Hesperia 69, 2000

E$PE H THE OF JOURNAL OF THE CL A S S I C A L AMERICAN AT STUDIES VOLUME SCHOOL ATHENS 69: NUMBER JANUARY-MARC...

Author: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens; various authors

21 downloads 2110 Views 63MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

E$PE

H THE OF

JOURNAL

OF THE

CL A S S I C A L

AMERICAN AT

STUDIES

VOLUME

SCHOOL ATHENS 69:

NUMBER

JANUARY-MARCH

K

2000

A91

r1

*,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~lsia /2'-~~~~~~T >

Stuie atAten A~~~~~~~~~~20

A

Schooo

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, 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, NewJersey 08540-5232. lJesperiais 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, Hesperia welcomes submissions from all scholars working in the fields of Greek archaeology,art, epigraphy,history, and literature,from earliest prehistoric times onward. Hesperia is a refereedjournal.

VOLUME

NUMBER

69:

JANUARY-MARCH

I

2000

THE

JOURNAL

OF CLASSICAL

PUBLICATIONS STAFF

KerriCox Hesperia TraceyCullen

EDITOR,

ASSOCIATE

AsSISTANT

SuzanneAbrams PRODUCTION

L.

1

LAWALL

Graffiti, Wine Selling, and the Reuse of Amphoras in the Athenian Agora, ca. 430 to 400 B.C.

3

DAVID

R. JORDAN

A Personal Letter Found in the Athenian Agora

91

LEE

ANN

RICCARDI

ASSOCIATE

Carol Ford MARKETING

AT ATHENS

MANAGER

SarahGeorge Figueira PRODUCTION

SCHOOL

EDITOR

Michael Fitzgerald EDITORIAL

STUDIES

AMERICAN

Note to Potential Contributors

MARK

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

OF THE

MANAGER

PatriciaTanner

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago Kevin Clinton Cornell University Jack L. Davis Universityof Cincinnati JeniferNeils Case Western ReserveUniversity KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V. Tracy (ex officio)

The Ohio State University

Uncanonical Imperial Portraits in the Eastern Roman Provinces:The Case of the Kanellopoulos Emperor

105

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 Guidelines for Authors published in Hesperia 62, 1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School's website (www.ascsa.org);or by writing to ASCSA Publicationsat the above address. The American School 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 previouslyexistingcollection or was legallyexportedfrom the countryof origin. Subscriptions:The annualsubscriptionprice,payablein advancein dollars,is $55.00 for individuals,$65.00 for institutions, and $33.00 for studentswith valid I.D. Canada and other countries add $9.50 postage. We accept VISA 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 eachplus postagefromthe AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton,NewJersey 08540-5232 U.S.A. OrderIndex Volume2 and Supplements13 and following from UniversityMuseum Publications,Universityof PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeologyand Anthropology,33rd and SpruceStreets,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania19104 U.S.A.

Copyright ?C2000 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, New Jersey08540-5232 U.S.A. ISSN 0018-098X ISBN 87661-500-0

HESPERIA

69,

2000

NOTETOP OT

CONTRI

ENTIAL

BUTORD

We are pleased to report that the new format of Hesperia has met with general enthusiasm. With the publication of the first volume complete, and a new yearunderway,it seems an auspicioustime to clarifythe journal's current mission and invite submission of new manuscripts. The scope of Hesperiahas been the subject of debate for many years, with the result that some confusion still exists as to what sorts of articles are considered appropriatefor the journal.When Hesperiawas founded in 1932, its purpose was closely circumscribed:to make accessible to colleagues and the public the results of research undertaken by members of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. In 1983, however, the Managing Committee of the School passed a resolution (regulation IX.4) that opened the journal to a wider range of submissions. While still primarily a forum for School members, Hesperiaalso invites scholars not affiliated with the School to submit articles if their researchis of "particular relevance to the School's work." The work of the School is far-reaching, encompassing the history, archaeology, art, epigraphy,and literature of the Greek world, extending well outside the borders of modern Greece and from antiquity up to the present day.New fellowships at the School supportadvancedresearchacross a wide range of specializations, including anthropology, philosophy, political science, and religious studies, in addition to archaeology,art history, classics, and history.The Gennadius Library,established by the School in 1926 and currentlybeing renovated, provides an unparalleledresource for the study of Byzantine, Balkan, and Ottoman culture, as well as modern Greek language,literature,and history. Scientific studies now too find their place at the School with the opening in 1993 of the Wiener Laboratory for Archaeological Science. The range of articles currentlysubmitted to Hesperiais relativelylimited when compared with the scope of research and activities undertaken by members of the American School. The traditional strengths of Hesperia have been the presentation of field reports on School-sponsored excavations (and, more recently, surveys), Attic epigraphy and topography, and studies of Greek monuments. In particular, the journal has long given prominence to the results of work in the Athenian Agora and Corinth.

2

NOTE

TO

POTENTIAL

CONTRIBUTORS

These studies will continue to be of major importance in the journal. The researchsupportedby the School has expandedsubstantiallyover the course of the past century,however, as have the central themes of classical studies in America. It is our hope that Hesperia, as the School's official journal, will reflect the full breadth of disciplinary approaches taken today in the study of the Greek world. The focus of the journal remains centered on Greek material culture. The geographical limits are those of the entire Greek world, with no chronological restrictions imposed. Articles on all aspects of the field are sought-primary research,interdisciplinarystudies,theoreticaldiscussions, and syntheses of topics and problems in Greek art, archaeology,and epigraphy.Articles on the history and practice of archaeology and ethnography in Greece are also welcome. We may publish an occasional issue devoted to a single theme such as funerary ritual, the beginnings of literacy,or early travelersin Greece. Scholars might consider contributing an article to Hesperiaon Byzantine or Ottoman Greece, ceramicpetrography, Hellenistic Egypt, provenancestudies, Black Sea colonies, or Roman Crete, to name only a few areas of interest. Publication of a wide range of articles can only increase the vitality (and readership)of the journal. No page limit exists for contributions, although very long pieces may better appear as monographs. In order to ensure that articles published are of high quality,all submissions are refereed in a double-blind process by two outside reviewers and a member of the Publications Committee. At present, an author whose manuscript has been accepted for publication can expect to see his or her article in print in less than a year and a half from the time of submission. Fifty free offprints are provided, with an option to purchase more. Contributors are encouraged to consult Hesperia's stylistic guidelines on the School's website (www.ascsa.org),although an article need not be preparedin the journal's format to be considered for publication. We warmly invite submissions from all scholars whose researchintersects with the School's work. -

The Editors and the Committee on Publications

HESPERIA

69,

2000

Pages3-90

GRAFFITI, WINE ANLD SELLING, REUSE IN

AGO

OF

THE

THE

AMPHORAS ATHENIAN

RAP CA.

400

430

TO

B.C.

ABSTRACT Graffition transportamphorasof the 5th centuryB.C. recordvolume, weight, price, and abbreviationsthat mayreferto the jar'scontents. The graffitioften appearin the southeast corner of the Agora excavations.While some price marks may have been applied outside Athens, many graffiti resulted from retail practices in the Agora, such as refilling jars from local suppliers, decanting fromjars in the shop, and selling differentproductssuch as honey or meat. Most of the graffiti date between 430 and 400 B.C. Political and economic conditions at this time encouraged the use of graffiti on an unprecedented scale. 1. Reviews of Agora XXI are fairly representativeof the generalacceptance of the interpretationsof these graffiti: Oliver (1977) has some criticismsof the interpretationsof other classes of graffitibut writes that "Langis at her best ... when she edits the commercial and tax notations,which areworthwhile"(p. 210). Of the reviewsI have seen, onlyJohnston (1978a) takes issue with the interpretationsof the amphoragraffiti.Others,who do suggest differentreadingsfor other graffiti, do not comment on the numerical notations (e.g., Jordan1978; Oikonomides 1986 and 1988). My researchon amphorasfound in the Athenian Agora, including the graffitidiscussedhere, has been facilitated by permissionsfromT. Leslie ShearJr.andJohn McK. Camp II. The graffitidrawingsareby the author, preparedfor publicationwith the assistance of Craig Mauzy (all graffitiare illustratedat scale 1:1).The photographsareby Craig Mauzy and are

Of the many classes of evidence from antiquity,artifactswith writing should "speak for themselves" the most clearly. As the massive volume of epigraphic and philological scholarship makes very clear, however, speaking and being understood are two very different phenomena. The same gap between the evidence and our understanding holds true for graffiti on pottery. The graffiti on 5th-century transport amphoras from the Athenian Agora, the topic of this article,have been thought by many to speak clearly in comparison with more debated scratchings.1 Reexamination of this material, however, highlights difficulties with the previously accepted inreproducedhere by permissionof the American School of ClassicalStudies, Agora Excavations.The plans were preparedby RichardAnderson.This articledevelopedgraduallyout of my dissertation(Lawall 1995), a subsequent paperdeliveredat the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America (abstractin AJA 102 [1998], pp. 401-402), and a much shorterversion initially submittedto Hesperiain December 1998. Improvements over the courseof the article's life are due to feedbackfrom various

people, but especiallyfrom the anonymousHesperiareviewersand from discussionswith CarolynKoehler, Molly Richardson,Lynn Snyder,and Malcolm Wallace.Thanks are also due to the funding agencies and institutionsthat supportedperiods of researchin Athens: the University of Michigan, the Universityof Manitoba, the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada,the Solow Art and Architecture Foundation,and the M. Aylwin Cotton Foundation.

MARK

4

L. LAWALL

terpretations,and in doing so reveals many new aspects of daily life in the

Figure1. The Agoraca. 400 B.C. with

Athenian Agora.

findspots of 5th-century commercial

Any difficulties remaining in the interpretation of graffiti from the Agora are not for lack of scholarlyinterest. Ever since LucyTalcott's publication of "Attic Black-glazed Stamped Ware and Other Pottery from a Fifth Century Well" in 1935, graffiti on pottery at the Agora have received frequent attention.2 Mabel Lang stands out in this regard, having published two majorstudies,"NumericalNotation on Greek Vases"in 1956 and Graffiti and Dipinti in 1976, and a volume in the Agora PictureBook

graffition amphoras

series.3

Lang's publications offered readings and interpretations of hundreds of markings, including many numerical marks that are likely to be related to buying and selling in the Agora. These marks often appearon transport amphoras, and Lang suggested that some such graffiti resulted from recording the measured capacity of the jars for their reuse.4Lang read other, far less frequent numerical marks as price labels; rarerstill for the 5th century are notations of weight. Virginia Grace and Malcolm Wallace both connected the appearanceof the many volumetric markings to uncertainties arising from a change in the standardChian amphora capacity,from 7 to 8 Chian choes, to become commensuratewith 7 Attic choes. Grace saw this change as being in accordancewith the Athenian StandardsDecree.5 This mid- to late-5th-century decree dictated the use of Athenian standard measures (including standards for coinage) among all members of the Delian League.6 These earlier studies thus associated the graffiti not only with specific actions related to the sale of the amphorasbut also with a specific historical circumstance. This picture, however, was developed with minimal attention to the contexts of the graffiti:which amphora types carrywhich sorts of graffiti? What are the dates of the markedjars?Where are the graffiti found in the Agora? Inquiry along these lines revealsvery clear patterns. First, not only Chian jars but many amphora types carrygraffiti. Second, although such graffiti do appearsporadicallythroughout the 5th century B.C., most numerical markings on amphoras appearin the last third of the century.Finally, while examples have been found across the Agora, most amphora graffiti were excavated in the southeast corner (Figs. 1-2). These patterns are difficult to reconcile with either the postulated use of graffiti in checking the capacity of jars for personal reuse or the proposed implications of the Standards Decree. If graffiti were applied when confirming amphora capacities, then marked amphoras should be distributed across the Agora, wherever amphoras were found in large numbers. This is not the case. Moreover, the connection to the Standards Decree 2. Talcott1935,pp.495-496,515516. 3. Lang 1956; AgoraXXI; Lang 1974. Other comments on Agora graffitiincludeTalcott 1936, pp. 344 and 352; Boulter 1953, pp. 99-101; and Rotroff and Oakley 1992, especiallypp. 27-28, 35-37, figs. 2122. 4. Lang 1956, pp. 23-24.

5. GraceandSawvvatianouPetropoulakou1970, pp.359-360; Grace 1979b, pp. 121-122. Wallace (1984, pp. 12-13; 1986, p. 88) accepts the change in Chian capacityand its relationshipto the graffiti,but expressesuncertaintyas to the precise role of the StandardsDecree. 6. For discussionsof the date of this decree,see, among many others,

Lewis1987,Mattingly1993and 1999; for the intentions and impacts of the decree see Finley 1973, pp. 168169; Mattingly 1981; Schonhammer 1993, p. 190; and Figueira 1998, whose discussionof the goals of the Athenians emphasizes,even more so than that of Lewis (1987), the range of dates of copies of the decree.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

AND

SELLING,

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

R

ICAVATI ATEIENS SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF

TTURYB .C. AMPHORAS WITH C

I-?...

...j

.

...... . ,,..!...........................

.~ , ???????...........

ction T

9/Ar

\

X

./-^

019:4 ..*- .-..."...--."; '".

Section NN/110-111fKE-KH Fill/. f./

AREOPAGOS

-** -:::...::' ............. 1

m .

i-t r-n X-

I

X \

;

.

5

PP - PP'

(PART OF) SECTION --

SURVIVING CLASSICAL WALLS RESTORED CLASSICAL WALLS

E

SURVIVING WALLS WALLS m RESTORED CONJECTURAL WALLS CONJECTURAL WALLS

1

OFRECEDING BULIBRARY LIBRARY O PANTAINO

Figure2. Restoredplanof the kapeleionareaaroundwell R 13:4,with otherlate-5th- and early-4th-centurywells

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

7

and Chian amphoras raised the expectation of a limited period of uncertainty and, therefore,of intense markingjust after the initial promulgation of the decree (perhaps ca. 449 B.C., perhaps ca. 425 B.C.). Instead, roughly thirty-five years are indicated by the range of dates for the amphoras carrying the marks.7Furthermore,a connection to the decree might prompt the expectation that the markswould appearprimarily on those amphora types whose capacities changed in accordancewith the decree. It is still a matter of debate as to which, if any,types were modified,8 but the fact that volumetric graffiti are not limited to specific types casts doubt on this element of the interpretation as well. Finally, while some commentators argue that the decree was meant to facilitate collection of taxes, tribute, and other payments, whether in money or other products,9the graffiti indicate instead some sort of difficulty arising in later-5th-century sales in Athens. If such contexts of the graffiti requireus to question, or even abandon, earlierexplanations, new interpretations are needed. The following reconsideration of the 5th-century amphora graffiti from the Agora excavations begins with a detailed surveyof the markingsthemselves, reviewing Lang's readings and taking into account other examples.10In this review I emphasize the wide range of topics addressed by the graffiti and consider problems of interpretation not discussed by Lang. After types of markings are described and the findspots, dates, and amphoras carrying the graffiti are presented, first in the catalogue and then synthesized in the text, it will be possible to consider what activities and transactions resulted in the application of the graffiti. The third and final step to be taken here is to explain why graffiti appear so frequently on amphoras datable to the later decades of the 5th century B.C. in Athens. 7. If Figueira(1998) is correctto

of emphasizemultiplepromulgations the decree,thenperhapsanongoing senseof uncertainty concerningstandardsshouldbe expected.Grace,however,saw the graffitias connected to a single decreeca. 449 B.C. (Grace and 1970, Savvatianou-Petropoulakou pp. 359-360; Grace 1979b, pp. 121122). Wallace (1986, p. 88, note 8) places the decree"somewherebetween 449 and 414 B.C."and notes the possibility that the change in capacitywas not relatedto the decree.It should be noted that Grace'sdate for the new amphoratype with the higher bulge on the neck and the proposedlarger capacitywas based entirelyon the date of ca. 449 for the decree.The jars themselvesdo not appearin Agora contexts or elsewherebefore deposits closed after440. In terms of the archaeologicalevidence,ca. 440 and not ca. 450 is the apparentdate for the introductionof the high-bulge Chian IX, pp. 23jars (type C/3 in Kerameikos 24; and see Lawall 1995, pp. 99-102).

Without acceptingthe date of 449 for the decree,following Grace,there is no evidencefor the high-bulge Chians startingca. 449. 8. Published argumentsconcerning these changes arebased on a very limited numberof examples,far too few to make a case one way or the other (e.g., Grace and Savvatianou-Petropoulakou [1970, p. 360, note 4] cite only two capacitiesof Chianjars of 7 Chian choes dating before 450 B.C.). On the difficultiesof measuringamphorassee WallaceMatheson and Wallace 1982, pp. 302-320; Wallace 1984, p. 13; and Koehlerand Wallace 1987, p. 57. In connectionwith Wallace's(1984, p. 13) comment that "nobody,so far as I know,has doubted that [Chios] changed her wine exportcapacityfrom 7 to 8 Chian choes,"see Brashinskiy 1984, pp. 98-99, suggestingno significant change in the Chian standard amphoracapacity. 9. See Martin 1985, pp. 196-207. Martin opposes Finley'sview of minting as a symbol of a state'sautonomy,

arguinginstead for "economic"motives: the decree,in his view, facilitatedcollection of tributeand port taxes.Finley, while explicitlyacknowledgingthe decree'sfacilitationof tax and tribute collection, called that a "politicalelement"(1973, p. 169). Finley'smain concernwas to deny any Athenian policy to benefit Athenian merchantsat others'expense.Martin implies that merchantswould benefit from the unification of standards(p. 199, note 7, and p. 204), but never addresses Finley'scontention that all Aegean merchants-not only Athenianswould find such a situationeasier. 10. Johnston (1978a, p. 218) criticizedthe incompletenessof Agora XXI, noting that much of the Agora graffitiknown to him had not been included.I presenthere all numerical amphoragraffitiof the 5th century known to me. While there are more graffitipublishedhere than had been publishedearlier,there are still bound to be furtherpieces that I have not found.

8

MARK

L. LAWALL

THE GRAFFITI The graffiti in question were applied to jars before they were broken and not to discrete sherds.l1Some markedjars are still nearly complete; markings preserved only on fragments never fit neatly on the sherd, in contrast to the case with ostraka.With one exception, 67, the marks were incised after the jars were fired, so the graffiti were applied at some time during the jar'speriod of use. Most of these graffiti involve a series of symbols, sometimes letters, often repeating. Since vertical strokes are common and since some letters are best read as TTfor "5"and A for "10,"many graffiti appear to be numerical notations. These notations include tallies of vertical and/or horizontal strokes often with acrophonic numerals, tallies using letters to abbreviate units of measure,and price marks involving monetary symbols or abbreviations.If we assume that these graffiti refer to the vessels on which they are found and often to their contents, the marksshould relate in some way to the production, filling, distribution, and even refilling of the amphoras. Hence, these marks are safely considered economic graffiti-at least if one includes in a definition of "economic"the production and distribution of goods and services.12 There is, too, a second broad class of graffiti that is of less certain economic relevance: short abbreviations commonly found on amphoras. The letters could simply abbreviatenames: perhaps an owner of the amphora, perhaps a merchant, and so on. On the other hand, the repeated occurrence of some of these marks across many different sites and amphora types suggests that the letters refer to some activity common to amphora use. There are, of course, other kinds of graffiti on amphoras. These include names, other abbreviations, or simply letters of uncertain significance. Since these marks are not repeated over many amphoras, their significance for the production and distribution of the jars may have been limited to naming an owner during the "lifetime"of the jar. Such marks are included here only when they appearin the same context as examples of economic graffiti. They are not considered in detail nor were examples from other parts of the Agora studied.l3 11. Price labels or accounting ostrakadiffer distinctlyfrom the graffiti discussedhere.The graffiti on such ostrakaoften follow one or more edges of the sherd.Even if the sherd has brokenacrossthe original graffiti,it is often clearthat the graffiti on these ostrakaoriginallyfollowed the lines of a sherd.They were not appliedto a complete vessel. Amphora fragmentsused for accounting ostrakaare not coveredin this article. 12. Some have arguedthat this

definition is too narrowand that it excludesthe element of risk and choices in allocationat the core of economic study (e.g., Burling 1962). Productionand distribution,however, aretwo very visible behaviorsin the archaeologicalrecordand may have involvedthe sorts of allocation issues attendedby more traditional economic historiansand anthropologists. On problemsof defining economic studies,see Lowry 1987, pp. 8-9. 13. I collected the graffitipresented

in this articlefrom a handwrittenand largelyup-to-date list of all inventoried graffitiin the Agora, and by searching for uninventoriedgraffitifrom closed deposits and stratifiedfills throughoutthe Agora as part of the researchfor both my dissertation and, more recently,a typological study of Classicaland Hellenistic amphorasin the Agora. I thank John Camp for alertingme to graffiti finds in the building fill of the late-5thcenturyMint.

GRAFFITI,

EARLIER

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

9

READINGS

Lang assigned most of the numerical graffiti involving repeated symbols to two categories, capacity and price. She interpreted the symbols as follows:

H-

14.This sizeforanAtticchousis usedanddiscussedin Graceand 1970, Savvatianou-Petropoulakou p. 360. 15. Larsen(1938, pp. 394-395) associatesthe term xsp6Lc0ov in papyri with a unit of 8 choes, but he emphasizes the late date of common usage of this term. For furtherdiscussionof the size of Classicalamphoras,see, among many others,Pritchett 1956, pp. 195196; Grace 1949, p. 175; Brashinskiy 1984, pp. 92-127. For readingsthat would be improvedby applyingLang's method, see Grakov1968, pp. 104-105. 16. Lang 1956, pp. 13-16. For the Attic Stelai and prices of wine and amphorasfrom other sources,see Pritchett 1956, pp.195-196,199-203; and Amyx 1958, pp. 174-178. FurtheYon wine prices:Reger 1994, pp. 234-235; andJohnston 1996, p. 87. 17. AgoraXXI, pp. 12-13, C 8, C 9. 18. Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 29. 19. For 25 the link to Chios is suggestedin AgoraXXI, p. 76, He 2; for 13, the Chian attributionis made in Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 30. 20. See Lang 1956, p. 5, no. 10. The theory that amphorasin the 5th centurywere potted to fit certaincities' standardsmore preciselythan others remainsan open question awaiting more thoroughpublicationof amphora capacitiesand carefulconsiderationof the implicit assumptionsabout the natureof commercerequiredby the theory (cf. Lawall 1995, pp. 297-300 and Garlan 1985, p. 243). 21. Lang 1956, p. 2; cf. Johnston (1978a and 1996, passim),emphasizing such uncertainties.

K 0 X H rT TTHmonogram TTXmonogram A AX monogram 2

1 chous, kotyle, or drachma 1 drachma 1 kotyle or 1 obol 1 kotyle (1/12chous) 1 oxybaphon (1/4 kotyle)

1 chous chous, 1 hydria, or alphabetic "8" 5 choes or 5 drachmas 5 hydriae 5 choes 10 choes, 10 drachmas, or 10 staters 10 choes stater 1/2

Lang was thereby able to read graffiti as indicating that certain amphora types held between 7 and 8 Attic choes (defined as 3.2 liters/chous),14 figures matched by measurements of complete jars.15The price graffiti, according to Lang, involve either fairly clear monetary symbols (the drachma symbol or the 2 for stater) or a series of less explicit tally marks exceeding the likely capacity of the given jar. Lang noted that a price of 2 drachmas per chous of wine, as she read in some of the price graffiti, fit well with other epigraphic and literary evidence for 5th-century wine prices.16 Alongside these general practices, Lang highlighted certain idiosyncrasies. She interpreted the letter E as abbreviatingeither heUL- or hsis (4, 13, 25, 64), the aspirate omitted. In her discussion of 4, in which she read an E for hesit-, Lang noted that E also replaced the hs- in the name Hegestratos on two graffiti from the Agora.17In the case of 64, where the h is dropped from E abbreviating hEiXouvV,Lang writes: "The writer, being psilotic or an h-dropper, was probably not Athenian."18For 13 and 25, Lang attributed this psilosis more directly to Chios.19Lang identified another example of "foreign"graffiti in the possible indication of the nonAttic monetary unit, staters, in two examples (19 and 26). Finally, Lang suggested that certain tallies of measurement were based on a Chian, not an Athenian, unit of measure (22).20 Lang acknowledgedthat there was "anelement of uncertainty"in some readings,21and this is not surprisinggiven the informal natureof the markings. To what extent, however, are other readings of the graffiti possible? Are subjects other than volume and price indicated with any frequency by the graffiti?While many of the readings require detailed, individual discussion (see catalogue),some comments pertain more generallyto the types of numerical graffiti.These are discussed in the following order:volumetric notations, notations of weight (?), price marks, abbreviations,summations, and combined notations.

MARK

IO

VOLUMETRIC

L.

LAWALL

NOTATIONS

(I, 7?, 9, 10, II, I2, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29?, 30?, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37?, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45?, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53,

63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 7I?, 72, 73, 93?, 94, 95, 96, 97)22 With forty-five entries in this catalogue, volumetric notations comprise the largest group among the numerical graffiti. The markings here range from simple strokes and the acrophonic numerals A and TTto more explicit notations using abbreviations for the units of measure. Following Lang's analysis, the acrophonic numerals and the vertical tallies may be read as whole choes; horizontal strokes may indicate kotylai.23As noted above, Lang found that graffiti read in this way matched amphora capacity measurements quite well. Even markings indicating just over 10 choes fall within the range of possible capacities for 5th-century amphoras.Amphoras of such a large size are rare,however, as are graffiti that necessarily indicate more than 8 choes. When simple tallies exceed indications of 10 units, or even 8, they are unlikely to be volumetric notations.24In some such cases, Lang suggested that the notations might be better read as price marks,and for a very few examplesshe proposed the identification as weight notations; both possibilities will be considered below. Far less ambiguous are the many graffiti read by Lang as including abbreviationsof chous (X), hemichous (H or E), and kotyle (K).25In many cases, this sequence of abbreviationsresults in quite reasonable and likely readings. These readings, like the simpler tallies described above, rarely give values beyond 8 to 10 choes. In one detail, however, Lang's interpretation of these graffiti should be corrected. She suggested that the use of E for hVLutor as an abbreviation for hesl indicated an h-dropping speaker as the writer. Such a writer, according to Lang, would not have been Attic but probably Chian (where the dialect did not use the aspirate).26A Chian, however, would presumably spell hStL- starting with an Ionian eta, utu-;and Athenians sometimes dropped the aspirate in words beginning with epsilon.27 The E/H marks in numerical graffiti present still further problems of interpretation.When the H or E follows whole-unit symbols (e.g., X for chous), only one H or E is usually present, and this single letter often precedes a series of even smaller unit symbols. In such cases, the E/H is read 22. Numbersfollowed by question marksin these lists indicate that the classificationof the graffitoas to reference (e.g., volume, weight) is uncertain. 23. Similarly,horizontallines can indicate obols on monetaryinscriptions. Tod (1911-1912, p. 101) notes that a verticalline is most common for obol in Attic inscriptions,but elsewhere he lists numerousexamplesof the horizontal line for obol (1911-1912, passim); see, too,Johnston 1979, fig. 12:c, 14F, 15(E). 24. Brashinskiy(1984, pp. 170-204)

lists hundredsof capacitymeasuresfor Archaicthrough Hellenistic amphora types. Of these only sixteen exceed 30 liters. 25. The readingsof H or Efor halfmetretesand Hfor hydriaare discussed furtherbelow.Although the Greek term for half a chous is tro ujll)(xoov, I use the term "hemichous"here as being a more straightforward,English halving of chous. 26. See summaryof Lang'sargument above,p. 9. 27. Collitz and Bechtel 1905, p. 703, and line no. 5653b, line 5 (j'?p-YLCaLv)

16 (jEpjv); p. 712, no. 5664, line 8 (aX?pi-Covyiuocu). I owe this obser-

vation to the comments of one of Hesperia'sanonymousreviewers,who very generouslypointed out this difficulty in Lang'sinterpretation.Lang, indeed, mentions other Agora graffitiwhere the aspirateis droppedfrom names (see note 17, above).The aspirateis left out in variousother stone, ceramic,and numismaticinscriptions;for examples see Guarducci1970, p. 694; Patitucci 1991, p. 249, no. 5; Blond6 1989, p. 518, no. 170; Buck 1955, pp. 156, 159; and Tod 1911-1912, p. 118.

GRAFFITI,

28. Apart from the amphoragraffiti discussedhere, Lang (1956, p. 5, no. 13) also publishesa cook-pot fragmentwith E followed by four verticalstrokes.The E could indicate the fifth unit of measureand the total number,five units.Johnston (1978a, p. 218) expressessome concernover such earlyusage of alphabeticnumerals. In these summations,however-if they arebeing correctlyinterpretedas summations-the numericaluse of the letter seems likely. 29. Blonde 1989, p. 518, no. 170; Johnston 1996, p. 82, note 5 refersto a furtherexamplefrom Olbia. 30. Tod 1911-1912, passim. 31. Lang 1956, p. 11.

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

II

as half of the preceding unit. In other cases the meaning of E/H is more ambiguous. In 25, EE follows a 1T,and the Es are read as acrophonic numerals abbreviating hsi; (with the h dropped). Along the same lines, the EEEE graffito, 29, might be read as four of some unit, but that unit is uncertain (perhaps choes, perhaps mnas; see below). E might also serve as an alphabetic numeral, 5, and H as 8. The alphabetic use of H is most securely read in summation notations (see below).28When E/H stands as the first symbol in a numericallist, the letter may indicate a half-metretes (6 choes) (13, though the interpretation is uncertain; 24; 70). This seems especially likely when the E/H and subsequent marks allow a reading of something less than 8 choes (but see discussion of solitary E/H marks below). E/H, therefore, might stand for various half-units, alphabetic numerals, or-very rarely,and only with E-as an acrophonic numeral for iFC;. Multiple instances of E/H rarelyappearon amphora graffiti;there are three among the graffiti considered here (29, 6, and 65). The first, 29, with EEEE (with the possibility of more letters on either side of the preserved fragment), is from the Mint construction fill. If, from a practical standpoint, it seems unlikely that multiple half-units (e.g., hemichoes) would appear on numerical notation, perhaps this graffito should be read as 4 (sc. choes). This reading, however, depends on the rare acrophonic use of E. If E is read as an alphabetic numeral, then we might have 20 units recorded here, a large volumetric notation but possibly a weight notation (see below). Finally, reading E as an acrophonic numeral for 100, as paralleled on numerical ostraka,29would create an unusually large number for reference to the amphora.The fragment does not seem to be an ostrakon since the writing does not follow any particular edge of the sherd. On balance, the readings either of E for etS, or of E for hesitXouv,despite the rarity of the former and the apparent impracticality of the latter, seem most likely. A second multiple E/H graffito in this collection, 6, may well be an ostrakon;the marks do fit neatly across the sherd. A reading of 300 for the HHH,however,would be difficult to reconcilewith the subsequent T, which is most often used to express a fraction or a talent,30the latter being most unlikely here. If this graffito was applied to, and therefore referred to, a complete vessel, the Hs might stand for YtXooc, followed by the T for onefourth (or one-third), and then a series of 4 kotylai. Alternatively, the T might summarize the four following strokes (see below, "Summation Marks").Such decreasing sizes of units occur throughout these numerical graffiti. The use of multiple half units, however, might seem odd when more than one whole unit was used (why not XHT..., for example?). A further alternative,to read the H for sf;, is unparalleled in this collection. The third and last multiple H graffito, 65, bears a much closer resemblance to the other volumetric notations in terms of syntax or arrangement of the letters. Instead of X being used in a monogram with TTto indicate 5 units, H is used, and a further H precedes two Ks. Lang rightly rejects the possibility that the TTHmonogram indicates 500, and she rejects the possibility here that H would stand for hemichoes, doubting especially "thatfive hemichoes would be used as a unit at all."31Whether the

MARK L. LAWALL

12

presence of the TTHmonogram requiresthere to have been a 5-hemichous unit in use seems to be an open question. Perhaps5 hemichoes were poured in or out before the writer felt the need to note down smaller amounts. Lang ends her discussion of this piece with the suggestion that the H stands for hydria.32This unit of measure is known in two contexts: Epiphanius's treatise on weights and measures, from which it may be equated to 7.29 liters; and the lexicographerHesychius, who defines the term as half of an Attic metretes (s.v. o8Spocia). In both cases, if 65 is read as a tally of hydriae,the total far exceeds the likely capacity of the amphora (more than 44 liters by Epiphanius'sdefinition; more than 115 (!) liters by Hesychius's definition).33As with the previous two multiple E/H graffiti, the difficulties here with interpretations other than hemichous encourage the acceptance of the use of multiple half-unit measures. These particularexamples notwithstanding, the volumetric notations tend to be the most straightforward of the numerical graffiti. The data from measured amphora capacities clearly define the most likely upper range for such markings, and many of the graffiti, especially those using the abbreviations X and K, indicate figures well within this range. Once tallies exceed the number 8, however, the possibility of a nonvolumetric notation must be considered. NOTATIONS

OF WEIGHT?

(3, 5, 7?, I4, I5, i6, I7, I8, 29?, 43, 45?, 74, 79?, 80o, 98) Graffiti and dipinti recording the empty and gross weights of amphoras from the Hellenistic period through Late Antiquity are published from the Agora and elsewhere.34For the 5th century B.C.,however, such readings of the graffiti or any explicit connection between clay vessels and mnas are very rare.35Lang published one example: a small table amphora whose graffito reads (AM ligature, MA ligature, M M) "'AM(popEcoq) M(voc) A(?cX0)M(voc) M(voc)"and (MA ligature MA ligature) "M(voa) A(exoc) M(vaoc)A(ixCx)."36 Lang proposed that the first marks refer to the weight of the empty jar (tare weight) of 12 mnas (approximately5.5 kg) and that the second group refers to the net weight of the jar'scontents, 20 mnas (just over 9 kg),37the equivalent of roughly 9 liters of wine, just under 3 choes. Given the postulatedweight of the emptyjar,and the weights of intact amphoras of various sizes (see below), this jar is likely to have held more than 3 choes, and this weight notation should record a partial 32. Lang'ssuggestion (1956, p. 11) that the graffitowas written by a slave misspellingthe initial sound of chous certainlyseems possiblebut would requirefurthersupportof parallel examplesof misspellings. 33. See Hultsch 1882, p. 574 for interpretationof Epiphanius. 34. Lang 1956, pp. 17-18;Agora XXI, pp. 64-72 and pp. 77-81, passim.

35. Tolstoi (1953, p. 97) published a lagynos graffitoof the 2nd or

1st centuryB.C. from Pantikapaion that reads: jvocSocpyuopou 8Exoc ('A)x-tolou Msvse&opoS with AY2

written on a line abovethe main graffito abovethe end of the name There areproblemsinter'AxTocuou. preting the AYE, but the present interestis the possibilitythat this clay vessel was weighed as 10 silvermnas. By the 2nd centuryB.C. in Attica this would be the equivalentof ca. 6.5 kg. This figuremight indicate the weight of the vessel and its contents (the

empty vessel alone would weigh much less). It is also possible that the lagynos actuallycontained 10 mnas of silver. 36. AgoraXXI, p. 76, He 3 (= P 23948). 37. The conversionfactorfor much of the 5th centuryB.C. is 1 emporic mna to 105 coin drachmasor 0.457 kg/mna; see AgoraX, pp. 4, 19, and 20. For the definition of an emporic mna as opposed to a monetarymna, see AgoraX, pp. 2-4.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

I3

filling of the jar. Another very similar example (3) appears on a transport amphora of the mid-5th century B.C.:AM ligature with MA written out, which may be read as indicating an empty amphora of 10 mnas. Despite the rarity of graffiti referring explicitly to mnas in the 5th century B.C., these examples raise the possibility that tallies indicating large numbers are measures of weight. For example, Lang read a 3rd-century B.C. amphora fragment with AAI11111 as 26 mnas, arguing that the number is too large to indicate the volume of the jar.38She used the same argument to read four other Late Classical or Hellenistic graffiti as weight measurements but suggested such a reading for only one of the larger 5th-century tallies: a Chian jar, 14, with a graffito AA as indicating a tare weight of 20 mnas.39Might other 5th-century graffiti pertain to weight as well? Weights of well-preserved jars may suggest a possible range of tare weights for late-5th-century amphoras in emporic mnas. Weights of intact amphoras are rarelyreported since sufficiently well preservedjars are not very common. Published weights (converted to 5th-century emporic mnas of 105 drachmas,0.457 kg/mna) range from 6.7 mnas to 37.2 mnas.40 Other weighed amphoraslisted by Lang inAgoraXXI are of much smaller, Late Roman types. David Peacock and Dyfri Williams list a series of weights for major earlier Roman amphora types (note that all of these later forms are much larger with thicker walls than their Classical counterparts).41I review the averageshere: Dr 1B, 25 kg (54.7 mnas); Dr 2-4, 15 kg (32.8 mnas); Haltern 70, 18 kg (39.4 mnas); Dr 20,28.42 kg (62.1 mnas); Africana Grande, 17.83 kg (39 mnas); and Tripolitanian, 15.86 kg (34.8 mnas). I weighed four intact 5th- and 4th-century B.C.Greek amphoras using a simple spring balance to determine a range of possible empty weights for the amphoras carrying the graffiti (none of which are intact themselves). An early-5th-century jar (P 23750), likely to be from northern Greece, weighs ca. 5 kg (11.0 mnas); a late-5th-century jar (P 30685), perhapsfromThasos or the surroundingarea,weighs ca. 6.5 kg (14.2 mnas); an unidentified jar (P 27420) of similar size as the late-5th-century Chian type weighs ca. 7.5 kg (16.4 mnas);42and a largerjar,possibly Mendean, of the mid-4th century (SS 14826), weighs ca. 10.5 kg (23.0 mnas). This small sampling of Classical amphora weights, suggesting a general range of 5 to 10 kg or 10 to 20 mnas, fits well with the range of weights of 38. AgoraXXI, p. 66, Hb 1 (= Lang 1956, p. 17, no. 73). Here Lang uses an emporicmna standardof 0.654 kg/mna (150 coin drachmas),but this standardwas legislatedin the late 2nd centuryB.C. as replacinga standardof 0.60168 kg/mna (138 coin drachmas), which itself must have replaced the earlier 0.457 kg/mna (105 coin drachmas); see Agora X, pp. 19-20 for the history of fluctuations in this standard. 39. Agora XXI, p. 66, Hb 2, Hb 3; Lang 1956, p. 18, nos. 75 and 76 are the other 4th and 3rd-century weight notations. Lang 1956, p. 17, no. 72 =

14 (note that Lang's conversion of these 20 mnas to kilograms here is based on a coin mna of 100 drachmas [0.436 kg/mna]; the conversion should be based on an emporic mna of at least 105 drachmas). 40. Johnston and Jones 1978, p. 104, Attic SOS amphora, 17 kg (37.2 mnas); Bertucchi 1992, p. 102, type 6 Augustan amphora, 11.6 kg (25.4 mnas);

p. 114, type 7,1st centuryA.c., 11.5 kg (25.2 mnas); p. 128, Graeco-Italic, early 2nd century B.C.,5.9 kg (12.6 mnas); p. 135, Dr. 7-11 form, 10.1 kg (22.1 mnas); Agora XXI, p. 66, Hb 5,

P 3467, Early Roman amphora, 8.150

kg with dipinto indicating 8.194 kg (17.8 mnas);p. 66, Hb 9, P 26602, RobinsonM 238 type amphora,4th centuryA.C.,3.065 kg (6.7 mnas); pp. 66-67, Hb 10, P 9881, Robinson M 232 type amphora,4th centuryA.C., 5.030 kg (11 mnas). 41. Peacockand Williams 1986, p. 52, table 1. 42. Lang (1956, p. 17, no. 72) cites a weight of 8.640 kg for a Chian jar,but the jar is restoredwith plaster,which may have added considerablyto its weight.

I4

MARK

L. LAWALL

amphoras of comparable size from other periods and regions. With wine or oil added, a large Classical amphora could reach or exceed 50 mnas (over 20 liters). A full jar could weigh over 70 mnas. The largernumericalgraffitimight, therefore,referto aspectsof weight. Figures indicating between 10 and 20 mnas, for example, could record the empty weight of the jar. An early graffito, 5, shows a A followed by two rows of four vertical strokes each. Lang's reading of 10 choes, 8 kotylai as the capacity of the jar is possible, but unusually large.43A slightly laterjar, If the similarity between these two 15, shows a similar graffito, A 1111111. a of indicates graffiti similarity meaning, both the earlier and the later record could tare weights (18 mnas for the earlier,17 mnas for the graffito later). On the other hand, if the empty weight was apparent simply from observing the balance,then the tallied figures might recordeither the number of weights added to determine the net weight of the jar's contents or the total number of balancing weights present once the liquid was added (gross weight ofjar and contents). Graffiti clearly indicating amounts over 30 units (74 and 81) may indicate either net or gross weight. Other markings less clearly indicate such large numbers. Some graffiti are composed of stacked, short, horizontal marks along the first or final of a series of vertical strokes (16, 18, and possibly 45).44 By comparison with graffiti in which Ks (abbreviatingkotylai) are stacked on a single vertical stroke (35, 36), the horizontal strokes could be small units or fractions in relation to the vertical strokes. Given that 10-mna units have been postulated for other weight graffiti, it is possible that the verticals here indicate units of 10 and the horizontal strokes indicate single mnas. By this process, 16 would be read as 50 mnas, and 18 indicates 28 mnas. A third such graffito, 45, preserves the ends of seven short horizontal segments followed by six verticals arranged in pairs. If the verticals do refer to units of 10, 67 mnas would be indicated. On the other hand, it seems odd to have the smaller units before the larger ones. Here, only the ends of the horizontals arepreserved,and it cannot be determined whether they were stacked on a single stroke as in the other graffiti just discussed. The use of horizontal lines to indicate 10 drachmas is attested in monetary inscriptions, so here the graffiti may use the horizontals to account for 70 mnas followed by 6 more mnas, for a total, perhaps gross, weight of 76 mnas.45 All of the possible weight notations considered so far involve quite ambiguous and simply rendered tallies. The only likely abbreviationsfor units of weight so far encountered are the two MA monograms treated above.The two multiple E/H graffiti, 6 and 29, could be read as indicating a hemistater, the equivalent of 1 mna, thus obviating their interpretation as multiple half-unit marks.In support of such a reading of multiple E/ H marks, a 4th-century amphora graffito with TTHHH[ ] AATT[was read by Lang as a tare notation, perhaps with 8+ mnas as empty weight and 25+ mnas as the gross or net weight (Lang does not provide a specific interpretation).46There is no clear evidence, however, that the term hemistater was used as a synonym in Athens for mna even though the mna was defined in terms of the stater.47

43. Lang 1956, p. 6, no. 16. 44. Johnston (1979, pp. 30-31) discussestallies "tied"or "bundled" together in this same way; a particularly close parallelis providedbyARV666, no. 13 (Boston 01.18, unpublished) with six short markscoming off a single longer one. There is no clearindication what the bundled units referto, whether numbersof vessels in a batch, price, or some other factor.See also Babinovet al. 1978, p. 134, no. 1755, pl.31. 45. For inscriptionswith horizontal lines for 10 drachmas,see Tod 19111912, pp. 104 (Epidauros),113 (Euboea);1936-1937, p. 241 (Epidauros).Tod (1926-1927, pp. 149-150 and 1936-1937, pp. 255-257) discusses the use of a horizontalbar for 1 mna at Cyrene.Johnston (1979, p. 31) also notes the use of the horizontalline for "10"on finewaregraffiti. 46. Lang 1956, p. 18, no. 76. 47. AgoraX, pp. 2-3.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

I5

The use of the term stater in the Athenian system of weights raises the possibility that E-graffiti (19 and 26), which Lang read as prices, might refer to weights of the jars or their contents. 26 has A 2 (10 staters) on one side of the neck and a clear abbreviationfor 10 choes, 2 kotylai (AX monogram KK)on the opposite side of the neck. Ten staters (20 mnas) is unlikely to be the weight of the recorded volume of contents since it is difficult to imagine what materialwould give such a low weight for more than 30 liters; even 30 liters of barleywould weigh 19.2 kg or ca. 42 mnas.48The 10 staters could, however, describe the weight of the empty jar to which the 10 choes, 2 kotylai were added or whose measured capacity was 10 choes, 2 kotylai. With 19, the seven staters recordedwould equal 14 mnas, a very likely weight for an empty jar of this type. Along this line of thought, however, the 14 staters I interpret as the reading of 25, following the volumetric note of 7 choes, seem unlikely to indicate the empty weight of the jar; 28 mnas seems high for a jar of this type. If the staters (?) on 25 are taken as an indication of price, then the other stater notations are perhaps also better considered as prices. The possibility that they refer to weight requiresmore evidence from weighed intactjars of preciselythe same types as those marked. None of these possible amphora weight graffiti juxtaposes a notation of the tare weight with either the net or gross weight. Lang wrote that without the tare weight, weight graffiti referring to contents alone would be meaningless.49This is true, however, only if the weighing did not occur in a face-to-face context. If the customer sees the empty jar balanced by the weighing device, then the customer knows that any further weight added-and perhaps recorded by marks on the jar-is the weight of the added goods. PRICE MARKS

48. Garnsey1992, p. 148. 49. AgoraXXI, p. 66, Hb 1.

50.This is the practicegenerally followedin finewarepricemarks, see althoughthereareexceptions; Johnston 1979, fig. 14:f.

(19,

25, 26, 30?,

44, 56, 69, 79?)

Among the many numerical graffiti discussed here, there are very few markings attributableto price. The most securely interpreted price marks are those that carryeither the common epigraphic symbol for drachma, F, or 2 abbreviatingstater.Lang interpreted other tally marks as prices, often in cases where the numbers exceeded the expected figures for volumetric notation (7-8 choes). Since, however, those tallies give no indication of being price marks, and given the presence of more explicit monetary symbols when prices are certainly intended, it seems more reasonable to read these largertallies as notations of weight (as above).Calculatingboth weight and volume might involve some process by which units are successively recorded and so are especially appropriatefor tallying. Price, on the other hand, would more likely have been conceived of as one figure and recorded using symbols for the largest units of the figure (e.g., A for 10 instead of ten vertical strokes) followed by smaller units.50 Perhaps surprisingly,given Athenian use of drachma coinage instead of staters,the 2 abbreviatingstater occurs nearly as often as the symbol for drachma.In the case introduced above, 26, we have an apparentjuxtaposition of price and volume-10 staters and 10 choes, 2 kotylai-on opposite sides of a Mendean neck. Lang noted that a price of 10 staters for just over

i6

MARK

L. LAWALL

10 choes would fit well with the generalization that "two drachmae per chous was the standard price for wine."51Similarly, for 19, a Chian jar I may be read as 7 staters.Later,in likely to have held ca. 7 Attic choes, T 11 the early 4th century, a jar of unidentified type carries the letters TTI on its neck in black paint (or charcoal?);this relativelysmalljar may have held 6 choes.52In discussing the first two pieces, Lang noted that staters in Chios and Mende were considered as didrachms,so the prices in the Athenian Agora would indicate a price of 2 drachmas per chous for both Mendean and Chian wine. Alan Johnston notes that if the graffiti were applied in the places of export, the writer may have been thinking in terms of local coin standards,thereby casting considerableuncertaintyfor us now as to the intended price in Attic drachmas.53Nevertheless, the 2 in all cases seems to indicate stater. Graffiti using the standard epigraphic symbol for drachma (F) are much simpler to read as price marks,but they arerare.54Drachmas were so indicated on only two 5th-century pieces published by Lang. The first, 44, has two clear drachma signs preceded by a difficult symbol read by Lang as two deltas sharing a common side,55giving a total of 22 drachmas.The arrangement of the deltas, however, is not paralleled elsewhere. Reading the symbol as a monogram TTA,for 50, has parallels in many fineware and pithos graffiti.56On this interpretation,the price would read 52 drachmas. Such a price might seem high, but the total number of known wine prices (if that is even the material being priced) is not so great that we can claim any certainty as to what is a normal price.57The second price in drachmas published by Lang is a dipinto, which partly covers a volumetric (?) graffito (56).58The price reads 16 drachmas, certainly at the lower end of prices associated with amphora contents. The only other securely read amphoraprice graffito known to me from the 5th-century Agora, 69, gives a price of 27 or 28 drachmas on a Chian jar. Depending on the volume of liquid in the jar,this graffitomight indicate a price of 3 or 4 drachmas per chous.59 51. Lang 1956, p. 13. Papadopoulos and Paspalas(1999, p. 177) remindus of Pritchett'scomment (1956, pp. 202-203, note 112) when writing about the Attic Stelai prices, that amphorascarriedmore than just wine or oil (perhapstheir intended primarycontents), so that the prices markedon amphorasonly indicate the price of their contents-whatever those may have been. While Lang is right to place emphasison the fame

of Chianwineandhencethe strong

likelihood that the jars contained wine, the many possibilitiesof other contents and of the pricesbeing inscribedat any of variouspoints in the life of the jar should be borne in mind (see below on interpretingthe graffiti).

52. P 30714, with a fully preserved rim, neck, handles, and part of the shoulder.The type is not published but is found extensivelyin late-5thand early-4th-centurycontexts in the Agora. See Lawall 1995, p. 167, note 212. 53. Johnston 1996, p. 82. 54. The rarityof these graffitiis particularlynotable in contrastto the many examplesof F-used on Attic finewaregraffiti. 55. Lang 1956, p. 15, no. 65, pl. 3.

56. Forexamplessee Lang1956,

p. 22, no. 99;Johnston 1979, p. 28; Solomonik 1984, pp. 121-122, pls. 2728, nos. 284-290; Jefremov1998, p. 74. 57. Prices in literaryand epigraphic

referencesand from graffitisuch as the ones discussedhere give a range from 4 obols per chous to 50 obols per chous;for studies of wine prices see note 16 above.Bagnall (1989, pp. 70-71) highlights the variability of commodity prices in papyriof the 4th centuryA.C. 58. AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 5. Johnston (1978a, p. 218) notes that this piece "allowsa numberof interpretations."For furtherdiscussion of the relationshipbetween the graffito markand the price dipinto and the possible interpretationsof the graffitoitself, see the catalogueentry below. 59. This fragmentis cited in Papadopoulos and Paspalas1999, p. 177, note 78.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

COMMERCIAL

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

I7

AMPHORAS

ABBREVIATIONS

(8, 20, 2I, 54, 55, 66, 75, 76, 77, 78) The letters and other marks in the graffiti discussed above all appear in groups, and it was this circumstance that led to their identification as numerical graffiti pertinent to units of measurement.A much more common form of graffiti-for any sort of vessel-is an isolated letter or short abbreviation often thought to indicate an owner or maker of the pot. The ambiguity of these marks and the fact that they are found on so many different kinds of vessels make them hazardous to study solely in terms of graffiti on amphoras. Certain letters, however, often appear on amphoras in deposits with numericalgraffiti.60The letters E and H, alreadydiscussed abovewith other symbols, often appearas isolated letters. A second common graffito of this type is the letter M, sometimes contained in the abbreviationME.While it is possible that these abbreviations, E/H and M/ME, are simply owner's marks, their repeated presence on amphoras sets them apart from other isolated-letter graffiti and raises the possibility that they refer to aspects of the amphora or its contents other than ownership. E/H

GRAFFITI

As noted above, the letters E and H often appear as components of numerical graffiti. It is tempting to transfer some element of their meanings in that context to instances in which they stand alone. Given the frequent appearanceof volumetric graffiti on the amphoras studied here, a reading seems reasonof the E/H graffito as a half-metretes (,u[o.u [i?sTp.YcTOV) able. However, there is no single term in ancient Greek for half-metretes does not exist), so it is more likely that the H here stands for (y],st1,(?TpY]T defined by Hesychius as half of an Attic metretes.61The letter might hydria, indicate that the jar contains only a half-metretes,62which may be considerably less than its full capacity. If H, when found alone, stands for hydria, however, it is no longer so readily interchangeable with E. Indeed, the two cases where E stands alone, 54 and 66, differ from the H graffiti in terms of the type of amphora on which they are found. Both 54 and 66 are found on Solokha I ampho60. One furthersuchabbreviation (KA)is seen in 84 and, possibly,85 in Q15:2. The same abbreviationmay be restoredon amphorasat other sites and may,therefore,fall into the same class as the E/Hand M/MEmarkshere, i.e., not simply owner'smarksbut relatedto amphorasin a broadersense. Given the scarcityof these marks, however,in comparisonwith the abbreviationsdiscussedin this section, I have left the discussionof their possible meaningsto the catalogue entries.For examplesof KAgraffiti outside Athens, see Samothrace 11.2,

p. 100, no. 246, and Solomonik 1984, nos. 172 and 175. 61. Hesychius,s.v. ob8pocxic,and see p. 12, above. 62. The assumptionthat an Attic metretesheld 12 choes is supported by only one papyrusdocument,to my knowledge:P Ryl. 4, document 564rp, ctr, 17, line 5; but even here, 8o6?x6yXoot"is restored(though with good parallelswhere metretesis modified, but not with the specificlabel of "Attic").Otherwise,"Atticmetretes"is expressedonly in Hesychius'sdefinition of 1 hydria(see note 61). Modern

authorshave defined the term assuminga duodecimalsystem for the relationshipsbetween units of measureand using comparisonswith Roman units of measure;see, e.g., Hultsch 1882, p. 101, note 6, which begins:"Aneinem direktZeugnisse iiber die Einteilung des attischen Metretes fehlt es...."

Epiphanius

(Treatiseon Weightsand Measures,43) distinguishesbetween a "sacredchous" as a twelfth of a metretes and a "complete"or "greater"chous as a "ninthof a metretes;see Dean 1935,

p. 56.

18

MARK

L. LAWALL

ras, a type that is rarelyresinated. If one follows the communisopinio that resinated jars were for wine and some nonresinated jars more likely for oil,63then perhaps the E here specifies that these contain oil, EXxaov. A few Solokha I jars are known, however, with fairly small capacities, so the E could serve as an abbreviation for half-metretes (in the longer form hetLoLuUTvp-yroo, which would allow the E to abbreviateYi,lUo). Lang suggested half-metretes as the reading for the E followed by two vertical strokes on 13.64As discussed in the catalogue entry below, however, such a reading does not fit the possibilities of dialect associated with reading E for hSiL- nor the measured capacity. M/ME

GRAFFITI

Given the argument above for H abbreviating hydria/half-metretes, the most direct reading for M or ME would be as a single complete metretes. Such a reading certainly finds support in the large size of the Solokha I jars on which these letters are often found (8, possibly Solokha I form; 55; 77; and 78, Samian jar in Solokha I form); some jars of this form can hold slightly more than 1 Attic metretes, 12 choes.65Problematic for such a reading, however, is the repeated presence of M-graffiti on necks that belong to much smaller jars (20 and 21). On these two amphoras, both from the same deposit, a letter M is found on either side of the neck. All four letters are very carefully and visibly inscribed. It seems unlikely that the writer would feel the need to be so emphatic about the fact that the amphora contained 1 metretes. One possible reason that the Ms are so clearly inscribed is that it was very important for the jars' contents to be known to the buyer. Here the absence of resinous coatings on jars with the M/ME graffiti at the Agora seems relevant.As noted above, a lack of resin is sometimes taken to indicate oil as the primarycontents of an amphora.It is difficult to reconcile M with a term related to oil given cases where the abbreviationis lengthened to ME;66had the abbreviationbeen lengthened to MY, then perhaps perfumed oil (ji6pov) might have been the meaning. The presence of ME, however, suggests reading the M as signifying tiSXt,honey. An unresinated amphorawould seem to be quite an appropriatecontainer for honey. Honey weighs much more than an equivalent amount of oil.67If honey was sold from reused oil containers or reused, unlined wine jars, it would not be surprising to see the containers in which it was sold very clearly marked as such. Later amphora dipinti clearly identify am63. Koehler(1986, pp. 50-52) collects many of the ancient references relatingresin/pitchto wine amphoras, and (p. 52) lists wax, gum, and the dregs of olive oil productionas possible lining agents for oil amphoras. Dupont (1998, p. 182, note 257) questionsthe exclusionof other productsincluding oil from resinated jars. Resin was also transportedin amphoras,accordingto G. Bass

(pers.comm., November 1996). 64. Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 30. 65. Brashinskiy(1984, p. 124, with charton pp. 198-199) lists capacities for Solokha I amphorasof 39,700, 32,200, 17,500, and two at 14,000 cm3. In addition,an MEgraffito appearson a CorinthianB type shoulderfrom deposit B 13:5 (Lawall 1995, pp. 342, 384, CrB2), which is not included in the cataloguehere since it is not found

with any other numericalgraffiti;such a jar would have a capacityof much less than a complete metretes. 66. See, too, ME(as monogram)Al, Solomonik 1984, no. 341. 67. Lang, in AgoraXXI, p. 80, He 29, notes that ancient metrological writers consideredhoney to weigh one and a third times the equivalentvolume of wine or water.

WINE

GRAFFITI,

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

I9

phora contents as honey.68Perhaps to be cited in support of this reading is a fragmentarybeehive reported among the finds from well R 13:1,69a well immediately adjacent to deposits containing examples of the M/ME graffiti (see catalogue and "Findspots,"below) and containing many amphora graffiti, although none with the M/ME markings. A related reading for the M/ME graffiti could be a label for honeyed wine (L?XtTT(tY otvoS, wine prepared with honey, or VsXChpoo; olvo;, honey-sweetened wine).70 Such wine is mentioned both in the medical authors and in later Roman amphora dipinti from the Agora.71While the lack of resin does not fit quite so well with this reading, here too the seller of the jar might be concerned to indicate very clearly that the jar contains honeyed wine, not normal wine. SUMMATION (2,

68. AgoraXXI, p. 73, and He 29, He 33, He 34, and He 36. 69. Liidorf 1998-1999, p. 76. has manyvariant 70. MeMiXpooo spellings,especiallyin papyri;see LSJ, s.v. tisXXpoo;. Agora XXI, p. 79, He 21 reads olvo)u ?XiLTLVOO, which should

mean wine made from honey,not honeyed wine. The writerof He 21 may have intended olvoouV?XLTTirou; there seem to be some extraneouspainted strokestowardthe end of the second word that could be readin this way. 71.AgoraXXI, p. 73; p. 79, He 21, He 30; and see Papadopoulosand 80, p. Paspalas1999, p. 175. For ancient and references,see LSJ,s.v. i.eXEMpooS 72. See Lang 1956, p. 5, nos. 10-14 andAgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 5-Ha 7 for examplesof summationgraffiti. 73. AgoraXXI, p. 59, He 7.

4, 6?,

22,

MARKS

23, 24?, 46?, 56, 57, 80?,

91,

98?)

In a few cases, a simple tally of vertical strokes is accompanied by an acrophonic or alphabetic numeral, which can be read as the summary of the tally.72These summation marks occur in three different patterns: 1) simple vertical strokes are summarizedby a single alphabeticor acrophonic numeral; 2) the summarizing numeral follows a combination of singleunit strokes and largerunit symbols; and 3) the summation occurs midway through the tallying process and is followed by further notations. The first pattern is the most common here with perhaps as many as seven examples catalogued:2, 22, 23, 56, 57, and possibly 46 and 80. The tally marks are sometimes more sketchily cut than the summation marks, but more often all marks are cut in roughly the same fashion. The fact that the number of strokes equals the alphabetic or acrophonic numeral suggests a summation. The tallies might stop one unit short of the total if the summation mark was intended also to include the final small unit. The second pattern only occurs twice and both examples are open to question (24, 98). In 24 an H might be read as a half-metretes (6 choes) followed by four vertical strokes to give a total of 10 choes. Below this graffito is an incised delta that could be read as an acrophonic 10 recording the total indicated by the smallerunits. For 98, the largest numeral,a delta, may have been inscribed first, then the series of four very sketchy strokes cut as the writer worked his way up to the "5"indicated by TT.This piece is unusual among the summation marks as it seems to indicate a measurement of weight rather than volume. The third pattern is also fairly rare(4, 6, and 91). Here the summary is inscribed part way through the counting process and is followed by symbols for additional, usually smaller units. Lang read these graffiti as the result of pouring in a certain number of small units of liquid and then noting the total before adding more to top off the jar.73It may be significant that two of the three examples of this pattern, 4 and 6, are earlierthan the bulk of the graffiti and the third example, 91 (which comprises two graffiti), may have a slightly different interpretation.High on the shoulder near the base of the neck is the volumetric notation 111i.Lower on the shoulder is another marking of five vertical strokes. Following the third pattern of summation graffiti, the five verticals would be read as being

20

MARK

L.

LAWALL

summarized by the TT.After these 5 choes, another three were added, for a total of eight. Alternatively, the eight may have been noted first, and the five strokes noted later to account for removed contents.74 This last example raisesthe question of whether the summariesrecord liquid poured in or poured out (decanted, for example, into a customer's smallerjar). In examples of the third pattern, especially in 4 and perhaps 6, in which larger to smaller and more precise units of measure are used, it seems likely that Lang is right to see the jar on which we have the graffiti being filled and topped off. For most of the other examples, however, it is possible that the summation represents the known quantity of liquid in the jar and that the smaller tallies result from liquid being poured out or decanted into smaller containers (for more on such processes, see discussion of practices, below). COMBINED

NOTATIONS

(25, 26, 56)

Jars carrying more than one type of notation are quite rare among the graffiti treated here. In later periods, among finds from across the Agora excavationsand elsewhere, combined notations are much more common.75 It is possible that had more fragments preserved both sides of the amphora neck or broaderparts of the shoulder, more combinations of markings might have appeared.The three combined notations that are preserved all involve volume and price. In two of these cases, 25 and 26, the volume is likely to represent the complete filling of the jar and the price indicates the cost of the contents (probablywith the jar as well).76As noted above, the A2 on 26 might instead be an indication of the weight of the empty vessel. If so, the marks on 26 would indicate the specific capacity of the vessel of the marked weight. For the reasons presented earlier,however, an indication of price on 26 is more likely. 56 seems to reflect at least two stages of marking. The graffito on the jar is a summation mark of 5 choes, with the simple pattern of a series of strokes summarized by a numeral (in this case a three-letter abbreviation)for the total. This graffito, however, is then covered by a red stripe. Further to the side on the same neck fragment is a dipinto that may be read as 16 drachmas, also in red paint. It seems likely that the graffiti and the red dipinti represent two occasions of marking. First, 5 choes (unlikely to be the full capacity of the jar) were poured in or decanted. This graffito was then painted over, perhaps to cancel its message, and the price mark was painted. There is no need to see the price as related to the 5 choes; these may have long since left the jar by the time the price was marked. SUMMARY

Broad patterns in the nature of the graffiti may be summarized as follows. Volume does seem to be the point of information predominant among the graffiti, but the marksdo not always record the full capacity of the amphora. The differing implications of those markings that might account for the complete capacityof the jar and of those that recordsmalleramounts are considered below. Notations of volume appear occasionally with price marks and in the format of a summation of smaller measures by a single larger unit.

74. Lang (1956, p. 6, no. 17) suggested that the five strokesmight indicate kotylaiif there were only two strokesfollowing the n. This readingis not well supportedby other examples. Kotylaitend to be listed with the rest of a notation. It is unclearto me why an indication of only 7 choes in the main part of the graffitiwould recommend the simple tally to be read as kotylai. 75. AgoraXXI, pp. 75-81. 76. For 98, Lang (1956, p. 15, no. 64) suggests a separateprice for the jar and for the contents. It is conceivable that jarswere sold separately,given that much of the wine might have been decanted and sold in smallerunits (see below). 98, however,would be the only examplehere of a price for contents separatefrom the price of the jar.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

21I

Notations of weight are, at best, moderately explicit on a very few Classical amphoras. Even these, where M is read as abbreviatingmna, are open to question. The other markings interpreted here as notations of weight come as tallies that seem to surpass the likely volume of the amphora and fall within the range of the possible empty weight of the jar and the gross weight of the filled jar. Price markings are generally rare on these amphoras.The same holds true to some extent with fineware graffiti:in relative terms, general "trademarks"are far more common than price marks in particular.A second significant feature of the amphora price marks is that they often seem to involve reference to staters even though Athens did not use that particular unit of coinage in the 5th century.The rarityof price marks and this use of "foreign"terminology are useful factors in identifying likely contexts for the application of price marks (see below). Isolated letters of abbreviationsare fairly common on amphoras and other pottery, and in most cases it is not at all certain whether they have any particular commercial significance. On the other hand, two sets of abbreviations, E/H and M/ME, recur sufficiently often on amphorasboth within the major graffiti-bearing deposits in the Agora, considered here, and at other sites-that they seem to have some particularmeaning related to amphora use. E/H for half-metretes, or H alone for hydria, E for elaion (oil), and M/ME for metretes, meli (honey), or honey-flavored wine seem to be the most reasonable interpretations given the nature of the amphoras on which the marks appear. Summation markings, as noted above, tend to involve notations of volume, but in one anomalous case weight may be the topic of the graffito (98). By far the most common pattern for these is also the most simple, a series of single strokes for counting up to or down from an overall total. Indeed, the primaryissue of interpretationfor these marksis whether they attest to decanting from or to filling the marked amphora (see below). The scarcity of combined notations has also been noted. In the few cases found here, the focus seems to be on volume and price. While both price and volumetric notations often occur in isolation, it is noteworthy to find this juxtaposition of information. Such paired notations may help determine which stage in the distribution of the amphoras might be referred to by the price inscriptions. Above all, in considering the readings of individual markings and determining why these markswere applied, it is important to emphasize the difficulties of interpretation and the limits on our certainty.At best, support of parallel syntaxes in other graffiti provides reasonable security in approachingindividual problems, but many uncertainties and possibilities remain. On the other hand, the fact that so many graffiti, especially those that use abbreviationsfor units of volume, may be read as matching or approximating measurementsof preserved,contemporaryamphorasstrongly suggests that we are on the right track. Readings of weight notation are more problematic. They are suggested here as an alternative to the difficulty in reading tallies as price marks when more recognizable monetary symbols are commonly used on amphoras, pithoi, and finewares. On the whole, it seems useful to make suggestions as to readings and to explore where those readings lead in terms of interpreting the graffiti.

MARK

22

CATALOGUE AMPHORAS

OF GRAFFITI

L.

LAWALL

ON 5TH-CENTURY

The pieces illustrated here include both previously unpublished or unillustratedgraffitiand previouslypublished graffitiof debatedreading.Lang provides illustrations of most pieces not shown here.77 The deposits arelisted in approximatechronologicalorder.All findspots are indicated on Figure 1; a detail of the walls and Classical well deposits in the vicinity of grid unit R 13 is illustrated in Figure 2. Within each deposit, the entries are presented in the following order:volumetric notations; notations of weight (?);prices; abbreviationsE/H and M/ME; summations; and others. Within each entry, the following information is provided: catalogue number, Agora inventory number, general type of graffito present, amphora type, previous publication, preservation of the amphora fragment, description of the graffito, discussion of the reading of the graffito, and the likely date of the amphora type. The description of the cuttings as light, moderate, or heavy-referring to the force applied in creating the graffito-is admittedly subjective but is meant to give some impression of the variation among the markings. In discussing the readings of each marking, I have tried to consider differentpossibilities;in many cases I see no way of confirming one interpretation over the others, and the reader may have even further interpretations. Comments on the dates of the amphora fragments and the deposits containing the graffiti are based on my current research on Late Archaic through Hellenistic amphora typologies. Since many of the better-preserved pieces and larger deposits will be discussed in depth in a future publication, I do not consider chronological issues in detail here. EARLY

EXAMPLES

OF NUMERICAL

GRAFFITI

The following graffiti are from deposits closed before ca. 425 B.C.These pieces are listed in roughly chronological order, as dated by either the findspot or, when possible, the amphora carrying the marking. 1

(P 11068). Volume. Chian C/l.

Fig. 3

D 15:1; well filled during cleanup after the Persian sack in 480 B.C. (Shear 1993, pp. 434-435). Lang 1956, p. 3, no. 2. Preserves half of rim, neck, and one handle. Seven horizontal, parallel incisions across handle, each cut quite deeply. Lang interprets this graffito as indicating 7 Attic choes, assuming that early Chian jars held 8 Chian choes. Brashinskiy (1984, p. 171, nos. 20-23 and 30-33), however, cites a range of sizes from less than 7 to nearly 10 choes. For the form of this jar and all three of the major 5th-century Chian forms (C/1, C/2, and C/3), see Kerameikos IX, pp. 23-24; the C/1 form is datable between 520 and 480 B.C.

77. Lang 1956;AgoraXXI.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

2

1

3 7

8 Figure 3. Graffiti from deposits closed before ca. 425 B.C.

OF

AMPHORAS

23

MARK

24

2

(P 9340). Summation. Unclassified type.

L. LAWALL

Fig. 3

Section D grid 65/MB, notebook p. 279, context dated to late 5th or early 4th century,just south of South Stoa I. Lang 1956, p. 5, no. 14. Unclassified handle fragment. Preserves only lower part of handle. Graffito at the base of the handle: H11111. Very short, small, carefully cut symbols. Lang reads a final alphabetic numeral for "8,"created by linking the sixth and seventh verticals, after 7 individual choes were poured into the jar.The vertical tallies may record subtraction from the total of 8 choes as each chous is poured out. The careful cutting of the letters may suggest a single marking occasion for the filling or decanting. Neither the form nor the fabric is precisely datable, but the fragment is likely to date to the late 6th or early 5th century. 3

(P 5176). Weight. Northern Greek, possibly Thasian.

Fig. 3

H 6:5, well found under the Stoa of Zeus, cut through Persian destruction level (Talcott 1936, p. 333, note 2). Talcott 1936, pp. 344 and 352. Nearly complete jar with minor restorations. AM ligature on shoulder with MA written out in full. Placement of AM relative to MA not indicated on Figure 3. Lightly incised, large letters. Following Lang's reading of a similar ligature on a small table amphora (AgoraXXI, He 3), this graffito may be read as "amphoreus10 mnas."Talcott (1936, pp. 344, 352) discusses graffiti on two other amphoras from the same well. One (P 5174; AgoraXXI, p. 33, F 60 = PAA 122810) carries the graffito AMA; the other (P 5175; AgoraXXI, p. 34, F 61) is marked XAP. By comparison with P 5174, the AM monogram on 3 may be simply an owner's mark. Lang (AgoraXXI, p. 33) notes that names starting with AMA tend to be either "heroic or later than the 5th century."Cf. PAA 122818, possibly ca. 400 B.C.3 was chosen for inclusion in this catalogue on account of the MA mark incised higher on the shoulder, near the AM; MA seems unlikely to abbreviatea name. The fabric of this amphora type bears some resemblance to later stamped Thasian amphoras, and the form is widely paralleled across the north shore of the Aegean (Lawall 1997). Date ca. 460. 4

(P 26070). Summation. Northern Greek.

Section W; surface find in the areajust south of the Mint. AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 7, pl. 32. Preserves only the lower part of handle. IIIIIIIZEKKrunning toward the shoulder along the outer face of the handle. Deeply cut symbols, with tally strokes cut more deeply than the following letters.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

25

Lang reads as 7 choes, summed up by the Z (=7) followed by half a chous and 2 kotylai. Although it is difficult to establish whether this was a roughly 7-choes jar (few capacity measures are published from this period), there is no ready alternative to Lang's reading. The low-set angle of the handle against the shoulder finds best parallels in the first half of the 5th century,perhaps the second quarter; cf. Grace 1953, p. 106, nos. 158-159, pl. 39. 5

(P 21965). Weight? Unknown type.

N 7:3, well just northwest of the north end of the later Stoa of Attalos, published in full by Boulter (1953) with catalogue of amphoras by Grace (1953). Boulter 1953, p. 100, no. 140, fig. 4; Lang 1956, p. 6, no. 16. Preserves only a small, poorly diagnostic body fragment of a relatively thin-walled vessel. Graffito A followed by two rows of four vertical strokes, one row above the other. Lightly cut. Lang (1956, p. 6, no. 16) considers that this would be "anunusual price inscription"and suggests instead 10 choes, 8 kotylai. While such a large capacity is possible, the large number indicated could record the empty weight of the jar, 18 mnas (ca. 8.2 kg). Date before ca. 440 B.C. 6

(P 30085). Summation? Type uncertain, possibly northern Greek.

H 4:5, a pit filled just west of the Royal Stoa, published in full by Rotroff and Oakley (1992). Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 125, no. 356, fig. 22, pl. 60. Neck sherd only. Graffito in small, carefully cut letters: HHHT 1111.The vertical strokes are set slightly apart from the preceding letters. The T might sum up the four individual tallies: perhaps then we have 3 hemichoes and 4 kotylai. Alternatively, the T might indicate a third or quarterof a chous following the accounting of the 3 hemichoes. While it is possible that this sherd was inscribed after breaking, the T is more likely to indicate a fraction than either the numbers 30 or 40; and 300+ talents seems like a large sum to inscribe on a simple ostrakon. Although Rotroff and Oakley (1992, esp. pp. 53-57) suggest a closing date for the deposit around 425, the diagnostic amphora pieces and many of the other ceramics are no later than ca. 450. The graffito may also be much earlier than ca. 425. 7

(P 17124). Volume or weight? Chian C/3.

Fig. 3

A 20-21:1, deep cutting for drain.The latest datable piece in the fill bell is a krater,P 17000, ca. 400-397 B.C.See Young 1951, pp. 254-257. Full rim, neck, both handles, part of shoulder. Large red-painted A on neck; below this is a graffito: Al. The

MARK

26

L. LAWALL

dipinto does not cover the area of the graffito, so it is not certain which mark was applied first. The incised letters are fairly large in comparison with other pieces in this catalogue, and the incisions are of moderate depth. Eleven choes would be fairly large for a jar of this type; 11 mnas is a possibility though this would be fairly light for such a thick-walled and tall jar (no intact jars were availablefor more precise estimation of the range of weights for this particulartype). The jar form is late in the bulging neck series, either just before or very early among the pieces found in well R 13:4 (see below); see KerameikosIX, pl. 64:4 and 8. Date ca. 440-430 (much earlier than the bulk of the deposit, which seems to date late in the 5th century). 8

(P 25896). M-graffito. Possibly Solokha I.

Fig. 3

M 17:7, a pit just south of South Stoa I. Preserves only handle. ME cut heavily on outer surface of handle; the letters are very visible. On the basis of this handle and ME graffiti from other sites, it is likely that the M graffiti abbreviatea word beginning with ME rather than MY.Although it is possible that this is a noncommercial initial, the common appearanceof M or ME in Athenian graffiti suggests the reading of [jierpYj-Tncor seTp-YjTo(measured). Another

possibility, however, is that the M/ME stands for ,usXt(honey). It seems noteworthy that neither this piece nor any of the amphoras marked with M have a resinous coating on the interior surface. The profile and fabric of this handle are best identified as belongto ing the Solokha I type, mushroom-rimmed jar (cf. Lawall 1995, p. 346, NG 22). For this type, see Lawall 1995, pp. 218-233; Zeest 1960, pp. 91-92; and Mantsevich 1975. The amphora material and other pottery are datable early in the third quarterof the 5th century and clearly earlier than the latest finds in R 13:4. WELL

R 13:4

Well R 13:4 is just south of the later Stoa of Attalos, perhaps associated with very poorly preserved 5th-century walls. The well was filled ca. 425 and the datable contents range from 440 to 425 (for complete publication, see Talcott 1935). Rotroff and Oakley (1992, p. 56) propose a link between this deposit and the earthquake of 425 B.C. 9

(P 33411). Volume. Probably Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Preserves shoulder only. Graffito TTIII1.The second leg of the 11 is shorter than the first; the vertical strokes vary in length; marks lightly cut. A tally of 9 choes might indicate the use of Chian units, and, if one follows the 9:8 ratio for Chian to Athenian units (Barron 1986, p. 98, note 49; Wallace Matheson and Wallace 1982, p. 300, note 21;

WINE

GRAFFITI,

I9

SELLING,

(

\

AND

REUSE

OF

11))//,I\

AMPHORAS

2/

9

11

10

/

/

\ \

14

rr7

15

Ori

18 -

FFr 18

20

/n

11

I111\11 21

23

i Figure 4. Graffiti from well R13:4

25

27

I

28

MARK

L. LAWALL

Wallace 1986, p. 88, note 7, citing a ratio of 50:56, which gives 8.03 Attic choes for 9 Chian), then this marking would indicate a "convenient"match to Athenian standards (less convenient if one uses the 8:7 ratio proposed by Lang 1956, p. 3; Grace and SavvatianouPetropoulakou 1970, p. 360; and Mattingly 1981). Nine Attic choes would be an unusually large capacity for this amphora type; indeed such a figure is unattested. For this reason, 9 and 10, if they are to be read as volumes, must have been inscribed before the jars reached Athens. The identification of this fragment as probably being from a straight-neck Chian jar is based on the wide shoulder with a sharp outer edge and somewhat finer fabric than is commonly seen in the latest of the bulging neck jars of Chios datable to the third quarter of the 5th century; see, e.g., Grace 1979a, figs. 44-45. The closing date of this well limits this fragment's date to ca. 430-425. 10 (P 33413). Volume. Probably Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Shoulder only. Nine vertical strokes remain-the sherd breaks off without leaving enough blank space to guarantee that the tallies did not continue. Lightly cut marks;uneven lengths and spacing. Resinated interior. As with 9 above, 9 choes could be indicated. Same type as 9 above. Date ca. 430-425. 11 (SS 1845). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Talcott 1935, p. 496, no. 85, fig. 17 (jaronly), and pp. 514-515. Restored jar with both handles preserved, nearly complete rim, and complete toe; large areas of neck and body restored with plaster. Graffito of six vertical strokes. Lightly cut, low on neck between handles. The neck is broken immediately left of this graffito, raising the possibility that there were originally more strokes. A reading of 6 or more choes seems mostly likely. It is unfortunate that the beginning of the graffito is not preservedwith certainty. Were it possible to know that only 6 choes were marked as the capacity of this jar (if one reads these marks as necessarily checking the full capacity of the jar, as need not be the case), then the attendant stamp would not guarantee even a minimum capacity of the "standard"8 Chian choes. The kantharos stamp here reappearson other Chian jars of roughly the same period and somewhat later; the same stamp appears on 69, below, and SS 14080 from R 11:3 (closed ca. 420-410). Date ca. 430-425. 12 (SS 1839). Volume. Chian straight-neck. Lang 1956, p. 6, no. 15, pl. 6; Grace 1979a, fig. 45, far left. Mended and restored to complete amphora form, missing only parts of body (restored in plaster).

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

29

Graffito on neck: TTwith two vertical strokes followed by three horizontals. Very lightly cut marks. Lang reads 7 choes, 3 kotylai. Jar carries sphinx stamp at the base of the handle (see Grace 1979a, text with figs. 48-49, and Zeest 1960, p. 77, pl. 3). Date ca. 430-425. 13 (P 2368). Volume. Chian straight-neck. Talcott 1935, p. 516, fig. 28f. Heavily restoredjar, missing handles, large part of shoulder, fragments of body; toe in very poor condition from salt damage. Graffito Ell. Fairly light strokes but larger letters than many in this series. Talcott reads this mark as an alphabetic numeral E indicating 5 choes, followed by two more for 7 choes. Lang (1956, p. 9, no. 30) reads 1/2metretes and 2 choes, and this is equivalent to the measured capacity of the jar of 8 Chian choes. Lang proposed that the use of E for 1/2indicates Chian psilosis, but E would not be used by an Ionian Chian to abbreviatea word beginning ,uI-. An Athenian or other non-Chian-based writer would not record volume by Chian standards. Talcott's reading of 7 choes fits both the measured capacity (8 Chian choes = 7 Attic choes) and the requirements of dialect, but such a use of E instead of the very common TTmight have been confusing. The E could also stand for either 1 or 1/2chous, followed by 2 kotylai. Such a tally would not describe the full capacity of the jar, and the E for "sIS;" would be unusual (though not without parallel;see 25, below). Date ca. 430-425. 14 (SS 1841). Weight? Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Lang 1956, p. 17, no. 72. Preserves three-quarters of rim, both handles, and complete toe, but much of the body is restored in plaster. Graffito on neck: AA. Light to moderately deep incisions. Lang reads as a tare weight of 20 mnas with supporting evidence of the weight of the jar.The large amount of plaster used in the restoration of the vessel renders the weight measurement of the jar itself of uncertain value. Nevertheless, weighing intact jars without plaster restorations indicates that 20 mnas is a possible weight for an empty vessel. Date ca. 430-425. 15 (P 33412). Weight? Chian C/3 or very early straight-neck

Fig. 4

Preserves only fragment of neck and shoulder. Graffito on lower part of neck: A I1111111. II Light to moderately deep incisions. The marks indicate 17, perhaps a price, just over 2 drachmas per chous; 10 choes and 7 kotylai would seem too large a capacity for a jar of this type. Without the standard drachma symbol a price

30

MARK

L.

LAWALL

interpretation is uncertain. Seventeen mnas (ca. 7.5 kg) might correspond to the empty weight of a large, heavily built Chian C/3 type amphora. Both the Chian C/3 amphoras and the earliest straight-neck jars have a coarser fabric, as is the case here, than is usually associated with the fully developed straight-neck type. Date ca. 440-430. 16 (P 2367). Weight? Very late variant of Chian C/3. Talcott 1935, p. 516, fig. 28c; Lang 1956, p. 14, no. 63. Preserves rim, neck, and one handle. Graffito on neck: five vertical strokes, on the fifth of which are ten short horizontal marks. Fairly coarse strokes, each one trailing off at the ends. Resinated interior. Lang reads as 14 drachmas.The use of such a long, complex symbol for 10 drachmas seems unnecessary,and it is unusual to place the larger unit of price after individual marks indicating, by Lang's reading, smaller units. An alternate reading would be 4 choes and 10 kotylai. As each kotyle was removed, another would be added to the short stroke tallies; decanted choes would be accounted for with the longer strokes. With this reading, only part of the complete potential volume of the jar was decanted in the recorded operations. The verticals could also be read as units of 10 mnas to reach a total of 50 mnas for the marking. Once four 10-mna weights were balancing the jar with its contents, single-unit weights were added until the jar was filled, and each of these was marked along the fifth vertical stroke. Fifty mnas of wine would be equivalent to ca. 22 liters, a common capacity measure for Chian jars of this period. Short strokes tied together by a single line are discussed by Johnston (1979, pp. 30-31) without clear indication of whether price is being recorded or simply numbers of vessels in the batch; Tod (1911-1912, pp. 108 and 116) presents epigraphic examples of verticals linked by a single horizontal as indicating multiple drachmas,but in these cases the practice of linking drachma signs seems to begin only in the 3rd century B.C. Date ca. 440-430/25. 17 (SS 1840). Weight? Chian straight-neck. Lang 1956, p. 4, no. 8, pl. 1. Mended and restored to nearly complete amphora form; missing toe and minor fragments of the body. Graffito on neck: three horizontal strokes over two circular marks, followed by seven vertical strokes. Coarsely and clearly cut graffito. Lang reads 7 choes, 3 kotylai, 2 "smallerunits."The horizontals preceding the verticals may indicate units of 10, with the dots below as single units, and the verticals-despite their greater

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

3I

AMPHORAS

length-as smaller units. This system is used on the early-4thcentury building accounts from Epidauros; see Tod 1911-1912, pp. 103-105, in which the markings refer to drachmas and obols. It seems odd, however, to list 7 obols instead of another drachma and 1 obol. A listing of 32 mnas and seven smaller units seems more likely. The amphora has a sphinx stamp at the base of the handle. This stamped Chian type is the same as 12 above, date ca. 430-425. 18 (SS 1842). Weight? Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Restored jar missing one handle, parts of rim and neck, and fragments of the body. Graffito on the neck: two verticals followed by a third from which there project eight short horizontals. There is a trace of a horizontal line between the first two vertical tallies, but this may not have been deliberate. Light vertical strokes, slightly coarser and clearerhorizontals. It is difficult to apply Lang's method of reading a price mark on 16 to this mark (8 drachmas on the vertical plus two more marked with the larger strokes to give 10 drachmas). A volumetric notation might be read as follows (corresponding to a possible reading for the similar 16): the verticals indicate 2 choes and the shorter, horizontal tallies refer to 8 kotylai. Such a reading has two implications: 1) the graffito does not "check"the actual capacity in light of the stamp since there are too few marks;and 2) given that there was still far more than 1 chous remaining, the kotylai were not added to top up the capacity measurement.The vertical strokes might, therefore, account for choes of decanted wine with the bar of horizontals used to keep track of smaller amounts (kotylai). The weight-mark reading method, which worked well for 16, would give us 28 mnas for this marking. Such a weight falls between the likely empty and gross weights of amphoras, but the mark could indicate either the net weight of the added liquid partly filling the jar or the net weight of a grain like barley filling the jar (20 liters barley = 12.8 kg = 28 mnas). Amphora with sphinx stamp at top of neck, date ca. 430-425. 19 (P 2372). Price mark. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 15

Lang 1956, p. 14, no. 62; Talcott 1935, p. 516, fig. 28e. Nearly complete jar missing only small bit of the rim and parts of the body. Graffito on shoulder near the base of the neck: T I12. Very light strokes. Lang reads a price of 7 staters.The use of a non-Attic unit of currency supports the view that many of the price marks seen in these graffiti were applied for use at the Peiraieus (or another Attic port), where merchants would be accustomed to moving between many different currencies,or before reaching it; see below, p. 75. Date ca. 430-425.

32

MARK

L. LAWALL

20 (P 11384). M-graffito. Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Preserves part of rim, neck, one handle. Neck with graffiti: one M on either side of neck. The position of each M relative to the other is not indicated on Figure 4. Moderately coarse strokes. No resin. As in 21, the writer seems to have wished to make the M very clear and visible, from either side of the jar. Perhaps the contents were honey or honeyed wine, not some lighter liquid or standard wine. Possibly an overfired Chian straight-neck; however, the grayish surface color and the quite short neck are somewhat unusual for Chios. The form, whether Chian or another similar type, is unlikely to date much before 430-425. 21 (P 11385). M-graffito. Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 4

Preserves rim, neck, upper attachment of one handle. Same graffiti as 20 with same arrangementof one M on either side of the neck, moderately coarse strokes. The jar type is the same as 20, but the neck here is slightly taller; date ca. 430-425. 22 (P 2371). Summation. Chian C/3. Talcott 1935, pp. 515-516, fig. 28b; Lang 1956, p. 5, no. 10. Jar restored, missing a few bits from handles, neck, and shoulder. Graffito consisting of an enigmatic ligature (see Talcott 1935, followed by eight vertical strokes;a bit further from these, 28b) fig. set above them, is a smaller H. Moderately deep to deep markings with the initial ligature being especially carefully cut. Talcott suggests a false start writing an alphabetic 6 to explain the ligature, then a difficult time of counting up to eight before inscribing the H, giving a total of 14 (drachmas) as a price. Lang reads the tally as 8 Chian choes, summarized by the alphabetic numeral H, but does not comment on the preceding ligature. Date ca. 440-430/25. 23 (P 11386). Summation. Chian handle.

Fig. 4

Lang 1956, p. 5, no. 12. Preserves only the lower half of the handle to the point where it attaches to the shoulder. Graffito on the outer surface of the handle near base: H set over seven vertical strokes.The marks are exceptionally small and carefully cut, but the H is cut much more deeply than the vertical strokes. Lang reads as seven single-chous measures poured in and the summation 8 (H) inscribed after the eighth chous was poured in. Given the difference in weight between the verticals and the H, Lang's reading of relatively less formal tallies followed by a final, formal summation

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

33

seems very likely. A chous-by-chous emptying of the jar would result in the same pattern of markings. The form and fabric of the handle require a Chian identification; the relative fineness of the fabric suggests the later straight-neck type, ca. 430-425. 24 (P 11383). Summation? Probably Chian straight-neck. Lang 1956, p. 8, no. 26, pl. 1. Preserves only neck and a bit of the shoulder. Graffito on lower part of neck: HIII , with A below, closer to the shoulder.The incisions are very light and tend to become fainter from left to right, perhaps evidence that the tallies were all cut at one time. The A, however, is cut in an even more sketchy manner, so it may not have been cut at the same time as the other marks. Very slight traces of resin inside. Lang reads as 10.5 choes, 4 kotylai. Alternative readings include a half chous and 4 kotylai decanted against a total of 10 choes; or a half metretes (hydria) and 4 more choes for a total, recorded by the A, of 10 choes. The A might also simply be an initial, unrelated to the capacity,cost, or weight of the jar. Date ca. 430-425. 25 (P 2366). Volume and price. Chian C/3.

Figs. 4, 14

Lang 1956, p. 12, no. 58; AgoraXXI, p. 76, He 2, pl. 42; Talcott 1935, p. 516, fig. 28a;Johnston 1996, p. 82, fig. 1.1. Most of rim, both handles, much of body, and most of toe preserved; large parts of lower neck restored in plaster. I restore as "-nWVTS Graffito: nEEXAEKATETOPE77. etS e, X)oS xcxT?T?opesG[TTcc]p?e;]"(see discussion below). Small letters fairly carefully cut vertically down the neck and onto the shoulder. Deep strokes;letters tend to increase in size further along the graffito. Lang reads TTEEXas t?VT? etS ets Xo6e. She notes (1956, p. 12) that the jar measured the equivalent of 7 Attic choes. The use of epsilon as an acrophonic numeral for Et; is not securely paralleled among the graffiti studied here; however, the alternative of hELuseems unlikely with two epsilons (one-half and one-half) on such a formally inscribed graffito.Johnston questions Lang's reading of 7 choes by citing the use of E for 100 at Olbia. That graffito, however, seems to have been written on a sherd rather than an amphora (for similar use of multiple Es on an ostrakon, see Blonde 1989, p. 518, no. 170). The 8sxocTTeopsc, 14, when considered with the dropped aspirates implied by the epsilon abbreviationsearlier in this graffito, provides some limits to the possible dialect of the writer. Buck (1955, pp. 154-160) places -c&RopeSin his West Greek and Northwest Greek groups. Few members of these groups, however, drop the aspirate. Those that do include Delphi (at times, p. 156) and Elis (p. 159). The final, poorly preserved letter that I restore as a sigma introduces another significant area of debate concerning this graffito. Lang

MARK

34

L. LAWALL

illustrates the upper bar but interprets the graffito as 7 choes, 14 drachmas (see also Lang 1956, p. 13), with the drachmas implied but not abbreviatedor written. Johnston wonders whether drachmas or staters should be supplied as the unit of currency.The upper angle of the sigma supports the restoration of oTactypseS,either abbreviated or written out. The surface of the jar is worn below the preserved area of the graffito. Further along is an X, but this might not be a deliberate mark. Had oca-cYpS been written out, especially given the varying size of letters as preserved in this graffito, the word may have fit before the was inscribed. X. The X, however, could have been cut after ocYocxTpss the reading Given the poor preservation of the initial 2 of ocYrcTYpes, cannot be considered secure, but the mark interpreted here as the upper angle of a 2 encourages the reading of staters rather than the implied drachmas. Date ca. 440-430. 26 (P 11382). Volume and price. Mendean.

Fig. 17

Lang 1956, p. 10, no. 44; AgoraXXI, p. 76, He 1, pl. 42; Johnston 1996, p. 82, fig. 1.2. Preserves rim, most of neck, and both of the upper handle attachments. Graffiti on either side of the neck: A KKwith X in the A, and opposite, A2 (three-bar sigma); also a red-painted stroke behind one handle. The AX KKare incised with slightly heavier lines than the A2, whose strokes are quite light and sketchy. The AX KKgraffito resembles 27 from R 13:12, but that piece lacks the additional price mark. Lang (1956, p. 10, no. 44) reads as 10 choes, 2 kotylai with a price of 10 staters, making Mendean wine have the same 2 drachmas per chous price read elsewhere for Chian wine (see p. 16 above).Johnston (1996, p. 82) points out the ambiguities of this mark:"whose choes and whose staters?"Staters often appear on amphora price marks, and these foreign currencies may have been applied by wholesale shippers. Such marks seem too ambiguous for any role in facilitating retail commerce in the Agora. The stater notation here could indicate the tare weight of the precisely measuredjar (10 staters equal 20 emporic mnas, or just over 9 kg). The figure cannot be read as an indication of the weight of the jar's contents, since no contents likely in a volume of just over 10 choes (over 30 liters) would weigh only 20 mnas. The amphora neck is fairly short, but even so it is not any more closely datable than the general range of the contents of the well: ca. 440-425. WELL

R 13:12

R 13:12 is a well deposit east of R 13:4. The amphora forms are similar to those in R 13:4, but the finewares and plainwareswere not reexamined for the present study. Camp (1977, p. 220) suggests a date for the contents of the well in the third quarterof the 5th century.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

27 (P 30835). Volume. Mendean.

I\

Kft

27 Figure 5. Graffito from well R 13:12

35

Fig. 5

Complete neck, both handles, part of shoulder. Graffito on neck: A with X inside, followed by three kappas, two set above the third. Very light incisions, small carefully cut letters. Resinated. Very similar arrangement of letters as in 26, but the particularstyles seem a bit different (the range of allowable variation in such graffiti in terms of hands and letter forms is uncertain). A reading of 10 choes, 3 kotylai seems required.It seems possible that some Mendean (?) shipper marked his jars with specific capacity notes. It will be interesting to see how similar to 26 and 27 is the example from Kommos cited byJohnston (1996, p. 82, "agraffito similar as far as it is preserved"). Profile of the jar shows no significant difference from material in R 13:4, date ca. 425. CONSTRUCTION

FILLS

FOR THE

MINT

BUILDING

The pottery lots listed below are all from construction fills of the late-5thcentury Mint building (the topic of a forthcoming study by John Camp andJohn Kroll).The pottery in these fills continues into the last decade or so of the 5th century (Camp, pers. comm., June 1998), but the diagnostic amphora fragments are uniformly datable to the third quarterof the century. It seems possible that the rubbish used to fill under the Mint floor was the same that was also used to fill well R 13:4. 28

(P 3346). Volume. Chian C/3.

Fig. 6

Lot IIA 294A, section IIA, grid MF, MA/104, 105, construction fill under the floor of the Mint. Preserves only neck wall. Graffito 11111111. Lightly cut, with uneven length and spacing. choes is a Eight likely interpretation.The unevenness of the lines could be the result of either one hasty filling or measurement, or successive decantings. Date ca. 440-430. 29 (P 33415). Volume or weight? Possibly Solokha I.

Fig. 6

Lot PA 294A. Preserves neck fragment only; break at left of graffito. Graffito EEEE.Deeply but unevenly cut small letters. The two most likely interpretations of this graffito seem to be either 4 or more choes, reading the E for ?C5,or 4 or more hemichoes. If the E is read as an acrophonic numeral for sercthe units of measure could also be mnas, thereby making this a notation of net weight (probably only partially filling the vessel). Another reading for weight would involve reading the E as an alphabetic numeral, 5, and thereby reading 20 or more mnas. Poorly diagnostic, but other amphora material in this context is datable ca. 425 or slightly later.

MARK

36

L. LAWALL

IX X,H2 29 28

30 31

32b

32a

Figure6. GraffitifromMint constructionfill 30 (P 3420). Volume or price? Possibly northern Greek.

Fig. 6

Lot IIA 293, section VIA,grid M, MET/101, 102, construction fill under the floor of the Mint. Preserves lower part of neck and shoulder. Graffito X (or F-)II111. Cleanly cut lines breaking though the grayish surface of the sherd to the red core. Unfortunately the graffito is not sufficiently preserved to determine whether the initial sign refers to choes or drachmas. If choes, then we have 1 or more choes and 3 kotylai. If drachmas are indicated by the first sign, the subsequent verticals might indicate obols. Poorly diagnostic fragment; pre-425?

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

37

AMPHORAS

31 (P 33418). Unclassified graffito. Possibly Thasian.

Fig. 6

Lot IA 294A. Preserves neck and one handle; fairly low-slung handle. Graffiti on lower part of neck: MO I. Deeply cut large letters. First part of the word missing. Uncertain commercial significance. Poorly diagnostic fragment; pre-425? 32a-b

(P 33419, P 33417). Unclassified graffiti.

Fig. 6

Lot HIA294A. Lot includes two poorly diagnostic sherds, one (a) with EV graffito, another (b) with 0. Apart from their findspot, there is no reason to see these as commercial graffiti. WELL

R 13:1

Well R 13:1 is located north of R 13:4, and south of the later Stoa of Attalos. The well was closed at the end of the 5th century,with the range of dates for the bulk of the fill being ca. 430-400 B.C.(AgoraXII, p. 398). The amphoras in this deposit are very fragmentary; no complete vessels were ever assembled from these finds. The amphoras here show some development beyond the forms in R 13:4, and the best parallels occur in deposits closed ca. 410. None of the R 13:1 amphoras necessarily dates beyond ca. 410. 33 (P 9242). Volume. Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 4, no. 5. Preserves large portion of neck. Graffito on neck of four parallel strokes. Strokes of moderate depth. Resinated interior surface. Lang reads at least 4 choes. Form is unlikely to be much before ca. 425-410. 34 (P 9245). Volume. Probably Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 4, no. 6. Small bit of rim, bit of handle, and neck. Six parallel marks on the neck, closer to one handle. Lightly cut incisions. Lang reads as 5 or more choes. By my reading, 6 or more choes. The form need not be any later than the straight-neck Chian jars in R 13:4, ca. 425. 35 (P 9239). Volume. Mendean. Lang 1956, p. 7, no. 21, pl. 1. Preserves handle fragment only. Graffito on the outer face of the handle shaft, moving from top to bottom: three horizontal strokes, followed by a fourth on which

MARK

38

I

I

l

(

L. LAWALL

Il

34i

33

36 K

38 40

V 43

41

44

47

46 Figure 7. Graffiti from well R 13:1

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

39

are stacked three kappas,with a single larger kappa at the bottom of the preserved fragment. The fragment is broken at the top, leaving open the possibility of more strokes, and at the bottom. At this lower end there is enough uninscribed preserved surface that it is unlikely that there were further related markings. Very coarsely cut incisions. There are extra cuts over the middle of the stacked kappas as though for the correction of a mistake. Lang reads some amount greater than 3 choes and 4 kotylai. Despite the apparent mistake in incising the series of aligned kappas, the intention may have been as Lang reconstructs it, or perhaps (see 36) we are only meant to read the two unaltered kappas atop the vertical along with the last sign, to give 3 or more choes and 3 kotylai. The handle form could date anytime in the last third of the century, to ca. 410. 36 (P 9240). Volume. Mendean.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 7, no. 22. Preserves only the lower part of the neck and shoulder. Graffito on lower part of neck, just above shoulder: three kappas facing left one above the other, followed by three vertical strokes. Very coarsely cut marks. Resinated interior. Lang reads as 3 or more choes and 3 kotylai. It is not common to find retrogradeinscriptions among these late-5th-century amphora graffiti; it is possible that this graffito is meant to be read from above. This graffito and 35 are the only ones that I know with stacked kappas. The two fragments are of very similar fabric, the graffiti show a similar style of cutting, and the handle (35) clearly carries a mistake. Perhaps the handle belongs to the same jar as this neck, and the neck graffito offers a cleaner, correct version of the marking. The fragment is not sufficiently diagnostic to narrow the date beyond the general date for the contents of the deposit, ca. 410. 37 (P 9241, P 9253). Volume? Mendean. Lang 1956, p. 13, no. 59, pl. 3. Preserves lower neck and shoulder. Graffito on lower part of neck: N (or I I) IIHOOO. Coarsely incised letters. Lang reads four verticals before the H to give 4+ choes, /2chous, and 3 oxybapha (= 3/4 kotyle); however, she notes the problematic reading of the initial signs. The diagonal of the possible N could be an extraneous mark. Context date ca. 425-410. 38 (P 9244). Volume. Chian or Solokha II.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 11, no. 49. Preserves lower neck wall. Partiallypreserved TTwith an X inside, with two horizontal lines below. Wide, but not especially deep, strokes.The second leg of the TTis much shorter than the first. Resinated interior.

40

MARK

L.

LAWALL

Lang reads as "five choes or more"perhaps referring to the two horizontals below the TT.Interpretations of either 7 choes or 5 choes and 2 kotylai would take account of the lines below the TTX. Fragment is poorly diagnostic. The Solokha II type amphora is related in form very closely to the straight-neck Chian types. This is particularlytrue of the rim and upper parts of the handles. The differences lie in the lower parts of the handles, the shapes of the toe, and the somewhat darkerred-brown fabric of the Solokha II amphoras;for illustrations and discussion, see Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou and Garlan 1990 (identifying Peparethos as at least one production area for this type) and Mantsevich 1975. Context date ca. 425-410. 39 (P 9249). Volume. Possibly Solokha II. Lang 1956, p. 12, no. 54, pl. 3. Preserves lower neck and shoulder fragment. Graffito on lower part of the neck, close to the transition to the shoulder: TTXHIfollowed by a vertical stroke that could be one side of another H. Shorter second leg of TT.Moderately coarse but clean strokes (similar coarseness as in 46). Some resin preserved on interior. Lang reads "6 1/2choes and ?"The last vertical mark suggests a reading of 6.5 choes and 1 or more kotylai; however, the break in the sherd allows for the possibility of another H instead of a simple vertical stroke. The Solokha II attribution is based on the fact that the fabric here seems consistently redder than is common on Chian amphoras of the same time. The piece is not sufficiently preserved to give much indication of date. Context date ca. 425-410. 40 (P 9250). Volume. Possibly Chian.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 33. Preserves lower neck. Graffito XXHII.Lightly cut incisions. Lang reads 2.5 or more choes and 1 or more kotylai on the basis of reading K after the H. In either case, we seem to have 2 or more choes, 1/2chous, and one or more fractions, probably kotylai. Context date ca. 425-410. 41 (P 9251). Volume. Mendean.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 10, no. 42. Preserves shoulder and small bit of the neck. Graffito over transition from neck to shoulder: TTXmonogram created by a horizontal line crossing the short second leg of the TT.Two incompletely preserved vertical strokes follow this monogram. Light incisions. Lang reads two 5-chous signs. If Lang intended the two freestanding verticals as the legs of the second IT,the X for this monogram

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

4I

is not preserved.This interpretation gives the second TTlegs of equal length, while the first TThas legs of different length. Such a difference in orthography seems unlikely, and most TTsamong the graffiti here have uneven leg lengths (cf. 42). If Lang intended the first freestanding vertical to be the right leg of the first TT,then only the left leg of the second TT1 is preserved.With so little indication of the second 5-chous sign, and given the common pattern among the graffiti studied here of single units following the 5-chous symbol, I suggest a reading of 7 choes: TTXII.A possible parallel for this arrangementof the TTXmonogram is offered by 53, unfortunately also incomplete. Lang's reading does create a volumetric notation for this jar that is in keeping with the two 10-chous notations on 26 and 27. Around 400 B.C., however, Mendean amphora capacities are known to have fallen closer to 7 choes; see Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, p. 52, table 7. Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-400. 42 (P 9252). Volume. Chian straight-neck. Lang 1956, p. 10, no. 43, pl. 2. Preserves small bit of neck wall. Graffito: a faintly preserved vertical stroke followed by X and four vertical strokes.The third vertical after the X has a short diagonal angling down to the right from the point where the stroke breaks off. This diagonal does not appear deliberate to me. Lang reads the graffito as a TTXmonogram (using the verticals on either side of the X, with equal leg lengths for the TT)followed by H1I.The H, if the diagonal stroke was deliberate, would have an unusually sloping crossbar.Without the H, but keeping the rest of Lang's reading, we have 8 choes, a common enough capacity for late-5th-century Chian jars.The initial 5-chous sign, however, is also problematic as it would require a TTwith equal leg lengths, which is rare among these graffiti. Reading a TTbefore the X would find a parallel in 96 and would give a reading of 6 choes, 4 kotylai. Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-410. 43 (SS 6918). Weight? Possibly Solokha II.

Fig. 7

Preserves small amount of rim and neck wall with small fourspoked wheel-stamp near rim. Graffito on neck: A followed by one vertical and two poorly preserved diagonal strokes. Light to moderately cut strokes. Resinated interior. Given that this vessel type is of roughly the same size as late-5thcentury Chian amphoras, a reading of 11 choes and 2 kotylai seems unlikely.Without explicit drachma signs, 11 drachmas, 2 obols, is also problematic. A tare weight of 11 mnas and two fractions,just over 5 kg, seems the most likely interpretation. Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-410.

42

MARK

L. LAWALL

44 (P 9248). Price mark. Probably Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 15, no. 65, pl. 3. Preserves neck wall only. Graffito TTA(monogram) followed by 1-. Fairly light but uneven incisions. Some resin preserved on interior. Lang reads as a price of 22 drachmaswith two deltas sharing a common side. The bottom line of this parallelogrammonogram of AA is not as clearly incised as the other lines, and I do not consider it a deliberate stroke. I read the numeral 50, which is quite commonly found among ceramic graffiti (e.g., Lang 1956, no. 68, pl. 3, and no. 99, pl. 5; Jefremov 1998, passim; Solomonik 1984, nos. 284-286). The price then should be read as 52 drachmas.This price seems high in comparison with other known late-5th-century wine prices,but the commodity referredto is not known, nor are enough wine prices known to say with any certainty what is a high price and what is not (as emphasized in Johnston 1996). Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-410. 45 (P 9247). Volume or weight? Mendean. Lang 1956, p. 5, no. 9, pi. 1. Preserves neck, rim, one upper bit of handle. Graffito on neck: the ends of seven horizontal marks followed six vertical marks arrangedin pairs of two. Fairly light incisions by but consistent depth throughout. Resinated interior surface. Lang reads 6 horizontals with the interpretation of 6 choes, 6 kotylai. The seventh horizontal is visible at the bottom of the stack in the photograph published by Lang. With the reading of a seventh short mark, 6 choes, 7 kotylai seems likely. As in other examples with more than 6 kotylai marked, the short marks could record small amounts poured out. Mendean jars from the later Porticello shipwreck measured between roughly 6 and 7 Attic choes (Eiseman and Ridgway 1987, pp. 51-52). While the volumetric reading works reasonably well, a weight reading would give either 67 or 76 mnas depending on which unit is assigned to each set of strokes;the latter seems more likely since the horizontals precede the verticals.This weight would be the gross weight of a jar weighing ca. 5.5 kg with 24.5 liters of wine. The short neck suggests that this piece may not be any later than the R 13:4 pieces, ca. 425; but the short neck does continue into the last quarterof the 5th century (see Brashinskiy 1976 and Lawall 1995, pp. 121-122). 46 (P 9243). Volume, possible summation. Probably Chian straightneck. Fig. 7 Lang 1956, p. 6, no. 18. Preserves lower neck wall and bit of shoulder. Graffito on neck: three vertical strokes on the first line, TTon the line below. Moderately deep and clean strokes. Second leg of T shorter than first. Resinated interior.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

43

may, however, represent a summaLang reads as 8 choes. The T11 tion of the vertical tallies above, as is more clearly the case in other examples where the larger number is on a separate line (22, 23, possibly 24). Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-410. 47 (P 9246). Unclassified graffito. Possibly Chian.

Fig. 7

Lang 1956, p. 8, no. 23. Preserves neck wall only. Graffito K lying horizontally.There may be a horizontal mark below the K, but its identification as a stroke is uncertain. Deep clean strokes. Resinated interior. Lang includes this piece ("forcompleteness' sake")with other kotylai graffiti, but the isolation of this letter makes any interpretation very difficult. This is not a letter that is frequently encountered alone on amphoras. Poorly diagnostic fragment, context date ca. 425-410. WELL

S i6:i

Well S 16:1 was discovered in R. R. Holloway's excavations in the Kolletis House garden and lies roughly 50 m southeast of R 13:4, on the east side of the Panathenaic Way. This fill is generally dated ca. 425-400 and is noted for the many amphora fragments found (Holloway 1966, pp. 83-84; AgoraXII, p. 398). Closer study of the amphorasin the fill, however,places them with R 13:1 as no later than ca. 410 B.C. 48 (P 27513). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 16

AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 3, pl. 32. Preserves part of rim, one complete handle, neck, shoulder with tightly rounded outer edge. Graffito on neck: four vertical lines of moderate depth. Resinated interior surface. Lang (AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 3) reads four units "measuredas they were poured in," but she notes that Chian jars held more than 4 choes, so "this might not be a permanent record of the total capacity but a temporary note about a smaller quantity put in (or taken out)."The parenthetical suggestion would certainly fit the kinds of activities described below that have concentrated these graffiti in the area. The tall neck and sharply turned shoulder of this jar clearly place it after the jars in R 13:4 and probably near the end of the 5th century. 49 (P 27515). Volume. Chian straight-neck. AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 4, pl. 32. Preserves complete rim, one handle, and part of neck and shoulder. The markings here are quite irregularand may not all be deliberate strokes. Near the base of the neck are seven vertical strokes, lightly incised; they fit well with the graffiti discussed here and are surely deliber-

44

MARK

L. LAWALL

ate. Above this, startingjust below the rim, are the following marks: 1) a relativelylarge A lying on one side immediately under the rim; 2) two very irregularhorizontal marks below the A; 3) then, under the horizontals, two very short and accidental-looking verticals; and 4) under these verticals, two more, somewhat more regular,horizontals. The longer strokes here seem more deliberate and more likely to be part of an intended graffito than do the very short marks. Resinated interior surface. Lang reads a temporary accounting of 7 choes (the upper markings, leaving aside the A) followed by the more permanent, formal 7 tallies below. The A is not a common abbreviationin this group of graffiti and is best left aside as unrelated.The short strokes in the upper group, however, seem too informal and accidental to be connected to the tallying process. What remain, therefore, are the three horizontals and the seven, more regular,verticals. Perhaps the two sets of marks pertain to two or more activities in the use of the jar, e.g., a partial decanting (or filling) and a more complete decanting (or filling). The thick rim of this jar, both rounded outward and thickened inward, places this jar fairly early in the Chian straight-neck series, ca. 430-420. 50 (P 27516). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 8

Preserves much of rim, upper parts of handle, neck, and small bit of shoulder. Graffiti low on the neck near the shoulder: five stacked horizontal lines. The upper two lines are less heavily and carefully cut than those below. Resinated interior. This variation in cutting may suggest multiple occasions for making the marks. Five choes may be indicated (though more may have been incised originally). If these five were all that were inscribed, then this only accounts for a portion of the total possible capacity of the jar.These strokes seem likely to record goods decanted over a period of time. The neck is fairly short but could still fall anywhere between the constraints of the starting date for the type and the likely closing date of the context. Date ca. 430-410. 51 (P 27519). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 8

Preserves part of rim and neck. Graffito on neck: stack of four horizontal lines, with no trace of further lines above or below. Some end cleanly and others taper more gradually. The differences among the strokes may imply separate occasions for their cutting. Assuming that the jar originally held at least 7 choes, this partial accounting may attest to material taken out over a period of time. Context date ca. 425-410.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

54 53

51 50

55 57

58

61

59

62 Figure 8. Graffiti from well S 16:1

45

46

MARK

L.

LAWALL

52 (P 27525). Volume. Mendean. AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 6, pl. 32. Preserves small bit of rim, both handles, much of neck, large part of shoulder. The graffiti appear around the transition area between neck and shoulder. On one side of the jar is the marking TTX(monogram) XXXH; below these on the same shoulder is the abbreviationAE; then in the thumbprint at the base of one handle is an incised X (or K); finally, on the other side of the neck are 8 vertical tallies. The vertical tallies are very lightly and unevenly incised; the tally of abbreviatedchoes is heavily cut as is the letter in the thumbprint. The AE is cut very lightly and sketchily.The TTXmonogram is unusual for lacking the second leg of the TTaltogether. Heavily resinated interior. Lang reads an informal tally of the vertical strokes-8 choesformalized in the more complex notation and made more precise with the additional hemichous. It is equally possible that the deeply cut TTXXXXH may be the permanent total count against which decanted choes have been recorded as simple, irregularvertical strokes. There is no clear indication of whether the letter in the thumbprint is meant to go with either of the other marks.The AE seems likely to be an owner's graffito. The shortness of the neck and very rounded shoulders could place this jar very early among those seen in well R 13:4, ca. 440. 53 (P 27543). Volume. Possibly northern Greek.

Fig. 8

Preserves neck wall sherd only. Possible traces of resin inside. Graffito TTX(monogram). Probably created by crossing second of leg the TTwith a horizontal bar,but it is possible that the second leg of the TTis not at all preserved and the X is freestanding under the TT.Small and carefully cut graffito, very much like that of 65 in well 0 19:4. A volumetric notation of 5 (and probably more) choes seems most likely. Possible Mendean or northern Greek amphora, but the identification by fabric alone is uncertain. Context date ca. 425-410. 54 (P 27418). E-graffito. Solokha I.

Fig. 8

Holloway 1966, p. 84, pl. 28:h (jar only). Complete jar preserved. Graffito E on shoulder. Moderately deep strokes.The size of the letter and its prominent place on the shoulder make it quite visible. The E here may replace the H found in other graffiti (cf. 75, 76); however, if that H is read as indicating 1 hydria instead of the clumsier then E cannot abbreviatethe unit of measurement. [?T-pYTYco, YJLOOU I type tends to be quite large, so it is difficult the Solokha Furthermore, to see these single letters as referringto a half-metretes; both 54 and 66

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

47

were cut on Solokha I jars. Such jars are rarelyresinated and seem, therefore, to have been used at least in part as oil jars. E abbreviating ScXOLov (oil) is a possible interpretation of these marks. At this point the dating of the jar cannot be narrowedbeyond the context date, ca. 425-410, but it does seem fairly early in this range. 55 (P 27526). M-graffito. Solokha I.

Figs. 8, 21

Preserves complete rim, neck, one complete handle, part of other handle, part of shoulder. Graffito M at middle of neck on one side, irregularstroke on opposite side of neck of uncertain significance. M-graffito cutting is heavy with clean ends to each stroke. See discussions at 8 and 20 above. Context date ca. 425-410. 56 (P 27517). Summation graffito and price dipinto. Chian straightneck. AgoraXXI, p. 59, Ha 5, pl. 32. Preserves neck, rim, both handles, part of shoulder. Resinated interior surface. Graffito on lower part of neck: THEN11 II 1.These marks-both the letters and the vertical tallies-are heavily incised, with careful stops to each stroke. The marks seem to have been applied at one time. The second leg of the T11 is shorter than the first. The first three letters are covered a wide vertical stripe of red paint. Further around the partly by behind one neck, starting handle, is a price mark dipinto also in red: ATTI-.Below the main graffito is a sketchily incised A. Although the price mark itself does not cover the main graffito, the vertical red stripe may have been applied at the same time as the price mark dipinto, thereby making the price mark necessarily later than the graffito. Lang suggests that the dipinto attests to the original price in reference to the common 7-8 choes size of these amphoras (with the common 2 drachmas per chous), but this reading does not fully explain the graffito and its functional relationship to the dipinto. Various explanations are possible. The TTENmay summarize the five tallies from a decanting operation of 5 choes; then the jar was refilled; the vertical stripe cancels the graffiti; and the new contents' price was set by the price mark. More in line with Lang's belief that the graffito refers to fillings, the jar may have been filled with 5 choes and then had its price set at 16 drachmas.As in other cases examined here, the sketchy single letter, A, need not be part of the numerical notation and may refer to an owner of the jar or to its contents at some point in the use of the jar. The form of the jar could fall anywhere between the constraints of the starting date for the type and the likely closing date of the context. Date ca. 430-410.

MARK

48

57 (P 27544). Summation. Unattributed type.

L. LAWALL

Fig. 8

Preserves only the transition area from neck to shoulder. Resinated interior. Graffito on the shoulder at the base of the neck: IIIITT.Lightly incised, uneven strokes. Multiple occasions of cutting may be indicated here. The verticals could refer to 4 choes decanted, then summed up by the TTwhen the fifth was poured out; the TTcould also represent a total from which the four tallies are subtracted.Finally, a total filling of 9 choes could be described. Retrograde graffiti, such as this one, are not commonly encountered in the pieces published here. Not a diagnostic fragment; context date ca. 425-410. 58 (P 27518). Unclassified graffito. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 8

Preserves rim and part of neck. Resinated interior. Graffito on neck: TT?Light uneven cutting; unusually tall and narrowletter. It is uncertain how deliberate this marking was or whether it is of a numerical nature. Context date ca. 425-410. 59 (P 27520). Unclassified graffito. Mendean.

Fig. 8

Preserves part of rim, neck, and one handle. Graffito on one side of the neck: TTTnearly touching one another. The lTT graffito is unevenly cut, with shallow to moderate depth, but the T is clearly cut as a letter separatefrom the TT. The meaning of this abbreviationis quite uncertain. Five talents would bring this abbreviationclosest to epigraphic parallels,but it is hard to imagine placing 5 talents in this amphora.Any other reading would require assuming more vagueness as to the units involved than is typical for these amphora graffiti (5+4?, 5 and 1/4?,5 and 1/3?). The height of the extant portion of this neck places it late in the 5th century,well after the closing of R 13:4. Date ca. 410. 60 (P 27527). Unclassified graffito. Solokha I. Complete rim, part of neck, one complete handle, part of other. Graffito on neck: V?Lightly cut. Uncertain if these are deliberate strokes. Context date ca. 425-410. 61 (P 27529). Unclassified graffito. Unknown type.

Fig. 8

Complete rim, neck, handles, part of shoulder. Graffito AK or NK monogram. Graffito sits behind handle; moderate depth of strokes, carefully cut. Of the markings listed here, only 66 has a similarly hidden position near or behind the handle. Uncertain if either of these are commercial graffiti.

WINE

GRAFFITI,

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

49

AMPHORAS

Dark redwarejar with very heavy handles. The type develops through the 5th century,but it is not certain if the date of this piece in particularcan be narrowed further than the context date, ca. 425-410. 62 (P 27540, P 27541). Unclassified graffito.

Fig. 8

Unclassified body sherds. Graffito X A. There is room for a letter between the two preserved, and a large portion is missing at just that point. The scantiest trace of this possible letter is present. Light to moderate depth of cutting, and these letters are larger than most of the graffiti seen here. Resinated interior. Such size and carelessness of cutting is common among possible owner's marks.When such letters appear on fragments with numerical graffiti, the numerical notation is more carefully cut (e.g., 52, 93, and 98). Context date ca. 425-410. WELL

0

19:4

Well 0 19:4 is roughly 60 m south of South Stoa I and the Mint, on the northern slope of the Areopagus; ca. 140 m southwest and upslope of R 13:4. The fill is generally dated to ca. 425-400. None of the graffiti fragments is necessarily later than ca. 425, but there is only one that is sufficiently preservedto allow an independent suggestion of its date. Other amphoras in this deposit are datable to the end of the 5th century (see AgoraXII, p. 396; Lawall 1995, pp. 332-333). 63 (P 12635). Volume. Possibly northern Greek.

Fig. 9

Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 36. Preserves lower neck fragment. Partiallypreserved graffito XXXXX. Heavy incisions. Lang reads 4 or more choes. There is a trace of a fifth X at the end of the preserved graffito. The very micaceous fabric suggests the possibility of a northern Greek origin for the jar, but it is not an otherwise diagnostic fragment. Context date ca. 425-400. 64 (P 12657). Volume. Unidentified type. Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 29, pl. 2. Preserves rim, upper part of one handle, neck, and part of shoulder. Graffito on neck: poorly preserved tips of perhaps three horizontal lines (see below) followed by XEIII.Uneven incision of strokes, from light to moderate. Lang reads "atleast 1 chous,1/2 chous and 3 kotylai."If all of the three horizontals before the X are from deliberate cutting, then we have another E or at least three horizontal lines preceding the X; either mark would be difficult to explain. The middle stroke of these

MARK

50

L.

LAWALL

63

65

66

Figure9. Graffitifromwell 0 19:4

three horizontals, however, is the best preserved and may be the only deliberate mark. If so, another X is unlikely since the extant X is composed of diagonals rather than a vertical and a horizontal. One possibility is that the line is from the horizontal crossbarof a TTX monogram, 5-chous mark (see 41 and 53). Six and a half choes and 3 kotylai would match common late-5th-century amphora capacities. The use of E instead of H recalls 4 and, perhaps, 13. The white slip of the fragment, the short neck, and the very narrow,outwardly rounded rim all seem unusual for a Chian amphora; otherwise 64 might have been identified as such. The low height of the neck, however, makes possible a date of ca. 425. 65 (P 12962). Volume. Unidentified type.

Fig. 9

Lang 1956, p. 11, no. 46, pl. 2. Preserves only shoulder and bit of neck. Graffito TTH(as monogram) HKK.Lightly incised markings though very small and carefullycut. Shorter second leg of TT.Break in the sherd allows for the possibility that there were more Ks following those preserved. Lang reads 6 hydriae and 2 kotylai, questioning the idea of a 5-hemichous measure. Reading hydria here, however, is problematic if one accepts Hesychius's definition of the hydria (s.v. oipco(aCa) as one half-metretes. In this case, the graffito would represent 36 choes and 2 kotylai (even 12-chous amphoras are very rare in the 5th century B.C.). Six hemichoes would, by contrast, at least fit in the jar.

The fabric of the vessel is dark red-brown, very hard and compact, but any attribution of the place of manufactureof this jar would be uncertain. Context date ca. 425-400.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

66 (P 12658). E-graffito. Early Solokha I.

OF

5I

AMPHORAS

Fig. 9

Preserves rim, neck, one handle, and part of shoulder. Graffito E (retrograde)on lower part of neck wall nearly behind the handle. Moderate depth of strokes. For the interpretation of single E graffiti, see 54. Here, however, the somewhat hidden letter may have a different significance than that proposed for 54, where the letter is much more visibly inscribed. The form of the jar is best paralleled in well N 7:3, closed ca. 440 B.C.,so this piece may be earlier than others in this group. WELL

R 13:5

Well R 13:5 is immediately adjacent to and west of R 13:4, but the fill is somewhat later, with material datable as late as 390 (AgoraXII, p. 398). The amphora material in this fill most closely resembles that of 0 19:4 and the later material in Q15:2, so a date at or just beyond the end of the 5th century seems quite likely. 67 (P 11375). Volume. Unclassified type.

Fig. 10

Lang 1956, p. 12, no. 55. Preserves transition from neck to shoulder only. Prefiring marking AX. The break of the sherd allows for further letters following those preserved, and there does appear to be a bit of a vertical line preserved. Small, very carefully cut letters. Lang reads as either 11 or 12 choes (or more). Long-standing criticisms of the theory that stamps guaranteed the capacity of the jar are 1) that the guarantee was applied before the vessel was fired and, presumably,shrunk in the process, and 2) that an unfired jar, especially one with only partly dried clay,would be difficult to measure.This is the only apparentlyvolumetric marking we have that must have been applied before drying was complete (stamps may be volumetric marks in a manner of speaking, but this has yet to be proven). Perhaps the mark was applied to remind the potter or someone else of the intendedvolume. Unlike many other graffiti published here, this was clearly not inscribed in Athens. Fairly hard, compact fabric. Context date ca. 425-390. 68 (P 2067). Volume. Solokha I.

Fig. 10

Lang 1956, p. 11, no. 50, pl. 3. Preserves lower neck and bit of shoulder. Graffito on the shoulder at the base of the neck: 1TXHand a further symbol, possibly A, H, or K.The letters are fairly small, unevenly incised, and lightly to heavily cut. The last letter is covered with further scratchings, perhaps intended to efface it. Further to the side, fully on the shoulder is a second graffito, AEON, in very faint, small, neat letters. as 6.5 choes and 2 kotylai. Lang notes that the Lang reads VTXHKK, are not kappas clearly legible. The secondary cuttings make it difficult to know if there are even two letters intended after the H. It is possible that

MARK

52

67

68

L. LAWALL

69 Figure10. Graffitifromwell R 13:5

the last letters and scratches attest to a mistake, and that the 6.5 choes are all that were intended. The second graffito presumably represents the name of an owner or someone otherwise associated with the jar at some point in its use. The amphora type is identified on account of the sharpness of the neck-shoulder join, which is not seen to this degree on other late-5thcentury amphora types of similar fabric. Context date ca. 425-390. 69 (P 33414). Price mark. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 10

Cited by Papadopoulos and Paspalas 1999, p. 177, note 78. Complete rim, part of neck, one complete handle and upper part of second, bit of shoulder;with circularkantharos stamp near rim. Graffito running from neck to partly behind handle: AATTr-Fwith one further vertical stroke preserved. Light strokes, as is the case in other price graffiti published here. Slight traces of resin inside. The graffito can be read as 27 drachmas and 1 obol or as 28 drachmas (the lower part of the last vertical, where the short horizontal to create the last F-may have been inscribed, is not preserved). A 7- or 8chous jar would make the price of wine contained in the jar, if that was its contents, between 3 and 4 drachmas per chous. The same stamp appears on 11 and SS 14080 from R 11:3 (closed ca. 420-410). The stamp might date early in the last quarterof the 5th century,but there is no certainty as to how long the image was used on Chian stamps. The form of this particularamphora seems somewhat more developed than those in R 13:4. Date early in the last quarterof the 5th century. WELL (Q15:2

Well Q15:2 is just west of the Panathenaic Way, north of the Mint, ca. 40 m southwest of R 13:4. The fill contained some debris possibly attributable to the Mint operations and two bronze official measures, perhaps from the metronomoi offices in South Stoa I (Thompson 1955, pp. 6970; Camp 1977, p. 218), but the fill also contained large quantities of animal bone, both from food and from the bone-working industry (Lynn Snyder, pers. comm., October 1999). The lower parts of this fill include late-5th-century material comparable to finds in R 13:1 and S 16:1; the higher parts of the fill more closely resemble finds in 0 19:4 and R 13:5 and may be datable into the first decade of the 4th century.The lower part of the fill also contained an unusual series of five plainware oinochoai with comic scenes (Crosby 1955).

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

53

70 (P 26388). Volume. Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 11

Preserves shoulder fragment only. Graffito: possibly HX or simply two verticals followed by a horizontal. Very little of the third stroke is preserved and perhaps only the upper part of the first and second. Large letters of light to moderate depth. The latter reading is better paralleled in this collection. It is unusual among the graffiti discussed here to see a smaller unit (hemichous) before a larger unit (chous). Alternatively the H might stand for one hydria (six choes), followed by a seventh chous; this would be a common size for a late-5th-century Chian amphora. Poorly diagnostic, context date ca. 425-390. 71 (P 26365). Volume? Possibly northern Greek.

Fig. 11

Preserves neck wall only. Base of neck wall graffito: I1111.Uneven spacing and depth of line, with lines trailing off unevenly. Such uneven and irregulartallies tend to be either volumetric, here indicating 4+ choes, or to refer to the weight of the jar.The former seems more likely here, with an incomplete tally accounting for only part of the total capacity of the jar. Context date ca. 425-390. 72 (P 26349). Volume. Mendean.

Figs. 11, 20

Preserves part of rim, neck, and one handle. Graffito at the base of the neck: the upper parts of two vertical strokes and K. Moderately deep strokes, with the K set slightly higher than the other marks. Resinated interior. On analogy with other Mendean jars (26, 27) there may have been another K below the one preserved. Perhaps 2 choes and 1 kotyle; however, the verticals could also be the tops of an H as a hemichous sign, after a tally of choes (not preserved), or it might stand for hydria (half-metretes). This tally (at least as far as it is preserved) only accounts for a portion of the total capacity of the jar; if no other markings were ever inscribed, an accounting of dispensed wine seems a more likely interpretation than a complete refilling of the vessel. Height of neck suggests a date of ca. 400 or later. 73 (P 26381). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 11

Preserves neck sherd only. Graffito X followed by a second possible X, incompletely preserved. Light cuttings. Resinated interior. Uncertain which side of the sherd points toward the rim, so this could be either the start or the end of a multiple choes count. Context date ca. 425-390.

MARK

54

L. LAWALL

72 70

f

71

'5 Ii

LA4

74

73

75

77

78

76

i/

80 79

if81 81

82 Figure 11. Graffiti from well Q15:2

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

55

AMPHORAS

74 (P 24194). Weight? Unattributed type.

Fig. 11

Neck fragment only, and fairly worn. Graffito: one vertical stroke present along the break at the left side of the sherd, followed by AAA III1.Moderate to light incision, uneven spacing. The trace of a letter before the first A and the presence of three deltas raise the comparison with 81. The first vertical may be the righthand leg of a TTwhose upper bar is not carefullyjoined to this right leg. A lTA monogram would create a reading of 84 for this graffito. 84 mnas could record the gross weight of the amphora and some heavy contents. Context date ca. 425-390, but the wear on the sherd could indicate that it was used even earlier. 75 (P 23946). H-graffito. Northern Greek.

Fig. 11

Preserves complete rim, handles, neck, and much of shoulder. Graffito H fully on the shoulder. Light, but fairly neat, incision. A half-metretes, or hydria, as Lang (1956, p. 11, no. 46) interpreted another H-based graffito (65), seems unlikely in this case at least as a measure of the complete jar.The jar, however, could certainly hold 6 choes (a half-metretes or a hydria), partially filled. Alternatively, the mark could refer to 8 choes as in certain summation marks seen in these graffiti. Without any accompanying tallies, however, it is unclear if this letter has commercial significance. Height of neck suggests a date of ca. 400 or slightly later. 76 (P 26355). H-graffito. Unattributed type.

Fig. 11

Preserves neck wall only. Graffito on middle part of neck: H. Smaller letter than 75, but similarly neat. For interpretation see 75. Context date ca. 425-390. 77 (P 23990). M-graffito. Solokha I.

Fig. 11

Preserves lower part of neck and part of shoulder. Graffito M on shoulder just below the neck. Similar size of letter as on 20 and 21, but the style is slightly different; moderately deep strokes. Sharp turn at neck suggests Solokha I identification. Context date ca. 425-390. 78 (P 24003). M-graffito. Possibly Samian, Solokha I form.

Fig. 11

Shoulder fragment only. Graffito on shoulder: M. Heavily incised letter with extensions beyond the apices. Dark brown fabric with much fine mica, possibly a Samian jar of the Solokha I form (see discussion by Grace 1971, pp. 67 and 78, note 68). Context date ca. 425-390.

56

MARK

79 (P 23979). Weight or price? Mendean.

L. LAWALL

Fig. 11

Preserves fragment of neck and shoulder only. Graffito at the transition from neck to shoulder: two vertical strokes followed by an upward pointing arrow.A preceding diagonal line does not appearto be part of the graffito and may not even be a deliberate mark. Very heavy,thickly cut lines, with cleanly rendered endpoints. Traces of possible resin on interior. The upward pointing arrow,an "arrowdelta,"is interpreted as indicating 10 byJohnston (1979, pp. 29-30; and 1982, pp. 208209). The graffito here may indicate 12 units, which is a bit low for a mna weight notation for a late-5th-century Mendean amphora, and certainly high for a capacity measure.This could be a vague price notation. The upward pointing arrow mark occurs on finewares fairly often, but to my knowledge this is the only occurrence on amphora graffiti from the Agora. A series of arrow deltas all sharing the same line appearson a fineware graffito published by Yailenko (1980, p. 92), where he refers to earlier publications of such graffiti on Ionian cups (rejecting the earlier numerical interpretation, preferringinstead to see the stacked arrowsas a tree or three-barbed arrowhead). Context date ca. 425-390. 80 (P 26378). Summation or weight? Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 11

Preserves part of shoulder, larger part of neck, but no rim. The top edge of a graffito on shoulder near where the neck rises: four vertical strokes followed by A or A (only the tops of each symbol preserved);preceded by a much longer diagonal that does not appearto be part of the same graffito.To the extent that they are prreserved,the lines of the graffito are cut lightly and unevenly. Resinated interior. If the last letter is a A, then the graffito could read 4 choes with the alphabetic 4 (A) as a summary mark off to the side. Alternatively, the graffito may be a retrogradetally of 14 mnas, a possible empty weight for a jar of this type; however, there are few necessarily retrogradegraffiti among the graffiti discussed here. The piece is darkly fired but seems more like Chian than Solokha II. Context date ca. 425-390. 81 (P 23949). Numerical graffito. Possibly Solokha I.

Fig. 11

Preserves neck and shoulder only. Graffito on neck, well above shoulder:very uncertain monogram, perhaps combining P and P or HTand X, followed by AAA. The letters are fairly small and moderately to deeply cut. The horizontals of the deltas form a continuous line, which was perhaps cut first to carry the deltas. does not suggest 5 choes The reading of the monogram as TTIX The closest parallel for the here on account of the deltas following.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

57

AMPHORAS

monogram is a counting-table from Naxos (IG XII.5 99) on which a very similar monogram signifies 500 (Tod 1911-1912, p. 116). Either a combination of P and P or a TTXmonogram gives a very large number: 580 or 530. There is no unit of measure that can fit such a large number to this jar alone, so perhaps this graffiti should be seen as having been applied prior to importation, indicating something about the production or exportation stages. The sharp transition from shoulder to neck suggests a Solokha I form amphora, but the jar is not datable more narrowlythan to the late 5th or early 4th centuries. 82 (P 23942). Unclassified numerical notation. Possibly Solokha I, though very uncertain. Fig. 11 Preserves neck and shoulder only. Graffito on shoulder near neck: TPIH followed by an upright stroke at a slight angle, perhaps the vertical line of a K missing the lower part of the letter. Various interpretations are possible: tptaxocx;for 30 or a division of 30; Tpvlxoa7OS6 for (a duty of?) 1/30th;or TpYIqxotcalo; o for "30-days" as an adjective (e.g., wine that is 30 days old). The eta replacing the alpha could indicate an Ionian writer. The fabric of this fragment is very micaceous and very bright orange on the interior surface,yellower tan on the exterior.The fabric very closely resembles that of a later-4th-century water jar (P 30802, which also happens to carry a numerical graffito: A above HKKKK). There is a possibility then that this is not an amphora but a local (?), large water jar. Context date ca. 425-390. 83 (P 23991). Owner's graffiti? Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 12

Preserves shoulder only. Graffito on shoulder near neck: - followed by two shorter strokes angling up toward each other, and a bit of a third stroke angling up away from these first two. Perhaps to be restored as -AN. Clean incisions with moderate depth. Resinated interior. Eocvappears as a possible owner's mark on two other late5th-century pots: see AgoraXXI, p. 37, F 106, P 24774, a lekane rim of the late 5th century; and F 109, P 3736, a black-glaze bowl of the second half of the 5th century.The letter forms involved are all similar. Eoave6vis an adjective sometimes used to describe honey (AgoraXXI, p. 80, He 36, 4th century A.C.). While the M-graffiti here may label some amphoras as honey amphoras, none of those so marked had resinated interiors as this sherd does. For this reason, it seems unlikely that this graffito refers to "yellow honey." Context date ca. 425-390.

MARK

58

83

L. LAWALL

84

85 86

87

Figure 12. Graffiti from well Q_15:2

84 (P 23968). Unclassified graffito. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 12

Preserves part of rim, much of neck, one upper handle segment. Graffito KA on middle of neck wall between the handles. Light to moderate, uneven incisions; fairly large sloppy letters. Resinated interior. Various possibilities exist for the meaning of this abbreviation. washed out or washed over, might indicate that this jar KAXuoCSrC, has been rinsed out and is ready to be refilled. One example of a KA graffito, from Samothrace (Samothrace11.2, p. 100, no. 246), is inscribed upside down near the toe of the jar-a likely place to note that a jar, now perhaps draining, has been washed out. On the other hand, the Delian temple inventories mention waterproofing jars, possibly for oil, using wax (IG XI.2 219A, line 40 "... OsaioC xo7c0 H1111Tv ,jlTiW av As^LOL GTs[yveoavc0v]Xr

xct xpCOt xXDAaocv-nF- . . .").

Finally, in style of cutting, this graffito tends to resemble other appar-

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

59

ently noncommercial marks that are adjuncts to commercial markings; so this may be an owner's mark. Other examples of this graffito are published by Solomonik (1984, nos. 172 and 175). As is expectable in a late-Sth-century deposit, the neck of this piece is taller than most in R 13:4. Date ca. 400. 85 (P 26387). Unclassified graffito. Uncertain type.

Fig. 12

Preserves only shoulder and part of neck. Graffito on shoulder near the rise of the neck; possibly reading KA, KF,or rr. Large, lightly incised letters. KA graffito is better preserved in 84. In terms of the possible readit may be significant that the previous ing x;u-cezos or xX6AwoavTo, had a resinated interior whereas this one does not. Frrmay refer example to 3+3 choes, but such a use of alphabetic numerals is otherwise unparalleled. KF could stand for 23, perhaps a record of the weight of the jar's contents-but only of a partial filling of the jar.The sloppiness of the letters is paralleled by 84. Context date ca. 425-390. 86 (P 26343). Unclassified graffito. Possibly Mendean.

Fig. 12

Preserves bit of neck and shoulder only. Graffito on the transition from neck to shoulder: TTI (possibly H) on first line, V on second line beneath the I. Uneven, fairly light incisions. Resinated interior. Five and a half choes (and more) is a possible reading of the first line, but the second line is of uncertain significance (perhaps not even a deliberate graffito?). Context date ca. 425-390. 87 (P 33422). Unclassified graffito. Unidentified type.

Fig. 12

Fragment preserves roughly half of rim and part of neck wall. Very similar fabric and rim form in another set of fragments from the same container; however, the rim here does not actuallyjoin the larger set of fragments. Graffito on neck just below the rim: M followed by three vertical lines. All very lightly incised. All of the cuttings after the M seem to be the upper parts of further letters or other symbols. This piece was kept out of the M/ME series since the graffito is more complex than those in that series. Without more of the symbols following the M, it is unclear what was intended here. Context date ca. 425-390. 88 (P 26389) Black-glaze fragment. AgoraXXI, p. 39, noted with F 131. Body fragment only. Graffito: [.. .]lixo;.

60

MARK

L.

LAWALL

89 (P 23821). Black-glaze oinochoe. AgoraXXI, p. 39, F 131, pl. 16. Complete profile preserved but very fragmentary;includes complete handle with a small bit of the rim and shoulder. 'Av8pcixo ei0 aLxcxouo;sand [.. .]XXos.The owner'sgraffito runs along the handle; the [...]XAos is on the shoulder. 90 (P 23835) Lekane. AgoraXXI, p. 39, F 132, pl. 17. Two-thirds of rim preserved, one handle, upper parts of the bowl. [&1]xoaos'A[v8]pcoxo [eis'] around the top surface of the rim; uses omicron instead of the omega in 89 above. DEPOSITS

WITH

LATE-5TH-CENTURY

WELL

SINGLE

EXAMPLES

NUMERICAL

OF GRAFFITI

C I9:9

Well C 19:9 is in the northeast room of House K in the Industrial Quarter (Young 1951, pp. 242-243, pl. 77:a). Much of the fill is dated to the late 5th century with a supplementary fill, topping up the settled initial fill, laid down in the early 4th century (suggested by a red-figure oinochoe, Agora XXX, p. 245, no. 726, pl. 77, P 18556, ca. 400). The late-5thcentury fill seems unlikely to date much beyond ca. 410. The well and its contents are thought to stem from domestic use of the building before its lower floor became a marble-worker'sbuilding in the early 4th century. From C 19:5b, floor fills associated with the phase of marbleworking, comes a water jar amphora (P 18609) with graffito TTK(monogram) KKH (AgoraXII, no. 1463). The fill and this piece could date to the late 5th century,but the closest published parallelfor the jar is AgoraXII, no. 1462, from a context starting ca. 375. It seems more likely that this small water jar also dates well into the 4th century. 91 (P 18989). Summation. Chian C/3. Lang 1956, p. 6, no. 17, pi. 1. Preserves upper part of jar only, less than half of rim, missing parts of neck and shoulder. Graffito TTfollowed by three verticals; another five verticals lower down on the shoulder on the same side of the amphora. Moderate weight of cuttings; all strokes appear fairly carefully cut. Lang reads either 8 or 7 choes and 5 kotylai, depending upon whether two or three strokes are understood to follow the T7.There is room for even more verticals after the TTin terms of the spacing of the extant strokes. In keeping with the summation practice seen elsewhere among these graffiti, the TTcould summarize the five tallies, then further decanted or added choes could have been added after the summation. Date 440-430/25.

WINE

GRAFFITI,

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

ze

/

v

P 92

94

n

xxe T

X-r

El 96

99

Figure 13. Graffiti from several late5th-century deposits

97

AMPHORAS

6i

MARK

62

92 (P 18620). Chian straight-neck.

L. LAWALL

Fig. 13

AgoraXXI, p. 36, F 97, pl. 15. Preserves shoulder fragment only. Possible owner's graffito-'Avpop[axou]-on shoulder with tops of letters pointing away from the neck. Large letters, moderate to heavy cutting. For other references to Andriskos, see 89-90. Cf. 88. Form of shoulder and fabric suggest straight-neck Chian form datable anytime after ca. 430/425 to ca. 390. OTHER

DEPOSITS

CLOSED

CA.

430-400

B.C.

93 (P 16444). Volume? Chian straight-neck. G 18:1, well in the domestic area on the north slope of the Areopagus, closed ca. 400 B.C.; see AgoraXII, p. 391. Lang 1956, p. 8, no. 27, pl. 2. Preserves shoulder and part of neck. Graffiti: (1) HF monogram graffito on neck and (2) AZ (with Z written as H on its side) IIon the shoulder. Shoulder letters are moderate in depth and cleanly incised; the break allows for the possibility of one more vertical stroke between the Z and the II. Lang reads (2) as 10.5 choes and 2 kotylai. This reading, however, does not account for the use of Z instead of H (unless this is simply a mistake on the part of the inscriber). Z read as 7, plus 3 more units (choes?) could add up to the 10 indicated by the delta, though this would entail switching between numeral systems, alphabetic to acrophonic, in the same graffito (this may occur elsewhere; see 4 and 24). There is no necessary connection between the neck graffito (1) and the shoulder mark (2). Date ca. 425 or later. 94 (P 18923). Volume (with possible summary notation or weight?). Chian straight-neck. Fig. 13 B 19:7, household context in the Industrial Quarter southwest of the Agora proper, closed ca. 410. Lang 1956, p. 16, no. 66. Preserves neck and small bit of shoulder. Graffito at transition between neck and shoulder: A IIII followed a by horizontal stroke breaking off at the right side. Fairly light, uneven strokes. Lang reads as perhaps 14 drachmas or 10 choes 4 kotylai. The horizontal mark, largely ignored by Lang as "merelya concluding dash,"might shift the reading to any of the following: 14 drachmas, 1 obol (perhaps least likely since it lacks the standard F for drachma); or 10 choes, 4 kotylai, and 1 or more fraction; or 14 mnas and 1 fraction (a weight drachma?)as the empty weight of the jar. A further possibility is that the A records the amount present (4 choes), against

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

63

AMPHORAS

which the tallies are recorded as that quantity is emptied (followed by the concluding dash). Context date late 5th century. 95 (P 8432). Volume. Possibly Chian straight-neck. Well B 13:6, at the southernmost tip of the slope of the Kolonos Agoraios; late-5th- or early-4th-century context. Lang 1956, p. 9, no. 32, pl. 2. Preserves shoulder fragment only. Graffito: first line XX, second line HK.Neat but uneven strokes, ranging from lightly to moderately deep. Lang reads 2.5+ choes and 1+ kotylai. Context date late 5th or early 4th century. 96 (P 17010). Volume. Mendean.

Fig. 13

Section NN, grid 110-111/KE-KH fill notebook; p. 2375, at the southernmost tip of the excavated domestic and industrial area, late 5th century. Lang 1956, p. 12, no. 57. Preserves rim, one handle, neck, and shoulder. Graffito at the transition from neck to shoulder: TTXXXT and on second line TE. Heavily cut into the friable Mendean fabric. TE is cut more lightly and neatly as though from a different stage in the marking process. The legs of the TTare of roughly equal heightthe only time this is observed with certainty in the graffiti here. Scant traces of resin on the interior. Lang suggests either 81/3choes with another quarter-chous added to complete the filling process, or 81/4choes with the T in the first line explained by the TE in the second. In another example (AE, no. 52), the abbreviationon the lower line is in a different hand than the numerical graffito whereas 96 has nearly the same style of marking on both lines. The T is quite ambiguous, and the need to clarify such ambiguity certainly supports the quarter-chous interpretation. The neck is somewhat taller than those from R 13:4, suggesting a date in the last quarterof the 5th century. 97 (P 15053). Volume. Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 13

N 21:7, rubbish pit south of well 0 19:4, contents dated ca. 450420 (AgoraXII, p. 395), with latest datable piece an oinochoe in the manner of the Meidias Painter (AgoraXXX, p. 236, no. 657, P 15034, dated there to 410-400). Lang 1956, p. 13, no. 61. Preserves rim, neck, both handles, shoulder. I1111. Lightly Graffito near middle of neck: TP (monogram) 11111 incised. Lang (1956, p. 13, no. 61) reads as "nine tryblia of the choinix variety (i.e., three choes)." While I doubt that this is the complete

64

MARK

L.

LAWALL

capacity of the vessel, Lang's reading could be taken as a partial filling. The height of the neck places this piece late in the date range provided by the finewares in the pit, and very close to the later date suggested by Moore (AgoraXXX, p. 236, no. 657). Date last quarter 5th century. 98 (P 6126). Weight? Possible summation. Northern Greek. E 14:14, a cutting in the bedrock, disturbed in antiquity; perhaps originally a grave.The cutting included 98 as well as a nearly complete red-figure hydria in the manner of the Kleophon Painter (AgoraXXX, p. 229, no. 603, P 6053, dated ca. 430). Lang 1956, p. 15, no. 64, pl. 3. Preserves rim, one handle, neck and shoulder. Graffito ATT1111ATT(monogram) on one side of the shoulder. Another TTgraffito appears on the other side of the jar.The ATTis cut with clean but light strokes, the following tallies are even lighter and quite irregular,the final ATTis also very light and sketchy.The TTon the opposite site is heavily cut in sharp contrast to the more complex markings. Lang (1956, p. 15, no. 64) reads another ATTafter the four tallies, interpreting as 15 drachmas,with 4 obols "perhapsadded as the price of the jar."The addition of the cost of the jar is not otherwise attested. The lightness and sloppiness of the cutting of the verticals encourage reading them as four single units summed up by the TTonce the fifth was added. In no instance is a securely interpreted price mark built up in such informal tallies. The four sketchy verticals could be counting up to or down from either of the two Us; however, they seem most likely connected to the ATTjust preceding the strokes. Reading an empty weight of the jar at 15 mnas seems therefore more probable than a price reading. As for the reading of the monogram, the cuttings are in a style different from the preceding AT7,and the resulting monogram seems better read as ATT,paralleled in its sketchiness by other possible owner's marks. Date of form ca. 420, later than the date suggested for the hydria. 99 (P 33422). Possibly Chian straight-neck.

Fig. 13

Lot W 161, "ca.9/Ar," fill of the 5th century B.C. south of South Stoa I and the Mint. Preserves lower part of neck and shoulder. Graffito A. Lightly incised. Break removes area for further possible signs.

This could be simply someone's initial; however, given the prevalence of numerical graffiti in this region, it seems possible that this piece belongs in this study. Date late 5th century.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

INTERPRETING

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

65

THE GRAFFITI

"The graffiti and dipinti were not meant for posterity, and the idea of our trying to understand them today would no doubt be wryly amusing to their writers."78This comment by David Jordan, reviewing Agora XXI, stands as a suitable caution and necessary addition to Eugene Vanderpool's comment cited in the preface to AgoraXXI: "It is easy to read if you know what it says."79

If the readings are open to various possibilities, as discussed earlier in this article and in the catalogue, then the broader understanding of the graffiti in terms of Athenian and Aegean social history is not made any easier. For this reason it seems appropriateto bring as much evidence as possible to bear on the interpretationof the roles of these graffiti in Aegean trade. The process followed below for interpreting the graffiti moves through three broad steps. First, I consider the graffiti in terms of various contexts: dates, findspots, amphora types involved, and the nature of the incisions themselves. Second, this contextual evidence and the contents of the graffiti themselves inform interpretation of how the graffiti may have functioned at various stages in the amphoras'use. Such stages include activity at the port, refillingjars from local wholesalers, selling wine from the amphoras, and selling other commodities as part of the reuse of the amphoras. In addition, at this stage I consider the situations in which weighing was likely to have been a part of an amphora'suse, why price marks are so rare among these graffiti, and why only in R 13:4 is there such a preponderance of graffiti on Chian amphoras.Third, and finally,I attempt to place these practices leading to the graffiti in the broadercontext of Athenian and Aegean trade and political history in the 5th century B.C. CONTEXTS

FOR ANALYSIS

DATES

78. Jordan1978, p. 92. 79. Agora XXI, p. v.

Despite the many finds of numerical and other commercial graffiti in the Agora, the 5th-century occurrences of these graffiti are surprisingly restricted in chronology. Only eight examples are datable before ca. 440/435 B.C. One early graffito (1) appearson a Chian amphora datable to ca. 500, and a later Chian fragment (7) is datable by its form to ca. 440-430. Three pieces (2, 5, and 6) are on poorly diagnostic sherds, for which either what little there is of the form or the closing date of the findspot suggests a date before ca. 440. One other mid-century graffito (3) was found on a wellpreserved northern Greek amphora of the second quarter of the century. Finally,a mushroom-rimmed, Solokha type I amphorafragment (8), probably from the southern Aegean, should be dated, on the basis of the jar's form and its findspot, not later than ca. 430. Indeed, seventy-four of the eighty-two known examples of commercial graffiti (just over 90%) are datable to the last three decades of the 5th century. The chronology of the period of frequent amphora marking is indicated both by the closing dates of deposits containing multiple examples of graffiti and by dates attributableto the amphoras themselves. Previous

66

MARK

L.

LAWALL

i studies of the finewares in deposits containing multiple graffiti, along with

my currentstudy of amphora fragments from these and many other Agora deposits and stratified fills, support the following closing dates: ca. 425 for well R 13:4; ca. 410 for wells R 13:1 and S 16:1; and ca. 400 or into the first decade of the 4th century for construction fills for the Mint and wells 0 19:4, R 13:5, and Q15:2.80 The amphoras, too, in these deposits show differences in form attributableto their morphological changes over time. R 13:4 contained fragments both of the latest stage of the Chian bulging neck form (producedca. 440-430) and earlyexamplesof the Chian straightneck form (produced ca. 430-400) (Figs. 14-15).81The later deposits contained taller and later straight-neck Chian jars (Fig. 16) with very few, if any,examples of the earlierbulging neck type. Likewise, R 13:4 contained well-preserved examples of a quite roundedjar with a short neck from the region of Mende (Figs. 17, 18), while R 13:1, R 13:5, and the other later wells contained the more angularform with taller neck of the late 5th and early 4th centuries (Figs. 19, 20).82The later wells also contained more examples of the Solokha I, mushroom-rimmed form (Fig. 21), which be80. Forthe evidenceforthe datesandreferences to published contentsof thesedeposits,see the deposit indices in AgoraIV,Agora XII, AgoraXXI, AgoraXXIII, and AgoraXXX.The datessuggestedhere,

wheretheydifferfromthe datespublishedin thesesummaries, arebased

on my currentresearch. 81. Grace 1979a, fig. 44, far right, illustratesthe latest configurationof the bulging neck form;fig. 45 shows the subsequentstraight-neckform. Lawall (1995, pp. 91-93 and 99-103) discussesthe developmentand its chronology.

Figure 14 (left). Chian C/3 amphora 25 (P 2366) from well R 13:4 Figure 15 (center).Chian early straight-neck amphora 19 (P 2372) from well R 13:4 Figure 16 (upper right). Chian late straight-neck amphora 48 (P 27513) from well S 16:1 Figure 17 (lower right). Mendean amphora 26 (P 11382) from well R 13:4

82. See Brashinskiy1976 and Eiseman and Ridgway1987 for summariesof the chronological sequenceof Mendean jars after ca. 450 B.C.; with specific reference to the Mendean chronologyof the period in question, see Lawall 1998b.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

67

AMPHORAS

I

I

I

i

Figure 18 (left). Mendean amphora P 2377, without commercial graffito, from well R 13:4 Figure 19 (center).Mendean amphora P 23864, without commercial graffito, from well Q_15:2. Ht. 0.651 m. Figure 20 (upperright). Mendean amphora 72 (P 26349) from well Q_15:2 Figure 21 (lower right). Solokha I amphora 55 (P 27526) from well S 16:1

gins to appearin Athens around 450 and is only common at the very end of the century.The graffiti, therefore, appearpredominantly on amphoras whose dates spanned the last three decades of the 5th century and entered the 4th century. As is clear from Table 1, the types of graffiti are not restricted within shorter periods in the last decades of the 5th century; all types appear in both early and late contexts. In all deposits, the volumetric notations of either simple tallies or tallies including abbreviatedunits arethe most common. Summations, weight notations, price marks, and the isolated abbreviations E/H and M/ME are far less common but do appearboth in early and later deposits. Specific idiosyncrasies among the R 13:4 graffiti also recur in later wells. For example, the practice of occasionally combining multiple-letter abbreviations with single letters or tallies is seen in both R 13:4 (25) and S 16:1 (56). In addition, the practice of aligning small tallied units along a vertical line appearstwice in R 13:4 (16, 18) and reappears in R 13:1 (35, 36, and possibly 45). Finally, the use of E instead of H for "half"may occur in R 13:4 (possibly with 13) and, with more certainty, in the later deposit 0 19:4 (64). Even if there may not have been continuity in the sellers' identities from ca. 440 to ca. 400, these similarities of practice over time suggest some familiaritywith the earlier activity. Some practices in the graffiti tend to appearin the later deposits. The most noticeable of these is the method of rendering 5 choes using rTwith a short horizontal line cutting the right leg of the letter. This practice is seen in both R 13:1 and S 16:1 (both closed ca. 410): see 41, possibly 42,

68

MARK

TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION NEAR R 13:4 R 13:4 Total Volumetric Simple tally Abbreviated units Summation Combined with price Weight Price E/H, M/ME

10 (1) 5 2 3 (1) 2 5 3 2

OF AMPHORA

R 13:12

Mint

1

3 (2) 1

1

2 (2)

-

-

-

-

-

L.

GRAFFITI

R 13:1 12 3 8 1 -

1 (1) 1 (1) -

LAWALL

TYPES IN DEPOSITS

S 16:1

(1) (1) (1) (1)

2 (1) 1 -

019:4

Q 15:2

2

5 (2) 1 (1) 3 1 (1)

3

9 4 2

3

2 1

-

1

-1

2

R 13:5

2

1-

3 (2) 1 (1) 4

Parentheticalnumbersindicateuncertainattributionsin each group (see catalogue).Deposit Q15:2 includes two numericalgraffiti,81 and 82, that do not fall into the graffititypes listed here.This column, therefore,includes two fewer graffitithan the column for Q_15:2in Table 2. The two markings"combinedwith price"in R 13:4 include abbreviatedunits for volume and, for this reason,are also listed under"abbreviatedunits" for the deposit.

52 (modifying the idea by leaving out the second leg of the TT),and possibly 53. This may be seen as a development in the practice of placing the chous designation, X, fully inside the acrophonic numeral (as is seen in 26 and 27 with 10 choes, and in 38, which may be contemporarywith the 5chous monogram pieces, or may be slightly earlier),but there is no indication here of a sharp break in practice. FINDSPOTS

Most of these commercial graffiti are found in the southeast corner of the Agora excavations (Figs. 1-2). Deposits R 13:4 (18 examples), R 13:12 (1), Mint construction fill (3), R 13:1 (15), S 16:1 (10), R 13:5 (3), Q(15:2 (13) account for sixty-three of the seventy-four known late-5th-century examples (85%). Wells R 13:1, 4, 5, and 12 all lie just southeast of the junction between the Panathenaic Way and the road leading west toward the later Roman Agora. S 16:1 is also east of the Panathenaic Way, about 50 m southeast of the R 13 wells. Q_15:2 lies just west of the Panathenaic Way, north of the Mint building, and 40 m southwest of the R 13 wells. The fill under the Mint itself lies just across the Panathenaic Way from the R 13 area.The distances between these deposits are sufficiently small to suggest a very limited area as the source of the debris. A more distant deposit, along the southern side of the Agora, 0 19:4, contributes another four examples.Eight other late-5th- or early-4th-century graffiti arefound scattered across the Agora. In contrastto this concentrationof the commercialgraffitiin the southeast part of the Agora, other classes of graffiti (e.g., lists, owner'smarkings, or other names) are much more generally scattered throughout deposits of the Agora region.83The concentration of numerical graffiti appears even more striking in view of the fact that many other large deposits of amphoras of the same period, located elsewhere in the Agora excavations, contained few or no examples of commercial graffiti.84 This uniqueness of the spatial and temporal patterning of the 5th-

83. AgoraXXI, passim. 84. For example, deposits A-B 2122:1, B 13:5, G 16:1, M 20:3, and B 15:1, all of the late 5th century, have revealed no numerical graffiti (among inventoried and noninventoried sherds); deposits C 19:9, G 18:1, U 13:1 (early 4th century, see discussion below), and B 13:6 have very few examples of numerical graffiti.

GRAFFITI,

WINE

SELLING,

AND

REUSE

OF

AMPHORAS

69

century amphora graffiti in the Agora is further emphasized by the rarity of similar graffiti outside the Agora. One very early example is found on an amphora of ca. 500 B.C. in the Kerameikos.85Similar graffiti have been published from sites along the north coast of the Black Sea, but even there, where many graffiti have been published, numerical graffiti on amphoras are not common.86Although such graffiti were clearly used outside Athens, the Athenian finds are noteworthy for the large number of examples found in one area of one site. This particular region of the Agora has been connected with wine selling in earlierpublications,especiallyby LucyTalcott andT. Leslie Shear Jr.87The unusually dense concentration of graffiti here allows various further details to be proposed as to the commercial history of this part of the Agora. Well R 13:4 was the first of the major graffiti-bearing deposits to be published. The well's many amphoras, drinking cups, a few mixing bowls, limited range of cookwares,and the many examples of graffiti on amphora fragments prompted Talcott to propose the existence of a tavern, which "flourishednear the borders of the Agora in the years around 440. Apparently it met with some disaster,which caused its abandonment and discarding of its paraphernaliasomewhere about 430."88The well's contents were the only significant evidence for such a building until excavation under the Library of Pantainos in 1970-1974 revealed modest structures datable to the end of the 5th century,continuing through the 3rd century B.C.89The better-preserved structures,mostly of the 4th century and later, lie east of R 13:4, but other, possibly 5th-century foundations appeared closer to the well (Fig. 2).90 With so little architecturalevidence or occupational debris immediately associated with R 13:4, it is difficult to distinguish between a substantive break in the wineshop's activity and periodic cleaning up of the area'strash. Susan Rotroff and John Oakley drew attention to an earthquake in 425 B.C.,which Thucydides (3.89) described in some detail, and they reasonably connect this disaster with a large number of fills around the Agora whose closing dates might fall near 425. They include R 13:4 in the list of earthquakedeposits.91The earthquake clearly created a consid85. Kerameikos IX, p. 173, E 14, with fig. 47; readsXXXXXXXXXKKKKK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. . 2 ] ' : .. . ....

>

[|

S

|_00w3'

''

s

,

................................................................A

.

.............................

. .. ......

*u

:. .; e e#< .:S? .. .. . ,,;> ?-

m'PwE

.. -.W::,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ,........1... .... M-' .

..

...

......-__A-

,@!16

0'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~:u tEri"

-

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~P

.... .... . .

:

;

.

2? w,

..

..

.

..

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .....

.. ....

. .

.

..

.

. .

.

.,

.,

..

..

,

.

S..

w

.

DANIEL

I40

J. PULLEN

--

~~~~~~~~iuImEbu~~~~~~~~

HSW~~~~~~~~

among those producing the majority of the ceramic material, provided nearly three-fifths of the lithic material (from a total of some 114 pieces from the acropolis).

THE POTTERY Given that the Halieis prehistoric material derives from chronologically later contexts, it is difficult to identify with certainty what the assemblage may have originally looked like. The prehistoric ceramics were selected from lots that contained mostly post-prehistoric material.Thus, there is a distinct possibility that some classes of prehistoric ceramicswere not identified and selected for study. But given the experience of the staff during the excavations and the large quantity of plain body sherds selected as "prehistoric,"this possibility of certain classes of materialbeing overlooked or underrepresentedis probably quite small.12 Added to the difficulties of characterizing the ceramic assemblage is the presence of a few certainly identifiable EH II and LH sherds.The ceramics are first discussed by class and shape, followed by a consideration of their chronological and cultural position. The majorityof the prehistoric ceramics fall into one of severalreadily recognizable classes.13These ceramic classes are based on a combination of three factors: macroscopic observations of the fabrics, painted decora-

Figure8. Halieis acropolis.Building A, lookingsouthwest.Prehistoricpit northof BuildingA at extremeright. In background,BuildingB, room2, cleft in bedrockbelowfloor. 12. The 1967 season saw the beginning of excavations,under the directionofJacobsen, at FranchthiCave; the upperlevels producedplentiful ceramicssimilarto those from Halieis. In 1972 the first season of the Southern Argolid Surveytook place, utilizing some of the same staff;Bronze Age materials were found at a numberof sites. Among the Halieis acropolismaterialhoused in the Nauplion Museum in 1997, I identified no more than a half dozen sherdsoriginallyclassifiedas "prehistoric" as post-prehistoric.These include three Geometric body sherdsand a small portion of a moldmadelamp. 13. See Lerna III, pp. 11-14, for a fullerdiscussionof the history and problemsof the classificationof prehistoricpottery.I have followed Rutter'ssystem of "classes"here.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I4I

TABLE 1. MAJOR FINDSPOTS OF PREHISTORIC CERAMICS AND LITHICS Findspot Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ceramics Lithics

Acropolistrench2, northeastof altararea Acropolis trench3, north of altararea AcropolisW, Mess Building destructiondebris Acropolis CS 56/57, pit in bedrocknorth of Building A Acropolis E, east of Round Tower AcropolisW, destructiondebrissouth of drainand road and north of fortificationwalls, at west end of excavatedarea Acropolis E, Building B, room 2, cleft in bedrock Acropolis B East, depressionwest of rubbleterracewall Acropolis E, CU 60/61, basket4, cleft in bedrock,southeastof altarand northeastof squaretower AcropolisE, southeastof altararea,"bothros"with Classicalpottery

73 67 42 27 6

1 2 8 0 5

58 4* 16 19 10

49 4 1 0 0

*Historical.

14. Pullen 1995, pp. 13-14. 15. Karduliasand Runnels 1995. Andesites are also found on volcanic islands such as Melos, Santorini,and Nisyros in the Aegean. They have been reportedfrom elsewhere,such asTyros, "southof Lerna"at Leonidion (Shriner and Dorais 1999, p. 45, citing Lekkas and Papanikolaou1977) and in the southernArgolid itself nearFranchthi Cave, but so far there is no evidence for andesitesfrom these latter two sites having been exploited in prehistoric times. 16. The volcanic-temperedclasses can also be called"Saronic"because their distributionseems to be primarily in regionsborderingthe SaronicGulf (personalobservation);see Mee and Taylor1997 for the only significant publicationof materialfrom such a region outside the southernArgolid. Vitelli (Franchthi8, Franchthi10) uses the term "Andesite"ware for Neolithic fabricsfrom FranchthiCave with these minerals.

tion and surface treatment, and color.The primary distinction is between those classes that have tempering particles resembling volcanic minerals and those that do not. The importance of this distinction was first recognized in the Southern Argolid Survey where, among the EH I ceramics, two of three major fabric groups had minerals identified macroscopically as of volcanic origin;14 these volcanic-mineral tempered fabrics correlated with certain shapes and decorative treatments. The volcanic minerals in the ceramics are similar to those found in andesite, a major material for grinding stones in the southern Argolid. Karduliasand Runnels conclude that the majority of Neolithic and Early Helladic grinding stones in the southern Argolid are of andesites from Aigina.15Though no petrographic studies have been made of either the Halieis or southern Argolid prehistoric ceramics,I use the term "volcanic-tempered"to distinguish this readily identifiable fabric.16 Volcanic-tempered pottery with inclusions from volcanic stones such as andesite, identifiable by the presence of black and/or gold micalike inclusions, forms one major group of ceramics.This fabric can be found in three classes based on surface treatment and color: Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished, Volcanic Black-Burnished, and Volcanic Plain, with the Plain and Red-Slipped classes very similar to each other. Nonvolcanic-tempered pottery forms the other major group. Several classes in the nonvolcanic group have very little overlap in surface treatments with the volcanic-tempered classes.The fabrics display a wide range of colors, types and quantities of tempering particles, and surface treatments. Each of the nonvolcanic-tempered classes is treated separately. Brown-Slipped and Dark-Faced Burnished classes: a ware that is treated very much like the volcanic ware, but lacks the typical volcanic minerals. Many of the Brown-Slipped pieces come from a single vessel (32), while a number of the Dark-Faced Burnished pieces appear to be "fryingpans."There is a very limited number of red-slipped pieces that do not have the volcanic mineral tempering of the Volcanic Red-Slipped class and they are included with the Brown-Slipped class.

DANIEL

I42

J. PULLEN

Medium Coarse: a broad class that includes the major portion of the Halieis prehistoric ceramics. Most often it has a gray core with yellow-brown or orange-brown or brown surfaces;it tends to be finer than coarse, though there is a very wide range in fineness of the fabric. Cooking Pot: a ware similar to the later EBA cooking pot class of ceramics.This ware is relatively hard-fired, medium coarse in composition, often with a reddish tinge, and sometimes with a compacted or crazed, wet-smoothed surface. In many ways this class is similar to the Medium Coarse class, but with a distinctive reddish tinge and wet-smoothed surface. Buff: a low-fired, relatively soft and crumbling ware with buff to orange surfaces and gray-brown cores; in terms of shapes it is similar to the Medium Coarse class. Compacted Red: a ware similar to the Medium Coarse class in terms of fabric, but with a distinctive red color and compacted, crackled surface. Some pieces are slipped and some are burnished. Pithos: a coarse fabric that includes many small irregularlimestone inclusions, very similar to the later EBA pithos fabric. There are a limited number of sherds that might fall into other categories, such as a few flat (closed?) bases in a hard, light-colored fabric that appears quite similar to the fabric used in later EBA jars, amphoras, and hydrias.Whether these sherds are indeed of the EH II period is difficult to tell, for while no other vessel part has been identified in this fabric, the bases are of the typical FN-EH I flat form. I have included them in the Medium Coarse class.

TABLE 2. FREQUENCY OF CERAMIC CLASSES REPRESENTED IN THE "PREHISTORIC" COLLECTION Class

Uncatalogued

VolcanicRed-Slipped and Burnished 4 VolcanicBlack-Burnished 0 VolcanicPlain 2 23 Brown-Slipped Dark-FacedBurnished 0 186 Medium Coarse 40 Cooking Pot Buff 20 3 Compacted Red Pithos 0 Subtotal Unclassified Post-FN/EHI TOTAL

278 0 6 284

Catalogued

Total

%

12 7 12 11 4 29 18 11 3 4

16 7 14 34 4 215 58 31 6 4

4.0 1.8 3.5 8.5 1.0 53.6 14.5 7.7 1.5 1.0

111 1 5 117

389 1 11 401

97.1 0.2 2.7 100%

THE

TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I43

OF CERAMIC CLASSES BY LOCATION Findspot

Class

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

Other

Total

Volcanic Brown-Slipped Dark-FacedBurnished Medium Coarse CookingPot Buff Compacted Red Pithos TOTAL*

12 10 0 33 15 2 0 0 72

1 3 0 35 12 14 1 0 66

3 0 1 24 6 6 2 0 42

0 7 0 14 3 1 1 0 26

1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 6

13 4 1 32 5 0 0 1 56

0 1 0 13 1 0 0 0 15

1 1 0 14 3 0 0 0 19

1 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 9

5 8 1 44 10 5 2 3 78

37 34 4 215 58 31 6 4 389

*The totals for each findspot do not alwaysagreewith the totals in Table 1, as that table includes materialof periodslater than EH I. Findspot 7 is excludedhere becausethe sherdsfound therewere not identified as prehistoric.

17. Becauseof the small counts (< 5) in a numberof cells in the distributiontable (Table3), a Chisquaretest is inappropriate,as it providesonly an estimate of the true probabilityof the independenceof the variablesand is easily skewed by small counts.The Fisher'sExact-T test calculatesan exact probabilityvalue for independenceof the variables,based on the differencesbetween the data observedand the data expected (the Chi-squaretest is also based on the differencesbetween the data observed and the data expected).For purposesof the analysis,the three Volcanicclasses were lumped together.The nine principalcontextswith prehistoric potterywere used for the location variable.Some of the samplesare small, such as those for the Dark-Faced Burnished,Buff, Compacted Red, and Pithos classes,and this may have skewed the resultingcalculations.I would like to thank Glen Laird of the StatisticalConsulting Center at Florida State Universityfor conductingthe analyses. 18. The Dark-FacedBurnishedclass was eliminatedbecauseof the small sample size.

The frequenciesof classesamong the cataloguedand uncataloguedpieces are given in Table 2. Among the catalogued items presented here, the Medium Coarse class is underrepresented,while the three Volcanic classes and the Brown-Slipped and Dark-Faced Burnished classes are overrepresented. The uncatalogued items, however,are worn or very fragmentary,consist of plain body sherds, or otherwise duplicate items in the catalogue. DISTRIBUTION

OF CLASSES

Although the prehistoric ceramics were found in contexts with later pottery, and thus mixed, the distribution of the various classes is not random. Examination of the individual contexts and the distribution of the various classes shows a few anomalies (Table 3). The Medium Coarse class seems to be proportionately distributed among the different contexts. The Volcanic classes areoverrepresentedin findspots 1 and 6, but underrepresented in findspots 2 and 4. The Brown-Slipped class is overrepresented in findspots 1 and 4, but underrepresented in findspot 2 and absent from findspot 3. The Cooking Pot class is overrepresented in findspot 1 and underrepresentedin findspot 6, while the Buff class is overrepresentedin findspot 2. A Fisher's Exact-T test was applied to the distribution of the ceramic classes in the nine areasthat produced the majorityof prehistoric ceramics in order to test whether these observations are supported statistically.17In the first analysis, the Fisher's Exact-T test was conducted on the distribution of all the Volcanic (grouped), Brown-Slipped, and Dark-Faced Burnished classes.The results were significant, with a p-value of 0.0012, indicating a nonrandom distribution of those classes. In the second analysis, the Fisher's Exact-T test was conducted only on the Volcanic (grouped) and Brown-Slipped classes18in order to ascertain whether there was any difference in their distribution. These results were also significant, with a p-value of 0.0024. This indicates that the distribution of these two classes accounts for most of the nonrandomness of the overall distribution and

DANIEL

I44

J. PULLEN

that the distribution of the Dark-Faced Burnished class was of little significance. A third Fisher's Exact-T test was conducted on the Volcanic (grouped) classes and the Brown-Slipped class for findspots 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9; a p-value of 0.6887 was obtained, indicating little significance to the distribution of these two classes among the six locations in question. These tests suggest the possibility that there may be some functional or chronological distinction among the contexts on the acropolis.19 There seems to be clearevidence that the two groups of ceramicclasses (Volcanic and Nonvolcanic) are mutually exclusive in findspot 3 (the area of the Mess Building) and findspot 4 (the pit to the north of Building A) and not proportionally distributed in findspots 1 and 2, areas near the altar.But it must be remembered that the number of sherds in all contexts is small, and the expected number of sherds of any one class is often not very large.We also lack the data to determine the original frequency of the prehistoric ceramics in relationship to the total number of ceramics from any one context. From findspot 4, only 26 prehistoric sherds were identified, and only 2.41 sherds of the Volcanic classes would be expected given that the Volcanic classes constitute 9.25% of the total ceramics (only 2.21 sherds of the Brown-Slipped class, at 8.5%of the total, would be expected). While we can interpret the results of the statistical tests to mean that the Volcanic classes and the Brown-Slipped class are distributed in findspots 3 and 4 in some statistically significant, nonrandom manner, the archaeologicalsignificance of these results is more difficult to determine. Most significant to my mind is the overall random distribution of most of the ceramicmaterialthroughoutthe variouscontexts on the acropolis. A Chi-square test of the independence of the distribution of the Medium Coarse class among the findspots compared to the distribution of all the other classes combined yielded a low probability of p = 0.1037 (X2= 11.9061, 7 degrees of freedom).20This would indicate that the Medium Coarse class, as well as the remaining classes grouped together, is relatively uniformly distributed among the findspots. The two most likely interpretations of the overall distribution of the ceramic classes (excluding the anomalous contexts of findspots 1-4) are that the various classes are contemporaneous with one another or that the materialhas been so thoroughly mixed that no possible functional or chronological distinctions can be drawn on the basis of location. Our current poor understanding of the FN and EH I periods and the transition between them, including their respective ceramic assemblages, offers little illumination. VOLCANIC-TEMPERED

CLASSES

The volcanic-tempered classes have a distinctive fabric characterized by inclusions of black and/or gold "mica,"in reality platy minerals typical of the volcanic stone known as andesite. As noted above, Aigina is a main source of andesite, one of the most important materialsfor grinding stones in the Aegean.21 Volcanic-mineral tempered pottery was found by the Southern Argolid Survey at a number of sites in the Hermionid region of

19. There remainsthe possibility that the nonrandomdistributionis due to some post-deposition process, whether by activitiesdating to the Archaic and Classicalperiods or those taking place in the millenniabetween the originaldeposition in the FN/EH I period and the Archaicperiod. 20. Findspot 5 was eliminated because its samplewas very small;this eliminationlessened the chance of skewing the results. 21. Runnels 1981.

THE PREHISTORIC

22. Pullen 1995, pp. 10-12. 23. The andesite-derivedminerals that appearas black and gold "mica" occurin the pottery of severalperiods from FranchthiCave (Franchthi ceramicphases 1-2 and 4, i.e., Early, Middle, and later Late Neolithic, but not the Final Neolithic [FCP 5]; Franchthi8, pp. 111-1 12, 127-130; Franchthi10, pp. 38-40). Likewise, these mineralsappearin so-called Aiginetan waresfrom the northeastern Peloponnesefrom the MH period;cf. Nordquist 1987, p. 49; 1995, pp. 46, 50-51; Zerner 1978, pp. 156-158. The overallappearanceof the fabricin question,however,as well as the shapes and the surfacetreatments,represented in both the Halieis and EH I material from the SouthernArgolid Survey,is quite distinct from that of the Franchthiceramics. 24. Severalsherdswere tested for the presenceof limestone tempering using a dilute solution of hydrochloric acid,but all resultswere negative.In the SouthernArgolid Surveypottery, the presenceof volcanic mineralsand lime is usuallymutuallyexclusive. While ninety-two sherdswere found to have lime or volcanic mineraltemper, only four had both (Pullen 1995, p. 11, table 1.1). 25. Cf. Pullen 1995, nos. 75 and 8496, respectively. 26. Cf. Pullen 1995, nos. 133-148. 27. Cf. Pullen 1995, nos. 189-191, 201-202.

REMAINS OF THE ACROPOLIS AT HALIEIS

I45

the Argolid, where Haijeis is located.22The survey pottery with volcanicmineral tempering particles has been typologically identified as EH I, although the ceramics of other prehistoric periods can also have the volcanic minerals present.23 At Halieis the volcanic-mineral tempered fabric appearsin three distinct varieties of surface treatments: red-slipped and burnished, black(slipped? and) burnished, and plain. Given the fragmentary nature of the Halicis material and the few recognizable shapes, it is difficult to be certain, but there is apparentlysome degree of overlap in shapes among the red-slipped and unslipped varieties.The black-burnished variety,however, seems different in its treatment and shapes, and most vessels of this class have thin walls and well-finished surfaces. The volcanic fabric appears in similar quantities in both evenly fired and unevenly fired biscuits, but neither one is particularly"hard"or "high"fired. In both instances the color of the core appears to be in the black to gray (5YR 2.5-5/1) or reddish brown (5YR 3/3, 4/2-4, 5/4) range. Surface colors of the unevenly fired examples tend to be lighter in color than the cores, often red to reddish brown (2.5YR 5-6/6, 5YR 3/3-4, 4/4-6, 5/6, 6/4, 7.5YR 6/4). None of the pieces could be said to be fine nor particularly coarse, though the pieces often have a gritty feel from the presence of many tiny quartz (?) inclusions.24 Surface treatments include the application of a red slip followed by burnishing, burnishing without a slip, and leaving the surfacesplain. Most pieces are well smoothed on both the exterior and the interior surfaces. Given the poor preservation of the red slip in some cases, it may be that more examples of the Plain class should be placed into the Red-Slipped and Burnished category.The slip can approachbright red in color and the burnishing sometimes produces a very lustrous surface (e.g., 10). VOLCANIC

RED-SLIPPED

AND BURNISHED

CLASS

(1-12)

The Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished class is more numerous than the Volcanic Black-Burnished class, but there are few recognizable shapes (Fig. 9). The identifiable open shapes in the red-slipped variety are a thick simple hemispherical bowl (1); a shallow straight-sided bowl (2); another straight-sided but deeper bowl (3); and an incurving deep bowl (4; see also 14 in the Volcanic Black-Burnished class for a similar bowl). They are similar to EH I bowls from the Southern Argolid Survey.25One jar rim, 5, has been recognized: it has a barely flaring rim.26Two handles probably come from closed vessels: 6 is a U-shaped vertical handle, rather narrow, while 7 is a broad vertical band, decorated only by the red slip and burnish. One base, 8, is slightly hollow; it is a typical shape for EH I closed shapes.27 Other examples of this class are represented by body sherds (9-10, 12). 15, included with the Black-Burnished class below, may actually be a Red-Slipped and Burnished piece that has darkened due to firing. There are a limited number of pieces found at Halieis that are red-slipped and burnished but are not in the volcanic fabric (e.g., 37 and 41); these are discussed below in the section on the Brown-Slipped class.

DANIEL

I46

J. PULLEN

\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

'I

c ~~~~~~5

4

p01 1

Bowl, rim

Fig. 9

P285, findspot 6. Diam. indet., but probably ca. 0.30 m. Medium even gray (5YR 4/1); many quartz inclusions; little volcanic temper. Rim thins to flat horizontal lip. Red slip and burnished interior and lip; exterior rough. FN-EH I 2

Shallow bowl, rim

Fig. 9

P098, findspot 1. Diam. ca. 0.32-0.33 m. Medium coarse uneven brown to gray-brown (5YR 3/4 to 5YR 3/2); very gritty; many quartz inclusions; volcanic black, no gold(?) inclusions. Surfaces worn; originally slipped. Shape similar to 11. EH I 3

Vessel, body

P294, findspot 3. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 4/6); volcanic black and gold inclusions. Red slip exterior, burnished. EH I 4

Bowl, rim

5cm

#O

Fig. 9

P128 + 130, findspot 1. Diam. ca. 0.19 m? Medium even gray (5YR

3/1); gritty; volcanic gold and black inclusions. Slightly incurving rim, flat lip. Red slip traces near rim where smoother; burnished. FN-EH I 5

Jar(?),rim

Fig. 9

P260, findspot 1. Diam. ca. 0.16 m. Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown (5YR 5/4 core to 2.5YR 6/6 surface);lots of volcanic black and gold inclusions. Flaring rim. Red slip and burnished exterior and interior. EH I 6

Vessel, handle

Fig. 9

P003, findspot 1. Medium even brown (5YR 3/3 to 4/6 at surface); volcanic black and gold inclusions. Vertical, U-shaped. Red slip and burnished exterior. EH I 7

Vessel, handle

Fig. 9

P103. Medium uneven graybrown to red-brown (5YR 4/4 to 5YR 6/4 surface);volcanic black and gold inclusions. Wide vertical ribbon, raised margins, slightly U-shaped. Red slip and burnished exterior. EH I

Figure 9. Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished class

THE

8

PREHISTORIC

Vessel, base

REMAINS

OF THE

Fig. 9

Pool, findspot 1. Diam. 0.06 m. Medium uneven gray to brown (5YR 4/1 to 5YR 6/4); lots of tiny and small quartz inclusions; volcanic black and gold inclusions. Slightly hollow. Red slip and burnished exterior. EH I 9

Vessel, body

P005, findspot 1. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 4/4); quartz inclusions; volcanic black and gold inclusions. Red slip and burnished exterior. Same vessel as 8?

EH I 10 Vessel, body P257, findspot 1. Th. (wall) 0.0058 m. Medium even red-brown

VOLCANIC

28. Potteryfrom the TrojanI period, particularlyfromYortanand the Sardis region, comes to mind. 29. Aspis:Touchais 1980, pp. 13, 14, fig. 4, and 15, fig. 5; Phlius:Biers 1969, p. 452, fig. 3, no. 37; pl. 115, no. 37, with diameterof ca. 0.19 (afterPhelps 1975, fig. 52, no. 6); Kephala:KeosI, pl. 31V, called by Coleman a 'jar."

BLACK-BURNISHED

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I47

(5-2.5YR 5/4); volcanic black and gold inclusions. Red slip and burnished interior and exterior. EH I 11 Bowl or plate, rim

Fig. 9

P274, findspot 3. Diam. indet. Medium uneven gray to yellow-brown; tiny and small quartz inclusions; volcanic black and gold inclusions. Orientation not certain. Red slip and burnished. Shape similar to 2. EH I 12 Vessel, body P308, findspot 3. Medium uneven gray-brown to brown (5YR 4/1 to 5YR 4/4); lots of volcanic black and gold inclusions. Thick walled, perhaps jar neck(?) (probably not, as diameter too large at ca. 0.20 m). Red mottled to black slip exterior and interior, burnished. Secondary burning? EH I CLASS

(13-19)

The VolcanicBlack-Burnishedclassis of particularinterestfor its distinctive appearance(Fig. 10). Some pieces appearto be burntor dark-fired versionsof the Red-Slippedand Burnishedexamplesin that they have a slip and areburnished(e.g., 15, 17, 18, 19). One of the two relativelywell preservedpieces,13, the rim of a thin-walleddeepbowl,apparentlylacks a slip,but it is well burnished,with the individualverticalstrokessometimesvisible.It bearsa strikingsimilarityin its surfaceappearance to blackburnishedEB I potteryfromelsewherein theAegeanandwesternAnatolia, even in the mannerin whichthe grittyfabricappearswhen the burnished In shape,however,13 does not seem to be surfacelayerhas worn away.28 out of placeamongotherFN pieces,althoughthe slightlythickenedarea below the lip is unusual.In addition,thereis no handleor lug preserved, althoughthe extantportionrepresentsonly 10%of the originalcircumference of the vessel.Another deep bowl,but with incurvingrim, 14, lacks both a slipandburnishing.It resembles4 of the VolcanicRed-Slippedand Burnishedclass,fromthe sametrench(but differentbasket);perhapsit is merelya burntexampleof the latterclass.15 is a thick-walledbowlwith a carinatedrim,an unusualshape,andis slippedandburnishedlike the red versions.It seemsto be quitesimilarto S-profileor carinatedbowlsof FN date found,for example,at Argos;to bowlswith verticalridgesfound at Phlius; and to a bowl with pierced lug at the rim from Kephala, Kea.29 It

shouldbe noted,however,that 15 preservesonly 15%of the originalcircumference,so it mighthavehad sometype of plasticappliquethatis not preserved.None of the parallelscitedareblack,but the Phliusexamplehas a red-burnishedsurface.Bodysherd16 is probablyfromthe samevesselas 15. Otherthan 13 and15, only 17 definitelycamefroman openvessel;18

DANIEL

I48

J. PULLEN

Figure10. VolcanicBlack-Burnished class

13

0 I

5cm

I 1

14

1 I I_

15 and 19 are slipped and burnished on the exteriorbut not the interior.Complicating the picture is 42. It looks like 18 and 19 but seems to lack volcanic inclusions and is classified with the Brown-Slipped class below. 43, a deep bowl with a thin wall like 13, has a black slip and is burnished; it does not, however, have the volcanic fabric, and so it is included with the Dark-Faced Burnished class. 13 Deep bowl, rim

Fig. 10

HP210 + P240. Diam. 0.22 m. Medium even black (5YR 2.5/1); many tiny quartz inclusions; volcanic gold inclusions. Vertical rim. Burnished (possible pattern of vertical strokes). FN? 14 Bowl, rim

Fig. 10

P094, findspot 1. Diam. 0.18 m. Medium even black (5YR 3/1); volcanic black, but no gold, inclusions. Slightly incurving rim, flat lip beveled to interior. FN 15 Carinated bowl, rim

Fig. 10

P429, findspot 6. Diam. 0.18 m. Medium even black (5YR 2.5/1); volcanic gold and black inclusions. Rim curling out slightly, flat horizontal lip. Black (burnt?) slip; burnished; secondary burning. Same vessel as 16. FN

16 Vessel, body P430, findspot 6. Medium even black (5YR 2.5/1). Black-burnished, worn(?) especially apparent on exterior. Same vessel as 15. FN 17 Vessel, body P417. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 3/3 exterior to 4/4 interior); large volcanic gold and black inclusions. Black exterior, dark redbrown interior slip, burnished heavily. FN 18 Vessel, body P267, findspot 6. Medium uneven brown to black (5YR 4/4 interior to 5YR 3/1 exterior); many tiny quartz inclusions; some volcanic black, few gold inclusions; very gritty. Black slip and burnished exterior. FN?

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

19 Vessel,body

PLAIN

CLASS

AT HALIEIS

149

Blackslip exterior(?),burnished. Sameas 18 andP269? Secondary burning? FN?

P270, findspot6. Mediumeven brown(5YR4/4); veryfew volcanic gold andblackinclusionsvisible.

VOLCANIC

ACROPOLIS

(20-31)

The unslipped variety of the Volcanic class includes both open and closed shapes, several similar to shapes of the Red-Slipped and Burnished class (Figs. 11-12). 20, a large straight-sided bowl, is like Red-Slipped and Burnished 1. Two smaller bowls have thick walls typical of vessels in the volcanic fabric: 21, with an outturned lip, and 22, shallow and slightly incurving.Three jars with flaring rims were identified: 23, 24, and 25. The large base 26 unfortunately does not preserve the bottom, but it probably was flat or at most very slightly hollow, like the Red-Slipped and Burnished base 8. Three vertical handles are flattened ovals: 27, 28, and 29. The wide, flat handle 30 (Figs. 11-12) has three columns of incised, short, curving lines, forming a herringbone pattern. One unusual plain vessel, 31, a thick-walled straight-sided bowl, has a volcanic fabric, but both the interior and exterior surfaces are burnished, giving it the appearanceof one of the Dark-Faced Burnished pieces. 20

Bowl, rim

Fig. 12

22

P268, findspot 6. Medium uneven gray to brown (5YR 4/2 to 2.5YR 6/6); volcanic black, no gold inclusions. Rim slightly thickened to exterior. Slightly reddish, self-slip on interior(?);interior wet-smoothed. FN

Bowl, rim

Fig. 12

P195. Diam. ca. 0.26 m. Medium even yellow brown (5YR 4/2 to 2.5YR 6/4); 1 or 2 black volcanic, no gold, inclusions. Splayed rim, round lip. Burnished? FN 23 Jar,rim

21

Bowl(?), rim

Fig. 12

P412, findspot 6. Two joining pieces. Medium uneven gray core to brown (5YR 6/1 to 7.5YR 6/4); volcanic gold and black inclusions. Flaring rim, flat lip beveled to exterior. Smoothed. Similar to 24 and 25 (but not same). EH I?

P423, findspot 10. Diam. ca. 0.20 m. Medium uneven gray-brown to brown (5YR 4/2 to 5YR 4/6); volcanic gold inclusions. Slightly thickened and rolled to exterior, faceted lip. Interior and rim smoothed, exterior rough. FN-EH I

Figure11. Ceramicswith incised decoration

Fig. 12

74 75

30

DANIEL

ISO

27 -

J. PULLEN

02

A_

2

__

A

A~~~~~~22

27

/20

2i

5 cm

3

30

1I 1 1

J5

Figure12. VolcanicPlain class 24 Jar,rim

Fig. 12

P413, findspot 6. Three pieces, Diam. 0.25-0.26 m. Medium even gray (5YR 5/1); gritty; volcanic black and gold inclusions. Flaring rim, round lip. Unslipped, wet-smoothed surfaces. Similar to 23 and 25 (but not same). EH I? 25 Jar,rim

Fig. 12

P414, findspot 6. Diam. indet. Medium uneven gray-brown to brown (5YR 5/1 to 5YR 5/3); volcanic temper. Flaring rim, pointed lip; orientation not certain. Self-slip? Similar to 23 and 24 (but not same). EH I? 26

Vessel,base

small quartz inclusions; volcanic black, no gold, inclusions. Flat(?) large base. Smoothed surfaces. FN 27

Vessel, handle

Fig. 12

P048, findspot 2. Medium even gray (5YR 3/3); many tiny quartz inclusions; volcanic black and few gold(?) inclusions. Vertical, flat. Unslipped. FN 28

Vessel, handle

Fig. 12

P215, findspot 6. Medium even brown (2.5YR 6/4); many tiny quartz inclusions; volcanic tiny black, no gold, inclusions. Vertical, flat. EH I

Fig. 12

P004, findspot 1. Diam. ca. 0.14 m? Medium uneven gray to orange (5YR 5/4 to 2.5YR 5/6); many tiny-

29

Vessel, handle

Fig. 12

P220, findspot 6. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 4/6 [wall], 5YR

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

2.5/1 [handle]);manytiny quartz inclusions;volcanicblack,no gold, inclusions.Vertical,flat.Burnished. EH I 30 Vessel,handle

Figs. 11-12

HP519, findspot6. Medium coarsemottledyellow-brownto redbrown(7.5YR5/4 to 2.5YR 5/6 mottled);verygritty;volcanicblack andgold inclusions.Vertical,flat

ASSOCIATIONS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I5I

wide band.Three columnsof herringboneincision. EH I 31 Bowl or basin,rim Fig. 12 P159, findspot9. Diam. indet. Mediumevengray(5YR 4/1); tinysmallquartzinclusions;veryfew gold volcanicinclusions.Thickenedrim; slightgrooveon interior;flatlip. Burnishedexteriorandinterior.

VOLCANIC

CLASSES

The Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished and Volcanic Plain classes discussed above can be dated to the EH I period; whether these classes are also to be found in the FN period is unclear.The distinctive fabric, as well as the surfacetreatment of red slip and burnish, was found at all EH I sites discovered in the Southern Argolid Survey of the Hermionid.30A major problem faced by the Survey was the considerable overlap of FN and EH I components at many sites: all but two sites with FN material (often in small quantities) also had EH I sherds. Nevertheless, we were able to differentiate between the two periods, in large part because of the distinctive volcanic-tempered fabric, shapes, and surface treatments of the Volcanic classes, which belong to the EH I period, and because several sites had pottery with volcanic-tempered fabric but no FN material.The volcanictempered fabric is found along the Saronic Gulf coast (e.g., Methana).31 Occasionally this ware appears outside the Hermionid in the northern Argolid, but examples are rare.In the extensive EH I phases at Tsoungiza, as well as in the Nemea Valley Survey area, no more than a dozen examples were found (personal observation); there are a few pieces of the fabric identified at Lerna, but EH I is poorly representedthere.32No mention of the fabric was made by Dousougli in her study of other sites near the Argive Plain.33 The Volcanic Black-Burnished class is problematic in that it was scarcely represented in the Southern Argolid Survey; only one piece from the FN period could be identified as Black-Burnished, a handle.34Unfortunately, the quantity of the Volcanic Black-Burnished class at Halieis is so small that it could not be tested statistically against the Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished class to determine whether their distributions areindeed different. Its closest parallelsarevessels from FN Kephala, FN-EH I Phlius, and the East Aegean FN-EH I. The Volcanic BlackBurnished class, then, perhaps should be dated earlier than the Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished and the VolcanicPlain classes,which are dated to the EH I period. 30. Pullen 1995. 31. Mee andTaylor 1997. 32. Wiencke 1989, p. 496, note 1. 33. Dousougli 1987. 34. Pullen 1995, p. 9, no. 42.

NONVOLCANIC-TEMPERED

CLASSES

The remaining classes-Brown-Slipped, Dark-Faced Burnished, Medium Coarse, Cooking Pot, Buff, Compacted Red, and Pithos-are character-

DANIEL

I52

J. PULLEN

ized by fabrics that lack the distinctive volcanic mineral tempering particles typical of the volcanic fabric. Each of these classes is discussed separately. BROWN-SLIPPED

CLASS

(32-42)

The fabrics of the Brown-Slipped and the Dark-Faced Burnished classes arevery similar.They are usually gray to gray-brown (5YR 3-4/2-4), have tiny quartz inclusions, and are usually not gritty in feel. Both varieties are burnished.When a slip is present in the Brown-Slipped class, it is usually brown in color, though red-brown (as in 36 and 41), red (37), and black slips (42) also occur; some of the Dark-Faced Burnished pieces have what appears to be a black slip, though this may be simply a result of firing. Those pieces without a slip are generally darkeron the surface. Many of the Brown-Slipped pieces appearto belong to the same vessel: 32 (Figs. 13-14). Certainly 33 and 34 have the same rough gray interior surface as the pieces of 32 and come from the same context, the pit in bedrock to the north of Building A. The precise shape of 32 is not clear, but it was a closed vessel. The large pieces of 32 seem to have a diameter of around 0.23 m (if the design was arranged in a horizontal band). If the tiny fragment of an incised band handle, 35, is part of this vessel (it was found to the northeast of the altar area, along with 36 and 37, more than 20 m from Building A), we might think of an askos or small jar with a wide vertical handle decorated with stacked continuous zigzag around the belly and grouped diagonals on the handle. All the identified Brown-

Figure13. Brown-Slippedclass

_ 32

33

32

39

33

I 38

36

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF

THE

ACROPOLIS

AT

HALIEIS

I53

32

/

'

=3-

,X

33

35

34 36

5cm

0 I

I

I

I _

137/ 41

39 38

1

40

Figure14. Brown-Slippedclass

35. Asea: Holmberg 1944, p. 83, fig. 84:a-b;Tsoungiza:Pullen, in preparation.

Slipped pieces have shallow curving grooves, apparently forming six or seven nested chevrons or stacked zigzags. Some pieces that do not appear to go with 32, such as 38 (found to the north of the altararea) and 36, have grooves that curve more and are spaced further apart. 39, while it has a similar fabric and decoration to 32, lacks the brown slip and so perhaps is also from a different vessel (it was found in the western part of the acropolis, far from the other pieces of Brown-Slipped ware). Askoi and askoid cups have a long history in Aegean ceramics, from the Late Neolithic (the "scoops"of the LN-FN periods) through EH II and later.The proposed Halieis askos or askoid cup from the pit north of Building A is relatedto askoidcups of FN-EH I date from the Peloponnese, like those from Asea and Tsoungiza. An additional Brown-Slipped piece decorated in a different fashion is 40, perhaps a portion of a so-called frying pan. The preserved portion is

DANIEL

I54

J. PULLEN

very slightly concave. On the decorated surface are portions of an impressed concentric circle, a slightly curving line bordered by what appears to be a row of kerbschnitt or impressed triangles, and a second curved line, perhaps without any border. Frying pans or other similarly decorated flat objects seem to date no earlier than the EH I period, according to our present knowledge, though our understanding of the FN and EH I periods is still poor.36The presence of two additional fragments of frying pans in the Dark-Faced Burnished class (see below) strengthens the EH I dating of this part of the ceramic assemblage. Two red-slipped and burnished pieces, 37, the flaring rim of a deep bowl, and 41, a vertical band handle thin but slightly concave in section and with thickened margins, and 42, a black-slipped and burnished body sherd, do not have volcanic temper in their fabrics, nor are they gritty in feel. They are not similar in fabric to the Brown-Slipped pieces above, but as they have slipped and burnished surfaces,they are included here rather than in any of the unslipped nonvolcanic classes. 32 Askos orjar(?), body

Figs. 13-14

HP626, findspot 4. Medium even dark red-brown to dark graybrown (5YR 3/2-4/2); lots of tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Exterior slipped(?) and burnished; interior very rough, pitted, dark gray. Grooved nested chevrons. Additional pieces 33, perhaps 34, 35. FN-EH I 33 Vessel, body

Figs. 13-14

P134 + 135, findspot 4. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 4/2). Slip and burnished. Grooves. Same vessel as 32. 34 Vessel, body

Fig. 14

P262, findspot 4. Medium uneven gray-brown to red-brown (5YR 3/3-4/4, surface 5YR 6/4); tiny quartz, small irregularlimestone inclusions; nonvolcanic. Thickening to left to attachment(?), slightly flaring at one edge. Interior rough and gray.Two grooves. Same vessel as 32? FN 35

Handle

Fig. 14

P002, findspot 1. Medium even yellow-brown (5YR 5/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Broad

verticalstraphandle.Slip exterior and in grooves;interiorslightly rough.Multiplegrooves,groupedand opposedon exterior(hatched triangles?). FN 36 Vessel,body

Figs. 13-14

P077, findspot1. Medium unevengray-brownto brown(5YR 4/3 to 7.5YR3/5); tiny quartz inclusions;nonvolcanic.Red-brown slip exterior(includingin grooves). Three impressedgrooves.Probably not sameas 32. FN-EH I 37 Bowl,rim

Fig. 14

P009, findspot1. Diam. 0.15 m. Mediumunevengray-brownto brown(5YR4/6 exteriorto 5YR 3/3 interior);not gritty;nonvolcanic. Slightlyflaringrim.Red slip and burnished. FN? 38 Vessel,body

Figs. 13-14

P034, findspot2. Medium unevengrayto orange-brown(5YR 4/4 to 5YR 6/4); tiny quartzinclusions;nonvolcanic.Burnished, interiorsmoothedlike exterior.Two or moregrooves. FN?

36. Coleman (1985, p. 201) would place the mainlandexampleslate in EH I, overlappingwith the EC II period.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

39 Vessel, body

OF THE

Figs. 13-14

41

P238, findspot 6. Medium uneven gray-brown to red-brown (5YR 3/2 to 5YR 3/4); lots of tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Grooves. No evidence for brown slip (worn surfaces), but fabric and decoration are similar to those of 32-38. FN? 40

Frying pan(?), body

Fig. 14

P023, findspot 2. Medium even black (5YR 3/1, but red surfaces); quartz and limestone(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Slightly concave surface. Burnishing a little in evidence, but very smooth on both sides. Stamped circles, impressed grooves, and kerbschnitt. EH I?

DARK-FACED

37. See Coleman 1985. 38. At Tsoungiza examplesof frying pans are found with a large central impressedor incised star,arms radiatingout nearlyto the edge and with stampedspiralsin between (20112-2 and 2014-2-1). The star and spiral design, found also at Asea (Holmberg 1944, p. 86, fig. 87:a = Coleman 1985, p. 214, no. 90), is unlike the stardesign found on Attic examples,where the star has shorterarms and is confined to the inner portion of the field of decoration, e.g., from Agios Kosmas (Mylonas 1959, fig. 146, no. 195 = Coleman 1985, no. 78; Mylonas 1959, fig. 148, no. 210 = Coleman 1985, no. 79, and Mylonas 1959, fig. 149, no. 227 = Coleman 1985, no. 80). Rather,as Coleman notes, the large staris more like the design on Cycladicexamples, although these are formed solely by outline and not by multiple strokesas in the Tsoungiza and Asea examples.

BURNISHED

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

Vessel, handle

I55

Fig. 14

P213, findspot 6. Medium uneven brown to orange (5YR 5/4 to 2.5YR 5/6); many tiny and small limestone, irregularquartz(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Vertical(?), thick margins (U-shaped). Redbrown slip. Not true Brown-Slipped or Red-Slipped and Burnished fabric, but rather similar to those of EH II. FN-EH I 42

Vessel, body

P269, findspot 6. Medium even black-brown (5YR 3/3 interior to 5YR 2.5/1 exterior); many tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic(?). Black(?) slip and burnished. Black version of Red-Slipped and Burnished, but nonvolcanic fabric;burnt exterior? FN-EH I

CLASS

(43-47)

As noted above, the fabric of the Dark-Faced Burnished class is very similar to that described for the Brown-Slipped class. Some Dark-Faced Burnished pieces lack a distinct slip, while others have a black or brown-black slip, though this may be merely a result of firing; the surfaces are generally highly burnished. Two small deep bowls, 43 with a straight rim and 44 with a slightly flaring rim, have burnished surfaces (Fig. 15). 43 has a black slip, similar to vessels in the Volcanic Black-Burnished class. The most unusual piece is 45, perhaps part of a frying pan. Given the small extant portion, it is difficult to reconstruct the form and decoration. A thick wall, probablyvertical, thins and flares toward the broken bottom; a groove emphasizes the flare.At the top, the wall bends to form what was most likely the flat upper surface.The remains of three incisions perpendicular to the edge are preserved. There is no indication of a handle or projecting flange typical of several varieties of frying pan.37The rather high wall is unusual, but the diameter of 0.18 m is quite in line with the size of frying pans. 46 is definitely part of the rim of a frying pan. A slightly convex disk 0.17 m in diameter has had added to it a low, thick wall, preserved only about 0.015 m in height; no flange is present. Both exterior and interior surfacesare burnished. On the exterior bottom are three grooves not quite perpendicularto the outer edge; they must be part of long grooves radiating from the center or perhaps forming the arms of a star pattern, as found on frying pans at Tsoungiza and Asea in EH I contexts.38Both 45 and 46 show that the edge of the disk is undecorated except for the three grooves most likely extending out from the center; similarly,these two lack decoration on the side wall. As noted above, frying pans have not been found in contexts earlier than EH I.

i56

DANIEL

_I

J. PULLEN

I 43

47

44

''l-

1

145

4

45

__?

1 1 I

47, with its slipped and burnished surface,is similar to Brown-Slipped and Dark-Faced Burnished pieces, but the shape, a cup with upswung handle, is problematic. The piece is handmade and burnt. The rectangular-sectioned handle is attached to the vessel wall, probably not too far below the rim, without a tenon piercing the wall. 43

Deep bowl(?), rim

Fig. 15

P426, findspot 10. Diam. 0.16 m. Medium even black (5YR 2.5/1); not gritty, nonvolcanic, but many tiny quartz inclusions. Vertical rim, round lip. Black slip and burnished. 44

Bowl, rim

Fig. 15

P316, findspot 3. Diam. 0.14 m. Medium uneven gray to red-brown (5YR 3/4 exterior to 5YR 3/2 interior); not gritty; nonvolcanic. Slightly flaring rim. Slip(?), burnished. Fabric similar to 43. FN? 45

Frying pan or pyxis, body

Fig. 15

P264, findspot 6. Diam. (top) 0.18 m. Medium even gray (5YR 3/1); some tiny, small quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Slip exterior, burnished. Three grooves perpendicular to edge. EBA?

46

Frying pan, body

Fig. 15

Findspot 5. Diam. 0.17 m. Medium uneven brown core to redbrown (5YR 5/3 to 2.5YR 4/8); tiny quartz(?)inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat disc to which has been added a round low wall. Burnished exterior and interior. Grooves. EBA? 47

Cup, handle and body; class uncertain

Fig. 15

P461, findspot 8. Fine-medium even dark brown (5YR 4/2); handmade. High-swung handle above rim(?) (thinning part is just worn); wall thickens for upper attachment, most likely at rim. Burnt? Slip, burnished. Unusual handle form. FN? EH?

I

46

5cm I I5cm

Figure 15. Dark-FacedBurnlished class

THE

PREHISTORIC

MEDIUM

COARSE

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I57

(48-75)

CLASS

By farthe largestquantityof prehistoricpotteryfromHalieis canbe categorizedunderthe rubricMedium Coarse,primarilybecauseit does not fall into anyof the othercategories.Nevertheless,thereis a certainsimilarityamongthe vesselsincludedhere.By definitionthe fabricslackvolcanictemper;instead,limestoneandquartzseemto be the most common temperingagentsvisibleto the eye.The surfacecolorsclusterfairlytightly aroundlight red,red,andreddishbrown(2.5 to 5YR 4-6/4-8), while the cores(whenunevenlyfired,as is the casefor abouthalfthe pieces)tend to be reddishbrown,darkreddishbrown,or gray(e.g., 5YR 3/1-3, 4/3, 5/34), and not blackor darkgray as one might expect.Surfacetreatments vary:some kind of slip is apparenton roughlya thirdof the pieces;burnishing with or without a slip is presenton only about a fourth.Wetsmoothingis apparenton severalpieces,but withoutthe compactedsurface foundin the CookingPot classor Buff class,describedbelow. The mostcommonshapein MediumCoarseis a thick-walledspreading bowl,often fairlydeep (48-51), thoughnearlyvertical(52 and 53) or

Figure 16. Medium Coarse class: rims

K

REMAINS

_t8

1

_

49

53

~~~~~~~~~~~~54

U

* E

v

__

_

52

0

I

_

_

5cm

_

_

_ _

_

_

_

_

_5

J. PULLEN

DANIEL

I58

\\

Li6~~~

63

~~~~0

5 cm

0 I

62

~~6

I

5 666

incurving (54) walls occur (Fig. 16). Thinner-walled bowls, both shallow (55) and incurving (56), also occur; the latter has a "rolled rim" that is thought to begin in the later part of the FN period. 57 is from an open shape known as a "cheesepot,"usually dated to the FN period.39Cheesepots are also found in the Cooking Pot and Buff classes; see below. A common feature of Medium Coarse bowls is the application of ridges (51) or taenias (50, 52, 53, and 54) either at or just below the lip. Jars are not very common; only two ratherlarge-mouthed examples,58 and 59, areincluded here.These shapes find similaritiesin the FN assemblagesfrom the Southern Argolid Survey and elsewhere in the Peloponnese.40 Most of the bases recognized in Medium Coarse are of the standard flat, thick-bottomed variety that appears almost like a disk, whether on open vessels such as 60, 61, and 62, or closed vessels such as 63 (Fig. 17). Three of these flat bases have impressions of mats on their undersides:60, 64, and 65 (see below, Fig. 29). One base, 66, stands out for being a pedestal instead of the usual flat base. The foot is preserved to at least 0.03 m high; the interior of the bowl is slipped, indicating an open shape. One tubularlug, 67, was formed by vertically piercing a large lug; the piercing removed some of the vessel wall (Fig. 18). The shape this lug might have belonged to is unclear, but its similarity to the unpierced lug 68 suggests that it may have come from a bowl or other open shape. 68 is a large horizontal lug or ledge handle that angles down from the vessel wall. Along the preserved margin of the lug the edge has been flattened into facets, perhaps indicating that the lug would have been continued by a taenia band. The red-slipped and burnished interior shows that the vessel was open, probably some large bowl or basin. The bodies of Medium Coarse vessels could be decorated with ridges and taenias, as the rims are. 69 with a single ridge, 70 with two, and 71 with three preserved ridges show the common triangular-section ridge (Figs. 18-19). 72 (Fig. 20) has three rows of finger-impressed taenia bands, while 73, from a relativelylarge vessel, has two taenia bands angled to each other.

Figure17. MediumCoarseclass: bases

39. Pullen 1995, p. 8, no. 22; Renfrew 1972, p. 155. 40. SouthernArgolid Survey:Pullen 1995, pp. 8, 10, nos. 28-34; Peloponnese:Phelps 1975.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I59

Some of the most elaborate incised decoration from Halieis is found on two pieces of Medium Coarse. Both pieces, 74 and 75 (Figs. 11, 18), come from vessel walls and not handles. 75 seems to come from an open vessel, while 74 certainly seems to be from a closed vessel. From the curvatures we can reconstruct diameters of 0.10 and 0.13 m, respectively.74 is decorated with alternating rows of diagonal slashes that form an overall herringbone design. 75 has a design of two rows of diagonal slashes (in opposite directions) between a pair of incised lines. Toward one edge of the preservedportion are four lines, suggesting an end to the pattern.There is, however, no indication that this is a rim; perhaps the pattern was deliberately relegated to only a portion of the exterior as part of the design or because it would be obscured, as by a handle.

69

11 67

|

5 cm

0

4

x

70

68

-;1

75 Figure18. MediumCoarseclass: handlesanddecoratedbodies

86

Figure19. Ceramicswithapplied ridges10

_

70

71

9

J_

83

8

i6o

DANIEL

J. PULLEN

Figure20. Ceramicswith taenia decoration

78

110

j,

-

72

-7

88

0~~16_ 90

87 The majorityof the features of the Medium Coarse class are found in FN assemblages.Although the high frequency of flat to slightly hollow or concave bases, the presence of plain and impressed ridges, and the tubular lug are characteristic of the FN period, it must be stressed that some of these elements are features of other periods, including EH I. 48

Bowl,rim

Fig. 16

P152, findspot 4. Diam. 0.220.24 m? Medium uneven gray to redbrown (5YR 3/3 to 2.5YR 5/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Slightly thickened rim. Self-slip exterior(?),burnished exterior? FN 49

Bowl, rim

Bowl, rim

Fig. 16

P271, findspot6. Medium unevengray-brownto red-brown (5YR4/3 to 2.5YR 4/6); tiny limestone,smallquartz,small-large limestoneinclusions.Red surface, unslipped?Interiorsmoothed. Shallowridge. FN

Fig. 16

P301 + P290 + P312 + P326, findspot 3. Diam. 0.30 m. Medium even gray (1OYR5/2); tiny limestone, few small quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic; hard-fired; similar to EH II jar fabric. Slightly thickened rim, flat lip. FN 50

51 Bowl,rim

Fig. 16

P235, findspot 6. Diam. ca. 0.25 m. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 4/2); tiny quartz, tiny-small limestone inclusions; nonvolcanic. Piecrust rim. FN

52 Deep bowl,rim

Fig. 16

P133, findspot4. Diam. ca. 0.30 m?Mediumeven orange(2.5YR6/6) irregularsmallinclusions.Vertical rim,flat lip. Originallyslipped(?)on interiorandlip(?).Taenia;postfiring hole. FN 53 Bowl,rim

Fig. 16

P419. Diam. indet.Medium unevengray-browncoreto redorange(5YR4/6 to 2.5YR 5/8); tiny limestoneinclusions.Incurvedrim (or nearlyvertical?),slightlyflattened. Taeniabelowlip. FN-EH I

THE

54

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

Deep bowl, rim

OF THE

Fig. 16

P251, findspot 2. Diam. indet. Medium uneven gray to orangebrown (5YR 4/3 to 2.5YR 6/6). Insloping(?), orientation not certain. Red-brown slip interior.Taenia. FN 55

Shallow bowl, rim

Fig. 16

P229, findspot 6. Diam. ca. 0.16 m? Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown interior surface (5YR 5/3 to 2.5YR 5/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat lip. Slip? FN-EH I 56

Hemispherical bowl(?), rim

Fig. 16

P445. Diam. 0.18 (interior)0.22 m (exterior). Medium even yellow-brown (7.5YR 7/4); spongy ware (vegetal temper); nonvolcanic. Slightly thickened rim, horizontal lip. Burnished, but no luster. FN or EH III? 57

Cheesepot, rim

Fig. 16

P407, findspot 6. Diam. 0.19 m. Medium even orange-brown (5YR 6/4); 1 very large inclusion (7 mm); tiny black and white quartz(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic; fabric gritty like Red-Slipped and Burnished class. Flaring rim, flat lip. FN? 59 Jar,rim

AT HALIEIS

i6i

60 Mat-impressed base Figs. 17, 29 P039, findspot 2. Diam. 0.11 m. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 5/3); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat. Mat impression: diagonal plaited, double weft over warp. FN 61

Vessel, base

Fig. 17

P047, findspot 2. Diam. 0.10 m. Medium uneven gray to brown (5YR 5/4 to 5YR 7/6); some tiny irregular small limestone(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat. FN 62

Vessel, base

Fig. 17

P299, findspot 3. Diam. 0.065 m. Medium uneven gray to orange surface (5YR 3/2 to 5YR 5/6); many tiny limestone inclusions; nonvolcanic; heavy, dense. Flat. Burnished (interior dark and looks like Volcanic classes, but no volcanic temper). FN

Fig. 16

Findspot 2. Diam. > 0.35 m? Coarse uneven gray-brown to redbrown surfaces (5YR 4/3 to 2.5YR 6/6); tiny sand, small limestone inclusions; nonvolcanic. Vertical rim. Three holes pierced (prefiring) from interior; exterior irregular,interior smoother. Worn; similar vessel to 99. FN 58 Jar,rim

ACROPOLIS

Fig. 16

P175, findspot 9. Diam. ca. 0.25 m. Coarse even gray-brown (5YR 3/3); many tiny quartz, limestone(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flaring rim. Slip(?) exterior,burnished exterior. FN

63

Vessel, base

Fig. 17

P189. Diam. 0.09 m. Medium even brown-buff (5YR 6/4); many tiny limestone inclusions; resembles EH II jar fabric. Flat. Self(?)-slip. FN? EH I? 64

Mat-impressed base Figs. 17, 29

HP530. Diam. 0.12 m. Coarse uneven gray to orange (7.5YR N5/0 to 2.5YR 6/6); tiny, small, large limestone inclusions; nonvolcanic; hard-fired like EH I fruitstand. Flat. Mat impression: widely spaced warp over multiple weft, twined? FN-EH I 65 Mat-impressed base Figs. 17, 29 Findspot 10. Diam. ca. 0.140.15 m. Medium uneven gray to orange-brown (7.5YR 5/2 to 5YR 6/6); tiny and small irregularquartz, occasional large (3 mm) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat. Mat impression: twined, faint and worn, weft seems angled between each warp group. FN

DANIEL

I62

66

Pedestaled bowl, base

Fig. 17

P036, findspot 2. Diam. ca. 0.08 m (near foot). Medium even orangebrown (1OR 5/6); very gritty; many tiny quartz inclusions. Pedestal, slightly flaring toward foot. Slip interior bowl, wet-smoothed exterior. FN

71 Vessel, body

Vessel, handle

Fig. 18

P324, findspot 3. Medium uneven gray-brown to brown surface (5YR 3/2 to 5YR 6/4); tiny, some small quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Horizontal; similar to pierced lug (vertical piercing). FN

Fig. 19

P254, findspot 2. Encrusted. Medium uneven orange interior to gray-brown exterior (2.5YR 5/8 to 5YR 5/4). Red interior, self(?)-slip. At least three ridges. FN 72 Vessel, body

67

J. PULLEN

Fig. 20

P282, findspot 6. Medium uneven brown to red-orange (5YR 3/2 to 2.5YR 5/6); small-large (2 m) quartz, tiny limestone inclusions. Three taenias;wet-smoothing around taenias. FN 73 Vessel, body

68

Fig. 18

Large bowl, handle and body

P288, findspot 3. Medium even orange-brown (5YR 5/6); tiny, small, large quartz, limestone(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Lug handle; orientation not certain. Red slip and burnished interior. FN 69

Fig. 18

Vessel, body

P031, findspot 2. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 5/4); tiny quartz(?) inclusions. Red slip, burnished. Ridge. FN 70

Vessel, body

Figs. 18-19

P239, findspot 6. Medium uneven red-orange interior to brown exterior (2.5YR 4/8 to 5YR 5/6); many tiny, small white quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic; hard-fired. Orientation not certain. Red slip and burnished interior, exterior wetsmoothed. Ridges. FN

Th. (wall) 0.013 m. Medium even orange-brown (2.5YR 5/6); quartz(?)inclusions. Large vessel, section larger than 0.35 m diameter? Wet-smoothed interior.Two taenias, angled. FN 74 Vessel, body

Figs. 11, 18

P035, findspot 2. Diam. ca. 0.10 m? Medium uneven gray to orange interior (5YR 6/1 to 2.5YR 5/8); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Small vessel, ca. 0.10 m diameter. At least four columns of herringbone incision; perhaps not vertical but diagonal; exterior surface worn off FN-EH I 75 Vessel, body

Figs. 11, 18

HP504. Exterior Diam. 0.13 m? Medium uneven gray-brown interior to red-brown exterior (5YR 4/3 to 2.5YR 4/8); tiny and small irregular limestone(?) inclusions. Incised herringbone and grooves; interior compacted slightly.

EH I? COOKING

POT

CLASS

(76-93)

One distinctive group is the Cooking Pot class, so named because of its resemblance to the cooking pot fabrics of later EBA phases. Cooking pot fabrics are medium to coarse, more often unevenly fired than even, and have a reddish tinge to the fabric away from the core. The surfaces are

THE

41. Holmberg 1944, p. 55, fig. 57:b.

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I63

often wet-smoothed or even burnished, though never with a luster imparted but rather with a slight "compacted"appearance.Occasionally the compacting of the surfaceis very pronounced, creating a crazed or cracked surface (e.g., 88, 91, and 92). Slips are rare;indeed only 85, a handle, possibly had a red slip. "Self-slips,"technical slips formed by wet-smoothing the surface, do appear sometimes. The most common shapes in the Cooking Pot class arebowls andjars, as one might expect (Fig. 21). The bowls range from deep to hemispherical. 76, with a rim diameter of 0.12 m, has an irregular,slightly spreading wall; 77, just slightly larger with a rim diameter of 0.13 m, has a flaring rim. 78 (Fig. 20) and 79 are two hemispherical bowls with taenia decoration on the rim, just below the lip in the case of 79, lower down in the case of 78. A slightly larger bowl, 80 (Fig. 19), has a raised ridge instead of a taenia band below the rim. One example of a cheesepot, 81, was found in the cooking pot fabric.Two holes are preserved,both approximately0.015 m below the lip, as is often the case in this shape. Only one jar rim, 82, has been recognized: a flaring rim with lip thickened to the exterior. Other jars are attested by handles, several of which are decorated in some manner. 83 (Figs. 19, 21) is a vertical band handle, relatively flat in section, with two vertical ridges near the margins; the ridges are marked with very fine diagonal slashes. Another vertical band handle, 84, is more carefullymade, rectangularin section with raised edges. It has a single finger impression centered at the (upper?)attachment. 85 is a relatively simple handle, probablyvertical. The most elaborate piece of cooking pot is the pierced spool lug 86, probably from an open vessel, to judge by the burnished interior. A high lug projects from the exterior surface, between pairs of wide horizontal grooves with edges raised above the wall. The two sides and the center of the front of the lug are articulatedwith disks. The lug is pierced vertically, from top and bottom, forming a hole slightly smaller in diameter in the middle. The lug is reminiscent of simpler trumpet or spool lugs found in EH I contexts, for example at Asea.41 A number of cooking pot vessels were decorated with taenia bands and ridges, such as 87-89, which have single or multiple taenia bands, including some meeting at angles; 90 (Fig. 20) is unusual in that one of the three poorly made taenias has had clay smeared into the finger depressions, apparentlyto convert the taenia into a wide ridge. A further example of plastic decoration, 91 (Fig. 19), has four narrow parallel ridges preserved on the exterior of a closed vessel. These ridges may be diagonal in their orientation, if we use the comparativewall thickness for orientation of the preserved portion; one of the ridges ends simply, another makes a bend before ending. Two bases, one flat, 92, and one flat disk, 93, were recognized; the latter base has a mat impression preserved on the underside (see below, Fig. 29). For the most part, the shapes in the Cooking Pot class are nearly the same as in the Medium Coarse class, though the thick-walled spreading bowls of the Medium Coarse class are not as frequent in the Cooking Pot class. The plastic and impressed decoration is similar in the two classes.

I64

DANIEL

0X18

J. PULLEN

177

76

=tX78

t

___

=

79

80

82

81

84

83

-~~~~~~A

/85

L 92

86

0 1

I

1

1

93

5cm

- I

Figure21. CookingPot class

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

76 Deep bowl, rim

OF THE

Fig. 21

P155, findspot 4. Diam. 0.12 m. Medium uneven gray interior to brown exterior (5YR 4/3 to 5YR 6/4); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Vertical rim, round lip. Burnished? FN 77

Bowl, rim

Figs. 20-21

P030, findspot 2. Diam. 0.22 m. Coarse uneven gray to brown (5YR 5/1 to 2.5YR 5/4); tiny, small, and large (2 mm) quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Splayed rim, flat lip. Taenia with slashes. FN 79 Hemispherical bowl, rim

Fig. 21

P032, findspot 2. Diam. indet. Coarse uneven brown to orange (5YR 3/2 to 2.5YR 4/6); many tiny, small, large quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Round lip. Self-slip. Taenia just below lip; compacted surfaces. FN 80 Bowl, rim

Figs. 19,21

P266. Diam. ca. 0.28 m? Medium even dark gray,red surface (5YR 4/1); tiny-small limestone, quartz, and other inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flaring rim. Burnished interior. Ridge. FN 81 Cheesepot, rim

AT HALIEIS

82 Jar,rim

I65

Fig. 21

P443. Two pieces. Diam. 0.14 m. Medium even gray (5YR 4/2); tiny to small nonquartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Slightly flaring rim, lip rounded to exterior.Interior rim especially wet-smoothed. FN-EH?

Fig. 21

P084, findspot 1. Diam. 0.13 m. Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown (5YR 3/3 to 5YR 6/6); tiny, small, and occasional large quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Slightly flaring rim, round lip. Wet-smoothed surfaces. FN 78 Hemispherical bowl, rim

ACROPOLIS

83 Vessel, handle

Figs. 19, 21

Findspot 10. Medium uneven gray-brown to red-brown (5YR 5/2 to 2.5YR 5/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Vertical.Wet-smoothed, slightly compacted. Two vertical taenias, narrowwith diagonal slashes. FN 84 Vessel, handle

Fig. 21

P241, findspot 6. Medium even gray-brown to red surface (5YR 5/1 to lOR 4/4-5/6); tiny-small limestone, some quartz(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Vertical, flat-sectioned with raised margins; finger impression near attachment. FN-EH I 85 Vessel, handle

Fig. 21

P258, findspot 1. Medium even red-brown (2.5YR 4/4); many tiny, some small quartz inclusions. Vertical(?),two-ridged in section. Red surface (slip?), burnished. FN 86 Vessel, body and lug Figs. 19, 21 Pill, findspot 1. Medium uneven brown to red-brown (5YR 4/4 to 2.5YR 5/8); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Horizontal lug with finials, pierced vertically. Self-slipped interior(?), burnished or compacted interior.Taenia(?) or three ridges continue out from lug. FN

Fig. 21

P079, findspot 1. Diam. indet. Medium uneven gray-brown to redbrown (1OYR4/2 to 2.5YR 4/4); tiny quartz, small-large limestone inclusions. Nearly vertical rim. Interior compacted, very worn exterior.Two holes pierced (prefiring) from interior. FN

87 Vessel, body

Fig. 20

P033, findspot 2. Coarse uneven black interior to red-brown exterior (5YR 3/1 to 2.5YR 3/4); small, large (6 mm) limestone, quartz(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Taenia. FN

i66

DANIEL

88 Vessel, body

Fig. 20

P092, findspot 1. Medium even brown (5YR 4/3); many tiny, small, and large quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Taenia. FN

P456, findspot 8. Medium uneven gray-brown to red-brown (5YR 4/2 to 2.5YR 5/6); tiny limestone, tiny-small quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Interior compacted. Two taenias at angle. FN 90 Vessel, body

Fig. 20

P256, findspot 1. Coarse mottled red-brown to black (2.5YR 5/4); 1 pebble (5 mm). Three taenias, poorly made; one has added clay to fill up finger depressions. FN 91 Vessel, body

Figs. 19,21

P024, findspot 2. Medium uneven black to red-brown surfaces (5YR 2.5/1 to 2.5YR 4/6); tiny BUFF

CLASS

pyrite(?) small quartz/limestone inclusions; nonvolcanic. Orientation not certain. Four ridges, may be diagonal if orientation by wall thickness and curvatureis accurate. FN 92 Vessel, base

89 Vessel, body

J. PULLEN

Fig. 21

P180. Diam. 0.10 m. Medium uneven black-brown to red-brown surface (5YR 3/2 to 2.5YR 6/4 surface);tiny quartz inclusions, iron pyrite spalls(?);nonvolcanic. Flat; irregularunderside or very faint mat impression? Burnished? Interior reddish, compacted. FN 93 Mat-impressed base Figs. 21, 29 Diam. ca. 0.06 m. Coarse uneven brown to red-brown (5YR 3/3 to 2.5YR 4/6); many tiny, small, and large irregularlimestone inclusions; gritty. Flat. Mat impression: small area preserved and unclear, perhaps basketry?Wetsmoothed exterior like Cooking Pot ware. FN

(94-104)

Anotherdistinctivecategoryis that calledBuff.This groupis characterized by a relativelysoft, low-fired,and crumblyware,often with compactedsurfaces,such as 95, 97, 99, 100, and 102-104. The colorsof the fabrictend to be lighter-more orangeto orange-brown-than those of the fabricsof the MediumCoarseand CookingPot categories:2.5YR 56/6-8, 5YR 4, 6-7/6 (lightred,yellowishred,andreddishyellow).Identifiableinclusionsareoften quartz,thoughothermaterials(limestone?)are also apparent.A few pieces seem to have a slip, probablya technicalor self-slipfromwet-smoothingthe surface;only 95 and 102 might have a deliberatelyslippedsurface,reddishin color. The shapesfound in the Buff class are thick-walledbowls for the most part,e.g., 94-99 (Fig. 22), though a few examplesof closedshapes, e.g., 100 (Fig. 19), also occur.Notable shapesinclude two examplesof cheesepots(95, 99), a pedestaledbowl(?)(102), and an unusualT-shaped horizontalhandleattachedbelow the rim of a bowl (94). Appliedridges andtaeniasarefoundon a numberof the closedvessels,such as 100, 101, andnumerousuncataloguedexamples.A few of the openvesselsalsohave appliedridgesand taenias,e.g., 103 and 104. Baseslike 96 and 98, as in the othercategories,areflat andthick. In terms of shapes (thick-walledbowls, cheesepots,flat bases, and pedestals)andapplieddecoration(ridgesandtaenias),the Buffclassseems

REMAINS

PREHISTORIC

THE

OF THE

AT HALIEIS

ACROPOLIS

Figure22. Buffclass

I67

_

195

L) _

l

_

96

_

98

l,) \

/_ X

1 }99

-

_

r

|

~~101

0

I

~~~~~~~102

5 cm I I I I I

to be very similar to the Medium Coarse class; perhaps it represents a poorly fired variant of the Medium Coarse class, with no functional or chronological distinction. 94

Bowl, handle and rim

Fig. 22

P025, findspot 2. Diam. ca. 0.25 m? Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown (5YR 3/2 to 5YR 6/6); small to large (up to 2 mm) quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. T-lug, projecting. FN

97

Cheesepot, rim

Fig. 22

P059, findspot 2. Diam. 0.18 m. Medium uneven brown to orange (5YR 5/3 to 5YR 6/6); nonvolcanic. Slightly flattened lip. Red slip? Hole pierced below lip. FN 96

Vessel, base

Fig. 22

P068, findspot 2. Diam. ca. 0.20 m. Medium even yellow-brown (5YR 6/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flaring rim, round lip. Slip(?), very smooth surface. FN 98

95

Bowl(?), rim

Vessel, base

Fig. 22

P296, findspot 3. Diam. indet. (ca. 0.18-0.25 m?). Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown (5YR 5/4 to 2.5YR 6/8); many quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat, large, and irregular.Surface mottled yellowbrown to orange. FN

Fig. 22

P066, findspot 2. Diam. 0.12 m. Medium uneven gray to orange (5YR 6/4 to 2.5YR 5/8); nonvolcanic. Flat. Surfaces smooth and slightly compacted. FN

99

Cheesepot, body

Fig. 22

P298, findspot 3. Medium uneven gray to orange-brown (5YR 5/3 to 2.5YR 6/6); quartz and limestone(?) inclusions; nonvolcanic. Thickens toward base? Parts of two

i68

DANIEL

holespreservedin thinnerportion; wet-smoothedlike CookingPot ware, but not verysmooth. FN Fig. 19

100 Vessel,body

Findspot10.Threepieces.Diam. ca. 0.28 m?Mediumeven orangebrown(5YR 7/6); tiny regularquartz, small-large(2 mm) irregularquartz andother(limestone?)inclusions; nonvolcanic.Medium-sizedvessel; estimatefor diametermaybe incorrect if pot is globularand thuslargerin anotherdirection.Interiorvery Two curvedridges. irregular. FN 101 Vessel,body andlug

Fig. 22

P431. Mediumevenbrown(5YR 6/6); tiny-large(3 mm) quartzand limestoneinclusions;nonvolcanic. Self-slip?Horizontalhigh lug with fingerimpressionson edge. FN? COMPACTED

RED

CLASS

J. PULLEN

102 Vessel, pedestal base

Fig. 22

P053, findspot 2. Medium even red-brown (2.5YR 5/6); small quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Pedestal. Red slip and burnished interior? Compacted interior, smoothed exterior. FN 103 Vessel, body P065, findspot 2. Th. (wall) 0.012 m. Medium even red-brown (5YR 4/6); tiny quartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Thick vessel (1.2 cm thick). Taenia poorly made, not thick, peeling off. Same vessel as 104. FN 104 Vessel, body P249(?) + P050, P245, findspot 2. Four pieces. Medium even brown (5YR 4/6); nonvolcanic. Large vessel. Self-slip. Three taenias. Same vessel as 103. FN

(105-107)

The smallgroupof sherdstermedCompactedRed is muchlike the Medium Coarseclass in terms of fabriccomposition,but with a decidedly morereddishappearanceto the fabricandwith a heavilycompactedsurface.Some of the uncataloguedbodysherdsin this categoryexhibita slip of some sort, and a few are burnished.The compactingof the surface, which createscracksand crazingon an otherwisesmooth surface,is also foundon piecesin the CookingPot andBuff classes;the compactingmay simplyrepresentan alternativesurfacefinish and not indicatea separate classas suggestedhere. Similarly,a flatbaseof indeterminatediameter,105, a bodysherdpreservingan appliedangledtaeniaband,106, and an unusualhandle,107, would not be out of place amongthe Medium Coarseor Buff categories (Figs.20, 23).The handle107 mustbe a flat,archedtabthatrisesfromthe rimof a bowlin two places;the innermarginof the handle,wherethe hole is, was thickenedfor strength,indicatingit was not piercedbut formed thatway.A tabhandle,usuallysingle,risingabovethe rimis characteristic of somebowlsof the TroyI culture,e.g., atThermi,but only rarelyin the FN periodof the mainlandandnearbyislands,e.g.,EutresisandKephala.42 105 Vessel, base

Fig. 23

P026, findspot 2. Diam. indet. (worn). Medium uneven gray to redbrown interior surface (7.5YR 4/2 to 2.5YR 5/6); many tiny quartz, small-

large (3 mm) irregularquartz inclusions; nonvolcanic. Flat, slightly rounded at edge (probably due to wear). FN

42. Thermi: Lamb 1936, pp. 73-77, esp. 75, fig. 26, 77, fig. 27; Eutresis: Caskey and Caskey 1960, pl. 46, no. 11.28;Kephala:KeosI, p. 14.

THE

PREHISTORIC

106 Vessel, body

~

}

-

REMAINS

OF THE

Fig. 20

P250, findspot 2. Medium uneven gray-brown to orange-brown (5YR 3/1 to 2.5YR 6/8); tiny, small limestone, no quartz(?)inclusions; nonvolcanic. Self-slip exterior. Taenia, angled. FN

10

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

107 Vessel,handle

I69

Fig. 23

P191. Coarseeven orange (2.5YR6/6); 1 pebble,5 mm.Tab handle,facetedin outline,with centralcircularhole. FN

PITHOS CLASS (108-111) Four sherds characterized by their coarse fabric and resemblance to later EBA pithos fabric have been placed into the Pithos class. The fabrics are orange to red-brown (2.5YR 4-6/6, 6/8), with a gray,gray-brown,or brown (2.5YR N6/0, 5YR 6/3, 7.5YR 6/4) core. The inclusions comprise many large pieces of limestone, typical of later EBA pithoi. The shapes, though, are not those of pithoi but of medium to large bowls represented by rims, 108 and 109, body sherds, 110, and large flat bases, 111 (Figs. 20,24). 111 has the impression of a mat on the underside (Fig. 29), but unfortunately it is too worn to determine much detail. Applied taenia bands are found on these large bowls (see 108 and 110), as is often the case on examples of later pithoi and large coarse vessels.

107

5cm

0

I

I

I

I

I

Figure 23. Compacted Red class

108 Bowl, rim

Fig. 24

P284, findspot 6. Coarse uneven gray to red-brown (5YR 6/3 to 2.5YR 4/6); tiny, small, and large limestone inclusions, as in EBA pithos fabric. Thickened rim, flat lip. Taenia on exterior; interior rim: slashes. FN 109 Large incurvingbowl, rim Fig. 24 P436. Diam. 0.30 m. Coarse uneven gray-brown core to red-brown (5YR 6/3 to 2.5YR 6/6); many large limestone inclusions, as in EBA pithos fabric. Incurving rim thickened to exterior, slightly rounded lip; heavy and thick. EH I(?) or post-prehistoric?

0

55cm W

class Figure 24.Pithos

110 Vessel, body

Fig. 20

Coarseunevenbrownto orange (7.5YR6/4 to 2.5YR 6/8); smallto largelimestoneinclusions,as in EBA pithos fabric.Taenia. FN 111 Mat-impressedbase Figs. 24, 29 HP252. Diam. ca. 0.12 m? Coarseunevengrayto orange(2.5YR 6/0 to 2.5YR 6/6); manytiny,small, large,andverylargelimestone inclusions,as in EBA pithosfabric; graypatchesmaybe grog?Flat.Mat impression:diagonalplaitedmat (too vigorousa cleaningmayhaverendered it unclearandworn). FN

)

I

DANIEL

I70

J. PULLEN

Figure 25. Pottery of EH II and LH

periods

-1

113 e4,

115

114

5Ccm

0 I

POTTERY

I.I

I

OF LATER

I

PERIODS

(112-116)

Several sherds of EH II and at least one of LH date were identified among the pottery from the acropolis.The EH II sherds are mostly body sherds identified by the presence of urfirnispaint, usually black, such as 112. Two sherds were identifiable by shape; 113 is the thickened rim of a small, incurving bowl, probably painted with urfirnis on the interior, and 114 is the rim of a sauceboat, distinctive in its complex curvature,and painted in black urfirnis (Fig. 25). 115 is a large, handmade ring base in a cooking pot fabric;it has been dated to the LH period.43Another ring base, 116, may also date to the LH period, but this is not certain. 112 Vessel, body

115 Vessel,base

P141, findspot 4. Medium even orange. Black urfirnis? EH II?

P434. Coarseunevengraybrowncoreto redbrown(5YR3/3 to 2.5YR 5/6). Ringfoot, handmade. Cookingpot. LH

113 Incurved bowl, rim

Fig. 25

P219, findspot 6. Diam. 0.11 m. Medium even gray-brown (5YR 6/4); nonvolcanic. Thickened rim, pointed lip. Remnant of black urfirnis interior? EH (I-)II 114 Sauceboat, rim

Fig. 25

P178. Fine even yellow-brown (5YR 7/4). Beveled lip. Black urfirnis. EH II

116 Vessel,base

Fig. 25

Fig. 25

P433. Diam. 0.11 m. Medium unevengray-brownto red-brown (5YR4/1 to 5YR 5/4); handmade. Flat,with slightringformedby clay overlappingfromwall;5 holes preserved,drilledfrominteriorbefore firing,but conicalafterfiring.Similar to 115;Mycenaeancookingpot? LH? EH I?

THE LITHICS: CHIPPED STONE (117-230) The chippedstone artifacts,while fewerin numberthanthe ceramicartifacts,have a similardistributionin that the majoritywere found in the samegeneralcontexts,mixedwith materialof the historicalperiods.Similar problemsin identificationand analysisexist for the lithics as for the ceramics:they were found in contextsprimarilyof Archaicand Classical

43. I would like to thank Gisela Walbergfor confirmingthe LH date for this piece.

THE

OF THE

REMAINS

PREHISTORIC

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I7I

date, or surfacedepositswithout cleardates.Thus, we may have lithics fromperiodsotherthanthe FN-EH I periodincludedamongthosefrom the acropolis,just aswe havea few ceramicsof laterprehistoric(EH II and proLH) periods.Certainelementsof the chippedstone manufacturing cess areabsentfromthe Halieis acropolis,but whetherthis is due to the methodsof recoveryor to the actualprocessremainsproblematic.Nevertheless,a carefulcomparisonof the Halieis acropolischippedstone with the chipped stone collections from the SouthernArgolid Survey and FranchthiCaveyields some conclusions(see below),and makesclearthe relativeconsistencyof the Halieisassemblage. The chippedstone from the acropolisconsistsof 107 obsidianand seven chert (flint) items (Fig. 26).44 These 114 items have been broken down by their positionin the reductivetechnologyused to manufacture chippedstone (Table4).45 Coresor corefragmentsareabsenton the Halieis acropolis,and debris (123-127), waste flakes,and tracesof visiblecortex(obsidian:117121;chert:224-225) arefew,suggestingthatthe materialwas not worked locallyon anyscale.It shouldbe notedthat some of the corticalpiecesare typologically"blades"(117-119), but becauseof the presenceof cortex, theyarecountedascorticalpieces.Therearealsoa numberof "semicrested" blades(128-136), that is, bladesthat have evidencefor core preparation on only partof theirdorsalsurface;these havebeen countedas blades. Figure26. Chippedstone

122

119

44. Jacobsenused the figuresof 115 obsidianand six chert objectsin his draftmanuscript(1974). In 1997 I found 107 obsidian and seven chert objects assignableto the acropolis;an additionalsix obsidianobjectswere noted in the recordsas missing. CatherinePerlksstudied the lithics in 1972 and again in 1997, and I am deeply gratefulto her for her observations on the Halieis material.I would also like to thank P Nick Kardulias, who is publishingthe lithics from the LowerTown of Halieis, and Curtis N. Runnels for readingand commenting on this section of the manuscript. 45. I employ here the chipped stone terminologyas used by Karduliasand Runnels (1995) for the Southern Argolid Surveyin orderto facilitate comparisons.

146

~

~~

161

~~

134

157

156

147

-~~~~~~~II , ~

132

128

C

~

158

142

160

Z

178

164

183

193

175

226-v

-@>-?

-e0-X7-@4l

208

217

220

0

221

5cm

230

DANIEL

I72

TABLE 4. COMPOSITION ASSEMBLAGE Type

Cores Corticalpieces* Crestedblades Blades Flakes Debris TOTAL * The

Obsidian % no. 0 5 1 74 22 5 107

0.0 4.4 0.9 64.9 19.3 4.4 93.9

J. PULLEN

OF CHIPPED STONE

Chert/Flint no. % 0 2 0 2 3 0 7

0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 2.6 0.0 6.1

Total no.

%

0 7 1 76 25 5 114

0.0 6.1 0.9 66.7 21.9 4.4 100.0

corticalpieces include three blades.

The obsidian varies in color from gray-black to black. Although none of these pieces has been subjectedto scientific analysis,all resemble Melian obsidian in appearance, and most can easily be attributedto the two principal varieties recognized by Renfrew:"opaquewith a milky or pearly luster in reflected light"; and "partiallytranslucent with alternating transparent and opaque bands or striations in transmitted light."46 The seven remaining pieces (6.1%), 224-230, are of a generally reddish variety of flint or chert commonly found in the Hermionid.47Traces of cortex are preserved on two specimens and perhaps on a third. One piece may be regarded as a tool (226). 117 Blade,centralportion S103. Max.p.W. 0.86, max.p.L. 1.67, max.p.Th. 0.36 cm. Cortex. 118 Blade,centralportion

123 Debris S017.

S021, findspot6. Max.p.W. 1.08, max.p.L. 2.50, max.p.Th. 0.39 cm. Cortex.Accidentalretouch. 119 Blade,centralportion

0.60 cm. Crested blade/lame de d6gagement.

Fig. 26

S115. Max.p.W. 0.95, max.p.L. 1.67, max.p.Th. 0.34 cm. Cortex. Inverseretouchon rightedge. 120 Corticalflake,fragment S003, findspot3. 121 Waste S057, findspot7. Cortex,heavily rolled. 122 Blade,proximalportion Fig. 26 HS016, findspot2. Max.p.W. 1.20, max.p.L. 2.98, max.p.Th.

124 Debris, fragment S037. 125 Debris S043. 126 Debris S102, findspot 6. 127 Debris.

Sill, findspot6. 128 Blade

Fig. 26

S077, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.98, max. p.L. 3.07, max. p.Th. 0.38 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade.

46. Dixon and Renfrew1973. Renfrewvisuallyinspected the collection from Halieis in 1965 and reportedseeing nothing that could not have been from Melos. 47. It is quite possible that more than one sourceis involved here, for the color of this materialvariesfrom a dark red, almost chocolate (Munsell lOR 3/2, "duskyred"),to a lighter red (1OR 4/3, "weakred").Cf. Karduliasand Runnels 1995, pp. 77, 103-104; van Andel and Vitaliano 1987, p. 20.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I73

129 Blade, segment

138 Flake

S079, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.38, max. p.L. 1.40, max. p.Th. 0.50 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade.

S061, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 2.18, max. p.L. 1.98, max. p.Th. 0.27 cm. Crest preparation. 139 Flake

130 Blade, central portion S084, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.02, max. p.L. 1.43, max. p.Th. 0.25 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade.

HS023, findspot 8. Max. p.W. 1.39, max. p.L. 2.64, max. p.Th. 0.36 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade. Fig. 26

S054. Max. p.W. 0.99, max. p.L. 1.10, max. p.Th. 0.32 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade. Use retouch on left edge and distal end.

141 Flake S013, findspot 3. Traces of steep retouch? 142 Blade, central portion

Fig. 26

S039, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.93, max. p.L. 1.87, max. p.Th. 0.27 cm. Similar to 178. 143 Blade, proximal portion

133 Blade, central portion

S010.Max.p.W. 1.70, max.p.L. 2.93, max. p.Th. 0.37 cm. Flat crested, with direct and inverse retouch on left edge; first blade after removal of crested blade. 134 Blade, distal portion

140 Flake S083. Rejuvenation or crest preparation.

131 Blade


S069, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.26, max. p.L. 1.49, max. p.Th. 0.32 cm. Crest preparation.

Fig. 26

S016, findspot 3. Max. p.W. 1.62, max. p.L. 3.13, max. p.Th. 0.35 cm. Flat crested, with some direct retouch on left edge; first blade after removal of crested blade.

S050, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.1 cm. Worn like 160, but without retouch. 144 Blade, proximal portion S051, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.84, max. p.L. 1.51, max. p.Th. 0.22 cm. Use retouch on both edges. 145 Flake S063, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.67, max. p.L. 2.67, max. p.Th. 0.60 cm. Slight vertical retouch on left edge.

135 Blade, proximal portion S045, findspot 5. Max. p.W. 0.91, max. p.L. 1.95, max. p.Th. 0.25 cm. Use retouch right edge and accidental left edge; first blade after removal of crested blade. 136 Blade, fragment

146 Blade, distal portion missing

Fig. 26

S088. Max. p.W. 1.06, max. p.L. 3.74, max. p.Th. 0.37 cm. Ventral utilization, both edges. 147 Blade, distal portion broken

Fig. 26

S053, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.89, max. p.L. 1.88, max. p.Th. 0.31 cm. First blade after removal of crested blade. Possible notch.

S092. Max. p.W. 1.20, max. p.L. 3.81, max. p.Th. 0.39 cm. Utilization, both edges.

137 Rejuvenation flake, fragment

148 Blade, proximal portion missing

S002. Rejuvenation or crest preparation.

S104, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.35, max. p.L. 2.92, max. p.Th. 0.39 cm.

I74

DANIEL

Smallretouchon left edge;abrupt retouchon otheredgewith intentionalbreakingof blade;wearafter retouch? 149 Blade,centralportion HS013, findspot1. Max.p.W. 0.93, max.p.L. 2.75, max.p.Th. 0.25 cm. Both edgesutilized,centralridge removed. 150 Blade,proximalportion

J. PULLEN

158 Blade, proximal portion Fig. 26 S078, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.43, max. p.L. 2.19, max. p.Th. 0.49 cm. Heavy retouch on both edges, notched? 159 Blade S100, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.80,

max.p.L. 2.17, max.p.Th. 0.34 cm. Inverse retouch, notched. 160 Blade, central portion

S007, findspot3. Max.p.W. 0.90, max.p.L. 1.95, max.p.Th. 0.33 cm. Directretouchon left edge. 151 Blade,proximalportion S024.Max.p.W. 0.98, max.p.L. 1.85, max.p.Th. 0.26 cm. Direct retouchon left edge anduse on right. 152 Blade,proximaland central portion

S041. Max.p.W. 0.92, max.p.L. 2.47, max.p.Th. 0.44 cm. Some directretouchon left edge? 153 Blade,proximalportion S055, findspot6. Max.p.W. 1.20, max.p.L. 1.75, max.p.Th. 0.35 cm. Directretouchon left edge.

Fig. 26

S031. Max. p.W. 1.35, max. p.L. 2.46, rnax.p.Th. 0.45 cm. Accidental retouch from use; worn after retouch; perhaps sickle? 161 Blade, distal portion broken

Fig. 26

S110. Max. p.W. 0.82, max. p.L. 2.54, max. p.Th. 0.30 cm. Denticulated, by three inverse adjacent notches on left edge. 162 Blade, central portion S114. Max. p.W. 1.12, max. p.L. 1.79, max. p.Th. 0.29 cm. Retouch on right edge and small inverse denticulation on left edge. 163 Blade, central portion HS014, findspot 2. Max. p.W.

154 Blade,proximalportion

1.12, max.p.L. 2.58, max.p.Th. 0.35

S095.Max.p.W. 1.14, max.p.L. 2.51, max.p.Th. 0.25 cm. Direct retouchon rightedge. Splintered? Flat crested?

cm. Possible inverse retouch on both edges

155 Blade,distalportion

S042, findspot 5. Max. p.W. 1.47, max. p.L. 3.13, max. p.Th. 0.40 cm. Inverse flaking on distal end.

S106, findspot6. Max.p.W. 0.80, max.p.L. 2.32, max.p.Th. 0.34 cm. Directretouchon rightedge. 156 Blade,centralportion

Fig. 26

S067, findspot6. Max.p.W. 0.98, max.p.L. 2.84, max.p.Th. 0.27 cm. Samematerialas 178? 157 Blade

Fig. 26

S028, findspot6. Max.p.W. 0.90, max.p.L. 2.15, max.p.Th. 0.32 cm. Partiallybackedformingnotches, with use retouchon otheredge.

164 Blade

Fig. 26

165 Splintered blade, fragment S004. Max. p.W. 1.38, max. p.L. 1.55, max. p.Th. 0.22 cm. 166 Splintered blade, fragment S044, findspot 5. Max. p.W. 1.04, max. p.L. 2.48, max. p.Th. 0.48 cm. 167 Splintered blade S048, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.92, max. p.L. 1.89, max. p.Th. 0.57 cm.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I75

168 Splintered blade



S015. Max. p.W. 0.81, max. p.L. 1.35, max. p.Th. 0.20 cm.

169 Splintered blade, central portion

180 Blade, distal portion broken



170 Splintered blade

181 Blade, distal portion broken



171 Splintered blade S068, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.84, max. p.L. 1.49, max. p.Th. 0.23 cm. 172 Blade S029, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.87, max. p.L. 0.76, max. p.Th. 0.30 cm. No retouch. 173 Blade S020, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.22, max. p.L. 3.06, max. p.Th. 0.44 cm. Percussion traces on distal end. Splintered?

182 Blade, central portion S027, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.06, max. p.L. 1.46, max. p.Th. 0.35 cm. 183 Blade, central portion

Fig. 26

S046, findspot 7. Max. p.W. 0.88, max. p.L. 2.58, max. p.Th. 0.32 cm. 184 Blade, distal portion S052, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.76, max. p.L. 1.74, max. p.Th. 0.27 cm.

174 Blade, central portion S036. Max. p.W. 0.63, max. p.L. 1.27, max. p.Th. 1.04 cm. 175 Blade, distal portion missing

185 Blade, proximal portion S064, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.90, max. p.L. 1.67, max. p.Th. 0.38 cm.

Fig. 26 186 Blade, distal portion

S038, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.66, max. p.L. 4.03, max. p.Th. 0.32 cm. Pressure-flaked;especially long and thin.


176 Blade, proximal portion

187 Blade, distal portion missing



177 Blade, distal portion S008. Max. p.W. 0.90, max. p.L. 2.00, max. p.Th. 0.28 cm. 178 Blade, central portion

Fig. 26

S012, findspot 3. Max. p.W. 1.10, max. p.L. 1.80, max. p.Th. 0.30 cm. Same material as 156?

188 Blade, segment S073, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.13, max. p.L. 0.72, max. p.Th. 0.24 cm. 189 Blade, central portion S075, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.36, max. p.L. 3.78, max. p.Th. 0.46 cm.

I76

DANIEL

J. PULLEN




S086. Max. p.W. 1.00, max. p.L. 1.71, max. p.Th. 0.34 cm. Accidental retouch.

191 Blade, proximal portion S081. Max. p.W. 0.69, max. p.L. 1.14, max. p.Th. 0.38 cm. 192 Blade, segment

203 Blade, central portion S087. Max. p.W. 1.29, max. p.L. 2.08, max. p.Th. 0.33 cm. Accidental retouch.


204 Blade, distal portion

193 Blade, proximal portion Fig. 26

S089, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.24, max. p.L. 2.96, max. p.Th. 0.53 cm. Accidental retouch.

S090. Max. p.W. 0.95, max. p.L. 2.45, max. p.Th. 0.30 cm. 194 Blade, proximal portion S091, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.98, max. p.L. 1.85, max. p.Th. 0.29 cm. 195 Blade, central portion S097, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.90, max. p.L. 1.43, max. p.Th. 0.19 cm. 196 Blade, distal portion S099. Max. p.W. 0.79, max. p.L. 1.58, max. p.Th. 0.15 cm. 197 Blade, central portion, broken on edge S109. Max. p.W. 0.85, max. p.L. 1.60, max. p.Th. 0.32 cm. Margin not preserved (accidental?). 198 Blade, central portion S112. Max. p.W. 0.96, max. p.L. 1.58, max. p.Th. 0.22 cm. 199 Blade, central portion S0l1, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.20,

max.p.L. 1.75, max.p.Th. 0.34 cm. Accidental notch. 200 Blade S065, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.60, max. p.L. 2.02, max. p.Th. 0.30 cm. Accidental retouch.

205 Blade, proximal portion S113. Max. p.W. 1.36, max. p.L. 2.45, max. p.Th. 0.43 cm. Accidental utilization on both edges. 206 Blade, central portion. S094. Max. p.W. 0.76, max. p.L. 1.82, max. p.Th. 0.18 cm. Bulb just broken away. 207 Blade, central portion SOOl.Max. p.W. 0.96, max. p.L. 2.53, max. p.Th. 0.22 cm. No bulb preserved. 208 Blade, central portion

S030, findspot 5. Max. p.W. 0.90, max. p.L. 2.01, max. p.Th. 0.27 cm. Use retouch on both edges. 209 Flake S011. Max. p.W. 1.89, max. p.L. 2.76, max. p.Th. 0.37 cm. 210 Flake S014. Max. p.W. 1.42, max. p.L. 1.94, max. p.Th. 0.33 cm. 211 Flake S022, findspot 3. 212 Flake

S034. 201 Blade, central portion S072, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 0.97, max. p.L. 2.02, max. p.Th. 0.31 cm. Accidental retouch.

Fig. 26

213 Flake

S040.

PREHISTORIC

THE

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I77

223 Flake or chip

214 Flake, fragment S062, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.24, max. p.L. 1.65, max. p.Th. 0.33 cm.

S035. 224 Flake S060, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 2.7, max. p.L. 4.1 cm. Red flint. Cortex.

215 Flake, fragment S071, findspot 6.

225 Debris 216 Flake, fragment S082. Max. p.W. 1.34, max. p.L. 0.98, max. p.Th. 0.33 cm.

S047. Red flint. Cortex. Accidental retouch. 226 End scraper

217 Flake

Fig. 26

S093.

Fig. 26

S105. Max. p.W. 1.01, max. p.L. 1.12, max. p.Th. 0.26 cm. Beige flint. Nonsymmetrical edge.

218 Flake 227 Blade

S096.

HS388. Red flint. 219 Flake 228 Blade, distal portion broken

S108. 220 Flake

Fig. 26

S074, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.45, max. p.L. 2.35, max. p.Th. 0.38 cm. Inverse distal retouch (fresh from trampling?). 221 Flake, fragment

Fig. 26

S009, findspot 3. Max. p.Th. 0.58 cm. Retouched (accidental; fresh from trampling?). 222 Flake or chip S023, findspot 6.

TYPO

S107, findspot 6. Max. p.W. 1.11, max. p.L. 2.92, max. p.Th. 0.48 cm. Chocolate flint. 229 Flake S032. Max. p.W. 2.16, max. p.L. 2.37, max. p.Th. 0.60 cm. Red flint. Inverse retouch of bulb. 230 Flake

Fig. 26

S033, findspot 5. Max. p.W. 1.66, max. p.L. 2.12, max. p.Th. 0.48 cm. Red flint. Direct retouch on right edge. Rolled? Cortex?

LOGY

Although it is possible that more than one industry is represented here, the preserved remains include a relatively limited number of types. The assemblage is clearly dominated by evidence of blade production. Of the total number of pieces of obsidian and flint (114), at least 82 (71.9%) may be regarded as typical blades or blade segments (117-119, 122, 128-136, 142-144,146-208, 226-228). Only a fraction of these have their percussion bulbs intact, yet there is sufficient evidence to indicate that both pressure flaking and percussion were employed in their production. The majority of pieces from Halieis are incomplete blades or segments of blades, whether intentional or accidental (Table 5). Often neither the proximal end (that end preserving the bulb of percussion) nor the distal end is preserved. A large portion of the preserved segments have lengths 1.5 to 2.5 times the maximum width (46 out of 77, or 60%);alto-

I78

DANIEL

J. PULLEN

gether 65, or nearly 85%, have lengths 1.5 or more times the maximum width. These figures perhaps reflect the preservationmore than any intentionally desired size of segment. No evidence for truncation (the deliberate shortening of a blade or segment) was noted. Most of the blades or blade segments found in our collection are of the simple parallel-sided varietywithout secondaryworking. Although no complete blades have been preserved, the largest surviving segments usually exhibit ventral surfaceswith little longitudinal curvature.Dorsal surfaces generally give the appearance of blades with a triangular section, trapezoidal section, or, less commonly, semicrested (128-136) of roughly triangular section. The semicrested form is more common than the fully crested form (lame a crete), represented on the acropolis by only one example (122). A certain uniformity is attributableto this assemblage on the basis of its generally microscale character.This is indicated not only by the small size of most of the flakes but also by the maximum widths and thicknesses of the measurableblades and blade segments.The low coefficients of variation (Table 6) indicate consistency in the widths and thicknesses of the blades.48The mean width and coefficient of variationfor the Halieis blades fit well with those of Neolithic blades found by the Southern Argolid Survey, though the Halieis blades are thicker.49The Bronze Age blades from the Southern Argolid Survey (overwhelmingly of EH date) are narrower than the Halieis blades. Nevertheless, the Halieis blades are as consistent in their widths as those blades from surrounding areas. The crested and semicrested blades are significant, as they provide the best evidence for working of obsidian at Halieis itself. A crested blade, one with latitudinal flake scars on either side of a central dorsal ridge or crest (axes of flake scars perpendicularto the axis of the blade), is the first blade removed after the preparationof the core.50The next blade removed is semicrested and has latitudinal flake scars along only one facet of the dorsal face; the other dorsal face has the usual one longitudinal scar from the removal of the initial, crested blade. Four flakes (137-140) may have resulted from preparation of the crest or rejuvenation of the core.

TABLE 6. DIMENSIONS OF OBSIDIAN BLADES AND BLADE SEGMENTS FROM HALIEIS AND COMPARISONS WITH OTHER SAMPLES Site orRegion* x Halieis Southern Argolid, Neolithic Southern Argolid, Bronze Age Lerna III (EH II) Kephala, Neolithic

1.03 1.04

Width(cm) SD CV 0.29

0.86

0.29 0.24

0.96 1.44

0.24 0.37

n

x

28.2 27.9

77 35

0.33

27.9 25.0 25.7

Thickness(cm) SD CV n 77

308

0.28 0.26

0.12 0.08 0.08

36.4 28.6 30.8

35 308

318 128

0.26 0.39

0.07 0.16

26.9 41.0

318 127

*Figuresfor sites and regions other than Halieis taken from Kardulias1992, p. 440, table 6. x mean, SD = standarddeviation,CV = coefficient of variation,CV = 100 x SD/x

=

TABLE 5. BLADE SEGMENTS Preserved Portion

Proximalend only Proximaland medial portion Medial portion/segment Medial and distal portion Distal portion

Number

15 8 33 1 7

48. The distinctionbetween "blades" and "bladelets,"based on widths greater or less than a certainarbitrarymeasurement, has not been made here. Bordaz (1970, p. 51) advocates1.25 cm for the cutoff point, while Perles has utilized 1.1 cm as the line of demarcationat Franchthi(Franchthi3, p. 36, table III), but for purposesof descriptiononly. Whichever dimension one uses, it is clearthat the Halieis acropolisblades, like those of so many Neolithic and Early Bronze Age lithic assemblagesin the Aegean, are relativelynarrow.Cf. Kardulias1992, p. 440, table 6, for comparativedimensions (a version of this chartis reproducedin Kardulias and Runnels 1995, p. 98, table 5.15, but the dimensions are given there in tenths of millimeters,not millimetersas per the caption). 49. Kardulias1992, p. 440, table 6. 50. This preparationof the core can take place duringthe removalof blades if the core needs to be rejuvenatedfor furtherblade production.

THE PREHISTORIC

51. Accidental notches as in 199 or accidentalretouchas in 118, 200-205, and 220-221 can be producedby a varietyof methods, especiallyduring and after excavation. 52. No silica gloss or matting (dulling of the obsidiansurfaceby contactwith plant material)was observedon 160 or on any other chipped stone from the Halieis acropolis. 53. A possibilityraisedby Perlks (pers.comm.). But as she and Kardulias (pers.comm.) note, a Bronze Age date is not out of the question. 54. Cf. Karduliasand Runnels 1995.

REMAINS OF THE ACROPOLIS AT HALIEIS

I79

While these crested and semicrested blades and flakes attest some working of obsidian at Halieis, they do not necessarilyprovide evidence of core formation. Some obsidian blades and flakes give evidence of utilization in the form of light marginalwear, due to the relativelybrittle quality of obsidian (141-149).5 143 and 148, though, exhibit wear similar to that of the denticulated blade 160 and perhaps could be labeled as sickles. Other blades (23, or 30% of all obsidian blades) provide evidence of purposeful secondary working. In a number of cases, this takes the form of simple marginal retouch (usually quite delicate) on one edge, perhaps intended to serve as light blunting (150-155). Yet blunting may also have been effected by means of burin blows, that is, by striking a narrowlongitudinal flake from one edge of a blade in order to create a steeper surface there, as is the case with 156. In some instances, the marginal retouch is extensive, in order to produce notched or denticulated blades. Examples of the former are 157159, while examples of the latter are illustrated by 160-162. Inverse retouch is also observable on a number of blades. 119 is of interest in this respect since it shows evidence of light marginal retouch on the same edge as the inverse retouch; it also retains some cortex. One blade, 163, has possible inverse retouch on both edges, while another blade, 164, has inverse flaking on its distal end. A number of blades are splintered:165-171. The denticulated blade 160, as well as perhaps also 143 and 148, which are worn in a similar manner though without the same retouch, can be identified as a sickle blade, but none of the other retouched obsidian blades and flakes are identifiable as true tool types.52 Flakes of obsidian, that is, pieces that do not conform to the blade form, are not plentiful: only fifteen were recognized (209-223), of which only two (220-221) have any retouch, though only that on 220 may be deliberate. Among the chert pieces, in addition to the two cortical pieces 224225, aretwo unretouchedblades (227-228) and two retouched flakes (229230). A small specimen of red flint, 226, is of some interest.It is the snapped distal end of a small blade or bladelet with asymmetrical steep retouch at the end. Although it may give the appearanceof a small end-scraper,this artifact was possibly meant to serve a purpose similar to that of a small trapeze or geometric microlith. As such, it may be earlier than the general FN-EH I characterof the acropolis lithic collection.53 The chipped stone assemblage from the acropolis at Halieis is typical of a small FN-EH site in the Hermionid.54 While some sites in the Hermionid were extensively involved in obsidian procurement and processing into cores, other sites, such as Halieis, were involved only in the later part of the process, that of blade production from cores prepared elsewhere, while still others seem to have been merely recipients of blades produced elsewhere. As has been noted for sites of the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, blades were a major part of the stone tool production, and the high frequency of blades in the Halieis acropolis assemblage fits this model. What is noticeable about the Halieis assemblage, compared to the rest of the Hermionid, is the low percentage of tools of various types. Other than the three possible sickiles,direct retouch and utilization are

I80

DANIEL

J. PULLEN

found on a limited number of blades and flakes, but not in the manner of any recognizable tool type. Runnels, in examining the lithics from the Lower Town at Halieis, has noted the rarityof cores, debris from core reduction, and tools in contrast to the high frequency of blades and flakes in that collection;55that is, the lithics appear to have been worked elsewhere. Runnels argues that while the assemblagesfrom the Lower Town date to the Geometric, Archaic, and Classical periods in which the various pieces were found, the individualpieces may actuallybe reused items from earliertimes. He notes that if the lithics were indeed "kickups"from earlier levels, or had been part of the earth used for mudbricks, then prehistoric pottery would have been found in the Lower Town; such is not the case. The presence of lithics, generally "unspecializedor retouched blades, bladelets, and flakes," in floor deposits and mixed with domestic debris suggests to Runnels that the lithics from the Lower Town represent deliberate selection and use by the inhabitants.56Though the acropolis lithic assemblage would appearto be similarto that from the Lower Town, the circumstancesof the findspots are different. Rather than being a functional part of the Archaic and Classical deposits as in the Lower Town, the acropolis lithics are truly kickups, found with ceramics of the appropriateperiod. One might suggest that if the Lower Town lithics are indeed collected from elsewhere, the acropolis would be a likely source, especially as the prehistoric levels there were disturbed by building activities. The few lithics from the Industrial Terrace are more likely to be similar to those from the Lower Town, since no prehistoric pottery was identified there.

GROUND AND POLISHED STONE (231-235) Four ground and polished stone objects found on the acropolis have been associated with the prehistoric period, largely on the basis of their morphology (Figs. 27-28). It is important to recognize, however, that none of their contexts permits any certainty of dating. These objects include two steatite "buttons"or "whorls"of Mycenaean (LH III) date (231 and 232), a pierced pebble bead or pendant (233), and a felsite hammerstone (235).57 The pierced pebble bead is a rather simple ornament, one that would not be out of place in a Neolithic or earlier context, as they are not very common in EBA contexts. One such pebble, though incompletely pierced, was discovered by the Southern Argolid Survey at a FN site near Franchthi Cave; another incompletely pierced example was found in the recent excavations at Tsoungiza, but not in a good context.58 The hammerstone need not be of prehistoric date; indeed, one of the major contributions of the Southern Argolid Survey was the demonstration that handstones or hammerstones have been found at sites of all periods from the Neolithic to the Roman period, with little chronological distinction possible.59 Given the importance of milling activities in an agriculturalcommunity or a self-sustaining military outpost, it would not be surprisingif the hammerstone in question dated to the Classical period of occupation on the acropolis.60)

55. Runnels 1982, pp. 366-369. 56. Runnels 1982, p. 371. 57. R. Giegengack of the Department of Geology at the Universityof Pennsylvaniaoriginallyidentified the stones included here. 58. Naturalpebble,incompletely pierced,from site C29 of the Southern Argolid Survey;on the basis of comparandaof Upper Mesolithic date from FranchthiCave, Karduliasand Runnels (1995, p. 136, fig. 116) suggest that this ornamentmay be a recycled object,but a similarnaturalpebble, also incompletelypierced,from late MH fill at Tsoungiza that includes EN, EH IIII, and MH material(Nemea Valley ArchaeologicalProjectinventory number430-8-1 [Pullen, in preparation]) would suggest it need not be so early. 59. Karduliasand Runnels 1995, p. 121. 60. Similarly,a fine-grainedquartz sandstonedisk, 234, is more likely to be of Classicaldate than prehistoric,given the lack of similarobjectsin prehistoric contexts.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

i8i

AT HALIEIS

233

232

231235

234

Figure27. Groundstone objects

231

0 I

Figure28. Groundstone objects

I

234

233

232 I

I

I

5cm I

None of the ground stone from the acropolis at Halieis is necessarily dated to the FN-EH I period. The two steatite conical buttons add to the meager evidence for possible Mycenaean activity at Halieis. 231 Whorl

Figs.27-28

HS025. Diam. 2.6, H. 1.6 cm. Steatite. LH III 232 Whorl

Figs. 27-28

HS045. H. 1.8 cm. Steatiteor alabaster.Fragmentary. LH III 233 Bead

Figs. 27-28

HS041, findspot3. Max. dim.

1.6,Th. 0.2 cm. Limestone,tan microcrystalline. Piercedpebble. 234 Stone disk

Figs. 27-28

HS038. Diam. 3.1,Th. 0.9 cm. Sandstone,fine grained,quartz sandstone,iron-oxidecementing agent. Post-prehistoric? 235 Grinding(hand) stone

Fig. 27

HS043, findspot7. L. 6, diam. 5.5 cm. Felsiteor rhyolite.

MAT IMPRESSIONS Six flat baseshavemat impressionson theirundersides,but only five are presentedhere(Fig.29); the sixthis too smallandtoo poorlypreservedto allow more than the recognitionof an impression.A majordifficultyin dealingwith mat impressionsis that they representonly one face of the textileand they rarelypreservethe edge or selvedge,so the identification of warp and weft are difficult.For purposesof description,I have arbitrarilyassignedthe term"warp"(the vertical,fixed element)to that ele-

DANI

I82

EL J . PULLEN

. .

#

'-|i:?4'w

: .? t:_ jgg.*

j< *'4ibi Y.i., ' .....

,:

W

*

............................................

_

_

L'.

>;.

oX

.............

......

E

l _

-,"0 !

l

g

_

.

_

i SIF .t

..

_

|

F

_

l

gw s".

,$

%"Ar'.'; *S_ 14a._

i

*-'$=

i

l

I

'

.:

|

_

s

l * __

_

l

*

_

|

I 1

|

w

|

I| 811 a

_

*_*-

|

i11

*

_

W

_ L

-I

s

!

-

|

_

-l_

t1 1

_

!

i

|

W

z

_

*

|

.

....

j _ : W

_

--i

l

_

_

.

E

|

_

_

_

_ 2

*

|

i _

_

I_

.

..........

SX

B:

?X.

I

g

_

NS

C\s

,,

l

i

_

64

60

-

.9-.S_

,;|.,?,

w@

..:''

$

|

1

1

r

|

__ r

l5deY

1 1

1

1

r

e

F et

. s { .sX :

.2::

*F.4 $i

|

r

2

2^-&ilwS$

x :.it. . _

_

'

-

B

r

I_

r

_

_

.. *.,

.x_ if_

nn

7D

,._ .

._

_

*ti_F _

.

._

_

bases FiFre 29.Mat-impressed ment that seems to be more often in the background,and "weft"(the horizontal, flexible element) to that which appearsto be interwoven and more often in the foreground. One impression, 93, may be of basketry utilizing wide flat material, though the area preserved is small and unclear.The remaining four impressions seem to be impressions of mats, using cordage, in either a plaited or twined technique. No remains of finely woven cloth6"or fabric were detected. The term "plaiting"is sometimes applied to the technique used to form mats, to distinguish it from "weaving"as applied to the production of cloth.62Weaving involves the use of a loom or frame to provide tension for the warp elements; in plaiting there is no need for a frame, as the warp is often self-supporting. The most common techniques used to produce mats in the FN and EH I periods are the simple or diagonal plaiting techniques.63In a simple plait, the same groupings of warp elements are used for all weft elements. In diagonal plaiting, the warp elements are regrouped in various patterns. Twining involves two weft elements: one goes over and the other goes under the same warp element, then the two weft elements are twisted around each other before the next warp element. This last technique is used more for producing mats and basketry of an open or loose weave than for producing cloth. Twining often produces weft rows where the twisting of the weft over the warp produces a distinctive angled appearancein each segment of the weave, much like a single row of herringbone masonry.

61. I use the term "cloth"following Barber(1991, p. 5), who distinguishes between cloth, defined as "large,thin sheets of materialmade from fiber," usuallywith the aid of a loom, and mats and baskets,defined as relativelystiff and self-shaped,made from materials that do not requirea loom for interweaving. 62. Barber1991, p. 5. 63. The majorityof the Tsoungiza impressionsare of plaited mats, often with a definite diagonalpattern, indicating a shift in the groupingof warp elements as the weft is plaited or woven through.

THE

64. Though only one mat impression at Tsoungiza is dated to the FN period,it should be pointed out that the total numberof FN ceramicsis fairlysmall. 65. Talioti:Weisshaar1990, pp. 2-4; Kephala:CarringtonSmith 1977. 66. This section is paraphrasedfrom Jacobsen'smanuscript(1974), updated with referenceto Judith Shackleton's study (Franchthi4). None of the recoveredmarineshell was found in the Halieis storeroomin Nauplion in 1982 or 1997, so all identificationsand conclusionspresentedhere must remain unconfirmed.The animalbone and shell from the Archaic and Classical deposits on the acropolisare to be publishedby David Reese in the forthcomingHalieis I. 67. Confirmationof these identificationswas providedby Nicholas J. Shackletonof CambridgeUniversity upon examinationof photographsof selected specimensfrom the site.

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I83

111 and 60 show the diagonal plaited technique. In 60 the weft elements are doubled and several warp elements grouped to create a strong diagonal pattern; 111, unfortunately,is not very clear,so we cannot determine whether there was multiplication of the weft elements. The impression on 64 seems to indicate a widely spaced weft over multiple warp; though the forwardweft elements are not particularlyangled as in a twining technique, the wide spacing of the weft elements suggests that this might be the technique involved. There is some indication too that this mat might have been circular.65 might also be twined, as the weft seems angled between each warp group.This impression is faint and worn, but it seems to be of a fairly tightly interwoven mat, which probably indicates that it was not twined. Mat impressions, while found on the bases of vessels of many periods, are common in the EH I period of the northeast Peloponnese. Of the twenty-five mat impressions preserved at Tsoungiza, sixteen date to the EH I period.64Weisshaar has recently commented on the high frequency of mat impressions on the bases of vessels of the Talioti, or late EH I, phase, while on Kea, a large number of mat impressions were found on the EN pottery at Kephala.65That six mat impressions appearamong the small number of sherds (ca. 400) from the Halieis acropolis gives an impression of their popularity during the FN-EH I period. Mats were probably not made specifically for use in pottery manufacturing; rather, the presence of several impressions of torn mats in the Tsoungiza corpus suggests that the mats were recycled into pottery manufacture.We might imagine househ-oldswith mats covering floors and other surfaces as well as basketry and open-plaited or twined containers such as nets, none ofwhich is usuallydirectlypreservedin the archaeologicalrecord. Though meager, this evidence of mat impressions from the acropolis does give us a small window into the domestic economy at the site and helps place Halieis among other sites of the FN-EH I period.

MOLLUSCA Both animal bone and shell were noted during the course of the excavations on the acropolis, but the only class of organic remains in association with the prehistoric pottery was the shells of both marine and terrestrial molluscs (Fig. 30).66 Land snails and severalvarieties of marine shell were especially numerous in the deepest deposits on the hill, particularlyin the pits or fissures in bedrock, where evidence of prehistoric activity was also most frequently encountered. Findspot 4, the pit north of Building A, was a seemingly uncontaminated deposit of prehistoricpottery (see above) and contained a substantialquantity of marine molluscs, most notably bivalves. A sample of these was submitted to the University of Pennsylvania for radiocarbon analysis, and the result is discussed below. Several species of marine molluscs were noted among the preserved collection: Cerastoderma(Cardium)edule L. (cockle), Murex trunculusL., L.67Although CerithiumvulgatumBrug., and perhaps Spondylusgaederopus accurate statistics are not available,it is fair to say that Cerastodermaand

DANIEL

I84

J. PULLEN

Figure30. Selectionof molluscs

f*1***

Z*

0

3cm

Murex were the most numerous species represented.The recent publication of the Franchthi Cave molluscs by Shackleton provides the most indepth study of this class of archaeological remains.68She suggests that and Cerithiumare found in shallow waters, as well as Murex, Cerastoderma, deeper, and are relatively easy to collect. Spondylus,while found in deeper waters and more difficult to collect, are often found washed ashore, and it is probablyby that method that many if not most were collected. All four species are readily edible. It is likely that most of the preserved shells represent the remains of meals; none shows clear-cut indications of working for a tool or ornament. Thus, although other evidence relating to the diet and the economy of the prehistoric inhabitants of the Halieis acropolis is not available, these modest remains suggest that shell collecting was at least part of their subsistence base.

ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY The sole indication of the absolute date of the prehistoric remains from the acropolis is the radiocarbon analysis of a group of marine shells, predominantly Cerastoderma(Cardium)eduleL.,69from findspot 4, which, as discussed above, contained potsherds of the Brown-Slipped and Medium Coarse dasses. The result is a date of 5102 ? 72 B.P., or,when calibratedin accordancewith the bidecadal calibration curve of Stuiver and Reimer on a 2-sigma basis, 4037-4016 B.C., 4006-3750 B.C., 3750-3712 B.C.; with the marine-corrected option, a date range of 3909-3367 B.C. is derived.70 In the most recent assessment of Early Bronze Age chronology, Manning makes a valiant attempt to deal with the meager data for the FN and EH I periods in particular.71He supports a date of ca. 3100-3000 B.C. for the beginning of the EB I period in the Aegean. He argues that while certainly "partof the LN/FN period must have occurred during the first

68. See Franchthi4. 69. The samplewas collected in 1965 and consisted of a total of thirtysix shells, twenty-eight of which were (Cardium) of the species Cerastoderma eduleL. 70. For the uncalibrateddate (P1397), see Lawn 1971; for calibration curvesand marine-correcteddate, see Stuiverand Reimer 1993 and Manning 1995, pp. 169-170. 71. Manning 1995, pp. 168-170.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I85

half of the fourth millennium B.C." (with the Halieis date contributing modestly to this argument), there are in addition a few dates, however problematic, that support a mid- to late-4th-millennium B.C. date for the FN period, thus closing the apparent 4th-millennium "gap"in radiocarbon dating between dates associated with the later Neolithic and dates associated with the Early Bronze Age.72Therefore, though perhaps better than no date at all, the above radiocarbondate can be accepted as no more than the most general indication of the absolute chronology of the prehistoric occupation at Halieis.

CONCLUSIONS

72. Manning 1995, p. 170. 73. For the SouthernArgolid Survey,see Pullen 1995. For Franchthi, see Franchthi10, p. 99. 74. See Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994 for a more complete pictureof the geographicaland historicalsetting of the Hermionid and its connectionsto the rest of Greece and the Aegean.

The assemblage of prehistoric materials from the Halieis acropolis spans the period from the Final Neolithic through Early Helladic I. Given that the prehistoric materials are found in contexts mixed with material of later date, it is not surprisingthat these prehistoricceramics and lithics are chronologically mixed themselves. Despite the overlap in shapes among the various classes (e.g., similar shapes in the Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished and the Volcanic Black-Burnished classes) that might lead to the conclusion that those classes were contemporaneous, there are enough features to conclude that the preserved prehistoric ceramic assemblage from the acropolis includes material from both the FN and the EH I periods as defined elsewhere. The frying pans and the Volcanic Red-Slipped and Burnished class are strong indications of an EH I date, while the BrownSlipped and Black-Burnished classes and the cheesepots are strong indications of a FN date. Attempts at discerning some meaningful distribution of the variousclassesof prehistoricceramicswere not entirelysuccessful: the best candidate is the small pit north of Building A from which came most of the examples of the Brown-Slipped class as well as a small quantity of marine shells that provided the single radiocarbon determination for the prehistoric material. The FN material from Halieis, like that collected by the Southern Argolid Survey, has little in common with the FN assemblage from Franchthi Cave. Vitelli suggests that the FN material from the Survey postdates the stratified deposits at Franchthi Cave.73 The Halieis acropolis is apparently one of several small FN-EH I sites situated on low hills throughout the Hermionid; another site with some FN and considerably more EH I material was found by the Southern Argolid Survey (A33) nearby on the Nisi Kheliou to the west, across from the entrance to the Porto Cheli Bay. The hilltop location of both sites provided some degree of security,while at the same time affording good vantage points for viewing the surrounding sea, the nearby islands such as Spetses and Dhokos, and furtherlands, including the Peloponnese, across the Argolic Gulf.74Numerous resources in addition to the sea and its sheltering bay are found in the surrounding area,including gently rolling hills and well-watered lowlands. The large number of FN sites in the Hermionid represents a fundamental change in settlement patterns from the earlier(perhapsintermittent) habitationdocumented at EranchthiCave

i86

DANIEL

J. PULLEN

to a number of open-air and cave sites. This expansion of settlement continues into the Early Bronze Age.75 While a careful study of the ceramics can distinguish the pottery of the FN period from that of the EH I period, perhaps what is more important is the evidence for continuity between the later FN and EH I at Halieis and in the southern Argolid; this continuity stands in contrast to the apparentdifferencesbetween the earlierFN as representedat Franchthi Cave and the later FN as representedby Halieis and the southern Argolid material. The prehistoric remains on the Halieis acropolis, then, look not back to the Neolithic but forward to the Early Bronze Age.

REFERENCES Barber,E. J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and BronzeAges,

Princeton. Biers,W. R. 1969. "Excavationsat Phlius, 1924:The Prehistoric Deposits,"Hesperia 38, pp. 443-458. Bordaz,J. 1970. Tools of the Old and New StoneAge, Garden City, N.Y. Boyd,T. D., andW. W. Rudolph. 1978. "Excavationsat Porto Cheli and Vicinity,PreliminaryReportIV: The LowerTown of Halieis, 19701977,"Hesperia 47, pp. 333-355. CarringtonSmith,J. 1977. "Cloth and Mat Impressions,"in Keos I, pp. 114-127. Caskey,J.L., and E. G. Caskey.1960. "The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis:SupplementaryExcavations, 1958," Hesperia 29, pp. 126167. Coleman,J. E. 1985. "'FryingPans'of the Early Bronze Age Aegean,"AJA 89, pp. 191-219. Dixon,J. E., and C. Renfrew.1973. "The Sourceof the Franchthi Obsidians,"in T. W. Jacobsen, "Excavationsin the FranchthiCave, 1969-1971, Part 1,"Hesperia 42, pp. 82-85. Dousougli, A. 1987. "Makrovouni, KefalariMagoula,Talioti: Bemerkungenzu den Stufen FH I und II in der Argolis,"PZ 62, pp. 162-220. Franchthi = Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece,Bloomington.

2 = T. H. van Andel and S. B. Sutton, Landscape and People of the Franchthi Region (Franchthi 2), 1987.

3 = C. Perles,Les industries lithiquestaille'esdeFranchthi (Argolide,Grece)1: Pr6sentation generaleet industriespal6olithiques (Franchthi3), 1987. 4 = J. C. Shackleton,Marine MolluscanRemainsfromFranchthi Cave(Franchthi4), 1988. 8 = K. D. Vitelli, Franchthi and NeolithicPottery1: Classification CeramicsPhases1 and2 (Franchthi 8), 1993. 10 = K. D. Vitelli, Franchthi NeolithicPottery2: TheLater NeolithicPhases3-5 (Franchthi10), 1999. Holmberg, E. J. 1944. The Swedish ExcavationsatAsea in Arcadia (SkrRom 4.11), Lund. Jacobsen,T. W. 1974. "The Prehistoric Remains,"unpublishedmanuscript. Jameson,M. H. 1969. "Excavationsat Porto Cheli and Vicinity,Preliminary ReportI: Halieis, 1962-1968," Hesperia 38, pp. 311-342. 1972. "Excavationsat Porto Cheli, Halieis,"ArchDelt27, Chronika,pp. 233-236. Jameson,M. H., C. N. Runnels,and T. H. van Andel. 1994. A Greek TheSouthernArgolid Countryside: from Prehistoryto thePresentDay, Stanford. Kardulias,P. N. 1992. "The Ecology of Bronze Age Flaked Stone Tool Productionin SouthernGreece: Evidence from Agios Stephanosand the SouthernArgolid,"AJA96, pp. 421-442. Kardulias,P. N., and C. N. Runnels. 1995. "The Lithic Artifacts:Flaked

75. Jameson,Runnels, and van Andel 1994; Wiencke 1989.

THE

PREHISTORIC

REMAINS

OF THE

Stone and Other Nonflaked Lithics," in Runnels et al., eds., pp. 74-139. KeosI = J. E. Coleman, Kephala,a Late NeolithicSettlementand Cemetery (KeosI), Princeton 1977. Lamb,W. 1936. Excavationsat Thermi in Lesbos,Cambridge. Lawn, B. 1971. "Universityof Pennsylvania RadiocarbonDates XIV," Radiocarbon13, pp. 363-377. Lekkas,S., and D. Papanikolaou.1977. "On the Phyllite Problemin des Peloponnesus,"Annalesgeologiques pays hellMniques 29, pp. 395-410. LernaIII = J. B. Rutter,ThePotteryof LernaIV(Lerna III), Princeton 1995. Manning, S. W. 1995. TheAbsolute Chronology of theAegeanEarlyBronze and Age:Archaeology, Radiocarbon, History(Monographsin Mediterranean Archaeology 1), Sheffield. Mee, C., and G. Taylor.1997. "Prehistoric Methana,"in A Roughand Rocky Place:TheLandscapeand Settlement Historyof theMethanaPeninsula, Greece(LiverpoolMonographsin Archaeologyand Oriental Studies), C. Mee and H. Forbes,eds., Liverpool,pp. 42-56. Mylonas, G. E. 1959. AghiosKosmas:An EarlyBronzeAgeSettlementand CemeteryinAttica, Princeton. Nordquist,G. C. 1987. A Middle HelladicVillage:Asinein theArgolid (Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis, Boreas:Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterraneanand Near Eastern Civilizations16), Uppsala. . 1995. "The Pottery of the Early Helladic III and Middle Helladic Periods,"in Runnels et al., eds., pp. 43-51. Phelps, W. W. 1975. "The Neolithic Pottery Sequencein Southern Greece"(diss. Universityof London). Pullen, D. J. 1995. "The Pottery of the Neolithic, Early Helladic I, and Early Helladic II Periods,"in Runnels et al., eds., pp. 6-42.

DanielJ. Pullen THE FLORIDA

STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT

OF CLASSICS

TALLAHASSEE,

FLORIDA

[email protected]

32306

ACROPOLIS

AT HALIEIS

I87

. In preparation. The Early Bronze Age Settlement on Tsoungiza Hill, Ancient Nemea. Renfrew, C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cycladesand the Aegean in the ThirdMillennium B.C.,

London. Runnels, C. N. 1981. "ADiachronic Study and Economic Analysis of Millstones from the Argolid, Greece" (diss. IndianaUniversity). . 1982. "Flaked-StoneArtifacts in Greece duringthe Historical Period,"JFA9, pp. 363-373. Runnels, C. N., D.J. Pullen, and S. Langdon, eds. 1995. = Art fact and Assemblage: The Findsfrom a Regional Survey of the SouthernArgolid, Greece 1: The Prehistoric and Early Iron Age Pottery and the LithicArtifacts,

Stanford. Shriner,C., and M. J. Dorais. 1999. "A ComparativeElectron Microprobe Study of Lerna III and IV Ceramics and Local Clay-Rich Sediments," Archaeometry 41, pp. 25-49.

Stuiver,M., and P.J. Reimer.1993. "Extended14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14CAge CalibrationProgram,"Radiocarbon 35, pp.215-230. Touchais,G. 1980. "Laceramique neolithique de l'Aspis,"in Etudes Argiennes(BCH Suppl. 6), Athens, pp.1-40. van Andel, T. H. 1987. "The Adjacent Sea," in Franchthi 2, pp. 31-54.

van Andel, T. H., and C. J. Vitaliano. 1987. "Waterand Other Resources," in Franchthi2, pp. 17-20. Weisshaar,H.-J. 1990. "Die Keramik von Talioti," in Tiryns: Forschungen

undBerichteXI, Mainz, pp. 1-34. Wiencke, M. H. 1989. "Changein Early Helladic II,"AJA93, pp. 495-509. Zerner,C. W. 1978. "The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna" (diss. Universityof Cincinnati).

HESPERIA Pages

69,

2000

DU

ILW

NC

Z

AT

189-226

KtOM/v\O AN

8TH-CENTURY

POTTERY

SEQUENCE

ABSTRACT Building Z at Kommos is built into one of the Late Minoan shipsheds of Building P; its major phase of use is in the Middle Geometric period. The potteryfrom the building, including earlierIronAge materialand some from post-use deposition, is fully published here. The totality gives the opportunity of seeing the various contemporaryproductsof the Mesara in fuller detail than is providedby other published sets of material.The purpose of the building is unclear,but it appearsto have served a subsidiaryfunction to that of the temple to the north. The excavations in 1992 at Kommos, South Crete, included the thorough investigation of the third gallery of the Late Minoan IIIA Building P.1 This large structure lies at the southern foot of the seaside hill on which the Bronze Age settlement, and later the temple and associated structures of the Iron Age, were located.A sounding in 1980 (trench36B) had sampled the specific area, through deep sand, and in 1985 an area further west, seaward, had been investigated (trenches 65A1 and 2; here the stratigraphy was poorly preserved,due largely to erosion). Middle Geometric material from 36B was interpreted as dumped fill from the temple area, such as was found in quantity a little to the north. It was not wholly surprising, however, that in 1992 excavators in trench 82A came down on a habitation area of the Geometric period, immediately dubbed Building Z in the 1. This is the second of a planned series of three supplementaryarticles on the Iron Age pottery from excavations at Kommos,under the direction of Joseph W. Shaw,Universityof Toronto.The bulk of the materialis now included in KommosIV (Callaghan andJohnston 2000), that from the store building Qhas alreadybeen published (Johnston 1993), while a third will deal with a rangeof materialof general ceramicinterest.As ever,I am indebted

to Prof. Shaw for materialand financial support,as also to the British Academy and UniversityCollege London (Facultyof Social and Historical Sciences, GraduateSchool, and Institute of Archaeology)for grantsto assist my work. I am gratefulto Jenny Doole, who made the drawings(save for 14, 64, and 98, drawnby Nikki Holmes), and to TaylorDabney for the photographsof some recalcitrantmaterial.The prin-

cipal trenchmasterswereJos6e Sabourin(81B), LaraTabac(82), and Gordon Nixon (83C). It should be noted that what I term here, for reasonsof abbreviation, "BuildingZ" (or "mainphase"in Fig. l:b) is called "BuildingZ, phase II" in KommosIV, with phase I being my "earlierstructures"(Fig. l:a). All measurementsare in centimetersunless otherwise specified.

I90

ALAN

W. JOHNSTON

sequential series (Fig. 1). A preliminary report has alreadypresented the architecturalevidence and touched on the characterof the finds, ceramic and other.2The aim of this article is to present the ceramic material recovered from within and immediately adjacent to Building Z, which gives a good cross-section of the appearance,and to a certain extent development, of local pottery styles ca. 800-725 B.C. This is the period in which the new temple B was built to the north; the pottery from Z very usefully supplements that from the sacral area.3Finds from the earlier Iron Age levels (Fig. l:a) are very scrappy,but the material is almost wholly discrete from that recovered from the main phase of use above; in particular,the "typefossils" of the two periods, the earlier bell-cup and the later flat-based, one-handled, black-glazed cup, are stratigraphicallydistinct. The subtitle of this article reflects the main period of use, although indeed the earlier phase is also treated below. The study is in a sense a supplement to the broadertreatment in KommosIV of both the sanctuaryfinds and Building Z, and I am therefore sparing in recounting the details published there, as in reviewing the range of contacts between Kommos and other areas suggested by the pottery. Regrettably,as is the case for much of the material from the southern area of the site, time has not been kind to the ceramic remains, which consist mainly of small, worn, and often isolated sherds. Nonetheless, the material is of interest because of its relatively well stratified context. The picture that we have of the later Geometric pottery of the Mesara is the result of study by a number of scholars, who will be cited as appropriate below; the pottery from Building Z provides a significant check on their conclusions. The building concerned (Fig. l:b) was inserted into the shipshed P3 the construction, from nearby debris, of a cross-wall and a form of by buttress wall up against the still-standing north wall of P3; the latter was presumablybuilt to lessen the span of the roof, from 5.90 to 4.70 m.4 The west end of the structurewas not preserved and so its length remains uncertain, though it is likely that it terminated at the still-standing east end of Building P.The base of the newly constructed walls is at 3.95 masl. The builders not only employed stones fallen from the Minoan structure but cleared the area for use at the same time. One large stone in the new buttress wall, with its lower edge at 4.30 m, may have acted as a threshold, though it is ratherhigh above the original floor; there are no other signs of an entry to the structure,though naturallyone may have been situated at the lost western end. The building was excavatedin trench 82A to the west and trench 82B to the east; at the same time trench 81B cleared the area to the east of the rear wall, with trench 83C being dug further east, at the east end of the Minoan gallery.

LOWER LEVELS The lowest levels containing post-Minoan pottery, albeit with a large admixture of Minoan, were at approximately 3.75 m and stratigraphically below the building level of Z, associated with some minor architectural

2. Plansof the broaderareaare includedin ShawandShaw1993. 3. I do not questionthebasicuseof this areafor cult purposes,though I note the remarksabout usage of the buildings made by Viviers 1994, p. 245. He perhapsunderestimatesthe number of figurinesand miniaturevases from the whole generalarea,and also the significanceof the originalstatue base in Temple C, as well as the inscriptions mentioning deities, but he undoubtedly is right to stressthe communalnature of activitiesin the buildings. 4. Shaw and Shaw 1993, p. 175.

BUILDING

Z AT

KOMMOS

z

I9I

hearth

3. 85

bench

v

bottom 3.84

bench

bottom 3.84

4.04

W

(

24.06

1

v.4.10

a

l. 12.65

b 0 joseph

Figure 1. Building Z at Kommos: (a) earlier structures and (b) main phase

1

2

w.show-giuliono

3 bionco

4 1992

5M.

W.

ALAN

I92

JOHNSTON

TABLE 1. SCHEMATIC LISTING OF AMOUNTS OF POTTERY BY DEPTH PAILS, ARRANGED APPROXIMATELY Pail UPPER

36B/2a

BUILDING

West Sherds

65A2/26

Pail

Central Sherds Grams

Pail

East Sherds

Grams

LEVELS

ca. 150

6,900

82A/18 22 23 23A 19 24 20 11 12 7 13 14 82B/b45 46 47 48 49

81 122 152 239 149 302 139 104 149 244 152 62 510 161 221 148 289

2,050 925 900 1,440 4,510 1,605 4,850 3,080 1,875 4,750 2,715 1,420 5,860 1,450 3,160 4,990 7,380

81B/50D 50E 61 83C/64 61

331 129 146 99 333

4,990 2,980 2,250 2,860 5,110

26,100 9,150 8,700 550 6,100 7,900 11,430

82A/15 15A 16 16A 10 17 21 25 26 27 29 30 31 32 33 82B/50 52 53 (54

171 92 109 145 72 89 98 353 198 28 77 162 349 79

4,030 6,102 3,290 2,850 1,995

81B/64 65 66 (67 83C/66

256 199 54 186 155

8,040 4,805 1,505 4,520) 3,865

667 408 139 67

2,410 5,110 3,930 1,530 2,590 3,425 6,420 1,230 2,410 21,250 10,970 3,270 1,240)

82A/28 34 36 37 38 82B/54 55

25 133 7 106 57 67 110

1,265 3,790 200 1,985 2,205 1,240 1,785

81B/70 71

185 226

3,520 3,240

Z

65A2/22C 23 65A1/12 14d 40 36B/5 ca. 60 20 ca. 230 21 ca. 340

LOWER

Grams

FROM RELEVANT

100

1,100

LEVELS

-

4,850

4.50-4.35 m. b Pails 41-44 above4.60 m. CAt4.48-4.23 m, mostly higher than Building Z levels to the east. dAt 4.09-3.73 m, reacheslevels that predateBuilding Z levels to the east. a

BUILDING

Z AT

KOMMOS

I93

features.5 In trenches 82 and 81B the material is of Late Protogeometric style, scanty though it is (Figs. 2-3). The presence of several pedestal feet is a good general pointer to the date; the kind of ribbed pedestal seen in Z above this level (e.g., 57) is of a very different type. More than half of the vessel was preserved in only two cases, the amphora 1 and the very small bell-skyphos 7; the rest of the catalogued pieces are rarely more than single fragments. The material from all trenches is taken together. The total amount and weight of pottery from the lower levels are listed in Table 1 and catalogued here from west to east. 1

5. Shaw and Shaw 1993, p. 177, where the architecturalhistory of the areais described. 6. E.g., Coldstreamand MacDonald 1997, p. 233, placing their El, with a less elaborateprofile than 2, late in PG.

Belly-handled amphora

Fig. 3

C9585 (82A/34 and 37, with a fragment of handle from 82B/55) and C10694 (82A/34). P.H. 35.5, original H. ca. 55-58, Diam. 33, Diam. (rim) ca. 13.5. Fine buff fabric, 7.5YR 7/6, with rosier core; many, mainly small, dark inclusions; creamy surface, possibly a slip. Many fragments preserved;most join, giving a profile from lip to mid-body; one handle is preserved in two joining fragments, but there is no handle attachment preserved on any body fragment; it is therefore placed as high as possible in the profile drawing. The possibility that this was a hydria cannot be totally ruled out since a vertical handle could be accommodated, though the frieze decoration makes it extremely unlikely.The foot, C10694, is from the same pail as much of the amphora and has the same fabric and decorative finish; it almost certainly belongs. Only its small size (Diam. 3.7 at the narrowest point) leaves room for doubt, and it is therefore placed in a "neutral"position in Fig. 3. The top of the lip is not preserved, though the wall is very thin where the preserved outturn at the top of the neck is found, evidence for a small, upright rim. Horizontal strap handles are set low on body. The foot, if belonging, has a very narrowwaist before flaring out into a pedestal, only partly preserved. The decoration is in typical dull brown paint, now much worn in places. Band on inside of rim. Top of neck painted outside. On neck: threeline zigzag between single lines; below, checkerboard,four "squares"

high, but irregularlypainted; at base, pendant crosshatched triangles; band over turn of shoulder. On shoulder, eight sets of five concentric circles, one of them given much more space than the rest (but not because of the proximity to any handle). Four lines below, above a frieze of quadruple zigzags (though some sections have three or five lines); below that, upright crosshatched triangles between lines. A single line on lower wall fragments (if belonging); outside of handle painted. On the foot, two bands preserved below a painted area. The scheme of the decoration, as well as the pedestal foot, suggests manufacture in the Late Protogeometric or, at latest, Protogeometric B period. The syntax is reminiscent of a probable PGB hydria from Knossos, KNC, T107.185 (fig. 112); a LPG

kraterfromTekketomb D 5 (KNC, fig. 57) has similar motifs.

2

Amphora (or hydria), rim and neck

Fig. 2

C10692 (81B/70 and 71, the two lowest Iron Age levels east of Z). P.H. 4.7, Diam. (rim) 18. Semifine light tan clay, 7.5YR 7/4, with many dark and some white inclusions. Two joining fragments of rim and neck. Flaring neck and low vertical, concave lip. Band on inside of rim, another on outside of rim and top of neck. The relatively developed lip, with concave face, suggests that the date of these lowest levels should be chronologically advanced, perhaps beyond the LPG style of accompanying material, although the relatively straight line to the neck could be taken as a counterbalancing earlier feature.6

ALAN

194

W. JOHNSTON

/ 2 4

3o

7

5

3

Krater,foot

Fig. 2

C9584 (82A/28, the lowest IA level in the western part of Z). H. (foot) 4.3, Diam. (foot) 7.0. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/6. Single fragment of the pedestal foot of a krater.Very worn and chipped, the edge of the foot very nearly preserved at just one point. Heavy foot and thick walls; a noteworthy sinking at center of underside. Dull, dark paint on inside; no traces of paint on outside, possibly wholly worn? For the type of foot, see also 4. 4

Krater(?),base

Fig. 2

C9759 (81B/70). P.H. 6.2, Diam. (foot) 6.6. Medium coarse pink clay, 5YR 8/4. Five joining fragments of a base, probably of a krater.Low conical foot with depression at center of underside. No traces of any decoration, though the surface is generally in good condition. 5

Krater,body

Fig.

C10100 (81B/71). P.H. 8.0. Medium coarse buff-brown clay, 7.5YR 7/4, with some large white inclusions; cream surface.

2

Three joining fragments of upper wall. Ridge preserved near top of wall; it and the wall above are painted in dull brown glaze. On wall, to right, part of the outer circle of a set of concentric circles; three verticals to left, with part of a diagonal line to their left, most likely part of a chevron motif forming the central decorative panel on the wall. The shoulder is at a relatively shallow angle. The range of motifs used is basic, though precise parallels may be lacking. 6

Krater,rim

Fig. 3

C10453 (65A2/26, lowest pail with any IA pottery west of Z, top at 3.65 m). Diam. (rim) ca. 44. Semifine light brown clay, 5YR 8/4 to 7/4, with many varied inclusions. Two joining fragments. Slightly thickened outcurving rim with ridge below. Once wholly painted. There are possible body fragments in 82A/37 and a body sherd with concentric circles from 82B/55, all in very similar fabric. The profile points to a MPGLPG date.

Figure 2. Material from levels earlier than the construction of Building Z. Scale 1:3

BUILDING

Z AT

KOMMOS

I95

,

1

I

I lk1:

flt

15

t6

N'

PI~~~~~~~~~? .

.

J

12

r

9

.* 14

Figure 3. Large pots from Building Z and below. Scale ca. 1:7 7

Bell-skyphos

Fig. 2

C9763 (81B/71, with joining fragment from 70). P.H. 12, Diam. (rim) 10. Fine pinkish brown clay, 5YR 7/4. Nine fragments, several joining, of rim and body of a bellskyphos. Slim-bodied skyphos, with both handles at least partly preserved;flaring rim; base lost. Much worn in parts. Dull dark paint. Lower part of body reserved outside; the rest painted, probably dipped. Curvature of the walls, height of handles, and extent of glaze indicate a date in LPG. 8

Closed vessel

C10693 (82A/37). P.H. 5.6. Fine beige clay, 10YR 6/4, with some inclusions. Single sherd used as a "label."Worn fragment; a single hole cut at top and at least the top right side deliberately cut to shape; the other edges seem more like

accidental breaks. An oddity; if some form of identificatory tag, one must suppose it was not marked in any specific "textual" way. 9

Cooking pot

Fig. 3

C10077 (82A/38). P.H. 11.5, Diam. (rim) 33. Semicoarse clay with a variety of nonmicaceous inclusions; red-brown surface (5YR 5/6), gray in core. Thick fabric. Large fragment, composed of four joining fragments of rim, wall, and handle. Small horizontal rim with slight ridge below; deep bowl. Horizontal, upturned handle attached close under rim. Traces of burning inside. The context is probably early IA. Though most identifiable material in the pail is Minoan, one worn shoulder sherd seems to be from a jug of broadly PG date.

I96

ALAN

W.

JOHNSTON

A few other pieces should be mentioned: a body fragment from 82B/ with a simple band, is very close in fabric to 117; from the same pail 55, another fragment is akin to 106. In 82B/54 are plain body fragments of a distinctive yellow-surfaced closed vase, fragments of which appear also in pails 52 and 53 above, and in 81B/66, at a similar level to 52. From 82B/37 come neck and handle fragments of an amphora similar to 2 and to 129; body fragments of dipped bell-skyphoi come from 82A/34 and 37. None of the black-glazed cups so common in Building Z above were found in these levels. There is little here that would appear to date later than LPG; 1 and perhaps also 2 are possible PGB pieces. One may tentatively ascribe the material to a date before ca. 825 B.C. The material is clearly mixed and scrappyand shows that there was little occupation of the areabetween the abandonment in LM IIIB and the construction of Building Z, and that what there was should be placed largely in the later part of that period.

BUILDING

Z

No joins have been found between material from the lower levels discussed above and that from Building Z (3.95 m and above); as just noted, a few examples of sherds from the lower levels may belong to pots in Z, e.g., 117, 129, though only in the case of the former is the link strong. Clearly Minoan pottery is extremely rare, certainly not "sporadic,"above the level 3.95 m; a few LM III pieces are in the "transitional"pail 82B/54, and more, including two conical cups, in the equally low 82A/33, at the first floor of Z. Similarly, to the east of Z, Minoan pottery is tolerably frequent at a lower level (81B/70, 71), slight in the "transitional"pail 67, and vestigial from 4.00 to 4.50 m. It then becomes a little more noticeable in higher levels. On the other hand, joins between material from the floor at 3.95 m and that from higher levels are frequent and widespread;some pieces, notably 12, 13, and 14, were widely strewn after breakage. Only one actual join has been located with material to the west (41), although nonjoining fragments of the same pots can be confidently identified in other cases;41 is an interesting case, linking not only Building Z with the west but also with material in the temple dump to the north. I reserve opinion here on whether there was a second floor in Z at ca. 4.30 m, on a level with the lower edge of the presumed threshold block in the north buttress wall. First we should examine the pottery found within the levels between 3.95 and 4.30 m. While by far the greatest concentration of pottery was found in a pail (82B/50) at the level of the possible upper floor and near the rear,east wall of Z, at least ten pots (eight catalogued) from this pail join sherds from lower pails; one may well suggest that the material representsclearanceof accumulateddebris to the back of the building or, perhaps less likely in view of the joins at lower levels, material fallen from wooden shelves on the back wall. At the same time, a relativelylarge amount of sherds was found in trench 36B in the presumed western part of the structure.

BUILDING

Z AT

KOMMOS

I97

The pails with material from this level are listed in Table 1, from west to east (in approximate descending stratigraphic order per trench). PHOENICIAN

POTTERY

10 Amphora sherd(s) C7855 (65A1/14). See Bikai 2000, p. 19. The precise level of the find within the pail cannot easily be correlatedwith Building Z; it could belong to the earlier horizon, predating Z. 11 Flask, neck and handle

Fig. 4

C10695 (82A/26). P.H. 4.6. Nearly fine, but gritty, light brown

clay, 7.5YR 6/6, with white inclusions. Two joining fragments of neck and handle. Neck heavily ridged inside. Surface extremely worn, any possible decoration now lost. With respect to the three other flasks known from the temple dumps, this piece is larger than C3134 (noted by Bikai); close in size to C3078, which is not ridged inside (Bikai 2000, p. 16); and similar in fabric to the thicker-walled C8050 (p. 17).

From the rest of the material I extracted thirteen body sherds and one lip sherd that could possibly come from Phoenician amphoras, though the lip is high, 3.8 cm, and a little everted. None has the rather sandy texture of the normal amphora type. AMPHORAS

12 Amphora

AND

HYDRIAS

Fig. 3

C9609 (82A/15, 16A, 24,26, 29, 30, 31, 33; 82B/49, 50, 52; 81B/ 64, 66, 67; 65A2/22). A possible fragment from 83C/67. C10475 (82A/5), the foot. H. ca. 48, max. Diam. ca. 32, Diam. (rim) 10, Diam. (foot) 9.6. Semicoarse, highly micaceous, gritty, and porous clay; pale buff surface;core variously fired, generally purple-brown. One hundred and two fragments of one or more amphoras, from all parts save lower neck and lower wall. Irregularity of potting, painting, and firing makes attribution of individual fragments very difficult. Some fragments moderately worn, others wholly abraded (especially those from 81B and 83C, making any final judgment on their pertinence impossible). The only joins between pails are between 82A/30 and 82B/50; but also from those two pails come three fragments (not joining others) with the ends of vertical bands beneath the handle area, indicating that there is more than one piece in this highly distinctive fabric.The foot cannot easily be joined with the major body section

as restored on paper (as made clear in Fig. 3), though it has every appearance of pertaining to an amphora of this type, save that the red-orange surface has a match on only one, assured,body fragment. Slightly everted lip; neck apparently curving smoothly into shoulder; stout ring foot. Much of one broad, vertical handle preserved, with two shallow grooves down the outside. Decoration in dull paint, variously fired chestnut to black. Top of neck and lip painted; neck decoration uncertain. Two very irregular bands at top of shoulder.Two sets of eight concentric circles, with central dot, on the shoulder; below them, a band above one (or possibly two) lines. Irregulardouble serpentine line on belly, above three bands. Bands down the grooves on the handles and around the handle roots, extending down onto the belly. No traces of paint on worn foot. Clearly an import, probably Cycladic; the amount of mica seems excessive for any East Greek ware, as is the coarseness of the material, even perhaps for Milesian (cf. KNC, p. 405, T285.89).

ALAN

I98

$1

W. JOHNSTON

r` 11

17

16 19 nW

.

.

._

.:

-

I .)

_

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~-

__A^

r

22 18 13 Amphora (or hydria?),body C10042 (81B/67; 82A/18, 19, 22, 23, 33, 42, 45). No useful dimension measurable.Fine pinkish buff, very micaceous clay,with cream surface.Thirty fragments, some joining (but no joins between pails). Full rounded body. Surface very worn, some fragments totally abraded.Decoration in dull brown: concentric circles on shoulder, with one set largely preserved, above triple

band; single band set apart below these and an undulating band on the belly; double band on lower body. More than one amphora may be represented here, but the fabric appears the same throughout, including that of the sherds from the lower levels, 82A/33 and 81B/67. Again an import, probably from the Cyclades, but the clay far finer than in 12. A piece that appears close, a hydria from Kavousi, is thought by Tsipopoulou to be an import from

Figure 4. Building Z. Phoenician (11) and large closed vessels. Scale 1:3

BUILDING

Euboea (Tsipopoulou 1990, p. 140, fig. 4; she kindly informs me that RichardJones would support that origin after analysis of the clay). 14 Amphora

Fig. 3

C9555 (82A/3, 7, 8, 13, 16A, 19, 23, 31; 82B/49, 50,52, perhaps 54). Diam. (rim) 22.2. Hard-fired light brown fabric, 7.5YR 6/2 to 6/4; some dark inclusions; surface slipped, with greenish tinge. About fifty fragments, many joining, mostly from upper parts, giving virtually complete upper profile. Surface generally much worn. Lip not joining but certainly belonging, flaring with vertical concave rim. A flat base may belong. Vertical flattened handles set high on shoulder. Paint fired dark gray.Broad band on inside of lip. Outside of rim painted. Band of outlined solid lozenges on lower neck, with triple line above and single broad band below at turn of shoulder.Top of shoulder reserved;in handle zone, between triple line above and band below, frieze of double axes, filled with double crescents. Banding on body below. The foot, if belonging, is extremely worn. However this amphora is categorized, it would appear to be among the latest pieces in the building itself. Stylistically it would seem to be of local production and perhaps to be placed at the end of MG or early LG. Neither ornamental pattern, outlined leaf or double ax, is common, though the former is found at Knossos in LG (Fortetsa,pattern 12c); for the approach, cf. Levi 1927-1929, fig. 352a. 15 Amphora, neck and upper body

Fig. 3

C9627 (82A/7, 10, 15A, 26). P.H. 25.5, Diam. 31. Medium coarse salmon-pink clay, 7.5YR 7/6, more yellow in parts, 2.5YR 6/6, with many large red-brown inclusions. Fifty-one fragments of neck and upper body. Narrow neck, with short strap handles (parts of both preserved);lip not assuredly preserved-the highest neck fragment seems to have a worn, not a finished, top. Surface worn to very worn, flaking in places. Paint

Z AT

KOMMOS

I99

fired dull brown. Inside of neck reserved, as far as is preserved. Band outside at top of shoulder. Broad band above two narrow bands at waist; on shoulder, pairs of large sets often concentric circles. Band down outside of handle, continuing onto body, and band of glaze around lower handle root. There are further probable body sherds from 81B/67. 16 Amphora, rim, neck, and body

Fig. 4

C10715 (82B/53). H. (neck) 14, Diam. (rim) 14. Fine clay with many dark inclusions; fired various colors, surface generally cream, but with pink patches. Forty-one fragments, many joining. Simply molded vertical rim, with marked convexity. Paint fired orange-brown to brown. Broad band at rim inside; upper part of outside of rim painted. Two bands on neck at level of handle attachment, band at turn of shoulder, and verticals flanking handle attachment. Three bands above painted area on a lower body fragment. 17 Amphora, rim and neck

Fig. 4

C10699 (82A/7, 31). P.H. 12.7, Diam. (rim) 22. Micaceous and rather coarse red-brown clay, 5YR 5/6. Three nonjoining fragments of rim and neck. Rather rounded rim, lightly concave on inside; handle root preserved on one fragment but its placement on neck uncertain. Plain. An imported storage amphora, perhaps from East Greece. 18 Hydria, rim and neck

Fig. 4

C3208 (36B/19,20). P.H. 15.5, Diam. (rim) 18. Nearly fine, buffbrown clay, 7.5YR 8/4, with grayblue inclusions; slipped. Sixteen fragments (enough of the diameter is preserved to ensure that there was only one vertical handle), giving rim and neck profile; see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 260. Plain; the date is LG, while the context is akin to that of 23 below, which is a comparable piece.

Figure 5. Amphora(?) 21 OTHER

LARGE

CLOSED

SHAPES

19 Amphora(?), shoulder

Fig. 4

C9616 (82A/32). P.H. 11.5, Th. (wall) 1.1. Coarse red-brown clay, 7.5YR 7/6, with large gray inclusions; paler buff surface.Two joining fragments of shoulder, probably of an amphora. Slight ridge at top of shoulder. Dark paint, much worn. Band over ridge; parts of two sets of 14 concentric circles preserved on shoulder below. 20

Amphora or hydria, rim and neck

C9756 (83C/66). P.H. 9.6, H. (lip) 2. Buff clay, 7.5YR 7/4, with some dark inclusions; cream surface, perhaps slipped. Two nonjoining fragments of rim and neck. Flaring neck with "Cretan"vertical rim. Very worn. Band near rim inside. Outside of rim and top of neck painted; two lines below, then frieze of hatched leaves. Similar to 14, especially in fabric, but smaller. 21

Amphora(?), shoulder

Fig. 5

C10486 (82B/50). 6.5 x 7.4. Fine pink-buff clay, 7.5YR 7/6, with blue-gray core. Fragment of shoulder of a closed vase. Much worn. Probably from an amphora. Part of a broad band on lower part; ten long verticals above, pendant from a horizontal band ("fringe"ornament).

200

ALAN

v'/

\

W.

JOHNSTON

( 23

24

K

25

27 26 L

1...

t^

--1

.

l

-

I

f

28

37

/''+

33 35

Figure6. BuildingZ. Closedvessels. Scale 1:3

BUILDING

22

Z AT

201

KOMMOS

Amphora or hydria, rim and neck

Fig. 4

C9586 (82A/23,23A, 15). P.H. 7.9., Diam. (rim) 16.2. Medium coarse pale pink clay, 7.5YR 8/4, with many dark inclusions. Four joining (pails 23A and 15) and one nonjoining (23) fragment of lip and neck. Everted rim with flat outer face. Paint dark,but very worn. Rim wholly painted. Part of single horizontal zigzag preserved on an otherwise reserved neck. A conservative form of decoration; the profile helps little in placing the piece, though the fairly sharp outswing of the lip points to MG-LG rather than earlier. 23

Amphora or hydria, rim

Fig. 6

C3244 (36B/21). P.H. 4, Diam. (rim) 20. Fine, low-fired, pink-buff clay, 7.5YR 7/6. Single fragment of rim. Hollow lip offset from vertical neck. Dark paint. Band near rim inside; outside painted, as far as preserved. Probably LG; cf. Coldstream 1972, p. 92, fig. 11, Fl. It was specifically noted that this piece was found at a level immediately above the main dump of pottery in this sector and so can be regarded as potentially later than the main period of use. 24

Amphora or hydria, shoulder

Amphora or hydria, shoulder

26

Amphora or hydria, neck and rim

Fig. 6

C9688 (81B/64, outside Z). P.H. Diam. (rim) 24. Fine pink clay, 14, 5YR 7/4 to 7.6, with light brown slip. Some large yellow-brown inclusions. Three joining fragments of neck and rim. Broad, flat-topped, flaring rim with ridge at top of neck. Extremely worn, traces of burning on rim. Outside of rim and upper part of neck painted (inside wholly worn). Parts of two sets of six pendant concentric semicircles preserved below. Cf. Fortetsa,no. 140, pl. 10, for the profile; PGB to EG. 27

Amphora or hydria, rim, neck, and shoulder

Fig. 6

C9556 (82A/25). Diam. (rim) 14. Powdery semicoarse red-tan clay, 5YR 7/4, with some red and dark inclusions. Eleven fragments, eight joining, of rim, neck, and shoulder. Everted "mushroom"lip. Decoration in red-fired glaze, very worn. Rim wholly painted. On neck, central motif of stacked chevrons between pairs of verticals; lanceolate verticals to either side (not clear in Fig. 6). A band preserved on a small body sherd.

Fig. 6 28

C10481 (82B/52). P.H. 8.2. Fine clay with many inclusions, pink-buff in core, 5YR 7/6, gray-blue near surface. Five joining fragments of shoulder. Part of a set of at least seven concentric semicircles preserved, on a broad band; two narrowerbands and a glazed area below. 25

Part of a set of seven concentric semicircles, with central dot, preserved above a painted band.

Fig. 6

C10478 (82B/54). P.H. 6.4. Semifine pale buff clay, 10YR 8/4, with many inclusions, mostly bluegray. Single fragment of shoulder.

Amphora, lip and upper neck

Fig. 6

C10704 (82A/16). P.H. 4.5, Diam. (rim) 26. Fine pink-buff clay, 5YR 7/6 to 6/6, with some inclusions and pale buff surface.Three joining fragments of lip and upper neck. Horizontal rim to flaring lip, ridged below. Upper part of inside of lip glazed; top surface reserved;outside wholly glazed. An unusually elaborate molding. 29

Amphora(?), body

C10482 (82A/17 and 82B/52). H. of largest fragment 6. Semicoarse rose-pink clay,2.5YR 6/4, with many

202

ALAN

W.

JOHNSTON

Figure 7 (left). Amphora(?) 30 dark inclusions and creamy yellow slip. Two joining and two loose fragments of wall, perhaps of an amphora. Part of a large, crosshatched horizontal zigzag, in worn dull paint, on all sherds. A much simplified version of neck decoration such as KNC, pl. 48, Gl.

cal outer face; attachment for massive vertical handle preserved on a rim fragment. Variouslyworn. Dull brown paint. Broad band on inside of rim; close-set verticals on outer face; neck painted as far as preserved;band down handle.

30 Amphora(?), neck

C10480 (82B/50). P.H. 3.2, Diam. (rim) 18. Fine pinkish buff clay,5YR 7/4. Lightweight rim, flaring as frequently on such pots, but with broad flat top. Partly burnt and very worn. Upper part of inside painted; one set of twelve rather thick bars preserved on top of rim. Outside painted as far as preserved.

Fig. 7

C9582 (82A/21). P.W.11.6. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/6. Two joining fragments of cylindrical neck, orientation uncertain. Worn. Streaky dark brown paint. Two bands above (or below) a broad net pattern, not fully preserved, presumably at center of neck. 31 Amphora(?), body C7043 (36B/21 and 65A2/23). P.H. 10.7. Fine ware, red-buff, 5YR 6/6. Three joining fragments of belly; see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 261. Fully painted outside except for two reserved horizontal bands decorated with groups of nearly vertical lines. 32 Amphora or hydria, lip, neck, and handle

Fig. 8

C9687 (82B/50 and 52). Diam. (rim) 13. Fine pinkish brown clay, 5YR 7/6, with grayer core. Five nonjoining fragments of lip, neck, and handle. Flaring rim, with verti-

33 Amphora or hydria, rim

34 Amphora or hydria, shoulder, handle root

Fig. 6

Fig. 9

C9613 (82A/30 and 52). Max. p. dim. 10.4. Medium coarse buff clay, 7.5YR 8/4, with large white and black inclusions. Two nonjoining fragments of shoulder and lower handle root. Thickwalled amphora with decoration in dull dark paint, now worn: band on belly, parts of two sets of nine concentric semicircles above, though continued well over the band below; band from handle down onto body. A small rim fragment in 82A/29 may belong.

Figure 8 (right). Amphora or hydria 32

BUILDING

(

Z AT

KOMMOS

203

38

Figure 9 (above,left). Amphora or hydria 34 35 Amphora(?), body Figures 10, 11 (right;below, left). Amphora 38

Fig. 6

C9610 (82A/30). Max. p. dim. 5.1. Fine gray-pink clay,2.5YR 6/2, with redder core. Thick-walled fragment of closed vase, probably from the shoulder. Burnt after breakage.Two bands below a frieze of sets of double circles with fill of hatched leaves. The spirit, if not the letter, of the decoration is similar to that on a LG hydria from Kavousi; Coldstream 1968, pl. 57:m.

37 Amphora(?), rim

Fig. 6

C10484 (82B/50). P.H. 3.7, Diam. (rim) 24. Nearly coarse, orange-brown fabric, 5YR 6/8, gray in core, with much mica and other inclusions. Two joining fragments. Strongly everted rim, lightly molded on outside; handle attachment close below. Traces of dark paint on top of lip. The paint and type of handle point away from this being a cooking pot, as suggested by the clay. Import.

36 Amphora(?), body C10691 (82A/31). Max. p. dim. 7.3. Fine hard-fired purplish brown clay,2.5YR 6/4, blue-gray in core. Fragment of lower shoulder. Extremely worn decoration, a set of standing concentric semicircles above a band.

38 Amphora, body

Figs. 10, 11

C9699 (82A/30 and 50). W. of largest sherd 11.5. Medium coarse, nearly white clay, 10YR 8/2, with darkercore, 5YR 7/4; brown inclusions. Eleven fragments, five joining, from the waist and upper wall. Decoration in very worn paint: band above three lines on waist, supporting sets of nine concentric semicircles on shoulder.

Also worth noting for its size is a rim and neck fragment from 82B/50, from a plain amphora, very worn, with a typical Cretan rim, Diam. (rim) 21, and strap handles 5.4 x 2.3.

I

ALAN

204

W.

JOHNSTON

A

39

42 40

I I e I

4

46 48

45

,,

I

-

1,

It, I I

II

^

',1." \.~~~~~~~~~~~ I

52

,

53

55 56

SMALLER

CLOSED

39 Amphoriskos, body and handles

Fig. 12

C10085 (82A29). / P.H. (6.7 C10085v~~ Diam. (foot) 3.7. Fine pink-red clay, 5YR 7/6. Twelve joining fragments of body and handles. Low disk foot and globular body, faceted. Vertical strap

handles.Plain.

40 Jug, rim and neck

Figure 12. Building Z. Smaller jugs and bowls. Scale 1:3

SHAPES

Fig. 12

C9629 (82A/7 and 13). Diam. (rim) 14. Fine reddish yellow clay, 7.5YR 7/8. Nine nonjoining fragments. Slightly everted, flat-topped rim. Moderately to extremely worn. Streaky red-brown paint. Bars on top of rim (probably in sets rather than continuous). Inside probably had

band near top of lip (not included in the drawing); banding on outside. Lip fragments of very similar jugs come from 82B/50 (slightly thicker lip; assured band, but broader than the possible traces on 40) and 82B/52 (wholly painted inside), with one of body fragments probably from bodyfragmentsprobablyfromone of these from 83C/64 to the east. Hence the inclusion of this more fully preserved example, from a higher level, in this section. This is the shape of jug that must have accompanied the pedestaled kraters (see below). Cf. Fortetsa,no. 928. Oinochoe, rim and body C8051 (63A/48 and 50; 65A2/ 22; 82B/52). P.H. 14.5, Diam. (rim) 41

BUILDING

Figure 13. Oinochoe(?) 47

Z AT

KOMMOS

205

ca. 13. Fine orange-buff clay, 5YR 7/6. Mainly joining fragments from rim to lower belly. Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 54. Slightly concave neck with flaring rim, and strap handle joining the rim. Very worn, once dark, paint. The neck and rim are decorated with horizontal bands enclosing a horizontal squiggle. The shoulder bears a hatched "cloud"pattern (Fortetsa, pattern lln). Below is a broad band flanked by horizontal stripes, and the lower belly is decorated with a running wave pattern. Horizontal bars on handle. The fragment from 82B/52 has clay and decoration identical to those from trench 63A, even if it does not join; however, the join between 63A and 65A2 is assured, an important, if isolated, link between Building Z and the temple area.The style of 41 seems hardly later than EG, which primafacie suggests that the jug originally was placed in the sanctuary area and the sherds were later transferredto Z. Cf. KNC, T107.144, but also the MG T283.14.

C2987 (36B/5). Rest. H. 14.5, Diam. (rim) 17. Pale buff surface, more pink in core, 5YR 7/6; many small black inclusions, a few larger white ones. Thirteen fragments, giving rim and lower body. The shape is similar to that of a giant cup. Dipped in black paint at least twice on the upper body.

42

46 Juglet

Oinochoe, base and body

Fig. 12

C9681 (82B/50 and 52). P.H. 8.3, Diam. (foot) 6. Fine hard graybrown clay, 7.5YR 7/2 to 7/4. Two sets of two joining fragments of base, wall, and shoulder. Small oinochoe with flat base and full body; upper parts lost (though fragments in pail 52 may belong). Worn. Band at base of wall and another at waist; perhaps originally three sets of five concentric semicircles on shoulder. 43

Oinochoe, shoulder

C9686 (82B/50). Max. p. dim. 6.6. Fine pink clay, 7.5YR 7/6, with blue-gray core. Five joining and one other sherd of shoulder with nipple. Very heavily worn in part. Decoration in once dark paint. Band around nipple; to its left a vertical band of multiple zigzag; below, a worn area including curving lines. The same pail contained several standard amphora or hydria rims and

a good range of fragments of larger vases, all with a blue core to the biscuit; 43 is the sole catalogued example. 44

Oinochoe(?), strap handle

C10102 (65A2/22). P.L. 4.5, W. 3.8. Fine buff clay, 10YR 7/4. Upper part of strap handle. Very flat handle rising slightly above rim; size suggests it is not from a drinking vessel. Decoration in dull, dark paint; inside of neck painted, as far as preserved; sides of handles painted; nine bars preserved on outside, the lowest broader than the rest. 45 Jug or cup, rim and body

Fig. 12

Fig. 12

C9553 (82A/16). P.H. 4, Diam. (foot) 3. Fine clay, fired red-brown, 5YR 7/6, to pale buff with a few dark brown and one large white inclusion. Lacking neck, lip, and handle. Round bodied, with flat base; scar of handle attachment at broadest part of belly. Worn and chipped. Plain. 47

Oinochoe(?), body sherd

Fig. 13

C9768 (65A2/23). 3.6 x 2.6. Fine buff clay, 7.5YR 8/4 in core. Single fragment of wall of a closed vase. Inside reserved;outside, part of a band of horizontal, multiple zigzag above a triple band; below, part of a single billet and a further band. Very similar to 54, though the triple bands are thicker than there. Lack of paint on the inside disassociates these (and 50) from the kraterswith similar zigzag pattern.

206

48

ALAN

Oinochoe, neck/handle

Fig. 12

C9558 (82A/26). P.H. 4.5, p. Diam. 9.5. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/4, with red-brown surface. Single fragment of neck and handle. Full upper body, narrow neck, and round, flaring rim; slight ridge on shoulder at base of neck. Strap handle. Very worn, but the outside once wholly, if thinly, painted. 49

Small jug, shoulder

Fig. 14

C10039 (82A/25). Max. p. dim. 4.2, Th. 0.2-0.5. Fine pale tan clay, hard fired, 5YR 7/4. Two joining fragments. Rounded body with turn of neck just preserved. Dull dark brown paint. Lower shoulder glazed; pendant triangles between double lines on upper part; band of diagonals at base of neck. For the juxtaposition of motifs, cf. KNC, T292.139 and for broad triangles, Tomb D, 13 (PGB). 50

Oinochoe(?), shoulder

Fig. 15

C9615 (82A/33). Max. p. dim. 4.2. Fine buff clay, 10YR 7/3, more pink in core. Single fragment. Burnt and much worn. Quadruple horizontal zigzag between bands; further paint below, reserved above. 51 Jug(?), handle/body

Fig. 16

C10086 (82A/16).W. 3.1, Th. 0.9. Fine pale buff-orange clay, 7.5YR 7/6. Single fragment of strap handle and wall. Much worn. Dull red-brown paint; bars across the handle. 52 Aryballos or oinochoe, shoulder

Fig. 12

C10084 (82A/31). Max. p. dim. 5.2. Fine pinkish buff clay, 10YR 8/3. Two joining fragments. Much worn. Decoration in dull brown: three lines below; above, partly preserved patterned panel, with solid, outlined triangle flanked by elaborate and asymmetrical ladder pattern. The decoration more complex than on a LPG lekythos, KNC, T218.67 (fig. 130), but from a similar pedigree.

53

W.

JOHNSTON

Short-necked jug, rim

Fig. 12

C9578 (82A/16A). P.H. 3.4, Diam. (rim) 12. Fine buff clay, 7.5 YR 8/4. Single fragment of a plain, flaring rim. Worn dark paint; inside reserved save for band at top; outside, a frieze of linked circles framed by two bands above and a band and a glazed area below. The circles are painted partly individually, partly as intertwined wavy lines. Common enough in LG, the motif has MG attestations. Stampolidis 1996, p. 48, fig. 90 and p. 64, fig. 122 (with incomplete reference to Tsipopoulou's doctoral thesis, pp. 203-204, non vidi; to be published in the TAHA monograph series; see Tsipopoulou, in press); Coldstream 1968, pl. 57:b. 54

Oinochoe, shoulder

Fig. 17

C9656 (82A/26). P.H. 3.3. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/3. Single fragment. Decoration in worn brown paint. Two horizontal zigzags preserved at top; three lines below, from the lowest of which two thick verticals are pendant, part of a lower frieze. Possibly from the same jug as 50, but it is not burnt and the lines are thinner. 55 Trefoil oinochoe, rim, neck, and shoulder

Figure 14. Small jug 49

Figure 15. Oinochoe(?) 50

Fig. 12

C10078 (82A/29). P.H. 3.1. Fine orange-buff clay, 5YR 7/6. Single fragment, handle lost. Worn; painted on inside of mouth and on all of outside with dull dark

Figure 16. Jug(?) 51

glaze. 56

Olpe or oinochoe, body and base

Fig. 12

C10079 (82A/30). P.H. 9.5, Diam. (foot) 5. Fine orange-tan clay, 5YR 5/6. Five joining fragments of simple, flat base and wall. Worn, dull, red-brown paint. Underside, and band at base of wall, reserved;three broad bands of paint preserved above.

Figure 17. Oinochoe 54

BUILDING

Z AT

KOMMOS

207

I,

59

_'A

.

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---

62

60

`1

j

71 Figure18. BuildingZ. Kraters. Scale 1:3

t

76 KRATERS STIRRUP-HANDLED

AND

RELATED

57

Krater,pedestal C7046 (36B/2 and 5; 65A1/12

and 65A2/22). P.H. ca. 6, Diam. at base ca. 22. Fine ware red-tan, 2.5YR 6/6. Eight fragments, mending to five; see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 263. Fully painted outside in the red-chestnut glaze typical of this workshop. A fragment of rim akin to that of 79 may belong. The shape and horizontal ribbing on the exterior are features borrowed from other parts of the Greek world, which at Knossos appear confined to the EG and MG period. Cf. Coldstream 1972, p. 79 and KNC, p. 375, arguing an Attic derivation. There are Ionian models too; see SamosV, pls. 7 and 14 (800750 B.C.). The number of broadly Cycladic or Ionian imports at Kommos in this period bids us

beware of using Atticizing Knossos as the sole possible source. 58

Krater,pedestal

C7048 (36B/5). P.H. 5.3, Diam. at top ca. 12. Fine ware, orange-buff, 7.5YR 6/6. Three fragments of stem, with part of floor of bowl; see Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 265. Fully painted on exterior and on interior of the bowl. Ribbed.

Relatedto 57. 59

Krater,pedestal

Fig. 18

C7813 (65A1/12). P.H. 3, Diam. (foot) 20. Light red clay with small silvery micaceous inclusions. Fragment of foot. Glaze fired redbrown. Painted on outside, save for a reserved band. Certainly does not belong to 76 or 80.

208

ALAN

W.

JOHNSTON

Of/ 72

-.1I~

74

64

/

70 Figure 19. Building Z. Kraters. Scales 1:6 (64, 72) and 1:4 (70, 74)

Figure 20 (left). Stirrup-krater 65 Figure 21 (right). Krater 66

BUILDING

60

Z AT

KOMMOS

Krater(s?),pedestal

209

Fig. 18

C9580 (82A/17). Diam. (foot) ca. 20. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/6. Three nonjoining fragments of edge of foot, stem, and top of pedestal of probably two kraters (the restored drawing highlights the difficulty of fitting the stem fragment at the angle required by the other two). Narrow resting surface. Glaze fired red-brown, worn. Wholly painted outside and on bowl inside. Not same vessel(s) as 57 or 58, but possibly belongs with 113. 61

Krater,pedestal

C9722 (82B/50). Diam. (foot) ca. 18. Fine light red clay, 5YR 7/6. Fragment of foot. Narrow resting surface;first rib of stem just preserved above. Paint fired dark brown. Three reserved bands on top of foot. Close in fabric to 58. 62

Krater,pedestal

Fig. 18

C10716 (82B/52). P.H. 2.9, Diam. (foot) ca. 19. Fine micaceous pinkish beige clay, 7.5YR 7/6. Fragment of edge of pedestal. No trace of decoration preserved on very worn surface. Fabric similar to 59, but not the same piece. The clay here does suggest a non-Cretan origin. 63

Krater,pedestal

C9748 (81B/67). Max. p. dim. 8. Fine light red clay, 10YR 6/6. Single fragment, part of base and lowest rib of stem. Extremely worn; glaze fired red-brown. Fabric similar to 60, 79, and 113, but thicker. 64

Krater,rim and body

Fig. 19

C9766 (82A/10 and 31; 82B/50, 52, 53). Diam. (rim) ca. 40. Fine light purplish red clay, 5YR 7/4 in core. One fragment of rim, ten of body (five joining), and four joining of handle. Some lower body fragments and one rather flat sherd of a pedestal base may or may not belong (one of these from pail 31, which, stratigraphically speaking, lies both horizontally and vertically between

the rest). Much worn. Inside wholly painted. Sets of bars on top of rim (no set fully preserved). Four bands on outside of lip. Triple vertical zigzag between sets of four verticals at edge of panel. To center, part of a meander pattern above a strip of triple horizontal zigzags, with triple line between. Lower part of panel extremely worn. Bars across strap handle. Though the firing is rather different from that of 65, it is plausible that the two, together with 66, come from the same krater.The outside of the rim would have been fully glazed between the "warts"and decorated with four bands on the rest of the circumference; a "wart"would then have been placed just beyond the break to the right of the rim fragment of 64. The fabric is the same as that of skyphoi 85 and 86. 65

Stirrup-krater,rim

Fig. 20

C9762 (65A2/22). P.H. 7.5. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/4. Two joining fragments of rim and shoulder.Thick, everted rim, 2.4 high. Generally worn. A "wart"preserved on rim to right, the face decorated with an eightpointed star. Paint fired generally medium to dark red-brown. Inside once painted, now very worn. Top of lip reserved, with three bars preserved. On outside of lip, to left of wart, four horizontals; fully painted to right (presumably near the handle join). On shoulder, five verticals to right, triple vertical zigzag in center, and a single vertical line preserved to left. Cf. 64 above. 66

Krater,rim and handle

Fig. 21

C9764 (65A2/22 and 23). Diam. (rim) ca. 40, Diam. (handle) 2.2, W. (strap element) 3.8. Fine red-buff clay, 5YR 7/4. Five joining fragments of handle and three of rim of perhaps one krater.Thick everted rim, 2.2 high. Paint unevenly fired. Inside painted; top of rim reserved, with one set of six bars preserved. Outside of rim and shoulder painted, though very worn. Outside of loop handle painted; on the strap X between sets of six horizontals. Associable with 64, 65, and 67.

ALAN

2IO

W.

JOHNSTON

Figure 22. Krater 67 67

Krater,rim and handle

Fig. 22

C9630 (82A/10; 82B/50, 52). P.W. 13. Fine red-buff clay, 5YR 7/4 in core. Eight fragments, severaljoining. Varying wear on the fragments. Thick rim, 2.4 high and 1.4 thick; one "wart"preserved, presumably flanking a handle attachment. Round, horizontal handle, rising high and once joined to rim by a strap. Rim painted, save the top, on which sets of bars are painted (five in the one fully preserved set), and the face of the "wart,"on which is an eightpointed star. Similar to, but not from the same piece, as 64-66. 68

Krater,pedestal and bowl

C9765 (65A2/23). P.H. 3.7, Th. (wall) 2. Fine buff clay, 10YR 7/3 in core, 5YR 7/6 on surface. Fragment of pedestal with part of floor of bowl. Extremely heavily worn; outside may have been ribbed and painted; some paint left on floor of bowl. 69

very dark:two stripes preserved on strap;thin bars between bands, on round handle. 70

Krater,rim

Fig. 19

C10087 (82A/26). P.H. 6 .5l Diam. (rim) 34. Fine light brown clay, 7.5YR 7/4. Four joining fragrrients of rim and shoulder. Plain verticoal rim above sloping shoulder. Dull, sstreaky, dark brown paint. Inside whol ly painted. Top of lip reserved, writhone set of five bars preserved. Out,side glazed down to reserved band at lowest preserved point. 71

Krater,rim

Fig. 18

C7918 (65A2/23). P.H. 5 '7) Diam. (rim) 23.3. Pale red cla' yyI 2.5YR 6/4, with some mica. Two joining rim and shoulder fragrnents. Vertical offset rim, flat-toppec fired streaky medium brown. Sx. ix bars bars preserved on top of reserved lilp.Four irregularlyset reserved lines orn outside. Parts of hatched mearider hooks on shoulder below.

Krater,stirrup handle

C9767 (65A2/22). Diam. (handle) 1.8. Fine orange-buff clay, 7.5YR 6/6. Single fragment. Handle from a comparatively small krater; most of the round handle and part of the strap preserved. Paint fired

72

Krater

Fig. 19

C9700 (82B/50 and 52, and ldsed fragments from 65A2/22 not i included in drawing). P.H. 10.2, Diam. (rim) 38, Diam. (foot) 12.8, W. (stro yy10YR handles) 3.4. Fine light red cLaty lOYR

The very fragmentary nature of this material makes any assessment of the total number of pieces represented hazardous. There are at least six feet of different diameter.

6/6. Eight fragments, including two sets of three, of rim, upper wall, and handle, and thirteen fragments of lower wall and foot. Open-bowled kraterwith sharply everted rim and wide strap handles (but not stirruphandled). Slightly flaring ring foot, 1.3 high. One fragment somewhat burnt. Paint fired dark chocolate brown on the outside, orange-red in. Inside painted, save for top of rim. Top and bottom of rim outside reserved, also the area under the handle; wavy line between bands on outside of handle. 73

Krater,body

C9680 (82B/50). Max. p. dim. 7.5. Fine light red clay, 10YR 6/6. Two joining fragments of body, with handle attachment. Much worn, especially the edges. Dark brown paint; reserved in area behind handle, painted below. Almost certainly from same krater as 72. 74

Krater,rim and shoulder Fig. 19

C10631 (65A2/22). P.H. 3.3, Diam. (rim) 34. Fine buff-brown clay, 5YR 6/4. Two joining fragments of rim and shoulder. Painted, as far as preserved, save for top of rim, which is reserved with sets of six bars. Probably from a stirrup-handled krater.

BUILDING

Z AT

Figure 23 (left). Krater 75

OTHER

TYPES

Figure 24 (right). Krater(?) 77

75

211

KOMMOS

Krater, rim and

Figs. 23, 33

body C9723 (82A/10 and 82B/50). P.H. 15.5, Diam. (rim) 40, Th. 1.4. Hard-fired medium coarse buff-pink clay, 5YR 7/3, with some large dark inclusions and creamy slip. Five joining and four further fragments of rim and upper wall. Thick-walled kraterwith ledge rim and ridge at top of wall. Extremely worn. Broad band near rim inside. Traces of paint on outside of rim. Set of at least eleven concentric circles on wall, with central cross. 76

Krater,rim and body

Fig. 18

C8054 (65A2/24; the pail spans the broad depth range 3.56 to 4.46 m). P.H. 11.5, Diam. (rim) ca. 35. Near fine, light red clay, 2.5YR 6/4, with large dark red and white inclusions. Three joining fragments of rim and wall. Flat-topped flaring rim; slight molding outside at top of wall. Rim wholly painted, save for top. On upper wall, part of central strip of decoration preserved, flanked on right by triple vertical line and part of a hatched feature. Band of crosshatched hour-glass ornament above one of wholly painted butterfly set in doubly outlined rectangle; further hourglass band below. For hatched hourglass patterns in central strip, see KNC, fig. 57:5, and more chaotically, fig. 59:1. Probably no later than PGB.

77

Krater(?),body

Fig. 24

C10104 (65A2/22). Max. p. dim. 9.2, Th. 1.6. Semicoarse yellowbuff clay, 7.5YR 8/4, with many inclusions. Single fragment of wall of large vase, probably a krater.Rather worn paint: part of a set of concentric circles preserved. 78

Krater(?),body

C10106 (65A2/22). Max. p. dim. 5.9. Fine buff clay, 5YR 7/4, with paler buff surface. Single fragment of shoulder, with handle scar. Slightly curving rather thin-walled fragment of a large vase. Large handle scar,with two sections of a group of concentric circles in fine brown lines beside it. 79 Belly-handled jar C7040 (36B/21; a foot fragment from 65A2/22 may belong). P.H. ca. 14, Diam. (rim) ca. 15. Fine ware, orange-buff, 5YR 6/8. Twelve fragments, mending to eight, of rim and wall, with much of one horizontal handle. See Callaghan and Johnston 2000, no. 262. The exterior is painted except for two reserved horizontals on the upper shoulder and a low frieze between the handles, which is decorated with close-set verticals. Bars, perhaps continuous, on top of lip. The fabric is close to that of several of the stirrup-kraters.

ALAN

2I2

W.

JOHNSTON

SKYPHOI

80

Skyphos

Fig. 25

C9729 (82B/50,52,53). H. 8.8, Diam. (rim) 14. Fine pale red clay,

TC-, /

G

o

o ?x?0Vou TOy xpox&rcov pxTo; Bpoop&vtot;. xocXi~ 'xou0' o&c0o =Toc~ ~TCOT XaXocvrq6POOv xa6ov 6ppxOV.

x'

As soon as I was seven years old, I was an Arrephoros; then I was a Grinder; when I was ten, at the Brauronia, I shed my saffron gown as one of the Foundress'sBears; and I was also once a basket-bearer,a beautiful girl, wearing a string of dried figs.

152. Sourvinou-Inwood1988, pp.33-38,55-57. 153. Ar. Lys. 641-647; trans.A. Sommerstein.See also Neils 1992, at the pp. 23-24, for the kanephoros Panathenaia. 154. Geagan (1994, pp. 167-169) discussesthe dedicatorymonuments for kanephoroi. 155. Athens pelike:see note 78. 156. Sourvinou-Inwood1988, p. 95, note 256. See also Van Straten 1981, p. 84, for the figure as a servant carryinga cista.

Being a kanephorosis the last in the series of roles played only by selected aristocraticyoung women. It is the stage just preceding marriage, represented by an iconographical type similar to the bride.154For example, on a pelike in Athens, the same peplos and crossbands are worn by both bride and attendant."55According to Sourvinou-Inwood, the kanephorosis represented with full breasts,but she is slightly shorter than any adult female with her. She is not to be confused with the cista-bearers,who appear in the back row of groups on some votive reliefs, as Sourvinou-Inwood was the ideal proclaims.'56Although the beautiful and virginal kanephoros totype of well-born young women in Classical Greece, all young women could be represented as parthenoi at the moment between childhood and adulthood. They were portrayed as such in 4th-century Athens wearing thc spccial costumc of back-mantle and peplos.

262

LINDA

JONES

ROCCOS

CONCLUSIONS Maidenswho wearthe back-mantleandpeplosin the 4th centuryB.C. can no longer remain anonymous among so many "standing females" on funerary monuments. Their distinctive costume sets them apart from the multitude of women wearing the chiton with himation. Although there are only sixty-eight monuments representingthese maidens out of a much largertotal corpus, the monuments are of high quality.The maiden is usually portrayed alone in a heroizing manner or with a small slave or servant girl. Less often she is shown within a family group, which may reflect the loss to family and society of a future mother. Athena and Artemis also wear this costume in the late 5th and 4th centuries B.C., and an association of the maidens with these goddesses was most likely intended. In a similar fashion, devotees of Isis dressed in the same garment as the goddess to identify themselves with her; the devotees were not necessarilypriestesses, but worshippers."57 Likewise, the maidens in back-mantle and peplos are not priestesses, but important in their own right. The maiden's size, pose, and unique costume emphasize her importance within a group. She appearsyounger than adults in group scenes but older than the child attendants often accompanying them. She is usually shown in the forefront of a group and is always standing. She often has a smaller attendant, as do older women on grave stelai. Finally, her costume of back-mantle and peplos distinguishes her from other females. She represents the ideal maiden, the postpubescentparthenoson the brink of marriage, arrayedin her festival costume. The maidens who wear this distinctive and easily identifiable costume occupied a special place within their families and wider society of Classical Greece.'58They were of an age to be married, and their deaths meant the loss of future offspring, a loss not only to their families but to the entire culture. Votive reliefs that represent the maidens remind us of the young women's participation in ritual. Splendid funerary monuments underline the maidens' importance to their own families, who erected their memorials, and to Classical Greek civilization as a whole.

157. Walters 1988, pp. 56-57. 158. See Larson 1995 and Lyons 1997 for recentworks on the heroizing of females in ancient Athens; girls and young women in particularwere greatly esteemed.

BACK-MANTLE

AND

PEPLOS

263

REFERENCES Agora XI = E. Harrison,Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture (Agora XI),

Princeton 1965. Alexandri,0. 1969. "FamilyBurial Terracenear the Road to the Academy,"AAA 2, pp. 257-266. Barber,E. J. W. 1992. "The Peplos of Athena,"in Neils 1992, pp. 103117. Beaumont,L. 1994. "Constructinga Methodology for the Interpretation of Childhood Age in Classical Athenian Iconography," ArchaeologicalReviewfrom Cambridge 13:2, pp. 81-96. Bergemann,J. 1997. Demos und Thanatos: Untersuchungenzum Wertsystemder Polis im Spiegel der attischen Grabreliefsdes 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. und zur Funktion dergleichzeitigen Grabbauten,Munich. Bieber,M. 1928. GriechischeKleidung,

Berlin. .1977. Ancient Copies: Contributions to the History of Greekand Roman Art, New York.

Bieber,M., and F. Eckstein. 1967. Entwicklungsgeschichteder griechischen Tracht von der vorgriechischen Zeit bis zum Ausgang der Antike, 2nd ed., Berlin. Boardman,J.1985. GreekSculpture: The Classical Period, London. 1995. GreekSculpture:The Late Classical Period and Sculpture in Colonies and Overseas, London. Brommer,F. 1977. Die Parthenonfries: Katalog und Untersuchung,Mainz. Brouskari,M. 1974. The Acropolis Museum, Athens. Brown, B. R. 1973. Anticlassicism in GreekSculpture of the Fourth Century B. c., New York.

Briimmer,E. 1985. "Griechische Truhenbehalter,"JdI 100, pp. 1-168. Clairmont,C. W. 1970. Gravestone and Epigram: GreekMemorialsfrom the Archaic and Classical Periods, Mainz.

. 1979. "The Lekythos of Myrrhine,"in Kopckeand Moore 1979, pp. 103-110. . 1993. ClassicalAttic Tombstones, Introduction,I-Vil, Kilchberg.

Clinton, K. 1992. Myth and Cult: TheIconography of theEleusinianMysteries,Stockholm. Conze, A. 1893-1922. Die attischenGrabreliefs I-IV, Berlin. Davies, G. 1985. "The Significance of the HandshakeMotif in ClassicalFuneraryArt," AJA 89, pp. 627-640. Diepolder,H. 1931. Die attischen des5. und4. Grabreliefs v. Chr.,Berlin. Jahrhunderts Filges, A. 1997. Standbilder jugendlicherGottinnen: Klassischeundfriihhellenistiche Gewandstatuenmit Brustwulst und ibrekaiserzeitliche Rezeption,Cologne. Frel,J. 1969. Lessculpteurs attiques anonymes,430-300, Prague. FriisJohansen,K. 1951. The Attic GraveReliefsof the Classical Period,Copenhagen. Geagen, D. 1994. "Childrenin Athenian DedicatoryMonuments,"Boeotiaantiqua4, pp. 163-173. Geddes, A. G. 1987. "Ragsto Riches:The Costume of Athenian Men in the Fifth Century,"CQ 37, pp. 307331. Gullberg,E., and P. Astrom. 1970.TheThreadofAriadne:A StudyofAncientGreekDress, Goteborg. Harris,D. 1995. TheTreasures of the Parthenonand theErechtheion,Oxford. Harrison,E. B. 1977. "The Shoulder-Cordof Themis,"in FestschriftuirFrankBrommer, U. Hockmann and A. Krug, eds., Mainz, pp. 155-161. .1979. "Apollo'sCloak," in Kopckeand Moore 1979, pp. 91-98. .1984. "Time in the ParthenonFrieze,"in Basel: Parthenon-Kongress ReferateundBerichte,4. bis 8. April1 982, E. Berger,ed., Mainz, I, pp. 230-234; II, pp. 416-418.

. 1989. "HellenicIdentity and Athenian Identity in the Fifth CenturyB.C.," in Cultural Dfferentiationand CulturalIdentityin the VisualArts (Studies in the History of Art 27), S. J. Barnes and W. S. Melion, eds., Washington, D.C., pp. 41-61. 1991. "The Dress of the Archaic Greek Korai,"in New Perspectives in Early GreekArt (Studies in the History of Art 32), D. Buitron-Oliver,ed., Washington, D.C., pp. 217-239. Hausmann,U. 1948. Kunst und Heiltum:Untersuchungen zu den griechischenAsklepiosreliefs, Potsdam. 1960.Griechische Weibreliefs, Berlin. Herington, C. J. 1955. AthenaParthenos andAthenaPolias.A Studyin the Religionof PericleanAthens, Manchester. Higgins, R. A. 1980. Greekand Roman Jewellery, 2nd ed., Berkeley. Humphreys,S. C. 1993. The Family, Women,and Death: Comparative Studies, 2nd ed., Ann Arbor. Jucker,I. 1967. "ArtemisKindyas,"in Gestaltund Geschichte: Festschrift KarlSchefold(AntK-BH4), M. Rohde-Liegle, H. A. Cahn, and H. C. Ackermann,eds., Bern, pp. 133-145. Kabus-Jahn,R. 1972. Die Grimanische in Venedig(AntP 11), Figurengruppe Berlin. Kanta,K. 1979.Eleusis:Myth,Mysteries,History,Museum,Athens. Karouzou,S. 1979. "Bemalteattische Weihreliefs,"in Kopcke and Moore 1979, pp. 111-116. XV = B. Vierneisel-Schlorb, Kerameikos I: DiefigurlichenTerrakotten bisspathellenistisch Spatmykenisch (Kerameikos XV), Munich1997. Kingsley,B. 1975. "The Stele of Myttion," GettyMusJ2, pp. 7-16. Knauer,E. 1978. "Towardsa History of the Sleeved Coat: A Study of the Impact of an Ancient Eastern Garment on the West,"Expedition 21:1, pp. 18-36. Kokula,G. 1984. Marmorlutrophoren (AM-BH 10), Berlin.

264

Kopcke,G., and M. B. Moore, eds. 1979.Studiesin ClassicalArtand A Tributeto Peter Archaeology. Heinrichvon Blanckenhagen, Locust Valley,N.Y. Kosmopoulou,A. 1998. "AFunerary Base from Kallithea:New Light on Fifth-Century Eschatalogy,"AJA 102, pp.531-545. Larson,J. 1995. GreekHeroineCults, Madison. Laurens,A.-F. 1987. "Identification d'Hebe? Le nom, l'un et le in Imageset societeen multiple," Greceancienne:L'iconographie comme methoded'analyse,C. Berard, C. Bron, and A. Pomari,eds., Lausanne,pp. 59-72. Lawton, C. A. 1995. Attic Document Reliefs:Artand Politicsin Ancient Athens,Oxford. Lee, M. M. 1999. "The Myth of the ClassicalPeplos"(diss. Bryn Mawr College). Linders,T. 1972.Studiesin the Treasure RecordsofArtemisBrauroniaFound inAthens,Stockholm. . 1984. "The kandys in Greece and Persia,"OpAth15, pp. 107-114. Losfeld,G. 1991.Essaisurle costume grec,Paris. . 1994.L'artgrecet le vedtement, Paris. Lygkopoulos,T. 1983. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie derPlastikdes4. Jhs. v. Chr.,Bonn. Lyons,D. 1997.Genderand Immortality:Heroinesin AncientGreekMyth and Cult,Princeton. Mangold, M. 1993. Athenatypenauf attischenWeibreliefs des5. und4. Jhs. v. Chr.,Bern. Mansfield,J. 1985. TheRobeofAthena and thePanathenaicPeplos(diss. Universityof California,Berkeley). Metzger, H. 1942-1943. "Leb&s gamikos a figuresrouges du Mus6e BCH 46-47, pp.228d'Ath&nes," 247. Meyer,M. 1989. Die griechische Urkundenreliefs (AM-BH 13), Berlin. Miller,M. E. 1989. "The ependytesin ClassicalAthens,"Hesperia 58, pp. 313-329. . 1997.Athensand Persiain the Ffith CenturyB. C., Cambridge. Mitchel, F.W. 1970. Lykourgan Athens:

LINDA

JONES

ROCCOS

338-322 B.C. (Lecturesin Memory of Louise Taft Semple,2nd series), Cincinnati.

Mylonas, G. E. 1961. Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton. Neils, J., ed. 1992. Goddessand Polis. The Panathenaic Festival in Ancient Athens, Princeton. Neumann, G. 1979. Probleme des griechischen Weibreliefs,Tiibingen.

Nicholls, R. V. 1995. "The SteleGoddess Workshop:Terracottas fromWell U 13:1 in the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 64, pp. 405-492. Oakley,J.H. 1982. "The Anakalypteria,"AA,pp. 113-118. Oakley,J.H., and R. H. Sinos. 1993. The Weddingin GreekArt, Madison. Osborne,M. J, and S. G. Byrne. 1996. Lexicon of GreekPersonal Names II: Attica, Oxford. Palagia,0. 1982. "AColossal Statue of a Personificationfrom the Agora of Athens,"Hesperia 51, pp. 99-113. 1994. "No Demokrateia,"in The Archaeology ofAthens andAttica under the Democracy,W. D. E.

Coulson, ed., Oxford, pp. 113-122. Pekridou-Gorecki,A. 1989. Mode im antiken Griechenland:Textile Fertigung und Kleidung, Munich.

Pemberton,E. G. 1989. "The Dexiosis on Attic Gravestones,"MeditArch 2, pp. 45-50. Polaschek,K. 1969. Untersuchungenzu griechischenMantelstatuen: Der Himationtypus mitArmschlinge,

Berlin. Reeder,E. D. 1995. Pandora: Womenin Classical Greece,Baltimore. Reilly,J. 1989. "ManyBrides:'Mistress and Maid' on Athenian Lekythoi," Hesperia 58, pp. 411-444. . 1997. "Nakedand Limbless: Learningabout the Feminine Body in Ancient Athens,"in Naked Truths: Women,Sexuality, and Gender in ClassicalArt and Archaeology, A. 0. Koloski-Ostrowand

C. L. Lyons, eds., London, pp. 154173. Richter,G. M. A. 1968. Korai, Princeton. Ridgway,B. S. 1977. The Severe Style in GreekSculpture, Princeton. 1981. Fifth-Century Styles in GreekSculpture,Princeton.

. 1990. Hellenistic SculptureI, Madison. . 1997. Fourth-Century Styles in GreekSculpture,Madison. Roccos, L. J. 1986. "Introducingthe 'Rheitoi Athena,"'AJA90, p. 208 (abstract). . 1991. "Athenafrom a House on the Areopagus,"Hesperia 60, pp. 397-410. .1995. "The Kanephorosand Her FestivalMantle in Greek Art," AJA99, pp. 641-666. Schaeffer,J. A. 1975. "The Costume of the Korai:A Reinterpretation," CSCA8, pp. 241-256. Schmaltz,B. 1970. Untersuchungenzu den attischen Marmorlekythen, Berlin. . 1978. "Zu einer attischer Grabmalbasesdes 4. Jahrhundertsv. Chr.,"AM 93, pp. 83-97. . 1983. GriechischeGrabreliefs, Darmstadt. Schmidt, R. 1977. Die Darstellung von Kinderspielzeug und Kinderspiel in dergriechischeKunst, Vienna. Schmidt, S. 1991. Hellenistische Grabreliefs. Typologischeund chronologische Beobachtungen, Cologne.

Scholl, A. 1995. "XOH(DOPOI:Zur Deutung der Korenhalledes Erechtheion,"JdI110, pp. 179-212. . 1996. Die attischen Bildfeldstelen des 4. Jhs. v. Chr: Untersuchungen zu den kleinformatigen Grabreliefsim spitklassischenAthen,

Berlin. Schuirmann,W. 1989. Katalog der antiken Terrakottenim Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsrube, Goteborg.

Serwint, N. 1993. "The Female Athletic Costume at the Heraia and PrenuptialInitiation Rites,"4AJA 97, pp. 403-422. Shear,T. L. 1935. "The Sculpture Found in 1933,"Hesperia 4, pp. 371-420. Simon, E. 1997. "AnInterpretationof the Nike Temple Parapet,"in The Interpretation ofArchitectural Sculpture in Greeceand Rome

(Studies in the History of Art 49), D. Buitron-Oliver,ed., Washington, D.C., pp. 127-143. Sourvinou-Inwood,C. 1988. Studies in Girls' Transitions. Aspects of the Arkteia andAge Representation in Attic Iconography,Athens.

BACK-MANTLE

Stears,K. 1995. "DeadWomen's Society: ConstructingFemale Gender in ClassicalAthenian FunerarySculpture,"in Time, Traditionand Societyin Greek Bridgingthe "Great Archaeology. Divide,"N. Spencer,ed., London, pp. 109-131. An Stewart,A. F. 1990. GreekSculpture. Exploration,New Haven. Sturgeon,M. C. 1995. "The Corinth Amazon: Formationof a Roman 99, ClassicalSculpture,"4AJA pp. 483-505. Thompson, D. B. 1944. "The Golden Nikai Reconsidered,"Hesperia 13, pp. 173-209. . 1954. "ThreeCenturiesof HellenisticTerracottas:I, B and C," Hesperia 23, pp. 72-107. Todisco,L. 1993.SculturagrecadelIV secolo:Maestrie scuoledi statuariatra edellenismo,Milan. classicitai Tolle-Kastenbein,R. 1980. Peplosfiguren: Friihklassische Originale,Mainz. Traill,J. S. 1994-. PersonsofAncient Athens 1-8, Toronto. Trendall,A. D. 1967. TheRed-Figured

COLLEGE

OF STATEN

iL-io9D

2800

VICTORY

STATEN

ISLAND,

Van Straten,F. 1981. "Giftsfor the Gods,"in Faith, Hope, and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World,H. S. Versnel,ed., Leiden, pp. 65-151. Vedder,U. 1985. Untersuchungenzur plastischen Ausstattung attischer Grabanlagen des 4. Jhr. v. Chr.,

Frankfurt. Vorster,C. 1983. GriechischeKinderstatuen, Cologne. Walters,E. 1988. Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress of Isis (Hesperia Suppl.22), Princeton. Winkler, H. 1996. Die tiefe Guirtung: Ein verkanntes Motiv dergriechischen Frauenbekleidung, Rheinfelden. Woysch-Meautis,D. 1982. La representation des animaux et des eHtres fabuleux sur les monumentsfuneraires grecs:De l'epoquearchaYquea lafin du IVe siecle av. j - C., Lausanne.

LJRSI@CUNYVM

ISLAND

BOULEVARD NEW .CUNY.

YORK EDU

PEPLOS

VasesofLucania, Campania, and Sicily, Oxford. . 1987. The Red-Figured Vasesof Paestum, London. Trumpf-Lyritzaki,M. 1969. Griechische Figurenvasen des reichenStils und der spdten Klassik, Bonn.

Linda Jones Roccos LIBRARY

AND

I03I4

265

6LORIA S. MERKER

JustPublished

The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenis tic, and Roman Periods

This volume publishes the terracotta figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on Acrocorinth. The coroplastic finds from this site, numbering in total about 24,000 figurines and fragments, greatly enrich the known body of Corinthian figurines not only in number but also in the addition of many entirely new types and styles. Working far beyond the output of the Potters' Quarter workshops, the Corinthian coroplasts arerevealed as inventive, often highly adept in technique, and attuned to stylistic developments in the plastic arts in general. Evidence of terracotta figurines and small bronze ones, especially in the 4th and early 3rd centuries B.C., through the use of shared models, provides a glimpse of the mostly lost bronze production of that period. The figurines are also important because they help to explicate the meaning and conduct of the cult of Demeter and Kore in Corinth. The figural coroplastic art provides additional data on the deities and heroes recognized at the sanctuary,the age and gender of the participants in the rituals, the offerings they brought, and the nature of their cultic activities. Beyond these data, the figurines are examined for what they may reveal through their imagery of the underlying ideas of the cult, how the deities were perceived,why they were approached,and how the cult functioned as a part of Corinthian society.

394 pages, 79 plates

Corinth XVIII,iv ISBN 0-87661-184-6 May 2000. Cloth $100.00

HESPERIA

SUPPLEMENTS

13 Marcus Aurelius:Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East,

by James H. Oliver (1970). $15.00 14

The Political Organization ofAttica, byJohn S. Trail (1975). $15.00

15

The Lettering of anAthenian Mason, by Stephen V. Tracy(1975). $15.00

16 A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos, by Merle K. Langdon (1976).

$15.00 17 Kallias of Sphettosand the Revolt ofAthens in 286 byT. Leslie ShearJr.(1978). $15.00

B.C.,

19 Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and TopographyPresented to Eugene Vanderpool (1982).$15.00 20 Studies in Athenian Architecture,Sculpture,and TopographyPresented to HomerA. Thompson(1982). $15.00 21 Excavations at Pylos in Elis, by John E. Coleman (1986). $25.00 22 Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Womenin the Dress of Isis, by ElizabethJ. Walters (1988). $40.00 23 Hellenistic Relief Moldsfrom theAthenian Agora, by ClaireveGrandjouan (1989). $25.00 24 The Prepalatial Cemeteriesat Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombsof BronzeAge Crete,byJeffrey S. Soles (1992). $35.00 25

Debrisfrom a Public Dining Place in theAthenian Agora,

by Susan I. Rotroff andJohn H. Oakley (1992). $35.00 26 The Sanctuary ofAthena Nike inAthens:Architectural Stages and Chronology, by Ira S. Mark (1993). $50.00 27

Proceedingsof the International Conferenceon GreekArchitectural Terracottasof the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, December 12-15, 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 TheAthenianGrain-TaxLaw of 374/3 B.C., by RonaldS. Stroud(1998). $35.00

H THE OF

E$PER

JOURNAL

OF THE

CL A S S I C A L

AMERICAN

STUDIES

AT VOLUME

AM .p

SCHOOL ATTHENS 69:

NUMBER 2000

gJULY-SEPTEMBER

Clasia Stde 2000

tAhns

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 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

JOURNAL

OF THE STUDIES

OF CLASSICAL

PUBLICATIONS STAFF

EVELYN

AMERICAN

SCHOOL

AT ATHENS

HARRISON

B.

Eumolpos Arrives in Eleusis

267

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

KerriCox EDITOR,

NATALIA

Hesperia

TraceyCullen EDITOR

ASSOCIATE

Michael Fitzgerald

Late Hellenistic Pottery in Athens: A New Deposit and FurtherThoughts on the Association of Pottery and Societal Change

293

ASSISTANT

EDITORIAL

SuzanneAbrams PRODUCTION

MANAGER

SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVE

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

MICHAEL

D.

DIXON

A New Latin and Greek Inscription from Corinth

335

COORDINATOR

JordanPeled MARKETING

MANAGER

PatriciaTanner

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago Jack L. Davis Universityof Cincinnati JeniferNeils Case Western ReserveUniversity James P. Sickinger Florida State University KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V. Tracy (ex officio)

The Ohio State University

JOHN AND

BENNET, FARIBA

JACK

L. DAVIS,

ZARINEBAF-SHAHR

Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part III: Sir William Gell's Itinerary in the Pylia and Regional Landscapes in the Morea in the Second Ottoman Period

343

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 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 legally exportedfrom the countryof origin. Subscriptions:The annualsubscriptionprice,payablein advancein dollars,is $55.00 for individuals,$65.00 for institutions, and $33.00 for studentswith valid I.D. Canada and other countries add $9.50 postage. We accept VISA 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 ClassicalStudiesat Athens, 6-8 Charlton Street,Princeton,NewJersey 08540-5232 U.S.A. OrderIndex Volume2 and Supplements 13 and following from UniversityMuseum Publications,Universityof PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeologyand Anthropology,33rd and Spruce Streets,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania19104 U.S.A.

Copyright ?) 2000 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. Postmaster. Send addresschanges to 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

hesper ia 69, 2000 Pa ge s 2 6 7 – 29 1

EUMOLPOS ARRIVES IN ELEUSIS

A B S T RAC T The boy between Demeter and Kore in the Great Eleusinian Relief is commonly called Triptolemos, but Ploutos and Demophon have recently been proposed instead. Here I suggest that he is Eumolpos, receiving from Demeter a tainia depicted in paint. In attitude he resembles another son of Poseidon: Theseus, arriving in Athens to claim his inheritance. Other representations of Eumolpos are identified, youthful on the Parthenon west frieze and on a votive relief from the Athenian Eleusinion, and as a strong young man on the Parthenon west pediment. The Great Eleusinian Relief may commemorate a late-5th-century b.c. historical event.

In his richly informative book on Eleusinian iconography, Kevin Clinton points out that the identity of the youth in the “Great Eleusinian Relief ” in Athens (Fig. 1) has been a center of controversy ever since the relief was discovered in 1859: “A controversy that plays itself out against a backdrop of widespread belief that the figure is Triptolemos.”1 At present this remains the most favored identification, but Clinton advances serious arguments against it and proposes instead to understand the boy as Ploutos, handing up a bunch of wheat to Demeter rather than receiving one from her.2 1. I owe thanks to three anonymous Hesperia reviewers for queries and suggestions that helped to clarify my thoughts and my expression. Elizabeth Milleker discussed problems in front of the relief in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which combines a cast of the original with fragments of a Roman copy, and was especially helpful in obtaining photographs. Others to whom I am grateful for photographs and/or permissions are Hans Rupprecht Goette of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens;

Jasper Gaunt of the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University; D. Widmer, Basel; Skulpturhalle, Basel; the late John Travlos; and the late Frank Brommer. Clinton 1992, p. 39; see also pp. 48–49. Simon (1985, p. 117) repeats from earlier editions of the same work the mistaken statement that the relief was found “innerhalb des heiligen Bezirks von Eleusis.” As the original findspot next to the Church of St. Zacharias helped to foster the identification of the subject as Triptolemos

(Clinton 1992, pp. 48–49 with full citations), so Simon’s acceptance of a provenance inside the sanctuary led her to consider the work a sacred icon rather than a votive offering. In her most recent article, Simon corrects the information on the provenance of the relief (1998, p. 373), but maintains her hypothesis that it stood originally inside the Telesterion (pp. 377–378). 2. Clinton 1992, pp. 38–55, 83–84, 96, 103–104, 133–135; LIMC VII, 1994, pp. 416–420, s.v. Ploutos (K. Clinton).

268

e v e ly n b . h a r r i s o n Figure 1. Great Eleusinian Relief, Athens, National Museum 126. Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens

Both Triptolemos and Ploutos have standard attributes that they are very rarely without: the winged chariot for Triptolemos and the cornucopia for Ploutos. Triptolemos is ready to ride long distances to spread his gifts abroad; Ploutos comes up from the fertile earth wherever the seed has taken root. Neither is specifically related to travel on foot. Before deciding that the boy in the relief must be either Triptolemos or Ploutos and searching for arguments to explain his deviation from the standard iconography of one or the other, it might be preferable to look for another possibility. Elements that deserve more consideration are the positions of the hands of the figures, the placement of the attributes assumed to have been added in metal or in paint, the stance and implied character of the boy, and the significance of his footwear.3 The right hand of Demeter and that of the boy are closer together

3. Simon (1998) considers some of these questions and offers a suggestion that is, as far as I know, entirely new. She identifies the boy as Demophon, the nursling of Demeter in the Homeric Hymn. She makes a number of useful observations on the figures of the relief, which I am happy to accept. These observations do not, however, persuade me to abandon my own interpretation (the present article was largely written before hers appeared), though I have profited from some of her insights.

eumolpos arrives in eleusis

Figure 2. Detail of fragmentary Roman copy of the Great Eleusinian Relief incorporated in a cast of the original. Hands of Demeter and boy. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1914 (14.130.9). Photo S. Houston, courtesy Museum

4. See the numerous examples in the illustrations in Peschlow-Bindokat 1972 and Clinton 1992. 5. Clinton (1992, pp. 39–40) argues that in spite of the absence of drilled holes for attaching any object in the boy’s right hand, he might have held “a large number of stalks bunched together, so tightly pressed against his thumb and fingers that they could not slip out.” If, however, the sculptor intended to depict a tightly grasped bundle of stalks, such as is represented in the figure on the Lakrateides relief (Clinton 1992, figs. 5–6) and in the Hierophant dedication (Clinton 1992, fig. 55; here Fig. 10), the boy’s four fingers should curl together and the thumb should turn inward to touch or rest on top of the index finger. This is the normal hand position for grasping a bunch of twigs held by priests or other participants in a sacrificial procession (cf. Parthenon North X 41). In none of these examples is the bunch

269

than in most representations of objects being offered by one person to another (Fig. 2). In particular, this proximity is not convenient for depicting the transfer of a bunch of wheat. In vase paintings, the stalks spread out freely from the hand that grasps them and the heads nod, either symmetrically or in one direction. The length of the stalks and the weight of the heads proclaim the wealth of the harvest.4 The proponents of Triptolemos would restore the stalks held in Demeter’s hand, above which they should fan out to display the ripened heads against the background, while the boy is not yet fully grasping them. In fact, there is not enough background space above her hand for the grain to spread out properly, especially since there are no holes to attach a bunch of metal wheat that could have overlapped the scepter. The relation of the hands is even less favorable for Ploutos showing the grain to Demeter, since the boy’s hand is open as if reaching for something not yet fully grasped (Fig. 2).5 It is more probable that whatever was portrayed was painted on the marble. Demeter’s right index finger is lifted free, and her right thumb is hidden behind the other fingers. She must have held something between her thumb and one or more fingers, probably the middle one. The boy’s thumb, now broken off, was widely separated from his index finger, which has left its trace against the background. Though he was not grasping any object, something could have extended below Demeter’s hand over his open palm. The easiest thing to depict convincingly in paint would be a long fillet (tainia). Parallels from vase painting suggest that the goddess held it doubled, with a loop visible above her hand. Compare the representation on a Paestan neck-amphora by Python, made around the middle of the 4th century b.c. (Fig. 3).6 The orientation of stalks or twigs being offered to another person. Rather it seems to be held as an attribute of the one who carries it. Vase painting does not differ from sculpture in this kind of representation. Cf. Athena holding the suppliant twigs of the Seven against Thebes on the volute krater in Ferrara by the Painter of Bologna 279, ARV 2 612, no. 1. This vase also shows the gestures of the Seven greeting each other. The right hand of the boy on the Eleusinian Relief differs from these examples in that the index finger does not curl around together with the other fingers. The back of it adhered to the relief background as far as the second joint, where it was bent and is broken off. The thumb, whose base projects in high relief from the shallow concavity of the palm, rises vertically at such an angle that its tip cannot possibly have made contact with any of the fingers. That the three curled fingers were not

tightly curled is evident from the spacing of the two folds of skin at the base of the little finger. There would have been no need for the sculptor to model these folds if they were to be obscured by a cluster of stems. Finally, if the boy held an attached object, it would be strange if the sculptor who used drilled holes to attach metal additions elsewhere in the relief did not use them here. Simon’s suggestion (1998, pp. 376– 377) that Demeter and the boy are simply addressing each other is not demonstrably impossible, but it does not explain why Demeter’s thumb is hidden or why the boy’s hand is turned toward the viewer rather than the goddess. 6. Trendall 1987, pl. 111:a. Once New York Market, now in a private collection in New Jersey. For the date of Python, see the chronological chart in Trendall 1989, p. 271.

270

e v e ly n b . h a r r i s o n

of the scene is opposite that of the relief, with the goddess on the right and the boy on the left, and we can see exactly how the ribbon is held and how the ends fall. A tall female (probably Aphrodite, though she wears the same “Argive” peplos and shoulder mantle as Demeter in the relief ) holds the fillet up so high that the boy Eros, shorter than the boy on the relief, has to reach up for it. He stretches up both hands, with thumbs spread outward, and one end of the ribbon falls across his left palm as we must imagine one end of the ribbon in the Eleusinian relief to fall across the open right palm of Demeter’s protégé. The raised forearm of the latter is in low relief against the background and his wrist so positioned that a fillet could fall almost vertically over it and end against the flat background without being overlapped by his cloak. The other end, perhaps shorter as on the vase, will have been partly visible in the narrow space between the two hands and the overfall of Demeter’s peplos and can have emerged more fully farther down. It has generally been assumed that Kore, whose hand is visible above the boy’s head (Fig. 1), is crowning him with a wreath. A drilled hole in front of his forehead could have served to attach a wreath of metal. Lambert Schneider denied that there is a corresponding hole at the back of the boy’s head and concluded that he wore no wreath, but since wreaths are worn in most representations of participants in the Eleusinian Mysteries, be they mythological or contemporary individuals, a wreath is to be expected.7 Kore’s hand does not appear to be grasping the wreath, however; it is held in an open position above the crown of the boy’s head. The idea that she is anointing him with perfumed oil has been recently advanced by Simon, with supporting observations by Erika Zwierlein-Diehl and John Boardman. The latter remarked that the smooth hair on top of the boy’s head looks wet.8 Since the ends of Kore’s fingers and most of her thumb are broken off, one cannot refute the suggestion that she held a small perfume vase in her hand, but if so, the manner of its attachment is not clear. There is ample background space for an aryballos to be painted hanging on the wall above the boy.9 This would make it clear that Kore’s action is one of smoothing the oil on his hair (perhaps the vertical position of her hand is intended to leave it visible above the wreath to a viewer from below). Her action serves to establish a feeling of intimacy between Kore and the boy in this scene, while Demeter’s attitude is more formal. 7. Schneider 1973, pp. 105–106. His idea that the hole in front of the boy’s forehead was made to attach a forehead knot in metal is unconvincing. Given the profile view, the knot, if there were one, should have been carved together with the background. If some damage or oversight prevented this, it would have been reasonable to make a marble patch, but there is no dressing for this on the stone. Simon (1998, p. 376)

accepts the hair knot, however, and does not restore a wreath. For a 5thcentury example of a metal wreath attached only to the front of the head, see below (Fig. 13). 8. Simon 1998, pp. 381–383, note 48. 9. For a hanging aryballos painted on marble, see the late-5th- or early4th-century tombstone in the Kerameikos: Robertson 1959, pp. 153, 156.

Figure 3. Paestan neck-amphora by Python. Aphrodite and Eros. Photo D. Widmer, Basel


271

Figure 4. Red-figure cup by the Briseis Painter. Tondo, Theseus received by Amphitrite. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art. Purchase, Joseph Pulitzer Bequest, 1953 (53.11.4) and gift of Emily Dickinson Blake Vermeule, 1970 (1970.46). Courtesy Museum

10. Schwarz 1987, p. 196. 11. See Neils 1987 for discussion of these adventures and their illustration in art. They are first depicted in Attic vase painting of the late 6th century and become especially popular in the 5th. 12. The story is told in Bacchylides’ Third Dithyramb, Bacchyl. 17. For discussion, see Neils 1987, p. 10. 13. See Neils 1987, pl. X, figs. 46 and 47; pl. XII, figs. 55 and 56. 14. ARV 2 406, no. 7; von Bothmer 1987, pp. 52–53.

The stance of the boy and the character that it implies are essential clues to his identity. All agree that he is on familiar terms with the goddesses and accepted as their protégé, but he seems to be presenting himself formally for their acceptance like a soldier reporting to his captain. Schwarz expresses his attitude well: “stoltz und ehrfürchtig zugleich.”10 Attic vase painting offers a striking parallel in the representation of the young Theseus arriving in Athens after he has proved his paternity by passing through a series of trials. He first had to establish himself as the true son and heir of Aegeus, the King of Athens, by growing strong enough to raise the stone under which his father had hidden the tokens of his identity, a sword and a pair of sandals. With these he made his way on foot from Troizen to Athens, destroying a number of wicked and formidable opponents along the route.11 A separate trial of a very different kind established him as the son of Poseidon. He had to dive into the sea and retrieve a ring that Minos had thrown overboard. He not only recovered the ring but also brought back a crown that Amphitrite gave him along with a purple cloak.12 On first arriving in Athens from Troizen, Theseus in some vase paintings greets his human father, Aegeus. Sometimes Poseidon looks on.13 In a second version, which seems to represent his arrival after he has slain the Minotaur and brought home the rescued Athenian children, he greets Athena directly, while the grateful mothers surround him, offering fillets. The scene appears on a red-figure cup by the Briseis Painter in New York, made around 480–475 b.c. (Figs. 4–7).14 The cup also shows Theseus in

272


Figure 5. Side A of cup, Theseus at the palace of Poseidon prepares to leave. Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Figure 6. Side B of cup, Theseus arrives in Athens. Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York


273

Figure 7. Detail of side A of cup. Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

15. Bacchyl. 17.105–106. 16. The famous cup by Onesimos in the Louvre, ARV 2 318, no. 1, earlier than that of the Briseis Painter, depicts in its tondo a very young Theseus, supported on the hands of a small Triton, greeting Amphitrite enthroned in her chamber under the sea. Her left hand held “a large white wreath, now largely disappeared” (Neils 1987, pp. 60–61). Athena, mistress of Athens, with her owl in her hand, stands tall in the center of the tondo, overlapped by the hands of Theseus and Amphitrite. Neils points out that Athena, like Theseus, is a guest of Amphitrite. She inclines her head graciously to greet the mistress of the sea.

the tondo, being presented with a fillet by Amphitrite (Fig. 4). He stretches out his open hands below the raised hand of the goddess while his swaying stance adjusts to the underwater currents. On the outside of the cup he appears outside Poseidon’s palace, gently steadied by a large Triton of kingly aspect, while Poseidon bids him farewell and Nereids flank the scene (Fig. 5), much as the Athenian women do on the other side of the cup, where he presents himself to Athena (Fig. 6). Under the sea, Theseus wears his sword in both scenes, but, appropriately, he does not wear sandals. As he gestures in reverence toward Poseidon and in farewell to Amphitrite, he is wearing a wreath of flowers, evidently the wreath of roses mentioned by Bacchylides.15 This wreath projects beyond his forehead in the same way that is implied by the attachment hole in front of the forehead of the Eleusinian boy. In the undersea scenes of the Briseis Painter, Theseus is younger than in the scenes of his arrival in Athens, either before or after the Cretan adventure. This may seem to contradict mythological chronology, but that is not the point. Theseus under the sea is the nursling of Poseidon and Amphitrite, carried by the sea creatures in a realm in which he cannot walk.16 On land, by contrast, when he presents himself as heir to the throne of Athens he has learned to make his own way, guided and protected but not transported by the power of Athena. It is as a young prince who has proven his strength and intelligence on purely human terms that he presents himself to the goddess of Athens as ready and worthy to serve her. The central figure of the Great Eleusinian Relief presents himself to the Two Goddesses of Eleusis in the same manner. It is easiest to understand him as another son of Poseidon who is also a descendant of the royal

274


family of Athens, to wit, Eumolpos, the founder of the Eleusinian Mysteries and eponym of the genos of the Eumolpidai, from whom the Hierophant, the principal priest of the Mysteries, was chosen. The genealogy that made Eumolpos the son of Poseidon also made him part Thracian: he is the son of Chione, daughter of the Erechtheid Oreithyia, who was carried off from Athens by Boreas, the North Wind. Apollodoros (3.15.4) says that when Chione bore Eumolpos to Poseidon without her father’s knowledge, she threw him into the sea to hide the fact. Poseidon then saved him and carried him to Ethiopia and gave him to Benthesikyme, daughter of Poseidon and Amphitrite, to rear. Most sources take the son of Chione and Poseidon to be the Eumolpos who came as an ally of Eleusis against Athens. Even this strains genealogical logic, since he is the greatgrandson of Erechtheus, but in art relationships are often stressed at the expense of chronology. On the skyphos by Makron in London,17 the swan beside Eumolpos and the scepter in his hand mark him as the first Hierophant, the swan representing his beautiful voice and the scepter his divinely sanctioned authority (Fig. 8). At the same time the images of Poseidon with his dolphin and Amphitrite standing beside him recall the divine paternity of Eumolpos and his childhood immersion in the sea (Fig. 9). Eumolpos, like other important figures in the Eleusinian sphere, is depicted at various ages, and his identifiable representations are not as numerous as those of Triptolemos and Ploutos. Nevertheless, Clinton has

Figure 8. Skyphos by Makron. Eumolpos with swan. London, British Museum E 140. Courtesy Museum

Figure 9. Skyphos by Makron. Poseidon with dolphin. London, British Museum E 140. Courtesy Museum

17. ARV 2 459, no. 3; Clinton 1992, p. 138, “Eumolpos in Attic Vase Painting,” no. 1, with bibliography, pls. 193–194, discussion p. 75; Agora XXXI, pp. 53–55, pls. 20–21.


275

Figure 10. Votive relief dedicated to Demeter and Kore by a Hierophant. Antonine period. Athens, temporarily stored in the Agora Museum. Courtesy J. Travlos

18. Clinton 1992, p. 139, “Eumolpos in Sculpture,” no. 1, with bibliography, discussion p. 75. The marble relief was found in excavations by John Travlos in 1959 north of the Olympieion precinct. It has never received full publication, but Eugene Vanderpool gave a good brief account of its finding, with a plan of the site and a photograph of the relief: Vanderpool 1960, p. 268, ill. 1 and pl. 73, fig. 17. 19. The strophion worn by the Hierophant in the Roman relief also occurs on figures of boys connected with Eleusinian ritual, likewise of the Roman period. The crown consisting of a fillet wound around a circlet is discussed by Krug 1968 as Type 12 II, pp. 45–47, 104–106 and Appendix III. She concludes that vase painting does not represent the details of this crown and is therefore not useful for chronology. Since the circlet is completely covered by the ribbon, it is the latter that carries its significance, as in the case of the Hellenistic diadem. Scepter and strophion as symbols of religious authority correspond to the “scepter and ribbons of the god” in Il. 1.14, 28.

succeeded in establishing his Classical iconography based on that of his descendant, the Hierophant as depicted on a classicizing votive relief of the Roman period, made for dedication by a Hierophant from the deme of Hagnous (Fig. 10). This can be taken in conjunction with labeled representations of Eumolpos on vases to distinguish him from other prominent Eleusinian persons. The Hierophant on the relief displays all his official regalia. He approaches the Two Goddesses in a walking pose, with his right foot advanced, and holds out his scepter in front of him. Kore’s left arm overlaps the scepter and the knuckles of his right hand, emphasizing his closeness to the divinities. On his head he wears a strophion and a wreath of myrtle. The strophion consists of a long fillet wound continuously around a circlet of some kind, overlapping so that only the cloth is visible. The wreath rests above the strophion. The Hierophant wears a long-sleeved tunic that is short enough to reveal the tops of his boots. Over it he wears a draped himation. The boots seem to be elaborately decorated.18 Long sleeves and boots are worn by many Eleusinian gods and heroes in Attic vase painting of the late 5th and 4th centuries b.c., as are wreaths and fillets.19 Clinton concludes that the distinctive attribute of Eumolpos is the scepter, which can serve to set him apart from other long-haired youths, such as Eubouleus and Iakchos, in the populous assemblies of Eleusinian gods and heroes on 4th-century Attic vases. Since the protégé of the Two Goddesses on the great marble relief is still a boy, he is not yet entitled to a scepter of his own. Like the boy Theseus in his arrival scenes, Eumolpos has the scepter in his future, not

276

e v e ly n b . h a r r i s o n Figure 11. Neck-amphora by the Niobid Painter. Youth (Eumolpos?) offered wheat by a goddess (Kore?). London, British Museum E 274. Courtesy Museum

in his hand. At the same time, the way in which Demeter holds out her own scepter in front of her, so that it is overlapped by the arm and body of the boy, conveys the transmission of her power to him in the same way as does the spear of Athena in the arrival of Theseus on the Briseis Painter’s cup, where it overlaps his sandaled right foot (Fig. 6). All three figures in the Great Eleusinian Relief wear sandals, but those of the boy are different from those of the goddesses. Known as network sandals, they often appear in Classical vase paintings as worn over a sock that rises partway up the leg and is held in place by straps wrapped around the leg.20 The Briseis Painter’s arriving Theseus wears such sandals, as do other mythical travelers. They also appear on grave reliefs from Boeotia and the Cyclades.21 Theseus and Peirithoos stuck in the Underworld wear them on the Nekyia krater in New York, while Herakles stands barefoot beside them.22 Hermes attending the rising Persephone reveals the tops of such sandals as he comes up out of the ground.23 Hunters and riders also wear network sandals. In any case, it seems to be generally agreed that a boy wearing sandals on both feet cannot be identified as a pa›w éf’ •st¤aw muhye¤w, since he is not barefoot as an initiate ought to be.24 As mentioned above, the ages at which Eumolpos is depicted in art differ. Like other gods and heroes, he tends to be shown bearded in Late Archaic and Classical representations and to lose his beard and become younger as time goes on. The one vase painting in which Eumolpos is identified by inscription, the skyphos by Makron in London, shows him as a mature bearded man with long black hair. He is seated and holds a scepter (Fig. 8).25 A standing youthful male on a neck-amphora by the

20. Morrow 1985, p. 58, pls. 41–42, and see index under “network sandals.” 21. Despinis 1967, pp. 79–81, pl. 35. 22. ARV 2 1086, no. 1; Nekyia Painter: Richter and Hall 1936, no. 135. 23. ARV 2 1012, no. 1; Persephone Painter: Richter and Hall 1936, no. 124. 24. Clinton 1992, p. 49. 25. See note 17, above.


277

Figure 12. Relief of the Rheitoi Bridge decree. Eleusis, Archaeological Museum 5093. Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens

26. ARV 2 604, no. 53; Clinton 1992, p. 139, no. 12, with bibliography. 27. Clinton 1992, pp. 75–76 and p. 140, no. 2, with bibliography, fig. 60. See also Lawton 1995, p. 54 and pp. 82– 83, no. 3, pl. 2. Lawton refers to Clinton 1992 in her text (p. 54, note 113) for evidence of Triptolemos’s “divine status at Eleusis,” but she maintains the identification of the male figure as Triptolemos without mentioning Clinton’s discussion of the figure. 28. Agora inv. S 1119: Agora XXXI, p. 217, no. 2, pl. 36; LIMC IV.1, 1988, p. 875, no. 377, s.v. Demeter (L. Beschi). Both Beschi and Miles identify the young male as Triptolemos. 29. Close examination of the relief reveals some details not mentioned by Miles (Agora XXXI) that may be relevant to the discussion of the youth’s identity. His head is only a little smaller than that of Kore, as his height was only a little less than hers. The approximate height of Kore’s head, chin to crown, is ca. 0.07 m, that of the boy’s ca. 0.065 m. The relief appears to have been intentionally mutilated. There are tiny point marks in the area of Kore’s right eye and similar marks below and behind the right eye of the boy. The mouths and chins of both figures are broken off, but the line of intersection of the face with the neck is clearly preserved on both. The locks on top of the boy’s head are simply carved with long strokes; one curls up against the background behind the two holes drilled for attaching a wreath. There is no corresponding hole at the back of the head, but an indentation suggests that the wreath overlapped the large locks above and behind his ear. Similar locks cling to the back of his neck below this. It seems clear that Kore did not wear a bridal crown in addition to her veil. Her front hair is battered, but one can see that it overlapped the right ear, revealing only the lobe. It appears to have been combed forward above the forehead. There may have been curls, now broken away.

Niobid Painter in London holds a scepter in his left hand and pours a libation with his right to a goddess who offers him a bundle of wheat (Fig. 11). Clinton remarks, “The scepter and the wheat suggest importance in the cult and remind us of the Hierophant in the Olympieion relief. The figure therefore seems to be Eumolpos.”26 The male figure who greets Athena on the stele of the Rheitoi Bridge decree of 422/1 (IG I3 79) in Eleusis (Fig. 12) apparently held a scepter, rendered in paint as was Athena’s spear. Clinton calls him “most likely Eumolpos.”27 He is draped in a himation without a chiton, like the youth on the Niobid Painter’s neck-amphora. He is a little shorter than the Two Goddesses, but nearly the same height as Athena. He is evidently beardless, though all the faces are damaged. His hair is cut shorter than that of the boy of the Great Eleusinian Relief, but not as short as that of an ephebe on a fragment of a late-5th-century votive relief found in 1939 in the Athenian Agora (S 1119). There is an interesting correspondence between the Hierophant relief (Fig. 10), probably made in the Early Antonine period, and Agora S 1119, mentioned by L. Beschi in LIMC but fully published only recently by M. Miles (Fig. 13).28 Though it was found in the demolition of a modern house outside the City Eleusinion to the west, Miles is surely right to associate it with that sanctuary. At the broken left edge of the relief there is preserved a raised left forearm and hand grasping a scepter whose shaft overlaps the forearm and an adjacent bit of hanging drapery. The hand overlaps the ovolo beneath the taenia that crowned the relief. The tip of the scepter has disappeared in the break.29

278

e v e ly n b . h a r r i s o n Figure 13. Fragment of a votive relief (Agora S 1119) showing Demeter, Kore, and a youth (Eumolpos?). Courtesy American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Agora Excavations

The angle of the arm and scepter is very like that in the figure of Demeter in the Hierophant relief (Fig. 10). The Demeter of the Agora votive must have been enthroned like her, with Kore standing in front of her. Kore has a veil over her head in both reliefs, and her head is inclined in both toward the male figure who stands facing her. Whereas Kore in the Hierophant relief holds a downturned torch by her side,30 in the late-5th-century relief she holds a lighted torch in front of her. In place of the Hierophant, the male figure next to her is a boyish youth, probably an ephebe, for he wears a chlamys. Rather than standing stiffly like the Hierophant, he inclines his head toward the goddess. This creates a feeling of familiar intimacy between the boy and Kore such as we sense in the Great Eleusinian Relief, where she lays her hand on his head. On the Hierophant relief, however, Kore inclines her head toward the Hierophant in the same way, and a special relationship between them is established by the manner in which her left arm overlaps his right hand and scepter.31 It may well be that the Two Goddesses on the Hierophant relief, with their strikingly classicizing dress and faces, are copied from a famous prototype, perhaps a painting, and that this also influenced the sculptor of the Agora relief. The similar composition strongly suggests that the young male on Agora S 1119 is Eumolpos. He evidently wore a wreath, as is indicated by the two drilled holes in the short hair above his forehead. Though nothing survives of any attributes he may have held, his lowered right shoulder and raised left one would fit the action depicted on the Niobid Painter’s neck-amphora (Fig. 11), pouring a libation with the right hand while grasping an upright scepter with the left.32 The boy on the Great Eleusinian Relief makes a gesture with his mantle that could be read either as taking it off or putting it on. While one end remains draped over his right shoulder, he grasps the other end with his lowered left hand. Simon, who identifies the boy as Demophon, explains that his act of robing must have followed a ritual of disrobing, namely the bathing in the sea on the second day of the Mysteries that was known as Halade Mystai. Demophon in his role as King of Eleusis would stand for all the mystai. The boy would present himself to the goddesses freshly

30. As no flames are indicated in relief, the question arises whether this torch may symbolize the darkness that precedes the reappearance of Kore in the Eleusinian ritual. See Clinton 1992, pp. 84–90. Because we do not know the sanctuary for which the relief was intended, no certainty is possible. 31. That the feeling of intimacy exists between the boy and Kore rather than between the boy and Demeter may be an additional argument against Simon’s (1998) identification of the boy as Demophon. 32. See above, note 26. Both Clinton (1992) and Schwarz (1987) recognize that this representation by the Niobid Painter is unusual. If the goddess offering the wheat is Demeter, we cannot invoke the vase as a parallel for the Agora relief with as much confidence as we might if we could call her Kore. Both goddesses offer grain; both can wear crowns and long back hair without shoulder locks, but two aspects suggest that the goddess on this amphora is Kore. First, the Niobid Painter seems to have taken pleasure in assimilating the young man and the goddess facing him to Apollo and Artemis on the opposite side. The laurel wreath and sideburns on the young man echo those of the youthful Apollo, and the crown and long back hair of the goddess offering wheat echo those of the maiden Artemis. Second is the similarity of the back hair of this goddess to the figure labeled “Kore” on the volute krater in Stanford (Clinton 1992, fig. 12; Raubitschek and Raubitschek 1982, pl. 15). Schwarz (1987, p. 121) says only “wohl Demeter” but she is sure the youth is Triptolemos. Clinton (1992, p. 139, no. 12) says simply “Demeter” and of the youth, “apparently Eumolpos.”


Figure 14. Parthenon west frieze figure 30 (Eumolpos?) from a cast. Photo D. Widmer, courtesy Skulpturhalle, Basel

33. Simon 1998, pp. 380–381. 34. For a valuable succinct account and full references, see Kearns 1989, p. 163. The story that Chione threw her child Eumolpos into the sea and that Poseidon saved him and took him to Ethiopia for Benthesikyme to rear is most fully told in Apollod. 3.15.4 (together with a string of misdeeds and exiles not to be found in most sources), but the core myth seems to be no later than the time of Euripides’ Erechtheus. In addition to the references in Kearns, see Collard et al. 1995, pp. 156–157, frag. 349, text, translations, and commentary. For the declaration of Zeus that a descendant of the son of Chione and Poseidon will found the Mysteries, see Collard et al. 1995, pp. 174–175, lines 102–114 and commentary, pp. 193–194, on these lines. For the story of another divine ancestor who was thrown into the sea by his mother, see Il. 18.393–405, where Hephaistos relates how his mother, wanting to hide him, threw him out of Olympos, and how Eurynome and Thetis saved him and hid him in a cave by the River of Ocean. One could imagine the Ethiopian hiding place of Eumolpos to

279

purified from his sea-bath. Simon connects the anointing of the boy’s hair by Kore as an appropriate ritual following the bath.33 All this would be suitable for Eumolpos in a double sense. As the son of Poseidon and the Erechtheid Chione, daughter of Oreithyia, saved from the sea and reared by Benthesikyme, the daughter of Poseidon and Amphitrite, Eumolpos grew up to become a military defender of Eleusis and in some versions the founder of the Mysteries.34 I propose that Eumolpos is twice represented on the west end of the Parthenon, once in the south corner of the pediment and again at a lower level in the south end of the frieze. In the frieze, the act of dressing is impersonated by a nude and apparently barefoot young male (West XVI, 30; Fig. 14).35 He holds up his mantle toward his left side with both hands hidden under the cloth. Ian Jenkins notes that his arms seem to point the way around the corner to the south side of the frieze and so to express a connection with the south cavalcade. The first group of riders on the south side is distinguished by elements of Thracian dress and probably represents the tribe of Hippothontis, whose eponymous hero, Hippothoon, had a sanctuary at Eleusis.36 On the frieze, Eumolpos would be shown as the ancestor of the genos of the Eumolpidai, the clan to which the Hierophant belonged.37 Next to him (West XV, 29) is a figure so much like Hermes in his dress and attitude that he ought to be Keryx, the son of Hermes and ancestor of the genos of the Kerykes, the clan that shared with the Eumolpidai the administration of the Sanctuary of Eleusis.38 West 29, with his left foot propped have also been a cave by the River of Ocean, in its southernmost reaches. 35. Most fully described and illustrated by Brommer 1977, p. 23, pls. 5, 45, 46, and 116:2. Carrey was at a particular disadvantage in trying to draw this figure because of the heavy shadow cast by the ceiling beam above its head. Some of this also affected his vision of the neighboring figure, West 29. His drawing indicates the existence of this shadow over the two figures. Irregularities in the surface of 30 led him to believe the figure was a chitonclad female. He also omitted the petasos and chlamys of 29. The Elgin cast (see Jenkins 1990, p. 113, pl. 19) remains the best record of the head, though the right side of the face was already damaged and filled out in the cast. The short curls on top of the head are still clearly visible in the cast and are not unlike those of the boy in the Agora relief. For further information see Berger and GislerHuwiler 1996, pp. 55–56 (Text), pls. 34– 37 (Plates). 36. See Kron 1976, pp. 177–187; Kearns 1989, p. 173, for Hippothoon; Jenkins 1994, p. 111, for the pose of West 30 as pointing to a connection with the

south frieze; Brommer 1977, pl. 46:4, for a good corner view. 37. In Harrison 1984, p. 234, I suggested that the figures in the west frieze belong to early times and may stand for gene, as the north frieze seems to represent the time of the four tribes and the south frieze recent times, with the ten tribes of Kleisthenes. 38. Clinton 1974, p. 8. See Kearns 1989, p. 177, for Keryx’s somewhat varied genealogies. The one proclaimed by the Kerykes themselves made him the son of Hermes by one of the daughters of Kekrops (Paus. 1.38.3). This specifically Athenian genealogy is given little attention in LIMC VI, 1992, pp. 36–38, s.v. Keryx (E. Simon). Resemblance to Hermes is not treated as an element in the iconography of Keryx and so there is no occasion to mention either in approval or rejection my tentative identification (1984, pp. 234 and 417, note 61) of West 29 as Keryx. By taking the Dadouchos rather than the Hierokeryx as the iconographical prototype of the ancestor of the Kerykes, Simon discusses as possible representations of Keryx a variety of torch-bearing males to whom Clinton 1992 has given other names.

280


on a large rock, is in the act of tying his sandal. His right foot is still bare; no sandal sole is indicated. Attributes that West 29 shares with Hermes are his chlamys, his petasos, and the act of tying his sandal. He does not carry a kerykeion, and there are no wings on his shoes or hat. The figures of the west frieze may all be heroes, but none of them is a god.39 Because of the indications that the Parthenon frieze as a whole has as its subject the worship of the gods in joyous festivals by the Athenians, we may guess that these two ancestors of the clans that administer the Sanctuary of Eleusis together represent the Festival of the Eleusinia. I would take the rock on which Keryx rests his foot not simply as a mounting block, but as a topographical sign, locating the figure on the sacred hill of Eleusis. The rock is irregularly shaped and has a bumpy surface like that of another such rock that appears in the northern half of the west frieze. On this another rider (West VI, 12), also facing south, props up his left foot and ties his sandal. His right foot is already shod. He differs from West XV, 29 in wearing a helmet. West VI, 11, directly behind him, is also helmeted and wears a cuirass. Elements of defensive armor seem appropriately associated with the Acropolis, the citadel of Athens.40 Thus the rock on which West VI, 12 rests his foot might be that of the Acropolis, and he might be Boutes, the eponym of the Eteoboutadai, who had an altar in the Erechtheion (Paus. 1.26.5).41 The human figures in the west frieze number thirty, and this number is by no means so securely linked to the gene as are the numbers ten and four to the Kleisthenic and pre-Kleisthenic tribes. It does figure, however, in a fragment of the Aristotelian Constitution of the Athenians, according to which “in olden days” (pala¤) the whole citizen body was divided into 360 gene, consisting of thirty men each, one genos for every day of the year.42 Thus a depiction of thirty heroes, each representing a genos, could be tied into the yearly cycle that seems to dominate the frieze as a whole. Eumolpos in this context would take his place as an Athenian citizen, like his descendant, the Hierophant. In between the rocks that represent Eleusis and Athens is a partly preserved segment of sloping terrain against which a magnificent hero with flying chlamys braces his foot while he exerts all his strength to control a splendid rearing horse (West VIII, 15). This hero had metal (presumably golden) sandal straps, attested by drilled holes for their attachment, three in the right leg and one in the left.43 I have suggested elsewhere that this hero is Theseus as King, adult and bearded, and that his act of bringing the spirited horse under control symbolizes the synoikismos, the union of all the previously autonomous towns of Attica to form the single Athenian state. Since festival activities are a principal subject of the frieze, this figure might also stand for the festival of the Synoikia on the 16th of Hekatombaion, twelve days before the Panathenaia.44 This opens up the possibility that other festivals, as unidentifiable to us as the majority of the genos heroes of the west frieze, might be represented by these figures. The Parthenon pediments, in contrast to the frieze, are more concerned with what the gods do for the Athenians than with what the Athenians do for the gods. West pediment V (Figs. 15–16), the figure that I have earlier proposed as Eumolpos, personifies the Mysteries and as such

39. Kardara (1961, pp. 151–152, pl. 7) suggested that West 23 was Hermes himself, but this has not been generally accepted. The rule seems to hold that no person is shown more than once on the frieze, though the same god or hero may appear in other sections of the Parthenon sculptures: metopes, pediments, and statue base. 40. I have suggested (Harrison 1984, pp. 232–233) that the three groups of riders on the south frieze who wear elements of defensive armor may represent the three tribes whose eponymous heroes are associated with the Acropolis: Kekropis, Erechtheis, and Pandionis. 41. On the elaborate 4th-century hydria from Cumae in St. Petersburg known as the “Regina Vasorum,” Athena sits on an irregular rock that evidently stands for the Acropolis (Clinton 1992, pp. 78–79, ill. 9). It appears to have a cave in its lower part. 42. Aristotle frag. 385 Rose. 43. Harrison 1984, p. 234. See Brommer 1977, p. 13, for a description of the holes, their interpretation as sandal straps, and the observation that nowhere else on the frieze were sandal straps made separately in this way. See Brommer 1977, pl. 23, and, for an even clearer depiction of the holes, Robertson and Frantz 1975, pl. 11. 44. Harrison 1984, p. 234. See Parke 1977, pp. 30–32; Deubner 1932, pp. 37–38; Simon 1983, p. 50; Figueira 1984, pp. 465–466. N. Robertson (1992, pp. 32–43) gives an explanation of the ultimate origin of the festival that is too complex to be useful in interpreting a sculptural representation of the 5th century b.c. If Parthenon West 15 alludes to Theseus and the Synoikia, its version will have been closer to Plutarch’s than to Robertson’s.


Figure 15. Parthenon west pediment V (Eumolpos?). Frontal view. After Brommer 1963, pl. 128:1

Figure 16. Parthenon west pediment V (Eumolpos?). Side view. After Brommer 1963, pl. 128:2

45. Harrison 1967a, p. 9, note 55. For a cult of Poseidon Pater, outside the entrance of the sanctuary at Eleusis, see Paus. 1.38.6; Clinton 1992, p. 116. 46. Spaeth (1991) identifies the seated female figures in the southern half of the west pediment with members of the royal family of Eleusis instead of that of Athens, but in doing

281

is the gift of Poseidon who fathered him.45 He is linked to the autochthonous Athenians by the female line of two generations of Erechtheids, who produced heroes by union with male divinities. These divine fathers played a special role in Athens. The first of the Erechtheids to the right of the central divinities in the west pediment (Fig. 17) is Oreithyia, the bride of the North Wind.46 She is recognized by the fact that she holds infant twins, P and R, Kalais and Zetes, and the union with Boreas that engendered them is signified by her wind-fluttered mantle and chiton hem. Without the favor and the power of the North Wind, neither the destruction of the Persian fleet at Cape Artemision nor the success of the Delian League (which had become an Empire by the time work was begun on the Parthenon sculptures) would have been possible. After Oreithyia and her children comes another daughter of Erechtheus who was equally important to the Athenian self-image in the 5th century. Kreousa, T, became the mother by Apollo of Ion, S, eponym of the Ionians and the key to the myth that Athens was the mother city of all the Ionians.47 By the same token Apollo became Patroos, father of the Athenians and the other Ionians. this she must deny iconographical validity to the wind-ruffled drapery of West Q and play down the importance of her twins. Concerning the proposal of Weidauer and Krauskopf (1993) to substitute Erechtheus and his daughters for Kekrops and his daughters in the northern half of the pediment, see Harrison 1997, p. 124, note 29.

47. The suggestion in LIMC IV, 1988, pp. 56–59, s.v. Eumolpos (L. Weidauer) under “Deutung vermutet” (Eumolpos 2, p. 56), that West T is Chione and West S Eumolpos violates the generational sequence of the Erechtheids, inserting the granddaughter and great-grandson of Erechtheus between his daughters and their offspring.

282


The next figure, U, seems to have been maidenly and not an ancestress. I still accept Rhys Carpenter’s identification of the lower part of a seated female, Acropolis 1363, as the figure depicted in Carrey’s drawing (Fig. 17).48 I would also accept the statuette from Eleusis in the Athens National Museum, NM 201 (Fig. 18), to which I was able to join the upper torso from the storeroom at Eleusis, as copied at a small scale from the original Parthenon U, with scarcely more deviation from the prototype than we find in the group NM 200, imitated from West B–C, Kekrops and his daughter.49 These, along with a fragment that may conform to the lower part of the reclining woman, W, shown by Carrey,50 are the only figures among the Eleusis pedimental statuettes that are reasonably faithful quotations of Parthenon prototypes. The other pieces vary widely in style and quality of workmanship. Athens NM 202, the woman with a female child in her lap (Fig. 18), which probably occupied the place to the right of NM 201, is portrayed with the high girding and heavy peplos with folds stretched tight over full breasts that is typical of later 4th-century figures of mother goddesses.51 She could represent an Eleusinian heroine with her daughter, as Ruth Lindner has suggested;52 alternatively, she could be Demeter with Kore, if the context were suitable, but that interpretation poses difficulties, since Kore is portrayed in the center of the pediment being carried off by Hades. Assuming that the figure to the right of U on the Parthenon, already missing from the pediment in Carrey’s time, was like statuette NM 202 in being a mother with a child in her lap, regardless of whom the child may have represented in the Eleusinian context, we can easily imagine that the position U* was occupied by Acropolis 888, a fragment of the lower part of a woman seated on a smoothly rounded object with a bell-shaped profile that might best be explained as a hearth or household altar made of clay.53 Olga Palagia objects that Acropolis 1363 is unique among seated female figures in the Parthenon pediments in having a plinth, and Liselotte Weidauer and Ingrid Krauskopf object to the juxtaposition of two related figures with such different seats.54 These seeming anomalies are easily ex48. Carpenter 1932. See below, note 54. 49. See Harrison 1967a, figs. 1–16; for detailed description see pp. 1–9. For detailed description of all the figures assigned to the small Eleusis pediment, see Lindner 1982. She compares the fragments with the Parthenon figures that seem to have inspired them and makes clear their deviations from the prototypes. She also suggests identifications for most of the figures, though some are more tentative than others. These do not directly affect the identifications of the Parthenon figures. For further speculation on Eleusinian identities, see Weidauer and Krauskopf 1993.

50. Lindner (1982, pp. 380–381, no. 14, figs. 53–54) does not exclude the possibility that this figure was modeled on W. In any case, as she points out, it is not a closer copy of W than the Eleusis group modeled on B–C is of its Parthenon prototype. 51. Harrison 1967a, figs. 9–11; Lindner 1982, figs. 49–50. 52. Lindner 1982. 53. In its smoothly rounded shape, lacking the irregularities of natural rock, it resembles the seat of east pediment K; clearest in Palagia 1993, fig. 44. See also Brommer 1963, pls. 50–51; Harrison 1967b, p. 46. 54. Palagia 1993, pp. 50–51;

Weidauer and Krauskopf 1993, p. 10. In questioning the identification of Acropolis 1363 with west pediment U, Palagia writes, “Carrey drew U as a seated woman in peplos and himation covering her legs, leaning heavily to her proper left.” Palagia evidently rejects, though she does not mention it, Carpenter’s explanation that the figure has been knocked out of alignment by the falling cornice block that also damaged the left knee. When one corrects the vertical axis of the displaced figure in the drawing, one becomes aware of the edge of a chiton overfall on the proper right side. U was not drawn wearing a peplos.


283

Figure 17. Parthenon west pediment, south corner ( J. Carrey). Photo courtesy F. Brommer

Figure 18. Statuettes from a small pediment at Eleusis. Athens, National Museum 201 (left) in a cast joined with an original fragment in Eleusis; Athens NM 202 in cast. Photo S. Meletzis, courtesy Eleusis Museum

284


plained if we retain the earlier interpretations of U as the maiden daughter of Erechtheus whom he sacrificed to save the city of Athens at the time of the war with Eleusis and of U* as Praxithea, the wife of Erechtheus and mother of the sacrificed maiden.55 A tradition that goes back to the Atthidographer Phanodemos in the second half of the 4th century b.c. places the sacrifice of the daughters of Erechtheus “on the Pagos called Hyakinthos.”56 It is unlikely that the term pagos would be applied to the Hill of the Nymphs as a whole, as was suggested by Machteld Mellink and subsequently by Miriam Ervin,57 but it would well suit the rocky extension of that hill at its eastern foot, separated from the main mass of the hill by a low saddle, as the Areopagus is separated from the Acropolis.58 The rocky seat of the maiden U with a low plinthlike extension of the terrain under her feet would mark this locale and help to identify the figure.59 The smoothly rounded seat of Acropolis 888, which is retained in the Eleusis statuette NM 202 although its human figure seems to have been altered, resembles the little that survives of the seat of Parthenon east pediment K, who is best identified as Hestia. It should represent a clay altar or hearth (perhaps emulating some prehistoric form). The mother, U*, should be seen as inside the palace, where Praxithea belonged as Queen.60 If the mother is Praxithea, the child on her lap was probably an infant. The small size of this child would explain why no trace of it appears on the fragment Acropolis 888.61 55. See Palagia 1993, p. 50, and p. 58, note 193, for proposers of these identifications, which she does not accept. 56. Phanodemos, FGrHist 325, F 4; Jacoby, FGrHist IIIB, Suppl. I, pp. 178– 180. Photios, Suda, s.v. pary°noi. For a convenient collection of testimonia on the same myth, see Austin 1968, pp. 22–23. 57. Mellink 1943, pp. 56–59; Ervin 1959, esp. pp. 152–159. 58. Kron 1979, pp. 67–72. 59. Note that the “plinth” is only under the feet of NM 201, as it is of Acropolis 1363. On the sides and back, the carved rock surface extends to the pediment floor. Pittakis, who excavated Acropolis 1363 west of the Erechtheion in 1860, recognized the stylistic similarity of the piece to sculptures of the Parthenon pediments. He proposed that it represented Athena Polias seated on the rock of the Acropolis, which the rock under U resembles in its projections and indentations. The rock of the Hill of the Nymphs is similar to that of the Acropolis, with caves at its base (see Kron 1979, p. 67). For the transcription of Pittakis’s report, see Despinis 1982,

pp. 61–62. Despinis stresses the importance of the fact that Pittakis was the first to associate the statue stylistically and iconographically with the Parthenon pediments. 60. See Harrison 1967a, figs. 9, 16– 17. In the excellent new Acropolis Museum picture book (Trianti 1998, p. 269, pl. 270), Acropolis 888 is described as sitting on a rock, but the front part of the fragment, next to the drapery that falls against the seat, is evenly dressed with a small-toothed implement, whereas the back part, which would never have been visible to spectators, shows some shallow indentation and coarser smoothing. These tool marks are clearer here than in any previous publication that I have seen. The fine claw chisel work is remarkably similar to that on the background of a 5th-century Thespian gravestone in New York that was reused in the Roman period (see Harrison 1990, pp. 173–174, fig. 11:b). This suggests that Acropolis 888, like other west pediment sculptures, had undergone rehabilitation after some damage. The irregular surface of the back part of the seat, which would have been

invisible, will have been roughly smoothed over, while the front part will have been carefully dressed down to remove stains and weathering, still preserving its bell-shaped profile. Palagia (1993, p. 51) remarks on the “pristine surface” but does not attribute it to recutting. She suggests that a figure of Praxithea occupied position U and one of Erechtheus the position U*. She casts doubt on both 1363 and 888 as Parthenon fragments and reads V and W as Ilissos and a Water Nymph (Appendix, p. 61). 61. The traditions about the number of the Erechtheids, their names, and who was sacrificed and who survived, are impossible to reconcile in any consistent way. In the Erechtheus of Euripides it is implied that all the sisters died, whether by sacrifice or by suicide. In the Ion, however, Kreousa says that she escaped because she was a newborn baby in her mother’s arms (Ion, line 280). A newborn would not yet count as a member of the family in the first few precarious days of its life, but the story is still inconsistent with the plot of the Erechtheus. We cannot, therefore, interpret the Parthenon sculptures using the


text of either tragedy. It would be easy to restore a newborn suckling in the arms of the woman represented in Acropolis 888, however. The baby would have been very small, and the mother would have held it on her left side, close to her heart. It would have left no trace on the surviving fragment. This child should not be called Kreousa, for, as we have seen, T with her half-grown boy S is almost certainly Kreousa, but it is not at all impossible that the Parthenon image influenced Euripides when he came to write the Ion. 62. Harrison 1967a, p. 9. This suggestion was noted as uncertain by Gratia Berger-Doer, LIMC I, 1981, pp. 469–470, pl. 363, s.v. Aktaios I. 63. Brommer 1963, pp. 31, 55. 64. Palagia (1993, p. 51) comments on “his powerful musculature.” See her pl. 117 and Brommer 1963, pls.127– 128. 65. Harrison 1979. See the Boston cup, pl. 25, for Apollo opening his cloak while both hands remain covered. Eumolpos, West 30 of the Parthenon frieze, has both hands covered while preparing to put on his cloak.

285

The male figure West V (Figs. 15–16) shares with West A, the reclining male in the left corner of the west pediment, the appearance of one emerging out of the water. I have suggested elsewhere that A is Aktaios, who preceded Kekrops in some mythical lists of Attic kings and gave his name to the land of Attica.62 The fall of drapery over the left arm and shoulder of Aktaios as he raises himself up on a low shelf of land suggests the fall of water from a body rising up out of the sea. The cloak of V creates a somewhat similar effect, though the figure is kneeling, rather than reclining as A does. Brommer remarked that the right leg of V, like A’s left, seems to sink into the floor of the pediment.63 The feet of those legs on both are enveloped in drapery. Figure V of the west pediment was drawn by Carrey with its right upper arm raised. Though the lower arm and hand were already missing when Carrey saw the figure, the forearm probably extended forward, to judge from his right shoulder, which leans forward, not back like that of Poseidon in the center of the pediment. If this raised hand held a staff or scepter, its lower end may have been anchored in a cutting near the front of the cornice by V’s right knee. The whole front part of block 6 is now missing, so this detail cannot be verified. The very thick edge of V’s cloak where it is broken away from his back suggests that a wind blew it back from his hand in an enveloping shell of cloth whose color would have framed the figure against the background. This mass of cloth would have supported the forearm and the hand. Kekrops (B) in the opposite corner of the pediment must also have held a scepter, for his right arm too is raised. He was entitled to it as a king and as a judge. Eumolpos in the pediment was a grown man, though beardless, as we know from Carrey’s drawing.64 He too is entitled to the scepter, as founder and ruler of the Mysteries. His scepter would express the agreement whereby Eleusis, though becoming a part of the Athenian state, retained control in all matters pertaining to the Mysteries (Paus. 1.38.3). The broad shoulders, heavily developed thighs, and well-muscled torso of V befit a son of Poseidon grown to manhood. The similar angles of the arms, shoulders, and upper torso of V and those of Poseidon (M) as drawn by Carrey reinforce the impression that the two are related. Figure West V thus declared its identity by quoting three others in the same pediment: A (Aktaios) in the use of falling drapery to mimic the flow of water from a body emerging from the sea, B (Kekrops) in the scepter of a ruler and a judge, and M (Poseidon) in the physical resemblance of two powerful bodies in a similar action. It remains to discuss the cloak of the boy Eumolpos in the Great Eleusinian Relief and the manner of its draping. Like the cloak of west pediment V, it covers his back but is open in front. This may be meant to recall his emergence from the sea-bath of his childhood into the upper world, as his sandals recall a journey over land. One is also reminded in a certain way of the images of Apollo opening his cloak, which I have suggested may refer to his prophetic revelations.65 The Hierophant of the Eleusinian Mysteries is by his very title one who reveals holy things. He must also keep secret those matters that are not to be revealed to the uninitiated. It is not clear in the image itself whether the boy’s gesture of

286


grasping the gathered folds of the himation is a prelude to taking it off or wrapping it around him. Perhaps it is both, an expression of the dual powers that the goddesses confer on him.66 There is no general agreement on the date of the Great Eleusinian Relief, but it seems clearly to be somewhat apart from the main line of development of Attic relief sculpture as we know it from the reasonably well-dated series of architectural sculptures in Athens from the Parthenon frieze down to the monument of Dexileos. The stiffness of the poses may well be due, as many have suggested, to a desire to render a sacred image with appropriate solemnity. The very conscientious carving of the finer folds in the drapery and the almost metallic rendering of the hair give a faintly archaistic impression. Tobias Dohrn suggested a date in the last decade of the 5th century B.C.67 Brunilde Ridgway considered this to be too late,68 but the hypothesis of a Boeotian or central Greek sculptor, or an Attic sculptor who had worked in Boeotia, an idea advanced by Schuchhardt, or a “Middle Greek” sculptor as proposed by Schneider69 and favored by Ridgway, would explain its failure to conform to official Attic works of that period, such as the Erechtheion frieze or the western half of the south side of the Nike Parapet. Reliefs from Thespiai show similar characteristics. The boy on the grave stele reused in the Roman period as the monument of Agathokles (Fig. 19)70 has been cited in favor of a Boeotian connection. This is reinforced by a comparison of the lower portion of Persephone’s chiton and the stiff sandal sole of her left foot with the gravestone of a seated woman in New York (Fig. 20).71 Although no provenance is recorded for the latter, the type belongs to a series found in Thespiai that extends down into the 4th century, and the signs of reworking in the Roman period are similar, as is the non-Attic marble. In the Great Eleusinian Relief the unusually low relief in proportion to the size of the panel implies a greater reliance on paint to clarify the actions of the figures and the pattern of the whole than we have in most Attic reliefs. We are reminded of the fine series of engraved and painted Boeotian gravestones of warriors from the late 5th and early 4th centuries.72 Among unquestionably Attic monuments of high quality, the best parallel for the low relief of elements adjacent to the background and the reliance on color to unify the silhouette is the funerary stele of Hegeso, dated by common consent in the last decade of the 5th century or the very beginning of the 4th.73 The right hand of Hegeso, like the right hand of Demeter in the Eleusinian relief, is holding up something that has hardly any thickness; the tips of the thumb and forefinger nearly meet. The base of the thumb and its junction with the wrist are carved in extremely simple forms, as though their basic shapes were visible, but not their details. This recalls the tainia held by Demeter and about to be grasped by Eumolpos. The arguments of Jürgen Thimme in favor of seeing the object offered to Hegeso as a funerary tainia and not an actual necklace are strengthened by this resemblance.74 The stele of Hegeso is surely by an Attic artist. The beautiful echoing curves of the lower drapery of Hegeso and of her maid link the two figures in much the same way as the two daughters of Pelias are linked in the

66. Simon’s direct reference (1998, pp. 380–381) to dressing after the seabath of Halade Mystai is made with the assumption that the boy is Demophon, serving as a representative of all the mystai in the preparatory rite of purification. This interpretation, however, lacks the broader allusion to the whole mystic experience that a youthful Eumolpos would embody in his rebirth from the sea. 67. Dohrn 1957, pp. 40–48. 68. Ridgway 1981, p. 140, note 23: Dohrn “dated the monument far too late.” 69. Schuchhardt 1958, p. 487; Schneider 1973, p. 107. 70. Dohrn 1957, pp. 40, 42–44; Ridgway 1981, p. 140; Harrison 1990, pp. 171–172, fig. 8. 71. Richter 1954, pp. 50–51, no. 75, pl. 61; Harrison 1990, pp. 173–174. 72. Pfuhl 1923, pls. 259–260. 73. Athens, NM 3624. The relief has been reproduced in a number of different photographs, but the one that best illustrates the relation of the relief to the background is in Lullies and Hirmer 1957, pl. 185 (pl. 187 in 1960 ed., pl. 182 in 1979). See also the detail in Knigge 1991, p. 133, fig. 128. The most recent discussion of the date, IG I3 1289 (1994), affirms that almost all except Dohrn and Robertson date the stele to the 5th century (ca. 410–400?). Knigge (1991, p. 134) also considers Hegeso’s stele to be from the late 5th century: “the excavations showed that the late 5th C. B.C. relief of Hegeso was put beside the mid-4th B.C. anthemion stele of Koroibos after the latter had been set up.” 74. Thimme 1964, pp. 18–19.


Figure 19. 5th-century b.c. gravestone of a youth from Thespiai. Athens, National Museum 742. Photo Hirmer

Figure 20. Grave stele of a seated woman, probably from Thespiai. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Rogers Fund, 1908 (08.258.42). Courtesy Museum

75. Harrison, forthcoming.

287

famous Three-Figure Relief. I have given arguments elsewhere for dating the latter in the last decade of the 5th century, though these reliefs too have often been dated earlier.75 The Great Eleusinian Relief is also a threefigure relief, and it has in common with the Peliad relief the presence of a commanding, vertically posed, and relatively static figure at the left, faced by two less formally standing figures of different ages. If the composition lacks the rhythmic beauty and implicit drama of the Attic reliefs to which it can be compared, it is because its purpose is wholly different: to embody and confirm existing values, not to warn against their loss. If we accept, and I think we must, that the Eleusinian relief was a votive offering and not a sacred icon to be set up within the inner sanctuary, its sheer size finds parallels among votive reliefs of the last years of the 5th century rather than in earlier works. Best documented, though recon-

288


structed from many fragments, is the extraordinary “Monument of Telemachos,” consisting of a votive pinax ca. 0.70 m wide set on a pillar of such a height that the whole measured over 2 m. Inscriptions on the pillar recorded that Telemachos was the first founder of the Asklepieion in Athens.76 The pinax was sculptured on both sides with images celebrating the gods of the sanctuary that Telemachos built.77 Though the foundation must have taken place before 419/8 b.c., the actual monument is placed around the end of the century. Its purpose seems to have been to document Telemachos’s claim as first founder against any other possible claimants. The beautiful relief set up by Xenokrateia in a small sanctuary near Phaleron measures 0.57 m in height and 1.05 m in width (Fig. 21). It was mounted on a poros pillar 2.12 m high. It is exceptional in the size of the pinax, the great number of figures represented, and the quality of the design and execution. The style is purely Attic, suggesting a date in the last decade of the 5th century. Xenokrateia dedicates the relief to Kephisos and the divinities who share the altar with him. It is assumed that she also dedicated the altar.78 These impressive votive offerings displayed the generosity of their donors by depicting a large number of small figures. On the other hand, Pausanias (9.11.6) records that Thrasyboulos and the Athenians with him who destroyed the tyranny of the Thirty dedicated colossal images of Athena and Herakles on a Pentelic marble relief in the Herakleion at Thebes (because they had set out from Thebes on their return to Athens). The stele was the work of Alkamenes.

Figure 21. Votive relief of Xenokrateia. Athens, National Museum 2756. Courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Athens

76. For the historical background of the dedication, see Aleshire 1989, pp. 7, 11, 34. 77. For the reliefs on the stele, see Beschi 1967–1968 and 1982. A reconstruction made in the Acropolis Center in Athens with the help of casts from the original fragments in Athens and London and fragments of a contemporary copy now in Padova and Verona has a height of well over 2.5 m. This is only an approximation since the height of the base is not preserved. 78. Athens, NM 2756: Karouzou 1968, p. 57; Guarducci 1974, pp. 57– 66, pls. 8–12; Edwards 1985, pp. 310– 338.


79. Plut. Alc. 33–34. For commentary, see Clinton 1974, pp. 15–16. 80. The date of the procession in 407 b.c. can serve only as a terminus post quem for the execution and dedication of the relief. An anonymous Hesperia reviewer has kindly called my attention to the fact that IG I3 386/387 shows that no serious activity was taking place in the sanctuary in 408/7 b.c. If one looks at the history of the years from 407 to the end of the century, it would seem that ca. 400 b.c. would be the earliest likely date for the resumption of normal life at Eleusis. Alkibiades had taken refuge in Phrygia, where he was murdered in 404 b.c. at the instigation of the Thirty Tyrants, in league with Lysander. After the battle in that same year in which Thrasyboulos triumphed over the Thirty and Kritias was killed, the Herald of the mystai, Kleokritos, is said to have recalled in an eloquent plea for reconciliation, “We never did you any harm, but we have shared with you in the most solemn rites and sacrifices and the most splendid festivals” (Xen. Hell. 2.4.20, trans. C. L. Brownson, Loeb). Alkibiades had not slain tyrants as Thrasyboulos did, but through his having himself been slain by the Tyrants’ friends, his memory may have acquired by the turn of the century some of the aura of Harmodios and Aristogeiton, whose images now appeared on the shield of Athena on the Panathenaic amphoras. 81. A letter of Cicero to Atticus in 67 b.c. attests to the Roman interest in the old traditions of Eleusis. He asks Atticus to send him, at the request of Thyillus, a copy of the EÈmolpid«n Pãtria (Letters to Atticus 1.9.2). See Clinton 1974, p. 93. Cicero himself had been initiated, as had Atticus.

289

These examples would suggest for the Great Eleusinian Relief a donor connected with a special event in the history of the Eleusinian cult. Once we accept the date near the end of the 5th century that is favored by the parallels, an event comes readily to mind. From the time when the Spartans seized and fortified Dekeleia in 413/2 until the triumphant return of Alkibiades to Athens in 408/7, the Athenians had not been able to hold their procession by land from Athens to Eleusis at the time of the Mysteries, though the Mysteries continued to be celebrated. Plutarch records that during this time the celebrants were forced to travel by sea and so to omit sacrifices and dances and other rites performed during the march. Thus the festival lost much of its splendor. For the festival of 407 b.c., Alkibiades undertook to provide military protection for a land procession, which, thanks to his intervention, was carried out in undisturbed solemnity. Previously the Demos had voted that the Eumolpidai and the Kerykes should revoke the curses that they had laid upon Alkibiades when he was accused of profaning the Mysteries.79 This triumphant return of the customary land procession is the kind of occasion that could well have been memorialized by a colossal votive relief. It was a kind of refoundation of the cult as its original founder would have wanted it to be. The Great Eleusinian Relief would have been a private dedication, perhaps by the Hierophant himself. The monument was large enough to be impressive but economical in its use of low relief and reliance on painted detail. Like the procession of Alkibiades, it emphasized the solemnity of the ritual rather than the enthusiasm of the participants.80 The fact that the relief was copied in Roman times for display in Italy might suggest that it was valued for its historical associations rather than simply as an appealing work of art from Classical Athens.81

R EF EREN C ES Agora XXXI = M. M. Miles, The City Eleusinion, Princeton 1998. Aleshire, S. B. 1989. The Athenian Asklepieion: The People, Their Dedications, and the Inventories, Amsterdam. Austin, C. 1968. Nova fragmenta Euripidea in papyris reperta (Kleine Texte 187), Berlin. Berger, E., and M. Gisler-Huwiler. 1996. Der Parthenon in Basel: Dokumentation zum Fries, Mainz. Beschi, L. 1967–1968. “Il Monumento di Telemachos, fondatore dell’Asklepieion ateniese,” ASAtene, n.s. 45–46, pp. 381–436. ———. 1982. “Il Rilievo di Telemachos ricompletato,” AAA 15, pp. 31–43. Brommer, F. 1963. Die Skulpturen der Parthenon-Giebel, Mainz.

———. 1977. Der Parthenonfries: Katalog und Untersuchung, Mainz. Carpenter, R. 1932. “New Material for the West Pediment of the Parthenon,” Hesperia 1, pp. 1–30. Clinton, K. 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (TAPA 64.3), Philadelphia. ———. 1992. Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries (SkrAth 8.11), Stockholm. Collard, C., M. J. Kropp, and K. H. Lee. 1995. Euripides: Selected Fragmentary Plays I, Warminster. Despinis, G. 1967. “Kykladische Grabstelen des 5./4. Jh. v. Chr.,” AntP 7, pp. 77–86. ———. 1982. Paryen≈ neia (BiblioyÆkh t∞w §n ÉAyÆnaiw ÉArxaiologik∞w ÑEtaire¤aw 97), Athens.

290 Deubner, L. 1932. Attische Feste, Berlin (repr. Hildesheim 1969). Dohrn, T. 1957. Attische Plastik vom Tode des Phidias bis zum Wirken der grossen Meister des IV. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Krefeld. Edwards, C. M. 1985. “Greek Votive Reliefs to Pan and the Nymphs” (diss. New York University). Ervin, M. 1959. “Geraistai Nymphai Genethliai and the Hill of the Nymphs,” Plãtvn 1, pp. 146–159. Figueira, T. 1984. “The Ten Archontes of 579/8 at Athens,” Hesperia 53, pp. 447–473. Guarducci, M. 1974. “L’offerta di Xenokrateia nel santuario di Cefiso al Falero,” in FÒrow: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Meritt, Locust Valley, N.Y., pp. 55–66. Harrison, E. B. 1967a. “U and Her Neighbors in the West Pediment of the Parthenon,” in Essays in the History of Art Presented to Rudolf Wittkower, London, pp. 1–9. ———. 1967b. “Athena and Athens in the East Pediment of the Parthenon,” AJA 71, pp. 27–58. ———. 1979. “Apollo’s Cloak,” in Studies in Classical Art and Archaeology: A Tribute to Peter Heinrich von Blanckenhagen, G. Kopcke and M. B. Moore, eds., Locust Valley, N.Y., pp. 91–98. ———. 1984. “Time in the Parthenon Frieze,” in Parthenon-Kongress Basel, E. Berger, ed., Mainz, pp. 230–234, 416–418. ———. 1990. “Repair, Reuse, and Reworking of Ancient Greek Sculpture,” in Marble: Art Historical and Scientific Perspectives in Ancient Sculpture, M. True and J. Podany, eds., Malibu, pp. 163–184. ———. 1997. “The Glories of the Athenians: Observations on the Program of the Frieze of the Temple of Athena Nike,” in The Interpretation of Architectural Sculpture in Greece and Rome (Studies in the History of Art 49, CASVA Symposium Papers 29), D. Buitron-Oliver, ed. Washington, D.C., pp. 109–125. ———. Forthcoming. “The Aged Pelias in the Erechtheion Frieze and the Meaning of the Three Figure Reliefs,” in Essays in Honor of

e v e ly n b . h a r r i s o n Dietrich von Bothmer, A. Clark and J. Gaunt, eds. Jenkins, I. 1990. “Acquisition and Supply of Casts of the Parthenon Sculptures by the British Museum, 1835–1939,” BSA 85, pp. 89–114, pls. 10–20. ———. 1994. The Parthenon Frieze, London. Kardara, C. 1961. “Glauk«piw: ÑO érxa›ow naÚw ka‹ tÚ y°ma toË zvfÒrou toË Paryen«now,” ArchEph, pp. 61–158.

Karouzou, S. 1968. National Archaeological Museum. Collection of Sculpture: A Catalogue, Athens. Kearns, E. 1989. The Heroes of Attica (BICS Suppl. 57), London. Knigge, U. 1991. The Athenian Kerameikos: History—Monuments—Excavations, Athens. Kron, U. 1976. Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen (AM-BH 5), Berlin. ———. 1979. “Demos, Pnyx, und Nymphenhügel,” AM 94, pp. 49–75. Krug, A. 1968. “Binden in der griechischen Kunst: Untersuchungen zur Typologie, 6.–1. Jahrh. v. Chr.” (diss. Mainz), Hösel. Lawton, C. 1995. Attic Document Reliefs: Art and Politics in Ancient Athens, Oxford. Lindner, R. 1982. “Die Giebelgruppe von Eleusis mit dem Raub der Persephone,” JdI 97, pp. 303–400. Lullies, R., and M. Hirmer. 1957. Greek Sculpture, London. Mellink, M. 1943. “Hyakinthos” (diss. Utrecht). Morrow, K. 1985. Greek Footwear and the Dating of Sculpture, Madison. Neils, J. 1987. The Youthful Deeds of Theseus, Rome. Palagia, O. 1993. The Pediments of the Parthenon (Monumenta graeca et romana 7), Leiden. Parke, H. W. 1977. Festivals of the Athenians, London. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1972. “Demeter und Persephone in der attischen Kunst des 6. bis 4. Jahrhunderts,” JdI 87, pp. 60–157. Pfuhl, E. 1923. Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, Munich. Raubitschek, I. K., and A. E. Raubitschek. 1982. “The Mission of Triptolemos,” in Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography (Hesperia Suppl. 20), Princeton, pp. 109–117.

eumolpos arrives in eleusis Richter, G. M. A. R. 1954. Catalogue of Greek Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cambridge, Mass. Richter, G. M. A. R., and L. Hall. 1936. Red-Figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Haven. Ridgway, B. S. 1981. Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture, Princeton. Robertson, M. 1959. Greek Painting, Geneva. Robertson, M., and A. Frantz. 1975. The Parthenon Frieze, New York. Robertson, N. 1992. Festivals and Legends: The Formation of Greek Cities in the Light of Public Ritual, Toronto. Schneider, L. 1973. “Der Grosse Eleusinische Relief und seine Kopien,” AntP 12, pp. 103–122. Schuchhardt, W.-H. 1958. Review of Richter 1954, in Gnomon 35, pp. 481– 495. Schwarz, G. 1987. Triptolemos: Ikonographie einer Agrar- und Mysteriengottheit (GrazBeitr Suppl. 2), Horn.

Evelyn B. Harrison N e w Yor k U n i v e r s i t y institute of fine arts 1 east 7 8th street ne w york, ne w york 10021

Simon, E. 1983. Festivals of Attica: An Archaeological Commentary, Madison. ———. 1985. Die Götter der Griechen, 3rd ed., Munich. ———. 1998. “Neues zum grossen Relief von Eleusis,” AA, pp. 373–387. Spaeth, B. 1991. “Athenians and Eleusinians in the West Pediment of the Parthenon,” Hesperia 60, pp. 331–362. Thimme, J. 1964. “Die Stele der Hegeso als Zeugnis des attischen Grabkults,” AntK 7, pp. 16–29. Trendall, A. D. 1987. The Red-Figured Vases of Paestum, Rome. ———. 1989. Red Figure Vases of South Italy and Sicily: A Handbook, London. Trianti, I. 1998. TÚ Mouse›o ÉAkropÒlevw, Athens. Vanderpool, E. 1960. “News Letter from Greece,” AJA 64, pp. 265–271,pls. 65–67. von Bothmer, D. 1987. Greek Vase Painting, 2nd ed., New York. Weidauer, L., and I. Krauskopf. 1993. “Urkönige in Athen und Eleusis,” JdI 108, pp. 1–16, pls. 1–4.

291

HESPERIA Pages

69,

2000

293-333

LATE HELLETNI IN

POTTERY

A

NEW

DEPOSIT

THOUGHTS POTTERY

TIC

ATHENS AND FURTHER

ON THE ASSOCIATION AND

SOCIETAL

OF

CHANGE

ABSTRACT

1. I am gratefulto the Ev AOvoL; EtocLpsaoand the A' ApXxLokooyLtx Eqopz?a

HpoYa-coptx6v xat KXaaLxcv

ApXtoo-c-cv for permissionto study and publish the Hellenistic pottery from the South Slope for my doctoral thesis (Vogeikoff 1993); the deposit presentedhere forms part of that material.I also thank Maro Kyrkou, one of the excavatorsof the site, for her support;conservatorNancy Lazaroufor her help at variousstages of my project; Theodora Kakarougafor undertaking the majorityof the drawings;Michalis Tiverios of the Universityof Thessalonikifor advice;and my husband,Tom Brogan,Director of the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, for help with my English.The submittedversion of this paper benefited greatlyfrom the valuable comments of the two anonymous Hesperia reviewers. 2. Brief preliminaryreportsare publishedin Prakt and Ergon. See Prakt 1955, pp. 36-52; Prakt 1956, pp. 262265; Prakt1957, pp. 23-26; Prakt 1959, pp. 5-7; Ergon1955, pp. 5-14; Ergon 1956, pp. 5-10; Ergon1957, pp. 5-12; Ergon 1959, pp. 157-161.

In addition to presenting an Attic ceramic deposit of the Late Hellenistic period, the authorconnects the increaseof imported pottery and local imitations in assemblagesof the late 2nd and early1st centuries B.C. with contemporarychanges in Athenian society.During this period the emerging political elite ofAthens developedstrongcommercialinterestsand foreign contacts that may have led to changes in dining practices (e.g., the introduction of foreign metal shapes). Emulation of these cosmopolitan practices may have encouraged importation of foreign pottery-presumably skeuomorphs of metal vessels-and providedthe impetus for Attic ceramicimitation of imported metalware. The aim of the present paper is twofold: to contribute to the study of Attic pottery in the Late Hellenistic period by adding one more deposit to the rather small published corpus from this period and, most importantly, to view Attic Hellenistic pottery in its wider historical context. I am particularly concerned with the significance of pottery as an indicator of social and economic change in Late Hellenistic Athens.1

A LATE HELLENISTIC

DEPOSIT

FROM THE

SOUTH SLOPE OF THE ACROPOLIS CONTEXT

The materialunder discussion comes from a cistern located to the south of the eastern flank of the Odeion of Herodes Atticus (Fig. 1). The area south of the Odeion was excavated by the Greek Archaeological Society between 1955 and 1960 under the supervisionof the directorof the Acropolis Museum, I. Miliades. South Slope Cistern 14 (hereafter, C14) was excavated in 1956, and the material found there is currently stored at the mosque next to the Roman Agora.

NATALIA

294

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

$2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

ID~~I

IN~~~~~~~~~~~I

i!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t

;-N

0~~~~ V~~~~~~~~~~~~

Figure 1. Plan of excavations on the South Slope of the Acropolis, showing location of Cistern 14 (C14)

LATE

3. Upper diameter0.95 m, lower diameter1.27 m. 4. The dimensionsof the bench are H. 0.50 m; L. 1.00 m; and W. 0.35 m. 5. Prakt 1956, pl. 129:b. For a similarcase, see two red-figurepelikai in Thompson'sGroup B (Thompson 1934, pp. 333-334,427-428, B 1-2, figs. 13:a-b). The red-figurepyxis and the nonceramicobjectsarenot included in the presentarticlebecause they were not assignedto me for publication. 6. For parallels,see Siebert 1976, p. 817, figs. 29-30. 7. The terracottasare discussedin Appendix 2. 8. 1956-NAA-173 (unpublished). 9. 1956-NAF-1 (unpublished). 10. 1956-NAA-102 (unpublished). 11. 1956-NAM-41 (unpublished). 12. 1956-NAF-56 (unpublished). 13. One of the knucklebonesis inscribedAHTO. 14. Sling bullets have also been found in a Sullan deposit on the North Slope of the Acropolis;see Parsons 1943, pp. 240-241, note 136. 15. Grace and SavvatianouPetropoulakou1970, p. 305, E 15. 16. The notationsbelong to Manto Oikonomidou,formerdirectorof the Athens NumismaticMuseum. Inventorynumbers:1956-NAN-7, 1956-NAN-11, 1956-NAN-26,1956NAN-27, 1956-NAN-32.

HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

IN

ATHENS

295

South Slope C14 is a flask-shaped cistern measuring 5.50 m in depth. From the northwest side a tunnel 4.95 m in length extends its capacity.3 Footholes along the walls were probably made for cleaning and maintenance of the cistern and at the bottom a bench was built along the southwest side.4 Finally, a thick coat of hydraulic cement lines the cistern, tunnel, and bench. The cistern was originally excavated in a series of "baskets"(ophu&cs). When the excavators determined that the cistern contained a single fill, these baskets were combined and the undiagnostic pottery was discarded for lack of storage space. Subsequent analysis of the pottery, however, has indicated that C14 contained not only a large deposit of Late Hellenistic material, but also some Roman pottery dating to the first half of the 3rd century A.C. The presence of a small amount of Roman pottery in the deposit is likely to be the result of disturbance that occurred when a Roman pipe was installed along the east side of the cistern at a depth of 0.80 m beneath the surface. C14 also yielded a large red-figure pyxis from the late 5th century B.C., very likely an heirloom.5 In addition to the pottery, the deposit included fragments of tiles, iron objects, bronze bosses,6 a few terracottas, lead weights,8 clay loomweights, stone weights, a Hermaic stele together with its base,9a marble phiale with three spouts,10the thumb of a life-size marble statue,11a small marble altar,'2several knucklebones (some with color),'3 and two sling bullets.14 DATE

OF THE

DEPOSIT

The contents of C14 included sixteen legible stamped amphorahandlesfifteen Knidian examples and one Rhodian. Almost all of the Knidian handles belong to the VI B period (97-88 B.C.)of the "duoviri";the two exceptions belong to the VI A period (108-98 B.C.). The Rhodian handle preservesthe name of the maker,AycO`fooXoc, and is dated to the second half of the 2nd century.15The evidence from the stamped amphora handles is very useful because it provides a terminus post quem (92 B.C.) for the date of the deposit. The stamped amphora handles are discussed below in Appendix 1. Numismatic evidence may serve as a further guide for the date. The excavation notebooks record bronze coins in the fill of the cistern. The coins have not yet been located in the storerooms of the Athens Numismatic Museum; however, the same notebooks record some of the coins with the notation Mithridates." If these coins belong to the special issue of 87/86 B.C., distinguished by the characteristic star between two crescents, the missing coins would provide another terminus post quem (86 B.C.) for the filling of C14. The proposed dating thus falls within the period of Sulla's attack on Athens. According to S. I. Rotroff, the identification of a deposit as Sullan destruction debris is based on two distinctive pieces of evidence: stamped Knidianamphorahandles of period VI B (97-88 B.C.);and Athenian bronze coins depicting a starbetween two crescents on the reverse,minted shortly before Sulla's attack on Athens in 86 B.C. Most of the so-called Sullan

NATALIA

296

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

deposits, however, also contain material that can be dated several decades later than Sulla'sattack, indicating that the cleanup operations were a slow process. The deposits that do not contain any material that can be dated later than 75 B.C.are characterized as "pure"Sullan by Rotroff.17 The study of the pottery from C14 suggests that it is a Sullan deposit, though not a pure one since it also yielded a few pieces of pottery that date to the second quarterof the 1st century B.C. (i.e., a Mottled Oliver lid [54] and a skyphos made of Pergamene sigillata [37]), suggesting that either the debris did not find its way to the cistern immediately after Sulla'sattack or the cistern remained open for some time after the material was thrown in. OF THE

DISCUSSION

POTTERY

The pottery has been organized first by fabric, thus separating the fine ware from the coarseware, and then by function, following G. R. Edwards and Rotroff."8I also have taken an unusual step in my presentation by grouping local and imported vessels of the same function. Thus, for example, Knidian two-handled cups are presented together with their Attic imitations, under Drinking Vessels, and lagynoi appeartogether with Attic oinochoai, under Pouring Vessels. This approach is warranted by the considerable number of imports present in the deposit. Rotroff, in justifying her approach of juxtaposing vessels of disparate form but similar function, has argued that this method better reveals the culturalsystem in which these vessels once functioned together."9I believe that this approach is also applicable to vessels of similar function but different provenience. The presentation below includes the entire collection of Hellenistic pottery found in C14. The entries include the inventory number in parentheses, the preserveddimensions,20a short description moving from rim to base, a Munsell reading of the fabric, and a brief description of the quality of the gloss (or slip).To avoid inaccurateidentifications,it has been thought wise not to name the inclusions in the fabrics. TAB LEWARE VESSELS

FOR

FOOD

Plate (1-7) C14 yielded a few fragments of plates in a fabricknown as Eastern Sigillata A ware (1-4). Although there is no consensus about either the place of origin or the date of introduction of this type of pottery, many scholars, most recently K.W. Slane, have strongly arguedfor a Syro-Palestinian origin and a beginning date ca. 150 B.C.21 In fact, Slane's work has resolved the chronological debate. The Eastern Sigillata A plates from C14 are broad with a low base, flat resting surface, flat floor, and an upturned rim. The slip is dull and varies from orange-red (2) to darkred (4), and has been applied by double dipping (note the streak on the floors of 2 and 4). One of the plates (2)

17.AgoraXXIX, pp. 35-36. 18. CorinthVII, iii;AgoraXXIX. For a discussionof the advantagesand disadvantagesof this approach,see AgoraXXIX, pp. 5-7. 19.AgoraXXIX, p. 6. 20. Standardabbreviationsareused for dimensions,e.g., max. p.H. = maximumpreservedheight, Diam. = diameter,and so on. 21. Slane 1997, pp. 272-274 (with referencesto earlierbibliography).

LATE

HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

IN

297

ATHENS

Figure2. Plateswith upturnedrim, EasternSigillataA (1-4). Scale1:3 3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ........... ^S .. ....... .......... ........... .. ... .

':

T

'

',;

:

::

'

'

:

':'

'

'

... .......;.... . ....

\

..\

~~~~~~~... .

.

' ..........

..

.........

.

...

..

..

. .

carrieson the floor five rouletted (not clearlydefined) circles and a stamped rosette at the center. Plates 1-4 recall those of Tel Anafa type 13c, the majority of which were found in deposits closed ca. 80 B.C.22 Two large black-gloss bases (5-6) with red stacking circles and rouletting on the floor should be restored as plates either with offset or upturned rim. Examples with offset rim have been found in Thompson's Groups D and E, as well as in Sullan debris.23Plates with upturned rim also occur in contexts associated with the Sullan attack.24Both types of plates are of particular interest because their shapes represent a foreign influence in the Attic ceramic repertory of the Hellenistic period.25Both forms are encountered in the black-gloss predecessor (BSP) of Eastern Sigillata A and in Italian Campana B. According to Slane, the broad geographical occurrence of the plates with offset rim suggests that they copied metal prototypes.26 The shape of plate 7 finds no parallels in the Attic repertory. It is probably imported, although the fabric could be characterized as Attic.

PLATE WITH UPTURNED 1

22. Slane 1997, pp. 260-261, 288289, pls. 7-9. 23. Thompson 1934, p. 370, D 1, figs. 55, 116; p. 395, E 22-26, fig. 83. AgoraXXIX, p. 154. 24. AgoraXXIX, p. 155. 25. On the relationshipof these forms to Italianprototypes,see Agora XXIX, pp. 154-155. 26. Slane 1997, p. 283.

(1956-NAK-483) Fig. 2 Eastern Sigillata A. Import.

Max. p.H. 0.025 m. Part of rim and floor. Vertical rim, flat floor. Fabric:7.5YR 8/4. Gloss: dull red. 2


Max. p.H. 0.013 m, Diam. base 0.082 m. Base and part of floor. Ring base

RIM with flat resting surface, flat floor. Stamped rosette surrounded by rouletting. Streak from double dipping. Fabric:7.5YR 8/4. Gloss: dull red. 3


Max. p.H. 0.035 m. Part of rim and floor. Vertical rim, flat floor. Fabric:7.5YR 8/4. Gloss: dull red.

NATALIA

298

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

7

Figure3. Otherplates,blackgloss (5-7). Scale1:3 4

(1956-NAK-482) Fig. 2 Eastern Sigillata A. Import. Max. p.H. 0.04 m.

OTHER 5

PLATES

(1956-NAK-480) Attic.

Fig. 3

Max. p.H. 0.02 m, Diam. base 0.07 m. Base and part of floor. Ring base, flat floor. Rouletting on floor. Fabric:5YR 7/8. Gloss: dull black, red stacking circle and underside. 6

Fullprofile.Slightlyevertedrim, flat floor,ringbasewith flat resting surface.Streakfromdoubledipping. Fabric:lOYR8/4. Gloss:dull red.

(1956-NAK-485) Attic.

Fig. 3

Max. p.H. 0.025 m, Diam. base 0.07 m. Base and part of floor. Ring base

with groovedrestingsurface,flat floor with rouletting. Fabric:5YR 7/6. Gloss:dullblack, redstackingcircleandunderside. 7

(1956-NAK-458)Attic? Fig. 3

Max.dim. 0.066 m, est. Diam. rim 0.22 m. Partof rim and sidewall.Slightly profiledrim.Incisedinscriptionnear rim: POAHC.

Fabric:7.5YR7/6. Gloss:dull black,partial.

Bowl (8-11) There were two bowls with outturned rim and angular profile (8-9) in C14. Fragment 10 probablybelongs either to an echinus or a footed hemispherical bowl. Fine rouletting, a slip of good quality, and a brown stacking circle characterizethis particularpiece, which might not be Attic. The shape, decoration, and quality of the slip on bowl 11 are also alien to Attic pottery of this period. The closest parallel is a bowl from the Athenian Agora, which Rotroff also classifies as an import.27The spiral decoration on the center of the bowl recalls an example from Delos that J.-P. Morel has classified as Italic.28

27. AgoraXXIX, p. 420, no. 1739, fig. 103, pl. 137. 28. Morel 1986, p. 479, no. 125, fig. 20.

LATE

HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

IN

ATHENS

9

8

~

299

10

Figure 4. Bowls with outturned rim (8-9); echinus or footed hemispherical (10); carinated with riled rim (11). Scale 1:3

BOWL WITH OUTTURNED 8

(1956-NAK-489)Attic. Fig. 4

H. 0.045 m. Outturnedrim,carinated sidewall,heavyringbasewith slightly groovedrestingsurface,and nipple underside. Fabric:7.5YR 7/2. Gloss:black metallic,flaked,mottledaroundbase.

RIM 9

(1956-NAK-488)Attic. Fig. 4

H. 0.045 m. Outturnedrim,carinated sidewall,ringbase. Fabric:5YR 7/8. Gloss:dull red, basewithoutslip.

ECHINUS OR FOOTED HEMISPHERICAL

BOWL

(1956-NAK-487) restingsurface.Curvedsidewall. Fig. 4 Rouletting. Import? blackwith brown , .Max,;. 5 b. istacking circle. p,.,H. 0039 Diami m, sGloss: Max m.

10

Tall ringbasewith grooved

CARINATED BOWL WITH RILLED RIM 11

(1956-NAK-438, 528) Import.

Fig. 4

Diam. base0.064 m. Two nonjoiningfragments preserving base,partof body,and rim.Thickenedrimwith pairof grooveson top. Carinatedbodywith VESSELS

FOR

concaveupperpart.Ringbasewith groovedrestingsurface.Rouletting, fourpalmettes,andspiraldecoration at centerof floor. Fabric:7.5YR 7/4. Gloss:dull n s nflo bott,bom. botm

DRINK

Vessels for drink have been subdivided into three categories: containers (West Slope Amphora, 12-15); pouring vessels (Small Oinochoe, 16-19; Round-Mouth Juglet, 20; and Lagynos, 21-26); and drinking vessels (Moldmade Bowl, 27-33; Two-Handled Cup, 34-36; and Skyphos, 37).

300

NATALIA

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

Containers: WestSlope Amphora (12-15) Of the two definite West Slope amphorasfound in C14, 12 is earlierthan 13. The latter has features typical of late-2nd-/early-lst-century B.C. amphoras, such as the molded rim, the angle between shoulder and body, the simplified twist of the handles, the extensive use of incision, and the replacement of the plastic masks by spurs.29On the neck, the large ivy leaves find parallels in Rotroff's Large Leaf Group 2, which is dated between 120 and 86 B.C. on the basisofwell-dated depositsfromthe Athenian Agora.30 Amphora 12, on the other hand, recalls a group of amphoras from Agora deposits dating to the middle of the 2nd century B.C.31 Because of the poor state of preservation of fragments 14-15, their shape is not certain.They probablybelong to small amphoras with parallels in the Agora.32

WEST SLOPE AMPHORA 12 (1956-NAK-225)Attic. Fig. 5 H. 0.22 m. pile; rstore romm ofof rim, fullments. fragments. Missingsmallpart belly,andone mask.Outcurvedrim. Tall,wide, flaringneck.Upperhandle attachmentsflankedby knobs.Pairof scrapedgroovesatjunctionof neck with shoulder.Twistedhandleswith reliefmasksat base.Scrapedgroove atjunctionof shoulderwith lower body.Ringbasewith flat resting surface. Fabric:5YR 7/4. Gloss:metallic black,flaked.

stems),andwhite dot rosettes. Slightlytwistedhandleswith vestigial masksat base.Shoulderdecorated with latticeflankedby checkerboard. Fabric:2.5YR 6/6. Gloss:dull back. black. 14 (1956-NAK-511)Attic. Fig. 6 Max.p.H. 0.055 m. Partof neckand shoulder, handle.White thicklines alternate with tan debasedornamenton shoulder.Pairof white verticallines, pairof horizontaltan lines on neck. Fabric:7.5YR7/4. Gloss:dull brownishblack.

13 (1956-NAK-429)Attic. Fig. 6 Max. p.H. 0.095, est. Diam. rim 0.12 m. Rim,neck,shoulder,one handle, and smallpartof body.Moldedrim. Neck decoratedwith invertedegg anddart(incisedegg, painteddart), an ivygarland(leavesin thinnedclay with some addedwhite;incised

15 (1956-NAK-490)Attic. Fig. 6 Max.p.H. 0.05 m. Partof neckandshoulder. Debasedwhite andtan alternating ornamentson shoulder.White dots on baseof neck. Fabric:7.5YR7/4. Gloss:dull black.

29. See Rotroff 1991, nos. 98 from Large Leaf Group 1 (fig. 22, pl. 41), 106 from Large Leaf Group 4 (fig. 29, pl. 44), and 117-119 from the Gaudy Amphora Group (figs. 30-32, pls. 45-

46). Pouring Vessels:Small Oinochoe(16-19), Round-Mouth Juglet (20), Lagynos (21-26) Small oinochoai with trefoil mouth, slender neck, and globular or pearshaped body are popular throughout the 2nd century B.C. Parallels appear in Agora deposits of the earlyand late 2nd centuryB.C.33 and in the Peiraieus Cistern, the closing date of which has recently been placed ca. 140 B.C.34 The absence of late features such as double grooves on the shoulder and a broad foot suggests a date around the middle of the 2nd century B.C. for

30. Rotroff 1991, pp. 89-90, pls. 39-40. 31. AgoraXXIX, p. 122, nos. 427429, 431, 432, pl. 42. 32. AgoraXXIX, p. 123, no. 451, fig. 33, pl. 45. 33. AgoraXXIX, pp. 125-127. 34. AgoraXXIX, pp. 33-34; Metzger 1973, p. 55, no. 63, fig. 4, p1. 10.

LATE

HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

IN

ATHENS

30I

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ........\

Figure5. West Slopeamphora(12). Scale 1:3

221,

15

14

13- ... ...::..1 ~~~~~~~~~~~.::.:..... ..'.

.'' ,..

-,-..4

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ::t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _

....

..

Figure6. West Slope amphoras (13-15).

Scale 1:3

35. AgoraXXIX, no. 490, fig. 36, pl. 48. 36. AgoraXXIX, pp. 132-133, esp. note 61.

the three small oinochoai 16-18. Earlier oinochoai are usually taller and larger. Fragment 19 carries West Slope decoration and strongly recalls a pear-shaped small oinochoe from the Athenian Agora from a Late Hellenistic context.35 Small juglets with a round mouth are quite popular in Attic deposits of the second half of the 2nd century and the first half of the 1st century B.c. The example from C14 (20) features a double handle that splits into spurs on the rim. It is also characterized by a scraped groove below the rim. The treatment of the handle suggests the influence of prototypes in metal.36

302

NATALIA

VOGEIKOFF-BROGAN

A fair number of white-ground lagynoi were found in C14 (21-26). With the exception of 21, the rest areextremelyfragmentary.White-ground lagynoi are commonly understood to have flourished from the second half of the 2nd century to the second quarterof the 1st century B.C., but there is increasing evidence to push the introduction of the type back to the first half of the 2nd century B.c.37The paucity of white-ground lagynoi (three examples) at Corinth, however, suggests that the practice of importing them was just beginning at the time of Corinth's destruction in 146 B.c.38 The center of production of white-ground pottery is unknown, although it is usually assumed to lie somewhere along the west coast of Asia Minor. J. Schafer has suggested Pergamon for the following reasons: the excavations at Pergamon yielded a variety of shapes including lagynoi that are decorated in the white-ground technique; and two small white-ground fragments (unfortunately now lost) of the late 2nd century B.C. were discovered in the debris of a pottery kiln near the Gymnasium at Pergamon, demonstrating that the city did indeed produce white-ground pottery.39 Pitane, the port of Pergamon, has also been suggested as a possible center of production on the basis of the large number of white-ground lagynoi found there.40J.W. Hayes has recently attributeda series of whiteground lagynoi from Paphos to Cypriot workshops on the basis of their fabric.41There are,however,other centers of production because the whiteground lagynoi from Thompson's Group E are not related, in terms of fabric,to either the Pergamene or the Cypriot series, and must come from yet another center.42 Lagynos 21 from South Slope C14 displays an angular profile, with upper and lower body of the same height, and belongs to Shape 2 in Westholm'sclassificationof Cypriot lagynoi.43According to Rotroff, Shape 2 in the Athenian Agora is largely associated with Sullan contexts.4421 also finds parallelsin the Antikythera shipwreck.45In addition to 21, fragments from at least four other lagynoi were found in C14. Three sherds inventoried under the same number (22) probablybelong to the same vessel. Depictions of musical instruments, not uncommon on lagynoi, are preserved in dark slip on the white surface. Four other fragments (23) from another lagynos are decorated with large brownish-black leaves. Finally, fragments from a base (24) and a neck (25) complete the catalogue of white-ground lagynoi from C14. In addition to white-ground lagynoi, the deposit also yielded a redslipped lagynos with West Slope decoration (26). The clay is red, hard, and slightly micaceous, and the slip reddish brown with black spots. Most of the decoration was done by incision, not the hasty and careless incision of the Late Hellenistic Attic workshops, but a fine and delicate technique. A similar black-gloss example comes from a Sullan deposit in the Athenian Agora.46The finesse of the incision on 26 recalls Pergamene West Slope pottery.47

37. AgoraXXIX, pp. 227-228. 38. CorinthVII, iii, p. 50, note 34; Broneer 1947, p. 240, pl. LVIII:12.See also Broneer 1935, pp. 71-72, fig. 16. 39. PFII, p. 110. 40.AvPIX,p. 122. 41. PaphosIII, pp. 18-22, esp. series 4 and 6. 42. PFII, p. 111. 43. Vessbergand Westholm 1956, p. 59. 44. AgoraXXIX, p. 228. 45. Edwards1965, p. 21, no. 10; ArchEph1902, pl. H:8. 46. AgoraXXIX, p. 222, no. 1676, fig. 100, pl. 133. 47. In my dissertation(Vogeikoff 1993), I attributed26 to the Rhodian workshop,but I now believe that it is closer to the Pergameneworkshops.For the use of incision on PergameneWest Slope pottery,see Behr 1988, p. 106; and Patsiada1990, p. 134.

LATE

HELLENISTIC

IN

POTTERY

ATHENS

303

18 .......'..|l .,,,*'!. ?

16;

w

~~~~~~~~~~~17

l19

Figure7. Smalloinochoai(16 19); round-mouthjuglet (20). Scale1:3

SMALL OINOCHOE 16

(1956-NAK-7) Attic.

Fig. 7

H. 0.115 m, Diam. base 0.038 m, max. Diam. 0.075 m. Full profile. Missing handle and part of rim. Trefoil mouth, thin neck, globular body, ring base. Fabric:5YR 6/4. Gloss: dull black, mottled around base.

18

Fig. 7

H. 0.12 m, Diam. base 0.048 m, max. Diam. 0.079 m. Full profile. Missing part of trefoil mouth, and handle. Trefoil mouth, thin neck, round body, ring base. Same shape as 16. Fabric:5YR 6/4. Gloss: dull black, mottled around base.

ROUND-MOUTH 20

Fig. 7

Max. p.H. 0.101 m. Missing mouth and handle. Thin neck, pear-shaped body, and ring base. Fabric:5YR 6/4. Gloss: brownish black, flaky, mottled around base. 19

17 (1956-NAK-3) Attic.

(1956-NAK-6) Attic.

(1956-NAK-516) Attic. Max. p.H. 0.05 m.

Fig. 7

Part of neck and shoulder. Pair of scraped grooves at junction of neck with shoulder. Alternation of white and yellow teardrop lines on neck, white zigzag line on shoulder. Fabric:5YR 7/6. Gloss: dull black.

JUGLET

(1956-NAK-4) Attic.

Fig. 7

Max. p.H. 0.057 m, Diam. rim 0.044 m, Diam. base 0.036 m. Fully preserved. Outturned rim, round body, flat bottom. Thin incised line at junction of rim with body.

Double rolled handle ending at two spurs on rim. black.

304

NATALIA

VOGEI

KOFF-

B ROGAN

LAGYNOS 21 (1956-NAK-224) White-ground.Import.

Fig. 8

Max. p.H.0.10m,iam.bFabric: Max. 0.105 m, Diam. base p.H. 0.12 m. Missingrim,neck,andhandle. Convexshoulder.Carinatedbody. Ringbasewith angularexterior; beveledrestingsurface;slightlyconvex underside.Tracesof reddecorationon shoulder. Fabric:7.5YR6/6. Gloss:offwhite. 22 (1956-NAK-447) White-ground.Import.

Fig. 8

Four nonjoining fragments from

shoulder,decoratedwith largebrown ivyleavesandlight brownstems. Fabric:7.5YR 6/4, micaceous.

Gloss:off-white.

White-ground. Import.

Fig. 8

Max.p.H. 0.073 m. Fragmentpreservingrim,largest partof neck,andbeginningof handle. Rolledrim,tubularneck,and strap handle. Fabric:5YR 7/8. Gloss:off-white. 26 (1956-NAK-436)

Max.p.H. a) 0.06;b) 0.049;c) 0.04; d) 0.04 m.

24 (1956-NAK-551)

25 (1956-NAK-531) White-ground.Import.

Fig. 8

Max.p.H. a) 0.043;b) 0.071;c) 0.049 m. Three nonjoiningfragmentsfrom neckandbody.Body decoratedwith imagesof stringedmusicalinstrumentsin brownandyellowslip. Fabric:7.5YR6/4, micaceous. Gloss:off-white. 23 (1956-NAK-448) White-ground.Import.

Fragmentpreservingsmallpart of baseandbody.Low ringbase. 7.5YR 7/6. Gloss:offwhite.

Fig. 8

Fig. 9

West Slope.Import. Max.p.H. 0.104 m. Threejoiningfragmentspreserving partof neckand shoulder.Neck: necklacewith spearheadpendants attachedto incisedbandby incised zigzagline;two incisedties at ends. Ridgeatjunctionof neckwith body. Convexshoulderdividedinto two registersby pairof grooves.Another pairof groovesatjunctionof shoulder with body.Shoulder,upperregister: incisedrunningspiral;lowerregister: pendant with spearhead pendants

attachedto incisedbandby incised zigzagline;incisedbow with ties and trailing tips below pendants. White

four-leafrosetteto the left of necklace. Fabric:2.5YR 5/6, verylittle

mica. Gloss: reddish brown (2.5YR 4/6), black at places.

Max.p.H. 0.015 m. Drinking Vessels:Moldmade Bowl (27-33), Two-Handled Cup (3436), Skyphos (37) The debris from C14 yielded fragments from seven moldmade bowls, most of which, with two exceptions (one imbricate bowl [27] and one figured [281), belong to the long petal type. The small number of moldmade bowls in the deposit is rather surprising, since they occur in large numbers in Agora deposits associated with the sack of Athens by Sulla.48 Of the two-handled cups, two (34-35) are considered local versions of the so-called Knidian bowl, while the third (36) is actually an import from somewhere in the areaof the Dodecanese and coastal Caria, possibly Knidos. The "Knidian bowl" is found frequently in Attic deposits of the

48. AgoraXXII, p. 36. 49. For Knidianbowls and imitations, as well as bibliography,see Agora XXIX, pp. 119,233-234. 50. PF VI, pl. 7:13, S 3; PF II, p. 68, E 79, E 85; PF VII, pls. 6-7. 51. PFVI, p. 65, S 3. For an opposing view, see PF VII, p. 23; and review of PF VII by S. I. Rotroff in Gnomon68, 1996, pp. 356-361.

LATE

HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

...

IN

ATHENS

305

.

....

'.*,._

^

_

5 ,

tAl'

.

V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~W Ea

i

t9Ee:3

tower and Gell in his Narrative (pp. 61-62; above, p. 349) also alludes to one. In 1716 nine sharecropperslived there; slightly earlier Venetian censuses gave figures of 12 men and a total population of 37 (1689), and 2 families and a total population of 7 (1700). Pouqueville in 1815 reported a population of 28 individuals. In 1829, the Expedition scientifique listed only 5 families at Hasan-Aga (sic), while Ramfos lists 42 individuals.8 OSMAN ACA The two "villages,or tchifliks"that Gell describes (Itinerary)would have been the most substantial remains visible from the low-lying coastal area of station 15. In the Narrative, he appearsto distinguish Hasan Aga, which he refers to as a "village,"from Osman Aga, which he describes as a "country-house."The name of this village was officially changed from Osmanaga to Koryfasio in May 1915,82one of the earliest in a series of renamings designed to purge the region of non-Greek (especially Turkish) village names. The name Osmanaga continues to be applied to the lagoon north of the Bay of Navarino, however, perhaps some indication of the importance in the region either of this individual or the village.83In 1716, the settlement was designated as a fiftlik and was called either Osman Aga or Buyuk ["Greater"]Pisaski, to distinguish it from nearby Ku,cuk["Lesser"] Pisaski.The Venetians employed a similar distinction, referringto the two villages as Pisaschipiccolo and grande, although Suman Ag'a is an alternative name for the latter.84 The relativeimportance of the two settlements seems not to have been one of size, since in 1716, Kui,iik Pisaski had thirteen sharecroppersas opposed to twelve at Buyuk. However, TT880 suggests a higher status for Osman Aga since it had a "big house" or saray ("palace")and a han, in addition to ten houses belonging to the f ftlik.85In the case of Ku,cukPisaski, only three "lower rooms" are mentioned as property of the fiftlik, but an annotation indicates that each of the sharecroppershad a house. Kiiyik Pisaski, therefore, seems more like a village than an estate. Moreover, in addition to its grand buildings, Buyuk Pisaski/Osman Aga also boasted the largest number of olives in the kaza (district) of Anavarin [Navarino]

81. TT 880, p. 80; Panayiotopoulos 1987, pp. 226,262; Pouqueville18261827, VI, p. 73, note 1; Puillon de Boblayeand Virlet 1833-1834, p. 85; Loukatos 1984, p. 219, note 1. 82. Politis 1915, p. 281. 83. Bory (1836, p. 140) rather puzzlingly notes that the name Osmanagais only correctlyappliedto the lagoon. In the Expedition scientifiquecensus, Osmanagaappears as Souman-aga(Puillon de Boblaye and Virlet 1833-1834, p. 85); in the census of 1815 it appearsas Osman-aga (Pouqueville1826-1827, VI, p. 73, note 1); and in 1830 as Sumanaga(Loukatos 1984, pp.211-212). 84. For the Venetiancensusesof 1689 and 1700 that relateto the "territorio" of Navarino,see Panayiotopoulos1987, pp.226 [1689], 262 [1700]. Note that Gell was wrong in supposingthat Osman Aga, the man, was his contemporary.Pouqueville (1826-1827, VI, p. 26) similarlynotes the "villagesou tchiftlicks qui portent les noms d'Osman et de Hassan, proprietairesauxquelstoute cette contree appartient." 85. TT 880, pp. 84-85. Compare Gell's referenceto a "country-house."

SIR

WILLIAM

GELL

S ITINERARY

IN

THE

PYLIA

367

(1903 roots), the largest area of vineyards (baglari,"gardens";300 d5nuim, approximately27.5 ha), and 1500 do5num(approximately 137.5 ha) of arable land atTavarne and the nearbydeserted f ftlik of Lefku.86Many mulberry saplings (1500) are also recorded, presumably to nourish the silkworms that produced silk for the workshop (ipekhane),another feature unique in Anavarin to Osman Aga. Since Pouqueville's figures suggest that a situation similar to that described in 1716 still obtained at the time of Gell's trip, it is surprising that even in January Gell noticed no one working the land in the vicinity of either Osman Aga or Hasan Aga.87 Remains of the bridge with which this stage of Gell's itinerary ends are visible beneath the modern concrete bridge on the Selas River that is crossed by the modern asphalt road from Romanou to Tragana (Fig. 10). This bridge seems to have given its name to the mazra'arecorded in TT 880 that is explicitly called "the other Yufiri"to distinguish it from the Yufiri near Beli.88 Although the modern village of Romanou appearsnot to have been inhabited prior to the mid-19th century,the name Romanou was applied to the river,and the presence in TT880 of the toponym Rum Bag/Baglari ("Greek Garden[s]") must reflect this. FROM

THE

ROMANOU

RIVER

TO GARGALIANI

In his description of the third part of his journey, Gell gives far fewer local toponyms, although it is still possible to trace his route. It is clear that he did not follow either of the principal modern roads to Gargaliani, either the route that runs along the coast and approachesGargalianifrom Pigadia or the upperroute through Ambelofyto (formerlyAgorelitsa).89After crossing the bridge over the Romanou River (Fig. 10), Gell seems to have climbed to a point near the modern village of Tragana (what he calls "the top of the opposite bank"), and then to have descended into the upper reachesof the present Mati rema (which he variouslycalls Brisomero Nerro [Itinerary,p. 52] or Brusomavo [Narrative, p. 62]).90Because Gell makes no mention of the village of Mouzousta, he is likely to have followed a poor switchback trail that makes its way up a gorge on the precipitous southern flank of the hill of Profitis Ilias (Lefkis), and then crosses the area of Kalantina before finally arriving at the southern outskirts of the town of Gargaliani (Fig. 11).91 86. See above,p. 363 and note 75. 87. In 1815 Kiuck and Buiyuik Pisaskihad 22 and 29 individuals, respectively(Pouqueville1826-1827, VI, p. 73, note 1); and in 1829, 9 and 7 families (Puillon de Boblaye and Virlet 1833-1834, p. 85). TT880, pp. 80-81, also lists a f iftlik of Rustem Aga, some of whose arableland was located in the vicinity of Osman Aga fiftlik. 88. See above,note 49. 89. These routes areindicatedin the Atlas of the Expedition scientifique,pls. 111.3and 111.5(see Fig. 5). The track followed by Gell is not.

90. Bory (1836, p. 165) also in the mentions a "Brisomero-nero" courseof his journeyto Mouzousta; there were ancient remainsthere and the land was workedby farmersfrom Mouzousta (modern Lefki). Pouqueville too (1826-1827, VI, p. 26) refers to the "Vrysso-Nero."It seems clear from context that none of these authors refersto the sulphurousspringsat modernVromoneri.See Lyritzis 19821983, p. 123, concerningthe application of the toponym Vrysomylosto the streamfed from the springsat Mati, and to its vicinity.The village of

Traganawas founded after the Greek Revolution;it is not mentioned by the Expedition scientifique. 91. Pouqueville(1826-1827, VI, p. 26) pursuedpreciselythe same route in reverse,mentioning the chapel of Ayios Nikolaos on the outskirtsof Gargaliani, a semicircularvalley,a steep descent, and an aqueductfed by the spring of "Vrysso-Nero."The Expedition scientifique,on the other hand, traveled from Navarinoto Gargalianivia Mouzousta (Bory 1836, p. 167); the churchthere had been destroyed.

368

BENNET,

DAVIS,

AND

ZARINEBAF-SHAHR

Proftis

.S..

Ilas

II

__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gell's description closely fits this geography. The summit that he reaches, in the Itinerary"aftera steep and dangerous descent [sic],"92 must be the crest at the top of the switchback trail, a place that does, indeed, afford spectacularviews of the sea and the island of Proti. A distinct natural hollow between Profitis Ilias and the area of Mylolitha slopes west toward the sea, and behind it lies the semicircularvalley of Kalantina. A church of Ayios Nikolaos, now ruined, once lay at the edge of town.93 Had Gell taken the coastal, lowland route to Gargaliani, he would again have avoided signs of habitation and witnessed a similarly depopulated landscape.This is, in fact, precisely the impression conveyed by another travelermaking the journey along the coastal route a decade before Gell. A. L. Castellan traveled from Petrohori to Filiatra in 1799. He did not visit Gargaliani,but stayed on the coastal plain all the way.Thus, after crossing various rivers north of the Osmanaga Lagoon, he found himself on higher ground amidst an extensive olive forest: Ces oliviers, dont on ne parait pas recolter le fruit, etant livres entierement a la nature, sont devenus de grands arbres.Cet endroit se nomme les Cent-Villages,quoiqu'il n'y existe pas en ce moment une seule cabane. Au-dela du bois se trouve un terrain sterile, couvert de bruyeres,et peu apres le chemin se dirige vers une foret que le Zantiote nous a signalee comme la retraite des forbans de l'ile de Prodano.

Figure11. Switchbackroadleading fromthe Mati valleyto Kalantina

92. Cf. Gell 1823, p. 62: "We ascendedfrom hence by a steep and difficulttrackto a summit"(our emphasis). 93. Bory saw its ruins (1836, p. 169). It is clearfrom his description that the chapel lay nearthe hill of Hondrovouni,on the outskirtsof Gargalianiin the directionof Mouzousta. Its existence is attested alreadyin 1698 (Dokos 1976, p. 133).

SIR

WILLIAM

GELL

S ITINERARY

IN

THE

PYLIA

369

There follows an account of making camp for the night and of an alleged attack by pirates. Castellan then continues: Le 29, a la pointe du jour, nous nous sommes hates de sortir de cette foret malencontreuse;ce que nous avons fait sans obstacle. Ayant jete les yeux en arrierenous nous sommes convaincus que toute cette c6te, en effet voisine de l'ile des Pirates, etait absolument deserte et inculte. Devant nous etait un pays plus riant, et a mesure que nous avancions nous avons retrouve avec plaisir des champs cultives et ensemences pour la seconde fois. Les collines etaient tapissees de vignes, et la fumee qui s'elevait catet la parmi des bouquets d'arbresindiquait des habitations. Ce spectacle ramena parmi nous la tranquillite, et nous laissames les craintes et les dangers derriere nous, dans le brouillard qui couvrait la foret.94 The party ultimately reached Filiatra in safety.

COASTAL SETTLEMENT IN THE SECOND OTTOMAN PERIOD AND THE ACCOUNTS OF TRAVELERS

94. Castellan 1808, pp. 91, 94. 95. On the devastationat this time and the placementof Greek and Egyptian forces,see Humphreysand Pecchio 1826. On battles for the fortressof Navarino,see Makriyiannis 1966. Makriyiannis(chapter3) describesthe large Greek force assembledat Hores (the areaof modern Hora); on the existenceof the name Hores before the name Hora officially replacedLigoudista,see also Bory 1836, p. 229, and the Atlas of the Expedition scientifique,pls. 111.3and "'I.5. 96. Gell's accountcan also be contrastedwith that of Perdicaris,who visited the areasoon after the Greek Revolution.Perdicaris(1845, p. 209) wrote:"Fromancient Pylos to the city of Arcadia,a distanceof about twentyfour miles, the country,though generallyin a state of neglect, is, in comparisonwith the desertedregions between Petalidiand Navarino,well cultivated,and prettywell inhabited."

Narratives like those of Gell paint a rather bleak picture of coastal settlement in the last century of Ottoman rule. Many scholars have concluded from such accounts that, prior to 1821, the Greeks had fled to the highlands, leaving the lowlands in waste. By the time the French expeditionary force arrivedin the Morea, such a picture is indeed accurate.Ibrahim Pasha and his troops had cut swathes of destruction through the Peloponnese. Much farmlandhad been intentionally destroyed and villages pillaged and burned.The areaof the Bay of Navarino was especially hard-hit.95During the sieges of Neokastro and of Sphakteria (1825), Ibrahim had camped at Yialova. Later he occupied Navarino itself (1825-1828). During the campaign of Papaflessas (1825), additional damage was inflicted on the district. But the lowlands around the Bay of Navarino do not appear to have been severely depopulated prior to the Greek Revolution. It is clear that the vision of a travelerlike Gell must have been restricted both physically and conceptually in order for him to have failed to comment more extensively on the considerable settlement and land use there, and that his descriptions must be counterbalanced by a review of newly available documentary and archaeological evidence. Although his route kept first to the coastal lowlands and then avoided the village of Mouzousta on the way to Gargaliani, it is inconceivable that Gell would have been unaware of the substantial human activities in the areas through which he traveled, had he cared to record them.96 It seems clear from archivalsources that the land surroundingthe Bay of Navarino was cultivated by Greek sharecroppersat the beginning of the Second Ottoman period and that the villages they occupied were not far

370

BENNET,

DAVIS,

AND

ZARINEBAF-SHAHR

from the lands they farmed (Figs. 12, 14). Nor is it probable that by Gell's day the situation had changed to any appreciableextent. In fact, the settlement pattern in the district of Navarino, in terms of villages or fiftliks recorded, is quite stable- from the Venetian censuses of 1689 and 1700 (Fig. 13), through TT880 in 1716, through Pouqueville's"cadastreof 1815," to the Expedition scientifique's census of 1829. Only three populated villages included in Venetian censuses were deserted in 1716 (TT880: Other Papla [modern Kato Papoulia],KurdBey, and Elyas Aga [modern Lezaga]). Only Kurd Bey, now known as Yialova, had not been resettled by Pouqueville's1815 "cadastre,"although it was populated by 1829, the time of the census of the Expedition scientifique. On the basis of Pouqueville's cizye figures, the population of the district of Navarino appears to have almost doubled between 1716 and 1815 (cf. Figs. 14 and 15, and see Fig. 16 for population in 1829).97The impression of desertion in the Second Ottoman period conveyed by travelers'accounts like Gell's is thus illusory. Viewed in this light, Gell's narrativeseems less a straightforwarddescription of what he saw than a construction that reflects his own agenda in composing it.98It seems likely, for example, that Gell was influenced by earlier travelers'accounts, such as that of Castelian, who charted a similarly deserted landscape. Susan Sutton has demonstrated how formulaic travelers'accountscan become: at Nemea, desertionand isolation arethemes maintained consistently in narrativesof the 19th century in spite of the fact that documentaryand archaeologicalevidence demonstrates that there was dense habitation and land use.99Simopoulos has discussed Gell's general distaste for ordinary farmers,and his preference for the Greek Europeanized elite, the so-called xo-u4ocVTc6ce;ag.Gell may also have been influenced in part by the toposof desertion that had already been established by ancient authors. It is important to remember that, despite his frequent reference to the mundane (for which he was sometimes mocked he was a graduate of Cambridge University, a scholar enby reviewers),100 gaged in debates over the Homeric question, and a leader in the Society of Dilettanti.101Pausanias and Strabo served as his guides, as they did for other scholars of his day, and no doubt directed his vision away from regions and subjects that played no substantial role in their texts.102 Gell himself describes the land around Navarino as "a country where no one goes, because it affords no object of curiosity."103 97. Pouqueville1826-1827, VI, p. 73, note 1; Puillon de Boblayeand Virlet 1833-1834, p. 85. Pouqueville's (1820-1821, V, p. 15) figure for cizye billets of 447 is almost twice that for ispencelisted in TT 880: 269. 98. Other aspectsof his texts suggest that Gell at times consciously chose to omit significantinformation, perhapsin an attempt to defamiliarize his narrative.For example,although he was accompaniedby English servants and a western companion(1823, p. 366), they are rarelymentioned, and never named.

99. Sutton, in press. 100. Simopoulos 1985, p. 124. 101. Gell publishedsignificant studies of both Troy (1804) and Ithaka (1807). 102. Indeed, Gell himself published a geographicalcommentaryto Pausaniasand Strabo:Gell 1810. For Pausanias,there was not "muchto 'see' in the region,thanks to the yearslost to Spartandomination"(Alcock 1998a, p. 191). 103. Gefl 1823, p. 32. He searched for antiquitiesonly in the fortressof Old Navarino,but rejectsit as a likely

location for Nestor'sPylos (pp. 26-28). Pouqueville(1826-1827, VI, pp. 2627) also paints a pictureof scant cultivationand restrictedgrazing:"Le pays,parsemede groupesd'oliviers,ne presentea de grandesdistancesque peu de terrainscultives,entremelesde parcoursdans lesquelspassent une multitudede moutons et de chevres,car les grassesg6nisses ainsi que les taureauxqui faissaientl'opulencedu roi de Pylos, pasteurdes hommes, n'existentdepuis long-temps que dans lIliade et I'Odysseed'Homere."

WILLIAM

SIR

GELL

S ITINERARY

IN

THE

PYLIA

k ._ ...

......: . \:

\: 1'

.:... ..:.

. : !.

.. .

... .

.

.. ...b . .... . . . .. . ... !::: .:

:.

R l;,

.

8

s

g

S

'

.

'

R

.

P

ft~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. f. R':}} i-.....

.S

1.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

..... ...... ... between Setilements the~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. TT880. were dashe dotted~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .... ...... .... ....... ...di after .1716.. reassigned~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. (in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NM modern place-names Some

in

italics)

~~

.o refrece

~

~

~ ~

~

..

................

37I

372

BENNET,

DAVIS,

AND

ZARINEBAF-SHAHR

J

*

9

13. Ppulton in 1700. ~~~~~~~~igure Place-names appear in original AfterPanayiotopoulos ~~~~~~~~~~~~~orthography. 1987, pp. 250,262. D. K. Harlan and

Ga

Families 00

~

ii

~

J.Robertson. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R.

~

~

~

~

A

~~mume1

01.4 * 514 @15-24

p

o Ac d

odi Navarino Lazerefl

Figure 14. Population in ca. 1716. Place-names appear in original orthography.AfterTT880.D. K.Harlan R. J. Robertson.

Ga~~~~~~~~~~1i (1

~~~~~Gca7~rninl

Muzuutela

Agas

klad

agg

OPenhul

00~~~~~~~ 014 * 5-14 @125-34

3VW

o 0 mAusrn

oi

WILLIAM

SIR

in 1815. Figure15.Population Place-names appearinoriginal After Pouquevillel1826orthography. 1827, VI, p. 73, note 1. D. K. Harlan and R. J. Robertson.

GELL

S ITINERARY

(k(

11

9

y

PYLIA37

Woy

lGXt

g

H_

-

li

|

ll

*Lvxs_

l

>

0

V

)*

4

t

Y

Papo+,& hsJ

+ hl*,^8r

70/ DRhmyw c _Kmi

11i l

9

l

g

t}.

y

| | I113

C

%O ~~?and

|

f(\s \0%N\
\

85.9D. K.fqHarla

a^-0__zg\\3 :-... ..... ..:. '..:' ,. ''

...:,.

...

.'3S'

.

. | wN

.:._

,,

... .... ...... .:........................................................ . ,:.....

. _ .X ...................................................... ..

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... S "'|q ........................................... ..

EM ,':S"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ..

M

Coitha

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C) ...,,....4 . r,s

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ecp

C2 C-71-523.

Fig. 9

PH. 0.244; Diam. rim0.345 (inner);0.375 (outer);Th. (lower break)0.003-0.007 m. Hard,coarse fabric;grayto light gray(2.5YR5/0, 7.5YR 6/0) in core;temperedwith smallto mediumgrits (< 2 mm) and some largegrits (< 1 cm), mainlygray andyellow,but some red andwhite; voids.Innerand outersurfaces smoothedand firedorange(2.5YR6/ 8). Findspot:ForumSouthwest,grid 54:K,potterydepositeastof Building II (drain1971-1). About a thirdof the lip, and a sectionof the bodyremain.Bodyand interiorcollarapparentlyformed together,lip madeseparatelyand joined,withjunctionconcealedby a stripof clayhorizontallygrooved. Lowerwall of bowl curvesin strongly andis remarkably thin at lowerbreak.

No traceof handles.Lip flaresout fromwall and ends in an overhanging rim modeledin two elements.Only a narrowsectionof interiorcollar remains,but enoughto showthat it was piercedby at leasttwo rowsof holes:tracesremainof sevenfrom outerrow (i.e., that atjunctionof collarandlip), threefrominner. Preservedholes of outerrowaverage about5 mm in diameter.It is possible to estimatethat originallytheremust havebeen abouttwenty-threeor twenty-fourholes in this row. A fragment(mendedfromtwo sherds)fromthe samefindspot, C-71-641 (Fig. 9), which preserves abouta thirdof a ring-foot(est. Diam. 0.10 m), has the samefabricas C-71-523 and maycome fromthe base of this vase (or one like it).25

rm

rigfo a efi noted

Faaif figmn

dptasC

krater C-71-641 .Scl

:

25. This fragmentis unlikelyto be the foot of a coarsewarelekane, for the feet of these lekanaiare somewhat differentin form, and in any case the fabricis alwaysfiner.I cannot, however, rule out the possibilitythat it could be the ring-foot of a "blisterware" amphoralike C-1971-185 (Williams 1972, p. 156, no. 19, pl. 24).

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

465

CORINTH

Both1:4

1.2

C3

1:2

C4 2:5

Figure10. CorinthianFalaieff kraters(C3-C4). Scale as indicated C3 C-69-352.

Fig. 10

P.W. 0.185; Th. (lower break)

0.005;Th. lip 0.010-0.015;Th. collar (inner break) 0.008 m. Hard, coarse fabric;light red (2.5YR 6/8) in core, shading to 5YR 7/6 and 7.5YR 7/6 near surfaces;tempered with small to large grits (usually < 3 mm, some larger), mainly red, but some white and gray, also some sparkling inclusions; large voids. Smoothed surfaces orange to light brown, 5YR 6/6-8, where not rubbed; lime incrustation on surfaces of collar. Findspot: Sacred Spring Central, trenches 1-4, dumped fills above floor 2 and drain. Single fragment preserving complete profile of lip, part of inner collar, and beginning of bowl. Tall,

flaringlip with modeledrim.Collar piercedwith at leastthreerowsof unevenholes (5 of outerrow preserved,perhaps4 of secondrow, and2 of inner).Holes piercedfrom top, eachabout6-8 mm in diameter. Collarandbowl formedin one piece, lip formedseparatelyand attached. C4 Lot 72-92-2a, b.

Fig. 10

Fragmenta: p.W. 0.205;Th. (lowerbreak)0.007-0.008; est. Diam. (baseof band)0.43; L. of handle 0.15, W. 0.032 m. Fragmentb:p.W. 0.053;Th. 0.008-0.010 m. Hard, coarsefabric;gray(2.5YR5/0) in core,shadingto light red (1OR6/8) nearsurfaces;creamishpalered (5YR 7/3-4) on outersurface;interiorand probablyexteriorsurfaceperhaps

givena streakygrayishwash,and smoothed;smallto medium(< 3 mm) grits,mainlygray,red,and white,with someyellow.Findspot: ForumSouthwest,grid61:D, southwestcorner,pit in wall 3 in area of drain. Two nonjoiningfragments. Fragmenta (foursherds)preservesa sectionof bowlwith most of one handle(centralridge)and,at the upperbreak,partof a horizontal band(convexprofile).Fragmentb (singlesherd-not illustrated)comes fromupperwall of bowl,with partof samehorizontalbandtowardupper break.C4 probablybelongsto the samevaseas C5, and perhapsto the samevaseas C6.

466

IAN

MCPHEE

I

1:1

I

C5

1:2

C6 Figure11. CorinthianFalaieff kraters(C5-C6).Scaleas indicated

C5 Lot 72-87-1.

Fig. 11

PH. 0.064;p.W. 0.075;Th. 0.007-0.008 m. Hard,coarsefabric; light red (1OR6/6-8) in core,but alsogray(2.5YR5/0) sandwiched betweentwo light redlayers;pale red outersurfacewith some streaksof a possiblegraywash;light redon inner surface,againwith tracesof possible graywash;smoothedsurfaces;gray, red,and a few white grits,mainly smallto medium(< 3 mm). Findspot: ForumSouthwest,grid61:D, fill for foundationtrenchof northstylobate of South Stoa. Singlefragmentfromupper bowl,preservinga horizontalband

(convexprofile)at upperbreak,and at lowerlefthandbreak,partof a knob.This fragmentprobably belongsto the samevaseas C4: both werefoundin grid 61:D, both share the distinctivewashon the interior, andboth havethe sametype of band. See also C6. C6 Lot 72-92-3.

Fig. 11

P.H. 0.071;p.W. 0.178;Diam. rim 0.40 (inner),0.43 (outer);Th. rim 0.015 m. Hard,coarsefabric; gray(2.5YR5/0) in corebetweentwo light red (1OR6/8) layers;surfaces creamishpalered(5YR 7/3-4), smoothed;tracesof graywash

outside;red,gray,and somewhite grits,mainlysmallto medium, averaging0.5-3 mm, a few larger. Findspot:ForumSouthwest,grid 61:D, southwestcorner,pit in wall 3 in areaof drain. Singlefragment(mendedfrom two sherds)of lip, brokenatjunction with innercollar.The rim is flat on top, andoffset on the outersurface by a horizontalgroove.Fabricand surfacetreatment,as well as findspot, suggestthat C6 maybe the lip of the samekrateras C4 and C5.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

C7, fragment a

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

467

C7, fragment c

C8, fragment b C8, fragment a

Figure 12. Corinthian Falaieff kraters (C7-C8); ring-foot fragment, lot 7079-277, from same findspot as C8. Scale 1:2 C7 Lot 7079-275a-c.

Fig. 12

Fragment a: max. dim. 0.102; Th. wall 0.010-0.012; Th. flange 0.009-0.010 m. Fragment b. max. dim. 0.064; Th. 0.009-0.011 m. Fragment c:Th. 0.026 m. Hard, coarse fabric, light gray core sandwiched between reddish-brown (5YR 6/4) layers;many small to large grits (< 4 mm, some larger), mainly red but some gray and white, and voids; surfaces smoothed and fired a very pale brown (1OYR 7/4-6). Findspot: Forum Southwest, grid 55:M, drain between Buildings I and II (drain 1971-1).

r

Lot 7079-277 Fragment a comes from the upper wall of the bowl, and preserves at the top the beginning of the lip and the inner collar; b is a wall fragment; c is a handle, round in section and slightly upturned. C8 Lot 7079-276a, b.

Fig. 12

Fragment a: max. dim. 0.10; Th. wall 0.006-0.007; Th. handle 0.033 m. Fragment b. p.H. 0.068; p.W. 0.075; Th. 0.006-0.007 m. Hard, coarse fabric, light red (2.5YR 6/6-8) in core, more orange (5YR 7/6-8) on inner surface;outer surface cream (7.5YR 8/4); small to large grits (< 3

mm), mainlyred andgray,some white;voids.Findspot:Forum Southwest,grid54:K,drainbetween BuildingsI and II (drain1971-1). Fragmenta preservesa section of the wall,with the stumpof a handle,roundin sectionand upturned;b (twojoiningsherds)is also a fragmentof wall,with three horizontalridgesat the top andhalf of a knobat the bottom.Possiblypart of the baseof the samepot aretwo joining sherds,lot 7079-277 (Fig. 12), that preserveabout40% of a ring-foot(Diam.0.13 m) and a sectionof the lowerwall.

468

IAN

MCPHEE

1:2

C9

,1'o

13. CorinthianFalaieff

C10;Figure

kraters(C9-C1O). Scaleasindicated C9 Lot72-92-6.

Fig. 13

P.H. 0.060; p.W. 0.122; Th. collar at break 0.008; Th. lip (upper break) 0.011 m. Hard, coarse fabric; light red (1OR 6/8-2.5YR 6/8) in core; mainly red and gray grits but some yellow and white, small to medium, averaging 0.5-3 mm, with a few larger;surfaces smoothed; outer surface and underside of the collar, creamish pale red. Findspot: Forum Southwest, grid 61:D, southwest corner, pit in wall 3 in area of drain. Single fragment from junction of bowl, lip, and inner collar.Junction masked on outside of vase by three horizontal bands, convex in section. At one end of collar, about 1 cm in from junction of collar and lip, is preserved half of a pierced hole. The profile of the inner collar continues that of the bowl.

C10 Lot 72-92-4.

Fig. 13

P.H. 0.064; p.W. 0.051; Th. rim 0.015 m. Hard, coarse fabric;light red (1OR 6/6) in core, but shading to light gray sandwiched between light red layers;gray,red, and some white grits, small to medium, averaging 0.5-3 mm, with a few larger;surfaces smoothed: inner, pale red (5YR 7/34), outer and top of rim, creamish (1OYR 8/3). Findspot: Forum Southwest, grid 61:D, southwest corner, pit in wall 3 in area of drain. Single fragment of lip, broken below at the junction with inner collar. Rim flat on top, and offset on outer surface by a horizontal groove. Not, apparently,from same vase as C6: fabric, and form of rim, are both slightly different. It is possible that lot 72-92-5 (not illustrated), a fragment from the bowl of a krater, with a similar fabric, may come from the same vase.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

469

C"l

C12 Figure14. CorinthianFalaieff kraters(C11-C12). Scale1:2 Cll

of the 26. I owethe identification of the bronzeto the conservator Miss Stella CorinthExcavations, Bouzaki.Dr.NancyBookidisandI havebothexaminedthebronze,butwe An areuncertainof its explanation. likethatto A7, would ancientrepair, normallyhavebeendonein lead.There is no signthatanyof the otherholes wereplugged,noris thereanytraceof on the surfaceof bronzestainanywhere the collar.

Lot 1976-100-1.

Fig. 14

PH. 0.117; p.W. 0.11; p.W. inner collar 0.034; Th. lip (upper break) 0.007; Th. collar (inner break) 0.009 m. Hard, coarse fabric;mainly light red (1OR 5-6/8) in core, but gray (5YR 6/1) where collar, lip and bowl join; pale red (1OR 6/8) for inside of lip and bowl, and for upper surface of collar; cream to very pale brown (7.5YR 7/4) for outer surface. Traces of possible gray wash on inside of lip and upper surface of collar. Small to medium grits (< 2 mm), a few larger (< 5 mm); mainly yellow, gray,and red. Findspot: Forum Southwest, grids 73:A-ZZ, fill in Basin Room below Roman Cellar Building. Single fragment with parts of lip, collar, and bowl. Where collar joins wall, five holes from outer row remain, spaced somewhat irregularly, each about 4-5 mm in diameter.Two holes side by side seem to indicate two different attempts to pierce a hole, presumablybecause the first was felt to be too close to its neighbor. Another hole has a section of bronze preserved around half the

circumference.26Traces also of two holes of a second row. Outside of bowl articulated by a horizontal band in relief. Collar made separately,bowl and lip perhaps in one piece. C12 Lot 7084-1.

Fig. 14

P.H. 0.077; p.W. 0.092; Th. (lower break) 0.009; Th. collar (inner break) 0.008 m. Hard, coarse fabric; gray (5YR 5-6/1) in center of core, but orange to light red (1OR 6/8) toward surfaces;outer surface of bowl and lip fired creamish (7.5YR 8/4); small to medium grits (< 3 mm) and some larger (< 8 mm); mainly white and yellow but also gray and red; some voids; all surfaces smoothed. Find-spot: Forum Southeast, well 1971-1. Single fragment from junction of bowl, lip, and collar.Toward lower break on the outside, three narrow horizontal ridges. Two preserved holes, one at either end of the preserved section of the collar,where it joins the wall, about 6-7 mm in diameter and about 7 cm apart. Lip seems to have been made separately.

470

IAN

MCPHEE

C13

1:1

Figure15. CorinthianFalaieff kraters(C13-C14). Scale1:2,except asindicated

C14

C13 Lot 1979-64-1.

Fig. 15

P.H. 0.086;p.W. 0.122;Th. (lowerbreak)0.012 m. Hard,coarse fabric;light red (1OR6/8-2.5YR 6/8) in core,shadingto purplishred (2.5YR6/4), but creamishpalered (5YR 8-7/4) on the surface;white, red,andgraygrits,mainlysmallto medium(< 2 mm),with a few larger. Surfacessmoothed.Findspot:Forum Southwest,grid 63:C, fill overfoundationtrenchII, in northernpartof BuildingIV. Singlefragmentbrokenon all sides,fromjunctionof lip, bowl,and collar.At lowerbreak,on outside,a narrow,horizontalridge,probably uppermostof three.Little of inner collarremains,but whereit joined the wall thereis a traceof a pierced hole. Lip probablymadeseparately, innercollarandbowl in one piece.

C14 Lot 1978-40-1.

Fig. 15

P.H. 0.065;p.W. 0.091;Th. collar(innerbreak)0.013;Th. lip (upperbreak)0.013 m. Hard,coarse fabric;gray(1OR6/1) in core,shading to light red (1OR6/6-8) near surfaces;grayandredbut somewhite andyellowangulargrits,mainlysmall to medium(< 2 mm),with some larger.Surfacessmoothed,and fireda creamishpaleredto light orange. Verysimilarin fabricto C4 and C5. Findspot:ForumSouthwest,grid 61:B,fill of foundationtrenchfor northwall of Shop 31 of South Stoa. Singlefragment,brokenon all sides,fromjunctionof lip, bowl,and innercollar.At lowerbreak,on outside,a horizontalridgeand beginningof a secondbelow. Remainingsectionof innercollar preservestwo holes fromouterrow, spacedabout4 cm apartand 1 cm in fromjunctionof lip and collar,and one hole froma secondrow.Holes areabout7-8 mm in diameter.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

47I

C15

Figure16. CorinthianFalaieff kraters(C15-C16). Scale1:2,except

C16

as indicated

C15 C-64-12.

Fig. 16

Max.dim. 0.105;Diam. inner rim of collar0.11;Th. collar0.07 m. Moderatelyhard,coarsefabric;core light redto paleorange(5YR 7/8), but smoothedsurfacescloserto 7.5YR 7/6; numeroussmallto mediumgrits(< 2 mm), somelarger, mainlyredbut alsowhite andgray. Surfacesratherabradedbut outer mayoriginallyhavereceiveda thin creamishwash.Findspot:surfacefind on line of west citywallbetweenthe PhliasianGate andAcrocorinth,June 1964. Partof collar.Rim is roundedon inside,beveledon outeredge.Four holes remainof innerrow,spaced 1.5-2.0 cm apart.Preservedof a secondrowaretwo adjacentholes, spaced1.2 cm apart.There may originallyhavebeen a thirdrowat junctionof collarandlip of vase. Holes areabout5 mm in diameter.

C16 Lot 7079-341.

Fig. 16

Max.dim. 0.085;Th. collar 0.007-0.011;W. collarat least0.053 m. Hard,coarsefabric,light redin core(2.5YR5/8-6/6), but more orange(5YR 7/6) underneath; creamish(7.5YR8/4) on upper surfaceand in holes;frequentsmall to verylargegrits,mainlyred and gray,someyellow.Findspot:Forum Southwest,grids53:J,53-54:K, drain betweenBuildingsI andII (drain 1971-1). Partof collarof a Falaieffkrater, brokenon all sides.Therewerethree rowsof holes:only a singlehole remainsof the rowat the junctionof collarandlip;two holes (spaced5.3 cm apart)arepreservedof the second row;and a singlehole of the third row.Eachhole is about7 mm in diameter.

472

IAN

MCPHEE

In contrast to the Attic Falaieffs, the Corinthian examples are all coarseware. No fragments of local fineware versions from Corinth have been identified. The fabric of fragments Cl to C16 is essentially the same, and the variations in the color of the fired clay areprobablydue to differing conditions in the kiln. The basic fabric is a red clay, tempered mainly with red and gray grits (mudstone and tuffite), but also with white and yellow inclusions; it fires light red to orange, or gray,or gray in the center of the core and light red near the surfaces. It is hard and impermeable. The surfaces have been smoothed, and often have a creamish orange color: I do not know whether this is due to the addition of a very thin slip of fine yellow clay,or is the result of a self-slip, perhaps caused by the addition of potash to the matrix.27In some cases there seem to be traces of a thin wash that has fired a dark gray.28The same fabric was employed in the manufacture of Corinthian A transport amphorae during the 4th century,2' and essentially the same fabric, often termed "blister-ware,"was used for certain types of kitchenware and lamps at Corinth during the Classical period.30 Chemical and petrological analyses support the identification of this fabric as Corinthian.3"There can be no doubt, therefore, that these fragmentary Falaieff kraterswere all made in Corinth, and not imported. Like their Attic counterparts,the Corinthian Falaieffswere largevases. None is well enough preserved to give a total height, but C2 is over 24 cm high without the lower body and base, while the outer diameter of the rim can be estimated at about 37.5 cm. We can also determine that the rim of Cl was about 34 cm in diameter,and that of C6 even greater,about 43 cm. It will be apparentthat these fragmentaryvases display different conceptions of the same basic shape. The variation is especially apparent in the five examples which preserve the profile of the lip. In the case of Cl a tall, straight lip is divided into two unequal parts by a horizontal ridge, and the rim is not only flat on top but the lower element has a straight outer edge. C2 and C3 also have a tall lip, but it is more flaring and not articulated on the outer surface,and the rim is formed differently,with a rounded lower element. C6 and C10 have the same form of lip: short, with slightly convex profile outside, and a squared rim separated off by a horizontal groove. The join of body and lip is masked on C2 by a broad band divided into three ridges by horizontal grooves, and the form seems to have been similar on C4, C5, C8, C9, C12, C13, and C14, though all three ridges are preserved only on C8, C9, and C12; on Cl the three ridges have been reduced to a single one, and on Cll to a simple flat band. Though the ridges on C2 and C9 were clearly practical as well as decorative, intended to mask the junction of body, lip, and collar, the ridge or ridges on most fragments where they are preserved are situated well below the junction, so that their function can only have been decorative.The inner collar on C2 was formed in one piece with the bowl, continuing its curve, and the lip was added separately.This seems also to be the case with C3, C9, and apparentlyfor C12-C14. The horizontal inner collar of Cl was, however, made separately,and this seems also to be true for Cll. The full width of this collar is preserved only on Cl: it is pierced with three rows of holes (perhaps originally twenty-nine or thirty in the outer row, about twenty in

27. For the possible addition of potash to the clay body of Corinthian A transportamphoraeto producean orange surface,see Vandiverand Koehler 1986, pp. 180, 208-209. 28. A similariron-richwash is used on CorinthianA transportamphoraeof the second half of the 4th centuryB.C.: see Vandiverand Koehler 1986, p. 180. 29. For the fabricof CorinthianA transportamphorae,see now Whitbread 1995, pp. 255-293, but also Vandiverand Koehler 1986. 30. Good parallelsfor the fabricare providedby the contemporaryblisterware table amphoraeC-71-185, Williams 1972, p. 156, no. 19, pl. 24; and C-1990-63, Williams 1991, p. 35, no. 37, pl. 12 (the captions of nos. 37 and 38 have been reversed);as well as by the oinochoe C-71-188, Williams 1972, p. 157, no. 23, pl. 25. Blister-ware is describedby Pemberton(1970, p. 300) and Edwards(in CorinthVII, iii, pp. 144-146). For comments on the fabricof Corinthiankitchenware,see CorinthVII, iii, pp. 117-119; and Corinth XVIII, i, p. 69. 31. The earlierscientific studies of Corinthianclays are summarizedin Jones 1986, pp. 174-189, 713, to which may now be added the important discussionin Whitbread 1995, pp. 255346.

FALAIEFF

32. Similar,then, to the handles on the Athenian finewareFalaieffA7 (Drougou 1979, pp. 266-267). 33. Terminologyvaries:in the archaeologicalliterature,they are also referredto as "nipples,""bosses,"or "warts." 34. See, for example,the remarksof R. S. Young in CorinthXIII, p. 41. 35. Coarsehydriai:CorinthXIII, p. 21, no. 14-1, pl. 6; p. 22, no. 15-1; p. 23, no. 16-9, pl. 6; p. 25, no. 17-5; p. 27, no. 18-8, pl. 8; p. 28, no. 20-3, pl. 6; CorinthXV, iii, p. 20, no. 30, pl. 3; Williams 1976, p. 102, no. 5, pl. 18. Fineware:CorinthXIII, pp. 24-25, no. 17-1, pl. 7. 36. CorinthVII, ii, p. 129, An 159, pl. 62; p. 155, An 293, pl. 78. Remarks in CorinthXV, iii,p. 345 under no. 2132. 37. There are at times knobs beside the handles of convexpyxidesdecoratedin ConventionalizingStyle, but these arevestiges of reflexhandles:see the 4th-century exampleillustratedin Williams 1972, pl. 27, no. 46.

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

473

the second, and fourteen or fifteen in the inner), and has a raised rim. Such a rim also exists on C15, though the form is different. Both C3 and C16 also preserve evidence of at least three rows of somewhat irregularly spaced holes; C2 had at least two rows of holes (about twenty-three or twenty-four holes in the outer row); and Cll, C14, and C15 also had at least two rows. Normally the holes are 4-6 mm in diameter, although in the case of C16 the diameter is about 7 mm; and they are always pierced from the top. Cl, C4, C7, and C8 preserve handles, and although they were all positioned horizontally, the forms are varied: C4 is broad, straplike, with a central ridge;32Cl is round, curves up strongly in the middle, and has distinct disks where it meets the wall of the vase; C7 is round in section like Cl but does not curve up and lacks the handle-plates; while C8 was larger,like C4, but did not have a central ridge. In the case of Cl, C5, and C8 the handles seem to have been flanked by knobs,33although one cannot say whether they were a constant feature of these Corinthian kraters.The bowl seems to have been deep, and in some cases quite thickwalled, tapering in toward the base. At present it is not possible to point with certainty to any base from a Corinthian Falaieff, but if the fragments C-71-641 (under C2, Fig. 9) and lot 7079-277 (under C8, Fig. 12) do belong to kratersof this type, they would indicate that the vase was supported by a low ring-foot 10-13 cm in diameter. The principal morphological differences between the Corinthian and Attic series lie in the form of the rim; the nature of the inner collar; the variation in the manner of masking the junction of bowl, lip, and inner collar;the form of the handles;and the addition of knobs beside the handles on at least some of the Corinthian versions. Of the five Corinthian Falaieffs that preserve the profile of the lip, C2 and C3 seem to be closer in general shape to the Attic vases. Cl is quite different, not only in the form of the rim, but in the nature and position of the collar,the type of handle, and the presence of at least two knobs. And the low, convex lip with squaredrim of both C6 and C10 is even further removed. Given the small number of vessels, it is not possible at present to prove any definite typological (or chronological) development. One cannot, of course, assume that the simpler form of lip on C6 and C10 is earlier than the more complex forms on Cl-C3, and all five vases may in fact be contemporary products of different Corinthian potters. Two odd elements of the shape require further comment: the presence of knobs on at least Cl, C5, and C8, and the attachments of the handle on Cl. The use of knobs has a respectable ancestry in Greek pottery on both small and large shapes.34In Corinth the earliest examples after the Bronze Age occur on coarse hydriai of the Middle Geometric II and Late Geometric periods,as well as on the occasionaldecoratedoinochoe of the same time.35The practice continued into the 7th century on a few coarsewarepots,36but is not found, to my knowledge, in Protocorinthian or Corinthian fineware of the Archaic period, nor are there any instances in Corinthian pottery of the 5th century.37In the 4th century, however, knobs areemployed frequentlyon Corinthian finewarestemless bell-kraters decorated both in red-figure and black-glaze (with ivy, laurel, or a necklace design in the handle-zone rendered in thin slip or in added white).

474

IAN

MCPHEE

Perhaps the inspiration for the knobs on Cl, C5, and C8 came from this contemporary type of Corinthian krater.38Indeed, it is quite possible, though at present unprovable, that the potters who manufactured the stemless kratersmay also have produced the coarsewareFalaieffkraters.9 The preservedhandle on Cl is remarkablein that its ends do not pass directly into the wall of the vase, but terminate in disks set against the wall. This is not the normal manner ofjoining a handle to the body of a ceramic krater.It looks to be an imitation of the soldered handle-attachments of a metal vase.40Indeed, the whole appearanceof Cl, including the form of the rim and the horizontal, rather than slightly curved, collar, seems to reflect a metal prototype. These fragmentaryCorinthian examples of the Falaieff kratercannot be closely dated on the basis of shape. One can only say that the form of the lip on Cl-C3, and the form of the preservedhandles, particularlythat of Cl, suggest a date broadly in the 4th century.Nor do they display any decoration that might be chronologically significant. Fortunately,the archaeological contexts of some of the pieces provide important evidence. Most significant for the inception of the Corinthian Falaieff krater are the contexts of the five fragments C4, C6, C9, C10, and C14, all of which came from the Forum Southwest, under the west end of the South Stoa. C14 was found in the fill of the foundation trench for the north wall of Shop 31.41The pottery from this particulardeposit, mainly black-glazed drinking-vessels and plainware and coarsewarevessels, does not appearto include anything later than the early 4th century B.C. C4, C6, C9, and C10 came to light under the terraceof the South Stoa, north of the foundations for Ionic columns 32 and 33, and below the originalfloor of Building IV along its east wall.42The associatedpottery,which again consists mainly of black-glazed drinkingvessels as well as plainwareand coarsekitchenware and a little red-figure, seems to extend later than that found with C14, but does not include anything certainly datable after the first quarter of the 4th century.On the other hand, other large deposits of the first quarterof the 4th century, such as well 1937-1 and drain 1937-1,43 have not produced any fragments of Falaieff kraters,nor have any been identified from deposits that cease in the last half of the 5th century, such as wells 193410, 1939-1, and 1936-10.44From this evidence we may infer that the shape was introduced at Corinth during the first quarterof the 4th century,but that it was not very common. Let us now consider the contexts of the other fragments of Corinthian Falaieffs. C5 came from fill used in the foundation trench for the north stylobate of the South Stoa, in the same general area (Building IV) as C4, C6, C9, and C10; and C13 was also found in a deposit on the northern side of Building IV.45In both cases the latest pottery seems to run down approximately to the middle of the 4th century. This accords with the suggestion of the excavatorthat Building IV was "abandonedabout 350 or slightly thereafter."46Five fragments, Cl, C2, C7, C8, and C16, formed part of the large deposit associated with drain 1971-1.47This drain,which ran approximatelynorth-south between the east wall of Building II and the west wall of Building I, in the southwest corner of the later Roman Forum, went out of use at the time of the destruction of Building I, when

38. For the knobs on stemless bellkraters,see McPhee 1997, pp. 133-134. Another possible sourceof inspiration for these knobs is suggestedin note 68 below. 39. It is at least probablethat the CorinthianFalaieffswere made in the same workshopsas the CorinthianA transportamphoraeand blister-ware amphorae. 40. For the handle-attachmentsof bronze hydriai,cf. Diehl 1964, pls. 811, 18. Comparealso the handleattachmentsof a bronze bowl from Derveni:Themelis andTouratsoglou 1997, p. 31, A51, pl. 32. 41. Williams 1979, p. 127. 42. Williams 1973, pp. 17-18, nos. 17-19. 43. For these, see CorinthVII, iv, pp. 18-21, Deposits 4-5; and McPhee 1997, p. 124. 44. Well 1934-10: Pease 1937; CorinthVII, iv, pp. 17-18, Deposit 3; CorinthVII, iii, p. 201, Deposit 10. Well 1939-1: CorinthVII, iii, p. 200, Deposit 8. Well 1936-10: CorinthVII, iii, p. 201, Deposit 11. 45. For the excavationfrom which C13 came, see Williams 1980, pp. 111115, with p. 113, fig. 3. 46. Williams 1979, pp. 105, 130. 47. Plans of the areaarein Williams 1972, p. 150, fig. 3, and p. 166, fig. 5. A selection of the pottery from the drainis presentedon pp. 154-163, pls. 24-27. See also McPhee 1997, p. 125. This large and importantdeposit is currentlybeing studied by Dr. Elizabeth Pembertonand myself.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

475

it was filled with a great quantity of broken pottery and some other objects (terracottas,broken roof-tiles, coins). The pottery consists mainly of blackglazed vessels (skyphoi,bowls of varioustypes, saucersand plates),plainware (two-handled jugs, bowls), coarse kitchenware (cooking-pots, casseroles), transport amphorae (mainly Corinthian A, A', and B), some lamps, and a few scraps (mainly kraters)of Attic and Corinthian red-figure. This pottery seems to be generally datable to the second and third quartersof the 4th century, the latest pieces belonging to the last quarter and reaching perhaps as late as 320-310.48 C12 came from the fill in well 1971-1, located toward the east end of the South Stoa and partly cut into by the building's stylobate. The pottery from this fill seems again to be relatively uniform, the latest pieces dating to about 320-310. Well 1971-1 and drain 1971-1 therefore contained contemporary deposits, and both were filled during the same construction program-the levelling of the areain preparation for the building of the South Stoa. Thus, Cl, C2, C5, C7, C8, C12, and C13 may all be dated before ca. 300. At present there is no contextual evidence that kratersof Falaieff type were being produced in Corinth after ca. 300.49The shape enjoyed a period of popularity from the first to the last quarterof the 4th century,but particularlyduring the second and third quarters.It is possible that it outlived its Attic fineware counterpart. This Corinthian version of the Falaieff krater does not seem ever to have been produced in large numbers, and it is remarkablethat, with the exception of C3, Cll, and C15,50 all these fragmentarykratersfrom Corinth were found in the southwest areaof the later Roman Forum, in association with a group of buildings of the Classical period.5'We have alreadyestablished that Cl, C2, C7, C8, and C16 were part of the large deposit of pottery from drain 1971-1, between Buildings I and II. Now, that deposit consisted mainly of shapes connected either with the preparationand serving of food or with the storage, mixing, and drinking of wine. This essentially homogeneous fill of pottery may have been taken from somewhere in the immediate area of the drain, possibly from Buildings I and II and from the badly preserved structureto the east of Building 1.52 The excavator conjecturedthat the deposit did not represent domestic debris from an ordinary house but refuse from a building or buildings with some civic and/or cultic function that involved dining.53C4-C6, C9, ClO, C13, and

48. For this dating, see Williams 1972, p. 153; Williams 1976, pp. 115116; and Williams 1977, pp. 51-52. The destructionand rebuildingat this time was, as Williams (1976, pp. 115116) points out, not localized but widespreadin Corinth.Williams (1976, p. 116, note 20) even postulatestwo destructions,one ca. 330-320, the other ca. 310-300. Most recently,Williams (1995, pp. 44-45) has suggestedthat the South Stoa, the successorof

Buildings I-IV, was constructedwith "Siciliancampaignloot sent back to Corinth after341 B.C." 49. I have not found any fragments in the deposits associatedwith the use of the South Stoa. 50. C3 comes from a large dumped fill (lot 5777) in the areaof the Sacred Spring;the pottery is mixed, including pieces of the first quarterof the 3rd century,but most pieces belong to the 5th and 4th centuries.The most recent

discussionof the deposits of the Sacred Spring is in Steiner 1992. The contexts of Cll and C15 arenot chronologically significant. 51. Even Cll is probablyconnected throughits context with the Classical buildings that predatethe South Stoa. 52. Williams 1972, pp. 164-165. See also McPhee 1997, p. 127. 53. Williams 1972, pp. 164-165, 172-173.

476

IAN

MCPHEE

C14 were all found in the general area of Building IV.54This building, which seems to have gone out of use about 350, earlier than Buildings IIII, was probably not an ordinaryhouse, but a construction of more elaborate form, perhaps again with a public function that included dining (suggested by the pottery) and cultic activity involving small terracottaaltars.55 Given this evidence, it may be proposed that the krater of Falaieff shape was introduced at Corinth in connection with a specific civic or ritual activity involving dining.56It is remarkablethat the Corinthian stemless bell-krater,which was decorated in red-figure as well as black-glaze, was produced contemporaneouslywith the Falaieff krater,and that the majority again come from deposits in the Forum Southwest.57Were both shapes, the one fineware, the other coarseware,used for public dining in connection perhaps with the cults in the area?

ORIGINS As we have seen, the evidence of archaeological context, of shape, and of style suggests that the kraterof Falaieff type began to be manufacturedin clay in both Athens and Corinth early in the 4th century.In neither center,however, is there any local ceramic precursorfrom which the form may be derived. However, if we look further afield, we find in the Bucchero pottery of Etruria a shape that is remarkablysimilar and that must be included in any consideration of the origins of the Greek Falaieff krater. The basic discussionsof these Etruscanvases areto be found in Camporeale 1971 and Brommer 1980. Camporealegives a list of five examples,to which Brommer added the vase in Essen, and Hayes that in Toronto.58 El

Florence, Mus. Arch., 2859, from Orvieto. Fig. 17

H. 0.21 m. Camporeale 1971, p. 258, no. 1, pl. LXXII. E2 Rome, Villa Giulia. H. 0.21 m. Camporeale 1971, p. 258, no. 2; Mingazzini 1930, p. 56, no. 209, pl. VI:8-9. E3 Essen, Museum Folkwang, A 112, said to have been found at Chiusi. Fig. 17 H. 0.231 m. Brommer 1980, pl. 115; Froning

1982, pp. 110-112, no. 43; EAA Suppl. 11/1 (1994), p. 766, fig. 851. E4 Toronto, Royal Ontario Mus., Fig. 17 918.3.165A.

H. 0.183-0.188, with handles

0.25 m. Hayes 1985, pp. 92-93, 188. E5 Rome, Villa Giulia, Gorga Coll. 85. H. 0.19 m. Camporeale 1971, p. 258, no. 5. E6 Rome, Villa Giulia, TR 31-TR 43, from Trevignano. H. 0.215 m. Camporeale 1971, p. 258, no. 3; Arte e civ/tc, p. 52, no. 93. E7 Orvieto, Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, 570, from Orvieto. Fig. 17 H. 0.19 m. Camporeale 1971, pp. 258-259, no. 4, fig. 1; Brommer 1980, p. 336, fig.2.

54. For the excavationof Building IV, see Williams 1973, pp. 17-18; Williams 1979, pp. 125-136; Williams 1980, pp. 111-116. 55. The altarsare discussedin Williams 1979, pp. 136-140. 56. Certainlythere were a number of cults establishedin this part of the Classicalcity: for hero cults, see most recentlyWilliams 1978, but also Broneer 1942, and for the hero shrine nearBuilding I, Williams 1972, pp. 149-151; for Dionysos in the area of the Forum,see Williams 1975, pp.28-29. 57. For a discussionof the function of the stemless bell-kratersee McPhee 1997, pp.126-127. 58. Hayes 1985, pp. 92-93, 188.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

477

~~~~~~~~~~~~wgs

E1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*_

_.E_ _f

E3

478

IAN

MCPHEE

Although there are variations in shape within this group, all seven vases have certain common elements. They are relatively small, ranging from 18 to 23 cm in height (excluding the handles). They all have a low foot, a spreading bowl, a tall lip, and an internal collar pierced with two groups of holes. There is clearly a general similarityin shape to the Falaieff krater.59 There are, of course, some differences between the two series:the lip in the Buccherovases is waved to form two "spouts,"or is at least pinched in two places; the collar is pierced with many holes in two zones adjacent to the spouts; five of the vases (El-E5) have the handles positioned vertically from the shoulder to the lip; and some at least (El, E4?, E6, E7) were providedwith a lid. But the main differenceis one of size:were the Etruscan vases used for mixing or for drinking or for both functions? Certainly,they must have servedas strainersin a mannersimilarto the CorinthianFalaieffs. The Bucchero vases are not precisely dated, but on the basis of their decoration and of the tomb context of E6 they have been placed between the end of the 7th and the middle of the 6th century.60This leaves a gap of at least a century and a half before the appearance of the earliest Greek kraters of Falaieff type.61It may be, in this case, that we have to do with two independent creations, perhaps with somewhat different functions; nevertheless, the relationship in shape between the Etruscan vases and the Greek Falaieffs is so striking that it is hard to see the two forms as completely independent, particularlyin view of the highly specialized shape. Of course, it may be that the late 6th- and 5th-century Greek ceramic imitations of these Bucchero vases have not yet been recognized, even though this seems rather unlikely.62On the other hand, it is possible that the development from the Bucchero shape to the Falaieff krateroccurred first in metal versions, even if none has been preserved. In this regardwe have alreadynoted that the shape of one Corinthian Falaieff (Cl) strongly implies a metal prototype.63 At present it is also not possible to be sure whether the Falaieff shape was produced first in Athens or Corinth.64However, the evidence may be thought to favor Athens. All the fragments of Attic Falaieffs found at 59. The comparisongiven in Brommer1980, p. 336, figs. 1 and 2, is, however,quite misleadingsince Brommerdoes not indicate that the scales are entirelydifferent. 60. This is the date given to E3 in Froning 1982, p. 111; Camporeale (1971, p. 261) suggests the end of the 7th and the first decadesof the 6th century;Hayes 1985, p. 93, early6th centuryfor E4. Typologically,El and E2 may be earlier,and E6 and E7, which arecloser to Greek Falaieffs, may be later.It is not possible to be certainwhere these vases were made, but Orvieto may have been one center, as Camporeale(1971, p. 260) suggests. 61. Geneva MF 254, a small Etruscanred-figurecolumn-krater,

which has a piercedmouth or inner collarlike the Athenian Falaieffs,may be evidencefor the influence of the Greek Falaieffsratherthan for the continuityinto the 4th centuryof a version of the Etruscanshape:see EVPE p. 301; Schauenburg1980, p. 50, pl. 29; Brommer1980, p. 339. 62. There is, however,one other curiouspiece of evidencethat may be relevant.Corinth lot 1978-100-1 (Fig. 18) is a fragment(H. 0.05 1, W. 0.16, est. Diam. rim 0.25 m) from the upper wall of a vessel with a flanged rim (as though to take a lid), tracesof the stumps of a handle, and the beginning of an inner collarpiercedwith holes (some ten remain)about 4 mm in diameterand 7-10 mm apart.The

exact shape is unclear,but may have been similarto the Roman vessels mentioned in note 71. The outer surfaceis undecoratedexcept for a horizontalband.The fabricis fine but slightly micaceous,hard,pinkish (5YR 6-7/4) in the core but light brown (5YR 7/6) on the surface.It is not Corinthian,but may be Attic. The archaeologicalcontext, although disturbed,suggests a date in the mid5th centuryor earlier. 63. For the relationshipbetween metal and ceramicvases, see Vickers 1986. 64. Brommer(1980, p. 337), being unawareof the existence of Corinthian Falaieffs,assumedthat the shapewas taken up at Athens.

FALAIEFF

I

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

479

a

I

I

I

Figure18. Corinthlot 1978-100-1, Attic(?).See note 62. Scale:profile 1:1, photos 1:2

65. There is no evidencethat the shapewas imitated in the local redfigure at Corinth. 66. Corinthiancommercewith the Western Mediterraneanis discussedin Munn 1983. Fragmentsof Etruscan Bucchero,mainly kantharoi,reached Corinth in some quantityduringthe first half of the 6th century,just at the time when the Buccherokraterswere being produced:see MacIntosh 1974; furtherexampleshave been found in excavationssince 1973.

Corinth seem to belong to the first quarter of the 4th century, whereas most of the Corinthian versions probably belong to the second and third quarters.If the shape developed first in Athens, red-figure examples (and the metal version?) very soon reached Corinth, where the shape was imitated, but only in coarseware and perhaps metal.65On the other hand, Corinth had developed a brisk commerce with Greek and Etruscan centers in Italy in the Archaic and Classical periods.66The city also had an important tradition of metalwork and utilitarian pottery, and during the 5th and early 4th century her potters continued to experiment with new or adapted shapes.67It is possible, then, that a ceramic version of the shape was first developed in coarsewareat Corinth, inspiredby models in metal.68 The shape would soon have been taken up in Athens where the potters began to produce fineware examples, decorated in red-figure, for export to Corinth and elsewhere: it would not have been the first such venture.69 Because of its possible derivation from the Etruscan Bucchero shape, Brommer attempted to identify the kraterof Falaieff type with the xpatilp -vtopp-ovxo;("Etruscankrater")that is listed in inscriptions from Delos.70 It may be objected that these inscriptions belong to the 3rd century, after the Falaieff kraterhad ceased to be produced in pottery,but metal versions

67. For Corinthianmetalworkand clay imitations of metal, see Pemberton 1981. Local versionsof Athenian white-ground lekythoi and of shapes decoratedin red-figureor stamped black-glazearefound after440-430: see Steiner 1992, pp. 391-399 on white-groundlekythoi;Pemberton 1997 on stampedblack-glaze. 68. It may be noted that one of the Buccherokraters,E5, has additions ("appendici")beside the handles (Camporeale1971, p. 261, note 9); such

additionsmay have providedthe inspirationfor the knobs on the CorinthianFalaieffs. 69. A much earlierinstance is the Nikosthenic neck-amphora:see Rasmussen1979, pp. 74-75, 168. See also the remarksin Miller 1993, pp. 110-112. Comparealso the Attic red-figureversionsof the Apulian trozella:Jentoft-Nilsen 1988. 70. Brommer1980, pp. 337339.

480

IAN

MCPHEE

of the shape may well have outlasted the ceramic. Still, this ingenious suggestion seems unlikely, for the Delian inscriptions do not give a clear description of the xpcxp so that an identification with the upp-vcx6, Falaieff krateris entirely conjectural.

FUNCTION The exact function of the krater of Falaieff type has not yet been determined with complete satisfaction, and the following discussion will not resolve this situation.7"The impermeability of the Etruscan, Corinthian, and Athenian vases indicates that they were intended to hold liquid. That the liquid was wine is a reasonable assumption, based not only upon the shape of these vases but also upon the Dionysiac iconography of the Attic Falaieffs.72As we have seen, the Bucchero vessels are small, have two "spouts"at right angles to the handles, and have two groups of holes in the collar adjacent to the spouts: whether or not they served for mixing wine and/or for drinking,they must certainlyhave functioned asvessels for straining and pouring.73Since the central opening was covered in some cases with a lid, Camporeale believed that the Bucchero vases held a heated, perhaps aromatic, liquid.74 On the other hand, the Greek Falaieff krater,whether fineware or coarseware,was a large vessel, not intended for pouring, but presumablyin some way connected with the general preparation of wine for drinking. Any more specific interpretation must take into account the tall lip and the peculiar inner collar pierced with holes. We can, I think, dismiss any suggestion that a kraterof this type served as a wine-cooler (psykter).75 In her study of the shape, Stella Drougou tentatively offered two different suggestions for the function of the Falaieff krater.76First, she suggested that the kratermay have been used for the preparationof a form of mulled wine. We know that the Greeks mixed wine with boiling water, honey, salt, and different spices to produce various kinds of mulled drink.77 Drougou quotes in particular the following fragment of the comic poet

71. A much earlier,Middle Minoan vessel from Knossos,with a piercedinteriorcollar,may have had a function similarto that of the Falaieff kratersdiscussedin the presentarticle: Pendleburyand Pendlebury1932, pp. 66-67, and PM IV, pp. 72-73, fig. 45. This may also be the case with a type of Roman cylindricalvessel of the lst-2nd centuriesA.C., examples of which have been unearthedin Corinth:Slane 1986, p. 287, no. 57, pl. 64, and p. 310. These vessels have been thought of as incense-vases,winecoolers,and pots for scaldingmilk or for heating wine mixed with water

and spices:Nuber 1969-1970, where earlierliteratureis cited. See also the vase mentioned in note 62 above. 72. Drougou (1979, pp. 277-278) discussesthe iconographyof A1-A7, and notes the connection of the grypomachywith Dionysos. In this respect,I may add that the god is sometimes shown riding a griffin on Attic red-figurevases of the 4th century:ARV2 1453, nos. 810; 1694, no. 9bis;perhaps1523, no. 6. 73. Camporeale(1971, p. 260) and Brommer(1980, p. 337) saw that they

must have been used for pouring. Froning (1982, p. 111) disputes this interpretationon the grounds that the rim is merelypinched, not waved,but the position of the holes and the use of verticalhandles supporta pouring function. 74. Camporeale1971, p. 260. 75. Drougou (1979, p. 278) presents a sensible argumentagainstthis function. 76. Drougou 1979, pp. 280282. 77. For additives,see Pricket 1980, pp. 54-56. A more general discussionis in Younger1966, pp. 130-133.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

481

Alexis, who was active at Athens in the middle and second half of the 4th century B.C.78 JDXL8p?q 8? xpTxeI'p 00tqx?sLo;

?V ?a

eCrG-Xe XeXOO VSXt-Xp0 7rOCXOXLYeVOD

7rXY, 1P1 ?,x&

b xsV6V

V: OV

-cpr4oc;,7roNax;?XBXtpov, POxkA f6cCav a-uCijoc;, 1

auV6ix

Xc piTEoL;

XLGCYoL

X?(o?ot;

On the basis of these lines, Drougou wondered whether the Falaieff krater might have contained "foaming or bubbling"wine, which, if it overflowed the brim of the containing inner collar, would have been retained by the high lip, flowing back into the bowl through the holes. A corollaryof this might be the identification of the Falaieffkraterwith the Therikleian krater mentioned by Alexis.79 Drougou's second suggestion was that the shape was used in the purifying of wine. She considered this less likely than her first conjecture,but the two are not mutually exclusive and perhaps the Falaieff krater performed both functions. Much of ancient wine must have been bad, containing sediment and many impurities, and Corinthian wine was not always much prized.80In addition, as we have noted, the wine might be spiced with aromatic herbs or mixed with water heated and spiced. The process of straining the wine (or wine and water) was essential, so that it is not surprising to see a strainer (qOc6o;,q,O6,vtov), along with a ladle and a jug, sometimes representedin scenes of symposia on Attic red-figure vases of the Classical period.8' The wine might have been strained as it was poured from the jug into the drinker'scup, but it might also have been strained at an earlierstage, when decanted from the storage vessel into the 78. Athenaeus 11.472a (Edmonds 1959, no. 119): "Therestands shining a thericleianmixing-bowl right in our midst, filled with white nectarof ancient vintage,all a-foam;I had taken it empty and polished it up, making it bright;I set it firmlyon its base, and wreathedit with berry-ladensprigsof ivy which I had plaited together." (trans.C. Gulick, Loeb) 79. The latest discussionof Therikles andTherikleianvases seems to be Gill 1986, pp. 9, 19-23, which is useful for bibliography,but which shows more zeal than prudencein the discussion.Our sources(e.g., Athenaeus 11.470f) make it perfectly clear that Therikles,a Corinthian,was a potter,not a metalworker.We are told that he was active (whetherat Corinth or Athens cannot be determinedwith certainty)duringthe lifetime of

Aristophanes,so probablyabout the last quarterof the 5th or first quarterof the 4th century.The earlyreferences,in the 4th centurycomic poets (Athenaeus 11.467d, 469b, 470e472d), imply that his most renowned "invention"was a particularshape of drinking-vesselthat was producedin clay,wood, and metal.The clay exampleswere decoratedin a particular manner,possiblylustrousblackglaze, sometimeswith gilded clay ornament: on this aspect,see Shefton 1971, p. 110. The most revealingnew evidenceis providedby the inscribedblack cupkantharoifrom Kafizin in Cyprus publishedby Mitford (1980, pp. 29-32, nos. 40-42; the readingof OpLxXetov on the fragmentarylagynos no. 46 on pp. 35-36 is unlikely).The Kafizin cupkantharoiarereallyelongatedversions of the originalstandardcup-kantharos

with molded rim that begins about 400-380 B.C.:AgoraXII, p. 118, nos. 648-670. Curiously,the earliest examplesquoted in AgoraXMI, especiallyno. 649, which have the distinctivemolded rim, come from Corinth. For a differentidentification of the cup-kantharos,see Pfrommer 1986, pp.3-24. The "Therikleian"kraterdescribed by Alexis seems to have been metal. 80. At least in Athens. Alexis could say (Athenaeus 1.30f; Edmonds 1959, no. 290): otvo; evLtx6iocp,v: roeyocpKopt'v8c

lL. POcGOCvT[Iv6,; "Therewas importedwine on hand; for the Corinthianstuff is torture." (trans.C. Gulick, Loeb) 81. See Hill 1942, pp. 44-45.

482

IAN

MCPHEE

krater.Drougou therefore suggested that the inner collar served to support a strainer,the lqOt6; ExP?-c8p?o 82 Such a strainer could have been of terracotta-a simple bowl or jug of suitable dimensions, pierced with holes83-or of metal, possibly just a flat perforated sheet.84On occasion, however, a more ornate metal strainer might have been employed, as Drougou has suggested. One of the principal Greek types of strainer in the 4th century B.C., made in silverand bronze, has a broadrim, two handles set in the same plane as the rim and ending in duck- or swan-heads, and either a shallow bowl perforated with tiny holes or a molded funnel covered with a pierced metal disk.85This form of metal strainermight fit over the central opening of a Falaieff krater,resting upon the raised rim of the projecting collar,86but it must be admitted that the arrangement seems rather awkward.In any case, whether the strainerwas a ceramic pot or a simple metal sheet, any wine that spilled onto the coliar during decanting would have flowed through the holes into the bowl. One other piece of circumstantialevidence in support of this proposal may be cited. Metal strainer-lids were frequently fitted to metal volutekratersfrom the second half of the 6th to the second half of the 4th century, as examples from Vix, Trebenischte, and Derveni and in the Ortiz Collection illustrate.87If bronze or silver versions of the Falaieff krater were ever manufactured,they may have been suppliedwith similarstrainerlids supported by a narrow inner flange. In the terracotta Falaieff kraters, however, a broad inner collarwas more practical,providing both the opening necessaryfor ladling the wine, and the support necessary for a separate strainer.

But we must also take into consideration a curious difference in form between the inner collar of the Athenian and Corinthian versions of the 82. PoUux10.108. See also Amyx 1958, pp. 261-264. On strainersin general,Hill 1942; Crosby 1943; Strong 1966, pp. 92-93,217; Mertens 1976, pp. 71, 73-74, 78-80; Oliver 1977, pp.44-45,47. 83. We have alreadynoted that the St. PetersburgFalaieff,Al, was reportedlyfound with a bowl covering the centralopening, though it is not stated that the bowl was pierced. Sparkesand Talcott (AgoraXII, p. 106) remarkthat in the Classicalperiod a pottery strainerwas normallymade by piercingthe bottom of a suitable shape, such as a bowl.There are examplesof such piercedbowls and jugs at Corinth. 84. It is worth recallingat this point the piece of bronze that remainsin one of the holes of Cll, although its correct explanationis unclear. 85. The strainerwith perforated bowl and duck- or swan-headhandles is type 6 in Hil 1942, p. 54, table 6;

for the variantwith funnel instead of bowl, see Oliver et al. 1987, pp. 192193. Here are a few examples,in silver and bronze:Thessaloniki,from Vergina, Andronicos 1984, p. 148, fig. 108; Thessaloniki,from Vergina,Andronicos 1984, p. 211, fig. 178;Thessaloniki,5145, from Potideia,Michaud 1970, p. 1069, fig. 392; Thessaloniki, from Derveni A, Themelis and Touratsoglou1997, p. 37, A14, pl. 43; Thessaloniki,from Derveni B, Themelis andTouratsoglou1997, p. 69, B4, pls. 11 and 72; Thessaloniki,from Derveni D, Themelis andTouratsoglou 1997, p. 104, Dll, pls. 21 and 115; Thessaloniki,M 452, from Nikesiani, Lazarides,Rhomiopoulou,and Touratsoglou1992, pp. 22-23, pl. 7; Thessaloniki,A 2581, from Nikesiani, Lazarides,Rhomiopoulou,and Touratsoglou1992, p. 42, pl. 26; Baltimore,WaltersArt Gallery,57.910, fromThessaly(?),Oliver 1977, pp. 4445; Istanbul,1415, from Kastamonu,

Erdal 1989, p. 334, figs. 4-5; Sofia, from Duvanlij,Filow 1934, p. 176, fig. 195; Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 24.874, from Meroe, Smith 1960, p. 186, fig. 124; New York,Fleischman Coll., True and Hamma 1994, pp. 7778, no. 31d. 86. The diameterof the central opening of A6 is 0.147 m; the inner diameterof the vase at the level of the collar,about 0.27 m. In the case of A4 the centralopening was larger,about 0.18 m in diameter.The bowl of these metal strainersseems usuallyto have a diameterof about 0.09 to 0.12 m, and the total length acrossthe handles seems to be about 0.18 to 0.22 m. 87. Joffroy1954, pl. 16 (Vix) and pl. 19 (Trebenischte);Gioure 1978, pl. 5 (Derveni);Ortiz 1994, no. 149. A similarstrainer-lidfor a volute-krater has come to light at Olympia:Gauer 1991, pp. 8 and 255, M27, pl. 83 (I am most gratefulto Elizabeth Pemberton for this reference).

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

ANCIENT

CORINTH

483

shape: in the former there is only a single row of four to eight holes, in the latter the norm was probably three rows of closely-spaced holes. In the Attic red-figure Falaieffs, the collar cannot itself have been intended as a strainer: these vases were showpieces, intended to impress the guests at fashionable symposia, where costly metal strainers might have been important accessories.The coarseware Corinthian vases were more humble but more practicalpots, in which the inner collar must itself have served as a strainer,whatever was placed over the central opening. Given the size of the holes in the Corinthian Falaieffs, we might conjecture that a heated, spiced wine was poured into the krater,so that the holes helped to catch the added herbs. In this situation it might have been convenient to have a lid for the central opening, as in the case of the earlier Etruscan Bucchero vases. In fact, experiment with Cl shows that some at least of the ceramic lids made for Corinthian A transport amphorae could also have been employed in a secondary function to cover the central opening of the Falaieff krater.88

CONCLUSION

88. For these lids see Koehler 1986, pp. 55-56, with figs. 5-6.

Fineware kraters of Falaieff type were made in Athens during the 4th century B.C. This has long been known, but in this article I have shown that Athenian examples of the shape were exported to the important commercial city of Corinth. Moreover, there is now evidence that Corinthian potters occasionally produced a coarsewareversion of the shape. Whether the Corinthian or Attic Falaieffs are the earlier cannot yet be determined. Nor are the origins of the Falaieff krater certain, though a very similar, if smaller,vessel was made in Etruria in the later 7th and 6th centuries, and the connection may have been provided by examples in metal that have not survived.The Attic kraters,and presumablythe Corinthian, were used in the preparationand consumption of wine at the symposion, though the specific function of the shape remains conjectural. Despite these uncertainties, we have been able to add a new shape to the 4th-century ceramicrepertoryat Corinth, a shape that once again shows the Corinthian potters experimenting with a plain, utilitarian form. And another connection has been forged between the potters in Corinth and Athens in the Classical period.

REFERENCES AgoraXII = B. A. Sparkesand L. Talcott, Blackand Plain Potteryof the 6th, 5th, and 4th CenturiesB.C., Princeton 1970. AgoraXIV = H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wycherley,TheAgoraof Athens,Princeton 1972. AgoraXXIX = S. I. Rotroff,Hellenistic Pottery:.Athenian and Imported TableWareand Related Wheelmade Material,Princeton 1997.

Alexandrescu,P. 1978. Histria IV: La ceramique d'epoquearchaiqueet classique(VIIe-IVe s.), Paris. Amyx, D. A. 1958. "The Attic Stelai, Part III: Vasesand Other Containers,"Hesperia 27, pp. 163-307. Andronicos,M. 1984. Vergina:The RoyalTombs,Athens. Arte e civilta = Arte e civilta degli Etruschi,Torino 1967. Belov, G. D. 1945. "Krasnofigurnye

IAN

484

Krateriz Chersonesa,"Trudy GosydarstvennogoErmitazha 1,

pp. 141-145. Boardman,J. 1989. Athenian Red Figure Vases:The Classical Period, London. Brommer,F. 1980. "Krater Tyrrhenikos,"RM 87, pp. 335-339. Broneer,0. 1942. "Hero Cults in the CorinthianAgora,"Hesperia 44, pp. 1-29. Camporeale,G. 1971. "Vasoda filtro di Bucchero,"ArchC/23, pp. 258-261. Corinth VII, ii = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence,Archaic Corinthian Pottery and theAnaploga Well,

Princeton 1975. Corinth VII, iii = G. R. Edwards, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery,

Princeton 1975. Corinth VII, iv = S. Herbert, The RedFigure Pottery, Princeton 1977. Corinth XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer,and R. S. Young, The North Cemetery, Princeton 1964. Corinth XV, iii = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The Potters' Quarter. The Pottery, Princeton 1984. Corinth XVIII, i = E. G. Pemberton, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The GreekPottery, Princeton 1989.

Crosby,M. 1943. "ASilverLadle and Strainer,"4AJA 47, pp. 208-216. Diehl, E. 1964. Die Hydria, Mainz. Drougou, S. 1979. "Ein neuer Krater aus Athen: Die Gruppe'Falaieff,'" AA, pp.265-282.

Edmonds,J. M. 1959. The Fragments of Attic Comedy II, Leiden. Erdal,B. 1989. "Miizelerimizde sergilenenta?lnlrarkeolojikve ethnografikkiiltiirvarliklarinizin bozulma sebeplerive koruma (konservasyon)metotlarl," TuirkArkDerg28, pp. 323-335. Filow, B. 1934. Die Grabhiigelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Siidbulgarien, Sofia. Frel,J. 1964. "Un cratereattique retrouve,"Eirene 3, pp. 123-125. Froning,H. 1982. Museum Folkwang. Katalog der griechischenund italischen Vasen,Essen. Gauer,W. 1991. Die Bronzegefasse von Olympia I (OlForschXX), Berlin.

Gill, D. 1986. "ClassicalGreek Fictile Imitationsof PreciousMetal Vases," in Pots and Pans. A Colloquium on PreciousMetals and Ceramics,

M. Vickers,ed., Oxford,pp. 9-30.

MCPHEE

Gioure, E. 1978. 'OKp,oxpa,; -rov Apf3Pv(oV, Athens. Hayes,J.W. 1985.Etruscanand Italic Potteryin theRoyalOntarioMuseum: A Catalogue,Toronto. Hill, D. K. 1942. "Wine Ladles and Strainersfrom Ancient Times," JWalt5, pp. 40-55. Isler-Kerenyi,C. 1982. "Il trionfo di Dioniso,"NumAntCl11, pp. 139155. Jentoft-Nilsen, M. 1988. "TwoAttic Vasesof the Unique Shape,"in Proceedings of the Symposiumon AncientGreekand RelatedPottery, Copenhagen, August31-September4, 1987, J. Christiansenand T. Melander,eds., Copenhagen, pp.278-283. Joffroy,R. 1954. Le Tresorde Vix (MonPiot48.1), Paris. Jones, R. E. 1986. Greekand Cypriot Pottery:AReview of Scientific Studies,Athens. Koehler,C. 1986. "Handlingof Greek ContainerAmphoras,"in Recherches surlesamphores grecques(BCH Supplement13), J. Empereurand Y. Garlan,eds., Paris,pp. 49-67. Lazarides,D., K. Rhomiopoulou,and G. Touratsoglou.1992. 'O T6jif3of -r Ntx,oatcvv,; Athens. MacIntosh,J. 1974. "Excavationsat Corinth, 1973, Appendix I: EtruscanBuccheroPotteryImports in Corinth,"IHesperia43, pp. 34-45. Margos, R. 1980. "Unepelike attique a figuresrouges du IV siecle avant J.-C.,"in Etudesd'archbologie grecque prsenMesle 16.1111978a Violette Brussels. Verhoogen, McPhee, I. 1976. "AtticRed Figure of the Late 5th and 4th Centuries from Corinth,"Hesperia 45, pp.380-396. . 1997. "StemlessBell-Kraters from Ancient Corinth,"Hesperia 66, pp. 99-145. Mertens,J. 1976. "AHellenistic Find in New York,"MMAJ 11, pp. 71-84. Michaud,J. P. 1970. "Chroniquedes fouilles en 1968 et 1969,"BCH 94, pp. 883-1164. Miller, M. C. 1993. "Adoptionand Adaptationof Achaemenid MetalwareFormsin Attic BlackGloss Ware of the Fifth Century," AMIran 26, pp. 109-146.

FALAIEFF

BELL-KRATERS

FROM

Mingazzini, P. 1930. Vasidella collezione Castellani, Rome. Mitford, T. B. 1980. The Nymphaeum of Kafizin: The Inscribed Pottery (Kadmos SupplementII), Berlin.

Munn, M. L. 1983. "CorinthianTrade with the West in the Classical Period"(diss. Bryn Mawr College). Nuber,H. U. 1969-1970. "Ein Siebgefassaus Heddernheim,"Rei Cretariae Romanae Fautorum Acta

XI-XII, pp. 70-75. Oliver,A. 1977. Silverfor the Gods, Toledo. Oliver,A., et al. 1987. Antiquitiesfrom the Collection of Christos G. Bastis,

New York. Ortiz, G. 1994. In Pursuit of the Absolute:Art of theAncient World from the George Ortiz Collection,

London. Pease,M. Z. 1937. "AWell of the Late Fifth Centuryat Corinth,"Hesperia 6,pp.257-316. Pemberton,E. G. 1970. "The Vrysoula ClassicalDeposit from Ancient Corinth,"Hesperia 39, pp. 265-307. . 1981. "The Attributionof CorinthianBronzes,"Hesperia 50, pp. 101-111.

. 1997. "CorinthianBlackGlazed Potterywith Incised and StampedDecoration,"Hesperia 66, pp. 49-97. Pendlebury,H. W., and J. D. S. Pendlebury.1932. "Two ProtopalatialHouses at Knossos," BSA 30 (1928-1930) [1932], pp. 53-73. Pfrommer,M. 1986. Studien zu alexandrinischer undgrossgriechischer ToreutikfriihhellenistischerZeit,

Berlin. Pottier,E. 1922. Vasesantiques du Louvre III, Paris. Pricket,J. 1980. "AScientific and TechnologicalStudy of Topics Associatedwith the Grapein Greek and Roman Antiquity"(diss. Universityof Kentucky,Lexington). Rasmussen,T. 1979. BuccheroPottery from Southern Etruria, Cambridge. Robertson,M. 1981. "The Attic BlackFigure and Red-Figure Pottery,"in V. Karageorghiset al., Excavations at Kition IV: The Non-Cypriote Pottery, Nicosia.

ANCIENT

CORINTH

485

. 1992. TheArt of Vase-Painting in ClassicalAthens, Cambridge. Rotroff,S. I. 1996. "PnyxIII: Pottery and Stratigraphy," in The Pnyx in the History ofAthens. Proceedings of an International Colloquium Organised by the Finnish Institute atAthens,

B. Forsenand G. Stanton, eds., Helsinki, pp. 35-40. Rotroff,S. I., andJ. McK. Camp. 1996. "The Date of the Third Period of the Pnyx,"Hesperia 65, pp. 263-294. Schauenburg,K. 1980. "Skyllaoder Tritonin?Zu einer Gruppe canosinischerAskoi,"RM 87, pp. 29-56.

Schefold, K. 1934. Untersuchungenzu den KertscherVasen,Berlin. Shefton, B. B. 1971. "PersianGold and Attic Black-Glaze:Achaemenid Influenceson Attic Potteryof the 5th and 4th CenturiesB.C., AnnArch 21, pp. 109-111. Slane, K. W. 1986. "TwoDeposits from the Early Roman CellarBuilding, Corinth,"Hesperia 55, pp. 271-381. Smith, W. S. 1960. Ancient Egypt as Represented in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston.

Steiner,A. 1992. "Potteryand Cult in Corinth: Oil and Water at the SacredSpring,"Hesperia 61, pp.385-408. Strong,D. E. 1966. Greekand Roman Gold and Silver Plate, London. Talcott, L., and B. Philippaki.1956. Small Objectsfrom the Pnyx. II, Part I, Figured Pottery (Hesperia

Supplement 10), Princeton. Themelis, P., and G. Touratsoglou. 1997. Ot Tcyot rozo As,pv('ov, Athens. Thompson, H. A., and R. L. Scranton. 1943. "Stoasand City Walls on the Pnyx,"Hesperia 12, pp. 269-383. True,M., and K. Hamma, eds. 1994. A PassionforAntiquities:.AncientArt from the Collection of Barbara and Lawrence Fleischman, Malibu. Valavanis, P. 1991. HocvocOEvocxxot( ocyqopEl' oc7ro -rrp EpE'-roloc. cqy,BopRJ xrr-7vocTEpx .

ocyyEtoypocgoc zroo4ov 7r.X oc.,

Athens. Vandiver,P. B., and C. G. Koehler. 1986. "Structure,Processing, Properties,and Style of Corinthian

486

IAN

TransportAmphoras,"in Ceramics and Style, and StyleII: Technology W. D. Kingeryand E. Lense, eds., Columbus,pp. 173-215. Vickers,M. 1986. "Silver,Copper,and Ceramicsin Ancient Athens,"in Pots & Pans.A Colloquiumon PreciousMetalsand Ceramics, M. Vickers,ed., Oxford,pp. 137151. Whitbread, I. K. 1995. Greek Transport Amphorae:APetrologicaland Study,Athens. Archaeological Williams, C. K., II. 1972. "Corinth, 1971: ForumArea,"Hesperia 41, pp. 143-174. . 1973. "Corinth,1972:The ForumArea,"Hesperia 42, pp. 1-32. . 1975. "Corinth,1974: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 44, pp. 1-29. .1976. "Corinth,1975: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 45, pp. 99137.

Ian McPhee LA TROBE DEPARTMENT

Bundoora, Australia

UNIVERSITY OF ART

Victoria

HISTORY

3083

[email protected]

MCPHEE

. 1977. "Corinth,1976: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 46, pp. 40-81. .1978. "Pre-RomanCults in the Area of the Forumof Ancient Corinth"(diss. Universityof Pennsylvania). .1979. "Corinth,1978: Forum Southwest,"Hesperia 48, pp. 105144. . 1980. "CorinthExcavations, 1979,"Hesperia 49, pp. 107-134. .1981. "Corinth:Excavationsof 1980,"Hesperia 50, pp. 1-33. 11991. "Corinth,1990: SoutheastCornerof Temenos E," Hesperia60, pp. 1-40. 1995. "Archaicand Classical in Corintoe l'Occidente Corinth," (AttiTaranto34), pp. 31-45. Younger,W. 1966. Gods,Men, and Wine,London.

HESPERIA

69,

2000

Pages 487-So7

In memory of

A

ROMAN $ U

P PORT

CO

RI

TABLE

AT

ANC{I

EN

T

NTH

ABSTRACT

CharlesM. Edwards(1953-i992) A Roman sculpturedtable support,discoveredin Frankishdestructionlevels at ancient Corinth, representsa rare iconographicaltreatment of a popular theme, Hermes carryingthe baby Dionysos. Dating to the second half of the 2nd century A.C., the trapezophoros is adorned with a muscular,torsional Hermes supportingDionysos perchedon his outstretchedleft arm.The closest parallelsfor this composition are the large three-dimensional groups of satyrsand babiesproducedat Aphrodisias.The Hermes and Dionysos group mayhaveremindedits Frankishdiscoverersof St. Christopher,patronoftravelers and transporterof the infant Christ. Recent excavations at Corinth in the area southeast of Temple E have revealed a Byzantine complex with enclosed court (Unit 1), and a funerary chapel in Unit 2. An unusual Roman sculpture of Hermes holding the baby Dionysos (Fig. 1), discovered in Unit 2 during the 1993 season, represents a hitherto unknown iconographical treatment of this popular and enduring theme, and may also illustrate how this motif, and the work itself, took on new meaning in Frankish Greece.' The sculpturewas discovered during the removal of destruction debris that ran east to west in the tile-paved Room C of Unit 2, which included a series of rooms surrounding the church at the northern end of the Byzantine monastery altered in the Frankish period (Fig. 2:a-b).2 According to C. K. Williams II, Unit 2 1. S-1993-2. I thank C. K. Williams II for his generouspermission to study and publish this sculpture, and for readingdraftsof the paper. N. Bookidis helped in manyways, discussingthe sculpturewith me and readingthe manuscript.In additionto the originalphotographsshe prepared, Dr. Bookidis suppliedadditionalimages on short notice;I owe her a special debt of thanks.Thanks also to Luke Walker, GraphicDesign student at the Universityof Mississippi,who producedFigure 7.

B. S. Ridgwayalso read a draftof this essay,makingvaluablesuggestions.The anonymousrefereesmade many helpful recommendationsand corrections. Remaining mistakesare my own responsibility. 2. Corinth NB 863, pp. 18,24 (June 22-23, 1993). This room is called C in the 12th-centuryByzantinephase (see Williams and Zervos 1995, pp. 11-15); for Room C in its Frankishform (Room 3) see Williams et al. 1998, pp. 237-239; Williams and Zervos 1993, pp. 9-12, and 1994, pp. 24-26.

AI LEEN AJOOTIAN

488

_

_ _

__

_S

_ _

_

| _

,

:

_ _

_

_

__

_

_ _1

_

_

_

_

_

_

; I

i

.

-

-

S r

,

i

1.

Figure _

j

l

K

'

S-1993-2^

i

Corinth __

Hermes and Dionysos

table support

A ROMAN

Figure 2a. Corinth, temenos of Temple E: Frankish remains of the end of the 13th century. From 11-

1 r7

lxr Williams and Zervos 1996, fig. 1 o

TABLE

OF 1965 ~~~~~EXCAVATION

SUPPORT

--

ANCIENT

AT

489

CORINTH

_--

--~~1

Q:V

UNIT3

UNIT_4

0

Figure 2b. Corinth, Unit 2: actualstate plan, composite remains of the late 12th and 13th centuries. From

VI

Williams and Zervos 1996, fig.2

7

6

H

g

\1|

G

(5.j

&

8

9

nt5e

r < 0\tt

rti ,~~~

q

i*

?>

igse

H

2

anUNIT 0

3. Williams et al. 1998, p. 237; Williams, Barnes,and Snyder 1997, p. 21; Witliams and Zervos 1995, pp. 11-12. 4. Williams et al. 1998, p.239.

20M.

5 SM. '' -3g 9

was probably constructed in the first third of the 12th century.3Williams first coupled this destruction stratum in Room C with the Catalan invasion of 1312, but more recently has connected it with the earthquakeof ca. 1300.4 Room C was repairedearly in the 13th century,and went out of use shortly after.During this brief last phase, the north wall of Room C had a door at its center that opened into a courtyard at its north side.

?

490

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

The excavatorhypothesizes that the fragment was immured in an external wall of Room C until it collapsed into a stratum of architecturaldebris.5 Sculpted of fine-grained white marble, the male, nude except for a chlamys fastened over his right shoulder, supports a baby on his left arm. The fragment has a preserved height of 0.53 m. The height of the adult's head is 0.13 m. Multiplying this dimension by 7, a standardratio of head to body height, we can hypothesize that he stood ca. ninety centimeters tall. Some patches of the highly polished surface are preserved on the left side of the neck and shoulder and in the valleys between folds on the chlamys. The right side of the sculptureis considerablyweathered, suggesting that it may have been exposed for some time to the elements. Its surface considerably damaged, his short-brimmed, close-fitting hat, preserving stumps of wings on both sides of the crown, identifies this personage as the god Hermes.6 His hair, where it emerges beneath the hat, was arranged in short curls, executed with a profusion of drill holes, their finished surfaces now largely broken away. Locks of hair frame his face. These strands can be seen most clearly on the left side of the head where it was protected by the baby's body. Much of Hermes' face from the nose down is broken away. His brow, however, marked with a deep furrow,survives, along with the left eye and the inner half of the right eye. A deep drill line defines the contour of the upper right lid and most of the deeply set left eye. The tearduct is carefully articulated.Pupils and irises are not incised; these details may have been added in paint. The appearance,in photographs, of deliberately cut detail in the center of the left eye is the result of damage. Hermes now lacks his raised right arm from the shoulder, the left from mid-upper arm, and both legs from mid-thigh. The infant is missing his head and neck, and a portion of his torso on the left side, including the arm, part of the left leg to the thigh, and most of the right leg to midthigh. Hermes raised his right arm clear of his head, perhaps above it, holding an attribute toward which the infant reached. The god held his bent left arm away from his body. He may have grasped the baby'sleft leg with his left hand or raised his left forearm toward his charge; there are parallels for both poses, as we shall see. Or he may have brandished a caduceus. The baby sits on Hermes' left shoulder, close to the god's head, dangling both legs down over Hermes' chest: scars remain on the chlamys where they rested. The child stretches to the right, resting his right hand on the front of Hermes' head. The god, turning to his own left side, looks up at him in a close, intimate pose. Hermes, given an athlete'sbody, active and torsional, twists his lower body to his right side. He probably stepped forward on his left leg. His neck and torso are strikingly muscular.The neck preserves the remains of a bulging tendon on the left side, along with horizontal ridges of flesh that intensify the dramatic upturned position of the head. The muscularity of the epigastric region is apparent,despite the broken and abraded surface. Some details of digitation survive, especially on the left side of the torso. The iliac crests are prominently expressed. This sculpture of Hermes as a kourotrophos, probably shouldering the infant Dionyos, was not freestanding but adorned a support. Part of a

5. C. K. Williams II (pers.comm.). 6. LIMC V, 1990, pp. 319-321, s.v. Hermes(G. Siebert).

A

ROMAN

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

49I

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... ........ ........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .....: :....... . .

: :.: : ,., ., ...

.........

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

i _I 1|I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... .....

S. .5V

Figure 3. Corinth S-437, satyr table support

7. Figure M, Temple of Zeus at

Olympia,470-456 B.C. (Ashmoleand Yalouris1967, figs. 33-36). 8. S-1934 A, B: Sturgeon 1975, pp.292-293, no.3. 9. These table supportswere being producedin Attic workshopsby the

middleof the 1stcenturyA.C. and through the third quarterof the 3rd century.Also on trapezophorasee Moss 1988 and Cohon 1984. 10. Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, p.261.

pillar, measuring about ten centimeters on each side, carved in one piece with the figure, survives on the back. The sides of the pier were worked with a rasp, and the back was finished with the claw chisel. Now broken off at top and bottom, the support extended above and below the figure, which was carved completely free of this pillar from the middle of the shoulder blades and downward.The plasticallyrenderedchlamys, its edges and bottom now broken away in back, was carved in one piece with the support, but billowed out on both sides, providing a dramatic background for the figure. This garment fell over the back of Hermes' left shoulder, where draperyfolded over on itself; it was carved more carefullyhere than on the right side, but the figure was probablymeant to be viewed from the front. While his eyes are not drilled, Hermes' common snail curl coiffure is characterized by deep drill holes. The use of the drill to articulate short, tightly curled locks is attested by the second quarter of the 5th century B.C., so this feature is not diagnostic for the dating of this sculpture.7In Roman Imperial portraits of women, the combination of drilled hair and blank eyes is found in Augustan through Trajanicworks. It may be risky, however, to use large Imperial portraits as comparanda for small mythological compositions, especially in the case of this piece, unusual in form and function. At Corinth, two nonjoining fragments from the head of a large, freestandingRoman Hermes with the short curly hairstylehave been given an Antonine date.8These pieces preserve not only drill holes, but also comma-like drilled grooves defining individual locks of hair.The coloristic quality of the hair,the defined tearduct, active pose, dramatic musculature,and polished surface may place the Hermes and Dionysos group in the Hadrianic period, and perhaps even later in the second half of the 2nd century. The pillar served a structuralfunction for the sculptureitself, stabilizing the load supported on Hermes' neck. Square trapezophoros supports with roughly consistent dimensions from top to bottom are less common than struts which taper toward the top.9 According to StephanidouTiberiou, the thicker,squarepillarwas more stable.'0Parallelsfor the square support can be found among Attic figural trapezophora, including two at Corinth. The upper torso of a satyr (Fig. 3) excavated at the site preserves

AILEEN

492

AJOOTIAN

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..g:.... |E _ il ...... g

I

.

._

_

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I_.: '. ::: l ............ I .,.s ........... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z:

....:......*

part of a similar square strut with the same measurement of 0.10 m on a side." The figure, however, has a preserved height from neck to waist of aroundthirteen centimeters,versusca. twenty centimetersfor the Hermes.'2 Another fragment of a possible support at Corinth (Fig. 4) preserves most of the head of a bearded male, probably Herakles, with short, drilled curls. His head, like that of Hermes, measures 0.13 m and was carved in a single piece with the top of a substantialstrut,similarlyproportioned,whose capital bears a round cutting for the tenon of the table leaf, or whatever element it supported.'3This work corresponds in the dimensions of both figure and support to the Hermes and Dionysos group, but the statue, a herm, is centered frontally on the pillar, and probably adhered to it from the head down. In Athens at the National Museum, a frontal Pan wrapped in himation decorates a similar squared shaft, measuring 0.10 m per side (Fig. 5).34 Figures partially or wholly released from their pillars are uncommon. Moss compiled a small group that includes a satyr, a young male resting against a herm, a female of unknown identity, and images of Erotes carrying birds.'5Other types can be added to this assemblage. Figures of Dionysos alone or with satyrs and Pans customarily are carved nearly in the round. Some "Hanging Marsyas" figures adorning table supports were carved almost free of the tree trunk support that was also an essential narrativeingredientof the scene.16 It may be that the larger,freestandingprototypes for these figural supports encouraged a three-dimensional quality in their presentation. More complex group compositions include struts supporting individual sculptures in which the pillar itself more clearly functions as the support for the table leaf. One parallelfor the nearlythree-

-

Figure 4 (left). Corinth S-2329, Herakles table support Figure 5 (center,right). Athens, National Museum NM 251, Pan tablesupport.Photograph by the author

11. S-437: Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 71, and see Appendix, below. 12. Another fragmentary trapezophorosin Athens has a comparablesupport,but the figure,a Ganymede,is smaller(NM 5730; Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, p. 281, no. 132). 13. S-2329: unpublished. 14. Athens, NM 251: StephanidouTiberiou 1993, p. 261, no. 80, pl. 42. 15. Moss 1988, p. 16, note 8. 16. Weis 1992, nos. 12, 13, 18,20, 45,46,56,57.

A ROMAN

E...:

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Y

>

t ' '

TABLE

.

w

_l~

. _l

Figure 6 (left). Rome, Vatican 2445,

Ganymedeand eagletablesupport. After Ridgway1997, pl. 58

Figure7 (right).Reconstructionof CorinthS-1993-2, Hermesand Dionysos tablesupport

17. Vatican2445: Ridgway 1997, p. 247, pl. 58; Moss 1988, p. 390, no. A5. I thank B. Ridgway for pointing out this parallel.In addition to the Vaticanexample,a more compressedAttic version also presents the youth in a pose similarto that of Hermes, looking up at the eagle (Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, no. 136). More commonly on trapezophora, Ganymede leans languidlyagainst the supportwith head lowered (Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, pp. 125131). 18. Trapezophoramay measure as high as 1.275 m or even taller (Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, p. 42, no. 100).

_

~

CORINTH

493

Yvvupw

~~~~1.

dimensionalCorinthHermesis the torsionalfigureof Ganymedeon an Antoninetrapezophorosin Rome.The youth,carvedvirtuallyfreeof the strut,reachesup towardZeus,who is in the guiseof an eagle,spreadingits wings abovehim (Fig. 6).'7 While the Ganymedetrapezophorospreservesits plinth,we do not knowthe shapeandheightof thebasethatoriginallysupportedthe Corinth work,nor can we be certainhow much fartherthe pillarextendedabove the figures'heads.The top of the support,with its capital,had to clear Hermes'raisedrightarm,held freeof the head.It mayhaverisenas much as anotherfifteento twentycentimeters.If one restoresHermes'height at aroundninety centimeters,then the completework,withoutbase,could havemeasuredone meterandten to twentycentimetersin height.18 These dimensionsconformto thoseof the well-preservedPansupportin Athens (NM 251), with its well-preservedcapitaland base,carvedin one piece with the figureand pillar(Fig. 5). Pan in this supportmeasures0.91 m, andthe totalheightof the supportis 1.12 m. Forthe HermesandDionysos supportat Corinthwe can tentativelyrestorea capitaland a base to the pillar,all carvedfromone piece of marble.The well-preservedtop of the fragmentarypossibleHerakles(Fig. 4), mentionedabove,consistsof an extensionof the pillar,finishedin frontwith a simple cavettomolding. Perhapsthe Hermes and Dionysos supporthad a similarcrowningelement (Fig. 7). What this figuralpillarmay have supportedis uncertain.A marble tableleaf is the most likelyburden,but anotherclassof figuredsupports, for balustrades,shouldbe mentionedbrieflyhere.Hermswith male and femaleheadsadornedthe stagefrontof the Odeion of Agrippain its first

494

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

phase.'9The herm shafts, 0.92 m high, measure 0.19 x 0.16 m. A Roman example recovered from Omega House in Athens, on the north slope of the Areopagus, takes the form of a bearded Silenos or Dionysos (?) herm wearing a full-length, long-sleeved garment.20Camp has reconstructed the room, which contains a horseshoe-shaped swimming pool, with its west wall extending up ca. 1.50 m, surmounted by a balustrade.People on the same story as the balustrade could have looked down into the pool below. The figure, ca. 1.09 m high with its tapered shaft, supported the railing,which kept viewers from falling into the pool. He inclines his head, as if also peering down into the pool. It is just possible that the fragmentary Herakles pillar and fragmentary satyr support mentioned above, together with the Hermes and Dionysos group discussed here, supported a railing or balustrade.In any case, there are no surviving parallels for such an installation. If it adorned a trapezophoros,the Hermes and Dionysos composition is unusual in that respect. Cohon, Moss, and Stephanidou-Tiberiou provide no comparandain the surviving assemblage of Roman trapezophora for the theme of Hermes holding the infant wine god. In fact, Hermes rarely adorned table supports, and Dionysos only infrequently appeared on them depicted as a child, although the adult god occurred in various poses, alone or accompanied by members of his thiasos.2' There are numerous examples with the drunken adult god supported by an adolescent satyr.2 The composition at Corinth appears to be rare in the corpus of furniture supports and among sculpted images of Hermes and the infant Dionysos. While the motif of Hermes Kourotrophosis familiar in Roman sculpture,parallelsfor the Corinth work, with Hermes in a torsional pose looking up at the baby seated on his shoulder, are rare, as a survey of this theme in vase painting and sculpture reveals.23In addition, sculptural comparanda for the baby's pose, with both legs resting against Hermes' chest, are scarce.24 Relatively few Classical images of Hermes carryingDionysos survive. While there are no depictions of Hermes bearing Dionysos on the reverses of Classical coins, the adult god appears with Arkas, eponymous hero of Arcadia, on reverses of silver tetradrachms minted by the city of Pheneus, in northeastern Arcadia. These tetradrachms, minted between 370 and 300 B.C., show Hermes carrying Arkas, who is identified by inscription.The child perches on Hermes' outstretched left forearm.Hermes grasps a caduceus in his right hand as he runs to his right, looking back at the child, who raises his right hand to the god's head.25 19. Thompson 1950, pp. 64-68, pis. 46, 48-49. 20. Camp 1989, p. 52, pl. 9:5, p1. 10:10.

21. For trapezophorawith Dionysos and a young satyrsee StephanidouTiberiou 1993, pp. 86-96. A Flavian trapezophorosfrom Pompeii takes the form of a "Lysippan"Silenos holding a baby.The silen'sbody grows out of acanthus leaves, and the supportitself

terminatesin a feline foot: Vermeule 1981, fig. 11. 22. Stephanidou-Tiberiou1993, pp. 96-98. On this motif in Roman sculpturesee Pochmarski1990. 23. On the myth see Huskinson 1996, pp. 30-31; Motte 1996; Beaumont 1998, pp. 71-76; Beaumont 1995, pp. 341-344; LIMC V, 1990, pp. 285387, s.v.Hermes(G. Siebert);Baratte 1989; Hadzisteliou-Price1978, pp. 70-

72; Loeb 1979, pp. 28-56; Zanker 1965, pp. 45-55; Greifenhagen1931; Heydemann 1885. 24. For the motif on a late 5th-early 4th-century B.C. Attic hydria,see CVA, Berkeley1 [USA 18], pp. 48-49, pls. xlvii-xlix. 25. Gardner[1883] 1981, p. 193, no. 13, pl. xxxvi:7.P.

A ROMAN

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

495

In ancient sculpture, at least two Classical traditions of Hermes Dionysophoros can be identified: 1. Narrativesin reliefsillustratingthe birth of Dionysos from Zeus' thigh, or Hermes deliveringthe newbornto the Nymphs. Hermes, often wearingtunic and chlamys,in an activepose, moves toward the Nymphs.26One of the earliestsurvivingsculpturedimages of Hermes Dionysophorosappearson a late-4th-century B.C. votive relief in Athens.27The relief's cave borderframesa large cast of divinities,with Hermes, dressedfor travel,in the center.He steps up on a rock,passing the bundled infant to a waiting Nymph. 2. Large,three-dimensionalsculpturesof Hermes holding the baby Dionysos. No Classicalexamplesof this kind survive,but numerous Roman works, discussedbelow, arethought to reflect earlier traditions.Greek kourotrophoiin the round appearto have become popularby the 4th centuryB.C. The Elder Kephisodotos'statue of Eirene and Ploutos had been set up in the Athenian Agora probablyby 369 B.C. One of the earliestlarge,three-dimensional images of Hermes and Dionysos may have been the bronze also by This lost work Kephisodotos,possiblythe father of Praxiteles.28 suggeststo some critics that there may have been family interestin the theme.29 Pausanias (5.17.7) is the only ancient authority who mentions the Hermes and Dionysos group at Olympia. He attributed it to Praxiteles, the famous 4th-century Athenian sculptor,but the evidence for this association continues to be disputed.30Basically frontal, Hermes extends his body laterally in space. Resting his weight on the right leg, he leans to his

26. The decorationof the lost Throne of Apollo at Amyclae (ca. mid6th centuryB.c.) by the Ionian sculptor Bathyklesmay have included one of the earliestsculpturedrepresentationsof Hermes holding the baby in an isolated vignette (Faustoferri1991). According to Pausanias(3.18.11-12), the mythological scenes on the Throne included Ino and Semele with babyDionysos, and Hermes carryingthe infant to Olympos, presumablyafter Semele's death, to be gestated in Zeus' thigh. But see Pipili 1991. A fragmentaryplaster cast in Munich, said to have been taken from the neck of a metal rhyton tentatively dated ca. 5th/early 4th century B.C., may reflectthe earliestsurviving sculpturedevidencefor the delivery theme, albeit in miniaturerelief (Froning 1981, p. 54, pl. 6; Richter 1960). 27. Giintner 1994, pp. 113-114;

Edwards1985, pp. 419-437, no. 14. Dedicated by Neoptolemos from the Attic deme Melite, the reliefwas found reusedin Omega House on the south slope of the Areopagus. 28. Pliny,NH 34.87. 29. A Roman type has been connected with the Hermes by Kephisodotos I (Rizzo 1932, pp. 7-10; Blanco 1957, pp. 40-41, no. 39E) but see AgoraXI, pp. 163-165. For a similar image on Roman coins of Pautaliain Thrace (Caracalla)and Anchialos on the Danube, see Head [1877] 1979, pp. 232, 235. Pausanias(3.11.11) reports on a Hermes Agoraios Dionysophoros at Sparta,but does not providedescription, attribution,or date. 30. Ridgway1997, pp. 261-263; Corso 1996; Ajootian 1996, pp. 103110;Todisco 1993, pp. 65-79; Stewart 1990, pp. 77-81; Ridgway1990, pp. 90, 93.

496

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

left, holding the baby on his left arm,with the help of a tree trunk support. While this work has established-for modern critics-the standardsculptured image of Hermes and Dionysos, its source and date are problematic, and in fact there are few Roman copies.31 Generally in Roman marble sculpture, a frontal Hermes looks down at the baby he supports, usually on the left arm, although sometimes the pose is reversed.32The god is often partly draped in a chlamys, as in the much restored example in the Boboli Gardens, where he holds the baby away from his body on his own right side.33There are at least two large torsos, one from Pergamon, the other now in the Bardo Museum (Tunis), where the child was held in front, close to the chest.34A Hermes from the Hadrianic Baths at Leptis Magna is a variant of the Jason/Sandalbinder type. He rests his right leg on top of a large turtle. The infant, of which only fragments survive, sat on the upraised knee.35In another unusual Roman composition, a seated Hermes holds the baby in his lap.36 The composition at Corinth does not resemble canonical large-scale frontal Roman sculptures of the pair. Closer parallels for this sculpture exist in the more torsional groups in the round with young satyrs carrying infants. One of the earliest examples, a terracottafigurine (2nd-lst centuries B.C.) from the necropolis at Myrina, stands in a torsional pose that might be a dance step (Fig. 8).37Turning his head to his right, he looks up at the child sitting on his right arm. There are also convincing parallels in large-scale, three-dimensional marble.Two examples in different scales have been recoveredfrom a sculptor'sworkshop at Aphrodisias. A third, related, piece, signed by the sculptor Flavius Zeno, was one of several sculptures discovered together on the Palatine in Rome.38In all three, the satyrsupportsthe baby,who sits astride his left shoulder, and steadies him by grasping the child's left hand in his

31. SeveralLate Hellenistic works correspondingto the Hermes in pose and musculaturehave been recovered, so it is possible that a stock body type was reworkedfor differentcompositions (Ridgway1984, p. 85). There are a few works that might be associated with the group at Olympia:a fragmentary infant in Corfu (see ES 1325) correspondsin pose and the arrangement of draperyto the Olympia Dionysos; the Roman torso of a satyr with tracesof a child supportedon his arm,in Athens (NM 4800), resembles the pose of the Hermes at Olympia. This satyrand babygroup may in fact be importantto our understandingof the famous piece since a Pompeianwall painting of a satyrholding Dionysos is the usual sourcefor the restorationof the lost right arm and attributeof the Olympia Hermes (Schefold 1957, pp. 124-125).

32. A bronze figurineof Hermes in the Louvrehas been linked with large marbleversions (Waldstein 1882). 33. Zanker 1967, p. 40, no. 40. 34. Ridgway1984, p. 49, note 39. 35. Ridgway1997, p. 307; Bianchi Bandinelli 1966, pp. 99-100, fig. 155. For the Sandalbindertype see Moreno 1995; Ridgway1990, pp. 81-82; Ridgway1984, pp. 88, 94; Inan 1975, pp. 92-95, pl. 42:1-2; Ridgway1964. If, as Ridgwayhas suggested,the type is actuallya Late Hellenistic creation, predatedby a varietyof similarimages in relief at least as earlyas the Parthenonfrieze, then its adaptation for an image of Hermes Kourotrophos supportsthe view that types of the god in this role arelate developments. 36. Ridgway1997, pp. 260-261; Gualandi 1976, pp. 141-142, no. 110, fig. 147. For a similargroup with Pan supportingan infant on his lap:from

y1M

Figure 8. Paris, Louvre, Myr 185, Satyr and baby Dionysos, terracotta group. After Bieber 1955, fig. 570

Nimes, Maison Carree,Naples MusNaz 155747: Marquardt1995, pp. 78-79. 37. Louvre,Myr 185: MollardBesques 1963, I, p. 80, pl. 96:b. A traditionof satyrfamilylife in Classical Greek vase painting precedessculptured groups of satyrsand children.The earliestexampleis the well known image of a satyrfathersupportinga baby on his shoulders(Flying Angel Painter'skrater in Baltimore,WaltersArt Gallery 98.882; Beazley 1918, p. 59, no. 4, fig. 37). The piggybackmotif also occurred in Imperialsculpture,for examplein the alimentapanel,Arch of Trajanin Benevento,A.D. 114-118. 38. On the satyrsat Aphrodisiassee Smith 1998, pp. 255-259; Smith 1996, pp. 60-63; Rockwell 1991, p. 130; Erim 1974. On the Palatinestatue,now in Copenhagen, see Moltesen 1990, pp. 139,145-146.

A ROMAN

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

497

own; both hands are now broken away in the work from Aphrodisias illustrated here (Fig. 9). Poised on tiptoe, the satyr steps forward on his right foot. He holds a lagobolon in his right hand, resting it against his right shoulder.39 R. R. R. Smith has recently reevaluatedthe problematic dating of the workshop finds. Epigraphical evidence supports a date for Flavius Zeno within the second quarter of the 4th century A.C.,although it is possible that some items in the workshop assemblagecould be earlier,finished pieces reworked by fledgling sculptors.40The Aphrodisias groups have been connected with a lost Hellenistic original of the 3rd to 2nd century B.C., but apart from these three examples, no other large-scale replicas of this type are known.4' Another vanished Hellenistic work is thought to have inspired at least five Roman copies of a different Satyr and Dionysos group, including a much restoredversion in the Villa Albani (Fig. 10).42 The child, a toddler, rides piggyback on the satyr'sshoulders. Dionysos leans over to his right and the satyr looks up toward him, grasping the child's right ankle in his right hand. He raises his left hand toward the boy. The satyr rests his weight on the right side with the left foot drawn well back. These sculptures express the close, playful relationship between child and adult. But while both the Aphrodisias groups (cf. Fig. 9) and this type resemble the Corinth piece, they do not correspond to it in all respects, since the child at Corinth appearsyounger and does not straddle Hermes' upper arm or shoulders. These three-dimensional groups have counterparts in relief on Roman Dionysiac sarcophagi. Matz recognized at least six types, occurring first on sarcophagi dated to just before the mid-2nd century A.C.43 In all these scenes, the satyrs are members of crowded, complex thiasoi. Some types closely resemble the large sculptures in the round discussed here. The three-dimensional Villa Albani Satyr with Dionysos as a toddler (Fig. 10), for example, corresponds to Matz's KindertragerA (Type 75, Fig. 11). This piggyback group is the rarest of the relief types, occurring

39. While generallysimilarin pose and in their sinewy,muscularbodies and unkempthair,some variations occur among these three sculptures, aside from differencesin scale. In both works found at Aphrodisiasthe baby sits on a goatskindrapedover the satyr'sleft arm,but this pelt is lacking in the Copenhagenexample.In the smallerof the two replicasat Aphrodisiasthe infant leans back;the other one sits straightup. 40. Smith 1998, pp. 258-259. Erim suggestedthat the unsigned groups found at Aphrodisiasmight have been sculptedby a follower of Zeno (Rouech6and Erim 1982). On stylistic grounds,other worksbearing

this artist'ssignaturehad been consideredHadrianicor Antonine (Erim 1974, p. 772). Erim, while favoringa 4th-century date for the artist,proposedan alternatedating for pieces bearinghis signature.He suggestedthat they might be earlier and suppliedto a sculpturesrevworked 4th-century clientele.According to Rockwell (1991, p. 130), both satyr groupsfound at the Aphrodisian workshopmay have been finished pieces undergoingrepairs,so they might have been in the workshopfor a long time. 41. Erim 1974, pp. 773-774. 42. Villa Albani 148: Bieber 1955, p. 139; Helbig4II, p. 247, no. 384. On

the type see Kell 1988, pp. 40-43; Schneider1990, pp. 288-298, no. 232, pls. 202-203. For a list of replicassee Gercke 1969; also Minto 1913. The best preservedreplicais a statuette,the only figurepreservingHermes'legs. The baby holds grapesin his raised right hand, his human earsconfirming his identity as Dionysos ratherthan a baby satyr(Andren 1964, pl. 25). For other baby/satyrgroupssee Paribeni 1959, pp. 118-119, no. 335, pl. 156; also the fragmentarysatyrand baby sculpturein Baltimore:Reeder 1988, p.27. 43. Matz 1968, nos. TH 75-TH 80, pp. 40-50.

A ROMAN

THi75

TH75 Figure 11. After Matz 1968

44. Matz 1968, pp. 48-49. 45. Matz 1968, p. 49, no. 76. 46. Matz 1968, pp. 255-256, no. 115. 47. Matz 1968, pp. 48-50.

TH L76

TH 76

TABLE

-

TH 76

SUPPORT

-

AT

ANCIENT

!

.

TH 76

499

CORINTH

7

TH 77

just a few times.44Matz sees the terracotta dancing Satyr and Baby in the Louvre (Fig. 8), along with a small group of Roman wall paintings and the Villa Albani satyr type, as ancestors of this motif in Dionysiac funerary art. The Aphrodisias groups (cf Fig. 9) resemble Matz's KindertragerC (Type 77, Fig. 11). Some seven instances of this motif survive on sarcophagi, some with the pose reversed. None of the sarcophagus reliefs is dated earlierthan the early Severan period, but they may still be considerably earlierthan the Aphrodisias statues.The Corinth sculpture,with few comparanda in the round, is close to KindertragerB (Type 76, Fig. 11), with pose reversed, because of the baby's frontal position, with both legs over the satyr'schest.45The earliest occurrenceof the relief image is on an early Antonine sarcophagus in Florence.46Most of the other examples date from later in the 2nd century,possible contemporaries of the Corinth sculpture. Matz' analysis of satyr types on Roman sarcophagi reveals that poses remain the same, even when other burdens are substituted for babiesthyrsoi, askoi, amphoras, sacrificial animals. He proposes that in all the cases considered here, the small relief versions on sarcophagiwere inspired by earlier sculptures in the round.47Some important changes in meaning do occur,however, in the shift from three to two dimensions, if in fact this is the direction of influence. In the round, satyrs carrythe baby Dionysos, depicted as a human child. In relief, they carry infants of their own race, distinguished by pointed ears, and sometimes tails. The identity of both personages in the Corinth group varies from those in the relief versions. A repertoire of poses and personas apparentlywas manipulated to suit various genres and themes in Roman sculpture. As we have seen, the Corinthian group of Hermes and Dionysos is unusuallycompressed,with the babyvery close to Hermes and raised above him. This arrangement may have been important for the legibility of the composition, as well as for its stability.The substantialpier behind Hermes supports his neck and the child resting against him. This pose, suggesting an intimate physical and emotional relationbetween the two figures, found more commonly in satyr/baby groups, hieremay also serve a structural purpose. From the Classical period on, the image of Hermes carryingDionysos represented one stage of a venerable sacred narrativesequence that docu-

500

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

mented the wine god's prematuredeliveryfrom the womb of dying Semele, his rebirth from Zeus' thigh, his subsequent foster homes and parents.48It is likely that whatever its original setting, the Corinth sculpture expressed to its ancient creator and viewers a precise message appropriatein a specific context at the ancient city. Several other Roman sculpturesof Hermes have been recovered from the site; various types and poses can be identified.49While no other sculptured images of Hermes Kourotrophos have been recognized at Corinth, Trajanicbronze reversetypes of Hermes with Dionysos were minted for the city.50Running to his left, Hermes supports a baby on his outstretched left arm, which he holds so far away from his body that the infant does not touch his chest. The more usual relationship of adult to infant appearson Corinthian reverses,with Hermes' head higher than that of his charge.The adult wears petasos and chlamys and holds a caduccus in his right hand. As Sturgeon and Fuchs have shown, several Roman sculptures of Hermes Dionysophoros, in relief and in the round, come from theaters, an appropriate setting for such images.5"From the Theater of Dionysos in Athens, four surviving Hadrianic or early Antonine panels, which may originally have decorated the scacnae frons, include one with a frontal, chlamys-draped Hermes holding Dionysos on his left side. This pair and a seated Zeus are flanked by nude males carryingshields and identified by modern critics as the Korybantes.52Hermes in this Athens relief resembles Roman three-dimensional sculpturesof the god and not the more heavily draped, active figure of earlier narrative reliefs. Sturgeon connects this imagery with scenes on Dionysiac sarcophagi,altars,and other reliefs, suggesting that these scenes might have influenced the theater program.53 This theme apparentlywas more popular in the decoration of eastern theaters;at least four stage fronts, at Perge (ca. A.D. 120), Side, Sabratha,and Hierapolis, included birth of Dionysos cycles with images of Hermes and baby Dionysos.54At Corinth's theater,this motif does not appear.Hermes may have been a participant in the Gigantomachy frieze adorning the scaenae frons, but he does not survive as a kourotrophos.55 Sculpturesof Hermes and Dionysos also adorned Roman baths, occasionally the frigidarium. We have already considered the unusual Jason/ 48. See Hutchinson 1991, p. 224; also pp. 494-495 and note 23 above. 49. S-686, S-705, S-718, S-1934, S-3585. 50. Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner 1964, p. 21, pl. E:LXXXVIII. 51. Sturgeon 1977. On Hermes Dionysophorosin theaters:Fuchs 1987, pp. 37, 133, 191. These works include a small-scale(H. 0.975 m) sculpturein the round from Minturno (Naples, Fuchs 1987, p. 37, no. ElI1). From the Theater of Dionysos in Athens see the large Silenos in hairysuit carryingDionysos,who holds a mask (NM 257, Karouzou1968, p. 98; LIMC III, 1986, p. 480, no. 687, s.v.Dionysos[C. Gasparri]).The toddler Dionysos wears

long-sleeved costume and leggings, tunic, mantle, and boots. "Silenos"could be an actorin costume. Gasparri connects this Roman work with Pliny's reference(NH 36.29) to a statue in the PorticusOctaviae.For a similargroup of Hairy Silenos and Dionysos, see Marcade1970, p. 189, no. A4143, pl. 23. 52. Sturgeon 1977, pp. 34-35. 53. Sturgeon 1977, p. 36. The other panels reusedin the so-called base of Phaedruspresent subsequentphases of Dionysos' career,and Sturgeon (1977, pp. 51-52) proposedthat other pieces, now missing, included other episodes from his childhood. 54. In all these scenes, Hermes is much more active than he is in the

Athens frieze. Hermes Dionysophoros at Perge (Fuchs 1987, p. 133; Bernardi Ferrero1966-1974, III, p. 152); at Side (BernardiFerrero1966-1974, II, p. 141; Fuchs 1987, p. 133); at Sabratha (Fuchs 1987, p. 133; Caputo 1959, pl. 38, fig. 66); at Hierapolis (Fuchs 1987, p. 133; BernardiFerrero19661974,1, p. 59, fig. 97). 55. CorinthIX, ii, pp. 14,22, nos. G 7-1, G 7-2. The torso of a large, three-dimensionalstatue of Hermes with the remainsof a caduceusadhering to his left armwas recoverednear the theater.The fragmentarypurse mentioned by Sturgeon(CorinthIX, ii, p. 22, no. G 7-1) might belong with this figure.

A ROMAN

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

50I

Sandalbindertype from the bath at Leptis Magna.56Possibly these sculptures in public baths alluded to a subsequent episode in Dionysos' childhood, when he is bathed by the Nymphs, the sculpturesevoking this mythic lustral episode in an actualbath complex.57There are several Roman baths at ancient Corinth. A probable site for our sculpture may be the area tentatively identified as a bath in its Roman phase, close to the Frankish complex in which the work was found. This bath lies on the western side of the excavated Frankish remains south of Temple E, some fifty meters southwest of where the sculpture was discovered. Preliminary investigations of this areareveal an installation whose first phase was possibly Augustan; it apparentlysurvived into the 5th or 6th century A.C. A complete 1lth- or 12th-century rebuilding disturbed most of the earlierwalls.58A fragment of sculpture, possibly a nonjoining portion from one of Hermes' limbs, was found in this area.59This might be a section from an upper arm or thigh and it has a preserved length of 8 cm and a diameter of 9 cm. It is important to keep in mind that our sculptureprobably adorned a table support, with Attic parallels in terms of pillar and figure size, even though there are few surviving thematic comparanda. Evidence for trapezophora from Delos, Pompeii, and other sites, in addition to literary testimonia, demonstrates that Roman stone tables with figural supports served a variety of functions, secular and religious.60In temples, shrines, and household lararia,such tables were used as altars, offering tables, and supports for portable altars,patera, or lamps.6' In domestic contexts they served as stands for statues of lares. Examples from Pompeii and Herculaneum are thought to have displayed bronze figurines in the atria or peristyles of villas.62While monopodia, tables with a single central support, were not used for dining, wall paintings depict them laden with glassware and vessels and other banqueting supplies.63 The western end of the Roman Forum at Corinth, in the general area where this sculpture was found, is dominated by sacred buildings and precincts.The Hermes and Dionysos support could have been part of the sacred furniture in the precinct of Temple E, over which the ByzantineFrankishcomplex had been built. Much sculpturehas been recoveredfrom this area,including at least one Roman table support.64Or, the piece might belong to the unusualbuilding with centralhemicycle.This building, which terminates the west end of the Central Shops, was originally identified as a Temple of Dionysos. In his revised interpretation of Pausanias' route through the Roman Forum, Williams has identified this complex as the 56. Also from baths,primarilyin North Africa:Manderscheid1982, no. 116H (Agnano, statuette,Trajanic/ Hadrianic);no. 272 (Shahat,Hadrianic/ EarlyAntonine); no. 304 (Leptis Magna, Hadrianic).At Corinth, the fragmentaryhead of a large Polykleitan Hermes was found in Room 1, south pool of the Lechaion Road Bath (CorinthXVII, p. 41; Sturgeon 1975, pp. 290-292, no. 2). In addition,Biers (in CorinthXVII, p. 48) reportsfragments of a ram,possibly an attribute

from a statue of Hermes, from Rooms 3 and 5. 57. For bathing scenes on Dionysiac sarcophagisee Matz 1968. 58. The building is securely identified as a bath in the Byzantine period;much less can be said of the earlierremains,although segments of flooring built of waterproofherringbone tiles suggest the presenceof an earlybath here, accordingto C. K. Williams II (pers.comm.); and see Williams and Zervos 1995, p. 11;

Williams, Barnes,and Snyder1997, pp. 37-40. 59. S-1994-3. 60. Cohon 1984, pp. 6-7; Moss 1988, pp. 241-292; StephanidouTiberiou 1993, pp. 58-73. 61. Moss 1988, pp. 279-280. 62. Moss 1988, pp. 279-280. 63. Moss 1988, p. 274. 64. For trapezophorafound at Corinth, see Appendix,below.

502

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

Hermes sanctuarymentioned by the traveler.65 The foundations, probably from an altar,ca. 2 meters to the north and on axis with the entrance of this structure, support its identification as a temple. The central room, with its multicolored marble flooring, appearsto have had severalbases, or perhaps tables, along the edge of the interior.66 As we have seen, its secondary context, possibly a Frankish wall in Room C, one of a suite of rooms west of the church, has been connected with a destruction of ca. A.D. 1300. And as observed above, Hermes' body is noticeably more weathered on his right side than on the left. If the statue had been embedded in the exterior face of a wall (perhaps the predestruction north wall of Room C) with the right side projecting, such a placement would account for this uneven weathering.Just possibly, as spoIla immured in the outer wall of a room associatedwith the funerarychapel of a Frankish religious complex, the statue had a new life not simply as building material, but as sculpturewhose pagan iconography was reinterpreted with a Christian message.67A secondary, Christian, function for the Hermes and Dionysos trapezophoros will be explored briefly here. The statue's intimate juxtaposition of grown-up and child may have evoked, for Frankish Christians at Corinth, images from Christ's life depicted in contemporary church art. In the Byzantine world, by the 8th century, some episodes from the pagan cycle of Dionysos' birth became models for the childhood of Christ. The pose of the reclining Virgin Mary echoed that of recumbent, dying Semele,68and the bathing of the Christ Child, at least once employed as a metaphor for his later baptism, drew on earlier scenes of Dionysos bathed by his nymph nurses.69The question of how pagan sculpturewas used, perceived, and interpreted by both Byzantine and Western Christians has received considerable recent attention. Whether pagan statues, inscriptions, or even architecturalelements embedded in Christian churches had specific religious meanings for patrons, designers, and congregations continues to be debated.70Mango has suggested that building blocks, as well as sculptures,may have been perceived as having apotropaic power, and served specific functions when built into a church facade. Saradi-Mendelovici has recently examined the earlierambivalent Byzantine view of Classical and Roman sculpture, in which this sculpture was perceived both to be a haven for demons and to have artistic worth.71 Hermes Dionysophoros in the Dionysos birth cycle may have inspired the later figure of St. Christopher,who unwittingly carriedthe infant Christ across a river.The 8th-century Passionof Christopherplaces him in Syria; his martyrdommay have occurredca. A.D. 250.72 A mid-5th-century Greek dedicatory inscription from a church in Bithynia provides the earliest evidence for the saint's cult.73Jacobus de Voragine, in The GoldenLegend, recounts the best-known features of his story.74A giant first named Reprobus,he felt his destiny was to serve the greatest king on earth, whom he eventually determined to be Christ. Christopher carriedpeople across a river at a point where there was no bridge. One of his burdens was Christ, disguised as a mortal child. In the West, St. Christopher, one of the Fourteen Holy Helpers, was a medieval patron of travelers;anyone who glimpsed his image would be safe from death that day.75Large murals of the saint bearing the baby Christ commonly decorated the north walls of English and northern

65. Williams and Zervos 1990, pp. 351-356; Williams 1989. 66. CorinthI, iii, pp. 89-90. 67. See Engemann 1998, esp. pp. 173-177 for a discussionof the possible Byzantinereceptionof a Roman Dionysos and Satyrtable supportfound in the oven of a pottery kiln dating to ca. the 9th centuryA.C. at Abu Mina in Egypt. 68.Juhel 1991; Kitzenger 1963, pp. 100-105; Weitzmann 1960, pp. 5253. 69. Kitzenger 1963; Nordhagen 1961. 70. On Byzantinereceptionof Greek and Roman sculptureand other artworkssee Engemann 1998; Alchermes 1994; Saradi-Mendelovici 1990; Brenk 1987; Mango 1963. 71. Saradi-Mendelovici1990, p. 47. 72. Kaftal 1965, p. 24; Drake and Drake 1916, p. 26; Jameson 1894,11, pp. 439-450; ReallexikonfiirAntikeund ChristentumII, cols. 1241-1250, s.v. Christophoros (A. Hermann). 73. Benker 1975, p. 8. 74. de Voragine1948, pp. 377-382. 75. Whaite 1929, pp. 8-9.

TABLE

A ROMAN

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

503

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

Zan~~ipolo), jVenie Giovnni Bellin Figure 12. St. Chri-topher. Detai

p.

1 9 6.>

.0 ,

Detail Figure12.St.Christopher.

!

r0'iin:

b

e

;':

. ................ s.N

.

?

S,>,.."'.... s w\', X > et t t'S. g' ................................................... ' 'S,,'.,. aSSw;

'

SantiGiovanniePaolo(SanU|N4; 1999, (1430-1516). AfterTemnpestini

76. Farmer1987, pp. 868-887; Whaite 1929, pp. 8-9. 77. Benker 1975, pp. 46-47. The cynocephalicChristopherof the Easternchurchappears,infrequently,as kourotrophos,beginning in the 14th century(Loeschcke 1965, pp. 54-55, pl. 85:3). 78. On Greek monasteriesas pilgrims'shelterssee Ciggaar 1996, chapter1.

. ia

oS,!,L

European churches, opposite the entrance, and could be viewed from outside by passersby.76These wall paintings first appear in the 13th century, although the earliest images of St. Christopher carrying the infant Christ date to the beginning of the 12th.77Medieval and later images of St. Christopher with the infant Christ often echo the intimate pose of Hermes and Dionysos at Corinth, where the adult, supporting the baby on his left side, looks up at him, their heads close together (Fig. 12). Just possibly, the medieval discoverers of the trapezophoros saw a connection between the pagan group and the Christian travelers'saint. They may have considered their complex at Corinth, possibly a pilgrims' refuge, an appropriate setting for this unusual Roman sculpture.78For its 13th-century Frankish viewers, the pagan composition of Hermes holding baby Dionysos at ancient Corinth may have resonated with meaning that gave it a second life in the Christian world.

504

AILEEN

AJOOTIAN

APPEN DIX ROM/\AN TRAPEZOPHORA AT ANCIENT CORINTH Excavations at Corinth have produced many Roman trapezophora.They are listed below by theme, with their provenience, reference to StephanidouTiberiou 1993, and Corinth Excavation notebook (NB) entry,when available. Aphrodite S-3745 Attis S-1962 Dionysos S-731 S-1462 S-1527 S-1600 S-2470 S-2532 S-71-32 Eros S-2830 Ganymede S-56 S-2729

Lechaion Road; Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 164 North of School; Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, p. 58, note 65

Asklepieion; Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, p. 157 Temple E (NB 127, pp. 96-97) Agora Southeast (NB 135, p. 148); Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 39 Agora North Central (NB 171, p. 69); StephanidouTiberiou 1993, no. 11 St. John's (NB 169, p. 200) Gymnasium (NB 536, p. 92); Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 40 Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 102 Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 127 Near Peirene (NB 8, p. 4); Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 124

S-2903 Herakles St. John's (NB 169, p. 360); Figure 4 S-2329 Hermes and Dionysos (NB 863, pp. 18,24); Figure 1 S-1993-2 Satyr S-437 Northwest Shops(?) (NB 15, p. 51); Figure 3; StephanidouTiberiou 1993, no. 71 S-2742 Satyr and Dionysos S-762 Anaploga; Stephanidou-Tiberiou 1993, no. 69 Theater T-108 (bases) S-460 S-1029 S-1376 S- 1726 Agora Southeast (NB 142, p. 18) S-75-6 Forum Southwest T-917

A ROMAN

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

ANCIENT

CORINTH

505

REFERENCES Agora XI = E. B. Harrison,Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture,Princeton 1965.

in Ajootian, A. 1996. "Praxiteles," Personal Styles in GreekSculpture,

0. PalagiaandJ.J. Pollitt, eds., Cambridge,pp. 91-129. Alchermes,J. 1994. "Spoliain Roman Cities of the Later Empire: LegislativeRationalesand Architectural Reuse,"DOP 48, pp. 167-178. Andren, A. 1964. Antik Skuiptur i Svensk Samlinger, Stockholm. Ashmole, B., and N. Yalouris.1967. Olympia: The Sculpturesof the Temple of Zeus, London.

Baratte,F. 1989. "Lanaissancede Dionysos sur un couverclede sarcophagede Musee d'Amiens," RA, pp. 143-148. Beaumont,L. 1995. "Mythological Childhood:A Male Preserve?"BSA 90, pp.339-361. . 1998. "BornOld or Never Young?Femininity,Childhood, and the Goddesses of Ancient Greece," in The Sacredand the Feminine in Ancient Greece,S. Blundell and M. Williamson, eds. London, pp. 7195. Beazley,J. D. 1918. Attic Red-Figure Vasesin American Museums,

Cambridge. Patron Benker,G. 1975. Christophorus: der Schifer, Fuhrleute und Kraftfahrer,

Munich. BernardiFerrero,D. de. 1966-1974. Teatri classici in Asia Minore, 4 vols., Rome. Bieber,M. 1955. The Sculpture of the HellenisticAge, New York. Blanco,A. 1957. MuseodelPrado, Catalogo de la Escultura, Madrid. Brenk,B. 1987. "Spoliafrom Constantine to Charlemagne:Aesthetics versusIdeology,"DOP 41, pp. 103109. Camp,J. McK. 1989. "The Philosophical Schools of Roman Athens,"in The GreekRenaissance in the Roman Empire, S. Walkerand A. Cameron,

eds., London, pp. 50-55. Caputo, G. 1959. Il Teatro di Sabratha, Rome. Ciggaar,K. N. 1996. WesternTravellers to Constantinople, Leiden. Cohon, R. 1984. "Greekand Roman Table Supportswith Decorative

Reliefs"(diss. New YorkUniversity). CorinthI, iii = R. L. Scranton, Monumentsin theLowerAgoraand North

of theArchaicTemple,Princeton 1951. CorinthIX, ii = M. Sturgeon,Sculpture. TheReliefsfromthe Theater,Princeton 1977. CorinthXVII = J. Biers,TheGreatBath on theLechaionRoad,Princeton 1986. Corso,A. 1996. "The Hermes of Praxiteles,"NumAntCl25, pp. 131153. de Voragine,J. 1948. The GoldenLegend G. Ryanand ofJacobusde Voragine, H. Ripperger,trans.,New York. Drake, M., and W. Drake. 1916. Saints and TheirEmblems,London. Edwards,C. M. 1985. "GreekVotive Reliefs to Pan and the Nymphs" (diss. New YorkUniversity). Engemann,J. 1998. "EinTischfuss mit Dionysos-Satyr-Darstellungaus Abu Mina/Agypten,"JAC41, pp.169-177. Erim, K. T. 1974. "The Satyrand Young Dionysos Group from Aphrodisias,"in MelangesManselII, Ankara, pp. 767-775. Farmer,D. H. 1987. The Oxford Dictionaryof Saints,2nd ed., Oxford. Faustoferri,A. 1991. "The Throne of Apollo at Amyclae:Its Significance and Chronology,"in Sculpture from ArcadiaandLaconia:Proceedingsof an InternationalConference Held at theAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesin Athens,0. Palagia and W. Coulson, eds., Oxford, pp. 159-166. Froning,H. 1981. MarmorSchmuckreliefs mitgriechischen Mythenim 1.Jh. v. Chr., Mainz. Fuchs,M. 1987. Untersuchungen zurAusstattungromischer Theater in Italien undder Westprovinzen desImperiumRomanum, Mainz. Gardner,P. [1883] 1981. British Museum,Catalogueof GreekCoins, repr.Bologne. Gercke,P. 1969. "Satyrmit dem Dio-

5o6

AILEEN

nysos Knabenauf dem Schulter,"

in OpusNobile:Festschriftzum 60. Geburtstagvon UyJantzen, P. Zazoff, ed., Wiesbaden,pp. 4850. Greifenhagen,A. 1931. "Kindesheitmythos des Dionysos,"RM 46, pp. 27-43. Gualandi,G. 1976. "Sculturedi Rodi," ASAtene 38, pp. 7-259. Guntner,G. 1994.Gwttervereine und Gatterversammlungen aufattischen zur Weibreliefs: Untersuchungen TypologieundBedeutung,Wiirzburg. Hadzisteliou-Price,Th. 1978. Kourotrophos, Leiden. Head, B. V. [1877] 1979. British MuseumCatalogue,GreekCoinsof Thrace,repr.London. Hermann,A. 1954. Reallexikonfzir Antikeund ChristentumII, cols. 1241-1250 (Christophoros). Heydemann,H. 1885. "Dionysos Gebuirtund Kindheit,"HallWPr 10, pp. 3-58. Huskinson,J. 1996. RomanChildren's Sarcophagi,Oxford. Hutchinson, V.J. 1991. "The Cult of Dionysos/Bacchusin the GraecoRomanWorld,"JRA4, pp. 222230. Imhoof-Blumer,F.W., and P. Gardner. 1964.AncientCoinsIllustrating LostMasterpieces of GreekArt, A. N. Oikonomides,ed., rev.ed., Chicago. Inan,J. 1975. RomanSculpturein Side, Ankara. Jameson,1894.SacredandLegendary Art, 2 vols., London. Juhel,V. 1991. "Le bain de l'EnfantJesus,"CA 39, pp. 111-132. Kaftal,G. 1965. Iconography of the Saintsin Centraland SouthItalian Schoolsof Painting,Florence. Karouzou,S. 1968. NationalArchaeologicalMuseumCollectionof Athens. Sculpture, Kell,K. 1988.Formuntersuchungen zu spat- undnachhellenistischen Gruppen,Saarbriicken. Kitzenger,E. 1963. "The Hellenistic Heritage in ByzantineArt,"DOP 17, pp. 97-115. Loeb, E. H. 1979. Die GeburtderGotter in dergriechischen Kunstder klassischen Zeit,Jerusalem. Loeschcke,W. 1965. "Neue Studien

AJOOTIAN

zur Darstellungdes tierkopfigen Christophoros,"in Beitrage zur Kunst des christlichenOstens Erste Studien-Sammlung, Recklinghausen,

pp. 37-80. Manderscheid,H. 1982. Die Skulpturen-ausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen, Berlin.

Mango, C. 1963. "AntiqueStatuary and the Byzantine Beholder,"DOP 17, pp. 55-75. Marcade,J. 1970. Au Musje de Delos, Paris. Marquardt,N. 1995. Pan in der hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen

Plastik,Bonn. Matz, F. 1968. Die dionysischen SarkophageI, Berlin. Minto, A. 1913. "Satirocon Bacco Fanciullo,"Ausonia8, pp. 90-103. Mollard-Besques,S. 1963. Catalogue raisonne desfigurines et reliefsgrecs et romains, 2 vols., Paris.

Moltesen, M. 1990. "The Aphrodisian Sculpturesin the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek,"in Aphrodisias Papers I (JRA Supplement 1), C. Rouech6 and K. T. Erim, eds., Ann Arbor, pp. 133-146. Moreno, P. 1995. "Ermeteche si slaccia il sandalo,"in Lisippo lArte ela Fortuna, Florence,pp. 230-23 1. Moss, C. F. 1988. "RomanMarble Tables"(diss. PrincetonUniversity). Motte, A. 1996. "Les enfancesdivines dans le mythe Grec,"EtCl 64, pp. 109-125. Nordhagen,P.J. 1961. "The Origin of the Washing of the Child in the Nativity Scene,"ByzZeit 54, pp. 333-337. Paribeni,E. 1959. Catalogo delle Sculture di Cirene, Rome. Pipili, M. 1991. "Hermesand the Child Dionysos:What Did PausaniasSee on the AmyklaiThrone?,"in Stips Votiva:Papers Presented to C. M. Stibbe, M. Gnade, ed., Amsterdam,

pp. 143-147. Pochmarski,E. 1990. Dionysische Gruppen, Vienna. Reeder,E. 1988. HellenisticArt in the WaltersArt Gallery, Baltimore. Richter,G. M. C. 1960. "AnAncient PlasterCast in Munich,"in Theoria: Festschriftffir W-H. Schuchbardt,

F. Eckstein, ed., Baden-Baden, pp. 179-183.

Ridgway,B. S. 1964. "The Date of the So-Called LysippanJason,"AJA68, pp.113-128. . 1984.Roman Copiesof Greek Sculpture: TheProblemof the Originals,AnnArbor. . 1990.HellenisticSculptureI, Madison. . 1997.Fourth-CenturyStylesin GreekSculpture,Madison. Rizzo, G. 1932. Prassitele, Milan. Rockwell,P. 1991. "UnfinishedStatuaryAssociated with a Sculptor's in AphrodisiasPapersII Workshop," (JRA Supplement2), R. R. R. Smith and K. T. Erim, eds., Ann Arbor,pp. 127-143. Rouech6,C., and K. Erim. 1982. "Sculptorsfrom Aphrodisias: Some New Inscriptions,"PBSR 50, pp. 102-115. Saradi-Mendelovici,H. 1990. "Christian Attitudes towardPaganMonuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries,"DOP 44, pp. 47-61. Schefold,K. 1957. Die WandePompejis, Berlin. Schneider,R. M. 1990. "Satyrtragt Dionysosknaben,"VillaAlbaniIII, Berlin. Smith, R. R. R. 1996. "Archaeological Researchat Aphrodisias,19891992,"in AphrodisiasPapersIII (JRA Supplement20), C. Rouech6 and R. R. R. Smith, eds., Ann Arbor,pp. 11-72. . 1998. "HellenisticSculpture under the Roman Empire:Fishermen and Satyrsat Aphrodisias," in RegionalSchoolsin Hellenistic Sculpture: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens,March15-17, 1996, 0. Palagia,ed., Oxford, pp. 253260. Stephanidou-Tiberiou,Th. 1993. mePlastikeDiakosmese, Trapezophora Athens. Stewart,A. 1990.GreekSculpture:An Exploration,New Haven. Sturgeon,M. 1975. "ANew Group of Sculpturesfrom Ancient Corinth," Hesperia44, pp. 280-301. . 1977. "The Reliefs on the Theater of Dionysos in Athens," AJA 81, pp. 31-53.

A ROMAN

Tempestini,A. 1999. GiovanniBellini, New York. Thompson, H. A. 1950. "The Odeion in the Athenian Agora,"Hesperia 19, pp. 31-141. Todisco,L. 1993.SculturaGrecadelIV Secolo,Milan. Vermeule,C. C. 1981. "Benchand Table Supports:Roman Egypt and Beyond," in Studiesin AncientEgypt, theAegean,and theSudan.Studiesin Honorof Dows Dunham,W. K. Simpson and W. M. Davis, eds., Boston, pp. 180-192. Waldstein, C. 1882. "Hermeswith the Infant Dionysos,"JHS3, pp. 107110. Weis,A. 1992.TheHangingMarsyas andIts Copies,Rome. Weitzmann, K. 1960. "The Survivalof Mythological Representationsin Early Christianand ByzantineArt andTheir Impact on Christianity," DOP 14, pp. 43-68. in Whaite, H. C. 1929. St. Christopher EnglishMedievalPainting, London. Williams, C. K., II. 1989. "AReevaluation of Temple E and the West End of the Forumof Corinth,"in

AileenAjootian DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY,

OF CLASSICS OF MISSISSIPPI

MIss.

[email protected]

38677-I848

TABLE

SUPPORT

AT

The GreekRenaissance in the Roman Empire, S. Walkerand A. Cameron,

eds., London, pp. 156-168. Williams, C. K., II, and 0. H. Zervos. 1990. "Excavationsat Corinth, 1989:The Temenos of Temple E," Hesperia 59, pp. 325-369.

. 1993. "FrankishCorinth: 1992,"Hesperia 62, pp. 1-52. . 1994. "FrankishCorinth: 1993,"Hesperia 63, pp. 1-56. . 1995. "FrankishCorinth: 1994,"Hesperia 64, pp. 1-60. . 1996. "FrankishCorinth: 1995," Hesperia 65, pp. 1-56.

Williams, C. K., II, E. Barnes,and L. M. Snyder.1997. "Frankish Corinth:1996,"Hesperia 66, pp. 747. Williams, C. K., II, E. Barnes, L. M. Snyder,and 0. H. Zervos. 1998. "FrankishCorinth:1997," Hesperia 67, pp. 223-281. Zanker,P. 1965. Wandelder Hermesgestalt in der attischen Vasenmalerei,Bonn. . 1967. Klassizistische Statuen,

Mainz.

ANCIENT

CORINTH

507

69,2000

GREEK EPIGRAPHICAL INDEX

PERSONS 'Ayocxo6fo(u)Rol,fabricant of Rhodian amphora 146-108 a., 328 (1612) 'Ayoc[Oolo]X][],fabricant of Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (92_3); 'Ayoc[Oolox;k],328 (1023) 'Ayayc[oXLs], duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (111); 'Ayan6ol[?k], 328 (1212) 'Av8Dpoaxo,owner of oinochoe and lekane, graffitifin. V a. 60 (89), 86 (= AgoraXXI F 131 a); 'A[v81]p(xos, 60 (90) (= AgoraXXI F 132); [....]axos, 59 (88) (= AgoraXXI F 131 com); 'Av8po[axol], 62 (92) (=Agora XXI F 97) duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (42); ['A]paT63o,PovXos, ['A]pvro6[foDkovl], 327 (32) 'Apvrv[0]lloc[o], eponym on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (91-2); 'Apv-rv[0]loa[o]s, 328 (101 2) eponym on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (131); 'Ap&[aToxp&ok-r], 'A[poa[roxpo]6c[Y], 328 (141) ALo,v6 os, eponym on Knidian amphora 108-98 a., 327 (72); A[Lo]v6moo,328 (82) fabricant of Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (142); LAoxoDpL&8ocs, 328 (132) [LAoxoDpLo]8oxs, 'Ep6o'qocv-os,duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (112); 328 (122-3) 'Epto6lqxovros, fabricant of Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (52) `Ep6ooqxocv-o, "'Eptcov,eponym on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (22) Ev`Poukos,duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (62) EDv0?z[oo,duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (13) 'Jciacov,duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (151)

duovir on Knidian amphora 108-98 a., 327 (74); FlI]TcTo6a-vpovoo, 328 (84) 'J[TcTc]crvpcTo5, eponym on Knidian amphora 108-98 a., 327 (71); KoAL8s K[oYrpoc-ro, 328 (8k) Kocpovz c4, duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (6k) K?A(---)?,owner? of amphorasfin. V a., 58 (84), 59 (85)

5IO

AaX7- duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (12) Aco,v, owner? of amphora, graffitofin. V a., 51 (68) Ai(an, author of lead letter init. IV a., 951 [M]?socvToc[s], duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327

(43);

[M?so?vTocs],327 (33)

[M6aTs], duovir on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 328 (151)

H

owner?of amphorafin.V a., 57 (83) ocxv[---]?, ?voxXNi, addressee of lead letter init. IV a., (951)

HILLaEvo;, eponym on Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (51)

[YIo;D6vLxos], fabricant of Knidian amphora 97-88 a., 327 (23) duovir on Knidian amphora 108-98 a., 327 (75); HoX6cDXPoo0, HI[o?6oclx]po[og],328 (85)

'Po8q, owner of platefin. II - init. I a., 298 (7)

ETHNIC Kv(Los: Kv6&ov,328 (132, 142); Kv6&[ov], 327 (53, corrected); Kv[61&[ov],328 (93); [Kv6&ov],328 (103, corrected);Kv68ov], 327 (73, corrected); [Kv61&ov,327 (21, corrected);K[v68Lov,328 (83,

corrected)

DEITY n;koDTov:MI;o6I[-v&vos], 3366-7, corrected

INSCRIPTIONS

STUDIED OR EMEND ED

AgoraInventoryNumber IL 1702 P P P P P P P P

2067 18620 23821 23835 23968 23991 26387 26389

95-101 51-52 62 60 60 58-59 57 59 59

(68) (92) (89) (90) (84) (83) (85) (88)

CorinthInventoryNumber 97-1

336-337

CORRTGENDA: Natalia Vogeikoff-Brogan, "Late Hellenistic Pottery":p. 328, nos. 9-11, 13, 15, 16, for 1956-NAK-273-278, read 1956-NAA\-273-278; p. 328, no. 16, for'Ayxof3o,olcluster??Bouread'Ayxof3o,o(6)Icluster? kou.

HESPERIA

SUPPLEMENTS

13 MarcusAurelius:Aspectsof Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast, by James H. Oliver (1970). $15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,byJohnS.Traill(1975). $15.00 15 TheLetteringof an AthenianMason,by Stephen V. 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 AtticEpigraphy,History,and Topography (1982). $15.00 Vanderpool 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 theDressofIsis, by ElizabethJ. Walters (1988). $40.00

23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfrom theAthenianAgora,by ClaireveGrandjouan (1989). $25.00 at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries BronzeAge Crete,byJeffrey S. 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 Proceedingsof theInternationalConference Terracottas of the ClassicalandHellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991, edited by Nancy A. Winter (1994). $120.00

28 Studiesin ArchaicCorinthianVasePainting,by D. A. AmyxandPatricia Lawrence(1996). $65.00

29 TheAthenianGrain-TaxLaw of374/3 $35.00

B.C., by RonaldS. Stroud(1998).

Hesperia 69, 2000

2000 (69)

69

69

Горловина 69

Hesperia 71, 2002

Le paludi di Hesperia

Майами, 69

Дело 69

Горловина 69

Люк 69

69 Reasons

Майами, 69

Люк 69

The Mycenaean Feast (HESPERIA)

Hesperia 70, 2001

Джеймс Боллард. Люк 69

Дэй Кин. Майами, 69

Booty Call 69

Booty Call 69

بحار الأنوار - الجزء 69

Logic Colloquium '69

Buccaneers (Elite 69)

SF-Stories 69 v3

69 Barrow Street

Science Fiction Stories 69

2000)

2000)

Το περιθώριο '68 - '69

Дело N 69

Booty Call 69

Hesperia 69, 2000

2000 (69)

69

69

Горловина 69

Hesperia 71, 2002

Le paludi di Hesperia

Майами, 69

Дело 69

Горловина 69

Люк 69

69 Reasons

Майами, 69

Люк 69

The Mycenaean Feast (HESPERIA)

Hesperia 70, 2001

Джеймс Боллард. Люк 69

Дэй Кин. Майами, 69

Booty Call 69

Booty Call 69

بحار الأنوار - الجزء 69

Logic Colloquium '69

Buccaneers (Elite 69)

SF-Stories 69 v3

69 Barrow Street

Science Fiction Stories 69

2000)

2000)

Το περιθώριο '68 - '69

Дело N 69

Booty Call 69

Recommend Documents