-
THE
JOURNAL 0}
O F
C L A S S I C A L
4THE
AMERICAN SCHOOL
STUDIES
AT
ATH
EN
I 7I: NUMBER VOLUME 2002 JANUARY-MARCH
AmericanSchoolof StudiesatAthens Classical 2001
S
and TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthensis a research studyof thearchaeology, art, teachinginstitution dedicated to advanced of GreeceandtheGreek history,philosophy, language, andliterature of nineAmerican universiworld.Established in 1881bya consortium ties,the Schoolnowservesgraduate studentsandscholarsfrommore actingasa baseforresearch than150affiliated collegesanduniversities, andstudyin Greece.The mainbuildingsof the Schoolandits library andpublications officesin arelocatedin Athens,withadministrative Princeton, NewJersey.As partof its mission,the Schooldirectsongoingexcavations in theAthenianAgoraandat Corinthandsponsors allotherAmerican-led excavations andsurveyson Greeksoil. It is the andclassicists andthe officiallinkbetweenAmericanarchaeologists Archaeological Serviceof the GreekMinistryof Cultureand,as such,is resources andto the dedicated to thewisemanagement of cultural world.Inquiries about dissemination of knowledge of theclassical in the SummerSessions membership in the Schoolorparticipation shouldbe sentto theAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens, 6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton, NewJersey08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterly bytheAmericanSchoolof Classical
to the StudiesatAthens.Foundedin 1932anddevotedprimarily andSchool-directed timelypublication of reportson School-sponsored fromallscholars workingin the projects, Hesperiawelcomessubmissions history,andliterature, from fieldsof Greekarchaeology, art,epigraphy, journal. earliestprehistoric timesonward. Hesperiais a refereed
VOLUME
7I: NUMBER
JANUARY-MARCH
I
2002
-
I _m
-
I
THEJOURNAL OFTHEAMERICAN SCHOOL OFCLASSICAL STUDIESATATHENS
PUBLICATIONS STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF KerriCox EDITOR, Hesperia TraceyCullen EDITOR, MONOGRAPHS Michael Fitzgerald PRODUCTION MANAGER SarahGeorge Figueira CREATIVE COORDINATOR JordanPeled
PUBLICATIONS C OMMITTEE Carol C. Mattusch (Chairman) George Mason University Darice Birge Loyola Universityof Chicago Jenifer Neils Case Western ReserveUniversity Thomas G. Palaima Universityof Texas at Austin James P. Sickinger Florida State University Kathleen W. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia Stephen V.Tracy (ex offrio) Ohio State University
JEFFREY M. HURWIT Reading the ChigiVase PETERKRENTZ Fighting bythe Rules:The Inventionof the Hoplite Agon BRICE L. ERICKSON Aphrati andKatoSyme:Pottery,Continuity, andCultin Late ArchaicandClassicalCrete ALAN S. HENRY The AthenianStateSecretariat andProvisions for Publishing andErectingDecrees
23
41
91
Submissions:Manuscriptsand communicationsshouldbe addressedto Dr.TraceyCullen,Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat NewJersey08540;tel.609-683-0800; Athens,6-8 CharltonStreet,Princeton, andphotocopiesof ilManuscripts fax609-924-0578;
[email protected]. originalartworkandphotographs mustbe submittedin triplicate; lustrations aremadewith the Editor.A shouldnot be sent unlesspriorarrangements of the articleshouldalsobe the majorconclusions shortabstractsummarizing reviewprocessandauthors included.Articlesaresubmittedto a double-blind withouttheirnameor accordingly, arerequestedto preparetheirmanuscripts notes,bibliograpreparation, The stylefor manuscript affiliationappearing. canbe foundin the Guidelinesfor on submissions phy,andotherinformation Authorspublishedin Hesperia62,1993, pp. i-xvi; on the School'sWeb site at the aboveaddress. orbywritingto ASCSAPublications (www.ascsa.org); The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthenswillnotknowinglyprint orinitialscholthe announcement in Hesperiaoranyof its otherpublications afterDecember30,1970, byanymeans of anyobjectacquired arlypresentation otherthanthroughan officiallysanctionedexcavationor survey,unlessthe existingcollectionorwaslegallyexportedfrom objectwaspartof a previously the countryof origin.
Copyright(C)2002 The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc.,AnnArbor,Michigan. Designby EllenMcKie. The Chigivase. Coverillustration: Rome,VillaGiulia22679. PhotoJeffreyM. Hurwit. postagepaidat Periodicals Princeton,NewJersey,andat additionalmailingoffices. Sendaddresschanges Postmaster: to Hesperia,P.O.Box529, Canton, MA 02021-0529, U.S.A.
ISSN 0018-098X price ISBN 87661-500-0 The annualsubscription Hesperiais publishedquarterly. Subscriptions: $70 forinstitutions($80,interna($70, international), is $60 forindividuals Paymentmust tional),and$33 forstudents(proofof studentstatusrequired). beinU.S.dollars,drawnon aU.S.bankorbymoneyorder,andsentto Hesperia, SubscriberServices,P.O. Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529; tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outsideU.S.) 781-828-8450; fax 781-828-8915; e-mail of Singleissues(currentandbacknumberswhenavailable)
[email protected]. for $15 eachpluspostagefromthe DavidBrownBook Hesperiaareavailable Company,P.O.Box 511, OakviXe,CT 06779; tel. 800-791-9354,860-9459329; fax 860-945-9468; or (outsideNorth America)OxbowBooks,Park End Place,OxfordOX1 1HN, U.K.;tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249; fax +44 (0) 13-17 and19-30 arealsoavailable 1865-794449. IndexII andSupplements fromDavidBrownBooks.Reprintsof IndexI, Supplements1-12 and 18, b.v., andearlyissuesof Hesperiashouldbe orderedfromSwetsandZeitlinger,
[email protected]. P.O.Box 810,2160 SZ Lisse,Netherlands;
Stiitit;itEiashEESiS2< ;00-atl)i; 0A}1
H -
ESPERIA
OR
|int.ti& tt
ff:
NOW/
t1
I N
ELECTRONIC ARCHIVE
E
275), avaytoaf at 8£ T08£] T0 f gatI [a Tovytoaa£a with suspicion, shouldbe regarded XI[t0Lvt, £]V OXt Tov5 DovANg with the repeateddefinite formulation partlybecauseof the anomalous employedto justifythe restoration. andpartlyforthe reasoning article18 to thelatedateformention Dow'sobjection ForMerittandTraillrejected the decree] of thisofficeron the groundsthat"thefundsfor [inscribing a curious wereto comefromthe moneysat the disposalof the Council," omissionof fivelettersfromthe Dow'scautionin assuming justification.19 he alsonotedthatthe space is preferable; title of the prytanysecretary Thisis not couldbe exactlyfilledwithzat Ta ovoyaTav stovTav£v.20 to the whatsoever so fancifill:instancesof the omissionof anyreference do occur.21 secretary and Trs ,BovANs designated of thesecretaries Apartfromtheactivities we findthat,duringthe twobriefperiodsof political zaTa stovTav£cavX
94
ALAN
S. HENRY
turbulence atAthensin theyears321/20to 319/18and294/3to 292/1,it wastheavaytoaxp£vs whoassumed thestatusof eponymous secretary and thedutiesof publishing decreesof thebouleanddemos.Prytany secretaries do makean appearance in decreeprescripts of the firstof theseperiods, buttheyhavelost theirannualstatus,beingchosenfor a periodof one prytanyonlyfromamongthemembers of theprytanizing tribe.22 Beforethe 4th centuryis over,we encounteryet anothersecretary entrusted with the publication of decrees,or,at least,anothertitle of a secretarywith this responsibility. This is o ytoa,u,ua£vs Tov8N,uov.23 FergusonandBrillantargueforthe identification of this secretary with theytoayMaT£vs xocTastovTav£cav andtheearlier ytoa,u,ua£vs5 ,BovANs, anidentification alsosupported byPritchettin the editingof a fragmentarytext.24 It is not impossible, however, asWoodheadremindsus, that "thiswasa functionary separatefromthosealreadymentioned."25 Certaintyis unattainable; forourpurposesaneconomical hypothesis willbe to acceptthatthisis simplya newtitlefortheprincipal statesecretary. Theytoa,u,ua£vs Tov8N,uov is firstencountered in publication provisionsin the posthumous honorsproposedforLycurgus by Stratokles in 307/6([Plutarch] Vit.Xorat. 852),wherewereadava0£LvaL 8£ Tov ytoaysuaT£a Tov 8Nsuov £V oBats Al0tvatsxat osat £V aXtOOG10X£t ZNOLOV v ava0Nyav. Epigraphically, he appearsslightlylater,e.g., D 61 (IG II2496 + 507),lines37-38 (303/2);possiblyalsoin D 57 (IG II2576) andD 58 (IG II2696),bothplacedbyOsbornein ca.307-303/2.Forthe
next200 yearshis titleoccursregularly butmuchlessfrequently thano stovTav£Lav. He is stillto be foundmentioned atthe veryendof the2ndcenturyB.C. (IG II21011,line62 [106/5]). Thisbriefsurveyis notcomplete withoutmentionof thefactthatthe relevantsecretary appearsin a few casesto havebeendesignatedas o ytoayMa£vs tout court.26 As already noted,on occasionin thepublication provision thereis no mentionof anyresponsible officialat all:"inallsuch casesthe subjectof the infinitiveis presumed to be the familiarofficial, underwhatever designation."27 ytoayMa£vso xata
THE PROVISION FOR INSCRIBING AND ERECTING In theinstructions includedin decreesandlawsfortheirpublication and erection, thereareessentially sixelements, notallofwhicharealways present in eachinstance, andnotallappearing in a single,unvaried orderof occurrence.Thesesixelements,outof whichthewordingof theinstructions is formulated, arethe designation of the responsible secretary, the instructionto attendto theinscribing of thedocument, thespecification ofwhat textis to beinscribed, thematerial onwhichthetextis to beinscribed, the instruction to erectthemonument, andthelocation.Withineachof these elementswe shallfindvariations of wordingorvocabulary. The presentation of the massof materialavailable for an overview and thoroughanalysisof the variousformulations is no easymatter.
22. See Henry1977,pp.50-57, esp. p.55; cf.Rhodes1985,p. 140;1993, p.600. 23. As Woodhead(AgoraXVI, p. 191)notes,Rhodes1985doesnot specifically discussthissecretary, althoughhis note3 (Rhodes1985, p. 136)mightbe takento implythat the secretary is to be identifiedwitho ypa,u,uaT£ig
g
poUfg
xaL
Toi)
8ffot),
i.e., the Reader.Rhodes(1995,p. 600) statesbaldlythat,apartfromthe two periodsof avaytoap£tg,"thetitle ypaaT£i)c; xaTa spOTav£Lav became standard(untilin the secondcentury A.D. it gavewayto a newtitle1T£pt T0 ,8ffa)." This is somewhatimprecise, at leastin so faras the designation of the secretaries responsible forinscribing anderectingdecreesgoes. 24. SeeFerguson1898,pp.63-66 andBrillant1911,pp.37-49;also Hesperia10,1941,pp.270-271,no.70, withn.10; cf.D 64 andAgoraXVI 121. 25.AgoraXVI, p. 191. 26. Seepp.l lO-113below. 27.Woodhead,inAgoraXVI, p.240.
THE ATHENIAN STATE SECRETARIAT
95
overlapat all Consciousof thefactthatthereis anobviouschronological for theinscribthat instructions given periodsexceptbeforeca.365B.C. (or,at ing anderectionof stelaiareassignedto morethanone secretary thatthe withmorethanonetitle) I haveconcluded least,to secretaries in if it is presented anddigestible28 willbemosteasilyintelligible evidence to thevarious(titlesof) secretaries. dividedaccording categories OF THEBOULE THE SECRETARY OTN5,30VAN5) (OYTOaXUXUaT£V5 natureof earlychancery giventheidiosyncratic As is fullyto be expected, style,the 5th centuryrevealsitselfas a periodwhenthe wordingof the or is onlyjustbeginningto edgeits wayforwardto a standard provision form.29 predominant IG I310,lines22-26, the Ourearliestpieceof evidenceis perhaps30 Phaselitedecree,dated469-450in theCorpus: stoich.22
X [O 8£ N(pLO] ya T0[8£] avaytoafa
O25 D°XL5 [TZOYTOaCURU]aT£V5 xat xaTaO
t06]Vt
[£aXt [£TO £
Z0X£t
To whatis to be inscribed, byspecifying commence Heretheinstructions to inscribethedecree,herein Qpts,uato8£,3lfollowedbytheinstruction inthenomihimself,ofnecessity Nextcomesthesecretary theimperative.32 nativecase,and,be it noted,withthearticlerepeated;he is o ytoa,u,ua£vs text,a stele to beartheinscribed Thenappearthematerial o Tr5 DokNs.33 to erectthe stele, the instruction by £V + dative;35 expressed of stone,34 28. A certaindegreeof whatthe DavidLewismight late-lamented is wellhavetermed"rebarbativity" in studiesof thisnature. inescapable We are,I fear,backin "theaustere thatWhitehead(1998,p. 493) realms" withmy not too unkindly, associates, workon the languageof Athenian .
.
.
lnscrlphons.
29. I shouldindicateat the outset that,althoughI haveexcludedmany possibleinstancesin whichrestoration a role,I havenot playstoo substantial hesitatedto includeexamplesnot where,in my totallypreserved, judgment,sufficienttracesremainon the stoneto justifyconfidencein the overalloriginalwording.To citeonly textswould completelyunrestored somepotenhaveriskedoverlooking
tiallysignificantevidence.The firstexthis amplecited(IG I3 10) illustrates pointwell. 30. On the strengthof the short dativeq!aqAxats (line5), Harold Mattinglywouldplacethisdocument in 425/4.LikeLewis,I do not find thlsconvlnclng..t 1S not mylntenton for hereto rehearsethe arguments "therightdatingcriteriaforfifthcenturyAttictexts"(cf.Mattingly1999). I addressthistopicin ZPE 137,2001, forthcoming. wordorder,T08£ 31.The alternative To @NCoya, cannotbe accommodated here,norwouldit be toleratedwherethe by the connective provisionis introduced of the sequence 8£. Thereis no instance T08£ 8£ T0 @NCoya. Cf. n. 77 below. will,of course, 32.The imperative .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
givewayto the infinitive eventually construction. the title 33. In the nominative, mayindeedbe found,butrarely, withoutthe repeatedarticle:so IG I3 156, lines21-22 (440-425); IGII2106, line 16 (368/7); II2141, line 13 (364?). the titleis invariably In the accusative, withno DOVN5, 5 TOV ypaaT£a doublingof the article.Forthe alleged Tov5 instanceof Tov in AgoraXV 77, line33 (280OVN5 275), seep. 93 above. 34. ButnoteIGII2687 (+ 686), line 43 (265/4), £V aT(>(t XaXx[Nt. is almostas 35. £65 + accusative commonas £V + dative.Cf.IG I398 (411), whereat line 13 we find£V ce[qNtA0tv, andat lines27-28 £5 (avaypafat)
ypa,u,uaT£a
vV
alv]v
Xfv.
96
ALAN
S. HENRY
expressed bytheverb andfinally, thelocation,,u soRrt,37 on theAcropolis, totallyrestored here,butequallytotallycertain. Thus,all six constituent elementsarepresent,in a patternthatcan mostsimplybedescribedas O(bject)-V(erb)-S(ubject).38This pattern seemsto havebeenoneto commend itselfinthe5thcentury: compare, for example, themoreelaborate butessentially identicalIGI378,lines48-51 (ca.422?),thedecreeon the Eleusinian Firstfruits: xaTaTL0rlCuL;36
stoich.50 Tas8£Xavvytoa(pag xatTo(por(pts,ua To8ravay toa(psato ho ytoaarus ho z5 DoWzszv ozAatv Avotv At0tvat v xat xata0zto rv rv 'ERzvotvtzv tot htrtoot, rv 8r
hrztoav[z] Z soR
The samesequenceis foundin theaccusative andinfinitiveconstruction, e.g.,IGI365,lines5-7 (ca.427/6): To 8r (por](p[t]a[a To]8r ava[ytoa(psat ] [oy ytoaa]ra [Tr]5[o]Xzs zv (7[T£]Xt [t0] [tvrt xat xa]X[a0]rv[at] rZ groR[z].
stoich.30
Compare IGI3106,lines19-21 (409/8): stoich.50 T
[o 8r (po]z(ptoZa to8r zV
ava[yp]a(psat
Tov ypaara
1rr5 ,(3Oz5
oTz
[Xrt At]0tvrt xat xaTa0z[v]at
zv groRrt
andIGI3110,lines20-24 (408/7): To ar Q
stoich. 23
ptoZa To8r avaytoaQat Tovy toaara 5 DoRNszv orrAN t At0tvt xat xaTa0rvat rZ z oRr.
A moreelaborate wording,butrecognizably the samepattern, , is IGI340, lines57-63 (446/5):
seen
in
36.The regularalternative, aswe shallsee,is ,u. 37.Thereappearsto be a distinct shiftfrom£ W0X£t to £V aXpOZO£t somewhere aroundtheyear386 B.C. (seeHenry1982),probably witha periodof overlapon eithersideof the apparent divide(SEG XXXII50, lines 17-18 [379/8],althoughtotallyrestored,maybe the latestdatedexample of £ W0X£t). As wellas £V + dative,we alsooccasionally find£65 + accusative: SO £5 WOLV, IG I340, line60 (446/5); I3127,line39 (405/4);£65 axposoktv, IG II2238b,lines15-16 (338/7);D 37 (II2391),line 15 (318);II2571, lines78 (fin. s. IV). Instanceswiththe article arerare:£V t IG II2133, line 17 (355/4);£tg mV axposo[Xcv, II2 221,line5 (paullo post 344/3);£65 1 [V axposoRtv, II2725,lines8-9 (s.III, axpoW[o£tX
To 8s (por(ptoZaTo8r xat Tov
hotoxov avaytoa(psat 'A0rvrot rv Tovytoa Z[a]Xza z5 ,BoRzs rozArtAt0tvrt xat x aTa0rvat r5soRtvzArotTotsXaRxt8r ov, zv 8r XaRxt86zv Tot htrtoot To/\tosTo 'OBVM=CO h£ 0X£
a xaTa0£o.
xaXxC8£ov
avaytoasas
stolch. 32
pars prior).
38.The wordingforthe erection willregularly, butnotinvariably (cf., e.g.,IG I3153,lines19-21 [440-425]), followon afterthe principalinstructionsforthe inscribinghavebeen given.
THE ATHENIAN
STATE
SECRETARIAT
97
Here,of course,wehaveprovision forinscribing anderectingbothatAthensandatChalkis, whichaccounts forsomeofthevariation. Wemaynote too the switchfromthe accusative andinfinitiveto the nominative and imperative, whichis paraHeled, withthereverseswitch,in IGI3156,lines 19-26 (440-425): srtot[8] stoich.23 z Arov8oTas(por(pts,urva a[v] aytoa(psaTo ho ytoaarus r 5 5°Xz5zzot 065 ArovtAo sv ozAatv Avotv,xat rv rv
hrztoavozoat ,u soRrt,rv 8r hrztoavzvhaRtxatovasso CzvTothstootToAsoRRovos We shouldobservethat1) the articleis not repeatedin the titleof the Secretary;39 2) the expectedAt0tvatv is omitted;3) the allocationof the coststo Leonidashimselfcomesbeforetheprovision forerection, nodoubt becauseof thecomplication of thewordingof thedoubleerection; 4) the verbemployedto expressthe erectingis aTrl,ut, ratherthanxaTaC0Nt; and5) at line 27, the construction movesbackto the imperative again (av8toastooorAroEo ArovtAlzs xX.).40 To returnbrieflyto IG I340, it shouldalsobe observed how,in lines 62-63,the formulation hasbeenconverted fromavayto&goatxatxaTa0rvatto avaytoasava (participle) xata0zto. ThissyntacticaXy "reduced" formis encountered notinfrequently in the 5th century, aswellas occasionallyin the4th.4l In the5thcenturywe alsofindthesequence V-O-S, withtheinfinitive,forexample, IG I366,lines20-22 (427/6): xatavaytoa[satTavTaToyy] [oa]ZZararsdoRzsrozArtAt0[tvrtxatxaTa0] zMat
stoich.38
r,usoRrt
whereie restoration Tatrca is confirmed bytheresumptive Tav]*a V avaytoa(psaL in lines22-23. Comparethe slightlydifferentIG I398.I,lines2628 (411): stoich.30
Grtoovava] [y]oaQaL [v]rr
39. See n. 33 above. 40.The heavilyrestoredandnot entirelysecureIG I3163,lines3-7 (44s415) appearsto movefromthe imperative to the infinitive 41. Seep. io3 below. lnaeea,aswe snallsee,tnlssequenceis by farthe commonestwithall (titlesof) secretaries.
8 v orr
xaL
XY2V Toy
To8
To
@f
[(pLoZa
ypaZ[aa
rr
r5qv a] 5 D°AY15] .
Thissequence, V-O-S, is theonethatappears to predominate in the4th century andbeyond;42 compare, forexample, IG II2107,lines18-20(368/7): non-stolch. avaypaQaL
avaypa](psaSro
8[
T]oa
xaTa]0£vaL.
an zT.
T
1
1
1
11
1
*
[r to W]N[?t]aZaTovytoaaranmg[ov]X[g]rvorXtALeLv! [t
xato]rnsatzvaxtoosoRrt-
andD 14 (IGII2226+),lines19-23 (ca.342):
98
ALAN
stoich.21
ava
8Z To8Z
ytoaQaL
To
S. HENRY
@f(pLoZa
toy ytoaCuCuarVa rr5 DovAr 5 zvorrArlt At0turlt xaL xa Ta0zTvaL
Zv
aXtooGrozT
43
and,withthe variationof the phrase"ona steleof stone"appearing before, ratherthanafter,mentionof the Secretary, IG II2232,lines20-23 (340/39): avaytoaQa] [C] 8 To8 To @N[(ptoZazv oXt A] [t]0LVY26TOV yto[aara q5 DovA] xat osa[ zv axtoogroRrt
stoich.25
SEGXL 74, lines 24-27 (337/6): xat avaytoa Qat To8r To @N(ptoZa zv orrAt At0tvt To v ytoaara q5 ,BovANsxat oNsat zv axto
stoich.33
osoR
andthemoreelaborate AgoraXVI 73,lines22-27 (337/6): avaytoatvat or Tov ar Tov vo,uov zv oRats At0tvatsAvotvTovy toaara rrs DovANsxat osat qZ rv rst T CooAov ris rts"Atortovflayov N5 rt5 To Do VAzVTrtOLOV tOLOVTt, TY2V Oz zV Tr t zxxtata o
>
,
,
,
\
As
o
,
-
As
,
>
o
stoich.36
,
-
or,with the completeomission of the phrase"ona stele of stone, 44 for example, IGII2351 (+624),lines33-35 (330/29): avaytoaQat [8]r to8r To @N(ptoZa Tovytoaara 5 DovANsxat oNsat zv axto o groRrt -
,
,
stoich.
,
Thesamewordorder, V-O-S,isstandard inproxenygrants, whenthe 43. Cf. alsoIGII2660.I,lines19-22 wordgrtooE,zvtav is employed inlieuofTo8rTo@N(paZainthepublication (s.IV,parsprior);II2204,lines54-57 provision: soIGII280,lines5-7 (ca.380-370?):4s (352/1);II2212,lines44-47 (347/6), withTo TO8£; II2410, lines 37-39 (ca.330),AgoraXV 49, lines5557 (328/7),IGII2343, lines17-19 (323/2?). 44. Although,of course,thevery existenceof the stoneshowsthatthis wasthe intention. 45. SeePecirka1966,p.29, forthe text(cf.SEGXXIV78). Qyi(pecTza
, , , - \ [xat avay]oaQat avXt vrZ grtoo[irvtav] [V OX]Y26 t0[t]VY26 TOV ytoaa[Xza VV] [rrs DoR]s xa[t o]Xsat zv axtoos[oRrt V]. \
andIGII2149, lines17-20
(342):
.
stolch.29
THE ATHENIAN STATE SECRETARIAT
99
a
stoich.37
[vaytoaQat8£ zat q]v stooirvtav, £av zat Xt 8nZ q5 DovANszv orrA X 46 [t0tvt xat orroat] zv axtoosoRrt 8rxa ZoXv [Xt aOXY2t,TOVytoaZ]ara
we alsofindthe following sequences In additionto thesepredominating twosequences: 1) O-S-V, so IGII243,lines63-66 (378/7): to 8[r Q(pt]aZa to8r o ytoa,u,uaTrug o q5 DoR[s avayto]aQa zv oqAt At0t VY26xat xaTa0z[X] gratoatov lta Tov'ERzv
stoich.31
0ztotov
2) S-V,so IG II276,lines17-20 (ca.378/7?): oq o] 8r y[oa]arus 5 DoRNsav[ayto]aQa zv ot zv t0[LVY26] xat 0z YiXY26 axtoogroRr[t
stoich.20
decree,wheretheobjectof avaytoaQa is to be suppliedfrom a proxeny proxenygrantin the formsuat [8]1r avTo[v preceding the immediately stoog]vov
xX.
anderectionprovision Finally,we cometo a formof the publication the so-called producing verbof erectingis expressed, whereno separate This formwarrantsspecialtreatment,given formulation. "telescoped" basedon it by Harold arguments of the chronological the importance 47 Mattingly With the orthodoxdating,ourearliestinstanceof thisphenomenon Egestadecree,IG I3 11,lines11-12 (458/7),wherethe is in thenotorious seemsbeyondchallenge: restoration stoich.48 ava[yto]a[(psa] To 8r (por](paZa To8r xat Tov [hotox]o[v] [ rozzt C0tvrt,u s]oRrttov ytoaRRara z5 Dos
(420/19)in Apartfromthe wordingof the textof"thegrandalliance" Thucydides5.47.11,Tas 8r iov0Nxag . . . avaytoaQat zv rlxn xetvn knowsof onlytwoSth-century 'A0Nvatovs rv rZ groRrt. . ., Mattingly IGI3119,lines6-9 (407),wherethetextis lessthan parallels: epigraphical secure: V-O-S, 46.Forthesamepattern, seebelow, Secretary, withthePrytany pp.104-106. 1984,pp.34447.SeeMattingly
xat ava] ytoaQatToy ytoaa[Xza q5 DoRNszv orrAC] At0tvYlt zv [soRrtTas r iov0Nxas xat To @N]
6e;s - - [spLs,ua
stoich.34
ALAN
S. HENRY
IOO
andtheequallyuncertain IG I3125,lines29-32 (405/4): ]
stoich.29
[o] 8r +NColla [o8r avaytoaQatTovytoa] [Z]ara q5 13OR[Y15 r11sORrt zv '7tYlAYlt] [Xt]0tvC.
Mattinglyis, of course,happyto acceptthe readingsof thesetwo texts sincethepointhe wishesto establishis thatthe"telescoped" formis not paralleled beforeca.420.If he candoso,thisisolatesIG I311 (Egesta)if it is retained in theearly450s. It is forthisreasonthathe seeksto remove thephenomenon whereit hasbeenrestoredin textsearlierthanthe 420s.Thus,in the caseof the Kolophonian decree,IG I337,lines38-40 (447/6),48 givenin theCorpus in thefollowingform: 8r Wr(pa[a To8rxat Tovotoxov avaytoaQaTo o ytoa] [1la]Xzv5 o z5 D[oRss rozArtAt0tvrt ,u soRrtzAro] [t]ots KoRo(po[vtov
[o]
Mattinglywouldprefer,on the basisof the appearance of the participle avaytoaQav[Xzs (line 41) plusthe imperative xaTa[0rvTov(line42), to read,a la Hiller(IGI214/15,lines26-27): stoich.38-42 [o] 8r @z(pa[a To8ravaytoaQasrozArt At0tvrto ytoa] [,ua]Xzvso z5 5[oRzsxaTa0zTorZ woRrt'A0rvrotzAro]
Thisdispenses withthe"telescoped" format the expenseof reference to theinscription of theoath. Likewise, in thedecreeaboutErythrai, IG I315,lines42-44 (ca.450), Mattingly wouldprefernotto followthe Corpusin reading stoich.47 [tO]XOV Z[V] t[0]LVt
OTZzL49
avaytoaQat8r TavTaxat Tovho] [xat Tovhotoxov Tovz5 DoRzsrZ
woR] ,
butinstead,againon the modelof Hiller(IG I212/13),he wouldreadat lines43-44: [o]xov
r[v] A[0]vrt
O1zzt
[xat
xaTa0rvat'A0rvrotvrv
rZ
woR]
rt, 'E[pv0]pa[a]t 8r xX.
As for the fragmentary and uncertainIG I3 70, lines 3-4 (430420),
[c]
,u
To 8r [Q]N[
\
andIG I380, lines 12-18 (421/0): xat av aytoa(psaTostooxozvov xat zvrtoyrrv'A0rvatov xaEa srto floBvooaTov Tov 42Xrt astov rozArt At0tvrto yto aarus ho z5 DoRzsxa t xaTa0zTo zv soA.zt 60 ,
,
stoich.21
\
The phenomenon is commonenoughin the 4thcentury,6l forexample, AgoraXVI 36 (D 8),lines33-36 (394/3):
stoich.37-39 tov 5 avaytoaQat 5 zv oXt
To @N(ptoZa tvasrto
8s [y]oaZ[ara To8r
[Xr]Xr[at
]T5 tot]s
,BoR[N]
E0otov[o]
xX.
.. 59.Notetheunexpected repetlton of£ W0X£t (lines9 and11). 60.Heretheobjectis tobesupplied fromthepreceding provision (lines89) £TraLv£saL A£av Tov AR£IOVX with whichxaL avaypacpsaSro is coordinated. 61.IGII2140,lines31-35(353/2) andII2365b,lines12-16(323/2)arein
Compare AgoraXVI 40 (D 9),lines13-16 (388/7or375/4),a citizenship a slightly category, inthat bothzivedifferent instructions to inscribe the decreein whichavTos takestheplaceof To8rTo@N(ptoZa: textonstelaialready inposition. Thus xa[t] o
at avto5 vt Dofs
toy
\
o
stoich.18
ava[ytoa@] o
rorrfLt
r
ytoaZ[ara
*
rs ]
tst]
,
-
rrs]
zv ax[oogroz-
thereis noneedto specify thelocation separately. 62.SEG XXXIX75b,lines9-12 (353/2)appears tobeanexample of the telescoped form,butthetentatlve restoration ofline12cannotbecorrect: TOV 8£ ypaaT£a
andIGII2238,lines14-17 (338/7): avaytoa]at [a
Tov ytoa]ara
[65axposot]v [vYlv 62
[avaypaQal
o
8r To8r To f(pto
N5 DOVXY]5 z rt5otYiRYlV At0t
* tv
A
stolcll.we o
£V
T]N5 DOV5 aXpOZO£]l
1
T08£ T0
Ql[N9lOya £aX£l XlolV£]l 8£[X]a N£I[pOV xai zOal? T£X£Ol] TOl5
Nlxa[.].If thelocatlon £V aXpOZO£l 1S correctly restored inline10,wewillnot expectto findtheinstruction to erect, ceal, laterinline12.
STATE
THE ATHENIAN
Io3
SECRETARIAT
ofthevariousformulations offthisdiscussion Wemayconvenientlyround of the Bouleby a employedduringthe tenureof officeof the Secretary to attendto the of the formin whichthe instruction briefexamination to a parof thedecreeis reducedfromtheimperative/infinitive inscribing ticiple.63
The firstinstanceis perhapsto be foundin IG I324, lines 9-14 (ca.450): stoich.15
o ar y
toa[ az]vs o z5 Do Ar[5to (por](ptoZaTo [8r avaytoa(p]sas r5 a [XrArtAt0tvrtx]aT [a0zTo rZ groRr]sacat
CompareAgoraXVI 15, lines 9-10 (426/5?): stoich.50 xat To8rTo[Q](ptoZaavaytoaQ[aso] ytoa,u,uarv[so rrs r] DoArls x]a[X]a0z rZ gro[Xrt t0LVYI[t [v] orrXYIt
andIG I384, lines26-28 (418/17): stoich.52 ,8oRo,urvot, To8r,osos av rt r8rvat To[C] To8r (por(ptoZa avaytoa(psa xaTa0zTo zvozArtAt0tvrt o z5 ,8oRzs 5 o ytoa,u,uarus ,
,
zvTotNrArt on 63. Alreadybrieflyintroduced p. 97 above. formis probably 64 The participial alsoto be foundin the 32-letterversion of IGI3165 (seeSEGXXVI 19,lines 6-11), butthe textis too disputedto citehere.(I hopeto dealwithIG I3165 The formuin somedetailelsewhere.) aslateasthe lationis stillencountered secondhalfof the 4th century:see IG II2276,lines18-20 (ca.342):To8£ T08£ avaypaQaq
@ftoya
yp]atutuaT£05
£V CTX£t
£+f(pLoCu£va 3o]M5 t0LVL
L0LV£t
£Ta
£V aXpOZO£t,
T]oy
ypaCuCu[a£a
rrEs
TOV
| [aTparryOv
£a1Nt
ZaL ZaTa]0£vaL
is foundinIG I340,lines61-63(446/5),where, formulation A parallel of aftera regularavaytoa(psat+ xaTa0rvatprovisionforthepublication fortheequivathedecreeandoathatAthens(lines57-61),theinstructions form: at Chalkisaregivenin the"reduced" lentprocedure
To/vtosTo zv 8r XaRx86 zv Tot hztoot avaytoa(psas XaRx8rov hzDoRr 'OBv,usto
stoich.32
a zaTa0zTo.
[o 0
wherethe is designatedsimplyas o Secretary (seebelow,pp.109-110). ypayyaSr£vs of the 65. Forthe collaboration cf.IG I3127, generalsandSecretary, 8£ Ta lines38-39 (405/4):avaypaQaL sa[^rlO]
ot satoa Ta3yXtota.64
£5 wot[v.
proaswellas in IG I3118,lines33-36 (408),where,in an amendment withtheSecreareto actin conjunction thegenerals posedbyAlcibiades, taryof theBoule: zaL
zaTa0£vaL
[£5]
[80X£5
[V] £665
£V [z0X]£t [T]as
[p]aT£og [
TooT
avaypasavTaq
Cu£Ta To ypaCuCuaT£og
oUv0£[X]aq .....
18
]
£V^T£X£t
T
t06
Io4
ALAN
S. HENRY
THEPRYTANY SECRETARY (o yRoa,u,ua£vs o zaTa
=ovTav£av)66
Althoughwe findoccasional examplesof the sequencesS-V-O, forexample,IG II2354, lines26-29 (328/7): stoich.34
TOV 8£ yRoa[a£a]67
tov zaTa =ovTav£tavavayRoaQat T08[£ T0 @N] ptoa £V Xt t0LVt zat oqaat £[V TOL] t£pOt TOV 'AsxAztov andIG II2653, lines 52-54 (285/4): Tov yRoa,u,ua£a
[xaTa =]ovTav£tav [£V ^T]NNt t0LVt
Tov
stoich.36-38
avayRoaWat T08£ T0 WgtoZa zat rsat
£V aXtOOZO£t-
V-S-O, in a proxeny grant,IGII257, lines1-9 (ante 387/6): stoich.11-14
[- - - avayRoaQa] [t] tov [yRoaa] ,3ovN [5 £]
rr 5
£a
V X!t ,
t0LVt ,^
£
,
ZOA£t =tOOt£V \
,
,
ovs zat £V£R0y£T as avTovs ,
zat £X ,>
yOVOV5 Tu5 ZOA £X5 q5 oA0Nvat v
andO-V-S,in thelatterpartofthe2ndcentury, AgoraXVI 310,lines5052 (ca.135): non-stoich. ca.38-44 T0 8£
[a£a [0£LvaL
WN(pLo[a]a T08£ avayRoaQat tov yRoa
Tov]zaTa =ovTav£Lav saRoa]rrv £Cxova68
[£t]5
^TXNV
t0LVNV
zat ava
thesequence V-O-S is otherwise applied withoutexception, theonlyvariablebeingthepositionof the phraseexpressing inscription "ona steleof stone."Examplesin whichthe phraseappearsbeforethe mentionof the 66.Thereare,in fact,no examples of the nominativeandimperative with thisofficial,onlyof the accusative and infinitive.Invariably, he appearsasTow ypaax£a Tow scaxa wpuxav£xaw, with doubledarticle.It maybe notedhere that,atIGII2463, lines31-32 (307/6), we findava[yp]a[@]ax 8£ T08£ T0
n
\
ALAN
Io6
S. H EN RY
Forthesequence V-O-S followedby"ona steleof stone,"74 whichis manifestlythesequenceemployedmostcommonlythroughout the entireperiodof activityof thePrytanySecretary, compare IGII2426,lines11-14 (336-334): 8£ T08£ T0
avayRoa@]aL [f(pLoa
Tov
yRoa,u,u]aT£a
stoich.25
+
zaTa
£V ^q]Xt t0LVt £V aXtOO]=O£t-
[zRovTav£Lav [XaL orr
Tov
saL
IGII2360.I,lines21-24 (325/4),withanextendedobject: 8£ T08
avayRoaQaL
£ T0
@ftoa
\
\
TOV yRoaaT£a ,,
zaL
TOV5
TOt
£V ^At
>
S
,
aMov5
TOV zaTa
,
\
£=aLvovs
ALULV£t zaL
TOV5 osaL
stoich.39
=ovTav£Lav ,
,
y£y£VN£VOV5 £V aXRoosoA£t-
av
Hesperia Supplement 17,1978,pp.2-4, lines105-107(270/69):
non-stoich. 42-49 QatT08£
T0
av TovzaTa spvo
[Q]gtoa Tovypaa£a
[£V] ^v£t
t0LV£t
zat osat
sapa v
oay[pa] nav£tav
£tzova
74. There are dozens of examplesof this formulation:e.g., IG II2483, lines 27-31 (304/3); II2500, lines 36-40 (302/1); II2505, lines 59-62 (302/1); non-stc )ich.ca. 36 II2641, lines 25-29 (299/8); D 68, lines 54-57 (295/4); D 74, lines 36-39 avayRoaFvat o£ T0o£ T0 F)N96^ (286/5); IG II2657, lines 68-70 ^TN (283/2); AgoraXVI 181, lines 37-40 £V (282/1); AgoraXVI 182, lines 27-30 (281/0); IG II2665, lines 31-33 and IGII2892,lines15-17 (188/7): (266/5); II2668, lines 33-36 (266/5); AgoraXV 89, lines 19-20 and 38-40 non-stoich. ca.39-40 (259/8)*;IG II2682, lines 87-89 (259/8?); II2780.A, lines 22-24 8£ T08£ T0 (253/2); II2788, lines 26-28 (235/4); AgoraXVI 224, lines 45-47 (226/5); ^q£t t06 IG II2786, lines 32-34 (ca.225?);Agora [V£t £]V aXtOOZO£t XVI 225, lines 18-20 (224/3-222/1); Hesperia47, 1978, pp. 49-50, lines As fora "telescoped" formwiththePrytanySecretary, I canciteonlyone 33 (ca.203); IG II2896, lines 17-1931example, D 88 (IGII2707),lines6-8 (286?): and 53-55 (186/5);AgoraXVI 291, lines 38-42 (169/8); IG II2949, lines 19-21 (165/4); II2 1006.I, lines 47-48 8£ T08£ T0 @fgto,ua [Tov yRoa,uR] stoich.37 and 96-97 (122/1); II2 1008.II, lines =ovTav£Lav £V X[t t0LVt £] 72-73 (118/17); II2 1009.I, lines 24-25 [V] aXtOOZO£tand 54-55 (116/15); II2 1011.I, lines 29-30 and II, lines 51-52 (106/5). The veryfactthatthisappears to betheonlyexample laterthantheendof (*Forthe archonsof the mid-3rd centhe 4thcenturymighthelpto supportthedatingof IGII2707in the ear- tury,I have in the main followed the lier partof the3rd.75 schemes of Osborne 1989 and 2000.) 75. See Henry 1990, pp. 182-183.
Agora XVI 224, lines 45-47 (226/5):
o
o
os
o
N
\
o
a xovyRoaa£aTov zaTa=ovTav£tav £V AtAt0tvt zatsat ayoRoat
ava[yRo]aWat Wgtoa[o] [vyRoaa£a]o[v]zata=ovTav£tav £V zatosat
avayRoaWat [a]X£a Tov zaTa
THE ATHENIAN
STATE
Io7
SECRETARIAT
THE RECORDER (o avaytoa(p£v)
Duringthetwobriefperiodswhentheavaytoa(p£Ls occupiedthepostof chiefsecretary,76 it is clearthatthepredominant, if notthesole,sequence is yet againV-O-S, forexample,D 31 (IGII2392 + 586),lines15-17 (321-318):77 avaytoaWat [£ T08£ T0 Wgaa]
Tov ytoaa£a
stoich.28
8
za
[ orr sat £V aXtOO=]O£t-
D 32(IGII2393),lines9-12(321-318): avaytoaWat To W(paa X£t t0LV£t 0z0X£t
zat osat
stoich.25
8£ T08£
Tov avaytoa(p£a
£V ^T
£V axto
-
SEGXL79 (IGII2407 + SEGXXXII94),lines15-18 (321-318): av] aytoaWat 8£ T08£ [T0 Wgaa 9£a
[£]V ^mNt
[t0LVt
stoich.31
Tov avaytoa]
zat oqaat
£V ax]
t00z0X£t-
D 36 (IG II2398b), lines 6-8 (318): avayto]aWat [+N(paa
Tov avayto]a(p£
[Xt0LV£tzat oqaa]
8£ T08£ T0
stoich.27
£V ^q£t
£V aXtOOZO£t-
SEGXLV 101 (IG II2649+),lines 48-50 (293/2): stoich.39 avaytoaWat8£ T08£ T0] @NCoa Tov avaytoa[£] [a £V orr Bats At0tvatsza]t orr sat rr v £V £V axto[o] [z0X£t, QV 8£ satoa qv £tz]ova
It willbe observedthat,apartfromD 31, whichmakesno reference to inscription "ona steleof stone,"alltheseexamples placethatphraseafter the mentionof the Recorder.78 Contrast IGII2396,lines4-6 (321-318): 76. See Henry1977,pp.50-66. 77. OsbornerightlyrestoresT08£ To fX4CoFa ratherthanthe unnecessary To +nx4CoFa T08£ of Kirchner and Karapa. To+N(paZa T08£ occursonly occasionally: so D 37, line 13 (318); D 48, line 6 (ca.303/2);PIGII2845, line 19 (paullopost 249?);II2810,line5 (ante230);AgoraXVI 310,line 50 (ca.135);IG II21019,line36 (fin. s. II);AgoraXV 264,line 15 (ca.80/79).
It shouldnotbe introduced gratuitously intorestorations, ashasbeendonein IG II2397,line2 (321-318);II2542, line 12 (ante303/2);II2516,line4 (fin. s. IV); II2521,line4 (fin. s. IV); AgoraXV 147,lines14-15 (203/2)notethatat line49 we findthe normalorder;AgoraXVI 276,line22 (190/89?) Osborne(D 100)hasthe correctwordorder;the faultoriginates in IG II2954;AgoraXVI 301,line5
( s. II,parsprior);IG II2984,line22 (ca.med.s. II);AgoraXV 236,line 1 (ca.150). 78. Cf. alsotheveryheavilyrestored D 34 (IG II2395),lines8-10 (321318);IGII2397, lines1-4 (321-318), where,incidentally, thewordorderTo +N(ps,ua T08£ iS unnecessarily introduced.(SeealsoHesperia 58,1989, p.86, no.12, fora possiblenewfragmentof IG II2397.)
Io8
ALAN
avaytoa@]at [V ^v£t
8£ T08£ [T0 Wgtoa
stoich.28
£]
t0]LV£t TOVa[vaytoa£a
S. HENRY
za]
[t orr sat £V aX]tOOZO£t-
andthe lesssecure,butquiteacceptable, D 33(IGII2394), lines16-18 (321-318):
stoich.38
avaytoa] [Wa] 8£ T08£ T0 W[gtoa [ayto]a(p£a
£V ^vNt
zat o[Nsat
.
t0LVt
TOVav]
£V aXtOOZO£t-
t
wherethephrase precedes thementionof the Recorder. One exampleof the sequenceO-V-S maybe noted,D 37 (IG II2 391),lines13-15 (318),a text"execrably executed":79 stoich.29-30 O8£ [avaytoaWat
To W]N(paa
[t At0tv]Nt Tov avayto[a(p£a
zat
£V^T!<X!>]
ava0£tv]
[aL80 £65a]Xtoso<X>tv Althoughheavilyrestored andmiserably cut,sothatcertainty ofreading is impossible, thesequencecannotbe doubted. THE SECRETARY OF THEPEOPLE (o ytoa,u,ua£vs
Tov
8N,uov)
Oncemore,thepredominant formulation is V-O-S,withthephrase"ona steleof stone"occurring apter mention of the secretary. So,forexample,82 D 61 (IGII2496 + 507+),lines36-39 (303/2): ytoaQat8£ ,
\
,
\
T08£ T0
,
\
,ua£a Tov8N[,u]ov £V^TXt zat osat
stoich.28
ava @Ntoa Tovytoa t0LVt
£V aXtOOZO£t-
aVa0£tuaL
D 79 (IG II2712),lines16-18 (ca.273-262): ava]ytoaQat8£ T08£ [T0 @NCoa Tov] [ytoa,u,ua£aTov8],uov £V^v[Nt t0LVt zat ox] sat £V aXtOOZO]£t-
stoich.37
IG II2844.I,lines28-30 (229/8):
non-stoich. 42-50 8£ T0
avayRoaQat
8£ T0 [v]v
@Ntoa
zat
Tov
sat
yRoaa£a
saRoa
Tov
rr
v
8Ntov
79. So Osborneadloc. 80. Forthe lateoccurrence of thansa), cf. IGII2741,line 10 (init.s. III). 81.Thatthereis no connective8£ at the beginningof the provisionis to be explainedby the introductory clauseof "hortatory intention" (seeHenry1996). This hasallowedthe drafterto employ the uncommonwordorderToWr-aZa T08£ (seen. 77 above),unlessthistoo is to be set downto the carelessness of the cutterso rightlydeploredby Osborne. 82.Apartfromthe examplescited here,cf.alsoD 89 (IGII2570),lines 11-13 (s.III;see SEGXL 89);IGII2 651,lines26-28 (286/5);andthe more elaborate IG II2660.II,lines43-45 (281/0).
£65 ^TXNV
t06
£tzova
ContrastAgora XVI 164, lines 17-20 (between300/299 and295/4):
(rather
STATE
THE ATHENIAN
SECRETARIAT
IO9
£V ^q£t
T08£ T0 Wgtoa ov ytoa,u,ua£a
stoich.29
8£]
ava[ytoaWat
[Xt0LV£tT]
Tov 8N,uov za[t orr sat £]
V aXtOOZO£t-
mentionof thesecretary.83 wherethephraseprecedes we appearto havethe In IG II2845, lines19-21 (paullopost249?)84 sequenceO-V-S: non-stoich.41-44 T]0 8£ @N(pt[aa
T08£ avaytoaWat
£V]
8N,uov zat orr sat £V]
[ov
At0t[v]N[t] to[v yto]a,u,ua£a
[aqA]t
[aXtOOZO]£t-
andwe alsofindS-V-O inAgoraXV1213, lines22-24(248/7):85 stoich.38 TOV 8[N]OV
TOV8£ ytOaaT£a zat Ta ovoaTa
[8]£ T0 Wgt[aa]
v
avaytoaWat
To
£zL80VT[X]V £V ^v£t
V \
£t z[a]t oqaat
,
,
ayotoat
£V t
zX.
formin IG II2672,lines It wouldseemalsothatwe havea "telescoped" 74): XEVIII see SEG 280-270; 14-16 (ca. stoich.68 [oaQat8£ T08£ T0 @N96aa86 zat ]as 8Xto£a[g ytoa,u,ua£aTov8N,uov£VaXtOOZO£t [£V
avay] To]v ^T]
[X£t t0LV£t-
THE SECRETARY (o ytoa,u,ua£vs) tout aso ytoa,u,ua£vs designated wefindtheSecretary Ona fewoccasions withoutfurtherqualification. where,for exmaygo backto the 5th century, This phenomenon in IGI3102,lines21-22 (410/9): ample,it is restored
court,
83. So too in the heavilyrestored IG II2809,lines1-3 (ca.300).
84. Forthe date,seeTracy1988, p. 320. alsoin the heavily 85.Andprobably AgoraXVI 178,line 7 (286restored 262?). To 86. I havealteredthe unnecessary f gtoZa T08£ of the Corpus.(At IG II2 542,line 12 [ante303/2] I would likewisereadT0[8£ T0 f gaZa.) See n. XX aDove.
zat avaytoa(psa
[o hoytoaa£vs
stoich.36
Ta £9a£96a]£Va
The referenceis clearlyto the seemsinescapable. Herethe restoration later,withhisfulltitle,in connection of theBoule,whoappears Secretary aseuergetai (lines fellowconspirators ofThrasyboulos's withtherecording 28-30): £V£t0y£[Ta]5 [a]vaytoav sat £ a £5
W0X£[t £V £X£t 50X£5-
]t0LV£t TOVytoa[a]T£
ALAN
IIO
S. H EN RY
Anotherexampleis foundin IGII2276,lines18-20 (ca.342): To 8£
T08£
@f(pLoa
[yto]aiuiuaT£vs
£V
^v£t
avaytoaQag87
t0LV£t
stoich.31
[O]
sa[T]
[fi)] £V aX[tOOZO]X£t-
Thenthereis a smallclusteraroundthe turnof the 4th/3rdcentury:88 IGII2456b,lines28-29 (307/6): stoich.41 avaytoaWat X
8£ T0[8]£ T0 [Qgt]a[a] Tov [ytoaa£a za[t] orr [a]at [£V a]XtOOZO[X£t-
A0tvt
£V ^T]
D 56 (IGII2519),lines3-5 (ca.307-303/2),wherespatial
considerations
maketherestoration virtually inescapable: avaytoaWat To Wgto[a 0tvt
Tov ytoa,u,ua£a
stoich.31
t]
za[t orr sat £V aXtOOZO£t-
166,lines5-8
Agora Xvl
8£ T08£]
£V ^qNt
(295/4
avaytoaWat 8£ T0 W[gtoa
selpaullo
post):
8£ T0]
stoich.22
Tov ytoaa£]
a £V ^q[Xt
t0LVt zat ] sat £V a[XtooZo£t 89
Woodhead alsorestores theytoaaT£v5 toutcourt inAgora XVI214,lines 22-23(244-241),where,witha slightlyshorterlinethanthatenvisaged byMeritt(stoichedon 52, asopposedto 55),he proposes: 8£ T08£ T0
avaytoaQaL
*
[XaL
*
.
@fto[a
zaL
T
Ta
ovoaTa
TOV ytoaaT£a]
£V TOt T£T£V£t TOV tL[05-
oT]foaL .
.
*
t
*
t
t
SECRETARY NOT EXPRESSED Aswillhavebeenclearfromthepreceding analysis, theAtheniansregularly specifiedthedesignated secretary chargedwiththetaskof seeingto the inscribing anderectingof decreesandlaws.Not entirelyunexpectedly, however, we findinstancesearlyin the5thcenturywheretheresponsible official is onlyimplied,ratherthanexplicitlyspecified.Compare, forexample, IGI323,lines5-11 (ca.447),a proxeny grant,wheretheawardand the publication provision arecombined:90 Kop[oa]yt8£v (i)aXvXt8£v aL
zaL
M£V£aTt0aT0V
'A0£vatov To5 (9£a=La5
[a]psaL
z[aL]
=00X^£VO5
zaL
X
avayto
£V£0y£Ta
87. Forthe participleseep. 103 above. 88. Cf.Woodhead,inAgoraXVI, p.240 (onAgoraXVI 166). 89.The samewordingis foundin IGII2567,lines17-18 (fin. s. IV), which Woodhead(AgoraXVI, p. 240) calls, perhapstoo confidently, a"necessary restoration." 90.Walbank(1978,p. 89) draws attention to the factthat"theletterforms areunusual,moreappropriate to a Boiotianthanto anAthenianinscription." This point,togetherwith the absenceof anymentionof the Secretary, suggeststo himthatthe honorands themselvesmayhavelooked after theinscribingof theiraward. However, in viewof the factthatthe poletai areto let outthe contractand the kolakretaiareto providethe funds, this seemsunlikely.
STATE
THE ATHENIAN
III
zat tos satAas tos
[5 'A]0£vatov [£X£VO]V £
SECRETARIAT
W0X[£]t £V OT£X£t t06
[V£t.
Compare IG I392,lines9-13 (422/1): zat avaytoaQat avTov £^ t0LVt WtOOi£VOyzat £V £t0y£V 'A0NvaLOvavToy zat to [5] 7ratAa5tos KaR;Atsozat zata
stoich.25
Xt
[0£VaL £
=0X£t].
In non-proxeny texts,comparethe decreeon the EleusinianEpistatai, IG I332, lines32-34 (ca.449_447):91
a
£V AT£X£t
a[£]pO
ytoa(psat 8£ T0 [9a£96a] ER£votutza[ £V asT£L zat O]
stoich.32
£V T06 ER£V^LV[606.
andthe steleis not describedas "of Herethe provisionis "telescoped," stone,"as likewisein a secondexample,Sgora XVI 7a, lines 17-18 (439/8?): ytoa(psat 8[£ TavTa] stoich.35 [£V ^T£X]£t
zat
zaTa0£vaL
£
=0X£t-
byzat zaTa0£va. is introduced where,however, theerectionprovision In bothof theseinstances(IGI332 andAgora XVI 7) the subjectof the infinitivecouldbe thoughtof astheAtheniandemos,ratherthanthe Secretary of the Bouleas such,just as we find in the Treatywith the to have Bottiaians,Xgora XVI16,lines21-25 (422),wherewe alsoappear ofavaytoa(px forheretheparticiple avariant ontheformwiththeparticiple; is preceded bytheverbof erecting: stoich.42 Tas 8£ XAV zat] Tov [hotozov zaTa]0£vat 'A0£vatog ,U£ £aT£X£t] Xt0LV£tzat Ta ov V £ =0X£[t aVaytOa]9a[aVTag [o]aTa Tov [z0X£0V] TO[V BoTtatov ]ov XAVVTL0£0£VOV zX. T£V tAta[v zat T£V Xavaxtav v0£Xaq
Ta[a8£
bythefollowing: Additional instancesarefurnished formula1) IG II282, lines14-16 (ca.390-378?),another"telescoped" tion: adatenot 91.Matangly prefers theyear432/1. before 433/2;Clinton p.938. SeeIGI3Addenda,
T0 8£ @N96a
[a T08£ avaytoa]@at£V aXt00z0X£t [£V ^qNt
t0]LVt
stoich.25
ALAN
II2
S . H EN RY
2) IG II2125, lines 17-19 (343?): avaytoaWat a,
\
tvt
zat oNsat
,
8£ TO [Qgtoa
,
£aXt
£V axtoow OA£t zat £V t ,>
\
,
t]
stoich.39
,
ayotoat
zat £V TOt t£VL
wherethereseemsto be no roomfor08£.92 3)AgoraXVI 79,lines18-21 (332/1): ava[ytoaWat [£]V ^TXt [0]=O£t
8£ T08£ T0 Wgtoa]
[Xt0LVt zat osat
stoich.29
£V axto]
-
although Woodhead, notingthat"thetitleof theyRoa,u,ua£vs exactlyfills thelineandmayhavebeenomittedby oversight,"93 is inducedto insert asline19 . Woodhead notesfurtherthat"therearein facta fewapparently intentional omissionsof the words, e.g.,IGII2493 +518,508,648(=M.J.Osborne, NaturalizationI, pp.128-130,D 53, D 54 andpp.148-150,D 69, respectively), 123and 141,"94 although howonedistinguishes betweenacarelessly omittedphrase andanintentionally omittedoneis notat allclear. ToWoodhead's listof "apparently intentional omissions" onemayadd: 4)IG II2448.I, lines 26-28 (323/2): stoich.41 avaytoaQat 8£ T0 @NCo[a £V oNkats A] t0tvatszat orr sat rr v £V tav satoa [ov Ata, qv 8£] £T£t0aV £V a[Xtooso£t satoa TovV£O N5 HoRtaAos
where we havealready notedtheomissionof TO8£.95 At AgoraXVI 141(#n. s. IV [ca.304/3?]),too fragmentary to merit listing here,Woodhead's note(p.214) on the omissionof the Secretary could be takento implythatsuchanomissionis mainlyconfinedto the last yearsof the4th century. Thephenomenon, however, continuesto be met forsomeconsiderable timeafterthat.Compare thefollowing: S) SEGXVIII22, lines20-21 (165/4):
non-stoich.36-51 8£ T0 @N96aZa96 £V £V TOt TOV AsxAztov t£pO[t] -
avaypaQaL
ATrXY16 t0LVY16zaL
oTf oaL
6) IG II2lOll.IV,line72 (107/6):97 8£ [T0
avay[oaQaL] ,
avToL5
,
,
N
£zLo£60V
@]ftoa ,
£t5 N
£LVaL00Xt.
XfV
t0LVNV
zaL
oTfoaL
ov
av
92.T08£ iS onlyoccasionaXy omitted in thisphrase:so IG II2448.I,line26 (323/2);SEG XVIII22 (IG II2950), line20 (165/4);IG II2lOll.II, line51, III,line62, IV,line72 (106/5).In IG II2983,line9 (ca.med.s. II), however,thereis sufficientroomto read[T08£ T0 +NtoZa. 93.AgoraXVI,p. 121. 94. I.e.,AgoraXVI123 and141. 95.Seen.92above. 96. Forthe omissionof To8r,see n.92 above. 97. AlsowithoutTo8r.
THE ATHENIAN
STATE
SECRETARIAT
II3
7) IG II21039,lines65-66 (79/8): a[vaytoa]@aL
8£ T08£ T0
£Ta
@[fto]a
TOV
[aOv
£t5 qV
[av]v oq)trlvon2t98 of SypaletFinally,we maymentionthe decreein honourof Sosandros 15, p. 75, no. 16 (IG II21023),lines18-22 tos,99HesperiaSupplement anderectionis given, forinscription (Jin.s. II),wherethe responsibility of the butto "themenelectedforthe zaTasx£vN100 notto the Secretary, Templeof Athena": non-stoich.ca.38 avaytoaQaL zaL
Tov
oT£avov
£t5
oqV
8£ T08£ T0 t0LVNV
av8toa5 £=t QV tOOTOVNN£VOV5
@ftoa
Tovs
X£X£t
xaTasX£vNv
Tov vaov rr 5 'A0Nvas vvzat orr sat
£V axtooso
£t -
CONCLUSION
98. Cf. alsoIG II21043,line58 (37/6?),whichhasanidentical wording. 99.Tracy(1975,p. 76) notesthat"it wouldbe especiallyinterestingto know benethe exactnatureof Sosandros' andhowit ficenceand(ptRorXvta affectedthe Parthenon." See Dinsmoor lOO."Decoration"? 1934,p. 102.
that,althoughon occasion,from It is manifestfromtheabovediscussion for the officialresponsible texts designate the 5th centuryonward,some or (o ytoa,u,ua£vs) anderectingsimplyas"theSecretary" theirinscribing of cases evenneglectto insertmentionof himat all,in thevastmajority specifiedwitha precisetitle. theofficialis carefully of the Council" The earliesttitle we encounteris the "Secretary firstfoundaroundthe middleof the5th cenq5 ,BovANs), (ytoa,u,ua£vs (ytoa,u,ua£vs Secretary" bythe"Prytany supplanted tury.He is gradually Froma 4th century. of the the middle from around zata =ovTav£tav), tov of the People"(ytoa,u,ua£vs the"Secretary pointlatein the century, thatthesethreetitles however, 8N,uov) entersthescene.It is notunlikely, of theholderof oneandthe aresimplythat threedifferentdescriptions sameoffice. (321/20to 319/18and294/3to 292/1)when In thetwobriefperiods it is noneof wassuspended, of government apparatus thefulldemocratic decrees of having the function to perform called upon who is thesethree (avaypa(p£vs). anderectedon stone,butthe"Recorder" inscribed it is hardlyto be expectedthatalltheelementsthatconstiNaturally, tutethe filllestformof the wordingof the provisionfor inscribingand erectingwill all occuron everyoccasion,or all in the samesequence,or Andthis withinthevariouselementsthemselves. withoutminorvariations is borneoutby a detailedanalysisof theextantevidence. orof concerned ofthe (titleofthe) Secretary regardless Nevertheless, it is evidentthatoneprincipal or,later,infinitive, thechoiceof imperative sequencefor the itselfas the predominant essentialpatternestablished followed, regularly V(erb)-O(bject)-S(ubject), provisionfor inscribing:
II4
ALAN
S. HENRY
ratherthanpreceded, by"ona steleof stone"(and,of course,thatin turn followedby the wordingforthe erection). The sequenceO-V-S is also found it is indeedprevalent in the 5th century as is, occasionally, the sequenceS-V-O.In proxeny grants,we haveminorevidenceforO-S-V, V-S-O, andevenS-V withtheobjectimpliedratherthanexpressed. Tworefinements of thesebasicpatterns areto benoted.In thefirstof these,whichI havetermedthe "syntactically reduced" formulation, the verbof inscribing is reducedfroman imperative or infinitiveto a participle,thusleavingas the onlyfiniteformtheverbof erecting. Thistype appears notinfrequently in the5thcenturyandoccasionally in the4th.In thesecondtype,conversely, andagainmostcommonly in the5thcentury andin proxeny grants,we encountered thephenomenon of the so-called "telescoped" formulation, in whichdetailsforthe erectingareappended directlyto the verbof inscribing, with no intervening separate verbof settingup. Whatemergesstrongly fromthisstudyis therealization thatthelanguageof thestockprovisions of Atheniandecrees, whilefirmlyformulaic andtendingtowarda predominant form,neveradoptsa single,standard wording.Variatiadmittedlywithin fairlynarrow parametersis always likelyto beencountered.
T H E AT H E N I A N S TAT E S E C R E TA R I AT
IIS
A PPEN D IX TEXTS SPE{IALLY {ITED OR DIS{USSED
TEXTS WITH IG I3 REFERENCE IG I3
Walbank1978
Agora XVI
95
10
99
ll
100
15
23 24 27
Page(s)
110-111
ll
103
23 13
101 101; 111
32
100
37
96; 97; 103
40
7
46
15
62 65 66
39
70
19
76
14 16
111
103 96 97 100-101 111
96 102 103
78 80 84 92
65
111
98.I
75
97 109 96 96 103 99
102 106
85
110
87
118 119
28A
125 155
156 174
24 22 50
11
100 101
97 102
ALAN
II6
S. HENRY
TEXTS WITH IG II2 REFERENCE IG II2 13a + 68 (SEGXL 54) 17 25
Osborne 1981
D8 D9
Agora XVI
36 40
43 57 76 80 82 107 125 139+ 289 (SEG XXXIX75) 149 222 D 22 226 D 14 232 238 240 242 + 373 (SEGXL 74) 276 339b 351 + 624 354 360.I 391 392+586 393 394 396 398b 407 426 448.I 456b 496+ 507 519 542 649(SEG XLV 101) 653 672 707 712 791(SEGXXAhI 118) 844.I 845 892 983 lOll.IV 1023 1039
Page(s)
101-102 102 102 99 104 99 98 111
97 112 102 n.62 98-99 105
97-98 98 102
-
105
98 110 105
D37 D31 D32 D33 D36 106J
D38
98 104 106 108 107 107 108 107-108 107 107 106 112 110
D61 D56
108 110
D88 D79 213
109 n.86 107 104 109 106 108 109 108 109 106 112 n.92 112 113 113
THE ATHENIAN
STATE
SECRETARIAT
II7
TEXTS WITH NO IG REFERENCE Hesperia
4, pp.525-529,no.39 8, pp.26-27, no.6 13,pp.242-243,no.7 17,p.11 21, pp.355-359,no.5 28, pp.185-186,no.7 30, p.210, no.4 36, pp.59-63, no.6 37, pp.268-269,no.4 43, pp.322-323,no.3 Suppl.17,pp.2-4
SEG Osborne 1981 XXV 106 XXXV 71 XXIV 119 XXIII 67 XII 87 XVIII 22 XXI 342 XXIV 135 XXV 84 XXI 357 XXVIII 60
Agora
XVI 224 79 164 214 73
Page(s) 106 112 108-109 110
98 112
141 310 166 106H
112 104 110 105 105
255D
106
REFEREN C ES AgoraXV = B. D. Merittand J. S.Traill,Inscriptions:TheAthenian Councillors, Princeton1974. AgoraXVI = A. G. Woodhead, Inscriptions: TheDecrees,Princeton
1997. Alessandri, S. 1982."Alcune osservazionisuisegretariateniesinelIV sec.a.C.,"AnnPisa12,pp.7-70. Brillant,M. 1911.Lessecretaires atheniens,Paris. Dinsmoor,W. B.1931. TheArchonsof Athensin theHellenisticAge,
Cambridge, Mass. .1934. "TheRepairof the AthenaParthenos: A Storyof Five Dowels,"AJA 38, pp.93-106. Dow,S. 1937.Prytaneis(Hesperia Suppl.1),Athens. Ferguson,W.S.1898. TheAthenian Secretaries (CornellStudiesin ClassicalPhilology7), NewYork. . 1914-1915."TheIntroduction of the Secretary-Cycle," Klio 14, pp.393-397. Henry,A. S. 1977.ThePrescriptsof AthenianDecrees(Mnemosyne
Suppl.49), Leiden. .1982."Polis/Acropolis, Paymasters, andtheTenTalent Fund,"Chiron12,pp.91-118. . 1983.Honoursand Privilegesin AthenianDecrees(Subsidia Epigraphica 10),Hildesheim. . 1990."BithysSonof Kleonof Lysimacheia: FormalDating
CriteriaandI. G. ii2 808,"in Owls toAthens:Essayson ClassicalSubjects Presentedto SirKennethDoqJer,
E. Craik,ed.,Oxford,pp.179-189. .1996."TheHortatory Intentionin AthenianState Decrees," ZPE 112,pp.105-119. .1998. "TheSigmaEnigma," ZPE 120,pp.45-48. Mattingly,H. B. 1984.Reviewof D. M. Lewis,InscriptionesGraecaei3: InscriptionesAtticae annoEuclidis anteriores,fasc.1,Berlin,1981,in AJP 105,pp.340-357.
. 1999."WhatArethe Right DatingCriteriaforFifth-Century AtticTexts?" ZPE 126,pp.117122. Meritt,B. D.1961. "GreekInscriptions,"Hesperia30, pp.205-292. Osborne,M. J.1981.Naturalizationin Athens1, Brussels. . 1989."TheChronologyof Athensin the MidThirdCentury B.C.," ZPE 78, pp.209-242. .2000. "Philinosandthe AthenianArchonsof the250s B.C.," in Polisand Politics:Studiesin AncientGreekHistoryPresentedto MogensHermanHansenon His SixtiethBirthday,August20, 2000,
P.Flensted-Jensen, T. H. Nielsen, andL.Rubinstein, eds.,Copenhagen,pp.S07-520. Pecirka, J.1966. TheFormulaforthe GrantofEnAtesisin AtticInscriptions
II8
(ActaUniversitatis Carolinae, Philosophica et Historica Monographia 15),Prague. Pritchett,W. K.,andB. D. Meritt 1940.TheChronology of Hellenistic Athens,Cambridge, Mass. Rhodes,P.J. 1985.TheAthenianBoule (1972,reissuedwithadditionsand corrections), Oxford. . 1993.A Commentary on the AristotelianAthenaionPoliteia (1981,reissuedwith Select Addenda),Oxford. Schweigert, E. 1938."Inscriptions from the NorthSlopeof theAcropolis," Hesperia7, pp.264-310. Threatte, L. 1980.TheGrammarofAttic Inscriptions1: Phonology,Berlin. Tracy, S.V. 1975.TheLetteringof an
ALAN
AthenianMason (Hesperia
Suppl.15),Princeton. .1988. "TwoAtticLetter Cuttersof theThirdCentury: 286/5-235/4 B.C.," Hesperia57, pp.303-322. Walbank, M. B.1978.Athenian Proxeniesof theFifth CenturyB.C.,
Toronto. Whitehead,D.1989. "Secretaries, Charidemos, Poteidaia: The Date (andPersonnel) of IG II2118,"The AncientHistoryBulletin3, pp.102106. . 1998.Reviewof C. VeligianniTerzi,Wertbegriffe in denattischen Ehrendekreten derklassischen Zeit, Stuttgart1997,in BrynMawr ClassicalReview 9.5,pp.491-494.
AlanS. Henry UNIVERSITY OFST. ANDREWS SCHOOL OFGREEK, LATIN,ANDANCIENT HISTORY ST.ANDREWS KYI69AL SCOTLAND
[email protected] S. HENRY
(.W. BLEGENAND M. RAWSON
RecentlyPublished
REVISED AND EXPANDED BY J. L. DAVIS AND C.W. SHELMERDINE A
70 pages,39 figures(mostin color) ISBN0-87661-640-6 May2001.Paper$7.50/ £5.75
Guide
to
the
Palace
of
Nestor
The classicguideto theBronzeAge Palaceof Nestorat Pylos,nowillusto inExpanded tratedin fullcolor,includingPietdeJong'swatercolors. as a resultof of nearbysitesaswellas sitesdiscovered cludedescriptions Project.An by the PylosRegionalArchaeological recentinvestigations servesasa guideto theChoraMuseum. appendix
Forthcoming
(HARLES K. WILLIAMS 11 AND NANCY BOO KID IS, ED ITORS Corin f h) f he Cen f enary: I89 6 I99 6
550 pages,500 illustrations, 31 tables E Corinth ISBN 0-87661-020-8 May2002.Clothca. $75/ £57.50 Ca.
attheDecember of thepaperspresented twenty-five Thisbookpublishes anniverone-hundredth the celebrate to Athens in held 1996symposium at Ancient saryof theAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesexcavations therangein subjectmatter Corinth.Thepapersareintendedto illustrate by scholarsof AncientCorinth, beingundertaken currently of research workfor andtheirinclusionin onevolumewillserveasa usefulreference Eachof the topics whichvarywidelyfromCorinthian nonspecialists. by the to Byzantinepottery is presented geologyto religiouspractices expertin thatarea. acknowledged of articlesandvolumes Thebookincludesa fullgeneralbibliography of onehundred at Corinth.As a summary excavated material concerning to come. of scholars it willbe usefulto generations yearsof research,
HESPERIA SUPPLEMENTS 13 MarcusAurelius:Aspects of Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast,
byJamesH. Oliver(1970).$15.00 14 ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica,byJohnS.Traill(1975).$15.00
16 A Sanctuaryof Zeuson MountHymettos,by MerleK.Langdon(1976). $15.00 17 Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 286 B.C., byT. LeslieShearJr.(1978).$15.00 19 Studiesin Attic Epigraphy,History,and Topography Presentedto Eugene Vanderpool (1982).$15.00 20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presentedto HomerA.Thompson(1982).$15.00 21 Excavationsat Pylosin Elis, byJohnE. Coleman(1986).$25.00 22 Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressofIsis, by ElizabethJ.Walters(1988).$40.00 23 HellenisticReliefMoldsfAromtheAthenianAgora, byClaireveGrandjouan (1989).$25.00 24 ThePrepalatialCemeteries at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombsof BronzeAgeCrete,byJeffreyS. Soles(1992).$35.00 25 Debrisproma PublicDiningPlacein theAthenianAgora, by SusanI. RotroffandJohnH. Oakley(1992).$35.00 26 TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike inAthens:Architectural Stagesand Chronology,by IraS. Mark(1993).$50.00 27 Proceedingsof theInternationalConference on GreekArchitectural Terracottas of the Classicaland HellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991,
editedby NancyA. Winter(1994).$120.00 28 Studiesin ArchaicCorinthianVasePainting,by D. A. ArnyxandPatricia Lawrence(1996).$65.00 29 TheAthenianGrain-TaxLaw of 374/3 B.C., by RonaldS. Stroud(1998). $35.00 30 ALMIA CeramicKilnin South-CentralCrete:Functionand Pottery Production,byJosephW. Shaw,AleydisVande Moortel,PeterM. Day, andVassilisKilikoglou(2001). $35.00
-
l_l -
T HE J - OURNAL
-
OF
THE
SCHOOL
AMERICAN
O F C L A S S I C A L S T U D I E S AT
AT
H
E N
VOLUME7I: NUMBER2 APRIL-JUNE 2002
AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesaf Athens 2002
S
The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthensis a research and teachinginstitutiondedicated to advanced studyof thearchaeology, art,history,philosophy, language, andliterature of Greeceandthe Greekworld.Established in 1881bya consortium of nineAmerican universities, the Schoolnowservesgraduate studentsandscholars frommorethan150affiliated collegesanduniversities, actingasa baseforresearch andstudyin Greece.The mainbuildingsof the Schoolandits libraryarelocatedin Athens,withadministrative and publications officesin Princeton, NewJersey.As partof its mission, the Schooldirectsongoingexcavations in theAthenianAgoraandat CorinthandsponsorsallotherAmerican-led excavations andsurveys on Greeksoil. It is theofficiallinkbetweenAmericanarchaeologists andclassicists andtheArchaeological Serviceof the GreekMinistry of Cultureand,assuch,is dedicated to thewisemanagement of cultural resources andto thedissemination of knowledge of the classical world.Inquiries aboutmembership in the Schoolorparticipationin the SummerSessionsshouldbe sentto theAmerican Schoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthens,6-8 CharltonStreet, Princeton, NewJersey08540-5232. Hesperiais published quarterly bytheAmericanSchoolof Classical
StudiesatAthens.Foundedin 1932anddevotedprimarily to the timelypublication of reportson School-sponsored andSchooldirected projects, Hesperiawelcomessubmissions fromallscholars workingin thefieldsof Greekarchaeology, art,epigraphy, history, andliterature, fromearliestprehistoric timesonward.Hesperiais a refereed journal.
VOLUME
7I:
NUMBER
APRIL-JUNE
2
2002
I
X|-El l
THEJOURNAL OFTHEAMERICAN SCHOOL OFCLASSICAL STUDIESATATHENS
PUB LI CATI ON S STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Kerri
E D I T O R,
Cullen
119
JOHN K. PAPADOPOULOS AND EVELYNLORDSMITHSONt
MONOGRAPHS
Michael
Fitzgerald
PRODUCTION Sarah
MANAGER George
MANUSCRIPT Carol
A NewBronzeAge Sitein the Corinthia: The Orneaiof StraboandHomer?
Cox
Hesperia
Tracey EDITOR,
JEANNETTEMARCHAND
The CulturalBiography of a CycladicGeometricAmphora: Islanders in AthensandthePrehistory of Metics
149
Figueira
EDITOR
A. Stein
YANNISA. LOLOS A PublicColumnDrumfroma Corinthian Quarry
PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE CarolC. Mattusch(Chairman) GeorgeMasonUniversity DariceBirge LoyolaUniversityof Chicago JeniferNeils CaseWesternReserveUniversity ThomasG. Palaima Universityof TexasatAustin JamesP.Sickinger FloridaStateUniversity KathleenW. Slane Universityof Missouri-Columbia StephenV.Tracy(ex ofScio) Ohio StateUniversity
201
NORADIMITROVA Inscriptions andIconography in theMonuments of theThracianRider
209
Submissions:Manuscriptsand communicationsshouldbe addressedto Dr.TraceyCullen,Editor,Hesperia,AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat NewJersey08540;tel.609-683-0800; Athens,6-8CharltonStreet,Princeton, andphotocopiesof ilManuscripts fax 609-924-0578;
[email protected]. originalartworkandphotographs lustrationsmustbe submittedin triplicate; aremadewith the Editor.A shouldnot be sent unlesspriorarrangements ofthe articleshouldalsobe themajorconclusions shortabstractsummarizing reviewprocessandauthors included.Articlesaresubmittedto a double-blind withouttheirnameor accordingly, arerequestedto preparetheirmanuscripts notes,bibliograpreparation, The stylefor manuscript affiliationappearing. canbe foundin the Guidelinesfor on submissions phy,andotherinformation Authorspublishedin Hesperia62, 1993,pp.i-xvi;on the School'sWeb site at the aboveaddress. orbywritingto ASCSAPublications (www.ascsa.org);
Copyright(C)2002 The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens
The AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesatAthenswillnotknowinglyprint orinitialscholthe announcement in Hesperiaor anyof its otherpublications afterDecember30,1970,byanymeans of anyobjectacquired arlypresentation otherthanthroughan officiallysanctionedexcavationor survey,unlessthe existingcollectionorwaslegallyexportedfrom objectwaspartof a previously the countryof origin.
postagepaidat Periodicals Princeton,NewJersey,andat additionalmailingoffices.
Producedat EdwardsBrothers, Inc.,AnnArbor,Michigan. Designby EllenMcKie. Thracianrider Coverillustration: relief.GlavaPanega,Bulgaria. Museum, NationalArchaeological Sofia,inv.3906.Photocourtesy Museum.
Sendaddresschanges Postmaster: to Hesperia,P.O.Box529, Canton,
MA 020214529, U.S.A. price The annualsubscription Hesperiais publishedquarterly. Subscriptions: $70 forinstitutions($80,interna- ISSN 0018498X is $60 forindividuals($70,international), Paymentmust ISBN 87661-500-0 tional),and$33forstudents(proofof studentstatusrequired). beinU.S.dollars,drawnonaU.S.bankorbymoneyorder,andsentto Hesperia, SubscriberServices,P.O. Box 529, Canton,MA 02021-0529;tel. (U.S.) 800-821-7823; (outsideU.S.) 781-828-8450;fax 781-828-8915; e-mail of Singleissues(currentandbacknumberswhenavailable)
[email protected]. for$15 eachpluspostagefromthe DavidBrownBook Hesperiaareavailable Company,P.O.Box 511, Oakville,CT 06779;tel. 800-791-9354,860-9459329;fax 860-945-9468;or (outsideNorthAmerica)OxbowBooks,Park End Place,OxfordOX1 1HN, U.K.;tel. +44 (0) 1865-241249;fax +44 (0) 13-17 and19-30 arealsoavailable 1865-794449.IndexII andSupplements fromDavidBrownBooks.Reprintsof IndexI, Supplements1-12 and 18, b.v., andearlyissuesof Hesperiashouldbe orderedfromSwetsandZeitlinger,
[email protected]. P.O.Box810,2160 SZ Lisse,Netherlands;
HESPERIA
7I (2002)
A
N
EW
B RONZE
PagesII9-I48
SITE CO
AG
E
INTHE R I NTH
IA
THE ORNEAIOF STRABOAND HOMER?
ABSTRACT A newlydiscoveredBronzeAge site is reportedat Doratiin the Corinthia, overlookingtheNemeaRiver.Surfacematerialindicatesthatthiswasalarge Mycenaeansettlement,with structurespotentiallywell preserved,andthat earlierperiodsof the BronzeAge arealsorepresented. The locationof the sitemakesit possibleto identif;r it tentativelyasthe CorinthianOrneaimentionedby Strabo,whoimplies(contra Pausanias)thatthisis the sitereferred to in the Catalogueof Ships.I suggestthatStrabois correct,andthatDorati mayinfactbeHomer'sOrneai.Acceptingthisidentification helpsclarilithe logicbywhichsitesin Agamemnon's realmarelistedin the Catalogue.
A previously unknownMycenaean siteoverlooking the NemeaRiverin the northeastern Peloponnese has recentlycometo my attention.1 It is largeandthesurfacematerial copious,diverse,andof highquality, yetno mentionof it hasappeared in anyscholarly publication.2 Therefore I offer 1. On November14, 1999,I first visitedthe areaof Dorati,northof the modernvillageof Soulinari,in the companyof P.Panagopoulos of Derveni(nearKiato),who hadlearnedof it fromlocalresidentsas thepossiblesite of a Classicaltemple.On September 20, 2000,I reportedthe siteto the FourthEphoriaof Prehistoric and ClassicalAntiquitiesin Nauplionand fileda draftof thisarticlewiththe ephorat thattime,E. Spathari; in Octoberof 2001 I fileda seconddraft withthe currentephor,A. Mantis. I thankthembothfortheircomments. I wouldalsoliketo thankN. Bookidis, M. Boyd,B. Burke,L. Costaki,J. Herbst,G.J. Lolos,S. G. Miller,G. Sanders,R. S. Stroud,andI. Tzonou
forvisitingthe sitewithme;andLolos, Miller,Stroud,andTzonouforreading earlierdraftsof thisarticle.I owea specialthanksto Herbstforpreparing the accompanying maps.Finally,I am gratefillto the anonymous Hesperia reviewers fortheirsuggestions. 2. The sitehasneverbeenexcavated or systematically surveyed. It is approximately5.5 kmnorthof the summitof Mt. Apesas,the northernlimitof the regionsurveyedbyWrightet al.(1990) forthe NemeaValleyArchaeological Project(NVAP),and14 kmnortheast of the New Nemeavalley,partiallysurveyedin conjunction withNVAP (urbanareaof AncientPhlius:Alcock 1988and1991)andnowbeingstudiedbyJ.MaranandH.-J.Weisshaar
(Liondiandthe adjacentNemean plain).It is ca. 11 kmnorthwestof the areaof modernSolomos,thewestern extentof the EasternKorinthia Archaeological SurveyProject,andit is immediately eastof the areaincluded in Lolos'stopographical surveyof the Sikyonia(Lolos1998).The siteis not mentionedin Blegen1920,Gebauer 1939,Alin 1962,Syriopoulos 1964, Wiseman1978,or Sakellariou and Pharaklas 1971.It is not includedin anygazetteerof Mycenaeansites,such asHope SimpsonandDickinson 1979,Hope Simpson1981,and,more recently, IsthmiaVIII,pp.469-482, andMountjoy1999,pp.197-242 (Corinthia), whichdealsonlywith siteswithpublishedpottery.
I20
JEANNETTE MARCHAND
hereanintroductory description of thesitefollowedbysomeobservations aboutits topographical locationandpossibleidentification, in the belief thatit will figuresignificantly in subsequent discussions of the number, size,andnatureof BronzeAge settlements in theCorinthia.3 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
OF THE SITE
Thesiteis locatedontopof abluffontheeasternsideoftheNemeaRiver, overlooking the SilyonianandCorinthiancoastalplains(Fig.1). This bluffisthenorthernmost extension of aridgeofthefoothillsofMt.Apesas thathasbeenerodedawayonthewestbytheNemeaRiverandontheeast byanother largetributary rema, orseasonal riverbed (Fig.2, labeledDaveli), so thatit nowextendsasanisolatedpromontory orfingerof landstretchingtowardthenorth.The ridgesupportsa thicklayerof topsoil,covered withpinetreeswhereit hasnotbeencleared, abovea stratum of conglomeraterock.Belowthisthicklayerof rock,the ridgeconsistsprimarily of soft marlthathassufferedsevereerosionon all sidesexceptthe south. Consequently, the unsupported upperconglomerate shelfhasbrokenup andfallenawayatthenorthern end,andheretheridgenowformsa naturallydefensible "acropolis," notunlikethatatthesimilarly sitedAetopetra farther to theeast.Thesiteis locatedonthisnatural conglomerate stronghold,whichat the northernendformsa relatively flat,double-pronged plateau marked bya GreekArmySurveycolumnat 190masl(Figs.2-4). Themoderntoponymis Dorati.4 A partially pavedroadrunningfromnorthto southgivesaccessto the ridgeandbisectsthe site;it maycorrespond to the routeof an ancient road.5 On the easternsideof thisroad,twovineyards havebeenplanted, onewithinthe lastdecades,the otherwithinthe lasttwoyears(Fig.2:1 and2, respectively). Rubbleandhabitation debris(grinding stones,tripod legs,fragments of largestorage jars)fromanancientsettlement havebeen cleared fromthevineyards andpiledhighalongtheroadandthenorthern edgeof the cultivated area,andthevineyards themselves aredensewith pottery fragments. To thewestof the road,a relatively flatfield(Fig.2:3),clearedand cultivated atsometimein thepast,is overgrown withweeds,butpotteryis stillvisibleonthesurfaceandcontinues to theedgeof theplateau. In late July 2000,whena longsectiona meterwidewasplowedalongthenorthwestern edgeof the plateau,a largeamountof high-quality Mycenaean pottery inverygoodcondition wasturnedup.Belowthesteepwallsofthe conglomerate shelf(Fig.2:4),surfacepotterycontinuesdowntheeroded slopes of the ridgeto boththe eastandwestasfarasonecannowsafely descend, but all of this materialcanhavebeenwashedor pusheddown from aboveduringclearingof theland:thesurfacematerial andthenatural topography suggestthatin thenorththesitewasprimarily confinedto thetop of the two-pronged plateau.Localresidentsreportthatpottery can be foundin quantity allthewayto thechurchof AgiaParaskevi to the
3. This paperis basedon a number ofvisitsto the site,aloneandin the company of colleagues. No surveywas conducted. The presentdiscussionis in nowaymeantto represent the results ofa systematic fieldproject;its aimis tobringattentionto the siteandto recommend thatsucha projectbe conductedin futurebeforemoredestructioncanoccur. 4. Dorati(Nxopaq)is the toponym listedon the GreekArmymapof the Corinthia (1:50,000).The localsknow theareaby the nameDarani(Nxapav), a toponymthatappearson the Greek Armymapof 1:5000andrefers specifically to the promontory at the northwestern endof the sitewhere thesurveycolumnshownon Fig.2 is located. 5. An ancientroadin thislocation andcontinuingsouthalongthe crest ofthe ridgetowardApesaswould parallel the routeon thewesternside ofthe NemeaRiverbetweenTarsina and KoutsiviaStimanga,documented inLolos1998,pp.14() 142.A further indication of thelikelihoodthatthis route canbe tracedbackto antiquity (although not necessarily alltheway back to the BronzeAge)is thepresence ofpreserved wheelrutsalongthe ridge, further southabovethe modernvillage ofSoulinari.
A NEW BRONZE
Figure1. Dorati andthe Corinthian Gulf plain.J.Herbst
Figure2. Sketchplanof Dorati J.Herbst
AGE SITE
I2I
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
I22
Figure3. Dorati fromthe north. The site occupiesthe flat top of the highestplateauin middledistance. Mt. Apesasis visiblebeyond. Photoauthor
road.I havenotbeenable (Fig.2:5),on theSoulinari-Vrachati northwest thereis a butatthechurchof AgiaParaskevi thispossibility, to investigate Thisspringmayhave wateryear-round. naturalspringthatstillprovides watersourceforthe settlementduringthesummer.6 beentheprimary At the southernendof the site,wherea narrowmarlledgeconnects plateauto the restof theApesasridge,the situationis the conglomerate Hereatthehighestpointof thesitetheplateaunarrows slightlydifferent. shelfcomesto anend,so thaton theeastandwest andtheconglomerate therearesteepslopesratherthana sheerrockface.Mostof thisareahas not beencultivatedandthereis a goodpossibilitythatportionsof the depth. hereoveralargeareaandto a considerable arepreserved settlement To the eastof the road,a largestandof thickpournaria, or holmoak, coversa knollconsistingof a largequantityof rubblethatcannothave treesarependeposited(Fig.2:6).Wheretheseshrublike beennaturally denselyamongtherubble. BronzeAgepotteryisvisibleinterspersed etrable, debris loosematerialon the surface(presumably Muchof thisrelatively into its piled pushedand wasprobably of the settlement) fromstructures presentlocationduringthe creationof the adjacentroadandvineyard, at the centerof the standof treeswherea moundhasbeen particularly formed. thattherewasa goodreasonwhytheareawasnotcleared: It appears sizeanddeptharevisiblein of considerable sectionsof in situconstruction the adjacentscarpto the east,beginningat andjust belowthe current to surfacelevel.Fourlargewalls,parallelto eachotherandperpendicular fromthepresentscarp. theslopeof thehill,canbe clearlyseenprotruding plantedwitholivetreeshasbeencreatedhere A seriesof narrowterraces (Fig.2:7),descendingdownthe slopebelowthe standof oaksandthe thewallshavebeenexposedbetweenthelevelof vineyard; southernmost the top of the slope(elev.211 m) andthe floorof the firstterrace(elev. 203 m).Fromnorthto south,thefirstwallis a solidrubbleconstruction 1.90m inwidth;it is exposedfora 5-m stretchfromjustbelowthetopof its the slopedownto thelevelof theterrace(thefloorof whichobscures
6. Localsalsotellme thatthereused to be otherspringsnearthe churchthat havegonedryonlyin recentmemory, andso it is possiblethattheremayhave beenotherscloserto the ridgeitselfat one time.
A NEW BRONZE
AGE SITE
I23
Figure4. Conglomerateshelfof the westernpromontoryof the site, viewedfromthe east.Photoauthor
Figure5. Conglomerateblocksof a largewallprotrudingfromthe southeasternslope,viewedfromthe east.Photoauthor
7. Someof the rubblefromthe secondwallhasbeendugout andlitters illicit the terraceat its base;apparently the rubbleasposdiggersinterpreted siblybelongingto a tomb,butabandonedthe projectafterproceedinga meteror so intothe scarpandfinding thatthewallstillcontinuedas a solid Therearealsounmistakconstruction. ablesignsof illicitdiggingat the top of the hill,withinthe standof holmoaks.
A secondrubblewallof similardimenthereafter). possiblecontinuation in thescarp3 m to thesouth,followedbya appears sionsandorientation to the south,a wallof heavier Immediately thirdat a similarinterval.7 to therubblewallsbutata fromthescarp,parallel protrudes construction (Fig.5).Thiswallasexposedconsistsof fivelarge, slightlyhigherelevation blocksin twocoursesandisjustunder2 m roughlyshapedconglomerate inwidth.Thetopof theupperblocksis levelwiththemoderngroundsurto a depth onlycontinues face,butunliketheotherwalls,thisconstruction is thatthethickrubble givenbythesefeatures of 1.5-2 m.Theimpression of the constructed for a structure wallsmayhaveservedas foundations largerblocksabove.The presentrateof erosionat this end of the site suggeststhatthe useof stratumis not apparent wherethe conglomerate wasa prudentdecision. suchlargefoundations In thescarpbelowthe firstterraceof olivetrees,roughlya meterbelowthepointto whichtherubblewallsareexposed,anotherconstruction
I24
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
wall.Unliketheupperwalls, orfoundation possiblyaretaining ispreserved, of medium-sized, the scarpandis constructed parallels thisconstruction froma pointdirectly stones.It is preserved roughlyformedconglomerate north rubblewallandcontinues belowandto theeastof thenorthernmost over stonesscattered 6.5 m;severallargeconglomerate forapproximately originatefromthiswallorthewallof larger nearbyprobably theterraces belowthese stonesabove.In the scarpsandon the ledgesof the terraces thereis although of pottery,and wallsis a highconcentration preserved offinewareanditsqualityareveryhigh. muchcoarseware,theproportion potteryonthese Figure6 givesanideaof thedensityandnatureof surface Thus,on the easternslope, andFigure7 an ideaof its quality.8 terraces, to atleast6 m belowthe currentsurpreserved arepotentially structures to such is preserved likelihoodthatarchitecture facelevel.Thetantalizing bythethicknessof thewalls,the sizeof someof the a depthis increased fineware, oftheaccompanying buildingstones,thequantity conglomerate andalsoby the discoveryof smallfragmentsof paintedplasteron the slopesbelow. fromthescarpsbeandprotruding Thepotterylitteringtheterraces to havewasheddownfromabovepriorto appears lowtheseconstructions wall, Roughly70 m belowthelowestpreserved thecuttingof theterraces. onlybya large, endandtheslopeof thehillsideis interrupted theterraces (Fig.2:8).In thisarea,concurvingaccesspathcutbymodernmachinery finedbytwolargeerosiongulliesontheeastandwest,areseveralaccumudepositedandcannotbe explained lationsof stonesthatarenotnaturally disareovergrown, Mostof theseaccumulations bytheforcesof erosion.9 byconbysoil,butin a fewcasestheyaresurrounded turbed,orobscured to be stillin situin of potteryandsomeof therubbleappears centrations accompanying 8.The photographs thisarticleweretakento illustratethe siteforthe Ephoria.It wasnot possible to movesherdsfromtheirpositionsor to collectandgroupsherdsby typeor at date.All materialwasphotographed its findspotandleft at the site;it was to orientsherdsto take necessary naturallight. of the available advantage The resultis thatalthoughthe photographscontainsomewhatmiscellaneous
reflect theyalsoaccurately groupings, the presentstateof the site.These the full do not represent photographs rangeof materialat Dorati;full of anyof the analysisandpublication potteryfromthe siteat thispoint wouldbe premature. 9.The areais roughly67 m from eastto west,30 m fromnorthto south, and150-164maslin elevation.
Figure6. Artifactdensityat Dorati: surfacematerialfromtwo areason the easternslope (sherdshavebeen slightlyarrangedbut not gathered). Photosauthor.
Figure7. A largefragmentof a stirrupjar.Scale1:2.Photoauthor.
A NEW BRONZE
Figure8. Examplesof LH III paintedpottery:designsincludea crestedbird(a: center) andwhorl shells(b:lower le:i). Scale1:2.Photos author.
AGE SITE
I25
Thesecontinueto thepresentedge construction. somesortof purposeful theDavelirema andindicatethatactivityassociof theravineoverlooking in thislowerarea. alsooccurred probably atedwiththesettlement canalsobeseenonthewesternslopeatthesouthInsituconstruction ernendof thesite.Adjacentto thestandof oaktreesbutwestof theroad a smallolivegrovehasbeenplanted(Fig.2:9).In the scarpa fewmeters isvisibleovera horizonbelowthisgrovemorein siturubbleconstruction appears in genconstruction 2:12). This at least 22 m (Fig. taldistanceof eralto be on a smallerscalethanthaton theeastandto consistof stepped stonesrunningparallelto the rubblewallsof smallandmedium-sized bythecois indicated scarp.ThatthesearealsoBronzeAgeconstructions potteryin the soilerodingfromaroundthe stonesand piousMycenaean coveringthe slopesbelow. The nearlycompleteabsenceof potterylaterthantheBronzeAge is Geometric,and striking.A few sherdsmaydateto the Protogeometric, perhapsevenEarlyArchaicperiod,butI haveobservednothingon the of thereadilyidentifisurfacethatis Classicalorlater.Thevastmajority thelaterphases(through andof thismaterial ablematerial is Mycenaean, Materialis alsopresentfromearlierprehistoric LH IIIB)predominate. phases,for example,muchEH handmadepottery(andsomepossibly sherds, Neolithic),MH yellowMinyan,andMH or LH I matt-painted of finewarearefromLH III fragments of theidentifiable butthemajority Mycenaean kylikesanddeepbowls,manyof whichshowwell-preserved whorlshells,rosettes, bands,runningspirals, designs,includingdecorative figures(Fig.8). andfragmentary siteis clearfromthelargeamountofcoarse Thatthiswasa settlement pottery, suchascups,ladles,andcookingpots,andfromthesheeramount
.
d
n
I26
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
of looserubbleoriginating fromroughwallsandstructures. Tripodcookingpotlegsandfragments ofgrindingstonescanalsobefoundinparticularlylargequantities, andI noticedat leastten completegrindingstones fromallareasof thesitein additionto ubiquitous fragments. Alsoindicativeofdomestic activities orindustry arethenumerous murexandgaidouropusshells,andlargepithosfragments (Figs.9-10).Otherartifacts include numerous piecesof chert,figurines(Fig.11),oneobsidianblade,andone steatitespindlewhorl.10 At thenortheastern endof theplateau,attheedgeof oneof thevineyards,alargepileof clearedmaterial includesa number of carefilllyworked blocks(Fig.2:10).To the north,belowthe upperplateau,manysimilar large,well-worked conglomerate blockslie low on the sideof the ravine on the east(Fig.2:11andFig.12).Theseprobably cameoriginally from thetop of theplateau,andmostof themdo notdiffersignificantly from thosestillin situatthesouthernendof thesite(Fig.5).Amongtheconglomerate blocksareoneortwoporosblocks.Noneoftheseblockscanbe datedandthereis no immediately evidentsourcefortheporosstone. Withoutexcavation, theexactsize,nature,andperiodsof occupation ofthesiteatDoraticannotbe definitely determined, butthesurfaceindicationssuggestthatit is potentially amongthelargestMycenaean sitesyet locatedin the Corinthia.1l I estimatethatthe top of the plateaualone coversapproximately 46,595m2.12 This is not the totalareacoveredby surface material andit doesnotincludeanyof theareason theslopes,but itis likelyto represent thecoreof thesite.Extending thisestimateto the areacoveredwithsurfacepotteryandartifacts datingto the BronzeAge yieldsaminimum figureof 106,000m2.Tomyknowledge, onlyatKorakou hassurfacematerial coveringalargerareabeenreported fora BronzeAge s1te1ntil1S reglOn.lJ 10.Identicalsteatitewhorlsfrom theAidoniatombshavebeententativelyinterpreted asbeadweightsfor clothing: seeDemakopoulou 1996, pp.66-67, n. 59, fig.59. 11.It is virtuallyimpossibleto compare thissiteaccurately with othersthathavebeenpartiallyexcavatedor identifiedin surveyby the fullextentof surfacescatters. The followingfiguresareonlyroughestimates meantto providesomebasisfordiscussion andarenot to be takenas a definitive quantification of the materialat the site. 12.The surfaceareawasmeasured witha handheldGPS unit. 13. Hope Simpson(1981,p. 33) estimates thatthe settlementat Korakoucoveredan areaof 225,000m2.For mostof the largestsitesin the Corinthia, no extensivesurveyshavebeen
conducted to establishthe parameters ofsurfacematerial.One exceptionis Tsoungiza in theArchaiaNemea valley, wherethe sizeof the Mycenaean occupationhasbeenestimated at75,000m2by the NVAPteam(see thediscussionof Mycenaean Nemea athttp://river.blg.uc.edu/nvap/ MycNVAP.html). The onlypublished estimates of sizeforthe majorBronze Age siteslongknownandin somecases partially excavated in the regionare those in Hope Simpson1981.Manyof his figuresarebasedon observations made in the late1950s(thesamenumbers canbe foundin Hope Simpson and Dickinson1979andto a certain extent in Hope Simpson1965),and the criteriausedforthe estimatesare not alwaysmadeexplicit(in somecases they appearto be basedon the fullextent of surfacematerialandin others
onthe dimensionsof the natural topographical featureson whichthe sitesarelocated);in allcasesthe figures givenareonlyroughestimates. These figures mustthereforebe usedwith extreme caution,butforthe sakeof illustration only,basedon Hope Simpson1981,the relativeextentof surface material at majorMycenaean sitesin thewiderregioncanbe listedas follows: Gonia87,500m2;Kleonai 75,000 m2;Melissi40,000m2;Perdikaria 25,500m2;Vasiliko/Ancient Sikyon 24,050m2;Aetopetra22,500m2; Zygouries 15,300m2;AgiaIrini 15,000 m2;MylosCheliotou6,375m2. See Hope Simpson1981,pp.34 (A57, Gonia; A59, Perdikaria; A56, Aetopetra; A55, MylosCheliotou),35 (A62, Kleonai; A63, Zygouries), 36 (A70, Vasiliko; A66,AgiaIrini),and37 (A73, Melissi).
A NEW BRONZE
Figure9. A typicalassemblage, includingmurexshell and coarse waretripodcookingpot leg (lower left).Scale3:8.Photoauthor.
Figure10. Andesitegrindingstone andpithossherds.Photoauthor
Figure11. Figurinefragments: a) quadruped;b) Phi, backview (on right).Scale1:2.Photosauthor.
a
AGE SITE
I27
I28
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
Figure12. One of the largeconglomerateblocksat the bottom of the Daveli rema to the east of the site. Photo author
Surfaceareais,however, notnecessarily anaccurate indication of this site'spotentialsizeorsignificance; moreindicative is theparticularly large amountanddensityof identifiable potterydatingto theMycenaean period.A roughideaof the amountof surfacematerialcanbe givenbythe following observation: onthesoutheastern terraces alone,I stoppedcountingthereadily recognizable Mycenaean sherds whenI reached 2,000,having onlyprogressed partofthewaydowntheslope(thisareais notincludedin theestimateof the sizeof the sitegivenabove).In surveysof the northeastern Peloponnese, a totalof morethan200 sherdsrepresents a significantMycenaean component ata site.l4In manyareasof Dorati,morethan 200Mycenaean sherdscanbefoundwithinanareaof afewsquaremeters, andthe densityof sherdsoverthe entiretop of the plateauwherethe surface is visibleis consistently high.As notedabove,thesurfacematerial clearly indicatesthatthisis a settlement site,andlarge-scale construction isatleastpartially preserved. No Mycenaean settlementon a scaleto compare withthe citadelsof theArgolidhasyet beenlocatedin the Corinthia,andonlya fewlargescaleMycenaean settlements havebeenlocatedor excavated. Although sitesin the regionwith LH surfacepotteryarenumerousand several 14.Mountjoy(1995,p. 52) reports that only1,241Mycenaean sherds(all phases) wererecognizedin the southern Argolidsurvey. The largestsite (F5) produced 257 sherds.NVAPreports twenty-five siteswithMycenaean material fromtheirsurvey(notincluding the excavated areas,Tsoungizaandthe Nemean sanctuary), morethanhalf consisting of fewerthanfivesherds;the few largestsitesarecategorized as consisting of"over200"sherds.See"Myce-
naean Nemea"on the NVAPWebsite (above, n. 13).Wellsandhercolleagues report fromthe Berbati-Limnes survey (Wells 1996,pp.123-175)one findspot (no.428,p. 126)consistingof 900 Mycenaean sherdscontainedwithinan area of ca.30 x 30 m, andanother(no. 14, esp.pp.133,166)extendingover 60,000 m2atwhich269 artifactswere collected; theynotethatthisspreadis much largerthananyof the othersand that the coreof the siteshouldprobably
be estimatedas muchsmallerthanthe total scatterarea.The remainingsites listed aresmaller.Foranoverviewof surveys in the region,see Rutter1993, table 1, pp.748-749,ns. 8-15. The caveat statedin n. 11 aboveis particularly relevant here,sinceonlya veryrough sense of the relativesizeof Doratican be obtainedby comparing limitedonsite observations withthe findingsof formal surveysemployingvariedmethods of collectionandquantification.
A NEW B RONZE AGE SITE
Figure13. Dorati andothersitesin the northeasternPeloponnese. J. Herbst
15.Note thatnoneof the siteshave beenextensively excavated. At Gonia, despitethelargesurfacescatter(see above,n. 13),trialtrenchesturnedup onlyerodedtracesof the Mycenaean settlementanda fortification wall: Blegen1920,p.6; Blegen1930-1931; Sakellariou andPharaklas 1971,appendixII, p. 16;Rutter1974;Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979,p.63, no.A57;Hope Simpson1981,p.34, no.A57;IsthmiaVIII,p. 474,no.13. ForAetopetra,seeHatzepouliouKallire1984(mostrecentexcavations);
I29
cemeteries andtombsof theMycenaean periodhavebeenexcavated, most oftheBronzeAgesitesthathavebeenexcavated (suchasGonia,Aetopetra, MylosCheliotou, andAgiosGerasimos) havesofarproduced moreextensiveEH orMH components (Fig.13).15 Thepredominance ofMycenaean potteryatDoratiis therefore of particular interest.In thewiderarea,only Korakou hasso farproduced evidenceforanextensive Mycenaean settlement:foundation wallsfornumerous smallLH III houses,a fortification wall,indications of largerstructures (amassivethreshold blockandpartof Blegen1920,pp.3-4; Corinth I.1, p. 108;Syriopoulos 1964,p. 86;SakellariouandPharaklas 1971,appendixII, p.21;Wiseman1978,p. 99;Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979,p.62, no.A54;Hope Simpson1981,pp.8 (mapA),10 (fig.1),34, no.A56;(but notethatit is incorrectly placedon the mapsas overlooking the LongopotamosRiver:it is actuallylocatedfurther east.Forthe correctlocationseeBlegen 1920,pp.2-3, fig. l); IsthmiaVIII, p. 470, no. 8. ForMylosCheliotou,see Blegen1920,p.3; Blegen1921,p.116;
CorinthI.1, p. 108;CorinthXIII,p. 6; Sakellariou andPharaklas 1971,appendixII, p. 19;Hope Simpsonand Dickinson1979,p. 62, no.A53;Hope Simpson1981,p. 34, no.A55;Isthmia VIII,p. 470, no. 10, andp. 471.For AgiosGerasimos, see CorinthI.1, p. 109;Alin 1962,p. 57;Sakellariou andPharaklas 1971,appendixII, pp.20-21;Protonotariou-Deilake 1974;Wiseman1978,p. 99;Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979,p. 63, no.A55;Hope Simpson1981,p.33, no.A53;IsthmiaVIII,p. 469,no.5.
JEANNETTE MARCHAND
I30
a fresco),aswellasburials.l6 At Zygouries in theAncientKleonaivalley, Blegenexcavated animpressive two-levelLHIIIB:1-2structure withfrescoesandanextensivestoreof potteryaswellas a numberof burialsat a locationnearby; onlya portionof the hillwasexposed.l7 In the adjacent AncientNemeavalley,theMycenaean settlementatTsoungiza hasbeen characterized as a smallhamletin the EarlyMycenaean period,growing to moresubstantial proportions byLH IIIB.18 Thesearetheonlysitesin the Corinthiaat whicha substantial Mycenaean phasehas so farbeen confirmed byexcavation. In thePhliusvalley,therichtombsexcavated atAidoniasuggestthat animportant LH settlementshouldbe locatednearby, butit hasnotyet beendiscovered.l9 Moreover, the numberof siteswheresurfacematerial indicates alargeLH settlement is relatively small.Amongthese,Perdikaria (withanimpressive stretchof cyclopean wall),Kleonai,andAgiaIriniin thePhliusvalleystandoutasthelargest.20 Tracesof Mycenaean occupationhavebeenfoundinAncientCorinthandontheslopesofAcrocorinth, butasyetnolargeLH settlement sitehasbeenuncovered.2l The situation 16.Blegen1921;Dickinson1972; Rutter1974;Hope Simpsonand Dickinson1979,p. 61, no.A50;Hope Simpson1981,p.33, no.A51;Isthmia VIII,p. 469, no.6. 17. Blegen1928;Alin 1962,p. 58; Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979, p.66, no.A67;HopeSimpson1981, p.35, no.A63;Thomas1988;1992; IsthmiaVIII,pp.358-361,469, no.2. Shear(1986)hasinterpreted the remainsasbelongingto a numberof separatesubstantial houses,butit is not certainthatmorethanone structure is represented andThomas(1988;1992, esp.337)hascharacterized the pottery asunusualfora domesticcontext. 18. Hope SimpsonandDickinson 1979,p. 67, no.A70;Hope Simpson 1981,p.36, no.A65;Wrightet al. 1990,pp.631-638;Wright1990, p.353; Rutter1989;1990a;1990b; 1993;Pullen1990,p.333;Thomas 1992;IsthmiaVIII,pp.358-361. 19.Touchais1979;1980;1987; Rutter1993,p. 788,n. 179;KrystalleVotse1989;1996. 20. Forsizeestimatesseeabove, n.13. Forunpublished newobservationsconcerning the siteof Perdikaria, originallylocatedby Blegen(1920),see the fieldreportsforthe 1999seasonon theWebsiteof the EasternKorinthia Archaeological SurveyProject(http:// eleftheria.stcloudstate.edu/eks). See alsoAlin 1962,p. 57;Wiseman1978, o
pp.64-65; Sakellariou andPharaklas 1971,appendixII, p.17; Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979,p.64, no.A59;Hope Simpson1981,pp.3435, no.A59;IsthmiaVIII,p. 474, no.14. ForKleonaiseeGebauer1939, col.271;Alin 1962,p.58; Syriopoulos 1964,p. 87;Sakellariou andPharaklas 1971,appendixII, pp.33-34;Hope SimpsonandDickinson1979,p.67, no.A69;HopeSimpson1981,p.35, no.A62;IsthmiaVIII,p. 469,no. 1. A. Frickenhaus (in Karo1913, cols.114-116)reportedfindingover 100Mycenaean figurinesnearthe churchof AgiaTriadain the mountainsabovethevaSley; theyhaverecentlybeenpublishedin Kilian1990. ForAgiaIrini,seeHope Simpsonand Dickinson1979,pp.67-68, no.A71; Hope Simpson1981,p.36, no.A66; Rutter1993,p. 781. 21. Blegen1920,p.3; Dunbabin 1948;Weinberg1949,p. 157;Broneer 1951,p. 293;Robinson1976,p.211, n.25 (onesherd,whichhe identifiedas LH);andHopeSimpson1981,pp.3334, no.A54. ForAcrocorinth, see Corinth III.1,p. 28. Forthe LH IIIC structure, grave,anddepositfromthe Sanctuary of DemeterandKore,see BookidisandFisher1972,pp.291292;1974,pp.286-289;Rutter1979. Foranextensivebibliography, see IsthmiaVIII,pp.47s471.
A NEW BRONZE
Figure14. View fromthe northern end of the site overthe Silyonian plaintowardthe CorinthianGulf and Perachora.The courseof the Nemea Riveris discernibleto the east (right)of the pavedroad.Silyon is locatedfarleft in the distance. Photoauthor
22.The sheernumberof sitesin the CorinthiaatwhichMycenaean materialhasbeenfoundprecludes listing or discussingthemallhere.Some notableomissionsfromthe above discussionaretheIsthmiansanctuary, Kenchreai, Galataki,KatoAlmyri, Athikia,Phlius,Krines,andMoulki nearSikyon.Forcompletegazetteersof Mycenaean sitesin the Corinthia,see theworkslistedabovein n. 2. Fortwo additionalsmallsitesreportedin the Kleonaivalleynot mentionedin gazetteers,see GauvinandMorin1997.I havenot includedanysitesnorthof the Isthmus;forthe Perachora peninsula,in additionto the generalsitegazetteers, see Fossey1990.Someasyet unpub-
AGE SITE
I3I
is the samein andaroundthe Sikyonian plain;surfacesherdsandburials suggesta Mycenaean presenceat numerous sites(e.g.,Vasiliko/Ancient Sikyon,Melissi),butno substantial settlementsiteon the orderof those listedaboveorcomparable in surface material to Doratihasbeenlocated.22 Thesizeof thesiteatDorati,evenconsidering onlythetopof theplateau, andthe densityof the specifically Mycenaean materialthereonsuggest thatthe Mycenaean phaseof the site is potentiallyas largeas or larger thanmostyetinvestigated oridentifiedin thearea.23 The site'stopographical locationis alsosignificant forestimating its potentialimportance, in thatit commandsan impressive viewoverthe juncture betweenthe Sikyonian andCorinthian plains(Fig.14).It is in a positionto controlsignificant partsof thecoastalplainandaccessintothe NemeavalleyviaatheNemeaRiver.24 Thissetting,on a naturally defensibleplateauabovea riverandalongthecoastalbluffs,similarto thelocation of a numberof otherBronzeAge sitesalongthe Corinthian Gulf, conforms to a preferred typeof locationforsettlements in thisareaatthis time,andfurthersuggeststhatothersimilarareasbetweentheNemeaand the Longopotamos Riversdeservecloserinvestigation.25 lishedinformation fromNVAPandthe EasternKorinthiasurveycanbe obtainedfromtheirWebsites. 23.The precedingdiscussionis not intendedto ignorethe probability that earliersettlementphasesarepreserved. I estimatethatat least90 percentof the materialthatI haveobservedat the site is LH, butthe tendencyto overestimate periodsmoreeasilyidentifiedin the fieldandthe largeamountof totalsurfacematerial(notto mentionthe natureof otherBronzeAge sitesin the region)suggestthatthe earlierprehistoricphasescouldalsoproveto be substantial. 24. Mountjoy(1999,p. 197)suggeststhatthe routealongthe Nemea
River(andthereforedirectlypastDorati),animportantroadin the historical period,wasalreadyin usein theMycenaeanperiodto provideaccessbetween Mycenae,Tsoungiza,Aidonia,andthe CorinthianGulf. 25. Morgan(IsthmiaVIII,p. 354) hasalreadymadea similarobservation concerning Aetopetra: "Thesitelocationtypifiesa localpreference for bluffs,removingsettlementfromagriculturallandwhileallowingeasyaccess to it, facilitating defense,andlying closeto animportantrouteof communication." The siteat AgiosPandeleimonaboveKamariin Achaiais similarlysituated:seeAndersonand Anderson1975,p. 5, pl. 1, fig. 1.
v
,
ton
,
\
,
\
,
I32
JEANNETTE
DORATI AS STRABO'S CORINTHIAN
MARCHAND
ORNEAI
The specificlocationof Doratiis particularly significant becauseit allows fora tentative identification ofthe site.Thegeographer Strabo, in a numberof controversial passages, mentionsthatthereexisteda secondtown calledOrneai,distinctfromthetownin theArgolidof thesamename.He describesthissecondOrneaias abandoned in his time,locatedbetween CorinthandSikyonandnextto ariveronaheightoverlooking theSikyonianplain,butin the neighborhood of Corinth.I proposethatDoratifits exactlywiththistopographical description byStrabo. Accepting Doratias a viablecandidate forthissecond,"Corinthian," Orneainotonlyclarifies thedescription ofthattownbyStrabo, butalsosolvessomeofthedifficultiesin locatingtheArgivetownof the samenameandin understanding theinternal logicofthearrangement ofAgamemnon's realmintheHomeric Catalogue of Ships,in whichanOrneaiis mentioned. It is notmyintentionto reviewallof thearguments already advanced by otherscholarsconcerning the locationof theArgiveOrneai,butit is necessary to prefaceanydiscussion of Corinthian Orneaiwitha relatively detailedreviewof thesourcesforandproblemof thetwosimilarly named towns.An Orneiaiis listedin the Catalogue of Shipsasbelongingto the "realm of Agamemnon": 0' 8e MvxNvag stXov,euxCCuevov sxoRC0toov, a(pvetov xe KototvOov euxCCuevag xe KAsxuaq, 'Otovetag ' eveCuovTo 'Atoa0vtosNv ' stoaxetvNv xat Stxvxv',o0'ato"'A8toaxog stox' sCu,BastAgvgv, 0t U l=CtONatNV TE xat ax=stvNv 1ovosovav IlrEnvNv ' stXov8' A'cytov aCuxptveCuovTo AtytaBov ' ava wavTaxat aCu(p' 'ERtxNv evtostav, xxv exaxovvv t°XextostxvAyaCusCuvxv -
,
.
e
\
?,
-
,
.
.
.
cs
ATtOCtOG.
AndtheythatheldMycenae,thewell-builtcitadel,andwealthy Corinth,andwell-builtKleonai,anddweltin Orneiaiandlovely Araithyrea andSikyon,whereinatthefirstAdrastus wasking;and theythatheldHyperesia andsteepGonoessaandPellene,andthat dweltaboutAigionandthroughout allAigialus,andaboutbroad Helike of thesewasthesonof Atreus,lordAgamemnon, captain, witha hundredships.26 Therearea fewbriefreferences to anOrneaithatindicatethataplace of thisnamewasinvolvedin hostilitieswithSikyonat sometimeduring the EarlyArchaicperiod.27 The firstclearreference to anArgiveOrneai 26. II.2.569-577,A. T. Murray, trans.,Cambridge, Mass.,1924.On the variantspellingOrneiai,see the passage of Eustathiusquotedin n. 34 below. 27. Plut.De Pyth.or.15 (Mor.401d); Paus.10.18.5.Botharepassingreferencesto a dedicationbythe Orneataito the sanctuary at Delphicommemorat-
ing a victoryoverthe Sikyonians. There is nothingin eitherpassageto indicate the dateof thevictory,buta reasonable settingforthe conflicthasbeenfound in a warbetweenSikyonandArgos mentionedby Herodotos(5.67-68) duringthe tyrannyof Kleisthenes. Plutarch(Desera.7, Mor.553a-b)also
appearsto indicatea borderdispute betweenKleonaiandSikyonat this time.McGregor(1941,pp.277-278, n. 49), Kelly(1976,p. 124),Griffin (1982p. 38, n. 20, andp. 51), andLolos (1998,p. 38, n. 107,andp. 49) haveall hintedthatbothKleonaiandOrneai mayhaveformedanassociation with
,
,
-
,>
A NEW BRONZE
,
.
-
\
v
,
,
,
AGE SITE
I33
appears in Herodotos8.73.3,whereherefersto thepeopleof anOrneaiat the timeof the PersianWaras in somewaysubjectto the Argivesand amongthosewhosatapartfromthewar.28 TheOrneatai nextappear alongsidethe Kleonaians as alliesof theArgivesat thebattleof Mantineiain 418 B.C. (Thuc.5.67.2, 5.72.4, 5.74.3-4). According to Thucydides and Diodoros,the Lakedaimonians invadedthe Argolidthe followingyear (Thuc.6.7.1-2, Diod.Sic.12.81.4-5).Afterravaging thecountryside, they settledfilgitivesfromArgosat Orneai,fortifiedthecity,andleftit witha stronggarrison. Soonthereafter, theAtheniansarrived andtogetherwith theArgivesbesiegedOrneai.According to Diodoros,aftertakingthecity, the ArgivesandAtheniansputsomeof the garrisonandexilesto death andexpelledothers.InThucydides' account,theArgivesrazedOrneai.29 Theplaceapparently continued toexist,however, sinceDiodoros(16.39.16) mentions it againinreference tohostilities betweentheLakedaimonians andtheMegalopolitans in 352/1 B.C.: theLakedaimonians advance from Mantineia to the"Argive cityof Orneai" andcapture it beforetheMegalopolitansandtheirallies,includingtheArgives,canadvancefromtheir positionattheheadwaters of theAlpheiusRiver.WhentheArgivessubsequentlytakethe fieldagainstthe Lakedaimonians at Orneai,theyare defeated.The Lakedaimonians eventuallymakean armisticewith the Megalopolitans, butwe do notlearnthefateof Orneai,andits capture by theLakedaimonians is thelasteventin itshistorypreserved in oursources. Fromthesefewreferences it is already indicatedthatArgiveOrneai laysomewhere withintheArgolidin the directionof Mantineia, butthe mostimportantsourcefor the morepreciselocationof this Orneaiis Pausanias 2.25.4-6. He beginswitha description of a road(whichhelater callstheKlimax)leadingfromtheDeirasridgeof ArgosandpastLyrkeia to Mantineia.He givesan aition for a beaconfestivalheldat Argos,in whichhe makesit clearthatLyrkeia andtheLarissa areintervisible. Havinggiventhesecluesto theroughlocationof Lyrkeia, he thencontinues: Cuev 8! xavTrv sv si 'AtoyovgsiNxovxa CuaRa sov a8ta, 8e AvtoxetageVxetoa xovavxa sg 'Otoveag.AvtoxetagCuev 8! ZOACUg, axe oNpUpevNg NoNxaxa zv tvxv oTtoaxetav sst "IAtov,oux CsoLsaTo VOCuoog Ev xaTaXoyX CuvuNv 'OtovEag 8Esg
ex
,>
Argosalreadyat thistimeto wagea territorial waragainsttheircommon andaggressive Sikyonianenemy.See alson. 67 below. 28. Amongthe racesof the Peloponnese,HerodotosincludesOl 8C KoVOOplOl aDXoX0oMGS COWgS aOXCOUOl yOUVOl ClVal''I@VGS, oso
Ts 'Apysixv
CX8g80plCUWal
apxoyevol
Xp°MoO, CoWGS'0pVNTal
xai xai
8g
xou
[Ol] WC0l-
On the strengthof Strab.8.6.7 (C 370),Andrewes(1970,p. 109)explainsthe Kynouria alludedto hereas an areaof the Inachosvalleyandnot the morefamiliarborderareabetween theArgolidandLakonia. 29. Ar.Jv. 399 andscholiaand Paus.8.27.1alsoprobably referto these events. OlXOl.
v
,,
\
,
,
,
tt
CTCyato UxoUvXo
, UssEto
Ev ToLg C=goL stooTEtoag ExaXoUvXo
,,
8E aso
b
\
\
o
>,
,
,
,
v
,
,,
,
\
v
\
TZ TO=U Tt g AtoyELag ExCTvXo, ovTZ xaL
N 4>XCoUvXa TE xaL CxvXva
ootovEXg Tov 'EtoEx0gUg
xaTEgiEv.
Tov 8E ootovEXg Nv
xouxov Ilexexg, xov 8e Meves0eog, 8g'AyaCusCuvovL CusTa 'A0NvaLXv zv Iltota,uovovyxa0CXcv atoXNv.aso Cuev 8! xovxov xo ovo,ua EyEMEToq ZOACt, AtOyELOtOX VgtOOV TOVT@Vutoveaxag averm7sav avaavCg 8e ouvotxot ygyovastv 'Atoyetog. sc= 8e ev xag 'Otoveag'ACCu8og xe Ctoovxat goavov otoOovxat eVxetOog
vaogsog wastvsg xotwov aveuevog.xa os ssexetva utovexvN xe StxvxvtaxatN 4>Xtasta soxcv. \
A
o
\
o
o
\
CS \
o
o
o
tO
The distancefromArgosto Lyrceais aboutsixtystades,andthe distancefromLyrceato Orneaeis thesame.Homerin theCataloguemakesno mentionof thecityLyrcea, becauseat thetimeof theGreekexpedition againstTroyit already laydeserted; Orneae, however, wasinhabited, andin hispoemhe placesit on thelist
JEANNETTE
I34
MARCHAND
beforePhliusandSicyon,whichordercorresponds to theposition of thetownsin theArgiveterritory. The nameis derivedfrom Orneus,thesonof Erechtheus. ThisOrneusbegatPeteos,and PeteosbegatMenestheus, who,witha bodyof Athenians, helped Agamemnon to destroythekingdomof Priam.Fromhimthendid Orneaigetits name,andaftervfards theArgivesremovedallits citizens,whothereupon cameto liveatArgos.At Orneaearea sanctuary andanuprightwoodenimageof Artemis; thereis besides a templedevotedto allthegodsin common.On thefilrthersideof OrneaeareSicyoniaandPhliasia.30 The interpretation of partof thispassageis somewhatproblematic, and Pritchett hasarguedthatthetranslation, quotedabove,byW. H. S.Jones is inaccurate. He arguesthatOrneaiis theimpliedsubjectof exetvxo,and thatthesentencemustbetranslated asfollows: "Butwithrespectto Orneai (forit wastheninhabited), asit is situatedin thecountryoftheArgives,it is mentioned bythepoetbeforeeitherPhleiousorSikyon.''3l Inthistranslationit is particularly clearthatPausanias placesthisOrneaiwithinthe Argolid,andalsothathe identifiesthisOrneainearLyrkeia astheOrneai mentioned in theCatalogue of Ships. Straboalsorefersto thisOrneainearLyrkeia, butin thesamepassage heclearlyrefers to asecondplaceofthesamenamelocatedbetween Sikyon andCorinth: VOCuoog 8 avxagouxol8ev,ov8exo Avtoxetov, ov8''Otoveag xuat 8'sLat qg 'Atoyetaq, N xx sANatov, at 8e xag 'Otoveag xag Cusxaiv KototvOov xat Stxvxvog8tovCuevag. Cuev
oCuxvvCuog
xx
otost
Homerdoesn'tknowthese[ArgiveHysiaiandKenchreai], noryet doeshe knowLyrkeion orOrneai,whicharevillagesin Argeia,the formerbearingthesamenameasthemountainnearit andthelatter thesameastheOrneaiwhichis situatedbetweenCorinthand Sikyon.32
At firstglance,Strabo's comment thatHomerdoesnotknowofOrneai appears strange,sinceanOrneaicertainly appears in theHomericCatalogue.ButStrabosoonturnsto a discussion of therealmof Agamemnon, andit becomesclearthat,unlikePausanias, he believesthatthissecond Orneai,betweenCorinthandSikyonandnotaplacein theArgolid,is the Orneaimentionedin the Iliad. He beginshis discussionof Mycenae, Corinth,Kleonai,Orneai,andso on withthe preface"butlet me speak nextof theplacesthatarenamedin the Catalogue of Shipsassubjectto MycenaeandMenelaus" (Strab.8.6.19[C 377]).AfterquotingHomer andproceeding to describe thesitesin theorderlistedin theCatalogue, he reachesOrneai(Strab.8.6.24[C 382]): 'Otoveax 8' sxotvssxvvCuox xx waoatotosovx soxaCux, vvvCuev stouox, stooxetoov 8' otxovCuevax xaRg, xetoov eXovaax Iltoxasov xuuevov, axp'xv xaxo xa Iltoxasexa soc<sagEvxptoovtog 'Otovearr v xaRex xov 0sov xetvTax 8' v=Cto xovse8xovxovStxvxvxxv, vrv 8e Xoav soxov'Atoyexox. 'AtoaxOvtosa 8'so v N vvv4>Xtasta xaBovCuev.
30.Textandtranslation fromJones 1918, pp.380-383. 31. Pritchett1980, p.22, n. 35. 32. Strab.8.6.17 (C 376). The text givenhereis fromJones[1927] 1954, p.182, butit is problematic. Lyrkeionis
anemendation, no doubtbasedon Pausanias's description (2.25.4-5) of the twoArgivetownsof Orneaiand Lyrkeia. Andrewes(1970, p.108) commentson the passagethus:aou8e ToAuxoupytov (probably Aupxelov), ou8''Opveagxyat 8' elCsi q5 'Ap,
t
yelaq,
fi
t
,
-
,,
-
N Xuev oXuxvoXuog TZ OpCl TZ . . .
(probably Aupxgi), ai 8e xalS'OpvealS xalS ysxaio
KopLvOouxai
ElXU@VOt
i8poXuevalS. Kramer excisedallthe wordsherecitedin Greek,believing thatthissecondOrneaiwasthe inventionof aninterpolator. But6.24,382 is clearenough." Aly (1950, p.249) also advocates the emendation: aou8eTO AuXOupylOu (?)ou8''Opveag.xual 8' t
fi
-
Clot m5
t
*
o
ApystaS,
t
fi
t
o
N CV O@V0yOt
-
TZ
opelxx 5-6 B. al 8e xalS'OpvealS xX. DassLykurgion falschund Lyrkeiongemeintist,siehtjeder."
A NEW BRONZE AGE SITE
I35
Orneaiis namedaftertheriverthatflowspastit. It is desertednow, andhada templeof Priapus it waswell-peopled, althoughformerly thatwasheldin honour;andit wasfromOrneaithattheEuphrotheOrnecallsthegod"Priapus niuswhocomposedthePriapeia butthe atan."Orneaiis situatedabovetheplainof the Sikyonians, is thecountry bytheArgives.Araithyrea countrywaspossessed whichis nowcalledPhliasia.33 Strabo(13.1.12[C 587])mentionsthissecondOrneaiin passingin one Corinth": lastpassage, wherehe callsit merely"near ... xxv setoxKototvOov . . . sE Otovexv fromthe OrneainearCorinth Fromthesethreepassagesit is clearthatStrabobelievesthatthere wasa placecalledOrneaibetweenSikyonandCorinth,nextto a riverof the samenameandon a heightabovethe Silyonianplainbutbetterdebutit wascompletely scribedasnearCorinth.It hada templeof Priapus, B.C. comthe 2nd-century has shown that his day. B. Niese abandoned by underlieStrabo's thatof Apollodoros, mentarieson the Iliad, primarily on thissecond andhisinformation discussion of theHomericCatalogue, Strabois virtually entirelyfromhis sources.34 originates Orneaiprobably using sourceforthis secondOrneai,but Eustathius, the onlypreserved repeatsthe of Byzantium, versionof Stephanus Straboandanunabridged butaddsthefollowing: sameinformation Naso 'Otoveag Etoex0CXgS vTov Kakaat 8e ouxxgNaso 'Otovexg, xx soxaCu. N oCuxvvCug'Otovea vvCufpg, N oxtsfp'vQovgxetvTat, It [theOrneaibetweenSikyonandCorinth]is namedafterOrneus, orthenymphOrnea,orbecauseit is on a thesonof Erechtheus, height,orfromtheriverof thesamename.35 thatcouldhaveultimately information repeating Eustathius is primarily of Orneusto thisOrneai(contra derivedfromStrabo,buthis assignment 33. Jones[1927] 1954, pp. 204-205. 34. Niese 1877; Giovannini1969, p. 8, n. 2. Strabogivesno indication
thathe knowsthe locationof CorinIn his descripthianOrneaifirsthand. tionof Kleonai,he statesthathe saw he the cityhimselffromAcrocorinth; makesno suchclaimforOrneai.Dorati,mycandidateforOrneai,is disandso it is cerniblefromAcrocorinth, possiblethatits generallocationwas pointedoutto himfromthatvantage point,butsincehe doesnot sayso it seemslikelythathe is simplyquoting his sources. 35. Trans.author.Eust.2.291.7-15 (= Strab.8.6.24 [C 382]): 'Oovelai8e N Aixaxoul 'Opveai souxoyap XuaBlaTa
CVXOlv NOCl
XClTal
X@yN CCiV
'Apysia5xaxa xov rexypaxpov.scrcl8e xai sxepa ysxaE, KopivOouxai ElXUxvog. xauTrv 8e o xa 'E0vlxaypaf aS WOXlVgyCl, OU X@yNV. WN09OlX@t
8g
AsyovTal, XS xai ai KAs-
xai aal
vai. ypaxpovTal as Ala AlepOoyyou ai
'Opuelai,xS xai Bpocselaixai Auyelai. XaClTal
8C OUT@tN aso 'Opvexs,
'EpCX0g@5
N
aSo'°09Cat
V0yt,
UlOU N
OTl
P' 0+°0S XCtVTaL,N oXuxvoXuxt'Opve,a TZ, SOTaX. TOUTO8C Xal O rC@ypavOt OTl 0pVgal C=@V0yOl TZ
NOl gyXv, sapappeovxl
soxay
,. og xai Tauxa
vNOlV, 05 V0V yCV C0NyOl, =pOTC0OV8
oixouXueval xaRxq. gTlyaTO IIpiasog,
o0ev xai'OpveaTq
XClVTal 8
D=gp
8' CXCl exaRelTo.
TOU=galOU TOUT@V
zlXU@Vi@V. SeevanderValk1971, pp.448-449.I do notputparticular emphasison the distinctionstressedin thispassagebetweenthe designation Strabodoesnot actuxuN andwoBlg. to Coallyuseeithertermin reference rinthianOrneai,andtheArgiveOrneai wasnot alwayssubjectto Argos.Diocallsthe doros(16.39)specifically ArgiveOrneaia s°AlS-Thereforethe in terminology discrepancy apparent arguefor alonedoesnot persuasively the necessityof a secondOrneaito explainthevariancein the sources.The differenttermscouldrelateto a change in the statusof ArgiveOrneaiafterits reductionbyArgosin 417/16 B.C.
s
I36
JEANNETTE
f
s
v
MARCHAND
Pausanias) andhisreference to a nymphOrnea,bothof whichdo notappearin Strabo's text,maysuggestthathe is usingadditional information derivedfroma differentsource(oroneof Strabo's originalsources).36 Starting withtheearlytravelers to Greece,mostscholarsseekingthe locationof Orneaihaveassumed thatStrabowasconfused, andthatthere wasnosecond,Corinthian, Orneai; alloftheinformation aboutanOrneai thatStrabohadtakenfromhissourcesmustreferto oneplace.Thisview wasfollowed mostinfluentially byFrazer inhiscommentary onPausanias.37 Buta numberof scholars whohavelookedattheproblemin termsof the 5th-century historyof Argosor actually lookedforArgiveOrneaibyautopsyhave begunto arguefortheexistence ofa second,Corinthian, Orneai. Amongtheirarguments, theypointoutthatthereis noplacethatcanfit allthetopographical requirements in the sourcesfora singleOrneai:for instance, it shouldbeimmediately clearthatthereis noplaceroughly120 stadesfromArgos(the60 plus60 of Paus.2.25.4-5:approximately 24 km)thatcanalsobe described asbeingabovethe Sikyonian plainorbetweenSikyonandCorinth(Strabo).38 Themaindifficulty formanyscholars in accepting Strabo's accountof a secondOrneaihasbeenthathisaccounthasseemedconfusedandselfcontradictory: howcoulda siteoverlooking the Sikyonian plainbe both withinCorinthian territory buthavebelongedto the Argives?It is this fact,thatStrabohimselfappears tolocatethesecondOrneaiintheArgolid, thatinitiallyledto theassumption thatStrabowasrelatinggarbledinformationaboutthe sameOrneaias discussedby Pausanias andthe other sources. Meyerhelpedto createwhatis stillperhaps thecommonopinion bystatingflatly"Strabons Unterscheidung ist irrig."39 It is of thegreatest importance, however, to recognize thatStrabois basinghisdescription of thissecondOrneai, andindeedtheentirearea,ontherealmofAgamemnon asdescribed in theCatalogue of Ships.He makesit clearthathe believes thattheCorinthian Orneaiis theonementioned in Homer.Thus,heboth indicates thattheOrneaihehasin mindis aplacethathissources believed to havebeenimportant in theMycenaean period,andthatit is at thattime thattheland(alongwithCorinth,Kleonai,andAraithyrea) belongedto the"Argives." G.J.Loloshasrecently interpreted Strabo's comments about Orneaiin a similarfashion,with "Argives" meaningthe lordsof the Mycenaean citadel,althoughhe doesnot observethatStraboindicates thattheCatalogue refersto thissecond,Corinthian, Orneai: 36.The traditionof the eponymous nymphfindssupportin Diod.Sic. 4.72.1-2,wherehe includesa nymph Ornia,alongwith Kleone,amongthe daughters of the riverAsopos. 37. Frazer([1897]1965,p. 217) placesOrneaiat Liondi,usinginformationfrombothStraboandPausanias.
38. Pritchett1980,pp.22-23; Andrewes1970,p. 108;Aly 1950,
p. 249. Herter(1932,pp.251-252,n. 1) hasalsoarguedthata cultof Priapusas mentionedby Strabowouldfit better witha Corinthian location;thisopinion is secondedby Kruse(REXVIII,1939, col.1124,s.v.Orneates). It is worth notingthatPausanias doesnot mention a cultof Priapusamongthoseat the ArgiveOrneai,andthatStrabomentionsthe cultin relationto the CorinthianOrneaitwice(8.6.24[C 382],
textabove,p. 134,andagainat 13.1.12 (C 587):rIpiasog8' soxisoBlgrsi OaBarm. . . rsxvl)oc, 8' ri xoi) [Iptasol) xZZrvol) sap' ai)xolg,'ix' rE, 'Opvrxv
xxv
sroi
KoplvOov
rxrvNvry-
[lrVOI) T01) lrpOI), rlTz TZ tryroual
ato-
60Z!savv rsl xo xlllaval)xovxxv av sxv. 39. RE XVIII,1939,col.1123,s.v.
vi)ool) X
fi
xai
fi
Vi)llXpg fi
Tov
fi
Orneai(E. Meyer).
0rov fi
s
A NEW BRONZE
AGE SITE
I37
The notionof temporary possession of theterritory at onetime in historybytheArgivesis clearlyimplied.Thishistorical time, I argue,mustbe placedin the almostlegendary eraof Argive domination overAraithyrea (Phlius),Sikyon,andCorinthto whichI brieflyreferred in thefirstchapter[thedomainof Agamemnon asgivenin theIliad Catalogue of Ships].To this periodthegeographer assignstheflourishing of Orneai,which was1nru1ns1nn1scWay. A candidate siteforOrneaialongthe 15 krn.of highland separating SikyonfromCorinthhasyetto be advanced. Judgingfromthe specification srpL KopvOow, onewouldbe temptedto placeit in theeasternpartof theplain,beyondthe NemeaRiver.Wiseman,whosurveyed theCorinthian land,favors thispossibility butsaysthat"noremainsof a suitableancienttown haveyetto be foundbetweenCorinthandSikyon."40 .
.
.
.
.
Suitableremainsof an ancienttowncorresponding to Strabo's accounthavenowbeenfoundatDorati,andin exactlythelocationfavored by LolosandWiseman.Straboandhis sourcesclearlyrelatethatthere was a Mycenaean site calledOrneai,abandoned at leastby the timeof Strabo,neara majorriverandon a heightthatoverlooked theterritory of Sikyon.It waslocatednotwithintheArgolidbutwithinthe areaof the Corinthia. Doratihasa magnificent viewoverthe Corinthian Gulf,but becauseof the relativeheightsof the bluffson eithersideof the site,its primary viewis to thewestovertheSilyonianplain(Figs.14-15).Dorati is, however, withinwhatwasCorinthian territory in thehistorical period, sinceit is justeastof the NemeaRiver,the historicalboundary between CorinthandSikyon.41 The siteis lofty,up on a bluff,andtherearetwo riversthatrunpastit:theNemeaandtheDaveliremato theeast.Ornea(i) 40. Lolos1998,p. 103,quoting Wiseman1978,p. 110.Lackinga candidatecloserto Silyon,Lolos presentedthe possibilitythatAetopetracouldbe identifiedwith Orneai. This site,eastof the Longopotamos River,seemshowevertoo fareastto be describedasoverlooking Silyonian land;the historicalboundary between the Corinthiaandthe Silyoniawas the NemeaRiver.It is worthnoting herethatthereis increasing evidence thatArgoshadgreatinfluence(as wellas periodsof completepolitical control)in the historicalperiodin manyof the areasincludedin the Catalogue.NemeawasArgive,at leastin the 4th century,andallthe extantancientsourcesattributethe altarof Zeus ApesantiosatopMt. Apesasto Nemea or associateit withArgiveheroesas
well.Kleonaiwaspoliticallyintegrated intothe Argivestateat leastfora periodof a littlelessthana hundred years,andevenwhenindependent it wasa verycloseallyof Argos.Finally, Xenophontellsus (Hell.4.4.5-6) that in the 390sthe Argivesremovedthe boundarystonesbetweentheirstate andCorinth,bringingCorinthian territoryintotheirown"citylimits." Althoughthiswasa short-livedphenomenon,it pointsup thatthe boundariesbetweenArgosandCorinthwere closerthanoftensupposed. Thusit is not lmpossl) e to lmaglnea tlmeeven in the historicalperiodwhenthe area of Doratimayhavebelongedto Argive territory, andsimilararguments could be advanced forthe areafurtherwest, includingSilyon andPellene(forinstance,Pausanias [2.7.1]thoughtthat .
.
.
.
.
SilyonwasonceArgive).ForKleonai, seePierartandThalmann1980, pp.261-269,no.3; Miller1982;and Perlman2000,pp.131-149.For Apesas,seeRE I (2),1894,col.2699, s.v.Apesas(G. Hirschfeld); RE I (2), 1894,cols.2698-2699,s.v.Apesantios (O.Jessen);andin particular Hes. Theog.326-332;Paus.2.15.3;[Plut.] deFluviis18.9;Plin.HN4.17; Stat. Theb.3.461-462;Steph.Byz.,s.v. Asroag.ForNemea,seeMiller1994, pp.95-96;NemeaII, pp.100,170,233. 41.The NemeaRiverwasthe boundary by Strabo's time,as he himselfcomments:Strab.8.6.25 (C 382);Livy33.15.Exactlywhen the borderbecamefixedat thispoint is not known,butit wascertainly alreadythe borderbythe Classical period.
I38
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
Figure15. View fromthe site to the easttowardAcrocorinthandthe Corinthianplain.Photoauthor
couldhavebeenan old nameforeither.42 The surfacematerialindicates thattherewasa majorBronzeAge settlementhere,as Strabosuggests, andalsothatit wasabandoned wellbeforehisday.Thelocationis exactly betweenCorinthand Sikyon,the viewis primarily in the directionof Sikyon,butit lieswithinthe bordersof historicalCorinth.It is hardto imagineanothersitethatcouldnotonlysowellfit allof thetopographical indications asgivenbyStrabo,butalsoexplaintheseemingly self-contradictoryelementsin Strabo's account.43 LOCATION OF ARGIVE ORNEAI With a strongcandidate nowproposedforCorinthian Orneai,thelocationof ArgiveOrneaicanbe clarified. Thereis no longeranyreasonto locateArgiveOrneainearariverorexplainhowit couldhavebeenthought to overlook theSikyonian plain,sincethesedetailsrelateto theCorinthian site.Andrewes, Pritchett,andPikoulashaveallarguedpersuasively that 42. Strabo's i)srtoToi)sr8touat 8.6.24(C 382)impliesthatthe sitewas on a height,as Eustathiusemphasizes. The NemeaRiveris conspicuous from Doratiandpresumably the proximityto the riverwasone of the reasonsforthe locationof the settlement(seeFig. 14). If the sitederivedits namefromone of the tworiversnearit, the Nemea,given its considerable lengthandsize,seemsa muchmorelikelysourcethanthe rema to the east.The nameof the rivermay havesubsequently changedafterOrneai wasabandoned andthe sanctuary of Nemeagainedinfluence.The earliest designation of a riveras Nr,urasxatoa8toashouldin factindicatethatthe nameof the riverderivedfromits origin in the Nemeavalley.However,all the references in whicha contextis preserved forthistitleactuallyreferto
eventsthatoccurrednearthe LongopotamosRiverto the east(satoaTov Nr,uravsoxa,uovin Diod.Sic.14.83.2; Aeschin.2.168,srtotri v Nr,uraAa zaBou,urvnv xatoa8toav, is ambiguous. Ephoros,FGrH 70 F82 [Harpokr.] preserves sAatov ri 5 Nr,urEa8>os Xapa8pa5, alsoin Suid.Phot.,s.v. Nr,urasxatoa8toa, bothwithoutcontext, althoughreference is alsomadeto Aischinesin Harpokration). Presumablythe termis the resultof confused topography derivingfroma misreading of Xenophon,whowhilediscussing eventsin partnearthe Nemearefersto the Longopotamos as simplya xatoa8pa (Hell.4.2.15-23).OnlyStrab. 8.6.25(C 382) andLivy33.15canbe definitelyassociated withthe river flowingfromthe Sanctuary of Zeusout to the CorinthianGulfpastDorati,and
theybothcallit simply"theNemea River." Nevertheless, it shouldbe evidentthatthe namederivesfrom the valleyandthe site.It is therefore not necessary thatthe nameNemeafor the riverpredatesthe periodin which the Nemeansanctuary andgames gainedprominence. SeeREXVI,1935, col.2322,n. 3, s.v.Nemea(E. Meyer) andthe importantobservations of Pritchett(1969,p. 78) andLolos (1998,p. 131). 43. It canalsobe notedthatdirectly uponenteringthe plain,the Nemea Riverturnsto the eastbeforecontinuing straightintothe gulf;therefore, althoughDoratiis on the Corinthian sideof the river,the portionof the plaindirectlyin frontof the siteis "Sikyonian."
A NEW BRONZE
AGE SITE
I39
fortheArgiveOrneaiis foundin theruinson andnear thebestcandidate hasbeenrenamed atKatoBelesi(which,confilsingly, thehillPaliokastraki Lyrkeia), locatednorthwestof Argosin the Inachosvalley(Fig. 13).44 by the circumandtheproblemis compounded Certainty is impossible, stancethatancientLyrkeiahasalsonot beendefinitelylocated.Pausanias,however,indicatesthat Lyrkeiashouldbe locatedapproximately 60 stades(ca.12 krn)fromArgoson the Klimaxroadleadingfromthe Deirasridgeof ArgostowardMantineia,andthatit shouldbe intervisfits a locationnearSchinochori iblewith the Larissa.This description ArgiveOrremainshavebeenfound.45 and Skala,whereappropriate 60 stadesfurtheralongthe sameroadbut neaishouldbe approximately of KatoBelesi, to Paliokastraki stillwithinthe Argolid,corresponding impressive remainsof a Classicaltownand wherePritchettdocumented andwhichPikoulashasshownto havebeenon the Klimax fortification, routeto Mantineia.46 the secure be considered Despitewhatwouldin othercircumstances in the Gymno Orneai, a site with Argive of KatoBelesi identification town.The Gymno identifiedasthe5th-century valleyis stillpersistently valleygivesaccessfromthe Argolidintothe PhliasianplainviaLiondi; of the4thcenturyarelocatedatthe watchtower theremainsof a Classical Thesitewasone entrance to thatvalley,on a heightat KastroKourounas. forArgiveOrneai,and bytheearlytravelers proposed of thoseoriginally no eviThereis absolutely by Meyerwithoutautopsy.47 was supported that fora Classicaltownnearthesite.Pritchettobserved dence,however, notwiththeArgolidbutto thetoweris situatedto permitcommunication thateventhetowerwasArgive.48 thenorthwithPhlius,makingituncertain haspersistedpartlybecauseof Pritchetthasnotedthattheidentification aboutthe second information make all of the scholars to the attemptof accountof theArgivetown,and OrneaifromStrabofit withPausanias's the locationnearGymnowasseento be moresuitedthanKatoBelesi it is neara river(thesource indications: topographical to someof Strabo's of the Inachos)andit lies closerto Sikyon,perhapsleadingto Strabo's 44. Andrewes1970,p. 107;Tomlinson1972,p. 39;Pritchett1980, pp.19-30;Pikoulas1995,pp.267-270. 45. Pritchett1980,pp. 12-17; Pikoulas1995,pp.263-265 (full (1976, Papachatzes bibliographies). p. 186,n. 1) andothersstillfollowthe the rein associating earlytravelers mainsat KatoBelesiwithLyrkeia; however,KatoBelesi,at over18 km fromArgos,is too farawayto fit Pausanias'sdescription(althoughTomlinson [1972,p. 39] hasrightlypointed are measurements out thatPausanias's and Schinochori onlyapproximate). 12 kmfrom Skalaareapproximately shouldbe Argos:thisfirstmeasurement givesa the moreexact,sincePausanias to Lyrfigureof 60 stadesin reference keia;forOrneaihe simplysaysthatit is
aboutthe samedistancebeyond Lyrkeia. 46. Pritchett1980, pp. 19-31. Pikoulas(1995, p. 101, pp. 267-270, thattheArgos290) hasconfirmed routepasseddirectly Orneai-Mantineia of KatoBelesi:oneof by Paliokastraki wheelrutsof the stretchesof preserved northof the the roadis immediately of site.See alsothe earlierobservations Frickenhaus andMuller1911,p. 24. Papachatzes (1976, p. 187) estimates thatKatoBelesiis 18 kmfromArgos; Pritchett(1980, p. 24, n. 41) estimates thatit is farther,andobservesalsothat the ancientroadwouldhavetakena routethanthe modern morecircuitous one.Musti(1986, p. 295) alsoconof cludesthatthe identifications = Lyrkeia,andKato Schinochori/Skala
Belesi= Orneaibestfit the distances givenbyPausanias. 47. REXVIll, 1939, cols. 11234, 1124, s.v. Orneai(E. Meyer);KlPauly 1972, p. 346, s.v. Orneai(E. Meyer). 3 kmto The siteis approximately
the southeastof thevillageof Gymno on the backroadfromPhliusto Sterna andArgos.Pritchett(1980, pp. 2324, 27-31) reviewsthe evidencefrom forremainsnear the earlytravelers thatthey Gymnoanddemonstrates allappearto referto thissame watchtower. 48. Pikoulas(1995, p. 73), while rejectingthe identificacategorically tionof the towerwithOrneai,argues thatdespitethelimitedvisibilitythe towermayhavebeenArgive.
I40
JEANNETTE
MARCHAND
description of Orneaias"above Sikyon."49 Sucha compromise is notsatisfactory, however, andultimately Gymnodoesnotfit eithertheevidenceof StraboorPausanias: alocationnearGymnocannotbecorrectly described as "aboveSikyon," andthe locationdoesnot fit with the evidencethat placesArgiveOrneaiwithintheArgolidandon the routeto Mantineia. With the discovery of a candidate forCorinthian Orneai,allof Strabo's information canbefinallydisassociated fromArgiveOrneai,andtheidentificationby Andrewes, Pritchett,andPikoulasof thattownwith Kato Belesicanbe deemedsecure. Thereis,however, anothersignificant reasonforthestayingpowerof Gymnoas a candidate forArgiveOrneai.Hope SimpsonandLazenby reportedfindingMycenaean sherdsin the vicinityof thewatchtower at Gymno,whichapparently madeit appropriate fora sitementioned in the Iliad.Following FrazerandMeyer,theyidentifiedit astheOrneaiof the HomericCatalogue.5° TherewasnodoubtaMycenaean presence atKastro of Gymno,buttherearenumerous placeswithMycenaean material that arenotmentioned intheIliad,andthesitedoesnotfitPausanias's descriptionor thatof othersources: it maywellhavebeena Mycenaean settlement,butit isveryunlikely to havebeenClassical ArgiveOrneai.Pritchett statesthecasewell:"Unable to findanyotherremains of a sitein theupper Yimnon[Gymno]valley, I cannotaccepttheidentification of aMycenaean settlement, havingafourth-centurywatchtower, oriented toward thenorth, asevidenceforOrneai,anArgivepolisof theClassical period.''5 STRAB O'S CORINTHIAN CATALOGUE OF SHIPS
ORNEAI IN THE
It is of somesignificance thatin discussions of the Catalogueof Ships Gymnois consistently identified withArgiveOrneai,despiteits clearincongruitywith the evidencefor the 5th-century town.Althoughsome prehistoric sherdsandoneworkedobsidianbladehavebeenobservedat KatoBelesi,thereis as yet no publishedevidencethattherewasa LH presencethere.52 Thishascreatedreluctanceevenamongscholars who 49. Frazer([1897]1965,p. 217) evenplacedOrneaifurthernorthin the Phliusvalleynearthe modernvillage of Liondi(andthus"closer" to Sikyon; butevena locationasfarnorthas Liondicannotby anystretchof the imagination be describedasoverlooking the Sikyonianplain).The identificationcanstillbe found(e.g.,Papachatzes1976,pp.189-192)although no moderninvestigator hasyet to reportanyspecificsuitableremainsin the area.In anyevent,thisgeneralareais muchtoo farfromArgosto fit Pausanias'saccountand,asAndrewes (1970,p. 107)pointsout,the areawas certainlyin PhliasianandnotArgive
territory in the 5th century;therefore, anyremainsthatmaycometo lightin the regionof Liondiin futurewouldbe unlikelyto represent ArgiveOrneai. 50. HopeSimpsonandLazenby 1970,pp.66-67:"Around it [thetower on Kourounas hill]andextendingover thewholesummitandthe upperslopes to the southandeast-the northern slopesaremuchsteepewe found a considerable numberof Mycenaean sherdsof a 'provincial' nature,ranging fromLH II to LH IIIB(mainlythe latter),togetherwithfivesherdsof GreyMinyanware,someobsidian,and a fewpiecesof classicalpottery.This site mustnowclearlybe considered in
connectionwiththe locationof HomericOrneai,especially if it shouldin factturnoutthatthereare no prehistoric remainsin the [closer] vicinityof Gymno."Pikoulas(1995, p. 227) reportedmorerecentlyfinding at the siteonlya fewunglazed sherds,one LH kylixbase,andno obsidian. 51. Pritchett1980,pp.30-31. 52. Forthe ceramicsat Paliokastraki of KatoBelesi,seePritchett1980, p. 25;Pikoulas1995,p. 269. Pritchett mentions"prehistoric" sherds;Pikoulas reports,fromthe prehistoric period, onlyNeolithicsherds.
601: "DaPausmit den wortenasrto Towxqg
A NEW BRONZE
AGE SITE
'Atoyaq
rxvTo
I4I
reflectsthe Bronze do not thinkthatthe Catalogueof Shipsaccurately in Homer. of a citymentioned Age to identifyKatoBelesiasthelocation Orneaihasbeenlocated,thereis no forCorinthian Nowthata candidate site at ArgiveOrneai, longeranyreasonto expecta majorMycenaean town a traditionthatit is the Corinthian sinceStraboclearlypreserves Evenwithno otherfactorstakeninto in theCatalogue. thatis mentioned it townis produced, oncea candidateforthe Corinthian consideration, forHomer'sOrneaias becomeaslikelya candidate shouldautomatically forbothclaims. preserved traditions theArgivetown,sincethereareliterary andStrabo,andI It becomesa questionof choosingbetweenPausanias evidenceis to be preferred. proposethatin thiscase,Strabo's Orneai,W. Aly arguedthat Evenwithouta locationforCorinthian Strabo's secondOrneaiis morelikelyto be theonementionedin Homer Apollodor sources, and"Wo Strabo isusing2nd-centurys.c. simplybecause rechnen,dieunsviel vorliegt,kannmanmiteinergenauenOrtskenntnis Indeed,forthisreasonStrabo mehrzwingtzulernenalszu korrigieren."53 of Ships.54 of theCatalogue is a majorsourceformostmoderndiscussions ofArgiveOrneai Pausanias doesnotmentionanysourceforhisdiscussion As hasbeen localinformation. andit is likelythathe is simplyrepeating of places guideto thetopography is a veryreliable oftennoted,Pausanias ofwhathe seesandwhat andafaithfillreporter thathehashimselfvisited, to himis trueornotis anentirelydifhe is told;whetherwhatis reported hasargued thatinPausanias's KaLkmann, following Pritchett, ferentmatter. arguingagainstStraboon description of ArgiveOrneai,he is consciously theissueof theCatalogue: Pausaniasder is thatof A. Kalkrnann, The mostdetailedtreatment byH. Hitzig Perieget(Berlin1886)158-159,whichis summarized Descriptio1.2 (Leipzig1899) PausaniaeGraeciae andH. Bluemner,
159wohl Kalkrnann scheint,vermuthet seineAnsichtzu motivieren derQuelle mitrecht,dassergegendieMeinungApollodors, wolle."Strabo(8.6.17.376),orApollodoros, Strabos, polemisieren wasthecitybetween haddecidedthattheOrneaiof the Catalogue makesit CorinthandSikyon,nottheArgiveOrneai.Pausanias wastheArgiveone.55 clearthatthecityin theCatalogue textin mind.PauhadStrabo's I seeno reasonto concludethatPausanias thathe knowsof anyOrneai hereor elsewhere saniasgivesno indication Orneaihadceasedto exist otherthantheonein theArgolid.Corinthian didnotvisit longbefore.Pausanias day,andprobably already in Strabo's Pausanias's Argive Orneai. at least pass the 53. Aly 1950,p. 249.Andrewesdoes the areaof Dorati,buthe did explanation of ArgiveOrneaiandthe Catalogueappearsto be his own not givea clearopinion.I knowof no difficulty withthe Catalogueof Ships,or otherscholarwho hassupportedStrabo attemptto explaina perceived on thispoint. offeredby localguides,who mayhave evenmorelikely,an explanation 54. Niese 1877,passim;Giovannini beenmoreawareof the "rival" claimant.If theywerenot,it wouldhave 1969,pp.11-17;Visser1997,p. 33 and beenevenmorenatural gives forthemto claimHomericstatus.Pausanias passim.As with anyancientsource, of Argive in the neighborhood when he is ofthe Catalogue his explanation Strabomustbe usedwithsuitable andthusit is logicalthathe wouldgivea localacOrneaiandLyrkeia, caution. 55. Pritchett1980,pp.21-22. it, andnot a placein what Homeras representing countthatinterprets
I42
JEANNETTE MARCHAND
laterbecameCorinthian territory, intheIliad.Hiscomments aboutLyrkeia alsoseemto fit thisapologetic mode.56 EvenifweassumethatPausanias wasawareof Strabo's contrary claim, thereis nogoodreasonto thinkthathehadbetterinformation thanStrabo (orApollodoros) onHomer's meaning. Indeed,hisexplanation oftheCatalogueasgivenabovein Pritchett's translation (p.134)doesnotmakemuch senseperse:he claimsthatOrneaiis mentioned beforePhliusandSikyon becauseit is locatedin the countryof theArgives.Thisexplanation does not explainwhyCorinthandKleonai,not"situated in thecountryof the Argives" in Pausanias's day,arementioned beforeOrneai.Moreover, here "Argives" cannotbeexplained asmeaningthelordsoftheMycenaean citadel,sincethisexplanation wouldalsonotmakeanysense:"Homer" locates all of theplaceson thelistwithinthe countrysubjectto Mycenae, since thatis precisely thepointof theCatalogue. Pausanias seemsto recognize thatthe orderof the Catalogue is topographical, buthe cannotsuccessfullyreconcilethe physicallocationof ArgiveOrneaiwith the list;acceptingJones's translation ofthepassage(above,p. 134)doesnotsolvethe problem. Indeed,thedifficulties in the sourcesforOrneainowappearto arisenotfromStrabomakingtwoplacesoutof one,butfromPausanias or hisguides,unaware of theCorinthian Orneai,conflating thetwoseparate placesintooneArgivetownandassociating allthe mythsof Corinthian OrneaiwiththatArgiveplace. Nowthatasitehasappeared thatvindicates theconsistency of Strabo's sources concerning theexistence, nature, andlocationof Corinthian Orneai, I proposethatthesesourcesalsohadbetterinformation concerning the Catalogue of ShipsthanPausanias's localinformants in theArgolid. DORATI AS HOMERIC ORNEAI? I do notsuggestthattheclaimof Corinthian Orneaito Homericstatusis superior to thatof ArgiveOrneaibecausethe surfacematerial andcommandinglocationof Doraticlearlyindicatethatit wasa muchmoresignificantMycenaean settlement thanKatoBelesi(orKastroof Gymno,for thatmatter).57 I dopropose, however, thataccepting DoratiastheOrneai of the Cataloguecanelucidatethe logicbehindthe arrangement of the nameslistedin the firsthalfof Agamemnon's realm.J. P. Crielaard has recentlyobserved thatthedebateconcerning thehistorical period,if any, whichtheworldof the Homericpoemsmostreflectshasbeenelevated 56. Anderson(1995,p. 181) makesa similarobservation about Pausanias's accountat Donussa: aPausanias wasalsotoldthatDonussa hadplayeda part,thougha humble one,in worldhistory,andthat'lofty Donoessa'hadbeenlistedin theIliad amongthe citiesof Agamemnon's kingdom[insteadof Gonoessa].... His Donussaninformants mayhave sharedhis historiographical outlook,
andfoundin the Catalogueof Ships the bestopportunity to immortalize an otherwiseforgottencornerof an obscuredistrict." See alsohis similar commentson Pausanias's accountof Chaeronea. 57. Dickinson(1986,p. 31) has faultedinvestigators intothe Catalogue forusingthe presenceof Mycenaean materialto argueHomericstatus.This, he says,is to arguewhatis to be proved,
thatthe Catalogueis a Mycenaean document.AlthoughI agreethatthe procedure is prejudiced, one doesnot needto thinkthatthe Catalogueoriginatedin theMycenaean periodor even fromMycenaean sourcesto recognize thata placewithmajorvisibleBronze Age remainswouldbe morelikelyto haveaccrueda heroicpastthanone thatcouldproducelittleor none.
A NEW BRONZE AGE SITE
I43
to the statusof a new HomericQuestion.58 Withinthis largerdebate, questions concerning thesourceanddateof composition of theCatalogue of Shipsandthehistoricity of thepoliticalsituation described thereinpose a numberof problems thatcannotbe addressed here.59 I confinemycommentsto the natureandorderof namesin the list,andindeedit canbe arguedthattheidentification of theplaceslistedin theCatalogue should as muchaspossibleprecedeanyinterpretation of the Catalogue's sources, date,ormeaning. Quiteapartfromthe difficulties of whyAgamemnon wasassigned onlypartof the Argiveplainanda seriesof placesalongthe Corinthian Gulf,with Orneaiidentifiedas the Argivetownit hasbeendifficultto explainwhyin additionto Mycenaehe is assignedonlyoneotherrather unimportant placein the Argolid.Furthermore, withOrneaias the Argivetown,theorderinwhichAgamemnon's holdingsarelistedis curious, as Pausanias clearlynoticed,regardless of whyor whenthoseparticular placesweresingledout to comprisehis realm.C. Morganrecentlydescribedtherealmasaarather strange balanceofplacenames intheArgolid, the Corinthia,andAchaia."60 Althoughby no meanssolvingthe difflcultiesin interpreting Agamemnon's realm,recognizingthe Orneaiof the Catalogueas Doratiremovesthe problemof figuringoutwhyonly ArgiveOrneai,anunimportant placein theBronzeAgeandin allsubsequentperiods,is singledout for mentionalongwithMycenae,whena numberof important BronzeAge sitesin theArgolidarenotmentioned atall. WithOrneaiatDorati,onlyoneplacein theArgolidproperis mentioned:Mycenaeitself.The remaining placesin thispartof therealmare thenlistedin a cleartopographical order,andaswiththe Argolid,only oneplaceis mentionedin eachgeographically discretearea.Theseareas correspond to thevalleysof the threemajorparallelriversthatflowinto the CorinthianGulf (the Longopotamos, the Nemea,andthe Asopos, respectively) andthesectionsintowhichtheseriversdividethegulfplain (Fig.13).The routesalongtheseriverswereimportant foraccessto the gulf andthe Isthmusfromthe Argolidin boththe prehistoric andthe historical periods; it is nothardto imaginewhyoneplacecontrolling each valleywouldbe singledoutformentionin thelist. Thus,the orderof the firstpartof the list is quiteclearandlogical: Mycenaeis mentioned first,sinceit is theseatofAgamemnon's powerand regarded as the controlling cityof the northernhalfof the Argiveplain 58. Crielaard (1995,p. 201, and in the bardictradition). passim)providesextensivebibliography 59.Thereis stilllitde agreement on andsummary of previousandcurrent anyof theseissues.Forexample,in a views.See alsoSherratt1990,pp.822singlerecentvolumeof essaystwo 824.Crielaard arguesthatthe Homeric completelydifferentperiodsforthe poemsreflecta latestagein the Early worldthatthe Cataloguerepresents IronAge (8thor 7th centuryB.C.), werepresented: Hood 1995(LH IIIC) whileSherrattarguesthatthe texts andAnderson1995(late8th century containlayersof information froma B.C.). Fora filllbibliography on all successionof periodsfromthe issuesrelatingto the Catalogue,see prepalatial to the later8th century Visser1997,pp.75>773. (representing activelycreativeperiods 60. IsthmiaVIII,p. 350.
I44
JEANNETTE MARCHAND
The remaining (thesouthernhalfis assignedto DiomedesandArgos).6l orderfromeastto west,startingwith placesarelistedin topographical theeastern ascontrolling hereagainonlyonesiteis represented Corinth: orderto the west is Kleonai, gulf andIsthmus.Next in topographical the Riverandcontrolling accessalongthe Longopotamos representing representing at Dorati, comes Orneai valley. Next modernAgiosVasilios accessto the Nemeavalleyviathe NemeaRiverandcontrolof the cencontrolof the next,represents tralportionof thecoastalplain.Araithyrea, Phliusvalleyandthe sourceof the Asopos;the exactlocationof AraibutbothStrabo(8.6.24[C 382])andPausanias thyreais asyetunknown, Finally,Sikyon, of Phlius.62 the predecessor (2.12.4-5)makeAraithyrea bothcontrolof thecoastal represents standingalonein itsownhexameter, plainwestof theAsoposandthebeginningof a newsectionof therealm in thepoem.63 Strabo(8.6.17[C 378])commentsthatsomeof the sectionsof the order;it is a logicalwayto organize arelistedin topographical Catalogue thatanitinerrequire thehypothesis and it does not place-names a listof doesnot ruleit arylaybehindthe Catalogue(althoughit alsoobviously out).Onlyoneplaceis listedforeachdiscreteregion,andtheseplacesare areas citiesin theirrespective as the mostimportant clearlyrepresented whetherthissituaterritory: andonesthatwerein controlof surrounding to the politicalsituationduringthe Bronze(or Early tion corresponds With Orneaiat Dorati,all of the Iron)Age is anothermatterentirely. AncientCorinthhasproremains: placesin thelist do haveMycenaean town(if located andmuchof theMycenaean material ducedMycenaean bylateroccuin the areaof the Romanagora)mayhavebeendestroyed andI have settlement,65 Mycenaean Kleonaihadan important pation.64 havebeena reality:Kirk(1985,p. 181) 61.This divisionof theplainis the suggeststheperiodof declineat the pointthathascausedthe mostcontroAnderendof the LateBronzeAge.Vermeule versyanddiverseexplanations. son(1995,p. 185)statesthewidespread (1987,p. 133)arguesthatAgamemwithelements opinionthatit is hardto believethat non'srealmcorresponds in the mythof Adrastosat Sikyonand "theMycenaeof the shaftgraves,the vase"didnot liongateor thewarrior's thattakentogetherthe Catalogueand controlthe entireArgiveplain.Jamethe Sikyonianking-list(Paus.2.5.6) a consistentBronzeAge mayrepresent son,Runnels,andvanAndel(1994, of the palatial oraltraditionpredating p. 59) considerthat"thegeography period. has Peloponnesos the northeastern to assignAgabeengerrymandered 62. See alsoSteph.Byz.,s.v.'ApalmemnonandDiomedes,bothimporOI)pra, 'Aparia, and@lOU5; M II (1), of theIliad, 1895,col.374,s.v.Araithyrea tantfiguresin the narrative homebasesin theArgeia,"andFinkel(G. Hirschfeld). berg(1988,p. 39) notesthatthe terri63. It wouldbe possibleto continue further,butthe places toryof DiomedesandArgoshasbeen the argument broughtintoalignmentwiththe lot of listedafterSikyonhavenotbeenpreTemenos,andsuggeststhatthe Cataciselylocated,andit is alsopossiblethat the interests the sectionfollowingSikyonmayemloguein generalrepresents method. Athens,Corinth,Argos, ploya differentorganizational of 7th-century andSparta.Othersseekto finda hisforCorinthabove 64. Seereferences in n. 21. toricalperiodotherthanthe palatialin whichsucha politicalsituationcould 65. Zygouriesis usuallycitedas the
settlement Mycenaean mostimportant in the Kleonaivalley.The site,however, (andas hasbeenpartiallyexcavated by partof animportantexcavation Blegen)andKleonaihasnot.I have confirmedby autopsythe observations in HopeSimpsonandLazenby(1970, p. 66) thatthe acropolisof Kleonaiwas the centerof animportantMycenaean "Indeed,to judgefromthe settlement: sherdswe pickedupwhenwe visited theplacein 1960,the Mycenaean phasewasthe mostimportantin this extendarea,the settlementapparently ing forabout300 metresnorthto south by about250 metreseastto west."It is impossibleto determinethe relationshipbetweenthe sitesat present:only (1971,p. 45) andPharaklas Sakellariou arguedthatthe havesubsequently betweenthe actualstatusrelationship two sitesin thevalleymayhavebeen the reverseof the oneusuallyimagined.
A NEW BRONZE AGE SITE
66.Vermeule1987,pp.134-135; Krystalle-Votse 1996,p.25. 67. Andrewes(1970,p.108) is amongthosewho assignthe references to hostilitiesbetweenan Orneaiand Sikyonin the EarlyArchaicperiodto the CorinthianOrneai(seeabove, n.27): "thereseemsto be a similar confusionin Pausanias X.18.5,a dedicationat Delphiby'Opvraxat ot sv q 'ApyoB8lforthe repulseof Silyonians who hadoppressedthemin war(cf. Plut.De Pyth.or.15, 401d).All this wouldbe easierto understand if there wasin fact,or hadoncebeen,an Orneaiin the neighborhood of Sikyonand Corinth." (Andrewesinterprets the phraseot sv q 'ApyoB86 as an addition byPausanias, not as a directquotefrom the dedication.) In the association of thisconflictwiththe CorinthianOrneai he is followedby Lolos(1998,pp.49, 102);I planto explorethe issueof the possiblecontinuation of Corinthian Orneaiintothe EarlyArchaicperiod morefullyin a futurearticle. 68.Visser1997,p.161. 69. SeeJameson,Runnels,andvan Andel1994,andabove,n. 61. 70. In thislight,seethe recentarticle by Kolonas(1996-1997)in whichhe summarizes the resultsof research in the westernportionof"Agamemnon's realm" overthe pastfifteenyears.He listsmany newsltes,lnc uclng onesln tize reglon of A'cytov andthe AtytaSstaxpa, and concludes(p.490) thatthe Mycenaean presencein the regionof Achaiawas "powerful andpopulous," andthat"this newevidencehasindicatedthe high standard of culturaldevelopment of the Mycenaean inhabitants, thuschallenging theprevailing viewthatAchaeawas onlya peripheral andratherbackward regionof theMycenaean world." .
.
.
.
.
I45
arguedthatDoratirepresents animpressive Mycenaean town.Araithyrea hasnotbeenlocated,butMycenaean material is notlackingin thePhlius valleyandsomehaveassociated thecemetery atAidoniawiththename.66 Furthermore, thesecenterswerethe mostimportant placesin their respective areaseitherin mythor factin the historicalperiodwhenthe poemswerecomposedin roughlytheirpresentform(the8thor7thcentury):Mycenaeis of coursethefocusoftheTrojanWar myth.Corinthwas bythattimethemajorpowerontheeasterngulf,andKleonaibythencertainlycontrolled theAgiosVasiliosvalley.OrneaiatDorati,evenif it had ceasedto existatthistime,wasnodoubtstillvisibleasanimpressive ruin.67 Visserhasarguedthattheinclusionof Orneaiin theCatalogue mayhave to dowithits importance in myththroughassociation withOrneus.This is possiblebut,asseenabove,thismythis aslikelyto belongoriginally to Corinthianas to ArgiveOrneai,anda visibleBronzeAge site is more likelyto haveaccruedsucha mythicpast.68 Araithyrea was seenas the predecessor to Phlius,whichcontrolled itsvalleyin thehistorical period. Thus,evenif theplaceson thelistwereneverthecontrolling Bronze Agesettlements in theirrespective settingsoratthesametime,theycould havebeenperceived in a subsequent periodto havebeenpowerfill citiesof the BronzeAge,or convincingly represented as suchin a mytho-history thatwasafterallsetin theheroicpast.Doratitherefore makesbettersense of the Catalogue's description of therealmof Agamemnon, whetherone wishesto interpret it asrepresenting therealpoliticalgeography of aphase oftheBronzeorEarlyIron Age,orwhether onechoosesto seeit asmerely a logicallyorganized description of a "gerrymandered" realmattempting to reconcilemythsandtraditions aboutvisibleremainswithcontemporarypoliticalconditions.69 The significantpointis thatwith Orneaiat Dorati,therealmis clear,logical,andhasa definitetopographical order; the audienceof theIliadwouldhavehadno difficulty in believingthatit hadexistedasa politicalrealityatsomeunspecified timein theheroicage. The identification of DoratiasOrneaimakessenseof theorderof placenamesin thelist andprovidesanexplanation fortheinclusionof Orneai in thelistthatfitswithvirtually anyinterpretation of thedateandhistoricityof the Catalogue. Evenif onedoesnotacceptthatDoraticanwithsomeconfidence be associated withthe Orneaiof the HomericCatalogue andof Strabo,the site meritsattentionbecauseof its commanding locationandabundant surfacematerial, andbecauseof the strongpossibility thatstructures are preserved. Thepredominance of Mycenaean potterysuggeststhatDorati shouldproveto havea significant LH settlement phase.Giventhedearth of attestedlargeMycenaean settlements in theCorinthia andthecontinuingcontroversies surrounding theinterpretation oftheCatalogue of Ships, futureworkatthissiteis to be encouraged andthefactunderscored that, evenin ourdayin areaswelltraversed, thereis stillmuchto discover in the Greeklandscape.70
I46
JEANNETTE MARCHAND
REFERENCES Alcock,S. 1988.'LargeSite'Survey, Phlius1986,"AJA 92, pp.233-234 (abstract). .1991. aUrbanSurveyand the Polisof Phlius,"Hesperia 60, pp.421-463. Alin,P.1962.DasEndedermykenischen Fundstatten aufgriechischen Festland, Lund. Aly,W.1950. aZumneuenStrabontext,"PP 5, pp.228-263. Anderson, J. G.T., andJ. K.Anderson. 1975.aALostCityDiscovered?" CSCA8, pp.1-6. Anderson,J.K. 1995.aTheGeometric Catalogueof Ships,"in TheAges of Homer, a Tribute toEmilyTownsend Vermeule, J.B. CarterandS.P. Morris,eds.,Austin,pp.181-191. Andrewes,A. 1970.AHistoricalCommentary onThucydides IV,Oxford. Blegen,C. W. 1920.aCorinthin Prehistoric Times,"AJA24, pp.1-13. . 1921.Korakou, a Prehistoric Settlement nearCorinth, Boston. . 1928.Zygouries, a Prehistoric Settlement in theValley ofCleonae, Cambridge, Mass. .1930-1931."Gonia," MMS 3, pp.55-80. Bookidis,N., andJ.E. Fisher.1972. aTheSanctuary of Demeterand Koreon Acrocorinth: Preliminary ReportIV:1969-1970,"Hesperia 41, pp.283-331. .1974. aSanctuary of Demeter andKoreon Acrocorinth: PreliminaryReportV:1971-1973," Hesperia 43, pp.267-307. Broneer,O. 1951.Investigationsat Corinth,1950," Hesperia 20, pp.291-300. Corinth I.1 = H. N. Fowlerand R. Stillwell,Introduction, Topography,Architecture (Corinth I, pt. 1), Cambridge, Mass.,1932. Corinth III.1= C. Blegen,R. Stillwell, O. Broneer,andA. Bellinger, Acrocorinth: Excavations in 1926 (Corinth III,pt.1), Cambridge, Mass.,1930. Corinth XIII = C. Blegen,H. Palmer, andR.Young,TheNorthCemetery (Corinth XIII),Princeton1964.
Crielaard,J. P.1995."Homer,History, andArchaeology," in HomericQuestions:Essaysin Philology,Ancient History,andArchaeology, Including thePapersof a Conference Organized by theNetherlandsInstituteatAthens (lS May 1993), J. P.Crielaard, ed.,
Amsterdam, pp.201-288. Demakopoulou, K.,ed.1996.The AidoniaTreasure: SealsandJewellery of theAegeanLateBronzeAge. NationalArchaeological Museum, Athens,30 May-1 September 1996,
Athens. Dickinson,O.T. P.K.1972.aLate HelladicIIA andIIB:Some EvidencefromKorakou," BSA 67, pp.103-112. . 1986."Homer,thePoetof the DarkAge,"Greeceand Rome33,2nd ser.,pp.2(}37. Dunbabin,T. 1948."TheEarlyHistory of Corinth,"JHS 68, pp.59-69. Finkelberg, M.1988. "Ajax's Entryin the HesiodicCatalogueof Women," CQ38, pp.31-41. Fossey,J.1990."ThePerakhora PeninsulaSurvey," EchCl34, n.s.9, pp.201-211. Frazer, J. G. [1897]1965.Pausanias's Descritfionof GreeceIII,repr.,New York. Frickenhaus, A., andW. Muller.1911. "AusderArgolis," AM 36, pp.2138. Gauvin,G., andJ.Morin.1997. "Quelques sitesprehistoriques a la peripherie desplainesde Cleonees et Phlionte:Une note,"in ArgoloKorinthiaka1, G. Gauvin,J.Morin, andJ. Fossey,eds.,Amsterdam, pp.l-13. Gebauer,K. 1939.Forschungenin der Argolis,"JdI54, cols.268-294. Giovannini, A. 1969.Etudehistorique surlesoriginesduCataloguedes Vaisseaux, Berne. Griffin,A.1982. Sikyon,OXord. Hatzepouliou-Kallire, E. 1984."Arf ava HE xat ME otxtopov o Bovo Arnowrnpa,"ArchDelt 33,1978,A'
[1984],pp.325-336. Herter,H.1932. De Priapo,Tubingen. Hood,S. 1995.aTheBronzeAge Contextof Homer," in TheAgesof
A NEW BRONZE AGE SITE Homer,a Tributefo Emily Townsend J.B. CarterandS. P. Vermeule,
Morris,eds.,Austin,pp.25-32. Hope Simpson,R. 1965.A Gazeffeer andAtlas ofMycenaeanSites(BICS
Suppl.16),London. . 1981.MycenaeanGreece,Park Ridge,N.J. Hope Simpson,R., andO.T. P.K. I)ickinson.1979.A Gazeffeerof AegeanCivilisationin theBronze Age 1: TheMainlandandIslands,
Goteborg. Hope Simpson,R., andJ.F.Lazenby. 1970.TheCatalogueof the Shipsin Homer'sIliad,Odord. IsthmiaVIII= C. Morgan,TheLate BronzeAge SettlementandEarlyIron Age Sansfuary(IsthmiaVIII),
Princeton1999. Jameson,M., C. Runnels,andT. van Andel.1994. A GreekCountryside: TheSouthernArgolidf omPrehistory fo fhePresenfDay, Stanford. Jones,H. L. [1927] 1954. The Geography of StraboIV,London. Jones,W. H. S. 1918. Pausanias Descritfionof GreeceI, London.
Funde Karo,G. 1913."Archaologische imJahre1912,"AA 1913, cols.95132.
Kelly,T. 1976. A HisforyofArgosfo 500 B.C., Minneapolis. in the Cult Kilian,K. 1990."Patterns Argolid: Activityin the Mycenaean HaghiaTriada(Klenies),the Profitis EliasCave(HaghiosHadrianos), andthe Citadelof Tiryns,"in CelebrationsofDeath and Divinify in the of fhe BronzeAgeArgolid:Proceedings SixthInfernafionalSymposiumaf the SwedishInstituteaf Athens,11-13 June 1988, R. HaggandG. Nordquist,eds.,Stockholm,pp.185-197. Kirk,G. 1985. TheIliad:A Commentary 1: Books14, Cambridge. Kolonas,L. 1996-1997. ANZ@TZ! Mvxnvaixn
Tosoypaqxia
rqg
in IlKorcowrlocofxor, oAxaviat," SUPP1.22,II, PP.468-490. K. 1989. "Ta AaxxvKrystalle-Votse, BiAlaaso cic'= aCA 1=
xa
in A8dala Koplv0taq,"
E. Mvicovoss rEXsoycow IOU 60 ETVIOV=v=X=vTXOV
sm1
scf
¢,oyovr, Athens,pp.34-43. of the .1996. "TheExcavation
Cemeteryat Aidonia," Mycenaean 1996, PP.21-30. in Demakopoulou
Lolos,G.J.1998.aStudiesin the (diss.Univ. of Sikyonia" Topography Berkeley). of California, M.1941. aCleisienesof McGregor, Sicyonandthe Panhellenic TAPA72, pp.266-287. Festivals," Miller,S. G.1982.Kleonai, the Nemean Games,andthe LamianWar,"in Studiesin AthenianArchitecture, Presented and Topography Sculpture, fo HomerA.Thompson(Hesperia
Suppl.20),Princeton,pp.100-108. .1994.Sosikles andthe BuildingProgram Fourth-Century of Zeusat Nemea," in the Sanctuary in Proceedingsof theInternational on GreekArchitectural Conference TerracoffasoftheClassicalandHellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991, N. A. Winter,ed. (Hesperia
Suppl.27),Princeton,pp.85-98. P.A.1995. aThePotteryof Mountjoy, in the LateHelladicPeriod," TheFinds ArtifactandAssemblage: from a RegionalSurveyof the SouthernArgolid,Greece1: ThePrehistoric andEarlyIronAge PofferyandLithic Artifacts,C. Runnels,l). Pullen,and
S. Langdon,eds.,Stanford,pp.5256. .1999. RegionalMycenaean DecoratedPoffery,Rahden. Musti,D.1986. PausaniaGuidadella GreciaII, Milan. NemeaII = S. G. Miller,ed.,Excavafionsaf NemeaII:TheEarlyHel2001. lenisfic Sfadium) Berkeley ComNiese,B.1877. aApollodors als mentarzumSchifEskataloge RhM 32, pp.267QuelleStrabo's," 307. N.1976. nOwoorvc'ov Papachatzes, Ko,oc>0cofxorERAordosIls,ocriyryoc5:
Aofx>cxor,Aiens. Perlman,P.2000.Cifyand Sansfuaryin in TheTheorodokia AncienfGreece: (Hypomnemata121), fhePeloponnese
Gottingen. Pierart,M., andJ.-P.Thalmann.1980. argiennes aNouvellesinscriptions (1),"in Etudesargiennes(BCH Suppl.6),Paris,pp.256-278. Pikoulas,I. A.1995. 'O8CXO aC'XIVO xac 'Arcor> Ko,oc>dooro ar,llv>aAX=CXOV IOV ,oyov A',Athens, pp.85-98. E.1990. 'ReadingtheTexts': Sherratt, andthe Homeric Archaeology Anfiquify64, pp.807Question," 824. qs K. 1964.H rcgoocaropc'or Syriopoulos, Athens. nfiO7TOWOV, PerThomas,P.1988.aAMycenaean fumedOilWorkshopat Zygouries?" AJA92, p. 254 (abstract).
I48
. 1992."LHIIIB1Potteryfrom TsoungizaandZygouries" (diss. Univ.of NorthCarolina,Chapel Hin). Tomlinson,R. 1972.Argosand the ArgolidfromtheEnd of theBronze Age fo theRomanOccupafion,
London. Touchais,G. 1979.aChronique des fouillesen 1978[Aidonia]," BCH 103,p. 555. . 1980."Chronique desfouilles en 1979[Aidonia],"BCH104, p.595. . 1987."Chronique desfouilles en 1986:Aidonia," BCH 111, p.530. vanderValk,M. 1971.EustathEiCommentariiad HomeriIliademPerfinentesI, Lyon.
Vermeule, E.1987. "BabyAigisthos andthe BronzeAge,"PCPS, n.s.33, pp.122-152.
JEANNETTE
Visser,E. 1997.HomersKatalogder SchXe,Stuttgart. Weinberg,S. 1949."Investigations at Corinth,1947-1948," Hesperia18, pp.148-157. Wells,B., ed. 1996.TheBerbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey,1988-1990 (SkrAth4.44),Stockholm. Wiseman,J.1978. TheLand of fheAncienfCorinthians,Goteborg.
Wright,J. 1990."AnEarlyMycenaean HamletonTsoungizaat Ancient Nemea,"in L'Habitategeenprehistorique:Actes de la Tableronde internationale(BCHSuppl.19),
P.DarcqueandR.Treuil,eds.,Paris, BCH Suppl.19,pp.347-357.
Wright,J.,J. Cherry, J. Davis,E. Mantzourani,andS. Sutton.1990."The NemeaValleyArchaeological Project: A Preliminary Report," Hesperia59, pp.579-659.
JeannetteMarchand UNIVERSITYOF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY GRADUATE GROUPIN ANCIENTHISTORY AND MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY 7303 DWINELLEHALL(2600) BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720-2600 Kleonai@aol. com
MARCHAND
HESPERIA
71 (2002)
Pages I49-199
THE BIOG
CU
RAL
LTU
RAPHY
CYCLADIC
OF
A
GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA ISLANDERS PREHISTORY
IN ATHENS
AND
THE
OF METICS
ABSTRACT This article presents the life history of a large, repairedEarly Iron Age amphora imported to Athens, fragments of which were discoveredin 1939 in and aroundthe Hephaisteion. The context of the vessel suggests that it was used in a tomb. Decorated in an "archaizing"style reminiscent of Protogeometric, the amphoracan be dated to the Late Geometric period. It finds its closest parallelson Syros, an island hitherto little known for its post-Early Cycladicantiquities.How the amphoramade its way to Athens is addressed, and differenttypesof evidencepoint to the existenceof residentaliens(metics) in a period before the reformsof Solon and Kleisthenes. Among the surprises that lay beneath the building that has come to be known as the Hephaisteion (Fig. 1), few were more curious than a huge amphora, Agora P 14819 (Fig. 2), assembled during the 1939 excavation season.l Vincent Desborough saw the fragments at the time, and some 1. The circumstancesleading to the appearanceof this article,publisheda decade afterthe death of Evelyn Smithson, requirea word of explanation.This study grew out of a conversationbetween Evelyn and myself in the spring of 1988, at which time the amphora, Agora P 14819, became the focus of discussion.Over the next few years, Evelyn spent quite a bit of time thinking about P 14819. In her typical fashion, she dissected the originaltrench notebooks of the Agora and scouredevery possible context lot in orderto reconstructthe context of the vessel. Moreover,she acquaintedherselfwith the Early Iron Age Cycladesand, despite her modest assertionthat she was only an "Atticman"(see Papadopoulos1994a, p. 564), she delved into the quagmireof scientific analysisand particularlythe
problemsof distinguishingthe fabrics of variousCycladicislands.After her untimely death in 1992, I came across an unfinished manuscripthidden in one of the manyboxes of her notes. Entitled "OAMDOPEYTTOYANAEIAA"-Anaxilas'samphora-the paperwas in two sections, amounting to some eleven pages of double-spaced text. In the same folderwere many handwrittennotes, primarilyon the phenomenon of an archaizingstyle in later Geometric, and severalphotocopies of photographsof pots from Athens as illustrations.There were, in addition,many handwrittennotes on Naxos and on Cycladicpottery in general,as well as the transcriptionof the funeraryinscriptionof Anaxilasof Naxos-Athenian Kerameikos,inv.I. 388 (see below).The manuscriptitself
compriseda brief introduction,a descriptionof the pot, and a section on "Excavationand Context."The manuscript,little more than an introductory draft,was among the last projectsEvelyn worked on before her death. Enough survivedin the manuscriptand notes to indicate the basic structureof a paper. In the presentarticle,much of the introductionand section on excavation and context, as well as the basic description of the vase, is Evelyn's,with my addendaand corrigenda,often in those sections markedby Evelyn as requiring furtherwork or elaboration.The Cycladic complexitiesof the vase follow some of Evelyn'snotes; so too the discussionof the pot as a burialurn for an infant, and some musings on how it may have made its way to Athens. This said, the manuscriptwas very much
150
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
Figure1. The Hephaisteion,east front,May 1936. Courtesy Agora Excavations
years later suggested, by implication at least, that the pot was an import of East Greek or island origin, and Subprotogeometric in date.2As an "isolated find" of uncertain date and without close parallel, it attracted little further attention, and its ungainly size, delicate equilibrium, and heavy plastering relegated it eventually to the virtual oblivion of the back, south storeroom of the Stoa of Attalos, wired to the top shelf for safety'ssake. A chance conversation between the authors in the spring of 1988 recalled the vessel to mind and, following a precarious viewing, it was brought down from its lofty position. Although one of the largest Early Iron Age vessels from the area of the later Athenian Agora, P 14819 received little attention. A problematic context (see below) meant that it could be dated only on the basis of style and, because it was not clearly recognized as Late Geometric, it was not included in AgoraVIII. While the pot and its context do have some bearing on the use of the area before there was ever an agora nearby,particularly with regard to the history of early burials on Kolonos Agoraios, the vessel is later than any intact grave on the plateau or its western slopes. Moreover, in the framework of acceleratedscholarly activity and new discoveries in island and East Greek Geometric over the past few decades, Agora P 14819 is a "problempiece" that should be more widely known to scholars. For these reasons, it seemed desirable to present it at this time and in this form, not least in the hope of finding a more secure provenience and date for it. The piece appears to be Cycladic-rather than East Greek-in origin, perhaps from the island of Syros, and its date 8th century B.C., probunfinished. haveto assume I, therefore, of foranyshortcomings responsibility the finalresultand,indeed,responsibility forthe decisionto publishthispaper in its currentform.Evelynwasa perfectionist,andI hopethe resultdoesnot falltoo farbelowherhighstandards.
2. Desborough1952,p. 34:"Curiof a similar ouslyenough,fragments amphora[likethosefrom8th-century contextsonThera]of coarseredclay, verymicaceous,appearamongthe unpublishedmaterialof theAgoraExcathere vations(P 14819);unfortunately,
He goeson to compare is no context." thevesselto anunpublished amphora on the fromMelosthathassemicircles shoulderandcircleson the belly(Desborough1952,p. 34, n. 2), witha furthermentionon p. 36.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I5I
b
a Figure2. a) Late Geometricbellyhandledamphora,AthenianAgora P 14819;b) detailof handle,as preserved. CourtesyAgoraExcavations
3. At the time of her death Evelyn inclined towardthe view that the amphorawas Naxian on the basis of comparandaavailableat the time; thus the originaltitle of her paper,"Anaxilas'sAmphora,"was appropriatefor an amphorabelievedto come from Naxos, the homelandof the later metic Anaxilas. Now that the Naxian provenience seems less likely,the old title slightly misses the mark.Although I have changed the title, the basic thrustof the originaltitle is as immediate and directas when Evelyn penned it.
ably no earlier than the third quarter,according to the conventional chronology.3As such, the vessel may serve as a point of departurefor any discussion of imported pottery to Early Iron Age Athens.4 It also provides a clearerfocus on the phenomenon of an Early Iron Age "archaizing"style, that is, one alluding to the Protogeometric, but produced in the Late Geometric period. In turning to the particular history of this large pot-its cultural biography5-alternative scenarios are discussed, including the movement of commodities and people. Beyond this, the vessel provides a potential glimpse of the prehistory of a social phenomenon that was to define historic Athens. Various threads of evidence converge to suggest the possibility of resident aliens-metoikoi as they came to be known in historic Athens-not only in the period before Kleisthenes, but arguably generations before the reforms of Solon, in an era before recordedhistory.6 4. It is fairlyclearthat ceramic imports to EarlyIron Age Athens, especiallyduringProtogeometric,but also duringEarly and Middle Geometric, were exceedinglyrare-comparable to the import of the proverbial"owlsto Athens."This situationcontrastswith that at any numberof Aegean sites, such as Lefkandi and Knossos,to mention only two. There, pottery imports,although not abundantin comparisonto the local material,were neverthelesscommon occurrences(see esp. LefkandiI, pp. 347-354, for Proto-
geometric and Geometric imports;Coldstreamand Catling 1996, pp. 393-409; also Coldstream1990). 5. There is a growing literatureon this subject,much of which was either unknown to Smithson, or appearedafter her death. Especiallyimportantare the variouspapersin Appadurai1986, esp. Kopytoff 1986, p. 86; cf. Davis 1997; Gosden and Marshall1999, esp. pp. 169178. 6. For overviewsof metoikoiin Athens, see Clerc 1893; Gauthier 1972, esp. ch. 3; Whitehead 1977; 1984.
I52
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
Figure3. Interiorof the cellaof the Hephaisteionfromthe east,showing late burialsunderthe floor. CourtesyAgora Excavations
EXCAVATION
AND CONTEXT
After spending two years clearing the rest of Kolonos Agoraios to bedrock,7the Agora excavatorsreturned to the so-called Theseion in February of 1939, this time to remove the earth filling and Christian burials from within that building (Fig. 3) in order to study its foundations, construction filling, and any remains that might have survived of an earlier sanctuaryon the site. Work began within the cella on 20 February,under the supervision of Dorothy Burr Thompson, with the collaboration of Homer A. Thompson.8 On the very first day "Protogeometric"material was observed in the disturbed levels immediately beneath the tile flooring of the modern "museum"(Fig. 4).9 Two days later more "Protogeometric!" was recorded, including "considerable pieces of a Protogeometric amphora."10All of these "Protogeometric"fragments were from Agora P 14819, and in the course of the next month exploration to bedrock led to the recovery of 165 pieces of the pot, roughly a third of it, the profile complete. So remarkablewas this piece and distinctive its fabric that not a single preserved sherd escaped the excavators'diligence; in 1988 reexamination of the sherd lots from the temple and immediate surroundings yielded no additional fragments. 7. Shear 1936, pp. 14-16,23-24; 1937, pp. 342-352. Limited cleaning was done in both sections KK and IIO in 1937, the latterreferringto Plateia Theseion. 8. The resultswere incorporated into William Bell Dinsmoor'sthorough (1941) study on the Hephaisteion, with specialacknowledgment
to theThompsonson pp.3-4. 9. Forthe so-calledTheseionas the "CentralArchaeologicalMuseum," 1834-1874, see Karouzou1968, pp. ix-xi. The Hephaisteionwas decreed"CentralPublic Museum for Antiquities"on November 13, 1834. The buildingwas first used as an exhibition space,and later,from 1835 until
at least1934,forantiquities storage; see Papageorgiou-Venetas1994, p. 314; also p. 115, fig. 145. See furtherKavvadias 1890-1892, pp. 12-15; Kokkou 1974, p. 104, n. 2; Karo1934, col. 146, for the "Sammlungim Theseion." 10. Referencesin quotationmarks arefrom the excavationnotebooks.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I53
Figure4. Interiorof the Hephaisteion, showingthe sculpturecollection of the then NationalMuseum of Athens.Albumenprint,Pascal Sebah,ca. 1870.The Getty Research Institute,acc.no. 92.R.84 (04.13.04). Institute CourtesyGettyResearch
Some of the fragments of P 14819, all but one of them joining, were found in each of the post-antique layerswithin the cella (Fig. 3), "in general near the south door,"but at least two lay in the loose upper filling of Christian grave 45.11A single sherd clearly derives from the temple construction fill (layerIV) that remainedover bedrockbeneath Christian grave 34.12It is likely that some sherds came, as well, from a pocket of heavily burned red earth (layer VI) over bedrock in the West Peristyle beneath Christian grave 4.13No fragment of P 14819 is known to have derived from the thin layer of gray earth (layerVII) preservedin four small patches over bedrock within the cella.
11. Dinsmoor 1941, p. 5, fig. 1. 12. See below. Dorothy Thompson had suggestedthat this might have been the provenanceof the entirepot. In fact, no cutting preservedwithin the temple is of suitablesize or configurationfor it. 13. This layerhas been relatedto possible Persiandestructionin the area;see Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 126-127. This provenancewould seem the most likely explanationof certainanomalies: in 1939 section KK, lot 476, was packagedfor permanentstoragein a large sturdymanilaenvelope,still intact and firmlyclaspedin 1988. The envelopewas labeled (DBT/HAT [= Dorothy BurrThompson and Homer A. Thompson]) "WestPeri-
style, Under GraveXLI [= grave4 in Dinsmoor 1941]. Protogeometric-VI cent. B.C.,"and so enteredby HAT in the section lot-list; it was the only lot of 46 examinedin 1988 that lacked a field ticket. It containedonly seven small sherds,none conceivablyProtogeometric,two of them black-glaze, one from the handle of a cup,Type C. It seems impossible that pieces describedby the Thompsons as "Protogeometric"would not be readily identifiable,for both had had, by 1939, extensiveexperiencewith EarlyIron Age wells and graves.Tiny lots, such as this, were regularlystoredin smaller envelopes,of two standardsizes. One can only surmisethat the "Protogeometric"materialthey noted had
been removed,and that it was more pieces of P 14819. At least two other lots listed as containing"Protogeometric"now have nothing in them that could have been so described. One may presume,then, that in a final effort to recoverall sherdsof P 14819 before missing portionswere filled out in plasterto stabilizethe mended vessel as preserved(1939), a conservatorhad reviewedall KK lots listed as containing"Protogeometric,"and that additional pieces were in fact found in some of them. Such an interventionmight also accountfor the accidentalloss of the field ticket, normallysecurely fastened.
I54
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
The seven strata within the temple were divided by the Thompsons into three groups; within each the range of sherds in the larger lots is essentially the same: Post-antique(layersI-III): these levels contained pottery that was predominantly Byzantine and Turkish, along with a few Hellenistic and Roman pieces, and a scatteringof Protogeometricthrough Classical sherds. The Christian burialswere either dug down into these layers or the layers had formed over or were placed to cover the tombs. The burials themselves were divided by Dinsmoor into Medieval and Protestant graves.14 Of the former, the great majority of tombs belong to the period between A.D. 1057 and 1453.15Of the latter, the earliest is probably that of John Tweddell, who died on July 25, 1799, while the use of the area as a burial ground probably came to an end immediately after the outbreak of the War of Independence.16 Templeconstruction filling (layers IV-V): these layers contained pre6thand dominantly early-5th-century material, with only a handful of than later 480 B.c. More than half of the lots contained a pieces certainly few pieces of Protogeometric and Early Geometric; Middle Geometric sherdswere rare,Late Geometric more numerous.This filling was dumped within the rectangle of the peristyle as the foundations rose. Foundation trenches for cella walls, porches, and internal colonnades were cut through this filling, mostly to, or deeply into, bedrock; the poros underpinning for the temple pavement cut through it to rest on bedrock or on the firm burned crust of the few surviving deposits that predate the temple.17 Depositspredatingthe temple(layersVI-VII): the red earth of layer VI, often preserving a thick burned crust, contained a fair number of burned sherds, some heavily affected by the fire.The softer gray earth of layer VII contained no clearly burned sherds. Apart from these physical differences, which are significant, the material recovered from layers VI and VII was very similar.The majority of fragments were of the 6th century B.C., with nothing clearly later than ca. 480 B.C.The early component is substantial in nearly all the lots, and about a third of one lot was certainly Protogeometric. Two lots from layer VI from the west end contained a handful of Late Helladic IIIC sherds,18and one along the north peristyle preserved a fine piece of early Mycenaean.l9The LH IIIC material is not surprising in the context of nearby graves of that date,20but this sample is now the earliest pottery recovered from the plateau or the northwest slopes of Kolonos Agoraios. All phases of Geometric are represented, a 14. Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 6-30. 15. Dinsmoor 1941, p. 15. 16. Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 16-17,30. After the War of Independencethe "Theseion"would have been a very unlikelylocation for a burialground becauseof the importanceit had assumedat that time in the creationof the moderncity of Athens. This is perhapsmost clearlyillustratedin Peter von Hess's painting entitledArrival of King Ottoof Greecein AthensonJanuary 12, 1835, now in the Neue Pinakothek
in Munich (see Koch 1955, p. 161, fig. 2; see also p. 163, figs. 7-8; Bastea 2000, pp. 6-7, fig. 1). As a monument, the building itself, along with Plateia Theseiou, came to occupy a prominent place both physicallyand symbolicallyin the newly createdcapitalof the nascent Greek state (Athens became the capital of Greece in 1834, following earlier provisionalseats of governmentat Aigina and Nauplia;see Bastea2000, pp. 6-14). 17. Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 30-31, 65, 126-127.
18. KK lot 466, South Peristyle under grave 16, by the southwest anta; KK lot 479, northwestcornerPeristyle. 19. KK lot 474, North Peristyle, undergrave29. The fragmentis of a verticalstraphandle (W. 0.034 m), well burnished,fired light reddish brown to light red 2.5YR 6/4-6; the piece is LH III A:1 at latest. 20. EspeciallygravesD 6:3 and D 7:1, both of which can be assigned to Final Mycenaean/Submycenaean.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I55
fair quantity of Late Geometric and Protoattic, as well as all stages of black-figure. Many pieces are ambitious and some are of high quality. None of the early material deriving from these deposits is, then, in its original context, and the layers antedating the temple representfilling that had been spread to serve a construction or landscaping project of the 5th century B.C. The source, or sources, of this material is arguable,but some of it came from disturbed graves or cemetery refuse around them. While earth fill elsewhere has been shown to have sometimes been hauled in from a distance,21rarelyis the distance substantial, and in this case a ready source may have lain just to the west and northwest where bedrock falls away, in places abruptly, from the temple area. Moreover, a number of graves were preserved along the west and northwest shoulder of the hill, and dozens of cuttings for what were certainly others.22Surviving burials range in date from the closing stages of LH IIIC into Middle Geometric I,23 but scattered cemetery debris over bedrock around them leaves little doubt that burial in the area continued at least into the late 8th and probably through the 7th century B.C. The latter is suggested by a fragment of a terracottaplastic snake that had surely peeled from a Late Geometric or Early Protoattic funeraryvase.24 Sherds in the temple filling are mostly small, joins few, and even reconstituted fragments small; the same is generally true of the presumed cemetery debris, reinforcing the impression that this is indeed the source of most of the sherds beneath the Hephaisteion. The sherds assembled as P 14819 are an exception. So much of the vessel is preserved, all but one small sherdjoining, that it cannot have been moved far,and its survivalon Kolonos Agoraios is virtually unimaginable outside an original context of a grave deeply sunk into bedrock.25A likely sequence of events, therefore, is as follows: 1. The pot was probably uprooted by builders of the Hephaisteion.26If pieces of it actually derive from layer VI, as seems probable (see above), the grave must have been destroyed at the beginning of the 5th century B.C.The vessel may have 21. A good but ratherrareexample of fill having been carriedsome distanceis that of the dumped road fill of the mid-7th centuryB.C. beside the Tholos Cemetery.The deposit contained sherdsthat joined fragments in the ProtoatticVotive deposit on the Areiopagos,about 100 m to the southeast:deposit H 17:4, Young 1939, p. 10. Another case is that of sherds joining pyre debrisin graveH 16:6, which were found in 4th-century B.C. dumped filling above that deposit, 15 m to the south;see Smithson 1968, pp. 78-79. In both cases the distanceis not substantial. 22. The preservedgravesand numerousgravecuttingswill be fully
presentedin a forthcomingvolume in the AthenianAgoraseries. 23. The latest tomb, C 8:7 (Middle Geometric I), is located about 20 m southwest of the temple. 24. The fragmentderivesfrom lot KK 461 (layerIV), under Christian gravesin the cella.The incidence of such plastic snakes appearsto originatein the Late Geometric IIb workshopof the PhiladelphiaPainter (see Coldstream 1968, p. 57) and continues through the careerof the Analatos Painter,that is, a chronologicalspan of ca. 725-675 B.C. in the conventionalchronology.The work of the Analatos Painter,including hydriaiwith snake-moldedhandles, is fully discussedby Sheedy 1992.
25. While a well is also a possible source,the earliestpre-Archaicwell on Kolonos Agoraios is D 12:3 (Middle Geometric II/Late Geometric Ia), nearly 100 m to the southeast,at the edge of the easternscarp;see Brann 1961, pp. 103114, well I; for the date see Coldstream 1968, p. 22. It is also worth adding that pots found in wells, particularlythose substantiallypreserved(i.e., period-ofuse), are normallysmaller,and rarely exceed a height of 0.40 m. 26. An earlieruprootingof the vessel, though possible, seems unlikely,especially since the surfacebreaksappearsharp and relativelyunworn;reinforcingplaster now coating the entire interiorof the vessel preventscloser inspection.
I56
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
been originally in one of the robbed burial pits just outside the foundations of the west peristyle (see below).27 2. The amphora was deliberatelybroken up into sherds and tossed into or onto the early-Sth-century B.C. fill. 3. The sherds were dispersed through the Hephaisteion construction filling, either entering as a part of the pre-temple fill dumped within the area of the rectangle or churned up from levels disturbed by the Hephaisteion builders. 4. Christian burials and repairsto the church, to the extent that they penetrated and displaced construction filling or pre-temple levels, drew some pieces up into post-antique or modern levels. If the sequence of events presented here is sound, then the relevant contexts in and immediately around the building help to pinpoint the precise date of the construction of the Hephaisteion. They supplement the "new evidence for the dating of the temple" preparedby Lucy Talcott and presented in Dinsmoor's study,28primarily based on the material from the deposit of working chips of Pentelic marble some 33 m to the southwest of the temple, and suggest a Kimonian date for the building. Moreover, the location of Christian burials within the cella (Fig. 3) throws some doubt on the restoration,and even the very existence of the interior colonnades.29 As for the immediate surroundingsof the building, it is worth adding that the bedrock in the area of the Hephaisteion was dug into for numerous Early Iron Age graves. A few of these, such as the "Final Mycenaean/ Submycenaean"tomb D 7:1 (Fig. 5), were dug deep into the natural rock and, being well sealed in some cases, escaped the attention of later builders on the hill.30It was very common, however, to find on Kolonos Agoraios large areasof bedrock with numerous destroyed,looted, or damaged burial pits with a configuration identical to the better-preserved tombs nearby.31 Figure 6 illustrates only a few of these pits, and it is highly likely that P 14819 derives from such a damaged tomb. Assuming the pot to have come from a tomb, as seems most likely, one may well ask of what kind and whose. Before addressing these questions, it is important to describe the vessel more fully and to establish, as far as is possible, its date, since chronology has a direct bearing on the question of preferredburial custom in Athens at any given time in the Early Iron Age. 27. As, for example,one on either side of the third peristylecolumn from the north;gravesD 7:1, D 7:6, and D 7:7 lay within a distanceof 4.0 m. Other pits and an intact grave,D 7:8, dotted the slopes furtherto the west and southwest. 28. Dinsmoor 1941, pp. 128-150. 29. The lack of an interiorcolonnade for the Hephaisteion and the fact that the statuebase that was restoredin the Hephaisteionwas moved to Athens
from Sounion formed part of an unpublished paperpresentedby Frederick Cooper (1985) at the American School of ClassicalStudies on March 27, 1985. I am gratefulto Fred Cooper for sending me a copy of his manuscript. 30. For the later activityaroundthe Hephaisteion,including the establishment of a landscapedgarden,see Thompson 1937. 31. For full discussionand details, see Papadopoulos,forthcoming.
CULTURAL
Figure5. FinalMycenaean/Submycenaeantomb D 7:1,with cover slabpreservedin situ, dug deep into bedrock.Foundationsof the Hephaisteionon the northside in background.CourtesyAgoraExcavations
Figure6. Emptypits in bedrockin sectorIlE (PlateiaTheseiou),in the areaof the Hephaisteion(Kolonos Agoraios),representinglooted or destroyedEarlyIronAge tombs. CourtesyAgoraExcavations
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I57
I58
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
I
J
@
T
l
Ill
aa~~~~~~~~s
:
Figure 7. Agora P 14819. Scaleca.1:7. DrawingA. Hooton
THE AMPHORA AND ITS REPAIR Although never fiullypublished, P 14819 has been briefly mentioned in more than one publication.32It may be described as follows: P 14819: Largebelly-handledamphora Figs. 2, 7 from Imported,Cycladic,perhaps Syros H. 0.730-0.740 m; Diam. (base)0.155 m; Diam. (mouth) 0.203 m Reconstructedfrom manyjoining fragmentspreservinga substantial part of the amphora,including a portion of the base, much of the body, neck, rim, and partsof both handles.About a third of the vessel preserved, the profile complete;missing partsrestoredin plaster,with interiorheavily coated in plasterto stabilizevessel. Surfacevery worn in parts,particularly on upperbody. Tall ring foot; undersideflat.Tall ovoid body,with point of maximum diameterset high. Verticalneck, offset from body on interiorby a substantial thickening,indicatingthat the neck was made separatelyfrom the body and subsequentlyattachedor that the neck was thrown onto the leatherhardbody by attachinga coil to the upperedge of a finished body.The cylindricalneck terminatesin a plain rim, with the top edge smoothed to form a roundedlip. The mouth is not originalto the vessel but has been repaired(see below).Two horizontaldouble handles are set on the body at the point of greatestdiameter.Wheelmarksprominenton neck interior.
32. Dinsmoor1941,p. 126; Desborough1952,pp.34 and36; Oakeshott1966,p. 121,under"Island Protogeometric,"wrongly stated as
P 14189";Smithson1968,p. 85, "Agora underno. 1; Snodgrass1971,p. 101, n. 43; Papadopoulos1998, p. 115, n. 37.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I59
Non-Athenian clay,full of inclusions,predominantlywhite (limestone or quartz?),only a few darkerones, with many individualparticles eruptingonto the surface.Fabricvery micaceous,with mica visible all over surfaceand on clean breaks.Clay body fired close to reddishyellow 5YR 6/6 and light red 2.5YR 6/6, best describedas "brickred."Reserved surfaceon neck interiorand upperpart of the vessel on exteriorfired as the clay body,in places closer to light reddishbrown 5YR 6/4; reserved surfaceson lower partsof vessel fired closer to reddishbrown5YR 5/4, in parts slightly lighter,especiallyon belly zone, closer to light reddish brown 5YR 6/4, in partsgray.Upper half of vessel largelyoxidized,while lower part is reduced. Paint mostly well adheringon lower wall, in partsmuch worn and peeled, especiallyon upperbody.Variouslyfired red throughblack,in accordancewith the fired color of the reservedsurface.Lower exterior edge of foot reserved;remainderof foot, to juncturewith wall, painted. Lower wall reserved,except for a single horizontalband, quite thick. Three broadbands near and slightly below point of maximumdiameter, immediatelybelow the handles, define the lower belly zone. The belly zone is decorated,on either side of the vessel, with sets of mechanically drawnconcentriccircles,each set comprisingnine circles,with a very small dot at center.Alternatingbetween the circlesare two sets of short double squiggles,one set hanging pendant from the band above,the other lower down. On the better-preservedside there arefive sets of circles;the belly zone on the opposite side of the vase is largelylost. Each set is drawn with the same pivoted multiplebrush;individualbrushesof the implement were very thin and the sets of circlesare rathersmall for the size of the vessel.The left set on the better-preservedside is the only one that shows "flooding."33 Judging by the fine pivot point, the circles were executedwhile the clay was ratherdry,probablyleatherto bone hard. Shoulderdecoratedwith a broadhorizontalband framedby two thinnerbands below and two above.From the uppermostof these springupright,mechanicallydrawn,concentricsemicircles.The pivot point for each, mostly not preservedon accountof wear or damage,is set slightly above the lower band,with the resultthat the semicirclesare not perfecthalf circlesof 180?but ratherdefine a slightly greaterarc.They are executedwith the same implement used for the circleson the belly zone, with each set of semicirclescomprisingnine arcs.Only a few sets, or portions of sets, arepreservedon the shoulder,but these would have been continuous aroundthe shoulder.Judgingby the partsof three sets preserved above one side, the semicircleswere set quite far apart,and there is space aroundthe shoulderfor at least seven sets. Thin horizontalband on uppermostshoulder,nearjuncturewith neck. From this band hang pendant sets of double squigglesidenticalto those on the belly zone. These squiggles,judging by what is preserved, on 33.This is a commonoccurrence arefor the most part located in the areabetween the sets of semicircles, setsof concentriccirclesandsemicircles and thereforealternatewith them, but at a higher level. It is possible that paintedwitha pivotedmultiplebrush, there is a second set of double squigglesbelow,between each set of semiforwhichseePapadopoulos, Vedder, andSchreiber1998. circles,but in all cases the relevantareaof the vase is either not preserved
i6o
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
or extremelyworn.The reservedareabetween the semicirclesand the thin horizontalband aboveis ratherlarge and this may be why the semicircles aregreaterthan 180?.Preservedneck, though much worn, is clearlypainted solid;there is no traceof paint on the preservedrim top. Outer faces of handles painted,as is the connecting rib between each double handle, as shown.The paint extends from the lower outer handle attachmentsin a broad sweep, over the three bands below and well down the wall of the vessel;each ends in a raggedtermination.Preservedneck reservedon interior. As noted above, the neck of the vessel now ends in a plain lip that is not original.The fact that the mouth is only partiallypreservedand rather worn does not assist in establishing whether the repairwas executed before or after firing. Nevertheless, a number of factors combine to suggest that the repairwas done after firing, and possibly some time well after the vessel reached Athens. The top surfaceof the rim is uneven and dips down on one side about 0.005 m, with the result that the line of the rim crosses those of the wheelmarks. The trough of a gouge, approximately0.005 m wide, runs diagonally for a distance of 0.040-0.045 m across an area of intact paint on the neck; it terminates about 0.01 m below the top in a rounded "nose,"as if made by a fine chisel that slipped. About 0.015 m to the right a chipped notch interrupts the surface,the bottom of which appears to be what remains of a possible mending-hole that shattered the inner surfaceof the wall and flaked the edges outside. If the chipped notch is indeed part of a mending-hole, as seems likely, then it is clear that the adjustments to the vessel occurred after firing. An attempt to clamp or tie the severed neck and rim seems to have splintered the neck beyond conventional repair;the line of the fracturewas evened up as much as possible, as the irregularitiesat and near the mouth show, and the resulting edge was sanded smooth to form a lip. Salvage repairs,beyond the usual rivet- or tie-holes, are known, especially on large vessels, though they are also known on smaller pots. The ring foot of a very large neck-handled amphora from the Kerameikos,for example, was chipped off and the bottom hollowed, evidently after painting, so that the vessel would stand firmly.34It is not clear from the published description of the vase whether this was done before or after firing, though it seems likely that the repair was executed when the clay was rather hard, perhaps after firing. A classic case of a salvage repair made prior to firing can be seen on a Middle Geometric I vessel from well L 6:2 in the areaof the later Athenian Agora, which was originally designed as a large hydria, but subsequently trimmed down to the base of the shoulder to form a krater.35 Whatever the life history of the amphoraP 14819-a history to which we shall return in the final section of this paper-it is clear that the vessel was prized enough to warrant a repair,which, having failed, necessitated the more drastic step of cutting off the upper part of the neck and all of the rim, and sanding down what remained to form a plain round mouth. The current state of the amphora,with its upper neck and rim gone, gives the appearance of a proportionately dysfunctional vessel, one that does not look quite right in any period, a feature that does not assist the dating of the vessel.
34. Kerameikos I, p. 115, pl. 41, grave mound T 8, inv. 568. 35. The vessel is fully publishedin
1998,alongwitha Papadopoulos similarvessel,alsoof Atticmanufacture,fromthe EarlyIronAge cemetery at Fortetsa,nearKnossos,forwhich see Brock 1957, pp. 43 and 47, pl. 31, no. 454 [13]. A numberof other repairs to smallervases from the Agora are also listed in Papadopoulos1998.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I6I
THE DATE OF THE AMPHORA AND THE PHENOMENON OF ARCHAIZING In her publicationof the burialurn of the celebratedTomb of the Rich Athenian Lady (tomb H 16:6-1 [P 27629]), Smithsonhad occasionto mention Agora P 14819. In discussingthe solidly glazed handles on P 27629, she noted that they were uniquein Athens, adding:"Theyare fromsomeexactlylikethoseon AgoraP 14819,animportedbelly-handler wherein the Cyclades;it mightbe thislate,thoughit is stillProtogeometric in style."36 Althoughin laternotes Smithsoncameto considerP 14819 as Late Geometric,she had alwaysessentiallyviewedthe vesselas "Subprotogeometric"in date,despiteits "Protogeometric-looking" style. Stylistically,a numberof featurescombineto suggestthat P 14819, tradition,is notof Protogeometric althoughfirmlyrootedin Protogeometric date.Perhapsforemost,the mechanicallydrawncirclesandsemicirclesare exceptionallyfine and theirpaintthin. As a result,the circularornament appearsflimsy and is overshadowedby the rathersturdysquigglesand comparativelymassivebands.While the inspirationof the piece is clear, both in compositionand execution,it lacksthe balanceand solid texture of genuine Protogeometricdecoration.For Smithson,this suggestedan adaptation,whetherby meansof survival,revival,or both, detachedfrom an earlierliving traditionand not fiullyunderstood.An analogycan be madewith well-trainedand skilledmodernclassicists:howeverdeft their controloverthe syntaxandgrammarof Greekor Latin,theirpronunciation of the languagesremainsa contentiousissue,stillpracticedbut neverthelessseveredfroma oncethrivingtradition.A few pointsunderscorethe relationshipanddifferencesbetweenP 14819andpiecesof Protogeometric date,especiallyin Athens. belly-handled Protogeometric AgoraP 14819is largerthananysurviving a both and Late Protogeometric,approach amphora,although few, Early when it in size.37Suchlargepots,with a heightabove0.50 m, particularly used as epitymbia,areespeciallyvulnerableto breakage.Fragments,relativelycommonin cemeterydebrisfromFinalMycenaeaninto Late Geometric,show that they werepartof the standardceramicrepertoire,even though the normalsize belly-handledamphoras(H. ca. 0.40 m) become comparativelyrare after the close of Protogeometric.The large versionswerenot chancecuriositiesbutwereproducedroutinelyto meet the ritualneedsand statusrequirementsof wealthierfamilies.The decorative formulasforverylargeProtogeometric belly-handledamphorasdifferfrom thoseof standardsize andarefairlyrigid:circlesacrossthe bellyandsemicircleson the shoulder.38 36. Smithson 1968, p. 85, under no. 1; cf. the solidly painted handles on P 27629, pl. 20 (bottom). 37. An Early Protogeometricexample is Erechtheion Street H-15, Brouskare1980, pl. 4:a (H. 0.64 m); for a Late Protogeometricexamplesee KerameikosIV, pl. 9, grave38, inv. 1089 (H. 0.69 m). 38. There are,as always,a few excep-
tions to the rule.At least one very large belly-handledamphoralacks the circles on the belly zone: Athens, National Museum inv. 18113, from Nea Ionia (H. 0.572 m), Smithson 1961, pl. 24, no. 3. The belly zone of the vase is left clear and the shoulderheight is diminished by extending the paint from the neck and with the additionof three horizontalbands. Somewhat earlier,
two belly-handledamphorasof standard size have circleson the belly zone like their largercounterparts;both are Early Protogeometric,decoratedat a time before conventionswere firmlyfixed:Kerameikosinv. 8808/09 (= Schlorb-Vierneisel 1966, Beil. 11, 4-5, Gr. hS 101; H. 0.446 m); and Agora P 24240 from well J 14:2, with an estimatedheight a little over 0.40 m (unpublished).
I62
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
Since the same pivoted multiple brush was regularlyused for both full circles and semicircles,39 the height of the shoulder zone on genuine Protogeometric vases was reduced to proportions commensurate with the height of the semicircles. Two schemes are usual: several bands between the neck and the patterned zone,40or two, rarelythree, superimposed patterned zones; the latter, popular in Final Mycenaean and Early Protogeometric, is abandoned before Late Protogeometric. On P 14819, the single narrow band, closely set beneath the neck, does nothing to reduce the zone height. The semicircles fill less than half of the height and the squiggles dangle high above them. The semicirclesand circlesarevery small for the size of the pot, smaller, in fact, than is usual on Protogeometric belly-handled amphoras of standard size anywhere in Greece.41The heavy shoulder-banding, comprising a wide band framed by two thin bands below and two above, is usual on amphoras found in graves, literally Protogeometric in form, placement, and execution; the lower bands are not. A deep belly zone with an emphatic row of full mechanically drawn concentric circles is one of the hallmarks of Protogeometric grave-amphoras. On true Protogeometric amphoras this belly zone is defined, below the handle attachments, by a repeated scheme of a wide band framed by two thinner bands above and below, or by three narrowbands. In either case, the narrowbands are equal in width and areusually drawnwith the same brush as those on the shoulder above, resulting in a balanced effect. On P 14819 the lower bands are placed comparatively too high, and although they run a little below the base of the outer handle attachments,the attachments themselves areshort and quite unlike the tapered attachments carefully smoothed against the wall of genuine Protogeometric pieces. Furthermore,the handles on P 14819 are too small for this pot. The central rib of the double handle rests squarely on the top band below, a cramped and inelegant juxtaposition that negates the decorative effect of the double handle.42The firm, even mighty, bands below the handle, three times the width of the narrowones on the shoulder,overpower the dainty circles of the belly zone. The circles, placed more or less at the middle of the belly zone, are approximately0.06 m above the point of greatest diameter of the vessel; although it may seem a minor point, such a position is virtually unthinkable on genuine Athenian Protogeometric. If the semicircles on the shoulder have too much room, the circles on the belly have too little. Added to this is the fact that the entire patterned decoration has been squeezed up to the top half of the pot. The solitaryband on the lower 39. Contraryto the argumentsof Eiteljorg(1980), it is clearthat the decorationof Attic Protogeometric and Geometricvessels in the form of concentriccirclesand semicircleswas done with a pivoted multiplebrush implement;see Papadopoulos,Vedder, and Schreiber1998. 40. See Kerameikos I, pl. 55, inv. 561, with a wide band enclosed by a narrow
band above and below, and a pendant zigzag canopyabovethe semicircles; see also ErechtheionStreet,H-15 (Brouskare1980, p. 23, pl. 4:a),where the paint on the neck extendsin a broad band on the shoulder,below which are two narrowbands and a zigzag canopy. Both vessels are EarlyProtogeometric. Cf. furtherKerameikosinv. 1089, which is laterProtogeometric.
41. In additionto Athenian amphorasalreadymentioned, cf. a similardecorativeidiom on Protogeometric amphoras,and other closed vessels,from Boiotia, the Corinthia, the Cyclades,Thessaly,East Greece, Crete, and even Macedonia;see, generally,Desborough 1952; 1972. 42. For such handles generallysee Oakeshott 1966.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
i63
body does little to counterbalance the top-heaviness of the decoration, and although a subsidiary band (or bands) on the lower bodies of very large Protogeometric closed vessels is not uncommon, the one on P 14819 teams up with the heavy triple bands below the handles to detract from the patterned decoration. The manner in which the outer face of the preserved handle is painted contrasts with the normal thinner "archesand bows" of Protogeometric vessels, especially belly-handled amphoras, but its prolongation in tails extending onto the body, below the level of the bands, is an echo of Protogeometric practice.43 A comparison of the size, shape, and decoration of P 14819 with any number of genuine Protogeometric belly-handled amphorasindicates that the vessel cannot be Protogeometric in date.44The distinctive featuresseen in P 14819, particularly the tall ring foot, the ovoid body with point of maximum diameter set quite high, the comparatively broad neck, along with the great size of the vessel, are all consistent with a Late Geometric date. Such a combination of features can be seen in a number of regional workshops. In Athenian Geometric these features are standardin a variety of vessels, including very large amphoras, such as the neck-handled amphora measuring 1.350 m, now in Leiden.45In the Cyclades large bellyhandled amphoras shaped like P 14819, with the characteristic double handles, referred to by Noel Oakeshott as "horned-head,"46are found as early as Middle Geometric. A good example is the amphora said to be from Melos, now in Munich, which is almost certainly Naxian (Fig. 8).47 Standing to a height of 0.730 m, the Munich amphora is of similar proportions to Agora P 14819 (0.730-0.740 m, though originally larger),but is decorated in the standardpatterned style of the time, with much of the lower body covered in black.48A virtually identical amphora, also said to be from Melos and now in Vienna, was published by Elena Walter-Karydi (Fig. 9),49 who went on to list and discuss a number of related vessels and fragments, especially from Naxos.50The stylistic similarity between these and other closely related vessels and contemporary pottery from Athens has been most recently discussed by Photeini Zapheiropoulou, Kenneth 43. Cf. Desborough 1952, pls. 4-5; Papadopoulos1994b, pls. 109:a-b, 119:c. 44. For Attic Protogeometricbellyhandled amphorassee, among others, Kerameikos I, pls. 32 (inv.529), 43-45, 46 (inv.857), 54-56,58; Kerameikos IV, pls. 9-11; Desborough 1952, pp. 20-37, pls. 4-5; Desborough 1972, pp. 35-36, figs. 2-3, pp. 148-149, pl. 27. For amphorasfrom other partsof the Greekworld, see Desborough 1952; 1972. ComparingCycladicProtogeometric amphorasis more difficult, given the rarityof true Protogeometric-especially earlierand developed Protogeometric-pottery in the Cyclades.The existing evidence is
admirablyassembledand discussed by Desborough (1952, pp. 153-163; 1972, pp. 221-224); see also Coldstream1968, pp. 148-157. In its latest phase,Athenian Protogeometricwas widely imitated in variouspartsof the Aegean, particularlyin the Cyclades. 45. Leiden 1.1909/1.1, conveniently illustratedand discussedin Coldstream 1968, p. 55, pl. 11:a. 46. Oakeshott 1966. 47. Munich inv. 6166, Coldstream 1968, p. 167, pl. 34:m; Zapheiropoulou 1983, p. 131, fig. 27; Boardman1998, pp. 47,59, fig. 88. 48. Cf. the relatedfragmentary amphorawith a restoredheight estimated at 0.810 m, DelosXV, pp. 90-91,
to as"Attiques," but pl.XLII:1,referred listed under CycladicMiddle Geometric in Coldstream1968, p. 166. 49. Walter-Karydi1972, p. 390, fig. 4; Zapheiropoulou1983, p. 131, fig. 28; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum inv. 1879. 50. Walter-Karydi1972, esp. pp. 386-390. Foremostof these is the fragmentaryamphorasaid to be from Thera, now in the Louvre (inv.A 266), Walter-Karydi1972, pp. 388,390, n. 12, fig. 5, and a similarfragmentary but smalleramphorafrom Philoti on Naxos (p. 388, fig. 2), first published by Kontoleon (1949, pp. 1-3, figs. 1-3), now fully discussedin Kourou1999a, pp. 183-198, pls. 56-59.
I64
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
Sheedy, and Nota Kourou.51The number of recognized Athenian Protogeometric and Geometric imports to the Cycladeshas been steadilygrowing, thanks to the work of Richard Catling and Sheedy.52Large Cycladic amphoras have also been found outside the Cyclades and especially in the various cemeteries at Knossos.53 The Munich and Vienna amphoras shown here (Figs. 8-9) are both assigned to the Middle Geometric period. Similarly large amphoras are common in the Cyclades in Late Geometric, as illustrated by the fragmentary example from Delos (Fig. 10), which stands to a preservedheight of 0.740 m.54Its decoration follows the more standardpatterning of Late Geometric. It is worth adding that earlier Cycladic amphoras of the Protogeometric period are never this large. By the Early Archaic period, largebelly-handled amphorasin the Cycladesbecame proportionatelytaller and more slender,as numerous examples from Delos attest.55On the basis of shape alone, Agora P 14819 can be reasonably assigned to the Middle and Late Geometric period. 51. Zapheiropoulou1983, esp. pp. 130-133; Sheedy 1990; Kourou 1999a, esp. pp. 90-97, 185-187. 52. Catling 1998a, esp. pp. 370-378; Sheedy 1990. 53. Coldstream1990, pp. 26-27, pl. 6, nos. 1 and 3. Of the two amphoras, ColdstreamassignsTekke Q.63 to
Early Geometric I and KMF 283.91 to
MiddleGeometricI. In additionto the imports from the North Cemetery at Knossos,Coldstreamdiscussescomparativematerialfrom the Fortetsaand Tekke cemeteries. 54. DelosXV, p. 37, no. 2, pl. XVIII: a-b, groupAc (B 4.213); neck and rim,
Figure8 (left).NaxianMiddle Geometricbelly-handledamphora, Glyptothekund Museenantiker Kleinkunst,Munich,inv.6166. H. 0.730 m. CourtesyMuseum;photo C. Koppermann
Figure9 (right).Cycladic(Naxian) Middle Geometricbelly-handled amphora,Antikensammlung,KunsthistorischesMuseum,Vienna, inv. 1879. H. 0.695 m. Courtesy Museum(neg.11179)
as well as base, not preserved.For large belly-handledamphorasfrom other islands,see, among many,Coldstream 1968, pl. 39:h ("Melian,"now in Leiden; H. 0.620 m), pl. 58:a (Rhodes;H. 0.560 m, discussedin more detail below). 55. See DelosXVII, pls. I-VI (groupBa).
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
i65
Figure10. FragmentaryCycladic Late Geometricbelly-handled amphorafromDelos, groupAc, no. 2. Pres.H. 0.740 m. CourtesyEcolefranfaised'Athenes
56. Pfuhl 1903, p. 170, Beil. XXII:2 (E 4), from grave29 (72) 6. 57. I took notes on Thera 825 while visiting the island in Septemberof 1997. Reconstructedfrom fragments, with missing partsrestoredin plaster, Thera 825 has no visible breaksfrom which one could betterjudge the clay body of the vessel and I was unable to take a Munsell readingof the surface. The paint is dull, and variesin color from red throughdifferentshadesof reddishbrownto black.
Among the many large amphoras found in the Cyclades, perhaps the closest parallel to Agora P 14819, especially in terms of the painted decoration, is the belly-handled amphora from Thera first published by Ernst Pfuhl almost a century ago (Fig. 11).56Standing to a height of 0.815 m, which would be not too far from the original height of P 14819, the amphora from Thera (inv. 825) is identical in virtuallyall respects to P 14819. The most obvious exception is that it has a thick band framed by thinner bands immediately below its belly zone instead of the three bands of similar thickness found on P 14819. Even the squiggles on P 14819 are echoed in the groups of short vertical strokes found between the full circles on the belly of the amphora from Thera. If Agora P 14819 is restored with an upper neck and rim like that of Thera 825, the two vessels would be very similar to one another, except that the base of P 14819 would be proportionately slightly more narrow,resulting in a lower body fractionallymore piriform, and therefore closer to the shape of amphoras like that from Delos illustrated in Figure 10. Despite these strong similarities, the fabric of the two vessels is not the same. The clay of Thera 825, judging by its reserved surfaces, has prominent dark inclusions and only a light dusting of mica; it is lightcolored, in places reddish yellow, elsewhere approaching a light red with an almost maroon-purple tinge.57In his publication of Thera 825, Pfuhl listed the amphora under his category E "Samisches und Verwandtes," and more specifically under category E II, that is, related to Samian, but not considered Samian. Some 50 years later,Desborough listed Thera 825
i66
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
b
Figure11. a) Late GeometricbellyhandledamphorafromThera,grave 29 (72) 6. H. 0.815 m. b) Detail of a
handle area. a) CourtesyDeutsches Institut,Athens; Archaologisches b) photoauthor
among a number of amphoras from Thera and assumed it to be of local manufacture.58Coldstream, however, like Pfuhl, listed Thera 825 as an East Greek import to the island, and stated: The survivalof the belly-handled amphora, still decorated in the PG tradition, is attested by an example found in the burnt layer at Miletus, and by two others exported to Thera [including inv. 825], both found in LG contexts.59 As for the date, there is no question that the context of Thera 825grave 29 (72) 6-and of a related amphora from grave 89 (109) 3 is Late Geometric.60This, together with the Cycladic Middle and Late Geometric vessels discussed above, helps place Agora P 14819 broadly within the Late Geometric period. Any more precise date would be sheer guesswork, though a date in the third quarterof the 8th century B.C., according to the conventional chronology, seems more likely (on the basis of the overallappearance of the vessel) than one toward the very end of the century. In considering such a late date for Thera 825, Desborough stated that "it comes, therefore, as rather a shock to find that the context of this amphora is undoubtedly eighth century.... The only conclusion seems to be that it is a remarkablecase of the survivalof an Attic Protogeometric form,
58. Desborough 1952, pp. 31, 34, 215. 59. Coldstream1968, p. 269, with referenceto Hommel 1959-1960, p. 39, fig. 1; cf. also the largefragmentary belly-handledamphora,p. 54, pl. 53, no. 4, referredto as "(proto?)geometrischen." 60. Pfuhl 1903, p. 170; Desborough 1952, pp. 34,215; Coldstream1968, p. 269.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
i67
Figure12. Subgeometrichydria, AthenianAgoraP 4614. CourtesyAgoraExcavations
61. Desborough 1952, p. 34. 62. Desborough 1952, p. 34. 63. See, for example,Smithson 1961, p. 166, under no. 43; AgoraVIII, pp. 34-35, underno. 37. 64. Smithson 1961, p. 166, under no. 43. 65. AgoraVIII, p. 19; cf. Brann 1961, p. 125, under L 66: six Mycenaean goblet stems found in the fill of a Late Geometricwell, and perhaps (re)usedas bobbins. 66. Young 1939, p. 27, under no. V 1. Younggoes on to cite as close parallelsnos. X 1 (see below,n. 67) and C 148 (p. 186, fig. 137), as well as a relatedexamplefrom the 7th-century grave10 at Phaleron(Pelekides1917, p. 31, fig. 20). Among many other relatedhydriaisee Charitonides1975, pl. 1O:Cr(FM45, tomb XVI).
at least in Thera."61In this context Desborough made passing reference to Agora P 14819: "Curiously enough, fragments of a similar amphora of coarse red-brick clay, very micaceous, appear among the unpublished material of the Agora excavations (P 14819)."62 Vessels like Agora P 14819 andThera 825 raise the issue of archaizing. A number of scholars looking at the problem from an Athenian perspective have discussed the incidence of a Protogeometric style in later Geometric contexts in terms of survivalsand/or revivals,and even as copies.63 In discussing the phenomenon of specific Protogeometric shapes echoing Mycenaean tradition, Smithson noted that this "maybe, like a number of resurgent types, a Mycenaean revival,i.e. a 'copy,'slightly modernized, of pieces salvaged from disturbed tombs."64A similar sentiment is expressed by Eva Brann in her discussion of Late Geometric and Early Protoattic shapes and motifs that are strikingly Mycenaean in their appearance.She states:"The Athenians certainlyoften came acrossMycenaean antiquities, so there would have been no lack of models."65In discussing an early-7thcentury B.C.hydria from the Agora (Fig. 12), together with severalrelated vessels that echo Protogeometric tradition, Rodney Young wrote: The hydria gives a false impression that it is Protogeometric; but the pale clay, creamy slip, and general appearanceof the fabric are entirely different from true Protogeometric. The body ... is seen to be deeper and more pointed, narrowerat the bottom, and with a higher, less flaring ring foot. The decoration too is not usual for Protogeometric; the multiplication of glaze bands on the shoulder, the solid glaze on the handles instead of the canonical glaze bands ending in "tails,"and the single wavy line in the handle zone instead of the double or triple wavy bands always used in true Protogeometric, are evidence that our hydria belongs to a different fabric. The hydria too is comparativelyrare in Protogeometric.66
I68
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
Young noted that a related Subgeometric hydria from grave X in the Agora (Fig. 13) was also very Protogeometric in appearance,but that its fabric is unlike any true Athenian Protogeometric vase.67In her discussion of the same hydria, together with a number of related examples, Brann noted that it was not clear whether the banded hydriai were "survivalsor revivals of their Protogeometric prototype."68Elsewhere, Brann referred to old-fashioned hydriai, of light-ground ware, considered "aMycenaean type revived in the 8th century and found on many Greek sites, especially eastern ones."69As for Protogeometric "models,"Brann considered it likely that pottery of this period was still to be found as "heirlooms,"and concluded: "At any rate, there is a whole group of Late Geometric pots done in a style which seems like a return to Protogeometric clay-ground technique."70 The dark-groundtechnique began to take over from the light-ground during the latest stages of the Protogeometric period, and is well established by Early Geometric I, continuing through the end of Middle Geometric. Although this is the case for many shapes, it is important to stress that for other specific vessel forms there is continuity in both style and production technique. This is especially true for pottery traditionallyconsidered as "utility ware,"though many such pots are found in exactly the same contexts as more elaborately decorated ("non-utility")vessels and were often used for the same function. A good example is the plain banded neck-handled amphora from the fill of well K 1:5, found together with several vessels decorated in the standard dark-ground technique of the period (Fig. 14).71Indeed, such plain vessels stand out in comparison to their more elaboratelydecorated contemporaries from the same context. Whereas many of the larger and smallervessels of the Athenian Early Iron Age repertoire develop rapidly in terms of the fashion of the day,
Figure13. Subgeometrichydria, AthenianAgoraP 4980, two views. CourtesyAgora Excavations
67. Young 1939, pp. 42-43, fig. 27. 68. AgoraVIII, p. 34; Brannalso notes two relatedhydriaifrom the Kerameikosdating to the first half of the 8th centuryB.c.;Kerameikos V.1, pl. 50.
69. Brann 1961, p. 100. 70. Brann 1961, p. 100. 71. The three pots illustratedin Fig. 14 were all found in the period-ofuse fill of this well, recentlyexcavated in the areanorth of the Eridanos, which can be assignedto Early Geometric II/Middle GeometricI; see Camp 1999, pp. 266-267.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
Figure 14. Athenian Agora, selected Early Geometric II/Middle Geometric I vessels from the period-ofuse fill of well K 1:5, in the area north of the Eridanos. CourtesyAgoraExcavations
i69
AMPHORA
f
other shapes remain remarkablyconservativeand consistent. Some of these display little noticeable change over a period of several decades or even centuries, while others develop in terms of nuances of shape, but retain a more traditional decorative idiom. Examples include a number of Geometric banded hydriai that date to various stages of the Early Iron Age.72 Similarly,plain banded neck-handled amphoras,ranging in date from Protogeometric through Late Geometric, are commonly found discarded in Early Iron Age wells in the area of the Classical Athenian Agora.73In the case of such pots, there was never any real break in tradition: rather than survival or revival there was continuity. To illustrate this point, I have assembled a representativesample of plain banded neck-handled amphoras in Figure 15, togetherwith a Protogeometric neck-handled amphoradecorated with the canonical mechanically drawn concentric semicircles on the shoulder (Fig. 15:a). Such banded vessels, found throughout the Early Iron Age, not only were very common, but they also kept alive a traditional light-ground technique of decorationthroughout the Earlyand Middle Geometric periods, when a dark-groundtechnique predominated, and into the Late Geometric period, characterizedby elaborate patterning. The banded amphoras assembled in Figure 15 range in date from Developed Protogeometric through Late Geometric I. The two Protogeometric amphoras (Fig. 15:a-b) were found in the fill of well A 20:5, assigned to a developed phase of the Protogeometric period;74two vessels (Fig. 15:c-d) were assigned by Coldstream respectivelyto Early Geometric II and Middle Geometric I;75the two examples from well L 6:2 (Fig. 15:e-f) areMiddle Geometric;76and the two from well I 13:1 (Fig. 15:g-h) can be assigned to a transitional phase between Middle Geometric II and Late Geometric I.77The same type of simple banded amphorawas used 72.Thesearefullydiscussedin 1998. Papadopoulos 73.Thesewillbe publishedin full in forthcoming volumesof the Athenian Agora.
forthcoming. Papadopoulos, in 75.Theywerefound,respectively, well C 18:6(EG II) andwellB 18:9 of (MG I);forthe relativechronology thesetwodeposits,see Coldstream
21;Papadopoulos, forthcoming. 77.WellI 13:1is oneof several Geometricwellsin the areaunderthe laterMiddleStoa;forthe morerecently Geometricdepositswithin discovered
74. For well A 20:5 see Young 1951b, p. 144; with full details in
1968, pp. 13, 16. 76. See Coldstream1968, pp. 16,
this area,see Camp 1999, pp. 260-263 (well I 13:4 and grave1 13:5).
I70
K. PAPADOPOULOS
JOHN
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
b
a
d
g
c
f
e
h
Figure15. AthenianAgora,selected bandedneck-handledamphoras: a-b) P 17455,P 17456 (wellA 20:5, PG); c) P 19012 (wellC 18:6,EG II); d) P 19037 (wellB 18:9,MG I); e-f) P 6411, P 6410 (wellL 6:2, MG); g-h) P 27938, P 27939 (wellI 13:1,MG II-LG I). Scale ca. 1:6. CourtesyAgora Excavations
CULTURAL
Figure16. AthenianAgora,banded neck-handledamphorasfrom EarlyIronAge tombs:a) P 6997 (tombB 10:1,LPG);b) P 24791 (tombN 16:4,EG I). Scale1:6.
OF A GEOMETRIC
BIOGRAPHY
AMPHORA
I7I
/
a
DrawingA. Hooton
b
not only for drawingwater from wells, but also could be used in tombs, as the Late Protogeometric and Early Geometric I amphoras illustrated in Figure 16 attest.78Related amphoras,often smallerthan their predecessors, continue into the late 8th century and throughout the 7th century B.C. (Fig. 17).79It is worth adding that in the Archaic period, as in the Geometric, pots decorated with bands were produced almost everywhere in the Greek world.80 Precisely the same range of shapes-hydriai, neck- and belly-handled amphoras-with decoration harking back to a Mycenaean and Protogeometric aesthetic, is common in the Cyclades during the Late Geometric period, as numerous examples from the Purification Trench on Rheneia and elsewhere attest.8 The pots assembled in Figures 12-17 highlight the continuity of a conservative tradition, which was widespread throughout the Greek world. Such conservatism was perhaps most acute in the Cyclades, not only during Late Geometric, but for later periods as well. Indeed, a series of cups in Geometric and even Protogeometric style, with metope panels and concentric circles, are common in the Cyclades, especially on Paros, Naxos, and Delos, some as late as ca. 500 B.C.82 Island isolation, to use a cliche, may be one of the contributing causes. This is well put by Coldstream,who penned, with specific regardto Thera, a statement that may be applied to other islands: "The potters of this remote island were slow to learn a Late Geometric style, and slow to forget it."83 Be that as it may,a similar phenomenon, albeit at different scales, is found on the mainland, including centers, like Athens, that have long been 78.The LateProtogeometric amphoraP 6997 comesfromthe B 10:1,andthe disturbed"tomb" Early Geometric I amphoraP 24791
wasfoundin tombN 16:4.See also othersimilarplainbandedamphoras fromthe tombsin Kerameikos I, pl. 42, T 12-13,inv.602-603;Kerameikos IV,
pl. 6, grave28, inv.910. 79.The vesselsshownin Fig. 17 are fullydiscussedinAgoraVIII,p. 34, pl. 3,
Coldstream 1968,pp.164generally, 195.SeefurtherYoung1939,pp.2728;Sheedy1985,pp.153-159,esp.
nos. 29,31-36.
p. 156, n. 18.
80. See CookandDupont1998, p. 132. 81.DelosXV,pls.II-XI,XV,no.27; cf. TheraII, p. 229, fig.427;and,more
82. Morris1997,pp.68-69, with fig.4. 83. Coldstream 1977,p. 216.
JOHN
I72
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
11. U II. * II
a
c
b
Ir
g
consideredas "trend-setters."84 In addition to the Cyclades,Protogeometric survivals in the Geometric period are well known in Thessaly, Boiotia, Skyros, Euboia, and elsewhere, as Coldstream has established,85and the same is true for much of the Peloponnese and western Greece generally,as well as Macedonia and other northern regions.86
THE ORIGIN
e
Figure17. AthenianAgora,banded amphorasof the late 8th through 7th centuriesB.c.:a) P 21578 (secondhalfof the 8th century); b-e) P 12444, P 12445, P 20731, P 26242 (late 8th century); f) P 23465 (thirdquarterof the 7th century);g) P 3469 (lastquarter of the 7th century).Courtesy Agora
p
f
d
OF THE AMPHORA
Although Agora P 14819 was never previously published in detail, those who have examined it have come to accept it as an import to Athens of Cycladic or East Greek origin.87Indeed, the uncertainty about the precise origin of the vessel is to a large measure the result of the close affinity between the two regions (Fig. 18), especially between individual centers such as Naxos and Rhodes in the Early Iron Age, a relationship effectively explored by Zapheiropoulou.88In the case of both regions, assigning individual pieces, or even stylistic groups, to a particularisland workshop is far from straightforward.89 Although much East Greek pottery (including the finer wares) in the Geometric and Early Archaic period is relatively coarse, I have not come across an East Greek vessel with a fabric sufficiently similar to that of
Excavations
84. For a long-lived Subgeometric style of pottery in Athens see, most recently,Papadopoulos,forthcoming, and in the Cyclades,Morris 1997, p. 68. 85. Coldstream1968, pp. 148-157, 196-211. 86. For the Protogeometricand Subprotogeometricpotteryof Troy, especiallythe neck-handledamphoras, with discussionof comparativematerial from other north Aegean sites, see Catling 1998b; also Lenz, Ruppenstein, Baumann,and Catling 1998. 87. See above,n. 32. 88. Zapheiropoulou1994. 89. See esp.Jones 1986, pp. 643673. Note also the fabricdescriptionsof some of the regionalvarietiesof chevronskyphoigiven in Descoeudres and Kearsley1983.
CULTURAL
AMPHORA
OF A GEOMETRIC
BIOGRAPHY
I73
MACEDONIA
,I A 0 Sardis.
,I
KARIA
0
4-I V4. CRETAN
SEA
RHODES
Knossos
CRETE
0
o
100 StatuteMiles 100 Kilometers
Figure18. Map of the Aegean showingthe Cycladesin relation to the Greekmainland,the Dodecanese,and East Greece generally. R. Finnerty
Agora P 14819 to provide a compelling visual match.90The distinctive fabrics of Chios and Klazomenai can be ruled out,91as can "Rhodian,"92 along with the distinctive sandy texture and light brown color of"Ionian" cups, many of which are local to Samos.93The generally coarse and gritty fabric of the "Wild Goat" and "Fikellura"styles, much of which can now be assigned to Miletos thanks to the work of Pierre Dupont,94 is a little
90. For a useful overviewof East Greek pottery,see Cook and Dupont 1998; for the Geometric period, Coldstream1968, pp. 262-301, remains fundamental.For the fabricof various East Greek wares,particularlyof the Archaicperiod, see TocraI, pp. 41-66; Jones 1986, pp. 660-673. I hasten to stressthat the following fabricdeterminations are made on the basis of visual criteria;the problemsinherent with the scientific determinationsof the clays of the Cycladesand East Greece, including Ionia and the Dodecanese, arewell laid out in Jones 1986. 91. For Chian Late Geometric and
Archaicpottery,Boardman1967 is fundamental;see also Boardman1998, pp. 144-146; and furtherTocraI, pp. 57-63; TocraII, pp. 24-28. For Klazomeniansee Cook and Dupont 1998, pp. 95-107, 121-128 (with full references);Boardman1998, pp. 148149. 92. By "Rhodian"I essentiallymean the "Bird-KotyleWorkshop"as defined by Coldstream1968, pp. 277-279; see also Boardman1998, pp. 51-52; Tocra I, pp. 41-57; TocraII, pp. 16-20. This distinctivefabricis characteristically brown-varying from darkorangeto coffee brown accordingto Coldstream 1968, p. 279-and containspredomi-
nantlywhite impurities,but only a relativelysmall quantityof silverymica. 93. Cf. Jones 1986, p. 665; Boardman1998, pp. 146-147. For potteryfrom Samos, see further Technau 1929, esp. pp. 6-37; Eilmann 1933. 94. Dupont 1986. See furtherCook and Dupont 1998, pp. 32-70, 77-91; Boardman1998, pp. 147-148. Although the home of Fikellurais Miletos, the Wild Goat Style is produced at variouscenters,including Miletos. The earlierstudies of the Wild Goat Style by Kardara(1963) and Schiering(1957) arestill important, especiallyfor shape and style.
i74
JOHN
K. PAPADOPOULOS
AND
EVELYN
L. SMITHSON
closer to the general appearanceof the fabric of P 14819, particularlyin the fact that the fired color of the clay can vary considerablyfrom a sandy brown through pink and red. Nevertheless, the color of the clay and range of impurities, especially the mica content, of the fabric of P 14819 are different from those of any pottery that can be assigned with confidence to Ionia. There are a number of fairly large belly-handled amphoras, especially three examples from Kameiros and Ialysos on Rhodes that are assigned by Coldstream on stylistic grounds to Early Geometric,95of which one is illustrated here (Fig. 19). None of these Rhodian amphoras, however, has the same shape and decoration as P 14819; they are all smaller than P 14819 and their decoration closer to true Protogeometric, despite their Subprotogeometricdate. By East Greek Middle Geometric, the bellyhandled amphora is exceedingly rare,and indeed one of the few examples is Thera 825 (Fig. 11), which Coldstream assigned to East Greece (see above). We have seen, however, that the fabric of Agora P 14819 is very different from that of Thera 825, as is that of the Rhodian amphoras assembled by Coldstream. As for the Cyclades (Fig. 20), a number of islands can also be quickruled out. The fabric of P 14819 is not the same as that which can ly be confidently assigned to Paros, Melos, Thera, or Siphnos.96The excavations directed by Lila Marangou at Minoa on Amorgos have brought to light an impressive arrayof Geometric, Archaic, and later material,but there is nothing from that island that I have seen that is similarto P 14819.97 The pottery found, to date, on Tenos includes a number of vessels made of a clay not unlike that of P 14819, but there is nothing that I know from that island that provides a satisfactorymatch.98The Geometric settlement site at Zagora on the island of Andros has yielded a wealth of Geometric pottery,which awaitsproperpublication.99The materialfrom Zagora high95. Coldstream1968, pp. 265266, pl. 58:a (Ialysos);Jacopi 1933, pp. 119-120, figs. 133-134; pp. 204205, figs. 244-245; two of these amphorasare also illustratedand discussedin Zapheiropoulou1994, p. 248, fig. 17, p. 250, fig. 19. 96. For the fabricof Parianand Melian, see Jones 1986, pp. 643-660; see also Coldstream1968, esp. pp. 176185; Zapheiropoulou1985; Sheedy 1985, the latterimportantin helping to clarifythe confusionin the literature between potteryvariouslyassignedas "Melian"or "Parian,"much of which was found in the PurificationTrench on Rheneia.Note also the pottery from Paroikia(Rubensohn1917, esp. pp. 7388) and the Delion publishedin Rubensohn 1962, pp. 83-129. For the highly distinctiveclay ofThera, which contains no mica, see Coldstream1968, pp. 185-189; 1977, pp. 216-217, and
discussionabove;see also Kontoleon 1958, esp. pp. 127-137. For Siphnian Geometric and Archaicpottery,including importedfabrics,see Brock and MackworthYoung 1949, pp. 3353; TocraI, pp. 73-78; TocraII, pp. 3438;Jones 1986, p. 644. For useful notes on the ceramicfabricfrom Melos, Kimolos,Paros,Mykonos, Naxos, Siphnos, as well as that fromThasos, see Villard 1993; Gautier 1993. I have not come acrosssufficientGeometric and EarlyArchaicpotteryfrom the northwestCyclades(i.e., Kea, Kythnos, and Seriphos)to comment on the productsof these islands;for a recent overviewof Kea and Kythnos,see the variouspapersin Mendoni and MazarakisAinian 1998. For a generaloverview of Cycladicpottery,the seminal studyby Dugas (1925), though out of date, is still useful in a numberof importantrespects,as is Buschor 1929.
97. Annual preliminaryreports appearin Ergonand Prakt;most recently,see Marangou1996; 1997; 1998 (which providesa useful historical introductionto the site, with references to earlierreports);and Marangou,in prep.For the publicationof two Protogeometricvases from Amorgos, see Catling andJones 1989. 98. ForTenian Geometric,see the overviewin Coldstream1968, p. 166 (with references);also Levi 1925-1926; Desborough 1952, pp. 158-161. I am gratefulto Nota Kouroufor discussing Tenian Geometric potterywith me in the Tenos Museum, and for showing me her recentfinds from Exombourgo. For the excavationsat Exombourgo (also -cEjlxtooPyo),see Kourou1996; 1999b. 99. In the meantime,see Zagora1; Zagora2; also Cambitoglou,Peirce, Segal, and Papadopoulos1981.
CULTURAL
BIOGRAPHY
OF A GEOMETRIC
AMPHORA
I75
Figure 19. Early Geometric belly-handled amphora, Rhodes, inv. 15533, from Ialysos, grave 43 (H. 0.560 m). CourtesyKBEphoreia of Prehistoricand ClassicalAntiquities, R hodes Rhodes
?%.^ ..^ *;-
