Despotiko, the Site of Mandra: The 'Temple' Complex and Its Deposits 9789042951419, 9789042951426, 9042951419

Citation preview

DESPOTIKO, THE SITE OF MANDRA THE “TEMPLE” COMPLEX AND ITS DEPOSITS Edited by Alexandra Alexandridou, Yannos Kourayos and Ilia Daifa

PEETERS

DESPOTIKO, THE SITE OF MANDRA

B A B E S C H Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement 46 — 2023

BABESCH FOUNDATION Stichting Bulletin Antieke Beschaving

DESPOTIKO, THE SITE OF MANDRA THE “TEMPLE” COMPLEX AND ITS DEPOSITS

Edited by Alexandra Alexandridou, Yannos Kourayos and Ilia Daifa

PEETERS Leuven - Paris - Bristol, CT 2023

BABESCH Supplement Series edited by

G.J. van Wijngaarden

Photo on the cover: Despotiko, Mandra: the “temple” complex after its restoration in 2021 (photo by Yannos Kourayos).

All volumes published in the BABESCH Supplements are subject to anonymous academic peer review.

© 2023 Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven All rights reserved, including the right to translate or reproduce this book or parts in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-5141-9 eISBN 978-90-429-5142-6 D/2023/0602/45

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations

I. 

The site of Mandra on the island of Despotiko: an archaeological gem in the middle of the Aegean Sea (Y. Kourayos, I. Daifa, A. Alexandridou) Ӿ 'HVSRWLNRJHRJUDSKHUVWUDYHOHUVDQGDUFKDHRORJLVWV I.2. The site of Mandra: habitation and cult throughout the ages

II.

The architecture of the “temple” complex (A. Ohnesorg, K. Papajanni) II.1. Building A. Phase I: north part A II.2. Phase II: south part A II.3. The Bothros II.4. Third phase: north part A II II.5. Finds from Building A II.6. The function of Building A II.7. Earlier structures northeast of Building A II.8. The “altar” of Hestia Isthmia II.9. The Semicircular Structure II.10. Conclusions

III.

The anastylosis of the “temple” complex (G. Orestidis, D. Egglezos, V. Papavasileiou, E.-E. Toumbakari) III.1. From the documentation and study of ancient material to the restoration project III.2. Numerical modeling of dry-stack masonry, study of the monument’s dynamic response and dimensioning of connectors and block reinforcement

IV.

VII IX

1  3 13 13 17 23 24 30 32 34 37 37 38 47 47 52

Geoarchaeological mapping of building stones of an Archaic sanctuary. Insights into building sequence, construction details and preference of rock properties (E. Draganits) IV.1. The archaeological background IV.2. The geological background IV.3. Methods IV.4. Results IV.5. Discussion IV.6. Conclusions

59 59 62 62 64 70 77

V. I.

The stratigraphic context of the “temple’s” object assemblages (Y. Kourayos, R. Sutton, E. Hasaki) V.I.1. Room A1 V.I.2. Room A3

79 80 84

V. II.

The “temple’s” deposit: the pottery (Y. Kourayos, R. Sutton, E. Hasaki) V.II.1. Imports V.II.2. Parian and related wares

97 98 108

(V. II.

The “temple’s” deposit: the pottery) V.II.3. V.II.4. V.II.5. 9,, V.II.7. V.II.8.

Cult-related ceramics Classical and Hellenistic ceramics Roman and later ceramics &HUDPLFJUD΀WL Local and imported Archaic pottery Pottery in the Archaic cult

123 126 132  137 138

V. II.

Plates - Pottery

153

V. III.

The “temple’s” deposit: objects other than clay vessels (56 cm, thickness of the limestone slabs ca. 15 cm). The bottom surfaces lie between + 14.12,5 and ca. + 14.40, the top course on + 15.07/ + 15.03,5. – The foundations of Parian and Delian buildings are comparable in size (and material): Paros, temple A: Gruben 1982b; Paros-Delion, Artemis temple: Schuller 1991; Delos, temple of Apollo, temple of Artemis, “treasuries” and “building with the peristyle court”: Bruneau – Ducat 2005, 182–188. 207–210 (“enormes pièces de gneiss”); Kourayos 2005a, 107. There are other examples for joints under the centre of columns, for example at the Parthenon or at the temple of Athena Nike on the Acropolis: Travlos 1971, 154 fig. 206; Korres 1994a, 85, fig. 36, 88, fig. 38; 156, fig. 22; Giraud 1994, tome 1 b, pl. 232; also at the stoa in the Athenian Asklepieion: Versaki 1913, 55, fig. 4 (dito 74 fig. 35: Tempel A and 75-85, fig. 1: Nikias-Monument), or the temple of Segesta on Sicily: Mertens 1984, 16-18, fig. 4, Beil. 1-11.17. See n. 7. The two parts of the threshold were reset in 2005. The smaller fragment lay on East Wall I (II), east of Room A2. The larger fragment was detected inside Room A2, not far from the opening: Kourayos 2004a, 59, 62 (bottom); 2002-2005, 43, fig. 5; 2005a, 107, fig. 1, pl. 23B, 27C; 2009, 42 (bottom), 45-46, 72, 79, 80 (top), 83 (bottom); Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 139, fig. 3, 157, fig. 30, 170, fig. 39. Thus the right leaf of the door, seen from the interior, was more heavily used. These figures include a 2 cm or 3 cm wide protective strip at their exterior. Zapheiropoulos 1960; Schuller 1985, esp. 353-357; 1991, esp. 95-96.

74

The four pieces of the frieze (DM 40. 41. 42 a and b) lay ca. 4 m south of the northeast corner of the stylobate foundation of East Wall I, in ca. 1 m distance. The complete cornice (DM 20) lay ca. 2 m north of the SE corner of the same foundation, in a minimum distance of 0.5 m. The fragmentary corner acroterion (DM 73) lay ca. 3 m south of the frieze members, and ca. 2.20 m far from East Wall I. 75  7KH GLDPHWHUV RI WKH GUXPV YDU\ IURP • RU FD 48,9 cm to ca. 53,5 cm. 76 Drum DM 54 (lower diameter ca. 53,5 cm) has no dowel hole in the bottom surface, but one in the top surface; drum DM 48 (lower diameter 53,3 cm) likewise has no dowel hole in the bottom surface; its top surface is not preserved. 77 There is no fragment better preserved than the one mentioned by Schuller (1985, 355-357, fig. 27: DM 14. 109, today two fragments). The diameter of the dowel holes is 7 cm, their depth 7 to 8 cm. 78 >53,5 cm – 40 cm combined with ca. 3,5% tapering. Schuller 1985, 356-357, fig. 28; 1991, 95-96, fig. 40 alternatively proposed 7 and 8 lower diameters. The same suggestion has been made in the earlier publications on Despotiko until 2009 (Kourayos 2009, 41). 79 DM 58. 59. 60. 116. 130. 147. 148 and 149. 80 The complete taenia piece is 1.27,2 m long, 34,5 cm deep and 10,1 cm high. 1.27,2 m are more than half a bay, shown by the traces of an entire triglyph, an entire metope and two further glyphs. The width without the latter is slightly more than 1 m, the axis therefore more than 2 m. 81 DM 34. 35. 36. 37. 40. 44. 46 and 47. The width of the triglyphs, between the joints, is 32-35 cm, and their maximum depth is 22,5 cm. 82 Though the weathering is heavy, the existence of a taenia is secure: it protrudes >1 cm. The triglyphs of the temple of Artemis in the Delion of Paros have no upper taenia: Schuller 1991, 24 n. 87. Schuller (1991, 96) noted for Despotiko “ohne Kopfband”, since he did not recognize it on the pieces he saw. 83 The depth of the metope at the bottom is 19 cm, at the top only 12 cm, and its width is 66 cm. If the maximum width of the triglyph, 35 cm, is added and the result multiplied by 2, an axial intercolumniation of 2.02 m is obtained, a bit less than the measure taken from the stylobate foundation and the architrave. – The only other preserved metope is fragment DM 43. 84 DM 21 (B >70, T ~74). 22 (B >34, T ~74). 23 (B >43, T >60). 24 (B >47, T >42). 25 (B >24, T >26). 26 (B >29, T >25). 29 (B 68,8, T ~76) and 129, the corner piece, identified by G. Orestidis (B 68,9, T >39). 85 There is no bedding or weathering line that would mark the front of the tympanon, neither there are traces of the rafters. The surface is rather plain, not pitched, as, for example, the eaves cornices at many Doric temples of the Greek mainland and Magna Grecia: Hodge 1960, 76-91, figs. 18. 19. 86 DM 73, found in 2004 is now in the Archaeological Museum of Paros (inv. 1518). Its preserved height is 0.56 m, the width of the volutes ca. 0.40 m, and the thickness ca. 7,5 cm: Kourayos 2004a, 47, 85, fig. 58; 2002-2005, 76, fig. 43; 2009, 79, 81 (photo). The eyes were probably made of metal. For other examples with separate metal volute eyes: Gruben 1982a, 174-177, fig. 18 (door consola of Paros). 87 The fragments DM 71 and 72 were found in 2002 and 2004 and they are also stored in the Archaeological

43

II. Museum of Paros (inv. 1519 and 1515): Kourayos 2009, 79. 88 The slope therefore was reconstructed with canonical 14° or a proportion of 1:4. 89  PPLQXVðP P P FPKDOIWKHZLGWKRIDQDQWDZDOO  P$QWDH are indicated by the relics of anta walls and the triple marble blocks at the north end of the East Wall II foundation. 90 The doors did already exist in North Part I; they were only enlarged. If the front of North Part I is constructed with nine columns, the doors lie in column axes – an argument for this solution (fig. 1 top left). 91 For the chronology of the order of North Part II, Schuller (1985, 357) suggested: “… um oder kurz nach 500 …”. See also Schuller (1991, 96): “… wahrscheinlich … etwas älter als der Artemis-Tempel”. When the excavation began, many marble blocks were found assembled inside Room A2, and were partly cut into small pieces, as if prepared for a lime kiln (Kourayos 2009, 79-80, 83). They had been obviously collected in some later time with their archaeological evidence being rather reduced. 92 DM 2: Kourayos 2009, 119-121. Paros: Ohnesorg 1991, 121, pl. 25b-c; 2005b, 32-34, fig. 15, pls. 12, 42, 2-4. 93 The base is 77,1 cm × 83,9 cm, with a height of 0.57,5 m. 7KHSOLQWKEHGGLQJPHDVXUHV•FPðFDFP5HFtangular beddings are not very common. See examples of marble bases in Athens: Kissas 2000, 44-61, nos. 11, 20-21, 27, figs. 13, 28-32, 39, all of a Late Archaic date, partly for kouroi, in one case for a sitting statue, in another for a rider. 94 Kostoglou-Despini 1979, 13-17, pls. 17-19, drawings 3-4; Schuller 1991, 101-102, pl. 42. More recently, Kourayos 2009, 120-122 with drawing (by L. Haselberger). The base measures 1.25,6 m × 1.25,6 m × 60,4 cm, the rectangular(!) bedding 87 cm × ca. 70 cm × 12 cm. The top profile is that of a Doric cymatium, not of an ovolo as in the case of the Despotiko base. The relation of the Parian base to that of Despotiko is roughly 1.5:1. Since the Parian statue is ca. 3.10 m tall, the Despotiko statue must have been monumental too, reaching a height of 2 m. 95 A huge gneiss block, by far the largest stone in the first building phase lies at the bottom of the foundation of the west wall of Room A2. If it has anything to do with the foundation for the base of the cult statue of phase II, it still must have been known of, when the base was erected about half a century later. 96 For their preliminary presentation: Kourayos 2004a, 31-39; 2005a, 109-122, 2005b, 46-64; 2009, 103-121; Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 139-156. 97 For the Geometric material which points to cultic activity at the time, see Chapter VI. 98 For the deposit’s stratigraphy see Chapter V.1. 99 Deliberate foundation deposits were detected inside 5RRP$DQGLQUHODWLRQWR%XLOGLQJӹ 100 For example Athenian mugs of the late sixth century BC. 101 We wish to thank the late Professor Georgios Despinis, who visited the site and suggested to us that the marble base probably belonged to the cult statue. 102 Kourayos 2004a, 31, 2004c, 438-439, fig. 1; 2002-2005, 44; 2005a, 122; 2008a, 388; 2009, 93; Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 157-158; Kourayos et al. 2003, 37. 103 Kourayos 2004a, 47, 85, fig. 59 (the foot was found near DM 72); 2009, 121.

44

104 105

106 107

108

109

110 111

112

Kostoglou-Despini 1979, 13-17, 49; Schuller 1991, 64, pl. 77, 101-102. The fragment was found in 2001: Kourayos 2009, 121; Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 140. It can be compared with other perirrhanteria: Pimpl 1997. “Mardoi” are firstly attested in Aeschylus, Persae 993: Ziegler 1969. The name Mardonios is known from the Parian colony of Thasos during the first century BC (IG XII 8, 309, line 6). Mardion is a comparable name, of an eunuch of Queen Kleopatra (Plutarch, Antonios 60). Similar male names are attested in later inscriptions. This information was provided by Angelos P. Matthaiou, who has undertaken the publication of the Despotiko inscriptions. R. F. Sutton and E. Hasaki offered valuable information on the ceramics from the South Part A. One of the rare examples is the hestiatorion in the sanctuary of Hera in Perachora dated after 500 BC: Tomlinson 1969, 165, fig. 4, 167, fig. 5; Hellmann 2006, 222, fig. 299. Another Archaic “salle de banquet?” lies in the sanctuary of Marmaria in Delphi: Hellmann 2006, 227, fig. 308 (an interpretation provided by N. Bookidis and others). Two examples, attested on Crete, both dedicated to two gods, are Classic or Hellenistic: Aptera (fifth/fourth century BC) and Sta Lenika near Olonte/ Olous (second century BC): Hellmann 2002, 99, fig. 118; 2006, 29 n. 39; Sporn 2002, 266; Mallwitz 1981, 611, fig. 11. Most of the examples can be also found in Krause 1977. There are examples of single-room buildings with porches and closed fronts: the Archaic temple of Zagora on Andros (Hellmann 2006, 41 after Cambitoglou), the early Classical temple of Themis in Rhamnous (Petrakos 1999, 190-193 with figs. 105-106), a treasury in Delphi (Potidaia/Chalkidike?) and “petits édifices archaïques” in the sanctuary of Marmaria in Delphi, as well as the Archaic temple of Artemis at Mount Kotilion/Arcadia (Hellmann 2006, 51-53, fig. 54). A similar hearth was found in one of the rooms of the South Complex of Despotiko which must be dated to the fifth century BC or later: Kourayos et al. 2012, 157 n. 276. Hearths were also detected inside other buildings of the site. Grandjean/Salviat 2000, 163. The doors of the northern rooms of the two buildings are only slightly off-centered (or not at all off-centered: Leypold 2008, n. 811). Börker (1983, 24, fig. 7) was obviously the first, who graphically depicted 15 or 11 klinai in both north rooms, after Bergquist (1973, 44, n. 102). Leypold (2008, 161-163) argues against banqueting rooms. The Thearion in the sanctuary of Apollo of Aigina has been similarly reconstructed as a two-room building with klinai and a porch of five columns in antis on a poor base: Hoffelner 1999, 133-172, fig. 168 (other variants) and fig. 169 (the two-room variant), reproduced in Hellmann (2006, 223, fig. 300). For the two later rooms in the sanctuary of Kommos on Crete, Sporn (2002, 348, fig. 6) stated: “hat sich .... nur der hintere als Kultraum erwiesen, der vordere ist hingegen ein Speiseraum”. Bruneau/Ducat 2005, 188; photo of a model in Hellmann 2006, 116 fig. 147. Simantoni-Bournia et al. 2009, 140-175. A banqueting(?) room in the Samothrakeion of Delos of the fourth or maybe fifth century BC has four columns in antis: Roux 1973, 548-554. There is no rule for the orientation of cultic buildings in the Cyclades. Gruben 1997, 410 with n. 396; Hellmann 2006, 186-193.

THE ARCHITECTURE 113 114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123 124

Cf. n. 95. This deposit recalls the bothros detected in the hekatompedos in the Heraion of Samos: Walter/Vierneisel 1959, 27-42 (ca. 600 BC); Sinn 2005a. Other examples are known from Thermos, Isthmia and Neandria: Hellmann 2006, 128-130. For terminology, see Patera 2012, 207–216. In this building phase, the eaves of the South Part lie on a higher level. Consequently, the south eaves of the North Part but against the necessarily heightened common wall of the two parts and had to be rebuilt; in this respect it makes no difference whether the roof of the North Part was hipped or gabled. This plan – especially, if North Part I had columns at its facade – is reminiscent of the fifth-century oikoi with a common porch in the Sanctuary of Herakles on Thasos that served for dining: Grandjean/Salviat 2000, 144-145 with figs. 94-95. It is reconstructed with a large, pitched roof. The whole building was a hestiatorion, while in the case of in Despotiko, only the South Part of Building A could have had the same function. For comparable buildings, see above with n. 107-111. For banqueting buildings, especially of the Late Archaic period, see Leypold 2008. In the Early Archaic period “cult and banquet buildings were …... difficult to separate”: Lambrinoudakis 2005, 86; Ohnesorg 2013. The “canonic” klinai room has one door that is off-centred so that the klinai are arranged with no head in a corner. See, for example, Bouras 1967, 94, fig. 68 (Stoa of Brauron); Travlos 1971, 491, fig. 619 (Propylaia of Athens); Camp 1990, 171, fig. 115 (South Stoa of the Athenian Agora); Börker 1983, 12-13 (clockwise arrangement); Hellmann 2006, 218-231. An example for klinai rooms with two doors, dated to ca. 400 BC, exists in Acrocorinth: Hellmann 2006, 221, fig. 297; Leypold 2008, 84-89 with pls. 64-71, both after Bookidis/Stroud 1997. Hearths are common, though not obligatory in banqueting rooms. A comparable example is the “enormous hearth” in the northwest room of the “gathering hall” in Koukounaries on Paros: Schilardi 2016, 81-82. But the floor with small stones in plaster of the three rooms of South Part A is not very suitable for a fireplace. The fragment of a plinth with a foot was found on a level of ca. + 14.54, the fragments of the lower leg on ca. + 14.34. The bottom level of the foundation of the East Wall II varies from + 14.12 to ca. + 14.40. The fragments must have ended up here, when the foundation for the stylobate North II was laid around 500 BC, a few decades after the kouroi had been created. For the cult of Artemis at the site, as deduced from the finds of the deposit of Room A1, see Chapter VI. Artemis was worshipped together with her twin brother Apollo on many Cycladic islands, including Paros: Rubensohn 1949, 1849-1852. On the other hand, Prost (2014, 54) has rightly noted: “toutefois, dans l’étât actuel, aucune trouvaille décisive ne vient prouver la présence d’Artémis”. See Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 156. For a detailed discussion of the reformation of the sanctuary and the reestablishment of the cult: Kourayos/Daifa 2017. For these early structures, their dimensions and function: Alexandridou 2019. For the first assessment of these finds: Kourayos et al. 2017, 356-361. Bottom level of the northern piece: +14.33. See, for example, Temples I – III in Hyria of Naxos: Gruben 1993, 99-105; Ohnesorg 2005a, 136-137.

125

The northernmost of the sections has been opened 0.80 m south of the northeast corner of Building A, and just south of the later Hestia bothros. 126 For a photo of the first slab, when it was found: Kourayos 2004a, 83 fig. 55. For the bothros restored: 2009, 70, 76, 128. 127 Information kindly provided by Angelos P. Matthaiou. 128 Marble must be protected from heat: Ohnesorg 1991, 126; Ohnesorg 2005b, 227-228. For an interesting example of an “eschara” with outer marble and inner gneiss slabs on Delos: Plassart 1928, 210 with pl. 5. Other examples are known from Thasos: Servais 1980, 14 n. 34 (N-building of the sanctuary of Aliki, Herakleion, “Passage des Théores”, Dionysion). For the form and function of the bothros and the eschara see more recently: Hellmann 2006, 127-131; Patera 2012, esp. 207-216. 129 See supra n. 65-66. 130 The buildings on Tsimintiri must have been part of the establishment at Mandra on Despotiko, since the two islands were connected. 131 Rubensohn 1949, 18-47; Gruben 1982c; Berranger 1992, 76-78. 132 M. Knechtel undertook the documentation and analysis of this structure in 2010, which was completed in 2012. The reconstructed full circle of a diameter of ca. 3.80 m lies inside the later semicircle, , cf. Kourayos et al. 2012, 149, fig. 60. 133  7KHZDOOLVFDFPZLGHDQG•PORQJDQGKDV an apparently higher bottom level. It can be recognized in Kourayos 2009, photos 38, 47, 52, 54, 122. 134 The smaller diameters are ca. 3.39 m, 3.82 m, 4.07 m, 4.21 m and 6.45 m. The blocks with diameters of ca. 3.82 m and 4.07 m might originate from the inner circle with a diameter of 3.80 m and have been re-used. In all cases, the surface of the blocks is worked in the same way (roughly picked, the natural surface partially kept), thus no difference is visible. 135 The purpose of these pillars, built of three to four gneiss slabs, is unclear. They apparently are no “Schnürböcke” like the comparable pillars in the second Dipteros of the Samian Heraion: Reuther 1957, 24-26 and drawings (Zeichnungen) Z. 4. 6. 11. 19-22. 136 This information has been kindly provided by R.F. Sutton. We cannot exclude that an earlier structure lies under this phase, since the activity at the site of Mandra goes back until at least the late ninth century BC. 137 Thüngen 1994. See also the review by Ratté (1997). 138 Tuchelt 1996, 232-239 with pls. 17. 19 and Beil. 5: the width of the ring foundation – the base for sitting statues – was 1.40 m, the preserved height of the wall 0.50 m, its diameter ca. 16 m. Nevertheless, there is no trace of such statues on Despotiko, which were generally rare in the Cyclades. 139 Also stressed by Kourayos (2009, 128). 140 Possibly Archaic round altar or bothros in Paros, diameter ca. 2.97 m; other round altars, some of them hollow bothroi, in Thasos (Poseidonion, near the Monument of Theogenes), Delos (? Samothrakeion), Eretria, Athens, Olympia and Agrigento: Ohnesorg 2005b, 28-29, 222, 107 n. 599 and passim. 141 Example in the Delion of Paros: Schuller 1991, 2-3, 86, pls. 2.3. 142 ûahin 1972, 16-35 (among others altars for Apollo in Amyklai and Didyma, the latter uncertain, see recently: Herda 2006, 356-70). The altar of Zeus in Olympia is the most characteristic example. Another is known from Epidauros: Lambrinoudakis 2002, 216. More

45

II.

143

144 145 146

147 148

149 150

46

recently two early fifth-century circular structures from Nemea were published, the former of which with a diameter of ca. 4.42 m, and the latter of 6 m: Birge/ Miller 1992. De la Genière/Jolivet 2003, 99-109, fig. 29, 182-184, 200203 and pl. 26 (dated to the second half of the seventh century BC). Buitton/Oliver 1996, 1-10 (dated to the end of the eighth or the first half of the seventh century BC). Lambrinoudakis 1976. Bruneau et al. 1996, 25 (drawing Ph. Fraisse/F. Babled: Le Keraton abritant l’Autel de cornes devant les temples d’Apollon); Bruneau/Fraisse 2002; Bruneau/ Ducat 2005, 201. Dubbini 2011, 112. Moretti/Fincker 2008, esp. 124, fig. 14 (photo), 133-134. The monument is built of gneiss, granite and little marble and covered by plaster. In front of the antae stand vertical slabs. On Thasos, a rectangular altar stood on a semicircular pavement, perhaps with antae: Grandjean/ Salviat 2000, 129, no. 72, 217; Ohnesorg 2005b, 110-113. Cf. n. 128. This term here is not used in the sense of the “templestrésors” of Roux (1984, 159-162). We are conscious that treasuries were primarily votives (Sinn 2005c).

151 152

153

154

Ohnesorg 2017, 66. Schuller 1985, 392, fig. 53; 1991, 98, fig. 44; Lambrinoudakis et al. 2002, 395, fig. 14; Ohnesorg 2005a, 140, fig. 4; Lambrinoudakis/Ohnesorg 2020, 187-189, 220221, pls. 60, 174-176. Despotiko: height including the cornice 4.17 m, width ca. 16.60 m + 50 cm, Sangri: the width of the temple is 12.60 m, its height until the top of the cornice 5.61 m and until the apex 7.45 m. The column height of 4.20 m alone corresponds with the height of the colonnade of Despotiko A South. Thus the proportion of the south facade A in Despotiko is ca. 4:1, whereas that of Sangri without the gable ca. 2,25:1. This “Zwischenschicht” has been already reconstructed in 1928 at the Heraion of Delos. Another still unknown example of an “Island Doric” building seems to have stood on Siphnos where some obviously Late Archaic architectural members (a triglyph, a capital) were identified as spoliae: Papadopoulou 1999, nos. 272-273. The dimensions of the triglyph are similar to those of the Despotiko triglyphs.

III. The anastylosis of the “temple” complex Goulielmos Orestidis, Dimitrios Egglezos, Vasilis Papavasileiou, Eleni-Eva Toumbakari As the most significant and one of the better-preserved buildings of the sanctuary, it has been decided that Building A could not simply continue lying in its ruins, but it should re-acquire its original form. Thus, a restoration project has been initiated allowing the enhancement of the “temple” and the “hestiatorion”, following an exhaustive archaeological and architectural documentation.1 The anastylosis was largely based on the interpretation of the archaeological data combined with the pertinent architectural comparanda, but it also depended on the number and position of the surviving building blocks, which defined a variety of options.

III.1. FROM

THE DOCUMENTATION AND STUDY OF ANCIENT MATERIAL TO THE RESTORATION PROJECT

(G. Orestidis)

The restoration study was preceeded by the organization, digitization, integration and updating of the previous documentation and recording of the architectural members. Aenne Ohnesorg surveyed for building remains until 2012 and compiled the inventory of the architectural members (fig. 1). 2 In order to obtain the evidence required to complete the final study, new survey drawings of individual parts of the monument were produced and all architectural members of the building were identified, recorded, and systematically documented by G. Orestidis and his team. Each architectural member was recorded in 3D at photorealistic quality and high precision by means of photogrammetry (fig. 2). The geometry was thoroughly analyzed by taking a series of sections through the 3D models. The proposed restoration was dictated by the theoretical reconstruction and the requirement to incorporate the maximum possible quantity of ancient material keeping a proportion of about 50% in the use of new material. The collected ancient material documented in detail and exhaustively studied, constituted the basis for the support and consolidation of the theoretical reconstruction on one hand

and for the finalization of the restoration proposal on the other. The parts of the monument to be restored would form a balanced spatial unity, a morphologically coherent and statically adequate structural entity. The “temple” and the adjacent “hestiatorion” therefore were treated as a single complex as far as their documentation and restoration were concerned, since, although two separate buildings chronologically and functionally, they were linked structurally and constructively (fig. 3). The architectural proposal comprised the anastylosis of parts of the two colonnades (fig. 4). The stylobates of the eastern sides of the two buildings were supplemented with ancient and new material to provide stable foundation for complete or partly preserved columns, which returned to their original position. The restoration of the “temple’s” stylobate primarily involved the filling of its sub-base with reintegrated ancient material in equivalent positions. Four typical ancient marble blocks of the subbase were accurately identified belonging to this layer and were incorporated in the proper order one attached to the other. Since the height of the layer of the stylobate’s sub-base is gradually reduced towards the middle of the building, the four-in-order identified plinth stones were placed very close to their original position according to their height. Four large gneiss plinth stones have been replaced for completing the stylobate of the “hestiatorion”. The heights follow the surviving original sub-bases. The position of the joints among them was determined by the position of their original surviving symmetric joints in the southern part of the stylobate, as this was confirmed by the rest of the surviving elements. The new study of the ancient material attributed 29 column drums to the “temple's” colonnade. 21 of these were reincorporated at the original height, established by the taper of the columns, whose diameter could be measured with relatively high precision, whereas two were identified as belonging to the same column drum fragment. The

47

III.

48

THE ANASTYLOSIS maximum precision of the geometric documentation of the ancient column drums finalized the taper of the columns and therefore their height has been based on their known upper and lower diameters. The data synthesis led to the conclusion that the columns consisted of five column drums of uneven height each. The study of the ancient capitals allowed for a fairly accurate representation and led to an exact restoration with < Fig. 2. Architectural members recorded in 3D photogrammetry (G. Orestidis). )LJ ԈKHUHVWRUDWLRQRIWKH´WHPSOHµDQGWKH´KHVWLDWRULRQµ (G. Orestidis).

Fig. 4. The ‘’temple’’ and the ‘’hestiatorion’’ after the restoration (G. Orestidis). < Fig. 1. Hypothetical 3D representation of the complex and the peribolos buildings (G. Orestidis – S. Koulis). Hypothetical UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRI%XLOGLQJ$SKDVHӾӾӾFD%& .3DSDMDQQL 

49

III.

)LJ D 6HFWLRQ DQG QRUWK IDFH RI WKH FRPPRQ ZDOO EHWZHHQ WKH WZR EXLOGLQJV DQG WKH ´WHPSOH·Vµ VRXWKHUQ SLODVWHU * Orestidis).

the use of new material for three of them, since the condition of the ancient capitals did not allow for their reintegration. The restoration of the entablature involved the placement of three architraves on the pilaster, of the three temple columns, entirely restored with the reintegration of seven fragments, found to retain three different ancient architraves, as well as of three new antithemata (back architraves). The supplementation and fixing of ancient and new taenia, of five ancient triglyphs, of ancient and new metopes, and of three ancient cornices, followed, while an antithema wall was constructed behind the triglyphs and metopes. This supporting wall (antithema) was constructed of roughly curved ancient stone plinths identified based on their size and sculpturing treatment. The construction solution of the entablature width was ensured by a thorough study of the rear side of the architraves and triglyphs as well as of the mounting surface of the cornices. 15 fragments of column drums were attributed to the colonnade of the “hestiatorion”. Eight of

50

them were reintegrated at the proper column height, comprising two high-shaft column drums. The reintegration of three ancient capitals, considered statically sufficient, as well as the reintegration of three ancient architraves and three new antithemata was also proposed. One of the antithemata is ancient and it was restored by incorporating a new marble section. The placement of the capitals with the raised zone of the abacus perpendicular to the architraves, in order to allow for the mounting of an architrave and a narrower antithema (~0.20 m), constitutes a new element for the entablature of the “hestiatorion” that solves the problem of mounting the cornices. A common wall between the two buildings and the southern pilaster of the “temple” extending up to its full height in parts, with the reintegration of ancient stone plinths and the use of new material was restored (ILJV DE). This decision has been firstly dictated by architectural, morphological, instructive and constructive reasons. The wall shared by the two buildings is an important architectural particularity, whose restoration

THE ANASTYLOSIS

)LJ E 6HFWLRQ DQG VRXWK IDFH RI WKH FRPPRQ ZDOO EHWZHHQ WKH WZR EXLOGLQJV DQG WKH ´WHPSOH·Vµ VRXWKHUQ SLODVWHU * Orestidis).

would provide to the monument an aesthetic completeness, while it was statically necessary, since the pilaster provides a significant rigidity to the colonnades in the vertical direction.3 In the course of the restoration of the southern pilaster, it was decided that the “temple’s” two different construction phases should be differentiated. The stone plinths in the reconstruction of the second phase are larger to the east, and built in the isodomic system with plane finishing. In the western part of the pilaster, where the original first phase is still visible, the stone plinths are smaller, pseudo-isodomic, processed with fine spike and perimetric broaching (peritainio) on the north side and more irregular and roughly curved on the south (once outside). Part of the pilaster in the second phase consists of 13 rows of blocks with the highest one including the anta-capital. The missing capital was constructed in assimilation with those from the temple of the Parian Delion, since this is chronologically and typologically close to Building A, with which it shares outstanding construction similarities.4 For mor-

phological reasons, the low reconstruction of the north pilaster (antae) is also proposed. The eastern wall the “temple’s” portico in the first phase was made of coarsely sculptured ancient stone plinths collected and classified in a separate stone pile on the basis of their similarity with those preserved in situ. This double-faced wall must have been the sub-base of a stylobate of the portico’s first phase, mainly due to its affinities with the stylobate of the “hestiatorion”, but also due to the way it is connected to the side walls-pilasters and the portico’s floor. The latter, according to the architectural restoration study, was not raised during the conversion of the second phase but remained at the significantly lower initial level. This substantially increases the chances that the stylobate of the first phase was elevated at the same height as the stylobate of the “hestiatorion”. The architectural remains further support this conclusion. The fragmentary floor inside Rooms A1 and A2 surviving at different levels, even lower than that of the portico, following the natural topogra-

51

III. phy, were preserved too, while all room floors were generally restored to the level of the subbase of the ancient paving. The surviving ancient threshold of Room A2 of the second phase was raised to the proper level as confirmed by the deliberately broken stone plinths of the east wall of Rooms A1 and A2 for the widening of the doors of the second phase. The rougher carving of the plinth at its sides, beginning from the level of the paving and downwards both internally and externally, indicates this level. The threshold of Room A1 is reconstructed in the same dimensions and placed in the surviving opening at the same level and in absolute harmony with that of Room A2. For reasons of prominence and readability, the eastern thresholds of Rooms A3 and A4 were reconstructed and installed with the integration of sizeable ancient fragments, whereas all thresholds reintegrated ancient and new parts of the side pilasters of the doors. For the rest of the building, smaller or larger supplements were applied for the protection of the remaining perimeter and interior walls, but also for encasing the floors of individual rooms. A large-scale reconstruction combining ancient and new stone plinths was applied for the northern wall of Room A1. At the same point, the original ancient level of the external ground is prescribed in the northwestern corner of the “temple”. Generally, the ground levels around the perimeter of the monument were restored at the level of ancient use, after the installation of a drainage system. It should be noted that only these parts of the monument that had been precisely documented, were restored. Therefore, although two corner and possibly one central acroteria have been identified and a stone plinth of the pediment’s triangular wall has been recorded, the restoration did not exceed the height of the horizontal cornices. There is no indication of a stone pediment above the nine recognized cornices, not even after the recent recognition of the corner cornice.

III.2. NUMERICAL MODELING OF DRY-STACK MASONRY, STUDY OF THE MONUMENT’S DYNAMIC RESPONSE AND DIMENSIONING OF CONNECTORS AND BLOCK REINFORCEMENT

(D. Egglezos, V. Papavasileiou, E. Toumbakari) The structural analysis of a building with a pronounced third dimension aims at assessing safety through the necessary interventions after studying its behaviour against expected actions (e.g.,

52

earthquakes, interaction with soil, water pressure etc.), as well as the conditions under which it may be heavily damaged or even collapse. Following the same approach, research on the behavior of the original monuments (as reconstructed by the archaeological research) may be also carried out, offering valuable insights into the causes of their gradual collapse among others. Reliable models are necessary for a thorough structural analysis, which will avoid empirical approaches limited to the simple consolidation of the individual building blocks. Engineering analysis has always been carried out using mathematical models, which, thanks to the advent of digital technologies, have gradually succeeded into simulating increasingly complex mechanical configurations, which could not be attempted in the past. Archaeological ruins, particularly those built of individual blocks without mortar at the joints, can now be studied while undergoing earthquake activity. An in-depth presentation of the relevant literature on this field might be out of the scope of this paper, but it should be very schematically noted that “during the seismic response of discontinuous block assemblages, the deformation and failure is dominated by the movement between individual blocks. The resulting continuum models, based primarily on the finite element method, may not be appropriate numerical tools for identifying key features of the response or efficiently handling significant sliding along joints. Instead, discontinuous modelling via the discrete element method tends to function better in that role”. 5 The discrete element method was initiated by the pioneering work of P.A. Cundall at the University of Minnesota,6 and it has been widely used in geotechnical and structural engineering since then.7 Research focusing on classical monuments with the use of this method was mainly initiated by the Faculty of Civil Engineering of the National Technical University of Athens. The numerical and experimental investigations 8 showed that the main features of their response can be summarized as follows:9 (a) Such structures do not possess natural modes of vibration, like the monolithic structures, while the periods of their free vibrations are dependent on the excitation amplitude. This means that, during a strong earthquake, the structure’s response changes between different ‘modes’ of vibration, each one being governed by a different set of motion equations. As a result, the response is highly non-linear. An example of this non-linearity is that a column may collapse under a certain earthquake motion and remain

THE ANASTYLOSIS standing under the same excitation magnified by a factor greater than one. (b) The response is very sensitive even to trivial changes of the parameters of the structural system or the excitation. The significant out-ofplane displacements, observed even for purely planar excitations, is another effect of the response sensitivity. (c) The vulnerability of classical monuments to earthquakes depends on the size of the structure and is much affected by the predominant period of the ground motion: low-frequency earthquakes are much more dangerous than high-frequency earthquakes. In the former case, the response is characterized by intense rocking, while, in the latter, rocking is usually restricted to small values, with significant sliding of the drums, especially in the structure’s upper part. Bulkier structures are much more stable than smaller ones for the same aspect ratio of dimensions. (d) Classical monuments are not generally vulnerable to typical earthquake movements if they are intact.10 Collapse can more easily occur, when imperfections are present, such as damaged blocks with loss of material (especially on the lower and upper surfaces), dislocated drums, and rotated foundations, which are common among existing monuments. The aforementioned features define the theoretical framework and the numerical model, applied for the study of the monument’s dynamic response, which affects the dimensioning of the connectors and reinforcement of the individual blocks. Reconstruction of the original monumental complex and the evolution of the anastylosis proposal based on the numerical modeling results Previous research initiated by the Directorate for Restoration of Ancient Monuments has demonstrated that the initial architectural proposal for the anastylosis of the Despotiko Building A, which comprised parts of the two free-standing colonnades might not be safe against severe earthquakes, whereas the introduction of a rigid element, such as a wall, may be extremely valuable for the system’s stability.11 On this basis, the construction of part of the intermediate wall – even if that would mean much use of new material –, as well as a structural analysis of the final anastylosis proposal have been put forward and subsequently approved by the Central Archaeological Committee. The present study has been carried out following this decision.

In the next paragraphs, the necessary data for the numerical modelling and the study of the monument’s dynamic response are summarized and the main results are discussed. Geological-geotechnical data and the selection of earthquake records Despotiko belongs to the Attic-Cycladic geological zone mainly composed of metamorphic rocks, namely gneiss, marble, shale, and amphibolite.12 The archaeological site, including the monumental complex, is founded on gneiss. The monument itself is constructed either directly on the gneiss or on a well compacted sand-gravel layer with limited thickness. The effect of the thickness was considered negligible in the model, assuming that the entire structure was founded directly on the rock. This geotechnical information provides the model’s boundary conditions (i.e. category A non-deformable substrate), necessary for the earthquake analysis too. The use of pertinent seismic input (i.e. earthquake records) is of paramount importance for the model’s validity. Two data sets were considered for providing the criteria for the selection of the records to be used in the model: Antiseismic codes: Their application is compulsory when seismic analyses are to be carried out. According to the Codes,13 the monument area belongs to the low seismicity zone I, for which the design effective acceleration (agR) is 0.16 g.14 Seismic events with different return periods15 (and therefore different intensity), both applying Codes (EAK 2000, EC-8) agree on the following provisions regarding the value of the peak ground acceleration (PGA). For a return period of 72 years, the PGA is 0.12 g, for 475 years it is 0.24 g, and for 2500 years it is 0.41 g. Historic seismic data: The most important seismic events in the Despotiko area have been compiled,16 and the corresponding ground acceleration was estimated on the basis of empirical functions17 that relate the distribution of seismic acceleration with the distance R from the epicenter and the magnitude M of the earthquake, the type of seismic fault, and the prevailing geotechnical conditions over a period of 2500 years. 7KHDSSOLFDWLRQRIԁDQGIRUNP R < 90 km for a time span from 550 BCE to 1956 CE, a normal fault, and soil category A, results into a PGA of 0.14 g, corresponding to an effective acceleration (aeff) of 0.10 g. This value is significantly lower than the one provided by the Codes. On the above basis, research was carried out on the relevant earthquake records’ databases

53

III. with the following criteria: similar distance [to/ from] the epicenter and magnitude (provided by the historic seismic data), peak ground acceleration around 0.24 g for a repeat period of 475 years18 (provided by the antiseismic Codes), and similar geotechnical conditions. Finally, three earthquake records from Japan were selected for application to the model.19 Those records have been modified to meet typical earthquake events as required by the antiseismic regulations (EC-8). The typical events describe (a) an often-occurring earthquake (for a return period of 72 years), (b) a rare earthquake (for a return period of 475 years) and (c) an extremely rare earthquake (for a return period of 2475 years). Geometry and materials data used for the numerical modeling The geometry of the two models (i.e. with and without intermediate wall) was based on the architectural study. The geological substrate was modeled as a continuous base with elastic properties. The stylobate, toichobate and foundations were modeled as monolithic elements, expected to follow the ground motion. The columns, architrave, and frieze blocks were modeled as distinct elements, with specific material properties at the joints interfaces. Moreover, each block was assigned elastic properties for enabling the study of the developing internal stresses. Finally, the intermediate wall was considered monolithic and provisions were made, mainly by designing proper connections among the blocks, to ensure that the construction would effectively behave as a rigid body. In total, eight variations of the two models were studied, differing by the presence or omission of the intermediate wall, of connectors at certain locations, and changes on the material properties. For increasing the model’s accuracy, different material properties were assigned to the gneiss substrate, to the gneiss and marble blocks, to the foundations, and to the joints between the blocks. The properties originated from the use of the generalized Hoek-Brown criterion, in which macroscopic fracture was also considered.20 Finally, the geostatic constants for the mechanical description of the joint behavior were based on widely accepted calculation methods.21 Analyses and methodology The study of the structural behavior of the anastylosis proposal comprised the following: (a) static analysis under own weight, (b) static analysis against wind pressure (to which two different

54

values have been assigned) following Eurocode-1, (c) dynamic, time-history analysis against earthquakes. For each earthquake analysis, targets were set in terms of acceptable damages (including partial collapse but excluding total collapse). The results of each analysis were then compared to the corresponding targets. Thirty-two dynamic analyses have been carried out in total for defining the conditions, which meet the preset targets concerning the stability of the monumental complex. Therefore, the location of the connectors between the blocks is crucial (fig. 6). Bearing in mind the response’s non-linearity, the requirement for each block to be connected to its neighbors must be considered with caution. Indeed, under certain circumstances more connections might provoke more block collapses than those expected when fewer connections exist, because they modify the vibration mode. This could produce extended collapse due to a monolithic behavior of the connected blocks. Finally, it was decided to connect the architraves longitudinally with Pi-shaped clamps. The architraves adjacent to the intermediate wall were connected with the latter with dowels. Connections were designed between the triglyphs and the cornice too. The internal reinforcement of fractured ancient blocks, which will be completed with new marble, aims to render the new block monolithic. For this purpose, the results of an earthquake intenVLW\ ԁ  RI  ZLWK D UHSHDWLQJ SHULRG RI  years was used for the dynamic analyses. For the most crucial blocks, a further analysis with the use of the finite element method was carried out to ensure a more detailed analysis of the forces developing at the interfaces and thus to doublecheck the dimensioning. The connectors and reinforcement are made using pure Grade 2 commercial Titanium with diameters ranging from 8 to 16 mm and length between 0.5-2.0 m. Numerical modeling is an important tool for the study of the structural behavior of ancient buildings or their ruins, provided that the pertinent geometrical, geological-geotechnical earthquake and materials data are available. In the case of the anastylosis of the Despotiko complex, numerical modeling, in terms of the distinct element method, was used as a tool for the study of its stability against wind and earthquakes (figs. 7a-b). On the basis of the results, the anastylosis project was finalized to meet safety criteria as the construction of the wall between the “temple” and the “hestiatorion” was demonstrated fundamental for its stability, since it drastically changed the response of the colonnades. Furthermore, the study demonstrated the need for a

THE ANASTYLOSIS

)LJ 'HVLJQGUDZLQJVRIWKHLQWHUQDOUHLQIRUFHPHQWIRUGUXP1.ԇDQGDUFKLWUDYH1((V. Papavasileiou).

Fig. 7a. The numerical model of the free-standing colonnades and the results (in terms of permanent displacements of the blocks) for rare earthquake/collapse (D. Egglezos – E. Toumbakari).

55

III.

)LJE 7KHQXPHULFDOPRGHORIWKHFRORQQDGHVZLWKWKHLQWHUPHGLDWHZDOODQGWKHUHVXOWVLQWHUPVRISHUPDQHQWGLVSODFHments of the blocks) for rare earthquake – safe situation, minor local displacements (D. Egglezos – E. Toumbakari).

)LJ 'HVSRWLNR7KHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHUHVWRUDWLRQSURMHFWSKRWRE\6.RXWVLDIWLV²@

“ARGIVE MONOCHROME” WARE (70, Pl. 11) ӷurnished, light-colored handmade vases of the so-called “Argive monochrome” ware were produced by various workshops, mostly in the Peloponnese, but also in Attica, Eleusis and Boeotia from the middle of the eighth until the sixth century BC.83 Shapes are primarily small or miniature oil containers that display little evolution and come almost exclusively from sanctuaries and graves. The origin of 70 is unclear, although the neck is set distinctively forward, like several from Delos and the Parian Delion, suggesting a common origin, probably not Corinth.84 The color falls within the range of the Attic production, but the fabric lacks their visible traces of mica; the neck was applied over the body leaving a prominent ridge inside, like aryballoi from the Peloponnese and unlike the smoothed transition reported on those from Attica.85 Given the shape’s lack of evolution, context suggests a date in the later seventh to mid-sixth century BC. See also 159. 70.

$U\EDOORVӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. 6.2; Rim Diam. 2.5. Fine, reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) fabric with voids. Handmade with smooth exterior, possibly burnished. Upper half preserved. Plain.

figurines.89 Apart from the Milesian component, this pattern largely agrees with the material from Paros and its colony Thasos,90 while presenting significant differences from Delos.91 CHIAN

AND

SIMILAR (71-75, Pl. 11)

Chian imports include both fine wares and the only Archaic transport amphoras recovered. A dinos rim is possibly Chian (75). Only the pedestal survives of a chalice, probably one of the earlier low types, dating to ca. 625-600 BC (71).92 A distinctive handle fragment with black and added red decoration (72) recalls the handle of an unusual late basket-handled vessel from Emporio in which Anna Lemos recognized Klazomenian influence.93 A thick, convex base and tapered toe of a transport amphora dated to the second quarter of the sixth century BC (73) is closer to Chian profiles than Klazomenian.94 A later amphora rim dated ca. 490-470 BC (74) is similarly unslipped.95 A medium coarse rim (75), of the same fabric as 73 is similar in profile to a fine painted Chian dinos, and less like a rim of a “Melian” dinos or a pithos found on site.96 71.

72.

&KDOLFH$ۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP,$ H. pres. 3.3; Base Diam. 6.8. Pink (7.5YR 7/4) fabric with fine silver mica, gray and reddish-brown inclusions. White slip inside and out. Orange (as dark as 2.5YR 5/6, red) paint outside, darker inside. Most of pedestal. Underside reserved. +DQGOHӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>/DWH$QWLTXH@ H. pres. 4. Fine pink (5YR 7/4) fabric with fine silver mica and small dark and white inclusions. Handle fr. with attached rim. Triangular triple handle with spur. Black dots, some with added red dots.

EAST GREEK AND RELATED86

Transport Amphoras

The origin of East Greek wares is clearer as archaeometry and excavation have corrected earlier assignments to Rhodes.87 These few imports are diverse in origin and shape; in addition to many cups and scent vessels, two oinochoai, probably a dinos, and two transport amphoras were found. Stratum II/III-A inside Room A1 contained a concentration of four diverse items from East Greece with few other catalogued ceramics (Table 1). Recognized sources include Chios, Miletos, North Ionia (Klazomenai or Erythrai?), and Rhodes, the source of the faience scent vessels from Room A1.88 %XLOGLQJ ӹ KDV \LHOGHG D IUDJment of an East Dorian plate, plastic vases, and

73.

74.

$PSKRUDӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. pres. 12.8; Base Diam. 7.8. Sandy reddish yellow (ext. 5YR 7/6; break 5YR 6/6) fabric, gray at core with silver mica, gray and dark inclusions. Lower body fr. and toe. Worn. $PSKRUDӶۛ 5RRP$7UHQFK,>/DWH Antique]. H. pres. 14; Rim Diam. 13. Pink to light red (surface 5YR 7/4; break 10R 6/6) medium fine fabric with very fine mica, small white, and larger dark inclusions. Shallow wheel ridging on upper body, wet smoothed with pale self-slip. Non-joining frr. of rim, neck, shoulder, handle root and body.

105

V.II. Chian? 75.

'LQRV"Ӷۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9, H. pres. 2.2; W. pres. 12.4; Rim Diam. 37. Light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) fabric at core, with near reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) surface, medium coarse with silver mica, white, gray, dark and red inclusions. Smoothed sandy surface. Rim fr. with external surface lost.

MILESIAN (76-78, 81, Pl. 12) Some fragments are not easily placed in emerging new classification systems.97 Three joining rim fragments of a trefoil oinochoe (76) preserve a white eye with round pupil like those on Milesian SiA II oinochoai, dated ca. 625-550 BC, but without eyebrows.98 A double-reed oinochoe handle fragment, evidently from another vessel, lacks rotelles (77), like plain black jugs of the later seventh well into the sixth century BC.99 A small fragment of a cup or small oinochoe (78) with mature Fikellura (SiA II) spiral dates to the third quarter of the sixth century BC.100 A fragment of a South Ionian cup of Type 9, presented below, is of Milesian origin (81). 76.

77.

78.

2LQRFKRHӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWD,,,,,,,,$ H. pres. 5; W. pres. 15.5. Reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with silver mica and black inclusions. Three joining rim frr. Trefoil lip. Black exterior. Eye in added white, dot rosettes, star, traces. Interior reserved with sandy surface. 2LQRFKRHӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. pres. 6.1; W. 8.2. Light reddish-brown (2.5YR 6/4), hard fabric with fine silver mica. Thin black matt slip. Double reed handle and trefoil mouth. Handle fr. attached to rim. 8QFHUWDLQVKDSHFXSRURLQRFKRH"Ӷۛ  Room A3, subfloor. H. pres. 2.4; W. pres. 2.8. Pink (7.5YR 8/4) at core with lighter pink surface (7.5YR 8/3) fine fabric with silver mica, dark and white inclusions. Not obviously white-slipped. Dull black slip. Rim fr.

IONIAN CUPS (79-82, Pl. 12) Udo Schlotzhauer has reclassified South Ionian cups based on new finds from Miletos. Non-joining fragments (79-80) of his Type 8 (Vallet-Villard Type A1), produced in several centers ca. 660-590 BC,101 were found in Stratum VI of Room A1 together with the rim of a small skyphos,102 and fragments of the Parian black-ground polychrome group,103 all similar in fabric with distinctive white and red bands. 79 and 80 are unlikely to be Milesian: the body is plumper with wider

106

reserved band, the handles are almost horizontal, and the base has different profile with reserved edge; they possibly belong to the Parian blackground polychrome group. A smeared dot on the underside recalls neat spiral-shaped swirls under some Rhodian cups, possible potters marks, but it resembles more the smeared dot inside a Parian skyphos turned on the potter’s wheel (105).104 A cup rim (81) is Milesian and belongs to Schlotzhauer ’s Type 9, 3C (decoration variation g), dated to the second third of the sixth century BC.105 A rosette bowl fragment (82) is a long-lived North Ionian type from Klazomenai or nearby (ca. 625-500 BC).106 79.

80.

81.

82.

6RXWK,RQLDQFXS7\SHӶۛ 5RRP$ Stratum VI. Rim Diam. 10. Fine, reddish yellow (7YR 7/6) fabric with mica and fine dark reddish-brown inclusions. Six non-joining frr. of rim and handle. Unevenly applied black paint, with almost metallic sheen. Bands in added white and red. 6RXWK,RQLDQFXS7\SHӶۛ 5RRP$ Strata II/III-A, VI. H. pres. 1.8; Base Diam. 3.5. Uneven light red (2.5YR 6/6) to gray, fine fabric with fine silver mica and dark inclusions. Half of base fr. Smeared thin reddish-black dot at the center of the underside. 6RXWK,RQLDQFXS7\SHӶۛ 5RRP$ Strata I, II. H. pres. 3; W. pres. 5.5; Rim Diam. 17. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6), fine fabric with fine silver mica. Black gloss. Frr. of rim, upper body, and handle root. 1RUWK,RQLDQ5RVHWWHERZOӶۛ 5RRP$ Stratum V. H. pres. 3.2. Pink (near 7.5YR 7/4) fine fabric with much silver mica and small dark inclusions. Reddish-brown paint. Body fr. Dot rosette outside, with streaky brown paint inside.

UNKNOWN. EAST GREEK? (83, Pl. 13) This fragment of a small aryballos with simple shoulder billet band is an unusually low version of the EC-MC Shape A (later seventh to early sixth century BC),107 and probably East Greek. 83.

$U\EDOORVӶۛ 5RRP$7UHQFK%>/DWH Antique]. H. pres. 2.7; Body Diam. 4.2. Very pale brown (7.5YR 7/4) fine fabric with few dark reddish-brown inclusions. No slip. Body, with neck, mouth, and handle missing. Small hole. Shoulder: red billet band.

POTTERY RHODES: SPAGHETTI WARE (84-85, Pl. 13) These widespread, wheelmade Rhodian imitations of a Cypriot form were produced from the later eighth into the sixth century BC.108 Two examples are known from the Delion of Paros.109 84, similar to an aryballos from Tocra, perhaps dates to the sixth century BC.110 85, with traces of painted decoration, may be earlier.111 84.

85.

Aryballos (AK 3723). Room A1, Stratum I. H. 9.4; Rim Diam. 4; Base Diam. 3. Pink (7.5YR 7/4) medium fine fabric with fine gold mica, red, dark, and white inclusions. Intact, but chipped; small puncture in body. Smooth wheel grooving. $U\EDOORVӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP,,,,,$ Rim Diam. 3.7. Pink (7.5YR 7/4) fine fabric with fine mica, red and white inclusions. Largely preserved, with lower body and base missing. Worn. Mouth: fugitive rings. Handle: wide horizontal bands. Body: tooling or thin ridges.

have flaring mouth without handles or lugs. Bodies may be slenderer or plumper than 89, and most are similarly decorated with shallow, horizontal grooves that sometimes preserve traces of added red and white. Non-bucchero versions of the shape without grooves were found at Tocra.118 The “Aeolian” aidoion (87), a plastic aryballos in the form of male genitals, is unique in eastern bucchero, although the form is known in Attic, Corinthian and other fabrics, including East Greek. 119 Thin incision delineates the glans beneath the foreskin, and the tip is differentially burnished. The penis is uniquely pierced to function as a spout, with filling hole in the flat upper surface; otherwise the shape is closest to Corinthian examples.120 “Aeolian” 86.

EASTERN BUCCHERO (86-89, Pl. 13) This diverse group of burnished wares, descended from gray wares of western Anatolia, was produced at several sites in East Greece and South Italy and primarily includes small scent vessels.112 It is found in the Aegean, including Delos and the Rheneia deposits,113 Cyrene, Sicily, South Italy, and Etruria, but not yet on Paros. A deposit on Samos indicates that production began as early as the 630’s BC, though most occurs with MC and LC pottery dating to ca. 600-550 BC.114 “Aeolian” bucchero (86-87) is a true gray ware with very fine, medium gray paste and burnished gray surface of the same color. “South Ionian” bucchero (88-89) has a coarser reddish-brown or grayish-brown paste with darker gray or black surface resembling black gloss. The decoration of both is by incision or shallow grooves with red and white overpaint. All four vessels were deposited in Room A1 intact, although 88 has disintegrated. No other Bucchero fragments were found. The “Aeolian” globular aryballos (86) has a short, raised band at the base of the handle and lacks incision.115 The “South Ionian” aryballos (88) is too disintegrated for restoration. It was decorated with narrow longitudinal incisions that recall painted Corinthian “football” aryballoi more than the wider, shallow grooves of bucchero aryballoi from Vroulia.116 The tall “South Ionian” perfume pot with base (89) is less common than a similar alabastron. Many are known from the sanctuaries of Demeter at Cyrene and Catania.117 Complete examples

87.

Globular aryballos (AK 3722). Room A1, Stratum V. H. 5.2; Mouth Diam. 3.4. Complete. Gray (10YR 5/1 at core to 10YR 2/1 on surface) fine fabric with silver mica, fine light and dark inclusions. Burnished. Plastic aidoion aryballos (AK 3650). Room A1, Stratum I. H. 6.5. Intact. Gray (worn surface between 7.5R 6/1 and 10YR 6/1), fine, dense fabric with fine silver mica, dark and white inclusions. Glossy, differentially burnished. Penis and scrotum.

“South Ionian” 88.

89.

Globular aryballos (AK 3769). Room A1, Stratum II/ III-A. Delaminated: dimensions not recoverable. Fine fabric with black surface and browner interior, silver mica, and reddish brown inclusions. 91 frr. Globular body, wide, flat mouth, thin neck, and strap handle. Burnished. Incised thin pumpkin decoration. Perfume pot (AK 3750). Room A1, Stratum II. H. pres. 6.4; Body Diam. 3.7; Base Diam. 1.9. Gray to light brownish-gray (10YR 6/1-2) fabric with darker core of medium texture, with abundant fine mica, medium brown and gray inclusions. Spalled inclusion under foot? Almost complete with mouth missing. Cracked, pitted, worn. Thick walled. Slight nipple on the underside. Shallow incised bands. Glossy brownish-black paint, thinner toward base. Dipped?

EAST GREEK PLASTIC ARYBALLOI (90-92, Pl. 14) Three plastic aryballoi stem from different origins that are currently unidentified. The cock was spe-

107

V.II. cially deposited at the lower threshold of Room A1 and is the only one known to have been painted before firing (90).121 Although its small triangular tail lacks the long curving feathers of later cocks, the comb and wattles, absent from hens pictured on Attic black-figure, indicate that it is male.122 The simple pattern of incised wing feathers is close to those on duck and swan aryballoi in London, and the fabric is macroscopically consistent with the latter. Alexandra Villing and Hans Mommsen recently assigned the swan to an unlocated discriminant South Ionian fabric group (Ul70), and the cock is surely a product of the same workshop.123 It can be dated to ca. 600-560 BC. A worn lion head (91) was apparently painted after firing, for only a ghost survives on the mane with possible traces under the nose; a dark mane surrounding a light face is reminiscent of slippainted lions.124 The closed mouth is rare. The quatrefoil face is defined by the masses of snout, chin, and cheeks, similar to an example in The Hague, and near Ducat’s Type a with open mouth, dated ca. 560 BC, suggesting that 91 should be dated to ca. 575-560 BC.125 The angled base, found on other animal head vessels, would allow the creature to gaze down if hung vertically against a wall or set on a shallow shelf.126 A battered fragment of a hoplite head aryballos (92) represents a common, long-lived type that is traditionally assigned to Rhodes, but was likely produced at several centers.127 90.

91.

108

Cock (AK 3633). Room A1, Stratum I (along East wall at threshold, in post-season cleaning, 2001). H. 9; L. 10; W. 4.1; Rim Diam. 2.1. Light reddish-brown (2.5YR 6/4) fine fabric with fine mica, small red and white inclusions. Intact with chipped comb. Moldmade with pierced suspension holes on tail and comb. Cock with folded legs, short beak, circular wattles, and comb. Wings folded with short, vertical tail. Incision used for edges of beak, comb, concentric circle eyes, and feathers. Short, pointed feathers on neck. Long, slightly curved feathers on wings and tail. On back, short spout with flared, slightly funneled mouth. Black paint almost everywhere, partly fired red. Added red for legs, eyes, back of tail, on alternating front feathers, eyes, beak, wattles, comb. Area between legs reserved. Spout: upper surface reserved with black dots, its side solid black. Lion head (AK 3647). Room A1, Stratum I. H. 7.6; Back Diam. 7.1; Rim Diam. 2.5. Pink to red (7.5YR 7/4 to 10R 7/6-8) medium fine fabric with fine gray, red, and larger white inclusions. Intact. Small hole in r. eye. Worn. Mold-made lion face encircled by low, fugitive black mane; traces of black apparently survive on muzzle under the nose. Mane, ears, back, and perhaps muzzle worked by hand. Lightly modeled eyes.

92.

Wrinkled muzzle with five incisions framing shallow nostrils. Mouth closed, defined chin. Light incisions along outer edge of r. ear and face. Spout shaped like 86 between small oval ears. Back set at angle to face. +HOPHWHGKHDGӶۛ *ULG%/D\HU [Roman]. H. pres. 5.5; W. pres. 4.6. White (10YR 8/2), fine fabric. Parts of l. side, back, spout, and mouth preserved. Very worn. Concave neck, convex crown. Central raised crest support. Spout extends inside.

V.II.2. PARIAN AND RELATED WARES Recent discoveries and archaeometry have securely established Parian prominence in Geometric and Archaic Cycladic ceramic production.128 The contents of the two LG polyandria in the necropolis of Paroikia on Paros confirm that Delos Groups Aa-Ac, Ae-Af, and much of Pfuhl’s - VHULHV RQ 7KHUD DUH HVVHQWLDOO\ 3DULDQ129 Delos Groups Ad, C, and D continue the tradition into Orientalizing, when Parian pottery is best known in the “Melian” Group of the seventh and earlier sixth century BC.130 Thasos, the Parian colony in the North Aegean, has yielded Parian imports and products of local kilns that reflect Parian potting traditions.131 The material presented below includes a new range of shapes and wares from dated contexts. The coherent range of fabric, style, and workshop practices suggests that these vases from Building A are largely, if not, entirely, Parian; nothing can be certainly assigned elsewhere. Until archaeometry provides more secure answers, most vases of the catalogue, termed as Parian, must have been produced in “Greater Paros”. The material from Building A allows the identification of new workshop groups, including the black-ground polychrome group, the mugs of Type A and the Parian Pointed Toe (PPT) Class of banded ware. Local potters used a variety of clays.132 The fabric fires from pale reddish-yellow to bright red, clustering around 7.5YR 6/4-6, sometimes resembling Attic, although often slightly more red or pink. The most distinctive feature of the fabric is the pervasive presence of mica visible to the eye, together with other white, dark and red inclusions. Silver mica is far more common in the material from Despotiko than gold mica, probably reflecting the geology of southwestern Paros, including Paroikia, and Antiparos/Despotiko.133 The quality of craftsmanship does not generally reach the level of Corinthian and Attic fine wares. Inclusions are generally larger and more prominent. Surfaces were often wiped, but not

POTTERY fully smoothed, and, apart from the black-ground polychrome group (127-133), painted surfaces are generally rougher than on Attic or Corinthian fine wares (e.g., 112, 113, 146), often with spalls and surface pits where inclusions have fallen or

burnt out (e.g., 125, 137, 139 [fig. 2]). Wheel marks and raised swirls often appear inside cups and bowls (e.g., 105, 120, 134, 139-143, 185) as do shallow scratches left by dragged inclusions and other scrapes inside and out (e.g., 101, 139). A

Fig. 2. Archaic Type A Mug (139, Pl. 22). a (left). Micrograph of body wall section showing gray core with void left by partially burnt-out inclusion. b (right). Void on base left by inclusion burnt completely through the wall.

a

b

c

d

Fig. 3. a, b. Finger marks preserved on the base of two dipped Parian open vessels: a. Archaic black-ground polychrome hanging plate (128, Pl. 21). b. Hellenistic black-gloss echinus bowl (185, Pl. 30). c, d. Handle of Archaic Parian Type A mug dipped from both sides (139, Pl. 22).

109

V.II. taste for crisp exterior outlines and transitions obtained through heavy tooling is apparent on the rims of Type A mugs (134-139) and trimming on Type B1 mugs (141-142). As in Delos Group A, surfaces were not covered with a white slip (exceptions: 107, 113, 133). Except again for the black-ground polychrome group (127-133), decoration was usually carelessly applied in thin paint (e.g., 98, 108-109, 112113), with occasional overlapping band ends (125), stray lines (106, 111), and spills (105-106, 119, 121). Dipping was used to coat some vessels from Archaic through Hellenistic times,134 as proven by fingermarks (128, 185 [fig. 3, a, b]), totally covered bases (101, 127-128, 141-142, 180181), curved lower edges of paint with runs or dribbles (e.g., 103, 145, 148-150, 185-186), and partly covered cup handles (139 [fig. 3, c, d], probably 101, 103-104). Bands were regularly applied as the vessel turned on the wheel, as further attested in smearing, overlapping edges in thin paint (e.g., 105, 119, 124 cf. 125, drawn by hand), and comma-shaped central dot (105). A drop-shaped reserved area cutting across bands on the exterior of a miniature krater (121) may be due to spilled wax or similar substance that burnt off with overlaid slip during firing; it may have offered similar protection to reserved surfaces. Paint was applied thin and appears semi-gloss or matt, sometimes glossy. It is usually fired reddish brown, often unevenly, but sometimes it is glossy orange-red (10R 4 to 5/6: e.g., 101-102, 122-123, 150). This may be an unintended effect of firing, as suggested by the black slip on an olpe that remained red on its protected resting surface (149), and by the sharp transitions on mugs that were stacked in the kiln (134-139; cf. lamp 165). The Parian vases from Building A are non-figural, either monochrome or decorated simply with linear and floral patterns, except an LG fragment (97). The long persistence of particular motifs like concentric semicircles and metope schemes, reflects a degree of conservatism (94, 96, 106-109, 114 and [fig. 6a, b]). Such a tendency is further seen in the preference for flat or slightly hollowed bases on dot-band skyphoi (101, 103-105), monochrome mugs (134-146), bowls (115, 121), oinochoai (e.g., 126, 150, 155) and a plate (fig. 11b), as well as for the distinctive feet of the PPT Class of banded open vessels (117-119). It is also worth noting that some shapes, like Type A mugs, showed little development over more than a century (134-139).

110

GEOMETRIC/SUBGEOMETRIC (93-100, Pls. 14-15)

Although pottery from the exploration of Buildings ԃ and O indicates that activity at Mandra extends back to the late ninth or early eighth century BC,135 the earliest diagnostic pottery from Building A is LG. Both closed and open shapes are represented. Some of them exhibit the Parian conservative retention of motifs: three non-joining neck fragments of a hydria or an amphora (93) display the lozenge framed by squiggling lines typical of Delos Group A and the Parian polyandria. The form of its rim probably indicates a later date.136 The concentric circles drawn with a multiple-brush device on a small closedshape body fragment are most likely Geometric (94).137 The simple meander and stacked sigmas between squiggly lines on another small closed shape (95) employ the rare white overpaint technique used for the prothesis on the shoulder of amphora B from the polyandrion.138 A krater fragment (96) with dots added to create a rosette is LG II or Subgeometric.139 Two small fragments find parallels among the rich Geometric material from the Paros polyandria. The legs of two horses on a small krater fragment from Stratum I of Room A1 (97) are freely disposed in the pictorial field, as on figure-decorated amphora A from the polyandrion. 140 A horn-head handle fragment decorated with loose concentric triangles (98) is a common Geometric and Orientalizing type on Paros.141 A fragmentary ring askos (99) from Room A1 preserves the narrow neck opening of Cycladic and East Greek askoi with broad circular lekythos mouth, including two Archaic monochrome examples from Despotiko (a neck fragment [100] and an intact example lacking only its mouth (fig. 4)142

0

5cm

0

5cm

Fig. 4 (left). Archaic ring askos from Building B (AK 5415). Fig. 5 (right). Small oinochoe, from Paros Delion (AK 6; courtesy Deutsches Archäologisches Institut).

POTTERY and 48 examples from Delos and Rheneia (e.g., fig. 10).143 Those from the Greek mainland have a wide neck and a trefoil mouth.144 The oval ring profile of 99 finds parallel in Geometric and SG askoi with both narrow and wide neck, although its flat upper surface is unusual.145 The combination of interlocking rows of concentric triangles and zigzag punctuated by short strokes recurs only on a jug from the Delion of Paros (fig. 5), suggesting a local product, as also indicated by the style of decoration.146 The handle stub of the Archaic fragment 100 emerges at the base of the neck, unlike most ring askoi where it attaches just below the mouth (including figs. 4 and 10a), and finds parallel in examples from Delos and Rheneia with similar short necks.147 Paint extending inside the neck suggests that it was dipped, like blackground polychrome askoi from Delos (fig. 10). 93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

$PSKRUDRUK\GULDӶۛ *ULG./D\HU [Late Antique]. Rim Diam. est. 13. Reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) hard fabric with mica, small round white and reddish-brown inclusions. Three non-joining frr.; triangular rim, sharply offset from neck and shoulder. Rim: black. Lip: radial bars. Neck: crossed, dotted lozenge framed by squiggly lines. Shoulder: lines? $PSKRUDRUK\GULDӶۛ *ULG,/D\HU [Roman]. H. pres. 6.4; Th. 0.6-0.8. Light red (2.5YR 6/5-4 at break) fine fabric with silver mica, white and dark inclusions. Thin brown slip. Shoulder fr. with worn interior. Eleven concentric rings with reserved center. -XJRUOHN\WKRVӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>$UFKDLF@ H. pres. 6. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fine fabric with gray core, fine silver mica and small white inclusions. Semi-gloss black paint, white overpaint. Body fr. Orientation uncertain. Simple meander. Thin bands. Stacked Ms framed by squiggles. .UDWHUӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. pres. 12; Diam. (max.) est. 22. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with fine mica, white and dark inclusions. Thin reddish brown to black paint. Body fr. Concentric circle rosette, bands. Interior painted solid, mottled. %RZORUNUDWHUӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. pres. 3.2. Pinkish gray (5YR 7/2) fine fabric with mica. Dull black to reddish-brown paint. Body fr. Hind legs of horse, forefeet of another, asterisk. Interior painted black. Krater or large amphora (AK 3915). Room A1, Stratum I-A. H. pres. 6. Light reddish-brown (2.5YR6/4) fine fabric with fine mica and dark inclusions.

Thinly applied black paint. Fr. of horned-head handle. Concentric triangles. Interior and back of handle painted black. 99. Ring askos (AK 3798). Room A1, Strata VI (most), I, I-A, II/III-A, V. Ring H. 4.2; Diam. est. 13.5. 17 joining and two non-joining frr., comprising half of body; lacking handle and spout. Light brown to reddish-brown (reserved surface 5YR 7/4 to 6/4) fine, dull fabric with gold mica. Dull to glossy black paint. Ring, oval in section, with flat upper surface pierced for spout. Top: zigzag, elongated dots. Shoulder: interlocking concentric triangles. 100. 5LQJDVNRVӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>$UFKDLF Classical]. H. pres. 6. Light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) fabric with mica and fine dark inclusions. Dull gray paint, flaking in parts, inside and out. Dipped? Neck fr. with stub of strap handle. Archaic.

ARCHAIC Building A yielded very few vases of the Orientalizing “Melian” style. The rest of the Archaic Parian pottery includes a few unpainted wares, as well as skyphoi and kraters (often termed Subgeometric), with simple banded, and monochrome decoration. The finest are decorated with simple linear and floral patterns in added white, red and tan (the black-ground polychrome group). Cultrelated vessels are presented at the end of this section. DOT-BAND SKYPHOI (101-105, Pl. 16) These Cycladic cups, that have often been conflated with Laconian leaf band cups, have an offset rim, a low body tapering to a flat offset base, and ovoid handles attached to body at its maximum diameter, rising upwards. 148 The name derives from the handle zone decorated with dots; otherwise the surface is coated inside and out with paint that fired glossy red to dull black; the resting surface is normally left reserve. The examples, presented here, as well as others from Paros are of Parian manufacture.149 They were also produced on Thasos, as testified by the late Archaic kiln at Phari, and exported to Thrace, Macedonia, and the Black Sea.150 Skyphoi of this type are attested on Delos, Aigina, eastern Crete, Tocra, and probably Megara Hyblaia.151 The fabric is generally medium fine, micaceous, and fired red to reddish brown. The transition from neck to body is more sharply articulated

111

V.II. on some (102-103) than others. The resting surface is completely flat or very slightly arched.152 Some with thickly applied paint (101-102) were fired bright glossy red (cf. 121-125, 150). Others were coated in thinner paint, fired black to dull grayish brown (104) that sometimes dribbled onto the resting surface (103).153 The interior is monochrome with a narrow reserved band at the rim, that was omitted on 102. Dots were omitted from uncatalogued fragments from subflooring in Room A3.154 The resting surface of 104 is reserved, while that of 103 was reserved, with the thin slip pooled along its edge. 101 with a completely painted base may have been dipped, although concentric scratches through the paint indicate that it was turned on the wheel after the paint had dried. Handles were apparently dipped, leaving a sharp vertical edge where the handle joined the body at the reserved dot band. On the exterior of these skyphoi the paint extends to the base. A base fragment of similar form may also have been a skyphos of this type, but with reserve lower exterior (105) like the later examples from the Phari kiln and others from the North Aegean. Its reserved tondo with a central dot is similar to some described from Phari.155 The thinly applied black paint surrounding the well-defined tondo was hastily brushed on by the potter as the wheel turned, leaving a darker area where strokes overlapped, a tail on the central dot, and a drop of spilled paint. Although the form of these skyphoi and this type of decoration seem to recall the Geometric production of the Central Cyclades,156 no certain examples come from Stratum I of Room A1, although fragments were recovered from Strata II and III.157 Others, including 102-103, and 105 from the flooring of Room A3,158 suggest that the type appeared in the third quarter of the sixth century BC, possibly imitating the Laconian leafband cups, which are earlier than the late Archaic examples in the North Aegean.159

101. Skyphos (AK 3793). Room A1, Stratum V. H. 6.4; Rim Diam. 12.5; Base Diam. 6.3. Red (10R 5/6) fine fabric with small white inclusions and voids. Smooth wheel marks inside. Almost half preserved, including one handle. Dipped? Glossy red (10R 4-5/6) paint on resting surface, cut by concentric scratch. 102. 6N\SKRVӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>$UFKDLF@ H. pres. 4.2; Diam. est. 11. Light red (2.5YR 7/6) fine, fabric with fine silver mica. Glossy red paint. Body fr., including rim. 103. 6N\SKRV$. 5RRPӶVXEIORRU H. 5.7; Rim Diam. est. 12; Base Diam. 5. Reddish brown (redder than 5YR 5/4) dull, fine fabric with light pinkish gray (7.5YR 7/2) surface, containing very fine mica, small black inclusions and tiny voids. Flaking thin, dull brown to reddish-black slip, running onto the resting surface. Fr. with much of handle. 104. 6N\SKRV $.   *ULG Ӹ /D\HU  >&ODVVLFDO Hellenistic]. Ӽ5LP'LDPHVW%DVH'LDP Light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) dull, fine fabric with mica, small white and dark red inclusions and small voids. Dull, reddish-brown to gray paint, unevenly applied, fugitive outside. Largely preserved with full profile and both handles; rim mostly restored in plaster. Reserved resting surface. 105. 6N\SKRV"Ӷۛ 5RRP$VXEIORRU H. pres. 1.8; Base Diam. 6.25. Red (2.5YR 5/6) fine fabric with silver mica, reddish-brown and white inclusions. Thin reddish-brown paint, overlapping brush stroke; spills. Base fr. Exterior reserved. Interior: band? around tondo with central dot smeared by spinning wheel. Resting surface reserved.

METOPE SKYPHOI AND KRATERS, WAVY BAND KRATERS (106-111, Pl. 17) Two cups belong to the well-distributed class of skyphoi decorated with concentric circles flanked by vertical lines that recall triglyphs and metopes (106-107). Skyphoi of this type are known from

Fig. 6. a, b. Fragments of two Archaic metope kraters discovered in 2017 (Grid N8-N9, Str. 2).

112

POTTERY Paros, Naxos, Kythnos, Delos, Siphnos, Thera and Thasos, as well as other Mediterranean sites,160 and have been assigned to at least three different pottery workshops on Paros, Naxos and Thasos.161 On the basis of their context, the skyphoi from the Cyclades seem to have been produced from the early seventh century BC until the sometime in the sixth, while those from the Phari kiln on Thasos indicate that the type endured into the fifth century BC.162 Two krater fragments probably from different vessels (108-109) are similarly decorated on the shoulder in the metope scheme, a type of krater that endured on Paros well into the Archaic period, as shown by numerous fragments recovered at Mandra from various contexts (fig. 6). On both 108 and 109 short vertical ‘triglyph’ lines border a ‘metope’ preserving only the end of a waving horizontal line that is probably the short zigzag of Parian Geometric,163 later simplified into a short wavy line, as seen on the more recent discoveries (fig. 6). 109 preserves plain horizontal bands below the metope scheme, providing a link to plain banded wares presented below. A similar link is provided by the plain bands on two other krater fragments decorated above with a simple, long wavy line (110-111).164 All four krater fragments include plain horizontal bands characteristic of banded ware. Another close connection to banded ware is seen in the similar profiles of the rim fragments (108, 110) and a banded krater fragment (116), as noted below. Skyphoi

106. Skyphos (AK 4112). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 7.7; Rim Diam. 25. Light reddish brown (5YR 6/4) fine fabric with silver mica and white chips. Thinly applied, dull black to reddish-brown paint. Lip: thin bands. Body: triglyphs, concentric circles drawn with multiple-brush; accidental line. Interior black with reserved band on lip. 107. 6N\SKRVӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>$UFKDLF@ H. pres. 0.5; Rim Diam. est. 20-21. Pink (7.5YR 7/3) fine fabric with fine mica and dark inclusions. White slipped. Thin brown to black paint. Rim fr. Deep bowl with gently flaring rim. Rim: bands. Multiple-brush triglyph (two strokes joined). Interior black.

Kraters

108. .UDWHUӶۛ 5RRP$VXEIORRU H. pres. 7.5; Diam. est. 25. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with paler surface, containing fine silver mica, red and dark inclusions. Worn. Fr. of straight everted rim.

Smooth surface; thin red paint, thick and crazed within. Rim: band with another at the transition to shoulder. Body: triglyph, comprising three vertical bands and part of wavy band in metope. Interior: thick band on rim. 109. .UDWHUӶۛ 5RRP$VXEIORRU H. pres. 15. Light red (2.5YR 7/4 at break) fine fabric with silver mica, few white and dark inclusions. Red paint. Two joining body frr. Triglyph comprising three vertical bands and edge of horizontal wavy band in metope; below, three horizontal bands. Interior banded. 110. .UDWHUӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>/DWH$QWLTXH@ Rim Diam. est. 35. Light red (5YR 7/4, surface) fine fabric with small white and red inclusions. Thin, light red to dark brown paint. Three non-joining frr. of rim and shoulder. Tall, projecting rim, flat on top, clearly divided from the round shoulder of the deep body. Top of rim: strokes. Interior: bands. Exterior: wavy line between bands. 111. .UDWHUӶۛ 5RRP$VXEIORRU H. 9.9; W. pres. 11.7. Light red (2.5YR 7/8) fine fabric with fine, silver mica, and small, dark red inclusions. Surface smooth. Thin red to reddish-brown paint. Body fr. Exterior: wavy band, followed by two bands below; accidental diagonal line.

ORIENTALIZING “MELIAN” WARE (112-113, Pl. 18) Two of only four small “Melian” fragments from these trenches are presented here.165 A fragment with lotus bud chain (112) is probably from a large lid in the form of a fruit stand like one decorated with spirals from the Archaic sanctuary of the ancient polis on Kythnos.166 It recalls lotus buds on a more slender chain decorating on a hydria from Rheneia that Zapheiropoulou has attributed to the Bearded Protome Painter (Phase I: ca. 680/70 to 650/40 BC).167 113 is likely a fragmentary finial from a large lid; dots and rays combined here commonly border hydriai and amphorae at Rheneia, once in Phase 1 and often in Phase 3.168 OTHER ORIENTALIZING (114-115, Pl. 18) Two other fragments reflect a less refined local Orientalizing style. A fragmentary krater that combines the metope format with coarsely drawn “Melian” spirals (114) shows connections to both Paros and Naxos. The rim profile with carelessly painted bands resembles amphora rims from Delos and Naxos,169 while the impressed handle bases find parallel both in “Melian” and plain

113

V.II. hydria handles from the Paros Asklepieion. Its brittle fabric with sandy surface slightly resembles that of a fine hemispherical bowl with simple T-rim (115). The crude interior floral radiating from compass-drawn concentric circles lacks obvious “Melian” connection. “Melian”

112. /LG"Ӷۛ 5RRP$6WUDWD,$,,,9 W. pres. 11; Th. 0.4. Light reddish-brown (2.5YR 6/4) fine fabric with silver mica and dark inclusions. Black to reddish-brown paint. Smooth exterior, rougher interior. Body fr. Lotus bud chain. Interior painted black. 113. /LGILQLDO"Ӷۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9, H. pres. 4.4; Diam. est. 10.5. Rim fr. Light to pale brown (7.5YR 6/3 to 10YR 6/3) fine fabric with small red, white inclusions, and large glassy pebble. White slip (10YR 8/3-4). Dull black paint. Conical lid with torus below. Exterior: rays; dot band on torus between thin bands. Reserved rim. Interior painted black.

OTHER ORIENTALIZING 114. Krater (AK 4148). Room A1, Stratum I-A H. pres. 8.3; Diam. est. 30. Light reddish-brown to gray, greenish (7.5YR 6/4 to 7.5YR 5/2) medium coarse fabric with fine mica and white inclusions. Flaking dull black to reddishbrown paint. Burnt or misfired. Sandy matt surface. Fr. of projecting rim, slightly rounded on top; two low mouldings at the transition to bell-shaped body; arched horizontal handle. Top of rim: thick bars. Below mouldings: thin bands. Body: metopes with spiral patterns, one with a central lozenge divided by triglyphs composed of six thin vertical bands. Interior and upper handle painted black. 115. Small bowl (AK 3794). Room A1: Strata II, VI H. 4.3; Rim Diam. 13; Base Diam. 4. Light reddish-brown (break 5YR 6/4; surface 7.5YR 6/2 to 5YR 6/4) fabric with fine mica, white, small red and dark inclusions. Glossy, black to reddish paint. Sandy surface; tooling around base and interior. Body complete with much restored in plaster. Projecting, flat on top rim, deep bowl with slightly rounded walls, tapering to a slightly hollowed base. Handle scar on rim? Top of rim: thick bars. Exterior: reserved. Interior: floral pattern: at center three small concentric rings, from which radiate three solid painted triangles,.

BANDED WARE (116-126, Pls. 19-20) Vessels decorated with plain bands were made at numerous production centers throughout the Greek world, but have not yet been the subject of a comprehensive study.170 Parian banded ware is dominant at Mandra, but, curiously, has not been

114

reported from Parian sites, including the Delion.171 The vases presented here are almost exclusively open shapes: a krater (116), two lekanai (117-118), a stemless cup (119), possibly a dish (120),172 a miniature krater (121) and three cups, apparently kantharoi (122-124). Few banded closed shapes are preserved well enough for presentation (oinochoai 125-126). The plain banded ware clearly represents a simplification of more elaborate vessels, seen most clearly here in kraters. The fragmentary krater (116) has a sloping, everted rim like the fragments of a metope krater (108) and a wavy band krater (110) presented above. The rims of 110 and 116 are close, and both have flat lips decorated with bands, like the flattopped everted rim of a banded lekane (117). The fabric of plain banded ware from Building A is similar to that of Parian monochrome ware: pale, perhaps slightly more reddish yellow, micaceous with slightly more gold mica. The paint, mostly fired red to brownish gray, was usually thin and often adhered poorly. It was carelessly applied, as shown by drips inside the krater 116, running paint on the stemless cup 119, and overlapping band ends on the oinochoe 125. Most of these vases are decorated with simple, horizontal bands both inside out. Although the bands on larger open shapes share the same width, smaller vessels exhibit a combination of thinner and wider bands. On some smaller vessels banding emphasizes the interior (118-120, possibly 123). Three open vessels of varied size, but similar in fabric and application of paint, can be assigned to a new Parian Pointed Toe Class (PPT) Class (117-119); this name reflects their distinctive, short conical feet with sharp pointed edge that were carved out from below, leaving visible concentric tooling marks).173 The lekane (117) has a flat-topped projecting rim, hemispherical bowl and low, sloping ring base with sharp pointed edge. Surviving stubs indicate that opposed reflex handles were attached beneath the rim. The shape stands close to the “Melian” dishes,174 and the Attic fine lekanai of the second half of the seventh century BC.175 This Parian example from Room A1, Stratum I, should date to the seventh century BC, while the two smaller vessels from the subflooring of Room A3 could be slightly later. A fragmentary small lekane is deeper and curves in slightly before tuning out to the rim (118); the bands are glossy red, and no trace of a handle survives. The exterior of a low stemless cup is reserved, but the interior is banded, and the handles are painted solid (119); thin paint running diagonally from the handles and rim on both interior and exterior indicates that it was applied as the cup turned on the wheel.

POTTERY The gently sloping low ring foot (120) of a shallow lekane or dish is not related to the PPT Class. It echoes instead the profile of a plate in the Parian black-ground polychrome group (128), and two dishes from Tocra with similarly banded underfoot.176 A miniature krater, pierced for suspension, has a low, pointed foot that was carved out more gently than those of the PPT Class (121). Its deep body with vertical walls is crowned by a flat everted rim with linear molding from which descend two opposed triangular attachments emulating boukrania. The flat-topped lug between them likely also had an opposing mate now lost. A drop of paint mars the uneven bands on the exterior, and a reserved area was apparently caused by a drop of wax or similar substance that was spilled before the application of paint. Two vertical strap handles attached horizontally to the rim (122-123) and a fragmentary base with part of the lower body, preserving the handle root (124) probably belong to low-handled kantharoi.177 On the upper surface of the handle 122, a horizontal band running along the rim cuts across a stamped circular impression that depicts a male figure who was oriented to run along its inner edge. He could be Perseus fleeing with Medusa’s head, who only sometimes looks back toward her pursuing sisters,178 or alternatively a racing runner or dancer with possible cult connection. Another handle is fully painted (123); a JUDIILWRԋLQFLVHGRQWKHXSSHUVXUIDFHPD\LQGLcate the number 1,000. The simple flat base of an oinochoe (125), although plumper, may come from a larger version of the monochrome olpai discussed below (148-149, 155). A band of thin red slip with overlapping ends was painted probably without the potter’s wheel. An oinochoe of different form with painted projecting base may not have had a banded body; it preserves a painted network of thin lines on the underside of a slightly arched base, probably a potter’s mark (126).179 Krater (116, Pl. 19) 116. Krater (AK 4113). Building A, North Part, Phase I Porch. H. pres. ca. 25; Rim Diam. est. 35.5. Reddish yellow (2.5YR 7/5 surface) sandy fabric with silver mica, red, brown, white inclusions. Thin, dull black to reddish brown slip. Worn. Smoothed surface. Flat topped rim slants diagnally from the conical body which tapers sharply to the missing foot. Six joining and 22 non-joining rim and body frr. Interior: band on rim, two bands on body. Spills on body; spills. Rim : bars on top, bands on interior and exterior. Exterior: three bands on body.

PPT (Paros Pointed Toe) Class (117-119, Pl. 19) 117. Lekane (AK 3792). Room A1, Stratum I. H. 6.4; Rim Diam. 20.5; Base Diam. 5.9. Reddish yellow (5YR 7/6 at break) fine fabric with fine gold mica and white inclusions, dragged pebbles. Thin red to brown paint, smeared. Drips below handle. Largely preserved, with plaster restoration; much of handles lost. Worn. Projecting flat rim, preserving stubs of two opposed ribbon handles below. Hemispherical body; low, sloping base, hollowed underneath. Interior: four concentric bands. Rim: wide bars. Exterior: three bands, covering foot. 118 6PDOOOHNDQHERZOӶۛ 5RRP$VXEIORRU H. est. 5.8; Rim Diam. 13; Base Diam. 6.7. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with mostly silver mica, small red and black inclusions. Red paint. Largely preserved; profile reconstructed from 7 joining frr. and non-joining base. Out-turned rounded rim; deep, round body; low, narrow, slightly hollowed base with projecting edge. Interior: reserved bands with small reserved central tondo. Exterior: central, gently curving band. 119. Stemless cup (AK 4104). Room A3, subfloor. H. 3.9; Rim Diam. 10.9; Base Diam. 4.3. Reddish (5YR 7/6 surface) fine fabric with fine mica, small dark and white inclusions. Smooth. Small voids, tooling marks, dragged pebbles on exterior. Thinly applied dull red to reddish-black paint. Complete profile, with plaster reconstruction; much of rim, body and one handle missing. Echinus bowl of uneven height, tapering down to a low, slightly hollowed base with projecting edge. Interior: bands of varied width around small, dark tondo. Top of rim and handle painted solid. Exterior: reserved. Interior and exterior: wide swaths of thinned paint run diagonally from handles and rim.

Other Open Shapes (120-124, Pl. 20) 120. 'LVKӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP, H. pres. 2.2; W. pres. 11; Base Diam. 8.6. 5HGGLVK\HOORZ/DWH Antique]. H. pres. 3.7; Body Diam. est. 16; Rim Diam. est. 10. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fine fabric, with very fine sliver mica, and small dark, red, and white inclusions. Worn. Glossy paint fired dark reddish brown (interior, upper exterior), bright red (lower exterior). Rim and wall fr. Wide, rounded body, leading to an incurved rim. Painted solid inside out. Rim: two thin added-white bands.

UNCERTAIN CLAY OBJECTS (166-167, Pl. 27) A large hollow fragment resembling a curved horn (from Room A1, Stratum VI) was perhaps the handle or spout of an unusual vessel (166). The fabric and its black surface are comparable to those of the Archaic ring askoi (100). The second (167) from the upper Archaic fill of Room A1 (Stratum II), is unusual in form and technique; it probably does not belong to a vessel, unless it was part of an attachment. Its finished surface is covered with a powdery red pigment over which were added black lines and white paint, possibly as part of a floral ornament. It could belong to the background of a protome. 166. 8QLGHQWLILHGVKDSHӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9, H. pres. 11.2; Th. 1.1. Light reddish brown (5YR 6/3) fine fabric, grayer at core with fine silver mica and small brown, white or light gray inclusions. Dull black paint. Worn. Fr. of curved conical tube. Exterior painted solid. 167. 8QNQRZQREMHFWӶۛ 5RRPӶ6WUDWXP,, Max. pres. dimension 5.1; Diam. est. 19.

125

V.II. Red (10R 5/6 near surface) fine fabric with thick gray core and gold mica. Triangular fr. with two finished edges. Uncertain shape, apparently not wheelmade. A straight, finished edge meets a curved one, toward which it tapers. Relatively flat on the decorated side, the reverse (?) bulges. Powdery red pigment (slightly redder than 10R 5/8) on flat side. Reserved area resembling a petal extends to the corner where the finished edges meet; thin black lines define edges and central rib. Reverse (?) reserved, with dribbled red paint.

/$ԈӺ5&(5$0,&6&/$66,&$/TO MODERN The pottery presented below includes all noteworthy pieces of the Classical and Hellenistic periods recovered in 2002 and 2002 in and around Building A with a few earlier surface finds, followed by a highly selective sample of the rich Roman Imperial and Late Antique pottery with two more recent pieces. Five pieces were recovered from recent disturbance in Room A1 (Stratum V: 204, 210-211, 215, 219 all Roman and later), and half the remainder were found above the paved floors in other rooms of Building A. Although it is unclear if the cult survived into Roman Imperial times, these ceramics indicate that the sanctuary remained in use probably into the first century BC, with significant activity continuing into the third century AD. The deliberate dismantling of the old sanctuary in the fourth century AD transformed the site and initiated a major phase with new construction over the southern rooms of Building A (V.I fig. 1) that was associated with abundant, well-preserved pottery of mid-fourth into the late sixth or seventh century AD. The site was then abandoned for centuries, as evidenced by a complete absence of Middle Byzantine pottery, and saw only sporadic later activity. From the seventh century AD until the Modern period the only recognizable ceramics from this part of the site are the base of a Venetian sgraffito bowl and a Turkish pipe (218-219).

V.II.4. CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS

In contrast to the Archaic period, in the Classical period Attic fine imports, including red-figure and black-gloss wares, were much more common but were supplanted in the Hellenistic period by sources not yet identified.247

126

ATTIC RED-FIGURE (168-172, Pl. 28) Three small fragments of Attic red-figured kraters recovered from Roman and Late Antique contexts in and around Building A are presented with a few surface finds dating to the second half of the fifth century BC, most of which lack precise location. The surface finds include non-joining fragments (one found northeast of the main temenos) of a bell krater with distinctive rim (168). They preserve part of a bearded, draped figure who stands right with outstretched arm; his lightly pointed ears identify him as a satyr holding a staff or simply gesturing. The relatively rare combination of rim with leaf band and raised egg molding points to bell kraters by several artists in the Polygnotan tradition.248 Part of a draped figure with staff who confronts a second figure is preserved on two joining surface fragments with similar thinly applied paint that reveals the figure contour (169); they were collected the same day as fragments of 168 and may derive from the same vessel. A fragment from Room A5 with feet of a mantle figure belongs to another krater, as indicated by the thicker upper lines of the base meander (170). Another krater fragment probably showed a reclining male symposiast holding the handle of cup or basin in his right hand over his bare shoulder, despite the lack of known parallels (171). The back of probably a male head on another small fragment lacks relief contour (172), but has impressionistic curls carefully defined in the figure’s original slip outline, as seen in works by Polygnotos, the Dinos Painter, and related artists active around 440 to 420 BC.249 Despite this abundance of Attic red-figured vases of the middle and later fifth century BC, especially kraters, later specimens are less common.250 168. Krater, bell or calyx (a. AK 5252; b, c. AK 5260a, 5262b; probably d. AK 5258). Surface, a: Grid A17 (between Buildings E and Z, 2003;), b-d: 28/4/2000. a: H. pres. 9, W. pres. 10.5, b: H. pres. 5, W. pres. 7.2, c: H. pres. 7.2, W. pres. 3.7; d: H. pres. 5.5, W. pres. 13; Th. at egg molding 0.9. Scratched and worn. Black gloss thin in places, revealing contour line 0.3 wide. No relief contour. Four non-joining frr.: rounded rim over flat leaf band, raised egg molding below; slightly concave upper body. Leaves with tips to left, central vein, and fruit. Head and shoulders of draped satyr to r., extending r. arm. Interior: thin reserved band on upper body. 169. Bell krater (a. AK 5256, b. AK 5257). Surface, 28/4/2000. a: H. pres. 3.5; W. pres. 7.6, b: H. pres. 8.6; W. pres. 9. Black gloss, thin in places, revealing contour line. Worn. Two probably joining body frr. Lower drapery of two confronting standing figures, with feet of l. figure, staff (b). Below, meander band broken by checkerboard square (a).

POTTERY 170. Bell krater (AK 5235). Room A5, Trench I, Layer 2 [Late Antique]. H. pres. 4.4; W. pres. 7.4; Th. 0.8. No relief contour. Dilute slip for lower garment edge. Scratches. Body fr. Feet of mantle figure to l. Meander band. 171. %HOONUDWHU"$. *ULGӽ/D\HU>5RPDQ@ H. pres. 4.2; W. pres. 3.2; Th. 0.8. No relief contour. Chips and scratches. Body fr. Sympotic scene?: r. hand holds kylix (?) by handle, possibly over bare shoulder of figure reclining l.; behind, standing figure? 172. .UDWHU$. *ULGӽ/D\HU>5RPDQ@ H. pres. 3.9; W. pres. 3.4; Th. 0.9. No relief contour. Scratched. Body fr. Back of male (?) head to r. Interior: thin reserved band. 3RVVLEOHJUDIILWRLQYHUWHGԀ"RUԅ"

HELLENISTIC FINE WARE (173-174, Pl. 28) Two small fragments of Hellenistic decorated fine ware are of uncertain origin. The rim of a West Slope straight walled kantharos is probably not Attic (173). Its thin walls, fine incised ivy band, and lack of added white point to an early date in the first quarter of the third century BC.251 A fragment of a mold-made bowl preserves part of a complex cult scene with a dancing female figure, perhaps an ecstatic Bacchant, between a tree and a tripod cult table loaded with offerings (174). Although lacking exact parallel, it recalls the rich details of Macedonian and Thessalian “Homeric” bowls of the second century BC, and could possibly illustrate Euripides’s Bacchae, as Ulrich Sinn has suggested for a bowl from the Pagasitic Gulf.252 The round table with animal legs was common on Delos and elsewhere, and white marble miniatures of such tables were dedicated at the Delion on Paros.253 West Slope Ware 173. 6WUDLJKW ZDOO NDQWKDURV Ӷۛ  5RRP $ Trench B1 (inside Wall T7) 19/9/00. H. pres. 3.6; Rim Diam. est. 12; W. pres. 3.3. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fine fabric with very fine silver mica and dark inclusions. Pink paint and incision over black gloss. Rim fr. Slightly convex straight rim. Black inside and out. Exterior: ivy band with incised stems and alternating pink heart-shaped leaves; continuous central stem with short stems for each leaf.

Moldmade Hemispherical Bowl 174. Bowl (AK 4116). Grid I3/K3, lY 1. H. pres. 2.5; W. pres. 2.7; Th. 0.3. Pink (5YR 7/4) fine fabric without obvious inclusions. Brownish black non-lustrous paint inside and out. Body fr. Exterior relief decoration: draped female figure to l. with head thrown back, bent l. arm, possibly grasping the tree to l., r. arm thrown up behind head (dancing maenad?). To r., tripod table with animal feet, supporting uncertain objects. Vertical incisions along the bottom may represent vegetation.

BLACK-GLOSS POTTERY (175-190; Pls. 29-31) Black-gloss vessels are much better represented, as seen in this representative selection of skyphoi, a probable mug, saltcellars, and bowls that extends from the fifth into the third century BC. The skyphoi demonstrate both an increase in Attic imports and Parian emulation of Attic forms, even as potters continued local practices like dipping through the Hellenistic period. Two bases of Attic skyphoi, 175, dated ca. 470-425 BC,254 and 176, from the last quarter of the fifth century BC,255 have reserved underside enhanced by miltos. Two later Parian skyphoi (180-181) with increasingly narrow foot exhibit the long-lived, final phase of the form’s development, and were dipped, completely covering the base. 180 probably dates well before the end of the fourth century BC, while 181 is more advanced and belongs to the earlier third century BC.256 A rim fragment with the later outturned rim and undulating profile is likely an Attic import, midway in the final phase (177), although the handle lacks the characteristic horseshoe or triangular form described by Sparkes.257 A small inscribed fragment most likely comes from a Classical version of the Parian mug Type B (182), as suggested by its smaller size, the light incision under the outturned rim, and the form of A in graffito I.258 Two fragmentary Attic concave saltcellars represent the taller fourth-century BC form, prevalent from the mid-century until the end of the production ca. 315 BC; 178, with flat underside and gentler curve, is probably earlier than 179.259 Like most, both were totally covered in black paint and were presumably dipped. Black-gloss drinking vessels of unknown origin are represented by a fragment from the ribbed lower body of a krater or large kantharos with impressed ribs that radiate irregularly from a scraped groove above a pedestal stem or base (187). The slanting ribs and the size of the shape lack Attic parallels, although the scraped groove above a pedestal base is echoed in various kantharoi.260 A handle fragment from the same lot

127

V.II. likely belongs to the same vessel; its reserved inner face probably indicates that it came from a krater. Oval rotelles, like those on the strap handle of a kantharos (188) appear on Attic kantharoi dating from the last quarter of the fourth century BC to the end of the third, and on other fabrics they may survive later.261 Bowls and plates probably of Parian manufacture span the Classical to early Hellenistic periods. Two Classical ring base fragments have simple incised rings under the black gloss, but lack the elaborate stamped and roulette patterns of the Attic production.262 183 recalls Attic work of the mid-fifth into the fourth century BC, with simpler profile and decoration; its heavy molded underside recalls a group of early stemless cups that Brian Sparkes assigned to a single workshop, including one with red-figure decoration by the Amphitrite Painter found at Klein-Aspergale in Germany and plain black examples from Stryme.263 183 must have already been a fragment, when it ZDVXVHGWRSUDFWLFHLQFLVLQJӶԅFRPSHQGLDJUDIfito K, fig. 20). A thin ring base (184) has painted rings on the reserved underside and the inner wall of the base. A date in the later fifth to early fourth century BC is suggested by Attic bowls with similar feet and a variety of painted rings under their foot.264 Two heavy, low echinus bowls are similar in general form (185-186),265 although both interior and underside are treated differently. 186 has a marked tilt, lacks the uneven interior of 185, and its flat underside is bordered by a shallow, finger-width groove along the inner edge of the ring foot. Both were dipped in poorly adhering thin black gloss, leaving drips and runs; the black gloss that covers almost the entire body of 185 preserves three fingermarks where the potter grasped the foot. Although the shape echoes Attic black-gloss bowls of the fourth and third centuries BC, this more robust local form is common throughout the Cyclades from the third to the first century BC.266 189 is a local (Parian?) version of the late Hellenistic flat plate with raised rim that here unusually slants outwards. A shallow groove runs along the outer edge before it curves up; shallow interior grooves may not have been deliberate. It was partly coated in thin paint that was applied by dipping and fired unevenly.267 A shallow plate with flat everted rim and narrow ring foot of medium height (190) shares elements in the diverse body of plates of the later second and first centuries BC.268 Both plates show traces of burning. Attic (Pl. 29) 175. SN\SKRV Ӷۛ  %XLOGLQJ$ 6RXWK 3DUW 6WRD Trench Z [Late Antique].

128

176.

177.

178.

179.

H. 2.2; Base Diam. est. 9; W. 7.2. Red to reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4-6 at break) fine fabric. Part of base and lower body. Black interior, exterior and the inner face of foot. Resting surface and underfoot reserved, the latter with miltos (2.5YR 6/8 light red). Torus ring foot. Skyphos (AK 3688). Surface find, 28/4/2000. H. pres. 2.1; Base Diam. est. 7.4. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with fine silver mica and sparse small dark inclusions. Half of base. Torus ring foot. Black all over except resting surface and underside coated with miltos. Underside: Graffito F (fig. 19 $ԅԄԀ 6N\SKRV Ӷۛ  :HVW RI 5RRP$ *ULG = Layer 2 [Roman]. H 3.4; Rim Diam. est. 9. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/7-8) fine fabric, with very fine mica and other inclusions. Attic? Rim fr. with r. side of one handle. S-shaped profile. Below short, outturned rim, body curves in at the handle and out again before curving back in just above the break. Surviving side of handle slants slightly upwards to the level of the rim, and leans in slightly toward its missing l. side. Black inside and out; cracked at handle attachment. 6DOWFHOODU Ӷۛ  :HVW RI 5RRP$ *ULG = Layer 2 [Roman]. H. pres. 3; Base Diam. 7. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric with very fine silver mica. Dipped in thin black gloss, covering resting surface. Interior semi-gloss, exterior dull, and peeling. Worn, esp. under foot where surface is lost. Part of rim, body and base. Concave body wall flares out to slanting rim with thickened convex top and to thin, slanting ring base. Flat underside. 6DOWFHOODUӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>5RPDQ@ H. pres. 2.9; Rim Diam. est. 6. Reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) fine fabric with very fine mica and white inclusions. Worn. Full profile except for tip of base and center of underfoot. Dipped. All surfaces coated unevenly in thin black gloss, reddish, in spots. Shape as 178, with more slanted rim and convex underside.

Parian (Pls. 29-30) Skyphoi, mug (Pl. 29)

180. Skyphos (AK 5046). West of Room A2, Grid Z1, Layer 2 [Early Hellenistic?]. H. pres. 2.4; Base Diam. 4.8. Light red (2.5YR 7/6) fine fabric. Flaking black gloss. Base fr. Tapering stem, offset ring base. Dipped, leaving bare and dark areas on lower body; fired black where thick, reddish brown where thin. Underfoot: Graffito G (fig. 19 Ӷԅ

POTTERY 181. 6N\SKRVӶۛ *ULGӸ/D\HU>+HOOHQLVWLF Early Roman]. H. pres. 3.9; Base Diam. 4.9. Light red (slightly redder than 2.5YR 6/8) fine fabric, with very fine mica, tiny dark brown and reddish inclusions, voids. Complete foot and part of lower body. Narrow, concave body, flaring to offset ring foot. Central raised wheel marks on interior. Dipped. Completely covered with medium gloss fired black to red. 182. Black-gloss mug, Type B? (AK 4109). Stray find. H. pres. 2; Rim Diam. 7; W. pres. 3.4. Red (2.5YR 5/6) fine fabric with fine mica and white inclusions. Parian? Thin dull to glossy black paint, fired reddish inside. Rim fr. Chipped. Short out-turned rim with tooled groove at the juncture with body. Exterior: Graffito I (fig. 20 ӶԅOLJDWXUH

Bowls (Pl. 30)

183. Bowl or plate (AK 4178). Grid H4, Layer 1 [Roman]. H. pres. 1.8; Base Diam. 7. Reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) fine fabric, with fine silver mica and few red and dark inclusions. Half of wide, slightly flaring ring foot with convex molded underfoot. Black gloss inside and out, covering two thin incised rings. Resting surface reserved with slight black overlap along edge. Uneven bands on molded underfoot. Interior: Graffito K (fig. 20 ӶԅFRPSHQGLD 184. %RZORUSODWHӶۛ :HVWRI5RRP$*ULG Z1, Layer 2 [Early Hellenistic?] H. pres. 2; Base Diam. 9.2. Light red (2.5YR 7/6) fine fabric with fine mica and few dark inclusions. Parian? Dull dark gray to reddish brown paint. Most of thin, tapered ring foot and lower body. Black gloss inside and out, covering shallow incised interior ring. Thin reserved band on either side of base at juncture with body. Resting surface reserved. Underside: uneven black rings around central dot. 185. (FKLQXVERZO$. *ULGӸ/D\HU>0RGHUQ@ +'LDPӷDVH'LDP Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fine fabric with very fine silver mica and fine white inclusions. Dipped in thin, dull black paint, much fugitive. Over half preserved; many frr., including complete base; plaster restoration. Shallow bowl with incurved rim. Concentric depression around raised center. Conical ring foot with canted edge and slightly domed underfoot. Black inside out almost to foot. Base reserved, with drip and three fingerprints. 186. Echinus bowl (AK 4885). Grid H4, Layer 5 [Roman]. H. 3.2; Rim Diam. 12.6; Base Diam. 5.5. Light brown (7.5YR 6/4) fine fabric with silver mica, red and white inclusions. Thin dull black gloss. Almost complete; many frr., part of rim missing. Worn and pitted. Shallow bowl with incurved rim. Conical ring foot with canted edge, slightly domed underfoot and wide groove inside foot. Tooling marks outside.

Dipped. Black interior and upper part of exterior with drips and dribbles.

Unknown origin (Pl. 31)

187. .UDWHURUNDQWKDURVӶۛ 7HVW7UHQFKӸ [Roman/Late Antique]. H. pres. 3.5; W. pres. 9.3; Th. 1.8-0.8. Light reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) fine fabric with silver mica and dark inclusions. Well-adhering black paint. Body fr.; possible non-joining horizontal handle fr. Scratched. Curved lower body; reserved groove at the transition to pedestal base, slight molding at top of pedestal. Handle is circular in section. Radiating ribs. Black inside and out, except reserved inner face of handle. 188. .DQWKDURVӶۛ *ULG+/D\HU>+HOOHQLVWLF@ H. pres. 4.7. Reddish yellow (7.5YR 6/5) fine fabric with silver mica and dark inclusions. Handle fr. Worn. Thin dull paint. Arching, vertical strap handle with central groove. Oval rotelles attached to either side of upper handle.

Late Hellenistic Plates (Pl. 31)

189. 3ODWHӶۛ 5RRP$7UHQFKӽ/D\HU Rim Diam. est. 23.5. Pink to light reddish brown (7.5YR 7/4 to 6/4) medium fabric with silver mica, white, gray, and dark inclusions. Parian? Thin reddish paint. Rim fr., non-joining body fr. Wide, flat plate. Plain flaring rim, shallow groove on the lower edge. Wheel ridging inside. Exterior smoothed. Dipped? Interior: center reserved, with dripping. Interior: small ring on inner edge from a burst bubble of paint. 190. 3ODWHӶۛ *ULG+/D\HU H. 6.5; Rim Diam. est. 31; Base Diam. 10; max pres. W. 22. Light red (2.5YR 6/7 at break) medium fine fabric with mica, white limey inclusions, and a small, shiny pinkish gray pebble. Burnt, worn. Ca. 1/6 of vessel, preserving full profile; projecting flat rim with rounded edge; groove at the transition to shallow body wall; high ring foot with canted lower edge. Self-slip inside and out.

HOUSEHOLD WARES (191-194, Pl. 31) Three elegant thin-walled utilitarian vessels include a small bowl made of the local sandy ware fabric. The shape, also known in Attic blackgloss, can be compared with the simple form of thin-walled Hellenistic lekanai (191).269 Two rim fragments from mortars of different sandy fabrics were recovered from later contexts. 192 is relatively thin walled, with a rounded projecting rim, and should date to the later fifth or early fourth century BC, as suggested by the short spout that

129

V.II. lacks the flaring tip of the later Classical examples. Its pale, micaceous fabric, like that of a Hellenistic mortar at Tenos, indicates a source other than Corinth. 270 193, of a pale fabric without mica, has a raised inner rim, like examples from Delos and Tenos. It could be Corinthian, although the type persists after that city’s destruction in 146 BC.271 A small burnt fragment of a medium-sized Hellenistic cooking pan with the low, sloping wall of Agora Form I preserves the full profile from base to rim (194). This common form, bearing a range of handle types that often are not preserved, could be used for frying, grilling, and baking. The entire interior surface of the Despotiko example is smooth without the polished or grooved lower surface of some. The form was among the household pottery used at the early imperial Skiadas pottery workshop on Paros, and is securely attested in Athens by the first third of the second century BC with variants continuing into the first century AD.272 191. 6PDOOERZOӶۛ *ULG%/D\HU>0RGHUQ@ H. pres. 4.4; W. pres. 8.8; Rim Diam. est. 16. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fabric, sandy fine to medium, with mica, bits of gray, white, and dark inclusions. Exterior gray towards base. Parian?

Fr. of rim and body. Deep, thin-walled bowl with downturned rim and slightly convex body. 192 0RUWDUӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>5RPDQ@ H. pres. 3.6; Rim Diam. est. 32; W. pres. 20. Light red (2.5YR 7/6 [break]) sandy fabric, with much silver mica and angular white and dark inclusions. Fr. of rim and spout. Burnt? (light gray area under spout). Projecting rounded rim with short spout, very slightly flared at mouth. Wheel ridging on exterior where rim was attached to body. Interior smooth and sandy. 193. 0RUWDUӶۛ 5RRP$7UHQFK,VXUIDFH [Modern]. H. pres. 6; W. pres. 20.3; Rim Diam. est. 35.5. Very pale brown (10YR 8/2) medium fine fabric, with small brown and white inclusions. Corinthian. A quarter of rim and wall. Projecting, down-turned rim with ridge along inner edge. Convex, thin-walled body. 194. 3DQ Ӷۛ  %XLOGLQJ $ 6RXWK 3DUW 6WRD Trench Z, surface. H. pres. 3.5; Rim Diam. est. ca. 25; Base Diam. est. 16. Reddish brown (2.5YR 5/4), medium fine fabric, with silver mica, gray, white, and red inclusions. Fr. preserving full profile, chipped. Wall largely delaminated outside. Burnt through, leaving part of interior and rim unaffected. Rounded, slightly thickened rim, low, flaring wall, and flat base.

TRANSPORT AMPHORAS (195-204, Pls. 32-33)

detail

Fig. 16. Fragment of Type II Parian transport amphora $‫ ܠ‬

130

Transport amphoras, extending through the Hellenistic period, reinforce the evidence provided by the abundance of drinking vessels that wine drinking continued to play an important role in cult until at least the end of the second century BC. Most of those that have been identified are Parian or probably Parian. All certain examples are of the third-century BC Type II, as defined by Empereur and Picon in their study of Parian amphora workshops.273 196 has a well-rounded lip. 197 is worn and has been restored with a rounded rim, but was probably more angular than 198, a well-attested form that Emperor and Picon suggest may have been transitional from Type I. The preserved upper handle attachment of 197 has an oval profile more pointed than the lower section of the well-preserved handle of 198. A handle of a well-preserved fragment with URXQGHGULPUHFRYHUHGLQLVVWDPSHGӸ‫נ‬քոփֈ (fig. 16),274 like two handles that Empereur and Picon recovered from a nearby pottery workshop on northeastern Antiparos together with two RWKHU KDQGOHV VWDPSHG ԅնք‫֌׎‬ց 7KH QDPH *RUgos is attested only on Paros and Thasos.275 Fragments preserving the hollowed toes (195, 199-200) are not reliably assigned between Types I and II without more of the lower body. The angular hol-

POTTERY lowed knobs of 195 and 200 fall within the range of both types, while 199 is rounded, unlike published examples of either type. The knob of 195 is larger than those of 199 and 200 and is hollowed out more deeply, perhaps indicating Type I (Early Hellenistic). 199 and 200 more likely belong to Type II, and their surviving lower bodies appear to be more elongated than Type I. Two other toes (201-202) combine the elongated toe of the second-century BC Type III with the depressed center of Types I and II; if Parian, they may be transitional between Types II and III, although mica was not noted in 202.276 A Rhodian fragment of rim and handle VWDPSHG ԅ2ԀԉӶԆӶԈԄԉ GDWHV IURP FD  WR 109 BC (203).277 A fragment of a Dressel Type 4 amphora (204), probably of the late second to first century BC, comes from Kos or nearby. Such double-barreled handles have been recognized as products of Halicarnassus, Miletos, and elsewhere.278 Parian (Pl. 32) Type I?

195. $PSKRUD7\SH," Ӷۛ *ULG.5RRP$ Layer 1 [Roman/Late Antique]. H. pres. 4.4; Base Diam. 4; W. pres. 6.9. Red at core (2.5YR 6/8) with reddish yellow (5YR 7-6/8) surface, medium fine fabric with silver mica, white and dark inclusions. Toe fr. Worn. Body flares out to an angular knob with deep conical central depression.

Type II

196. $PSKRUD Ӷۛ  %XLOGLQJ $ 1RUWK 3DUW Porch. Trench K, Layer 2 [Roman]. H. pres. 11.2; Rim Diam. est. 11.5. Red (2.5YR 6/8) sandy fabric, with silver mica, reddish brown, gray, and tan inclusions. Fr. of neck and rim. Worn. Rolled rim and straight neck. 197. $PSKRUDӶۛ *ULG$/D\HU>+HOOHQLVWLF@ H. pres. 7.2; Rim Diam. est. 12-13. Reddish yellow (5YR 7/6) medium fine fabric, with silver mica, reddish brown and white inclusions. Fr. of rim and neck with handle attachment. Worn and chipped. Triangular rim, almost flat on top. Vertical neck with oval handle attachment. 198. $PSKRUDӶۛ *ULGԀ/D\HU>5RPDQ Late Antique]. H. pres. 13; Rim Diam. est. 10-11. Reddish (5YR 7/8 [break]) medium fine fabric, with silver mica, red, gray, and dark inclusions. Rim fr. with most of one handle (2 frr.). Worn. Triangular rim with flat top; vertical neck with handle, oval in section, attached slightly below rim. 199. $PSKRUD Ӷۛ  *ULG Ӹ /D\HU  1RUWK RI wall of Room A1. H. pres. 5; Base max. Diam. 5.3; Base Diam. 4.

Reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) medium fine fabric, with silver mica, white, and reddish-brown inclusions. Toe fr. Worn. Body tapers to oval knob toe with central conical depression. 200. $PSKRUDӶۛ *ULGԀFOHDQLQJZDOO H. pres. 7; max. W. pres. 7; Base Diam. 4.6 Reddish brown (5YR 6/4 [break]) medium fine fabric, with silver mica and small white and dark inclusions. Toe fr. Worn. Body tapers to angular knob toe with shallow conical central depression.

Transitional between Types II and III?

201. 3DULDQ"$PSKRUDӶۛ 6RXWK3DUW6WRD*ULG I3, Layer 1 [Roman]. H. pres. 7.5; Base Diam. 5. Pale red (10R 6/4 [break]) medium fine fabric with small red and white inclusions. Toe and lower body. Chipped. Angular toe with shallow central depression curving out slightly from tapering slender body. 202. 3DULDQ" $PSKRUD Ӷۛ  *ULG . /D\HU  [Medieval]. H. pres. 4.8; Base Diam. 5.8 Reddish brown (2.5YR 6/4) at core, light red (2.5YR 6/8) on surface, medium fine fabric with silver mica, white, red, and reddish-brown inclusions. Toe and lower body. Chipped. Angular toe with shallow central depression curving out slightly from lower body.

East Greek (Pl. 33) 203. Rhodian Amphora (AK 3811). Room A5, Grid I2/ K2, Layer 3 [Roman/Late Antique]. H. 10. Reddish yellow (near 7.5YR 6/6) medium fine fabric with medium white, red and gray inclusions. Fr. of rim, neck, and upper handle. Rolled rim. Handle attached below rim, slanting briefly upwards before turning down at break. On XSSHUVXUIDFHUHFWDQJXODUVWDPSԅ2ԀԉӶԆӶԈԄԉLQ one line, thyrsus below. 204. 'UHVVHO7\SH.RDQRUSV.RDQ DPSKRUDӶۛ 120). Room A1, Stratum V. H. 15; Rim. Diam. est. 10.5. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) sandy, dull fabric with mica, white, gray, and dark inclusions. Worn. Fr. of rim, neck, and upper handle. Rolled rim. Double-rolled handle attached below rim slants briefly upward before turning down at break.

CLAY LOOMWEIGHT (205, Pl. 33) A small fragmentary conical loomweight (205) with rounded top, preserves a graffito in the ,RQLF DOSKDEHW UHDGLQJ ӿ>@ӾԂԄԇ IROORZHG E\ two short horizontal slashes, plausibly restored DV տփվց‫נ‬օ SXEOLF  տնվց‫נ‬օ DQG տպվց‫נ‬օ DUH DOVR possible. It was surely a woman’s offering, like the Archaic steatite spindle whorl from Stratum

131

V.II. III of Room A1.279 The conical form is widespread from prehistory into Roman times. This example is reminiscent of complete small Classical examples (slightly over 4 cm tall) from the Athenian Agora, and those of Types III and VI from Corinth. Its broad proportions and a small suspension hole suggest that most survives. Without local parallels, dating is uncertain, although use of the Ionic alphabet, with o for omicron, indicates a date after ca. 450 BC.280 205. Conical loomweight (AK 3804). Surface find, 4  -XQH H. pres. 3.1; W. pres. 3.4; Hole Diam. 0.3-0.4. Light red (2.5YR 6/8) sandy fabric with, fine mica, and round, gray and reddish brown inclusions. Almost complete with base missing. Top scratched, flaked and worn. Conical loomweight with rounded apex, horizontally pierced by small hole. *UDIILWRӿ>@ӾԂԄԇ

V.II.5. ROMAN AND LATER CERAMICS (Pls. 34-36)

A significant amount of Roman and Late Antique pottery found in and around Building A awaits detailed study. This small selection highlights well preserved or easily identified types that document the chronological range, seen clearly in four lamps (Pl. 34). The five-petal rosette disk of an intact Knidian lamp with spade-shaped nozzle (form Cn. B) of the later first to earlier second century AD is quite similar to a lamp of the large Romanensis factory, although it has only an incuse foot-print stamp on the base (206).281 A later Corinthian lamp illustrates the Lateran Poseidon type, often identified with a statue by Lysippos at Corinth or its harbor (207). The disk is a worn copy of another Corinthian lamp, where prow and dolphin are sharp; a small, raised lump on the god’s lower left torso suggests that the disc of the Despotiko lamp was copied (possibly by plaster surmoulage), but the greater number of ovules on its rim indicates that, even if an earlier disk was copied, the entire upper lamp was cast from a different mold. Whether or not the image derives from a Lysippan statue at Corinth, its harbor, or one in Athens, is debated. 282 Late Antiquity is represented by an Attic rosette lamp VLJQHG ӽӺԄӹԄԉ IURP WKH SUROLILF 7KHRGRXORV workshop of the mid-fourth to early fifth century AD (208). Böttger dates those from the Athenian Kerameikos with this abbreviation and rosette to AD 360-390.283 A fragment of similar shape, but of different fabric and probably later, preserves

132

0

2cm

Fig. 17. Bronze coin of Arcadius or colleague, AD 386-393 (AK 5179).

part of a neat cross on the disk, a clear indication of the transformation of the old sanctuary (209).284 Pottery also provides strong evidence that significant activity at Building A probably into the third century AD, and it is unclear if, or how long, the cult continued into Imperial times. The absence of fine sigillata wares of the first centuries BC and AD is striking, and two small rim fragments of large and medium lekanai from Stratum V in Room A1 are emblematic of what appears to be primarily domestic activity in early Imperial times (210-211).285 Recovered pottery includes mostly fragmentary jugs and amphoras, some probably produced locally, like the trefoil rim and neck of a gray sandy cookware jug (213) a few thin-walled cups, and many cooking pots. The latter include 212, dated to the first half of the second century AD, similar to an example from the Sanctuary of Poseidon on Tenos. This type was used by potters at the Skiadas workshop on Paros too, and the fabric of 212 could be Parian.286 This full range of pottery is consistent with what has been published from the sanctuary on Tenos that continued in use well into Imperial times, and the popularity of cups is certainly in accord with earlier cult practice. The fourth century AD saw a major transformation of the site that included the deliberate dismantling and reuse of buildings dedicated to the old gods, initiating a major phase that endured from mid-fourth into the late sixth or seventh century AD. A small warren of rooms was built over the southern part of Building A, incorporating architectural blocks from the old temenos (pp. 8, 20, I, fig. 12, II, fig. 31 V.I, fig 1). One of these walls cut across the threshold of Room A5, resting directly on the paving of that room and the portico to the East. A bronze coin, discovered in a trial trench in 2000 (fig. 17), is an example of the smallest bronze coin (AE 4) issued by Arcadius and his colleagues in AD 386-393, that has been described as “one of the commonest coins of the late fourth century [AD]”.287 The obverse shows an emperor’s

POTTERY head to the right with illegible legend, but the well-preserved reverse shows Nike moving left and looking back as she drags a captive behind. A cross with P floats in the field, the legend reads SALUS REIPUBLICAE. SMNA in the exergue identifies the mint as Nicomedia. Other examples of the type were recovered from the portico in the South Part of Building A in 2000.288 Imported red slip wares include a stamped plate fragment of similar date, probably Form 67 from North Africa (214)289 and a rim fragment of the same shape.290 Phocaean red slip ware from Asia Minor (Late Roman C) is more abundant; five or six pieces have been identified, including three of the popular bowl Form 3 from Room A1 dated to the early to mid-sixth century AD (215).291 A well-preserved example of a common stew pot, likely made on Paros, finds parallels in the late sixth or early seventh century AD (216).292 217 preserves the full profile of a small Parian transport amphora of Type IV, probably of the fourth century AD.293 This all attests to a lively and prosperous community during the fourth through sixth centuries, when many churches were constructed in and around the polis center of Paros, incorporating materials from temples of the displaced gods, including the impressive Church of Panagia Katapoliani.294 After the later sixth or seventh century AD, the site was abandoned, and its ruined architecture was possibly mined for the construction of the Venetian Kastro on nearby Antiparos in AD 1440 or taken further afield.295 Excavation in 2001-2002 produced not a single fragment recognized as Middle Byzantine. A late sgraffito bowl base of the Venetian period is not easily dated, with the shape pointing to the sixteenth century AD, and its decoration to the two previous centuries (218).296 An intact Turkish pipe from Stratum V of Room A1 (219) belongs to the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century AD, when Venice remained dominant in the central Cyclades, that were only nominally under Ottoman control.297 Roman and Late Roman Terracotta Lamps (206-209, Pl. 34) Knidian Loeschke, Type VIII

206. Lamp (AK 3636). Room A2, 15/9/2000. H. 2.6; Base Diam. 4.1; W. 9.2. Reddish yellow (5YR 6/6) fine fabric with limey inclusions. Thin slip fired red to brown covers the top, smearing unevenly down the sides. Intact.

Spade-shaped. Disk: rosette (five heart-shaped petals). Raised base, slightly convex, with incuse footprint stamp.

Corinthian Type XXVII C

207. Lamp (AK 4100;). Grid H4, Layer 4 [Roman]. H. 4.2; Base Diam. 3.2; W. pres. 7. Pink (7.5YR 8/3) fine, slightly sandy fabric, with very fine white and dark inclusions. Almost complete, lacking upper nozzle and most of l. side. Plain rim with raised panels at cross axis, ovules along inner edge. Disk bordered by torus between two grooves, pierced by single filling hole placed off center, largely respecting image of Lateran Poseidon type: the bearded god stands l. resting r. foot on worn ship’s prow, and holding trident back in l.; r. hand resting on knee holds worn dolphin; cloak on r. shoulder hangs behind torso, rests on r. thigh and hangs behind it. Narrow hollowed base bordered by groove. Pierced handle with two incisions running its length.

Attic

208. Lamp (AK 3800). Building A, South Part, Stoa, Trench Z, Layer 2 [Late Antique]. H. pres. 3.1; W. pres. 8.8. Light brown (7.5YR 6/3) sandy fabric with mica and dark inclusions. Traces of burning on nozzle. Reddish brown matt slip. Most of disk, half of lower body, and root of handle preserved. Splashes of slip on either side of nozzle, spill on lower body. Disk: 13-petal rosette around central filling hole. Border: two lines with impressed circles. %DVHӽӺԄӹԄԉLQGRXEOHULQJ,PSUHVVHGFLUFOHO of handle.

Unknown origin

209. /DPSӶۛ *ULG./D\HU>/DWH$QWLTXH@ H. pres. 1.3; W. pres. 6.7; Disk Diam. est. 6. Light red (10R 6/8), sandy fabric, with fine silver mica and small white inclusions. Part of disk, shoulder and nozzle. Chipped. Slip preserved on shoulder. Disk slightly concave: cross framed by two filling holes, raised border with central groove. Shoulder: wavy line snaking around dots. Nozzle: smaller dots; raised rim around nozzle.

Roman Utilitarian Wares (210-213, Pl. 35) 210. /HNDQHӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9 H. pres. 3.6; W. pres. 9.7; Rim Diam. est. 29-35. Pink (5YR 7/4), medium fine fabric with hard white inclusions. Worn. Fr. of rim and handle. Flat projecting rim with central ridge. Short, arched horizontal round handle attached just below the rim, adhering to its lower edge. 211. /HNDQHӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9 Rim Diam. est. 25.

133

V.II. Pinkish (7.5YR 7/4), medium fine fabric with small reddish, black, and dull white inclusions. Thin reddish black slip. Small fr. of rim and half of handle. Very worn. Projecting, slanted rim; with central ridge; arched horizontal round handle attached below the rim, adhering to and rising slightly above its outer edge. Upper rim thinly slipped. 212. &RRNLQJSRWӶۛ *ULG+/D\HU H. pres. 6; Rim Diam. est. 18-20. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) with gray core, slightly sandy fine fabric with gray, dark red, and occasional white inclusions. Parian? Rim, handle, and much of profile. Chipped, partly delaminated. Flat everted rim, conical body with sharp carination to curving base. Thin strap handle, slightly ridged, attached under rim and just above carination. Sliced? Exterior smooth. Interior: prominent flat wheel trimming. 213. 7UHIRLOMXJӶۛ *ULG,/D\HU H. pres. 4.4. Gray (near Gray 2, 6/5 PB) sandy cooking ware with mica and small dark inclusions. Fr. of mouth and neck with handle attachment. Tightly pinched trefoil mouth with short cylindrical neck and vertical strap handle.

Late Roman Pottery (214-217, Pls. 35-36) Red Slip Wares (Pl. 35) African Red Slip

214. 3ODWH)RUP"Ӷۛ *ULG./D\HU>/DWH Antique]. W. pres. 9.5; Th 0.4-0.7. Red (int. 10R 5/8; break and base: 2.5YR 5/8) fine fabric with very small red and white or gray inclusions. Three joining body frr. Chipped, scratched. Flat, with slightly defined ring foot, incised wedgeshaped groove. Red slip. Central medallion with impressed radiating palm fronds separated by small wreaths. Hayes Style A (ii), palm type 4, wreath type 35.

Phocaean

215. %RZO)RUPӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP9 H. pres. 2.1; W. pres. 4.9; Rim Diam. 21. Light red (10R 6/6) fine fabric with small white and dark inclusions. Thin red slip inside out. Rim fr. of shallow bowl with carinated rim, slightly offset on underside Rouletting on edge of rim.

Utilitarian wares (Pl. 36) 216. Stew pot (AK 4142). Grid K6, Layers 2 and 3 [Late Antique]. H. pres. 16; Rim Diam. 17. Light red (2.5R 6/8) brittle sandy, fabric with abundant silver mica, white and red inclusions; large angular white and red pebbles erupt from body wall. Parian?

134

Much of rim, most of handle, upper base and three non-joining frr. Burnt. Slightly everted rim with rounded edge, spherical body, round bottom. Short zigzag incised on interior of rim. Exterior smooth with few wheel marks. Prominent wheel tooling inside. 217. Parian transport amphora, Type IV (AK 4143). Grid K5, Layer 4, Grid K6, Layer 2 [Late Antique]. H. 40; Rim Diam. 6.3. Exterior neck, shoulder, and much of upper body unevenly gray (surface 2.5YR 6/6 light red to 5YR 5/2 reddish gray; at break near 2.5YR 6/6 light red); uniformly dull tan inside. Sandy fabric, with small silver and gold mica flakes, white and light gray angular inclusions. Full profile. Rim and handles intact. Much of lower body lost. Long oval body, with rounded base, including interior nipple. Short, slightly convex neck flaring to slightly thickened rim. Flattened oval strap (pulled?), handles attached below rim; one handle has slight central ridge. Light wheel ridging on body, wet smoothed. Deeper, thin wheel ridging around lower body above base. Finger smearing overall.

Venetian and Ottoman Ceramics (218-219, Pl. 36) 218. 3RO\FKURPH 6JUDIILWR ERZO Ӷۛ  5RRP$ Trench I, Surface layer. H. pres. 2.9; Base Diam. 6.1. Light red (10R 6/8) medium fabric, with silver mica, red, dark and white inclusions. Half of low conical base with raised diagonal ledge inside pedestal. Sgraffito interior: white slip, streaked green and brown glaze. Incised: central line with looped zigzags, resembling a snakey staff, framed by crescent-like elements. Exterior and underside reserved; circular drop of glaze inside foot. 219. Tobacco pipe (AK 3640). Room A1, Stratum V. H. 2.5; L. 5.3; Rim Diam. 2.3; Base Diam. 3.3. White (10YR 8/1) fine fabric with silver mica and dark inclusions. Intact. Chipped. Disk based form. Lentoid lower bowl with ruff formed of incised grooves. Zippered keel. Octagonal upper bowl with circular interior slightly off center. Each facet of the bowl is stamped with a triangular leaf, except opposite the stem. Low torus molding at juncture of stem and bowl. Above it a larger torus is stamped (in alternating orientation) with the same leaf as the bowl; flaring lip with base molding of short radiating grooves.

TOWARD DEFINING CULT AND RITUAL AT MANDRA We close with consideration of what the Archaic pottery and other ceramics from Building A presented here contribute to reconstructing the cult at Mandra.298 Cult practices at Mandra can be

POTTERY traced back at least as early as the late ninth century BC. An abundance of animal bones found with numerous drinking and mixing vessels indicates that feasting was a core activity until at least the end of the eighth/early seventh centuries BC.299 Regarding its subsequent development we first present unique textual information on Apollo, the sole deity named in Archaic and later ceramic graffiti recovered at Mandra to date. We close by considering various practical and symbolic roles Archaic pottery played at Mandra, with full recognition that these roles are not easily distinguished and are not strictly distinct. Useful perspective is provided by comparison with published pottery from two contemporary Cycladic sanctuaries: the related local cult at the Delion on Paros and the pan-Hellenic sanctuary of Hera on Delos. Before considering the roles pottery played in these three cults, we first compare the production centers of the pottery reported from each.

V.II.6. CERAMIC GRAFFITI (Figs. 18-20) The most certain evidence for identifying the deities worshipped at Mandra in Archaic through Hellenistic times is provided by graffiti inscribed on sherds recovered in 2001/2002 and earlier: they all name only Apollo. Apollo’s name written in various forms can be certainly recognized in three Archaic graffiti (A-B [67-68], E) and five of Classical or early Hellenistic date (F-G, I-K [176, 180, 182-183]), is likely intended on one (D), and possibly another (C [69]). A late Archaic/early Classical kylix base preserves only a roughly inscribed A (H [147]). These graffiti are all inscribed on banqueting equipment: three kraters (A-C [67-69]) and a variety of black-gloss cups and other open forms (D-K [176, 180, 147, 182183]). None preserves a donor’s name. The placement of text suggests that some were intended for use and not simply for display. The three kraters (A-C [67-69]) have large letters inscribed on their broad vertical rims that would have been prominently visible either to communal drinkers or on display. Two cups (D, I [182]), including the earliest, are inscribed on the exterior. On four other cups, the inscription was out of sight under the foot (E-H [176, 180, 147, 182-183]), like most owner inscriptions (73%) at the Athenian Agora. In comparison, the inscribed vessels at the Heraion of Delos are mostly cups (with a plate and plemochoe), and on most the graffito is prominently visible on the exterior, particularly on the few where donors are named.300

The name of Apollo appears either (i) in full form, whether alone or as part of a longer text; (ii) abbreviated; or (iii) as a ligature or compenGLXPFRPELQLQJӶDQGԅ301 i) The full name is certain on the rim of two imitation Laconian kraters of the later sixth or early fifth century BC (A-B [67-68]), and perhaps a third (C [69]). 7KHYDOXHVRIRDQG֌DUHWUDQVposed, as normal in the Parian alphabet. SimiODUO\ ն DSSHDUV ZLWK FURVVEDU VORSLQJ GRZQ WR ULJKWKDQG FRUQHU ն  DQG ր LV YHUWLFDO ZLWK VKRUWULJKWKDQGVWURNHր 302 A fragment from a small cup or mug (D  SUHVHUYHV LQLWLDO ն DQG IUDJPHQWDU\ۛZKHWKHUIURPWKHJRG·VIXOOQDPH or an abbreviation; in the context of the other JUDIILWLۛLVYLUWXDOO\FHUWDLQHYHQLIRWKHUUHVWRUDWLRQVDUHSRVVLEOHորۚցSHUKDSVքHYHQЊ  ii) The base probably of an Archaic Type B1 mug (E) preserves a gap on the right, indicating DVLPSOHӶԅDEEUHYLDWLRQ Minimal abbreviation is represented by an Archaic A crudely scratched on the reserved resting surface of a fragmentary kylix foot (H [147]) ; it appears to be unrelated to a series of X or + and other lines scratched on the black-slipped upper and lower surfaces. It, D, and E HPSOR\ WKH VORSLQJ ն WKDW LV VWLOO XVHG surprisingly, on a Parian skyphos of the fourth century BC, when the form was no longer in regular use; possibly it offered a traditional or archaizing touch (G [180]). The longer abbreviaWLRQ ӶԅԄԀ ZLWK D QRUPDO ,RQLF ն LV LQFLVHG under an Attic skyphos of the later fifth century (F [176]), as was also inscribed on a (dipped Parian?) skyphos from the temple of Athena at Koukounaries on Paros.303 LLL  7KH ODWHU ն DSSHDUV LQ WKH &ODVVLFDO OLJDtures and compendia. On the exterior probably of a Classical mug (I [182@ DOLJDWXUHDWWDFKHVԅRQ the right leg of A. On the rim of a skyphos or a cup (J  ԅ LV FHQWHUHG RYHU$ LQ D FRPSHQGLXP The several ligatures and compendia on the interior of a Classical bowl or a stemless cup must represent the attempts of a scribe to test variants on a scrap fragment (K [183]). GRAFFITI NAMING APOLLO i. Complete name or abbreviation304 (fig. 18) A. B. C. D.

[67] Krater fr. *UDIILWRRQULP>@Ӷԅۙ>րրփց@ նۛ֌IRUփ [68] Krater fr. *UDIILWRRQULP>Ӷۛ֌@ԀԀԄ>ց@ րփIRU֌ [69] Krater fr. *UDIILWRRQULP>@ۙ>@RU>@Ԅ>@ &XSRUPXJӶۛ 5RRP$6WUDWXP,

135

V.II.

E A

F B

G C

D Fig. 18. Ceramic Graffiti. Complete name or abbreviation: A [67@Ӷԅ‫>ܞ‬րրփց"@ B [68@>Ӷ‫@֌ܠ‬ԀԀԄ>ց@ C [69@>@‫@>ܞ‬ D (Ӷۡ) Ӷԅ ‫ [ ط‬. . .?]. Max. pres. Dimension 3.8. Light red (2.5YR 6/6) fine fabric. Parian? Black gloss inside and out. Body fr. with swelling handle attachment. *UDIILWRӶԅ >"@ն ‫ط‬

H Fig. 19. Ceramic Graffiti. Abbreviations E. ($. Ӷԅ F. [176@$ԅԄԀ G. [180@Ӷԅ H. [147]. A.

I

ii. Abbreviations (fig. 19) E.

F. G. H.

136

Type B1 mug? (AK 4110). Stray find. W. pres. 4.4. Light reddish brown to light red (2.5YR 6/5) fine fabric. Parian. Glossy to dull black gloss inside and out, thin and streaked on resting surface. Dipped? Base fr., body wall. *UDIILWRXQGHUIRRWӶԅն"ۛ [176] Skyphos fr. *UDIILWRXQGHUIRRW$ԅԄԀ նKRUL]RQWDOKDVWDրփKLJK [180] Skyphos fr. *UDIILWRXQGHUIRRWӶԅ նۛ [147] Black-gloss kylix. Graffiti: on black-gloss upper surface at least three X or + under foot, inside stem: at least two more with other lines overlapping onto. 5HVHUYHUHVWLQJVXUIDFH$ն

J

K Fig. 20. Ceramic Graffiti. Ligatures and compendia: I [182@Ӷԅ J ($. Ӷԅ K. [183@Ӷԅ

POTTERY iii. Ligatures and Compendia (fig. 20) I. J.

K.

[182] Black-gloss mug or small skyphos. *UDIILWRӶԅOLJDWXUH Black-gloss skyphos? (AK 5269). Room A3, Trench B, Layer 2 [Late Antique]. H. pres. 2.3; W. pres. 3.2. Light red (10YR 6/6) fine fabric with mica. Fr. of tapered rim of bowl or cup. Worn. Black gloss. *UDIILWRӶԅFRPSHQGLXP [183] Bowl, base fr. *UDIILWLLQVLGHӶԅOLJDWXUHVDQGFRPSHQGLD

V.II.7. LOCAL AND IMPORTED ARCHAIC POTTERY

The selection of Archaic pottery from Building presented here (Table 1, figs. 1, 21) is generally comparable to the published vases from the contemporary votive deposits at two Cycladic sanctuaries, the Delion on Paros and the Heraion on Delos, despite methodological differences and uncertainties (Table 2, figs. 21-23).305 The Heraion deposit is significantly larger and richer, with a very high proportion of oil vessels and much smaller proportion of cups than those from the other two sanctuaries. Discussion first compares

the relative proportions of local and imported wares in the published ceramics from the three sanctuaries before considering implications for the respective cults at each sanctuary reflected in the different proportions of vase shapes at each. Unsurprisingly, the proportion of Parian and Cycladic wares at Mandra and the Delion of Paros is significantly higher than the 7% reported at the Heraion. Myron Bikakis concludes that Paros met most needs with locally produced ceramic and metal vessels, and generally imported only smaller fine shapes.306 The imports from Building A at Mandra, Despotiko are fine wares, except for two Chian transport amphoras (73-74). Corinthian imports (1-56) predominate (73% of imports from Room A1, 34% of the full Archaic catalogue) as at both the Heraion (58%) and the Delion. East Greek imports (71-92: 32% of Room A1 imports, 13% of total) are more abundant here than at the Heraion or Delion. While Attic imports comprise 17% at the Heraion and are well attested at the Vryokastro sanctuary on Kythnos, here (5764) they comprise only 3% of the total 70 catalogued imports from Room A1 and not even 9% of total imports, reflecting the comparative rarity of Attic Archaic pottery on Paros.307 The relative rarity of Attic imports both at Mandra and on Paros perhaps reflects Parian rivalry with Athens

    

  
  

 

   

 

 

 



   

 


     

  


  

  







 

       

 

    
 

 



 
 

 
  

Fig. 21. Comparison by functional shape category of published Archaic pottery from three Cycladic sanctuaries: a. Despotiko, Mandra: pottery in this catalogue); b. Despotiko, Mandra: total fragments from Room A1 (cf. this volume V.I, Table 1, Figs. 11-18); c. Paros, Delion; d. Delos, Heraion.

137

V.II.

Cult Miscellany 1%

Uncertain 5% Closed 4%

Fragrant Fluid 1% Display 13%

Scent 31%

Miniatures 6%

Miscellany 2%

Cups 36% Large Open 1%

Fig. 22. Paros, Delion. Published Archaic pottery by functional category. (N=235; cf. Table 2).

in the North Aegean and Hellespont that culminated in Miltiades’s ill-fated invasion of Paros after the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. Similarly, the selective, if limited, pattern of imports from Chios (71-75), Miletos (76-78, 81), and North Ionia (82), juxtaposed with the absence of imports from Naxos or Samos, appears to reflect Parian partnerships at its colonies at Thasos in the North Aegean and Parion in the Propontis.308 Parian production presented here exhibits a similar range of external ties. Early EG/MG Parian potters adopted their olpe form (148-149, 155) from Lefkandi on Euboea. A contemporary Cretan connection is indicated by a common aryballos form (151), and later the migration of a Parian Cult Miscellany 2% Fragrant Fluid 7%

Uncertain 1% Closed 6%

Display 9% Miniatures 2% Miscellany 1%

V.II.8. POTTERY IN THE ARCHAIC CULT The pottery and other ceramics considered here derive from two successive votive deposits in Room A1 and accumulations from inside and around Building A; they include both disturbed votive dedications and discarded pottery of more general usage. Although pottery in cult deposits often exhibits universal, rather generic traits unrelated either to donor or deity,311 there is sufficient evidence of deliberate selection here to help define cult and activities at Mandra. VOTIVES

Cups 10% Scent 61%

Large Open 1%

Fig. 23. Delos, Heraion. Published Archaic pottery by functional category (N=670; cf. Table 2).

138

LG potter to Crete.309 A distinctive form of ring askos with narrow neck and lekythos mouth is attested on Delos and Mandra in LG II/SG and later is widespread in the central Aegean and Greek East in a range of styles (99-100 and figs. 4, 10). Colonial ties to Thasos are unsurprising, and migration of potters may even be suggested by Type A mugs (134-139) imported from Paros to Thasos and also produced there, with links to the North; similarly dot band skyphoi (101-105) are produced on both islands. The technique of the black-ground polychrome group (127-133) is shared with Euboea, Chian chalices, “South Ionian” bucchero (cf. 89), and South Ionian cups Type 8, some of which were possibly made on Paros (79-80); shapes and exterior banding of some black-ground polychrome cups (130-131 and fig. 8) are like North Ionian rosette bowls. A type of Parian hanging plate/pinax with flat, incised base (160) is shared with Kos, although with different decoration, including the pattern of base incision. These workshop ties and imports from Chios and Miletos are paralleled at Thasos, and suggest links between their ceramic economies (and other East Greek states) reflecting partnerships and networks reported in historical sources.310 These tantalizing hints and others must await confirmation, clarification, and nuance from later discoveries at Mandra, and those at Paros, Thasos, the eastern Aegean, and the North.

Small scent vessels, which were relatively inexpensive exotic luxuries, comprise a significant component at Mandra and in published Archaic sanctuary deposits in the Cyclades, including the Parian Delion, the Delian Heraion (Tables 1-2, figs. 1, 21-23), and the Archaic sanctuary at Vryokastro on the island of Kythnos.312 Although some are decorated with significant iconography, at Mandra they cannot be assigned a significant role in

POTTERY rituals, and should be regarded simply as votives, because, after they had passed out of fashion in the mid-sixth century BC, they were not replaced by Attic lekythoi and alabastra, as occurred at other cult sites, including the Heraion on Delos (Table 2).313 The concentration of aryballoi shows a male focus appropriate to Apollo, since the shape was designed for use in the gymnasium, even if it is primarily found in sanctuaries and cemeteries. Plastic aryballoi in the form of hare (46), cock (90) and most obviously the aidoion (87), all from the first deposit of Room A1, relate specifically to male pedagogy and its pederastic aspect.314 An Attic aidoion with a black-figure courting scene securely connects that shape to pederasty.315 In contrast, a phallos-bird on a “Melian” dish from the Delian Heraion is a heterosexual creature with little interest in boys, reflecting the different character of Hera’s cult, seen most obviously in the nuptial lebes at the Heraion honoring her as goddess of marriage.316 Cocks and hares are the most common gifts in Archaic pederastic courting scenes.317 Cocks were used in cockfighting and are almost exclusively associated with boys. Hares are only slightly less connected to pederasty this early; they are the most common type of Corinthian plastic aryballos dedicated to both male and female deities.318 The scene on a later Attic skyphos is close to pederastic courting (62). The hoplite head (92), lion head (91), and lion figurine (288) from Room A1 (Stratum III) more generally represent manliness and power.319 Confronting bulls on a pair of alabastra (1-2) represent male aggression and lack counterpart on on pottery found to date Paros; a later, two-tier alabastron at the Heraion offers more sinister connotations in bull and boar confronting predatory felines.320 A similar focus on male interests is found in the range of painted iconographic themes, primarily on Corinthian vessels.321 Hoplites are the most common subject, as at the Heraion, and vividly illustrate use of the weapons deposited as votives in Room A1 (220-225, perhaps 226-230). They include scenes of marching hoplites (31-34, a small, worn Corinthian aryballos fragment IURP6WUDWXP,>Ӷۛ@DQG´0HOLDQµNUDWHU IUDJPHQWV IURP %XLOGLQJ ӹ LOOXVWUDWLQJ ZDUULRUV at Troy) plus painted (27) and plastic hoplite heads (92); in contrast, Paros itself has yielded only two such images, including one from the Delion.322 Equestrian subjects (riders: 37, 39; horses 40?-42) are almost as popular, representing a higher percentage than at the Heraion; such themes are absent from Paros.323 Running dogs (8-9, 22, 51) also reflect male interest in the hunt,

VLQFHWKLVKLJKO\GHFRUDWLYHWKHPHLVSHUYDVLYHЯ the most common subject on Corinthian pottery RQ 3DURV Я WKHLU SUHVHQFH KHUH PD\ QRW LQGLFDWH deliberate selection.324 An Attic band cup probably showed a komos (59), a theme later popular at Mandra.325 Corinthian padded dancers are absent, as are other themes found at the Delos Heraion and elsewhere, including mistress of the animals.326 Ceramic votives include miniatures (Tables 1, 2). The five examples presented here represent a fraction of those, recovered especially of Corinthian kotyliskai:327 The 14 reported at the Delion include at least all in Corinthian fabric, and Dugas reports at least another 15 Corinthian kotyliskai recovered at a the Heraion.328 Raw data from Mandra show high numbers especially in Room A1, Stratum III (42 fragments [13%] and 38 ENV [27%]; V.I, fig. 14a, b), and more from Room A3 though representing a lower proportion of the total recovered there (127 fragments [8%] and 38 ENV [18%], V.I, fig. 19a, b). The low numbers in Stratum I should be related to its earlier date before Corinthian kotyliskai, that constitute the majority of miniatures here, became popular. Display of hanging votive plates/pinakes and probably also painted perishable wooden panels and standing decorative objects, was significant at Mandra, as it was as the Heraion, to judge from surviving examples.329 Three different types of Parian hanging plates were found at Mandra. The small, black-ground polychrome plate (128) is a type not found at either the Delion or the Heraion.330 Another plate (160) finds a later parallel at the Delion (fig. 14).331 The white-ground polychrome type with tab (161) is well attested at both Delion (15 examples) and Heraion (12 examples, Table 2, figs. 15, 21-23). “Melian” and other dishes, hung on the wall by their handles, are common at both Delion (15 examples) and Heraion (18 examples, Table 2). UTILITARIAN WARE

AND

CULT EQUIPMENT

Unlike the oil vases, the prominence of cups, jugs, and kraters, seen most emphatically in the raw sherd counts, suggests that communal drinking played a persistent role in the ritual activities at Mandra. Drinking wares typically account for 30% of pottery at sanctuaries, mostly cups as here.332 They comprise a much smaller proportion at the Delos Heraion (Table 2, figs. 21, 23), where Dugas suggested that most were large display pieces never intended for use.333 The cups presented here include a greater variety of local and imported types (Table 1). None has survived complete; some may have been deliberately bro-

139

V.II. ken after use in ritual, as suggested for earlier cups on site, although the presence of graffiti on some may indicate varied practice. Cups of all types cluster in three sizes, based on rim diameter (omitting small fragments and miniatures): i. Distinctly large, with rim diameter ranging from 20 to 25 cm. This group includes Parian metope cups (106-107), an Attic band cup (58) and a skyphos (62), all showy dedications more intended for display than for drinking.334 ii. Full-sized drinking cups, with a rim diameter from 10 to 18 cm, are more common; they include regular-sized Corinthian kotylai (48-51), Ionian cups (79, 81), and Parian dot band skyphoi (101-104), Type B2 mugs (145, dipper? 146), and banded cups (stemless 119, kantharoi? 122-124). Some Delion cups belong here, but at the Heraion only two Chian kantharoi are certain.335 iii. Parian mugs Types A and B1 (134-144) are among the most abundant and best preserved cup form. Together with small Corinthian kotylai (52-53) and kylix (56) they constitute a distinct group of small cups with rim diameter from 5 to 9.9 cm; small kotylai are also abundant at the Delion on Paros.336 This group could have played a role in children’s rites of passage, as suggested from their presence in children’s graves and at sanctuaries of other kourotrophic goddesses, including the Artemision on Thasos.337 They possibly could have been used with the small, well-preserved olpai (148-149, 155, perhaps 150 and 156), like the mug and olpe buried together in Skiadas Grave C.338 Two transport amphoras (73-74), a shape not reported at the other sanctuaries, are strong indication that drinking actually took place at Mandra. Except for the later Laconian kraters and their imitations (65-69), most of the krater fragments (Table 1) date to the seventh century or earlier, as at the Delion (Table 2), possibly indicating a move to more expensive metal vessels. Attic red-figure found at Mandra to date is primarily kraters.339

It is impossible to know to what extent the varied pouring vessels (including 146), were used to serve wine or to pour libations; they include local, and East Greek types, but no Corinthian. Other closed shapes were perhaps also used in mixing and serving wine. The Delos Heraion (Table 2) yielded few of these shapes except oinochoai. Dugas notes that most are small and suggests that they were votives and not actually used for drinking. Some were likely intended for libations, including Corinthian Shape II Type B with a narrow neck, that as Amyx observes “seems to be better suited for pouring oil”.340 In addition to the votives and the feasting equipment, the “temple” deposits also yielded shapes that had a ritual function. This is the case of the Cycladic ring askoi, which were presumably containers of scented oil, honey, or similar liquids for libations, that first appear at unspecified location on Delos in LG II/EPC,341 and at Mandra by the very end of the eighth/early seventh century BC (99). Two ensuing Archaic askoi (100 and fig. 4) are a pale reflection of the 27 at the Heraion, where they are the most common ritual vessel. The Delion had no askoi, but yielded two kothons (exaleiptra), similarly thought to have contained scented oil or other liquids.342 Cult equipment includes a black-ground polychrome phiale (127), matched by six (mostly Attic) at the Heraion. Dugas rightly observed that these colorful ceramic translations of a metal form were intended for display, since pouring libations would damage the fragile interior decoration.343 The thymiaterion lid (162) matches four at the Heraion; none are reported from Delion. In addition to a large sanctuary lamp (165) probably for display or specific ritual use, Mandra has yielded many ordinary lamps for personal use that likely indicate nocturnal activity or rituals, particularly since the Heraion had a single example and the Delion none.

> Table 1 includes catalogued pottery cat. nos. , and D, E from section V.II.6. Abbreviations: bg: black-gloss; bgp: black-ground polychrome; G: Geometric; LG: Late Geometric; PPT (Paros Pointed Toe); SG: Subgeometric.

140

POTTERY TABLE 1. DESPOTIKO MANDRA: CATALOGUED ARCHAIC POTTERY BY SHAPE

Total: (N=169) A. Functional (N=150) Closed (N=13)

(7)

amphora/hydria: Attic 57 6 x oinochoe/olpe: East Greek 76, 77; band 125; monochrome 148; sandy 155, 156

(6)

Scent (N=59)

(50)

(9)

Large Open (N=15)

(5)

Cups (N=48)

(27)

16 x alabastron: Corinthian 1–3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15-18 23 x aryballos: Corinthian 19-31, 33-37; Argive monochrome 70; East Greek 84-86, 88 4 x plastic: Corinthian 46; East Greek 87, 90, 91 3 x ring aryballos: Corinthian 38-40 3 x amphoriskos: Corinthian 41-43 perfume pot: East Greek 89 4 x krater: G/SG 96-98; band 114 dinos: Chian? 75 8 x kotyle/skyphos: Corinthian 48-53; dot band 101; metope 106 7 x kylix: East Greek 79-82; bgp 129-131 11 x mug: Type A 134-139; Type B1 140142, 144, D chalice: Chian 71

Miscellany (N=15)

(9)

B. Cult-related (N=15) Miniatures (N=5)

Room A1 (N=109) (N=98)

(4)

Display (N=3)

(2)

Fragrant Fluid (N=2) Cult Miscellany (N=5)

(1)

Not Room A1 (N=60) (N=52) amphora/hydria: SG/G 93, 94 jug/lekythos: LG 95 3 x oinochoe/olpe: band 126; monochrome 149, 150 3 x alabastron: Corinthian 4, 7, 14 3 x aryballos: Corinthian 32; East Greek? 83; monochrome 151 plastic: East Greek 92 2 x amphoriskos: Corinthian 44, 45

(10)

10 x krater: Laconian? 65, 66?; ps-Laconian 67-69; SG 108-111; band 116

(21)

6 x skyphos: Attic 62; dot band 102105; metope 107 7 x kylix: Corinthian 56; Attic 58-61; bgp 132, 133; bg 147 stemless: PPT 119 4 x mug: Type B1 143; Type B2 145-146, E? 3 x kantharos?: 122-124 lekane: PPT 118 stemmed dish: Attic 64 3 x pithos: 152-154 transport amphora: Chian 74

lekane: PPT 117 bowl: 115 dish: 120 stemmed dish: Attic 63 2 x lid?: “Melian” 112, 113 pyxis: Corinthian 47 mortar: 157 transport amphora: Chian 73 (N=9)

(6)

krater: band 121, krater/lebes 159 dinos: 158 kotyle: Corinthian 55 2 x plate/pinax: bgp 128; monochrome? 160 ring askos: SG 99

(1)

kotyle: Corinthian 54

(1)

plate/pinax: white-ground polychrome? 161 ring askos: monochrome 100

(N=6)

(1)

(2)

phiale: bgp 127 thymiaterion lid: 162

(3)

2 x stand: sandy 163; bg 164 lamp: bg 165

(2)

166-167

(2)

handle: East Greek 72 oinochoe/cup: East Greek 78

C. Uncertain (N=4)

141

V.II. TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF SHAPES AT THE DELION ON PAROS AND THE HERAION ON DELOS (figs. 17-18) Paros, Delion (N=235-237) A. Functional (N=174-176) 3 x amphora/hydria Closed (N=11) (Rubensohn: p. 86, nos. 1-3, pls. 14.1-4) 8 x oinochoe/olpe (7 x Parian/Cycladic: Rubensohn: pp. 93-94, no. 1 (3 x bg), pl. 16, 2-4; no. 2, pl. 16,5 (here Fig. 5); no. 3 (2 frr.), pl. 16, 6, 7; p. 102, pl. 18.13. Attic white-ground: Bikakis: no. 215.)

Cups

Large Open

(N=39)

(N=84-86) 56-58 x kotyle/skyphos (N=71) 23 x Corinthian (Detoratou, nos. 92, 94, 109-111, 118, 120, 121, 125, 145, 154, 155, 167-169, 189-192, Corinthian?: 197); Attic (Bikakis nos. 298, 299); 23-25 x Cycladic G/SG (Rubensohn: pp. 89- 91, pl. 14, 11-22; pl. 15.1 3-5, pp. 100-101, no. 1 [4], pl. 28.6-9, p. 102 [2], pl. 18.15, 16. Bikakis: nos. 31, 461470); 2 x “Melian” (Rubensohn: pp. 104 [AK 34], 109, pl. 20.7). 19 x kylix/cup 9 x Attic: bf: band cup (Bikakis: nos. 260, 263); Droop cup (Bikakis: nos. 269, 272); cup (Bikakis: nos. 283, 285, 289; Rubensohn: p. 128, pl.22.12; rf: p. 128, pl. 22, 13. 4 x Rhodian bird bowl (Bikakis: nos. 9, 11, 12, 15); 2 x Cycladic (Rubensohn: p. 105, no.; Bikakis: no. 18.)  [ IHHW ZLWK JUD΀WL 5XEHQVRKQ p. 129). 4 x kantharos/cup (Rubensohn: p. 91, pl. 15.15-18) 4 x Chian chalice (Bikakis: nos. 25, 27, 28, , 31?). mug (Rubensohn: pp. 88-89, pl. 14, 10). (N=2) 2 frr (Rubensohn: pp. 87-88, nos. 1, (N=9) 2 pl. 14.5-7)

Delos, Heraion (N=670) (N=537) 5 x amphora “Melian” no. 11; Corinthian nos. 475, 476, 489; Fikellura no. 108 3 x hydria no. 15; Attic bf nos. 589, 590 8 x oinochoe trefoil: East Greek nos. 59, 60; bucchero polychrome nos. 109-112; bgp? no. 127; round mouth no. 128 7 x oinochoe/olpe nos. 131–134; Corinthian no. 462; Attic nos. 591, 592) 16 x oinochoe/lekythos conical no. 37; Corinthian no. 488; plump nos. 38, 130?; Corinthian nos. 478–487; uncertain nos. 674, 675 33 kotyle/skyphos G nos. 1-8, 57, 58; Corinthian nos. 490-493; Attic nos. 595-602; uncertain 672,metope nos. 665-668; Orientalizing nos. 35, 4143; dot band nos. 664, 107; eye bowl no. 124 2 x Chian kantharos nos. 119-120 3 x Chian chalice nos. 121-123 32 x kylix $WWLFN\OL[QRV$WWLFUHGÀJXUH nos. 652-654, 655+656 (ARV2, 413, 22, Dokimasia P), 657

6 x krater spout no. 36, Ac? large kantharos no. 39, 44?; bucchero no. 118?; Attic no. 593; AtWLFUHGÀJXUHQR 3 x amphora-krater “Melian” nos. 12-14

Paros Delion: data from Bikakis 1985 (abbreviated as Bikakis) and Detoratou 2003-2009 (abbreviated as Detoratou); Rubensohn 1962 DEEUHYLDWHGDV5XEHQVRKQ 'HORV+HUDLRQGDWDIURP'XJDV6RPHVKDSHVDQGZDUHVDUHUHFODVVLÀHG([FOXGHGDUHWKUHHSLHFHV IURP3DURV'HOLRQSODVWLFSRPHJUDQDWHV5XEHQVRKQSSSO DQGÀYHSLHFHVIURP'HORV+HUDLRQSODVWLFIUXLW SRPHJUDQDWHQRVTXLQFHQRELV$EEUHYLDWLRQVDVLQ7DEOH$OO$WWLFLVEODFNÀJXUHXQOHVVRWKHUZLVHQRWHG

142

POTTERY CONTINUATION TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF SHAPES AT THE DELION ON PAROS AND THE HERAION ON DELOS (figs. 17-18) Scent

(N=73)

Miscellany

(N=4)

B. Cult-related Display (N=30)

Fragrant Fluid

(N=2)

Miniatures

(N=14)

Cult Miscellany

(N=2)

37 x aryballos (N=408) 262 x aryballos 25 x Corinthian (Rubensohn: p. no. 61; North Ionian nos. 73-79; Corin118, no. 3, pl. 21,7; Detoratou thian nos. 135-374; with base nos. 529, nos. 1–5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 16, 21, 27, 538, 660-661; Argive monochrome nos. 28, 31–33, 37, 40–43, 45–47); Ar539–541; Attic nos. 584-588; Cretan? nos. give monochrome (Detoratou: 662, 663 no. 199); 11 x local (Rubensohn: p. 92 x alabastron 105, nos.1-5, pl. 20.1, 3; p. 121, no. bucchero nos. 114-117; Corinthian nos. 1, pl. 22.2; p. 124, nos. 3, 5, pl. 22.4; 375-461; Rhodian no. 683 Detoratou: nos. 205–207). 2 x ring aryballos 3 x plastic (Rubensohn p. 126, no. 2 Corinthian nos. 463, 464 [hare]); p. 128, pl. 22.10, 11 [feet)) 22 x amphoriskos 31 x alabastron Corinthian nos. 465-474; Attic nos. 27 Corinthian (Detoratou: nos. 572-583 48–50, 56–64, 74. 4 x Attic (Bika30 x lekythos Attic nos. 542-571 kis: nos. 244, 245; white ground (nos. 344, 345) amphoriskos Corinthian (Detoratou: no. 203) lekythos Attic (Bikakis: no. 234) 4 x pyxis (N=10) 5 x pyxis (Rubensohn: p. 92, no. 2, pl. 15.19nos. 506-508; Attic nos. 645, 671 21; p. 120, no. 17) 4 x cover/lid Corinthian nos. 509, 510; Attic nos. 647, 680 lamp 649 (N=48) (N=127) 15 x plate/pinax (N=58) 33 x plate/pinax Rubensohn: pp. 98-99, pl. 18.4-5; island Orientalising nos.31-34; whitepp. 110-112, nos. 1 (here Fig. 9) 5 ground polychrome nos. 45-56; (Koan?) pl. 20.10 (not 11; here Fig 14a, b); nos. 71, 72, Corinthian nos. 504, 505, Atpp.114-115, nos. 1-8, pl. 21.3-6. WLFQRV²$WWLFUHGÀJXUHQR Wild Goat: Bikakis: no. 49. 2 x Atuncertain nos. 673, 669 tic bf: Bikakis: nos. 249, 252. 18 x dish/plat creux “Melian” nos. 16–30, 68, 69; Fikellura 70 15 x dish (plat creux, Schlüssel etc.) Rubensohn: pp. 95-97, nos. a.1, 2, 7 x fruit stand b.1, 2, pls. 16.10, 17.1-3; p. 98, pl. South Ionian nos. 62–67; polychrome 18, nos. 1, 3; pp. 107-109, nos. 1-3, bucchero no. 113 5, pls. 19.1, 20.4, 6; p. 116, nos. 1-4; Wild Goat: Bikakis: no. 55 2 x kothon (Bikakis: nos. 306, 307) (N=45) 27 x ring askos nos. 80-106 18 x kothon/plemochoe Corinthian kothon nos. 512-528; Attic plemochoe no. 646 6 x Corinthian (Detoratou: 5 x koty- (N=13) 2 x oinochoe trefoil nos. 129, 682 liskai: nos. 136, 137, 153, 163, 166; amphora Corinthian no. 477 oinochoe 200) Rubensohn: p. 92f., pl 10 x kotyliskai Corinthian nos. 494-503 16.1; p. 103, no. 3b (2 ex.), pl. 18.19; p. 126 (3 ex.), pl. 22.7-8; p.127 (2 olpai) double vessel (Rubensohn: p. 95, (N=11) 6 x phiale no. 5, pl. 16.9) bgp no. 125; Attic nos. 640-644 jar (Rubensohn: p. 95, no. 8, pl. 16.8) 4 x thymiaterion Corinthian 511; Attic bg nos. 648; 678, 679 nuptial lebes Attic no. 594

C. Uncertain (N=13)

6 x Corinthian (Detoratou: nos. 193196, 198, 204); other (Rubensohn: p. 88, nos. 3a-3b, pl. 14.8-9; p. 103, nos. 1, 2, pl. 18.17; p. 109f., no. 7, pl. 20.89; p.111, 2-3)

(N=6)

Attic nos. 650, 651 670, 676, 677, 681

143

V.II. NOTES *

1 2

3 4

Acknowledgments: Robert Sutton and Eleni Hasaki share their deep gratitude to the institutional support, donors, and to the Paros Museum guards expressed by Director of Despotiko Excavations, Y. Kourayos in the Introduction of this volume. Sutton and Hasaki are grateful to the Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades and to Y. Kourayos for entrusting the study of this material to them, and to A. Alexandridou and I. Daifa for their support and for including our contributions in this significant volume. Sutton and Hasaki, who led the publication effort for chapters V.I and V.II, express their sincere thanks to B. de Fraiture for her professionalism, patience, and kindness throughout the production phase. Many thanks also to the anonymous reviewers who have strengthened the content with their astute comments. Sutton and Hasaki gratefully acknowledge funding from the Schrader Fund of Indiana University (Sutton) and the School of Anthropology and Department of Religious Studies and Classics at the University of Arizona (Hasaki). Sutton and Hasaki extend warm thanks to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, HVSHFLDOO\LWVIRUPHU'LUHFWRUV67UDF\DQG-/'DYLV and its administrators M. Pilali and I. Damanaki. For comments on sections of earlier drafts we gratefully acknowledge the kindness of B. Burns, G. Finkielsztejn, +H. Immerwahr, R. Koehl, A. Kotsonas, H. Mommsen, 60RUULV&1HHIW$2KQHVRUJ-2YHUEHFN-3DSD dopoulos, M. Perron, S. Rotroff, G. Schaus, K. Slane, DQG$ =LVNRZVNL 2Q 3DURV - 3DFN DQG 7KH$HJHDQ Center of the Arts generously provided computer access and other essential support; P. Nikolaidis was generous with time and knowledge. The Kydoniefs family at Paroikia extended their warm hospitality to Hasaki. Students who assisted with the pottery include - /LOO\ZKLWH$ 3ORSSHU & 5HQQLH 6 5XVVRQ DQG - Young. Drawings are by C. Kolb and R. Robbins, and photos by Sutton, except as noted. The final layout of figures and plates in V.I and V.II has been undertaken by Hasaki and Sutton with the able assistance of C. Kapuranis and M. Parker and additional help from K. Bostic, S. Long, and T. Swanton. Sincere thanks to spouses S. Sutton and A. May for their patience and support. Adding D and E, in section V.II.6. Tables and charts distinguish categories of practical shapes of personal and domestic use from those designed strictly for display and ritual use in sanctuary or grave. In addition to the functional categories described above, Chapter V.I, n. 6, we add Fragrant Fluid to include ring askos, kothon and plemochoe fragments. E.g., Stissi 2002, 231-234. All measurements are in centimeters. Catalogue numbers beginning with AK are today in the ArchaeologiFDO0XVHXPRI3DURVZKLOHWKRVHEHJLQQLQJZLWK$ۛ are in satellite storerooms in Paroikia on Paros. Contexts are Archaic, except as noted. Previously illustrated: Corinthian: 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15-17, 20-24, 26-31, 33, 35, 37-38, 40-41, 46, 48, 53; Attic and East Greek: 63, 80, 82-83, 86-87; Cycladic/Parian: 92, 97, 99, 103–106, 108, 112, 133. INS A, B, F, G in Kourayos 2005a, 2006a; 2009, 106; 2012, 41-44; Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005; Stampolidis 2003, nos. 275, 342, 407, 440, 509.

144

5

6 7 8 9

10 11

Payne 1931; Amyx 1988; Neeft 1987, 1991a. We are deeply indebted to Cornelius Neeft (pers. comm.), a virtual co-author. Detoratou 2003-2009, 31-36. Dugas 1928, 2-7; Panagou in Alexandridou et al. 2017, 141-148. Detoratou 2003-2009, 90. The earliest Corinthian pottery at Mandra, found in DVVRFLDWLRQZLWKWKHHDUOLHVW%XLOGLQJVԃDQG2LV3& dating from the last decades of the eighth century BC: Kourayos et al. 2017, 355, fig. 17.

A similar pattern is attested at Tocra: Boardman/ Hayes 1966, 21; Stissi 2002, 244-245.

 2WKHUVIURP5RRP$$ۛGHFRUDWHGZLWKDYLDQ FUHDWXUH6WUDWXP, $ۛTXDWUHIRLO"6WUDWXP,  $ۛSDOPHWWH6WUDWXP,,  12 Amyx 1988, 437-439. Silhouette: Payne 1931, 283, nos. 367-375 (Type B); Hopper 1949, 185-192; Stillwell et al. 1984, 226. Linear: Payne 1931, 283-284, fig.121b (Type C, I); Ure 1934, 20, 25-26; Stillwell et al. 1984, 269. Cf. Detoratou 2003-2009, 49-60. 13 Amyx 1988, 51-52, 302, 334-335; Neeft 1991a, 21-22. 14  5LP LQ 6WUDWXP ,, PD\ EHORQJ ԅ   &I Dugas 1928, nos. 456, 492, pls. VIII, XXXI; Payne 1931, 274, nos. 75 A-D; Neeft 1993, 594, no. 3; BAPD no. 106465. 15 Cf. Payne 1931, 281-283, A, nos. 327-337; Detoratou 2003-2009, 56, no. 71, fig. 72. 16 Cf. Stillwell et al. 1984, 109, nos. 468-470, pls. 24, 93; Gela G60, BAPD no. 9007884. With varied flanking figures: Gela G39, BAPD no. 9007885; Stillwell et al. 1984, 98-102, nos. 452, 456, 458, 461-462, 471, 474-476, pls. 23, 24, 92, 93; Detoratou 2003-2009, 54-57, nos. 66, 69, 72, 75, figs. 67, 70, 73, 76. 17 Cotter 2014; Sutton forthcoming. Cf. Stillwell et al. 1984, 101-103, nos. 471 (“doves[?])”, 473 (“large bird”), pls. 24, 93. 18 Cf. Dugas 1928, pl. XXXIX: 386; BAPD no. 1011017. 19 Correcting the Museum Catalogue, a joining fragment ZDVIRXQGLQ$6WURPDԅ&I'XJDV 1928, pl. XXXIX.386; BAPD no. 1011017. 20 Payne 1931, 283-284, figs. 121B, 121bis; Stillwell et al. 1984, 285; Detoratou 2003-2009, 50-52, nos. 51-58, figs. 52-59. 21 12: Detoratou 2003-2009, 52, no. 56, fig. 57. 22 Cf. Stillwell et al. 1984, 286, no. 1559, pl. 63; Detoratou 2003-2009, 52, no. 55, fig. 56. 23 Cf. Detoratou 2003-2009, 50, no. 51, fig. 52. 24 Neeft (pers. comm.). Cf. Neeft 1994, 204, 217 no. 260; Stillwell et al. 1984, 285, n. 1; Dugas 1928, pl. XXVIII.375-377. 25 Payne 1931, 284, fig. 121bis (Group C II, but without dots). 26 Neeft 1987, 11-12, 33, fig. 4, 272. Groups are made in a single workshop, and Types share a decorative scheme; Streams are comprised of Groups and Types that share the same decorative scheme concept. 27 Neeft 1987, 380, fig. 193. 28 Neeft 1987, 274-275, 281-288, fig. 165, 356. 29 Cf. Detoratou 2003-2009, 49-50, nos. 30-32, figs. 31-33. 30 Neeft 1987, 169-183, figs. 81, 84. Cf. Detoratou 20032009, 38, no. 9, fig. 10. 31 Neeft 1987, 241-242, fig. 140 (Stream F, List XCIV: Pisanelli Type). Cf. Dugas 1928, pl. XXI.142 (Subgroup C, no. 2).

POTTERY 32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

41

42 43 44 45 46 47 48

49

50 51 52 53 54

55

56

57

Neeft 1987, 239-241, fig. 139. Cf. Subgroups F, no. 1 (Dugas 1928, pl. XXI.136) and esp. G, nos. 1-2 (Ducat 1962, 173, figs. 1, 2). Neeft 1987, 240 (Archegesion Type, Subgroup I, no. 2), 242 (Pisanelli Type, Subgroup F, nos. 1-5). Neeft (pers. comm). Neeft 1987, 212-214, fig. 123. Cf. especially List LXXXIII:E-5, BAPD no. 9038203. Neeft 1987, 290, 358, 379, fig. 167. The difficulty of dating globular aryballoi precisely within the Corinthian period has long been noted: Payne 1931, 287-292, figs. 123-128 (EC); 303-305, figs. 134-140bis (MC); 319-322, figs. 160-162 (LC); Amyx 1988, 440-443. Cf. The Apprentice: Amyx 1988, 82, pl. 34, 1a-c. Amyx 1988, 88-89, pl. 37 (Luxus Group), though not the same hand here. Payne 1931, 290, nos. 564-599; Amyx 1988, ch. 18, 118126. Neeft (pers. comm.). Cf. helmeted heads on Group E aryballoi to r.: Virginia, Private, Cahn Auktionen AG 2010, 80, no. 161; BAPD no. 9003336; Dunbabin 1962, 154, no. 1638, pl. 63; to l.: Athens 18806, Empedocles 1937, pl. 10, reverse, upper row, 3rd from r.; Palermo 15242, Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 49, no. 1, pl. 1. On other aryballos types, e.g., Lion Group (Amyx 1988, 123, no. 40) CVA Louvre 8, pl. 19 [486]: 21-25. Neeft (pers. comm.). Cf. sirens with outspread wing: Vatican 16470, Albizzati n.d., no. 104, pl. 8; Harvard 2389, CVA Fogg, pl. IV [342]: 15. For subject cf. Lion Group, Amyx 1988, 123, nos. 24-25. Payne 1931, 290, 304; Ure 1934, 38-41, 97-99; Dugas 1928, 70-71, lists 35. Neeft 1991b. Probably Detoratou 2003-2009, 47, no, 39, fig. 40. Neeft 1991b, 128-129, fig. 1c. Neeft 1991b, 127-129, fig. 1a. Neeft 1991b, 128-129, fig. 1d. Cf. Payne 1931, 320, fig. 160. Neeft (pers. comm.): same hand as Andreiomenou 1990, 130, pl. 91a, from Akraiphia. Another fragment with a shield edge comes IURP5RRP$Ӷۛ6WUDWXP,  Cf. Payne 1931, 287, no. 485 A, fig. 54 D (47). Neeft (pers. comm.): cf. Group of Zürich 2449, especially with three doubly inscribed tongues: Aegina 589, Neeft 1993, 566, no. 242, figs. 57-58; Ragusa 5504 from Camarina, Rifriscolaro, grave 344, both. Other quatrefoil aryEDOORV IUU Ӷۛ *ULG Ӹ /D\HU   PRXWK ZLWK reserve rosette; probably AK 5840 (Grid B3, Layer 2) body and base frr. Cf. Payne 1931, 291, 304, 321. Cf. Payne 1931, 291, fig. 128d. Payne 1931, 313; Amyx 1988, 446; other frr. were not inventoried. Amyx 1988, 496-497; Fichera forthcoming, 1-7. Neeft 1977-1978, 146-147; 38: Neeft 1977-1978, 160, nos. 67-70, fig. IV; 39: Neeft 1977-1978, 160, nos. 81, 90-117, fig. V. Cf. Neeft 1977-1978, 144-149: 41: Neeft 1977-1978, nos. 11–21, 42: Neeft 1977-1978, nos. 6 (rosettes), 81, pl. V (mane). Neeft (pers. comm.): Amyx 1988, 497; cf. same hand?: Catania 6579, Fichera forthcoming, 48-49, no. 1724; Stockholm NM 1316 (H. 14.6), BAPD no. 1003784, also nos. 1004368, 1004967, 1005256, 9006587, 1013105; Dugas 1928, pl. XXXV.470. Neeft (pers. comm.): NC Type 1357. Cf. Taranto 25020, Vaccarella, grave 40 (14.6.1926) unpublished.

58 59 60 61 62

63 64 65 66

67

68

69

70

71 72

73

74

75

76 77

78 79 80 81

Böhm 2014, 83-98, listing 148 examples. Böhm 2014, 97, 235-237, nos. H 76-106, figs. 424-472. 46: no. H 88, fig. 448. Cf. Payne 1931, 292, fig. 129, pl. 22.7. See Benson 1983, 311-326. Cf. Painters of Poor Style: Payne 1931, 308; Amyx 1988, 132-136. Kotylai A: Grasso 1998, pls. 1-11; Brownlee 2003, 184-189. Neeft (pers. comm.) knows three-line borders only on two vases by the Painter of Béziers 71 and on another kotyle once on the Zurich market. Neeft (pers. comm.). Payne 1931, 309, fig. 150 (Kotylai D); Grasso 1998, 105-107, nos. 660-686, pl. 46. Risser 2001; Neeft 2006, es 94-97, fig. 11 a-b. Type 2, probably 2c (Neeft [pers. comm.]). Shorter and broader than Blegen et al. 1964, 190-191, 172-c to e, pl. 26. Type 10 (Neeft [pers. comm.]). Cf. Risser 2001, 60-61, nos. 124, 131, pl. 10; Detoratou 2003-2009, 75-77, nos. 154-463, figs. 147-152. 55: Type 6 (Neeft [pers. comm.]). Cf. Risser 2001, 68-69, nos. 187-189, pl. 13, figs. 126-130; Stillwell et al. 1984, 310, no. 1685, pl. 67; Boardman/Hayes 1973, 14, nos. 1922-5, pl. 8 (Type 2). Despotiko: Kourayos 2006a, 60, 191, pl. III:1; others from Room A1 include (Stratum III): AK 3720, AK 3745. Neeft (pers. comm.). Cf. BAPD nos. 1006423, 100717; Grasso 1998, 129-134, nos. 866-906, fig. 12, pl. 52, esp.

no. 873; Amyx 1988, 251, 254, nos. 54-64; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 36, pl. 19. Cf. Detoratou 20032009, 69-71, nos. 127-134. Bikakis 1985, 131-216, 300-304; evidence from Despo-

tiko confirms the rarity of Attic, but suggests different conclusions. Kourayos 2006a, 66, 192, pl. IV:3-6; 2009, 22, 68, 69; 2012, 62, 168, 169; Sutton/Kourayos 2014, 256; Kourayos et al. 2017, 351, 356, fig. 12. Berlin F 1818, 1824, Mommsen 1997, pls. 4, 9a. Not Group E (H. Mommsen [pers. comm.]) Cf. Moore et al. 1986, no. 1729, pl. 112; BAPD nos. 4827, 9029283. The shape is well-represented at Mandra on Despotiko (Kourayos et al. 2017, 356), as well as on Paros (Bikakis 1985, 132, nos. 260 a, b, pl. 38). Moore et al. 1986, 65. Cf. Boardman 1974, 62, fig. 130, 234; Vierneisel/Kaeser 1990, 23, fig. 1.7, 38, fig. 2.30, 67, ILJ7KHVHFRQGIUDJPHQWRID&DVVHOFXSLV$ۛ 042 from Trench B (Layer 8), preserving myrtle leaves in the handle zone. Cf. Moore et al. 1986, 65-66; Boardman 1974, 61-62, 234, fig. 128; Vierneisel/Kaeser 1990, 23-24, figs. 1.8, 39-40, figs. 2.31-2.32. Three cups of this type are reported from Paros: Bikakis 1985, 132, 191-192, 172, nos. 269, 270, 272, pls. 39, 40. ABV 617-626; Moore et al. 1986, 60-61. Cf. e.g., BAPD no. 306373, for palmettes nos. 4562, 306212, 306369, 306372. Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 138, 14-142, 305, esp. no. 991, fig. 9, pl. 35. Bikakis (1985) reports no Laconian pottery or imitations from either Paros or Naxos; the cups he includes (pp. 77-79) are now recognized as Cycladic dot band skyphoi (cf. 101-105, q.v.). Cf. Stibbe 1989, 39-40, 43, 107, 108, 110, nos. F31, F40, F78, figs. 64, 67, 79. Cf. Dunbabin 1962, 101, pl. 33.16. Kourayos et al. 2017, 358-359, figs. 24-25; Alexandridou 2019. Cf. Stibbe 1989, 14, 51-57, figs. 57-65, 135-142. See Erickson 2010, 60 and 112 for Cretan imitations. For a “Laco-

145

V.II. nian” krater from Aegina: Klebinder-Gauss 2012, 68, 259, cat. no. 326, pls. 31, 62, 98, with inconclusive archaeometric results (Klebinder-Gauss 2012, 128-131). 82 See e.g., 164-165. For the use of added white: 95, 143144, black-ground polychrome 127-133 and possibly 79). 83 Kourou 1987a; 1988. 84 Cf. Rubensohn 1962, 106-107, pl. 20.2; Paros AK 4461 on display; Dugas 1928, 155, no. 539, pls. XLV, XVII, 119, no. 9, pl. LXIV. 85 Morgan 1999, 148, no. 475, fig. I.57, 288-289; Courbin 1966, 131, 185, n. 5, pl. 97.C. 2700, C. 4671, C. 1103. 86 We are grateful to Gerald Schaus for comment and advice. 87 Cook/Dupont 1998, 5-7; Coulié 2013, 142-187; 2015. 88 Cook/Dupont 1998, 140-142; Kourayos/Burns 2017, 336. 89 Kourayos et al. 2017, 356, fig. 18. 90 Bikakis 1985, 28-29, who had only whole pots available. Cf. Kourayos et al. 2017, 356, n. 76. 91 Dugas 1928, pls. XII, XV (Wild Goat), no. 108, pl. XVII (Fikellura); Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, pls. XXXVIII-XLII (Wild Goat), L, LI (Fikellura). 92 Cf. Boardman 1967, 103, fig. 60; Lemos 1991, 6-10, 80-84, figs. 2, 41-43. 93 Cf. Boardman 1967, 107, no. 846, pl. 64; Lemos 1991, 179, no. 1654, pl. 219. 94 Cf. Cook/Dupont 1998, 148, 150, fig. 23.2:a.; Anderson 1954, 136, 139, 169, 175, nos. 21, 48, fig. 9: b, c; Boardman/Hayes 1973, 62-63, fig. 25, no. 2263; Sezgin 2004. 95 Cf. Cook/Dupont 1998, 149-150, fig. 23.2:e; Anderson 1954, 139, 169, 175, no. 51, fig. 8:51. 96 Cf. Lemos 1991, 20, no. 277, fig. 8, pl. 35. For the “Melian” dinos and pithos, Kourayos et al. 2012, 137, 163, figs. 48, 78. 97 Kerschner/Schotzhauer 2005; Schlotzhauer 2006; Coulié 2013, 149-170. 98 Cf. Cook 1933-1934, 37-39, pl. 16:a, 18:b; BAPD nos. 1000569, 1002631, 1004776, 9011693, 9013187; eyebrows: Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, pl. L:9; Coulié 2014, 149-150. 99 Cf. BAPD nos. 102644, 1004987; Cook/Dupont 1998, 83, fig. 10:5. 100 Cf. Cook 1933-1934, 80, fig. 15, 6, pl. 17 g; Cook/ Dupont 1998, 32-70, 77-89; Kerschner/Schotzhauer 2005, 8, 46-52; Schlotzhauer 2006, fig. 10. 101 Schlotzhauer 2001, 19, 103-105, 317-328, nos. 50-170, pls. 28-30, 118-122. 102  ӶۛնշULPIUUZLWKKDQGOHURRW 103 See below 131. 104 Villing/Mommsen 2017, 129 with n. 27, 131, fig. 25. 105 Schlotzhauer 2001, 105-111, pls. 34, 197, 200-203, and 95:616 (Attic). 106 Cf. Cook/Dupont 1998, 26-27, fig. 206; Perreault/ Bonias 2006, 52, 176, pl. IV:1, 1a. 107 Kunisch 1972, 558-559, fig. 6a. 108  )ULLV-RKDQVHQ&RRN'XSRQW Stampolidis 2003, 297-301, nos. 271-288; Coulié 2013, 185. 109 Rubensohn 1962, 105, nos. 1p2, pl. 20.1, 3. 110 111 112

113

Cf. Boardman/Hayes 1973, 14, no. 1972, pl. 8; Dugas 1928, nos. 529-530, pls. VII, XLV.

Cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 116, no. 10, pl. LXIV. Vallet/Villard 1964, 90-91; Schaus 1985, 73-85; Boldrini 1994, 75-79; Cook/Dupont 1998, 136-137; Pautasso 2009, 25-39, 122-145. Dugas 1928, 51-53, nos. 109-118, pls. XVIII, LX; Dugas/ Rhomaios 1935, 75-76, nos. 2-9, pls. XLIX, LII, LXIV.

146

114 115 116

Furtwängler 1980, 174, 204, no. I/38, pl. 45.8; Schaus 1985, 73. Kunisch 1972, 559-560, fig. 6c.

Cf. Kinch 1914, 152, fig. 49, pls. 31.7 and 32.3 (shallow grooves); Walter-Karydi 1973, nos. 268-269, pl.

35; Stampolidis 2003, 301, no. 290 (incised); Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 381, no. 3851, pl. 67. 117 Cf. Vallet/Villard 1964, 91, pl. 79.5; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 69, no. 830, pl. 48; Schaus 1985, 74-75, nos. 455465, fig. 9, pl. 27; Dehl-von Kaenel 1995, 383, no. 3924, pl. 67; BAPD no. 9031671 (added red); Pautasso 2009, 29, 36-37, nos. 46-49, fig. 4, pl. II. 118 Boardman/Hayes 1966, 65-66, 69, nos. 831-834, pl. 48. 119  -RKDQVHQ 120 LC: Higgins 1959, 7, 42-43, no. 1676, pl. 29. 121 Ducat 1966, 151, with references; NY, Metropolitan Museum 41.162.199. https://www.metmuseum.org/ art/collection/search/254370?sortBy=Relevance&ft=41.162.199&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=1. 122 E.g., BAPD nos. 601, 3820, 6023, 6432, 9136, 9690, 275172, 300386, 301624, 9030646. 123 Higgins 1959, nos. 1645 (with dotted mouth), 1662, pls. 17, 24; Villing/Mommsen 2017, 137-139, fig. 36. 124 Ducat 1966, 4, n. 2, cf. pl. XVII:1-2 (slip-painted), 3-4 (painted after firing); Higgins 1967, 30, 32. 125 Higgins 1954, 47, no. 53, pl. 11; Ducat 1966, 119-120, pl. XVII:3; Amsterdam, Allard Pierson Museum, CVA Hague 2, 6, pl. IID and IIIC 2:14 [NL pl. 69:14]. 126 Cf. Higgins 1954, no. 54, pl. 11; 1959 nos. 1635, 1639, 1640, pls.15, 16; BAPD no. 1008832. 127 Amyx (1988, 524-526) considers most to be Rhodian or East Greek. Cf. Higgins 1959, nos. 1620-1627, pls. 10-12; Ducat 1966, pls. I, II, VII.1-3; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, pls. XLIX.66. 128  6FKLODUGL  -RQHV      659, 856; Gautier 1990; 1993; Whitbread 1995, 224-233; Coulié 2013, 56, 98-102, 231-232, 245-258. For kilns: Empereur/Picon 1986a; 1986b; Hasaki 2010; Hasaki/ Kourayos 2017. 129 Zapheiropoulou 1994; 1999; 2000; 2006; 2007; Coldstream 2008, 176-181, 468-469; Coulié 2013, 56, 98-102. 130 Coulié 2013, 245-258; Zapheiropoulou 2017. 131 Perreault 1999a, 1999b; Blondé/Perreault/Péristéri 1992, 2013; Perron 2018. 132 Sheedy 1985, 152; Higgins/Higgins 1996, 171, 180-182, figs. 15.1, 15.8; Alexandridou forthcoming c. 133 “Mica” is embedded in the literature, where, as here, it may include other sparkly minerals. “Silver mica:” &RXOLp   .RXNRXQDULHV  ´*ROG PLFDµ -RQHV 1986, 262-265, 280; Whitbread 1995, 226-229, 229 n. 1, fig. 4:28; Higgins/Higgins 1996, 171, fig. 15.1. For the geology of Despotiko: Draganits 2009; Kourayos et al. 2017, 349-350. 134 Schreiber 1986; fingermarks: Cracolici 2003, 137-147, esp. fig. 64. 135 Alexandridou 2019; forthcoming c. 136 Cf. Zapheiropoulou 1994, 131-132, figs. 6-7; Zapheiropoulou 2007, 115, fig. 8; Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 29-30, nos. 16-19, pls. V, VI, VIII; Sheedy 1985, figs. 3, 4, 5a, 8d, 9d, 10b, 11 b, 15-19, 24, 25. 137 Papadopoulos/Smithson 2002, 161-172. This motif survives well in the Archaic period: Sheedy 1985, 156; Papadopoulos/Vedder/Schreiber 1998; Perreault/Bonias 2006, 52, 177, pl. VI.1; Coldstream 2008, 150, 180. 138 Zapheiropoulou 2002, 284, pl. 76.B-D; 2017, fig. 15.11; Coldstream 2008, 468-469, pl. 20.f; Coulié 2013, 101, fig.

POTTERY 78; 2007, 59, n. 52. Cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 79, 106, pls. XXXVI (Bb 10), XLIX (Cretan 4, 5); Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 194, pl. LXVIII (Ind. 9). For the motif: Kunisch 1998, 166-168, 170-171, figs. 66c, 67f; Dugas/ Rhomaios 1934, 79, no. 8, pl. LXXV. 139 Cf. Rubensohn 1917, 76, fig. 84; 1962, 90, nos. 2-5, 9, 10, pl. 15; cf. n. 182 (Kythnos). 140 Zapheiropoulou 2006, 272-273, figs. 1-4; Coulié 2013, 100, fig. 77. For the same disposal in Argive LG: Courbin 1966, pl. 40: C. 240; Boardman 1998, fig. 129; Coldstream 2008, 462. 141 Oakeshotte 1966, 124-126, 130, pl. 9.a, b; Schilardi 1979, fig. 151. 142 AK 5415 from Building B (2013) with flaking black paint. 143 LG (not LH, as Dugas) from Delos: Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 10, no. 15, pl. II.15 (for checkerboard cf. LG Ac 1, Ae 62 pls. XIX, XXXI. For serpentine motif cf. LG II? lekythos-oinochoe: Dugas 1928, no. 37, pl. IX (derived from a EPC model, as Coldstream 2008, 107, 175, pls. 21c, 36b). Later: Dugas 1928, 43-48, nos. 80-106, VII, XVI-XVII; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 65-68, nos. 42-59, pls. XLVII, XLVIII. Thasos: Bernard 1964, 140-141, fig. 51. Aegina: Furtwängler 1906, 436, no. 20, fig. 347, pl. 121.40, 40 a, pl. 124.5. Samos: Eilmann 1933, 140, pl. XL.7-8 (LG/SG); Vierneisel 1961, 25, pl. 33.5. Pitane: Iren 2003, 147-148, nos. 322-324, pls. 67-68; Boardman/ Hayes 1973, 19, no. 1988, pl. 10. 144 Masner 1892, 4, no. 36, pl. 1; BAPD nos. 1005045, 9015374, 9024084, 9026103. 145 Cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, no. 48, pl. XLVIII; Eilmann 1933, 140, pl. XL.8. 146 Rubensohn 1962, 93-94, no. 2, pl. 16.5. Cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, pl. XX.9a. 147 Dugas 1928, 43-44, nos. 84, 85, pl. XVI; less close Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 66, no. 45, pl. XLVII. 148 Blondé/Perreault/Péristéri 1992, 28-30; cf. their omission from Stibbe 1994, subgroup Ec, 67-69, 176-177, nos. E15-E28, figs. 237-245, pl 13.1, 2, noting that the decorative scheme originated in East Greece and had “local imitations”. 149 Correcting Bikakis 1985, 77-89, nos. 78-80, fig. 5, pl. 9 (“Laconian”). 150 Launey 1944, 121, 123, no. 33, fig. 46; Ghali-Kahil 1960, 58, nos. 31, 34-35, pls. XXI, XXII; Blondé/Perreault/ Péristéri 1992, 28-30, 33; Perreault 1999a; KoukouOL&KU\VDQWKDNL0DUDQJRXILJոչ 151 Delos: Dugas 1928, 193, no. 664, pl. LI; Aigina: Furtwängler 1906, 455, no. 236, pl. 128.32, CVA Copenhagen, National Museum 2, pl. 79:9; Eastern Crete: B. Ericson (pers. comm.); Megara Hyblaia: Vallet/Villard 1964, 128, pl. 76.2. 152 An example with arched base comes from the Northeast Cemetery on Paros. A skyphos from Naxos with low ring base: Bikakis 1985, no. 79, fig. 5. 153 A fragment recovered in 2010 has a sharp horizontal transition from red to black due to stacking in the kiln, like others found elsewhere. 154 Grid H2, Layer 2. 155 Blondé/Perreault/Péristéri 1992, 30. 156 Kourou 1999, 22-23, figs. 17. 157  /D\HUԅQG/D\HUԅ 158 Grid H2, Layer 2. 159 See notes 148, 149. 160 Paros: Rubensohn 1917, 76-77, figs. 83-86; 1962, 89-91, pls. 14.11-22, 15.2-13; Schilardi 1983, 179-180, figs. 10, 11; Bikakis 1985, 195, 283-294, fig. 6, pl. 59. Naxos: Walter-

Karydi 1973, fig. 42.2; Morris 1997, 69, fig. 4; Morris 2007, 104, fig. 9; Simantoni-Bournia 2002, 273, pl. 70.D. Kythnos: Koutsoumpou 2017, 162-163, 166, nos. 1-2, figs. 16.3-16.4. Delos: Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 59-60, Ae 57, 64, pls. XXIX, XXX; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 50-51, lin. 16-18, 20, pls. XXXVII,LXVIII. Siphnos: Brock/ Young 1949, 45, pl. 15. Thasos: Ghali-Kahil 1960, 55-56, nos. 10-21; Blondé/Perreault/Peristeri 1992, 24-31; 2012, 131-132; Perreault 1999, 254-256. Tocra: Boardman/Hayes 1966, 74-75, 77-78, nos. 918-920, fig. 38, pl. 54; Boardman/Hayes 1973, 34-36, nos. 2099-2100, pl. 20. 161 Perreault 1999, 255. 162 Blondé/Perreault/Péristéri 1992, 24-29, 30; Perreault 1999a; 1999b; Perreault/Bonias 2006, 52, pls. V.1, X.1; Ghali-Kahil 1960, 55-57, nos. 9-29, pls. XX-XXI. Cf. Vokotopoulou 1990, 82-83, pls. 16.1, 17.2. 163  3IXKO   QR - SO ;;,; &ROGVWUHDP  179, n. 16, pl. 37e. 164 Sheedy 1985, 189. Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 13-14, nos. Aa 1-13, 21-25, 32, 36, Ab 1-2, 7, pls. II–VII, IX, XV, XVI; no bands: mug no. Ae 1, pl. XXXI; Brann 1962, 46, nos. 120, 121, pl. 7. 165 Plus two small possible non-joining frr. of the “Daedalic” figurine (or stand?) (276) IURP$Ӷۛ  6WUDWXP ,  FKHYURQV Ӷۛ 6WUDWXP ,$  pendant rays. For later discoveries of “Melian”, see Kourayos et al. 2017, 353-355, fig. 15. 166 Koutsoumpou 2017, 136, fig. 6. 167 Zapheiropoulou 2003, 10-11, 163 (hydria 4), figs. 11, 10, pl. III. 168 Dots: Zapheiropoulou 2003, fig. 15.19-20; rays: Zapheiropoulou 2003, fig. 35.4-5; combined: Zapheiropoulou 2003, nos. 30 (phase 1), 115, 117, 141, 154, 158, 161, 176, 182, 185, 186, 189, 192, 280, 283, pls. XVIII, XIX, XCVI, CXVIII, CXXIX, CXXXI, CXXXII, CXLVII, CL, CLIII, CLIV, CLVI, CLVIII, CLXX1, CLXXVII. 169 Motifs: cf. e.g., Rubensohn 1962, pl. 19; Zapheiropoulou 2003, figs. 3.2, 9, 4.1-4. Rim: Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, pls. XXI:C 13, XXIV:D 1, BAPD no. 9015409 (amphoras). 170 Cook/Dupont 1998, 132. 171 E.g., Kourayos et al. 2017, 352, fig. 13. 172 For shape: cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 69, no. Af 7, pl. XXXIII; Brann 1962, 44-46, nos. 106, 113, 115-116, 119, pls. 6-7; BAPD no. 1006620; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 77-78, no. 908, fig. 38. 173 A small banded dish (plat creux) from Rheneia apparently with similar foot may be related: Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 69, Af 7, pl. XXXIII. 174 Salviat 1983; for profiles: Coulié 2008, 444, figs. 3, 11, 14; for interior decoration: Zapheiropoulou 2003, pls. LXXVII:59, 73, 92, CLXV-CLXVIII: 250-257. 175 Brann 1962, 44-45, esp. no. 112, pl. 7. For Attic early black-figured lekanai: Alexandridou 2011, 26-27. 176 Boardman/Hayes 1966, 51-52, nos. 682-683, fig. 26, pl. 37. Their decoration of white dot chevrons and stripes on a black everted rim loosely resembles other pieces in the black-ground polychrome group. 177 Cf. Courbin 1953, 324, 327, 332, 336, figs. 1-6, 13, 18, 20; Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 59-60, 63-66, nos. Ae 48-56, 74-91, pls. XXIX-XXXII, XLVIII. 178 Cf. LIMC VII, 1994, 340-341, 345-346, esp. nos. 143, 152, 158, 164, pls. 296-298, 300, s. v. Perseus (Roccos); runner: Dunbabin 1962, 410, 427-428, no. A 81, pl. 181. 179 Kotsonas 2008, 62-63; Papadopoulos 1994, 473-482. Cf. Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 69, no. Af 8, pl. XXXIII.

147

V.II. 180

Euboea: Lemos 1991, 2-3., East Greek: Dugas 1928, 51-53, nos. 109-118, pls. XVIII, LX. Corinth: Payne 1931, 19-29; Amyx 1988, 540, pls. 7.1, 10. Athens: e.g., KunzeGötte et al., 1999, 67, Grave 242, no. 10, pl. 41, fig. 6; Six's Technique: Cohen 2006. 181 Buschor 1929, 146-148, fig. 4 (reversed). 182 Fig. 8: AK 1298, Bikakis 1985, 60-62, no. 60, pl. 6 (Northeast Cemetery). Fig. 9: AK 126: Rubensohn 1962, 110111, no. 1; Bikakis 1985, 54-55, no. 49, pl. 5 (Delion). 183 Dugas 1928, nos. 99-102, pls. XVI-XVIII. 184 Brock/Young 1949, 48, nos. 1-3, 5, pl. 15:24, possibly no. 4, small closed shape. We are grateful to Athena Tsingarida for discussing Brock’s finds on Siphnos. 185 Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 64-65, nos. 38, 40-41, possibly 37, pls. XLVI-XLVII (Rheneia). 186 Koutsoumpou 2017, 136-137, fig. 4. 187 On the askoi: Dugas 1928, 47, nos. 99-100: “surface entièrement recouverte de vernis noir, y compris l’intérieur de l’embouchure”. Cf. Dugas 1928, nos. 102-103, pls. XVI, XVII, XLV; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 64, no. 38, pl. XLVI. 188  6LPLODU$ۛնշ (A1, Stratum VI), rim frr. with handle root. For a skyphos from Rheneia: Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 65, no. 40, pl. XLVII. 189 Except for the Rheneia phiale with black omphalos: Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 65, no. 41, pl. XLVII. 190 See also the phiale from Rheneia, cited n. 189. 191 Brock/Young 1949, 48, no. 3, pl. 15:24. 192 Brock/Young 1949, 48, no. 2; Alexandridou et al. 2017, 136-137, fig. 4. 193 Dugas 1928, 51-52, nos. 109, 110, pls XVIII, LX. 194 Schlotzhauer 2001, 19, 103-105, 317-328, pls. 28-30, 119121; Charalambidou 2017, 125-126, figs. 14:4, 5; Dupont 2018, 43, fig. 2. 195 Bikakis 1985, 60-62. Cf. also Brock/Young 1949, 48, no. 1; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 65, no. 40, pl. XLVII (exterior rays). Cf. Cook/Dupont 1998, 26-28; Utili 1992; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 44, 55-56, no. 723, fig. 28 (profile). 196 Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 56, 64, no. 37, pl. XLVI. 197  $.IURP5RRP$7UHQFK/D\HUԅ 198 Kourayos et al. 2017, 353, fig. 14. 199 Desborough 1952, Attic: 101-102, Type A: 155-157, 168, pl. 19. Generally: Coldstream 2008, 9-11, 14, 18, 23, 87, 151, 153, pl. 32d; Popham et al. 1990, 293-295, fig. 7.G..RXURXQRILJնSOնո 200 Skiadas plot, Grave C, probably of a child: Sutton/ Kourayos/Hasaki forthcoming. 201 Rubensohn 1917, 74; 1962, 88-89, pl. 14.10: H. 5.5, Rim Diam. 6.5. This mug, though taller, must have been similar to the mug from Skiadas, intermediary to Despotiko Type A, being similar in height to Type A, but taller than Type B1, with its rim diameter significantly smaller than either. 202 Others from Room A1, Stratum I: AK 5270 (body fr.), ӶۛULPIU  203 As on Crete: Coldstream/Eiring/Forster 2001, 55-56, 78-79, figs. 1.19f, 2.1c. 204 Brock/Young 1949, 44, no. 2, pl. 16.2; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 73-74. A. Tsingarida kindly allowed us to examine those from Siphnos. 205 Tocra and generally: Boardman/Hayes 1966, 73-75, listing other sites; 1973, 74. Naxos: Simantoni-Bournia QILJVն.HD%XWW 1977, 304-307; Sutton 1991, 252. Andros: Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 222, inv. 1154, pl. 256:c, d. Melos: Catling 2005, 76, n. 33. Thasos: Ghali-Kahil 1960, 72, no. 128, pls. E, 30; Perron 2018. Argilos: Perreault/Bonias, 2006, 51, 174, pl. II.c.

148

206

 %RDUGPDQ+D\HV   -RQHV    Table 8.19, no. 11. 207 According to Martin Perron (2018), many mugs from the Artemision on Thasos are Parian or locally made. Thanks to M. Perron for generously sharing proofs and comment. 208 Cited n. 205. 209  -.3DSDGRSRXORVEHOLHYHVWKH\DUH$WWLFSHUVFRPP  210 Brann 1962, 53, no. 184, pl. 10 (well O 12:1): rim diam. 8.9 cm; very pale brown fabric (10YR 7/4) with mica, white, red, and brown inclusions, spalls and voids on surface. 211 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, no. 1392, pl. 45; rim diam. 6.3 cm; mostly gray (burnt?), with few small and medium white inclusions, small dark grains, probably mica, small voids and eruptions. 212 Ohly 1971, 521, 524, fig. 10. 213 A third uninventoried example was recovered from Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. 214 Kourayos et al. 2017, 353. 215 As Kotsonas suggests (pers. comm.). Cf. Tod 1911-1912, 7KUHDWWH-HIIHU\ 216 Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 91-92, 264, 265, especially nos. 413 (Type C), 432 (Type B), fig. 4. 217 This is consistent with the mugs, especially of Type B1 and three inscribed rims of “Laconianizing” krater rims described above as possibly Parian (67-69). 218 Sutton/Kourayos/Hasaki forthcoming. Rubensohn 1962, 93, pl. 16.2-4; Schilardi 1987, 223, pl. 159:a; Dugas 1928, 60, no. 131, pl. XXXVII. 219 Blondé/Perreault/Péristéri 1992, 23-26, nos. 6-7, figs. 11-12. 220 AK 1201. 221 Sutton/Kourayos/Hasaki forthcoming. 222 Attic: Smithson 1961, 163, no. 34, pl. 24.H 9; Coldstream 2008, 11. Cretan: Coldstream/Eiring/Forster 2001, 42-43; Dugas/Rhomaios 1934, 107, no. 12, pl. XXII; Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 76, Bucchero no. 8, pl. LXIV; Pfuhl 1903, 147-148, nos. C40-C47, pl. 19.2-3, 9-10, perhaps 213, no. R 5-7, pl. 38.7-8; Kotsonas 2017, 21. For a Euboean LPG version: Popham et al. 1990, 322, 324, fig. 16.F, 288-292, pls. 168.2, 5, 174.13, 2. 223 Rubensohn 1962, 124, pl. 32.3. 224 Simantoni-Bournia 2004, 100, 114, 117, 118; Bakalakis 1987, 533-553. 225 Kourou 1999, 25, 82-84, no. 59, pl. 52; Simantoni-Bournia 1998a, 491, n. 24. 226 Simantoni-Bournia 1998a, 491, 508, 512, no. 10, fig. 10 (sic); 1998b, 374, 383, 400, no. 20, fig. 16; 2004, 65-66 on incision. 227 Ghali-Kahil 1960, 70, no. 119, pl. XXIX. For rounded tongues: Brock/Young 1949, 56, no. 6, pl. 20; Simantoni-Bournia 1990, 90-92, pls. 7.K 14, 17.K 46, 18. 228 Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, Bc 21, pl. X; Zapheiropoulou 2003, no. 38, fig. 11.8, pl. XXV, no. 51 fig. 34:6, pl. XXXVII, no. 246, fig. 70:5, pl. CLXV; Coulié 2013, 255, fig 257 (Delos Bc 20). 229 Cf. Dugas 1928, 60, no. 134, pl. XXXVII. Cooking pots: Brann 1962, nos. 203-210, pl. 11. 230 Villing/Pemberton 2010, 580, no. 20, fig. 11. See also a locally produced lekanis from Vryokastro on Kythnos: Tsilogianni in Alexandridou et al. 2017, 168, 170, fig. 83. 231 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 369, nos. 1887-1888, 1891, 1994, pl. 90; Matteucci 1987, Type I, 254-255, pl. 11. 232 For Corinth and the production of mortaria: Villing/ Pemberton 2010, 624-627.

POTTERY 233

ThesCra 2006, 337-339; Villing/Pemberton 2010, 620621. 234 Bronze cauldrons: Stampolidis 2003, 421-422, nos. 684686, 424-430, nos. 699-721. Clay cauldrons: Kunze-Götte et al. 1999, 461-464, nos. 51-53, pls. 43-45, esp. 467-470, nos. 57-59, pls. 54-57; miniature: Caskey/Amandry 1952, 200, nos. 243-245, pl. 56. 235 Caskey/Amandry 1952, 206, no. 302, pl. 59 236  3RVVLEOH VPDOO IU RI DQRWKHU Ӷۛ 5RRP $ Stratum V1 [2b]): H. 2.3, Diam. est. 24; fine pink fabric (5YR 7/4) with two shallow incisions at the edge of the base. 237 Rubensohn 1962, 111-112, no. 5, pl. 20.10 (not pl. 20:11, apparently a different one of similar type). 238 Villing/Mommsen 2017, 109-126, esp. fig. 10; Coulié 2014, 182-191. Cf. Boardman/Hayes 1966, 43, 48-49, nos. 608, 613, fig. 24. 239 Rubensohn 1962, 114-115, nos. 1-2, pl. 21.3-5; Dugas 1928, 27-32, nos. 45-56, pls. VIII, XI, LVII, LVIII, LXVI; Dragendorff 1903, 222-223, pl. II; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 74, 77-78, no. 917, fig. 38, pl. 54, noting the similarity of fabric to “Melian”. 240 Lemos 1991, 85-86, 270, no. 684, fig. 44, pl. 91; Coulié 2013, 253-255, 264-268, figs. 259, 269-270. 241 Zaccagnino 1998, 83. Cf. Dugas 1928, 192, 195, no. 679, pl. XXXV; Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 131, esp. no. 1344, pl. 34; Kourouniotis 1936, figs. 23-26. Later: Boardman 1967, 174, nos. 897-898, fig. 120, pl. 66; Stillwell et al. 1984, 196, no. 1038, pl. 45; Risser 2001, 134-135, no. 587, fig. 26. 242 Zaccagnino 1998, Types B1, C1, 70-71, pl. 2. 243 Kourouniotes 1936, figs. 1-3, 17-21; Boardman/Hayes 1966, 71, no. 875, pl. 50; Zaccagnino 1998, Types A1, A2, 58-70, 125, 173-177, pl. 2:4. 244 Howland 1958, 44-46, pls. 6, 34. Cf. thymiateria supports: Kourouniotis 1936, figs. 23-24. 245 Boardman/Hayes 1966, 140-141, no. 1438, fig. 68, pl. 90; Broneer 1977, 18, no. 137, pls. 3, 17; Bruneau 1965, 23, 25-27, 29-30, nos. 127, 236-237, 264, 312, 1599, pls. 2, 4-7. 246  $ۛ$ۛ$ۛ$ۛ Ӷۛ 052. Kourayos et al. 2017, 356, fig. 19. 247 We are grateful to Susan Rotroff for discussing many of these fragments from photographs and drawings. 248 E.g., Matheson 1995, 91, pl. 69, 285, pl. 177; BAPD 213410*, 213532, 213561*, 215220, 215270 (starred examples include fruit. Leaves are oriented r. or l., with or without central veins). 249 See Matheson 1995, 50-52, pl. 38 (Polygnotos), 151-155, pls. 134-135 (Dinos Painter), 139-142, pls. 123-124 (Kleophon Painter), 89, 93, pls. 65, 69 (Lykaon Painter). 250 Sutton/Kourayos 2014. 251 Rotroff 1997, 38-43; ivy: 48, nos. 170, 173-174, fig. 13, pl. 16; technique cf. skyphos from Pergamon: Schäfer 1968, 60, pl. 10, D 25. 252 Sinn 1979, 52, 57-58, 143-146, no. MB 113, pl. 30; rev. Rotroff 1986. Contrast lack of background in Rotroff 1982, 19-20, 69, 71, nos. 203, 220-223, pls. 39, 43. 253 Cult table: Rubensohn 1962, 58-62, pl. 10a; Zapheiropoulou 2003, 44-48; Davidson 1952, 64, 129, nos. 879, 146b. 254 Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 259, no. 342, fig. 4. 255 Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 259, nos. 345-348, pl. 16. 256 Development of the Attic form: Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 84-85; Rotroff 1997, 94 , 451 (on well F17:3) updates the chronology, places the final phase in the 260’s BC, and notes the difficulties of dating, which is more uncertain for fragmentary local imitations: 180; cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 260, nos. 350-352, fig. 4, pls. 16-17; 181 has the

narrower base of the latest phase: Rotroff 1997, 258, nos. 152-154, fig. 12, pl. 14. 257 Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 260, no. 352, fig. 4, pl. 17; Rotroff 1997, 94-95, nos. 151-152, fig. 12.X-1. 258 Cf. 140-146 with the rim of an Attic two-handled mug, Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 253, no. 223, fig. 3, pl. 11 (ca. 450 BC) and discussion of I below. 259 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 136-137, cf. 302, no. 937, fig. 9, pl. 34; Rotroff 1997, 165-166, cf. 346, nos. 1064, 1065, fig. 65, pl. 78; cf. Etienne/Brun 1986, 205-206, 209, no. Ac 6, pl. 113. 260 Shape: Rotroff 1997, 247-251, nos. 52-89, figs. 7-9, pls. 6-9 (cup kantharos), 248-249, 251, nos. 70, 72, 88, figs. 7-9, pls. 7, 9 (reserved groove on top of stem), 244-245, 249-251, nos. 27, 31, 74, 78, 85, 87-89, figs. 5, 8, 9, pls. 3, 8, 9 (thin ribbing on lower body). Also: Etienne/Brun 1986, 208, no. Ac 3. pls. 93, 113. 261 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 123, 287, no. 719, fig. 7, pl. 29; Rotroff 1997, 90, 103-104, 252, 268-269, nos. 101, 256, figs. 9, 17, pls. 10, 24. A similar handle was found in the foundation of the Pergamon altar, constructed mid-second century BC: Schäfer 1968, 55, no. 27, fig. 19. 262 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 22-30, pls. 47-59. 263 Sparkes/Talcott 1970, no. 484, 103, 269, fig. 5, pl. 23; cf. also 110-111, 277-279, nos. 580-611, fig. 6, pl. 26 (cup skyphoi). 264 Similar treatment of the underside on an example from domestic context in the Skiadas plot in Paroikia on Paros: Hasaki/Kourayos 2017, fig. 10. General type: Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 128-129, 292-293, nos. 782-806, fig. 8, pl. 32. 265  3UREDEOH WKLUG HFKLQXV ERZO IRRW  Ӷۛ 5RRP $7UHQFK$VXUIDFHԅ 266 Etienne/Brun 1986, 210-211, 213-216, Bd 5, Ca 11, pls. 96, 97, 116, 117. Cf. Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 131-132, 295296, nos. 830-837, fig. 8, pl. 33; Rotroff 1997, 161-163, figs. 62-63, pls. 74-75; Edwards 1975, 29-31, nos. 20, 23, 27, pls. 2.43-44; Alexandridou et al. 2017, 166-168, n. 258, figs. 71, 72, 267 Cf. Bruneau et al. 1970, 248-249, no. D 64, fig. 127, pl. 43. 268 Cf. Bruneau 1970, 505-506, 518-521, nos. 188.4 and 188.5, figs. 105-106, 212; Anderson 1954, 152, 165, 178, nos. 213, 357, fig. 15. Saucer: Etienne/Brun 1986, 222, no. Ea 10, pl .120. 269 Third to early first century BC: Etienne/Brun 1986, 222, Ea 11, pl. 104, 120; Rotroff 2006, 277, no. 303, fig. 52, pl. 41. Its profile is closer to lekanai (Rotroff 2006, nos. 249, 251, fig. 42, pl. 35) and black-gloss bowls (Rotroff 1997, nos. 1093, 1097, 1100-1101, 1105, figs. 66-68, pls. 79-80). 270 Cf. Edwards 1975, 109-110, pls. 22, 59 (Mortar I). For the Corinthian Sandy Class: Sparkes/Talcott 1970, 221222, 369, nos. 1896-1898, pl. 90, 92, fig. 16; Rotroff 2006, 99-101, no. 181, fig. 30, pl. 24; Etienne/Brun 1986, 218, no. Cd 14, pl. 100. 271 Rotroff 2006, 100-101, 299 (chart), figs. 30-32, pls. 24-26. Cf. Etienne/Brun 1986, 218, 222, nos. Cd 14 (micaceous) and Ea 15 (non-micaceous), pls. 100, 103, 120; Bruneau et al. 1970, 259, D 227. 272 Rotroff 2006, 186-189; cf. 31, esp. no. 679, fig. 86, p. 28l. 70, 71; Hasaki/Kourayos 2017, 477, fig. 28. 273 Empereur/Picon 1986a, 504-505, figs. 9 (Type I), 10; 1986b, 649-651, figs. 8-9. 274 ӶۛVXUIDFHILQG%XLOGLQJӹ*ULG"% ԅ6)6RI7/D\HU 275 Empereur/Picon 1986b, 647-652, figs. 1, 5-9; they were impressed with different stamps. 276 Type III: Empereur/Picon 1986a, 505-506, fig. 11, b, d, e.

149

V.II. 277

Stamps of the fabricant Polyaratos appear on jars of the eponyms Aischinas, Aristombrotidas, Damon, Nausippos (Akamatis 1989, 90, no. 4), and maybe Teisamenos, who are assigned by Finkielsztejn (2001, 195, table 21 and pers. comm.) to Period Vc, dated to the last quarter of the second century BC, before 108. 278 Lawall et al. 2010, 274, 294-295, 374, 402-403, describes this angular handle as a late feature; Georgopoulos 2004; Finkielszstejn 2004. 279 For dedications of loomweights: Sofroniew 2011. 280 Davidson/Thompson/Thompson 1943, 65-73, 76-78, 89-90, nos. 116, 120, fig. 38; Davidson 1952, 145-161, 163-171, nos. 1072-1073, 1117, pls. 74-75. The conical shape is rare on Delos: Zapheiropoulou 2003, 155, pl. /9-HIIHU\ 281 Loeschke, Type VIII. Cf. Bailey 1988: disk, 346, no. Q 2782, pl. 86. Base stamp: near Bailey 1988, 136, no. Q 2774, fig. 142, pl. 345; Perlzweig 1961, 4, 83, no. 129, pls. 5, 52; Bruneau 1965, 129-130, nos. 4618-4623, pl. 30. Fr. of this or similar type: Etienne/Brun 1986, 230, Gb 9, pl. 109. 282 Cf. Wohl 2017, 95, no. 136 with references; Siebert 1966, 478, 480-481, fig. 6; Broneer 1930, 90-102, pls. 11-12, esp. nos. 598, 600. On molding and casting lamps: Karivieri 1996, 21-25. This image combines features – draped leg and dolphin – of two different versions of the Lateran Poseidon identified by E. Simon, LIMC VII, s. vv. Poseidon, 452-453, nos. 34-39, pl. 335 and Neptunus, 485, nos. 14-16, pls. 380-381. 283 Broneer 1930, 232, no. 976, pl. XXXII, disk: 231, fig. 164, rim: 103, fig. 48, 3, nozzle: 105, fig. 49, combining 2 and 3; Bruneau 1965, 138, no. 4683, pl. XXXII. Theodoulos: Perlzweig 1961, 39; Böttger 2002, 72-73, 75, 338. 284 Broneer 1930, 110, fig. 52.2. 285 First century AD, possibly later: Etienne/Brun 1986, 229, Ga 19, pls. 108, 123. 286 Etienne/Brun 1986, 229, 231, nos. Ga 16, An. 19, pls. 111, 126 (complete version of Agora V, no. G193, pl. 7); Hasaki/Kourayos 2017, 477, fig. 28. 287 AK 5179 found in a test trench 15/9/2000. Grierson/ Mays 1992, 116, 113, table 21, pls. 4-6; on the mint see pages 48-56, with table 8, and on Nicomedia, 64. 288 Bronze coins AK 3547-3554 recovered 15/9/2000 from paving east of Wall 6 (the Eastern wall of Rooms A3-5). Nike dragging a captive is certain on AK 3553, probable on AK 3552, 3554, and possible on AK 3551. 289 Ca. 360-420 AD, prob. toward the later end. Cf. Hayes 1972, 112-116, 217-219, 229-230, fig. 4j, k, 236, 238, fig. 41t. 290  Ӷۛ 291 Cf. Hayes 1972, 329-338, fig. 69, esp. nos. 17, 23, 1980, lix. Other Phocaean RS: Form 3: ӶۛӶۛ )RUP $ Ӷۛ DQG Ӷۛ SURE WKH VDPH YHVVHOSHUKDSVDOVRWKHERZOӶۛ 292 Cf. Aupert 1980, 433-434, fig. 43 nos. 290 B, C; Slane/ Sanders 2005, nos. 3-30, p. 272, fig. 8, 266, 294, n. 108. 293 Empereur/Picon 1986a, Fig 12, esp. e, after Riley 1979, 213, 233, no. D 377, pl. XXXV, fig. 94. Another: AK 4141 from Grid K4, Layer 2. 294 Kourayos 2004, 17-18I, 46-47, 53-58. 295 Kourayos 2004, 64-65, 71. 296 Base profile (not fabric); cf. Hayes 1992, fig. 107, 2.1 =74.20, from deposit dated ca. AD 1525-1550; decoration recalls Venetian San Bartolo ware cup rim from Lido, late thirteenth to fifteenth centuries AD, Saccardo 1993, 220, pl. 4.4. 297 Cf. Hayes 1980, Types III and XXVI; Robinson 1985, no. C3, pl. 47. The white biscuit also suggests the early date: Vroom 2005, 172-175.

150

298

Kourayos et al. 2017; et al. 2018; Kourayos/Daifa 2017; Kourayos/Burns 2017; Angliker 2017. 299 Alexandridou 2019. 300 Lang 1976, 38. Dugas 1928, nos. 595, 621-626, 652, 695 (graffiti on cups and plates exterior), no. 603 (prominent on cup rim interior), no. 546 (plemochoe shoulder), nos. 627-629, 635, 638-639 (under foot), nos. 595, 603, 652, probably 628 (naming donor). 301 Threatte 1980, I, 108-109. 302  -HIIHU\SOQRV 26-39 (Table of Letters). 303  6FKLODUGLSOշ 304  /HWWHUIRUPVDV-HIIHU\ 305 For the Delion of Paros: Rubensohn 1962, 83-129, pls. 14/22. He reports (10, 21, 128) that most pottery comes from a favissa under the temple. The publication is incomplete, and occasionally inaccurate (Bikakis 1985, 20-23). For Corinthian material we rely on Detoratou (2003-2009) and for other imports on Bikakis (1985); both include later finds (Zapheiropoulos 1960). For the Heraion on Delos: Dugas 1928. 306 Bikakis 1985, 80-81. 307 Bikakis 1985, 129-304. Reservations of Paleothodoros (2018, 108) concerning black-gloss imports are not supported here. Alexandridou et al. 2017, 149-159. 308 Boardman 1980, 229-232, 241; Berranger 1992, 164-169, 170-184; cf. Lemos 1991, 208-222. 309 Kotsonas 2008, 72-77. 310  /DQ]LOORWWD-HIIHU\%HUranger 1992, 164-169, 312-316; Cook/Dupont 1998, 50, where Paros should be added; Boardman 1980, 229232, 241; Ghali-Kahil 1960, 22, 34-47, pl. III.1-4. 311 See Chapter VI. 312 Stissi 2002, 231-258; Panagou in Alexandridou et al. 2017, 146-148, figs. 20, 23. 313 Stissi 2009, 30-34. 314 Dover 1978, esp. 81-100; Lear/Cantarella 2008, esp. 72-73; Sutton 2014. 315  $OJUDLQ%ULVDUW-XELHU*DOLQLHU   ILJ  BAPD no. 301082. 316 Dugas 1928, 20, 179, nos. 28, 594, pls. IV, XLVIII; Burkert 1985, 131-135; Boardman 1992, with fig. 1; Oakley/ Sinos 1993, 6; Sutton forthcoming; 317 Koch-Harnack 1983, esp. 64-97; Beazley 1989b; Schnapp 1997, esp. 126-144, 318-350; Lear/Cantarella 2008, index s.v. hare. 318 Biers 1999, 137; 1992. 319 Kourayos/Burns 2004-2005, 147, fig. 17. 320 Dugas 1928, 130, no. 427, pl. XXIX. 321 See Shanks’s (1999, 151-168) broader interpretation of PC iconography. 322 Kourayos et al. 2017, 353, Fig. 15. Paros: Detoratou 2003-2009, 58-59, no. 80, fig. 81 (alabastron). Delos Heraion: Dugas 1928, 70-71, 74, 78, nos. 274-300, 303, 306, 308, 353-355, 457-459, pls. XXIV, XXV, XXVIII, XXXI (T=36), no. 305, pl. XXV (helmet). 323 Dugas 1928, 71-71, nos. 304, 309, 460, pls. XXIV, LV. 324 Dugas 1928, 63-65, 75, nos. 139, 147-149, 386-387, pls. XXI, XXIX; Detoratou 2003-2009, nos. 5-8, 10, 12-14, 24 (aryballoi), nos. 94, 95, 100-108, 111? (kotylai). From Delion nos. 7, 13, 94, 111?). 325 Sutton/Kourayos 2014. 326 Dugas 1928, 71-72, nos. 301-303, 326-329, pls. XXIV– XXVI (dancers), 71, nos. 307, 450-451, pls. XXV, XXXIII, LXVII (mistress of animals). 327 See n. 67.

POTTERY 328 329 330

331 332 333 334

Dugas 1928, 176; cf. 80-89, 145-157, nos. 494-503, pls. XXXV E, XXXVI E. Dugas 1928, 4. Although one was recovered from a Delian grave later moved to Rheneia (Dugas/Rhomaios 1935, 64, no. 38, pl. XLVI); no. 37 is perhaps an earlier version. See above n. 237. Stissi 2002, 248. Dugas 1928, 3-4. Most cups at the Heraion are of this size or larger, to the extent this can be determined, and generally well-decorated. Nine, all Attic, have inscribed dedications. Dugas 1928, 3-4, 80, nos. 41-42, 121, 123-124, nos. 490-492 (Corinthian frr.), nos. 596-597, 604-606 (Attic bf), nos. 594, 603, 621-622, 624, 626, 628 (inscribed), no. 652 (red-figure). Dugas’s total of 79 drinking cups includes seven South Ionian fruit stands (“coupes plates”, 1928, 2-3, nos. 62-67, 113).

335 336

337 338

339 340 341 342 343

Heraion: Dugas 1928, nos. 119, 120, pl. XX, Delion: Detoratou 2003-2009, nos. 92, 118?, 192. Detoratou 2003-2009, nos. 94, 110?, 111, 120, 121, 125, 145?, 154, 155, 167-169, 189?; the Delion yielded only a single mug (cited in Table 2). Perron 2018, 281-282; Sutton/Kourayos/Hasaki forthcoming. The Delion yielded at least four olpai of similar size: Rubensohn 1962, 93, no. 1, pl. 16:2, 3, 4; Sutton/ Kourayos/Hasaki forthcoming. Sutton/Kourayos 2014, 258 Dugas 1928, 4. Amyx (1988, 287). In Table 2 they are listed as oinochoe/lekythos. See above n. 143. Scheibler 1964, esp. 79, 91-92. Dugas 1928, 4.

151

Plates V.II. Pottery

POTTERY

IMPORTS: Corinthian Alabastra

PLATE V.II.1. 1

155

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 2

156

IMPORTS: Corinthian Alabastra

POTTERY

IMPORTS: Corinthian Ovoid and Piriform Aryballoi

PLATE V.II.1. 3

157

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 4

158

IMPORTS: Corinthian Globular Aryballoi

POTTERY

IMPORTS: Corinthian Globular Aryballoi, Aryballoi with Base

PLATE V.II.1. 5

159

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 6

160

IMPORTS: Corinthian Ring Aryballoi, Amphoriskoi

POTTERY

IMPORTS: Corinthian Amphoriskoi, Hare Aryballos, Pyxis

PLATE V.II.1. 7

161

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 8

162

IMPORTS: Corinthian Kotylai

POTTERY

IMPORTS: Corinthian Kotylai; Attic

PLATE V.II.1. 9

163

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 10

164

IMPORTS: Laconian(?) and “Laconianizing”

POTTERY

IMPORTS: “Argive Monochrome” Ware; Chian

PLATE V.II.1. 11

165

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 12

166

IMPORTS: Milesian; Ionian cups

POTTERY

IMPORTS: East Greek? Rhodes: Spaghetti Ware; Eastern Bucchero

PLATE V.II.1. 13

167

V.II.

PLATE V.II.1. 14 IMPORTS: East Greek Plastic Aryballoi; PARIAN: Geometric/Subgeometric

168

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Geometric/Subgeometric

PLATE V.II.2. 15

169

V.II.

PLATE V.II.2. 16

170

PARIAN AND RELATED: Dot-Band Skyphoi

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Metope Skyphoi and Kraters, Wavy Band Kraters

PLATE V.II.2. 17

171

V.II.

PLATE V.II.2. 18 PARIAN AND RELATED: Orientalizing “Melian” Ware / Other Orientalizing

172

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Banded Ware, including Parian Pointed Toe (PPT) Class

PLATE V.II.2. 19

173

V.II.

PLATE V.II.2. 20

174

PARIAN AND RELATED: Banded Ware, Other Open Shapes

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Black-ground Polychrome Group

PLATE V.II.2. 21

175

V.II.

PLATE V.II.2. 22

176

PARIAN AND RELATED: Black-ground Polychrome Group, Type A Mugs

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Type B Mugs

PLATE V.II.2. 23

177

V.II.

PLATE V.II.2. 24

178

PARIAN AND RELATED: Monochrome Kylix, Olpai, Aryballos

POTTERY

PARIAN AND RELATED: Relief Ware, Plain Ware

PLATE V.II.2. 25

179

V.II.

PLATE V.II.3. 26

180

CULT-RELATED CERAMICS: Miniatures, Plate/Pinax

POTTERY

CULT-RELATED CERAMICS: Cult Equipment, Uncertain

PLATE V.II.3. 27

181

V.II.

PLATE V.II.5. 28

182

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: Attic Red-figure, Hellenistic Fine Ware

POTTERY

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: Black-gloss Skyphoi

PLATE V.II.5. 29

183

V.II.

PLATE V.II.5. 30

184

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: Black-gloss Bowls

POTTERY

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: Black-gloss, Household Wares

PLATE V.II.5. 31

185

V.II.

PLATE V.II.5. 32

186

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: Parian Transport Amphoras

POTTERY

CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC CERAMICS: East Greek Transport Amphoras; Loomweight

PLATE V.II.5. 33

187

V.II.

PLATE V.II.6. 34

188

Roman and Late Roman Lamps

POTTERY

ROMAN AND LATER CERAMICS: Roman Utilitarian Wares, Late Roman Red Slip

PLATE V.II.6. 35

189

PLATE V.II.6. 36

190

ROMAN AND LATER CERAMICS: Late Roman and Later Ceramics

V.III. The “temple’s” deposit: objects other than clay vases Yannos Kourayos, Bryan Burns, Ilia Daifa

Clay vases might have dominated the depositions discovered inside Room A1, but they were not alone. Hundreds of objects were recovered, including weaponry and tools, jewellery, dress ornaments, figurines, metal vessels, as well as numerous beads and scarabs.1

9ӾӾӾ :($3216 $1' 722/6 The presence of iron weapons and agricultural implements inside Room A1 is highly interesting.2 Most of them were found clustered together at the lower levels of the deposit, unfortunately badly corroded and in fragmentary condition.3 Iron knives and daggers dominate (more than 40),4 followed by spearheads, axe heads and sickles.5 Most knives belong to Petrakis’ Type I, and fewer to Type I2.6 They vary in size from 11 to 31 cm. Notably, in contrast to other categories of objects from the deposit, none of the weapons, tools or agricultural implements is miniature in size. It is difficult to date each item with accuracy, since they all represent types commonly attested in various sites from the Mycenaean period

onwards. Based on the chronology of the pottery from the deposit, they can be placed between the end of the eighth and the middle of the sixth century BC. The size and shape of the discovered knives and daggers do not seem to be indicative of military activities – though this could be the case particularly of the larger items. Alternatively, they should be better assigned a practical role, related to agricultural and pastoral life. They could have been used for sacrifices in the sanctuary before being deposited under the floor of the renovated “temple”.7 The same stands for the sickles, often used as cult implements.8 Weapons and agricultural implements are common in Greek sanctuaries during the Early Iron Age and the Archaic period.9 They cannot be related to the cult of a particular god, since they are commonly found in sanctuaries dedicated to Apollo, Zeus, Athena, and Artemis. Cult sites in the Greek mainland, where votives include weaponry and metal tools,10 outnumber those on the islands.11 The Despotiko “temple” has yielded the largest quantity of such objects known so far in the Cyclades.

Fig. 1. Iron weapons found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

191

V.III. Weapons (220-230, fig. 1) 220. Iron spearhead (AK 3871). Room A1, Stratum I. L. 26.4; W. 3; Diam. 2; Th. 0.6. Intact. 221. Iron spearhead (AK 3872). Room A1, Stratum I. L. 25.8; W. 2.9; Diam. 2.1; Th. 0.9. Almost complete, except for pointed tip missing. 222. Iron sword (AK 3590). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 31.6; W. 4; Th. 1.2. Almost complete, except for pointed tip missing. Blade with thickened rib running down to the center. Most of hilt preserved with three nails (L. 1.1). 223. Iron sword (AK 3876). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 11.9; W. 4.8; Th. 0.9. Blade fr. 224. Iron dagger (AK 3867). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 17.7; W. 3; Th. 0.9. Blade fr. 225. Iron dagger (AK 3873). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 9; W. 2.4; Th. 0.7. Fr. of blade’s end. 226. Iron knife (AK 3586). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 14.5; W. 1.7; Th. 0.6. Almost intact except for missing tip. Blade with flat ended hilt. 227. Iron knife (AK 3587). Room A1, Stratum I. a: L. pres. 5.9; W. 1.8; Th. 0.7, b: L. pres. 6.9; W. 1.5; Th. 0.6. Two fr. preserving the blade’s tip (a), and hilt (b) with nails (L. 1). Impression of woven textile. 228. Iron knife (AK 3578). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 3.1; W. 2.3; Th. 0.9. Five roughly joining fr. forming intact blade from tang to tip. 229. Iron knife (AK 3591). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 18.8; W. 1.8; Th. 0.7. Two fr. roughly joining. 230. Iron knife (AK 3865). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 13.9; W. 1.9; Th. 0.8. Fr. preserving tang.

Fig. 2. Iron tools found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb). Two roughly joining frr. forming blade in its entire length. 238. Iron sickle (AK 3738). Room A1, Stratum I. a: L. pres. 17.4; W. 3.0; Th. 1.2, b: L. pres. 9.5; W. 2.5; Th. 0.6. Two frr. of curving blade with hole at wider end (a) and smaller fragment preserving tang (b) with two nails (L. 1.2). 239. Iron object (blade, spatula, toiletry?) (AK 3533). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. pres. 4.8; Diam. 0.5. Two joining frr. of curving shaft, possibly of a small blade. 240. Bronze nail (AK 3741). Room A1, Stratum IV. L. pres. 4.3; Head Diam. 1.6; Diam. 0.5. Intact with bent shaft and head.

Tools (231-240, fig. 2) 231. Iron axe (AK 3869). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 8.9; W. 4.2; Th. 1.4. Axe head, nearly intact. 232. Iron axe (AK 3870). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 10.6; W. 4.6; Th. 2.1. Axe head, nearly intact. 233. Iron spike (AK 3564). Room A1, Stratum III. L. pres. 13.6; Th. 2.9. Fr. preserving head that is roughly square in section. 234. Iron rod (AK 3866). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 17; Diam. 1.2. Fr. with pointed end. 235. Iron rod (AK 3584). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 14.7; Diam. 2. Fr. of curving rod. 236. Iron sickle (AK 3579). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 14.6; W. 2.9; Th. 1.1. Fr. with slightly curving blade. 237. Iron sickle (AK 3583). Room A1, Stratum I. L. pres. 17.1; W. 3.3; Th. 1.4.

192

9ӾӾӾ -(:(//(5< (fig. 3 Pl. 1) Five finger rings, made of both bronze and silver, a number of pendants, ivory discs and buttons, as well as a single hair spiral are the only pieces of jewellery found in the “temple’s” deposit. All rings represent the simple closed type, which common in both the sanctuaries of the Greek mainland and the islands during the Geometric and Archaic periods.12 The silver ring (244) with a completely round section is the finest.13 The second silver ring (245) with a rhomboid-shaped bezel represents a common Archaic type.14 The single bronze pendant is bird-shaped (246).15 Two faience pendants are of Egyptian manufacture. 16 The pendant in the form of a hawk is attached to a rectangular base (247),17

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

Fig. 3. Bronze, silver and faience jewellery found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

and it is well attested in sanctuaries of the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.18 The hawk, a royal emblem of the Egyptian iconography and the symbol of the god Horus,19 is considered to have an apotropaic character in votive deposits. This type of pendant was not only produced by Egyptian workshops, but also locally in Rhodes. The Despotiko hawk is a product of a Rhodian workshop and dates to the second half of the sixth century BC. The miniature faience figurine of Bes could have had a suspension hole on the top of the head, now missing (248).20 The figure stands on a semi-circular base with both hands holding his knees. This dwarf demon-god had a protective and apotropaic character, mostly affecting households, women, children and sexuality, although also related with the underworld. Pendants in the form of Bes were worn by women and children, often following them in grave. 21 Faience and clay figurines of Bes, amulets, scarabs and vases with his representations are common in the Mediterranean since the Early Iron Age, and from the middle of the eighth until the middle of the sixth century, Bes appears dynamically in the Aegean with most of his representations coming from deposits of Rhodian sanctuaries. Except for being imported from Egypt, these amulets were also produced in the local faience workshop.22 Comparably to the examples from the sanctuaries in East Greece, that from Despotiko, dating to the early seventh century BC could have been a personal item with magical properties, possibly

denoting social status too, finally offered as a votive offering at the sanctuary.23 A triangular ivory object and a perforated rectangular bone object must have served as pendants (249-250).24 Two ivory discs (251-252) with concentric zones of continuous recesses around the central perforation could have been used as buttons, sawn on garments or even inlaid into larger wooden objects. 251 finds parallels on Paros, Delos and Kythnos.25 The silver hair spiral 256 has four coils and belongs to a common type dedicated in sanctuaries from the Early Iron Age to the Roman period.26 Rings (241-245, fig.3, Pl. 1) 241. Bronze ring (AK 3529). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. ext. 2.6; Diam. int. 1.8; Th. 0.5. Complete. Simple, closed ring. 242. Bronze ring (AK 3535). Trench A, Layer 2b. Diam. ext. 2.6; Diam. int. 2.1; Th. 0.3. Complete. Simple, closed ring. 243. Bronze ring (AK 3545). Trench A, Layer 2b. Diam. ext. 3; Diam. int. 1.8; Th. 1.3. Complete with small part of it badly eroded. Simple, closed ring. 244. Silver ring (AK 3911). Room A1, Layer 10. Diam. ext. 1.5; Th. 0.2. Complete. Simple, closed ring. 245. Silver ring (AK 3571). Room A1, Layer 12. Diam. 1.8; Th. 0.3. Complete. Rhomboid-shaped bezel with flattened bezel (W. 0.5, Th. 0.1).

193

V.III. Pendants (246-250, fig. 3, Pl. 1)

9ӾӾӾ '5(66 251$0(176

246. Bronze pendant (AK 3543). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. 4.6; Base Diam 2.5; W. 3.6; Th. 0.9. Bird atop conical base with open decoration. Complete figure with no suspension hope. 247. Faience pendant (AK 3599). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. 4.4; L. 3.8; W. 1.5. Pendant in the form of a hawk. Pale blue and black faience. Intact except for chipped base. 248. Faience pendant (AK 3609). Room A1, Stratum I-A. H. pres. 1.7; W. 1; Th. 0.6. Pendant in the form of the Egyptian deity Bes of greenish blue faience. Abstract form fully preserved in core material except for top of head and headdress. Only slight traces of exterior glaze preserved. 249. Ivory pendant (AK 3598). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. 2.4; W. 1.2; Th. 0.5. Triangular with central perforation (Diam 0.2) on top. Incised dotted circles on both faces. 250. Bone pendant (AK 3839). Room A1, Stratum I. L. 2.4; W. 1.2; Th. 0.6 Rectangular with incised dotted circles on both faces and sides. Central perforation (Diam. 0.2) along long axis.

Unlike tools and weapons, most of which made of iron, the recovered dress ornaments are primarily bronze. Fibulae comprise the majority and date to the seventh century BC. Three examples (257-260) represent a simplified version of the Boeotian type, varying in their characteristics.27 257 and 258 have a central lentoid bead on the bow,28 while the central round bead of 259 is bordered by globules.29 These fibulae can be placed to the late eighth or early seventh century BC. 260 can be assigned to Sapouna-Sakellarakis’ insular type IIIa, represented by several examples in the Aegean sanctuaries and cemeteries.30 A bronze spiral fibula of the spectacle type (261), formed by a single wire, wound into eight concentric spirals for each of the two large disks, is of special interest.31 Although most parallels come from Early Iron Age contexts in northern Greece, this type continues into the Classical period and it is found across the Greek world.32 A smaller fibula of the spectacle type is made of solid bronze (262),33 with two disks incised and the circular bosses punched from the back. It dates to the first half of the seventh century BC.34 Two fibulae of a circular form, as cut-out discs, are decorated with dots (263-264). One of them preserves the bow fibula attached to its backside. Examples of this type have been dated to the Early Iron Age or the Archaic period. 35 The ivory fibulae are much more numerous. The spectacle fibulae belong to a type represented in sanctuaries of the Greek islands and should no longer considered rare. They cannot be easily dated, but they have been placed from the ninth to the sixth century BC.36 The spectacle fibulae from the Despotiko deposit belong to the seventh or early sixth century BC. They bear incised decoration of various types. Originally, they must have had beads of other material placed in the central concavity of the main or subsidiary discs.37 They can have a zone of dotted circles between two pairs of concentric circles on each disc,38 surrounded by more circles on its external side (266-267). A single zone of guilloche between concentric circles decorates the discs of 265,39 while a second zone appears around the centre of the discs of 268.40 In some cases the bronze pin on their back side has been preserved, attached with small nails. Two ivory bow fibulae belong to the “Italian” type (270-271).41 The bow of 270 is trapezoid, composed of three pieces of ivory over an iron rod. The central cutting on the middle piece must have accepted a bead of a different material.42 A few pins, made of gold, bronze, iron, and lead are included in the catalogue of the dress

Buttons? (251-255, fig.3, Pl. 1) 251. Ivory disc (AK 3690). Room A1, Stratum III. Diam. 5.1; Th. 0.3; Diam. (central hole) 0.4. Almost complete, reconstructed from joining frr. with a few chips at the edges. Three concentric zones of continuous shallow circular, square or trapezoid recesses. Traces of blue pigment. 252. Ivory button (AK 3757). Room A1, Stratum III. Diam. 4.6; Th. 0.4; Diam. (central hole) 0.4. Largely preserved with almost one fourth missing. Two concentric zones with continuous shallow circular alternating with square recesses, followed by a zone of petal-shaped recesses around central perforation. 253. Ivory button (AK 3751). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. H. 1; Diam. 1.7. Button fr. preserving full profile, broken along center revealing cavity for attachment. 254. Ivory button (AK 3754). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. H. 1.3; Diam. pres. 2.8. Chipped along base exterior, but full profile preserved. Central cavity for attachment or inlay (Diam. 0.4) 255. Ivory button (AK 3763). Room A1, Stratum I-A. H. pres. 1.2; Diam. 2.8. Two frr. bound by small fr. of iron shaft (Diam. 0.5). Intact disk with nearly recessed center, possibly for inlaid material.

Hair spiral (256, fig.3, Pl. 1) 256. Silver hair spiral (AK 3539). Room A1, Stratum I-A. Diam. 2.3; L. 1.7. Four coils.

194

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

Fig. 4. Bronze fibulae found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

ornaments. The gold pin is one of the only three objects from the “temple” made of this precious material (272).43 Its head has the form of a pomegranate with small part of the attached iron pin preserved. The fruit’s fluted sides and the details in filigree and granulation are similar to that of other examples from Perachora and Delos.44 The single iron pin (273) has an articulated head.45 The heads of two lead pins are mellon-shaped (274-275).

Fig. 5. Ivory fibulae found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

263.

264.

Fibulae (257-271, fig. 4-5, Pl. 2-3) 257. %URQ]HÀEXODRIWKH%RHRWLDQW\SH$. 5RRP A1, Stratum I. H. 7.4; L. 10.7. Intact, restored from several frr. 258. Bronze fibula of the Boeotian type (AK 3575). Room A1, Stratum II. H. 6.6; L. 11.3. Almost complete. Bow with a lentoid bead bearing relief ribs. 259. Bronze fibula of the Boeotian type (AK 3732). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. Diam. 0.6; L. 5.2; Bow Diam. 2; Th 0.8. Complete with pin broken into two pieces. Bow with globular central bead and globules on both sides. 260. Bronze fibula (AK 3530). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 0.6; L. pres. 3.6. Largely preserved with the pin missing. Six globules and part of flattened catch plate. 261. Spiral bronze fibula (AK 3577). Room A1, Stratum I. L. 17.1; W. 6.6; Th. 2.5; Coil Diam. 0.5. Intact spiral fibula, restored from frr. 262. Bronze spectacle fibula (AK 3559). Room A1, Stratum I-A. L. 6.3; W. 3; Th. 0.2.

265.

266.

267.

Almost complete with small parts chipped off. Straight pin attached to backside. Bronze circular fibula (AK 3544). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 2.5; Th. 0.1. Small circular fibula in the form of a disc with two concentric rows of dots around a central one. Violin bow fibula attached to backside. Bronze circular fibula (AK 3542). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. Diam. 4.2; Th. 0.2. Circular fibula in the form of a disc with two concentric circles of repoussé dots at the edge surrounding many small dots around central protrusion. Ivory spectacle fibula (AK 3681). Room A1, Stratum I-A. L. 7; W. 3.4; Th. 0.5 Almost intact. Guilloche pattern around each disk. Lead button (Diam. 8, Th. 7) preserved on one side lobe and bronze nails for attachment of pin. Ivory spectacle fibula (AK 3692). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. L. 5.9; W. 2.7; Th. 0.5. Intact. On each disc, a zone of incised concentric circles between on two pairs of incised circles. Disks and side lobes pierced for attachments. Ivory spectacle fibula (AK 3694). Room A1, Stratum III. L. 6; W. 2.8; Th. 0.3. Almost intact except for edges of side lobs. Chips around large discs. On each disc, zone of dotted circles between a pair of concentric circles towards the centre and three concentric circles towards the edge. Lead nails on each side lobe, and fragment of bronze pin attached on back side of one disc.

195

V.III. 268. Ivory spectacle fibula (AK 3695). Room A1, Stratum I-A. L. 12.1; W. 5.7; Th. 0.3. One disc, one side lob and almost half of the second disc preserved. Two zones of guilloche of different width between two sets of three incised circles on each disc. A zone of dotted circles between incised circles on side lobe. 269. Ivory spectacle fibula (AK 3696). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. 6.1; W. 2.9; Th. 0.2. Almost intact except for chipped sides. On each disc, zone of dotted circles between a pair of concentric circles towards the centre and four concentric circles towards the edge. A zone of dotted circles on the only preserved small disc. Bronze pin with hinge (Th. 0.6) and catch (L. 0.1) attached to the back side. 270. Ivory bow fibula of “Italian” type (AK 3764). Room A1, Stratum II. L. pres. 5.1; W. 1.4; Th. 0.8. Trapezoid bow, composed of three pieces of ivory, joined by iron rod through center. Recessed cutting for inlay on middle piece. 271. Ivory bow fibula of “Italian” type (AK 3762). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. L. 1.1; W. 1.2. Sheathing piece (?) from arc. Circular recession for inlay and central perforation with traces of bronze wire.

Pins (272-275, fig. 4, Pl. 2) 272. Gold pin (AK 3573). Room A1, Stratum III. H. pres. 2.3; Diam. 1.8. Pomegranate-shaped head with projecting top and granulation between lobes. Fr. of iron rod at base. 273. Iron pin (AK 3538). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. L. pres. 8.4; Shaft Diam. 0.5; Head Diam. 1.5. Upper part of straight pin with articulated head 274. Lead pin (AK 3877). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 2,2; Diam. 2.1. Mellon-shaped pin head, almost intact with central perforation (Diam. 0.3). 275. Lead pin (AK 3878). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 3; Diam. 2.8. Mellon-shaped pin head, almost intact with central perforation (Diam. 0.4).

9ӾӾӾ 7(55$&277$ ),*85,1(6 The deposit contained only a few terracotta human figurines, exclusively female. A large female figurine of the so-called “Daedalic” style is regarded as one of the deposit’s most important finds (276),46 while a comparably large figurine of a hybrid human and siren form is of interest. A single clay animal was recovered, followed by a fragmentary ivory example. Finally, the catalogue of the figurines includes part of a standing human made of faience. Only the upper half of the Daedalic female figurine from the waist up was preserved. Its head, nearly the entire upper half of its torso and its bent

196

left arm without the hand were reconstructed from numerous fragments, all found together laid on the ground, most probably in situ. Fragments of the back of the head and the torso are missing, while the forehead, the hair and the torus on top of the figurine’s head are chipped. The head is moulded, while the torso and arms are modelled by hand. Based on the evidence of comparable material, discussed below, the lower body must have been made on the wheel. The preserved left arm of the standing frontal female figurine is bent at the elbow, its upper part attached to the torso while the lower extends forward and slightly upwards. She has a low forehead, and a triangular face with a narrow, pointed chin. Each of her large open eyes has a round, central iris and two small triangles at the edges representing tear ducts. The nose is straight and long, while the lips are rendered in relief as well. The preserved right ear is painted on, as is the long, black curly hair, which is arranged in two triangular wedges on either side of the head. Six spiral curls appear across the woman’s forehead. The rest of her hair is represented by a series of wavy, vertical lines. A strip in reserve over the curls may indicate a hair band, while a second hair ornament appears at the height of the ears as a wide black band framed by two lines in reserve. The female figurine wears a long garment with short sleeves extending just below the elbows, possibly combined with a mantle symmetrically pinned over her shoulders.47 The garment is decorated with a lozenge grid enclosing solid lozenges. The figurine is made of a hard and well-fired red fabric with sparse silver mica, typical for the large quantities of Parian pottery from Despotiko. Its surface is covered in pale white slip. Facial characteristics, hair and garment are painted black, while the entire back is covered with carelessly applied paint of the same colour. This unique Parian creation can be dated to the second quarter of the seventh century (675-650 BC). Deeply rooted in pottery production, it rises as a three-dimensional reproduction of the young females painted on the seventh-century Parian vases mostly coming from Rheneia. Terracottas of similar type and scale might be known from the Heraion of Samos,48 but the Despotiko figurine has a rounder, fuller face, plastic breasts, rich jewellery, and differently rendered hair, standing closer to examples from the Cyclades and Attica. Two fragmentary female figurines of the first quarter of the seventh century from the Kastro on Siphnos – one Naxian and one Parian – have been discussed as its closest parallels.49 Moreover, it shares comparable features with the moulded heads of the female

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES supports of two clay thymiateria from the Kerameikos of Athens,50 the ‘snake goddess’ featuring on a terracotta plaque from a votive deposit of the Areopagos,51 as well as the bronze female figurine that supported a mid-seventh century BC thymiaterion from the Athenian Acropolis.52 Moving away from Attica and the Cyclades, the Despotiko figurine present affinities with the female supports of seventh-century stone perirrhanteria, whose decorative details are rendered in paint, as in the case of the females on the Isthmian perirrhanterion.53 The painted features of the Despotiko figure bring it very close to the two-dimensionally female protomes decorating the necks of the ‘Melian’ hydriai from Rheneia.54 Although it has not been linked to a particular deity, the female figurine from Despotiko has been interpreted as the earliest cult idol at the sanctuary due to its unusually large size, its context and characteristics.55 This conclusion has been largely based on the clay ring on top of its head, identified as a polos in all relevant publications. On the other hand, the close inspection of the figurine showed that this ring was not a polos, but a plastic attachment, from which an open shape with flaring walls sprang, as indicated by the fragments discerned on the back side of the figure’s head. On this basis, the Despotiko figurine has been reconstructed as a Stützfigure, a vessel’s support,56 standing close to the clay thymiateria from the Kerameikos.57 The use of the motif of a female figure as a support is well known from the seventhcentury marble perirrhanteria known from several sanctuaries on the Greek mainland, Rhodes and Samos. Its use as a thymiaterion could be further supported by the presence of two clay thymiateria in the same deposit (162-163). The rest of the clay figurines from the deposit date to the sixth century and almost all represent common coroplastic types.58 Although a typical Ionic type, produced by Rhodian, Samian and Milesian workshops, very well attested in the Greek mainland and the Cyclades too, the terracotta enthroned female wearing a high polos,59 is only represented by a single example of the second half of the sixth century in the “temple’s” deposit (277). 60 The second seated figurine belongs to a completely different type and it is rather crudely made (278). It is handmade with a flat body and its head must have been birdshaped. The stool is springing directly from its lower body. Paint has been used for indicating the female’s long hair and the decorated garment. Figurines of this type were produced in various Greek centres, including Attica, but they are more commonly attested in the Peloponnese, and particularly in the Argolid.61

Fig. 6. Terracotta figurines found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

Standing females are also represented: three mold-made examples, one of which with a peplos on her head (281) and two figurines with birds against their chest (279-280).62 The last two represent a very common type found in many sanctuaries in the Aegean and the eastern Meditterranean with examples that hold either a bird or a small animal, usually a hare.63 Terracotta protomes are also present (284-285). They are typical for the Cycladic sanctuaries with similar examples known from Delos and the Delion of Paros.64 Three more fragments belong to different terracotta human figurines, but their poor condition does not allow their attribution to specific types (282-283). 286 is a siren or a human-bird hybrid figurine of an early Archaic date. The torso preserves pigments of black and red colour, while a pendant is depicted in red on its neck. 287 is part of a bird’s or a siren’s tail.65 A lion cub is the only terracotta animal figurine from the deposit (288).66 Moreover, an ivory figurine of a crouching quadruped, missing its head, has been recovered (289).67 Finally, an anthropomorphic figurine preserving only its feet on a rectangular base is made of faience (290). Human Figurines (276-285, fig. 6, Pl. 4-5) 276. /DUJHIHPDOH´'DHGDOLFµÀJXULQH$. 5RRP A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 25; W. pres. 12.7; Th. 7.3.

197

V.III.

277.

278.

279.

280.

281.

282.

283.

284.

285.

198

Red, well-fired, hard fabric with some sparse small white inclusions and silver mica. Black paint, carelessly applied on back. Pale white slip. Head, almost entire upper half of torso until waist and bent left arm reconstructed from many joining frr. Left hand, right arm and hand missing. Frr. broken off back of the head and torso. Chips on forehead, hair and torus on top of head. Left arm, bent at the elbow, with the upper part attached on the torso and the lower extended to the front and slightly rising upwards. The female is wearing a long garment with short sleeves, decorated with a lozenge net enclosing solid lozenge, extending just below the elbows. Frieze of simple spirals at the edge of the sleeves. Hair and facial characteristics rendered in paint. Seated female (AK 3639). Room A1, Stratum III. H. 8.6; W. 2.6; Th. 3.6. Reddish yellow, fine fabric with sparse small and medium black inclusions. Complete. Seated figurine wearing a high polos. Seated female (AK 3638). Room A1, Stratum I-A. H. pres. 4.7; W. pres. 5.6; Th. 2.6. Reddish yellow, fine fabric with sparse small and medium black inclusions. Two joined frr. of flat torso and upper part of stool springing from its body. Head, lower part of arms and legs missing. Round panel on torso in fugitive white paint with red paint below. Dark paint on back may indicate hair. Standing female (AK 3637). Trench A, Layer 2b. a: H. pres. 13.1; W. pres. 3.6; Th. 0.5, b: H. pres. 4.5; W. pres. 4.1; Th. 0.7. Reddish yellow, fine fabric with sparse small and medium black inclusions. Traces of yellow and red paint. Two joining frr. of back (a) and chest (b) of standing female holding bird. Standing female (AK 3643). Room A1, Stratum III. H. pres. 5.7; W. 3.8; Th. 0.3. Reddish yellow, fine fabric. Fr. of head and torso of standing female holding bird. Standing female (AK 3644 and 3645). Room A1, Stratum III. H. pres. 3.9; W. pres. 2.8; Th. 1.1. Reddish yellow, fine fabric. Head and upper body, reconstructed from joining frr. Arms missing. Peplos over head. Female figurine (AK 3646). Room A1, Stratum II. H. pres. 3.7; W. pres. 2.7; Th. 0.9. Reddish yellow, fine fabric with some white inclusions. Remains of red paint. Part of face. Figurine (AK 3914). Room A1, Stratum V. H. pres. 1.8; W. pres. 1.8; Th. 3.3. Reddish yellow, fine fabric. Traces of red paint Fragment of foot with pointed shoe. Female protome (AK 3642). Room A1, Stratum III. H. 11.2; W. 7.2; Th. 4.2. Red to reddish yellow, relatively fine fabric. Complete, reconstructed from three joining frr. Female protome (AK 3651). Cleaning of Room A1. H. 0.125 m, W. 0.095 m, Th. 0.074 m.

Reddish yellow fabric with grey core, relatively fine with white and black inclusions. Almost complete, reconstructed from many joining frr.

Animal Figurines (286-290, fig. 6, Pl. 5a) 286. Siren or human-bird hybrid (AK 3799). Room A1, Stratum VI, (joins with fragments in Strata I-A, II/ III-A). a: H. pres. 10.2; W. pres. 6.7; Th. 0.33, b: H. pres. 9; Diam. 0.8. Reddish yellow fabric. Joining frr. of (a) head and (b) torso of siren or human-bird hybrid. 287. Bird or Siren (AK 3916). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 2,9; L. pres. 5.8; W. pres. 5.7; Th. 2.9. Reddish yellow fabric Fr. of tail. 288. Lion (AK 3652). Room A1, Stratum III. H. 3.6; W. 6.9; Th. 3.5. Reddish yellow to brown, hard fabric. Red and white paint. Intact couchant lion. 289. Ivory animal (AK 3753). Room A1, Stratum II. H. pres. 2.4; L. pres. 4.3; W. pres. 2. Fragmentary crouching quadruped preserving only its torso. 290. Faience anthropomorphic figurine (AK 3619). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 2.3; W. 3.1; Th. 2.6. Pale blue faience. Fr. of figure, preserving feet on rectangular base.

9,,, 0(7$/ $1' )$,(1&( 9(66(/6 A limited number of vessels from the deposit are made of metal, while only one jug and a plastic vessel are of faience.68 All are of small dimensions, almost miniature and with a few exceptions, too fragmentary. Except for a silver (291) and a lead vessel (298), the rest of the metal vessels are bronze (292-297). Both closed and open shapes are represented. Only one handle and part of the rim is retained from the silver vessel, which could be a small-sized kylix or kotyle.69 The wellpreserved bronze aryballos (294) illustrates how closely this metal form followed its clay counterpart.70 Most of them date to the first half of the sixth century BC. A gold cylindrical attachment could have belonged to the movable handles of a metal vessel of the seventh or sixth century BC (299).71 An earlier faience plastic vessel is of special interest (301).72 An anthropomorphic figure with a spout on its head is shown kneeling in front of a miniature pithos. It represents an eastern type, assigned to a Rhodian workshop, closely following the Egyptian style and technology.73 The figure seems to amalgate different Egyptian iconographic details: a male body with breasts and belly pointing to prosperity, combined with a female hairstyle, borrowed from the goddess

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

Fig. 7. Metal vessels found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

Hathor. The spots on the figure’s chest and back represent the skin of a leopard, draped across the shoulders. In other variants, the vessel might take the form of a bearded male or of a female often carrying a baby on her back. Other examples have a lotus headdress, serving as the rim of the vessel, and occasionally additional details, like a frog perched on the pithos. These vessels are found both in cemeteries and sanctuaries and are believed to have contained scented oils and perfumes.74 The Despotiko vessel can be dated to the second half of seventh century BC.

297. Bronze vessel (AK 3546). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. pres. 2.2; W. 2; Th. 0.2. Body fr. Relief decoration with punched design, possibly chevron pattern. 298. Lead closed vessel (AK 3734). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. 1.3; Rim Diam. 4.4. Wide, round mouth with flaring rim, low neck and upper shoulder. 299. Gold attachment (AK 3686). Room A1, Stratum III. L. 1.3; Cylinder Diam. 0.4; Terminal Diam. 0.5. Cylindrical attachment with horizontal ridges, thickened ends by filigree wire, pinched to appear as granules. Holes at its ends.

Metal Vessels (291-299, fig. 7)

Faience Vessels (300-301, Pl. 6)

291. Silver open vessel (AK 3728). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. pres. 1.7; L. pres. 2.8; Handle Diam. 0.4; Handle W. 2.1; Th. 0.1. Fr. of lower rim and complete horizontal handle of almost round section. 292. Bronze closed vessel (amphora?) (AK 3912). Room A1, Stratum III. Rim Diam. 8; L. pres. 4.5; W. pres. 1.1; Th. 0.2. Fr. of flaring, slightly projecting, flat on top rim. 293. Bronze closed vessel (AK 3905). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. pres. 5.7; W. pres. 9.6; Base Diam. 3.6; Lower part of body and most of ring base. 294. Bronze aryballos (AK 3580). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 4.6; Rim Diam. 3.4; Body Diam. 5; Th. 0.2. Largely preserved. Complete round mouth with edge of rim turning downwards, vertical strap handle, springing from mouth and leading to round shoulder. Lower body missing. 295. Bronze bowl (AK 3565). Room A1, Stratum III. H. 2.1; Rim Diam. 5.5. Almost complete. Plain, flat on top rim, hemispherical body. 296. Bronze bowl? (AK 3730). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. Diam. 8.9; Th. 0.2. Disk with raised edge.

300. Faience vessel (AK 3600). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. 7; Body Diam. 4.4; Base Diam. 2.2; Spout Diam. 2.3. Pale blue faience. Handleless jug, reconstructed from many joining frr. Flaring rim, short, narrow neck, ovoid body and hollowed, wide disc foot. 301. Faience vessel (AK 3617). Room A1, Stratum I, Layer 14A. H. pres. 8.6; W. 5; Th. 3.1. Pale blue faience. Spouted human figure kneeling before pithos.

9,,, %($'6 Simple beads of gold, amber, glass faience, and steatite possibly originate from different types of jewellery, most likely pendants. Two gold beads are melon-shaped, bearing vertical grooves (302303).75 304 has a globular body and a granulated wire on its top.76 The most “exotic” bead is made of amber (305-307),77 a material imported in the Mediterranean world from the Baltic Sea area since the Early Bronze Age.78 Mostly assigned to

199

V.III.

310.

311.

312.

313.

Fig. 8. Various beads found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb).

anatolian workshops (Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia), 79 the circulation of these beads in the Aegean and their abundance in various Greek sanctuaries since the Early Iron Age,80 suggest the revival of long-distance trade and contacts between the islanders and the centers of the East.81 The triangular glass bead might have been also imported from Anatolia (315).82

314. 315.

316.

317.

Beads (302-318, fig.8, Pl. 6) 302. Gold bead (AK 3561). Room A1, Stratum I-A. Diam. 0.9; Th. 0.7. Melon-shaped bead with vertical grooves and central perforation. 303. Gold bead (AK 3687). Room A1, Stratum III. Diam. 0.8; Th. 0.6. Melon-shaped bead bead with vertical grooves and central perforation. 304. Gold bead (AK 3560). Room A1, Stratum VI. H. 10; Diam. 0.9. Globular bead with cylindrical shaft and no suspension stem Granulated wire around shaft base. 305. Amber bead (AK 3593). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 2.1; Th. 1.2. Intact biconical with central perforation (Diam. 0.4). 306. Amber bead (AK 3618). Room A1, Stratum I. Diam. 0.9; Th. 0.6. Intact semi-globular bead with central perforation (Diam. 0.3). 307. Amber bead (AK 3623). Trench A, Layer 2b. Diam. 1.1; Th. 0.6. Semi-globular, missing approximately 1/4 of diameter with central perforation (Diam. 0.3). 308. Glass bead (AK 3605). Room A1, Stratum I-A. Diam. 1.1; L. 1.5; Th. 0.3. Opaque glass with blue interior. Duck-shaped circular bead with interior perforation (Diam. 0.6). 309. Glass bead (AK 3620). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 1.9; Th. 1.8.

200

318.

Opaque glass. Globular bead with interior perforation (Diam. 0.5). Glass bead (AK 3629). Room A1, Stratum I-A. Diam. 0.6; Th. 0.3. Opaque glass. Ring bead with interior perforation (Diam. 0.2). Glass bead (AK 3622). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 1.3; Th. 1.2. Opaque glass. Globular bead with interior perforation (Diam. 0.3). Glass bead (AK 3630). Room A1, Stratum I-A. Diam. 0.9; Th. 0.6. Blue glass. Triangular body with added white circle on one side, and central perforation (Diam. 0.3). Glass bead (AK 3624). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 1.2; Th. 0.7. Dark brown glass. Intact. Semiglobular bead with central perforation (Diam. 0.4). Glass paste bead (AK 3768). Room A1, Stratum VI. Diam. 1.1. Spherical bead with central perforation (Diam. 0.3). Glass bead (AK 3596). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. 1.9; Th. 1.3. Triangular bead with threaded spiral design on corners and central perforation (Diam. 0.4). Faience bead (AK 3612). Room A1, Stratum III. Diam. 0.5; L. 1.6. Faience with blue core. Intact, spindle-shaped with central perforation (Diam. 0.1). Faience bead (AK 3826). Room A1, Stratum I. Diam. 1.2; L. 0.6. Blue-green faience with white core. Squat conical bead with chipped edges. Vertical ridges on exterior with central perforation (Diam. 0.2). Steatite bead (AK 3614). Room A1, Stratum III. L. 0.020 m, Diam. 0.012 m. Green steatite. Intact, conical with rounded lower edges and central perforation (Diam. 0.3).

9,,, 6($/6 6&$5$%6 $1' 63,1'/( :+25/ ԁRVWRIWKHVHDOVWRQHVDUHW\SLFDOLQWKH$HJHDQ during the early Archaic period. They are made of various stones, including jasper, steatite, and hematite, while others are of faience. They all bear incised figure or animal decoration. The unusual ivory button-seal preserved a group of five standing figures holding hands, possibly performing some ritual dance (319).83 A warrior appears on a hematite seal (320). The rest have animals engraved in profile:84 birds (323), lions (322, 325),85 in one case combined with an agrimi (321), and a long-bodied animal, perhaps a rodent (324). The scaraboid steatite seal (319) with the lion, combined with a star and a leaf, is carved in the eastern style of the “lyre-player group”.86 The lion is one of the numerous eastern motifs appear-

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES ing on seals, most likely carved in northern Syria or Cilicia, from the eighth century and throughout the seventh century BC.87 Although there are numerous variants similar to the Despotiko intaglio, a nearly identical seal comes from the Parian Delion.88 A conical object, made of steatite, included among the stone finds, termed in scholarship as bead, button or weight, should be better interpreted as spindle whorl.89 Seals (319-324, fig.9, Pl. 6) 319. Ivory seal (AK 3834). Room A1, Stratum I. Diam. 1.6; Th. 0.6. Disc-shaped with recessed area, perhaps for inlay, surrounded by a ridged band. Opposite face incised with five human figures. Pierced through sides at angle diagonal to scene. 320. Hematite seal (AK 3603). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. Diam. 1.6; Th. 0.6. Lentoid with central perforation (Diam. 0.2) running horizontal to scene. Incised warrior and figure-eight shield. 321. Steatite seal (AK 3602). Room A1, Stratum II/III-A. Diam. 1.8; Th. 0.8. Green steatite. Complete, almost round with central perforation (Diam. 0.3), running horizontal to scene. Incised agrimi in profile on one side and lion on the other. 322. Steatite scaraboid seal (AK 3597). Room A1, Stratum VI. L. 2.3; W. 1.8; Th. 1.2. Black steatite. Almost intact with central perforation (Diam. 0.3) running lengthwise. Incised lion, leaf, star. 323. Faience seal (AK 3821). Room A1, Layer 1. L. 1.5; W. 1.2; Th. 0.7. Pale blue faience. Intact with surface eroded. Scaraboid seal with square profile and central perforation (Diam. 2.3) running lengthwise. Two incised birds in flight. 324. Faience seal (AK 3841). Room A1, Stratum I. Diam. 1.5; Th. 0.5. Blue faience. Circular seal of with convex top and flat bottom. Well preserved core material with traces of glaze and an engraved long-bodied animal (rodent?).

Scarabs (325-326, fig.9, Pl. 6) 325. Faience scarab (AK 3606). Room A1, Stratum I-A. H. 0.6; L. 1.3; W. 1; Th. 0.6. Greenish-blue faience Well preserved with core material intact and traces of glaze visible. Central perforation (Diam. 0.2) running lengthwise. Incised striding lion with disk above. 326. Faience scarab (AK 3823). Room A1, Stratum I. L. 1; W. 0.7; Th. 0.5. Greenish-blue faience.

Fig. 9. Scarabs and seals found in Room A1 (drawing by Chr. Kolb). Almost intact with eroded surface. Central perforation (Diam. 0.3) running lengthwise. Faint traces of greenish glaze. Incised decoration not clearly visible.

Spindle whorl 327. Spindle whorl (AK 3613). Room A1, Stratum III. H. 1.6; Diam. 2.5. Black steatite. Intact with chipped edges. Conical with central perforation (Diam. 0.6) running vertically.

9,,, 2675,&+ (** The ostrich egg, discovered in many tiny fragments at the lower stratums of the deposit is one the most “exotic” items (328), originating from Africa.90 Ostrich eggs are attested in various sanctuaries and tombs in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, as well as in southern Italy and Carthage.91 328. Ostrich egg (AK 3783). Room A1, Stratum I. H. pres. 15; Diam. 13. Largely preserved reconstructed from many joining frr.

127(6 1 2

The assemblage has been preliminary presented in Kourayos/Burns 2017 and Kourayos 2018b. The detailed study of the metal objects from the “temSOH·VµGHSRVLWLVLQSURJUHVVE\Ӻ3HWUDNLV)RUDSUHliminary overview see Petrakis 2020, 316-319.

201

V.III. 3 4 5

6

7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14

15 16

17 18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25

The conservation of the weapons and tools recovered from Room A1 is still in progress. For the classification of knives, daggers and swords: Petrakis 2020, esp. 28-41. Of the many known examples from the Cyclades, the Despotiko sickles are quite similar to those from Rheneia (Rhomaios 1929, 213-217, figs. 20-23). Petrakis’ typology is a development of former typologies or classifications (e.g., Vokotopoulou 1986; Snodgrass 1996; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002; Schmitt 2007). Petrakis 2020, 318. He suggests the same for the majority of the Cycladic sanctuaries discussed in his dissertation. Kron 1998, 187-215. Petrakis 2020, 97-409 with extended bibliography. Petrakis 2020, 97-248, 338-388. Most of the metal weapons and agricultural implements, published so far from the Cycladic sanctuaries, come from Xobourgo on Tenos (Étienne et al. 2013), Minoa on Amorgos (Marangou 1985), Hyria on Naxos (Simantoni-Bournia 2000), Zagora on Andros (Cambitoglou 1988, 233, pls. 278-279), Ypsili on Andros (Televantou 2006, 1082-1083), Mesa Vouno on Thera (Hiller von Gaetringen et al. 1899, 304), and Agios Andreas on Siphnos (Televantou 2005, 923-925). Bronze rings of this type are very common in Greek sanctuaries during the Archaic period. See e.g., Kythnos (Touloumtzidou 2017, 211-212), Siphnos (Televantou 2008, 103, fig. 157), Amorgos (Marangou 2002, 257), Aigina (Maass/Kilian-Dirlmeier 1998, 97, no. 132), Perachora (Dunbabin 1962, A265-A267, pl. 187), Olympia (Philipp 1981, 139-141), Laconia (Bonias 1998, 211, no. 544), Philia (Kilian-Dirlmeyer 2002, pl. 9.165-169), Soros (Vitos/Panagou 2009, 316). For a very similar silver ring of this type from the necropolis of Eleutherna: Stampolidis 2012, 210, n. 19b. It belongs to Boardman’s type F (Boardman 1969, 18-20) and Guzzo’s type VIIIA (41-43, 175-176). For a silver ring of this type from the sanctuary of Kythnos: Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 228, fig. 104. Jacobstahl , 20-21. For the imports of Aegyptiaca in the Greek world, see esp. Hölbl 2005; 2016; Kousoulis/Morenz 2007; Apostola 2016; Kousoulis 2017; Apostola/Kousoulis 2019. Stampolidis 2003, 520, 1013. For examples from Heraion on Samos, Ialysos on Rhodes, and Kourion on Cyprus: Stampolidis 2003, 519-520, nos. 1007-1010; Stampolidis/Karetsou 1998, 223, nos. 262-263. See also the examples from Lindos (Blinkeberg 1931, 346, no. 1244; Webb 1978, 96, no. 513), Phana (Lamb 1934/1935, 155-156) and Emporio on Chios (Boardman 1967, 241, no. 582). For the iconography of the Egyptian hawk: Bonnet 1952. For representations of the god Bes: Apostola 2018; Stampolidis 2003, 505, no. 955; Kourayos/Burns 2017, 334; Athanasoulis 2017, 78, no. 68. Dasen 1993, 64-78. Apostola 2018; Apostola/Kousoulis 2019, 106-107. Apostola 2018, 121. For identical examples from the Parian Delion: Rubensohn 1962, pl. 12.5 Paros: Rubensohn 1962, 72-73, pl. 11a, Delos: Deonna 1938, 288, no. 731, pl. LXXXVI, Kythnos: Varnarinou-Vai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 196, fig. 10. Rubensohn intepreted the disc from the Delion of Paros as a pyxis lid.

202

26

27 28 29

30 31 32

33 34

35

36

37 38 39

40 41 42

43 44 45

46

47 48 49

Athanasoulis 2017, 97, no. 105. Compare characteristically to: Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 45; Stampolidis 2012, 77, no. 3; Athanasoulis 2017, 97, no. 106. For the types of fibulae: Blinkenberg 1926; Kilian 1975; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1978. For a close parallel from Kythnos: Touloumtzidou in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 201, fig. 29. Touloumtzidou in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 202, fig. 30. This fibula can be compared with those of SapounaSakellarakis’ insular type VIa (1978, 90-91, 1194-1206, pl. 34). Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1978, 54-57, nos. 243-313, pls. 8-11. Stampolidis 2003, 565, no. 1135; Kourayos/Burns 2017, 331; Athanasoulis 2017, 75, no. 61. Blinkenberg 1926, 253-259, type XIV:2; Robinson 1941, 96-99, pl. XIX; Chrysostomou 1998, 320-321, 355-382, fig. 2; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2002, 126, fig. 7a. For a similar fibula from the sanctuary of Hyria on Naxos: SimDQWRQL%RXUQLDSOQRշ Stampolidis 2003, 566, no. 1136. Blinkenberg 1926, 273-274, no. 1926; 1931, 90, no. 132, pl. 9. Bronze fibulae of this type are not very common in Aegean sanctuaries, but the sanctuary on Kythnos were 18 bronze spectacle fibulae have been found (Touloumtzidou in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 204-205, fig. 41). It belongs to Blinkenberg’s group XV.11 (1926, 274) and to Sapouna-Sakellaraki’s type X.Ah (1978, 113-114, nos. 1544-1549, pl. 47) For their classification: Blinkenberg 1926, 262-271 (Type XV). The largest concentration of spectacle fibulae to date come from the Archaic sanctuary of Kythnos: Varvarinou-Vai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 194-195. For other sanctuaries with characteristic examples: Blinkenberg 1926 (Lindos); Deonna 1938, 285-286 (Delos); Rubensohn 1962, 72-73 (Paros); Simantoni-Bournia 2002, 143 (Naxos); Dunbabin 1962, 433-435 (Perachora); Dawkins 1929, 224-225 (Sparta). For characteristic examples from various sites in the wider Mediterranean: Boardman/Hayes 1966, 163, 165; Stampolidis 2003, 544-546. For various examples from the Cyclades: Athanasoulis 2017, 91-93. Varvarinou-Vai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 194. Rubensohn 1962, pl. 13, nos. 2, 4 (Paros); VarvarinouVai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 194, fig. 1 (Kythnos). Varvarinou-Vai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 194, fig. 3 (Kythnos); Dawkins 1929, 224-224 (Sparta). For largesized examples from Perachora with the same pattern: Dunbabin 1962, 433, no. 4. 49: Stampolidis 2003, 544, no. 1074 (Thasos). Blinkenberg’s (1926, 197-204) classification includes 10 types of “Italian” bow fibulae. Dunbabin 1962, 439, pl. 187, n. A240; Blinkenberg 1926, 198, 201-204; Varvarinou-Vai in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 195, fig. 9a. Stampolidis 2003, 566, no. 1137. Payne 1940, 174, pl. 76, nos. 33-34, (Perachora); Deonna 1938, 282, no. 726, pl. LXXXV (Delos); Jacobstahl 38. For similar pins made of bronze: Blinkenberg 1931, 126127, pl.12; Payne 1940, pl. 75. For a comparable iron example: Boardman/Hayes 1973, 79, no. F 136, fig. 35. Kourayos 2009, 116-119; 2012, 50; Detoratou/Kourayos 2004; Kourayos et al. 2012, 127; Barlou 2014, 20-22; Alexandridou 2018. Sturgeon 1987, 41. Jarosch 1994, 143, no. 644, pl. 61 (ca. 660 BC). Brock/Young 1949, 19-22, pls. 7.1-3, 8.45; Kourou 2000; 2005; Moustaka 2002.

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES 50 51 52 53 54

55 56 57 58 59

60

61 62 63

64

65

66

67

68

Kübler 1970, 435-436, inv. 145-146, nos. 46-47, fig. 50, pls. 36-37. Burr 1933, 604-609, no. 277, figs. 72-73. Scholl 2006, 106-107, no. 120, fig. 45a-c. Sturgeon 1987, 31-45, pl. A, B, 1-16. Compare in particular to those of Zapheiropoulou’s Painter of the Simple Guilloche: Mykonos, Archaeological Museum, 560, 557, Zapheiropoulou 2003, 163164, nos. 3-4, pls. II-III (670/660 BC). The ear of the Despotiko figurine brings it closer to the figures of later hydriai: Zapheiropoulou, 2003, 181, no. 65, pl. LII [Style du groupe de Sphinx]). Kourayos 2012, 50. Alexandridou 2018. Kübler 1970, 435-436, inv. 145-146, nos. 46-47, fig. 50, pls. 36-37. Kourayos/Burns 2017, 332-334; Kourayos 2018b, 19-22; Kourayos/Angliker 2021. They belong to Higgins’ Aphrodite Group, IIb (Higgins 1967, 35-36) or to the so-called lady with polos type (Huysecom-Haxhi 2009, 342-356). For various examples: Higgins 1954, 20, 51, nos. 68-74, pls. 13-14; 1967, no. B, pl. 13; Boardman/Hayes 1966, nos. 26-27, 29-30, pl. 98; Stampolidis 2003, 388-389; Spathi 2007, 61-63; Kepce/Gerceker 2011, 57, n. 4. Similar examples are known from many island sanctuaries, such as Kythnos: Alexandropoulou in Alexandridou 2017, 173, figs. 90-91, Paros: Rubensohn 1962, pl. 23. n. 2 (Delion), Schilardi 2016, fig. 21 (Koukounaries), Delos: Laumonier 1959, nos. 80, 82, 85, Thasos: Weill 1985, 163-196, Rhodes: Blikenberg 1931, 508-511, pls. 211-218 (Lindos), Higgins 1954, nos. 68, 70-71, pls. 13-14 (Kameiros), Samos: Stampolidis 2003, 388, nos. 590-591. Stampolidis 2003, 388, no. 592. For the chronology of this type, see esp. Huysecom-Haxhi 2009, 177, 191; Spathi 2007, 62, n. 323; Alexandropoulou in Alexandridou 2017, 171, n. 284. See most recently Barfoed 2013. Kourayos/Burns 2017, 333, fig. 13. They belong to Higgins’ “Aphrodite Group, Ic” (Higgins 1967, 35, no. F, pl. 13). Selectively for similar examples: Rubensohn 1962, no. 33, pl. 25 (Parian Delion); Higgins 1954, no. 58, pl. 12 (Kameiros); Blinkenberg 1931, 508-511, pls. 211-218 (Lindos). Delos:Laumonier 1959, 73-80, pls. 9-18; Paros: Rubensohn 143-148, nos. T38-T40, pl. 26. Similar examples from Rhodes have been dated in the early fifth century BC (Higgins  67-70, nos. 134-141, pls. 25-26). Sirens or birds are commonly found in the Archaic sanctuaries mostly in the form of vessels. Selectively: Higgins 1954, nos. 75-77, pl. 16 (Rhodes); Higgins 1959, 22, no. 1629, pl. 13 (Rhodes); Laumonier 1956, 85, nos. 174-175 (Delos); Stampolidis 2003, 314, no. 335 (Samos). Compare to a terracotta example from Selinus: Gàbrici 1927, 223, pl. XLII.12. For lion figurines of similar shape: Higgins 1954, no. 173, pl. 32. For a comparable faience figurine from Parian Delion: Rubensohn 1962, 170, pl. 35, n.8; Stampolidis 2003, 518, no. 1006. For a comparable animal figurine made of ivory from Perachora: Dunbabin 1962, 409, pl. 174. It is unclear if the animal had a long tail. Selectively, for comparable animal figurines made of faience: Stampolidis/Karetsou 1998, 217, no. 248; Stampolidis 2003, 518, nos. 1003-1006. For various examples of metal vessels including aryballoi and phiale: Stampolidis/Karetsou 1998, 234-235,

69

70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78

79 80

81

82

83 84 85

86 87 88 89 90 91

238-253; Stampolidis 2003, 436-454. For faience closed vessels: Stampolidis 2003, 487-4493 This is an uncommon find in Cycladic sanctuaries. For comparable examples in normal size coming from Italy but originating from East Ionian workshops: Stampolidis 2003, 452, nos. 787-788. For a comparable example: Stampolidis 2003, 453, no. 790. Zimi in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 21, fig. 82a-b. Stampolidis 2003, 496, no 930; Kourayos/Burns 2017, 335. Maximova 1927, pl. XXXIV: 128; Webb 1978, 11-18, pl. I; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2002, 130-131, fig. 8c, pl. 33b. Stampolidis 2003, 496-497, no. 929 (Samos), no. 932 (Syracuse), no. 333 (Carthage). Examples are known from the Archaic sanctuary on Kythnos (Papadopoulou in Koukoulidou et al. 2017, 234, fig. 123) and the Artemision at Ephesos (Pülz 2009, 78-79, pl. 12). Papadopoulou in Koukoulidou et al. 234, fig. 122. Stampolidis 2003, 558, n. 1105, 1106. For similar examples: Dunbabin 1962, nos. H4-H40, pl. 195 (Perachora); Blinkenberg 1931, 11-113 (Lindos); Stampolidis 2003, 559, no. 1109 (Samos); Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 241, fig. 138a-b (Kythnos). For amber seals, see in general: D’Ercole 2013. Stampolidis/Karetsou , 224-225 with further bibliography. For beads of different material see Blinkenberg 1931, 111-113; Dunbabin 1962, 524; Rubensohn 1962, 78-79; Sapouna-Sakellaraki 2002, fig. 36d; Stampolidis 2003, 522-527, 558-559. The intensification of trade and exchanges between the islands and the mainland with centers of the eastern Mediterranean during the Protogeometric and Geometric periods has been much discussed. See selectively Sherratt/Sherratt 1993, 361-378; Stampolidis 2003, 41-79; Coldstream 2003, 351-352. Beads of this type are common in the Greek sanctuaries, including the Delion of Paros: Rubensohn 1962, pl. 10h. See also Stampolidis 2003, 524, no. 1026, 526, no. 1030; Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 240, fig. 135 (low row, central bead). Angliker 2020. Boardman 1963; Stampolidis 2003, 579-580, where a similar scarab from Kaminaki on Naxos (no. 1169). Stampolidis 2003, 580, no. 1176. For comparable examples with lions: Dunbabin 1962, 478, 502-503, pl. 36, D515-518, D526-530. Stampolidis 2003, no. 1173. Boardman/Buchner 1966, 1-62. Paros Archaeological Museum 1539. See also: Blinkenberg 1931, 162, pl. 18. See e.g., Popham et al. 1990, 82; Catling et al. 1983, 273290, 287; Papadopoulos 2005, 553-555. Stampolidis 2003, 499, n.941. Astruc 1957, 47-112; Stampolidis/Karetsou 1998, 218, no. 249; Stampolidis 2003, 499-503.

203

Plates V.III. Other objects

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

BRONZE,

SILVER AND FAIENCE JEWELLERY FOUND IN

ROOM A1

PLATE V.III.1

207

V.III.

PLATE V.III.2

208

BRONZE

FIBULAE, IRON AND GOLD PINS FOUND IN

ROOM A1

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

IVORY

FIBULAE FOUND IN

ROOM A1

PLATE V.III.3

209

V.III.

PLATE V.III.4

210

THE FEMALE FIGURE WITH THE “DAEDALIC”

CHARACTERISTICS

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FOUND

IN

ROOM A1

PLATE V.III.5A

211

V.III.

PLATE V.III.5B

212

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FOUND

IN

ROOM A1

OBJECTS OTHER THAN CLAY VASES

TERRACOTTA FEMALE PROTOMES FOUND

IN

ROOM A1

PLATE V.III.6

213

VI. Deities, Cult and Activity at Archaic Mandra Yannos Kourayos, Alexandra Alexandridou, Ilia Daifa, Eleni Hasaki, Robert Sutton The earliest material evidence at the site of Mandra extends from the late ninth through the eighth century BC. The evidence of this initial phase indicates a settlement and includes strong evidence of ritual activity.1 An extensive deposit discovered in connection with two early buildings included a number of eighth century BC clay figurines and a few pieces of bronze jewellery that must have served as dedications.2 The large assemblage of Early Iron Age pottery from the same deposition contained a high percentage of drinking, mixing vessels and cooking pots, together with abundant animal bones, and points to the preparation and consumption of food and drink during that time. That could have taken place either in domestic context, or it may represent the remains of ritual feasting, which constitutes the core of cult activity at Greek sanctuaries during the Early Iron Age.3 Two centuries later, wealthy Paros initiated construction of an extensive and well-defined temenos with Building A as its main cult building.4 More than 600 objects deposited below the floor slabs of Room A1, together with the accumulation of disturbed and discarded objects recovered inside and around the building presented here provide a more secure basis for approaching cult activity at Mandra during the Archaic period. Discussions of deposits, like those of the Despotiko “temple” draw on a range of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.5 The absence of textual evidence does not allow us to distinguish easily whether votive offerings primarily reflect concerns of the donor, aspects of the honored deity, or elements of the cult rituals. Since different deities often received a similar range of dedications, any attempt to correlate their type with the deity is problematic.6 Instead of defining a deity’s gender or identity, the evidence from various cult sites indicates that the material remains of worship were dependent on and specifically adapted to a range of factors, including individual and social motivations – mostly locally determined.7 There is often a tendency to “read” particular objects as “male” or “female”, forgetting

that gender is a social construction, and that these binaries rather reflect modern preconceptions. Moreover, the presence of objects traditionally considered “feminine” in sanctuaries of both male and female deities illuminates a less fixed donation system largely defined by the individual donor.8 The act of dedication encompasses the dedicant’s personal message to the god or goddess, as the votive offering acts as his or her identifier, expressing the individual’s religiosity and personal piety, and even his or her wealth and power.9 Yet, although the types of objects deposited in the “temple” at the site of Mandra on Despotiko might be well attested in most Archaic sanctuaries of the Greek mainland and the other Cyclades, their co-existence points to a deliberate selection whose collective connotations need to be reviewed.

VI.1. DEITIES AND CULT CELEBRANTS To date, the clay animal figurines are the only Early Iron Age discoveries that can throw light on the issue of the venerated deity at the time, if “traditionally” treated as indicators of gender and character. In this case, they could point to the cult of a female deity with the characteristics of a potnia theron.10 Alternatively, they could reflect the islet’s landscape, and possibly the relation of the locals with these living-beings.11 Dating almost a century later, the female clay figure (276) is the earliest undisputable evidence of the site’s cultic use from the second quarter or the middle of the seventh century. According to the excavator, this was the earliest cult idol of the sanctuary, possibly a representation of Artemis, who, either alone or together with her brother Apollo, was worshipped at the temenos. This interpretation was mostly based on the figure’s uniqueness, its large size and special characteristics; but since it was not found in its original context, its meaning and use cannot easily be determined. Modern research is still struggling with such clay figurines’ ambiguity, which cannot be

215

VI. easily resolved without the necessary contextual information.12 The interpretation of a pair of clay figurines from the deposit on the Kastro of Siphnos, whether as Artemis,13 or as Athena14 is characteristic of this issue. Although they share a number of features, like their elaborate garments, their characteristics vary and they lack any attributes which could definitely allow the viewer to identify them. The seventh century BC may have marked the use of iconographic elements like the polos that pointed to the divine, but these were not always clear to the viewers, since they seem to have simply aimed at revealing a discrete sacredness to the non-divine figurine.15 Whether or not the Despotiko clay maiden was originally equipped with a particular object that inserted her into a divine realm remains unknown. On the other hand, her simply decorated garment, in contrast to the much more elaborate chitons of the females from Siphnos,16 as well as the absence of jewellery, which is typical of the painted females on “Melian” vases, might be an argument for identifying the Despotiko figure with a mortal cult celebrant rather than the divine recipient. As such, it has been more recently interpreted as a structural support of a clay thymiaterion or perirrhanterion17 and assigned a particular role in cult activity either as an incense burner or a container of water for purification. The gender of the seventh-century clay figure, the numerous beads (302-318), bronze and ivory fibulae (257-271), pins (272-275) and discs, and other pieces of jewellery (241-256), as well as the female figurines (276-282), dating to the sixth century, may imply that they were offered by young girls in the transition from childhood to adulthood.18 The alabastra (V.II, Table 1), as well as the single steatite spindle whorl from the deposit (327) are also linked with female activities, as confirmed by both iconographic and literary evidence.19 The notion of fertility, already traced in the Early Iron Age figurines, seems to be carried by the gold pin with head formed as a pomegranate (272) that recalls the plastic pomegranates dedicated at the Parian Delion and the Delian Heraion (V.II, Table 2).20 These objects may emit a strong female scent, but that cannot easily enlighten the identity of the cult recipient. Evidence for the cult of a female deity, and of particularly Artemis, at the site is largely indirect, including the statue base discovered inside Room A2 (II, fig. 30),21 and a clay female figurine with a high, cylindrical polos seated on a throne (277).22 The cult of Apollo is attested at Mandra prior to the construction of the "temple". Apollo's name is a possible restoration in a graffito in the Parian

216

alphabet on on a lekane dated to the late seventh/early sixth century BC.23 It is more likely on graffito D (V.II, fig. 18) found in Room A1, Stratum I, which must have been inscribed before the “temple's” construction. As noted above (V.II.6), Apollo's name is certain in three other graffiti (A, B, E, V.II, figs. 18, 19) and possible on another (C, V.II, fig. 18). All appear on sherds of banqueting equipment found in association with Building A. Apollo is one of the most widely worshiped deities in the Greek world with his cult varying in nature.24 In the Cyclades, he was mainly worshipped as Delios or Pythios with his sanctuaries usually located on hills (Delion on Paros), promontories (Delion on Naxos), or prominent loci within the polis (Karthaia, Thera, Anaphi). Most of his Cycladic sanctuaries were established simultaneously or after the development of his cult on Delos, the sacred birthplace of the god and of his twin sister Artemis, and the Panionian religious centre (as seen in the Homeric Hymn 3a To Delian Apollo dated to eight or seventh century BC). 25 Worshipped in elaborate temples, Apollo was regarded as the ideal role model for the male elite, who displayed their wealth and power through impressive dedications.26 At Despotiko, Mandra, several of the objects deposited inside the “temple” reveal a strong male focus (V.II.8). They include the iron weapons and farming tools (220-238),27 the plastic hoplite head aryballos (92) and the hoplite on a painted aryballos (27). Moreover, the plastic lion head aryballos (91) and the lion figurine (288) from Room A1 could represent manliness and power. The recovered Corinthian shapes may be typical dedications at the Archaic sanctuaries, but what is striking at Despotiko is the range of iconographic themes focused on male interests.28 This material seems well adapted to the cult of a young and handsome god, strong in war, protector of the polis and its youths, who could provide even an emotional bond to boys approaching manhood.29 Apart from their implications for expressing the gender and interests of the dedicants, some of the votives from Building A are significant as expressions of status and social dynamics. Unique artefacts, like the female figurine (276), which must have been specially commissioned and exclusively designed for dedication at the sanctuary, objects made of precious, unusual, and exotic materials also served as valuable material signatures of individuals of a high social status. Most pertinent is the role of such exotic luxuries in determining relationships within and beyond local communities. Their acquisition from afar might have formed part of a strategy through

DEITIES, CULT AND ACTIVITY which the elite demonstrated its privileged connections and prestige beyond the borders of their community.30 It should be noted, however, that the high proportion of scent vessels indicates a preference for more personalized votives. Even if some may have had a previous stage in their lifecycle, they were chosen as suitable dedications for invoking the special connection between dedicator and divinity.31 Strikingly, votives designed strictly for display (e.g., plates, miniatures) constitute only 5% at Despotiko, but account for 11% at the Heraion of Delos and a full quarter of the pottery at the Delion of Paros (V.II, figs. 21-23).32 After these votives of various types were sealed under the floor of the “temple” around the middle of the sixth century, the sanctuary welcomed the first monumental stone statues, the numerous kouroi, later recovered as fragments in secondary use.33 Their abundance at the site combined with the almost complete absence of female statues allows their identification as representations of the god Apollo, comparable to the colossal kouros on Delos. These statues bear witness not only to the vibrant religious activity at the sanctuary, but also the significant wealth deposited in the Late Archaic period at Mandra.34 Parians might have been the most common visitors at the site as traced from the fabric of the clay votives and the alphabet of the graffiti,35 but the site’s central location in the Cyclades and its protected harbor must have attracted travelers from the wider Aegean, who carried this variety of imported objects from East Greece, the coast of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt.36

VI.2. CULT ACTIVITY: FEAST AND SACRIFICE The deposits at the “temple” (V.II, Table 1) may have yielded a few clay objects recognized as part of the sanctuary’s cult equipment, including the ring askoi, the black-ground polychrome phiale, the thymiaterion lid, the lamps and maybe the seventh-century clay figure (276) – if it was indeed a support of a thymiaterion or a perirrhanterion –,37 but the majority of ceramic and other finds in these deposits allows for a better reconstruction of commensality and sacrificial activity. Communal feasting at the sanctuary of Mandra did not come to an end after the Early Iron Age. Instead, it retained a prominent role in cult life, when it must also have been “institutionalized”, as indicated by the attachment of an architecturally separate and elaborate unit to the “temple”, recognised as a hestiatorion equipped with wooden klinai and/or shelves, but lacking hearths. The predominance of cups, jugs, and

kraters (with a few transport amphoras) over the oil vessels in the deposits of Building A further strengthens the reconstruction of banqueting activities. The dichotomy between normal-sized and smaller drinking vessels may indicate their use in rites of passage, as also suggested by the remote location with ample space for communal feasting. Drinking continued as a major activity in the pre-Classical sanctuary at Mandra, as reflected on the strong presence of drinking shapes in the raw sherd counts. This evidence is in close accord with that from the Delion of Paros and stands in distinct contrast to the Heraion of Delos, where cups were primarily used for display. Animal sacrifice is less clearly visible in the deposited material, even though the construction of the Semicircular Structure essentially at the centre of the temenos already in the seventh century, confirms that sacrifice formed part of the cult at Mandra from the Archaic period on. Some of the metal objects from the depositions, including the iron knives, double-headed axes, and iron rods may have served as sacrificial implements. The aryballoi and conical lekythoi of the “Argive Monochrome” ware may also have played a role in sacrifice as well.38

EPILOGUE The middle of the sixth century BC marked the site’s monumentalisation, articulated in the foundation of the temenos that was initiated with Building A. The careful deposition of this large assemblage of objects below the floor of the “temple’s” Room A1 established anew the centre of the cult activity in a consistent location. By that time, Apollo had emerged as the main cult recipient of the temenos, overshadowing any possible female predecessor. The excavation of Mandra is still in progress. Buildings, structures, and numerous objects come to light every year, unveiling the long history of one of the most interesting sites in the Aegean Sea and will surely lend nuance and perhaps even correction to conclusions drawn here. NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6

Alexandridou 2019. For the figurines: Alexandridou 2022; forthcoming. Alexandridou 2019, 200 with relevant bibliography. Kourayos/Daifa 2017. Shanks 1999, 169-194; Osborne 2004; Klebinder-Gauss 2015; Pakkanen 2015; Siapkas 2015. See in particular: Boardman et al. 2004, 317. Only a high presence of a particular type of votive could allow firmer conclusions.

217

VI. 7

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18

19

20 21

Yet the nature of dedications has been associated with the character of a deity in the case of Hera: Baumbach 2004. Moreover, specific types of objects have been used for deducing the gender of the worshippers. See R. Ammerman’s study (1993) of votive terracottas from Santa Venera at Paestum. See esp. 23. Jacquemin 2009, 78-79. See e.g., Purvis 2003, 5-7; Baumbach 2004, 1-5; Mylonopoulos 2006, 84-92. Alexandridou 2017, 359-361; 2019, 207. Alexandridou 2022. Donohue 1997; Scheer 2000; Mylonopoulos 2010, 7; Keesling 2010, 87; Huysecom-Haxhi/Muller 2015. This ambiguity is even more evident for Archaic marble korai, since the same artistic features were used for visualizing both elite young mortals and divinities. See esp. Keesling 2003, 97-121; 2010, 102. Kourou 2000; 2002. Moustaka 2002. Mylonopoulos 2014, 272. For the symbolism of decorated garments of Archaic figurines: Kourou 2005, 230-231. Alexandridou 2019. The finds from the Artemision of Thasos have been similarly interpreted: Chalazonitis 2019, 154-155 where further references; and the ‘female’ deity venerated at the Archaic temple of Kythnos: Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 95-98. For the alabastra see: Algrain/Brisart/Jubier-Galinier 2008, 152-156. For females and textile production, see characteristically: Spantidaki 2016, 9, 17. For symbolic connotations of the pomegranate, see e.g., Kourou 1987b; Immerwahr 1989. For the base, see Chapter II.

218

22

23 24 25 26 27

28 29

30 31 32

33 34 35 36 37 38

These clay “dames au polos” have been commonly interpreted as goddesses and often recognized as Artemis herself, e.g., examples from the Artemision of Thasos: Huysecom 1997, 155-180; 2009, 342-356. Others have also been recognized as representations of Hekate and other deities in Asia Minor. For this type of figurine, see also: Weill 1985, 147-220. Matthaiou 2015, 102. For the cult of Apollo, see generally Burkert 1985, 308317; Schachter 1992, 37-39; Larson 2007, 87-100. Kourayos/Daifa 2017, 288-289. Schachter 1992, 38-39. The absence of similar objects from the Delion on Paros and the Heraion on Delos further underlines the singularity of the cult at Mandra (Deonna 1938, 208-210). See above Chapter V.II.8. The possibility that these objects point to male rites of passage should be seriously considered. For rites of initiation, see esp. Burkert 2005. Morris 2000, 154-197. Osborne 2004, 2. If these trends are confirmed and clarified by later discoveries, it may be possible to differentiate two Parian cults of the Delian twins. Kourayos/Burns 2017. Kourayos/Alexandridou/Daifa forthcoming. Kourayos/Daifa 2017. Constantakopoulou 2007, 20. See above Chapter V.II.8. For the affinities of the “Argive monochrome” conical lekythos with the Corinthian conical oinochoai, see Alexandridou 2019, 191.

Bibliography

Adam, S. 1966, The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Oxford. $NDPDWLV ,  ԅք‫נ‬ֆսպևն նցնֆտն։վտ֒ ֆևփվ֊պ‫׎‬ն ևռօ տնևնֆևքփ։ֵօևռօնոփք֒օևռօԅ֬րրնօ, Egnatia 1, 171193. Albizzati, C. 1932, Vasi antichi dipinti del Vaticano, Vatican. $OH[DQGULGRX $ IRUWKFRPLQJ ԅֵրվցն պվչ‫׾‬րվն ևռօ ԅք‫׾‬վۚռօӺۛփ֊ֵօևփֈԇվչֵքփֈնۛ‫נ‬ևռս֬ֆռԁ֒ցևքն ֆևփӹպֆۛփևվտ‫ۚנ‬վնۛք‫׾‬ևռۛնքփֈֆ‫׎‬նֆռLQԅպք‫ ׏‬և؆ց ӿֈտր֒չ֌ց ցֵֆ֌ց. To նք֊նվփրփովտ‫֬ נ‬քոփ ֆևվօ ӿֈտր֒չպօ, Ӷսֵցն, 22-26 Ԃփպۚշք‫׎‬փֈ 2017, Athens. Alexandridou, A. 2022, The Terracotta Animal Figurines from Despotiko. The Life of Humans and Objects in the Early Iron Age Cyclades beyond Polarities, BSA 117, 169-193. $OH[DQGULGRX$*HRPHWULF'HVSRWLNRRQWKH%RUGHU line between Sacred and Profane, in I.S. Lemos/A. Tsingarida (eds.), Beyond the Polis: Rituals, Rites and Cults in Early and Archaic Greece (12th-6th centuries BC) (Études d’archéologie 15), Brussels, 193-211. Alexandridou, A. 2018, The ‘Lady of Despotiko’ reconsidHUHG &XOW LPDJH RU FXOW XWHQVLO" LQ $QJOLNHU7XOO\ 2018, 87-100. Alexandridou, A. 2011, The Early Black-Figured Attic Pottery in Context (ca. 630-570 BCE), Leiden. Alexandridou, A./A. Alexandropoulou/M. Koutsoumpou/ A. Mazarakis Ainian/D. Paleothodoros/M. Panagou/P. Tsilogianni 2017, Pottery and Clay Figurines from the Sanctuary of Kythnos, in Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 135-192. $OH[DQGULGRX$. 'DLID LQ SUHVV Ӷցնջռև‫׾‬ցևնօ ևփց ۛք‫׾‬վۚփփվտվֆۚ‫נ‬ևռօӶցևվۛ֒քփֈֆևփӹպֆۛփևվտ‫נ‬LQ= Papadopoulou (ed.), ԁցռ‫ܟ‬պ‫׎‬ն տնվ նք֊նվ‫נ‬ևռևպօ ևռօ Ӷցևվ‫֒ܠ‬քփֈտնվև֌ցցռֆ‫׎‬չ֌ցևռօ. Algrain, I. 2014, L’alabastre attique. Origine, forme, et usages (Études d’archéologie 7), Brussels. Algrain, I./Th. Brisart/C. Jubier-Galinier 2008, Les vases à parfum à Athènes aux époques archaïque et classique, in A. Verbanck-Piérard/N. Massar/D. Frère (eds.), Parfums de l’Antiquité. La rose et l’encens en Méditerranée, Mariemont, 145-164. Aliprantis, N. Ch. 2010. ԋքփցփրփովտ‫ נ‬ԅնց‫נ‬քն‫ܟ‬ն ևռօ Ӿֆևփք‫׎‬նօևռօԅ֒քփֈӶWKHQV $OYHV&6DOW:HDWKHULQJRI1DWXUDO%XLOGLQJ6WRQHV A Review of Influence of Rock Characteristics, in Cornejo, D.N./J.L. Haro (eds.), Building Materials: Properties, Performance and Application, New York, 57-94. Amyx, D. 1988, Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, Berkeley. $P\['7KH$WWLF6WHODL3DUW,,,9DVHVDQG2WKHU Containers, Hesperia 27, 163-254. $QDVWDVRSRXORV Ӿ &K  Ӹպ֌րփովտֵ տնևնֆտպֈֵ ևռօ ցֵֆփֈ Ӷցևվۛ֒քփֈ տնվ և֌ց ۛպք‫ ׎‬նֈևֵց ցռֆ‫׎‬չ֌ց ոպ֌րփո‫׎‬ն  ۛպևքփրփո‫׎‬ն  տփվևնֆۚնևփրփո‫׎‬ն  ոպ֌֊ռۚվտֵ ֬քպֈցն Ӹպ֌րփովտնվ տն‫ ׎‬Ӹպ֌։ֈֆվտն‫׎‬ ԁպր֬ևնվ VII, 235-375. Anderson, J.K. 1954, Excavation on the Kofinà Ridge, BSA 49, 122-182. $QGUHLRPHQRX$Ԉփցպտքփևն։պ‫׎‬փևռօӶտքնվ։‫׎‬նօ Prakt, 113-141.

Angliker, E.M. 2020, Dance, Rituals and Spaces at the Sanctuary of Despotiko, in A. Bellia (ed.), Musical and Choral Performance Spaces in the Ancient World (TELESTES 5), Pisa, 19-30. Angliker, E.M. 2017, Worshipping the Divinities at the Archaic Sanctuaries in the Cyclades, in Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 29-53. Angliker, E./J. Tully (eds.), 2018, Cycladic Archaeology and Research. New Approaches and Discoveries, Oxford. Anthon, Ch. 1871, A System of Ancient and Medieval Geography. For The Use Of Schools And Colleges, Michigan. Antonaccio, C.M. 2005, Dedications and the Character of Cult, in R. Hägg/B. Alroth (eds.), Greek Sacrificial Ritual, Olympian and Chtonian. Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, Organized by the Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History Goteborg University, 25-27 April 1997, Stockholm, 99-112. Antonelli, F./L. Lazzarini 2015, An Updated Petrographic and Isotopic Reference Database for White Marbles used in Antiquity, Rendiconti Lincei Scienze Fisiche e Naturali 26, 399-413. Apostola, E. 2018, Representations of the Demon God Bes in East Greece (Samos, Rhodes) during the 7th and 6th centuries BC and their Influence on Popular Religious %HOLHIV%HVDQGWKH¶IDWEHOOLHGGHPRQV·LQ*9DYRX ranakis/K. Kopanias/C. Kanellopoulos (eds.), Popular Religion and Ritual in Prehistoric and Ancient Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean, Oxford, 113-124. $SRVWROD($HJ\SWLDFDLQ$UFKDLF*UHHFHԈKH0XOtiple Connotations of Faience Amulets and Figurines Representing Egyptian Deities, in A. Kalaitzaki/G. Mavroudis (eds.), Mediterranean: Relationships from Prehistoric to the Byzantine Period. Proceeding of the 3rd National Student Archaeology Congress of the Department of Mediterranean Studies, Rhodes, 101-114. $SRVWROD (3 .RXVRXOLV  Ӻ[RWLF 2IIHULQJV LQ WKH Archaic Rhodian Sanctuaries. A Critical Synthesis of the Egyptian and Egyptianizing Votives, AURA 2, 103-116. $VWUXF0([RWLVPHHWORFDOLVPHeWXGHVXUFRTXLOOHV d' oeuf d’autruche décorées d’Ibiza, Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 6, 47-112. Athanasoulis, D. 2017, Vanity: Jewellery Stories from the Cyclades, Athens. Aupert, P. 1980, Objets de la vie quotidienne à Argos en 585 ap. J.-C., in Études argiennes (BCH Suppl. 6), 395457. Bailey, D.M. 1988, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the British Museum 3, Roman Provincial Lamps, London. %DNDODNLV *  Ӷۛ‫ נ‬ևն ցփևվփնցնևփրվտ֒ տք֒ֆۛպչն ևռօ ԅ֒քփֈ LQ 0 7LYHULRV6 'URXJRX&K 6DDDWsoglou-Paliadeli (eds.), Ԓ‫ܟ‬ռևփօ Ԉվ‫ܟ‬ռևվտ‫נ‬օ և‫ܟנ‬փօ ովն ևփց տնսռոռևֵ ԁնց‫׾‬րռ Ӷցչք‫נ‬ցվտփ, Thessaloniki, vol. 1, 527-554. Bankel, H. 1993, Der spätarchaische Tempel der Aphaia auf Aegina (Denkmäler antiker Architektur 19), Berlin. %DUIRHG 6  7KH 0\VWHU\ RI WKH 6HDWHG *RGGHVV Archaic Terracotta Figurines of the Northeastern PeloSRQQHVHӶcta Hyperborea 13, 85-105.

219

Barlou, V. 2014, Die archaische Bildhauerkunst von Paros. Untersuchungen zur stilistischen Entwicklung der anthropomorphen Rundplastik, Wiesbaden. Barton, N.R. 1972, A Model Study of Rock-joint Deformation, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science 9, 579-602. Baumbach, J.D. 2004, The Significance of Votive Offerings in Selected Hera Sanctuaries in the Peloponnese, Ionia and Western Greece (BAR-IS 1249), Oxford. Beazley, J.D. 1989a [1944], Potter and Painter in an Ancient Athens, in D.C. Kurtz (ed.), Greek Vases. Lectures by J. D. Beazley, Oxford, 39-59. Beazley, J.D. 1989b [1948], Some Attic Vases in the Cyprus Museum, Oxford. Beazley, J.D. 1956, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters, Oxford. Beazley, J.D. 1927-1928, Aryballos, BSA 29, 187-215. Benson, J.L. 1983, Corinthian Kotyle Workshops, Hesperia 52, 311-326. Bent, J.T. 1885, The Cyclades, or Life among the Insular Greeks, London. Bent, J.T./J.G. Garson 1884, Researches among the Cyclades, JHS 4, 42-59. Bergquist, B. 1990, Sympotic Space. A Functional Aspect of Greek Dining Rooms, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion. First Symposium on the Greek Symposion Oxford 4.-8. September 1984, Oxford, 37-65. Bergquist, B. 1973, Herakles on Thasos. The Archaeological, Literary and Epigraphic Evidence for his Sanctuary, Status and Cult Reconsidered, Uppsala. Bernard, P. 1964, Céramiques de la première moitié du VIIe siècle à Thasos, BCH 88, 77-146. Berranger, D. 1992, Recherches sur l’histoire et la prosopographie de Paros à l’époque archaïque, Clerment-Ferrand. Best, M.G. 2003, Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology,2 Oxford. %LHUO$ $SROOR LQ *UHHN 7UDJHG\ 2UHVWHV DQG WKH God of Initiation, in J. Solomon (ed.), Apollo. Origins and Influences, London, 81-96. Biers, W. 1999, ‘Plastic’ Sirens from Corinth. An Addendum to Amyx, Hesperia 68, 135-146. Biers, W. 1992, Archaic Plastic Vases from Isthmia, Hesperia 61, 227-238. Bikakis, M.H. 1985, Archaic and Classical Imported Pottery in the Museums of Paros and Naxos, University of Cincinnati (unpublished PhD thesis). Birge, D.E./S.G. Miller 1992, Excavations at Nemea. Topographical and Architectural Studies. The Sacred Square, the Xenon, and the Bath, Berkeley. Blegen, C.W./H. Palmer/R. S. Young 1964, The North Cemetery (Corinth XIII), Princeton. Blinkenberg, C. 1931, Les petits objets, Lindos. Fouilles et recherches 1902-1914 I, Berlin. Blinkenberg, C. 1926, Fibules grecques et orientales, Det. Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser, XIII, I, Copenhagen. Blondé, F./J-Y. Perreault/C. Péristéri 1992, in F. Blondé/ J.Y. Perreault (eds.), Un atelier de potier archaïque à Phari (Thasos), in Les ateliers de potiers dans le monde grec aux époques géométrique, archaïque, et classique (BCH Suppl. 23), Paris, 11-40. Boardman, J. 1998, Early Greek Vase Painting: 11th-6th Centuries B.C.: A Handbook, London. Boardman, J. 1992, The Phallos-bird in Archaic and Classical Greek Art, RA 2, 227-242. Boardman, J. 1980, The Greeks Overseas. Their Early Colonies and Trade,2 London. Boardman, J. 1974, Athenian Black Figure Vases. A Handbook, London.

220

Boardman, J. 1969, Archaic Finger Rings, AntK 10, 3-31. Boardman, J. 1967, Greek Emporio. Excavations in Chios 1952-1955 (BSA Suppl. 6), London. Boardman, J. 1963, Island Gems: A Study of Greek Seals in the geometric and early archaic periods, London. Boardman, J./G. Buchner 1966, Seals from Ischia and the Lyre-player Group, JdI 81, 1-62. Boardman, J./J.W. Hayes 1973, Excavations at Tocra, 19631965: The Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits (BSA Suppl. 10), London. Boardman, J./J.W. Hayes 1966, Excavations at Tocra, 19631965: The Archaic Deposits I (BSA Suppl. 4), London. Boardman, J. et al., 2004. Greek Dedications II, Greek Votive Objects, ThesCra I, 281-318. Bohn, R. 1885, Das Heiligtum der Athena Polias Nikephoros, AvP 2, Berlin. Boldrini, S. 1994, Le ceramice ioniche (Gravisca, Scavi nel santuario greco 4), Bari. Bommelaer, J.-F. 1992, Monuments argiens de Delphes et d’Argos, in M. Piérart (ed.), Polydipsion Argos. Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’état classique (BCH Suppl. 22), Paris, 265-293. %RQLDV=ԫցննոքփևվտ‫נ‬վպք‫נ‬ֆևվօӶվով֬օԀնտ֌ց‫׎‬նօ Athens. Bonnet, H. 1952, Reallexikon der ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte, Berlin. Bookidis, N. 1993, Ritual Dining at Corinth, in N. Marinatos/ R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries, London, 45-61. Bookidis N./R.S. Stroud, 1997, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. Topography and Architecture (Corinth XVIII), Princeton. Bouras, Ch. 1967, Ӽնցնֆևֵր֌ֆվօևռօֆևփ֒օևռօӷքնֈք‫׾‬ցնօ, Athens. Böhm, S. 2014, Korinthische Figurenvasen. Düfte, Gaben, und Symbol, Regensbutg. Börker, Ch. 1983, Festbankett und griechische Architektur, Xenia 4, Konstanz. Böttger, B. 2002, Kaiserzeitlischen Lampen von Kerameikos, Kerameikos XVI, Munich. Brann, E.T.H. 1962, Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery. Mid 8th to late 7th Century BC (The Athenian Agora VIII), Princeton. Brock, J.K./G. Mackworth Young 1949, Excavations in Siphnos, BSA 44, 1-92. Broneer, O. 1977, Terracotta Lamps (Isthmia III), Princeton. Broneer, O. 1930, Terracotta Lamps (Corinth IV.2), Cambridge, Mass. Broodbank, C. 2000, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. Brownlee, A.B. 2003, Workshops in the Potters’ Quarter (Corinth XX), 181-194. Bruneau, P. 1965, Les lampes (EAD XXVI), Paris. Bruneau, P./T. Ulpiano/C.Vatin, 1970, L’ îlot de la maison des comédiens (EAD XXVII), Paris. Bruneau, Ph./J. Ducat 2005, Guide de Délos, Sites et Monuments 1,4 Paris. Bruneau, Ph./P. Fraisse 2002, Le Monument à abside et la question de l’Autel de cornes, Paris. Bruneau, Ph./M. Brunet/A. Farnoux/J.-Ch. Moretti 1996, Délos. Ile sacrée et ville cosmopolite, Paris. Buitton-Oliver, D. 1996. Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates: Excavations in the Archaic Period, Jonsered. Burkert, W. 2005, Initiation, ThesCra II, Los Angeles, 91-124. Burkert, W. 1985, Greek Religion (trans. J. Raffan), Cambridge Mass. %XUU'$JRUD([FDYDWLRQV$*HRPHWULF+RXVHDQG a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit, Hesperia 2, 542-640.

Bursian, C. 1868-1872, Geographie von Griechenland I-II, Leipzig. Buschor, E. 1929, Kykladisches, AM 54, 142-163. Butt, K. 1977, A Deposit of Archaic and Classical Greek Pottery at Ayia Irini, Keos, Hesperia 46, 299-314. Büsing-Kolbe, A. 1978, Griechische Türen, JdI 93, 66-174. Cahn Auktionen, AG. 2010, Ancient Art: Auction Sale Thursday, 16 September 2010, Basel. Cambitoglou, A./A. Birchall/J.J. Coulton/J.R. Green 1988, Zagora 2. Excavations of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros. Excavation Season 1969; Study Season 1969-1970, Athens. Camp, J. McK. 1990, The Athenian Agora. Site Guide,4 Athens. Caskey, J.L./P. Amandry 1952, Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949, Hesperia 21, 165-221. Catling, J./H. Carington Smith/H. Hughes-Brock 1998, The Small Finds, in W. A. McDonald/W. D. E. Coulson/ J. Rosser (eds.), Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece ,,, Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation, Minneapolis, 273-290. &DWOLQJ5(PERULRDQG.DPERV7ZR$UFKDLF6LWHV on Melos, in Yeroulanou/Stamatopoulou 2005, 69-77. &KDOD]RQLWLV,$UWHPLV%H\RQGWKH3ROLVRI7KDVRV The Cult of the Goddess in the Archaic North-Eastern Aegean, in Lemos/Tsingarida 2019, 149-170. Charalambidou, X. 2017, Euboea and the Euboean Gulf UHJLRQ3RWWHU\LQ&RQWH[WLQ&KDUDODPELGRX0RUJDQ 2017, 123-149. Charalambidou, X./C. Morgan (eds.) 2017, Interpreting the Seventh Century BC. Tradition and Innovation, Oxford. &KU\VRVWRPRX$Ԉն։վտ֒պֈքֵۚնևննۛ‫נ‬ևփցնք֊ն‫׎‬տփ փվտվֆۚ‫נ‬ֆևռցԂ֬նӻ֌ֵևփֈցփۚփ‫׭‬ԅ֬րրնօ0/LOLPpaki-Akamati/K. Tsakalou-Tzanavari (eds.), ԁցպ‫׎‬նօ ԋ֒քվցԈ‫ܟנ‬փօֆևռ‫ܟ‬ցֵ‫ܟ‬ռևռօԁն‫׎‬քռօԇվոնց‫׎‬չփֈ, Thessaloniki, 355-382. Clanferoni, G.C. 2001. World of the Etruscans, Santa Ana. Cohen, B. 2006, Six's Technique, in B. Cohen (ed.), The Colors of Clay. Special Techniques in Athenian Vases, Los Angeles, 71-104. Coldstream, J.N. 2008, Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and their Chronology2, Bristol. Coldstream, J.N. 2003, Geometric Greece, London. Coldstream, J.N./I.J. Eiring/G. Forster 2001, Knossos Pottery Handbook. Greek and Roman, London. Constantakopoulou, C. 2007, The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire, and the Aegean World, Oxford. Cook, R.M. 1933-1934, Fikellura Pottery, BSA 34, 1-98. Cook, R.M./P. Dupont 1998, East Greek Pottery, London. Cotter, J. 2014, Unrecognized Coots, Archaeological Institute of America. Abstracts of 115th Annual Meeting, Chicago Illinois, January 2-4, 2014, Boston, 46. Coulié, A. 2015, La céramique rhodienne aux époques JpRPpWULTXH HW DUFKDwTXH HQWUH WRXW HW ULHQ CRAI 159.3, 1312-1339. Coulié, A. 2014, La céramique de la Grèce de l’est. Le style des chèvres sauvages. La collection du Musée du Louvre, Paris. Coulié, A. 2013, La céramique grecque aux époques géométrique et orientalisante XIe-VIe siècle avant J.-C., Paris. &RXOLp$$UFKLORTXHHWODFRORQL]DWLRQGH7KDVRV L’apport de la céramique, in Katsonopoulou/Petropoulos/Katsarou 2008, 427-449. &RXOLp $  5pJLRQ HW FLWpV OD TXHVWLRQ GHV VW\OHV cycladiques en céramique au VIIIe et VIIe siècles, Pallas 73, 53-62. Courbin, P. 1980, L’Oikos des Naxiens (EAD XXXIII), Paris.

Courbin, P. 1966, La céramique géometrique de l’Argolide (BEFAR 208), Paris. Courbin, P. 1953, Les origins du canthare attique archaïque, BCH 77, 322-345. Courby F. 1912, Le portique d’Antigone ou du Nord-Est et les constructions voisines, Paris. Cracolici, V. 2003, I sostegni di fornace dal Kerameikos di Metaponto, Bari. Cramer, J.A. 1828, A Geographical and Historical Description of Ancient Greece; with a Map, and a Plan of Athens, Vol. 3, Oxford. &URLVVDQW)ԅնքնևռքֵֆպվօովնևռո֬ցպֆռտնվ ևռց նց֒ۛևֈւռ և֌ց ևփۛվտ‫׾‬ց ևպ֊ցփևքփۛվ‫׾‬ց ֆևռ ցռֆվ‫׾‬ևվտռۛրնֆևվտֵևռօۛք‫׾‬վۚռօնք֊ն‫׍‬տֵօۛպքվ‫נ‬չփֈ Archaiognosia 12, 141-165. Cundall, P.A. 1988, Formulation of a Three-dimensional 'LVWLQFW(OHPHQW0RGHO3DUW,$6FKHPHWR'HWHFWDQG Represent Contacts in a System Composed of Many Polyhedral Blocks, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 25, 107-116. Dasen, V. 1993, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Oxford. Dasiou, M.-E./I.N. Psycharis/I. Vayas 2008, Numerical Analysis of the Seismic Behavior of Columns and Sub-assemblages of Ancient Temples, in Third National Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Technical Seismology, Athens. Daux, G./E. Hansen 1987, Le Trésor de Siphnos, FdD 2, Paris. Davidson, G.R. 1952, The Minor Objects (Corinth XII), Princeton. Davidson, G.R./D.B. Thompson/H.A. Thompson 1943, Small Objects from the Pnyx 1 (Hesperia Suppl. 7), Princeton. Dawkins, R.M. 1929, The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, London. Dehl von Kaenel, C. 1995, Die archaische Keramik aus dem Malophoros-Heiligtum in Selinunt. Die korinthischen, lakonischen, ostgriechischen und megarischen Importe sowie die ‘argivisch-monochrome’ und locale Keramik aus den alten Grabungen, Berlin. Deonna, W. 1938, Le mobilier délien (EAD XVIII), Paris. De Polignac, F. 2000, Ӽ ո֬ցցռֆռ ևռօ նք֊ն‫׎‬նօ պրրռցվտֵօ ‫נܠ‬րռօ, Athens. De Polignac, F. 1995, Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Greek City-State, London. D’Ercole, M.C. 2013, Ambres gravés. La collection du département des antiquités grecques, étrusques et romaines du Musée du Louvre, Paris, Somogy/Louvre Desborough, V.R. d’ A. 1952, Protogeometric Pottery, Oxford. 'HWRUDWRX 6  ԅք֌ևփտփքվցսվնտֵ տնվ տփքվց սվնտֵ տպքնۚվտֵ պվֆռոۚ֬ցռ ֆևռց ԅ֒քփ ArchDelt 58-64, 31-100. Detoratou, S./Y. Kourayos, 2004, A Daedalic Female Figurine, in Ancient Greece. Mortals and Immortals. Exhibition of the National Museum of China, Peking, 236-237. 'LDPDQWL&K$/DPSUDNLVIRUWKFRPLQJԁվտք֒ցռֆվ֒ չփքֈ։‫נ‬քփվ ֆևփ ֈֆևպքփք֌ۚն‫׍‬տ‫ۛנ‬ք֌ևփշֈջնցևվց‫נ‬ Ӷվոն‫׎‬փևփӹպֆۛփևվտ‫נ‬տնվռս֬ֆռևփֈֆևփֆ‫ۛۚ׭‬րպոۚն ԅ֒քփֈӶցևվۛ֒քփֈLQ=3DSDGRSRXORXHG ԁցռ‫ܟ‬պ‫׎‬ն տնվնք֊նվ‫נ‬ևռևպօևռօӶցևվ‫֒ܠ‬քփֈտնվև֌ցցռֆ‫׎‬չ֌ցևռօ. Diehl, E. 1964, Die Hydria. Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des Altertums, Mayence. Dindorf, W. 1825, Stephanus Byzantinus, vol. 1, Oxford. Dodd, D. B./C. A. Faraone (eds.), 2003, Initiation in Ancient Greek Rituals and Narratives. New Critical Perspectives, London. 'RQRKXH$$7KH*UHHN,PDJHVRIWKH*RGV&RQsiderations on Terminology and Methodology, Hephaistos 15, 31-45. Dover, K.J. 1978, Greek Homosexuality, Cambridge Mass.

221

Dowden, K. 1989, Death and the Maiden: Girls’ Initiation Rites in Greek Mythology, London. Draganits, E. 2009, The Archaic Sanctuary on Despotiko ,VODQG&\FODGHV *HRORJLFDO2XWOLQHDQG/LWKRORJLFDO Characterization of the Building Stones, with their Possible Provenance, Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences 102, 91-101. 'UDJDQLWV(0=XVFKLQ6*LHU/%LFNHO3OHLVWRcene Sand Ramp Deposits in the Aegean (Cyclades, Greece). European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2010, Vienna, 02-07 May, Geophysical Research Abstracts 12, 127-129. Dragendorff, H. 1903, Theräische Gräber. Thera. Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1859-1902, II, Berlin. Dubbini, R. 2011, Dei nello spazio degli uomini. I culti dell’ agora e la costruzione di Corinto arcaica, Rome. Ducat, J. 1966, Les vases plastiques rhodiens archaïques en terre cuite (BEFAR 209), Paris. Ducat, J. 1962, L’archaïsme à la recherche de points de repère chronologiques, BCH 86, 165-184. Dugas, C. 1928, Les vases de l’Héraion (EAD X), Paris. Dugas, C./C. Rhomaios 1935, Les vases orientalisants de style non mélien (EAD XVII), Paris. Dugas, C./C. Rhomaios 1934, Les vases préhelléniques et géométrique, XV, Paris. Dunbabin, T.J. 1962, Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenaia, Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 1930-1933, II, Oxford. Dupont, P. 2018, The Lessons of Archaeometric Data on East Greek Pottery Finds from Baykrakli, in R.G. Demir/H. Cevizoglu/Y. Polat and G. Polat (eds.), Archaic and Classical Western Anatolia: New Perspectives in Ceramic Studies (Colloquia Antiqua 19), Leuven, 43-56. Edwards, G.R. 1975, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery (Corinth VII.3), Princeton. Egglezos, D./E.-E. Toumbakari/V. Papavasileiou 2016, Study of the Dynamic Response of the Despotiko Monumental Complex (unpublished report submitted to the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports), Athens. Eilmann, R. 1933, Frühe Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion, AM 58, 47-145. (PSHGRFOHV  ԇֈրրփոֵ Ԥۚۛպչփտր֭փֈօ/Empedocles Collection. Unpublished photograph album. American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Blegen Library. Empereur, J.-Y./M. Picon 1986a, Des ateliers d’ amphores à Paros et à Naxos, BCH 110, 495-511. Empereur, J.-Y./M. Picon 1986b, Des ateliers d’ amphores à Paros et à Naxos. Note complementaire, BCH 110, 647-653. Erickson, B. 2010, Crete in Transition: Pottery Styles and Island History in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Hesperia Suppl. 45), Princeton. Ertl, A./E. Draganits/B. Grasemann/T. Ntaflos/G. Giester/ E. Tillmanns 2011, Synkinematic Growth of Tourmaline on Brittle-ductile Normal Faults (Despotiko Island Aegean Sea, Greece), in V.J. van Hinsbergen/D.J. Henry/ +5 0DUVFKDOO HGV  7RXUPDOLQH$Q LGHDO LQGLFDWRU of its host environment, The Canadian Mineralogist 49, 105-116. Étienne, R. 1991, Espace sacrificiel et autels déliens, in R. Etienne/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 (Publications de la Bibliothèque Salomon Reinach 5), Paris, 121-126.

222

Étienne, R./N. Kourou/E. Simantoni-Bournia 2013, Ӽնք֊ն‫׎‬ն Ԉֵցփօ, Athens. (XOHU.=DKQVFKQLWWXQG)ULHVLQ2VWLRQLHQ(LQQHXHU Blick auf die Genese der Gebälkformen in archaischer =HLWMarburger Winckelmannsprogramm 2019, 1-66. Fettes, D./J. Desmons 2007, Metamorphic Rocks: A Classification and Glossary of Terms, Cambridge. Fichera, V.F. forthcoming, Amphoriskoi, in K. Neeft (ed.), I vasi corinzi di olii e unguenti (Catania, Deposito Votivo del Santuario di Demetra a Catania 1.2), Catania. Finkielsztejn, G. 2004, Koan Amphoare Imported in the Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period, in K. Höghammer (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy, and Culture (Boreas 28), Uppsala, 154-164. Finkielsztejn, G. 2001. Chronologie detaillée et révisée des éponymes amphoriques rhodiens, de 270 à 108 av. J-C. environ. Premier bilan (BAR-IS 990), Oxford. Fossen, H. 2016, Structural Geology,2 Cambridge. Fraisse, Ph./Ch. Llinas 1995, Documents d’ architecture hellénique et hellénistique, Paris. Fregonese, L./C. Monti 2012., L´ortofoto del pavimento tessulare di San Marco a Venezia, in E. Vio (ed.), Il manto di pietra della basilica di San Marco a Venezia: Storia, restauri, geometrie del pavimento, Venezia, 29-50. Friis Johansen, K. 1957, Exochi, ein frührhodisches Gräberfeld, ActaArch 28, 1-192. )XUWZlQJOHU$(+HUDLRQYRQ6DPRV*UDEXQJHQLP Südtemenos 1977, I. Schicht- und Baubefund, Keramik, AM 95, 149-224. Gàbrici, E. 1927, Il Santuario della Malophoros a Selinunte, Monumenti Antichi 32, 1-419. Gautier, J. 1993, Les Cyclades antiques. Caractérisation de centres de productions céramiques par microscopie optique, in R. Dalongeville/G. Rougemont (eds.), Recherches dans les Cyclades. Résultats de travaux de la RCP 583 (Maison de l’Orient; Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen 23), Lyon, 167-204. Gautier, J. 1990, Centres de production et échanges céramiques dans les Cyclades. Apport de la microscopie optique, Revue d’archéométrie 14, 65-85. Georgopoulos, V. 2004, The Archaeological Evidence of Coan Amphorae from Kardamaina (Ancient Halasarna), in K. Höghammer (ed.), The Hellenistic Polis of Kos. State, Economy, and Culture (Boreas 28), Uppsala, 129-132. Ghali-Kahil, L. 1960, La céramique grecque (Fouilles 19111956), (Études thasiennes VII), Paris. Ginouvès, R. 1962, Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque (BEFAR 200), Paris. Giraud, D.G. 1994, ԁպր֬ևռն‫ܠ‬փտնևնֆև֒ֆպ֌օևփֈցնփ‫׭‬ևռօ Ӷսռց֒օ Ԃ‫׎‬տռօ6WXG\ IRU WKH 5HVWRUDWLRQ RI WKH 7HPSOH RI Athena Nike I a-b, Athens. Goldstein, M.S. 1978, The Setting of the Ritual Meal in Greek Sanctuaries: 600-300 B.C., University of California at Berkeley (unpublished PhD thesis). Grandjean, Y./F. Salviat 2000, Guide de Thasos2, Paris. Grasemann, B./K. Stüwe/J.C. Vannay 2003, Sense and Nonsense of Shear in Flanking Structures, Journal of Structural Geology 25, 19-34. Grasso, L. 1998, Stipe votiva del santuario di Demetra a Catania. Kotylai e coppe corinzie figurate, Catania. Grierson, P./M. Mays 1992, Catalogue of Late Roman Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection from Arcadius and Honorius to the Accession of Anastasius, Washington. Gruben, G. 2001, Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer,5 Munich. Gruben, G. 1997, Naxos und Delos. Studien zur archaischen Architektur der Kykladen, JdI 112, 261-416.

Gruben, G. 1993, Die inselionische Ordnung, in J. Des Courtils/J.-C. Moretti (eds.), Grands ateliers d'architecture dans le monde égéen du VIe siècle av. J.-C. Actes du colloque d‘Istanbul, 23-25 mai 1991, Paris. Gruben, G. 1982a, Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972-1980, I. Archaische Bauten, AA 1982, 159-195. Gruben, G. 1982b, Der Burgtempel A von Paros. Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht, AA 1982, 197-229. Gruben, G. 1982c, Naxos und Paros. Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1972-1980, II. Klassische und hellenistische Bauten. Der ionische Peristylbau - oder das 'Hestia Heiligtum', AA 1982, 621-683. Gruben, G. 1972a, Naxos und Paros. Dritter vorläufiger Bericht über die Forschungskampagnen 1970 und 1971, AA 1972, 319-379. Gruben, G. 1972b, Kykladische Architektur, MüJb 23, 7-36. Gruben, G./W. Koenigs 1970, Der ‘Hekatompedos’ von Naxos und der Burgtempel von Paros, AA 1970, 135-153. Gruben, G./W. Koenigs 1968, Der ‘Hekatompedos’ von Naxos, AA 1968, 693-717. Guettel Cole, S. 1988, The Uses of Water in Greek Sanctuaries, in R. Hägg/N. Marinatos/G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens 26.-29. June 1986, Göteborg, 161-165. Hanisch, A./H. Schmid 1901, Österreichs Steinbrüche. Verzeichnis der Steinbrüche, welche Quader, Stufen, Pflastersteine, Schleif- und Mühlsteine oder Dachplatten liefern, Vienna. Hansen, E. 2000, Delphes et le travail de la pierre, in A. Jacquemin (ed.), Delphes. Cent ans après la grande fouille. Essai de bilan, Paris. Hasaki, E. 2021, Potters at Work in Ancient Corinth: Industry, Religion and the Penteskouphia Pinakes (Hesperia Suppl. 51), Princeton. Hasaki, E. 2010, A Stratigraphy of Meanings. Integrating Antiquities into Daily Life at Paroikia, Paros, in A. Stroulia/S.B. Sutton (eds.), Archaeology in Situ. Sites, Archaeology, and Communities in Greece, New York, 373-396. Hasaki, E./Y. Kourayos 2017, The Early Roman Pottery Workshop, the Classical House, and Geometric Burials at Skiadas Plot, Paroikia, Paros, ArchDelt 67-68 (20122013), 459-482. Hatzopoulos, M.B. 1994, Cultes et rites de passage en Macédoine (Meletimata 19), Athens. Hayes, J.W. 1992, Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul II. The Pottery, Princeton. +D\HV-:7XUNLVK&OD\3LSHV$3URYLVLRQDO7\SROogy, in P.J. Davey (ed.), The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe IV. Europe I (BAR-IS 92), London, 3-10. Hayes, J.W. 1972, Late Roman Pottery, London. Hellmann, M.-Chr. 2006, L’architecture grecque II. Architecture religieuse et funéraire, Manuels d’art et d’archéologie antiques, Paris. Hellmann, M.-Chr. 2002, L’architecture grecque I. Les principes de la construction, Paris. Herda, A. 2006, Der Apollon Delphinios-Kult in Milet und die Neujahrsprozession nach Didyma, Milesische Forschungen 4, Mainz. Higgins, M.D./R. Higgins 1996, A Geological Companion to Greece and the Aegean, London. Higgins, R.A. 1969, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the British Museum, London. Higgins, R.A. 1967, Greek Terracottas, London.

Higgins, R.A. 1959, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum II, London. Higgins, R.A. 1954, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum I, London. Hiller von Gaertringen, F./H. Dragendorff/P. Wilski 1899, Thera: Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1895-[1909], Berlin. Hodge, A.T. 1960, The Woodwork of the Greek Roofs, Cambridge. Hoek, E./C. Carranza-Torres/B. Corkum 2002, Hoek-Brown criterion—2002 edition, in “Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity”. Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference: NARMS-TAC 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July, 2002, vol.1, Rotterdam, 267-273. Hoek, E./M.S. Diederichs 2006, Empirical Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 43, 203-215. Hoffelner, K. 1999, Das Apollon-Heiligtum. Tempel, Altäre, Temenosmauer, Thearion, Alt-Ägina 1, 3, Mayence. Hölbl, G. 2016, Die ägyptische Götterwelt in den rhodischen Votivdepots von Kameiros, in S.L. Lippert/M. Schentuleit/M.A. Stadler (eds.), Sapientia Felicitas, Festschrift Gunter Vittmann, Montpellier, 217-254. Hölbl, G. 2005, Ägyptisches Kulturgut in der griechischen Welt im frühen ersten Jahrtausend vor Christus (10.-6. Jh.v.Chr.), in H. Beck/P.C. Bol/M. Bückling (eds.), Ägypten Griechenland Rom: Abwehr und Berührung, Katalog zur Ausstelleung im Städelschen Kunstinstitut Frankfurt, 26.11.2005-26.02.2006, Tübingen, 114-132. Hopper, R.J. 1949, Addenda to Necrocorinthia, BSA 44, 162-257. Howland, R.H. 1958, Greek Lamps and their Survivals (The Athenian Agora IV), Princeton. Hudson, J.A./J.W. Cosgrove 2019, Understanding Building Stones and Stone Buildings, Boca Raton. Huet, B./M.K. Reiser/B. Grasemann 2020, Hierarchisches Glossar planarer, linearer Strukturen und Bewegungsrichtungsindikatoren, Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 138, 1-57. Hulek, F. 2018, Der hocharchaische Tempel am Çatallar Tepe. Architektur und Rekonstruktion, in H. Lohmann/G. Kalaitzoglou/G. Lüdorf, Forschungen in der Mykale III,1 (Asia Minor Studien 89), Bonn. Huysecom-Haxhi, S. 2009, Les figurines en terre cuite de l’Artémision de Thasos: artisanat et piété populaire à l’époque de l’archaïsme mûr et récent (Études thasiennes XXI), Athens. +X\VHFRP 6  /D GDPH DX SRORV WKDVLHQQH  pWDElissement d’une série, in A. Müller (ed.), Le moulage de terre cuite dans l’Antiquité: création et production dérivée, fabrication et diffusion, Lille. Huysecom-Haxhi, S./A. Muller 2015, Figurines grecques HQ FRQWH[WH GH O·LGHQWLILFDWLRQ j OD IRQFWLRQ YHUV XQH archéologie de la religion, in S. Huysecom-Haxhi/A. Muller (eds.), Figurines grecques en contexte. Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison, Lille, 421438. ,PPHUZDKU 6  7KH 3RPHJUDQDWH 9DVH ,WV 2ULJLQV and Continuity, Hesperia 58, 397-410. Iren, K. 2003, Aiolische orientalisierende Keramik, Istanbul. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 1998. 3-dimensional Distinct Element Code (3DEC), Theory and Background. Minneapolis, 0LQQwww.itascacg.com/software/3dec.

223

Jacobstahl, P. 1956, Greek Pins and their Connections with Europe and Asia, Oxford. Jansen, G.C.M./A.O. Koloski-Ostrow/E.M. Moormann (eds.) 2011, Roman Toilets, their Archaeology and Cultural History, Leuven. Jarosch, V. 1994, Samische Tonfiguren des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aus dem Heraion von Samos (Samos XVIII), Bonn. Jeffery, L.H. 1990, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece,2 Oxford. Johansen, F. 1976, En ostgraesk parfumeflaske fra 6. aarh. f. Kr, MedKøv 33, 85-108. Jones, R.E. 1986, Greek and Cypriot Pottery. A Review of Scientific Studies, Athens. Karakassi, K. 2006, Eine archaische Terracotta-Statuette DXV'HVSRWLNR$QWLSDURV LQԂ&KU6WDPSROLGLVHG  Ӹպց֬սրվփց Ӷցն‫ܟ‬ցռֆևվտ‫נ‬օ և‫ܟנ‬փօ ովն ևռ ֆֈ‫ܠܟ‬րֵք֌ֆռ պ‫׎‬տփֆվ֊ք‫נ‬ց֌ցրպվևփֈքո‫׎‬նօևփֈԁփֈֆպ‫׎‬փֈӿֈտրնչվտֵօ Ԉ֬֊ցռօ, Athens, 159-164. Karivieri, A. 1996, The Athenian Lamp Industry in Late Antiquity (Papers and Monographs of the Finnish Institute at Athens 5), Helsinki. Karvonis, P./J.-J. Malmary 2009, Étude architecturale de quatre pièces polyvalentes du quartier du théâtre à Délos, BCH 133, 195-226. Katsonopoulou, D. (ed.) 2021, Paros V. Paros through the Ages from Prehistoric Times to the 16th Century AD, Athens. Katsonopoulou D./I. Petropoulos/S. Katsarou (eds.) 2008, Paros II: Archilochos and his Age. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades. Paroikia, Paros, 7-9 October 2005, Athens. Keesling, C.M. 2010, Finding the Gods. Greek and Cypriot Votive Korai Revisited, in J. Mylonopoulos (ed.), Divine Images and Human Imaginations in Ancient Greece and Rome, Leiden, 87-104. Keesling, C.M. 2003, The Votive Statues of the Athenian Acropolis, Cambridge. Kepce, S.C./S.Ö. Gerçekler 2011, Images in Terracotta: Ancient Terracotta Figurines in the Sadberk Hanim Museum Collection, Istanbul. Kerschner, M./U. Schlotzhauer 2005, A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery, Ancient West and East 4, 1-56. Kienast, H. 2004, Die Tyrannis inszeniert sich. Großbauten auf der Insel Samos, in E.-L. Schwandner/U. WulfRheidt (eds.), Macht der Architektur, Architektur der Macht. Bauforschungskolloquium in Berlin 30.10.-2.11.2002 (DiskAB 8), Mayence, 69-78. Kilian, K. 1975, Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit, PBF XIV, 2 Band, Munich. .LOLDQ'LUOPHLHUӾKleinfunde aus dem Athena ItoniaHeiligtum bei Philia (Thessalien), Bonn. Kinch, K.F. 1914, Vroulia, Berlin. Kissas, K. 2000, Die attischen Statuen- und Stelenbasen archaischer Zeit, Bonn. Klebinder-Gauss, G. 2015, Interpreting Votive Offerings from Early Archaic Deposits at the Artemisium of Ephesus, in Pakkanen/Bocher 2015, 108-121. Klebinder-Gauss, G. 2012, Keramik aus Klassischen Kontexten im Apollon-Heiligtum von Ägina-Kolonna. Lokale Produktion und Importe, Ägina-Kolonna. Forschungen und Ergebnisse, VI, Vienna. Koch-Harnack, G. 1983, Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke. Ihre Bedeutung im päderastischen Erziehungssystem Athens, Berlin. Korres, M. 1997, Die Athena-Tempel auf der Akropolis, in W. Hoepfner (ed.), Kult und Kultbauten auf der Akropolis. Symposion 1995, Berlin, 231-233.

224

Korres, M. 1994a, The Architecture of the Parthenon, in P. Tournikiotis (ed.), The Parthenon and its Impact in Modern Times, Athens, 55-97, 137-161. Korres, M. 1994b, 0պր֬ևռ D‫ܠ‬փտնևնֆև֒ֆպ֌օ ևփֈ ԅնք սպց‫׾‬ցփօ6WXG\IRUWKH5HVWRUDWLRQRIWKH3DUWKHQRQ7KH West Wall of the Parthenon and other Monuments, Athens. Korres, M. 1988, The Geological Factor in Ancient Greek Architecture, in Marinos/Koukis 1988, 1780-1793. Korres, M./A. Ohnesorg 2016, Griechisch-antike Werkspuren - Technik und Terminologie, mit einem Annex zu speziellen Werkspuren am Parthenon, in D. Kurapkat/ U. Wulf-Rheidt (eds.), Werkspuren - Materialverarbeitung und handwerkliches Wissen im antiken Bauwesen (DiskAB 12), Regensburg, 11-32. .RVWRJORX'HVSLQL Ӷ  ԅքփշրֵ‫ܟ‬նևն ևռօ ‫ܠ‬նքվնցֵօ ‫ܠ‬րնֆևվտֵօևփֈփֈնվ‫ܠ‬ԋ, Thessaloniki. Kotsonas, A. 2017, Ceramics, Analytical Scales and Cultural Histories of Seventh-century Crete, in Charalambidou/ Morgan 2017, 15-23. Kotsonas, A. 2011, Foreign Identity and Ceramic Production in Early Iron Age Crete, in G. Rizza (ed.), Convegno di Studi Identità culturale, etnicità, processi di formazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo, Catania, 133-155. Kotsonas, A. 2008, The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna: The Early Iron Age Pottery, Athens. .RXNRXOL&KU\VDQWKDNL&K$0DUDQJRXӶք֊ն‫׍‬տֵ տպքնۚվտֵ նۛ‫ נ‬ևռ սնֆվնտֵ նۛփվտ‫׎‬ն Ԅվֆ‫ۚ׭‬ռ LQ 0 Tiverios/V. Misailidou-Despotidou/E. Manakidou/A. Arvanitaki (eds.), Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700-480 BC). Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting, Thessaloniki, 19-22 May 2011, Thessaloniki, 321-338. Koukoulidou, Ch./A. Mazarakis Ainian/T. Theodoropoulou/$7RXORXPW]LGRX'9DUYDULQRX9DL(=LPL =3DSDGRSRXORX6PDOO)LQGVIURPWKH6DQFWXDU\ of Kythnos, in Mazarakis Ainian 2017, 193-256. .RXUD\RV