York.
Miller, S. G. 1995. "Architectureas
ACROPOLIS
625
AND
ITS
FINDSPOT
Evidence for the Identity of the EarlyPolis,"in SourcesfortheAncient GreekCity-State:Symposium, August, 24-2 7, 1994:Actsof the Copenhagen Polis Centre 2, M. H. Hansen, ed., Copenhagen,pp. 201-244. Miller,W. 1893. "AHistory of the Akropolisof Athens,"AJA8, pp. 473-556. Milnes, R. M. 1834. Memorialsof a Tourof SomePartsof Greece:Chiefly Poetical, London. Illustratedin 1860. Montague,J. 1799. A Voyage Performed by theLateEarl of SandwichRound theMediterraneanin theYears1738 and 1739, WrittenbyHimself prefix byJ. Cooke, London. Moore, M. B. 1995. "The Central Group in the Gigantomachyof the Old Athena Temple on the Acropolis,"AJA99, pp. 633-639. Muiller-Sch5ll= A. Scholl. 1843. Archaeologische Mittheilungenaus Griechenland nachCarlOzfried PapierenI: Miller'shinterlassenen FrankAthensAntiken-Sammlung, furt. Nagler,G. K. [1835-1852] 1910-1912. Neuesallgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon, 2nd ed., repr.Linz. Newton, C. T. 1856. "Extractsfrom a Letter from CharlesT. Newton, Esq., to W. R. Hamilton, Esq.," dated April 18, 1852, publishedby W. S. W. Vaux,"IV.-Antiquities at Athens and in Its Neighbourhood," in Transactions of theRoyalSocietyof Literature, 2nd ser.,V, i, pp. 59-84. NUC = TheNational Union Catalog of Pre-1956 Imprints,a publication the Libraryof Congress and the AmericanLibraryAssociation, U.S.A., 754 vols., 1968-1981, London. Olivier,G. A. [1801]-1807. Voyagedans l'EmpireOthoman,3 vols. and atlas, Paris. Omont, H. 1898. Athenesau XIlIe du Parsiecle:Dessinsdessculptures thenonattribue's j Carreyet conservesa la Bibliotheque Nationale accompagnede vuesetplans d'Athenes et del'Acropole, Paris. Papapostolou,A. 1968. "Ap0Xx6at-Mr xcxLpv-%tdAOrqvcv-A-rcLx''," ArchDelt 22, 1967 B'1 [1968], pp. 34-36.
253 Parsons,A. W. 1943. "Klepsydraand the PavedCourt of the Pythion," Hesperia 12, pp. 191-267. Paton,J. M., ed. 1927. The Erechtheum: Measured,Drawn, and Restoredby GorhamPhillipsStevens,Cambridge, Mass. 1951.ChaptersonMediaeval and RenaissanceVisitorsto Greek Lands,Princeton. PEI = Photographers Encyclopaedia International,1839 to thePresent, Hermance, 1985. Perry,C. 1743.A Viewof theLevant: Syria, Particularlyof Constantinople, Egypt,and Greece,London. Picard,C. [1929]. L'Acropole: L'Enceinte-L'Entre'e, Le Bastion dWAthena Nike-Les Propylkes,Paris.
Platon, N. 1968. "ApXca&6TE-r XCXL jvqiLx AO-vWv-A-rcLx'N,"ArchDelt 21, 1966 B'1 [1968], pp. 36-48. Pococke, R. 1745. A Description of the East and Some Other Countries II, ii: Observations on the Islands of the Archipelago,Asia Minor, Thrace, Greece,and Some Other Parts of Europe, London. Raubitschek,A. E. 1949. Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis.-A Catalogue of the Inscriptions of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C., ed.
with collaborationof L. H. Jeffery, Cambridge,Mass. Raybaud,M. 1825. Me'moiressur la Gr?ce,pour servir a l'histoire de la Guerre de L'IndependanceII, Paris.
Ridgway,B. S. 1990. "Birds,'Meniskoi,' and Head Attributesin Archaic Greece,"AJA94, pp. 583-612. . 1992. "Imagesof Athena on the Akropolis,"in Goddessand Polis: The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, J. Neils, ed., Hanover,
pp. 119-142. Ross, L. [1839]. DieAkropolis vonAthen nach den neuestenAusgrabungen I: Der Tempel der Nike Apteros, Berlin. Rumpf,A. 1938. "Endoios:Ein Versuch,"La critica d'arte 3, pp. 41-48. Saffrey,H. D. 1994. Proclus:Hymnes et pri?res, Paris. Saulcy,F. de. 1845. "Museed'Athenes," RA (August),pp. 267-277. ScharfJr.,G. 1851. "XVI.Description of a VeryAncient Statue of Minerva, at Athens,"The Museum of ClassicalAntiquities: A Quarterly
254
PATRICIA
Journal ofArchitecture and the Sister Branches of ClassicArt I, pp. 190-
193. Schoedel,W. R. 1972. Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione,
Oxford. Schrader,H. 1909. ArchaischeMarmorSkulpturen im Akropolis-Museum zu Athen, Vienna.
Schrader,H., E. Langlotz, andW.-H. Schuchhardt.1939. Die archaischen Marmorbildwerke derAkropolis,
Frankfurt. Shear,T. L. 1935. "The Sculpture Found in 1933,"Hesperia 4, pp. 371-420. . 1938. "The Campaignof 1937,"Hesperia 7, pp. 311-362. .1939. "The Campaignof 1938,"Hesperia 8, pp. 201-246. . 1940. "The Campaignof 1939,"Hesperia 9, pp. 261-308. Sironen,E. 1994. "Lifeand Administrationof Late RomanAttica in the Light of Public Inscriptions,"in Castren1994, pp. 15-62. Spon,J. 1678. Voyaged'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grace,et du Levantfait aux annees 1675 & 1676 par lacob Spon) Docteur Medicin) et George Wheler,gentilhomme anglois II, Lyon. . 1679. Voyaged'Italie, de Dalmatie, de Grhce,et du Levantfait es [sic] annees 1675 & 1676 parJacob Spon) Docteur Medicin) et George Wheler,gentilhomme anglois II,
Amsterdam. Stademann,F. [1841] 1977. Panorama von Athen:An Ort und Stelle aufgenommen und herausgegebenvon
Patricia A. Marx 53I9
3IST
ARLINGTON,
ROAD
NORTH
VIRGINIA
22207
A. MARX
Ferdinand Stademann) Munich, repr. Mainz, with prefaceby F. Brommer, and lithographsby C. Lebsche. Stavrakakis,Y. N. 2000. "Subwayto the Past," Archaeology (March/April),
pp. 36-41. Stuart,J., and N. Revett. 1787. The Antiquities ofAthens Measured and Delineated byJames Stuart, ER. S. and FS.A., and Nicholas Revett, Painters andArchitects II, London. Sybel, L. von. 1881. Katalog der SculpturenzuAthen, Marburg.
Tanoulas,T. 1987. "The Propylaeaof the Acropolis at Athens since the SeventeenthCentury:Their Decay and Restoration,"JdI102, pp. 413483. . 1997. Tc Hpo7w6imaCCtCx IOV AOqvcx'C; Axpo27oA65xa M-ucdc'vac,2 vols., Athens. Vol.11
contains an English summary. Thompson, H. A. 1959. "Activitiesin the Athenian Agora: 1958," Hesperia 28, pp. 91-108. Travlos, J. 1960. HoA2?o38oytx ?6Ct6tC cx)vAO,vc)v, Athens. . 1971. Pictorial Dictionary of AncientAthens, New York. 1972. Athenes aufil du temps
Boulogne. .1973. "H7tup7rt'6?qLIroU 6 wvEpo?XwvxcxL-q H0Cp0-Vc'Vo -Zr& F-7rLCFXz)]qTCO
X0rc
roo cwroxp6-ropog
TOO XpoVooU
Io)XLccvo6,"
ArchEph 1973, pp. 218-236. 1981. "Athens after the
Liberation:Planning the New City and Exploringthe Old,"Hesperia 50, pp. 391-407.
oc Trikoupes,S. 1857. 'Iu-op('a IV, Exa vtxr Ev 7vCcvOCc-EC&); London. Turner,W. 1820. Journal of a Tour of the Levant I, London. Viviers,D. 1992. Recherchessur les ateliers
de sculpteurset la cite d 'Athnes a l'epoquearchaique.Endoios, Philergos, Aristokles, Gembloux. Waddington,G. 1825. A Visit to Greece, In 1823 and 1824, 2nd ed., London. Walters,E. J. 1988. Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Womenin the Dress of Isis (Hesperia Supplement22),
Princeton. Wheler, G. 1682. AJourney into Greece by George WhelerEsq.; In Company of Dr. Spon of Lyons, London. Wilkins, W. 1816. Atheniensia; or, Remarks on the Topographyand Buildings ofAthens, London. Williams, H. W. 1820. Travels in Italy, Greece,and the Ionian Islands: In a Series of Letters Descriptive of Manners, Scenery,and the Fine Arts II,
Edinburgh. Williamson, G. C. 1964. Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers
II, new ed., rev.and enlarged,New York. Woodward,A. M., and R. P. Austin. 1925-1926a. "SomeNotebooks of SirWilliam Gell-I," BSA 27-28, pp. 67-80. 1925-1926b. "SomeNotebooks of Sir William Gell-II," BSA 27-28, pp. 107-127. Wordsworth,C. 1836. Athens andAttica. Journal of a Residence There, London.
Forthcoming
JOSEPH W. SHAW, ALEYDIS VAN DE MOORTEL, PETER M. DAY, VASSILIS KILIKO6LOU
A LM IA Ceramic Kiln in Crete: Function South-Central and Pottery Production 175 pages, 66 figures,16 tables HesperiaSupplement30. ISBN 0-87661-530-2. July 2001. Paper$35.00
An in-depth study of the Late Minoan IA cross-draft kiln found in excavation at Kommos, Crete. The kiln is of a type popular during the Neopalatial period, and its good state of preservation has allowed the authors to speculate about its original internal layout and use as well as about the roof that covered it. Much of the large quantity of obviously locally produced pottery found associated with the kiln is analyzed in detail, allowing for the first time the study of the shapes, decoration, and technical characteristicsof vases known to have been fired in a specific LM IA kiln. The book presents an integrated program of analyticaltechniques used to illustrate the range of firing temperatures, the compositional similarities and differences in the clay used, and aspects of the firing process and the upper kiln structure.Offered here is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the technology and organization of ceramic production at the beginning of the Late Minoan period, which will form a basis for studies of pottery provenience and exchange.
MAARTHA K. RISSER
Forthcoming
Corinthian Conventionalizing Po ttery
Corinthian Conventionalizing pottery is a fine ware produced during the 6th, 5th, and 4th centuriesB.C. While Athenian workshopsproducedblackand red-figuredvases, their Corinthian counterpartswere decoratingvases predominantly with black and red bands, patterns, and floral motifs. This book provides a full and comprehensive study of Corinthian Conventionalizing pottery found during the American School of Classical Studies Corinth Excavations. Through the examination of contextual information, shape development, and changes in the style of painting, a chronology of the vases is proposed. This is followed by a discussion of painters, workshops, and groups. Evidence for systematic export is also presented.
195 pages, 45 plates, 31 figures CorinthVII, v. ISBN 0-87661-075-0. July 2001. Cloth $60.00
HESPERIA
SUPPLEMENTS
of Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast, 13 MarcusAurelius:Aspects by James H. Oliver (1970). $15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,byjohn S.Traill(1975).$15.00 15 TheLetteringof an AthenianMason,by Stephen V. Tracy(1975). $15.00 16 A Sanctuaryof ZeusonMountHymettos,byMerleK.Langdon(1976).
$15.00 17 Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 286 B.C., byT. Leslie ShearJr.(1978). $15.00 Presentedto Eugene 19 Studiesin AtticEpigraphy,History,and Topography Vanderpool (1982). $15.00 Presentedto Sculpture,and Topography 20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, HomerA.Thompson(1982).$15.00 21 Excavationsat Pylosin Elis, by John E. Coleman (1986). $25.00
22 Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressoflsis, by ElizabethJ. Walters (1988). $40.00 23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfromtheAthenianAgora,by ClaireveGrandjouan (1989). $25.00 atMochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries BronzeAge Crete,byJeffreyS. Soles (1992). $35.00
25 Debrisfroma PublicDining Placein theAthenianAgora, by Susan I. Rotroff andJohn H. Oakley (1992). $35.00 Stagesand Chronol26 TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in Athens:Architectural ogy, by Ira S. Mark (1993). $50.00 on GreekArchitectural 27 Proceedingsof theInternationalConference Terracottas of the Classicaland HellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991, edited by Nancy A. Winter (1994). $120.00 28 Studies in Archaic Corinthian VasePainting, by D. A. Amyx and Patricia Lawrence(1996). $65.00 29 The Athenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 $35.00
B.C.,
by Ronald S. Stroud (1998).
-
-~~~~~~~~~~~~ THE OF
JOURNAL CLASSICAL
OF THE
AMERICAN
STUDIES
AT VOLUME
SCHOOL ATHENS 70:
NUMBER
JULY-SEPTEMBER
2001
AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens 2001
3
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is a research and teaching institution dedicated to advanced study of the archaeology,art, history, philosophy, language, and literature of Greece and the Greek world. Established in 1881 by a consortium of nine American universities, the School now serves graduate students and scholars from more than 150 affiliated colleges and universities, acting as a base for research and study in Greece. The main buildings of the School and its library are located in Athens, with administrative and publications offices in Princeton, New Jersey. As part of its mission, the School directs ongoing excavations in the Athenian Agora and at Corinth and sponsors all other American-led excavations and surveys on Greek soil. It is the official link between American archaeologists and classicists and the Archaeological Service of the Greek Ministry of Culture and, as such, is dedicated to the wise management of cultural resources and to the dissemination of knowledge of the classical world. Inquiries about membership in the School or participation in the Summer Sessions should be sent to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterlyby the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Founded in 1932 and devoted primarilyto the timely publication of reports on School-sponsored and School-directed projects, Hesperiawelcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology,art, epigraphy,history, and literature,from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperiais a refereedjournal.
VOLUME
70:
NUMBER
JULY-SEPTEMBER
- -1
3
2001
I
m
THE
JOURNAL
OF CLASSICAL
PUBLICATIONS STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
BRITT
OF THE
AMERICAN
STUDIES
HARTENBERGER
AND
SCHOOL
I
AT ATHENS
CURTIS
RUNNELS
The Organization of Flaked Stone Production at Bronze Age Lerna
255
KerriCox EDITOR, Hesperia
TraceyCullen EDITOR, MONOGRAPHS
Michael Fitzgerald
SARAH
P. MORRIS
The Towers of Ancient Leukas: Results of a Topographic Survey, 1991-1992
285
ASSISTANT EDITOR
SuzanneAbrams PRODUCTION MANAGER
SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVECOORDINATOR
ANDREW
OLIVER
A Glass Opus Sectile Panel from Corinth
349
JordanPeled STEPHEN
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE
A New Fragment of IG 1121750
J. Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago Thomas G. Palaima Universityof Texas at Austin JeniferNeils Case Western ReserveUniversity James P. Sickinger Florida State University KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V. Tracy (ex officio) Ohio State University
V. TRACY
RICHARD
GREEN
AND
ERIC
365 W.
The Rover'sReturn:A Literary Quotation on a Pot in Corinth
HANDLEY
367
Submissions: Manuscripts and communications should be addressed to Dr. TraceyCullen, Editor,Hesperia,American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, 6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton,NewJersey08540; tel. 609-683-0800; fax 609-924-0578; e-mail
[email protected] photocopies of illustrationsmust be submittedin triplicate;originalartworkand photographs should not be sent unless prior arrangementsare made with the Editor. A short abstractsummarizingthe majorconclusionsof the articleshould also be included.Articles aresubmittedto a double-blindreviewprocessand authors arerequestedto preparetheir manuscriptsaccordingly,without their name or affiliationappearing.The style for manuscriptpreparation,notes, bibliography,and other informationon submissionscan be found in the Guidelinesfor Authors published in Hesperia 62, 1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School's website (www.ascsa.org);or by writing to ASCSA Publicationsat the aboveaddress. The AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies at Athens will not knowinglyprint in Hesperiaor any of its other publicationsthe announcementor initial scholarlypresentationof anyobjectacquiredafterDecember30,1970, by anymeans other than through an officially sanctioned excavationor survey,unless the objectwas partof a previouslyexistingcollectionor was legallyexportedfrom the countryof origin. Subscriptions:The annualsubscriptionprice,payablein advancein dollars,is $60.00 for individuals,$70.00 for institutions, and $33.00 for studentswith valid I.D. Canadaand other countriesadd $10.00 postage. Ordersshould be sent to Hesperia,SubscriberServices,P.O.Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529; tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outside U.S.) 781-828-8450; fax 781-828-8915; e-mail
[email protected] Hesperia1-41, Index I, and Supplements 1-12 and 18 should be ordered from Swets and Zeitlinger,b.v.,P.O.Box 810,2160 SZ Lisse, Netherlands.Single issues (current and back numberswhen available)of Hesperia36 and following areavailable for $15.00 each plus postage from the David Brown Book Company, P.O. Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779; tel. 800-791-9354, 860-945-9329; fax 860-945-9468; or (outsideNorth America)Oxbow Books,ParkEnd Place, Oxford OX1 1HN, UK; tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249; fax +44 (0) 1865-794449. Index II and Supplements13 and following are also available.
Copyright( 2001 The American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc., Ann Arbor,Michigan. Design by Ellen McKie. Cover photographcourtesy Deutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens. Periodicalspostage paid at Princeton,New Jersey,and at additionalmailing offices. Send addresschanges to Postmaster: American School of Hesperia, ClassicalStudies at Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton, New Jersey08540-5232 U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 255-283
ORGAN
THE OF
IZATION
FLAKED
STONE
P RODUCTI
BRONZE
O
AGE
N
AT LERNA
ABSTRACT A studyof nearly12,000 lithic artifactsfrom Lernawas undertakento determine if the lithics were producedby craft specialists.Analysis indicates that the productionoflithics was controlledby part-time craftspecialistsbasedin individual households and not controlled by an elite central authority.The evidence of continuity in Bronze Age flintknappingdoes not support a hypothesis of discontinuityor culturalreplacementat Lerna.Any interruptions had little effect on flintknappingtechnology or formal tool types. A decline in the supply of imported Melian obsidian at the end of Early Helladic III (Lerna IV) suggests an interruptionof trade. The prehistoric site of Lerna in the Argolid has been under investigation for nearly fifty years since excavations began under the direction of John Caskey in 1952 (Fig. 1).1The architecture,stratigraphy,and artifactsfrom this rich and important Neolithic and Bronze Age site have been studied by many scholars, resulting in many publications. Among the most numerous of the finds are the flaked stone artifacts,with successive assemblages spanning the period from the beginning of the Neolithic early in the seventh millennium B.C.to the end of the Bronze Age in the 11th century B.C. These lithics are important for establishing a baseline for the study of Greek lithics, particularlyin the Bronze Age, a period very poorly represented by published lithic assemblages. Study of the Lerna lithics began in the 1960s with an unpublished preliminary report by Perry Bialor, followed in 1976 by a doctoral disser1. This reportis intended to complement the final volumes that have appearedor arein press on the Bronze Age settlement at Lerna:LernaIII, LernaIV, and LernaV. Our involvement in this projectbegan at the suggestion of Elizabeth C. Banks and the late John L. Caskey,and we wish to thank ProfessorBanks for her long-
standingcommitment to this project and for her supportand encouragement from first to last.The statisticalanalysis relied upon laboratorymeasurements made in the 1980s with the assistance of PriscillaM. Murray,and it is a pleasureto thank her here for her many contributionsto this projectover the years.We also wish to thankJeremy
Rutter,MarthaWiencke, Eberhard Zangger,and Carol Zernerfor their manyuseful comments and suggestions, and the anonymousHesperiareviewers, who commented on all aspectsof the study and made valuablesuggestions for improvements.Finally,we thank Craig Mauzy for the photographs (Figs. 2-4).
256
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
Figure1. Locationof Lernaand othersites mentionedin the text tation by David Van Horn that sketched an outline of the Lerna sequences.2 Further studies of the lithics were undertaken after 1980 by a number of researchers.The Early and Middle Neolithic artifactswere analyzed and published by Janusz Kozlowski and his colleagues,3 and a report on the Bronze Age lithics published by one of us in 1985 focused on the typological and technological description of the Lerna III-V sequence with the view of establishing the characterof the successive assemblages or industries.4More recently,a smaller number of Late Helladic (Late Bronze Age) lithics were described by Runnels for inclusion in the report on Mycenaean Lerna by Martha Wiencke.5 Finally, the present report is a study of specialization and continuity in flintknapping in the Early and Middle Bronze Age, specifically the significant settlements of the Early Helladic (EH) II settlement of Lerna III, the EH III settlement of Lerna IV, and the Middle Helladic (MH) settlement of Lerna V. As the 1985 study by Runnels covered the typological and technological characteristics of the Lerna industries, we focus in this article on the economics, social structure,and organization of lithic production. The 1985 study by Runnels established that the flaked stone artifacts belonged to a relatively stable industry that spanned the entire EH IIMH period. This finding added to the growing body of evidence for the continuityof culturein the Early-Middle Bronze Age on mainlandGreece.6 Only a few chronologically sensitive tool types, technological traditions,
2. Van Horn 1976. 3. Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and Pawlikowski1996. 4. Runnels 1985. 5. Wiencke 1998. 6. E.g., Rutter 1993.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
257
and patternsof raw materialexploitationwere detectedat BronzeAge Lerna.The relativenumberof artifactsandthe frequencyof rawmaterials andformaltool typesshownin Figures2-4 reflectthe generaltrendsseen overallin the threeassemblages(LernaIII, IV,andV). These figuressummarizethe Lernalithicsandcanbe usedto identifysimilarmaterialsfrom otherBronzeAge sites.Generallyspeaking,the use of Melianobsidianto manufacturefine bladesby pressureflakingcontinuedthroughthe EHMH sequence,despitethe declinein importedobsidianat the end of EH III. The relativelysmallarrayof formalretouchedtool typeswas equally consistent,with notchedpieces and lightly retouchedsickleelementsof
7. The lithic types used in this paper arebased on categoriesdefined in Runnels 1985.
nonlocal chert more common in Lerna III (Fig. 2), and pointed pieces (perfoirsand becs)and heavily retouched sickle elements made on flakes somewhat more common in the Lerna IV (Fig. 3) and Lerna V (Fig. 4) levels.7 Other changes are equally minor. Hollow-based arrowheads (as opposed to tanged and barbed forms) became more common in EH III and MH. The use of obsidian declines gradually after EH II to be replaced with chert, especially local materials (or relatively local, i.e., from sources not more than 50 km away). This trend is particularlyevident during the MH period, with the greatest use of chert occurring in Lerna V. From first to last, a clear preferencecan be seen for extra-local chert or chalcedony for the manufacture of heavily retouched tools such as drills, sickles, or arrowheads (Figs. 2-4). These are tools that require a tough, durableraw material that could be saved ("curated"in technical parlance), reused, and recycled. Obsidian was used chiefly for the numerous, onetime use ("expedient")cutting edges requiredfor the daily tasks of village farmers.Apart from the carefully made sickle elements that are distinctly different in each phase and which may reflect a change in access to chert acquiredby long-distance trade (i.e., from furtherthan 100 km) or a change in sickle technology or reaping practice, there is relatively little change in lithic technology at Lerna from the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (EBA) to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. To evaluate this finding, which was published in 1985, new analyses were undertaken in 1986-1987 with a detailed computer-based statistical analysis of the evidence by Runnels and Eberhard Zangger. The purpose of the statistical analysiswas to evaluate the data for significant correlation in metrical dimensions (such as length, width, and thickness), patterns in technological features such as platform types or cross-sections, and associations between different classes of tools and debitage (e.g., cores, flakes, and blades). It was hoped that this analysis would reveal time-dependent patterns useful for evaluating hypotheses of cultural continuity or cultural change at Lerna, as well as permitting lithic assemblages from undated sites or surface scatters to be more closely dated by comparisons (such as seriation) with the Lerna sequence. The results of this study were essentially negative. No statistically significant patterns or variations were isolated, and associations that were identified were found to be too weakly expressedto rule out the effects on the data of sampling errors,post-depositional formation processes, and the hazardsof excavation.It was concluded that further investigations of a statistical nature were not warranted.
BRITT
258
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
V 6M\li1&l11
b
c
d
e
a
f
OA )~~~;
g
h
i
Figure 2. Early Helladic II (Lerna III) lithics (obsidian unless noted otherwise): a) blade cores and blades; b) geometric microliths; c) lame a crete;d) truncated piece; e)perfoirs; f) denticulated sickle elements; g) projectile points; h) fine chert pressure blades with denticulation and plant gloss i) tanged projectile point and notched piece of local chert. Scale4:5
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
259
b
a
b w
f
.* \
?<7
i'
g
sv
11111
I h
d
i
e
VI
.j r
Figure3. EarlyHelladicIII (LernaIV) lithics (obsidianunless noted otherwise):a) bifacially retouched,truncateddenticulates of local chertwith plantgloss; b) tangedprojectilepoint; c) geometricmicroliths;d) end scrapersof chert;e) bladesand cores;f)perfoirs;g) piecesesquillees; h) end scrapers;i) sickleelements; j) fine chertpressurebladeswith denticulationandplantgloss; k) projectilepoints (two at rightare of chert). Scale4:5
I
I
j
9IAM. k
260
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
a
a
b
PI
LAd
e
c
f
A
AAA
h
g
A
A
\
A AA
i
* a Figure4. Middle Helladic(LernaV) lithics(obsidianunlessnotedotherwise):a) cherttruncatedpieces; b) chertend scraper;c) bifacially retouchedtruncatedsickleelements of chert d) blades; e) perfoirs;f) end
scraper;g) sickleelements;h) core and lame a crte; i) projectile points
]k
(threeat rightarechert);j) tanged point (Neolithictype);k) chertbifacialartifacts.Scale4:5
FLAKED
STONE
TABLE
1. BRONZE
Phase III III/IV IV IV/V V Mixed contexts (BronzeAge) Total
PRODUCTION
AT
AGE LITHICS
Obsidian % n 2,176 627 4,007 1,056 2,660 269
BRONZE
94.1 94.4 92.3 92.4 87.1 95.4
10,795
AGE
LERNA
26I
FROM LERNA n
Chert %
136 37 334 87 393 13 1,000
5.9 5.6 7.7 7.6 12.9 4.6
Total 2,312 664 4,341 1,143 3,053 282 11,795
DatarevisedfromRunnels1985,p. 359,table1.
8. Hartenberger1999.
New material, however, has come to light since 1985. A small set of lithics that had been removed from the storeroom at the Argos Archaeological Museum in the 1950s was returned to Argos from the Corinth Excavation storerooms in the 1990s. An analysis of these newly found Bronze Age lithics revealed that they were of the same types and occurred in the same proportions as the sample alreadystudied, but it was necessary to change some of the counts published in the 1985 preliminaryreport.A more significant development was the new and more detailed phasing of the excavationlots and architecturalphases that resulted from the ongoing study of the ceramics, architecture,and stratigraphyby Martha Wiencke (Lerna III, Mycenaean Lerna), Elizabeth Banks andJeremy Rutter (Lerna IV), and Carol Zerner (Lerna V). When this new phasing became available, it seemed advisable to examine the lithics anew to see if any significant data could be squeezed from these stones. In 1997 Hartenbergerjoined Runnels in the final stage of the study of the Lerna lithics, undertaking the construction and analysis of a new database as part of her M.A. thesis.8 The newly available sample from the Corinth storeroomswas described and added to the totals from the different settlements, and, more importantly,the new phasing data made available since 1987 were used to restructurethe chronological distribution of the Bronze Age material as the basis for a new analysis.The present article has benefited from the different methodological and theoretical perspectives that were brought to that work. The counts, shown grouped by final phasing in Tables 1 and 2, should be considered as definitive. Though several other tables published in 1985 could be changed slightly, such as those listing raw numbers of tool types per phase, the overall numbersvary so little from the originally published data that it was not thought necessary to present these details. Instead, our focus here is on the results of the analyses done since 1997. In this study we examine the spatial distribution of lithics on the site, making use of the new phasing and the availabilityof architecturalplans. Our emphasis is on the organization of flaked stone tool production at Bronze Age Lerna, especially hypotheses related to craft specialization. Statistical analyses of the database are used to evaluate the degree of
262
BRITT
TABLE 2. TECHNOLOGICAL Cores
AND
HARTENBERGER
CURTIS
RUNNELS
TYPES BY RAW MATERIAL CorticalFlakes
AND PHASE
Crested Blades
Debris
Blades
Ob Ch
Ob Ch
LernaPhase
Ob
Ch
Ob
Ch
Ob Ch
III
22
2
232
3
25
0
25
10
879
7
5
1
84
3
8
0
9
2
156
1
47
6
515 10
51
0
37
31
979
17
9
3
103
6
10
0
9
9
253
6
438 18
21
2
178
33
510
6
III/IV IV
IV/V V
21 21
Data revisedfrom Runnels 1985, pp. 361, 364, 366, tables 2,4, 8, and 9.
standardization of obsidian blade production (the focus of Bronze Age flintknapping at this site) and to compare the Lerna findings with data newly availablefrom other sites. Our study of the indices of standardization,efficiency, error,and skill suggests that flintknapping specialists in the Early to Middle Helladic were more skilled than those of the Neolithic, although specialization was part-time. Independent craftsmanshipis confirmed by evidence of an equal distribution of lithic debris across the site, indicating that the House of the Tiles at Early Helladic Lerna was not used to store blades and that its residents probably did not control lithic production. The type of specialization that best fits this context of skilled independent work linked with the organized distribution of blades may be called "managed specialization."We suggest, on the basis of comparison with known distributions of blades and craft products in other site hierarchies,that obsidian blade production was centralized at this regional center. Lerna may be one of several sites that produced predominantly chert or obsidian blades as a site specialty.The presence of part-time specialization in lithics as well as in pottery and metal at Early to Middle Helladic Lerna confirms the social differentiation of occupation proposed for this period, which is based on studies of settlement patterns, site structure,and mortuary ritual.9
METHODOLOGY Excavation techniques used at Lerna in the 1950s were not standardized and they thereforelimit the utility of the datacollected.10The use of trenches of different sizes instead of a grid system makes it difficult to trace artifacts from some trenches back to their architecturalcontext. Some individual groups of artifactscollected in excavationunits were later combined in the laboratory as "lots,"further complicating the task of mapping the spatial distribution of lithics. Personal communication with Banks, a member of the original excavation team at Lerna, and examination of the
9. E.g.,Jameson, Runnels,and van Andel 1994, pp. 348-366; Kardulias 1992; Konsola 1984; Pullen 1985. 10. Banks 1995.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
263
TABLE 2. (continued) Flakes Ob
Ch
Ob
Ch
843 56
150 78
287
15
1,904 169 499
35
1,021 130
11. Banks 1995, p. 1. 12. E. Banks (pers.comm.). 13. Banks 1995, p. 2.
Tools
Total Ob
Ch
58
2,176
136
15
627
37
474 101
4,007
334
173
28
1,056
87
471 183
2,660
393
original trench notebooks at the Argos Museum aided our selection of trenches that were more carefullyexcavatedand recordedthan others with respect to lithics. Other problems complicating the spatial analysis are the variations among trenches in both recordingtechniques and recoveryof artifacttypes. Banks notes that the recording system was "not rigorously standardized," resulting in variation in the amount of information and detail recorded in the trench notebooks.'1 Lack of systematic sieving of deposits and variable patterns of collecting by trench supervisors severely limited the quantity and distribution ofdebitage and flaked stone collected. Two strategieshave been used here to lessen the effect of these problems. First, in comparing administrative and domestic contexts in Lerna III (EH II), the lithic samples from the House of the Tiles contexts were compared with lots from domestic architecturalcontexts over the rest of the site. The individual architecturalcontexts other than those in the House of the Tiles (a so-called corridor house) were combined for this comparison, thus reducing the influence of trenches with particularlyskewed patterns of lithic recovery.Second, intrasite comparison of domestic structuresin Lerna IV (EH III) relied upon samples from the well-defined house contexts from trench G where excavation was overseen by one supervisor.12 As Banks has noted,'3 potsherds and other small finds from excavation units were combined after study in the laboratoryinto lots of different sizes, and many artifactswere evidently discardedin the process. Lithic artifacts were treated differently.The collection of lithics in the trenches varied according to the trench supervisor,but the lithics that were collected appear to have been placed in separate paper envelopes and were not washed, sorted, or combined in lots like the other artifacts.The lithics stored in the Argos Museum remain in these bags and we treated each bag as a single sample. It is not possible to evaluate these samples statistically to determine the probability of their being representativeof the population of lithics at Bronze Age Lerna, but there is also no reason to believe that any systematicbias affected their collection and preservation.
264
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
CRAFT SPECIALIZATION SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
AND
Independent specialization at its most basic level has been found to occur cross-culturallyin both nonhierarchicaland rankedsocieties similarto those in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece.14It is also attested for ceramics and metallurgyin the Aegean Bronze Age, with evidence provided by the high degree of skill attained, manufacturing techniques, and modern chemical sourcing of clays.15The growth and development of specialization during the Early Bronze Age was probably due to a combination of variables. Increasing population density, although a possible cause, has been shown to be less useful for explaining ethnographic specialization than multicausal approaches.16One study of ethnographic data focused on full-time, attached, and patronized types of specialization and found that each type correlates strongly with social and political complexity.l7Attached specialization is defined as specialization under the control of a person in the ruling political authority that involves the production of prestige items for use in exchanges or political statements.18In Greece, the rise in socioeconomic complexity during the Early Helladic may have catalyzed the development of attached specialization in some crafts, though this does not also hold true for independent specialization. The importance for elites of controlling prestige goods is thought to be derived from the use of the goods for communication and from their rarity.Flintknapping at Lerna was a means of producing large numbers of standardized,utilitariantools, and therefore does not fit the usual description of attached specialization.Though elites may try to control the distribution of surplus as a way to gain power, they are rarelyinvolved in controlling specialized subsistence tools for political purposes.19Excavated sites show no large-scale storage for redistribution of subsistence goods,20 and it was more likely that elites controlled the production of raremarble figurines or metal tools than mass-produced stone blades, if they controlled the production of any goods at all. Such a system of elite control over only prestige goods (and not over obsidian production) has been suggested for MH and LH Messenia.21 Independent specialization,although previouslythought to occur only in complex societies, has been found to occur in all types of societies.22 Researchers argue that independent, part-time specialization is present in nearly all of 53 societies sampled from the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) database of world cultures, and does not correlate with any particulartype of society or degree of social complexity.23Although independent craft specialization may not be a characteristicof complexity, its degree of intensity may increase over time if there is an increase in social complexity. For example, part-time specialization has already been suggested for pottery and lithics in the Greek Neolithic,24and specialization in these crafts probably continued in some form into the Bronze Age, as is the case for the lithic industry generally in the Near East.25Attached specialization of prestige goods may have begun with the increasing social complexity seen in the EBA, but independent specialization in flint-
14. Karimali1994, pp. 381-382; Vitelli 1993, p. 248; Perles 1990, p. 35. 15. Tripathi1988, pp. 68-69; Vaughn,Myer,and Betancourt1995, p. 702; Attas, Fossey,and Yaffe 1987. 16. Torrence1986a;Clarkand Parry 1990,p.321. 17. Clarkand Parry1990, p. 321. 18. Earle 1981, p. 230. 19. Brumfieland Earle 1987, p. 6. 20. Pullen 1985, pp. 375-377. 21. Parkinson1999. 22. Cross 1993; Clarkand Parry 1990. 23. Clarkand Parry1990, p. 320. 24. Perles 1992, p. 135; Vitelli 1993, p. 248. 25. Rosen 1989, p. 112.
FLAKED
26.Jameson,Runnels,andvan Andel 1994, p. 363; Karduliasand Runnels 1995, p. 97. 27. E.g., Costin 1991; Clark 1995. 28. Runnels 1985, pp. 366-367; Kardulias1992, p. 441. 29. Karduliasand Runnels 1995, pp. 96-97.
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
265
knapping continued in this period using the same techniques as in the Neolithic. Independent lithic production may nevertheless have involved a greaterintensity of production with the beginning of the Bronze Age, as trade and regional demand for blades grew, which in turn required increased skill and efficiency in blade manufacture. Previous scholarship has pointed to some kind of control over obsidian blade production in the Bronze Age, which we believe is better described as independent or managed production. Control of attached production and the finished blades has been inferred previously from the sealings found in corridor houses and the unequal distribution of blades around the Peloponnese.26The sealings found at the House of the Tiles are evidence of record-keeping of the movement of goods, although we do not know if obsidian blades were included in these records.Analysis of the distribution of lithics at Lerna shows that blades were distributed across the site and not concentrated in the corridorhouse, which seems to indicate that they were not stockpiled in this building. The use of the term "managed specialization"in the discussion of independent production is appropriatein describing blade production at Lerna. This term has been coined to describe this type of production because the literature on craft specialization does not include a term that adequatelydescribes independent production of the sort we see at Lerna.27 In managed specialization, production and the distribution of goods are facilitated on behalf of the specialists by managersbut are otherwise independent of elite control. The distribution of blades from centralized production sites along with the skill used to produce precision-knapped pressure blades would suggest that laborwas organized to some extent, but not necessarily overseen by the elite. Lithic production in the Early Bronze Age has been characterizedby most writers as a part-time occupation, as has been suggested for both Lerna and Agios Stephanos.28The authors of the report on lithics from the southern Argolid survey proposed the existence of part-time attached specialistsbased on their finding of a concentrationof blade cores at Fournoi Focus, a large Early Bronze Age center (hereafterreferredto as Fournoi), while cores were rarelyfound on smaller sites in the region.29The detection of the intensity of specialization is difficult archaeologicallybecause part-time and full-time workers may differ only in the amount of debris produced at varying scales of production.If lithic debrisis discardedoffsite, it may be difficult to tell whether the debris left in a household results from part-time or full-time specialization, as it will be almost impossible to trace the exact household origin of an offsite debris deposit. Full-time specialists are often associated with urban societies in which elites commissioned craft production and provided food through redistribution systems, and textual evidence may sometimes be the only evidence for such specialists. Lerna is not an urban site and no texts are available to determine the presence of full-time specialists. It is our working hypothesis that the production of lithics from the Neolithic to the end of the Middle Bronze Age at Lerna was the work of part-time, independent specialists.
266
BRITT
DETECTING
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
SPECIALIZATION
STANDARDIZATION,
EFFICIENCY,
AND
SKILL
is a keyvariableforidentifyingcraftspecialization, Standardization though it maycharacterize severaldifferentactivities.Productsmaybe madewith standardizeddimensionsfor the sake of efficiencyor becauseone individualis producinga more consistentproductthan other individuals.30 Consumerdemandandfunctionalneeds(e.g.,a standardordurableshape) mayalsodictatethe dimensionsof a particulartool.31Giventhe variability that persistsdespite effortsto standardizecraftproducts,the degreeof standardization is stillthe bestmeasureof independentspecialization, particularlywhen relativedifferencesin standardizationamongregionalor The presentstudyincludesa comtemporalunits arebeing measured.32 of in blade dimensions fromNeolithicandBronze standardization parison Age Lerna.This comparisonenablesus to identifyEH II as a periodwhen relativelymorespecializedproductioncoincidedwith increasedsocialcomplexityin LernaIII. TABLE 3. COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF DIMENSIONS OF BLADES AND BLADELETS BY PHASE Lerna Phase
Period
II III
Neolithic EH II
IV
EH III
V
MH
n
202 blades* 81 blades 199 bladelets 76 blades 261 bladelets 90 bladelets**
Width 27.0 13.0 16.8 22.9 18.7 16.3
Thickness 36.4 26.6 25.7 30.3 25.4 26.2
* Data for the Neolithic sample aretaken from LernaII, which has the largestsample size of blades availablefrom Neolithic levels:Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and Pawlikowski1996, p. 318. Bladelets were not separatedout and are included in the 202 blades. ** The sample of blades from LernaV was too small to allow calculationof a CV.
Blade and bladelet measurementswere compiled in order to measure standardization of blade production at Lerna and used to calculate the standard deviation and coefficient of variation (CV) of their widths and thicknesses (see Table 3). The CV is a statistic derived from the standard deviation and the mean [(100 x standarddeviation) / mean] that scales the former according to the mean and permits valid comparisons between samples. Only width and thickness are considered here because length is often altered by breakage and snapping. The sample used for the calculation of the CVs represents50%of the Early and Middle Bronze Age lithics from dated contexts at Lerna and for which measurementswere available. Since blades were not separatedfrom bladelets in the published Neolithic data,33the data from Lerna II arefor the combined categories.Blade width at Lerna in the Neolithic (CV of 27.0) displayedwide variation,and variation in blade thickness was also greaterin the Neolithic with a CV value of 36.4, versus 30.3 at most for the Bronze Age. The lowest variationin width for blades (CV of 13.0), as well as the second-lowest spreadin thickness of
30. Costin 1991, p. 3. 31. Odell et al. 1996, p. 385; Torrence 1986b, p. 197; Clark 1981, p. 8. 32. Costin 1991, pp. 34-35. 33. Kozlowski, Kaczanowska, and Pawlikowski 1996.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
267
252015105. Figure5. Histogramof bladeand bladeletwidthsfromLernaIII (EH II); n = 280. Histogrambars areeach0.05 cm wide.
34. Kardulias1992, p. 440.
35. Costin1991,pp.38-39;see also Pollock1983.
-,--Fk--, I
I
0.50
0.8( )
1.10
1.40
1 .70
* l
liii
I
2.00
Width of bladesandbladelets(cm) bladelets (CV of 25.7), occurs in Lerna III (EH II). Similar data on blade dimensions have been published for the site ofAgios Stephanos in Laconia, an EH site with a similar CV of blade thickness and even lower standardization in width.34The coefficients of variation for the blades suggest that the blades show more standardization as one moves from the Neolithic into the Bronze Age, particularlythe earliest phases. A bladelet is defined here as a blade with a width less than 1.15 cm, which is the approximate boundary between two modes of blade and bladelet widths evident in the graphed data (Fig. 5). The distribution of widths in this histogram does not approximate a normal distribution, as would be expected if there was only one type of blade. The coefficient of skewness for the width data is 0.786, a high value when zero in a range of 0 to 1 indicates a normal distribution.When blade and bladelet categories are separatedand their dimensions analyzed separately,they exhibit lower standard deviations and CVs than when combined, an observation contributing to our conclusion that there was a real division between the two sizes of blades. The combined data for Lerna III exhibit higher CVs in width (28.3) and thickness, with separateddata showing the low CV values of blade width as 13.0 and bladelet width as 16.8. The split between blades and bladelets is clearly standardized and supports the hypothesis that there were two categories of blades. Efficiency is another useful indicator of craft specializationwhen considered together with standardization and skill. It is assumed that efficiency improves in specialist manufacturebecause specialists spend many hours at their work and may make increasinglyeffective use of tools, techniques, and raw materials. Costin cites efficiency as useful for detecting independent specialization"wheregoods convey little social information."35 Given the nature of utilitarian specialization at Lerna, efficiency is a particularlyappropriate criterion for the analysis of sickle blades, one of the most important and largest categories of formal tools. Efficiency is clearly connected with standardizationin blade dimensions as a means to
268
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
conserve raw materials, and is also connected to a degree of skill, which permits efficient production and is necessary for striking regularlyshaped blades.36 Evidence for efficiency in flintknapping at Lerna can be seen in the skilled preparationand use of blade cores, which were intensively worked and reduced with little waste. One certain indicator of efficiency is the presence of blade core trimming pieces such as crested blades (lames a crete).These pieces indicate efficient production and preparationof cores: the need for large amounts of flaking to create the ridges that guide blade removal was eliminated by first shaping a crested blade to guide the first blade removal.37The relative frequency of complete crested blades varies from the Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age, with a peak in EH II. The highest frequency of these blades is in Lerna III (n=30), where they represent 1.30%of the total assemblage.By contrast,the smallerNeolithic sample (n=12) from severalphases displayslower frequencies(0.96% and 0.89%).38 Lerna IV continues the Lerna III pattern with a relativelyhigh frequency (1.20%)of crestedblades, though their presencedeclines to 0.76% in Lerna V (MH). Efficiency in core productionthereforerises in the EarlyHelladic, precisely when there is evidence for relatively more skilled production. Another measure of the efficient use of blade cores is the relative frequencies of blades with trapezoidalor triangularcross-sections.The initial removal of blades usually detaches blades with triangularcross-sections as the knapper makes use of one dorsal ridge to guide the blow that removes the blade. With further detachment of blades, trapezoidal sections occur as the core diameter is reduced and more blade scars are left on the eversmaller surface of the core. A predominance of trapezoidal blades in an assemblage, therefore, indicates thorough use of cores, whereas triangular blades indicate a knapper not fully exploiting the core or preferringproducts from early stages of removal.A large percentage of trapezoidalblades indicates the knapper'sskill, as well as efficiency, in controlling the core while removing precisely shaped blades. Three-quarters of the blades and bladelets from EH-MH Lerna have trapezoidal sections, a largerpercentage than in the Neolithic. If trapezoidal blades indicate efficiency and standardization,they might be expected to occur more frequently in the Early Helladic when crested blades are more common. Table 4 lists the frequency of trapezoidal blades for both the Neolithic and Bronze Age at Lerna and it is clear that the highest frequency of trapezoidal blades is indeed in the Early Helladic (Lerna III and IV). A chi-square test on the observed numbers of trapezoidal blades over time found the differences to be statistically significant (X2=16.18, oc=.05).Overall, the pattern of intensive use of cores shown by percentages of crested and trapezoidal blades suggests that Lerna III was the phase during which raw materialwas most efficiently worked. Fine pressureblades are difficult to produce in a standardizedfashion, a fact confirmed by many modern experimentalflintknappers.One way to measure acquiredskill in standardizedpressure-bladeproduction is to examine cores for errors.Errorrates can be estimated by noting the presence or absence of hinge fractureson cores, which would have interfered with the efficient removal of blades of standard dimensions. Flintknapping
36. Runnels 1985, p. 367; Clark 1987. 37. For a diagramof a crestedblade, see Debenath and Dibble 1994, pp. 2728. 38. Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and Pawlikowski1996, p. 361.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
TABLE 4. FREQUENCIES AGES OF TRAPEZOIDAL Lerna Phase
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
269
AND RELATIVE PERCENTBLADES BY PHASE Trapezoidal Blades(%)
TotalBlade Sample(n)*
Neolithic** I/II II II/IIc/IId
60.0 66.5 67.8
63 173 261
Bronze Age III IV
78.8 78.6
203 126
V 72.2 133 * Sample includestrapezoidaland triangularblades. **Neolithic data from Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and Pawlikowski1996, p. 361, table 21.
invariably produces hinge fractureswhen badly aimed blows destroy the ridges used to guide blade removal. A large number of hinges on cores indicates a high rate of error.In order to study errorrates in production, all availableBronze Age cores from Lerna were examined for the presence or absence of hinges. Both flake and blade cores were included in order to increase the sample of cores available for this general measure of skill in lithic manufacture.Although the flake cores may have been handled less carefully than blade cores, we presume that the same knappers worked obsidian cores to remove both flakes and blades and that they attempted to flake all cores efficiently in order to preserve raw materials.Thus, the hinges on any cores are an indication ofless-than-skillful knapping. Some flake cores are, in any case, made from reworked blade cores. Many cores from the Early and Middle Helladic phases of Lerna exhibited some hinge fractures,from 73% in Lerna III, to 61% in Lerna IV, to a high of 81% in Lerna V. As hinges tend to develop even when flintknappers are both skilled and careful, a further refinement of this measure is required.Hinges may be termed "minimal"when the gradually curved termination is shallow and "severe"when the termination is abrupt, sharply curving, and lipped (Fig. 6). Since a severe hinge fractureis more likely to bring precise blade removal to a halt, these are significant errors worth counting, even if the classification of hinge fracturesas minimal or severe is at best subjective.The hinges found on each core were accordingly identified as either minimal or severe, and the proportion of cores with severe hinges was found to increase over time. The Lerna III sample had the lowest frequency of severely hinged cores (50%), while Lerna IV had 53% and the succeeding Lerna V sample had 60% of its cores severely damaged by these errors.A lower errorrate during Lerna III confirms the findings of greater flintknapping skill in this period. We have already noted the use of the crested blade as an advanced method of shaping blade cores that requiredskill. The frequency of use of crested blades peaks slightly in Lerna III (EH II), though their appearance from the Neolithic through the Middle Helladic indicates that skilled blade production continued with basically similar technology. Thus, the
BRITT
270
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
~~/ ~/ ~ a
b
Figure6. Schematicsideview of two cores,with platformsat the top, showing(a) a minimalhinge fracture and (b) a severehinge fracture
variation in the factors investigated (blade width CVs, trapezoidal blade sections, and errorsresulting in hinge fractures)suggests that the level of efficiency and skill peaked in Lerna III while the continuous use of crested blades indicates that some skills continued without much change through the Middle Helladic. A last indicator of the knapper'sskill is the thickness of blades and bladelets, since regularpractice and skill are necessaryto producevery thin blades with little variation. Neolithic data were combined with measurements of Early and Middle Bronze Age lithics in orderto investigate blade thickness, and the thicknesses of blades and bladelets were combined in order to calculate the means with a larger sample size for each phase.39 The mean thickness is greatest during the Early Neolithic (0.31 cm in the early Lerna II sample) and then decreasesslightly in the subsequent Lerna II (0.28 cm) and Lerna III (0.28 cm) samples. Lerna IV (EH III) has blades with the lowest mean thickness overall (0.26 cm), paralleling the highly standardized blade thickness CVs also found in that phase. Mean thickness increases again in Lerna V (MH) to a value of 0.31 cm. This observation, in addition to the blade thickness CVs discussed above, suggests that blade production in Lerna IV involved manufacture of standardized, thin blades. The measuresof standardization,efficiency, and skill arerelativemeasuresbest used in combination. Greaterspecializationin the Early Helladic period versus the Neolithic and Middle Helladic can be inferred from all three measuresin a diachronic analysisthat emphasizes relativespecialization. Given the established baseline of part-time specialization in the Neolithic, it is probablethat the indicators of greaterskill and efficiency in the Early Helladic are a result of more organized, skillful, and efficient (though still part-time) specialization. INTRASITE
COMPARISONS
Independent specialization is evident at Lerna from the even distribution of blades across domestic and administrative contexts, which points to a lack of elite control over resources. Study of possible administrative
39. Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and
Pawlikowski 1996,pp.313,318.
FLAKED
40. Pullen 1985, p. 374; Torrence 1986b; Runnels 1988, p. 269. 41. Pullen 1985, p. 374. 42. Pullen 1985, p. 377. 43. Caskey 1960, p. 293. 44. Murray1980; Santleyand Kneebone 1993. 45. Caskey 1960, p. 293.
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
27I
(corridor house) and domestic spatial contexts allows assessment of the spatial distribution of lithic production and administrative control over production. Access to the final architecturalphasing has made possible intrasite comparisons of contexts, splitting lithic proveniencesbetween the House of the Tiles and domestic houses in Lerna III and among individual domestic houses in Lerna IV. Throughout the Aegean, evidence of elite control over sources of copper, silver,lead, obsidian, and andesite appears to be lacking in the Early Bronze Age,40in contrast to the situation in the Late Bronze Age. Centralized control of resourcesis not suggested by intrasitestudies;finished artifactsareusuallyuniformlydistributedacross sites and not concentrated in the corridor houses. Metals are found at small sites such as Zygouries,41and most studies of ceramic production indicate that ceramicswere produced at almost all sites, with few controlling regional production centers.42 The data on independent production summarized below are from Lerna III (EH II), the period of the corridor houses, and Lerna IV (EH III), which contains exclusively structures identified as small dwellings. Since little domestic architectureis preservedfrom Lerna III,43the assemblage from the House of the Tiles has been compared to the material collected from the rest of the site, which has been combined into one sample. The corridor house assemblage is similar to material found in the small domestic structuresin the rest of the site, and the uniform distribution of blades and blade waste across the site suggests that blade production was neither centralized nor controlled by the administrative corridor house. Comparison of the assemblages from the small dwellings in Lerna IV (see below) illustrates the generally similar types of lithics among domestic contexts, and confirms that lithic production was distributed across the excavated area of the site in EH III. Intrasite studies are difficult to interpret because both ethnographic and archaeological studies have indicated that sedentary peoples usually discard materials away from the places they are used, especially if the debris is sharp and dangerous underfoot.44Though both discard and cleaning may have affected the contents of the House of the Tiles and other houses at Lerna, a sufficiently large sample of the lithic material from the houses provides some indication of the production that took place within them. The sample from the House of the Tiles may also not be representative of its use as a dwelling if, as has been suggested in the past, it burned while it was still unfinished and under construction.45 The corridorhouses at EH sites have long been regardedas storage or redistribution centers, given their central location, size, and, in the case of the House of the Tiles, the presence of clay sealings. By combining information from original notes, excavationnotebooks, and lot lists, we isolated the lithics found in the corridor house at Lerna. The House of the Tiles yielded a sample of 141 pieces of flaked stone, which constitutes 6%of the total sample from Lerna III. The relative frequencies of lithic types found in the corridor house are listed in Table 5 along with those from other Lerna III structures. As noted above, the similar percentages of types between the House of the Tiles and the combined sample of Lerna III domestic contexts suggest that blades were not concentrated or stored in
272
BRITT
AND
HARTENBERGER
CURTIS
RUNNELS
TABLE 5. RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF TECHNOLOGICAL TYPES FROM ADMINISTRATIVE AND DOMESTIC CONTEXTS IN LERNA III Type(%) Technological Context
Cores
Cortical Flakes
Crested Blades
Flakes
Blades
Tools
Other
Total
House of the Tiles
1
12
2
36
36
11
2
100
1
10
1
40
38
9
1
100
Domestic structures
Sample sizes: House of the Tiles (n=141); domestic structures(n=2,094).
the corridor house, which one might expect if blade specialization was attachedto elite control.Instead, the assemblagesfrom the domestic houses and the corridorhouse each comprised about 37% blades. The differences in frequencies listed in Table 5 were tested by a chisquare analysis and found to be statistically insignificant. Technological type and spatial context were found to be independent of each other since the total chi-square value for the table was less than the value requiredto show statisticalsignificance (X2=5.16,ca=.05).Any slight differencesin relative frequency apparentin Table 5 are therefore statistically insignificant, and we conclude that the corridorhouse assemblage does not differ substantively from the Lerna III combined sample. Comparison of the proportions oflithic technological types from differentstructuresallowsus to identify the spatialdistributionofflintknapping activity across the site. The hypothesis of production controlled by the inhabitants of the House of the Tiles would be supported only if production debris was concentrated in that building. Flintknapping debitage found in other domestic contexts would point to decentralized and independent production. To determine the spatial distribution, lithic findspots were gathered from Banks'smanuscript on the Lerna IV settlement (Lerna V). Only houses yielding a sample of at least 20 flaked stone artifacts have been included, the number necessary to calculate a chisquaretest but one that severely limits the number of houses availablefor analysis. Although few statistically significant differences among the assemblages emerged from this analysis, it was clear that almost all houses contained lithic debitage. Observed and expected values for three basic lithic technological categories were compiled for houses from each of the three subphases. Examination of architecturalsubphase 1 of Lerna IV included three houses with respective samples of 50, 61, and 28 pieces of flaked stone. In this subphase, the lithics are not distributed evenly between the houses in the categories of debitage (cortical flakes, crested blades, and cores), flakes, and blades/bladelets. The lack of production debitage from one house, called "houseC"here, is statisticallysignificant (X2=14.5,a=.05). No other lithic categories have counts that significantly deviate from the expected. The lack of production debris in house C thus indicates that retouched stone tools were not produced in this house, though flakes and blades were found there.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
273
The next architecturalphase, subphase 2 of Lerna IV, also exhibits some general statistically significant differences between houses, although no house appearsto have specialized in the production of a particulartype. Examination of this subphase included three houses, with samples of 30, 32, and 57 pieces of flaked stone, and again used lithic types grouped into three general categories.The chi-square value for all of the expected values of these categories exceeded the critical value (X2=11.6,a=.05), indicating that the distribution of types of lithics was not independent of the three different house contexts. Though the houses in subphase 2 differ slightly in their proportions of types of flaked stone, all three houses possess some production debris even when the small size of samples is taken into consideration.The widespreaddistributionofdebitage, therefore,suggests that lithic production was not strictly confined to a few houses occupied by specialists. Lithics from the houses of subphase 3 of Lerna IV also show a slight deviation from expected values sufficient to suggest that the technological types were not distributedindependently of house context. The chi-square value for all of the expected values exceeded the critical chi-square value (X2=12.6,oc=.05), showing that there were statistical variations between houses. All three houses contained debitage, however,and no specific lithic type was confined to any particularhouse. Overall, the presence of debitage in eleven of the twelve houses examined is evidence for widespread production across the site. The fact that lithic manufacture apparently took place in most of the houses examined supports the hypothesis of independent production. Another means of determining the spatial distribution of specialization in lithic production in Lerna IV is the analysis of the intrasite distribution of blade production debris. If blade production was controlled by an elite, manufacture might be expected to be restricted to only a few specialists, whose production was then carefullymonitored. If, on the contrary,all households produced blades, an elite would have found it difficult to regulate such widespread production. The presence of blade production debris was examined among the houses of Lerna IV in order to determine the locations of blade manufacture;blade cores were separated from flake cores for this analysis. The distribution of blade cores in the Lerna IV houses suggests that many houses participated in blade production in this phase of the settlement. Fifty-five blade and bladelet cores were identified from this phase. Of these cores, eighteen are securely associated with a particularhousehold. These cores are from fifteen different contexts and only three of the cores arefrom the same house or bothros as another core, which shows that blade production debris was spatially widespread.The fifteen contexts aredispersedbetween ten different buildings, suggesting that many primary contexts in buildings are associated with blade production. Although this distribution cannot prove the existence of independent production, it is consistent with the hypothesis of several independent part-time specialists operating rather than a few full-time specialists controlled by a central overseer. Elite redistribution and control over subsistence products have been proposed for Lerna based on the interpretation of the sealings found in the corridor house. Wiencke suggested that the sealings belonged to an
BRITT
274
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
archive in the House of the Tiles,46 and Renfrew argued that the individual seal designs indicate individual ownership. In Renfrew's view the sealings were used by an elite to control redistribution,perhaps of food.47 Despite the appeal of this hypothesis, several features of the sealings and their distribution suggest that they may not have been used for recording redistribution.If the sealings were indeed used by an elite to recordinventories, it would be logical to find them only in corridor-house contexts. Sealings arealso found, however,in nonadministrativebuildings at Lerna.48 Moreover, if sealings were used to designate the contents of storage containers containing agricultural staples, one would expect to find only a small number of designs among the sealings instead of the seventy designs that have been identified. The large number of seal designs can perhapsbe explained by assuming that many products were recorded, or that many individualfarmersproducedgoods for redistribution.However the sealings were used, the large number of owners, products, or producersimplied by the multiple seal designs does not fit a model of specialization in a few goods. A furtherweakness of the redistribution model is the lack of storage facilities or large pithoi in the corridorhouses, which would be needed to stockpile goods for redistribution,although pithoi are commonly found in small domestic structures.49 Independent specialization in blade production at Lerna, therefore, is supportedby the uniform distributionof blades acrossthe site during Lerna III and the widespread production of blades in domestic contexts in Lerna IV. The frequencies of blades in the assemblages of the corridorhouse and the rest of the Lerna III structuresshow no statistically significant differences, which indicates that blades were not concentrated in the House of the Tiles. The comparison of domestic contexts in Lerna IV detected no specialties in production for the houses, and only one house lacking lithic production debris.The number of blade cores per house demonstrates that blade production took place in at least ten different houses. If attached production was practiced at Lerna, blades would probablyhave been concentrated in the corridorhouse, where a few carefullycontrolled specialists produced them. The deviation from the expected pattern for attached production when viewed together with the utilitarian, mass-produced character of the blades suggests that independent production is the most likely type of craft specialization practiced at Lerna. CENTRALIZED WITHIN
THE
BLADE
PRODUCTION
REGION
Having established that independent blade production occurredat Lerna, in this section we suggest that Lerna may have been a regionalflintknapping center. Blade production was perhaps concentrated at Lerna where there is evidence of large-scale production, with the blades then distributed to other settlements in the region. If Lerna was a regional center for blade ., ,. .j .-JK-11 production, one would expect blade production debris, especially cores, to be found chiefly at Lerna and not at smaller outlying sites in the immediate region.This is indeed the pattern detected for the EBA in the southern Argolid. An intensive survey project there reconstructed a hierarchy of
46. Heath1958;Wiencke 1969.
47. Renfrew1972,pp.387-388. 4.
pp.
enfrew 1972, 48. Wiencke 502-503, 1969, pp. 387-388.
508-509 49. Pullen 1985, p. 285; Wiencke
1989.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
275
TABLE 6. RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF RAW MATERIALS AT FOUR EH PRODUCTION CENTERS
Raw Material
Ag. Stephanos n %
Obsidian Chert
1,068 105
Total
1,173
91.0 9.0
50. Kardulias1992; Karduliasand Runnels 1995.
51.Jameson,Runnels,andvan Andel 1994, pp. 353-358. 52. Sampson 1985, pp. 75-78. 53. Tzavella-Evjen1985, p. 20. 54. Karabatsoli1997; Kardulias 1992.
Lithares
Lerna III
Manika
n
%
n
%
n
2,176 136
94.1 5.9
970 60
94.2 5.8
1,020 39
2,312
1,030
1,059
%
Total
96.3 3.7
5,234 340 5,574
settlements in the Early Helladic period, with a clear concentration of cores, crested blades, and other production debitage at one locality (Fournoi). Smaller, outlying sites contained only finished blades, which were presumably manufactured at Fournoi and then distributed downthe-line to villages, hamlets, and individual farmsteads.50The manufacture of blades at Fournoi was apparently a site specialty, since other regional centers (A6, Cll, and A33) did not have similar blade production debitage.51Blade production concentrated at Fournoi resembles the obsidian blade industry at Lerna, and both sites were perhaps regional centers where the production of blades was a site specialty.In our view, Lerna may have been similar to other sites with specialized blade production in the Early Helladic period, such as Lithares (Boeotia), Manika (Euboea), and Agios Stephanos (Laconia). Preliminary reports on the lithic industries from Lithares and Manika point to specialized production, and refer to Manika as a regional production center with a possible workshop,52 while Lithares has several rooms with relatively high concentrations of obsidian suggestive of the same function.53An unpublished dissertation containing more detailed information from these two sites and the publication of the lithics from Agios Stephanos have both permitted comparison with the results of our analysis of core reduction and blade production at Lerna.54 The role of obsidian and chert in the flaked stone industries from Agios Stephanos, Lerna, Lithares, and Manika is shown in Table 6. The majority of pieces at each site were of obsidian. Beyond this general similarity in raw materials, the sites were examined for differences in blade production, decortication, and flake production. A chi-square test was performed to evaluate the significance of variation between assemblages, and evenness was measured to determine the range of types of debitage that characterizedthe different assemblages. Using the data presented in Table 7, a chi-square test was performed to determine if the technological types represented in obsidian at the sites were present in the proportions expected for sites of their sample size. A chi-square analysis of the data resulted in a chi-square value that exceeded the criticalvalue (X2=1099.98, cr=.05), showing that significant differences existed. Therefore, the categories of technological types and sites are dependent on one another, and the null hypothesis of an independent association between these two variables is rejected.The relative frequencies listed show the basic differences between the industries of the sites.
276
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
TABLE 7. OBSERVED AND EXPECTED FREQUENCIES OF OBSIDIAN TECHNOLOGICAL TYPES AT FOUR EH SITES Technological Type Blades Cores Debris Crestedblades Flakes Corticalflakes Total
Ag. Stephanos n exp. 534 13 117 31 264 109 1,068
412.59 27.55 67.13 79.99 286.89 193.85
LernaIII
Lithares
expn 913 22 118 25 866 232 2,176
840.63 56.13 136.78 162.97 584.53 394.96
exp. 303 53 52 185 99 278 970
374.73 25.02 60.97 72.65 260.57 176.06
Manika n 272 47 42 151 177 331
exp. 394.05 26.31 64.12 76.39 274.00 185.14
1,020
Underlined valuesrepresent a significant fromexpectedvalues. departure
Several counts of technological types stand out from the rest and indicate possible trends in production (these values are underlined in Table 7). Blade production is indicated by the presence of crested blades, and Lithares and Manika show more evidence of blade production than Agios Stephanos and Lerna. If the blades produced were retained on the site, a significant percentage of blades and crested blades would be expected to be found there. Although the number of blades is higher than expected in the Agios Stephanos assemblage and low at Manika, Manika has ample evidence of blade production in the form of crested blades. Manika may have exported its finished blades, with the result that it has significantly fewer blades than expected, unlike the other sites. Primary reduction of obsidian is also attested by a statistically significant number of cortical flakesleft over from the knappingof raw nodules.The discoveryof a greater number of cortical flakes than expected at Lithares and Manika therefore suggests that primary knapping of raw nodules took place at these sites more often than at the others. In contrast to the other sites, Lerna shows a focus on both blade and flake industries. Blade production at the site is indicated by the blade cores discussed above,though the sample does not have a particularlylarge number of crested blades compared to the other sites examined. Its abundance of flakes, relative to the number expected, indicates that flake production was importanton the site, pointing to on-site core reductionand the manufactureof flake tools. Lithares,on the other hand, has a significantlygreater number of crested blades and cores than expected, indicating that it was probably heavily involved in blade production, which is supported by the low frequency of flakes in the sample. The evenness statistic is useful for quantifying the diversity in the industries of these sites and confirming the results of the chi-square tests. A measure of evenness can distinguish diverse lithic industries with many products from those specialized industries with only one or a few types of products by quantifying the range of the debris.55A high evenness value is indicative of an equal distribution of debris across technological categories, while low evenness shows that a majority of the lithic debris is from
55. Bobrowskyand Ball 1989.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
277
TABLE 8. RELATIVE FREQUENCIES OF CHERT TECHNOLOGICAL TYPES AT FOUR EH SITES Technological Type
Ag. Stephanos % n
Blades Cores Debris Crestedblades Flakes Cortical flakes
23 2 18 53 9
Total
105
21.9 1.9 17.1 50.5 8.6
LernaIII %
n
Lithares %
35 2 24
25.7 1.5 17.7
72 3
52.9 2.2
20 6 6 2 7 19
33.3 10.0 10.0 3.3 11.7 31.7
n
136
60
Manika n
%
Total
12 6 2 5 13 1
30.8 15.4 5.1 12.8 33.3 2.6
90 16 50 7 145 32
39
340
only one or two types of production. Calculations of evenness for the four Early Helladic sites confirm the blade-based or flake-based nature of the obsidian industries that were indicated by the chi-square analysis.Manika and Lithares (with evenness values of 0.88 and 0.89) have a relativelyequal distribution of categories, while Agios Stephanos is in the middle range with a value of 0.74. Lerna has the lowest value of evenness of the four sites (0.67), even though it has the largest sample. Lerna's low evenness value shows that, relative to the other sites, only a few of its technological types make up the bulk of its industry.The measurement of evenness for the four sites examined shows that Lerna had the most specialized obsidian production, while counts of the technological types represented suggests that an equal emphasis was placed on flake and blade technologies. Due to the small size of the sample available,chi-square and evenness tests could not be calculated for the chert industries. Relative frequencies of chert cores, crested blades, and flakes differ substantiallybetween sites and permit the identification of a site that may have specialized in producing chert blades (Table 8). Relative frequencies of blades range from 22% to 33% of the chert industry at the four sites and indicate that all of the sites used chert blades, whether locally made or imported. The production debris also shows pronounced differences among the sites. Manika ranks highest in both cores and crested blades, suggesting that it may have produced relatively more chert blades than the other sites. Its percentage of crested blades (12%) is particularlystriking compared to the maximum of 3% of this type at Lithares and the lack of these pieces at Agios Stephanos and Lerna III, especially considering the latter sites have larger assemblages. The small sample from Manika may be slightly skewed, but sample size is probably not the only explanation of the difference. The high frequency of cores in the Manika sample also indicates that flakes or blades were produced. Overall, Manika is the most likely site to have been a producer of chert blades for export. Agios Stephanos and Lerna have chert assemblagesderived from flake production only, which probably resulted from the production of formal and expedient tools. The lack of chert crested blades at these sites further supports the hypothesis that blade production did not take place there.
278
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
A few bladelets of chert may have been produced during Lerna III (one bladelet and one flake core came from this phase). The primary reduction of chert may have taken place at Lithares, to judge from the relativelyhigh frequency (32%) of cortical flakes and the high frequency of cores in the sample. Overall, the relative frequencies of technological types at these four sites suggest that Manika was a center of chert blade production, perhaps for export to Lerna and other sites, and that the primary reduction of chert may have occurred at Lithares.56 The presence of specialized blade manufactureat regional centers such as Lerna, Lithares, and Manika may indicate that blades were exported to lower-order sites, as suggested for the southern Argolid. The pattern in the southern Argolid is far from clear-cut, however, since other large sites in the region with corridor houses (e.g., A6) yielded finished blades only and no debris to indicate that blades were produced there.57Although the three major sites (Lerna, Lithares, and Manika) considered in this study specialized in manufacturing blades and exporting them, it is not at all certain that all large sites did so. Major sites in the southern Argolid may have specialized in the production or exchange of another craft good, such as the andesite mortars found in the Argolid in the Early Helladic period.58The lack of regional surveydata for the Lerna, Lithares,and Manika hinterlands makes it even more difficult to test these hypotheses. Until further analysis is possible, we suggest that obsidian and chert blades were produced and distributed in the Early Helladic and possibly Middle Helladic period from Lerna, Lithares, Manika, and Fournoi.
DISCUSSION The nature of flaked stone production at Bronze Age Lerna and the social context of the organization of this production have been described above. The specialization of the blade industry over time and the evidence for lithic production debris across the site were examined and comparedwith the lithic industries from the broadly contemporary sites of Lithares, Manika, and Agios Stephanos. The presence of part-time craft specialization in production was confirmed by the high degree of standardization, efficiency, and knapping skill exhibited in the lithics. Standardization in blade production is supported by the low coefficients of variation in blade and bladelet width and thickness, and was found to be especially significant in Lerna III and IV. Such low variability in dimensions indicates consistency, skill, and time spent practicing core preparation and blade detachment. Efficiency in production is shown also by the predominance of blades with trapezoidal sections, indicating that cores were used until exhausted. Skill is evident in the greater use of crested blades in the Early Helladic than in the Neolithic. Declining errorratesfrom the Neolithic to the Bronze Age indicate increasing skill and efficiency, with the fewest errors in producing cores seen in Lerna III (EH II), evidently a period when production was held to high standards.These numerical measures suggest
56. The importationof chert blades into Lernawas also noted earlierin Runnels 1985, p. 360. 57. Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994, p. 358. 58. Runnels 1988, pp. 270-271.
FLAKED
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
279
which consistencyandabilityresultingfromatleastpart-timespecialization, carriedoverfromthe Neolithictraditionbut expandedbeyondthe earlier traditionin termsof skilland standardization. Spatialanalyseswere employedto assessthe issue of controlof production.The variationin structuresuncoveredin LernaIII permitscomparisonof the House of the Tiles with otherbuildingsof the samephase, whilecomparisonsamongdomesticstructuresarepossibleduringthe succeedingLernaIV period.The House of the Tiles in LernaIII does not varysignificantlyin its lithic assemblagesfrom the frequenciesof lithic typesfoundin otherstructures,andthis lackof a higherconcentrationof blades(i.e., caching)at the corridorhousesuggeststhat the building'soccupantswerenot concernedwith centralizingcontrolof bladeproduction or storagein thatbuilding. Specializedproductionof obsidianandchertbladesis attestedin the NeolithicandEarlyBronzeAge, andstandardization of bladesandlevels of skillandefficiencypeakedin LernaIII (EH II). It is generallyacknowledgedthat somepoliticalnucleationandregionalcentralizationoccurred at this time,indicatedby newlyfortified"centralplaces"with monumental buildings.59Specialized blade production at Lerna may be a result of the site becoming a regional center with increasingsocial complexity.The concurrent rise in population may have stimulated centralized production to meet greater demand for basic tools. Skilled blade production at Lerna may have served partially to provide blades to surroundingvillages, along the lines of a regional hierarchycharacterizedby the distribution of goods outward from central sites seen in the EBA in the southern Argolid, where possible specialized production sites for chert or obsidian blades were observed. Unlike the manufacture of prestige goods, which may have also involved specialization at specific sites, the production of flaked stone represents a utilitarian industry that probably remained independent and uncontrolled because it did not convey social information. Even part-time specialists who made blades at sites where specialized production was routine were most likely independent of the local elite. Flaked stone objects rarelyvary in style in a way useful for conveying social information. Utilitarian production of blades, especially for sickles, one of the most important agriculturalimplements at this time, was also probably independent of the ruling chief because essential goods and equipment such as pottery and stone tools are often produced by independent specialists for nonelite demand.60For these reasons, the Lerna chieftain(s) probably saw no need to regulate strictly the production of sickle blades and other simple tools. Specialization in blade production at Lerna may have been greatest in Lerna III because of the economic efficiency that results from centralized production, rather than its utility for a political power.Though it has been suggested that social complexity is often correlatedwith specialization,61 59. Wiencke1989. 60. Gero 1983, p. 41.
61. BrumfielandEarle1987.
the relationshipbetween these two variablesdepends on the craftsin question. Specialization, for instance, in the production of pottery and lithics is evident in the Neolithic, but, unlike lithics, the significance of ceramics for
280
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
communication purposes increased sharply in the Early Helladic as social complexityand statusdifferentiationincreased.62 Metallurgistsdifferedfrom in rare and and costly raw materials,and sponpotters flintknappers using authorities was probablynecessary to defray the heavy sorship by political costs in mining, transport,and fuel incurredby this craft.The differences in the costs of production and importance of the final products for the crafts of metallurgy and flintknapping may account for the different levels of control and specialization seen in the Bronze Age. Greater socioeconomic complexity,in addition to the specific demand for sickles and other agriculturaltools, probably stimulated independent lithic production, although emerging political aspects of the complexity generally had little influence on this type of craft production.
CONCLUSION After many yearsof researchand analysis,what has the study of the Bronze Age lithic industries from Lerna contributed to our understanding of the site, the period in general, and lithics in particular?If we stand back and regard the cultural sequence of Lerna from the earliest Neolithic to the latest phase of the Bronze Age, the overwhelming impression is one of continuity.The Neolithic traditions of blade production and use of Melian obsidian persist from the Neolithic through the Bronze Age without significant change, which shows the persistence of a technological tradition and implies in its turn an essential cultural continuity. A similar pattern of continuity is evident in the typological sphere, where we see the ongoing production of retouched tools such as sickle elements, arrowheads(both tanged and hollow-based types), end scrapers, pointed tools (perfoirs,becs),and scaled pieces (piecesesquillees).The profile of this tool kit matches, in our view, the needs of village farmers for agricultural tools, woodworking implements, and weapons for hunting and warfare. It was long an axiom of archaeologythat flintknapping and stone-tool use graduallyfaded awaywhen bronze tools and edged weapons were added to the materialcultureof the Aegean world after the end of the Neolithic,63 but the nearly 12,000 lithics from Bronze Age Lerna demonstrate clearly the continuing importance of stone tools in this period. Even the rather limited degree of craft specialization in EH-MH Lerna, which appearsto have been part-time in nature and relatively unregulated by the central authorities, is evidence for the ongoing economic and technological value of lithic artifactsin Bronze Age society. On a practicallevel, the small but discernibleshifts in the frequencyof retouchedtool types, as well as changes in their forms, are useful for seriation and the dating of surface sites encountered in survey work.64Stone tools are not as sensitive chronological indicators as potsherds, but they are nevertheless useful, especially in circumstances where other evidence is lacking.65 One of the most striking aspects of the lithics from Lerna is the use of imported raw materials during both the Neolithic and Bronze Age. In the
62. Attas, Fossey,and Yaffe 1987. 63. Runnels 1982. 64. See examplesin Karabatsoli 1997; Kardulias1992; and Kardulias and Runnels 1995. 65. E.g., Tartaron,Runnels,and Karimali1999.
FLAKED
66. Kozlowski,Kaczanowska,and Pawlikowski1996. 67. E.g., Runnels 1982.
STONE
PRODUCTION
AT
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
28i
Neolithic, chalcedony blades for sickle elements and reaping knives were imported as finished blades from an unknown source, perhaps Bulgaria.66 This fact implies highly organized and sustained long-distance trade. Equally interesting is the high percentage of imported Melian obsidian, typically accounting for more than 90% of the artifacts. These patterns continue in the Bronze Age settlements, especially in the Early Helladic phases. Sickle elements were still made from chert pressure blades imported in finished form from an unidentified source, and the Melian obsidian that dominates the Bronze Age assemblages is testimony for the steady,uninterrupted, and secure flow of that material from Melos to the mainland in the EBA, a practice carrying profound implications for our understandingof the political stabilitythat permitted such untroubledcommerce.The precise details of the economic and social organization of these different patterns of raw material acquisition will no doubt continue to stimulate research. The Bronze Age lithic industries at Lerna reflect the essential continuity of the age, and if there is any evidence for change or an interruption in the cultural sequence it is seen only in the transition from Lerna IV (EH III) to Lerna V (MH), and these changes are relatively minor. A decline in the skill of blade production has alreadybeen discussed, but the most notable change is seen in the supply of obsidian, which declines in the Middle Helladic (as does the importation of chert blades). The use of local chert increasesduring Lerna V.The basic technology offlintknapping and retouched tool manufacture, however, shows few changes. Chert flakes are now used to replace blades, and heavily retouched sickle elements with geometric outlines steadilyreplacetypes that aremade on pressure blades. Hollow-based projectile points replace tanged and barbed forms. The apparentbreak in the age-old flow of Melian obsidian and the interruptionof chert tradenetworksarethe most noticeable of the changes, and they are difficult to explain.The steady rise in the availabilityof bronze implements may be part of the explanation, but other factors such as the possible role of Minoan control of the Aegean sea lanes may have been in play.67Too little is known of the specifics of Bronze Age obsidian trade or the production of lithics at other sites to draw firm conclusions. When viewed within the context of the Bronze Age Aegean world, stone tools appear to be relatively insignificant, and it is undeniable that they have received little attention from Aegean prehistorians. We hope that the study and publication of the lithics from Lerna may serve to encourage other Aegean prehistoriansto make greateruse of lithic evidence. The contribution to our understanding of the social and economic structure of the Bronze Age settlements may be modest, but it is clear that lithics are vestiges of past cultural systems and provide valuable evidence for the interpretation of the past. If the study of the lithic artifacts from Lerna stimulates the collection of larger and better samples from other Bronze Age sites, especially those with contexts that permit the detailed analysis of the spatial distribution of these artifactswith relation to other classes of artifacts and architecturalfeatures, the goal of this project as it was conceived in 1979 will have been achieved.
282
BRITT
HARTENBERGER
AND
CURTIS
RUNNELS
REFERENCES Attas, M., J. M. Fossey,and L. Yaffe. 1987. "AnArchaeometricStudy of EarlyBronze Age PotteryProduction and Exchangein Argolis and Korinthia(Corinthia),Greece," JFA 14, pp. 77-90. Banks,E. 1995. "Introductionto the Lerna Excavationsand the Stratigraphyof LernaIV,"in LernaIII, pp. 1-10. Bobrowsky,P., and B. Ball. 1989. "The Theory and Mechanics of Ecological Diversity in Archaeology,"in QuantifyingDiversityin Archaeology, R. D. Leonardand G. T. Jones, eds., Cambridge,pp. 4-12. Brumfiel,E., andT. Earle. 1987. "Specialization,Exchange,and Complex Societies:An Introduction,"in Specialization,Exchange, and ComplexSocieties,E. Brumfiel andT. Earle,eds., Cambridge, pp. 1-9. Caskey,J. 1960. "The EarlyHelladic Periodin the Argolid,"Hesperia29, pp.285-303. Clark,J. 1981. "GuatemalanObsidian Sourcesand Quarries:Additional Notes,"JournalofNew World 4, pp. 1-15. Archaeology . 1987. "Politics,Prismatic Blades, and Mesoamerican Civilization,"in TheOrganization J.Johnson and of CoreTechnology, C. Morrow,eds., Boulder,pp. 259284. .1995. "CraftSpecializationas an ArchaeologicalCategory," Researchin EconomicAnthropology 16, pp. 267-294. Clark,J., andW. Parry.1990. "Craft Specializationand Cultural Complexity,"Researchin Economic 12, pp. 289-346. Anthropology Costin, C. 1991. "CraftSpecialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explainingthe Organizationof Method Production,"Archaeological and Theory3, pp. 1-56. Cross,J. 1993. "CraftSpecializationin NonstratifiedSociety,"Researchin 14, pp. 61EconomicAnthropology 84. Debenath, A., and H. Dibble. 1994. Handbookof PaleolithicTypology, Philadelphia.
Earle,T. 1981. "CAComment on 'Evolutionof SpecializedPottery Production:A TrialModel' by PrudenceM. Rice,"CurrAnthr 22, pp.230-231. Gero,J. 1983. "MaterialCultureand the Reproductionof Social Complexity:A Lithic Example from the PeruvianFormative" (diss. Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst). Hartenberger,B. 1999. "AnAnalytical Investigationof Craft Specialization in the Chipped Stone Industryof Early and Middle Helladic Lerna" (MA thesis, Boston University). Heath, M. 1958. "EarlyHelladic Clay Sealingsfrom the House of the Tiles at Lerna,"Hesperia27, pp. 81-121. Jameson,M., C. Runnels,andT. van Andel. 1994. A GreekCountryside: TheSouthernArgolidfromPrehistory to thePresentDay, Stanford. Karabatsoli,A. 1997. "Laproductionde l'industrielithique taillee en Grece centralependantle Bronze ancien" (diss. Universitede ParisX). Kardulias,P. N. 1992. "The Ecology of Bronze Age Flaked Stone Tool Productionin SouthernGreece: Evidence from Agios Stephanos and the SouthernArgolid,"AJA 96, pp.421-442. Kardulias,P N., and C. Runnels. 1995. "The Lithic Artifacts:Flaked Stone and Other Nonflaked Lithics," TheFinds ArtifactandAssemblage: a from RegionalSurveyof the SouthernArgolid,Greece,C. Runnels, D. Pullen, and S. Langdon,eds., Stanford,pp. 74-139. Karimali,E. 1994. "The Neolithic Mode of Productionand Exchange Reconsidered:Lithics Production and ExchangePatternsin Thessaly, Greece, duringthe TransitionalLate Neolithic-Bronze Age Period"(diss. Boston University). Konsola,D. 1984. H nrpwotji caztxowoOt6ir azooq lrp&rrocra&cxxoO6 olxza1ou0;,
Athens. Kozlowski,J. K., M. Kaczanowska,and M. Pawlikowski.1996. "ChippedStone Industriesfrom Neolithic
Levels at Lerna,"Hesperia65, pp.295-372. Lerna III = J. Rutter, The Pottery of
LernaIV,Princeton 1995. Lerna IV = M. H. Wiencke, The Architecture,Stratification, and Pottery of Lerna III, Princeton 2000. Lerna V = E. Banks, The Settlement of
LernaIV Princeton,forthcoming. Murray,P. 1980. "DiscardLocation: The EthnographicData,"AmerAnt 45, pp. 490-502. Odell, G., et al. 1996. "Some Comments on a Continuing Debate,"in Stone Tools:TheoreticalInsights into Human Prehisory, G. Odell, ed.,
New York,pp. 377-392. Parkinson,W. 1999. "ChippingAway at a MycenaeanEconomy:Obsidian Exchange,LinearB, and Palatial Control in Late Bronze Age Messenia," in Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces:New Interpretations of an Old
Idea,M. Galaty andW. Parkinson, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 73-85. Perles,C. 1990. "L'outillagede pierre taillee neolithiqueen Grece: Approvisionnementet exploitation des matierespremieres,"BCH 114, pp.1-42. . 1992. "Systemsof Exchange and Organizationof Productionin Neolithic Greece,"JMA5, pp. 115164. Pollock, S. 1983. "The Symbolismof Prestige"(diss. Universityof Michigan). Pullen, D. 1985. "SocialOrganization in EarlyBronze Age Greece:A Multi-dimensionalApproach"(diss. IndianaUniversity,Bloomington). Renfrew, A. C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cycladesand the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C.,
London. Rosen, S. 1989. "The Origins of Craft Specialization:Lithic Perspectives," in People and Culture in Change
(BAR-IS508), I. Hershkovitz,ed., Tel Aviv,pp. 107-114. Runnels,C. 1982. "Flaked-Stone Artifactsin Greece during the Historical Period,"JFA9, pp.363-373. . 1985. "The Bronze-Age Flaked-Stone Industriesfrom
FLAKED
PRODUCTION
STONE
AT
Lerna:A PreliminaryReport," Hesperia54, pp. 357-391. . 1988. "EarlyBronze-Age Stone Mortarsfrom the Southern Argolid,"Hesperia57, pp. 257-272. Rutter,J. B. 1993. "The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southernand CentralGreekMainland,"AJA97, pp. 745-797. Sampson,A. 1985. Mdvtxa:Mia r7r6o.7 aor7vXaIx(Ia, rpo)TOc2LAa&x Athens. Santley,R., and R. Kneebone.1993. "CraftSpecialization,Refuse Disposal, and the Creationof SpatialArchaeologicalRecordsin PrehispanicMesoamerica,"in PrehispanicDomesticUnits in Western Mesoamerica,R. Santleyand K. Hirth, eds., Boca Raton, pp. 37-63. Tartaron,T. F, C. Runnels,and E. Karimali.1999. "Prolegomena to the Study of Bronze Age Flaked Stone in SouthernEpirus,"in Meletemata:Studiesin Aegean Presentedto MalcolmH. Archaeology Wieneras He EntersHis 65th Year, P. Betancourtet al., eds., pp. 819825. Torrence,R. 1986a. "ChippedStone," in KeosV:Ayia Irini:PeriodV, J. Davis, ed., Mainz, pp. 90-96. .1986b. Productionand
Britt Hartenberger BOSTON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT 675
OF ARCHAEOLOGY
COMMONWEALTH
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
AVENUE 02215
[email protected]
Curtis Runnels BOSTON UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT 675
OF ARCHAEOLOGY
COMMONWEALTH
BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
[email protected]
AVENUE 02215
BRONZE
AGE
LERNA
283
Exchangeof StoneTools,Cambridge. Tripathi,D. N. 1988. Bronzeworkof Mainland Greece from c.2600 B.C.to c. 1450 B.C.(SIMA-PB 69), Goteborg. Tzavella-Evjen,H. 1985. Lithares:An EarlyBronzeAge Settlementin Boiotia,Los Angeles. Van Horn, D. M. 1976. "Chipped Stone Tools from the Argolid of Greece and Their Relation to Tools Manufacturedfrom Other Materials"(diss. Universityof Pennsylvania). Vaughn,S. J., G. H. Myer, and P. P. Betancourt.1995. "Appendix IIB: Discussion and Interpretation of the PetrographicData,"in LernaIII, pp. 693-710. Vitelli, K. D. 1993. "Powerto the Potters:Comments on Perles's 'Systemsof Exchange and the Organizationof Productionin Neolithic Greece,'[JMA5:11564],"JMA 6, pp. 247-257. Wiencke, M. H. 1969. "FurtherSeals and Sealingsfrom Lerna," Hesperia38, pp. 500-521. . 1989. "Changein Early Helladic II,"AJA93, pp. 495509. 1998. "MycenaeanLerna," Hesperia67, pp. 125-214.
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 285-347
THE
TOWERS
ANCIENT RESULTS
SURVEY,
OF
LEUKAS
OF A TOPOGRAPHIC
I99I-1992
ABSTRACT The authorreportson the resultsof a topographicsurveyin 1991 and 1992 of fifteen Classical tower sites on the Ionian island of Leukas. Plans, photographs,andelevationsof remainsvisibleafterthoroughcleaningarepresented, based on drawingsto scale in the field and both archivaland recent photographic documentation. A brief history of the explorationof Leukas introduces a summaryof the two seasons, with detailed description of each site. The date and function of the towers and adjacentstructuresare evaluatedin the context of currentresearchon ruralsettlement in classicalantiquity,defensive architecture,and the regionalhistory of the area.
HIIpyos jn96cs,(xoS SX(I 7crcx-U([k0xcx RODU HTORY ION:
INTRODUCTION: 1. Leukadianriddle (the answer: Kontomichis 1995, p. 441. to xocX6cdt): 2. Von Warsberg(1879, p. 407) describesit as "the Switzerlandof this archipelago";see Bornovas1964 for a modern description;Rontogiannis 1980, pp.5-23. 3. Rontogiannis 1980, pp. 30-33 (unpublishedfinds;cf. Sordinas1968); Souyoudzoglou-Haywood1999, p. 4; Runnels 1995, p. 707, fig. 1; Douzougli 1999. 4. Murray1982, pp. 224-265, "The Leukas Canal Area,"on the Inselfrage, history of the channel,and observations on underwaterstructures.DomingoForaste1988, pp. 6-48, on the foundation and colonial history of Leukas.
ADTOPOGR1
HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The island of Leukas (Lefkaida,in modern Greek) forms a near-peninsula off the northwest coast of Greece, joining Akarnania just south of the entrance to the Ambracian Gulf, below Aktaion (Actium) and Nikopolis (Fig. 1). In modern history it belongs to the Ionian islands or Ern-cavrqa ("SevenIslands")as the centralmember of the chain extending from Corfu (Kerkyra)to Zakynthos, and the most mountainous: three ranges rising over 1,000 masl dominate the island's295-km2 andmass.2Long linked to the mainland in nature and name (Strabo [10.2.8] calls it a Xeppo6vaoog; Homeric Nerikos is described as an "axr-(v) 7ircipoto"in Od. 24.378), it was a peninsula of the mainland as early as the Palaeolithic, traces of which appear on uplifted terraces of its western mass and in various caves and rock shelters.3 In historic times the narrow neck of land joining the northeast tip of the island to the mainland was severedby a channel kept open for seacraft, probably when the Kypselid dynasty of Corinth founded the colony of Leukas in the late 7th century B.C. (Strab. 7.7.6, 10.2.8).4 Its status as
286
SARAH
P. MORRIS
AKARNANIA (Plagia Peninsula)
(Nerikos?)
w
Jouvi 6
Stavrotas %
N
Skorpios
y Cape Doukato (Temple of Apollo)
Arkoudi 0
5 km
THE
Map of Leukas Figure1 (opposite). with inset of Greece,locationof towers. F.Evenson,afterDorpfeld 1927, map 2, based on von Mar6es 1907,
map1
5. See Chrysos 1987, esp. N. Purcell, "The Nicopolitan Synoecism and Roman Urban Policy,"pp. 71-90; E. Kirsten,"The Origins of the First Inhabitantsof Nikopolis,"pp. 91-98; and W. Hoepfner,"Nikopolis-Zur Stadtgrindung des Augustus,"pp. 129133. Unlike defeatedmainlandcities (Kassope,Ammotopos: Lang 1994), Leukas remaineda Roman post with sparseoccupation:Rontogiannis1980, pp. 181-203; Pliakou2000. 6. Rontogiannis1988 assembles ancient sourcesand modern accounts with illustrations,and describesthe island'ssuccessivecapitalcities. 7. Foremostamong these are Goodisson 1822, esp. chapterVII; Leake 1835, pp. 14-21; Oberhummer 1887; Partsch1889. 8. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 206-250; Hammond 1974; Branigan1975; Muller 1989; SouyoudzoglouHaywood 1999, pp. 17-37.
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
287
island or peninsula fluctuated through time with the navigability of the canal, while its political identity was controlled by more powerful citystates. In Classical times, the area was active in the Peloponnesian War as an ally of its mother city and enemy of Athens (Thuc. 1.46, 2.85-92, 3.69-81, 94); in the 4th century it remained loyal to Corinth until 368 B.C. (IG 1I2104), and fell to Macedon with Athens afterthe Battle of Chaironeia in 338 B.C. Thereafter part of Akarnania, Leukas was capital of the Akarnanian League from 230 to 189 B.C. (Polyb. 5.5; Livy 33.17.1) and sided with Macedon against Rome. The site of significant battles during Roman campaignsin Greece, especiallyin 197 B.C. (Livy 33.16-17), Leukas was abandoned and its population relocated to the new city of Nikopolis after Octavian'svictory at Actium (Anth. Pal. 2.13).5 According to chance finds on the island and some late burials, a limited population still occupied the deserted city in the Roman period, with a garrisonwhen such areasbecame rcsptoxtSeg [rT6Xec] (Strab. 10.2.2) of Nikopolis; eventually its acropolis became a medieval fortress. The ship channel remained a vital alternativeto the windy western coastline, offering protected passage along the east coast, secured by a series of forts. Santa Maura (founded in 1300 by the Orsini) was the first of these, soon the name of the island, and was succeeded by Turkish (1479-1684), Venetian (1684-1797), French, Russian, and British (1810-1864) occupations.6 Early modern travelersinterested in the island's history offer the first descriptions of its ancient monuments, chiefly those of the city of Leukas.7 The liberation of the Ionian islands from the British protectorate in 1848 delivered Leukas into Greek hands again. In modern archaeology, Leukas has attracted attention chiefly as an ancient candidate for Homeric Ithaka, an identity long argued in print before being explored in the field by Wilhelm D6rpfeld, during the last forty years of his life. From 1901 until his death on the island in 1940, this remarkable architect, archaeologist, and longtime assistant to Heinrich Schliemann pursued his conviction that Leukas matched, in its topography and archaeology,the epic home of Odysseus. Refused support for this mission by the Deutsches Archiologisches Institut, he was assisted by private donors rangingfrom KaiserWilhelm II to Leslie Walker Kosmopoulos andJane Harrison. His results,published in letters and reports as well as in Alt-Ithaka, revealed a culture much older than the one he sought (much as Schliemann found at Troy), in a group of Early Bronze Age tumuli on the plain of Nidri, which are still the most impressive burials of the thirdmillennium Aegean.8Elsewhere, the cave of Choirospilia (Figs. 1,49) satisfied in name and setting the habitat of Homer's swineherd, Eumaios, but its Neolithic contents offered more to Aegean prehistory than to epic episodes (below, n. 63). Equally frustrating was D6rpfeld's quest for a Late Bronze Age palace and Mycenaean settlement to match Homeric descriptions of Ithaka; the later second millennium of prehistory on Leukas remains to this day remarkablyscant in finds. In the course of his Homeric quest, Dorpfeld and his colleagues reported (in field notebooks and the final publication of 1927) other antiquities on Leukas from Greek and Roman times. The southwestern promontory of the island known as Doukato (Fig. 1), a candidate for Cape
288
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure2. Late ClassicalandHellenisticcemeterysouth of Leukascity wall,fromnortheast(1990) Leukatas (site of Sappho's poetic leap from the "white rock of Leukas"), was the site of a Doric temple to Apollo, studied along with other Classical temples (at Agios Ioannis sto Rodaki, north of Marantochori) and forts (Agios Georgios across from ancient Leukas).9 In the Nidri plain, Dorpfeld's innovative techniques of exploration, particularlyhis deployment (if not invention) of the Suchschnittin deeply buried levels, have recently been appreciated.?1His notebooks, now divided between the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut in Athens and the small Dorpfeld collection in Nidri, are invaluable records of the island's antiquities and topography,especially for researchconducted after the appearanceof AltIthaka and not published elsewhere.11 After Dorpfeld's death and the Second World War, there was little systematic investigation of the island's antiquities until the growth of the modern capital city (acrossfrom Santa Maura) and escalation of construction necessitated salvage work by the Greek Archaeological Service. Under the successive ephorates of Petros Kalligas (Corfu) and, in Ioannina, Elias and Ioanna Andreou (1978-1988) and Angelika Douzougli and Kostas Zachos (1988 to present), the ancient city of Leukas and its cemeteries (Fig. 2), in particular,have been rescued from the bulldozer.12The fortificationwalls of the city (Fig. 3), a polygonal circuitwith square,ashlar towers defined by vertical drafted corners, once enclosed an urban area several kilometers square,joining an acropolis (known as "Koulmo,"its medieval name derived from culmen) to the shoreline along the ship 9. Partsch1889, p. 18; Dbrpfeld 1927, pp. 131-132,271-274, pls. 1213; Rontogiannis1980, pp. 237-252. On Agios Georgios, see below, n. 71. 10. Snodgrass1987, pp. 18-24; cf. Kilian 1982, pp. 50-51. These exploratorysoundingstotaled 189 trenches,and measured9.5 km in total length; illustratedin Dorpfeld 1927, pls. 31-32. 11. Four notebooksin Athens (I-IV) complementinformationin
the first six notebooksin Nidri (I-VI), chroniclingresearchconductedfrom 1901 to 1913; the remainingthree notebooksin Nidri (VII-IX) describe furtherwork in 1913 and excavationsin 1931, 1934, and 1935. I am gratefulto KlausHerrmannof the Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut in Athens and Dimitrios Stergiotis,formerguardof antiquitiesin Nidri, for their assistance in consultingthese notebooks.A recent studyof these records(Fiedler 1992,
1996) identifies sixty Classicalsites in the island. 12. In additionto annualreports of discoverieson Leukasin ArchDelt (1970-1995), see Andreou 1975, 1980; Andreou 1990; Douzougli and Zachos 1994. For a summaryof earlierwork, see Kalligas1977, 1982. A systematic topographicalsurveyof the ancient city was initiatedby the Ephorateof Ioanninain 1994: Pliakou 1999, fig. 11;AR 1999-2000, p. 67.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
289
Figure3. Acropolisof ancient Leukas,polygonalcitywall,from north(1990) channel, and now survive chiefly on the western heights. The city's resistance to siege by Demosthenes in 426 B.C. (Thuc. 3.94), and later against the machinery and artilleryof Lucius Flamininus in 197 B.C. (Livy 33.17), reflects the success of its defensive position, if not of the walls presently visible.13In his analysis of the architectureof northwest Greece, William Murray notes that the coexistence of a polygonal circuitwith coursed trapezoidal (pseudo-ashlar) towers is most likely to occur in the 4th and 3rd centuries. It is tempting to associate the walls of Leukas with the formation of the Akarnanian League in the 4th century.l4Classical and Hellenistic cemeteries that lie north and south of the city walls may help support a date for the circuit no earlier than the Late Classical period. Dorpfeld's researchesincluded limited exploratorytrenches in the area of the ancient city, conducted in his absence by E. Kriger and never fully published.15Recent salvage work indicates an extensive urban network with different sectors.Commercial and public buildings have emerged near the eastern shoreline;16domestic foundations are continuous throughout the level area on both sides of the modern road17andon terracesclimbing to the west, with a theater on the slope that rises to the citadel of the western acropolis.The immediate vicinity of ancient Leukas was the focus 13.The wallsof ancientLeukas moreattentionin the 19th attracted
The Evidence of the Western Coastal Sites,"pp. 444-459. The federationof
century(Goodison 1822, pl. II; Leake 1835, pp. 14-19; Partsch1889, pp. 710) than today:they are absentfrom Scranton1941, Lawrence1980; Winter 1971 has only Livy'saccountof 197 B.C. The only views of these walls appearin Dorpfeld 1927, pl. 49, and Rontogiannis 1988, figs. 1-30 (sketchplans of ancient and medievalwalls following p. 292), the only plans in von Marees 1907, map 2; Murray1982, fig. 34; Fiedler 1999, p. 412. 14. Murray1982, Appendix D, "MasonryStyles as Dating Criteria:
Akarnanian cities in 389 B.C. (Xen.
Hell. 4.6.4) may have inspireda homogeneous fortificationstyle, as in Arkadia,Boeotia, and CentralGreece: Cooper 2000. However,the AkarnanianLeague did not include Leukas until the 3rd century. 15. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 156-157, 267-269. 16. Andreou 1993, pl. 169; Douzougli 2000; Douzougli and Zachos 1994, pp. 44-45, fig. 24, for an areathat includes part of the lower city wall and gate, an amphorashop (below,
n. 78), a shrine,and other public buildingsthat may belong to the ancient agora. 17. Agallopoulou 1977, figs. 5, 6 and pls. 417:e-421; Andreou 1989, pl. 76. Houses and burialsof ancient Leukasindicate a grid plan governing roadsand houses in the level areaof the city,certaintombs and their enclosures,and walls. Salvageexcavations of modernplots within ancient Leukashave uncoveredhouses and streetsof Classicalthrough Late Hellenistic phases:Douzougli 1998, figs. 14-16, pls. 93-96; AR 19981999, pp. 64-66; Fiedler 1999.
290
SARAH
P. MORRIS
of a one-man survey twenty years ago, which identified twenty-seven ancient sites in the area.18The urban texture of the city is the subject of a dissertation in progress by Manuel Fiedler, who is comparing two newly excavated sectors within and outside the ancient walls.19 Outside of the capital city of Leukas, the ancient city of Ellomeno(n) (Thuc. 3.94: below, n. 52) may lie at the deep bay of Nidri, where the name "Ekkleimeno"(Enklimeno) survives for the sheltered harbor just inside the peninsula (Figs. 4,43). Significant structuresaround the southwestern plain of modern Vassiliki offer a third urban area densely occupied in antiquity and explored in modern times.20More isolated sites include sanctuaries in caves (e.g., near Chortata) and on mountain peaks. Among the rural monuments that attracted the attention of Dorpfeld was a series of stone towers, preservedprimarilyas foundations but in one example, above the village of Poros, standing several stories high (Fig. 7). Seven of these monuments Dorpfeld recorded or even excavated, then described and illustratedin his final publication, along with his sensible argumentfor their function as ruralresidences.2'D6rpfeld'srecommendationsfor furtherwork at Poros, coupled with widespread recent interest in this class of ancient monument, inspired the present study of these towers as one strategy for approaching the history of the island. Our extensive survey of standing monuments, rather than the kind of intensive urban or regional surveys more popular in recent archaeology,aims at preservationas well as analysis, and targets the kind of site that links urban and rural contexts.22One result of our project is that the Poros tower property has been offered by the owner for expropriationto the Greek Archaeological Service, and extensive documentation of all the tower sites is now archived with the Ephorate of Ioannina. This article presents the results of our surveyin two seasons, with some suggestions for integrating the Leukas towers into the larger corpus of fortified ruralresidences in ancient Greece. We began our survey of Leukas in 1991 with a close analysis of the best-preserved tower at Poros (1) and its adjacentinstallations, then of the other published towers in southeast Leukas (2-7); in the following year, we explored eight previously unpublished monuments (8-15), reported below under the 1992 season.23Fifteen sites were identified as locales of one or more tower structures(Fig. 1), including two describedby Dorpfeld
18. Gallant 1982, 1983,1986. 19. Fiedler 1996, pp. 161-163; 1999; 2001. 20. Earlyvisitorsoften landed on Leukas at Vassilikifrom Ithakaand noted its monuments,includingthe large platformof monumentalblocks that sits, today,under a half-timbered house: Goodisson 1822, pp. 71-73; Partsch1889 (map:"Pyrgi");Dorpfeld 1927, map 2, Nidri notebook I, p. 103; Fiedler 1996, pp. 160, 168: ancient Phara? 21. Dorpfeld (1927, pp. 256-262) cites Ormerod1924 in makingthe Leukas towers"turmartigeWohn-
ungen,"while admittingthe existence elsewhereof watch- and signal-towers. See also Nowicka 1975, pp. 58-59, 73-74. Cf. Kilian 1982, pp. 54-55; Rontogiannis1980, pp. 186-187. 22. Douzougli and Morris (1994) reporton the Leukastowers exploredin 1991 (primarilyPoros) and on the ancient city,posing questionsof mutual concernto our team and the ephorate in Ioannina. 23. All towerswere located on 1:5,000 maps from the Greek GeographicalServiceof the Army (F.Y. .), the basis for Figs. 6, 43, 45, 49, 59, and were drawnto scale in the field; relative
elevationswere taken from an arbitrarydatumpoint at each site, and absoluteelevationsfor each site were estimatedfrom those providedon the F.T.Z. maps (none of the towers examinedwere visible from geodetic surveymarkers).All photographs publishedhere, unless otherwise credited,were taken afterextensive cleaning to removeovergrowth. Preliminaryreports:AR 1991-1992, pp. 35-36;AR 1992-1993, pp. 42-43; Pariente1992, p. 875; 1993, p. 809. Numberedreferencesto towers in this reportarekeyed to Fig. 1.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
29I
Figure4. Map of southeastern Leukaswith towersites 1-8. F. Evenson, after D6rpfeld 1927, map 8, based on von Mar6es 1907, map 3
Mavroneri
(5) NIDRI
Neochori?(3)
Pa Iaokato una (4)
f
Pkotu
,
Kroupa(8)
;' n, aad at
rert
srv
Achuria?
(2)
i cho
Katochori (7)
Poros (1)
0 :,
O
I
~km1
2
Ji
km
but no longer visible; others await exploration. Several sites would reward excavation, and this report serves as an initial step toward a fuller reconnaissance of the landscape of ancient Leukas.
1991 SEASON:
COMPLEX
POROS TOWER
Figs. 5-30
The tower site at Poros (Fig. 1:1; Dorpfeld's tower f) lies just above the modernvillage, abouthalfa kilometer south of the chapel ofAgios Nikolaos and just west of the modern dirt road that leads south from the village to fields and orchards (Fig. 5). The ancient complex lies at the head of a narrow valley that slopes from north (the chapel ridge, at 300 masl) to a steep drop into the sea at the south. This valley lies between the eastern peak of Kastro (509 masl) and the lower western ridge of uplifted layers of limestone that drop steeply to the waters of Rouda Bay (Fig. 6). Like the modern town of Poros,named for the "strait"between Leukas and Meganisi
292
SARAH
P. MORRIS
(Fig. 1) that is reached by a path ("Skala")over the mountain to the east, the ancient site is hidden from the sea (Fig. 5), and seems chosen for protection and access to arable land rather than visual communication. This sheltered rather than strategic setting eliminates the likelihood of any reconnaissance or lookout function, and is compatible with the domestic and agrariandetails of the site that confirm Dorpfeld's identification of a rural residence. However, the size of nearby surviving blocks (visible in foreground, Fig. 16) led Partsch to consider the remains a "Burg"with a second tower near the standing one and with a gate complex (see Fig. 21 for what may have inspired this) 32 m to the south. He evidently understood the modern name of the site, "(To) Inopyt"(homophonic in modern Greek with fIIpyoL,nominative plural)to representmultiple towers.24Our analysis reveals, instead, a single square tower standing near a substantial complex of buildings (Fig. 9) that incorporates an earlier,round tower. The standing tower survives at its northwest corner to a height of twenty-two courses, well over 7 m above present ground level, much as it did 100 years ago (Figs. 7, 8, 10). It was untouched by severalmajor earthquakes that destroyed, in 1953, most buildings on Zakynthos and Kephallonia and, in 1915 and 1948, many buildings and towns of Leukas (in 1948, 90% of Vassiliki).25Earlier quakes may be responsible for the pronounced vertical crack on the tower's north face and the definite sag that can be measured across the horizontal (Figs. 8, 12a-d). Although settling could be responsible for such collapse (cf. the cracks inside the western face: Fig. 14), the ground plan shows strong displacement (Fig. 11). This follows in direction and shape the diagonal cracks that run through the
Figure5. View of Porosvalleyfrom east,with towersite visibleat arrow
24. Partsch1889, p. 21; D6rpfeld on his called the site a "Festungsturm" first visit (Nidri notebook I, p. 16). 25. See Rontogiannis1995 for the effects (recordedin local archives)of thirty-sixmajorearthquakeson Leukas between 1469 and 1971 (cf. Rontogiannis 1980, p. 526; 1982, pp. 659673); Bornovas1964, pp. 107-110, figs. 29-30 (map of fault lines).
THE
o
--100
200 IC
Figure 6. Contour map of Poros area, with location of tower circled. T. Feuerhake
TOWERS
300 m
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
293
294
SARAH
P. MORRIS
stone slabs at the same site (Fig. 30) and the disruption of slabs lining graves in the Classical cemetery south of the city of Leukas (Fig. 2).26 Active epicenters of local earthquakescluster around Leukas, especially in the channel separating it from Ithaka and Kephallonia;it seems logical to connect this source and direction of ground movement with the consistent patterns of damage in historical buildings.27However, Venetian archives of Leukas preserve a native account of a tremendous storm in May 1766 that destroyed the town of Poros, its trees, crops, and vines, its fishermen and their boats, "andeven the tower"(the earliest modern reference to the monument, described as a "Hellenic building.. .which existed from the time of the Hellenes").28Thus naturaldisaster and gradualcollapse as well as human action, such as the removal of large blocks for modern agricultural terracesthroughout the valley (below, n. 38), together account for the present condition of the Poros tower. The tower is built in pseudo-isodomic style, familiar as "coursedtrapezoidal" in northwest Greece; blocks are shaped with parallel upper and lower surfaces but joints decline from the vertical, with each course 26. Fig. 2 = Douzougli and Morris 1994, p. 225, fig. 10 (south cemetery); cf. Douzougli and Zachos 1994, p. 47, fig. 25 (plan of cemetery); cf. also Agallopoulou 1977, pp. 486-492, pl. 419:d-g; Andreou 1989, p. 188, pl. 77:b; Douzougli 1998, pp. 287290.
27. Stiros 1988; Douzougli and Zachos 1994, p. 47. 28. In the words of town elders reporting the damage to Venetian a officials, "'Axo6ia c Toi xro6pto T6 xal 67CoO y'cav eig zTV 'EXXAjvtx6 io TUo Xt)opU z7?EpLO)AxV
gXa, EiL TO
Ilpuyi [Inupy], 6 n6pyos, 6o) xcc aoTor6
Figure 7. Poros tower from northwest, in 1901. CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Athens, Archaologisches neg.Leukas38;Dorpfeld1927,pl.46
6roT0ylTaCv &r6o T6v xalpov ixpElioaCTY, TCov (Kontomichis 1958, 'EXXAivov" p. 29; Rontogiannis 1980, p. 186). I am grateful to T. Sklavenitis for discussion of this incident and its bibliography. The tower at Cheimarrou on Naxos was also damaged by weather (lightning): Haselberger 1972, pp. 431-432, n. 7.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
295
Figure 8. Poros tower in 1991, north face, from north
29. Murray 1982, pp. 444-459 (above, n. 14) on coursed trapezoidal
style;Partsch(1889, p. 21) measured the height of the first eleven courses, which rangefrom 0.26 m to 0.46 m.
diminishing slightly in height.29Its visible ground plan indicates a structure once ca. 6.9 by 6.9 m, now twisted into a polygon (Fig. 11). In length some blocks reach nearly 2 m; their depth tapers from 0.75 m in the ten lower courses to less than 0.50 m above that, as the walls diminish in bulk above the chiefload-bearing courses.Angle blocks are L-shaped and were joined to their neighbors with large swallow-tail clamps (Fig. 13), probably of wood as elsewherein Akarnania(see n. 29 for discussion by Murray) and in the city wall of ancient Leukas. From the clamp cuttings visible in the uppermost preserved course at the northeast and northwest corners (Fig. 11), this tower once stood at least one course higher, and probably had at least three stories or levels. The debris of fallen and broken blocks inside the foundations now hides any interior features and fills the tower high above any ancient ground level; most likely, as in other towers, there was at least one cross-wall at the level of the foundations (cf. below, Figs. 32, 34, 36). The entrance is presumed to lie near the west end of the south side, where a tipped threshold block now suggests its erstwhile position (Fig. 15). Given this limited state of preservation, no reconstruction of interior plans and upper floors is possible. The only standing tower section high enough to reach an upper story shows no cuttings for horizontal beams of an upper floor, only several projecting cantilevered blocks (Fig. 14).
SARAH
296
P. MORRIS
4/
^3 3t^\d
e
Q(
t
\o 18
_r
OZ-1
r^
r6 k
et 3 Cr(
_=-/
0\ 0\ ?
W3 C
~,
C= ed u k cF (d C:
I
1
U X
a E ou
c,
a v,
ok o o; E
-C
Q
fo ??( C4
7
A
(B
?
THE
TOWERS
LEUKAS
OF ANCIENT
297
8J
Cld x 1)
$.4
O 0
14
4-i
?r. 4)
CI
u
Cd (A 1.4
o
+-j
S
S
i I
%
PI I
r_i
PE
298
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure11. Poros,squaretower:state plan. T.Feuerhake
JNP
I
17
0.49
-"r:T; 0
1
2
3m
Southwest of this standing structure extends a course of substantial walls, in ashlar (Fig. 17) and trapezoidal (Fig. 18) stretches, with squared corner blocks (cf. Fig. 21). They define a rectangularcircuit nearly 20 m across (east to west) and 32 m from north (near the standing tower) to south; the longest stretch of continuous wall preserved,on the east, is 33.5 m in length (Fig. 9). Best seen on the east (Figs. 17-18), south (Figs. 1921), and north (Figs. 22-23), the enclosure shows both faces (interior and exterior)on north and east, and throughout a foundation for higher courses of stone and brick, up to 1.5 m wide (Figs. 9-10). A broken line of blocks about 4 m east of the east wall suggests a parallel course, truncated by modern terraces but well defined at the northeast corner (Partsch's"second tower"?Fig. 16) and at the southeast (Partsch's"gate"?Fig. 21). The south wall survives in long ashlars (Figs. 19-20) and returns, at the west end, to the south for a few meters (Fig. 9). The northern boundary survives in two faces and courses, disfigured by heavy root damage (Fig. 22). Two of the westernmost blocks arecut back as if to meet an ancient ground level inside (Figs. 9, 23), the only visible candidate for an "entrance"to the complex. On the west, bedrock rises just outside the complex to the ridge called "Dragata"("Lookout"), stone from which was presumably quarriedfor tower and enclosure blocks (Figs. 5-6, 24). This naturalpeak takes its name from the local term for a lookout point or observatorywhere or 8pcycaTcSin Leukadian,watched for damageto vinethe XcopopXocxac;, yards by humans, animals, or birds.30The east wall of the complex at its midpoint sits on bedrock visible under surface layers (Fig. 25). The shallow surviving ground cover,plus constant cultivation inside the walls over the years, does not promise deep undisturbed ancient levels that might clarify the history and function of this complex through excavation. The most significant feature revealed through cleaning heavy overgrowth from these blocks, beyond the regularplan of the complex, was a
30. Kontomichis1985, pp. 119-121: the 8pacy6m-; normally built himself a brush shelter (8poaydrTa) for his (camouflaged?) observatory, also observed by Davy (1842, pp. 345-346) in the 19th century on Leukas. The toponym at the Poros site may merely reflect its vantage point. Protecting grapes from theft or damage is one of several functions posited for ancient towers in rural settings: see the modern tower in a Naoussa vineyard in Lambert-Gocs 1990, color pl. 5.
THE
31. Lohmann 1993, pp. 144,156; Munn 1993, p. 88. Cf. Martin 1965, pp. 46-64; Orlandos 1966, I, pp. 57-66; Lawrence1980, p. 190; also posited for the Tholos at Athens:Thompson 1940, pp. 48-55. No sourcedescribesthe shape of mudbricksfor circular structures:trapezoidal(ET-rEp6trXopot, as specifiedin Delphic inscriptions: Orlandos 1966, I, p. 61, n. 2), for a faceted circumference?See Thielemans 1994 on reconstructingthe height of Attic towersbuilt in brick,and Xen. An. 7.8.12-15 for a brick tower (ro6py;) in Asia Minor. 32. Cf. FarmhouseGrinevich 1, with two towers,or Strzheletskii10 and 25: Dufkova and Pecirka1970, figs. 7, 14-15; Saprykin1994, figs. 1415. See also sites with multiple towers in Attica (Lohmann 1993, pp. 139141) and in ancient documents (P Oxy.2.247.23: oixiac;86tpyaxS;; Xen. An. 7.8.9). Spencer(1994, p. 208, n. 8) is mistakenin calling two towers at a single site on Lesbos "unparalleled" in the Aegean. 33. See D6rpfeld'sLeukas (DAI) notebook I, p. 8, and Nidri notebook I, p. 14, for a press stone observedin the vineyardof P. Palmos south of Vlicho Bay,22 March 1901 (Dorpfeld 1927, map 16): ca. 0.35 m thick, with a diameter (restoredfrom two fragments)of 1.52 m, and an outer channel ca. 3 mm deep and 5-6 cm wide. At Poros,the spouts of both press stones may be buried.Cf. Foxhall 1993, 1997, and Ault 1999 for Classicalolive presses.
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
299
round tower built into the midpoint of the east wall (Figs. 9,25-26). Three courses of curved ashlarssurvive (two well preserved, a third only a single upper block, visible at right in Fig. 25) on its south and east sides, or approximately a third of its original circumference, estimated at 6.3 m in diameter. A projecting euthynteria cut into bedrock is visible on the east side, outside the ancient complex. The uppermost blocks show no cuttings for attachinguppercoursesof stone, indicatinga superstructureofmudbrick, as with many Classical towers in Attica and on Leukas itself (e.g., at Kleismatia:Fig. 57).31 As the central cross-wall and east wall of the complex at Poros abut the circular tower, the latter appears to be an earlier structure later incorporated into the large complex and perhaps replaced by the larger,squaretower. Elsewhere on Leukas-at Kleismatia (Fig. 55) and the now-lost tower at Achuria on the east shore of Nidri Bay (Fig. 32)-one finds a round tower built into, and in fact replaced by, a square one. The interior of the complex at Poros preservesseveralmodern ground levels separated by ancient and modern walls, notably an east-west wall that also incorporates the round tower into its east end (Figs. 9, 27). At the west, this line peters out into a modern terrace wall where an ancient olive-oil press bed (1.32 m in diameter, 0.33 m thick, with a 0.10 m channel cut into its lower face, 0.10 m from the outer edge) has been reused (Fig. 28). The present difference in elevation between the north and south ends of the complex could define ancient ground levels in a complex stepped from north to south as the valley slopes, or could simply reflect modern landscaping for cultivation. Recent stretches of rubblewalling divide the northern half into two sectors and levels, and rubble covers a short stretch extending west from the eastern wall of the complex, south of the round tower (Fig. 27, rubble walls in foreground, background; cf. Fig. 9). Presumablymany stones, lighter than the heavy socle blocks of the ancient enclosure, were dismantled for medieval and modern terracesand field boundaries. A single stone base just south of the east-west wall (Fig. 28, right foreground)once supporteda wooden post or column (its squared upper surface offers an areaca. 0.52 by 0.53 m); its date and original position are unknown. About 10 m east of the square tower, a wellhead of ancient blocks (built in recent times, according to landowners) still supplies water; no doubt a predecessortapped an ancient water source.These featurescomplete what can be surmisedof the original complex from modern surface remains. Most likely the heavy, exterior walls once held a superstructureof lighter blocks, if not higher courses ofmudbrick. Inside the complex, one would expect to find lighter foundations for covered buildings and open courtyardstypical of an ancient farm complex, examples of which are best preserved in Greek colonies of the Crimea.32 In addition to the oil press built into the westernmost (modern) stretch of the central cross-wall (Fig. 28), a second press bed with channel (1.78 m in diameter) lies half-buried in the ground north of this wall (Fig. 29; cf. Fig. 9 for location). The two large stone discs (of different dimensions) resemble those most often associated with ancient olive-pressing in Classical times, with parallels at Leukas.33 Other evidence for ancient agriculturalactivity at Poros is a wide shallow basin built of flat slabs of marine conglomerate (local to the site) with
300
SARAH
P.
MORRIS
p;+5.L1
tf
Figure 12a. Poros, square tower, east elevation. T.Feuerhake
t 0.00
?O.00
0
1
2
3m
0Q
a
j
c
b
d e
t 9
i
k
m
0 p q s 0.00 s
Figure 12b. Poros, square tower, north elevation. T.Feuerhake
THE
TOWERS
OF
ANCIENT
30I
LEUKAS
Figure 12c. Poros, square tower, west elevation. T.Feuerhake
0.00
0.00
0
1
2
.S.L1
Figure 12d. Poros, square tower, south elevation. T. Feuerhake
0.00
t 0.00
I
302
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure 13. Poros tower, southeast angle blocks with swallow-tail clamp cuttings (1991)
Figure 14. Poros tower, inside northwest corner, from southeast (1991)
THE
Figure15. Porostower,threshold blockon south side,fromnortheast (1991)
Figure16. Porostowerandnortheast cornerof complex,fromsouthwest (1991)
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
303
304
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure 17. Poros complex: east wall, from east (1991)
Figure 18. Poros complex: east wall, south end, from east (1991)
Figure 19. Poros complex: south wall, east end, from south (1991)
THE
Figure 20. Poros complex, south wall, from south (1991)
Figure 21. Poros complex: south end, blocks at east: "gate"or tower? (1991)
Figure 22. Poros complex, north wall, east end, from south (1991)
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
305
306
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure 23. Poros complex, north wall, west end with threshold (1991)
Figure 24. Ridge west of Poros complex ("Dragata"),from north; quarry (1991)
Figure 25. Poros complex, round tower, from east (1991)
THE
OF ANCIENT
TOWERS
LEUKAS
307
I
+
II
a
Figure 26. Poros complex, round tower, plan and elevations. T. Feuerhake
Figure 27. Poros complex, central cross-wall with round tower, from south (1991)
0
- 1.09
1 2 ~~~~-?--~~~~~~~~~~~
3m I .1
308
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure28. Poroscomplex,central cross-wallwith pressstone,from south(1991) a raised lip, built against and under the heavy blocks of the western wall (Fig. 30). Deep rectangularsockets cut into the raised rim must have once held wooden posts for anchoring side walls to form a criblike structure atop the stone slabs.This container would have drained to the north into the preserved squarebasin, just over 1 m2,built of irregularstones, with a flat channel cut into its south side (see Fig. 9). The installation suggests a wooden vat with stone floor emptying into the adjacent basin, perhaps a grape press (nrmq-cqptin modern Greek) with basin (rpo-, 6TroXnvtov); ancient presses, labeled galeagra, are described in Hero's Mechanica,and survive at Classical farm sites in the Black Sea area.The stone floor and basin could also be a crushing trough for preparing olives for pressing, next to a kopron,or ancient compost bin, such as that recently identified at Classical Halieis.34At Halieis this kind of processing equipment was installed in the 4th century,contemporarywith the earliest date possible for the square tower and farm walls at Poros. Locating this kind of activity makes the northwest quadrant of the Poros complex an open courtyard, entered at the northwest and protected on the west side by the steep rise to the Dragata ridge. This agriculturalequipment complements the rustic setting of this tower complex to support Dorpfeld's suspicion that these structuresbelonged to ruralresidences. Surfacesherds noted during cleaning and drawing of remains were remarkablyscanty, beyond a concentration of pithos sherds (including fragments with triple relief band common at all tower sites), and tiles in and around the square tower (in contrast to the more abundantblackglaze and other fine warescollected,e.g., nearthe Kleismatia towers: below, pp. 331-332). The notoriety of this tower to visitors over the centuries(hence D6rpfeld'sinterest) and modern disturbanceof ground levels by cultivation (mixed fill and rubble reach to bedrock in areas exposed by cleaning just outside the walls) may account for the poverty of ancient artifactualmaterialvisible.35 The Poros complex can be summarized briefly from our observations and analysis of the available evidence. Its original phase may have consisted of a round tower of mudbrick on a stone socle with adjacent structures, possibly within an enclosure (extending to the poorly preserved
34. For Black Sea sites, see Drachmann1932, pp. 60-62, 150, figs. 18-19; Dufkova and Pecirka1970, figs. 10-12, 15-17; Wasowicz 1994, figs. 15. For southernGreece, see Foxhall 1997 (Methanapeninsula)and Ault 1999 (Halieis). Foxhall(1993, pp. 195199) notes a list of items in an Attic poletai account(IG IP425, lines 30-40): stone Xlvo, clay treaders,a largevat, and a jug, 7CXivOot ocTacpXo3oXoi, collectivelyan installationfor treading grapesand collectingtheirjuice. Traditionalpressesfor TOruoupoon Leukas,calledTp6xoXoand no longer in use, include a similarstone slab cut for wooden posts and a stone basin: Kontomichis 1985, p. 126, fig. 21. We cannot exclude a post-antiquedate for the Poros installation(althoughit now lies under a row of heavyancient blocks:Fig. 30, upperleft) without excavation. 35. D6rpfeld (1927, p. 330) also from this site. reported"Scherben"
THE
Figure 29. Poros complex, buried press stone, from south (1991)
Figure 30. Poros complex, west side, stone floor of trough or press, from south (1991)
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
309
SARAH
3Io
P. MORRIS
easternmost "wall"?);this arrangementwould resemble the combination of a round tower within an enclosure familiar on many Greek islands.36 Given few examples of freestanding stone towers in Greek architecture before the later 5th century,37it would be unlikely for such a structureto have been built before the Classical era.In a later phase-Late Classical or Hellenistic (4th or 3rd century)-this round tower was incorporated into a (new?) enclosure with pressing equipment, and its function replicated or replaced by a new, square tower built entirely of stone in the style then customary in northwest Greece. Throughout a life of approximatelythree centuries, these structures served the same function: to house a small group of rural residents, presumably an extended family with servants or slaves,raising and processing cash crops such as olives and grapes, along with grain, dairy, and other productsfor household consumption. In more recent times, the same crops are raised here, once harvested by a seasonal community: prior to 1950, some thirty families from Poros used to move up to the Ilupyi for the summer months with their animals, living on temporarybedding of brush taxeg, in local parlance), according to local residents. Although the ([irap vicinity of Poros preservesoccasional antiquities,38the nearestlarge settlements lie at Nidri and Vassiliki.This places the tower site at Poros several kilometers from the nearest ancient town, and its isolation helps explain the need for a tower as well as an enclosure wall whose considerable mass and (restored) height afforded considerable protection.
1991 SEASON: SOUTHEAST
TOWERS LEUKAS
IN
Figs. 31-42
Examining other towers on Leukas allowed us to test the context and function suggested by the Poros evidence against other surviving monuments. Two reportedby Dorpfeld, including one without visual documentation, have now disappeared.One lay east of Vlicho Bay near a spot known as Achuria, where it now lies buried by accumulation and new holiday homes, and could not be found despite its precise location on Dorpfeld's maps and in photographs (Fig. 1:2;Figs. 4, 31-32).39 Like the squaretower at Poros, this one measured about 7 m on a side (7.05 m, in Dorpfeld's dimensions); its highest surviving course consists of ashlars up to 2 m in length on a euthynteriaof polygonal stones. No clamp cuttings were noted but holes for dowels survived on blocks at or adjacentto corners,with pry marks for shifting the next course into place. Interior features exposed were limited to a single, central stone base for an interior support and a cistern sunk in the southern section; cross-walls and entrance cannot be confirmed. The presence of dowels with pour-channels suggested a "later Greek"date to Dorpfeld. The most interesting aspect of this now-lost tower, noted above was the existence of an earlier, round tower inside the square 299), (p. foundations, preservedas three polygonal blocks ofbreccia defining a circle about 5 m in diameter (Fig. 32). One of the few towers excavated by Dorpfeld, this one was reported to have two phases conforming to the sequence of structures, dated no more precisely than "alt-griechisch"
Tower2 on east Figure31 (opposite). side of Nidri Bayat Achuria,from north, 1901. CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Athens, Archaologisches neg.Leukas600
36. See, for example,the towercomplex at Cheimarrouon Naxos: Haselberger1972, fig. 3. 37. The earliesttower dated by excavationlies in an industrialcomplex in the deme ofThorikos, Attica. Spitaels(1978) dates its constructionto the early 5th century B.C., a revision of
priorconclusionsby Mussche (1967); see also Lohmann 1993, pp. 157-158. 38. Dorpfeld photographeda terrace wall of large,polygonalblocks, apparentlyancientbut of uncertain style and date,west of Poros on 6 March 1901 (Nidri notebook I, p. 16; DAI neg. Leukas35). We could not locate this wall from autopsyor local memory,but noted other ancient spolia (column drum,millstone) reusedin the village. 39. D6rpfeld 1927, pp. 258-259, figs. 25a-b, maps 8, 10, pl. 45; cf. Nidri notebook I, pp. 49-56, DAI negs. Leukas 118, 119. Modern building on the shore has buriedthis tower in the last twenty years(in 1972, Denham [1972, pp. 31-32] reports"nodwellings"), judging from presentgroundlevel.The is local word "ocXoptL" (pl. axXo6pta) parlancefor a stone field hut like the aroundEnklouvi (Kontomichis o6Xra 1985, p. 29, figs. 3-4; cf. Fig. 63), and that visible remainsof an ancient tower understoodas a hut might have encouragedthe toponym. Cf. below, n. 66.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
TURM
ALTERER
AB.
SCHNITT o
2
4
11
5
S ALTERER
4
IC CE
J
TURq
/CNT
/E
$CHNITT
5M
;I
E
I
Figure 32. Tower 2 on east side of Nidri Bay, 1901, plan. Dorpfeld1927, figs.25a-b
3II
CE
3I2
SARAH
P. MORRIS
(Classical?)and "neu-griechisch"(Hellenistic?) from the published description of the pottery.40Dorpfeld also reported"laterstructures"built against the tower'snortheast face, and "altesMauerwerk"at the edge of the nearby harbor.These reported remains indicate that the tower, unusual for its location near the water's edge inside a deep harbor (but cf. the "priest's house"with tower at Vouliagmeni in Attica), was not an isolated structure. Unlike all other tower sites on Leukas, it neither fulfills a manifest agricultural function nor marks a significant point such as the lighthouse(?) half a kilometer away at Kroupa (Figs. 4, 43-44). The remaining tower sites on Leukas (Fig. 1) cluster around the bay and plain of Nidri with its ancient settlements (Fig. 4), the village of Marantochori (Fig. 49), and the high upland plain of Enklouvi (Fig. 59). During the 1991 season, our team identified and reexaminedthose around the Nidri plain (Fig. 4:3-7). In addition to the Achuria tower described above, a second tower noted on Dorpfeld's plan of the Nidri plain and brieflyin his text, but never describedelsewhere,could not be located (Figs. 1, 4:3). It once sat on the lower, northern slopes of the Palaiovorosmountain, in line with the ridges called "Koloni"and "Rachi,"which rise above the westernNidri plain between the two heights of Skarosand Palaiovoros.41 Still visible about a kilometer away is the tower below the village of Palaiokatouna,excavatedby D6rpfeld in 1901 and remeasuredby our team (Fig. 33; Figs. 1, 4:4 for location).42Situated on gentle slopes between the village and the Amali ridge to the south, at approximately 65 masl, its current location amid old olive groves is appropriateto its presumed ancient function. Now overgrown and missing some blocks since Dbrpfeld's day,this tower was one of the first antiquities pointed out to Dorpfeld, as a visible monument, although no more than its foundations survived.The tower, the largest one we saw on Leukas, was measured by D6rpfeld at 9.70 by 8.70 m and is built of large breccia blocks, some of considerable size (larger than those in the Poros tower), its corner blocks clamped to neighbors with iron "pi"(staple) clamps (Fig. 34) and dowelled to those above. Their shape resembles those strictly ashlar (e.g., at Achuria and Neochori), with some verticaljoints angled enough to form the trapezoids typical of a "later Greek" (to use Dorpfeld's expression) period. Interior cross-walls are the best preserved of any tower on the island: one runs east-west across the entire width of the structure(broken by an opening, presumably a doorway) and a second in a shorter stretch north of this cross-wall, dividing the interior of the tower into three spaces (labeled A, B, and C on plan: Fig. 34). Special T-shaped blocks were formed to bond these cross-walls to each other and to the exterior walls. A small, square space "D" (interior dimensions ca. 0.9 by 0.9 m) was also defined by four L-shaped blocks south of the east end of the long cross-wall, and may have functioned as a chimney or light-well serving the two adjacentspaces or rooms (B and C). This shaft ends in a gravel floor found by D6rpfeld, and thus could not have been a cistern or deep subterraneanshaft. One hesitates to term these spaces defined at foundation level as "rooms"ratherthan structuralunits supporting the lowest floor; the opening between A and C is only 0.68 m wide and 1.09 m high and could have led from one subterraneancrawl space to another,like the archedopenings
40. D6rpfeld 1927, pp. 258-259. 41. Dorpfeld 1927, maps 8 (topography)and 10 (grid squareA4); the towerwas recordedby von Marees (1907, map 3) and mentionedwith finds from a trenchin this area: Dorpfeld 1927, p. 319; Fiedler 1996, p. 165. 42. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 256-258 (tower a), fig. 24, map 10 (B6) for location;Nidri notebook I, pp. 15, 1721, 28-29; DAI notebook I, p. lb (section throughinteriorcross-wall, March 1901) and II, p. 58 (location and furthernotes, 28 June 1907).
THE
Figure 33. Tower 4 below Palaiokatouna village, from southwest. CourtesyDeutsches ArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, neg. Leukas24
Figure 34. Tower 4 below Palaiokatouna village, plan. Dorpfeld 1927, fig. 24
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
3I3
314
SARAH
P. MORRIS
in the foundations of the Tholos at Epidauros.43Nor is there sufficient evidence in the exteriorwalls to indicate the ancientgroundlevel, or whether and where there might have been an entrance to the tower at that level. Dorpfeld assumed that these lay higher than preserved courses (as frequently in Attic and island towers), and was unable to reconstruct the original height of the tower from the displaced blocks still lying at the site. His excavations in the vicinity in 1901 uncovered substantial walls, plus tiles and sherds, in the olive groves below the village; in 1907 he reported "grosseBlocke mit Einarbeitungen"about 60 m east of the tower, located by our team but lacking formal analogies to tower blocks.44Excavations conducted after his publication of Alt-Ithaka are recorded only in notebooks and rememberedby a local resident who worked with him: remains and descriptions suggest Late Classical or Hellenistic slab (cist) graves of the kind uncovered outside the city of Leukas.45In other words, the Palaiokatouna tower may not have once enjoyed the isolated rural environment it does today, and a contextual interpretationof its function must be reserved. Certainly its site had no strategic advantages,and it presumably served daily,probablyagriculturalactivity;the tower no longer visible but located by Dorpfeld about a kilometer away (Figs. 1, 4:3) suggests a similar function. Fartherwest in the Elati mountains that border the plain of Nidri, a dirt road leads through Palaiokatounapast the desertedvillage of Neochori to the spring of Mavroneri, on the way up to the mountain communities of Vafkeriand Enklouvi. The foundations of a tower lie on the north side of the hill crowned by the deserted chapel of Agios Vlassis just past Neochori, at approximately 350 masl (Figs. 1, 4:5, 35-36); this setting hides any view of the Nidri plain and its monuments. The site itself lies on the slopes below the modern dirt road and abovethe gorge of the Mavroneri (Euooxepcpaa) stream with its abandoned water mill. We cleared weeds to expose foundations in the same state as when examined and drawn by Dorpfeld; correct measurements in his notebook show a trapezoid measuring four different lengths, from 6.24 to 6.41 m, along its sides.46On his first visit, Dorpfeld interpreted the plan as a "Turm oder Tempel," presumablyfrom the "anteroom"defined by an inside cross-wallrunning north to south and dividing the interior into a narrow eastern space (1.06 m wide between inside wall faces) and larger western one. Surviving blocks in situ, highest on the south and east (uphill) sides, are ashlarwith drafted margins, and some horizontal upper surfacesare cut down to form shallow recessions parallel to bedding planes. All exterior blocks were joined together with swallow-tail clamps now missing and presumed to be of wood. Once again, architecturaldetails are inadequate for restoring an entrance, the interior layout, or upper stories with any degree of accuracy. Dorpfeld compared this tower in plan and function to the one he also studied on the slopes of the Skaros mountain, which forms the northern boundary and backdrop to the plain of Nidri (Figs. 4:6, 38). This natural height, rising to nearly 600 masl, looms north and east to offer massive protection for the Nidri bay from wind, weather, and even visibility.
43. Roux 1961, pls. 39-41. The most practicalexplanationfor these openings is for access to keep water reservoirsclean and functional:Cooper and Morris 1990, pp. 74-75; a similar mechanismmay have storedwater in the Palaiokatounatower. 44. DAI notebook I, p. 1; II, p. 57; Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 161-162. These blocks aretoo small and squarefor a building;they have deep sockets on one or both ends as if for wooden beams. Comparea winepressstone with square cuttings from Lesbos:Schaussand Spencer 1994, p. 429, fig. 12. 45. Cf. D6rpfeld 1927, pp. 204-205, 254; DAI neg. Leukas23; Nidri notebooksVIII and IX, passim,for continued excavationsin the Palaiokatounaarea.Oral history courtesyof Dionysios Tantarosof Palaiokatouna, who also helped locate the Mavroneri tower.Fiedler 1996, p. 166. 46. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 155,260261 (tower d), fig. 27; DAI notebook I, p. 2 (sketch);Nidri notebook I, pp. 2125. Dorpfeld measuredeach block and then addedthe sum of blocks on each side to arriveat his publisheddimensions (6.24 by 6.15 m); but his sketch of 1901 shows the tower'strapezoidal form, slightlylonger on its north (6.41 m) and east (6.35 m) sides than on the west (6.24 m) and south (6.28 m). In
the publicationhe also confuseswest and east.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
3I5
Figure35. Tower5 aboveNeochori (Mavroneri),fromsouth,in 1901. CourtesyDeutsches Archaiologisches Institut, Athens, neg. Leukas 55 in
4
(0,
o
Figure36. Tower5 aboveNeochori (Mavroneri), plan. Dbrpfeld 1927, fig. 27
SARAH
3I6
P. MORRIS
Figure 37. Tower 6 (Helleniko) on Skaros slope, from east (1991)
Figure 38. Tower 6 on Skaros slope, from northeast (1991)
Figure 39. Tower 6 on Skaros slope, 'L,..!....p
1
la
13
14
_
6
plan. Dorpfeld 1927, fig. 26
THE
47. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 207-213, 319-323, maps 8, 11 for gravesbelow
andremainson Skarosslope;a second tower("griechischer indicated Turm")
along the Dimosari:von Marees 1907, map 3 = Dorpfeld 1927, map 11:B. Fiedler 1996, pp. 164-165. 48. Dorpfeld 1927, map 8 (Al), p. 269 (tower c), fig. 26; DAI notebook I, p. 29 (sketch plan);DAI neg. Leukas 6. The spot marked"Antichita"on the Venetianmap of 1729 (Dorpfeld 1927, map 9) could include this tower.The new road to Vafkeriis visible as a diagonalscaracrossthe hillside in the backgroundof Fig. 38. See also Philippa-Apostolouand Christodouloupoulou 1998, p. 78, for other remains. 49. Kassope:Hoepfner and Schwandner1986, pp. 75-140, for houses of half-timberedmudbrickwalls on polygonalsocles (pp. 115-116; fig. 72), dated to the 4th century.The authorsstress Kassope'sdistinction from Corinthiancolonies like Leukas, but layout and techniquedeservecloser comparisonto houses on Leukas;see now Fiedler 1999. 50. The tower lies closer to the old village of Katochori(abandonedby Dorpfeld'sday:Dorpfeld 1927, p. 261 [tower e], maps 2, 8, 16); Nidri notebook I, p. 81. This towerwas also marked"a.[antike]M. [Mauer]"by von Marees (1907, map 1).
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
317
Its lower slopes face the warmer and milder south, just above the Dimosari stream,which originates in the hills to the west and spills over falls before it flows across the plain and empties into the sea to the east; its banks served as a roadbed for Venetian and British forces on Leukas and still carry a road to the west. This combination of advantages attracted settlement since at least the Middle Bronze Age (Dorpfeld's "Biirgergraber" lie at the foot of Skaros); a number of Classical walls and finds were uncovered here during the search for Homer's Ithaka.47Among these are the foundations of a tower called "Helleniko"perched on a natural terrace at the western end of these slopes (Figs. 1, 4:6, 37-39).48 This site places the tower about 85 masl with a commanding view of the plain below (Fig. 38). A multi-course socle of polygonal blocks with exteriordraftedvertical margins (Figs. 37, 39), this tower duplicates in masonry and design the polygonal towers found on Leukas around Marantochori (11,12) and at Enklouvi (14). In these structures,a polygonal stone base may have supported a mudbrick superstructure(see Figs. 51, 56, 62). Situated on a slope, the Helleniko tower of Skaros preserves three to four courses on its southern and eastern (downhill) faces, while its northern side is built into the natural limestone shelf from which the tower blocks were cut. A single cross-wall inside forms a plan resembling that of the Mavroneri tower (Fig. 36), as Dorpfeld noted, more rectangularthan square (about 6.15 m wide and 8.30 m long), with a narrow(1.50 m wide) "anteroom"on the northern side. Dorpfeld presumed the entrance lay on this side, at a higher level. About 10 m east of this structure a polygonal wall photographed by Dorpfeld (visible in DAI neg. Leukas 184) can be traced for about 15.27 m, running to the southeast and returning(?)to the west in two stretches at the south, parallel to the south face of the tower. These blocks suggest retaining walls for a platform, with ashlar corners, perhaps a terrace for a structure;rock-cut steps lead up the hill between this platform and the tower.Together, these features preserve traces of urban occupation on the slopes of this hill, stepped and terraced to hold domestic structures (as at Kassope or even Leukas itself), and the entire Skaros hill deserves intensive cleaning and recordingof all its preservedwalls.49This leaves the tower, identical in style to several others on the island, distinctive in its setting, with a dramatic view over a large area and more immediate access to an urban context. Just west of the tower ridge, however, a gentler slope extends west and north of the Dimosari stream, an area called "Mandri" today.As a farm tower, the Skaros structurecould be linked to this area of terraced,arableland. The last tower in the Nidri area published by Dorpfeld lies about 2 km south of Vlicho Bay, in a long narrow valley that slopes north to the bay from the present road to Poros (Fig. 4:7). The tower now sits in an orchard south of the dirt road leading east from the main road below Katochori, the town that gave its name to this tower (Figs. 40, 41).50Partially covered by a modern field hut built over their southeastern corner, the foundations were only drawn by Dorpfeld as a sketch in his notebooks. We cleaned the foundations to clear the plan of the tower (bisected by a cross-wall no longer visible in the 1901 sketch) and to check its
318
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure40. Tower7 belowKatochori, fromnortheast,1901. Courtesy Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Athens, neg. Leukas 121
Figure41. Tower7 belowKatochori, fromnorth(1991)
dimensions, reported by Dorpfeld as measuring about 8.20 by 8.60 m. Missing or obscured blocks made this impossible on all sides, but its visible dimensions measure 8.13 m along the east face and 8.29 m along the west, with no more than 6.39 m visible on the north and 7.61 m on the south (Fig. 42). Preservedblocks are nearly ashlarin shape, and some show pry marks;the only visible angle block (at northeast) was dowelled. Deep plowing in the area may have disturbed adjacent remains, but would not be possible in the presence of heavy foundations. This tower site depends primarily on its location for its presumed function as part of an ancient farm.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
<
Tower
Katochori
Scole 1:50 I'1'1'1'1'11'1 0
0.5
9"
-^ '
I
Pr Morks
Pry Marks
--.Hole
SW.- NE.=10.66M NW.- SE.= 10.83M
3I9
< 6.39 >
K. .J
Diagonals
LEUKAS
Dowel
1' I
f/
|
I
Im
2
N
Tree
T
loC v
^$
r3
X
Stump
^< 0
.-V
{..._.
. rFEErG ^Shepherd's Modern Well
T7 Hut
.......... \
< 7.61 >
Figure 42. Tower 7 below Katochori, plan. L. CareyHilton and P. Stinson
1992 SEASON:
TOWERS
8-15
51. We aregratefulto Ioannis Yphantopoulos(see Acknowledgments) for lore on local monuments,introductions, and logistics for this phase of research.The two guardsof antiquities for the island, Dimitrios Stergiotisand PanagiotisKonidaris,also provided tools and assistanceduringthis season. Preliminaryreportsfor the 1992 season:AR 1992-1993, pp. 42-43; Pariente 1993, p. 809.
The 1992 season was devoted to drawing the plan and elevations of a tower located by D6rpfeld in a remote mountain plain above the village of Enklouvi. This goal was augmented by the investigation of the remains of a number of other towers, either marked on his maps and sketchbooks or shown to us by local residents.51 In the neighborhood of Nidri, two monuments inadequatelydiscussed by Dorpfeld were targeted for recording;the first lies very near the site of Dorpfeld's own house. The deep bay of Nidri is formed by a long peninsula running over 2 km from south to north along the east, and enclosing the harborwhose extreme south end is called Vlicho (Figs. 1, 4, 43). It was this long, narrow neck of land, rising over 200 m at its midpoint, that protected the harborand attractedsettlement since prehistoric times. This configuration also inspired Dorpfeld to see Homer's Ithaka with its
Figs. 43-65
SARAH
320
P. MORRIS
KROUPA
0 I
,
i m
100
m
Figure 43. Contour map of peninsula opposite Nidri with tower 8 at Kroupa. F.Evenson
rtoXuupv0qlharbor,and the landing spot of Odysseus, aroundits sheltered shores.52One discovery Dorpfeld found convincing was the cave built into the chapel ofAgia Kyriakiat the very tip of the peninsula, a cult site in the Archaic and Classical periods and therefore, in his argument, likely to be the cave where Odysseus disembarked on his return home (Od. 13.96112).53It is no accident that Dorpfeld chose this spot for his own house and a museum, intended to serve ongoing generations of Homeric research on Leukas. Unfortunately, the property changed hands after his death and was destroyed in a fire in 1971.54
52. The Classicalcity at Nidri was probablyElomeno(n) (Thuc. 3.94), presumablyfor "enclosed"harbor. as Hesychius glosses eXX6boevc and TreptxXsL6[iLva, "Ekkleimeno,"or "Enklimeno,"is the modern name for the northeastbayjust inside the peninsula (Fig. 43); Leake 1835, p. 23. 53. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 109-113 (Syvota = Phorkysharbor),pp. 117123, 205,323-325, pl. 76c (Cave of the
Nymphs), for finds (sherdsand terracottas, some with scenes of Dionysos and satyrs,appropriatecompanionsto nymphs).The cave at Polis Bay on Ithaka (Dorpfeld 1927, pl. 1) was later excavatedby SylviaBenton (Benton 1935, 1938-1939) and yielded votives dedicatedto Odysseus. 54. His house, a donation of Kaiser Wilhelm, was designed in Germany and transportedto Leukasfor reassem-
bly (one of the first prefabricated structuresin modern times). It was repairedafterthe FirstWorld War by its new owner,Leslie Walker Kosmopoulos(Dorpfeld 1927, p. vii, pls. 53-55), who sold it to V. Frangoulis:see Frangoulis'snotes to his Greek translationof Dorpfeld 1927 2, 1972 [1973]), p. 179, (E7rrn7pig n. 80.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
32I
A-
A
S
N
SECTION A-A
E
w rI>
Y>
I I I
I
l
I
I I I
__
SECTIONB-B
I
I
I
0
I
3M
Figure44. Plan and sectionof tower 8 at Kroupa. A. Hooton
Not too distant from this spot, Dorpfeld saw and sketched in 1901 (Nidri notebook I, p. 79) a round tower on the hill called "Kroupa" (Fig. 43) and noted Classical (black-glazed) pottery at the site . Our team located the same tower and drew its skimpy remains (Fig. 44). On a natural rock knoll rising 67 masl and about 200 m from the northeast shore of "Dorpfeld'speninsula"(see photographs,DAI negs. Leukas 597, 708,716), a knob of bedrock was cut back for a ring of foundations, leaving a small protrusion in the center. A single surviving course preserves the entire
322
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure45. Contourmapof towersite at Magemeno,eastcoastof Leukas. F.Evenson
circumference, some 6.40 m in diameter. Fallen blocks in the vicinity attest to upper courses; a typical arc-shaped ashlar measures 1.30 m long, 0.45 m in height, and 0.80 m in depth from exterior face to irregular interior face. In design and construction technique this course resembles the round tower found at Poros, with its three courses of similar arc-shaped ashlars (Fig. 26), but forms a round socle or platform for an upper structure. The black-glazed sherds in the vicinity (especially east and southeast of the tower, within a modern mandri) suggest a Classical (late 5th- or 4th-century B.c.) date, but offer few diagnostic shapes and no precise chronology. The tower's location, however, points to a specific function, as this rocky point is unlikely for a farm, and is better situated to support navigation into the vital harbor of Nidri. In date and form the Kroupa tower resembles a circular monument on Vigla, a peak 75 masl above Agios Nikolaos on the mainland just northeast of Leukas (Fig. 1), which has been called a lighthouse or signal tower serving ancient Sollion and the harbor of Palairos.55Its closest counterpart is the tower inscribed as a monument to Akeratos at "Pyrgos" on Thasos, located near the coast and devoted to an individual but calling itself "otoTipLov to ships and sailors."56 Thus the round tower at Kroupa is best understood as some kind of marker to ships entering Ellomeno, with a superstructure resembling those of the round towers at Sollion (n. 55) and Thasos (n. 56).
55. First reportedand drawnby Murray(1982, pp. 161-163, fig. 24); now publishedby Kolonasand Faisst (1992). The tower'spolygonal socle measures8.09 m in diameterand is restoredas a solid core (an exterior staircaseis preserved,but no interior features).The site includes another (earlier?)squaretower and a rough field wall, and has been identified as Sollion (Berktoldand Faisst 1993), althoughit seems inadequateto an entire city the size and importanceof ancient Sollion. Cf. Fiedler 1996, p. 160, n. 24. Faraklas (1991) locates Sollion at Agios Georgios (see below,n. 71). Berktold and Faisst also discussthe canals linking the sea at Agios Nikolaos to the Myrtounian(modernVoulgarian)lake and thence south to the sea, a Classical alternativeto the Leukas channelfor her enemies, i.e., Corcyreansand Athenians.This new view of the Plagia peninsularecaststhe events of 425 B.C. (Thuc. 3.80), when Athenian ships advanceon Corcyra(which has been warnedby Leukasof their arrival),and Peloponnesianships retreatover the Leukadianisthmus to avoid them. See Wacker 1991 (nonvidi). 56. IG XII 8, 683: Kozelji and Wurch-Kozelji1989, pp. 172-175;
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
323
Figure46. View of tower9 site at Magemeno,fromnorthwest(1992)
cf. Osborne 1986, p. 169. This tower is also located at a marblequarry, epitomizing the potential for multiple functions of tower structures(a beacon, commemorativemarker,and a quarry facility).For another"lighthouse"tower at Phanarion Thasos, now restored,see Brunet 1996, p. 53. A modern beacon at the north end of this peninsula performsthe same function:Denham 1972, p. 32. 57. Dorpfeld 1927, map 2. See Fig. 1 for location of site visited by Dorpfeld:Nidri notebook I, p. 47; III, pp. 28, 35; DAI notebook II, p. 12. Dorpfeld (1927, p. 329) also collected "coinsand Hellenistic sherds"here. 58. Kouniakis1972; Rontogiannis 1982, pp. 180-182. A monument between the modern road and the sea, just below this tower site, still commemoratesthis event.
Strategic placement as if to support a defensive zone along the channel, outside of the chief Classical settlements on the island, is also enjoyed by a second round tower on the coast north of Nidri just above the modern paved road. The northeast flanks of Skaros drop into the sea at a spot called "Magemeno,"where ancient remains were ascribed to an "antike Burg"by Dorpfeld (Figs. 1:9, 45).57The site is a natural shelf some 62 m above the shore (and 100 m distant from it), approximately halfway between Leukada and Nidri, hence convenient for landing from the mainland at a safe distance from cities and forts. It was, in fact, near this point that Kapodistrias assembled some 400 armatoloi in 1807 to mobilize against Ali Pasha, a legendary event in modern Greek history.58In 1992, a bulldozer engaged in clearing for a private home at this spot damaged remains; construction was halted by the Greek Ephorate, which requested a plan of the site. Debris piled by the bulldozer (visible in Fig. 46) covered the foundations of a round tower measuring 5.48 m in interior diameter (defining a perfect circle) and between its irregularoutside faces, ca. 6.8-6.9 m (Fig. 47). As the preserved course may be the euthynteria, the next course of wall blocks is estimated as describing an exterior diameter of ca. 6.4-6.5 m. Arc-shaped ashlar blocks in the area suggest a superstructurelike those of the round towers at Poros and Kroupa: a cylinder of stone blocks at least three courses high shaped to a smooth circle on the interior, irregularin depth and thus in exterior diameter. In all of these towers, a stone socle may have supported a mudbrick upper structure;their similarity in technique makes it tempting to assign them to roughly the same Classical period, perhaps the later 5th century. The Magemeno structure was supplied with water by a cistern dug into bedrock and lined with plaster,located just east of the tower (Fig. 47). This reservoiris similar in design and plaster (of a pale pink variety,tempered with small fragments of fired clay) to the one that lies between the two towers at "StaMarmara"south of Marantochori (Fig. 53). Pithos fragments with relief bands were noted here, as at other tower sites. North and
SARAH
324
-
.I
_
U0 *a)
(Z-^p
-~3 o-o)?
0
f>3
crQ"o (7ri<~ C)o-- o) Qj
ko
(S So
9-
Qt( /I(3D)
0003
::
9O
a
P. MORRIS
O
C7 oc::)~
N a~~~~
(i
1' 6b o o
0.0
lo .0a< O
O'
b
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
2
3
4
SM
Figure47. Plan of tower9 andlater walls at Magemeno. A. Hooton
south of the tower, the land drops graduallyand is terracedtoday for cultivation; the only other ancient remains visible are rubble walls of large spolia running north-south in five stretches, two built over the tower (Fig. 47). Truncated by modern terrace walls, they probably belong to a late antique or medieval installation at the site. Despite the suggestive setting (see n. 58), it may be prudent to think of this tower as another rural residence, not defensive. A similar vantage point near the coast is occupied by the tower called "Hellenika,"built near the tip of the peninsula still called Kastri,possibly a separate ancient site (Fig. 1:10). This point of land runs southeast from Vassiliki and forms the eastern arm of its bay along the steep, southwestern flanks of the Sikero(n) mountains, in the center of the south coast of Leukas. Above the promontory with a modern campground, at about 120 masl and 200 m north of the shoreline, standing polygonal walls define
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
325
Figure48. View of Hellenikasite (10) at Kastri,fromsouthwest(1992)
59. SeeNidrinotebookIV,pp. 101104;Dorpfeld(1927,p. 330) also collectedsherds. 60. Munn1983,pp.38-42, on signalingin antiquity; Riepl1913, pp.55, 58-60 (onThuc.3.80).Signals weretransmitted by fireat night,smoke and followed by day, prearranged a vantagepointis necessary to patterns; them,buthardlya tower(Richmond Fire1998,pp.14-15:"Appendix: Fortopographical Signalsin Greece"). viewshedsandthe functionof towers seeAshton1991,pp.34-35; elsewhere, 1991, Cherry,Davis,andMantzourani pp.292-294;Xen.An. 7.8.15. 61. Geography andclimateof these orKesselthaler poljeformations, (e.g., the onebelowKaryai,calledLivadi),a distinctivefeatureof karsticlimestone attractedmuchinterestin formations, thelastcentury:see Goodisson1822, pp.80-81;Davy1842,p. 317;Goessler 1904,pp.57, 70;vonMarees1907, pp.6-7. Partsch(1889,pp.12-13, 17) notedhightemperatures in thesebasins andtheiradvantages forcultivating, e.g.,citrusfruits,aswellas the high in cerealsof Enklouvi productivity Sinkholes aremarkedas"K" 27). (p. (forkatabothra) byvonMarees(1907, map1, whereone appearson the south edgeof the Marantochori plain). Bornovas1964,p. 8, withfacingmap, pl.XIX:2;see alsohis 1:50,000mapfor on the Marantochori katabothres plain. 62. Muller1982,pp.379-387,for gooddiscussionof thesetowersand theirsetting.
a square tower,joined at the south by a larger fortified enclosure and cistern of somewhat different masonry style (and perhaps of a later date) (Fig. 48). The site was visited and sketched by Goessler in 1907,59 and faces strategic points on Leukas and its neighbors, near the sea and on peaks; it commands an excellent view over the channel and islands south of Leukas, and is visible to and from Cape Leukatas immediately to the west. Yet location alone is insufficient to posit signal functions in antiquity. Signals that transmitted specific information-for example, in the Peloponnesian War, Leukas warned Corcyra of sixty Athenian ships approaching, in a message delivered at night (6706vux-r6o:Thuc. 3.80.2)have often been connected with such towers. But surely fire signals from naturalpeaks, not man-made towers, provided sufficient communication between Leukas and Corcyra.60This leaves the rural isolation and fertile slopes near Hellenika a better guide to a more probable connection with a farm. Two groups of towers on the road to Kastri, distant from those concentrated on the east coast of Leukas, were cleaned and drawn in 1992. From their location and surviving equipment, these point unequivocally to an agriculturalfunction in antiquity. Several towers cluster around the village of Marantochori,which straddlesthe modern pavedroadto Vassiliki, in the center of the island's southern section (Figs. 1:11-13, 49). Like the coastal plain of Nidri and the high inland basins around Enklouvi, the plains north and south of Marantochori consist of absorbent red clay layers (terra rosa) that retain annual runoff of water and soil from the surrounding hills, periodically drained through the kind of limestone sinkholes (katabothres)typical of the Greek landscape.61Elsewhere in Greece, identical plains have proved attractivefor cultivation and account for numerous towers; such formations in the Megarid (Mikro and Megalo Vathychoria)have been identified as significant for the presence of towers nearby.62It is not surprising to find a concentration of ancient structures related to agricultureprecisely in the island's most fertile settings.
326
SARAH
P. MORRIS
(
Figure49. Contourmapwith towers11-13 aroundvillageof Marantochori. F.Evenson
The towers south of Marantochori, known collectively in local parlance as (S)ta Marmara,sit just south of the dirt track that strikes off west from the road to Kastri, and some 30 m south of the stream issuing from the Sikero mass, a setting visible from Evgiro and the Choirospilia cave on the slopes to the east (Figs. 49-50). In Dorpfeld's vivid interpretatio Homerica,this enclosed valley and its toponyms ("Pig-Cave") made an ideal locale for the home of the swineherd, Eumaios, in the Odyssey(books 13-15).63 The same setting offers a fertile environment sufficiently isolated from ancient towns to justify the need for fortified residences, hence multiple towers. South of the village, two squaretowers in polygonal style sit ca. 30 m apart on a gentle slope on the western edge of the plain called Livadi or, in older parlance,"Olo(u)thos"(Fig. 54). They occupy two terraces at about 80 masl and 20 m above the plain, north of a bedrock outcrop (and source of building material).
63. For Choirospiliaand its Neolithic finds, see Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 113-116,266-267, 330-338, pl. 17; Nidri notebook VII, for excavationsof 1912-1913. In his Homeric quest, Dorpfeld was also intriguedby other porcinetoponyms nearbysuch as the bay of Syvotaand the town of Syvros. Sta Marmarawas visited by Dorpfeld in 1901 (Nidri notebookI, pp. 30-31; unless this is the homonymoussite at Syvros?cf. DAI neg. Leukas 92) but was not publishedamong the ancient towers in Alt-Ithaka.
THE
Figure50. View of plainsouth of Marantochorifromeast,site 11, StaMarmara(arrow)
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
v
LEUKAS
327
;
i
Figure51. Marantochori,Sta Marmara(11), lowerandupper towers,fromeast (1992) A cistern situated approximately midway between the two towers (Fig. 53), resembling the one at Magemeno (Fig. 47), attests a water supply, found as a nearly constant feature at every ruraltower site. The lower tower (Fig. 51) stands free in the sloping field with all four sides visible, a polygonal stone socle about 7 by 7 m (to be precise, 7.03 m along the north and east, 7.08 m along the south, and 6.89 m at the west). The polygonal blocks all exhibit a horizontal upper surface free of cuttings, implying a mudbrick superstructure.
SARAH
328
P. MORRIS
Figure52. Marantochori, .....
";
.
eastface,aftercleaning(1992)
Figure53. Cisternbetweentwo towersat Sta Marmara,fromeast The upper tower was shown to us as a retaining wall, but cleaning revealed it to be a squaretower whose east face has been built into a modern terrace,a polygonal wall some 3 m high and 7 m wide, edged by drafted vertical margins and set on a projecting euthynteria course at the base (Fig. 52). This east face serves to retain a terraced field, on which appear two joining lines of blocks, the southwest corner of the same tower. The landowner reports heavy tile and ceramic debris in plowing this area, as one might expect in the vicinity of an ancient tower now dismantled. The dimensions of this tower (6.9 m along the south, 7 m on the exposed east face) and its technique of construction (a polygonal socle) are so nearly identical to its neighbor below that one can easily conclude that they were built at the same time, and probablyfor the same purpose (clearly security, not surveillanceor signaling). Both resembleclosely the towers at Enklouvi, Skaros, Kastri,and north of the same plain at Kleismatia (Fig. 56), to form the second class of stone towers built on Leukas in the Classical period (below, p. 338). Among the ceramics and tiles visible at this site was a fragment of a coarse-warepithos with triple relief band of a type also found
THE TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
329
Figure54. Plan of two towersat
-- 't
---ivoog?Iv-
Sta Marmara. A. Hooton II
tI I t
%
II
II II II
CISTERN
ia
0
1
2
3
4
5M
SARAH
330
P. MORRIS
.-------
I
\
.
,,
l C..
..
-
,?~ ; ,
Q.......
?
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~I~ .,
~Fiu
55 Pa
'
I
'/
.
of toe
H o
j ..'... -S
.
..
i
st 12""t
L/.iN
-
I I
~.,0 / :"
i
o
.
'.
-
Kleismatia. A. Hooton
4
II I
?
i
I
'
0
1
2
3, '
S'I
Figure 55. Plan of tower site 12 at KJeismatia.
A. Hooton
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
33I
Figure56. View of squaretowerat Kleismatia,fromsouth (1992) at Poros, Mavroneri, and Magemeno, implying that the date and function of these towers were as similar as their construction techniques. Other pottery sherds were dense (especially on the heavily plowed upper terrace) but largely coarse ware, incapable of providing a date for the life of these structures more precise than Classical to Late Classical; the base of an Attic black-glazed skyphos (ca. 12 cm in foot diameter) was wedged in the west wall of the upper tower. To summarize this complex, the site was landscaped at several levels for a rural residence with two towers and a cistern; other structuresbuilt on lighter foundations may have accompanied these installations. North of Marantochori and on the western side of the plain called "Bisas,"in a similar formation regularlyflooded (locally called "Limni"for its seasonaltransformationinto a lake), anothertower site lies at Kleismatia, just below a hill about 200 masl, on the property of Dimitrios Skliros (Figs. 1:12, 49). In olive groves and fields over shallow terraceslie exposed blocks too large for farmers to remove. They include the foundations of a square tower in polygonal style, ca. 7 by 7 m, a round tower, ca. 6 m in diameter, and the remains of what was an extensive complex built on lighter foundations, extending to the south and east of the towers (Fig. 55). As in the other square towers of this size (e.g., at Skaros, Enklouvi, and nearby at Sta Marmara), a socle of polygonal blocks squared at the two preservedcorners and defined (at least at the southwest corner) by drafted vertical margins survives,here only on its western side and part of the south. Modern planting of olive trees has displaced the rest of this structure(Fig. 56). A short distance to the east of this tower, separatedby only a modern terrace wall with a recent mandri attached, and at a minimal difference in elevation, we found the blocks of a round tower half-buried by earth (Fig. 57). This circle of blocks was used to support an olive tree, whose roots have disrupted the ancient foundations. About a third of its circumference could be defined at east and west; like the round tower built into a square one at Achuria (Fig. 32), it was shaped of polygonal blocks. This tower is still covered with the debris of its use and destruction, forming a thick layer of clay and charcoal mixed with sherds compacted around its
332
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure57. View of roundtowerat Kleismatia,fromnorth(1992) few exposed blocks. The most important component of this debris was a concentration of mudbrick or clay mortar,in the form of nearly pure clay, packed against the sloping upper surfaces of the polygonal blocks. This clay debris, and a concentration of artifactsand tiles, was particularlydense on the west side where circumference blocks were missing; pithos fragments were also found inside the circumference as if a vessel had been smashed in situ. Sherds represent a mixture of use and destruction debris, primarily Classical, such as an Attic black-glazed lamp, pyxis lid, column krater handle, and plate rim, plus scarcer Hellenistic and Roman fragments (a fish plate, Roman lamps). Other objects observed in clearing the circle included a terracotta figurine, an astragal (ovicaprid knuckle), and two broken household grindstones of andesite. This site deserves systematic excavationin order for the stratificationof its use and destruction, and the chronological or functional relationship of round and squaretowers, to be interpretedwith accuracy.Likewise, the areasouth of these towers with its extensive remains would reward closer investigation; visible blocks define a complex as large as the one at Poros. A water supply (severalwells are still in use in the area) supplements the rich fertility of the same kind of Kesselthailer also defined south of the same village and at Enklouvi (see below).
TOWERS
THE
/
OF ANCIENT
333
LEUKAS
_J(
/
\
I
I
I \^
\ /
/
77N Figure58. Plan of tower13 at Pyrgos,Marantochori.P.Finnerty
64. Dorpfeld 1927, p. 262 (towerg); Nidri notebook I, pp. 42-43. The photographof harvestingaround Enklouvi (Fig. 63, DAI neg. Leukas 359) was presumablytaken on this excursion.
I
I
I
I
0
1
2
3M
A final tower site near Marantochori announces its existence from the toponym Sto(n) Pyrgo(n): it lies below and northeast of the church and cemetery of Agios Georgios northwest of the village, just off the road south of the hill with the restoredwindmill (Figs. 1, 49:13). Today all that survives are patches of cut bedrock (visible at the south and west) defining a large circle over 9 m in diameter,and five polygonal blocks in situ on the north (three), east (one), and south (one) (Fig. 58). The thickness (depth from exteriorto interior) of this course ranges around a meter (dimensions vary from 0.95 to 1.05 m in surviving blocks). Local residents remember more numerous blocks surviving to a greater height in this monument; apparently it was dismantled by the landowners as building material for the cemetery enclosure above, at Agios Georgios. In its present condition it can only be added to the corpus of round towers in rural locales on Leukas, and compared in its polygonal style to those at Achuria and Kleismatia. The last of the seven towers published by Dorpfeld was visited by Kriger in 1901 on the high plains west of Enklouvi in the mountainous heart of the island (Fig. 59), and measured but not drawn.64This tower is still visible on the southern edge of a large plain west of Agios Donatos, planted today in wheat and lentils in alternatingyears (Figs. 1:14, 60-61). This high plain, nestled between the island'scentral peaks (Stavrotasrises
334
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure59. Contourmapof areawest of Enklouviwith towersites 14, 15. 1,141 masl to the south, Agios Elias and Megan Oros to 1,012 masl to the north: Fig. 1) at an elevation of 880 masl, is one of severalmaking this area the most productive on the island in cereals and legumes, in recent history and ethnography.65The area around Agios Donatos is still covered with special 36X'ra,or rock huts (like the [ttdocra,or cheese houses, of Crete), for the storage of grain and shelter of its cultivators (Fig. 63, taken in
F. Evenson
1901).66
The Enklouvi tower, aligned just east of true north (Fig. 62), abuts a patch of unplowed ground that extends from its southeastern corner to where bedrock rises south of the plain at a spot known as "Lithanophli" (Figs. 59-60). This rocky patch of ground, about 10 by 20 m large, is thick with tile and sherd debris and marked by the absence of modern cultivation. These observations suggest that the site was unsuitable for plowing and planting, but was solid enough for supporting a monumental 65. Partsch(1889, p. 27) on the calls fertilityof these high Kesselthaler, Enklouvithe most productivearea, using 1860 figureswhere SantaMaura (Leukas)far exceedsthe largerislands of Corfu and Kephalloniain annual yield of grain.Davy (1842, p. 242) had visited Enklouviin 1825 and noted its distinctivemicroclimate("theoak flourishesthere, not the olive"),the
fertilityof its perenniallyflooded basins,and the productivityin corn (maize), lamentingthe island'sunderdevelopedagriculturalpotential.Enklouvi (especiallyAgios Donatos) is famous for its lentils (Kontomichis 1985, pp. 95-96) and once had windmills for grindingwheat (see DAI neg. Leukas 352). 66. Kontomichis(1985, pp. 24-30)
reports150 stone field huts in this for (or 36XroL) area,named 36Xocr their "vaulted"shape (presumably from Italian"volto").Another name for them is aXo6pit (from axvopxv), the nicknamefor the areaof the missing tower on Nidri Bay: see above,n. 39; cf. Argyros,Leukokoilos, and Philippas 1971, pp. 230-232, figs. 63-64.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
335
Figure60. View of plainabove Enklouvi,fromeast;tower14 at center(1991)
Figure61. View of tower14 above Enklouvi,fromsouth;threshold blockat left (1992) structure.The existence of buried ancient blocks may have discouraged modern growing, and deserves subterraneantesting. Local farmersreport consistent debris of tiles and sherds in plowing adjacent areas. In other words, this isolated tower may have once been attached to auxiliarybuildings, as at Poros and other tower sites. In style, the tower belongs to the type common on Leukas: a stone socle of polygonal blocks, squared to ashlar at the corners (all four survive in situ) defined by drafted margins, and ending in a horizontal surface free of visible cuttings for additional courses in stone, presumably a base for a mudbrick superstructure(Figs. 61-62). The interior of the tower is piled with stones of the same gray limestone used in the tower socle, obscuring any details of its interior plan. The entrance lay, as is customary in Greek residences, on the south: the massive threshold stone, over 2 m long with a cutting for a doorpost, lies upside down toward the west end of the south side (Fig. 61). The tower is nearly square in shape, measuring 8.44 m (east) by 8.30 m (north), and 8.32 m (south) by 8.38 m (west); these dimensions differ from the oblong reported by Dorpfeld (8.60 m long by 8.00 m wide).
336
SARAH
P. MORRIS
SOUTHELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
;
0
1
2
3M
^)
ON EAST ELEVATI
Figure 62. Plan and elevations of tower 14 above Enklouvi. A. Hooton
THE
Figure63. View of harvestin progressat Enklouvi,1901. Courtesy DeutschesArchaologisches Institut,Athens neg.Leukas359
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
337
At least one other similar monument marked the fertile plains of ancient Leukas in this area. Northwest of Enklouvi, just east of a rock ridge
with a nichesacredto Agios Philipposin its southernface(Figs. 1, 59:15, for location), lies a set of foundations likely to be a tower (two lines of blocks, running north-south and east-west, end in a right angle at the southeast: Fig. 64) framed by retaining walls supporting terraces to the west and north (Fig. 65).67Like the first tower at Enklouvi, these remains sit perched above arable land and at a rock outcrop providing building material. This area is today planted with lentils or wheat each summer, interspersedwith vineyards,and the fields below to the east are heavy with tile and pottery debris in plowed furrows.Photographs taken in 1901 show wheat being threshed on these high plains (e.g., Fig. 63), images of how traditional agriculture was practiced in Leukas, using methods close to ancient ones. In these plains rich in silt and moisture, cereals and legumes are more appropriatecrops, with the slopes of the island'smountains hospitable to vines: views of Enklouvi in 1901 show terracedvineyardsclimbing the surroundingslopes, and active windmills to process grain (see DAI neg. Leukas 352).
CONCLUSIONS
67. SeeNidrinotebookI, p. 43; Fiedler 1996, p. 168, n. 84.
This study of island towers has confirmed at least fifteen sites (including two now lost) in the ruraland suburbanlandscape of Leukas where round or square stone foundations supported multistoried structures (a total of
338
SARAH
P. MORRIS
Figure64. View of towersite 15 at Agios Philippos,Enklouvi,from southeast(1996) nineteen towers, including serial or paired multiple structures at single sites). Additional areas await investigation: for example, the largest and most productive of the Kesselthaleron the island, Livadi east of Karyai(see Fig. 1), has no reported ancient remains (nor did our inspection detect any);yet close association elsewhere between such highly productive land and the presence of towers leads us to expect them in this area. A set of walls no longer visible in the village of Syvros resembles a tower with polygonal blocks (DAI neg. Leukas 91). The vast plain of Vassiliki hides under olive trees antiquities noted in the 19th century,including a round tower reported near the sea.68The deeply silted and cultivated Nidri plain covers ancient remains struck only by deep plow or trench (and modern builders in this heavily developed resort have learned to avoid them by laying shallow foundations).69Short of more intensive survey or excavation, it is helpful to integrate the known monuments and their environments into a meaningful scenario of the ancient history of Leukas. To summarize the architecturalcorpus of these towers first in terms of form, one can define three groups or styles of construction, not necessarily chronological or functional distinctions. The first group are round and built of mudbrick over a stone socle, most measuring ca. 5-6 m in diameter. These are represented by partial remains at Poros, Achuria, Kroupa, Magemeno, and twice north of Marantochori; some have a polygonal socle (Achuria, Kleismatia, Pyrgos), others ashlar blocks (Poros, Kroupa,Magemeno). The last two lie at locations easily taken for military or defensive (watch- or signal-) purposes, discussed below. The second group of towers are squarein shape, about 7 m on a side, and polygonal in wall style, with angle blocks squared and drafted along the externalvertical margin;this type is present at Marantochori (thrice), Kastri, and Enklouvi, as well as Skaros.Their upper walls, above the polygonal socle ending in a horizontal surface without cuttings, were probably of mudbrick. Least well known outside of the structure at Poros are towers built entirely(?) of stone in ashlarstyle, which survive at Mavroneri, Katochori, Palaiokatouna,and Achuria. The suitability of their rectangularblocks for
68. Goodisson 1822, p. 73 (not to be confusedwith Pyrgi:pl. 5); see above,n. 20. 69. A set of circularremains (Dorpfeld 1927, map 10, grid square A4) has been called a round tower (Fiedler 1996, p. 165), but requires furtherinvestigation.Another tower is reportedabovePerigialiat the east end of Skaros:Philippa-Apostolouand Christodouloupoulou1998, p. 74.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
339
Figure65. View of towersite 15 at Agios Philippos,Enklouvi,from east (1996)
70. Haselberger(1984, pp. 151-166) updatesYoung'scorpus(Young 1956, pp. 144-146) of publishedtowers on islands and the mainland,including Asia Minor and the Crimea (cf. Saprykin1994). Recent studies of towers have focused on Thasos (Osborne 1986, Kozelji and WurchKozelji 1989, Brunet 1996), Siphnos (Ashton 1991, Preziosi 1994, Davies 1997), Keos (Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991, Mendoni 1998), Lesbos (Spencer 1994, 1995), Andros (Koutsoukouand Kanellopoulos1990), and Euboea (Parkinson1994). A complete bibliographywill be included in a forthcomingarticle (see below,n. 87). 71. Murray1982, pp. 187-190, fig. 36, and 1991; cf. Dorpfeld 1927, pp. 269-271, fig. 30, pl. 50, for Classicalwalls below the Agios Georgios fort. If Nerikos was the Homeric name of Leukasisland (Od. 24.377), displacedby the new colonial capitalof Leukasfounded by Corinth, the name Nerikos evidently survived and was reused(underthe influence of Od.24.377?) for the Classicalfort opposite the city. Faraklas(1991) identifies Agios Georgios as ancient Sollion;cf. Fiedler 1996, pp. 159-160. See Krentzand Sullivan1987 on the date of Phormion'sfirst expeditionto the area.
reuse, as a "regular"shape easily built into terracesand other walls, explains why few of them survive above the level of foundations, and helps identify those present only as foundations as likely to have been ashlar (or coursed trapezoidal) in style. In several cases-Poros, Achuria, and perhaps Kleismatia-a round tower was replacedby a squareone. The resemblance of the Poros tower to developed Akarnanian masonry of the 4th century or later makes it likely that round towers were earlier (and topped with brick);their squaresuccessorsbore "petrified"upper courses in stone. Surface finds at the towers offer inadequate precision in time and original context to confirm or deny such a sequence. Elsewhere in the Greek world, of course, this sequence of round and square towers might not be duplicated, nor do similarities in form necessarily spell comparable functions.70 On Siphnos, for example,there arefifty-six round towers, onThasos, Keos, and Lesbos a mixture of shapes;too few have been excavatedto determine precise relative or absolute dates, anywhere. In terms of function, it was initially tempting to view some of the coastal towers (Kroupa, Magemeno, and Kastri) as a series of defensive installations, given local activity during the Peloponnesian War. In a recent paper,William MurraysupportsD6rpfeld'sidentification of the Greek fort at Agios Georgios opposite Leukas at the southern end of the ship channel as Classical Nerikos, mentioned by Thucydides in his account of northwestern campaigns during the Archidamian War.71In 428 B.C., Phormion's son, Asopios, sailed to Leukas in command of thirty ships and attacked "Nerikos"in an attempt that failed and cost him his life; his retreat was cut off by local resistance "and a few guards"(ppoopUv TLVCov o6Xiycv: Thuc. 3.7.4). In a related action two years later, the general Demosthenes and thirty ships besieged "someguards (poupoopo6g T-nv;) in Ellomeno(n) of Leukadia"and killed them, before attacking the city of Leukas itself; despite the urging of Akarnanian allies to cut off the city by a wall (or build a wall around it? &a7rOTorIt/Lv), he abandoned the camand headed for In this paign Naupaktos (3.94). passage, the Leukadians suffered losses, human and property,"both the outlying land being ravaged and that within the isthmus, in which lie both [the city of] Leukas
SARAH
340
P. MORRIS
s coyifn 8qouoeivqg xoci 5q ?VTO6q Tob and the temple of Apollo" (-c -T Lov -TO'AOrXXtovo.). Aeoxdc;?aoTxatr-To6 L0O1ou,ev xoac A If ?co0 y refers to land "outside [the isthmus?]"on the mainland, then Classical Leukas occupied part of the neighboringperaia (Plagia peninsula), site of two other Corinthian colonies (Sollion and Anaktorion), grounds for Akarnanian resentment on territorial grounds. In addition, understanding?Ecoy7j as the mainland supportsthe identification ofAgios Georgios as Nerikos, which would lie in the coastal strip controlled by the island. Since the most famous temple of Apollo lay far from the city at the remote southwestern tip of the island (Fig. 1), Thucydides' phrase (iv-6T Tou 70ia[oo)would then describe the entire island (distinct from mainland territory),still loosely joined to the mainland.But anothertemple of Apollo is known in the city, and "isthmus"was used for the narrow neck of land joining the island to the mainland, near the capital city. If Leukas controlled some mainland area (Ec[oy5) during the Classical period, it is tempting to see the towers at Kroupa and Magemeno as fortified lookouts along the eastern shore of the island and potential sites for cppoopom, posted against the enemy.72If the visible city walls of Leukas (Fig. 3) date to a post-Classical period, isolated towers, manned by guards as in Thucydides (3.7.5, 3.94), may have been significant for mobilizing advancedefense, prior to the city's construction of a fortified enceinte with towers, typical of walls built to withstand later Greek siegecraft. The circumvallation(?)of Leukas urged on Demosthenes by the Akarnanians, as well as the vulnerability of the island to an Athenian assault (ncXqni0 3.94.2), further suggests that the substantial city Ptoco6E.votqoa6oXrcov: wall visible today was not yet in existence. An ancient wall that could once be traced in the outskirts of modern Leukada,73north of the ancient city, may have added protection against invasion from the mainland, but its date and details are unknown. But if Eio YT7(at Thuc. 3.94) simply means the ruralterritoryof the island outside the city, then the citizens of Leukas suffered the same incursions against rural property that Athenians and others did during the Peloponnesian War, and may have built towers for the same reasons. Despite their location at strategic points, the towers at Magemeno and Kastri probably served the same function as the other towers on the island more isolated from the coast and the Kroupatower possibly served as a lighthouse. The progressive demilitarization of rural stone towers in modern scholarshiprecommends a residentialand agriculturalsetting first, before considering a public, defensive role (as opposed to private security), which requiresan explicitly strategic setting, if not support from historical
n
context.'7
Having excluded these temptations from history, the examples from Leukas seem to confirm the pattern noted elsewhere in the Greek world: these ruralstructures,multistoried and massive,were primarilyprivateand residential, despite their public (i.e., fortification-) style and hence costly level of construction. Domestic ceramics are consistent at all sites, and make it likely that the towers of Leukas were built and used as ruralresidences. The remains of pithoi at most of these towers indicate storage of agriculturalproducts, for consumption or sale; at least one ancient 7copyoc
72. See also the towersnearbyon the island of Kalamosopposite the mainlandtown of Mytikas,which have been comparedto those of Leukas: Benton 1931-1932, pp. 233-234, fig. 15; Kilian 1982, pp. 54-55. 73. Goodisson 1822, pl. 2; Leake 1835, p. 21 (basedon an 1819 map surveyedby Smyth);D6rpfeld 1927, map 6 (= von Marees 1907, map 2); Fiedler 1996, pp. 162-163, figs. 22, 24. 74. Lohmann (1992) rehabilitates severaltowersin Attica as farms,and also those in the Megarid (p. 40) reinterpretedby Ober (1987) as artillery towers,to which we would add the tower at Mazi in Attica (paceCamp 1991), located in the middle of a large, flat plain. Lohmann (1992, p. 40) also defends the military(watch- or signal-) function of other roundtowerson peaks,like the one on Mt. Velatouri, for which Vigla (Fig. 1) offers an examplenearLeukas:see above,n. 55. See Munn 1983, "FarmTowers and MilitaryTowers"(pp. 15-93), and Appendix II, pp. 338-344, "The VathychoriaTowers";Papageorgiadou 1990, p. 314, on tower functionson Keos;Haselberger1985 in general.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
34I
(in Tenos) was equipped with a ruit0ov(IG XII 47, lines 53-56), a word that means a cellar or storage bin, more generally.The presence of ancillary buildings is crucialto understanding the function of the towers, and is often overlooked near the better-preserved towers that dominate attention.75As in other landscapes, a few towers-notably at Kroupa-can be excluded as farm sites, when confined to strategically selected locations and unaccompanied by other structures suggesting prolonged residence for purposes of farming.76 The idea that such towers could be ancient lookout points for nonmilitary surveillanceagainst theft of crops (especially grapes) is supported by the modern 8payarca (above, n. 30) and by Biblical passages locating towers in vineyards(Isaiah 5.2; Matthew 21.33; Mark 21.1). A more comprehensive picture of an ancient farm is provided by a much-cited passage: in a speech attributed to Demosthenes, a creditor raids a debtor's farmhouse to seize portable property such as furniture and slaves in lieu of payment of a debt ([Dem.] 47.56). Surprised by the raid during the absence of the owner and head of household, female slaves take refuge in the tower, described as their usual residence (orOtp 8taxmTCvrmo).This arrangement implies that towers at ruralGreek residences in the Classical period served to protect human inhabitants and propertyvulnerablethrough their isolation and the absence of a master and owner.The absence of towers in the vicinity of the capital city reinforces the idea that they provided security in isolated areas distant from urban centers, and agrees with the pattern in other Greek landscapes where towers appearat farms distant from towns.77An escalation in monumental stone masonry in building practices, and an increased dispersal of occupation for farming in the Late Classical period, in the aftermath of insecure conditions in the Peloponnesian War,led to a large number of these towers still visible across the Greek landscape. What kind of cultivation kept inhabitants of Leukas resident on the land is worth discussion. Ancient Leukas specialized in wine, as it has in recent centuriesin currants,grapes,and [3ocTroqixt (Italian varzaminowine), and in varietal wines exported as colorants and additives, on the evidence of its ancient reputation, coin devices, and a local industry in amphoras (stamped with a wine-jar motif) active in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods.78Its container industry should be compared to that of neighboring Corcyra, home to amphora production sites and exports; both islands, colonies of Corinth, owe their special vessels, their reputation for 75. For ancillarybuildings,see Munn 1983, p. 29, n. 50 (Megarid, etc.); Preziosi 1994, pp. 56-58, 62-64 (Siphnos). 76. Munn 1982; Parkinson1994. 77. Gallant 1982; Fiedler 1996, 168. Cf. Lesbos: Schaussand p. Spencer1994, Spencer 1994; Keos: Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991. Not all Greek residentialtowers are rural:see Douzougli and Morris 1994,
p. 218, ns. 16-18, for towers found in demes and towns. On isolatedfarmsteads,see Roy 1988. 78. Andreou 1990, with comments byJ.-Y. Empereur.Of the forty-six known Leukascoin devices and symbols,grapesand vines, kantharoi, amphoras,and oinochoai arecommon, as they are on relatedcoinage struckby Corinth, Corcyra,and membersof the AkarnanianLeague:Calciati 1990.
Cf. Papadopoulosand Paspalas1999 for coin devices as a reflectionof local viticulture;Frankeand Marathaki 1999. Ancient structuresdiscovered in the city along the Leukas channel held quantitiesof amphorasas well as lead weights, some marked AA[MOSION?], apparentlyfor storage and shipment of wine: above, n. 16, andAR 1998-1999, p. 66. See also Fiedler 1999, pp. 422-423.
342
SARAH
P. MORRIS
wine, and the interest they held for their mother city to an extensive system of vineyards.79The role of Corcyra in the Leukadian wine industry may have been more collaborativethan competitive, if the example of other island cooperatives in wine export (e.g., Chios, Thasos, and Lesbos) had wider currency in antiquity.80This overlap in industries is reinforced by the presence of Corcyreans who lived (or at least died) on Leukas in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods,81amplifying the need for a convergent studyof the economies of these two islands.A disputebetween Corcyra and Corinth settled byThemistocles with theirjoint governanceof Leukas (Plut. Them. 24), for example, may have brought their populations and resources closer together. Corcyra'sexploitation of natural resources included many areas on the peraia opposite, just as Leukas had mainland interests in antiquity (Thuc. 3.94) and recently.82These realities are a sobering reminder that exploration of "insular"environments must consider regional economies that transcend the natural and even political boundaries of islands, especially those near the mainland.83 Intensification in ancient agriculture,visible in built residences and dense settlement across the rural landscapes of Greece, is now well attested for the Late Classical and Early Hellenistic periods-the later 5th Recent surveyon Aegean islands (Keos, Lesbos) through 4th centuriesB.C.84 and the mainland (Attica, the Argolid) confirms this phenomenon repeatedly as a widespread pattern in Greek history; in some Aegean regions, the equally dramatic abandonment of rural sites in the Hellenistic period increases the concentration of towers in the period of the 5th to 3rd centuThe towers of Leukas roughly confirm this pattern:most belong ries B.C.85 to the Classical-Late Classical period (the round towers and squared polygonal ones) and a few are later replacements (e.g., the standing tower at Poros). Several tower sites on Leukas (Enklouvi, Kleismatia) revealed 79. Kourkoumelis1990; 1994. The
island'srichestcitizensapparently owned vineyards(Thuc. 3.70.4), a likely targetof Athenian ruraldevastation (3.80.2). A kiln-workshopsite found on Corfu confirmsthe Corinthian type B amphora(Koehler1978, pp. 33-49) as local to the Ionian islands:Preka-Alexandri1992. On the wine of ancient Leukas,see Pliny HN 14.76; Ath. I.29a, 33b; and its coin types (above,n. 78); modernvisitors have noted the productionbut (like Athenaeus) have deploredthe quality of local wines: Goodisson 1822, p. 55; Davy 1842, p. 336. See Kontomichis 1985, pp.103-147. 80. Clinkenbeard1986; in northern Greece,"Mendean"amphorasprobably containedwine from other peninsulas of the Chalkidikeas well: Papadopoulos and Paspalas1999. 81. Agallapoulou1977, p. 491; Kalligas1982, esp. pp. 81-85 (the names are all female:relocation through marriage,bringing dowried
land on Corcyrato Leukadian families?).Domingo-Foraste(1988, pp. 18-28) does not discussthese inscriptionsin his analysisof the relationsbetween Corcyraand Leukas. 82. In the 19th century,hundreds of Leukadiansmigratedseasonallyto Albania for work, and had to import meat (Goodisson 1822, p. 57). Today, residentsof the island still own propertyon the neighboringpeninsula and islands:Just 2000, passim. 83. As in Lambrianides1994, a conjoinedanalysisof Lesbos and neighboringAeolis, and the surveysof Lesbos and the Ayvalikarea(Madra ?Caydelta):Lambrianideset al. 1996. The mainlandopposite Leukasbelongs to a separateEphorateof Antiquities (in Patras)and thus could not be exploredsimultaneouslyon a single permit. 84. Beyond the ceramiccategories of Classicaland Hellenistic, survey archaeologistsnow emphasizethe criticalimportanceof distinguishinga
Late Classical-EarlyHellenistic phase in ruralsettlements:Munn 1985; Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994, p. 393; Alcock 1994, p. 178. 85. SouthernAttic sites, for example,show an unmistakablediscontinuity (decline in sites and material)in this period (Lohmann 1993, p. 48); many towerson Keos "yieldedno Hellenistic finds whatsoever"(Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani1991, p. 291; cf. Mendoni 1998, p. 284). Consolidations of cities (synoikismoi)and Macedonian conquestevidentlyled to the desertionof some ruralareasby the mid-3rd centuryB.C., after a dramatic rise in ruralsettlementin the Early Hellenistic period ("largelya continuation of that generallyobservedin the Classicalperiod":Alcock 1994, p. 177). In Asia Minor and the Adriatic and Pontic regions,on the other hand, new settlementsand allotmentsof land revivedprivatefarmingin the postClassicalera:Saprykin1994.
THE
TOWERS
OF ANCIENT
LEUKAS
343
Hellenisticsherdsand Romanlampsas surfacematerial,alwaysoutnumberedby olderartifacts;however,the completehistoryof thesefarmscannot be gaugedfromthe surfacealone.Historicalsourcespointto intensive viticulturein the same periodon Corcyra(n. 79), and evidentlyLeukas experienceda similarupswing,with an impacton ruraloccupation.The proliferationof Classicaltowers seems to coincidewith an increasein viticulture,the most labor-intensiveformof modernand ancientcultivation, requiringfrequentspellsin the vineyardfor pruning,terracing,and maintainingstakesor trellises,then manyhandsfor rapidcollectionand A morepreciseconnectionbetweensuch inprotectionof the harvest.86 dustriesand the uses of stone towersin the countrysidewill be argued elsewhere,from evidencemorevisibleat othertowers.87 Meanwhile,the towersof Leukassupporta growingconsensusin modernscholarshipthat suchstructureswereprimarilyresidentialratherthan defensive. This surveyof Greektowerson Leukashas by no meansexhausted the island'scorpusof classicalantiquities,or even the totalityof ancient towers(judgingfromreportsby residentsof blocksat moreremotesites). Its goalwas to open a regionalenvironmentlittle exploredundermodern conditions,and incorporatea significantnumberof ancientstone towers into the growing corpusunder study throughoutthe lands of classical antiquity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
86. Theophr. Caus.pl.3.11f; Columella Rust. 5.7.1; Isagerand Skydsgaard1992, pp. 29-33; Burford 1993, pp. 133-135; Hanson 1992; 1995,pp. 167-178. 87. Such a study is in preparation S. by Morris andJ. Papadopoulos(cf. Douzougli and Morris 1994, pp. 217219).
Research on Leukas was a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Tulane University, a topographic survey under the codirection ofJane Carter (Tulane) and SarahMorris (UCLA). Our work was enabled by the generosity and good will of the Twelfth (IB') Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of the Greek Archaeological Service at Ioannina, especially its ephors, Angelika Douzougli and Konstantinos Zachos; the support of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens and its directorat that time, the late William D.E. Coulson; and the permission of the Central Archaeological Council of the Greek Archaeological Service in the Ministry of Culture. Financial assistance was provided at UCLA by the then Dean of Humanities, Herbert Morris, and by grants from International Studies and Overseas Programs (ISOP), the Academic Senate, and the Friends of Archaeology of the Institute of Archaeology.This support was matched at Tulane University by the office of the Academic Vice President and Provost, Francis L. Lawrence, as well as the Department of Classical Studies. This project was realized by the tireless and talented performance of our students at UCLA (Linda Abraham,Dan Bentz, Tom Bouras,Brendan Burke,JoanDowns,Jacqueline Gasser,Eleanor Nason,Toni Pardi,Tarquin Preziosi, and Mark Sundahl) and at Tulane (Lenny Allen, Clegg Ivey), who helped produce the original drawings of all sites. The final text benefited immensely from close and insightful reading by Hesperia'sanonymous referees,and from heroic editorial work byTracey Cullen and Molly Richardson. We are also grateful for the assistance of Frederick Cooper and Brenda Cullen of the University of Minnesota and their Magellan GPS. Thomas Feuerhakeserved as architect for the Poros tower and inked
SARAH
344
P. MORRIS
the final drawings of the site; Freya Evenson, Patrick Finnerty, L. Carey Hilton, Anne Hooton, and Phil Stinson traced maps, plans, and profiles. Dorpfeld's photographs of Leukas appear courtesy of the Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut in Athens; my thanks especiallyto Hans Ruprecht Goette for assistance. On Leukas, the then-proedros of Poros, Stelios Metaxas, and the late priest of the village, Papa-Charalambos Metaxas, and his family (landowners of the Poros site) enabled our work and made it a pleasure. Of critical importance was the assistance of the former guard of antiquities at Nidri, Dimitrios Stergiotis; of the former superintendent of schools in Leukas and native of Marantochori, loannis Yphantopoulos; and of Dimitrios Messenis of Leukas, who lent us his theodolite. Triantaphyllos Sklavenitis, native of Poros and Research Associate at the Hellenic National ResearchFoundation in Athens, was a primarysource,especially for modern Greek lore and literature about Leukas.
REFERENCES Agallopoulou,P 1977. "Aeuxdq: ?is;vottov EpeVaoc 'Avocoxcacpxao vexpootxcpslov,"ArchDelt 27 (1972)
B'2 [1977], pp. 486-494. Alcock, S. 1994. "Breakingup the Hellenistic World: Surveyand Society," in Classical Greece:Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies,
I. Morris, ed., Cambridge,pp. 171190. cao niq Andreou,E. 1975. "EL8qoLet Aeoxaa,"AA4 8, pp. 216-223. . 1980. "'ApXatooytxyL cauXXoy)
A?ux&doS,"A4AA 13, pp. 74-84. Andreou,I. 1989. "N6oLo; AeuxdSoc;. EXccoLvao; Ap. A&docp-," KocXLyo6v: ArchDelt 39, 1984, B' [1989], pp.187-188. . 1990. "EXXYvLaoTLxi xepQtaeLxy Aroxd8oq," B'Emtoaq,ovtxi7 Zovdvvim7oytcarqv EAr7vtoatx^ P68o, 22-25 Mcap-zoo KEpaCyEtxv, 1989, Athens, pp. 54-57.
. 1993. "Asuxd&S:nIlpLoXr A. ZouXdiKaXiory6v (oLXO67T8o 867ouXoo)," ArchDelt 43, 1988, B' 1
[1993], pp. 306-307. Argyros,K., S. Leukokoilos,and M. Philippa. 1971. "'H&apXtrxTOVLXY TyqgAeuxd5o;," ET7rE-p(q1,
pp. 175-276. Ashton, N. 1991. Siphnos:Ancient Towers B.C.,Athens.
and Oil Ault, B. 1999. "Koprones Pressesat Halieis:Interactionsof Town and Country and the Integrationof Domestic and
Regional Economies,"Hesperia68, pp.549-573. Benton, S. 1931-1932. "The Ionian Islands,"BSA 32, pp. 233-246. 1935. "The Cave at Polis I," BSA 34-35, pp. 45-73. 1938-1939. "The Cave at Polis II,"BSA 39, pp. 1-51. Berktold,P., and G. Faisst. 1993. "Die Lage von Sollion,"Chiron 23, pp. 1-12. Bornovas,J. 1964. 'Hyrscooycea vqg vr}oovAcoxdsos, Athens. Branigan,K. 1975. "The Round Graves of Levkas Reconsidered,"BSA 70, pp. 37-49. Brunet,M. 1996. "Le territoirede Thasos,"in L'espace grec:Cent ans cinquante defouillesde l'cole Paris,pp. 51-58. franfaised7Athenes, Burford,A. 1993. Land andLaborin the GreekWorld,Baltimore. Calciati,R. 1990. Pegasi,Mortara. Camp,J. 1991. "Notes on the Towers and Bordersof Boiotia," JA 95, pp. 193-202. Cherry,J. F.,J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,eds. 1991. Landscape as Long-TermHistory: Archaeology NorthwestKeosin the CycladicIslands from EarliestSettlementuntilModern Times,Los Angeles. 1: Chrysos,E., ed. 1987. Ntxo7roAlS roj 0AOvo6S TOOrpO HIpaxrixdcK Zvyrocaioov ytcr W NItx6ooAr21984,
Ioannina. Clinkenbeard,B. 1986. "Lesbianand
ThasianWine Amphoras:Questions concerningCollaboration,"in surlesamphores Recherches grecques (BCH Suppl. 13), J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan,eds., Paris,pp. 353362. Cooper,F. 2000. "The Fortificationsof Epaminondasand the Rise of the Monumental Greek City,"in City Walls:The UrbanEnceintein Global Perspective, J. Tracy,ed., Cambridge, pp.155-191. Cooper,F., and S. Morris. 1990. "Dining in Round Buildings,"in A Symposiumon the Sympotica: Symposion,0. Murray,ed., Oxford, pp. 66-85. Davies, G. 1997. "Studieson the Social and Economic History of an Island Polis: Siphnos in ClassicalAntiquity"(diss. Oxford University). Davy,J. 1842. Notesand Observations on theIonianIslandsandMalta 1, London. Denham, H. W. 1972. TheIonian Islandsto Rhodes.A Sea-Guide, London. Domingo-Foraste,D. 1988. "AHistory of Northern CoastalAkarnaniato 167 B.c.: Alyzeia, Leukas, Anak-
torion, and Argos Amphilochikon" (diss. Universityof California,Santa Barbara). Dorpfeld,W. 1927. Alt-Ithaka:Ein Beitragzur Homer-Frage,Munich. Doukellis, P. N., and L. G. Mendoni, ruraleset societes eds. 1994. Structures
THE TOWERS OF ANCIENT LEUKAS
antiques(Centres de recherches d'histoireancienne 126, Annales litterairesde 1'Universitede Besan9on508), Paris. Douzougli, A. 1998. "NyosoAEu48, 1993, B'2 xa68cx;,"ArchDelt [1998], pp. 285-300. .1999. "PalaeolithicLeukas,"in ThePalaeolithicArchaeology of Greece andAdjacentAreas. of the Proceedings ICOPAGConference, Ioannina, 1994 (BSA Studies 3), September G. Bailey et al., eds., Athens, pp.288-292. io Auxa6ax;. .2000. "N6po Kolvo6r-xaKcapourTov: OLx6ot78o ESup. Oetlaxo," ArchDelt50, 1995, B'2 [2000], pp. 429-430. Douzougli, A., and S. Morris. 1994. "AncientTowerson Leukas, Greece,"in Doukellis and Mendoni 1994, pp.215-225. Douzougli, A., and K. Zachos. 1994. Tv "ApxatoXoylxe;?pwuV?on 'HTrELpo xaclOTYAeuxa6&: 198990,"Hnrcipo-rcTxXpovexd31, pp.
43-50. Drachmann,A. 1932. AncientOil Mills andPresses,Copenhagen. Dufkova, M., andJ. Pecirka.1970. "Excavationsof Farmsand Farmhousesin the Chora of the Chersonessosin the Crimea," Eirene8, pp. 123-174. = Ewr-nqpg;. E7tErcTp[S ETaCtprCa AEoxasixov McA?zjrv. Faraklas,N. 1991. "Sollion,"in A' ApxatoAoytcxxat taroptxoaovedpto Atz-cooaxapvaviaq,1988, Agrinion, pp.221-227. Fiedler,M. 1992. "Topographievon Leukasim Altertum"(MA thesis, Freie UniversitatBerlin). 1996. "ZurTopographieder Stadt Leukas,"in Akarnanien:Eine Landschaftim antikenGriechenland, P. Berktold,J. Schmid, and C. Wacker,eds., Munich, pp. 157-168. .1999. "Leukas:Wohn- und Alltagskulturin einer nordwestdes griechischenStadt,"in Geschichte Wohnens1: 5000 v. Chr.-500 n. Chr., W. Hoepfner,ed., Stuttgart, pp.412-426. .2001. "Housesand Households at Ancient Leukas in NorthwesternGreece,"AJA 105, p. 278 (abstract). Foxhall,L. 1993. "Oil Extractionand
ProcessingEquipmentin Classical Greece,"in La productiondu vin et de l'huileen Mediterranee(BCH Suppl.26), M.-C. Amouretti and J.-P. Brun, eds., Paris,pp. 183-199. . 1997. "AppendixI: Ancient Farmsteads,Other Agricultural Sites and Equipment,"in A Rough and RockyPlace:TheLandscapeand SettlementHistoryof theMethana Peninsula,Greece,C. Mee and H. Forbes,eds., Liverpool,pp. 257267. Franke,P., and I. Marathaki.1999. Wineand Coinsin AncientGreece, Athens. Gallant,T. W. 1982. "AnExamination of Two Island Polities in Antiquity: The Lefkas-PronnoiSurvey"(diss. Universityof Cambridge). . 1983. "The Ionian Islands Paleo-Economy ResearchProject," in Archaeological Surveyin the Area(BAR-IS 155), Mediterranean D. Kellerand D. Rupp,eds., Oxford, pp. 223-224. . 1986. "'BackgroundNoise' and Site Definition: A Contributionto SurveyMethodology,"JFA13, pp. 403-418. Goessler,P. 1904. Leukas-Ithaka,die HeimatdesOdysseus,Stuttgart. Goodisson, W. 1822. A Historicaland EssayupontheIslands Topographical of Corfu,Leucadia,Cephalonia, Ithaca,and Zante,London. Hammond, N. G. L. 1974. "The Tumulus-Burialsof Leucas and Their Connections in the Balkans and Northern Greece,"BSA 69, pp.129-144. Hanson, V. 1992. "PracticalAspects of Grape-Growingand the Ideology of Greek Viticulture,"in Wells 1992, pp.161-166. .1995. TheOtherGreeks:The FamilyFarmand theAgrarianRoots of WesternCivilization,New York. Haselberger,L. 1972. "Der Pyrgos CheimarrouaufNaxos,"A, pp.431-437. . 1985. "BefestigteTurmgehofte im Hellenismus auf den Kykladeninseln Naxos, Andros, und Keos" (diss.TechnischeUniversitat, Munich). Hoepfner,W., and E.-L. Schwandner. 1986. Haus und Stadtim klassischen Munich. Griechenland,
345
Isager,S., andJ. E. Skydsgaard.1992. AncientGreekAgriculture: An Introduction,London. Jameson,M., C. Runnels, andTj. van Andel. 1994.A GreekCountryside: TheSouthernArgolidfromPrehistory to thePresentDay, Stanford. Just, R. 2000. A GreekIslandCosmos: Kinshipand CommunityonMeganisi, Oxford. Kalligas,P 1977. "Aeox6d,"ArchDelt 27, 1972, B'2 [1977], p. 486. .1982. "KEpxopaEot o-nTv 5, Asuxdca," Ereornrpcq apaocLa 1978-1980 [1982], pp. 75-85. Kilian, K. 1982. "ApxaLoXoytxe; ep?ovS;o'raE7TcTa&vqa," Ercn7p[' 5, 1978-1980 [1982], pp. 49-55. Koehler,C. 1978. "CorinthianA and B TransportAmphoras"(diss. Princeton University). Kolonas,L., and W. Faisst. 1992. "Eine neuentdeckteAkropole in Akarnanien,"A, pp. 561-572. Kontomichis, P. 1958. "MicalEiyoXl
Oeo,Yvioa oCTrv HIopoA?ox6oS;, 'Ea'co 7, 1766," 'Hn7Eicpwroz in 28-29, pp. repr. AEoxas&xgq Z?:E?,. A:3-4 (1976), p. 172. 1985. TaoywCtpytxd Y(;y AEoxCdSa (AaoypapLtxd A?ux&do&
2), Athens. . 1995. Aaoypaqcxd aJiorytxrCTa
AeIoxd5a (AacoycpaqxCx Aouxc∾ 5), Athens. Kouniakis,D. 1972. "'OKaxoSia8tpCta -Tv &plTa'ccoXAv xai Youyx?vxpcocrqo Tob MayE[zivoo, axr3Aouxdaa, Tov
Ioo6XoTob1807,"ETprrcp(;1, 1971 [1972], pp. 20-32. Kourkoumelis, D. 1990. "OLKepxopdixoL a(JI(pop?1," ENAAIA 2:1/2, pp. 14-19.
. 1994. "Ta oapXoaixsi?voc aoav P0cn lia, xta)Tr ; uoTpaYYoT rnl aypoTLxY;EX[E?Tad?ocrn;COTv
K?pxuoa,xacxrToo; 5o xat 40 7c.X. ac6vsg,"in Doukellis and Mendoni 1994, pp.237-242.
Koutsoukou,A., and C. Kanellopoulos. 1990. "Towersfrom North-west Andros,"BSA 85, pp. 156-173. Kozelji,T., and M. Wurch-Kozelji. 1989. "Pharesde Thasos,"BCH 113, pp. 161-181. Krentz,P., and C. Sullivan.1987. "The Date of Phormion'sFirst Expedition to Akarnania,"Historia36, pp.241-243.
346 Lambert-Gocs,M. 1990. The Wines of Greece,London. Lambrianides,K. 1994. "The Early Bronze Age Communitiesof Lesbos and Altinova:Settlement, Culture,and Exchangeon the Aegean Coast of Anatolia in the FourthandThird Millennia B.C." (diss. UniversityCollege, London). Lambrianides,K., N. Spencer, S. Vardar,and H. Giumis. 1996. "The Madra .ay Delta Archaeological Project:First Preliminary Report,"AnatSt 46, pp. 167-200. des Lang, F. 1994. "Veranderungen Siedlungsbildesin Akarnanienvon der klassisch-hellenistischenzur romischenZeit,"Klio 76, pp. 239254. Lawrence,A. W. 1980. GreekAimsin Fortification,Oxford. Leake,W. M. 1835. Travelsin Northern GreeceIII, London. Lohmann, H. 1992. "Agricultureand Country Life in ClassicalAttica," in Wells 1992, pp. 29-57. zu 1993. 'A-rv):Forschungen Siedlungs-und Wirtschaftsstruktur desklassischen Attika, Cologne. Martin, R. 1965. Manueld'architecture grecqueI: Materiauxet technique (Collection des Manuels d'archeologieet d'histoired'art), Paris. vMendoni, L. 1998. "OtTi6pyoit KEao: nlpooO]xescx(xLetncS%alcvoESL,"
in Kea-Kythnos: Historyand Archaeology. Proceedings of an KeaInternationalSymposium. 1994, 22-25June Kythnos, L. Mendoni and A. MazarakisAinian, eds., Athens, pp. 275-308. Muller,A. 1982. "MegarikaVIII-IX," BCH 106, pp. 379-407. Miiller, S. 1989. "Les tumuli helladiques:Oh? quand?comment?" BCH113, pp. 1-42. Munn, M. 1982. "Watchtowers, Blockhouses,and Farmsteads: A PreliminaryTypology of Isolated Structuresin the Greek Countryside,"AJA86, p. 278 (abstract). .1983. "Studieson the TerritorialDefenses of FourthCenturyAthens"(diss. University of Pennsylvania). .1985. "ALate ClassicalRural Settlement Phenomenon in the
SARAH
P. MORRIS
SouthernArgolid, Greece,"AJA89, p. 343 (abstract). . 1993. TheDefenseofAttica:The Dema Walland theBoiotianWarof 378-375 B.C.,Berkeley. Murray,W. 1982. "The Coastal Sites of WesternAkarnania:A Topographical-HistoricalSurvey"(diss. Universityof Pennsylvania). . 1991. "Topographyand History:Thucydides3.7, the Location of Nerikos, and the Death of Phormio'sSon,"AJA95, p. 331 (abstract). Mussche, H. 1967. "Le quartier industriel:La tour,"ThorikosIII, 1965 [1967], pp. 61-71. Nowicka, M. 1975. Les maisonsa tour dansle mondegrec,Warsaw. Ober,J. 1987. "EarlyArtilleryTowers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid," AJA91, pp. 569-604. Oberhummer,E. 1887. Akarnanien, Leukasim Ambrakia,Amphilochien, Altertum,Munich. Orlandos,A. 1966. Les materiauxde construction et la techniquearchitecturaledesanciensGrecs(Ecole fran9aised'Athenes,Travauxet Memoires 16), 2 vols., Paris. Ormerod,H. A. 1924. "Towersin the Greek Islands,"AnnLiv 11:1, pp. 31-36. Osborne,R. 1986. "The IslandTowers ofThasos," BSA 81, pp. 167178. Papadopoulos,J. K., and S. A. Paspalas. 1999. "Mendaianas Chalkidian Wine," Hesperia68, pp. 161-188. Papageorgiadou,C. 1990. "HopydvoomY -oo oxypoTLxou6 Xcpou oCrv FIOiEaaooa -;S Kaoc xao'caTqv EXXqVLoTLXo rtz?pLO8o," in HOIKIAA
(MeXesrvraacc 10), Athens, pp. 309320. Pariente,A. 1992. "Chroniquedes fouilles et decouvertesarcheologiques en Grece en 1991," BCH 116, pp. 833-954. . 1993. "Chroniquedes fouilles et decouvertesarcheologiquesen Grece en 1992,"BCH 117, pp. 757913. Parkinson,W. 1994. "TheTowersof SouthernEuboea:Structureand Function,"AJA98, p. 296 (abstract). Eine Partsch,J. 1889. Die InselLeukas.geographischeMonographie, Gotha.
Philippa-Apostolou,M., and R. Christodouloupoulou.1998. "H608onTOD ocypOTLxoUXcpou oTYrV7repLoxo/Too
,LovoCC7rnpLou rqS K6XXLVYqq
or- Aoux&dSa," ExxXhuoias Archaiologia 66, pp. 71-80. Pliakou, G. 1999. "ApxacxaToXLt
Auoxa6cag:Epyao[ic; T'otoyPocppLx;s 49,1994, atoTo-c67rcon-j,"ArchDelt
B' 1 [1999], pp. 392-394. .2000. "Leukasin the Roman Period," in Foundation and Destruction: Nikopolis and Northwestern Greece.The ArchaeologicalEvidence for the City Destructions, the Foundation of Nikopolis, and the
J. Isager,ed., Athens, Synoecism, pp. 147-161. Preka-Alexandri,K. 1992. "ACeramic Workshopin Figareto,Corfu,"in Les ateliers depotiers dans le monde grec aux epoquesgeometrique, archaique,et classique(BCH Suppl.
23), F. Blonde andJ.-Y.Perreault, eds., Paris,pp. 41-52. Preziosi,T. 1994. "IslandLife:The Towersof Siphnos,"Anthropology UCLA21, pp. 49-87. Richmond,J. A. 1998. "Spiesin Ancient Greece,"GaR45, pp. 1-18. Riepl, W. 1913. Das Nachrichtenwesen desAltertums, Leipzig. Rontogiannis,P. G. 1980. Iacrop(aTqO
AEoxado;I, Athens. vOoaoo 1982. Ia-ropCaT',l v-ljou AVoxcdog II, Athens. . 1988. "OLTcpwrcTeooauo; TS
AsoxCd5o;," 7, pp. 39-290. E7rneop(4 1995. "ZsELoioX6yLo Aeox6adog (1469-1971)," Er-rq7p6s8, pp.151-205. Roux, G. 1961. L'architecturede lArgolide aux IVe et IIIe sieclesav.
J.-C., Paris. Roy,C. 1988. "Demosthenes55 as Evidence for Isolated Farmhouses in ClassicalAttica,"Liverpool ClassicalMonthly 13:4, pp. 57-59.
Runnels,C. 1995. "Reviewof Aegean PrehistoryIV:The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithicto the Advent of the Neolithic,"AJA99, pp.699-728. Saprykin, S. 1994. Ancient Farms and Land-Plots on the Khora of KhersonesosTaurike:Research in the Herakleian Peninsula, 1974-1990,
Amsterdam.
THE
Schauss,G., and N. Spencer.1994. "Notes on the Topographyof Eresos,"AJA98, pp. 411-430. Scranton,R. L. 1941. GreekWalls, Cambridge,Mass. Snodgrass,A. 1987. An Archaeology of Greece:ThePresentStateand Future Scopeof a Discipline,Berkeley. Sordinas,A. 1968. "The Prehistoryof the Ionian Islands:The Flints and Pottery"(diss. HarvardUniversity). Souyoudzoglou-Haywood,C. 1999. TheIonianIslandsin theBronzeAge and EarlyIronAge,3000-800 B.C., Liverpool. Spencer,N. 1994. "Towersand Enclosuresof LesbianMasonry in Lesbos: RuralInvestmentin the Choraof ArchaicPoleis,"in Doukellis and Mendoni 1994, pp.207-213. . 1995. "Multi-dimensional Group Definition in the Landscape
TOWERS
DEPARTMENT COTSEN LOS
OF CALIFORNIA,
ANGELES,
LOS
ANGELES
OF CLASSICS
INSTITUTE
OF ARCHAEOLOGY
CALIFORNIA
[email protected]
LEUKAS
of RuralGreece,"in Time,Tradition, and Societyin GreekArchaeology:Bridgingthe 'GreatDivide,' N. Spencer,ed., London, pp. 2842. Spitaels,P. 1978. "Insula3: Tower Compound 1,"ThorikosVII, 19701971 [1978], pp. 39-110. Stiros, S. 1988. "EarthquakeEffects on Ancient Construction,"in New Sciencein AspectsofArchaeological Greece(British School of Archaeology, Fitch Laboratory,Occasional Paper3), R. Jones and H. Catling, eds., Athens, pp. 1-6. Thielemans, S. 1994. "The ReconstructedHeight of a Number of Attic Towers:Some Critical Remarks,"Studiesin SouthAttica2, pp.127-146. Thompson, H. 1940. TheTholosof Athensand Its Predecessors (Hesperia Suppl. 4), Princeton.
SarahP Morris UNIVERSITY
OF ANCIENT
90095-1417
347
von Marees,W. 1907. Kartenvon Leukas:Beitragezur FrageLeukasIthaka,Berlin. von Warsberg,A. 1879. Odysseeische III: Das Reichdes Landschaften Vienna. Odysseus, Wacker,C. 1991. "Die PlagiaHalbinsel:Topographische Untersuchungenin Nordwestgriechenland"(MA thesis, UniversitatFreiburg). Wasowicz,A. 1994. "Vin, salaison,et guerredans le Bosphore aux confins des eres,"in Doukellis and Mendoni 1994, pp.227-231. Wells, B., ed. 1992. Agriculturein AncientGreece,Stockholm. Winter, F. 1971. GreekFortifications, London. Young,J. 1956. "Studiesin South Attica: Country Estates at Sounion,"Hesperia25, pp. 122146.
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 349-363
A
GLASS PANEL
OPUS
FROM
SECTILE CORINTH
ABSTRACT This paperdescribesa glass opus sectile panel excavatedat Corinth in 1981. The building in which it was found is situatedeast of the theaterand is one of a suite of structuresthought to have been destroyedshortlybefore A.D. 300. The authorexploresthe subjectmatterofthe panel(fourfish swimmingwithin a borderof interlaced,crossed squares)with respect to a broad range of Roman decorative arts, and suggests that the panel may originally have been intended as wall decoration. A little over a century after the destruction of Corinth through Roman action in 146 B.C., the city was refounded as a Roman colony on the initiative of Julius Caesar and was settled with Roman veterans.' By Strabo's time in the late 1st century B.C. the city had already revived:"Corinth is called wealthy because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is master of two harbors, of which one leads straight to Asia and the other to Italy"(Strab. 8.6.20). Pausanias,who visited Corinth in the 170s, reported that the greaternumber of things worthy of mention belonged to the new city.2Among the monuments he cites are the baths of Hadrian and of the Spartan Eurykles, the water supply that Hadrian brought from Lake Stymphalus,3the archover the Lechaion road,4and the odeion, which the writer Philostratussayswas built by Herodes Atticus, the wealthyAthenian patronwho put his name on architecturalrenovation all over Greece.5 Excavations by the American School of Classical Studies have revealed a Roman forum, temples, fountain houses, and much else indicating that in the Imperial period the city flourished as a Graeco-Roman metropolis.6 1. Strab.8.6.23; Paus.2.1.2; Plut. Vit. Caes.57; Dio Cass. 43.50. I wish to thank Charles K. Williams II for inviting me to publish the wood and glass panel and for providingme the opportunityto examine it at Corinth in 1982. Only now is the article appearing,a delay attributablesolely to me, yet this interveningtime has allowed me to take into accounta new understandingof the chronologyof
the context providedby more recent excavationsas well as providingthe opportunityto cite apt comparsions. I also wish to acknowledgethe valuable comments made by anonymousreaders that have improvedthe logic and clarity of the paper.Nancy Bookidis kindly arrangedto providethe photographs reproducedhere. KarenHutchinson Sotiriou is responsiblefor the excellent drawingof the panel.
2. Paus.2.2.6; see also Corinth XVII, p. 1; CorinthX, pp. 1-11. 3. Lolos 1997. 4. Edwards1994. 5. CorinthX, pp. 1-2; Philostr. VS 2.551. 6. Williams 1989;Williams 1993. Note also Dio Chrys. Or.37 (the CorinthianOration),thought to be by Favorinus,a hellenized Roman from Aries.
350
ANDREW
OLIVER
Corinth was in fact the administrativecenter and seat of the governor of the senatorial province of Achaea.7 In 1981, excavatorsrecoveredan unusual example of the rich material culture for which Corinth was famous, an opus sectile glass picture set in a wood frame (Figs. 1-2).8 The panel was found in the ruins of a room in an area of shops near the theater (adjacent to the odeion mentioned by Pausanias).The room was one of six in a Roman building situated south of the east-west colonnaded street and just east of the court in front of the theater. Six western rooms were excavated in 1981, two of which had already been cleared in the excavations of 1928-1929. The eastern part of the building lies partiallyburied under the dump from the earlier excavations on top of which is the Xenia Hotel. The glass panel is just over half a meter across (0.57 m) and was found face up on the floor of the room, its
Figure1. Opus sectilepanelfrom Corinth.CorinthMuseum.Scale1:4
7. Groag1939. 8. WilliamsandZervos1982, pp.133-134,pl. 42:a;AR19811982,pp.19-20, fig.38;Touchais1982, pp.542-543,fig.21;Winter1982, p. 545,pl. 68, fig.4. A reportin WilliamsandZervos1983,p. 14, on the providesmoreinformation excavationin question.
A GLASS
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
35I
Figure2. Opus sectilepanelfrom Corinth. Corinth Museum. Scale1:4, drawingby KarenHutchinsonSotiriou
9. RIC IV.3, no. 291; Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 152, no. 44. 10. Williams and Zervos 1982, no. 57 (one-handled cooking 135, p. pot); 1983, pp. 15-18, nos. 25-46 (the lamps and the rest of the pottery).
wooden frame completely charredfrom a fire that had destroyed the building along with most of its contents. In an adjacent room in the same destruction level were twelve lamps, some of them assuredly of the earlier 3rd century,a sestertius of the emperor Gordian III from the year 240,9 an African Red Ware plate, and a collection of coarse pottery: three large transport or storage amphoras, a funnel thought to have been used with the amphoras, a table amphora with a lid, a pitcher, and three cooking pots, one of them with a lid.l1 In their first report the excavators compared the African Red Ware plate with a 4th-century example of Form 50 of John Hayes's typology, but they nevertheless considered the plate to be part of the mid-3rd-century destruction because, as Hayes himself had observed, plates of this type were made over a wide span of time. Some were found at Dura Europos
352
ANDREW
OLIVER
(known to have been sacked in A.D. 256) and others are associated with the Herulian destruction at Athens and Olympia.1 The building in which the mosaic glass panel was found is thought to have been built after the earthquake of A.D. 77, and at the time it was excavated it was believed to have burned and been destroyed shortly after the mid-3rd century.It could not be determined whether this destruction occurred before the Herulian attack on the city in A.D. 267 or was to be associatedwith that attack.According to this initial reconstructionof events, the framed glass panel was made or was awaiting use around the middle of the 3rd century. Since that first report, however, the excavators have revealed an additional sequence of buildings (lying south of the building where the glass panel was found) on the east side of the north-south street running east of the theater. Objects found in the debris of these more recently excavated buildings, pottery and coins, have challenged the earlier assumption that the building where the opus sectile panel was found was destroyed shortly after the middle of the 3rd century.Now it is argued that the whole suite of structuressituated east of the theater came to ruin through some natural disaster, apparently an earthquake, late in the 3rd century, shortly before A.D. 300.12If this hypothesis can be maintained, and it appearslikely, then the context of the glass panel would oblige one to say that it was probablymade and used (or was awaiting use) toward the end of the century. The panel was lifted as a unit though the many sections were partially disorganized and disconnected (rather like a jigsaw puzzle of non-interlocking pieces that has been shaken); it is now in the storerooms of the Corinth Museum where the pieces have been skillfully recomposed (Fig. 1). The composition is circular.An eight-pointed star formed by two interlaced, crossed squares is set within a framing circle of glass. Within the crossed squares is a circularpicture featuring four fish. The complete glass assemblage was mounted on wood that had become carbonized in the fire and has now largely disintegrated. The technique is the glass version of opus sectile so commonly found in marble floors. The lines of the squaresand the two concentric circles are made with multiple strips of glass; the triangular spaces formed by the interlaced lines of the squares are filled with solid pieces of glass. Among the colors of the glass are blue, red, and mustardyellow. Other sections have corroded to an opaque white, or black. The outer circularframe is made of composite strips of blue and yellow(?) glass with a green appearancewhere it has been cleaned. The eight fan-shaped sections within the outer ring and outside the eight-pointed star (formed by the crossed squares)are made of fused, preformed tesserae (many of them now deformed), about thirty-five tesserae for each of the eight sections. The central unit of each one has a light-colored (perhaps white) matrix with a dark central spot surroundedby seven lighter spots, in all likelihood a red opaque central spot surrounded by seven yellow spots. This composite group is in turn surroundedby ten satellite spots of white glass.
11. Hayes 1972, pp. 69-73, Form 50, Type A, nos. 1-6 (fragmentsfrom Dura Europosin the YaleUniversity Art Gallery);nos. 9-13 (fragments from the Athenian Agora associated with the Herulian sack of A.D. 267); nos. 14-16 (fragmentsfrom the Herulian destructiondeposits at Olympia). 12. Williams and Zervos 1985, p. 68; 1987, p. 28, n. 38; Marty 1993, p. 125, ns. 43, 45.
A GLASS
13. Palombiand Santarelli1986, pp. 99-100; Thompson 1947, pp. 292294. 14. Palombiand Santarelli1986, pp. 68-75; Thompson 1947, pp. 140142. 15. Palombi and Santarelli1986, pp. 212-213; Thompson 1947, pp. 162165. Also in the Kenchreaipanels, nos. 16-17: KenchreaiII, pp. 72, 86, figs. 31, 87-88, 91-92.
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
353
The eight triangularspacesformedby the crossedsquaresare filled with eight uniformpieces of glass:six of blue glass,which are corroded white, andtwo (the top andbottomones) now appearinga dirtymustard yellow.The eight spandrel-shapedareaswithin the crossedsquaresand outsidethe centralcircularmedallionconsistof fusedpreformedtesserae of the samedescriptionas those outsidethe two squares.The lines of the two squaresare formedby compositestripsof glass (five in all) of two contrastingcolors,now appearingblackandwhite,two blackstripesalternatingwith threewhite ones.The white glasshas a whitish-tancorroded surfacedifferentin appearancefromthe white corrosionof the blueglass. The octagonformedby the crossedsquaresis itselfframedby a continuous non-interlacingborderformedby four parallelstripsof glass in the followingsequence:darkcolor(originallymustardyellow?),white,black, white. Finally,a borderof threeconcentricstripsof glass-white, black, white-frames the circularmedallionitself. The circularfield of the centralmedallionis of blue glass,the surface of which is corrodedto a white color.There arefourfish, all renderedin millefioreandbandedglassunits,standardglassmakingtechprefabricated The fish are representedalive and not hangingup as if after a niques. and swim catch, they alternatelyleft andright,therebygivingthe tableau a distinctorientation,with a top andbottom,andleft andright.The fish areshownat eye level andaredepictedwith a degreeof realismthat,even if not completelyaccurate,invitesidentification.Fourvarietiesarerepresented,one of them an eel. The topmostfish,swimmingleft,is probablya gilt-headbream(Sparus aurata),a varietythat Columella(Rust.8.16) sayswas raisedin Roman freshwaterlakesandfishponds(Fig. 3).13I wouldnot, however,ruleout a redbream(Pagelluserythrinus). The prominentscalesaremustardyellow, and white. The tail, gray, upperfin, and lowerbackfin areof two colors that now appearblackandwhite.The body is outlinedwith a stripethat excludesthe fins andtail,andis interruptedby the openmouthof the fish. The outliningstripeis white on the undersideof the fish,darkabove.The eye is formedby a centraldot within threeconcentricrings. The secondfish,swimmingright,is distinguishedby its relativelylong andnarrowmouth(Fig. 4). This is probablya fish of the Labridaefamily, the wrasse,or sea bass.14The body appearswhite, or at least is the same corrodedwhite coloras the squareborderstrips.The mouthis open,lips black;the gills are composedof four bands.The interiorfin behind the gills musthavebeenof a differentcolor.The upperpartof the fish appears to be of streaked,colorlessglass;the lowerpartis possiblyof white opaque glass.The eye is formedby a centraldot within two concentricrings. The thirdfish,swimmingleft, is a morayeel (Muranahelena),15 but is shownimproperly with a finbehindthegillsason the commoneel (Anguilla vulgaris)(Fig. 5). The morayeel lacks pectoralfins, as Pliny the Elder knew(HN9.73), so this is an artist'serror;the identificationas a morayeel is confirmedby the stripededges alongits top andbottom and the spots done in the millefioreglasstechnique;the bodyis formedby fourrowsof
354
ANDREW
OLIVER
Figure3. Opus sectilepanel,detail. Fish, probablya gilt-headbream (Sparusaurata).
Figure4. Opus sectilepanel,detail. Wrasse,or seabass,of the Labridae family.
fused, preformed tesserae,pulled out and deformed at the tail. The body is outlined first with a light strip below and a dark strip above and is secondarily outlined with a twisted strip (similar in effect to a barber-pole) along half the length of the body below, two-thirds of the length above. The tesserae have light spots against a dark background. The fin is gray, the gills mustardyellow.The eye has a central spot surroundedby two concentric rings. The bottommost fish, swimming right, is distinguished by its vertically banded coloration and the straight-edged tail (Fig. 6). It could be the Serranelluscabilla,a perch.16The body is formed by prefabricatedunits of glass, bent double and arranged vertically.Two types are used: one has alternating black and gray stripes with white; the other has alternating gray and mustardyellow stripes.The tail is executed in horizontal bands of black and white glass. The upper and lower back fins have large and angular white units set in a dark background.The curved gill has a thin dark stripe within a mustard yellow field. The eye is formed by a central dot (white?) within three concentric rings, gray,yellow, and dark.The body is outlined with a light strip below, and a dark strip above.
16. Palombiand Santarelli1986, p. 44; Thompson 1947, p. 196.
A GLASS
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
355
Figure5. Opus sectilepanel,detail. Morayeel (Muranahelena).
Figure6. Opus sectilepanel,detail. Fish, perhapsa perch(Serranellus cabilla).
17. KenchreaiII, pp. 67-120, nos. 16-26, drawingsxvi-xxii. 18. Higginbotham 1997, pp. 41-53.
The significance of the species that seem to be represented is best understood if we consider them together with a closely related set of fish representedin the glass opus sectile panels found at Kenchreai,the eastern port of Corinth, in 1964 and 1965.17In the Kenchreai panels the artisans inserted prefabricatedmosaic glass fish of similartypology and design into harborside scenes. It is worth noting that despite some ambiguities, the craftsmen have attempted to render specific species or at least families of fish in both the Corinth and Kenchreai panels. In the latter, the wrasse is the most common, but the gilt-head bream and moray eel, present in the Corinth panel, are also shown. In his study of artificial fishponds in Roman Italy,James Higginbotham has surveyed the most common varieties of fish cultivated by the Romans, among which are eels, the Sparusaurata, and fish from the family Labridae.18These are among the fish identified in both the Corinth and Kenchreai panels. Several other varieties were also common, such as the red mullet (Mullus barbatus)and the gray mullet, which are apparentlypresent in the Kenchreaipanels, though missing from the Corinth panel. These were not exotic fish, but common varieties recognizable to anyone familiarwith the fishmarket or the kitchen.
356
ANDREW
OLIVER
Aspects of technique, design, and date also link the panel from Corinth with those from Kenchreai. All of the panels were made in glass opus sectile embodying carefullyshaped pieces of glass, and mounted on wood. The colors used in both are comparable,and the manufacturingtechnique of the fish, as we have seen, is identical. The panels from Kenchreaiexhibit a wider range of design and subject matter than the Corinth example: noteworthy are the panels with human figures and those with harborside panoramas of architecture and scenes of fishing. More closely related to the Corinth panel is the set of formal square panels with geometric motifs.19All of these feature a circle within a squarewith a variety of subsidiary floral and geometric motifs. The squares are approximately 1.20 m on a side in comparison to a diameter of 0.57 m for the Corinth circle.The Kenchreai panels have been dated to the third quarterof the 4th century by a convergence of criteria:a coin found in a cruciallocation and carbon14 analysis of the wood, both of which yielded dates corresponding to known seismic disturbances(A.D. 365 and 375). An earthquakewould account for the destruction of the complex where the glass panels were stored and the subsequent abandonment of the panels themselves. Some fifty to seventy-five years later than the Corinth panel, the Kenchreaipanels nevertheless provide a broad chronological match for it.20 Until recently,the set of Kenchreai panels would have been the standard comparison, but within the last ten years, a remarkablysimilar opus sectile panel of glass has emerged from the ruins of a Roman house excavated in Rimini, Italy (Fig. 7).21The new panel is smaller,only 0.32 m on a side, but the artistic design and putative function warrant notice. Three fish, actuallytwo fish and a dolphin (the dolphin on the bottom), areshown swimming above one another in alternating directions within a circle of blue glass, 0.27 m in diameter.The fish range in length from 0.16 m to 0.20 m. The blue field is framed by rings of green and violet glass, the outer one octagonally shaped.The original format of the panel was square with the four corners once filled with yellow and white glass (now missing from all but one corner).The panel was found shattered on the floor of a private house, in a room considered to be the triclinium owing to the offcenter placement of a tessellated floor mosaic, and was thought to have been mounted on the wall near the entrance to the room. According to the excavator,the latest coins in the house, which was destroyedby fire, can be assigned to A.D. 257-258, corresponding to a period of barbarianraids in the Po valley. From the point of view of technique we should also draw attention to other mosaic glass fish (in addition to those on the Kenchreai panels), isolated ones not part of larger pictures, cited in the original excavation report of the Corinth panel.22The Corning Museum of Glass possesses a mosaic fish made in the same technique, which, owing to its size (length 0.17 m), plaster backing, and flat surface, may once have been set with opus sectile sections as part of a revetment.23Also related are two groups of fragmentary mosaic glass fish, one formerly in the Kofler-Truniger Collection and later sold at Christie'sin London in 1985, the other sold at Christie's in New York in 2000.24
19. Kenchreai II, pp. 186-199, figs. 171-210.
20. Kenchreai II, pp. 249-250, 268269. 21. Bologna, Soprintendenzaper i Beni Archeologicidell'Emilia Romagna,inv. 184584. Ortalli2000, pp. 516,519-520, no. 183. I am gratefulto MirellaMarini Calvaniand Jacopo Ortalli for their permissionto reproducethe illustrationof the mosaic from Rimini. 22. Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 124,n. 27. 23. Goldstein 1979, p. 264, no. 792, pl. 36; Glass of the Caesars,p. 31, no. 9. 24.Ancient Glass, pp. 118-119,
lot 226; Antiquities, pp. 88-89, lot 356.
A GLASS
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
357
Figure7. Wall mosaicfromRimini. Bologna,Soprintendenzaperi Beni Archeologicidell'EmiliaRomagna, inv. 184584. AfterOrtalli2000,p. 519, no. 183
25. Weinberg1962. 26. Weinberg 1962, pp. 32-34, figs. 4, 6, 9. 27. Michaelides 1998, pp. 75-80, citing earlierbibliography.
Mosaic glass fish depicted in media other than opus sectile exist in earlier Roman decorative arts. Fragments of a glass plate excavated in the Athenian Agora reveal what appears to be the head of a man wearing a hat, perhaps a fisherman (and perhaps even Eros as a fisherman), together with the edge of what may be his craft on the water and the head and tail of one or more fish.25While the elements of fish are made in the same fashion as the fish in the Corinth and Kenchreai panels, the overall technique of the plate is not opus sectile. Instead fish and fisherman were fused into the body of the plate, a matrix of opaque blue glass formed by fused polygonal sections of glass. Gladys Weinberg, who published the fragments, drew attention to other fragmentarymosaic glass fish that seem to have come from similar plates, among them fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, and the Toledo Museum of Art. She argued that the whole group was at least a century and a half earlier than the destruction debris (dating to A.D. 267) in which the Athenian fragments were found, and perhaps earlier.26 Now, we should turn to another aspect of the Corinth panel, specifically the decorative elements, and broaden the discussion to investigate the use of the fish motif and the principal geometric motif, the interlaced square, in a range of Roman decorative arts. Given the extent of fishing and the popularity of fish as food in antiquity,the subject is very common in Roman art, as Demetrios Michaelides has noted in a recent publication of mosaic and marble floors from Sidi Khrebish, Libya.27We can therefore highlight only select images that exemplify different approaches to the
358
ANDREW
OLIVER
subject: fish as components in larger pictorial scenes, fish depicted in a taxonomic sense, and fish as independent decorative elements in interior decoration and the decorative arts. With regard to pictorial scenes, I have already noted the fish in the harborside seascapes represented in the opus sectile glass panels from Kenchreai and those in the fragmentary glass dish from the Athenian Agora.28In mosaics, scenes of fishing are legion: witness, for example, one from the so-called Maison d'Arsenalin Sousse,Tunisia,29and another from what appears to have been a cult building, a Bakcheion, at Tramithia on Melos, perhaps of the 3rd century,in which in a circularfield a fisherman in a small boat is surroundedby more than fifteen fish swimming in every direction.30In these as in many other mosaics, a great variety of fish are represented with the emphasis on the bounty of the sea and the success (real or mystical) of the fishermen. A more scientific, ichthyological approachis suggested by two rectangular mosaic floors from Pompeii, now in the Naples Archaeological Museum, and a less well known and later floor from the Roman villa of La Pineda in Vila-Seca, Spain, now in the Museo Arqueologico, Tarragona; in both the fish are sufficiently individualized as to be susceptible to species identification.31In contrast to the mosaics from Pompeii and the villa of La Pineda, where the fish are gathered together as if in an aquarium,a mosaic from a 3rd-century(?)villa in Patrasfeatures four rows of different kinds of fish displayed as if enlarged from a textbook illustration or as if laid out after the catch awaiting identification.32 They all face one direction, heads to the right. Much closer to the Corinth and Rimini panels in formal arrangement and appearanceare the fish shown in a set of panels in a floor at Zliten in Libya (Fig. 8).33A grid in the central field combines eight squares of mosaic alternating in checkerboard fashion with eight squares of opus sectile, the whole sixteen-unit grid framed by panels of opus sectile and mosaic, the latter with narrativescenes from the amphitheater.The opus sectile squares have geometric designs conceptually related to the crossed squaresin the Corinth panel. Each squaremosaic unit contains a circular, porthole vision of fish, three or four fish to each circle, facing left and right, as in the Corinth and Rimini panels. This alternating disposition of fish, used to enhance the formal arrangement,is seen also in a wool and linen curtain (length 1.4 m) from Antinoe, Egypt, now in the Musee Historique des Tissus in Lyon, where the fish even cast shadows.34David Parrishhas argued that the Zliten floor should be dated to the first half of the 3rd century,about fifty years earlierthan the glass panel from Corinth, but roughly contemporary with the panel found at Rimini.35The notion of displaying fish in a circularfield is not original with 3rd-century artists but goes back at least as early as the 1st century to judge from a mosaic roundel from Pompeii (diameter 0.58 m).36In the Pompeian mosaic, however, the fish are shown swimming randomly and from several vantage points, as if the mosaic craftsman had sought to give the impression of looking down into a fishpond. Despite their slightly different artistic
28. See above,ns. 17 and25. 29. Dunbabin 1978, pp. 81-82, xlvii, figs. 119-120; Martin and pl. Fradier1989, pp. 130-131. 30. Bosanquet 1898, pl. 1, reproduced in Levi 1942, p. 52, pl. vii:2 and Kondoleon 1994, p. 246, fig. 156. 31. Capaldoand Moncharmont 1989 (Pompeii);Bobadilla1969 (La Pineda). 32. Touchais 1980, pp. 616-617, fig. 74. 33. Aurigemma1926, figs. 77-85, pl. D. The resemblanceof the Kenchreaifish to those on the Zliten panelswas observedin KenchreaiII, p. 135. 34. Weitzmann 1979, pp. 208-209, nos. 182-183 (a fragmentin the Louvre belongs to the Lyon hanging); Bourgon-Amir1993, I, pp. 204-205, pls. 209-210. 35. Parrish1985. 36. Spano 1910, pp. 555-557, fig. 1.
A GLASS
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
359
Figure8. Detail of floormosaicfrom Zliten, Libya.Archaeological Museum, Tripoli. AfterAurigemma 1926,p. 137,pl. D
37. Inv.MR IV, 415 (D 927). Bielefeld 1972, pls. xv-xvii. 38. Blazquez et al. 1989, pp. 55-56, with referencesto Tunisia,Spain, Britain,and Germany;Neal 1981, pp. 52, 69, 86, figs. 25:a, 25:c, 36, 52,63 (Britain);Levi 1947, pp. 304-306, pl. 68 (Antioch);Wilson 1983, pp. 22,41, figs. 10, 21 (Piazza Armerina). 39. Campbell 1998, pp. 28, 32, pl. 29.
conception, these pictures in mosaic and opus sectile demonstrate the longevity in Roman interior decoration of the subject of fish in a circular field. I have largely omitted discussion of fish motifs in the portable decorative arts, in part because the subject is so extensive that even a cursory surveywould tend to blur our focus on the Corinth panel. Worthy of mention, nevertheless, is one object, a shallow dish of green serpentine inlaid with fish in gold leaf, once in the French royal treasuryat Saint-Denis and now in the Louvre.37In his far-ranging discussion of this piece, which he would date to the 4th century, Erwin Bielefeld drew attention to many other examples of ancient decorative arts featuring fish, including the fragmentary glass dish from the Athenian Agora mentioned above. The serpentine dish and the fragmentaryglass one from the Agora help demonstrate the persistence of the theme in the Roman decorative arts. The second decorative feature of the Corinth panel is the geometric design framing the circular field of fish-the interlaced, crossed squares forming an eight-pointed star.This motif is not represented in 1st- and 2nd-century mosaics and opus sectile but, despite its absence in the glass panels from Kenchreai, it became a standard element in the 3rd and 4th centuries in the decorative arts and in interior decoration including mosaics, opus sectile, and wall painting. The motif occurs in mosaic floors throughout the empire.38One of the best-dated 3rd-century mosaic floors incorporating this design is situated in the north wing of the Large Baths at Anemurium in Turkey.39Associated pottery and coins as late as ca. A.D. 225 provide evidence for the date of original construction. Work on the building seems to have ceased after the Persian invasion of Asia Minor under Shapur I in
36o
ANDREW
OLIVER
260. Floors of opus sectile are much rarerthan those of mosaic and thus instances of this geometric design are much less frequent. Examples include one in the floor of a villa in Utica, Tunisia,40and another in the floor of the so-called House of the Nymphaeum in Ostia.41In wall painting crossed squares are prominent in the decoration of the imperial cult temple in Luxor, Egypt (datable to the late 3rd century);largely destroyed today,the designs are best known from watercolorviews of the work made by the English Egyptologist John Gardner Wilkinson in 1859.42 The pattern also appears in the useful and luxury arts in the 3rd and 4th centuries. In textiles the design is used in the shoulder medallions (orbiculi)on linen tunics as early as the 3rd century, as for example on a tunic now in Damascus from a tomb in Palmyra,Syria (before A.D.273);43 in silver,as an engraved emblem on one of the plates from the Kaiseraugst treasuredatable to shortly before A.D. 350;44in gold jewelry, as part of the opusinterrasileframe of a fibula in a private collection in Germany datable by comparison to other jewelry incorporating coins of Constantine to the period around A.D. 325;45and in glass, as the scratched decoration on a dish from a 4th-century burial in Cologne.46 Of all the examples cited, the motif as shown in the floor of opus sectile in Ostia and in the wall paintings in Luxoroffer the two best matches for the Corinth panel. The design of the set of crossed squaresin the Ostia floor is related in many aspects to that of the Corinth panel.47The composition of this large floor, ca. 7.0 by 6.7 m, features a central square unit surroundedby eight units of similar size all separatedfrom one another by rectangularunits. The four corner units (about 1.40 m on a side) are the ones with interlaced squares.The lines of the interlaced squaresare formed by tripartite,parallel stripes of stone of contrasting hues: a center stripe of giallo flanked by rosso and africano.The effect is similar to that created by the multicolored stripes forming the squares of the Corinth panel and wholly different from the interlaced squares found in mosaics where the sides of the squares invariably are formed by bands of guilloche(or cable pattern). A central disk of africano, ringed by stones of other colors, is placed where the circle of fish is situated in the Corinth panel. Background triangles and other interstices are of lighter stone. The wall paintings in the imperialcult temple at Luxor (formerlymuch better preserved)take us a step closer to the function of the Corinth panel.48 On the wall, below a painted frieze of figures and horses, was a tall painted dado, the lower part of which embodied square units (0.86 m on a side) alternatingwith upright rectangularones. At least two of the squareunits featured interlaced squaresand the whole arrangement,though linear,recalls the alternating square and rectangular units of the Ostia floor. In Luxor the design of an opus sectile floor is renderedin painting on a wallfaux-marble, as it were. It forms a good analogy to the Corinth panel, which could be seen as a rendering in glass (mounted on wood) of an opus sectile floor. The appearance of a motif such as interlaced squares in roughly contemporaneous works of art in various media indicates how interrelated these arts were. Thus far I have only taken into account relatively A.D.
40. Alexanderet al. 1973, pp. 51-53,
no.59, pl.24 (datedthereto the second half of the 2nd or early3rd century, though other scholarshave proposed differentdates). 41. Becatti 1961, pp. 103-104, no. 189, pl. ccvii. 42. Monneret de Villard 1953, esp. p. 91, pls. 30:a, 31:b, left; Bianchi Bandinelli 1971, p. 291, fig. 266; Deckers 1979, col. fig. 14, facing p. 624. 43. Pfister 1934, pl. 6, reproducedin Trilling 1982, p. 105, fig. 1; SchmidtColinet 1991, pp. 22-23, fig. 5; Schmidt-Colinet and Stauffer2000, pp. 162-163, no. 355, pls. 3, 54, 55. I do not acceptthe 2nd-centurydate proposedby Schmidt-Colinet for this tunic.The tomb in which it was found, despite havingbeen constructedin the earlyyearsof the 2nd century,surely saw use by severalgenerationsof the family. 44. Baratte1984. 45. Deppert-Lippitz 1996, p. 39, figs. 6:a, 6:b;the same patternappears on the frameof a pendantgold coin of the early-5th-centuryemperorHonorius (A.D. 395-423) in Berlin
(Greifenhagen1970, p. 65, pls. 45:1-2, 46:1). 46. Doppelfeld 1959 (excavation report);Fremersdorf1967, p. 97, pl. 89 (illustration). 47. See n. 41, above. 48. Monneret de Villard 1953, p. 91, pls. 30:a, 31:b, left.
A GLASS
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
FROM
CORINTH
36I
indestructible materials that have survived well from antiquity, such as mosaics. Missing, for instance, are pile carpets and most woodwork. While much can be made from the obvious relationship of the Corinth panel to opus sectile and wall painting imitating opus sectile, the relationship to perishable materials, such as textiles and wood furniture, is harder to gauge. I would argue, nevertheless, that patterns found in furniture,especially inlaid veneers of variously texturedwood, played a central role in the development of designs. Consider, for example, two pieces of wood furniture excavated at Herculaneum: a stool with a square top and a couch, both featuring first-rate veneer.49The veneer is more accomplished than mere joinery, approaching instead the elaborate inlay technique of marquetry.The design has its counterpartin lst-century opus sectile floors in Pompeii and Herculaneum.o5It would be wrong to assert that fine woodwork was in fact the source for opus sectile in stone. Both venerable crafts must have benefited mutually from cross-fertilization as designers developed decorative schemes. The Corinth panel of wood and glass bears the same kind of relationship to opus sectile floors of the 3rd century as the veneeredwood furniturefrom Herculaneumdoes to lst-century opus sectile floors. This brings us to the question of the function of the piece. When the panel was found, the excavatorsdismissed the possibility that it was a tabletop but left open the notion that it might have decorated a door or even a wall. To quote a few lines from their preliminaryreport:"The wood-andglass unit definitely does not seem to have been the top of a table or part of any other such furniture, for the burnt wood on the clay floor covered much too large an area.No nails or metal cross struts, braces, feet or other hardwarewas found among the carbonized wood on the floor. Apparently either the wood panel (perhaps a door) burned in a freestanding position, allowing the whole unit to fall face up, or else the panel fell from a door frame or from the wall so that it landed face up."51Now, however, the persuasive evidence of the glass opus sectile panel from Rimini suggests that the Corinth panel indeed once served or was awaiting use as wall decoration. But whereas the Rimini panel came from the ruins of a private house, the Corinth panel was found in one of a series of rooms that may have been shops or storerooms. Despite its face-up position on the floor when found, a questionable position if originally mounted on a wall, I am still hesitant to guess whether the panel had been structurallyinstalled in the room where it was found or whether it was simply being stored there, face against the wall, awaiting repairsor use elsewhere. Whatever the answer, the presence of two such similar items at Corinth and Rimini offers a partial illustration, disregarding the disparity of several centuries, of Strabo'sobservation cited at the outset of this article, that one of the two harbors at Corinth led to Italy. 49. Budetta 1987, pp. 198-199, fig. 90 (stool);Mols 1999, pp. 167-169, no. 13, figs. 88-93 (couch) and pp. 182-183, no. 23, fig. 125 (stool). 50. Guidobaldi,Olevano, and
Trucchi 1994a; 1994b; Guidobaldi 1985. 51. Williams and Zervos 1982, p. 133.
362
ANDREW
OLIVER
REFERENCES Alexander,M. A., et al. 1973. Corpus desmosaiques de TunisieI.1: Utique, Tunis. AncientGlass= AncientGlass,Formerly theKofler-Truniger Collection.Sale catalogue,Christie,Manson, and Woods, Ltd., 5-6 March 1985, London. Antiquities= Antiquities.Sale catalogue, Christie,Manson, and Woods, Ltd., 13 June 2000, New York. Aurigemma,S. 1926. I mosaicidi Zliten, Rome. Baratte,F. 1984. "Euticius-Platte,"in Der spitromischeSilberschatz von Kaiseraugst,H. A. Cahn and A. Kaufmann-Heinimann,eds., Derendingen,pp. 191-192. Becatti, G., ed. 1961. Scavidi OstiaIV: Mosaiciepavimentimarmorei, Rome. Bianchi Bandinelli,R. 1971. Rome. TheLateEmpire,New York. Bielefeld, E. 1972. "Eine Patene aus dem franz6sischenKr6nungsschatz: Ein Versuchzur Kleinkunstdes 4. Jahrhundertsn. Chr.,"Gymnasium 79, pp. 395-445, pls. xv-xxiv. Blazquez,J.M., et al. 1989. Mosaicos romanosdeLeriday Albacete(Corpus de mosaicosde Espana 8), Madrid. Bobadilla,M. 1969. "El mosaico de peces de La Pineda (Tarragona)," Pyrenae5, pp. 141-153. Bosanquet,R. C. 1898. "Excavations of the British School at Melos: The Hall of the Mystae,"JHS18, pp.60-80. Bourgon-Amir,Y. 1993. Les tapisseries coptesdu MuseeHistoriquedesTissus, LyonI-II, Montpellier. Budetta,T. 1987. "Attivitadell'ufficio scavi:1985-1986," RStPomp1, pp. 194-199. Campbell,S. 1998. TheMosaicsof Anemurium,Toronto. Capaldo,L., and U. Moncharmont. 1989. "Animalidi ambientemarino in due mosaicipompeiani," RStPomp3, pp. 53-68. CorinthX = O. Broneer,TheOdeum, Cambridge,Mass., 1932. CorinthXVII = J. C. Biers, TheGreat Bathson theLechaionRoad, Princeton 1985.
Deckers,J. C. 1979. "Wandmalereiim kaiserkultraum von Luxor,"JdI94, pp.600-652. Deppert-Lippitz,B. 1996. "Late Roman Splendor:Jewelryfrom the Age of Constantine,"in Cleveland Studiesin theHistoryofArt 1, Cleveland,pp. 30-71. Doppelfeld, 0. 1959. "DerMuschelpokalvon Koln,"BJb159, pp. 152166. Dunbabin, K. M. D. 1978. TheMosaics of RomanNorthAfrica.Studiesin and Patronage,Oxford. Iconography Edwards,C. M. 1994. "The Arch over the Lechaion Road at Corinth and Its Sculpture,"Hesperia63, pp. 263308. Fremersdorf,F. 1967. Die romischen Glisermit Schlif,Bemalungund ausKoln(Die DenkGoldauflagen malerdes romischenKoln 8), Cologne. Glassof the Caesars= D. B. Harden et al., Glassof the Caesars,Milan 1987. Goldstein, S. M. 1979. Pre-Romanand EarlyRomanGlassin the Corning Museumof Glass,Corning. Gregory,T. E., ed. 1993. TheCorinthia in theRomanPeriod(JRASuppl. 8), Ann Arbor. Greifenhagen,A. 1970. Schmuckarbeiten in Edelmetall1, Berlin. Groag, E. 1939. Die romischenReichsbeamten von Achaia bis aufDiokletian, Vienna.
Guidobaldi,F. 1985. "Pavimentiin opus sectiledi Roma e dell'arearomana: Proposteper una classificazionee criteridi datazione,"in Marmi antichi: Problemi d'impiego, di restauroe d'identficazione (StMisc
26), P. Pensabene,ed., Rome, pp. 171-233, pls. 1-18. Guidobaldi,F., F. Olevano, and D. Trucchi.1994a. "Classificazione preliminaredei sectiliapavimentadi Pompei," in V1 Coloquio internacional sobremosaicoantiguo, Palencia-Merida, Octubre1990,
Guadalajara,pp. 49-61. . 1994b. "Sectiliapavimentadi Ercolano:Classificazionee confronto con il campionePompeiano," in VI Coloquio internacional sobre
mosaicoantiguo, Palencia-Merida, Octubre1990, Guadalajara, pp. 63-
71. Hayes,J. W. 1972. Late Roman Pottery,
London. Higginbotham,J. 1997. Piscinae: ArtificialFishponds in Roman Italy,
Chapel Hill. Kenchreai II = L. Ibrahim, R. Scranton, and R. Brill, The Panels of Opus Sectile in Glass, Leiden 1976.
Kondoleon,C. 1994. Domesticand Divine. Roman Mosaics in the House ofDionysos, Ithaca.
Levi, D. 1942. "Morsvoluntaria: Mystery Cults in Mosaics from Antioch,"Berytus7, pp. 19-55. . 1947. Antioch Mosaic Pave-
mentsI-II, Princeton. Lolos, Y. A. 1997. "The Hadrianic Aqueductof Corinth,"Hesperia66, pp.271-314. Martin,A., and G. Fradier.1989. Mosaiques romaines de Tunisie, Tunis.
Marty,J. 1993. "ThreePotteryDeposits and the History of Roman Isthmia," in Gregory 1993, pp. 115-129. Michaelides,D. 1998. Excavationsat Sidi KhrebishBenghazi (Berenice) IV. 1: The Mosaic and Marble Floors
(LibAnt5, Suppl.),Tripoli. Mols, S. T. A. M. 1999. Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum: Form, Techniqueand Function,
Amsterdam. Monneret de Villard,U. 1953. "The Temple of the ImperialCult at Luxor," in Archaeologia 95, pp. 85-
105. Neal, D. S. 1981. Roman Mosaics in
Britain (BritanniaMonograph Series 1), London. Ortalli,J. 2000. "Rimini:La domus'del Chirurgo,"' in Aemilia: La cultura romana in Emilia Romagna dal III secoloa. C. all'eta costantiniana,
Venice,pp. 513-526. Palombi,A., and M. Santarelli.1986. Gli animali commestibili dei Mari
d'Italia,4th ed., Milan. Parrish,D. 1985. "The Date of the Mosaics from Zliten,"AntAfr21, pp.137-158. Pfister, R. 1934. Textiles de Palmyre,
Paris.
A GLASS
Schmidt-Colinet,A. 1991. "Deux carresentrelacesinscritsdans un cercle:De la significationd'un ornementgeometrique,"in Textiles d'Egyptede la CollectionBouvier: Antiquitetardive,periodecopte, premierstempsde lIslam, A. Stauffer, Fribourg,pp. 21-34. Schmidt-Colinet,A., and A. Stauffer. 2000. Die TextilienausPalmyra: Neue undalteFunde(Damaszener Forschungen8), Mainz. Spano, G. 1910. "Pompei:Altre scoperte avenute nel primo semestre del 1910 ed in tutto il resto dell'anno,"NSc, pp. 555-570. Thompson, D. W. 1947. A Glossaryof GreekFishes,London. Touchais,G. 1980. "Chroniquedes fouilles et decouvertesarcheologiques en Grece en 1979,"BCH 104, pp. 581-683. . 1982. "Chroniquedes fouilles et decouvertesarcheologiquesen Grece en 1981,"BCH 106, pp. 529635. Trilling,J. 1982. TheRomanHeritage: TextilesfromEgyptand theEasternMediterranean, 300-600 AD., Washington, D.C. Weinberg,G. D. 1962. "AnInlaid Glass Plate in Athens,"JGS4, pp. 29-36.
Andrew Oliver 3401 CHEVY
ROLLING CHASE,
douris@worldnet.
COURT MARYLAND
att. net
20815
OPUS
SECTILE
PANEL
Weitzmann, K., ed. 1979.Age of Spirituality:LateAntiqueandEarly ChristianArt, Thirdto Seventh Century,New York. Williams, C. K., II. 1987. "The Refoundingof Corinth:Some Roman ReligiousAttitudes,"in RomanArchitecture in the Greek World(Society of Antiquaries of London, OccasionalPaper, n. s. 10), S. Macreadyand F. H. Thompson, eds., London, pp. 26-37. . 1993. "RomanCorinth as a CommercialCenter,"in Gregory 1993, pp. 31-46. Williams, C. K., II, and 0. H. Zervos. 1982. "Corinth,1981: East of the Theater,"Hesperia51, pp. 115163. .1983. "Corinth,1982: East of the Theater,"Hesperia52, pp. 1-47. . 1985. "Corinth,1984: East of the Theater,"Hesperia54, pp. 5596. .1987. "Corinth,1986: Temple E and East of the Theater,"Hesperia 56, pp. 1-46. Wilson, R. J. A. 1983. Piazza Armerina,Austin. Winter, N. A. 1982. "News Letter from Greece,"AJA86, pp. 539556.
FROM
CORINTH
363
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 365-366
A OF
FRACGENT
NEW /
I12
1750
The fragment published here, Agora I 3970, was uncovered sixty-five years ago in the American excavations in the Athenian Agora. Because it preserves so little informative text, it has lain unpublished up to this time in the storerooms of the Stoa of Attalos in Athens. The text and a photograph (Fig. 1) are presented here because it has proved possible to place this fragment with the inscription from which it originated (Fig. 2). The writing on the piece is quite large and elegant; the cutter was unusual in that he incised the guidelines.1 During work several years ago among the squeezes at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,2 I made a mental note of this writing as it appeared on IG II2 1750. A few days later I came across the squeeze of Agora I 3970 and realized that I had seen the writing before. Hence the join and this brief note came about.
1. AlthoughI knowof no published statistics,incisedguidelinesarequite rarein Attic inscriptions. 2. 1 am most indebted to Christian Habicht, Glen Bowersock,and Heinrich von Staden for making my study at the Institute possible. 3. For a text of this whole prytany list, see inscriptionno. 44 in B. D. Meritt andJ. S. Traill, The The AthenianAgoraXV: Inscriptions: Princeton1974. AthenianCouncillors, See, in addition, SEG XXXIV 128 for recent discussionsof the arrangement of the list of councillorson this text (lines 4-80) and for the reportof anotherfragment(still unpublished) that preserves,it seems, the crownfrom the upperleft part of this inscription.
Fragment of whitish blue marble with the inscribed face and top preserved;otherwise broken. Found on April 6, 1936, in a late context west of the Post-Herulian Wall, which runs along the east edge of the market square (R-S 17). Parts of three lines of text with lightly incised guidelines are preserved. Agora I 3970 H. 0.124, W. 0.218, Th. 0.183 m. L.H. 0.011 m.
Fig. 1
KAEOTY SKAI 10
This fragmentjoins at the top of G 1I21750, the prytany list of Antiochis of the year 334/3 B.C.3 It gives part of the three lines of the heading on fragment a. Fragment a (Fig. 2) consists of three joined fragments (EM 8966, 8967, 8968) that were discovered in 1851 on the west side of the Agora. They are now stored in the Epigraphical Museum in Athens. The present fragment was found on the opposite side of the square, to the south. In addition to Ktesikles, the name of the archon of 334/3, who has
STEPHEN
366
V. TRACY
Figure 1. Agora I3970. Courtesy Agora Excavations,American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens
Figure2. IG II21750, fragmenta. CourtesyEpigraphicalMuseum, Athens
been restored by all editors in line 1, other names were possible prior to the recoveryof this fragment. Ktesiboulos, Ktesikrates,and Ktesiphon, for example, are all the correct length in the genitive case. The new fragment now completes the name and confirms the archon as Ktesikles. He is quite well attested (see, e.g., IG II2 335, 1184, 1189, 1496, and 1524). KTrqLxXooU [a]pxovrzo ['A]v-ToXiCOo7rpoVTarvet oL KrTi TO 8yLou bro6 XCo [o]-?EcpoavC)0v?cT; TS; pouXig xact ap?Eg
XaC XLoI&XaLO6vYU EVEXOC
Stephen V Tracy OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT 414
OF GREEK
UNIVERSITY
COLUMBUS,
OHIO
[email protected]
HALL 43210
AND
LATIN
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 367-371
THE
ROVER'5
A LITERARY POT
RETURN
QUOTATION
ON A
IN CORINTH
ABSTRACT An extended graffito on a Hellenistic kantharosat Corinth seems to express a topos of greeting, quite likely in the form of a classic quotation from Euripides,justas we might quote Shakespearetoday,whetheror not we know the formal origin of the expression.The graffito forms another item of evidence for the currencyof theateramong many sections of Hellenistic society, not least in the context of the symposium. A recent observation by Jean Bousquet that a young stonemason practicing his letters at Delphi sometime near the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. used lines of Euripides as his text should prompt us to be alert for
1. Bousquet 1992. We aregrateful to Nancy Bookidis for providing photographsand for permissionto include them here, as well as to P. E. Easterling,Mark Landon, Elizabeth Pemberton,andJoyce Reynolds for a numberof helpful suggestions and observations.Our thanks also to the anonymousrefereesof Hesperiafor their comments. 2. CorinthI, iv, p. 64. Kantharos C-34-397. Diam. lip 0.114 m. Broneer 1935, pp. 71-72, fig. 15b (photographs of sides A and B); CorinthI, iv, pp. 6364, fig. 41 (drawingof decorationfrom above);CorinthVII, iii, pp. 85-86, no. 489, pls. 39, 42 (drawingof inscription;the shape not illustrated). 3. On such kantharoiand their sequence,see CorinthXVIII, i, pp. 34-36. The deposit is CorinthVII, iii, pp. 224-225,no. 94, which is now referredto as Corinth Fill 1934-1. 4. CorinthXVIII, i, p. 3.
other examples outside literary sources.' After all, we are told, all the world's a stage. Another likely example indeed occurs on a kantharos from Corinth, already described by Oscar Broneer as "probably a quotation from a play."2 The vase is a kantharos of the so-called articulated type with ledged vertical handles (Fig. 1); it was found in a fill beneath the stairs of Shop I of the South Stoa.3 Its date is not as evident as one might have hoped. More recent research has suggested that G. R. Edwards's chronology for this material, proposed in Corinth VII, iii, was too high.4 The construction of the South Stoa is now placed at the end of the 4th century, and the deposit in which the vase was found represents a dumped fill dating from the Early Hellenistic period to 146 B.C. On stylistic grounds, the kantharos certainly dates to the 3rd century, but without a full profile it is difficult to say even whether it belongs to the earlier or later part, although our impression is that it should not be dated as early as the first quarter. As we shall see, the style of the script of the inscription would also suggest a date markedly after the beginning of the century. The script is a well-formed rounded capital, reminiscent of a typical formal hand of the earlier Ptolemaic period. The text gives eleven letters of the alphabet: the alpha is made with a narrow left-hand loop, which tends to reduce, as in some book scripts, to a simple diagonal; the delta is quite small, the epsilon rounded, with its horizontal slightly detached, and the sigma is also rounded; the clearer specimen of the two pi's shows neatly
368
J. RICHARD
GREEN
AND
ERIC
W. HANDLEY
? ; :,:-:
.:::::
curved verticals; the rho and phi are tall, projecting slightly above and below the bilineal norm, and with flattened curved parts (the bow of the rho is tinyS);the omega is almost cursive,with a double flattish curve. For parallelsfrom aroundthe middle of the 3rd century,one can mention PLit. Lond. 73, a fragment of a copy of Euripides, Hippolytus,together with a comparablehand in a contemporaryletter, PCair. Zen. 57578, not before 261 B.C.6 It is easy to quote good later examples, such as the well-known and well-illustrated Paris papyrusof Menander, Sikyonioi,assigned to the last third of the 3rd century B.C. (and most probablyto near the end of it).7 On the other hand, projecting backward to a date as early as the end of the 4th century (the date of the earliest material in the deposit) for script of this style would be, palaeographically speaking, a leap into the dark. Indeed, it is a move one would much rather not make on the evidence of 5. The rho also needs some skill to incise, not least in the medium of fired -6Toop IoxOYpov, "Tough,this clay:Touo-cL rho,"criesMnesilochos when playing the role of Palamedeswriting on wood, Ar. Thesm. 781 (411 B.C.).
6. These two arerespectivelynos. 3a and 3b in Roberts1955. 7. PSorb.inv.2272-3 + 72, from Ghoran.Blanchardand Bataille 1965; Turner1987, no. 40.
Figure1. Inscribedkantharosfrom Corinth,C-34-397. SidesA and B. CourtesyCorinth Museum
THE
ROVER'S
RETURN
369
the writing of the papyrithat survive from this period.8There is, however, cause to welcome a date in the 3rd century for the vase, and to welcome this specimen of script, small though it is, to its due place in the palaeographical handbooks.9 This competent performance shown in the lettering is consistent with the natureof the text, which has the patternof a half-line of iambic trimeter verse: icap?X'tra& (pavesi Hail to you, coming here beyond our hopes!
X
The other inscriptions on the kantharoifrom the same or similar contexts are, as Broneer remarked,names of divinities or personified abstractionsof the kind that might be invoked at drinking parties: for example, ALo; This special cup, one imagines, was intended oaor-ipo;,Eipdovac,(LtXocg.'? for a party given to celebrate someone's return from a long exile, say, or a distant journey, perhaps as a mercenary soldier. For the origin of the text, an interesting speculation offers itself from Menander. But there is something else to notice first. Broneer's diagnosis that our half-line comes from a play can be reinforced by parallels that show that its tone is elevated above the level of ordinary everyday discourse, as is the emotion it seeks to express.A good example is Sophocles, Philoctetes 1445-1446, in anapaesticdimeters,where Philoktetes responds to the appearance of Herakles with the words o T? (pavd(;;another can be found in (p0?yuIa Tro0ELVOv?oL 7rCtacxtO; o6vL6oc
Electra'swords to Orestes at Euripides,Electra578 and following: o Xpo6vc o' In a Hellenistic lyric, Helen, once rescued and c(pav?i, Xo&aXTcoXs.... now abandoned by Menelaus, begins her lament with o (pavEoi xdcpto "Youonce came to me, my delight."'17tap'iXri8a is found at a level LotI, of high style in tragedy,as at Aeschylus, Agamemnon899 and Sophocles, Philoctetes882, and Trap' iXTm8as in a lyric passage of comedy at Aristophanes, Peace794. And Menander? Tco oo6[sevos (pavei;, cries the heroine of the play, Krateia, to her long-separated father in Misoumenos(214 Sandbach/615 Arnott), continuing with 6pco d iv o6x av 6oYIv i8siv ?`t,, "I see you though I would never have thought to see you more."Significantly, this is 8. As recentlydiscussedbyMaehler (2001, pp. 50-57). 9. In CorinthVII, iii, p. 83, Edwards says that the inscriptionwas incised before firing.The cursivestyle of the scriptimplies that the incision of the letterswas not intrinsicallydifficult, but Elizabeth Pemberton,Nancy Bookidis, and Ian McPhee put in a great deal of effort on our behalf to determinewhether it was done before or afterfiring. Some chipping of the glaze is evident under a microscope,so, if incised before firing,it would have to
have been when the glaze/slip was well dried (as one might in any case assume);even the horizontalgrooves of the decoration,presumablycreated on the wheel before firing,show some chipping.They reportthat there is also one inscription(C-50-24, CorinthVII, iii, no. 452) with pink (miltos)in the letters,which must originatebefore firing,but no other examplelike this exists at Corinth. 10. Broneerin CorinthI, iv, p. 64. For a recent collection of references on ypa[raxrtxa exrtc ax-a, see Arnott
1996, pp. 761-762 (on fr.272). The genitive ("ofthe toast")is usual in such expressions:see Arnott 1996, pp. 181183 (on fr. 59). He omits the important referenceto CorinthVII, iii, pp. 64-66 and p. 245, Index I. The design of this vase (with floraldecorationon one side only), and others like it, implies that they were planned from the startwith this purposein mind, with the lip zone on the front left blank for the appropriatemessage. 11. Powell 1925, p. 186, no. 6, line 1.
J. RICHARD
37?
GREEN
AND
ERIC
W. HANDLEY
again in the high style that Menander occasionally produces at moments of peak emotion, as in this recognition scene, and (very prominently) in the one at Perikeiromene349-394.12 The question that presents itself, given the evidence of the kantharos from Corinth, is whether its half-line and Menander's are independent creations, or whether the two are related. If the two are related, a tenable and quite probable relationship would be that the half-line inscribed on the kantharosis from Euripides, recalled as a classic quotation by the person who inscribed or commissioned it, and by Menander (who must have expected his audience to be familiar with it). In each case, the effect is to make a memorable situation of the stage a paradigm for one from the world of everydaylife, whether real or fictional. This, we think, is a genuine and interesting possibility. We might have left it at that, but for encouragement from colleagues13 to remarkon two other passages of related interest, which seem to be consistent with the possibility we raise. At Menander, Sikyonioi280-311, a broken fragment of the Paris papyrus gives part of a recognition scene resembling the one quoted above from Perikeiromene.Judging from the remains, it has strict meter, and language appropriateto tragedy.14Some verbal manifestations of the "Rover'sReturn"motif are also very striking: at 286, ]vI xc T6;6' [e,prcAs oCE,arcc,"I see you face to face, my child" rcap' ?X7tiac; at 293, (compare Misoumenos,as quoted above); at 287, ;S the correspondingverb ] XrcoaaoaT?;and at 300, ]Socq (pveiq. Though the broken text would accommodate ra rp' EAX cas cpocv6gat 287-288 and/or at 300, there is no way to tell that it did, and short of further discovery one must be content, with Belardinelli, to note parallelsin similarly emotional contexts in drama, including one from New Comedy in Latin at Plautus, Poenulus 1259-1260: salue, insperatenobispater, te complectinos sine; as Belardinelliremarks,interestingly,her one prose parallel,from Heliodorus, Aethiopica10.13.1, is also from a recognition scene.15 Euripides remains hard to pin down. Another text that points in his direction, suggestively perhaps,but with no proof, are the words of a commentator elucidating the lyric lines of Phoenissae310-311: iELico, L6LXt (pc0VWL; cX7CTCTax&a6xYTCa
arcp6o doXevalS.Jocasta is greeting the exiled
Polynices; Schwartz gives the words of the scholiast as follows: ic?XT'ca x6C86xyTo'ra
rap'
XM8ocac(pcXve xOa aGr(Ooa8ox'tR)c EiSTaOC5 S'ag
XcEpac;,
"O you who have come to my arms against hope and unexpectedly";the form trap' sAirciO appears in the scholia given by Dindorf but not by Schwartz.16 While it would hardlybe difficult for a commentator on tragic poetry to have arrivedwithout prompting at his vocative 6 and his clarification of &aXTrcca ("unhoped"),it remains to be considered that he may have drawn, consciously or not, on a phrase made memorable by a key context of his author in which it was once uttered. This is not the place to pursue these issues further,although we may note, on the one hand, the well-known observation attributed to Aristophanes of Byzantium comparing Menander's imitation of life and life's use of Menander;17and, on the other, the demonstrableway in which, alreadyin the third quarterof the 4th century,well-known situations from the tragic theater were being used as points of reference by the people of Taranto at moments of crisis in their personal lives.18
12. Lines 779-824 Sandbach,whose discussionin Gomme and Sandbach 1973 is essentialfurtherreadingon this topic. For other references,see Levrini 1990, p. 87, ns. 1-2. 13. Notably by an anonymous refereefor Hesperia. 14. See, among others, Gomme and Sandbach1973, p. 661. 15. Belardinelli1994. 16. Schwartz1887-1891; Dindorf 1863. 17. Syrianus,in Hermogenem 2.23, quoted universally,and not least in KoerteandThierfelder1959, p. 7, test. 32; Ar. Byz. T. 7 Slater. 18. Green 1996 and 1999.
THE
19. Handley 1965, p. 6, on Men. Epit. 149-157/325-333 Sandbach.
ROVER'S
RETURN
371
The apprentice stonemason with whom we began this article must have thought Euripides an appropriatetext to use, and one might guess that he thought inscriptions were items of some importance, so that even when practicing, he automatically sought to use a text of standing, something beyond his everyday experience. His choice also reflects the popularity of tragedy,and knowledge of it by an ordinaryworkman at this period. "It is perhaps mildly amusing, but certainly not ridiculous, to find a charcoal-burnerquoting myth as seen in tragedy as part of his case in an argument with a shepherd."19
REFERENCES Arnott, W. G. 1996. Alexis:The Fragments,Cambridge. Belardinelli,A.-M. 1994. Menandro, Sicioni,Bari. Blanchard,A., and A. Bataille.1965. "Fragmentssur papyrusdu EIKTONIOE de Menandre," Recherches dePapyrologie3, pp. 103176, and facsimile. Bousquet,J. 1992. "Inscriptionsde Delphes,"BCH 116, pp. 183-186. Broneer,0. 1935. "Excavationsin Corinth,"AJA39, pp. 55-75. CorinthI, iv = O. Broneer,TheSouth Stoaand Its RomanSuccessors, Princeton 1954. CorinthVII, iii = G. R. Edwards, CorinthianHellenisticPottery, Princeton 1975. CorinthXVIII, i = E. G. Pemberton, TheSanctuaryofDemeterand Kore: TheGreekPottery,Princeton 1989. Dindorf,W. 1863. Scholiagraecain Euripidistragoedias,Oxford. Gomme, A. W., and F. H. Sandbach. 1973. Menander:ACommentary, Oxford. Green,J. R. 1996. "Messengersfrom the Tragic Stage:The A. D. Trendall Memorial Lecture,"BICS 41, pp. 17-30.
.1999. "Tragedyand the Spectacle of the Mind: Messenger Speeches,Actors, Narrative,and Audience Imaginationin FourthCenturyVase-Painting,"in TheArt ofAncientSpectacle(Studies in the History of Art 56), B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon,eds., Washington, D.C., pp. 36-63. Handley,E. W. 1965. TheDyskolosof Menander,London. Koerte,A., and A. Thierfelder.1959. Menandriquaesupersunt,2nd ed., Leipzig. Levrini,L. 1990. "Echi euripideiin Menandro,"Lexis 12, pp. 87-95. Maehler,H. 2001. Review of R. Seider, Paliographiedergriechischen Papyri 3.1: Urkundenschrift, in GGA253, pp. 40-60. Powell,J. U. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina,Oxford. Roberts,C. H. 1955. GreekLiterary Hands, 350 B.c-A.D. 400, Oxford.
Schwartz,E. 1887-1891. Scholiain Euripidem I-II, Berlin. Turner, E. G. 1987. GreekManuscripts oftheAncient World(2nd ed., revised
and enlargedby P.J. Parsons;BICS Suppl. 46), London.
J. Richard Green
Eric W.Handley
UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
TRINITY
SCHOOL
OF ARCHAEOLOGY
CAMBRIDGE
SYDNEY,
NSW
UNITED
2006
AUSTRALIA
[email protected]
COLLEGE CB2
KINGDOM
ITQ
HESPERIA
SUPPLEMENTS
13 MarcusAurelius:Aspects of Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast, by James H. Oliver (1970). $15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,by John S. Traill (1975). $15.00 16 A Sanctuaryof Zeuson MountHymettos,by Merle K. Langdon (1976). $15.00 17 Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 286 B.C., byT. Leslie ShearJr. (1978). $15.00 Presentedto Eugene 19 Studiesin Attic Epigraphy,History,and Topography (1982). $15.00 Vanderpool and Topography Presentedto 20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, Sculpture, HomerA.Thompson(1982). $15.00 21 Excavationsat Pylosin Elis, by John E. Coleman (1986). $25.00 22 Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressofIsis, by ElizabethJ. Walters (1988). $40.00 23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfromtheAthenianAgora,by ClaireveGrandjouan (1989). $25.00 at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries BronzeAgeCrete,byJeffrey S. Soles (1992). $35.00 25 Debrisfrom a PublicDining Placein theAthenianAgora, by Susan I. Rotroff andJohn H. Oakley (1992). $35.00 26 TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in Athens:Architectural Stagesand Chronology,by Ira S. Mark (1993). $50.00 on GreekArchitectural 27 Proceedings of theInternationalConference Terracottas of the ClassicalandHellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991, edited by Nancy A. Winter (1994). $120.00 28 Studiesin ArchaicCorinthianVasePainting,by D. A. Amyx and Patricia Lawrence(1996). $65.00 29 TheAthenianGrain-TaxLaw of 374/3 B.C.,by Ronald S. Stroud(1998). $35.00 30 A LMIA CeramicKiln in South-CentralCrete:Functionand Pottery Production,by JosephW. Shaw,Aleydis Van de Moortel, PeterM. Day, and Vassilis Kilikoglou (2001). $35.00
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
G REEK EPIG RA PH ICA L IN D EX
PERS ONS Krq^exBrlg, archon334/3a., 3661 Nex£[- - -] vel Nex[- - -], in buildingaccount425-415a., 194
name) (ormythological PHYLE 'Aveoxeg:
3661
['A]WtoxeAog,
NAMES
MYTHOLOGICAL [B£u£0090u£G],
B£u£0090vg:
192
name) NexN,194(orpersonal Il£yaaog
[Il£]
Iyasoc,, 192
3
XtFatpa, 193
INSCRIPTIONS
STUDIED OR EMENDED
Number AgoraInventory 365-366 3970 AgoraXV
44
365-366
Number CorinthInventory 367-371 C-34-397 MuseumInventory Epigraphical 18-21 6736a I3 Inscriptiones Graecae 482
18-21
Epigraphicum Graecum Supplementum
XXVI290
462
n H
JOURNAL
THE O F
E S P E R I A|
C
L A
OF
THE
S S I C A L
S T
AMERICAN U D
I E S
VOLUME70 2OOI
AT
SCHOOL AT
H
E N
S
Submissions:Manuscriptsand communicationsshouldbe addressedto Dr.TraceyCullen,Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat NewJersey08540;tel.609-683-0800; Athens,6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton, andphotocopiesof ilManuscripts fax609-924-0578;
[email protected]. originalartworkandphotographs mustbe submittedin triplicate; lustrations aremadewith the Editor.A shouldnot be sent unlesspriorarrangements of the articleshouldalsobe the majorconclusions shortabstractsummarizing reviewprocessandauthors included.Articlesaresubmittedto a double-blind withouttheirnameor accordingly, arerequestedto preparetheirmanuscripts notes,bibliograpreparation, The stylefor manuscript affiliationappearing. canbe foundin the Guidelinesfor on submissions phy,andotherinformation Authorspublishedin Hesperia62,1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School'swebsite at the aboveaddress. orbywritingto ASCSAPublications (www.ascsa.org); The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthenswillnotknowinglyprint orinitialscholthe announcement in Hesperiaoranyof its otherpublications 30,1970, byanymeans December acquired after any object of arlypresentation unlessthe or survey, otherthanthroughan officiallysanctionedexcavation existingcollectionorwaslegallyexportedfrom objectwaspartof a previously the countryof origin. price The annualsubscription Hesperiais publishedquarterly. Subscriptions: $70 forinstitutions($80,interna($70,international), is $60 forindividuals Paymentmust tional),and$33forstudents(proofof studentstatusrequired). beinU.S.dollars,drawnonaU.S.bankorbymoneyorder,andsentto Hesperia, SubscriberServices,P.O. Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529;tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outsideU.S.) 781-828-8450;fax 781-828-8915;e-mail of Singleissues(currentandbacknumberswhenavailable)
[email protected]. for $15 eachpluspostagefromthe DavidBrownBook Hesperiaareavailable Company,P.O.Box 511, Oakville,CT 06779;tel. 800-791-9354,860-9459329;fax 860-945-9468;or (outsideNorth America)OxbowBooks,Park End Place,OxfordOX1 1HN, U.K.;tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249;fax +44 (0) 13 andfollowingarealsoavailable. 1865-794449.IndexII andSupplements Reprintsof Hesperia,IndexI, andSupplements1-12 and 18 shouldbe ordered from Swets and Zeitlinger,b.v., P.O. Box 810, 2160 SZ Lisse,
[email protected]. Netherlands;
CopyrightC)2001 The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc.,AnnArbor,Michigan. Designby EllenMcKie. postagepaidat Periodicals Princeton,NewJersey,andat additionalmailingoffices. Sendaddresschanges Postmaster: to Hesperia,P.O.Box529, Canton, MA 02021-0529,U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0
VOLUME
70
(200I)
PUBLICATIONS STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF KerriCox E D I T O R,Hesperia TraceyCullen INTERIMEDITOR,Hesperia M. B. Richardson EDITOR,MONOGRAPHS Michael Fitzgerald ASSISTANTEDITOR SuzanneAbrams MANAGER PRODUCTION SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVECOORDINATOR JordanPeled
PUB LI CATI ON S C OMMITTEE Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago Jack L. Davis Universityof Cincinnati JeniferNeils Case Western ReserveUniversity Thomas G. Palaima Universityof Texas at Austin James P. Sickinger Florida State University KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V. Tracy (ex ofyicio) Ohio State University
CO
NT
E NTS
ALECBLAMIRE AthenianFinance,454-404B.C.
99-126
JOHNMCK. CAMPII ANDJOHNH. KROLL TheAgoraMintandAthenianBronzeCoinage
127-162
J. RICHARDGREENAND ERICW. HANDLEY Quotation A Literary Return: The Rover's on a Potin Corinth
367-371
AND CURTISRUNNELS BRITT HARTENBERGER of FlakedStoneProduction The Organization at BronzeAge Lerna
255-283
EURYDICEKEFALIDOU PotteryfromAiani LateArchaicPolychrome
183-219
JOHNK. PAPADOPOULOS, MARKL. LAWALL, TSAKIRGIS, M. LYNCH,BARBARA KATHLEEN SUSANI. ROTROFF,AND CAMILLAMACKAY in the Stoa NotesfromtheTins:Research of Attalos,Summer1999
163-182
WAYNEE. LEE Project,PartIV: PylosRegionalArchaeological in a ModernGreek ChangeandtheHumanLandscape Villagein Messenia
49-98
A. MARX PATRICIA andtheRediscovery Athena) 625(Endoios Acropolis ofItsFindspot
221-254
S SARAHP. MORRI Results ofa ofAncientLeukas: TheTowers 1991-1992 Survey, Topographic
285-347
OLIVER ANDREW A GlassOpusSectilePanelfromCorinth
349-363
JOHNK. PAPADOPOULOS andArchaic LateGeometric Achaea: Akhaian Magna in SouthItalyandSicily Pottery
373-460
ELLENE. PERRY A Sarcophagus ofPatronage: andtheDynamics Iconography 461-492 Atticus ofHerodes fromtheFamily PETERSCHULTZ ofAthenaNike oftheTemple TheAkroteria
1-47
V. TRACY STEPHEN ofIGII21750 A NewFragment INDEX GREEKEPIGRAPHICAL
365-366 493
I
I
THE
JOURNAL OF
OF C L A S S I C A L
THE
AMERICAN SCHOOL
STUDIES
AT
AT
H
E N
S
70: NUMBER4 VOLUME ER 200I ER-DECEMB OCTOB
o-' -
AmericanSchoolof StudiesatAthens Classical 2001
and TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthensis a research art, studyof thearchaeology, to advanced teachinginstitutiondedicated of GreeceandtheGreek andliterature language, history,philosophy, universiof nineAmerican in 1881bya consortium world.Established studentsandscholarsfrommore ties,the Schoolnowservesgraduate actingasa baseforresearch collegesanduniversities, than150affiliated andstudyin Greece.The mainbuildingsof the Schoolandits library officesin andpublications arelocatedin Athens,withadministrative NewJersey.As partof its mission,the SchooldirectsonPrinceton, in theAthenianAgoraandat Corinthandsponsors goingexcavations andsurveyson Greeksoil. It is the excavations allotherAmerican-led andthe andclassicists officiallinkbetweenAmericanarchaeologists Serviceof the GreekMinistryof Cultureand,as such,is Archaeological andto the resources of cultural to thewisemanagement dedicated about world.Inquiries of theclassical of knowledge dissemination in the SummerSessions in the Schoolorparticipation membership shouldbe sentto theAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens, NewJersey08540-5232. 6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton, bytheAmericanSchoolof Classical quarterly Hesperiais published to the StudiesatAthens.Foundedin 1932anddevotedprimarily andSchool-directed of reportson School-sponsored timelypublication workingin the fromallscholars welcomessubmissions Hesperia projects, from history,andliterature, art,epigraphy, fieldsof Greekarchaeology, journal. Hesperiais a refereed timesonward. earliestprehistoric
70: NUMBER
VOLUME
OCTOBER-DECEMBER
4
l
200I
I
|Xl
I
THEJOURNAL OFTHEAMERICAN SCHOOL OFCLASSICAL STUDIES ATATHENS
PUBLICATIONS STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Kerri EDITOR,
MONOGRAPHS
Michael
Fitzgerald
ELLENE. PERRY Iconography andtheDynamicsof Patronage: A Sarcophagus fromtheFamilyof HerodesAtticus
461
GREEKEPIGRAPHICAL INDEX
493
MANAGER George
C REATI VE Coo Jordan
373
Cullen
PRODUCTION Sarah
MagnaAchaea:AkhaianLateGeometric andArchaic Potteryin SouthItalyandSicily
Cox
Hesperia
Tracey EDITOR,
JOHNK. PAPADOPOULOS
Figueira RDI NATO R
Peled
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE CarolC. Mattusch(Chairman) GeorgeMasonUniversity DariceBirge LoyolaUniversityof Chicago JeniferNeils CaseWesternReserveUniversity ThomasG. Palaima Universityof Texasat Austin JamesP.Sickinger FloridaStateUniversity KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia StephenV.Tracy(exofXicio) Ohio StateUniversity
Submissions:Manuscriptsand communicationsshouldbe addressedto Dr.TraceyCullen,Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat NewJersey08540;tel.609-683-0800; Athens,6-8CharltonStreet,Princeton, Manuscripts andphotocopiesof ilfax 609-924-0578;
[email protected]. originalartworkandphotographs lustrations mustbe submittedin triplicate; aremadewith the Editor.A shouldnot be sent unlesspriorarrangements of the articleshouldalsobe themajorconclusions shortabstractsummarizing reviewprocessandauthors included.Articlesaresubmittedto a double-blind accordingly, withouttheirnameor arerequested to preparetheirmanuscripts notes,bibliograpreparation, The stylefor manuscript affiliationappearing. canbe foundin the Guidelinesfor on submissions phy,andotherinformation Authorspublishedin Hesperia62, 1993,pp. i-xvi; on the School'swebsite at the aboveaddress. orbywritingto ASCSAPublications (www.ascsa.org); TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthenswillnotknowinglyprint orinitialscholthe announcement in Hesperiaoranyof its otherpublications afterDecember30,1970,byanymeans of anyobjectacquired arlypresentation otherthanthroughan officiallysanctionedexcavationor survey,unlessthe existingcollectionorwaslegallyexportedfrom objectwaspartof a previously the countryof origin. price The annualsubscription Subscriptions: Hesperiais publishedquarterly. $70 forinstitutions($80,interna($70,international), is $60 forindividuals Paymentmust tional),and$33forstudents(proofof studentstatusrequired). andsentto Hesperia, bein U.S.dollars,drawnon aU.S.bankorbymoneyorder, SubscriberServices,P.O. Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529;tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outsideU.S.) 781-828-8450;fax 781-828-8915; e-mail whenavailable) of Singleissues(currentandbacknumbers
[email protected]. Brown Book postage from the David for $15 each plus Hesperiaareavailable Company,P.O.Box 511, Oakville,CT 06779;tel. 800-791-9354,860-9459329;fax 860-945-9468;or (outsideNorthAmerica)OxbowBooks,Park End Place,OxfordOX1 1HN, U.K.;tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249;fax +44 (0) 13 andfollowingarealsoavailable. 1865-794449.IndexII andSupplements Reprintsof Hesperia,IndexI, and Supplements1-12 and 18 shouldbe ordered from Swets and Zeitlinger,b.v., P.O. Box 810, 2160 SZ Lisse, Netherlands;
[email protected].
Copyright(C)2001 The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc.,AnnArbor,Michigan. Designby EllenMcKie. Coverillustration courtesy PatrickFinnerty. Periodicals postagepaidat Princeton,NewJersey,andat additionalmailingoffices. Postmaster: Sendaddresschanges to Hesperia,P.O.Box529, Canton,
MA 02021-0529,U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0
HESPERIA
70 (200)
NA
MAG
ACHAEA
Pages373-46?
AKHAIAN
AND
ARCHAIC
SOUTH
In memory ofEmilyTownsend Vermeule
LATE
ITALY
GEOMETRIC
POTTERY AND
IN
SICILY
AB STRACT ImportedAkhaianand locallyproducedAkhaian-stylepotteryoccursin South Italy, Sicily, and beyond, found not only in the Akhaian apoikiai,but also in other settlements. The most characteristic Akhaian shape-the kantharos-is discussedwithin the context of its home region,including Elis. Examplesof ArchaicAkhaian potteryin the West areassembledand the distributionis comparedto that ofAkhaian andWest Greek importsin the Late Bronze Age. A patternemergesthat suggests a complexrealityof interaction and movement of people, commodities, and ideas between Greece and Italy in the pre- and protohistoric periods, thus contributing to a better understanding of the first western Greeks.
AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1. For Francavillasee, mostrecently, Maaskant-Kleibrink 1993.
This paper emerged from a study of the pottery from the site at Francavilla Marittima, the extramuralsanctuaryof the Akhaian apoikiaof Sybaris on the site of an earlier indigenous settlement (Fig. 1).1 In dealing with the pottery from the sanctuary on the Timpone della Motta (see below), I discovered a large number of plain banded and monochrome kantharoi, many of which were locally produced, either in the plain of Sybaris or elsewhere in South Italy, while others were imported. These are not isolated examples, but together form one of the most numerous categories of pottery after Corinthian. In shape and style, these kantharoi are closest to a series of vessels from various sites in the northwest Peloponnese, particularly Akhaia. Despite the fact that Sybaris was traditionally founded by Akhaians, the Peloponnesian characterof this material has not previously been recognized in studies of Greek pottery in South Italy and Sicily. The relevant material from Francavilla will be fully published elsewhere. Comparative material from other sites in South Italy and Sicily forms the basis of this article, the aim of which is to track, as far as is currentlypossible, the distribution of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery in the centralMediterranean.Some of the materialthat I referto as Akhaian
374
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Figure1. Map of the Mediterranean. or Akhaian-style may ultimately derive from Elis, Ithake, or from the region on the north side of the Corinthian Gulf, opposite Akhaia. As will become clear,the results of this study are tentative; they are presented as a startingpoint for others more familiarwith the materialin mainlandGreece and the West to build on or to reassemble. Three interrelatedissues are addressed.First, Akhaian pottery occurs commonly at sites in Magna Graecia;Akhaian or Akhaianizing pottery is found all over South Italy and parts of Sicily, and is not confined to the Akhaian colonial sphere.Second, in addition to the imports from the Greek mainland, Akhaian pottery was copied by potters at a number of sites, especially the Akhaian apoikiaiof Sybarisand Metapontion, giving rise to a locally produced style of pottery that is best designated as "Akhaianizing" or "Akhaian-style."Such an appellation has the advantageof acknowledging the pedigree of the material, in the same way that the terms "ItaloCorinthian"and "Etrusco-Corinthian"point to the influence of Corinth. I hasten to add that my use of terms such as Akhaian and Corinthian is confined to the identification of easily distinguished ceramic styles. Pottery by itself can be a misleading and inadequate indicator of social realities; in particular,interpretationsof social and economic preeminence and ethnicity should not be formulated on the basis of ceramic style alone.2 The example of Corinthian pottery is worth bearing in mind, since it is clear that the distribution of Corinthian-style pottery throughout the Mediterranean is not directly linked with colonial movement; the same is
R. G. Finnerty
2. Graham 1986; Papadopoulos 1996, p. 158; Osborne 1998, esp. p. 258; see furtherPapadopoulos1997a; cf. the penetratingstudies of Hall 1997 andJones 1997; see also Morgan 1991.
MAGNA
3. Morgan 1997; Morgan 1999a; see also Morris and Papadopoulos 1998. As Morgan has furtherargued, the perceivedneed to flesh out the Corinthiansequenceby adducing evidence from the West to fill what were, until recently,gaps at Corinth has createda false picture,conflating western and Corinthianevidence in a misleadingway.For filling in many of the noted gaps in Corinth see esp. Williams 1983; Williams 1986; Pfaff 1999; and, most recently,IsthmiaVIII. 4. Hall 1997. 5. As Morgan (1991, p. 135) notes, the areaof ancientAkhaia essentially correspondsto that of the modern Greek administrativedistrictof the same name.
ACHAEA
375
true for Athenian, Lakonian, and other Greek pottery styles. Moreover, Corinthian-style pottery in Italy, Sicily, and beyond need not have been carried-or produced-by Corinthians, and Catherine Morgan has intimated that much of the pottery in the West referredto as Corinthian may, in fact, be from Ithake or Korkyra.3 Finally, in this article I seek to contextualize the evidence of Akhaian material remains not solely against the backdrop of the literary traditions of the foundation of colonies in the Early Iron Age, but within a broader framework that recognizes other avenues of circulation, as well as similar patterns in the Bronze Age. In so doing I attempt to bridge the systemic divide between prehistoric and classical archaeology in the study of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Mediterranean.The first western Greeks were Mycenaeans, and it is striking how very similar the Archaic Akhaian pattern is to that of their Bronze Age Akhaian forebears. In drawing a common threadbetween the Akhaians of the Mycenaean age and those of the historic period, my aim is not, however, to conflate the very different worlds of heroic and historic Akhaians; nor is it my intention to confuse ethnic"Akhaian"with geographicalor stylistic"Akhaian."As Jonathan Hall has argued, there are numerous tiers of identity that were explored and exploited.4 My aim, rather, is to move toward eradicating the perceived gap between the "lastMycenaeans"and the "firstwestern Greeks." Following a historical introduction that sets out the parameters of Akhaian overseas settlement and the material evidence associated with it, an overview is presented of Akhaian pottery in its home region. This is followed by an annotated list of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery, primarily kantharoi, found outside the northwest Peloponnese and adjacent regions. The purpose of the list, which forms the core of this study, is to reveal the distribution of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery in South Italy and Sicily. A synthesis is then presented that summarizes the main patterns in the distribution of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery of the later Geometric and Early Archaic periods and compares this distribution with that of Mycenaean pottery in the West. In the final section I explore more generally the evidence for Akhaians in South Italy. Any account of the distribution of Akhaian pottery must necessarily begin with the most characteristic shape in the Akhaian repertoire:the kantharos.This distinctive shape is found all over Akhaia, parts of neighboring Elis, especially at Olympia and Eleian Pylos, as well as at various sites on the north side of the Corinthian Gulf. Such a distribution, particularly in the coastal areas of the western Corinthian Gulf, raises the issue of whether these kantharoi are specifically Akhaian or, more generically,western Greek. Although it is clear that many of the kantharoifound in Elis, Phokis, Aitolia, and Akarnania were locally made, this is a question that cannot be answered conclusively at present. In some cases, the clays of this greater area are too little known to provide a more detailed guide to precise provenance within the region. It may well be that what I refer to as the Akhaian kantharos-and generally as the Akhaian pottery style-was produced in an areaconsiderablylargerthan the modern province of Akhaia.5There exists, for example, a great deal of similar material in southern Phokis, Elis, Aitolia, southern Akarnania, and on Ithake. This
376
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
pottery, along with that from various sites in Akhaia and Arkadia, is currentlybeing studied by variousscholarsworking in these regions, and much of it is either unpublished or has appearedonly in preliminaryreports. It is well beyond the scope of this article to provide a comprehensive overview of the pottery from these various regions or to anticipate the results of more thorough analyses of individual categories of pottery.New discoveries in the Peloponnese and western Greece and the systematic publication of material, such as William Coulson's contributions on the Early Iron Age pottery of Messenia and Birgitta Eder's recent studies of Elis in the Early Iron Age,6 are helping to define more clearly the individual traits of each region. It is worth stressing, however, that the very distinction between Akhaia and Elis in the Early Iron Age, for example, may be more apparentthan real.7The evidently koinestyle of pottery,particularly in Akhaia and Elis, may well reflect a more profound cultural, economic, and political koinein the northwest Peloponnese. The extent to which "Akhaia"or "Elis"were meaningful terms in the Geometric period or referredto clearly prescribedgeographical areasremains moot. A situation similar to that of the pottery has been observed in the regional style of Archaic Doric architectureof the Akhaian cities of South Italy. BarbaraBarletta'sthorough examination of the geographical distribution and chronology of various elements of this style has demonstrated its adoption over a widespread area and she thus coined the term "Ionian Sea"style.8Barletta also argued that this style appearedin the West before it did in the Peloponnese. Certainly other aspects of the Akhaian material record appearfirst in the West, including coinage (see below), and a number of scholarshave arguedthat various innovations essential to the notion of the Greek city-state started in the western cities and from there were passed on to the homeland.9 I have decided, however, to retain the terms Akhaian and Akhaian-style in this study in keeping with the literary tradition of Akhaian colonization, though bearing in mind the problems associated with much of the historical evidence.?1Viewed from a slightly different perspective, "Magna Elis" or "Magna Ithake" might seem reasonable alternatives,except that there is no literary tradition for Eleian or Ithakesian colonization, nor is there a tradition of western Akhaians moving to the Peloponnese. Thus, in the title of this article, MagnaAchaeais a rhetorical construct, not the same as, but not unlike, the very notion of Magna Graeciaitself.11 6. NichoriaIII, esp. pp. 61-259; Coulson 1986; 1988; cf. Coulson 1990; Eder 1998, pp. 141-197; 1999; Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999 (on Elis); see also Morgan 1990, pp. 235-247. The materialfrom Elis, with a continuoussequencethroughoutthe Early Iron Age, will be presentedin detail in a forthcomingstudyby Eder. This materialappearsto be closely relatedto that of westernAkhaia. 7. I am gratefulto JonathanHall for bringingthis to my attention and for fruitfuldiscussionon relatedthemes.
8. Barletta1990, p. 45. 9. See, among others, Levequeand Vidal-Naquet 1964; Malkin 1987; 1994; de Polignac 1995. For Akhaian coinage see Papadopoulos,forthcoming.
10. For these problems,see especiallyHall 1997. 11. Earlysources(e.g., Pind. Pyth. 1.146; Eur.Med. 439-440) use MeyahXl 'EXX&dto refer to the entire Greek
world, not specificallyto Italy.For the concept of MegaleHellasin Italy see, most recently,Greco 1998.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
377
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION TO AKHAIAN OVERSEAS TRAVEL AND SETTLEMENT During the last quarterof the 8th century B.C., according to conventional chronology, the first and most famous of the Akhaian apoikiai in Magna Graecia was founded on the river Krathis, on a broad and fertile plain, at Sybaris (Fig. 2).12The river itself has the same name as the "never-failing Krathis,"which flows nearAkhaian Aigai. According to tradition,the colonists were led by Is of Helike, and a contingent of Troizenians joined the venture; the latter, on the testimony of Aristotle (Pol. 1303a), were soon driven out by the strongerAkhaians of the new colony. In the course of the next two centuries, Sybaris was to become one of the most powerful and prosperouspoleis of Magna Graecia, its name synonymous with luxurious living.13The history of the city, and of the other Akhaian settlements of South Italy, including Kroton, Kaulonia, and Metapontion, as well as Poseidonia (Paestum) and others, is well known.14Ironically,a fate similar to that which befell the mother-city-complete burialby naturalcauseswas to befall the colony, and both Sybaris and Helike were, for a very long time, lost from view.15The fame of the colony, however, unlike that of the mother-city, had become proverbial-a topos-and the name of Sybaris achieved a prominence in human memory that Helike did not share. Although the presence of Akhaian settlements in South Italy has long been known, evidence of Akhaian pottery-or of any material remains clearly identified as Akhaian outside of the script-has been curiously absent.16Indeed, the Akhaian settlements of Magna Graecia have tended to be seen as paradigmatic cases of the lack of material influence on a colony by the motherland.17The problem is in part the result of the lack of systematic excavation and thorough publication of material in Akhaia itself. Morgan's overview of archaeological investigation in the region has shown it to be haphazard,with most of the material deriving from rescue excavations, along with chance finds.18 12. For the earlyhistory of Sybaris, see Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 24-27, 7583, 153-159; Callaway1950, pp. 1-40; see also Galli 1907; Guzzo in SibariII, pp. 15-23; Bullitt 1967; Osanna 1992, pp. 115-153; Morgan and Hall 1996, pp. 202-204; Guzzo 1998. For a useful overviewof the archaeologicalwork at the site, particularlythe activitiesof Paola Zancani Montuoro, see Guzzo 1992; Luppino 1998. 13. RE IV.A.1, 1931, cols. 10021011, s.v. Sybaris(Philipp);Callaway 1950; see alsoJacobsthal1938. 14. Dunbabin 1948. For a useful overview,with recent bibliography,see Morgan and Hall 1996, pp. 199-215; also Osanna 1992; Pugliese Carratelli 1996; Greco 1998. See also the various entriesin Nenci and Vallet 1977-1999. The problemsinherentin identifying
the exact origin of the colonists at these sites are many,and it is also difficult to establishthe meanings-whether ethnic or geographical-of "Akhaian" in the Peloponneseand the West, which change throughtime (see Hall 1997; and furtherbelow). 15. Sybaris,destroyedin 510 B.C.by the Akhaiansof Kroton,along with Thurii, the Classicalcity founded on the site of Archaic Sybaris,and Roman Copia, was deeply buriedunderthe alluviumof the riverKrathis.Helike, located on the coast of the Peloponnese east of Aigion, along with Boura,was completelydestroyedby the devastating earthquakeof 373 B.C.:Anderson 1954, p. 74; RE VII.2, 1912, cols. 2855-2862, s.v. Helike (Gundel). For the modern searchfor Sybaris,see Rainey and Lerici 1967; for Helike, see
Marinatos1960; Katsonopoulou1991; 1998a; 1998b;Morgan 1991, p. 135; Soter and Katsonopoulou1998; Pharaklas1998; Courakis1998. 16. See, for instance,the standard overviewsof Blakeway1932-1933; Dunbabin 1948; Ridgway1992. 17. Morgan 1999a, p. 243. 18. Morgan 1986; 1988. Even historianshave tended to neglect Akhaia as a region, although the 1990s have seen a numberof detailed studies dealingwith the textualsourcesand history of the region, as well as its sanctuariesand cults. See, in particular, Rizakis 1995; also Rizakis 1991; Morgan and Hall 1996; Osanna 1996a; Osanna 1996b. Anderson 1954 remains useful for later historicalcommentary and for referencesin the ancientliterary sources.
378
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Roma
PITHEKOUSSAIO38
Poseidion
ERIKOUSSAo
PHOINIKOUSSA o (3 LIPARA
Epizephyroi
cb
Herakleia egaraHyblaia ,Syrakousai
Recent archaeological work in southern Italy has brought to light a wealth of evidence, the full significance of which has yet to be realized. Perhaps more than anything else, the one aspect of Akhaian culture that left its mark most clearly on South Italy was the alphabet, evocatively illustrated in a number of dedicatory inscriptions, not least of which is the
Figure2. Map of South Italyand Sicilyshowingprincipalsites referred to in the text. R.G.Finnerty
MAGNA
ACHAEA
379
well-knownKleom(b)rotosinscriptionfromthe Timpone dellaMotta at NevertheFrancavillaMarittima,the extramuralsanctuaryof Sybaris.19 Archaic Akhaian remains the of less, quantity meager,andthe inscriptions in on L. 1961 has situationremarked by H.Jeffery essentiallynot changed: Althoughthe Achaianalphabethas left its marknot only in the Achaiancoloniesof MagnaGraecia,but also alongthe trade-route which led thitherthroughthe IonianIslands,throughlackof excavationveryfew Archaicinscriptionshaveyet been foundin Achaiaitself.2 Jefferywenton to list eightinscriptionsfromAkhaiain the localscript as opposedto some 35 inscriptionsfromthe settlementsin South Italy.21 In his revisededitionofJeffery'sstandardtext,AlanJohnstonreattributed one ofJeffery'sAkhaianinscriptionsto Phokis;two from Olympiawere reassignedas colonialAkhaianratherthan from the homeland,and another was assignedto Arkadia.22 Consequently,Jeffery'soriginallist of has been trimmed to four.The quantityof inscriptions eight inscriptions fromAkhaiansettlementsin SouthItaly,however,hasbeensteadilygrowing,andanimportantadditionhasbeenthe bronzeplaquefoundat OlymIndeed, it is pia recordinga treatybetween Sybarisand the Serdaioi.23 to note that Akhaian is characterized interesting script largelyon the basis of the westernevidence,andmostof the westernexamples-like Barletta's "IonianSea"style of architecture-areearlier.Although this could well reflecta lack of excavations,as Jefferysuggested,the possibilitythat the scriptis largelya colonialconstructshouldnot be altogetheroverlooked.24 Similarly,the Akhaiancities of South Italy all produceddistinctiveand earlycoinages,someas earlyas the middleof the 6th centuryB.C.,whereas the Akhaiansof the homelandproducedverylittle beforethe 4th century B.C.25
In comparisonto the script and coinage,the Late Geometricand ArchaicpotteryofAkhaiaremainspoorlyunderstood. Nevertheless, enough is knownto establishthe existenceof a thrivingwesternGreekceramic tradition-specificallya northwestPeloponnesiantradition.In partthis traditionwas open to influencesfrom neighboringregions, including Corinth,as well as more distantones, but in the main it resultedin a 19. StoopandPuglieseCarratelli 1965-1966; Pugliese Carratelli19651966;Jeffery 1990, p. 456, pl. 77, no. la; Papadopoulos,forthcoming,fig. 2:a. 20. Jeffery1990, p. 221. 21. Jeffery1990, pp. 224,259-262. 22. Johnston,in Jeffery 1990, p. 451. 23. Jeffery1990, p. 456, pl. 77, no. l:b; for Sybaritededicationsat Olympia, see furtherKunze 1961. For the historicalramificationsof this document,see Greco 1990; 1998.
The inscription is illustrated andmost recentlydiscussedin Papadopoulos, forthcoming,fig. 2:b. 24. See Morgan and Hall 1996. 25. Papadopoulos,forthcoming.See Kraay1976, pp. 162-170, for a useful overviewof the Akhaian coinage of South Italy;for the coinage of Akhaia, see Head 1911, pp. 412-419; Kraay 1976, p. 95. For the traditionalperspectiveof"colony and mother city," see Graham 1964.
380
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
highly distinctive style, very different from that of Corinth.26The salient lines in the development of Akhaian Geometric pottery have been mapped out by Nicolas Coldstream, and Iphigeneia Dekoulakou has done a great deal to fill in many gaps and clarify our understanding of Akhaian Late Geometric, Subgeometric,and Archaic pottery.27Their contributionsbuild on the earlier reports of Nikolaos Zapheiropoulos, Euthymeios Mastrokostas, and others responsible for excavations in Akhaia.28The absence, however, of a full-fledged Akhaian figured style of vase-painting, such as contemporaryAttic, Corinthian, Lakonian, and East Greek, has led to the general neglect of Akhaian pottery by students of Greek ceramics, and this neglect has extended to the imported pottery of Akhaia in South Italy and Sicily. It is, therefore, all the more a credit to the pioneering work of scholarssuch as Felice Gino Lo Porto andJuliette de la Geniere, who were among the first to group a number of Akhaian and Akhaianizing vessels in South Italy.The former assigned vessels to the category "ceramicadi tipo Itaca,"29while the latter included a few under the general heading "vases importes non attiques."30 Lo Porto'sand de la Geniere's lead was followed by Coldstream, who singled out a few Akhaian pieces in Magna Graecia and correctly identified their origin. In an article published in 1998, Coldstream assembled a handful of Akhaian kantharoi from several sites in South Italy.31These included one possible example from Sybaris, a complete profile from Leporano (ancient Satyrion near Taranto), and several other pieces reported by de la Geniere from Amendolara and Sala Consilina (see below).32In some cases this pottery is referredto in the original publications as "ceramicadi tipo Itaca,"33but more often than not pottery similar to this is wrongly classified as "coppe ioniche" (or "di tipo ionico") or more generally designated as locally produced "coppe a filetti" or "dipinti coloniale."34Indeed, a great number of problem pieces have been relegated to, or subsumed by, nebulous categories such as these. The inadequacy of such terms is well reflected in the publication of three related kantharoi from Incoronata,which were published in a recent volume on the Basento. One kantharos,fired red (oxidized), is listed under the heading "ceramica
26. This is a point well made by Morgan (1988, p. 324). For Corinthian importsin the region of Aigion, see Bosana-Kourou1980; and most recently, Morgan 1998 for a good overview, including referencesto the materialfrom Ano Mazaraki.In a similarvein, the Mycenaeanpotteryof Akhaia,well known from the seminal studies of Vermeule(1960), Papadopoulos(1976; 1978-1979), and, most recently, Mountjoy (1999), is easily distinguished from the productsof other Mycenaean workshopsin the Peloponnese,particularlyduringthe Late Helladic IIIC period. See Fisher 1988; for regional Mycenaeanpottery in general,including Akhaian,see Mountjoy 1990; 1999.
Note the recentcomments in Kolonas 1996-1997; see also Kolonas1990; Deger-Jalkotzy1991; Papadopoulos 1991; for importedpottery in the Mycenaeantombs of Patras,see Papazoglou-Manioudaki1993. See furtherPapadopoulosandJones 1980, and the earliercomments in Astrom 1965. For a fullerbibliographyand discussion of AkhaianMycenaeanpottery and the West, see Fisher 1988; Benzi and Graziadio1996; Vagnetti1999. 27. Coldstream1968, pp. 220-232, pls. 48-50; 1977, pp. 177-190; 1998a; Dekoulakou1973; 1984. 28. Of the numerousannualreports publishedin ArchDeltand Prakt,see, in particular,Zapheiropoulos1952;
Figure3 (opposite).Map of partof centraland southernGreeceshowing principalsites referredto in the text. R. G. Finnerty
1956; and Mastrokostas1968. 29. Lo Porto 1964, pp. 226-227. 30. See de la Geniere 1968, p. 189. Other scholarswho have discussedthis categoryof pottery,particularlythe distinctivekantharos,include Canosa (1986, pp. 175, 181) and Stea (1991, pp. 419-424), as well as variousauthors (e.g., Davide Ciafaloniand Elizabeth Franchi)in Basento. 31. Coldstream1998a, pp. 328-330. 32. See SibariI, p. 86, fig. 76, no. 216a (= p. 95, fig. 82, no. 216a-b); Lo Porto 1964, p. 227, fig. 48.1. 33. E.g., Lo Porto 1964, p. 227; Maruggi 1996, pp. 262,265, no. 226. 34. E.g., Tomay,Munzi, and Gentile 1996, p. 218.
MAGNA
35. See Basento,p. 132, fig. 71; p. 158, no. 107; pp. 172-173, nos. 135137; these are discussedmore fully below underIncoronata.
ACHAEA
38i
di produzione coloniale,"whereas another is presented under the heading "ceramicabuccheroide,"along with similar kantharoifired gray (reduced); a banded kantharos of exactly the same shape is published as a Greek import.35All three vessels share a common Peloponnesian pedigree. The distribution of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery in many parts of South Italy and Sicily, as well as in Ithake, Epeiros, and other parts of the Greek mainland (Fig. 3), and perhaps as far afield as Melita (Malta) and North Africa (see below), points to a more complex reality than one in which colonists carrywith them domestic chattels from their homeland.
382
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Indeed, a number of scholars have recently attempted to explain such movements of commodities and people by looking beyond traditional motives such as the "spectresof over-population, land shortage, and states with commercial policies."36Alternative models stress"privateenterprise," active intervention and response against the backdropof a growing worldsystem, and many more subtle and fluid avenues, allowing for mobility of people and ideas, not just commodities.37 In the historic period the phenomenon of Greeks traveling and settling overseas is not a unified movement that can be reduced to simple factors.38The story is complex and fascinating, one of multiple diasporas in the Mediterranean and Black Seas that should not be seen solely in the light of other colonizations, particularlyEuropean colonizations from the 16th through 20th centuries A.C.39 In recent years the process of the foundation of any Greek foreign settlement has increasingly come to be seen not as a "foundation d'une colonie," but rather a "formation d'une polis At the same time it is important to stress that the pattern d'outre-mer."40 seen in South Italy and Sicily is not solely the result of the quest for land. Resource exploitation as opposed to territorialexpansion leaves a notably different imprint on the landscape and on the material record.Its effect is more elusive,particularlywhen the resourcedriving colonization frequently does not survive in the archaeologicalrecord. In addition to human bodies, such commodities include some of the most criticaleconomic resources: textiles, livestock and pelts, metal ores, timber, grain, oil, alcohol-"soft things," as Robin Osborne calls them.41Perhaps the most radicalresponse to the model of "colonization"has come from Osborne, who has argued that the very term is unsuitable for Greek settlement in the West in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.42He states: Talk of whether or not there was "tradebefore the flag"is inappropriate, not because talk of trade is anachronistic,but because there was no flag. A proper understanding of Archaic Greek history can only come when chapters on "Colonization"are eradicated from books on early Greece.43 Whatever the reasons behind the formation of any Greek apoikia,as PeregrineHorden and Nicholas Purcell have stressed,there is no reason to seek special (and, still less, apologetic) explanations for the overseassettlement of so many Greeks in the Archaic period, any more than for Athenian cleruchies, Roman coloniae,or Venetian and Genoese settlements in the later Middle Ages: "The establishment of cash-crop production in the landscape of the Hellenic overseas settlement is one of the more radical and intrusive dislocations in Mediterranean agrarianhistory."44 Moreover, such a dislocation in the Mediterranean is perhaps most visible archaeologically at Metapontion and, in the context of Greek literary tradition, best encapsulated in the fabulous stories of agriculturalsuccess at Sybaris, both Akhaian apoikiai.45It is against this broader perspective of Greek overseas travel and settlement-both real and imagined, historic and prehistoric-that one aspect of the material record is explored here.
36. Osborne 1998, p. 268.
37. See,amongothers,Osborne
1998, pp. 267-268; Sherrattand Sherratt1993, esp. pp. 374-375. See
furtherBurkert1984;Purcell1990;
Morris 1992a; 1992b, pp. xvii-xviii. 38. Boardman1994, p. 147. 39. Purcell 1997; see further Horden and Purcell2000; Lyons and Papadopoulos2002. 40. Luraghi1996. 41. Osborne 1998; see furtherLyons and Papadopoulos2002. 42. Osborne 1998, pp. 267-268. 43. Osborne 1998, pp. 268-269. A relatedissue is raisedby Niemeyer (1990a, p. 50), who arguesthat the history of the first Greeksin the Far West has been obscuredby later Greeks,who could not conceiveof Greek presenceanywherebut in the terms that were establishedin their own time (i.e., polis and apoikia). 44. Horden and Purcell2000,
p.286. 45. Horden and Purcell2000, p. 286. For the choraof Metaponto see, most recently,Carter1994; 1998. For Sybarisand the literarytraditionsee Callaway1950.
MAGNA
383
ACHAEA
THE AKHAIAN KANTHAROS IN ITS HOME REGION46 Akhaia in Herodotos's day was a region that had twelve divisions and cities (Fig. 3). The relevant passage in Herodotos is worth quoting in full: IIEXMxV][LeV y? rrp7cT 7cp60g txuCowvog,ie-?Ta8 A'ly?(tpa xal Ayaxi, 6 ?v 'I-raXit 7oTaoi6 6aC OT?Du ?v -c Kp&Ota7ro-TaL6o;aseivaocq?CTrC, To ouvoCxa ?xc?, xal Boopa xoai'Eixxq, ig vi v xaTzcpuyov"Iovq rt6O XOaiTP67C?xca IIHaTp??; 'AXt6XtLv [La)(Y ?ioaTO?VT?';,xai AiyLov xai Iocap?? xax "QX?vog, iv T IlIipo; 7toxocTaoLo% ?iyac;i?TL,xxal lta?6yatoL oixiooot. rTaxora A6jlYqxai TptacL.??s;,oi vtoovot 'TOOTOV &6v8?xa [.t?p?avUv'Axaot)v?Ci'lxaciT6r y? 'Icovov lv.
Pellene nearest to Sikyon, then Aigeira and Aigai, where the neverfailing river Krathis flows, and from which the river in Italy took its name; Boura and Helike, where the Ionians fled when they were defeated in battle by the Akhaians; Aigion, Rhypes, Patrai and Pharai, and Olenos, where is the great river Peiros; Dyme and Tritaia, the only inland city of all these; these were the twelve divisions of the Ionians, as they are now of the Akhaians.47 As alreadystressed, one of the most critical problems facing the study of Akhaian pottery, its production, distribution, and circulationwithin its home region, in Greece generally, as well as in the West, is the lack of systematic excavations and thorough publication of material from sites in the northwest Peloponnese. Until the Late Geometric and Archaic levels of the major Akhaian city-states are explored, particularlyHelike,48 the traditional"motherland"of Sybaris,our understanding of the material culture of the region must remain incomplete. Moreover, Herodotos's account of the twelve Akhaian cities raises the possibility that what I refer to as Akhaian pottery may have been produced at more than one center. 46. The pottery drawingspresented in this section and in the annotatedlist that follows derivefrom different sourcesand, as such, arenot consistent in the mannerof illustration.For furtherinformationon the pottery illustratedin this study,the readeris referredto the originalpublications. 47. Hdt. 1.145; in listing the Akhaian cities, I have followed closely the text of Herodotos;cf. the slightly differentorderof divisionsgiven in Anderson 1954, p. 73. The list is repeatedin exactlythe same order,beginning with Pellene and ending with Tritaia,in Strab.8.385-386 (8.7.4).
Earlier,however,in Polybios2.41.7, Aigai, Rhypes,Helike, and Olenos had disappeared.For a more recent overviewof the topographyof Aigialeia, see the comments in Katsonopoulou 1998a. For a discussionof localizedvariations,see Morgan and Hall 1996. 48. For the most recent account of the first excavationat Helike, see Katsonopoulou1998b. For the geological and relatedstudies that led to the location of the site, see Soter and Katsonopoulou1998, and other specialistcontributionsin Katsonopoulou, Soter,and Schilardi1998.
384
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Until recently,systematic excavationsof Early Iron Age sites in Akhaia were rare, although those at Aigeira and Ano Mazaraki (Rakita) are important exceptions.49Alongside these excavationsare the considerablesalvage finds from Aigion, and the results of the survey conducted by the Center for Greek and Roman Antiquity of the National Research Foundation (KERA) and the Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities of Patras (EPKA).50This important fieldwork will go a long way in filling a gap in our knowledge of early Greece, particularlyof early colonization, and has the potential to shed light on the history of Sybaris and other cities in South Italy. Despite recent advances, the quantity of Geometric and Archaic material from the region is not great. Michalis Petropoulos and A. D. Rizakis remarkedas recently as 1994 in reference to the survey of the coastal area of Patras that "unlike the Mycenaean, the Geometric period is almost unknown, there being a scarcityof archaeologicalfinds.... It is paradoxicalyet perhaps true that Archaic sites are less numerous than the Geometric."51 The relativedearthof physicalevidence impedes a more detailed analysis of the Geometric and Archaic pottery of Akhaia, particularlyin terms of the diachronic development of the ceramic repertoire on the basis of stratigraphy,as well as the fundamental issue of isolating individual workshops within the region.The study of clay sources and the visual, as well as scientific, determination of pottery fabrics in Akhaia, Elis, parts of northern Arkadia, as well as in Aitolia, Akarnania, and parts of neighboring Phokis and Lokris, are still in their infancy.The nature of the material is such that it imposes limits on what can be said with certainty,and many of the statements made in the following pages will requireamendment, if not complete revision, as new evidence comes to light. The following section is intended to summarize,albeit selectively,what can be said about the pottery from Akhaia and adjacentlands on the basis of excavated finds. As with many other regions of the Greek world, the Akhaian ceramic repertoireis rich and varied. Many different shapes were produced and some exported. These include jugs and other closed vessel forms,kraters,and even an idiosyncratictall stamnos,referredto as a "pithos" (see below),52but these are generally more difficult to identify outside the northwest Peloponnese and the adjacent area on the north side of the Corinthian Gulf, especiallywhen fragmentary.The most distinctive shape 49. Morgan 1991, pp. 135-141, esp. 136; see also Morgan 1986; 1988; Morgan and Hall 1996. For an importantoverviewof archaeological work in the region,see Petropoulos 1990; for a summaryof"rural"cult sites in Akhaia and Aitolia, see HoubyNielsen 2001. For Aigeira see references in Morgan 1991, pp. 152-155, 157, ns. 24, 33, 43, 44, 64; see esp. Alzinger et al. 1985; Alzinger,Gogos, andTrummer1986; Alzinger,Lanschiitzer,Neeb, andTrummer1986; Gogos 1986-1987; note also the comments in Bammer 1998. For the
excavationsat Ano Mazaraki,see Petropoulos1987-1988; 1992-1993; 1996-1997; see also the preliminary reporton the bronze and iron weapons in Gadolou 1996-1997. The pottery from Ano Mazarakiis being studiedby AnastasiaGadolou. 50. For a useful summaryof the rescueexcavationsat Aigion, see Katsonopoulou1998a, pp. 31-38; the overviewin Papakosta1991 is fundamental.Note also annualreportsin ArchDelt,esp. Petsas 1974; PapazoglouManioudaki1989; Papakosta1990. For the KERA/EPKA surveysee Rizakis
1992; Petropoulosand Rizakis 1994;
1990.Forthe alsoPapagiannopoulos choraof Patrasseeesp.Petropoulos 1991. This surveyhas produceda range of monochromewaresthat bear some similaritywith Eleian, for which see below. 51. Petropoulosand Rizakis 1994, pp. 195, 197. 52. See Robertson1948, pp. 72-74, pl. 27, no. 401; Benton 1953, p. 302, pl. 52, no. 859; for the variousnames given to this distinctiveshape,which is most common in Crete, see Papadopoulos 1998.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
385
in the Akhaian potters' repertoireis the vertical-handled kantharos and it is this shape that is most useful for tracking the distribution of Akhaian exports. There are two broad varieties of what I refer to as Akhaian kantharoi, the banded and the plain monochrome. Far more problematic is the question of Akhaian skyphoi, or horizontal-handled drinking vessels, especiallysince this involves the contentious provenanceof the Thapsos class, and in many ways I do not want to confuse the issue by revisiting the debate over the provenance(s) of the Thapsos class.53Consequently, horizontal-handled pots-skyphoi and cups-are not included in the present study,even though some may proveto be Akhaian or influenced by Akhaian vessels.54 In the pieces that I have seen from Akhaia, as well as those vessels found in Italy that I presume to be Akhaian imports, the standard clay employed is fine, fairly well levigated, and with few visible impurities; occasionally there are small white inclusions, especially on larger, thickerwalled vessels. There is no mica to speak of, though in some cases the odd speck of surface mica might be observed. The color of the clay body and reserved surfaces can vary according to the conditions of firing, but it is characteristicallybrown. It is, most commonly, in the range of light brown (7.5YR 6/4), sometimes closer to reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) or, in paler examples, approaching 7.5YR 7/6 on the Munsell scale. The paint is usually of good quality, often lustrous, and sometimes with a pronounced metallic sheen, though a matt surface can occur. The metallic quality of the paint was remarkedon fifty years ago by Robertson in his description of some probable Akhaian imports to Ithake (see below).55The paint can fire a good black, thinning to various shades of brown where more dilute; occasionally a two-tone black and brown combination is found. In some cases the color of the paint can be a reddish brown, usually dark, some53. Although I firmlybelieve that Corinth createdand produced Thapsos-classvessels,I do not believe that all Thapsos-classpottery is Corinthian,and too little is known of Akhaian pottery to dismiss Akhaia as a possible sourcefor some of these skyphoi.For discussionsee Coldstream 1968, pp. 102-104; 1998a, p. 327; Bosana-Kourou1980; 1984; Dehl 1984, pp. 44-48 (Thapsos-class skyphoi),pp. 58-63 (Thapsos-class kraters).See also Dehl 1983; Benson 1989, esp. pp. 16-17; and, most recently,Morgan 1997, pp. 325-326; IsthmiaVIII, pp. 272-275. Neeft's suggestion that Thapsos-class skyphoi-or at least some of themwere producedsomewherewest of Corinth, still has much to commend it; see Neeft 1981. For elementalanalysis of Thapsos-classskyphoi,see Grimanis et al. 1980a; 1980b; also Deriu, Buchner,and Ridgway1986. In the
most recentpublicationof Geometric pottery from Corinth, the rarityof Thapsos-classpottery continuesto be a strikingfeature;see Pfaff 1999, p. 59, n. 7, pp. 64, 99, fig. 31 (a solitary fragment);see furtherWilliams 1983, p. 144. There are only five fragmentsof Thapsos-classpottery at nearby Isthmia;see IsthmiaVIII, pp. 131,272277. ForThapsos-classvessels in Italy and Sicily see, e.g., d'Agostino 1979, pp. 63-64, fig. 36, nos. 2-3; Byvanck 1959, p. 70, fig. 1; Valletand Villard 1952, pp. 334, 336, 338, figs. 8-11. For the original"Thapsosskyphos"from Thapsos, see Orsi 1895a, esp. cols. 103104, pl. 4, no. 16. 54. It is clearthat not all of the skyphoiin Magna Graeciaclassifiedas belonging to the "Thapsosclass"are Corinthian.Many have been designated,whether rightly or wrongly,as local products,often on the basis of shape and decoration,without closer
scrutinyof fabric.So numerousis this class,however,particularlyin the West, that it requiresits own study,which is well beyond the aims of this paper.Although it is impossibleto presenthere a complete list of problematicpieces in Italy,some of the skyphoifrom Sybaris and Kroton,both of which areAkhaian colonies, as well as those from nearby Lokroi Epizephyrioiand its vicinity, cannot all be Corinthian.See especially Sabbione 1984, variousexamples illustratedon pp. 253-258 (classifiedas Thapsos and Corinthian,from Kroton), 260-265 (Kroton,locally produced skyphoi,includingwasters),286,290, fig. 36, pp. 292-293 (variousskyphoi from Santo Stefano di Grotteria).In additionto the numerousThapsos and relatedskyphostypes that arepublished in SibariI-IV, see Guzzo 1984, various exampleson p. 244, fig. 9, p. 245, fig. 11, n. 55. 55. Robertson1948, pp. 105, 109.
386
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
a
b Figure4. Olympia,bronze
times with a maroon tinge. The paint normally adheres well, although brush markscan be seen on some vessels, especiallyon the interior.Slightly more variation occurs in the fired color of the clay and paint among the plainer,monochrome vessels, with a wider range of reddish brown and red than is common on the banded vessels. The kantharosis a standardvessel shape in western Greece generally, sufficiently different from Corinthian versions to avoid confusion in the majorityof cases.56Universally popular as a dedication in sanctuariesor as an offering to the dead, the kantharosenjoys a long history in the region.57 Nowhere is this more clear than in the discovery, some time ago, of two bronze kantharoi in the sanctuary at Olympia (Fig. 4);58one of these is engravedwith horizontal bands on the body and rim (Fig. 4:a), while the handles of the other (Fig. 4:b) are surmounted by three-dimensional figures of horses, dated by Adolf Furtwangleras no earlierthan the 6th cenTheir shape, however, is that of the Late Geometric and Early tury B.C.59 Archaic clay kantharoi,especially those of the 7th century B.c. Although it could be argued that the bronze vessels provide an immediate metallic model for the kantharoiin clay,it is important to remember that the kantharos enjoys a long history in terracotta in Mycenaean and Protogeometric Akhaia,60as do other vertical-handled Bronze Age vessel
56. See the discussionof the Early Protocorinthiankantharosin Coldstream1968, p. 107 (with n. 9); the vessel is comparativelyrare,alwaysfully glazed, and usuallyon the small side. 57. Coldstream1968, pp. 221-232; Coldstream1977, pp. 180-184. 58. OlympiaIV, pl. 35, nos. 670 and 671. 59. OlympiaIV, p. 96; see further OlForsch VIII, p. 165, n. 94. The horses certainlylook post-Geometric in style. Bronze kantharoiwere not included in
Part I of the publicationof bronze vessels from Olympia (OlForschXX); the horses (or animals)on the handles of OlympiaIV, pl. 35, no. 671, were also not included in Zimmermann's(1989) definitivestudy of Geometricbronze horses. 60. For the Mycenaeanform generally,see Furumark1972, p. 60, fig. 16, variousexamples;for Mycenaeanversions in Akhaia see Papadopoulos 1978-1979, vol. 2, pp. 28-29, figs 48:be, 49:a-b (for Early and Middle
kantharoi. Scale1:2.P.Finnerty, after IV,pl.35:670-671 Olympia
Helladic kantharoi),and esp. the socalled"deepbowls with verticalhandles,"such as p. 154, fig. 178:c-d; p. 243, fig. 267:c (with full discussion in vol. 1, p. 115). The latter are not common, and arerepresentedin MycenaeanAkhaiaby only two examples: one fromTeichos Dymaion (the habitation site at Paralimni),the other said to come from Kangadi;see Papadopoulos 1978-1979, vol. 1, p. 115, ns. 58-64; note also the verticalhandled krater,p. 150, fig. 174:d,
MAGNA
ACHAEA
387
forms, such as the stemmed kylix.61Related clay kantharoi of the Archaic period are common elsewhere in the Peloponnese, particularly in the Argolid, as well as in Lakonia, Messenia, and other areas,62while related miniature unglazed kantharoi are commonly found in a variety of votive contexts in Greece, South Italy, and Sicily.63Of all of these, the Argive kantharoi are perhaps closest in shape to those of Akhaia, but their rims are usually taller and the decoration and fabric quite different.64Elis, as well as coastal areas on the north side of the Corinthian Gulf, including Aitolia, parts of Akarnania, and coastal Phokis and Lokris, has yielded kantharoiand other vessel forms identical or very similarto those ofAkhaia proper.65Judging by minor differences of shape, paint, and fabric, many of these are locally made, but others may be imported. As noted above, it is impossible to state with certaintywhether these vessels were produced in a p. 240, fig. 264:c. Vertical-handled bowls (kantharoi)and kratersare extremelycommon in Mycenaean Kephallenia;see Marinatos 1932, pls. 4-5, nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 17-18; pls. 911, nos. 138-139, 141,149, 151,153, 157, 165; Marinatos 1933, p. 82, fig. 26, no. A3; p. 83, fig. 29 (right). For more recentbibliographyon Mycenaean potteryfrom Akhaia, see above,n. 26. For Akhaian Protogeometric,see Coldstream1968, pp. 220-223, pl. 48 (from Derveni), and other examples discussedbelow.In Desborough's seminal study of Protogeometric pottery,there were no examplesof Akhaian Early Iron Age pottery known to him; see Desborough 1952 (Zapheiropoulos'sfirst preliminary publicationof Akhaian pottery appearedin the same year as Desborough'smonograph). 61. Coldstream1998a, p. 323, considersthe Mycenaeanstemmed kylix as the immediatepredecessorof the EarlyIron Age kantharos;for the kylix in MycenaeanAkhaia, see Papadopoulos1978-1979, vol. 1, pp. 117-119; vol. 2, p. 155, fig. 179: c-i, p. 245, fig. 269. The Mycenaean stemmed kylix is also very common in Kephallenia;see Marinatos 1932, pls. 6, 12 (numerousexamples);Marinatos 1933, p. 79, fig. 21 (left); p. 80, fig. 23; p. 82, fig. 26, nos. A6, A9; p. 85, fig. 32, nos. r3, r8. 62. For the Argolid see, e.g., Papachristodoulou1969, p. 132, pl. 76 (Argos, Kourtaki);Caskey and Amandry 1952, p. 196, pl. 53, no. 199; cf. also p. 195, pl. 53, no. 194 (Argive
Heraion);Cook 1953, pp. 42-45, figs. 17-18, pl. 19, esp. nos. B4 and B6 (Mycenae,the Agamemnoneion); TirynsI, p. 102, fig. 38, no. 204 (Tiryns);Kosmetatou1996, p. 119, fig. 5 (Midea);Wells, Ekroth, and Holmgren 1996, pp. 196-200, figs. 8-9, 12, nos. 3, 5-6, 14-15 (Berbativalley). For Lakoniasee, e.g., Wace and Hasluck 1904-1905, p. 83, figs. 2-3; p. 85, fig. 6 (variousexamples,top row); Droop 1929, p. 57, fig. 31:h. For Messenia see, e.g., Valmin1938, pp. 456-458, fig. 93, nos. 4-18, cf. nos. 19-21, pl. 37:c, e-g. At least 40 more or less complete exampleswere found at the Temple of Pamisos at Agios Floros,with fragmentsfrom at least twice as many.The kantharoiare all miniatureor small, rangingin height from 0.028 to 0.086 m, and almost all had tracesof blackpaint. For other regions,such as Elis, see below.Cf. the relatedmonochromekantharosof the Archaicperiod, in local grayfabric, from the cemeteryat Agia Paraskevi (Thessalonike);Vokotopoulou1985, p. 156, pl. 14:1 (middle). 63. For the ubiquitousminiature type, see, e.g., Droop 1929, p. 107, fig. 82:f-h; also, some kantharoi illustratedby Valmin 1938, esp. the smallerexamples,such as p. 457, fig. 93, nos. 9, 15, 18, pl. 37:c, e (with additionalparallelslisted on p. 458); Perachora II, p. 321, pl. 124, nos. 3354, 3355; Orsi 1933, p. 123, fig. 88 (various examples);Lo Porto 1981, pp. 312314, fig. 23, nos. 3, 7, 17-20; see also p. 315, fig. 24, no. 2; Spadea1996, p. 124, nos. 132-147; Dehl 1995,
p. 412, pl. 71, no. 4802 (with further references). 64. This connectionbetween Akhaia and the Argolid may well representan Iron Age remnantof the Bronze Age driveof the Argive Akhaiansto the west that Vermeule (1960, p. 20) cogently describes. 65. The kantharoifrom Elis, including Olympia and Eleian Pylos, are discussedmore fully below.A full list of relatedvessels from Aitolia, partsof Akarnania,as well as coastal Phokis and Lokris,is beyond the scope of the present study.For published examplessee, e.g., Mastrokostas1963, p. 184, pl. 212:a (Palaiomanina);Benton 1931-1932, p. 239, fig. 20, nos. 1, 2, 4 (Kryoneri);see these references also for Aitolia and Akarnania(for a generaloverview,with bibliography,of Aitolia and Akarnaniafrom the Palaeolithicto the Geometric periods, see Berktold 1996). For Phokis and Lokris,see FdD V.1, p. 136, fig. 512 (Delphi), and, for relatedjugs: Lerat 1938, p. 216, fig. 13, no. 6 (bottom row,middle);cf. also the jug FdD V.1, p. 137, fig. 527; Vatin 1969, p. 70, fig. 76, no. B 2 (= Themelis 1984, lp. 218, fig. 4 [bottom]) from Medeon; Themelis 1984, p. 235, fig. 30 (left), from Galaxeidi;also three related bandedjugs:Themelis 1984, p. 235, figs. 30 (right), 31. For furtherdiscussion of the cemeteryat Galaxeidi and the pottery from the tombs, see Morgan 1990, pp. 254-256. Note also the kraterfrom Antikyra(Themelis 1984, pp. 221-222, fig. 8, pl. l:a), discussedin more detail below.
388
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
workshop, or workshops, in Akhaia and from there distributedover neighboring areas,or whether the stylistic similarity indicates the existence of a ceramic koine.66It is even possible that the similarity in pottery style was the result of itinerant potters moving across the region, or potters relocating on a more permanent basis.67I know of no published kiln sites of the period, nor of any comprehensive program of elemental analyses of the clays of the region. Despite the lack of comprehensivelypublished material from systematic excavations in Akhaia, enough material has been published to define the main characteristicsof the kantharosand trace its chronological development.68In order to illustrate the general form, I assemble and discuss below a few typical examples of published kantharoi, particularlyof the late 8th and 7th centuries B.C., many of which have been previously dealt with by Coldstream and others.The account that follows does not pretend to be a comprehensive overview. Rather it summarizes, in a highly selective manner, a few well-known finds in mainland Greece as a necessary introduction to the materialfrom South Italy that is the focus of this study. Figures 5 and 6 show not only the similarityof kantharoifrom Greece and South Italy,but demonstrate that many arevirtuallyindistinguishable.The kantharosillustratedin Figure 5, which is typical of Akhaian and Akhaianstyle in Greece, was found in the Peloponnese; the fragments assembled in Figure 6, some with addedwhite (see below), arefrom FrancavillaMarittima in South Italy.The kantharoiin Figures 5 and 6 can be assigned to the 7th century B.C.All share the same shape, painted details, and-without aid of elemental analysis-appear to be of a similar fabric. The Late Geometric and Archaic examples of the kantharoi follow directly from the earlier,so-called Protogeometric kantharoiof the region, especially those from Derveni (ancient Keryneia?)in Akhaia, Pleuron in Aitolia, and from the region of Agrinion in Akarnania, discussed in detail, respectively, by Coldstream, Dekoulakou, and the late Ioulia Vokotopoulou.69 There is also some related early material from Elis, including a Protogeometric kantharos from a pithos burial at Salmone.70 66. Such a koineneed not be confined to the political territoryof any as a given region.Defining "Akhaia" politicalor even ethnic entity is not Morgan and Hall straightforward; (1996), who have admirablycollected the literaryevidenceon the poleis of Archaic and ClassicalAkhaia, stressthe geographicaland culturalheterogeneityof the region that laterformed the Akhaian ethnos. See also Osanna 1996a. 67. See Papadopoulos1997b; also Denoyelle 1996. 68. See esp. Coldstream1968, pp. 220-232, who lists and discusses significantgroupsof West Greek Protogeometric,Late GeometricI, and Late Geometric II. Coldstream'slater
phase of Akhaian Geometric is to a large extent based on the materialfrom the excavationsconductedby Zapheiropoulos (1952; 1956). More recent finds arepresentedin Dekoulakou 1984. 69. For Derveni, see Coldstream 1968, pp. 221-223, pl. 48 (= Vermeule 1960, 16-17, pl. 5, figs. 38-40); see also Desborough 1972, pp. 248-250, pl. 58. Cf. also the "gravegroup,"said to be from the northernPeloponnese,now in Mainz, publishedin Hampe and Simon 1959, pp. 12-15, figs. 1-10, pl. 3; the group is furthernoted in Desborough 1964, p. 265. For the location of ancient Keryneia,see Anderson 1953, esp. p. 154 (with references);Katso-
nopoulou 1998a, pp. 38-41. For Pleuron, see Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 220-224, figs. 1-12; see also Dekoulakou1975, pls. 302-303. See furtherStavropoulouGatsi 1986, esp. the kantharoi:p. 115, fig. 8, pl. 38:y and pp. 119-120, pl. 38:oT. The pottery said to be from the "region of Agrinion"is in the collection of M. I. Oikonomou and was publishedin Vokotopoulou1971, pp. 74-76 (kantharoi);note also the vertical-handled amphoriskoiwith handles from shoulder to lip. See also Desborough'soverviewof this materialin Desborough 1972, pp.248-250. 70. The Salmonegraveis discussedin Morgan 1990, p. 238 (with references); see also Desborough 1972, p. 250.
MAGNA
Figure5 (left).Akhaianbanded kantharosfromthe northwest Peloponnese,Athens, National Museum,inv.26249. Photoauthor Figure6 (right).Francavilla Marittima,fragmentsof banded kantharoi,somewith addedwhite decoration. Photoauthor
Protogeometricmaterialelsewherein Elis has been recordedfrom ancient Elis and Agios Andreas(Pherai);see Morgan 1990, pp. 235-239. See also the so-called Submycenaeanpottery from Pherai:Morgan 1990, p. 238; Gialouris1957, p. 38, fig. 4. The fullest accountsare now Eder and Mitsopoulos-Leon 1999; Eder 1999. 71. See the chronologicalchartin Coldstream1968, p. 330; 1977, p. 385, and associateddiscussion. 72. Coldstream1968, p. 223; 1977, p. 185; for Palaiomaninasee further Mastrokostas1963, pp. 184-185,
ACHAEA
389
The date of the western Greek "Protogeometric"continues to be problematic, but the general style appearsto be perhaps as late as ca. 750 B.C. or so, according to the conventional chronology.71Similarly problematic are the earlier stages of the Late Geometric period. By 1968, Coldstream was unable to list even a single significant Late Geometric I group from Akhaia, although he did discuss several deposits of the period from Volimedia in Messenia, Aetos in Ithake, and Palaiomanina in Akarnania.72 More recently, Dekoulakou has attempted to fill the gap between a notional "Protogeometric"style and the Late Geometric period by assigning a number of vessels from different tombs in Akhaia to an Early and Middle Geometric phase.73Thus, the material from a pithos tomb from Aigion, including a monochrome kantharos (Fig. 7) and two jugs, was assigned to the Early Geometric period.74Dekoulakou also assigned vessels such as the decorated kantharos from Pithos Tomb 2 at Drepanon, a kantharos with a tremulous line approaching a zigzag on the rim from Valmantoura near Pharai (Fig. 8), and a monochrome kantharos from Priolithos near Kalavrytato a period she refers to as the end of the Early Geometric style in Akhaia.75Her dating of these vessels to the middle of the 9th century B.C., however, seems too high.76Whatever their precise date, these pots, taken together, define some of the salient features of Akhaian Geometric. They also establish the existence of the banded and monochrome kantharos, alongside kantharoi with more complex pl. 212:a;the materialfrom Volimedia is publishedin detail in Coulson 1988. 73. Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 224-228. 74. Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 227-228, figs. 15-17; the date is discussedon pp. 224-225. A very similarmonochrome kantharosfrom a tomb in the town of Elis was recentlypublishedand discussedin Eder and MitsopoulosLeon 1999, cols. 9-10, fig. 3. 75. For the Drepanon kantharossee Dekoulakou 1973, pp. 16, 19-20, fig. 1 (top right), pl. IA:3-y; Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 225-227; for the Valmantourakantharossee Dekoulakou
1984, pp. 226-228, fig. 18. The Priolithos kantharoswas found in the same tomb with a Geometric lekythosoinochoe:Mastrokostas1968, pl. 156:6; Dekoulakou 1984, p. 227. 76. An 8th-centuryB.C.date for this materialseems more reasonable.In dealingwith this chronology,Morgan cogently arguedthat the notional"gaps" in the sequencehave more to do with the inapplicabilityof a terminology that was createdlargelyon the basis of Attic and other sequences.See various discussionsin Morgan 1986; 1988; 1991.
390
K. PAPADOPOULOS
JOHN
. ..t
..........
I-............. m .'.:--.-.-. :..... ..'-...
'
_l,.,.-.,.,..,Mi.'..
Figure7. Aigion, monochrome kantharos. Scale1:2.P.Finnerty, after Dekoulakou 1984, p. 228, fig. 17
decoration, in Akhaia at a time beforethe traditional date of the foundation of the western Greek colonies. More than this, these vessels collectively show virtuallyno influence from Corinth at this early stage. Indeed, the very rarityof the kantharosin contemporaryCorinth suggests that any influence may have been in the opposite direction:from Akhaia-perhaps even from Ithake-to Corinth.77 By the later stages of the Late Geometric period-what Coldstream refersto asWest Greek Late Geometric II78-the banded and monochrome kantharosis ubiquitous in Akhaia and Aitolia. Figure 9 illustratesa banded kantharos from Pharai Grave a (A7);79a related kantharos was found in Pharai Grave ,3 (B4).8?In addition to these, Pharai Grave y contained a banded kantharos (F3) and another decorated in a more complex manner (rl), as well as a proportionatelybroaderand more squat kantharosdecorated with Ss and whirligigs between horizontal bands (F2).81The tomb also contained threejugs of differentshapes (F4-F6), their necks and shoulders decorated with a variety of motifs, their bodies banded.82A similar jug, along with a skyphos and two kantharoi-one slender and proportionately taller,the other broaderand less deep-were found together in a tomb at Phteri in Akhaia.83In describing these vessels, Zapheiropoulos was the first to refer to the taller and more slender of the two kantharoi as "Akhaian type" (xcvOapoc
"aXacxov"
Tr6oo).84
A more rounded jug, a
kantharoid krater,and two other kantharoi of"Akhaian type"were found 77. As Coldstream(1968, p. 102) notes, all of the "Corinthian" kantharoi-and most of the skyphoiof the Late Geometric periodbelong to the Thapsos class. For furtherdiscussion see Dekoulakou 1984; and above,
n. 53. 78. Coldstream1968, pp. 228-232. 79. Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 402, 408, figs. 10, 26 (= Coldstream1968, pl. 50:f). In additionto the illustrated kantharos,Gravea containeda small, flat-bottomedjug (Al), two banded kantharoi(A2, A3), and three other kantharoi(includingthe tall and deep kantharos,A4) decoratedwith a variety of motifs-many of which, including figuresof fish (sharks?),were assembled by Zapheiropoulos(1952, pp. 409-410,
figs. 27-29)-as well as a bronze ring and many fragmentaryiron obeloi.For this materialsee Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 401-403, figs. 8-12; two of the decoratedkantharoiare more clearly illustratedin Coldstream1968, pl. 50:c-d. 80. Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 404405, fig. 17 (= Coldstream1968, p. 228). The banded kantharosfrom Grave p (B4) was found in association with two pyxidesand a pyxis lid, as well as two bandedkantharoi,one of which may have been a one-handled cup;see Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 403404, figs. 13:2, 14-16, p. 405, figs. 1718. One of the pyxidesand the pyxis lid are clearlylater than the other vessels in the tomb, and are dated
by Zapheiropoulosto the second half of the 5th century B.C. (Zapheiro-
poulos 1952, p. 404); the remaining pyxis,associatedwith the kantharoi, is perhapsbetter accommodatedin the 7th ratherthan the 8th centuryB.C. 81. Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 404407, figs. 19-25. The broaderkantharos r2 is also illustratedin Coldstream 1968, pl. 50:e. 82. Two of the jugs are more clearly illustratedin Coldstream1968, pl. 50:g-h; there were also a couple of associatedbronze rings. 83. Zapheiropoulos1956, pp. 196197, pls. 90:P,91:a (mentioned in Coldstream1968, p. 228). 84. Zapheiropoulos1956, p. 196.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
39I
Figure8. Valmantoura,banded after kantharos. Scale1:2.P.Finnerty, Dekoulakou 1984, p. 228, fig. 18
together by Zapheiropoulos in a tomb some 28 km from Patras.85Two similar kantharoi, both decorated with various motifs (Ss, whirligigs, triangles, Xs, horizontal bands), were found together with two jugs, a bowl with fenestrated stand, a kyathos, and a horizontal-handled vessel in a built tomb, containing more than one burial, at the site of Troumbe tis Chalandritsis.86Three other vessels-a banded jug, a bowl with ribbon handles (lekane), and a krater with reflex (combination horizontal and vertical) handles-from the same tomb were published earlierby Nikolaos Kyparissis.87In addition to all of this pottery from tombs, numerous fragments of banded and monochrome kantharoiwere discovered in a settlement context by Zapheiropoulos at Agios Georgios, near Pharai.88 Other vessels from Akhaia that are contemporary or nearly contemporarywith PharaiGraves c-y include severalbase fragmentsof tall-footed kratersfrom Aigeira and a bandedjug from a pithos burialat Ano Kastritsi in Akhaia, similar in shape and decoration to the two jugs from Aigion alreadynoted.89The jug is further compared to similarvessels from Eleian Pylos, Delphi, and Ithake.90Also dating to the late 8th and earlier 7th centuries B.C.are a number of other vessel forms, such as a pyxis from Aigion with impressed decoration,91and from Manesi, west of Kalavryta, a group of vessels including a lekane with ribbon handles, with close parallels from Sparta and Eleian Pylos; a hemispherical bowl, similar to two 85. Zapheiropoulos1956, pp. 197198, pl. 92:a-3 (mentioned in Coldstream 1968, p. 228). 86. Zapheiropoulos1956, pp. 198201, pls. 93-94 (the kantharoiare illustratedon pls. 94:oc2and 94:p; mentioned in Coldstream1968, p. 228). 87. Kyparissis1932, pp. 83-85, figs. 5-9. 88. Zapheiropoulos1956, pp. 195196, pl. 89:P;banded kantharoi, identical to many fragmentaryexamples in South Italy,can be seen in the
top right-handcorner(three examples), while a monochromekantharosis illustratedin the top row,second from the left. 89. See Alzinger,Lanschtitzer, Neeb, andTrummer1986, pp. 327329, figs. 118-119, nos. 1-2; Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 228-229, fig. 19. 90. For these see Themelis 1967, pl. 251:ao-p;Lerat 1938, p. 216, fig. 13, no. 6 (bottom row,middle);Dekoulakou 1984, p. 228, ns. 34-36. 91. Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 228-230, figs. 20-21, found in the same pithos
burialas the Thapsos-classskyphos, p. 230, figs. 22-23. For a similar pyxis found at Delphi, see Amandry 1944-1945, p. 37, fig. 3; for other vesselswith impresseddecoration, see Papapostolou1982, pl. 125:P (from Rakitain Akhaia);Petropoulos 1987-1988, pl. I', figs. 6-7; Petropoulos1996-1997, esp. p. 192, fig. 20 (right). Similarpotterywith impresseddecorationis also common at the Archaic sanctuaryof Artemis at Lousoi; see Schauer1996-1997, p. 268, figs. 19-21.
JOHN
392
K. PAPADOPOULOS
-?-?.?,?.?.?.?.?? :?:?.?.:?:?;?;:.:;:.?:::::....::::::::, ?????????????????? ????????????????????? f????????????????????????????5????r???????I ;ss?.'.'.SI;'.=ss=.'.?.;......,,= ??????????i???????????????????????????? ???? ?????? ???????????????????????=????:::::.; ::.'?s::?:???????.?.???=?. ?.?.?. ,...
Figure9 (left).Pharai,banded in clay and one in bronze from Drepanon; a lentoid flask following eastern Mediterranean prototypes; and a cylindrical unguent bottle in local fabric but suggestive of the Kreis- und Wellenbandstilcurved flasks of the east Aegean.92These vessels, along with various Corinthian imports, published and unpublished, provide a glimpse of foreign ceramic merchandise and influences currentin Akhaia at this time, but the pattern is an eclectic one, with no dominant strand.93 A similar blend of indigenous and foreign influences can be seen in the pottery from a pithos burial at Asani, in Arkadian Azania, a region bordering Akhaia and indistinguishable from it on the basis of material culture.94 The burialis contemporarywith, or slightlylater than, the Manesi and is dated by Dekoulakou to the early 7th century B.C. on the group, evidence of an imported Protocorinthian aryballos found in the tomb.95 The northwest Peloponnesian characterof the slender banded kantharos (Fig. 10) is clearenough;96this vessel, along with the kantharosfrom Pharai (Fig. 9), may serve as the diagnostic type for the Akhaian Subgeometric kantharoiin South Italy and Sicily.A cylindricalkantharos,decoratedwith many of the motifs found on some of the Pharai kantharoi already discussed, reflects the stronghold of the kantharos shape in the local 92. Manesi, like Asani and Phlamboura(Flaboura),now in the modern provinceof Akhaia,was in antiquity located in ArkadianAzania;see Petropoulos 1985; Morgan 1999b; Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 229-232, figs. 24-29. The lekane is comparedto that in Coldstream1968, pl. 46:h (= Droop 1929, p. 61, fig. 34), from the sanctuaryof Artemis Orthia;for relatedlekanaifrom Eleian Pylos, see Coleman 1986, pp. 4043, ill. 7, pl. 27; for the Drepanon hemisphericalbowls, see Dekoulakou 1973, p. 16, fig. 1, 4-III, 6-IV, and for the bronze bowl, p. 17, fig. 2, 17-11.For Phoenicianlentoid and "pilgrim" flasks, see Culican 1982, pp. 50-51; for the
lentoid flask in EarlyIron Age Cyprus, see Pieridou 1973, p. 105, shape 15, pl. 13:5-9; cf. p. 103, shape 10, pls. 8:10, 9:1-2. The cylindricalbottle (Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 230-231, figs. 26,29, bottom left), the top of which is not preserved,recallsthe characteristicflasks of the east Aegean, for which see Friis Johansen1958, p. 19, figs. 22-23, I, pp. 155-161; see furtherPithekoussai p. 25, nos. 651-3, Sp. 11/2 (both classified as imports),and 271-10 (said to be a local imitation);Papadopoulos, Vedder,and Schreiber1998, pp. 525526, n. 96. 93. For Corinthianimports see Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 228-231; and,
after kantharos. Scale1:2.P Finnerty, Zapheiropoulos1952, pp. 402, 408, figs. 10, 26, no. A7
Figure 10 (right). Asani, banded after kantharos. Scale1:2.P.Finnerty, Dekoulakou 1984,p. 233,fig.30:cx-r
more recently,Morgan 1988. A fuller understandingof such influencesmore generallywill only be possible once the evidenceof ceramicsis consideredin the context of other imports,such as the metalwork from the shrine at Ano Mazaraki (see Gadolou 1996-1997 for preliminary remarks)or the fibulaefrom Aigion (noted in Morgan 1998, with references).This is beyond the scope of the presentstudy. 94. Petropoulos1985; Morgan 1999b, pp. 419, 453, n. 258. 95. Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 232234, figs. 30-34; the Protocorinthian aryballosis illustratedin fig. 34. 96. Dekoulakou 1984, p. 233, fig. 30:a-r3.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
393
Figure11. Phlamboura,banded kantharoswith decorationin added white. Scale 1:2. P. Finnerty,afterMastrokostas 1968, pl. 155:3; Dekoulakou1984, p. 234, fig. 35
repertoire.97Equally interesting is an oinochoe with tall sloping neck.98 Although it is of the same local fabric as the cylindrical kantharos, and shareswith it many of the same motifs, this vessel is based on the Phoenician metallic prototype of the trefoil jug with tall and narrowsloping neck and a palmette at the lower handle attachment, as Coldstream suggested.99 areknown at OlymRelated oinochoai, referredto as Giraffenhalskannchen, pia.100Vessels such as these, which display Phoenician influence and are from the mountainous interior of the northern Peloponnese, provide a fleeting glimpse of the potential importance of cities such as Helike, located along the Corinthian Gulf, in the culturalexchange of commodities and ideas within the region. Finally, special mention should be made of a banded kantharos,found in a pithos tomb at Velvinikon, near the village of Phlamboura, in the region of Kalavryta(Fig. 11).101First published by Mastrokostas, the vessel represents a classic example of the Archaic Akhaian kantharos, best accommodated in the later 7th century B.C.The body is largerand proportionately broader than the slender banded kantharos from Asani, and the vessel stands on a low conical foot; its overall form is not unlike the earlier kantharos from Valmantoura mentioned above (Fig. 8). The kantharos from Phlamboura is of further interest as it preserves, on its upper body and centrally placed between the handles, a floral motif in added white
97. Dekoulakou 1984, p. 233,
fig.31:o-p.
98. Dekoulakou 1984, p. 233, figs. 32-33. 99. See Coldstream1998a, pp. 326327. Characteristicexamplesin silver and bronze arepublishedin Culican 1976, pp. 83-84, figs. 1-2, with full referencesin ns. 1-7; see also Culican 1968 for furtherdiscussionof the type, including examplesin bronze,ivory, and clay;see furtherPrayon1998,
esp. pp. 331, 334, figs. 1, 4. For the Phoenician clayjug with trefoilrim, see Moscati 1988, p. 496 (fromAmathus, Tomb 302), p. 712, nos. 761-762. Cf. also the well-known Greek Geometric clay vessel from the "Warrior'sGrave" atTarquinia:Randall-MacIver1924, pp. 158-162, pl. 30:1; Blakeway19321933, p. 197, pl. 32, no. 78 (= Blakeway 1935, pl. 21, no. AS). For related terracottajugs in Elis, see OlForsch VIII, pl. 13, nos. 1-3, cf. nos. 4-5;
Coleman 1986, pp. 50-52, pl. 34, no. C84. Among other easternfinds in Akhaia,note the scarabfrom Rakita: Papapostolou1982, p. 188, fig. 1. 100. OlForschVIII, pp. 110-112, 13, pl. esp. nos. 1-3, most notably no. 3. 101. Mastrokostas1968, pp. 215216, pl. 155:P,inv. 883; Dekoulakou 1984, pp. 234-235, fig. 35. For Phlambourasee furtherMorgan 1999b, pp.419,453,n.258.
394
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
'V paint;02 very similar motifs in added white appear on two kantharos frag-
ments from Olympia (Fig. 12).103Indeed, the use of added color, including white and red, is particularly common in Elis, especially at Eleian Pylos.104 Virtually identical motifs to the Phlamboura kantharos in added white are found on a number of fragmentarykantharoi at Megara Hyblaia (Fig. 13) and at FrancavillaMarittima (Fig. 14) that are imports (see below). In Aitolia and Akarnania, during the so-called West Greek Protogeometric, the published finds mirror developments in Akhaia, particularly in the material from Derveni, but there are also important idiosyncratic differences. There is, however, very little published material to rely on, and the information that can be drawn from this evidence has been summarized by Coldstream.'05The situation for the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods is also poorly understood on the basis of published finds, and it is idle to speculate until more material from this region, of which there is no shortage, is published. To the east, in western Lokris and Phokis, the situation is somewhat different, and here the influence of Corinth is more readily seen. The material from sites such as Medeon, Antikyra, the Korykeion cave, Krisa,and Souvala (Polydroso) in Phokis, along with Amphissa and Galaxeidi in Lokris, as well as Delphi, tells a similar story.106 Alongside the locally produced plain pottery, much of which is handmade and has strong affinities with other regions of mainland Greece, including Thessaly, as does much 102. Mastrokostas1968, pp. 215216, where the motif is describedas follows:"'E(p' T6ovOtcov ?xxaT?pax; O? t(XaXex6v, &aovLxov 68txoao[L,ux6v ?x Pa3cv6vTtovi?Zi ?60r?ax ouVLcoTac(XVOV ?U6you; 7tr?pLyypaXj.Lj?V()vgpoXXov xex(Xtl?vC)ov
7Trpo6 Tx ?,
JeC?Ta(X
TcOV
6Oroiov7:ap?JixpaXXov'roa (pquXXapta 7rT?'rTXX, ''Cox, gnilMXa0."
103. Morgan 1990, p. 245, fig. 23, nos. K2907 and K1344; OlBerXI, pl. 62, nos. 1-2. Cf. also OlForschV,
pl. 61, no. 13. 104. Coleman 1986, pp. 37, 41, 51, 55, ills. 6-7, 10, 12, pl. 25, C2, pl. 28, C48-C50, pl. 29 (variousexamples), pl. 31, C76-C79, pl. 32, C110-112, C118-C125. 105. Coldstream1968, pp. 220223; 1977, pp. 180-185. For the kantharosfrom "Protogeometric" Kalydon,see Mastrokostas1963, p. 183, pl. 212:a, no. 1. For the "Protogeometric"kraterfrom Pylene, see
Figure 12 (left, top). Olympia, two rim fragments of banded kantharoi, with decoration in added white, inv. K1344 and K2907. Scale1:2.P.Finnerty,afterMorgan 1990, p. 245, fig. 23
Figure 13 (left, bottom).Megara Hyblaia, rim fragment, banded kantharos with decoration in added white. Scale 1:2. P. Finnerty,after MegaraHyblaeaII, pl. 160:4
Figure 14 (right). Francavilla Marittima, body and rim fragments, banded kantharoi with decoration in added white. CourtesyMuseoArcheologico della Sibaritide,Sibari,photo author
Mastrokostas1969, p. 320, pl. 228:?. See furtherDesborough 1972, pp. 247248. 106. Coldstream1977, pp. 177-179; the most recent and thoroughoverviews of the region remainThemelis 1984; Morgan 1990, pp. 248-253. For Late Mycenaean,Protogeometric, Geometric,and EarlyArchaicDelphi see, most recently,Maass 1996, pp.136-146,152-172.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
395
,,~~~~~~~~~~1
,3
I
I
w~~~~
a Figure15. a) Antikyra(Phokis), krater;b) Bitalemi(extramural sanctuaryof Gela, Sicily),fragmentary krater. Scale1:6.P Finnerty,after (a) Themelis 1984, p. 221, fig. 8, pl. I:a; (b) Fiorentini and de Miro 1984, p. 91, fig. 81
107. Themelis 1984, p. 218, fig. 4 (bottom) from Medeon (= Vatin 1969, p. 70, fig. 76, Tomb 22, B 2); p. 235, figs. 30-31 (Galaxeidi). 108. Themelis 1984, p. 221, fig. 8, pl. I:a. 109. Themelis 1984, pp. 221-222.
b of the metalwork, the vast majority of the painted wheelmade pottery is Corinthian or Corinthian-inspired. There are, however, a growing number of what appearto be Akhaian-or northwest Peloponnesian-imports to the region, especially at Medeon and Galaxeidi, or else materialof similar style made locally.107 Special mention must be made of a distinctive kraterfound at Antikyra in Phokis (Fig. 15:a).108In describing the vessel, Petros Themelis noted that despite a certain Corinthian influence, the fabric and decoration are local.109The bands at the lower handle attachment, the lower wall painted solid, and the reserved face of the foot are all features shared by Akhaian banded kantharoi. Similarly,the Ss arrangedin groups on the upper body are a characteristic found on many Late Geometric and Early Archaic decoratedAkhaian vases.Also distinctive is the manner in which the decorative zone on the upper body is framed by "sausage"motifs; such motifs, whether continuous or opposed, are a standardfeature on pottery from the northwest Peloponnese and western Greece generally.110 Having seen the kraterfirsthand, I am convinced that it is an Akhaian import to Antikyra, or of a local fabric that cannot be easily distinguished visually from that of Akhaia. This, in itself, is not surprising,particularlyin light of other such imports to the region. What is perhaps more surprising is that in shape, decoration, and fabric, the krater is virtually identical to another krater, found at Bitalemi, the extramuralsanctuaryof Gela in Sicily (Fig. 15:b).1ll These two kraters are so similar that they must have derived from the same workshop, if not the hand of a single potter.112
110. Robertson1948, p. 104; Coldstream1968, p. 396, pl. 49:f.The term "uglysausage"or "sausagemotif" was first coined by Martin Robertson(1948, p. 104) to describethe distinctiveIthakesian decorativeelement;Coldstream (1968, p. 227) retainsthe term "sausage,"
but adds the adjective"mysterious." 111. Fiorentiniand de Miro 1984, p. 91, fig. 81 (inv.20359). 112. It is also possible that the potter(s) relocated,ratherthan that the pots moved;see Papadopoulos1997b; Denoyelle 1996.
396
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
a In Elis, Akhaia'sneighbor to the south and west, the kantharosis also the most favored drinking vessel in the Archaic period with a venerable history in the local repertoire.Indeed, there appearsto be a convergence in kantharos shapes between these two regions. Banded and monochrome kantharoi have been found at a number of sites, including Olympia. Several banded kantharoi and at least one monochrome example found at Olympia appearto be so close to those from Akhaia that they may even be imports (Fig. 16). Alternatively,the similaritybetween the kantharoifrom Olympia and Akhaia may suggest, as was noted above, that these neighboring regions were part of the same ceramic koine,and it is clear that both shared a strong westward focus. Moreover, given the Panhellenic nature of the sanctuary at Olympia, it is possible that some of the kantharoi are Akhaian imports, and others locally made, including both banded and monochrome kantharoi.ll3As for differences in fabric between the pottery of Akhaia and Elis, I follow Coldstream in his cautious reluctance to distinguish categoricallybetween individual vessels of the broaderregion, particularlywhen shape and style are so similar.114 A banded kantharoswith figuredrepresentation(Fig. 17) is also known from Olympia,15 as well as the related fragments with decoration in added white alreadynoted (Fig. 12). Both the banded and monochrome kantharoi occur in the standard shape found in Akhaia. So, too, does the banded kantharoswith the stridingfeline;what survivesof the lower body is painted solid (Fig. 17:a). There are three thin bands near the midpoint of the vessel, immediately below the handle attachment; three similar bands are painted on the rim, and another at the lip. The upper body is framed on either side of the handles by "sausage"motifs; the reserved center of the upper body, thus defined, is decoratedwith a feline moving to the right, in added white paint, with details picked out in black.This is one of the rare examples of Orientalizing figured decoration in the Archaic pottery of the northwest Peloponnese. Other examples include a fish on the upper body of a deep kantharos, birds on the shoulder of a jug, and a menacing lion pursuing a deer on the upperbody of a kyathos, all from Akhaian Pharai.116 Although the kantharosfrom Olympia is traditionallydated later than the few figured vessels from Pharai, their date in absolute years cannot be too far removed.
b Figure16. Olympia:a) banded kantharos;b) monochrome kantharos. CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Athens, Archaologisches negs.OL 4615,OL 2306;OlBerVII, p. 125,fig.68;OlBerIII,p. 38, fig.24
113. For banded kantharoi,see OlBer VII, p. 125, fig. 68. Cf. also the kantharosin OlBer VII, p. 123, fig. 64,
which is very similarto one fromTocra (see below), and TocraI, p. 92, nos. 993, 995. For monochromekantharoi,see OlBerIII, p. 38, fig. 24. 114. Coldstream1968, pp. 220-232. 115. OlympiaIV, pl. 69, no. 1296; OlForschVIII, pl. 32, no. 3. 116. Fish: Zapheiropoulos1952, 402, p. fig. 11, p. 410, fig. 29; more clearlyseen in Coldstream1968, pl. 50:d. Birds,deer,and lion: Zapheiropoulos1956, pp. 198,200, figs. 1,2, pl. 93:y.
MAGNA
397
ACHAEA
Figure17. Olympia,banded kantharoswith feline. Scale1:2. a) P. Finnerty,after OlympiaIV, pl. 69,
no.1296;b) courtesyDeutschesArchaologischesInstitut,Athens,neg.OL 2337
a
b
A much larger group of kantharoiwas found at Olympia in the wells under the north wall of the stadium and in the area to the southeast. This material was published in detail by Werner Gauer,1l7and it is therefore unnecessaryto give a lengthy description of it here. Among the large quantities of mostly local pottery recovered from-the wells, the kantharosBechermit Vertikalhenkeln-is the most common drinking vessel in the earlier stages of the Archaic period.118During the developed stages of the Zeit-the skyphos of period-what Gauer refers to as the hocharchaische Corinthian type begins to occur more frequently than the kantharos, and by the Classical period, the distinctively local kantharosis virtuallyabsent, For the earrepresented only by a handful of undistinguished survivals.119 lier Archaic period Gauer distinguishes two types of kantharoi: an early and a late form. The early form (Figs. 18-22) is characterizedby a deep body,which curves in noticeably toward the top; the rim is shorter than on later types, either everted or slightly flaring, becoming progressivelymore vertical.The foot can be flat (Fig. 18:1) or slightly hollowed (Fig. 18:4), or the vessel stands on a ring foot that varies in height (Fig. 18:3, 6-11). The later form (Figs. 23-25) is similarly deep, but the upper body does not curve in as much as it does on the earlier type; the rim is almost vertical and becomes progressivelytaller and more offset from the body.The foot is invariablytaller than on earlier examples, either conical or splaying. In terms of decoration, the kantharoi from the Olympia wells are either banded (Figs. 20, 24:a) or monochrome (Figs. 19, 21, 24:b, 25), and occasionally the odd linear motif is permitted, such as a tremulous line on the rim (Fig. 24:a), or groups of verticals, sometimes even a band of added color (Fig. 23:1).120 Some have decoration in added white or red paint.121 117. OlForschVIII. 118. OlForschVIII, p. 164.
119. OlForschVIII, p. 173 (skyphos of Corinthiantype). For the Classical potteryof Elis from the excavationsat XXIII. The Olympia,see OlForsch materialis almost exclusivelyblackglaze and much of it is stamped.Apart from the establishedtypes of Classical kantharoi,which are similarto those of Athens and elsewhere(see AgoraXII,
pp. 113-124, figs. 6-7, pls. 27-29, 47, 56), survivalsof the earlierlocal kantharoscan be seen in pieces such as OlForschXXIII, pl. 4, no. 7. In Athens the black-glazekantharosis extremely rarein the 6th centuryB.C.Only three purportedexamplesarepresentedin AgoraXII (p. 114, pl. 27, nos. 624626), only one of which (no. 625) is indisputablya kantharos,and this solitaryexample,dated to ca. 550 B.c.,
is not unlike the Akhaianversionof the shape. 120. For the tremulousline see OlForschVIII, pl. 34:2 (Fig. 24:a);for the groupsof verticalson the rim and band of added color on the body,see p. 170, fig. 21, no. 1 (48 SO) (Fig. 23:1). 121. OlBerVII, p. 123, fig. 64; OlForschVIII, pp. 169-172.
398
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Figure18. Olympia,profilesof kantharoi("Bechermit VertikalScale1:2. henkeln,Friihform"). P. Finnerty,after OlForschVIII, p. 166, fig. 20
6
7-9
10-11
Figure19. Olympia,monochrome In this context special mention may be made of a fragmentarykantharos from Olympia (Figs. 18:5; 22), fully described by Gauer.'22Variations on the standardbanded decoration are also occasionally found on other vessel More recently,Jiirgen forms, such as the rim fragmentof a bowl (Schiissel).123 Schilbach has published a number of primarilymonochrome kantharoi of both the early and later type, a few of which are assembled in Figure 26.124 By and large, although the decorative canon is identical to that of Akhaia, the local Archaic kantharoi from Olympia can be distinguished from their Akhaian counterparts, particularlyin the quality of the paint and the appearance and feel of the fabric. On both the local Olympian
kantharoi. CourtesyDeutschesArchaologischesInstitut,Athens,negs.OL 2307, OL 7164 122. OlForschVIII, p. 167. 123. OlForschVIII, pp. 151-152, 32:5. pl. 124. OlBerXI, pl. 1, nos. 1-5, pl. 65, nos. 1-12, and variousexampleson pls. 70-71. Note also the other Archaic vessels,including horizontal-handledcups, kraters,jugs, pyxides,and other vessel forms publishedin the same volume.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
399
I
Figure 20. Olympia, banded kantharoi. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens, neg. 70/879
Figure 21. Olympia, monochrome kantharoi. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens, negs. OL 5561, 69/731
Figure 22. Olympia, fragmentary banded kantharos. Courtesy Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut,Athens, neg. 68/730
400
K. PAPADOPOULOS
JOHN
Figure 23. Olympia, profiles of kantharoi ("Becher mit Vertikalhenkeln, Spatform"). Scale 1:2. P. Finnerty,after OlForschVIII, p. 170, fig. 21
1
7
2
8
3
9
10
a
4
5
11
6
12
b Figure 24. Olympia, kantharoi: a) banded; b) monochrome. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens, neg. OL 7157
Figure 25. Olympia, kantharos. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut,Athens, neg. OL 7177
MAGNA
a
ACHAEA
40I
b
c Figure 26. Olympia, selected monochrome kantharoi from recent excavations. Scale1:2.CourtesyDeutschesArchaologisches Institut,Athens, OlBerXI, pl. 1, no.1;pl. 65, nos.1, 2, 6
125. Compare,e.g., the paint on Dekoulakou1984, pp. 228-229,
figs.18-19;pp.233-234,figs.30:a,35. 126. E.g., OlForsch VIII, pl. 33, nos. 3-4.
127.Themelis1967,pl. 250;see furtherMorgan1990,pp.239-242.For andMessenian Eleian,Triphylian, Pylos,seeMcDonald1942.
d monochrome and banded kantharoi, the paint tends to be consistently streaky,often with a tendency to flake;it lacks the good black luster found on some of the best Akhaian products, nor does it adhere as well to the surface.125In the case of the banded kantharoi, the banding is often applied in a more careless manner on the pottery from Olympia than on the Akhaian vessels, and there is sometimes a zone of banding on the lower body (Fig. 20:a),126a feature less common further north. These differences, however, are minor and largely based on subjective criteria and a statistically poor sample. Moreover, these differences may be more apparent than real, since they are perhaps the result of changes over timegiven the fact that the Olympia material is mostly later than that thus far published from Akhaia-rather than synchronic variation. Until the Archaic levels of a major Akhaian city are fully explored, the relationship between Akhaian and Olympian Late Geometric and Archaic pottery must remain poorly understood. I have referred to the material from the wells as "Olympian,"rather than Eleian, in order to distinguish it from that of other centers in ancient Elis. Among the material recovered by Themelis in the trial excavations at Eleian Pylos, at the site at Armatova near the modern village of Agrapidochorion, banded kantharoi featured prominently (Fig. 27).127A number of complete or nearly complete kantharoi were found in what
JOHN
402
K. PAPADOPOULOS
C
a
c Figure27. EleianPylos,banded b
The was describedas a "LateGeometricto EarlyArchaic"well.128 kantharoifromEleianPylospublishedbyThemeliswereassignedto In additionto the the Late Geometricand EarlyArchaicperiods.129 the materialfromthewellincludedseveralbowlsorskyphoi kantharoi, similarin shape to the kantharoi(but with horizontalhandles),a bandedjug virtuallyidenticalto that alreadymentionedfromAno Kastritsi,and the well-knownfragmentof a kraterwith a partially The banded kantharoifrom preservedrepresentationof a ship.130 EleianPylos aredifferentfromthose of Akhaiaand Olympia.Their broaderand less deep,the rims areoften bodies areproportionately less sharplyarticulatedfrom the body,definingmore of an S-curve with the upperbody,andthe vesselsstandon low ringbases.In all of the publishedexamples,the exterioris paintedsolid exceptfor two thin reservedbands near the lower handle attachment;there is no bandingon the rim,andthe outerfaceof the low ringfoot is reserved. This schemeof decorationis closerto thatof kantharoifoundin South Italy,suchasonefromSalaConsilina(seebelow),thanit is to kantharoi fromAkhaiaand Olympia. atEleianPylosbyJohnColeman The moreexhaustiveexcavations uncoveredimportantremainsof the GeometricandArchaicperiods, wheelaswell as materialof earlierandlaterdate.The characteristic madeanddecoratedshapesof the Geometricperiodincludekraters, round-mouthjugs, kantharoi,cups with horizontalhandles,and a varietyof mostlysmaller,closedvessels."3The repertoireof the fine, local Eleian, black and plain ware of the Archaicperiod includes kraters,bowls, plates,round-mouthjugs, hydriai,amphoras,oinochoai,tall-neckedjuglets,aryballoi,horizontal-handled cups,pyxides, and kantharoi(Figs. 28-29).132Severalof the Archaic kantharoi (e.g., Fig. 28:d-e) arevery similarto those of Akhaia.33Generally
after kantharoi. Scale1:3.P.Finnerty, Coleman1986,p. 27, ill.4, pl.23, nos.B28,B29
128. The well was only partiallyexcavated byThemelis (1967). It was finally clearedby Coleman (1986), who also excavatedthe Archaicand Classicalsettlement on the Armatovahill; see also Morgan 1990,p.240. 129. Themelis 1967, p. 217, pl. 249:a-p. 130. Themelis 1967, pp. 217-218, fig. 4, pl. 250:oc-e(kantharoiand skyphoi), pl. 251:oca-(jug),pl. 251:y (krater);the krateris also illustratedin Coldstream1977, p. 179, fig. 59:d; Coleman 1986, pl. 21, no. B1. The jug is very similarto examples from Akhaia, and the nonjoiningfragments of the kraterpreservemotifs identicalto those found on a varietyof decoratedvessels from Akhaia (see Themelis 1967, pl. 251:y), motif to not least of which is the "sausage" the right of the ship. 131. Coleman 1986, pp. 18-30,32-33, ills. 2-4, pls. 21-24. 132. Coleman 1986, pp. 34-65, ills. 6-12, pls. 25-35. 133. See esp. Coleman 1986, pp. 5354, ill. 11, pl. 32, no. C106 (Fig. 28:d), and cf. pp. 54,57, ill. 11, pl. 32, no. C126 (Fig. 28:e).
MAGNA
ACHAEA
403
Figure28. EleianPylos,bandedand monochromekantharoi.Scale1:3. P. Finnerty,after Coleman 1986, p. 44, ill. 8, no. C52; p. 54, ill. 11, no. C104; p. 54, ill. 11, no. C108; p. 54, ill. 11, pl. 32, nos. C106, C126
a
Kc b
c
5?'
d
134. Coleman 1986, pl. 32, nos. C110-C125.
e
speaking, the broader and comparatively less deep local kantharos of the Late Geometric period was replaced by a variety of both banded (Figs. 28:a, d-e, 29) and monochrome (Fig. 28:b-c) kantharoi. Among these, Coleman distinguishes a number of types. Classified as a bowl, C52 (Fig. 28:a) is similar in shape to a kantharos, although the rim is slightly different from most kantharoi;the body is deep and banded; the form of the foot remains unknown. Among the remaining kantharoi, Coleman distinguishes three types: broad and shallow (Fig. 28:b, C104), broad and deep (Fig. 28:c, C108), and tall (Fig. 29, C110-Clll).The first two types correspondwith Gauer's Bechermit Vertikalhenkeln, Friihformfrom Olympia; the third type, with a tall vertical rim and conical foot, is identical to Gauer'sSpatform.A characteristic feature of the latter is the use of added white and red paint for horizontal bands, as well as for a variety of motifs, including vertical and diagonal lines, vertical zigzags, dot rosettes, and Ss.134Many of the handles
MAGNA
ACHAEA
405
llfR
Figure30. Typicalpaintedmotifs on handlesof AkhaianandAkhaianstylebandedkantharoi.P.Finnerty
138. See Morgan 1990, pp. 26-105. The origins of Italian metalworkare importantin this context,but beyond the scope of the presentdiscussion.For recent comments on Italian metalwork at Olympia see, e.g., Shepherd1995, pp. 73-76; Philipp 1994; also Schauer 1992-1993.
Early Iron Age to the end of the Archaic period and later. More particularly,the history of the kantharoscan be reconstructedfor the criticalyears of the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods-exactly the time that similar pottery is found in South Italy, Sicily, and beyond. It is generally assumed that Eleian pottery, like Messenian, was never exported to the West, but the same was-and still is-generally assumed for Akhaian. I therefore wonder if some of the pottery found in Magna Graecia is not Eleian rather than Akhaian, and if we may not have underestimated the role played directly or indirectly by a sanctuarysuch as Olympia-with its international relations138-in the movement of commodities, people, and ideas to the West. On the basis of the material discussed above, the two main categories ofAkhaian kantharoithat I have distinguished-the banded and the monochrome-can now be summarized. Of the two, the more diagnostic type is the banded kantharos.It comes in a variety of sizes, averaging 10-12 cm in height and a normal rim diameter of 9-11 cm. Some examples are proportionatelytallerand more slender(Figs. 9-10), whereasothers arebroader and more squat (Fig. 8). This distinction, noted at least as early as the Late Geometric period, if not earlier,remains standard during the Archaic period. The most common type of base is a low ring foot, though a plain disk base, either slightly pushed up on the underside or slightly hollowed, is also found. It is only on the latest kantharoi, from Olympia and Eleian Pylos, that the foot is taller and more conical. Despite this variation, the general form is remarkablystandard.The lower wall rises steeply to the point of maximum diameter,which is set quite high; the upper wall curves in to an offset vertical or flaring rim of varying height. Two vertical handles are attached from near the midpoint directly to the rim. These are characteristicallythin and sharply angular in profile. The standard banded kantharos is painted solid on the exterior, except for a reservedband nearthe center,immediatelybelow the lower handle attachment, which is decorated with two or three, sometimes more, thin
406
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
horizontal bands.The rim exterioris similarlyreservedand decoratedwith several thin bands. The interior is painted solid, except for the rim, which is either reserved or decorated with one to three bands. The outer faces of the handles are usually decorated with stripes, both horizontal and diagonal, as well as crosses,variouslyconfigured, or painted solid. A selection of some of the more common configurationsof the decoration on the handles is presented in Figure 30. A few of the earlierbanded kantharoiare further decoratedwith a variety of motifs in added white. Such decoration is limited to the upper body of the kantharos,above the reserved band near the midpoint and usually centered between the handles. Examples include the floral motifs on the kantharoi from Phlamboura in Akhaia (Fig. 11) and Olympia (Fig. 12), as well as the feline on the fragmentarykantharosfrom Olympia (Fig. 17). Added color becomes more standard on the late form of kantharos from Elis (Fig. 29). Monochrome kantharoiareextremelycommon. The shape is a smaller version of the proportionately tall and slender banded kantharos. A few pieces are painted in the same manner as the banded kantharoi, with a good metallic paint, but generally speaking the monochrome kantharoi are less well finished than the banded variety.There is, among the monochrome vessels, slightly more variation in the fired color of the clay,with a tendency to display a wider range of reddish brown and red than found on the banded vessels. The paint can vary from black through red, assuming many different shades of brown and reddish brown, sometimes appearing almost orange; often, the paint on a vessel can be two-toned. A flat disk base is often preferred, although a low ring foot is also common in the monochrome variety.The feet aretypicallysmallerthan those of the banded kantharoi,though some areof similarsize. The profiles of the monochrome and banded kantharoi are similar:the lower wall rises steeply to the point of maximum diameter and the upper wall curves in to an offset vertical or flaring rim. Standardvertical strap handles, almost triangularin shape, are characteristic. As with banded kantharoi, some monochrome examples are tall and slender (Fig. 16:b), whereas others are broader and more squat (Fig. 7). A chronological development from stout to slender seems evident.139Onehandled versions of the shape (strictly speaking, one-handled cups) are known, but they are less common than the two-handled kantharos. Because monochrome kantharoiareless well finished than their banded counterparts,it is difficult to determine whether an individual kantharosis locally produced or an Akhaian import, especially in Italy. Given the current state of knowledge, all that can be said is that this is a very common variety of vessel found in the plain of Sybaris, but also widely distributed over a large area of southern Italy and Sicily. Similar monochrome kantharoi, also less well made than the banded variety, are very common in Akhaia (especially western Akhaia), as well as in Aitolia, Elis, and parts of Phokis and Lokris. The majorityof the banded and monochrome kantharoifound in South Italy and Sicily listed below are best accommodated in the 7th and early
139. Cf. Bloesch 1951, esp. p. 29.
MAGNA
407
ACHAEA
6th centuries B.C. Of the kantharoi in the West, I am certain that, on the basis of their fabric and close similarity in shape and decoration with vessels found in the northwestern Peloponnese, many are imports. Others, however, were clearly produced locally. To insist, however, that the entire group is either local or imported or even that certainty is possible in all cases would be premature. Whether local or imported, however, the Akhaian-or northwest Peloponnesian-pedigree of this vessel form is unmistakable.
AKHAIAN OUTSIDE
140. In describingthis piece (under the heading of East Greek), Brian Shefton (in Perachora II, p. 373) writes: "4036. P1. 156. Fr.of mug. P.h.40. D. at mouth 90. Clay and paint as bird bowls 4048-9. Inside painted except for upperpart of lip. On l[eft] extremityof lip and also on shoulderaretracesof a verticalhandle. For definition of shape cf. Robertson1948, p. 21; Corinthian examplessee aboveon 667, and for Argive cf. Fr6din and Persson1938, p. 315, fig. 217, 1-6. Cf. for shape also, Pfuhl 1903, Beil. 12. 3. ProbablyEast Greek;not possible to specifyfurther. Second half 8th c.?" 141. Although listed under Protocorinthiankyathoi,the fabric, shape, and decorationof no. 625 is very differentfrom all of the other kyathoi. In dealingwith this piece, Dunbabin (in Perachora II, p. 72) writes:"625. P1.28. H. 43. Plain red.There are also two plain black examples,largerthan this."Dunbabin goes on to cite (p. 72) the following comparanda:Caskeyand Amandry 1952, pl. 53, no. 194 (Argive, from Argive Heraion);earlierplain black kyathoifrom Ithake, Benton 1953, p. 294, no. 780 and others.
AND AKHAIAN-STYLE ITS HOME REGION
POTTERY
The following annotated list is highly selective. It enumerates examples of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery, primarily kantharoi, most of which have been previously published. It is presented here to substantiate the distribution pattern of Akhaian pottery outside its home region. The core of this list is material found in southern Italy. As noted above, some of the entries may turn out to be from Elis or some other center of western Greece, including the Ionian islands. In compiling this list I have usually erredon the side of caution, preferringto exclude uncertainpieces; at times, however, I have chosen to include problematic pieces rather than to disregardthem. The latter are presented in a spirit of inquiry and are discussed in more detail below.
GREECE
The few pieces listed here are those that may be assigned as Akhaian with reasonable confidence. I do not include material from the northwest Peloponnese, Aitolia, Akarnania, or parts of Phokis and Lokris. EASTERN
CORINTHIAN
GULF
Perachora At least one fragment of an Akhaian banded kantharos from Humfry Payne's excavations at the sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia at Perachora was originally classified as East Greek.140Perachora has also yielded several examples of possible Akhaian monochrome kantharoi.141 Of the latter, some or all may derive from another West Greek center, perhaps even Ithake. PerachoraII: -Rim fragment, banded kantharos,p. 373, pl. 156, no. 4036. Cf. other related fragments, including p. 376, pl. 157, no. 4067 (referredto as an "East Greek cup"). -Three monochrome kantharoi, only one of which is illustrated (p. 72, pl. 28, no. 625), although two more are mentioned. The
408
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
illustrated fragment, no. 625, shown together with numerous fragments of Corinthian pottery, stands out on pl. 28 as being not obviously Corinthian. -Cf. p. 374, pl. 156, no. 4047.142 THE
IONIAN
ISLANDS143
Ithake Outside of its home region, the greatest concentration of what I believe to be Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery in Greece is found on Ithake, and it is no coincidence that the alphabet used on the island is very similar to Akhaian.44 Considerablework on defining Ithakesian ceramic fabricsand workshops is currentlybeing done by Sarantis and Nancy Symeonoglou, and many of the statements made here will eventually need to be revised in light of their more comprehensive study. In early studies of pottery from Aetos, Akhaian pottery was not recognized as an imported group. Robertson was the first to distinguish what I refer to as Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery as a distinct classwithin He writes: what he considered the local repertoire.145 ... but there exists an intermediate series, containing pieces of considerableworth, which shows the Ithakan potters' attempt to form a Geometric style of their own. This series begins with the metallising group mentioned above ... The earliest pieces of this group-the krater362 and the oinochoe 413-are almost Protogeometric and of poor quality,but the kantharos 331, the oinochoai 414 and 415 and the pithos 401 have in a quiet way
142. Cited by Hayes, in TocraI, p. 89, n. 10, as a possible exampleof the Late Archaickantharosof the type found at Eleian Pylos and Olympia (see above).It should be rememberedthat at the time when TocraI was published, OlForschVIII and Coleman 1986 had not yet appeared. 143. I list here only Ithake and Korkyra.There are,to my knowledge, no clearexamplesof Akhaian or Akhaian-stylepottery from Kephallenia.The recentwork of d'Agostino and Soteriou (1998) has shown that this islandwas not, as previously thought, devoid of human settlement in the periodbetween the demise of Mycenaeancivilizationand the 8th centuryB.C. Of the small quantityof Geometric and EarlyArchaicpottery recentlypublishedfrom Pale and Same (d'Agostino and Soteriou 1998), the most prominentimportedpottery is
Corinthian.D'Agostino and Soteriou stressthe role of Corinth on Kephallenia, which, they argue,was used as a Corinthian"stopover"to the West. Although there are no Akhaianpieces among the fragmentsrecentlypublished from Kephallenia,it is useful to rememberthat the Kephallenian alphabetresemblesAkhaian,and thereforeIthakesian,in most respects, except for the use of the straightiota; see Jeffery1990, pp. 231-232. The quantityofpublishedGeometric and EarlyArchaicmaterialfrom Zakynthosremainsmeager(see Benton 1931-1932, pp. 213-220; Snodgrass1971, pp. 170,211,243), and even the Archaicalphabetof the island is unknown(there is no materialfrom Zakynthosin Jeffery 1990). Despite the dearthof published material,the Zakynthians, accordingto Thucydides (2.66), were
colonists of the Akhaians.The emblem of the tripod on the coinage of the islandwas comparedto that of the Akhaian colony of Krotonby Benton (1931-1932, p. 220) long ago; for the coinage of Zakynthossee Gardner1887, pp. 94-104; Kraay 1976, pp. 96, 100,102-103, pl. 16, no. 283. 144. For the excavationsat Ithake (Aetos, Polis Cave, and elsewhere) by the British School at Athens, see Heurtley and Lorimer1932-1933; Heurtley 1934-1935; Benton 19341935; 1938-1939; Heurtley 19391940; Robertson1948; Benton 1949; 1953; Benton andWaterhouse1973. For a useful overviewsee Waterhouse 1996. For the alphabetsee Jeffery 1990, pp. 230-231; see further Waterhouse1996, pp. 313-314. 145. Robertson1948.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
409
considerable dignity of build and design. The decorative system of the oinochoai and the pithos is alreadytruly Geometric, but there is little distinguishably foreign about them, and they seem to be a local development.146 It should be remembered that at the time when Robertson penned these sentences Akhaian pottery was virtuallyunknown. For this reason, several kantharoi found in the area of Taranto in South Italy were referredto as vessels of"Ithakesian type."147In any case, by 1953, the other half of the idiosyncratic pithos 401 published by Robertson was found and in discussing the piece, Sylvia Benton was firmly of the opinion that it was imported; she writes: I am sure it is imported, but I do not know whence or when. It looks to me early and Cretan, but J. K. Brock does not think it is Cretan and adds that, if it were, it would be late!148 In this statement, Benton not only challenged the Ithakesian provenance of this class of pottery,but also its Geometric date. Unfortunately, scholars were reluctant to follow her lead, and by 1968, in dealing with the same category of pottery, Coldstream writes:
146. Robertson1948, pp. 105, 109. 147. Lo Porto 1964, p. 227, fig. 48, with referencesto Robertson1948, pl. 22, nos. 341, 354; Benton 1953, pp. 289,292, fig. 11, no. 768, all of which I believe to be Akhaian imports. Cf., more recently,Maruggi 1996, pp.262,265, no. 226. 148. Benton 1953, p. 302, under no.859. 149. Coldstream1968, p. 227. Coldstreamadds that the jugs are closely paralleledat Delphi. 150. Cf. also the decorationon no. 341, pp. 66-67, fig. 40, pl. 22; the fabricand especiallythe shape of this kantharosare differentfrom those of the Akhaian imports. 151. Although both Robertsonand Coldstreamclassifiedthis vessel as a kantharos,I preferto call it a krater(or a kantharoidkrater),since the thickened rim, differentfrom that of a kantharos,does not facilitatedrinking. 152. The zigzag or tremulousline flankedby bands on the upper shoulder is similarto that on the rim of the Akhaian kantharosfrom Valmantoura (Fig. 8).
In Ithaca there is also a class of local vases that is innocent of decoration; the entire surface is covered in glaze, punctuated only by groups of fine reserved bands at wide intervals.The nucleus, which has been collected by Robertson, consists of the kantharos R 331, the "pithos"R 401, and the tall jugs R 414 and 415.149 This entire group, plus several of the kantharoi published by Robertson and Benton, I believe to be Akhaian imports. In shape they are related to local Ithakesianpottery,especiallythe ubiquitouskantharos,but their decoration and fabric are different. Moreover, they date to the end of Late Geometric or later. The following pieces from Ithake are listed here as likely Akhaian imports. Robertson 1948: -Banded kantharos (Fig. 31:a), pp. 66-67, fig. 40, pl. 22, no. 354.150 -Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 31:b), pp. 66-67, fig. 40, pl. 22, no. 352; cf. no. 353. -Krater, pp. 63-64, fig. 39, pl. 21, no. 331.151 -Banded oinochoai, pp. 73, 75, fig. 44, pl. 27, nos. 414-415. -Banded "pithos,"pp. 72-73, fig. 44, pl. 27, no. 401.152 -Banded long-necked oinochoe; cf. p. 79, pl. 33, no. 471. Benton 1938-1939: -Fragmentary base, kantharos or one-handled cup, p. 19, pl. 10, no. 3. -Three kantharoi,p. 20, pl. 10, nos. 19-21 (only nos. 20-21 are illustrated).
4IO
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
b Figure31. Ithake,kantharoi: a) banded;b)monochrome.Scale1:2. P. Finnerty,after Robertson1948, pp. 66kantharoi"
(pp. 289,292,
fig. 11, pl. 47, nos. 767-773).
One of
these (p. 289, fig. 11, no. 768) is a standardAkhaian banded kantharos.Another kantharos and a base fragment (p. 292, nos. 767 and 769) are not illustrated.The kantharos handles on p. 292, pl. 47, nos. 770-772 (some appearin Fig. 30) are typical 1953: dBenton ilBenton llustratesonly one Akhaian monochrome kanthg "daros:p. 289, nos. no. which she n. 292, 261) to Argive 11,armpho cf. 303,compares 860-861.153 Bsand 773, uras; fig. ed (p47, p.52, nos. kantharoi. Banded 76859 no. not pfig. dwhichare illustrated pithos," 302, ).54 p1152, (= the "pithos"published in Robertson 1948, pl.n27,no. 401). Banded oinochoe; cf. p. 309, pl. 44, no. 872 (also nos. 873-874, Korkyra kantharos: in289, The excavationes ony anciemonochrome Dontas p. George 773, which (p. 292, n. ompares t11, she no. to brought 261pot) cemetery of Koryra (in the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods underlying the remains of excavaan Akhaian Classicalnjug houses.155 The imported recovered from Corinth, cf. as i laimed the excava,from these pottery by nor tions included, among other finds, Protocorinthian,Attic, and East Greek pottery.56 Possible Akhaian or other West Greek imports include the following: Dontas 1967: from the no. It is unclear Fragmentarybanded jug, pl. 442, p"pithotoof an Early Geometric this vessel is an ple graph whether1948,exam banded jug or kantharos. e Rim fragment or other of an Akhaian Wests
Geekrater,
p. 323,
The excavations Dontas 1968:conducted in the 1960s by George -Rim fragment of an Akhaian or other West Greek krater,p. 323,
67,fig.40, pl.22, nos.354,352
153.Thesearereferred to byBenton as EarlyGeometricand"probably likeEarlyAttic").I ("fabric imported" amnot surethattheyareAkhaian,but theyarecertainlynotAthenianEarly Geometric; theyarelistedhereas queries.Whatevertheirprovenance, theydo notlookearly.Cf. alsop. 318, pl. 57, no.970. 154.As withthe amphoras, Benton classifiedno.872 as EarlyGeometric andimported("maybe Attic"). Althoughsimilarbandingis foundon Middle AthenianEarlyandespecially Geometricoinochoai,no.872 doesnot seemto be Athenianandearly.I prefer to compareit to theAkhaianjugs publishedin Robertson1948,pl.27, nos.414 and415. 155.The alphabetof Korkyra, unlikeIthakeandKephallenia, is seeJeffery1990,pp.232Corinthian; 233; also Kalligas1984. 156. See Dontas 1965, pl. 210:y-1
(Protocorinthian), pl. 211:ocandEast Corinthian, (Geometric, Greek).
MAGNA
4II
ACHAEA
pl. 332:3. In describing the fragment, Dontas compares the piece to "island"and Corinthian styles, but is unable to suggest a provenancewith conviction. The fragment, which preserves a row of vertically set tremulous lines between horizontal bands, framed by "sausage"motifs, is very similar to the Antikyra and Bitalemi kratersdiscussed above (Fig. 15:a-b). In addition to the excavations conducted in the E6?XAEilYplot, ancient Korkyra (including the excavations in levels below the Early Christian Basilica of Iovianou, in the ancient agora, and at Mon Repos) has yielded at least one other possible Akhaian import: Kallipolitis 1984: -Fragments possibly of an Akhaian kantharos,p. 71, fig. 4. NORTHWEST
GREECE
Vitsa Zagoriou (Epeiros)157 The excavation of the Molossian cemetery at Vitsa Zagoriou yielded two vessels from the northwest Peloponnese or the Ionian islands, a kantharos and a related one-handled version referred to as a kyathos, published by Vokotopoulou and both stated to be imports to the site. Vokotopoulou specifically refers to the kantharos as Akhaian; the kyathos is compared with similar vessels from Ithake. Vokotopoulou 1986: -Kantharos, p. 59, pl. 81:y, fig. 71:y, Tomb 45-2 (inv. 2191); (= Vokotopoulou 1984, p. 96, fig. 26). -"Kyathos," probablyIthakesian, p. 58, pl. 81:P, fig. 71:p, Tomb 45-1 (inv. 2140). SOUTH
ITALY
AKHAIAN INDIGENOUS
157. In additionto the listed pieces from Vitsa, there are possible fragments ofAkhaian-style kantharoifrom Arta, mostly from rescueexcavationsin the city. See Vokotopoulou1984, p. 79, fig. 2, second row,first on the left; cf. third row,second from the right (oixoxe8o Koupm);also p. 82, fig. 6, possible fragments(oixo7rno 'Ayiov 'Avapy6pcov).
158. See the comments in Pedley 1990, p. 27: "AtFrancavilla,the Greeks showed no restraint;to marktheir conquest,they built a sanctuaryof Athena on top of the ruined Oenotrian village."
apoikiai
AND
CLOSELY
RELATED
SETTLEMENTS
In the following list I have included two sites that are not, strictly speaking, Akhaian "colonies":the first is the extramuralsanctuaryof Sybarison the Timpone della Motta at FrancavillaMarittima, which is located on the site of an earlier indigenous settlement.158The close connection between Sybaris and Francavilla is clearly reflected in the large quantities of Akhaian pottery found at both sites, especially at Francavilla,where the material is mostly of the Archaic period. It is also reflected in the Akhaian dialect on the bronze Kleom(b)rotos inscription found on the Timpone della Motta, which identifies the sanctuaryas that of Athena. I have also placed the indigenous settlement of Incoronata immediately after Metapontion. Again, the close relationship between the two can be seen in the pottery, especially the locally produced kantharoi in gray fabric that have been found in quantity at Incoronata that are clearly Akhaianizing.
412
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Sybaris I have seen numerous examples ofkantharoi from the Archaic levels of the city, primarilyfrom the excavations in the area of the "Parcodel Cavallo," now in the SybarisMuseum. Among the classified and published material from the Archaic levels, severalpieces designated "coppeioniche"or "coppe a filetti"may be from Akhaian or Akhaian-style kantharoi.I have not had occasion to sort carefully through all of this material.The following is a list of the few publishedpieces that can be classifiedas Akhaian or Akhaianstyle with some degree of certainty; there are many more pieces from the city, published and unpublished, that are not listed here: Sibari I: -Kantharos, p. 86, fig. 76, no. 216a (= p. 95, fig. 82, no. 216a-b). This piece (Fig. 32) is almost certainly Akhaian or Akhaianstyle, rather than a "coppadi tipo ionico," as stated in the catalogue entry (p. 95). The fragment is mentioned in Coldstream 1998a, pp. 328, 331, n. 27. -Open vessel, cf. p. 45, fig. 41, no. 122c and other fragments thought to be from Ionian-type cups. Sibari II: -Some of the rim fragments on p. 159, figs. 163-164, may be Akhaian, but they are too small and fragmentaryto allow for -Cf.
Figure32. Sybaris,rimfragment, bandedkantharos(?).Scale1:2. P. Finnerty,after SibariI, p. 86, fig. 76, no. 216a (= p. 95, fig. 82, no. 216a-b)
certainty. some of the rim fragments on p. 174, fig. 189; p. 266, fig. 282.
Sibari III: -Body fragment, open vessel, with added white, pp. 399,427, fig. 437, no. 431 (inv. PdC 36978), wrongly labeled Corinthian. Clay described as "rosata,"paint as "quasimetallica." Sibari IV: -Cf. some of the "coppe ioniche" on p. 329, fig. 322, and earlier plates. Note also the comments on pp. 531-532 on "coppe ioniche o d'imitazione." Sibari V: - Monochrome kantharos,pp. 123-124, fig. 107, no. 180 (= p. 137, fig. 122, no. 4495, inv. PdC 4495). -Cf. p. 114, fig. 100, no. 149 (inv. PdC 2829). -Cf. possible pieces on figs. 106, 108. -Cf. the closed vessel, p. 132, fig. 117, no. 213. -Cf. p. 207, fig. 207, no. 241 (= p. 236, fig. 221, inv. PdC 4079) Francavilla Marittima The settlement associatedwith the sanctuaryon the Timpone della Motta, along with the tombs in the Macchiabate necropolis, has been identified most recently by Marianne Maaskant-Kleibrink as ancient Lagaria.l59It has to be stressed, however, that other sites, such as San Nicola near Amendolara (see below), cannot be categorically ruled out and remain
159. Maaskant-Kleibrink 1993, p. 2.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
4I3
attractive alternatives.'60From the extramuralsanctuary of Sybaris, excavated by Paola Zancani Montuoro and Maria Stoop,'61come numerous fragments of Akhaian kantharoi. Hundreds, if not thousands, of unpublished fragments in the Antiquarium and museum are being studied for publication by Silvana Luppino, Luigina Tomay, and their collaborators. In comparison, the tombs of the Macchiabate have, to date, yielded only The relevant pottery one possible Akhaian or Akhaian-style kantharos.162 from the Timpone della Motta is by far the largest collection of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery in Magna Graecia known to me. The following inventoried pieces are those few examples that have been published to date, as well as those on display at the SybarisMuseum.
160.The variousliterarysourceson Lagariawould place the settlement between Sybarisand Siris. I would tend to agreewith Dunbabin (1948, pp. 33, 35, 147 [map]) and de la Geniere (1990), that Lagariais more likely to be located furthernorth, near Amendolara. 161. For the latest reconstructed plan of the site, including the location of the votive stipe,see MaaskantKleibrink1993, 5, fig. 4. The excavations of the Timpone della Motta, which broughtto light a wealth of Archaicvotive objects,including a great quantityof Akhaian,were conductedby Maria Stoop, and published,in a series of essentiallypreliminaryreports.See Stoop and Zancani Montuoro 19701971; Stoop 1979; 1980; 1982; 1983; 1985; 1987; 1988; 1989; 1990; 1991; Maaskant-Kleibrink1970-1971; Yntema 1985; also Mertens and Schlager1980-1982 for the architecture. 162. For the Macchiabatetombs see Zancani Montuoro 1970-1971; 1976; 1979; 1980-1982. 163. Tomay,Munzi, and Gentile (1996, p. 218) comparethese with a fragmentof a trefoil oinochoe with addedwhite decorationfrom Sybaris; see SibariII, p. 192, figs. 193-194, 209, no.414. 164. The vessel is not local, nor is it Corinthianor "island."I am gratefulto ChristianeDehl for sharingwith me her thoughts about this piece.
Tomay, Munzi, and Gentile 1996: -Three rim fragments of banded kantharoi from "Stipe I" on the south side of the plateau (inv. FM 104005, FM 104006, FM 104007), p. 218, no. 3.95. All three fragments should be Akhaian imports. -Two illustrated fragments (Fig. 14, two examples on far left), identical in shape, fabric, and decoration to the previous entry, but with added white decoration, pp. 218-219, no. 3.96.163 Stoop 1979: -Locally made monochrome kantharos,pp. 82-83, no. 3, p. 94, pl. IV:2, perhaps influenced by Akhaian kantharoi. Stoop 1983: -Jug, classified as an aryballos,pp. 29,49, fig. 29, and described as "la stranezza dell'aryballos(fig. 29), che ricordala ceramica insulare, rende difficile una datazione precisa ma dovrebbe appartenereal 7. secolo."The vessel in fabric, shape, and decoration closely resembles Akhaian examples.164 Unpublished examples: -Three fragments, identical to those in Tomay, Munzi, and Gentile 1996, pp. 218-219, no. 3.96 (with added white, see above), on display in the museum (Fig. 14, center and far right). Together, these five fragments (FM 65207, FM 65221, FM 65235, FM 65236, FM 94270) derive from the excavations on the Timpone della Motta, although their exact location on the hill is not known. All are body fragments, except for FM 65235, which preservespart of the rim. Another fragment with added white (FM 25208) is in the museum storeroom. -Monochrome kantharos (FM 94229). FrancavillaMarittima (forthcoming): -From FrancavillaMarittima come 76 catalogued and over 100 additional fragments of Akhaian and Akhaianizing pottery, primarily kantharoi-both banded and monochrome-some with added white, though with a smaller quantity of kratersor
414
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Figure33. Ring kernoswith seven attachedmonochromekantharoi, SanAntonio Museumof Art,Texas, inv. 87.2.1. CourtesyMuseum
krateriskoi,closed vessels, and a distinctive two-handled tankardresembling a Vapheio cup. A small selection of banded kantharos fragments, two with added white, are illustrated in Figure 6. Zancani Montuoro 1980-1982 (from the Macchiabate tombs): -Possible Akhaian or Akhaian-style monochrome kantharos or one-handled cup from Tomb T.25, p. 73, pl. 42:a, no. 3, described as a "Tazza(?)." In addition to the pieces listed above,the sanctuaryat FrancavillaMarittima has yielded a large number of kernoi (mostly unpublished), with attached kantharoi,as well as other attached shapes, including miniature hydriai or hydriskoi.165A very similar complete ring kernos surmounted by seven monochrome kantharoi (without provenance), now in the San Antonio Museum of Art, is of interest as the attached kantharoi are identical to plainAkhaian and Akhaianizing monochrome kantharoidiscussedabove.166 -Ring kernos with seven attached monochrome kantharoi (Fig. 33), San Antonio Museum of Art, inv. 87.2.1, published in Shapiro, Pic6n, and Scott 1995, p. 257, no. 141, described as an "Italo-Corinthian kernos"and dated to the 8th-7th century B.C. Laos Laos was founded on the Tyrrhenian coast by settlers from Sybaris, due west of the larger metropolis, and its possession allowed the Sybaritans to control the Sybaris-Laos isthmus. Two other sites on the Tyrrhenian coast are associated with Sybaris: Skidros, the location of which remains 165.Fora smallpublishedselection of such kernoi from the sanctuaryon the Timpone della Motta, see Stoop 1983, p. 43, nos. 12-17. For the significanceof kernoi and other vessels in Archaicritual,particularlyin the context of cult meals,see Kron 1988,
esp. p. 146, fig. 11. 166. Preferringmaterialfrom known contexts,I have not made a thorough searchof unprovenanced comparandain museums,particularly as plain banded or monochromevessels, such as Akhaian kantharoi,are not
highly prized as exhibition-quality material.The same is true in most museums;even in Greece, at museums such as the National Museum or the PatrasMuseum, the numberof Akhaian kantharoion displayis very small.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
415
problematic, and Kerilloi, modern Cerilla, located just south of Laos.167 After the destruction of Sybaris in 510 B.C., many Sybaritans sought asylum in Laos and Skidros.168 The excavations at Laos have yielded a small of Archaic quantity pottery, including fragments of open vessels of uncertain shape with banded decoration. Although there is, as far as I know, no published piece from the site that is clearly Akhaian or Akhaian-style, a few pieces are worth noting as possibilities, including the following: -Laos I, pp. 101-102, pl. 27, no. 23. Kroton
167. According to Herodotos (6.21), the survivorsof the sack of Sybarisin 510 B.C.took refuge at Laos and Skidros;see Dunbabin 1948, p. 155. Dunbabin (p. 204) rejectsearlier suggestionsthat ancient Skidroswas located at modern Sapriand Papasidero,preferringthe level ground at the mouth of the Sanginete,near the end of the route that passesthrough S. Agata. More recently,Guzzo (1989, pp. 24-25), with regardto the location of Skidros(Skydros),writes:"ogni ipotesi e azzardata."See also Guzzo 1989, p. 29. For Kerilloisee Dunbabin 1948, p. 155; cf. Randall-Maclver1931, p. 29; Guzzo 1989, pp. 49-50. 168. See Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 78-79, 155; Randall-Maclver1931, p. 29; LaosI. 169. Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 2628, 83-86, 159-163;Jeffery 1990, pp. 256-259; variouspapersin Crotone; Severino 1988; Giangiulio 1989; Osanna 1992, pp. 167-189; Morgan and Hall 1996, pp. 205-208. 170. See, e.g., Orsi 1911; Spadea 1996 (with references). 171. Spadea1996, p. 124, nos. 132147. 172. Orsi 1933, p. 123, fig. 88 (variousexamples). 173. Morgan and Hall 1996, pp. 208-209; cf. Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp.27-28, 83-86, 161-163.
An early Akhaian colony, Kroton controlled a large territory and flourished in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., especially after its victory over Sybaris in 510 B.C.The city enjoyed the hegemony of the Italiote League, which met in the sanctuaryof Hera Lakinia, and its history has been discussed by a number of able commentators.169 The Archaic levels at Kroton have not been thoroughly published. The materialfrom Kroton published in Sabbione 1984 includes no definite examples of Akhaian kantharoi, though a number of fragments, listed below, may well be from Akhaian or Akhaianizing kantharoi. Moreover, some of the skyphoi, especially those in Sabbione 1984, pp. 260-265, would repay closer study, as would those from Santo Stefano di Grotteria, Sabbione 1984, pp. 286-293 (see below). -Possible Akhaian or Akhaian-style kantharoi, Sabbione 1984, p. 261, nos. 34 and 38. -Krater foot fragment, Sabbione 1984, p. 270, fig. 19, no. 68, looks Akhaian or Akhaian-style. Sanctuary ofHera Lakinia at Capo Colonna There are,as far as I know, no published examples of Akhaian or Akhaianstyle pottery from the sanctuary of Hera Lakinia at Capo Colonna, located to the south of the ancient city of Kroton."70The site has yielded numerous examples of miniature, undecorated kantharoi, referred to as "krateriskoi.'"71 Sanctuary ofApollo Alaios at Cape Krimissa (Cirb) As with the sanctuaryof Hera Lakinia, there are no published examples of Akhaian pottery from the excavations at the sanctuary of Apollo Alaios that I am aware of. The excavations have yielded a number of miniature votive vessels, among which various types of kantharoiare predominant.l72 Kaulonia As Morgan and Hall have argued, there are two concurrent versions of Kaulonia'sfoundation: a Krotoniate version naming Kroton as the Kaulonian metropolis, and a Kaulonian version, which attempted to establish a first-generation Akhaian pedigree.'73Archaic levels have been excavated in various parts of the site, although the pottery from the earlier excavations by Paolo Orsi has not been thoroughly published. A number of Corinthian and other sherds are illustrated by Orsi, as is some of the
416
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
The material from the more recent excavamaterial from the cemetery.174 tions along the north fortification wall includes Archaic fragments, listed under the general category"coupes subgeometriques a filets,"or "coupesa decor de bandes," that are possibly Akhaian or Akhaianizing, especially the following: -Treziny 1989, p. 44, fig. 28, nos. 4, 8, 17; p. 49, fig. 31, nos. 58, 60-61. Metapontion The northernmost of the Akhaian apoikiai of Magna Graecia, located at the mouth of the river Basento, Metapontion was a prosperous city, controlling an extensive territory.175 Metaponto itself, along with the earlier settlement at Incoronata, has seen ongoing excavations for a indigenous of it would be no exaggeration to state that the chora number decades and of Classical Metapontion has been more fully investigated than that of any other Classical city, its territory subject to regulardivision.176In 1948 Dunbabin characterized the city in the following terms: "Metapontion was a small city whose many unusual cults may reflect an obscure and mixed origin.... in antiquity it was a worthy object of strife, and the Metapontines had to maintain themselves against both Tarantines and The model of Metaponto's "obscureand mixed the native Oinotrians."177 be well applied to numerous other settlements in southern origin" may and Italy Sicily. MetapontoI: -Possible fragments of banded open vessels, p. 216, fig. 223 (top left); the remaining fragments, all of which are probably from the same vessel, are clearly from a horizontal-handled form. -Cf. also some of the rim fragments:p. 279, fig. 292:a (top row). Adamesteanu 1984: -Possible fragments of banded kantharoi, skyphoi, and kraters from the area of the Ekklesiasterion, dating to the second half of the 7th century: p. 312, figs. 12-13. Although the pieces are too fragmentaryto identify with certainty,several of the rim fragments, as well as some of the kraterfragments, are possibly Akhaian or Akhaian-style. Incoronata The indigenous settlement at the site of Incoronata, explored in recent years by a team from the University of Milan,178was never an Akhaian colony, or at least no certain literary tradition concerning it survives. Its fate, however, was intimately linked with the rise of Metaponto and it is for this reason listed here. The relationship between Incoronata and Metaponto has most recently been explored by Osborne, who concludes: "Metapontum survived into the Classical period and acquired a colonial history.Incoronata perished at the end of the seventh century and did not. Should we account for their different fates in terms of different origins?
174. Orsi 1914, esp. cols. 817-818, fig. 77, and the materialfrom the cemetery (cols. 906-941); see also Orsi 1891; 1923;Treziny 1989. 175. For the territoryof Metaponto see, most recently,Carter1998. For historicaloverviewsof Metaponto, see, e.g., Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 31-35, 86-87, 150-153; variouspapersin Metaponto;Jeffery1990, pp. 254-256; Osanna 1992, pp. 39-84; Morgan and Hall 1996, pp. 209-211; Osborne 1998, esp.265-267. 176. Carter1990; 1994. As Carter (1998, p. 3) has recentlystated,the ruralcemeteryat Pantanello,in the territoryof Metaponto, is the first necropolisof Magna Graeciato have been publishedin its entirety. 177. Dunbabin 1948, p. 87. 178. For bibliographysee Orlandini and Castoldi 1995, pp. 11-21.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
417
7 Figure34. Incoronata,banded kantharos,St. 143654.Scale1:2. P. Finnerty,afterBasento,p. 132, no. 71 (= p. 171, no. 2)
Or have their different fates in fact given them different literary fates?"179 Whatever their fate, a good deal more Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery has been found at Incoronata than at Metapontion. This is perhaps not surprising,given the earlier date of the excavated levels at Incoronata. Basento: In addition to the pieces listed below, many of the pieces presented under the heading "ceramicadi produzione coloniale"may prove to be Akhaian or inspired by Akhaian prototypes.
179. Osborne 1998, p. 264. 180. At least one of these kantharoi is not unlike one from Incoronatathat I inspected in the storeroomof the Metaponto Museum (inv. 128749), decoratedwith crosseson the handles. It is, however,differentfrom those illustratedby Semeraro.Other kantharoiI had occasion to see in the Metaponto Museum include inv. 128511, with numerousbands on the middle of the body,as well as bands and groupsof verticallyset zigzags on a very tall rim; and inv.319844, a monochromekantharosin the local "gray"fabric.
-Framentary banded kantharos (Fig. 34), p. 132, no. 71, p. 171, no. 2 (St. 143654), preserving complete profile, recognized by Davide Ciafaloni as a West Greek import, and compared to a similar kantharos from Asani published by Dekoulakou. -Complete monochrome kantharos,p. 158, no. 107 (St. 288936), listed under locally produced "colonial"pottery. -Fragmentary monochrome kantharos,p. 172, no. 135 (St. 123773), listed under the heading "ceramicabuccheroide,"but since the piece was fired red (oxidized), it is not listed under the "grayware"discussed below. -Cf. the banded "stamnos,"p. 153, no. 93 (St. 143654). -Cf. complete skyphos, p. 159, no. 108 (St. 123615). This skyphos and others like it were locally produced but may have been based on Akhaian prototypes. They are very similar to skyphoi found in Akhaia, and there are no known locally produced Corinthian imitations from Metaponto. Orlandini and Castoldi 1991: -Two fragmentarybanded kantharoi,pp. 51, 57, 76, 116, nos. 73-74, figs. 111-112, 191 (top row), St. 283812/2 and St. 283810/1 + 283811/1 + 283812/1 + 283807/2 (= Semeraro 1996, p. 271 [bottom], referredto as "kantharoicoloniali").l80 -Rim fragment, banded kantharos,pp. 82, 97, no. 50, fig. 168 (St. 292776), described as "Frammentodi presunto vasetto cantaroide." -Fragmentary monochrome kantharos,p. 101, fig. 182, no. 1 (St. 283857/1 + 283863).
4I8
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Orlandini and Castoldi 1992: -Cf. some of the base fragments illustrated on p. 82, figs. 140-142. Orlandini and Castoldi 1995: -Cf. one-handled cup related to the standard monochrome kantharos,pp. 68, 87, 157, figs. 78,211 (left), no. 56 (St. 299719). -A number of closed vessels, mostly one-handled jugs, seem very close in shape and style, if not fabric, to similarjugs in the northwest Peloponnese and in the area of the western Corinthian Gulf more generally.Among others, note especially the following: p. 153, fig. 194; p. 154, figs. 197-199. Stea 1991: Incoronata has produced a large number of locally made kantharoi in a distinctive gray fabric, which has been most recently studied by Giuliana Stea. The color of the clay, produced by reduction firing, has tended to dominate any discussion of this class of pottery. Consequently, it is more often than not considered against the backdrop of other gray fabrics, such as those from Troy, Lesbos, Chios, Larissa-on-the-Hermos, Smyrna, and elsewhere, including the general category of "bucchero ionico." Locally made vessels of exactly the same shape, fabric, and decoration, but oxidized, and thereforefired red, also occur at Incoronata, suggesting that the category "ceramicagrigia"or "ceramicabuccheroide"need not designate a distinctive ware or type of fabric in all cases. Among the variety of shapes produced in the "gray"fabric at Incoronata, the kantharos occurs most frequently.The shape is fully discussed by Stea, who cites examples from various parts of South Italy,as well as Greece-Ithake, Akhaia, Elis, Epeiros, and the region around Delphi-including some of the pieces listed here.181Stea distinguishes three types of kantharoi: a globular type with elevatedhandles-that is rising above the level of the rim-(no. 1); a globular type with bent handles (nos. 2-5); and a "piriform"type (nos. 15-22). She also distinguishes a "kantharoidcup"(nos. 23-24). With the possible exception of no. 1, all arederivativeof the standardAkhaian shape,whether banded or monochrome. I list below the gray-warekantharoi in the order given by Stea: -Kantharos, p. 414, fig. 13, no. 1 (St. 138826). -Kantharos (Fig. 35:a), p. 415, figs. 4, 13, no. 2 (St. 145320). -Fragmentary kantharos,p. 415, fig. 13, no. 3 (St. 124752). -Kantharos, p. 415, figs. 5, 13, no. 4 (St. 299717). -Body and handle fragments, kantharos,p. 415, fig. 13, no. 5 (St. 138823). -Rim and body fragment, kantharos,p. 415, fig. 13, no. 6 (St. 136929/1). -Kantharos fragments, p. 415, no. 7 (St. 123392-393). -Rim and body fragment, kantharos,p. 415, fig. 14, no. 8 (St. 136929/2).
181. Stea 1991, pp. 419-424.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
4I9
b
a
Figure35. Incoronata,monochrome kantharoiin grayfabric.Scale1:3. P. Finnerty,after Stea 1991, fig. 13, no. 2; fig. 14, no. 15; fig. 15, no. 16; fig. 15, no. 23
-Rim -Rim
fragment, kantharos,p. 415, no. 11 (St. 136735). fragment, kantharos,p. 415, fig. 14, no. 12
(St.283435/1). -Base andbodyfragment, kantharos, p. 415,fig.14,no.13 (St.145321). -Base fragment, kantharos, p.415,fig.14,no.14 (St.124754). -Kantharos(Fig.35:b),p.415,figs.6,14, no.15 (St.137714); Orlandini 1985, p. 231, fig. 31; Malnati 1984, p. 75, pi. 23:a;
Basento, p. 173,no.136. -Kantharos(Fig.35:c),pp.415-416,figs.7,15, no.16 (St.299716). -Rim andbodyfragments, kantharos, p. 416,no.17 (St.123509). -Rim andbodyfragments, kantharos, p. 416,no.18 (St. 135809/1).
-Rim andbodyfragment, kantharos, p. 416,fig.15,no.19 (St.124755). -Rim andbodyfragment, kantharos, p. 416,fig.15,no.20 (St. 124755).182 182. Same published inventory number as the previous piece.
-Rim andbodyfragment, kantharos, p.416,fig.15,no.21 (St.283435/2).
420
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
-Rim and body fragment, kantharos,p. 416, fig. 15, no. 22 (St. 136930). -Large kantharos (referredto as a "crateriscos")(Fig. 35:d), p. 416, figs. 8, 15, no. 23 (St. 137713); Orlandini 1985, p. 231, fig. 31; Basento,p. 173, no. 137. -Fragmentary large kantharos (as previous), p. 416, no. 24 (St. 135809/2). Orlandini 1984: -Kantharoid krater,considered to be of local fabric, but which looks Akhaian in shape, decoration-especially the banding on the lower body and the decoration of the handleand fabric:p. 319, fig. 10 (= Basento,p. 151, no. 87 [St. 123747]). Poseidonia (Paestum) The most distant of the colonies of Sybaris, Poseidonia was traditionally founded around 600 B.C. and grew rapidly in the course of the 6th century B.C., a period of intense urban expansion.183 Although material evidence indicates that the nearby sanctuaryat Foce del Sele was occupied perhaps as early as 700 B.C., the quantity of Early Archaic material recoveredfrom Poseidonia itself is not great, and there is nothing clearly Akhaian or Akhaian-style in the more recently published material from the site.184A possible example of an Akhaian or Akhaian-style kantharosfrom Foce del Sele is listed below. Jean Berard suggested that the original Greek settlement was at the mouth of the riverSele (the ancient Silaris),but Dunbabin expresseduncertainty as to whether this was the original Sybaritansettlement, to be dated around 700 B.C., or "whether it preceded the Sybarites, who were responsible only for the settlement on the site of Poseidonia."185 Be that as it may,Coldstream has speculatedthat the Akhaian or Akhaianstyle kantharoi found at inland sites such as Sala Consilina (see below) may have derived from Poseidonia rather than the east coast of Calabria. Such a movement, from west to east or southeast, is certainlypossible and Poseidonia is well situated with regardto the inland route to the Vallo di The relativelylate date Diano, skirting the ruralsanctuaryat Albanella."86 of the settlement at Poseidonia, however,rendersthe city a less likely source for the Akhaian-style kantharoi found further inland. The more recent excavationsat the extramuralsanctuaryin the "localita Santa Venera"just outside the south wall of Poseidonia and some 450 m east of the south gate have yielded pottery ranging in date from the 6th century B.C. to the Medieval period.'87The material includes Corinthian, Attic, and East Greek imports, alongside locally produced imitations of Corinthian pottery and Ionian cups.188Although there are no clear examples of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery,Theresa Menard, who is responsible for the publication of the pottery from the sanctuary,informs me that there may be one fragment from a vertical-handled vessel similar to Akhaian kantharoi.l89As with the settlement of Poseidonia, the late date of the foundation of the sanctuarywould greatly limit the quantity of
183. See Pedley 1990. 184. For Foce del Sele see especially ZancaniMontuoro and Zanotti-Bianco 1937, p. 209; Dunbabin 1948, pp. 2526,263. For an overviewof Poseidonia see Pedley 1990; for the recent excavationsat the site see PoseidoniaPaestumI-III; also Greco, d'Ambrosio, andTheodorescu 1996. 185. See Berard1941, p. 236; Dunbabin 1948, p. 26; see further Jeffery1990, pp. 252-253. 186. See Dunbabin 1948, pp. 200210; Pedley 1990, p. 18, fig. 6. 187. For an overviewof the site, the history of exploration,and finds, see Johannowsky,Pedley,andTorelli 1983; Pedley 1990, pp. 129-162. 188. Johannowsky,Pedley,and Torelli 1983, pp. 300-301. 189. I am gratefulto Theresa Menard for showing me photographs and drawingsof all the catalogued potteryfrom the sanctuaryat Santa Venera.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
42I
diagnostic Akhaian or Akhaian-style vessels. More recently, a number of sherds with dipinti evidently in the Akhaian alphabet have been found in the excavations directed by John Pedley and James Higginbotham.190
Focedel Sele The material from the sanctuaryof Hera on the Foce del Sele (Capaccio), excavated by Paola Zancani Montuoro and Umberto Zanotti-Bianco,l19 includes some of the earliest Greek imports to the region of Poseidonia. Illustrated among the pieces of Protocorinthian pottery in an early preliminary report is a solitary (miniature) kantharos: -Small or miniature monochrome kantharos:Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco 1937, p. 323, fig. 78, top row, third from left. A number of other Akhaian settlements, possible "colonies,"or dependencies are known, some only by their coinage. On the Tyrrhenian side, in addition to Laos and Kerilloi, are Aminaia, Pyxous, and Sirinos, the latter often confused with Siris/Polieion, as well as Terina and Temesa, with its copper mines, which came under the control of Kroton.92Jeffery has provisionally assigned a coin with IIcX on the obverse and MoXon the reverse to Molpe and Cape Palinuro,south of Poseidonia and Velia.193From other parts of South Italy we can add Pandosia, an indigenous settlement that later came under the hegemony of Kroton, as well as Petelia and Krimissa (see above, Temple of Apollo Alaios).l94 NON-AKHAIAN
SETTLEMENTS
LokroiEpizephyrioi Lokroi Epizephyrioi, the apoikia of Opuntian Lokris established in the 7th century B.C., or so tradition states, went on to enjoy political prominence and itself founded a number of subsidiary settlements at Medma, Hipponion, and Metauros.195The earliest levels of the city have not been as thoroughly explored as the Late Archaic and Classical levels.196 190. I am gratefulto John Pedley for showing me photographsof these fragments,which are to be publishedby James Higginbotham in a forthcoming issue of NSc. 191. For a descriptionof the site and a detailed accountof the architecture and architecturalreliefs,see Zancani Montuoro and Zanotti-Bianco 1951; 1954. See furtherZancani Montuoro 1964; 1965-1966; Stoop 1964; see also Pedley 1990, pp. 61-76. 192. See Jeffery1990, pp. 253-254. ForTerinasee Dunbabin 1948, pp. 161-162; Jeffery 1990, pp. 258, 260; for
Temesa see Dunbabin 1948, pp. 37, 162, 202-203,223,367-368;Jeffery 1990, pp. 254,260; Maddoli 1982. See also Papadopoulos,forthcoming. 193. Jeffery1990, p. 253. 194. Dunbabin (1948) distinguishes between Pandosianear Siris (pp. 33, 439) and Pandosianear Sybaris(pp. 83, 157);Jeffery1990, pp. 254,260. For Petelia see Dunbabin 1948, pp. 159161;Jeffery1990, pp.258-259,261. 195. Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 6875, 163-170; De Franciscis1972; variouspapersin LocriEpizefirii.The literaryand epigraphicalevidencefor
the city has been admirablycollected by FrancescaNiutta in LocriEpizefiri I, pp. 253-355. See also Osanna 1992, pp. 201-228. For Medma (Rosarno), see variouspapersby SalvatoreSettis convenientlyassembledin Settis 1987; also Paoletti and Settis 1981. For Metaurosor Matauros(Gioia Tauria), see Sabbione1983; Settis 1987, pp. 185-190. For Hipponion (Vibo Valentia)see Guzzo 1989, passim.For Medma, Metauros,and Hipponion see furtherGuzzo 1987; de Sensi Sestito 1987, esp. pp. 232-235. 196. See LocriEpizefiri I-IV.
JOHN
422
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Nevertheless, a few possible, but uncertain, fragments of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery are listed below. LocriEpizefiri I: -Rim fragments:pl. 24:h, i, 1,m, v (and others that are from horizontal-handled vessels), labeled "subgeometrica,corinzia e ionica." LocriEpizefiri IV: -Cf. various rim fragments:pl. 44, nos. 1-4 ("ceramicalocale arcaicae coppe di tipo ionico"). Santo Stefano di Grotteria The cemetery at S. Stefano di Grotteria, located about 15 km north of Lokroi Epizephyrioi and some 6 km inland, has yielded at least one complete Akhaian or Akhaianizing monochrome kantharos.197 -Tomb 2, inv. 51515 (on display in the Reggio di Calabria Museum); mentioned by de la Geniere 1968, p. 189, n. 14 (and dated by her to the second half of the 7th century B.C.). Stefanelli di Gerace Claudio Sabbione considers that Stefanelli di Gerace, along with Santo Stefano di Grotteria, belonged to the choraof Lokroi.198As far as I know, the site has yielded no Akhaian or Akhaian-style kantharoi.A number of skyphoi, however, thought to be locally produced, are remarkablysimilar in fabric and style to Akhaian pottery in the western Corinthian Gulf; see especially the following: -Tomb XIV: Antiquarium di Locri, inv. 24562, Sabbione 1984, p. 296, fig. 44, no. 102 (described on p. 295, n. 97, no. 102). Amendolara The site is located to the north of Sybaris and FrancavillaMarittima. The excavations, directed by Juliette de la Geniere over the course of several seasons, brought to light tombs in several cemeteries.'99The associated settlement was located and partly excavated at San Nicola (considered by At least one complete and one fragmentary some to be ancient Lagaria).200 from the tombs, and several others have been kantharos were recovered reported.201The soil conditions of the site are such that all pottery is very badly preserved, particularly that from the cemeteries (Paladino and Mangosa). Consequently, it remains difficult to establish the following examples as imports or local products (whether produced at the site, in the plain of Sybaris, or to the north). The material is now stored in the Amendolara Museum. -Complete kantharos from Mangosa Tomb 100, inv. 89830 (dated to the end of the 7th or early 6th century B.C.). The vessel appearsto be monochrome.202
197. For an overviewand bibliography of the site, see de la Geniere 1968, pp. 178-180; Sabbione1984, esp. pp. 295-296, n. 98; Osanna 1992, p. 227. 198. Sabbione1984, pp. 293-295; for earlierbibliography,see Osanna 1992,p.227. 199. For a generaloverviewof the site, see de la Geniere 1967; 1969; also Laviola1971. 200. See de la Geniere 1967; de la Geniere and Nickels 1975; Foti 1970, pp. 162-163, fig. 3. The other location thought by some scholarsto be the site of ancient Lagariais the settlement associatedwith, and mostly located below,the sanctuaryon the Timpone della Motta at FrancavillaMarittima; see Maaskant-Kleibrink1993, p. 2. 201. Mentioned also in Coldstream 1998a, pp. 328-329. 202. I have not been able to locate a publishedillustrationof kantharos inv. 89830. For some of the tombs excavatedat the Mangosa cemeteryat Amendolara,see de la Geniere et al. 1980; also de la Geniere 1971; 1973.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
423
-Kantharos handle fragment: de la Geniere 1973, Tomb 68, p. 42, fig. 20 (lower right). The presence of a shining black metallic glaze partiallyvisible on the surface of this handle under the incrustation might suggest an Akhaian import. There is also a related rim fragment that must be from the same kantharos, or one very similar. Sala Consilina An indigenous settlement in the valley of Diano, the site of Sala Consilina is located in the mountainous interior of eastern Campania, due east of Severalcomplete kantharoi, Paestumandwest ofMetaponto andTaranto.203 either Akhaian imports or Akhaianizing (most probably the latter), are published by de la Geniere and are important for mapping the distribution of the shape in the interior of southern Italy. de la Geniere 1968: -Monochrome kantharos, Sala Consilina Tomb B.1, pl. 11:4 (right). -Banded kantharos (banding restricted to midpoint of vessel only), Sala Consilina Tomb B.21, pl. 12:3 (right). Both kantharoi are mentioned in Coldstream 1998a, pp. 329, 331, n. 31. Siris/Polieion/Herakleia (Policoro)
203. See de la Geniere1968, pls. 53-54. 204. Strab.6.264 (6.1.14); Dunbabin 1948, p. 34. 205. Dunbabin 1948, p. 34. 206. Dunbabin 1948, p. 34. 207. Perret1941, pp. 212-231; Dunbabin 1948, pp. 34-35. 208. For discussionsee Jeffery1990, p. 254; see alsoJeffery 1949, pp. 32-33. For the coinage of Sirinos and Pyxous (or Pyxoes), see Kraayand Hirmer 1966, pl. 76; and esp. Stazio 1983; 1987; 1998; see furtherGreco 1990, pp. 43-44. 209. For a useful historicaloverview, see Perret1941; also variouspapersin De Siena andTagliente 1986, esp. Lombardo1986; see also Lombardo 1983. 210. Osborne 1998, pp. 265-267. See also Osanna 1992, pp. 85-114. 211. Adamesteanuand Dilthey 1978.
Like many other cities in Magna Graecia, Siris enjoyed a heroic pedigree, originating from Troy,though the basis for this remains ratherunsubstantial; it is also said to have been a Rhodian colony.204But the better-attested version, according to Dunbabin, makes Siris Kolophonian: the city was called Polieion, though the popular name-Siris-was taken from that of the river.205 As Dunbabin states: "Siris,an Ionian wedge between the two most northerly Akhaian cities, prosperedfor over a century and reached a On the basis of numismatic height of luxury second only to Sybaris."206 evidence, some scholars once regarded the city as a Sybaritanfoundation and thus Akhaian, but the relevant coinage dates to the second half of the 6th century B.C., after the city fell to the Akhaians from Sybaris, Kroton, and Metapontion.207It is now clear that the coinage issued with the legend "Sirinos"refersto another city, not to Siris (see above).208In 433/2 B.C. the site was partly built over by the later colony of Herakleia, which was founded by settlers from Taras.209 The problem of Siris'svarious foundation traditions is well explored by Osborne.210 The excavations at the site have brought to light a large number of open vessels with plain, banded decoration. Many of these are designated "coppea filetti"and many areclearlyfragments of horizontal-handled vessels (cups or skyphoi). All are thought to be local products, and indeed, excavationshave yielded evidence of pottery production, including kilns.211 Among the various fragments on display in the Policoro Museum, I have seen several pieces that look identical in shape, fabric, and decoration to Akhaian kantharoi discovered in the northwest Peloponnese. The following are some of the published pieces that may be Akhaian or Akhaianstyle.
424
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Hansel 1973: -Rim fragment, p. 435, fig. 22, no. 4 (cf. body fragment no. 3). -Various rim fragments, mostly from horizontal-handled cups or skyphoi, p. 439, fig. 24, nos. 1-6, esp. no. 1. -Rim fragment, p. 444, fig. 26, no. 14 (the size and profile of this piece is different from the horizontal-handled vessel illustrated on p. 444, fig. 26, no. 16). -Cf. the following rim fragments:p. 447, fig. 28, nos. 1-2, 7. -Cf. the banded body fragments illustrated on p. 462, fig. 39, esp. no. 16. -Rim fragments, p. 464, fig. 40, nos. 1,10. -Rim fragment, p. 467, fig. 42, no. 5. -Rim fragments, p. 472, fig. 47, nos. 8-13, esp. nos. 11, 12. Adamesteanu and Dilthey 1978: -Rim fragment, open vessel, kantharos(?),p. 530, fig. 3 (left). Fig. 3 includes material from a kiln, the fill of which yielded various fragments of locally produced and imported pottery (noted on p. 517). -Cf. body fragments with banded decoration: p. 549, fig. 31. -Cf. fragments of"coppe a filetti," most with horizontal handles: p. 563, fig. 50. Bianco and Tagliente 1985: -Rim fragment, monochrome kantharos (paint fired red), preserving scar of vertical handle at rim, p. 79, fig. 23 (second row, second from left). Policoro Museum: -Cup with same shape and fabric as kantharoi,but with only one handle: Tomb 19, no. 6.XII.76. Santa Maria d Angelona A complete monochrome kantharoswas found in Tomb XXII at S. Maria d'Angelona in southeast Basilicata, immediately to the west of Herakleia The vessel is comparableto pieces from Metaponto,Timmari, (Policoro).212 Sala Consilina, and Satyrion (see above and below). -Monochrome kantharos (Fig. 36), Malnati 1984, pp. 74-75, pl. 20A, no. 2 (Tomb XXII). Montescaglioso This site is located in the northeast quarterof Basilicata, south of Matera. Excavations brought to light at least one fragmentarybanded kantharos, found in "la Tomba rinvenuta presso l'Edificio Scolastico nel 1953," in association with a "coppa a filetti" (horizontal-handled drinking vessel) and local matt-painted ceramics. In discussing the kantharos,Giuseppina Canosa describes it as a "tazza di tipo Itaka con orlo a filetti," and compares it to the well-known Akhaian kantharos now in Patras published by Coldstream.213
212. Fora summaryofthe siteand bibliography, see Osaa Osanna 1992 1992, bibliogra , see
pp. 109-110; see also de la Geniere 1970, esp. pp. 624-625. 213. Canosa 1986, p. 175; cf. Cold-
stream1968,pl. 50:f.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
425
Figure36. SantaMariad'Angelona, TombXXII, monochrome kantharos. Scale 1:2. P. Finnerty,after Malnati 1984, pi. 20A, no. 2 M,0
II /i//~
b
a Figure37. Fragmentarybanded kantharoi:a) Montescaglioso; b) San Nicola dei Greci(Matera). Scale 1:2. P. Finnerty,after Canosa 1986, pls. 58:a, 69:b
Canosa 1986: -Fragmentary banded kantharos(Fig. 37:a), p. 175, pl. 58: (second row, right); now in the Museo di Ridola, Matera, inv. 9616a.
San Nicoladei Greci(Matera) A fragmentarybanded kantharospreserving a complete profile was found at San Nicola dei Greci, in the region of Matera in Basilicata, a settlement site which otherwise yielded large quantities of local matt-painted pottery, including a kiln and other evidence for local pottery production.214In describing the "non-indigenous"kantharos,Canosa states:"L'unicaceramica non indigena rinvenuta nella cavita e costituita da alcuni frammenti (inv. 152638) grazie ai quali si ricostruisceuna tazzina kanthariformea vernice nera opaca con filetti sula superficie interna dell'orlo e linee nere in una fascia a risparmiosul punto di massima espansione del ventre."215 She goes on to comparethis "tazzadi tipo Itaka"with two similarpieces from Satyrion and Gela (see below). Canosa 1986: -Fragmentary banded kantharos (Fig. 37:b), p. 181, pl. 69:b.
Timmari 214. See Canosa 1986, pls. 59-69:b. 215. Canosa 1986, p. 181.
At least one complete Akhaian or Akhaian-style banded kantharos was found among the tombs excavated by U. Riidiger at Timmari, immediately to the west and slightly south of Matera, in association with
426
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
matt-painted pottery and metal finds. The vessel is described by Canosa as "tazzadi tipo Itaka."216 Canosa 1986: -Complete banded kantharos,p. 182, pl. 70 (top row, right), Tomb 21; cf. Lattanzi 1980, pl. 7, no. 1. Taras (Taranto) The history of the Spartan colony Taras,which controlled the best harbor in the Gulf of Taranto, has been covered many times and need not be repeated here.217Interestingly,Taras and sites within its territoryhave together yielded quite a number ofAkhaian and Akhaianizing vessels.These include several that must be imports, either from the Greek mainland or from one of the sites in South Italy within the Akhaian sphere. Beyond Taranto, to the north and east, very few Akhaian and Akhaian-style vessels are known to me, and it would appear that the distribution of such pottery was limited, especially in the Salento, but also in Apulia more generally. -Complete banded kantharos (Fig. 38:a), inv. 54963 (on display in the Taranto Museum), from one of the tombs in the necropolis at Via Giovanni Giovane (excavatedApril 22, 1954). Vessel mentioned in Lo Porto 1964, p. 227, n. 5 (under the general heading of"ceramica verniciata in nero tipo 'Itaca'").218 The excavations at the Archaic settlement at Crispiano, localita L'Amastuola, have brought to light at least one certain Akhaian kantharos and fragments of several possible Akhaian or Akhaianizing vessels.29 Maruggi 1996: -Body and handle fragment, banded kantharos,pp. 262,265, no. 226 (inv. 154428), classified as "frammentodi kantharos tipo Itaca?" -Cf. a few of the rim fragments classified as "frammentidi coppe a filetti," especially p. 262, nos. 204 (right, second from the top), 208 (top left), p. 264. Scogliodel Tonno (Taranto) The reef of islets known as Scoglio del Tonno lies opposite the western tip of the Greek colony ofTaras extending into the Mar Grande.The excavations conducted by Quintino Quagliati at the archaeologicalsite of Scoglio del Tonno-an extension of the low promontory of PuntaTonno-in 1899 and the years following brought to light an important prehistoric settlement. The upper levels of the site yielded significant quantities of imported Mycenaean pottery, along with Early Iron Age and Archaic Greek imports, of which the Mycenaean was published in detail by Lord WillI have not had occasion to inspect firsthand the imported, iam Taylour.220 post-Mycenaean Greek pottery from Scoglio del Tonno, but in dealing with the Geometric and Protocorinthian pottery from the upper levels, Taylour refers to several fragments that may well be Akhaian:
216. Canosa 1986, p. 182. For the site of Timmari see furtherQuagliati and Ridola 1906. 217. Wuilleumier1939; Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 28-38, 87-93,146-150; Belli 1970; variouspapersin Taranto; Brauer1986; variouspapersin Guzzo et al. 1988; Osanna 1992, pp. 1-38; Malkin 1994, esp. ch. 4. 218. I have not been able to locate a publishedillustrationof this piece in the variousexcavationreportsof Taranto,such as Lo Porto 1960; 1961. 219. For the site see Osanna 1992, 36. p. 220. Taylour1958, pp. 81-137. A few of the ArchaicGreek sherdsfrom Soglio del Tonno are illustratedin Taranto,pl. 58.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
b
a Figure38. Bandedkantharoi:a) Via G. Giovane,Taranto,Taranto Museum,inv.54963 (22/4/1954); b) Satyrion(Leporano).Scale1:2. a) drawingauthor,inkedby P.Finnerty; afterLo Porto1964,p.227, b) P.Finnerty, fig.48, no. 1
427
Taylour 1958: -Several vertical handles, particularlyone of very thin ware "paintedwith horizontal lines on the lower half and with vertical ones on the upper half" (cf. Fig. 30), pp. 126-127. Lo Porto (1964, p. 227, n. 4) mentions these fragments as examples of his "ceramicaverniciata in nero tipo 'Itaca,"'and thus highly likely to be Akhaian or Akhaianizing vessels. Satyrion (Leporano) The town of Leporano is located some 12 km southeast of Taranto and is of importance since it has yielded, along with Scoglio del Tonno, significant quantities of imported prehistoric Aegean pottery, including Middle Helladic Matt-Painted and Minyan, as well as Mycenaean pottery.22 Satyrion,along with Taras,is named in the well-known passagein Diodoros Siculus (8.21.3) as a bane to the Iapygians. At least one fragmentary kantharos and fragments of several others are listed under the category "ceramicaverniciata in nero tipo 'Itaca."' Lo Porto 1964: -Fragmentary banded kantharos (Fig. 38:b), pp. 226-227, fig. 48, no. 1. Kantharos mentioned in Coldstream 1998a, p. 329. -Cf. rim fragments (p. 227, fig. 48, nos. 2-3) and base fragments (p. 227, fig. 48, nos. 8-9). Gravina-di-Puglia
221. For Leporanosee Taylour 1958, pp. 138-144; Lo Porto 1963, pp. 329-333 (Middle Helladic), pp. 333-343, 358-360, fig. 69 (Mycenaean);Lo Porto 1964, pp. 195-197 (Minyan), 197-204 (Mycenaean).
Although in Apulia, Gravina-di-Puglia is located some 75 km west of Taranto and less than 20 km northwest of Matera in Basilicata and is thus much closer to indigenous sites such as Montescaglioso, San Nicola dei Greci, and Timmari than it is to sites in the Salento region. One rim fragment from an open vessel associated with Tomb IX may conceivably be from a kantharos.The fragment preserves banding on the rim consistent with both Akhaian and Akhaian-style kantharoi,as well as the more ubiquitous "coppea filetti" (horizontal-handled vessels). The fragment is listed here only as a possibility.
428
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
du Plat Taylor et al. 1977: -Rim fragment, pp. 86, 88, fig. 33, no. 8 (compared with similar "Greek type cups of the late seventh and early sixth century B.C." such as those from Montescaglioso and Sala Consilina).222 Otranto Located on the easternmost tip of Apulia, directly opposite modern Albania, the area of Otranto would naturallyseem to be one of the first portsof-call for any westward-bound ship.223The fact, however,that the earliest Mycenaean pottery,as well as the earliestpost-Mycenaean pottery,is found at sites such as those on the Bay of Naples clearly shows that the aspect of proximity was not critical.This is a point well stated by Dunbabin: "The view that the nearer must have been colonized before the more remote cannot be upheld without rewriting the history of Greek colonization."224 The quantity of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery in eastern Apulia is meager:as far as I know the only published fragmentof a possible Akhaianstyle kantharos from the Salento is that listed below, and it may conceivably be Ithakesian.225 D'Andria 1985: -Rim and handle fragment, monochrome kantharos,pp. 359-360, fig. 23 (inv. OP 79-143; OP 81-489-439). In describing the piece, D'Andria states: "In misura molto minore si notano le imitazioni della ceramica corinzia prodotte nelle officine di Itaca e di altri centri della Grecia nord-occidentale, come il caratteristicokantharos dalle anse a gomito che nella particolare qualita dell'argillarivela un'origine certamente non corinzia."226
include 222.The citedcomparanda
the horizontal-handledcup, de la Geniere 1968, p. 188, pl. 49, no. 1, and the vessel from Montescaglioso,for which see Canosa 1986, pl. 58:a (either Pithekoussai center [cup] or right [kantharos]).See also Adamesteanu et al. 1976, pl. 45, The literarysources for Pithekoussai, nebulous and late as they are, as well no. 3. as the archaeologicalevidence,areadmirablypresentedby David Ridgway.227 223. D'Andria 1984 (with referThe cemetery in the Valle di San Montano at Pithekoussai228has yielded a ences). numberof mostly monochrome kantharoiand also two relatedone-handled 224. Dunbabin 1948, p. 9. 225. The dearthof Akhaianpottery that are for some known well similar of time, form, assigned by quite cups in the region is well reflectedin the imitatheir excavators as either Early Protocorinthian originals or local recentvolume by Grazia Semeraro tions. In shape they are related to Late Geometric Corinthian kantharoi, (1997) on ArchaicGreek pottery in the all of which, as Coldstream states, belong to the "Thapsos class,"and of Salento;see also D'Andria 1997. which there is only one example fromTombs 1-723 at Pithekoussai (Tomb 226. D'Andria 1985, p. 359, with referenceto the materialfrom Ithake 177-1).229They are, however, different from what Coldstream calls the Late Geometric "kyathos,"which is a straight-sidedtwo-handled kantharos publishedin Robertson1948; Benton 1953. As Coldstream that continues to be producedinto EarlyProtocorinthian.230 227. Ridgway1992; for Pithefurther notes, the Early Protocorinthian kantharos is comparatively rare koussai,Kyme,and Neapolis, see Of the kantharoi and "isalwaysfully glazed and usuallyon the small side."231 furtherJeffery1990, pp. 235-241. See from Pithekoussai, a number are clearly Corinthian (e.g.,Tomb 363-1; cf. also Niemeyer 1990b, esp. p. 488. 228. For an overviewsee Ridgway Tomb 267-1). Some, however, differ from the standard Corinthian ver1992,pp. 45-82. sions of the shape, resembling more closely the normal Akhaian, and 229. Coldstream1968, p. 102; genericallynorthwest Peloponnesian, shape (especiallyTomb 148-2, Tomb PithekoussaiI, p. 230, pl. 78, Tomb 455-2). In their preface to PithekoussaiI, Giorgio Buchner and David 177-1. 230. Coldstream1968, pp. 102, 107. Ridgway, quoting Mervyn Popham, state: "An excavator ... has two 231. Coldstream1968, p. 107. main responsibilities-to dig ... and, then, to publish his findings for the
MAGNA
ACHAEA
429
benefitof otherscholars.He mayjustifiablyleaveto othersmusingsabout the significance,historicalor artistic,of his finds, though most of us, I suspect,find this the most attractivepartof thejob evenif it maybe in the long run of more ephemeral value."232
It is in the spiritof musingthat I suggestthat afew of the kantharoi fromPithekoussai maypossiblybe importsfromthe northwestPeloponnese or Ithake,or else were inspiredby Akhaianor Ithakesianproducts.I am interestedin those designatedby the excavatorsas "localimiparticularly tations."In shapeand decoration,manyof these resemblethe kantharos andrelatedone-handledcupfoundat Vitsain Epeiros,anddesignatedby Vokotopoulou as Akhaian or other West Greek imports to the site.233It
mayverywell be that some of the kantharoilisted below are Ithakesian ratherthan Akhaian.For the sake of convenience,I list here all of the illustrated"EarlyProtocorinthian" kantharoifromTombs 1-723 that are classifiedas "localimitations."Among these,Tomb 148-2 in particular standsout as a possibleAkhaianor Akhaian-stylekantharos.In a more recentpublicationof the materialfromthe so-calledStipedei cavallifrom the acropolisof Pithekoussai,Bruno d'Agostinopresentsa solitaryexampleof what he refersto as a "kantharostipo Itaca,"identicalto those from the cemetery listed below.234Indeed, the famous sherd bearing the
inscriptionoriginallypublished,upside-down,as Greek by Margherita Guarducci,butcorrectlyreadas Phoenicianby P.KyleMcCarter,is a fragment of a kantharosof this type.235 McCarterbelievedthe piece to be an of the familiar red or red-burnished Phoenicianfabric,butBuchner example and Ridgway list it as "PCA d'imitazione locale."236
232. PithekoussaiI, p. 9, citing Popham 1983, p. 237. 233. Vokotopoulou1986, pp. 58-59, Tomb 45, nos. 1-2, pl. 81:3-y,
fig.71:p-y. 234. d'Agostino 1996, p. 52, pl. 37, no. 38; d'Agostino lists as examplesof this type all those kantharoilisted in PithekoussaiI, p. 731, underType 7 (iii) and (iv). 235. Guarducci1964, p. 129, pl. 40:2; Guarducci1967, p. 225, fig. 87, no. 5; McCarter 1975; Pithekoussai I, pp. 289-290, no. 232*-1, with further references.See furtherPowell 1991, pp. 124-125; Papadopoulos1994, pp. 492-493; 1997a, p. 194. 236. McCarter 1975, p. 141; PithekoussaiI, p. 289.
PithekoussaiI: -Tomb 148-2, pl. CXXI. -Tomb 243-4, pl. CXLI. -Tomb 309A-3, pls. 116 and CLIV. -Tomb 324-2, pl. CLIV. -Tomb 515-2, pl. 153. -Tomb 552-2, pl. CLXXIV. -Tomb 622-3, pl. 175 (= Ridgway 1992, p. 79, pl. 6, bottom right, labeled: "imitation of Early Protocorinthian kantharos,"and dated to Late Geometric II). -Tomb 232*-1, pls. 95, CXL. The following pieces are listed in PithekoussaiI, p. 731, as kantharoi "PCA d'imitazione locale,"but not illustrated: -Tomb -Tomb -Tomb -Tomb
382-1, 389-2, 556-3, 560-1,
p. 419. p. 424. p. 553. p. 556.
d'Agostino 1979: -Small monochrome kantharos,p. 65, fig. 37:3 (T. 111), no. 8, said to be "di fabbricapitecusana,"but of Corinthian type, with parallelsgiven on p. 65, n. 27.
430
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
d'Agostino 1996: -Fragmentary monochrome kantharos,p. 52, pl. 37, no. 38, published with the following note: "A Ischia ve ne sono diversi esempli, in parte importati da Corinto, in parte locali, cf. PithekoussaiI, p. 731 (Indice): 7.iii, iv." Kyme (Cuma) The specialposition ofCampanian Kyme as traditionallythe earliestGreek settlement on the Italian mainland is perhaps best typified in Alan Blakeway'sstatement:"Cumaeis the one Greek colony in the West whose foundation falls within the pre-colonisation period."237 The tradition surrounding the foundation of Kyme has featured prominently in modern scholarship, and does not require separate comment here.238As with Pithekoussai, Kyme has yielded a number of vessels, mostly kantharoi, which are possible Akhaian or Akhaian-style pieces. -Monochrome kantharos,Gabrici 1913, cols. 290, 315-319, pl. 40, no. 4. -Cf. banded jug, Gabrici 1913, col. 234, pl. 50, no. 4.239 -Pellegrini 1903, col. 275, figs. 59-60 (two monochrome kantharoi). Suessula A monochrome kantharos,similar to those from Pithekoussai and Kyme, in the Spinelli Collection now in the Museo Nazionale di Napoli, is said to have come from the necropolis of Suessula (modern Cancello) in Campania (the history of the collection is summarized by Mariarosaria Borriello).240
-Complete monochrome kantharos,Borriello 1991, pp. 16-17, pl. 11, no. 6 (inv. 160181 [Sp. 1333]). SICILY
Naxos Traditionally the oldest colony in Sicily, Naxos was founded according to the literarysourcesbyTheokles orThoukles of Chalkis,though latersources claim him as an Athenian.241An account of the recent excavations at the site, including a useful summary of earlier work and an overview of the literarysources,is admirablypresented by Paola Pelagatti and her collaborators.242 I know of no definite pieces ofAkhaian or Akhaian-style kantharoi from Naxos, but among the numerous examples of Thapsos-type skyphoi, at least one may prove to be non-Corinthian: Pelagatti 1982: -Rim fragment, pl. 47, no. 7. Judging from the published photograph, the rim is taller and more slender than the common Thapsos type.
237. Blakeway1932-1933, p. 200. 238. See, e.g., Randall-MacIver 1928, pp.122-132; 1931, pp. 1-8; Blakeway1932-1933; 1935; Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 2-11; Ridgway1992; Doria 1998; d'Agostino and Soteriou 1998, esp. pp. 367-368. 239. This is a squattervessel, similar to examplesillustratedin Dekoulakou 1984 (p. 227, figs. 15-16; p. 229, fig. 19); cf. Themelis 1984, p. 235, figs. 30 (left), 31 (Galaxeidi).For squat jugs in Akhaia see, in particular, Zapheiropoulos1952, p. 406, fig. 21; 1956, pls. 92:oc,93:oc;cf. Kyparissis 1932, p. 85, fig. 6 (left). 240. Borriello1991, p. 3; for a more complete accountof the excavationsat Suessula,see Johannowsky1983. 241. Dunbabin 1948, pp. 8-10; Jeffery1990, p. 241. 242. Pelagatti1984-1985, with full bibliographyand referencesto earlier work at the site.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
43I
Megara Hyblaia Traditionallyfounded by colonists from Megara, who had previouslyfailed to establish a settlement at nearbyTrotilon and Thapsos, Megara Hyblaia was overshadowed by its more powerful neighbors, Syrakousaiand Leontinoi.243Megara Hyblaia went on to found the more prosperous settlement at Selinous.244Excavations at the site by the French School at Rome have brought to light large quantities of imported Archaic Greek pottery.245There are at least four fragments of kantharoi with added white decoration, one of which (MegaraHyblaeaII, pl. 160:4) is almost identical to those from FrancavillaMarittima and Olympia and to the complete kantharos from Phlamboura in Akhaia discussed above.
243. For useful historicaloverviews, see Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 18-21; Vallet and Villard 1952; Vallet 1991; see also MegaraHyblaeaI-II. 244. Dunbabin 1948, p. 19. 245. For overviewssee Vallet 1984; Villard 1982. 246. Cited by Hayes in TocraI, p. 89, n. 10. 247. There are no illustrated kantharoior other Akhaianvessels in Orsi 1889. 248. Morris and Papadopoulos 1998, p. 260 (with full references). 249. Dunbabin 1948, passim,esp. pp. 2-5, 13-21,95-112; Valletand Villard 1952; Loicq-Berger1967; Dr6gemuiller1969; Wescoat 1989. 250. This kantharosis on display with another,inv. 51551, which has two painted bands on the lower body;both arelabeled"duekrateriskoidi fabbrica siracusana." 251. The rim of this kantharosis tallerthan on normalAkhaian kantharoi,resemblingmore closely the Argive versionof the shape.
MegaraHyblaea II: -Four fragments with added white, pl. 160, nos. 3-6. Of these, no. 4 (Fig. 13), almost certainly a banded kantharos, is clearly Akhaian. Rather than representing an "oiseaudans une metope," as stated by Vallet and Villard (p. 155), the decoration in added white is almost identical to similar floral motifs on the kantharoi from Phlamboura, Olympia, and FrancavillaMarittima (Figs. 11, 12, 14). -Kantharos with poorly preserved painted bands, pl. 200, no. 5. -Small kantharos,pl. 207, no. 5 (cf. other small and miniature kantharoi on pl. 207). -Cf. pl. 76, no. 3, as a possible example of the Late Archaic type of northwest Peloponnesian kantharoi found at Eleian Pylos and Olympia.246 -At least one other monochrome kantharos on display in the SyracuseMuseum (case 150, first panel, second row, first on left).247 Syrakousai Traditionallyfounded by Corinthians led byArchias-the only Corinthian colony in all of Sicily and South Italy-Syrakousai dominated the whole southeast corner of Sicily. It is interesting to note that Syrakousai,along with Thapsos, has a name that is not obviously Greek or Sikel, but for which plausiblePhoenician etymologies havebeen proposed.248 The original settlement on the island of Ortygia, well watered by a natural spring and boasting two fine harbors, quickly spread onto the adjacent mainland at Achradina. The history of the original settlement and of the later city has been discussed in detail elsewhere.249Excavations in various parts of Syrakousaihave brought to light a smallbut significant quantityof Akhaian and Akhaianizing pottery, much of which is unpublished. I have been able to locate the following: -Monochrome kantharos from the "necropolisex giardino spagna" (inv. 51546), Syracuse Museum, case 207.250 -Monochrome kantharos, Hencken 1958, p. 260, pl. 58, fig. 7, no. 5, Grave 175 bis (= Orsi 1895b, p. 126 [not illustrated]).251
JOHN
432
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Cf. also the kantharos,Hencken 1958, p. 264, pl. 63, fig. 21 (right), Tomb 367 (= Orsi 1895b, p. 157 [not illustrated]), cited by de la Geniere 1968, p. 189, n. 12. -Large but fragmentarykrater,Villa P. Orsi, similar to that from Gela, Syracuse Museum, case 179. Note also some of the examples of locally produced "crateritipo Fusco"assembled in Pelagatti 1984, esp. pp. 138-157, figs. 31-51. -Rim and handle fragment, from the Tempio Ionico on Ortygia: Pelagatti 1982, p. 135, pl. 38, fig. 2, no. 5; pl. 39, no. 5, described as a cup: "In argilla beige ocra pallido, che non sembra corinzia come la forma: forse argiva." Gela Founded according to tradition by Cretans and Rhodians led by Entimos and Antiphemos, and itself the founder of Akragas, Gela was the first Greek colony on the south coast of Sicily; it controlled the fertile plain of As at Syrakousai,a small but not insignificant quantity the Gelas River.252 of northwest Peloponnesian pottery has come to light, including the fragmentary krater from the extramuralsanctuary at Bitalemi, which, as discussed above, is very similar to a kraterfrom Antikyra (Fig. 15:a-b). The following are those few fragments that I have been able to find; there may well be more. -Banded kantharos or one-handled cup from Tomb 9 of the predio La Paglia tombs at Gela, Adamesteanu 1956, p. 286, fig. 7 (bottom right), described as a "kyathos,"and stated to be "un prodotto di importazione insulare asiatica." -Krater (Fig. 15:b), from the extramuralsanctuaryat Bitalemi (inv. 20359), Fiorentini and de Miro 1984, p. 91, fig. 81. -At least one fragment of a possible monochrome kantharos in the Gela Museum.253 Leontinoi According to tradition, within "six years of the foundation of [Sicilian] Naxos Theokles led a body of colonists south to Leontinoi, and very shortly afterward the Naxians also colonized Katane, under the leadership of Euarkos. Theokles' objective must from the first have been the rich Laistrygonian plain, the home of wheat, and the site of Leontinoi."254I know of only one fragment of an Akhaian or Akhaianizing monochrome kantharos from Leontinoi: -Fragment of a monochrome kantharos,on display in the Syracuse Museum (mislabeled "tipo ionico").255 Himera Traditionally founded by Zanklaians, with the aid of exiles from Syrakousai,256Himera, on the north coast of Sicily, has to date yielded no certain examples of Akhaian pottery, though compare one of the smaller unpainted votive kantharoi:Himera II, pl. 123, no. 5, esp. N.I. 17080.257
252. Dunbabin 1948, passim,esp. pp.20, 64-66, 104-105,112-121; Adamesteanuand Orlandini1960; Griffo and von Matt 1963; Fiorentini and de Miro 1984; Canzanellaand Buongiovanni1990. 253. Cf. fragmentsillustratedin Fiorentiniand de Miro 1984, p. 61, fig. 8, from the acropolisat Gela. There are no clearexamplesof Akhaian kantharoifrom the earlyexcavationsby Orsi, though cf. the one-handled vessels in Orsi 1906, col. 33, fig. 1 (left); col. 675, fig. 501, both of which areunlikelyto be Akhaian.For a useful bibliographyof excavationsconducted at Gela, see Adamesteanuand Orlandini 1960, pp. 68-71; Canzanella and Buongiovanni1990. 254. Dunbabin 1948, p. 10; see also pp. 16-19, 66-68, 121-129; see further Jeffery1990, p. 242; D'Agata and Milanezi 1990. 255. Case 145; the piece is evidently unpublished.There is no Akhaian among the potterypublishedfrom the cemeteryof Leontinoi;see Rizza 1982. 256. Dunbabin 1948, esp. pp. 20, 56, 141-143; see furtherJeffery1990, pp. 245-247; Brugnone and Belvedere 1990. 257. Cf. also two undecoratedonehandled cups from Selinunte:Dehl 1995, p. 412, pl. 71, nos. 4697 and 4698.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
433
Figure39. Bandedkantharos, Gotha, Schlossmuseum,inv.J. 2534, saidto be fromMelliehaBay,Malta. CourtesyMuseum
MELITA
(MALTA)
Melleha (Mellieha) Bay No information exists about the provenance of the Akhaian banded kantharos now in Gotha (the Schlossmuseum) other than that given in Rohde 1964, p. 17: "Gefunden 1887 Melleha Bay,Malta."Although published under the general heading of"Corinthian pottery,"the kantharosis not, as stressed by Rohde, of Corinthian fabric.This kantharosis, as far as I know,the only example ofAkhaian pottery said to be from Malta. Melleha Bay, probably referring to Mellieha Bay, is located in the far northwest part of Malta, north of St. Paul'sBay; the modern town of Mellieha, made into a parish in A.D. 1436, occupies a dominating position on the ridge to the south of the bay.J. D. Evans lists only the ruins of a minor megalithic structureon the southern shore of Mellieha Bay.258 Wherever it was found late last century,the kantharos is clearly Akhaian. 258. Evans 1971, p. 29. For a recent and useful overviewof Punic Malta, see Sagona 1996-1997, esp. pp. 29-39. 259. See furtherTocraI, p. 89, citing parallelsfrom Ithake,Perachora,and Megara Hyblaia.For the miniature versionof this shape in Lakonia,see Lane 1933-1934, p. 155, fig. 20:m and, for an earlierforerunner,p. 103, fig. 2:f. For the Argive versionsof the shape see above.A relatedminiatureform,which is very common in Sicily,is the stirrupkrater,or krateriskos,which imitates the popularLakonianshape;numerous examplesof these from Morgantina have been recentlydiscussedby Claire Lyons,in MorgantinaV, pp. 57-58, 8182; see furtherthe "imitazionepaesana" illustratedin Orsi 1898, p. 324, fig. 34; see also Gentili 1961a, p. 213, fig. 17:d; Gentili 1961b, p. 218, fig. 3:a;for the Lakonian,full-size, prototype,see Stibbe 1989.
-Complete banded kantharos (Fig. 39), found in 1887, and now in the Schlossmuseum in Gotha (inv.J. 2534). Published in Rohde 1964, pl. 5, no. 7 (pp. 17-18). NORTH
AFRICA
Tocra The Archaic levels at Tocra, the ancient Taucheira/Teucheira in North Africa, have yielded a number of interesting kantharoi. In discussing a group of these under the heading "Lakonian,"John Hayes writes: "The deep kantharoi (993-6) have not been recognized previously as a specifically Lakonian type." Although different in shape and decoration than the standard Akhaian banded and monochrome kantharoi, a few of the Tocra examples may be Akhaian or Eleian.259The close similaritybetween the decoration on the kantharoi of Tocra and the Late Archaic kantharoi from Eleian Pylos and Olympia is noteworthy. -Tocra I, pp. 89-92, fig. 44, pl. 68, nos. 993-996 (Fig. 40:a-b). As is stated by Hayes, the majority of these are Peloponnesian. With
434
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Af
a
the exception of the fragmentarymonochrome kantharos, no. 996, these vessels are not necessarilyAkhaian, but are more likely Eleian or western Peloponnesian rather than Lakonian. -Cf. TocraII, p. 69, kantharoid cups in local ware (the shapeof these small kantharoi is not unlike that of Akhaian monochrome kantharoi, especially examples like p. 69, fig. 28, pl. 36, nos. 2306, 2308).
b Figure40. Tocra(Taucheira/ Teucheira),bandedkantharoiwith decorationin addedwhite andred. Scale 1:3. P. Finnerty,after TocraI, fig. 44, pl. 68, nos. 993, 995
DISTRIBUTION OF AKHAIAN POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC PERIOD AND BRONZE AGE On the basis of the material presented above, a few tentative remarkscan be made on the patterns of distribution of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery. In Greece, east of its home region in the northwest Peloponnese and adjacentareas,severalAkhaian and Akhaian-style pieces are found at Perachora.Despite this material in the eastern Corinthian Gulf, there appears to have been no penetration into the Aegean, and there is certainly nothing akin to the distribution, for example, of Lakonian or Corinthian pottery in the east and north Aegean or in the eastern Mediterranean beyond. From the beginning the distribution of Akhaian pottery was essentially oriented toward the West. What is interesting about the Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery in the eastern Corinthian Gulf, however, is that it is largely contemporary with the Corinthian pottery found to date in Akhaia. Exact quantities and statistical proportions are impossible to determine given the dearth of comprehensively published pottery from systematic excavationsin Akhaia, but the general impression is revealing.The two-way movement of pottery between the east and west Corinthian Gulf strongly suggests that the common assumption that Corinth influenced the development of the Late Geometric-Early Archaic Akhaian style is in need of modification, if not revision, as Morgan anticipated.260Indeed, it maywell be that Akhaia-or neighborssuch as Ithake-influenced Corinth in certain aspects of ceramic production, as is possible in the case of the kantharos.
260. Morgan 1988, p. 338.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
435
In northwesternGreecea smallnumberof Akhaianor Akhaian-style vesselshavebeenrecordedat sitessuchasVitsaZagoriouandperhapsalso Arta,some of which mayproveto be Ithakesian.I suspectthat morewill in viewof the factthatsuchvessels cometo light in the future,particularly are found as far north,and inland,as Vitsa.The situationin the Ionian on Ithake,seemsto pointto the moreenduringinfluislands,particularly ence of Akhaia,and much of the recentliteratureon the Euboianand Akhaian Corinthianinfluenceson Ithakewill alsohaveto be revised.261The influenceoverIthakeextendswell beyondthe vagariesof ceramics,into the verylanguageof the island.Despite claimsthatthe alphabetof Ithake displays Euboian, specifically Chalkidian, influences,262it is clear that the
261. See esp. Malkin 1998a; 1998b.
Malkin'sviewsaboutEuboiansin the IonianSeaaresystematically refutedby Morgan 1998. 262. Malkin 1998b, p. 2. 263.Jeffery 1990, pp. 221,224, 230-231; Waterhouse1996, pp. 313314. 264. Jeffery 1990, pp. 231-232. 265. There are no Archaicinscriptions from Zakynthosin Jeffery 1990. 266. Coldstream1968, pp. 220-232; 1977, esp. pp. 177-190.
alphabetof Ithakeis neitherEuboiannorCorinthian.AsJefferyhasshown, the Akhaianalphabetnot only left its markon the Akhaiancoloniesof MagnaGraecia,but also alongthe traderoutethat led therethroughthe Ionianislands.263 Indeed,the Akhaianversionof the alphabethad already reachedIthakein the earlyOrientalizingperiod,if not earlier.In a similar and accordingto vein, the KephallenianalphabetresemblesAkhaian,264 an This said, the Thucydides(2.66), Zakynthoswas Akhaiancolony.265 Akhaianinfluenceon the alphabetof the Ionian islandsis not a priori indicativeof Akhaianinfluencein the ceramicproductionof those islands. Although there are no published examples of Akhaian pottery from Kephalleniaand Zakynthos,largelyon accountof the paucityof finds of the LateGeometricandEarlyArchaicperiods,Ithakehasyieldeda number of importsthat shouldbe Akhaian.Moreover,the local ceramicstyle of Ithakehasmuchin commonwith thatof Akhaiaandwesternmainland Greecegenerally,as Coldstreamhasestablished.266 And it is possible,pereven that Ithakesian was highlylikely, haps pottery widelydistributedin SouthItalyandSicily,asMorganhasintimated(see above).In additionto Ithake, Korkyrahas yielded a few possible fragmentsof Akhaian or Akhaian-stylepottery. The presenceof AkhaianandAkhaian-stylepotteryin the traditional Akhaian colonies of South Italy-Sybaris, Kroton, Kaulonia,Metapontion-hitherto neglected,as well as at closelyrelatedindigenoussites such as Francavilla Marittimaand Incoronata,is now moresecurelysubstantiated.The quantityof Akhaianimportsat these centers,in addition to the locallyproducedimitations,especiallyat Sybaris,Francavilla Marittima(largelyunpublished),and Incoronata,is probablyfar greater thanis suggestedhere.Futureexcavations,alongwith the studyandpublicationof previouslyexcavatedmaterial,will no doubtproduceadditional similarmaterial.With the growingpublicationof suchmaterial,it is hoped thatmoredetailedstudies,includingtargetedelementalanalyses,canclarify manyof the problemsthat currentlyexist. The fact that little clearlydiagnosticAkhaianmaterialhas been recordedat the later secondaryAkhaianfoundations,such as Poseidonia and Laos, is almostcertainlythe resultof the late date of these foundations (see below).Nevertheless,the Akhaianelementsin Poseidoniahave most recentlybeen illustratedin the discoveryof dipinti,saidto be in the Akhaianalphabet,on a numberof sherdsfromthe recentexcavationsdirectedby Pedleyand Higginbotham(see above).
436
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Beyond the choraiof the traditional Akhaian settlements, Akhaian pottery has been found in severaldistinct areasof South Italy.To the south, Lokroi Epizephyrioi has yielded a few possible fragments of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery.This is hardly surprisinggiven the proximity of the city to Kaulonia,the southernmost of the Akhaian apoikiai,and to Kroton. The discovery of a complete kantharosfrom Santo Stefano di Grotteria is noteworthy, as is a possible piece from Stefanelli di Gerace, both sites located inland from Lokroi, though not far from Kaulonia. As stated above, the largest concentration of Akhaian and Akhaianstyle pottery thus far known comes from the plain of Sybaris and from Metaponto and Incoronata. In both regions the pottery was not restricted to the polis, but was widely distributed over the indigenous hinterland. This is especially true for the modern region of Basilicata,where Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery has been found at Santa Maria d'Angelona, Montescaglioso, San Nicola dei Greci (Matera), and Timmari. One might add here the rim fragmentfrom Gravina-di-Puglia;although strictlyspeaking in Apulia, the site is very close to most of the sites in Basilicata where Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery has been found. The fact that Akhaianstyle pottery was found as far inland as Sala Consilina, in the Vallo di Diano, led Coldstream to speculate that some of the material may have originated from Poseidonia (see above). Although this is possible, Sala Consilina is now only one of numerous inland sites where such material has been recorded and it is unlikely that all of this pottery derives from Poseidonia. In addition, non-Akhaian cities on the Ionian coast, including Siris (Polieion/Herakleia) and Amendolara (perhapsancient Lagaria),have yielded quite a number of Akhaian or Akhaian-style vessels. Akhaian or Akhaian-style material has also been discovered at Taras and its immediate vicinity, as well as, perhaps, in the area around the Bay of Naples, including Pithekoussai and Kyme. The quantity of Akhaian imports to the region ofTaranto is impressive;imports have been recorded at the cemetery at Via Giovanni Giovane, from the settlement at Crispiano (localita L'Amastuola),and probably from Scoglio del Tonno. The site of Satyrion, located at modern Leporano, some 12 km southeast of Taranto, has also yielded fragments of Akhaian pottery.What is significant about the Akhaian pottery from Taranto and its vicinity is that most of it is imported,perhapsfrom the northwestPeloponnese ratherthan the Akhaian colonies in Calabria. As far as I am aware, there are few, if any, locally produced imitations of Akhaian, such as those of Metaponto and the plain of Sybaris, and in this way the pattern at Taranto is different from the Akhaian settlements further south. Beyond Taranto and its immediate vicinity, little Akhaian material has been recorded in Apulia; this may prove to be an accident of preservation or the result of the way in which the material from the region has been published. Be that as it may, the quantity of Akhaian or Akhaian-style pottery east of Taranto is meager. The situation in the Bay of Naples is much less certain. I have listed above a number of kantharoi from Pithekoussai designated by their excavators as imitations of Corinthian. A few of these may be Akhaian or Akhaian-style, or perhapsIthakesian.All aremonochrome kantharoi;there
MAGNA
267. If I amcorrectin assigning someof the Pithekoussai to kantharoi anAkhaianorIthakesian pedigree, then this group representsone of the largestcategoriesof importsfrom Tombs 1-723. A similarpatternis seen in other parts of Pithekoussai,including the Monte di Vico acropolis(for which see furtherColdstream1998b, p. 304). At Pithekoussaigenerallythere is, in additionto a small amount of Euboian pottery and a sizable quantity of Corinthian,a good rangeof East Greek pottery,as well as importsfrom Italy,Carthage,the Levant (including "PhoenicianRhodes"),and the Iberian peninsula;see Osborne 1998, p. 258. A similarrange of materialis recorded elsewherein Italy.In Apulia in the 9th and 8th centuriesB.c., for example, Morgan (1998, p. 295) gives the following figures:2,790 Corinthian, 26 Euboio-Cycladic,and 6 Euboian pottery imports. 268. TocraI, pp. 89-92, fig. 44, nos. 993-996. 68, pl. 269. See discussionin Papadopoulos, forthcoming,which builds on the earliercontributionsof Greco 1990; Stazio 1983; 1987; 1998.
ACHAEA
437
are none of the more diagnostic banded kantharoi.In listing the kantharoi published in PithekoussaiI in this study, my aim is not to question the attributions of the excavators.Rather,I wish to point to the close similarity of the monochrome kantharoi at Pithekoussai with those found in Akhaia, Elis, Epeiros, and Ithake, in addition to those from Metaponto and other parts of South Italy,which are clearly not Corinthian.267On the mainland opposite, several monochrome kantharoi, similar to those at Pithekoussai, and at least one banded jug have been recorded at Kyme (Cuma); another kantharos from Suessula (modern Cancello) in inland Campania illustrates that such vessels are not restricted to sites on the coast. Beyond peninsular Italy,Akhaian or Akhaian-style material has been recorded from various sites in Sicily, Tocra in North Africa, and perhaps Melita (Malta). The distribution in Sicily as it currently stands is largely confined to the cities of the east and southeast coasts. A more thorough search would undoubtedly bring to light more material. Unlike the situation in South Italy,there appearsto be no significantdistributionofAkhaian or Akhaian-style pottery at inland sites, with the exception of Leontinoi in the rich Laistrygonian plain, but such a conclusion must remain tentative and provisional.I know of no Akhaian pottery in western, Phoenician, Sicily, but it would be wrong to read too much into this as there is no mistaking the Akhaian provenanceof an intact banded kantharos,found late last century, said to be from Mellieha Bay in Phoenician Malta (Fig. 39). As for North Africa, Hayes in his meticulous publication of the pottery from the Archaic deposits at Tocra tentatively assigned several kantharoi to Lakonia.268These are similar to the Late Archaic decorated kantharoi from Elis, particularlythose from Olympia and Eleian Pylos, and it is therefore possible that they derive from a Peloponnesian center outside Akhaia. The pattern of distribution of Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery in South Italy, Sicily, and beyond highlights the complexity of the structures within which this material circulated. The imports and imitations of Akhaian pottery at Akhaian apoikiaisuch as Sybaris,Metapontion, Kroton, and Kaulonia,along with imports at non-Akhaian centers such asTaranto, Satyrion, Lokroi Epizephyrioi, and some of the sites in coastal Sicily,bring into focus a maritime circulation following naturalroutes to good harbors and beaches. The fact that Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery is found at so many indigenous sites, particularly in the mountainous interior of Calabria and Basilicata, raises the issue of the adoption of (or resistance to) Greek commodities and how these functioned in Greek, indigenous, and hybrid or creolized contexts. It is possible that the pattern witnessed by the distribution of pottery follows in part that of the Akhaian colonial coinage, particularlythe rise of an "empire"dominated by Sybarisand the subsequent "alliance"headed by Kroton.269Such a possibility seems attractive in the case of sites in the chorai of Sybaris and Kroton, perhaps also those within the sphere of Metapontion. But the broader distribution of the material across South Italy, as well as in parts of Sicily and beyond, suggests that this is only one
438
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
of severalfactorsat play.The fact that Akhaian and Akhaian-style kantharoi and other vessel forms are found in a wide variety of contexts-Greek and indigenous settlements, intra- and extramuralsanctuaries,and in a variety of tombs-establishes that this pottery served many different functions and communities. It is possible, for example, that some of the Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery was circulatedwithin the context of ritual exchanges within the framework of xenia, as Irad Malkin and others have suggested.270It is also possible that some of this pottery, particularlythe numerouskantharoiat sanctuarysites such as FrancavillaMarittima,should be seen against the backdrop of ritual drinking and dining, as the work of Uta Kron, Catherine Morgan, and others has brought to the fore.271Nevertheless, the wide distribution of this material in so many different contexts, including tombs in indigenous cemeteries, underlines the futility of searching for any one explanation that can account for the pattern seen in the West. Chronologically, the majority of the banded and monochrome kantharoi and other Akhaian vessel forms found in South Italy are best accommodated in the 7th and early 6th centuries B.C. The earliest Akhaian material, particularlyat Sybaris and FrancavillaMarittima, appears to be contemporarywith Early Protocorinthian, and, as such, may date as early as the very late 8th century,accordingto the conventional chronology.The nature of the deposits at both sites, however, especially the large votive stipe on the Timpone della Motta at Francavilla,is such that a detailed stratigraphicsequence has not been established.272Few pieces can be assigned, as yet, to the earlierstages of the Late Geometric period. A similar chronological pattern is apparentfor the Akhaian and Akhaian-style pottery in Sicily, and for many of the other sites in South Italy where similar material has been recorded.273 A few of the Late Archaic kantharoiof the style well known from Elis have been recorded from Ithake, Tocra, and perhaps also Megara Hyblaia, but these are less common than the earlier Archaic type, and Akhaian exports appearto decline sometime during the 6th century B.C.There are few, if any,of the late type ofkantharos at the traditionalAkhaian colonies on the Ionian coast of Italy. I know of no examples of Gauer's Spdtform among the numerous examples of kantharoiat Sybarisor Francavilla,both sites presumablydestroyed ca. 510 B.C.274It would thus seem that in addi270. This is a theme dealt with in variouscontributionsby Malkin, includingMalkin 1987; 1994; 1998a (with references). 271. See esp. Kron 1988 and Morgan in IsthmiaVIII (with further references). 272. Recent excavationsat the
by TimponedellaMottaat Francavilla SilvanaLuppino and MaaskantKleibrinkare producingimportant stratigraphicresults.
273.The notableexceptionis andperhapsKyme,where Pithekoussai, havebeenfound manyof the kantharoi in tombsdatingto the late8th century B.C., though few of these vesselscan be confidentlyassignedas Akhaian.The kantharoifrom Pithekoussaimay be earlierthan, or contemporarywith, the earliestexamplesfrom the plain of Sybaris. 274. The extent of this destruction is not as far-reachingas some accounts
suggest.Although used as a chronological "fixedpoint,"especiallyfor the materialfrom Sybarisand Francavilla, the destructionof Sybariswas followed by the minting of a coin that displayed, on the obverse,the tripod of Kroton, with the bull of Sybarison the reverse. Indeed, the existenceof such "alliance" coins after510 B.C.documentsa resettledSybaris,subjectto Kroton.For furtherdiscussionsee Papadopoulos, forthcoming.
MAGNA
275. For Poseidoniasee above;for Akragassee de Waele 1971. 276. This is a point made by Malkin with regardto the date of the Euboian and Corinthianpottery in the Ionian islands,in western Greece generally, and in Magna Graecia;see Malkin 1998a, pp. 74-81; 1998b, p. 5; though see Morgan 1998. 277. For furtherdiscussionon this aspect see Papadopoulos1997a;Morris and Papadopoulos1998. 278. The fragmentwith the graffito is illustratedin PithekoussaiI, pp. 289290, no. 232*-1, fully discussedabove (underPithekoussai).
ACHAEA
439
tion to Akhaian imports declining in the course of the earlier 6th century B.C., the locally produced pottery of the Akhaian settlements in South Italy developed along lines different from those in the northwest Peloponnese. Consequently, the late date of sites such as Poseidonia (founded ca. 600 B.C.) and Akragas (ca. 580 B.C.),275 to mention only two, would reasonably preclude the discovery of any significant quantity of Akhaian pottery. Another chronological aspect worth noting is that, by and large, the materialpresented above from Magna Graecia appearsto be contemporary with that found in sites on the north and east Corinthian Gulf, in Epeiros, and the Ionian islands.276Our knowledge of earlier Akhaian pottery, however, especially "Protogeometric"and earlier Geometric, is very limited indeed. Although this study supports the notion of widespread distribution of Akhaian pottery in the Ionian islands, northwestern Greece, and Magna Graecia in the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods, not enough is yet known about earlierAkhaian pottery to track the extent of its distribution. In this discussion of chronology it may seem that I have elided the 8th and 7th centuries. Any investigation, however,of clearly dated diachronic developments, as has been undertaken for Corinth for the 8th and 7th centuries B.C., is not possible on the basis of published Akhaian material. It is hoped that the publication of pottery currently being worked on from the northwest Peloponnese will remedy this situation. A number of issues emerge from the preceding account.The distribution of Akhaian pottery is not linked solely to colonial movement, and in this it resembles the distribution of Corinthian, Attic, Lakonian, and other widely exported pottery types. With the possible exception of Sybaris,the contexts of Akhaian pottery do not representthe domestic chattels carried by colonists from their homeland. Furthermore, Akhaian pottery, like Corinthian, Attic, and Lakonian, need not have been carriedby merchantmen or traderswho were natives of the place where the pottery was made; they may have been middlemen from any part of the Mediterranean.277 Here the Phoenician graffito on the possibly Akhaian-style or Ithakesian fragment from Pithekoussai may provide a clue as to the identity of some of the merchants who profited from the trade in well-glazed Greek ceramics.278 In general, the distribution of Archaic Akhaian pottery is remarkably close to that of Mycenaean Akhaian pottery (Figs. 41-42), that is, Mycenaean pottery found in Italy but made in mainland Akhaia, or Mycenaean pottery made in Italy by emigrant Akhaian potters, or influenced by them. To be sure, the names of the sites in the West where Mycenaean and Archaic Akhaian pottery has been found are usually different, but the sites are nevertheless very close to one another. Thus, prehistoric Broglio di TrebisacceandTorredel Mordillo instead of historic Sybarisand Francavilla Marittima; similarly,Termitito rather than Metaponto or Siris; Scoglio del Tonno in place ofTaras; Polla instead of Sala Consilina; Vivara in the Bay of Naples rather than Pithekoussai; Molinello, Matrensa, Cozzo del Pantano, and Pantalica in Sicily instead of Megara Hyblaia, Syrakousai,
440
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Figure41. Distributionof Late HelladicI-II potteryin Italy.
R. G. Finnerty, afterGras1985,p. 58, fig.6
Gela, and Leontinoi.279Different also are the names of the scholars who study Mycenaean and Archaic-Classical Greek pottery.The systemic divide between the disciplines of Aegean and central Mediterranean prehistory, on the one hand, and classical archaeology, on the other, is to be regretted, since it has obscured continuities that should have been obvious.280Beyond names, however, the archaeological pattern outlined for the Archaic period has a venerable Bronze Age ancestry. The first western Greeks were Mycenaeans, or, as they were known in Homer, "Akhaians."The archaeology of the Mycenaeans in the West has become a major growth industry.281In his seminal study of Mycenaean pottery in Italy and adjacentareaspublished in 1958, Lord William Taylour listed some 17 sites in peninsular Italy, Sicily, and the Lipari and Bay of 279. For a useful summaryof the distributionof Mycenaeanpottery accordingto chronologicalphases,see Gras 1985, pp. 57-61, figs. 6-9; Vagnetti 1999, pp. 158-161. Regions where Mycenaeanpottery has been found but, to date, no ArchaicAkhaian, include the Lipariislands,Sardinia,
Etruria,northernItaly,and the Adriatic coast of Apulia north of Bari. 280. See furtherPapadopoulos 1993. 281. Note Peroni's(1979, p. 2) perceptivestatement,cited and translated in Ridgway1992, p. 7. Some scholars,notablyEmilio Peruzzi,
have arguedfor a more intimate and lasting Mycenaeanlegacy in Latium on the basis of ancient sourcesand linguistic criteria,as well as the evidenceof architecture,weapons, textiles, agriculture,and religion;see Peruzzi 1980 (with referencesto earlier work).
MAGNA
Figure42. Distributionof Late HelladicIIIA-C potteryin Italy, includingSicilyand Sardinia.
R. G. Finnerty, afterGras1985,pp.60-61, figs.7-8
282. Taylour1958; cf. Fisher 1988, fig. l:a, with a note that the sherds listed by Taylourfrom Rome were later shown not to be Mycenaean. 283. Fisher 1988, fig. l:b; Vagnetti 1999, pp. 156-161. For a useful overviewof the study of Mycenaean
ACHAEA
44I
By 1988 Elizabeth Fisher Naples islands that yielded Mycenaean pottery.282 was able to expand the list to 53, and in 1999 Lucia Vagnetti listed 78 The incidence of Mycenaean pottery in sites with Mycenaean material.283 the West is now more secure thanks to the work of pioneers like Taylour, Vagnetti, and others.284The quest for metals has been rightly emphasized as a motive for Mycenaean contacts in the West,285but the distribution of Mycenaean pottery cannot be solely linked to metallurgy. Moreover,Mycenaean interests in the West are rarelyseen against the backdrop of later Greek interests, including settlement, in South Italy and Sicily. What happens in the Bronze Age is, more often than not, presented pottery in Italy,see Vagnetti 1993. 284. Taylour1958;Tine and Vagnetti 1967; Vagnetti1970; 1980; 1982; VagnettiandJones 1988; Marazzi,Tusa, and Vagnetti1986; Vagnettiand Lo Schiavo 1989. See also, among others,Biancofiore1967;
Bergonzi et al. 1982; Peroni 1984a; 1984b; Gras 1985, pp. 57-97; Smith 1987; Fisher 1988. 285. See esp. Dickinson 1977, p. 101; Bietti Sestieri 1973; 1985; 1988; Gras 1985, pp. 57-97.
442
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
as a Mycenaean prologue, a sort of pre-precolonization or pre-protocolonization.286Back in 1958, however, Taylour postulated the existence of a Rhodian Mycenaean "colony"at Scoglio del Tonno.287The impetus for this colony was trade, a familiar story for a site next to historic Taras and in control of probablythe finest harbor in all of South Italy. Interestingly, the primarycommodity noted byTaylour was not metals, but Murex trunculusshells, the source of purple dye and, hence, textile production,288 a story also familiar in a Canaanite/Phoenician context. Although Taylour'shypothesis of a Rhodian colony was rightly challenged, first by Franco Biancofiore and later, and more convincingly, by Fisher,289 Taylour'slead forced students of Italian and Aegean Bronze Age ceramics to look more carefully at the provenance of Mycenaean pottery in the West. This ultimately led to the recent spate of elemental analyses of primarily Bronze Age pottery, and even the identification of Italian pottery in the Aegean, which confirms that ceramics moved both east and west.290As for the general provenance of Mycenaean pottery in the West, the picture is, predictably,not straightforward.Biancofiore, for example, looked to the Argolid as the source of most of the Late Helladic IIIA-B pottery in South Italy, whereas in the ensuing LH IIIC period he argued that Cyprus, Rhodes, Akhaia, and the Ionian islands all played a part in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery.291Adopting a similar diachronic approach,Fisher arguedthat the earliest Mycenaean pottery at Scoglio del Tonno, down to LH IIIA, was largely dominated by Cretan and Argive imports, along with pottery with Rhodian parallels.292Fisher stressed a connection during LH IIIB with western Greece, especially Akhaia, but also Aitolia, Akarnania,Epeiros, and the Ionian islands.293In LH IIIC the Akhaian connection intensified, while the Cretan and Rhodian influences decreased; Kephallenia, Zakynthos, and northwest Greece continued to play an important role.294At the same time, Fisher noted a number of pots with Cypriot parallels.295 The most significant features that emerge from Fisher's study of Mycenaean pottery in the West are, first, the prominence of Akhaian and West Greek pottery in general, and second, the heterogeneity of the Mycenaean pottery in question. At Scoglio del Tonno, for example, the 286. Ridgway1992, pp. 3-8; Malkin 1998a, pp. 10-14. 287. Taylour1958, pp. 128-131. 288. Taylour1958, pp. 128-131. 289. Biancofiore1967; Fisher 1988, esp. p. 185. 290. Jones 1986;Jones and Day 1987; VagnettiandJones 1988; Vagnetti1989; KommosIII. 291. Biancofiore1967, pp. 117132. 292. Fisher 1988, pp. 122-123, 177-179. The problemwith the Rhodianparallelsis that much of the LH IIIA1 and IIIA2 pottery on
Rhodes may have been importedfrom the Peloponnese;see Fisher 1988, p. 123, following Mee 1982. 293. Fisher 1988, pp. 125-127, 180-181. 294. Fisher 1988, esp. p. 129, see also pp. 127-131,181-183. Fisher (1988, pp. 182-183) states:"Insummary,there is evidencefor a shift in the provenanceof the majorityof the Mycenaeanpotteryfrom Apulia over the courseof the LH III period.In the earliestrepresentedperiod,LH IIIA2, the ties were with the Argolid, and possiblywith Rhodes and Crete.
During LH IIIB these ties lessened as Achaea played a more importantrole in the tradewith Apulia. In the LH IIIC period,the ties with Achaea, Kephallenia,and other areasof western Greece intensified,while ties with other areasdiminished.This is not reallya new observation:Taylour had also picked up some of the increase in parallelsin western Greece but the premisethat Scoglio del Tonno was the site of a Rhodian colony overshadowed the patternwhich is now apparent." 295. Fisher 1988, p. 130.
MAGNA
296. Seeesp.Osborne1998, p. 258;forthe non-Greekimportsto Pithekoussaisee Docter and Niemeyer 1994; for the Phoeniciansin Pithekoussaiand Italy see, most recently, variouspapersin Kopckeand Tokumaru1992. 297. Coldstream1994, p. 77. For the perils of equatingthe distribution of a particularstyle of potterywith colonial priority,see Papadopoulos 1997a. 298. Fisher (1988, pp. 184-185) elaborates:"thepottery from Porto Peroni does not seem to have the same origin(s) as the pottery from Scoglio del Tonno." 299. Osborne 1998, pp. 268-269; see also Sherrattand Sherratt1993. 300. Ridgway1992, p. 7. 301. This is a theme well treatedin papersin Descoeudres 1990. Furthermore, the assumptionthat urbanization came to Italy as a resultof Greek colonization duringthe historic era maywell be overstated.Some scholars have suggestedthat Mycenaeantrade was in part responsiblefor the urban developmentof Apulia;see esp. Whitehouse 1973. 302. Malkin 1998a, p. 80; see also 1998b, p. 5. 303. See Gras 1985, p. 58, fig. 6; and, most recently,Vagnetti 1999, p. 158, map 2. 304. Malkin 1998a, p. 80.
ACHAEA
443
Mycenaean pottery appears to derive from different centers; it is not of a consistent fabric.At the same time, Fisher was mindful to stress the presence at the site of Appenine and Sub-Appenine Italian pottery.The third feature has to do with the continuing eastern overtones, first Rhodian, then Cypriot. The important role played by Akhaia and western Greece, the heterogeneity of Mycenaean pottery in the West, and the eastern overtones of some of the material are all aspects that are strikingly reminiscent of the historic pattern. The heterogeneity of the pottery at Pithekoussai, for example,with its Corinthian, Euboian, possible Akhaian or Ithakesian, East Greek, Ionian, Etruscan, and other elements, along with persistent Phoenician elements,296is repeated in similar ways across South Italy and Sicily. For the same reasons that Scoglio del Tonno is an unlikely Rhodian colony, Pithekoussai remains an unlikely Euboian colony. Both sites have been characterized as Greek "colonies"largely on the evidence of pottery and, in the case of Pithekoussai, a late literary tradition that has been described as "often confused and mutually contradictory."297 To be sure, Pithekoussai was clearly a place where various Greek, Phoenician, North Syrian, Cypriot, Etruscan, and other Italic interests collided and colluded with those of the local population. A blend of local and overseasinfluences and elements can also be detected at Bronze Age Scoglio del Tonno. Another feature that Fisher brings to the fore is the way in which different centers in Bronze Age Italy, even sites close to one another, such as Porto Peroni/Satyrion, Torre Costelluccia, and Scoglio del Tonno, employed somewhat different assemblages of Mycenaean pottery.298Fisher argues that individual sites in Apulia traded independently with the Mycenaeans, thus accounting for the differences in their respective ceramic assemblages,or that each site maintained separateties with Greece. A similar situation appears in the Late Geometric and Archaic periods throughout South Italy. Again, the pattern of the distribution of pottery, Mycenaean and Archaic, does not apriori point to colonial movement. It underscores a different type of movement of commodities, people, and ideas. As Osborne reminds us, it is a far more complex reality than just "tradebefore the flag."299 Other patterns share a similar material imprint across the Bronze and Iron Age divide. In Mycenaean times, Ridgway points to a basic distinction in the Italian peninsula between primary (coastal) and secondary (inland) reception points.300The same is true in the historic period, when there is a distinction between the coastal Greek poleis and the indigenous hinterland.301Similarly,Malkin has noted that the Euboians were the first "onboth sides of Italy: both in the Bay of Naples and in the Ionian Sea."302 Precisely the same is true for LH I-II pottery in Italy, some seven or eight centuries earlier (Fig. 41).303Moreover, the "greatleap"in the history of Greek colonization that Malkin speaks of, referring to the fact that the earliest "Greek colony"-Pithekoussai-was also the most distant,304is another feature that enjoys a Mycenaean ancestry.Indeed, the distribution of Mycenaean pottery in general (Figs. 41-42) is a virtualblueprint for the distribution of Greek pottery in the historic period, while the distribution of Akhaian Mycenaean pottery in many ways appears to determine and
444
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
define the later distributionof Archaic Akhaian pottery.It thereforecomes as no surprisethat the Mycenaean pottery at Broglio di Trebisacce,in the heart of the historic Akhaian Sibaritide, was locally made,305in the same way that imitations of Akhaian Late Geometric and Early Archaic pottery became prominent at Sybaris,FrancavillaMarittima, and Metaponto.
AKHAIANS IN SOUTH ITALY AND BEYOND: THE "LAST MYCENAEANS" OR "FIRST WESTERN GREEKS"? In this article I have attempted to draw a common thread between the distribution of Akhaian pottery in the Bronze Age and the historic period. From sometime around the middle of the second millennium B.C., Mycenaean Greeks "sailed,explored, established guest-friendship (xenia) relations, raided, traded, and [perhaps even] colonized" on the Ionian and Tyrrhenian coasts of South Italy and Sicily.306Where these people went and what they did, if the archaeologicalrecord is of any consequence, correspond closely to the destinations and activities of the later Greeks of the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods. Against this backdrop,Malkin is correct in stressing that the Greeks who explored, traded, and colonized "weresailing in imagined space as well as, in the words of Michel de Certeau, espacecommelieupratique."307In any imagined space, the figure of Odysseus dominates as the archetypalwanderer,the master of guile and deception:"Iam become a name;for alwaysroamingwith a hungryheart."308 In the Iliad his kingdom, from the perspective of Troy and Mycenae, was out of the way; from the point of view of Mycenaean long-distance trade, it was centrally placed. Had he lived in the Bronze Age, Odysseus would have been a quintessential Homeric "Akhaian."Had he lived in the 8th century B.C., he would probablyhave spoken the Akhaian dialect of Greek. Between the prehistoric and historic periods, however,lie severalcenturies of what has been cast as darkness.To quote Anthony Snodgrass:"In one large area of the Greek world there were special reasons for the absence of a school of Protogeometric: this was Sicily and southern Italy, Whatwhere permanent settlement only began in the eighth century."309 ever happened in South Italy and Sicily between the demise of the Mycenaean way of life and the 8th century B.C., several points are worth bearingin mind. First, the populationsof South Italy and Sicily were barely, if at all, affected when the palaces of the Mycenaean Greek mainland were destroyed.As the Ridgways have remarked,"anage that was darkin Greece was not necessarily so elsewhere and the demise of Mycenaean long-distance trade need not have been bad business between other parties."310 More than business, however, the bonds that were forged, the lessons that were learned, and the social, economic, political, and linguistic interrelationships that were established between the Mycenaeans and the indigenous peoples of the Italian peninsula, whatever their nature, were not necessarily eradicated.The fact that there is no proven Mycenaean palace in Akhaia-and thus, no palatial collapse-but rather an expansion
305. See Pugliese Carratelli1996, p. 113, and, most recently,Vagnetti 1999, pp. 142-150. 306. The quoted passageis taken from Malkin 1998a, p. 1, where referenceis specificallymade to Greeks "from the 9th century
B.C.
on."
307. Malkin 1998a, p. 2, citing de Certeau 1990, pp. 170-191. 308. AlfredTennyson, Ulysses,lines 11-12. 309. Snodgrass1971, p. 91. 310. Ridgwayand SerraRidgway 1992, p. 356; cf. Ridgway1990, p. 69.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
445
duringLH IIIC placesAkhaiain a specialrelationshipwith the West, unlikeotherMycenaeancenters,with the possibleexceptionof Lokris.It shouldalsobe notedthatwhathasbeen castas "trade" by Fisherbetween and extended late into the BronzeAge, spillGreece Italy very Mycenaean ThanassisPapadopouloshas also stressed ing into the EarlyIronAge.311 the remotenatureof Akhaiansettlementsandthe factthatAkhaia,along with someof the Ionianislands,constitutedone of the last strongholdsof As Fisherstates: the Mycenaeanway of life.312 Perhapsthe tradeties which hadbeen establishedand nurtured betweenAchaiaandItaly,KephalleniaandItaly,and northwestern GreeceandItalyto a muchsmallerextent,enabledthe "laststronghold of the Mycenaeanway of life"to remainprosperousfor so long. ... This is not an argumentfor a continuouscontactbetween GreeceandItalythroughthe DarkAge of Greece,but perhaps therewas a memoryor traditionof the Mycenaeantradewith Italy whichwas recalledwhen prosperityreturnedto Greeceandonce againsent the Achaiansand othersto Italyin searchfor metalsand otherriches.313 survivedin the oral tradition,more Howeverlong such "memories" recentdiscoveriesof Mycenaeanpotteryin Italyareconfirmingthe strong linkbetweenItalyandwesternGreece,particularly AkhaiaandElis,at the end of the Bronze In 1993 very Age. PenelopeMountjoypublisheda LH IIIC Late stirrupjarin the Louvresaidto havebeen foundin Campania, andsuggestedthatits originwas Kephallenia.314 The most significantdisare of LH the IIIC Late potteryfrom the coveries,however, quantities controlledexcavationsat PuntaMeliso, one of two smallheadlandsjutting out of Capo Santa Maria di Leuca, the easternmostpoint of the In theiraccountof the MycenaeanpotSalentinepeninsulain Apulia.315 from Punta Mario Benzi andGiampaoloGraziadioconclude: Meliso, tery
311. Fisher 1988, p. 189. 312. Papadopoulos1978-1979, 183. p. 313. Fisher 1988, pp. 190-191. 314. Mountjoy 1993. 315. Benzi and Graziadio1996; see also the earlieraccountof the pottery in Benzi and Graziadio1990. 316. Benzi and Graziadio1996, p. 126, who furtherstressthe differences between Kephallenianpottery and Aegean-type vases in Italy,for which see Jones and Vagnetti1991, pp.135-136. 317. Benzi and Graziadio1996, 126. p.
As the above stylistic survey has shown, this group is up to date with LH IIIC mainland production and has close links with local styles of Western Greece in general and of Achaea/Elis in particular, but the lack of distinctive connections with the late Mycenaean pottery from Kephallenia and Ithaca must be emphasized, since links with these islands have been noticed at other sites in Apulia. Although ceramic connections between Apulia and Achaea have been pointed out previously,in no case are such links so consistently evident as at Punta Meliso. In this respect this group is unique among LH IIIC pottery groups from Italy.316 Benzi and Graziadio go on to arguethat it is likely that the Mycenaean pottery from Punta Meliso was producedlocally in Apulia by a Mycenaean potter (or potters), and they consider this as evidence for a small group of Mycenaean refugees in eastern Apulia.317These "newcomers"-cast as the "last Mycenaeans in Italy?"-were from Akhaia or Elis and the tentative
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
chronology suggested places their movement in the second quarterof the 11th century B.C.318 Benzi and Graziadio'spublication of the Punta Meliso material, together with Fisher's overview of Mycenaean pottery in Italy, not only confirms the regions of Akhaia and Elis as the source of much of the Late Mycenaean pottery in the West, but is contributing to closing the chronological gap, albeit slightly, between the notional "lastMycenaeans" and the "firstGreek colonists." The very small quantity of Protogeometric or earlier Geometric pottery thus far known in South Italy, particularlyfrom Calabria and the vicinity of Taranto, not only follows the earlier and later pattern, but itself may well derive from western Greece, either Ithake, as Snodgrass has suggested,319or the northwest Peloponnese. Here it is worth adding that Morgan, building on her earlier contributions, has argued for contact between Corinth and various sites on the Corinthian Gulf, and further inland, beginning as early as the Late Protogeometric period.320Again, more published material is needed from Akhaia, Aitolia, Akarnania, Epeiros, and the Ionian islands, but the information that exists points to considerable activity and movement within this area in the earlier stages of the Early Iron Age. Another aspect that should be stressed is that the trade in commodities, meager as it was between Italy and Greece in the period before "colonization"but after the end of the Mycenaean palatial economy, was not unidirectional.In dealing with a Sardinianaskos found in one of the tombs at the Early Iron Age Tekke cemetery at Knossos-one of a small but growing number of central Mediterranean imports in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Greece-Vagnetti notes that whatever the circumstances of its arrivalin Crete, it more likely involved Phoenician, ratherthan Greek I wholeheartedly concur with Vagnetti'sconclusion: (or Italian), agency.321 in the "What happened way of trade and long-distance interconnection between the collapse of the Mycenaean palace economy and the rise of the polis in Greece is still a matter of conjecture, and the picture is changing so fast that any possible definition is bound to be superseded by new evidence."322 In her seminal article on the Mycenaeans in Akhaia, Emily Vermeule discussed the external relations of these Bronze Age Akhaians, beginning with Thucydides' statement that Zakynthos was colonized from Akhaia, and from there noting that both Zakynthos and Kephallenia saw political The reorganization in the generation of the "grandsonsof Herakles."323 latter traced their ancestryback to both Perseus and Pelops, and it is in the same mythical/historical landscape that we find the island Taphos, as well as Taphios, Pterelaos, and Komaitho, as related by Apollodoros (2.4.5-8) and, of course, the Taphian pirates of the Odyssey.324The collected deeds of the Taphian pirates, and of their individual princes, like Mentes-whose home was, accordingto some scholars,the island ofMeganisi, off the southwest coast of Leukas325-read like a primer for a new breed of Late Bronze or Early Iron Age entrepreneur.In the Odyssey(1.180-185, cf. 1.105,417), the "oar-lovingTaphians"sail across the wine-dark sea to the land of men
318. Benzi and Graziadio1996, pp.127-128. 319. Snodgrass1971, pp. 85-86. 320. Morgan 1997; cf. Morgan 1988. 321. Vagnetti1989, pp. 359-360. 322. Vagnetti1989, p. 360. 323. Vermeule1960, p. 20. Thuc. 2.66.1. As Vermeulefurthernotes, this colonizationis not dated,but Anderson (1954, p. 77) puts it before the Trojan War. 324. Vermeule1960, p. 20, n. 31, with referenceto the myth of Pterelaos and Komaitho,in Apollod. 2.4.5-8; cf. Marinatos1933, p. 100. Vermeule furthernotes that the generationsare confused,though Taphioswould be a contemporaryof Herakles.She further cites Brundage1958 for the Eleian and Mycenaeanelements of the family and their relationshipto the Taphianpirates and the fall of Mycenae. 325. For the equationof Taphos with the islandof Meganisi, and by some identifiedwith the Homeric Kephallenia,see Strab.10.456 (10.2.14). See furtherMalkin 1998a, p. 73; Malkin specificallycites Strab. 6.255, though he is probablyreferring to Strab.10.455-456 (10.2.13-16).
MAGNA
ACHAEA
447
of strange speech in order to trade shining iron for copper.Their specific target is Temesa, on the Tyrrhenian coast of South Italy, a failed colony in the historic period of the Aitolians, which later became a dependency of the Akhaian colony of Kroton.326In Odyssey14.450-452 and again in 15.427, the Taphians engage in slave-trading; in the former passage Odysseus's swineherd Eumaeus was able to buy Mesaulios from the Taphians with his own goods, whereas in the latter passage, the Taphians seized, out of Sidon, a Phoenician girl, the daughter of Arybantos. In Odyssey16.425-430 we find the Taphianpiratesraidingthe Thesprotians. In dealing with the Taphians, Vermeulewrites: "If these Odysseyreferences are eighth century at the earliest, still the pirates of the islands and the northwest coast have a respectableMycenaean ancestry."327 In attemptingto reviewthe history of settlement in MycenaeanAkhaia, Vermeule turned to the familiar passage in Pausaniasin which the Ionians were thrust out by a group of "Akhaians" from the Argolid, led by Tisamenos, the son of Orestes. The relative chronology of the tradition is clear: a generation after the Trojan War.328The rest of the story is well known: the Ionians made their way to Attika and the Akhaians settled the twelve cities until the coming of Oxylos and the Dorians.329For Vermeule, here was "the royal house of Mycenae pushing west at about the time when IIIB pottery was becoming IIIC." She goes on to state the following: "that these Achaians continued to claim descent from Mycenae is clear from a later historical transaction,which also explains ... why there is no trace of a Dorian in Achaia."330Unwilling to accept the highly implausible scenario of an entire population displaced by another,Jonathan Hall views the story of the Akhaian migration as a composite myth, which served two very different functions: In the first place, it acts as a foundation myth for the population of Akhaia itself (and, perhaps more importantly,the inhabitants of the Akhaian colonies in South Italy): what makes the Akhaians of the historical period distinct is not only their descent from Akhaios, but the fact that they once (though no longer) occupied a primordial territory in the Argolid. In the second place, it represents an
326. Vermeule1960, p. 20; and
furtherdiscussionin Malkin1998a, pp. 72-73. An alternativepossibility, known to Strabo(6.255 [6.1.5]), equatesTemesawith Tamassosin Cyprus,but it is clearthat both Homer and Straboare referringto Italian Temesa,which, like Cyprus,was famous for its copper.For historic Temesa,see Dunbabin 1948, pp. 37, 162,202-203,223, 367-368;Jeffery 1990, pp. 254,260; and esp. Maddoli 1982. For the coinage of Temesa see
Head 1911, p. 112; Kraay1976, pl. 33, nos. 578-580. 327. Vermeule1960, p. 20. 328. Vermeule1960, p. 19. 329. Vermeule1960, p. 19; Paus. 7.1.1-9; 6.1-2,2.18.6-8; Hdt. 1.145, cf. 7.94, 8.73.1. See also Hall 1997, pp. 72-73. 330. Vermeule1960, p. 19. Snodgrass (1971, p. 86) phrasesit thus:"Achaeahas recentlybeen shown to have witnessed an influx of populationat the beginning of the MycenaeanIIIC period,comparable
with that which occurredin Kephallenia and Ithaka."Perhapsratherthan a scenarioof "migration,"the case of Akhaia, and of a numberof related regions,such as Lokris, may have more to do with the fact that therewas no palatialcollapse.The "increasein population"noted by a numberof scholarsmay be a fitting rhythmin those regionswithout known Mycenaean palacesand centralcontrol,relatedto a buildupin activitythroughthe 12th centuryB.C.and perhapsbeyond.
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
attempt-presumably on the part of people who felt themselves to be newcomers-to invalidate any claims made by those who sought to derive their descent from the Akhaians of the Heroic Age: there could be no celebration of Akhaian ethnicity if there were no Akhaians left in the Argolid.331 Here is another case of people doing things with words. In this instance, however, there is a direct link between myth and tradition, on the one hand, and colonization on the other. Whatever foundation myth(s) the Akhaians of the Greek mainland or those of the Akhaian apoikiai in South Italy began to construct for themselves in the Archaic period, Akhaians from the northwest Peloponnese had already arrived in South Italy generations earlier, in the Late Bronze Age. The distribution of Mycenaean pottery in South Italy and Sicily illustrated in Figures 41-42 and discussed above provides a glimpse of the possible interactions between mainland Greece and Italy.It is clear that this ceramic distribution by itself is not evidence for Mycenaean settlers. And it would similarly be wrong to insist that the bulk of this potterywas even carriedby Mycenaeans, especially since much of the Archaic Corinthian pottery in Italy and Sicily, as has been argued, was not carried by Corinthians.332But whatever scenario one adopts to explain the presence of Mycenaean pottery in the West, the evidence from Punta Meliso presented by Benzi and Graziadio is indisputable on one point. The arrivalof Mycenaean "newcomers"involves the most direct form of human agency: people. Similar evidence exists from other sites, such as Broglio di Trebisacce at the northern edge of the plain of Sybaris,333and substantial groups of locally made Mycenaean pottery are known in the areaof Taranto,at Termitito, and Nuraghe This "pattern,"if it can be termed that, may have Antigori in Sardinia.334 had its origins even earlier,in the period of the Shaft Graves. Whatever the case, the Mycenaean Akhaians of Punta Meliso, at the very least, are the first western Greeks, for whom we have clear evidence, to have settled in the land that came to be known as Magna Graecia.
CODA As Hall has shown, the expression of an Akhaian cultural identity in the West has to be seen within the context of the foundation myths that were in the process of being elaboratedin the Archaic period.335Although intimatelylinked to an identity and ethnicityof their own making,the Akhaians of the historic period-those who first achieved historical importance as the founders of cities in South Italy336-left behind much more than a legmaterialpresentedin this articledocuacy of words.The Archaic"Akhaian" ments the continuation of a pattern alreadyin place by the Late Bronze Age. It also challenges the idea that any one region dominated the westward movement of people, ideas, and commodities and serves to highlight the complexity of interactions not only in South Italy and beyond, but also along the Corinthian Gulf in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age.
331. Hall 1997, p. 73; see also Morgan and Hall 1996, p. 197. 332. See above;note esp. Culican's (1982, p. 46) warning,that there is a certainnaivetein the expectationthat colonial Phoeniciansor Greekscan alwaysbe recognizedin terms of the pottery of the motherland;see further Morris and Papadopoulos1998. 333. Vagnetti1999. 334. VagnettiandJones 1988; Vagnetti1999, p. 148. 335. Hall 1997, p. 183. 336. Anderson 1954, p. 77; Dunbabin 1948, pp. 24-29.
MAGNA
ACHAEA
449
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In preparingthispaperI havereceiveda greatdealof assistancefrommany friendsin Greeceand Italy.My firstdebt of gratitudebelongsto my colleagues in Francavillaand Sybaris-Piero Guzzo, Marion True, and Dietrich Willers-for overseeing the project that introduced me to FrancavillaMarittima,and to my collaboratorsin publishingthe pottery andothermaterialfromthe site:ChristianeDehl, MariaGentile,Joachim Heiden,MarianneKleibrink,SilvanaLuppino,Nina Merkacher,Priscilla Munzi, LilianRaselli,LuiginaTomay,DespoinaTsiafakis,and Frederike vanderWielen.I amalsogratefulto the staffof the SybarisandMetaponto Museumsfor all types of assistancebeyondthe call of duty.In so many ways, this articlecould not have been writtenwithout the assistanceof SilvanaLuppino,who facilitatedmyvariousvisitsto sitesandmuseumsin ItalyandSicily.In this respectI alsoowe an enormousdebtof gratitudeto PieroGuzzo,MassimoOsanna,Alain Schnapp,andMarioTorelli. Otherswho haveassistedme with materialin theircare,or in discussvarious issues,includein additionto those alreadynamed:Gaetano ing Bordone,JosephCarter,NicolasColdstream,FrancescoD'Andria,AntoBeth Fisher,Emanuel nio De Siena,MariaLuciaFerruzza-Giacomarra, Greco,Jonathan Hall,JohnHayes,Nota Kourou,EllenaLattanzi,Theresa Menard,KaraNicholas,John Pedley,RenatoPeroni,ChristopherPfaff, Ted Robinson,Annie Schnapp-Gourbeillon, Nancy Symeonoglou,and FlaviaZisa. Specialthanksare also due to SarahMorris and Despoina Tsiafakisfor actingas tirelesssoundingboardsfor all sortsof ideas,many of thembadlyconceived,andto the anonymousHesperiareaderswho have done muchto improvethis paper.The responsibilityis solelyminefor any errorsthat remain.The maps presentedin this studywere preparedby RobertG. Finnertyandthe inkeddrawingsof the potteryarethe workof PatrickFinnerty.This paperis dedicatedto the memoryof a greatscholar: one who not onlyputMycenaeanAkhaiaon the map,butwho adoptedan approachthat pointed to a link between heroic and historicAkhaians. EmilyVermeulewas one of thosefew peoplewho hadthe visionandability to navigatethe worldsof philology,classicalarchaeology,andAegean prehistory.
450
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
REFERENCES Adamesteanu,D. 1956. "Gela:Predo La Paglia.Nuovi ritrovamentinella necropoliarcaica,"NSc 1956, pp.281-288. .1984. "Sirise Metaponto alla luce delle nuove scopertearcheologiche,"ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 301-313. Adamesteanu,D., and H. Dilthey. 1978. "Siris:Nuovi contributi archeologici,"MEFRA 90, pp.515-565. Adamesteanu,D., and P. Orlandini. 1960. "Gela:Nuovi scavi,"NSc 1960, pp. 67-246. Adamesteanu,D., et al., eds. 1976. II museonazionaleRidoladi Matera, Matera. AgoraXII = B. A. Sparkesand L. Talcott,Blackand Plain Potteryof the 6th, 5th, and 4th CenturiesB.C., Princeton1970. Alzinger,W., et al. 1985. "AigeiraHyperesiaund die Siedlung Phelloe in Achaia,I,"Klio 67, pp. 389-451. Alzinger,W., S. Gogos, and R. Trummer.1986. "Aigeira-Hyperesia und die Siedlung Phelloe in Achaia, II: Theater und Umgebung,"Klio 68, pp. 6-62. Alzinger,W., E. Lanschtitzer, G. C. Neeb, and R. Trummer.1986. und die Sied"Aigeira-Hyperesia lung Phelloe in Achaia,III: Palati, zurWasserversorgungvon Aigeira, Phelloe,"Klio 68, pp. 309-347. Amandry,P. 1944-1945. "Petitobjets de Delphes,"BCH 68-69, pp. 3674. Anderson,J. K. 1953. "Excavationsnear Mamousiain Achaia,"BSA 48, pp. 154-171. . 1954. "ATopographicaland Historical Study of Achaia,"BSA 49,pp.72-92. Astr6m, P. 1965. "MycenaeanPottery from the Region of Aigion, with a List of PrehistoricSites in Achaia," OpAth5, pp. 89-110. Bammer,A. 1998. "ZurTopographie von Aigeira,"in Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp. 199-207. Barletta,B. A. 1990. "An'Ionian Sea' Style in ArchaicDoric Architecture,"AJA94, pp. 45-72.
Basento= Igreci sul Basento:Mostradegli scaviarcheologici all'Incoronata di Metaponto,1971-1984, Como 1986. Bats, M., and B. d'Agostino,eds. 1998. Euboica:L'Eubeae lapresenzaeuboica in Calcidicae in Occidente(Collection CentreJean Berard16), Naples. Belli, C. 1970. Il tesorodi Taras.Museo nazionaledi Taranto:Fotografiedi Cirode Vincentis,Milan. Benson,J. L. 1989. EarlierCorinthian Amsterdam. Workshops, Benton, S. 1931-1932. "The Ionian Islands,"BSA 32, pp. 213-246. 1934-1935. "Excavationsin Ithaca,III:The Cave at Polis, I," BSA 35, pp. 45-73. .1938-1939. "Excavationsin Ithaca,III:The Cave at Polis, II," BSA 39, pp. 1-51. . 1949. "SecondThoughts on 'Mycenaean'Potteryin Ithaca,"BSA 44, pp.307-312. 1953. "FurtherExcavationsat Aetos,"BSA48, pp. 255-361. Benton, S., and H. Waterhouse.1973. "Excavationsin Ithaka:Tris Langadas,"BSA 68, pp. 1-24. Benzi, M., and G. Graziadio.1990. "SantaMaria di Leuca:Punta deiMessapi, Meliso,"in Archeologia F. D'Andria,ed., Bari,pp. 5-18. (with an appendixby G. Boschian). 1996. "The Last Mycenaeansin Italy?Late Helladic IIIC Potteryfrom Punta Meliso, Leuca," SMEA 38, pp. 95-138. Berard,J. 1941. La colonisation grecque de l'Italiemeridionaleet de la Sicile dansl'antiquiteL'histoireet la legende,Paris. Bergonzi,G., A. Cardarelli, P. G. Guzzo, R. Peroni,and L. Vagnetti.1982. Ricerchesulla protostoriadellaSibaritide1-2 (Cahiersdu CentreJean Berard78), Naples. Berktold,P. 1996. "Das prahistorische Akarnanien:Vom Palaolithikumzur geometrischenZeit,"in Berktoldet al. 1996, pp. 21-59. Berktold,P, J. Schmid, and C. Wacker, eds. 1996. Akarnanien:Eine Landschaftim antikenGriechenland, Munich.
Bianco, S., and M. Tagliente,eds. 1985. II museonazionaledellaSiritidedi dellaBasilicata Policoro:Archeologia meridionale,Bari. Biancofiore,F. 1967. Civilta micenea nell'Italiameridionale(Incunabula Graeca22), Rome. Bietti Sestieri,A. M. 1973. "The Metal Industryof ContinentalItaly,13th11th Century,and Its Aegean Connections,"PPS 39, pp. 383-424. . 1985. "Contact,Exchange,and Conflict in the ItalianBronze Age: The Mycenaeanson the Tyrrhenian Coasts and Islands,"in Papersin ItalianArchaeology IV: The Cam3: Patternsin 1984, Conference bridge Protohistory(BAR-IS245), C. Malone and S. Stoddart,eds., Oxford, pp. 305-337. .1988. "The 'MycenaeanConnection'and Its Impact on the CentralMediterraneanSocieties," DialArch6, pp. 23-51. Blakeway,A. 1932-1933. "Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Commerce with Italy,Sicily,and Francein the Eighth and Seventh CenturiesB.C.," BSA 33, pp. 170-208. .1935. "Demaratus:A Study in Some Aspects of the EarliestHellenisationof Latium and Etruria," JRS 25, pp. 129-149. Bloesch, H. 1951. "Stoutand Slender in the Late ArchaicPeriod,"JHS71, pp. 29-39. Boardman,J.1994. "Settlementfor Tradeand Land in North Africa: Problemsof Identity,"in The Archaeology of GreekColonisation: EssaysDedicatedto SirJohnBoardman, G. R. Tsetskhladzeand E de Angelis, eds., Oxford,pp. 137-149. Borriello,M. 1991. CVAItalia 66: MuseoNazionaledi Napoli 4, Rome. Bosana-Kourou,N. 1980. "Tocpxo o6voXo &OCTO Tiv tQCLOpX AiyLou,"in ZTHAH: T61Ooq; Ei, tzVyI,V
N. KovroA?ovroq, Athens, pp. 303317. 1984. "SomeProblemsconcerningthe Origin and the Dating of the Thapsos Class Vases," ASAtene61, 1983 [1984] (n.s. 45), pp.257-269.
MAGNA
Brauer,G. C., Jr. 1986. Taras:Its History and Coinage,New Rochelle,N.Y. Brugnone,A., and 0. Belvedere.1990. "Imera,"in Nenci and Vallet 1990, vol. 8, pp. 248-273. Brundage,B. C. 1958. "Heraklesthe Levantine:A Comprehensive View,"JNES17, pp. 225-236. Bullitt, O. H. 1967. "Historical Reports:Quotations from the Ancient Authors,"in Rainey and Lerici 1967, pp. 1-25. Burkert,W. 1984. Die orientalisierende Epochein dergriechischen Religion undLiteratur,Heidelberg. Byvanck,A. W. 1959. "Lacolonisation grecquede la Sicilie et l'archeologie,"BABesch34, pp. 68-71. Callaway,J. S. 1950. Sybaris,Baltimore. Canosa,M. G. 1986. "I1Materano," in De Siena andTagliente 1986, pp. 171-182. Canzanella,M. G., and A. M. Buongiovanni. 1990. "Gela,"in Nenci and Vallet 1990, vol. 8, pp. 5-65. Carter,J.C. 1990. "Metapontum:Land, Wealth, and Population,"in Descoeudres1990, pp. 405-441. . 1994. "Sanctuariesin the Chora of Metaponto,"in Placingthe Gods:Sanctuariesand SacredSpacein AncientGreece,S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne,eds., Oxford,pp. 161198. , ed. 1998. TheChoraof I-II, Metaponto:TheNecropoleis Austin. Caskey,J. L., and P.Amandry.1952. "Investigationsat the Heraion of Argos, 1949,"Hesperia21, pp. 165221. Coldstream,J. N. 1968. GreekGeometric Pottery:ASurveyof TenLocalStyles and TheirChronology, London. . 1977. GeometricGreece, London. . 1994. "Pithekoussai,Cyprus, and the Cesnola Painter,"in d'Agostino and Ridgway1994, pp. 77-86. . 1998a. "AchaeanPottery around700 B.C., at Home and in the Colonies,"in Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp.323-334. . 1998b. "Drinkingand Eating in Euboean Pithekoussai,"in Bats and d'Agostino 1998, pp. 303-310. Coleman,J. E. 1986. Excavationsat
ACHAEA
Pylosin Elis (HesperiaSuppl.21), Princeton. Cook,J. M. 1953. "Mycenae19391952, PartIII:The Agamemnoneion,"BSA 48, pp. 30-68. Corinto= Corintoe l'occidente.Attidel trentaquattresimo convegnodi studi sullaMagna Grecia,Taranto,7-11 ottobre1994, Naples. Coulson,W. D. E. 1986. TheDarkAge PotteryofMessenia(SIMA-PB 43), Goteborg. . 1988. "GeometricPotteryfrom Volimidia,"AJA92, pp. 53-74. .1990. TheGreekDarkAges: A Review of theEvidenceand FutureResearch, Suggestionsfor Athens. Courakis,N. E. 1998. "AContribution to the Searchfor Ancient Helike," in Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp.235-250. Crielaard,J. P., V. Stissi, and G.J. van Wijngaarden,eds. 1999. The Complex Pastof Pottery:Production, Circulation,and Consumption of Mycenaeanand GreekPottery(Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries B.C.),
Amsterdam. Crotone= Crotone:Attidelventitreesimo convegnodi studisullaMagna Grecia, Taranto,7-10 ottobre1983, Taranto 1984. Culican,W. 1968. "Quelquesapercus surles atelierspheniciens,"Syria45, pp. 275-293. . 1976. "PhoenicianMetalwork and EgyptianTradition,"Revistade la UniversidadComplutense 25 (no. 101), pp. 83-89. .1982. "The Repertoireof Phoenician Pottery,"in Phonizierim Westen: Die BeitrdgedesInternationalenSymposiums iiber"Die phonizischeExpansionim westlichen Mittelmeerraum" in Kolnvom24. bis 27. April 1979, H. G. Niemeyer,ed., Mainz, pp. 45-82. D'Agata, A. R. M., and S. Milanezi. 1990. "Lentini,"in Nenci and Vallet 1990, vol. 8, pp. 524-555. d'Agostino,B. 1979. "Le necropoli protostorichedella Valledel Sarno: La ceramicadi tipo greco," AnnArchStorAnt 1, pp. 59-75. .1996. "La'Stipe dei cavalli' di Pitecusa (con premesae postilla di G. Buchnere con appendicidi
45I
R. Macchiarelli,P. P. Petrone, L. Bondioli, e di S. Coubray)," AttiMGrecia1994-1995 [1996], pp. 9-108. d'Agostino,B., and D. Ridgway.1994. APOIKIA.Ipiii antichiinsediamenti Funzioni e modi greciin occidente: e sociale. dell'organizzazionepolitica Scrittiin onoredi GiorgioBuchner n.s. 1), (AION.AnnArchStorAnt, Naples. d'Agostino,B., and A. Soteriou. 1998. "Campaniain the Frameworkof the EarliestColonization in the West," in Bats and d'Agostino 1998, pp.355-368. D'Andria,F. 1984. "Il Salento nell'VIII e VII sec. a.C.: Nuovi dati archeologici,"ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 101-116. . 1985. "Documentidel commercio arcaicotra ionio ed adriatico,"in Magna Grecia,Epiro,e Macedonia:Attidel ventiquattresimo convegnodi studisullaMagna Grecia, Taranto,5-10 ottobre1984, Taranto, pp.321-377. 1997. "Corintoe l'occidente: La costa Adriatica,"in Corinto, pp.457-508. de Certeau,M. 1990. L'inventiondu quotidien,Paris. De Franciscis,A. 1972. Statoe societain LocriEpizefiri:L'archivo locrese,Naples. dell'Olympieion Deger-Jalkotzy,S. 1991. "ZumVerlauf der Periode SH IIIC in Achaia,"in Rizakis 1991, pp. 19-29. Dehl, C. 1983. "ZurHerkunft der Thapsosklasse,"in PraestantInterna: FestschriftfirUlrichHausmann, B. von Freytaggen Loringhoff,ed., Tibingen, pp. 182-189. .1984. Die korinthische Keramik des8. undfriihen7.Jhs.v. Chr.in Italien:Untersuchungen zu ihrer Chronologie undAusbreitung(AMBH 11), Berlin. . 1995. Die archaische Keramik ausdemMalophoros-Heiligtum in lakoSelinunt.Die korinthischen, und megarischen nischen,etruskischen, Importesowiedie 'argivisch-monoundlokaleKeramikausden chrome' alten Grabungen,Berlin. Dekoulakou,I. 1973. "rFo,e-xrpxo TaqopxoL c.0ot E''Axatao;,"ArchEph (Chronika)1973, pp. 15-29.
JOHN
452 . 1975. "AitcoXoaxapvavia: 26, 1971, B'2 IIXzupWiv,"ArchDelt
[1975], pp. 326-327. . 1984. "K?poa?LtLxq800 xal 7ou at. T7.X.ar6 Ta-rpoouT-(;'AXaTa xacl ti AitcoXiaq,"ASAtene 60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 219-236. de la Geniere,J. 1967. "Amendolara, une ville antiqueaux environsde Sybaris,"RA 1967, pp. 195-208. . 1968. Recherches surl'agedufer en Italie meridionale: Sala Consilina, Naples. 1969. "Scavidi Amendolara," Klearchos 41-44, pp. 79-89. . 1970. "Contributiona l'etude des relationsentre grecs et indigenes sur la mer ionienne,"MEFRA 82, pp. 621-636. . 1971. "Amendolara(Cosenza): Campagnedel 1967 e 1968 (relazione preliminare)," NSc 1971, pp.439-475. . 1973. "Apropos de quelques mobiliersfiunrairesd'Amendolara," MEFRA 85, pp. 7-53. . 1990. "Lagaria,"in Nenci and Vallet 1990, vol. 8, pp. 405-408. de la Geniere,J., and A. Nickels. 1975. "Amendolara(Cosenza):Scavi 1969-1973 a S. Nicola,"NSc 1975, pp. 483-498. de la Geniere,J., R. Pierobon, A. Waiblinger,A. Carpentier,and M. Gualtieri.1980. "Amendolara (Cosenza):La necropolidi Mangosa,"NSc 1980, pp. 305-393. Denoyelle, M. 1996. "Le peintre d'Analatos:Essai de synth6seet perspectivesnouvelles,"AntK39, pp. 71-87. de Polignac,F. 1995. Cults,Territory, and the Originsof the GreekCityState,Chicago. Deriu, A., G. Buchner,and D. Ridgway. 1986. "Provenanceand Firing Techniquesof Geometric Pottery from Pithekoussai:A Mossbauer 8, Investigation,"AnnArchStorAnt pp. 99-116. Desborough,V. R. d'A. 1952. ProtogeometricPottery,Oxford. . 1964. TheLastMycenaeansand TheirSuccessors, Oxford. .1972. TheGreekDarkAges, London. Descoeudres,J.-P., ed. 1990. Greek ColonistsandNative Populations:
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Proceedings of theFirstAustralian Held Congressof ClassicalArchaeology in HonourofEmeritusProfessor A. D. Trendall,Sydney,9-14July 1985, Oxford. de Sensi Sestito, G. 1987. "LaCalabria in eta arcaicae classica:Storia, economia,societa,"in Storiadella Calabria,Bari,pp. 227-303. De Siena,A., and M. Tagliente,eds. 1986. Siris-Polieion:Fonti letterariee nuovadocumentazione archeologica (incontrostudi,Policoro,8-10 giugno 1984) (Istituto per la storiae l'archeologiadella Magna Grecia), Galatina(Lecce). de Waele,J. A. 1971. AcragasGraeca: Die historische des Topographie griechischen AkragasaufSizilien, The Hague. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 1977. The OriginsofMycenaeanCivilisation, Goteborg. Docter, R. F., and H. G. Niemeyer. 1994. "Pithekoussai:The Carthaginian Connection:On the ArchaeologicalEvidence of EubeoPhoenician Partnershipin the 8th and 7th CenturiesB.c.," in d'Agostino and Ridgway1994, pp. 101115. Dontas, G. S. 1965. "'AvocaxacpY olxiaxSei; T6?v Kepx6Op &pxtciatc x-uxa E6jAseX7 ,"ArchDelt18, 1963, B'2 [1965], pp. 180-186. .1967. "Kipxopa:'Avooxaxpy oLxoT7cxo0E6EXti&8q,"ArchDelt 20, 1965, B'2 [1967], pp. 391-397. .1968. "KEpxupoa: 'AvaoxaqcpY oixoxTeoo E6uXxA8Yl,"ArchDelt 21, 1966, B'2 [1968], pp. 321-324. Doria, L. B. P. 1998. "I Cimmeri a Cuma,"in Bats and d'Agostino 1998, pp.323-335. Drogemuller,H.-P. 1969. Syrakus:Zur und Geschichte einer Topographie mit einem Stadt, Anhang griechischen zu Thukydides 6, 96ff undLivius 24.25 (GymnasiumBeiheft 6), Heidelberg. Droop,J. P. 1929. "The Laconian Pottery,"in TheSanctuaryofArtemis Orthiaat Sparta(JHS Suppl. 5), R. M. Dawkins, ed., London, pp.52-116. Dunbabin,T. J. 1948. The Western Greeks:TheHistoryof Sicilyand SouthItalyfromtheFoundationof the
GreekColoniesto 480 B.c., Oxford. du Plat Taylor,J., et al. 1977. "Gravinadi-Puglia III (PartTwo): Houses and a Cemetery of the Iron Age and ClassicalPeriods,"BSR 45, pp. 69137. Eder,B. 1998. Argolis,Lakonien, MessenienvomEnde dermykenischen Palastzeitbiszur Einwanderungder Dorier,Vienna. . 1999. "AncientElis in the Dark Ages,"in ThePeripheryof the MycenaeanWorld:Proceedings of a Held in Lamia, September Congress 1994, Lamia,pp. 263-268. Eder,B., and V. Mitsopoulos-Leon. 1999. "ZurGeschichte der Stadt Elis von dem Synoikismosvon 471 v. Chr.:Die Zeugnisse der geometrischenund archaischenZeit," OJh68, cols. 1-40. Evans,J. D. 1971. ThePrehistoric Antiquitiesof theMalteseIslands: A Survey,London. FdD V.1 = P. Perdrizet,Fouillesde Petit DelphesV.1:Monumentsfigures: bronzes,terres-cuites, antiquites diverses,Paris 1908. Fiorentini,G., and E. de Miro. 1984. "Gelaproto-arcaica,"ASAtene 61, 1983 [1984] (n.s. 45), pp. 53-106. Fisher,E. A. 1988. "AComparisonof MycenaeanPotteryfrom Apulia with MycenaeanPotteryfrom Western Greece"(diss. Univ. of Minnesota). Fisher,N., and H. van Wees, eds. 1998. New Approaches and ArchaicGreece: New Evidence,London. Foti, G. 1970. "Attivitadella Soprintendenza alle antichitadella Calabria nel 1970,"Klearchos 47-48, pp.157-167. FrancavillaMarittima= J. K. Papadopoulos, "The Achaian and AchaianStyle Pottery,"in FrancavillaMarittima (BdASuppl.,forthcoming). FriisJohansen,K. 1958. Exochi:Ein Griberfeld,Copenfriihrhodisches hagen. Frodin,0., and A. W. Persson.1938. Asine:Resultsof the SwedishExcavations,1922-1930, Stockholm. Furumark,A. 1972. MycenaeanPottery I:Analysisand Classification, Stockholm. Gabrici,E. 1913. "Cuma,"MonAnt22, cols. 5-872.
MAGNA
Gadolou, A. 1996-1997. "XdrXxvaxai &ro6 To6lepo6 ro "Avco o&8epvta6rc?Xa in Acts MaoapaOx(Paxixa) 'A(xaqaq," of theFifth InternationalCongressof Studies,Argos-Nauplia, Peloponnesian 1995 (Peloponnesiaka 6-10 September Suppl. 22), vol. 2, pp. 51-72. Galli, E. 1907. Perla Sibaritide:Studio e storico,conlapianta topografico di Cosenza,Acireale. archeologica Gardner,P. 1887. A Catalogueof Greek Coinsin theBritishMuseum: (ExcludingCorinth), Peloponnesus London (repr.Bologna 1963). Gentili, G. V. 1961a. "Calascibetta (ContradaQuattrocchi):Tombe sicule a cameradel tipo 'Licordia,"' NSc 1961, pp. 201-216. .1961b. "Assora(Contrada S. Giuliano):Resti di tombe sicule del tipo 'Licordia,"'NSc 1961, pp.217-221.
ACHAEA
Grimaniset al. 1980b = A. P. Grimanis, M. Vassilaki-Grimani,S. E. Philippakis,N. Yalouris,and N. BosanaKourou,"MeXhrq xEpOjicLxou -xob xpaorcpaTobALyloo, 6XAxou o6rpdxcov xai IlHpCxopLv0Lotaxcov ooctpaxov T6t7o O adoo," in
STHAH:T6iyos;el uv,.urlv N. KovroAEovro;, Athens, pp. 318320. Guarducci,M. 1964. "Appuntidi ArchCl16, epigrafiagrecaarcaica," pp.122-153. . 1967. EpigrafiaGrecaI: Caratterie storiadelladisciplina.La scritturagrecadalleoriginiall'eta imperiale,Rome. Guzzo, P. G. 1984. "LaSibaritidee Sibarinell'VIIIe nel VII sec. a.C.," ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp.237-250. delle 1987. "L'archeologia in Storia della colonie N. 1957. arcaiche," "Aoxtp.ioc-rxat Gialouris, peovvariLiS -c'r xo6Xrov-r Calabria,Bari. TS ?a;&q . 1989. IBrettii: Storiae arche1957, pp. 31-43. 'HXeiag,"ArchEph Giangiulio,M. 1989. Ricerchesu Crotone ologiadellaCalabriapreromana, Milan. arcaica,Pisa. 1992. "Sibari," 1986-1987. "Kult und S. AttiMGrecia, HeiligGogos, series 3, 1, pp. 121-153. tiimer der Artemis von Aigeira," 1998. "Sibarinel periodo OJh57, pp. 108-139. arcaico,"in Katsonopoulouet al. Graham,A. J. 1964. ColonyandMother 1998, pp. 349-360. City in AncientGreece,New York. . 1986. "The HistoricalInterGuzzo, P. G., et al. 1988. Il museodi Taranto:Centoanni di archeologia, pretationof Al Mina,"Dialogues Taranto. d'histoireancienne12, pp. 51-59. Hall, J. M. 1997. EthnicIdentityin Gras,M. 1985. Traficstyrrheniens Paris. Cambridge. archaiques, GreekAntiquity, Greco, E. 1990. "Serdaioi," Hampe, R., and E. Simon. 1959. CVA Deutschland15: Mainz, Universitdt AnnArchStorAnt 12, pp. 39-57. 1998. "Le fondazioni degli 1, Munich. Achei in occidente,"in KatsonoHansel, B. 1973. "Policoro(Matera): Scavieseguiti nell'areadell'acropoli poulou et al. 1998, pp. 335-347. di Eracleanegli anni 1965-1967," Greco, E., I. d'Ambrosio,and D. Theodorescu.1996. PoseidoniaNSc 1973, pp. 400-492. Paestum:Archaeological and Historical Head, B. V. 1911. HistoriaNumorum: A Manual of GreekNumismatics,2nd Guideto theExcavations,theMuseum, and theAntiquities,Taranto. ed., Oxford. Griffo, P., and L. von Matt. 1963. Gela: Hencken, H. 1958. "Syracuse,Etruria, A SicilianTownFoundedby the Greeks, and the North: Some CompariGenoa. sons,"AJA62, pp. 259-272. Grimaniset al. 1980a = A. P. Grimanis, Heurtley,W. A. 1934-1935. "ExcavaS. E. Philippakis,B. Perdikatsis, tions in Ithaca,II: The Early HelM. Vassilaki-Grimani,N. Bosanaladic Settlement at Pelikata," BSA 35, pp. 1-44. Kourou,and N. Yalouris,"Neutron Activation and X-Ray Analysis of . 1939-1940. "Excavationsin Vases: An Class' IV: Summaryof the Work Ithaca, 'Thapsos Attempt to IdentifyTheir Origin,"JAS7, and Conclusions,"BSA 40, pp. 113. pp.227-239.
453 Heurtley,W. A., and H. L. Lorimer. 1932-1933. "Excavationsat Ithaka, I,"BSA 33, pp. 22-65. HimeraII = N. Allegro et al., HimeraII: Campagnedi scavo1966-1973, Rome 1976. Horden, P., and N. Purcell.2000. The CorruptingSea:A Studyof MediterraneanHistory,Oxford. Houby-Nielsen, S. 2001. "SacredLandscapesof Aetolia and Achaea: SynoecismProcessesand NonUrban Sanctuaries,"in Foundation andDestruction:Nikopolisand NorthwesternGreece.TheArchaeologicalEvidenceforthe CityDestructions,theFoundationofNikopolis,and the Synoecism(Monographsof the Danish Institute at Athens 3), J. Isager,ed., Aarhus,pp. 257276. IsthmiaVIII = C. A. Morgan, TheLate BronzeAgeSettlementandEarly IronAge Sanctuary,Princeton 1999. Jacobsthal,P. 1938. "ASybariteHimation,"JHS58, pp. 205-216. Jeffery,L. H. 1949. "Commentson Some ArchaicGreek Inscriptions," JHS 69, pp. 25-38. . 1990. TheLocalScriptsof ArchaicGreece:AStudyof the Origin of the GreekAlphabetandIts DevelopmentfromtheEighthto the Fifth CenturiesB.C. (rev.ed., with a supplementby A. W. Johnston), Oxford. Johannowsky,W. 1983. Materialidi eta arcaicadallacampaniaantica, Naples. Johannowsky,W., J. G. Pedley,and M. Torelli. 1983. "Excavationsat Paestum,1982,"AJA 87, pp. 293303. Jones, R. E. 1986. "ChemicalAnalysis of Aegean-type Late Bronze Age PotteryFound in Italy,"in Marazzi et al. 1986, pp. 205-214. Jones, R. E., and P. M. Day. 1987. "LateBronze Age Aegean and Cypriot-typePotteryon Sardinia: Identificationof Imports and Local Imitationsby PhysicoChemical Analysis,"in Nuragic Sardiniaand theMycenaeanWorld (Studies in SardinianArchaeology 3, BAR-IS 387), M. S. Balmuth,ed., Oxford,pp. 257-270.
454 Jones, R. E., and L. Vagnetti.1991. "Tradersand Craftsmenin the CentralMediterranean:Archaeological Evidence and Archaeometric Research,"in BronzeAge Tradein theMediterranean,N. H. Gale, ed., Jonsered,pp. 127-147. Jones, S. 1997. TheArchaeology of Identitiesin Ethnicity:Constructing thePastand Present,London. Kalligas,P. G. 1984. "Kpxupoa, ASAtene60, axrotxLxoji6xai t7co," 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 57-68. Kallipolitis,V. G. 1984. "KepacziLxa ?ipJiaTxaa&TorTv Kgpxopa," ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 69-76. Katsonopoulou,D. 1991. "ApXocxa EXixq:Iotropiaxat oa6UYpovY in Rizakis 1991, pp. 227peuvoc," 234. 1998a. "Toncoypa(pLxatl in Katsonopoulouet al. AtylBXceago," 1998, pp.31-66. T avaoxaop .1998b. "Hrcpcrn a(vv EXixrl:K-rlnaKXov4l.MLo in s?LoayCOYLx]trxapouoiorslc,"
Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp. 125145. Katsonopoulou,D., S. Soter,and D. Schilardi,eds. 1998. HelikeII: AncientHelikeandAigialeia.Proceedingsof the SecondInternationalConference,Aigion,1-3 December1995, Athens. Kolonas,L. 1990. "x?Ltg; yLtaTqv H&apac: T7poacTOptxoq Aiytakcg,"in K. N. TpcavrdTodiyoTqiu7rixo6; VpoAoo, Patras, pp. 473-476.
.1996-1997. "Necjteppl [uoxqin voCdxi T-ooyapLoiarT 'Axataoc," Actsof theFifth International Studies, CongressofPeloponnesian 1995 Argos-Nauplia,6-10 September vol. 22), 2, Suppl. (Peloponnesiaka pp.468-496. KommosIII = L. V. Watrous,TheLate BronzeAgePottery,Princeton 1992. Kopcke,G., and I. Tokumaru,eds. 1992. GreecebetweenEast and West: 10th-8th CenturiesB.c.Papersof the Meetingat theInstituteofFine Arts, New YorkUniversity,March1516th, 1990, Mainz. Kosmetatou,E. 1996. "Mideain the Post-Bronze-Age Period:A Preliminary Report,"OpAth21, pp. 115123.
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
Kraay,C. M. 1976. Archaicand ClassicalGreekCoins,Berkeley. Kraay,C. M., and M. Hirmer.1966. GreekCoins,London. Kron,U. 1988. "Kultmahleim Heraion von Samos archaischerZeit: Versuch einer Rekonstruction,"in Early GreekCultPractice:Proceedings of the at the Fifth InternationalSymposium SwedishInstituteat Athens,26-29 June 1986, R. Hagg, N. Marinatos, and G. C. Nordquist,eds., Stockholm, pp. 135-148. Kunze, E. 1961. "EineUrkundeder Stadt Sybaris,"in OlBerVII, pp.207-210. Kyparissis,N. 1932. "'Avaoxaxocpa
III = M. BarraBagnasco,P. Dotta, V. Origlia,and M. Rubinich, Culturamaterialee vita quotidiana(Studi e materialidi archeologia2), Florence 1989. IV = M. BarraBagnascoet al., Lo scavodi MarasaSud:II sacello tardoarcaicoe la "casadei leoni" (Studi e materialidi archeologia 3), Florence 1992. LocriEpizefirii= LocriEpizefirii:Atti delsedicesimo convegnodi studisulla Magna Grecia.Taranto,3-8 ottobre 1976, Naples 1976. Loicq-Berger,M. P. 1967. Syracuse: Histoireculturelled'unecite'grecque (CollLatomus87), Brussels. iuxuvoaxCv V?XpOTOCap?Loe Lombardo,M. 1983. "Polieione il TTf; 'Avacxaoc Basento:Tradizionietimologiche e 'Axac;ag: cp zuxqvaix6ov ?V V?XpootpOe?Lv XaXarvSO(p:Ol scopertearcheologiche,"in Studiin onoredi DinuAdamesteanu,Galatina (AJlioou (oapv 'Axaiag;)xca M6av?cnr (Aliou AcTra0cov (Lecce), pp. 59-75. KaXacp6rcov)," Prakt1930 [1932], pp. 81-88. . 1986. "Siris-Polieion:Fonti Lane, E. A. 1933-1934. "Lakonian letterarie,documentazionearcheVase-Painting,"BSA 34, pp. 99-189. ologica, e problemistorici,"in De LaosI = E. Greco, S. Luppino,and Siena andTagliente 1986, pp. 55A. Schnapp,eds., LaosI: Scavia 86. Marcellina1973-1985 (Magna Lo Porto,F. G. 1960. "Ceramicaarcaica Graecia5), Taranto1989. dalla necropolidi Taranto,"ASAtene 37-38, 1959-1960 [1960] (n.s. 21Lattanzi,E. 1980. "L'insediamento 22), pp. 7-230. indigeno sul pianorodi S. Salvatore . 1961. "Recentiscopertedi a Timmari (Matera),"in Attivita in Basilicata,1964-1977: tombe arcaichein Taranto,"BdA46, archeologica Scrittiin onoredi Dinu Adamesteanu, pp.268-282. . 1963. "Leporano(Taranto):La Matera,pp. 239-282. stazioneprotostoricadi Porto Laviola,V. 1971. Necropolie citta elleniche,e romanedi preelleniche, Peroni,"NSc 1963, pp. 280-380. .1964. "Satyrion(Taranto): Amendolara,Cosenza. L. 1938. "Fouilles de Scavi e ricerchenel luogo del piu Lerat, Delphes antico insediamentolaconico in (1934-1935): Rapportpreliminaire," RA 12 (series6), pp. 183-227. Puglia,"NSc 1964, pp. 177-279. .1981. "Metaponto(Matera): Leveque,P., and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1964. Nuovi scavi nella citta e nella sua ClisthenelAthenien:Essaisurla representationde l'espaceet du tempsdans necropoli,"NSc 1981, pp. 289-391. de du S. 1998. "Laproduzione grecque Luppino, lafin lapenseepolitique artisticadi Sibaridallafondazione VIPsiecle a la mort de Platon, Paris. LocriEpizefiri alla distruzionedel 510 a.C.,"in I = M. BarraBagnasco,C. Sabbione, Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp. 361369. G. Bacci, U. Spigo, G. Molli Boffa, and E Niutta, Locri Luraghi,N. 1996. "Partagedu sol et occupationdu territoiredans les EpizefiriI, Florence 1977. II = M. BarraBagnasco,M. C. colonies grecquesd'Occidentau VIII' siecle,"in Les moyensd'expresBitta, M. C. Buzzi Auxilia, siondupouvoirdanslessocietesanM. C. Conti, L. Manzo, G. O. ciennes,Louvain,pp. 213-219. Ferrero,and M. C. Preacco,Gli isolati12 e 13 dell'areaCentoLyons, C. L., andJ. K. Papadopoulos. 2002. "Archaeologyand Colocamere(Studi e materialidi nialism,"in TheArchaeologyof archeologia1), Florence 1989.
MAGNA
Colonialism,C. L. Lyons and J. K. Papadopoulos,eds., Los Angeles, pp. 1-23. Maaskant-Kleibrink,M. 1970-1971. "FrancavillaMarittima,C: Abitato sullapendici della Motta," AttiMGrecia11-12, pp. 75-80. . 1993. "ReligiousActivities on the 'Timpone della Motta,' FrancavillaMarittima,and the Identificationof Lagaria,"BABesch 68, pp. 1-47. Maass, M., ed. 1996. Delphi:Orakelam Nabelder Welt,Karlsruhe. Maddoli, G., ed. 1982. Temesae ilsuo territorio:Attidelcolloquiodi Perugia e Trevi,30-31 maggio1981, Taranto. Malkin, I. 1987. Religionand Colonization in AncientGreece,Leiden. . 1994. Myth and Territoryin the SpartanMediterranean,Cambridge. . 1998a. TheReturnsof Odysseus: ColonizationandEthnicity,Berkeley. . 1998b. "Ithaka,Odysseus,and the Euboeansin the Eighth Century,"in Bats and d'Agostino 1998, pp. 1-10. Malnati, L. 1984. "Tombearcaichedi S. Maria d'Angelona(scavi 19721973),"in M. Castoldi and L. Malin nati, Studie ricerche archeologiche Basilicata(Quadernid'Acme 4), Milan, pp. 41-95. Marazzi,M., S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti, eds. 1986. TrafficimiceneinelMediterraneo:Problemistoricie documentazionearcheologica. Atti delconvegno di Palermo,11-12 maggioe 3-6 dicembre1984, Taranto. Marinatos,S. 1932. "ALavaoCxax(po Goekoop EvKecaXX-lvVac,"ArchEph 1932, pp. 1-47. 1933. "Atev K?cpaX3viEa avcaxaxacpGoekoop, 2,"ArchEph 1933, pp. 68-100. 1960. "Helice:A Submerged Town of ClassicalGreece,"Archaeology13, pp. 186-193. Le Maruggi, G. A. 1996. "L'argilla: produzioniceramichearcaiche,"in I Greciin Occidente:Arte e artigianato in Magna Graecia,E. Lippolis,ed., Naples, pp. 247-268. Mastrokostas,E. 1963. "Ai-coXooxapovoWva,"ArchDelt 17, 19611962, B' [1963], pp. 182-185. . 1968. "'Axata,"ArchDelt 22, 1967, B'1 [1968], pp. 213-217.
ACHAEA
. 1969. "AlTrwoaxocpvavLa,"
ArchDelt22, 1967, B'2 [1969], pp. 318-324. McCarter,P. K. 1975. "APhoenician Graffito from Pithekoussai,"AJA 79, pp. 140-141. McDonald, W. A. 1942. "WhereDid Nestor Live?"AJA46, pp. 538-545. Mee, C. 1982. Rhodesin theBronze Age:An Archaeological Survey, Warminster. MegaraHyblaeaI = G. Vallet, F. Villard,and P. Auberson,Le quartierde l'agoraarchaique,Paris 1976. MegaraHyblaeaII = G. Valletand F. Villard,La ceramique archaique, Paris 1964. Mertens, D., and H. Schlager.19801982. "FrancavillaMarittima,B: Acropoli sullaMotta. Die Bauten aufder Motta,"AttiMGrecia21-23, pp.141-171. Metaponto= Metaponto:Attidel tredicesimo convegnodi studisulla Grecia, Taranto,14-19 Magna ottobre1973, Naples 1974. MetapontoI = A. Adamesteanu, D. Mertens, and F. D'Andria, MetapontoI (NSc 29, Suppl.), Rome 1975. Morgan, C. A. 1986. "Settlementand Exploitationin the Region of the CorinthianGulf, c. 1000-700 B.C." (diss. CambridgeUniv.). . 1988. "Corinth,the Corinthian Gulf, and Western Greece during the Eighth Century B.C.,"BSA 83, pp. 313-338. .1990. Athletesand Oracles: TheTransformation of Olympiaand Delphiin theEighth CenturyB.C., Cambridge. . 1991. "Ethnicityand Early Greek States:Historical and MaterialPerspectives,"PCPS 37, pp. 131-163. . 1997. "Problemsand Prospects in the Study of Corinthian PotteryProduction,"in Corinto, pp.313-344. . 1998. "Euboiansand Corinthiansin the Area of the CorinthianGulf?"in Bats and d'Agostino 1998, pp. 281-302. . 1999a. "SomeThoughts on the Productionand Consumption of EarlyIron Age Potteryin the
455
Aegean,"in Crielaardet al. 1999, pp.213-259. . 1999b. "CulturalSubzones in EarlyIron Age and Archaic Arkadia?"in DefiningAncient Arkadia:Symposium, April -4, 1998 (Acts of the CopenhagenPolis Centre 6), T. H. Nielsen andJ. Roy, eds., Copenhagen,pp. 382-456. Morgan, C. A., andJ. Hall. 1996. "AchaianPoleisand Achaian Colonisation,"in Introductionto an Inventoryof Poleis:Symposium August 23-26, 1995 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3), M. H. Hansen, ed., Copenhagen,pp. 164-232. MorgantinaV = C. L. Lyons,Morgantina StudiesV: TheArchaicCemeteries, Princeton. Morris, S. P. 1992a. Daidalosand the Originsof GreekArt,Princeton. . 1992b. "Introduction.Greece between East and West: Perspectives and Prospects,"in Kopckeand Tokumaru1992, pp. xiii-xviii. Morris, S. P., andJ. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. "Phoeniciansand the CorinthianPotteryIndustry,"in Studienin KonArchdologischen taktzonenderantikenWelt(Ver6ffentlichungenderJoachim Jungius-Gesellschaftder Wissenschaften 87), R. Rolle, K. Schmidt, and R. Docter, eds., Hamburg, pp.251-263. Moscati, S., ed. 1988. ThePhoenicians, Venice. Mountjoy,P.A. 1990. "RegionalMycenaean Pottery,"BSA 85, pp. 245270. .1993. "AMycenaeanStirrup Jarfrom Campania,"SMEA 31, pp.35-42. . 1999. RegionalMycenaean DecoratedPottery,Rahden. Neeft, C. W. 1981. "Observationson the Thapsos Class,"MEFRA 93, pp. 7-88. Nenci, G., and G. Vallet,eds. 19771999. Bibliografiatopografica colonizzazionegrecain Italia e nelleisoletirreniche,Rome. NichoriaIII = W. A. McDonald, W. D. E. Coulson, andJ. Rosser, eds., Excavationsat Nichoriain SouthwestGreeceIII: DarkAge and ByzantineOccupation, Minneapolis 1983.
456 Niemeyer,H. G. 1990a. "The Greeks and the FarWest:Towardsa Reevaluationof the Archaeological Recordfrom Spain,"in La Magna Greciae il lontanooccidente: Atti delXXIX convegnodi studi sullaMagna Grecia,Taranto,6-11 ottobre1989, Naples, pp. 29-53. .1990b. "The Phoeniciansin the Mediterranean:A Non-Greek Model for Expansionand Settlementin Antiquity,"in Descoeudres1990, pp. 469-489. OlBerIII = E. Kunze and H. Schleif, III. BerichtiiberdieAusgrabungen in Olympia:Winter1938/39, Berlin 1939. OlBerVII = E. Kunze, VII.Bericht in Olympia: iiberdieAusgrabungen Berlin 1956 bis 1958, Friihjahre 1961. OlBerXI = A. Mallwitz et al., XI in BerichtuberdieAusgrabungen Olympia:Frihjahr1977 bisHerbst 1981, Berlin 1999. V = A. Mallwitz and OlForsch W. Schiering,Die Werkstatt des Pheidiasin Olympia,Berlin 1964. VIII = W. Gauer,Die TonOlForsch gefdsseausdenBrunnenunterm Stadion-Nordwallund im SiidostGebiet,Berlin 1975. XX = W. Gauer,Die BronzeOlForsch gefdssevon OlympiaI: Kesselund Beckenmit Untersdtzen,Teller, Kratere,Hydrien,Eimer,Situlen und und Cisten,SchopJhumpen verschiedenes Gerdt,Berlin 1991. XXIII = J. Schilbach,Elische OlForsch Keramikdes5. und4. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1995. OlympiaIV = A. Furtwangler, Olympia:Die Ergebnissedervon demdeutschen ReichVeranstalteten IV: Ausgrabung Die Bronzenund die ibrigenkleinerenFundevon Olympia,Berlin 1890 (1967 reprint). Orlandini,P. 1984. "Scavie scoperte di VIII e VII sec. a.C. in localita Incoronatatra Siris e Metaponto," ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp.315-327. 1985. "Incoronata(Metaponto): Campagnadi scavo 19771978," Quadernidellaricerca scientfica112:2, pp. 217-236. Orlandini,P., and M. Castoldi,eds.
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
1991. Ricerchearcheologiche all'Incoronata di Metaponto 1: Lefosse di scaricodel saggio P. Materiale e problematiche,Milan. . 1992. Ricerchearcheologiche all'Incoronata di Metaponto 2: Dal villaggio indigeno all'emporiogreco. Le strutture e i materiali del saggio T,
Milan. . 1995. Ricerchearcheologiche all'Incoronata di Metaponto 3: L'oikos greco del saggio S. Lo scavo e i reperti,
Milan. Orsi, P. 1889. "MegaraHyblaea:Storia, topografia,necropole,e anathemata,"MonzAnt1, cols. 689-950. . 1891. "Stilo:Di alcuniavanzi riferibiliforse all'anticaCaulonia," NSc 1891, pp. 61-72. .1895a. "Thapsos,"MonAnt6, cols. 89-150. . 1895b. "Siracusa:Gli scavi nella necropolidel Fusco a Siracusa nel giugno, novembre,e decembre del 1893,"NSc 1895, pp. 109-192. . 1898. "Le necropolidi Licordia Eubea ed i vasi geometricidel quatroperiodo siculo,"RM 13, pp.305-366. . 1906. "Gela:Scavidel 19001905," MonAnt 17, cols. 5-766.
.1911. "Croton:Prima campagnadi scavi al santuariodi Hera Lacinia,"NSc 1911, Suppl., pp. 77-124. . 1914. "Caulonia:Campagne archeologichedel 1912, 1913, e 1915,"MonAnt23, cols. 685-947. 1923. "Caulonia:Il Memoria," MonAnt29, cols. 409-490. .1933. TemplumApollinisAlaei ad Crimisa Promontorium, Rome. Osanna, M. 1992. Chorai coloniali da Taranto a Locri: Documentazione archeologicae ricostruzione storica,
Rome. .1996a. Santuari e culti dellAcaia antica (Aucnus 5), Naples.
. 1996b. "Artemisin Patras: Wandel einer Polis im Spiegel ihrer Kulte,"in Berktoldet al. 1996, pp. 183-193. Osborne,R. 1998. "EarlyGreek Colonization?The Nature of Greek Settlement in the West,"in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 251-269. Paoletti,M., and S. Settis, eds. 1981. Medma e il suo territorio, Bari.
Papachristodoulou,I. 1969. "'ApyoXig," ArchDelt 23, 1968, B'l [1969], pp.127-133. Papadopoulos,J.K. 1993. "To Kill a Cemetery:The Athenian Kerameikos and the EarlyIron Age in the Aegean,"JMA6, pp. 175-206. .1994. "EarlyIron Age Potters' Marksin the Aegean,"Hesperia63, pp.437-507. . 1996. "Euboiansin Macedonia?A Closer Look,"OJA15, pp.151-181. 1997a. "PhantomEuboians," JMA 10, pp. 191-219. . 1997b. "Innovations,Imitations, and CeramicStyle:Modes of Productionand Modes of Dissemination," in TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, R. Laffineur
and P. P. Betancourt,eds., Liege, pp. 449-461. 1998. "ABucket,by Any Other Name, and an Athenian Strangerin EarlyIron Age Crete," Hesperia67, pp. 109-123. .Forthcoming."Minting Identity:Coinage, Ideology,and the Economics of Colonization in AkhaianMagna Graecia,"CAJ12. Papadopoulos,J.K.,J. F. Vedder,and T. Schreiber.1998. "Drawing Circles:ExperimentalArchaeology and the Pivoted Multiple Brush," AJA102, pp. 507-529. Papadopoulos,T. J. 1976. Excavations atAigion, 1970, Goteborg. .1978-1979. Mycenaean Achaea,
Goteborg. . 1991. "Achaea'sRole in the MycenaeanWorld,"in Rizakis 1991,pp.31-37. Papadopoulos,T. J., and R. E. Jones. 1980. "Rhodiakain Achaea,"OpAth 13,pp.225-235. Papagiannopoulos,K. B. 1990. EpeUova "'Etiqcpaveoaxra&poX(XoXoytx1 aocVTveploXo 'AXtocb-OepLtcvoU K. N. 'Axia';," in T6do,s Tt,rl7-rx6&s Tptarvrdcpu.ou, Patras, pp. 539554. Papakosta, L. 1990. "ALYLo,"ArchDelt
40, 1985, B'1 [1990], pp. 120-123. .1991. "TnIpawrp]io?;G oXcStLXa
a TOUapXOaiou [IE TYv To07oypOacP Aty?oo,"in Rizakis 1991, pp. 235240.
MAGNA ACHAEA Papapostolou,I. A. 1982. "'Avaaoxacpy &atoq-atlc, 6C?-poyx?(ot?Tptxou Prakt1982, PaxiTaIIavaXOaxob," pp.187-188. Papazoglou-Manioudaki,L. 1989. "Aiylo,"ArchDelt39, 1984, B'1 [1989], pp. 394-398. . 1993. "Eicriyl~v-xepaltlxYq tcpous; -Sq oToUb; tiuxlvaoixobu; IIa'rpca,"in WaceandBlegen:Pottery as EvidenceforTradein theAegean BronzeAge,1939-1989, C. Zerner, P. Zerner,andJ. Winder, eds., Amsterdam,pp. 209-215. Pedley,J. G. 1990. Paestum:Greeksand Romansin SouthernItaly, New York. Pelagatti,P. 1982. "Ipiiuantichi materialidi importazionea Siracusa, a Naxos, e in altri siti della Sicilia Orientale,"in La ceramique grecque ou de traditiongrecqueau VIII siecle en Italie centraleet meridionale (Cahiersdu CentreJean B6rard3), Naples, pp. 113-180. . 1984. "Siracusa:Gli ultimi scavi a Ortigia,"ASAtene60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 117-163. . 1984-1985. "Naxos(Messina): Gli scavi extraurbanioltre il Santa Venera,"NSc 1984-1985, pp. 253497. Pellegrini,G. 1903. "Tombegreche arcaichee tomba greco-sanniticaa tholos della necropolidi Cuma," MonAnt 13, cols. 201-294. II = Perachora Perachora II: Pottery, Ivories,Scarabs,and OtherObjects from the VotiveDepositof Hera Limenia,T.J. Dunbabin, ed., Oxford 1962. Peroni, R. 1979. "Primepresenza micenee in Calabria,"Magna Grecia 14 (fasc. 11-12), pp. 1-2. ,ed. 1984a. Ricerchesulla protostoriadellaSibaritide3, Rome. sulla , ed. 1984b. Nuovi ricerche protostoriadellaSibaritide,Rome. Perret,J. 1941. Siris:Recherches critiques surl'histoirede la Siritideavant 433/ 2, Paris. Peruzzi,E. 1980. Mycenaeansin Early Latium(with an archaeological appendixby L. Vagnetti)(IncunabulaGraeca75), Rome. Petropoulos,M. 1985. "ToTcoypopLtxa p6pacc;'Apxao8ac,"Horos3, pp. 63-73. .1987-1988.
"Tp&il avaao-
xapLtx 7Tc?pio8o;o-r6"AvO MaOa-
in Actsof the paxl (Paxt'cx)'AxaTraq," ThirdInternationalCongressof Studies,Kalamata,8Peloponnesian 15 September 1985 (Peloponnesiaka Suppl. 13), Athens, pp. 81-96. 1990. "'ApxailoXoylx?s; PeuVS; oaqv 'Axa a," in T61oqTt7-lctxbo K. N. TpwavrdrpovUov, Patras, pp.495-538. 1991. "Totooypa(cpltxd vq -cv Hacxp?&v," in Rizakis Xcopaq; 1991, pp.249-258. 1992-1993. "IIepi7Trepo &dqltSoS;vca6;Ta6"Avo)MacapOxt (Paxirc) HIaTpov,"in Actsof the FourthInternationalCongressof Studies,Korinth,9-16 Peloponnesian 1990 (Peloponnesiaka September Suppl. 19), Athens, pp. 141-158. 1996-1997. "Nc-cT?pa oroiXac &aTCo TYVOvaOCxaOpXq yE&eoExptLxo0
vaoour6 "AvcoMacaptax (Paxira) IIaxtpov,"in Actsof theFifth InternationalCongressof PeloponnesianStudies,Argos-Nauplia, 6-10 September 1995,(Peloponnesiaka Suppl.22), vol. 2, pp. 165-192. Petropoulos,M., and A. Rizakis.1994. "SettlementPatternsand Landscape in the CoastalArea of Patras: PreliminaryReport,"JRA7, pp. 183-207. ArchDelt26, Petsas,Ph. 1974. "A'yLov," B'1 175-185. 1971, [1974], pp. Pfaff, C. A. 1999. "The EarlyIron Age Potteryfrom the Sanctuaryof Demeter and Kore at Corinth," Hesperia68, pp. 55-134. Pfuhl, E. 1903. "Der archaische Friedhofam Stadtbergevon Thera," AM 28, pp. 1-290. Pharaklas, N. 1998. "EAx-L:H (puolxil xaoLY1-ToXLTLXq in xXraTa360Lcl,"
Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp. 210234. Philipp, H. 1994. "Olympia,die Peloponnes,und die Westgriechen," JdI109, pp. 77-92. Pieridou,A. 1973. O rpotzoycEtWEAthens. zrptxo6 puOi6; gEv K6rpcqo, PithekoussaiI = G. Buchnerand D. Ridgway,Pithekoussai I: La Tombe 1-723 scavate dal necropoli. 1952 a 1961, Rome 1993. Popham,M. R. 1983. "Why Euboea?" ASAtene59, 1981 [1983] (n.s. 43), pp.237-239.
457 Poseidonia-Paestum I = E. Greco and D. Theodorescu, La "Curia," Rome 1980. II = E. Greco and D. Theodorescu, LAgora,Rome 1983. III = E. Greco and D. Theodorescu, ForumNord,Rome 1987. Powell, B. B. 1991. Homerand the Origin of the GreekAlphabet,Cambridge. Prayon,F. 1998. "Ph6nikerund Etrusker:Zur Goldlaminierungin der friihetruskischenKunst,"in Studienin KontaktArchdologischen zonenderantikenWelt(Ver6ffentlichungen derJoachimJungiusGesellschaftderWissenschaften 87), R. Rolle, K. Schmidt, and R. Docter, eds., Hamburg,pp. 330341. Pugliese Carratelli,G. 1965-1966. "La dedica di Kleombrotose le sigle prepostea nomi in epigrafiitaliote," AttiMGrecia6-7, pp. 209-214. , ed. 1996. The WesternGreeks (Exhibition catalogue,Palazzo Grassi,Venetia),Venice. Purcell,N. 1990. "Mobilityand the polis,"in TheGreekCityfrom HomertoAlexander,O. Murray and S. Price, eds., Oxford,pp. 2958. 1997. Review of TheArchaeologyof GreekColonisation,G.R.Tsetskhladze and F. de Angelis, eds., Antiquity71, pp. 500-502. Quagliati,Q, and D. Ridola. 1906. "Necropoliarcaicaad incinerazione pressoTimmari nel Materano," MonAnt16, cols. 5-166. Rainey,F. G., and C. M. Lerici, eds. 1967. TheSearchforSybaris:19601965, Rome. Randall-MacIver,D. 1924. Villanovans and EarlyEtruscans: A Studyof the Iron in Early Age Italy as It Is Seen nearBologna,in Etruria,and in Latium,Oxford. . 1928. ItalybeforetheRomans, Oxford. . 1931. GreekCitiesin Italyand Sicily,Oxford. Ridgway,D. 1990. "The FirstWestern Greeks andTheir Neighbours, 19351985,"in Descoeudres1990, pp. 6172. .1992. TheFirst WesternGreeks, Cambridge.
458 Ridgway,D., and E R. SerraRidgway. 1992. "Sardiniaand History,"in Sardiniain theMediterranean: A Footprintin the Sea, R. H. Tykot andT. K. Andrews,eds., Sheffield, pp.355-363. Rizakis,A. D., ed. 1991.Achaiaund Elis in derAntike(Meletemata13), Athens. .1992. Paysagesd'AchaieI: Le bassindu Peiroset laplaine occidentale (Meletemata15), Athens. . 1995. AchaieI: Sourcestextuelles et histoireregionale(Meletemata20), Athens. Rizza, G. 1982. Scavinellenecropolidi Leontini(1977-1982) (CronCatania 21), Catania. Robertson,M. (with W. A. Heurtley). 1948. "Excavationsin Ithaca,V:The Geometric and Later Finds from Aetos,"BSA 43, pp. 1-124. Rohde, E. 1964. CVADeutschland, DeutscheDemokratische Republik24: GothaSchlossmuseum 1, Berlin. Sabbione,C. 1983. "Reggioe Metauros nell'VIIIe VII sec. a.C.,"ASAtene 59, 1981 [1983] (n.s. 43), pp. 275289. 1984. "Le areadi colonizzazione di Crotone e Locri Epizefiri nell'VIIIe VII sec. a.C.,"ASAtene 60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 251299. Sagona,C. 1996-1997. "PunicPottery from Malta Held in Two Australian Collections,"MeditArch 9-10, pp. 29-52. Schauer,C. 1992-1993. "TpiaXaXxvoa &ao -iJv 'OXUopiuL,"in XLovTrapLa
Actsof theFourthInternational Studies, CongressofPeloponnesian 1990 Korinth,9-16 September (Peloponnesiaka Suppl. 19), Athens, pp.37-48.
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
1997. 'Evvrlocra Ceramica greca e societanel Salentoarcaico,Lecce. Settis, S. 1987. Archeologiain Calabria: Figure e termi, Rome.
Severino,C. G. 1988. Le citta nella storia d'Italia: Crotone, Rome.
Shapiro,H. A., C. A. Pic6n, and G. D. Scott III. 1995. GreekVasesin the SanAntonioMuseumofArt, San Antonio. Shepherd,G. 1995. "The Pride of Most Colonials:Burialand Religion in the Sicilian Colonies,"in Ancient Sicily(Acta Hyperborea6), T. Fischer-Hansen,ed., Copenhagen, pp.51-82. Sherratt,A., and S. Sherratt.1993."The Growth of the MediterraneanEconomy in the Early First Millennium B.C.,"WorldArch 24, pp. 361-378. Sibari I = SibariI: Saggidi scavoal Parcodel Cavallo(NSc23, Suppl.), Rome 1969. II = SibariII: Scavial Parcodel Cavallo(1960-1962; 19691970) e agli Stombi(1969-1970) (NSc24, Suppl.3), Rome 1970. III = SibariIII: Rapportopreliminare dellacampagnadi scavo:Stombi, CasaBianca,Parcodel Cavallo, SanMauro(1971) (NSc26, Suppl.), Rome 1972. IV = Sibari IV: Relazionepreliminare
dellacampagnadi scavo:Stombi, Parcodel Cavallo,Prolungamento Strada,CasaBianca(1972) (NSc 28, Suppl.), Rome 1974. V = Sibari V: Relazionepreliminare
dellacampagnedi scavo1973 (Parcodel Cavallo;CasaBianca)e 1974 (Stombi;Incrocio;Parcodel Cavallo;Prolungamento Strada; CasaBianca)(NSc42-43, Suppl. 3), Rome 1992.
1996-1997. "K?poqitxki&OrC Tor oCTOb rpo 'Ap-rT?zto; &apXix6 x?p6 Q Aoooob;," in Acts of the Fifth
Smith, T. R. 1987. Mycenaean Trade
InternationalCongressof Pelopon-
(BAR-IS 371), Oxford. Snodgrass,A. M. 1971. TheDarkAgeof
nesian Studies, Argos-Nauplia, 6-10
1995 (Peloponnesiaka September vol. 2, pp. 257-271. 22), Suppl. Semeraro,G. 1996. "Le produzioni ceramichearcaiche:Ceramica geometricaed orientalizzante,"in I Greciin Occidente:Arte e artigianato in Magna Graecia,E. Lippolis, ed., Naples, pp. 269-279.
and Interactionin the WestCentral Mediterranean, 1600-1000 B.c.
Greece:An ArchaeologicalSurvey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries B.C.,
Edinburgh.
Soter,S., and D. Katsonopoulou.1998. "The Searchfor Ancient Helike, 1988-1995: Geological, Sonar,and Bore Hole Studies,"in Katsonopoulou et al. 1998, pp. 69-116.
Spadea,R., ed. 1996. Il tesorodi Hera: Scopertenelsantuariodi Hera Laciniaa CapoColonnadi Crotone, Milan. Stavropoulou-Gatsi,M. 1986. V?XpOTaX(p?lO "npcOToy?xoL?TCpLx AircoXicxa,"ArchDelt 35, 1980, A'1 [1986], pp. 102-130. Stazio,A. 1983. "Monetae scambiin Magna Grecia,"in MegaleHellas. Storiae civiltadellaMagna Grecia, G. Pugliese Carratelli,ed., Milan, pp. 105-169. . 1987. "Monetazionedelle 'poleis'greche e monetazionedegli 'ethne'indigeni,"in Magna Grecia: Lo sviluppopolitico,sociale,ed G. Pugliese Carratelli, economico, ed., Milan, pp. 151-172. 1998. "Qualcheosservazione su origine e funzioni della piu antica monetazionedelle colonie achee in Occidente,"in Katsonopoulouet al. 1998, pp. 371-380. Stea, G. 1991. "Laceramicagrigia del VII secolo a.C. dall'Incoronatadi Metaponto,"MEFRA 103, pp. 405442. Stibbe, C. M. 1989. LakonianMixing Bowls: A History of the Krater
the Seventhto the Lakonikosfrom Fifth Century B.c., Amsterdam.
Stoop, M. W. 1964. "Heraionalla foce del Sele, II: La rampadel Tempio 5, pp. 97Maggiore,"AttiMGrecia 108. .1979. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),1-2," BABesch54, pp. 7797. 1980. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),3,"BABesch55:2, pp.163-189. .1982. "APuzzling'Plate,"' BABesch57, pp. 141-146. 1983. "Note sugli scavinel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),4,"BABesch58, pp. 1652. 1985. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),5: Una base di recinto," BABesch60, pp. 4-12.
MAGNA
. 1987. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),7: Oggetti di bronzo vari (animali,ornamentipersonali,armi, varia),"BABesch62, pp. 21-31. . 1988. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),8:I1 materialeprotocorinzio-una scelta,"BABesch 63, pp. 77-102. . 1989. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),9: La ceramicaattica," BABesch64, pp. 50-60. . 1990. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),10: I1materialecorinzio-una prima selezione,"BABesch 65,pp.29-43. . 1991. "Dish or Votive Shield?" BABesch66, pp. 165-167. Stoop, M. W., and G. Pugliese Carratelli. 1965-1966. "Tabellacon iscrizionearcaica,"AttiMGrecia6-7, pp. 14-21. Stoop, M. W., and P. Zancani Montuoro. 1970-1971. "Francavilla Marittima,B: Santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta," AttiMGrecia11-12, pp. 37-74. Taranto= Tarantonellaciviltadella Magna Grecia:Attideldecimo convegnodi studisullaMagna Grecia, Taranto,4-11 ottobre1970, Naples 1971. Taylour,W. 1958. MycenaeanPotteryin ItalyandAdjacentAreas,Cambridge. Themelis, P. G. 1967. "Aoxtyxaoctxh avacxaoc(pqetS ztV lX?OtaCXV H6Xov," ArchDelt 20, 1965, B'2 [1967],
pp.214-219. 1984. "AeXcpol xati rEQpLoTOV 80 xai 70 T.X. alcova(Ocoxi&a, 8uTIxn Aoxpoar),"ASAtene61, 1983 [1984] (n.s. 45), pp. 213-255. Tine, S., and L. Vagnetti.1967. I miceneiin Italia (Exhibition catalogue,TarantoNational Museum), Fasano. Tiryns I = A. Frickenhaus, Tiryns. Die Ergebnisse derAusgrabungen I.1: Die Hera von Tiryns, Athens 1912.
TocraI = J. BoardmanandJ. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra,1963-1965:
ACHAEA
TheArchaicDepositsI (BSA Suppl. 4), Oxford 1966. TocraII = J. BoardmanandJ. Hayes, Excavationsat Tocra,1963-1965: TheArchaicDepositsII (BSA Suppl. 10), Oxford 1973. Tomay,L., P.Munzi, and M. Gentile. 1996. "Santuariarcaicidella Sibaritide:Ceramichedi produzione locale,"in I Greciin Occidente: SantuaridellaMagna Graeciain Calabria,E. Lattanziet al., eds., Naples, pp. 213-220. Treziny,H. 1989. KauloniaI: Sondages surlafortificationnord(1982-1985) (Cahiersdu CentreJean Berard13), Naples. Vagnetti,L. 1970. "I micenei in Italia: La documentazionearcheologica," PP 25, pp. 359-380. . 1980. "MycenaeanImportsin CentralItaly,"Appendix II in Peruzzi 1980, pp. 151-167. ,ed. 1982. Magnagreciae mondo miceneo: Nuovi documenti(Exhibition catalogue,TarantoNational Museum),Taranto. 1989. "ASardinianAskos from Crete,"BSA 84, pp. 355-360. . 1993. "MycenaeanPotteryin Italy:Fifty Yearsof Study,"in Wace and Blegen:Potteryas Evidencefor Tradein theAegeanBronzeAge, 1939-1989, C. Zerner,P. Zerner, andJ. Winder, eds., Amsterdam, pp. 143-154. . 1999. "MycenaeanPotteryin the CentralMediterranean:Imports and Local Productionin Their Context,"in Crielaardet al. 1999, pp.137-161. Vagnetti,L., and R. E.Jones. 1988. "Towardsthe Identificationof Local MycenaeanPotteryin Italy," in Problemsin GreekPrehistory: PapersPresentedat the Centenary Conference of theBritishSchoolat Athens,Manchester1986, E. French and K. A. Wardle,eds., Bristol, pp.335-348. Vagnetti,L., and F. Lo Schiavo.1989. "LateBronze Age Long Distance Tradein the Mediterranean: The Role of the Cypriots,"in Early Societyin Cyprus,E. Peltenburg,ed., Edinburgh,pp. 217-243. Vallet,G. 1984. "Bilandes recherchesa Megara Hyblaea,"ASAtene60, 1982
459 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 173-182. . 1991. "MegaraIblea,"in Nenci and Vallet 1991, vol. 9, pp. 511534. Vallet,G., and F. Villard.1952. "Les dates de fondation de Megara Hyblaeaet de Syracuse,"BCH 76, pp.289-346. Valmin,M. N. 1938. TheSwedish MesseniaExpedition,Lund. Vatin,C. 1969. MedeondePhocide: Paris. Rapportprovisoire, Vermeule,E. T. 1960. "The Mycenaeansin Achaia,"AJA64, pp. 1-21. Villard,F. 1982. "Laceramique geometriqueimportee de Megara Hyblaea,"in La ceramique grecqueou de traditiongrecqueau VIII siecleen Italie centraleet meridionale(Cahiers du CentreJean Berard3), Naples, pp.181-185. Vokotopoulou,I. 1971. "Ilpcooyeoo [l-rptxa yyeia Ex T;g rpmio TOD 'Ayptvou,"ArchDelt24, 1969, A' [1971], pp. 74-94. . 1984. "'H"HX?cpo;o-6v 80 xal 7o axtva mT.X.,"ASAtene 60, 1982 [1984] (n.s. 44), pp. 77-100. . 1985. "LaMacedoine de la protohistoirea l'fpoque archaique," in Magna Grecia,Epiro,e Macedonia: Atti del ventiquattresimo convegnodi studisullaMagna Grecia,Taranto,510 ottobre1984, Taranto1985, pp. 133-166. 1986. Bi'-oa: Ta vexpojx x4Y)r, cacpqdatia; Poaxoaaoo
Athens. Wace, A. J. B., and F. W. Hasluck. 1904-1905. "LaconiaI: Excavations nearAngelona,"BSA 11, pp. 8190. Waterhouse,H. 1996. "FromIthaca to the Odyssey," BSA 91, pp. 301-317. Wells, B., G. Ekroth, and K. Holmgren. 1996. "The BerbatiValley Project:The 1994 Season,"OpAth 21, pp. 189-209. the Wescoat, B. D., ed. 1989. Syracuse, FairestGreekCity:AncientArtfrom theMuseoArcheologico Regionale "PaoloOrsi," Rome.
Whitehouse, R. 1973. "The Earliest Towns in PeninsularItaly,"in The Explanationof CultureChange: Modelsin Prehistory,C. Renfrew, ed., London, pp. 617-624.
460
JOHN
Williams, C. K., II. 1983. "ASurveyof Potteryfrom Corinth from 730 to
A: Necropoli I. Tre notabilienotrii dell'VIIIsec. a.C.,"AttiMGrecia 15-17, pp. 9-116. . 1979. "Francavilla Marittima,A: di Macchiabate. Necropoli Saggi e scopertein zone varie,"AttiMGrecia 18-20, pp. 7-91. . 1980-1982. "Francavilla Marittima,A: Necropoli e ceramico a MacchiabateZona T. (Temporella),"AttiMGrecia 21-23, pp. 7129. Zancani Montuoro, P., and U. ZanottiBianco. 1937. "Capaccio:Heraion alla foce del Sele (relazionepre-liminare)," NSc 1937, pp. 206-354. .1951. Heraionalla Focedel SeleI: I santuario,il tempiodelladea,rilievi figurati varii, Rome. .1954. Heraionalla Focedel SeleII: Rome. "Ilprimothesauros," Zapheiropoulos,N. S. 1952. "'Avxacccp-
600 B.C.,"ASAtene59,1981 [1983]
(n.s. 43), pp. 139-155. .1986. "Corinthand the Cult of Aphrodite,"in Corinthiaca: Studiesin HonorofDarrellA.Amyx, M. A. Del Chiaro,ed., Columbia, Mo., pp. 12-24. Wuilleumier,P. 1939. Tarentedes originesa la conqueteromaine,Paris. Yntema, D. 1985. "Note sugli scavi nel santuariodi Atena sul Timpone della Motta (FrancavillaMarittimaCalabria),6: Iron Age Matt-Painted CeramicsfromTimpone della Motta,"BABesch60, pp. 13-23. ZancaniMontuoro, P. 1964. "Heraion alla foce del Sele, I: Altre metope del 'PrimoThesauros,"'AttiMGrecia 5,pp.57-95. . 1965-1966. "L'edificio quadratonello Heraion alla foce del Sele,"AttiMGrecia6-7, pp. 23-195. . 1970-1971. "Francavilla Marittima,A: Necropoli di Macchiabate.Coppa di bronzo sbalzata,"AttiMGrecia11-12, pp. 9-36. .1976. "Francavilla Marittima,
LxacL (Dapc6v Speuval ?l; TCepLpeQpeLav
Prakt1952, pp. 396-412. 'AXoata';," 1956. "'Avaoxaccpxai eiS repevaLt 7T?pL(Q?p?Lav
DEPARTMENT THE A2IO LOS
COTSEN
OF CALIFORNIA, OF CLASSICS INSTITUTE
de bronze dans l'art geometriquegrec,
Mainz.
LOS
ANGELES
AND OF ARCHAEOLOGY
FOWLER ANGELES,
CALIFORNIA
(OIap6v'AxCata;,"Prakt
1956, pp. 193-201. Zimmermann,J.-L. 1989. Les chevaux
JohnK. Papadopoulos UNIVERSITY
K. PAPADOPOULOS
90095-I5IO
HESPERIA
70
(200I)
Pages 461-492
ICONOGRAPHY AN OF A
D
THE
DYNAMIICS
PATRONAG E SARCOPHAGUS
FAMILY
FROM
OF HERODES
THE
ATTICUS
ABSTRACT A sarcophagusfrom the estate of Herodes Atticus in Kephisia commemoratesthe intimate connections of the familywith the city of Sparta,the Battle ofMarathon, and the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous.The iconographic allusions to Marathon also reflect the prioritiesof the Second Sophistic, an intellectualmovement that appealedto the past to establishculturaland political superiority.The unusualand meaningfuldecorativeprogramsuggests that the familycommissionedthis sarcophagus.The earlierview that the more unusual Attic sarcophagiwere prefabricated,but that their themes simply provedunpopular,should be modified in light of this study.
INTRODUCTION In September of 1866,duringtheconstruction of a housein theKephisia suburbof Athens,workersdiscovered a marbleburialchamber, roughly hadlongsinceplundered thechamber, squarein plan.1Robbers removing the deceased and most of the portable possessions. In 1866, the significant remaining artifacts included four carved marble sarcophagi and only a
handfulof smallobjects.2 Otto Benndorf, whowrotethe firstcomplete of the chamber and its wasalsothe firstto suggest contents, description 1. I thank the Universityof Michigan for supportthat allowedme to undertakepreliminaryresearchin Athens for this article;and the College of the Holy Cross both for funds to purchasephotographsand for a leave of absencethat allowed me to continue my work. I am gratefulto Elaine Gazda, Mark Landon, Kenneth Lapatin, and MirandaMarvin for their comments on earlydraftsof this article and for their graciouslyofferedinsights and criticisms;and to Thomas Martin
and Neel Smith for discussingwith me some of the ideas presentedhere. Photographswere kindly providedby Jan Sanders;the British Museum;the Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Rome; the Greek ArchaeologicalService;and the KunsthistorischesMuseum, Vienna. Permissionto reproducedrawingswas generouslygrantedby MarinaBelozerskaya(Fig. 15) and the Deutsches Archiologisches Institut,Athens (Fig. 16). 2. All four sarcophagi,including the so-called Leda sarcophagusconsideredin
this study,still stand in the tomb today.Crampedspace in the tomb makesit difficult to providea complete photographicrecord.I thereforerefer in many instancesto the line drawings of the Leda sarcophagusproducedby Robert (1890, pl. III and p. 9), which have been used in most subsequent scholarship(Figs. 1 and 5 here, respectively). Benndorf (1868, p. 40) mentions that a green glass vessel (Gefass)without handles and a possible bronze mirror were also found in the tomb.
ELLEN
462
E. PERRY
that the structurebelonged to the family of the famous 2nd-century A.C. sophist-millionaire, Herodes Atticus. At the time of Benndorf's writing, the evidence to supportthis attributionwas meager.Philostratusand Aulus Gellius both indicate that Herodes owned a villa in Kephisia (Philostr. VS 2.562; Aul. Gell. 1.2.1-2), but these testimonia and a few additional artifacts only placed Herodes in the general neighborhood. Since then, however, a number of archaeological discoveries, including portraits and inscriptions, have confirmed not only Herodes' presence in Kephisia but, more specifically,his ownership of land in the immediate neighborhood of the tomb.3 An inscription found built into the nearbyChurch ofHagia Paraskevi identifies this tomb with the family. It records the recent loss of an unnamed infant child of Herodes. The text of the inscription indicates that other children of his had alreadydied:
Figure1 (opposite). Drawingof the LedasarcophagusfromKephisia. Front(top),left andrightsides (center), back (bottom). Robert1890, pl. III
o6 TrcvToc EvtoxucOv 'Hp(0rl8g,o' T-cf?v x6Oprlv, o6T?Ex6Orlv OpgOCq oiT: e ?oCotoctaO cptov TpLTTC yaoi;, JLY]vi XE?tiLp, OT6OX6OeOCL0jXOCaTO 'HpcS06ls 6&6oa cr T oU(OVT tVo' Lov
axpa C)v
x6orlS 86axpovo' Xalg TpLOai, )g 3;
T? o&)[aX
6XECo0'v 0lqxaLtgil?-CT'pOLO7cXTp6;.
Herodes set in the depths of the earth this his lock of hair, Having dampened the tips of the hair with his tears, When for less than the cycle of a year He had neither grown his hair nor rearedyou, dear son, For he cut this lock in the third month. May it be a true token to you three children'ssouls That you will someday receive among the coffins the body of your father.4 Jennifer Tobin notes that the block on which this inscription was found is similar in thickness and treatment to the blocks from the dromos of the Kephisia tomb.5This observation supports the identification of the structure as the resting place for several of Herodes' children. The four sarcophagiin the Kephisia tomb date to the Antonine period and are therefore consistent with Herodes' dates.6One sarcophagushas no figural decoration, while common sepulchral motifs adorn two others: garlands on one, and Erotes on the other. The fourth box, known as the Leda sarcophagus,depicts a theme that is unusualon sarcophagi,the family of Helen ofTroy (Fig. 1).This particularcoffin presents a rareopportunity to examine the dynamics of art patronage in the 2nd century, precisely because it has been convincinglyattributedto a "private"(i.e., non-imperial) but famous family. Guntram Koch suggests that this sarcophagus,like many,was prefabricated. Because the theme is unusual, however, he also conjecturesthat its decorative program was a market failure, and that this and other anomalous themes were quickly eliminated from the funerary repertoire when they proved unpopular.7The iconography of this coffin, however, alludes
3. Tobin (1997, pp. 211-239, fig. 42) has thoroughlydocumentedthe archaeologicalevidencefor Herodes'presence in Kephisia. 4. SEG XXVI 290 (= Ameling 1983, II, pp. 143-146, no. 140). See Tobin 1997, p. 225, where this translationis creditedto M. B. Richardson. 5. Tobin 1997, p. 225. 6. Benndorf 1868, p. 40; Tschira 1948-1949, col. 86. 7. Koch and Sichtermann1982, pp. 460-461, where Koch also cites (ns. 28-30, 32) other examplesof anomalous pieces from this period:a Dionysiac sarcophagusnearthe Hephaisteionin Athens; one with centaursin the National Museum (NM 1184); one with Erotes in Thessaloniki (ThessalonikiMuseum 1248); and two cineraryurns,one in Athens and one in Patras.
463
ELLEN
464
E. PERRY
Figure2. Rightside of sarcophagus, showingdetailof Eros.The gabled lid does not belongto the sarcophagus. Photo author,reproducedwith permissionof the GreekArchaeological Service
to specific connections that the family of Herodes enjoyed both with the city of Sparta and with the deme of Marathon. In this case, the sarcophagus was clearly not prefabricated,but commissioned, and its decorative program was part of a self-conscious mythmaking that celebrated family identity.8The decoration may,more specifically,commemorate the coffin's occupants-Herodes' daughter, Elpinike, whose very name is an allusion to Marathon; and perhaps her husband, L. Vibullius Hipparchus, about whom we know little, but who is likely to have been a kinsman of Herodes.
THE
LEDA
SARCOPHAGUS
The Leda sarcophagusis of the kline type, with its original lid in the form of one or, more probably,two figures reclining on a couch. The pitchedroof lid that rests on the box at present (Fig. 2) does not, therefore,belong to it, but to one of the other sarcophagi in the tomb. That this is a kline sarcophagus is clear from a long, narrow rectangle set into the right side of the upper molding on the front (Fig. 1, upper right; Fig. 3, upper left). A corresponding inset probably appearedon the left side of the molding,
8. Similarly,Ewald (1999, esp. pp. 79, 129-130), in a study of intellectual activitiesas representedon sarcophagi,suggests that unusual iconographiesreflectthe particular interestsof the deceased.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
465
Figure3. Caryatidon rightfront cornerof sarcophagusand detailof inset rectangle(upperleft). Photo
author,reproducedwith permissionof the Greek ArchaeologicalService
9. Robert 1890, p. 9; Wrede 1977,
p. 428.Forexamplesof suchinsetson bronzecouchframes,see Richter1966, p. 106,aswellasfig.530 (a couchfrom Boscoreale,now in the Staatliche Museen, Berlin, inv. 890J) and fig. 532
(a couchfromPompeii,nowin the
National Museum, Naples, inv. 78614). 10. Wiegartz 1975, p. 188.
but damage to the stone in this area has destroyed any trace of it. Such rectangularinsets often decorated the frames of ancient couches, and thus it is not surprisingto find them represented on kline sarcophagiand kline monuments (e.g., Fig. 4).9These insets appearespecially frequently on the earliest Attic kline sarcophagi, supporting an early date for the example from Kephisia.10 On the left end of the box in question, Leda is depicted struggling with a swan (Fig. 1). She is nude, in profile, and faces left. She wears a "melon hairstyle" (melonenfrisur), and the bun in back sits high on the crown of her head. She clutches a cloth with her right hand, apparentlyin an attempt to cover herself. She bends slightly at the knees, perhaps with the effort of struggling against the swan, and raises her left heel off the ground. Her right leg is not visible; we are presumably to think of it as obscured by the left leg. With one arm Leda holds the swan off, but his sinuous neck writhes toward her mouth in an attempted kiss. The swan is enormous, with a torso slightly larger than Leda's own. He is shown in midair,with his wings fully outspread,the left wing extending behind Leda as if to embrace her. He has the talons of a bird of prey ratherthan webbed feet, and with them he clutches the cloth. These talons, presumably
ELLEN
466
E. PERRY
those of an eagle, serve as a reminder that this is no ordinary swan, but Zeus himself. On the right side of the sarcophagus,Eros strings his bow (Figs. 1-2). He is clearly a thematic companion to Leda and the swan." His bow and wings, the outlines of which are still apparent,were removed with a chisel or some similarimplement, possibly because they were gilded or otherwise completed in metal. The tomb robbers, at any rate, appear to have removed metal attachments from the sarcophagus and damaged it in other ways.
Figure4. Klinemonumentshowing inset rectangles(belowmattressat headandfoot). Rome,Museo NazionaledelleTerme,NM 72879. CourtesyDeutsches Archaologisches Institut, Rome, neg. 80.2707
12
On the front of the box stand the Dioskouroi, flanking their sister, Helen. She and her brother Polydeukes were, of course, the offspring of Leda's union with Zeus and so, taken together, the front and sides form a coherent programrelated to the royal house of Sparta.The Dioskouroi are nude, except for the chlamys that each wears pinned at the shoulder.The left arm of the left figure hangs down, grasping the hilt of a short sword, while he raises his right arm, which is bent at the elbow. A hollow in his right hand indicates that he once held a metal spear. He rests his weight on his right leg and his head turns to the proper left, that is, toward the center of the composition, where Helen stands. His twin on the right side of the composition is almost a mirror image. The only divergence from strict,bilateralsymmetry is the fact that both Dioskouroi wear the chlamys pinned at the right shoulder.Helen wears a sleeved chiton and a himation loosely draped around her shoulders, crossing in front and then wrapped
11. Indeed, severalknown versions of Leda strugglingwith the swan depict Eros either encouragingor physically helping the swan:Wiegartz 1983, pp. 173-174. 12. For removalof the spearsfrom the hands of the Dioskouroi,see below.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
467
aroundherleft arm.In herleft handshe holdsa fruit,possiblyan appleor a pomegranate.Her postureis generallyfrontalbut herheadinclinesvery slightlyto the left. The frontand sidesof this sarcophagushavebeen interpretedas depictionsin reliefof individualClassicalsculpturesin the round,orashaving This impressionderives,in been stronglyinfluencedby suchsculptures.13 Thereis no indicationof of the decoration. the formal character from part, or landscapesettingon the frontor sides;the backgroundis architectural blank.The individualfiguresline up on a frontalplaneand standisolated from one another.They do not make eye contact or acknowledgeone another'spresencein any way.Iconographicanalysisof the antecedents for thesefigures(seebelow,pp.471-483) demonstratesthat most do not, in fact,reproducesculpturesin the round,althoughthey certainlyappear to do so to moderneyes. Sketchy,roughlycarvedfiguresof a Tritonand Nereid decoratethe back(Fig.1).TheNereidrideson the tailof theTriton,andthe twotogether field.As a result,thesefiguresdo not occupymost of the representational havethe statuesquequalityof those on the otherthreesides.The Triton, whose snakytail spreadsout over almostthe entirelength of the relief, holds a skyphosin his left hand and an oar in his right.The seminude Nereidgraspsa garmentthat billowsoverher head in an arc.The entire moldingthatresembles by a simple,rectangular compositionis surrounded a modernpictureframe.This is an odd scene,whichseemsto havelittleto do thematicallywith the restof the decorativeprogram.It is not, however, uncommonto find apparentlyincongruousthemeson the backsof Attic sarcophagi.14
Marinethiasoioften appearon the mattressesof Attic klinelids, and Nereids,in particular,servedin ancient probablyalludeto the afterlife.15 artas escortsthroughthe liminalphasesof life,includingthe passagefrom this worldto the next.16Nevertheless,the locationof this marinethiasos, on the bodyof the coffinitself,is unusualin the Attic repertoire. Caryatidsstand at the four cornersof the sarcophagus(Figs. 1-3). the stackedfoldsof the himatia,arestandard Theirgarments,particularly on archaizingsculptureof the Romanperiod.l7These figuresstandwith their feet together,one hand hanging at the side and the other resting acrossthe breast.(Two of the caryatidshavetheirright armsbent while the othertwo bendtheirleft arms.)Theirhairis partedin the middleand corkscrewlocks fall to their shoulders.Their kalathoitouch the upper molding and emphasizethe figures'functionas architectonicsupports. The soclesor statuebasesthatprojectat eachof the fourcornersactin the sameway. 13. Benndorf 1868, p. 38: "zum Theil noch nachweisbareReproductionenvon einzelnen Statuensind"; Robert 1890, p. 10: "sollenwohl gerade als Copien beriihmterWerkewirken." Tobin (1997, p. 223) rightly states the natureof the relationshipmore tentatively,characterizingthe figureson the
sarcophagusas "stronglyinfluencedby freestandingsculpture." 14. Koch and Sichtermann1982, pp. 376-377. Brilliant(1984, p. 126), writing of sarcophagiin general,posits that the rearrelief often "fluctuated between an implied dependencyon the front and an apparentautonomy."
15. For marine thiasoion the lids of kline sarcophagi,see Koch and Sichtermann 1982, p. 422. 16. Barringer(1995) analyzesthis iconographyin detail and dates it back to the Archaic and Classicalperiods. 17. Fullerton1990; Zagdoun 1989, passim.
468
ELLEN
E. PERRY
Figure5. Drawingof a marbletorso of a female,foundin the Kephisia tomb. Robert1890,p. 9
When the workersclearedthe tomb in 1866, they discoveredthe marble torso of a reclining figure, now missing.18This figure was clearly part of the original lid. Carl Robert described the torso as representing a female, and illustrated it in his publication of the piece (Fig. 5).19He also suggested that the coffin was large enough to hold a marriedcouple.20Indeed, early in the development of the Attic kline sarcophagus,when this piece was apparentlyproduced,portraitsof reclining marriedcouples were standard lid decoration, at least on sarcophagiintended for adults;other compositions-for example,an individualreclining alone, or a pair ofwomenwere exceptional.21The evidence suggests, therefore, that one woman or, more probably,a married couple, occupied the Kephisia sarcophagus.
CONTEXT: THE CITY OF SPARTA HISTORICAL AND THE FAMILY OF HERODES The history and aspirations of Herodes' family provide the best explanation for the decorative program of the three finished sides. In particular, this program commemorates the family's association both with the city of Sparta and with the deme and Battle of Marathon. Although Herodes' ties to Marathon have long been known, the close association of this Athenian family with Sparta has only been fully recognized in recent years. A series of articles by Antony Spawforth has now demonstrated the existence of this significant relationship,attested largelyin inscriptions.22Some of the evidence is as follows: an inscription from Sparta records the erection in that city of a statue in honor of Herodes' grandfather,who was apparentlya benefactorof two brothersfrom Sparta.23In addition,Herodes' father was almost certainly a citizen of Sparta;at any rate, he seems rather unusually to have enrolled as a Spartan ephebe. Near the end of his life, sometime in the mid-130s, he even occupied the eponymous patronomate of Sparta,the highest magistracyof the city at that time; andjust before he died, the city appointed him to serve as Kytherodikes, governor of the island of Kythera,which Hadrian had grantedas a gift to the city.24Herodes himself apparentlyenrolled as a Spartan ephebe, and Spawforth has even suggested that one ClaudiaTisamenis, who was commemorated in Sparta by a statuarygroup that included her husband and son, was his sister.If so,
18.We do not haveanyspecific information asto wherethe torsowas found. Benndorf (1868, p. 39) states
explicitlyonlythatit wasdiscovered
duringthe clearingof the tomb.There is no evidencefor Tobin'sstatement (1997, p. 224) that the torso was found in the sarcophagusitself. Benndorf arguesfor the associationof torso and sarcophaguson the basis of technical features,such as the inset rectangle mentioned above. 19. Robert 1890, p. 9. 20. Robert 1890, pp. 9-10, where he also reportsthe dimensionsof the sarcophagus:L. 2.27 m (front) and 2.33 m (back);H. 1.12 m; W. 0.94 m (left end) and 0.89 m (right end). 21. In some cases the male figureof a couple has been chiseled awayand the female transformedinto a male.This fact is of interestbecause,as Wrede (1977, p. 428) points out, it indicates that the productionof Attic kline sarcophaguslids was gearedtowardthe representationof marriedcouples.Married coupleswere the rule only for Attic sarcophagi;other sarcophagiare more variedin this respect.See Goette 1993, p. 108; Koch and Sichtermann1982,
pp.371-373.Fora discussionof the
date when the kline sarcophaguswas introducedto Attica, see below, pp.484-487. 22. Spawforth1978, 1985, and esp. 1980. 23. IG V i 516. 24. IG V i 380. He appearsto have died before he could serve his term; Cartledgeand Spawforth1989, pp. 109-111.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
469
it seems especially significant that her parents named her after Spartan family friends, and that she eventually married a Spartan.25 In addition to the epigraphic evidence cited by Spawforth, the very name of Herodes' foster child, Polydeukion or Polydeukes, may serve as further evidence of a connection between the family and the city of Sparta. A number of scholars believe that Polydeukion was not just a foster child but a blood relative of Herodes (see below, Fig. 17). While the precise nature of this kinship has not yet been firmly established, the supposition appears to be supported both by the boy's "nomen,"Vibullius, which he sharedwith Herodes, and by two inscriptionsthat pairthe name of Herodes' mother,Vibullia Alkia, with Polydeukion's.26 Indeed, the many inscriptions and monuments that Herodes erected on various family estates suggest that this relationship was more significant than the philanthropy through which Herodes supported other youths.27 Polydeukion, also called Polydeukes, shares his name with one of the Dioskouroi. There is significant, compelling evidence to suggest that, in the 2nd century A.C., such divine and heroic names often functioned as claims of descent. Thus the stemma of the Spartan aristocrat Eurycles includes the name Rhadamanthys because his family intermarried with Cretan aristocrats;and Tyndares, the Spartan priest of the Dioskouroi, may have claimed descent from the gods whom he served.28Indeed, another foster child of Herodes, Memnon, offers a striking parallel.29Memnon has long been associated with a portrait of a young African found on Herodes'estate at Loukou.30His name would appearto alludeto his origins, since he shares it with the Ethiopian prince reputed to have fought in the TrojanWar.31
25.The evidenceforHerodes' tenureas a Spartanephebeis IGV i 45 (= Ameling 1983, II, p. 98, no. 70), in
whicha certainKorinthas identifies himselfas a "fellowephebeof Herodes Atticus" (ouv(p7lP3o 'ArrTLxob Tco
'Htpo8oo).Spawforth(1980, pp. 208210) once believed that this referred to Herodes'son. Ameling (1983, II, pp. 98-100), however,has argued that the dates would only allow for this figureto be the sophist himself, and Spawforth(Cartledgeand Spawforth1989, pp. 167,261, n. 10) has since come to agreewith this position. As for the reconstructionof the identity of ClaudiaTisamenis, Spawforth(1980, p. 213) points out that Tisamenus is an attested Spartan name, but not an attestedAthenian name.The family'spenchantfor naming girls with the feminizing -is ending is seen in the exampleof Herodes'daughter,Athenais. Claudia Tisamenis is not mentioned by
Herodes'biographer,Philostratus. 26. Scholarswho believe that Polydeukionwas kinsmanof Herodes include Graindor(1930, pp. 116-117); Gazda (1980, pp. 3-4); Ameling (1983, I, p. 114); Meyer (1985, p. 393); and Tobin (1997, p. 99). The two inscriptions in which both Polydeukionand VibulliaAlkia are mentioned are IG II2 3972 and IG II2 3973 (Ameling
1983, II, p. 171, nos. 174 and 175, respectively).Herodes'full name is renderedas L. VibulliusHipparchus Tiberius ClaudiusAtticus Herodes in IG II23603 (= Ameling 1983, II, p. 109, no. 89); see also Ameling 1983, II, p. 105, no. 76. Most of the other inscriptionsthat mention his name abbreviateit greatly(see Ameling 1983, II, pp. 236-237). Only one other even mentions the "nomen,"Vibullius, which came to him from his mother's side of the family (Ameling 1983, II, p. 123, no. 103). 27. Meyer (1985, p. 393) cites some
twenty-five known portraitsof Polydeukion,and contraststhese with the single preservedportraitof anotherfoster child, Memnon, which is discussed below.There are,as yet, no securely identified representationsof a third foster child, named Achilles. Polydeukion is "themost frequentlyrepresented youth of the 2nd centuryC.E.who was not in some way connectedwith the Roman imperialhouse"(Gazda 1980, p. 2). Meyer (p. 393) cites thirteeninscriptionsthat mention Polydeukion, but only one concerningMemnon and two, or possibly three,concerning Achilles. 28. Spawforth1985, pp. 197,200201. 29. The foster childrenof Herodes arementioned by name in Philostr. VS 2.558. 30. Graindor1915; Bliimel 1933, pp. 30-31, pl. 45. 31. Gantz 1993, pp.36-37, 622624.
470
ELLEN
E.
PERRY
Among aristocratsof the 2nd century,claims of descent from the immortals, whether or not nomenclature reflected those claims, seem generally to have been "basedon local mythologies."32Though such claims appear already among the Roman aristocracy of the Late Republic, their widespread use was an example of the much broader tendency during the Second Sophistic to consolidate cultural and political authority through appeals to the past.33Under such circumstances, a claim of descent from a god or hero of particular local importance implied local prominence. Once again, Herodes' own family provides examples. The Roman-born Regilla, Herodes' wife, is praised as the descendant of Anchises and Herodes, on Aphrodite because she belonged to the Roman aristocracy.34 the other hand, claimed descent from Kekrops,Theseus, Keryx,and Herse, on the one hand, and Miltiades and Cimon, on the other, all of whom are associated in myth or history with Athens or with the family deme, Marathon (Philostr. VS2.546-547).35 Regilla and Herodes, in other words, claimed heroic and divine ancestors associated with their local originsRegilla from the ancestors of Rome, Herodes from the mythological nobility of Athens as well as from some of its greatest generals.36Thus the name of Herodes' maternal kinsman, Polydeukion, which evokes an association specificallywith the Dioskouroi, more generally points to the geographic home of the twin gods, the city of Sparta.37 The evidence, therefore, points to a remarkableand unusually close relationship for a family of Athenian origin to have had with the city of Sparta, even in the international climate of the 2nd century.While foreigners were commonly enrolled for ephebic training at Athens during the Principate, Herodes and his father are the only known foreigners to have enrolled as ephebes at Sparta.38At least two different explanations have been offered for the remarkablyclose association of this Athenian aristocratic family with Sparta.Walter Ameling suggests that the relationship was essentially economic in origin-that it was only naturalfor one of the wealthiest families of Roman Greece to take an interest in one of the 32. Spawforth1985, p. 193.
33.The mostfamousexampleof andEarlyImperial LateRepublican heroicancestryis and to divine appeal theJulianclaimof descentfromVenus andAeneas(Zanker1988,pp.195215).ForSecondSophisticappealsto the pastas a strategyforestablishing see culturalandpoliticalsuperiority, Alcock 1993, pp. 163-164; Swain 1996, pp. 65-100. 34. IG XIV 1389, lines 3-4 (= Ameling 1983, II, pp. 153-160, no. 146). 35. For the mythologicalfigures,see Gantz 1993, pp. 233-239. 36. Evidence of this practiceoutside Herodes'family includes a numberof inscriptionsfrom the areaaround Spartain which citizens claim descent
from the Dioskouroi.These include IG V i 463, 471,529, 530, 537, 559, 562, 971, 1172, 1174, and 1399. One need not necessarilyhave come from Sparta to have claimed descent from the Dioskouroi,but claims of divine descent are connectedwith local mythology often can someenough that "intermarriages times be inferredfrom the evidencefor the transferof these pedigreesfrom familyto family and city to city" (Spawforth1985, p. 193). This is why, when the familyof the dynastEurycles claims descent from the Cretanhero Rhadamanthys,this claim can be taken as an indicationthat someone in this family marrieda memberof the Cretan aristocracy:see above,p. 469. 37. Polydeukion'sconnectionswith
the Dioskouroi and Spartamay also be the subjectof a relief in the Athens National Museum, NM 1450 (Rhomiopoulou 1997, p. 92 with bibliography). On it, Polydeukionis depictedin "heroicnudity"and with his horse, as if he were one of the Dioskouroi.This basic formulamay be found on other funeraryreliefsof the period (e.g., Athens NM 1775, Rhomiopoulou 1997, p. 102), but the sculptorof NM 1450 appearsto have emphasized the allusionto the Dioskouroi by depicting,on a pillarin the background,an amphorawith a conicallid, a type that Sanders(1992; 1993) has associatedspecificallywith Spartancult and art. 38. Spawforth1980, p. 204.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
471
wealthiest and most powerful cities of the time, and that, furthermore,the family'spossession of nearbyland implied a vested interest in the region.39 Spawforth and Tobin, on the other hand, suggest that the connection was political and sentimentalin origin, and specificallythat it may have stemmed from the periodwhen Domitian condemnedTiberius ClaudiusHipparchus, Herodes' grandfather,on charges of tyranny,presumably over his fellow Athenians (Philostr. VS 2.547; Suet. Vesp.13). We know that, on this occasion, Hipparchus lost his property;he may well have also lost his life. Whatever his fate, the members of his family probablybecame temporary exiles from Athens, either by their own choice or because of a formal, imperial decision.40This exile may have provided the occasion for Herodes' father to forge the strong ties with the city that resulted later in his appointment to the two important magistracies mentioned above (p. 468). Whatever the reasons for the family's close association with a city that was not their home, that association is precisely the sort of biographical detail that an aristocrat of the Imperial period might have wanted to commemorate with a commissioned work of art.
ICONOGRAPHIC
ANTECEDENTS
SPARTAN RELIEFS The family of Helen was unusual subject matter for a sarcophagusof the Imperial period. Mythological sarcophagi of the Roman Empire tended to employ one of a few traditionalthemes, including the stories of Orestes, Alcestis, Meleager,Adonis, and Selene with Endymion. In Attica, the range of availablethemes was even narrowerthan elsewhere in the Empire.41It is not always easy to understand why certain myths were more popular than others, but the reasons must have had to do with workshop repertoire; they may also have had to do with generally recognized sepulchral symbolism.42Most patrons apparentlypurchasedprefabricatedsarcophagi
39. Ameling 1983, I, p. 29. Ameling is referringto the family estate nearthe Monasteryof Loukou in the Thyreatis, though Spawforth(1980, p. 210) believes that land ownershipin this areais more likely to have createdties with Argos than with Sparta.Recent excavationson the site under the directionofTheodoros Spyropoulos have produceda great deal of new architectureand sculpture.Although most of this materialis not yet published,brief discussionsof some of the sculpturesappearin Spyropoulos 1993; Datsouli-Stavridis1993; and Tobin 1997. 40. Spawforth1980, pp. 204-205; Tobin 1997, pp. 15-16,323-324. Tobin
(p. 16) suggests that Tiberius Claudius Hipparchuswas put to death since there is no evidence of activityon his part after his condemnation,which took place aroundA.D.92-93. IG V i 516, which honors him by name,would seem to indicate that the familyhad some associationwith Spartaeven before his disgrace,though events in the aftermathof the condemnationstill serve as a plausibleexplanationfor the enduringstrengthof that association. 41. The sculptorsof Attica favored some of the themes that were common in Rome, like the stories of Hippolytus and Meleager;however,they did not make use of many other themes that were popularin Rome (Koch and Sich-
termann1982, p. 376). For an overview of some of the most popularmythological scenes on sarcophagi,see Turcan1978; Sichtermannand Koch 1979; and Koortbojian1995. 42. The scholarshipon whether and to what extent such themes may be connected to the life of the deceasedis vast. Scholarswho considerthe topic at length include Cumont (1942); Nock (1946); Turcan(1978); and Koortbojian(1995). For overviews,see Koch and Sichtermann 1982, pp. 583-617; Kleiner 1988. Because I am concernedin the presentstudywith a unique decorativeprogram,I have raised issues of interpretationthat arerelated, but not identical,to those centralto scholarshipon common themes.
472
ELLEN
E. PERRY
Figure6. Documentrelieffrom Spartadepictingthe Dioskouroiand Helen. SpartaMuseum201. Photo
J. Sanders,reproducedwith permissionof the Greek ArchaeologicalService
adornedwith one of a handful of themes readilyavailablefrom a particular workshop. The depiction of Helen's family, however, does not belong to the stock repertoire.The unparalleled appearance of this theme on the Kephisia sarcophagusrequires some explanation.43 Earlier analyses of the Kephisia sarcophagus-those that suggest that it depicts, or is strongly influenced by, individual Classical sculptures in the round-do not offer a thematic interpretationof its program.Yet most of the figures representedcannot, in fact, be associated with actual, known sculpturesin the round.The identifiable iconographic antecedents suggest that a thematic interpretation is the correct one, and that the family of Herodes used the sarcophagusto construct and maintain a particularlegendary and historical identity. The front of the Kephisia sarcophagus, with its depiction of the Dioskouroi and Helen (Fig. 1), is particularlyinteresting in this respect. Because of the manner in which a sarcophagus is configured, the viewer experiencesits variousfields-front, sides, back, and lid-sequentially. This sequential viewing usually gives thematic priority to the front register,often providing it with an immediate, autonomous meaning, one which the ends of the box might or might not amplify.44The clear antecedents for the front register,in this instance, arenot individualsculpturesin the round, but relief sculptures on which all three figures appear in precisely this arrangement, with Helen in the center and the Dioskouroi on either side.45
43. The Leda and Eros types each appearindividuallyon a few other sarcophagi(Wiegartz 1983). It is the family as a whole that is unusualas a theme in funeraryart. 44. Brilliant1984, p. 125. 45. Examplesin Chapouthier1935. The earliestsurvivingfiguralrepresentationsof the Dioskouroi flankinga female figure appearto date to the end of the 2nd centuryB.C. (Chapouthier 1935, pp. 97-98).
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
473
Figure7. Documentrelieffrom Spartadepictingthe Dioskouroiand Helen. SpartaMuseum202. Photo
withpermission of J. Sanders,reproduced the GreekArchaeological Service
46. SM 201, SM 202, and SM 203. Tod and Wace 1906, pp. 33-34,158; Sanders1992, p. 205. 47. These reliefsare dated on the basis of their inscriptions,since they and other Dioskouroi reliefsfrom the SpartaMuseum are often crudely carvedand difficultto date based on stylisticcriteria.Sanders(1993, pp. 218-219) acknowledgesthis difficulty,but suggeststhat some of the other Dioskouroi reliefsin the museum may date to as late as the 2nd or 3rd century A.C.
48. Cartledgeand Spawforth1989, pp.194-195. 49. For coin devices,see Grunauervon Hoerschelmann1978, p. 5. For administrationof the cults and claims of descent from the Dioskouroi,see Cartledgeand Spawforth1989, p. 162; Sanders1993, p. 219. 50. For example,a numberof reliefs from Pisidia depict the trio; see Metzger 1952, pp. 22-27, pl. III.
Three document reliefs of the Early Principate now in the Sparta Museum, two of which areillustratedhere, offer the closest extant comparanda (Figs. 6-7).46 The texts of these document reliefs list members of oL SLTr0ivTrc, participantsin an annual feast associatedwith the twin gods.47 The reliefs that appear above the inscriptions depict the Dioskouroi in heraldic symmetry, as they also appear on the Kephisia sarcophagus. On the Spartan reliefs, an archaizing female figure wearing a kalathosstands between them. The theme of Helen's family,which is so unusual on sarcophagi,or indeed, in any 2nd-century Athenian context, was a familiar one in Sparta, the mythological home of the Dioskouroi. During the Empire, the twin gods were honored at several different sanctuariesaround the city, including at Phobaeum, where, perhaps in the 2nd or 1st century B.C., Helen came to share the cult with them.48For several centuries, beginning in the Hellenistic period, the Dioskouroi and their attributes were also favorite devices on Spartancoins and reliefs, and during the Roman Empire, Spartan families of the highest political standing participated in the administration of their cult. Several even claimed descent from the heroes.49 Other places in the Mediterranean world did produce reliefs of the Dioskouroi flanking their sister (Fig. 8).50On those examples, Helen does not generally appear as an archaizing caryatid with a kalathos,as on the reliefs from Sparta. Fernand Chapouthier has suggested that such
474
ELLEN
E. PERRY
iconographywas particularlypopularin southernAsia Minor because many cities in that area traced their origins to Spartan colonization or Spartan ancestors.51This interpretation, if true, would be entirely in keeping with the common Second Sophistic practice of, in Simon Swain'swords, "cities reassertingor recreatingthe roles of founders and civic myths."52It would also illustrateSwain'srecent contention that "theprimacyof Athens, Sparta, and Argos in the Greek heritage was particularlyimportant in the demonstration of... Greekness."53 On each of the cult reliefs from Sparta itself, Helen wears archaizing, stacked folds, and her kalathostouches the molding above her; on one example, she clearly stands on a statue base (Fig. 6). Stylistically, these figures share much with the archaizing caryatids on the corners of the Kephisia sarcophagus.This similaritylends a meaningful ambiguity to the overall decorative program of the latter. On the one hand, we understand the female figure on the front to be Helen because of her position between the Dioskouroi. On the other, the style of the corner caryatids and their association with the rest of the program requireus to understand them as depictions-or, more precisely,as statues-of Helen, like those on the Spartan document reliefs. The ambiguity of Helen's role as central figure and corner caryatid unites two very different sculpturaltraditions, the Spartan cult reliefs and the kline sarcophagus, into one, eclectic composition. Herms, caryatids, and other support figures often appear at the corners of Attic kline sarcophagi. Since the kline sarcophagusis, by its very nature,styled as a funerary couch, corner support figures are analogous to the legs on a genuine couch. The type and style of the support figures on kline sarcophagi can vary
Figure8. RelieffromTelmessos depictingthe DioskouroiandHelen. Museum Kunsthistorisches inv. I 702. CourtesyKunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, neg. I 6969
51. Chapouthier(1935, pp. 100, 232) furtherarguesthat the female figure on these reliefs is a syncretism of Helen and a local divinity. 52. Swain 1996, p. 73. See also Alcock 1993, pp. 163-164. 53. Swain 1996, p. 75.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
475
greatly,which surely indicates that the specific stylistic parallels between the Kephisia caryatidsand the SpartanHelen-caryatids are significant. By depicting Helen and the Dioskouroi in their customary alignment on the front of the box, but removing the archaizing,caryatidversion of Helen to the four corners, the artist is able to evoke Spartan cult without abandoning a decorative motif common to many kline sarcophagi. There may be another reason for the dual representationof Helen on this sarcophagus.The artist has moved the Helen-statues, but not removed them, providing a crucial, conceptual clarification for the viewer. When the subject of sculpturalrepresentationis, itself, a sculpture,the artist must indicate somehow that this is the case. Otherwise, the viewer may misinterpretthe subject as an actualperson or divinity.The front of the Kephisia sarcophaguspresents an inversion of this dynamic. Since the Spartan reliefs are its primary referent, a knowledgeable viewer might easily have assumed that the central figure on the sarcophaguswas also a statue. The archaizing caryatids at the corners create the necessary visual context to contradict this assumption. Their very presence, as well as the stylistic contrast they offer, indicates to the viewer that the woman on the front is a "real"(albeit idealized) woman. The transformationof the central figure from statue (on the Spartan reliefs) to woman (on the front of the sarcophagus) may be motivated by the desire to convey a more intimate tribute to the deceased. If any figure on this box represents the deceased, it is likely to be the woman in this position, front and center.To place her in the role of Helen, while carefully distinguishing her from recognizablerepresentationsof the Spartanstatue, sets a personal tone that, to some extent, balances the multivalent allusions to family history with a particularcommemoration of the deceased. THE
54. The relief from Brauron is in the Athens National Museum (NM 1499); that from Argos is in the British Museum (BM 2199). The prototypeof all of these reliefs may have been a relief or painting,since there are no known sculpturesin the roundthat reproducethis type. Wiegartz (1983, pp. 171-174, fig. 2) cites one version that appearsto be a sculpturein the round,and then argues convincinglythat it is in fact a table foot whose compositionis derivedfrom one of the many reliefversions. 55. Shapiro1992, pp. 61, 64-65. 56. Wiegartz 1983. For an itemization of gem representations,see Dierichs 1990, pp. 46-47.
CONNECTION
WITH
MARATHON
The figure on the left end of the sarcophagus,Leda, is no more a depiction of a famous sculpture in the round than are Helen and the Dioskouroi. While she does give this general impression-she seems to have the proportions of a Late Classical female figure such as the Knidian Aphroditein fact, the motif of Leda locked in a vicious struggle with a swan does not appear until the Hellenistic period. A handful of Hellenistic reliefs, including one from Argos (Fig. 9) and one from Brauron, are sufficiently similar to one another to be considered replicasof the same model, and are arguablythe earliest-knowndepictions of the theme.54Classicalrepresentations of Leda and the swan, including the replicatype that scholarsattribute to Timotheos (Fig. 10), differgreatlyfrom these Hellenistic struggles,since they depict Leda simply holding or embracing the creature.Indeed, Classical vase paintings depicting mythological rape tend to emphasize pursuit; they depict physical contact less often, and consummation almost never.55 Hellenistic reliefs such as those from Brauron and Argos represent a widespread type that can be seen in different media for centuries following its first appearance.56As on the Kephisia sarcophagus,the enormous swan depicted in these examples appears on the left, his naked victim on the right. There are, however, significant differences between these putative
476
ELLEN
E. PERRY
Figure9. Reliefof Ledaandthe swan,fromArgos.BritishMuseum 2199. CourtesyBritishMuseum, neg.PS 215697
prototypes and the Kephisia version. The proportions of the Leda from Argos are less classicizing in overall conception than those of the delicate Kephisia figure. The torso of the Argos figure is longer and her buttocks and thighs are more prominent, features that combine to make her seem heavierand less classicallyrestrainedthan the Leda depicted on the Kephisia sarcophagus.Moreover, the reliefs from Brauron and Argos display a brutality that is well beyond that seen on the Kephisia sarcophagus.57On the former,Leda and the swan areclosely locked. She does not have the strength to hold the swan awayfrom her, as she does on the sarcophagus.The swan's talons clutch at her thigh and he uses his sinuous neck to gain access to her, but instead of trying to kiss her, he pins the back of her neck with his beak and pushes it down, forcing her to bend forward (Fig. 9). In response to this violent attack, Leda'sleft arm strains downward as she fights vainly to keep herself covered. By contrast, the relative restraint exemplified by the figures on the sarcophagusbetrays a sensibility that was common in mythological representations of rape during the Roman Empire. A number of Imperialpaintings, sculptures,and coins depicting figures such as Apollo and Daphne or Herakles and Auge demonstrate this phenomenon.58The classicism of style and calm demeanor of such scenes tend to direct the viewer's attention away from the brutal act of rape itself in order to promote some other message.59The decoration of the Kephisia sarcophagussimilarlypromotes an alternative reading, one that establishes family identity by evoking a legendary past. Its program is therefore less about the encounter of Leda with the swan than about the offspring, both legendary and historical, of her union with Zeus.60
57. Wiegartz 1983, p. 172. 58. Lacroix1956, pp. 22-23. 59. So also Kampen1988, pp. 1516, for a discussionof the Rape of the SabineWomen on the frieze of the BasilicaAemilia. Kampenarguesthat the stylistic classicismof this monument lends authorityto the frieze's message,which encouragesRoman women to view Sabinewomen as exemplabecauseof their importantrole as social mediators. 60. For the employmentof legends about rapeto fashion identity-in this case culturalratherthan familial-see Joshel 1992.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
477
Figure 10. Leda and the swan. Replica of a type commonly attributed to Timotheos. Capitoline Museum 302. CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Rome, Archaologisches neg.75.2228
61. Replicalists appearin Dohl 1968, pp. 10-13, 49-50, 62-63; and in LIMC III.1, 1986, p. 881, s.v. Eros (A. Hermary,H. Cassimatis,and R. Vollkomer). 62. Moreno (1995), in particular, attributesboth Eros types to Lysippos: the more famous type (e.g., Fig. 12) and the chubbytype that is reproduced on the Kephisiasarcophagus.He assigns the chubbyEros to Lysipposon the basis of perceivedsimilaritieswith the so-called LateranPoseidon sculptures.Bartman(1992, pp. 108-146), however,throwsinto question the very existenceof a single prototypefor the many,and apparentlyquite varied, Roman statuettestraditionallycalled "LateranPoseidon."Dohl (1968, pp. 49-50), while acknowledgingthat the chubbyEros could be a Late Hellenistic creation,prefersto date the prototypeto the Early Empire,in part becauseof its eclecticismof style.
A Hellenistic composition, then, inspired the representation of Leda on the Kephisia sarcophagus.But the sarcophagusreinterpretsthe Hellenistic composition by muting the violence of the scene, and providing Leda with more classicizing bodily proportions. In other words, this figure does not simply "copy"a famous, lost sculpture,as earlierscholarship suggested, but reinterprets its predecessors in a typically Roman, eclectic mannerone that combines classicizing proportions with Hellenistic iconography. The Eros on the right side of the Leda sarcophagus(Fig. 2) holds the top of his bow with his right hand while his left hand grasps the middle. Unlike the other figures on the sarcophagus, he does reproduce a widespread replica type, known so far from seven sculptures, two reliefs, and a gem (see, e.g., Fig. 11).61He is a chubby, long-haired baby who leans forward with both legs bent at the knees, and his right leg advanced; he looks away from, rather than toward, his bow. These features are in distinct contrast to those of the Eros type traditionally attributed to Lysippos (Fig. 12), though some scholars have attributed both types to that artist.62
Only one of the five figures on the front and sides of the Kephisia sarcophagus can, therefore, be identified with a known sculptural type. Nevertheless, the figures appear to the viewer to reproduce sculptures in
478
ELLEN
E. PERRY
the round. As noted earlier, this impression results from the manner of their representation:the figures stand at a distance from one another, disengaged. The fact that there is little depth to the composition, and no landscape or architecturalsetting, enhances the impression further.Yet, to 2nd-century eyes, these formal characteristics need not have suggested sculpturesin the round; other reliefs from this period are characterizedby precisely these formal qualities and do not explicitly replicate sculpturesin the round. A famous example is the Province series from the Hadrianeum in the Campus Martius. These personifications of the provinces (Fig. 13), like the figures on the Kephisia sarcophagus,adhere to a coherent thematic program,but each individualfigurestands apartfrom the others,surrounded by a blank,undecoratedbackgroundthat enhances her statuesqueisolation. As Richard Brilliant has pointed out, the ends of a sarcophagusoften "extendthe implication of the front frieze but at a second order of importance."63In this case, the ends take up a theme first presented on the front register and, together with the kline lid, transform it into an explicit allusion to a different sort of monument, the Classical cult-statue base. The blank background, spatial distance, and lack of engagement between figures, while unusual for sarcophagus decoration at any period, is comparable to what we know of cult-statue bases from the Classical period, including, for example, the Mantineia Base attributed to the workshop of Praxiteles (Fig. 14), or the base of the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous (Fig. 15). The impression of a cult-statue base would have been enhanced
Figure11 (left).Eros.Museo ArcheologicoNazionale,Venice, inv. 170. Courtesy Soprintendenza Archeologicaper il Veneto Figure 12 (right). Eros of the type
attributedto Lysippos.Capitoline Museum 410. CourtesyDeutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Rome, neg. 79.1577
63. Brilliant1984, p. 138; he is describingan Achilles sarcophagusin the CapitolineMuseum.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
479
Figure13. Provincerelief, Hadrianeum. CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Rome,neg.845 Archaologisches
by the fact that the Kephisia sarcophagus supported a sculpture in the round, the reclining figure of the deceased, in a position analogous to that of a cult statue on its base.64 Neither of these points is sufficient in itself to demonstrate the allusion to a cult-statue base, but the subject matter-the miraculous conception and the family of Helen of Troy-also seems to support the reading: miraculous births and family connections were popular themes on such bases during the Classical period.65Since the Kephisia sarcophagus was produced very early in the history of Attic kline sarcophagi, and the type would still have been unfamiliar in the area around Athens, a viewer from Attica may have been less likely than a Roman to place this work readily into its "correct"typological context, that of the kline sarcophagus, and therefore more likely to perceive an allusion, based on these formal and thematic parallels, to a Classical cult-statue base. 64. The recliningposition seen in the female torso from the Kephisia tomb is not common among cult statues;it is, however,consonantwith traditionalGreek depictionsof the heroized dead, and, in Attica at this time, might have been readas an advertisementof the semidivinestatus of the sarcophagus'soccupant.A relief in the BrauronMuseum (Gazda 1980, p. 4) providesan interestingcomparison: it depicts Herodes'foster child
Polydeukionin a recliningposition analogousto that of a kline portrait. Herodes is known to have heroized Polydeukion,even institutinggames in his honor,and this relief representsthe boy as a hero, recliningon a couch as at a banquet.We know that Herodes also heroized at least one of the women in his family,his wife Regilla.A memorial inscriptionfound on the familyland outside Rome indicatesthat Herodes constructeda restingplace for her that
was "neithertemple nor tomb": IGXIV 1389, line 43 (= Ameling 1983, II, pp. 153-160, no. 146). It seems possible,therefore,to understand the female figure that once reclined on top of the Kephisialid as a heroine,whose semidivinestatuswould have been reinforcedby the resemblance of her sarcophagusto a cult statue base. 65. Ridgway1981, p. 173; Lapatin 1992,p. 113,n.20.
480
ELLEN
E. PERRY
It should come as no surprise that a sculpture from the family of Herodes Atticus alludes, in style and content, to the bases of cult statues from the Classical period. Herodes was one of the most famous figures of the Second Sophistic, the classicizing literary, linguistic, and rhetorical movement that was so popular during his lifetime. Philostratus tells of Herodes' devotion to ancient rhetorical models, and in particular of his specialfondness for speaking in the style of the 5th-century oligarchCritias (Philostr. VS 2.1.34-35). The classicism and intellectual activity associated with this period were not, however, limited to literary and rhetorical style. Rather, as Jas Elsner notes, the movement was "a deep antiquarian examination of the arts, rituals and myths of the canonical Greek past" that applied to all realms of elite, public life.66 Both the style and content of the visual arts during the Second Sophistic reflected these antiquarianand intellectual values.67Herodes himself commissioned other sculptures that might be deemed antiquarianor classicizing. His portraits, for example, like those of so many intellectuals of the period, alluded generally to Late Classical images of important 66. Elsner 1998, p. 169. For the variousmanifestationsof antiquarianism in the Second Sophistic, see Bowie 1974; Alcock 1993, pp. 163-164, 189198; Alcock 1994; Anderson 1993; Zanker 1995, pp. 247-256; Swain 1996.
67. Elsner (1998, p. 181), in an analysisof the Spadareliefs,concludes: "Thus the Spadarelief of Bellerophon brings to mind Polyclitus'Doryphorus, for example,while Diomedes in the relief of the theft of the Palladiumis a copy of a statue-typeattributedto the
Figure14. Partof the Mantineia Base,Athens,NationalMuseum. Courtesy Alinari 24305
Greek sculptorKresilas.But the finished panels are a fundamentally Roman, Second Sophistic,producta creativetransformationof the given models into idealizing antiquarian compositionswith a romantic mood."
6
45
7
a
?
H i
10
I
k\
II
I?
) c
t
.,
...,.
Figure 15. Reconstruction
2.
^. 7l-
-
2
69 Ir <
3
of the base of the statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous.
Drawing M. Belozerskaya,in Lapatin 1992, p. 10
482
ELLEN
E. PERRY
individuals.68We also know of two cult statues commissioned by Herodes in ivory and gold, an uncommon choice of material, and one that will surelyhave reminded Athenian viewers of the great chryselephantine statues of the Classical period.69 One parallel between the Kephisia sarcophagus and the base of the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous (Fig. 15) is particularlynoteworthy: both depict the same subject,the family of Helen ofTroy, disposed around three sides of a four-sided monument.70On the front of the Nemesis base, four female figures stand in the center, flanked by two male figures on either side. Kenneth Lapatin has identified three of these figures convincingly as Helen, Leda, and Nemesis, while traces ofpiloi testify to the presence of the Dioskouroi. Pausanias(1.33.7-8) also indicates thatTyndareus "andhis children"were represented on the Nemesis base.71 Shared subject matter is not, of itself, necessarily significant, especially if one monument is not a literal copy of the other. In the present case, however,other evidence would seem to suggest that this subject matter is meaningful, and that the sarcophagus may allude, deliberately and explicitly, to the Nemesis base. The similarities of style, for example, and the very rarity of the subject matter support this hypothesis. Perhaps most important, however, is the historical and mythological association between the cult statue of Nemesis and Herodes' family deme, Marathon.According to Pausanias,the cult statue at Rhamnouswas erected as a result of the Battle of Marathon, the very battle that was fought and won by Herodes' ancestor, Miltiades (Paus. 1.33.2-3; see also Anth. Pal. 16.221,222,263 for anecdotal variants).72The story was that the Persians transported a block of Parian marble with them to Greece in 490 B.C., with the intention of using it for a victory monument, but the wrath of Nemesis fell upon them at Marathon, and the marblewas used instead by Pheidias to create the cult statue of Nemesis. This 2nd-century version and its variants in the Palatine Anthology differ significantly from the story related by Pliny (HN 36.17), in which the sculptor is Agorakritos, and the Battle of Marathon plays no role. The laterversionmay,therefore,representa typicallySecond Sophistic reworking of the past, according to which a tradition or legend is "recovered"and subsequently employed to establish aristocraticor civic identity and cultural superiority.73 It also exemplifies a toposof Second Sophistic literature, and of Pausanias in particular,the identity of image and divinity.74The marble comes to Greece because of an act of hubris, but falls into Greek possession because of an act of Nemesis. The very materialtherefore symbolizes both the goddess and the abstractidea for which she stands. This marble was Nemesis even before the sculptor undertook to transform it into her image. By the 2nd century,then, the cult statue of Nemesis served both as a trophy to Miltiades' victory, and as a symbol of the just punishment imposed by the goddess on the Persians.For this reason, Herodes and his kin must have honored the cult and its statue greatly,a hypothesis that finds support in an inscription from Rhamnous indicating that Herodes was active in that sanctuaryon more than one occasion.75 Naturally,the Kephisia sarcophagusdoes not simply copy the Nemesis
68. Zanker(1995, pp. 220-221,
the intellectual 243-244)emphasizes of Herodes' Smith qualities portraits; (1998,pp.78-79) suggeststhatthey borrowsomeof the syntaxof the famousportraitof Demosthenes. For of representing the desirability oneself as anintellectual duringthisperiod,see Ewald 1999. 69. On the chryselephantinestatues commissionedby Herodes, see Lapatin 2001, pp. 127-128. I thank Professor Lapatinfor allowingme to see partsof his manuscriptwhile the book was still in press. 70. See Lapatin 1992, pp. 113-114. 71. See Lapatin 1992. Lapatin makesuse of Pausanias'sdescription, but also notes some of the problems associatedwith it. 72. For the family claim of descent from Miltiades, see above,p. 470. Although Herodes owned estates all over Greece and even in Italy,Marathon was the family deme, the putative location of the family'sorigins.The considerablearchitecturalremainsof the estate at Marathonare discussed in Tobin 1997, pp. 241-283. 73. For parallels,see Swain 1996, pp. 65-100. 74. Elsner 1996. 75. IG II2 3969 (= Ameling 1983, II, pp. 169-170, no. 173), which also indicates that Polydeukionwas present duringthese activities.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
483
base. There were, for example, fourteen figures represented on the base, but only five on the sarcophagus(or nine, if one includes the corner caryatids).76More troubling, perhaps, is an iconographic difference that has some bearing on the interpretationof the Kephisiapiece. On the sarcophagus, Leda mates with the Zeus-swan, and is therefore the natural mother of Helen and the Dioskouroi; Nemesis does not appear at all. On the Rhamnous base, by contrast, Pausanias indicates that Leda was merely a nurse and adoptive mother, while Nemesis was Helen's natural mother (Paus. 1.33.7). Far from being problematic, however, such a discrepancy may be a deliberate strategy of self-conscious mythmaking on the part of Herodes' family. Graham Anderson, writing of literaryimitation during this period, has observed that, in addition to the more obvious sorts of literary imitation practicedat the time (including stylistic imitation of a particularClassical author'sstyle and pastiches of severalworks of literature),"sometimes a classical frameworkwill serve to evoke the ethos of an author when the imitator is obviously setting himself at variance with his original in some significant way";other scholars have identified analogous transformations in the visual arts.77If we apply this strategy to an interpretation of the Kephisia sarcophagus,we may see that it evokes the ethos of the cult statue at Rhamnous, but sets itself at variance through a significant departure from the iconography of the "original."This difference-that Leda, on the sarcophagus,is undeniably the true mother of Helen-directs the viewer's thoughts back to Leda's home, Sparta, and to the Spartan votive reliefs that inspired the front register. In other words, it is precisely the iconographic discrepancy that serves to combine the two very different civic referencesinto one, possibly as a symbolic reflection of the marriageof the deceased. Taken as a whole, the decorativeprogramof the Kephisia sarcophagus is a distillation of several iconographic and typological antecedents, including not only the kline sarcophagus and the hero relief, but also (and most importantly) Spartan cult reliefs and the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous. The combination of these last two types accords with a general tendency during this period to employ art, especially art associated with cult, in the establishment of one or more cultural identities.78The result is an eclectic and multivalent creation of a sort that is common in sculpturalproduction of the Roman Empire. 76.Thejob of reconstructing this monumentfell to GeorgiosDespinis
centuryA.D.... as a primemeansfor ethnicandreligiousself-assertion."
and VasileiosPetrakos:Petrakos1981; 1986. An identificationof the various figuresis suggestedby Lapatin (1992).
Smith (1998, pp. 70-78) discusses severalwell-known monumentsfrom this period that negotiate the dual
77.Anderson1993,p. 72. For severalanalogouscasestudiesin the
visual arts of the Roman Empire,see Gazda, forthcoming. 78. Elsner (1997, p. 196) arguesthat "theicons of paganpolytheism in the east were used duringand after the 2nd
(GreekandRoman)identityof the aristocrat fromthe GreekEast.He
even interpretsone of these, the Monument of Philopappos,as a display of the honorand'striple identity-as Macedonianking, Athenian archon, and Roman consul.
484
ELLEN
E. PERRY
DATE OF THE SARCOPHAGUS AND IDENTITY OF THE DECEASED A relativechronologywas establishedby ArnoldTschirafor the fourcoffins foundin the Kephisiatomb.He concluded,on the basisof the size of each box, the availablespace,and the wear markson the floor,that the (1) wasplacedin the tombfirst,the Erotessarcophagarlandsarcophagus gus (2) second,andthe undecoratedsarcophagus(3) third(Fig. 16).The Ledasarcophagus (4) was,accordingto his reckoning,almostcertainlythe last of the fourto be movedinto the tomb.79 If it is a fairlystraightforward matterto establishthe relativechronolin of the four the tomb, it has provensomewhatmore sarcophagi ogy difficultto establishreliableabsolutedates.Most scholarsagreethat the tomb and its contentsdate firmlyto the 2nd centuryA.C.,but detailed argumentshavefailedto securea moreprecisedate.Becauseboththe style areunusual,Kochhas sugandthemesdepictedon the Ledasarcophagus it to an that gested early"experimental" phasein the developbelonged to A.D. 170-180. of Attic which he dates ment sarcophagi, approximately While mostAttic sarcophagiappearto havebeenproducedby a narrowly defined circle of sculptors,he argues,a few were producedduringthis decadeby other,less successfulworkshops.A numberof themesandmotifs appearedduringthis periodthatdid not, ultimately,proveto be popufromthe larandso underwenta sortof"naturalselection"anddisappeared in this Koch the experimentalphase, repertoire.80 places Kephisiaexample and suggestsan even moreprecisedate for it, about180, on the grounds that this is when Wiegartzdates the arrivalof the kline sarcophagusin Attica.8l
The Kephisiasarcophaguswas undoubtedlyproducedvery earlyin inset implies.82 Attendantcultural the Attic klineseries,as its rectangular alsosuggestthatthis coffinwas one of the firstexamplesof circumstances wereproducedbothin Rome its typeto appearin Greece.Klinesarcophagi and in Asia Minorbeforethey arrivedin Attica,so it would not be at all surprisingto discoverthattheywereintroducedfromone of theseareasby a familyor familieswith the cosmopolitanlifestyleand connectionsthat The wealthy werederigueuramongthe intellectualeliteof the2nd century.83 and prestigiousfamilyof Herodescould plausiblyhavebeen amongthe firstin Attica to employthis new type. 79. Tschira1948-1949, col. 86; see alsoTobin 1997, pp. 222-228. Benndorf (1868, p. 36) originallysuggested that the Leda sarcophaguswas the third to be placed in the tomb, and that the undecoratedsarcophaguswent in last.This orderwas presumablybased on the fact that the undecoratedsarcophaguswas found closest to the door, and the Leda sarcophagusstood behind it. Tschira'sargument,based as it is on the wear markson the floor,seems
more plausiblethan Benndorf'shypothesis, and has also been acceptedby Tobin.The inscriptiondiscussedabove, p. 462, seems to supportTschira,since it suggests that the undecoratedsarcophagus,the one that probablyheld the infant,was placed in the tomb at a time when only three childrenwere buried there. 80. See above,p. 462 and n. 7. 81. Koch and Sichtermann1982, pp. 371,415,422, 460-461; Wiegartz
1975, pp. 187-188, 219; Wiegartz 1977, p. 386. 82. See above,p. 465 and n. 10. 83. For the earlyappearanceof the kline in Roman funeraryart, see Koch and Sichtermann1982, pp. 58-61 (kline monuments)and pp. 66-67 (kline sarcophagi).For the expectation that a sophist of this periodwould be well-traveledand function as a "cultural see travellerand culturalambassador," Anderson 1993, pp. 28-30.
ICONOGRAPHY
A Figure16. Reconstructionof the orderand mannerin which sarcophagiwereinstalledin the Kephisiatomb.Number4 is the Ledasarcophagus.AfterTschira 1948-1949, cols. 87-88, fig. 2, courtesy Deutsches ArchaologischesInstitut, Athens
84. Wiegartz 1975, pp. 188, 219. He repeatsthe assertionin Wiegartz 1977, p. 386, againwithout argument, only citing his previouspublication. Koch (in Koch and Sichtermann1982, p. 371, n. 37) then reassertsthe date, also without argument,citing both of Wiegartz'searlierpublications. 85. Wiegartz 1975, p. 188, n. 161. The traditionaldate for the introduc-
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
B
OF PATRONAGE
485
C
Wiegartz, however, offers a very specific date for the introduction of Attic kline sarcophagi, A.D. 180, virtually without argument.84He does assertin a footnote-but again without argument or appealto monuments of fixed date-that the introduction of the kline lid in Attica occurred "somewhat later" than in Asia Minor, where the first examples date to around A.D. 165-170.85 He offers no compelling evidence for this date, nor does he explain why the first Attic examples had to be produced a full decade or more after those from Asia Minor. The arguments offered thus far can therefore only safely secure a date for the Kephisia sarcophagus between 170 and 180. Another approach to dating the sarcophagusmight be to identify its occupants. Tobin has assigned all four coffins in the Kephisia tomb to children of Herodes, in part because of the inscription discussed above that mentions three children who clearlypredeceased him. She assigns the undecorated box, the third to be interred, to the infant mentioned in that inscription, speculating that since Regilla was eight months pregnant at the time she died, her unborn child might have lived beyond her death and then been interred at Kephisia. She then assigns the other two coffins to Herodes' children Regillus and Athenais, who died in the late 150s. Tobin acknowledges a potential problem with the attribution to Athenais: Philostratus the Elder explicitly states that she was buried elsewhere.86 Finally, she hypothesizes that the Leda sarcophagusmight have belonged to Herodes' daughter, Elpinike, who died before her father. A funerary inscriptiondoes suggest that the familyburiedher in Kephisia;and Elpinike died after severalother siblings,which correspondswell with Tschira'srelative chronology for the four coffins in the tomb.87 tion of the kline lid into the workshops of Asia Minor is based on the stylistic evidence of one of the earliestexamples, the Melfi sarcophagus,now in the Museo Nazionale del Melfese. The portraitlid has been dated to about 170 based on its resemblanceto likenesses of Faustinathe Younger.See Kleiner 1992, p. 306 with bibliography. 86. Philostr. VS2.558. He writes
that she was buriedin the city by the Athenians,who also decreedthat the day of her death should be taken out of the calendaras a consolationto her father. 87. For a discussionof the inscription, which was found in Kephisia,see Tobin 1997, p. 228. For the text, see IGI2 12568/9 (= Ameling 1983, II, p. 140, no. 136).
486
ELLEN
E. PERRY
Specific attributions of these four coffins are problematic for two reasons. First, we cannot be sure how many children were born to Herodes and his wife, Regilla. Philostratus, for example, in spite of the wealth of detail he provides about the family, does not mention a boy who was born to the couple early in their marriagewhile they were still in Rome, nor is this infant mentioned in the large corpus of inscriptions associated with Herodes. We only know of his existence because of a letter written by Marcus Aurelius to his old teacher,Fronto, requesting that the latter make an effort to console Herodes on the boy's death (Fronto Ep. 1.6.10).88A second complication is that Herodes raised an unspecified number of foster children. We know both from inscriptions and from Philostratus that he treated some of these children "as his own." Indeed, his foster child Polydeukion received better treatment in life than Herodes' own son, Atticus Bradua.This being the case, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that one or more of Herodes' foster children may rest in the Kephisiatomb. If it proves impossible to assign all four coffins to known personalities, however, the Leda sarcophagus may prove to be an exception. The nowmissing female torso from the lid suggests that the deceased reached adulthood; therefore, historical and epigraphic sources probablyname her.The fact that earlyAttic kline sarcophagitended to contain and representmarried couples also narrowsthe field of possibilities: there is only one couple in Herodes' family who might claim both a hereditaryinterest in the Spartan Dioskouroi and the right to a burial place in Kephisia along with Herodes' children:his daughterElpinike and her husband,Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus.89If these are indeed the coffin's two occupants, then the family must have commissioned the sarcophagusat the time of Elpinike's death. Elpinike of course had an undisputed right to a place in the family tomb at Kephisia. Both the female torso that was found in excavation and the iconographic program of the box itself argue strongly in favor of identifying her as the deceased.This is all the more true because her very name, Elpinike, is an explicit referenceto the family connections with Marathon: it was the name of Miltiades' daughter.The name "Elpinike"was an unusual one in 2nd-century Athens, and thus it would be difficult to misconstrue the reference,which functioned, like the names of Polydeukion and Memnon, as a recognizable allusion to family origins, in this case specifically to the Battle of Marathon and to the general who won that battle.90It should not be at all surprising,then, that Herodes buried his daughter in a coffin whose decorative program and style alluded, at least in part, to the cult statue of Nemesis, who played such an important role in the very same battle. The death of Elpinike has recently been assigned to the mid-160s, which on the surfacedoes not seem to sit entirely well with the traditional dating of the Kephisia sarcophagusto about A.D. 170-180. However, the secure termini for Elpinike's death derive from the fact that she outlived her mother, who died around 160, but not her father,who died in the late 170s. Scholars have offered two arguments for a date around 165, neither of which is conclusive. Tobin believes that she might have died during the
88.The failureof ourothersources to mention the infant or his passingis all the more astonishingbecausethe emperor'sletter makes it clearthat Herodes took the death hard (id Herodesnonaequofertanimo). 89. Lucius VibulliusHipparchusis identified as Elpinike'shusbandin IG II2 12568/9 (= Ameling 1983, II, p. 140, no. 136). 90. Her full name was Appia Annia RegillaAgrippinaElpinike Atria Polla (Ameling 1983, II, pp. 139140, nos. 134, 135, and 136 [= IG II2 12568/9]), though Philostratusrefers to her simply as Elpinike.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
487
plague that struck around 165, which is indeed a possibility,but there is no other evidence to support or refute it. Ameling claims that Philostratus dates Elpinike's death to before the deaths of Herodes' three most famous foster children, Polydeukion, Memnon, and Achilles. There is, however, no indication in Philostratus's text of the chronological relationship between her death and theirs. It is true that he discusses Elpinike's death earlier,but only a few lines earlier,and in any case this does not prove that her death occurred first. In fact, Philostratus does not provide any clues that might help us determine when any of these young people might have died.91Thus, as far as the surviving evidence is concerned, Elpinike might very well have died as late as the mid-170s. It is possible that the Kephisia sarcophagusdates to around A.D. 170175, five or ten years earlier than the date suggested by Wiegartz for the introduction of the kline sarcophagusinto Attica. This revision would correspond more closely to a plausible date for Elpinike's death. If Elpinike was indeed buried in the Kephisia sarcophagus,its date might serve as one of the best fixed chronological points for the introduction of the kline sarcophagusinto Attica, since Elpinike's death, though not pinpointed to the year, can at least be dated to within a range of years. That Elpinike shared this resting place with her husband is an attractive idea for several reasons. As noted earlier,it was common for married couples to share earlyAttic kline sarcophagi.Moreover, although we know very little about Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus-his existence and activity are only attested in a few inscriptions-Ameling makes the provocative suggestion that because he shared a "nomen"with Herodes' foster child Vibullius Polydeukion, he might have been Polydeukion'sbrother.This, if true,would make both Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus and Polydeukion sons of Herodes' cousin, Publius Aelius Vibullius Rufus, Athenian archon of 143/4 (Fig. 17).92If Ameling's supposition is correct,or if Hipparchus and Polydeukion were otherwise as closely related as their names suggest, the allusion to Spartan votive reliefs on the front register of the coffin would 91.The dateof Polydeukion's death hasbeena matterof heateddispute, withsuggestionsrangingfrom146/7 to the early170s.Polydeukion's portraiture suggeststhathe musthave been at least in his mid-teens at the
timehe died,andTobinpointsout that Herodes'associationwith the boy appearsto have been a long-standing one. She thereforearguesthat a date of death around147 does not seem to correspondto the careerdates of Herodes. Indeed, one might add that such a date implies that Herodes was caringfor Polydeukionwhile traveling all over the Mediterraneanworld from Asia Minor (wherehe servedas Correctorof the Free Cities in the
mid-130s) to Athens (late 130s) to Rome (where he became consul ordinariusin 143 and remainedfor severalyears);and, ratherimprobably, it would suggest that he had startedto raisePolydeukionas a foster child yearsbefore he was marriedwith childrenof his own. We do know that Herodes had pupils (6otLXTruxa) while he was in Asia Minor, since Philostratus (VS 2.568) says that he sent them to Pergamonto hearAristocles speak;but this is a far cry from raisingfoster children (xp6cpqooL).For a summary
of the recent debate over Polydeukion'sdate of death, see Tobin 1997, pp. 231-234. Essential contributions to the debate include Follet 1977;
Meyer 1985; 1989; Ameling 1988. 92. Ameling 1983, I, p. 170; II, pp. 147,169-170. The Vibullii were a familywhose name is perhapsmost readilyassociatedwith the city of Corinth, but they appearalso to have had both Athenian and Spartan associations.Spawforth(1978, p. 258, n. 68) suggests that one of the most famous membersfrom the Corinthian branch,Lucius VibulliusPius, may have been a brother(or perhapscousin) of Herodes'maternalgrandfather, Lucius Vibullius Rufus.The Vibullius name would, therefore,have been passed on to Herodes by his mother, VibulliaAlkia (see above,n. 26).
Tiberius Claudius HIPPARCHUS
?~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lI
L. Vibullius Rufus = Claudia Athenais
I
I
L. Vibullius Hipparchus I
Claudia Alkia
I
Vibullia Alkia = Tiberius Claudius ATTICUS Herodes
P. Aelius Vibullius Rufus
Claudia Tisamenis = Tiberius Claudius Aristocrates
Lucius Vibullius Claudius Herodes
? Vibullius Polydeukion
Lucius Vibullius HIPPARCHUS II
HERODES ATTICUS
Elpinike
Regillus
Athenais
Figure 17. Family tree of Herodes
Athenais
=
Regilla
Bradua
U
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
OF PATRONAGE
489
be even more meaningful.93Hipparchus would have been able to make the same claim of descent from the Dioskouroi that is posited above for Polydeukion, and we might therefore understand the Kephisia sarcophagus as figuratively "marrying"Spartan iconography with allusions to the cult of Nemesis at Rhamnous, in a symbolic reflection of the literal marriage of Elpinike and Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus.94 There is a third reason to believe that this was not only the repository of Elpinike'sremains.L. Vibullius Hipparchusvalued his relationshipwith Herodes so much that he later "inserted"himself into another,much more public, family monument, the nymphaeum at Olympia. Almost half a century after Herodes commissioned this building, with portraits of his immediate family in the niches, Hipparchus had the complex renovated, at which time he reinscribedstatue bases with his own name and with that of his daughter by Elpinike, Athenais.95It would be fitting, then, if the man who had so publicly and proudly inserted himself into the family monument at Olympia had also been laid to rest with that same family.
CONCLUSIONS The unusual iconography of the Kephisia sarcophagus appears to commemorate the intimate connection that Herodes' family enjoyed with the city of Sparta, as well as with the deme of Marathon, the Battle of Marathon, and the cult statue of Nemesis at Rhamnous. The sarcophagus achieves these allusions by means of an eclectic synthesis of models, and is, in this respect, typical of sculptural production during the Roman Empire. Context and iconography,moreover,supportTobin'sattributionof the Kephisia tomb to the family of Herodes Atticus. They also provide evidence in favor of a suggestion that she makes in passing, that this was the resting place of Herodes' eldest daughter, Elpinike. The female portrait from the kline lid, the approximate date of the sarcophagus,and the epigraphic evidence that Herodes laid his daughter to rest in Kephisia all suggest that this was the repository for her remains. In addition, the stylistic and thematic allusions to the cult statue of Nemesis point to the same historical event as does Elpinike's name, the Battle of Marathon, one of the defining events in the history of Herodes' family.This convergence of iconography and nomenclature would seem to offer still more evidence for the identity of the deceased. It is also possible, though not beyond 93. Polydeukionhimself cannot have been buried in the Kephisia sarcophagus:the female torso provides the most compelling evidence against any such supposition.There is no evidence that Polydeukionmarriedbefore he died; indeed, he may have been too young to do so. 94. Indeed, Polydeukion'sactivity with Herodes at Rhamnous(above,
n. 75) suggests that, beforethe young
man'sdeath,Herodeshadalready
formulatedsome idea of the goddess's value as a symbol of the unificationof two branchesof the family.It even seems possible,in view of both Polydeukion's privilegedposition and his activityat Rhamnous,that Herodes originally planned for Polydeukionto marry Elpinike,but that his untimely death
made this impossible.It is tempting to think that it was only afterPoldeukion's death that Herodes turnedto the young man'sbrotherin searchof a marriage partnerfor his daughter. 95. Athenais,who was presumably named afterher aunt, is clearly identified on her base at Olympia as "daughterof VibulliusHipparchus." See Bol 1984, pp. 101-102, 134-141.
ELLEN
490
E. PERRY
doubt, that Elpinike shared this resting place with her husband, Lucius Vibullius Hipparchus. Perhaps more important than the attribution of this sarcophagus to specific historical figures, though, is the realizationthat a particularfamily history can explain its decorativeprogram.This understanding necessarily modifies our view of the "experimentalphase"in Attic sarcophagias it was identified by Koch. Koch noted correctly that, if sarcophagi are prefabricated, then we must find an explanation for anomalous decorative programs. His explanationwas that certain subsidiaryworkshops, not associated with the main circle of Attic producers, offered for sale themes that proved to be unpopular.According to this scenario, these workshops were driven out of the marketwithin a decade, and their unpopularmotifs were not to be found again on Attic sarcophagi. The example of the Kephisia sarcophagussuggests, however, that the weak point of Koch's explanation is the presumption that all sarcophagi were prefabricated.In this instance, the unusual iconography appears to resultfrom the fact that the work was commissioned. The patron,Herodes, must have collaborated closely with the workshop on a design that would commemorate those legends and alliances that were especially significant to the family. The entire point, it would seem, was to produce a unique piece-a work of art that would represent this family and no other. This observation, in turn, suggests the possibility that other anomalous Attic sarcophagi and cineraryurns from this decade were special commissions, rather than market failures.
REFERENCES Alcock, S. 1993. Graeciacapta:The of RomanGreece, Landscapes Cambridge. .1994. "Mindingthe Gap in Hellenistic and Roman Greece,"in Placingthe Gods:Sanctuariesand SacredSpacein AncientGreece, S. Alcock and R. Osborne,eds., Oxford,pp. 247-261. IAmeling, W. 1983. HerodesAtticus II (Subsidiaepigraphica11), Hildesheim. 1988. "DerArchon Dionysios:Zur Datierung einiger attischerPortraitsder mittleren Kaiserzeit,"Boreas11, pp. 62-70. Anderson,G. 1993. TheSecond Sophistic:ACulturalPhenomenonin theRomanEmpire,London. Barringer,J. 1995. Divine Escorts: Nereidsin Archaicand Classical GreekArt, Ann Arbor. Bartman,E. 1992. AncientSculptural Copiesin Miniature,Leiden.
Benndorf,0. 1868. "RomischesGrab in Kephisia,"AZ 36, pp. 35-40. Bliimel, C. 1933. StaatlicheMuseenzu BerlinVI, Berlin. des Bol, R. 1984. Das Statuenprogramm Herodes-Atticus Nymphaums(OlForsch 15), Berlin. Bowie, E. L. 1974. "The Greeks and Their Past in the Second Sophistic," in AncientSociety,M. I. Finley,ed., London, pp. 166-209. Brilliant,R. 1984. VisualNarratives: Storytellingin Etruscanand Roman Art, Ithaca. Cartledge,P., and A. Spawforth.1989. Hellenisticand RomanSparta:A Tale of Two Cities,London. Chapouthier,E 1935. LesDioscuresau serviced'unedeesse,Paris. surle symboCumont, F. 1942. Recherches Paris. des Romains, lismefuneraire Datsouli-Stavridi,A. 1993. rFiurrto aCr6oYrVOoped-rSat KvovoopaS,
Athens.
ICONOGRAPHY
AND
THE
DYNAMICS
Dierichs, A. 1990. "Leda-SchwannKampen,N. 1988. "The Muted Other," ArtJ47, pp. 15-19. Gruppenin der Glyptik und ihre monumentalenVorbilder," Boreas13, Kleiner,D. E. E. 1988. "Roman pp. 37-50. FuneraryArt and Architecture: Dohl, H. 1968. 'Der Eros des Lysipp" Observationson the Significanceof Recent Studies,"JRA1, pp. 115(diss. Gottingen). 119. Elsner,J. 1996. "Imageand Ritual: Reflectionson the ReligiousAppre1992. RomanSculpture,New ciation of ClassicalArt,"CQ 46, Haven. Koch, G., and H. Sichtermann.1982. pp. 515-531. . 1997. "The Origins of the Icon: RomischeSarkophage, Munich. Pilgrimage,Religion, and Visual Koortbojian,M. 1995. Myth,Meaning, Culturein the Roman East as'ResisandMemoryon RomanSarcophagi, tance'to the Centre,"in TheEarly Berkeley. RomanEmpirein theEast, Lacroix,L. 1956. "Un aspect meconnu S. Alcock, ed., Oxford,pp. 178-199. de la legende d'Heraclessur une . 1998. ImperialRomeand Chrismonnaie de Pergame,"RBN 102, tian Triumph,Oxford. pp. 5-30. Ewald, B. C. 1999. Der Philosophals Lapatin,K. D. S. 1992. "AFamily Leitbild:Ikonographische UnterGatheringat Rhamnous?Who's Who on the Nemesis Base," suchungenan romischen Sarkophagreliefs,Mainz. Hesperia61, pp. 107-119. . 2001. Chryselephantine Follet, S. 1977. "Ladatationde l'Archonte II2 Ses (IG 3968): Dionysios Statuaryin theAncientMediterranean World,Oxford. consequencesarcheologiques,litteraires, et epigraphiques,"REG 90, pp. 47-54. Metzger, H. 1952. CataloguedesmonumentsvotifsduMuseed Adalia, Fullerton,M. 1990. TheArchaistic Stylein RomanStatuary(MnemosyneSuppl. Paris. 110), Leiden. Meyer, H. 1985. "VibulliusPolydeukion:Ein archaologischepiGantz, T. 1993. Early GreekMyth: A Guideto LiteraryandArtisticSources, graphischerProblemfall," Baltimore. AM 100, pp. 393-404. . 1989. "Zu Polydeukion,dem Gazda, E. 1980. "APortraitof Bulletin the Museums Archon Polydeukion," of Dionysios, und W. Ameling in Boreas11, 1988,"Boreas12, Universityof ofArt andArchaeology, Michigan3, pp. 1-13. pp. 119-122. , ed. Forthcoming.TheAncient Moreno, P. 1995. "Erosa Mindo,"in Art ofEmulation:Studiesin Artistic Lisippo:L'artee lafortuna, P. Moreno, ed., Rome, pp. 166Originalityand Traditionfrom the Presentto ClassicalAntiquity, Ann 167. Arbor. Nock, A. D. 1946. "Sarcophagiand Goette, H. R. 1993. "AttischeKlinenSymbolism,"AJA50, pp. 140-170. Riefel-Sarkophage,"in Grabeskunst Palagia,0., and W. Coulson, eds. 1993. derromischen Arcadiaand Laconia Kaiserzeit,G. Koch, ed., Sculpturefrom Mainz, pp. 107-110. (Oxbow Monographs30), Oxford. Graindor,P. 1915. "Tete de negre du Petrakos,V. 1981. "LaBase de la Musee de Berlin,"BCH 39, Nemesis d'Agoracrite(rapport pp. 402-412. preliminaire),"BCH 105, pp. 227.1930. Un milliardaireantique. 253. 1986. "IIpopXiaocTa T;S 3a6
OF PATRONAGE
49I
Rhomiopoulou, K. 1997. E?rvopcot,pacxyAotrarToo EOvixo6 Moovacoo,Athens. ApXcacoAoytxo6 and Richlin,A., ed. 1992. Pornography in Greeceand Rome, Representation Oxford. Richter,G. M. A. 1966. TheFurniture of the Greeks,Etruscans,and Romans, London. Ridgway,B. S. 1981. Fifth Century Stylesin GreekSculpture,Princeton. Robert,C. 1890. Die antiken II, Berlin. Sarkophagreliefs Sanders,J.1992. "The EarlyLakonian Dioskouroi Reliefs,"in tAoaxo;xov: LakonianStudiesin Honourof HectorCatling,J. Sanders,ed., London, pp. 205-210. . 1993. "The Dioscuri in PostClassicalSparta,"in Palagiaand Coulson 1993, Oxford,pp. 217224. Shapiro,H. A. 1992. "Erosin Love: Pederastyand Pornographyin Greece,"in Richlin 1992, pp. 5372. Sichtermann,H., and G. Koch. 1979. Griechische Mythenauf romischen Sarkophagen, Tiibingen. Smith, R. R. R. 1998. "CulturalChoice and PoliticalIdentity in Honorific PortraitStatuesin the Greek East in the Second Century A.D.,"
JRS 88, pp. 56-93. Spawforth,A. J. S. 1978. "Balbilla,the Euryclids,and Memorialsfor a Greek Magnate,"BSA 73, pp. 249261. .1980. "Spartaand the Family of Herodes Atticus:A Reconsideration of the Evidence,"BSA 75, pp.203-220. . 1985. "Familiesat Roman Spartaand Epidaurus:Some ProsopographicalNotes,"BSA 80, pp. 191-258. Spyropoulos,T. 1993. "NocyXourcT aoroxTry[a-a Too ApxatoXoyLxo6
in Palagia MooouiooTpLtr6oXeco," and Coulson 1993, pp. 257-267. Swain, S. 1996. HellenismandEmpire: and Power Language,Classicism, in the GreekWorld,A.D.50-250, Oxford. Tobin,J. 1997. HerodesAttikosand the CityofAthens:Patronageand Conflict undertheAntonines,Amsterdam.
ELLEN
492 Tod, M. N., and A. J. B. Wace. 1906. A Catalogueof the SpartaMuseum, Oxford. Tschira,A. 1948-1949. "Eine r6mische Grabkammerin Kephissia,"AA 1948-1949, cols. 83-98. Turcan,R. 1978. "Les sarcophages romainset le probl&medu symbolismefuniraire,"ANRW 11.16.2,pp. 1700-1735. Wiegartz, H. 1975. "Kaiserzeitliche Relief-Sarkophagein der Nikolaoskirche,"in Myra:Eine lykische Metropole,J. Borchhardt,ed., pp. 161-251. .1977. "Zu Problemeneiner Chronologieder attischen Sarkophage,"AA1977, pp. 383388.
1983. "Ledaund der Schwanin der kaiserzeitlichenattischenPlastik," Boreas6, pp. 168-196. Wrede, H. 1977. "Stadtromische Monumente, Urnen, und Sarkophage des Klinentypusin den beiden ersten Jahrhundertenn. Chr.,"AA1977, pp.395-431. Zagdoun,M. 1989. La sculpture archaisante dans l'art hellenistique et dans l'art romain du haut-empire,
Athens. Zanker, P. 1988. The Power of mages in theAge ofAugustus, trans.
H. A. Shapiro,Ann Arbor. .1995. The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in
Antiquity(SatherClassicalLectures 59), trans.H. A. Shapiro, Berkeley.
Ellen E. Perry HOLY CROSS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT
OF CLASSICS
WORCESTER,
MASSACHUSETTS
[email protected]
E. PERRY
OI6IO
HESPERIA SUPPLEMENTS 13 MarcusAurelius:Aspects of Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast,
byJamesH. Oliver(1970).$15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,byJohnS.Traill(1975).X15.00
16 A Sanctuaryof Zeuson MountHymettos,byMerleK.Langdon(1976). $15.00 17 Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 286 B.C., byT. LeslieShearJr.(1978).$15.00 19 Studiesin AtticEpigraphy,History,and Topography Presentedto Eugene Vanderpool (1982).$15.00
20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, Sculpture,and Topography Presentedto HomerA.Thompson(1982).$15.00 21 Excavationsat Pylosin Elis, byJohnE. Coleman(1986).$25.00 22 Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressofIsis, by ElizabethJ.Walters(1988).$40.00 23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfromtheAthenianAgora,by ClaireveGrandjouan (1989).$25.00 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof BronzeAgeCrete,byJeffreyS. Soles(1992).$35.00 25 Debrisfroma PublicDining Placein theAthenianAgora, by SusanI. RotroffandJohnH. Oakley(1992).$35.00 26 TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in Athens:Architectural Stagesand Chronology,byIraS. Mark(1993).$50.00 27 Proceedings of theInternationalConference on GreekArchitectural Terracottas of the Classicaland HellenisticPeriods,Decemberl2-15, 1991,
editedby NancyA. Winter(1994).$120.00 28 Studiesin ArchaicCorinthianVasePainting,by D. A. AmyxandPatricia Lawrence(1996).$65.00 29 TheAthenianGrain-Taxtaw of 374/3 B.C., by RonaldS. Stroud(1998). $35.00 30 A LMIA CeramicKiln in South-CentralCrete:Functionand Pottery Production,byJosephW. Shaw,AleydisVande Moortel,PeterM. Day,
andVassilisKilikoglou(2001). $35.00