Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades: Papers in honour of J.J. Coulton 9781841718934, 9781407329024

Citation preview

BAR S1455 2005 YEROULANOU & STAMATOPOULOU (Eds)

Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades Papers in honour of J.J. Coulton Edited by

Marina Yeroulanou Maria Stamatopoulou

ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE CYCLADES

B A R

BAR International Series 1455 2005

Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades Papers in honour of J.J. Coulton Edited by

Marina Yeroulanou Maria Stamatopoulou

BAR International Series 1455 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1455 Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2005 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718934 paperback ISBN 9781407329024 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718934 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Colloquium and Publication Sponsors

LINCOLN COLLEGE OXFORD

The Hellenic Foundation for Culture

Greece in Britain is a nationwide series of events presented by the Hellenic Foundation for Culture,UK to illustrate the wealth and diversity of Greek culture during the year of the Athens Olympic Games

The A.G. Leventis foundation

Niarchos (London) Ltd

The Faculty of Classics The Craven Committee The Meyerstein Fund The Jowett Trustees Merton College

University of Oxford

Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades Papers in honour of J.J. Coulton

Prologue M. Yeroulanou and M. Stamatopoulou Jim Coulton in Oxford and Balboura R.R.R. Smith J.J. Coulton and his contribution to archaeology I. Lemos J.J. Coulton: Publications 1. Cycladic settlement and the landscape R. Barber 2. Cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric and Geometric Periods: their contribution in interpreting the rise of the Cycladic poleis A. Gounaris 3. Emborio and Kambos: two Archaic sites on Melos R. Catling 4. A new early Archaic building on Naxos. Some thoughts on the Oikos of the Naxians on Delos V. Lambrinoudakis 5. Inside the adyton of a Greek temple. Excavations on Kythnos (Cyclades) A. Mazarakis Ainian 6. Despotiko Mandra: a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo Y. Kourayos 7. Naxian and Parian architecture. General features and new discoveries A. Ohnesorg 8. Buildings for votive ships on Delos and Samothrace B.D. Wescoat 9. The tower of Agia Triada on Amorgos M. Korres Abbreviations List of Plates Plates

ix xi xiii xix

1

13 69 79 87 105 135 153 173 195 197 199

v

vi

J.J. Coulton

vii

viii

Prologue

This volume is dedicated to Jim Coulton to mark his retirement from the Readership in Classical Archaeology at Merton College at Oxford. The papers were presented at the colloquium Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades which took place at Lincoln College, Oxford in April 2004. Jim Coulton devoted much of his early career to the study of Cycladic architecture. He saw earlier than most how important this area would be in advancing our knowledge not only of ancient architecture but also of many aspects of ancient Greek civilisation in general. The importance of the Cyclades as a historical and cultural centre of the Aegean, that results from its geographic position, cannot be underestimated. We find evidence of this time and again from sites – for example – on Delos, Naxos, Paros, Amorgos, Thera, and Tenos. To honour a distinguished career both as a researcher and as a teacher this volume presents important recent finds and thinking on the subject of architecture and archaeology of the Cyclades presented by eminent figures in the field. The first papers by Robin Barber, Alexandros Gounaris and Richard Catling (chs 1-3) concentrate on the broad spread of the early poleis and analyse settlement patterns in the Cyclades. They give us an overview of the history of the Aegean looking at older excavations and results from surface surveys and ethnological studies. Recent archaeological work has revealed impressive new sites, such as the Archaic sanctuaries at Despotiko and Kythnos (chs 5-6). Their study is enriching our knowledge of ancient Cycladic architecture and its influences on Greek architecture, local sculpture, and cult and votive practices. The diversity and quality of finds presented by Alexandros Mazarakis-Ainian and Yannos Kourayos clearly portrays their importance in antiquity. Their final publication will help establish the importance of smaller islands within the Cyclades and provide us with spectacular images that will undoubtedly appear in future archaeological handbooks. Continuing work on Naxos, Paros and Delos has produced material which, true to the spirit of Jim’s academic ethos, has resulted in the re-evaluation of the prevailing paradigms of architecture and monuments in the Cyclades. Aenne Ohnesorg’s paper provides an overview of new discoveries on Paros and Naxos (ch. 7), while the papers by Vassilis Lambrinoudakis on Phlerio and Bonna Wescoat on buildings for votive ships both present new insight on votive practices and architectural methods from the Archaic to the Hellenistic periods (chs 4 and 8). New political and social conditions in the Hellenistic Aegean are explored in the paper by Manolis Korres (ch. 9). The Tower of Agia Triada – an exceptionally well-preserved example

ix

of this architectural type – is analysed in detail and discussed in the context of the defensive needs of the islands during the period of Macedonian control of the region. While we are very much aware that there are other sites in the Cyclades which have produced significant finds recently, the emphasis of this colloquium was on architecture. We were also keen that recent discoveries which have not yet been presented to the English-speaking academic community be discussed and debated. We hope that the volume will generate the type of academic debate that Jim Coulton has taught a generation of classical archaeologists to engage in. We would like to express our warmest thanks to those without whose help and support the colloquium and the publication of this volume would not have been possible. First and foremost we would like to thank the speakers, who shared freely with us their knowledge and exciting new finds. We are indebted to numerous organisations and foundations, which, through their generous financial support, have enabled us to realise this colloquium and the publication of its proceedings: The Hellenic Foundation for Culture; the A.G. Leventis Foundation; Niarchos (London) Ltd.; The Hellenic Foundation London; EasyJet; the Craven Committee; the Meyerstein Fund; the Jowett Trustees, and Merton College. Last but not least, we would like to thank the Faculty of Classics for all its support and Lincoln College for hosting the colloquium. On a more personal note, we would like to express our gratitude to Mary Coulton, Bert Smith, Victoria Solomonides, George D. Lemos, Stamos J. Fafalios, John Kapodistrias, Eri Lemos, Dennis Saw, John Karavas, David Davison, Rajka Makjanic, and the staff of Lincoln College. Each in his own way has helped us greatly. The colloquium and this volume are dedicated to Jim Coulton to celebrate a distinguished career that spans 40 years in the world of classical archaeology and architecture. We hope that Jim will enjoy these papers, which generate as many questions as they answer. Bert Smith and Eri Lemos present in detail Jim Coulton’s career and contribution to archaeology and Oxford. We, however, cannot finish this prologue without mentioning how valuable Jim’s teaching was for our personal academic development. His critical mind, honesty, personal and intellectual integrity and his wide-ranging research have inspired us and a whole generation of students and colleagues. We would like to extend him our warmest thanks and gratitude for his guidance and friendship and our best wishes for the future. Marina Yeroulanou and Maria Stamatopoulou

x

Jim Coulton in Oxford and Balboura

Jim Coulton’s impact in the field of classical archaeology and architectural history has been deep and wide, and is well exemplified in the range of papers assembled in this volume, originally given at a memorable colloquium in Jim's honour in Oxford in 2004. Colleagues have offered many of their best new discoveries and ideas. I have known Jim as a teacher then colleague for some thirty years, and take this opportunity to say something about his place in the university and in our field more generally. The context demands brachulogia: Jim hates anything long-winded or exaggerated. As a teacher and supervisor, Jim was direct and interrogative. He liked to hear the facts of the case in hand but also what might be their explanation. For both ideas and facts, the favoured treatment was a radical Socratic scepticism. What was left standing after this treatment, the student knew might be usable. Jim has supervised doctoral theses over a very wide range of subjects in the archaeology and history of Greek and Roman cities and their built structures and has inspired in his students an intense devotion he would be embarrassed to hear described. Jim has been an exemplary university colleague, always ready to go the extra distance to see things done properly and fairly, always frank and to-the-point in assessing difficult matters. He has naturally good judgement and a strong sense of justice. We worked together closely on both the ideas and the mountains of paper work needed to introduce our new Honours degree in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History in the university. Without Jim's drive and painstaking care, the degree would never have been started. Once it was begun, Jim threw himself into its integrated archaeology-history teaching with great vigour. His contribution to its (big) success has been the largest. In both life and scholarship, Jim is a practical, pragmatic, down-to-earth, feet-on-the-ground person. He has always preferred to do something to talking about doing something. His work and research questions have been shaped by a deep-seated curiosity about how things were actually done and made. He has been most interested in how buildings were actually built, how precisely the idea and design of a structure was converted into carved stone, and why the various choices made in that process were arrived at – for reasons of speed and economy of effort, for improved quality or durability, or for simple thrift. Jim's explanations so often seem right because of a shrewd grasp of human nature and an ability to detect practical advantages in what have sometimes been considered aesthetic choices. His work shows both rigorous thinking and a willingness to experiment, to find out how things were actually done, how they actually worked in the real world. Jim’s scholarly achievements and publications are well known: stoas, temple design, architects at work, Greek cities of the Roman period, as well as the study of memorable complexes of material at Zagora, Lefkandi, Phylla, Oinoanda, and Balboura – all illustrated with evocative drawings in his distinctive, stripped-down, deceptively simple graphic style. Few scholars have

xi

published with equal confidence on aqueduct siphons, inscribed land registers, and the Parthenon's refinements. In general, Jim's publications are an education in both ancient construction practice and in clear thinking. Oinoanda and Balboura were multi-stranded archaeological studies of ancient polis culture. Balboura especially was a pioneering project, the site a typical and inspired Coulton choice – a small, neglected, initially unpromising town in the mountains of inland northern Lycia. But it is also of course an utterly typical example in the middle and smaller size range that the majority of ancient poleis occupied. Jim's idea was simple – though not as far as a I know articulated by him in this simplistic formulation: to study equally and together the urban centre (astu) and the territory (chora) of a single small polis community. He planned and carried out an even-handed programme of three seasons on the city (buildings, monuments, inscriptions, urban space) and three seasons on the territory (field survey, agricultural study, lake coring, environmental analysis). This was a typically understated mediation between and combination of 'new' and other kinds of classical archaeology. The point is basic: to understand ancient poleis we need both kinds of archaeology because each tells us about a quite different zone of ancient culture and experience. Jim's Balboura project documents a whole ancient community at work, and he took real satisfaction I think in recording the life of an ordinary and remote settlement, in showing the ingenuity and flair for adapting and enhancing their environment on the part of its inhabitants. This is a broad-based human archaeology in which drains and cranes have as much place as temples and statues. Jim is already much missed in the university. He made a lasting impact here. His scholarship and contributions to our understanding of the Greek and Roman world have and will continue to have a strong effect on the discipline. We wish him many fruitful years to come. R.R.R. Smith

xii

J.J. Coulton and his contribution to archaeology

Jim Coulton was educated in Cambridge from where he acquired both his MA and PhD; his PhD thesis was supervised by H. Plommer. From 1964 to 1968 he was Lecturer in Classics at the Australian National University in Canberra; he moved for a short period to Manchester and from there to a lectureship in Edinburgh in 1968. He was elected to the Readership in Oxford in 1979. The Readership is attached to Merton College where he is now an Emeritus Fellow.

Figure 1. Restored west elevation of the Stoa by the harbour at Perachora (restoration by J. J. Coutlon, in J.J. Coulton, ‘The Stoa by the Harbour at Perachora’, BSA 52 (1964), 121, fig.11).

Jim Coulton’s contribution to Archaeology and especially to the study of Graeco- Roman Architecture is well known. His monographs on the subject are considered ‘classics’. Both The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa published in 1976 by Oxford University Press, and Greek Architects at Work: Problems of Structure and Design, originally published in 1977 and reprinted in 1988, have been used extensively for research, teaching, and in

xiii

general for the understanding of major developments in Greek architecture. Jim’s clear, sensible and meticulous accounts set an example to all students of archaeology; they are especially important for the new generation of classical archaeologists who are often bombarded by much unnecessary theory and little common-sense or concern with any factual accuracy. Jim’s scholarship is based on a scrutiny of the evidence and results to his thorough knowledge of ancient architecture. His numerous studies, articles and publications are often enriched with his own painstaking reconstructions and architectural plans. One example of his brilliance in reconstruction, based on analysis and interpretation of the archaeological data, is that of the stoa by the harbour at Perachora published in the Annuals of the British School at Athens in 1964 [fig. 1]. I first met Jim in the early 1980s when I arrived at Oxford to do graduate work. I was sadly never his student but I had the good luck to work with him in the excavations of the Protogeometric building at Toumba in Lefkandi. It was there that I came across his conscientious methods and precise search for evidence. Jim Coulton has been a field archaeologist throughout his career: he has excavated in key sites in Greece (Perachora, Zagora, Lefkandi) but also Jordan, Iran and, Libya. He has also directed and participated in major surveys in Oenoanda and Balboura in south-west Turkey. These projects have produced a number of important publications on architecture, town planning, and epigraphy.

Figure 2. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, Lefkandi (drawing by J.J. Coulton).

xiv

A number of Jim’s reconstructions are to be found in main textbooks on Greek architecture, archaeology and history. We have all been using them for both research and teaching and they cannot be missed out in the present brief account of his academic achievements. For example, the reconstruction of the Toumba building at Lefkandi is to be found in any book of the archaeology of Greece or study of Greek architecture; in some sense it has become another ‘classic’ image [fig. 2]. The same can be said for Jim's careful publication of the extraordinary building at Toumba, Lefkandi. The interpretation of the function of the building will be changing as generations of scholars attempt to appreciate its complexity, but the meticulous and thorough publication by Jim Coulton will always remain the starting point for every attempt to understand it. The archaeology of Euboea also benefited from another project directed by Jim: the Phylla fort at Vrachos [fig. 3]. There again excavation and prompt publication offer to both archaeologists and historians a unique opportunity to get insights of a Greek fort, especially since there are very few of them excavated and I believe even fewer excavated with modern methods.

Figure 3. The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos (drawing by J.J. Coulton, in J.J. Coulton (ed.) The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos (BSA suppl. 33, 2002)).

The excavation and the publications of Zagora was another key site in Jim’s contribution to the archaeology of early Greece. This fascinating settlement still offers one of the rare opportunities to understand an early Greek town. Again Jim’s study of the architecture of Zagora offers an exemplary account, where detailed observations are combined with discussion of town planning and organisation. The reconstructions of the Zagora houses drawn by Jim have been widely illustrated and used for both teaching and research [fig. 4].

xv

Figure 4. Isometric reconstruction of House D6-7-8-27, Zagora, Andros (drawing by J.J. Coulton, in Prakt 1972, 261).

It was on Zagora that Jim also met his wife Mary who was at the time a student of the University at Athens participating at the excavations. Mary, an archaeologist herself at the beginning of her career, and also a scholar of Modern Greek has been a great support to Jim. I have enjoyed her warm, honest and straightforward personality. I have also benefited, together with many others, from her hospitality – based, I believe, on a combination of her Greek and Scottish origins. At the Coultons’ home in North Oxford students – and not only Jim’s – had the great privilege of enjoying some of the best meals offered in town. This was of course especially appreciated by the ‘Greeks’. Jim’s generosity extended to the way he treated his students outside the customary obligations. One example is that a number of his publications are signed together with his collaborators in the field who often were his students. This demonstrates another aspect of the character of our honorand and gives me the opportunity to refer to another of his important contributions to classical archaeology: Jim Coulton has educated generations of classicists. He has produced a number of distinguished scholars who can proudly claim that they were

xvi

trained and educated by him. Among them are a number of my friends and contemporaries, including the current Lincoln Professor, Bert Smith. Others were Eleni Armpis, Jens Baumbach, Kostis and Elina Dallas, Gordon Davies, Andrew Farrington, Lynne Lancaster, Frederique Landuyt, Marcus Lodwick, Argyro Loukaki, Sotiris Patronos, Carlos Picón, Saher Rababeh, Thurstan Robinson, Eric Stenton, Pippa Vanderstar, Bonna Wescoat, Marina Yeroulanou, and many others. There are of course an even larger number of students who read Master degrees under his supervision or followed his lectures and participated in undergraduate tutorials on architecture and other aspects of the archaeology of the Greek and Roman world. Jim Coulton was a dedicated tutor who also served in many committees and bodies of the University throughout his career. One can only mention a few of his services here. He was Director of the Institute of Archaeology (1990-93), convener of a number of committees such as the Committee for Graduate Studies, and Chairman of the Sub-Faculty of Archaeology. One of the achievements late in his career is his part in planning the new degree in Classical Archaeology and Ancient History at Oxford which has been extremely successful. At Merton, he has taken his share in serving in a number of Committees: he has been Secretary of the Harmsworth Trust, and member of the Leventis Committee. Moreover, he was Sub-Warden in the last two years before his retirement. Outside the University he has always being involved in a number of scholarly Societies such as both the British Schools at Athens and Ankara and Societies for the Promotion of Hellenic and Roman Studies. All these clearly show his commitment to participate in the decision centres of research, fieldwork and promotion of classical studies in the UK and abroad. Jim Coulton’s contributions to research, teaching and administration are outstanding and I have only given a modest account of them to match the modesty of his character. He has played an important role in establishing and advancing the study of Greek and Roman architecture in both his publications and fieldwork commitment. At Oxford he succeeded in introducing new subjects in the teaching of classical archaeology and he left his mark in the decisions that he made during the numerous offices he held inside and outside Oxford. Jim and Mary Coulton are moving to Athens where their children and their families live. They will be very much missed at Oxford but they will continue to contribute to research and study of both the ancient and the modern Greek world. I wish them both a happy and productive retirement in Greece. Irene S. Lemos

xvii

xviii

J.J. Coulton: Publications

A. Books: 1971a: (with A. Cambitoglou, J. Birmingham and J.R. Green) Zagora I (Sydney: Australian Academy of the Humanities, Monograph 2). 1976a: The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa (Oxford: Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology, Clarendon Press). 1977a: (Ancient) Greek Architects at Work (London: Paul Elek; Ithaca and New York: Cornell U.P.; Japanese translation by J. Ito, 1991). 1989a: (with A. Cambitoglou, A. Birchall and J.R. Green) Zagora II (Athens: Archaeological Society of Athens). 2002a: (with E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki and I.R. Metzger) The Fort at Phylla, Vrachos: Excavations and Researches at a Late Archaic Fort in Central Euboea, ed. J.J. Coulton (London: BSA Supplementary Series no. 33). B. Contributions to books: 1976b: ‘Brauron’, in R. Stillwell et al. (eds), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (Princeton: Princeton U.P.), 163-164. 1978a: Various articles on classical architecture in Everyman’s Encyclopaedia (6th edition, London: Dent). 1980a: ‘Greek architecture’, in M. Raeburn (ed.), Architecture of the Western World (London: Orbis). 1982a: ‘Hermogenes’ and ‘Kallikrates’, in Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects (New York: Free Press-Macmillan), 359-361, 546-548. 1985a: English terminology (and other contributions) in R. Ginouvès and R. Martin (eds), Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine I: Matériaux, techniques de construction, techniques et formes du decor (Athens and Rome: Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome). 1988a: ‘Greek building techniques’ and ‘Greek architecture’, in M. Grant and R. Kitzinger (eds), Civilisation of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome (New York: Scribner), 277-298, 1653-1670. 1992a: English terminology (and other contributions) in R. Ginouvès and R. Martin (eds), Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine II: Élements constructifs: supports, couvertures, aménagements intérieures (Athens and Rome: Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome). 1993a: ‘The Toumba Building: its architecture’, in M.R. Popham, L.H. Sackett and P.G. Calligas (eds), Lefkandi II.2: The Protogeometric Building at Toumba. The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (London: British School at Athens), 33-70. 1994a: ‘Classical Greek architecture’, in Cambridge Ancient History, Plates Vol. V-VI (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 55-84.

xix

1995a: ‘Balbura’, in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica; secondo supplemento 1971-94 (Rome), I 597-598. 1996a: ‘Greece, ancient, II Architecture, 2 Historical outline, (i) Dark Age’, in J .Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art (London and New York), 13 396. 1996b: ‘Greece, ancient, II Architecture, 3 Theory and design, (ii) Drawings models and specifications’, in J. Tumer (ed.), The Dictionary of Art (London and New York), 13 409-410. 1996c: ‘Stoa’, in J.Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art (London and New York), 29 680-682. 1996d: ‘Oinoanda’, in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. Secondo supplemento 1971-94 (Rome), IV 64-65. 1996e: ‘Euboean Phylla and Greek barracks’, in D. Evely, I.S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds), Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Presented to Mervyn Popham (Oxford: BAR Int. Ser. 683), 161-165. 1998a: English terminology (and other contributions) in R.Ginouvès (ed.), Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque et romaine III: Éspaces architecturaux, bâtiments et ensembles (Athens and Rome: Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome). 1998b: ‘Highland cities in south-west Turkey: the Oinoanda and Balboura surveys’, in R. Matthews (ed.), Ancient Anatolia: Fifty Years’ Work by the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (London: BIAA), 225-236. C. Articles, Conference Papers, etc (excluding reviews): 1964: 1966: 1967a: 1967b: 1968: 1971b: 1974a: 1974b: 1975a: 1975b: 1976c: 1976d: 1979a: 1979b: 1982b: 1982c: 1983a:

1983b: 1984:

‘The Stoa by the Harbour at Perachora’, BSA 59 (1964), 100-131. ‘The treatment of re-entrant angles’, BSA 61 (1966), 132-146. ‘A tympanum fragment at Perachora’, BSA 62 (1967), 353-371. ‘The West Court at Perachora’, BSA 62 (1967), 353-371. ‘The Stoa at the Amphiaraion, Oropos’, BSA 63 (1968), 147-183. ‘Diple stoa’, AJA 75 (1971), 183-184. ‘The columns and roof of the South Stoa at the Argive Heraion’, BSA 68 (1973), 6586. ‘Lifting in early Greek architecture’, JHS 94 (1974), 1-19. ‘Towards understanding Doric design: the stylobate and intercolumniations’, BSA 69 (1974), 61-86. ‘The second temple of Hera at Paestum and the pronaos problem’, JHS 95 (1975), 13-24. ‘Towards understanding Greek temple design: general considerations’, BSA 70 (1975), 59-99 (with Corrigenda in BSA 71 (1976), 149-150). ‘The meaning of anagrapheus’, AJA 80 (1976), 302-304. ‘Doric capitals: a proportional analysis’, BSA 74 (1979), 81-153. ‘Extended angle intercolumniations in fifth-century Athenian Ionic’, JHS 99 (1979), 155-157. ‘Oinoanda: the Doric Building (Mk 2)’, AnatSt 32 (1982), 45-59. ‘Termessians at Oinoanda’, AnatSt 32 (1982), 115-131. ‘Greek architects and the transmission of design’, in Architecture et société de l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la République romaine: actes du colloque international (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique; Rome: École Française de Rome), 453-470. ‘The buildings of Oinoanda’, PCPS 209, NS 29 (1983), 1-17. ‘The Parthenon and Periclean Doric’, in E. Berger (ed.), Parthenon-Kongress, Basel (Mainz: von Zabern), 40-44.

xx

1985b: ‘Incomplete preliminary planning in Greek architecture: some new evidence’, in J.-F. Bommelaer (ed.), Le Dessin d’architecture dans les sociétés antiques (Strasbourg), 103-121. 1986a: ‘Balboura Survey’, AnatSt 36 (1986), 7-8. 1986b: (with E.C. Stenton) ‘Oenoanda: the water supply and aqueduct’, AnatSt 36 (1986), 15-60. 1986c: ‘Oenoanda: the agora’, AnatSt 36 (1986), 61-90. 1987a: ‘Balboura Survey’, AnatSt 37 (1987), 11-13. 1987b: ‘Balboura 1985’, IV AST 1986 (Ankara), 171-178. 1987c: ‘Roman aqueducts in Asia Minor’, in S. Macready and F.H. Thompson (eds), Roman Architecture in the Greek World (London: Society of Antiquaries), 72-84. 1987d: ‘Opramoas and the Anonymous Benefactor’, JHS 107 (1987) 171-178. 1988b: ‘Ba1boura Survey’, AnatSt 38 (1988), 14-17. 1988c: ‘Balboura Survey 1986’, V AST 1987 (Ankara), 205-211. 1988d: (with N.P. Milner and A.T. Reyes) ‘Onesimos and Meleager, Pt I’, AnatSt 38 (1988), 121-146. 1988e: ‘Post holes and post bases in early Greek architecture’, MedA 1 (1988), 58-65. 1989b: ‘Balboura Survey 1987’, VI AST 1988 (Ankara), 225-232. 1989c: ‘Modules and measurements in ancient design and modem scholarship’, in H. Geertman and J.J. de Jong (eds), Munus non Ingratum (Leiden), 85-89. 1990a: ‘Balboura Survey 1988’, AnatSt 39 (1989), 12-13. 1990b: (with N.P. Milner and A.T. Reyes) ‘Onesimos and Meleager Pt II’, AnatSt 39 (1989), 41-62. 1990c: (with A.S. Hall) ‘A Hellenistic allotment list from Balboura in the Kibyratis’, Chiron 20 (1990), 109-158. 1991: (with A. Farrington) ‘Terracotta spacer pins in Lycian bath buildings’, AnatSt 40 (1990), 56-67. 1992b: ‘Balboura Survey 1990’, AnatSt 41 (1991), 17-19. 1992c: ‘Balboura Survey, 1988, 1990’, IX AST 1991 (Ankara), 47-57. 1993b: ‘Balboura Survey 1991’, AnatSt 42 (1992), 6-8. 1993c: ‘North Lycia before the Romans’, in J. Borchhardt and G. Dobesch (eds), Akten des II Internationalen Lykien-Kongresses in Wien 1990 (= Tituli Asiae Minoris Erg.hft 17: Vienna), 79-85. 1993d: ‘Balboura Survey, 1991’, X AST1992 (Ankara), 459-472. 1993e: ‘Balboura and district research project 1992’, AnatSt 43 (1993), 4-6. 1993f: (with C.H. Hallett) ‘The East Tomb and other tomb buildings at Balboura’, AnatSt 43 (1993), 41-68. 1994b: ‘Balboura and district research project 1993’, AnatSt 44 (1994), 8-10. 1994c: ‘Balbura’, Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale; secondo supplemento 1971-94 (Rome), I 680-682. 1995b: ‘The fortifications of Balboura’, in Fortifications et défense du territoire en Asie Mineure occidental et méridionale; Table ronde CNRS, Istanbul 20-27 mai 1993 (= REA 96:1-2), 327-335. 1995c: ‘Balboura Research Project 1992’, XI AST 1993 (Ankara), 429-436. 1996f: (with N.P. Milner) ‘The mausoleum of Licinia Flavilla at Oinoanda’, AnatSt 46 (1996), 111-144. 2000a: ‘Fitting friezes: architecture and sculpture’, in G. Tsetskhladze, A.J.N.W. Prag and A.M. Snodgrass (eds), Periplous, Papers on Classical Art and Archaeology Presented to Sir John Boardman (London: Thames and Hudson), 70-79. 2000b ‘Coping with curvature: the practical aspects’, in L. Haselberger (ed.), Appearance and Essence: Refinements of Classical Architecture: Curvature (Philadelphia), 69-77.

xxi

2002b: ‘The Dioptra of Heron of Alexandria’, in C.J. Tuplin and T.E. Rihll (eds), Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture (Oxford: OUP), 149-164. D. In preparation: Balboura: A Highland City and its Territory; Results of a survey in SW Turkey 198593. The aim will be to present the publication of evidence relating to the city site and its territory, concentrating particularly on the evidence from surface survey, including a synthesis of the ceramic, architectural, epigraphic and literary evidence.

xxii

1 Cycladic settlement and the landscape Robin Barber

The object of this paper is to discuss two broad aspects of the relationship between Cycladic settlements and the landscape in which they are set, with particular reference to the work of Jim and Mary Coulton.

evidence from every phase of the islands’ history in the hope that the greater certainty of aspects of the relationship in specific cases will help clarify others more doubtful, even if there is no direct temporal connection. This approach can be applied to both the physical and the social aspects of settlement and, for the latter, anthropological studies of traditional village communities provide further valuable insights.

Part of the quest will be a brief survey of the history of habitation in the Cyclades from prehistoric times to the present day. Since it is only in the last fifty years that Cycladic settlements have been seriously affected by modern innovations such as concrete, motor transport, and air and fast sea communications, the interaction between settlement and the landscape has remained close.1 Thus it is well worth looking at

Interaction between settlement and the landscape can be illustrated by examples from widely different locations as a comparison of Zagora on Andros [pl. 1A] and the castle rock at Edinburgh [pl. 1B] – both places familiar to the Coultons – shows. Both sites overlook the sea, both are readily defensible and, in both cases, the fortification is partly natural and partly artificial. Further, the appearance of the structures of each site derives from the use of local materials. The castle at Edinburgh is built of stone from local quarries,2 and the houses and fortifications at

I am grateful to Dr. John Ellis Jones for his detailed replies to queries about aspects of ancient housing; to Alekos Gounaris, Olga Philaniotou and Guy Sanders for suggestions and comments, to Michael Boyd for information about recent work at Phylakopi (see footnote 8), to John Burke for extensive help with the drawings; and to Zoe Hadjianastasiou for introducing me to the work of Alki Kiriakidou-Nestoros.

Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις = L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, Παλαιόπολις Ανδρου Ι: Τα οικοδομικά από την προανασκαφική έρευνα (Andros 1996). Polity = C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982). Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’ = G.D.R. Sanders, ‘Two Kastra on Melos and their relations in the Archipelago’, in P. Lock and G.D.R. Sanders (eds), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece (Oxford 1996), 147-177. Zagora I = A. Cambitoglou, J.J. Coulton, Judy Birmingham, J.R. Green, Zagora I: Excavation Season 1967; Study Season 19689 (Sydney 1971). 1 A.Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Η οργάνωση του χώρου στον παραδοσιακό πολιτισμό’, Λαογραφικά Μελετήματα (Athens 1974), 41-55 (from Συνέχεια 2 (April 1973)), 47-48. 2 J. Gifford, C. McWilliam and D. Walker, Edinburgh (Harmondsworth 1984), 21-26 (‘Topography and building materials’ by G.Y. Craig); I. MacIvor, Edinburgh Castle (London 1993), 72 (stone from Inverleith used in early 17th century buildings).

The figures have been adapted from the following sources: 1. Naval Intelligence Division, Greece III (Regional Geography) (Geographical Handbook Series), 1945, fig. 115; 2. Polity, fig. 5.3; 3. Polity, fig. 11.9; 4. Prakt 1972, 253 fig. 1; 5. Mazarakis-Ainian (below n. 41), fig. 370; 6. Prakt 1972, 270 fig. 10. The photographs were taken by the author. Abbreviations Belivanakis, Ιστορία = Gr. Belivanakis, Ιστορία της Μήλου συγκροτημένη από τις ιστορικές επιφυλλίδες της εφημερίδος ‘Μήλος’ μίας 25ετίας 1976-2001 (Athens 2001). Coldstream, Geometric Greece = J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977). Du Boulay, Portrait = J. du Boulay, Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village (Oxford 1974). Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’ = A.Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια του τόπου ή η λογική του Ελληνικού τοπίου’, in ead., Λαογραφικά Μελετήματα (Athens 1974), 15-40 (from Χρονικό 1974).

1

R. Barber

Figure 1. Melos. Map of the island.

Zagora of slabs of schist and blocks of marble, gathered on or close to the site.3

appearance of Cycladic villages of the earlier 1st millennium BC.

These places illustrate the two aspects to which I referred initially: the first where the landscape provides locations which suit the settlement needs of particular communities at particular times – security is prominent in both these two cases; the second where the terrain itself and its resources influence the organisation and appearance of the buildings of which the settlement is composed, in terms both of the overall plan and of the use of local materials.

As for the influences which govern the choice and maintenance of settlement location, recent survey work in the Cyclades has rightly emphasised that these are complex and often prone to oversimplification.4 But even such studies, which deal mainly with a combination of practical, economic, commercial and political concerns, omit other potentially significant factors. These become evident only from the study of more recent history and of anthropology – I am thinking of social, practical and even aesthetic concerns, some of which are treated below. Here projects such as the Morea survey5 and Juliet du Boulay’s study of a village in Euboea6 – have much to contribute.

As regards the organisation and appearance of buildings in general, special attention will be given to the housing – as the largest and least studied component – to evidence for the origins of key architectural features of the mature city state and to the likely 3

4

Zagora I, 22; A. Cambitoglou, A. Birchall, J.J. Coulton and J.R. Green, Zagora II: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros: Excavation Season 1969; Study Season 1969-70 (Athens 1988), 150.

e.g. Polity, ch. 19. F.A. Cooper, Houses of the Morea: Vernacular Architecture of the Northern Peloponnesos (1205-1955) (Athens 2002). 6 Du Boulay, Portrait. 5

2

Cycladic settlement

advantages resulted in Phylakopi remaining the major centre on the island for over 2500 years.

First, the history of Cycladic settlement. Melos [fig. 1, pl. 1C] is given some prominence here, partly because it has been a focus of work by the British School at Athens, with which the Coultons have a long association, and partly because a number of features of its settlement are usefully clarified by historical sources.

Such towns continued to exist in the Late Bronze Age Cyclades, when the greater spread of settlement may have derived from the security of a pax, first Minoan, then Mycenaean. In the 13th century BC, new sites – often remoter and more defensible, such as Agios Spiridon on Melos (immediately to the west of Emporio) – and new fortifications are signs of the breakdown of such stability.10

In the mature Early Bronze Age,7 Cycladic settlements were quite numerous – mostly small, often on hills by the sea, inland also on larger islands. Good drainage, shelter for people and boats, proximity to water sources and agricultural land, and good communications are some of the factors enrolled to explain their situation. The occupation of more precipitous sites in the later Early Cycladic period has been taken to indicate a time of uncertainty, even invasion – and the tendency seen in the Middle Bronze Age to concentration of habitation in single large centres as a probable consequence of this.

The end of the Bronze Age saw Phylakopi deserted and, like the majority of the other islands at that time, Melos seems to have lost most or all of its population.11 The probability of this conclusion is strengthened by the fact that most of the Protogeometric pottery from the islands, including the two vases from Melos, is dated late in the period.12 The sites of the next generation13 – the Geometric period – are mostly in new and different locations, which suggest different priorities. Some (Zagora, Donoussa14) seem isolated and were relatively shortlived; others, apparently founded about the same time, later became major Classical centres. Consider Melos again. The new town [figs. 1-2, pl. 2B] was in an elevated position overlooking the entrance to the gulf, with a port below at Klima. It shares some characteristics with other Cycladic sites15 of this period such as Vryokastro on Kythnos and Palaiopolis on Andros – a westward-facing valley, sloping steeply to the sea, with an acropolis above. This new site is still somewhat remote from the island’s best mineral and agricultural resources.

As for Melos, one should note first the unusual shape of the island – roughly circular but almost cut in two by a deep and consequently sheltered gulf. The site at Phylakopi [fig. 1, pl. 2A], a small Early Bronze Age settlement, had become the island’s capital no later than the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. To the modern eye its location looks odd. It is on the exposed north coast rather than in the gulf and some distance away from the fertile plain of Livadi to the south, from the obsidian beds (at Demenegaki and Adamanta) and from other mineral resources which Melos possesses in abundance. On the positive side, it was close to sea routes, there was no need for craft to spend time sailing into the deep gulf, which has been so attractive to modern, mechanically powered, shipping, and the site did in fact have an excellent, if modest, harbour, in what was then a small bay on the inner side of the promontory.8 The promontory itself offered a not-too-precipitous surface for building and could be readily fortified with a wall across the neck. Nor was the distance from natural resources necessarily a serious problem since the distances involved are not very great, especially for people accustomed to walking.9 In any case, the balance of perceived

10

Barber, op.cit. n. 7, 72-73. Evidence for activity in the Cyclades in the Protogeometric period is very limited, with the exception of Naxos: I. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean (Oxford 2002), 207-208; Α. Gounaris, ‘Ερευνες οικιστικές των Πρωτογεωμετρικών - Γεωμετρικών Κυκλάδων και τα ζητούμενα της Κυκλαδικής προϊστορίας’, in Ν.Ch. Stampolidis (ed.), Φως Κυκλαδικόν. Τιμητικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Νίκου Ζαφειρόπουλου (Athens 1999), 96-113. For the two Protogeometric vases known from Melos, see V.R.d’A. Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952), 214. 12 Lemos, op.cit. n. 11, 207. 13 See Gounaris, op.cit. n. 11. The earliest Geometric evidence on Melos is thought by Coldstream (Geometric Greece, 91) to be Middle Geometric, a date which would accord with that from Zagora. 14 Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Γεωμετρική οχύρωσις εις Κυκλάδας’, ΑΑΑ 4 (1971), 210-216. 15 Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις, 21, 22 fig. 1, pl. 1; see A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘The Kythnos survey project: a preliminary report’, in L.G. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium Kea-Kythnos, 22-25 June 1994 (Athens 1998), 397398 figs 1-2; A.P. Gounaris, ‘Πολεοδομία και τείχη της αρχαίας πόλεως Κύθνου: προκαταρκτικές παρατηρήσεις’, in ibid, 381-396. The figures referred to are common to both the preceding articles. 11

7

C. Doumas, Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades (Lund 1977), 13-14; R.L.N. Barber, The Cyclades in the Bronze Age (London and Iowa City 1987), 53-59, 70-72. 8 Polity, 88, 94, 258. Recent work by the British School at Athens (M. Boyd, N. Brodie, R. Sweetman) suggests the possibility that there may have been harbour installations to the south of the promontory. I am grateful to Dr. Michael Boyd for allowing me to mention, in advance of publication, this finding, which is based on the results of geophysical survey and needs to be confirmed by further investigation. 9 In more recent times it can be shown that peasants walk considerable distances to cultivate their family holdings, which are often scattered because they were acquired through haphazard processes of inheritance (Polity, 108-110).

3

R. Barber

Figure 2. Classical Melos. Plan of the site.

Sanders has suggested19 that the recolonisation of Melos at the end of the 11th century was conducted on a small scale by the church, and this contingency provides an interesting sidelight on landscape-settlement interaction. Such small, self-sufficient, religious communities [pl. 2C] would have had quite different relationships with the landscape from those of larger secular settlements. Their requirements in terms of food production were modest and localised, and the places just as likely to be chosen for their traditional religious associations or special environmental characteristics – even for their isolation and freedom from worldly distraction. The physical isolation of most monastic communities – on Melos and elsewhere – is self-evident.

Such Cycladic centres continued and apparently flourished into Early Byzantine times – the 7th century AD. Remains of up to five basilicas, for example, have been found at Palaiopolis on Andros;16 and Melos then had several commercial sites apart from the main settlement.17 From this point18 Melos seems to have lost its population and commercial strength. The former capital was apparently abandoned and the population dispersed. There is no firm indication of occupation between the early 9th and the late 11th centuries. It is perhaps no accident that much of the limited evidence for subsequent revival is ecclesiastical. Guy

These kinds of environmental relationships have been remarked by Christos Karouzos and Vincent

16

Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις, 265. Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 148. 18 For locations of sites at various periods between 5th-6th centuries and 13th-14th centuries AD, see Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 164165 figs 3-4. 17

19

4

Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 148.

Cycladic settlement

Scully,20 with reference to ancient sanctuaries, and by Alki Kiriakidou-Nestoros21 to Postbyzantine churches. Both particular ancient deities and particular Christian saints can be associated with specific types of location (Apollo with mountains, Demeter with low-lying sites; Profitis Ilias with mountains, Agia Paraskevi with water). The spectacular character and atmosphere of some ancient sanctuaries (Delphi is perhaps the most striking example) suggests that they became sacred just because of these qualities. Nor are the innumerable, mostly tiny, churches and shrines, dotted over the Greek landscape, located as haphazardly as it might seem. Their positions are determined, on the one hand by an attractive view and the presence of water, the latter a feature which itself encourages further beautification of the immediate surroundings by the growth of trees and other vegetation; on the other by the need to mark out the landscape in deliberate ways.22 The question of the aesthetic appeal of ‘the view’ to villagers will be considered later.

well as the Cyclades, the Peloponnese, Attika and Crete.25 Not much later, a second kastro was constructed – this time in a quite different location – on the flat central plain [pl. 3C]. Then known as Millo, its subsequent expansion and importance are reflected in the later, still-used name of Chora (although it is now more commonly called Zefiria). However, little now remains of the place’s former glory since it was later used as a quarry for buildings on Melos and beyond.26 Nevertheless, a recent survey27 has identified the nature and location of its kastro,28 as well as the remains or sites of twelve churches. Documentary sources give the population as 2000 in 1470 rising to 6-7000 in the later 18th century. Here the landscape provided no natural defensive support and the form of the kastro was evidently that normally adopted in such situations29 – a rough square consisting of protective concentric rings of houses surrounding, in this case, a central tower and church. This site was much better placed for the exploitation of natural resources (in particular, the rich plain of Livadi), surely a predominant factor in the choice of location.

Although sacred sites are beyond the chosen remit of this paper, it is worth noting that the remarks of these scholars suggest ways of explaining choices of location not normally considered but potentially significant, even in the case of settlements.

In the second half of the 18th century there was another switch of population – once again to the vicinity of the original kastro, and the expanding settlement of Plaka immediately below. This remains the official capital of the island and subsequently (early 19th century?)30 acquired various satellite villages (Tripiti, Plakes, Triovasalos, Peran Triovasalos).

The next development in terms of substantial settlement on Melos comes with the arrival of Frankish potentates after the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204.23 The construction of castles then, on practically every island though in different types of location, can be put down to a desire to establish and defend their authority and commercial interests. These castles represent a particularly important moment in the history of Cycladic settlement since they frequently provided the focus from which later main centres expanded.24

Whereas some scholars have attributed the decline of Millo, or Chora, to plague, earthquake and the unhealthy nature of the area,31 others suggest it should be put down to a complex of economic and social causes.32 The fundamental commercial role of piloting in the Melian economy may have been one significant incentive to the shift back to the higher part of the island, with its wide views.

On Melos, the early 13th century saw the building of a kastro [pl. 3A] on a prominent volcanic plug, not far from but well above the Classical town. The site must have been chosen primarily for its security although it was still provided with walls - and for its excellent visibility [pl. 3B], which can encompass, as

The importance of international trade to Melos at that time is demonstrated by the presence in Plaka of

20

25

Chr. Karouzos, ‘Ο ελληνικός τόπος και η ελληνική τέχνη’, in id., Αρχαία Τέχνη: ομιλίες - μελέτες (Athens 1972/1981), 3-8; also V. Scully, The Earth, the Temple, and the Gods (New Haven and London 1962), 1-4. 21 Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’, passim. 22 Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’, 30ff. 23 For summaries see Polity, 58-68.; Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 148149. 24 The Chora of Naxos and the main settlements on Kimolos and Sikinos are all examples of places where the Frankish kastro is at the heart of the ‘modern’ settlement.

Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 149. G.Ch. Pagonis, ‘H χώρα της Μήλου παλαιότερα και σήμερα’, in Belivanakis, Ιστορία, 297-306, esp. 304. 27 Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 150-154. 28 Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 171-172 figs 16-17. 29 Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 177 fig. 22 (Kimolos) and 156. 30 Polity, 152. 31 Polity, 257; I. Chatzidakis, Ιστορία της νήσου Μήλου (Athens 1927), 182-187; G. Belivanakis, ‘H ερήμωση της παλιάς χώρας’, in Belivanakis, Ιστορία, 307-311. 32 Polity, 255 and refs. 26

5

R. Barber

consuls from several nations.33 One of these was Louis Brest [pl. 3D] who held office at the time the Aphrodite was removed from the island. There is also a nice sidelight on the process by which pilots gained their commissions.34 The first to spot a ship and then set his foot on a special stone in the square of the kastro got the prize.

whether it grows gradually over a long period of time – perhaps changing function in the process.37 In the Cyclades, we can see blueprints behind the Frankish kastro (central tower and church, protective rings of houses), the modern village (not dissimilar with houses focussed on a plateia with the main church and other public facilities nearby [pl. 3E])38 and, of course, the city state. In its developed form, the latter involved an agora with suitable buildings, a stadium for athletics, a theatre, sanctuaries. The locations of all these are considerably influenced by the nature of the terrain but, conversely, their needs could also have played a part in determining the choice of site. In the case of Classical Melos, the agora [pl. 4A] was apparently located on the only substantial piece of level land, the stadium [pl. 4B] on a large terrace (artificially supported) on the sloping hillside, the theatre similarly, with the seating on or cut into the slope above. These locations would obviously have been suited to their functions even before they were given monumental architectural form: a reasonably flat area for assembly and trade is suitable for an agora; athletic contests could take place there too – as they did at Argos, Athens and Corinth39 – or on another level stretch of ground; theatrical performances needed only a hillside for the audience to sit on and a flat space below for the chorus to perform and the drama to take place.

To round off the picture of Melian settlement, we should note the growth of the port of Adamanta, previously insignificant, in the 1820s with the arrival of refugees from Sfakia in Crete.35 This colony was soon accommodated in a township laid out from scratch on a grid plan [fig. 3].36 The expansion of modern tourism, with its tendency to coastal sites, has led to the recent growth in size and importance of Adamanta in the same way as many other Cycladic harbour villages. Thus the landscape – on Melos and elsewhere – offers locations which provide variously for security, access to the sea, agricultural or commercial resources, holidaymaking, spiritual consolation. The equation from which a particular choice results is always complex and always different. Now to the second point of emphasis in this paper: the role played by the landscape in the layout and physical appearance of settlements. Here I use the evidence so far accumulated to concentrate on settlements of the earlier 1st millennium BC - and pay special attention to their houses.

It is debatable, especially since the site is largely unexcavated, whether this kind of blueprint, whose development is linked to the emergence of the physical form of the city state,40 existed when the site of Classical Melos was first settled. If it did not, its components would have been found suitable sites later, where the terrain was most favourable. However, in the excavated centre of 8th-century Zagora [fig. 4], there is perhaps a case for seeing an embryo version of at least some of these elements. The possible ruler’s house41 is appropriately close to the religious centre and, between the two, is a space

The landscape apart, three interrelated factors are crucial in the development of a settlement: its primary function; the existence or otherwise of a blueprint for the form it is to take; and the circumstances of initial foundation. An agricultural hamlet will be different in size and composition from the capital of a city state: the former needs mainly dwellings and structures for agricultural activity, the latter’s blueprint will include suitable accommodation for specific political, religious, commercial and social activities.

37 J.B. Ward Perkins, Cities of Ancient Greece and Italy: Planning in Classical Antiquity (London 1974). 38 See below n. 50. 39 Agoras used as stadia: M. Piérart, G. Touchais, Argos: une ville grecque de 6000 ans (Paris 1996), 51-52; American School of Classical Studies at Athens, The Athenian Agora: a Guide to the Excavation and Museum (4th edition revised, Athens 1990), 112114; C.K. Williams II, ‘Corinth, 1969: the Forum area’, Hesperia 39 (1970), 1-39, esp. 1-6. 40 Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 314-315; J. Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (Cambridge 2001), 164-168; R. Osborne, Greece in the Making (London and New York 1996), 242. 41 A. Mazarakis-Ainian, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) (Jonsered 1997), 171-176 and references; Coldstream, Geometric Greece, 314-315.

The way that these facilities are accommodated is governed above all by whether the community can be designed and constructed all-of-a-piece (as is the case, par excellence, with colonial foundations, of which there are plenty of ancient examples and, on Melos, Adamanta [fig. 3] is a modern instance) or 33

G.Ch. Pagonis, ‘Ευρωπαϊκά προξενεία στη Μήλο’, in Belivanakis, Ιστορία, 327-35; Polity, 239ff. Sanders, ‘Two Kastra’, 149 and references. 35 G. Belivanakis, ‘Iστορία του Αδάμαντος’, in Belivanakis, Ιστορία, 360-362. 36 Polity, 154 fig. 11.9. 34

6

Cycladic settlement

Figure 3. Melos. Plan of Adamanta.

which might have had some of the functions of an agora.

– when they exist – may be individually most impressive, it is the houses which give a place its overall character and emphasise its relationship to the landscape.

Perhaps the most obscure and intriguing aspect of these earlier settlements is the character and organisation of their housing.42 This factor is particularly important in any attempt to reconstruct the appearance of a settlement since, while the public buildings

Most often in the Cyclades, although not of course at Zagora, houses were and are set on the natural terraces of sloping sites. Sometimes indeed they are partly cut into the rock.43 These terraces, which can be enlarged artificially, are normally supported by retaining walls. Houses may be detached,44 as in

42 In studies of ancient housing, most attention has been paid to the grander establishments of the late Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods. In B.C. Rider’s classic study (The Greek House (Cambridge 1916)) nothing separates Chapter 14 (Homeric palaces) from Chapter 16 (Greek house of the Fifth and Fourth centuries B.C.). The situation was partially remedied by J. Ellis Jones’ study (‘Town and country houses of Attica in Classical times’, in H. Mussche, P. Spitaels and F. Gomaere-De Poerck (eds), Thorikos and the Lavrion in Archaic and Classical Times (Ghent 1975)), and domestic buildings down to c. 700 BC are considered by Mazarakis (op.cit. n. 41). There seems still room for further study of preclassical housing, and investigation of the influences governing the siting of houses.

43

Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις, 252. As apparently shown by remains plotted on site plans in Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις, pl.1 and A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Επιφανειακές αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στην Κύθνο (1990-1995)’, Prakt 1995, 137-209, fig. 3. It should be noted that most of the buildings on these plans seem not earlier than the later 1st millenium BC: never44

7

R. Barber

Figure 4. Zagora, Andros. Plan of the site.

As regards the positioning and orientation of the houses, a key influence is obviously the natural lie of the terraces,49 but the available space could be modified by excavation, and there is a range of other possible factors, many of which are not usually considered, such as proximity to practical or social facilities, building regulations, the view. These are suggested as potentially influential by studies of traditional village communities in the Cyclades and elsewhere.

antiquity at Kythnos or Palaiopolis on Andros (a reconstruction of the Geometric-Archaic village at Emporio on Chios shows this nicely;45 [fig. 5]) or form larger groupings, as at the flatter site of Zagora [fig. 6], where there is evidence for growth by the gradual addition of houses to the blocks, and of the formation of larger houses by amalgamation.46 If more recent practice is any guide, even on hilly sites (cf. below, Seriphos) it was possible for this sort of development to occur, with buildings sharing party walls even over changes in level and orientation. Modern practice also suggests47 that partial detachment can be preferred – to provide yards where various activities could be carried out outside, even gardens.48

The recently published investigation of Frankish villages in the Morea, already mentioned, showed that they often grew up from a small original core, with the earliest houses focussed on a spring.50 Discussing a village in Euboea in her Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village, Juliet du Boulay noted a tendency for houses to be orientated towards the heart of the village as represented by the central square and,

theless, the layouts may not be dissimilar to those of the same sites in earlier times. 45 A plan of the Chios site may be found in J. Boardman, Greek Emporio (London 1967), fig. 4. 46 See below n. 54. 47 Du Boulay, Portrait, 17, 29. 48 Palaiokrassa, Παλαιόπολις, 252.

49 50

8

Boardman, op.cit. n. 45, 40. Cooper, op.cit. n. 5, 36.

Cycladic settlement

Figure 5. Emporio, Chios. Reconstruction of the Geometric-Archaic village.

these are formally laid down or applied by social pressure. On late 18th century Thera, for instance, there were strict rules about encroaching on adjacent buildings or land, keeping structures in good repair and obstructing neighbours’ views.55 Formal regulations of this sort presuppose the possibility of individual choice of site and would have been less relevant in cases where that was restricted by official allocation of land. Free choice of site is more likely to have obtained in gradually developing settlements with scattered housing (like most of those in the early 1st-millennium Cyclades) than in planned (e.g. colonial) towns, or crowded urban centres.

again, by the fountain – even when they were not in sight of them.51 As settlements expand, secondary focal points appear – other fountains, churches and so on. A possible ancient parallel for this sort of development might be seen, for example, in the plan of Halai Aixonides in Attika,52 with several small ritual centres among the houses of the settlement. Expansion might also involve the filling in of spaces between previously detached houses,53 either to enlarge existing units or to create new ones. This must be the reason for at least a proportion of the alterations to buildings which are so often identified in excavation of ancient sites.54

In the Thera regulation, reference is made to obstruction of a neighbour’s view. What might have been the significance of this?

Both new buildings and alterations are likely to be controlled by regulations of some kind, whether

The nearer view would be important to individual households for keeping an eye on neighbours’ activities – a primary aspect of village life, well documented by various anthropologists and probably by the experience of many of those reading this article,

51

Du Boulay, Portrait, 11. J. Travlos, Bildlexicon zur Topographie des antiken Attika (Tübingen 1988), 475 fig. 597; Osborne (op.cit. n. 40, 240) points to the likelihood of different neighbourhoods within the colonial settlement of Megara Hyblaea, although without reference to focal points of any kind. 53 Also suggested as one aspect of the growth of Plaka on Melos in the 19th century in Polity, 152. 54 e.g. at Zagora, Zagora I, 15-16. 52

55 Quoted in O.B. Doumanis and P. Oliver (eds), Οικισμοί στην Ελλάδα (Shelter in Greece) (Athens 1974), 65.

9

R. Barber

Figure 6. Zagora, Andros. Reconstruction of part of the site.

which is unlikely to have been any different in antiquity.

`H car¦ tÁj qšaj, poÝ eŒnai gi¦ m©j polÝ sucn¦ ¢potšlesma a„sqhtikÁj kallišrgeiaj, gi¦ tÕn ¥nqrwpo poÝ ze‹ kont¦ st¾ fÚsh eŒnai mšroj tÁj kaqhmerinÁj tou zwÁj prosoc¾ Ómwj giatˆ aÙtÕ dšn shma…nei pëj ™kful…zetai, Ópwj g…netai shn»qwj mš t¦ kaqhmerin¦ pr£gmata, sš ¡pl¾ sun»qeia, cwrˆj ¢nanšwsh kaˆ qaumasmÒ. Oƒ cwri£tej suneidht¦ qaum£zoun t¾ qša kaˆ t¾n ™ktimoàn s¦n ›na ¢pÕ t¦ basik¦ pleonekt»mata toà tÒpou touj...

The practical value of a more distant view has already been exemplified by the case of the Melian pilots and could also be useful in terms of security, allowing early warning of the approach of hostile parties, although the latter is a communal rather than a personal advantage.

This argument is supported by documentation of the value attached to views by villagers living in places with a generous outlook. In the villages of Pelion a place where the view can be admired is deliberately provided and appreciation of it can be demonstrated by the recorded comments of local people assembled there.58

Lastly there is its aesthetic appeal, the most difficult to analyse but nevertheless also potentially significant. Du Boulay’s observation56 that her village is “organised as an introverted community…not one house faces out of the village or looks towards the incomparable view which stretches away below” surely reflects a common tendency to disregard natural beauty in favour of economic or social advantages and suggests that access to an attractive view was not a major factor in the siting of houses.

Further evidence of popular interest in views of landscape – this time in the paintings of traditional craftsmen – can be sought in the work of the artisan painters,59 who were members of the travelling bouloukia (bands of builders) in 18th-20th century

It can also be argued that aesthetic appreciation of the landscape is a relatively recent phenomenon, not applicable to a traditional community. The fallacy of this proposition has been exposed by KiriakidouNestoros,57 as follows:

58

Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’, 22-23. K. Makris, Χιονιαδίτες ζωγράφοι (Athens 1981), e.g. figs 37, 46, 51.

56

59

Du Boulay, Portrait, 11. 57 Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’, 22.

10

Cycladic settlement

Greece.60 This was about the time (mid-19th century) when the first landscapes appear in the world of Greek fine art painting.61

there could be distinctive local characteristics, as well as architectural style, although any use of exterior plaster,66 with whitewash or colour, would have negated these.

The characteristics of setting, surroundings and outlook sought for churches (see above) would surely have been preferred, to the extent that this was possible, also for the sites of houses. The fact that such surroundings might appear to have some kind of divine sanction would be an additional incentive to copy them.

Finally, what did these ancient Cycladic settlements really look like? For a reflection, one might turn to the village of Seriphos [pl. 4E-F], previously occupied in both Classical and Frankish times. The hill on which it is set rises abruptly above a plain and bay. The relief largely conditions the siting of the houses and their physical relationship to each other; local materials (probably very local, given the need otherwise to transport them up this steep hill) were used.

So far we have depended on evidence from the study of traditional communities to suggest what might have been the situation in antiquity – and indications of continuity62 in many cases support the relevance of these. Nevertheless there is ancient evidence too. Some appreciation of natural beauty is obvious from ancient literature63 – not least from the Homeric epithets applied to the natural world. The importance of and feeling for setting can be deduced from choices of sanctuary sites and the sensitive way in which buildings (secular as well as sacred) were accommodated within the landscape.64

Although it may in the end be impossible to categorise the relationships between landscape and settlements in quite the way that my opening statement suggested, the significance of these relationships for the form and character of the latter cannot be doubted. The enduring influence of the terrain and of local resources on Cycladic life, and the fact that the changes that have altered that character of Cycladic settlements and attitudes are so recent, mean that it makes sense to take advantage of the information offered by our knowledge of different periods – not to assume immediately that they reflect precisely the ancient situation, but as a source of ideas of what might have been key factors – landscape and otherwise – in the siting, layout and appearance of their ancient counterparts.

A last contribution of the landscape – this time to the appearance of the houses [pl. 4C-D] – comes in the materials it provides. In the Cyclades the main component is often local stone. Schist, easily split into slabs, is common on islands such as Kea, Tenos and Andros. On Kea the buildings of Bronze Age Agia Irini65 are no different in style from traditional architecture of more recent times. Blocks of volcanic rock, often reddish in colour, appear on Thera and Melos. On Melos too, rounded boulders from the sea shore were widely used in the walls at Phylakopi. Several islands also have marble, of various colours, often mixed in with other stone, as at Zagora. Thus

These ideas can then be tested by archaeological and architectural investigations of the kind carried out by Jim at Zagora, and informed by anthropological research and studies of traditional settlements such as those in which Mary has participated in the Peloponnese. Robin Barber 8 Clarendon Crescent Edinburgh EH4 1PT

66 The use of plaster is widely attested in ancient architecture: Α.Κ. Orlandos, Τα υλικά δομής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων καί οι τρόποι εφαρμογής αυτών (Athens 1955-1958), Ch. 5; D.M. Robinson and J.W. Graham, Olynthus VIII: The Hellenic house (Baltimore 1938), 226-227, 282-284, 291-292; J. Ellis Jones, op.cit. n. 42, 12. For prehistoric instances, see L.H. Sackett, M.R. Popham and P.M. Warren, ‘Excavations at Palaikastro VI’, BSA 60 (1965), 253; also the Kolonna site on Aigina (information from Prof. F. Felten). Ιt is, however, impossible to demonstrate conclusively the use of this material on the exterior walls of early 1st millennium settlements (see Zagora I, 23), where it would nevertheless seem to have the advantages of providing additional insulation and, if light-coloured, some protection from summer heat. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that the most basic contemporary rural buildings (e.g. shepherds’ huts) are not treated in this way.

60 Ν. Moutsopoulos, ‘Κουδαραίοι Μαΐστορες’, in P. Kiriazis and M. Nikolinakos, Πρώτοι έλληνες τεχνικοί επιστήμονες περιόδου απελευθέρωσης (Athens 1976), 353-433, 358. 61 National Gallery and Alexandros Soutsos Museum, Ελληνική τοπιογραφία 19-20ος αιώνας (2 Φεβ - 16 Απρ 1998) (Athens 1998), 12. 62 Kiriakidou-Nestoros, ‘Σημάδια’, 17. 63 Scully, οp.cit. n. 20, 2. 64 Above and Karouzos, op.cit. n. 20, 6; the spectacular view from the theatre of ancient Melos could be taken as another instance. 65 J.L. Caskey, ‘Investigation in Keos: Part I: excavations and explorations, 1966-70’, Hesperia 40 (1971), 358-396, esp. 388389.

11

R. Barber

12

2 Cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods: their contribution in interpreting the rise of the Cycladic poleis Alexandros Gounaris

same phenomenon on the mainland, through an examination of cult places of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods. - To examine the birth of this phenomenon on the Cyclades from the archaeological evidence of the sites themselves and more specifically through a detailed examination of the cult places. •

A. Looking at the islands from the mainland: introduction The goals of this study are twofold: * - To understand the birth of the polis, the city-state or city-polis, in the Cyclades, by appraising studies which have attempted to interpret the birth of the I would like to thank the following archaeologists for the precious help each one of them offered to me in multiple and different ways: - The Honorary Ephor of Antiquities Ph. Zaphiropoulou, as well as the following archaeologists of the 21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities: P. Chadjidakis, M. Efstathiou, G. Gavalas, Y. Kourayos, P. Pandou, Z. Papadopoulou, O. Philaniotou and Chr. Televandou. - D. Schilardi of the 2nd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities. - The director of the Ephorate of Spelaeology and Palaeoanthropology, S. Samartzidou. - The academics N. Kourou, A. Mazarakis Ainian and L. Marangou. - The archaeologists Chr. Mitsopoulou and A. Vlachopoulos. I would finally like to thank the archaeologist Marina Thomatos for the English translation of the article.

‘The emergence of the city-state of Naxos in the Aegean’, in M.C. Lentini (ed.), The Two Naxos Cities: a Fine Link between the Aegean Sea and Sicily (Palermo 2001), 13-22 (the same paper in M.C. Lentini (ed.), Le due città di Naxos (Florence and Milan 2004), 61-74). Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια’ = V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια αρχαιολογικής έρευνας στα Ύρια της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 209-215. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι = L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι – Η Μινώα. Η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια (Athens 2002). Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings = A.I. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 BC) (Jonsered 1997). Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’ = A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Επιφανειακές αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στην Κύθνο’ (1990-1995)’, Prakt 1995, 196-197. Polignac, La naissance = F. de Polignac, La naissance de la cité grecque. Culte, espace et société VIIIe-VIIe siècles avant J.-C. (1st edition, Paris 1984). Snodgrass, Archeology = A. Snodgrass, Archaeology and the Rise of the Greek State. An Inaugural Lecture (Cambridge 1977). Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’ = D. Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros the Capital’, in J.-M. Luce (ed.), Habitat et urbanisme dans le monde grec de la fin des palais mycéniens à la prise de Milet (494 av. J.-C.), Pallas 58 (2002), 229-249. Schilardi, ‘Paros. Report II’ = D.U. Schilardi, ‘Paros. Report II: The 1973 campaign’, JFA 2 (1975), 93-94. Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί Χρόνοι = C.Th. Syriopoulos, Εισαγωγή εις την aρχαίαν ελληνικήν ιστορίαν. Οι μεταβατικοί χρόνοι από της μυκηναϊκής εις την αρχαϊκήν περίοδον 1200-700 π.Χ. (Athens 1983-1984). Syriopoulos, Προϊστορική κατοίκησις = C.Th. Syriopoulos, Η προϊστορική κατοίκησις της Ελλάδος και η γένεσις του ελληνικού έθνους (Athens 1994-1995). Televantou, ‘Γεωμετρικός οικισμός’ = Chr. Televantou, ‘Άνδρος. Ο γεωμετρικός οικισμός της Υψηλής’, Andriaka Chronika 21 (1993), 187-208.

Abbreviations Caskey, ‘Ayia Irini: temple studies’ = M.E. Caskey, ‘Ayia Irini: temple studies’, in L.G. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology (Athens 1998). Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults’ = J.N. Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults in the age of Homer’, JHS 96 (1976), 8-17. Early Greek Cult Practice = R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice. Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, June 26-29, 1986 (Stockholm 1988). Excavating Classical Culture = M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (Oxford 2002). Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’ = A.P. Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες οικιστικής των πρωτογεωμετρικών - γεωμετρικών Κυκλάδων και τα ζητούμενα της κυκλαδικής Πρωτοϊστορίας’, in Φως Κυκλαδικόν, 96-113. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Veneration of ancestors’ = V.K. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Veneration of ancestors in Geometric Naxos’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 235-246. Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’ = V. Lambrinoudakis,

13

A. Gounaris

Due∂to the lack of written sources from 1050 to 750 BC, scholars have used evidence of architecture, pottery and small finds in order to explain the genesis of the political phenomenon on the mainland. This in fact is one of the clearest examples of the employment of archaeology in the discipline of history, and specifically of protohistory. At the same time another theoretical factor was employed in archaeology. This comprises of the creation of interpretive models concerning the genesis of the political phenomenon or even the development of a specialised category of intellectual output in the subject of the archaeology of the Early Iron Age: namely, theories.1

ous problems and issues introduced by similar studies that focused on the mainland. To date, the conspectus of such research focussing on the genesis of the polis on the mainland has provided four large interpretive models.4 According to the material available to scholars or the considerations they bare in mind, the first of these models belongs to the discipline of geography, while the other three belong to that of archaeology. They are the following: - models which consider geographical factors as contributing to the birth of the political phenomenon - models which interpret the phenomenon as evidence of continuation, by linking the societies of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods with those from the Late Helladic IIIB-C period - models which recognise the lack of continuation between the Late Helladic IIIC and the Geometric period and therefore see the emergence of the polis as being created from anew during the Geometric period and - models that deal with the problem at its core, through the examination of the archaeological evidence of the Protogeometric period, poor as it may be; these models trace the elements of change and thus re-establish a new idea of continuation.

As to the architecture of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, one may confidently state that in the majority of cases, those studying the period have almost altogether ignored the architecture of the Cyclades – and with good reason – choosing to examine the evidence available for understanding this phenomenon by turning mainly to the architecture of the mainland. The Cyclades therefore, have played a small role in the appraisal of this phenomenon. As will be seen below, the contribution of the fundamental Cycladic architectural elements to this study have been recognised negatively: one cannot answer why the settlements of Agios Andreas on Siphnos, Vathy Limenari on Donoussa and Zagora on Andros did not become seats of poleis.2

These are worth summarising and further exploring by focussing on cult places during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods as a concrete guide for the interpretation of this political phenomenon.

Today, the Cyclades are one of the richest sources of archaeological data for the study of Protogeometric and Geometric sanctuaries throughout Greece. In fact, two studies conducted by Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Dimitrios Schilardi examine the idea of the birth of the two important and yet competing Cycladic poleis of Naxos and Paros during the Geometric and Archaic periods.3 Both examine the relevant Cycladic material focussing on the importance of the individual islands. The study that follows will explore this phenomenon bearing in mind the numer-

A.I. Interpretive models for understanding the birth of the polis A.I.1 The constant: the geographical factor The first interpretive tool used for understanding the rise of the polis was concerned with the basic geographical characteristics of continental Greece.5 Studies focussing on the smaller-scale issues of geography such as the plains, basins, gulfs and other geographical factors which could have played a part in the creation of the poleis were also of importance. Such works had a dominating role in several studies focussing on the early history of Ancient Greece6 but

Zagora 1 = A. Cambitoglou, J.J. Coulton, J. Birmingham and J.R. Green, Zagora 1: Excavation Season 1967; Study Season 19689 (Sydney 1971). Zagora 2 = A. Cambitoglou, A. Birchall, J.J. Coulton and J.R. Green, Zagora 2: Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros: Excavation Season 1969; Study Season 196970 (Athens 1988). Φως Κυκλαδικόν = N.Ch. Stampolidis (ed.), Φως Κυκλαδικόν, Τιμητικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Νίκου Ζαφειρόπουλου (Athens 1999). 1 The Early Iron Age or the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ have grown to have their own history of research and their own theoretical approaches – cf. A.M. Snodgrass, An Archaeology of Greece (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford 1987), 170-210; I. Morris, Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age (Malden MA and Oxford 2000), 77-106. 2 Snodgrass, Archaeology, 23-25, see below, A.I.3. 3 Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 13-22; Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’, 229-249.

4 The term ‘interpretive models’ is used as an alternative of the term ‘interpretive approaches’. 5 H.B. George, The Relations of Geography and History (Oxford 1903), 14, 183, 279-280. 6 We could refer for example to: A. Jardé, La formation du peuple grec (Paris 1923), 18-23; G. Glotz, Histoire Grecque, vol. I: Des origines aux guerres médiques (Paris 1948), 8-11; V. Ehrenberg, ‘The Greek country and the Greek state’, in V. Ehrenberg, Aspects of the Ancient World (Oxford 1946), 29-52.

14

Cult places in the Cyclades

also on introductory courses of its geography.7 In the first case, the geographical factors are seen as invariables through which the polis emerges, while in the second case the polis is seen as the invariable factor and the ancient geographical characteristics are sought out.

greater confidence as a restoration of the Mycenaean megaron during Late Helladic IIIC where further duties are enacted (as a temple) can this model stand.10 The second approach also sees the importance of the change in the palatial architecture of the Mycenaean world. In this approach however the distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ can be seen already from the Late Helladic III. Of particular interest are the temples located outside the palace.11 In these cases there is no ex oriente inspired role of the wanax-priest; the ‘sacred’ is distinguished from the ‘secular’ already from the Mycenaean period. Consequently, the polis resulting from the distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ has its roots already in Late Helladic IIIB. Once the ex oriente association between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ can be dismissed, the method of approach focuses on the new images of the ‘secular’ (the agora, the ruler’s dwelling, the prytaneion).12 It is these changes with which this interpretive model decodes the establishment of the polis.

This interpretive model was simple. It concluded that two main factors contributed to the division of the ancient Greek world into small state-political formations: - the considerable fragmentation of the Greek world into small geographical units and - the small geographic scale of the vital economic centres which resulted from this fragmentation and hindered the natural development of the settlements. Despite the years that have passed since this model was first introduced it is still a widely prevalent approach.8 A.I.2 Continuity: the Mycenaean element The interpretive model which concentrates on the Mycenaean element recognises the continuation between the Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean cultures. Within this model two interpretive approaches are discerned:

How can one bridge the great chronological gap between the Late Helladic IIIC and the Geometric period when one sees the development of the constructions associated with cult but also those which house the civic duties? In studies attempting to fill this chronological gap, either the mysterious open-air shrines, or at least their ‘pre-building’ phases are examined, as are the open areas for communal gath-

The first approach examines the Mycenaean state within the Mycenaean palace system where the wanax also acts as a priest.9 The image of the polis emerges with the construction of the temple within the destroyed palace. Under these conditions the archon no longer performs ritual duties. This new distinction between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ marks the emergence of the polis.

10

For bibliography related to this theory see Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 160 n. 1133. On the contrary, for the building’s dating to Late Helladic IIIC cf. J. Maran, ‘Das Megaron in Megaron. Zur Datierung und Function des Antenbaus im mykenischen Palast von Tiryns’, AA 2000, 1-16. 11 The scholar who mainly expressed this radical review of the interpretive model was G.E. Mylonas in Μυκηναϊκή θρησκεία. Ναοί, βωμοί και τεμένη (Athens 1977). 12 L.B. Holland, ‘The hall of the Athenian kings’, AJA 43 (1939), 289-298: civic change in Athens is not traced through the transition “from the palace to the temple” but through the transition “from the palace to the prytaneion”. In reference to the prehistoric ruins, the only definitive architectural element is that of the Mycenaean palace, id., ‘Erechtheum papers II. The strong house of Erechtheus’, AJA 28 (1924), 1-23, 142-169, 402-434. He thinks, however, that the large, internal hall is the area where the Mycenaean leaders and kings would gather. This is the prytaneion of Theseus. Its successor is again the four-roomed building South of the Erechtheion – although there are several alternative suggestions regarding its function. He interprets that as the prytaneion of Peisistratus’s time and considers it to be the building that succeeded the prytaneion of Theseus. According to Holland, this building clearly marks not some prehistoric, prime civic change in the urban space but the birth of the Athenian state between 1050 and 800 BC. Regarding the Athenian protohistoric prytaneion see H.A. Thompson and R.E. Wycherley, Agora 14: The Agora of Athens (Princeton 1972), 46 n. 129.

However, especially at Mycenae, but also with the few other Mycenaean palaces, there is an apparent gap between the time of the destruction of the palace and the erection of the temple. Only in the case of Tiryns, and only if Building T can be identified with 7 Representative examples: H.F. Tozer, Lectures on the Geography of Greece (London 1873), 190-196; M. Carry, The Geographical Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1949), 48-52. 8 J.McK. Camp, The Athenian Agora: Excavations in the Heart of Classical Athens (London 1986), 20: “The basic political unit that replaced the old palaces was now the polis, or independent citystate, which occupied an area of land defined and limited by natural boundaries, usually mountains and the sea. Generally there was room for only one polis in each plain or valley”. 9 M.P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion (2nd edition, Lund 1950), 473-476, uses evidence from Tiryns, Mycenae and Athens. For a review of Nilsson’s theories see F. Gschnitzer, ‘Vocabulaire et institutions: la continuité historique du deuxième au premier millénaire’, in E. Risch and H. Mühlestein (eds), Colloquium Mycenaeum (Neuchâtel and Geneva 1979), 115-116.

15

A. Gounaris

The temple as a constituent within the urban planning of a settlement Under this approach the recognition of the urban plan of the poleis at their time of founding, as well as the individual structures which compose it, amount to the recognition of their political history and in particular to the chapter relating to their birth.17 Following this line of thought, Roland Martin progresses to the distinction between the appearance of the political phenomenon within the metropolitan mainland area and that in the colonies. He distinguishes two types of public spaces within the two types of urban planning associated with the birth of the polis. Within these two he distinguishes two different types of functioning sanctuaries. - The first is the evolutionary or ‘progressive type’ (type évolutif ou progressif). This is represented by the slow and gradual evolution of habitation; in other words, through the union of urbanisation (e.g. Corinth-Athens). Within this type of sanctuary the patron deity acts as an attracting element to the centre of the settlement and the polis emerges through the union of multiple communal groups. - The second is the voluntary or differentiated type (type ‘volontaire’ et differencié) in which the polis emerges from naught and is linked to new urban settlements, and more specifically with colonies. Within this type the periphery sanctuaries act as points of contact as well as positions of defence. In this case the polis does not have to compete with groups fleeting from the centre; the polis-settlement is created in a free, unoccupied geographical location. It contends with the external dangers and thus tries through peripheral public areas to expand and impose its dominion thus explaining the establishment of large periphery sanctuaries in the colonies.

erings which are found in the centre of most of the new settlements of this period.13 A.I.3. Discontinuity: the Protogeometric-Geometric parameter Below, the interpretive models which decipher the importance of specific constructions in urban spaces of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods such as the temples, tombs, places of worship in prehistoric burial grounds, heroa, agoras and the fortification walls will be set forth. Interpretive models associated with the temple When used to decode the birth of the polis, the temple can be considered in three different dimensions: as an independent architectural structure, as a constituent within the urban planning of a settlement, and as an element of the wider landscape in which the central settlement, where the polis is based, is incorporated. The following can be stated for each: The temple as an independent architectural structure Under this approach, the founding of a monumental temple dedicated to one deity, in an area used earlier for the deposition of dedications, proves to be the clearest proof that the time of the emerging polis has arrived. This is especially evident when this temple is the first in a long series of temples in the same location.14 This process takes place during the 8th century BC.15 Moreover, the changes in the organisation and the function of the temple reveal changes in the number of those taking part in ritual activities and consequently in the change of status of those taking part in the decisions of the community. According to Anthony Snodgrass the correlations are as follows: - Ritual dinners surrounding the central hearth are conducted in the ruler’s dwelling. This dwelling is then considered the sanctuary of a small group such as a family. - The central hearth then, within the temple, is the area where similar dinners are taking place but now these dinners concern a small community, a polis or ethnos.16

The temple as an element of the wider landscape in which it is incorporated This approach is derived from the previous one focussing on the appearance of temples within, surrounding and outside the civic sanctuaries of the 8th and 7th centuries. Here, the temples are considered as dots on a map, indicating their distribution, rather than their significance as architectural constructions. The main advocate of this model is Francois de Polignac.18 According to him, the genesis of the polis 17 R. Martin, ‘L’espace civique, religieux et profane dans les cités grecques de l’archaïsme à l’époque hellénistique’, in Architecture et société de l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la république romaine. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l’École Française de Rome, Rome 2-4 Décembre 1980 (Paris and Rome 1983), 9-41. 18 Polignac, La naissance. See also the special collection of articles discussing the approach of F. de Polignac: S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds), Placing the Gods. Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece (Oxford 1994). We can follow the development of this approach further through Polignac’s response to the reviews

13 Ch. Sourvinou-Inwood, ‘Early sanctuaries, the eighth century and ritual space: fragments of a discourse’, in N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds), Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches (London and New York 1993), 10. 14 Snodgrass, Archaeology, 24. 15 A.M. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1980), 33. 16 Ibid., 61.

16

Cult places in the Cyclades

in mainland Greece, and secondly in the colonies,19 is interpreted using the following elements: - the symbolic appropriation of space through the typical procession from the sanctuary surrounding the civic centre to the centre of the polis,20 - the appearance of agricultural deities simultaneously with the creation of the sanctuaries surrounding the civic centres,21 and - the relationship between certain civic deities with the rearing of ephebes and the rise of the citizen-warrior.22

offerings in burials dated 500 to 1000 years earlier. The memory of some ancestral relative is ruled out. - Wherever such honours are observed there are no monumental tombs reminiscent of the architectural type of the heroic period (i.e. Mycenaean period). In contrast, it should be noted that during this period (Protogeometric-Geometric) in areas where new tombs are built reminiscent of the Mycenaean architectural types (Thessaly: small tholoi, Crete: chamber tombs) there is no evidence for veneration of ancestors.

Interpretive models associated with burials

Snodgrass transcribes the explanation which was originally proposed by Coldstream,25 that during this period, when the acquisition of political rights is related to the acquisition of land, it would be reasonable that the upcoming citizens reinforce this process, by reminding others of their connection to the land through the restitution of honour to those buried on their ancestral land. However, he notes that in areas where there is no evidence for the restitution of honour to ancestors (e.g. Thessaly, Laconia, Crete) a truly free and independent peasantry does not emerge during Classical times. These honours in burials are private, familial cults and not early examples of heroworship regulated by the state.26

“From gifts to men, to gifts to the gods”, “from offerings within tombs to offerings within built temples” and finally “from the tomb to the temple”; these three statements introduce yet another interpretive model concerning the genesis of the polis. Just as in the case of the changes which are noted with the erection of the monumental temple such is the case of the changes in tombs from the deposition of gifts in tombs to the dedication of gifts in tombs which take place around 750 BC.23 Interpretive models associated with cult places in prehistoric burial grounds during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods

Interpretive models associated with heroa

This model focuses on burial customs. The observations of Snodgrass related to burial customs and the societies of this period are relevant here:24 - Between 750 and 700 BC the inhabitants of different areas show a sudden interest in the deposition of

Supplementary to his discussion concerning temples, F. de Polignac27 also examines the heroon, concluding that the appearance of worship of local heroes is

he received – cf. F. de Polignac, ‘Influence extérieure ou evolution interne? L’innovation cultuelle en Grèce géometrique et archaïque’, in G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru (eds), Greece between East and West. 10th-8th centuries BC (Mainz 1992), 114-127; id., ‘Mediation, competition, and sovereignity: the evolution of rural sanctuaries in Geometric Greece’, in S.E. Alcock and R. Osborne (eds), op.cit., 3-18; id., ‘Offrandes, mémoire et compétition ritualisée dans les sanctuaries grecs à l’époque géometrique’, in P. Hellström and B. Alroth (eds), Religion and Power in the Ancient Greek World (Uppsala 1996), 59-66. Collection of reviews of F. de Polignac’s work by M.-F. Billot, ‘Apollon pythéen et l’Argolide archaïque: histoire et mythes’, Archaiognosia 6 (1990), 36 n. 3. Of the most significant reviews of Polignac’s theories is that of Chr. Sourvinou-Inwood, op.cit. n. 13, 1-17. The problematic points of Polignac’s work are reflected in the serious changes he made in the second edition of his book (Paris 1995). 19 Polignac, La naissance, 93-126. 20 Ibid., 66-85. 21 Ibid., 85-92. 22 Ibid., 54-64. Earlier in the book (49-52) he examined the importance of rites of passage as he is especially attracted to the subject of courotrophia. 23 I. Morris, ‘Gift and commodity in Archaic Greece’, Man n.s. 21 (1986), 10, 13. A.M. Snodgrass discusses Morris’s view in his article ‘The economics of dedication at Greek sanctuaries’, Scienze dell’ Antichità 3-4 (1989-1990), 293. 24 Elements borrowed from Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults’, 8-17; id. Geometric Greece (London 1977), fig. 110.

25

Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults’, 14. Snodgrass, Archaeology, 31. But for new evidence of cult activity during the Archaic(?) period in relation to the Tholos tomb at Gheorghikon/Xinonerion (Thessaly) see B.G. Intzesiloglou, ‘Aiatos et Polycléia. Du mythe à l’histoire’, Kernos 15 (2002), 289295. I thank Maria Stamatopoulou for the information about this article. 27 Polignac, La naissance, 127-151. Of the relevant bibliography regarding hero cults we will only refer to the publications that connect the hero cult with the genesis of the polis: C. Berard, ‘L’héroïsation et la formation de la cité: un conflit idéologique’, in Architecture et societé de l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la république romaine. Actes du colloque international organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et l’École Française de Rome, Rome 2-4 décembre 1980 (Paris and Rome 1983), 43-59; id., ‘Récuperer la mort du prince: héroïsation et formation de la cité’, in G. Gnoli and J.P. Vernant (eds), La mort, les morts dans les sociétés anciennes (Cambridge and Paris 1982), 89-105; A.M. Snodgrass, ‘Les origines du culte des héros dans la Grèce antique’, in ibid., 107-119; id., ‘The archaeology of the Hero’, AIONArchStAnt 10 (1988), 19-26; J. Whitley, ‘Early-states and hero-cults: a re-appraisal’, JHS 108 (1988), 173-182; M. Deoudi, Heroenkulte in homerischer Zeit (Oxford 1999); V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Die Rolle der heroischen Vergangenheit bei der Entwicklung der griechischen Städte’, in 'AgaqÕj da…mwn, Mythes et cultes. Études d’iconographie en l’honneur de Lilly Kahill (BCH Suppl. 38, Paris 2000), 299-310. 26

17

A. Gounaris

- reservations exist as to just how much the construction of a fortification wall can indicate institutional changes.32 Therefore, the presence of a fortification wall does not appear to be an element revealing the genesis of the polis.33

yet another indication of the emergence of the polis.28 Interpretive models associated with the agora In response to Snodgrass, Coldstream uses one of Aristotle’s definitions to distinguish the characteristics of the genesis of the polis by referring to architectural elements of specific areas. In his discussion the agora is seen as yet another architectural urban feature which, when analysed, offers important evidence for the interpretation of the genesis of the polis.29

A.I.4. Searching for continuation: the critical Protogeometric period Under this heading are included all approaches that recognise the problems that remain unresolved from the aforementioned approaches which focused on the idea of continuation from the Mycenaean period, searching for this continuation within the Protogeometric period34 by focussing on the ruler’s dwelling, the most prominent building within the settlement.

Interpretive models associated with the presence of fortification walls “Can fortifications be seen as a constitutive element of the city”? 30 In reference to fortification walls two suggestions made by Snodgrass should be noted: - assumptions for the genesis of the polis based on chronological relationships between the building of a temple, a fortification wall or a series of houses cannot be made,31 and

The ruler’s dwelling Under this approach the unknown mystery-state between 1100/1050 and 800 BC is elucidated through traces of the social core (the oikos) and the leading institutions (of the archon) of the communities of this period. Petros Calligas is the main advocate of this model. He bridges the gap which is created with the view “from the megaron to the temple” by emphasising the intermediate phase which is missing, namely “from the oikos to the city-state”.35

28 Finally, regarding hero cult, tomb cult, cult of the dead as well as the buildings related to such functions cf. the reference study of C.M. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (Lanham and London 1995). She underlines (p. 254) the view of C. Morgan, ‘Ethnicity and early Greek states. Historical and material perspectives’, PCPS 37 (1991), 142, according to which: - cities seek for their establishment in space, - ethne are characterised by the significance they place on the sense of time (i.e. of their long-time existence) and of their origin. The cities achieve the first target (spatial establishment) by creating sanctuaries at the outskirts. According to Antonaccio, it would be expected that ethne would achieve the second target (the consolidation of their origin) through the heroa and tomb cult. She believes, however, that the opposite is actually the case. 29 J.N. Coldstream, The Formation of the Greek Polis: Aristotle and Archaeology (Düsseldorf 1984). 30 P. Ducrey, ‘La muraille est-elle un élément constitutif d’une cité?’, CPCActs 2 (1995), 245-256 puts this question forward and attempts to give an answer to it. 31 Snodgrass, Archaeology, 21-24 bases his arguments on the following settlement cases: - Smyrna: the settlement was inhabited since 1000 BC. The fortification was built up in 850 BC, and a traceable temple dates to the period after 700 BC. It is possible that an earlier one was already there in 750 BC. - Zagora: the settlement was inhabited towards the end of the 8th century BC. The fortification was built at around 800 BC. The temple appeared in the Archaic period, after the settlement was deserted. Some kind of cult place might have also existed during the settlement’s lifetime. - Emborio: it was inhabited since 800 BC. The fortification of the earlier period was already there but did not surround the Geometric settlement. The temple dates from well after the settlement’s lifetime. - Iasos in Caria: the settlement existed before the fortification. - Agios Andreas, Siphnos: the deserted Bronze Age fortification is repaired and the settlement is rebuilt with new dwellings. - Vathy Limenari, Donoussa: the houses and the fortification are contemporary.

32 He consequently reaches (ibid. 24-25) the following conclusions: - Smyrna possibly becomes a polis after 750 BC. - Zagora and Emborio never became poleis. The temple in these cases plays a different role. - Agios Andreas on Siphnos and Donoussa never made it to poleis either. - Of all the above, the inhabitants of Zagora moved to the historical polis of Andros. Agios Andreas must have been incorporated in the polis based at Kastro of Siphnos and the inhabitants of Vathy Limenari moved away to some other spot, perhaps off the island of Donoussa altogether, around 700 BC. - The cases of Athens and Corinth can also offer help to this argumentation. 33 A. Snodgrass, ‘The historical significance of fortification in Archaic Greece’, in P. Leriche and H. Tréziny (eds), La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec (Paris 1986), 125-131. 34 I.S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford 2002), 224, sums up the significance of the period: “It has been said that in order to explain state formation in Early Greece and the emergence of the polis we need to understand better the preceding period. The present study, however, shows that in addition the eleventh and tenth centuries in the Aegean deserve a systematic study in their own right”. 35 Initial publications: P.G. Calligas, ‘Η Ελλάδα κατά την πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου’, AAX 2 (1987), 17-21; id., ‘Hero-cult in Early Iron Age in Greece’, Early Greek Cult Practice, 229-234. The main body of his evidence consists of course of the Lefkandi finds, but he also gets the chance to develop his general theory on this subject.

18

Cult places in the Cyclades

existing state formation of the polis, the oikos in Mazarakis Ainian’s argument creates a picture of a ruling figure, an archon. Accordingly he notes the following: - There is no clear-cut line between the temple and the secular domestic space within the settlement before the beginning of the 8th century BC. - The earliest temples within the settlement are not built before the first half of the 8th century BC. - Before the formation of the polis, ritual practices were probably the initiative of a single person, a single household or a group of people with familial ties. The founder of these institutions, the archon, was most likely in charge of public cult performances and it is for this reason that his dwelling has the position of a communal structure. The functions of this dwelling included the communal meals of the members of the society within the frame of the observance of the ritual standards. - The exclusive ritual use of the temple represents the succession of the mixed domestic and ritual-use dwelling of the archon. The earliest temples within urban contexts do not occur before the middle of the 8th century BC.

The starting point of his view is the function of the apsidal building at Lefkandi. The main elements of his theory are the following: - He cites the term “the period of Lefkandi” which presents the following characteristics: an un-fortified acropolis, an un-organised settlement, a limited necropolis and a non-communal place of worship. The apsidal house, the oikos, located on the summit of the mound of Lefkandi, is the architectural characteristic of the period, whilst settlement patterns are characterised by similar layouts with an apsidal house on the summits of mounds surrounded by burial grounds of the inhabitants of the oikoi on the summit. All these occur until 830/800 BC. - To the following period he attributes the abandonment of the small family cemeteries and the founding of new expanded communal areas of worship as a result of the abandonment of the ancestral cult place within the oikos. - These occurrences can only reveal the emergence of the polis and the appearance of the new institutions. This approach, which recognises the importance of the oikos, is interesting in that it examines the function of the architectural unit in order to understand the genesis of the polis. It would be useful to observe this phenomenal change within a wider geographical context.36

With this final model we return to the original central theme of our study: the comparative study of the main/central building in the settlements of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods and the communities associated with these. One main difference should be noted. Their examination is not undertaken through a comparative study with their Mycenaean counterparts but is strictly limited to the chronological frame of 1050-700 BC. This was imposed by the new criticisms concerning the functional and morphological evidence from the already excavated settlements and by studies of architectural remains from more recent excavations.

The views of Alexander Mazarakis Ainian follow the same school of thought.37 The old “from palace to temple” which characterises the Mycenaean interpretive model takes on a different form and meaning: “from rulers’ dwellings to temples”. While Calligas stresses the source of the communal base in the pre-

36

Attempt to pinpoint similar cases in other areas of the Greek mainland and the islands has been made by the same scholar (P.G. Calligas): - Laconia - Sparta: ‘From the Amyklaion’, in J.M. Sanders (ed.), ΦΙΛΟΛΑΚΩΝ, Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (London 1992), 31-48. - Attica - Sounion: ‘Πρώιμη ιστορία των ιερών του Σουνίου’, in P.I. Philippou-Angelou (ed.), Πρακτικά Δ´ επιστημονικής συνάντησης Νοτιοανατολικής Αττικής (Kalyvia Attikis 1993), 301-312. - Euboia - Chalcis: ‘Η Πρώιμη Αρχαία Χαλκίδα’, ΑΑΧ 3 (19881989), 88-105. - Thessaly - Pherai: ‘Θεσσαλία και Εύβοια κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (11ος-9ος αι. π.Χ.)’, in Διεθνές συνέδριο για την αρχαία Θεσσαλία. Στη μνήμη του Δημήτρη Ρ. Θεοχάρη (Athens 1992), 298-307. Especially for the islands: - Ionian islands - Corfu: ‘Η δομή των πρωίμων ελληνικών κοινωνιών’, in P. Doukellis and L. Mendoni (eds), Structures rurals et sociétés antiques (Paris 1994), 43-47. - Sporades - Skyros: ‘Η αρχαία Σκύρος’, in Διαλέξεις 1986-1989, N.P. Goulandris Foundation (Athens 1990), 67-88. 37 Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 375-396; id., ‘Early Greek temples: their origin and function’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 105-119, esp. 118-119.

This intermediary state formation as witnessed on the mainland is no longer considered completely “dark” as was once thought. For research purposes the term ethnos will be used. Clarifying and defining the ethnos as a state formation existing before the polis is a constituent and important chapter in the exploration of the genesis of the polis.38

38

Bibliography on the relations of archaeology and ethnos: C. Morgan, Athletes and Oracles: the Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century BC (Cambridge 1990); ead., ‘The archaeology of sanctuaries in Early Iron Age and Archaic ethne [A preliminary view]’, in L.G. Mitchell and P.J. Rhodes (eds), The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece (London and New York 1997), 168-198; ead., Early Greek States beyond the Polis (London and New York 2003).

19

A. Gounaris

Is there a link between the motivation (when, how, why) behind the creation of more than one polis on certain islands and only one polis on others and the genesis of the Cycladic poleis in general? As will be shown below there is a connection but the answer to the first question does not help answer the second group of questions. By explaining why one or two poleis emerged on a particular island we unfortunately still do not answer the question why the polis emerged in the first place.

B. Looking at the mainland from the islands: analysis B.I. Interpretive models and the genesis of the Cycladic poleis Bearing in mind the aforementioned interpretive models as they have developed mainly through the study of the mainland, their contribution to the understanding of the genesis of the political phenomenon on the Cyclades will be examined.

B.I.2. Continuity: the Mycenaean element in the Cyclades (Their contribution towards an interpretation of the genesis of the Cycladic poleis)

B.I.1 The constant: the geographical factor (Geography-geomorphology of the Cyclades and the genesis of the Cycladic poleis)

Two questions present themselves: - Before the emergence of the state formations of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods, what type of state formation predominates in the Cyclades during Late Helladic IIIB-C periods? - Which Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean architectural types characterise the transition from the Cycladic Mycenaean state formation – whatever that may be – tο the post-Mycenaean one?

An extreme and yet characteristic example of an approach based on the geographical paragon is that an absolute geographical entity – the island – formed in itself an independent state.39 Today this model still finds supporters even though it is expressed in a different manner: “each one [island] in antiquity consisted of a small closed world and of course a unique state”.40 Along with early disputes to this interpretation41 are more recent ones, including ones which raise more questions and problematic points.42 In reference to the Cyclades the following have been observed: - There are islands with more than one polis. Kea has four, Amorgos has three, Mykonos has two. In fact on Kea, two of the cities, Koressia and Ioulis violate the tradition of respecting the natural boundaries since they share the watershed of the ancient river Elixos.43 - Larger islands such as Naxos, Paros, Andros and Tenos have only one polis while smaller islands than Naxos, such as the three mentioned earlier (Kea, Amorgos and Mykonos) have more than one polis.44 - From the Cyclades comes one of the few known examples of a polis ruling over two islets: Fakoussai (Ano and Kato Koufonissi).45

In answer to the first question: on the basis of archaeological evidence from the Cyclades dated to after 1450 BC there does not seem to have been a standard type of state formation predominating in the Cyclades during the Mycenaean period. Below I will only present two of the basic views concerning Mycenaean state structure in the Cyclades:46 - In general, the Cycladic islands are considered provinces of the Mycenaean kingdoms with the administrative seat on the mainland.47 - Each island is an autonomous socio-political unit.48 The third view, where the Cycladic islands are seen as autonomous Mycenaean provinces with a Cycladic ruler on one of the islands, e.g. Melos, remains unsubstantiated. Finally, it has been suggested that especially during the Late Helladic IIIC period the Cyclades were part of a more general Aegean koine, a cultural koine. Certain scholars, in examining these relations in reference to state formations, include the Cyclades within a confederation which includes eastern Attica and the Dodecanese.49

39 We could refer for example to: J.B. Bury and R. Meiggs, A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the Great (4th edition, London and Basingstoke 1975), 2-3. 40 E. Simantoni-Bournia, ‘Οι Κυκλάδες από τους πρώιμους ιστορικούς χρόνους μέχρι το τέλος της Αρχαϊκής Εποχής’, in L.G. Mendoni and N. Margaris (eds), Κυκλάδες: Ιστορία του τόπου και τοπικές ιστορίες. Από το φυσικό περιβάλλον στο ιστορικό τοπίο (Athens 1998), 173. 41 Reviewing observations on the theory ‘one polis per island’ in M. Finlay, The Ancient Greeks (London 1963), 33. 42 G. Reger, ‘Islands with one polis versus islands with several poleis’, CPCActs 4 (1997), 450-492. 43 Ibid., 451. 44 Ibid., 457-458. 45 Ibid., 450.

46 For summary of the views and bibliography cf. A.G. Vlachopoulos, ‘Cultural, social and political organisation in the Cyclades during the Late Helladic IIIC period’, in Eliten in der Bronzezeit (Mainz 1999), 84 nn. 45-46. 47 To the bibliography mentioned earlier we should also add the article of R. Barber, ‘Phylakopi 1911 and the history of the later Cycladic Bronze Age’, BSA 69 (1974), 53. 48 A.G. Vlachopoulos, op.cit. n. 46, 85 adopts this opinion too. 49 For bibliography on this view, which he himself also adopts in the end, see J. Vanschoonwinkel, L’ Égée et la Méditerranée

20

Cult places in the Cyclades

Kea

In reference to the second question posed, we limit ourselves to a synoptic examination of the contribution of the Mycenaean paragon in the interpretation of the genesis of the Cycladic poleis by focussing only on the relation between the most important Cycladic structures of the Late Helladic III period and those of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods. It is worth noting at this early stage that there is a disparity: the ambiguous character of the Mycenaean Cycladic state formation. Consequently, it seems most appropriate to examine the architectural evidence that dates between the Late Helladic IIICSub-Mycenaean and the Protogeometric-Geometric periods for each island individually.

Agia Irini: discontinuity in habitation – continuity in cult Even though the settlement of Agia Irini was not “the head of the Mycenaean province” perhaps not even of the island of Kea, the Mycenaean sanctuary, founded in the Middle Helladic period, continues to function as a sacred place until the Hellenistic period with preserved architectural phases dated to both the Protogeometric and the Geometric periods.56 Agia Irini however cannot designate the emergence of a Cycladic equivalent to Tiryns. Neither the first important building of Late Helladic III within the settlement, the dwelling of the Mycenaean governor, nor the Protogeometric town within or at the outskirts of the settlement, which supported the cult practices during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, are found at Agia Irini.

Melos Phylakopi: discontinuity in cult and habitation The settlement which has been characterised as “the head of the Mycenaean province”50 is abandoned after Phylakopi phase III-iii (1450-1100 BC), although the post-Mycenaean sanctuary remains in use. According to Renfrew the re-utilisation of the sanctuary during the 11th century BC is the final indication of the prehistoric activities at Phylakopi or even the entire island of Melos while the sanctuary is finally abandoned around 1090 BC.51 Following this abandonment there is no evidence for human activity on Melos or its neighbouring islands for two centuries.52

Naxos Grotta: discontinuity in habitation – emergence of a new type of cult In the case of Grotta the problem presented is different from that in other settlements mentioned above. Even though early excavations mention the presence of a post-Mycenaean “megaron-shaped” structure57 (I-I΄) (which is later included in the plans as a Mycenaean structure58) it is worth leaving this subject open since the second successive Mycenaean phase of the settlement awaits publication and will hopefully shed some light on the state of the island during this period.59 Unfortunately, the published preliminary reports do not offer sufficient evidence to deal with the basic problem concerning the continuation of the settlement from the Mycenaean to the Protogeometric periods.60 Here, the evidence of continuation takes an unexpected turn with the earliest evidence for veneration of ancestors in the Cyclades.61

Even an assumption for continuation of cult practices at Phylakopi53 cannot verify the second Mycenaean prototype54 which rests on the distinction between the sacred and the secular already from the middle of the Late Helladic III period. If we wanted to interpret the genesis of the polis on Melos we should only turn to the evidence from the Protogeometric-Geometric remains.55 Even in a settlement with important Mycenaean architectural characteristics, the Mycenaean interpretive model cannot be confirmed.

Yria: continuity in cult At Yria, the Mycenaean presence and proof of Mycenaean cult cannot be doubted.62 Just as in the case of Kea, the determination of the locale of the settlement of the Protogeometric settlers that went to Yria as worshipers is sought. Due to its distance, the

orientale à la fin du IIe millénaire. Témoignages archéologiques et sources écrites (Louvain-La-Neuve and Providence 1992), 178 n. 40. 50 Barber, op.cit. n. 47, 53. 51 C. Renfrew, ‘Bronze Age Melos’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity. The Archaeology of Exploitation (Cambridge 1982), 43. 52 Ibid. 53 R.L.N. Barber speculates that the male figurines from Phylakopi, which find later parallels in Crete, belong to the SubMycenaean and Protogeometric periods, R.L.N. Barber, The Cyclades in the Bronze Age (London 1987), 247. 54 See above A.1.2. 55 Summary and bibliography regarding the issue of the polis genesis on Melos: Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’, 101-102.

56

Caskey, ‘Ayia Irini: temple studies’, 127. N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή εν Νάξω’, Prakt 1951, 220. 58 Cf. V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Prakt 1985, appended table Z΄ 2. 59 The first period of Grotta was published by M. Cosmopoulos, Η Νάξος και το κρητο-μυκηναïκό Αιγαίο. Στρωματογραφία, κεραμική, οικονομική οργάνωση του Υστεροελλαδικού Ι-ΙΙΙΒ οικισμού της Γκρόττας (Athens 2004), while the second and, critical for our subject, period will be published by A. Vlachopoulos. 60 Publications of Kontoleon in Prakt. 61 See below B.II.2.iii, Naxos. 62 Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια’, 215. 57

21

A. Gounaris

wished to find a Mycenaean palace. Furthermore, the already doubted continuation of the settlement after Late Helladic III is further undermined by the current doubt of occupation during Late Helladic IIIC.68

most probable area of habitation of the worshipers was Grotta. Based on the proof for autonomous continuation of cult, one can acknowledge the continuation of the “secular” element within the settlement that was mentioned earlier.

Siphnos Paros

Agios Andreas: discontinuity in habitation Even though Agios Andreas has an imposing Mycenaean fortification wall, the presence of a settlement within it remains indeterminable. We are in search of the dwelling of the Mycenaean ruler. The founding of the fortified settlement (Late Helladic IIIB), the time of its abandonment (Late Helladic IIIC early: first quarter of the 12th century BC) and the three centuries during which the area was deserted until its re-habitation during the Late Geometric period should be reiterated.69 One should note however the presence of a sherd from a Protogeometric krater;70it would be interesting if this sherd could be associated with some architectural remains.

Koukounaries: continuity in habitation – continuity (?) in cult The settlement of Koukounaries offers the clearest example of a developing Mycenaean settlement. Its architectural remains during the Late Helladic IIIC period are clear and comprehensible.63 During the Late Helladic IIIC early a strong Mycenaean family occupies Paros and has its central seat of power on the acropolis of Koukounaries.64 Within a small time span, during Late Helladic IIIC early, the settlement is destroyed.65 A megaron-shaped structure, characterised as the “Mansion”, is recognised. The area designated for cult is less clear: perhaps it developed on the terrace of the Sanctuary of Athena on the southeastern slope of the hill.66 The Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean evidence present the framework for the interpretation of the emergence of a new postMycenaean communal scheme at Kou-kounaries and not Paroikia.

B.I.3. Continuity or discontinuity? The cult places in the Cyclades during Protogeometric-Geometric periods (their contribution towards an interpretation of the genesis of the Cycladic poleis) The interpretation of the archaeological evidence of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods in the Cyclades begins from general ascertainment and reaches issues concerning their political prehistoric character.71 One of these issues is that of the genesis of the Cycladic poleis. Two important studies by Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Dimitrios Schilardi mentioned in the introduction deal with the subject matter by examining two different islands, Naxos and Paros respectively.

Less clear is the picture of the acropolis during the Protogeometric period, even though the excavator makes note of activities in the area of the sanctuary during this period,67 and even less clear is the picture of the Sub-Mycenaean period. It should be noted that: - The post-Mycenaean settlement of Koukounaries reveals the autonomous process of a society centralising around the settlement. Koukounaries can provide the missing link in the research between the Late Helladic IIIC and the Geometric period. - We do not know what course the state formation which was created around Paroikia in the crucial years between Late Helladic IIIC-Sub-Mycenaean (?) and the Protogeometric period undertook.

Naxos Lambrinoudakis suggests an interpretive model for the genesis of the Naxian polis by recognising the presence of a complementary relationship between the settlement of Chora on Naxos and those in the

Delos The area of the sanctuary: discontinuity in habitation – discontinuity in cult The recent investigation of Farnoux completely alters the picture created in the past by the excavator of the Mycenaean settlement, Gallet de Santerre, who

68

A. Farnoux, ‘Delos à l’époque mycenienne: recherches en cours’, in C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winter (eds), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989 (Amsterdam 1993), 271-274; id., ‘Les dieux myceniens: état de la question’, DossAParis 195 (1994), 113, 116117. 69 Chr. Televantou, ‘Η ακρόπολη του Αγίου Ανδρέα Σίφνου’, in Πρακτικά Α΄ Διεθνούς Σιφναϊκού Συμποσίου, vol. A (Athens 2000), 123, 125; ead., ‘Ayios Andreas on Sifnos: a Late Cycladic III fortified Acropolis’, in V. Karageorghis and Chr. Morris (eds), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 BC (Nicosia 2001), 208, 210. 70 Televantou 2000, op.cit. n. 69, 123. 71 Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’, 97.

63 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Κουκουναριών Πάρου’, Prakt 1981, 274 fig. 3. 64 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή στην Πάρο’, Prakt 1982, 245. 65 Ibid., 251. 66 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1986, 194-196. 67 Ibid., 197.

22

Cult places in the Cyclades

periphery or outside the civic centre settlements.72 His main points fall under two large categories: the first is connected with architectural remains from the central Naxian settlement during the ProtogeometricGeometric periods, while the second is connected with the architectural remains in the rural Naxian hinterlands. The following can be said concerning both categories:

According to Lambrinoudakis the community which settled at Kastro during the Protogeometric period consists of the core of the polis-state towards creation. The population in the agricultural hinterland has its own structure and identity. Since Naxos has only one polis the scattered communities within the island are divided into demes. How can the genesis of the Naxian polis be described? As a “continuous social restructuring of people rather than a rupture of new arrivals”.74

- In reference to the architectural remains from the central Naxian settlement during the ProtogeometricGeometric periods: Near the Geometric settlement and within the earlier Mycenaean settlement area, there are constructions for venerating the dead. During the Protogeometric period the settlers abandon the Mycenaean settlement on the coast and re-establish themselves on the hill of Kastro. They continue to use the Mycenaean settlement to bury their dead and honour their ancestors during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods. The evidence denoting the veneration of ancestors during the Protogeometric period within the Mycenaean settlement shows the attempt of the prominent Protogeometric families to relate their ancestors with mythical, more or less, noble family-founders.73 Furthermore, surrounding the settlement are temples of post-Mycenaean date with Mycenaean predecessors. The temple at Yria decodes the continuity of cult in the area, from the open-air Mycenaean shrine which continued to be used until the 10th-9th centuries BC to the small twonave temple during 800 BC. To these may be added yet two others: in an initial phase the four-nave temple of 730 BC and in a second phase its remodelling into a three-nave temple in 680 BC. Following the second phase, cult activity continues within the ruins of the earlier building before the fourth and final three-nave temple is built during the 6th century BC.

It is impossible to recognise the new type of state formation which prevails on the island based on the picture presented from the Protogeometric settlement at Kastro since its town plan remains unknown. The veneration of ancestors during the Protogeometric period within a Mycenaean settlement area is reminiscent of the view of Coldstream75 as it was modified by Snodgrass76: the settlers try to gain political privileges by the commemoration of the bonds of the inhabitant-citizen with the land, through the veneration of those buried in the land of their forefathers. In the case of Naxos, the Mycenaean context, within which this commemoration of their bonds with their ancestors takes place, is not funerary but architectural. Paros In contrast, Schilardi has tried to interpret the genesis of the polis of Paros through the recognition of the phenomenon of urbanisation on the island during the Geometric period.77 He exemplifies the phenomenon by stressing the two architectural elements present: the Parian urban centre during the Geometric period, and the scattered peripheral settlements of the same period on Paros as well as on nearby islands. The interpretation of the genesis of the polis on Paros based on the urban development of the central settlement is achieved through the recognition of the centralising power of the centre upon the periphery. As with Naxos, Schilardi focuses on two categories. The first is connected with the buildings of the central Parian settlement of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods while the second with the buildings associated with the peripheral settlements.

- As for the architectural remains connected to the Naxian hinterland during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods: Outside the Geometric settlement and the earlier Mycenaean settlement area, two sanctuaries are noted at Sangri (Gyroulas) and Melanes. To date, neither has been shown to have clear connections to any earlier Mycenaean activities as did the example from Yria. They do however provide evidence for a different type of association of the worshippers and the surrounding area.

With regards to the architectural remains of the central settlement during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods, the excavator of Koukounaries recognises the existence of a central settlement and sanctuary on the hill of Agios Konstantinos during the Geometric period. One problem concerning this

The 8th century BC structures at Tsikalario are interpreted as constructions venerating the dead outside the area of the Mycenaean settlement at Chora.

74

Ibid., 17. Coldstream, ‘Hero-cults’, 14. 76 Snodgrass, Archaeology, 97. 77 Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’, 229-249. 75

72 73

Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 13-22. Ibid., 13-14.

23

A. Gounaris

ing the final quarter of the 8th century BC). The building activities of the peripheral settlements follow the tragic events occurring in the communities of the Parian centre.

is the cemetery located outside of the walls of the Geometric settlement, where the two polyandria were found.78 They attest to the existence of an armed body and consequently a political body from which these soldiers originate.

To conclude, there are great differences between the interpretations of the archaeological assemblages studied by Lambrinoudakis and Schilardi. In both studies, the construction of a residence in the Geometric period surrounding the Mycenaean houses,81 as well as the construction of tombs during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods within a Mycenaean settlement area,82 is noted. Nonetheless the final interpretations differ completely.

With regards to the architecture associated with the peripheral settlements of Koukounaries on the islet of Oikonomou but also at a number of prehistoric settlements around the Naoussa gulf79 the following can be said: Koukounaries: A Protogeometric and Geometric settlement develops on the summit of the hill. A rectangular building dated to the Geometric period is considered to be the seat of the local ruler on the acropolis. Around 700 BC the settlement on the southeast slope is displaced from the hill of the acropolis to the hill of the Middle Plateau and a temple is constructed there in an area designated as the agora, while yet another building, which has been characterised as a prytaneion, is constructed to the west of the archaic temple.

B.II. Cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods: a different approach for the interpretation of the genesis of the Cycladic poleis B.II.1. A review of the research concerning the cult places in the Cyclades during the ProtogeometricGeometric periods

Oikonomou Island: An apsidal temple, an agora, a prytaneion as well as a fortification wall found on the island have been compared with the Archaic architecture at Koukounaries, while similarities in the social-political structure of these two cemeteries are also noted.

Of the existing studies,83 the Cycladic sanctuaries in their totality have been best studied and catalogued in the study of Alexander Mazarakis Ainian:84

According to Schilardi, the “syntagmatic” emergence of the polis on Paros was a consequence of initiatives to organise the civic area around an agora with the temple of the central deity and the provisions of a defence system. The emergence of the Parian capital as the strongest political and military centre of the island took its form during the middle of the 8th century.80

81

186

AG. IRINI (KEA)

DIONYSOS

187 188

KARTHAIA (KEA) KYTHNOS 1 (Middle Plateau)

APOLLO APHRODITE?SAMOTHRACIAN GODS

LBA (incl. LHIIIC) PG-LG LG? PG?

For the other Geometric building remains beyond the burial buildings in the area of Grotta-Mitropolis cf. V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Prakt 1985, appended table Z΄2. 82 For the Geometric cist tomb at Koukounaries cf. D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Κουκουναριών Πάρου’, Prakt 1991, 225-226 (with reservations regarding its date). 83 Of the earlier studies it is worth mentioning the following references to Cycladic sites with structures (not exclusively of cult character) dated to Protogeometric and Geometric periods: - H. Drerup, Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Göttingen 1969): Andros (Zagora), Delos, Naxos (Grotta, Tsikalario), Paros (Delion), Siphnos, Tenos. - K. Fageström, Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (Göteborg 1988): Andros (Zagora), Delos, Donoussa, Kea, Naxos (Tsikalario), Paros (Koukounaries), Oikonomou, Siphnos (Kastro, Agios Andreas), Tenos (Xobourgo). - Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί Χρόνοι: Protogeometric: Kea, Delos (Sanctuary of Apollo, Sanctuary of Artemis), Naxos (Grotta, Irinodikiou Plot), Donoussa; Geometric: Paros (Koukounaries, Oikonomou, Philitzi, Delion, Paroikia), Naxos (Grotta, Aplomata, Tsikalario), Donoussa, Siphnos (Kastro, Agios Andreas). 84 Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings (key to map 3, 328-331, esp. 422-423).

It should be noted, however, that the time during which Koukounaries undergoes important changes and alterations (moving of the residence after the Geometric period to the south slope and the founding of the temple in the same area at around 700 BC) does not coincide with the important events at the settlement of Paroikia (the creation of an army dur78 Latest bibliography: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Une nécropole à Paros’, in J. de la Genière (ed.), Nécropoles et sociétés antiques (Grèce, Italie, Languedoc), Actes du colloque international du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III, Lille, 2-3 Décembre 1991 (Naples 1994), 127-152; ead., ‘I due “polyandria” dell’antica necropolis di Paros’, AIONArchStAnt n.s. 6 (1999), 13-24; ead., ‘Το αρχαίο νεκροταφείο της Πάρου στη Γεωμετρική και Αρχαϊκή εποχή’, ΑΕphem 2000, 283-284. 79 Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’, 236: Philitzi Island, Kargadoura, Detis, Livadera. 80 Ibid., 241.

24

Cult places in the Cyclades

189

KYTHNOS 2 (Acropolis)

190 191 192

AG. ANDREAS KASTRO (SIPHNOS) HYPSILE

193

ZAGORA

194

XOBOURGO

195

DELOS 1

196 197 198

DELOS 2 DELOS 3 (Mt. Kythnos) PAROS 1 (Paroikia)

199

PAROS 2 (Paroikia)

200

DELION

201

208

KOUKOUNARIES 1 (Acropolis) KOUKOUNARIES 2 (Acropolis) KOUKOUNARIES 3 (Acropolis slopes) OIKONOMOU ISLAND NAXOS 1 (GROTTAMITROPOLIS) NAXOS 2 (PALATIA) NAXOS 3 (KAMINAKI) YRIA

209

GYROULAS

210

TSIKALARIO

211

VATHY LIMENARI

212

MINOA 1 (Lower Town) MINOA 2 (Acropolis) THERA

202 203 204 205

206 207

213 214

DEMETER THESMOPHOROS? ? ARTEMIS EKVATERIA? Female divinity ATHENAHERAKLES? DEMETER or chthonian cult? APOLLO ARTEMIS HERA

5. 6.

MG IILG LG LG/EA

7. 8.

LBA? G-LG LBA? LG LG/EA

9.

PG? MGLG PG-LG

Household Cult

MG II

ATHENAAPOLLO ?

LH IIIC? PG-LG LG/G?

Ancestral-hero cult

LPG-LG

APOLLO

G

ARTEMIS?

G

DIONYSOS

LBA? PG-LG G

DIONYSOS MINOITIS APOLLOZEUS

4.

G? G or LG

APOLLO PYTHIOS DEMETER THESMOPHOROS? ARTEMISAPOLLO Cave cult

APOLLODEMETER Ancestral-tomb cults Pyres of uncertain nature Female divinity

3.

LG

Curvilinear buildings of uncertain plan or date: none Other domestic apsidal and oval buildings: 202 (house cult) Circular buildings and related structures: 205 Rectangular buildings (free-standing and agglutinative): 186, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 203, 205, 208, 210, 212, 213 Hybrid plans: none Buildings of uncertain or unknown plans and miscellaneous architectural remains: 187, 200, 209, 213 Other domestic rectangular buildings and miscellaneous walls: none

G

B.II.2. Processing the evidence: cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods as elements of the insular landscape, as elements of the proto-urban settlement, and as independent architectural structures

G

In order to guarantee the validity of our conclusions we must first present the available archaeological evidence for each island and the following implicit position has to be taken into consideration when considering the material: since the state of research is not the same throughout all the islands, the catalogued information cannot easily be compared in terms of the frequency of appearances of a particular architectural feature or the frequency of a particular type of building dated to a particular sub-phase. In order to organise this study, two types of classification will be used with reference to the cult places of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods according to their contribution to the interpretation of the genesis of the political phenomenon within the Cyclades: the elements related to the space in which these are founded and the element of time during which they are developed.

MG IILG MG I/II PG? SPGLG SPG-LG

With regards to the first criterion we shall consider the cult places as elements of the wider sacred landscape in which they are incorporated, as constituents within a settlement and as independent architectural structures. Cult places will be examined as dots on a map scattered amongst the island landscape, bearing in mind their architectural planning and their contribution to the town scheme in which they were developed.

LG-EA?

In the same study sixteen (16) Cycladic sanctuaries which have architectural remains of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods are presented: nos 186, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 210, 212 and 213. According to the form of the architectural plans the sanctuaries are categorised as follows: 1. Apsidal buildings: 204 2. Oval buildings: none

As for the second criterion, once the space in which they are incorporated has been considered, cult places will be examined in reference to their chronological continuation: those created anew and

25

A. Gounaris

gaps represent gaps in the research rather than gaps in habitation.90

those which have evidence of continuation from the Mycenaean period.

The ability to apply an interpretive model, relating to the wider landscape in which the sanctuaries are incorporated, on the islands which provide satisfactory number of documented finds of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods has been examined, tested and developed.91 The eleven new Cycladic Protogeometric-Geometric locations which have been added to the initial catalogue published by the author do not change the conclusions set forth in that study. These varied testimonies referring to the Protogeometric-Geometric habitations distributed on the islands have layouts which do not present the same settlement patterns.92 This occurs equally in both periods, as it does in the different scales of distribution of the settlements of the insular landscape.

B.II.2.i. Cult places as elements of the insular landscape: the sanctuaries as dots on the map In order to obtain a concise picture of the cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods we present the following detailed maps and tables: - Map A presents the distribution by island of the locations85 of Protogeometric-Geometric finds in the Cyclades to date (2004); the distribution in four islands which due to their density cannot be presented in Map A are presented in more detail in the supplementary maps Aa, Ab, Ac and Ad. A synopsis of these areas is shown in Table A.86 - Map B presents the distribution by island of all the locations dated to the Protogeometric and Geometric periods which have been documented in Cycladic sanctuaries of all periods. A synopsis of these areas is shown in Table B.

Based on the above general remarks, no common element can be designated in reference to the interpretation and the reasoning for the appearance of the political phenomenon in the Cyclades. Nonetheless one cannot disregard the fact that the result from the process of the genesis of this political phenomenon in the Cyclades is common: the phenomenon appears towards the Archaic rather than the Geometric period. Paradoxically, here the crucial element in the final conclusions is not local-Cycladic but Panhellenic: while on the mainland, during the Geometric period, one type of state formation dominates, the polis, in the Cyclades the local communities choose the polis as a state organisation only toward the end of the period. This occurs not simply because of internal factors but also because of the needs and methods of communication of the independent Cycladic state formations during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods with the already existing neighbouring political schemata of the mainland.

According to Map A and Table A, 131 locations are denoted from 23 islands and three islets. 19 locations provide more than one location with ProtogeometricGeometric finds.87 Both the map and the table reveal that islands such as Anafi, Herakleia or Schoinousa cannot contribute to this study since they provide no material; furthermore, of the catalogued islands several provide very little evidence88 while others provide more.89 It can be concluded therefore that any 85 When referring to location, site and find-spot the following should be noted: each location can have more than one site of recorded finds (for example finds known from surveys, excavations, simple references and collections) and consequently one site can include more than one find-spot. With regards to the composition of Table A see the notes at the end of it. 86 The table and the map compile the latest updated version of the map and the table that were published by the author in an earlier publication: cf. Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’, 111-113. This version includes settlements 91-106 which were omitted from the previous publication due to a typographical error (i.e. Naxos: Philotion – Paros: Agios Nikolaos, Asklepieion, Detis, Delion, Kargadoura, Koukounaries, Livadera, Paroikia, Protoria, Sarakiniko, Sklavouna – Rheneia: Agia Kyriaki, Parakastri – Sikinos: Paliokastro). 87 Moreover, in the case of fifteen sites belonging to eight locations of table A, more than one find-spot is catalogued. Due to publication limitations it was not possible for sites and points to be analytically catalogued. 88 For example: Antiparos, Ios, Sikinos, Pholegandros. For their documentation, see references in Syriopoulos, Προϊστορική κατοίκησις, 1397 (Γ397), 1325 (ΠΓ249), 1401 (Γ420, 419) respectively. 89 For example: - Thera: Merovigli, reference in Coldstream 1977, op.cit. n. 24, 386-391 (no. 162 in map and index), Pyrgos, in J.W. Sperling, Thera and Therasia (Athens 1973), 35. - Syros: Hermoupolis, Chrysonessos, in F. Aron, Πτυχές της αρχαίας Σύρου (Athens 1979), 18-19.

Map B and Table B provide a summary of the Cycladic poleis with evidence of cult places of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, including those within, surrounding and located outside the central settlement where the seat of the polis of each island existed. - Cult places of the Protogeometric period include: Poleis with cult places within the central settlement:

- Melos: Prophitis Ilias, J.L. Bintliff, Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (Oxford 1977). 90 This is also proven by the latest research and the first publications of the sites: - Televantou, ‘Γεωμετρικός οικισμός’, 187-207, esp. 194 (map). - Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 137-209. 91 Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’, 107. 92 Ibid., 107-109: panhellenic scale, interisland-intracycladic scale, island scale, central settlement-and-periphery scale.

26

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 1. Andros. Zagora. Geomentric Settlement (from A. Cambitoglou, Prakt 1972, 253 fig. 1).

27

A. Gounaris

Figure 2. Paros. Koukounaries. Settlement from the Mycenean to the Archaic period (from D. Schilardi, Pallas 58 (2002), 230 fig. 83).

28

Cult places in the Cyclades

fundamental ‘urban’93 picture? Awaiting for the publication of the central settlement of Naxos94 and only with a few references to the urban planning of Minoa on Amorgos,95 the only settlements which can be considered in terms of their urban plan are the settlement of Zagora on Andros and, in part, the settlements of Koukounaries on Paros and Vathy Limenari on Donoussa.

Minoa (Amorgos); Poleis with cult places surrounding the central settlement: Naxos; and Poleis with cult places outside the central settlement: Koressos (Kea). - Cult places of the Geometric period include: Poleis with cult places on hill summits and within the central settlement: Minoa (Amorgos), Thera, Karthaia (Kea), Kythnos, Paros, Siphnos; Poleis with cult places within the central settlement but outside of the acropolis: Minoa (Amorgos), Delos; Poleis with cult places surrounding the central settlement: Thera, Naxos, Paros, Tenos; and Poleis with cult places outside the central settlement: Andros, Thera, Naxos, Paros, Siphnos.

Andros At Zagora on Andros [fig. 1] the settlement implies a single concept for the organisation of the ‘urban’ plan:96 the adherence to a basic orientation of the walls, the existence of a orderliness, a sense of the existence of a proto- ‘grid’ system – of course not a true “grid”97 – which is rooted in the basic human scale of its settlers. Interesting elements from the cult place of the Geometric period: - The actual construction: an open-air altar - Its position: within the settlement (within the fortification wall) but in a clear, discrete location in relation to the habitation area. - The time of its foundation: it was not constructed at the same time as the foundation of the settlement but rather during the second phase of the settlement. It is utilised until 575-550 BC during which time it is included within a rectangular construction. Consequently the crucial change of the distinction between the sacred and the secular occurs during the Subgeometric period.

A general observation that can be made from this table is that one cannot ignore modern elements – otherwise unrelated to the study – of these areas which have inevitably contributed to the content of the map and tables (for example the construction of new settlements in more modern times on top of ancient central settlements). At present and until new scientific excavation methods are employed, the two most important central settlements and competing poleis of Naxos and Paros cannot present us with architectural remains in areas where we may suppose that sanctuaries had existed (Paroikia-Paros) or even provide finds originating from these (Kastro-Naxos). Another observation is that wherever a Geometric cult place has been recognised on the summit of an acropolis, there is no indication of a connection with a Mycenaean context.

Paros

According to Map B and Table B, it can therefore be concluded that, with the exception of Kea and possibly Naxos and Paros, the network of cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods consists of new networks with little evidence of connections with earlier Mycenaean ones.

At Koukounaries on Paros [fig. 2] two different ‘urban’ models are revealed: a unique native plan during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods on the acropolis and a more organised plan during the Archaic period on the South Terrace and Middle Plateau (“a set of houses organised in islet 93 This is probably an arbitrary term cf. Gounaris, ‘Έρευνες’, 96 n. 1. It is being used out of convenience in order to signify the meaning of the intermediate scale in between architecture and the settlement scale, i.e. the scale with which we look at the plan of a building complex inside a settlement or at the settlement itself. 94 It is clear from the plan of the buildings of the Late Helladic III and Geometric periods on Naxos published by V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Prakt 1985, appended table Z΄2, that there is a number of unpublished Geometric buildings that constitute proto-urban units. 95 Cf. the references of L. Marangou, ‘Τειχισμένοι οικισμοί των γεωμετρικών χρόνων (9ος-8ος π.Χ. αιώνας)’, PAA 63 (1988), 90, to predefined planning of a settlement unit in the Lower town of Minoa, Amorgos, as well as her reference to a stepped street of Protogeometric period, Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, 179. 96 A. Cambitoglou and J.J. Coulton, ‘The houses. B. Architecture. 5. The organisation of the town’, in Zagora 2, 58-161. 97 Cf. A. Koumouzeli, in Building Communities (BSA Suppl., forthcoming).

B.II.2.ii. Cult places as proto-urban elements within or outside of a settlement: the invisible poleis In reality every temple, within or outside a settlement, should be considered in reference to its relation to the proto-urban plan of the settlement since it is considered a public building. In order to consider the cult places in the Cyclades as constituents within the urban scheme of a settlement, it is necessary to initially understand the complete settlement plan in which they are included. Which of the Protogeometric-Geometric settlements in the Cyclades provide a

29

A. Gounaris

groups”98). Harmonised with these is also the development of the cult place as it is configured in the location of the Temple of Athena: the open-air cult place centred around an altar during the Geometric period.

terrain of the gulf of Agios Nikolaos suggests that the sanctuary belonged to the socio-economic area of influence of the settlement of Koressia. During the Geometric period, Room 1 of the earlier sanctuary is used, further suggesting the element of cult continuation. The gap between cult activities of the Late Helladic IIIC and Protogeometric periods is only one of constructions and not of use.

Donoussa At Vathy Limenari [fig. 3A], although the settlement shows evidence for substantial settlement organisation,99 the cult place is missing. The function of the two pyres [fig. 3B] within the settlement has been discussed by scholars, but no cult importance has been associated with them.100 The fact that the archaeologist who excavated the site did not even include the pyres in the publication,101 does not allow us to provide more information concerning these and their possible cultic affinities.

This ensemble within the earlier Mycenaean sanctuary appears to illustrate a deep religious sense of connection-continuation with Mycenaean cult. This is further exemplified by the need or urgency to utilise the existing structures for cult purposes. There is not a single case where one distinguishes a long-term ‘urban programme’ from a society that gives cardinal importance to cult continuation in the area; it was not a programme which, after a series of constructions, arrived at the formation of a monumental construction of the Classical period type, even if outside the central settlement. It is for this reason that the construction of BB is a clear element of a native and informal construction. It could belong to any small local community that survives the changes following the Late Helladic IIIC period.

B.II.2.iii. Cult places as independent architectural structures The known cult places in the Cyclades of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods with which are associated built constructions are documented in Map C and Table C. In contrast to the layout of the information included in Tables A, B and C the following discussion of the Cycladic Protogeometric and Geometric cult places by island is different, as an element of interpretation is included when trying to examine their contribution to this study.

Naxos Near the Protogeometric-Geometric settlement [fig. 5A] Following Lambrinoudakis’105 re-evaluation and correction of certain views recorded in preliminary publications, the picture of Grotta is reconsidered: the area enclosed by walls T15 and T16 is open-air [fig. 5B], while the curved wall T10 is a funerary enclosure106 dated in fact to the early years after the abandonment of the site.107

Kea At Agia Irini [figs 4A, 4B],102 within the – barren of architectural structures – landscape of the Protogeometric period (both on Kea but also in most other Cycladic islands), area BB is constructed 0.90 m above sea level and located above the corner of Room 6 of the Late Helladic III sanctuary.103 The element of cult continuation in the area is further proven with pottery of the Submycenaean period104 – something which is rare in the Cyclades. It seems logical to conclude that the worshipers of this sanctuary came from some neighbouring settlement. The

In Metropolis square the picture has also been clarified both in terms of the planning of the buildings and their phases of construction. The following can be noted: - During the Late Protogeometric period: an elongated rectangular structure containing a smaller rectangular one with a cist tomb [fig. 6A]. - During the Early Geometric-Middle Geometric periods: a rectangular structure containing circular structures.

98

D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1988, 185. Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Ο γεωμετρικός οικισμός της Δονούσας’, in Διαλέξεις 1986-1989, N.P. Goulandris Foundation (Athens 1990), 43-54. 100 Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 194-195. 101 Zaphiropoulou, op.cit. n. 99. 102 For a summary of the development phases of the sanctuary from the Protogeometric-Geometric periods see Caskey, ‘Ayia Irini: temple studies’, 123-138. 103 M.E. Caskey, ‘Ayia Irini, Kea: the terracotta statues and the cult in the temples’, in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults in the Aegean Bronze Age (Stockholm 1981), 128. 104 Ibid., 128. 99

105 V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1978, 213 (declassification of the convex wall T10 as Mycenaean); id., ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1980, 259-260, and Prakt 1982, 255 (declassification of two parts of walls (T15 and T16) forming a corner of a Protogeometric house). 106 V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1984, 303-305 and Prakt 1985, 144-148. 107 Lambrinoudakis, ‘Veneration of ancestors’, 235.

30

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 3. Donoussa. Vathy Limenari. Geometric Settlement (A: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, Διαλέξεις 1986-1989, 45 fig. 3, B: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ADelt 24 (1969) B2, 391 fig. 1).

31

A. Gounaris

Figure 4. Kea. Agia Irini. Structures over the ruins of the prehistoric temple (A: J.L. Caskey, Hesperia 31 (1969), 282 fig. 4, B: M.E. Caskey, in Sanctuaries and Cults 1981, 128, fig. 1).

32

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 5. Naxos. Grotta. A: Metropolis. Excavated area (V.K. Lambrinoudakis, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 236, fig.1). B: Walls and tombs of the PG-G period (V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Prakt 1984, 302 fig. 1).

33

A. Gounaris

Figure 6. Naxos. Metropolis. A: Enclosure walls, tombs and circular platforms of the SubPG to LG periods (V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Early Greek Cult Practice, 242 fig. 12). B: Section of the tumulus (V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 14 fig. 2).

34

Cult places in the Cyclades

Protogeometric and Early Geometric gap both in habitation and cult practices.

- During the Late Geometric period: an ellipsoidal tumulus covering the irregularly preserved enclosure [fig. 6B]. 108

It is inevitable that the cult areas at Gyroula lead to a comparison with those at Yria. In the two areas the architectural evidence for cult is different in terms of the chronology of the foundation as well as their outcome during the Archaic period. In fact one cannot ignore the founding of the cult at Sangri from naught in the 8th century BC with the use of an open-air shrine, while during the same period the two-nave temple at Yria is constructed.

The problem with Grotta concerns the interpretation of the deposit as a whole: namely to what extent those who dug the tombs during the Protogeometric period within the houses of the Late Helladic IIIB period respected the earlier settlers and in this manner tried to associate themselves with them.109 It would have seemed logical for them to pay respect and try to connect themselves with their ancestors through the opening of tombs near or within the Late Helladic burial grounds of their alleged ancestors. Yet another interpretation cannot be ruled out: those that bury their dead at Grotta during the Protogeometric period have absolutely no relation with the inhabitants of the Late Helladic IIIB period in this area. This however should be considered secondary when examined alongside the importance of the evidence: the creation of a peribolos during the Early Protogeometric period (T10 and in continuation T17) suggests the existence of strong ties, which could in fact continue during the Geometric period.

With regards to Tsikalario [fig. 11], it is unfortunate that the publication of the cult structures in this Cycladic Geometric cemetery (tumulus 9 and the three important constructions of the cemetery) is still very preliminary.113 None of the three constructions included in the publication are dated while the construction associated with tumulus 9 is dated to the Late Archaic period.114 The only observation that can be made based on these preliminary reports is that here there is a community, possibly from the area of the ancient kome of Tragea, who venerate the dead.115

At Metropolis one must point out the views of the excavator: when the peribolos wall of the second phase was built a little before 800 BC the area ceased to be used as a burial ground.110

The variety of structures (excluding the tumulus) at the cemetery of Tsikalario can lead to many interpretations as to the vast repertoire of constructions (temples, funerary constructions, areas for veneration of the ancestors, areas of residence associated with the necropolis).116 Unfortunately, further interpretation cannot be undertaken before the comprehensive publication of the archaeological evidence.

Surrounding the PG-G settlement The excavator stresses the importance of Yria [figs 7-9]: In relation to the post-Mycenaean continuation, he argues for the “conscious continuation of cult from the Mycenaean to the Geometric period”.111 In relation to the Geometric period, even though cult continuation is ‘unclear’, it is without doubt that in the beginning of the 8th century BC the first temple was constructed. It would be interesting to attempt to bridge the crucial period in between: what is the archaeological evidence for continuation of cult practices during the Protogeometric period?

Paros The acropolis of Koukounaries is inhabited continuously during the Submycenaean, Protogeometric and Geometric periods while the sanctuary of the south Terrace and Middle Plateau is utilised from the Mycenaean period through to the Early Archaic. It should be stressed that one cannot unquestionably argue for uninterrupted cult continuation following the Mycenaean period.117

Naxian Mainland In the sanctuary of Gyroulas near Sangri an open-air shrine was installed at around 800 BC with terraces, twin pits and fences or temporary huts or tents in the area [fig. 10].112 These provide new evidence for the

Based on the most recent publication of the settlement on the summit of Koukounaries the activities of 113 It is confined to one page of the ADelt, accompanied by three plans (of the tumulus, the long orthogonal building and the complex of orthogonal buildings), Ph. Papadopoulou-Zaphiropoulou, ‘Aρχαιότητες και μνημεία Κυκλάδων. Νάξος. Τσικαλαριό’, ADelt 21 (1966) B2, 395. 114 Ibid., 395. 115 Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘La necropolis geometrica di Tsikalario a Naxos’, Magna Grecia 18 (1983), 2. 116 Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 191-193. 117 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1986, 195-196.

108

Ibid., 238-245. 109 Ibid., 235-238. 110 Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 13. 111 Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια’, 215. 112 V.K. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Το αρχαίο ιερό του Γύρουλα στο Σαγκρί της Νάξου’, in Νάξος. Το αρχαίο ιερό του Γύρουλα στο Σαγκρί (Athens 2001), 8; id., ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 16, 17 fig. 7, 21 n. 24 (with earlier bibliography), n. 27 (most recent description of the pits).

35

A. Gounaris

Figure 7. Naxos. Yria (from G. Gruben, in Les grands ateliers d’architecture 1993, 104-105 fig. 5 and 98 fig. 1).

36

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 8. Naxos. Yria (from G. Gruben, in Les grands ateliers d’architecture 1993, 100 fig. 2 and 101 fig. 3).

37

A. Gounaris

Figure 9. Naxos, Yria. Temples I, II, III. Graphic Restoration (G. Gruben, Griechische Tempel 2001, 376 fig. 283).

38

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 10. Naxos. Sangri. Buildings of different periods (V.K. Lambrinoudakis, Νάξος: Το αρχαίο ιερό του Γύρουλα στο Σαγκρί 2001, 8 fig. 2).

39

A. Gounaris

Figure 11. Naxos. Tsikalario. A: Two complexes of buildings. 1. three buildings in a row 2. two rooms in a row. B: Orthogonal structure (Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ADelt 21 (1966) B2, 394 and 396 figs 7-8).

40

Cult places in the Cyclades

during the Archaic period (c. 700 BC) the Temple of Athena Polias is erected.125

the Protogeometric period remain an enigma. This is particularly the case with the architectural remains but also with the archaeological interpretations that attempt to confirm the habitation of the acropolis during the Early and Middle Protogeometric periods.118 The following can be noted for the constructions which have a clear plan:

After the middle of the 7th century BC Koukounaries is abandoned and only the temple remains attracting worshippers until the 4th century BC.126 To conclude, during the Protogeometric period no evidence of a temple or a dwelling of a ruling figure has been discovered on the acropolis of Koukounaries, while during the Geometric period it is possible to correlate such a dwelling with the rectangular construction. Concurrently, there is no temple but rather an open-air shrine far from the residence of the ruler in the area that will later house the Temple of Athena. It seems plausible that the division of the sacred from the secular takes place already in the middle of the Geometric period (Altar C). The clear political character of a complete division of the sanctuary (temple - prytaneion) occurs during the Archaic period. It is at this same time that an open area in front of the temple was most likely used for communal gatherings.

Protogeometric period: The function of the building to which belongs the apsidal wall of the pre-existing building C, located on the Upper Plateau of the hill (B2-C2-D2), is unknown [fig. 12].119 During the Protogeometric period the eminent individual buried during the Late Helladic IIIC period in the cave that is located northeast of the Upper Plateau appears to have been worshiped.120 Geometric period: According to the excavator, the elongated building of the acropolis (B2-C2-D2) was possibly the house of the local ruler and it also served limited cult uses.121 One should also note the cist grave extending below the floor of the Geometric structure characterised by the excavator as the megaron, which covers the area B3-C3-D3.122

Oikonomou As for the constructions on the terrace of the southeast slope of the hill the following can be emphasised: During the Geometric period the cult area is most likely open-air123 and is developed around an altar to the east of the Archaic temple of Athena [figs 13A, 13B], within and under the temenos,124 while

The architectural finds at the centre of the settlement are unique: according to the excavator they entail the only complete apsidal temple of the Cyclades [fig. 14].127 The apsidal structure presents a type rare in the Cyclades not only in the Geometric period but also in the subsequent ones. Bearing in mind that the dating of this structure and the surviving architectural remains is based solely on typological observations and not on excavation data, they cannot be used as valid evidence in an architectural study. It would be premature to further explore these remains without sufficient investigation, which can only be achieved through a systematic excavation of the site.

118 To quote the observations of the excavator in his first publications, D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Κουκουναριών Πάρου’, Prakt 1981, 290: “after the interruption that followed during the Sub-Mycenaean phase the hill was re-inhabited in the late Protogeometric period”; id., ‘Ανασκαφή στην Πάρο’, Prakt 1983, 272: “after a short phase of re-habitation, the hill was deserted from the 11th till the middle of the 10th century BC”. From the above it is understood that the short phase of re-habitation lasted into the Late Helladic IIIC period, [while the interruption lasted from 1125 to 950 BC]. However, the author in the end observes continuity of habitation throughout the Dark Ages, as he characterises it: id., ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1986, 194-197. 119 Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’, 231. In this publication the excavator of Koukounaries does not seem to adopt Mazarakis Ainian’s view regarding the function of the building, which comprised part of an apsidal wall existing before the long G building on the upper terrace as a ruler’s dwelling [fig. 12 (B2-C2D2)]. 120 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1986, 197. Earlier references to the burial of the Late Helladic IIIC period: id., ‘Ανασκαφαί Πάρου’, Prakt 1976, 289; id., ‘Ανασκαφή Κουκουναριών Πάρου’, Prakt 1981, 286-287. 121 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή στην Πάρο’, Prakt 1984, 299. 122 D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Κουκουναριών Πάρου’, Prakt 1991, 225-226. 123 A wall is reported to have been found in the deeper levels of the excavation inside the Archaic Temple of Athena and it is considered possible that an earlier Archaic building had existed there, D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου’, Prakt 1986, 187. 124 Ibid., 193.

Amorgos In the Lower Town the most important constructions are the ash deposit (no. 4) [fig. 15] and the funerary peribolos (no. 6) enclosing tombs [fig. 16].128 Unfortunately, these two entities cannot be associated with each other. Based on the publication of the site a number of important issues still remain open.129 We shall only deal with those relevant to our study, i.e. those concerning dating and the issue of cult 125

D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή στην Πάρο’, Prakt 1985, 134. Ibid., 143. 127 Schilardi, ‘The emergence of Paros’, 232-236. 128 L. Marangou, ‘Ο ταφικός περίβολος Πρώιμων Ιστορικών χρόνων στη Μινώα Αμοργού’, in N.Ch. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Athens 2001), 205-222. 129 Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, 187-188. 126

41

A. Gounaris

Figure 12. Paros. Koukounaries. Acropolis. Structures of LHIII-PG-G periods (D. Schilardi, Prakt 1980, pl. I).

42

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 13. Paros. Koukounaries. A: Temple of Athena and Temenos. B: Temenos. Western side of trench f. Stratigraphical section (D. Schilardi, Prakt 1986, 183 and 193, figs 6 and 8).

43

A. Gounaris

Figure 14. Oikonomou. Settlement (D. Schilardi, Prakt 1975, 206 fig. 3).

44

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 15. Amorgos. Minoa. Lower City (L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, 174 fig. 172).

45

A. Gounaris

At Zagora during the Geometric period a rectangular altar [fig. 18] is associated with a peribolos or retaining wall of uncertain date and a triangular pillarlike stone which was probably used for the slaughtering of sacrificial animals. Later (575-550 BC) a rectangular Archaic temple, including an altar, is constructed in the interior.135

continuation. The chronological sequence of the finds is as follows: - The earliest tombs within the peribolos: late 10th or early 9th century BC,130 - The ash deposit: from early 9th to early 7th century BC,131 - Funerary peribolos: Late Geometric or Early Archaic period.132 As to the issue of continuation: no Mycenaean presence is associated with the structures described above.

During the Geometric period at Ypsili, an area connected with an open-air construction with a peribolos is designated for the burning of offerings. Later (575550 BC) a rectangular temple with two built offering tables on the interior and a deposit in the pronaos is constructed [fig. 19].136

Of interest are the excavator’s hypotheses relating to the funerary peribolos:133 - The burials belong to an aristocratic group of the earlier inhabitants, perhaps even the founders of the settlement. - The actual peribolos has been characterised as an ancestral tumulus, a type of ƒerÕn tîn kekmhkÒtwn. The importance of this find is clear. It is certain that the area was originally designated as a burial ground and that from a certain point onwards it defines the entire settlement in relation to the time of its foundation.

A common evolutionary course related to cult activities can be recognised at both sites: from an open-air cult to cult practices at an altar within the nave of a temple or with an area designated for the burning of offerings within the pronaos. In either case one cannot argue for continuation of cult practices. Cult continuation from these particular communities – from the Protogeometric period – can only be proposed if one assumes that these communities practiced the same cult in another location which was then transferred.

According to the publication, Building K on the acropolis [fig. 17] and the area surrounding it are considered a clear example of an evolving cult area: open-air cult during the Protogeometric period, followed by a housed shrine from the late 8th century BC through to the 4th century BC.134

Delos Only structure Γ [fig. 20] can be dated to the Geometric period and this with limited evidence. The Naxian pre-oikos, a specific wall of the Artemision and the Heraion, can no longer be dated to the Geometric period.137 What is certain is the lack of continuation from Late Helladic IIIB which characterises the three buildings as well as structure Γ.

From the dating of Buidling K on the acropolis and that of the funerary peribolos in the Lower Town one can conclude the date for the founding of the city of Minoa. Moreover, the fact that there appears to be no relation of Building K and the peribolos to the Mycenaean period leads one to postulate for a foundation of the Amorgian polis completely unrelated to the Mycenaean presence on the island.

Tenos Finally, it is worth mentioning the so-called Thesmophorion at Xobourgo [fig. 21], the date and function of which are unknown but which have been assumed to be a Geometric structure.138 From the published material, one can establish the following:

Andros In the case of the two Geometric sanctuaries of Zagora and Ypsili on Andros it is clear that they mark the evolution of the Geometric cult places and their relationship with the birth of the polis in Palaiopolis. More specifically, in both cases there is a clear beginning and end of an evolutionary course in the development of the cult areas.

135 A. Cambitoglou and J.J. Coulton, ‘Description of the excavated buildings’, in Zagora 1, 20-21; A. Cambitoglou and J.R. Green, ‘Excavation, stratification, chronology’, in Zagora 2, 170-171, 173-174 (a poorly constructed wall made of big undressed blocks of marble). 136 Chr. Televantou, ‘Άνδρος. Το ιερό της Υψηλής’, in Φως Κυκλαδικόν, 134. 137 The views over their dating are discussed by Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 179 (building Γ), 180-181 (Oikos of Naxians), 181-182 (Artemision), 182-183 (Heraion). He reaches the same conclusions (329) as those set forth above. 138 Ibid., 177 n. 1307.

130

Marangou, Αμοργός I, 220. Ibid., 187. 132 Ibid., 221. 133 Ibid., 224. 134 Ibid., 258. 131

46

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 16. Amorgos. Minoa. Lower City. Grave enclosure (L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, 207 fig. 198).

Figure 17. Amorgos. Minoa. Acropolis. Building K (V. Petrakos (ed.), Ergon 38 (1991), 96 fig. 145).

47

A. Gounaris

Figure 18. Andros. Zagora. Geometric altar in the cella of the Archaic temple (Zagora 2, plan 17).

48

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 19. Andros. Ypsili. Geometric walls in the pronaos of the Archaic temple (Chr. Televantou, in Φως Κυκλαδικόν, table 2). then perhaps this too is dated to the Archaic period or earlier.

- Date: The only solid evidence for dating the construction is provided by the pithoi dated to the Archaic period.139 The circular depressions for the deposition of the pithoi cannot be dated with accuracy. They may have been created at the same time as the construction of the pithoi or at an earlier date, for the placement of earlier pithoi which have not survived and which were later replaced with the Archaic pithoi. If the depressions were later than the Archaic period (e.g. the Classical period), then the question of the support of the Archaic pithoi before this period must be posed. If one assumes that each Archaic pithos was accompanied by a contemporaneous depression and was not brought from another location, then the Archaic pithoi of Xobourgo were supported within depressions which were made during the Archaic period or earlier. At present the earliest erected construction is the thickest wall in the shape of a Γ, and the part of the long north wall in units IV and V and in the west side of unit IV. If this wall can be connected with the pithos depressions

139

- Function:140 interventions on the structure appear to take place from the interior to the exterior and there does not appear to be any desire to create a detached structure. In addition to the large rectangular hearth (eschara) in unit IV mentioned in the early publications by Kontoleon141 we can now add the Π-shaped altar within unit III discussed by Kourou.142 Therefore, if cult is practiced in the area it appears to shift and develop to the interior of the original building or even expand while maintaining its core at the building. This structure satisfies particular ritualistic demands. Kontoleon’s opinion of a mystery

140 For the discussion cf. Mazarakis Ainian, Ruler’s Dwellings, 178-179 n. 1322. 141 Kontoleon, op.cit. n. 139. 142 N. Kourou, ‘Tenos-Xobourgo. From a refuge place to an extensive fortified settlement’, in Excavating Classical Culture, 265.

N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή εν Τήνω’, Prakt 1952, 538.

49

A. Gounaris

Figure 20. Delos. Apollo Sanctuary. Temple Γ (P. Courbin 1980, 16 fig. 3).

character of worship at this shrine is reasonable.143 Also reasonable is the question relating to the construction of the temple outside the walls in an area that at first glance seems completely unprotected. Roux gives an answer to this problem: there are two types of temples in antiquity, the temple-treasuries (temple-trésors) such as the Parthenon and templessanctuaries or temple-reliquaries (temples-sanctuaires ou temple-reliquaires) such as the Erechtheion. The former may change locations within a particular locale, the latter due to their primeval cult character stay in a particular spot respecting with austerity a specific element of the area, while changes to their structure are undertaken only because of new ritual demands.144 The latter is the case for the peculiar plan of the cult structure at Xobourgo.

C. Conclusions

To conclude, due to the lack of evidence one cannot shed more light on the construction of the open-air altar in area III, the built grate within area IV and the Γ shaped wall. The other additions are of the Archaic period.

We will offer below a series of answers relating to the questions of ‘when’ and ‘how’’. As to the question ‘why’ it can only be answered by altering the question slightly: why did the Cycladic islands which present such common socio-economic characteristics, not present the same types of constructions within cult places during the crucial years of evolution (Protogeometric-Geometric periods)?

It is evident that satisfactory conclusions cannot be given for the fundamental questions relating to the genesis of the Cycladic polis (when, how, why) solely on the basis of the study of local cult practices in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods. Initially this study was undertaken by “looking to the islands from the mainland” through the use of particular archaeological material and omitting other evidence (e.g. ancient testimonia) which might be considered just as important. Nonetheless, the strength of the evidence is established through the independent study of each case and not by imposing overreaching conclusions to cases where sufficient evidence is inadequate. One should stress here the dangers in circular arguments.

143

N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή εν Τήνω’, Prakt 1952, 539 and Prakt 1953, 262-263. 144 G. Roux, ‘Le vrai temple d’Apollon à Délos’, BCH 103 (1979), 110-111.

50

Cult places in the Cyclades

Figure 21. Tenos. Xobourgo. Buildings I-IV (N. Kontoleon, Prakt 1953, 266-267, table I).

In the crucial period of change, the time when communal cult appears, autonomous state entities analogous to the pre-existing ones of the Late Helladic IIIC period appeared on the islands. However, between the Late Helladic IIIC and the Protogeometric period, communities appear, created as a consequence of the fragmentation of the Mycenaean Cycladic communities. It is these communities that later take on the characterisation of the polis, using institutions of the poleis as mechanisms of contact both amongst themselves but also with the various poleis outside the Cyclades. Their emergence does not undergo a similar course to that of the mainland communities which can be described as evolving “from nomadic and livestock breeding to permanent conditions of living and agriculture”.

construction of the temple within the destroyed Mycenaean palace which functioned both as a seat of administration and as an area used for cult practices?

In the following two sub-sections (C-I, C-II) the evidence for the sites which can provide crucial answers will be summarised, based on the series of models which were developed in the first section (A.I.2, A.I.3, A.I.4). The individual conclusions from the study of the cult place of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods in the Cyclades will also be presented.

Is the image of the polis developed through the construction of the temple and the seat of administration in a discreet location within the urban plan? The observation of such a continuation in development cannot be undertaken with Phylakopi since the settlement is abandoned during the Protogeometric period. Therefore a partial application of the interpretive model can only be made to those Mycenaean settlements where occupation is continuous. This could be the case with Agia Irini on Kea in that it consists of a central Mycenaean settlement only in reference to the sanctuary at the site since the secular house of the local Mycenaean ruler is missing. We can also apply the second model to the settlement of Koukounaries on Paros in as much as it was the seat of a local Mycenaean ruler. On the summit of the hill

If we attempted to validate this model by searching for a settlement in the Cyclades proportionally equal to Mycenae, it is certain that Phylakopi on Melos would be the most appropriate candidate. However, Mycenaean Phylakopi is not the ideal candidate for this interpretive model; the distinction between the sacred and the secular in the Melian settlement has clearly been delineated already by the Mycenaean period with the construction of the megaron in Late Helladic IIIA1 and the two shrines during Late Helladic IIIA and Late Helladic IIIB1. We therefore pass to the second interpretive model.

C.I. Cult places in the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods C.I.1. Continuity: the Mycenaean element Is the interpretive model, which bases its argument on the development of the polis, decoded through the

51

A. Gounaris

of Koukounaries, the secular is discerned from the sacred already by the Mycenaean period with the sanctuary on the southeast slope of the hill. Similarly, the continuation of cult practice in the same area, i.e. the area of the temenos of Athena, is assumed from the Late Helladic IIIC through to the Archaic period (the presence of worship during the Late Helladic IIIC, Submycenaean and Protogeometric periods still remains questionable). Neither the settlement of Agia Irini nor that of Koukounaries however constitutes the central settlement of a polis.

C.II. Cult places of the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods- in place How can one recognise the development of a particular Cycladic polis through the reiteration, distribution and mapping of cult places of the Cyclades during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods? This question will be examined by treating the cult places, first within the landscape in which they are incorporated, second as to how they relate to the settlement in which they are included and finally as individual architectural structures.

C.I.2. Discontinuity: The Geometric parameter C.II.1. Scale of the insular landscape The element of discontinuity in cult practices in relation to the Late Helladic IIIC period appears to be predominant in most cult places on islands with poleis: Andros, Thera, Kythnos, Siphnos, Tenos, Delos but also in most poleis: Amorgos, Kea (Karthaia). This discontinuity is expressed either through the lack of finds of the Late Helladic IIIC, Submycenaean but also the early Protogeometric and Middle Geometric periods or through the foundation of cult places from naught during the Geometric period.

Cult places of the Protogeometric-Geometric periods are found within, surrounding and outside the central settlement. This placement does not follow any standard relating to their diachronic distribution. As a consequence, no conclusions can be drawn in reference to the relation of the cult place during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods with the central settlement and the dating of both. C.II.2 Scale of the proto-urban settlements

If someone searched for the effects of this discontinuity in the nature of the state formations one would conclude that this discontinuity is clear evidence for the originality imbedded within this new institution. This finding however does not provide answers for the questions relating to the genesis of the polis.

What is the relationship between the foundation of a cult place during the Protogeometric-Geometric periods and a settlement with substantial proto-urban organisation and especially with the changes in proto-urban organisation of certain settlements? Certain characteristics are noted in reference to this relationship but only for the peripheral settlements (Koukounaries on Paros and Zagora on Andros) and this only during the transition from the Geometric to the Archaic period. These are associated with open spaces and open-air cult areas of the Geometric period and more specifically of the end of the period.

C.I.3. The search for continuation: the critical years of the Protogeometric period In the aforementioned cases an antithetic comparison is made with the cases of discontinuity and the proof of the presence of cult during the Protogeometric period. The most important cases are Kea and secondly Naxos and Paros. They show elements of cult in the critical Protogeometric period, which however are not the same in all cases: there is evidence of worship of deities at Agia Irini, Yria and Koukounaries while veneration of ancestors is found at Grotta. In Paros, Koukounaries, because of its isolated location away from the central settlement and its state of preservation, presents a truly intermediary type of state formation, clearly Cycladic, which can provide the missing link.

C.II.3 Scale of the architectural composition With the exception of Building BB at Agia Irini on Kea, the housed shrines of the Protogeometric period are missing. With the exception of the sanctuary at Yria on Naxos, and possibly the area of the temenos of the Temple of Athena at Koukounaries, it appears that the history of roofed structures begins in the Late Geometric period. It is clear that the important changes in typology which occur in cult areas of the Protogeometric and Geometric periods occur towards the end of the 8th century BC: the change from openair altars to roofed structures.

52

Cult places in the Cyclades

ancient religious beliefs within the new political framework.

Final Conclusions - In terms of architecture the changes that take place during the Protogeometric period are significant. The bearers of these changes must be post-Mycenaeans, scattered throughout the islands, who create communal and state formations of unknown structure.

- The technical character and even the technical content which can be inherent in the concept of the Cycladic polis is highlighted: during the crucial years of its final adoption – the Archaic period – it is possible that communal entities with completely different institutions are included under this same term. Words cannot always be defined so narrowly.

- The different courses of cult place development during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods in the Cyclades reveal the presence of different communal groups.

Nonetheless, the final sentence of a paper concerning the Cyclades cannot but refer to the future and concern itself with emotion rather than logic. It is a sentence from the past which was documented exactly forty years ago. Those of us who study the Cyclades often use it to console ourselves when our conclusions are poor, confused or unclear. To quote the final sentence of V.R. d’A. Desborough as he concludes his chapter on the Cyclades in his first publication on the crucial period which we are dealing with: “Much remains to be learnt”.145 J.J. Coulton’s studies on the insular Aegean world have greatly contributed towards the accomplishment of this goal. Contemporary and future generations of scholars will owe him a lot.

- As a rule, the common outcome of these developments in monumental Archaic and Classical temples reveals with certainty the prevalence of a particular state formation, that of the polis. The homogeneity in the final result reveals the unification of the already existing different local communal formations while at the same time shows the external character of the Cycladic polis. - The exceptions to the final result of this process toward a common architectural form as they are witnessed from the Archaic period onwards, for example in the case of Xobourgo, reveal the survival of

145 V.R.d’A. Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors. An Archaeological Survey, c. 1200 - c. 1000 BC (Oxford 1964), 152.

53

A. Gounaris

Aa: NW Kea (J.F. Cherry et al. 1991, 333 fig. 17.5); Ab: Melos (J.F. Cherry in Island Polity 1982, 22 fig. 2.5); Ac: NW Naxos (I.Érard-Cerceau et al., in Recherches dans les Cyclades 1993, 64, fig. 1); Ad: N Paros (Schilardi, in Greek Renaissance 1983, 174). 54

Cult places in the Cyclades

Table A. Cyclades: interisland scale - Locations of PG-G finds No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Location Amorgos Amorgos (Chora) Vigla Kastri Minoa Andros Amonakliou Zagora Palaiopolis Pelekiti-Phellos Ypsili Antiparos Spileo Vriokastri Vriokastraki Despotiko Mandra Delos Sanctuary Donoussa Vathy Limenari Thera Akrotirion Ancient Thera Gonia Episkopi Gonias Imerovigli Kamari Monolithos Perissa Pyrgos Skaros Ios (Unknown) Kato Koufonissi (Tsilimigra plot) Kea Agia Irini Agios Ioannis Pr. Otzia Cape Vatos Vourkari Diaseli Otzia Egaritis slopes Karthea Kephala Koressia Mavrou Xyla Otzias Panagia-A. Petros Perlevos Pissai Sykamnia Soros Tris Ammoudies Chalara Kimolos Dekas Hellenika-Limni Paliokastro Kythnos Vryokastro Kastellas

SN

Finds Categ.

Dating

1 1 1 6

P AP AP A Ab P S

LG G PG-G PG-G

1 2 1 1 1

Ab P A Ab P S P P AP

G PG-G G G G

1

PS

G

1

P

PG-G

1

P

G

1

A Ab P S

PG-G

1

A Ab P

PG-G

1 4 1 1 1? 1 1 1 1? 1

P A Ab P I Ab P P ? Ab P P P ? ?

G PG?-G G G G G G G G? G?

1?

P

G

1

P

LG

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

APS P P P P P P A? P P P P P P P P P P P P P

PG-G PG G G-A G G G PG-G G-A G-A G-A G or A PG-G-A G-A G G PG? G G G

1 2 1

P Ab P S P

SubG SubG G

3 1

PS P

PG-G PG-G

No 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110

55

Location Kastro Melos Agia Eleni Agios Ioannis Ag. Konstantinos Agios Nikolaos Agios Spyridon Agrilia Aerodiadromos Athiniou Apollonia Ancient Melos V. tou B. Spyrou Kaminia Kaminia (coast) Kambos Kanaria Kepos Klima Korakia Langada Nychia Xylokeratia Perivolia Pelos Prophitis Helias Soleta Tris Ierarchai Phylakopi Mykonos Kalaphatis (?) Mykonos (Chora) Paliokastro Portes Naxos Agia Sophia Agio Pnevma Agioi Apostoli Apiranthos Acherionas-Petin. Glatza SW Melanes Mikri Vigla Mitato (?) Naxos (Chora) Plaka Pyrgos Chimarou Sangri Tsikalario Yria Phaneromeni (ab.) Phaneromeni Philotion Oikonomou Oikonomou Paros Agios Nikolaos Asklepieion Detis Delion Kargadoura Koukounaries Livadera Paros (Chora)

SN

Dating

1

Finds Categ. P

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 1? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

P P P P P P P P P Ab P S P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P

PG? LG PG-G LG or A PG-G? LG or A? G? G? G G G LG G LG/EA LG/EA G or A? PG G G or A? G G EG G G? LG or A? LG/A? G

1 1 1 1

P Ab P P P

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1

P P P P P P P P P A Ab P S P P P A Ab P S A Ab P S P P P

G G G G G G-LG G G G PG-G G MG-LG G G PG-G G G G

1

AP

G

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

P P AP P A? P A Ab P S ? A Ab P

G G G G G PG-G G PG-G

G

PG?-G? PG-G PG-G G

A. Gounaris

111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

Protoria Sarakiniko Sklavouna Rheneia Agia Kyriaki Parakastri Serifos Tsigouri Sikinos Paliokastro Siphnos Agios Andreas Kastro Syros Galissas

1 1? 1?

P ? ?

G? G G

121 122 123

1 1

P P

PG-G G

1

P

G

1

P

G

124 125 126 127 128 129

1 1

AP A Ab P

G PG-G

4

A? Ab P

G

130 131

Hermoupolis Kastri Chrysonissos Tenos Vriokastro Kambos Kardiani Ktikados Marlas Xobourgo Philizion Philizi Pholegandros Ano Meria

1? 1 1?

Ab? P P Ab? P

G? G G?

1 1 1 3 1 1

P P A Ab P A Ab P A Ab P A Ab P

EG PG PG-G SubPG-G G PG-G

1

P

PG?-G

1

P

G

that, with only a few exceptions, we did not summarise the place recordings of the original studies, but we preserved them as they were. - Almost half of the recordings come from four systematic research projects on an equal number of islands. 24 recordings have been catalogued for Melos, 17 for Kea, 9 for Paros and the nearby islands Oikonomou and Philitzi and 8 for Naxos. - Of the forthcoming publications, we are expecting with great interest the study on the Cyclades (between 950-480 BC) by R.W.V. Catling.148

Legend SN: Site number, Finds Categ.: Category of finds A: Architecture, Ab: Burial Architecture, P: Pottery, S: Small finds, I: Inscription PG: Protogeometric period, SubPG: Sub-protogeometric, G: Geometric period, EG: Early Geometric, LG: Late Geometric, SubG: Sub-geometric, A: Archaic Notes - We are using the concept of location as our recording unit. The concept of site is subjected to each location and the concept of find-spot or simply spot, is subjected to each site (a conventional definition of spot: the place where the Protogeometric and Geometric finds were discovered, originated from or were recorded). - The catalogue of locations in Table A is arranged according to the transcription of our original catalogue of locations in Greek. - The several processes through which the finds came to light differ to a great degree. They range from systematic excavation to random collection of antiquities. Moreover, the forms of publication through which they have been presented are equally variable. The finds are recorded in final publications of research projects as well as in preliminary reports, some of which have unfortunately become de facto taking up the role of the final publications after a period of time. - The status of research prior to the composition of the table that we are presenting is reflected in the study of C.Th. Syriopoulos.146 In total his recordings for Protogeometric or/and Geometric rise to 53.147 The great difference in number of recordings between the catalogue of the above study and the one we are presenting (131 recordings) is due to the fact

Sources/References Main sources of primary material or selections of bibliography introducing sources of primary material (the numbers of the locations of Table A are indicated in brackets): Amorgos: [1]: L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1985, 199-200. [2], [3]: ead., Αμοργός Ι, 22-25, see selection of bibliography, ibid., 374-378. [4]: Selection of bibliography; ibid., 374-378. Andros: [5]: D.P. Paschalis, Η Άνδρος (Athens 1925), 588. [6]: Zagora 1; Zagora 2. [7]: Chr. A. Televantou, ‘Άνδρος. Παλαιόπολη. Οικόπεδο Ελισάβετ Μιχελή’, ΑDelt 49 (1994) B2, 680; ead., Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Παλαιοπόλεως- Η αρχαία πόλις της Άνδρου (Athens 2002), 25. [8]: A. Cambitoglou, Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Άνδρου (Athens 1991), 108. [9]: Televantou, ‘Γεωμετρικός οικισμός’, 187-208; ead., ‘Άνδρος. Υψηλή’, ΑDelt 49 (1994) B2, 683685.

146

148

Syriopoulos, Προϊστορική κατοίκησις, 1318-1325 (nos 228-249, i.e. 22 recordings for Protogeometric), 1395-1401 (nos 376-422, i.e. 47 recordings for Geometric). 147 Syriopoulos, Προϊστορική κατοίκησις, 1473-1480.

For the announcement see the book-review by R.W.V. Catling of the following study: C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982), in CR 84 (1984), 99.

56

Cult places in the Cyclades

[28], [30], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]: R.F. Sutton Jr., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis and E. Mantzourani, ‘Gazetteer of archaeological sites’, in J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis and E. Mantzourani (eds), Landscape Archaeology as Long-term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from the Earliest Settlement until Modern Times (Los Angeles 1990), 69156. [29], [31], [32], [44], [45], [46]: H. Georgiou and N. Pharaklas, ‘Ancient habitations patterns of Keos. Locations and nature of sites on the northern part of the island’, Ariadni 3 (1985), 207-266. [34]: L.G. Mendoni, op.cit. [33], 318; L.G. Mendoni and Ε. Kolaïti, ‘Human intervention in the Keian Landscape’, DialHistAnc 19 (1993), 102 (spot: terrace of Apollo temple). [42]: G. Galani, L. Mendoni and Ch. Papageorgiadou, ‘Επιφανειακή έρευνα στην Κέα’, Archaiognosia 3 (1987), 242, table 47. [43]: J.L. Caskey, ‘Investigations in Keos. Part II: a conspectus of the pottery’, Hesperia 41 (1972), 358 plate 76.

Antiparos: [10]: G. Bakalakis, ‘Αus den Grotten in Antiparos und Paros’, AA 1969, 128. Vriokastri: [11]: Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 196-197. Despotiko: [12]: Y. Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό. Η ανακάλυψη ενός νέου ιερού’, in N.Ch. Stampolidis and A. Giannikouri (eds), Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος 1-4 Νοεμβρίου 2002 (Athens 2004), 437-450; Y. Kourayos and B. Burns, ‘Exploration of the Archaic sanctuary at Mandra on Despotiko’, BCH 128 (2004), forthcoming; Y. Kourayos, S. Detoratou and B. Burns, ‘1134. Bronze fibula’, in N.Chr. Stampolidis (ed.), Πλόες… Από τη Σιδώνα στη Χουέλβα. Σχέσεις λαών της Μεσογείου 16ος - 6ος αι. π.Χ. (Athens 2003), 565. Delos: [13]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 209 (ΠΓ 171), 281 (Γ 281).

Kimolos: [47], [48], [49]: Ch. Moustakas, ‘Kimolos’, AM 6970 (1954-55), 153-158. [48]: Selection of bibliography Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 210 (ΠΓ 181), 284 (Γ 294).

Donoussa: [14]: Selection of bibliography: ibid., 210 (ΠΓ 177), 283 (Γ 290). Thera: [15]: Selection of bibliography: ibid., 285 (Γ 298). [16]: Ch. Sigalas, ‘Un sanctuaire d’Aphrodite à Thèra’, Kernos 13 (2000), 241-245; id., ‘Θήρα. Αρχαία Θήρα. Ιερό Αφροδίτης’, ADelt 53 (1998) Β3, 808. [15], [16], [17], [21], [22], [23], [24]: Selection of bibliography: J.W. Sperling, Thera and Therasia (Athens 1973), 12, 19, 27, 31, 35, 36. [18]: Ch. Sigalas, ADelt, forthcoming. [19]: J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977), 389, 391 (no. 162). [20]: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Σάμος’, ΑDelt 41 (1986) B, 214-215.

Kythnos: [50], [52]: Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 196, 208. [51]: O. Chadjianastasiou, ‘Σημειώσεις από την Κύθνο’, in L.G. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology (Athens 1998), 263. Melos: [53]: D. Mackenzie, ‘Ancient sites in Melos’, BSA 3 (1896-1897), 83. [54-68], [70-79]: J.F. Cherry, ‘Register of archaeological sites on Melos’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge 1982), 291-309. [69]: V.R. d’A. Desborough, Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford 1952), 214, 321.

Ios: [25]: A.J.B. Wace and M.S. Thompson. Prehistoric Thessaly (Cambridge 1912), 216 n. 4.

Mykonos: [81], [82]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Mεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 280-281 (Γ 278). [80], [83]: A.N. Oikonomides, ‘In search of ancient Mykonos’, in J.Th. Bent, Aegean Islands, the Cyclades, or Life among the Insular Greeks (Chicago 1956), 520, 529.

Kato Kouphonissi: [26]: O. Philaniotou, ‘New evidence for the topography of Naxos in the Geometric period’, in M.C. Lentini (ed.), The Two Naxos Cities: a Fine Link between the Aegean Sea and Sicily (Palermo 2001), 33. Kea: [27]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 207 (ΠΓ 167), 280 (Γ 257). [33]: L.G. Mendoni, ‘Συμβολή στην τοπογραφία της νοτιοανατολικής Κέας’, ΕΕΚΜ 13 (1985-1990), 314.

Naxos: [84], [85], [86], [88], [89], [92], [99], [100]: I. ÉrardCerceau, V. Fotou, O. Psychoyos and R. Treuil, ‘Prospection archaeologique à Naxos (region nord-

57

A. Gounaris

Μαμμίδου’, ΑDelt 49 (1994) B2, 664; ead. 2000, op.cit. n. 78, 283-284. [111]: N. Zaphiropoulos, ‘Αρχαϊκές κόρες της Πάρου’, in H. Kyrieleis (ed.), Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik (Athens 1987), vol. I, 94 n. 9.

ouest)’ in R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades (Lyon 1993), 63-87. [90]: N. Kourou, ‘H ναξιακή παρουσία στο Αιγαίο και τη Μεσόγειο κατά την Γεωμετρική Εποχή’, in I. Probonas and St. Psarras (eds), Η Νάξος δια μέσου των αιώνων (Philoti 1992), 265, 303 n.12; Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 16, 21 nn. 2930. [87], [94], [95]: Philaniotou, op.cit. [26], 29-34. [91]: R.L.N. Barber and O. Chadjianastasiou, ‘Mikre Vigla: a Bronze Age settlement on Naxos’, BSA 84 (1989), 112 nos 478-481. [93]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 210 (ΠΓ 176), 283 (Γ 289); Syriopoulos, Προϊστορική κατοίκησις, 1321 (ΠΓ 242), 1398 (Γ 400) (Sites: Palatia, Kamini, Kaminaki, Grotta-Metropolis, Aplomata, Plithos). See also Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Nάξος. Οικόπεδο Α. Ζαφειροπούλου’, ΑDelt 42 (1987) B2, 493; N. Kourou, Ανασκαφές Νάξου. Το νότιο νεκροταφείο της Νάξου κατά την Γεωμετρική περίοδο (Athens 1999) (Sites: Nio Chorio, Gymnasium); Philaniotou, op.cit. [26], 30 (Site: Kastro - Spots: Michelopoulos plot, Agios Minas plot). [96]: Selection of bibliography: Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 21 n. 24. [97]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 208 (ΠΓ 168), 283 (Γ 289). [98]: Selection of bibliography: Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 20 n. 11. [101]: N. Kourou, op.cit. [93], 183-198.

Rheneia: [114], [115]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 209 (ΠΓ 170), 281 (Γ 280).149 Seriphos: [116]: P. Pantou, ADelt, forthcoming. Sikinos: [117]: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Σίκινος-Φολέγανδρος’, ΑDelt 23 (1968) B2, 381-382. Siphnos: [118]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 285 (Γ 297). [119]: J. Brock and G. Mackworth Young, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), 1-92. Syros: [120]: Α.D. Manthos, ‘Ευρήματα επιφανείας από τον Γαλησσά της Σύρου’, ΑΑΑ 12 (1979), 42; M. Marthari, ‘Σύρος’, ΑDelt 52 (1997) B3, 918-924. [122]: E.M. Bossert, ‘Kastri auf Syros: Vorbericht über eine Untersuchung der prähistorischen Siedlung’, ADelt 27 (1967) A, 55. [120], [121], [122] [123]: Aron, op.cit. n. 89,18. Τenos: [124]: K. Scholes, ‘The Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age: a synopsis’, BSA 51 (1956), 13. [125], [126], [127], [129]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 208 (ΠΓ 168), 280 (Γ 276). [128]: G. Despinis, ‘Aνασκαφή Τήνου’, Prakt 1979, 232-233.

Oikonomou: [102]: Selection of bibliography: Schilardi, ‘Paros. Report II’, 93-94. Paros: [103]: Bakalakis, op.cit. [10], 132. [104]: M. Schuller, ‘Der dorische Tempel des Apollon Pythios auf Paros’, AA 1982, 242. [105]: O. Chadjianastasiou, ‘Πάρος. Νάουσα. ΑιΓιάννης ο Δέτης’, ΑDelt 37 (1982) B2, 359-360. [106]: Selection of bibliography: Syriopoulos, Μεταβατικοί χρόνοι, 208 (ΠΓ 168), 282 (Γ 288). [107], [109], [112], [113]: D.U. Schilardi, ‘The decline of the Geometric settlement of Koukounaries in Paros’, in R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century BC: Tradition and Innovation (Stockholm 1983), 174 fig. 1. [108]: D. Schilardi, see Prakt 1974 to 1991. [110]: Ο. Rubensohn, ‘Die prähistorischen und frühgeschichtlichen Funde auf dem Burghügel von Paros’, AM 42 (1917), 73; N.S. Zaphiropoulos, ‘Πάρος’, ΑDelt 18 (1963) B2, 273-274; Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Πάρος’, ΑDelt 38 (1983) B2, 347-348; ead. 1994, op.cit. n. 78, 127-152; ead. 1999, op.cit. n. 78, 13-24; ead., ‘Πάρος. Παροικιά. Οικόπεδα Μαρ. Ορφανίδη, Στ. Λουκή και Ελ. Αλιφιέρη - αφών

Philitzion: [130]: Schilardi, ‘Paros. Report II’, 93-94. Pholegandros: [131]: E. Andreou, ‘Φολέγανδρος’, ΑDelt 29 (19731974) B3, 873.

149 For a new location (Ampelas plain to the west coast of the island) presenting probably Geometric sherds, cf. Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Ρήνεια’, ΑDelt 49 (1994) B2, 674.

58

Cult places in the Cyclades

59

A. Gounaris

Table B. Cyclades: settlement scale - PG-G finds in PG-G or later cult places No

1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8 9 10 11

12

13

14 15 16

17

18

Location Site [or/and] Spot Amorgos Minoa Site: Lower Town Spot: NW of the monumental city-gate Spot: W of the precedent spot Spot: E of the monumental city-gate Site-spot: on the top of the Moundoulia hill Andros Zagora Site-spot: SE of the central Geometric habitation on the homonymous rocky promontory Ypsili Site-spot: in the centre of the Geometric habitation, on the uppermost rocky top of the homonymous hill Antiparos Antiparos Cave Site: in the cave Delos Ancient Settlement Site: Apollo Sanctuary Spot: Oikos of the Naxians (GD 6) Spot: Building Γ (GD 7) Spot: ‘Artemision’(GD 42) Spot: Foreign deities terrace (GD 101) Despotiko Mandra Spot: on the top of the elevated promontory. Donoussa Vathy Limenari Site: on the homonymous peninsula Thera Ancient Thera Site: Ancient settlement Spot: in the southernmost inner part of the city Spot: extra muros, 50 m NW of the Byzantine city-gate (“Schiff’s tomb) Spot: extra muros,150 m NW of the Byzantine citygate Gonia Episkopis Spot: Catholic Episkopate plot Skaros Site- spot: top of the promontory of Skaros Kea Agia Irini

NL

Finds Category

Dating

Later deity

Relation to central settlement

A, Ab, P, S A, Ab, P, S P

PG-G PG-G G

Apollo

Inside

A, P

PG-G

(?)

Inside

A, Ab, P

PG-G

Inside

A, P, S

SubPG-G

Cult of or honours to the dead (?) Dionysos

A, Ab, P, S, A, P, S

PG-G G

A, P, S A, P, S

4

Inside

5 Athena – Herakles

Outside

G G

Female deity

Outside

P P

G G

Artemis (?)

Outside

A, P, S A, P, S P

PG-G PG-G G (?)

Apollo (?)

Inside

A, P P P

G G (?) G (?)

Apollo (?) Artemis Hera

Inside Inside Inside

P, S P, S

G G

A, P A, P

1

1

1 Apollo (?) – Artemis (?) – Hestia

Unknown

G G

Cult (?) around fires

Unknown

A Ab P I A Ab P I P

G G G

Apollo – Zeus

Inside

P

G

Aphrodite

Nearby

P

G

Thesmophorion

Nearby

P P

G G

Achilleus

Outside

(?) (?)

G (?) G (?)

Athena (?)

Outside

A, P, S

PG-G

1

9

19

60

Cult places in the Cyclades

19a 19b 20

21

22

23

24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

34 35

36

37

38 39

Site: on the homonymous low promontory Spot: northern corner of Room 6 of the Prehistoric temple Spot: Room 1 of the Prehistoric temple Otzia Cape Site-spot: on the conical top of the hill between Agia Irini and Kefala Karthea Site-Spot: Aspri Vigla. Easternmost coastal elevation of the row of hills. Pissai Site: Agios Isidoros. Low elevation in the valley of Pissai. Kythnos Vryokastro Site: Acropolis Site: Middle Plateau of the ancient settlement Spot: southern part of the Middle Plateau Spot: northern part of Middle Plateau Naxos Melanes Site: quarries of Melanes Naxos (Chora) Site: Palatia Site: Kaminaki or Lakkoi Site: Grotta-Metropolis Spot: Grotta Spot: Metropolis Spot: Irinodikiou plot Spot: Public school Spot: by the Church of Chrysopolitissa Sangri Site: Gyroulas Tsikalario Site: ‘St’ alonakia’ Yria Site: Church of Saint George Oikonomou Oikonomou Site-spot: in the centre of the settlement Paros Asklepieion Site: elevation, 400 m SW of the ancient city-walls Spot: terrace S of the terrace of Asklepieion Spot: terrace on the top of the elevation, S of the precedent spot Delion

A, P, S

PG-G

A, P

PG

A, P

G

P P

G G

A, P P

PG-G G

P

G

P P

PG-G G

P, S

PG-G

P

PG (?)

S

G

A, P P A, Ab, P, S P P, S A, Ab, P, S Ab, P, S Ab, P, S A, P A, P A, P

G G PG-G PG-G PG-G PG-G PG-G PG-G (P)G (?) G G

A, P A, P A, Ab, P, S A, Ab, P, S

G G G G

A, P A, P

PG-G G

A, P A, P

G G

P P

G G

P

Dionysos

Outside

(?)

Outside

Apollo

Apollo Sminthios (?)

Inside

Outside

4 Demeter Thesmophoros (?)

Inside

Aphrodite (?) – Samothracian gods Female deity

Inside Inside

18 Outside Apollo Female deity (?)

Nearby Nearby

[Honours to the dead] [Honours to the dead] Demeter [Honours to the dead] [Honours to the dead]

Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby Nearby

Apollo-Demeter (?)

Outside

Cult of chthonic deity (?) – [honours to the dead]

Outside

Dionysos

Around

(?)

Outside

G

Apollo Pythios

Nearby

P

G

Demeter Thesmophoros (?)

Nearby

A (?), P

G

1

11

61

A. Gounaris

40

41 42 43 44

45

46

47

48

Site-spot: Kynthos Hill, 2 km N-NW of the ancient city-walls Koukounaries Site: the homonymous hill Spot: top of the hill Spot: centre of the upper plateau of the hill Spot: upper plateau of the hill Spot: terrace on the southeast slope of the hill Paroikia Site-spot: Agios Konstantinos hill, by the sea Siphnos Kastro Site-spot: top of homonymous hill Agios Andreas Site-spot: top of homonymous hill Tenos Xobourgo Site: southern slope of homonymous hill Spot: I.D. Siotis plot,

P

G

Artemis-Apollo

Around

A, Ab, P, S A, Ab, P, S Ab S

PG-G PG-G G G

Cult in cave Household cult

Outside Outside

A, P

G

Household cult

Outside

A, P

G-A

Athena-Apollo

Outside

A, Ab, P, S P

PG-G G

Athena

Inside

A, P, S P, S

PG-G PG-G

Artemis Ekvateria (?)

Inside

A, P P

G G

A, Ab, P A, Ab, P

PG-G (?) PG-G ( ?)

2

(?)

Outside

Demeter or cult deity

Nearby

6

primary material or selections of bibliography introducing sources of primary material concerning the finds in the remaining 25 sites are presented as bibliography attached to the Table A. Exceptionally, sources concerning the following sites or spots are presented below (the numbers of the sites or/and spots of Table B are indicated in bold):

Legend LN: Location number A: Architecture, Ab: Burial Architecture, P: Pottery, S: Small finds, I: Inscription PG: Protogeometric period, SubPG: Sub-protogeometric, G: Geometric period, EG: Early Geometric, LG: Late Geometric, SubG: Sub-geometric, A: Archaic

1: L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1981, 310 pl. 220γ-δ; ead., Prakt 1988, 164. 17: M. Efstathiou, ‘Θήρα. Αρχαία Θήρα. Κτίριο Σελλάδας’, ADelt 53 (1998) Β3, 807. 18: Ch. Sigalas, ADelt (forthcoming). 23-24: Mazarakis Ainian, Rulers’ Dwellings, 328. 25: A. Mazarakis Ainian, see paper in the present volume. 41: Schilardi, ‘Paros. Report II’, 91; id., ‘Αρχαιολογικαί έρευναι εν Πάρω’, Prakt 1974, 185-186; id., ‘Ανασκαφαί Πάρου’, Prakt 1976, 289. 42: D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή στην Πάρο’, Prakt 1978, 203.

Notes Of the 47 sites and/or spots presenting Protogeometric and Geometric finds on cult places (later or contemporary), 23 present Protogeometric and Geometric structures. Sources/References The main sources of primary material of these 23 structures dated in the Protogeometric-Geometric periods are attached as bibliography to the following Table C (structures I-XXIII). The main sources of

62

Cult places in the Cyclades

63

A. Gounaris

Table C. Cyclades: Architectural scale Protogeometric-Geometric structures in Protogeometric-Geometric or later cult places No.

Location Site Spot Amorgos Minoa Site: Lower Town Spot: NW of the monumental city-gate (4 on Amorgos I map or ΝΔ/3 in the preliminary reports in Prakt).

Shape of structure

Dimensio ns (m)

(?)

(?)

II

Spot: E of the monumental city-gate (6 on Amorgos I map).

Triangular with the two long sides curved

14 (base) 22.5 (h)

III

Site: Acropolis Spot: on the hilltop.

Composite trapezoidal

K1: 5.80 (N) 5.13 (S) 4.50 (W) 4.95 (E)

Andros Zagora Site: on the homonymous rocky promontory Spot: SE of the central Geometric quarter.

Trapezoidal

1.40 (N) 1.20 (S) 1.75 (W) 1.75 (E)

Rectangular built structure (2nd phase) – not excavated- in the cella of the later Archaic (575-550 BC) two-roomed structure. Near the SE corner: triangular pillar-like slaughtering stone. To the W: Terrace wall – peribolos.

LG

Open-air altar

3.00 (south wall) 2.40 (east wall)

Two walls meet at a right angle and cover the inner side of the SE corner of the Archaic temple’s porch. The east wall ends at a deposit curved in the bedrock in the northern corner of the porch. A rectangular structure was found to its S.

LG

Open-air cult area

Orthogonal

3.35 x 7.95

Orientation: N-S. Possibly accompanied by peribolos wall. Upper structure: mud bricks

800750 BC

(?)

1) 7.00 x 7.50

1) Pyre (deposit), covered by earth and stones defined to the S and possibly to the N by small walls made mostly of flat stones and to the E by the natural bedrock. 2) Pyre (deposit) to the E of the first one and 1.50 m on a higher level.

G

Pyre with cult function (?)

Orientation: SE-NW. It uses the old north eastern and north western walls of the LHIIIC building. Benches at the long walls. Entrance from the south eastern short side. To NW: an enclosure (AA) and a rectangular pier (C).

PG

Embedded structure

I

IV

V

VI

VII

VIII-a

Hypsile Site: on the homonymous hill Spot: in the centre of the Geometric quarter, on the uppermost rocky hilltop.

Delos Ancient settlement Spot: Building Γ

Donoussa Vathy Limenari Site: on the steep promontory of the homonymous bay Spot: on purposely levelled area at the edge of the steep slope to the W. Kea Agia Irini Site Spot: north corner of Room 6 of the Prehistoric temple.

2) (?)

Four-sided

2.85 (NW) x 4.40 (SE)

64

Special features

Dating

Sizeable pit partly carved in bedrock, Early 9th - early 7th surrounded by stone-built wall. In the beginning of the 7th century BC, covered cent. BC by schist slabs. Function: it received remains of burnt sacrifices. Enclosure wall partly destroyed. It LG includes at least 12 funerary pyres of dead men and women and 1 infant pot burial in an amphora. The cremation and the burial of the dead are placed in shallow pits hewn in the rock. The building complex (K): a roofed LG temple-like trapezoidal main room (K1). Inside: built bench, ‘pit’. In the front of K1: an open porch with stone ‘table altar’ and a built bench. To the N: Two adjacent hypaethral rooms (K2) (K3) with a built bench in K2. Around: remains of sacrificial pyres with animal bones and various objects.

Use or type

Ash deposit

Grave enclosure

Cella with unroofed anteroom

Simple cella

Cult places in the Cyclades

III-b

IX

X

XI

XII

Spot: Room 1 of the Prehistoric temple.

Karthaia Site: Aspri Vigla Spot: terrace of the Temple of Apollo. Naxos Melanes Spot: in the middle of the quarries of Melanes. Naxos (Chora) Site: Grotta-Mitropolis Spot: Grotta, on the seashore north of Chora, in contact with the Church of Saint George.

Spot: Metropolis, 70 m S of the coastline, 70 m SE of the Grotta excavation.

XIII

Spot: Irinodikiou plot, 25 m E of Grotta excavation.

XIV

Spot: Primary school of the town Spot: by the Church of Chrysopolitissa. Sagri Site: Gyroulas Spot: Chapel of Saint John on a low elevation, S of the village of Sangri.

XV

XVI

(?)

(?)

After LH III B-C: sequence of floor levels ‘some being of beaten earth, others having rough cobble or flagstone pavements’. During the 8th century: stone pavement. Structure (?) made of huge rough blocks stood in or above it.

PG-G

Embedded structure

(?)

(?)

Reference to walls observed on the southern end of the top of the rock and many niches cut in the cliff.

G (?)

Undeterminable

Unpublished. See V. Lambrinoudakis in the present volume

G

Early PG

1) irregular curve

1) orthogonal

1) 9.60 x 4.60

2) orthogonal 3) ellipsoid

2) diam 1.00 to 2.20 3) (?)

Round

(?)

-

-

Part of irregular, carved wall surrounds four cist tombs of the SubPG period. In the G period, smaller enclosures are constructed at a spot higher than the burials. In the enclosures low square or round benches made of stones or clay and stones were found. Three complexes per phase: 1) Long orthogonal structure including in its northern part a smaller orthogonal structure (3.20 x 2.20 m) with one cist grave, layers of pyres, stone semata and a ‘small chest’. 2) Orthogonal structure with circular platforms (no burials, rare pyres), To the W of on of the platforms: a mud basin. 3) Irregular structures. Low ellipsoid tumulus made of mudbricks and other materials (?) covers the irregularly preserved enclosures. Pit (βόθρος) at the meeting point of walls ε, λ, β of an orthogonal structure. A round hearth 2.20m N of this βόθρος, not precisely dated, is also related to the pit. Unpublished

-

-

Unpublished

1) twin pits united by ditch

(?)

1) System of two pits curved in bedrock and united by ditch. One pit is oriented towards the E, the other one towards the W; they possibly constitute receptacles for liquid or plant offerings to deities of earth. 2) Fences or huts, tents for ceremonial needs.

800530

Structures related to open-air cult

1) composite four-sided

1) 18.00 x 15.00

(?)

2) orthogonal

2) 12.00 x 4.00

Structures for veneration of the dead

3) orthogonal

3) 10.00 x 5.00

1) It consists of three buildings in a row; each one included three rooms or two rooms and an open space 2) It consists of two rooms in a row. Three small, stone columns were discovered in one of the rooms and a similar column in another one. In two rooms there were four-sided structures of upright plaques (hearths). Inside the two rooms the floor was covered by a burnt layer, except for one corner that was occupied by levelled bedrock. 3) Long space; at its western short side

2) ellipsoid

XVII

Tsikalario Site: ‘St’alonakia’ Small terrace on the foot of the hill of the medieval castle of Tsikalario.

65

Enclosure related to the offering of honours to the dead

1) SubPG

2) EG to MG 3) LG

(P)G(?)

Open-air structures (?) for cult

G G

A. Gounaris

there was an oblique, smaller room. Six small columns in two rows were found in the large space. Four of them surrounded a four-sided hearth structure, dimensions 0.82x0.92. Parts of a floor paved with plaques are preserved. Yria Spot: G. Stergis plot, 200m NE of the Church of Saint George.

Orthogonal

5.00 x 9.50

XVIIIb

Orthogonaltrapezoidal

11.00 x 16.50

XVIIIc

Orthogonal

11.0 x 17.00

Apsidal

15.00 x 6.60

Orientation: E-W. Entrance possibly from W. Internal division with transverse wall preserved at height of 0.46m Material: external walls made of boulders preserved to a height of 0.90m and of c. 0.80m thickness.

G

Temple (?)

(?)

(?)

‘Felsaltar’ and two traces of parallel walls beneath the cella of the temple of Artemis dated in G: a pure product of academic discussion (mainly Kontoleon and his followers: Drerup, A. Mazarakis Ainian)

G

Altar

Wall (?) under the east side (παρειά) of trench b in the inside of the Archaic temple. Material: well-worked stones Structure inside trench f. It runs under the rectangular base of the altar of the Archaic temple and it is embedded in the North wall 1 of the temenos.

G

G

Structure (?) of cult character (?) Altar

Complex of six (I-VI) structures in a row. The Southwest corners of III, IV and V are occupied by smaller orthogonal rooms. A Π-shaped structure has been observed in III. In IV, an orthogonal eschara touches upon the East wall, while the orthogonal structure that is included in it, presents a formation of a cella and pronaos to the S. In V, 14 cavities of round shape are curved in the floor.

(?)

Sanctuary

XVIIIa

XIX

XX

XXI-a

XXI-b

XXII

Oikonomou Spot: in about the centre of the little island.

Paros Delion Site-spot

Koukounaries Site-spot: terrace on the SE slope. Interior of the Archaic wall. Trial b. Site-spot: terrace on the SE slope. Interior of the Archaic wall. Trial b. Tenos Xobourgo Site: South slope of the Xobourgo steep elevation Spot: Along the external side of the fortification wall of Xobourgo, I.D. Siotis plot

Entrance from W. Possibly: internal colonnade consisting of three columns (two naves), table of offerings, pyre. Inside the building: evidence for tripod table, laying out of offerings. Outside the building: (suggestions for) burnt sacrifices and symposia. Material: stone foundation, upper structure of mud bricks Foundation sacrifice Triple internal colonnade (3x5) (four naves). Pyre (eschara) on the earlier table of offerings. Bench along the West wall. Material: walls made of granite and marble Addition of porch consisting of four columns. Double internal colonnade (2x5) (three naves). Pyre (eschara) on the earlier eschara. Material: tile roof

(?)

Ellipsoid

Composite orthogonal

66

800730

Simple cella

730680

Simple cella

680 – [650625]

Simple cella with prostyle porch

Cult places in the Cyclades

Sources/References

Andros: V Preliminary reports: Chr. Televantou, ‘Άνδρος. Η Ακρόπολη. Ιδιοκτησίες Ν. Φωτήλα και Δ. Καπάκη’, ADelt 37 (1982) B2, 355-356. Intermediate publications: Televantou, ‘Γεωμετρικός οικισμός’, 187-208; ead., ‘Andros: L’antico insediamento di Ipsili’, in E. Lanzilota and D. Schilardi (eds), Le Cicladi ed il mondo Egeo (Rome 1966), 79-100; ead., ‘Ο αρχαίος οικισμός της Υψηλής στην Άνδρο: στοιχεία από τις ως τώρα ανασκαφές’, Andriaka Chronika 29 (1998), 31-55; ead., op.cit. n. 136, 132-139.

Amorgos: I Preliminary reports: L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1984, 361-362; Prakt 1985, 179-182; Prakt 1986, 219-223; Prakt 1988, 165-167; Prakt 1989, 268, 272; Prakt 1990, 237-239; Prakt 1991, 288; Prakt 1992, 197. Amorgos: II Preliminary reports: L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1987, 265; Prakt 1993, 204-208; Prakt 1994, 238; Prakt 1995, 232-234; Prakt 1996, 296-300; Prakt 1997, 188-189; Prakt 1998, 186-187; Prakt 1999, 211-212. Final publication: ead., ‘Ο ταφικός περίβολος Πρώιμων Ιστορικών χρόνων στην Μινώα Αμοργού’, in N. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Athens 2001), 205-222.

Delos: VI Final publication: R. Valois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Delos jusq’à l’éviction des déleins (166 av. J.C.) I. Les monuments (Paris 1944), 14-18, 102 ; H. Gallet de Santerre, Délos primitive et archaïque (Paris 1958), 91-93. Donoussa: VII Preliminary reports: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Δονούσα’, ADelt 24 (1969) B, 390-393.

Amorgos: III Preliminary reports: L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1984, 374-375; Prakt 1985, 182-196; Prakt 1986, 212-218; Prakt 1989, 277; Prakt 1990, 259-265; Prakt 1991, 282-287. Intermediate publication: L. Marangou, ‘The acropolis sanctuary of Minoa on Amorgos: cult practice from the 8th cent. BC to the 3rd cent. AD’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993 (Stockholm 1998), 15-26. Intermediate publications for the three structures I, II, III: L. Marangou, ‘Minoa nell’età geometrica’, in E. Lanzillotta and D. Schilardi (eds), Le Cicladi ed il mondo egeo (Rome 1996), 191(I), 197-205 (III); ead., ‘Minoa on Amorgos’, in Excavating Classical Culture, 297-299 (I), 299-301 (II), 303-305 (III); Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, 185-188 (I), 207-224 (II), 254-260 (III).

Kea: VIII-a, VIII-b Preliminary reports: J.M. Caskey, ‘Excavations in Keos, 1960-1961’, Hesperia 31 (1962), 281-282, fig. 4 (VIII); id., ‘Excavations in Keos, 1963’, Hesperia 33 (1964), 332-333 (IX). Intermediate publications: M.E. Caskey, op.cit. n. 103, 127-135; ead., ‘Ayia Irini: temple studies’, 123138. Kea: IX Mendoni and Kolaïti, op.cit. [34], 102. Naxos: V Unpublished. See V. Lambrinoudakis’ contribution in the present volume. Reference: Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 16, 21 n. 29-30. Naxos: XI Preliminary reports: V.K. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1978, 211-215; Prakt 1980, 259-262; Prakt 1982, 255; Prakt 1984, 300305; Prakt 1985, 144-148. Intermediate publication: Lambrinoudakis, ‘Veneration of ancestors’, 235-238.

Andros: IV Preliminary reports: N. Zaphiropoulos, ‘Άνδρος’, ADelt 16 (1960) B, 248-249; A. Cambitoglou, ‘Ανασκαφαί Ζαγοράς Άνδρου’, Prakt 1969, 135138; id., ‘Ανασκαφαί Ζαγοράς Άνδρου’, AEphem 1970, 193-195; id., ‘Ανασκαφή Ζαγοράς Άνδρου (1971)’, Prakt 1972, 267. Final publications: A. Cambitoglou and J.J. Coulton, ‘Description of the excavated buildings’, in Zagora 1, 20-21; A. Cambitoglou and J. R. Green, ‘Excavation, stratification, chronology’, in Zagora 2, 170-171, 173-174.

Naxos: XII Preliminary reports: Ph. Zaphiropoulou and V.K. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Πλατείας Μητροπόλεως Νάξου’, Prakt 1982, 262; Prakt 1983, 299-304; Prakt 1985, 166-167, 330-339. Intermediate publication: Lambrinoudakis, ‘Veneration of ancestors’, 238-244.

67

A. Gounaris

Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Hanover and London 1991), 175, 184; Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια’, 209-215; G. Gruben, ‘Die Inselionische Ordnung’, in J. de Courtils and J. Ch. Moretti (eds), Les grands ateliers d’architecture dans le monde égéen du VIe siècle av. J.C. (Paris 1993), 97-102; id., op.cit. XVI, 375-380. Special editions: V. Lambrinoudakis and E. Bournia, ‘Ανάπλαση αρχαιολογικών χώρων Νάξου: ΎριαΣαγκρί-Πύργος Χειμάρρου’, in Νάξος: Ανάδειξη αρχαιολογικών χώρων, Ύρια, Σαγκρί, Πύργος Χειμάρρου (1997), 12-18. References for the structures IX, X, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI: Lambrinoudakis, ‘The emergence of Naxos’, 14 (IX, XII, XIII, XIV), 13-14 (X), 15 (XVI), 15-16 (XV)

Naxos: XIII Preliminary reports: N. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1965, 168-174. Naxos: XIV-XV Unpublished References: V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Die Rolle der heroischen Vergangenheit bei der Entwicklung der griechischen Städte’, in op.cit. n. 27, 300 n. 3; V. Lambrinoudakis and O. Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou, ‘The town of Naxos at the end of the Late Bronze Age: the Mycenaean fortification wall’, in V. Karageorghis and Ch.E. Morris (eds), Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 BC (Nicosia 2001), 167. Naxos: XVI Preliminary reports: N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή εν Νάξω’, Prakt 1976, 337; V.K. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1976, 299-301. Intermediate publication: G. Gruben, Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer (2nd edition, Munich 2001), 367-371. Special editions: Lambrinoudakis 2001, op.cit. n. 112, 7-13.

Oikonomou: XIX Preliminary reports: D. Schilardi, ‘A fortified acropolis on the Oikonomos island of Paros’, AAA 6 (1973), 260-265; id., ‘Paros. Report II’, 93-94; id., ‘Ανασκαφικαί έρευναι εν Πάρω’, Prakt 1975, 205209; id., op.cit. [107], 181-182; id., ‘The emergence of Paros’, 232-236. Paros XX (?) O. Rubenson, Das Delion von Paros (Wiesbaden 1962); N.M Kontoleon, ‘O. Rubenson, Das Delion von Paros’, Gnomon 38 (1966), 206 (review). Paros: XXI-a Preliminary reports: D. Schilardi, ‘Ανασκαφή Πάρου, Prakt 1986, 183 fig. 6, 187.

Naxos: XVII Preliminary reports: Papadopoulou-Zaphiropoulou, op.cit. n. 113, 395. Intermediate publications: Zaphiropoulou, op.cit. n. 115, 1-4. Naxos: XVIII-a, XVIII-b, XVIII-c Intermediate publications: V. Lambrinoudakis and G. Gruben (in collaboration with E. Bournia, M. Korres, A. Ohnesorg and I. Ring), ‘Das neuentdeckte Heiligtum von Iria auf Naxos’, AA 1987, 586, 601603, 617ff; V. Lambrinoudakis and G. Gruben (in collaboration with M. Korres, E. Bournia and A. Ohnesorg), ‘Ανασκαφή αρχαίου ιερού στα Ύρια της Νάξου. Η έρευνα κατά τα έτη 1982, 1986 και 1987’, Archaiognosia 6-7 (1989-92), 163-165; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘The sanctuary of Iria on Naxos and the birth of monumental Greek architecture’, in D.

Paros: XXI-b Preliminary reports: ibid., 192-193 fig. 8. Tenos: XXII Preliminary reports: N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Ανασκαφή εν Τήνω’, Prakt 1952, 531-540; id., ‘Ανασκαφή εν Τήνω’, Prakt 1953, 259-266. Intermediate publications: N. Kourou, ‘TenosXobourgo. From a refuge place to an extensive fortified settlement’, in Excavating Classical Culture, 262-266. Alexander Gounaris 2nd Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities 56 Ermou St. GR- 105 63 Athens

68

3 Emborio and Kambos: two Archaic sites on Melos Richard Catling

The so-called renaissance of the 8th century BC in the Aegean1 was marked, among other things, by widespread growth in settlements and settlement numbers. It also saw an expansion of overseas contacts, increasing material prosperity and important developments in various categories of material culture. Further fundamental changes occur in many places in the decades around 700 BC. From an archaeological perspective there are profound changes in the spheres of mortuary behaviour and cult practice and some quite radical shifts in patterns of settlement, all of which are generally explained within the context of the emerging polis. These developments are no less pronounced in the Cyclades than elsewhere. As far as settlement is concerned, the end of the 8th century is marked by the abandonment of major sites on a number of islands. The best example of these is Zagora on Andros, a site with which Jim Coulton was closely associated in an earlier phase of his archaeological career. In most of the Cyclades, during the 7th and much of the 6th centuries, there is little evidence for settlement of any sort

outside the cities which, with a few exceptions, came to dominate and control each island as its own territory.2 However, on two islands, Melos and Thera, there seems to have been a steady evolution of rural settlement from the 8th century into the 7th, without any evidence for a dramatic rupture around 700. These two Dorian islands differ from the majority of the other large Cycladic islands, mostly Ionian, in having no evidence for post-Bronze Age resettlement earlier than c. 900 BC, when from the start the main focus of settlement was established at the later citysite. On neither island, to the best of our knowledge, did other large sites, such as Zagora or Koukounaries on Paros, emerge as rival centres in the period before 700. It is with Melos, and specifically two sites occupied in the 7th and 6th centuries, that this paper is concerned. The importance of Melos in Aegean prehistory is well recognised, not only as the source of most of the obsidian used in the central and southern Aegean (from as early as the 11th millennium BC), but also on account of the long-lived city site of Phylakopi, one of the standard reference points for the entire region. However, Melos is much less well-known than many of the other Cyclades for its post-Bronze Age archaeology. Apart from celebrated works of art (for example, the Venus of Melos in the Louvre and the monumental statue of Poseidon in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens) and some of the monuments of its ancient city, such as the catacombs and the theatre, the sites and material culture of the historical era have attracted relatively little attention.3

Abbreviations Island Polity = C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity. The Archaeology of Exploitation on Melos (Cambridge 1982). Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery = R.E. Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery. A Review of Scientific Studies (Athens 1986-7). Tocra I = J. Boardman and J. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 19631965. The Archaic Deposits I (BSA Suppl. 4, London 1966). Tocra II = J. Boardman and J. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra, 19631965. The Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits (BSA Suppl. 10, London 1973). 1

This term was first coined by A.M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (Edinburgh 1971), 416-436, and subsequently used by J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (2nd edition, London 2003), 367; it has since been widely employed, providing the title of a conference in 1981, published as R. Hägg (ed.), The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation (Stockholm 1983).

2 Exceptions are the islands with two or more poleis, such as Kea and Amorgos. 3 Catacombs: C. Bayet, ‘La Nécropole chrétienne de Milo’, BCH 2 (1878), 347-359. Theatre: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Μήλος’, ADelt 49 (1994) B2, 674 reports on recent work.

69

R. Catling

biased coverage of about 20% of its surface area.7 Its results were remarkable for the history of settlement in the island, among other things revealing a wide proliferation of small rural sites in particular phases of its history.8 However, although its chronological coverage was broad, its primary focus continued to be on the prehistory of Melos. This was not entirely unnatural because the survey was conducted very largely by prehistorians during the period of renewed excavation at Phylakopi and was concerned in part to place that site in a broader, island-wide context. More importantly, because of the conditions in which the survey was carried out and the remarkably short time available for the fieldwork (a little more than three weeks to cover c. 32 km.sq.), the individual sites were not treated in great detail. Furthermore, as it was not an objective of the survey to advance knowledge of the island’s material culture, with the exception of the chipped stone, none of the material evidence (mainly pottery) for the date and function of the sites was published, so that neither can be checked or re-evaluated from the publication.9

This is particularly true of the Archaic period, a time of remarkable prosperity and cultural innovation on some of the Cycladic islands. Indeed, its significance in this period has perhaps shrunk even further since an important class of Orientalising pottery once attributed to Melos, the so-called ‘Melian’ found in quantity on Delos, is now generally agreed to have been produced elsewhere, most likely on Paros or Naxos.4 However, while it lacks the conspicuous prosperity of islands such as Naxos, Paros and Siphnos, and of its Doric neighbour Thera, its neglect is undeserved. Melos is not one of the small, bare windswept islands which in antiquity became bywords for their insignificance and poverty. It is in places exceptionally fertile and, thanks to its volcanic geology, rich in a wide range of minerals sought after in the ancient world for a variety of purposes, which continue to be exploited on a massive scale in the present.5 No doubt the systematic plundering of the rich ancient cemeteries around the ancient city during the 19th century, which furnished many of the museum collections of Europe with pottery, terracottas, gems and other objects, contributed to its comparative neglect for most of the 20th century.6

In the light of less systematic fieldwork by myself and Guy Sanders between 1979 and 1983, some of the conclusions reached in Island Polity concerning post-Bronze Age patterns of settlement seemed to oversimplify a more complex and varied reality. As far as the later Geometric and Archaic periods (c. 800-480 BC) were concerned, in which I am interested here, it was concluded that (p. 143), “The small size (mean = 1.4 ha; no. = 30) of the rural sites, together with the very limited material which many of them have produced … implies a simple two-level hierarchy, although we cannot be sure whether they represent permanent settlements and farmsteads, or merely seasonal field-houses exploited from ancient Melos itself” (repeated on p. 252 Table 19.1 E “…dense distribution of undifferentiated small rural settlements”). With one of the objectives being to investigate more closely conclusions such as this, a small field project was carried out in 1989 under the direction of Guy Sanders and myself. A sample of rural sites (most first discovered by the Melos survey) was selected for more detailed examination, of those periods in which there was a highly dispersed settlement pattern, namely the Early Bronze Age (3rd millennium BC), the later Geometric and Archaic periods (c. 800-480 BC), and the Roman (c. 50 BC600 AD), as well as the post-Roman periods (Byzantine, Frankish and Ottoman) which had been very

The greatest contribution to remedying this situation was made by the pioneering Melos survey of 197677, under the direction of John Cherry and Malcolm Wagstaff, and published with admirable promptness in 1982 as An Island Polity. The Archaeology of Exploitation on Melos. Their survey was based on a series of randomly selected transects across the island, designed to produce a representative but un-

4

On ‘Melian’ see Ph. Zaphiropoulou, Προβλήματα της Μηλιακής αγγειογραφίας (Athens 1985); ead., ‘Une nécropole à Paros’, in J. de la Genière (ed.), Nécropoles et sociétés antiques (Grèce, Italie, Languedoc). Actes du colloque international du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III, Lille, 2-3 Décembre 1991 (Naples 1994), 127-152, esp. 135-139; ead., EAD 41: La céramique “Mélienne” (Athens and Paris 2003). On the question of its provenance see ead., ‘La céramique mélienne: origine et provenance’, in G. Rougemont (ed.), Les Cyclades: matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique (Paris 1983), 177-183; F. Salviat, ‘La céramique thasienne orientalisante et l’origine des vases «Méliens»’, in ibid., 185-190; Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery, 652-658; J. Gauthier, ‘Les Cyclades antiques. Caractérisation de centres de productions céramiques par microscopie optique’, in R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades (Lyon 1993), 167-204, esp. 172-192. 5 Fertility: G.D.R. Sanders, ‘Reassessing ancient populations’, BSA 79 (1984), 251-262; id., ‘Two Kastra on Melos and their relations in the Archipelago’, in P. Lock and G.D.R. Sanders (eds), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece (Oxford 1996), 148 with n. 5. Mineral resources: J. Pittinger, ‘The mineral products of Melos in antiquity and their identification’, BSA 70 (1975), 191-197, esp. 195-197; Island Polity, 78-81; E. Photos-Jones et al., ‘The Aghia Kyriaki, Melos Survey: Prospecting for the elusive ‘earths’ in the Roman period’, BSA 94 (1999), 377-413, esp. 377-378, 390-399. 6 See Island Polity, 10-11.

7 Their methodology is described in much fuller detail in Island Polity, 16-19. 8 The results are summarised in Island Polity, 20-23 and set out in greater detail on 136-146. 9 Island Polity, 19. Only small samples of pottery were collected from the sites.

70

Emborio and Kambos

largely ignored by the Melos survey.10 Some of the results relating to the Early Bronze Age and Mediaeval periods have been published elsewhere, in advance of the final report, but up until now nothing about the Geometric and Archaic periods has been reported.11 It is with two of the 16 sites of that period included in our study that I am concerned here. One (Kambos) had been discovered by the Melos survey. The existence of the other (Emborio) was previously known, but its Archaic occupation had gone undetected.

At the innermost western recess of this little plain, a deep valley gives access to the hinterland of western Melos. The rich vegetation in the lower parts of the valley suggests that ground water could be tapped to provide a limited water supply. On its south side towers the acropolis site of Agios Spyridon, which, apart from Phylakopi, is one of the very few to have been occupied in the Late Bronze Age.13 Its existence is a strong indicator that this is a location capable of supporting something more than a few farmsteads, even if the primary attraction may have been the existence of a sheltered harbour. A few traces of later, post-Bronze Age occupation occur, most likely of the 7th-6th centuries.14 There is certainly nothing to suggest continuous occupation here from the Late Bronze Age into the Early Iron Age.

Emborio [fig. 1] Emborio is a small modern settlement comprising a handful of scattered houses in the southwest corner of the great bay of Melos, facing the ancient city across the entrance to the bay to the northeast. It is sheltered to some extent from the northerly winds by a small headland that separates it from the bay of Asprokavo to the north, and is protected from the strong currents at the mouth of the bay. A small area of flat arable land lies between the modern shore and the steep mountainsides that fringe its edges, land which in antiquity may well have been partly or completely submerged, thus creating an even more spacious and sheltered anchorage than at present.12

On the north side of the valley the mountain rises steeply but at its mouth there is a small, flat-topped platform at the base of the mountainside which drops sharply to the valley and coastal plain to the west, south and east [pl. 5A]. Over the entire uncultivated area of the top and on its steep sides there is a thin scatter of worn sherds with recognisable Geometric/Archaic characteristics, besides a more localised concentration of pottery of the 13th century AD. However, the principal interest of the site lies in a remarkably dense concentration of well-preserved pottery spread over an area of less than 50 m.sq. Its composition is the most noteworthy feature. Apart from the standard fine wares of local manufacture of the later 7th and 6th centuries, typical of dozens of small rural sites on Melos, there is a significant quantity of imported wares, mostly transport amphorae but also a small number of fine wares. The presence of so many imports deserves emphasis because they are generally very uncommon on rural sites until the late 6th and 5th centuries when Attic blackglazed pottery becomes more common. A wide array of shapes is found here among the local fine wares, including kotylai, plates, lekanes and small basins, a small column crater, jugs and table amphorae [pl. 5B: c-d], all decorated very simply in monochrome or basic linear or curvilinear ornament. In addition there is an unusually large number and variety of coarse wares, all probably locally made, which

10 The fieldwork and subsequent study seasons were carried out with the financial support of the British School at Athens, the British Academy, the Craven Committee and Committee for Archaeology (Oxford University). Brief reports on this work have appeared in AR 1989-90, 67; British School at Athens. Annual Report of the Managing Committee 1988-9, 24-25; 1989-90, 26. 11 For the Early Bronze Age, see T. Carter, ‘Southern Aegean fashion victims: an overlooked aspect of Early Bronze Age burial practices’, in N. Ashton and A. David (eds), Stories in Stone (London 1994), 127-144; id., ‘Blood and tears: a Cycladic case study in microwear analysis. The use of obsidian blades as razors?’, in M.A. Bustillo and A. Ramos-Millán (eds), Siliceous rocks and culture (Madrid 1997), 256-271; id., ‘Knowledge is power: craft specialisation and social inequality in the southern Aegean Early Bronze Age’, AJA 102 (1998), 414-415; id., ‘The social status of Phylakopi: the Early Bronze Age community in its Melian and Early Cycladic context’, in The Early Bronze Age in the Cyclades in the Light of Recent Research at Settlement Sites (Athens 2005), 61-75; id., ‘The consumption of obsidian in the Early Bronze Age Cyclades’, in N. J. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, C. Renfrew and C. Boyle (eds), ΟΡΙΖΩΝ: a Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (Cambridge, in press). For Roman and mediaeval Melos see Sanders 1996, op.cit. n. 5, 147-177; id., ‘An overview of the new chronology for 9th to 13th century pottery at Corinth’, in Ch. Bakirtzis (ed.), 7ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Μεσαιωνικής Κεραμεικής της Μεσογείου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 11-16 Οκτωβρίου 1999. Πρακτικά (Athens 2003), 35-44, esp. 39-40; id., ‘Problems in interpreting urban and rural settlement in southern Greece, AD 375-700’, in N. Christie (ed.), Landscapes of Change: a Rural Evolution of the Countryside from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (Aldershot 2004), 163-193, esp. 165. An inscription found during fieldwork in 1989, a pierre errante from Delos, was published in BSA 85 (1990), 327-332. 12 Several small bays around the coast of Melos seem to have been infilled since the Classical period, notably those at Klima, the

harbour of ancient Melos, and at Phylakopi where the process was probably under way from the early 1st millennium BC: Island Polity 82-94. The existence of underwater remains at Emborio (Island Polity, 306 no. 93) suggests a complex situation combining a general rise in sea levels since late antiquity with localised faulting and alluvial and colluvial deposition. 13 Island Polity, 306 no. 94 14 There is no unequivocal evidence for occupation as early as the Protogeometric period, as suggested in Island Polity, 306. Pottery decorated with compass-drawn concentric circles and semi-circles, typical of Protogeometric styles, continued to be produced in the Cyclades until the late 6th century.

71

R. Catling

Figure 1. Map of Melos (after Island Polity, 8 fig. 1.6).

a-b].16 There are also two rims from Laconian craters, one with the stump of its stirrup-handle, and a handful of Attic plain black-glazed sherds. Of equal interest are the comparatively large number and variety of transport amphorae, the majority of nonMelian origin. Parts of at least three Corinthian Type A amphorae occur, one a huge example [pl. 6A]. The others have yet to be given a secure attribution but none seem to be of the commoner Archaic types. At least five rim and neck types are present, each in a distinct fabric [pl. 6B]. One of these, characterised by its thinner walls, smaller size and fabric (shared with some of the other plain wares), is likely to be Melian. Besides pottery, the remains of a building

includes cooking pots, hydriai, a large tripod brazier, heavy lug-handled basins [pl. 5C], mortars, pithoi and bee-hives. More remarkable still are parts of at least four large pots in pithos fabric with applied bands of relief decoration. Of these, two are basins, one a pithos, the other a stand with cut-out panels. One of the basins, perhaps a louterion, has a file of winged quadrupeds and a band of guilloche on the face and top of the rim respectively [pl. 5E]. The stand has a band of guilloche at the base and at least two bands with a frieze of interlocking palmettes and lotus flowers; the cut-out panels are framed by incised lines enclosing impressed circles, a type of decoration familiar in the northern Cyclades [pl. 5D]. All four pieces are probably of local manufacture given their general resemblance to other pithoi and basins with relief decoration found on Melos.15 Among the imports are parts of two cups decorated with small groups of concentric circles between sets of vertical lines in the handle zone, of a type quite widespread in the Aegean and probably made on Paros and/or Naxos, as well as other islands [pl. 5B:

16

The type (the so-called ‘coupes du type à encoches’) is attributed to Paros by Hayes in Tocra I, 74-75, where it occurs in comparatively late contexts of the second half of the 6th century; see also Tocra II, 35. It was common in the northern Aegean where it was produced on Thasos and perhaps elsewhere: see F. Blondé, J.Y. Perreault and C. Peristeri, ‘Un atelier de potier archaïque à Phari (Thasos)’, in F. Blondé and J. Y. Perreault (eds), Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique, archaïque et classique. Actes de la Table Ronde organisée à l’École Française d’Athènes (2 et 3 octobre 1987) (BCH Suppl. 23, Athens and Paris 1992), 24-30. The Thasian production site is likewise late, c. 525-480 BC (p. 39). For its distribution in the Cyclades (Paros, Naxos, Delos and Siphnos) see ibid, 27 n. 19.

15

See W. Lamb, ‘Stamped pithos fragments in the collection of the British School’, BSA 26 (1923-4, 1924-5), 72-76 nos 3-10; J.F. Cherry, ‘An Archaic relief pithos fragment from Melos’, AAA 12 (1979), 241-245.

72

Emborio and Kambos

Aegean area. One obvious reason for their existence might be that these settlements allowed the more effective exploitation of the agricultural resources of western Melos, but, if so, none except for Agios Spyridon was well situated for the purpose. These resources are anyway highly fragmented in this part of the island and better exploited by more dispersed settlement, as indeed seems to have been the case in the Early Bronze Age and the Geometric and Archaic periods, if only on a much more reduced scale than the fertile east and north parts of Melos.20 The modern village of Emborio is occupied with small-scale agriculture and fishing but these are unlikely to have been more than incidental activities to the inhabitants of the area in our period. The fragments of bee-hives noted previously are indicative of at least one such activity that may have provided a livelihood or supplementary living for some members of the community. Agriculture was clearly not the main preoccupation of the later Roman and Middle Byzantine sites. These were apparently concerned with the export of one or more of the island’s mineral resources, Asprokavo probably exclusively so, Emborio at least in part. It is tempting to believe that the Archaic settlement was likewise involved in the processing and export of similar products, whether sulphur, alum, or fullers’ earth.21 There is no direct evidence that this was so, with one possible exception. That is the presence of several large lughandled basins (made in pithos fabric) which bear a striking resemblance to the large coarse basins found on so many Roman sites where the processing of industrial minerals occurred [pl. 5C]. They occur on no other Geometric or Archaic site and perhaps had a specialised function connected with the processing of one of these minerals. It is probably best to avoid speculation about the identity of the inhabitants of Emborio, but it is hard to imagine the site functioning as suggested above without the presence of slaves. However, the assemblage itself is not what might be expected to occur in a predominantly servile population, were it, for example, part of a large-scale enterprise on the estate of a Melian aristocrat whose main residence was in the city. On the contrary, the affluence apparently attested by the pottery assemblage favours the idea that this was the residence, whether permanent or not, of a wealthy family or group of families.

have been exposed in a scarp on the east edge of the hilltop. Parts of several rooms constructed of small squared blocks of soft white tufa are visible. In the absence of material of any other date in close proximity, these remains are almost certainly Archaic. If, as seems likely, the site covered the entire level area of the hilltop, an area of slightly more than two hectares, it should rank as a medium-sized settlement, equivalent to a small village, with a population of perhaps as many as 100-200 people.17 But in spite of its comparatively large size, in relation to the large number of much smaller sites, it appears from the surface remains to have been inhabited for a short period, probably not more than a hundred years from the late 7th to the end of the 6th century. Although some of the Attic sherds may indicate small-scale survival into the 5th century, it was certainly deserted by the time of the Athenian occupation of Melos in 416 BC. Determining the function of the site from the available evidence is naturally problematic, but it is tempting to regard it in some way as the successor of the Late Bronze Age acropolis at Agios Spyridon and the precursor of the much later Roman site at Asprokavo in the bay to the north, and the large early Middle Byzantine site on the shore to the south of modern Emborio.18 It should also be mentioned that an important Early Bronze Age settlement existed on the peninsular island of Rivari further to the south.19 On repeated occasions throughout the island’s history this has been an area that attracted small agglomerations of inhabitants, but these were never sustained over the longer duration and never occupied the same precise location. It suggests that, whatever the attraction offered by the area of Emborio, either there have been other factors which ultimately made the long-term survival of these settlements insecure, or their existence was dependent upon changing conditions on Melos or in the wider 17 Its ranking as a village is based on several arguments. Comparison with other surveys indicates that most ‘farmstead’ sites are considerably smaller than this, rarely larger than 0.5 ha and normally much smaller. At the other end of the scale, some settlements ranked as poleis could be as small as 3-5 ha in area, even if the majority were considerably larger. The ancient city of Melos covered approximately 15 ha within the circuit of its walls, making it unconvincing that a site an eighth of its size should be regarded as no more substantial than a farmstead or small cluster of houses. See my discussion of this problem in W. Cavanagh et al., The Laconia Survey. Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape I (London 2002), 161-163 with n. 22 and 246-247 with references to further literature. 18 Island Polity, 306-307 nos 95-96. 19 Island Polity, 306 no. 92. Since the time of the Melos survey, excavation has produced important Early Bronze Age finds, some of which are on display in the Melos museum: ADelt 52 (1997) B3, 924-925.

Apart from its function, an equally interesting question is why this site should have come into being for 20

Island Polity, 307 nos 98, 101, 102. Determining which minerals were being exploited is not without its difficulties, even after much more detailed investigation than ours: see Photos-Jones et al., op.cit. n. 5, 377-413, esp. 399, 402405, for a study of the large Roman complex at Agia Kyriaki on the south coast of Melos.

21

73

R. Catling

such a short period between c. 625-500 BC.22 It is hard to resist associating it and its accompanying assemblage, with its abundant evidence for contact with the outside world, with the development of new destinations for trade in the late 7th and 6th centuries, especially those in Egypt and Cyrenaica. For ships sailing from the Saronic gulf, home to the mercantile cities of Corinth and Aigina, as well as from other parts of mainland Greece and the Cyclades, Melos may have been an important staging point on the journey to north Africa, being the most southwesterly of the Cyclades and the last landfall before the long crossing to western Crete, almost 150 km distant. Apart from a priori arguments in its favour, there is some archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis. Among the rich assemblage of Archaic Greek and local pottery recovered from a sanctuary deposit at Tocra (ancient Taucheira) in western Cyrenaica, is a small group designated by its publishers as ‘Siphnian’, on the basis of its similarity to pottery found in excavations on the acropolis of Siphnos.23 Without arguing the point in detail, it can be stated with confidence that much of the pottery in this group, comprising small shapes such as onehandled cups and bowls, should now be attributed to Melos. Like much of the rest of the pottery found at Tocra, this material was not exported for its high value or ornate decoration; it is plain monochrome or linear tableware. With it were found, among a variety of other wares, many Laconian imports and a small number of ‘Parian’ cups, like the two found at Emborio.24 Transport amphorae are also quite numerous at Tocra and, as at Emborio, a variety of types occurs, including Corinthian and several of unknown origin.25 The amphorae and fine tablewares doubtless reached Tocra in the mixed cargos typical of Archaic trading vessels. Melian pottery of the kind found at Tocra seems rarely to have been exported other than to Siphnos and neighbouring Kimolos. So, the combination of its presence at Tocra with that of the imported wares at Emborio is one argument for believing in a connection between the two. Our site may

have owed its existence and apparent prosperity to servicing and providing trading goods (minerals, honey) for this long-distance route between the Aegean and north Africa.

22 Further study of the pottery may suggest that occupation was confined to the 6th century. Closer dating of the types of pottery found at Emborio is not straightforward and heavily dependent on comparisons with material from well-dated deposits at Tocra. 23 Tocra I, 73-74; Tocra II, 34. Siphnos: J.K. Brock and G. Mackworth Young, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), 192, esp. 47-48. 24 Laconian: Tocra I, 81-95, 116-117; Tocra II, 39-41, 55-56. ‘Parian’: Tocra I, 74-75, 78; Tocra II, 35-36. 25 Tocra I, 137-139; Tocra II, 61-64. East Greek types (Chian, Samian and Lesbian), apparently absent at Emborio, are commonest at Tocra and probably arrived by a more easterly route. Kommos in southern Crete has an even more varied assemblage of Archaic transport amphorae and was perhaps a regular port of call for shipping plying the route from the cities of Asia Minor to North Africa: see A.W. Johnston, ‘Pottery from Archaic Building Q at Kommos’, Hesperia 62 (1993), 339-382, esp. 356-374.

Kambos

If the case argued above is accepted, some explanation is required for the desertion of the site towards the end of the 6th century. Emborio was certainly not a unique case in this respect on Melos. Most of the small rural sites and villages so widely spread across the island in the 7th and 6th centuries were deserted by the end of the 6th century. Whatever the reason for such a general shift, to be considered in depth on another occasion, it is also possible that there were more particular reasons for its desertion. Assuming that we are correct in interpreting the site’s primary function as being inextricably linked to exchange with the outside world, anything that affected the pattern and intensity of Aegean trade might have had repercussions for its inhabitants, especially if this involved the lines of exchange between the Aegean and north Africa which have been previously invoked to account for its original growth and continued existence. The most obvious occasion for such potential disruption is the Persian conquest of Egypt and Cyrenaica in 525 BC, but we should be cautious in resorting to the simplistic explanations provided by historical events. Alternatively, the reasons may lie in political and economic developments in the island, perhaps reflecting the increasing role of the polis in asserting control over relations with the outside world, especially if harbour duties and customs dues on the import and export of goods were involved. In such a case, the harbour of ancient Melos may have become the only legitimate point for exchange with the outside world. The modern name Emborio, no longer appropriate for the contemporary settlement, presumably recalls the trading activities of one of its many predecessors and would certainly have been an apt name for the site of the Archaic period.

The site of Kambos, which strictly speaking embraces several sites listed by the Melos survey under the names of Kambos and Alykes, is located at the foot of the low hills on the south edge of the western arm of the Zephyria plain, to the south of the salt-pans and the runway of the modern airport [pl. 6C].26 Unlike Emborio which has very limited 26

Island Polity, 303 nos 69-70, perhaps incorporating nos 71-72. In spite of repeated visits to the Kambos complex, it has never been possible to identify with certainty on the ground the sites described by the Melos survey.

74

Emborio and Kambos

century into the 6th, not only in the Cyclades but in many other parts of Greece, and represent the common tablewares of the period. Wares such as these tend to be understudied, if not largely ignored, especially when compared with the Cycladic Orientalising workshops whose products do not figure at all in most island surveys, yet have been the subject of endless debate. But it is the plainly decorated finewares whose understanding is crucial for a proper appraisal of settlement patterns in the 7th and 6th centuries, both on Melos and elsewhere in Greece. Besides pottery of this kind, there are a few sherds of cooking wares and pithoi and a few fragments of imported transport amphorae. With the exception of these and a few Attic plain black-glazed pieces, all the pottery seems to be locally made. However, what makes Kambos of much greater interest and significance are the clear signs that much of the pottery found there, and perhaps on many of the contemporary sites on Melos, was also manufactured there. There is a significant number of wasters (overfired and partly vitrified sherds) typical of the debris from a ceramic production site. In addition, the cutting made for the bore-hole revealed, in one of its vertical sections, a structure which seems most likely to be a settling-tank used in the preparation of the refined potting clay; its rubble walls and floor (also constructed of stone) are coated in plaster. While the date of this structure is not absolutely secure on archaeological grounds, the absence of pottery of other periods from its immediate surroundings makes it most likely to be Archaic.

agricultural land in its vicinity, Kambos is close to the richest and most extensive arable land on Melos and some of the most fertile land anywhere in the Cyclades.27 The precise configuration of the western arm of the Zephyria plain in antiquity is not well established. Marshy at present and notoriously malarial in the 17th and 18th centuries, one possibility is that the sea covered part of the western arm of the plain and that this has been infilled by a combination of alluvial and colluvial deposition. However, there are some indications pointing in the opposite direction, that there has been recent marine encroachment in this area as a result of localised tectonic movements. If correct, it would mean that there was an even more extensive area of arable land in the 1st millennium BC.28 Kambos is one of a number of sites of the Archaic period located around the margins of the plain but it is apparently larger than any other. The site covers about two hectares, extending over a low hilltop and its northern and eastern slopes. It has been significantly disfigured by the excavation of a large cutting at the bottom of which a bore-hole has been installed to extract water for irrigating crops. An extensive scatter of Archaic pottery covers the whole site. It merges with a Roman site at its northeast edge. In places the scatter is very dense and rich, especially where there had been recent cultivation at the time the site was examined in 1989. The duration of its occupation is probably rather longer than at Emborio but does not seem to begin before the early 7th century or outlive the 6th.

It is entirely natural for pottery production to have been located at a site such as Kambos, as there are inexhaustible supplies of high-grade potting clay in the Zephyria plain and in the area of the salt-pans close to Kambos. Until recently a small brickworks used to operate just north of Zephyria, utilising clay excavated from its immediate surroundings. However, the Zephyria plain was clearly not the source of the potting clay used for much of the Bronze Age, notably the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The ceramics of these periods are characterised by their pale, whitish colouring that indicates a bentonitic clay source, perhaps situated somewhere in the region of Phylakopi. By contrast the clay from the Zephyria plain is formed in part from the weathering of rock thrown up from the metamorphic basal formations of the island. It is rich in iron and notably poor in calcium. The processed clay, when fired, typically produces a hard, rather brittle, fine-grained biscuit, yellowish brown to reddish brown in colour, or light grey when fired under reducing conditions. One of its most diagnostic features, visible to the naked eye in all but the most finely prepared clays, is the presence of tiny to small, black volcanic inclu-

The site has produced a wide range of locally produced pottery, more varied than at Emborio, consisting mainly of fine tablewares in the plain monochrome and linear styles familiar all over the island. Cups, kotylai, plates [pl. 7A], one-handled cups [pl. 7C] and bowls [pl. 8C], lekanes, jugs and table amphorae [pl. 7B: a-b] are all present. The most notable addition to the repertoire is a series of small craters, for the most part decorated with small sets of three to four concentric circles or occasionally with a curvilinear motif [pls 8A, 7B: c, 8B].29 Those decorated with concentric circles are typical of the subGeometric styles which survived throughout the 7th 27 See Sanders 1984, op.cit. n. 5, 251-262 for a reappraisal of the theoretical population capacity of Melos, among other reasons on the basis of its fertility. 28 Mycenaean and Geometric sherds are recorded from the area of the salt-pans: Island Polity, 302-303 no. 68. Underwater remains have also been reported at Elliniko: Island Polity, 296 no. 24. There are clear signs of marine erosion of the coastal hills between the airport and Chivadolimni, along the southeast edge of the great bay. 29 Craters of this type were not found at Emborio but occur on other sites on Melos (eg. Provatas: Island Polity, 304 no. 81).

75

R. Catling

complimentary programmes have been encouraging, confirming that most, and perhaps all the Archaic wares typical of Melian rural sites were made from clay deriving from the Zephyria plain, if not at Kambos itself. The only variation of any significance is found in the sample of sherds analysed from Emborio, but the difference is slight and may mean no more than that its pottery was obtained from elsewhere in the Zephyria plain other than Kambos, perhaps from a workshop mining a different seam of clay. The results from the Siphnian sample were also enlightening. They indicate that only a few of the suspected Geometric imports can be attributed to Melos but confirmed that a core group of Archaic cups and one-handled cups (or mugs), whose fabric was visually identical to Melian, was almost certainly imported from Melos.32 By extension, much of the ‘Siphnian’ pottery found at Tocra in Cyrenaica, referred to previously in the context of Emborio, should also now be considered most likely to be Melian.33 The general conclusion must be that in spite of its reasonably high quality, Melian pottery was not widely disseminated beyond the island. It reached neighbouring Siphnos and Kimolos in some quantity in the Archaic period and a little found its way to Tocra, probably on ships stopping at Melos for provisions or to load one or other of its mineral products. It is perhaps identifiable elsewhere in small amounts, but, unless it has been systematically ignored in excavation reports, its plain, conservative decoration probably meant that it was never able to compete against the products of Corinth, the cities of

sions, as well as rather larger soft white particles deriving from the soft volcanic tuffs. The same clays probably served for the production of some of the Early Bronze Age wares, including the fine, thinwalled urfinis and decorated wares, sauceboats for the most part, whose fabric bears a striking resemblance to that of the Archaic wares. Decoration of these Archaic Melian wares is in a semi-glossy paint which varies greatly in colour from black to brown and red to orange, normally with a streaky or blotchy appearance. The identification of Kambos as an Archaic production site has several important consequences. Apart from proving beyond any doubt that most of the Archaic pottery found on Melos is locally produced, it provides one of the first secure control groups in dealing with the vexed problem of localising Geometric and Archaic ceramic production in the Cyclades, whether by stylistic or scientific analysis. While new discoveries have allowed the assignment of some of the Archaic wares and workshops to particular islands, more or less satisfactorily, there is still much that remains uncertain. Hitherto the principal difficulty with scientific analysis is that for the most part it has been based on unreliable control groups where the critical evidence for localised production is missing.30 In order to maximise the potential of this material, programmes of chemical and petrographic analysis have been carried out. The main objectives have been to establish the compositional characteristics of this group and the raw materials used in its manufacture and to compare it with samples of contemporary or near-contemporary pottery from other sites on Melos. A further aim has been to compare this group with a sample of pottery from Siphnos suspected to be of Melian origin [pl. 8D].31 Broadly, the results of these

(INSTAP), the A.G. Leventis Foundation, the British School at Athens. We are indebted to the 21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities for permission to sample sherds from Melos and Siphnos for these programmes of analysis. 32 Rather surprisingly preliminary analysis of the results suggests that the lekanes (small, shallow bowls with either one or two handles), whose fabric is visually identical with their Melian counterparts, were perhaps not made on Melos. The shape also occurs among the plainer East Greek painted wares and may have been made at many production sites in the Aegean islands and coastal parts of Asia Minor: see Tocra I, 44 and 53 nos 714-718, 73 no. 881; Tocra II, 17 and 20 no. 2008. 33 The skyphoi, mugs, lekanes and kotylai included among the ‘Siphnian’ pottery at Tocra are part of the standard Melian repertoire: Tocra I, 75 nos 885-894, 898; Tocra II, 35 nos 2083-2086. The shallow cups (Tocra I, 75 no. 899; Tocra II, 35 nos 20892094) and bowls with vertical rims (Tocra I, 75 nos 895-897; Tocra II, 35 nos 2087-2088) at present have no parallel in any of the material from Melos. It suggests that the ‘Siphnian’ group may comprise material from more than one island or regional production centre. The widely differing results of chemical analysis on two samples from this group point in the same direction: see Tocra II, 74 and Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery, 659 with fiche 004.72-3. One (from a one-handled cup of a type common on Melos), typified by its low calcium content, resembles the composition of the Melian control group, while the other (from a shallow cup of the type not present in the Melos survey finds) clearly differs, among other things in its high calcium and low magnesium counts.

30 There have been various attempts to discriminate by scientific analysis between the products of different islands and to assign the various Cycladic workshops to one island or another, so far without absolutely conclusive results: see Jones, Greek and Cypriot Pottery, 643-659; F. Villard, ‘La localisation des ateliers cycladiques de céramique géométrique et orientalisante’, in R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades (Lyon 1993), 143-165; Gauthier, op.cit. n. 4, 167-204. For a recent more general survey see F. Villard and F. Blondé, ‘La localisation des ateliers’, in M.-C. Villanueva Puig, F. Lissarrague, P. Rouillard and A. Rouveret (eds), Céramique et peinture grecques. Modes d’emploi. Actes du colloque international, École du Louvre, 26-27-28 avril 1995 (Paris 1999), 107-120. 31 Chemical analysis of 96 sherd and clay samples from Melos and Siphnos was carried out at the Fitch Laboratory (British School at Athens) by N.J. Brodie in 1995-6. Petrographic study of a smaller number of Geometric and Archaic sherds was carried out within the framework of a wider study of Melian ceramics from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman period, again at the Fitch Laboratory by J. Mitchell in 1992-4. These projects are indebted to the following bodies for financial support: the Institute for Aegean Prehistory

76

Emborio and Kambos

One purpose of this short and rather general account of two of the more prominent Archaic sites on Melos has been to dispel the idea that rural settlement in the island was characterised by an undifferentiated mass of small farmsteads. In so doing, it has illustrated something of the diversity that existed in terms of size and function among the rural settlements and the ways in which their survival was dependent on external factors, either within the island or in the wider Aegean world. While none of this need imply the existence of a more complex, three-tier settlement hierarchy in which secondary level centres served many of the needs of small sites in their periphery, there is a strong case for believing that relations, whether economic or social, both within Melos and with the outside world, could be conducted without the necessary mediation of the city as the central place. This may only have been possible in a situation where settlement was widely dispersed and the powers and institutions of the polis correspondingly weak. In turn, it may be attractive to think that one factor leading to the demise of sites such as Emborio and Kambos, and others on Melos, was the increasing role of civic institutions in asserting control over the activities of its citizens, especially if fiscal obligations such as import and export dues were involved and the conduct and location of exchange became subject to greater regulation. This brings us back to the opening paragraph of this paper where a basic distinction between Melos and some of the other larger Cycladic islands was observed. The dispersed settlement pattern on Melos, which continued largely unchanged from the 8th to the end of the 6th centuries, may correspond to a situation in which the radical changes which brought about the relatively rapid development of the polis elsewhere were much slower to take root here. Rather than seeing the Melian pattern of settlement as a precociously early manifestation of the small scale rural settlement that typifies so much of Greece in the Classical period35 (especially the 4th and early 3rd centuries) it may be more realistic to regard it as the retarded survival of an older pattern, occasioned by the fact that the centralising forces generated by the development of the polis did not take effect on Melos until much later.

East Greece, and later Athens. As in most places, local demand was satisfied for the most part by local production, even if certain classes of mass-produced pottery (such as some of those mentioned before) penetrated most areas close to the sea. The location of the Kambos production site is also of interest. It is optimally placed in terms of access to the raw materials, and perhaps also to the limited supplies of fuel and water that exist on Melos,34 but is at some distance from the main centre of consumption at ancient Melos. It is probably no coincidence that the life of the site coincides closely with the phase of maximum settlement dispersion on the island in the 7th and 6th centuries. It was evidently abandoned before the 5th century as the number of rural settlements contracted and the population of the island was increasingly concentrated in the northwest of the island, both in the ancient city and ancillary village sites. This in turn suggests that the location of the production centre may originally have served to satisfy the demands of a significantly large rural community, such as is suggested by the survey evidence. Once these sites were deserted or consolidated, pottery production perhaps shifted to locations better placed to supply the needs of the city and the new population centres. Not all the inhabitants of Kambos were anyway necessarily engaged in this one activity. Of a similar size to Emborio and perhaps like it a village with a comparable population, many of its inhabitants may have been primarily concerned with agriculture who, for whatever reason, found it necessary to abandon their place of residence and move elsewhere. Local pottery production may also have suffered, especially from the 5th century on, if it was unable to keep up with changing tastes and fashions, especially for Attic black-glazed pottery. Not only was Attic pottery technically superior but it was also plentiful and cheap. However, as at Emborio, the activities attested at Kambos in the Archaic period were renewed centuries later in the early Roman period when the production of massive amphorae and industrial basins was established here and at several other locations around the Zephyria plain.

Richard Catling The Classics Centre Oxford [email protected] 35 As J. Bintliff, ‘Regional survey, demography and the rise of complex societies in the ancient Aegean: core-periphery, NeoMalthusian and other interpretative models’, JFieldA 24 (1997), 138, esp. 10 and 14 – “possibly precocious developments on the island of Melos and in central Crete may hint at a wider SE Aegean growth sphere…”.

34 19th century wells in the vicinity of the Kambos production site show that ground water is accessible, even in the absence of freshwater springs.

77

R. Catling

78

4 A new early Archaic building on Naxos Some thoughts on the Oikos of the Naxians on Delos Vassilis Lambrinoudakis

The ancient marble quarries at the heights of Phlerio southeast of the village of Melanes on Naxos are well known.1 Best known is the unfinished colossal kouros at the foot of the mountain, dating to the early 6th century BC.2 A project of presentation3 will soon make a second unfinished kouros, which is located higher up and is roughly of the same dimensions and date,4 easily accessible [pl. 9A]. The quarries extend

over a wide area, in which one can still see the aforementioned unfinished sculptures, as well as unfinished architectural members detached or partly cut in the rock and a large number of beds from which different stone objects were extracted.5 It is generally accepted that the quarries of Melanes were of primary importance for the development of early Greek monumental sculpture and architecture.6 They were the richest source of Naxian marble, and Naxos was the leading centre in Greece for the production of monumental art in marble during the 7th and early 6th century.

Abbreviations Courbin, Oikos = P. Courbin, EAD 33: L’Oikos des Naxiens (Paris 1980). Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’ = G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos. Studien zur archaischen Architektur der Kykladen’, JdI 112 (1997), 261-416. Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Naxische Bildhauerei’ = G. KokkorouAlewras, ‘Die Archaische naxische Bildhauerei’, AntPl 24 (1995), 37-138. Lambrinoudakis ‘Ύρια’ = V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια ανασκαφικής έρευνας στα Ύρια της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 209-215.

Less known and neglected was another feature of the region. The springs of abundant water in the narrow green valley adjacent to the quarries were in antiquity, and are still today, of capital importance for agriculture and in general for life, not only of the region, but also of the city of Naxos. At the foot of the hill, opposite the heights where the main area of ancient quarries is found, a quadrangular basin, excavated in the rock and preserved under a later traditional superstructure, collected in antiquity the main stream of water springing at the spot.7 An aqueduct, 11 km long, conducted the water from there to the city of Naxos. In its way it run at a height on the slopes of the hills, so that it could also serve the needs of the small fertile valleys which lie under it, through a system of intermediate reservoirs. The

1 G. Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Τα αρχαία λατομεία μαρμάρου της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 101-127; ead., ‘Naxische Bildhauerei’, 3742, 86-87, 90-94; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Die Physiognomie der spätarchaischen und frühklassischen naxischen Plastik’, in H. Kyrieleis (ed.), Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums vom 22-25 April 1985 in Athen I: Archaische griechische Plastik (Mainz 1986), 113. 2 Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Naxische Bildhauerei’, 41, 91-92, no. 23: “1st decade of the 2nd quarter of the 6th century B.C.”. 3 The project (Conservation and presentation of an ancient aqueduct in the island of Naxos and of a sanctuary at the springs in Melanes), conducted by the University of Athens, is funded by the Regional Operational Program of South Aegean 2000-2006. The new evidence that is presented in this paper concerning the ancient quarries and the sanctuary, as well as the aqueduct, has been found in the course of this project. Work is being done in collaboration with the archaeologists G. Ivou (2003-March 2004), A. Sphyroera (since March 2004) and the architect Th. Bilis. 4 Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Naxische Bildhauerei’, 41, 90-91, no. 20: “Transition from the 1st to the 2nd quarter of the 6th century B.C.”; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’: ‘Jahrhundertwende’ (7th to 6th

century). Nevertheless, new accurate drawings of the statue show a strong divergence from frontality, a feature that would support a dating to the second quarter of the 6th century. More on this subject will be said in another paper. 5 Kokkorou-Alewras 1992, op.cit. n. 1, 108-115. 6 Gruben ‘Naxos und Delos’, 266-267, 293-294, 314. 7 Water gushes out at least in two other places at the bed of the stream in the valley.

79

V. Lambrinoudakis

Figure 1. Section of the Greek (lower line) and Roman (upper line) phases of the aqueduct.

built subterranean channel covered by big slabs replaced the pipes [fig. 1]. An important feature of this technical work was the fact that the aqueduct pierced the mountain to the north, in order to conduct the water out of the narrow valley of Phlerio. In 2003, after a complicated calculation combining the morphology of the terrain, the visible remains of the aqueduct of the Roman phase and its average inclination, our University team found the well-preserved spacious basin in which the water flowed, before continuing its way in a tunnel, which was opened in the southern slope of the northern part of the heights surrounding the valley of Phlerio. The tunnel leads to another valley to the north and from there the aqueduct makes its way to the ancient city of Naxos. A carefully built arched entrance to the tunnel [pl. 10A], connected to the basin, was built in Roman times in front of the original entrance of the aqueduct, which was curved in the rock.11 The piercing of the mountain for about 250 m reminds us of the

original phase of the aqueduct consisted of clay pipes running in a trench, which are reminiscent of the pipes of the ‘aqueduct of Peisistratos’ in Athens but are of a simpler type, close to type B of the Samian Eupalineion [pl. 9B].8 The period of realisation of this major Naxian technical project is presumably the reign of the tyrant Lygdamis in Naxos,9 in the late 6th century BC, or shortly after.10 In Roman times, a 8

R. Tölle-Kastenbein, Das archaische Wasserleitungsnetz für Athen und seine späteren Bauphasen (Mainz 1994), 57, no. 27, fig. 100, 71; L. Parlama and N. Stampolidis (eds), Η πόλη κάτω από την πόλη. Ευρήματα από τις ανασκαφές του Μητροπολιτικού Σιδηροδρόμου (Athens 2000), 191, 222, 155; Kl. Greve, Licht am Ende des Tunnels: Planung und Trassierung im antiken Tunnelbau (Mainz 1998), 55-57. 9 It is well known that Lygdamis and Naxos had close connections with Peisistratos and Athens, as well as with Polykrates and Samos, L.H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece. The City-States c. 700-500 B.C. (London 1976), 180-181. See below, p. 81. 10 Given the difficulty of a dated typology of clay pipes, I prefer to associate the Naxian examples with the ones of the Eupalineion (type B, see above n. 8) than with later types, see R. TölleKastenbein, Antike Wasserkultur (Munich 1990), 86. The political situation in later Naxos makes the realisation of a project of this size on the island improbable.

11

80

Cf. Greve, op.cit. n. 8, 137 fig. 219, 179 fig. 278.

Archaic building on Naxos

Figure 2. Plan of the sanctuary at the springs of Phlerio/Melanes.

much bigger tunnel of Eupalinos in Samos, and of the relations of the tyrants of Naxos and Samos, as well as of Naxos and Megara,12 the native place of Eupalinos. The significance of the Naxian technical work shows that the region of Melanes was exceptionably important for the island, not only as a centre of marble production and trade, but also as a source of land fertility and welfare.

Mycenaean sherds and fragments of obsidian indicate human presence in the region in prehistoric times, but the sanctuary seems to have been founded in the late 8th century BC. It flourished during the 7th and 6th centuries BC, but its life was much longer – it seems that it continued to exist to the end of antiquity. I will briefly present here the main results of our research in this sanctuary,13 and my thoughts on its character and use.

A third important feature in the region was completely unknown until today. It is a sanctuary [fig. 2] situated on the slope above the springs, north of and opposite the heights of the main ancient quarries. Here too, one can still see traces of quarrying; they betray primitive work, by which irregular lumps of stone were levered out from fractured surface beds. The sanctuary was set in this primitive quarry. Rare

An enclosure, made out of granodiorite and marble fragments and lumps, limited the sanctuary to the north, retaining at the same time the ground, which was sloping strongly to the south. It had an entrance at its eastern part, whose rough monolithic threshold is preserved in situ. The enclosure was adjacent to a huge freestanding marble lump, which seems to have been a prevailing feature in the area. It extended to the east of the lump up to the edge of a steep marble cliff. To its west it traced a curve, which bent to the

12 See above nn. 8, 9, 10; H. Kienast, Samos 19: Die Wasserleitung des Eupalinos auf Samos (Bonn 1995); N. Kontoleon, ‘Zur Gründung von Naxos und Megara auf Sizilien’, in W. Brice (ed.), Europa. Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der frühen Aegäeis. Festschrift E. Grumach (Berlin 1967), 180-190; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Ανασκαφή Νάξου’, Prakt 1980, 260.

13 The excavation was completed by the end of 2004. The main results of research that followed the date of the meeting in Oxford are included in this paper.

81

V. Lambrinoudakis

the entrance was preserved on its façade [pls 10B and 11B]. It measures 1.40 m long and 0.40 m wide and is supported by two marble cubes under its ends. Such a device is typical of the foundation of much heavier later Naxian thresholds, such as the one of the monumental temple at Yria.15 On its upper surface one can still see the beds for the doorjambs, which were also undoubtedly monolithic; it is safe to assume, that the lintel was also monolithic. The work on the upper surface of the threshold is fine, which allows us to suppose that the jambs and lintel were treated in the same way. Clear traces on the threshold show that the door was 0.80 m wide. Given that the carving on the inner side of the upper surface of the threshold, cut in order to accommodate the shut door, does not show any traces of hinges or latches, we have to assume that the door was hung from the jambs. Thus we have, in a primitive version, all the main features of the Cycladic marble portals, as we know them from later, mainly Naxian, monumental buildings, for example the fourth temple at Yria, the temple at Sangri, the Temple of Apollo on Palatia or the Oikos of the Naxians on Delos.16 The early date of the oikos in the sanctuary of Phlerio is mainly based on the following evidence: 1. The pottery found on the ground of the older terrace near the west foundation of the building does not contain anything later than the middle of the 7th century and includes an intact ovoid aryballos of the end of the Middle Protocorinthian period, that is around 650 BC. 2. A quadrangular marble block, at the foot of which a pyre was lit on a thin marble slab that had been deliberately placed there, was found under the floor of the oikos on the level of the pre-existing terrace and under the central axis of the building. Judging from similar finds in other areas in the sanctuary,17 we can argue that the open-air pyre on the pre-existing terrace was devoted to a chthonic power worshiped in the sanctuary already before the erection of the second oikos and that it was then chosen to give witness to the consecration of the latter.18 The few sherds collected around this complex belong

south after 16 meters following the slope of the terrain for another 16 meters. A first sacral building was built in the late 8th century, in contact with the west side of the marble lump [pl. 10B and 12A]. It was a simple, roughly quadrangular oikos, its inner space measuring 5 m long and 4 m wide. Its walls, about 0.70 m wide, were made of stones, and its rear wall, up to 1 m wide, which is preserved to a considerable height, consisted of bigger, more carefully treated stones and functioned at the same time as part of the enclosure. Two marble bases for wooden supports, one in situ [pl. 11A] and the other slightly moved, prove that two wooden posts on the central axis of the building supported a flat roof.14 The part of the enclosure to the east of the marble lump was built shortly after the oikos to protect it against overhanging earth. West of the oikos an extended low terrace was arranged, presumably for open-air festivities and rituals. In the early third quarter of the 7th century BC a larger oblong oikos was built at the west side of the first [pl. 10B], occupying a large part of the existing terrace, which perhaps at that time extended a little further to the west. The west wall of the first smaller oikos and its northwest corner were demolished and rebuilt as a common wall of the two buildings, which served as the east wall of the new building and the west wall of the old one. This restoration is evident in the different material and the different composition of stones of the western part of the strong north wall of the Geometric oikos, which was removed and rebuilt, in order to be interwoven with the new common wall. The façade of the new building protruded to the south by one meter above the south border of the ancient terrace and was founded deeper in the cavities of the sloping ground. The plan of the building was an irregular parallelogram, measuring in the interior 6.35 m at its east and 6.45 at its west side, 3 m at its north, and 3.30 at its south side. Its northeast and southwest corners formed acute angles, its northwest and southeast corners obtuse angles. The walls, 0.50 m wide, were again made of carefully selected or roughly worked marble fragments, while the rear wall, of equal width, partly interwoven with a protruding marble rock, replaced the enclosure here too, which at this time was extended to the west and south. Much of the building material was found covering its ruins.

15 V. Lambrinoudakis and G. Gruben, ‘Das neuentdeckte Heiligtum von Iria auf Naxos’, AA 1987, 588, fig. 27; iid., ‘Ανασκαφή αρχαίου ιερού στα Ύρια της Νάξου’, Archaiognosia 5 (1987), 154, pl. 39a; Lambrinoudakis ‘Ύρια’, 203, fig. 4; G. Gruben, ‘Griechische Unordnungen’, in E.-L. Schwandner (ed.), Säule und Gebälk. Zu Struktur und Wandlungsprozess griechischrömisher Architektur. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 16. bis 18. Juni 1994 (Mainz 1996), 67-70. 16 Lambrinoudakis and Gruben, op.cit. n. 15; G. Gruben, Ιερά και ναοί της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας (Athens 2000), 379; id. ‘Anfänge des Momumentalbaus auf Naxos’, Bautechnik der Antike: internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 15.-17. Februar 1990 (Mainz 1991), 64-65; id., ‘Naxos und Delos’, 323-324, 324-337; G. Gruben, and Ae. Ohnesorg, ‘Der Demeter-Tempel’, AW 33 (2002), 392, figs 12, 14, 16. 17 See below, p. 83. 18 See below, p. 83.

The second oikos disposes of an element, which is of great importance for the development of island marble architecture: the monolithic marble threshold of 14 For a close parallel of this building type see H. Drerup, Griechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Göttingen 1969), 11.

82

Archaic building on Naxos

oikos, one can say that at least the east building went out of use by the end of the 6th century BC. Ashes and bones in its rear compartment show that in its second phase of use it served for the preparation of food (for ritual meals?).

to the same period as those near the foundation of the oikos. The second oikos occupied the eastern half of the earlier terrace west of the older, first, oikos.19 New terraces and compartments were now arranged along an extension of the enclosure curving to the west and south. Two compartments are especially interesting [pl. 13B]: They were unroofed but closed with doors; they contained makeshift altars in their corners (traces of fire are still evident on the remains) and on their floor ashes of pyres containing animal bones, remains of metal objects and sherds were carefully covered with circular thin slabs. The pyres are found on successive levels. This means that rite was repeatedly performed during a long period of time. A pot containing 94 knucklebones was found near one of the pyres. Sometime in the 6th century BC the doors of these compartments were closed with walls and the rooms functioned as a kind of abaton. The above described activity is characteristic of a cult offered to a chthonic deity or a hero.

At a distance of about 30 m further down the slope to the south, the excavation brought to light a complex consisting of a row of rooms, having the same orientation as the aforementioned buildings, and extending to the east of what seems to have been the main entrance to the sanctuary [fig. 2]. People coming from the spring could enter the sanctuary here and, after ascending a stairway, continue towards the sacral buildings further up or to the north entrance. Pottery and other finds suggest an early use of this complex from Late Geometric to early Archaic times, as well as everyday life activity, perhaps accommodation of keepers of the sanctuary or of visitors, or even preparation of ritual meals. Not later than the middle of the 6th century BC a small temple built of megalithic blocks of marble was erected in the area between the south entrance and the older sacral buildings [fig. 2 and pl. 13A]. It measured 3 by 4 m, as one can read on its preserved foundations, and was oriented towards the north. The marbles of the foundation show fine work only where blocks of the upper course were set. The south side of the lower part of the building was made out of one block, 3.20 x 1.0 m. Many fragments of marble tiles found around this building allow us to assume that it had a marble roof. A base for a votive column found in situ at the northeast corner of the building attests its sacral character. Some of the blocks in its levelling course were cut in the marble layers which existed immediately southeast under the aforementioned complex of rooms which must have been abandoned and demolished at that time. One can see their negative on the surface of the local marble west of the small temple, laid bare after the abandonment of the buildings which had existed there. The erection of this third sacral building impeded the direct approach of the older oikoi from the south entrance; two new bent pathways were created, leading along both sides of the new temple to the northern part of the sanctuary.

In the course of the first half of the 6th century, an earthquake or a landslide after a storm caused damages to the sanctuary, which affected mainly the older oikos. The upper part of the huge marble lump on which the oikos leaned became loose at a fracture that run obliquely through its whole body, slid to the west and hit the east wall of the building like a heavy wedge [pl. 12A]. We have to assume that the upper part of the older oikos (and part of the later one?) collapsed. Part of the enclosure east of the older oikos equally fell down. The enclosure was repaired and a hearth was built at the corner between the enclosure and the lump, on which sacrifices were repeatedly offered [pl. 12B]. We assume that they were expiatory to the supernatural, chthonic power which was thought to control the rock. At the same time the ancient oikos was hastily repaired [pl. 10B], the northern part of its east wall keeping the distortion caused by the lump [pl. 12A], while the southern part was rebuilt 1.50 m to the west. An inner wall separated the northern wider part from the narrower southern one, and the whole structure now took the shape of a Greek Γ. At the same time the inside of the second, larger oikos was rearranged. During this phase a heap of stones covered the quadrangular marble and the pyre under its floor.20 Around the heap a semicircular bench was built with material, similar to that used in the reconstruction of the smaller first oikos [pl. 11C]. This setting once more implies a mystic or chthonic cult. On the basis of rich pottery finds, especially on the new floor of the older 19 20

Finds other than pottery include clay figurines of a standing or a sitting female goddess, fragments of relief pithoi, marble votive columns, fragments of marble kouroi of different sizes, an unfinished votive sphinx, fragments of marble basins, an unfinished marble lamp [pl. 14B]21 and many pieces or frag21 Cf. E. Langlotz and M. Hirmer, Die Kunst der Westgriechen (Munich 1963), 55, pl. 2; R. Hampe and E. Simon, The Birth of

See above, p. 82. See above, p. 82.

83

V. Lambrinoudakis

be quite normal in this context. The sacral buildings leaning on the characteristic marble lump, the expiatory sacrifice at the base of the lump after it moved, as well as the pyres on the terraces and the special veneration of one of the pyres in the later phase of the west oikos support this suggestion.26 An inscription reported to come from Melanes, now in the Museum of Naxos,27 actually mentions a sanctuary of Outos and Ephialtes. These two heroes, also called Aloadai in Greek mythology,28 were Giants (some say they were earthborn). They were twin children of Poseidon and Iphimedia, wife of Aloeus. The latter raised them and became their human father (according to parallel myths he was also a son of Poseidon or he was the real father of the twins). His name means the thresher; therefore he himself and his sons Aloadai had a close connection with fertility and abundance. These twin Giants had nevertheless a special capacity: they grew excessively every year, reaching by far supernatural dimensions,29 and had miraculous power, which allowed them to raise mountains and to put them on top of one another. Using this supernatural power they menaced the realm of Zeus, and planned to put the mountains Ossa and Pelion on top of Olympos so that they could attack heaven. They were going to fill the sea with rocks and make land in its place; the sea was to take the place of the mountains and the earth was to be torn asunder. According to one tradition Apollo killed them. But according to another they were sent to Naxos in search of their mother Iphimedia or Eriboia and their sister Pankratis, who were the nurses of Dionysos (another relation to fertility). Nobody could kill them, neither god nor mortal. By a ruse of Artemis they killed one another and were buried in Naxos. It is reasonable to argue, as a working hypothesis, that these chthonic twins, who could handle huge rocks and at the same time were related to fertility, could have been venerated in the sanctuary of a fertility goddess in the quarries, as archetypes of an almighty quarryman.30

ments of marble tiles. Some of the votive columns are very early [pl. 14A]; one would be inclined to date them in the late 7th century, as they strongly resemble the earliest known example, a dedication of Alexitides, in Sangri.22 The sphinx [pl. 14D], although unfinished, also shows traits which support an early date.23 Its body is very slim, the front and back sides of the creature are extremely narrow without any allusion of the third dimension or any sense of corporeality. The upright posture and compact outline of the figure characterise the early steps in the development of the Naxian style in sculpture. An important observation concerning the finds is that most of the marble works found in the sanctuary are unfinished. Some of them are obvious failures (for example the plinth and the feet of a small kouros where the toes are missing, because the piece of marble has been cut too short [pl. 14C]). Unfinished dedications are not unknown in Naxian sanctuaries.24 On the other hand some unfinished pieces or failures could be left over in the neighbouring quarries and used in the sanctuary as building material. But the number of this type of objects in relation to finished works is so distinctive at this site, that it strongly supports their interpretation (or most of them) as dedications and the conclusion that the main dedicators in the sanctuary were the quarrymen, who did not hesitate to decorate the holy space with less valuable samples of their work. The concurrence of the period of development and flourish of the sanctuary with the period of intense activity in the quarries (7th and 6th century BC) leaves no doubt about who the main users of the sacred place were. A female goddess of fertility must have been the main deity venerated in the sanctuary. The female figurines and the proximity of the sacred area to the springs strongly support this argument.25 On the other hand it is obvious that the carving of marble and the dangerous handling of huge masses of stone was a very important activity of the region. Veneration of a chthonic deity or a hero connected with the protection of the dangerous work of quarrying would

26

See above, p. 82, 83. IG XII 5, 56 “found in a field by a farmer”. Lambrinoudakis, op.cit. n. 12, 262, pl. 156a. 28 ’Αλωάδαι, i.e. sons of ’Αλωεύς; Pind. Pyth. iv.18; Diod. v.50-51 “… they killed one another and ever since they were venerated by the natives as heroes”; W. Roscher, LGRM I (1884-1886), 253255; P. Grimal, Dictionnaire de la mythologie grecque et romaine (Paris 1958), 29, 236; LIMC I, s.v. ‘Aloadai’ (E. Simon). 29 Their sister Elate grew equally rapidly. After their death she was transformed in the tree elate (fir-tree), which in Greek was characterised as oÙranom»khj (sky-high), Roscher, op.cit. n. 28, 1231. 30 Heracles had analogous qualities, LIMC IV s.v. ‘Herakles’ (J. Boardman), esp. 730; T. Kozeli, A. Muller, J.-P. Sodini, ‘Carrières de marbre de la region de Saliari’, BCH 105 (1981), 961-963, figs 72-73; iid., ‘Les carrières de marbre’, BCH 106 (1982), 676-677, fig. 60; Y. Grandjean and F. Salviat, Guide de Thasos (2nd edition, Paris 2000), 158-159 fig. 107, cf. p. 230 (P. Valavanis drew my attention to this case). 27

Greek Art from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period (London 1981), 130, figs 202-203. 22 G. Gruben, ‘Das älteste marmorne Volutenkapitell’, IstMitt 39 (1989), 161-172, pl. 19. 23 It seems earlier than the sphinx of the Naxians in Delphi. Cf. the lions in Delos and sphinxes of the 7th century BC. P. Demargne, Die Geburt der griechischen Kunst (Munich 1975), 244; D. Kreikenbom, ‘Reifarchaische Plastik’, in P. Bol (ed.), Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst I. Frühgriechische Plastik (Mainz 2002), figs 244-245. 24 Unfinished column of a kouros in Sangri, dedicated to Apollo, V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Weihgeschenke des Heiligtums (bei Sangri)’, Antike Welt 33 (2002), 403, fig. 26. Cf. Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Naxische Bildhauerei’, 98, no. 101. 25 See also below, n. 26.

84

Archaic building on Naxos

What can we say on the basis of this new evidence with regards to the building history of the Oikos of the Naxians on Delos? The recent, monumental study of Gottfried Gruben38 seemed to have definitely solved the problem of whether there was an early, 7th century phase39 or not, in favour of the second alternative. It is impossible to discuss at length this issue here. The new evidence from Naxos inevitably leads to some observations, which show that the history of this important building should be re-examined.

Two intriguing finds are also worth mentioning: There are two marble basins, both quadrangular and shallow. The first is deeper and was found out of context, while the second [pl. 14E] is very flat and was used as building material in the wall of the second phase of the Geometric oikos. It is too small and thin for a table, but too flat and uncorroded for a water basin. I would be inclined to interpret it as a basin for libations set somewhere inside the oikoi during their first period of use.31 To conclude: The early buildings in the sanctuary of Phlerio, especially the early Archaic oikos, reveal a very early skill in stone work and stone building, manifested in the pioneering centre of Naxian workers of marble, who produced sculpture as well as architectural members and buildings. These early edifices show that the tradition of Naxian stone building had deep roots. The irregularities of the plan that characterise most of the known early Naxian sacral buildings (Yria temples, Oikos of the Naxians in Delos) occur also in the early Archaic oikos in Phlerio.32 Cult activities seem to have been accomplished deep in the interior of the buildings.33 On the other hand a prescribed orientation for a sacral building did not exist yet (both at Yria and Phlerio the buildings are oriented to the south).34 The primitive marble portal of the early Archaic oikos, incontestable forerunner of the grandiose Ionic portals [pls 10B and 11B],35 as well as the early votive columns found in the sanctuary [pl. 14A],36 show that the first steps towards the monumentalisation of architecture and sculpture were attempted here earlier than elsewhere, in the very workplace of the Naxian craftsmen, who (or their pupils) are assumed to have worked later on Delos.37 Furthermore, there is clear evidence, that this early building experience included the partial dismantlement and rebuilding of existing edifices in order to make them fit in a new plan, or vice versa to incorporate parts of an older construction in a new building.

The conclusions of Gruben in favour of the Oikos being built in one period (590-580 BC, addition of east prostoon 560-550 BC) seem to be based on undeniable arguments, but at the same time include some less certain interpretations. His main arguments are: 1. The south side of the base of the Apollo statue is finely dressed, so it should have been visible, while the corresponding part of the north wall of the Oikos is thinner and has a different structure: the Oikos must have therefore been built after the erection of the statue. 2. The channel leading from the basin in the building out to its west side is incorporated in its west wall. 3. The pairs of pits under the row of the inner marble columns are too big to serve as the foundation for an older double row of roof supports and a central aisle narrower than the lateral ones would be unique in Greek architecture. The pits correspond to the columns and were opened in order to receive posts of the scaffolding needed for their erection. 4. There is no evidence for a door on the east side. 5. The change of orientation from the supposed first phase of the temple to the second is strange. 6. There is no evidence for the existence of a cult statue, which would confirm the building’s function as a temple; it was more probably a banquet hall. The primitive portal on the north side of the Oikos and its original irregularity now find parallels in Naxos itself, homeland of this architecture, at an early date, which corresponds to the date proposed by Courbin for his édifice ancien.40 Even the change of orientation of sacral buildings seems to have caused no problem for the Naxians: in the sanctuary of Phlerio the earlier oikoi look south, whereas the

31

See below, p. 86. See above, p. 82. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 314-315. I would not be inclined to see an intentional divergence from a rectangle in order to create a primitive perspective as Gruben believes. It is true that the oikos in Phlerio presents already a slightly wider front side in relation to the rear one, as was the case later at Yria and Delos. But the total irregularity of this building (different length of side walls, acute and obtuse angles) combined with its more primitive character is much better explained as the product of offhand marking of the boundaries of a building by skilled sight and adaptation to the landscape. 33 See above, p. 83. Lambrinoudakis ‘Ύρια’, 209-215; id., ‘Das antike Heiligtum von Gyroula bei Sangri auf Naxos’, Antike Welt 33 (2002), 387-391. 34 At Yria towards the marsh, Lambrinoudakis ‘Ύρια’, 215, at Phlerio towards the springs, See above, p. 79, 82. 35 See above, p. 82. 36 See above, p. 83-84. 37 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 266. 32

38 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, with earlier bibliography. Cf. Ch. Vorster, ‘Früharchaische Plastik’ in Bol (ed.), op.cit. n. 23, 117; R. Di Cesare, ‘Sull’ Apollo dei Nassi a Delo e le iscrizioni della base’, Eidola 1 (2004), 24-57. 39 The three building phases proposed by Courbin, Oikos, are well known (édifice ancien, second/third quarter of the 7th century BC; nouvel édifice, around 575 BC; prostôon oriental, late second quarter of the 6th century). 40 Cf. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 324.

85

V. Lambrinoudakis

6th century small temple looks north.41 It is undeniable that the existing western part of the north wall was constructed after the foundation of the colossal Apollo of the Naxians, i.e. shortly after 600 BC. But can we accept that the marble basin and the channel beneath the paved floor had served for draining the water used for the cleaning of an earlier plaster floor of the early 6th century building?42 Could a plastered floor really have endured repeated cleanings with water? Does not the obstacle of the column43 make this use impossible? Is it not curious that a trivial function was exposed to the first view of those entering the place? Is the assumption that the basin also served for the ritual purification of those who entered the building – necessary in order to answer the former question – not contradictory to its hypothetical main, secular use? Why was then the system transferred and hidden in the corner shortly afterwards, when the floor was paved? What about the semicircular cutting at the east side of the basin in which the marble column base fits? Is it not more convincing to interpret the basin (and the channel) as a device which had served a ritual during an earlier phase of the building, and which was cut in a second phase in order to make room for the base of the west marble column and abandoned under the pavement?44 The possible existence of a basin for libations in one of the two oikoi in the sanctuary of Melanes45 corroborates this view. Furthermore the cutting on the lower surface of the block corresponding to the channel in the west krepis of the Delian building and the narrowing of the conduit there46 cannot be easily understood if we accept that the Oikos of the Naxians was designed in one phase. Why did not one apply the solution given later, when the plaster was replaced by the pavement?

Courbin. After all, a similar function is assumed for the Delian building itself.49 On the other hand the question “temple or banquet hall?” is not a real problem. We now know that in all early Naxian sacred buildings (temples of the 8th and 7th centuries at Yria, the two early oikoi at Phlerio) – but also elsewhere – the culmination of cult activity (sacrifice, libation or other action) took place deep enough in their interior, and that ritual meals could have taken place in tem-ples, i.e. that cult and banquet building, were, especially at the beginning, difficult to separate.50 In light of the above, the possibility of the existence of a first phase of the Oikos of the Naxians in the 7th century, of an édifice ancien, should be revised. Even the undeniable relation of the northwestern part of the building to the base of the statue of Apollo can be interpreted differently than as an absolute terminus post quem for the Oikos. In Naxos the possibility and early experience of replanning buildings, by partial dismantling and rebuilding, are already well attested; the 7th century oikos of Phlerio, for example, was combined with the one of the 8th century. This is also what happened with the south wall of the second temple and the east wall of the second and third temples at Yria; the latter was totally replaced by the east wall of the fourth temple, at the same time that the flat roof was replaced by a gable.51 One could suppose that the same happened to a first, simpler phase of the Naxian Oikos on Delos. The western part of its north wall could have been dismantled to the level of the foundations in order to facilitate the erection of the heavy Apollo statue and then rebuilt after the completion of this project. In this case, the removal of the flat roof for the construction of the gabled one would facilitate this solution.

Apart from the argument of Courbin, that his team did not need a real scaffolding to restore the light marble columns,47 the central narrower aisle of the third temple at Yria, dated around 680 BC, abolishes the uniqueness of this scheme and restores the likelihood of an early Naxian building with a narrow central aisle. The interpretation of the third Yria temple as a building in which ritual banquets took place48 is not an argument against its affinity to a first phase of the Oikos of the Naxians as proposed by

There are therefore good reasons for re-examining the possible existence of an earlier phase of the Oikos of the Naxians on Delos. Of course not much is left intact from earlier excavations. But a restricted, well-planned post excavation could perhaps bring to light some new evidence, which, combined with the new finds in Naxos itself, would help us better approach the puzzles of this important building. Vassilis Lambrinoudakis Department of Archaeology University of Athens Panepistimiopolis GR- 157 84 Athens

41

See above, p. 83, fig. 2. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 320-323. 43 Cleaning water is supposed to have flowed from the east part of the building to its west open side. This column (the last towards the west side) stood directly east of the basin. 44 Courbin, Oikos, 13. 45 See above, p. 85. 46 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 341-342. 47 Courbin, Oikos, 13, n. 2. 48 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 317-318. 42

49

Ibid., 321-323 Cf. ibid., 322. 51 Lambrinoudakis ‘Ύρια’, 210-211; Gruben 1995, op.cit. n. 15, 65-70. 50

86

5 Inside the adyton of a Greek temple Excavations on Kythnos (Cyclades) Alexander Mazarakis Ainian

The ancient capital of Kythnos (modern Vryokastro) is situated on the northwest coast of the island and had been constantly inhabited from the 10th century BC to the 6th or 7th century AD [figs 1-2]. The excavation of the ancient town is conducted by the• De-

partment of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology of the University of Thessaly, under the author’s direction, in collaboration with the 21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, represented by the archaeologist Mrs Vassiliki Yannouli.º

The excavation is financed by the University of Thessaly, the Ministry of the Aegean and the Psycha Foundation. Most important is the contribution of the Municipality of Kythnos, which covers a significant portion of the expenses of the research team. With the completion of the 2002 excavation season, complementary funds were granted by the ‘Society for the propagation of the Greek Letters’ and the University of Thessaly, in order to accelerate the conservation and the study of the numerous finds. The above-mentioned tasks are well under way and will allow the completion of the short-term goal, that of presenting a preliminary publication of the discovery. I wish to express my thanks to my collaborators, and especially to Chr. Mitsopoulou (main collaborator), Dr. Al. Gounaris (architect), Th. Mavridis (conservation specialist), the archaeologists M. Koutsoumbou, G. Vitos, M. Mourtiadou, M. Panagou, Ch. Koukoulidou, Ch. Pagomenou, M. Arjona and J.-S. Gros, and the numerous students of Archaeology of the Universities of Thessaly, Athens and foreign universities. I feel privileged that I was invited to contribute a paper in the conference organised in honour of Jim Coulton. Jim has greatly influenced my own work and has always been a valuable guide and a source of inspiration throughout my own research and studies, especially on architectural topics. I owe him a great deal. I also wish to express my warmest thanks to Marina Yeroulanou and Maria Stamatopoulou for giving me the opportunity to participate in this wonderful conference.

Dawkins, Artemis Orthia = R.M. Dawkins, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta Excavated and Described by Members of the British School at Athens, 1906-1910 (London 1929). Despoini, Κοσμήματα = Ai. Despoini, Ελληνική τέχνη. Αρχαία χρυσά κοσμήματα (Athens 1996). Dunbabin, Perachora II = T.J. Dunbabin et al., Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. II. Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs and other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia (Oxford 1962). Early Greek Cult Practice = R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June 1986 (Stockholm 1988). Furtwängler, Olympia IV = A. Furtwängler, Olympia IV: Die Bronzen und die übrigen kleineren Funde von Olympia (Berlin 1890). Gadolou, Αχαΐα = A. Gadolou, Η Αχαΐα στους Πρώιμους Ιστορικούς Χρόνους (Ph.D. thesis, Athens 2000). Hogarth, Ephesus = D.G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus (London 1908). Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’ = M. Hollinshead, ‘Adyton, opisthodomos and the inner room of the Greek temple’, Hesperia 68 (1999), 189-218. Jacobsthal, Pins = P. Jacobsthal, Greek Pins and their Connections with Europe and Asia (Oxford 1956). Kilian, Fibeln = K. Kilian, Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit (PBF XIV.2, Munich 1975). Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia = I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Kleinfunde aus dem Itonia-Heiligtum bei Philia (Thessalien) (Mainz 2002). Kokkou-Vyridi, Ελευσίς = K. Kokkou-Vyridi, Ελευσίς. Πρώιμες πυρές θυσιών στο Τελεστήριο της Ελευσίνος (Athens 1999). Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’ = Y. Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, Eulimene 5 (2004), 27-89. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’ = A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Επιφανειακές αρχαιολογικές έρευνες στην Κύθνο’, Prakt 1995, 137-209.

Abbreviations Baumbach, Votive Offerings = J.D. Baumbach, The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, Ionia, and Western Greece (Oxford 2004). Blinkenberg, Lindos I = Ch. Blinkenberg, Lindos I. Les petits objets (Berlin 1931). Boardman, Emporio = J. Boardman, Excavations in Chios 19521955. Greek Emporio (London 1966). Buchner et al., Pithekoussai = G. Buchner, D. Ridgway et al., Pithekoussai I (Rome 1993).

87

A. Mazarakis Ainian

Figure 1. Map of Kythnos.

88

Kythnos

Figure 2. Plan of Kythnos.

89

A. Mazarakis Ainian

Goals of the excavation programme∼

Survey and excavations2

The excavation of Vryokastro is the result of the intensive survey, which was conducted at the same site from 1990 until 1995 and in 2001, under the author’s direction.1 The programme aims to achieve two goals: the training of archaeology students in field archaeology and the study, through survey and systematic excavation, of the ancient capital of the island of Kythnos. Within the five-year excavation project, we are planning to excavate specific monuments of the ancient town, which had been located during the preceding survey. The new excavation programme aims to provide answers to specific questions, and to complete our knowledge about the ancient town of Kythnos, for which literary sources are extremely sparse. In addition, our aim is to arouse the interest of the inhabitants of Kythnos about their historical past and their precious cultural heritage, which they confront and experience daily, without, however, realising its importance.

In September 2001 a supplementary survey was conducted in the ancient town. This led to the identification of a further sanctuary at the north end of the socalled Middle Plateau (height about +110 m above sea level). The ruins of a building (Building 3) had already been noted on the topographical plans of the previous survey, but at that time we did not realise that it belonged to a temple [fig. 3].3 Indeed, during the 2001 survey we found on the roof of the nearby animal pen several votive offerings, while many more were collected around the ancient building. Of specific interest is a lotus-shaped flower made of solid bronze, 7.67 cm in height, with a stem, perhaps for the insertion in a statue or belonging to a sceptre of some sort [pl. 16A].4

Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’ = A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘The Kythnos survey project: a preliminary report’, in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos, 362-379, 397-435. Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos = L. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology. Proceedings of an International Symposium. Kea-Kythnos, 2225 June 1994 (Athens 1998). Payne, Perachora I = H.G.G. Payne, Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia. I. Architecture, Bronzes, Terracottas (Oxford 1940). Plassart, Délos XI = A. Plassart, EAD XI: Les sanctuaires et les cultes du Mont Cynthe (Paris 1928). Rubensohn, Delion = O. Rubensohn, Das Delion von Paros (Wiesbaden 1962). Stampolidis, Πλόες = N. Stampolidis (ed.), Πλόες… Από τη Σιδώνα στη Χουέλβα. Σχέσεις λαών της Μεσογείου 16ος - 6ος αι. π.Χ. (Athens 2003). Thalmann, Adyton = S.K. Thalmann, The “Adyton” in the Greek Temples of Southern Italy and Sicily (Ph.D. thesis, Ann Arbor 1980). Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος = J. Vokotopoulou, Ai. Despoini, V. Misailidou and M. Tiverios, Σίνδος. Κατάλογος της Έκθεσης (Thessaloniki 1985). Voyatzis, Tegea = M. Voyatzis, The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea and Other Archaic Sanctuaries in Arcadia (Göteborg 1990). Voyatzis, ‘Tegea: Preliminary Report’ = M. Voyatzis, in E. Østby et al., ‘The Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea: first preliminary report (1990-1992)’, OpAth 20 (1994), 89-141. Waldstein, Argive Heraion II = C. Waldstein, The Argive Heraion II (Boston and New York 1905).

The temple [fig. 4]

These promising finds led to the decision to excavate the area so as to reveal the temple and to investigate the sanctuary. The first excavation season lasted five weeks, from September 21st to October 22nd, 2002. Since then excavation continues every summer.

Rooms Α, Β, Ε The excavation led to the discovery of a temple of the Archaic period, orientated towards the west [pl. 15A]. The building is located on a terrace 26 by 15 m, contained by a strong retaining wall, an important 2 The first results of the excavation were published in the Greek press (Η ΘΕΣΣΑΛΙΑ (11-12-02), ΤΟ ΒΗΜΑ (18-12-02 and 19-10-03, M. Thermou), Η ΚΑΘΗΜΕΡΙΝΗ (19-12-02), ΤΟ ΕΘΝΟΣ (20-12-02, M. Ritzalaiou) as well as in the international press and the web. Preliminary reports: A. Mazarakis Ainian, Corpus 50 (2003), 42-49 and 63 (2004), 16-19, AR for 2002-2003, 75-76, and in the Chroniques of the BCH, in press. See also brief reports in Corpus 47 (2003), 6-7; Archaeology March/April 2003, 12; Le Monde de la Bible 156 (2004), 55; Historia Mensuel 675 (2003), 15. 3 Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 188; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’, 373, 416 fig. 37. It had been suggested tentatively that the monumental terrace marked a gymnasium or the agora. 4 See for instance the famous ‘Phrasikleia’ kore in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 4889. N. Kaltsas, ‘Die Kore und der Kuros aus Myrrhinous’, AntPl 28 (2002), 7-40; M. Stieber, ‘Phrasikleia’s Lotuses’, Boreas 19 (1996), 69-99. Fourteen closed lotus flowers of terracotta were found in the Classical deposit of the Persephoneion at Locri: M. Guarducci, ‘Dioniso e il loto. Nuove riflessioni sul vaso ateniese di Lydos nel Museo di Villa Giulia’, Numismatica e antichità classiche. Quaderni Ticinesi 10 (1981), 53-69 esp. fig. 4, pl. III; I. Romeo, ‘La fanciulla con il loto. Una statuette bronzea a Cambridge e l’iconografia delle korai arcaiche’, RendMorAccLincei 9.5 (1994), 157-171. For an example of a bronze lotus from a sanctuary see M. Maaß and I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, ‘Aegina, Aphaia-Τempel. XVII. Bronzefunde ausser Waffen’, AA 1988, 64, 95, no. 123, fig. 17. For lotus flowers as scepters see the stone reliefs of Demeter (National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 126) or Athena (National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 7862).

1 For earlier bibliography, see the proceedings of the international symposium: Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos. In addition, the studies of A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Επιφανειακές έρευνες στη νήσο Κύθνο: Το τείχος της αρχαίας Κύθνου’, AΕphem 1993, 217-253; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’; id., ‘Επιγραφές από την Κύθνο’, HOROS 10-12 (1992-1998), 449-454; id., ‘Αρχαία Κύθνος. Ιστοριογραφία και αρχαιολογικές έρευνες’, in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos, 49-63; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’.

90

Kythnos

Figure 3. Topographical plan of the north part of the Middle Plateau.

part of which was visible, integrated in the interior of the nearby stall.5 This terrace lies upon a larger terrace, 64 m long, which extends towards the west.6

a retaining wall associated with the construction of the temple. The presence of numerous fragments of mussel stones in the surroundings, as well as a fragmentary triglyph of the same material [pl. 16B], suggest that the order was Doric.8

The temple consists of two rectangular oikoi (A and E) set side by side, each 2.90 m wide and 8.50 m long and sharing a party wall [pl. 15B]. A rubble foundation runs parallel to the west side of the temple. It could perhaps represent the substructure of a prostyle porch, similar to that of the Archaic temple at Yria on Naxos,7 though, more likely, it represents

Due to its bad state of preservation it is not possible to reconstruct the appearance of the Northern oikos (E). The Southern oikos is better preserved; it consists of a small adyton (B) of interior dimensions

5

Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, pl. 85β. Ibid., pl. 85α. V. Lambrinoudakis and G. Gruben, ‘Ανασκαφή αρχαϊκού ιερού στα Ύρια Νάξου’, Archaiognosia 5 (1987), 133-191; iid., ‘Das neuentdeckte Heiligtum von Iria auf Naxos’, AA 1987, 569-621; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘The Sanctuary of Iria on Naxos and the birth of monumental Greek architecture’, in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art. National Gallery of Art, Washington (Hanover and London 1991), 173-188; id., ‘Έξι

χρόνια ανασκαφικής έρευνας στα Ύρια της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 201-216. See also E. Simantoni-Bournia, ‘Οι Κυκλάδες από τους Πρώιμους Ιστορικούς Χρόνους μέχρι το τέλος της Αρχαϊκής Εποχής (1050-480 π.Χ.)’, in L. Mendoni and N. Margaris (eds), Κυκλάδες. Ιστορία του τοπίου και τοπικές ιστορίες (Athens 1998), 188-193. 8 On Doric temples of the Archaic period in the Cyclades see M. Schuller, ‘Die dorische Architektur der Kykladen in spätarchaischer Zeit’, JdI 100 (1985), 319-398.

6 7

91

A. Mazarakis Ainian

Figure 4. Plan of the temple (preliminary drawing by A. Gounaris, computer-editing by Chr. Mitsopoulou).

92

Kythnos

In 2003 the investigation of the adyton and the cella of the temple were completed. The euthynteria of the walls was fully revealed. Inside the adyton excavation continued until 1 m beneath the ancient floor level with the aim of uncovering the natural bedrock on which the building was founded. The fill beneath the floor, for a depth of at least 1 m, consisted of irregular medium-sized stones and stone chips from the construction of the temple. This levelling fill did not contain any finds. The narrowness of the space available for investigation did not allow the continuation of the excavation to deeper levels. Thus, the original goal which aimed at revealing the natural bedrock was not achieved.

about 2 by 2.90 m [pl. 16C] and a cella (A) 2.90 m wide and c. 5 m long. The maximum preserved height of the walls is 1 m. Between the naos and the adyton there existed a thin cross wall, 0.25 m wide, and in between a monolithic threshold (dimensions: 1.5 x 0.50 m, width of opening: 0.85 m). Against the back wall of the adyton, on the axis of the temple, an oblong clay base was found, measuring 0.45 x 0.35 x 0.25 (h) m. This structure could represent the base for the positioning of a light or crude cult image, perhaps a wooden xoanon. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that numerous bronze fibulae and some pins were found around its base [pl. 16D], and therefore they could have been secured on the garment of the cult image.9

The temple, as suggested by the slight inclination of the walls and the absence of traces of burning, was perhaps destroyed by an earthquake (see also p. 10, below).

The walls of the cella and the adyton, 0.55 m wide, were constructed exclusively of schist. On the outside, roughly orthogonal blocks of large dimensions were used, whereas the inside is dressed with small rough stones [pl. 16C]. To the east and the north the ground was unstable, as a result of a levelling fill of irregular stones, which had been set inside the cavities of the natural bedrock. For the aforementioned reason, the walls rest upon large stone slabs, protruding from either side, forming a kind of euthynteria.

Room Γ Within the oblong narrow room, which is formed at the east between the back wall of the adyton and the peribolos of the temple [see pl. 16E], a destruction layer containing few roof tiles and numerous stones was revealed. This destruction layer descended down to the original walking surface of this space. An important number of small finds of votive character was collected, dating mostly to the Archaic and Classical periods (similar categories of finds as those from the adyton), such as bronze fibulae and pins, ivory seals, as well as black-figure pottery. More unusual are the Archaic double-nozzled lamps, fragments of miniature multicoloured glass vessels and a bronze lion belonging to the handle of a vessel. Α trial trench in the southern extremity of the room revealed similar characteristics to those described in relation to the adyton – levelling fill with stones and stone-chips, and complete absence of finds.

From the numerous scattered tiles, which in their majority originate from the region occupied by the temple and mostly from the undisturbed adyton, one concludes that the roof consisted of tiles of Corinthian type. It cannot be excluded, however, that originally the roof could have been flat, as at Yria. A peripheral wall runs along the east and south sides of the temple, forming a kind of narrow corridor [see pl. 15A]. There are some indications that this peripheral construction, which lies directly upon the retaining walls [pl. 16E] that surround the temple, was added during a second architectural phase (see below ‘Room Δ’). It has not been established yet whether these compartments were roofed. Their interpretation as a peribolos wall, similar to that of the Heraion on Delos, cannot be excluded,10 while the hypothesis that the original planning would have comprised a peristyle which was never placed into position, cannot be overruled either.

Room Δ In the oblong space which is formed between the south wall of the temple and the peribolos, the destruction level which was encountered in 2002 was removed in 2003. The fill, down to the floor level, contained several Corinthian roof tiles and numerous stones. From the western half several small finds of votive character were collected, dated mostly to the Archaic and Classical periods (similar categories as in the adyton, but far less numerous), including several fragments of clay figurines. Some finds belong to the Hellenistic period, among them a bronze coin of Kythnos of the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. In contact with

9

IG IV, 1588; Hdt. v.83-87; Paus. ii.30.4; Jacobsthal, Pins, 97-100 concerning the pins which decorated peploi inside the opisthodomos of the Temples of Mnia/Damia and Auxesia on Aigina. 10 Plassart, Délos XI, 186, fig. 153, pl. IV. The original idea that the foundation may have been a stylobate was soon abandoned when it was realised that the preserved height is c. 0.50 m. Temples with an adyton often do not have a peristasis: Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 200.

93

A. Mazarakis Ainian

The Temenos [pls. 15B, 17A]

the reinforcement wall which connects the southeast corner of the adyton with the peribolos, and in an extensive area to the southwest, an extensive pyre consisting of ashes, animal bones and broken vases of the Hellenistic period came to light. Scattered fragments belonging to a West-Slope kantharos of the end of the 3rd century were found inside the pyre, as well as beneath the reinforcement wall.11 It is possible that what we have found here was a “foundation sacrifice” which probably took place at the time that the temple was repaired, no doubt towards the end of the 3rd century BC.12

Area between the temple and the fortification wall To the east of the temple the destruction layer was partly excavated [pl. 16E]. It consists of numerous fallen stones, amongst which are areas with intense concentration of tiles and movable finds, mostly pottery of the Hellenistic period, including an intact Hellenistic ‘Knidian’ lamp. In the lower levels, earlier material, dated to the Archaic and Classical periods was present. The situation is similar to the one encountered during the excavation of the northern retaining wall (see below). It has now been established that the retaining wall, which supported the terrace of the temple, continues under the peripheral foundation both at the east and south sides [see pls 15A and 16E]. It has a significant height and is founded upon the bedrock, which slopes downwards from the south towards the north. On this retaining wall, which is 0.95 m wide, rest a series of large rectangular blocks. These blocks project 0.25 m eastwards (in area Γ) and southwards (in area Δ), i.e. towards the outer side of the terrace. The wall is set upon these blocks and may be slightly later in date.

Having removed the destruction level, it was decided to examine the foundations of both the temple and the peribolos wall. The fill was similar to that encountered within the adyton (fill of medium-sized stones and stone chips, absence of finds). In the upper level of this fill, immediately under the floor, several marble architectural blocks were revealed, as well as a semicircular base of mussel stone. The latter appears to have originally been an unfluted column drum, subsequently carved into a semicircle. The anathyrosis of the straight side suggests that it was set against a wall. It is supposed that these architectural members belong to an earlier phase of the Archaic temple. It is possible that at some point the temple suffered serious damage and several of its architectural members were placed there during the restoration which took place at the end of the 3rd century BC. In a deep trial trench, which was opened in contact with the reinforcement wall, it became apparent that the foundations of the temple as well as those of the peribolos are slightly more than 1 m high, and rest upon the natural bedrock. On the contrary, the foundations of the reinforcement wall have a height of just 0.25 m, confirming that it represents a repair of the temple during the Hellenistic period.

Area south of the temple: the altars and the votive deposit The space, which is delineated to the east by the fortification wall, to the west by the animal pen, to the north by the peribolos of the temple and to the south by the natural rock, was thoroughly investigated [pls 15B, 17A]. In this area an oblong, though badly preserved, stone structure was uncovered in 2003 (Altar 2) [pl. 17B left]. It follows a north-south orientation and measures c. 10.50 m in length and 3.25 m in width (interior width preserved: 1.55 m). Narrow passages, c. 1 m wide, are formed between this structure and the peribolos of the temple on one side and the south extremity of the temenos on the other. To the south, the natural rock is cut vertically, while a set of two square postholes carved in the rock are preserved. The foundation, which is best preserved towards the south, may securely be identified as a monumental altar; in proximity to the southwest corner numerous fragments of burnt animal bones were collected.

11 S. Rotroff, Agora XXIX: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Tableware (Princeton 1997), 97-107 and n. 86. Such kantharoi often occur in pyres until the mid-3rd century BC. 12 For foundation sacrifices see Α. Mazarakis Ainian, From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples. Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 B.C.) (Jonsered 1997), 284; K. Müller, Griechische Gründungsdeposita und Bauopfer (Ph.D. thesis, Saarbrücken 1988); B. Wells, ‘Early Greek building sacrifices’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 259-266; W. Burkert, The Orientalizing Revolution (Cambridge MA and London 1992), 5355; F. de Polignac, ‘Influence extérieure ou évolution interne?’, in G. Kopcke and I. Tokumaru (eds), Greece between East and West: 10th-8th Centuries B.C. (Mainz 1992), 117-119. For examples in relation to Cycladic sanctuaries and temples see Lambrinoudakis 1992, op.cit. n. 7, 214 (Yria); L. Marangou, ‘Ανασκαφή Μινώας Αμοργού’, Prakt 1985, 180-182, fig. 2 and pls 90β and 91; ead., Αμοργός Ι. Η Μινώα (Athens 2002), 182-185 (Minoa); H. Gallet de Santerre and J. Tréheux, ‘Rapport sur le dépôt égéen et géometrique de l'Artémision à Délos’, BCH 71/72 (1947/48), 148254 (Artemision on Delos).

Immediately to the east and parallel to the aforementioned altar a second smaller one was discovered in 2004 (Altar 1) [pl. 17B right]. It measures 5.50 by 2.50 m, and its core is 4.60 by 1.50 m. The northern part of the altar is provided with a stepped krepis, while at the south, due to the natural inclination of the soil, it rests immediately upon the rock.

94

Kythnos

At the southwest extremity of the sanctuary terrace the rock forms a vertical face and a niche is preserved [pl. 17C]. The niche has a pointed arc and stands c. 1 m above the natural rock walking level (dim.: h. 0.75, w. 0.50, depth 0.30 m). The mortar and the red coating with which the niche was covered are in a good state of preservation.

The fill around the two altars, especially to the north and east, consisted of black earth mixed with ashes and numerous burnt animal bones. The majority of the finds within this fill date to the Hellenistic period, suggesting that the temenos had been thoroughly cleaned at a certain stage before that date. Indeed, in 2004 an extensive deposit of similar appearance (black earth with numerous burnt animal bones), contained by a rough line of stones was revealed against the city wall. This deposit contained numerous discarded votives, similar to those uncovered inside the temple’s adyton. These include Parian, Corinthian and Attic black-figure and red-figure pottery, seated female terracotta figurines of the Classical period, seals, glass beads, as well as bronze, silver and gold jewellery.13 All these date to the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. More unusual was the discovery within this deposit of iron arrowheads and perhaps sauroteres of pyramidal shape14 and a bronze arrowhead.

Slightly westwards a rectangular carving into the natural rock may be observed (dim: h. 1.20, w. 1.10, depth 0.30 m) [pl. 17C]. This may represent the fitting for the reception of the stone blocks belonging to the extremity of the western retaining wall of the temenos, which is not preserved at this point, though it is in a good state of preservation inside the nearby animal pen. Alternatively, this cutting could represent all that remains of a similar but larger niche. The numerous stones which were encountered in the region around the niche belonged to a modern curved wall, probably an animal shelter. Investigations in this area reached the natural rock. No significant finds were collected.

The date of the altars cannot be determined yet. It is possible, however, that the smaller one (Altar 1) is earlier than the larger one (Altar 2). This assumption is based on the observation that the worked stone blocks of the southeast corner of Altar 2 are similar to those used for the construction of the peripheral wall which surrounds the temple, which, as noted above, may represent a later addition to the original plan. Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that the modest altar preceded the monumental one. It appears, however, that both altars coexisted at some point. An interesting feature is their position in relation to the temple: they are oriented perpendicularly with regards to the longitudinal axis of the temple, and south of its long side. This is highly unusual, though not a unicum.15

Area of the northern retaining wall Towards the north of the temple the slope is steep. At a distance of 5.80 m to the north of the northern temple wall, but at a deeper level, the northern retaining wall of the temple was revealed, under enormous stones which had collapsed from above [pl. 17D]. The central part of the retaining wall had already been destroyed in antiquity. It was decided to leave the destruction layer intact at this part, in order that it may serve as a bulk; on either side excavation was conducted down to the bedrock, upon which the retaining wall was founded. The lower schist blocks, even though very worn, are preserved on the east side at a height of 6 layers (4 to the west). The southwest corner was completely uncovered, while the northeast corner only partly. The total length of the north retaining wall is 15 m, its width almost 1 m, while the maximum preserved height is 1.30 m. The whole situation gives the impression of a sudden destruction, probably due to an earthquake: the blocks had fallen in a line, vertically, as if the entire retaining wall had collapsed at one single stage, perhaps following the damaging of the central part. Among the blocks there were sizeable cavities and soft earth. Here and there intense concentrations of finds dating from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period were collected, including the fragment of the stone triglyph mentioned above [see pl. 16B]. From the rest of the finds we could mention a few female clay figurines (one of a seated type, almost intact,

13

A gold leaf pendant dates to the second half of the 4th century BC. Cf. D. Williams and J. Ogden, Greek Gold Jewellery of the Classical World (London 1994), 74-75 no. 30, 191 no. 123; H. Hoffmann and P.F. Davidson, Greek Gold (Mainz 1965), 115 fig. 35. 14 Cf. S. Drougou and Chr. Kallini, ‘Η ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Πολυνερίου του Ν. Γρεβενών 2002’, AEMTh 16 (2002), 668, fig. 1. Sauroteres are as a rule made of bronze (A.M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons: from the End of the Bronze Age to 600 B.C. (Edinburgh 1964), 133; J.K. Anderson, ‘Hoplite weapons and offensive arms’, in V. Davis Hanson (ed.), Hoplites. The Classical Greek Battle Experience (London and New York 1991), 24; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia, 114, pl. 111, nos 1771-1776), though c. 40 of iron are known from Olympia: H. Baitinger, Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia (OlForsch 29, Berlin 2001), 219ff, pls 57-58. 15 Cf. for instance the position of the altar of the Artemision on Delos: R. Etienne, ‘Espaces sacrificiels et autels Déliens’, in R. Etienne and M.-Th. Le Dinahet (eds), L'Espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l'antiquité: actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, 4-7 juin 1988 (Paris 1991), 77; id., ‘Autels et sacrifices’, in A. Schachter and J. Bingen (eds), Le Sanctuaire grec (Geneva 1992), 291-319, 304 or that of Altar B of the Temple of Athena at Emporio (Boardman, Emporio, 16-17, 7

fig. 6) and elsewhere. Cf. in general B. Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos (Lund 1967), 73-75 (Type 1b2).

95

A. Mazarakis Ainian

and one hydriaphoros), fragments of a lid belonging to a marble pyxis of the Classical period, an intact plain multi-nozzled lamp, an intact lamp of the 4th century BC, phialai and skyphoi (including fragments of relief bowls). To the Archaic period date several miniature kotylai and skyphoi, an almost intact pear-shaped aryballos and an animal head made of glass paste (amulet?). An intact silver pin, a fragment of a bronze miniature shield, bronze spiral earrings and plaques bearing geometric decoration in relief were also found. Of great interest is the observation that some sherds from the destruction layer of the north retaining wall join with or belong to sherds which originate not only from the cella and the eastern room Γ, as one would expect, but – at least in one case – from the adyton as well.

bowls19), Corinthian (mostly Early and Middle) [pl. 18B] including an interesting alabastron depicting a winged female deity which is approached by a female worshipper,20 Attic black-glazed and blackfigure vases, some of high quality and of well-known painters [pl. 18C].21 The shapes include many toilet vessels, such as plemochoai [see pl. 18B],22 pyxides and aryballoi, alabastra, squat lekythoi, as well as kylikes [see pl. 18C], miniature skyphoi, kotylai, bowls, lekanes, amphorae and amphoriskoi, oinochoai, etc. A Corinthian plastic vase in the shape of a hare was also found.23 The first impression is that the Corinthian imports span the period c. 600-575/570 BC and the Attic series follow from 565 to the end of the 6th century BC, though this impression may prove to be wrong since the majority of the pottery has not been examined in detail yet.

The finds from the adyton

Several fragmentary and fewer complete female terracotta figurines of the seated type were also found. The oldest is a polophoros of the well-known East Ionian type,24 but the majority date to the Classical period [pl. 18D].

The cella was excavated down to the original ground level (there was no fill) and research here led to the discovery of a few but interesting votive offerings. In contrast, the adyton had not suffered the slightest disturbance and on the beaten-earth floor, as well as in the destruction fill above it, numerous precious votive offerings were found in situ [pl. 17E-F]. The finds consist of more than 1000 objects, mainly jewels and small finds, many of fragile materials, but also a number of complete vases, some in a fragmentary state due to the collapse of the temple’s roof.16 More specifically, on the ground of the adyton, as well as in the destruction fill which covered it, the following categories of, mostly, intact finds were found:

19

R.M. Cook and P. Dupont, East Greek Pottery (London and New York 1998), 26-28; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 304-305 nos 300307. 20 Dated between 640 and 600 BC. Cf. J.L. Benson, ‘Human figures and narrative in later Protocorinthian vase painting’, Hesperia 64 (1995), 163-177. 21 For example, a black-glazed Siana cup, repaired in antiquity, is decorated on the exterior with a symposium scene and an equestrian contest while the tondo is decorated with a Triton; the artist, may be securely identified with the Painter of Taranto, and dates to c. 565 BC. The closest parallel: Hanover 1959.1. J. Beazley, Paralipomena, Suppl. ABV (Oxford 1971), 24.32bis; H.A.G. Brijder, Comast Cups and Siana Cups I (Amsterdam 1983), pl. 29a; CVA Hanover 1, 36-38, pls 25.5-6, 29.1-2. I thank Dr D. Paleothodoros and Prof. H.A.G. Brijder for their valuable comments concerning this vase. For repairs of vases of the same painter see Brijder, op.cit., nos 140, 143, 181, 193, 195, 208 and H.A.G. Brijder, Siana Cups II: The Heidelberg Painter (Amsterdam 1991), 481, Add. no. 20. 22 Plassart, Délos XI, 181 fig. 150, 181 fig. 152; Ducat, op.cit. n. 17, pl. XXXVI, no. 524a-b, XXXVIA-D; Ch. PapadopoulouKanellopoulou, Συλλογή Καρόλου Πολίτη (Athens 1989), 98, no. 99; Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 54 no. 75, 56 no. 76, 73 no. 104, and esp. 254 no. 412 (where the bibliography concerning the problem of terminology of these vases is assembled: see mainly I. Scheibler, ‘Exaleiptra’, JdI 79 (1964), 72-108; id., ‘Kothon Exaleiptron. Addenda’, AA 1968, 389-397; B. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Agora XII: Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th Centuries B.C. (Princeton 1950), 180ff). 23 Parallels in Payne, Perachora I, 236-237, pl. 106, no. 205; J. Ducat, ‘Les vases plastiques corinthiens’, BCH 87 (1963), 433; C. Tsakos, Δήλος-Μύκονος (Athens 1998), fig. 87; Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 67, fig. 20. 24 Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 513-515, pl. 96, nos 2119-2125; Plassart, Délos XI, 161 fig. 117, 162 fig. 118; Rubensohn, Delion, pl. 23 (T2-3); Payne, Perachora I, pl. 114, no. 283; Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 163 nos 254-255, 243 nos 394-395; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 388-389 nos 590-595. For a parallel from Despotiko see Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 68, fig. 23.

The rooms contained numerous complete but also a few fragmentary clay vases, imported from various regions of the Aegean world. Most of them bear painted decoration and figure scenes. The following characteristic categories may be mentioned: Parian (‘Melian’) [pl. 18A],17 Chian,18 East Greek (Bird

16

In 2003, despite the fact that it was believed that the investigation had been completed, about 30 votive offerings, belonging to the categories already known from the previous year, were found at floor level. We could mention two gold sheets bearing a representation of a procession of chariots, which are similar to the two sheets found in 2002, the coral bezel of a ring covered with gold, a melon-shaped amulet of gold, a golden rosette with an attachment of silver, ivory and bronze fibulae, an ivory pin, various beads and seals, etc. 17 Cf. Plassart, Délos XI, 170 figs 132-133. For a stemmed bowl see J. Ducat, EAD X: Les vases de l'Héraion (Paris 1928), pl. XVIIIc, no. 113. For the decoration ibid., pls II-IV and Rubensohn, Delion, pl. 19. 18 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 306-307 nos 308-312.

96

Kythnos

decorated with a sphinx sealing at the back [pl. 18G middle].38 Fragments from ostrich egg-shells were also found.39

An interesting group is formed by the numerous pendants and beads of amber,25 carnelian, rock crystal, glass paste26 (for instance of the triangular27 or rock cut Pendants types,28 as well as pendants in the form of bearded heads29), faience, semi-precious stones, belonging mostly to necklaces, many of which bear incised or relief representations. An amygdaloid talismanic carnelian bead with an incised representation of a ship belongs to the Late Bronze Age and comes from Minoan Crete [pl. 18E middle top].30 Several of the rock crystal amulets are vaseshaped31 or lentoid,32 and presumably date to the Archaic period, but other types, such as the flattened33 or round beads,34 [pl. 18F] as well as the polyhedral obelisks may also belong to the Bronze Age.35 The latter, however, are also encountered in Early Iron Age contexts.36

Scaraboids, seals and gems of various materials, especially of semi-precious stones, faience and bone or ivory, were also common [see pl. 18E]. These include island gems, ivory discs (sphinx, goat etc.)40 and ‘couchant animals’ [pl. 18H upper corners].41 A

13-15 dic. 1996 (Bari 2000) and for the Greek world: A. Hermary, ‘Le corail dans le monde grec antique: les témoignages archéologiques’, in ibid., 135-138. Corals are found as offerings in sanctuaries of Demeter and Kore in Corinth, Tocra, Eleusis (Kokkou-Vyridi, Ελευσίς, pl. 61, no. Β279), Poseidon at Isthmia, the Heraia at Perachora, Argos, Delos, Samos, Foce del Sele (Payne, Perachora I, 77; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 525-527, pl. 195 (J1-16); H. Kyrieleis, ‘Offerings of the common man in the Heraion at Samos’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 215-222, 218, fig. 6; Baumbach, Votive Offerings, 26-27, 84-85, 138, 157-158), Athena at Lindos and Kameiros (?), Artemision of Ephesos, Megara Hyblaia, and the Aphrodision at Gravisca. 38 Rough parallels: Lefkandi (M.R. Popham and I.S. Lemos, Lefkandi III (London 1996), pls 135 and 142d: Sub-Protogeometric), Zagora (A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 2 (Athens 1988), 235, pls 291-292: 25th Dynasty), Delion of Paros (Rubensohn, Delion, pl. 13:8; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 577 no. 1162), Lindos (Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 100-101, pl. 10 no. 203), Perachora (Dunbabin, Perachora II, pl. 192, D501). See also A.T. Reyes, The Stamp-Seals of Ancient Cyprus (Oxford 2001), 34-40, 208212. 39 M. Astruc, ‘Exotisme et localisme. Étude sur les coquilles d’oeufs d’autruche décorés d’Ibiza’, ArchPrehistLev 1957, 47112; Stampolidis and Karetsou, op.cit. n. 34, 218 no. 249; Moscati, op.cit. n. 29, 508-523; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 500-503 nos 945-951; Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 70, fig. 28 (Despotiko, Aphrodision and Demeter sanctuaries on Thera, Samian Heraion, etc.). 40 Dated usually in the 7th century BC, found as a rule in Peloponnesian sanctuaries (e.g. Perachora, Prosymna, Apollo Maleatas, Tegea, Sparta: see Dunbabin, Perachora II, pls 175-182, A23-112; Waldstein, Argive Heraion II, 351 nos 4-5, pls CXXXIX, 1-27; V. Lambrinoudakis‚ ‘Το ιερό του Απόλλωνος Μαλεάτα στην Επίδαυρο και η χρονολογία των κορινθιακών αγγείων’, ASAtene 60 (n.s. 44) (1982), 54, fig. 11; R.M. Dawkins, ‘Laconia II. Excavations at Sparta 1906’, BSA 12 (1905-06), 318330, 320, fig. 2; Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pls CXL-CXLVII; Voyatzis, Tegea, pl. 186). In general see J. Boardman, Greek Gems and Finger Rings (London 1970), 114-117; A. Foley, The Argolid 800-600 B.C. (Göteborg 1988), 118-119. 41 Cf. similar finds from the Heraia of Argos, Perachora (Dunbabin, Perachora II, pl. 174, A11-22), the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia in Sparta (Dawkins, op.cit. n. 40, 318-330, fig. 2; Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pls CXLIX-CLX), the Alea sanctuary at Tegea (Voyatzis, Tegea, pl. 186; ead, ‘Votive types recently found at Tegea’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults (Stockholm 2002), 162, fig. 9), of Apollo at Rakita (M. Petropoulos, ‘Τρίτη ανασκαφική περίοδος στο Άνω Μαζαράκι (Ρακίτα) Αχαϊας’, in Πρακτικά Γ' Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Καλαμάτα, 8-15 Σεπτεμβρίου 1985 (Athens 1987/88), pl. ΙΔ, fig. 24β; Gadolou, Αχαΐα, fig. 98 [Μ142]), Siphnos (J.K. Brock, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), pl. 10, no. 14; Z. Papadopoulou, Σιφνίων Άστυ (Athens 2002), 10, fig. 12), the Delion on Paros (Stampolidis, Πλόες, 577 no. 1164), the Artemision of Ephesos (Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XXVI, nos 1b, 5a-b), etc. The oldest date in the late 8th century BC, the majority in the 7th, fewer ones in the 6th (see Foley, op.cit. n. 40).

A substantial number of corals was also found, with silver wires and rings for their suspension [pl. 18G].37 One pendant in the form of a head is 25

Hogarth, Ephesus, 213ff, pls XLVII-XLVIII; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 520-525, pl. 195 (H4-40); A. Sakellarakis, ‘Some Geometric and Archaic votives from the Idean Cave’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 185, figs 21-22; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 558 no. 1106, 559 nos 1109, 1111-12, 560 no. 1113. 26 Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XLV, nos 1-37; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 519-520, pl. 194 (G6-24). 27 Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XLV, nos 7-9, 12-14, 18; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 94, pl. 10, no. 151; Rubensohn, Delion, pl. 10h; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 524 no. 1026, 526 no. 1030 (dated between the late 8th and the 7th centuries BC). Some were of stone, such as Dunbabin, Perachora II, 518, pl. 194 (F29-F31). 28 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 523 no. 1022 (from Thera). 29 T.E. Haevernick, ‘Gesichtsperlen’, MM 18 (1971), 52-231; V. Tatton-Brown, Rod-Formed Glass Pendants and Beads of the 1st Millennium B.C. (Harden 1981), 143-155; id., ‘Rod formed pendants’, Barag 1985, 115-117; M. Seefried, Les pendentifs en verre sur noyau des pays de la Méditerranée antique (Rome 1982); S. Moscati (ed.), The Phoenicians (London 2001), 296, 542-546; G.E. Markoe, Phoenicians (London 2000), 157-158, pl. IX. 30 J. Betts, ‘Ships on Minoan seals’, in D.J. Blackman (ed.), Marine Archaeology (London 1973), 325-338, fig. 10. Now see M. Wedde, Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery (Manheim and Möhnesee 2000). 31 Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 191 no. 319. 32 Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XLVI, nos 1-14. 33 R.B. Seager, Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (Boston and New York 1912), 78-79 (XXII.a). 34 Dunbabin, Perachora II, 519, pl. 194 (F34); N. Stampolidis and A. Karetsou (eds), Ανατολική Μεσόγειος. Κύπρος - Δωδεκάνησα Κρήτη. 16ος - 6ος αι. π.Χ. (Herakleion 1998), 263 no. 326; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 556 no. 1100 (Salamis on Cyprus, of the CA I period), 559 no. 1110 (Lefkandi, first half of the 9th century BC). 35 A. Evans, Cretan Pictograms and Prae-Phoenician Script (London and New York 1895), 105-136, esp. 110, fig. 90 (from Ag. Onoufrios, Phaistos). Perati: S. Iakovidis, Περατή, vol. 3 (Athens 1969), pl. 60 (Λ209). Rock crystal is found in Crete and was exploited already in the 3rd millenium BC: see S. Marinatos, ‘Η ορεία κρύσταλλος εν Κρήτη’, ΑΕphem 1931, 158-160. 36 P. Cintas, Amulettes Puniques (Tunis 1966), 112, pl. 69f-g; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 521 no. 1017, 558 no. 1107 (Tsikalario). 37 In general see J.-P. Morel, C. Rondi-Costanzo and D. Ugolini (eds), Corallo di ieri, corallo di oggi, Atti del Convegno, Ravello

97

A. Mazarakis Ainian

19E], Phrygian [pl. 19F],51 disc-shaped with central bosses52), pins (two with birds at the head [pl. 19G]53), small pins,54 spiral earrings,55 bracelets and finger rings, various amulets and pendants (in the form of tubes, pomegranates, poppy flowers, etc), Tshaped clamps,56 a round miniature shield [see pl. 17F],57 a wheel,58 a tweezer,59 a spiral head (?) ornament,60 an omphalos phiale [see pl. 17F].

few Egyptian scarabs of faience belong to the 22nd (945-713 BC) and 26th (664-525 BC) Dynasties. An important category is that including the c. 300 ivory and bone small finds. The most common finds were the c. 100 spectacle fibulae [pl. 19A],42 which until recently were not encountered very often in such numbers in Cycladic contexts.43 The type with four birds at the extremities is rarer.44 Fibulae of Italic type were also found.45 Other finds include miniature double axes, some decorated with incised circles [pl. 19B],46 cylindrical tubes,47 beads from necklaces, discs48 and various plaques [pl. 18H, low right].

More unexpected was the presence of numerous silver and gold jewels;61 more than 120 silver and 75 gold items have been recovered. The silver jewellery includes fibulae, pins, earrings [pl. 19H],62 rings, rosettes, tubular-shaped pendants and other amulets, including some unfamiliar types, such as a knucklebone63 and a double axe. The gold jewels consist mainly of amulets and pendants in the form of pome-

The metal finds constitute by far the largest category encountered inside the adyton. There were c. 100 iron objects, which are however badly preserved and their identification, with the exception of some pins and fibulae, is not easy. Bronze items predominate. We have inventoried c. 450 objects. These include fibulae (spectacle fibulae with bronze sheet [pl. 19H],49 island fibulae [pl. 19D],50 ‘Boeotian’ [pl.

51 Furtwängler, Olympia IV, pl. XXII, nos 373-377; U. Jantzen, ‘Phrygische Fibeln’, in N. Himmelmann (ed.), Festschrift für Friedrich Matz (Mainz 1962), 39-43; Buchner et al., Pithekoussai, pl. 130 nos 7-8; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 565 nos 1133-34. 52 Furtwängler, Olympia IV, pl. XXII, nos 378-379. 53 Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia, no. 832. 54 Boardman, Emporio, 223, fig. 145. 55 R. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery (London 1980), pls 18a-c, 24c, 25e (Archaic and Classical); Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XVIII, nos 34, 36, 38, 41; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 119, pl. 12, no. 275; Boardman, Emporio, 222, fig. 144, pl. 91; Kilian, Fibeln, pl. 70.2-10. 56 Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia, 117-118, pl. 111. 57 Philia (Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia, 167-168); Argive Heraion (Waldstein, Argive Heraion II, 267ff, pls 99-101); Olympia (Furtwängler, Olympia IV, pl. LXII, no. 1002); Tegea (Voyatzis, Tegea, 198-200; Voyatzis, ‘Tegea: Preliminary Report’, 123, fig. 79); Samos (A. Moustaka, ‘Ein Votivschild aus dem Heraion von Samos’, AM 109 (1994), 11-37; Ph. Brize, ‘Offrandes de l’époque géometrique et archaïque à l’Héraion de Samos’, in J. de La Grenière (ed.), Héra. Images, espaces, cultes (Naples 1997), 133, figs 18-19). See also M. Maaß, ‘Aegina. Aphaia-Tempel. Neue Funde von Waffenweihungen’, AA 1984, 277-278, fig. 11 (Aphaia). In general see Snodgrass, op.cit. n. 14, 41. 58 Kilian-Dirlmeier, op.cit. n. 46, 17-18, pls 4-5 (Type A); KilianDirlmeier, Philia, no. 922; Furtwängler, Olympia IV, pl. XXV; Voyatzis, Tegea, pl. 117, no. B152; I. Strøm, ‘The early sanctuary of the Argive Heraion and its external relations’, Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens 1 (1995), 67; Gadolou, Αχαΐα, fig. 96 (Μ1). They usually date in the Late Geometric and Early Archaic periods and are often found inside female burials. 59 Kilian-Dirlmeier, Philia, nos 1048-1059; J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford 1961), 31-32, pl. XIII, nos 127-134; Boardman, Emporio, 226; fig. 147. Buchner et al., Pithekoussai, pl. 159 no. 7. From Late Geometric to Late Archaic. 60 M. Andronikos, Βεργίνα Ι. Το νεκροταφείο των τύμβων (Athens 1969), 225-227; Kilian, Fibeln, pl. 65.5; Vokotopoulou, op.cit. n. 42, 153-154, pl. 248β, fig. 111α; Gadolou, Αχαΐα, fig. 100 (Μ70); D. Grammenos, Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Θεσσαλονίκης (Athens 2004), 78, middle. 61 Hogarth, Ephesus, pls IIIff; A. Bammer, ‘Gold und Elfenbein von einer neuen Kultbasis in Ephesos’, ÖJh 58 (1988), 1-23; A. Bammer, ‘Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesos’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence (Stockholm 1998), 27-47. 62 F.H. Marshall, ‘Tombs of Hellenic date at Praesos’, BSA 12 (1905-1906), 63-70, figs 3-4; Jacobsthal, Pins, 24-25, no. 96 (Arkades), no. 97 (Praisos). 63 Sakellarakis, op.cit. n. 25, 188, figs 25-28.

42

J. Alexander, ‘The spectacle fibulae of Southern Europe’, AJA 69 (1965), 7-23. Numerous have been found in sanctuaries: Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. XXXII, nos 1-12; U. Muss, ‘Das Artemision von Ephesos - Wege von und nach Westen’, in V. Gassner, M. Kerschner, U. Muss and G. Wlach (eds), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer (Wien 2000), 150, fig. 68; Boardman, Emporio, pl. 86; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 90-91, pl. 9, nos 133-134; I. Margreiter, Alt-Ägina II, 3. Die Kleinfunde aus dem ApollonHeiligtum (Mainz 1988), pl. 6, no. 107; Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pls LXXXII s, CXXXIII d; Waldstein, Argive Heraion II, pl. CXL, nos 32-33; Voyatzis, ‘Tegea: Preliminary Report’, 120, fig. 58; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 436, pls 183-185; Kokkou-Vyridi, Ελευσίς, pl. 60, no. Β250. See also Stampolidis, Πλόες, 544-546 nos 1074-76, 1078-79, 1081, as well as J. Vokotopoulou, Βίτσα. Τα νεκροταφεία μιας μολοσσικής κώμης (Athens 1986), 310-311. 43 E. Simantoni-Bournia, ‘Κοσμήματα από το ιερό των Υρίων Νάξου’, Archaiognosia 11 (2001-2002), 143-144; Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 71, fig. 29; Rubensohn, Delion, pls 11b-c, 13:2-4; Brock, op. cit. n. 41, pl. 11, nos 9-12; Papadopoulou, op.cit. n. 41, 10, fig. 13. 44 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 546 no. 1082 (from the Persephoneion at Locri). 45 Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pl. LXXXII a, b, e, f, i, k; Dunbabin, Perachora II, pl. 187 (A239-264); Buchner et al., Pithekoussai, pls 173, nos 2-3, 183, no. 28, 184, nos 2 and 6; Kilian, Fibeln, pl. 96.3-4; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 566-567 nos 1138, 1141-42. 46 I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhänger in Griechenland von der mykenischen bis zur spätgeometrischen Zeit (PBF XI.2, Munich 1979), pls 94-95; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 443, pl. 188 (A316318); Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pl. CLXIII; Voyatzis, Tegea, pls 123-125; M. Voyatzis, ‘Tegea: Preliminary Report’, 125 fig. 82, 138. 47 Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pl. CXXXVI, 2-5. 48 Exact parallels from Despotiko (Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 72, fig. 30; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 544 no. 1077), Delion of Paros (Rubensohn, Delion, pl. 11a). See also Perachora (Dunbabin, Perachora II, pl. 186). 49 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 566 no. 1136. 50 E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln (PBF XIV.4, 1978).

98

Kythnos

granates,64 poppies, biconical kernel- or vaseshaped65 beads, and various grains [pl. 20A-B]. Examples of other gold jewellery include a lunula or selinis,66 two double axes [pl. 20C],67 two pins,68 a twisted pendant, a bracelet of twisted wire,69 a ring decorated on the bezel with a scorpion in relief and five multi-petal rosettes (some of gilt silver) [pl. 20D].70 Four hammered sheets decorated with a procession of chariots probably decorated the sides of a small wooden box [pl. 20E].

found, especially outside the temple.74 Finally, unburnt animal bones belonging to small animals of young age, including 32 knucklebones, were found. A few bird bones were also noted. Date of the finds Most of the finds date to the 7th and 6th centuries BC, while some (for instance most of the seated female figurines) might belong to the 5th century BC. Some artefacts, especially pins and fibulae, can be dated to the Protogeometric and Geometric periods but this does not necessarily mean that the construction of the temple or the inauguration of the cult can be placed at such an early date. In fact, the total absence of finds within the extensive fill inside the temple’s foundations does not allow us, for the time being, to fix with precision its date of construction, although, judging by the pottery, it should not be placed earlier than the first quarter of the 7th century BC.

It is worth noting that no coins were found inside the adyton, though several of bronze and one of silver were recovered from the Hellenistic levels outside the temple.71 No alleged silver Kythnian coins were found.72 Thousands of seashells of the Cardiidae type, some of which bore a hole for their suspension with a silver wire (some may have formed necklaces73) were scattered inside the adyton. Fewer Cypraea were also

We have noted that a portion of the carnelian and rock crystal beads dates to the Bronze Age.75 The question of whether these were antiques or heirlooms cannot be answered at present.76 It is hoped that the continuation of the excavation will provide the final answer to these questions.

64 Despoini, Κοσμήματα, figs 111, 118; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 566 no. 1137 (Despotiko). In general see Fr. Muthmann, Der Granatapfel (Bern 1982); M. Byrne, ‘The pomegranate in Modern Greek folklore and Ancient Greek religion’, RArchHistArtLouvain 26 (1993), 165-169. See also J.V. O' Brien, The Transformation of Hera (London 1993), 63-66. 65 Melos: Williams and Ogden, op.cit. n. 13, 51, no. 2; KokkouVyridi, Ελευσίς, pl. 61: Β263; Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 45 no. 59; Dunbabin, Perachora II, 527, pl. 195 (L1); Despoini, Κοσμήματα, fig. 111 (from Argos). 66 Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. VII, nos 1-3; J.N. Coldstream, Knossos. The Sanctuary of Demeter (London 1973), 135-138. 67 Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pl. CCII, no. 2; Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 178 no. 285. 68 One is quite similar to Hogarth, Ephesus, pl. V, no. 11. 69 Ph. Zaphiropoulou, Νάξος. Τα μνημεία και το μουσείο (Athens 1988), 50, fig. 1; ead., ‘Καύσεις στις γεωμετρικές Κυκλάδες. Οι περιπτώσεις της Νάξου και της Πάρου’, in N. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Athens 2001), 287, fig. 10; G. Christakopoulou, ‘Πρωτογεωμετρικός τάφος στη Στάμνα Μεσολογγίου’, in ibid., 162, fig. 15; W. Seipel (ed.), Die Magie des Goldes. Antike Schätze aus Italien (Vienna 1966), 96, no. 124. 70 Dawkins, Artemis Orthia, pl. CCIII, no. 10; Payne, Perachora I, 185, pl. 84, nos 6-7; Vokotopoulou et al., Σίνδος, 266 nos 430433; N. Stampolidis, Ελεύθερνα. Από τη γεωμετρική και αρχαϊκή νεκρόπολη. Ταφικές πυρές και ομηρικά έπη (Rethymno 1994), 120121; Despoini, Κοσμήματα, fig. 19; Kokkou-Vyridi, Ελευσίς, pl. 60, nos Β254α-β, Β255-Β257. 71 K.A. Sheedy and Ch. Papageorgiadou, ‘The coinage of Cythnos’, in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos, 649657. 72 A. Kyrou and D. Artemis, ‘Ο κάπρος της Κύθνου. Αργυρά νομίσματα μιας νήσου των Κυκλάδων’, Νομισματικά Χρονικά 17 (1998), 43-58; iid., ‘The silver coinage of Kythnos in the early 5th century BC’, in R. Ashton and S. Hunter (eds), Studies in Greek Numismatics in the Memory of Martin Jessop Price (London 1998), 233-236. 73 Cf. J.A. Sakellarakis and E. Sakellarakis, Αρχάνες. Μια νέα ματιά στη μινωική Κρήτη (Athens 1997), fig. 643.

Identity of the venerated divinity It is premature to offer a substantiated interpretation concerning the identity of the divinity venerated in the Kythnos sanctuary. There is no doubt that it is a female Goddess, whose name remains a desideratum. However, since offerings in Archaic sanctuaries are as a rule non-diagnostic for the identification of the divinity worshipped, it is not possible at present to be

74 S. Huber, Eretria XIV: L'aire sacrificielle au nord du Sanctuaire d'Apollon Daphnéphoros: un rituel des époques géométrique et archaïque (Gollion 2003), 87, 125, no. 158. 75 J.A. Sakellarakis, ‘Kretisch-mykenische Siegel in griechischen Heiligtümern’, in U. Jantzen (ed.), Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern. Internationales Symposion in Olympia vom 10.-12. Oktober 1974. Anlässlich der Hundertjahrfeier der Abteilung Athen und der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Olympia (Tübingen 1976), 283-308. 76 Ibid., 307-308; J.P. Crielaard, ‘Surfing on the Mediterranean web: Cypriot long-distance communications during the eleventh and tenth centuries B.C.’, in V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis (eds), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete, 16th 6th cent. B.C. (Athens 1998), 190; J. Whitley, ‘Objects with attitude: biographical facts and fallacies in the study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age warrior graves’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12 (2002), 226; Baumbach, Votive Offerings, 26.

99

A. Mazarakis Ainian

more precise.77 On the basis of the character of the votives and the secondary characteristics of the worship, one could suggest Artemis or Aphrodite, even though at present other divinities such as Athena, Demeter or Hera are equally possible candidates. Moreover, one cannot exclude the simultaneous presence of a male deity in the same sanctuary.78 In order to reach some tentative conclusions one has to take into account the evidence for cults which derive from the survey and the scant epigraphic sources.

Demeter at Eleusis,80 constitute clear proof of the close links between the two sanctuaries. In the lower plateau which follows the ridge of the hill (Middle Terrace, +112/+110m above sea level), at mid-distance between the acropolis and the sanctuary that is currently being excavated, several structures can be seen, including two monumental rectangular buildings [fig. 5]. The southern (Building 1), measuring 17.00 by 11.60 m, was presumably entered from the east long side [pl. 21B]. It was divided into two rooms which opened onto a stoa of Doric order. Against the east wall there was a cistern which communicated with a basin. Nearby, a semicircular worked marble block is all that remains from an exedra. The northern structure (Building 2) is larger, measuring 20.20 by 8.50 m, but its internal divisions are not visible above ground level [pl. 22A]. Both buildings were perhaps temples, though a secular public function cannot be overruled. However, the religious function is strengthened by the existence of a rectangular Π-shaped altar for burnt sacrifices nearby (estimated length 7.00 m, width 2.90 m [pl. 22B]) and also by the finds of the vicinity, which include an inscribed stele dedicated to the Gods of Samothrace (IG XII 5, 1057) and of a marble statue of a female draped figure of the Hellenistic period [see fig. 5]. This, according to P. Themelis who studied the statue, could belong to a colossal statue of Aphrodite Anadyomene, which, as attested by an honorific decree found at Messene, was the work of Damophon, who was active towards the beginning of the 2nd century BC.81 In 1994, our team discovered further down the hill, near the harbour, an inscribed base of the 4th century BC, belonging to a small statue, also dedicated to Aphrodite.82 The hypothesis that Kythnos had close ties with Cyprus is also based on Herodotus’ account (vi.90), according to which the oldest inhabitants of the island, the Dryopians, were forced to migrate to Cyprus when the Ionians from Athens settled the island.83

The survey, as well as the written sources, has allowed us to identify a series of sanctuaries within the walls of the ancient capital of Kythnos.79 One lies on the summit of the acropolis. The rocky hill (+144.75 m above sea level) occupies the southeast corner of the city [pl. 21A]. The sanctuary was dedicated to a female divinity (one black-glazed sherd of the Classical period bears the inscription IEPA). The location of the sanctuary, the architectural layout and the character of the finds suggest that it was dedicated to Demeter, perhaps as Thesmophoros. The finds, date from the end of the Late Geometric period to the 1st century AD, but the bulk of the material dates to the Archaic and Classical periods. Votives include numerous terracotta figurines of children (mostly girls), dolls with movable members, and women, a large proportion of which is of the hydriaphoros type, and a few pig terracotta figurines. There were also miniature vases of Corinthian and Attic manufacture, including several pieces of miniature hydriai. The majority of the finds consists of single, double and multi-nozzled lamps (Rhodian and East Greek types in the Archaic period, Attic imports in the Classical period, Rhodian, Ephesian and Knidian in the Hellenistic period and Corinthian in the Roman period). The pottery (mostly Attic, black-figure and red-figure) is of fine quality. Among the most characteristic finds are enormous multi-nozzled ring-lamps or bowls, with or without a stand, which appear to date to the Archaic period and could be imports from Rhodes or Ionia. Several small hydriai were attached to the shoulder of vases, while the presence of a few fragments of imported Eleusinian kernoi, and the mention of a TE[ΜΕΝΟΣ ΜΙΣ]ΘΟΣΙΝ ΕΚ ΚΥΘΝΟ on a well-known inscription of the late 5th century BC found in the sanctuary of

It is possible that the southern edifice (Building 1), with its unusual plan, was related to the cult of the Gods of Samothrace. If the identification of the statue with Damophon’s Aphrodite proves to be correct, the northern edifice (Building 2) could repre-

77 Such questions are discussed for instance in F. de Polignac, ‘Divinités, offrandes et sanctuaires: le cas d'Héra et Artémis’, Poikilia 1995, 43-48; Baumbach, Votive Offerings. 78 The twin oikoi and the position of the altars in relation to them are suggestive on this point: this may have been due to the lack of space in front of the temple, but also because they served more than one divinity. See Bergquist, op.cit. n. 15, 78-79; Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό’, 44 (Building Γ). 79 Brief description in Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 137-209; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’, 370-373.

80 B. Cavanaugh, Eleusis and Athens. Documents in Finance, Religion and Politics in the Fifth Century B.C. (Atlanta 1996), 190. 81 P. Themelis, ‘Ο Δαμοφών στην Κύθνο’, in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, Kea-Kythnos, 437-448. 82 Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 185-186, fig. 36; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’, 373, 424 fig. 49. 83 For the cult of Aphrodite on Kythnos see Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 183-187; Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Kythnos Survey’, 372373.

100

Kythnos

Figure 5. Topographical plan of the south part of the Middle Plateau.

sent the deity’s temple. One, however, cannot exclude the possibility that other gods were worshiped here instead, since Artemis and far more often Apollo appear on the Kythnian coins of the Hellenistic period. The sanctuary of the former could have also been located in the summit of the Northern Plateau, where a few female seated terracotta figurines were found, including one of a standing hydriaphoros.

Importance of conclusions

the

excavation

and

tentative

The wealth as well as the variety and provenance of several finds from the sanctuary and the adyton in particular, lead towards a revision of our knowledge of ancient Kythnos, which, until recently, was exclusively based on the scarce literary and epigraphic evidence. The Kythnos discovery proves that, despite the silence of the latter,85 the island’s capital was an important port of trade in the sea routes between East and West. The sanctuary appears to have been visited by foreigners and would have enjoyed relative fame in the Aegean area.

It therefore becomes apparent that in order to settle the question of the identity of the divinity (or divinities) worshipped in the sanctuary of the north extremity of the Middle Plateau we need to excavate the remaining sanctuaries of Kythnos or stand lucky and fall upon an inscription. The few graffiti that we have found so far are not very helpful towards elucidating this point.84

2005 the inscribed base of an Archaic cup, preserving the letters AΡ was found; one is tempted to read “Artemis”, though other readings cannot be excluded. 85 A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Αρχαία Κύθνος. Ιστοριογραφία και αρχαιολογικές έρευνες’, in Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian, KeaKythnos, 52.

84

A fragmentary Hellenistic vase bears the inscription ---]ΑΔΙ ([Πολι]άδι ;). Two black-glazed cups are inscribed ΙΕΡΑ (a similar graffito was found on the Acropolis: Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Κύθνος’, 161, fig. 13.1). A red-figure dinos reads: ---]ΚΕΝ ([ανέθη]κεν). In

101

A. Mazarakis Ainian

456 BC).93 An additional indication that the finds within the adyton were accessible at the time of the destruction and placed in an orderly fashion is provided by the fact that the fallen roof tiles reached the deeper levels of the room and were scattered among the numerous votives, while the latter had spread over the threshold as well. The study of the spatial distribution of the finds will allow the reconstruction of the original location and distribution of the votives inside the adyton, as well as the identification of further groups of related finds (for example, the necklaces, and the jewels which were perhaps placed inside various vases).

However, the importance of the discovery lies in the context in which the precious and varied votives were found. Indeed, to my knowledge, this is the first Greek temple to be excavated with all the contents of the inner sanctum untouched and in place within it. In the Cyclades, the only other temple which definitely possessed an adyton, though much disturbed, was that of Dionysos at Yria on Naxos,86 while Temple Β in the city of Paros, perhaps dedicated to Apollo Pythios, is usually considered to have possessed one as well.87 In the mainland, at the Temple of Artemis Limnatis at Kombothekra, several of the votives were contained inside the adyton.88 Thousands of miniature kotylai were found in the back chamber of the Temple of Apollo at Halieis and the middle room behind the cella may have served for ritual activities,89 while two votive deposits were also found inside the adyton of the Aphrodision at Monte Iato.90

On the other hand the flimsy cross wall which separates the adyton from the cella does not bond with the exterior walls and therefore appears to represent an addition to the original planning of the temple. One can not exclude the possibility that the cross wall was constructed just after the temple or that it simply was not meant to hold any pressure; however, it appears more likely that the separation of the adyton from the cella was a rather late development in the architectural history of the temple, doubtless an addition to the original layout.94 The fact that several objects found within the sacred chamber were fragmentary (especially the clay vases) suggests that these were recovered from the debris of the temple following a destruction and placed with care inside the adyton at a second stage. This event could be associated with the late 3rd century BC repair of the temple, when the northern oikos was left in a ruinous state and the southern one repaired.

From the excavation data it seems practically certain that the votives were placed in an orderly fashion within the adyton at the time that the destruction occurred. The discovery of several iron bits, including nails, alongside the walls suggests that there may have been wooden shelves all around, while certain objects may have been fixed directly on the walls.91 Others would have been contained in baskets or wooden boxes,92 while some may have been contained inside clay vessels, mostly lekanes. Some of the terracotta figurines may have been suspended from the roof, as Pausanias relates regarding the Temple of Asklepios at Sikyon (ii.10.30), while there appears at first sight that several offerings would have been hung over and around the entrance of the chamber, as implied by an inscription referring to the offerings kept in the opisthodomos of the Temple of Mnia (Damia) and Auxesia at Oia on Aigina (after

It is often considered that temples with adyta housed chthonic cults, but this has not been ascertained yet.95 It is also likely that in certain cases an adyton would have served as a repository for sacred symbols and occasionally as a place where the cult image would have stood.96 Temples with an adyton are found all over the Greek world, especially during the Archaic period, and are not restricted to specific divinities. In Homer the adyton seemingly marks the temple as a whole (“™n meg£lJ ¢dÚtJ”, Il. 5, 448). In the Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo the phrase “™j

86 See above n. 7. Concerning the votives, which were concentrated in the area of the threshold, see Simantoni-Bournia, op.cit. n. 43, 141-153. 87 G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972-1980’, AA 1982, 159-195; D. Berranger, Recherches sur l'histoire et la prosopographie de Paros à l'époque archaïque (Clermont-Ferrand 1992), 241. 88 U. Sinn, ‘Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra’, AM 96 (1981), 25-71. 89 M.H. Jameson, ‘The excavation of a drowned Greek temple’, Scientific American 234 (1974), 117. 90 H.P. Isler, Studia Ietina II: Der Tempel der Aphrodite (Zurich 1984), 13. 91 W.H.D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902), 342347; F. Van Straten, ‘Votives and votaries in Greek sanctuaries’, in A. Schachter and J. Bingen (eds), op.cit. n.15, 248, 250ff; B. Alroth, ‘The positioning of Greek votive figurines’, in Early Greek Cult Practice, 196, 201, n. 9; E.R. Gebhard, ‘Small dedications in the Archaic Temple of Poseidon at Isthmia’, ibid., 109-110. Cf. the Parthenon: D. Harris, The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion (Oxford 1995), 1-3, fig. 1; IG IV, 1588. 92 Gebhard, op.cit, n. 91, 109, n. 97, 110.

93

Jacobsthal, Pins, 97-100. Something similar was observed at Yria, where only the fourth temple was provided with an adyton, c. 580/570 BC. 95 J. Travlos, ‘Τρεις ναοί της Αρτέμιδος Αυλιδίας, Ταυροπόλου και Αυλιδίας’, in Jantzen (ed.), op.cit. n. 75, 197-205; L. Kahil, ‘L'Artémis de Brauron: rites et mystère’, AntK 20 (1977), 96. In general see Thalmann, Adyton, 171-175; Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 198. E. Schwandner remarks that that there is a connection between temples with adyton and prostyle porch (Die altere Porostempel von Aigina (Berlin 1985), 108, 111). 96 More often in Sicily than elsewhere: Thalmann, Adyton, 116, 146ff. 94

102

Kythnos

storage.102 There is no evidence for door fittings and one even wonders whether there ever existed a door which would have provided security for the precious objects contained inside.103 One suspects that access to the temple was restricted from the front cella door. Indeed, despite the fact that the cella was empty due to illegal digging, we have reached the conclusion that it would have contained several votives as well. Moreover, the axial positioning of the clay base inside the adyton in correlation with the similar positioning of the entrance, suggests that what once stood upon it could be viewed from the outside.104

¥duton katšduse” (v.443) suggests that its floor was lower than that of the rest of the temple. This is undoubtedly the case of the Kythnian adyton, though there are exceptions to the rule, as at Yria97 and the North Triolo at Selinous.98 In the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (v.246-248) the word denotes the storeroom of the house, in which precious and rare objects are kept. According to Herodotus (i.159.3 and vii.140.3) and Plato (Tht. 162a) the adyton served for prophecy and mantike.99 The knucklebones, which were found in significant numbers inside the Kythnos adyton, could suggest something of the sort, although these could equally, or even more probably, be explained as pieces of a game. Pindar’s remark (O.7.59 and P.11.6) that the adyton is a treasury which smells of perfume brings us close to the impression gained from the Kythnos excavation.

From the results briefly given above it has become obvious that the excavations in the ancient town of Kythnos have led to an important discovery, since it is extremely rare to find an unplundered inner sanctum of a Greek temple. This success is due to the preceding intensive survey which has provided the basis for the laying out of the precise aims of the excavation programme and has led to the extensive knowledge of the archaeological site. The formation of an experienced research team enabled us to successfully identify the first area to be excavated and allowed the adequate preparation of the excavation and the planning in advance of the necessary technical and material infrastructure. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the Kythnos discovery will undoubtedly enrich our knowledge about the function of the adyton of the Greek temple in the Archaic period, M. Hollinshead’s remark that “finds and furnishings from temples with inner rooms are so sporadic and chronologically varied as to be of little value to this broad survey” still remains valid.105

A controversy concerns the function of the adyton. It can be argued that small spaces, such as the one at Kythnos, were not fit for sacred ceremonies. Indeed, one can imagine how crowded with votives the adyton of Kythnos would have been and how difficult it would have been for priests and worshippers to enter and perform a ceremony. Thus one could reach the conclusion that the specific adyton was created at some stage in order to protect the precious votives, as well as the venerable xoanon, from being stolen.100 On the other hand, why should pottery of low quality, animal bones101 and sea shells be kept in the adyton if its primary function was to protect the precious offerings? Moreover, the fact that the entrance to the Kythnos adyton is axially placed, while usually it is off-centre, suggests that it was not merely a place for

Alexander Mazarakis Ainian Department of History, Archaeology and Social Anthropology University of Thessaly GR- 382 21 Volos

97

Simantoni-Bournia, op.cit. n. 7, 193. Thalmann, Adyton, 127; Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 206. 99 RE Suppl. IV, cols 51-56, s.v. ‘Astragalomanteia’. According to Pausanias (vi.24.7) knucklebones were also connected with the cult of Aphrodite. 100 Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 204. 101 Animal bones and ashes were also found in the adyton of the temple of Hera at Selinous (Alroth, op.cit. n. 91, 203). 98

102

Thalmann, Adyton, 99ff, 121ff; Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 202. Similar remarks for Selinous: ibid., 206. 104 Thalmann, Adyton, 149-150; Hollinshead, ‘Adyton’, 207-210 concerning all these questions. 105 Ibid., 206. 103

103

A. Mazarakis Ainian

104

6 Despotiko Mandra: a sanctuary dedicated to Apollo Yannos Kourayos

This article presents the earliest results of a new excavation on the Cycladic island of Despotiko. Excavations began in 1997, funded by the Ministry of the Aegean, and have continued annually to date. In 2001-2003 more intensive seasons were conducted in collaboration with a group of student volunteers from Greek and American universities.∗

Despotiko [pl. 23A] lies to the west of Paros and Antiparos, at a strategic position in the centre of the Cyclades. The site of Mandra is located on the island’s northeast corner. Mandra is home to a large herd of goats, and the site is named after the animal pens that have been located there since the 19th century.1 Despotiko is situated close to Paros and Siphnos, two of the most important Cycladic islands since antiquity, on the commercial sea routes linking mainland Greece with the Greeks of the eastern Aegean and the Asia Minor coast. The island meas-

I would like to acknowledge the support of our colleagues who enabled and improved the present work, especially the student volunteers of the Despotiko Mandra Excavation. The excavation team included: Sophia Detoratou, Bryan Burns (small finds), Robert F. Sutton, Eleni Hasaki (ceramic analysts), Marina Yeroulanou (architecture), Athina Pitta (assistant archaeologist 2004), Georgios Gavalas and Kornilia Daifa (assistant archaeologists 2003), Efthimia Hatzi (assistant archaeologist 2002), Nikos Papandreou (assistant archaeologist 2001), Vasileios Galanakos (conservator 2003-2004), Katerina Karakasi, Maria Restou and Tatiana Poulou (archaeologists), Stella Papagrigoriou and David Scahill (architectural drafting 2001), Douglas Weibel (architectural drafting 2002) and Katie Swinford (architectural drafting 2002-2003). I would also like to acknowledge the contribution to the completion of this article of Prof. I. Petrocheilos’ publication An Archaic Head from Despotiko (Ioannina 1985).

Στρογγυλό’, in Η συμβολή του Υπουργείου Αιγαίου στην έρευνα και ανάδειξη του πολιτισμού του Αρχιπελάγους (Athens 2001), 104-109. Kourayos and Detoratou, ‘Πάρος’ = Y. Kourayos and S. Detoratou, ‘Πάρος η αρχαιολογική έρευνα των τελευταίων δεκαετιών’, Περίαπτο 2000, 47-49. Maximova, Vases Plastiques = M.I. Maximova, Les Vases plastiques dans l’antiquité (Paris 1927). Payne, Necrocorinthia = H.G.G. Payne, Necrocorinthia; A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (Oxford 1931). Perachora II = T.J. Dunbabin et al., Perachora II: Pottery, Ivories, Scarabs and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia (Oxford 1962). Richter, Korai = G.M.A. Richter, Korai: Archaic Greek Maidens (London 1968). Richter, Kouroi = G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youth (London 1970). Rubensohn, Delion = O. Rubensohn, Das Delion von Paros (Wiesbaden 1962). Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’ = M. Schuller, ‘Die dorische Architektur der Kykladen in spätarchaischer Zeit’, JdI 100 (1985), 319-398. Schuller, Artemistempel = M. Schuller, Der Artemistempel im Delion auf Paros (DAA 18.1, Berlin 1991). Stampolidis and Karetsou = N. Stampolidis and A. Karetsou, Ανατολική Μεσόγειος: Κύπρος – Δωδεκάνησα – Κρήτη 16os 6os αι. π.Χ. (Herakleion 1998). Stampolidis, Πλόες = N.Ch. Stampolidis, Πλόες…Από την Σιδώνα στη Χουέλβα. Σχέσεις λαών της Μεσογείου 16ος-6ος αι. π.Χ. (Athens 2003). 1 J.T. Bent, The Cyclades, or Life Among the Insular Greeks (London 1885), 413-425.

Abbreviations Blinkenberg, Fibules = Ch. Blinkenberg, Lindiaka V. Fibules greques et orientales (Copenhagen 1926). Blinkenberg, Lindos I = Ch. Blinkenberg, Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1902-1914 I: les petits objets (Berlin 1931). Deonna, Mobilier = W. Deonna, EAD XVIII: Le Mobilier Délien (Paris 1938). Dugas, Vases = Ch. Dugas, EAD X: Les vases de L’Héraion (Paris 1928). Higgins, Terracottas I = R.A. Higgins, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities I, British Museum (London 1954). Higgins, Terracottas II = R.A. Higgins, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities II, British Museum (London 1959). Karakasi, Koren = K. Karakasi, Archaische Koren (Los Angeles 2003). Kourayos, ‘Ανάδειξη’ = Y. Kourayos, ‘Ανάδειξη αρχαιολογικών χώρων της Πάρου και των νησίδων Δεσποτικό, Τσιμιντήρι,

105

Y. Kourayos

b. c.

ures 6600 m.sq. and has been identified with ancient Prepesinthos, following a list of Cycladic islands mentioned by Strabo in Geographica and by Pliny in Historia Naturalis.2 Surrounding the island are two uninhabited islets: Strongylo to the west and Tsimintiri to the east. Tsimintiri has revealed traces of ancient occupation. Remains of burials may explain its name as a variant of ‘Koimitiri’ (resting place).3 Strongylo preserves the remains of several buildings, dating from the Archaic to the Hellenistic periods.4

d.

two cornice block fragments; two large fragments of Doric capitals corresponding to a maximum upper column diameter of 0.40 m, with an abacus width of 0.71 m; and an unfluted column shaft, 0.49 m in diameter, preserved to a height of 0.52 m.10

Based on the profile of the capitals he dated these members to the end of the Archaic period. In terms of style, he placed them between those of the Heraion of Delos and the Temple of Artemis in Paros, providing a date of just after 500 BC. The combined use of certain features seems typical of other Doric buildings in the Cyclades. For example, the lack of guttae on the mutules is also found on the Temple of Artemis on Paros,11and the use of unfluted columns with Doric capitals is often encountered on Paros and Delos.12

Despotiko was first explored in the late 19th century by Chr. Tsountas, who excavated Early Cycladic cemeteries at Livadi and Zoumbaria, as well as cist graves on Antiparos.5 N. Zaphiropoulos excavated twenty prehistoric tombs at Zoumbaria in 1959.6 The architectural remains of an ancient sanctuary were first reported by Bursian.7 During his brief excavation at the site Mandra, Zaphiropoulos uncovered various marble architectural elements.8 He interpreted the standing architecture as part of a structure, most likely a Roman house, whose construction included reused marble blocks of the Classical period. Inside and around this structure he found marble architectural members, such as triglyphs, cornice fragments, capitals and a large threshold, all of which he attributed to an Archaic Doric temple. When M. Schuller visited the site in 1980, architectural elements were only visible on the surface as the area excavated by Zaphiropoulos had been covered. The walls of the animal pen had been expanded, using building materials recovered from the ancient constructions. Schuller attributed the architectural elements to a single structure, due to their complementary dimensions:9 a. three triglyphs, with a width of 0.38-0.40 m and height of 0.72 m;

Excavations on Despotiko started in 1997 funded by the Ministry of the Aegean.13 Short annual excavation campaigns revealed the marble walls of a large room measuring 8 by 8 m, which seemed to belong to a larger structure. Numerous architectural members, found outside their original context, were accumulated in the northeast area of this room; among them were a large threshold block that must have belonged to the room and a large base with the impression of a column. In 2001 we organised a programme with student volunteers. During this season, more of the marble walls were uncovered to reveal a single elongated structure, Building A [fig. 1, pl. 23B]. This large construction consists of five rectangular rooms, named A1-A5 from north to south. Although they are of different dimensions, all rooms share a western wall that measures 30 m in length and 0.40 m in width. This wall is preserved to a maximum height of 1.70 m and is built – as are all side walls separating the rooms – with well-cut blocks of local stone of various sizes set in a double skin construction over a very stable foundation. The Archaic phase of the building has been disturbed by later constructions.

2 Strabo x.5.3; Pliny, Nat.Hist. iv.66; RE Suppl. X, 666. For a modern geographical description of Despotiko, see A. Philippson, Die griechischen Landschaften IV: Das ägäische Meer und seine Inseln (Frankfurt 1959), 118. 3 Y. Kourayos and S. Detoratou, ‘Au coeur des Cyclades le marbre de Paros’, Archeologia 347 (1998), 27; Kourayos and Detoratou, ‘Πάρος’, 47-49; ADelt 54 (1999) in press; Kourayos, ‘Ανάδειξη’, 108. cf. N. Zaphiropoulos, ADelt 16 (1960) A, 247. 4 Kourayos, ‘Ανάδειξη’; Kourayos and Detoratou, ‘Πάρος’, 47-49; Y. Kourayos and S. Detoratou, ADelt 54 (1999) in press. 5 C. Tsountas, ‘Cycladica’, AEphem (1898), 136-211. For the prehistoric occupation of these islands, see C. Renfrew, The Emergence of Civilisation: the Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. (London 1972), 517; D. Leekley and R. Noyes, Archaeological Excavations in the Greek Islands (Park Ridge NJ 1975); C. Broodbank, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge 2000), 222. 6 Zaphiropoulos, op.cit. n. 3, 246-247. 7 C. Bursian, Geographie von Griechenland II (Leipzig 18681872), 482. 8 Zaphiropoulos, op.cit. n. 3, 247. 9 Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 353-357.

10

On the top surface there is a 7-cm-diameter cutting that fits perfectly with the incision of the capital. 11 Schuller, Artemistempel, 94-97. 12 A. Plassart, EAD XI: Les Sanctuaires et les cultes du Mont Cynthe (Paris 1928), 184ff; Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 340347. 13 Kourayos and Detoratou 1998, op.cit. n. 3, 27; Kourayos and Detoratou, ‘Πάρος’, 47-49; Kourayos, in the Chronika of ADelt 1999, 2000, 2001 (forthcoming); Kourayos, ‘Ανάδειξη’, 108; S. Masouridi, ‘Αρχαιολογικές ανακαλύψεις στο Δεσποτικό’, Corpus 36 (2002), 6-8; Y. Kourayos, ‘Δεσποτικό. Η ανακάλυψη ενός νέου ιερού’, in N. Ch. Stampolidis and A. Giannikouri (eds), Το Αιγαίο στην Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου, Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Ρόδος 1-4 Νοεμβρίου 2002 (Athens 2004), 437-450.

106

Despotiko

Figure 1. Despotiko. Building A. Scale 1:300 (drawing by M. Yeroulanou).

occur, however, on Temple A at Paros, which dates to the end of the 6th century.14

The site’s architecture was further disturbed, since building material was used by the later inhabitants of Despotiko.

Several finds came from this forecourt, including intact Corinthian vessels and a marble perirhanterion fragment found to the east of the entrance of Room A1 [fig. 3]. The fragment preserves a partial inscription ΜΑΡΔΙΣ ΑΝΕΘΗΚΕΝ which can be dated to the Archaic period. The name Mardis is possibly of eastern origin; a similar name Amardis appears in a poem composed on Lesbos.15

The two northern rooms of the structure, A1 and A2, share the same forecourt on the eastern side [fig. 1]. These two parallel rooms have the same square dimensions of 8 by 8 m, and the forecourt measures 3 by 17 m. The east wall of the forecourt is unusually wide, with an irregular foundation of large schist slabs. Built upon this are portions of a later wall made of reused marble blocks. The entrance to the forecourt is in the middle and probably consisted of a double door. The eastern façade of rooms A1 and A2 is very well constructed and preserved. On the exterior, two courses of rectangular fine-cut marble blocks with anathyrosis are preserved in isodomic masonry set over a euthynteria of thick schist slabs, and impressive schist foundations [fig. 2 (T3-T4), pl. 23C]. Schist foundations, which are used throughout the building, are typical of Cycladic architecture. Large schist/gneiss slabs spanning the whole width of the foundation are mostly found on Classical buildings, as for example the Great Temple of Apollo and the four Classical treasuries at Delos; they also

The rooms have access to the forecourt with centrally located entries. The entrance to Room A1 does not preserve the threshold and was closed at a later phase. Much of the building’s northern wall has been

14

O. Rubensohn, ‘Die praehistorischen und frühgeschichtlischen Funde auf dem Burghügel von Paros’, AM 42 (1917), figs 2-5; id., ‘Archäologische Gesellschaft zu Berlin’, AA 1923-1924, 281-282, figs 2-3; G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros I: Archaische Bauten’, AA 1982, 171-172; id., ‘Der Burgtempel A von Paros’, AA 1982, 198, figs 3-4 and 15. See also R. Vallois, L’Architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu’ à l’ éviction des Déliens (166 av. J.-C.), vol. 2.1 (Paris 1966), 16-18; M. Yeroulanou, The Architecutre of Greek Treasuries and Other Foreign Dedications: Stylistic Developments and the Role of Dedicating States and Workshops (D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford 2000), 143-144. 15 D. Page (ed.), Supplementum Lyricis Graecis (Oxford 1974), 91-92 S 280.

107

Y. Kourayos

Figure 2. Building A. Wall construction. Scale 1:25 (drawings by K. Athanasiou, E. Karagiozidou, M. Yousia).

108

Despotiko

Figure 3. Perirhanterion found outside Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

other sanctuaries of the Cyclades and further abroad.17 Among them are: two identical bull-lion aryballoi attributed to the Ardea Painter,18 three aryballoi depicting marching warriors,19 and two with the running dog motif.20 We also found ring aryballoi that are less common, although the animal frieze around the perimeter of these vessels is typical of Corinthian decoration.21

robbed away, so that only foundations of large schist slabs remain. A number of partial floor surfaces were uncovered in the central and eastern part of the room, below which were found several earlier deposits [pl. 23D]. Among the layers removed from this room were a variety ofartefacts. Most of the finds come from a single deposit that appears to have been intentionally deposited beneath the floor of this room. The finds date from the Early Geometric to the late Archaic period. The deposit was found beneath the schist stones, strewn among an earth-and-pebble fill stretching across the room’s eastern half. It included a remarkable number of intact objects as well as many virtually complete vessels reconstructed from fragments that were sometimes widely dispersed. Some finds were even found tucked against the foundations of the western wall. It is a rich and varied collection, which includes pottery, figurines of terracotta and faience, beads of stone, glass and gold, bronze and ivory fibulae, and a variety of iron weapons and agricultural instruments.

The aryballos in the form of male genitalia [fig. 5A], sometimes referred to as an aidoion vessel,22 is most similar to those identified as Corinthian products.23 This piece is also different from numerous examples of an East Greek type, often identified as having Rhodian origins.24

17 Perachora II; Dugas, Vases; Rubensohn, Delion; J. Boardman and J. Hayes, Excavations at Tocra 1963-1965. The Archaic Deposits I (London 1966). 18 Amyx, op.cit. n. 16, 52, pl. 17 no. 4. 19 Cf. Payne Necrocorinthia, 320 no. 1244, pl. 160; Dugas, Vases, 107 no. 295-298, pl. XXIV. 20 Cf. Ch. Dugas, EAD XVII: Les vases orientalisants de style non mélien (Paris 1935), 82-83 nos 18-20, 23-25, pls LIII, LIV; Stampolidis and Karetsou, 186-187, nos 198-201. 21 cf. Dugas, Vases, 138-140, nos 463 and 464, pl. XXXV. 22 J.D. Beazley, ‘Aryballos’, BSA 29 (1927-1928), 202-204; id., Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (Oxford 1956), 170.1. 23 E.g., British Museum no. 1676: Higgins Terracottas II, 42-43, pl. 29. cf. Payne Necrocorinthia, 176; Perachora II, 237 no. 210, pl. 106; G.C. Cianferoni et al., The World of the Etruscans (2001), 84 no. 146. 24 E.g. British Museum no. 1659: Higgins Terracottas II, 34, pl. 23; J. Ducat, Les vases plastiques rhodiens archaïques en terre cuite (Paris 1966), 146-148, pl. XXII. Other examples of this Rhodian type can be found in the Metropolitan Museum (acquisition no. 1999.78) and the George Ortiz collection.

Predominant among pottery finds are Corinthian vessels, including intact aryballoi and miniature kotylai [fig. 4, pls 24A-B]. Although some date as early as the mid-7th century (Protocorinthian-Corinthian Transitional period), most of the Corinthian pottery finds belong to the Middle and Late Corinthian styles of the 6th century BC.16 These vessels are of standard types that were exported widely from Corinth to 16

Payne, Necrocorinthia, 58-66; D.A. Amyx, Corinthian VasePainting of the Archaic Period (Berkeley 1988).

109

Y. Kourayos

Figure 4. Corinthian pottery found in Room A1. Scale 1:2 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

110

Despotiko

Figure 5. Pottery finds from Room A1. A. Aidoion vessel, B. Dinos. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

111

Y. Kourayos

Figure 6. Terracotta figurines from the area of building A. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

112

Despotiko

Figure 7. Faience objects found in Room A1. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

113

Y. Kourayos

often found in Cycladic sanctuaries,36 and a terracotta figurine of a lion, which preserved red colour on its neck, similar to one found at Selinus.37

A variety of plastic vessels was found in the deposit. The crouching hare is a standard Corinthian type, distinct from the elongated form of a deceased hare found in Ionia.25 The rooster vessel is mould-made, with polychrome decoration and holes for suspension [pl. 24C]. The closest parallel is a vase in the Hermitage Museum, from Berezan on the Black Sea, which has a long swooping tail, a feature missing from the Despotiko piece.26

A vessel made of faience38 is characteristic of an eastern type produced in Rhodes [pl. 25B]. The vessel is of a standard type normally consisting of a miniature pithos and an anthropomorphic figure, or sometimes a monkey, with a spout on its head.39 This particular type seems to be a mélange of Egyptian iconographic details. Other faience objects [fig. 7] include numerous beads, scarabs,40 a handleless miniature vessel,41 and a hawk pendant with feet and tail attached to a rectangular base.42 This is a very common type of ornament found in the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.43 Another find is the miniature figurine of the Egyptian deity Bes,44 shown standing on a semi-circular base, with both hands holding his knees.45 We also discovered the fragments of a large ostrich egg46 that reveal a more direct connection with North Africa.47

East Greek pottery is represented by a unique plastic vessel in the form of a lioness’ head [pl. 24D]. This vessel is similar to a class of animal-head vessels produced on Rhodes. Other examples in the shape of a ram head or a lion head with a mane are similar in terms of the moulded technique, the flat back/base, and the position of the spout.27 Among these, a pair of vessels in the British Museum from Kamiros (in the shape of a ram and lion head respectively) is especially close in terms of style as well.28 Another imported aryballos found in Despotiko comes from Cyprus;29 this type of vase is often found in Crete, Rhodes and the Asia Minor coast. Another aryballos which is dated around 625-600 BC comes from Laconia;30 this type is very often found in the sanctuaries of Messenia and Arcadia. A very rare example of a miniature polychrome East Greek dinos with bird head protomai attached to the rim was also found [fig. 5B]; its closest parallel is a large lebes with similar protomai from Crete.31

Among the finds were also a large number of fibulae48 made of ivory, another material imported from the eastern Mediterranean [fig. 8, pl. 25C-D].49 They are spectacle fibulae, composed of two large disks,50 which have incised decoration in the form of concentric circles, or simply dot-circles, arranged in 36

A. Laumonier, EAD XXIII: Les figurines de terre cuite (Paris 1956), 73-80, pls 9-18; Rubensohn, Delion, 143-148, pls 26-27; Higgins, Terracottas I, 67-70, pls 25-28. 37 E. Gàbrici, ‘Il Santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte’, MonAnt 32 (1927), 223, pl. XLII no. 12. 38 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 496 no. 930. 39 V. Webb, Archaic Greek Faience: Miniature Scent Bottles and Related Objects from East Greece, 650-500 B.C. (Warminster 1978), 11-18, pl. I. A recently discovered example of the monkey variety is mentioned by E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, ‘Skyros in the Early Iron Age: new evidence’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (Oxford 2002), 130-131, fig. 8c, pl. 33b. 40 Cf. R.M. Dawkins (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta (London 1929), pl. CCV no. 6; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 580 no. 1176. 41 Stampolidis and Karetsou, 214, no. 240-241. 42 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 520 no. 1013. 43 V. Webb, op.cit. n. 39, pl. 96 no. 513, pl. XIV; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 346 no. 1244, pl. 55; Stampolidis and Karetsou, 223 nos 262, 263. 44 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 504 no. 955. 45 Rubensohn, Delion, 169, pl. 35; Stampolidis and Karetsou, 222223 nos 259-261. 46 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 499 no. 941. 47 M. Astruk, ‘Exoticism and localism. Étude sur coquille d’ouefs d’austruche decorées d’Ibiza’, ArchPrehistLev 1957, 47-112; Stampolidis and Karetsou, 218 no. 249. 48 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 544 nos 1074, 1075, 1076, 1078, 1079. 49 More detailed analysis may enable us to distinguish whether these objects are made of hippopotamus or elephant ivory, or in fact of animal bone. 50 Blinkenberg, Fibules, 262-271 (Type XV).

A variety of terracotta figurines of standing and seated females, and anthropomorphic vessels were discovered during the excavation [fig. 6].32 These are all variants of the East Greek terracottas that Higgins has called the Aphrodite Group, of Samian origin,33 as for example, the figurine of an enthroned female wearing a high polos [pl. 25A]34 and the vessel in the shape of a standing female holding a bird on her chest.35 We also found terracotta protomai, similar to those from Delos and the Delion of Paros, which are

25 Payne, Necrocorinthia, 177; cf. Maximova, Vases plastiques, 28, 109-111. 26 Maximova, Vases plastiques, 95 n. 2 pl. XII no. 47. 27 Ducat, op.cit. n. 24, 95-100, 116-120, pls XIII, XVII. 28 Higgins, Terracottas I, 47 no. 54 pl. 11, 58 no. 96 pl. 19; cf. Maximova, Vases Plastiques, pl. XV nos 61 and 62. 29 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 297 no. 275. 30 Ibid., 362 no. 509. 31 Ibid., 364 no. 516. 32 Ibid., 313 no. 332. 33 R.A. Higgins, Greek Terracottas (London 1967), 30-35. 34 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 388 no. 592. 35 Cf. Rubensohn, Delion, 131, 165-166 pls 25, 32, 33; Higgins, Terracottas I, 48-49, pls 12-13; Maximova, Vases plastiques, 127129; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 508-511, pls 211-218.

114

Despotiko

Figure 8. Ivory fibulae found in Room A1. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

115

Y. Kourayos

Figure 9. Other ivory objects found in Room A1. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

116

Despotiko

Figure 10. Beads found in Room A1. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

117

Y. Kourayos

[fig. 12] is a spiral fibula [pl. 26C],60 of the spectacle type,61 made from the Geometric period to the end of the Archaic period, found especially in northern Greece. A single wire of metal is coiled to form two identical spirals and the needle and spirals are formed by means of eight rings. A double fold possibly lay between them, now surviving only in half. Other bronze fibulae [pl. 26D] include the semicircular forms classified as Italic and Attic-Boeotian types by Blinkenberg.62 We also found various Phrygian fibulae similar to those known from Samos, Delphi and other sanctuaries.63 Another rare type of fibula consists of two discs with two concentric circles rendered in repoussé dots. The centres of the two discs feature the circular hoops that secure the needle. Two circular flaps decorated with repoussé dots on their centre protrude from the joint of the two discs. The needle is preserved intact on the back.64

bands around the large disks and the intermediary zone. The perforation at the centre is decorated with inlaid material. A bronze pin is attached on the back, and frequently silver or lead bosses are affixed to the disks. Similar fibulae are known from other sanctuaries such as Perachora, Limnos, Ephesos, Siphnos, Delos and Kythnos.51 Another unusual ivory ornament is a disk [pl. 25E], with relief decoration in bands of alternating circles and squares. It is identical to another disc from the Delion sanctuary52 and both are imported from the eastern Mediterranean. It is uncertain whether this disc was part of a fibula. Other ivory finds [fig. 9] include a number of buttons and part of a poorly preserved animal figurine,53 similar to one from Perachora,54 as well as a seal bearing an incised scene of a group of five standing human figures. Most of the seal stones found in Despotiko are typical of the Aegean. They are carved of jasper, steatite, and other soft stones, and frequently carry decoration consisting of animals shown in profile.55 A scaraboid steatite seal56 shows a lion surrounded by symbols such as a star and leaf, carved in the eastern style of the ‘lyre-player group’ [pl. 26A];57 a nearly identical seal was found at the Delion sanctuary on Paros.58

Among the gold artefacts is the head of a pin in the form of a pomegranate [pl. 26E],65 similar to others from Perachora and Delos,66 and three others, two spherical and one cylindrical with flutes.67 Moreover we found two amber heads, one intact and the other in pieces.68 A large number of spherical beads made of cast glass, folded and perforated, was also collected [fig. 10]. Their production is attributed to workshops in northern Syria, Phoenicia, Asia Minor and north Mesopotamia which produced luxurious cast vessels and onset ornaments which they exported to both the eastern Mediterranean and the West via the exchange trade network established by the Phoenicians and the Greeks.69 There were also clay beads typical of the 8th and 7th centuries BC from Phoenicia. Similar beads have been found in deposits from several sites like Tegea, Sounion, Delos and Paros.70

Metal finds [fig. 11] include agricultural tools such as iron sickles and double-axe heads.59 Weapons may have also been deposited to the sanctuary, including iron spear-heads and blades that range in size from daggers to swords [pl. 26B]. Among the bronze finds 51 Rubensohn, Delion, 72-73, pl. 13, nos 2-3, 11b,c; Perachora II, 435-437 nos 181-183, pl. 185; Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 90-91 no. 133, pl. 9; Deonna, Mobilier, 285-286, pl. LXXXVI. The recent excavations by A. Mazarakis Ainian at an Archaic sanctuary on Kythnos have produced very similar fibulae, as well as a variety of other votive finds. Cf. A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘Η ανασκαφή της αρχαίας πόλης της Κύθνου θέση Μπριόκαστρο’, Corpus 47 (March 2003), 6; see also paper in this volume. 52 Rubensohn, Delion, 72-73, pl. 11a. cf. Deonna, Mobilier, 288 no. 731, pl. LXXXVI; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 544 no. 1077. 53 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 576 no. 1159. 54 Perachora II, 409, pl. 174. 55 Cf. J. Boardman, Island Gems: a Study of Greek Seals in the Geometric and Early Archaic Periods (London 1963). 56 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 580 no. 1173. 57 The lion is one of numerous eastern motifs found on these seals that were most likely carved in northern Syria, beginning in the 8th century. J. Boardman and G. Buchner, ‘Seals from Ischia and the Lyre-player Group’, JdI 81 (1966), 1-62. 58 Paros Archaeological Museum inv. no. 1539; other similar seals are illustrated in Blinkenberg, Lindos I, 162, pl. 18; Stampolidis, Πλόες, 580 no. 1174. 59 Cf. U. Kron, ‘Sickles in Greek sanctuaries: votives and cultic instruments’, in R. Hägg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993 (Stockholm 1993), 187216. The form of sickle is most similar to those from Rheneia, cf. K.A. Rhomaios, ‘Η κάθαρσις της Δήλου και το εύρημα του Σταυρόπουλου’, ADelt 12 (1929), 213-217, figs 20-23.

60

Stampolidis, Πλόες, 565 no. 1135. Blinkenberg, Fibules, 253-259 Type XIV; E. SapounaSakellaraki, op.cit. n. 39, 126, fig. 7a; D.M. Robinson, Olynthus X: Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds (1941), 96-99, pl. XIX; A. Chrysostomou, ‘Ταφικά ευρήματα από τον αρχαίο οικισμό στη Νέα Ζωή του νομού Πέλλας’, in Μνείας Χάριν, Τόμος στη μνήμη τις Μαρίας Σιγανίδου (Thessaloniki 1998), 320-321, fig. 2. 62 Blinkenberg, Fibules, 147-163 Type VIII. 63 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 565 no. 1133. 64 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 566 no. 1136. 65 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 566 no. 1137. 66 Perachora I, 174, pl. 76 esp. nos 33-34; Deonna, Mobilier, 282 pl. 726, pl. LXXXV; cf. P. Jacobsthal, Greek Pins and their Connexions with Europe and Asia (Oxford 1956), 38. 67 Cf. R. Laffineur, ‘Collection Paul Canellopoulos (XV)’, BCH 104 (1980), 394 nos 76-77, figs 81, 83. 68 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 558 nos 1105, 1106. 69 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 524 no. 1025, 522 no. 1019. 70 Stampolidis, Πλόες, 524 no. 1026, 526 no. 1030. 61

118

Despotiko

Figure 11. Iron finds from building A. Scale 1:3 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

119

Y. Kourayos

Figure 12. Bronze finds from building A. Scale 1:3 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

120

Despotiko

Among the finds of Room A1 was a unique, large, female Daedalic terracotta statuette [pl. 27A-B].71 Only the upper half of the figure is preserved, measuring 0.25 m in height from the waist up, complete save for part of the left arm and the entire right arm. Coated in a pale slip, the facial features, hair, and decoration of dress have been painted black, while the entire back of the figure is painted black. She wears a polos, and has long hair framing the face in two triangles. Her dress is decorated with a continuous lozenge pattern. Two Daedalic terracotta female torsos, one from Crete72 and one from Samos73 have similar proportions but differ stylistically from the Despotiko example. Closer to the latter, however, are the cylindrical lower bodies of two terracotta figurines found in the Kastro of Siphnos, which have elongated proportions.74 A reconstruction of the Despotiko statuette was made by Katerina Mauragani, based on these figurines [fig. 13]. It is estimated that the figure was originally 0.65 m high. Two female busts, painted on the necks of ‘Melian’ hydriai found on Rheneia, have very similar features to the Despotiko statuette, despite the fact that the former are rendered two-dimensionally.75 At least some groups of these ‘Melian’ vessels are now recognised as Parian products.76 In addition to the stylis71

Y. Kourayos in Ancient Greece. Mortal and Immortals. Exhibition of The National Museum of China and the Hellenic Republic, Ministry of Culture (Athens 2004), 236 no. 88. 72 D. Levi, ‘Gli Scave del 1954 sull'Acropoli di Gortina’, ASAtene 33-34 (1957), fig. 78a-b. 73 V. Jarosch, Samos XVIII: Samische Tonfiguren des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aus dem Heraion von Samos (Athens and Bonn 1994), 143 no. 644, pl. 61. 74 J.K. Brock and G. Mackworth Young, ‘Excavations in Siphnos’, BSA 44 (1949), 19-21, pls 6-8. 75 Among Ph. Zaphiropoulou’s Plochmos group, Προβλήματα της Μηλιακής Αγγειογραφίας (Athens 1985), 12-13 figs 5-9, Mykonos Archaeological Museum nos 557 and 560 best preserve the profile face. 76 The Parian provenance, which was originally debated in terms of style and archaeological context, is now confirmed by petrographic evidence: N. Kontoleon, ‘Theräisches’, AM 73 (1958), 133-137; Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘La céramique mélienne. Origine et provenance’, in G. Rougemont (ed.), Les Cyclades: Matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique (Paris 1983), 177-183; J. Gautier, ‘Caractérisation de centres de productions céramiques par microscopie optique’, in R. Dalongeville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades: résultants des traveaux de la RCP 1983 (Lyon 1993), 167-204. The discovery of additional ‘Melian’ amphorae in the more recent excavation of the Paroikia cemetery Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Une nécropole à Paros’, in J.de La Genière (ed.), Nécropoles et sociétés antiques (Grèce, Italie, Languedoc). Actes du colloque international du Centre de Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III, Lille, 2-3 Décembre 1991 (Naples 1994), 127-152, esp. 127 further strengthens the identification of these vessels with Parian workshops. ‘Melian’ examples have also come to light in other parts of the sanctuary, as, for example, the dinos fragment with warrior decoration [pl. 24E].

Figure 13. Daedalic terracotta statuette (reconstruction by K. Mauragani).

121

Y. Kourayos

The southern part of Building A, Rooms A3-A5, was built at a higher level. The three southern rooms share a corridor fronted by a Doric colonnade on the eastern side [fig. 1, pl. 28A]. The stylobate in front of these three rooms is 18 m long and is built of large schist blocks resting on two courses of pseudo-polygonal masonry in marble; beneath the two marble courses, irregular foundations built of large schist blocks are preserved [fig. 2 (T16)]. The stylobate is not preserved on the northern end; however, based on the traces on the surviving stylobate blocks – 0.29 m in diameter – a total of eight columns can be reconstructed on the façade [pl. 28B].

tic similarities, the clay of the Despotiko figure appears similar to that of the Parian vessels, and it could very well be the product of a Parian coroplast.77 This figure could be identified as the cult statue of the original temple or sanctuary. It can be dated around 680-650 BC. The Room A1 assemblage includes objects of the 7th and 6th centuries, which had been placed under the slabs of the room’s pavement during a construction phase of the late Archaic period. Further support for this conclusion is offered by the discovery of intact Protocorinthian pointed aryballoi dating to the third quarter of the 7th century and globular aryballoi of Early, Middle, and Late Corinthian style, which had been carefully placed in the corners and inside room A1. These deposits are largely votive in character with fine wares and miniatures, including local wares and imports from Corinth, Laconia, Chios, Rhodes and Eastern Greece, along with cooking and other plain wares. The range of shapes includes a large number of drinking cups, such as Corinthian kotylai, Cycladic dot-band skyphoi, Cycladic mugs, bowls, kraters, small jugs, both plain and black gloss and small oil vessels [fig. 14]. Room A1 was meant to be a treasury, where the dedications of the worshipers and the cult objects of the sanctuary were kept. There is little among the assemblage, neither in form nor iconography, which can offer an indication as to the identity of the worshipped divinity.78

The southern part of the stoa was obscured by the accumulation of collapsed building material. Beneath it, a pavement of rectangular schist slabs that apparently belonged to the original Archaic floor was discovered. One course of the wall’s marble façade is preserved above the euthynteria at the northern end as well as to the north of Room A5’s entrance. Four later walls built over the corridor perpendicular to the stylobate, incorporate earlier material. Among the reused material was a Doric capital, whose dimensions correspond to those of the column impressions on the stylobate: abacus width 0.53, abacus height 0.11, diameter of column shaft 0.29 m. Rooms A3 and A4 are of similar form and dimensions, measuring c. 6 by 7 m and 5 by 7 m. The eastern walls have openings for doorways onto the corridor, but no thresholds are preserved. All rooms seem to have had entrances on both east and west sides, as is shown by the large and thick marble thresholds found in situ on the western wall. The threshold of A3 measures 1.60 by 0.58 m; that of A4 measures 2.10 by 0.72 m with traces of lead in the door sockets. Rooms A3 and A4 both preserve portions of pavement from floors of a later phase. This flooring consists of small stones set into a plaster matrix. The excavation of Room A3 has produced large quantities of Archaic sherds of high quality. Room A4 preserves a system of marble supports around its periphery, seven of which are found in situ. They are placed at floor-level at a distance of 1.50 m and each has a lead rod, presumably for the attachment of an upper structure of benches. The southern room A5, measuring 6 by 5 m, has been especially disturbed by later constructions. In addition to sharing the collapse of stones from the corridor, a later structure had been built on top of the room’s south-east corner. The later walls create two smaller rooms, crossing over the marble threshold that originally marked the entrance

With regards to other areas of building A, the entrance to Room A2 has a break in the wall that corresponds to the large marble threshold – measuring 1.57 by 0.80 m – that was found in two fragments. The larger piece is among the blocks found in Room A2, while the smaller fragment was found outside the room. The threshold preserves door-sockets on each end as well as impressions of door jambs. Twelve marble pieces were found accumulated in the northeast area of the room [pl. 27C]. Many of these are statue bases or architectural blocks that were recut in a later period in order to be reused. Among the marble pieces is a base, measuring 0.69 by 0.69 by 0.35 m, which preserves the impression of a column (0.53 m in diameter) on its top face. The thickness of the block and the lack of clamps or joining marks suggest that it was probably the support for a votive column.

77

This has been accepted by Prof. F. Croissant, who has helped me greatly. The similarity in the material was also suggested by N. Kourou, who has studied the figure in the Paros Archaeological Museum. 78 For example, there are no hydriai, typical of Demeter cult, cf. Diehl, Die Hydria: Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des Altertums (Mainz 1964), 187ff.

122

Despotiko

Figure 14. Archaic pottery from Room A1. Scale 1:1 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

123

Y. Kourayos

Figure 15. Building A. Hypothetical reconstruction (drawing by K. Athanasiou and V. Kyrtsos).

interpreted as a hestiatorion, with a series of dining rooms, dating to the mid-5th century.81 Regardless of the actual function of these rooms, the general plan is rather similar to the structure at Despotiko. The Thasos sanctuary makes use of the oikoi complex and a stoa building to the east as part of the boundary of the temenos space, which, as will be shown below, seems to be the case with Building A and its neighbouring structures as well.

on the east side. The threshold block in Room A5 measures 1.80 by 0.55 m.79 In 2002 the excavation focused on establishing the limits of Building A. This included the uncovering of the remainder of Room A5, to a full area of c. 7 by 7 m. It was confirmed that this was the southern end of the building and that the entire area was reused in later periods. On the north side of the forecourt, the foundations of three parallel rectangular rooms, measuring 4 by 4 m, were also found [fig. 1]. The north-south walls of this construction abut the northern exterior wall of the Building A very neatly, suggesting that it was an addition to the original construction. It most likely dates to a later phase of the Archaic period.

During the excavation of this southern area, an Archaic wall, measuring at least 40 m long, was uncovered; it was constructed as a continuation of Buildings A’s southern wall, on an east-west axis. It is built with large and small rectangular schist stones; up to eight courses are preserved above a euthynteria of large schist slabs and strong foundations down to bedrock [fig. 2 (T17)]. Thus, this wall, together with building A seems to have demarcated an enclosed area, and may have served as part of a temenos wall delimiting the sanctuary space.

To conclude, Building A’s original phase probably consisted of five parallel rooms. Although a single construction, as indicated by its continuous western wall and the joints of the east walls of A2 and A3, its façade was divided into two parts [fig. 15]. The northern half cannot be securely reconstructed at present. The three southern rooms were fronted by the Doric colonnade. The ground plan of Building A presents some similarities to that of the oikoi complex in the Sanctuary of Herakles on Thasos, a colony of Paros.80 The south-western area of the sanctuary is defined by the colonnaded building of five parallel rooms, or oikoi, with entrances from a stoa on the west. The stylobate of the stoa had 14 columns and is preserved to a length of 15 m. This complex has been

Among the cluster of stones from a collapsed wall along A5’s southern wall, we discovered the marble head of a kouros, which had been reused as building material. The front part of the head is damaged but the back is in perfect condition [pl. 28C]. The long hair is held together by a thin band tied in a ‘Herakles knot’ at the back. Tresses of hair fall on either side of the neck in a wavy pattern, similar to that seen in korai.82 It is stylistically similar to an Athe-

81 B. Bergquist, The Archaic Greek Temenos: A Study of Structure and Function (Lund 1967), 49-50; id., Herakles on Thasos: The Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence for his Sanctuary, Status and Cult Reconsidered (Uppsala 1973). 82 E.g. Delos Museum no. 4945: Richter, Korai, 104 no. 189, figs 601-604; Karakasi, Koren, pl. 215.

79

In the 2004 excavation season, a cluster of Corinthian tile fragments was found to the west of rooms A3-A5. These tiles have just been conserved and are currently under study. 80 M. Launey, Le sanctuaire et le culte d'Héraklès à Thasos (Paris 1944), 77-85.

124

Despotiko

nian kouros head, dated to the middle of the 6th century BC.83

top of the head, similar to the arrangement of filet and hair on a kouros head from Epidauros.88

Due to the worn condition of the Despotiko head, the specific type and gender of the statue is unclear. While the Heracles knot is common on kouroi and very rare in depictions of females, the wavy locks of the Despotiko head have more in common with hair rendering on korai.84 The difference is the division of the hair into locks that come forward over the shoulders and locks that fall in the back, an arrangement that is extremely rare on kouroi of the 6th century, though somewhat frequent in earlier male figures. The other possibility is that this was the head of a sphinx, in which case the female hairstyle is appropriate. Sphinxes regularly have an arrangement of hair falling forward over the shoulders, and while many wear a polos or diadem, a less elaborate coiffure is also seen in the sphinx heads from Siphnos and Cyrene.85 This is further suggested by the position of the Herakles knot somewhat to the right of the true centre of the head, which may indicate a pose with the head turned to the side, similar to the sphinxes from Spata and Piraeus.86

The head preserves red pigments on the curls and on the ear, and a meniskos is present on the crown of the head. This head has little in common with known Parian works such as the Louvre kouros from the Asklepieion, aside from the general arrangement of curls.89 Rather, the facial features are similar to other Cycladic sculptures, such as two kouroi attributed to a Naxian kouros workshop.90 It might have been imported from a more distant source and it is not a product of a local Parian workshop.91 In the south-east area of Building A, a series of later constructions were excavated just beneath the modern surface [fig. 16]. The discovery of these later buildings confirms the use of the area in the medieval period as was already suggested by Venetian maps of the 15th century AD.92 These poorly preserved structures consisted of small irregular rooms defined by stone walls whose construction had made use of architectural members from earlier buildings of the sanctuary [fig. 17, pl. 30A]. Among them was a marble block whose large size (1.89 by 0.50 by 0.27 m) suggests that it was probably an architrave block. Other architectural members include a column drum with a diameter of 0.53 and height of 0.34 m, a cornice fragment measuring 0.73 by 0.32 by 0.22 m, part of a doorjamb with visible measurements 1.37 by 0.52 by 0.25 m, and a block measuring 0.80 by 0.50 by 0.24 m, with the socket for a swallow-tail clamp. In addition, four Doric column capitals were found incorporated in the medieval walls of this area.93 Based on their dimensions, a number of architectural elements, seem to fit well with Schuller’s reconstruction of the temple, as for example one

On the southern side of the extended southern wall of the building A, we were very fortunate to find a second statue head belonging to a kouros [pl. 28D]. It is preserved in very good condition, until the upper part of the neck. It can be dated to 580 BC based on stylistic features, such as the large triangular eyes and the suggestion of an ‘Archaic smile’. The ears are very well shaped with a hole in the middle. The hair has a short part on the crown, with long tresses that fall in a solid mass, held together by a wide band tied in a ‘Herakles knot’ at the back. The hair on the forehead is combed forward into ten locks ending in a thick curl, similar to those of the kouros from Melos.87 The curls are symmetrically arranged in two groups of five, spiralling out right and left from the centre. These are kept in place by the filet across the

88 National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 63: Richter, Kouroi, 98 no. 91, figs 293-294. 89 Louvre, no. 888: Richter, Kouroi, 107 no. 116, figs 356-358. 90 J.G. Pedley, Greek Sculpture of the Archaic Period: the Island Workshops (Mainz 1976), 34-35, nos 21-22, pls 13-14. 91 In the last excavation season (2005), three large parts of kouroi were found reused as building material in a new sector of the site [pl. 29]. As the excavation season has not finished yet, it is not possible to fully discuss them at this stage. 92 Among the earliest maps showing a castle-structure on the island is that by the Venetian Bartolomeo Dalli Sonetti in his volumne Isolario, o sia Cosmografia del mar Egeo (1485). The island is labelled as “I Rochi” in Benedetto Bordone’s Isolario nel qual si ragiona di tutte l'isole del mondo (1528), but is called “Sigilo” by Marco Boschini’s L'Arcipelago con tutte le isole, scogli, seche e fondi bassi... (1658). See also K. Ragousi-Kontogeorgou, Πάρος Αντίπαρος, με τα μάτια των χαρτογράφων και περιηγητών 15ος-19ος αι. (Athens 2000). 93 [A 31] Wall T37, abacus width 0.58, height 0.10, diameter 0.30 m. [A 34] Wall T40, greatest preserved diameter 0.45 m. [A 38] Wall T47, abacus width 0.56, diameter 0.30 m. [A 39] Wall T44, abacus width 0.57, diameter 0.30 m.

83 National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 4509: Richter, Kouroi, 155 no. 86c, figs 609-611. 84 A rare kore with the Herakles knot is known from Lindos (National Museum, Copenhagen, no. 12199): Richter, Korai, 53 no. 77, figs 244-247; Karakasi, Koren, pls 206, 105. Other female statues with wavy tresses similar to the Despotiko head are the Akropolis Museum nos 659 and 661: Richter, Korai, 83 no. 131, figs 426-428; Karakasi, Koren, pls 166 and 170. 85 Siphnos Archaeological Museum, no. 2; B.S. Ridgway, The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture (Princeton 1977), 158, pl. 46. The Cyrene sphinx also has smooth wings, similar to those of a sphinx found at the Delion sanctuary (Paros Archaeological Museum no. 164), which may demonstrate a stylistic link between the Cycladic and North African sculptures. 86 N. Kaltsas, Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο: Τα γλυπτά (Athens 2001), 54-55 nos 56, 57. 87 National Archaeological Museum, Athens, no. 1558: Richter, Kouroi, 96 no. 86, figs 273-274.

125

Y. Kourayos

Figure 16. Medieval walls built over the southern end of Building A. Scale 1:150 (drawing by M. Yeroulanou).

126

Despotiko

Figure 17. Architectural elements found in later walls (drawings by M. Yousia).

entire cornice block and two additional fragments with mutules measuring c. 0.40 m and viae measuring c. 0.11 m,94 and three column drums, which are similar to Schuller’s suggested diameter of 0.49 m.95 94

95

Also found incorporated in a later wall was the fragment from a stone statue – it preserves part of a male nude torso – and various statue bases, one of which is similar to the round base of the Euthydikos’ dedication.96

[A 1] cornice block, on modern surface, measuring 0.73 x 1.43 m. [A 19] cornice block fragment, found on top of Wall T9, measuring 0.74 x 0.60 m. [A 28] cornice block fragment, found in Wall T43, measuring 0.73 x 0.32 m. [A 22] column drum in Wall T29, diameter 0.53 m, height 0.50 m. [A 27] column drum on top of Wall T43, diameter 0.53 m, height 0.34 m. [A 50] column drum in Wall T50, diameter 0.495 m, visible height 0.19 m.

The practice of reusing ancient marbles continued into the modern era, as for example in the animal pen – mandra in Greek – that was built on the site. For this reason, and because a number of ancient walls continue underneath its walls, the animal pen

96 Acropolis Museum no. 609: Karakasi, Koren, pl. 206. A similar base is in the Siphnos Archaeological Museum, no. 133.

127

Y. Kourayos

Figure 18. A. Reconstruction by M. Schuller (‘Dorische Architektur’, fig. 28). B. New finds placed on Schuller's reconstruction (drawing by M. Yeroulanou).

was relocated in 2002, to a new one, built further south. During the demolition of the animal pen various fragments of marble sculpture were found, such as the knee of a colossal male figure, the forearm of a life-size statue, and the torso of a female draped figure, all dated to the Archaic period. Furthermore, more architectural pieces came to light, including cornice blocks, a fragmentary metope, capitals and several triglyphs.

The preliminary study of the architectural material suggested the existence of other buildings at the site. Furthermore, the scatter of ceramics visible on the surface continues far further to the east. After the 2002 excavation period it became obvious that the site extended beyond the area immediately surrounding Building A. The 2003 excavation season focused on defining the dimensions of the sanctuary. A number of shallow trenches around the area of Building A revealed that Mandra is the site of an extensive sanctuary; six more buildings were discovered [fig. 19]. Building B on the northeast plateau, with a commanding view of the strait to Antiparos is a long building, c. 20 by 6 m, and is visible on surface level. To the west of this large structure we found the foundations of another building – building Γ – belonging to the Archaic period. This building is a rectangular construction, 13 m long by 10 m wide, divided into rooms facing northeast. Unfortunately only the foundations survive, built with local schist stones of various dimensions. In the foundations we found a pottery sherd with a graffito bearing a dedication to Artemis. The plan of the structure – with two rooms of equal dimensions – and the recovered sherd could suggest that this was a double oikos or oikoi dedicated to the brother and sister deities Apollo and Artemis. Not very far to the southeast we discovered the foundations of the classical building Z; three rectangular

Most of the architectural parts that have been discovered so far belong to the temple that was first identified by Schuller; based on the new architectural finds, a new hypothetical reconstruction of the order was made possible [fig. 18]. At present nothing can be said about the ground plan of the temple since its foundations have not yet been discovered. The style of the architectural elements is consistent with a group of contemporary Doric structures such as the temple at the Delion Sanctuary on Paros and the Heraion at Delos, dated around 500 BC,97 and the almost contemporary Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi.98

97 Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 319-321; cf. Schuller, Artemistempel, 66-76; Rubensohn, Delion, 16; J. Audiat, FD II: Le Trésor des Athéniens (Paris 1933); Plassart, op.cit. n. 12, 184-204. 98 Schuller, Artemistempel.

128

Despotiko

Figure 19. The site after the 2003 and 2004 excavation seasons (drawing by M. Yeroulanou).

129

Y. Kourayos

been identified by inscriptions that document the boundary of ΧΩΡΙΟΝ ΙΕΡΟΝ ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝ ΔΗΛΙΟΝ.101 In Despotiko, however, the majority of the votive objects uncovered so far are more appropriate for a female recipient. Especially persuasive among the material from Room A1 is the terracotta statuette of a female deity (see above [fig. 13, pl. 27A-B]). Thus, it is most likely that the sanctuary, like the many Delion sanctuaries of the Cyclades, is dedicated to both sister and brother, Artemis and Apollo.

rooms and a courtyard paved with big schist slabs have been unearthed so far. Furthermore, during the 2003 excavation season parts of buildings – Δ and Ε – were uncovered; their excavation continued in 2004 and they are currently under study. Building E is a trapezoidal structure, consisting of three rooms, and measures c. 17-20 m by 4m. Building Δ, is a rectangular building (9 by 12 m), consisting of a paved square cella and a pronaos, whose façade is preserved only to the level of the foundations. Two – badly preserved – marble column drums discovered in front of the pronaos, might suggest that columns adorned the façade.

Cult started at the site in the Geometric period as is indicated by the pottery found in the lower levels of Room A1, as for example a fragmentary ring vessel, painted with geometric decoration consisting of zigzags and alternating triple triangles, whose shape is similar to vessels of various fabrics found at Delos [fig. 21].102 We have not yet identified any levels containing only Geometric pottery and the fragments of this vessel were found mixed with later votive material deposited in Room A1; but even so they provide good evidence for the establishment of the cult at Mandra already in Geometric times.103

Buildings Δ and Ε are connected by a wall/stoa that runs parallel to the southern wall of building A. Though their extensive study can not be published at this point, it is clear that the combination of these buildings, together with Building A and its southern wall formed an enclosed area within the larger sanctuary [fig. 19, pl. 30B]. Another important discovery of the 2003 excavation season is the marble inscription reading ΕΣΤΙΑΣ ΙΣΘΜΙΑΣ that was built into a small rectangular construction in front of building A [pl. 30C]. The construction was an altar and the inscription was carved onto the upper surface of its western side facing building A. The letters date to the Classical period. The epiklesis ΙΣΘΜΙΑΣ recorded there indicates firstly that the ancient name of the Mandra sanctuary was Isthmia and secondly that an Isthmus was located at the site [pl. 30D].

It is clear that the small island of Despotiko was the site of a sanctuary of much greater significance than previously expected. Given the total absence of epigraphic references, connections between this site and the surrounding islands must be made through archaeological evidence alone. The island’s geographical position suggests that most of the visitors and dedicators were from Paros, but it is also easily accessible from Siphnos, Naxos, and other neighbouring islands of the Cyclades. The variety and high quality of imported votive objects demonstrates that these people made use of the commercial network that brought goods from across the eastern Mediterranean through the islands and on to mainland Greece.

Five pottery sherds, dated to the Archaic and Classical periods, with the name Apollo inscribed on them and another bearing the name Artemis provide conclusive evidence that the sanctuary was dedicated to the gods of Delos [fig. 20]. The base of an Attic vase with the graffito ΑΠΟΛ, presumably the name Apollo, found among the surface finds in the eastern area of the site, further suggests the divinity of the Despotiko sanctuary. This deity was by far the most widely worshipped in the ancient Cyclades, both as Pythian Apollo, in reference to Delphi, and as Delian Apollo, in reference to his birthplace Delos. Throughout the islands, there were as many as 22 ‘branch-shrines’ dedicated to Delian Apollo, that were positioned with a view towards Delos.99 Perhaps the best documented of these is the Delion Sanctuary on Paros, which was founded by Herakles according to Pindar.100 This particular shrine has

Paros, in particular, is known to have absorbed eastern influence, as Rubensohn first argued.104 A connection with Ionia is also known from Herodotus’ account of the Parians making peace among the Milesians, before the island later medized in the Persian Wars.105 Kontoleon’s study of Parian monuments and art further defined the city’s close and

101 IG xii.5.214; cf. G. Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, MünchJb 23 (1972), 7-36. 102 Dugas, Vases, pls xvi-xvii; Dugas, op.cit. n. 20, pl. xlviii; also Boardman and Hayes, op.cit. n. 17, no. 1446, pl. 91. 103 I would like to thank Bob Satton and Eleni Hasaki for their study of the pottery that lead to these conclusions. 104 O. Rubensohn, RE XVII, p. 1804 s.v. Paros; O. Rubensohn, ‘Parische Künstler’, JdI 59 (1935), 49-69. 105 Hdt. v.26.

99 G. Gruben, Heiligtümer und Griechische Tempel (Munich 2000), 371. 100 Fr. 140a; Launey, op.cit. n. 80, 214-215.

130

Despotiko

Figure 20. Sherds with graffiti found at the site. Scale 1:2 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

131

Y. Kourayos

Figure 21. Geometric pottery found in Room A1. Scale 1:2 (drawings by Chr. Kolb).

132

Despotiko

continuous relationship with eastern Ionian regions.106 Ekaterini Kostoglou-Despini, has traced the continuous appearance of Ionic influences in Parian art up until the first half of the 5th century.107

cult, which starts in the Geometric period, was also well established in the 7th century with major constructions; it continued into the Classical and Hellenistic periods as is indicated by pottery finds, namely the sherds of Attic red-figure kraters. The date of the sanctuary’s destruction is not yet clear. Roman Imperial finds of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD are scattered over the entire area of building A; there is little to suggest that this use was sacred rather than domestic – though the distinction is not as clear as one would like. An intact red-glazed lamp probably from Knidos dates to the late 1st-2nd century AD.109 Finds, such as amphorae, household and cooking wares, suggest domestic use throughout the Roman period, of which the latest phase is best attested, yielding a rich collection of well-preserved cooking and storage pots, North African lamps110 (dated from the mid-4th to the early 5th century AD) and red-slip wares, including fragments of late Roman C Form 3.111 The Roman occupation at Mandra contin-ued into the 6th century AD, after which the site of the sanctuary lay abandoned for many centuries. There is no evidence yet for Middle Byzantine graffito; the few rims of cooking pots may belong to the Frankish period dating after AD 1204. A well-preserved Turkish pipe must belong toward the end of the Ottoman-Venetian domination (18th century) and more recent finds suggest that the site was used – continuously or sporadically – as an animal pen since then.

The relationship of Archaic Paros with the Ionian world is further corroborated by the imported items found at Despotiko, which include objects from Rhodes, Chios, Miletus, and Samos. It is worth mentioning that, among the imported votives from the mainland, Attic pottery is present but not plentiful, in sharp contrast with the wealth of Corinthian objects. This, of course, accords with the hostile relations between Athens and Paros in the later Archaic period, which climaxed in Miltiades’ attack on the island.108 These consistent patterns suggest that the sanctuary at Despotiko was established and maintained by Parians. The need for an extra-urban sanctuary at such a distance from the city of Paros would apparently indicate a desire to reclaim territory which lay in between, including the relatively undeveloped island of Antiparos. More direct indications as to who sponsored and participated in the cult at Despotiko may be discovered in future work at the site. The new buildings indicate that Despotiko was the location of a truly significant sanctuary of the late Archaic period. The

Yannos Kourayos 21st Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities 10 Epaminonda St. GR- 105 55 Athens

109

Cf. J. Perlweig, Agora VII: Lamps of the Roman Period, First to Seventh Century after Christ (Princeton 1961), no. 129, pls 5, 52 for the disk, no. 30, pl. 5 for the nozzle; both are signed by Romanesis. 110 The base bears the graffito ΘΕΟΦΙΛΟΥ. Cf ibid., 39 for lamps bearing the name Theodoulou and for the disk cf. no. 1743 by Eukarpou, 33. 111 J.W. Hayes, Late Roman Pottery (London 1972), 329-338.

106

N. Kontoleon, ‘Η στήλη της Ικαρίας’, AEphem (1974), 15 n. 3. E. Kostoglou-Despini, Προβλήματα της Παριανής πλαστικής του 5ου αι. π.Χ. (Thessaloniki 1979), 199. 108 Hdt. vi.132-135. 107

133

Y. Kourayos

134

7 Naxian and Parian architecture General features and new discoveries Aenne Ohnesorg

Many of the results of the Munich research campaigns in the Cyclades have already been published, in – often extensive – preliminary reports: They focus on the Temple of Apollo and the two sanctuaries at Sangri and Yria on Naxos, on four Archaic Ionic temples (or treasuries) on Paros, the delicate Classical architecture•of the building which we call the

‘Hestia complex’, on various Archaic monuments and three late Classical temples of the Doric order, including the Archilocheion. The late Archaic Doric Temple of Artemis in the Delion of Paros and the notable buildings from the Hellenistic period on the island had been already fully published by Manfred Schuller and Klaus Müller.1 For the study of two

I am honoured to have participated in this colloquium in honour of Jim Coulton whom I know from his numerous publications, especially on ancient Greek architecture. I should also like to pay tribute, however, to my tutor, the late Professor Gottfried Gruben, the initiator of the Munich research campaigns in the Cyclades, to which I have participated since 1973. I want to thank the organisers for their kind invitation to this ‘small but fine’ and well organised conference, and especially Maria Stamatopoulou, Marina Yeroulanou, and Alice Morgenstern (Munich) - for their help with the English translation of the text. Irene Ring, Munich, helped with the drawings, except for those made by Manolis Korres or Martin Lambertz.

Ohnesorg, ‘Altäre’ = A. Ohnesorg, ‘Kykladische Altäre’, Bericht über die 37. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung der Koldewey-Gesellschaft, Duderstadt 27.-31. Mai 1992 (Bonn 1994), 53-58. Ohnesorg, ‘Hagios Mamas’ = A. Ohnesorg, ‘Die antiken Spolien in der Kirche des Hagios Mamas auf Naxos’, Architectura 24 (1994), 170-184. Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre = A. Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre. Formen und Varianten einer Architekturgattung aus Insel- und Ostionien (ArchForsch 21, Berlin 2005). Ohnesorg, Marmordächer = A. Ohnesorg, Inselionische Marmordächer (DAA 18.2, Berlin 1993). Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’ = M. Schuller, ‘Die dorische Architektur der Kykladen in spätarchaischer Zeit’, JdI 100 (1985), 319-398. Schuller, Artemistempel = M. Schuller, Der Artemistempel im Delion auf Paros (DAA 18.1, Berlin 1991).

Abbreviations Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’ = G. Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, MüJb 23 (1972), 7-36. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’ = G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, JdI 112 (1997), 261-416. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1972’ = G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros: Dritter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungkampagnen 1970 und 1971’, AA 1972, 319-379. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’ = G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972-1980; I. Archaische Bauten; II. Klassische und hellenistische Bauten auf Paros’, AA 1982, 159-195 (I) and 621683 (II). Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen’ = G. Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen auf Naxos’, in N. Chr. Stampolidis (ed.), Φως Κυκλαδικόν. Τιμητικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Νίκου Ζαφειρόπουλου (Athens 1999), 296-317. Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’ = G. Gruben, V. Lambrinoudakis et al., ‘Naxos - Das Heiligtum von Gyroula bei Sangri’, AW 33 (2002), 391-397. Müller, Hellenistische Architektur = K. Müller, Hellenistische Architektur auf Paros (ArchForsch 20, Berlin 2003).

1 V. Lambrinoudakis, G. Gruben, et al., AA 1968, 1970, 1972, 1978, 1982, 1986, 1994; Prakt 1976-1985, 1991; BCH 101 (1977) - 112 (1988) (Chroniques des Fouilles); Archaiognosia 5 (1987), 133-191 and Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’, 391-397; Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 7-36; id., ‘Weitgespannte Marmordecken in der griechischen Architektur’, Architectura 15 (1985), 105-116; the same in: R. Graefe (ed.), Geschichte des Konstruierens. Natürliche Konstruktionen (2nd edition, Stuttgart 1989), 10-16; id., ‘Fundamentierungsprobleme der ersten archaischen Großbauten’, in H. Büsing and F. Hiller (eds), Bathron: Beiträge zur Architektur und verwandten Künsten für Heinrich Drerup zu seinem 80. Geburtstag von seinen Schülern und Freunden (Saarbrücken 1988), 159-172; id., ‘Das älteste marmorne Volutenkapitell’, IstMitt 39 (1989), 161-172; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Ein ‘chiotisches’ Kymatium auf Paros’, ibid., 407-414; G. Gruben, ‘Anfänge des Monumentalbaus auf Naxos’, in A. Hoffmann et al. (eds), Bautechnik der Antike: internationales Kolloquium in Berlin

135

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 1. Naxos, Yria. Temples I - IV from south (drawing by M. Korres, Paros-Naxos-archive).

136

Naxian and Parian Architecture

roof in the interior [fig. 1].2 The walls were probably constructed of mudbricks, with wooden armature. The temple seems to have had an eschara in the interior – on the location of the old cult site which dates back to the Mycenean period. A second, bigger offering place had existed in front of the naos, at the edge of the ‘island’ on which it stood on the marshy plain c. 3 km south of the main town.3

sanctuaries on Naxos, Sangri and Yria, we worked in collaboration with the University of Athens – with Professors Vassilis Lambrinoudakis and Eva Simantoni-Bournia – and with Professor Manolis Korres, now at the Technical University of Athens. The final publications for Sangri and Yria are under way.• I will present in this paper some aspects of the architecture of the latter two sanctuaries – and some new conclusions that have been discovered regarding the ‘old’ monuments.

The second temple – dated after the middle of the 8th century BC – did not look very different on the outside but was about three times as large, that is c. 11 by 15 m [fig. 1]. The interior was divided into four aisles by three rows of marble bases of which 12, out of the original 15, have been found. In the background of this ‘forest of columns’ (Säulenwald) there was again an eschara, approximately at the same place as the first one. Along the walls ran a bench for the participants to the cult rites, which were generally performed inside the building (of c. 140 m.sq.).

In the sanctuary of Yria on Naxos, which was probably devoted to Dionysos, the earliest temple dates back to the 9th century BC. It was a simple ‘box’ measuring about 5 by 10 m, with one door on the south (!) and three supports for the flat (earthen) vom 15.-17. Februar 1990 (DiskAB 5, Mainz 1991), 63-71; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Herstellung und Bemalung von Marmordächern des 6. Jhs. v. Chr.’, ibid., 172-177; M. Schuller, ‘Die Wandkonstruktion dorischer Tempel auf den Kykladen’, ibid., 208-215; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘The Sanctuary of Iria on Naxos and the Birth of Monumental Architecture’, in D. Buitron-Oliver (ed.), New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Hanover and London 1991), 173188; G. Gruben, ‘Die Entwicklung der Marmorarchitektur auf Naxos und das neuentdeckte Dionysos-Heiligtum in Iria’, Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie 8 (1991/2), 41-51; id., ‘Die inselionische Ordnung’, in J. des Courtils and J.-C. Moretti (eds), Les Grands Ateliers d'Architecture dans le monde egéen du VIe siècle av. J.-C. Actes du colloque d’Istanbul, 23-25 mai 1991 (Varia Anatolica 3, Paris 1993), 97-109; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Parische Kapitelle’, ibid., 111-118; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Έξι χρόνια αρχαιολογικής έρευνας στα Ύρια της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 201-216; Ohnesorg, Marmordächer; Ohnesorg, ‘Altäre’, 53-58; Ohnesorg, ‘Hagios Mamas’, 170-184; G. Gruben, ‘Nasso’ (= Naxos), EAA Suppl. 2, 1971-1995, III (Rome 1995), 877-880; id., ‘Paro’, EAA Suppl. 2, 1971-1995, IV (Rome 1996), 258-264; id., ‘Griechische Un-Ordnungen’, in E.-L. Schwandner (ed.), Säule und Gebälk, Zu Struktur und Wandlungsprozess griechisch-römischer Architektur. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin vom 16. bis 18. Juni 1994 (DiskAB 6, Mainz 1996), 61-77; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Votivoder Architektursäulen?’, ibid., 39-46; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Beobachtungen zur Genese ionischer Gebälkformen’, ibid., 55-60; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Byzantinische Vierstützen-Kirchen auf Naxos’, Bericht über die 39. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung der Koldewey-Gesellschaft in Leiden 1996 (Bonn 1998), 61-69; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 261-416; K. Müller, ‘Zwei Kleroterion-Fragmente auf Paros’, AA 1998, 167-172; Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen’, 296-317; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Das ‘Zapheiropoulos-Kapitell’ in Paros. Eine Votivsäule ohne Bildwerk?’, in N. Chr. Stampolidis (ed.), Φως Κυκλαδικόν. Τιμητικός τόμος στη μνήμη του Νίκου Ζαφειρόπουλου (Athens 1999), 220-231; G. Gruben, ‘Marmor und Architektur’, in D.U. Schilardi and D. Katsonopoulou (eds), Paria Lithos. Parian Quarries, Marble and Workshops of Sculpture. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Paros 2-5 October 1997 (Athens 2000), 125-135; E. Simantoni-Bournia, ‘Les premières phases du Sanctuaire d' Hyria d'après les objets retrouvés’, RA 2000, 209-219; ead., ‘The Early Phases of the Hyria Sanctuary on Naxos. An overview of the pottery’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (Oxford 2002), 269-280; Müller, Hellenistische Architektur.

The third temple – dated to the beginning of the 7th century – signifies an important development. It partly took over the exterior walls of its predecessor, but reduced the interior to the ‘canonical’ three aisles – though the middle aisle was narrower than the ones on the side. The bases (marble again!) had a pronounced shape and supported wooden columns with, perhaps, simple Ionic capitals. The most surprising feature is the façade that generated one of the first prostyle temples of the ancient world; it was presumably decorated with a terracotta frieze. A marble ‘waterspout’ was found belonging to the earthen flat roof [fig. 2]. A lantern had probably been adjusted over the eschara, set on the axis of the building.4 The monumentalisation which took place shortly before the middle of the 6th century is apparent on the fourth temple at the site: this temple enclosed the older structures and measured c.13 by 29 m. Apart from the longitudinal and back walls, which were of granite, and the wooden ceiling and roof beams, everything was made of marble: the prostasis with its elaborate Ionic columns with high cylindrical bases; the front wall with the first of the typical ‘Cycladic’ doors with monolith jambs;5 the interior columns that had been left unfinished – a fact which allows us to 2 The plan is similar to that of the ‘temple’ of the Geometric necropolis in Tsikalario on Naxos which probably had two inner supports: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ADelt 21 (1966), 391-396 figs 3-8 esp. 8; ead., ‘La necropoli geometrica di Tsikalario a Naxos’, Magna Graecia 18.5-6 (May-June 1983), 1-4. 3 Ohnesorg, ‘Altäre’, 53-58, esp. 53-54. 4 Lambrinoudakis 1996, op.cit. n. 1, 55-56, figs 3-7. 5 G. Gruben and W. Koenigs, ‘Naxos und Paros. Zweiter verläufiger Bericht’, AA 1970, 144-149; Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 7-36, esp. 15ff.

137

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 2. Naxos, Yria. Marble ‘waterspout’ and flat earthen roof of temple III (drawing by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive).

follow their working process;6 and last but not least the beautiful marble roof ‘tiles’ [fig. 1]. The temple was transformed into a church in the 5th or 6th century AD.7

at Sangri on Naxos was built. It was constructed entirely of marble, including the cross beams and rafters, and the roof tiles. In the well-known drawing of the interior of the temple by M. Korres the transluscent marble ceiling is evident, as well as the five unfluted slender columns of different heights,9 and the ground plan that corresponds to the cult necessities of a Thesmophorion.10 The capitals of the inner columns are slightly different from those of the front columns [pl. 32A-B], and it is not surprising that originally they had been considered to be Doric capitals.11 But I think Gruben has clearly shown that

I omit the interesting Western building, a combination of bridge, Propylon and Hestiatorion and the other remains of the temenos of which we mainly know the – already almost rectangular – surrounding walls enclosing c. 5800 m.sq. [figs 1, 3].8 About half a century later, in 530/520 BC, the temple

9 See section in Gruben 1996, op.cit. n. 1, 71 fig. 12 or Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’, 397 fig. 17. 10 First published in G. Gruben and M. Korres, ‘Σαγκρί Νάξου’, Prakt 1979, 256 fig. 2; see also G. Gruben, Die Tempel der Griechen (4th edition, Munich 1986), 340 fig. 283; id., Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer (Munich 2001), 366 fig. 275; Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’, 398 fig. 19. 11 At first by the excavator of the temple N. Kontoleon (Prakt 1951, 223 and Prakt 1954, 330-338), and still by M.-Chr. Hellmann in her excellent book on Greek architecture: L'Architecture Grecque 1 (Paris 2002), 144. Photographs of one of the interior capitals are reproduced in Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 21 fig. 18 above; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1972’, 343 fig. 10; Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 386 fig. 49; Schuller, Artemistempel, 99 fig. 45.

6

Gruben 1991, op.cit. n. 1, 63-71, esp. 69ff, figs 12ff. 7 Plans and reconstructions of the interior and exterior of temples I-IV and the church: Gruben 1993, op.cit. n. 1, 98ff, figs 2-5 (the façade of temple III has to be completed); Gruben 1991/2, op.cit. n. 1, 44ff figs 38-41; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 24 fig. 2; Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’, 393 fig. 11. 8 V. Lambrinoudakis and E. Simantoni-Bournia (eds), Naxos. Presentation of the Archaeological Sites Iria, Sangri, Pyrgos Chimarrou (1997), 16ff, fig. 11; V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Rites de consécration des temples à Naxos’, in J. Leclant and J.-Ch. Balty (eds), Rites et cultes dans le monde antique: Actes de la table ronde du LIMC, à la villa Kérylos à Beaulieu-sur-Mer, les 8 et 9 juin 2001 (Cahiers de la villa Kérylos 12, Paris 2002), 1-19, esp. 7ff, figs 6-8.

138

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 3. Naxos, Yria, ‘western building’, 3 phases. 1. Bridge c. 700 BC, 2. and 3. banqueting rooms of the late 7th and 6th c. BC (drawing by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive).

139

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 4. Naxos, Sangri, Temple of Demeter. Reconstruction of the front, with painted ornaments (drawing by M. Korres, Paros-Naxos-archive).

140

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 5. Naxos, antique marble quarries of Phlerio near Melanes. Unfinished lintel. Scale 1:80 (Paros-Naxos-archive). they are Ionic capitals of the type with a ring of leaves (‘Blattkranz-Kapitelle’) [fig. 4]. The leaves were probably painted, although no traces of this decoration survive – not even brighter and darker marble or a ‘relief’ of weathering (‘Verwitterungsrelief’) such as that attested on other architectural members of this temple.12

The third and latest of the 6th century temples on Naxos is the Temple of Apollo, formerly ascribed to Dionysos [pl. 31A]. G. Gruben and W. Koenigs began to work at the site in 1968, and among other discoveries they found the peristyle. In 1984 we had to correct our earlier reconstruction of the large astragal moulding, which in fact is a wall torus. The torus did not encircle the door frame but continued orthogonally and horizontally above the first course of wall blocks.14 The question still remains whether the polygonal profile, with fasciae, should be completed as a fluted torus or a real astragal.15

This temple was also transformed into a church. How this was done in two steps was mainly deciphered by M. Korres: First, the building was transformed into – what we call – a ‘temple-church’, with very few alterations; at a later date, it was transformed into a basilica, by demolishing and rebuilding two walls and the interior.13

The new study of this building and its transformation into a church has recently been undertaken by Martin Lambertz, who will publish his conclusions.16 I was allowed to mention here some of them: one, which

12 For example on a moulding belonging to the pronaos-beams: G. Gruben and M. Korres, ‘Σαγκρί Νάξου’, Prakt 1977, 385 pl. 201 a, or on the tympanon moulding: iid., ‘Σαγκρί Νάξου’, Prakt 1978, 217ff, pl. 147b. We could make out the ‘relief of weathering’ with the strong light of the southern sun, and without the technical equipment that Vinzenz Brinkmann mostly used for his research on Archaic sculpture. He has recently presented his results in a spectacular exhibition in Munich: V. Brinkmann and R. Wünsche (eds), Bunte Götter. Die Farbigkeit antiker Skulptur (Munich 2003); see also V. Brinkmann, Die Polychromie der archaischen und frühklassischen Skulptur (Munich 2003). 13 M. Korres, ‘Die christliche Basilika’, in Gruben and Lambrinoudakis, ‘Naxos’, 397-401 figs 21-23.

14 Gruben and Koenigs, op.cit. n. 5, 135-153, esp. 138ff, fig. 4; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1972’, 352; G. Touchais, ‘Chronique des fouilles en 1983’, BCH 108 (1984), 820-823 fig. 155. 15 The two alternatives are both represented in the Ionian treasuries at Delphi: G. Daux, FD II: Le Sanctuaire d’Athena Pronaia: Les deux Trésors (Paris 1923), 50ff, figs 48-57 (fluted wall-torus of the treasury of the Massiliots); G. Daux and E. Hansen, FD II: Le Trésor de Siphnos (Paris 1987), 73-85, 223-233 pls 7-10 (large astragal moulding). 16 Cf. his previous work: M. Lambertz, ‘Eine frühchristliche Basilika auf Naxos - mit Bauteilen aus dem Heiligtum von Yria?’, AA 2001, 379-408.

141

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 6. Naxos, Palati. Unfinished console in the foundation of the temple. Scale 1:20 (Paros-Naxos-archive). he discovered together with Manolis Korres, is that originally an eastern doorway, instead of the western, was planned. The lintel and the threshold for the eastern door had already been prepared – the former still lies in situ in the quarries of Phlerio near Melanes [fig. 5],17 while the latter was transferred to the western door. The plan for the eastern door had been abandoned when the western ‘door of appearance’ (‘Erscheinungstüre’ as Gruben has named it) was installed.18 Furthermore, a console provided for the eastern door was left in its raw form (‘Bossenform’) and built into the foundation of one of the inner columns [fig. 6, pl. 31B].

The existence of an additional late Archaic temple is attested by two lion-head waterspouts which cannot have belonged to the Temple of Apollo. The two fragmentary pieces allow a reconstruction of the entire marble roof.19 They were found about 8 km east of the main town near the church of Ag. Mamas, where presumably lay the temple or temple-like building on which this roof was originally placed.

17

19

The marble quarries used for most of these buildings are known. They lie near Melanes and Apollona, and contained voluminous masses of coarse grained white marble which was exploited in antiquity for sculpture as well.20

Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 293ff fig. 295. G. Gruben and W. Koenigs, ‘Der ‘Hekatompedos’ von Naxos’, AA 1968, 705-710; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1972’, 364.

Ohnesorg, Marmordächer, 73-76, pls 10, 45-46. G. Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Τα αρχαία λατομεία της Νάξου’, AEphem 1992, 101-127 (with earlier bibliography).

18

20

142

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 7. Paros, Museum Inv. 1285. Gorgo found in 1993. Scale 1:20 (drawing by author). to light only in greater depth – and in oblique layers; it was exploited only from the Hellenistic times onwards and, obviously, it was preferred for sculpture.25

To the sanctuaries and temples on the isle of Naxos itself the following temples, parts of temples, and votive gifts, which were ‘exported’ to Delos, Delphi and Athens, must be added: to Delos the ‘Oikos’ and the Stoa of the Naxians, the colossus – that undoubtedly always stood on the same place and was not moved! – the ‘Nikandre’ and probably the Propylon of the Sanctuary of Apollo;21 to Delphi the Naxian Sphinx;22 to the Acropolis of Athens a Naxian marble roof and early sculpture.23

Sacred buildings as old as the ones on Naxos have not been discovered on Paros; the earliest is the early 7th-century Temple of Athena at Koukounaries.26 An important building of the same date and size as Yria IV (towards the middle of the 6th century BC) must have existed in the city, since the recently discovered large Gorgo of outstanding quality cannot have been anything else than an acroterion [fig. 7].27

On Paros the availability of high quality marble influenced the development of arts, including architecture.24 A great part of it could also be found on the surface, as in Naxos. The famous ‘Lychnites’ came

The base of the Gorgo has the form of a cover tile. It was originally c. 0.30 m wide and rises from front to back, c. 1:5. Therefore – and for other reasons – the Gorgo was not a central, but a corner acroterion of a hipped roof [fig. 8].

21 Ph. Bruneau and J. Ducat, Guide de Délos (3rd edition, Paris 1983), 56, 119, 156ff, fig. 35; G. Kokkorou-Alewras, ‘Die archaische naxische Bildhauerei’, AntPl 24 (Munich 1996), 37138, esp. 54, 80 pls 9ff; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos’, 261-416, esp. 267-293 and 350-372; contra R. Etienne and M. WurchKozelj, ‘Délos I. Propylées et sondages dans le Sanctuaire d'Apollon’, BCH 126 (2002), 529-536. 22 P. Amandry, FD II: La Colonne des Naxiens et le portique des Athéniens (Paris 1953). 23 A. Ohnesorg, ‘Ein naxisches Marmordach auf der Athener Akropolis’, Bericht über die 34. Tagung für Ausgrabungswissenschaft und Bauforschung der Koldewey-Gesellschaft 1986 (Bonn 1988), 11-16; Ohnesorg, Marmordächer, 62-66 and pls 6, 36-38; B. Sauer, ‘Altnaxische Marmorkunst’, AM 17 (1892), 3779; G. Roesch, Altertümliche Marmorwerke von Paros (Kiel 1914); Kokkorou-Alewras, op.cit. n. 21, 37-138. 24 K. Germann, G. Gruben, H. Knoll, et al., ‘Provenance characteristics of Cycladic (Paros and Naxos) Marbles - a multivariate approach’, in N. Herz and M. Waelkens (eds), Classical Marble. Geochemistry, Technology, Trade: Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Marble in Ancient Greece and Rome: Geology, Quarries, Commerce, Artifacts. Il Ciocco, Lucca, Italy, May 9-13, 1988 (Dordrecht and London 1988), 251-262; a thesis by a student of Prof. Germann was regrettably never finished; N. Herz, ‘The Classical marble quarries of Paros: Paros1, Paros-2 and Paros-3’, in D.U. Schilardi and D. Katsonopoulou (eds), Paria Lithos. Parian Quarries, Marble and Workshops of Sculpture. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Paros 2-5 October 1997 (Athens 2000), 27-33; D. Schilardi, ‘Observations on the Quarries of Spilies, Lakkoi and Thapsana on Paros’, in ibid., 3559; M. Korres, ‘Υπόγεια λατομεία της Πάρου’, in ibid., 61-82.

Near the Gorgo – and the so-called ‘temenos’ – a few marble cover tiles were found; in terms of technique they correspond to the Gorgo, still made without the toothed chisel which was introduced around the middle of the 6th century.28 One fragment belongs to an 25 R. Leibadaros and K. Tsaimou, ‘Nέα στοιχεία για την υπόγεια εκμετάλλευση του λυχνίτη στην Πάρο’, in ibid., 83-90. 26 D.U. Schilardi ‘The Temple of Athena at Koukounaries. Obeservations on the cult of Athena’, in R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986 (Stockholm 1988), 41ff; id., ‘Il tempio di Atena a Koukounaries e considerazioni sulla topografia di Paros nel VII secolo AC’, in D.U. Schilardi and E. Lanzilotta (eds), Le Cicladi ed il mondo egeo: seminario internazionale di studi: Roma, 19-21 novembre 1992 (Rome 1996), 45ff. 27 Zaphiropoulou has reconstructed it as a votive column or a similar detached monument: Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Parische Skulpturen’, AntPl 27 (Munich 2000), 7-35; one of the author's arguments were the ‘meniskoi’ – that do not occur on acroteria; but the opposite is the case, as is evident by the numerous examples given in P. Danner, ‘Meniskoi und Obeloi’, ÖJh 62 (1993), 19ff. 28 For the beginning of the use of the toothed chisel towards the middle of the 6th century see E.-L. Schwandner, Der ältere Porostempel der Aphaia auf Aegina (DAA 16, Berlin 1985), 130 n. 259; Ohnesorg, Marmordächer, 66 n. 674.

143

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 8. Paros, Gorgo (base) reconstructed as corner acroterion. Scale 1:30 (drawing by author).

144

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 9. Paros, Gorgo(s) on the front of an Ionic prostylos. Scale 1:100 (drawing by author). There was a building boom on Paros from the late 6th century onwards making use of its beautiful white marble: the four Αrchaic Ionic temples, ‘A’ on the acropolis, ‘B’ in the city, ‘C’ and the small Ionic ‘antae building’, whose locations are not known, have already been discussed. There is little to be added to their reconstructions, with the exception of a minor correction related to the height of the door of temple ‘A’, which must have been 10 cm higher. That changes the proportions given in 1972 and lead to a new reconstruction of the front [fig. 10].30

antefix, which lay on the eaves beside the Gorgo. Other cover tiles come from the ridge of the building; one seems to show the connection with the hip tiles.29 The Gorgo has been dated by Zaphiropoulou to the third decade of the 6th century. The thus reconstructed ‘new’ marble roof and the building to which it belonged were of the same period, i.e. the period of Yria IV. But what sort of building was it, and where was it situated? Do we have another ‘floating temple’ – in addition to temples ‘B’ and ‘C’ and others whose locations have not yet been identified? So far we do not know of any further architectural members of a temple of that size and time on Paros. On the strange ‘temenos’ there is no room for a hipped roof. In a hypothetical reconstruction the Gorgo – and a counterpiece – were set on the front of a Ionic prostyle façade [fig. 9].

Furthermore there were at least three Doric temples in the city of Paros, the first presumably dating from the third quarter of the 6th century, and the likewise Doric Temple of Artemis in the Delion. The characteristics of Cycladic-Doric or ‘Island Doric’ in comparison with ‘Island Ionic’ were brilliantly analysed by M. Schuller.31 One of the details for the mixture (and synthesis) of Doric and Ionic is the

30

6.066 m instead of 5.958 m: G. Touchais, ‘Chronique des Fouilles en 1986’, BCH 111 (1987), 567. 31 Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 319-398; Schuller, Artemistempel, 88ff.

29 A. Ohnesorg, ‘Die ‘neue’ Gorgo von Paros - das Akroter eines Bauwerks’, AM 118 (2003), 125-138, pls 28-31.

145

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 10. Paros. Temple "A" on the acropolis. Front reconstruction. Scale 1:125 (Paros-Naxos-archive). ‘Chian’ epikranitis which was ascribed to the cella walls of the Temple of Artemis.32

temple at Sangri are not Doric as has been already pointed out.

On Paros there were some Doric votive capitals as well – in addition to the many Ionic ones – not to mention the Doric order on the newly discovered building at Despotiko, which might belong to a stoa.33 It is interesting that this Doric ‘fashion’ of the 6th century is restricted to Paros; on Naxos there is a single and curious ‘flat’ Doric capital that could have been set up on a votive column.34 The capitals of the

A ‘canonical’ Doric temple on Paros seems to be attested by the two large Doric capitals and at least one architrave and some column drums which were recently found in the harbour of Paros, and are unpublished. They provide evidence for the existence of a large temple of the late Archaic period. It should be dated a little earlier than the Alkmaeonid temple at Delphi, i.e. around 520 BC.35 These new members 35 Information kindly given by M. Korres who gave me his opinion on the interesting new finds of the Ephorate of Underwater Archaeology; the width of the abacus is 1.99 m, the height of the capital c. 94 cm. For comparison see the Temple of Apollo, Delphi: F. Courby and H. Lacoste, FD II: La Terrasse du Temple (Paris 1915-1927), 92ff, esp. 100 pl. 11: abacus width 2.30-2.35 m, height of capital until the top of the anuli c. 98.5 cm, height of capital until the joint within the anuli 1.10-1.15 m. Compare also the Peisistratid Temple of Athena on the Acropolis: Th. Wiegand, Die Poros-Architektur der Akropolis zu Athen (Berlin 1904), 122 fig. 118: abacus width 2.25 m, height of capital until the top of the anuli 1.083 m.

32

Ohnesorg 1989, op.cit. n. 1, 407-414. Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 353-357; Schuller, Artemistempel, 95-97 fig. 40. See the contribution of Y. Kourayos in the same volume. 34 Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 385-389 fig. 50. 33

146

Naxian and Parian Architecture

[pl. 32C];39 it is possible to imagine it forming part of an altar or a herkos.

signify the existence of a monument with at least two columns. There is further evidence that it was erected on Paros – and not prepared so as to be exported – since there are pry holes, dowel holes, pin holes and incised lines as well as traces of weathering on the surface of the capital(s). It may never be determined whether it was a peripteral temple; if it were, it would have been larger than the Naxian Temple of Apollo, the only known Archaic peripteral temple in the Cyclades.

There are even stronger similarities between Naxian and Parian architectural decoration in the 4th century. A group of mouldings in the church of Ag. Mamas on Naxos, which had been taken from the herkos of an altar or a similar monument (HM 3-7), shows a striking similarity with a piece in the Museum of Paros (M 187) that might also have belonged to an altar.40 A second fragment in the same Naxian church (HM 1) was made, according to scientific analysis, of Parian marble.41 The palmettes of this piece resemble the palmettes on a small anta capital on Paros (KA 710), which we ascribe to the ‘Hestia’ complex [pl. 33A].42

In addition to temple architecture, altars of various sizes and periods, votive columns of great variety and elaborate decoration and a variety of sculpture were produced on Paros. The number – and variety – of altars and votive capitals on Paros is richer than on Naxos.36 Just to mention a few examples of the newly discovered material: the epikranitis with the painted leaf pattern from Paros can be•reconstructed as an ‘anta altar’,37 one of the characteristic Cycladic altar types; it can be compared to the similar, but earlier, altar of Artemis on Delos which has deeper antae.38

To this Parian ‘Hestia’ complex of the late Classical period belong several architectural members which were found in different places on Naxos. They were first interpreted as a ‘parallel building’ on Naxos until we realised that they were all spoliae.43 In recent years, two further capitals were identified in the Kastro of Naxos; one of them (N 16) is better preserved than the ones known hitherto [figs 11-12, pl. 33B-C].44

Another example of the ‘Island Ionic’ altars of the ‘antae type’ is the big altar with the double mouldings which probably stood on the acropolis of Paros. A similar late Archaic moulding can still be found built into the wall of a Venetian tower on Naxos

Paros furthermore exported marble architecture as well as sculpture to foreign clients such as the Siphnians, the Cnidians, the Massiliots and others for the treasuries which they dedicated to the Panhellenic sanctuary at Delphi. The similarity in architectural details, as for example between the ‘door volutes’ of the Siphnian Treasury and those of ‘Temple B’ on Paros, clearly show that Parian workmen had participated at least in the construction of the Siphnian Treasury.45 The volutes of the altar of the Chians at Delphi and a fragment on the island of Chios belong

36 Altars: A. Ohnesorg, ‘Altäre auf Paros’, in R. Etienne and M.Th. Le Dinahet (eds), L'Espace sacrificiel dans les civilisations méditerranéennes de l'antiquité: actes du colloque tenu à la Maison de l'Orient, Lyon, 4-7 juin 1988 (Paris 1991), 121-126; Ohnesorg, ‘Altäre’, 53-58; Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre. - Capitals: N.M. Kontoleon, ‘Πάρια ιωνικά κιονόκρανα’, AAA 1 (1968), 178181; W. Kirchhoff, Die Entwicklung des ionischen Volutenkapitells im 6. und 5. Jhd. und seine Entstehung (Bonn 1988), passim; Ohnesorg 1993, op.cit. n. 1, 111-118; E. McGowan, Votive Columns of the Aegean Islands and the Athenian Acropolis in the Archaic Period (PhD Thesis, New York University 1993); ead., ‘New order: Aeolic-Style capitals in the Cyclades’, AJA 97 (1994), 326; Ohnesorg 1996, op.cit. n. 1, 39-46; Ohnesorg 1999, op.cit. n. 1, 220-231, esp. 227ff fig. 8 for the votive column now in Pesaro; G. Vinicio Gentili, ‘I due kouroi da Osimo e itre kouroi del vecchio Museo Archeologico di Siracusa nello studio di Luigi Bernabò Brea’, in M. Cavalier and M. Bernabò Brea (eds), In memoria di Luigi Bernabò Brea (Palermo 2002), 77ff fig. 15 recently proposed that the column bore the ‘Apollino’ of Syracuse; but the upper surface of the column could not have accommodated this small kouros. - Sculpture (selection): A. Kostoglou-Despoini, Προβλήματα της Παριανής πλαστικής του 5ου αι. π.Χ. (Thessaloniki 1979) with earlier bibliography; Zaphiropoulou, op.cit. n. 27, 7-35. 37 G. Touchais, ‘Chronique des Fouilles en 1986’, BCH 111 (1987), 565-567 and fig. 74. Cf. Ohnesorg 1991, op.cit. n. 36, 125ff and pl. 28 c-e; Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre, 24-28 and pls 9, 10, 40. 38 R. Etienne and Ph. Fraisse, ‘L'Autel archaique de l'Artémision de Délos’, BCH 113 (1989), 451-466; I do not believe that the mouldings are two-storey as the French colleagues have shown them, but one-storey, see Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre, 74-78 and pls 26, 54.

39 H. Eberhard and W. Herrmann, ‘Der Pyrgos Ypsili auf Naxos’, Burgen und Schlösser 30 (1989), 86-95, esp. 92; Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre, 19-20 and pl. 38. 40 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 159-195, esp. 168-170 and figs 10-12; Ohnesorg, ‘Hagios Mamas’, 170-184; Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre, 17-18 pls 3, 37 and 36-37, pls 14, 43. The find spot of one of the late Archaic waterspouts with lion-heads (see above) is nearby. 41 Ohnesorg, ‘Hagios Mamas’, 180ff and n. 40. 42 G. Touchais, ‘Chronique des Fouilles en 1984’, BCH 109 (1985), 834ff and fig. 169; Hestia-complex: Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 621-683. 43 Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen’, 296-317. 44 The ‘new’ capitals were made available to us by Pater Manolis Remounda - see Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen’, 303 and pl. 4 - and photographed and drawn by M. Lambertz; I would like to express my warmest thanks to the latter for allowing me to publish them here. 45 Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1972’, 370-374 figs 31ff; Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 7-36, esp. 22-25 figs 19-21; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 174-179 fig. 18; Daux and Hansen, op.cit. n. 15, 121-137 and pls 59ff.

147

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 11. Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 16). Scale 1:5 (drawing by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive).

to the same ‘family’.46 Striking is the similarity of another new ‘relative’ from a Lydian tomb-complex in Aktepe near Uşak.47

With regards to a votive capital of Parian marble found on Kythera it is not easy to say whether it was the material that was exported there or the Parian craftsmanship as well. The fragment was first interpreted as an altar volute, but it certainly has to be reconstructed as a volute capital. It was carved in the 6th century, probably towards the end.48 We thus have recovered a late Archaic marble votive column that might point to a Cycladic master.

46

Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 25-27 and figs 22-25; D. Laroche, ‘L'autel d'Apollon à Delphes: éléments nouveaux’, in R. Etienne and M.-Th. Le Dinahet (eds), op.cit. n. 36,103-107; Ohnesorg, Ionische Altäre, 127-133, pls 32, 67, 68, 70. 47 I. Özgen and J. Öztürk, The Lydian Treasure (Istanbul 1996), 40-44 and figs 72ff. The transfer may have taken place via Ephesos where it is possible to identify a few ‘Cycladisms’ at the ‘Kroisos temple’ as well – but these are speculations; cf A. Ohnesorg, ‘Ephesische Rosettenkapitelle’, in U. Muss (ed.), Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut Suppl. 37, Vienna 2001), 185-197, esp. 187; M. Weissl, ‘Grundzüge der Bau- und Schichtenfolge im Artemision von Ephesos’, ÖJh 71 (2002), 313-346, esp. 346 n. 197; A. Ohnesorg, Der Kroisos-Tempel (forthcoming in FiE).

48 J.N. Coldstream and G.L. Huxley (eds), Kythera: Excavations and Studies (London 1972), 37: “Late Archaic”; A. Ohnesorg, ‘A small votive capital from Kythera’, BSA 99 (2004), 283-289.

148

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 12. Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 25, scetch). Scale 1:5 (drawing by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive).

The high quality of Parian marble architecture is maintained at least until late Classical times. After 400 BC the fine Doric temple of the Pythion and two further Doric temples at Marmara, the ‘Archilocheion’ and the exquisite Hestia complex were built. The last can presumably be connected with the Parian Skopas.49

With regards to the Pythion – if this identification of the late Classical temple is correct50 – two new, excellently preserved, cornice blocks were found during the Greek excavations, built into the ancient city-wall [pl. 34A]. Their place of discovery confirms the early destruction of the temple, a fact which Schuller connected with Philip V’s campaign against 290; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 621-683; Gruben, ‘Wandernde Säulen’, 296-317. On Marmara see n. 53. 50 M. Melfi, ‘Il complesso del Pythion-Asklepieion a Paro’, ASAtene 80 (2002), 327-360 believes that the whole complex on both terraces was the Asklepieion.

49

M. Schuller, ‘Der dorische Tempel des Apollon Pythios auf Paros’, AA 1982, 245-264; Schuller intends to present the final publication; Schuller, Artemistempel, 114-117; A. Ohnesorg, ‘Der dorische Prostylos des Archilocheion auf Paros’, AA 1982, 271-

149

A. Ohnesorg

Figure 13. Paros, Pythion, reconstruction of the entablature with the sima M 269. Scale 1:40 (Paros-Naxos-archive).

the Cyclades in 203/202 BC.51 We have ascribed to the Pythion a fragmentary sima that fits in its proportions and might be of the same period; it would have been easier to determine whether it is fitting chronologically if the waterspout had not been cut off when it was reused as a wall block [fig. 13, pl. 34B-C].52

gymnasium, the Asklepieion, two stoas, an ‘auditorium’ (or odeion) etc.54 On Naxos we possess far less evidence for the Classical period (see the anthemion epikranitis above); in the Hellenistic period a large stoa and – obviously – a theatre were built there.55 But after that time the art and architecture of both islands began to deteriorate, though Parian marble was still exploited in the Imperial era, even more intensively. From late antiquity onwards the numerous and rich buildings of the islands were used as quarries.

With regards to the more or less contemporary temple at Marmara we have found a number of new architectural members; among them two new cornice fragments which provide the exact intercolumniation of 2.334 m.53 Of the two possible column heights the lower with eight drums is the more probable one, that is a height of c. 6.05 m or c. 6¼ lower diameters (of c. 97 cm). The older reconstruction has thus been altered considerably [fig. 14].

Naxos was the pioneer in late Geometric and earlier Archaic times, Paros followed in the high and late Archaic period and had a second period of flourishing after 400 BC. The artistic centre, with regards to 54

Müller, Hellenistische Architektur. Theatre: Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 165 and fig. 7; beside the one published ‘sitting step’ there are two more on the Palati hill and in the garden of the Archaeological Museum (noticed by Martin Lambertz). It is therefore improbable that the fragments found on Naxos had been transferred from Paros, like the many architectural members of the Hestia complex and other pieces from Delos to Paros or Naxos: ibid., 169ff and fig. 13; recently Martin Lambertz recognised that a Lesbian cyma on Naxos found on the Palati hill comes from the Letoon on Delos: Gruben, ‘Kykladische Architektur’, 13 fig. 9 (above right); G. Gruben and W. Koenigs, ‘Der ‘Hekatompedos’ von Naxos und der Burgtempel von Paros’, AA 1970, 143 fig. 10; Gruben, ‘Naxos und Paros 1982’, 164 and n. 9, where the similarity between the two is already stressed! - Stoa: Müller, Hellenistische Architektur, 42-47 with earlier bibliography.

Noteworthy buildings were still erected on Paros in the Hellenistic period, as for example the theatre, the

55

51 Ph. Zaphiropoulou, ‘Paros’, ADelt 45 (1990), B 402-403 and fig. 3; ead., ADelt 49 (1994) B 665-669 and fig. 4; the spoliae are mentioned, but for the Pythion only Rubensohn is cited, strangely not Schuller, see n. 49; the two cornice blocks show traces of red colour. Schuller, ‘Dorische Architektur’, 328ff and figs 8ff made clear that the ‘inner architrave’ first ascribed to the Pythion was taken from an older building. 52 The fragments bear our no. M 269 a and b; the number of the museum's inventory is unknown. 53 The former intercolumniation was c. 1.45 m: K. Schnieringer, ‘Der dorische Tempel bei Marmara auf Paros’, AA 1982, 265-270.

150

Naxian and Parian Architecture

Figure 14. Paros-Marmara. New reconstruction of the order. Scale 1:50 (Paros-Naxos-archive).

151

A. Ohnesorg

marble architecture and sculpture, moved on to Attica in the 5th century, where Greek art developed and rose to its absolute culmination. Thus the

Cycladic islands may be seen as the cradle of what should become so famous and exemplary in future millenniums. Aenne Ohnesorg, Lehrstuhl für Baugeschichte Technische Universität München Arcisstr. 21 D 80290 München

152

8 Buildings for votive ships on Delos and Samothrace Bonna D. Wescoat

The architecture of Delos is of greater antiquity, and its history of greater centrality than that of Samothrace,* but both islands enjoyed a spurt of building

activity during the Hellenistic period for which Philippe Bruneau’s description, “extraordinarily audacious”, might equally apply [figs 1-2].1 Favoured in turn by Ptolemies and Antigonids, the sacred

I would like to thank the co-organisers of the colloquium and this volume, Maria Stamatopoulou and Marina Yeroulanou, for the privilege of including this paper in honour of Jim Coulton. I am also grateful to James R. McCredie, director of excavations at the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace, for permission to present material which he so ably brought to light, Dimitris Matsas of the 19th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, for his continued support of our work on Samothrace, the French School in Athens, for permission to use their illustrations and photographs, as well as to Sandra Blakely, Kevin Clinton, Nora Dimitrova, Jasper Gaunt, William Scott, Olga Palagia, and the participants in the colloquium. I am particularly indebted to William Murray and J. Richard Steffy for generously sharing their expertise (mistakes are my own), to Thomas Brogan for allowing me to read parts of his unpublished dissertation, and to Sheramy Bundrick, from whom I learned much while advising her master’s thesis.

Green, Alexander = P. Green, Alexander to Actium; the Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (Berkeley 1990). Hintzen-Bohlen = B. Hintzen-Bohlen, Herrscher-repräsentation im Hellenismus (Böhlau 1992). Lehmann, ‘Ship-Fountain’ = K. Lehmann, ‘The Ship-Fountain from the Victory of Samothrace to the Galeria’, in Samothracian Reflections; Aspects of the Revival of the Antique (Princeton 1973), 190-200. Marcadé, ‘Sculptures décoratives’ = J. Marcadé, ‘Les sculptures décoratives du monument des Taureaux à Délos’, BCH 75 (1951), 55-89. McCredie, Roux et al., Rotunda = J.R. McCredie, G. Roux, S.M. Shaw and J. Kurtich, Samothrace 7: The Rotunda of Arsinoe (Princeton 1992). Morrison and Coates = J.S. Morrison and J.F. Coates, Greek and Roman Oared Warships (Oxford 1996). Murray and Petsas, Octavian’s Campsite = W.M. Murray and P. Petsas, Octavian’s Campsite Memorial for the Actian War (TAPA 79.4, 1989). Picard, ‘Neôrion’ = C. Picard, ‘Démétrius Poliorcetes et le Neôrion de Délos’, RA 40 (1952), 79-83. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I = B.S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I. The Styles of ca. 331-200 B.C. (Madison 1990). Roux, ‘Inventaire’ = G. Roux, ‘L’inventaire ID 1403 du Néôrion Délien’, BCH 113 (1989), 261-275. Roux, ‘Problèmes’ = G. Roux, ‘Problèmes Déliens. Le Néôrion’, BCH 105 (1981), 60-71. Schmidt-Dounas = B. Schmidt-Dounas, Geschenke erhalten die Freundschaft; Politik und Selbstdarstellung im Spiegel der Monumente (Berlin 2000). Tréheux, ‘Document nouveau’ = J. Tréheux, ‘Un document nouveau sur le Néôrion à Délos’, REG 99 (1986), 293-317. Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’ = J. Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion à Délos’, CRAI 89 (1987), 168-184. Vallois, AHHD = R. Vallois, L'Architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu'à l'éviction des Déliens (166 av. J.C.) (Paris 1944, 1966, 1978).

Abbreviations Basch, Musée imaginaire = L. Basch, Le musée imaginaire de la marine antique (Athens 1987). Basch, ‘Samothrace’ = L. Basch, ‘Samothrace, un navire consacre aux dieux’, DossAParis 183 (1993), 24-31. Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’ = D Blackman, ‘Ship dedications in sanctuaries’, in S. Böhm and K.-V. von Eickstedt (eds), ΙΘΑΚΕ. Festschrift für Jörg Schäfer zum 75. Geburtstag am 25. April 2001 (Würzburg 2001), 207-212. Bringmann and von Steuben = K. Bringmann and H. von Steuben, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer (Berlin 1995). Brogan, Nike = T. Brogan, Hellenistic Nike: Monuments Commemorating Military Victories of the Attalid and Antigonid Kingdoms, the Aitolian League and the Rhodian Polis, ca. 307 to 133 B.C. (PhD Thesis, Bryn Mawr 1999). Bruneau and Ducat, Guide = P. Bruneau and J. Ducat, Guide de Délos (3rd edition, Paris 1983). Casson, Ships = L. Casson, Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World (Baltimore 1995). Étienne, ‘Delos’ = R. Étienne, ‘The development of the sanctuary of Delos: new perspectives’, in M. Stamatopoulou and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece (Oxford 2002), 285-293.

1

153

Bruneau and Ducat, Guide, 49.

B.D. Wescoat

Figure 1. Plan of the Sanctuary of Apollo, Delos (EFA).

island of Delos and the Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace became the architectural playing fields on which the Hellenistic dynasties vied for hegemony and display. The architecture of both islands is marked by its originality of design, favouring unusual, even bizarre plans (again Bruneau’s word); idiosyncratic orientations; a passion for prostyle façades, lateral doors, and appended porches; attention to interior space; and, a willingness to exploit forms evocative of more ancient architecture.2 In short, architects working on both islands shared a propensity to think ‘outside the box’.

two sanctuaries, and to reflect on what such associations might suggest about relations between the two sanctuaries during the late 4th and first half of the 3rd centuries BC. Ship parts and ship models made frequent offerings to the gods, but whole ship dedications set within sanctuaries are exceedingly rare.3 Rarer still are 3 W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War. Part III: Religion (Berkeley 1979), 281-285, for naval spoils and ship models; G. Koepke, ‘Neue Holzfunde von Samos’, AA 81 (1966), 145-148, for wooden ship models from the Heraion on Samos. For whole ship dedications in sanctuaries, Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, who tends to be inclusive. The scattered examples point up the infrequency of the gesture and the distinction of the Delian and Samothracian monuments. The closest counterparts, two sets of supports for ships roughly 30 m long in the Sanctuary of Hera at Samos constructed south of the altar in the mid-7th century, were already built over in the 6th century; H. Walter, Das griechische Heiligtum dargestellt am Heraion von Samos (Stuttgart 1990), figs 92, 98. The possible ship votive on the Athenian Akropolis is thought to be bronze; cf. W. Gauer, Weihgeschenke aus den Perserkriegen (IstMitt Supl. 2, Tübingen 1968), 71, 73; M. Korres, ‘The history of the Acropolis monuments’, in R. Economakis (ed.), Acropolis Restoration. The CCAM Restorations (London 1994), 47. The same blocks, however, have been assigned to the Promachos base; A. Raubitschek and G. Stevens, ‘The pedestal of Athena Promachos’, Hesperia 15 (1946), 109-114, figs 4-7. Stone keel supports found near the harbour at Thasos signal a mounted ship but not where it was set; N.A. Lianos, ‘The area of the ancient closed port of Thasos’, Tropis 5 (1999), 262, fig. 4.

This essay is offered in honour of a scholar who, in defining the rules of Greek architecture, is also a keen admirer of the exceptional. Its aim is to explore what connections may be obtained between the extraordinary ship buildings found in the heart of the 2 For comparisons of the architecture on the two islands, see Vallois, AHHD, 131, 153-154, 409; G. Roux, ‘Salles de banquets à Délos’, in Études déliennes publiées à l'occasion du centième anniversaire du début des fouilles de l'École française d'Athènes à Délos (BCH Suppl. 1, Paris and Athens 1973), 554; J.R. McCredie, ‘A Samothracian enigma’, Hesperia 43 (1974), 457; H. Lauter, Die Architektur des Hellenismus (Darmstadt 1986), 197199; McCredie, Roux et al., Rotunda, 92ff, especially 216-222. A comparison of the Ionic porch on the Eastern Hill of Samothrace with Delian forms will be taken up by the author in Samothrace 9.

154

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 2. Restored sketch plan of the Sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace (drawing by John Kurtich).

buildings sheltering ship dedications. The reasons are obvious: the significant amount of space required, the logistics of hauling a ship into a temenos, and the challenges of constructing a building around the installed ship, not to mention the opportunity cost of taking a serviceable vessel out of commission, all make such a dedication extravagant. With the much later (and different) exception of Octavian’s dedication at Actium, we know of such buildings only in the sanctuaries of Apollo on Delos and the Great Gods on Samothrace.4 The magnificent Monument of

the Bulls on Delos has long been connected with the Neorion mentioned in inscriptions [figs 3-4, pl. 35AB].5 The more recently discovered Neorion on utilitarian ship shed. Murray and Petsas, Octavian’s Campsite, 115-116. For the possibility that Herodes Attikos’s Panathenaic ship was housed in a building to the north of the Panathenaic stadium in Athens, see J. Tobin, Herodes Attikos and the City of Athens. Patronage and Conflict under the Antonines (Amsterdam 1997), 177-185. 5 IG XI2 219.A.42-43; ID nos 1403.Ba.I.39-51; 1405.9-15; 1412b. Key discussions of the monument include T. Homolle, ‘L’Autel des cornes à Délos’, BCH 8 (1884), 416-438; W.W. Tarn, ‘The dedicated ship of Antigonos Gonatas’, JHS 30 (1910), 202-221; Vallois, AHHD I, 33-42, 153-154, 253-254, 255-256, 263, 278280, 373-377, 397-398, 408-409, 423, 434; II,109, 122-123, 238239, 365-367, 390-392, 428-431, 466-469; fig. 3, pls IV-VI, with additional photographs and drawings in P. Fraisse and C. Llinas,

4

The Actium memorial was not in the heart of the sanctuary of Apollo but below it at a naval station, and consisted of neosoikoi sheltering ten captured ships, one of each class (Strabo vii.7.6). The scale and setting suggest the building took the form of a

155

B.D. Wescoat

Samothrace is securely identified by the distinctive supports for a ship’s hull found within its southern section [pls 35C, 36D-E].6 The two monuments bear little physical resemblance, differing in scale, material, plan, manner of votive presentation, and surely in the class of ship each held. Georges Roux spoke of the “elegance and the novelty” of the marble Monument of the Bulls on Delos; Rene Vallois called it the “marvel of the Independence”.7 Such accolades do not accrue to the poros Neorion on Samothrace, but in certain ways it is nearly as remarkable as its marble counterpart. In the extraordinary gesture of dedicating a whole ship, and in the idea of setting that dedication within a grand enclosed space, the Samothracian builders, and their patron, had in mind the Delian Neorion, and they took into consideration some of the same ideas of siting, approach, circulation, light, and display. The desire to see the more modest Samothracian dedication through the lens of the Delian monument seems to find some confirmation in the stratigraphy, for pottery of the second quarter of the 3rd century immediately brings to mind Antigonos Gonatas, a name long associated with the Monument of the Bulls. Lucien Basch has even gone so far as to suggest that the Samothracian ship was a scale model of Antigonos Gonatas’s flagship, the great Isthmia, which he believes Antigonos Gonatas installed at Delos (although not in the Monument of the Bulls).8 A closer comparison, however, takes the two buildings, and their ships, to somewhat different destinations. In advance of the full publication of either monument, I offer the following provisional observations on the design of the monuments and the strategies for votive display, the size of ship each could hold, the array of possible donors, and the role that cult and politics may have played. Figure 3. Plan of the Monument of the Bulls (EFA). EAD XXXVI: Documents d’architecture hellénique et hellénistique (Paris 1995); P.L. Couchoud and J. Svoronos, ‘Le monument dit ‘des taureau’ à Délos et le culte du navire sacré’, BCH 45 (1921), 270-280; Marcadé, ‘Sculptures décoratives’, 87-89; Picard, ‘Neôrion’, 79-83; J. Marcadé, Au musée de Délos (Paris 1969), 361-362; J. Coupry, ‘Autour d’une trière’, in Études déliennes publiées à l'occasion du centième anniversaire du début des fouilles de l'École française d'Athènes à Délos (BCH Suppl. 1, Paris and Athens 1973), 147-156; Roux, ‘Problèmes’, 60-70; H. Gallet de Santerre, ‘Kératon, Pythion et Néorion à Délos’, in Rayonnement Grec. Hommage à Ch. Delvoyein (Brussels 1982), 216-226; Bruneau and Ducat, Guide, no. 24, 138-140; Tréheux, ‘Document nouveau’, 293-317; Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 168184; Basch, Musée imaginaire, 345-352; Roux, ‘Inventaire’, 261275; Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I, 172-176; Hintzen-Bohlen, 91-99; Bringmann and von Steuben, 193-196, no. 133; Brogan, Nike, 125-129, 139-145, 336-360; Schmidt-Dounas, 94-96, no. 133; Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, 207-208.

6 J.R. McCredie, ‘A ship for the Great Gods: excavations in Samothrace’, AJA 91 (1987), 270; J.R. McCredie in H. Catling, AR 1986-87, 50-51, figs 89-90; AR 1987-88, 62-63; AR 1988-89, 95-96; repeated in BCH 111 (1987), 557; BCH 112 (1988), 668; BCH 113 (1989), 663, fig. 166; Basch ‘Samothrace’, 24-31; E. Rice, ‘The glorious dead: commemoration of the fallen and portrayal of victory in the late Classical and Hellenistic world’, in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds), War and Society in the Greek World (London 1993), 224-257; Bringmann and von Steuben, 494-495, no. **432; K. Lehmann, Samothrace; A Guide to the Excavations and Museum (6th edition, revised by J.R. McCredie, Thessaloniki 1998), 107-111, figs 49-52; Brogan, Nike, 128-129, 140-145, 370373; Schmidt-Dounas, 94-96, 209, 266; Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, 208-209, figs 2-3. 7 Roux, ‘Inventaire’, 261; Vallois, AHHD I, 409. 8 Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 31.

156

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 4. Section through the Monument of the Bulls (R. Vallois, Monuments antique de Délos, pl. V).

157

B.D. Wescoat

Figure 5. State plan of the Samothracian Neorion. Scale 1:400 (drawing by John Kurtich).

second storey Ionic lantern dominated the skyline of the sanctuary. The ship was lodged in between.

Siting To accommodate a whole ship monument, both sanctuaries had to be substantially expanded. In each case, the donors made certain the prominence of the location matched the importance of the dedication. Close visual and processional ties bound the new precinct to the heart of the sanctuary. On Delos, the Monument of the Bulls was set in the large, open area to the east of the Temples of Apollo; a new peribolos wall starting at Treasury 2 and running along the northern and eastern sides of the Monument incorporated the region within the temenos [fig. 1, no. 19; indicated by the dashed lines]. The three discrete parts of the monument played distinct visual roles in anchoring the building within the sacred space. To the south, the Doric hexastyle facade was designed to emulate a temple within its own temenos, entered through a monumental Ionic pylon that stood as a striking counterpart to the Ionic propylon marking the southern entrance to the sanctuary.9 The northern chamber communicated directly with the centre of the sanctuary. The lateral doors provided access from within the temenos, while the imposing

The terrain of Samothrace called for different solutions, but they were crafted with equal consideration. A terrace was created for the Neorion [fig. 2, no. 29] on the western hill between the higher stoa plateau to the south (no. 11), and the lower unfinished Building A (no. 4) to the north. The position of the building allowed for a broad plateia in front, entered from the east by a wide flight of stairs that face the centre of the sanctuary [figs 5-6]. Coming down the sacred way from the Eastern Hill, the monument was directly in the pilgrim’s line of sight. At the time the Neorion was constructed, work on the extraordinary Building A had been abandoned and construction of the Milesian dedication (6) had not yet begun.10 The terrace before the Neorion thus afforded an unencumbered prospect of the sea to the north. Not only the siting of the complex, but also the orthogonal alignment of buildings in the region, reflect a careful consideration of the entire precinct, not unlike the care afforded the Monument of the Bulls.

9 Étienne, ‘Delos’, 288, 291; G. Gruben, ‘Naxos und Delos. Studien zur archaischen Architektur der Kykladen’, JdI 112 (1997), 356-363, fig. 54.

10 The adjacent hestiatorion may not be contemporary; its handsome marble chip floor is certainly later; Lehmann, op.cit. n. 6, 109-113.

158

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 6. Restored plan of the Samothracian Neorion. Scale 1:200 (drawing by John Kurtich).

Nike acroterion decorated the façade; a dark stone floor set off the façade and the votives.

Design The two buildings differ dramatically in plan and elevation, but they are both governed by the overarching concern for display, with one chamber designed specifically to house the ship and others to facilitate viewing, to house additional offerings, and perhaps to accommodate certain rituals. The three parts of the long, narrow Monument of the Bulls were each remarkable for their lavish architectural and sculptural decoration.11 The hexastyle prostyle prodomos, deepened by an additional column on either side and enclosed by a metal grill, sheltered magnificent dedications.12 Sculptured metopes and a

A monumental door gave way to a long, unobstructed gallery with a shallow marble basin flanked by narrow passageways. A frieze depicting a marine thiasos, sculptured in high relief over two courses, rose to a height of c. 1.60 m and presumably ran down both sides of the chamber, while the exterior wall was articulated with Doric pilasters,13 some of which framed windows (perhaps coming down to the level of the frieze) that would illuminate the ship on the interior and allow it to be seen from the exterior. Light from the translucent marble ceiling above, 13 The technique, monoptère cloisonné, was also used in the Rotunda of Arsinoe at Samothrace; McCredie, Roux et al., Rotunda, 119. The full publication of the monument surely will provide a better understanding of the height, position, and number of windows, which may significantly change our understanding of how the ship was seen.

11

For dimensions, Vallois, AHHD I, 39 n.1, 153-154. 12 E.g. gilded prows, cavalry equipment, armour, portrait medallions; ID 1403, Ba, I.1.39-52; ID 1405, 1.9-15; ID1412, b,1.3-9; Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 171-73; Roux, ‘Inventaire’, 264-270; SEG 37:692.

159

Figure 8. Restored facade and side elevation of the Samothracian Neorion (drawing by John Kurtich).

Figure 7. Restored sections through the Samothracian Neorion (drawing by John Kurtich).

B.D. Wescoat

160

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 9. Axonometric cut-away of the Samothracian Neorion (drawing by John Kurtich).

magnificent frame through which to view the vessel. The adyton bore a second storey lantern, open on three sides, executed in the Ionic order, and adorned with a continuous combat frieze. At some point after the paving was laid, a large trapezoidal granite foundation, c. 8.60 m long by 4.02 m wide at the back, was constructed in such a way that it blocked the central opening to the gallery. According to the inventories, the chamber contained a brazen altar as well as two bronze statues of Apollo, one of Poseidon, and an Athena with two Nikai.14 The altar suggests a cult function.

combined with the aquatic ambience evoked by the sunken basin and lively marine frieze, created the extraordinary atmosphere of a ship in its own sea, an early exploration of environmental setting which would climax in the grotto at Sperlonga. The northern chamber, or adyton, was connected to the gallery by narrow side passages framed by responding Doric half columns. Pilasters surmounted by paired bull protomai and crowned by a broken entablature supporting a hollow pediment defined the monumental central opening [fig. 4, pl. 35B]. Although it has the appearance of a passage, the narrow (0.46 m) ledge between the threshold and the basin was hardly negotiable. Instead, the opening formed a

14

161

Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 176-177; Roux, ‘Inventaire’, 273.

B.D. Wescoat

Figure 10. Restored elevation showing the design of the wall, doorways and window of the Samothracian Neorion (drawing by John Kurtich).

162

Buildings for votive ships

In sum, the most dramatic views of the ship were originally from either end of the gallery, although the experience of walking along the narrow lateral passages within the gallery, framed by the rising ship and the exuberant marine thiasos, would have been thrilling. On the exterior, the windows could perhaps provide glimpses of the oarbox, deck rail, and rigging.

have been refined with plaster and stucco. Even the fine marble door frames are not a precisely matched pair, nor are they a perfect fit. We will have cause to consider the implications in due course. The function of this structure would not have been obvious had the excavators not found, in the southern chamber, a series of foundations supporting Thasian marble blocks shaped to cradle the hull of a ship [figs 11-13, pl. 36B-C]. The central pair of marble blocks, discovered upright and only slightly out of alignment [fig. 11, pl. 36B], immediately made sense of certain other blocks, some of which had been known since the French-Czech excavations. Blocks M021 and M220 each belong to one of the clamped pairs that once rested on the penultimate foundations [fig. 12]. A single support with a cutting for the keel near the bow or stern of the ship, M225, matches the support reused as a threshold in the Byzantine structure overlying the western part of the Neorion [fig. 13, pl. 36C]; these blocks take the end positions. A slight difference in the date of the stratigraphic finds indicates that the ship was first installed on the marble supports; the building was constructed around it shortly thereafter.

The Samothracian Neorion was nearly the opposite of the Delian building in its pared down simplicity of form and ornament. It consisted of a rectangular hall, 28.70 m long by 13.50 m wide across the exterior walls (c. 27.30 m by 12.20 m on the interior) divided longitudinally into two equal chambers by a series of five columns connected by a wooden grille set on a marble base [figs 5-7, pl. 35C].15 The two Thasian marble door frames with full Doric entablatures set in the north wall were the most elaborate feature of the building and connect it to Macedonian architectural ideas [figs 8-10].16 The rest of the structure was built of the local porous sandstone normally reserved for foundations and inner walls.17 Numerous jamb, pier, and lintel blocks provide evidence for several windows, but their exact position remains conjectural. The discovery of several blocks near the northern foundation suggests that at least one of the windows ought to belong to that side. Both wall faces were finished in stucco, which on the interior imitated drafted margin masonry comprised of a projecting black dado, red orthostate, and white panelled string course crowned by a cyma reversa moulding.

The display of the ship was thus the reverse of that at Delos, with the single primary view of one side, from the flank.19 The whole could be taken in through the colonnade, but access was blocked by the screen. The play of scale so powerfully exploited in the Delian monument was here sacrificed in favour of greater transparency of presentation.

Although the design of the Samothracian Neorion is thoughtful, the materials are humble and the craftsmanship, especially in the roof tiling, is below par. A rough and irregular cavetto crowns the flat face of the sima; the lion head waterspouts have a large trough rather than a lower jaw and tongue;18 the antefixes were simply glued to cover tiles [pl. 36A]. The shallow geison was a simple affair consisting of a slightly canted corona with a roughly hewn crown moulding and a channelled soffit. All features must

While the ship took pride of place in this structure, as it did in the Monument of the Bulls, the front, northern chamber was clearly more than simply a viewing area.20 In function, it corresponds to the prodomos and adyton of the Delian monument. A small base found against the east wall of the front chamber [pl. 35C, right foreground] signals the presence of other dedications which must have partly filled the chamber, as they did the prodomos and adyton of the Delian Neorion. The building was secure, and the quantities of votive gifts to the Great Gods, particularly as thank offerings for salvation at sea, are well attested.21 The presence of two doors, although not

15 The published dimensions, 28.93 by 13.86 m, mark the outer face of the toichobate. The stone wall tapers but at its base is c. 0.64-0.65 m thick and was completed by a very thick (c. 0.05 m) coating of stucco on the interior. 16 Compare the fully-ordered Doric doors of this kind in Macedonian tomb entrances such as the Kinch Tomb or the tomb at the Haliakmon Dam. S.G. Miller, ‘Macedonian Tombs: their architecture and architectural decoration’, in B. Barr-Sharrar and E. Borza (eds), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (Washington 1982), 158, figs 15-18. 17 E.g. the Propylon of Ptolemy II, Rotunda of Arsinoe II, and Hieron. Local sandstone was used in the smaller Late Hellenistic and Roman buildings. 18 My colleague, Jasper Gaunt, has brought to my attention the resemblance of these spouts to those on Macedonian situlae.

19

There is no firm architectural evidence to determine which direction the ship faced. 20 Contra Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 29-30. 21 Karl Lehmann imagined this function for the building that he called the Hall of Votive Gifts, but that structure is most likely a dining room; cf K. Lehmann, Samothrace 4.1: Hall of Votive Gifts (Princeton 1962), 93ff; Roux 1973, op.cit. n. 2, 554. Votives to the Great Gods: N. Lewis, Samothrace 1: The Ancient Literary Sources (Princeton 1958), nos 50, 128-129, 197, 228, 229c, 229d, 230, 231, 241.

163

B.D. Wescoat

Figure 11. Central supports. Scale 1:40 (drawing by Claire Zimmerman).

Figure 12. Intermediate supports. M021 (A) and M220 (B). Scale 1:40 (drawing by Claire Zimmerman).

164

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 13. End supports M225 and block reused in the Byzantine building. Scale 1:40 (drawing by Amy Barnett). royal navies, in which the polyreme played a greater role. To accommodate a greater vessel, namely Antigonos Gonatas’s dedication recounted in Athenaeus v.209e, Georges Roux proposes to mount the stern on the trapezoidal foundation in the adyton.23 Thomas Brogan notes that several peculiar features of the monumental opening into that chamber also suggest that the ship passed through to the adyton.24 Allain Guillerm eliminates the walls and roof over the gallery so that the flagship, Isthmia, conceived as a leviathan ‘eighteen’ some 60 m long, might stretch from the trapezoidal foundation right to the front colonnade of the prodomos, and spill far beyond the lateral confines of the building.25 The gallery, however, did have walls, doors, and a roof. They determine the key constraining factor that tends to be overlooked, width.

set opposite one another, also suggests that some kind of actions additional to housing votives took place here, as we suspect for the adyton of the Delian building. The Class of Ship All agree that the Monument of the Bulls housed a votive ship; its class, however, remains highly contested. Proposals range from an Athenian trireme to an ‘eighteen’ approaching the dimensions of the super galleys found in Lake Nemi, and just about everything in between. For Lucien Basch, comparison with the dimensions of the Oeniadae ship-sheds demonstrates that the Monument of the Bulls could have held nothing larger than a trireme.22 Most scholars, however, find a trireme incommensurate with the grandeur of the building and at odds with the historical probability of an association with Hellenistic

Our understanding of the breadth of polyremes, greatly advanced by William Murray’s work on ship

22 Basch, Musée imaginaire, 348. Anna Lia Ermeti, however, interprets the northeast ship-sheds at Apollonia, only marginally wider and several meters shorter than those at Oeniadae, made good evidence for the triarmenos of Antigonoas Gonatas; A.L. Ermeti, L’Agorà di Cirene, vol. III.1: Monumento navale (Rome 1983), 69-71.

23 Roux ‘Problèmes’, 67-71; Bruneau and Ducat, Guide, 140, suggest the prow. 24 Brogan, Nike, 343-344. 25 A. Guillerm, ‘Les navires geants hellenistiques; étude à partir du ‘Monument des Taureaux’ à Délos et des ‘Navires de Nemi’’, Tropis 5 (1999) 193-197, fig. 3.

165

B.D. Wescoat

ports were set more than 0.20 m to the south of centre in the gallery, so that the available width for the vessel, c. 5 m, closely matches the width of the sunken basin in the Delian chamber (4.845 m). However, the available length of only c. 27 m is exceptionally short in comparison to the 45.65 m basin at Delos, and to the 35 to 45 m expected for a traditional warship.36 The discrepancy has led scholars to suggest that the chamber held only a part of the ship or a model of a ship.37 However, the graduated widths and heights of the cuttings in the supports and their symmetrical pairing demonstrate that an entire ship was set in the chamber. Pry marks and the dressed down surface of the foundation for the central supports indicate that the two blocks were originally set more than 0.40 m apart, so that the gap could accommodate the keel as well as the reverse curve of the garboard strake38 (note markings on the southern side of the foundation [fig. 5]). The same reverse curve is evident on the other supports, demonstrating that the ship conformed to the fairly standard ‘tuliped’ form of hull construction.39

dimensions suggested by the Athlit ram and the Actium Monument, sheds light on the classes of vessel that could fit in the narrow gallery.26 The maximum dimensions of the chamber are 7.525 wide by c. 48.11 m long; the sunken basin measures 4.845 m. wide by c. 45.65 m long. A trireme, with an estimated length of c. 40 m, waterline breadth of c. 3.7 m, and estimated overall breadth of 5.6 m, extends only slightly beyond the lateral boundaries of the sunken basin.27 The ‘four’s’ rowing arrangement called for a wider vessel, estimated at 4.6 m wide at the waterline and 5.6 m overall, still within the parameters of the gallery.28 Morrison and Coates’s early version of the ‘five’, with an overall estimated length of c. 45 m, a breadth at waterline of 5.2 m and an overall breadth of 6.4 m, can still fit within the gallery, although the lateral passages would not be fully negotiable.29 Other suggestions for the ‘five’ place it closer in width to the trireme.30 Anything beyond a ‘five’, however, exceeds the maximum available width of the gallery.31 Using the trapezoidal base for a portion of the ship is therefore unnecessary as none of the vessels that can fit the width of the building would require the extra length.

Potentially more significant is the symmetrical design of the marble supports employed near either end of the ship. Both mark the position of the keel at c. 0.77-0.79 m above the foundation. While neither the supports nor their foundations survive in situ, the regular spacing and consistent level of the existing foundations suggests that they, too, were set at equivalent intervals. If so, the ship had a basically symmetrical hull over c. 19.70 m, with c. 3.50 m at either end for the projecting bow and stern. Representations of warships consistently depict the stern rising more rapidly from the water than the bow with its ram, in which case the stern should require a higher support. Possibly, our particular warship (and perhaps others) was deeper aft than artistic representations suggest.40 Possibly, it was a craft without a ram, such as a merchant vessel, in which the keel curved more symmetrically toward the bow and stern.41 The central supports run about 2.75 m; the vessel could not have been much more than 4 m

If these widths are correct, then we may eliminate many of the ships that have been proposed for the Monument of the Bulls. It cannot be Demetrios Poliorketes’s victorious flagship ‘seven’ from the battle of Cypriot Salamis in 306,32 nor the flagship ‘fifteen’ he later lost to Ptolemy I in 286.33 We must eliminate any connection with the ‘nine’ mentioned by Pausanias (i.29.1).34 The ‘eleven’ or ‘twelve’ Tréheux proposes based on a restoration of ID 1403 cannot fit.35 An ‘eighteen’ is out of the question. At Samothrace, the position of the foundations, the contour of the supports, and the size of the chamber allow for a fairly good approximation of the size of the ship once displayed there [figs 5-6, 14]. The sup26 Murray and Petsas, Octavian’s Campsite, 95-114; used by Morrison and Coates, 279ff, especially 310-312, and 345 Appendix D, 346 Appendix E. 27 Morrison and Coates, 279ff, figs 55-56; J.S. Morrison, J.F. Coates and N.B. Rankov, The Athenian Trireme; The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship (2nd edition, Cambridge 2000), 127ff. 28 Morrison and Coates, 294-296, fig. 59. 29 Morrison and Coates, 285-291, fig. 57. 30 Based on the dimensions of ship sheds and the description of Hephaisteion’s funeral pyre; Casson, Ships, 102, citing earlier work of Morrison; Diod. xvii.115.1-2. 31 Morrison and Coates, 303ff and 345-346 Appendices D and E. 32 Roux, ‘Problèmes’, 69. 33 W.W. Tarn, ‘Le Monument dit ‘des taureaux’ à Délos: a note’, BCH 46 (1922), 473-475. 34 Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 178-179 for argument that Pausanias’s ‘nine’ was a ship-float. 35 ID 1403 B b I, 1.46-47; Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 179ff; criticised by Roux, ‘Inventaire’, 271.

36 Blackman’s figure of 4.3 m for the clear width is narrow; cf. ‘Ship dedications’, 208. For the length of warships, Morrison and Coates, fig. 76, and 345 Appendix D. 37 Forward part of a ship, Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, 208; ship as a model of the Isthmia, Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 31. 38 Contra Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 27-29. 39 For examples, J.R. Steffy, Wooden Ship Building and the Interpretation of Shipwrecks (College Station TX 1994), 40-65; Casson, Ships, 214-216, figs 161, 167. 40 My thanks to J.R. Steffy for raising this point in correspondence, as well as for his consideration of the supports, which suggest a galley type of hull. 41 Steffy, op.cit. n. 39, for the hulls of the Kyrenia, Kinneret, and Laurons wrecks, although they are not all symmetrical, either. For representations of sailing vessels, Casson, Ships, figs 81-82, 97; Basch, Musée imaginaire, 222-224, 253ff, figs 461-464.

166

Buildings for votive ships

Figure 14. Restored plan and elevation of the marble supports, Samothracian Neorion (drawing by John Kurtich). close to the walls of Rhodes (Diod. xx.85.3).45 The large inventory of smaller vessels in the navies of Rhodes, Egypt, and later in the fleet of Philip V, attests to their importance strategically, and the smaller shipsheds at Siteia, Matala, and Rhethymno on Crete, Dor in Israel, Mandraki harbour in Rhodes, and possibly Zea, Mounychia, Antikirrha, and Alimnia, provide welcome archaeological evidence for their station.46

broad overall. The suggested proportions (roughly 1:6) are neither as sleek as a trireme (1:7) nor as broad as a merchantman (typically 1:4, but variable).42 If a military vessel, the Samothracian ship would certainly be classed among the shorter, lighter craft such as the hemiolia or lembos.43 Supposedly derived from pirate vessels that combined speed with assault capabilities, hemioliai were already part of Alexander’s fleet (Arr. Anab. vi.1.1, vi.18.3), and had a place in the navies of Demetrios Poliorketes (Polyaenus Strat. iv.7.4) and Ptolemy II (App. Praef. 10).44 Noted for its speed and mobility, the lembos was aphract, ranged in size up to 50 oars, and could be designed with or without a ram; Demetrios Poliorketes adapted the form to bring catapults and archers

Donor and Occasion We may now return to the possible donor and occasion for each installation. Most whole ship dedications were captured vessels.47 The exception to this 45

Casson, Ships, 125-127; Morrison and Coates, 263-264. Fleet of Philip V: Polyb. v.109.1-3; fleets of Philip V, Attalos, and the Rhodians at the battle of Chios: Polyb. xvi.2-7; Morrison and Coates, 61-63, 68-90; Rhodian fleet: V. Gabrielson, The Naval Aristocracy of Hellenistic Rhodes (Aarhus 1997), 85ff; for a summary of smaller ship sheds, see D. Blackman, ‘Naval installations’, in R. Gardiner (ed.), The Age of the Galley (London 1995), 227-232; ship sheds at Alimnia: D. Blackman, ‘Double Shipsheds?’, Tropis 5 (Athens 1999), 65-78. 47 Pritchett op.cit. n. 3; Salamis: Hdt. viii.121.1; Rhion: Thuc. ii.84.4; ii.92.5; Actium: Strabo vii.7.6. 46

42

Compare length and beam of shipwrecks listed in Casson, Ships, 456-459. Brought to my attention by William Murray in discussion. Brogan, Nike, 370-371, raises but rejects the lembos and leaves open the possibility of a pirate ship. His additional suggestions are discussed below. 44 Casson, Ships, 128-131; Morrison and Coates, 37-38, 261-262, 317-319, 345 Appendix D, fig. 73; under the general type, triaconters, Casson, Ships, 125; Morrison and Coates, 9-10, 262. 43

167

B.D. Wescoat

level of the krepis or floor) at his death in 283 and later expropriated by his son Antigonos Gonatas after his victory off Kos.56 For Roux, the trapezoidal foundation in the adyton was clear evidence of the change.

trend, however, also happens to be roughly contemporary with the monuments under consideration here. According to Athenaeus (v.209e), Antigonos Gonatas dedicated a ‘sacred trireme’ to Apollo following his victory over Ptolemy II at Leukolla off Kos (some time between 262 and 245 BC). The passage signals that dedications could include honoured vessels bringing victory or deliverance, not unlike the Argo which Jason dedicated to Poseidon at the Isthmus (Apollod. i.9.27).48 We are reminded of other venerable ships such as Aeneas’s ship in Rome, or Theseus’s ship in Athens.49 Vessels central to the fortunes of Samos, such as the ship of Kolaios, or the ships built by Ameinokles, have been suggested for the ship monuments in the Heraion at Samos.50 It seems fair to ask if a distinction should be made between captured ships left to rot on the shore and those enshrined in a building in the heart of a sanctuary.

The passage in Athenaeus does not indicate where the dedication was made, nor does it clarify whether the term trireme was used generically to indicate warship. Either way, the trapezoidal foundation is irrelevant. If he literally means trireme, the vessel would not require the extra support in the adyton. If he means the winning vessel, i.e. Antigonos Gonatas’s flagship, it could not be accommodated simply by lodging its stern in the adyton. Taking Athenaeus literally does solve certain problems (dedicating a sacred trireme that fits the basin makes better tactical sense than decommissioning one’s flagship), but there still remain difficulties with the idea of a ship-swap. Since the Monument of the Bulls was substantially in place before the battle off Kos, Antigonos would have had to dismantle the gallery to the level of the floor, remove Demetrios’s ship, and install his own. As Thomas Brogan points out, for a ruler bent on promoting his ancestry (note the Progonoi Monument), ejecting Demetrios’s dedication would have been counterproductive.57 Antigonos Gonatas’s ship must go elsewhere.58

This last consideration must have been in play when Tarn first connected Antigonos Gonatas’s ‘sacred trireme’ with the Monument of the Bulls, and it is at least one reason why it is so difficult for many to abandon the association, even in the face of countervailing evidence.51 However, stratigraphic finds in the fill dating to the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC;52 an inscription (IG XI 2,219, A) indicating that the Neorion had doors, windows, and woodwork by 272 or 271 BC;53 architectural comparisons belonging to the late 4th and early 3rd centuries BC;54 and, sculptural comparisons placed c. 300 BC,55 all suggest that the Monument was an earlier commission.

Only Demetrios Poliorketes or the Athenians remain as the possible donors of the Monument of the Bulls. The Athenians had deep religious and political ties with the sanctuary until their eviction in 314. Several architectural and sculptural details of the Monument are of Athenian inspiration (e.g., the style of the Nike acroterion or the use of dark stone for accent). However, scale and timing stand against an Athenian dedication. While the gallery could accommodate an Athenian trireme, its length (and that of the basin) favour a slightly longer vessel.59 The building belongs

So as not to leave Antigonos’s dedication completely adrift, Rene Vallois and Georges Roux suggested that the building was begun by Demetrios Poliorketes following his victory over the fleet of Ptolemy I at Cypriot Salamis in 306 BC, but left incomplete (at the 48 Hintzen-Bohlen, 97-98; Schmidt-Dounas, 95 for potential connections with Antigonos Gonatas. 49 ‘Delian’ ship of Theseus: Pl. Phd. 58a,b; Plut. Vit.Thes. xxiii.1. My thanks to Manolis Korres for bringing our attention to the ship of Theseus during the colloquium. Ship of Aeneas: Procop. Goth iv.22.7-8; but against, see L. Richardson Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore 1992), 266. 50 Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, 209 n. 3. 51 Despite Étienne’s declaration that the matter has been definitively resolved; Étienne, ‘Delos’, 286, 292. Note Tarn, op.cit. n. 5, 212-221; supported by Couchoud and Svoronos, op.cit. n. 5, 270-280; P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale (Paris 1970), 554557; Guillerm, op.cit. n. 25, 193-197; Blackman, ‘Ship dedications’, 207-208. 52 BCH 88 (1964), 901-905; BCH 89 (1965), 992-996. 53 Tréheux, ‘Document nouveau’, 305-306; Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 168-170. 54 Vallois, AHHD, 35; Bruneau and Ducat, Guide, 139. 55 Marcadé, ‘Sculptures décoratives’, 87-89; subsequently lowered to c. 300; Marcadé 1969, op.cit. n. 5, 361-362.

56 Vallois, AHHD, 35-36, 39, 373-377; Roux ‘Problèmes’; also supported by U. Süssenbach, Der Frühhellenismus im griechischen Kampfrelief (Bonn 1971), 50; Hintzen-Bohlen, 91-99; not rejected by Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I, 172-176; Bringmann and von Steuben, 193-196, no. 133; or Schmidt-Dounas, 94-96, no. 133. 57 Brogan, Nike, 358-359. 58 The idea of placing Antigonos Gonatas’s flagship Isthmia elsewhere on Delos remains in play with Lucien Basch, who sets it outside the Monument of the Bulls to the east, and Lionel Casson, Ships, who also takes it out of the Monument of the Bulls but agrees that it belongs on Delos. Basch, Musée imaginaire, 345-352; Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 31; Casson, Ships, 115-116, 139 nn. 14-15. 59 Supporting an Athenian dedication: Marcadé, ‘Sculptures décoratives’, 87-89; Coupry, op.cit. n. 5, 147-56; Gallet de Santerre, op.cit. n. 5, 216-226; Basch, Musée imaginaire, 347-348; Basch, ‘Samothrace’, 31. The monument would have made a splendid final resting place for the venerable ‘Delian ship,’ but that vessel was a triakontor and still to be seen in Athens in the time of Demetrios of Phaleron; see above n. 49 and B. Jordan, The

168

Buildings for votive ships

Athenian mould, especially with regard to Delos. Establishing the League of Islanders and founding festivals deliberately followed in the Athenian model well established since the Archaic period.68 Forging a strong visual connection with Athenian sculpture and architecture further demonstrated that the Athenian legacy lay in Antigonid hands. Demetrios was certainly familiar with Athenian monuments, particularly those on the Acropolis.69 Athens (despite her eviction from Delos) might have been disposed to the strong connection, at least in the early days following her own liberation from Cassander. In 307 BC, Athens lavished upon Demetrios and his father “honours of a kind never before voluntarily granted by the city to mortals,” including games, cult worship, new tribes, statues, and ships bearing their names to join the sacred triremes.70

to the end of the 4th or beginning of the 3rd century, when the Athenians no longer controlled the island; it seems unlikely that they would have had the means to make it their last act of the amphictiony.60 The ingenuity of the design and the lavishness of the dedication favour a Hellenistic royal patron. A commission by Demetrios Poliorketes and his father celebrating what has been described as the “most important naumachia ever fought between Diadochian fleets”,61 the victory over Ptolemy at Cypriot Salamis in 306 BC, makes the best historical, political, logistical, iconographic, archaeological, and stylistic sense.62 After the battle, Demetrios and his father both took the diadem and the title, basileus.63 Delos became politically central to the Antigonids following their liberation of the island in 314 BC and the foundation of the League of Islanders, as well as their creation of the Demetrieia in 306/5.64 The altar in the precinct before the Monument has been identified by Étienne as the Altar of the Kings or of the Saviours, an association which has particular appeal in light of its connection with the Demetrieia.65 References to Poseidon in the architectural sculpture and in the statue in the adyton are suggestive of Demetrios; as are the bull protome capitals which have a parallel in the agora of Cypriot Salamis. The marine thiasos and land battle represented signify to Picard the double victory on land and at sea in Cyprus.66 Demetrios’s particular interest in the technically inventive and thus in such an unusual building makes him a highly plausible candidate.67

If Demetrios Poliorketes is indeed the patron and the battle of Cypriot Salamis the celebrated victory, what ship did he dedicate? The dimensions of the gallery limit the options. In the battle at Cypriot Salamis, Demetrios’s largest ship was a Phoenician ‘seven’. His fleet also had ‘sixes,’ ‘fives,’ ‘fours,’ and triremes, while Ptolemy’s fleet consisted chiefly of ‘fives’ and ‘fours’.71 Demetrios’s advantage was in his larger class of ship, and Charles Picard proposed that the votive dedication on Delos was a thankoffering from the class of vessel that had made the difference, i.e. a ‘seven’.72 A ship of that scale, however, would not fit the width of the gallery.73 Unless he vowed a lesser ship, something on the order of a sacred trireme, Demetrios’s dedication was not from his own fleet.

The several close correspondences with Attic design are also entirely appropriate, for Demetrios Poliorketes and his father often cast their actions in the

On the other hand, one of Ptolemy’s ‘fives’ would fit handsomely within the gallery. The overall length of the ‘five’ is estimated at c. 45 m, the length of the Neorion basin. Its overall breadth of c. 6.4 m (perhaps less, see above) can be accommodated.74 The ‘four’, somewhat shorter than a trireme and roughly the

Athenian Navy in the Classical Period; A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Berkeley 1975), 160-161. 60 Against Athens see especially Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’. 61 H. Hauben, ‘Fleet strength at the Battle of Salamis (306 B.C.)’, Chiron 6 (1976), 1. 62 In favour of Demetrios Poliorketes as donor of the Monument of the Bulls: Picard, ‘Neôrion’, 79-83; Tréheux, ‘Document nouveau’ and ‘Sur le Néôrion’; Brogan, Nike, 359-360; Étienne, ‘Delos’ 286, 292. 63 Diod. xx.53.2-4; Plut. Vit.Demetr. 17-19; Just. xv.2.10; App. Syr. 54; Green, Alexander, 30-33. 64 Green, Alexander, 26; for the Demetrieia, Bruneau, op.cit. n. 51, 564-568. 65 R. Étienne, ‘Autels de Délos. Deux points de topograhie’, in R. Étienne et al. (eds), Architecture et poésie dans le monde grec, Hommage à Georges Roux (Lyon and Paris 1989), 45-47; Étienne, ‘Delos’, 291-292. 66 For bull imagery, Demetrios Poliorketes and Poseidon, Vallois, AHHD I, 373-377; Picard, ‘Neôrion’, 79-82 (for the importance of the horned Dionysos); G. Roux, ‘Le Chapiteaux à protomés de taureaux découvert à Salamine de Chypre’, Salamine de Chypre, histoire et archéologie: état des recherches (Lyon 1980), 257-274; Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture I, n. 4.40. 67 Brogan, Nike, 359-360.

68 S. Bundrick, The Royal Art of Rivalry: Ptolemaic and Antigonid Patronage of Delos and Samothrace (MA thesis, Emory University, 1994), 34-37. 69 For accusations of turning the Parthenon into a brothel, Philippides PCG 7.347, fr. 25; C. Habicht, Athens from Alexander to Antony (Cambridge MA 1997), 78. 70 Philoch. FGrHist 328 F 48; honours: Habicht, op.cit. n. 69, 6769; sacred Athenian triremes: Jordan, op.cit. n. 59, 153ff. 71 Diod. xx.47.7-52; Plut. Vit.Demetr. 15-16; Hauben, op.cit. n. 61, 1-5. 72 Picard, ‘Neôrion’, 80. 73 Morrison and Coates, 305-312 and 345-346 Appendices D and E, give the reconstructed dimensions of a ‘seven’ as c. 47 m long, with a waterline breadth of 5.7 m and an overall breadth of 7.5 m. The Phoenician ‘seven’ may have been different, but the Phoenican ‘three’, at least, was “beamier” than the Greek version; Casson, Ships, 94-95. 74 Morrison and Coates, 345 Appendix D. Casson, Ships, 102, suggests that a ‘five’ would be even narrower.

169

B.D. Wescoat

mentioned in the inventories but the votive could have been installed after 156/55 BC.81

same breadth, c. 5.6 m, would be a less likely choice.75 Demetrios Poliorketes, it would appear, followed the classical Greek lead not only in certain aspects of the design of the monument, but also in the dedication of a captured ship.76 He did them one better, however, by enshrining the ship in the centre of the sanctuary from which he drew power.

At Samothrace, the great Nike alighting on a warship certainly commemorates a naval victory, and that would seem to be the most obvious purpose of the Neorion as well. However, the essential safeguard afforded by the Great Gods was protection at sea; ancient passages repeatedly refer to dedications large and small made by those who survived perilous voyages.82 What would be more appropriate than the ship itself? We therefore should examine three possible kinds of dedication: a captured ship, a ship that brought victory, or a ship that brought salvation.

A captured vessel would have been dedicated immediately following the battle. The building, its scale and complexity notwithstanding, would have been erected as expeditiously as possible to protect the dedication.77 While the entire project may not have been completed by the time of Demetrios’s visit to the island in 300, most of it was by at least 271 BC. If the ship was one of Ptolemy’s captured ‘fives’, then it may well be connected with Demetrios’s celebrated coinage depicting Nike alighting on the prow of a defeated warship. Certain issues show only the prow of a captured ship; all are thought to commemorate the stunning victory of Cypriot Salamis, issued as part of a propaganda campaign by Demetrius to reassert his authority following the defeat at Ipsos in 301.78 Such imagery would have been all the more vivid if it celebrated not only the battle but did so by referring to the spectacular relic ensconced at Delos.

In the decisive naval battles of the second quarter of the 3rd century in the eastern Mediterranean, Antigonos Gonatas defeated Ptolemy II off Kos (as early as 262; Athenaeus v.209e) and Andros (246?; Plut. Vit.Pel. ii.2); the Rhodians defeated him at Ephesos (256; Polyaenus Strat. v.18). If the Samothracian ship was spoils, odds favour an Antigonid dedication of a Ptolemaic warship.83 With such an imposing votive, Antigonos would have staked his claim to the northern sanctuary in the face of Ptolemy’s splendid donation of the propylon and Arsinoe’s magnificent rotunda. Perhaps the smaller ship sufficiently made the point while keeping the larger captured vessels within the fleet.84 Antigonos is best known for vowing his own victorious ship (Athenaeus v.209e), but that does not exclude his offering spoils, perhaps in the manner of his father at Delos. This explanation is not, however, without issue. The small class of vessel was something of a poor cousin to the Delian dedication and would suffer by comparison. Samothrace did not have the political centrality of Delos and so the need to haul a ship to Samothrace from these rather remote naval encounters seems less likely.

A ship set entirely within the gallery leaves the c. 8.60 m long trapezoidal foundation in the adyton unaccounted for. The foundation is clearly a later addition, and the rough-picking for additional marble block(s) on the threshold between the bull pilasters suggests that the chambers were partly closed and the rough gneiss screened from the main gallery when the new support was added. The shape certainly suggests the prow or stern of a ship, but ship monuments, including the Victory of Samothrace, the ship monument from Cyrene, or the rock-cut relief from Lindos on Rhodes, are not much more than 4.5 m in length, nor do they have massive trapezoidal foundations.79 An actual prow with ram from an especially large ship, when set in such a position, might require this kind of support.80 Neither a prow nor a ram are

Thomas Brogan, noting the small scale of the ship, has raised the possibility that the Samothracian dedication might have been a bridal ship, refuge ship, or pirate ship, all of which direct our attention more specifically to the northern Aegean near Samothrace.85 The region was not without significant sea encounters in the early 3rd century BC. Lysimachos drove off pirates and restored sacred land on the mainland to the Samothracians.86 Ptolemy Keraunos

75

Morrison and Coates, 294-296 and 345 Appendix D. See above, n. 47, for dedications after Salamis and during the Peloponnesian war. 77 Contra Hinzen-Bohlen, 48-50. 78 E. Newell, The Coinages of Demetrius Poliorcetes (London 1927), 28-43, pls II-IX, XVII; Lehmann, ‘Ship-Fountain’, 191 n. 13. 79 Lehmann, ‘Ship-Fountain’, 190-200; Ermeti, op.cit. n. 22, 60ff. 80 The Athlit ram, associated with a ‘four’ by William Murray, weighed 465 kg and was 2.26 m long; the sockets for the ram of a ‘ten’ on the Actium Monument are a great deal larger. Murray and Petsas, Octavian’s Campsite, 103-105, 113-114; Morrison and Coates, 222. 76

81 Tréheux, ‘Sur le Néôrion’, 170, for the date of the three surviving inventories. 82 Lewis, op.cit. n. 21, nos 158, 174, 179, 217, 226, 226a, 227, 228, 229b-d, 229f-h, 230, 231, 233, 237. 83 McCredie, in Catling, op.cit. n. 6. 84 For the importance of keeping vessels within the fleet, note the comments of W. Murray in Brogan, Nike, 360 n. 67. 85 Brogan, Nike, 372. 86 Actions against pirates: inscription seen by Blau and Schlottmann in Chora, IG XII.8.150; Bringmann and von Steuben

170

Buildings for votive ships

While the sheer scale of the Samothracian Neorion suggests a royal commission, the building stands apart from other royal dedications which were built of marble. The need to move quickly to cover the ship may have led to the choice of local sandstone, but it raises one last consideration. We cannot exclude the possibility that the Neorion and the ship it houses were dedicated by the Samothracians themselves.94 They were doughty sailors and scrappy fighters at the battle of Salamis (Hdt viii.90.2-3). The use of the prow on the reverse of the first coin issues of the island after the reopening of the mint at the end of the 4th century signals the continued importance of the navy.95 L. Gadbery likens the prow to that of the Samaina, an interesting possibility considering that Samothrace was likely populated by Samian colonists.96 The only other securely identified whole ship dedications set within sanctuaries, other than those at Samothrace and Delos, come from Samos, although they were long gone by the time of the Samothracian dedication.97

repulsed Antigonos Gonatas from Macedonian waters in 281.87 A year later, Arsinoe made her dramatic escape from the clutches of Keraunos at Kassandreia to Samothrace.88 The fleet played a part in Antigonos Gonatas’s strategy against the Celts at Lysimacheia in 278, although not in a naval engagement.89 Of these, Lysimachos was already honoured on Samothrace with an altar for his efforts against the pirates90 (which in any case is too early for the date of the building); Keraunos did not live long enough to commemorate his victory with a ship building; and, a ship building for this victory at Lysimacheia seems inapposite. Arsinoe’s escape to the island, on the other hand, presents an intriguing possibility.91 In fact, Arsinoe was twice saved by swift flights at sea. There was the ship on which she escaped with her sons from Ephesos to Kassandreia following the battle with Seleukos at Kouroupedion in February of 281, and the one (possibly the same?) on which she alone fled from Kassandreia to Samothrace after her error in marrying Ptolemy Keraunos.92 Such a vessel would have made a worthy dedication to the Great Gods. It need not have been a standard class of warship; one might expect Arsinoe to ride in a swift but more accommodating vessel. The ship could have been consecrated while she was on the island in 280279, and then the monument erected around the ship after her death in 270, as her fame and religious importance grew. Devoted to the cult of the Samothracian Kabeiroi, she herself was venerated by sailors in peril at sea via her assimilation with Aphrodite and Isis:

In this effort, as in other attempts to understand the connections between Delian and Samothracian architecture and politics, the comparison does not reveal a tangible intimacy between the projects on the two islands, but neither does it seem wholly coincidental. The most compelling correspondences are not so much in the architectural renderings, as in the prime factors that inform their creation: the deeply felt need to acknowledge the centrality of each cult in success at sea; the desire to do so spectacularly by installing an entire ship within the confines of the sacred space; and, the need to create a new kind of architecture to accommodate a dedication of such magnitude. Both Ptolemaic and Antigonid rulers sought to leave their imprimatur on these islands especially.98 The shared boldness of the conception must derive in part from the role Hellenistic monarchs played in the architectural formation of each sanctuary, whether or not we are able to put a particular name to each monument. For Delos, centre of the Island League and geographically well placed to

“And she will give fair voyages and will smooth the sea even in mid-winter in answer to prayer”.93

no. 235; return of sacred lands: J.R. McCredie, ‘Samothrace: preliminary report on the campaigns of 1965-67’, Hesperia 37 (1968), 220-221; Bringmann and von Steuben, no. 234. In general, H. Lund, Lysimachus; A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (London 1992), 167-168, 172-173. 87 Memnon, FrGrH F8.3b; Just. xxiv.1. 88 Memnon, FrGrH F8.7; Just. xxiv.3.1-9. 89 SIG 401; Just. xxv.1.6; Trogus Prol. 25; Diog. Laert. ii.141. For discussion, F.W. Walbank, ‘Sea-power and the Antigonids’, in W.L. Adams and E. Borza (eds), Philip II, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Heritage (Washington 1982), 216. 90 Above, n. 86. 91 Brogan’s suggestion that Arsinoe dedicated the ship that brought her to the court of Lysimachos is suggestive, but their marriage took place in 300, too early for the monument. Unless, of course, it is the same ship she had at Ephesos and Kassandreia. 92 Escape from Ephesos to Kassandreia after the battle of Kouroupedion: Polyaenus Strat. viii.57. 93 Athenaeus, quoting an epigram of Posidippus; translation G. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens; A Study of Woman-Power in Macedonia, Seleucid Syria, and Ptolemaic Egypt (Westport CN 1932), 126; Green, Alexander, 146, 158. For the divine status of Arsinoe, see P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford 1972), vol. 1, 238-241, 413, 571; E. Rice, The Grand Procession of

Ptolemy Philadelphus (Oxford 1983), 202-208; G. Hölbl, A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (London 2001), 101-104. 94 Karl Lehmann long ago suggested that the Winged Victory could be a Samothracian dedication; Lehmann, ‘Ship-Fountain’, 191-192. 95 For prow coinage, L. Gadbery in McCredie, Roux et al., Rotunda, 332-333. 96 For the Samaina, Morrison and Coates ii, 181-182; for Samian colonisation, A.J. Graham, ‘The colonization of Samothrace’, Hesperia 71 (2002), 231-260. 97 See above n. 3. 98 Most recently, Bringmann and von Steuben: for Antigonid dedications on Delos, nos 126-142; **408-**411; on Samothrace, nos **431-**432; Ptolemaic dedications on Delos, nos 143-151, *349, **413-**414; on Samothrace, nos 236-237, **430; SchmidtDounas, 162ff; 209-212.

171

B.D. Wescoat

where Pythagoras was initiated into the Kabeiric mysteries, reflects the strength of the perceived connection.100 The Samothracian sanctuary was a place of great personal significance to Hellenistic monarchs. Philip met Olympias there, Arsinoe II sought and received refuge, and the last of the Antigonids, Perseus, fled to Samothrace after his defeat by the Romans. Dedications on Samothrace could never have been as good a return on the investment as were those on Delos, but they may have served a more deeply felt need to be connected to the divinities whose protection when at sea was paramount.

be a hub for trade, religion, and politics, the playing out of prestige politics with magnificent dedications is predictable. The Sanctuary of the Great Gods, even at its height, remained off the beaten track, but its cult inspired such affiliation that Samothrakeia were set up from the Black Sea across the Aegean so that initiates might gather to reaffirm their community. It comes as no surprise that the best preserved Samothrakeion is to be found on Delos, and that Delian dedications have been found on Samothrace.99 That in later antiquity, Delos could have been confused with Lemnos in Iamblichus’s list of places

Bonna D. Wescoat Art History Department Emory University Atlanta, GA 30322

99

F. Chapouthier, EAD XVI: Le Sanctuaire des dieux de Samothrace (Paris 1935); statue base dedicated by the Delians on Samothrace, 70.348; J.R. McCredie, ‘Samothrace: preliminary investigations, 1968-77’, Hesperia 48 (1979), 26, pl. 12e.

100 F. Chapouthier, ‘La prétendue initiation de Pythagore a Délos’, REG 48 (1935), 414-423.

172

9 The tower of Agia Triada on Amorgos Manolis Korres

The tower2 is one of the most prominent examples of this type of architecture in Greece and the most important isolated monument on Amorgos.

The ancient tower that forms the subject of this study is situated in a valley surrounded by the low hills and small mountains that dominate the western end of Amorgos,1 the easternmost of the Cycladic Islands.

Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’ = A. Koutsoukou and Chr. Kanellopoulos, ‘Towers from northwest Andros’, BSA 85 (1990), 155-174. Lawrence, Fortifications = A.W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortifications (Oxford 1979). Marangou, ‘Maisons à tour’ = L. Marangou, ‘Les “maisons à tour” d’ Amorgos: observations préliminaires’, Echo I, recherches récentes sur le monde hellénistique. Actes de colloque en l’ honneur de Pierre Ducreu (Bern 2001), 231-246. Marangou, Αμοργός = L. Marangou, Αμοργός Ι, η Μινώα - η πόλις, ο λιμήν και η μείζων περιφέρεια (Athens 2002). Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’ = L. Mendoni, ‘Οι πύργοι της Κέας: προσθήκες και επισημάνσεις’, in L.G. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis-Ainian (eds), Kea – Kythnos: History and Archaeology (Athens 1998), 275-308. Miliarakis, Αμοργός = Α. Miliarakis, Αμοργός (Athens 1884). Novicka, Maisons = M. Novicka, Les Maisons à tour dans le monde grec (Warsaw 1975). Osborne, ‘Island towers’ = R. Osborne, ‘Island towers, the case of Thasos’, BSA 81 (1986). Philippson, Beiträge = A. Philippson, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen Inselwelt (Gotha 1901). Ross, Inselreisen I = L. Ross, Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres I (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1840). Ross, Inselreisen II = L. Ross, Reisen auf den griechischen Inseln des ägäischen Meeres II (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1843). Sausiuc, Andros = Th. Sausiuc, Andros (Vienna 1914). Scranton, Greek Walls = R. Scranton, Greek Walls (Cambridge MA 1941). Spencer, ‘Towers’ = N. Spencer, ‘Towers and enclosures of Lesbian masonry’, in P.N. Doukelis and L.G. Mendoni (eds), Structures rurales et sociétés antiques (Athens 1994), 207-213. Young, ‘Siphnos’ = J.H. Young, ‘Ancient towers on the island of Siphnos’, AJA 60 (1956), 51-55.

Abbreviations Ashton, Siphnos = N.G. Ashton, Siphnos, Ancient Towers (Athens 1991). Boussac and Rougemont, ‘Amorgos’ = M.F. Boussac and G. Rougemont, ‘Observations sur le territoire des cités d’ Amorgos’, in G. Rougemont (ed.), Les Cyclades. Materiaux pour une étude de geographie historique. Table ronde, Dijon 1982 (Paris 1983), 113-119. Coulton, Greek Architects = J.J. Coulton, Greek Architects at Work (London 1977). Dragatsis, ‘Έρευναι’ = Ι.Ch. Dragatsis, ‘Έρευναι εν Σίφνω’, Prakt 1915, 96-107. Dragatsis, ‘Πύργοι’= Ι.Ch. Dragatsis, ‘Οι πύργοι οι επί των νήσων και ιδία της Σίφνου’, Prakt 1920, 147-172. Dawkins and Wace, ‘Sporades’ = R.M. Dawkins and A.J.B. Wace, ‘Notes from the Sporades’, BSA 12 (1905-1906), 151-174. Dousougli and Morris, ‘Towers’ = A. Dousougli and S. Morris, ‘Ancient towers on Leukas, Greece’, in P.N. Doukelis and L.G. Mendoni (eds) Structures rurales et sociétés antiques (Athens 1994), 215-225. Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’ = L. Haselberger, ‘Der Pyrgos Chimarru auf Naxos’, AA 1972, 431-437. Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’ = L. Haselberger, ‘Der Paläopyrgos von Naussa auf Paros’, AA 1978, 345-375. Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’ = L. Haselberger, ‘Befestigte Turmgehöfte im Hellenismus’, in Wohnungsbau im Altertum (DiskAB 3, Berlin 1978), 147-151. Hoepfner, Wohnen = W. Hoepfner (ed.), Geschichte des Wohnens (Stuttgart 1999). Jones, ‘Town and country houses’ = J.E. Jones, ‘Town and country houses of Attica in Classical times’, Miscellanea Graeca 1 (1975), 113-122. Kazamiakis, ‘Αγία Μαρίνα’ = K. Kazamiakis, ‘Ο Πύργος στην Αγία Μαρίνα της Κέας’, Ανθέμιον 10 (2003), 24-27. Korres, ‘Geological factor’ = M. Korres, ‘The geological factor in ancient Greek architecture’, in P.G. Marinos and G.C. Koukis (eds), The Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments and Historical Sites. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Athens 19-23 Sept. 1988 (Rotterdam 1988), 17791793.

1

C. Bursian, Geographie von Griechenland II (Leipzig 1872), 512-517 (Amorgos); Miliarakis, Αμοργός, 12, 15, 50, 76; A. Philippson, Die griechischen Landschaften, IV. Das Ägäische Meer und seine Inseln (Frankfurt 1959), 148-156 (Amorgos); Boussac and Rougemont, ‘Amorgos’. 2 Marangou, ‘Maisons à tour’; ead., Αμοργός, 50-56, with bibliographical references.

173

Figure 1. The Tower of Agia Triada. View from the southeast.

M. Korres

174

Tower on Amorgos

In recent years it has become known as the Πύργος της Αγίας Τριάδας (Tower of Αgia Triada) after the near-by Byzantine church,3 but its old name, which is in use, is Πύργος στο Χωριό (Tower in the Village),4 after the name of the small village, which is situated near the ancient one. Remains of the latter are still visible around the tower. The usage of the term village as a proper name is not uncommon in Greece.

Unfortunately both these studies are still for the most part unpublished but new research that is being conducted by Lila Marangou in and around the tower since 1997 not only casts new light on previously obscure aspects of the monument and its history but also greatly contributes to its preservation.11 Stimulated by this work and grateful for Marangou’s support, I now intend to complete my old study.

In 1841 during his fifth scientific voyage in the Cyclades, Ludwig Ross visited and studied the site. In the second volume of his Inselreisen published two years later, Ross included a short description and a diagrammatic ground-plan of the monument, as well as a full page plate with an impressive detailed view from the southeast [fig 1].5 The importance of the plate lies primarily in its documentation of parts of the building that are now missing. It was only much later that special attention was paid to the tower by other scholars, such as Miliarakis, in his invaluable book Amorgos,6 and Dawkins and Wace,7 but no further architectural documentation was made.8 In the summer of 1974 I prepared a set of detailed drawings on the site,9 while L. Haselberger, who started in 1972, was already extensively researching and writing his doctoral dissertation on Cycladic towers.10

Most towers of this kind scarcely preserve more than one tenth of their original height. Only a few preserve most of their height12 or coexist with a similarly built precinct.13 The tower στο Χωριό, even after the collapse of substantial parts of it in the 19th century, still stands up to a height of 7 m14 and, most importantly, it is an integral part of a much larger building with a monumental exterior wall preserved to a height of 4 to 6 m [fig 2]. Interior walls divide the space in several rooms, connected by doors, most of which were discovered in the summer of 1974. 11 Marangou, ‘Maisons à tour’, 234-235. The programme included archaeological surveying of the wider area, photographic documentation with occasional measuring and drawing of places and objects before, during and after finishing each particular stage; excavation on selected places, removal of fallen stones and other wall debris from the tower’s interior, cataloguing and storage of fallen stones moved from their find-spot. 12 As for example three round towers on Andros (Agios Petros), Naxos (Cheimarrou) and Ikaria, and the rectangular tower on Kea (Agia Marina), see nn. 18, 21, 29-30, 32, 57, 77, 86. 13 Ross, who was the first to recognise that the original setting of many towers systematically included a precinct as well, mentions eight such cases: Siphnos and Seriphos (Inselreisen I, 146), Amorgos (Inselreisen II, Vorwort and 43), Kea (ibid., Vorwort), Andros (ibid., 13), Mykonos (ibid., 32), Herakleia (ibid., 34), Leros (ibid., 118). A more systematic collection of twelve towerand-court complexes (five with round, seven with square towers) is included in J.H. Young, ‘Studies in South Attica’, Hesperia 25 (1956), 139 (table with all ground plans in the same scale); see also Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, fig. 22 (three further examples with square, round and irregular precincts). The structural integration of house and tower is less clear in 5th century houses in Attica (Vari, Vouliagmeni, Ramnous, Sounion, Thorikos, etc., see Jones, ‘Town and country houses’, 113-122, figs 17-19, 23; Hoepfner, Wohnen, 248, 253, 255, 258, 259ff) or in the houses of Chersonnesos, Novicka, Maisons, 94ff. The precinct of the round tower of Naxos (c. 35 by 35-36 m) with a gate at the east side and many rooms in the interior that are arranged along the exterior wall is of particular interest (Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’, id., ‘Turmgehöfte’). The same is also true for the so-called Pyrgos tou Giannouli, mentioned by Miliarakis, Αμοργός, 46, a nearly 100feet square tower on Amorgos, 10 minutes’ walk northwest of Chorio. The best preserved side shows a Cyclopean lower part and remnants of the upper part in trapezoidal style. Apart from rockcut beds, no other traces that could suggest the existence of a tower can be seen inside the precinct. 14 From the lowest point of the façade (now hidden by debris) to the highest preserved stone of the northwest corner (on the rear side). Before the collapse the northeast corner was preserved to a height of c. 10 m. The walls that are visible in the photographs published by Dawkins and Wace (‘Sporades’, figs 4 and 5) were in the same state of preservation as today but for a block on top of the tower’s southeast corner. Unfortunately the ruin was being used as a quarry for a long time, serving the building activities of the villagers.

3

Traces of walls outside the church and remnants of piers (made of common masonry) bearing arches along both long sides, show that the small vaulted rectangular building (externally c. 5 m wide and 8 m long – 9.4 m with the apsis) occupy the space of what must have originally been the middle aisle of a small three-aisled barrel-vaulted basilica. The original building is of a common type (preserved churches of that type on Amorgos are those of Agios Georgios Balsamitis and Agios Ioannis Theologos). The fashioning of a small chapel adjusted to the middle aisle of an abandoned basilica is common practice in many places on the islands and the mainland. As indicated by many structural features, in most instances, the original buildings must have been destroyed and made unusable long before their (not always final) demolition occasioned by the rebuilding. The whole procedure may be considered as one of the origins of the building type of the simple rectangular church. 4 Ross, Inselreisen II, 43; R. Weil, ‘Von den griechischen Inseln, Amorgos’, AM 1 (1876), 328-350, 325; A. Philippson, op.cit. n. 1, 152. 5 Ross, Inselreisen II, 43ff, pl. 1. 6 Miliarakis, Αμοργός, 46. 7 Dawkins and Wace, ‘Sporades’, 157 “…(the tower in) Hagia Triada in Amorgos is the best square example…”, figs 4 and 5. Sites of other towers mentioned: Armemissa, Exomeria (round tower), Agios Pavlos, Kornakopos, Peristeria, Pyrgi, Pyrgos tou Giannouli, Richti (round tower), Stroumbos, Terlaki, Tripiti. 8 For instance the presentation of the monument in Lawrence, Fortifications, 193 is merely repeating Ross’s description (Inselreisen II, 43ff). 9 In measuring some difficult parts I was greatly helped by my brother D. Korres. 10 L. Haselberger, Befestigte Turmgehöfte im Hellenismus auf den Kykladeninseln Naxos, Andros und Keos (PhD Thesis, TU München 1985).

175

M. Korres

176

Tower on Amorgos

Figure 2. The Tower of Agia Triada. Ground plan. 1m x 1m grid.

177

M. Korres

Figure 3. The Tower of Agia Triada. Elevation of the northern side. and 22.5m from east to west, including a strongly built part at the rear – referred to below as the west annex – flanking the tower’s south side and extending 2.5m farther to the west [fig 4]. The area thus covered is 470 m.sq.

Judging from the whole arrangement and especially from its interior, the building can be recognised as a fortified house with tower.15 The identity of the complex as a private house is further confirmed by a well-preserved rock inscription discovered by Marangou recently, in which the building is being referred to as an oikia, the house of a prosperous landowner.

While the terrain’s gradient averages 1 to 4, the large space inside the precinct is terraced some 6 feet above the ground to the east and the tower’s groundfloor was a further 8 feet higher. The door of the tower [fig. 4 no. 5], placed roughly on the middle of its east side and corresponding to its interior level, is also raised and had to be accessed perhaps by means of a movable structure. Possible traces of such a structure can only be studied after the removal of the 4-feet-thick accumulation of debris that now greatly obscures the house’s interior.

The house is oblong and roughly oriented northsouth,16 with the main entrance on the eastern long side and the tower projecting on the middle of the west side. It is built with precisely joined, very large blocks of a sort of marble on a rocky elevation which slopes down steeply to the east near the middle of the valley [fig 3].17 It measures 28 m from north to south

As with other ancient towers (and more recent ones as well) the placement of the door well above ground is a very effective method of enhancing defence.18

15 Ancient terms for towers are pyrgos and tyrsis, while the term epaulis was used for farmsteads and large houses outside the cities. For rural houses with a tower see, Novicka, Maisons; Hoepfner, Wohnen, 259ff. For urban houses with tower-like parts see F. Pesano, Oikos e ktesis. La casa greca in età classica (Perugia 1987), 51, 194. 16 Although the sides of the building do not exactly face the cardinal points, the deviation being about 38º clockwise, the term east side is being used instead of northeast side and so on. 17 The placement of the tower 20 m to the east and 3 m lower than the highest point of the elevation, which is actually identical to the site of the Byzantine church, could be interpreted in different ways: -better proximity to the workshops and fields in front of the fortified complex to the east; -more favourable conditions for hauling large stones which must have been extracted from the rocky outcrops situated to the north of the building just east of the top of the elevation;

-for easier supply of a cistern with additional rain water from outside the tower; -marginal visibility of the tower’s top from the sea or -perhaps another building or a sanctuary already occupying the highest point of the elevation. On the positioning of towers not always on the highest points or not always in places with the best view see Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 372; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 279-285. 18 I.e. leading to the second storey. While the first storey is a domed storeroom (high enough to encompass a mezzanine) entered from a small door and from above by means of a trapdoor, the main entrance of the round tower of Agios Petros on Andros (Ross, Inselreisen II, 15; P. Le Bas and E. Landron, Voyage

178

Tower on Amorgos

the annex just outside the rear side of the tower [fig. 4 no. 12, fig. 7].

The main entrance or gate [fig. 4 no. 1] of the house, 1.55m wide, which was accessible from the side through a ramp situated to the right along the façade of the house,19 is also elevated, but less than the terracing inside. Accessibility could have been facilitated by means of few steps at the end of the ramp, built with rather small stones that could be easily removed when required.

The area between the first and second dividing walls, 10 m wide in either direction, deserves special attention because of its closer relation to the tower. At about the middle of the second dividing wall, a doorway [fig 4 no. 3] – referred to below as the second gate – with a restored width of 1.28m20 is the only access to this area. As far as could be seen without removing the abundant debris that covers it, this area was probably divided into a corridor, starting from the second gate – referred to below as the second corridor – and spaces on either side [fig. 4 Me, Mw]. Evidence for this division is provided on one side by a small remnant of a wall [fig. 4 no. 4] running north-south at a distance of 4 m from the tower and on the other, where no such remnant could be seen, by a flagstone pavement, part of which (not that shown in the axonometric restoration) has been uncovered inside the east wall, but well below the level inside the second gate. The difference of the two levels is too big to be explained as merely a deliberate or tolerated inaccuracy within two points of the same plane, but it does not necessarily prove that the limit between the second corridor and the space to its east was a solid wall instead of another arrangement, as for instance one or two steps with possibly a row of wooden or stone built posts, carrying perhaps a roof over the lower eastern part.

The gate is placed not on the axis but 4.5 m to the south (to the left). This amount slightly exceeds one half of the tower’s width so that the gate’s axis passes outside the tower’s south side (since, as already mentioned, the tower itself has approximately the same axis as the house). The reason for this off-centre placing of the gate was made clear in 1974 with the discovery of the dividing walls. There are three main dividing walls [fig. 4 D1, D2, D3] running east-west. The first and third are 59 cm thick and stand at a distance of 6 m from the north and south exterior walls respectively. The second is much thicker and is aligned with the tower’s south side. It stands quite close to the third so that the space between them is a well-defined 2m-wide corridor referred to below as the main corridor [fig. 4 no. 2]. Since the gate and main corridor correspond exactly to each other, an important principle of the complex’s design is revealed. At the west end of the corridor a very small but strong postern [fig. 4 no. 11], situated some 6 feet higher, provides communication with the house’s west annex, which in its turn communicates with the area to the north and west of the tower by means of another postern situated near the northwest corner of

In addition to the aforementioned flagstones, evidence for this lower part is also offered by three large waterspouts [fig. 4 WS1, WS2, WS3] projecting conspicuously outside the east wall.21 The first and the third, counting from north to south (from right to left for someone looking from the outside) are practically on the same level with the flagstones inside and their wide spacing – well above 4 meters – supports the idea that the space inside, if not subdivided, perhaps

archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure (Paris 1848), Îles de Grèce, pl. 2; Sausiuc, Andros, 29-34) is by far more elevated than that of the tower of Amorgos, while in contrast to both cases the entrance of the Naxian round tower (see Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’) is only slightly elevated – despite the intention, traceable in the ground excavated inside the tower, to create some sort of storage (for water?) beneath the ground floor. In the tower of Kea (site Agia Marina) the entrance is elevated 2 m above ground and leads to the second storey. The ground floor, now covered by debris, contained storerooms and a well or fountain (and/or cistern?) according to earlier visitors. A double cistern also exists under the ground floor of the Aspros Pyrgos in Siphnos (Dragatsis, ‘Έρευναι’ and ‘Πύργοι’), while in the majority of the least preserved towers it is impossible to compare the levels of the ground and the threshold, or to state whether a cistern existed underneath, before large parts of the debris are removed from both the interior and exterior. 19 This arrangement, forcing attackers to expose their less protected right flank to the arrows thrown from the wall, although not applied (or not traceable) in all buildings of that type, is typical of many ancient fortifications. There is no such ramp outside the precinct surrounding the round tower on Naxos, whose access is pointing straight to the gate. However, the length and steepness of the access are sufficient to bring any attacker in the most unfavourable condition.

20 The same width is given by Haselberger for the gate of the Cheimarrou tower and the gate of its precinct (Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’); for a metrological interpretation see also nn. 29 and 49). 21 Waterspouts or similar forms exist in the Oikos of the Naxians and the Letoon on Delos, the Pandroseion on the Athenian Acropolis, and the Themistoclean Wall of Athens (near the Olympieion). In the best preserved side of the tower of Agia Marina in Kea there exist two such waterspouts at a height corresponding to the floor of the second storey (Kazamiakis, ‘Αγία Μαρίνα’, fig. 2), in each storey of the Pyrgos Cheimarrou in Naxos (Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’, fig. 5). In the tower of Andros (site Agios Petros) the waterspout is part of the monolithic floor interpreted by Haselberger (‘Turmgehöfte’, 150) as a bath. For the round tower in Vathichoria, near Aigosthena in Megaris, see H.R. Goette, Athen, Attika, Megaris (Cologne 1993), 241, pl. 26,1 (the waterspout visible in the tower’s upper part is depicted in Lawrence, Fortifications, fig. 34). For waterspouts in fortification walls see also F.E. Winter, Greek Fortifications (London 1971), figs 128-129.

179

M. Korres

Figure 4. The Tower of Agia Triada. Ground plan restored (2003, not final).

The second waterspout, a large flat block22 placed noticeably closer to the third than to the first waterspout is built almost one foot higher than the other two and therefore could not have been used for the same purpose. Fortunately the wall, which at this level is 1.04 m thick, is still preserved, even if in poor condition. An interesting arrangement relates to this waterspout: a 2m-long tunnel-like narrow gap between the stones forming the wall’s outer and inner face [fig. 4 no. 13]. In order to gain more space, the builders formed the wall’s inner face not in the usual way but quite exceptionally with three upright slabs (orthostates), two of which, the first and the third, 23 to 25cm thick, are still in situ [fig. 6 no. 2].

Also exceptional is the covering of the space, made out of three thick slabs, two of which, the first and the third as in the case of the orthostates (to which they roughly correspond), are also in situ [fig. 6 no. 3]. Their underside, 1.5 m above the waterspout block, is carved in the form of a barrel vault with a nearly semicircular cross section. While the waterspout block [fig. 6 no. 1] forms the floor of the space’s 82-90cm wide central part, the existing masonry on either side indicates a rise in level which cannot be restored exactly. It is strange that the blocks [fig. 6 no. 4] of the outer wall face are not properly dressed23 in order to fashion the narrow space better. Despite this incongruity and its small height, the space could be restored as a small room accessible by a narrow door between the first and the (missing) second orthostate and two benches or other

22 It is made out of a large, irregular in its invisible part, block, 1.54 m (including the 0.34 m projecting ‘nose’) by 1.36 m, with a maximum height of 0.32 m.

23 If the back side of the thicker outer stone was properly trimmed away the space would be nearly 60 cm wide.

stretched over the entire distance of the 10 m between the first and the second main dividing walls.

180

Tower on Amorgos

Figure 5. The Tower of Agia Triada. Plan of the second floor restored (2003, not final). the missing clues will perhaps be found in the paved area when the debris is removed. Could this large part of the building have been used as a workshop or as an oil press27 as in the Άσπρος Πύργος, the large round tower of Siphnos,28 or for another activity of that sort? Before entering the tower it is appropriate to finish the general description of the remaining part of the house.

functional elements on either end. In its present state there is a low window-like opening to the exterior,24 in the third course above the small room’s floor (top side of the waterspout block), but closer inspection shows that this is only the result of the, probably deliberate, removal of one wall-block, actually the second covering slab.25 Due to its present condition it is not easy to say how the lower part at either end of the space looked like, how much it was elevated with respect to the floor and therefore what its use could have been. Since, despite some similarities, the whole setting does not quite meet the requirements of a latrine (though such a use is not excluded under certain circumstances26),

The part of the building between the first dividing wall mentioned above and the north wall – referred to below as the northern apartment [fig. 4 NA] – had more than one storey, most probably two. Evidence 27 The equipment of a, possibly late antique, oil-press still exists in the workshops to the northeast of the house; the lower part of some of its walls date from antiquity. On ancient oil production and the relevant equipment see Ph. Bruneau and Ph. Fraisse, ‘Pressoires déliens’, BCH 108 (1984), 713-730; J.-P. Brun, Le vin et l’ huile dans la Méditerrannée antique (Paris 2003) with extensive bibliography. 28 Dragatsis, ‘Έρευναι’, 96-107; id., ‘Πύργοι’, figs on 148, 150, 151, 154, 156; Young, ‘Siphnos’, pl. 39. The monument has been recently restudied by K. Theocharis (MSc Thesis in Architectural Conservation, National Technical University of Athens).

24 Mistaken by Lawrence, Fortifications, 193 as a “…window of abnormal shape…”. 25 Due to extensive weathering of the particularly foliated stone slabs used for these headers, the vault-like fashioning of their underside is no longer easily recognisable as such. 26 The same assumptions can be made for the small niche in the second storey of the Tower of Agia Marina on Kea and the corresponding waterspout (or outpour), see n. 27.

181

M. Korres

Figure 6. The Tower of Agia Triada. Section of the south wall. Waterspout 2. for the second storey is abundantly preserved on the exterior walls: the sill of a bipartite bay window on the east, two light and ventilation openings on the west having the usual form of an archer’s slit and one more on the higher part of the north side near the northwest corner. A recess of the wall’s inner side indicates the level of the floor proper, which, judging from the general setting, has to be restored as a system of strong wooden beams and planks. Since the

higher parts of the walls are missing, the only way of knowing more about the construction above the second storey is to find some clues on stones fallen from those parts. Otherwise one must rely on parallels from the relevant parts of similar buildings of the same period – which unfortunately is not quite adequate. The additional documentation necessary for the restoration of the ground floor should be easier to find. The only condition for it is the removal of the

182

Tower on Amorgos

equally. This wall, roughly half as thick as the outside walls, is less well preserved – it does not reach the level of the first storey’s ceiling – but, judging from the general setting and especially the reduced thickness of the façade wall, it must be restored as a structurally necessary element for the higher storeys. At the level of the entrance and to the left of it, remnants of steps [fig. 4 no. 7] and of three (?) landings (this part has to be further investigated in the future) explain the proximity of the transverse wall to the façade wall, as well as the latter’s reduced thickness: on the left, the space between the two walls, 5½ feet wide, was the staircase of the tower. With steps some 82 cm wide and 24-25cm high it can be easily restored up to the level of the second storey – which is well attested on the sides of the first storey’s main room (see below). Its continuation to the next (the third) storey [fig. 5] could have been only slightly different: with two normal turns and not with the three cumbersome turns as in the first storey – obviously dictated by the system of securing the entrance door of the tower from the inside. Behind the transverse wall, occupying the rest of the tower’s interior, there was a main room in each storey. That of the first floor, which still remains almost filled with the building’s collapsed debris, measures 6.3 by 5.15 m. After the recent partial removal of the debris, sockets for beams along the inner face of the rear wall and recesses along the inner face of the lateral walls clearly indicate the structural composition of the tower’s wooden floors: strong planks supported by five equally spaced,29 19 feet-long wooden beams, 1 by 1 foot in section, with a free span of 5.16 m. Due to the recesses of the lateral walls, the main room in the second storey was 15 cm longer than it was in the first. Most probably the same occurred again in the third storey, perhaps also along the rear wall, increasing the size of the main room to 6.6 by 5.3 m. Since the planks of the second floor were laid almost 4 m above the threshold of the entrance, the ceiling of the third storey could be set at a height of about 12 m above this threshold. At present there is no physical evidence for a fourth storey, but nor is there any against it. The tower at Agia Marina in Kea, almost square with sides exceeding 10 m, is five-storeyed almost 20 m high, but its walls are substantially thicker. With all the necessary reservation, as seen in the axonometric view [fig 7] the tower has been

debris. The only parts we can restore at this point are two doors on the ground floor, in the dividing wall, one opening for light and ventilation on the same floor in the north wall and a stair [fig. 4 no. 10] leading to the second floor, parts of which are preserved near the junction of the dividing wall and the west wall. Like the northern apartment, the part of the building between the third dividing wall mentioned above and the south wall – referred to below as the southern apartment [fig. 4 SA] – had more than one storey, most probably two. Due to the extensive destruction of its upper parts, evidence for the second floor is scarce but sufficient: remnants of an opening for light and ventilation in the south wall, found in its highest preserved part, are enough to suggest a second storey. Furthermore, the fact that the north and south apartments have the same construction and the same width (20 feet) is evidence of an ‘equality’ in conception. Despite the obstruction caused by the massive debris over the entire southern range of the building, important parts of it were selectively investigated and interpreted in 1974, as shown in the perspective drawing: two doors in the third dividing wall and a secondary dividing wall 2.5 m from the east wall, with a door near its junction with the south wall. In 1997, Marangou removed part of the debris from the south apartment and discovered a second dividing wall some 2.5 m from the west wall, with possibly a door at about the middle of its length. With some reservation until the removal of the debris is finished, it is more likely that no other (lesser) dividing wall existed in the south apartment, and that a third door existed in the third dividing wall to allow direct access from the main corridor to the apartment’s westernmost division. It is likewise probable that the staircase leading to its upper floor was situated in the same part of the main corridor, close to the small postern. Actually this end of the corridor was better suited to such a staircase because of its raised level. The tower, with sides averaging 8.22 m (façade and rear wall) and 9.14 m (side walls) at entrance level, is one of the largest in its category. While rear and side walls are uniformly 1.02-1.04 m thick (see note 56 on theoretical face planes), the façade wall is only 82 cm thick with the exception of a part to the right of the entrance, which is almost 1½ feet thicker, and effectively accommodates the socket of the bar [fig. 4 no. 6] that once secured the door from the inside (see below). 2.5 m behind the façade a transverse wall [fig. 4 no. 8] divides the tower’s interior un-

29

This spacing of beams (c. 1.06 m = 3½ feet) is almost identical with the wall thickness and also with the spacing of beams attested by L. Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’, fig. 5 in the round tower of Naxos (for a metrological interpretation see nn. 20 and 49). In some towers (Kea, Tenos, Andros) slab-beams placed upright were also used in the same way as the marble rafters in Naxian temples of the 6th century BC.

183

M. Korres

Figure 7. The Tower of Agia Triada. Axonometric restoration.

184

Tower on Amorgos

restored as four-storeyed30 (each storey c. 13 feet with the eaves 15.3 m above the threshold of the entrance).

There is a great variety of openings in the building,36 many of which deserve special attention. The main gate, already mentioned, is one of the best preserved of its type [figs 8-9]. Over a 2.2m-long threshold weighing 3.5 tons, four wall courses form 2.02-high jambs on either side with a pronounced inclination towards the opening (1:36 in the northern, 1:24 in the southern side) so that the opening’s width, 1.54 m on the bottom, is 10 cm less on the top of the third course, 1.495 m above the threshold (mean inclination 3.33%, mean taper of the opening 6.66%).37 In the fourth course after a gentle curve the inclination increases and surpasses the ratio of 1:3, so that the wall blocks of that course act structurally as corbels. Unfortunately, nothing remains above the fourth course,38 and the character of the missing upper part of the gate would be a matter of speculation (ranging from a lintel to any sort of arch),39 were it not for an important piece of evidence preserved on top of the northern jamb. The trimming for the accurate laying of particular blocks of the next course clearly shows here a joint placed only 36 cm inside the overhanging edge of the jamb block. For structural soundness this amount is unthinkable for a single wall block of a structure like this, but it would be easily sufficient for a lintel, the stability of which, due to its bilateral support, is less dependent on the size of each single bearing plane. It is remarkable that the form suggested here precisely coincides (including the size of the lintel’s bearings) with that of a gate in Ephesos, as documented by Falkener.40

In the absence of relevant finds (cornice blocks, corbels, tiles and the like) the form of the top of the tower remains conjectural. Unfortunately, the top of the building has not been preserved in any ancient tower on the Greek islands. In the best example, the tower of Kea, with its characteristic stone corbels (for a hoard?), the pieces of masonry at the highest point, which appear to be merlons of exceptional height,31 must be interpreted as parts of a wall with large, normal lintelled windows.32 According to Haselberger, Greek towers did not have flat roofs.33 Before the 1981 earthquake the larger tower in the fortress of Aigosthena, like other well-preserved towers in Asia Minor or in Italy, had large windows in its upper storey (in this case for artillery pieces) and a pediment above it.34 However the towers preserving only a small part of their height are by far more numerous and scholars sceptical about roofs object that the absence of roof tiles in and around the ruins indicate flat roofs35 with parapets around them. To cope with this question one has to first observe on the one hand that tiles were much needed for reuse in ancient and post-antique times (even as fragments, they would have been quite useful for building kilns and furnaces), and on the other that in Greece no tower ruin has yet been so comprehensively studied that remains of a tiled roof can be excluded.

Inserted from inside there is an additional step-like sill superimposed over the main threshold in the inner side of the opening; it raises the level of the entrance and reduces its clearance to barely 6 feet.41 Apart from its abnormal placement, this is quite

30

Sausiuc, Andros, 31 thinks of four (sic) storeys above the vaulted part of the Agios Petros Tower in Andros while Ross (Inselreisen II, 13) sees five storeys; Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, n. 25, attests two basement storeys and five-six storeys for the same tower (see also Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’, 150), five-anda-half or six storeys for the tower of Agia Marina in Kea, and more than four storeys for the Cheimarrou tower in Naxos. In the tower of Andros (site Agios Petros) the storeys are nearly of the same height. 31 Lawrence, Fortifications, 194-197 thinks of them as very tall “…solely to impose extra weight…” (to counterbalance the corbels). 32 Haselberger identified an orthostate block and a raking cornice block of the tower’s pediment, see Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’, 149; Kazamiakis, ‘Αγία Μαρίνα’, 24-27, fig. 2, with indication of a storey above the level of the corbels. 33 L. Haselberger, ‘Dächer griechischer Wehrtürme’, AM 94 (1979), 110 “…für keinen einzigen (Turm) ist bisher ein Flachdach zu beweisen…”. H.R. Goette, op.cit. n. 21, 241 connects the waterspout in the Vathichoria tower with a flat roof terrace, but waterspouts are always common in intermediate floors and in rooms covered by a roof. 34 J.-P. Adam, L’ Architecture militaire grecque (Paris 1982), 4953; Haselberger, op.cit. n. 33, 94-96 fig. 2. The monument has recently been restudied by A. Milioti (MSc Thesis in Architectural Conservation, National Technical University of Athens). 35 Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’, 167; Spencer, ‘Towers’.

36 The main gate, the second gate, two posterns, five doors in the first storey of the south apartment, two on the first storey of the north apartment, one or two more on the second storey of these apartments, the entrance of the tower, two interior doors on each storey of the tower, 16 narrow windows, one well-attested bipartite window, presumably five more such windows in the upper storeys of the apartments and still more similar windows in the storeys of the tower, totalling more than 55 openings of eight different types. 37 For comparison 3.5% taper in both Palaiopyrgos on Paros and Terlaki on Amorgos (Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 353). 38 In the plate published by Ross there appear to be five courses preserved on the left side, but this is most probably wrong, resulting from the spontaneity in rendering the picture’s subsidiary details. 39 Arches, lintels fashioned like arches or combinations of lintels and corbels (Coulton, Greek Architects, 153, 154) are common in towers, Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 353-363 (four examples, figs 7-9, 14), as well as in fortification walls, J. Durm, Die Baukunst der Griechen (Leipzig 1910), 213-216; Lawrence, Fortifications, 256-258; Adam, op.cit. n. 34, 93-104. 40 Lawrence, Fortifications, 257. 41 In Palaiopyrgos on Paros the door’s clearance was again the same (Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, fig. 7).

185

M. Korres

Figure 8. The Tower of Agia Triada. Main gate. been more appropriate for the bars proper than wood. However this assumption may have to be reconsidered in the future, after a detailed examination of the sockets for possible decayed material from the bars.43 Whatever their material, the use of these bars can be satisfactorily explained thanks to the form of their sockets. Apart from the main sockets made to accommodate them when shifted back, there exists a set of shorter sockets reaching the main ones from inside the building, so that key-pegs placed in them and operated from the inside locked the bars when shifted in and more importantly when shifted out, with their free ends being firmly nested in the sockets of the opposite (the right hand) side of the passage. This had to be done from the inside44 with the door leaves still open, so that the operator could direct the free end of each bar towards the corresponding socket precisely. With this operation finished, it was

regular with sockets for pivoting two leaves of a door; however, it is noteworthy that the sill was made for a door 1.38 m wide, that is 16 cm narrower than the gate! It was made to work with the wider opening of the gate by an additional jamb extending the full height of the northern side of the gate’s opening. Evidence for this jamb can be found in the trimming of the corresponding end of its sill and in the partial trimming of the overhanging corbelling of its wall precisely above the sill. As is often the case with island towers, the gate was provided with a system of several horizontal bars regularly spaced all the way up to the full height of the passage some 20 cm outside the leaves of the door.42 They were accommodated in sockets existing on the left-hand side of the passage (their depth must reach 1.50 m) prepared before laying the wall blocks. On the right hand side of the passage, there are no sockets to nest the ends of the bars when they were removed, because these sockets were made in the additional jamb. Although the latter is missing, we can say that its size – 1.80 m tall, 38 by 16 cm in cross section – would be more appropriate for a wooden post (sheeted with iron, as in all probability the door leaves would have been) rather than for one made of stone. On the other hand iron would probably have

43

On the material of the external bars, ibid., 361, 363. In one-leaved doors, the key-pegs could also be operated from the outside only if they were not situated on the pivot’s side, as in the case of Palaiopyrgos. Since the same system is also applied in two-leaved doors its operation from the outside would not have been possible (because the key-pegs mentioned above should have been hidden by the door-leaf next to them). Other pegs or rather pins and corresponding holes in the bars (for which there is no evidence either) should therefore have been provided in order to make the system operable from the outside.

44

42 This system was first documented and interpreted by Haselberger (ibid., 362-364, figs 14-16).

186

Tower on Amorgos

Figure 9. The Tower of Agia Triada. Main gate. bars whose sockets are preserved on either side.46 Further inside on the right hand face of the passage, 1.23 m above the level of the threshold, a round socket through a large wall block indicates the thickness (c. 16-17cm) of the door’s wooden construction and the diameter (12 cm) of the wooden bar behind.47

safe for the door leaves to remain open. If these too were closed and more security was required, the strong wooden bar behind them had to be fastened in both its deep socket, situated on the left hand side of the passage, and its shallow socket opposite. In the tower, the entrance is fashioned with a c. 2.20m-long threshold, two monolithic jambs 22 by 54 cm in section and a 2.65m-long, 74cm-thick lintel. The opening, 1.28 m wide at the bottom (1.16 m at the top),45 and 2.04 m high, was provided with a system of four equidistantly superimposed horizontal

The second gate was only slightly less impressive. It had a threshold, 1.90 m long and 98 cm wide. The lower part of the left hand jamb is 20 by 56 cm in section, and the bed of the right hand one is 1.26 m from the former. This is sufficient for an almost complete restoration (1.28 m wide at the bottom, c. 1.20 m at the top, c. 2.00m high).

45 Due to a strong outward deformation of the wall, the left-handside jamb is severely shifted and rotated at the cost of the width of the opening. The measurements given above are restored. The measurement given by Ross (Inselreisen II, 37: 1.18 m) could only have been the mean width of the opening as it was found in 1841).

46

Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, fig. 16. On bars Winter, op.cit. n. 21, figs 297-300, 302, 307; see also Dragatsis, ‘Έρευναι’, 103.

47

187

M. Korres

Figure 10. The Tower of Agia Triada. Postern, horizontal section. Concerning the larger windows, the only reliable evidence is an almost 2m-long sill preserved in its original position in the east wall. It corresponds to the axis of the north apartment’s second storey. Distinct deeper carved beds on its upper side clearly indicate the form of a well-hewn marble frame (1.24m-wide, 52-53cm-thick), with two lateral posts and one in the middle, all with a c 20-21 cm48 wide face. Two vertical iron bars 2.5 by 2.5 cm in section were fastened into 3cm-deep sockets on the sill and presumably the lintel, midway between the marble posts. Inside the frame another plane carved 3 cm deeper in the sill accurately indicates the opening’s inward increase from 89 (3 feet) just inside the frame to 118 (4 feet)49 on the wall’s inner face (now missing). The height of the window can only be estimated at about 3 to 4 feet.50 Ross, whose measuring of the overall dimensions of the building is almost accurate, gives 1.20 m for the width of the window,51 which is some 40 cm more than the true opening, but not

More importantly, structural details and traces of use show that the gate had originally two leaves, was remodelled with two narrower leaves, and again in a last phase with only one leaf in a still narrower opening. These and other finds indicate a long period of use in antiquity. By far the smallest among the openings that provided communication, the postern to the west annex is noteworthy [fig. 10]. It was 3½ feet high, 2 feet wide on average (one dactyl more at the bottom, one dactyl less at the top), and consists of threshold, monolithic jambs and a six-foot lintel. It is strange that the outer and inner edges of the threshold are not parallel. It is 69 cm wide at the face of the right hand jamb (as seen from the outside) and only 64 cm wide at the face of the opposite one. While the reason for this peculiarity is not obvious, marking lines which are carved on the right hand jamb but left unused, indicate an original opening depth of 59 cm (2 feet) and a height of 88 cm (3 feet)! Sockets in the threshold and the right-hand jamb were used to secure a movable sheet of wood some 80 cm wide, 1.3 m high and almost 10 cm thick, without pivots. From its unpractical size, the small opening can be interpreted as a sortie passage, which under certain circumstances could have also been used as a passage for domestic animals like goats or pigs (this could perhaps be verified or rejected when the study of the archaeological context in the west annex is concluded).

48

On the basis of evidence from better preserved posts and beds, the estimated size of the posts is a few centimetres smaller than that of the beds proper. 49 The repetition of such measurements (wall thickness, several openings etc) in many other towers strongly supports the assumption of a universally applied measuring unit, namely a foot of c. 29.5 cm. See also nn. 20 and 29. 50 Identical windows, also with iron bars, are known from Delos, Ph. Fraisse and Ch. Llinas, EAD 36: Documents d’ architecture hellénique et hellénistique (Paris 1995): “Pythion”, “fenêtres à meneaux” with posts measuring 24 by 54 cm in cross section; R. Ginouvès, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’ architecture grecque et romaine II (Paris 1992), 50 and pl. 28,1. 51 Ross, Inselreisen II, 37; Lawrence, Fortifications, 193.

188

Tower on Amorgos

built with smaller stones. These stones, despite their more perfectly chiselled face, in contrast to that of the blocks of the outer face, do not have the perfectly smoothed join planes, and in many instances clay has been used between the joins imperceptibly.

much different from what would have been left after the removal of the posts. This interpretation is in keeping with the state of the relevant part of the structure in the perspective view made at the time (Ross, pl. 1). The second wide window mentioned by Ross is completely lost, unless it was actually the accidental gap above the second waterspout already mentioned. This problem should be reconsidered after the removal of the debris.

As a rule the invisible rear of the stones is un-hewn and therefore irregular. Depending on their shape there is always interlocking or overlapping between several stones of the outer and the inner wall face. The remaining gaps are carefully filled with smaller stones and clay. Stones stretching through the full width of the wall (structurally equivalent to the ‘headers’ of ashlar masonry) appear only occasionally,57 or more regularly as thresholds, sills of windows or lintels.

The stairs of the house are still, despite their original quantity,52 not well known. At the moment part of the stairs leading to the second storey of the north apartment has been investigated. Its steps are cantilevered monoliths projecting from the west wall’s inner face. This system was perhaps the commonest53 in ancient towers of the islands and therefore, despite the relative thinness of the transverse wall in our tower’s interior, cantilevered steps could also be restored on its side too (this will have to be reconsidered when more fallen stones are investigated in the tower’s interior).

While in normal ashlar masonry the wall blocks are standardised parallelepipeds, in the building under consideration as in most examples of its type, the stones greatly vary in shape and especially in size mainly along the outer wall face. Their jointing however is excellent: all bearing surfaces and beds are horizontal, and only the joints between adjacent blocks are inclined. With reference to a plumb line the rate of this inclination is usually less than one to four and seldom (always slightly) more than one to two.58 While they vary in size and shape, taller stones are joined at their ends with similar ones adjacent to them or with several superimposed flatter ones, and sometimes several shorter blocks lay on the same long block. In the great majority of the taller stones, the contour of the face contains several recesses resulting from the carving necessary for jointing adjoining stones. Carving and jointing was performed in subsequent steps. As a rule only the bot-

In the building under consideration, as well as in other similar structures of the same period, while the outer face of the wall blocks preserves a great amount of preliminary quarry work, it can project strongly from the wall’s theoretical plane (at places more than 15cm, at some corner blocks more than 50cm). This produces a markedly uneven masonry face, as well as a randomly fluctuating thickness. Closer inspection however reveals that despite its unevenness, the face of each block is recessed towards its edges which in their turn are fashioned as straight lines54 (drafted margins) lying in the same vertical (or slightly inclining) plane. This is referred to below as the block’s or the wall’s theoretical (or ideal) face plane. Sharply fashioned straight edges rising to the full height of exterior corners55 or of other vertical features (doorways, windows) were regularly used as a stable system guiding the laying of each course. This helped align both its vertical plane and the inclination of the masonry’s theoretical form.56 The inner face of the walls is more regularly

mechanical distortions at each part, as well as their, sometimes very complicated, interaction. It is therefore not surprising that some walls appear (in both reality and depictions) to be considerably thicker than they actually are (or were). Furthermore, defining the horizontal section of a structure with inclined roughfaced masonry walls standing on strongly varying levels is even more complicated. The building under consideration not only belongs to this case but at the same time, due to a number of the wall’s fabric distortions, presents further difficulties in defining its original lines. In order to do so many deductive calculations are necessary (elimination of the – not original – discontinuations and of the rotational component of each block’s dislocation). Particularly helpful in deducing the thickness of walls are the wall openings (mostly slits); once the debris accumulated inside them is removed eventual gaps in joints or in cracks can be taken into consideration. 57 On the Tower Cheimarrou (Naxos), as in some other examples and houses on Delos, the inward extremities of many irregular and naturally oversized headers protrude from the wall’s inner face. The protrusions were useful as a record of the wall’s internal bond and as occasional supports for planks and stages during construction. After completion and if desired they could have been trimmed away. 58 The same obsevation (“bis 60o”) was made by Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 348-349.

52 Leading to the postern, to the second storey of the south apartment and its roof (?), to the second storey of the north apartment and its roof (?), to the second storey of the tower, to the third storey of the tower, etc. 53 Kea: Lawrence, Fortifications, 194-195; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’; Naxos: Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’, 435-437; Andros: Sausiuc, Andros, 31, 32; Coulton, Greek Architects, 149. 54 For an extensive description of the system see Scranton, Greek Walls, 70ff; Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 349-353. 55 On drafted edges or even intermediate bands, Lawrence, Fortifications, 242. 56 Before establishing the real length or thickness of a wall (and at what particular height), one must take into consideration features of the irregular trapezoidal masonry such as the thickness of the bosses, gradual diminution and setbacks as well as the accidental

189

M. Korres

the ashlar’s mechanical and ergonomic superiority. At any rate, to compensate for their relative inferiority in strength, the irregular masonries were always substantially thicker than ashlar masonries of the same height and function,65 without this seriously affecting their economic and other advantages. Depending on local conditions, the aim was always to increase the size of the blocks in order to reduce the total amount of dressing needed for a given structure. It is no wonder therefore that in the building under consideration so many stones exceed 3m in length, weighing sometimes more than 4 tons, while even more exceed 2m in length and weigh about 2 tons.

tom of the blocks is straight, but strangely enough the exceptions are not few (stones with a stepped underside).59 By selecting stones and deciding their place in the wall, the main consideration was to achieve the best distribution of large, medium and small stone-sizes with the least waste in labour of moving and trimming.60 The use of a great variety of sizes and shapes always aimed for the maximum utilization (or exploitation) of the rough material available in the quarry with as little trimming as possible. In comparison to the cost of deep quarrying of regular blocks, using trenches arduously carved in the rock and great numbers of iron wedges, it was much more economical to detach shapeless boulders from near the surface, using just a few wedges and powerful crow bars along already existing natural joints of the bed rock and to integrate them into a masonry system flexible enough to overcome (or absorb) the randomness of the quarried material.61 The current term ‘trapezoidal’ does not define this type of masonry satisfactorily. Due to the extreme variety of stone shapes it would be more appropriate to classify it as ‘irregular trapezoidal’.62

Apart from these technical considerations, irregular trapezoidal masonry has, at least for the modern viewer, undeniable merits of an aesthetic character: charming interplay of shapes, sizes, light and shadow; attractiveness as an exercise for the beholder’s visual intelligence; emotional power as a sort of visual narration of hard manual work and reason; physical beauty of the material; impressiveness of large stones and a mentally pleasing expression of randomness or juxtaposition of the natural and the artificial.66

Although masonry of this type is (despite on appearance to the contrary) not as strong as that made with ashlars, 63 its cost compared to that of ashlar work – when hard stone is to be used – and its adaptability to local conditions are advantages that in most cases (and again contrary to different views)64 far outweigh

Despite the obvious advantages and merits of the irregular trapezoidal technique in terms of quarrying costs, exploitation of the material quarried and aesregelmäßigen Blöcken brechendem Material wird man nie ein Polygonalmauerwerk hergestellt haben...“; W. Wrede, Attische Mauern (Athens 1933), 59-58, relates softer stones with ashlar work and smoothed wall faces and harder stones with irregular shapes of blocks and undressed faces. For the relation between masonry systems, hardness and current shapes of boulders as found or quarried: E. Hansen, ‘Emploi des pierres brutes dans la construction’, in Mélanges helléniques offerts à Georges Daux (Paris 1974), 159-179; Korres, ‘Geological factor’, figs 2, 4-12. N. Spencer, Gazetteer of Archaeological Sites in Lesbos (Oxford 1995), 53-56, with no accurate physical evidence or reference to Hansen’s profound analysis, simply expresses doubts as to the practicality and feasibility of Lesbian masonry and suggestions as for its conditions. For the relation between hardness, standardisation, size and distance in terms of utility, mechanical properties of stones, durability, economy, specialisation of man power, metallurgy and symbolism see M. Korres in M. Korres and Ch. Bouras, Μελέτη Αποκαταστάσεως του Παρθενώνος (Athens 1983), 44-53, esp. 45-46; Coulton, Greek Architects, 45, “…the shapes probably depended mainly on the way the stone broke, so that different kinds of rock would produce walls with very different appearances…”; W. Müller-Wiener, Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike (Munich 1988), 68, 72, 73 “…durch örtliche Materialvorkommen beeinflußt…”. 65 Korres, ‘Geological factor’, fig. 7 showing the influence of the masonry’s type to the wall’s thickness. 66 For an appraisal of visual aspects, W. Wrede, op.cit. n. 64, epilogue: “…the undressed face from a just tolerated lacking of completion became soon a somehow desired contrast to the smooth parts of a masonry…common in masonries, no matter of what type, the evolution from the technically necessary to the artistically treated…”.

59 For the technical considerations of irregular masonry, Korres, ‘Geological factor’, 1781, 1783. 60 On maximum utilisation and minimum trimming, Korres, ibid., 1780-1781; Hansen, in G. Daux and E. Hansen, FD II: Le Trésor des Siphnos (Paris 1987), 26-27; Hoepfner, Wohnen, 527. 61 M. Korres, ‘Geological factor’. 62 Scranton, Greek Walls, 70ff. 63 Some people, impressed by the complicated interlocking of the stones, tend to make up advantages over the common ashlar masonry in terms of earthquake resistance. Although a few cases of real interlocking which can be observed at the corners may be useful, irregular masonries – evaluated (empirically or by means of statics) as a whole or in parts – are of less tensile and less compressive strength than ashlar masonry. Suffice to state that irregular masonry is much rarer in towers (always of small size) than in curtains and that when applied to towers it becomes more regular at higher levels and always near the corners. 64 Scranton for instance (Greek Walls, 70ff) while quite rightly praises the standardisation advantage of the ashlar-work, is reluctant to see the advantages of maximum utilisation and minimum trimming in cases where the only or easily available rough material (whether by quarrying or collecting) consists of very hard and irregular boulders. In this respect A. Orlandos, Les materiaux de construction II (Paris 1968), 135, agrees with Scranton. The case was much better understood by those who lived at a time when stone was regularly used in constructions: L. Ross commenting on monumental masonries on Tenos (Inselreisen I, 15): “…man kann sich hier auf das augenscheinlichste überzeugen, wie die Natur des Baumeterials so ganz von selbst und ungesucht den Baustil bedingt…”; Durm, op.cit. n. 39, 29, “…Mit lagerhartem, in

190

Tower on Amorgos

tion. This assumption is well in keeping with the gradual reduction of stone size higher up the structure that is observable on the better preserved towers of Naxos, Andros and Kea. With eight to twelve handles at either end of the winch’s axle, orbiting at a distance of c. 1.2 m from its axis, that is with a mechanical advantage of six, eight persons would have been needed to generate the crane’s full capacity or only two (using correspondingly lighter ropes) for the great majority of the stones used (weighing c. ¼ ton).

thetic effect, and while a moderate increase in thickness usually sufficed to compensate for its inferior mechanical strength as compared to that of an ashlar wall, still there was a disadvantage in the system – again as compared to ashlar walls – which has to be discussed: Building with ashlars enables the maximum economy in the lifting and positioning of the stones. Cranes or heavy scaffolds equipped with the necessary gear were rationally designed for a standard load and standard lifting devices such as lewises, tongs or ready-made rope loops. They were purposefully located at a certain point along the wall’s length, because the top of each course was systematically used for moving the blocks of the next course horizontally (normally on rollers). In the irregular trapezoidal technique, the tops of adjacent blocks do not generally constitute continuous planes appropriate for moving other stones over them (not even crosswise), so that the building of free standing walls of no great thickness67 was only possible with a lifting device placed each time above the final position of each particular block. At the same time, the lifting capacity, while sufficient for the larger blocks was naturally much more than necessary for the much smaller average-sized blocks. This disadvantage however could have been moderated by inactivating the hook sheave in the pulley when smaller weights were lifted. This was an easy procedure when using polyspasts.

Since polyspasts with up to five sheaves were common in ancient lifting devices, even with no consideration of energy loses caused by friction, the assumption of only two sheaves made above has to be argued for: while, for a given lifting capacity, doubling the number of sheaves in the pulley blocks requires doubling the rope’s operating length and halving its thickness, the storage capacity of the winch (functioning as a horizontal drum or reel and not as a capstan) is only increasing by √2 . Since for practical reasons only one layer of rope ‘revolutions’ is permitted, and since the angular deviation of the rope from the middle of the axle (that is the shear leg’s median line) must be kept to a minimum, more rope ‘revolutions’ in the space between the shear legs demand longer legs, which in turn means an exponential increase in the crane’s bulk and dead weight. Following these arguments, the manpower required for the maximum output of any of the winches on top of the tower would have been at least eight persons. On the other hand there is no strong reason to suppose that more people were needed to man all the cranes. While the time needed to lift a normal block to the highest point was scarcely more than 10 minutes, the remaining work of positioning, jointing and dressing its top in position had to take several hours. It should therefore have been possible for these eight persons to operate in three or four subgroups and only occasionally to work together on the same crane in order to lift a larger stone. They would also have had plenty of time to operate the block and tackle necessary for changing each crane’s overhang and to operate the levers needed for moving the cranes along each side, as well as to operate the levers and supports necessary physically to raise the platform of the cranes – and to help the two or three specialists responsible for the adjustment and maintenance of all carpentry and gear including the ropes. It is therefore not probable that the same people could have been involved in other tasks.

Although the study of the building process is still in progress, we can make a preliminarily summary of results so far. Due to the roughness of the terrain, the masonry type, and the overall size of its structure, the tower must have been built with four small movable cranes of the shear-leg type (the ancient dikolos)68 mounted on a collapsible wooden frame. The frame would have been placed just inside the walls, supported by adjustable posts that enabled the whole to be raised by increments of say 4 to 5 feet at one time and always in advance of the masonry’s rise. With a rope, (c. 24 m long and 4 cm thick) making up to 16 revolutions over a horizontal reel (c. 36 cm thick), the crane’s capacity, depending on the number of sheaves used, could have been c. 2 tons for the first 9 m of the tower’s height with a two-sheave configuration, and 1 ton (but with doubled speed) for the remaining height with a one sheave configura67 As a rule, in building retaining walls, their top, resulting from the rising fill behind them, was strong and wide in order to accommodate all heavy operations such as carving, moving and positioning the blocks, no matter how irregular they were (trapezoid, polygonal, lesbian). See E. Hansen, op.cit. n. 64. 68 On lifting in ancient architecture see Vitr. x.2.8-9; J.J. Coulton, ‘Lifting in early Greek architecture’, JHS 94 (1974), 1-19; id., Greek Architects, 144.

To continue with the construction proper, the assumption of a team of four to six stone masons working on top of each wall may be reasonable if we take into account the size of the stones, crow bar use

191

M. Korres

under the guidance of a sub-architect.71 Their output, c. 3.5 to 5 m3 of masonry per person per month (including quarrying, transport and fashioning), might have been almost five times higher than that assumed for the tower in Amorgos (c. 100 manpower, 450 cubic meters of masonry, six months).

and the amount of chiselling, laying and fitting that would be required. On the same basis and with some margin of error, this team might achieve a rise in the wall height of about one meter in ten days, provided that the stones were already sufficiently prepared on the ground. This would have been the task of another team, of say 12 to 16 stone cutters working in close communication with those working on the tower and those working in the quarry. The latter, possibly one dozen, had to cut away manually a considerable part of the rock and convert it into useful material at a pace of c. 100 cubic meters a month. The remaining manpower would have included half a dozen ironsmiths involved in the continuous production and maintenance of heavy quarrying tools and many other stone-carving tools, as well as another two dozen, most probably peasants, necessary to move the stones from the quarry to the stone cutters’ yard and finally to within the reach of the cranes.

The rest of the complex – for which the same manpower would need another eight months or more – although contemporary with the tower, or practically so, is not structurally bonded to it. Its walls simply abut to the tower, and it is quite remarkable that at the points of contact (there are four such points, see fig 2) the irregular bosses of the tower’s walls, though clearly in its way were not trimmed away. The loose connection, seen for example in the structural separation of the two parts, was not simply the result of building them in subsequent stages72 – it would have been easy for the builders to provide for a structural interlocking. Perhaps the aim was to keep the tower structurally independent,73 so as to avoid undesired mechanical interaction with the surrounding building – had the latter been violently attacked – or to reserve the option of a functional revision immediately around the tower, combined perhaps with an enlargement of the complex towards the west in order to take advantage of the rise in the ground at that location. The latter, actually a revision of the concept of a tower projecting from the circuit wall versus a tower within it, is too far fetched to be discussed on the basis of the physical evidence or other relevant data available at the moment.

With the organisation described above, the tower (without the rest of the complex) could have been built within six months, a very short period of time indeed, and its cost including wages for quarrymen and masons (approximately 12000 man days), carpenters (approximately 2000 man days), non-specialists (approximately 6000 man days) and suppliers of wood, ropes and iron, would have reached some thirty to forty thousand drachmae, an amount that is not much different from what was recently estimated for an average tower.69 To understand the difference between this type of building and that of a Classical temple of the highest quality it is sufficient to remember the ten months needed for six specialists just to carve and finish the fluting in six already standing columns of the Erechtheion.70 This because, as is always the case when working stone by hand, the ratio of time to quantity of material removed increases exponentially with micrometric accuracy and fineness. At the opposite extreme we can cite the unbelievably short period of 20 days needed for roughly six myriads of excellently organised men to build the 30-stade-long fortification wall on the Epipolae heights of Syracuse, according to Diodorus (xiv.18), using large (4 feet) standardised soft stone ashlars quarried by themselves on the very spot. The whole was divided into 100-feet-long sections with a corresponding manpower of 200 for each, working

The emergence of strongly fortified towers on the Aegean islands74 can be explained in terms of consid-

71 D. Mertens, ‘Die Landschaftsfestung Epipolai bei Syrakus’, in E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt (eds), Stadt und Umland (Mainz 1999), 148-149. 72 This is the case of the Tower at Vathy, Astypalaia as stated by Dawkins and Wace, ‘Sporades’, 155-156: “…apparently the tower was built first, and the court was added later, since the walls are not bonded together, and if it were part of the original plan the tower would entered from it…”. 73 The case is not unlike Vitruvius’ (i.5.22) recommendation for interruptions in the passages between towers and adjacent walls. 74 The views for the function of the towers in the Aegean differ considerably, but despite the objections expressed by the supporters of particular views against others (for instance the comments by Osborne on Haselberger’s interpretation – which actually is not much different from his!), most views alone or combined might be quite valid for specific groups of monuments: 1a. guard posts for the security of agricultural land (Ross, Inselreisen II, 45-46; Philippson, Beiträge, 50; Young, ‘Siphnos’, 55); 1b. military use (Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 365, 367, and security of roads; Ashton, Siphnos, 27; Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’, 172; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 279280); 1c. to define (Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 285) or to defend (Philippson, Beiträge) borders between two cities; on the

69

M. Munn, Farm Towers and Military Towers (University of Pennsylvania 1983), 77-78, nn. 99-100. For comparison see the sum of up to 5000 drachmae for mud brick houses in Olynthos (D.M. Robinson and J.W. Graham, Olynthus VIII: The Hellenic House (Baltimore 1938). 70 B. Wesenberg, ‘Kunst und Lohn am Erechtheion’, AA 1985, 5565.

192

Tower on Amorgos

erable economic growth75 coupled with social tensions or political changes76 and an endangered life, together with the determination and ability of local communities and landlords to take advantage of the unique development of stone-wall construction in monumental scale. This development took place in mainland Greece in the second quarter of the 4th century BC, as a result of the rapid changes in all branches of war technology, occasioned by the contest between the emerging powers of Thebes and Macedonia for supremacy. The evolution of the technology of war and the wide dissemination of

fortifications built entirely of stone from the middle of the 4th century is another important phenomenon which is associated with the prevalence of a masonry system (which was also used in terraces) that was highly economical, exceptionally solid and aesthetically superior. Although the majority of the examples of this new kind of masonry are to be found in mainland Greece, those that survive in the Aegean islands are unexpectedly impressive. Freestanding towers were normally built on sites some distance from the fortified cities and only rarely closer to them.77 In Amorgos remains of towers are preserved in many places.78 Notable specimens are also the round towers of Naxos (site of Cheimarros), Andros (site of Agios Petros) and Siphnos (Aspros Pyrgos, and many other sites) and the large square towers of Amorgos, Astypalaia, Naxos (site of Plaka, extra large granite tower with very thick walls) and Kea (site of Agia Marina). The last, which is 20m high and unfortunately on the point of collapse, is irreplaceable testimony to the full form and interior layout of buildings of this kind. It illustrates the division of the interior space into two to four rooms on each storey, communicating by way of a stone cantilever stair, doors and windows at different levels, and an upper storey with strong, stone projections, possibly for a hoard.79

limitations of this use in Attica see M. Munn, The Defense of Attica (Berkeley 1993), 25-32; 1d. to protect mines (Ross, Inselreisen I, 137, 146; Inselreisen II, 13; Bursian, op.cit. n. 1, 444; contra: Philippson, Beiträge; Young, ‘Siphnos’, 55); 1e. to protect mines and forests delivering wood for the mining kilns (on Siphnos, J. Birkett-Smith, ‘On the towers and mines of Siphnos’, in Πρακτικά του Α´ Διεθνούς Σιφνιακού Συμποσίου, Σίφνος 1998 - Α´ Αρχαίοι Χρόνοι (Athens 2000), 279-294); 1f. to protect seashores (Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 278-279); 2a. integral parts of a communication network to transmit signals (Dragatsis, ‘Πύργοι’, 165, 171; Ashton, Siphnos, 31; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 279); 2b. light houses (Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 278-279; Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’); 3a. residences of prosperous landlords (Novicka, Maisons, 62, 96; Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’, 150; Osborne, ‘Island towers’; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 284; Marangou, Αμοργός, 62); 3b. habitation of a landlord’s foremen, representatives or lodgers (Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 375; id., ‘Turmgehöfte’, 150; Dousougli and Morris, ‘Towers’); 3c. refuges for the population in the event of pirate raids (L. Ross, Archäologische Aufsätze I (Leipzig 1855), 643, n. 8; Philippson, Beiträge; Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’, 374; Boussac and Rougemont, ‘Amorgos’, 117; Marangou, Αμοργός, 62, “… pirates from Creta…”); 3d. farmhouses (Ross, Inselreisen II, 44; Jones, ‘Town and country houses’; Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’; Boussac and Rougemont, ‘Amorgos’, 117; Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’, 172; Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 280-282; Marangou, Αμοργός, 62); 4a. safekeeping of valuables such as arms; 4b. storerooms for agricultural equipment; 4c. storerooms for agricultural production (Jones, ‘Town and country houses’); 4d. stalls for valuable horses possibly for courier service – on their ground floor, when the door is equipped with a system of bars (Haselberger, ‘Paläopyrgos’); 5. accommodation for women or female slaves (Dousougli and Morris, ‘Towers’); 6. architectural expressions of the powerful and the rich (Osborne, ‘Island towers’). 75 Osborne, ‘Island towers’, 174 “…on the one hand we are dealing with a society marked by considerable inequality in which the rich are motivated to make their predominance felt, and on the other, a society where exceptional security is worth advertising. These factors may not be unconnected…” 76 Dousougli and Morris, ‘Towers’, 219 “…it may not be a coincidence that the majority of these towers first appear in the fourth century, under the influence of three historical conditions: the aftermath of the Peloponnesian war with its repeated invasions of rural territory and loss of man power…coupled with the consolidation of cities (synoikismos) which must have increased the distance between remote farms and new urban residences for many landowners…”.

It is worth noting at this point that these fortifications are more numerous on some of the smaller or less prosperous islands than on the large islands:80 there are dozens of towers on Siphnos81 and Kea,82 several on Amorgos,83 fewer on Naxos84 or Andros.85 There 77

Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 285. Marangou, ‘Maisons à tour’, passim; ead., Αμοργός, 56, 323339. 79 For a detailed, unfortunately lost documentation (which included measured ground plans of all storeys and three sections) made by E. Schaubert before the building’s collapse in 1839, see F. Koepp, ‘Eduard Schauberts handschriftlicher Nachlass’, AA 1890, 140; for a still earlier (1812) depiction (by R. Cockerell) of the tower’s exterior see Bröndsted, Voyage et recherches dans la Grèce (Copenhagen 1826), 25. The monument is recently restudied by Kazamiakis, ‘Αγία Μαρίνα’ and D. Maurokordatou (MSc Thesis in Architectural Conservation, National Technical University of Athens). 80 It should be noted that conditions in larger islands (especially Naxos and Paros) are far less favourable for the preservation of ruins, since they were inhabited continuously and more intensively; be that as it may, the concentration of towers in the smaller or peripheral islands is a fact. 81 Dragatsis, ‘Πύργοι’, 164-165 (34 towers); Young, ‘Siphnos’ (38 towers); Ashton, Siphnos (55 towers). 82 Mendoni, ‘Πύργοι Κέας’, 275, 278 (77 towers) fig. 42 (map of Kea with 86 sites of towers or similarly built edifices). 83 Boussac and Rougemont, ‘Amorgos’, 117 (26 towers), fig. 7 (map of Amorgos with 13 sites of towers with indication of the more sizable areas of arable soil); Marangou, Αμοργός, 50, “…until 1999 23 towers…”, fig. 63 (map with 22 towers). The recent survey of L. Marangou adds many new sites to the catalogue. 78

193

M. Korres

and serving as refuge in the event of pirate or other raids.88 At the peak of the Delian confederacy led bythe Athenians, strong naval forces were on the alert for the Persian or other fleets and undoubtedly left no margin for piracy. With the decline of the ‘mistress of the seas’, however, things changed (in 362 BC the Athenians failed to protect Tenos against a minor Thessalian raid) and after 315-314 BC and the re-founding of the Island League, control of the Aegean was now entirely in the hands of the Macedonians. This is the period at which the phenomenon of the tower was at its peak.89

are three fortified cities on Amorgos, possibly only one on Naxos. The geographical distribution of towers and their varied typology86 suggests that some of them were merely guard houses and observation posts (the relatively low ‘towers’ near the quarries of Thasos seem to have been a special case87). Other, large towers, which usually had a large outer enclosure, were fortified country houses owned by the rich, capable of protecting the technical equipment (olive-press, farm tools) of a large farm, its precious goods, or its crops,

Manolis Korres Athens National Technical University 42 Patision St. GR- 106 82 Athens

84 Haselberger, ‘Pyrgos Chimarru’; for the round tower by Bantidenes near Sangri (studied by K. Schnieringer) see V. Lambrinoudakis, Prakt 1981, 295ff, pl. 202. 85 Sausiuc, Andros, 36; Haselberger, ‘Turmgehöfte’, 150; Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’. 86 12m-wide towers cover four times more ground and contain ten times more interior space than the 6m-wide ones. It is therefore possible to classify towers as small (with a width or diameter between 5 and 7 m, i.e. 18-24 feet), medium (with a width or diameter between 7 and 9.5 m, i.e. 24-32 feet) and large (with a width or diameter between 9.5 and 12.5 m, i.e. 32-42 feet) . For distinctive examples of large towers see Spencer, ‘Towers’, 208209, for small towers see Koutsoukou and Kanellopoulos, ‘Andros’. The old distinction of round and square towers (apart from Vitruvius’ considerations, i.5.22) is always important although still inconclusive. (Why so many round towers on Siphnos? Marangou, Αμοργός, 61, considers the round towers on Amorgos as more appropriate for guard posts and the wider orthogonal ones as more appropriate for farms and landlords). Finally the distinction of towers with or without a surrounding precinct would be the most important, provided that a systematic survey is first conducted over the whole geographic area under consideration in order to collect more reliable information. 87 T. Kozelj and M. Wurch-Kojelj, ‘Phares de Thasos’, BCH 113 (1989), 161-181.

88 Ross, who was the first to convincingly relate towers to the security of isolated farmers against piracy (L. Ross, Archäologische Aufsätze II (Leipzig 1855), 643), also suggested that many of the towers were made to protect mining activities, as for instance the large number of towers on Siphnos (silver mines) and the tower near Agios Petros in Andros (iron mines). 89 Ashton, Siphnos and Spencer, ‘Towers’, date the earliest towers (Siphnos, Lesbos) to the 6th century BC. Towers in farmsteads and villages in Attica, mostly round and irregularly built, are dated to the 5th and early 4th century BC. The prevailing opinion for the great majority of towers built in trapezoidal or similar masonry styles support a date in the middle of the 4th century or later. The inscription on the Smovolon tower, previously dated to the end of the 3rd century BC (F.G. Maier, Griechische Mauerbauinschriften I (Heidelberg 1959), 40, is now considered to be much earlier, R. Étienne, Ténos II (Paris 1990), 32 (end of the 4th or beginning of the 3rd century). The possibility that the era of towers could have lasted much longer is still to be considered. Lawrence, Fortifications, 197 argues for a very late date for the tower at Agia Marina on Kea: “…after rather than before 100 (BC)…”.

194

Abbreviations

The conventions used in Archäologische Bibliographie have been followed in this volume, except for those listed below. EEKM

AAX

Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Κυκλαδικών Μελετών

Αρχαιολογικά και Ανθρωπολογικά Χρονικά EAD

AEMTh

Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l'École française d'Athènes

Το Αρχαιολογικό Έργο στη Μακεδονία και Θράκη Eretria

Agora The Athenian Agorα. Results of Excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens AIONArchStAnt Annali di Archaeologia e Storia Antica (Nuova serie) AR Archaeological Reports ArchForsch Archäologische Forschungen CPCActs Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre DossAParis Histoire et archéologie. Les dossiers

Eretria. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen FD École Française d’Athènes, Fouilles de Delphes OlForsch Olympische Forschungen PAA Πρακτικά της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society Olynthus Excavations at Olynthus

195

List of Plates

Pl. 1A: Andros: the promontory of Zagora. Pl. 1B: Edinburgh: the castle. Pl. 1C: Melos: the eastern side of the gulf, with Plaka and the Kastro (centre), Klima below Classical Melos (left), and Adamanta (right).

Pl. 8B: Kambos. Small crater with curvilinear decoration. Pl. 8C: Kambos. One-handled bowls. Pl. 8D: Siphnos-Kastro. Cup sherds included in programme of chemical analysis. Pl. 9A: Unfinished kouros in situ at Melanes. Pl. 9B: Clay pipes of the first phase of the aqueduct conveying water from Phlerio/Melanes to the ancient city of Naxos.

Pl. 2A: Melos: view of Phylakopi. The lighter area in the foreground shows the position of the prehistoric harbour. Pl. 2B: Classical Melos: view towards Klima, from the theatre. Pl. 2C: Naxos: the monastery of Fotodotis.

Pl. 10A: The entrance of the Roman phase to the tunnel of the aqueduct. Pl. 10B: The oikoi of the 8th and 7th century BC in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Pl. 3A: Melos: the Kastro above Plaka (Anokastro). Pl. 3B: Melos: view from the Kastro towards Phylakopi and Kimolos. Pl. 3C: Melos: the plain of Livadi with the village of Chora or Zefiria, site of Frankish Millo, from the south. In the distance are Adamanta and Plaka. Pl. 3D: Melos: the tomb of Aikaterini (Modinou) Brest in the catholic church (Rozaria) in Plaka. Pl. 3E: Pyrgos, Tenos: fountain in the main square.

Pl. 11A: The marble base of a wooden post in the oikos of the 8th century BC in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 11B: The marble threshold of the oikos of the 7th century in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 11C: Semicircular bank around an older pyre in the second phase of the 7th century oikos in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Pl. 4A: Classical Melos: site of the agora (flat saddle - centre right). Pl. 4B: Classical Melos: site of the stadium (sunlit strip - centre right). Pl. 4C: Melos: a house in Plaka. Pl. 4D: Agia Irini, Kea: Late Bronze Age buildings. Pl. 4E: Seriphos: the Chora. Pl. 4F: Seriphos: the Chora.

Pl. 12A: The east wall of the 8th century oikos in the sanctuary of Phlerio, hit by the split marble lump. Pl. 12B: Pyre at the marble lump in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 13A: The foundations of the small, 6th century BC temple in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 13B: Pyres covered with circular slabs in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Pl. 5A: Emborio. Aerial view, location of site ringed (photo: Hellenic Army Geographical Service). Pl. 5B: Emborio. a-b: Imported ‘Parian’ cups; c-d: Large closed shapes with curvilinear decoration. Pl. 5C: Emborio. Lug-handled basin. Pl. 5D: Emborio. Stand with cut-out panels and relief decoration. Pl. 5E: Emborio. Basin with relief decoration on the rim.

Pl. 14A: Unfinished votive column found in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 14B: Unfinished marble lamp found in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 14C: Plinth and feet of a small kouros, a failure found in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 14D: Unfinished sphinx found in the sanctuary of Phlerio. Pl. 14E: Shallow basin (for libations) found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Pl. 6A: Emborio. Rim and handle of imported Corinthian Type A transport amphora. Pl. 6B: Emborio. Rim and neck of imported transport amphora of uncertain origin. Pl. 6C: Kambos. Aerial view, location of site ringed (photo: Hellenic Army Geographical Service).

Pl. 15A: View of the temple from the south (2004). Pl. 15B: Aerial view of the sanctuary (2005) (photo by Naval Commander K. Mazarakis Ainian).

Pl. 7A: Kambos. Plates. Pl. 7B: Kambos. a-b: Medium and large closed shapes. c: Small crater. Pl. 7C: Kambos. One-handled cups (mugs).

Pl. 16A: Bronze lotus flower from the roof of the animal pen (2001). Pl. 16B: Triglyph of mussel stone from the destruction layer north of the temple (2003). Pl. 16C: View of the adyton from the north, after the excavation (2003). Pl. 16D: Bronze fibulae in situ, at the base of the cylindrical clay base (2002).

Pl. 8A: Kambos. Small craters decorated with sets of concentric circles.

197

Pl. 16E: View of the back of the temple (east terrace wall) from the northeast (2004). Pl. 17A: View of the sanctuary at the end of the 2004 excavation season. View from the south. Pl. 17B: View of the two altars from the south. Altar 1 (right), Altar 2 (left) (2004). Pl. 17C: View of the niches from the north. Pl. 17D: Aryballoi in situ at the SW corner of the adyton. Pl. 17E: Bronze pin and lids belonging to vases in situ at the centre of the adyton. Pl. 17F: Bronze phiale and miniature shield (centre), aryballoid lekythos (right) near the back wall of the adyton.

Pl. 25E: Ivory disc. Pl. 26A: Scaraboid steatite seal. Pl. 26B: Iron spear-heads. Pl. 26C: Bronze spiral fibula. Pl. 26D: Bronze fibula of the ‘Phrygian’ type. Pl. 26E: Gold head of pin. Pl. 27A-B: Daedalic terracotta statuette. Pl. 27C: Building A. Room A2 from the east. Pl. 28A: Stoa in front of Rooms A3-A5. Pl. 28B: Stylobate in front of Rooms A3-A5. Pl. 28C: Marble head found outside Room A5. Pl. 28D: Marble head found along Wall T17.

Pl. 18A: ‘Parian’ stemmed bowl. Pl. 18B: Corinthian plemochoe. Pl. 18C: Siana cup of the Taranto Painter. Pl. 18D: Classical terracotta seated female figurines. Pl. 18E: Scarabs, seals, gems and beads of various materials. Pl. 18F: Beads and pendants of rock crystal. Pl. 18G: Pendants of coral, combined with gold or silver. Pl. 18H: Ivory and bone seals and pendants or plaques.

Pl. 29A-B: Upper part of a kouros found in 2005 (front and side views). Pl. 29C: Lower parts of kouroi used as building material (2005). Pl. 30A: Medieval structures built over Building A with earlier architectural elements. Pl. 30B: Aerial photograph of the site (2004). Pl. 30C: The altar with the ‘Hestia Isthmia’ inscription (copy). Pl. 30D: View of Despotiko (isthmus).

Pl. 19A: Spectacle fibulae of ivory. Pl. 19B: Spectacle fibulae of bronze. Pl. 19C: Ivory pendants in the shape of double axes. Pl. 19D: Bronze fibulae. Island types. Pl. 19E: Bronze fibulae of the mainland type. Pl. 19F: Bronze fibulae of the ‘Phrygian’ type. Pl. 19G: Bronze pins. Pl. 19H: Silver spiral earrings.

Pl. 31A: Naxos, the island of Palati, from the air. Pl. 31B: Naxos, Palati. Unfinished console in the foundation of the temple (photo by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxosarchive). Pl. 32A: Naxos, Sangri. Temple of Demeter, capital of the front (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 32B: Naxos, Sangri. Temple of Demeter, capital of the interior (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 32C: Naxos. Late Archaic cyma built into the Pyrgos Ypsilis (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive).

Pl. 20A: Gold beads from necklaces. Pl. 20B: Gold pendants of various shapes. Pl. 20C: Gold pendants in the shape of double axes. Pl. 20D: Multi-petal rosettes (some of silver but gilded, other of pure gold). Pl. 20E: Four sheets of hammered gold decorated with a procession of chariots.

Pl. 33A: Paros, Katapoliani. Late Classical antae capital (KA 710) (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 33B: Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 16) (photo by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 33C: Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 24) (photo by M. Lambertz, Paros-Naxos-archive).

Pl. 21A: View of the acropolis from the sanctuary at the north end of the Middle Plateau. Pl. 21B: View of the southern Building 1 of the Middle Plateau, from the southwest. Pl. 22A: View of the northern Building 2 of the Middle Plateau, from the southwest. Pl. 22B: The altar of the Middle Plateau, from the northwest.

Pl. 34A: Paros, antique city-wall. Cornice block from the Pythion (spolia) (photo by K. Müller, Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 34B: Paros, Museum. Fragmentary sima (M269a) (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive). Pl. 34C: Paros, Museum. Fragmentary sima (M269b) (photo: Paros-Naxos-archive).

Pl. 23A: View of Despotiko from the southeast. Pl. 23B: Building A from the northeast. Pl. 23C: Building A. Wall construction. Pl. 23D: Building A. Room A1 from the east. Pl. 24A: Corinthian globular aryballos. Pl. 24B: Corinthian kotyle. Pl. 24C: Plastic vessel in the form of a rooster. Pl. 24D: Plastic vessel in the form of a lioness’ head. Pl. 24E: Dinos fragment with a depiction of warriors. Parian workshop. 7th century BC.

Pl. 35A: View of the Monument of the Bulls, from the south (photo: EFA). Pl. 35B: View from the basin of the Monument of the Bulls into the thalamus. Pl. 35C: View of the Neorion, Sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace; from the east (photo by James R. McCredie).

Pl. 25A: Female terracotta figurine. Pl. 25B: Faience vessel. Pl. 25C: Ivory spectacle fibula. Pl. 25D: Ivory spectacle fibula.

Pl. 36A: Restored sima tile, Samothracian Neorion (photo by James R. McCredie). Pl. 36B: Central supports, in situ. Pl. 36C: Support for the keel reused in the Byzantine building.

198

R. Barber

Plate 1

1A. Andros: the promontory of Zagora.

1B. Edinburgh: the castle.

1C. Melos: the eastern side of the gulf, with Plaka and the Kastro (centre), Klima below Classical Melos (left), and Adamanta (right).

R. Barber

Plate 2

2A. Melos: view of Phylakopi. The lighter area in the foreground shows the position of the prehistoric harbour.

2B. Classical Melos: view towards Klima, from the theatre.

2C. Naxos: the monastery of Fotodotis.

R. Barber

Plate 3

3A. Melos: the Kastro above Plaka (Anokastro).

3D. Melos: the tomb of Aikaterini (Modinou) Brest in the catholic church (Rozaria) in Plaka.

3B. Melos: view from the Kastro towards Phylakopi and Kimolos.

3C. Melos: the plain of Livadi with the village of Chora or Zefiria, site of Frankish Millo, from the south. In the distance are Adamanta and Plaka.

3E. Pyrgos, Tenos: fountain in the main square.

R. Barber

Plate 4

4A. Classical Melos: site of the agora (flat saddle - centre right).

4C. Melos: a house in Plaka.

4E. Seriphos: the Chora.

4B. Classical Melos: site of the stadium (sunlit strip centre right).

4D. Agia Irini, Kea: Late Bronze Age buildings.

4F. Seriphos: the Chora.

Plate 5

R. Catling

5B. Emborio. a-b: Imported 'Parian' cups; c-d: Large closed shapes with curvilinear decoration.

5A. Emborio. Aerial view, location of site ringed.

5C. Emborio. Lug-handled basin.

5D. Emborio. Stand with cut-out panels and relief decoration.

5E. Emborio. Basin with relief decoration on the rim.

Plate 6

6A. Emborio. Rim and handle of imported Corinthian Type A transport amphora.

6C. Kambos. Aerial view, location of site ringed.

R. Catling

6B. Emborio. Rim and neck of imported transport amphora of uncertain origin.

R. Catling

7A. Kambos. Plates.

7C. Kambos. One-handled cups (mugs).

Plate 7

7B. Kambos. a-b: Medium and large closed shapes. c: Small crater.

Plate 8

8A. Kambos. Small craters decorated with sets of concentric circles.

8C. Kambos. One-handled bowls.

R. Catling

8B. Kambos. Small crater with curvilinear decoration.

8D. Siphnos-Kastro. Cup sherds included in programme of chemical analysis.

Plate 9

V. Lambrinoudakis

9A. Unfinished kouros in situ at Melanes.

9B. Clay pipes of the first phase of the aqueduct conveying water from Phlerio/Melanes to the ancient city of Naxos.

Plate 10

V. Lambrinoudakis

10A. The entrance of the Roman phase to the tunnel of the aqueduct.

10B. The oikoi of the 8th and 7th century BC in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Plate 11

V. Lambrinoudakis

11A. The marble base of a wooden post in the oikos of the 8th century BC in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

11B. The marble threshold of the oikos of the 7th century in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

11C. Semicircular bank around an older pyre in the second phase of the 7th century oikos in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Plate 12

V. Lambrinoudakis

12A. The east wall of the 8th century oikos in the sanctuary of Phlerio, hit by the split marble lump.

12B. Pyre at the marble lump in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

V. Lambrinoudakis

13A. The foundations of the small, 6th century BC temple in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

13B. Pyres covered with circular slabs in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

Plate 13

Plate 14

V. Lambrinoudakis

14B. Unfinished marble lamp found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

14A. Unfinished votive column found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

14C. Plinth and feet of a small kouros, a failure found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

14D. Unfinished sphinx found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

14E. Shallow basin (for libations) found in the sanctuary of Phlerio.

A. Mazarakis Ainian

15A. View of the temple from the south (2004).

15B. Aerial view of the sanctuary (2005).

Plate 15

Plate 16

A. Mazarakis Ainian

16A. Bronze lotus flower from the roof of the animal pen (2001).

16C. View of the adyton from the north, after the excavation (2003).

16B. Triglyph of mussel stone from the destruction layer north of the temple (2003).

16D. Bronze fibulae in situ, at the base of the cylindrical clay base (2002).

16E. View of the back of the temple (east terrace wall) from the northeast (2004).

A. Mazarakis Ainian

17A. View of the sanctuary at the end of the 2004 excavation season. View from the south.

17C. View of the niches from the north.

17E. Bronze pin and lids belonging to vases in situ at the centre of the adyton.

Plate 17

17B. View of the two altars from the south. Altar 1 (right), Altar 2 (left) (2004).

17D. Aryballoi in situ at the SW corner of the adyton.

17F. Bronze phiale and miniature shield (centre), aryballoid lekythos (right) near the back wall of the adyton.

Plate 18

18A. 'Parian' stemmed bowl.

18C. Siana cup of the Taranto Painter.

18E. Scarabs, seals, gems and beads of various materials.

18G. Pendants of coral, combined with gold or silver.

A. Mazarakis Ainian

18B. Corinthian plemochoe.

18D. Classical terracotta seated female figurines

18F. Beads and pendants of rock crystal.

18H. Ivory and bone seals and pendants or plaques.

Plate 19

A. Mazarakis Ainian

19A. Spectacle fibulae of ivory.

19B. Spectacle fibulae of bronze.

19C. Ivory pendants in the shape of double axes.

19D. Bronze fibulae. Island types.

19E. Bronze fibulae of the mainland type.

19G. Bronze pins.

19F. Bronze fibulae of the 'Phrygian' type.

19H. Silver spiral earrings.

Plate 20

A. Mazarakis Ainian

20A. Gold beads from necklaces.

20C. Gold pendants in the shape of double axes.

20B. Gold pendants of various shapes.

20D. Multi-petal rosettes (some of silver but gilded, other of pure gold).

20E. Four sheets of hammered gold decorated with a procession of chariots.

A. Mazarakis Ainian

21A. View of the acropolis from the sanctuary at the north end of the Middle Plateau.

21B. View of the southern Building 1 of the Middle Plateau, from the southwest.

Plate 21

Plate 22

22A. View of the northern Building 2 of the Middle Plateau, from the southwest.

22B. The altar of the Middle Plateau, from the northwest.

A. Mazarakis Ainian

Plate 23

Y. Kourayos

23A. View of Despotiko from the southeast.

23B. Building A from the northeast.

23C. Building A. Wall construction.

23D. Building A. Room A1 from the east.

Plate 24

Y. Kourayos

24A. Corinthian globular aryballos.

24C. Plastic vessel in the form of a rooster.

24B. Corinthian kotyle.

24D. Plastic vessel in the form of a lioness' head.

24E. Dinos fragment with a depiction of warriors. Parian workshop. 7th century BC.

Y. Kourayos

Plate 25

25C. Ivory spectacle fibula.

25A. Female terracotta figurine.

25B. Faience vessel.

25D. Ivory spectacle fibula.

25E. Ivory disc.

Plate 26

Y. Kourayos

26A. Scaraboid steatite seal.

26B. Iron spear-heads.

26C. Bronze spiral fibula.

26D. Bronze fibula of the 'Phrygian' type.

26E. Gold head of pin.

Y. Kourayos

Plate 27

27A-B. Daedalic terracotta statuette.

27C. Building A. Room A2 from the east.

Y. Kourayos

Plate 28

28A. Stoa in front of Rooms A3-A5.

28C. Marble head found outside Room A5.

28B. Stylobate in front of Rooms A3-A5.

28D. Marble head found along Wall T17.

Y. Kourayos

Plate 29

29A-B. Upper part of a kouros found in 2005 (front and side views).

29C. Lower parts of kouroi used as building material (2005).

Plate 30

Y. Kourayos

30A. Medieval structures built over Building A with earlier architectural elements.

30B. Aerial photograph of the site (2004).

30C. The altar with the 'Hestia Isthmia' inscription (copy).

30D. View of Despotiko (isthmus).

Plate 31

A. Ohnesorg

31A. Naxos, the island of Palati, from the air.

31B. Naxos, Palati. Unfinished console in the foundation of the temple.

Plate 32

32A. Naxos, Sangri. Temple of Demeter, capital of the front.

32B. Naxos, Sangri. Temple of Demeter, capital of the interior.

32C. Naxos. Late Archaic cyma built into the Pyrgos Ypsilis.

A. Ohnesorg

Plate 33

A. Ohnesorg

33A. Paros, Katapoliani. Late Classical antae capital (KA 710).

33B. Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 16).

33C. Naxos, Kastro. Ionic capital from the Hestia complex (N 24).

Plate 34

A. Ohnesorg

34A. Paros, antique city-wall. Cornice block from the Pythion (spolia).

34B. Paros, Museum. Fragmentary sima (M269a).

34C. Paros, Museum. Fragmentary sima (M269b).

B. D. Wescoat

Plate 35

35A. View of the Monument of the Bulls, from the south (EFA).

35B. View from the basin of the Monument of the Bulls into the thalamus.

35C. View of the Neorion, Sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace; from the east.

Plate 36

B. D. Wescoat

36A. Restored sima tile, Samothracian Neorion.

36B. Central supports, in situ.

36C. Support for the keel reused in the Byzantine building.