Kratos & Krater: Reconstructing an Athenian Protohistory 1784916226, 9781784916220

Athenian governance and culture are reconstructed from the Bronze Age into the historical era based on traditions, archa

296 10 9MB

English Pages 270 [273] Year 2017

Report DMCA / Copyright


Table of contents :
Copyright Page
Fig. 1. Athens National Museum 990 krater epitymbion, Irian Gate Cemetery
Bookmark 354
List of Figures
Terms & Abbreviations
Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary
Kratos & Krater: Antecedents
The Kratos & Krater in Iron Age Athens
The Rule of the Melantho-Codrids
A New Form of Kratos: The First Athenian Constitution
Constitutional Monarchy
The Medontid takeover
The Termination of the Life-King Constitution, the Decline of the Neleids
A Proposal for a New Kings’ List Chronology
Eupatrid Relocation
The Neleid Resurgence
The Geometric Life-King List
The Bronze Age Antecedents
The Early & Middle Helladic Phase
Commensality & Burial
The Palatial Kratos & Krater
The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Commensality
The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Sacraments
Funerary Ritual on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagos
The Burial Ground: The Role of the Krater in Funerary Ritual
The Status Aspects of Mortuary Rituals
The Post-Palatial Kratos
Mycenae’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’
Tiryns: Discontinuity and Continuity
The Evolution of the Basileis
The Post-Palatial Krater
Ritual Kraters
Warrior Kraters
Funerary Kraters
Kraters in an Age of Decline
Krater Rituals Introduced to Athens
Fig. 2. Mycenae Lion Gate, 13th c. BC
Fig. 3. Linear B Clay Tablet
Fig. 4. Pouring blood libation into a krater, Hagia Triada Sarcophagos, c.1400 BC
Fig. 5. Peloponnesian krater found in Cyprus, 14th c. BC
Fig. 6. Model of the Post-palatial Oberburg of Tiryns
Fig. 7. LHIIIC Middle Close Style hydria from Mycenae
Fig. 8. Large LHIIIC krater from Grotta, Naxos
Fig. 9. Ceremonial krater from Lefkandi, Euboea
Fig. 10. Cretan LHIIIB-C krater with birds
Fig. 11. Krater from Ugarit, Levant, with fish sacrificed on an altar
Fig. 13. Palatial-era Battle Fresco from Pylos
Fig. 14. Krater with prothesis scene, reportedly a grave marker, from Ayia Triadha, Elis, LHIIIC Late
The Kratos of the Transitional Era
New Immigrant Foundations: Melanthid Kings
Main Early Iron Age Sites in Athens
The Kerameikos Precinct XX Cemetery
Melanthos, Neleid King, 1126-1089
A Reassesment of the Foundation Date of the Precinct XX Cemetery
The Precinct XX Wild Style Pottery
The Sacred Gate Cemetery
The Pompeion
Speculation on Athenian Governance during the Transitional Era
Peloponnesian Influences: Messenia and the Argolid
The Prytaneion
The Ionian Migration
Fig. 15. Surviving and newly-founded immigrant sites of transitional era Athens
Fig. 16. Wild Style model tripod from Precinct XX Gr. SM 4
Fig. 17. Wild Style krateriskos 23 from Precinct XX Gr. SM 1
Fig. 18. Wild Style model dowry chest from Precinct XX Gr. SM 22
Fig. 19. Precinct XX transitional-era tombs aligned with tomb (?) feature (star at left)
Fig. 20. Precinct XX section with cut for the Great Trench at right
Fig. 21. The entrance to the tomb feature, blocked and unblocked
Fig. 22. Birdseye view of tomb feature (star at left)
Fig. 23. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Malthi, pierced through the base for libation use
Fig. 24. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Mycenae, similarly pierced, and another from Tiryns
Fig. 25. 12th c krater with central checker panel flanked by spirals, from Kition Cyprus
Fig. 26. Characteristic motifs of the transitional-era Athenian Wild Style
Fig. 27. Messenian Wild Style pyxis from Tragana
Fig. 28. Ker. 770 SM Wild-Style bowl of Peloponnesian type from Precinct XX Gr. SM 13
Fig. 29. SM bowl Ker. 518, from the Great Mound
Fig. 30. Above, arcade motif on the shoulder of a LHIIIC Late vessel from Tiryns Megaron W. Below, fragments of Ker. 11238 from two or more similar SM Wild Style amphorae, c. 1100 BC
Fig. 31. Reconstruction of amphorae Ker. 11238 from the Great Mound
Fig. 32. Similar arcade motif on a Cypriote Proto-White Painted Amphora
Fig. 33. Atticizing pottery found in the destruction layer over the Mycenaean fortification wall of Miletus, one of the destinations of the Ionian Migration
The Kratos of the Iron Age
The Medontid Kings
Who was Medon?
The Medontid Nemeses: Eupatrids & the Areopagos Council
The Areopagos Council
The Iron Age Constitution
The Creation of the Constitution
The Context of the Constitution
The List of Athenian Life-Kings
The Credibility of the King List
The Search for Kings in the Burial Record
Speculation on the Non-Medontid Kings
The Non-Medontid Life Kings
Archippos (1012-993) and Thersippos (993-952)
The Early Alcmeonids
Phorbas (952-922), Alcmeonid?
Megacles (922-892)
Diognetos (892-864)
Pherecles (864-845)
Ariphron (845-825)
Thespieos (824-797)
Agamestor (796-778)
The Philaid Irian Gate Cemetery
Agamestor’s Burial, Irian Gate Precint Grave III
Aeschylus (778-755)
Alcmeon (753-752)
A Proposal for a New King List Chronology
Lower End Dating Support
The Termination of the Constitution
The Decline of the Neleids and their Krater Epitymbia
Fighting on Land & Sea: The Aeginetan Campaign, Pheidon, & Athenian Decline
The End of the Athenian ‘Renaissance’
The Aeginetan Campaign: The Destruction of Athenian Naval Power
The New York Sea Battle Krater
Grief, Anger and Destruction in Athens
Late Geometric II: The Second Medontid Rule
A New Burial Emplacment: The Plattenbau
Resurgent Eupatrids
The Alcmeonids’ New Archaic Burial Ground
The Kalaureian Amphictyony
Fig. 34. The Areopagos, its relationship with the Acropolis and geographical context
Fig. 35. Graph illustrating the rough prevalence of Kerameikos Iron Age kraters by phase
Fig. 36. Amphora urn adorned with a horse, from the ‘Phorbas’ burial Precinct XX Gr. PG 18
Fig. 37. Krater epitymbion 151 of the Jewel Workshop, found on Precinct Gr. G 2, assigned here to Life-King Megacles (922-892 BC)
Fig. 38. Tripod Stand of the Jewel Workshop found in Gr. G 2
Fig. 40. A Wild Style krater fragment from the fill of the 11th c. mausoleum of the ‘Hero of Lefkandi’
Fig. 41. MPG-LPG krater 67 found as an epitymbion on burial G 1 had seen settlement use
Fig. 42. Five-granary dowry chest and pendant gold earring from the Rich Lady Tomb on the Agora Areopagos slopes: Workshop of the Agora Rich Lady
Fig. 43. Foot of a large, LPG consortium krater of Athenian manufacture found at Eleusis
Fig. 44. Epitymbion Krater ANM 806 from Irian Gate elite precinct Gr. III, assigned here to Life-King Agamestor (797-778 BC). Pre-Dipylon Workshop
Fig. 45. Noblewoman’s Amphora ANM 805, found near the krater, and from the same workshop
Fig. 46. The lower zone of krater ANM 806, depicts likely funerary games: a chariot race with robed charioteers and apobates warriors in pursuit
Fig. 47. The Dipylon Vase, ANM 804, transitional from MGII-LGIa
Fig. 48. An Atticizing amphora neck imitative of the Dipylon Vase type from Euboea, depicting apobatase ‘war games’ similar to that on krater ANM 806, (specialized warriors practise leaping on and off the back of a speeding chariot during warfare)
Fig. 49. Chart comparing the traditional Coldstream and new Life-King chronologies
Fig. 50. The LGIb Dipylon Oinochoe, has an etched hexameter of poetry, the earliest datable Athenian inscription. Dated after 750 BC by Coldstream, and 755-752 BC by the Life-King Chronology
Fig. 51. East-west section through Precinct XX Grs. G 23, 24, 25, 26
Fig. 52. North-south section through Precinct XX Grs. G 13, 25, 26
Fig. 53. Kerameikos Precinct XX, Cemetery of the Melantho-Codrids and Alcmeonids, c. 1125-713 BC
Fig. 54. The 60-gallon consortium krater of Alcmeon 279 suggests the authority wielded by the Neleids prior to their decline. Erected as epitymbion on his burial Gr. G 24, it was soon thrown aside to remove his body from the burial
Fig. 55. Alcmeon’s remains in Gr. G 24 were cut off at the knee-caps, leaving only the lower sections of his legs in situ
Fig. 56. Brückner and Pernice’s representation of the original status of the Irian Gate Gr. III burial attributed here to Philaid Life-King Agamestot (796-778 BC)
Fig. 57. Kerameikos Sacred Way burial hS 290, with krater 284 shoved into the tomb on its side
Fig. 58. Fragments of LGIb-LGII funerary vessels found on the Acropolis
Fig. 59. Epitymbion krater ANM 295 with depiction of interior prothesis, found on the Acropolis
Fig. 60. The New York Metropolitan Museum Land and Sea Battle Krater
Fig. 61. Details of the New York battle krater. Above Side A has the ship still beached under assault, with fighting on deck man-to man, while the mast and sail are still stowed. Side B, the ship is readied to sail: a token swordsman, archer, and lancer,
Fig. 62. LGIa krater Louvre. A 530, may depict the same scene at the beach, with a warrior assisting the seated sailor
Fig. 63. A Mourning-cum-embarkation scene on a LGIIa Athenian oinochoe in Tasmania. Oinochoae became the canvas for scenes of warfare when figural krater eptymbia ceased in Athens following LGIb
Fig. 64. A reduced version of the NY battle krater scene on a LGII oinochoe in Karlsruhe
Fig. 65. ANM 810, a LGII funerary cauldron adorned with funerary games, demonstrates the revival of the Philaids elite funerary and pottery traditions at the end of the 8th c.
Fig. 66. A new Archaic extension from the Precinct XX site and the erection once more of kraters and steles on burials, demonstrates the resurgence of the Alcmeonids’ funerary traditions, which were more reliant on oriental decorative motifs
Fig. 67. The Alcmeonid Precinct XX Iron Age cemetery, and its Archaic successor. The spread of the ancestral Alcmeonid Precinct XX burial ground at right, across the intermediate Plattenbau to the Archaic cemetery at left, monumentalized by the erection o
The Athenian Iron Age Krater
An Introduction to the Krater
The Krater in Bronze Age Athens
Graves and Strayfinds
The Kerameikos Precinct XX Kraters
Reconstruction of the Krater Style and Sequence
The Iron Age Krater in Context
The Krater in the Settlement
Two Types of Krater
Krater Sizes & Uses
The Krater in Funerary Context
The Expansion of the Precinct XX Cemetery
Krater Libation
The Homeric Associations of Libation & Pyre Dousing
The Evolution of the Krater Epitymbion
Geometric Krater Epitymbia found in Situ
Kerameikos Strayfind Krater ‘Epitymbia’
The Mourner Krater: The Earliest Athenian Funerary Monument
‘Open Burial’
The Iron Age Krater Style
Bronze Age Predecessors
Kraters of the Transitional Years
Athenian Alltagsware
Athenian Nobelkeramik: the Wild Style of Precinct XX
Select Wild Style Vessels
The Earliest Athenian Krater Remains
The Early Protogeometric Kraters
The Munich Krater
The Culmination of the Protogeometric Style
Middle Protogeometric Kraters
MPG Kraters in Athens
Kraters at Lefkandi
The ‘Phorbas’ Krater
Late Protogeometric Kraters
The LPG Standard Type I Krater
The Late Protogeometric Kantharoid Krater (Type II)
Early Geometric Kraters (922-864)
The EG Type I Krater
The EG Type II Krater
Middle Geometric Kraters
The MG Type I Krater
The MG Type II Krater
Late Geometric Kraters
The LG Krater Type I
Other Krater Types
The LG Krater Type II
Geometric Krater Workshops
The Jewel Workshop (LPG-EGI)
The Rich Lady Workshop (EGII-MGII)
The Group of Ker. 1247 (205, MGI-II)
The Pre-Dipylon Workshop
The Transitional Dipylon Workshop MGII-LGIa
The Dipylon Workshop
Type II krater 279 (Fig. 54)
Workshop Continuity
Fig. 68. The Athenian Kerameikos excavation site
Fig. 69. Reconstruction: photo and graphic elements are combined to recreate krater 176 from its fragments
Fig. 70. Newly found fragments of the Mourner Krater 193 allow recovery of the decorative scheme of its lower bowl
Fig. 71. The Iron Age repaired valuable kraters with lead clamps to retain them in service
Fig. 72. Size comparisons for the largest Bronze Age krater, the Grotta krater from Naxos and three Athenian kraters of the Iron Age (LPG 67, MG 200, LG 279)
Fig. 73. Decanting from a large bronze krater, its brilliance represented by the radiating lines emanating from its surface. Depiction on a vase from Kaloriziki Cyprus
Fig. 74. Remains of epitymbia on Precinct XX burials, kraters for noble males and amphorae for females
Fig. 75. Top of krater foot 129, slashed to aid adhesion during the fabrication process
Fig. 76. Three Attic epitymbion kraters with mourning figures in the spandrel above the handle: Krater 193 from Precinct XX, a krater from Attic Trachones, and the New York battle krater
Fig. 77. The Mourner Krater 193 detailing special epitymbion features in the fabrication of its foot
Fig. 78. Protogeometric amphora fragment Ker. 11515b with remains of a horse motif, found probably as an insignia of rank and descent on Neleid vases
Fig. 79. Section of a krater in an open burial trench, with the cremation ash and urn below
Fig. 80. Remains of three krater epitymbia feet: 201 with intact base, 59 and 253 with interior weathering, exterior glaze pristine
Fig. 81. To protect epitymbion kraters from water damage, holes were often broken through the bases to allow drainage. At right, Late Geometric figural krater 284 fabricated to stand as an epitymbion, with a hole neatly cut in its base by the potter befor
Fig. 82. Cross section of the mid-12th c. Warrior Vase of Mycenae, the antecedent of the ancestral Type I Iron Age krater
Fig. 83. Symbolic dowry chest and lekythos in Wild Style, from the transitional Precinct XX burial of a noblewoman buried in Gr. SM 22
Fig. 84. LHIIIC Late Octopus Style stirrup jar ANM 5649, from the Kerameikos Dipylon Gate
Fig. 85. Wild Style krateriskoi 8, 23
Fig. 86. Wild Style transitional fragments of krater ANM 212 and amphora ANM 213 from the Acropolis
Fig. 87. Transitional-era Wild Style motifs
Fig. 88. Late Wild Style situla Ker. 543 from the Great Mound at Precinct XX
Fig. 89. Transitional-era Wild Style krater 11 and reconstruction
Fig. 90. Transitional-era Wild Style krater ANM 273 found on the Acropolis
Fig. 92. Ker. 11238 transitional-era Wild Style amphora with arcade motif reconstruction based on fragments
Fig. 93. SM 17 neck profile
Fig. 95. Transitional strayfind Kerameikos krater fragments
Fig. 96. Bilingual amphora Ker. 233 combines manual semicircles with compass drawn circles
Fig. 97. The Late Wild Style Munich Krater 6157
Fig. 98. Fragment of a large Attic krater from Paros
Fig. 99. Kerameikos strayfind remains of common Protogeometric circles kraters
Fig. 102. Krater fragments and reconstruction of 39, from pyre of Gr. MPG 30
Fig. 103. Kerameikos strayfind sherds of LPG date
Fig. 104. Krater fragments from the fill of the tenth c chieftain’s house tomb at Lefkandi, where the Wild Style lasted longer than in Athens
Fig. 106. British Museum 1950.2-28.3, a LPG pithoid form of the Jewel Workshop
Fig. 107. A large LPG kantharoid krater of the Jewel Workshop, ANM 18114, which anticipates the Geometric Type II krater
Fig. 108. Type I Krater ANM 272, LPG transitional to EGI, from the Acropolis
Fig. 110. A selection of EG krater sherds
Fig. 111. Early Geometric Attic or Atticizing Type II krater from Argos
Fig. 112. Reconstruction of an imported, Attic EGII, Type II krater found in the Lefkandi cemetery
Fig. 113. Reconstruction of MGI, Type I Krater 176 of the Agora Rich Lady Workshop
Fig. 114ab Section profile and bowl sherds of krater 176
Fig. 115. Hypothetical reconstruction of Type I krater 205, Ker. 1247, of the Group of Kerameikos 1247
Fig. 116. MGI-II, Athenian Type II krater from Eleusis
Fig. 117ab MGI-II, Type II Krater 200 of the early Pre-Dipylon Workshop and its profile section
Fig. 118. Generic profile based on the smaller, spouted LGII domestic krater remains 291-300
Fig. 119. Early Geometric giant oinochoe of the Jewel Workshop c. 900 BC, found on Piraeus St. Athens
Fig. 120. Agora P 27629, eponymous amphora of the Workshop of the Early Geometric Agora Rich Lady
Fig. 121ab Hypothetical Reconstruction of the large Type II krater 239-240, of the MGII Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop
Fig. 122ab Reconstruction of Large Type II, MGII krater 232 of the Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop
Fig. 123ab MG II ovoid krater and profile reconstruction
Fig. 124ab Hypothetical reconstruction of the large, Type I, LGIa epitymbion krater 284
Fig. 125. LGIb-II epitymbion krater New York Metropolitan Museum
Fig. 126. LGII epitymbion krater from Trachones, Piraeus Museum
Fig. 127. Kerameikos Cat. 3, Inv. 5400
Fig. 128. Kerameikos Cat. 8, Inv. 9046
Fig. 129. Kerameikos Cat. 9, Inv. 9752
Fig. 130. Kerameikos Cat. 11, Inv. 5414
Fig. 131. Kerameikos Cat. 12a, Inv. 5485a
Fig. 132. Kerameikos Cat. 12b, Inv. 5485b
Fig. 133. Kerameikos Cat. 13, Inv. 5445
Fig. 134. Kerameikos Cat. 14, Inv. 916
Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 17, Inv. 9054
Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 18, Inv. 5415
Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 19, Inv. 7723
Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 22, Inv. 5402
Fig. 136. Kerameikos Cat. 23, Inv. 532
Fig. 137. Kerameikos Cat. 24, Inv. 5432
Fig. 138. Kerameikos Cat. 36, Inv. 7727
Fig. 139. Kerameikos Cat. 37, Inv. 7716
Fig. 140. Kerameikos Cat. 40, Inv. 5417
Fig. 141. Kerameikos Cat. 43, Inv. 11515
Fig. 142-3. Kerameikos Cat. 55, Inv. 5448; Cat. 56, Inv. 5449
Fig. 144. Kerameikos Cat. 57, Inv. 739a
Fig. 145. Kerameikos Cat. 58, Inv. 5443
Fig. 146. Kerameikos Cat. 59, Inv. 5444
Fig. 147. Kerameikos Cat. 62, Inv. 5440ab
Fig. 148. Kerameikos Cat. 66, Inv. 609
Fig. 149. Kerameikos Cat. 68, Inv. 5428
Fig. 150. Kerameikos Cat. 80, Inv. 5420
Fig. 151. Kerameikos Cat. 84, Inv. 5426
Fig. 152. Kerameikos Cat. 85, Inv. 5416
Fig. 153. Kerameikos Cat. 91, Inv. 6314
Fig. 154. Kerameikos Cat. 104, Inv. 5466
Fig. 155. Kerameikos Cat. 105, Inv. 6313
Fig. 156. Kerameikos Cat. 117, Inv. 5472
Fig. 157. Kerameikos Cat. 123, Inv. 919
Fig. 158. Kerameikos Cat. 125, Inv. 6446
Fig. 159. Kerameikos Cat. 126, Inv. 5447
Fig. 160. Kerameikos Cat. 129, Inv. 10578
Fig. 161. Kerameikos Cat. 130, Inv. 5469
Fig. 162. Kerameikos Cat. 132, Inv. 930
Fig. 163. Kerameikos Cat. 138, Inv. 1291
Fig. 164. Kerameikos Cat. 139, Inv. 5492
Fig. 165. Kerameikos Cat. 141, Inv. 1294
Fig. 166. Kerameikos Cat. 142, Inv. 1292
Fig. 167. Kerameikos Cat. 147, Inv. 5425
Fig. 168. Kerameikos Cat. 152, Inv. 5431
Fig. 169. Kerameikos Cat. 156, Inv. 5453, 5467
Fig. 170. Kerameikos Cat. 161, Inv. 5462
Fig. 171. Kerameikos Cat. 162, Inv. 5494
Fig. 172. Kerameikos Cat. 163, Inv. 5487
Fig. 173. Kerameikos Cat. 169, Inv. 5486
Fig. 174. Kerameikos Cat. 171, Inv. 5488
Fig. 175. Kerameikos Cat. 172, Inv. 5499
Fig. 176. Kerameikos Cat. 174, Inv. 1187
Fig. 177. Kerameikos Cat. 177, Inv. 5471
Fig. 178. Kerameikos Cat. 178, Inv. 7773
Fig. 179. Kerameikos Cat. 194, Inv. 7771
Fig. 180. Kerameikos Cat. 195, Inv. 871
Fig. 181. Kerameikos Cat. 198, Inv. 8811
Fig. 182. Kerameikos Cat. 199, Inv. 5500
Fig. 183. Kerameikos Cat. 201, Inv. 865
Fig. 184. Kerameikos Cat. 202, Inv. 8833
Fig. 185. Kerameikos Cat. 203, Inv. 7757
Fig. 186. Kerameikos Cat. 204, Inv. 8848
Fig. 187. Kerameikos Cat. 221, Inv. 5489
Fig. 188. Kerameikos Cat. 223, Inv. 5490
Fig. 189. Kerameikos Cat. 227, Inv. 7765
Fig. 192. Kerameikos Cat. 246, Inv. 8872
Fig. 193. Kerameikos Cat. 289, Inv. 8893
Fig. 194. Kerameikos Cat. 291, Inv. 789
Fig. 195. Kerameikos Cat. 292, Inv. 1143
Fig. 196. Kerameikos Cat. 294, Inv. 1329
Fig. 198. Kerameikos Cat. 300, Inv. 1336
Fig. 199. Kerameikos Cat. 307, Inv. 8814
The Krater Catalogue
Kerameikos Krater Sites
Precinct XX & the Hagia Triada Great Mound
The Character & Source of the Finds
Submycenaean Wild Style Amphorae
The Kraters
Concordance, Kraters & Kerameikos Locations
Iilustration Sources & Credits
Endplate Captions
Recommend Papers

Kratos & Krater: Reconstructing an Athenian Protohistory
 1784916226, 9781784916220

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

KRATOS & KRATER Reconstructing an Athenian Protohistory

Barbara Bohen

KRATOS & KRATER Reconstructing an Athenian Protohistory

Barbara Bohen

Archaeopress Archaeology

Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED

ISBN 978 1 78491 622 0 ISBN 978 1 78491 623 7 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and Barbara Bohen 2017 Cover explained: The top frieze from the New York ship krater evokes the contemporary Aeginetan sea campaign, recounted by Herodotus, which terminated Neleid hegemony in Athens. The black and white krater scene below depicts one of the numerous funerals of Neleid nobility that occurred, likely as a result of this campaign, here from a krater found in the Philaid nobles’ burial ground at the Irian Gate. The top sea battle is set against a linen texture, evocative of the tales told on the French Bayeux Tapestry frieze. Dr. Irene Lemos and the author believe that motifs such as the meander may have derived from woven decoration of the era, clothing, tapestries, etc. so a muted colorful weave of the meander was used as the background for the title. The krater is set against a representation of the interior of a large wheeled vessel such as the Athenian potters threw, part wheel, part manual, to serve as Neleid burial monuments. Front cover illustrations by Drs Charles Stout and Barbara Bohen; back cover photograph by Leonora Anton

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Printed in England by Oxuniprint, Oxford

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website

Fig. 1. Athens National Museum 990 krater epitymbion, Irian Gate Cemetery


Contents...........................................................................................................................................................................................i List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................................v Foreword..........................................................................................................................................................................................x Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................................................................... xiii Terms & Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................................................. xv Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary Kratos & Krater: Antecedents......................................................................................................................................................1 The Kratos & Krater in Iron Age Athens....................................................................................................................................3 The Rule of the Melantho-Codrids..............................................................................................................................................3 Synoikismos....................................................................................................................................................................................4 A New Form of Kratos: The First Athenian Constitution.........................................................................................................5 Constitutional Monarchy..............................................................................................................................................................5 Polis..................................................................................................................................................................................................7 The Termination of the Life-King Constitution, the Decline of the Neleids.........................................................................8 The Medontid Takeover................................................................................................................................................................8 Eupatrid Relocation.......................................................................................................................................................................9 The Neleid Resurgence..................................................................................................................................................................9 A Proposal for a New Kings’ List Chronology............................................................................................................................9 The Geometric Life-King List.....................................................................................................................................................10 Nomenclature for the Era of the Athenian Life-Kings...........................................................................................................11 Chapter II The Bronze Age Antecedents The Early & Middle Helladic Phase...........................................................................................................................................13 Commensality & Burial.........................................................................................................................................................13 The Palatial Kratos & Krater......................................................................................................................................................13 The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Commensality..............................................................................................16 The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Sacraments...................................................................................................17 The Burial Ground: The Role of the Krater in Funerary Ritual......................................................................................18 Funerary Ritual on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagos...........................................................................................................18 The Status Aspects of Mortuary Rituals.............................................................................................................................19 The Post-Palatial Kratos..............................................................................................................................................................20 Mycenae’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’.........................................................................................................20 Tiryns: Discontinuity and Continuity.................................................................................................................................21 The Evolution of the Basileis................................................................................................................................................23 The Post-Palatial Krater..............................................................................................................................................................25 Ritual Kraters..........................................................................................................................................................................25 Warrior Kraters......................................................................................................................................................................27 Funerary Kraters....................................................................................................................................................................29 Kraters in an Age of Decline.................................................................................................................................................30 Krater Rituals Introduced to Athens..................................................................................................................................31 Chapter III The Kratos of the Transitional Era New Immigrant Foundations: Melanthid Kings......................................................................................................................32 Main Early Iron Age Sites in Athens...................................................................................................................................32 The Kerameikos Precinct XX Cemetery.............................................................................................................................33 Melanthos, Neleid King, 1126-1089.....................................................................................................................................35 A Reassesment of the Foundation Date of the Precinct XX Cemetery..........................................................................36 i

The Sacred Gate Cemetery...................................................................................................................................................38 The Precinct XX Wild Style Pottery....................................................................................................................................38 The Pompeion........................................................................................................................................................................42 Speculation on Athenian Governance during the Transitional Era.....................................................................................44 Peloponnesian Influences: Messenia and the Argolid.....................................................................................................44 Tiryns.......................................................................................................................................................................................45 The Prytaneion.......................................................................................................................................................................45 Cult...........................................................................................................................................................................................46 The Ionian Migration............................................................................................................................................................46 Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age The Medontid Kings....................................................................................................................................................................49 Who was Medon?...................................................................................................................................................................50 The Medontid Nemeses: Eupatrids & the Areopagos Council........................................................................................52 The Areopagos Council.........................................................................................................................................................53 The Iron Age Constitution..........................................................................................................................................................54 The Creation of the Constitution........................................................................................................................................55 The Context of the Constitution..........................................................................................................................................57 The List of Athenian Life-Kings.................................................................................................................................................58 The Credibility of the King List............................................................................................................................................58 The Search for Kings in the Burial Record.........................................................................................................................59 Speculation on the Non-Medontid Kings...........................................................................................................................60 The Non-Medontid Life Kings....................................................................................................................................................61 Archippos (1012-993) and Thersippos (993-952)...............................................................................................................61 The Early Alcmeonids...........................................................................................................................................................61 Phorbas (952-922), Alcmeonid?...........................................................................................................................................62 Megacles (922-892)................................................................................................................................................................63 Diognetos (892-864)...............................................................................................................................................................67 Pherecles (864-845)................................................................................................................................................................68 Ariphron (845-825)................................................................................................................................................................69 Thespieos (824-797)...............................................................................................................................................................69 Agamestor (796-778).............................................................................................................................................................70 The Philaid Irian Gate Cemetery.........................................................................................................................................71 Agamestor’s Burial, Irian Gate Precinct Grave III.............................................................................................................72 Aeschylus (778-755)...............................................................................................................................................................75 Alcmeon (753-752).................................................................................................................................................................75 A Proposal for a New King List Chronology.............................................................................................................................75 Lower End Dating Support...................................................................................................................................................78 The Termination of the Constitution........................................................................................................................................78 The Decline of the Neleids and their Krater Epitymbia...................................................................................................78 Fighting on Land & Sea: The Aeginetan Campaign, Pheidon, & Athenian Decline...........................................................87 The End of the Athenian ‘Renaissance’..............................................................................................................................87 The Aeginetan Campaign: The Destruction of Athenian Naval Power.........................................................................90 The New York Sea Battle Krater..........................................................................................................................................90 Grief, Anger and Destruction in Athens.............................................................................................................................93 Late Geometric II: The Second Medontid Rule........................................................................................................................95 A New Burial Emplacement: The Plattenbau....................................................................................................................95 Resurgent Eupatrids....................................................................................................................................................................95 The Kalaureian Amphictyony..............................................................................................................................................97 The Alcmeonids’ New Archaic Burial Ground...................................................................................................................97 Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater An Introduction to the Krater..................................................................................................................................................102 The Krater in Bronze Age Athens......................................................................................................................................104 The Kerameikos Precinct XX Kraters...............................................................................................................................105 ii

Graves and Strayfinds.........................................................................................................................................................105 Reconstruction of the Krater Style and Sequence..........................................................................................................107 The Iron Age Krater in Context...............................................................................................................................................108 The Krater in the Settlement.............................................................................................................................................108 Two Types of Krater............................................................................................................................................................109 Krater Sizes & Uses..............................................................................................................................................................110 The Krater in Funerary Context........................................................................................................................................112 The Expansion of the Precinct XX Cemetery..................................................................................................................112 Krater Libation.....................................................................................................................................................................113 The Homeric Associations of Libation & Pyre Dousing.................................................................................................116 The Evolution of the Krater Epitymbion..........................................................................................................................117 Geometric Krater Epitymbia found in Situ......................................................................................................................119 Kerameikos Strayfind Krater ‘Epitymbia’........................................................................................................................119 The Mourner Krater: The Earliest Athenian Funerary Monument.............................................................................120 ‘Open Burial’.........................................................................................................................................................................123 The Iron Age Krater Style.........................................................................................................................................................126 Bronze Age Predecessors....................................................................................................................................................126 Kraters of the Transitional Years......................................................................................................................................126 Submycenaean Styles...................................................................................................................................................126 Athenian Alltagsware....................................................................................................................................................127 Athenian Nobelkeramik: the Wild Style of Precinct XX..........................................................................................127 Select Wild Style Vessels..............................................................................................................................................128 The Earliest Athenian Krater Remains.......................................................................................................................132 The Early Protogeometric Kraters....................................................................................................................................133 The Munich Krater........................................................................................................................................................134 The Culmination of the Early Protogeometric Style................................................................................................136 Middle Protogeometric Kraters.........................................................................................................................................137 MPG Kraters in Athens..................................................................................................................................................137 The ‘Phorbas’ Krater.....................................................................................................................................................140 Kraters at Lefkandi........................................................................................................................................................140 Late Protogeometric Kraters..............................................................................................................................................141 The LPG Standard Type I Krater..................................................................................................................................141 The Late Protogeometric Kantharoid Krater (Type II)............................................................................................142 Early Geometric Kraters (922-864)....................................................................................................................................144 The EG Type I Krater.....................................................................................................................................................144 The EG Type II Krater....................................................................................................................................................144 Middle Geometric Kraters..................................................................................................................................................147 The MG Type I Krater....................................................................................................................................................147 The MG Type II Krater..................................................................................................................................................147 Late Geometric Kraters.......................................................................................................................................................150 The LG Krater Type I.....................................................................................................................................................150 The LG Krater Type II....................................................................................................................................................152 Other Krater Types........................................................................................................................................................152 Geometric Krater Workshops...................................................................................................................................................153 The Jewel Workshop (LPG-EGI)..........................................................................................................................................155 The Rich Lady Workshop (EGII-MGII)...............................................................................................................................156 The Group of Ker. 1247 (205, MGI-II).................................................................................................................................159 The Dipylon Workshop.......................................................................................................................................................159 MGII-LGIa Transitional Dipylon Workshop.....................................................................................................................162 The LGI Dipylon Workshop................................................................................................................................................164 The LGIb Type II Krater 279...............................................................................................................................................164 Workshop Continuity..........................................................................................................................................................164 Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue The Character & Source of the Finds......................................................................................................................................191 Kerameikos Krater Sites............................................................................................................................................................191 iii

Precinct XX & the Hagia Triada Great Mound......................................................................................................................191 Submycenaean Wild Style Amphorae.....................................................................................................................................193 The Kraters..................................................................................................................................................................................193 Concordance: Inventory & Catalogue Number.....................................................................................................................237 Concordance, Kraters & Kerameikos Locations....................................................................................................................239 Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................................................242 Iilustration Sources & Credits..................................................................................................................................................248 Endplate Captions......................................................................................................................................................................249


List of Figures

Fig. 1. Athens National Museum 990 krater epitymbion, Irian Gate Cemetery...................................................................E Fig. 2. Mycenae Lion Gate, 13th c. BC........................................................................................................................................14 Fig. 3. Linear B Clay Tablet..........................................................................................................................................................16 Fig. 4. Pouring blood libation into a krater, Hagia Triada Sarcophagos, c. 1400 BC..........................................................19 Fig. 5. Peloponnesian krater found in Cyprus, 14th c. BC......................................................................................................20 Fig. 6. Model of the Post-palatial Oberburg of Tiryns............................................................................................................22 Fig. 7. LHIIIC Middle Close Style hydria from Mycenae.........................................................................................................25 Fig. 8. Large LHIIIC krater from Grotta, Naxos........................................................................................................................26 Fig. 9. Ceremonial krater from Lefkandi, Euboea....................................................................................................................26 Fig. 10. Cretan LHIIIB-C krater with birds................................................................................................................................27 Fig. 11. Krater from Ugarit, Levant, with fish sacrificed on an altar...................................................................................27 Fig. 12. The LHIIIC Middle Warrior Vase from Mycenae........................................................................................................28 Fig. 13. Palatial-era Battle Fresco from Pylos..........................................................................................................................28 Fig. 14. Krater with prothesis scene, reportedly a grave marker, from Ayia Triadha, Elis, LHIIIC Late.........................30 Fig. 15. Surviving and newly-founded immigrant sites of transitional era Athens..........................................................33 Fig. 16. Wild Style model tripod from Precinct XX Gr. SM 4.................................................................................................34 Fig. 17. Wild Style krateriskos 23 from Precinct XX Gr. SM 1...............................................................................................34 Fig. 18. Wild Style model dowry chest from Precinct XX Gr. SM 22.....................................................................................34 Fig. 19. Precinct XX transitional-era tombs aligned with tomb (?) feature........................................................................35 Fig. 20. Precinct XX section with cut for the Great Trench at right....................................................................................37 Fig. 21. The entrance to the tomb feature, blocked and unblocked.....................................................................................37 Fig. 22. Birdseye view of tomb feature (star at left)...............................................................................................................38 Fig. 23. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Malthi, pierced through the base for libation use..................................................39 Fig. 24. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Mycenae, similarly pierced, and another from Tiryns..........................................39 Fig. 25. 12th c krater with central checker panel flanked by spirals, from Kition Cyprus...............................................40 Fig. 26. Characteristic motifs of the transitional-era Athenian Wild Style........................................................................40 Fig. 27. Messenian Wild Style pyxis from Tragana.................................................................................................................41 Fig. 28. Ker. 770 SM Wild-Style bowl of Peloponnesian type from Precinct XX Gr. SM 13...............................................41 Fig. 29. SM bowl Ker. 518, from the Great Mound...................................................................................................................41 Fig. 30. Above, arcade motif on the shoulder of a LHIIIC Late vessel from Tiryns Megaron W. Below, fragments of Ker. 11238 from two or more similar SM Wild Style amphorae, c. 1100 BC..........................................41 Fig. 31. Reconstruction of amphorae Ker. 11238 from the Great Mound............................................................................42 Fig. 32. Similar arcade motif on a Cypriote Proto-White Painted Amphora......................................................................42 Fig. 33. Atticizing pottery found in the destruction layer over the Mycenaean fortification wall of Miletus, one of the destinations of the Ionian Migration...............................................................................................................47 Fig. 34. The Areopagos, its relationship with the Acropolis and geographical context...................................................50 Fig. 35. Graph illustrating the rough prevalence of Kerameikos Iron Age kraters by phase...........................................62 Fig. 36. Amphora urn adorned with a horse, from the ‘Phorbas’ burial Precinct XX Gr. PG 18......................................63 Fig. 37. Krater epitymbion 151 of the Jewel Workshop, found on Precinct Gr. G 2, assigned here to Life-King Megacles (922-892 BC).........................................................................................................................................64 Fig. 38. Tripod Stand of the Jewel Workshop found in Gr. G 2..............................................................................................65 Fig. 39. The northeast corner of Kerameikos Precinct XX, with Grs. G 1 and G 2 in the foreground.............................66 Fig. 40. A Wild Style krater fragment from the fill of the 10th c. mausoleum of the ‘Hero of Lefkandi’.......................66 Fig. 41. MPG-LPG krater 67 found as an epitymbion on burial G 1 had seen settlement use..........................................67 Fig. 42. Five-granary dowry chest and pendant gold earring from the Rich Lady Tomb on the Agora Areopagos slopes: Workshop of the Agora Rich Lady..........................................................................................................................68 Fig. 43. Foot of a large, LPG consortium krater of Athenian manufacture found at Eleusis............................................70 Fig. 44. Epitymbion Krater ANM 806 from Irian Gate elite precinct Gr. III, assigned here to Life-King Agamestor (797-778 BC). Pre-Dipylon Workshop............................................................................................72 Fig. 45. Noblewoman’s Amphora ANM 805, found near the krater, and from the same workshop................................72 Fig. 46. Above deceased lying in state, sketch of shoulder panel of krater ANM 806. The lower zone of krater ANM 806, depicts likely funerary games: a chariot race with robed charioteers and apobates warriors in pursuit........73 v

Fig. 47. The Dipylon Vase, ANM 804, transitional from MGII-LGIa......................................................................................74 Fig. 48. An Atticizing amphora from Euboea neck imitative of the Dipylon Vase type, depicting apobatase ‘war games’ similar to that on krater ANM 806................................................................................................................75 Fig. 49. Chart comparing the traditional Coldstream and new Life-King chronologies...................................................77 Fig. 50. The LGIb Dipylon Oinochoe, has an etched hexameter of poetry, the earliest datable Athenian inscription. Dated after 750 BC by Coldstream, and 755-752 BC by the Life-King Chronology.................................78 Fig. 51. East-west section through Precinct XX Grs. G 23, 24, 25, 26....................................................................................80 Fig. 52. North-south section through Precinct XX Grs. G 13, 25, 26.....................................................................................80 Fig. 53. Kerameikos Precinct XX, Cemetery of the Melantho-Codrids and Alcmeonids, c. 1125-713 BC.......................81 Fig. 54. The 60-gallon consortium krater of Alcmeon 279 suggests the authority wielded by the Neleids prior to their decline. Erected as epitymbion on his burial Gr. G 24, it was soon thrown aside to remove his body from the burial.........................................................................................................................................82 Fig. 55. Alcmeon’s remains in Gr. G 24 were cut off at the knee-caps, leaving only the lower sections of his legs in situ.........................................................................................................................................................................83 Fig. 56. Brückner and Pernice’s representation of the original status of the Irian Gate Gr. III burial attributed here to Philaid Life-King Agamestor (796-778 BC)........................................................................................85 Fig. 57. Kerameikos Sacred Way burial hS 290, with krater 284 shoved into the tomb on its side.................................86 Fig. 58. Fragments of LGIb-LGII funerary vessels found on the Acropolis..........................................................................89 Fig. 59. Epitymbion krater ANM 295 with depiction of interior prothesis, found on the Acropolis..............................89 Fig. 60. The New York Metropolitan Museum Land and Sea Battle Krater.........................................................................90 Fig. 61. Details of the New York battle krater. Above Side A has the ship still beached under assault, with fighting on deck man-to man, while the mast and sail are still stowed. Side B, the ship is readied to sail: a token swordsman, archer, and lancer, defend the ship as an unhelmed sailor amidships lowers the sail (detail), while the helmsman takes his seat aft...................................................................91 Fig. 62. LGIa krater Louvre. A 530, may depict the same scene at the beach, with a warrior assisting the seated sailor.....................................................................................................................................................................92 Fig. 63. A Mourning-cum-embarkation scene on a LGIIa Athenian oinochoe in Tasmania. Oinochoae became the canvas for scenes of warfare when figural krater eptymbia ceased in Athens following LGIb..........................94 Fig. 64. A reduced version of the NY battle krater scene on a LGII oinochoe in Karlsruhe.............................................94 Fig. 65. ANM 810, a LGII funerary cauldron adorned with funerary games, demonstrates the revival of the Philaids elite funerary and pottery traditions at the end of the 8th c...................................................................96 Fig. 66. A new Archaic extension from the Precinct XX site and the erection once more of kraters and steles on burials, demonstrates the resurgence of the Alcmeonids’ funerary traditions, which were more reliant on oriental decorative motifs.......................................................................................................................98 Fig. 67. The Alcmeonid Precinct XX Iron Age cemetery, and its Archaic successor. The spread of the ancestral Alcmeonid Precinct XX burial ground at right, across the intermediate Plattenbau to the Archaic cemetery at left, monumentalized by the erection of the sixth c. Great Mound G, encompassed six hundred years of burial by a single noble family............................................................................100 Fig. 68. The Athenian Kerameikos excavation site...............................................................................................................103 Fig. 69. Reconstruction: photo and graphic elements are combined to recreate krater 176 from its fragments......106 Fig. 70. Newly found fragments of the Mourner Krater 193 allow recovery of the decorative scheme of its lower bowl...................................................................................................................................................................107 Fig. 71. The Iron Age repaired valuable kraters with lead clamps to retain them in service........................................109 Fig. 72. Size comparisons for the largest Bronze Age krater, the Grotta krater from Naxos and three Athenian kraters of the Iron Age (LPG 67, MG 200, LG 279)..............................................................................111 Fig. 73. Decanting from a large bronze krater, its brilliance represented by the radiating lines emanating from its surface. Depiction on a vase from Kaloriziki Cyprus......................................................................................112 Fig. 74. Above, a gypsum restoration of MGII krater 205. Below, remains of epitymbia on Precinct XX burials, kraters for noble males and amphorae for females.......................................................................................................115 Fig. 75. Top of krater foot 129, slashed to aid adhesion during the fabrication process................................................120 Fig. 76. Three Attic epitymbion kraters with mourning figures in the spandrel above the handle: Krater 193 from Precinct XX, a krater from Attic Trachones, and the New York battle krater.............................121 Fig. 77. The Mourner Krater 193 detailing special epitymbion features in the fabrication of its foot........................122 Fig. 78. Protogeometric amphora fragment Ker. 11515b with remains of a horse motif, found probably as an insignia of rank and descent on Neleid vases........................................................................................................122 Fig. 79. Section of a krater in an open burial trench, with the cremation ash and urn below......................................124 Fig. 80. Remains of three krater epitymbia feet: 201 with intact base, 59 and 253 with interior weathering, exterior glaze pristine.........................................................................................................................................................125 vi

Fig. 81. To protect epitymbion kraters from water damage, holes were often broken through the bases to allow drainage. At right, Late Geometric figural krater 284 fabricated to stand as an epitymbion, with a hole neatly cut in its base by the potter before firing.......................................................................................125 Fig. 82. Cross section of the mid-12th c. Warrior Vase of Mycenae, the antecedent of the ancestral Type I Iron Age krater.....................................................................................................................................................................126 Fig. 83. Symbolic dowry chest in Wild Style, from the transitional Precinct XX burial of a noblewoman buried in Gr. SM 22..............................................................................................................................................................127 Fig. 84. LHIIIC Late Octopus Style stirrup jar ANM 5649, from the Kerameikos Dipylon Gate......................................128 Fig. 85. Wild Style krateriskoi 8, 23.........................................................................................................................................129 Fig. 86. Wild Style transitional fragments of krater ANM 212 and amphora ANM 213 from the Acropolis................129 Fig. 87. Transitional-era Wild Style motifs............................................................................................................................129 Fig. 88. Late Wild Style situla Ker. 543 from the Great Mound at Precinct XX.................................................................130 Fig. 89. Transitional-era Wild Style krater 11 and reconstruction....................................................................................130 Fig. 90. Transitional-era Wild Style krater ANM 273 found on the Acropolis..................................................................131 Fig. 91. LHIIIC Middle Hydria with arcade motif found at Mycenae..................................................................................131 Fig. 92. Ker. 11238 transitional-era Wild Style amphora with arcade motif reconstruction based on fragments.....131 Fig. 93. SM 17 neck profile........................................................................................................................................................132 Fig. 94. SM 14 crumbling foot..................................................................................................................................................132 Fig. 95. Transitional strayfind Kerameikos krater fragments.............................................................................................133 Fig. 96. Bilingual amphora Ker. 233 combines manual semicircles with compass drawn circles.................................134 Fig. 97ab. The Late Wild Style Munich Krater 6157..............................................................................................................135 Fig. 98. Fragment of a large Attic krater from Paros............................................................................................................136 Fig. 99. Kerameikos strayfind remains of common Protogeometric circles kraters.......................................................137 Fig. 100. Reconstruction of an MPG triple circles krater based on remains of 43 and 54..............................................138 Fig. 101. Krater fragment 42 from the pyre of Gr. LPG 10....................................................................................................138 Fig. 102. Krater fragments and reconstruction of 39, from pyre of Gr. MPG 30...............................................................138 Fig. 103. Kerameikos strayfind sherds of LPG date...............................................................................................................139 Fig. 104. Krater fragments from the fill of the tenth c chieftain’s house tomb at Lefkandi, where the Wild Style lasted longer than in Athens....................................................................................................................................140 Fig. 105. Reconstruction of LPG krater 67 from Gr. G 1........................................................................................................142 Fig. 106. British Museum 1950.2-28.3, a LPG pithoid form of the Jewel Workshop.........................................................142 Fig. 107. A large LPG kantharoid krater of the Jewel Workshop, ANM 18114, which anticipates the Geometric Type II krater.............................................................................................................................................143 Fig. 108. Type I Krater ANM 272, LPG transitional to EGI, from the Acropolis.................................................................144 Fig. 109. Reconstruction of Early Geometric II 156, a more ornate and monumental Type I krater...........................145 Fig. 110. A selection of EG krater sherds................................................................................................................................145 Fig. 111. Early Geometric Attic or Atticizing Type II krater from Argos...........................................................................146 Fig. 112. Reconstruction of an imported, Attic EGII, Type II krater found in the Lefkandi cemetery.........................146 Fig. 113. Reconstruction of MGI, Type I Krater 176 of the Agora Rich Lady Workshop.................................................148 Fig. 114ab Section profile and bowl sherds of krater 176....................................................................................................149 Fig. 115. Hypothetical reconstruction of Type I krater 205, Ker. 1247, of the Group of Kerameikos 1247..................150 Fig. 116. MGI-II, Athenian Type II krater from Eleusis.........................................................................................................151 Fig. 117ab MGI-II, Type II Krater 200 of the early Pre-Dipylon Workshop and its profile section...............................152 Fig. 118. Generic profile based on the smaller, spouted LGII domestic krater remains 291-300..................................153 Fig. 119. Early Geometric giant oinochoe of the Jewel Workshop c. 900 BC, found on Piraeus St. Athens..................157 Fig. 120. Agora P 27629, eponymous amphora of the Workshop of the Early Geometric Agora Rich Lady................158 Fig. 121ab Hypothetical Reconstruction of the large Type II krater 239-240, of the MGII Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop........................................................................................................................................................161 Fig. 122ab Reconstruction of Large Type I, MGII krater 232 of the Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop.................163 Fig. 123ab MG II ovoid krater and profile reconstruction...................................................................................................165 Fig. 124ab Hypothetical reconstruction of the large, Type I, LGIa epitymbion krater 284...........................................165 Fig. 125. LGIb-II epitymbion krater New York Metropolitan Museum Fig. 126. LGII epitymbion krater from Trachones, Piraeus Museum.................................................................................167 Fig. 127. Kerameikos Cat. 3, Inv. 5400......................................................................................................................................168 Fig. 128. Kerameikos Cat. 8, Inv. 9046......................................................................................................................................168 Fig. 129. Kerameikos Cat. 9, Inv. 9752......................................................................................................................................169 Fig. 130. Kerameikos Cat. 11, Inv. 5414....................................................................................................................................169 Fig. 131. Kerameikos Cat. 12a, Inv. 5485a................................................................................................................................169 vii

Fig. 132. Kerameikos Cat. 12b, Inv. 5485b...............................................................................................................................169 Fig. 133. Kerameikos Cat. 13, Inv. 5445....................................................................................................................................170 Fig. 134. Kerameikos Cat. 14, Inv. 916......................................................................................................................................170 Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 17, Inv. 9054....................................................................................................................................170 Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 18, Inv. 5415....................................................................................................................................170 Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 19, Inv. 7723....................................................................................................................................171 Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 22, Inv. 5402....................................................................................................................................171 Fig. 136. Kerameikos Cat. 23, Inv. 532......................................................................................................................................171 Fig. 137. Kerameikos Cat. 24, Inv. 5432....................................................................................................................................172 Fig. 138. Kerameikos Cat. 36, Inv. 7727....................................................................................................................................172 Fig. 139. Kerameikos Cat. 37, Inv. 7716....................................................................................................................................172 Fig. 140. Kerameikos Cat. 40, Inv. 5417....................................................................................................................................173 Fig. 141. Kerameikos Cat. 43, Inv. 11515..................................................................................................................................173 Fig. 142-3. Kerameikos Cat. 55, Inv. 5448; Cat. 56, Inv. 5449.................................................................................................173 Fig. 144. Kerameikos Cat. 57, Inv. 739a....................................................................................................................................173 Fig. 145. Kerameikos Cat. 58, Inv. 5443....................................................................................................................................174 Fig. 146. Kerameikos Cat. 59, Inv. 5444....................................................................................................................................174 Fig. 147. Kerameikos Cat. 62, Inv. 5440ab................................................................................................................................174 Fig. 148. Kerameikos Cat. 66, Inv. 609......................................................................................................................................175 Fig. 149. Kerameikos Cat. 68, Inv. 5428....................................................................................................................................175 Fig. 150. Kerameikos Cat. 80, Inv. 5420....................................................................................................................................175 Fig. 151. Kerameikos Cat. 84, Inv. 5426....................................................................................................................................176 Fig. 152. Kerameikos Cat. 85, Inv. 5416....................................................................................................................................176 Fig. 153. Kerameikos Cat. 91, Inv. 6314....................................................................................................................................176 Fig. 154. Kerameikos Cat. 104, Inv. 5466..................................................................................................................................177 Fig. 155. Kerameikos Cat. 105, Inv. 6313..................................................................................................................................177 Fig. 156. Kerameikos Cat. 117, Inv. 5472..................................................................................................................................177 Fig. 157. Kerameikos Cat. 123, Inv. 919....................................................................................................................................178 Fig. 158. Kerameikos Cat. 125, Inv. 6446..................................................................................................................................178 Fig. 159. Kerameikos Cat. 126, Inv. 5447..................................................................................................................................178 Fig. 160. Kerameikos Cat. 129, Inv. 10578................................................................................................................................178 Fig. 161. Kerameikos Cat. 130, Inv. 5469..................................................................................................................................179 Fig. 162. Kerameikos Cat. 132, Inv. 930....................................................................................................................................179 Fig. 163. Kerameikos Cat. 138, Inv. 1291..................................................................................................................................179 Fig. 164. Kerameikos Cat. 139, Inv. 5492..................................................................................................................................180 Fig. 165. Kerameikos Cat. 141, Inv. 1294..................................................................................................................................180 Fig. 166. Kerameikos Cat. 142, Inv. 1292..................................................................................................................................180 Fig. 167. Kerameikos Cat. 147, Inv. 5425..................................................................................................................................181 Fig. 168. Kerameikos Cat. 152, Inv. 5431..................................................................................................................................181 Fig. 169. Kerameikos Cat. 156, Inv. 5453, 5467........................................................................................................................181 Fig. 170. Kerameikos Cat. 161, Inv. 5462..................................................................................................................................182 Fig. 171. Kerameikos Cat. 162, Inv. 5494..................................................................................................................................182 Fig. 172. Kerameikos Cat. 163, Inv. 5487..................................................................................................................................182 Fig. 173. Kerameikos Cat. 169, Inv. 5486..................................................................................................................................182 Fig. 174. Kerameikos Cat. 171, Inv. 5488..................................................................................................................................183 Fig. 175. Kerameikos Cat. 172, Inv. 5499..................................................................................................................................183 Fig. 176. Kerameikos Cat. 174, Inv. 1187..................................................................................................................................183 Fig. 177. Kerameikos Cat. 177, Inv. 5471..................................................................................................................................184 Fig. 178. Kerameikos Cat. 178, Inv. 7773..................................................................................................................................184 Fig. 179. Kerameikos Cat. 194, Inv. 7771..................................................................................................................................184 Fig. 180. Kerameikos Cat. 195, Inv. 871....................................................................................................................................185 Fig. 181. Kerameikos Cat. 198, Inv. 8811..................................................................................................................................185 Fig. 182. Kerameikos Cat. 199, Inv. 5500..................................................................................................................................185 Fig. 183. Kerameikos Cat. 201, Inv. 865....................................................................................................................................186 Fig. 184. Kerameikos Cat. 202, Inv. 8833..................................................................................................................................186 Fig. 185. Kerameikos Cat. 203, Inv. 7757..................................................................................................................................186 Fig. 186. Kerameikos Cat. 204, Inv. 8848..................................................................................................................................186 Fig. 187. Kerameikos Cat. 221, Inv. 5489..................................................................................................................................187 viii

Fig. 188. Kerameikos Cat. 223, Inv. 5490..................................................................................................................................187 Fig. 189. Kerameikos Cat. 227, Inv. 7765..................................................................................................................................187 Fig. 190. Kerameikos, Cat. 232-3, Inv. 5480.............................................................................................................................187 Fig. 191. Kerameikos, Cat. 239, Inv. 5484.................................................................................................................................188 Fig. 192. Kerameikos Cat. 246, Inv. 8872..................................................................................................................................188 Fig. 193. Kerameikos Cat. 289, Inv. 8893..................................................................................................................................188 Fig. 194. Kerameikos Cat. 291, Inv. 789....................................................................................................................................189 Fig. 195. Kerameikos Cat. 292, Inv. 1143..................................................................................................................................189 Fig. 196. Kerameikos Cat. 294, Inv. 1329..................................................................................................................................189 Fig. 197. Kerameikos, Cat. 296, Inv. 9000.................................................................................................................................190 Fig. 198. Kerameikos Cat. 300, Inv. 1336..................................................................................................................................190 Fig. 199. Kerameikos Cat. 307, Inv. 8814..................................................................................................................................190


Foreword ‘We may note in passing, perhaps with some surprise, that many of the big grave-marking vessels have survived complete, but many others in only isolated fragments. This suggests that, once broken, some were soon effectively covered, but it is possible that they had differing fortunes after the burial, possibly not unrelated to the identity of the buried. Later large vases that survived well were generally buried and did not stand above ground’. Sir John Boardman, Oxford, 1998

topic worthwhile fodder for further analysis - there are still several aspects of the krater that have only been lightly brushed here. For now, it is useful to have this first exposition combined with the krater remains, the archaeological data that prompted it, catalogued at the end. More informed expertise may wish to address the political, cultural and genealogical theories that are presented. The current work suffices to demonstrate the main thesis: that the governmental oversight of Iron Age Athens needs reassessment. This applies for topics that have engaged scholars for more than a century: the origins of Greek civilization, which now appear to owe much more to Mycenaean precedents, specifically elite immigrants entering Athens from a declining Peloponnesos. There are reinterpretations of synoikismos, and speculation on a peculiar form of Iron Age kingship, the earliest glimmerings of representational governance and the polis. Since kraters and their contexts have rarely survived intact, a large section is given over to the visual reconstruction of the formal krater, one of the main sources of evidence for the study, as well as documentation of the cemeteries and speculation on who were buried in them.

This is an appropriate entrée into a work concerned both with vessels and elite identity. The genesis of this research arose unexpectedly in 1971 when Greek political events rendered an original Fulbright research topic unfeasible. To compensate, my NYU mentor, Professor Guenter Kopcke, arranged for me to ‘make myself useful’ at the Kerameikos excavations, the main center of Athenian Geometric pottery. There the director, Dr Ursula Knigge, isolated a block of unpublished, Iron Age, strayfind sherds excavated mostly from the Hagia Triada area before and during World War II. Following the publication of a first volume on the pyxides, research began on the krater. The krater study raised so many questions of socio-political ramification, for the Bronze as well as the Iron Age that the scope of the publication was extended to its current dimensions. It can now relate some of the identities of those connected with the monumental vessels found above the graves, and suggest why some epitymbia were buried and others found shattered into fragments. This study is not a work of history per se. That would be premature in light of the paucity of evidence beyond burials. It does attempt to bring together what evidence there is in a speculative reconstruction enlightened by traditions and archaeology. Others who follow will be free to prove or cast doubt on the result, and perhaps in sequel a better protohistory of Athens will result.

The work frequently contradicts the trends towards a more empirical, less subjective discipline of archaeology in recent decades. Those trends have proved worthwhile. New Archaeology brought considerable benefit to the discipline as it wrung out an excess of speculation that typified earlier 20th century scholarship. Older conclusions were periodically proven wrong by later discoveries and improved techniques. The newer methodology is useful, mostly where other checks and balances are available, and it has not been wholly neglected in what follows. David Small’s assessment that Pylos had a small lineage type of leadership gains support not only from his model in the Copan Basin, but by the archaeological evidence, and by events following the transfer of Pylians to Athens as reported in traditions. While there is certainly more solidity in data acquired wholly via empiricism rather than my speculation, currently archaeological investigation tends to focus too often on questions amenable to technological solution. In the establishment of the King List as a credible source

The style of the presentation requires explanation. Since research began in an era when scholarship was not subject to the database spreadsheet, it does not follow trends of more recent decades in its presentation. In order to complete the work under duress of other full time employment, the manuscript was brought together in the style and means of the era in which it originated, with only rudimentary use of computer runs on one of the older Filemaker versions. Since the field does now appear less hostage to measurable outcomes as its mainstay, I felt more confident in completing this publication after thirty-five years of flirtation. Confronting ‘Time’s winged chariot’ I cannot contribute much more, and it should now move on to a more specialized and objective review. If the results of the research are found unsatisfactory one of the more computer-literate scholars in the field may find the x

for the Athenian kings, demonstrated below, there is ample proof that traditions should not be summarily dismissed as a source for Iron Age history.

Sourvinou-Inwood’s untimely death was a great loss to the world of Aegean prehistory. All comes together to reveal an Iron Age less dark, and the first stirrings not limited just to the eighth century. Coldstream dedicated a tribute to Evelyn Lord-Smithson at a crucial phase of reassessment, questioning the view of the Iron Age as ‘a truly miserable Dark Age, an age supposedly of backward peasants leaving hardly any trace behind’ compensated only by the ‘sudden and dramatic dawn’ of the eighth c. Greek Renaissance.1 Both these scholars corresponded regularly, and although they are given little credit, did much to move the needle that ultimately eliminated the term ‘Dark Age’. Coldstream cited Lord-Smithson’s breakthrough moment following publication of the spectacular Agora Rich Lady grave. ‘The gloomy Bauernfolk have been banished forever’ she wrote him jubilantly.

The once popular discrediting of the efforts of earlier archaeologists that took place at the onset of the New Archaeology movement may have gone too far, discouraging consultation of earlier scholarship and traditional approaches. Modelling works well if the comparanda are not only statistically selected, but rational, with a nod to common sense, and subject to independent control where possible. Sometimes the two ‘jugs’ fed into a database without examination of context, style and state of preservation may have no relationship whatsoever, the one for oil, the other for wine. Their appearance together on a data base can influence determination of their cultural context, and the small building blocks of theories that help write history. While Small’s Copan Basin simile stood up to analysis by other criteria, other cases defy logic. In the climate of Deconstructionism that influenced the first heady flush of New Archaeology it became unfashionable to delineate the characteristics that have made ancient Greek culture quite unique in the annals of the globe. A computer run suggested useful modelling between an undeveloped Himalayan town and an Athens on the brink of creating Classical Civilization from the foundations of the prior Mycenaean. Hopefully the current work will reveal why that was not a good pairing. Much is still being written on the subject, resulting in considerable improvement in archaeological methodology over the last two decades, as individual archaeologists have led the way back to more traditional methods.

My direction has been strongly influenced by their foray, perhaps overly so, as I go out on a limb with the current study. I hope that I contribute to the view that Athens had a much more vital history during the Iron Age than even our two departed colleagues imagined, and that the listed kings of Athens actually ruled, and far from being backward peasants were progressive pedigreed aristocrats who could frame a successful constitution. In sequel it has become possible to identify tentatively some of their burials and hypothesize on their lineages. Overlooked ancient records of their political system reveal an early onset for some representative governmental practices that were not without influence in later ages and climes, in regions far from the tiny Iron Age settlement of Athens.

Without attention to traditional scholarly approaches, this current study would not exist (some may laud that possibility). Preoccupation with computer runs would not have allowed me to spend almost a decade mining the gold in thousands of strayfind sherds neglected since World War II. In the full bloom of the computer age I might have overlooked the work of earlier scholars (who sometimes missed the mark, but left observations worth investigating). So there is a debt here to German philologist Willamowitz (as well as refutation), and Paulsen, Kunze, Mylonas, and many others. SourvinouInwood’s study of movements of people would not have become such a spur to my research if I had followed the trends that rejected migration theory and any other tradition the Greeks left of their prehistoric ancestors. Sourvinou-Inwood’s extensive knowledge of the literary traditions now combined with the more recent material record, motivated the expansion of my research to the current Kratos & Krater. In more recent times her migration views have gained support from the publications of Ruppenstein, Finkelberg and Moschos, as well as the remarkable 1998 ‘Mediterranean Peoples in Transition’ conference of Dothan, Gitin. and Mazar.

In the current work, there is no suppression of the aesthetic aspects of the Greek experience. There are no apologies for considering a number of Greek traditions as legitimate sources, while conceding that traditions are sometimes fanciful, embroidered or corrupt. They have been too long relegated to limbo as a source for the prehistoric era, as observable physical remains have taken primacy. Were remembrancers and bards who recited lengthy sagas incapable of recalling with some degree of reliability the more important facts of their age – the fifteen names of their kings, where their forefathers hailed from, or the names of those who coordinated a major 11th c. BC migration from Athens to Ionia? Must all traditions be considered suspect because a few may have been distorted by ancients for political gain? Some traditions intersecting with the archaeological record appear credible: scattered sherds from damaged burial grounds correlate with discredited early memories and the accounts of ancient scholars trying to make sense of the surviving record of their past. Such a scholar was Aristotle, one of the earliest 1


Coldstream 1995, 391-403.

to venture into the topic of Athens’s early governance. In recent years he was accused of engaging in logical reconstruction rather than reporting factual history.2 However, if my comparisons between the ancient King List and archaeological evidence hold water, it appears that Aristotle succeeded in both. Hellenic history, as unique and unpredictable as its people, will continue to frustrate the constraints of modern anthropological systematization and the personal prejudices of scholars.

1938. Others are just names, but they can now be lifted from the realm of mythology and given status in the historical record. Informed by the last remnants of Mycenaean civilization, they made Athens and Lefkandi the prime repository of their lore. Significantly, Athens survived. The Iron Age activists who brought about the first constitution limiting absolute power were the same kind of maverick political activists and reformers, as their descendants, who four hundred years later were framing the terms of the earliest democracy.

Modern Athenians may welcome more information about their Iron Age origins even if it appears here with an asterisk. It was not a sequence of nameless Medontid kings who led Athens through the Iron Age, leaving barely a ripple on the surface of history. They ruled but briefly at the beginning and end of the Iron Age. Significant, named individuals from known noble houses, Megacles, Agamestor, and other eupatrids were the main rulers during the age. The association of a few graves with their likely occupants, those few of significant identity noted by John Boardman, means we now know Megacles’ favorite style of pot and that they were often very large and ornate, and designed for impact on his culture. Excavators may actually have been in touch with his royal ashes when they were excavated from the Precinct XX burial ground back in


The hope is that this study brings the Iron Age more structure, with a few new chronological markers tied more securely to archaeological contexts, stylistic sequences of pottery, and via the King List, even some individual people and events. A few adjustments to Coldstream’s chronology are suggested below. This work does rely considerably on speculation, but it allows openings for other scholars with more expertise in specific areas to intervene where I merely dabble. This could result in more accurate and detailed studies, suitable for a more factual history at some point in the future. In the meantime, I will gladly accept the same critique made of Aristotle, while acknowledging that my reconstructions, unlike his, are probably not all logical.

Sinclair 1978.



This volume is dedicated to my parents, Rhoda & Charles Jones, uncommon folk from a common setting, but it is also dedicated to the late Dr. Ursula Knigge, who, together with Dr. Bettina von Freytag, brought me to consider completing it, and generously provided me with the tools, support and encouragement to do so. This followed the lengthy and difficult publication of the pyxides, Kerameikos XIII, in 1988. The kraters were an even more daunting task than the pyxides, which protected in burial could often be materially reconstituted. The krater, however, had been exposed to the elements, and survived mostly as foot fragments in situ above certain graves, and for the rest as badly shattered, disassociated strayfinds (v. Catalogue and end plates). The krater presented considerable challenges in terms of recovery, presentation, and interpretation. I was raising funds for the new University of Illinois Spurlock Museum and unable to devote much time to such a demanding and unpromising research topic. Even so, in 1995, the University of Illinois Research Board kindly provided me leave time and a research grant for a month in Athens, where I could order and oversee photography of the Kerameikos krater remains and study and photograph other krater material in the Athens National Museum, the Agora and various storage apothekes. Here I must thank Dr. Petros Themelis, Kuriae Alexandri, Gadolou, Lambesi, Andreomenou, Psalti, Brouskari, Zosi, and many other kindly and supportive Greek ephors and epimelites who helped further my research over the last forty years. They granted me access to material in their possession and catered to my need for venues, research materials and photographs in various Greek apothekes and museums. The supportive environment Dr. Knigge provided was greatly missed following her passing, but progress could be made in this current publication, Kratos & Krater, which has used a full range of available evidence to reconstruct the current protohistory.

that work on the kraters could be continued following my departure from Athens. Also to Dr Ivonne Kaiser and Christina Zioga of the DAI library, for facilitating my accesss to research materials not available in Illinois and providing texts and photocopies which later allowed work to continue during periods of ill health. I mention for graphic art, Sp. Barbatis, Lena Plinthidou, Roxana Docsan, Charles Stout, and Tibor Baron; and for conservation Aristides and Ioannis Papagrigoriou, for photography Gösta Hellner and Dr Ivonne Kaiser. For graphic technical support and recovery, I thank Hans Birk, Dipl.Ing. who also made calculation of krater capacities from cross-section drawings. Dr Hans Goette of the DAI also generously contributed his free time to recovering lost and inadequate visuals, and instructed me in computer graphics, so that I could continue the work following his departure from Athens. Dr Jutta Stroszeck Director of the Kerameikos, Dr Wolf Niemeier, former Director of the DAI Athens, and Ulrich Thaler, DAI editor underwrote partial costs of the graphic work initiated by Roxana Docsan and continued by Charles Stout, whose excellent reconstructions of shattered kraters are liberally dispersed in the text. I appreciated the congenial collaboration of Darko Jerko of the Archaeopress team on a complex layout. For ongoing mentoring over many years, I thank the late Prof. J. N. Coldstream and his wife Niki for her hospitality. Coldstream’s approach to research during a lifetime of publications large and small, provided the context for several areas of less fashionable investigation pursued to advantage in this study. Our conversations, his careful review of my work on pyxides and kraters from the early seventies up to the time of his demise in 2008, were a considerable encouragement to me. Prof. John Papadopoulos of UCLA and the Athenian Agora excavations, provided useful observations on the fabrication technique of the krater, as also needed encouragement during times of doubt and duress. I also thank colleagues Karl Reber and Samuel Verdan for providing information and photographs of formal kraters under their publication. Prof. Irene Lemos of Oxford University, Prof. Lionel Casson of New York University, noted Mycenaean pottery scholars Penelope Mountjoy, Florian Ruppenstein, and Prof. Jeremy Rutter, have also assisted in the improvement of the manuscript, curbing some, but not all, of my more extravagant views. I thank especially Dr Petros Themelis, who, as an epimelete in the 1970s, resolved to make Anavyssos sherds available for spectrographic analysis for sourcing, which ultimately led me to

It has taken twenty-five years to complete its research and publication. There would have been no fruition at all without the encouragement and assistance of many other individuals in a variety of capacities. Foremost, my NYU Pied Piper and mentor, Prof. Guenter Kopcke who spiked my fascination with geometric form, leading to a lifelong obsession with potsherds. I also recognize here the late Kerameikos director, Prof. Franz Willemsen, a knowledgeable, on-site mentor during my latter years at the Kerameikos. Thanks are due Dr Wolf Niemeier for his support in extending the hospitality of the German Archaeological Institute and its staff, so xiii

question the view of Athens as a backwater in the ninth c. Also Dr Richard Jones, of the Fitch Laboratory British School of Athens, for assistance with the technical procedure, in a study I hope one day to publish. I also take this opportunity to thank all who contributed to the research and production of the earlier volume, Kerameikos XIII, foremost Dr Bettina von Freytag. She has supported my efforts with advice and encouragement for 40 years, and may have retained me in the discipline by helping retype my original pyxis dissertation rejected by New York University because the paper was the wrong size.

came from Fulbright and Danforth fellowships, from the Volkswagen Stiftung the Research Board of the University of Illinois and the Arnold O and Mabel M. Beckman Research Endowment. I also thank Prof. Ariana Traill and UI library staff for helping me with access to inter-library loan, and UI stacks privileges. A special thanks to Bruce Swann, UI Classics librarian for purchasing needed texts, and photocopying articles, which were sometimes delivered to me in my home during periods of confinement. Finally, I thank my able Carle Center physicians, Drs Theodore Frank, Kendrith Rowland, and Lyn Tangen, for the present sound health that has allowed the completion of this work. Dr Rajka Makjanic of Archaeopress Publishing Ltd ably shepherded the project to the finish line.

Support for travel, accessing, recovering, photographing and researching material in various locations in Europe


Terms & Abbreviations

For publication Abbreviations, v. Bibliography & Archäologische Anzeiger 1997, 611-625

Alltagsware term used by Schachermeyr to describe Mycenaean ceramic of common usage ANM Athens National Museum approx. approximately BC Before the Christian Era BM British Museum c. century c circa cat. catalogue cm centimeter Consortium krater Type I or II krater, used for formal gatherings of leadership (279) Convivial krater Type I or II, smaller krater used by leadership and elite for less formal social occasions (200) D diameter DAI the German Archaeological Institute EG Early Geometric ekphora the carrying forth of the deceased, often depicted in procession on LG vessels epitymbion a marker on a burial, usually a vessel such as a krater or amphora fig. figure frgt. fragment Gr. grave H height HS and hS Sacred Way HTr. Hagia Triada, excavation area in the vicinity of the former Hagia Triada chapel Inv. inventory number Irian Gate Cemetery former ‘Dipylon Cemetery’ in the vicinity of Platia Eleftheria Iron Age used here to replace the commonly used ‘Early Iron Age’ Ker. Kerameikos, and series publications of the site LG Late Geometric LH Late Helladic Loc. cit. previously cited source LZB Mud Brick precinct at Hagia Triada adjacent to the Precinct XX Samakian precinct m meter max. maximum MG Middle Geometric MH Middle Helladic MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art MS cipher on early grey cardboard numbered boxes used for segregating Hagia Triada finds Neg. negative No. number Nobelkeramik term used by Schachermeyr to describe Mycenaean ceramic of elite usage Open Burial interment where the upper part of the burial shaft is left unfilled and the epitymbion partially submerged into it Opferrinne clay trench for burial offerings p. page PG Protogeometric pl. plate pres. preserved prothesis the lying-in-state of the deceased before cremation or interment ref. reference Pub. Publication Saronic Salamis an island off the Mainland at the Saronic Gulf xv

Salamis SM Stele Thick Transitional transitional Type I Type II Uninv. W WB Wild Style

a site in Cyprus Submycenaean a burial marker, usually of stone thickness a formal term used to define the pottery and phase SM-EPG an informal term for the pottery and phase LHIIIC Late to EPG a term Coldstream used for the standard footed wine bowl of more formal use, that evolved from the Mycenaean era ring-based krater a term Coldstream used for the Iron Age, kantharos-shaped krater of metal origin, used in domestic, social and political use, as the Type I was converted to funerary use uninventoried width Westliche Bezirk, Precinct XIX, Koroiban coined by Desborough to describe a specific group of more colorful late 12th-11th c. introduced into Athens, and found mostly in the Kerameikos


Chapter I

Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary The full work has been digested into this synopsis preceding the main text, recommended reading as a summary to help ease the way through a work that does not yield easily to concentration in a single publication. The study is unusually comprehensive, combining history, culture, and archaeology with a typological analysis of the Iron Age krater, the only format that could have supported the prime objectives of this study.

Kratos & Krater: Antecedents

a work originally titled Krater & Kratos had to be retitled Kratos & Krater, as it became clear that the former topic had devolved into the tail that wagged the dog. Unstudied strayfind material held for decades in various Athenian storage depots proved extremely useful in complementing the sparse krater burial finds.

This is not the first time that Kratos & Krater were teamed as the title of a publication, which was suggested to me by a brief 1994 article of Joanna Luke. She noted that the krater was far more than a domestic vessel for mixing wine. ‘It inherently reflects the sociopolitical power and status of its owner’. Possession implied that the owner was civilized, since he was conversant with the social norms of diluting wine with water: to be akratos, without a krater, was to be outside the pale of elite society. To fill the krater, the owner would also have possessed wealth, which would signify land ownership in this agrarian society. By extension that signifies power, and a position of leadership in the ruling hierarchy.1

The formal, Wild Style krater of the transitional era was assumed to be an innovation of the Iron Age by earlier scholars, including Desborough, but realization of its full debt to the Bronze Age, both culturally and stylistically, expanded the topic. More space is devoted to the Athenian krater because the new Athenian Iron Age remains published here have proved especially informative in demonstrating social and political activity in the almost total absence of settlement contexts and literacy. The formal Nobelkeramik kraters of the eupatrids, form the backbone of the present study because they were associated closely with the lead players of the kratos. However, kratos (Kratos, rule) is used here as a generic reference to leadership at whatever level, applicable equally to the princes of the Mycenaean palatial era, the surviving administrators, generals, and tribal chieftains of the post-palatial era and the kings and archons of the Iron Age, all of whom used the krater formally.

Her views hold true for the Iron Age culture treated in this study, a period in which the privileges of the aristocracy were usurping those of traditional kingship in a trend that may have been initiated in the preceding Bronze Age. The view of David Small on cultural evolution can be interceded here: ‘Unless they disappear, cultures in their transformations will retain significant elements of their earlier structures, but use them in new and different social strategies’.2 The title Kratos & Krater incorporates this view, extending the roots of both back hundreds of years into the preceding Bronze Age.3 The work is divided into canonical Bronze and Iron Age sections because there was a rupture of sorts at the transition, although not as large as earlier scholars believed and very blurred at the edges. In the determination of political structure there was considerable continuity of people, practices and products, and Kratos & Krater are the perfect media to demonstrate that.

The Krater provides perhaps the best illustration of the transmission of Mycenaean elite practices and symbolism to Athens during the years of transition between the two ages. The Bronze Age focus here is primarily on the krater’s usage in social, ritual and political contexts, as a lead-up to its role in the Kratos of the Athenian life-kings that forms a considerable part of this study. In both ages the krater was a feature of consortium, i.e. a deliberative gathering at the krater, as opposed to a wedding or other celebration. Formal venues dominated by leadership in the iconic presence of an imposing, finely wrought krater (coupled with the social lubricant of its contents), helped to further diplomacy, collaboration, and the development of important institutions. Homer tells of a kings’ advisory council, the gerousia oinon, that convened over a

Kraters were the entrée into this research, which was originally a typological study similar to that already published on the pyxis (Kerameikos Vol. XIII). However, Luke 1994, 23-32. Small 1998, 283. 3 Small 1998, 283-291. 1 2


Kratos & Krater krater of wine that was subsidized by the citizenry.4 A little mellowing alcohol still helps temper autocratic decision-making, often leading to a more congenial outcome, or not, depending on how well the autocrat receives input from a normally reticent subordinate. Kraters would have also graced assemblies of the prime male elite, and certainly a council of war would have had a krater on hand to inspire participation.

an elite culture already impacted by contact with the more sophisticated Cretan civilization. The culture of the krater extended out from its prime base, Mycenae, transiting across the Mainland to lesser chieftains and prosperous burgers, and beyond to the islands, Ionia, Crete, Cyprus, and the Near East. It adapted and evolved in usage as the fortunes of leadership waxed and waned, its forms answering to specific cultural needs, some types dying out, others continuing, all serving as a barometer of the changing socio-political climate.

Strategy sessions of any kind would likely have required the dilution of enebriating ‘neat’ wine to a relaxing but not incapacitating brew appropriate to each occasion. Here the krater served practically for the Helladic practice of cutting and mixing of wine with water. This tempered the alcohol content and viscosity of the brew for various occasions, but there may have been no dilution at all for a triumphal celebration or an interlude with hetairai (courtesans). This is not to overlook the krater’s more common social venues. Its first role has remained unchanged to this day: human need for refreshment and relaxation with friends and family. Some have suggested symposia as early as the palatial period, but that appellation, with its extra layers of meaning, is best left to the Archaic period.

The krater survived the first of the attacks on the Mainland palaces, which ultimately were to bring down Mycenaean civilization. The post-palatial era was a phase of decreased prosperity and consolidation that affected the appearance of the krater: the variety of krater shapes that had typified the palatial era were reduced down to a single predominating type, the wide bodied, vertical profiled, ring-based krater, of which the Warrior Vase is the most familiar example (Fig. 12). That the formal krater survived into this era retaining its formality is surprising, but it has much to do with its production and wider distribution in the final palatial years. It had developed a mystique beyond the ruling cadres, thanks to Mycenae’s commercial pottery enterprise, international in scope, observable in the tombs of numerous burgers buried in Cyprus and elsewhere.6

The bowl of wine remained an age-old staple of the Helladic culture for three millennia, more if we include the fine wines still available in modern tavernas a stone’s throw from that Ancient Greek center of life, the Athenian Agora. The krater’s formal roles were manifold, extending from kinship assemblies and burials of the Middle Helladic period, to elevated cult use of the palatial period, to post palatial gatherings of surviving Mycenaean elite, to the magnificent epitymbia of Athenian Iron Age life-kings, and the discreet dinoi of the aristocratic Archaic symposium. In this text deliberative settings at the formal krater, as opposed to weddings or other celebrations, are termed consortia.

Power continued seeping away from traditional Mainland centers, some like Pylos and Mycenae, no longer functional, but still an inspiration for surviving Mycenaeans. The krater remained current through the intermediary of surviving elite, no longer the wanakes, palatial era absolute kings, but ranking ancillaries such as basileis and regional chieftains. Lesser pedigreed leaders who took over the rule following the departure of aristocracy may have strengthened their claim to preeminence by continuing the rituals, feasts, and political and military deliberations where the krater had traditionally played a role in earlier more blueblooded regimes. For practicality, as the population of the Peloponnesian power bases declined, the use of the krater was extended to new social sectors that came to prominence, for example an increasingly significant warrior caste, even foot soldiers, whose fighting, and hunting activities are depicted on the sidewalls of Brüderbund style mixing kraters such as the Warrior Krater. To judge from the increasing size of kraters, foremost the LHIIIC Grotta krater, the largest preserved from the Bronze Age (Fig. 8), the numbers gathering at such communal kraters may have grown in size during the turbulence of the latest Mycenaean years.

The krater already had an established role in both settlement and burial ground in the Middle Helladic period, and perhaps earlier: there is some evidence for communal drinking of wine in the Early Helladic period in individual vessels designed for shared drinking.5 Following an unpretentious arrival in the Middle Helladic period, the krater was elevated to new social, political and ritual prominence by the Mycenaean principalities of the Late Bronze Age. Used by all but the humblest classes throughout that time, in its most refined manifestations the krater is recognizable as the prime vessel of leadership. Finely adorned kraters in a variety of shapes and decoration graced functions of

Those who took control following the loss of more traditional leadership to decease and migration, were

From geroi, elders, and oinos, wine. Od. XIII 8-9. The elders drink at public expense, IL.XVII 249-50. 5 Rutter 2008, 461-481. Vessels for the storage and communal imbibing of wine were on hand prior to the Mycenaean phase, based on finds from Tsoungiza. 4



Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982.

Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary likely drawn from more diverse backgrounds, changing with more transforming events as the high Mycenaean culture ebbed. However, leaders of whatever descent appear to have comprehended the utility of krater traditions for the retention of status and control. The krater represented an association with illustrious, possibly legendary predecessors during the palmy days of the Mycenaean palaces, whose magnificent citadels and tombs were sometimes still visible against the skyline (Fig. 2). The krater’s aura may also have incorporated connotations represented by those fortifications, order and stability, now in short supply as attacks continued on the deteriorating rump of Mycenaean civilization. The krater must have been especially significant to the last elite survivors as part of their heritage and group identity as they buried in the ruins of Mycenae. The final throes during the 12th century led the last Mycenaeans of the Peloponnesos, to abandon their traditional homeland and seek havens further east. Athens was one of several such destinations that absorbed groups of Mainland migrants and their krater traditions.

destination for refugees from various landscapes, as well as its own beleaguered Attic interior (now nearing depopulation). Surviving West Peloponnesian elite could sail to Attica, while others could ferry across directly from Troezen. A hardy few migrants lacking ships could have taken the rougher land route around the Saronic Gulf, said to have been followed by Theseus. Migrants mingled with the existing population of Athens, and out of this unpromising stew was created the subsequent historical culture.

The Kratos & Krater in Iron Age Athens

No traces of their settlements have survived, but prevailing wisdom is that they were hamlets located in the vicinity of their cemeteries. The new burial areas date to the Late Helladic IIIC Late phase onwards, and some were under their own individual leadership. The settlement of these migrants occurred with no discernible blowback from the local Mycenaean aristocracy. Indeed, what few of the local elite remained may have welcomed them. The indigenous leadership had little spark at this time, thinned out by the stress of periodic attack and likely migration. There are no signs that the well-armed newcomers entered Athens with aggression. If they had overtaken the settlement by force, it is unlikely that their largest incoming contingent would have been satisfied with a tract of Kerameikos soggy bottom as its spoils. The traditions suggest diplomacy attended their arrival, and that may have set the tone for what happened in sequel.

Notable among the migrants was a group reportedly headed by elite Messenian noblemen of the Neleid clan, who first made their way to Eleusis, presumably by ship. Some moved on to the island of Salamis and hence to Athens. The reputation Athens acquired as a refuge for the dispossessed, may have been earned at this time. A testimony to that was the inauguration of a number of new migrant burial sites of various size and character encircling the periphery of Athens, some soon to expire, and others to endure for centuries (Fig. 15).8

David Small poses a question: ‘What happened to the structure of the Late Bronze Age in Greece?’7 A diluted Hellenic culture continued in the Peloponnesos at the end of the Bronze Age at townships such as Asine, Nichoria and the odd sanctuary. Elite Mycenaean culture, by contrast, all but disappeared there as the last major redoubt, Tiryns, succumbed, and numerous habitation sites fell off the map. However, practices that successfully serve the retention of a power structure and instill group ethos, may outlive loss of homeland. The formal krater, a symbol of Mycenaean civilization, was not too cumbersome for the last remaining aristocrats to haul away during retreat (the final Grave Gamma 31 krater at Mycenae may have been one such (Fig. 24). Elite elements survived, most relocating to safe havens abroad, in Ionia, Rhodes, Cyprus, Philistia and Crete, a process that went on sporadically through most of the 12th c. For some populations, an overseas destination was not an option. Earlier migrants would have commandeered most of the viable ships for more distant shores or piracy. For those that remained the eastern Mainland, Euboea, Athens, and Naxos were more attainable destinations, all with easier access to Ionia, if a new Mainland crisis arose.

The Rule of the Melantho-Codrids Apart from traditions, our best source of information for what was happening in these transitional years is pottery and other archaeological survivals. Strayfind ceramic fragments from the earliest founding of the new Kerameikos Precinct XX Iron Age cemetery initiated the current research. One volume dealing with a variety of pyxides from the site has already been published.9 As a second study was initiated dealing with the krater it became clear that Bronze Age culture introduced by the new immigrants was key to analysis of what was transpiring in Athens. Reportedly,

Athens received a vital injection of the last vestiges of Mycenaean high culture, ensuring its survival on the Mainland, and its consolidation as the foundation of the Athenian-based classical civilization that followed. With the reassuring citadel of the Acropolis looming over its settlement, Athens seems to have been a favored 7


Small 1998, 283.



Ruppenstein 2007 for the Kerameikos foundations. Bohen 1988.

Kratos & Krater Athens, weakened by attacks, was under pressure to relinquish some of its boundary at Oinoe in northeast Attica. According to traditions, the Pylian aristocrat Melanthos stabilized this situation and was made king of Athens. In the process he appears to have received the Kerameikos area as his temenos and established his family burial site in the area under the classical Precinct XX (Fig. 68). Another group of Messenians and diverse fellow travelers were settled on the nearby island of Salamis until their leadership (Neleid Philaios?) negotiated the Athenian citizenship reported in traditions. They entered Athens and are probably the varied Pompeion group settled in the Kerameikos near Melanthos’ Precinct XX burial ground. They ultimately may have constituted auxiliary retinue for Melanthos and Philaios. The nature and dispersal of these and the other new burial sites founded around Athens suggest heterogeneity and no single entity in control at first, although a species of hegemony was established before long by Melanthos as king. His Precinct XX burial ground was likely shared with fellow Neleid Alcmeon who had also come to Athens from Messenia.

Following these attacks most surviving MelanthoCodrids and numerous others departed from Athens on the so-called Ionian Migration (ca 1070 BC).

The burial mode of the newcomers was the cist, used by all ranks. New construction of the elite local mode of burial, the chamber tomb, had lapsed as had all elite local pottery by the end of LHIIIC Middle. Desborough believed a new Wild Style pottery decoration that now appears in LHIIIC Late was the creation of Athenian potters, but it was a Peloponnesian Nobelkeramik introduced by the founders of the Precinct XX cemetery. 10 It adorned a new series of kraters that were used in newly introduced krater funerary rituals that had their closest parallels in the Peloponnesos.


This short-lived Melantho-Codrid regime may have laid the groundwork for the incipient Athenian Iron Age culture of Athens that followed. Noticeable changes occurred in sequel, some of which should perhaps be credited to this Messenian lineage which may have introduced new ideas of governance from its original homeland. Other eupatrids of Peloponnesian origin did not depart on the Ionian Migration, foremost the Alcmeonids, who remained in Athens contributing their talents to the restructuring of Athens in the new Iron Age and well beyond. Medon succeeded Codros as king, but the legacy of the Melantho-Codrids may have left the spirited and independent eupatrid houses dissatisfied with the traditional absolute monarchy represented by the Medontids. Medon’s son and successor Acastus proved incapable of resisting a eupatrid cartel that urged another form of kingship, one governed by what may have been Athens’ first constitution.

The Medontid kingship purported to rule Athens during the Iron Age was mostly a Potemkin Village. Ian Morris was one of the few who examined the Medontid rule more closely, noticing certain anomalies in the eighth century to which most scholars assign the onset of the polis. Discussion of the polis would seem to be outside the pale of this study since both royal and aristocratic privilege, were still intact. Or so it seemed. Morris’s comments led me to query those premises. He observed that there was usually more diversity of social levels once a polis was established, and especially a rise in the number of poorer graves in the mix, but in Athens the reverse was true, There appeared to be a ‘leveling up’ of standards from the onset of the Iron Age through to the mid-eighth c., whereafter he did finally detect poorer graves in several parts of Athens and Faliron. The richer material culture of the Greek ‘Renaissance’ may be why so many scholars believe the polis evolved at that time, but the whole sequence of Iron Age cultural evolution bears examining. An argument can be made that the ‘leveling up’ initiated at the onset of the Iron Age signifies a more advanced level of cultural development than is usually ascribed to this lamented era. The polis may have existed in the ninth century already, and the spread of the krater may be evidence for it.11

The Peloponnesian origin of the Neleid founders of Precinct XX is supported by the elite character of the earliest kraters, their style and their rituals, the content and relative affluence of the burials, and Athenian traditions that Melanthos arrived from Messenia with other Neleids, namely Alcmeonids and Peististratids. The Peloponnesian krater and funerary rituals remained almost exclusive to the Precinct XX burial ground for the next two hundred years. These eupatrid founders and other elite would contribute leadership to the subsequent Greek civilization that evolved following the Iron Age. Athens was the last true redoubt on the Mainland at this point, and as such would have been a prize if it could be taken. Credence should be given to traditions that report such attempts. Marauders were still on hand in Attica during the years transitional to the Iron Age. Reportedly Athens survived attack from Peloponnesian Heraclids, losing its king Codros, son of Melanthos, in the process, but with its citadel walls still intact. 10

Synoikismos may be the key to solving some of these anomalies. It is another perennial topic consuming both trees and bytes, usually interpreted as the unification of Attica. Scholars have found grounds to Morris 1987, 148. For another perspective on the evolution of the polis, Zurbach 2017. 11

Desborough 1952, 4.


Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary date unification of Attica to almost every epoch from Mycenaean times to the end of the Iron Age. Perhaps the material presented here will help better define the nature of synoikismos, what it was, and when and how it occurred. The explanation for the elusive nature of synoikismos is that it meant ‘union of Attica’ only from the retrospect of historical era misinterpretation. It was a canon that it could only apply to an era when Attica had sufficient settlement worth unifying under Athens, i.e. a requisite apron of exterior settlement for citystate status, which most believed must be the eighth c. Others believed that synoikismos could only have occurred during the Late Helladic phase when there was still some population in Attica. Whitehead wrestled heroically to fit synoikismos into the unaccommodating circumstances of a prehistoric Attica depleted of most outlying settlement following the 12th c. collapse.12 This would appear impossible since there was almost no Attica left to unite until security was no longer a concern, which was probably no earlier than the latest 11th c. and perhaps not until the rise of Alcmeonid governance under Megacles in the tenth century. Whitehead was correct, but unable to corroborate his view under the normal interpretation of the term ‘synoikismos’. The problem of defining synoikismos was actually semantic, namely misinterpretation of the term. It had nothing to do with unification of Attica. The onset of synoikismos was a political event, and it likely occurred in the late eleventh century not long after Acastus agreed to the well-known Oath of Acastus. Broken down the word means ‘bringing together of noble houses’ as proposed long ago by Wade-Gery. It was a reference to the unification of noble houses (oikoi) as they combined to thwart the Medontids, by establishing their own system of control over Athens, namely a constitutional monarchy. The terms of the constitution eliminated traditional absolute monarchy in favor of a new system that had some of the first glimmerings of what we now term democracy: representational governance in an electoral system.

primarily Peloponnesian newcomers. Similar nobility survived in Naxos, Euboea, Kalo Podi, and Volos, and is especially visible in the Toumba burial ground of Lefkandi. Athens’ new arrivals may have helped found some basic precepts and institutions for their new homeland, which contributed to the formation of a first constitution following the onset of the Iron Age. It was likely Melanthos who laid the groundwork for the constitution. He probably did it inadvertently as he faced the challenge of a mass of diverse immigrants crowded into Athens each under their own leadership. Working with representation of the prime leaders may have been the only workable administrative structure. He may have drawn upon a Peloponnesian legacy of such bodies in bringing the leaders together in consultation. The eupatrids may have retained some identity that survived the end of the Codrid dynasty, if only informally, and they would have constituted the opposition that faced off against the Medontid regime, extracting the famous Oath from Medon’s son and successor, Acastus. The Oath of Acastus remained in force as the oath of office for Athenian rulers down to the fourth c. BC. The leaders in this enforcement, both local old Athenian stock, and Alcmeonids, Philaids and other eupatrids from beyond Attica’s borders, may have evolved into the Areopagos Council that oversaw a remarkable transition. Acastus remained nominally king, i.e. basileus, and accepted the terms imposed by the eupatrids, namely the life-king constitution, some details of which were preserved by Aristotle and Pausanias. There is now further support from the archaeological record and traditions such as the King List. Constitutional Monarchy Under the new constitution the royal position was to be filled by a member of a prominent eupatrid oikos, whether of local or immigrant origin, only for his lifetime, hence the term life-king (later archon). The nominee was selected not by inheritance as is the case in an absolute monarchy, but by an elective process. All nominees had to be ratified by the Areopagos Council, thus expanding the status and power of that entity over the governance of Athens. Acastus, absorbing the political realities of these new conditions, agreed to barter away the Medontids actual control of Athens for a purely ceremonial role as basileus and perhaps the possibility of the same access to rule as the other eupatrid oikoi (which if so, does not appear to have been honored in sequel). In the meantime, Athens’s actual rulers were the eupatrid life-kings recorded on the King List, a document much disparaged in modern times. There is no obvious Medontid on the list until the mid-eighth c. when the Medontids took over

A New Form of Kratos: The First Athenian Constitution Athens was an anomaly among Greek city-states because when Bronze Age civilization was dissipating on much of the Mainland, in Athens it was consolidating for a last stand. New Mycenaean infusions occurred at the end of the 12th c, introducing Melanthids, Alcmeonids, Philaids and others, names unknown, primarily from the Peloponnesos. Morris’s ‘leveling up’ in the Athenian burial record, which occurred from the transitional years, reveals broadening of Mycenaean aristocratic participation in governance, both local and immigrant, as the settlement profited from the experiences of the 12

Whitehead 1986, 7-9.


Kratos & Krater Athens once more amid disquieting circumstances, and abolished the eupatrid constitution in favor of a decennial archontate.

this new Athenian constitution in their native Messenia and Argolid. I hazard Melanthos as the intermediary between informal, small lineage settlements he may have known in his Messenian youth, and the Athenian encampments of eupatrids who wanted their last toehold on the Mainland to be workable.

The terms of the constitution appear to coincide with some aspects of the transitional culture that had likely existed under the Melantho-Codrids, i.e. one which continued the independent status of the various eupatrid leaders of the communities gathered in Athens, allowing them some input into the oversight of Athens via their representative leaders. This was synoikismos. Bringing order through a set of established procedures had been a Mycenaean characteristic, revealed especially in the Linear B tablets of the earlier age, demonstrated in the architecture of Tiryns, and now assimilated remarkably into the alliterate culture of Iron Age Athens.

One motive for these fundamental changes in governance must have been antipathy towards absolute monarchy, as the depredations of the latest Bronze Age years in the Peloponnesos caused leadership to splinter into smaller units. The inroads of Heraclid kings such as Temenos must have been preserved anecdotally among the new Athenian communities. Resentment of absolute monarchs and the overall control of the wanax is illustrated in the unsympathetic portrait of Agamemnon in the Iliad, the composition of which I would place earlier than the traditional eighth c. dating. The Melantho-Codrids, of fonder memory, likely exercised a fairly indulgent rule over the Athenian ‘barons’. Ultimately, independent eupatrid leaders, left to their own predilections, proved a blessing in disguise. Athens must have been a petri-dish of ideas from their different experiences, all of which had to be brought to a compromise in some fashion if Athens was to survive and become a stable community. This process of compromise was likely initiated during the rule of the Melantho-Codrids, which I have tried to creatively reconstruct below. Some aspects of governance, including a Prytaneion and Council, were transmitted with them to Ionia, probably with the migration c. 1070 BC.

Memory of synoikismos as the union of eupatrids gradually lapsed from the mid-eighth c, as the constitution was cancelled in events around 752 BC and the families that had supported the system relinquished Athens for rural regions of Attica. There is evidence of literacy being restored as the eighth c. progressed and this may have allowed the eupatrids or Areopagos members to commit to record some important records such as the constitution. The King List passed from a remembrancer phase into a more material form of documentation. Later a few erudite ancients such as Aristotle and Pausanias pored over it and left comments that have been preserved into the modern era, when the traditions could be assessed against the archaeological record. The Oath of Acastus was a most significant document, referenced upon the accession of new rulers from its initiation during the late 11th c. down to the fourth c. This would have provided an ongoing connection with those early framers of a ‘document’ that probably deserves a place of pride in Athens’s annals.

As mentioned, some of the rationality and civil arrangements of the Mycenaean Peloponnesos appear to have survived among the Mycenaean immigrants. These and the comity of service on a pre-Iron Age council were all excellent preparation for coexisting under the terms of an Iron Age constitutional monarchy. The constitution was a unique situation almost certainly born of the wealth of leadership assembled in Athens, all wanting autonomy and the best situation for their own following. The framers, the eupatrids of the council, were certainly not aware of the monumental character of the task they were accomplishing nor its significance to political arrangements of the future in lands far removed from Greece. The simple precepts underlie governance, law, and economy and help explain the analytical proclivities of the Greeks in formulating science, philosophy, mathematics, and logic.

One cannot overrate the significance of these achievements, which should put the whole conception of Iron Age Athens (termed primitive by one scholar) in an entirely new light. This is especially true of its early period, when its new governance created a renaissance as notable in some respects as the eighth century renaissance that has been the perennial focus of Iron Age scholarship. Only Morris detected that there was some movement afoot in the ‘leveling up’ of this earliest phase. The concept of a constitution was probably unfamiliar to Athenians at that time, who would have had no models of such governance on hand to inspire it. Its evolution was framed along the lines of what would work in the conditions of transformation occurring in Athens during the transitional phase. Even the immigrant Peloponnesian stock, would have been now at a remove from their ancestors who had practiced, perhaps informally, some of the precepts of

The new constitution, remarkably curbing both royal and aristocratic prerogatives, was served on the Medontid king Acastus (1048-1012 BC), and likely went into effect before the end of the 11th c. A stealth synoikismos may have been initiated as the eupatrids combined during this phase, perhaps under the leadership of a fully recognized Areopagos Council. 6

Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary This earliest move towards representative government (albeit controlled by aristocrats) presaged the wider democracy and improved organization of the city-state that would arise at the end of the Archaic period under Isocrates and a latter-day Alcmeonid, Kleisthenes. Constitutional rule had later repercussions in the reverence European states developed for the Classical civilization that provided the foundations for their own cultures. Remarkably, this first constitutional monarchy was not unlike the contemporary rule of Great Britain, where the monarch, a ceremonial figurehead with inherited succession (basileus), has ceded actual control of the realm to an elective prime minister (life-king/archon), and an elective parliament (the Areopagos Council). We should not fault these alliterate early Greeks in omitting a House of Commons. After all, they evolved their constitutional monarchy in a century, far less than the millennium it took the British to evolve theirs.

too long, so there was much available for the taking. The process was initiated gradually as peaceful conditions were restored, encouraging more extensive cultivation and pastoralism, that would have left few milestone events as record of its passage. Eupatrids led the way in these efforts, establishing and protecting rural areas for agricultural and pastoral activities, and for those near harborage, outlets for seaborne commerce. I suspect such activity was a subsidiary role of Nea Ionia, founded initially by Megacles (life-king 922-892) perhaps as a lookout post overlooking the northern access routes. He may also have founded Anavyssos, a site on the west coast of Attica associated with his oikos in historical times.13 Rich in land for pasturage and agriculture, this site also provided, mineral resources, and access to the sea. Silver mining may have created an interest in Thorikos during the same phase, its exploitation associated with the increasing signs of prosperity in Precinct XX and other aristocratic burial grounds. The earliest pottery from Merenda, a site associated with the Neleid Peisistratids, was also of Early Geometric date.

Polis Athens’s evolution into a polis is usually viewed as a late development. Most scholars believe the unification of Attica and development of Athens as a city-state occurred during the latest phase of the Iron Age, but this may no longer be acceptable. Athens’ modest material record, and the paucity of observable resettlement in Attica until the ninth c. are indeed a problem, but Athens was in advance of the typical Mainland Iron Age settlement on several counts. It was governed by a constitution that demonstrated considerable sophistication in its understanding of the workings of human psychology in political interrelations. In one act the framers had alighted upon a progressive formula that suppressed two elements considered inhospitable to the establishment of a polis, namely royal and aristocratic privilege. Under the new constitution absolute monarchy was eliminated, and the selfimposed caps placed on the new eupatrid governance left them with no more privilege than the seventh century archons. The elective process would have created an agonistic culture that would have allowed strong, charismatic leaders such as Iron Age Megacles to rise. The progressive governance and the massing of diverse immigrants in their individual hamlets, would have given Athens a more cosmopolitan character at a much earlier phase than other surviving Mainland settlements. The presence of respected Mycenaean eupatrids early on would have implied supra-Athenian connections with other regions with similar Mycenaean elites, such as Euboea, Naxos, Paros, Ionia, Cyprus and Crete. Athens’ Messenian, Argive and Achaean migrants were not unfamiliar with manufacturing and external trade as well as cultivation. The development of more Attic rural areas was likely not from forceful action of a Theseus-like figure, but like political comity, a stealth process. Too much rural land had been abandoned for

Substantial efforts were required to satisfy Athens’ increasing need for commodities such as grain. The five granary dowry chest of the Agora Rich Lady, which I date earlier than Coldstream (my new Life-king Chronology sets terminal EGII at 864 BC), suggests her oikos had some long-standing acquaintance with the cultivation and storage of this important commodity (Fig. 42). The Philaids and Peisistratids early acquired lands in the Mesogeion likely for the same purposes. Small eupatrid country estates appear to have evolved over time into quasi-settlements. In Athens there was a large and active pottery production center in the Agora already in the first half of the tenth c. The fine pottery workshop providing wares to the Kerameikos and Areopagos folk was also exporting beyond Attica as early as the tenth c. An increasingly more diversified economy contributed to the development of Athens’ politismos which helped raise its status as a center. The connection of outlying eupatrids with Athens and perhaps each other, would have fostered the economic interdependence that gradually brought unification and a true city-state. I suspect Athens evolved into a de facto political, cultural and economic center of Attica as early as the ninth c. and possibly the spur was the onset of the late tenth c. rule of Megacles, when artifacts suggest a more representational façade was being reflected by the community’s governance. During the ninth c. a more The Geometric style was founded during Megacles’ rule with the works of the Jewel Workshop. The earliest Anavyssos pottery is c. 875 BC, Coldstream’s EGII, Alexandridou 2016, 341-342. 13


Kratos & Krater formal association between Athenian eupatrids and outlying settlements may have developed, as Eleusis, Palaia Kokkinia, Acharnai, Nea Ionia, Marathon, Merenda, Thorikos, Aixone, Anavyssos, Trachones, and Eleusis all placed Alcmeonid-style krater epitymbia on their elite male burials at some point.

but one would expect that an expanding Athens would already have developed some middle class by the ninth c. The eighth c. pithos burials and Faliron Ware might suggest the rise of an incipient middle class. There were more remote sites in rural Attica with signs of elite presence. All of these factors seem to point to even more prosperity for Athens, but ironically, the reverse appears to have been the case. Whereas Megacles’ rule had initiated many years of prosperity and influence for the Alcmeonids, Alcmeon’s rule now brought them to a close.

Development was occurring in other regions too, leading to more inter-regional elite contact. The numerous krater remains at the funeral of the Hero of Lefkandi and the tradition of the funeral of Amphidamas betoken more than local interest in funerary celebrations. Athletic contests had originated at funerals during the Bronze Age. Now they occurred as interregional competition evolved, when the elite could test their prowess against the aristocracy of other developing city states. Chariotry races are illustrated on Agamestor’s epitymbion (obit. 778 BC), and epibates racing on an Atticizing amphora neck from Euboea of the same date (Figs. 44, 46, 48). Such games may have been sponsored during the time of Megacles, and possibly at his rites: the first horse pyxis dates to his reign, the single horse crowning its lid representing chariot racing stock, to be followed in the Middle Geometric phase by trigae and the Late Geometric phase by quadrigae. One horse pyxis in Athens (Hadrian’s Library) depicts a trigae with a trace horse, which brought greater speed on turns.14 Some Late Geometric Athenian kraters and one remarkable late cauldron (Fig. 65, ANM 810) depict the excitement of the funerary games in the foot and horse races and Hesiod notes other more sophisticated forms of competition celebrating elite deceased at that time. These rituals are indicative of increasing sophistication and lines of communication open between elite houses in widely separated regions.

The Medontid Takeover The Medontids retook control of Athens during the second half of the eighth c., terminating the constitution of life kings, probably coincident with the death of the last life-king, Alcmeon. A Medontid coup is not out of the question. In sequel this appears to have cut short some of the ambitions of the rising city-state of Athens. One wonders whether the scenes of combat on land and sea painted on Philaid epitymbion kraters were related to these events. I regret not being able to discuss that possibility with Professor Coldstream, who had pondered whether Pheidon of Argos lived during this phase, but it does appear that there is now more support for his view. That Neleids were involved may be indicated by fragmentary funerary vessels found on the Acropolis, suggesting they may have used the bastion for protection both of their lives and their burials around the mid-eighth c. Further support for that comes from the iconography of a Late Geometric krater epitymbion found on the Acropolis that depicts the deceased not transported to the burial site on a horse-drawn bier, but, remarkably, within a structure: behind the reclining deceased are depicted two sheathed swords and belts as if hanging on a wall.15 The cross-hatching of the shroud/canopy and other factors suggests a date as late as Late Geometric II, which would establish it as the latest figural epitymbion found in Athens (Fig. 59).

There were some detrimental omissions to Athens’ politismos. Remarkably, there is no clear evidence of literacy until the eighth century, which would have impeded some aspects of Athenian cultural development. Also the record is silent on the status of the non-elite. It was an aristocratic world. The Termination of the Life-King Constitution, the Decline of the Neleids

The high visibility funeral rites of the Neleids terminated with the end of the life-king constitution: Alcmeon’s funeral was the last burial with any sign of status, and that was minimal: a consortium krater erected on his tomb, briefly. Only the size of his grave and the behemoth krater (Fig. 54, 279), 66 gallons in capacity, the largest surviving from the prehistoric period, denotes the royal status of this short-lived ruler. Alcmeon was not given the pyre funeral with libation that had been standard ritual for elite Alcmeonid males from the end of the 12th c. Rather he was given secondary cremation with only partial burning of the

On balance the constitution of the life-kings had been beneficial to Athens’s development. Over 250 years there was perceptible continuity of culture and relatively peaceful conditions, to judge from remains in the burial grounds. The Late Geometric phase is often touted as a time of polis and widening prosperity because of the increasing number of graves richly adorned with costly krater burial monuments. It would appear that agriculture, manufacturing, commerce, and overseas trade were mainly under aristocratic control, 14

Bohen 1988, 11, pl. 39,1. This also tells us the direction of the circuit.



Graef 1909, fig. 295.

Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary The Neleid Resurgence

body, out of sight on the floor of the burial trench. The elite burial practices, the processions, protheses and pyres, all lapsed at the two major Neleid cemeteries, Precinct XX and Irian Gate. Alcmeon’s grave was subsequently dug out to its foundation, his corpse removed, but his pottery left intact. The remains of his fellow life-king Agamestor were saved, as also his krater ANM 806, perhaps more than once, in efforts reminiscent of the vigilance of Egyptian priests guarding a pharaoh’s tomb. Located nearby was the Dipylon Vase ANM 804 and other outsized epitymbia in what must have been the Philaid family precinct. These epitymbia were broken, but escaped the fate of many other shattered and dispersed kraters associated with the two most noble Neleid houses.

Forty years later, following 713 BC, when the Medontids were permanently ousted from rule over Athens, the Alcmeonids and their krater epitymbia were successfully reinstated at their traditional burial ground location on the banks of the Eridanos. The ensuing Protoattic phase was a period of healing and reconstitution following the disquiet of the latest Iron Age years. The renewed status of the Neleids during the seventh c. is clear in the selection of their descendants to rule Athens as archons, Philaid Miltiades, Alcmeonid Megacles and Peisistratid Peisistratos. History reveals the resurgent character and durability of the brilliant, larger-thanlife Neleid lineages, who continued influencing the Athenian political scene for both good and ill through the historical period. It was Neleid Alcmeonids who brought about the scandalous Kylon incident, but they were also instrumental in installing democracy in Athens two hundred years later. Peisistratos usurped representative government of Athens in a tyranny, but also installed some benefits in Athenian embellishments and cultural advancement. The Greek general Miltiades was the hero of the battle of Marathon, which enabled a free Athens to survive and create the remarkable classic culture. For now, Athens was debilitated, with no hint of its future greatness, and recovery was a long time coming. The decades of disturbance and schism in the later eighth c. had impacted Athens’s status vis-àvis other rising city-states, such as Corinth, Argos and Euboea. This is likely the reason why Athens did not engage in the considerable mercantile and colonizing efforts undertaken by other powers, and why a period of consolidation was needed before Athens’ fine pottery industry would bring the city-state renewed prosperity.

History is silent on what brought these extraordinary noble houses low, but it was likely the rise of the Medontids, possibly with support from Argive allies, namely Pheidon King of Argos in an Aeginetan campaign reported by both Herodotus and Pausanias, and recorded on the sidewalls of numerous kraters from the rule of Aeschylus, which depict great scenes of conflict on land and sea. Eupatrid Relocation From Late Geometric II the Neleids maintained a lower profile in Athens, those who actually remained. Many were females, and youths, their burials set off in the clay enclosures of the Plattenbau a short distance from Precinct XX. There are otherwise signs that the elite Neleids and other eupatrids had relocated to the countryside, where they developed their burial grounds, erected krater epitymbia, and in their hour of need, established or enhanced new hero cults. This activity was reflecting a mid-eighth c. sea-change in Athens, as the prime eupatrids were deprived of their now traditional life-kingship constitution. It is usually the victors who determine how history is recorded, and that must be particularly the case in a phase of alliteracy. With their long term eupatrid nemeses, removed from power the Medontids appear to have exercised that prerogative. Little record of these events was preserved in Athens, save an account involving a single ship, but Herodotus and Pausanias did not only tap the Athenian record for this lost event in Iron Age history, and the archaeological record speaks for itself. The significant role of the Alcmeonids in the social and political history of Iron Age Athens may have been an inconvenient truth for the Medontids, and something to be suppressed along with the Neleids’ eloquent Athenian burial grounds. The Neleids, for their part, did not want an event that reflected poorly on their noble house to be accurately remembered in their annals. The evidence, couched in speculation about the event and its effect on Athens’ development over the ensuing century, is summarized below.

A Proposal for a New Kings’ List Chronology The single, idiosyncratic shape of the krater has little to add to either the absolute or relative dating of Iron Age ceramic.16 It was easier to date Geometric vases when one assumed that they were primarily fabricated for tomb use, which the krater, until the latest phase, was not. It vacillates from being an heirloom to the latest tomb vase fabricated, and cracked and patched up kraters that have seen extensive prior use in the settlement, are common. Thus dating of the krater is less reliant on burial context than usual. It is only the Late Geometric Type I figural epitymbia that were consistently fabricated near in time to their deposition on the grave. These vessels can hardly serve as chronological bellwethers, since they were rarely exported beyond Attic frgts. are found abroad, even in all-important Near Eastern contexts: J. N. Coldstream – A. Mazar, Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology, Israel Exploration Journal 53, 2003, 29-32. Because of the conservatism of the shape and potential heirloom status, the krater finds have contributed little to the establishment of absolute chronology. 16


Kratos & Krater Megacles (922-892) Pherecles (864-845) Diognetos (892-864) Ariphron (845-825) Thespieos (824-797) Agamestor (796-778) Aeschylus (778-755) Alcmeon (755-753/2

Attica. That said, some useful outcome related to Iron Age chronology has arisen as an aside to the study of the Kratos, in suggested changes for absolute chronology. Discrepancies between Coldstream’s absolutes and mine are illustrated in a handy comparison table below. These new absolute dates have had an impact on the historical reconstructions discussed here. However, I avoid absolute dates in the catalogue in favor of stylistic nomenclature, which both allows coordination with existing reference works and is more adaptable if future Near Eastern finds, or whatever, bring further changes to absolute chronology.

I am tentatively putting forward another option for consideration, the King List Chronology, one which has arisen from close study of the kratos in this work. This attempt both feeds on, and nourishes the infamous ‘document’ that has rarely been considered as a source for Athens’ history. I expect its use here will be controversial since it incorporates data and inferences from a traditionally mistrusted source of information, the Greeks’ own records of their prehistory. Combining these traditions with archaeology provides a few more absolute anchor points for the Athenian Iron Age, augmenting and in some cases, replacing those of Coldstream.

Stylistic analysis suggests that in Athens’ earliest phase, the transition to the Iron Age, there existed something akin to the concurrent styles of the latest Geometric phase. The Wild Style of Precinct XX and Sub-Granary styles of the Pompeion were likely contemporary styles, both sites receiving their first burials during the last quarter of the 12th c. BC. The Precinct XX Wild Style corresponds with Schachermeyr’s Mycenaean equivalent, Nobelkeramik, while the Pompeion SubGranary styles mostly reflected his Alltagsware. Some Precinct XX pottery cited under a PG rubric for decades has been recognized as Submycenaean by Styrenius and Lord-Smithson, and some from Precinct XX and the Great Mound appears to be as early as LHIIIC Late.

Now that it is clear to me from the burial record that eupatrid heads of noble houses rather than Medontids ruled Athens for most of the Iron Age, the King List has been applied to the examination of all existing noble burial grounds, with some interesting outcome. Dates attached to individuals recognized in those contexts, such as Alcmeon (recorded death), and Aesimides’ (referenced with dated Olympic games), as well as notable standout burials and epitymbia here associated with Megacles, and Agamestor, suggest that the traditional Iron Age chronology needs modification. The graph (Fig. 49) illustrates provisional suggestions. It uses Coldstream’s basic relative sequences and stylistic phases, which mostly coincide with those of the King List. Its most fundamental revision is to set the onset of the Geometric period earlier by 22 years. It adjusts all phases of the Geometric period earlier by an average of 13 years. Thus King List EGI is the same length of time as Coldstream’s, but set mostly prior to 900 BC, while his is after. This affects the prior period, shrinking the tedium of the Protogeometric period to the Medontid years (1068-1012), and just over half a century of eupatrid life-king rule. The results are described in more detail in Chapter IV.

Regarding absolute chronology, Snodgrass used King Lists to advantage in establishing a timeline for the Bronze Age. There were periodic events left in the archaeological records and traditions that could be used as anchors. By contrast with that earlier era, the Iron Age seems uneventful, although there are attempts in the pages that follow to show that there was more transpiring than one might expect. There was just very little record preserved from this alliteral era. Snodgrass has compiled summation of the existing options for establishing a Greek Iron Age chronology. The most commonly used study employing absolute data points, is that of Coldstream.17 Traditionally fixed points have been based mostly on foundation dates of colonies and scraps of pottery found in Near Eastern stratigraphy, none of it especially reliable. Some lengthy stretches of time have no absolute anchor at all, although Coldstream’s relative sequence based to a large extent on stylistic evolution, has considerable merit. Optimism over tree ring growth appears to have dissipated and is confined in its coverage.

There is minor tweaking of Coldstream’s relative sequence, where phases outlined on the graph sometimes coincide with the reign of a king, especially where that king may have sponsored stylistic change, as did Megacles in EGI, Agamestor in MGII, and the Medontids in LGII. King List EGII appears to roughly correspond with the rule of Diognetos. The King List MGI splits halfway between Pherecles and Ariphron, and MG II roughly between Thespieos and Agamestor.

The Geometric Life-King List Archippus (1012-993) Thersippus (993-952) Phorbas (952-922) 17

Snodgrass 2006, 15-22. Coldstream 1968, 302-331.


Chapter I Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary These decisions were based on an assumption that a new king, from a new noble house, might have projected a few tremors affecting the production of the main criteria for dating, the ceramic stylistic record.

Pheidon of Argos, who Pausanias associates with a 748 BC attempt to take over Olympia. My Late Geometric Ib phase incorporates the last years of Aeschylus and the brief rule of Alcmeon (755-752). Alcmeon and his consort have been assigned the largest pair of Athenian Late Geometric graves (Precinct XX, Grs. G24, G26), and the largest Iron Age krater (279). His death brought the era of life-kings to its conclusion, an event that was of sufficient note beyond the bounds of Greece, that it was anchored by a Near Eastern date, Year of Abraham 1263 (753/2 BC). This date serves as a fulcrum for the series of Iron Age rulers on the King List, both preceding and in sequel. By contrast with the brief LGIb period of the King List chronology, Coldstream and others extend that phase down to 735 BC, but if my constructs are correct, the array of fine LG krater epitymbia found in Athens are to be dated before the mid-eighth c.death of the last life-king, Alcmeon.

Regarding relative chronology for the Middle Geometric period, since the essential style and motifs established at the onset of the Geometric period were continued through to the onset of LGI some believe that the phase demonstrated too little progression to occupy the span of time usually allotted to it. It is true that little happened stylistically in the Middle Geometric period, but reconstruction of the workshop activity sequences supports that it was an extended phase. It was perhaps also a phase of stability, continuing the prosperity initiated under the rule of Megacles. The number and sequencing of kraters, and especially pyxides, with their workshop relations, generally confirm the amount of time Coldstream and others have allocated to it. Copious strayfind fragments from Precinct XX, representative of a large number of lost vessels, are sufficient to fill this long phase. Furthermore, the Precinct XX Alcmeonids were conservatives par excellence, adamant in insuring that their style, individual motifs and krater funerary traditions survived not just during the Middle Geometric period, or even the Iron Age, but over many centuries, from Mycenaean through Archaic times.

Following the mid-eighth c. phase of conflict, in which Athens reportedly received a humiliating defeat, the constitution was scrapped. The Medontids took over the rule of Athens in a series of four decennial archonships which encompassed most of Late Geometric II. Whereas the monumental epitymbion krater with scenes of battle, had typified the final brilliance of the Neleids during the Late Geometric Ia phase, it is the pitcher that typifies the monotony of the new LGII Medontid era, and the presence in Athens of more elite women than men, based on the burial record. A date of 713 BC can be set for the end of Medontid rule and the Iron Age.

If scholars have found the Middle Geometric phase too long, others have believed that the Late Geometric period appears too short. There is little support for that view but the crucial LGIa phase was indeed longer: Coldstream’s Late Geometric runs from 760-700 BC, while the King List dating for that phase runs from 778-713 BC. I associate the last Middle Geometric lifeking, the Philaid Agamestor, with Irian Gate Grave III (ruled 796-778). I follow Kunze and others in assigning a high date for his epitymbion. ANM 806, i.e. 778 BC, which is the date I have for the onset of Late Geometric I. This is eighteen years earlier than Coldstream sets it. I do not believe there was much time separating this extraordinary krater and its companion piece, amphora ANM 805, from the Dipylon Amphora ANM 804, the latter arguably more Middle than Late Geometric, even if one includes its figural scene.

There are a few signs of a vibrant pottery tradition again at the end of this phase, perhaps because a creative, Non-Medontid coalition was back in charge of Athens, burying in their traditional sites and engaging in funerary games By that time, Corinth had cornered the trade in fine ceramic exports from Greece through the seventh century, so items such as the brilliant cauldron ANM 810, were produced mainly for local consumption (Fig. 65). Nomenclature for the Era of the Athenian Life-Kings

Efforts made here to link a mid-eighth century Aeginetan conflict with the archaeological record provide a further anchorpoint for chronology: these are the numerous Late Geometric Ia fragmentary krater epitymbia adorned with scenes of battles on land and sea, found in the Philaid cemetery at the Irian Gate. These were erected towards the end of the LGIa rule of life-king Aeschylus (778-755), an individual so anonymous that he cannot yet be associated with a noble house (there is also a surfeit of Aeschyluses to confuse the picture). Aeschylus ruled Athens during this period of apparent strife which involved King

Nomenclature for the period under review has undergone some needed reassessment in recent years, Notably the term ‘Dark’ as a description of the Iron Age is now usually left on the cutting room floor. ‘Early’ should also be jettisoned.18 What justification is there for a period with its own unique character being lumped together with other historical phases as an Iron Age, a period that has now outgrown such antiquated Hesiodic terminology? How many of us have felt foolish circumventing phrases such as ‘early 18


Whitley 2001, 61.

Kratos & Krater in the Early Iron Age’? Since the Archaic and Classical periods have long been comfortably ensconced in their own nomenclature, and no one wonders at the role iron plays in those later phases in any case, could we not now scrap the ‘Early’, and allow the period to gain exclusive ownership of its most salient feature, the spread of iron technology and all that implies. With hopes of getting the ball rolling on this, I am omitting the ‘Early’ throughout this publication and renaming the period between 1100 and 700 BC, less awkwardly, the Iron Age. ‘Iron Age’ itself may one day be rendered obsolete, as still more information on the contributions of this former ‘Dark Age’ to the ensuing Classical civilization come to light. Morris defined the years 1000-750 as the phase of the ‘archaeological invisible’ when the poorer classes were unrepresented in the burial record. These years coincide with the phase when the Mycenaean life-kings were in control of Athens under the eupatrid constitution. If the findings of this current research win a requisite modicum of acceptance, perhaps those years could be referred to as the Era of the Athenian LifeKings. Whatever the decision, the intermediate stages of the Age should still retain the appellations derived from this phase’s other feature of remark, namely its Submycenaean, Protogeometric and Geometric potter.

pottery to distinguish class rankings in a significant hierarchy of status, as well as formal vs. common usage especially in the transitional era. Wild Style can be traced from Peloponnesian LHIIIC Middle to the end of the eighth century on the single conservative shape of the Athenian formal krater.

Other notations: in the compact layout of Precinct XX the antefixes SM, PG and G help distinguish graves of each period, many of which had been given the same number by earlier excavators. This is remedied in the numbering system of the Precinct XX color graphic (Fig. 53) where Protogeometric burials have been given smaller font numbers and Geometric, larger, while intermediate chronological distinctions are recorded in the color coding of the graves. The use of the term transitional (lower case) is unrelated to ‘Transitional’, a primarily stylistic term used by Desborough, and avoided here. Here transitional is a more diffuse description, referring to the years of transition from the latest Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age which are frequently blurred by the occurrence of concurrent styles based on origins, hierarchical distinctions, heirlooms and other factors associated with this turbulent era. Submycenaean used here does not refer to a particular style of pottery, but rather any style of the transitional era that owes its descent from an earlier Mycenaean style. So here the term is equally applicable to the fine Wild Style dowry chest of Precinct XX, and the common Achaean amphoriskoi and stirrup jars found in the Pompeion. I have preserved Desborough’s term Wild Style, but note that while he used it for a brief period of time, applying it to late vessels such as the Munich Krater, that I set its origins in the latest Bronze Age Peloponnesos, in Nobelkeramik. Schachermeyr’s nomenclature Nobelkeramik and Alltagsware have proved useful in describing the prehistoric Athenian 12

Chapter II

The Bronze Age Antecedents

The Early & Middle Helladic Phase

number of them were exhibiting some common traits in governmental and societal structure, economy, and general artistic expression. The prime center was Mycenae. Rulers at Mycenae were no longer buried in the simple rectangular cavities of their humble Middle Helladic origins. Their burial was formalized with a rich content of gold and other precious artifacts reflective of contact with Crete and Egypt. The family precinct was defined architecturally as a circular enclosure, and some burials were surmounted by a headstone. In sequel massive masonry-constructed beehive tombs evocative of the pyramids were erected at a remove from the center.

Commensality & Burial Drinking of wine socially and ritually had a long history in Helladic culture, occurring already at the onset of the second millennium. It was some time during the Middle Helladic period that there were moves towards a more organized structuring of Helladic society, and it was observable in the context of feasting, drinking and burial practices. A set of vessels for use in commensality evolved. There was more formal disposal of the dead, who were set in separately defined locations outside the living space, with some burials defined by mounds. There were more ceremonial ritual practices in connection with burial, such as animal sacrifice, libation and funerary meals, a clear recognition of the deceased’s rite of passage from a material to an immaterial world. These rituals and burial mounds celebrated the dead, but they were also one of the few ways of underlining status in a society that had few opportunities for the expression of social differentiation, there was so little wealth. Governance would have comprised family patriarchs, who would have presided over mostly informal kinship based gatherings, probably of a commensal nature. The formalities of social eating and drinking and some rudimentary symbolism would have expressed whatever social distinctions existed. Early modest displays of institutional commensality and differentiated status were followed with considerably more flourish by the Mycenaean princes of the following era.

During the 13th c. Mycenae’s aspirations towards hegemony may have led to the construction of a massive Cyclopean masonry circuit wall encircling both the palace complex and the burial compound. The symbolic badge of rampant lions(?) over the massive entranceway to the citadel, was a statement of Mycenaean strength and power, its purpose likely to legitimize this center as the preeminent Mainland ruling house (Fig. 2). Other centers followed Mycenae’s lead in palace and defensive construction, style of weaponry, manufacturing and trade and funerary practices. With change and expansion came more activity and complexity, especially in oversight of construction, agriculture and commerce. A wholly kinship-based administration was inadequate to meet needs at this point. A hierarchical system of oversight evolved at the more significant centers, with overseers of various rank supervising the numerous activities controlled by the palace. Large centers such as Mycenae had absorbed other land holdings in their vicinity, but elsewhere, such as Messenia, some extra-palatial chieftains appear to have remained in control of their land to the end of the palatial period and beyond.

The Palatial Kratos & Krater By the Middle Helladic III phase there were a few changes predictive of the onset of the palatial phase: gradually increasing prosperity in the material record, including individual wealth reflected in the bronze weaponry, adornment, differentially sized housing and household equipment. This is all suggestive of a more authoritative leadership presiding over a developing social stratification. A new level of cultural expression was attained in Mainland Greece following contact with more advanced civilizations in the 17th c BC. The original kinship-based social organization and scattered fiefdoms yielded to a new order typified by the MHILHI culture of Mycenae. Some of the more significant Mainland centers assimilated smaller settlements into their orbit where they could, and by the 15th c. a

The degree of unity and coherence between the different Mainland centers is unclear. The culture is similar, which may have led Jung to suggest that all palaces were under the control of a single Mycenaean ruler.19 Others support a confederation model, and For a suggestion that all palaces came under the hegemony of the ruler of Ahhiyawa (Achaia, Mycenae?), R. Jung, Imported Mycenaean Pottery in the East: Distribution, Context, and Interpretation’, in B. Eder and R. Pruzsinsky (eds), Policies of Exchange: Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and the Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E. (Vienna 2015) 243-275. 19


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 2. Mycenae Lion Gate, 13th c. BC

certainly that is what the account of the Trojan war suggests. For a variety of reasons, the Bronze Age Mainland may never have coalesced into a unified state under the rule of a single Mycenaean ruler. Greece’s extensive mountain ranges, bordered by a lengthy, crenellated coastline, broke the Mainland into several distinct areas, many of which became natural fiefdoms. Communication between the distinct regions was slow and hazardous, so that the highway of the sea was often the easiest recourse. Some centers retained their own fleet of ships from which they could naturally pursue their own trade ventures, whether on the Mainland or beyond, making them less dependent on other Mainland centers for their economic livelihood. These factors may have led to the spirit of independence that characterized Greek culture. The same situation held for the city-states during the Classical era. Only Macedon and Rome, with their national armies, succeeded in imposing their will on the entire region.

The Pylos Linear B records reveal the full independence of a palace economy, with its own workforce, defensive forces, fertile lands, and trade relations. The great walls erected around each center may have been less concerned with an external invasion than maintaining the status quo among powerful, well-armed and well supplied individual principalities. There would be no single Mycenaean army assembled in one spot until the Trojan War, a conflict likely initiated by Mycenae for trade advantages and access to the Black Sea. Homer depicts the discord of a venture led by Type A chieftains used to having their own way. The bickering heroes may be based on actual traditions of dissent among the participants, chronicled by a sophisticated latter day poet. The bullying depiction of Agamemnon may have descended from traditions of an aggressive Mycenae so ingrained that it was remembered following the Bronze Age. Following the Trojan campaign, there was a centrifugal reaction. The ensuing Peloponnesian 14

Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary breakdown, and ultimately the end of Mycenaean civilization, may have been the result.

the palace. They had certain obligations to the palace, but David Small suggests it was likely in a context of reciprocal exchange. The palace did work some of its own lands, but in the local non-monetary economy of Messenia the finished goods of the palace, such as pottery and chariots, could have been exchanged directly with regional chieftains for raw commodities, such as olive oil.22 This would have left the Pylians more opportunity to manufacture finished goods and engage in regional and overseas commerce. This Pylian arrangement stood in contrast to the kind of controlling hegemony that Mycenae exercised over its surrounding territory, a model probably drawn from Crete. When Mycenae lapsed under attack it had consequences for the widespread agricultural enterprises that it had controlled and protected. The Pylian elite who survived the era of palatial destruction, continued in the area without the kind of monumental enceinte found at Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens. Indeed, the relations they had developed in the region, may explain how they preserved independent Mycenaean communities and customs to the latest Bronze Age.

The main evidence for the structure and economic activities of the Mycenaean kratos comes from Pylos. More is known of the situation at Messenia because of the many remains left in situ from the destruction that terminated the palatial age. Among them were copious Linear B clay documents giving details of the palace administrators, external relationships, activities, and assets. Regional surveys of Messenian settlement have augmented the material from the palace. The clay tablets confirm that the palace of Pylos was ruled by a wanax (high king), with a second in command, lawagetas, possibly an early ‘secretary of state’, overseeing defense. A corps of administrators of intermediate levels of authority included supervisors of cardres of menial labor of varying classification, working in services, workshops and oversight of agricultural production. The Pylos tablets detail the complexity of the palatial era rule, which had established relations with both internal and external entities as well as other Mycenaean centers.

Since Pylos provided sufficient data for modelling, David Small cast a wide net for a center with similar comparanda. He settled on Meso-American Copan as quite similar in palatial structure, society, economy and relationship to communities in the surrounding region. Both had economies that relied on their own landed estates, with some control over outlying sites. Neither levied taxes on the surrounding settlements, but rather had a patron/client series of reciprocal obligations, where transactions were negotiated in interpersonal negotiations. It is surmised that the Copan lineages obtained certain materials and labor from outside the dynastic compound, as seems the case at Pylos. There were similar distinct official categories, such as scribe, and evidence for the production and stocking of prestige and luxury items at the center. The Copan polity comprised a loose amalgamation of competing lineages, each with its own hierarchy, economy, and tract of land and Small concluded that the structure in the Pylos area was similar. This might explain why the non-palatial lower order centers were not drawn into the same kind of hierarchical relation with the palace, as existed in more structured Minoan Crete and possibly Mycenae. It is a question whether the small lineage structure at Pylos was an anomaly, or whether it applied to other Mycenaean centers.

The palace’s authority lay in its identity as a Mycenaean center with all that implied. It held extensive lands, livestock and production facilities, controlled by tarasija, a workshop system for creating prestige items such as weapons, furniture, chariots, textiles, decorated pottery, and other high-skilled manufacture. These items were mostly for palace consumption or trade. Intensive surveys of Messenia indicate that Pylos did not exert as extensive control over its surrounding region as other centers, such as Mycenae. Settlement patterns and documents suggest there were a number of external settlements that were not systematically integrated into the orbit of the palace. Some were independent non-palatial communities ruled by their own chieftains. There is no evidence that the Pylian monarchs attempted forceful takeover of these other settlements. Thus Messenia may have preserved more surviving features of the Middle Helladic phase, including some basic lineages that in some cases appear almost coequal in status to those of the palace monarchy.20 Coexistence of the Pylian monarchs and regional chieftains must have required deft diplomacy, but ultimately it appears to have been beneficial to both parties. A Pylos record shows the wanax engaged in a transactional relationship with a certain Enkhellawon of Sarapeda, a possible non-palatial Messenian chieftain who apparently had his own settlement, damos and lands.21 There were likely other independent satellites involved in a similar interdependent relationship with

Pylos, Mycenae and Tiryns were all terminated by the end of the Bronze Age, but each lapsed in a different manner. The example of Pylos is of most interest for this study, because Mycenaean aristocrats persisted in the region until the late 12th c. before reportedly making their way to Athens. The dispersed authority

Small 1998, 286. Others believe that Enkhellawon may himself have been the wanax of Pylos. 20 21



Small 1998, 283f.

Kratos & Krater in Messenia is not unlike the structure detectable in the early organization of Iron Age Athens under the rule of the Pylian Melanthos. Some palatial era organization may have lived on in surviving Pylian communities of Messenia, to be carried into exile by the last elite descendants of the house of Neleus.

animal bones in the ruins. The tablets confirm feasting occasions honoring visiting dignitaries for the sealing of important commercial transactions. A possible nonpalatial leader, Enkhellawon of Sarapeda had sufficient status and familiarity with the regime to be identified on one record by his personal name. There is a record of a feast undertaken jointly by the wanax and another external chieftain, with the latter providing a bull for the event. Such chieftains were probably not integrated hierarchically under the control of Pylos, but related in the same kind of client/patron association seen at Copan.23

The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Commensality Middle Helladic kin-based commensality had incorporated ideologies that would be greatly expanded under the Mycenaean palatial regimes, but as the political structure became more extended, there was need for a trusted ancillary network beyond the immediate clan. Military, trade, manufacturing and agricultural affairs required supportive bureaucracies to manage their increasingly more complex affairs. To retain their allegiance, this class would have been granted access to some of the advantages of the ruling cliques, as well as the opportunity to associate with them, and emulate some of their practices. Inclusion in the leader’s more exclusive social, ceremonial and ritual occasions would have promoted the status of this elite corps of professionals, but epic survivals reveal the enduring strength of kinship associations.

Mycenae had now developed prestige, wealth, power, and overseas connections. With the increase in agricultural, manufacturing, and trade enterprises, a hierarchy of professional ancillaries was gradually changing the face of the palace’s administrative structure. Leaders of other Mainland principalities, ambassadors, and trading partners would be among those now received in the palace. On the agenda, treaties, trade agreements, prestige goods, the hospitality of guest friendship, and rituals. These contexts required the ministration of well-planned commensality that would underline the leader’s high status and style.24 The Shaft Graves have yielded bronze, silver and other vessels that served these commensal activities. As mentioned, the mainly ceramic drinking vessels preserved at Pylos number in the thousands.25 Some ceremony, music or a recital may have attended such meetings. In recognition of the importance of a particular occasion, there may have been ritual slaughter of animals, numerous bones of which have survived at Pylos.26

Pylos is our best source of information on commensality. Feasting had taken place prior to the destruction of the palace, preserving an extraordinary amount of feasting and drinking equipment along with Pylos Linear B tablets (Fig. 3). Commensality may have been associated not only with the internal and interpalatial relationships of the palace, but also with non-palatial regional entities. The interconnection of feasting and drinking with the political life of the palace gains support from the numerous serving vessels found in the palace. There were remains of 2853 kylikes and numerous

Tribal commensality of the Middle Helladic period may have been the first step towards more formalized eating and drinking activities. Based on current evidence, the primary communal drinking vessel, the krater, was likely introduced as practices of commensality were being refined at the onset of the Mycenaean period. Whatever the venue, the earliest wine containers were likely utilitarian clay vessels, possibly bronze, lacking the mystique and style which accrued to ceramic kraters during the Mycenaean Palatial period (Fig. 5).27 The krater’s role became integral to the socio-political agenda of the ruler. Wine flowing from a finelySmall 1998, 283. Wright 1995, 124-129. S. R. Stocker and J. L. Davis, ‘Feasting at the Palace of Nestor’ 162,190-2. Kraters and kylikes in situ in pottery(?) at Zygouries, Mountjoy 1993, 161, fig. 387. 25 Professor J. B. Rutter: the evidence from Tsoungiza and other sites throughout the northeastern Peloponnese and east-central Greece shows clearly that the krater became a well-established ceramic form during the LH I period, at least as early as the 16th century. 26 Digests of AJA Colloquium on the role of feasting and drinking in the Bronze Age: AJA 106, 2002, 272. 27 Sherratt 2004, 326f., believes the krater’s emergence as a distinct vessel coincides with the earliest Mycenaean. palaces on the Mainland. 23 24

Fig. 3. Linear B Clay Tablet


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary wrought krater against the backdrop of a well-prepared feast was a setting for relaxation in congenial company. However, this was often a carefully orchestrated occasion designed to elicit acquiescence with one of the host’s desired objectives. Feasting and drinking were now demonstrably more than convivial occasions. The krater did have its limits as a tool of cultivation. The Plain of Troy was no doubt awash with kraters but they did little to further an objective traditionally notorious for its lack of compromise.

Establishing Regional Ceramic Identities at the Dawn of the Mycenaean Era’, he speaks of the diversification of the decoration, and documents the varieties and the color of the ornamentation, which included bi-chrome. A new phase of development was represented in shaft graves at Lerna and Mycenae (grave circle B) as well as Tsoungiza and Aegina. The roomy, less elegant ring-based krater arose in the Argolid, perhaps from a Middle Helladic predecessor. It was decorated in both abstract and figural styles. Presumably of more lowly origins than the more elegant court kraters, it found use among prosperous burgers, knights and leaders of satellite communities, as well as within the palace. It survived the refined palatial products as the most widespread krater of the Post-palatial era, and was the foundation of the Athenian Type I ancestral krater in the ensuing Iron Age.30

The krater played a significant role at Pylos. Hundreds of kylikes found in palaces reveal that the krater presided over feasting and drinking that occurred on a lavish scale. Several types of krater are represented on the tablets, but preserved remains are few. They may have been of metal, since they were valuable enough to be identified on one of the tablets (with two different ideograms and the name, ka-ra-te-re).28 Costly and symbolic vessels, they may have been ancestral keepsakes, retrieved quickly as the palace came under attack, or in sequel spoils for the victors. A figured ceramic krater from the last years of the Bronze Age was found in use among Submycenaean graves at Mycenae. There were smaller, ovoid kraters for ritual and more intimate occasions, some adorned with figural decoration, and for the less affluent, a simple bowl krater with a vertical sidewall and two horizontal handles, which survived the palatial phase as the ubiquitous ring-based krater (Fig. 12).

Used throughout antiquity by all but the humblest classes, the krater, in its most refined manifestations, can be recognized as the prime vessel of leadership. Its more formal roles were manifold: kinship assemblies and burials, elevated cult use in the palaces, gatherings of Mycenaean elite and warrior groups in the Postpalatial period, the epitymbia of eupatrid life-kings in the Iron Age. The Settlement: The Role of the Krater in Sacraments Not all krater remains found in palace settings can be attributed to commensal use. There were more solemn uses of the krater in sacraments. Paintings on walls and pottery illustrate its use in official religious observances, where it would have served as a libation vessel, supervised by the king or a chosen acolyte.31 Rites combining elements of propitiation, spiritual appeal, and theater, would have been an expression of palace control over religious institutions. Palatial sacraments would have been exclusive in nature, to judge from the size of cult areas such as the ‘Temple’ at Mycenae, with space for no more than twenty celebrants. Sherratt has drawn attention to the presence of channels near the throne in the throne room at Pylos, which may have been for libation. There is a lyre player in the drinking scene depicted on the Pylos ‘Throne Room,’ wall, and a similar scene on a krater from an Argive tomb.32

There is little firm evidence for the onset of mixing wine. The practice presupposes the existence of kraters, but several containers could have been used for the procedure. All classes cut their wine with water, even the humblest who mixed in the cup, a wooden vessel called a kissubion, or possibly dessicated gourds. Whether the krater itself evolved from indigenous or external sources is not easily answered. However, some believe the name of the krater derives from a Greek verb kerannumi, to mix. Professor Rutter suggests that Aegina was involved in the earliest Mainland prototypes. He has documented fragmentary krater remains of Middle Helladic date found at Tsoungiza in the Corinthia, including a new krater shape with two horizontal handles. Rims had a diameter up to 37 cm.29 Early kraters were commonly matt-painted, and rare, but at the dawn of the Mycenaean era there was an increasing number of krater remains in a variety of fabrics and surface finishes, which Professor Rutter attributes to the widening use of the krater. In a forthcoming article, ‘An Explosion of Polychromy:

Brommer, F, ‘Gefässformen bei Homer’ Hermes 77, Berlin 1942, 356 ff. G. Bruns, Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten ArchHom Q, Vol. III, Goettingen, 1970, 24. esp. 363f. J. L. Davis, ‘The Mycenaean Feast’, Hesperia Vol. 73,2, 2004, 124,126-7. Sherratt 2004, 301-337, esp. 325. 31 Gallou 2002, 71. Evidence for the practice of libation rites comes in the form of libation vessels (kraters and rhyta) and animal sacrifice: A. D. Moore-W. D. Taylour, Well Built Mycenae 10: The Temple Complex, (Oxford 1999) 32ff., 77ff., 114. 32 J. B. Carter, ‘The Occasion of Homeric Performance’, in The Ages of Homer, J. B. Carter-S. P. Morris, (eds.) Austin, 1995, 293-5: Cretan lyre player pyxis, Chania, #2308, fig. 18.5; krater with lyre player, fig. 18.6; 30

M. Ventris – J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek (Cambridge 1973) 22 f. K 331, Nr. 234 Ue 611. Sherratt 2004, 317-319. 29 Rutter 2015, 212f., fig. 2, C38. 214f., fig. 3 D202-204, (LHI), E51. 216219, fig. 4, D299-302, 304-306. 28


Kratos & Krater The theme of celebrants holding chalice-like vessels is also found on Post-palatial vessels. Following the period of palatial destruction, such scenes have been linked to elite Mycenaean drinking sessions held in honor of illustrious forebears. Sherratt notes that the wine used for sacraments and any solemn occasion including burial, would have been undiluted. A Naxos cylinder seal shows the typical paraphernalia used in the libation process: the krater, a decanting jug and a rhyton, rest on a table while an officiating figure stands by.33 Presumably the jug would have been used to ladle the libation from the krater into a rhyton, which had a pierced base for the. fluid to trickle through. The rhyton phased out in LHIIIC, when a krater found on the floor of a building in Malthi had its base drilled out, presumably to convert it to a libation vessel.34

some later opening of the tomb, either to inspect the remains for purged status, or to add a new occupant.37 Wace observed evidence that the libation was poured following the walling-up of the tomb, and after the filling of the dromos had already begun (presumably intentional fill could easily be distinguished from earth washed down from the tomb’s mound). Further confirmation that libation took place on a date later than the burial comes from the lack of joins found between kylix fragments found inside and outside the tomb.38 There is little to suggest that there was any unblocking of the tomb entrance for viewing of the stage of decomposition. Some tombs were unblocked to receive a subsequent disposition, but it is unlikely that the first deceased’s remains would have been ritually acknowledged in any way during that process. That the purged bones were considered insignificant as a representation of a deceased is made clear by the cavalier manner in which they were swept aside to make room for a new occupant. Probably decomposition was assumed to have taken place by a specific unit of time from deposition, at which time follow-up rites of sacrifice and libation could take place. The familiar Hagia Triada sarcophagos provides additional information on this topic. It comes not from the Mainland, but from a Cretan tomb near Phaistos, but was likely created for a Mycenaean deceased. Dated c.1400 BC it depicts a trussed ox in the process of bloodletting and/or sacrifice, and the presentation of offerings to the dead. To the left the collected blood offering is poured into a large krater-shaped vessel (Fig. 4). To the right the mummiform deceased stands alert before the tomb appearing to view the proceedings. Meat also appears to be offered. On the reverse side a libation is poured at an altar.39 Does this scene represent libation at the time of the burial, or is it a subsequent memorial event held when the flesh of the deceased was sufficiently decomposed for the release of the spirit? Is the altar offering a later recognition of the deceased, a form of ancestor-worship? The scene with the deceased may recognize the phase when the spirit is released by the blood offerings. The opening of the tomb would not have been necessary for this event if the deceased’s spirit was viewed as emerging from the tomb to watch the blood libation being drawn. Ready to make its way to the life beyond, the spirit would partake of the blood sacrifice and other offerings that would fortify it for the journey. This is reminiscent of the Homeric account of Odysseus’ descent to the underworld, where wan

The Burial Ground: The Role of the Krater in Funerary Ritual The main source for funerary libation ritual is Gallou.35 From LHIIIA simple kylikes and other vessels were regularly used for libation, their fragmentary remains found outside the chamber tomb entrance in the dromos. Thereafter fragments of kraters are found in association with libation as the holding vessel for the fluids, their use in burial ritual almost exclusive to the Peloponnesos.36 The absence of the krater in early contexts should not be considered a reflection on krater libation use. Richly decorated libation vessels such as rhyta and kraters may have been used for a variety of purposes, then returned to a storeroom following rituals, as the Malthi krater with the hole in its base (Fig. 23). Central to these funerary rites was the kernel of eschatological belief motivating the proceedings. The soul was immortal, and libation, animal sacrifice and other offerings of the ceremony were symbolic acts, recognizing and facilitating the deceased’s passage to the world beyond. Funerary Ritual on the Hagia Triada Sarcophagos Passage to the world of the dead was believed to have occurred once the flesh was purged from the bones. Common funerary libation in Mycenaean times took place after the sealing of the tomb, but there has been debate on whether it took place immediately or on krater on the Hagia Triada sarcophagos, fig. 18.7; reconstruction of the Pylos throne room fresco with banqueters, lyre player, sacrificial bull and birds, fig. 18.8. M. L. Lang, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, II: The Frescoes (Princeton, 1969), 79-81 and 109f. 33 Gallou 2002, 242, C. Kardara Prakt. 1977, 6, pl. 6. Gallou 2002, 70 fn. 199, believes rhyta could have been used for a blood libation. 34 Crouwel 2009, 42,56, fig. 7. 35 Gallou, 2002, 255-286. Blegen & Rawson 1966, 303. 36 Bronze Age Athens was not using the krater in funeral rituals until the very end, apart from a krater left in an elite LHIIIA tomb, hewn in the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 35, 1966, 55-78, figs. 1-4, pls. 19-24. Agora XIII, 165, Agora XIV, 3-9.

Gallou 2002, 255-264.Carter-Morris 1995 293-295. Ch.Tsountas and J. Manatt 1897, The Mycenaean Age, A study of the Monuments and culture of Pre-Homeric Greece (London 1897) 147. A. J. B. Wace 1932, ‘Chamber Tombs at Mycenae’, Archaeologia 82, 13013. 39 Hagia Triada sarcophagos and rituals, Gallou 2002, 255-264. More recent, B. Burke, Materialization of Mycenaean Ideology and the Ayia Triada Sarcophagus, AJA 109 (2005) 403-422. 37 38


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary Triada sarcophagos might have made up the procession. Funeral games may have accompanied the celebrations, depicted on Tanagra sarcophagi in the Palatial phase. Such rituals and panoply would have given definition to the new elite consciousness that was emerging, that in time would have helped secure for the Shaft Grave dynasty a version of the English ‘divine right of kings’. Voutsaki may be correct that the enhanced funerary installations and rituals may have helped create, rather than mirror, social reality.42 Status would accrue not only to the immediate family, but to the lineage, in the institution of hereditary control over the community. Supporting this was an ancestor worship that was elevated almost to the sphere of religion, where the deceased became the object of reverence, presumably in the belief that the ancestor could influence outcomes for his descendants as well as the community. The processionals and rites for the dead were not restricted to the interment and bereavement phase. The construction of a road from Pylos to the tomb suggests use more frequent than the occasional burial, perhaps for periodic libation and sacrifice for the cult of a significant ancestor. Hiller reviews early occurrences of ekphora which likely trace back to earlier times: roads leading to Mycenaean burial grounds suggest as much.43 Vikatou cites a depiction found near Kladeos.44

Fig. 4. Pouring blood libation into a krater, Hagia Triada Sarcophagos, c. 1400 BC

This close association of ruling hierarchies with established religion, and ancestor worship would help lineages consolidate their rule and broaden and perpetuate oversight of an increasingly far-flung and complex confederacy.45 Some aspects of this Mycenaean ethos became so well-entrenched in the consciousness of the elite that they persisted, with the funerary krater, well into the Iron Age. There was, however, one departure which reflects on attitudes towards the deceased’s remains, treated carelessly after the passage of a certain period of time in the Mycenaean age, but no time limit on respect during the Iron Age. This may have arisen from the lapse of communal burial chambers as the individual cist became the standard form of burial in the Iron Age. It is only obvious in one instance in burials, presumably of Neleids, where efforts were made in the Late Geometric period to rebury dead, and even try to reconstitute missing parts of the deceased from modelled pyre ash (v. Chapter IV). The digging

shades came forth, gaining strength as they drank the blood offering that had been set out for them: Lucianus, ‘The souls are nourished by libations’40 The Status Aspects of Mortuary Rituals Rituals were probably not always as elaborate as those portrayed on the Hagia Triada sarcophagos, but the potential to advertise status with visible tomb sites, processions, the mystique of exotic mortuary practices such as gold masks and, subsequent, officiallysanctioned ancestor rites, was likely not lost on the ruling lineage of Mycenae. Voutsaki has described how mortuary practices of the Mycenaean culture served to promote social differentiation.41 Grandiose funerary rituals with ornate panoply worked similarly to palace celebrations and rituals, to enhance the prestige of the ruling cardre. The location of the tombs outside the bastion may have brought more attention to the passing of a distinguished leader, especially as he was carried forth. A procession of acolytes would likely have accompanied the deceased to the tomb along with transport for funerary items such as cultic vessels, fluids and other paraphernalia. Animals for sacrifice, emoting lines of mourners with possible choral and musical accompaniment as depicted on the Hagia 40 41

Voutsaki 1995, 58-63. Gallou 83ff., 238f. Following the phase of palatial destruction, both the tombs and the rituals were less extravagant. 43 Hiller 2006, 183-190. 44 O Vikatou, ArchDelt 53, 1998 Chron (Athens 2004) 230-250, fn, 4. Continuity in burial customs from LHIIIC late through SM also in biers, coffins, weaponry, pottery, krater funerary customs and krater funerary customs was widespread in West Greece during the LHIII period. 45 Not everyone believes that ‘confederacy’ is the most appropriate terminology for the relationship that existed between the regional authorities  that controlled the various sectors of the Mycenaean landscape 42

Lucianus, De Luctu, 9. Gallou 2002, 255. Voutsaki 1998, 46-48.


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 5. Peloponnesian krater found in Cyprus, 14th c. BC

up of the Alcmeonid dead of the Kylon incident in the historical period also reveals the enduring significance of the physical remains.

palace personnel would likely not have had access to such rites: Palmer notes they did not even qualify for a measure of wine.47

Based on archaeological contexts, the krater assumed a more representational role in the funeral from LHIIIA onward, along with the rise of the impressive, built burial structures. The funeral rituals of significant members of the hierarchy had been an opportunity to demonstrate the power, wealth and style of the ruling lineage. The Hagia Triada sarcophagos depiction reveals the high status of a deceased who merited bovine sacrifice, a fine bronze krater for the rituals, and a coffin that is featured in almost every publication on Aegean art. This sarcophagos depicts the libation offering for a prominent citizen (Fig. 4).

The Post-Palatial Kratos Mycenae’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’ With some justification, Deger-Jalkotzy has called events of the late 13th century a ‘dramatic turning point in history’ followed by ‘a major cultural transformation’. From LHIIIB2, whether a result of regional power disputes, peripheral cultures seeking opportunity, economic failure, earthquakes, or a combination of such factors, a number of the formerly impregnable centers of the palatial system were destroyed or weakened. They included the most powerful in the estimation of pharaoh Amenophis III: Mycenae, Tiryns, Thebes, and Pylos, of which the latter two did not survive. The Mycenaean confederation was disrupted, and the former palatial culture was transformed to a lower level of economic and cultural activity.

As society increased and diversified, with more external contacts, what appears to be a prosperous merchant class began to migrate abroad. Some of the numerous pictorial kraters from Cypriote cemeteries should be assigned to this sector, as well as libation rituals.46 For these newly prosperous ranks a common libation of wine, honey, or milk, may have sufficed. Lower status

The turbulent and unpredictable conditions in the Peloponnesos led Deger-Jalkotzy to conclude that the

Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 2. Kraters used in ceremony by the elite: Louise Steel, ‘Feasting in Bronze Age Cyprus,’ Hesperia. 73, 2, 2004, 293-5, 297. 46

R. Palmer, Wine in the Mycenaean Palace Economy, Aegaeum 10 (Liège 1994) 44,188ff. 47


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary palace monarchies had been swept away, along with their administrative structure. One can only surmise the rattled status of Mycenaean governance and a substantial outlying dependent population in the immediate aftermath of the first palace destructions. Palatial control had rested to a great extent on the mystique of the ruling class, and their ability to preserve safety and prosperity for the populace. Now the ranks of administrators, bureaucrats, and overseers who had managed the extensive, centrally controlled economy were diluted, many departing to more promising venues abroad. Those who remained following the destruction phase must have been seriously challenged by the transformation of the old order. Much was modified or lost. Any palatial era administration that had survived was now patently less ‘royal’ in aspect, reduced in number, and lacking some of the accustomed refinements. It is significant that no effort was made to repair the ruined palace at Mycenae.

ceremonial needs of whatever leadership survived (Fig. 7). A colorful Pictorial Style adorning kraters continued on from figural decoration that had been current under the palaces, but in a sign of new focus, the chariot rides with milady were being supplanted by scenes of combat and hunting, of which the Warrior Vase of Mycenae is the prime example (Fig. 12). Catering to different social levels, there were coexistent styles suggesting that some elements of the palatial era hierarchical structure were still current in the mid-12th c. Also newly significant elements of society, warriors and burgers were acquiring kraters, gaining more status in the wake of higher status Mycenaeans departing the Mainland. A sign of the times was the production of vessels of more middle-class aspect like the commonplace Granary Style vases (Fig. 25), which survived into the Iron Age as Protogeometric pottery. That Post-palatial pottery production was contracting compared with the previous era is indicated by evidence that the fine Close Style and more commonplace Granary style were made in the same atelier, with Close style ornamentation such as the arcade, appearing on common Granary style amphorae: these are commonly represented in the wares dispersed either in trade or migration at the end of the 12th c. (Figs. 30, 31, 32).

David Small challenges a scenario of precipitous decline from the ‘complex chieftains’ of the palace era, stressing the continuity of some elite leadership and culture into the Post-palatial phase.48 Significantly, the Grave Circle at Mycenae remained undisturbed, so whatever the origin of the attack, survivors of the former Mycenaean regime appear to have remained in control. Repairs were undertaken and there are signs of some continuity in the material record. Certain traditions remained current in the preservation of terms of societal differentiation such as wanax (anax), damos (demos), and basileus. The bardic tradition was probably held over, as well as an appreciative late Mycenaean audience.

Following the burning of Mycenae’s Granary with its crucial grain supply, there was an exodus of most remaining elite to more secure and promising regions. Outposts of Mycenaean culture now existed in Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, Ionia, the Levant and Philistia (I suspect that Athens also received its first batch of refugees from Achaea and the Argolid at this time). Following this outflow, Mycenae’s operations further contracted as remoter agricultural areas were abandoned in favor of sites closer to Mycenae’s protective walls. There were few remains of any consequence at Mycenae in sequel. Those burying briefly in the remains of Mycenae in the final years of the Bronze Age may have been migrants from further west seeking to leave the Peloponnesos.50

Surviving leadership was key to a center’s continuation. Following the assaults on Mycenae & Tiryns, the first concern of palace officials would have been to protect the wanax if he remained on hand, and secure the circuit walls. Administrative officers such as the lawagetas, knights and basileis, may have continued serving and protecting a surviving royal line if it was still viable. If leadership had been lost, residual hierarchies of competency could have continued, ranging from intermediate levels of administrators, to skilled potters, metalworkers, and shipbuilders. Continuity of craft is revealed in the renewal of finely decorated pottery at both Mycenae, and Tiryns as well as sites in Messenia. The same type of pottery glaze and technique was preserved into the Iron Age. In sequel Mycenae enjoyed a brief ‘last flower of Mycenaean civilization’ borne on an impressive revival of Mycenae’s pottery industry.49

Tiryns: Discontinuity and Continuity By contrast with Mycenae, Tiryns and Athens remained viable centers to the end of the Bronze Age.51 They did not wholly escape the depredations that were occurring elsewhere on the Mainland, but survived with their walls substantially intact, as the main standard bearers for elite Mycenaean culture on the Greek Mainland. Tiryns conveys the most information on the fortunes of the elite within the Peloponnesos. The diversity of some of its finer wares, including a long sequence of kraters and several distinct styles of Schachermeyr’s

By the mid-12th c. an exclusive Close Style pottery had evolved at Mycenae that probably catered to the cult and 48 49

French 1998 and 2009, and Desborough 1964, and 1973 cover Mycenae’s last Bronze Age. 51 Attica, S. Privitera, Principi, Pelasgi, e pescatori: L’Attica nella Tarda Età del Bronzo, Studi di Archeologia e di Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 7 (Athens 2013). 50

Small 1998 283-291. Deger-Jalkotzty 1998, 114-121. Kilian 1987, 115-152.


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 6. Model of the Postpalatial Oberburg of Tiryns

Nobelkeramik, surveyed by Podzuweit,52 suggest it may have received fugitive elements of the upper stratum from the west.

seat of the ruler, and locus of administration and ceremony. As at Mycenae, the architecture, its setting, and approach had served to underline the power of the ruler and the hierarchical structure of the society, now badly impacted in the attack. Renewal efforts at Tiryns in sequel were concentrated on rebuilding the Oberburg height and its wall. The former site of the Megaron was now leveled. Open space replaced the dominance of the former palatial complex, allowing a few surviving features greater impact. These were an open courtyard and a surviving altar, which continued in use, probably as a connection with the earlier palatial heritage. Replacing the large complex of palace components was now a single, freestanding, formal structure, the Antenbau. While there was space for other structures on the Oberburg, the Antenbau rose in grand isolation, emphasizing its significance as the new focal point of Tiryns. The limitation of construction to this single building, raised on the elevated site of the former Megaron was likely intentional, as were the open courtyard and the altar.

The remains at Tiryns comprised two main sectors of walled settlement, the Unterburg, the more common settlement area, and the Oberburg, the control center of Tiryns in both the Pre-palatial and Post-palatial eras (Fig. 6).53 The continuity evident at Tiryns included a regular sequence of pottery from palatial times to the center’s demise at the end of the Bronze Age. The significance of Tiryns resides less in analysis of its pottery, even the kraters, informative though they are. It lies in the reordering of the damaged upper level administrative center, and what it communicates of the nature of the Tiryns kratos in the waning years of the Mycenaean Age. An idea of the changed political realities in the Post-palatial phase can be gleaned from the observations of Joseph Maran, who gives insight into the mindset of those controlling the Oberburg in the aftermath of the destruction. In his analysis of new construction, and a new configuration of architectural access and space compared to the earlier palatial arrangements, Maran has creatively compensated for the absence of Linear B tablets and other evidence as sources of information.

The same message was communicated in the access route to the Oberburg and new Antenbau. The frescoadorned, winding processional route of the palatial era, with its numerous formal liminal stages, had been arranged to emphasize the remoteness of the ruler, his mystique, and the privilege of access to the palace and the royal presence. The new access route was more spartan and direct. Maran notes that frescoes would have been possible lining the route, as before, but

In the final palace phase at Tiryns, the leadership had erected the Megaron, an impressive palatial complex, 52 53

Podzuweit 2007, 57-71, esp. 67. Schachermeyr 1980. Maran 2012a.


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary they would not have reflected the new realities of the Post-palatial era. The more open, less formal access to the administrative area, as well as the increased area of assembly on the Oberburg suggest there was less concern with reserving this formerly exclusive area from the view of the community, perhaps a nod to the demos.

extra-palatial areas controlled by non-palatial leaders, no doubt exchanging finished goods from the palace for raw commodities. Dealing with these partners would have required diplomacy and acquaintance with the client culture. Because the center Pylos was wholly destroyed, some upper echelons of the administration moved to offshore islands to the west and overseas (the appearance of similar kraters adorned with antithetic birds, in Messenia and the Knossos area, suggest associations). Some Mycenaean settlement must have survived, located not far from the ruined palace at Pylos, and from estimable burial installations with traditional burials in chamber tombs, such as Kokkevi-Grab and Tragana.

So at Tiryns it appears that rule by a remote and powerful autocrat had been supplanted by a more inclusive approach, especially if analysts have correctly interpreted the rationale for the Antenbau: Maran sees it as the gathering site for the Post-palatial elite to consider the new political and social realities that now confronted the community. It reflects a new administration that acknowledged the diminished power of the former rule, and was trying to accommodate new approaches while preserving some of the heritage of the past. In a more challenging environment, surviving elite may have seen merit in making common cause with other sectors of the community to insure their common survival. This new leadership would have required fewer protective layers than the former absolute monarch, hence the increased, more direct access and the open quality of the courtyard. While Mycenae lapsed, Tiryns successfully maintained organized Mycenaean governance almost to the end of the 12th century. Specifics of the governance at Tiryns cannot be confirmed during that time, but finely decorated elite kraters continued. If an absolute palatial ruler had departed, as the restructuring of Tiryns seems to suggest, he may have been succeeded by a leader of lesser authority, perhaps an intermediate palace official or a head of a tribal lineage. This may have been a high status migrant from the west, but a native basileus is the figure of greatest interest.

With their broad range of experience, versatility, and ability to relate to the local non-palatial groups in their area of operation, the basileis would have been a great asset. They likely adapted to the new circumstances, providing a modicum of economic continuity for Mycenaean palace survivors and perhaps continuing interaction with the other component of the Messenian economy, the non-palatial outlying settlements. The basileus could have replaced higher palatial officials less adaptable to the disconcerting conditions that now prevailed in West Greece. The situation is reminiscent of the intermediate ranks of Roman soldiers who remained as settlers along Britain’s Hadrian’s wall as Rome’s occupying forces and their leaders retreated. The experience of basileis at Mycenae and Tiryns following the phase of palatial destruction, would have likely been different. These had been highly fortified centers, and they still had salvageable defenses that could recreate much of the safety the original fastnesses had provided the population. These centers likely retained some of their original hierarchy in some kind of coherent association, that could address the continuing pressure on sites during the 12th c, especially Mycenae.

The Evolution of the Basileis Most of the evidence for this increasingly more significant and versatile official comes not from Mycenae and Tiryns, but from the palace of Pylos, which preserved a sizeable corpus of palatial era Linear B tablets in its ruins following its destruction. Originally a palace functionary involved in various practical activities, the basileus occurs in the tablets as a lower level administrator (qa-si-re-u), supervising male personnel. One clay tablet cites a basileus as head of a guild of bronzesmiths. Similar ranked officials may have supervised in the palace’s tarasija workshop system in the production of textiles, pottery and other products. If this was the case, then the role of the basileus during palatial times was a species of overseer. Oversight of palace production and personnel feature in the Pylos records of commercial activities and would at some point have required a level of erudition in recording, as well as facility in interpersonal relations. Some of the commercial transactions extended to

Following the phase of palatial destruction, the basileis at first may have retained their modest place in the hierarchy, participating in the physical restoration of centers such as Mycenae and Tiryns. They would have found a way around the lack of inventory control that had disappeared with the scribes and their clay tablets, and they would have been invaluable training and coordinating cardres of skilled craftsmen in the manufacture of tools, and the repair of structures and enceinte. They likely also oversaw the manufacture of weapons for defense, and pottery for the trade which still persisted in such fortified centers, underwriting the communities’ protection and economic needs.54 High quality pottery was still produced at Pylos, Mycenae, Tiryns, Elis and Achaea. Deger-Jalkotzy 1998, 114-121. 54


Kratos & Krater In time they would have risen through the ranks. If no aristocrats survived in an area, the ranking Mycenaeans at that stage were probably former auxiliaries, such as the basileis, promoted to leadership in a vacuum of power. From the fact that the latest Mycenaean rulers were remembered as basileis, it may be the case that some of these palace officials were gradually transforming into the leadership of surviving Mycenaean communities in the aftermath of the palace destructions.

attempts at restarting the pottery industry, the revival of Mycenae’s former status as premier Mainland center was unlikely. The palace was left derelict, revealing that few of the royal circle now remained. That the days of the citadel itself were numbered was readily apparent perhaps even before the burning of the Granary which terminated Mycenae’s revival. Following these events, high level palace officials appear to have deserted the once impregnable citadel, settling in Rhodes, and Cyprus where status burials contained vestiges of Mainland palace culture, including a gilded scepter, a Mycenaean leader’s symbol of authority. A shield similar to one depicted on a Mainland warrior krater was found on Rhodes, which received at least two waves of Mainland migrants. Other Mycenaeans departed to Crete, the Levant, Palestine and Ionia. With Mycenae’s grain supply now reduced, the citadel’s population was further depleted. Its promising Postpalatial pottery production contracted with the loss of population. The last fine Close Style and more commonplace Granary style were now made in a single atelier.55 It is doubtful that any lawegetas, or other high military officer, would have been on hand to defend Mainland communities in the second half of the 12th c. Almost certainly the migrating elite would have taken most of their ranking military personnel and their military assets with them as they relocated to alien regions where they could not always count on a welcome.

Some of these former palace overseers were sufficiently talented and enduring to reach the highest level of status. It is evident from surviving terminology that towards the end of the Bronze Age it was not wanakes who were supervising surviving settlements or migrating groups, but basileis. These new leaders likely had little of the stature and mystique of the palatial era monarchs because they had arisen from less exalted origins. They were not substantially elevated in wealth and prestige above their ranking followers, as we learn from the Odyssey. Their coinage was long association with Mycenaean administration, and the operations of complex institutions. They would have known how to use the trappings and traditions of the palatial era, to confer legitimacy on their authority. Aware of the krater’s role as the focal point of social and political activity, they would have engaged in consortium to cultivate a corps of acolytes to shore up their power base, practices that survived into the historical period. They would have understood how celebrations based on the krater and other paraphernalia could create the theatre that many shrewd leaders employ to retain a loyal following. This receives confirmation in sequel as it becomes clear that basileis took over some of the palatial era functions in religious ritual, and probably festivals (duties that also survived in Athens under the purely ceremonial Medontid basileus long into the historical period).

As attacks continued on the Mainland, a few with a following persisted. One such was Melanthos, the Neleid Pylian leader who traced his line back to high status palatial-era ancestors. As the Heraclid Temenos turned up the heat, Melanthos reportedly relinquished his Messenian homeland, migrating to Athens where he became king. The last group burying in the ruins of Mycenae may have been Messenians on the move, based on tomb content. Other movement is supported by Finkelberg’s evidence of dialectic migration and Moschos’ study of Achaeans also making their way eastward. Tiryns coped more successfully, maintaining a viable culture, economy and defense far longer than Mycenae. Its attempts to recover incorporated survivals from the earlier palatial phase, such as the altar, but as mentioned, there appears to be a broader sector of the population invested in the survival of the center perhaps influencing its new plan of development. It remained a respectable Mycenaean fortified center to the end of the Bronze Age, when its higher status inhabitants finally departed.

The Mycenaean basileis also took on a leadership role in defending their communities. Melanthos may have won his Athenian throne by warding off the takeover of northeast Attic Oinoe. If traditions can be believed, his successor Codros reportedly died defending Athens against the Heraclids. His sons, the Codrides led a campaign to Ionia, assaulting and taking the settlement of Miletus as their new homeland. For its defense, Mycenae likely had the kind of warriors depicted on the Warrior Vase, probably an elite militia. The uniformity of such warrior vases in places such as Mycenae, Athens, Lefkandi, and Pylos reveals some communication may have existed between the military assets of surviving Mycenaean settlements. The lawagetas, usually considered the second in command to the king according to Pylian tablets, may have overseen military affairs following the destruction of the palaces, but beyond a few repairs, and commendable

In the final years of turbulence, many Peloponnesian sites of habitation fell off the map in advance of the This is seen on styles dispersed in the later 12th c. A Cypriote ProtoWhite painted amphora combines Mycenae’s mundane Granary Style Wavy lines on the belly with an elite Close Style complex triangles motif on the shoulder (Fig. 32). A similar case is amphora Kerameikos 11238 (Fig. 31). 55


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary Heraclid takeover of the peninsula. The departing last Mycenaean nobles may have contemplated the still visible Mycenaean fortifications and tombs and recalled the order, stability and power of their ancestors. The krater and its rituals traveled with them, a portable part of their culture, and one which became significant once they had settled in new homelands. Wild Style kraters and rituals were introduced into Athens by Melanthos and Alcmeon and preserved over hundreds of years by their descendants. For the longstanding Alcmeonid nobility the krater became the visible symbol at their Precinct XX cemetery, still erected as their characteristic epitymbion grave monument in the cemetery’s Archaic era extension. The basileus survived, and for a longer period of time, but not as an absolute king. In late 11th c Athens, the dispersed eupatrid leaders established a rule of elective life-kings to rule Athens, depriving the Medontid regime of all secular monarchical authority. The Medontid family was able to retain the role of basileus in a purely ceremonial capacity, overseeing established cult, a role that had been held by kings dating back to the Mycenaean palatial era. The office of basileus was remarkable for existing through so many centuries, evolving chameleon-like through a range of responsibilities to the end of the democratic era in the fourth c. BC.56 This makes it the most long-enduring official capacity in Helladic culture.

Fig. 7. LHIIIC Middle Close Style hydria from Mycenae

from the palatial phase. In the immediate Postpalatial phase refined ornamentation was still found at Mycenae, in a complex, Close Style, and a competent Figural Style that suggested a few high status elite were still in residence (Fig. 7). Fortified Tiryns is probably the best source for the krater during the Post-palatial phase, its kraters carefully studied by Podzuweit, who incorporated some of the lore of Schachermeyr’s partitioning of late Peloponnesian pottery styles.58 Tiryns has an almost unbroken sequence of kraters from Palatial times down to the latest Bronze Age, decorated in variant styles reflecting both different phases, and differing levels of status and origins. Many kraters at Tiryns were adorned with simple spirals, and increasingly more abstract survivals from the LHIIIB phase, but here again there is evidence of surviving elite in more finely produced styles similar to those of Mycenae. In addition, at Mycenae, Tiryns and other locations, there was a commonplace Granary style, more suited to an era that had lost many of its high-status population to migration or decease. Over the course of the Postpalatial phase these styles emanated out from the main settlements of Mycenae, Tiryns and Pylos wherever Mainland Mycenaeans established themselves: Athens, Naxos, Euboea, Crete, Cyprus, Ionia, and some smaller islands such as Kos and Kephallenia.

The Post-Palatial Krater Cavanaugh concluded that formal use of the krater may have decreased in the Post-palatial phase as a result of a ‘very specific complex of religious and social associations bound up with wine drinking, centered in particular on the palace and palace society, which fell into disuse’.57 Many of the finely decorated palatial era kraters did indeed die out as governance evolved. The rulers, status officials, courtiers, prosperous burgers and independent landowners who had filled and fielded formal kraters in the palatial phase were now less numerous. Ceramic production had deteriorated in some areas, but kraters, and utilitarian vessels such as amphorae, jugs, cups, and stirrup jars were still regularly produced in the most populated sites. Finely decorated kraters were still significant to the demonstration of rank and leadership, for use in formal assemblies and ritual. The standard krater was now less elegant. It was the wide-bodied, vertical-profiled, ring-based krater that had found broad favor outside the orbit of the palaces. Decoration fell into three categories: Figural, Close and Granary Styles, the first of which continued elements 56 57

Ritual Kraters Kraters continued in ritual and some were produced in larger size probably for communal use, a trend

Drews 1983, 2-5. Cavanaugh 1998, 111.



Podzuweit 2007, Schachermeyr 1980.

Kratos & Krater

Fig. 8. Large LHIIIC krater from Grotta, Naxos

Fig. 9. Ceremonial krater from Lefkandi, Euboea

that continued into the Iron Age in Athens, Paros and Lefkandi. Such kraters are rare, since they would have been costly, and were likely retained in the possession of an affluent few, leaders, military commanders or priests. They could have been used for a variety of special events, such as periodic gatherings of aristocratic houses, festivals, cult activities, funerals for the prominent members of society and warrior consortium and burial rituals.

Not all Bronze Age decoration was overtly ritual in nature, including the geometric center panels, sometimes flanked by a fringe of loops. The Grotta krater has a checker panel edged by multiple outlined loops in combination with a ‘goddess’ on horseback, suggestive of cult use. Large loops edging the center panel of a krater from Lefkandi have been termed ‘paneled leaves’. In several instances rampant antithetic animals touch or paw a similarly fringed center panel, recalling the common Near Eastern motif of animals flanking a sacred tree (Fig. 9).60 Sometimes the panel is flanked by small animals, caprids, birds, or fish, all creatures typically used in common sacrifice. In Athens birds and fish were especially favored for the decoration of kraters and bowls.

It was estimated that only twenty celebrants could have been accommodated for ritual in the palace-era ‘temple’ at Mycenae. The maximum number participating in Post-palatial krater ritual or consortium can be estimated from the largest surviving Bronze Age krater, the LHIIIC Grotta krater from the island of Naxos, estimated capacity 100 liters (Fig. 8). With décor of stylized leaves, and a figure interpreted as a goddess on horseback, it was a cult vessel capable of being turned to various uses. Funerary use was one of the most common venues of the large krater. The largest krater from both Bronze and Iron ages is represented by a small Submycenaean fragment Cat. (6) from Athens’ Precinct XX cemetery. Another large krater in funerary use, found on the floor of the tenth c. house tomb of the Hero of Lefkand, was a likely consortium krater turned to use as a funerary libation krater and memorial. This seems to have been the case with the gigantic Late Geometric consortium krater 279 from Kerameikos Precinct XX (Fig. 54). LHIIIC ritual kraters can often be identified by their richer decoration, symbolic motifs and the use of pictorial style. Animal-protomed handles as on the Warrior Vase, may have been associated with blood libation.59

There were now few elite who would qualify for ritual bovine sacrifice at their funeral. The boukranion motif lapsed in the final stringent days of the Mycenaean era, although the antithetic streamers motif may be a survival indicative of a ritual vase.61 A Cretan vase of LHIIIB-C combines the streamers with flanking birds, which are also suspected of ritual associations (Fig. 10).62 kraters, e.g. from Aradippo, Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 54, V103 V. Karageorghis, BCH 86, 1962, 14, figs. 3-4. 60 Grotta krater, Vlachopoulos, 1999, 94, with dot fringed outlining, as on the LHIIIC Late Dipylon stirrup jar. From Lefkandi: VermeuleKarageorghis, 1982, 100, and No. XI. 84, M. Popham, E Millburn, BSA 66, 1971, pl. 54.1. Popham-Sackett, 1968, 21, fig. 45. Goats rearing against a checker panel, Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 55 No. V.109, IX,76.1, birds V.115, X.66, fish X.87, stag, X.48. 61 Antithetically organized formal kraters are often adorned with the fauna of which sacrificial remains have been found in sanctuaries: bull, sheep, goat, bird, and fish. Kraters in more widespread use: Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 2. 62 M. Popham ‘Some Late Minoan III Pottery from Crete, BSA 60, 1965, 332, 332, fig.9, pl. 84.

R. Hägg-Norquist 1990, 177-84. Gallou 2002, 70 fn. 199, believes rhyta could have been used for a blood libation. Blood sacrifice may be implied in the boukrania and horns of consecration depicted on 59


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 10. Cretan LHIIIB-C krater with birds Fig. 11. Krater from Ugarit, Levant, with fish sacrificed on an altar

A LHIIIC Middle krater found at Malthi, confirmed a ritual vessel by its pierced base, had a tripartite arrangement of a checkerboard center panel flanked by birds. A similar one of LHIIIC Late date was found at Mycenae (Figs. 23, 24). Support that kraters with this kind of geometric central column were used in cult comes from a krater fragment c. 1200 BC found in Ugarit.63 Here the characteristic fringed central panel is surmounted by a horns of consecration enclosing a formal plant, and is clearly intended to represent an altar. A man stands at the ‘altar’ brandishing a strange ritual blade as he prepares to sacrifice a fish (Fig. 11). Vermeule & Karageorghis acknowledge that the elements from which the altar is constructed, usually believed to have purely decorative intent, are here suggestive of a cult area. Central geometric panels with looped or zigzag edging are found from West Greece to Cyprus, suggesting that the ritual use of kraters remained similar through most of the Mycenaean world at this time. Pottier suggested that the geometric panels may have represented the masonry of an altar. There is similar architectural use of the checkerboard on frescoes at Pylos and Orchomenos. Mourning figures appear within a window-like checker framework on a Tanagra sarcophagos, so architectural features such as a shrine or altar may be intended by such.64

vessels found in burials. The kraters were often smashed following ritual, but these finer figural kraters would have been carefully handled during service and then returned to safekeeping: both the Grotta and Malthi kraters were found among remains of settlement buildings, with some hint that the Grotta krater was undergoing repairs. The central checker panel continues into the Iron Age at Precinct XX with concentric circles replacing the antithetic animals or spirals (Fig. 103a), and this combination was still retained as the center motif on formal kraters of the Middle Geometric period, along with other motifs of Mycenaean derivation such as the lozenge and chevron columns (Fig. 113). Warrior Kraters If Mycenaean culture was to be preserved in the Peloponnesos some of its ethos needed to carry over to a broader sector of the population as well as new generations. In that respect a particular figural class of krater promoting the activities of a warrior elite is of particular interest. These kraters have graphic scenes of warfare on land and sea, hunting activities, and ritualized drinking scenes. A remarkable krater from Kalapodi, Locris, depicts warriors assaulting a city.65 Warrior kraters may have served during military consortium, used not only by the elite commanders, but for the benefit of the infantry depicted on their sidewalls.

Kraters with such decoration may have served the increasing number of participants in funerary rituals, betokened by the numerous cups and other libation Vermeule-Karageorghis, No. XIII,29 found in a house with ‘medicomagical tablets.’ J. Nougayrol et al., Ugaritica V, Paris, 1968, pl. 3. J.-C. Courtois, The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean (1973), 156f. fig. 10. 64 E Pottier BCH 31 1907, 230, 237, fig. 7. Vermeule-Karageorghis 1982, 54. ArchHom, Vol. III, Ch. V, pl. 6 Göttingen, 1968. Sarcophagos: E. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago, 1964, pl. XXXIV. 63

The infantry marching formation on the Warrior Krater of Mycenae are well equipped warriors who were not common infantry conscripts, according to Drews (Fig. 65


Sherratt 2004, 321.

Kratos & Krater

Fig. 12. The LHIIIC Middle Warrior Vase from Mycenae

Fig. 13. Palatial-era Battle Fresco from Pylos

12). He views them as an elite infantry corps who accompanied and protected charioteers, fought in hand to hand engagements, and could pursue enemy fleeing to rougher terrain unassailable by chariot.66 They may have been immortalized in funeral games, depicted in the epibates, warriors who jump on and off chariots on Late Geometric epitymbia (Figs. 44, 46, 48). These warriors may have dated back to palatial times, since they are similar to the combatants depicted fighting in single combat on the Pylos Battle Fresco, whose high 66

status and courage is represented by their boar’s tusk helmets (Fig. 13). The landscape feature depicted may represent a ditch or rocky landscape where the chariot could not venture. Warriors were a preoccupation of the era that included the infamous Sea-People portrayed in battle-ready warships on kraters from the coastal site of Kynos.67 Sherratt, Lefkandi IV, 218. F. Dakoronia 1985, 173 f., 1986, 68-69. Adelt 42 1987, pl. 135δ. Adelt 43 1988, 223 f., pl. 125β. Adelt 45 1990, 84α. Adelt 46 1991, 195, pl. 83δ. ARepLond 44, 1998, 73. Kraters dated LHIIIB –LHIIIC Middle Opuntian Locris, an area referenced. by Homer in association with Ajax. 67

Drews 1993, 141-143.


Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary Military training and action must have been a signal preoccupation at this time. Kraters would have been used not only in the sacrificial rituals and feasting of the warrior elite, but in military strategy sessions and recruitment. Warrior gatherings in the presence of warrior kraters, with some potent bonding rituals added to the mix, would have nurtured fighting spirit. In the sanctuary of Kalo Podi, Locris, there was evidence for libations and dedications of elite warrior paraphernalia such as shield bosses, helmets and seals. As attacks continued on the surviving Mycenaean enclaves, these warriors may have formed the last line of defense.

Gallou has devoted a whole chapter to the subject of libation in her study of the Mycenaean cult of the dead.72 In the well-known passages of the cremation funeral rites for Patroklos, supervised by Achilles (Iliad XXIII), the krater libation and inurnment of the remains is a lengthy and formal procedure. Most remains of Mycenaean kraters used in burial ritual are found in the Peloponnesos at Deiras, lasting from the LHIIIA palatial period through the Submycenaean phase. Kraters, teamed with other content, worthy burial structures and games, help characterize the Mycenaean Post-palatial elite funerary culture. Typical burial during this time was inhumation in a built or excavated chamber tomb, and in the terminal phase, the cist burial. The ritual kraters were usually left as fragments in the dromos rather than in the tomb chamber. The kraters used in libation are often undecorated or minimally decorated and rarely illustrated, so sometimes overlooked. Hägg and Norquist have brought needed attention to them.73

Wherever warrior kraters are found, whether Pylos, Xeropolis Lefkandi, Kalo Podi, Kunos, Mycenae, or Athens, the style is unusually uniform, especially in the representation of the warriors. The panoramic nature of some compositions may betray origin in a more monumental medium than pottery.68 High quality palatial wall paintings such as the Pylos Battle Fresco may have been preserved from destruction, providing prototypes for the lively scenes. The kraters may have been created at a single surviving center of production, and distributed in trade, guest friendship, regional military consortium or diplomacy. Some testing for origin of the regionally scattered fragments might yield that source. In the meantime, Mycenae should stand as the most logical center of production, since by the mid12th c. it was already making and exporting fine Close, Granary and Figural Style pottery from its ateliers, activities that would soon be cut short.

The finely decorated kraters such as the artwork warrior kraters, have not been found in association with burials to my knowledge, although the Warrior Vase of Mycenae has been claimed as a funerary krater. French referenced it as a possible epitymbion, i.e. a tomb marker, and certainly its iconography would be appropriate to this role if it is a mourning female depicted at the handle (Fig. 12). It was, however, not found in a cemetery, so may have been a ritual vessel subject to repeat use, as were the Grotta and Malthi kraters (Figs. 8, 23). The latter, with a pierced base and decorated with bird and panel décor, was found on the floor of a destroyed building in the settlement of Malthi, Messenia.74 Crouwel compares it to the large, similarly decorated krater with bird and panel décor, also with base pierced, found in an ash layer in the latest group of Bronze Age burials at Mycenae (Fig. 24). These factors are suggestive of libation use. If the Mycenae krater was then left as an epitymbion, as has been claimed, it would have been the first of the cist grave phase. It is probably the last figural krater in the Peloponnesos. Its use anticipates what became standard practice for the cist burials of the Athenian Precinct XX.75

Funerary Kraters The few surviving Bronze Age ritual kraters from settlement contexts have been discussed. Many formal krater remains come from cemeteries. They were not normally placed in graves, but appear in LHIII A warrior burials in the Agora and at Krini, near Patras.69 They were likely used in libation and/or ritual feasts in honor of the elite dead.70 The well-known Warrior Krater of Mycenae may have been a ritual vase: it has animal protomes (caprids?) a suggestion of blood sacrifice, and sacraments, accompanying imprecation against the foe perhaps, or incantations for fallen warriors.71

Gallou noted krater remains left in dromoi may be especially linked with Argive custom, but the practice is found also in Messenia, near Pylos. A hunting scene krater was found at Pylos in a rare case of a krater found inside a burial. Another krater came from inside a

M. Lang in Drews 1993, 141, pl. 2. Krini: Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1994, 177-200. Agora Gr. XL: Hesperia. 35, 1966, 77, pls. 19-24, figs. 1-4, Agora XIII, 242-247. 70 Snodgrass, 1971, 192, Boardman 1988, 176f. offerings for the dead. Coldstream 1977, 122, funeral feast for the living, with a portion to the dead. If krater funerary use descends from the Peloponnesian practice of a last libation in the dromos, wine offering is likely for the dead. This is also supported by the paucity of cups and bones in Precinct XX burials and strayfinds. On the other hand, a LG figured krater shows fish and fowl being carried to the funeral in some quantity: Met. Mus. 14.130.15, CVA New York, Met. Mus. 5, 13-19, pls. 14-18. 71 Popham and Milburn, 1971, 340. 68 69

Gallou 2002, 237-257. Hägg-Norquist 1990, 177-184. Gallou 2002, 257-292. Carter-Morris 1995, 120. 74 ARepLond 1977-78 (1978) 34, fig. 59, Crouwel 2009, 42, 56, fig. 7. 75 French 2009, 152-3. Crouwel 2009, 41, 55, fig. 2, decorated by someone unused to pictorial decoration. The foot of this krater was found in an ashy layer near graves Gamma 31, 8 and 9, the former a child inhumation burial with vases and bronzes, including a stirrup jar that Desborough identified as Wild Style, Desborough 1973, 91101. 72 73


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 14. Krater with prothesis scene, reportedly a grave marker, from Ayia Triadha, Elis, LHIIIC Late

burial in Achaia, where there was no tradition of rituals in the dromos. From Elis comes the most remarkable funerary krater of all, decorated with a scene of prothesis, perhaps specially made for rituals and left as an epitymbion (Fig. 14).

following use. Those found broken in the dromos may have been deliberately broken to lend the rites a note of closure, but the libation and breakage was not necessarily immediately following the closing of the tomb. It could have been on a later occasion. The Hagia Triada sarcophagus discussed above supports that libation took place sometime after the burial, when it was assumed the flesh had wasted, enabling the spirit to stand before the tomb watching the procedure. Similarly the kraters and kylikes found in dromoi during the post-palatial phase could have been broken on a memorial occasion. One could conclude from the roads built to access tombs in the palatial era that they were processional ways, not intended for one-time use, and there could have been a number of memorial processions to fete a significant ancestor.76

The following list of sites with krater funerary use is not exhaustive and certainly does not reflect the original prevalence of the krater’s funerary use in the Bronze Age Peloponnesos: LHIIIA: Argolid, Deiras, Tombs XI, XIX, XXI, XXIV, XXXVI LHIIIA-B Achaea, Aigion Tomb BE 653 LHIIIA-B Argolid, Deiras Tomb XXX LHIIIB Argolid, Deiras Tombs XXVIII, XXXV LHIIIC Achaea, Krini LHIIIC Middle Messenia, Pylos LHIIIC Late, Messenia, Pisaskion, Pylos LHIIIC Late Elis, Agia Triada, LHIIIC Late, Argolid, Mycenae

The latest ceramic production varied from prosaic to extraordinary, the latter illustrated by a stellar example of a memorial vase which reportedly functioned as a grave marker, found in a burial area at Ayia Triada, Elis, (Fig. 14).77 This claim may have more than the usual legitimacy because it is decorated with a finely conceived prothesis, a scene depicting the laying out of the dead. Elis is not notable for figural decoration, especially of such extraordinary imagination and competence. The depiction is populated with grieving mourners, sacrificial animals, and even furniture: a funerary bier on which the deceased lies. This unique vessel did not come from a dealer’s shelf. Burial took place soon after decease in ancient Greece, giving no time for the preparation of such an artwork. This krater was likely custom prepared for this particular deceased in the days following the burial, an attempt perhaps to record the actual event. Such subject matter would almost certainly not have had a prototype in

Kraters in an Age of Decline On the Mainland the Mycenaean population and culture slowly ebbed, especially in a Peloponnesos diluted by attacks, perhaps earthquakes and ultimately the depredations of the Heraclid Temenos. Economic contraction resulted in a lack of resources, amd ceramic production deteriorated in many areas. However, kraters and utilitarian vessels such as amphorae, jugs, cups, and stirrup jars were still regularly produced in the most populated and well protected sites. Kraters preserved their former functions, and may have taken on a new role as an epitymbion.

Hiller 2006, 183-190. Crouwel 2009, 44,57, fig. 14. From Ayia Triada, near Kladeos, Tomb 5, O Vikatou, ArchDelt 53 1998, Chron, Athens 2004, 230-233. 76

It is often not easy to determine whether kraters found at tombs were placed intentionally or just discarded



Chapter II Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary monumental wall painting, so it is a real tribute to the high level of creativity residing still in the ceramic arts at the very end of the Bronze Age.

spiral and wavy line motifs on a reserve ground reflects the dearth of an unsettled, depressed era. With the exception of the Elis krater, the Peloponnesian elite of the final Mycenaean years had their better days behind them, to judge from their typical kraters, now a shadow of their former grandeur. Krater pictorial representation all but lapsed, as the fighting/hunting elite who had commissioned them were increasingly fading from the scene. What remained were simple abstract motifs, some derivative of former natural ornamentation. The latest krater found in the dromos was in a LHIIIC Late elite burial site at Pisaskion, Pylos, which lapsed at the end of the 12th century.79 On kraters and drinking bowls a common system was panel ornamentation, and an antithetic arrangement of motifs flanking a central column, especially antithetic spirals or loops combined with a checkerboard, an arrangement found from West Greece to Cyprus (Fig. 25). On both Mainland and Cretan kraters birds and other figural motifs sometimes interject themselves into these arrangements (Figs. 10, 23, 24a). Fine kraters persisted to the end at Tiryns (Fig. 24). The latest Close Style at this site has been suggested as the inspiration for certain early Wild Style decoration from the Precinct XX area, e.g. the arcade on amphora Ker. 11238 (Figs. 30, 31).

This krater may have been used in memorial rites, then placed at the burial as a marker of the high status of the deceased. Its similarity to prothesis scenes on Late Geometric kraters hundreds of years later is uncanny (Fig. 125). Other Bronze Age funerary iconography also appears to have been absorbed into the Late Geometric figural repertory: for example, rows of mourners (Fig. 47) and chariot races (Figs. 44, 46) appear to echo some of the scenes surviving from Late Bronze Age Tanagra sarcophagi. The unearthing of archaeological items such as the Elis krater may have been a source of inspiration to late Iron Age painters. The Elis krater is unique. Most late 12th c. kraters lacked overt ritual iconography. Over time their decoration became more generic, as skilled artisans were now few in number, incapable of competent figural decoration, which ultimately ceases. The krater lapsed into a ‘one size fits all’ production constraint in most areas. This meant that for the few remaining elite, kraters could be used interchangeably, for wine service, consortium, and propitiation, as well as burial cult. The only concession to ritual iconography on the latest Mycenaean examples are debased versions of the center panels, and palatial era iconography such as the boukranion now reduced to antithetic streamers and outlined arcs as on Ker. 11238 and some Lefkandi fragments (Figs. 30, 40). The connection of arcs and boukranion handles with the horns of a sacrificed animal, had perhaps by this time been lost, as also the practice of blood libation discussed earlier. The libation of this phase was most likely wine, rather than the bovine blood of the high palatial period. In any case, during the less affluent days of the latest Mycenaean phase there would have been very few who would have merited ritual bovine slaughter at their funeral. A blood libation for a prominent member of the community could still have been drawn from one of the smaller animals depicted in antithetic arrangement on the LHIIIC Middle ritual kraters described above (Fig. 9).78 During the transitional years, kraters of ordinary use would have held the wine libation for decanting, which was carried out with a juglet, skyphos, or some other small container. Adorned mostly with simple non-figural motifs, these kraters may have influenced Cavanaugh’s thesis of a reduction in formal use, since their decoration is not reflective of use in cult, or of anything beyond the poverty of the age. Their subGranary style type decoration of simple geometric,

Krater Rituals Introduced to Athens The custom of krater funerary ritual was introduced into Athens by the Melanthids and Alcmeonids, immigrants from the Peloponnesos.80 These two noble houses founded the Kerameikos Precinct XX burial site in the last quarter of the 12th c., contemporary with the latest krater funerary use at cist burials in Mycenae. Numerous krater remains come from the Precinct XX site, but as in the Peloponnesos, they were not found in the cist graves that were the standard mode of burial in Iron Age Athens, but mostly fragmented in the vicinity of the burial, where they had likely been utilized in libation. Cremation was now the prevailing burial rite for the elite, and it would appear from the number of burned krater fragments dating from the transitional years, that the krater was sometimes broken and tossed on the funeral pyre following use. The new arrivals, Alcmeonids, Philaids, Peisistratids, and other eupatrids, were successful in retaining other characteristics of the Bronze Age civilization, which is why the ethos of Attica was so different from that of the Dorian Peloponnesos during the ensuing historical period. New Immigrant Foundations: Melanthid Kings Mountjoy 1999, 358f, fig. 123, No. 134, possibly Submycenaean, Blegen-Rawson 1966 fig. 293,3. 80 Athens in the Late Bronze Age, S. Privitera, Principi, Pelasgi, e pescatori: L’Attica nella Tarda Età del Bronzo, Studi di Archeologia e di Topografia di Atene e dell’Attica 7 (Athens 2013). 79

Andronikos 1968, 93, Carter-Morris 1995, 120. Antithetically organized formal kraters are often adorned with the fauna of which sacrificial remains have been found in sanctuaries: bull, sheep, goat, bird, and fish. 78


Chapter III

The Kratos of the Transitional Era

Main Early Iron Age Sites in Athens

the later Haladian Gate, and in the Olympeion area. The prevailing form of burial had been chamber tombs, but this changed from c. 1125 BC as the newcomers installed a number of new cist burial cemeteries of various sizes in the Agora and around the settlement periphery.

During the years of transition from the Late Helladic to the Iron Ages, Athens entered a phase of relative prosperity interrupted by periodic disruption. The Attic settlement of Perati, a participant in the trading activities of the Aegean Koine, had been relatively prosperous through most of the 12th century, but its abandonment at the end of the century signals a round of dislocation in which most of Attica’s smaller settlements were similarly deserted.81 This may be the era when Athens earned its reputation of assisting those in need. Presumably some of the displaced migrated to Athens, likely increasing that center’s population. Since Athens held the best fortified citadel on the Mainland, more refugees followed from further afield once Tiryns followed Mycenae into obscurity. Since agricultural areas of Atttica and trade were affected, commodities in Athens would have been in short supply. There was still a king, but few indications in Athens’ pottery style of the survival of much high-ranking Mycenaean leadership. The Attic boundary at Oinoe was now under threat.

A common, indigenous Mycenaean cultural tradition would have made Athens a congenial destination for refugees of similar heritage. They engaged in a resettlement process that could have been chaotic, but suggests organization and collaboration with whatever local leadership still survived. Their settlement areas in the ensuing years can only be identified by the location of their cemeteries: the Kerameikos Precinct XX, Pompeion and Sacred Gate, the Irian Gate, Vasilissis Sophias Drive, the Diochares Gate, north Agora, Kolonos Agoraios,82 Haladian and Acharnian Gates, and Kynosarges.83 The outline of their discrete new sites around the periphery of Athens, at a respectable remove from the local center, suggests planned location of their first encampments, guaranteed not to overly disturb the status quo, but also to have the upper hand if their arrival was contested, something that does not seem to have been the case.

It is at this point that newcomers in groups large and small began encroaching on Athens. There is little sign that their arrival was accompanied by violence and they were allowed to settle around the periphery of the community. What may have appeared a further threat to the community’s sovereignty was a blessing in disguise. They were groups of Mycenaeans under elite leadership, well seasoned in survival, their primary sources Messenia, Achaia, and the Argolid. The vestiges of Deger-Jalkotzy’s ‘Last Flower of Mycenaean Civilization’ had arrived on Athens’s doorstep.

Most of the larger burial grounds appear to have been founded in the late 12th c. BC timespan, raising the possibility that some were part of a coordinated movement led by leaders of the last failing Mycenaean centers. The character, dispersal and content of their burials suggest heterogeneity, and in some cases one may speculate on the origins of their founders. They originated mostly from the Peloponnesos, with Messenia, the Argolid and Achaia the most common sources. Some presumably came earlier from outlying Attica. A few burial grounds survived in Athens that appear to represent the local elite, including an Areopagos site above the Agora, some locations to the south of the Acropolis and Mouseion Hill. The burial mode of the local affluent, had been the chamber tomb, which was now no longer constructed, although modest reuse of earlier such tombs continued.84 With

With few exceptions, Athens’ populace had occupied distinct areas flagged by the surviving LHIIIC burial grounds located around the Acropolis. The plan reveals the distribution of the few indigenous burial sites of those who survived the end of the Bronze Age (Fig. 15). Two small sites were located to the north, below the Areopagos, with the remainder south of the Acropolis on Mouseion Hill, the banks of the Ilissos River, near

Hesperia 71, 2002, 156. BSA 12, 1905-1906, 91 f. 84 As found on the Dimitrakopoulou Street sites in the Koukaki district, Pantelidou 1975, 69-80. The burials here may have some Achaian influences on their pottery suggestive of an earlier group of migrants from West Greece. The Precinct XX area chamber tomb and regular earliest row of cist burials suggests that it may not have been intended as a burial field at its initiation. 82

Perati was possibly initiated by Peloponnesians in the earlier phase of palatial destruction and migration. Some stirrup jars, are similar to Argive Close and Pictorial style, Mountjoy 1993, 103. Sp. Iakovides, Perati II, Athens 1970, 468: 600 burials spread over 75-100-year floruit, 26 cist graves, the remainder chamber tombs with dromoi; 18 cremations. Perati terminated end of LHIIIC Late, contemporary with the arrival of new immigrants in Athens.




Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 15. Surviving and newly-founded immigrant sites of transitional era Athens

the arrival of the newcomers, the prevailing form of burial now became the cist tomb, even for the highest elite. These rectangular shafts were often arranged in organized burial fields as were the latest Bronze Age burial sites of the Argolid. This was the case now in the north end of the Athenian Agora where groups of graves were equipped with mostly mundane pottery of Argive association.

they appear more modest in their aspirations, perhaps looking foremost for a security that had evaded them in the Peloponnesos. Unlike the Mycenaeans who had departed the Mainland for Asia, these new Athenian arrivals were settling in a like-minded Mycenaean environment which was probably more congenial to them and more conducive to the retention of their native Mainland culture.

The Kerameikos Precinct XX Cemetery

Their advent likely held advantage for the resident Athenians. Athens was now the main surviving Mainland outpost of Mycenaean culture, but the lack of finer indigenous pottery in its latest Bronze Age contexts indicates the toll taken on its traditional elite by unsettled conditions. Local formal kraters that had been current on the Acropolis during the LHIIIC Middle phase had phased out, suggesting that Peloponnesian centers were not alone in losing leadership to emigration. The Athenian elite who remained may have welcomed the arrival of the Mycenaean immigrants for reinforcing a weakened Athenian aristocratic tradition. This acceptance was to be significant for the later evolution of Athens.

At Knossos North, Kaloriziki, Cyprus, and Lefkandi, Euboea, all elite immigrant sites, there was a particular burial area of distinction for the most eminent.85 The most resourceful leaders vacating the Peloponnesos for Athens were buried beneath Precinct XX in the northwest sector known as the Kerameikos. This cemetery remained the most prominent Athenian burial ground through to the mid-eighth century. These were elite Mycenaeans, but by contrast with the scepter-wielding entrepreneurial chieftains of Cyprus, Knossos North, Coldstream-Catling 1996, 641-643. Precinct XX, Ker. I, 180-221, Ker. IV passim. 85


Kratos & Krater Sourvinou-Inwood noted that a tradition of Pylians from Messenia moving into Attica was deeply rooted in the memory of the Greeks. She was the first to suggest the Kerameikos Precinct XX cemetery as the family burial ground of the Messenian Melanthos.86 No other Athenian burial site of this phase has a better claim to that distinction. Sited on rising land on the Eridanos South bank, Precinct XX was a small and exclusive cemetery, sheltered only adult individuals, and was homogeneous in terms of origins, high social status, and familial relations.87 Its early burial conformation suggests no more than two distinct burial groups, Melantho-Codrids and Alcmeonids, and only one following the transitional phase, when the MelanthoCodrids departed for Ionia and the Alcmeonids assumed sole usage. The restricted circumstances of the founders of this cemetery (ca. 1125 BC) suggest its denizens arrived in Athens as refugees. Its surviving burial contents are modest with few vestiges of wealth, for these were penurious times on the Mainland. Status even in a royal burial ground was reflected by the quality of the few ornate vases, the odd symbolic gift, a small amount of gold and weapons, and specialized, large scale tomb structure.

Fig. 16. Wild Style model tripod from Precinct XX Gr. SM 4

Precinct XX Gr. SM 22, the burial of a noblewoman, underwrites best the identification of the cemetery as a high-status, eupatrid cemetery appropriate to the Melanthid oikos. Her grave is the largest individual burial surviving from both transititional and Iron Age Athens. It was a cist grave, a simple trench type of burial that was becoming common on the Mainland at this time, but this was no ordinary cist tomb. Besides its enormous dimensions, it was of complex construction (Fig. 19). Moreover, the interred woman had been placed in a wooden sarcophagos, a common feature of elite Mycenaean burial. The grave goods also reflected elite Mycenaean ancestry, including gold, and some ornate pottery Desborough called Wild Style, that was of such quality that scholars assigned it to the Early Protogeometric rather than the transitional phase. A fine ceramic dowry chest decorated in this rare style is reflective of the original gold and ivory examples placed in elite Mycenaean tombs of the Peloponnesos (Fig. 18). Ceramic birds were another tomb gift typical of that region now found in Precinct XX and the adjacent Mound G.

Fig. 17. Wild Style krateriskos 23 from Precinct XX Gr. SM 1

The unique character of this Gr. SM 22 and its contents was likely an attempt to illustrate the woman’s origins and high status while maintaining a cist burial custom Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 21. Hellanicus, FGrH frgt. 125; Pherecydes, FGrH frgt. 155; Paus. II, 18, 7,7; VII, 2, 1-2, IX, 5, 6. Earliest near Brauron, onset of LHIIIC, Sourvinou-Inwood, 1974, 2. The party of Melanthos reportedly went to Eleusis through LHIIIC Middle, Demon FGrH 327, Strabo XIV, 633. King of Athens, Hdt. V, 65; Paus. II, 18, 7; Toepffer 1894, 2672-5. 87 Mountjoy, 1988, 24 f. fig. 22. 86

Fig. 18. Wild Style model dowry chest from Precinct XX Gr. SM 22


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 19. Precinct XX transitional-era tombs aligned with tomb (?) feature (star at left)

the Melanthids may have adopted at some point in place of the traditional chamber tomb of their origins. The cist was especially typical of Eleusis where Melanthos reportedly resided for a duration before moving on to Athens. In due course the Precinct XX cemetery expanded to become the highest status Iron Age burial ground in Athens through 800 BC, and it is the prime source for understanding the association between the Athenian kratos and krater.

customs were conveyed to the Athenian Precinct XX burial ground and adapted to conditions there: since the burials were cists rather than chamber tombs, the kraters were left in the vicinity of the cist grave perhaps following libation and possibly even left on the grave intentionally as a marker. The latest formally decorated Peloponnesian krater, found near a Submycenaean burial at Mycenae, has been proposed as a marker (as also the Warrior Krater), but its discovery in an ash layer suggests it could have been used first in libation at the pyre and/or dousing. In both Peloponnesos and Precinct XX standard kraters were not placed inside tombs. The graph (Fig. 35) and the Catalogue, give an idea of the widespread use of the krater at this burial site, which continued into the seventh and sixth centuries.

Status at the Precinct XX cemetery was uniquely demonstrated by the ritual use of the krater in burial, as it became the most significant vessel in Athens. A formally decorated krater fragment is preserved from the Acropolis suggesting that the Melantho-Codrid kings may have accessed the height and made use of the formal krater there (Fig. 86 left). However, most remaining Athenian krater remains were strayfind fragments from the Precinct XX area (selection Figs. 97, 99, 102, 104abcd). They are the residue from krater funerary rituals newly introduced from the Peloponnesos by these elite migrants during the transitional phase. The krater survived as the particular status symbol of the Alcmeonids for six-hundred years.

Melanthos, Neleid King, 1126-1089 In the historical reconstruction attempted here there is a debt to two scholars who have shown considerable interest in traditions of Mycenaean survivals in the ensuing Greek Culture: Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood and T. B. L. Webster.89 Several emigrating groups were reportedly led by Neleids from Messenia, descendants of King Nestor of Pylos reportedly expelled by the Heraclid Temenos. These were Alcmeon son of Sillos, son of Thrasymedes, Peisistratos son of Peisistratos, and Melanthos son of Andropompos.

Exclusive krater rituals were survivals of elite practices that had been characteristic of Achaia, Messenia, Elis and the Argolid: following the closing of chamber tombs, kraters and cups were used for a final libation to the deceased then left outside the tomb in the dromos. The custom dated from the palatial period, and survived in Messenia at least until the very latest burial that can be associated with Mycenaean elite, a LHIIIC Late chamber-tomb at Pylos. The custom occurred in LHIIIB and LHIIIC in the Argolid at Deiras, the latest being associated with cist burial and cremation. Sometimes the krater was broken on site, placed on the pyre, or left intact at the tomb, becoming a de facto burial marker. A LHIIIC Late krater at Elis with a prothesis scene must have been specially made for use in funerary ritual then left to mark a significant burial (Fig. 14).88 Similar

The arrival of Melanthos in Athens and his assumption of its kingship was only a tradition, but it appears to have been authentic. Reportedly, before coming to Athens Melanthos stayed for a duration at the ancient cult site of Eleusis, where he was appointed a priest of the local cult of Demeter.90 His associate and fellowvarious dates from LHIIIB onward, Deshayes 1966, 158 f. pls. XX, tombs XI, XXI, XXVIII, XXXV. Pylos LHIIC Middle, Mountjoy 1993, 99 f. fig. 265. Elis, LHIIIC Late, Crouwel 2009, 44, fig. 14. Mycenae, Submycenaean, Gr. Gamma 31, French 2009, 152, Desborough 1974, 91, Crouwel 2009, 41, fig. 2. Cult: Hägg – Nordquist 1990, 177-84. 89 Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 215-225. T. B. L. Webster 1961. 90 V. fn 3, and Demon F GrH, 327 A. Strabo 14, 633. The Aristotle that Strabo consulted was not necessarily the famous tutor. A fourth c.

The earliest preserved use of the krater in Peloponnesian tombs was at Aigion, LHIIIA-B, A. Papadopoulos, 1976, 38. Deiras Argolid, 88


Kratos & Krater Messenian Philaios occupied nearby Salamis. Ultimately both moved on to Athens. Whether Melanthos attained Athens via Salamis or a more direct route from Eleusis is unclear, but he is shortly recorded becoming involved in the affairs of Athens, whose monarch Thymoetes, said to be of the line of Theseus, was under stress (Paus II 18,8). It is recorded that he had been disputing Euboea unsuccessfully over the boundary with Oinoe amid suggestions of cowardice.

an earlier foundation for the Pompeion, with its first graves datable to LHIIIC Late. A perception of Precinct XX as a predominantly Iron Age installation has arisen from various circumstances. Briefly, its foundation date had been tied to the first row of burials initiated by the very large cist grave just discussed, Gr. SM22. The pottery in these burials was in a style new to Athens, termed Wild Style by Desborough, who viewed it as an Athenian innovation, rather than an import. He termed it Early Protogeometric for the checkerboard, circles and semicircles of the decoration. The ‘PG’ antefix applied to Precinct XX burials to distinguish them from the ‘SM’ burials of the Pompeion served to perpetuate that mistaken view, deterring closer analysis. In fact, Precinct XX and the Pompeion were contemporary installations, both founded from ca. 1125 BC.92 The broad divergence in the burial contexts of these cemeteries arises from their different concurrent pottery styles, which reflect the differing class status and origin of their burying groups. The small Precinct XX cemetery had uniform elite burial, excluded children, and had remains of numerous decorated kraters used in grave cult (Fig. 35 graph). By contrast, the vast Pompeion cemetery held every level of status, allowed child burial, and had a single krater fragment.93 While no more than two elite families buried in Precinct XX, the study of the human remains and pottery of the Pompeion reveal many family groupings, remote associations, and wide diversity.

Melanthos likely had first-hand experience dealing with such threats during his last stand against the Heraclids. He was able to settle the Oinoe dispute, and either took or was granted the Kerameikos area land for an encampment. At some point Melanthos replaced Thymoetes as king of Athens. In the absence of settlement remains in transitional Athens, he is mostly recognizable from the Kerameikos burial site found beneath the Precinct XX classical burial precinct (Fig. 68).91 Both Sourvinou-Inwood and I have associated this cemetery with his oikos and it is now clear that his fellow Neleids, the Alcmeonids, assumed sole control of Precinct XX for several hundred years following the departure of the Melantho-Codrids. There is more on Melanthos below, interwoven in speculation on the kind of governance he might have initiated based on his Peloponnesian origins. Under the rule of Melanthos the various Athenian communities, both local and immigrant, maintained their independence and loyalty to their own leadership, so Athens remained something less than a melting pot. The eupatrid leaders were backed by the economic advantages of land, either inherited in the case of indigenous Athenian oikoi, or acquired by immigrants when Melanthos became king. No habitation areas have been found, but they were likely at this phase simple encampments or hamlets in the vicinity of their respective burial grounds. Their early settlement patterns, cemeteries and access routes influenced the layout of the later city wall, gates and roads that evolved.

The earliest material from Precinct XX that could have resolved its foundation date is regrettably minimal thanks to the damage from the 6th c. Great Trench (Figs. 19, 20). It appears to have cut through the earliest Pre-Iron Age section of the cemetery, depositing some of its content on the sixth c. Great Mound G, the burial monument raised over the Archaic Alcmeonids. The Submycenaean and even Mycenaean ceramic found among ‘thousands of sherds’ stemming from the mound, did not escape the attention of the excavators.94 A few associations of mound sherds with vases from the Precinct XX burials suggest the mound fill came from the immediate vicinity, and Kraiker appeared to agree, estimating that the trench could have destroyed some 15-20 area ‘Submycenaean’ burials.95 Whatever

A Reassesment of the Foundation Date of the Precinct XX Cemetery Melanthos may have been involved in the founding of another new Kerameikos burial ground, located beneath the nearby Pompeion (Fig. 68). The Precinct XX and Pompeion cemeteries would appear to have little in common, including their foundation date, according to earlier analysts. At the time of their excavation, the relationship appeared to be sequential, namely

Mountjoy-Hankey 1988, 1-37, identified LHIIIC Late material in the Pompeion cemetery. 93 Kraiker, Ker. I, 109, AA 1933, 224, Krause 1975, 191. Kraiker was puzzled by the presence of late 12th c. material from the Mound, pondering whether the mound fill could have come from further afield, namely a burial site near the Dipylon Gate where earlier wares had come to light. 94 I was informed that the ceramic recovered from the Great Mound was ‘cleaned’ of many non-diagnostic Iron Age sherds following WWII. 95 Sherds from the Great Mound (G) joining with vessels found in the Precint XX area graves included among others several pyxis frgts, the well-known ceramic stag, Ker. IV, pl. 26, Ker. V,1, 5, several frgts. of 176 among others, and sherd 74 from the same krater as 73, found in Potamian PG Gr. 19 pyre debris (further v. discussion of sources preceding the Catalogue below). 92

historian Aristotle of Chalcis may have been one of his sources, Drews 95 fn. 19. 91 Melanthos received Kerameikos land and may also have been allotted land on the Oenoe border perhaps as portion and garrison. A deme Melainai was established there perhaps territory still associated with the early king in the classical era.


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 20. Precinct XX section with cut for the Great Trench at right

Fig. 21. The entrance to the tomb feature, blocked and unblocked

his conclusion, in sequel, the first published volume of the Kerameikos represented the Pompeion as the Submycenaean cemetery, and Precinct XX as the Protogeometric, with few qualifications.96

XX vicinity and Mound G. Elsewhere on the far side of the trench was Gr. SM 113, published by Lord-Smithson. My study of the unsorted strayfinds from the Precinct XX site adds a number of other early fragments, stirrup jars, kraters, pyxides and other shapes, some perhaps as early as Late Helladic IIIC Late, including remains of two almost identical early amphorae, Inv. 11238 (Figs. 30, 31). There is sufficient here to support that the Precinct XX cemetery was founded in the last quarter of the 12th c. contemporary with the earliest burials in the Pompeion.97

Styrenius and Lord-Smithson have since dated some of the first row of preserved graves along the south rim of the trench Submycenaean: inhumations SM 22 and 23, and cremations, 14 and 2. Gr. SM 13 is borderline, containing mostly Submycenaean pottery, together with one of the earliest attempts at compass-executed concentric circles. Styrenius, from his close familiarity with the Submycenaean phases of Saronic Salamis, determined that there were at least two main phases of Submycenaean burials represented in the Precinct 96

Kübler’s contouring of the cut-out out of the Great Trench (Fig. 19) suggests where some early burials Lord-Smithson 1961, 177. Styrenius 1967, 56 f., Submycenaean A & B. He lists Graves 22, 23, 24, 14, 113 in his Late Submycenaean B. Others term them EPG or Transitional. 97

Kraiker, Ker. I, 109, AA 1933, 224, Krause 1975, 191.


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 22. Birdseye view of tomb feature (star at left)

may have been located. The large Gr. SM 22 had been clipped at its lower end by the trench, so the destroyed burials may have extended out from that point where the trench cuts eastward. If one continues the line of existing burials eastward across to the farther bank of the Great Trench it coincides with a feature uncovered in the 1970s that excavators believed might have been the entrance to a small chamber tomb (designated as a star on the plan Fig. 53).98 Beyond a pair of photographs and a birdseye graphic (Figs. 21, 22) further investigation was not possible at that time. The feature is close enough to the Great Trench that it may have been disrupted by that activity.

intensive activity, including Archaic burials, city walls, moat and Sacred Gate, must have caused considerable destruction to the original installations. The Sacred Gate cemetery may have been an adjunct of the nearby Pompeion site, however, it had a higher level of funerary representation that related it more closely to the Precinct XX cemetery, with similar quality Bronze Age weaponry, Wild Style pottery, krater funerary rituals and cremation rites (it has the sole preserved cremation area in the Kerameikos). While inhumation predominated in the Pompeion cemetery and cremation was rare, the situation was the reverse in the Precinct XX and the Sacred Gate cemeteries. Cremation at this time may have been a defining elite form of burial for high ranking males as well as some females, as was the rite of krater funerary libation. It was probably founded contemporary with the other new Kerameikos sites, based on krater fragments. It soon lapsed, its folk likely departing with the MelanthoCodrids and most of the Pompeion folk on the Ionian Migration.

The Sacred Gate Cemetery Here one should consider another small, elite cemetery of the Kerameikos, the Sacred Gate site which was occupied by a small, elite burying group (Fig. 68, lower left). It comprised the rich Grs.145-146, and Grs. A and B, two nearby burials of young warriors distinguished enough to be associated with the others in a possible kinship relationship.99 There were probably more burials here than this scattering suggests: later 98 99

The Precinct XX Wild Style Pottery Identification of the small Precinct XX site as the family burial ground of Melanthos rests on its preeminence by comparison with other Athenian burial grounds

von Freytag 1975, 465 ff. Ruppenstein 2007, 30-35; Ker. I, 100-104.


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 23. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Malthi, pierced through the base for libation use

of that phase. It has richer burial contents and krater funerary customs that appear to be imported from the Peloponnesos.100 The contents of its burials, and its ornate, Wild Style pottery, described in more detail in the Krater Style section below. as well as the use of the krater in formal burial libation, set it apart. Athens had not used the krater in funerary libation during the Mycenaean era, although rhyta and kylikes saw such use, mostly outside Athens.101 Now a new formal Wild Style krater was introduced into the recently founded Precinct XX together with funerary krater rituals also new to Athens. There is a little Wild Style from a few finer burials of the Pompeion and Sacred Gate cemeteries, but the style is not typical of the Sub-Granary Style vessels that predominate in the Pompeion, Agora and elsewhere.

Fig. 24. LHIIIC Late bird krater from Mycenae, similarly pierced, and another from Tiryns

Precursors of the transitional Wild Style Athenian kraters found at Precinct XX were LHIIIC Late kraters from Malthi and Mycenae (Figs. 23, 24a) and a pyxis from Tragana, Messenia (Fig. 27). Shachermeyr has grouped these vessels with others into a Peloponnesian Nobelkeramik he terms his Peri-Peloponnesian style, which was especially typical on kraters on the western side of the Peloponnesos and Kephallenia.104 Based on the quality of the pottery and built tombs, he believes there was a center still existing in the area once focused on the Pylos palace. This style was brought to Athens by the inflow of new immigrant population that Finkelberg and Moschos detected moving eastward across the Peloponnesos in the terminal years of the Bronze Age. The Peloponnesian Nobelkeramik may appear an unlikely antecedent for the Athenian series, which has no figural decoration, but little figural iconography survived the rigors of the Mainland at the end of the Bronze Age. Desborough’s Mycenae Wild Style stirrup jar reflects those rigors. In my opinion it is an indigenous Peloponnesian product, one of the crudest last gasps of a migrating family, trying to provide the necessaries for a formal Mycenaean burial of a child, in the ruins of Mycenae.105

The nature and origin of the Wild Style have never been fully explained. Desborough noted the style had no relationship with preceding Athenian style, and concluded that it must have been a new creation of local Athenian potters, a short-lived phenomenon lasting only from the late Submycenaean phase, into Early Protogeometric.102 In the process of publishing a small Wild Style stirrup jar found in a Submycenaean burial at Mycenae (Gr. Gamma 31), Desborough assumed the style had been introduced into Mycenae from Athens.103 The Wild Style was neither Athenian, nor new, nor of short duration. It derived from Peloponnesian Nobelkeramik, a category of elite pottery studied by Schachermeyr, and more recently by Podzuweit. It is found at Mycenae, Tiryns, Pylos, Elis, Arcadia, the Corinthia, and several other Mainland sites, and constitutes the final phase of the late Mycenaean ‘flowering’. Rhyta and kylikes were used for libation in Attica. Cavanaugh 1977, 169 n. 65. 102 Desborough 1952, 4. 103 Desborough 1973, 96, pl. 35,cd.

Schachermeyr 1980, 115-122. Desborough 1972, 100-101. Some parallels with Messenia and Elis in the krater, stirrup jar and lekythoi. Eder 2009, 135.138-140. Moschos dated the stirrup jar’s context to his Achaian comparable






Kratos & Krater figures on the latest kraters were of necessity replaced with loops, spirals and then concentric circles even before the advent of the Iron Age. A 12th c. krater from Kition, an immigrant cemetery in Cyprus, reveals an intermediate stage in the process towards the austere Protogeometric era krater (Fig. 25).106 There are numerous shattered fragments of such antithetic circles and checkerboard center panels of kraters among the Precinct XX Iron Age strayfind fragments, as well as other Mycenaean motifs (Figs. 99, 104ad). The vertical panels style of the well-preserved, Mycenaean Kephallenia krater also survived, and is best illustrated in the well-known Munich krater, which represents the latest EPG phase of the Wild Style (Fig. 94ab).107 These panel kraters are not as common

Fig. 25. 12th c krater with central checker panel flanked by spirals, from Kition Cyprus

Fig. 26. Characteristic motifs of the transitional-era Athenian Wild Style

The krater was a highly significant vessel for the last elite Mycenaeans, who staved off its devolution while they could. However, the flanking birds and other

as circles kraters but are represented in the Iron Age strayfinds from Precinct XX, and attested by LordSmithson in the Protogeometric Agora. Other new

Phase 6a, his latest Mycenaean, transitional to Submycenaean. The krater found in association (Fig. 3) has been dated to the same phase by Mountjoy.

106 107


Kition, BCH 95, 385, Temple 2. Crete, Hattler 2008, 276, fig. 161. ADelt 5, 1919, 101 f. figs. 17-20. Mountjoy 1999, 465, fig. 169.

Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 27. Messenian Wild Style pyxis from Tragana

Fig. 28. Ker. 770 SM Wild-Style bowl of Peloponnesian type from Precinct XX Gr. SM 13

Fig. 30. Above, arcade motif on the shoulder of a LHIIIC Late vessel from Tiryns Megaron W. Below, fragments of Ker. 11238 from two or more similar SM Wild Style amphorae, c. 1100 BC

motifs entering Athens included the complex arcade motif evocative of the Argive Close Style on two or more identical amphorae Kerameikos 11238 (Figs. 30, 31). This finds a parallel at Tiryns LHIIIC Middle

Fig. 29. SM bowl Ker. 518, from the Great Mound


Kratos & Krater Some of the shapes of the Wild Style found at Precinct XX had also originated from the Peloponnesos. These were mainly symbolic vessels, related to ritual, affluence and social status: the krater, kantharos, dowry chest, ring vase, bird askos, tripod cauldron, and straight sided jar. Similar influence was scattering from the Argolid to Cyprus, including the mentioned Kition krater and a Proto-White Painted amphora displaying the same Argive complex arcade motif of Ker. 11238, together with Granary Style wavy lines on its belly (Fig. 32).109 The full evolution of the krater style from the latest Mycenaean down to its demise in the eighth century is detailed below in Chapter V. The Pompeion During the migration phase diverse groups of lower rank accompanied by status leadership moved into Athens and buried in various locations. Smaller groups settled in the Agora. The largest group of all settled the Pompeion burial ground in the Kerameikos (Fig. 68).The Pompeion’s motley group of inhabitants has been studied in detail in Ruppenstein’s Submycenaean study which includes useful pottery style sourcing and anthropological analysis.110 Its population had assimilated non-Mycenaean, even alien, elements, some with associations beyond Attica, and some even beyond the limits of Greece. There were material associations with non-Hellenic regions to the north and west, including remoter territories such as Albania. This suggests that the Pompeion burial ground represents Mycenaeans and assorted others funneling from the Peloponnesos and northern Greece, sometimes coalescing underway. Ruppenstein’s study might enable investigation of how this curious agglomeration of folk came together, some burying for a while on the island of Salamis, before a move to Athens related in the traditions.

Fig. 31. Reconstruction of amphorae Ker. 11238 from the Great Mound

The origin of some of the Pompeion denizens is plausibly identified as Salamis. The Salaminian and Pompeion cemeteries have similar layout and burial content. The Alltagsware of both cemeteries is also similar, both exhibiting influences from regions of the Peloponnesos, including Achaia, the Argolid and Messenia and the same standard shapes: amphoriskoi, bowls, cups, lekythoi and stirrup jars. Both the Pompeion and Salamis burial grounds constitute the common field of cist tombs found earlier in the Argolid.111 Kraiker, the excavator of

Fig. 32. Similar arcade motif on a Cypriote Proto-White Painted Amphora

Amphora: Benson 1973, pl. 18, K122; Others illustrated here: krateriskos, Ker. Inv. 518, with running spirals with dark filled centers typical of Tiryns LHIIIC Middle style, Ker. I, 125, pl. 48. A West Mainland Koine style bowl from Precinct XX Gr. SM 13, has the central checker flanked by columns of alternating diagonals, Ker. Inv. 770, Ker. I, pl. 61: Compare Podzuweit 2007 Beil. 78g, pls. 7,5. 17,6. 28,3, pl. 118,6; Mountjoy 1999, 634 f. fig. 244, No. 653. 110 Ruppenstein 2007, 269 f. 111 Deshayes 1966 241-3 notes that the Middle Helladic cist burial form may have survived through the Mycenaean phase in several areas. 109

Megaron W (Fig. 30 top).108 A selection of typical Athenian transitional era Wild Style motifs is depicted here (Fig. 87). Ker. 11238 (fig. 31) from the Precinct XX Great Mound G appears to be Athenian fabric. 108


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary the Pompeion, described the Salaminian pottery as the connecting link between the last Mycenaean pottery of the Argolid and the earliest in the Pompeion.112

eastward movement in her study of Dorian dialect in the Peloponnesos as it supplanted the indigenous dialects over the course of the 12th century.118 However, some of these ‘Achaean’ migrants may have been Pausanias’ ‘Ionians’ displaced at the end of the Bronze Age from Aegialus (the appellation of Achaea at that time). Movement is suggested by Pausanias’ report that the Salaminians were welcomed into Athens by King Melanthos, commenting that this was perhaps with a view to using them to reinforce Athens against potential Dorian incursion (Paus. 7.1.9).

The leader was probably Philaios, who is not mentioned among the prime oikoi who reportedly arrived in Attica from Messenia in the transitional years. However, he seems to have had an affiliation with Melanthos perhaps intially as a fellow Neleid attending Melanthos at Eleusis where the latter was appointed priest. Sourvinou-Inwood recounts a tradition of Philaios and others from Eleusis settling on Salamis, and Mylonas saw similarities between some of his unpublished Eleusinian pottery and that of the new Salaminian settlers.113 This occupation of Salamis was perhaps a preemptive measure by Melanthos to protect against Heraclids, who were still active nearby on the Peloponnesos. The island of Salamis was reportedly under the oversight of Philaios when he negotiated Athenian citizenship for his following.114 The Salamis Arsenal cemetery covers Styrenius’ Early to Middle Submycenaean.115 Philaios was the likely founder of the Philaid oikos that would later become prominent, maintaining a footprint in both Athens, and east Attica, where the deme Philaidai was later named for his oikos. I follow Sourvinou-Inwood in doubting Philaios’ descent from the hero Ajax, and positing his origins in Pylos (Philaios had been an early Pylian Bronze Age name).116 The later Salaminians likely claimed Philaios, attaching him to their hero Ajax in retrospect as his family gained stature in nearby Athens.

The Pompeion is the largest and most intriguing burial site in Athens at this time, as well as the shortest lived. Located near the Precinct XX cemetery, it could not have been more dissimilar. In terms of origins and rank, these two burial grounds are a testament to the continuation of Bronze Age status distinctions into the Iron Age. The sprawling 140 burial site is strung out under the Dipylon Gate and Pompeion, constituting mainly inhumation cist burials with the rare cremation. The graves were mostly equipped with modest pottery of a lower order, Schachermeyr’s Alltagsware, i.e. a Sub-Granary Style of Peloponnesian derivation with Argive and Achaian associations predominating. Its most frequent shapes were the common amphoriskoi, bowls, stirrup jars, and lekythoi. By contrast with the numerous elite krater remains found in Precinct XX, there was only a single strayfind krater fragment (3) from the entire Pompeion cemetery. Various ranks and origins represented in its tombs included menials equipped with low or no content at all, but there were a few leadership burials with fine content: personal items, gold, odd artifacts reflective of Mycenaean status, a few pieces of elite Precinct XX Wild Style and weaponry.119 Individuals of apparent differing status were occasionally buried in proximity to each other, perhaps higher rank with their ancillaries. However, some groupings have been interpreted as families.120 In spite of the differences between these two cemeteries, they probably had a relationship. It was most likely a complementary affiliation, namely a high status Mycenaean leadership group in the Precinct XX cemetery with auxiliaries and camp-followers under intermediate Mycenaean leadership in the nearby Pompeion.

Some joining the Philaios group may have been of Achaian origin to judge from some pottery style. The movement of an Achaian element across the Mainland has been studied in recent years by Moschos who detected such folk on the Corinthian gulf, dispersing eastward. He reports dramatic shrinkage of Achaian settlement beginning in his Phase 6a (latest Mycenaean) and concluding in his 6b, (Submycenaean). He posits Achaian potters accompanied the migrants, fabricating their characteristically dull but competent wares to standard, integrating into societies and dominating their pottery production in a process he defines as a species of colonization.117 Finkelberg traced similar Sourvinou-Inwood suggests they may have been assimilated during the Neleid sojourn in Eleusis, where the cist grave was the standard form of burial in the Late Helladic period. Besides Salamis and Athens, these cists crop up in Perati, where Sourvinou-Inwood sees evidence for two separate phases of immigration, the Mycenaean chamber tomb phase and the Submycenaean cist phase: Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218 f. 112 Kerameikos I, 134-138. 113 Mylonas 1936, 426, fn. 2. Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 217f. 114 Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218; Hdt. VI, 35; Paus. 7.1.9. 115 Styrenius 1962, 121-123, 1967, 39; Kraiker 1939, 134, on similarity of Salamis and Pompeion pottery. 116 Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218, Pylian tablet PY Un 249. I Ferguson, 1938, 16 f. Hdt 6, 35. 117 Moschos 2009, 239-241-288, esp. 239.

Finkelberg 2005, 136-146. SM 143, a ‘lavish’ child burial under the Dipylon SW tower, Ruppenstein 2007, 27 f. 276. 279. Gr. SM 114, with a fine Wild Style kantharos, Ker. 2728, askoi, and a ring vase. Grs. 136, and two Vor Dipylon groupings, Grs. 115-121, 142-144. 120 Mountjoy, 1988, 1-37, esp. 24 f. fig. 22. Her groupings differ from those of Krause in that the LHIIIC Late burials are not restricted to the west section, but are distributed around the cemetery, and gaps were filled in by later Submycenaean burials. Burial in family sites, she notes, is typical of Mycenaeans. Snodgrass studying the heterogeneity of the Pompeion cemetery suggested it may have represented a fratry. Fratries could be organized for various reasons, and with diverse participation, extending beyond clan or familial association, gathered towards the accomplishment of a particular purpose. Perhaps the ultimate goal had been moving on to Ionia. 118 119


Kratos & Krater Speculation on Athenian Governance during the Transitional Era

Iliad, which may have been one of the sagas already circulating in the more decentralized society that followed the fall of the palace era. From his experience of dispersed authority in Messenia Melanthos would have been familiar with a political landscape comprising different independent lineages and their communities.

Peloponnesian Influences: Messenia and the Argolid The situation in Athens at the end of the 12th century was critical. The Attic border at Oinoe was being challenged by Euboea. The inflow of immigrant groups represented an array of potentially competing baronies, any one of which might decide they had sufficient power to take over Athens. The immigrants would soon help produce a viable Athenian society, but for now they remained wholly independent communities within the larger settlement of Athens, no doubt sizing up the competition. A rudimentary concept of Athens behind which the groups could unite did not exist at that point.

As Melanthos now confronted some of those independent lineages in the mixed population that Athens had become, he may have assumed that confrontation in the context of absolute royal status was not a viable option. It might have promoted the creation of one or more like-minded cartels that would oppose his monarchy. Establishing good relations with all the various factions, within and encircling Athens, would have been more logical. This may have prompted Melanthos instinctively not to exercise absolute monarchical control, but to tolerate the coexistence of the independent oikoi alongside his own kingship. The eupatrids were fellow Mycenaeans, who were becoming an endangered species on the Mainland. He was one such himself.

Traditions report that the Neleid Melanthos, scion of an elite Pylian house, whose ancestor had reportedly fought in the Trojan War, now became king of Athens. He had gained an edge by helping to secure Athens’ threatened Oinoe border, demonstrating attributes of leadership that Athens required at this juncture. His Neleid stock had descended from entrepreneurial houses with traditional talents in manufacturing and seaborne commerce. In their native land they had produced elite wares, fine pottery and had built ships to hawk their goods abroad. The small lineage tradition of Pylos, described in the previous chapter, may have survived, enabling a decentralized, post-palatial Mycenaean elite to remain viable until the end of the Bronze Age. Not surprisingly some of the lengthiest survivals of Mycenaean elite culture had been in West Greece, and especially Messenia, where petty chieftains and basileis had coexisted since the palatial era. These associations and a union of small lineage systems may have allowed the Messenian elite to consolidate and survive the predation of Temenos until the end of the Bronze Age.121 At that point three noble Neleid houses the Melanthids, Alcmeonids, and Peisistratids, finally left the Peloponnesos, and now one of their number ruled Athens.

Insofar as one can judge his policies on the paucity of evidence, his rule was beneficial. He may have stressed the need for ongoing collaboration of the subcommunities for the settlement’s defense, the acquisition of food and other resources, and land use, if Athens was to survive. The local eupatrids would have retained their status quo on ancestral landholdings. The prime need was for sustenance and domicile for the newly arrived. He may have met with group leaders informally to help organize their allotments and settlement process. Sites sprang up around the periphery of the settlement as each community settled its own hamlet under its own traditional leadership (its burial ground now the only surviving evidence of its location). The individual allotments could have been of various sizes, based on the size of the clan. If modelled on Messenian prototypes, they would have enclosed a number of independent dwellings and subcompounds of various purpose. This would have allowed individual leaders practical oversight over their own clan or oikos, whether for household activities, plant and animal husbandry, pottery manufacture and other kinds of industries of the type undertaken in Bronze Age oikoi. Spatial needs and room for expansion may explain why the larger immigrant groups, the Melanthids, Alcmeonids, Philaids and Vasilissis Sophias folk, were set further out on the periphery, at a remove from Athens’s central habitation area. This would have allowed them more access to remoter land for crop cultivation and pastoral activities and the further expansion of their hamlets.122 Some groups, such as the Alcmeonids and Philaids, retained their sites for centuries (Fig. 15).

The absence of settlement remains impedes clear understanding of the kind of governance Melanthos exercised in Athens, but his Messenian origins and traditions may explain why his takeover of Athens would have been advantageous for his new domicile. Melanthos now ruled a settlement that comprised a number of different immigrant communities, some led by individuals who had been leaders in their site of origin. Some may not have been comfortable ceding to the dictates of a new Athenian monarch. There was an intolerance of absolute monarchs in some quarters that is reflected in the depiction of Agamemnon in the 121

Rich burials at Kiphisia, D. Schilardi, Volos Conf. 2007 Abstracts, 36 f., deemed comparable to those of the Kerameikos and Irian Gate 122

Small 1998, 283-291.


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary Tiryns

Melanthos’ tolerance of pluralism may have secured him the initial allegiance of the eupatrid leaders. There is little doubt that he had the leadership essential to the task. His noble house remained in oversight of Athens for some fifty years. Thereafter, the new Iron Age constitution incorporated concepts that might have originated from the his experiences, foremost the idea of the semiautonomous status of the aristocratic oikoi alongside limited monarchical control, which the settlement process practically mandated from the outset.

In a situation that could have been chaotic for settlement, Melanthos may have interceded some civic structure from his former Messenian experience, bringing a modicum of commonality to the community, but the weighty Neleid contingent was probably not alone in influencing events in Athens. Tiryns, not Mycenae, stood as a model of successful postpalatial governance on the Peloponnesos as more settled conditions lapsed after the mid-12th c. Tiryns underwent extensive reorganization of its acropolis, the Oberburg, following the era of palatial destruction. Joseph Maran describes how free space was opened up, and a formerly sequestered altar was given wider access for a broader sector of the population to witness rituals. The same mood was suggested in the new openness and informality of the architecture. Routes leading to the formerly sequestered Oberburg were now more direct and inviting.124

Melanthos himself may have preferred not to preside over Athens from a palace or any formal personal dwelling on the Acropolis, as had earlier Athenian kings. None of the leaders who had migrated into Athens, whether basileus or chieftain, was a monarch in the traditional sense of the word. All the independent immigrant leaders were essentially refugees, of modest assets and domain, even Melanthos. Messenian leaders had likely not lived in presumptuous residences, distanced from their people, since the fall of Pylos. Especially during the latest Bronze Age, tribal leaders would have occupied smaller, independent structures, perhaps similar to the chieftain’s dwelling reconstructed for the later Nichoria settlement.123 The most prominent of the leaders would probably have been no more authoritative than Odysseus, dispossessed king of Ithaca, who is portrayed as not too proud to chat with his swineherd. The Odyssey reflects the view of a folk still aware of a grander past, but with no knowledge of the true reality of existence during the earlier times, so filling their saga with details from the contemporary scene.

Like post-palatial Messenia, Tiryns may no longer have been subject to an absolute monarch of palatialera character, and it appears to have been a more cosmopolitan center than Athens in its final century. The burial of a knight in his armor, and the Tiryns Treasure suggest affluent eupatrids may have participated in the center’s governance. The structures and pottery in the lower town, illustrated by Megaron W, support prosperous merchants and industry. Significantly, the building that replaced the former king’s megaron complex was a simple meeting hall. These measures provided a setting for what Maran characterizes as the ‘integrative power of social communication’, something greatly needed in Athens in the last quarter of the twelfth century.125

A streak of egalitarianism has been attributed here to the character of Melanthos, but from his experiences he may have been more pragmatic than doctrinaire, an able leader dealing creatively with the challenges Athens presented him. He may have chosen to dwell in his Kerameikos allotment like the other eupatrids, near his cemetery and the safety provided by his auxiliaries, who may have been the contingent burying in the large, nearby Pompeion cemetery. Surveying the ranks of immigrant groups gathered in Athens, he may have perceived that once the dust had settled on resettlement, competition for hegemony among some of the coequal communities might have arisen, as actually happened in sequel with the curbing of the Medontids. There existed no loyalty to a concept of Athens at this time. David Small has documented where the small lineages of Messenia bestowed their allegiance, and it was to the independent oikos, rather than some centralized authority. This was probably the case, initially, in transitional era Athens.

The developments in both Messenia and Tiryns may have influenced the evolution of Athens during the transitional era. By the end of the 12th c. Tiryns’ days were numbered as its elite left the citadel, some perhaps travelling to Athens. Among pottery items of obvious Peloponnesian influence found at Precinct XX such as Ker. 11238, there are a few imports from that region (Figs. 28, 29).126 There are also plenty of Argive immigrant burials with lower status pottery in the Athenian Agora comparable to those of the Kerameikos Pompeion. The Prytaneion Transitional era Athens had a system of dispersed Mycenaean lineages, a situation that had existed in Messenia. Most concerns could be handled within the Maran & Stockhammer, Oxford 2012, 129. Maran & Stockhammer 2012, 121-136. 126 Ker. Inv. 11238 amphorae, Inv. 518, Ker. I. pl 48, T 22 from the Great Mound. 124

cemeteries await full publication, as also the Vasilissis Sophias cemetery in Athens, AR 30 (1983-84), 7. 123 Mazarakis Ainian, 2011, frontispiece.



Kratos & Krater context of the lineage, but others such as common defense would require the broader participation of the community. By the end of the 11th c. there was already a eupatrid council in oversight over the new constitution that was instituted at that time. It is unlikely that this was a king’s consultative council, in light of its independent stance in eliminating Medontid rule. More logically it would have arisen during the more benign rule of Melanthos, formed of representative leaders of the oikoi to address matters of common concern. Athenian Bronze Age monarchs would normally have hosted council deliberations, cult activities, and the necessary paraphernalia in their living complex, the megaron, of which there are earlier traces on the Acropolis (Fig. 34). It is not clear that such a structure existed at this time and or whether Melanthos would have favored it as his habitation if it did. A royal megaron may not have been viewed as an appropriate venue for a representative council of eupatrid noble houses. A move to a distinct council building in Athens would have removed the representative council’s deliberation from the absolute control and formality inherent in a king’s megaron.

as the king’s residence.129 An Athenian king is recorded occupying the Boculium for cult activity that involved a ritual marriage of the king’s wife to Dionysos related to the Anthesteria festival. Thucydides reports this was an old festival in honor of Dionysos, preceding the Ionian Migration and perhaps even the Trojan War (Thuc. II 15,4). The celebration was exclusive to Athens and Ionia, and the latter location suggests it had an association with the Melantho-Codrids, who migrated to Ionia. The priesthood of Demeter was bestowed on Melanthos following his arrival in Attica, and was held by his descendants following their migration to Ionia.130 Melanthos’ Eleusinian connections may have initiated the celebration of the Anthesteria in Athens. An Eleusinian seer, Skiros of Eleusis, went on to establish an Athena cult in Athens, an event that would likely have occurred only during the Melantho-Codrid phase of rule. There are several points of contact between Eleusis and the significant Neleid nobility of Athens that outlasted the rule of the Melantho-Codrids. Good relations between the two locations continued later under the Neleid Alcmeonid dynasty, perhaps following the demotion of the Medontids in the late 11th c. The Eleusinians acquired a fine formal krater of the Jewel Workshop (LPG/EGI) the first large consortium krater found outside Precinct XX and the Acropolis. It was perhaps a gift to Eleusis from King Megacles. Finally, it may be no more than coincidence that the family burial site of the Kerykes, one of the two sacred families who supervised the Eleusininan Mysteries, is the huge Tomb 9, located nearby the Melantho-Alcmeonid Precinct XX cemetery on the Sacred Way.131 One wonders whether the site of Eleusis was significant enough to have provided Athens with an Iron Age King. If so, that would have been Thespieos, q.v. (824-797). Only one other instance of this royal name is attested: the proposer of a fifth c. decree concerning the epistatai of Eleusis (PAA 513120). Under Peisistratos of Athens, also a Neleid, the Eleusinian Mysteries became an important PanHellenic festival.

The need was probably met by the construction on the Acropolis of the Prytaneion.127 This building’s nomenclature confirms it was constructed specifically to house the activities of a prytanis (chief councilor) and his council members. The term prytanis is Mycenaean. The Prytaneion likely had uses extending beyond council, perhaps early judicial processes, religious activities and other celebrations. Herodotus reports that it was used for the assembly of various Mainland leaders participating in the Ionian Migration, whose departure (c. 1070 BC) gives a terminus for its construction. The general lack of prosperity during this transitional era, and the absence of identifiable cuttings or other remains on the Acropolis suggest the Prytaneion was a sizeable wooden structure rather than stone.128 It may have had Peloponnesian antecedents, the most clearly demonstrated being the Post-palatial meeting house erected on the Tiryns Oberburg. The term Prytaneion seems to have survived until the main council of Athens, the Boule, was established in the lower city in the historical period.

The Ionian Migration Melanthos was succeeded by his son Codros, said to rule Athens for 21 years (1089-1068). Codros was reportedly killed below the the south wall of the Acropolis defending Athens from a Heraclid attack.132

Cult The Prytaneion has left just a few traditions, including its role in the Ionian Migration and its location on the Acropolis ‘near the Boculium’ which Aristotle records

Aristotle, Athenian Constitution III, trans. Sir Frederic G. Kenyon: ‘The King occupied the building now known as the Boculium, near the Prytaneum, as may be seen from the fact that even to the present day the marriage of the King’s wife to Dionysus takes place there. The Archon lived in the Prytaneum.’ 130 Strabo 14, 633. His source was not necessarily the famous philosopher, but could have been the fourth c. historian Aristotle of Chalcis. Drews 1983, 95 fn. 19. Demon F GrH, 327 A. 131 U. Knigge, 1991, 94-98. 132 His death at the hands of ‘Peloponnesians’ near the Ilissos Stream, Paus. I, 19, 6. 129

Vanderpool, Hesperia 4, 1935, 470 fn. 3. Prytaneion on the Acropolis, L. P. Holland, AJA 43, 1939, 289 f. Others sources for the building, Coldstream 1984, 14 fn. 19. 128 Other large wooden structures, the tenth century tomb building at Lefkandi; the Daphnephoros long house at Eretria, a meeting hall furnished with the remains of a consortium krater positioned on a clay pediment, suggesting rituals or consortium, Eretria, AntK 44, 2001, 86. 127


Chapter III Kratos & Krater – Introduction & Summary

Fig. 33. Atticizing pottery found in the destruction layer over the Mycenaean fortification wall of Miletus, one of the destinations of the Ionian Migration

Dying before the walls of Athens in the settlement’s defense would have given Codros a reputation worth conserving in any Melantho-Codrid bardic tradition carried to Ionia. His heroic defense of Athens was the last bard-worthy tradition to be remembered in Athens for some time.

Herodotus relates that attacking and siezing some existing Ionian settlements had been planned before the departure from Athens. Women were reportedly excluded from the migration, at least for the overthrow of Miletus which was undertaken by Athenians. The plan was to conquer the settlement and intermarry with the local Carian women after killing their families. Such a brutal, premeditated incursion with no provocation to justify it is probably authentic, held in the record of the Ionians, if not the Athenians. There will be no discussion here of the foundation traditions of the new Ionian sites, which have been picked over by scholars for nearly a century. Hopefully the refurbishment of other traditional data, such as the King List surveyed below, will gain the traditions of the migration a reappraisal. Notable points of common culture between the Athenians and Ionians in sequel included the Ionian calendar, unique to Athens and Ionia, as also the celebration of the traditional festival of the Anthesteria, discussed earlier.134 Further support for an Athenian takeover comes from Desborough’s observation of Athenian Wild Style krater fragments found on and in the destruction layer of the Miletus fortification wall, evidence perhaps of a celebratory victory libation (Fig. 33).135

About fifty years after the reported arrival of Melanthos in Athens, Codros’ sons reportedly assembled Mainland leaders on the Acropolis for the migration to Ionia.133 The Ionian Migration was reportedly initiated by leaders of several Mainland regions gathering on the Acropolis. Such migrations might have coincided with the termination of burial in the Pompeion, Salamis, and Sacred Gate cemeteries, and the Alcmeonids receiving full possession of the Precinct XX cemetery from the departing Melantho-Codrids. The role of Athens in an Ionian Migration is sometimes discredited as a Classical era intrusion justifying Athens’ imperialistic claims to parts of Ionia, but it almost certainly occurred. Supporting authenticity for the venture are some odd specifics demonstrating a commendable concern with preserving details of the incursion irrespective of their significance or detriment to Athens’ reputation. Herodotus reports the campaign was organized on the Athenian Acropolis at the Prytaneion, and drew leaders with their followers from several Mainland regions. Among them were Athenians led by the sons of Codros, obscure Euboean Abantes, Epidaurian Dorians, and Achaeans (the latter were possibly descendants of the Aigialean Ionians who may be the folk who left traces of their earlier passage through Salamis and the Pompeion). 133

Most burial in the Kerameikos now lapsed, including the Melanthid area of Precinct XX, which concurs with the tradition that they led the Ionian Migration. Also lapsing were the Sacred Gate burial site, and all but a few status sites of the Pompeion, which supports the Coldstream 1984, 14, fn. 19. Desborough 1964, 163, 233, Desborough 1972, 179-184, 344. Miletus: P. Hommel, ‘Der Abschnitt Östlich des Athena-Tempels,’ IstMitt, 9-10, 1959-60, 37 f., pls. 51-5 (pl. 51, 1-3 were found in the destruction layer). 134 135

Atthis, Gaetano de Sanctis (Florence 1975) 9.79 f. fn. 71.


Kratos & Krater tradition of a large diversified population on the move. As the Melantho-Codrids left, their Wild Style pottery lapsed at Precinct XX, preserved only by the surviving Alcmeonids on a few traditional symbolic vessels, such as the krater.

sequel. The incoming noble lineages that had settled in Athens had brought some important features of Peloponnesian Mycenaean culture to the settlement during these transitional years. As Melanthos addressed the lineages’ desire for autonomy with the communities needs for order and collaboration, he was inadvertently laying the groundwork for the ensuing Iron Age constitutional monarchy. It was to Athens’ ultimate benefit that the new eupatrid groups remained in the settlement at this time, and not just for Athens’ defense. While some lineages moved on, others made Athens their permanent home, including the Alcmeonids, Philaids, Peisistratids and Codrids. These and others, names unknown, combined with notable local lineages to preserve traditional features of an elite Mycenaean civilization that had mostly evaporated in the Peloponnesos. These survivals help explain why the ethos of Attica was so different from that of the Peloponnesos during the ensuing historical period, and why Athens and not Sparta played the prime role in shaping the subsequent classical civilization.

Codros’ defence of Athens, and when that failed, the campaign that brought a strong Mainland Greek presence to Ionia, were notable undertakings. Strategic planning was required to assemble a considerable host under Melantho-Codrid leadership to settle coastal Ionia. In organization and number participating, it pales only by comparison with the Trojan War. Whether the Mainland incursion was a flight to safety or a brutal onslaught on inhabitants who were in some cases perhaps distant relatives, in due course Ionia flourished, making a significant contribution to the evolving Greek civilization. The legacy this period left to Athens was immeasurable in terms of the development of the settlement in


Chapter IV

The Kratos of the Iron Age ‘The gloomy Bauernfolk have been banished forever’ John Coldstream, quoting Evelyn Lord Smithson following the discovery of the Agora Rich Lady grave

Some kind of watershed occurred in the 11th c. such that Codros was remembered in traditions as the last Athenian king. No bards appear to have touted the achievements of the ensuing Medontid regime or any Iron Age king. The age seems to have been afflicted with amnesia. Some creative reconstruction of the small amount of surviving information can suggest a rough outline for the period, which was apparently less retrograde than it has been depicted. Enlightening it was a new constitution which held the seeds of what was to evolve centuries later into a system of representative government. This late 11th c. constitution can probably be traced to Melanthos’s temperate efforts to bring order to Athens by tolerating independent lineages coexisting with his rule. He may have provided a Prytaneion as a venue for their leaders to meet, a situation that appears to have survived into the Iron Age as the Areopagos Council, the main force behind the constitution. Following the end of the Melantho-Codrid dynasty, with the death of Codros, and the movement to Ionia, Athens came under the control of the anomalous Medontid monarchy.

agree with Wallace that the council must have met in the Prytaneion which bears the name of its prytaneis (councilors), and which we know from the assembly for the Ionian Migration was already in existence at this time.136 Perhaps there was a period of time when the prytaneis could not meet in the Prytaneion, and if that was the case, the most likely occasion would have been during the rule of the two early Medontid kings. Hurwit in his study of the Acropolis notes that the Acropolis ceased to be the residence of Athenian kings at the end of the Late Helladic period. He believed that from the mid-eleventh century it had become a small settlement and cemetery, based on the remains of 14 poorly equipped graves, all but one, burials of children.137 The remains of crude dwellings of stone and mud brick abutting the Cyclopean Wall suggest the location of some simple dwelling spaces. The child burials were cists, which followed a common pattern of burial of children in proximity to dwellings. In Chapter III, ‘The Athenian Prytaneion’ there is discussion of buildings that may have been in use on the Acropolis, including the Prytaneion, from its name, a council meeting hall, and nearby it the Boculium, a building used in some cultic manner by the king. The Prytaneion had reportedly served as an assembly point for the 1070 BC Ionian Migration organized under the MelanthoCodrids. It is not certain whether it continued in use as a meeting hall for prytaneis under the Medontids.

The Medontid Kings The new dynasty of Medon ruled very briefly before it was sidelined from actual rule of Athens. In spite of its purported Melantho-Codrid ancestry, which appears dubious, this was a wholly new and different dynasty. A detailed consideration of Medon (1068-1048) appears below, v. ‘Who was Medon’. For now, one can surmise that Medon lacked the political acumen of the Melantho-Codrids in dealing with the eupatrid oikoi and their leadership. He may not have been seated as ruler of Athens without controversy, and he left his son Acastus (1048-1012 BC) unable to cope with the consequences. Medon’s first problem may have been prejudice towards a council of prime eupatrids likely constituted under the more tolerant climate of the Melantho-Codrids. Lacking Melanthos’ deft touch he may have tried to reshape it, reducing its status and possibly restricting access to the Prytaneion meeting hall. Why was the council now named for the Areopagos, the saddle-shaped outcropping that arises below the entrance into the Acropolis? (Fig. 34). I

Hurwit notes the burials belong to the Submycenaean period 1065-1000BC, years which roughly coincide with the rules of the two Medontid kings (Medon onset 1068 and Acastus demise 1012 BC). Did Medon decide to take over the Acropolis, with the Prytaneion as his seat of control? Are the few burials found on the Acropolis around this Medontid era associated with his regime’s occupancy? Did the eupatrid council then decide to Wallace 1989, tends to underrate the contribution of the Areopagos in early years, and argues against Aristotle (Ath. Pol.). that there was no aristocratic council meeting on the Areopagos until Solon established the council of former archons who advised the king and met with him in the Prytaneion. That this court was not in origin nor at any time before Solon a council of the aristocracy. The support for the King List provided here gives Aristotle’s views more credence. 137 Hurwit 1999, 83-84.88. 136


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 34. The Areopagos, its relationship with the Acropolis and geographical context

meet less formally on the Areopagos? None of these questions can be answered with certainty, but they are suggestive. There is a preserved memory of an ‘agora’, a place of assembly at the Areopagos. The site’s saddle conformation would have made it a suitable gathering point for groups of various sizes (Fig. 34). However, it is doubtful that the Areopagos Council would have used the site willingly as a place for deliberation. An exposed location, it can be chilly during winter.138

Areopagos Council as arbiter over the rule of Athens. Our main sources for this ‘document’ are Aristotle and Pausanias. Following the oath’s implementation, no Medontid appears to have held power in Athens until the mid-eighth c. In a study of the Areopagos Council Wallace expressed doubt in a body that was not clearly distinguished with regard to function: whether court or council. Such a distinction would have been immaterial at this early time, especially if the council dated back as early as the Melanthos era. As a representative institution serving the oikoi, its functions would not have been so officially delineated as they were during the Archaic period. Its role could have embraced a variety of needs for orderly process in Athens’s unique circumstances during the complex transitional phase, including general oversight, and whatever passed for jurisdprudence at that time. From the end of the 11th century the role of the Areopagos remains unclear except for its responsibility in ratifying those nominated for the post of life-king, and perhaps presiding over murder trials as cited by Pausanias. It is of interest that the Codrids, following their Ionian Migration, installed a similar council of pritaneis, under similar moderate royal oversight in their new settlement. The bridge between representative government and absolute monarchy was not always as successful as it was in Athens, sometimes reverting to tyranny. A later prytanis at Miletus had sufficient authority to establish himself as tyrant. In a similar case a moderate Corinthian government led by a succession of pritaneis was replaced when the polemarch Kypselos became tyrant.

Whatever the case, the Areopagos Council, probably with the backing of the eupatrid oikoi, appears to have decided upon an activist approach in its role as council. Some of the underlying structure and ethos established under the Melantho-Codrids may have persisted and now emerged following Medon’s death, if not before. The council as a representative body had stature, and if the oikoi represented chose to pool their resources they could form a critical mass. That the council continued to meet and made fervent plans possibly amid pique, is suggested by the bombshell it landed upon Medon’s successor, Acastus. By then it is clear that the council had spent considerable time analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of different types of governance, evolving ideas that would be incorporated into a new constitution. A eupatrid cartel must have felt sufficiently organized and authoritative to support the council as it approached Acastus, Medon’s successor and asked him to swear an oath regarding the nature of his office. This was effected and subsequently a new constitution was successfully implemented. If the council had lost the Prytaneion it now had full control over it, and much more, but perhaps the eponym of Areopagos was retained from pride in achieving a remarkable goal. It is not clear whether the occasion of the oath also incorporated the terms of the constitution, a fundamental new understanding that appointed the 138

Who was Medon? In the traditions handed down to the historical era from this alliterate age, Medon was a son of Codros, and he reportedly assumed the rule of Athens in 1068 BC

Coldstream 1984, 13 f. fn. 19.


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age as the other sons departed on the Ionian Migration.139 The circumstances of Medon’s takeover of the rule of Athens are apocryphal to say the least. There was of course a saga to explain it. Pausanias relates that following Codros’s death there was a contest for the throne between his two eldest sons: Neileus and Medon.140 The brothers reportedly made recourse to the Delphic Oracle presenting a case which somehow involved Medon’s lame foot. The seer selected Medon as the most appropriate king of Athens. The questions pile up. Neileus would be an ancestral Neleid name. The name Medon by contrast is Argive, unlikely for a scion of the illustrious line of Neleus. This is a rather lame tale (pun intended) which raises other outstanding questions. If Medon had been a true son of Codros there should have been no new eponym for his lineage. His ‘brothers’: were known as the Codridai, and their father Codros was reportedly the last king of Athens, but Medon’s house was referenced always as the Medontidai. There is also the question of where the Medontids buried their dead if they were indeed the royal house of Athens. No burial ground can be associated with the Medontids with certainty. Early in my research on the Athenian kratos, I believed the Medontids must have buried their dead with their purported Melantho-Codrid ancestors at Precinct XX, which in the Geometric period had the richest burial contexts prior to the eighth c. However, based on fairly consistent funerary cult practices at Precinct XX, and concurrences with the oikos of two Alcmeonid kings on the King List supported by archaeology, it was clear that following the departure of the MelanthoCodrids to Ionia, the cemetery harbored Alcmeonids rather than Medontids. This was later confirmed by the continuation of the Precinct XX cemetery and its culture under the Alcmeonids in the Archaic period, bolstered with some epigraphic evidence.

stopping short of taking Athens. They withdrew to nearby Megara, which became a permanent Heraclid settlement, its dialect suggesting the limits of Dorian penetration towards Attica. Some slight evidence for combat comes from the Kerameikos Sacred Gate cemetery, where three young Submycenaean knights were the last to be interred at this small cemetery before its lapse, when the group may have participated in the migration to Ionia. The youngest, between 8.511.5 years old, still had the arrow that killed him at his shoulder. His only burial item, a lekythos, adorned with vertical squiggle and an airhole, is datable to the same latest Submycenaean phase as the death of Codros.141 The Melantho-Codrids had ruled Athens for over fifty years, and had successfully repelled the Heraclid attackers so it is questionable why they departed at the point when they had won out and peace prevailed once more. The behavior of the marauding Heraclids is also inexplicable. They had reportedly just killed the leader of Athens one of the last redoubts on the Mainland, with a fine, walled citadel, the acquisition of which would have consolidated the Heraclids’ hold on the southern Mainland. Most of the manpower supporting the Athenian Melantho-Codrid monarchy, including the heirs to the throne, had withdrawn to Ionia leaving Athens available for the taking, but instead of pressing their advantage while Athens was in a weakened state, the Heraclids withdrew to settle the lesser site of Megara, leaving Medon as king. This does not meet the scrutiny of the exploits attributed to Aletes the Wanderer, scourge of the Peloponnesos.142 In sequel Athens remained inviolate, so perhaps Medon had some entrée with the Heraclid attackers and those who had populated nearby Megara. In a further leap of logic, perhaps Medon was himself a Heraclid. The main explanation for all of these inconsistencies proposes a new, non-Neleid ancestry for Medon. There is an uncanny similarity between the fortunes of the Athenian Medon and those of Medon son of Argive Ceisus as related in the traditions. The Argive Medon was reportedly grandson of the powerful Heraclid Temenos, leader of the Return, conqueror of both Messenia and the Argolid, who had driven the displaced Neleids, Melanthos, Alcmeon, and Peisistratus to seek haven in Attica during the 12th c. The accounts of the two Medons are so similar in certain details that they may represent a conflation of traditions by chroniclers. Pausanias tells us that Medon son of Ceisus and his descendants had their power diluted because the Argives ‘from the earliest times have loved freedom

The Kynosarges area burials south-east of the Acropolis are the best possibility for the burial ground of the Medontids. They have only two phases of prosperity and both coincide with the only two phases when the Medontids actually held power: one during the eleventh century and the other from the mid-eighth c. when they retook the rule of Athens from the Alcmeonids. The Kynosarges cemetery was recognized by Coldstream for the highest social scale at that time, discussed further in the ‘Search for the Kings in the Burial Ground’ section below. Medon’s filial relationship to Codros reported by Pausanias is doubtful in my opinion, and there appear to be further reasons for its rejection. Traditions report that Heraclids under Aletes the Wanderer had attacked Athens, killing Codros, but

Grs. A and B, Ker. I, 100-104, pls. 29-32. Gr. 147, Anna Lagia, Ker. XVIII, pp. 35. 279, pl. 40, Gr. 147. The arrow was found at the shoulder region, and is believed to have caused ‘serious injury of the musculature and peripheral pathway of the arm’ and haemorrhaging, that would have contributed to the youth’s death. 142 Megara was a Dorian settlement. 141

Paus. 7.2.1-3. Lubegil 1871, 539-564 studied this phase in detail. It is outdated, written before Aristotles’ Ath. Pol. but it raises interesting questions, and includes excerpts of the original Greek text. 139 140


Kratos & Krater their takeover. This would also have been a propitious time to establish a Kynosarges festival celebrating Heracles near the Medontid burial ground and estate. There is further discussion of Medontids links to the Kynosarges area below. The Medontid Nemeses: Eupatrids & the Areopagos Council Medon’s Neleid ancestry, contrived or not, should have been easy to insert in the record by comparison with the fabrication of a three hundred year Medontid rule that invites even more scrutiny. Remarkably both have remained generally unquestioned over the centuries. Both can be dismissed in light of the establishment of a eupatrid constitution at the end of the 11th c. that resulted in more than two centuries of circulating life-kingship. The most conclusive evidence against Medon’s Neleid affiliation is the almost complete failure of Medontid rule in the hands of his successor Acastus. The eupatrids initiated their own system of governance not only because the Medontids lacked diplomacy in dealing with them, but also because the Medontids may have lacked appropriate blood lines. If Medon had been a legitimate Melantho-Codrid there would have been less resistance towards his Medontid ‘monarchy’, but it spent the greater part of the Iron Age on the sidelines in a purely ceremonial role as the rule was circulated repeatedly among other eupatrid houses under the terms of the new constitution.

and self- government, and they limited to the utmost the authority of their kings, so that to Medon, the son of Ceisus, and to his descendants was left a kingdom that was such only in name’ Paus. II,18.1-2. Since the circumstances he describes, namely ‘a kingdom… only in name’ can be demonstrated both traditionally and archaeologically for the Athenian Medon, it would appear that the Argive and Athenian Medons may have been confused in the traditions. Certainly the Athenian accounts have more validity, supported by the traditions, the sequence of Athenian life-kings in the newly credible king lists, and also supported by archaeology. It is also notable that the ‘love of freedom and self-government’ imputed to the Argives is what prompted the Athenian eupatrids to curtail the absolute Medontid monarchy before the end of the 11th c. However, our understanding of the chronologies of these early times is not such that we should exclude another interpretation of Pausanias’s tradition: that the Argive and Athenian Medons were one and the same person, which would support my contention above that Medon was not a scion of the house of Melanthos. As noted, Medon used neither the Melanthid cemetery nor the Melanthid name, and the name of his dynasty Medontid rather than Codrid would support that he came from a new lineage named for him (Medon means chieftain in an Argive dialect). This would explain why Aletes the Wanderer conceded Athens and did not renew attack on the settlement once Medon was installed as king. They were probably allies.

The Medontid monarchy enjoyed an initial moment in the sun during the rule of Medon. With the transition of the kingship to Medon’s immediate successor, Acastus (1048-1012), the basic weakness of the Medontid monarchy vis-a-vis the eupatrids became apparent. The power in Athens was essentially partitioned between a king and a group of substantial eupatrid houses who presented an impressive counterbalance to the exertions of a standard monarchy. There must have been a tense relationship between the Medontids, who considered themselves the rulers of Athens, and the eupatrid houses who had no desire to be assimilated under a royal hegemony. It is reminiscent of the behavior of the princes of the Mycenaean confederation, who never fully accepted the central control of Mycenae. The Neleid cartel (Alcmeonids, Philaids and Peisistratids) would have had additional reason to resent a Medontid rule, if Medon’s origins coincide with my reconstruction above. A negative view of regal authority was never quite forgotten by Mycenaean aristocrats who survived the Bronze Age, reflected in Homer’s depiction of a bullying Agamemnon. Here geography cannot be blamed. It was surely an aspect of Mycenaean ethos at this point that kept the eupatrids from accepting absolute royal hegemony. Those coming from Messenia and the Argolid may have been particularly resistant to absolute monarchy, recalling the repression their oikoi

If Medon was descended from an Argive Heraclid it might explain the traditional antagonism between Medontids and Alcmeonids, originating as far back as the 12th c. as Medon’s grandfather Temenos reportedly drove Alcmeon, Melanthos, and Peisistratos from their Messenian homeland. This tradition was still remembered in the historical era The rivalry came to a head in the mid-eighth c. BC with the death of the Late Geometric Athenian king Alcmeon, an Alcmeonid, when the Medontids took over the rule of Athens once more, voiding the eupatrids’ life-king constitution. I believe the Medontids’ Codrid ancestry was a fabrication of the eighth c. synthesized by the Medontids as they sought to legitimize their seizure of Athenian rule one more. A case is made below for Pheidon of Argos supporting 52

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age had experienced at the hands of Heraclid Temenos. A habituation with smaller lineage systems that coexisted in some regions may have made some resistant to any kind of absolute ruler.

power, namely the king. Melanthos likely deputed a council of elders drawn from the major oikoi to not only deliberate with him on general matters concerning the settlement, but also to coordinate any interoikal misconduct requiring civic redress, meting out restitution and penalties where needed. Under these constraints the council may have grown in stature, to incorporate jurisprudence.

True state formation did not come to Athens for some time: one could even claim that it was not attained until the Kleisthenic reforms, when Attica was sliced and diced sufficiently to finally dilute the power of the traditional eupatrid oikoi. In the interim, however, the eupatrids were on the side of more representative governance in a curious experiment in constitutional monarchy that was certainly an improvement over monarchical absolutism.

A reference in Pausanias indicates that the Areopagos Council already had a long-standing and venerable reputation as a court trying capital cases during the Iron Age, when eighth c. Spartan and Messenian parties agreed to submit a dispute to ‘the court of Athens called the Areopagos, as this court was held to exercise an ancient jurisdiction in cases pertaining to murder’.144

The Areopagos Council

The court was involved in the drafting of the first Iron Age constitution in the late 11th c., and following its institution, it was to ratify the selected Iron Age rulers. Its framing of the constitution early in the Iron Age shows an embryo of the legalistic role the Areopagos council was destined to play in Athenian history. Aristotle reports it had ‘a constitutionally assigned duty to protect the laws’ …. ‘administered the greater and most important part of the government of the state’…… and ‘inflicted personal punishments and fines summarily upon all who misbehaved themselves’.145

Acastus likely had more challenges to his authority than Medon as eupatrids began coalescing around an agenda that would exclude the Medontids from ruling altogether. There was discussion above of Argive Medon ruling a kingdom that was such ‘only in name’. That characterizes the plight of the Medontid dynasty as a new constitution was served on Acastus that essentially relieved the Medontids of power. The Medontid monarchy in sequel was a Potemkin Village, with the Medontids ceremonial figureheads, as the de facto rulers of Athens, the life-kings and the Areopagos Council, took control of Athens.

It is questionable how much of this went back to the Melantho-Codrid era (v. discussion Chapter III), but a council of independent eupatrid leaders, whether overt or sub rosa, must have remained in Athens following the departure of the Codrids on the Ionian Migration. Significant eupatrid oikoi, both local and immigrant, remained in Athens. The ensuing Medontid regime may have made little use of a council inherited from the previous administration, likely preferring the council of courtiers typical of absolute monarchy. They may even have demoted the status of an existing council, earning it the eponym Areopagos, as I have speculated above. To have evolved such a constitution the eupatrid cartel must have been deeply involved in analyzing governance during the 11th c, with a jaundiced eye towards the Medontids.

Little is known of this powerful ruling council during this early time but its possible descent from a potential Melantho-Codrid representative council has been discussed above. It clearly played a significant role in the shaping of the political landscape of the Iron Age. The Atthidographers dated the Areopagos council to the mythical king Kekrops, which falls within the same category of likelihood as Theseus’s unification of Attica, i.e. unknown of probable early date.143 It may have been no earlier than the Melantho-Codrids since it would have been a statesmanlike move for that dynasty to establish such an institution during the disruptive phase that must have accompanied the immigration. The concept of a council or court accords with the variety of involvements and sophistication I tentatively associate with Melanthos.

Once the constitution was created the Areopagos Council was assigned a powerful new role, one which lasted as long as the life-king constitution, namely the ratification of the nominated life-kings. Aristotle notes that. ‘…the archons were elected under qualifications of nobility and wealth, aristindin kai ploutindin’. If the council was impacted in the mid-eighth c. series of dislocations, it was almost certainly reinstated by the Neleids and their allies following the ouster of the last Medontids in 713 BC. It continued to serve into the

A council representative of the different factions in Athens may have been initiated as one of the formal purposes for which the Prytaneion was constructed. There was a pressing need for organization in the upheaval of the transitional era. Transgressions of acceptable behavior must have been handled mostly within the structure of the individual oikoi at first, but there must have been the occasional inter-oikal disputation warranting some intervention by a higher 143


Jacoby 1949, 121f.



Paus. 4,5.2. A dispute dated ca. the fourth Olympiad. Ath Pol. Part 3.

Kratos & Krater classical period as Athens’ premier council and court. A provision that archons could move on to serve on the Areopagos council must at least postdate the mid-8th c. and is probably later: Aristotle’s statement that ‘the Areopagos was composed of those who had served as archons’ could only apply to the decennial and annual archontate, since the life-kings served for life.

underlines that the framers’ and others who followed thereafter, understood that the account of this early governance was worth preserving. Even during a phase of alliteracy, the council should have had the capacity to preserve important agreements, treaties and the list of life-kings that has come down to us. The best guess is that an encapsulation of the constitution’s conditions and the List of Kings were preserved and updated via the institutional memory of the Areopagos Council, whose conciliary predecessor may have considered forms of ideal governance during years of Medontid rule. The task of the Areopagos Council, which must have come into being no later than the constitution, was the creation and oversight of the constitution and the vetting of all subsequent candidates for election as lifeking. At the least some of the constitution’s provisions may have become attached to the Oath of Acastus under the control of an official council remembrancer. Notably, the Non-Medontid King List seems to have been recorded with more accuracy than the first four Medontid decennial archons, who are unclear as to their number and their status, until the last Medontid king (713 BC).

The Iron Age Constitution ‘The Athenian democracy of the fifth to fourth centuries BC is the oldest example of political democracy known to us, or rather, the oldest of those which historical documentation allows us to reconstruct’.146 Piovan’s caveat is warranted. The system of eleventh century BC governance that Pausanias termed a constitution was almost lost to history because the age of alliteracy afforded the record little prospect of survival. It was a curious experiment in representative governance, negligible by today’s broad standards of representation, but extraordinary in a context that lacked any kind of antecedent, and appears to have evolved almost accidentally out of the unforeseeable chance of history. It advertised itself as a monarchy, but bears more resemblance to a sequenced oligarchy, and its representative character was evident only during the process of selecting the life-kings. Aristotle’s Atheneion Politeia III brought new understanding of the evolution and structure of this new eupatrid form of governance. His interest as an antiquarian insured that information on it survived for posterity, but not in some monk’s cloister and not for almost two millennia. Lubegil’s 1871, Der Staatsverfassung von Athen had been perhaps the prime resource for the rule of Athens prior to the 1890 discovery of the papyrus containing Aristotle’s treatise. This coincided with the onset of the era of dirt archaeology, which in recent times has brought to life some confirmation that the life-king constitution existed, as did a 250-year sequence of lifekings.

Both the constitution and the King List were transmiited down during the period of eupatrid control, which lasted until the termination of their constitution in the mid-eighth c. Literacy had just returned to Athens at that time, and with it the ability to document such materials, if one wished to preserve the record, but I would argue that the traditional eupatrid synoikismos was in disarray as the Medontids took control with possible Argive assistance. In the ensuing historical period some of the familiar aspects of representational government were taken for granted, and specifics of much earlier, obsolete, constitutional measures must have lapsed in significance for all but a few scholars. It required the analytic faculty and pedantic leanings of a fourth c. Aristotle to recognize the importance of the surviving account and write his commentary. The modern era of field archaeology can now creatively reconstruct a little flesh on the bare-bones record with tentative associations of Iron Age burials with individuals on the King List (including Megacles, Alcmeon and Agamestor). Although Lubegil’s work is out of date and full of misconceptions, I recommend it for several insights that specialists in constitutional law and governance might find interesting.147

Constitutional minutiae were hardly fodder for epic tradition, and the significance of the constitution, even at the time of its introduction, may have gone unrecognized by the broader populace. The rule of king Acastus, he of the eponymous Oath of the Archons, was 1048-1012, during which time the constitution would have been negotiated, but it was likely some time in incubation prior to that, and I have hazarded that its roots lay in the Peloponnesos, most likely Messenia, penetrating to Athens via Melanthos and other representatives of Neleid descent. Somehow information on the constitution survived into the later historical period through 250 years of alliteracy. This

The Athenian Constitution Aristotle, ca 350 BC Translated by Sir Frederic G. Kenyon

III ‘Now the ancient constitution, as it existed before the time of Draco, was organized as follows. The magistrates were

D. Piovan, Criticism Ancient and Modern. Observations on the Critical Tradition of Athenian Democracy, Polis 25,2, 2008, 309. 146



Lubegil 1871, 539-564.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age IV Such was, in outline, the first constitution, but not very long after the events above recorded, in the archonship of Aristaichmus, Draco enacted his ordinances….’

elected according to qualifications of birth and wealth. At first they governed for life, but subsequently for terms of ten years. The first magistrates, both in date and in importance, were the King, the Polemarch, and the Archon. The earliest of these offices was that of the King, which existed from ancestral antiquity. To this was added, secondly, the office of Polemarch, on account of some of the kings proving feeble in war; for it was on this account that Ion was invited to accept the post on an occasion of pressing need. The last of the three offices was that of the Archon, which most authorities state to have come into existence in the time of Medon. Others assign it to the time of Acastus, and adduce as proof the fact that the nine Archons swear to execute their oaths ‘as in the days of Acastus’ which seems to suggest that it was in his time that the descendants of Codrus retired from the kingship in return for the prerogatives conferred upon the Archon. Whichever way it may be, the difference in date is small; but that it was the last of these magistracies to be created is shown by the fact that the Archon has no part in the ancestral sacrifices, as the King and the Polemarch have, but exclusively in those of later origin. So it is only at a comparatively late date that the office of Archon has become of great importance, through the dignity conferred by these later additions. The Thesmothetae were many years afterwards, when these offices had already become annual, with the object that they might publicly record all legal decisions, and act as guardians of them with a view to determining the issues between litigants. Accordingly, their office, alone of those which have been mentioned, was never of more than annual duration.

The Creation of the Constitution By the end of the 11th century the council, now perhaps designated by its eponym Areopagos, was counteracting the problems of dissonant power structure in Athens by proposing a new constitutional monarchy. This new system eliminated the absolute, hereditary monarchy of the Medontids in favor of elected kings without provision of inheritance (the so-called life-kings). The council was likely instrumental in gaining Acastus’ compliance with its measures, under oath. It is unclear whether he was presented with the full terms of the constitution at this time. The ‘consititutionally assigned duty’ reported of the Areopagos likely refers to the members’ role in preparing the new constitution and overseeing its function as ratifiers of nominees for the new series of kings. The constitution was framed with remarkable political acumen and concern for propriety. The provisions essentially gutted the Medontid monarchy, but the Medontids were saved face by retaining the mostly ceremonial role of basileus in the priesthood, an esteemed traditional function of royalty extending back to the palatial era. The constitution would have taken effect following the last Medontid king, which based on the King List was Acastus, decease 1012 BC.

Such, then, is the relative chronological precedence of these offices. At that time the nine Archons did not all live together. The King occupied the building now known as the Boculium, near the Prytaneum, as may be seen from the fact that even to the present day the marriage of the King’s wife to Dionysus takes place there. The Archon lived in the Prytaneum, the Polemarch in the Epilyceum. The latter building was formerly called the Polemarcheum, but after Epilycus, during his term of office as Polemarch, had rebuilt it and fitted it up, it was called the Epilyceum. The Thesmothetae occupied the Thesmotheteum. In the time of Solon, however, they all came together into the Thesmotheteum. They had power to decide cases finally on their own authority, not, as now, merely to hold a preliminary hearing. Such then was the arrangement of the magistracies. The Council of Areopagos had as its constitutionally assigned duty the protection of the laws; but in point of fact it administered the greater and most important part of the government of the state, and inflicted personal punishments and fines summarily upon all who misbehaved themselves. This was the natural consequence of the facts that the Archons were elected under qualifications of birth and wealth, and that the Areopagos was composed of those who had served as Archons; for which latter reason the membership of the Areopagos is the only office which has continued to be a life-magistracy to the present day.

Aristotle and Pausanias, quoted here, are the two best sources for the framing of the constitution. Lubegil’s 1871 publication depends primarily on the relevant Pausanias citations. I have interjected bracketed critique, since they occasionally err. The terminology of the nomenclature of officials, king, life-king, basileus, archon, which greatly preoccupied Lugebil, may have caused ancient chroniclers confusion, as it still does. Like most ancient historians, these commentators accept the view that Medon was a Melantho-Codrid, which I find cause to question (v. above, Who is Medon?). Aristotle, Constitution III: ‘The last of the three offices was that of the archon, which most authorities state to have come into existence in the time of Medon. Others assign it to the time of Acastus… (the latter probable only if the archon in the constitution meant life-king)….. using as proof the fact that the nine (Classical) archons swear to execute their oaths ‘as in the days of Acastus’, which seems to suggest that it was in his time that the descendants of Codros… (i.e. the Medontids exercising their doubtful pedigree)… retired from the kingship in return for the prerogatives conferred upon the archon’. Aristotle’s words suggest that the life-kings were called archons when the consititution was initiated in the 55

Kratos & Krater 11th c., but that is rendered suspect by the following comment of Pausanias: ‘In Athens there were not as yet the archons appointed annually by lot (i.e. the seventh century system) for at first the people deprived the descendants of Melanthus, called Medontidae, of most of their power, transforming the kingship into a constitutional office; afterwards they limited their tenure of office to ten years’.148 Pausanias is here describing firstly the provisions of the 11th c. constitution when the Medontids lost their throne. His ‘afterwards’ refers to the new measures when the Medontids took control of Athens in the mid-eighth c. cancelling the life-king constitution and instituting the decennial archontate (four decennial archons were appointed through 713 BC). It would seem that the rulers could have been termed archons under these late decennial Medontids, terminology that continued into the historical period.

sufficiently authoritative following Medon’s passing to request it. The oath would have increased the authority of the council, clarifying who was now in charge of Athens. The Oath of Acastus may have been imposed partially from eupatrid dissatisfaction with Medontid rule, but also because of the independent character of the eupatrids, who still retained their own temenoi and their own following after the Medontids assumed the kingship. They were obviously negotiating to rid themselves of the hegemony of absolute rule, but in a diplomatic fashion that preserved a veneer of continuity (v. Tiryns above): hereditary kings had exercised a priestly function that could not be taken lightly. In essence this function was being severed from the actual rule of Athens and given to the Medontids as a sop. It was given in perpetuity. Oath-taking had considerable force in ancient times. It instituted rules and agreements that one agreed to observe subject to penalty. An alliterate culture especially needed some recourse for compliance in the absence of written contractual agreements, so oaths must have been commonplace in the Iron Age.150 Although the exact terms of the oath of Acastus could not be ‘documented’, some remembered version of its conditions survived into historical times as a touchstone for the comportment of the chief magistrates with respect to the citizenry. In the eleventh century the citizenry would have comprised the eupatrids, representing their own interests, and that of their following.

Aristotle’s comment that the Medontids received prerogatives in return for abdicating the throne is confusing. Prerogatives may reference their lineage acquiring ownership of the ceremonial role of basileus in perpetuity, and/or an opportunity to vie for the life-kingship (which the Medontids may have sought but never attained). This may have been a cunning manoeuver of the Areopagos Council, because the role of ceremonial basileus, essentially a priest-king, may have been appealing to Acastus, who may not have been as obdurate as his father Medon. In any case, it brought Acastus’ compliance with the terms of the constitution. In sequel the role of basileus had so little status that there is no record of their names following Acastus. The new life-kings do not appear to have expropriated the title of basileus for their office as far as one can tell, although all may have been basileis as leaders of their oikoi.149 The question of what the actual ruler of Athens was called under this first constitution must remain moot, whether archon, magistrate, king (as they are termed in the King List) or some particular nomenclature representing life-king, no longer extant. In sequel here I call the elected chief officer in control of Athens during the years of the life-king constitution ‘life-king’ to avoid ambiguity. The names of these lifekings, and the few Medontids who actually ruled (in the 11th c. and from the mid-8th. c.), were recorded on the King List.

Acastus agreed to this first stricture which may have appeared inoffensive enough, but it was the thin end of the wedge. It led on to a more extensive effort to rein in the power of the Medontids, the first recorded step in limiting the monarchical rule that had been characteristic of Athens for centuries. Athens would be ruled by a constitution that restricted the Medontids from ruling Athens in all but name. Many centuries later Pausanias termed it a constitution, and if the surviving records of its conditions are a fair reflection, that is what it was.151 The King List provides the names of the kings who held office, which in a few cases are supported by recourse to the literary or archaeological record. To judge from the names, it comprises Neleids, some older Attic eupatrid houses, and others of indeterminate oikoi, who may have come to Athens in the late 12th c. There is a slight possibility that one of the kings was a member of the Eleusinian Kerykes. The only obvious Medontids on the list are those who preceded or followed the years of the constitution, which were 1012-752 BC.

The first foray in the attempt to install the constitution was the solicitation of an oath from Acastus. It is inconceivable that Acastus himself raised the need for an oath. Presumably it arose from eupatrids who felt

The move to more representative governance effectively addressed several areas of concern. It successfully sidelined a possibly ineffective, tyrannical

Paus. 4.5.10. The Athenian Iron Age basileis were leaders in the sense of the term in the 12th c. Peloponnesos, i.e. chief officer of their oikos, a word sometimes translated as king in the historical period. It had not always had such status. The basileus arose from a fairly modest official in the palace era to positions of real leadership in the postpalatial Peloponnesos as the anakes phased out to migration and possible overthrow. 148 149

M. Gagarin, Early Greek Law, the Cambridge Companion to Ancient Greek Law, eds. M. Gagarin and D. Cohen, Cambridge, 2005, 88-90. 151 Paus. 4.5.10. 150


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age or illegitimate absolute monarchy, and by circulating the rule among the more significant eupatrid houses it lessened the tensions of one of them seizing absolute control of Athens. It was carried out with appropriate caution as well as diplomatic skill since the Medontids may still have had menacing reserves of status and power, and possible allies in Megara or Argos.

foot saga purported to have initiated the Medontid rule. However Athenian sophrosyne, and their dedication to both tradition and contractual obligation, enabled the Medontids to retain the title basileus through the classical period, along with periodic recognition of the role’s status in primarily religious ceremonial duties. The Neleid Alcmeonids who may have played a role in their removal remained a powerful aristocratic family into the historical phase, a thorn in the side of any who aspired to absolute rule.

To summarize the terms of the constitution, the new magistrate, here termed life-king, could rule Athens only for his lifetime and his heir could not succeed him. New kings were selected not by inheritance as is the case in an absolute monarchy, but by an elective process, which was open to nominations from the eupatrid families of standing, likely Aristotle’s aristindin kai ploutindin. The Areopagos Council expanded its authority by assuming the power of ratification over all nominees for the new kingship.152 Carrot and stick style, the Medontids were pressured to concede by consolation prizes along the way. While they lost their inherited succession, they were privileged by retaining the traditional priestly office of basileus in perpetuity. This was a shrewd move by the eupatrids since it allowed the monarchy itself to remain visibly and nominally the Medontid Monarchy, presiding over public rituals at festivals such as the Anthesteria. This Medontid presence would have avoided the morning headline ‘Monarchy Overthrown’ being bruited among the populace, nearby Megara, or worse, Argos. Meanwhile the elected life-kings were the actual rulers of Athens.

This evolution in governance at such an early stage in Athens’ development reflects a surprising level of sophistication for an alliterate society, and hopefully it will prompt a reassessment of the Iron Age. Without the aid of documents there was compliance with the terms of the oath and the provisions of the constitution, an innovative hybrid between monarchy and representative government. Its installation would not be remarkable for the eighth c. but it is unexpected in the late eleventh century. The constitution brought relatively prosperous and peaceful conditions to Athens for the next 250 years. In establishing terms of governance as binding, and acknowledging the ethics of meeting the terms or otherwise offering restitution sealed by oath, the constitution may have had recourse to some already established precedents for contractual activity surviving from the Bronze Age. These precepts and contracts would have survived in the basic, agrarian society of the transitional era, largely from the need to deal with transfers and exchanges of property, but likely not for a contract of such intended long duration and consequence as this constitution. It recalls the twelfth century English barons at Runnymede, facing off against King John over the Magna Carta (John made a better deal, since he retained his actual throne). Athens had lost a number of its merchant princes to migration to judge from the Athenian archaeological record, so many of the provisions of the constitution should likely be credited to the elite oikoi who had immigrated into Athens at the end of the 12th c. One suspects that the strong mercantile and other practical experiences of the resident eupatrids from the Peloponnesos were significant in the drafting of the new Athenian constitution.

When were the new provisions of the constitution codified? For greatest impact it would have been during the reign of Acastus, at the time of the oath or soon after, based on Aristotle’s observation that the oath was not the only development that occurred under Acastus. The King List helps date the actual onset of the constitution since it would have taken effect with the death of the last Medontid king who was Acastus in 1012 BC. Clear evidence of a constitutional life-king in control would be a non-Medontid king on the King List, which appears to be the case with Acastus’ immediate successors based on their names: Archippos, Thersippos and Phorbas. The Context of the Constitution

Arising from traditions of entrepreneurship, including manufacturing and overseas commerce, these eupatrids were now represented on the Areopagos Council, and they soon began providing life-kings to Athens, who led the way in redeveloping Attica. In the more peaceful climate of the Protogeometric phase Athenian eupatrids were now backed by the economic advantages of remoter Attic land available for settlement, pastoralism and cultivation. The Alcmeonids must have early scouted good clay beds, sources of metals, and harbor for ships, setting up an outpost in Nea Ionia already in the Protogeometric period and a settlement on the

The eupatrids ruled as life-kings until the mid-eighth c. when the Medontids took over the rule as decennial archons. In 713 BC their lineage was removed with the provision that Medontids were never to hold high office again. The Neleid faction of that phase proved it was just as capable of engaging in propaganda as the Medontids. In an irony, the last Medontid king was dismissed with an elaborate saga involving a hungry horse and a maiden, which was every bit as unbelievable as the lame 152

Arist. Ath. Pol. 3.1; Paus. 6.19.13.


Kratos & Krater west sea coast of Attica at Anavyssos in the ninth c. The Philaids and Peisistratids had meanwhile early settled in the Mesogeian and east coastal regions of Attica. Athens would have served as an economic center for the handful of outlying settlements attempting to provide the settlement with sustenance. Based on its interaction with these sites, its several hamlet extensions, and the few settlements surviving from the transitional years (Eleusis, Aixone, Acharnai, Merenda, Thorikos, and Marathon), tenth c. Athens could probably be described as an asty, a quasi-urban center. Ionia tells a similar tale of individual chieftains initially founding new sites, but before long ceding control to prominent aristocratic families on the model of Athens.153

morality, Homer may have served the same role in shaping Greek character, as Shakespeare did for the English. The origins of epic poetry likely lay with the Peloponnesians of West Greece and the Mycenaean Argolid, who would have been among the first to question the concept of absolute monarchy. Those who survived at Pylos, Tiryns, Elis, Kephallenia and Ithaca preserved traditions of both monarchy and aristocracy, and likely understood the pitfalls in both. Athens was fortunate to receive elite survivors from some of those quarters and provided them with a congenial environment that allowed the preservation of their culture both on the Mainland and in Ionia. The Alcmeonids especially continued aspects of their Mycenaean heritage, which survived in Athens into Classical times. This was not the case with all Mycenaeans who settled abroad, who in some regions (Philistia for example) were soon subsumed into the landscape of the host indigenous cultures.

The first constitution and the increased status of the Areopagos Council were not casual events for the Iron Age and its aftermath. The life-kingship circulated among various oikoi as intended to the mid-eighth c. shaping much of what was happening in Athenian Iron Age politics, and establishing a tradition of elective representive rule that may never have been entirely forgotten. Prosperity brought further expansion into Attica and the rise of the polis. Iron Age concepts survived the eighth c. Medontid interregnum nurtured by the more prominent eupatrid lineages. They influenced later Athenian governance and law, especially the idea of more inclusive governance, which went to extremes in the seventh c. with annually elected archons. It was still an entirely eupatrid archontate, but the principal of widened inclusivity was to lead on later to even more liberal interpretation of governance, and ultimately the Kleisthenic reforms.

The List of Athenian Life-Kings Archippos (1012-993) Thersippos (993-952) Phorbas (952-922)

Megacles (922-892)

Diognetos (892-864) Pherecles (864-845) Ariphron (845-825)

Thespeios (824-797)

Agamestor (796-778) Aeschylus (778-755)

The validity of oaths, contracts, laws and compliance, seem to have been points of faith in the 11th c BC. Although unwritten, one of the contracts still had force in the late eighth c., namely the agreement made with the Medontids allowing them to retain their traditional, ceremonial role as basileus even after their likely unconstitutional takeover of Athens in the mideighth c. Observance of law became the underpinnings of a rational government and a legal system that could be more practically codified in the historical era. The reputation of the Areopagos Council, its legal offices sought four hundred years later from Sparta and Messenia, demonstrates the kind of traditions on which civil discourse and western civilization itself could be constructed.

Alcmeon (755-753/2) The Credibility of the King List Like Aristotle’s comments on the Constitution, the King List and other traditions have been generally overlooked resources for the study of Athenian prehistory, both considered doubtful sources for a generally underrated period. A traditional record of early Greek kings, the list includes the names of Athenian rulers from late 12th c. Melanthos down to the onset of the annual archons in 683 BC.154 It is found in literary sources, and inscribed on remnants of a marble stele found on the island of Paros, the so-called Parian Marble. It has been rejected partly from a general mistrust of Athenians’ traditional records of their own past, but mainly because of its patent anomalies which, absent commentary, render it incomprehensible. As a 300-year long lineage of Medontids, with son following father, it did not make sense. Early on Jacoby placed the kiss of death upon it, which was a good excuse for scholars to ignore it.

Where did such attitudes arise? I suspect some of it was inherited from the previous Bronze Age civilization, and those few surviving populations that preserved and shaped ideals such as individualism and opposition to monarchical absolute rule, reflected in the pages of Homer. In the absence of religious precepts dictating 153

Thomas-Conant 1999, 80-84.



Drews 1983, 87.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age Drews, decrying the lack of anecdotes, dismissed the list as nothing more than names. Aristotle’s description of early Athenian governance, the key to its understanding, was also given short shrift. With the advent of modern genealogical studies and archaeological field work it can now be rendered more credible.

Age. Some of its contradictions can now be resolved by the intercession of Aristotle, Pausanias, archaeology, and a little more faith in Greek remembrancers. Based on the conditions of the constitution, the life-kings who ruled Iron Age Athens to the mid-eighth c. BC are what one would expect from an Areopagos Council favoring its own: all kings succeeding Acastus appear to be eupatrids with no apparent relation to the Medontids, several being traceable to the Neleid lines of Messenia, others of unknown oikos perhaps local or perhaps from the Argolid. Following the termination of the constitution in 752 BC, four decennial Medontid kings replaced the eupatrids in the four decades through 713 BC.

The list has found a rare supporter from time to time, including 19th c. Willamowitz, and 20th c. Bradeen, who was not fully persuaded by Jacoby that the king list was spurious, ‘a construction from conditions of the sixth and fifth centuries’.155 In recent times the Russian constitutional scholar Surikov has been a rare voice supporting its validity. I quote: ‘The list of life-long Athenian archons is preserved by Eusebius. It goes back to Kastor, a Hellenistic historian.156 The list is rarely considered to be authentic. Sometimes it is thought that it was forged in some epoch for political aims of Attic aristocracy. However, the list is situated at the junction of oral genealogical tradition (that is one of the most stable and authentic elements of collective memory in traditional societies) and the practice of written fixation of supreme magistrates. As to our opinion, the list is in general quite believable’.157 The French scholar Cadoux concurs: ‘Among peoples who write little, the capacity of the memory is relatively greater’ he says, citing Herodotus’s and Thucydides faith in oral traditions, reinforced by ‘historical reasoning’.158

The Search for Kings in the Burial Record If the King List is authentic, there are sufficient wellendowed burials in Athens that at least one of them might have made it onto the list’s roster. Identification of a burial site for the Medontid kings has been discussed above under ‘Who was Medon’ q.v., and again below in the context of the resurgence of the Alcmeonids. As the purported rulers of Athens during the Iron Age, the Medontids should have had one of the more pretentious surviving sites as their burial ground, but Coldstream’s identification of the Agora as the potential Medontid burial ground cannot be supported, nor my earlier view that they were burying in the Precinct XX cemetery. The Agora location Coldstream touted for a Medontid burial ground was more likely the burial ground of an indigenous eupatrid oikos burying there since the late Bronze Age, a noble house that eschewed the krater funerary rituals and epitymbia of the immigrant Neleids who buried in the Kerameikos and Irian Gate area. Below I have suggested it as the cemetery of the ancient local Athenian house of the Onetorides based on the coincidence of the dates of life-king Diognetos, a possible member of that oikos, with the burial of the Agora Rich Lady, likely his kinswoman. Precinct XX, had the most regal aspect during the tenth and ninth centuries, but investigation of that burial ground’s two largest elite Iron Age burials revealed that they were roughly contemporary with the two anomalous Alcmeonid kings on the King List, tenth century Megacles (Gr. G 2) and eighth c. Alcmeon (Gr. G 24). The continuity of culture exhibited at Precinct XX had suggested it was a single lineage burying there thoughout the Iron Age. This proved the case in retrospect, as the Precinct XX site was continued with the same cultural attributes in a large Archaic extension, independently identified as Alcmeonid. In the Irian Gate precinct, the most regal burial ground of the eighth c., the most significant burial Gr. III, coincided with the Neleid king Agamestor on the King List. By analogy with the situation at Precinct XX, the Irian Gate precinct with its crop of enormous epitymbia, krater and amphorae, was likely the high status cemetery of the Philaids.

The King List has long been banished to the nether regions of credulity by its inclusion of a number of non-Medontid names. The ancients would have been as puzzled as the moderns by the inclusion on the list of Megacles, Agamestor and Alcmeon, all of Messenian Neleid lineage.159 The moderns explain the presence of these Neleids as intrusions inserted later by aristocrats wanting to add some ancestral blue blood to their family tree, or grab parts of Ionia. Intermarriage of Medontids with other noble houses is another explanation for the intrusive names, but Alcmeonids were traditionally the very nemeses of the Medontids and vice-versa. Some had noticed that as a genealogical record of a single Medontid dynasty the list was wholly unnatural: among the list of thirteen kings from the mid-eleventh to the mid-eighth century, all presented as Medontid offspring of their predecessor, there is not a single instance of a ‘grandson’ inheriting a ‘grandfather’s’ name. With all these anomalies it is small wonder that the King List is usually neglected as a source of information on the Iron Bradeen 1963, 194-196, 206-208. Jacoby, Atthis, 1949, FGH 1954, Suppl, II, 65. Overview of early King List scholarship: Drews 1983, 8694. 156 Surikov 2006, 2. 157 Schoene. Kastor, Jacoby, FGH 250 F 4. Chron. I.189 f. 158 T. J. Cadoux, The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides, JHS 68, 1948, 80, fn. 26. 159 Drews 1983, 86-94. 155


Kratos & Krater Kynosarges, south-east of the Acropolis was the most likely burial site of the Medontids. As mentioned, it has associations with Medontid land use from inscriptions outside the south-east city gate, and in the Kynosarges area south-east of the Acropolis. In Chapter III where I posit a potential Heraclid ancestry for the Medontid lineage, I cite a major festival celebrating Heracles held in the Kynosarges gymnasium.160 Another support for the identification is that the Kynosarges burials reveal two phases of prosperity both of which coincide with the two short phases when the Medontids actually held power: the first during the mid-11th c. and the second from the mid-8th c. when they again briefly took control of Athens. At that time Coldstream recognized the Kynosarges cemetery for the highest social scale in Athens, citing it along with the Irian Gate (Kriezi St.) cemetery as ‘well supplied with gold diadems and other lordly wealth’ this in spite of the plundering it experienced prior to the end of the century.161

for-tat reprisal for the indignities they had endured at the hands of the Medontids. Only one burial was preserved, dating from the very end of the eighth c. perhaps following the accommodations made with the Medontids, described below. The King List is ironically corroborated now, rather than rejected, by inclusion of non-Medontid names, and it appears likely that all of Athens’ life-kings from Archippos to Alcmeon were Non-Medontid. This breakthrough raises more questions than it settles, but it gives legitimacy to both the King List and Aristotle’s record of a constitution with a circulating life-kingship. All of this undermines perception of Athens as some poorly developed entity during the Iron Age. There is no longer reason to accuse Classical era eupatrids of inserting their ancestors’ names in the list for the greater glory of their oikos. Athens itself should be exonerated from the charge of fifth century imperialistic ambition, since the new credibility of the list and chronology, together with the lapse of Wild Style at Precinct XX, and its appearance at Miletus, supports the Melantho-Codrids’ leaving to take over parts of Ionia during the mid-eleventh century.

The restoration of Medontid rule followed on the death of the last eupatrid king, the Neleid Alcmeon, at the end of LGIb. There are signs of response to threat and damage to the Neleid cemeteries of Precinct XX and Irian Gate even before this time. This may explain the submergence of kraters in Open Burial, the lapse of the big epitymbia and the practice of public ekphora, the more covert practice of secondary cremation and inhumation replacing the big pyre and libation ceremonies. On current evidence, primary cremation with traditional pyre was practiced in Athens during LGII only in the area of Kynosarges, which is further support that the ascendant Medontids buried in that area at that time.

It is clear that early Athens went through four profound political changes under different types of rule. There were canonical kings (i.e. the two Melantho-Codrids and the two early Medontids), eleven Non-Medontid constitutional life-kings, and four late Medontid decennial archons, whereafter there was a reassertion of the rule of eupatrids, who were elected annual archons from 683 BC. Speculation on the Non-Medontid Kings

Kynosarges is also notable for the less auspicious circumstances that attached to their burial ground towards the end of the eighth c. The roles were reversed as the Alcmeonids returned to Athens and were once more ascendant over the Medontids, possibly collaborating with other eupatrid houses in 713 BC, when the Medontids were removed from control of Athens in perpetuity. Alexandridou, reviewing the reports of Olga Alexandri, has summarized the plundering of the Kynosarges cemetery of the second half of the eighth c., some burials so disturbed that they are undatable. Perhaps the plunder was the Neleids tit-

Acastus may have accepted the new constitution and the role of hereditary priest-king, believing perhaps that as eupatrids, the Medontid lineage would be able to vie for the office of life-king. The Medontids may have proposed candidates for the new office, however, if Aristotle can be believed, the ultimate gatekeeper, the Areopagos Council had the authority to reject them, which it appears to have done consistently. The cumbersome title Non-Medontid King is used to underline the fact that most of the Iron Age was not ruled by Medontid kings, but constitutional life-kings drawn electively from various eupatrid families. This was a reverse damnatio memoriae, for the Medontids, since in sequel they served as ceremonial basileis for centuries, but none of the actual rulers to the mid-eighth c, appear from their names to have been Medontids. From the mid-8th c. Medontids can be identified, and perhaps only Medontids ruled at that time, but not as life-kings. They ruled as decennial archons, and almost certainly without the ratification of the Areopagos Council (if that body retained any authority during that

Kynosarges, BSA 12, 1905-1906, 91 f. An inscription ref. in the vicinity of Kynosarges (Diomeia), IG II 1233. A fifth C. inscription, IG I 497, 1 2 871, outside the city gate with ‘Medontos’ confirms the Medontids owned land there. Discussed by both Willemowitz and Toepffer, ‘Cippus ante introitum arcis,’ in the west wall of the Turkish Polyandrion. Edd. Raugabe 891, Ragkabis, Pillakis Eph. 2819. Ross and Koehler Pinacotheka, BA 3350. A column inscribed ieron Medontidon was found in S. Attica at Keratea near Thorikos 161 Alexandridou 2016, 347. Coldstream 2003, 137: His ‘Kriezi St.’ references the rich Philaid burials of the Irian Gate cemetery, which by my King List chronology had entered a phase of retrenchment following the mid-eighth c. 160


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age The Early Alcmeonids

time). This terminal Medontid rule, combined with the visible ceremonial functions of their venerable office as priestly basileis may explain why the Iron Age was remembered into the historical period as the rule of the Medontids.

There is speculation below that the Alcmeonid Gr. PG 18 could be the burial of life-king Phorbas (952-922). The following life-king Megacles was certainly an Alcmeonid, a Neleid immigrant lineage tracing back to Alcmeon son of Sillos, son of Thrasymedes. Alcmeon was reportedly expelled from Messenia in the late 12th c. by the Heraclid Temenos, along with fellow Neleids, Melanthos and Peisistratos son of Peisistratos. In Athens Alcmeon may have shared the Precinct XX burial area with Melanthos, represented perhaps by a smaller burying group (Grs. SM 1-6, 11, 21) to the west of the preserved line of burials that I have assigned to the Melantho-Codrids. If that was the case, the pottery of the earliest Alcmeonids was similar Wild Style to the Melanthids. A krateriskos Inv 532, symbolic of a formal krater, and a pithos Inv. 533, have the same central motif as the dowry box of the Melanthid Gr. SM 22 noblewoman. Gr. SM 1 also has a bird vase, a common funerary gift for youths in west Peloponnesian burials.164

The finest evidence for Athenian Iron Age royalty comes from the Irian Gate Philaid burial precinct where the burial of Agamestor and the Dipylon Vase ANM 804 were found, discussed in detail below. The Precinct XX Alcmeonid cemetery is especially significant because this cemetery bequeathed the richest cache of Athenian krater material, associated with a sequence of burials lasting from the twelfth to the sixth c. The transition of the Alcmeonids into the historical period allows further insights into the character of this diverting Athenian dynasty. Their symbol of ancestry and authority, the formal consortium krater, provides a new perspective on the Iron Age, and the vitality and pride of a folk who, with other eupatrids, preserved a strong Mycenaean ethos. Workshop attribution has played no small role in determining continuity through the Iron Age and interrelationships between eupatrid houses. Dr. John Traill of Toronto University has kindly suggested some potential affiliations for some names on the list, but in the following summary of the life-kings others are listed with just the few sketchy details available, sometimes little more than a name and date of rule. The possibility of further associations may attract the attention of more specialists in the field, especially if the King List gains increased credibility.

Precinct XX was the center of krater ritual use until the phase of Megacles, who may have disseminated its wider use in Attica. The graph (Fig. 35) illustrates the prevalence of Kerameikos kraters, most coming from the Precinct XX cemetery until the Late Geometric period. Kraters found at that site are mostly broken body fragments, but there are surviving feet of krater burial markers (epitymbia) still in their original position. The Melantho-Codrids likely took their skilled Wild Style potters with them when they departed to Ionia (decoration similar to the Athenian Wild Style now appeared in Miletus, Fig. 33). Two clay tripods of transitional Gr. SM 4 (Fig. 16) are decorated with the same late geometricized Wild Style that appears on the EPG Munich krater (Fig. 94).165 There is symbolic status reflected in these tripods, copies of metal ones that were beyond the reach of these Alcmeonid aristocrats, possibly less prosperous now they were living under Medontid rule. Notable in the same context is an example of the newly introduced, light ground, Protogeometric pottery that is essentially a debased continuation of the sub-Granary style that had been common in the lower-ranking Pompeion.

The Non-Medontid Life Kings Archippos (1012-993) and Thersippos (993-952) The post-Medontid era was initiated by Archippos, who may have been a scion of the Gephyraioi, a local oikos of considerable ancestry. An Archippos served as archon in 321 and 318 BC, which suggests this early Archippos was a non-Medontid king (Medontids could not serve in the archonship). It is a common aristocratic name from the sixth c. onwards, the earliest of which is Archippos Aphidnaios.162 Thersippos, also a name suggestive of traditional aristocracy, has nine notations in Attic prosopography, none of them noteworthy. There are other notations for the name Thrasippos if one suspects the possibility of misspelling during more than 200 years of alliteral transmission: one in the fifth c. the other two in the fourth c.163 Both of these aristocrats remain unassociated with burial grounds or notable oikoi.

The Almeonids had weathered the attack on Athens by the Heraclid Aletes, the Ionian Migration and the installation of Medon as king. The bad relations that had evolved between the Alcmeonid and Medontid oikoi would be remembered into the historical period. As the Medontids came under stress from the eupatrids,

PA 2549, PAA 214470, Davies 1971, 12267. An Archippos of Aphidna was associated with the tyrranicide, Aristogeiton, who was also perhaps from Aphidna: Davies 1971.474, 600. 163 Davies 1971, 237 f.

Ker. I, 91, Inv. 532, 535, pl 63. A smart stirrup jar, Ker I, p.89 pl. 62 inv 534, of Corinthian fabric, has comparanda at Mycenae. 165 Ker. I, pl. 63, Inv. 554. pl 64, Inv 555, missing in content description, p. 183, but v. pp. 200.215.




Kratos & Krater

Fig. 35. Graph illustrating the rough prevalence of Kerameikos Iron Age kraters by phase

losing their monarchy under the new constitution, the Alcmeonids likely benefited. As prominent aristocrats, they almost certainly played a role in the creation of the constitution, and now in the mid-tenth century they may have even fielded a king, namely Phorbas. However, they would experience their finest moment under the rule of the Alcmeonid life-king Megacles (Fig. 49).

the urn. The hole was a simple mend hole, ubiquitous on kraters for the clamp repairs that kept these valuable vessels in service as long as possible. Moreover, the two fragments of sidewall and handle were recovered revealing that this had been a complete krater. The sturdy foot, and large size, estimated at ca. 55 cm max. diameter, and repairs support that this had been the deceased’s consortium krater used as an epitymbion.167 If this was the burial of life-king Phorbas, he would have needed such a large consortium krater to hold court. One even larger was found on the floor of the king’s house burial at Lefkandi, roughly contemporary with this Phorbas krater.

Phorbas (952-922), Alcmeonid? Krater funerary use, evidenced in the upsurge of krater remains in the Precinct XX cemetery, increased following the mid-10th c. BC as Alcmeonids began to more deliberately set out large formal kraters as epitymbia for prominent males (Fig. 35 graph). The earliest preserved Precinct XX burial to be surmounted by a large krater epitymbion was Gr. PG 18, with krater 57, a foot and two sidewall fragments. Kübler mistakenly viewed the krater as part of the content of the tomb. He assumed that the krater foot was acting as a lid (a common practice) since it was placed over the urn and had a hole in it that could have been used to tie it onto the urn. However, kraters of this size were not placed in burials.166 They were positioned as 57, directly above

The metallic sheen of the krater’s glaze supports manufacture before the mid-tenth century, which was reportedly when the fifth life-king, Phorbas, was The size of the ‘Phorbas’ krater suggests it had more complex ornamentation, even panel decoration, rather than the standard concentric circles. Krater frgt. 42 is a fragment of such panel decoration found in the nearby contemporary grave Gr. PG10. LordSmithson mentioned a few panel fragments in the Agora, LordSmithson 1961, 168, and v. ADelt. 28, 1973, 38; Some of the paneldecorated kraters listed here as Late Protogeometric may be earlier (Fig. 104). Compare 25, 35, 92, 93, 95; BSA 29 1927/8, 233; Panelled MPG kraters Lefkandi II,1, pl. 21, 361-4; pl. 22, 366.368, stacked concentric circles; pl. 23, 371 and on the Bayrakli, Ionia krater, AJA 66, 1962, pl. 96. The Phorbas krater is probably too early to have had the composite decoration of Gr. G1, 67 (Fig. 105), which fused circles with panels to create the archetype of the Geometric krater. 167

Krateriskoi and krater feet with their skirting chipped away were used as lids and bowls in burial. 166


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age a mature male, i.e. 40-60 years, a suitable match since Phorbas reportedly ruled for thirty years.171 Gr. PG 18 is one of a series of four aligned burials with divergent east-west orientation on the western flank of the Precinct XX site, perhaps an attempt to distinguish the burial site of a life-king with his nuclear family grouping. The following life-king, Megacles, and his family was similarly distinguished on the eastern flank, perhaps as another Alcmeonid nuclear grouping.172 Both of these flanking groups acted almost as delimiting boundaries for the expanding Alcmeonid family precinct. There is further discussion of the context of this burial in the Middle Protogeometric Style section of Chapter V. Megacles (922-892) The earliest non-Medontid kings were just as shadowy as the Medontids. To date, Megacles, coming to rule in the last quarter of the tenth century, has been only a name on a King List, and a doubtful one at that, dismissed as an insertion because he was not a Medontid, completely lacking in anecdotes, and just one of the several Megacles’s who pepper Athens’ history. This is largely because Megacles’ Alcmeonid oikos fell into obscurity in the mid-eighth c. as the eupatrid constitution was set aside for the resumption of Medontid rule. As literacy returned once more, the eighth c. ruling Medontids do not seem to have carried forward traditions of any of the non-Medontid rulers. Beyond the King List, and aspects of the constitution, almost nothing was preserved of events during the Iron Age. This may be why Megacles was just as obscure in ancient times as in modern, noticed in passing only by the odd scholar.

Fig. 36. Amphora urn adorned with a horse, from the ‘Phorbas’ burial Precinct XX Gr. PG 18

elected.168 Phorbas may have been an Alcmeonid name: an earlier Phorbas was reportedly a semi-mythical Bronze Age chieftain of Argos who had been succeeded by a son Megacles, a family name that persisted in the Alcmeonid oikos for hundreds of years. Following the life-king Phorbas, this was not a common name, although Bradeen considered it a possibility for completion of a fragment of fifth-century archon list he published.169

Megacles is now a more substantial figure of history, one whose material record (Gr. G 2) renders him the earliest flesh and blood Iron Age king of any note. His cremated remains were excavated in 1938.173 Under his aegis the earliest foundation of the new Geometric culture was initiated, the onset of the Renaissance. On the evidence of Geometric Precinct XX, with its wealth of fine burial goods and remains of numerous epitymbia, Megacles’ rule ushered in a long phase of prosperity for his lineage and those of other eupatrid kings. This was a time of continuity and relative peace for Athens, lasting from the end of the tenth to the mid-eighth century. Although he was likely one of the more luminous personalities of the unrecorded Iron Age, ironically much of his life was spent during

The grave goods suggest this was a person of prominence. The krater epitymbion was the largest Protogeometric krater found in association with Precinct XX to this point. Notable was the urn, an old-fashioned Sub-Granary style amphora with three coarse wavy lines across the belly, made close in time to the burial (compare amphora Ker. 1075, from the LPG burial PG 37). It is adorned with a horse, a motif that became more frequent in LPG.170 Breitinger diagnosed the cremated leg bones and skull as probably those of Jacoby 1954, Suppl. IIB, 250 frgt. 4, after Kastor of Rhodes. Bradeen 1963, 190-191. 170 Ker. 560, Ker. I, pl. 56. Ker. 1075, Ker. IV, pl. 10. Horse, Ker. IV, pl. 27. Breitinger Ker. I, 259 f. This context illustrates the unreliability of sexing criteria at this time: the male bones of Gr. PG18 were inurned in a belly-handled amphora, while those of the female buried next to him were inurned in a neck-handled amphora. Belly-handled amphorae were usually restricted to female burials in the Geometric period. 168 169

Ker. I, 259. Gr. MPG 18 is a few paces south of Gr. EPG 4. In the contemporary burial on one side of him was another male of the same age, and on his other side was a mature female (40-60 years, Gr. LPG19) whose burial is dated slightly later, perhaps his spouse. 173 AA 1938, 586 f. 171 172


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 37. Krater epitymbion 151 of the Jewel Workshop, found on Precinct Gr. G 2, assigned here to Life-King Megacles (922-892 BC)

the despised Protogeometric phase. This publication is the first instance of him being assigned a role in a significant political event, as one of a series of newly recognized Iron Age constitutional rulers.

The most characteristic feature of the Precinct XX cemetery was the large number of Iron Age krater remains surviving there from use in funerary ritual, spanning more than three and a half centuries from 1125 to 750 BC. The graph (Fig. 35) and the Catalogue below give an estimate of between 200-300 kraters over that time, all but a handful from the Alcmeonid burial ground. Assuming many undetectable associations between fragments, the number of kraters represented may be no more than c 200 kraters,174 but that is a large number compared with other Athenian sites (no study has been made of the primarily eighth c. Irian Gate area krater remains).

On the assumption that a scion of the restive house of the Alcmeonids would use his accession to effect change, the most likely candidate for his tomb would be the presumptuous Grave G 2, the largest preserved tomb at Precinct XX since the outsized transitional burial Gr. SM 22 (Fig. 53). The sketch of his burial area (Fig. 39) depicts his grave at the lower right, surmounted by his epitymbion monument, backed by a roughly shaped tapering headstone. The grave was well-equipped with the new Jewel Style pottery he sponsored, including a fine, large urn and other vases, two of which are depicted here. He was also equipped with a lance, and a bronze bowl sealed his urn. The most notable vessel was his krater epitymbion (Fig. 37). Another indication that Gr. G 2 was special is a grouping Kübler termed ‘Tomb 3’ at the side of his tomb, with no human remains, only miniature vessels and ceramic balls, possibly a ritual offering to a revered figure following the funeral celebrations.

The Melantho-Codrids and the Alcmeonids had both observed the same Peloponnesian krater burial rituals at Precinct XX. Krater funerary libation and The rough estimate of 200 kraters over a 300-year period is significantly less than the more than the 300 plus krater remains inventoried. It is at the low end of estimate, allowing for the possibility of further associations between fragments that have remained undetectable, if the apotheke well where non-diagnostic body sherds were deposited following WWII were to be excavated at some point in the future. 174


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age tomb marking had occurred in Bronze Age Messenian and Argive burial ritual, and the practices continued under the Alcmeonids at Precinct XX to the mid-8th century BC. Following rituals, the krater was sometimes burned on the pyre or left as a burial marker, but not inside burials.175 Finds of a number of worn, repaired and burned formal kraters preserved at Precinct XX during its more than 300-year existence underline the significance of this elite symbol of status for the Alcmeonids. It was Megacles who clothed it in a bright new decoration and set it on course as the prime symbol of the Alcmeonid oikos. In Athens the Alcmeonids had retained almost exclusive use of the krater in funerary rituals through the late tenth century, but that began to change from the rule of Megacles. By the late tenth c. formal kraters of Precinct XX were again artworks, decorated with an ornate revival of the Melanthid Wild Style decoration, as the Alcmeonids were vaulted to a position of political prominence by Megacles’ appointment as king of Athens. According to the King List Chronology, Megacles 30-year rule was initiated in 922 BC, which would be in Coldstream’s Late Protogeometric period. (for comparison of the two chronologies v. Fig. 49).

Fig. 38. Tripod Stand of the Jewel Workshop found in Gr. G 2

featuring the new regular and battlement meander, the prime motif of the Geometric period. This schema continued on in the Rich Lady Workshop becoming standard on kraters to the eighth c. when figural art finally pushed the geometric style to the sidelines.

Megacles’ spectacular epitymbion krater (151), a prime creation of the Jewel Workshop, demonstrates a new age of artistic creativity, almost Elizabethan in the limited context of a ‘Dark Age’. It was large and elegant enough to have served during his lifetime as the showpiece of his consortium, and demonstrates signs of wear and repair as evidence of such use. It could have been fabricated early during his rule primarily to serve that purpose. Additionally, it could have served a ritual use as a libation vessel in the settlement. At his decease in 892 it graced his burial as his monument. The foot was found still in position on his grave.

With open promotion in gatherings of eupatrids, it was not long before the large krater had extended beyond the Alcmeonids to serve other noble houses, in consortium, aristocratic conviviality, and possibly communal celebrations such as weddings and festivals. The increasing entrepreneurial activities of the eupatrids outside of Athens also advanced the spread of the krater. This furthered extended Athenian reach, which may have been intentional policy, an important first step in the unification of Attica under Athenian hegemony. The first of these larger, ornate kraters was already found beyond Athens at Eleusis during the rule of Megacles, perhaps his gift to the local nobility of that sanctuary (a pedestal foot Fig. 43). The Jewel Workshop created a range of other vessels, including the horsepyxis, the inverted rim pyxis, a fine pointed pyxis, and a new large Type II krater, for consortium and convivial use, the earliest of which was found in an Alcmeonid Protogeometric outpost at Nea Ionia (Fig. 107).

The sparkling new overall decoration, refined contour and pedestal base of the Megacles krater heralded a new Geometric style that finally banished the tedium of the Protogeometric pottery that had been current for more than a century. The krater is adorned with motifs old and new in a rich combination that recalls the ornate Melanthid Wild Style. The appearance of these motifs in columns and zones, alternating diagonals, lozenges, checkerboard, and chevron, may have been intentional, when one considers Megacles’ roots. They also appear on the symbolic ceramic tripod from his burial, another surviving Wild Style shape (Fig. 38). These ancestral motifs are flanked on the krater by the common Protogeometric antithetic concentric circles, now anchored in position by ornate metopal frames

Early formal kraters were also found in cemeteries beyond Attica, used for occasions with the leadership of Lefkandi, Eretria, Paros and Naxos, all of similar Mycenaean descent. The most notable remains were in the fill of the house burial of the tenth c. Hero of Lefkandi, where kraters in Desborough’s Mycenaean Wild Style lasted longer than they had in Athens

Kraters were burned from the time of the foundation of Precinct XX. Fragments of 18 burned kraters were associated with Precinct XX following the phase of Megacles. 175


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 39. The northeast corner of Kerameikos Precinct XX, with Grs. G 1 and G 2 in the foreground

Fig. 40. A Wild Style krater fragment from the fill of the 10th c. mausoleum of the ‘Hero of Lefkandi’

(Fig. 40). Unlike Athens, Lefkandi may have retained a hereditary Mycenaean king.176 If Megacles, and Alcmeon, life appointents in their simple trench graves were recorded as kings, by analogy the more prosperous Hero of Lefkandi, who merited an entire mausoleum, would have been of even higher status. Because Lefkandi later expired there was no record preserved of who he was, but his Toumba site, was preeminent among the several burial grounds serving Xeropolis, and almost certainly belonged to the ruling family. It had similar rituals to Precinct XX, cremation, the occasional use of an epitymbion, and on the evidence of an enormous krater on the chieftain’s house tomb floor, the same 176

kind of extensive serial libations indicated at Precinct XX and depicted in the Iliad’s funeral of Patroclos (Iliad XXIII).177 Athens had direct communication with Euboea and the islands of the Cyclades during the phase of this king, to judge from ritual and ceramic synergies, but as Lefkandi took advantage of its orientation towards eastern markets, its trade associations likely superseded those of Athens. Lefkandi continued direct importation of sober Athenian wares, including kraters and other shapes, through most of the tenth century, probably for trade, but others for local consumption (Coldstream notes a similar phenomenon of krater imports from

Lefkandi II, 25-31.



Iliad XXIII.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age of Attic preoccupation in both the Protogeometric and Geometric phases were two sides of the same coin? Did Athens break off its synergies with Euboea and begin courting western entities? The King List casts light on this situation, since the divergence of Athens’ allegiance seem to have occurred during the rule of King Megacles, 922-892 by King List Chronology (Fig. 49). Whatever the case, it would appear that for some or all of Megacles’ rule, Athens may have been more focused on the west, rather than the Aegean group dominated by Euboea. This may relate to another Coldstream suggestion, that the diversion might be related to some early emergence of the later western-oriented Kalaureian Amphictyony, which may have been of greater antiquity than commonly believed (discussed further below).

Fig. 41. MPG-LPG krater 67 found as an epitymbion on burial G 1 had seen settlement use

Athens for MGI). Desborough, noting the otherwise narrow dispersal of kraters outside Attica suggested the number of Attic imports at Lefkandi might betoken actual Athenian settlers there, including a ‘warrior trader’.178 Whether Euboean natives, or Athenian transplants, traders located at Lefkandi became intermediary in the dissemination of Attico-Euboean styles that found their way to Thessaly, the Cyclades, Ionia and the Levant.

Diognetos (892-864) In spite of adding luster to the dull Athenian political scene, Megacles was not succeeded by another Alcmeonid king, or even another Neleid. With the accession of Diognetos the Areopagos Council appears to have approved a non-Neleid king, so fulfilling its self-appointed constitutional role of circulating the life-kingship among the eupatrid houses. In light of the quixotic temperament that crops up from time to time in this particular lineage, the Areopagos Council may have looked elsewhere for Megacles’ successor following the termination of his 30-year rule.

Influences between Attica and Euboea soon ran in both directions. Attic Oropos was more Euboean than Attic at this time.179 New, more colorful motifs and combinations, such as the battlement meander found on Late Protogeometric Attic wares, may owe their genesis to the Middle Protogeometric Euboean style which seems to have evolved that motif. The style of Lefkandi and Marmariani remarkably does not appear to have been patently influenced by the Athenian Jewel Workshop. The Aegean ceramic currency was dominated by Euboea, which created its own idiosyncratic style, Sub-PG, while Marmariani continued following the Athenian Middle Protogeometric style, preserved in the Late Protogeometric phase on krater 67 (Fig. 41).

The three ninth c. kings who followed Megacles were sometimes assumed to be grandfather, father and son, but that was a misunderstanding of chroniclers both ancient and modern, who inferred mistakenly that the King’s List represented a linear succession of Medontid kings. Diognetos (892-864) was likely a non-Medontid king, based on the few items of information available for this name, including a possible association with the Attic oikos of the Onetorides. Thus Diognetos may be an example of a venerable Athenian indigenous house ruling in the Iron Age. Bechtel lists the name Diognetos as heroic, with a reference to Onasas, and a fifth c. citation in Thucydides. He cites others: ‘Diognis Diognetou Athenaios’ without source. The Diognetos who served as archon in 264-263 BC is a possible descendant of this Iron Age house: the name persists into the Archaic period, when there are several Onetorides kalos names on vessels of Exekias.180

In traditional chronology it would appear that there was waning contact between Athens and the Euboean Gulf in the latest Late Protogeometric phase. This observation may have import for historical activity at this time and may relate to Coldstream’s view that there was a phase in the early ninth c. when Athens may have looked to the west for its associations, a phase when Aeginetans and Argives took cues from the Attic ceramic repertory, illustrated by the Atticizing Argive Type II krater (Fig. 109). Is it possible that the anomalies

Professor Traill provided this information and the following: ‘Diognetos Kydantides (PA 3863, PAA 327820) Davies, famous Attic politician and aristocrat, Davies 1971, 10808’. Melite also has associations with the Philaids: there is a reference to Eurysakes, brother of Philaios settling in Melite, although some scholars question his existence. A Diognetos Hybades, son of Hypsimos (PA 3872 = PAA 327980) appears on an undated (because lost) dedication 180

Compare MPG Lefkandi II,1, pl. 58, 371; Lefkandi I, 50. 361 fn. 30; Ker. I, 340. Possible Geometric ‘warrior trader’, with a krater epitymbion, Toumba Gr. 79A, Lefkandi III, pls. 96a, 97b, 77, 10; OxfJA 14, 1995, 151-6. 179 Lemos 2002, 202. 178


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 42. Five-granary dowry chest and pendant gold earring from the Rich Lady Tomb on the Agora Areopagos slopes: Workshop of the Agora Rich Lady

There are two references for a Diognetos in association with the deme of Melite.181 If this life-king Diognetos is descended from the ancient Athenian house of the Onetorides, and has connections with the deme of Melite, his burial ground may have been in the Agora, due east of Melite. If that was the case, there are several reasons to connect him with the burial ground on the Areopagos slopes, where noble Late Mycenaean burials just below the Areopagos continued on into the Iron Age (Fig. 34). One such was the tenth century Boot Grave, which retained a local Mycenaean funerary practice: the inclusion of two pairs of ceramic boots in the grave, possibly to enable the journey to the afterlife. A single Mycenaean prototype of these boots came from a LHIIIC Haliki (Voula) cemetery, a suggestion that the Boot Grave folk preserved old Attic customs.182 A similar pair of boots came from Eleusis, which also preserved traditions from a Mycenaean past.183

close to Athens’ center, the more visible graves would have been relieved of their contents long ago. However, one may speculate that he had been buried here, and perceive some reflection of his status and resources vicariously from a potential kinswoman, the Rich Lady.184 Noble houses that attained the life-kingship had reason to flaunt their status, and those that have been recognized in excavations certainly did. The Rich Lady’s gold earrings, dowry chest, fine belly-handled amphora (Fig. 120) and other remarkable burial content are a celebration of the oikos’ elevated status similar to that found in the burial sites of Kings Megacles and Agamestor during their tenure. The dowry chest especially reveals her elevated status, since the five model granaries on its lid likely connect the Rich Lady to old, landed wealth (Fig. 42).185 Presumably the granaries signify ownership of 500 medimnoi of grain and denote membership of her father or husband in the highest Athenian propertied class, qualified to serve as a basileus, polemarch or archon. It is not out of the question that life-king Diognetos was once interred near her Areopagos grave.

Thus the Areopagos cemetery presents the characteristics of a surviving indigenous elite cemetery that could have served an old local lineage such as the Onetorides, possibly with landholdings in the area. The most compelling reason to associate Diognetos with this burial ground may be the time of his rule, the Early Geometric II phase (King List date: 892-864, Coldstream date c. 864), which coincides with one of the most extraordinarily rich burials to have come from the Areopagos slopes: the Rich Lady Grave. The Rich Lady was pregnant at the time of her decease.

Pherecles (864-845) This is a common name found in a number of Attic demes,186 as well as Miletus in the historical period. To my knowledge there has been no attempt to associate the preliterate name Pherecles, with the ancestry of

Other burials have survived from this burial area, but none coincide with the decease date of Diognetos. So

Lord-Smithson 1968, 77-116. Lord-Smithson 1968, 83, pl. 24. 186 Professor Traill reports: the name Pherecles has fourteen entries in PAA subsequent to the early official and is recorded in six Attic demes, Anagyrous, Themakos (bis), either Thria or Phyle, Kollytos, Perithoidai, and Oe. Excavations about 15 years ago at a site 2 km north of Koropi have offered evidence to move the last-mentioned deme, Oe, from its former provisional location in NE Attica. 184 185

found at Kato Vraona, i.e. near Philaidai. Further, W. S. Ferguson, the Salaminioi of Heptaphylai and Sounion. 181 PA 3865 = PAA 327870, and PAA 327880, Davies 1971, Table III, courtesy, Professor Traill. 182 BCH 80, 1956, 247, fig. 7. 183 Young 1949, 287, pls. 67,70,71.


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age Ariphron (845-825)

the historical Pericles, but the proximity of this lifeking’s name preceding life-king Ariphron on the King List is not without interest. A historical era Ariphron was the grandfather of Pericles (v. following). Both historical-era Pericles and Ariphron were Alcmeonids. If the recorded Iron Age Pherecles and Ariphron were Alcmeonids of Neleid descent these life-kings would likely have had epitymbia erected above their burials, and been buried in the Kerameikos Precinct XX. Some of the finest krater epitymbia were erected in this cemetery during the rule of these two kings, including the remarkable MGI Mourner Krater, which would have complied with the chronology for Pherecles, deceased MGI, 845 BC.187 The contents of the Mourner Krater burial, Gr. G 43 indicate a high status nobleman. The rare kater had mourners depicted at the handles, and horse symbols below the handles. The tomb contained besides a gold band, an iron knife, a bronze bowl sealing the neck handled amphora urn, and other fine vessels.

Drews felt the names of the King List, were just names. Others felt names were inserted on the King List by historical era nobility to create a more illustrious pedigree. A descendant of life-king Ariphron was perhaps the Alcmeonid Ariphron189 who was grandfather of Pericles.190 The clan of Xanthippos was obscure, and one might suspect an attempt to add some luster to his family tree by linking him to the King List, but the existence of a life-king in Xanthippos’ ancestry may have provided him the status to wed the eupatrid granddaughter of Megacles. I quote Professor Traill: ‘This family could have had status sufficient to have had a member of their family, Ariphron, on the King List. If the connection did not exist in fact, they had the wealth and power, i.e. authority, to create it’. Thespieos (824-797) The following name on the King List, Thespieos occurs only twice in Attic prosopography, as a graffito on a skyphos base dated before the middle of the fifth c., and as the proposer of a decree concerning the epistatai of Eleusis c 449-447 BC.191 A fragment of fifth-century archon list published by Bradeen may cite another of the sixth c. just based on the first three letters.192

However, Pausanias reports seeing fifth c. Pericles’ tomb among the lines of graves on the Dromos, the road that starts outside the Kerameikos Dipylon Gate and culminates in the Academy. The mention of Pericles early in this sequence of graves suggests the tomb might not have been far from the Dipylon Gate.188 An elite Iron Age family burial ground, the Vor Dipylon site, located on the Dromos vicinity close to the Dipylon Gate, had a ninth and eighth c. culture very similar to that of the Alcmeonids of nearby Precinct XX (Fig. 68). The sequence of Protogeometric pottery, fine Middle Geometric horse pyxides and two small fragments of a formal MG I-II krater suitable for an epitymbion (Cat. 222, 237) indicates a small eupatrid burial ground, probably, from its culture, and location in the Kerameikos, of the Neleid lineage. A fragment of a LGIa krater of the Dipylon Workshop was also found here 269. This area was badly disrupted by the construction of the Pompeion, moat and city wall, so it is unclear whether other Dipylon Workshop Late Geometric Ia krater epitymbia fragments, 267, 268 are associated with the Vor Dipylon site. Casting doubt on an association of this Vur Dipylon burial ground with Pericles’ ancestors is Pausanias’ description of the sequence of burials incorporating Pericles grave, which seems to have comprised mostly prominent contemporary Athenians noted for their military service. Also no Archaic phase continuation of the Vor Dipylon burial site has been found there, as was the case with the Precinct XX and Irian Gate cemeteries. Perhaps in time the burial of Pericles will be discovered in this area and cast light on this question.

The Neleids had had good relations with Eleusis from the late 12th c. when the sanctuary had given Melanthos safe harbor following his departure from Messenia. In sequel he was made a priest of the cult of Eleusinian Demeter, a priesthood that remained attached to his oikos even following their departure to Ionia. The relationship may have been continued by the Alcmeonids at least as early as the rule of Megacles: remains of a large, formally decorated consortium krater of the Jewel Workshop may have been a gift from Megacles to Eleusis, the earliest large consortium krater found distributed beyond Precinct XX (Fig. 43). The site received another fine krater in MGI. If one looks at the earliest spread of the finer Athenian pottery around Attica, it would appear that it was initiated during the rule of Megacles, penetrating to locations such as Thorikos, Anavyssos, Nea Ionia and possibly Merenda, in addition to Eleusis. Beyond Attica, Lefkandi acquired one of the earliest Attic Type II consortium kraters in EGII (Fig. 110). The kraters were made in the traditional pottery works sponsored by Megacles.193 The spread of the krater beyond Athens that started at this time Hdt.VI, 131, 136; VII, 33; VIII, 131. Davies, Pericles, No. 11811. Other citations: the Sikyonian didaskalos, a fourth c. tragic poet (PAA 202335) and two other partially restored names, PAA 202315 202320. 191 PAA 513125, PAA 513120. There is a single additional Attic appearance of the name on a late sixth c. cup painted by Kachrylion, PAA 962670, SEG 43 15a. 192 Bradeen 1963, 190-191. 193 Coldstream 1983. 189 190

Both could have been buried in the Alcmeonid Precinct XX cemetery, but there is another possibility in the Vor Dipylon area further north. 188 Pausanias I, 29, 2-4. 187


Kratos & Krater It is a questionable whether the burial site was founded by the Kerykes as early as Late Geometric II. This Late Geometric activity under the Rundbau coincided with the return of the Alcmeonids to their ancestral burial ground nearby at Precinct XX, so the Opferinne activity could have been related to rituals on behalf of a prominent Alcmeonid. It is also a question whether a substantial enough relationship existed between Eleusis and Athens in the late ninth c. for the eupatrids to select an Eleusinian noble as life-king. However, the evidence suggests the possibility should be retained under consideration.

Fig. 43. Foot of a large, LPG consortium krater of Athenian manufacture found at Eleusis

Agamestor (796-778) may have been part of an intentional move to foster increased interaction with other Attic settlements and beyond. None of these items were certainly gifts, but Coldstream has underlined the significance of gift exchange in prehistoric society. Other kraters and fine pottery were disseminated from Athens as the ninth century advanced, to Palaia Kokkinia, Kephisia and Marathon. At that point, it is not out of the question that a concept of Athens as the center of Attica was sufficiently accepted that the eupatrids could consider selecting a life-king from nearby Eleusis.194

Agamestor’s father was called Philaios, indicating likely descent from the line of Philaids. Ancient commentators preserved a lineage of the Philaids stretching back to the transitional era to the original Philaios, and forward to the archon Miltiades. The first Philaios is sometimes viewed as a descendant of the Mycenaean hero Ajax, but I follow Sourvinou-Inwood in doubting this relationship. The later Salaminians likely claimed Philaios, attaching him to Ajax in retrospect as his family became increasingly more prominent in nearby Athens. Philaios was a Pylian name and he was associated with the group of Neleids, including Melanthos, who had settled for a duration at Eleusis before moving on to Athens around 1125 BC.198 Philaios may have been delegated oversight of the migrant settlers on the island of Salamis, before transferring to Athens. His group is likely identifiable with the large numbers of immigrants uncovered in the burial site beneath the Pompeion, nearby the Precinct XX family burial ground of Melanthos.199 Pausanias reports the tradition of King Melanthos welcoming Philaios into Athens with a grant of citizenship, commenting that this was perhaps to reinforce Athens against potential Dorian incursion. As they settled in Athens, Philaios handed over the island of Salamis to Athens.

If Thespieos was an Eleusinian and also appointed to the life-kingship, he would likely have been associated with one of the two prime Eleusinian noble houses, the Kerykes and Eumolpids, both of great antiquity. Presumably the Eleusinian elite buried at Eleusis during the eighth c. Antonacci summarizes evidence at Eleusis for a sacred house believed to be of Late Geometric date. Nearby was an undated burial located under a naiskos. A later inscription mentioned a sacred house of the Kerykes, possibly connecting the building with that elite group.195 At some point the Kerykes may have moved their burial site to the Kerameikos Sacred Way. Dr. Ursula Knigge connected the family to the Rundbau tumulus a prominent precinct immediately east of the Alcmeonid cemetery, Precinct XX, (Fig. 68).196 This had been identified by Pausanias as the burial site of Anthemokritos, who was the herald at the celebration of the Eleusinian Mysteries, a sacred magistracy reserved for the Kerykes. The earliest preserved Rundbau burial dated to the latest Geometric phase. It coincided with a red earth level that predated the Protoattic phase and contained numerous high quality Late Geometric II sherds, including krater and cauldron fragments, some with signs of burning. This content was suggestive of an Opferrinne for someone of prominence.197

The folk buried in the large Pompeion cemetery were diverse in both origin and social rank. Philaios was possibly buried with other leaders in an elite section of the Pompeion cemetery and the Vor Dipylon area, but he may have settled in eastern Attica near Perati at some point, a site associated with Bronze Age Messenian settlement.200 The later deme of Philaidai in this area was probably named for this Philaid lineage. Whether elderly or deceased, Philaios was not recorded participating in the 1070 BC, Ionian Migration, when both the Precinct XX and Pompeion burial sites slacked

The earliest Anavyssos pottery is, Coldstream’s EGII, by King List chronology 892-864. Alexandridou 2016, 341-342. 195 Antonacci 1995, 190-191. 196 Knigge 1980, 75. 197 Bohen 1980a, 89-94.

Sourvinou-Inwood 1974, 218, Ferguson, 1938, 16 f. Hdt 6, 35. The name Philaios is found on Pylian tablet PY Un 249.I. 199 Pausanias VII.1.9. Sourvinou-Inwood 1977, 218 discusses the Philaids in the context of Lapiths. 200 Sourvinou-Inwood 1977, 215-218. Paus. I,35.2.




Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age off considerably. Some elite leadership remained, recognizable in the Pompeion as the surviving elite burial sites which continued into the mid-eighth c. (discussed above in connection with Pherecles).201

Irian city gate, the burial area was fairly characterless in its earliest phases, based on the few Submycenaean graves from the region. However, by the early eighth c. it grew to be the most significant burial ground in Athens, and the prime reason that phase has been characterized as a ‘Renaissance’. The Irian Gate cemetery area will likely never be fully excavated or understood. It is represented by a number of discrete sites whose association with each other remains unclear because city overbuilding has prevented the same kind of systematic excavation that has been possible in the Kerameikos and Agora excavations. Many finds have come to light sporadically as utilities, structures etc. have been installed.204 Early phases may have followed the arrangement of other new burial grounds such as the Pompeion and North Agora, comprising cist burials arranged in one or more burial fields.

The Agamestor Family Tree c. 1125-658 BC The reported family tree of the Philaids is of similar duration to the Alcmeonid family tree. Stephanos reports the entire dynasty from Philaios down into the Geometric period: Philaios, Daiklos, Epilykos, Akestor, Agenor, Oulios, Polykles, Autophon, Iophon, Tophon, Philaios, Agamestor. Such a continuous sequence is not available for the Alcmeonids. The authenticity of this earlier, pre-Agamestor list is uncertain, but the improved stature of the King List suggests there were legitimate efforts to preserve such records, especially for those of eminent ancestry. The eleven listed descendants of Philaios down to Agamestor, ca. a 300year period, are the same number of individuals who served as life-kings of Athens over the same period of time.

One area was systematically uncovered, in the 19th c on a plot located at Samuel Kalogero St. (formerly King Herakles St.) and Piraeus St. This was the leadership cemetery of the Philaids used by Agamestor and his family members in the first half of the eighth c. From the 19th c. it was termed the ‘Dipylon’ cemetery, but now is more commonly called the Irian Gate cemetry.205 Dated to the period MGII-LGIa, the Agamestor precinct contains the most regal burials to be found in the Athenian Iron Age, its extraordinary vase remains now mostly housed in the Athens National Museum and the Louvre. The Irian Gate cemetery had achieved a measure of status by the end of the ninth century BC, when it was using the same symbolic vessels such as krater, amphora epitymbia and horse pyxides found in the Precinct XX cemetery, and from the same prime workshops. With the election of the Philaid Agamestor as life-king at the onset of the eighth c, the Irian Gate cemetery replaced Precinct XX as the highest status burial ground in Athens.206 Their burial precinct exhibited the trend of eupatrid houses gaining luster when one of their number was elected life-king, as observed in the case of Megacles Precinct XX burial Gr. G 2 and the burial area I have attributed to Diognetos in the Agora, which contained the Agora Rich Lady burial. This especially pertains to the females of the Philaid noble house, who were buried under magnificent, outsized amphorae of the Dipylon Workshop, the so-called Dipylon Vases and the most familiar of all, the Dipylon Vase ANM 804.207

Stephanos continued the family tree into the historical period, with three more descendants, Teisandros, Miltiades, and Hippokleides. Marcellinus supports this with the notation that Agamestor was two or three generations before Hippokleides.202 Bardeen’s publication of fragments of a fifth c. Agora marble inscription lists Athenian rulers’ in the context of assessing various Miltiades, likely based on the same sources. He notes an early Miltiades was the son of Teisandros, and the grandson of the Philaid life-king Agamestor, as listed by Marcellinus and Stephanos. He cites the seventh c. archon, Miltiades as a probable Philaid.203 At a possibly over-generous 30 years per generation, I have assigned the 30-year life span of archon Miltiades from 688-658 BC. Cadoux dates him serving as archon variably as 664/3 or 659/8. Agamestor 796-778 Teisandros 778-748 Kypselos? Miltiades 748-718 Hippokleides 718-688 Miltiades 688-658 The Philaid Irian Gate Cemetery As the surviving Iron Age Pompeion elite multiplied some of them appear to have extended their burials further northward beyond the low rising fels that separated the Vor Dipylon area from the Kriezi and Samuel Kalogero Sts. burial areas. Named for the later

The various excavated areas likely represent a large cemetery located within and without the later city wall, dispersed along a track which later became the road to Hippios Kolonos. Early excavations: Annali d. Inst, 1872, 135, 143, 164, 167. Rayet-Collignon 1888, BrücknerPernice 1893, 73f. Poulsen 1905. Olga Alexandri has summarized the excavations of tombs within this area, as well as later classical graves: AEphem 1973, 92-105. Hesperia 28, 1959, 295-7. ADelt 21, 1966 Xron. 61-63 ADelt 22, 1967, Xron. 37-9. AEphem, 1968, 36. ADelt 1969 Chr. 41f. 64f. Louvre CVA XVIII. 205 Bruckner-Pernice 1893, 74 -77. Poulsen 1905. Davison 1961, 12. 206 Davies 1971, 294 f. 207 Bohen 1991. 204

Grs. 114, 136, and the two Vor Dipylon groupings, Grs. 115-121, 14214. 202 Vita Thuc., 3. 203 Bradeen 1963, 187-208, esp. 193-196, fn. 40. 201


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 44. Epitymbion Krater ANM 806 from Irian Gate elite precinct Gr. III, assigned here to Life-King Agamestor (797-778 BC). Pre-Dipylon Workshop

Fig. 45. Noblewoman’s Amphora ANM 805, found near the krater, and from the same workshop

The Irian Gate cemetery reached its zenith during the phase of transition from MGI, and during LGIa. Just as Megacles placed his imprint on the new Geometric phase for the Alcmeonids, so Agamestor did the same, supplanting the primacy of the geometric ornament with figural scenes. During his rule these were primarily MGII representations of horses, single and in file, (Louvre 514 and 500-502). Agamestor’s funerary epitymbion, ANM 806 depicted one of the earliest expansive scenes of burial rituals with a prothesis (perhaps the earliest). It also had a broad lower zone of the funeral games that took place in honor of a notable deceased (Figs. 44, 46) The exploitation of this style released the most remarkable sequence of figural krater epitymbia the Iron Age had yet seen. These were kraters adorned with the funeral scenes pioneered by ANM 806, but there is a large group decorated with the expansive drama of land and sea battles, some from the workshop of the finest artisan of the Iron Age, the Dipylon Master. They were erected on Philaid burials of the Irian Gate cemetery during the rule of Agamestor’s

successor, Aeschylus (of indeterminate oikos). Perhaps they were memorials for those who had engaged in the battles, although accounts relate that few survived the combat (a single man in one account). This topic is discussed at length below in the section titled Fighting on Land & Sea. Agamestor’s Burial, Irian Gate Precinct Grave III The precinct where Agamestor and his family were buried was later honored by a peribolos enclosure which ran over the corner of an important burial, Grave III, possibly aiding in its survival. This grave is to be associated with King Agamestor himself, not the least because of the special rituals and goods associated with the burial, but also regular measures taken in sequel to insure the tomb and its epitymbion were not violated. It is a rare case of a relatively intact, leadership burial, one that was fortunately excavated with care and published with sufficient detail and reconstruction to allow a reliable new assessment of the burial and 72

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age


b Fig. 46. Above deceased lying in state, sketch of shoulder panel of krater ANM 806. The lower zone of krater ANM 806, depicts likely funerary games: a chariot race with robed charioteers and apobates warriors in pursuit

presumably was the prominent mature male that the burial contents and iconography indicate, not a youth or girl.

its aftermath.208 There is a detailed discussion of the protective measures, the find circumstances, and reconstructions in the section titled The Decline of the Neleids and their Krater Epitymbia, below (Fig. 56). Besides the secreted epitymbion krater, the tomb contents included a large amphora, two pyxides, a skyphos and an oinochoe. In a bronze urn were calcined bones ‘with the appearance of a youth or a girl’. The latter statement would seem out of the question for burial in a bronze urn, under a krater epitymbion, both reserved for men. Underlining the prominence of the deceased, the krater was decorated with a detailed male prothesis-cum-ekphora, possibly the earliest, attended by multiple mourners on foot and chariot and, below that, a zone of funeral games, namely an epibates chariot race (Figs. 46ab). The krater ANM 806 was found drawn deep into the burial shaft for its protection (Figs. 44, 56).209 Agamestor ruled for eighteen years, so 208 209

If Gr. III was the tomb of Agamestor his funeral must have been a notable event. It was probably a primary cremation, one of the last, since pyre cremation lapsed in Athens following LGI, except for the Medontids, if I am right in assigning them to the Kynosarges burial ground. Alcmeon, buried about two decades later at the end of LGIb received only a secondary cremation, i.e par-burned out of sight within the grave rather than the pyre immolation detailed in epic. Agamestor may have been honored not only with a pyre cremation, but also with the same kind of funeral games that were held for Patroclos. His funerary epitymbion depicts both his prothesis and probably the earliest depiction of funeral games, with chariot teams competing at full gallop (Figs. 46ab). The armed warrior who seems to run head forward behind

Brückner-Pernice 1893, 91-106. Brückner-Pernice 1893, vessels 106 vessels, krater epitymbion 92.


Kratos & Krater the chariot is probably an epibates by analogy with a similar scene on a LGI Attic or Atticizing epitymbion amphora neck from Eretria (Fig. 48). Krater ANM 806 has always been an enigma. Foremost scholars have been hesitant to pin it down with a precise dating, since it cannot be associated conclusively with any of the existing masters of geometric ornament. Kunze in his 1954 krater study noted correctly that ANM 806 was earlier than the other kraters from the Irian Gate cemetery.210 Coldstream made no attempt to date it more precisely than LGIa-LGIb, by his chronology 760-735 BC. ANM 806 was definitely a made-to-order commission to be dated at the time of Agamestor’s decease, which is recorded as 778 BC in the King List. Its immediate antecedent, by the same hand, is the amphora ANM 805 (Fig. 45) which is still very much in the tradition of the Middle Geometric period, as is ANM 806 if one ignores the figural decoration. MGII aspects of krater ANM 806 are the low rim with a single strip of ornament, precise execution of the geometric ornament, especially the meander, the foot with checkerboard collar (compare MGII 235), placement of fine MGII dogtooth below the belly zone and around the base, and the wide zones of black glaze offset by the sequences of narrow triple reserved bands on the lower half of the vase and foot. While ANM 806 is essentially a Middle Geometric krater, one must acknowledge the Late Geometric style of the grand panoramic figural scenes on the upper bowl and belly zone, perhaps the first of their kind. The explanation for the krater’s anomalies is that ANM 806 is the product of two artists each working in two different traditions). One artist is an early, so far unidentified, practitioner of the figural style. There had been previews of figural style during MGII, even a frieze of horses that I have attributed to a Pre-Dipylon Workshop (krater Louvre 500-502). However, the lively panoramic composition of human activity depicted on ANM 806 is entirely new. The second artist, the master of the geometric ornament and the signature row of caprids, was possibly the Dipylon Master himself. (v. 232 (Figs. 122, 196), an earlier work of the master).211. I concur with Davison that krater ANM 806 was created in the Dipylon Workshop as also amphora ANM 805.

Fig. 47. The Dipylon Vase, ANM 804, transitional from MGII-LGIa

its companion amphora ANM 805 (Figs. 44, 45). There are the same rows of uniform caprids, snake zones, bold meanders, subsidiary zones of hatched leaves, chains of dotted rhombs. All are finely potted and both amphorae have the signature imposing necks. Clearly amphora ANM 805 and krater ANM 806 are the immediate antecedents of the majestic Dipylon Amphora ANM 804. All of these large Dipylon Master epitymbia were found together in the closely associated group of burials of the Philaid precinct, a likely family grouping. A further connection between ANM 806 and ANM 804 is the Eretrian neck with epibates, which has iconography, shape and style in common with the Dipylon Master’s oeuvre (Fig. 48).213

ANM 806 can be located in the MGII-LGI transition, which is where the Dipylon Vase ANM 804 also belongs, since, absent its shoulder scene, it too is very much a geometric conception (Fig. 47).212 This becomes clear when ANM 804 is compared with krater ANM 806 and

The Dipylon Master was the foremost practitioner of both the geometric and figural styles, the Leonardo of his age. During the first half of the eighth c, he almost singlehandedly brought about the evolution of the new

E. Kunze, Bruchstücke Attische Grabkratere. R. Lullies ed. Neu Beitrage zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Festschift Schweitzer (Stuttgart 1954) 48-58. 211 Dipylon Master Middle Geometric: Louvre 514 pl. 36,3 Louvre 500502, pl. 39. 212 ANM 804, Coldstream 1968, pl. 6. Bohen 1991, p. 61, fig. 1. 210



Hattler 2008, 105.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age his outsized grave G 24 and the equally large Gr. G 26, probably his consort buried alongside him, coincides with his date on the King List, 752 BC. The woman merited an amphora epitymbion with some figural decoration. Alcmeon, was the last life-king of the Iron Age, concluding the era of the constitution. According to my reconstruction, Gr. G 24 had been surmounted by the last Precinct XX krater eptymbion (279 Fig. 54). It was his consortium krater, and its enormous size suggests the large assembly an Alcmeonid king could muster in the mid-eighth c. Leaders from all parts of Attica and perhaps beyond might have been on hand for its formal use (which was unfortunately brief). One may presume that the development of Athens as head of the city-state of Attica was already well advanced as Alcmeon took over, but the prosperity the constitiutional rule had brought was being impacted. Already in the reign of Aeschylus the pottery demonstrates that there was ongoing conflict, perhaps with Aegina and Pheidon, king of Argos. Athens and the life-king constitution were the casualties of that conflict. Those events of the mid-eighth c. occurred during the rule of Alcmeon but are best considered in the context of the section below titled ‘The Decline of the Neleids and their Krater Epitymbia’.

Fig. 48. An Atticizing amphora from Euboea neck imitative of the Dipylon Vase type, depicting apobatase ‘war games’ similar to that on krater ANM 806, (specialized warriors practise leaping on and off the back of a speeding chariot during warfare)

A Proposal for a New King List Chronology Understanding of the turbulent, event-filled years of the eighth c. requires a close examination of chronology. There have been aleady several references here to my preference for a new Life-King chronology arising from the data reassessed in this work. A fuller summary is now essential.

figural pottery style. His oeuvre is further analyzed in the style section of Chapter V in this publication under the headings Pre-Dipylon Intermediate and Dipylon Workshops.

Snodgrass believes dating with reference to eastern rulers’ reigns (king lists) may have occurred during the Bronze Age, noting unusual chronological correspondences between the list of Bronze Age kings and heroic-era events.215 There would be similar recourse for dating the Iron Age Greeks were it not for the paucity of documented events. Few happenings were recorded following the departure of the Melantho-Codrids in the mid-11th c (whose traditional information was likely preserved in Ionia rather than Athens). The death of 8th c. Alcmeon was one of the few surviving efforts at chronicling an Athenian event during the Iron Age, probably because its political significance resonated beyond the boundaries of Greece.

Aeschylus (778-755) There is corroboration for the reign of Aeschylus: according to Diodorus Siculus, the first Olympiad (776 BC) occurred in the third year of his reign. Below, a case is made that his rule is notable for a major conflict with Argos and Aegina, conducted on land and sea. Professor Traill informs that the name Aeschylus is attested for 75 different persons in later Attic prosopography, appearing in 25 different demes. Davies selects two for special attention, but none have discernible connections with the life-king.214 The end of his reign is notable for the onset of the rule of Alcmeon, one of the securest dates of the Iron Age.

The date of Alcmeon’s demise appears on the King List, and his outsized grave and the largest preserved Iron Age krater epitymbion supports the validity of the list’s date for that event. Using that date as an anchor, together with the length of reigns, it has been possible to assign dates to the reigns of all the Non-Medontid

Alcmeon (753-752) Several centuries of relative stability were interrupted when the following life-king, the Alcmeonid Alcmeon, died after serving only two years. The pottery found in 214

PAA 116110, No. 436, PAA 116205, No. 450.



Snodgrass 1971, 12 f.

Kratos & Krater kings. To probe the possibility for further outcome from the King List, the listed dates were applied to some of the other available information on the Iron Age, including the archaeological record and the stylistic evolution of the ceramic which underlies currently accepted chronological frameworks. The King List anomalies have been mostly eliminated with the finding that it does not constitute a sequence of hereditary Medontid rulers, but was a circulating rule of eupatrid life-kings. It also has some congruences with both traditions and archaeology: e.g. Aeschylus and the Olympics, the recorded death of Alcmeon, the date of Aesimides rule, and the identification of rich burials and epitymbia with Megacles, and Agamestor. These suggest the king list has some value for chronological purposes, and I have applied all its data to the the formulation of a new chronological chart which shows some surprising departures from standard chronologies (Fig. 49). Snodgrass has a useful overview of more traditional sources for Greek Iron Age chronology.216

Different versions of the King List have survived with only minor variations. For facility of reference the sequence of kings used here has been lifted from the Eusebian list that Drews employed in his study of the Athenian kings, which used Kastor of Rhodes as its immediate source.218 To establish the dates of each rule, I have added the sum total of the reigns based on the length of each reign noted in the Drews’ list, anchored by the death of Alcmeon, 752 BC, which in turn is anchored by a Near Eastern king list citation: Year of Abraham 1263 = 752 BC. The style of the pottery in the burial I have assigned to Alcmeon is usually dated LGIb. When the reigns of the earlier kings are added to the year of Alcmeon’s decease one arrives at a foundation date for Precinct XX of ca. 1125 BC, a date acceptable to most scholars. 1068 BC for the death of Codros is another acceptable date, preceding the departure of the Melantho-Codrids to Ionia, terminating their Wild Style pottery in favor of the more austere sub-Granary Style Protogeometric pottery of the Medontids that initiates the Iron Age.

My views on the evolution of Iron Age Athens are colored both by hypothesis on the late 11th c. political developments and by the outcome of my chronological assessment of the King List. New anchor points have been identified, some corroborated by archaeological evidence, which recommend modification of Coldstream’s chronological chart. Both the Coldstream chart and the King List chart suggested modifications of the stylistic phases, which are summarized along with the reigns of the life-kings.217 The changes mostly concern the absolute dating, foremost the onset of the Geometric period, which is set 22 years earlier than Coldstream’s assessment (i.e. 922 BC vs. his 900 BC). Since much of his dating is based on the estimated lengths of the stylistic sequences, which I generally accept, there are fewer internal divergences in the relative chronology. The main effect of the earlier dating, briefly stated, is that all phases of the Geometric period need to be drawn forward earlier by an overall average of 13 years. However, the length of phases in the King List chart reflect potential new directions under a new king, or some other factor, especially where that king may have sponsored stylistic change, as did Megacles in EGI, Agamestor in MGII, and the Medontids in LGII. If the King List can be supported, even partially, it may provide more substance for a chronology currently based on a few reliable internal dates (e.g. 776 BC), some traditional colony foundations, mostly late, and scraps of pottery found in potentially unreliable Near Eastern stratigraphy. These are provisional suggestions that will hopefully be improved by other commentators, perhaps providing some vantage point that I have overlooked. To enable such critique I provide some details of the methodology used. 216 217

The dates on the King List do not always coincide with generally accepted chronology during the ensuing Iron Age, especially the onset of the Geometric period. The length of the Protogeometric period is shortened by 22 years, which may gladden the hearts of those disturbed by the glacial pace of Athenian cultural evolution during that period. The Early Geometric phase is pulled earlier by 22 years based on the assignment of the large Precinct XX Gr. G 2 and its groundbreaking epitymbion krater 151 and other content to King Megacles (922892). The pottery of this phase is decorated in an archaizing Wild Style-derivative, the Jewel Style, perhaps a reaffirmation of the ornate ancestral style of the transitional era Precinct XX Neleids. Coldstream had placed the Megacles krater in his EGII phase (onset 875 BC), which would be somewhat later than the King List death of Megacles. I place it in the King List EGI phase, no later than 900 BC, because it had seen use, probably as his consortium krater. The rule of Megacles coincides with observed outreach in the dissemination of the Precinct XX consortium krater, to Eleusis, and Nea Ionia, and the spread of the Jewel Style to the Areopagos burials during the second quarter of the ninth c rule of Diognetos. There is perhaps the earliest Early Geometric pottery in Anavyssos, a site associated with Alcmeonid settlement. The start of MGI is pulled earlier by 14 years to fill some of the void left by an earlier EGII and align it with two kings’reigns: the MGI rule of kings Pherecles (864-845) and Ariphron (845-825). The start of MGII is pulled earlier by 25 years based on the rule of kings Thepieos (825-797) and Agamestor (797-778). The time allotted to the Middle Geometric period is sometimes remarked

Snodgrass 2006, 15-22. Coldstream 1968, 330.



Drews, 1983, 86 f. Schoene, Chron. I, 181-190.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age

Fig. 49. Chart comparing the traditional Coldstream and new Life-King chronologies

as being too lengthy but that is probably not the case. Many shattered remains of kraters from Kerameikos Precinct XX cemetery, reveal that there were more 9th c. burials here than previously indicated. The modest evolution in style during the Middle Geometric period can be attributed to Alcmeonid conservatism, and loyalty to the preservation of their ancestral brand. My MG I and II are set earlier than Coldstream’s, but in total they are allocated roughly the same amount of duration.

Aeschylus would have encompassed the LGIa phase, the prime of the Dipylon Master, and the monumental epitymbion kraters of the Philaid Irian Gate cemetery. The themes of warfare reflect a conflict that is likely the Aeginetan campaign in which Pheidon of Argos, played a role, reported active around the mid-eighth c. The Medontid decennial archons (752-713) presumably initiated the LGII period taking over the rule from Alcmeon in 752 BC (Coldstream and others place the onset of LGII in 735 BC). To this point the Geometric chronology has been based mostly on finds from the Precinct XX burial ground which now declines, as does the Irian Gate cemetery. Of interest in this interval is

The start of LGI is pulled earlier by eighteen years based on the rule of king Aeschylus of indeterminate oikos (778-755) and Alcmeon (755-753/2). The rule of 77

Kratos & Krater a well-endowed burial from south of the Acropolis, Gr. Theta 2.219 It may reflect on the period of change observable in the Precinct XX and Irian Gate cemeteries. In its single context it combines a series of pottery styles ranging from geometric to figural. The publisher, Maria Brouskari, cites various explanations for the anomaly of the context, ranging from grandpa’s heirlooms to conscious archaizing, to longevity of certain artisans. I would add that concurrent styles often accompany periods of transformation and that stylistic evolution can be especially rapid and aberrant during significant, precipitous shifts. This had occurred at the beginning of the era of migration from 1125 to 1070 BC, now again in the mid-eighth c., and once more at the end of the century.220 The various Gr. Theta 2 styles may represent just the dislocations of the LGIa-b transition, a single, eventful phase that terminated with the death of Alcmeon in 752 BC.

Fig. 50. The LGIb Dipylon Oinochoe, has an etched hexameter of poetry, the earliest datable Athenian inscription. Dated after 750 BC by Coldstream, and 755-752 BC by the Life-King Chronology

The conflict with Aegina may have peaked at this time, denoted by the cessation of the iconography of warfare on land and sea, and the lapse in ceramic trade between Athens and Aegina during LGIb. The Medontid decennial archons (752-713) presumably initiated the LGII period taking over the rule from Alcmeon in 752 BC (as noted Coldstream and others place the onset of LGII in 735 BC).

quadrennial Olympic Games, would have proven more practical. A more practical annual specific system of chronography evolved in Athens as decennial archons were phased out in 683 BC in favor of annual archons. From that point each year was named eponymously for the annual archon.

Lower End Dating Support There is more dating support and information on the lower end of the King List. The Olympic system has been mentioned. The inscribed Late Geometric Dipylon Oinochoe signifies that there was now an ability to record events in time. The sequel gives us a remarkable first view of the Greek fascination with associating historical events with dates after centuries of poets and remembrancers.221 It is not out of the question that by the eighth c. the newly literate Athenians were in the forefront of developing a dating system of Middle Eastern style, based eponymously on their own sequence of kings. At first for purely local use, it might have expanded elsewhere, since Pausanias dates a late eighth century conflict in Messenia as follows: ‘(King) Aesimides the son of Aeschylus was holding his fifth year of office at Athens’.222 Ultimately as Mainland Greece became a more coherent entity, via common festivals, games, and sanctuaries, a universal dating system initiated in 776 BC, based on the numbered sequence of

The Termination of the Constitution The Decline of the Neleids and their Krater Epitymbia Open Burial There are a few indications already before the end of the Middle Geometric period that the political situation on the Mainland was evolving. Regionalism, obvious in the development of distinct pottery styles, was replacing a longstanding canon which had favored Athenian style. A potential for grave and monument sabotage may have been anticipated at this time in the institution of open burial. This was a feature peculiar to Athenian Neleid burials, the group which erected costly epitymbia on their graves, but from my knowledge not found in rural cemeteries (with the exception of Eleusis), even at Neleid sites. There is a useful visualization of ‘open burial,’ thanks to the 19th c. discovery and careful publication of a Late Geometric epitymbion krater found in situ in the Irian Gate precinct, Gr. III. Although not entirely accurate to what was found, it shows the epitymbion krater’s presumed relation to the open trench and the buried urn on the occasion of the burial (Fig. 56). What is the explanation for the trench being left open when marker vessels were placed on the

Brouskari, 1979, 74-76. S. Charitonides excavations, AD 1973, 39, pl. 25 top left, MG krater foot frgt. (upsidedown), the boss of a krater bow handle, pl. 15, bottom center. 220 Brouskari 1979, 57-59. I date the Dipylon Vase in the 2nd quarter of the eighth c. not long after Agamestor’s Gr. III, and the group of epitymbia ANM 805 and 806. 221 Earlier date for onset of writing: M. Bats, B. d’Agostino, Euboica, Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard 16, (1998), 15. 222 Paus. 4.5.10. Aesimides was almost certainly not the son of Aeschylus. 219


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age grave? According to some scholars it was for subsequent grave cult in honor of the dead, i.e. that the open grave created a rectangular trench for the receipt of postdepositional offerings, such as food and libations.223 Others believe the libation percolated through the hole in the base of the krater to the remains of the deceased below, which is dismissed in the next Chapter V. It is unlikely that a libation offering would have been made to the woman buried under the amphora Gr. G 12. From all the evidence, in the Geometric period such an honor would have been restricted to men.

local populace, but that was changing from MGII. By LGII it is unlikely that any kraters stood above Athenian Neleid tombs The Lapse of the Precinct XX Burial Ground There has been speculation on why the epitymbion krater lapsed in Athens. One opinion was that the epitymbion krater was no longer an expression of elite status once its use became widespread, and that it fell victim to more sophisticated forms of ritual expression emanating from the Near East. However, the abrupt cessation of the epitymbion kraters in the second half of the eighth c did not result from the vulgarization of the form or preference for imports. The introduction of alien customs in no way explains elite males of Mycenaean descent setting aside longstanding ancestral burial grounds and customs that were so much a part of their eupatrid identity. The ancestral krater’s formal use never extended beyond the elite, and for the Neleids the krater was a bond with a Mycenaean ancestry of what was perceived as a golden age, its exploits featured in the popular epic poetry. These Alcmeonid aristocrats followed traditions, not trends, as was clearly demonstrated by the vexing longevity of their purely geometric pottery style. Also the Alcmeonids, on their return to Athens from exile at the end of the eighth c., immediately began erecting kraters on their burials once more, albeit alien, Corinthian style, kotyle-kraters. The conclusion must be that fears for the security of the epitymbia and tomb content was the main reason for the krater’s obsolescence. Also, Athens appears to have entered a phase when the epitymbion users, the Neleids, experienced disfavor and some even vacating Athens for their southern Attic estates. It was probably impolitic for them to openly display the symbol of their ancestry and power at this time. The Agora does not appear to have been under similar threat following LGIb, but on current evidence they were not Neleids, and did not erect kraters on their burials.

The restriction of open burial to graves with epitymbia, whether male or female, suggests that it was related to the epitymbion rather than offerings. The trenches, shallow at first, became deeper over time perhaps to accommodate the increasing height of epitymbia, but Early Geometric Gr. G 2, the grave I have assigned to King Megacles, had a large krater but no trench, while the Gr. G 1 ‘trench’ was only 10 cm below grade which may be no more than the natural subsidence that occurs in graves following burial. The open burial of Middle Geometric graves 11, 12, 30, 37, 42 and 43 are between 20 and 35 cm below grade, Grave 13’s 80 cm depth, sheltering the tallest krater of that phase (176?), is mentioned in Chapter V. Two of the later graves, 22 and 23 are 62 and 65 cm below grade respectively. It was obviously not so much the increase in size as an increase in threat that withdrew these epitymbia from too prominent exposure above ground level. The upper part of the bowl is all that one would see on view in the average trench, and not even that in the case of Gr. G 22: its krater only 52.5 cm in height was placed in a trench 62 cm deep, and so was shielded from view. This desire to withdraw these remarkable vessels from full exposure contrasts with the ostentation seen in the monuments lining the streets of the later Classical period. One possible explanation for sequestering the vessels in the trench is that it afforded the marker a degree of protection, whether from wind, vandals, unfriendly neighbors or overcurious wayfarers passing on the track. These fragile kraters were erected some distance from the center of activity focused on and around the Acropolis, and there must have been some concern for their welfare even if an Alcmeonid settlement area was in the vicinity. It was not only the krater which was at risk. Precinct XX was no Greek Valley of the Kings, but the weapons and items of bronze and gold, the vessels, as well as the human remains, would have been advertised most effectively by the presence of a krater epitymbion. What is extraordinary is that burials were not shielded from threat in earlier Geometric phases. One can only presume that respect for the leaders may have been all that was needed to protect both kraters and tombs from despoilment by 223

The Alcmeonids had continued erecting monumental epitymbia until Alcmeon, the last ruler of the lifeking constitution died in office in the mid-8th c. at which point krater epitymbia and elite male use of the cemetery ceased. Dozens of epitymbia should have been on view in the Late Geometric Precinct XX marking the positions of graves, as they had for centuries, but that was not the case (Fig. 530). From the mid-8th c. the traditional respect accorded prior burials had lapsed. Without the helpful markers, new graves intruded on the burial ground irregularly in an invasive pattern of various orientation that had little regard for the earlier burials.224 The evidence of Alcmeon’s grave (753/2) suggests that kraters from recent Middle Geometric

On the unlikelihood of death cult, Boardman-Kurtz 1971, 21.



LGIb Grs, G9, 10, 16, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 33. V.

Kratos & Krater

Fig. 51. East-west section through Precinct XX Grs. G 23, 24, 25, 26

Fig. 52. North-south section through Precinct XX Grs. G 13, 25, 26

graves had been disturbed. The digging of his grave should have taken cognizance of the high-status burial of Middle Geometric II Gr. MG 23, but its magnificent krater 205 was obviously no longer on view (Fig. 115). Alcmeon’s LGI interment encroached on this burial’s perimeter. Four of the five LGII burials (G 5, 6, 10, 16) encroached on other earlier burials (Fig. 53). The general north-south orientation of the burial ground that had prevailed for centuries was disregarded as the LGII burials were set in at random. This contrasts with the more orderly arrangement of burial that now prevailed at the new Plattenbau burial ground nearby.225 Numerous shattered fragments of kraters published in

the Catalogue below support disruption of the Precinct XX kraters. These changes document the decline of the cemetery that had been the premier Athenian burial ground from the 12th to the onset of the eighth c. The evidence suggests that epitymbia may have been taken down before the interment of Alcmeon, perhaps during the events that led to the Medontids taking over the rule of Athens at the onset of LGII. Alcmeon’s Burial and the Demise of the Krater Epitymbion Alcmeon’s tomb Gr. G 24 illustrates some of the terminal activity. His was one of a pair of aligned burials of the same length, male and female, the largest burials installed at Precinct XX since the Submycenaean Gr. SM 22 in the eleventh century (Figs. 53). Both had been equipped with epitymbia, a krater for the male in Gr. G 24, and a figured amphora for the female in Gr. G 26, his probable consort. Both were oriented, unusually with the heads towards the north. The similar style, date and shape of the vessels in these two graves, the

Recognizable precincts: Plattenbau mud brick enclosures, the stone-outlined precinct at Kolonos Agoraios in the Agora, R. Young, Hesp. Suppl. II, 1939, 14, the Irian Gate LGIa grouping of ‘Dipylon Vases,’ AM 18, 1893, 91-115. Attica family groupings at Trachones, Anavyssos, and Eleusis: AD 29 Chron., 1973-4, 108-9; PAE 1953, 81f. fig. 10, PAE 1955, 72f., pls. 21b, 22a, 76, pls. 24b, 25a; Mylonas, 1961, 62-3; possible subdivision walls at the Faliron: AEphem1911, 247. The family affiliation of the occupants is confirmed by anthropological evidence only in the case of the Agora precinct. 225


Fig. 53. Kerameikos Precinct XX, Cemetery of the Melantho-Codrids and Alcmeonids, c. 1125-713 BC

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 54. The 60-gallon consortium krater of Alcmeon 279 suggests the authority wielded by the Neleids prior to their decline. Erected as epitymbion on his burial Gr. G 24, it was soon thrown aside to remove his body from the burial

outsized length depth and alignment of their trenches, the orientation of the heads, and that both male and female burials were likely crowned by an epitymbion, suggest high status and some relationship between the two. It is not out of the question that these two burials were contemporary installations. Kübler remarks that Gr. G 24, the male burial, had been destroyed down to its floor, on which lay an amphora and remains of leg bones (Fig. 55). These rested on a layer of burned earth mixed with charcoal, so he had likely received only

secondary cremation, i.e. not a public pyre event, but out of view, cremated in the tomb trench. The rifling would have shoved the epitymbion krater aside, and it finished up on top of the female epitymbion on the adjacent burial. She had been buried in a sarcophagos, traces of which survived. As the wood rotted away her tomb would have sunken in, allowing her epitymbion, as well as the extremely heavy remains of the behemoth krater 279 above it, to slide into her burial shaft (Fig. 54). 82

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age

Fig. 55. Alcmeon’s remains in Gr. G 24 were cut off at the knee-caps, leaving only the lower sections of his legs in situ

The burial of Alcmeon reveals disturbing signs of a lapse in traditional burial practice. He was not honored with the traditional rites accorded a high status Alcmeonid noble and king, i.e. prothesis, ekphora, a full pyre cremation, and a typical Type I ancestral epitymbion over his grave. He was accorded only secondary cremation out of sight in the burial shaft. His krater 279 was not adorned with scenes of prothesis and ekphora, but was a vast, standard geometric, Type II, consortium krater. It was probably the last krater epitymbion erected in Iron Age Athens (but an Acropolis fragment ANM 295 (Fig. 59) may have come from an even later epitymbion).

Alcmeon was not left to rest in peace. His grave was dug out to its foundation, his upper body removed, cut off cleanly above the kneecaps, leaving only partly burned leg bones and his pottery (Fig. 55).228 There appears here to be a suggestion of possible intentional vandalism of a rival’s burial site and person, but an entirely different interpretation may be warranted. A case can be made that the apparent disrespect seen here and in the Irian Gate elite precinct was not always vandalism, but an attempt to save the grave contents. The damage should in some instances be credited to the deceased’s survivors trying to preserve what they could from the burial, even to the extent of breaking epitymbia and removing the deceased’s remains.

Alcmeon’s epitymbion 279 was in some respects appropriate to the occasion. It was decorated in the Alcmeonid conservative geometric style, and evoked the traditions of the consortium that the Alcmeonids had likely popularized starting under Megacles. At 228 cubic liters capacity (c 60-gallons) it also had significance in its association with large assemblies of eupatrids, political gatherings that would no longer take place. With the passing of Alcmeon, the Medontids gained control of Athens. The unusual state of preservation of krater 279 reveals that it did not remain long above the tomb before it was dumped into the shaft of the adjacent female burial G 26.226 Apart from some anomalous fragments of LGII funerary vases on the Acropolis (Figs. 58, 59) only low-footed domestic kraters, footed cauldrons, and dinoi were now produced, and these were placed out of sight inside Athenian tombs.227

Of interest in this context is a unique situation in a new elite rural cemetery at Trachones just ouside Athens, founded at the end of LGIb soon after the demise of Alcmeon. The site was likely a Neleid refuge, to judge from its five krater epitymbia, one of which betrays a late hand of the Hirschfeld Workshop, a pottery that supplied the Irian Gate and Kerameikos cemeteries in their heyday. Geroulanos, publisher of the site, reported anomalous features of the interred remains, which Alexandridou confirms are found nowhere else in Attica.229 The bodies seem to have been subjected to secondary cremation (cremation in the grave), but it had not been carried out in the Trachones graves. There was a large heap of ash where pyre cremation may have occurred. Curiously, the cremated remains had then been placed on the floor of the grave in an attempt to reconstruct the form of the dead body. Sometimes missing body portions were reconstituted in cremation ash, presumably acceptable as it might have contained decayed residue of the deceased’s corpse.230 Cremation

Its surface contrasts with the very eroded surface on the interior of an epitymbion krater, brought to my attention by epimelete Eleni Zosi, which had been left on view at Anavyssos for some time when the site was deserted at the end of LGII. 227 Ker. 9011 the single late krater fragment from Precinct XX area, and a handful of fragments from the Rundbau, 3684-5, 3688, 3690, from the turn of the century. 226

Ker. V, 1, 225, pl. 4. Geroulanos 1973, 6-9, pl. 52 Tr. 37. Alexandridou 2016, 345-347. 230 Geroulanos 1973, 15. 228 229


Kratos & Krater on the ash heap would have allowed the bones of the deceased to be carefully recovered and placed in the tomb, but parts are missing, mostly feet and hands. These are elite Athenians, and it is possible they were subject to mutilation by the enemy, but there may be another explanation.

the Precinct XX burial ground.233 Both Trachones and Anavyssos had some late Hirschfeld Workshop pottery. Agamestor’s Burial, Irian Gate Gr. III There is disquieting evidence of a similar untoward situation in the nearby Irian Gate precinct of the Philaid elite.234 Some of the epitymbia owe their preservation to breakage which can be demonstrated as deliberate, according to the Rayet-Collignon accounts of the 1871 Irian Gate excavation. They report that most, if not all the kraters were found deliberately shattered, their pieces scattered on the tomb, and their bases missing.235 ‘Au dessus de chaque fosse, entassés en pile, étaient les débris d’un grand vase qui, après avoir servi aux cérémonies funèbres, avait été brisé a dessein, a coups frappés du côté intérieur au moyen d’un instrument contondant, comme serait une hache de pierre.’ They refer to these kraters mistakenly as being broken in the course of funerary rites, a procedure that was no longer happening in the Late Geometric period. These were not libation kraters to be smashed and burned following ritual libation as was often the case in the earlier Geometric phases. They were scenic epitymbia, meant to stand as monuments. They were set up to advertise the status of the burial’s occupant, and unable to hold wine for libation ritual because of their perforated bases. Some were likely custom-made and not even readied in time for the funerary rites, but erected on the burial on a later occasion.236 Brückner and Pernice dismissed the earlier Rayet-Collignon account of deliberate destruction after they discovered the Grave III epitymbion krater in open burial, and rightly assumed that the kraters were burial markers. They failed to recognize, however, that the epitymbia had indeed been subject to deliberate destruction.

One possibility for these anomalous Trachones circumstances might complement the evidence found in Alcmeon’s burial, where those who removed his body left behind his par-burned lower legs and his pottery gifts (Fig. 55).231 The curious ash reconstitution of the Trachones ‘bodies’ suggests that the deceased may have been given secondary cremation elsewhere, perhaps in an Athenian tomb, as was Alcmeon. The fire of such cremation does not reach the high intensity of a funeral pyre because oxygen feeding the fire is blocked by the narrowness and depth of the shaft. It is for this reason that the Archaic Alcmeonids using secondary cremation equipped their trench burials with oxygenating flues, usually four, dug into the side of the rectangular trench. Survivors attempting to exhume and remove their dead from a potentially hostile LGII Athenian environment may have found that a secondary cremation had not completely destroyed the corpse’s ligaments, and that the bodies could be removed still with parts attached. Hands and feet may have been omitted in a possible clandestine scavenging process at the primary burial site because their small ligaments may have decomposed, leaving behind the numerous tiny bones of these appendages. It is then possible that at Trachones the remains were subject to cremation for a second time where the ash heap was found, perhaps the more traditional and honorific true pyre cremation, open to view and leaving only bone and ash residue. Then the bones could be recomposed into a ‘corpse’ on the floor of the tomb with ash filler mixed with fat, resin or somesuch, to reconstitute the missing portions.

The manner in which they were broken has something to say of the identity of the perpetrators. Again, they were not necessarily vandals or antagonists. The Rayet group reported the kraters were broken not by a handy rock or some other weapon smashed against the vessel exterior (as has been found at Precinct XX), but by blows on the inside of the vessel, using a blunt object. If this is true, it suggests those destroying the vessels hesitated for some reason to desecrate the ritual scenes on the epitymbia, which often included prothesis

Alcmeon’s kin may have covertly removed his remains in this fashion for burial elsewhere, probably not Trachones, but Anavyssos, a site associated with the Alcmeonid oikos from the early 9th c. as well as the later historical era.232 Both Trachones and Anavyssos appear to have been places of refuge. Their floruit coincides with the rule of the LGII Medontids, petering out at the onset of the Protoattic period as the eupatrids returned to Athens following the Medontid ouster. Kuria Eleni Zosi, epimelite for the Anavyssos finds, noticed the rise in elite occupation following LGI and a sharp decrease at the onset of the Protoattic period, a pattern of occupation that dovetails with the usage lacuna at

I thank epimelete Kuria Eleni Zosi for this information. Her PhD diss. ‘Geometric Pottery from Anavyssos’ combines results of several excavations from the site. I also thank, former epimelete, Dr. Petros Themelis, who in the early 1970s kindly allowed sampling of LGI Anavyssos material against control specimens from Precinct XX, and presumably produced in Athens. Dr. Richard Jones of the Fitch Laboratory of the British School at Athens kindly carried out spectrographic analysis on the sherds. 234 Most of the broken fragments of monumental kraters from this cemetery are preserved in the Athens National and Louvre museums (Louvre, CVA XIII & XVIII). 235 Rayet-Collignon, 1888, 26. 236 Rayet-Collignon, 1888, 24-26, where they confirm that the remains were found on the tomb and were decorated with funerary scenes in the upper register. Brückner-Pernice 1893, 151. 233

Kübler 1954, 225-226. Based on an inscription on the base of a kouros statue found there: C. W. T. Eliot, Where did the Alkmaionidai Live, Historia 16, 1967, 279286. 231 232


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age and ekphora. Hostile vandals would not normally show such sensitivity to iconography. Neither would they have harvested the krater pedestals, a common practice when kraters and bowls were accidentally broken. Concerns about damaging ritual iconography might have been felt by fellow citizens with a peeve, but still sensitive to the enormity of desecrating such representations. However, it is more likely that the actions were carried out by relatives of the deceased aware of potential threat to the monuments and burial contents if they remained on open display. In some cases they seem have taken them down to retain them with the deceased in the burial. This sounds extraordinary, but during an emergency it may have been a desperate measure to retain the symbolic vessel with its deceased in whatever condition. Taking down the epitymbion would also have hidden the location of prominent burials to prevent violation or theft of the grave contents or desecration of the human remains. The kind of jubilation experienced in the capture of a foe’s ritual paraphernalia is graphically illustrated on the Arch of Titus.237 A less drastic solution for protecting epitymbion kraters included hiding them from sight. This could be effected by excavating further into the burial, lowering the krater down into the shaft and then filling in the grave and open burial to grade. Removal of the pedestal base would have made the task easier, and is probably the main reason why pedestal bases were missing from epitymbia, as reported by Rayet.

Fig. 56. Brückner and Pernice’s representation of the original status of the Irian Gate Gr. III burial attributed here to Philaid Life-King Agamestor (796-778 BC)

survived both natural and man-made disturbances and theft, and the measures taken by survivors to guard the grave contents against predators, needs some revision.

Boardman noted that some kraters may have received special consideration: ‘We may note in passing, perhaps with some surprise, that many of the big grave-marking vessels have survived complete, but many others in only isolated fragments. This suggests that, once broken, some were soon effectively covered, but it is possible that they had differing fortunes after the burial, possibly not unrelated to the identitity of the buried. Later large vases that survived well were generally buried and did not stand above ground.’238 This brings us to more detailed consideration of Irian Gate Gr. III, discussed briefly above in the coverage of life-king Agamestor (796-778) to whom I assign the burial.

At the time of its discovery a layer of ash sealed over Gr. III. When this ash layer was removed it revealed the burial shaft, from which two rough limestone steles were vacated. Immediately below, within the burial shaft, was revealed the krater standing 95 cm high. The Brückner-Pernice section drawing of the tomb (Fig. 56) is not a reflection of these find circumstances, but rather their speculation on the original siting of the krater, which resembles the find circumstances of several Kerameikos burials surmounted by krater epitymbia. The excavators surmised that a wooden cover over the burial below had rotted causing the krater to subside into the burial. In Athens at this time, cremation burials with urn were not usually vaulted.239 Kerameikos burials with wooden items such as sarcophagi usually leave detectable traces of wood decay, but none was noted for Gr. III.

The burial of the Philaid King Agamestor reveals the most intensive efforts yet at preserving the human remains and burial items intact, even to the retention of the krater to its full height, in upright position, out of sight within the burial shaft. Irian Gate Grave III is notable not only for its survival but because of the valuable record left of its find circumstances: its 19th c. excavators and publishers made careful observations, study and sketches. However, their discussion of how it

A precise reconstruction of events may be impossible, however, there appears to have been more than one attempt to preserve the krater with the burial. The

Rayet-Collignon, 1888, 24. Brückner-Pernice 1893, 95. Boardman, Early Greek Vases, 26. 238 J. Boardman, Early Greek Painting, London, 1998, 26. 237

Brückner-Pernice 1893, 92-4, 151, 154, cross-section, 92, fig. 4. AD 1892, 7, No. 4. 239


Kratos & Krater first measure, the Open Burial (Fig. 79), established at the time of burial in 778 BC, was no proof against the type of threats epitymbia were subject to from the mideighth c. At that time kraters needed to be completely hidden from sight. Elsewhere that meant removing the pedestal, however here the deceased was obviously a man of high status, whose fully cremated remains were inurned in bronze. The tomb may have been excavated deeper so that the krater could be kept intact and upright, the usual status for a krater. The krater would have been lowered c. 30 cm into the burial to clear grade, then the tomb filled in. Subsidence occurred in sequel: The krater rim is heavily weathered and friable, suggesting that it had reemerged above grade and been exposed to the elements. Rainwater may have washed down loose packed fill, as part of the krater sidewall appears to have suffered water damage. As the rim emerged, the krater may have been discovered, and this may have been the occasion when a significant sidewall portion with the prothesis scene was removed, perhaps as a souvenir (it was found elsewhere in the modern era). None of the gold or other valuables found elsewhere in this precinct were found in Gr. III, whose deceased was of sufficient status to have merited such gifts, so it is possible that some rifling of the tomb may have occurred. The krater was eased down further into the shaft and may have now occupied a different position. The canonical position for a krater would normally be directly over the urn at one end of the grave, but it was now positioned in the center of the burial where deeper excavation could accommodate its height.

Fig. 57. Kerameikos Sacred Way burial hS 290, with krater 284 shoved into the tomb on its side

(Fig. 46a). It had been part of the Rayet horde that had been excavated twenty years earlier than Grave III in an adjacent lot.242 Of the seventeen burials from the precinct published by Brückner-Pernice, the Gr. III occupant was the only one who was memorialized by traditional pyre cremation rites and allocated a bronze urn for his remains. That and the measures taken to bury and protect the remains in this grave point to a prominent deceased, as does the ash deposit over the burial, the remains of ritual dedications.243 Hidden from sight, krater ANM 806 survived intact until Stais uncovered it in 1891 along with other epitymbia from this significant site. Decorated with an early and expansive prothesis scene, it is further discussed above in the context of Agamestor, and again with its fellow kraters in Chapter V. The finest preserved, almost pristine ANM 990, also from the Irian Gate cemetery may have been similarly protected (Fig. 1), as also 284 on the Kerameikos Sacred Way shoved on its side in the shaft, according to its excavator, ‘noch in Sturzlage’ (Fig. 57, 124, 193).244

Further fill was now added to grade, including the two Geometric rough stone steles placed directly above the krater. Subsequent ritual activity occurred perhaps to atone for the burial’s disturbance, superimposing the layer of ash, and sealing the deposit securely this time. To quote Paulsen, ‘und haben so dieses merkwürdige Grab ganz gut bewahrt’.240 It was now so well disguised that the later peribolos of this precinct took no cognizance of its position, excluding it from the enclosure except where it ran across the tomb’s north corner. The protective measures saved this krater, now on display in the Athens National Museum, along with other epitymbia found with it in the Philaid precinct.241 The center panel of krater ANM 806 with the lying-instate of the dead (prothesis) was missing, but in recent years the missing fragment was located in the Louvre collection and published by A. Kauffmann-Samaras

The Eupatrid Rural Relocation Around the time these Neleid cemeteries were being degraded, a number of eupatrids appear to have Louvre AC 3272 a-d, Kaufmann-Samaras 1973, 235-40, pl. 128 found in same location as ANM 990, Ahlberg, 1971b fig. 19. 243 Paulsen 1905, 18f.,92-94, 151, 154. 244 K. Vierneisel, Kerameikos Grabung, AD Vol. 18,1, Chron, (1963), p. 30, pl. 29.

Poulsen, 1905, 18 f. The monumental amphorae from the Irian Gate, ANM 803, 804, 805, and 806 are unusually complete for epitymbia and show little apparent surface weathering. They owe this to being taken down, probably by the end of the LGI period.


240 241


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age relocated to remote areas of rural Attica. Coldstream and others saw settlement in Attica as an outcome of the increasing prosperity brought by synoikismos as the outlying settlements now recognized Athens as the head of the city-state of Attica. In this study synoikismos has been interpreted as something quite different, namely the union of eupatrid houses that occurred much earlier, around the time of the 11th c constitution. Following that, Attica did recover from the decline and population loss of the transitional era as its rural assets were more efficiently exploited. There was more outreach to rural settlements from the late tenth century phase of Megacles’ rule. Coldstream was, however mistaken in believing that the rapid peopling of rural Attica in the mid-8th c. was a positive event for the aristocracy, and that they were becoming increasingly powerful. Their presence in the outlying regions was a token of their diminished power in the center, Athens.

explanations. It is sometimes attributed to a harsh drought that occasioned the digging of many wells in the Agora. Coldstream touched on the real cause as he described what was essentially a change in Athenian psychology in the LGII phase. I quote: ‘It appears, then, that during the late eighth century the men of Attica were contracting out of their enterprises abroad, and transforming themselves into a quiet, inward-looking people whose interests were in agriculture, and no longer in commerce. Archaeology alone cannot supply the reason for this change; but one possible explanation is offered by Herodotus, who records the memory of an early naval war in which Athens was worsted by Aegina with Argive help. Such a reverse might have dealt a severe enough blow to Athenian shipping to allow the commercial initiative to pass into Aeginetan hands.245 There had been clear signs of regionalism in the ninth c, documented by Coldstream in his study of variant ceramic styles. By 800 BC other Mainland regions were evolving into centers of power, and as they assessed which territories should rightfully be included in their spheres of influence, the potential for interregional conflict increased. Military combat may have begun as early as the ninth century in competition for the fertile Lelantine plain of Euboea.246 Support for Coldstream’s suggestion of an 8th c. naval war comes from Gudrun Ahlberg’s observations of a number of LGIa krater epitymbia from the Irian Gate cemetery, depicting conflict on land and sea. While a common view was that they represented scenes from epic, Ahlberg departed from that interpretation when she observed excesses of brutal realism on the sidewalls of kraters and other vessels. She surmised that the regular portrayal of piles of corpses and numerous bodies floating in the water were influenced less by the Iliad, than by Assyrian and other Near Eastern sources that were documentations of actual combats. Thus she associated a scene of the disarming and slaughter of captives on a Louvre oinochoe, not with the sacrifice of Trojans at Troy, but with some contemporary event.247

Under the rule of the eupatrid life-kings. Athens may have had sufficient interconnections with outlying settlement areas to be considered a city-state by the ninth c. if not before. The thesis here is that the considerable exodus into the countryside during LGI was not part of that wonderful development. It was more a retreat from Athens of some of the entrepreneurial eupatrids who had already established the groundwork of the city-state but were now facing an uncertain future in Athens. These were perhaps not only the Neleids, settled in Brauron, Anavyssos, Merenda, and Trachones, but other eupatrid houses in remote sites where kraters had formerly been erected on prestigious burials as part of ongoing political relations with Athens: Eleusis, Palaia Kokkinia, Marathon/Oinoe and Thorikos. The krater’s suspension in Athens was reflective of a political sea-change that likely impacted first during the rule of Aeschylus: a recorded military conflict with Aegina and Argos that had concluded with the death of Alcmeon, and a new regime overseeing Athens.

The kraters have been generally overlooked as evidence for Herodotus’ Aeginetan war, partly because King Pheidon of Argos was said to be involved in the venture and the chronology did not work. Pheidon’s reign, characterized by polis, tyranny, temples, and military campaigns, smacks of the seventh century. However, the main reason scholars set him in the later century is the role he reportedly played in the creation of coinage,

Fighting on Land & Sea: The Aeginetan Campaign, Pheidon, & Athenian Decline The End of the Athenian ‘Renaissance’ Athens had been approaching its Iron Age zenith at the end of the ninth century, its fine MGII pottery widely exported in trade around the Mediterranean. The first half of the ensuing 8th c. has been termed a Renaissance with some justification, if one focuses on the fine remains from the burials. However, during the second half of the century and beyond the new city-state entered a lingering recession, its vital production, and mercantile activities, as well as its stature in the eastern Mediterranean observably diminished. Scholars have acknowledged the circumstances and offered some

Coldstream 1968, 361. Lefkandi appears to have lost population in the ninth century in favor of Eretria which has a social elite very similar to that of Lefkandi: AntKunst 45, 2002, 140, fn. 46. Thuc. I 15,3, 133-4. 247 Ahlberg 1971a. Kirk 1949, 144-147, 157: ships represent both saga, and contemporary representations, referencing battles in which the deceased participated. These remarkable epitymbia, mostly broken fragments, are located in the Athens National Museum, the Louvre, and museums elsewhere around the world. 245 246


Kratos & Krater an accomplishment that is no longer credited.248 Against Dunbabin’s seventh c. date.249 Huxley posited an eighth century Pheidon in light of Courbin’s ‘rich and new discoveries in the LG cemeteries of Argos’.250 Signs of the degree to which the economy of that region has been underestimated have since emerged from the Geometric cemetery of Corinth, which had an efflorescence of sorts from the mid-8th century (King List chronology LGII) , and was soon replacing Athens as the prime Mainland exporter of fine ceramics.

event significant enough to retain the imprimature of a Near Eastern date associated with Abraham. I have assigned the large Precinct XX Gr. G 24 to Alcmeon, which represents the end of elite male burials at this cemetery and the Irian Gate. This date also marks the end of the life-king constitution and Athens’ continuing prosperity, as the Medontids took control of Athens after their 150-year hiatus. By any standard, Precinct XX had been the ancestral burial ground of the premier oikos of Athens during the ninth century, and the Irian Gate cemetery had assumed that role in the first quarter of the eighth, to judge from the number and refinement of epitymbion kraters associated with each site. By the end of the LGIb phase, in the mid-8th c their cemeteries reflect considerable diminution in their fortunes if not complete abandonment. As a sign of the times, no fine ancestral Type I krater was created for Alcmeon. Instead what was probably his geometric consortium krater was introduced as his epitymbion following his 752 BC decease (one queries whether he died with his boots on). That krater did not reside long over his remains, which were also removed. Also in the Irian Gate cemetery a game of hide-and-seek ensued over the epitymbia of fellow Neleids Agamestor and other nobles, already detailed above. The high status male elite burials now terminated, along with their funerary ostentation in both cemeteries. The grand display at the pyre, and expansive libation rites of the elite were replaced by inhumation burial, which had been mostly reserved for women to this point. The krater epitymbion lapsed. The last erected, Alcmeon’s, LGIb 279, looks impressive enough, but unlike the numerous richly decorated ancestral figural epitymbia that had stood in the Irian Gate cemetery, it is a traditionally decorated consortium krater Type II, set up on the last respectable male burial at the site.254 Elite Neleid males and their supporters were now exiting Athens and burying their leaders on their country estates.

Coldstream in his summary of the evidence also looked favorably on an 8th c. Pheidon.251 Herodotus placed him long before the time of Peisistratos.252 The reports of Pausanias are not always credited but this current research has found several of them quite dependable, and he too places Pheidon in the mid-eighth c. A new spirit of individualism can be detected early in the style of the mid-century pottery sequence of Argos, which had already in MGII charted an independent style. Now the ruthless Pheidon prepared to consolidate his reach over several neighboring areas of the Peloponnesos, as he reportedly engaged in a systematic recovery of the ‘Lot of Temenos’. Pausanias has him seizing Olympia in 748 BC which may be quite valid.253 A dating system based on the Olympic Games seems to have already been in operation at that time, used to date the rule of life-king Aeschylus, whose third year of rule (King’s List 776/775) coincided with the first Olympiad (776 BC). If the conflict did take place, Aegina alone would have been no match for the resources of Athens, but the combination of Argos and Aegina would have been formidable. Under Pausanias’ chronology for Pheidon, he could have been active prior to the mid-8th c. when so many Irian Gate kraters depict scenes of naval conflict. The reported outcome of the war was an ignominious defeat for Athens, probably assignable to the end of LGIb. This phase is notable for the lack of sea combat scenes on krater epitymbia. Coldstream sets the end of LGIb at 735 BC, while the King List chronology assigns it more logically to 752 BC, coincident with the death of Alcmeon the last constitutional ruler, an

An Epitymbion Krater with Prothesis on the Acropolis Following the death of Alcmeon, Pheidon may have concluded his assault on the Athenians in LGIIa by placing the likely Medontid Charops in control of Athens. The fortunes of the final epitymbia and the measures to protect the burials, detailed above, indicate that the transference of power to the Medontids may not have been peaceful. Some of the more colorful aspects of Peloponnesian funerary practice are no longer evidenced in LGII burials. Libation, pyre cremation and dousing had been replaced by inhumation, secondary cremation in the grave shaft and libation trenches. With the onset of Late Geometric II, the great krater

W. L. Brown, NumChron 10 (1950), 191 ff. Pheidon’s reported creation for the Aeginetans of the first Greek ‘coinage’ whatever form it took, does not appear so improbable for the eighth century in light of the set of weights from a ninth century tomb context at Lefkandi, and a hoard of ‘pre-money’ from Eretria. Popham-Lemos 1996, 154, fig. 8. Certainly the spits (obeloi) that Pheidon donated to the Argive Heraion were a form of currency. P. Themelis 8th c. hoard with ingots and pieces of gold, AntKunst, 141-152, pls. 30 f. BSA 62, 1967, 61-3. There is some evidence that Pheidon was a predecessor of the tyrants in Corinth, and may not have outlived their takeover in Corinth, Nic. Dam. frgt. 41. 249 Dunbabin BSA 37, 1936-7, 83-7. 250 Huxley 1958, 588-601. Coldstream, pers. comm. 251 Coldstream 2003,132-4, 145, 154-6. 252 Hdt V, 83-9. 253 Paus. VI. 22,2. Hdt, V.82-88. Coldstream 1968, 361 n. 10, 362-363. Coldstream 2003, 132-4, 145, 154-6. 248

Early Inhumations, Eleusis Isis Grave, Poulsen 1905, 20 fn. 3, Kerameikos, Gr. 20, Ker. V,1, 221 f., both female. 254


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age

Fig. 58. Fragments of LGIb-LGII funerary vessels found on the Acropolis

epitymbia with scenes of prothesis and ekphora were no longer found in Athenian burial grounds. Presumably the panoply of the processions they had depicted had also ceased. The loss of such rituals at this time is probably quite significant for certain ancestral noble houses. Prothesis and probably ekphora had their origins in the Mycenaean Peloponnesos. A LHIIIC Late krater in Elis depicts a prothesis very close to those depicted on the Late Geometric epitymbia (Fig. 14). Hiller reviews earlier occurrences of ekphora, which may also trace back to much earlier times: roads leading to Mycenaean burial grounds suggest as much.255

Fig. 59. Epitymbion krater ANM 295 with depiction of interior prothesis, found on the Acropolis

Public ekphora may not have been possible under Medontid rule but scenes of prothesis continued on smaller amphorae buried in tombs. Notably a prothesis scene on a fragment of krater epitymbion found on the Acropolis indicates that prothesis continued under more restricted circumstances. Krater fragment ANM 295 was one of a number of fragments of figural funerary vessels of LGI-II date found on the height, and they call into question the occupancy of the Acropolis during these unusual times (Figs. 58, 59). Creative explanations for their presence there are so far unconvincing.256 My view is that one or more aristocratic families facing a hostile environment in Athens may have withdrawn to the Acropolis rather than Attic rural areas, and even set down their tombs and erected traditional grave markers there.

The significant krater fragment (Fig. 59) depicts a warrior lying in prothesis, but not on a bier in procession to the grave.257 Remarkably he is depicted lying on a bier in chambers, more reflective of the subdued conditions of burial that existed from LGIb: scabbarded swords hang on the wall in the background. To the right a figure may be switching flies away. The crosshatching of the shroud/canopy on the epitymbion fragment is typical of Late Geometric II epitymbion kraters from southern Attica, published by Rombos.258 This krater fragment represents the last traditional krater epitymbion found in Athens. From the mid-eighth c epitymbion kraters are found only in the rural areas of Attica in the several locations where Athenian eupatrids had migrated. Trachones and Anavyssos have already been mentioned as potential retreats for the Neleids.

Hiller 2006, 183-190. Circa 1000 sherds, mostly LG many unpublished, included various funerary vessels and unexpected funerary epitymbia fgts. M. Langdon, 1977, interpretes the funerary vases as votives for the goddess or heroes, or part of terrace fill. That such somber vessels would be given as votives is unlikely, as also the fill theory. Such figural kraters had been produced in Athens only through LGI, at the Irian Gate and Kerameikos cemeteries, too far away to make haulage of earth for fill practical. The fill theory was used to explain the appearance of numerous kraters at the tenth c. Lefkandi house burial. Other views: Hurwit 1999, 89-94, figs. 59, 62. For the use of the Acropolis see especially J. Papadopoulos 2003. Its sequestration for Athena, 297f. 309-311. For LGI-II, Graef 1909, 23, pls. 8-10. AM 97, 1982, 311. Gauss-Ruppenstein, 1998, 36, fn. 137; 41, 60, pls. 4-7. 255 256

In summary, the warfare depicted on the Athenian LGIa epitymbion kraters was almost certainly the reason for the removal of eupatrid leadership to southern Attica, the institution of Medontid decennial rule and the 257 258


Graef, No. 295. Rombos 1988.

Kratos & Krater The New York Sea Battle Krater

longstanding Athenian recession that followed. The conflict was one of the most significant events in early Greek history, but one that the Athenians preferred to forget. It terminated a longstanding constitution, and nearly three hundred years of Athenian evolution under the eupatrids that may have already culminated in the institution of the city-state. Athens remained debilitated from this experience for a considerable time, but the aristocratic culture which had shaped its progress during the Iron Age was still intact and would reemerge during the historical period.

The many depictions of land and naval battles on LGIa funerary kraters of the Irian Gate cemetery point to the use of Athens’ merchant fleet in interregional naval conflict at that time. If the opponent was Argos as seems to be the case, the dispute would not have been about trade, which was something of little interest to the Argives. It would have been about territorial control and perhaps even an outgrowth of the inter-regional rivalry for status that was initiated from the first Olympic Games in 776 BC. Pheidon was reportedly trying to take control of the venue of the games, Olympia, in 748 BC. Perhaps one of the feisty Pheidon’s teams had been bested by an Athenian charioteer on that occasion. I jest, but certainly he may have welcomed an opportunity for involving his ample military resources in a suppression of Athenian trading enterprise. With no expertise in trade, the Argives prospered under Pheidon mostly by military expansion. There may have been a ready justification at hand. He may have believed that the Lot of Temenos he was attempting to reconstitute included Attica, if I am correct in identifying the Medontids as descendants of the Argive king Temenos (v. ‘Who was Medon? Chapter III).

The Aeginetan Campaign: The Destruction of Athenian Naval Power From accounts of warfare surviving primarily from Herodotus it would appear that the combat scenes on Athenian vessels of LGIa and LGIIa date illustrated the Aeginetan conflict, and in some cases the actual battle in which the deceased had participated.259 Herodotus picked up information glossed over in the annals of the Athenians, but preserved in the traditions of their rivals. The accounts combine likely factual details with the usual fanciful embroidery of survivals from that age.

In support of a mid-eighth century Athenian contretemps on Aegina there are several LGI Attic vessels with scenes of naval combat that may specifically reference it. Of most interest is an unsourced LGI Attic krater in the New York Metropolitan Museum, painted

The conflict reportedly evolved from a dispute between Athens and its regular customer, Aegina, which lies within view of Athens, and also close to the Peloponnesian shores overseen by Argos. According to the Aeginetan version of the conflict, Athenians landed on the island of Aegina in some force, but were confronted by the Aeginetans’ Argive allies crossing from Epidaurus, who cut the Athenians off from their ships. Few, if any, made it back to Athens.260 Coldstream isolated data suggesting a date for the high point of hostilities between Athens and its two adversaries. Reportedly the Aeginetans, always dependent on Athens for their supply of pottery, had at some point placed an embargo on its importation. Notably, there are no Athenian imports into Aegina of LGIb date in an otherwise unbroken sequence of Attic imports, while Corinthian Late Geometric was imported into the island in quantity at that time. This gives some corroboration for a break in relations between Aegina and Athens during that time. This phase is notable for a detectable tremor coursing through Athenian society at its conclusion, namely the death of the new life-king Alcmeon and the takeover of Athens by the Medontid decennial archontate at the onset of LGII, when the flow of Attic pottery to Aegina begins once more, remaining continuous through the seventh century. This suggests that the defeat of Athens appears to coincide with the death of Alcmeon in 752 BC. Oinochoe Louvre CA2509, krater, Louvre A534G, Ahlberg 1971a, passim, OpusAth, 4, 16, 1971, 21-25, 57, figs. 19-24, 88. Kirk 1949, 93157, esp. 144-7. 260 Hdt V, 86. 259

Fig. 60. The New York Metropolitan Museum Land and Sea Battle Krater


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age

Fig. 61. Details of the New York battle krater. Above Side A has the ship still beached under assault, with fighting on deck man-to man, while the mast and sail are still stowed. Side B, the ship is readied to sail: a token swordsman, archer, and lancer, defend the ship as an unhelmed sailor amidships lowers the sail (detail), while the helmsman takes his seat aft

with explicit battle scenes.261 This may, like krater ANM 806, combine the efforts of two artists, an older MGII artisan for the purely geometric ornament, and another working in the new panoramic LGI figural style seen on krater ANM 806 (Fig. 46ab). The visual narrative of the New York krater has discernible correspondences with Herodotus’ account of a major battle on the island of Aegina, where Argives aided Aeginetans by destroying the Athenian navy’s beached ships. This bottled up the Athenian warriors on the island, where they were reportedly systematically slaughtered by the Argives’ superior military. The krater appears to depict what was perhaps the climax of the conflict, the decisive rout of the Athenians that took place on the shore.262 The battle was a significant defeat for the Athenians, impacting their status in the Mediterranean world for at least a century.

launch a ship under heavy attack. The two scenes of shipboard combat on either side of the krater appear to be sequential phases in the launching of the same ship (the prothesis scene in the upper register is similarly duplicated). Both scenes have been extensively studied by Mary B. Moore, with a range of detailed illustrations. My briefer survey looks to link it to an actual historic event, and add a few observations that differ from Moore’s interpretation.263 The earliest combat scene (Fig. 61a) has the sail and mast still stowed, and pikes still available racked upright in the prow. A phalanx of heavily armed hoplites approaches on foot, each carrying a large shield and two spears. They encircle the lower part of the vase moving in file at a trot. They are clearly part of the main scene terminating at the ship, onto which several of their number have already leapt. One hoplite has discarded his shield to fight man to man with one of the warrior crew. There is high drama as the ship is assailed from both sides, and there is little hope unless the warrior oarsmen can repel the attackers and get underway before more come on board. The reverse side of the krater (Fig. 65b) reveals the outcome. The ship is large, and the number of crew and defenders small. They comprise a token swordsman, archer, lancer, a seated helmsman in the stern, and amidships an unhelmed sailor at the

In the lower zone of the krater normally reserved for ornament there is a scene of Athenians attempting to NY, Met. Mus. 34.11.2, M. Moore, CVA NY, 5, 2004, 1-8, pls. 1-7, figs. 1-2. Moore and others date it MGII. M. Moore, MMA Journal, 35, 2000, 13-38, esp. 20. Birds and other figural motifs sometimes interject themselves into these arrangements. M. & J. Bingen, BCH. 77-90, later than LGIa, convincingly relate it to a provincial, old-fashioned krater from Thorikos, which Rombos assigns to her LGII Thorikos Workshop, Rombos 1988, 132, 360-3, pls. 11,12, 66. The NY krater has the same type of limber figures, tilting slightly backwards, bow shaped mourning gesture, lack of fill motifs, and same conservative MGII framing elements. 262 Hdt. V, 88. Summarized Coldstream 1968, 132-133, 145. Coldstream 1977, 134f. 261



Moore 2000, 13-38.

Kratos & Krater sail.264 This sailor has sometimes been identified as a fettered woman because of the hair, but unlike the female mourner depicted in the krater’s handle region, no breasts are indicated.265 The figure’s posture is very similar to that of a seated sailor controlling two tackle lines on krater fragment Louvre A530 (Fig. 62), where a warrior stands behind a sailor in a similar activity. The warrior is urgently pulling in the slack from one of the lines the sailor is holding, which are likely the forestays, used for raising and lowering the mast.266 By contrast the seated sailor on the New York krater has raised the mast and is now manipulating the sail tackle. His crooked arm is extended to the halyard that raises or lowers the sail, which runs down to the deck (presumably to a fitting), and then up the mast. The sailor’s other arm stretches down to the sheet which attaches to the corner of the sail. The simultaneous raising of the sail and manipulation of the sheet would have been beyond the capability of a lone woman. The individual is not a warrior and does have a good head of hair, so may be a male slave of foreign extraction.

Fig. 62. LGIa krater Louvre. A 530, may depict the same scene at the beach, with a warrior assisting the seated sailor

The warrior depicted earlier mounting the prow has been dislodged, and so have others, to judge from the enemy shields littering the deck. A newly arrived armed assailant should prove no match for the two defending warriors approaching from the right, only their legs and a spear preserved. The sailor amidships holds the halyard, lowering the sail with one hand, as he manipulates the sheet to catch some wind with the other. The helmsman is seated, ready to steer, as the last combat plays out before him, so perhaps for this ship the fortunes have changed. Unfortunately, the battle had not. What is the symbolism of the birds depicted on both prow and stern?267

on land of warriors, usually bowmen, depicted in confrontation with superior arms. The familiar Eleusis Skyphos combines an abbreviated version of both motifs on either side of the vessel.269 An uneven combat is depicted on a LGIb Atticizing(?) amphora found on Paros in a mass grave of 200 young men fallen in combat.270 The deceased is shown in the traditional prothesis on the vase neck, and again in the battle scene below, where, reminiscent of the Iliad, combat is waged over his body between heavily armed warriors and men armed only with slingshots.

The New York krater depiction is the most explicit and complete of several battle scenes that may reference this same event: an attempt to launch a beached ship under heavy attack.268 There are also several scenes

This vase may depict the tactics and armor of the Argive hoplites and possibly the phalanx, and their effect on those who were not similarly trained and equipped. The reported military successes of Argos and the splendid suit of armour found in an 8th c. Argive tomb support that Argos was in advance of other regions in the development of new military tactics. The Argives timely arrival from Epidaurus in the Aeginetan rout demonstrates a maneuverable force in an early blitzkrieg.271 The Paros amphora is dated to the phase of the Birdseed Workshop LGIIa by Coldstream, which

For the size of ships at this time, Morrison-Williams 1968, 40f. Moore and others believe the figure is a captive woman because of the hair. She attributes lack of breasts to the vase’s state of preservation. However, the ‘fetters’ are the ends of the sail lines, rising from some ring or other fastener, attached to the deck. The figure’s arm is crooked at the elbow, the end of the limb defined by a heavier spot of glaze, where the brush terminated. I thank. Prof. L. Casson for the technical details of ship and crew: pers. comm. On krater 272 there are two dilute parallel lines to the left of the mast representing the lines for raising and lowering the sail, and one circular fitting. They descend from the upper part of the mast where they loop through one or more circular fittings of the type depicted ranged down the mast of a more detailed depiction of a ship found at Thera, AAA, 1986-7, 118-120. 266 C. Grunwald, ‘Frühe attische Kampfdarstellungen,’ Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica, 15, 1983, 164f., figs. 13, 20, 26. Morrison, & Williams 1968, 24f. 267 S. Wachsmann, Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age Levant, London, 1998,184f. Benson 1970, 99-102. 268 Copenhagen NM1628, Ahlberg 1971a, 29, fig. 31; krater Louvre, A528, 31, fig. 34; Louvre A527, 32, fig. 37; ANM frgt. 34, fig. 40; ANM 264 265

frgt. from Argos, 35, fig. 41; the Eleusis skyphos, 35, figs. 42-3; Louvre frgt. 36, fig. 44; Louvre, A 534, 37, fig. 45. 269 Ahlberg 1971a, 35, Figs. 42,43, variously dated, but probably should be considered with Brouskair’s S. Acropolis Gr. Theta, considered in the Chronology section above. 270 Coldstream 1977, 398, fig. 125, LGIb-IIa. Another such scene, oinochoe, Copenhagen 1628, Davison fig. 133. 271 Snodgrass 1971, 272, fig. 95. A frgt. from a similar helmet found in the Irian Gate Cemetery, 720-710 BC, A. M. Snodgrass, Early Greek Armour and Weapons, 1964, 3, 217.


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age would have shortly followed the defeat of the Athenians on Aegina. Perhaps Athens had some offshore allies during this war.

insuperable odds ranged against the Athenians, and their valiant fight. Grief, Anger and Destruction in Athens

Typical vase scenes on land have ordered ranks of heavily armed attackers, and more mobile, lightly armed bowmen. One funerary oinochoe may depict the run for the beach: a lone archer runs vigorously at an advancing group of archers, a suicidal move of desperation that could only have one outcome.272 Combatants on both ship and shore break into groups in hand to hand fighting. Corpses pile up on land and sea. A common motif is an attacker clambering up the prow of a ship and rarely being repulsed. Elsewhere ships have put to sea amid a carnage of corpses floating in the water. On the Louvre krater fragment A530 rowers pull vigorously on their oars as the seated sailor, aided by the warrior tries to raise the mast.273 The remains of two horizontal legs of a figure floating in the water nearby indicate that battle casualties have been taken, but also that the ship now has a draught of water, so the tide has turned, metaphorically and actually, in favor of the Athenians. Finally, there are reprisals on unfortunate captives who did not escape, scenes of slaughter that Ahlberg has convincingly linked to stock portrayals of such on Near Eastern reliefs.274 The common elements in these scenes suggest that they all depict a single catastrophic event: the attempts to reach and launch ships by Athenians cut off by Argives on the island of Aegina.

Athens would have been stunned by the defeat, and in sequel employed colorful invention to conceal the true facts of one of the most embarrassing episodes in the city’s history. Our main source for the conflict is Herodotus. Aegina was close by Athens and had been a regular purchaser of Athens’ fine pottery before entering the sphere of expansionist Argos.277 Herodotus reports the tradition that the Athenians granted the Epidaurian Argives permission to cut down Attic olive trees to fashion into sacred statues, as directed by the Delphic oracle. According to the saga, the Aeginetans subsequently stole the statues, the Epidaurian Argives refused to pay Athens their annual tribute for the wood, upon which Athens sent a single ship to Aegina to retrieve the statues. As the Athenians were on Aegina dragging off the statues a clap of thunder occurred that deprived them of their senses and they killed each other to a man, he managing to navigate the ship back to Phaleron. If Herodotus’ account of the sole survivor’s’ homecoming reception is legitimate, it underlines the enormity of the Athenian rout and the reprisals.278 He was reportedly killed by womenfolk of the deceased who pierced him repeatedly with their long dress pins. Since both the archaeological record and traditions support that such pins were phased out around 750 BC (Hdt V,89) it would support the mid-eighth c date and appear to add a trace of authenticity to the event. An Attic oinochoe in the collection of the University of Tasmania may express some of the grief of the families (Fig. 63). It is an early work of the LGIIa Birdseed Workshop made not long after the mid-8th century catastrophe. It displays a unique mourning-cumembarkation scene with several warriors boarding a warship while griefstricken women watch their departure, reminiscent of the woman depicted on the Mycenaean Warrior Vase. Hood, its publisher, comments on the oddity of the women’s gesture, the traditional mourning stance, otherwise restricted to prothesis iconography at this time. The men are warriors but without shields, and they too gesticulate. Hood cannot imagine the imagery of the mourning women being employed for any event less grievous than death, possibly ‘mourning as the premonition of death’.279

The New York krater may depict the ill-fated Aeginetan campaign in which the deceased depicted in prothesis in the register above may have participated. Some suggest that warriors with Dipylon shields are those on the side of the deceased, but that is not always the case.275 The artist’s sympathies here are wholly with the ships’ defenders, as he draws attention to the uneven odds, especially on the obverse side. Contrasting with the inexorable onslaught of armed warriors ranged around the lower register, the defenders, caught unawares with their mast down, appear vulnerable, while they have made a spectacular recovery on the reverse side.276 Here some of the drama of epic poetry appears to be informing Athens’ new figural style in the portrayal of contemporary events. They represent some of the earliest spin control in history, depicting the Athens National Museum, Ahlberg 1971a, 13f. fig. 3. Prof. L. Casson, pers. comm: they are forestays used to raise the mast. 274 Ahlberg 1971a, 21-25, 88-105, figs. 20-24. 275 Moore 2004, 24. Prothesis is rarely combined with combat, v. Paros amphora, Coldstream 2003, 398, fig 125; oinochoe Copenhagen 1628, Davison fig. 133. Coldstream cited a Dipylon shield bearer as foe on Paris A519, Louvre 11, pl. 3, 7. Warriors with both Dipylon and round shields marching together in procession: Ahlberg 1971a, 28, fig. 37. Assignment of shield types to a particular side may be to aid comprehension of a pictorial scene. 276 Moore, 2004, 2. 272 273

Closer analysis of preserved accounts of the Aeginetan campaign and the archaeological record reveal Kraiker, Aegina, DieVasen des 10 bis 7 Jarhhundert v. Chr. 1951, 11. Rombos 1988, 132, 360f. on similarities with the provincial LGII Thorikos workshop. 279 R. G. Hood. AJA 71, 1967, 82-7, pls. 31-2. 277 278


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 64. A reduced version of the NY battle krater scene on a LGII oinochoe in Karlsruhe Fig. 63. A Mourning-cum-embarkation scene on a LGIIa Athenian oinochoe in Tasmania. Oinochoae became the canvas for scenes of warfare when figural krater eptymbia ceased in Athens following LGIb

recycled dead from threatened Athenian burials. However, further support for more Athenian survivors are certain funerary oinochoai and amphorae of LGIIa date with similar scenes. One such is the Tasmanian oinochoe. A LGII Athenian oinochoe in Karlsruhe repeats the scene on the krater, and seems to be a reduced version of the battle around the beached ships on Aegina (Fig. 64). The outcome of that campaign was still recent when this oinochoe was fashioned, perhaps for the funerary libations of one of the participants, in lieu of the now defunct krater.282

contradictions. I suspect the Athenian account drew little from an original Athenian tradition, but rather was shaped as a response to an Argive chest-beating version of the event.280 The Athenians diminished the ignominy of the account over time by claiming only a single ship was sent on the venture.281 Deconstructing the Rashomon-like conflict of accounts is not an easy task, but one can glimpse what may be a few scraps of reality emerging from potential Argive truculence, countered by overlays of Athenian tradition meant to obscure the enormity of the loss. More believable is the Aeginetan version of the conflict, which maintained that Athens came with a fleet of ships and made their way unopposed to the island’s center before being cut off from their ships by Argive reinforcements.

The immediacy of these battles and funerals seems to have brought forth an extraordinary amount of creativity in the pottery ateliers at this time. Scenes from epic poetry became the inspiration for a later phase, a more peaceful time when the pain of these events had subsided. Based on the traditions, archaeological evidence and the graphic scenes on kraters and other vessels, we should probably accept the version of Athens’opponents, that a number of Athenian ships were lost in the Aeginetan campaign. It would not have been difficult to destroy the force if the Athenians had been cut off from their ships, as depicted on the vases. The Athenian aristocracy responsible for the debacle may have remained in power long enough to sanitize the record with fictional explanations until some of the actuality of events emerged, but even these fanciful versions of events can be mined for information.

A lone survivor navigating the ship back to Athens, is contested by the number of sea-conflict kraters erected at the Irian Gate cemetery at this time. There are some apparent empty burials, possible cenotaphs, in the Kerameikos Plattenbau, but they could be explained by removal for placement elsewhere, based on the find of strange LGII ‘ash people’ at Trachones, possibly 280 281

Ahlberg 1971a, 35, fig. 41. Hdt V, 85-87.



Hattler 2008, 128, fig. 50.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age Propaganda put out by eighth century and later Athenian eupatrids deftly pulls together olive trees, Aeginetans, Argives, very low survival rates, and claps of thunder, and all but the thunder may have figured in the original event. Subsequent recounting over time would have further whitewashed the Athenian tale, finally burying the real facts and numbers from sight altogether in Athens, but not elsewhere. Herodotus and Pausanias often travelled personally to acquire their information, and would have accessed records from both sides of the conflict. The most significant item whitewashed in the traditions may have been an Argive trespass on north Attic soil.

rulers is associated with Medontid rule by Pausanias.283 Charops, the first archon, was probably a Medontid, since that name was an epithet applied to Hercules.284 Aesimides and Clidicus are of uncertain association, with no citations in literature apart from the notation of their rule. The last, Hippomenes, became synonymous with the worst of Medontid rule. A New Burial Emplacement: The Plattenbau With the end of the elite Alcmeonid presence in Athens, and the decline of their Precinct XX cemetery, a new precinct, the Plattenbau, was established nearby at the end of LGIb. (Fig. 67 Double foldout). Unusually its burials have more women and now children and some cenotaphs. Like Precinct XX, the Irian Gate Cemetery seems to have experienced losses to the rural area and no more epitymbion kraters, and both cemeteries had some intrusive burials with smaller representational vessels and some of the cheaper Faliron Ware. The Irian Gate cemetery still had a few burials with real wealth, such as the Ivory Grave and Alexandri’s Tomb 4, with an inscribed burial amphora and fine gold pins.285

One may infer from the traditions that Athens had ongoing skirmishes with Aegina and the Argives LGI-II, probably unrelated to olive wood statues. The Neleids would never have given permission for Epidaurian Argives to come onto Attic soil to cut down olive trees, as reported. On the other hand, the Argives may have been on Attic soil uninvited, cutting down olive trees for another purpose, namely to wreak havoc on the Attic economy during the course of the conflict. They could have advanced with impunity following the Athenian rout and loss of ships and men. Destruction of agricultural resources has always been a common ploy of invading forces to kneecap an enemy’s livelihood. It was used periodically on Athens by the Spartans during the Peloponnesian War. The only evidence of such an intrusion into Attica beyond the tangled and corrupt traditions, might be the perceived threats to the Neleid burial grounds, the Neleid occupancy of the Acropolis, the removal of the Neleids to southern Attica, and the deteriorating psychology observed by Coldstream. The Argives could not have laid waste all the olive groves in the considerable area of Attica, but the territory’s vulnerability to such destruction at this time may have brought about the end of the rule of the Neleids and the eupatrid constitution, their flight, and the installation of the Medontids in control of Athens. In another tradition, some time following the eupatrid recovery of Athens at the end of the century, Athena was made patron goddess of Athens for her gift of the olive, vs. Poseidon who had proved no great ally in the recent conflict at sea. The Acropolis resurged as a locus of religious observance, with an upsurge of dedications. At some point a sacred olive wood statue was created that was the object of reverence for centuries.

Athens was certainly less influential in the region with its prime male eupatrids no longer in residence. They had been Athens’ leaders for 250 years, and were entrepreneurs whose departure deprived the nascent polis of their power, wealth and productive presence. This was a setback to the economic vitality of the developing city-state which took almost a century to redress. The eupatrids presence in the hinterlands might have assisted the further development of the Attic rural economy in LGII, as Coldstream surmised, but the loss of shipping, a strength of the Messenian Neleids, excluded Athens from participation in both trade and the overseas colonization ventures that were furthering the fortunes of other, less conflicted, regional powers. There was now a decline in the quality and originality of the Athenian pottery, beyond the survival of a few finer vessels of the Classical Tradition at the onset of LGII. Notable pottery with obvious settlement associations still comes from the Agora, which certainly appears to have been less impacted by the regime change than the Neleid sites. The metope pitcher, amphora, oinochoe, and pedestaled high-rim bowls were the main canvases for the potters’ artistry.

Late Geometric II: The Second Medontid Rule

Resurgent Eupatrids

Foremost on the agenda of the eupatrids in rural exile would have been reestablishing themselves in Athens once more, but reportedly it was several decades before that happened. Anavyssos and Trachones persisted until the onset of the Protoattic period before their eupatrid presence lapsed. The decennial archontate, the system that replaced the constitution of the eupatrid

Scholars have discerned many workshops for the LGII phase and not all of them were located in Athens. Paus. 4.5.10. Drews, 1983, 5. 91-93. A statue of Hercules Charops existed in Boeotia. 285 BCH 189, 441, Gr. XIII, an inhumation with six ivory figures and seven vessels including a large hydria and an amphora. 283 284


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 65. ANM 810, a LGII funerary cauldron adorned with funerary games, demonstrates the revival of the Philaids elite funerary and pottery traditions at the end of the 8th c.

Monumental kraters were no longer produced in Athens, but they were still being erected on elite male burials at Brauron, Thorikos, Trachones and Anavyssos, continuing the decorative traditions of LGI and even MGII. Rombos has recognized continuing local production at two provincial LGII workshops, at Thorikos and Trachones (Figs. 76 center, 126). The big display kraters required special expertise for the various stages of their manufacturing process, so relocated eupatrids may have brought some potters with them to handle their traditional needs (v. Chapter V). At Anavyssos a finely drafted LGIIa pitcher of the Workshop of the Anavyssos Painter may have come from a surviving workshop of the last Athenian LGIa-b. Some of its motifs recall the horse-pyxis workshop of Athens Agora P4784.286 A Hirschfeld Workshop hand betrays its age at both LGIIb Trachones and Anavyssos.

That workshop also produced the remarkable late cauldron ANM 810 (Fig. 65) almost certainly commissioned for a Neleid leader’s rites, probably a Philaid based on its discovery in the Irian Gate cemetery. The Alcmeonids were back in Athens reascendant, founding a new Archaic cemetery adjacent to the old and erecting kraters once more on the burials of their foremost members. This would not have been possible had they not had the support of other Athenian noble houses. The return probably occurred about 713 BC, when the fourth decennial archon Hippomenes, the last Medontid ruler, was reportedly dismissed from the office of archonship, brought low by an audacious scandal likely fabricated by Neleid partisans. The Medontid lineage was banned from ever holding the prime rule again. A eupatrid archontate now assumed control of Athens, but the Medontids were permitted to retain their ceremonial role of priestly basileus, perhaps in recognition of the ancestry of the religious aspects of the office, which was hereditary dating back to the Mycenaean era. The temperate handling of the Medontids could have embodied recognition of the original 11th c. contractual obligation incurred in the framing of the constitution, or possibly a view that the Medontids had been puppets of the powerful Argive Pheidon. He could have used the Medontids possible descent from Argive Medon son of Ceisus as a pretext for hostilities as he tried to reconstitute the Lot of Temenos. The reconciliation between the eupatrids and Medontids could also have been brought on by common consent to foster the harmonious relations needed to recover Athens’ former prosperity. As regions looked to overseas ventures to bring renewal, it was probably not only the Athenians who wanted some resolution between Athens and neighboring states. At the end of the century, with Pheidon no longer in the picture, that was now possible.

The LGIIb pottery found at Anavyssos came from a local workshop, now less proficient in both fabric and execution, but there were exceptions. One low bowl, ANM 14441 had a tondo decorated with a new theme, fantastic animals equipped with checkerboard wings: horses, caprids, even a centaur, anticipating the move to mythological themes on the last Geometric pottery.287 Four examples of these winged creatures were found on fragments from the lowest red layer of the Eridanos Rundbau near Precinct XX. Their date in the last quarter of the eighth c. may have coincided with the ouster of the Medontids and the return of the Alcmeonids from Anavyssos.288 They are all to be associated with the Workshop of ANM 894, a survival of the Classical Tradition. Anavyssos pitcher, Coldstream 1968, pl, 13c. Workshop of Agora P 4784, Bohen 1988, 66-70, fig. 19, pl. 33. 287 ANM 14441, Prakt. 1911, 121 fig. 18. 288 301, 302, Bohen 1980a, 92, pl. 17, 56, 58, 60, 61, Ker. 3684, 3686, 3688, 3689. Coldstream associates these mythological creatures with the Stathatou Painter of the Workshop of ANM 894, Coldstream 1968, 63. 286


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age The Kalaureian Amphictyony

with the Aegean centers, focused on Euboea, appear to have waned, as Euboean and Athenian pottery went their own ways. Euboea, now the prime power in the Aegean group, ignored the new Jewel Workshop Athenian style for their own Sub-PG pottery, even on kraters. This was also the time when Aeginetans and Argives followed the new Attic Geometric style.290

Was any external intercession brought in to resolve outstanding issues between Athens and Argos? In a building of the Poseidon Sanctuary on the island of Kalaureia some pits were excavated containing large, Late Geometric funerary-type amphorae of the Dipylon and Hirschfeld Workshops.289 The fragmentary burial vases could have been Argive spoils from Athens or dedications by Neleid Athenians, seeking asylum at the sanctuary. Spoils are possible, but unlikely. It is notable that this otherwise insignificant island had originally been called Eirene, i.e. Peace, which would have been inconsistent with military trophies. The island also had three sanctuaries that functioned as asylums. One or more Hirschfeld Workshop artisans had retained an affiliation with the Neleids following their dispersal from Athens: sherds of Hirschfeld vessels were found at the Neleid relocation sites of both Anavyssos and Trachones. It is not out of the question that Neleids had come to Kalaureia at some point, seeking asylum, or a peace broker.

The Amphictyony is not usually considered that early, and finds made so far on Kalaureia do not support a date earlier than the 8th c. However Coldstream noted that the primarily western association of Argos, Aegina and others at that time corresponded with the membership of the later seven-member Kalaureian Amphictyony, Hermione, Epidauros, Aegina, Athens, Prasai, Nauplia and Minyan Orchomenos. These are all seafaring communities except the latter (Strabo, VIII, 374). The Amphictyony, usually dated in the seventh or eighth century, omits the seafaring entity that Corinth had become. An earlier pre-Pheidon alliance might have been revived following the death of Pheidon, and before the onset of the serious advance in Corinthian seaborne trade of the LGIIb phase.

Kalaureia is recorded brokering relations for the region in sequel as the home base of the Kalaureian Amphictyony, a union of seafaring states. Was Kalaureia the locus of reconciliation for two of the Mainland’s most powerful warring entitities? This may have been the case at some point, since this Mainland league subsequently included the eupatrids’ two opponents, Argive Epidaurus and Aegina, as well as four other poleis. That Aegina had settled its feud with Athens not long after the Aeginetan campaign is suggested by its renewal of pottery imports from Athens some time during the LGII phase, but this would have been with a compliant Medontid ruler as party to the negotiations, not the eupatrids. The collaboration of Epidaurus, Aegina and Athens on the Amphictyony is evidence that relations between the Attic eupatrids and the Argolid had settled out, an event that likely occurred contemporary with, or not long after, the demotion of the Medontids at the end of the eighth c.

The Alcmeonids’ New Archaic Burial Ground The Alcmeonid cemetery was probably the longest enduring family precinct in Athenian history, in use from the late 12th to the late sixth c. (Figs. 66, 67). Beyond the traditions of an original Messenian migrant, Alcmeon, settling in Athens, the cemetery embodies an exceptional and uniform funerary culture that incorporates some Bronze Age Peloponnesian precedents. The King List and the archaeological record of the Iron Age support Alcmeonid ownership, since two of the three largest burials of Precinct XX coincide with two Alcmeonid kings on the list, Alcmeon and Megacles. The contents of the early Megacles’ tomb support the significant role he played initiating some of the trends shaping Greek Iron Age culture and at an earlier phase than previously recognized. His colorful and monumental epitymbion must have popularized the spread of consortium and epitymbion kraters. There is further support for Alcmeonid occupancy in the Archaic extension, which was the only burial ground to retain the krater epitymbia and ritual in historical era Athens.

Coldstream remarks that the Amphictyony was accepted as being of ‘high antiquity’ which would likely not apply to a league formed at this time. He suggests the possibility of an earlier phase of the league with similar western orientation and membership, noting that such unions were usually formed for common defense. The best occasion for an earlier league would likely have been the rule of Megacles, during the latest tenth and early ninth century (922-892 by the King List Chronology). This was a phase when Attica’s relations

With the ouster of the Medontids at the end of century, the Alcmeonids returned to their ancestral Precinct XX burial ground, now barely recognizable without its krater monuments, and initiated a new Protoattic cemetery alongside it (Fig. 67). Some earlier funerary practices continued. Secondary cremation was the rule, last occurring in the tomb of life-king Alcmeon. Libation was practiced. As before, elite male burials

B. Wells, in Evidence of Early Iron Age Activities in the Poseidon Sanctuary at Kalaureia, in The Dark Ages. Intl. Conf. in Memory of William D. E. Coulson, Volos, 14-17 June, 2007. R. Schumacher, ‘Three Related Sanctuaries of Poseidon.’ Greek Sanctuaries: New Approaches, eds. Marinatos, Nanno and Hägg, New York, 1993. 289



Coldstream 1968, 342 f.

Kratos & Krater

Fig. 66. A new Archaic extension from the Precinct XX site and the erection once more of kraters and steles on burials, demonstrates the resurgence of the Alcmeonids’ funerary traditions, which were more reliant on oriental decorative motifs

were surmounted by epitymbion kraters, although the classic Type I ancestral krater was now replaced by a lowfooted Corinthian style kotyle krater. To my knowledge this new cemetery was the only one in Athens to erect krater epitymbia following the Athenian Iron Age, which had certainly been a red flag to investigate it. These measures support that Precinct XX, the krater, and krater rituals had not been readily relinquished by the Alcmeonids in the mid-eighth century. Their departure had been under duress.291 The style of the new krater confirms that the eupatrid constitution was beyond revival, that synoikismos (the life-king union of noble houses) and consortium had been replaced by the more social Archaic era symposium. Election of archons remained and was soon made more inclusive by annual selection.

burials occurred during trenching to build up the mound. In more recent times there has been further consideration of the Archaic cemetery by Kerameikos director Dr Ursula Knigge who used an inscription to connect the marble monument and interments with two prominent Alcmeonids of the era, one an Olympic victor and the other an archon. Ironically, it was Dr. Knigge who had assigned me the publication of the outstanding Iron Age strayfinds from Precinct XX, but neither of us knew we were working towards the same final outcome, an Alcmeonid burial ground that can now be identified as the most longstanding ancestral burial ground yet uncovered in Athens. Although she remained unaware of my association of the Precinct XX burial ground with Iron Age Alcmeonids, and I of her association of the Archaic burial ground with the same family, she correctly identified the entire Great Mound as the Alcmeonid family monument. She further associated the Tritopatreion, the trapezoidal structure abutting the front of mound, as a cult site for ancestor worship, as well as a possible shrine in reparation for the inadvertent destruction of the ancestral graves by the Great Trench.292

Karl Kübler who had published the Iron Age cemetery, also excavated and published the Archaic extension. The new emplacement remained generally deferential to the ancestral cemetery through the sixth c., receiving elite burials with fine burial content, grouped and covered with earth mounds (Fig. 66). Late in the sixth century an impressive marble monument was constructed, then the entire Archaic cemetery was engulfed under the Great Mound G, an imposing monument that would have been seen and bypassed by all departing the city from the Sacred Gate. The exact conformation of the ancestral Iron Age cemetery was by that time unclear, so some loss of transitional era and Iron Age

Dr. Knigge’s views gain credence from this present publication which recognizes Precinct XX as the Alcmeonid family site, dating back as early as the last quarter of the 12th c. In turn, my observations gain credence from hers. I regret not having shared them

Later sumptuary laws recognized the funeral as a potent political instrument, AION 6 (1984), 71-82. 291



Knigge, 2006, 153.159-162.

Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age with her while it was still possible, but sometimes prehistorians and classicists mix like oil and water. I am dedicating the current publication to Dr Knigge in recognition of her excellent archaeological expertise in both field and library, as well as her longstanding support and encouragement of my work in the

Kerameikos. There is no real certainty that she would have approved the style of this work, but I believe she would have been thankful at least that the many years of application finally had an outcome. Dr. Knigge was not responsible for any of the content here beyond my citations from her publication on the Archaic cemetery.


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 67. The Alcmeonid Precinct XX Iron Age cemetery, and its Archaic successor. The spread of the ancestral Alcmeonid Precinct XX burial ground at right, across the intermediate Plattenbau to the Archaic cemetery at left, monumentalized by the erection of the sixth c. Great Mound G (dotted circle), encompassed six hundred years of burial by a single noble family


Chapter IV The Kratos of the Iron Age


Chapter V

The Athenian Iron Age Krater

An Introduction to the Krater

foot, the epitymbion krater reflected the satisfaction that the prominent realized in their wealth and status. It pleased the aesthetic sense: it was the premier, most costly vessel of the Iron Age potter’s repertory, the most difficult to fabricate and the one accorded the most refined and elaborate decoration.

The wayfarer approaching Athens in the early-8th c BC would have observed a remarkable sight at the roadside. A burial ground with dozens of graves surmounted by large vessels of distinctive form. Their shape comprised a large open bowl, with tall pedestal base, partly immersed in the earth and in some cases a trench. On each side of the bowl were two, broad, double-loop handles joined at a central boss. Both the front and back face of the bowl were adorned with decoration: geometric repeat motifs in zones adorned the vessels of earliest aspect, while later examples were similar, but with the occasional intrusion of a figural motif. This was the Kerameikos cemetery (Fig. 67) which was probably the foremost cemetery in Athens at this time, shortly to cede that position to the Irian Gate cemetery. The latter would have even more remarkable burial markers skirting its route to Athens. These were adorned with funerary scenes of the deceased laid out on a canopied bier, which was sometimes hauled in grand procession on a horse drawn wagon. Attending were knights in chariots, and files of armed warriors and other celebrants, male and female, proceeding on foot. Others were decorated with panoramic scenes of battles on land and sea. These vessels are termed kraters, and their original use was as a mixing bowl to cut neat wine with water in varying amounts. Now they were being used as epitymbia (literal translation: ‘placed on the burial’). They were Athens’ first grave monuments, and they would only stand over the burials for one or two more decades.

The krater also reflected on the man it honored and his ancestry, marked especially by the conservatism of its decoration, some of which traces back to the earliest Mycenaean motifs. As other shapes shed the outmoded antithetic circular motifs, the ancestral Type I krater flaunted them to the last, making them twin focal points on the vase. It took the introduction of the new Late Geometric figural style to dislodge them from this status, and even then the force of tradition led to their frequent retention alongside the more fashionable figural decoration. Women’s monuments, the bellyhandled amphorae, would also have been on view in the cemeteries, fewer in number, but where preserved, they were usually in association with an adjacent male burial of some status. Intact graves with such markers, whether male or female, often held superior grave gifts. Once believed to be an innovation of the Iron Age, the krater had roots extending back hundreds of years into the preceding Bronze Age. It already had an established role in both settlement and burial ground in the Middle Helladic period. To have stood this test of time, the traditions being expressed in the use of the krater were of obvious significance for the elite. The explanation may lie in the descent of the social and political usage of the krater, which transited across from the prime leadership of the palatial phase to the less affluent era of the post palatial epoch, carried on down through the generations to the Iron Age through the intermediary of mostly hereditary leadership. That leadership could change with transforming events, but if that was the case, the successors appear to have recognized the utility of the status conveyed by the krater. The large krater consortium and funerary ritual use survived the fall of the palaces and even the end of Mycenaean civilization, as the Iron Age remains of large kraters from Lefkandi, Volos, Naxos and the Athenian Kerameikos attest.

The krater was a settlement vessel, but since there are few remains of the Athenian Iron Age community, the krater is known principally as a funerary libation holder and burial monument. Its manifold associations made it especially appropriate in this role. Symbolism was a concept clearly recognized in Athens from the earliest Submycenaean times. Funerary accessories, such as dowry chests, granaries, small ceramic boots, pomegranates, and horses, practical provisions for life beyond the grave, were replete with meaning. The fruitfulness of the grape, as also the divinity represented in wine, related the krater naturally to the solemn and meaningful rites of transition. However, this vessel also prompted recollection of life’s pleasures, aristocratic consortium, life-cycle celebrations, and the simple lifeaffirming functions of drinking and dining with family and friends. Distinguished by greater size, and a taller

Political events of the mid- eighth century caused both the Type I ritual and epitymbion krater and the Type II consortium krater to lapse, superseded by smaller kraters in the more intimate venue of the symposium. It 102

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 68. The Athenian Kerameikos excavation site

retained its status as the most respected vase form into the Classical era, because in each era the krater and its social and ritual activities served to validate a political,

ritual or social structure or activity of the community. It may have been more. When the Alcmeonids reestablished themselves on their return from exile 103

Kratos & Krater at the end of the eighth century, they took control of their ancestral burial ground once more and renewed the custom of setting a krater epitymbion on the graves of their leaders. The emblematic character of the Precinct XX krater epitymbion, the last in a direct line of descent over many hundreds of years, and its revival there in the Protoattic period, certainly revealed the endurance of the krater as a symbol of elite status and tradition. It also flaunted the endurance of Mycenaean families.

were remains of two types of LHIIIC Middle bowl krater, both Argive, one with a simple everted rim, and another with an angular inner profile and slashed neck.298 As the only fortified center to survive the Bronze Age at the end of the 12th c. Athens received a number of Mycenaean refugees from lapsing sites in the Peloponnesos. An elite group founding the new cemetery at Precinct XX, introduced a new krater and krater funerary rituals that had been typical of Achaia, Messenia and the Argolid. In these regions, following the closing of elite chamber tombs, kraters and cups had been used for a final libation to the deceased and were then left outside the tomb in the dromos. The custom dated from the palatial period, and survived in Messenia at least until the very latest burial that can be associated with Mycenaean elite, a LHIIIC Late chamber Tomb at Pylos (for sites with Bronze Age krater funerary rituals, see Chapter II).299 In the Argolid, the latest were associated with cist burial and cremation, and sometimes the krater was broken on site, placed on the pyre or its ashes, or left at the tomb, becoming a de facto burial marker (Fig. 14, 23).

The Krater in Bronze Age Athens Krater funerary use occurred from the palatial period onwards across several regions of the Peloponnesos: the Argolid, Achaea and Messenia, but was not characteristic of Athenian burial practice.293 There are instances in Late Helladic IIIA Agora chamber tombs, well-appointed burials that demonstrate a brief manifestation of the same kind of elevated Mycenaean culture that existed in prime seats of power in the contemporary Peloponnesos: elite pottery, ivory carving, and similar gold ornaments for stitching on shrouds.294 One Agora grave was surmounted by a stele, so there is no doubt of the high status of the deceased. Besides his krater, the male deceased was equipped with a bronze spear, and a broken kylix and cup in the dromos testify to the same libation funerary rituals being practiced in the Peloponnesos at this time. Further up the Athenian plain were signs of a similar Mycenaean presence, including a newly founded settlement and impressive tholos tomb at Menidhi, an access point to the fertile Thriasian plain.295 Funerary libation occured in southern Attica, as finds of kylikes, rhyta and the odd krater sherd attest.

While most remains of Athenian Iron Age kraters have come from cemeteries, there is no doubt the vessel was used in the settlement of Athens. Lord-Smithson saw kraters experiencing vicissitudes in several settings: they were ‘more than usually vulnerable in manufacture, on dealer’s shelves and in domestic or ritual use’. Patched up they were good for one last use in burial.300 Many found in the Kerameikos show signs of damage and repair associated with use in the settlement prior to deposition. They were also an item of Athenian export, especially the Type II, disseminated outside Attica in trade, and signalling Athenian influence, and possibly actual presence, abroad.

There are no further instances of the use of a formal krater in Athenian burial ritual during the Mycenaean period, although they continued in funerary use in the Peloponnesos. On the Acropolis, however, some formal krater remains have survived in spite of the site’s harsh cleansing. Argive influence can be detected. among LHIIIC Middle pottery remains, some imported and others local.296 One fragment had an animal protome on its handle of a type that originated at Mycenae, perhaps used in blood libation, since boukrania and caprid heads, modelled or painted suggest such usage.297 There

The Iron Age krater is essentially a continuation of the Myceanean ring-based krater (Figs. 12, 82). It is a large, open, bowl-shaped vessel with a pronounced neck, a pedestal foot of varying proportions, and two horizontal, double loop, roll handles on either side. It is always glazed on the interior, and was almost certainly used for dispensing wine, then, as later, mixed with water in varying amounts. With only one clear break in direct evolution (later-eighth c. BC) the vessel can fig. 27; 356 fig. 30; Euboea: Popham – Sackett 1968, 19-22; Mountjoy 1993, 97. 298 LHIIIC Middle, Broneer 1939, 351-362 fig. 27g; 356 fig. 30. figs. 37. 38; 368 figs. 46 m. n; 390, fig. 71b. Graef 1907, pl. 5, 185; pl. 6, 191.193; pl. 7, 229. N. Slope, Rutter 1997, 1 f. Transitional: pl. 7, 212. 213; pl. 9, 273; pl. 10, 272. Distribution, Lemos 2002, 48. Tiryns 14, pls. 23.2, 117. 299 The earliest use of the krater in Peloponnesian tombs was at Aigion, LHIIIA-B, where kylikes were found in dromoi with either a decorated krater, or a wide mouthed jar (pl. 97): A. Papadopoulos, 1976, 38. Deshayes, 1966, 158ff. pls. XX, LHIIIB tombs XI, XXI, XXVIII, XXXV. LHIIIC Middle krater from dromos of Pylos chamber tomb: Mountjoy, 1993, 99f. fig. 265. Hägg – Nordquist eds, 1990, 177-84. Gallou 2011, 191-194, 240-285, 375-389, 410-420. 300 Coldstream 1983, 204; Lord-Smithson 1961, 168; Morris, 1987, 151f.

Krater funerary use occurred from the palatial period onwards across several regions of the Peloponnesos: the Argolid, Achaea and Messenia, and extending through the Late Helladic III phase. 294 Hesperia 35, 1966, 55-78, figs. 1-4, pls. 19-24 (male). Agora XIII, 165 (female), 182 (two), 189 pl. 40, 244, 246 pl. 59. Immerwahr 1973, Nos. 18. 295 Kylikes and a ladle in the dromos, H. G. Lolling, Das Kuppelgrab bei Menidhi, Athens, 1880, 10. 296 Mountjoy 1999, 131. Mountjoy, 1986, 173-175, fig. 222, 1, Mycenae 64-1403. Vermeule – Karageorghis 1982, 117 f. pl. XI, 32-5. 297 Graef 1907 pl. 6, 191, 358 figs. 33e.h; 34. Oakeshott 1966, Hornedhead Vase Handles, JHS, 1966, 115. G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, (Princeton 1996) pl. 38; Athens: Broneer 1939, 353 293


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater be traced from Late Mycenaean times down to the later historical period, when its purpose as a wine mixing vessel is undisputed.

from their burial sites. Aware of the significance of the krater in the Athenian vase repertory, successive excavators sometimes inscribed strayfind krater fragments with their place of origin (the earliest dated 1910; more details precede the Catalogue below). Such notations of origin may signify little more than their finders’ diligence in preserving the record. Krater fragments could have scattered far from their original site of use. Even so, most do not seem to have traveled far, and particularly heavy concentrations are readily apparent. A concordance below details the sources of Kerameikos Iron Age krater remains, where known.

While reference to the Iron Age krater may summon a vision of a large monumental burial marker, the krater came in a wide range of forms and dimensions. Some were small kraters, better termed krateriskoi, mostly of Protogeometric date. These and the medium sized, low-footed kraters of about double the capacity (e.g. 39) appear to have been practical vessels of use, presumably for dispensing wine domestically for family and small private gatherings. For larger private groups a convivial krater such as 200 would have served. In addition several are preserved of truly impressive dimensions, here termed consortium kraters, which must have been for use at large aristocratic gatherings of a social, political or ritual nature (279 Fig. 54).

To judge from the wealth of kraters and other grave goods that can be associated with the Precinct XX area, this was the burial site of one of the most prestigious Athenian aristocratic groups, from ca. 1125 BC down to the mid-eighth century, when usage by the high elite ceased for four decades. Elite burial continued once more at the end of the century through the sixth century when the Great Mound was erected over the site (Fig. 67).

In cemetery use from ca. 1125 BC onwards, the standard ancestral krater was not a burial gift in the grave, but was employed in funerary rites. Its earliest use was primarily in libation ritual, since it was often set on the pyre together with the oinochoe and one or more drinking vessels. The custom of placing the krater as an epitymbion on the burial, associated with the Kerameikos, had likely antecedents in the Late Bronze Age Peloponnesos. A krater at Elis with a prothesis scene may have been specially made to mark a significant burial (Fig. 14). At Mycenae and Deiras krater rituals and use of a krater marker occurred in association with cist burial, and resemble practices of the transition in Kerameikos Precinct XX.301

The krater was in frequent ritual use in the Precinct XX cemetery long before its dissemination to other Athenian burial grounds. In its earliest usage the krater must have served as a libation vessel, with some slight evidence as a burial marker and consignment to the pyre. During the Late Protogeometric period are the first clear signs of deliberate erection of epitymbia. During the ninth c. its use as a monumental epitymbion began to spread beyond the Alcmeonid cemetery, but still at first within Neleid cemeteries on the limited evidence. It was sometimes adapted for its role as an epitymbion by a drainage hole piercing its base, and so no longer able to function as a libation vessel. There is no proof that this hole was a conduit for channeling libations to the deceased as sometimes claimed. If usage in post-depositional death cult is eliminated, the epitymbion krater’s real purpose is apparent: it was placed on the burial as a marker of rank and descent for the elite dead. Its restricted usage and some traditional ornamentation traceable to Mycenaean LHIIIA origins support this special role. When the group burying at the Irian Gate cemetery adopted the krater epitymbion they no longer suppressed its true promotional character, adorning its sidewall with figural scenes depicting the rich panoply of aristocratic status.

At the end of the Protogeometric period a second krater, the Type II, was employed for daily use, represented at first only by fragmentary remains (Fig. 107). While it has the same open bowl form as the Type I krater, it has either vertical strap or stirrup handles attached to a low rim, and is little more than a giant kantharos in form. In Athens, kraters of both types died out in Athens in the mid-eighth c. The Kerameikos Precinct XX Kraters The most considerable remains of kraters prior to the eighth c. come from the Precinct XX burial ground of the Athenian Kerameikos (Fig. 35 graph). ‘Precinct XX’ here designates the Iron Age burial ground extending under the Classical Potamian, Koroiban and Samakian grave Precincts XVIII-XX. The terminology Precinct XX is used here throughout in preference to ‘Hagia Triada’ which includes an exceptional precinct, the Plattenbau, and the primary concentration of Protoattic burial mounds (Fig. 67). Kraters, placed above graves as epitymbia, were frequently broken and disassociated 301

Graves and Strayfinds Placed above burials, kraters were eroded and shattered by the elements and possibly vandalism. In consequence, although Middle Geometric Type I pedestalled kraters were quite numerous at the Precinct XX site, there exists no really well preserved example except in graphic reconstruction. Fortunately a few Late Geometric Athenian kraters were buried,

Desborough 1973, 91-101.


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 69. Reconstruction: photo and graphic elements are combined to recreate krater 176 from its fragments

and others, better preserved have come from remote locations: Trachones, Merenda, Anavyssos, Thorikos, Marathon, Aixone, Palaia Kokkinia, and even further afield, exported to Euboea, Crete, Cyprus, and even as far as Spain. Many have found their way into museums. No formal Attic krater later than Late Geometric I has been found in Athenian burial grounds, although they continued into Late Geometric II for almost half a century in Attic rural areas.302

pottery of the excavated tombs, and believed they merited study and publication.303 Two shapes have now been recovered and studied in detail: the pyxis, published earlier in Kerameikos Volume XIII, and here the krater. Whereas the pyxides were often quite well preserved down to their horse protomes, and could be reconstituted into relatively whole vessels, this has been rarely possible with the krater, which lacked the protective confinement of the tomb. Of the epitymbia placed above the burial, the foot is sometimes well preserved, while the bowl, usually broken and scattered in the vicinity, survives only as a few fragments, if at all. These disiecta membra often have the character of typical chance finds, i.e. worn, and with few associations to be made between fragments. However many strayfinds are better preserved, with more fragments that can be related to a single vessel. Most of the latter are to be associated with the fill of the large 6th century BC Great Mound (G) at Hagia Triada, excavated largely by Kübler during the 1930s and early 1940s. The Great Trench extending around the Samakian to the Potamian

The Kerameikos excavated graves currently give us the most information about the early Athenian krater’s use in burial ritual, although they do not illustrate fully its original prevalence. Hundreds of kraters may be represented in the grave remains excavated by Karl Kübler and strayfinds published below (Fig. 35). Since the Kerameikos has so often been churned over, the bulk strayfind sherds have some of the character of a surface survey. They comprised thousands of fragments of various shapes dating from the LHIIIC Late through the Geometric periods in date. Kübler recognized the importance of the strayfinds in complementing the 302

A few LGII frgts. have been found on the Acropolis.



Ker. V, 1, Vorwort. V. Catalogue below for more details.

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 70. Newly found fragments of the Mourner Krater 193 allow recovery of the decorative scheme of its lower bowl

Reconstruction of the Krater Style and Sequence

precinct was likely the main source for the earth to build the mound, but to judge from the character of the material, some surface scouring of the potteryrich Precinct XX burial ground was also dumped on the mound. There is the occasional join of a mound sherd with an item from the nearby burials.304

The numerous new fragments of the krater published here give a fuller picture of the number and stylistic sequence of the vessel than heretofore. Profiles and reconstruction drawings document the vessel’s gradual evolution in form from Submycenaean forerunners to the latest Late Geometric examples. In the determination of stylistic sequence, one must acknowledge the previous studies of Coldstream, Davison, Desborough, Kahane, Kraiker, Kübler, Rombos and others. The present study does not supersede their efforts, but merely helps fill in some gaps in a stylistic framework that has been long recognized (chronological departures based on my acceptance of the King List have been noted p. 75 above). Its special value is in documenting new material that gives a fuller representation of the original contents of the Kerameikos cemetery, which has led on to the consideration of the identities of the noblemen who were buried beneath kraters in the most distinguished cemeteries of Athens. It helps dispel conclusively the myth of Athens in the doldrums during the ninth century, as does the monograph on the pyxis already published. Athens was already experiencing its ‘Renaissance’ at that time, likely initiated under King Megacles around 900 BC. The Protogeometric phase was also shorter, and not as abysmal as it has been portrayed. It was establishing important foundations of Athenian institutions, discussed above, as well as a unique Athenian aesthetic.

During the Geometric period, the vessel’s unprotected state as a grave marker has left few remains of what must have been a spectacular array of burial monuments. While there exists only one well-preserved Type I krater in Middle Geometric style, the canonical systems of ornamentation of these kraters have enabled others to be reconstructed in sketch, and gypsum (Figs. 74a, 115 Cat 205).305 In this way some existing vessels could be complemented with new fragments, allowing a first lower bowl decoration of the Mourner Krater to be reunited with its well-preserved upper bowl and foot (193 Figs. 70, 77). There is graphic reconstruction of many poorly represented kraters. The results convey some of the majesty of these shattered vessels as they once stood above the graves. The purity of these wholly geometric vases is moving in its own way, emphasizing the krater as a sculptural entity quite different from the Late Geometric series, where attention is drawn to the figural scenes. Ker. V, 1, 4f. Met Mus. New York 34.11.2. It is Middle Geometric style, but possibly Late Geometric Ia date. 304 305


Kratos & Krater In Athens no PG standard krater has been found in a tomb.306 Apart from the kiln material from the Agora, the Munich krater stood in grand isolation, exemplifying the finer Athenian krater production of the period (Fig. 94). Now a fragmentary epitymbion krater has been identified for Gr. PG 18, which is tentatively associated with the life-king Phorbas. Also some fragments of modest PG kraters have the tell-tale signs of weathering indicative of epitymbion use. The paucity of PG Athenian kraters in the burial ground is underlined by contrast with the numerous finds of Protogeometric kraters from the Toumba chieftain burial at Lefkandi. Now the Athenian Kerameikos has its own large quota of the vessel (only partially illustrated here). The many Kerameikos strayfinds are especially valuable in documenting the broad use of the Attic Protogeometric krater in the developing grave ritual of an entrenched aristocracy similar to that of Lefkandi.

the Acropolis.307 There are numerous Protogeometric pottery wastes from Agora commercial activities, found dumped in wells. Some Late Geometric spouted krater remains have been found in what appears to be a domestic setting in Late Geometric Thorikos, southern Attica. With such thin gruel, the krater’s role in the settlement must be reconstructed from literary references and observation of the surviving remains from burial grounds. Sherratt’s study of feasting in the Homeric epics is probably the best current source of information for settlement use of prehistoric kraters.308 The krater was a costly vessel, not easily fabricated, and no doubt handled reverentially on any occasion, yet there is a surprising number of Iron Age kraters with signs of adaptation, heavy wear, breakage and repair. These kraters had endured a more rigorous environment than the occasional aristocratic funeral, in regular use in daily life. This is true even of the finest show pieces of the earlier period, the Munich and Nea Ionia kraters, which stand out for the richness of their decoration, but have the telltale signs of wear and repair holes denoting prior use (the Munich krater Fig. 94). The krater was repaired more often than any other Protogeometric vessel.309 Some Geometric kraters were also worn, and past their prime with evidence of painstaking repairs to keep them in service. While such repairs are not per se proof of former use in society, and could have been carried out at any time for vessels that remained in clear sight over the grave, this is unlikely. I have so far found no repairs on the Late Geometric series of kraters manufactured specifically for placement over the grave.310 The number of repaired Iron Age kraters reflects on the conditions of each period. There are remains of fifteen Kerameikos kraters with repair holes of tenth century date, five in the following century, and only one from the early eighth century. There was more incentive to make repairs to a broken vessel in the earlier, less affluent period. One recalls the itinerant tinker of nineteenth century Europe, no longer in demand in the disposable culture of the more affluent 20th century. To effect repair of a shattered krater and suture the pieces together, holes of about 0.4 cm in diameter were drilled at regular intervals in pairs along the line of breakage for the positioning of lead clamps. Few clamps have survived, since lead was a commodity that could be easily recycled. Parts of actual lead clamps can be seen in the outer surface of Middle Geometric krater 208 which was probably a consortium krater used as an epitymbion (Fig. 71). Repaired with such sturdy clamps and a little caulk, vessels could survive

Recognition of individual potters’ workmanship has usually been restricted to the Late Geometric phase of figural decoration. However, some distinct workshops and an occasional hand can be detected in the earlier purely geometric phases, based on more complex decorative schemes, combined with idiosyncrasies in potting and fabric. These ‘workshop’ affiliations attract other shapes to their orbit, reflecting on the possible structure of workshop organization. For example, an association has been drawn between an elite Middle Geometric II Pre-Dipylon Workshop of kraters and the horse pyxis workshops of Kerameikos 3622, 3627, Leiden and Filla. Strangely, there is a paucity of monumental kraters in Precinct XX of Late Geometric date: kraters fell off here where they had been earlier most prevalent. By contrast with the situation in the Precinct XX cemetery, more numerous and better preserved Late Geometric kraters have come from the neighboring ‘Dipylon’ cemetery, referenced here as the Irian Gate area cemetery. The explanation may relate to status and events: the Alcmeonids had two life-kings, perhaps more (Pherecles?) interred in Precinct XX during the ninth c, while the Philaids had a life-king burying in the Irian Gate cemetery in the first quarter of the eighth c. Other factors bearing on this question, including a war, have been discussed above (p. 87). The Iron Age Krater in Context The Krater in the Settlement While Homer and Hesiod demonstrate the krater as the focal point of considerable social interaction, few krater remains come from actual Attic settlement contexts at this time: just two Submycenaean-Early Protogeometric fragments, and two Protogeometric fragments, all from

Graef 1909, pl. 7, 212. pl. 9, 3, 273; AM 113, 1998, pl. 3, ANM 275; pl. 10, ANM 272 (PG-G). 308 Sherratt 2004, 317-330. 309 Ceramic vessels were repaired from Neolithic times. V. Vlachopoulos 1999, 75-6, on repairs underway to the large LHIIIC Grotta krater found in a Naxian potter’s workshop. 310 Clamp repairs are found on a large Eleusinian LGII, amphorae, JdI 14, 1899, 194, fig. 57. 307

Krater 57 with only its foot, and a couple of sidewall and handle frgts preserved, believed part of tomb content, had been an epitymbion, placed on tomb PG 18. 306


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater potter’s wastes and test pieces of a type that may have had a wider distribution beyond the ranks of the elite. Most contemporary kraters from the Peloponnesos were similar unremarkable vessels of common wine consumption. The owner of even these modest kraters, would have ranked a notch higher on the social scale than someone using a deep bowl or a gourd. In Athens there evolved two different types of large krater, each with its own sphere. Two Types of Krater The standard krater to the end of the Geometric period was the ancestral form that had survived from the Bronze Age, and it is usually referred to as the Type I krater. The krater’s course of evolution began in the Late Helladic LHIIIA period, with a number of shapes and types of decoration. By the end of the age it had devolved into a single shape, which survived as the Iron Age Type I krater, with two types of decoration. The first has a central panel of rectilinear ornament flanked by circular motifs, loops, spirals and circles (Fig. 25 104), and also three circles in a row (Fig. 100). The second has an overall decoration of vertical columns or panels (Figs. 94, 101, 104, Cats. 7, 13, 25, 92, 93). Athens demonstrated the greatest loyalty to the Mycenaean krater in preserving not only its ancestral shape, but also both forms of decoration, which petered out elsewhere. With technical improvements, the Athenian Protogeometric circles krater was disseminated abroad in trade, becoming the prototype for regions of the Aegean and Crete. The Mycenaean panel-decorated krater also survived, although not widely traded. At the end of the Protogeometric period, both schemes of decoration, panels and circles fused into one classic style (Fig. 108), remaining so until the advent of figural decoration at the end of the Geometric period).

Fig. 71. The Iron Age repaired valuable kraters with lead clamps to retain them in service

continued use, especially one-time use in burial rites. Some of the holes were not for repair but adaptations for use in the settlement. There are larger holes 0.7-1.0 cm in diameter driven vertically at intervals through the upper surface of three krater rims post firing (176.178.179, Figs. 113, 114). Since one of these kraters had been burned on the pyre, these holes were probably made for earlier use in the settlement. The same is likely for the 0.5 cm D holes driven horizontally through the neck of 176, a repaired vessel which had therefore seen prior use in the settlement. An early attempt to protect the kraters’ contents with some kind of protective cover is suspected here, a need that was more appropriately addressed when lids were made for some Late Geometric kraters of settlement use. The various contexts of the krater cited in literature demonstrate its multifaceted character, whether in ritual, consortium or common conviviality. In recent decades scholars have directed considerable attention to the topic of feasting and drinking, trolling Homer, Hesiod and other sources, and concluding that drinking activities signified far more than simple Epicurean pleasures. Van Wees observed how the shared occasion of feasting and drinking had a role in helping to structure social and civic interrelations. Whether in Bronze Age Troy or Iron Age Athens, your status was determined by the social level of those with whom you ate and drank.311 Your status determined the kind of drinking vessels you used. So there are observable distinctions between the elite kraters found on the Acropolis and at Precinct XX, and more commonplace kraters found at the large Perati cemetery, and in tenth century Agora wells. The Agora kraters comprise numerous fragments of less ornate MPG kraters, mostly 311

The Type I ancestral krater was joined during the late 10th c phase of Megacles by a new kantharoid krater, Type II, a product of the Jewel Workshop sponsored by Megacles. It has a squatter, more bulging profile and two vertical strap handles (Fig. 107). While both types of krater were employed in common conviviality at the beginning of the Geometric period, more momentous occasions of the elite, including the investiture or funeral of one of their more prominent members, would have been graced by the traditional Type I krater. The Type II krater seems to appear fully-formed in the Middle Geometric period (Fig. 110) but a pedigree can be constructed extending back into the Late Protogeometric period to a bronze prototype. While in the classical period several different types of kraters coexisted for the same purpose, in these less affluent times two types of ceramic krater, each with its own profile, invites comment. The Type II was not created to compete with Type I, but rather to recreate in ceramic a banquet vessel that was already being fabricated in metal.

Van Wees 1995, 174-177.


Kratos & Krater Homer tells of kraters in gold and silver from exotic sources, wholly suitable for the realm of epic poetry, but unlikely even in the wealthiest Iron Age Athenian household. Van Wees interpretes Homer’s showcasing of costlier metal vessels as nostalgia for a bygone age.312 However bronze kraters actually existed. The ribbed stem found on ceramic Type II Athenian kraters has been found on bronze vessels from West Greece, as well as Cyprus.313 Proof of a bronze prototype are the reinforcing ‘bronze rivets’ reproduced on the rim of the ceramic Type II kraters. Bronze was prized: A Cypriote depiction of an amphoroid krater has lines radiating from its profile, not garlands as suggested by its publisher, but an attempt to represent the brightness of bronze (Fig. 73).314

character, with a squat, capacious profile, and simple, standardized meander decoration, but as the Type I became more closely associated with formal functions, including use as burial marker, the Type II absorbed more of the quotidian functions of the living. Smaller versions were primarily vessels of daily use, including 254 and 246, the latter a poorly fabricated vessel of inferior fabric (Fig. 185) Although the Type II was never manufactured to serve as an epitymbion, and remained devoid of funerary iconography and drainage holes, worn, damaged and obsolete examples did end up in the graveyard (Fig. 116, 200). The large 239-241 (Fig. 121, 191 Rim D. 66.5 cms.) had a cracked foot from misfiring. Fabricated to serve as a consortium krater, the misfire relegated this superb krater to funerary libation use, and then the pyre.

The antecedent of the Geometric Type II krater was not the kind of large and rare party-piece represented by the Nea Ionia krater (Fig. 107), but a modest krateriskos decorated with a small strip of meander at the rim, a motif that the conservative, Neleid aristocrats aristocrats retained on the Type II throughout its floruit. The smaller, more personal krateriskos allowed the individual to both mix and drink from the same bowl. Until the Middle Geometric phase they are represented in the Kerameikos only by a handful of fragments. During Early Geometric II they acquired the proportions of a small krater, of which the best preserved is represented in Argos (Fig. 109). It was from such humble origins that the mighty LG consortium krater 279 evolved (Fig. 54).315

Whereas the Type I krater had been the export krater of the Protogeometric period, it was now the younger Type II krater which was on the road or high seas, the subject of trade or gift exchange. This could only be expected. The more solemn demeanor of the Type I from its association with council, burial and other rituals ultimately made it a less desirable component for celebrations of a more cheerful nature. Finds of Type II kraters abroad suggest the range of uses the vessel might have served in the undiscovered Athenian settlement area. Some were found in party sets accompanying the deceased in burial.316 At Kyme and Eretria they have been found in structures that suggest cult or male consortium.317 Because of its wide dispersal, the Type II was also selected for emulation by other regional styles of Greece, and locally made kraters of this type are increasingly coming to light as more settlements are uncovered. They are often decorated with the same meander strips, horses, birds, swastikas, and quatrefoil metopes found on the Athenian prototypes.

In spite of occasional convergences in form and usage, the two types of krater, Type I and II, retained their individuality and went on to coexist, each in its own sphere, to the mid-eighth century. During the Protogeometric period the Type I krater had been fabricated in various sizes to serve a full range of social needs, but in the Geometric period as its usage became limited to more formal spheres, it was only fabricated in large size. The size and decoration indicate that it was restricted to the rarified plateau of aristocratic celebrations, consortium and ritual. It acquired stature and representational character as the ancestral krater used in the burial rites and on the tombs of the Precinct XX group, and was now marking time before its adoption as the premier Late Geometric figural epitymbion.

Krater Sizes & Uses Kerameikos kraters came in a range of capacities, extending from a small Protogeometric krateriskos to the enormous Late Geometric Type II consortium krater 279. Computer generated projections of approximate capacity were possible for some kraters. The range of sizes can be appreciated graphically in a comparison chart of the largest Mycenaean krater, from Grotta Naxos, and Kerameikos kraters from the PG, MG and LG phases (Fig. 72). The size and type of kraters as well as their reported context gives some indication of their function in the settlement, whether casual domestic,

The context of the Type II was common conviviality as opposed to the ceremonial and funerary contexts of the ancestral Type I. As the sphere of the Type I became restricted, the Type II took over the diversity of sizes and functions that had attached to the Protogeometric Type I. Initially the Type II retained its utilitarian

The Attic krater’s distribution abroad summarized, Coldstream 1983, 201-207. 317 Eretria, AntK 44, 2001, 86: Verdan 2013, 929-942, pl. 96, Cat. 335. Kyme, E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, The Excavation at Viglatouri, Kyme on Euboa. in: M. Bats – B. d’Agostino (eds.), L’Eubea, e la Presenza Euboica, in Chalcidice e in Occidente, Euboica (Naples 1998) 58-104 figs. 11. 33,1, where related data from Asine, Nichoria, Dreros and Tiryns are cited. 316

Sherratt 2004, 325-6. Van Wees 1995, 165, Crielaard 1995, 201-289. Eder 2003, 48 f. 314 BSA 37, 1936-37, 71, fig. 7. 315 Nea Ionia, Lord-Smithson 1961, 167 f. pl. 29, kantharos Ker. 2031 (PG), Ker. 2026 (G), Ker. IV, pl. 21, Lefkandi III, Pyre 14,16, pls. 88. 110. 312 313


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater formal ritual, large aristocratic consortium, convivial or more intimate proto-symposium. To contrast the less public kraters with the larger institutional types, the enormous krater 279, size 228 cubic liters, is more than three times the capacity of the typical large krater of the Late Protogeometric period, represented by krater 67 (est. 70.6 cubic liters, roughly 18.6 gallons), five times the capacity of the intermediate sized Middle Geometric II convivial krater (200, est. 45 cubic liters or 11.8 gallons), and more than ten times the capacity of smaller kraters of domestic use 246, 255, and 320, (roughly 22 liters or six gallons). Mixing and drinking were sometimes carried out in even smaller intermediate sized krateriskoi for serving one or two.

Fig. 72. Size comparisons for the largest Bronze Age krater, the Grotta krater from Naxos and three Athenian kraters of the Iron Age (LPG 67, MG 200, LG 279)

Large kraters were needed for mixing because of the necessity to dilute the wine with water.318 Homer mentions a krater holding six measures (Iliad XXIII, 741), and for the type of assemblies he describes, the prominent citizen would have required a large vessel (although not as large as Croesus’ megakrater, reputed to hold the capacity of 600 amphorae).319 The tradition of a large krater went back to the Mycenaean period. The Grotta krater (far left), reported as the largest surviving from the Bronze Age, has been calculated at over 100 liters of fluid.320 Fragments of even larger kraters are preserved in the Kerameikos from ca. 1100-900 BC onwards, none sufficiently well-preserved for an accurate estimate of capacity. The Kerameikos transitional era krater fragment 6, with double the normal sidewall thickness (c 2.0 cm), and barely discernible curvature represents the largest krater in Attica for both the Bronze and Iron Ages. It is only a fragment, so no accurate estimate of its capacity is possible).321 Large kraters were not restricted to Athens, but were spread to some other locales where Mycenaeans dispersed at the end of the Bronze Age. There is the unique, outsized tenth century krater found on the floor of the Toumba house burial at Lefkandi, a possible consortium or ritual krater converted to libation use for the funerary rites. A late ninth century Cypriote vase from Kaloriziki depicts an outsized amphoroid krater in use for consortium or libation, with its decanting oinochoe (Fig. 73). Large pedestalled Type II kraters were used in the Late Geometric settlement of Athens as the Type I ancestral Sheratt 2004, 325-330 for extensive discussion of wine mixing. Hdt. 1,5. The pauper’s mixing bowl is of wood and termed a kossubion. F. Brommer, Gefässformen bei Homer, Hermes 77, Berlin 1942, 356 ff. G. Bruns, Küchenwesen und Mahlzeiten ArchHom Q, Vol. III, Goettingen, 1970, 24. esp. 363 f. J. L. Davis, The Mycenaean Feast, Hesperia Vol. 73, #2, 2004, 124, 126-7. Sherratt 2004, 301-337. 320 Vlachopoulos 1999, 74-94. The Grotta krater, Pres. H. 50, Pres. Diam: 59 cms. Its capacity (measured to just above the head of the rider) and those of Ker. 290 and Ker. 1255, were computer estimated based on a CAD program carried out by Hans P. Birk Dipl. Ing. 321 BSA 37, 1936-37, 71 fig. 7. 318 319


Kratos & Krater The Krater in Funerary Context The Expansion of the Precinct XX Cemetery The depredations of the Great Trench have obscured the full extent of the earlier burial phases of Precinct XX. The row of early graves at the southern edge of the trench was well preserved, but where the trench curved south there was damage to the eastern edge of the cemetery and any continuation of the existing line of graves. If the potential tomb feature flagged by the star had been part of the line, the inroads made by the Great Trench and the mud brick tomb LZB preclude certainty (Figs. 19, 20, 53). Otherwise, the plan of the Precinct XX site is fairly clear and consistent. Beginning with the outsized Submycenaean inhumation burial Gr. SM 22, the graves ranged from east to west or west to east in roughly defined chronologically sequenced rows that ceded to the south over time. There were few MPG burials (blue on the plan Fig. 53 and more for the longer LPG phase (green). During the Middle Geometric I phase, burials continued in chronological sequence extending west of the Samakian precinct and remaining south of the line of Protogeometric burials, some of which must have been still obvious. The first series was EGII-MGI graves G 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 37, and the second MGII-LGIa graves G 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35. By the mideighth century the Precinct XX site had expanded to a roughly rectangular configuration extending across the later Samakian, Koroiban and Potamian precincts near Hagia Triada (Fig. 68). The site terminated on its southern side in a track (the later Street of the Tombs), and on its northern and eastern sides with a line of 11th century burials, interrupted by the Hagia Triada Great Trench. Grs. G 27 and G 28 defined its limits to the west.

Fig. 73. Decanting from a large bronze krater, its brilliance represented by the radiating lines emanating from its surface. Depiction on a vase from Kaloriziki Cyprus

krater was increasingly given over to burial ritual. The Type II krater’s larger size, extended proportions, and lofty pedestal may initially have been adaptations serving its role as the centerpiece of high functions: it allowed easier access to the krater’s contents as it stood on the floor or on the kind of low platform used as a podium in an apsidal structure of the Sanctuary of Apollo in Eretria.322 The apsidal hall, the remarkable Athenian import, and the krater’s elevation on a platform, are suggestions that some significant activities went on in this building. The largest krater preserved during the Iron Age is one of the latest, the Kerameikos Late Geometric consortium krater 279 (Fig. 54). This was a settlement consortium krater reused as an epitymbion on the burial of King Alcmeon. Especially large kraters found in the Kerameikos, the Eretrian hall, the Toumba house burial and Naxos, the Mycenaean Grotta krater and two from Protogeometric Plithos,323 betoken large gatherings, such as prominent weddings, funerals, religious rituals, investitures, and the entertainment of visiting dignitaries.324 The kraters would have served especially for the periodic consortium of the male elite, to assess policy and to confirm their joint status and solidarity. Presumably the intermediate sized Type II krater 200 (Fig. 116) would. have served for gatherings of kin and private dining groups which Van Wees notes were likely small and exclusive.325

The graves from the earliest times were oriented mostly on a North-South axis, the exceptions being two groups of Protogeometric burials with East-West orientation, one on the eastern flank, and the other on the western. Confirming that there was no break in the burial pattern at the transition to Geometric, the first group of Geometric burials of the eastern flank dovetailed into the Protogeometric sector in a fairly compact formation: the male buried under an epitymbion in Geometric Gr. G 1 was aligned in the row of Late Protogeometric burials.326 Constituting a link with earlier burials, two of the males in this same row were buried with heirloom shields similar to the one found in the row of eleventh century burials.327 While a few burials continued at Precinct XX to the end of the Geometric period, the Middle Geometric II

AntK 44, 2001, 86. Verdan 2013, 929-942, pl. 96, Cat. 335; BSA 47, 1952, pl. 2, A1. 323 Reber 2011, 929-942. I thank Dr. Karl Reber for providing me information on the two Plithos kraters. 324 Wecowski 2014, 183-187. 325 Van Wees, 1995, 173f. 322

Ker. V 1, Beil. 2, Grs. PG 43, 44, 45, 48, and G 1. Ker. IV, pl. 37, Gr. PG 24, Ker. M49, Gr. P 40, Ker. M12, Gr. PG 43, Ker. M13, PG 45. Spiked boss shields were retained for nearly a century before their placement in burials. 326 327


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater krater epitymbia of this phase provide a terminus for this site’s floruit as Athens’ most elite burial ground. That a single, fairly homogeneous group occupied this site throughout this time is supported by the arrangement and sequence of the burial site from 1125 BC onwards, by the high status of the burials and the obvious sensitivity to avoid encroachment on the burials of predecessors. There was also the continuity of the style of the krater, and the persistence of unique krater funerary rituals. At the opening of the Geometric period, 900 BC, all factors support Precinct XX as the burial ground of a traditional eupatrid family that was bringing political and cultural changes to Athens and Attica, In sequel it became clear it was the Alcmeonids.

The wider distribution of the formal consortium krater and epitymbion use from the time of Megacles reign (922-892 BC) presage the eventual unification of Attica under the hegemony of Athens. Children were buried in Athenian cemeteries in the Iron Age, but not at Precinct XX. In the cemeteries latest use in LGIb, as Alcmeon and his consort were buried in their large tombs, G 24 and G 26, I hazard that the wealthy infant buried with toys, wealth, and a large ritual horse pyxis in the nearby Plattenbau Gr. G 50 nearby, may have been their offspring. Following the departure of the high status males from Athens in the mid-8th c, some children were interred in the Plattenbau along with women. The large Gr. G 50 horse pyxis with pierced base, was fabricated by the potter for it to serve as a ritual libation vessel, and perhaps it was symbolic of the child’s status as head of a significant family, even that of Alcmeon himself.

Under the rule of Megacles (922-892), there appears to have been an increase in the representational character of the funeral, to judge from the wealth and refinement of his tomb content (Gr. G2). The krater which marked his tomb was not only symbolic of his ancestry, but also his cultivation, wealth, and power as an Athenian life-king (Fig. 37). Elite males and their female consorts, buried in propinquity, were both assigned fine epitymbia from this point. The kraters and amphorae (the women’s epitymbia), now acquired larger proportions, remarkably detailed ornamentation and monumentality. They were suitable not only for use in libation rites during the funeral, but in sequel to stand on the burials as monuments rather than just markers. Those buried in the formal area of Precinct XX must have been prominent to judge from the burials, and they notably included women, who may have retained some of the status position women enjoyed during the Mycenaean period.

The clay walls of the Plattenbau clearly mark that it is to be distinguished from the elite Alcmeonid burial area. The absence of child burials in the confines of Precinct XX for its 300 plus years of existence supports its serious political character as the burial site of high status nobility. In the early years Submycenaean children were buried in intramural burial on the Acropolis which may have provided protection for leaders during a potentially still hazardous transition phase. In the ensuing more settled conditions of the Iron Age, children were perhaps buried intramurally within the hamlet communities that must have been within hailing distance of the revered burial precincts. No traces of these hamlets have been found, although Kübler speculated the Hill of the Nymphs held possibilities as a settlement location.

The changes initiated under the rule of Megacles are palpable. The clear extension of some formerly exclusive burial practices beyond Precinct XX during the ninth c. may reflect an evolving socio-political situation in Athens. New access to the rites, symbols, and the same fine pottery workshop long patronized by Precinct XX at this time, indicate the rising prosperity and stature of various other Athenian eupatrid communities, especially those burying in the Agora and Irian Gate cemeteries. There are more details on the rule of Megacles, and his initiation of the new Geometric period in his listing under the Kings. For now one can note that there had been only slight evidence for pyres, krater libation, and krater epitymbia beyond the Kerameikos Precinct XX, but during the ninth century the use of the formal krater in burial rites began to spread to other Athenian burial grounds and even beyond Athens: the Dipylon Gate, Irian Gate, Haladian Gate, Eleusis, Thorikos, Palaia Kokkinia, and in the eighth c. Merenda and Marathon/Oinoe (Agora krater fragments cannot yet be associated with burial rites; most appear to have come from pottery making establishments or possible habitation located there).

Krater Libation Gallou noted that there was an upsurge of libation vessels in Attica during the LHIIIA phase, namely rhyta and kylikes.328 A single ornate LHIIIA krater was found in an elite Agora chamber tomb, and another at Vari. The largest Attic cemetery, Perati, founded in LHIIIB, had only two commonplace krater fragments from its 600 plus burials.329 Beyond the LHIIIA activity, which may hint at a Peloponnesian presence in the area at that time, krater funerary use was not part of Athenian burial customs prior to the late 12th c. arrival of Melanthos and Alcmeon from the Peloponnesos, where krater use in funerary context is found from LHIII A through to LHIIIC Late. Numerous krater remains occur at their new Precinct XX burial ground following its foundation. Logically the newly arrived Neleids brought their kraters and their krater funerary rituals Gallou, 2002, 279, fn. 194. Krater in Vari tomb, ADelt 43, Mel. 1988, 99. Perati, Iakovides, Vol. II, 257, pl. 16, Nos. 94.97. 328 329


Kratos & Krater along with other aspects of their funerary culture, Wild Style pottery, model ceramic dowries and birds, and the wooden sarcophagos. The funerary rites at Precinct XX and the Sacred Gate were almost certainly based on long established Peloponnesian precedents.

the settlement at Malthi, Messenia had its base pierced, obviously to serve periodically in ritual libation (Fig. 23).334 The Deiras cemetery in the Argolid had evidence of long-standing use of the funerary krater both at chamber tombs and cist graves, with the krater left in the dromos or the adjacency. The Precinct XX libation practices may well represent the transference of Peloponnesian krater rituals to the circumstances of cist burial and cremation in the Kerameikos.

In Athens the Precinct XX group retained almost exclusive use of the krater in burial ritual until the onset of the Geometric period, following the accession of Megacles to the life-kingship. He may have been responsible for the dissemination of krater rituals and perhaps krater consortium beyond the limits of Precinct XX. The rituals continued at Precinct XX and other Athenian Neleid burial sites until their cemeteries declined in the mid-eighth c.

In Athens the formally decorated krater, was now in usage only by the highest stratum of society. Most of the sourced krater remains come from the Precinct XX area and the Great Mound (G). Circa 100 kraters are represented among the Kerameikos strayfind fragments from the period 1100-900 BC, when they are all but absent in remaining Athenian Iron Age sites. Two krater sherds and a krateriskos came from tombs at the nearby Sacred Gate (8.9.17). Remarkably, only one frgt. came from the extensive Pompeion cemetery (2), and one from the Vor Dipylon area (16), Significantly, there are sherds of two refined, eleventh century kraters from the Acropolis following a hiatus of such vessels at that site since LHIIIC Middle. The earliest evidence for use of the krater in Attic burial rites was a large Submycenaean krater fragment (Fig. 95, Cat 17) slipped under the covering slab of a Sacred Gate cremation burial, a token perhaps of a final libation, or a remnant of a broken grave marker (the characteristic weathering of an epitymbion occurs on some of the earliest krater fragments, described below). A large pyre nearby, a rarity in Iron Age Athens, held the krater fragment 9 and the remains of a cup, the vessel most frequently used with the funerary krater, as it had been in Mycenaean times.335 An association between krater funerary use and the rite of cremation is supported in these Sacred Gate burials. While inhumation was the custom that initiated the Precinct XX burial site (Grs. SM 22, 23, 113) the prevalence of cremation in its earlier phase is uncertain because of the destruction of many of its Submycenaean burials by the Great Trench. Certainly cremation and krater libation were practiced along with inhumation before the end of the Submycenaean period, with cremation becoming the norm from Protogeometric times onward. The krater’s use in cremation rites, as well as a suspected association with the elite, may explain its rarity in the Pompeion, where there were fewer status burials, only the rare cremation, and inhumation was the norm.

As in the Mycenaean Peloponnesos, the Athenian Iron Age krater was not usually deposited in Athenian graves. Where krater remains are found in burial context it is usually fragments in secondary use, such as a foot used as a bowl or lid, or a krateriskos used to close the mouth of an urn, or a late domestic krater as a gift following the decline of the Precinct XX cemetery.330 The numerous strayfind remains of Iron Age kraters at Precinct XX came not from graves but from hundreds of kraters used in the rituals of libation and cremation, then discarded in the vicinity, or erected as markers on tombs. The large number of unassociated krater fragments from the Precinct XX area indicates a functional role in burial cult, almost certainly in libation ritual, whereafter the krater was often placed on the funeral pyre. Burned krater fragments in the Kerameikos date from the transitional years down to the Geometric era, and especially during the Early Geometric phase.331 One Agora pyre deposit had LPG krater remains.332 Burned Athenian kraters have also been found in mid-ninth c. Lefkandi pyre debris.333 A regular acceptance of the Kerameikos krater as an epitymbion and post-depositional conduit for liquid offerings has obscured the central role that krater libation played in Precinct XX at the time of the funeral. The evidence of similar krater funerary rituals in the regions of Messenia, Achaea and the Argolid from LHIIIA through LHIIIC Late, was discussed earlier in this section: a final libation after the closing of the tomb, with the kraters and cups left outside the tomb in the dromos. Sometimes only cups were left, which is understandable, in light of the value of a decorated krater. Reuse of a krater for various libation ceremonies is possible: a decorated krater found in a storeroom at

At Precinct XX, rare scraps found in grave pyre debris, sometimes darkened from exposure to fire, presumably

A krater closed the mouth of an urn at Eleusis: Prakt 1954, 58 f. and Mylonas 1975, 259 pl. 231, burial Gamma 11. 331 Kerameikos Geometric burned krater remains: 131, 139, 140, 146, 149, 154, 156, 161, 162, 163, 166, 170, 172, 175, 179, 196, 209, 239. 332 Lord-Smithson 1961, 152 fn. 12. 333 Lefkandi III, pls. 88. 90. 330

Libation: E. Vermeule, Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry, Sather Lectures 46, Berkeley 1979, 12. 63. Libation(?) on a Tanagra larnax, Carter-Morris 1995, 115 fig. 7.5a. Mylonas 1948, 5681. Malthi: Ramovouno-Kakkathela. 335 Ruppenstein 2007, 30, n. 91; Von Freytag 1995, 647 fig. 33. 334


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater



Fig. 74. Above, a gypsum restoration of MGII krater 205. Below, remains of epitymbia on Precinct XX burials, kraters for noble males and amphorae for females

came from kraters discarded on the pyre following libation.336 Fragments of krater, oinochoe, skyphos and oil vase found in pyre debris, were part of the ritual grouping used in the final rites for the deceased, rather than banqueting equipment for the surviving kin, as may be the case elsewhere. There is little evidence for the dispersal of cup remains in the vicinity of burials, and

the few animal bones that have been found would have been sufficient provision only for the deceased. The evidence suggests that the pre-Geometric krater remains found in the Precinct XX area were used for libation rituals honoring the deceased, and possibly as burial markers (further below). By analogy with the numerous kraters found in the fill of the Toumba chieftain’s mausoleum, a significant leader may have merited the pouring of libation by a number of participants.337

The earliest, kraters are 1 from the Precinct XX area with traces of burning, and 2, from the Pompeion, both possibly LHIIIC Late. Some krateriskoi may be miniature kraters made for the grave, e.g S. Acropolis, BSA 75, 1980, 22 pl. 3e; 23 (pl. 5) Gr. PG1. 336



AM 80 1965, 1-99; Lefkandi I, 115. 214 f. Antonaccio 1995. 249.

Kratos & Krater The Homeric Associations of Libation & Pyre Dousing

A number of Kerameikos kraters had traces of burning, indicating they were dumped on still active embers. While only two 11th century kraters were burned, there were eleven from the tenth century. The uneven pattern of burning on contiguous krater fragments indicates the libation krater was sometimes broken before or during placement on the embers, a pattern of use already observed in the case of the pyxis. This breakage could have been carried out to honor a distinguished deceased following libation. Presumably Achilles’ golden krater would have been returned to safe storage.

Subsequent Iron Age usage of the krater in burial recalls Homeric funerary rites recounted in the Iliad.338 The modest Submycenaean krater fragment 6 implies a very large krater, the largest surviving for both Bronze and Iron Ages. This would have served for a considerable gathering of aristocrats and rites of almost Homeric scope. It would have served to send off someone of note, such as the knight buried with his shield in Gr. SM 24 in the earliest preserved row of Submycenaean burials. The krater would have been large enough to have held wine for multiple libations and dousing of the pyre for collection of the ashes, as depicted at the funeral of Patroclos. In the Iliad the krater is a bulk container from which wine is decanted and poured out in a staged series of ritual libations. It is made of the finest material, gold. A sole administrant, Achilles, decants the libation, using a depas, the BronzeAge forerunner of the skyphos (l.196). The wine is used not only for libation, but to douse the pyre as the embers die so that the bones can be collected and inurned. Certain Athenian aristocrats buried from SM to PG at Precinct XX, the Sacred Gate and Nea Ionia were apparently accorded similar rites. The Iron Age krater was similarly a special vessel, singled out in the Athenian repertory for a more elaborate decoration, and fabricated in sizes large enough to serve in the various capacities described in the Iliad. The size of the krater was likely unrelated to the service of wine for the celebrants, since there was no evidence of communal drinking, such as discarded cups in the vicinity. More likely the size of the krater supported its role in extended ritual libations and dousing similar to those supervised by Achilles. This may explain the lack of krater remains in the Submycenaean Pompeion, where inhumation was the rule.

One of the largest and finest of the burned funerary kraters was the MGII Geometric krater 239 (Fig. 121, 191). It had been broken and repaired, before being assigned to funerary libation. Contiguous burned and unburned fragments reveal it had been shattered before the pieces were burned, the blows clearly visible on the lower sidewall fragments. Consignment to the pyre was often the fate of kraters that had been patched together or were past their prime. The heavily repaired Nea Ionia krater had been recomposed for one final use in funerary libation. It had repair holes but the lead repair clamps were missing, either melted into the still warm embers of the pyre or more likely scavenged for recycling. Krater feet were often retrieved, coveted as bowls or lids: the Nea Ionia, and Munich kraters were both missing their feet, while krater feet were found reused as urn lids in several burials.340 The unburned PG krater remains in the Kerameikos may have been placed on a quenched pyre, like the Nea Ionia krater, but a few show the weathering that can be with associated use as an epitymbion (q.v.). The size of the pyre in the account of Patroclos’ funeral was notable, a reflection of his worth in the eyes of Achilles. Kübler, remarking the lack of related pyres in the Kerameikos, proposed that cremation had been carried out on a separate mud brick construction not far from the grave, for clumps of mud brick are sometimes found in the burials along with burned sherds. A Submycenaean pyre has now been found in the vicinity of the Sacred Gate Gr. 146. Originally published as two pyres, the two parts have now been associated as a single large pyre.341 Individual pyres have also been

The clearest confirmation of these practices comes from the Late Protogeometric grave precinct at Nea Ionia, ‘a little over an hour’s walk from the Dipylon.’ Publishing the site, Lord-Smithson noted the finds’ cultural and stylistic similarity to contemporary burials in the Kerameikos, and vessels even ‘manufactured in the same workshops that equipped families burying in the Kerameikos.’ The site yielded six Protogeometric burials and a pyre datable to the era of Megacles, the remains of a possible family burial precinct. A large, richly decorated krater was left upended on the pyre at the termination of the funerary rituals (Fig. 107). This krater was large enough to contain fluid sufficient for both the series of libations and ritual dousing described in the epic account. Since the krater was unburned the pyre must have been already quenched, logically by the former contents of this krater.339

as northern access. Boardman 1988, 176 f., sees the krater more as a container for libations to the newly cremated, rather than ‘fire control’, but in Homer the dousing and collection of bones by princes appears to incorporate some canonical ritual practice. Dousing with wine is also reported at LG Pithecusae, Coldstream 2003, 351. 340 E.g. remains of a large krater foot used to close the urn of burial PG 18, Ker. I, 192 f. Agora krater P 7008, area B10, Lord-Smithson 1961, 152 n.12. 155. Regarding the Nea Ionia krater being coated with oil, LordSmithson 1961, 151, I am skeptical. Jars such as lekythoi, placed in the grave with an oil content that has decayed down, have the occasional chalky white deposit in a strongly pitted surface. Oil would unlikely have penetrated the smoother exterior surface of the Nea Ionia krater sufficient to have left evidence three thousand years later. 341 Ruppenstein 2007, 30, n.91. Smaller pyres in the Agora for one time use: Lord-Smithson 1961, 151 f.

Iliad 23.196. Lord-Smithson, 1961. Nea Ionia was likely an outpost established by the Kerameikos chieftains to control areas of cultivation as well 338 339


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater found at Lefkandi, a Protogeometric burial ground at Xeropolis, Euboea, with practices closely similar to those of the Kerameikos. Some PG pyre debris found in a tray in the Kerameikos storage depot combined krater fragments and ash with calcined human bones, suggesting that the libation krater was sometimes consumed on the pyre with the deceased. Smaller ritual vessels, and other offerings may have sometimes been burned separately from the body: the clumps of clay reported in some Geometric pyre debris could have come from an antecedent of the Opferrinne.

water or ice collecting in the bowl, causing erosion of the interior surface if not evacuated (the reason why drainage holes were cut into the bowls of Geometric kraters fabricated as epitymbia).345 Kraters may have been left on view at graves as early as the Submycenaean phase, on the evidence of strayfind 11 (Fig. 89) the earliest preserved krater with this characteristic state of preservation. The practice may have coincided with the arrival of the elite founders of Precinct XX from the Peloponnesos, where kraters and cups were sometimes left outside the tomb in the dromos following rituals.

The Evolution of the Krater Epitymbion Although steles had defined elite Bronze Age burial sites, krater grave markers may have replaced them before the end of that era. The fairly orderly configuration of Precinct XX burials hints that individual gravesites were being defined in some manner from the cemetery’s earliest foundation ca. 1125 BC. There is little of the encroachment one observes, for example at the late eighth century Precinct XX burial ground following the loss of the krater markers. Kübler reported low mounds distinguishing some of Precinct XX’s earliest burials, and one Pompeion burial, Gr. SM 103 had a scattering of stones. Kurtz and Boardman felt the Pompeion burials might have had wooden or stone markers and more moundings of earth than have survived.342

In both the Peloponnesos and Athens, it is unclear whether the kraters were casually abandoned, or deliberately placed as a symbol honoring the deceased. The value of the krater would suggest the latter. Finds in the Peloponnesos suggest placement of kraters at the tomb was sometimes deliberate. At Mycenae a very late panel-decorated krater, adorned with a bird, may have been both a libation krater and an epitymbion, since it had a hole perforated in its base before the potter fired it (Fig. 24a). As noted here, the piercing of the base of the Iron Age epitymbion krater was probably for the drainage of rainwater, but this is less certain for the Mycenae krater and another, similarly decorated with birds and pierced, found in what may have been a storeroom in Malthi, Messenia (Fig. 23). The bird krater found at Mycenae was one of the last Mycenaean kraters, and one of the last Mainland figural vessels. Crouwel suggests it was decorated by someone unused to pictorial decoration: the absence of proficient pot painters may explain why the tradition of a figural kraters was lost during the transitional years.346 Absent the birds, the style of both of these bird kraters is similar to that of the Precinct XX kraters.

The earliest epitymbion krater found at its burial was likely the MPG ‘Phorbas’ krater, a large foot and two body fragments, tentatively associated with an individual on the King List, q.v. The remains of two LPG amphorae were found in situ at Precinct XX marking the burials of two females (Fig. 74, right).343 LPG krater 67 was found on Gr. G1 (Fig. 105), whereafter the frequency of epitymbia increases during the phase of Megacles, his epitymbion 151 on Gr. G 2 (Fig. 37). The paucity of Protogeometric epitymbia may be an accident of survival because they would have been more easily displaced and broken than their Geometric counterparts: they were smaller, had lower feet, and significantly would not have had the protection of open burial.344 One may speculate that certain strayfind kraters once served as epitymbia from their state of preservation. They exhibit a pattern of wear less consistent with normal domestic use, than with exposure to the elements in an upright position over a period of time. All have well preserved exteriors but only traces of glaze remaining on their heavily eroded interiors: they include the Protogeometric kraters 11, 52 and 59 (Fig. 80), and Geometric kraters 243 and 246. This wear likely resulted from seasonal

French referenced the earlier Warrior Vase as a possible burial marker, and certainly its iconography would have been appropriate to this role if it is a mourning female depicted at the handle, rather than someone waving farewell to departing warriors (Fig. 12).347 Another LHIIIC Late krater from a tomb in Elis in the western Peloponnesos has also been claimed as a funerary krater on more certain grounds: it is adorned with a prothesis scene (Fig. 14).348 Whatever the case, the Kraters with this typical wear: 11, 12, 52, 59, 92, 102, 145, 246. Kraters 52 and 246 have raised ridges on the bowl interior, created by the wheel turning process. Wear from daily use would have eroded the higher ridges first, but the erosion is greater in the depressions where rainwater remained caught up, a process clearly visible on 52 and 246. 346 Desborough 1973 91f-101, pls. 28-34. French 2009, 152 f. Crouwel 2009, 41 f., 44, figs. 2, 7, 14. The foot of the Mycenae krater was found in an ashy layer near graves Gamma 31, 8 and 9, with vases and bronzes, including one stirrup jar adorned with what may be an early version of Desborough’s Wild Style. 347 Mountjoy 2001, 100, fig. 266. 348 Gallou 2002, 297 f. fig. 81. 345

Boardman-Kurtz 1971, 32 f. 38. 56 f. Ker. I, 6.45.181. Andronikos 1963, 110. 343 PG amphora epitymbia, PG Grs. 37. 38, Ker. IV, Ker. 1074, 1089, 14.17.38 f. Ker I, 9. 11. 344 The Nea Ionia krater, found at the pyre and missing its lead clamps and foot, was almost certainly not an epitymbion, Lord-Smithson 1961, 167 f. pl. 29. 342


Kratos & Krater practicality of vessels marking Precinct XX burials in the crowding conditions of the Precinct XX cemetery, was ultimately recognized. The kraters remained on view identifying the burials of the most prominent, and helping to define the structure and extent of the burial ground, insuring that new graves would be installed with deference to those of predecessors. The success of the vessels in this respect is highlighted by comparison with the post-Late Geometric I phase of Precinct XX, when epitymbia may have collapsed or been taken down, and less orderly depositions intruded irregularly and destructively upon earlier burials (Fig. 53).

Precinct XX male graves, were of varying quality of fabrication. Middle Geometric II kraters 239-241 (Fig. 121) maintained the highest standards associated with the Princinct XX, Early Geometric patriarchs, while an apparent epitymbion, the diminutive Middle Geometric krater 246 had been a poorly fabricated krater of ordinary domestic use (Fig. 185). Damaged, repaired and worn Type II settlement kraters were sometimes employed as epitymbia (Fig. 175, 195, Fig. 121, 240). Krater and amphora epitymbia were usually aligned close over the urn marking its exact spot, and an unadorned rough stone slab was often placed behind them, perhaps to protect the epitymbion or indicate the grave’s orientation (Fig. 39). Six of the eleven marker kraters found in situ were accompanied by such steles (Grs. G 1, 2, 42, 11, 37, hS290350) as also two amphorae on female burials (Grs. G 12, G 26). It is uncertain whether there had been steles on the remaining four epitymbion graves (Grs. G 43, 23, 22, 30) since they had all been disturbed by later burials or the Great Trench. After 900 BC the erection of an amphora over female burials and a krater over the male appears to have been standardized (although there is a report of an amphora epitymbion over the burial of a male on the nearby Sacred Way).351 Skias reported several instances of a hydria or oinochoe marking burials at Eleusis, including a hydria placed on the cover of the female Isis Grave. A small undecorated amphora stood above a grave on the Areopagos.352 Krater 279, the single Late Geometric krater epitymbion from Precinct XX is usually assigned to the female burial Gr. G 26, but that was not the case. Its special circumstances are detailed below: it had been erected on the adjacent burial of King Alcmeon G 24, as detailed in Chapter IV.

The latest Protogeometric years of Precinct XX witnessed further expansion in funerary ceremony. Burials illustrate increasing affluence in the number, size and quality of vases, and the bold new shapes introduced by the Jewel Workshop, Athens’ premier pottery workshop at this time. Pyre conflagration for the most prominent had become more common to judge from the number of fine, large kraters that were now consumed on the pyre. There are remains of eighteen formal Kerameikos kraters from the Protogeometric to Geometric transitional phase that show signs of pyre burning. Βefitting the krater’s increased status in the burial ground, the first preserved Geometric krater epitymbia were large, finely decorated, Type I kraters of representational appearance. It is estimated that at least thirty-three Geometric epitymbion kraters embellished the site before the monumental krater lapsed in Athens at the termination of Late Geometric I. From the midninth century as kraters became larger and more iconic in appearance, more were reserved from the pyre and installed as epitymbia. However the symbolism and visual display of breaking and burning a large krater still held appeal. It is possible that two kraters were used in an important funeral, one for the libation that was cast on the pyre, and a second that was erected as an epitymbion. This is suspected in the case of the unburned Middle Geometric I krater 176 (Fig. 113, 114), and an almost identical burned companion piece, 179, both of the same date and from the same workshop. They were probably also from the same household: both had been adapted with an identical set of large holes drilled vertically, post firing, at intervals through the upper surface of the rim. Krater 179 shows clear signs of having been smashed forcefully and burned on the pyre, while its unburned companion piece, the repaired 176, had likely been a grave marker.349

Apart from the Nea Ionia krater, only the ancestral Type I krater was used in Athens for funerary libation through to the end of the ninth century, but a few scraps of Early Geometric, large krateriskoi suggest they may have also served in funerary rites. The Type II convivial krater came into sporadic use in burial from Middle Geometric II onward, its first appearance the heavily repaired krater 200 of Gr. G 22.353 The placement of a repaired krater over a burial was less disservice to the deceased than one might imagine: a sturdy repair could be effected to judge from the lead brackets which have survived, one embedded in the wall of krater 208 (Fig. 71). Repair holes were also found on epitymbia 151, 195 and the strayfind 176, a likely epitymbion. A particular The earliest stele was found on female burial LPG Gr. 38, together with an epitymbion amphora Ker. IV, 39 pl. 9, 181; others from the Irian Gate cemetery, Eleusis, and Anavyssos, mostly on male burials. Brückner and Pernice believed these were the forerunners of historical stone steles. 351 Vierneisel ADelt Chron18, 1, 1963, 29, pl. 29 hS190. 352 Skias report, Paulsen 1905, 19 f. fn. 3. 7, 20, fn. 3. 353 The Eleusis krater is earlier, but it was not reported as an epitymbion: AEphem, 1898, pl. 3, 3; Prakt 1954, 58 f.

In their earliest preserved use, LPG-MGI, Geometric epitymbia were of fine fabrication, and restricted to the most prominent burials of both sexes, but by Middle Geometric II, krater epitymbia, now placed on most


Against this view, no frgts. of 179 were reported in the pyre debris from that grave. 349


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater anomaly is early Middle Geometric krater 195, the Type I epitymbion on Gr. G 37, which had been recomposed by clamps from various contiguous burned and unburned sections, a pattern common on vessels broken as they were committed to the pyre. If this krater had been scavenged from a fire or pyre for repair and reuse as an epitymbion, it would represent the ultimate act of recycling in a burial ground that previously had taken pride in a fine display.

presumably many of the unburned fragments came from epitymbia. At least twenty-three of such ‘epitymbion kraters’ of Geometric date appear to be represented in the strayfinds. The determination of this number, admittedly far from scientific, was as follows. The number of large, distinct krater feet was counted, then all those with either signs of burning, or of too little consequence to have been placed on a burial as a marker were eliminated (truly a subjective process on the evidence that a small, poorly fabricated household krater 246 was apparently erected as an epitymbion). The system was adapted for the Late Geometric period, based on three surviving epitymbia necks rather than a single fragment of foot, and the addition of two other fragments widely dispersed on the Sacred Way. All krater fragments with characteristic epitymbion iconography or weathering were retained. If anything, the numbers touted as epitymbia err on the side of conservatism.

Geometric Krater Epitymbia found in Situ 67, Ker 2133, LPG 925-900 from Gr.G 1, EG. Ker. V,1 p. 209 f. Base not pierced. Cremation. Stele. Male: Breitinger. 151, Ker 935, EG 900-875 from Gr. G 2. EG. Ker. V,1 p. 210-12. No base center. Cremation. Stele. Male: Breitinger 174, Ker. 1187, MGI 850-825 from Gr. G 42. EG II-MG I. Ker. V,1 p. 237. Base broken through. Cremation. Stele. Male: Breitinger 193, Ker. 1254, EGII-MGI, 860-840 from Gr. G 43. EG IIMG I. Ker. V,1 p. 238. Base with potted hole. No stele. Cremation. Sex indeterminate. Burial cut by trench 195, Ker. 871, MGI 850-800 from Gr. G 37. MG I. Ker. V,1 p. 233 f. Base broken through. Cremation. Stele. Male: Breitinger 200, Ker. 290, MGII 800-775 from Gr. G 22. MG II. Ker. V, 1 pp. 222-224 Base broken through. Cremation. No stele. Male: Breitinger. Disturbed by later graves 201, Ker. 865, MGI 825-800 from Gr. G 11. MG I-II. Ker. V,1 p. 216. Base not broken through. Cremation. Stele. Male: Breitinger 205, Ker. 1247, MGII 800-775 from Gr. G 23. MG II. Ker. V,1, p.224 f. Base broken through. Cremation. No Stele. Male: Breitinger. Grave cut into by Gr. G 24 and late grave 253, Ker. 283, MGII 775-760 from Gr. G 30. MG II. Ker. V, 1 pp. 229 f. Base not broken through. Cremation. No stele. Male: Breitinger. Disturbed by later grave 279, Ker. 1255, LGIb 750-740 found at Gr. G 26, but almost certainly stood on Gr. G 24. LG Ib. Ker. V,1 p. 227. The base reported carefully broken through. Three, possibly four, intersecting burials, v. pp. 88-90 284, Ker. 2943, LGIb 750-740 from Gr. hS 290. LG Ib. AD Chron. 18, 1963, p. 29, Pl. 29; AA 1964, 462, fig. 55; M. Weber, AM 1999, pp. 29-37. Base appears to have potted hole. Inhumation. Deceased reported as male354

The additional strayfind ‘epitymbia’ roughly triple the numbers already found on the burials. It seems that at least in the Middle Geometric II period, Kübler’s supposition that all Precinct XX male burials were surmounted by an epitymbion was probably correct.355 For the Early Geometric period, as one would expect, epitymbia are rare: only three additional feet fragments (141, 169, 171), while for the Middle Geometric period at least fourteen distinct fragmentary feet could be distinguished that might have come from epitymbia. There were at least seven additional Late Geometric epitymbia represented, none from Precinct XX (267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 285).356 The remains of epitymbia in the strayfinds were found to be in roughly the same proportion for each phase as the remains found in situ on graves. There is little indication where additional Middle Geometric epitymbion kraters could have come from within the Precinct XX site, but there was a lacuna between Grs. G 4 and G 43, and another between Grs. G 26 and G 36 (an area impacted by post-Iron Age burial installations). Others could have come from a lateral extension of the main site to the east where the burials terminated in further trenching activity, as well as the several damaged burials (Grs. G 13, 18, 25, 31, 32, 34, 36). Of these only Gr. G 13 was well enough preserved for the detection of the ‘open burial’ status usually associated with a Middle Geometric epitymbion. The finest Middle Geometric II kraters, 232, 241 and the libation krater 239, likely originated from the badly damaged ‘patriarch’ section under the Samakian precinct, where a fragment of 239 had been found. The sourced Late Geometric strayfind krater remains came from burials beneath the Pompeion, Vor Dipylon, and Sacred Way

Kerameikos Strayfind Krater ‘Epitymbia’ While numerous burned strayfind fragments came from libation kraters used in the funerary rites, Epitymbion 284 was an ‘Ausläufer’on the Sacred Way, not part of the Precinct XX complex.





Kübler 1964, 173 f. Frgts. 267 and 268 may have come from a single krater.

Kratos & Krater sites. Only the Vor Dipylon site had yielded evidence of an Iron Age krater earlier than that that phase.

terments at Precinct XX, the ‘patriarchs’ phase, which spanned Late Protogeometric through Middle Geometric I. Displaced epitymbia can be appreciated individually in museums, but the prospect of an entire cemetery punctuated by such monuments must have been extraordinary. The LGI Irian Gate field of figural kraters adorned with combats on land and sea, and enormous amphorae such as ANM 804, must have been even more spectacular. Two well-preserved kraters in the New York Metropolitan Museum suffice to demonstrate the impressive proportions attained by epitymbia: NY. 34.11.2, H c. 98 cm, W c. 85 cm, (Fig. 60), NY. 14.130.14, H c. 131 cm, W c 87.6 cm, NY.14.13.15,1, Fig. 125.

Combining krater epitymbia associated with Kerameikos burials, with probable examples from the strayfinds results in the following: Early Geometric: 2 in situ, 3 potential from the strayfinds

Total 5

Middle Geometric: 7 in situ, 14 potential from the strayfinds

Total 21

Late Geometric I: 2 in situ, 6 potential from the strayfinds

Total 8

Potential Total of Kerameikos epitymbion kraters

The Mourner Krater: The Earliest Athenian Funerary Monument

At least 34

The creation of the monumental Geometric krater demanded special skills in both fabrication and firing.357 Wall cross-sections confirm that these large and complex vessels were thrown in sections that were then assembled: the torso, the large tube of the foot, and the neck as a large upside-down ring. The manipulation of such large vessels was not without challenge. There appears to have been a failure attaching one foot, where a new join had to be made below bowl level (129, Fig. 75). The joining surface was striated to strengthen adhesion. Thick areas at the juncture of bowl and foot and around the handles were sometimes pierced to promote more even firing. Presumably any krater with an overall consistent coat of glaze was fired on its own with careful control of the temperature, but these are rare and misfires frequent. The commonest misfire was uneven heat and too intense heat, when the dark glaze reoxidized to red, sometimes in unsightly patches. This happened frequently in the Middle Geometric phase as potters coped with the problems of firing more and ever larger kraters.

If these numbers in any way represent the original prevalence of krater epitymbia, then obviously later disturbances took a considerable toll on the Precinct XX site, especially for the Middle Geometric period, the phase when they were most numerous. The numbers of epitymbia help retrieve some suggestion of the wealth and status of the original burial site during that phase, as do the Kerameikos horse pyxides, which also came predominantly from the Precinct XX burials and the Great Mound. The fall off in epitymbia at Precinct XX is largely due to the abrupt decline of this site at the onset of LGII, a phenomenon also observable at the nearby Irian Gate cemetery. The same happened with the horse pyxis, another symbol of eupatrid status. Whereas multiples of pyxides were placed in a single grave, each krater epitymbion represents the burial monument of a single male aristocrat. This is useful from both a demographic and chronological perspective. Circa 27 epitymbia over a 150-year timespan reasonably supports the identification of Precinct XX as the burial ground of a single notable aristocratic group. Assuming no great increase in the group’s size over that timespan, the krater numbers support traditional vase chronologies that advocate a fairly lengthy Middle Geometric phase in spite of the static nature of its style. The numbers also suggest that the landscape at Precinct XX was more impressive visually than any published plans and cross sections can convey.

Fig. 75. Top of krater foot 129, slashed to aid adhesion during the fabrication process

The visual, Fig. 39. recreates an impression of kraters erected in the Precinct XX burial ground. Although distances have been contracted for the need to show different types of burial in adjacency, it is roughly the view looking southwest, with Grs. G 1 and 2 in the foreground, Grs. Gr. G 42, 43, and 37 in the background, and Gr. G 22, its krater barely visible, in the far back-ground. These burials represent the highpoint of surviving in-

Geometric epitymbion kraters were at first discernibly the ordinary kraters used in the community. Few would argue that the Early Geometric epitymbion krater 151 (Fig. 37) with its proportions, adaptations and repair holes, was created for specific use over Gr. G 2: it had I thank Professor J. Papadopoulos for his observations on the potting and firing of Geometric kraters. 357


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 76. Three Attic epitymbion kraters with mourning figures in the spandrel above the handle: Krater 193 from Precinct XX, a krater from Attic Trachones, and the New York battle krater

been an early Type I consortium krater. By the same token, none would argue that the Late Geometric Type I krater adorned with funerary scenes was anything but a vessel created specifically to stand over a grave. At what point was the transition from an ordinary krater used in society to one specially fabricated for funerary use? The transition seems to have begun after the midninth century, following an increase in the height, size and representational character of the krater that may have been related more to its role in aristocratic consortium than in burial.

the ship battle krater in New York, and on a krater from Trachones both c. the mid-8th c. fig. 76. The horse is more likely a reference to the deceased’s rank or kinship group, than a funerary symbol: a single horse emblem had appeared sporadically on Athenian vessels, mostly belly-handled and rim-handled amphorae, since the mid-tenth century (Figs. 36, 78).358 A horse or hindquarters of a horse were amblazoned on Neleid shields. Horses now began to appear in the metopes of the Type II convivial kraters in Neleid cemeteries such as the Kerameikos and Irian Gate (Figs. 116, 121).

The Mourner Krater, the Middle Geometric krater 193 (Figs. 76, left, 77), is a product of the remarkable Rich Lady Workshop. It is also the earliest clear instance of a krater fabricated solely to stand as an epitymbion. It appears to be the prototype for the series of Late Geometric figural kraters patently created to stand on tombs. It is also the earliest preserved Athenian funerary monument. Here for the first time an artisan approached the task of creating a fitting tribute to a prominent deceased that was both vessel and functional monument. Krater 193 announces its role as a funerary vessel by a small figure of a woman aside the handle, her arms raised in the traditional gesture of mourning. A small horse is emblazoned beneath both handles. The figure of the mourning woman is quite unexpected. Certainly the horses that crop up periodically from Submycenaean times reveal a certain familiarity with the representation of natural forms, some of which may have persisted from the Bronze Age.

Since the Mourner Krater 193 was commissioned as an epitymbion, it was equipped with a drainage hole, 3.4 cm in diameter, cut into the bottom of the bowl before the firing process, the first preserved instance of this practice. For extra reinforcement, the unusually tall foot was enclosed beneath, and another, larger drainhole pierced this enclosure (Fig. 77). Both were measures of a shrewd artisan to enable the krater to better endure the rigors of exposure as a burial monument. Although the enclosed foot of 193 was not repeated to my knowledge, potters made other adaptations to kraters that were intended as epitymbia. The Middle Geometric II Krater -232 from the Intermediate PreDipylon Workshop (Fig. 122, 196), is likely the only other Middle Geometric krater made specifically as an epitymbion. Prior to firing it was pierced just below the juncture of the bowl with four holes of 1.5 cm D, regularly spaced around the foot. It is also the only other Type I krater of this date with figural

The mourning woman has no preserved parallel later than the Bronze Age, when female figures in similar stance were painted on Bronze Age larnakes. The mourner motif was retained by the Neleids for more than two hundred years, found in the handle area of

MPG-LPG horse emblems grouped Ker. IV, pl. 27. Human figures and horses: Benson 1970. A schematic Submycenaean centaur(?) Bohen 1988, 15, fig. 3. Figural art appears in Crete, and in Lefkandi on a hydria ca. 1000 BC, J. M. Hurwit, The Art and Culture of Early Greece. 1100-480 BC. (Ithaca 1985) 55, fig. 23. 358


Kratos & Krater





Fig. 77. The Mourner Krater 193 detailing special epitymbion features in the fabrication of its foot

iconography, which became typical of epitymbia in the Late Geometric I period. On Late Geometric epitymbia, round or rectangular potted holes, usually four in number, were spaced evenly around the foot, at or slightly above its mid-height (Fig. 125). Some have interpreted them as vent holes to promote even firing, but this interpretation is called into question in the earliest instance, the Early Geometric epitymbion krater 151 (Fig. 37) where an attempt was made to cut holes subsequent to the firing process. Boardman and Kurtz suggested the holes were for a support stabilizing the krater in position over the grave, a more acceptable solution. The Middle Geometric II krater 195 had a single hole D 0.7 cm cut post firing, that was not for repair (Fig. 175). Such holes may have been used with a binder to secure the krater to a supporting stake driven

Fig. 78. Protogeometric amphora fragment Ker. 11515b with remains of a horse motif, found probably as an insignia of rank and descent on Neleid vases


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater into the ground to prevent it from moving (or lightfingered compatriots from departing with a still usable krater). There was obviously a problem with keeping krater 151 in position. Kübler reported that stones had been positioned around the krater’s lower edge to keep it from being swept away on the gradient (‘Schutz gegen Abschwemmung’). When it was repositioned it was unusually not placed in the standard position directly over the amphora, perhaps to spare the urn and ashes from being violated by a newly introduced support stake driven down into the earth.359

II krater was also terminated during Late Geometric I. Reduced in size and drained of any former political connotations, a small Type II krater persisted in the settlement as a low footed version for domestic wine service, private gatherings, and possibly cult purposes (289). ‘Open Burial’ Epitymbia were often found in ‘open burial,’ a procedure whereby the upper part of the grave shaft was left unfilled, and the krater was partially submerged into it, rather than placed above the grave at grade level. Some impression can be gleaned from a cross-section sketch of typical open burial (Fig. 79) The earliest surviving epitymbia, those on Grs. PG 18, 37, 38, and G 1, were not placed in open burial, but the practice seems to have been uniformly adopted at Precinct XX for Middle Geometric epitymbia. Kraters were sometimes considerably withdrawn into their open burials, to the point of being wholly below grade (200), the varying degrees of exposure being illustrated in Fig. 39.

The adaptation of 151 is a rare opportunity to view an ancient craftsman attempt a practical solution to a problem, one that was more successfully carried out in sequel on the Middle Geometric II krater 232-233 where the holes were cut out by the potter prior to firing.360 If securing the krater at the burial was the purpose of these holes, then krater 232-233 would have been the second Middle Geometric krater made specifically for erection as a funerary monument, and the immediate predecessor of the Late Geometric series of epitymbia that arose at the Irian Gate cemetery (Fig. 122, 196). Its figural decoration, unique on a Type I krater of this phase, lends this view further support. The birds are akin to those of the Filla Pyxis workshop that I have associated with the premier producer of epitymbia, the Dipylon Workshop. The foot is similar to one in the Louvre that was likely also from that workshop.361 As epitymbion kraters grew ever taller in proportions more stabilization would have been required: the four rectangular holes in the base of several unwieldy late epitymbia may have been for the introduction of a more substantial cross-bracer (Fig. 125).

Sequestration in open burial resulted in the preservation of more krater remains in the Geometric phase, although well-preserved upper bowl portions are still rare. The nineteenth century discovery and careful publication of the intact Irian Gate Grave III is still the best illustration of open burial.363 Likely the burial of Agamestor, it had been well-protected. The useful cross-section visualization of how the burial must have looked originally, rather than how it was when found, shows the relation of the epitymbion krater to the open trench and the grave goods buried below it. Why were the trenches left open? Some have accepted that it was to provide the deceased with post-depositional offerings of food, together with the libations believed to be introduced via the krater. Yet it cannot be clearly demonstrated that the animal bones found in graves postdated the filling in of the burial and the erection of the epitymbion. The meat (bone) offering found under the krater of Gr. G 42 would have been placed there likely before the krater’s erection.364 The epitymbia, as noted, do not always have a perforated base, so kraters did not serve for post-depositional drink offerings. Also it is unlikely that a libation offering would have been made to the woman buried under an amphora epitymbion in the open burial Gr. G 12. From all the evidence such an honor was restricted to men in the Geometric period.365

In Late Geometric I the Type I pedestalled krater was unambiguously restricted to use solely as a funerary monument. A drainage hole was cut in the bottom of the bowl by the potter prior to the firing process (Fig. 81 right), and its sidewall was covered with a wealth of funerary imagery. With a pierced base, it could no longer serve its traditional function as the wine container at the ceremony, a fact that was apparently no longer of consequence. As cremation was displaced in favor of inhumation, expansive libation rites requiring a large krater and possible dousing dwindled. With the passage to Late Geometric II epitymbia died out in Athens completely, apart from a few fragments found on the Acropolis (Figs. 58, 59). They continued to be erected on burials at rural estates to the end of the eighth century whereafter the standard Type I epitymbion was no longer found in Attica. The Trachones krater may be the last (Fig. 126).362 The large, pedestalled Type

The key evidence for post-depositional offerings has been the hole in the base of certain kraters, a feature found too in the latest Mycenaean funerary krater

Ker. V,1, 210. Ker. V,1, 35, notes this on frgt. of foot 233. 361 CVA Louvre (18) pl. 6. 362 LGII amphora ANM 223, Ker. XII, 76, Gr. 1, was not an epitymbion. Such are found only inside burials, e.g. Ergon 1957, 6 f. fig. 2.

Brückner-Pernice 1893, 92f. figs. 4f. The depiction shows the hypothetical location of the krater before a wooden burial shaft cover rotted, causing subsidence. 364 Ker. V,1, 237; also Poulsen 1905, 19 f. n, 5. 365 On the unlikelihood of death cult, Boardman- Kurtz, 1971, 21.





Kratos & Krater

Fig. 79. Section of a krater in an open burial trench, with the cremation ash and urn below

found at Mycenae.366 For some scholars the pierced base implied a post-depositional cult of the dead, possibly an ancestor cult.367 If this had been the case, one would expect epitymbion kraters to be fairly consistently perforated through the bottom by the potter or kin, but they are not. The very earliest epitymbia, the amphorae on PG Grs. 37 and 38 had unpierced bases. Of the handful of intact krater feet (excluding those made to serve as burial markers) only three bases were with certainty deliberately broken through, four examples do not have any hole in their base at all (Fig. 80, 59, 67, 201, 253), while others only appear to be perforated, having fractured neatly along a natural potting line when the bowl collapsed (312 is a neat section of a disc popped from the base center of a krater bowl). For the remainder, the bowl is insufficiently preserved to tell whether the breakage was deliberate.368 The evidence is summarized in the epitymbion list above.

kraters.369 Such holes are easily identified because they are usually the same size and the same short distance from the line of breakage (Fig. 71). The case for the krater as a libation conduit rests primarily on the holes cut through the bases of Late Geometric epitymbion kraters. Decorated lavishly with funerary iconography, these were no longer being used to serve as functional wine containers for funerary rites, but were restricted to use solely as epitymbia. In those I have personally examined, the hole has usually been executed by the potter prior to the firing of the vessel (Fig. 81 right, 284). Whether the holes were subsequently employed in channeling libations to the deceased is moot. They were a practical adaptation for the krater’s role as an epitymbion, for the evacuation of destructive accumulations of rainwater and ice from a fragile vessel exposed to the elements.370 There has been discussion above of the damage that could occur to epitymbia exposed to the elements above the grave. Krater foot 59 (Fig. 80 right) has almost no glaze left on its interior, while it is pristine on the exterior, as also 246, and 253. The pitting, flaking, and erosion from exposure to the elements did not escape the attention of the surviving kin who from the mid-ninth century sometimes broke a hole in the bowl to facilitate drainage. Epitymbion 174 clearly demonstrates the blows inflicted from below to break through the base (Fig. 81).

If the krater’s primary use had been to relay post depositional libations to the dead below, a hole in its base would have been a universal not an optional feature in such an important rite. Kübler, recognizing that this was not the case, suggested that in some cases the holes for the exit of the libation were in the sidewalls, however the holes he provided in illustration of this are not libation holes, but simple mend holes for the repair clamps that were common on Iron Age French 2009, 152 f. Crouwel 2009, 41f., 55, fig. 2. This was found in an ash layer near a group of Submycenaean graves. 367 Brückner – Pernice 1893, 155 first ascribed these holes to sacrificial libation; AdI 1872, 164, Prakt. 1873/4, 18. 368 The carefully broken through base of 279 reported by Kübler is no longer visible. 366

Similar repair at Lefkandi II,1, 85. Boardman 1988, 176; Boardman-Kurtz 1971, 58; Kistler 1998, 59 f. That the krater holes were made to discourage theft is unlikely: repairs could easily be made for further use. 369 370


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 80. Remains of three krater epitymbia feet: 201 with intact base, 59 and 253 with interior weathering, exterior glaze pristine

Fig. 81. To protect epitymbion kraters from water damage, holes were often broken through the bases to allow drainage. At right, Late Geometric figural krater 284 fabricated to stand as an epitymbion, with a hole neatly cut in its base by the potter before firing

Since open burials, male and female, were associated with epitymbia, one may conclude that the open shaft was more likely related to the epitymbia rather than the receipt of post-depositional offerings.371 In support of this there was usually a rough correlation in the ratios of krater height to the depth of the open burial trench. The depths ranged between 20 to 80 cms in depth, becoming deeper over time probably to accommodate the increasing height of epitymbia. The smallest kraters on Grs. G 30 and G 42, had the

shallowest trenches.372 Most kraters protruded from their open burial such that at least their shoulder decoration was visible, but krater 200 only 47 cms. tall was placed in an open burial 62 cm deep, and would have been completely submerged from view (Fig. 39, far rear, a possible replacement epitymbion?). Gr. G 13, the sole well preserved open burial without an epitymbion, was the richly equipped burial of a young knight buried with gold bands, a bronze bowl, an iron sword, several vases of the Rich Lady workshop, remains of iron fixtures of a bier, and a rough stone stele, a context that would certainly have had an epitymbion originally. It is tempting to associate the splendid monumental krater 176 (Fig. 113) with this knight’s burial, since it was likely the tallest Middle Geometric I krater, while his 80

On Grs. PG 37, PG 38, G 2, the 15 cms. and less depressions, as on Gr. PG 38, could be attributed to subsidence, Ker. IV, 39. Clear open burial graves: G 1, 11, 12, 13, 22, 23, 30, 37, 42, 43, of which 11 had no krater, and 12, a female burial, had an amphora epitymbion, Ker. V, 1, 33. 216 f. LG grave Gr. 25-26, was too badly damaged to determine whether it was open burial, Ker. V,1, 33 Open burial was not reported for Sacred Way epitymbion burials hS109 and hS 290, AM 81, 1966, 7 f., AA 1964, 466. 371



MGI Gr. G 43, 30 cms. MGI-II Gr. G 23, 35 cms.

Kratos & Krater cm deep open burial was the deepest. The pottery of the burial is stylistically and chronologically compatible with krater 176, and like the krater, a product of the Rich Lady Workshop. Open burial was characteristic of sites where krater epitymbia have been found in situ: the Precinct XX and Irian Gate cemeteries in Athens. With the possible exception of Eleusis there is no mention of open burial in connection with epitymbia excavated in remote rural areas such as Trachones, Marathon and Anavyssos.373 Precinct XX and Irian Gate were centrally located, and the burial grounds of two of the most politically prominent Athenian factions in the eighth century. The intent of the open burial trench was almost certainly security for their epitymbia. This has been discussed at length in Chapter IV in the context of damage to the epitymbia.

Fig. 82. Cross section of the mid-12th c. Warrior Vase of Mycenae, the antecedent of the ancestral Type I Iron Age krater

The Iron Age Krater Style Bronze Age Predecessors

there is little evidence for them in Athens following Bronze Age.376

As the centerpiece of aristocratic conviviality, consortium and ritual, the early Athenian formal krater acquired an increased iconic status in the Iron Age, considered appropriate to embellish both important social and political gatherings and burials of the elite. Kraiker and Desborough believed the Iron Age krater to be a new vessel, at the transition from the Bronze Age, but it is now clear that it originated from the ringbased krater, a Mycenaean vessel well-established in the Aegean world in the post-palatial phase. Some of its main decorative features, including columnar and/or circular motifs, date back to the LHIIIA palatial period. The best known example, the Warrior Vase of Mycenae, is a deep, capacious vessel, with a straight sidewall curving in precipitously to a low foot (Fig. 82).374 On each side of the vessel, the handle boss was styled in the form of an animal head, its horns drawn out on both sides into the characteristic double loop handle. This was a vessel for formal occasions. A common, less formal krater of the latest Bronze Age has a short, more concave neck, a more angular inner profile and a single or double slashed horizontal molding (Figs. 135-137, 17, 18, 19).375 More common, everyday kraters usually had a simple outcurving rim with no molding at all and

The centrality of the krater to aristocratic culture noted by Luke, may account for the conservatism of its style in the Iron Age, when aspects of its shape, and traditional decorative system survived for another three hundred years without break.377 To have stood this test of time, the traditions being expressed in the use of the formal krater were obviously of considerable significance to the long-standing aristocracy who used it. Kraters of the Transitional Years Submycenaean Styles An overview of the earliest kraters, and a full survey of scholarship pertaining to the transitional era pottery is to be found in Ruppenstein’s comprehensive study of the Submycenaean Kerameikos.378 The current study adds more strayfind kraters to his discussion, sets an earlier date for the onset of Precinct XX ( at the end of 12th c.) and appraises the significance of some apparent concurrent styles. The term Submycenaean, often used to typify the Athenian style of the early eleventh century, is used lightly here. It can serve to bridge assemblages of the latest Bronze Age and the earliest Iron Age, having stylistic links to both and reflecting differing levels of status. Concurrent styles reflective of individual origins per-

A visual suggests that Eleusis Grave θ may have been an open burial. It has what is probably the foot of a krater epitymbion (published as an amphora neck) positioned apparently below grade, and ca. 40 cms. above the remains of a male skeleton, Mylonas 1975, 323. Poulsen 1905, 19 f., Skias, AEphem 1898, 87 f. appear to confirm open burial at Eleusis. At Trachones only one of five kraters was found in clear association with a burial, a slab cist grave which could not be interpreted as an open burial, Geroulanos 1973, 14. 38 f. 374 Mountjoy 2001, 100, fig. 266. 375 Professsor J. Rutter: the molding with diagonal slashes appears in LH IIIC Middle in imitation of the decoration of handmade and burnished buckets/situlae commonly found in LH IIIC Early contexts in the eastern Peloponnesos. 373

Fountain Deposit, AP2598, AP2603, Broneer 1939, 353 fig. 27a, 356, fig. 30. Mountjoy 1993, 147, ring-based krater; 1986, 175. fig. 222,1 Mycenae 64-1403; 1999, FS281. Vermeule–Karageorghis 1982, fig. 42 pls. 11. 28. 117. 119; Lemos 2002, 48-53, Athenian, 231. 377 Luke 1994, 23-32. 378 Ruppenstein 2007, 4-8, 13-135. 376


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater some assimilation of various incoming migrant styles at the Pompeion before that large and diverse cemetery lapsed, c.1068, its population likely moving on to Ionia. It left its mark on the local Athenian Protogeometric pottery during the short-live Medontid era.

sisted for a while, especially perceptible in the cemeteries of the Agora, Pompeion, and Precinct XX.379 The variety of styles and origins can be illustrated succinctly in the two cemeteries of the Kerameikos, the Pompeion and Precinct XX. The pottery in these two cemeteries roughly coincides with the two Bronze Age styles recognized by Schachermeyr: Alltagsware and Nobelkeramik. Representative fragments of numerous transitional era and Iron Age kraters can be associated with the Precinct XX cemetery and the adjoining Great Mound (G), while only a single krater fragment (3) was found in the much larger Pompeion cemetery. By the same token there is little evidence for the Pompeion Alltagsware vessels at Precinct XX, apart from a set of finely executed amphoriskoi from Gr. 113 on the far side of the Great Trench.380 Throughout the Iron Age there remained status distinctions, but following the lapse of the Pompeion in the mid-11th c. only one was well represented in the Kerameikos burial record and that was the elite.

Athenian Nobelkeramik: the Wild Style of Precinct XX The earliest pottery of Precinct XX was termed Wild Style by Desborough, who believed it was an Early Protogeometric Athenian innovation of short duration. LHIIIC Late finds from Precinct XX and the Mound set its origins earlier, sourcing to the last Nobelkeramik of the Peloponnesos rather than Attica, where formally decorated kraters had lapsed during Late Helladic IIIC Middle.383 Wild Style vessels are almost exclusive to the higher status Kerameikos cemeteries, Precinct XX and the Sacred Gate. They have a colorful overall decoration sometimes offset by broad areas of dark glaze on the lower half of the vase (Fig. 94). The shapes tend towards the more symbolic, ritual, or special use vessels: the krater, krateriskos, kantharos dowry chest, askos, ring vase, bottle, footed pyxis, tripod cauldron, feeder, pilgrim flask, elaborately decorated amphorae, rim-handled amphora, and a unique square mouthed situla (Fig. 88).384 The execution of the Wild Style at Precinct XX was fine enough that scholars mistakenly assigned vessels such as the dowry chest (Fig. 83) not to the Submycenaean phase, but to the ensuing Protogeometric period. Early pottery fragments recovered from the Precinct XX area strayfinds reveal that the onset of Precinct XX was contemporary with the foundation of the Pompeion.

Athenian Alltagsware The Pompeion and Agora cemeteries, usually recognized as Submycenaean, incorporate mostly common Alltagsware with an occasional finer piece.381 Amphorae, amphoriskoi, deep bowls and cups are adorned with groups of zigzags and wavy lines in a sub-Granary Style of Argive origin. Deep bowls and cups are monochrome, often with a reserved panel of careless zigzag. The stirrup jars include banded bodies, and hand-drawn semicircles or complex triangles on the shoulder, more related to Achaian than Argive style. They were being replaced gradually at this site by more simply produced lekythoi. Submycenaean in the latest Peloponnesos is often now the more utilitarian Alltagsware, as users of the elite Nobelkeramik had mostly moved overseas. The paucity of Athenian settlement remains precludes much discussion of the pottery in use. All that can be said is that Lord-Smithson’s Klepsydra material, pre-Protogeometric, quasi-settlement depositions from the north slope of the Acropolis showed no distinct Submycenaean style, but rather a mix of the latest LHIIIC, together with sherds that were transitioning towards the new Protogeometric style.382 There was Prof. J. Papadopoulos has considered the topic of concurrent styles for this phase in light of two very similar lekythoi, dated by some analysts as much as a century apart, one with handpainted semicircles, the other executed with the pivoted brush, J. Papadopoulos 2011, 195. He suggests synchronic variation as an alternative to the current linear sequencing of styles, an approach that would further support the Pompeion and earliest Precinct XX cemeteries as coexistent, rather than sequential. 380 Lord-Smithson, 1961, 174-177. 381 Schachermeyr 1980 passim. 382 Lord-Smithson, ‘Submycenaean’ and LH IIIC Domestic Deposits in Athens,’ AJA 81, 1977, 78-79. The fill of the Klepsydra channel and several well deposits, Lord-Smithson 1982, 141-154. Lis 2009, 215. She cites her 1977 discussion: ‘for reasons noted there, I found the term “Submycenaean” confusing and of no practical application to domestic deposits’. Rutter 1978, 58-65, asks that it be dropped altogether. 379

Fig. 83. Symbolic dowry chest in Wild Style, from the transitional Precinct XX burial of a noblewoman buried in Gr. SM 22 Schachermeyr 1980, 101-152. Only three Attic rim-handled amphorae are known from this phase: Lemos 2002, 146-151, ANM 18042, Heidelberg Gr. B 40, Ker. I, pl. 37, 62. 383 384


Kratos & Krater The disparate styles of the two Kerameikos sites achieve a semblance of unity around the mid-eleventh century, after the Precinct XX Melantho-Codrid elite and most of the folk using the the Pompeion had moved on, presumably to Ionia. The fine potters of the Nobelkeramik must have accompanied them since most features of the ornate Wild Style lapsed, leaving a standardized Sub-Granary Protogeometric style in its wake that owes a greater debt to the wares of the Pompeion. At that point stylistic evolution in Athens became glacial until the end of tenth century, when Megacles and his skilled Jewel Workshop revived aspects of the Wild Style, to form the new Geometric Style, especially on a larger and newly revitalized krater. Select Wild Style Vessels Deep bowl, Ker. 770 (Fig. 28), Gr. PG 13, Ker. I, pl. 61 Krateriskos, Ker. 518, (Fig. 29), Ker. I, pl. 48 Amphorae, Ker. 11238 (Fig. 30,31), Ker. I, pl. 39, lower right Amphora, Agora P 7692, Papadopoulos 2007, 98, fig 99 Flask, Heidelberg, Areopagos area, Gr. B, Ker. I, pl. 37 Krater, ANM 212 (Fig. 86 left), Acropolis, Strayfind, Greif, pl.7 Amphora, ANM 213 (Fig. 86 right), Acropolis, Strayfind, Greif, pl.7 Krater, 11, Ker. 5414 (Fig. 89), Ker. I, pl. 50 Stirrup Jar, Ker. 922, Gr. SM 22, Ker IV, pl. 4 Dowry Chest, Ker. 924 (Fig. 83), Gr. SM 22, Ker. IV, pl. 3 Lekythos, Ker. 921, Gr. SM 22, Ker. IV, pl. 4 Rim-handled amphora, Ker. 523, Gr. A, Ker. I, pl. 29. Ker. 18, 146 f. Kantharos, Ker. 2728 (Fig. , Gr. SM 114, Ker. XVIII, 165, pl. 18 Footed pyxis, Ker. 533, Gr. SM 1, Ker. I, pl. 61 Krateriskos, 23, Ker. 532 (Fig. 17), Gr. SM1, Ker. I, pl. 63 Duck askos, Ker. 535, Gr. SM 1, pl. 63 Oinochoe, Ker. 552, Gr. PG 4, Ker. I, pl. 65 Tripods, Ker. 554-5 (Fig. 16), Gr. PG 4, Ker. I, pl. 63 Amphora, Ker. 2733 (Fig. 93), Gr. hS 101, Lemos 2002, fig. 83.1 Amphora, Ker. 598, Gr. PG 4, Ker. I, pl. 66 Krater, ANM 273 (Fig. 90), Acropolis, Strayfind, Greif, pl. 9 Situla, Ker. 543 (T27) (Fig. 88), Ker. I, p. 112, fig. 10 Krater, Munich 6157 (Fig. 94), CVA Munich (3), pl. 103f.; BSA 31, 1930-31, pl. XI; Die Antike XV p. 220, fig. 25l; Lemos 2002, p. 51

Fig. 84. LHIIIC Late Octopus Style stirrup jar ANM 5649, from the Kerameikos Dipylon Gate

Mycenaean leadership. A few Mycenaean vases were on hand to breathe life into production intended for a particular clientele: the LHIIIC Late octopus stirrup jar, ANM 5649, from the Dipylon gate (Fig. 84);385 the stirrup jar Ker. 503 with a Close Style rosette on the knob, also the two LHIIIC Late fragments from the Acropolis: krater ANM 212 and amphora ANM 213 (Fig. 86).386 Close followers of Mycenaean style are two or more Wild Style amphorae Ker. 11238 with their fringed, outlined arcs, harlequinade panels, and complex arcade motif on the shoulder, perhaps as early as Late Helladic IIIC Late (Fig. 92), and amphora Agora P 7692 with similar shoulder arcade. Also early are the West Mainland Koine style bowl Ker. 770 (Fig. 28) kraters 1, 2, 3, 4 (Fig. 97), krater necks 17, 18, and 19 and krateriskos 8 (Fig. 85 left). A more developed phase of the Wild Style is represented by the eponymous dowry Ker. 924 (Fig. 18) and kraters 11 and 23. Finally, the latest Wild Style (Desborough’s EPG) illustrates the inroads of the new Protogeometric technical accomplishments, including the pivoted brush, seen on the Acropolis krater ANM 273, kantharos Ker. 2728, the Munich krater, and situla Ker. 543. While clearly drawing its inspiration from the Mycenaean past, the Wild Style set the stage for the

Workshop status is not claimed for Wild Style, however, production was sufficiently limited that it likely came from no more than one or two potters familiar with traditional Mainland styles, catering to an exclusive

Ker. I, pl. 5; AM 32, 1907, 558 f. pl. 25. Mountjoy 1999, 612.613.617 fig. 564. 386 Both dated LHIIIC Middle by some analysts, but the fabric suggests later. 385


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 85. Wild Style krateriskoi 8, 23

Fig. 86. Wild Style transitional fragments of krater ANM 212 and amphora ANM 213 from the Acropolis

new style based on geometry that succeeded it. The debased Mycenaean motifs became hardened by repetition. The cascade of semicircular motifs on the LHIIC Late Kerameikos octopus stirrup jar Ker. 922 were repeated mechanically on the Acropolis krater ANM 212. The arcade, webbing, triangles and harlequinade motifs of LH IIIC Late amphora Ker. 11238 continued on the Submycenaean dowry Ker. 924 (Fig. 18) and on the square mouthed situla Ker. 543 (Fig. 88), which depicts many of the motifs of the developed Wild Style on a single vessel, now combined with refined, compassexecuted, concentric semicircles, the hallmark of the Protogeometric period. Wild Style motifs inherited from the preceding age, include many peculiar to this style: the debased octopus, antithetic fringed, dotted and outlined arcs, a complex arcade motif, an opposed concentric semicircles motif with dark filled interstices (saddle), vertically stacked concentric semicircles with dark glazed interstices,

Fig. 87. Transitional-era Wild Style motifs


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 88. Late Wild Style situla Ker. 543 from the Great Mound at Precinct XX

Fig. 89. Transitional-era Wild Style krater 11 and reconstruction

harlequinade lozenge nets, lozenge chains, large and small triangle rows, sometimes outlined, and pointing sideways, semicircular motifs on the shoulder of closed vessels, checkerboard flanked by antithetic circular motifs, and cross-hatching (Fig. 87).

Groups of alternating diagonals and wide splaying but neat strips of zigzag served as framing elements. The style is typified by an experimental approach to shape and technique and a finer, more extensively applied glaze decoration, creating an overall darker and 130

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 91. LHIIIC Middle Hydria with arcade motif found at Mycenae

Fig. 90. Transitional-era Wild Style krater ANM 273 found on the Acropolis

Fig. 92. Ker. 11238 transitional-era Wild Style amphora with arcade motif reconstruction based on fragments

more colorful appearance than that of the typical light ground, sub-Granary Style of the Pompeion. Some Wild Style vessels are quite ambitious for the transitional era, including some ornate belly-handled amphorae that may be as early as LHIIIC Late, one from the Agora (P 7692), and two from the Kerameikos (Ker. 11238, Fig. 92). Remarkably, these transitional wares combine aspects of both the LHIII and Protogeometric styles on a single vase. The common origin was likely West Greece, where the harlequinade motif is found on a probable

retreat for the latest Mycenaean holdouts.387 The subsidiary decoration of these amphorae, and another Agora P 7692, is two broad outlined, horizontal bands above and below the mid-zone, which was the formula for the Protogeometric belly-handled amphorae.388 AR 36, 1989-1990, frontispiece. Amphora Agora P 7692, Papadopoulos 2007, 98, fig 99, has a more simplified arcade motif on its shoulder, and on the belly a row of large, Mycenaean encircled opposed semicircles motifs enclosed in hand-drawn concentric circles. 387 388


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 93. SM 17 neck profile

The Earliest Athenian Krater Remains Remains of the earliest Athenian kraters have been hitherto scant in the absence of a settlement area. In the Kerameikos only krateriskoi have been found placed in a burial, but possibly as many as 30 SM to EPG kraters are represented in the Kerameikos strayfinds (Fig. 95). Fragments of three finely decorated kraters have been found on the Acropolis, which not long ago was recognized as a settlement area.389 In spite of their fragmentary remains, there is little doubt that these earliest Iron Age kraters represent a continuous tradition from Bronze Age predecessors in both shape and decoration.

Fig. 94. SM 14 crumbling foot

The decoration of the earliest Iron Age kraters demonstrates continuity from the Bronze Age in its repertoire of motifs, and arrangement in panel and tripartite decorative schemes. In this transitional phase, dating is not always easy. Some fragments could be as early as LHIIIC Late, including those in debased Mycenaean style: fragments 1-3 and deep bowl Ker 770 (Fig. 28).392 The central checker panel continued in favor, sometimes flanked by outlined arcs (Fig. 85 left, 8). With the advent of the pivoted brush assembly, the antithetic spiral motifs evolved into antithetic concentric circles found on the remains of most smaller tenth c kraters of the Kerameikos (Figs. 99, 104a, 80, 81, 99).393

There are two types of krater neck current. The first, found on more commonplace kraters, has a short projecting rim, flat on its upper surface, and one or two pronounced moldings below. This rim had existed in Athens during LHIIIC, but was now decorated with slanting rows of punctures rather than the common Mycenaean slashes (Fig. 93, 17). The more formal krater has a taller neck that curves out lightly from a modest, lower molding. It has less angularity on the inner surface, and has a more sharply profiled lip. This rim may descend from the simpler type of rim current in Mycenaean times, although taller and more shapely than any predecessors (Fig. 89, 11). Both necks are dark glazed. The krater handle continued the common Late Mycenaean double-roll horizontal handle with a central boss. No remains of feet survive to confirm Kraiker’s view that the common Mycenaean low base seen on the LHIIIC Late Kephallonian krater continued in Athens. Feet 12, 13, 16 were raised cones, undecorated except for one or more encircling glaze bands.390 Two krater feet found in burial context have unfortunately not survived. A crumbling 14 from Gr. PG 25 that is preserved only in a photograph is a cone similar to the others (Fig. 94), but foot 15 used to seal the urn of Gr. SM 3 was apparently a low or flat foot, overall glazed.391

Krater 11 gives the best impression of the original form and decoration of an early krater, and 12, low cone foot fragments of similar fabric may belong to it (Figs. 130, 131). Only the center panel of its original tripartite scheme is preserved, filled with opposed outlined and fringed arcs, and framed by columns of alternating diagonals. A similar krater decoration is found on Submycenaean krater fragments at Miletus (Fig. 33).394 Two upper sidewall profiles are represented in a single context at the Sacred Gate, Submycenaean Ker. 556, from Gr. PG 2. It was glazed overall, light red-brown on the exterior, and dark brown on the interior, and had four pairs of repair holes. It was likened to the low foot of the Munich krater’s spurious restoration. 392 Ker. 770, Ker. I, pl. 61; Mountjoy 1999, 623 f. fig. 238. Similar decoration on the latest drinking vessels found in the Peloponnesos. Krater, Pylos III, fig. 290, 2, from the dromos of LHIIIC Late tomb K.2, and a kylix from Ramovouno, AEphem 1972, pl. Ιθβ; Mountjoy 1993, 133 f.; JdI 103, 1988, 1-37. 393 Compare Broneer, 358, figs. 33 f. 394 IstMitt 1959-60, pl. 51. The fringing is characteristic of level 4, advanced LHIIIC on Corinthian kraters (Rutter 1979, 390) while at Lefkandi it lasts into the tenth century, Lefkandi II, pl. 19, 328.330.

ANM 212, 273f , Graef, pls. 7, 9. Handles: Lefkandi II, pls. 19, 328. 342; feet: Ker. I, 129; Desborough 1952, 7f.; Broneer 1939, 351-361 figs. 26-38; AA 1979, 432 fig. 38; Lefkandi II, 29. 391 Krater 15 was described as a foot of a large, open, inner glazed vessel, probably a krater, with foot and body sharply offset. Its low or flat foot was turned on the underside as the foot on the amphora 389 390


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 95. Transitional strayfind Kerameikos krater fragments

Gr. 146 (TN-94-2) where krateriskos 8 is a small copy of a standard krater decorated with a checkerboard panel flanked by outlined and dotted arcs (Fig. 85). Found with it the neck and sidewall fragment 17 (Fig. 93) had a decoration of manually-executed, stacked concentric semicircles abutting a vertical, as did ANM 273 (Fig. 90).395 This had been a favored Bronze Age motif found at Tiryns, Tanagra, Messenia, and Kephallonia. Compare from Gr. SM 1 krateriskos 23, a miniature version of a full sized krater, adorned similarly with the concentric semicircles motif, again with flanking opposed arcs or streamers in the wings (Fig. 85 right). On these early examples panels were usually separated by narrow strips of zigzag, alternating diagonals, or a pair of vertical lines. Necks and rims, as also the lower bowl, were dark glazed, with one or more reserved zones on the bowl above the foot as on krateriskoi 8 and 23. Preserved feet were reserved with one to three narrow horizontal bands of glaze, but an overall glazed foot occurs on krateriskos 23, and was reported for 15.

lines on amphorae, but it is not out of the question that it was in use in Attica even earlier.396 A highly decorated boot from the LHIII cemetery of Haliki, near Voula has a multiple zigzag on its upper surface that, to judge from its publication photo, was precision executed with a multiple brush. This technique may have been drawn into Athens with the abandonment of rural Attic sites at the end of LHIIIC.397 However, it is the pivoted brush which brings the cold precision that ends the more colorful phase of the Wild Style, converting spirals to regular concentric circles. Great effort was expended in the Submycenaean period to create precise concentric circles even before the invention of the pivoted brush. The multiple brush may have been used freehand for concentric semicircles on the rim-handled amphora Ker. 523, culminating in the perfection of those on the Agora amphora P 7692, which are barely distinguishable from those executed with a pivoted brush.398 Experimentation led to teamed brush heads on a pivoting structure that had a fixed point for making contact with the vase surface. The point has left an indentation at the center of numerous concentric circle motifs of this phase. Professor John Papadopoulos has made a functioning reproduction of how such a device might have operated.399 The formulation of this new apparatus by the end of the Submycenaean period is confirmed in Sacred Gate Grave A, which combines in one burial an amphora with manually executed circles, Ker. 523, with amphora Ker. 522, and skyphos Ker. 525, both of which have wide-spaced, compassexecuted circles of the very earliest type. That both techniques coexisted for a while is confirmed by the

The Early Protogeometric Kraters The Gr. SM 22 dowry demonstrates the latest representation of the Wild Style before it transits into the signature Early Protogeometric phase represented by the Munich Krater, where Mycenaean motifs were now reduced and assimilated into a new style based on geometry. This was facilitated by new drafting devices that systemetized the motifs. The multiple brush may have been the first innovation in structuring the decoration, It came into use in the Submycenaean period for the execution of horizontal bands and wavy

Ker. 421, Ker. I, 32, pl. 26, and more apparent in the coordinated wavy lines of Ker. 3037, Ruppenstein 2007, pl. 2, Gr. SM 118. 397 BCH 80, 1956, 247, fig. 7. 398 Ker. I, pl. 29. 399 Papadopoulos 2007, 100.

Von Freytag 1995, 647 f. Gr. 146. Graef 1909, pl. 6,191. An SM miniature krater decorated with checkerboard panel, Erechtheion Street. BSA 75, 1980, 22 f. pl. 3e. A LHIIIC Middle forerunner of this krater with stacked concentric circles comes from the Acropolis, ANM 191, Greif 1907, pl. 191.




Kratos & Krater type: a horizontal double-loop with a central boss and decoration of vertical striping. The sidewall is arranged in vertical panels and columns with little attention to symmetry, employing a veritable compendium of different Wild Style ornaments: checkerboard, lozenge, triangles, alternating diagonals, crosshatching zigzag, and most notably, a stack of compassexecuted concentric circles or semicircles attached to a vertical. The Munich Krater provides evidence of settlement use in its signs of damage and repair, and was certainly fine enough to have seen use on the Acropolis. Its missing base suggests that it originated from a burial. Desborough and Kraiker were both inclined to place the Munich Krater in their SM-EPG transition, the former citing the ‘Wild Style’ and the heavy cast of the concentric circles, and Lord-Smithson followed them, citing ‘shape, fabric and drawing’. Scholars may have been influenced to some extent by the spurious low foot, which has now been removed. More recently some have dated it LPG when there is revival of similar Wild Style panel decoration sometimes executed in the same freehand fashion, e.g. on the clay stag from the Late Protogeometric grave PG 39 (if that is not an heirloom).402 However, it is not out of the question that Desborough’s instincts correctly dated the Munich Krater. Its decoration was heir to the vertical paneltype arrangements and motifs of the latest LHIIIC kraters (compare the only well-preserved panel krater of that phase from Kephallonia).403 While there are only fragmentary comparanda among the Kerameikos krater remains, similar panel decoration is preserved on the 11th c. tripod cauldrons, Ker. 554-5 (Fig. 16). Most of the Munich Krater’s motifs are found in the Wild Style, and it exhibits an experimental character, like a demonstration piece attached to the launch of a new style, combining various geometric motifs in a manner that would have surprised the more disciplined and sophisticated LPG potter of the Jewel Workshop.

Fig. 96. Bilingual amphora Ker. 233 combines manual semicircles with compass drawn circles

contemporary ‘bilingual’ amphora, Ker. 2733 (Fig. 96), which teams freehand half circles on the shoulder with early compass-executed circles on its belly.400 Presumably, during this time of trial, circles were more easily executed on a vessel with a flatter surface. It is for this reason that I believe that the pivoted device was invented and first used, not for the curved surface of an amphora, but on the straighter sidewall of the krater, the most significant vase in the repertory. The Mycenaean krater decoration of antithetic spirals flanking a checkerboard was transformed by this invention, becoming a common Iron Age arrangement of antithetic concentric circles flanking a column of checkerboard or lozenges (66, 80, 81, 82, 85).401 The Mycenaean krater adorned with vertical panels was also changed, creating the most familiar example of an early Greek krater of the Wild Style: the Munich Krater.

The Munich Krater was a labor-intensive production destined for formal use, likely by a Neleid chieftain, but except for the early type concentric circles, one cannot detect the activity of the multiple brush that was in common use for this level of pottery by Late Protogeometric times. Thus the krater has an untidy look especially notable in the irregular alternating diagonals and cross-hatching. The form and decoration of the handle is closer to the well-preserved 11th century handle on the Kerameikos krateriskos 8 (Fig. 85 left), which predated the 1068 BC Ionian Migration. The loose and wide-spaced vertical barring of the horizontal handles is a Submycenaean-Early Protogeometric characteristic, seen on amphorae and amphoriskoi

The Munich Krater Most of the earliest Iron Age kraters can be classified as Wild Style, so the centerpiece of that style, the krater in Munich, should be considered here (Fig. 97). Munich 6157 has a special place in the Athenian repertory not only for its colorful appearance, but also because it is one of the few formal, large-sized, Attic kraters from this era to retain any semblance of its original shape and decorative scheme. It has a vertical upper sidewall, a modest offset rather than a pronounced neckring, and a prominent lip sloping outwards, its upper surface painted with groups of fifteen parallels. It boasts the only well-preserved Attic Protogeometric handle of its

Desborough 1952, 94. Lord-Smithson 1961, 168. Later date Lemos 2002, 51. Compare the LPG stag Ker. 641, Ker. IV, pl. 26. 403 ADelt 5, 1919, 101 f. figs. 17-20. Mountjoy 1999, 465, fig. 169. 402

Ker. 523 f. Ker. I, pl. 29 f. Ker. 2733, Lemos 2002, fig. 83, 1. 401 BCH 95, 385, fig. 96. 400


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater



Fig. 97. The Late Wild Style Munich Krater 6157

passim and notably on the SM krateriskos 23 from Precinct XX Gr. SM 1 (Fig. 85 right). So is the dark center of the small innermost ring of the concentric circles, and the common double vertical line subdivider rather than the more typical triple line subdivision of the Late Protogeometric period.404 Finally, the motif of stacked concentric semicircles attached sideways to a vertical, common on transitional era kraters, is found in Attica no later than the eleventh century to my knowledge.405

the new SM-PG krater and all Iron Age kraters from this point on. Rarely the upper surface of the rim was reserved with painted bands or some other motif (19). The clay varied in quality, was often friable, and contained mica, red inclusions and impurities. The glaze was usually thin and flat, varying through grey, brown, purplish, red and orange, but the glaze of some Wild Style vessels, such as the Precinct XX, Gr. G 1 krateriskos (23), could be quite fine with a noticeable sheen.

While most of the interior of Late Helladic Athenian kraters was reserved, interior glaze was standard on

The size of kraters represented ranged from very small (circa 16 cms. tall for a krateriskos) to intermediate (3, 11, 19) to large (24). A typical large krater, had a sidewall 1 cm. thick. An Athenian upper sidewall fragment, from Paros reported ‘sicher einmal sehr umfangreichen’ had a thickness of 1.7 cm (Fig. 98).406 Even larger had been krater fragment 6 with upper sidewall c 2 cm thick. With a barely discernible horizontal curvature, this fragment could have come from a vessel well over 70

Ruppenstein 2007, 31 pls. 36 f. Krater 8, Ker. 9046; Ker. I, pl. 66, 598. 765. 405 A deposit of material from the MPG Toumba fill includes a possible Athenian import with the Wild Style attached concentric semicircles motif, Lefkandi II, pl. 19, 344. Such an association is strengthened by the more recent view of a coincidence between Euboean MPG and Athenian EPG-MPG. The earliest Lefkandi Wild Style fragts, may not be much later than their Athenian counterparts. Not all the krater remains in the fill of the Toumba chieftain’s burial were contemporary with his burial. He may have been honored by the use and deposition of a few heirloom kraters, Lefkandi II,1 pl. 19, 328-344. Lefkandi II, pl. 21, 364, is an Atticizing frgt. with the Athenian punctured neckband. 404



Paros krater, AM 42, 1917, 81 f.

Kratos & Krater Ker. 598 should override all other considerations as a benchmark for the transition to the Protogeometric phase, for it allowed the last survivals of the earlier style to be transformed into a new style grounded on geometry. Prior to the Geometric period, the style remained spare and light as attention was devoted to achieving consonance between shape and decoration as well as further refinement of fabric and technique. However, there is no question that the combination of these new graphic techniques sparked the structuring of the debased Bronze Age style along the lines of clarity and order, which in turn nurtured the analytical approach that is the hallmark of the Attic geometric styles, and of Greek art in general. Lefkandi, by contrast, continued a debased Wild Style well into the tenth century, the while its numerous imports reveal growing appreciation of the merits of the sparer Attic conceptions (Fig. 103 right).410

Fig. 98. Fragment of a large Attic krater from Paros

It was not the krater, but the prosaic belly-handled amphora, that became the most characteristic vase of the new Protogeometric style. The Alcmeonids seem to have been quiescent under Medontid governance and not about to flourish conspicuous kraters. The bellyhandled amphora was fully formalized as the preferred urn just at the transition to the Protogeometric period in the fragmentary amphora Ker. 598 from Gr. PG 4. It was perfected before the end of the 11th century in the refined Early Protogeometric amphora Ker. 569, a classic type that dominated the production of most of the tenth century.411 If continuity from the Wild Style Group cannot be certainly demonstrated for this series of amphorae, there is perceptible continuity from that point on. Reasonably all Precinct XX tenth c. amphorae of this type were fabricated by a sequence of artisans associated by a common workshop tradition lasting at least from SM into LPG. Their keen interest in the new and improved assign them first consideration for the invention of the multiple brushcompass combination, possibly a faster wheel, and the

cm in diameter. Regrettably the fragmentary nature of the krater excludes any definition of standard capacity at this time, but the smaller Late Geometeric 279 had a capacity of 228 cubic liters. Exports included two possible Athenian fragments at Lefkandi, and the large Paros krater.407 The decoration and taller, less concave neck of the latter suggests a date in the early tenth century, whereafter Attic punctured rim moldings terminated. Krater remains similar to the Athenian have been found besides in Ionia, the Cyclades, Asine, Thessaly, and especially Euboea where the most considerable remains of kraters have been found outside Athens. In some of these areas the Mycenaean slashed neck molding remained current into the early ninth century.408 The Iron Age Argolid, having less interest in a formal krater, preferred a simple outturned rim with no well-defined neck region.409 The Culmination of the Early rotogeometric Style There was likely some pride in the consummation of the clean and precise technical achievement of concentric circles on the Munich krater and the amphora Ker. 2733. At what point did the Wild Style evolve into the Protogeometric style. Characteristics such as better levigated clay, the use of the multiple brush, and the tauter profiles of a faster wheel are attendant but unreliable determinants for its onset. On some Wild Style vessels, the debased Mycenaean decorative elements clearly overshadow the apparent use of a multiple brush. On the other hand, the use of a pivoting multiple brush assembly on the amphora fragment

Compare the Toumba kraters, Lefkandi II, pl. 19, 333.336, and others loc. cit. pls. 22,368; 61,451, still displaying the Wild Style attached semicircles and harlequinade motifs; Crete also held over Wild Style elements, retaining the harlequinade motif on an MPG bell krater, Coldstream 2001, 49 fig. I,14b; debased arcade motifs as on amphora Ker. 11238 were retained on Crete into EG. 411 Ker. I, pl. 55, 598; pl. 66, 569. I disagree that the multiple brush was imported from Cyprus as suggested by Snodgrass, 1971, 328. Based on the dissemination of the askoi and other ceramic features, the currents appear to be running from the Peloponnesos to Athens, Lefkandi, Cyprus and Crete, rather than the reverse (below, p. X ). Fine manually executed concentric circles motifs appear on amphora Agora P 7692 predating those made with a compass. The latter perhaps invented to further pefect the process. The sequences in the combination of the multiple brush and compass are clearly observable on vases of the Athenian Wild Style workshop. J. Papadopoulos 2003, 220, cites a study of Eiteljorg, discrediting the action of a faster wheel, but there is no denying the crisper profiles of the Protogeometric vessels H. Eiteljorg, 1980, 445-449. Further on the evolution of the Athenian PG style from the Close and Granary styles, Nicolaou 1977, 21-31. R. L. Murray, The Protogeometric Style. The First Greek Style, SIMA Pocketbook 2 (Göteborg 1975). 410

Lefkandi II,1, pl. 19, 344; pl. 21, 364. Lefkandi II,1, 25-31. esp. 29, pls. 19. 26; compare 22 and 31 for profile and motifs; Popham – Sackett 1968, 19-23 figs. 38-46; Desborough 1952, updated Lemos 2002, 48-53, 231-232. 409 Asine II, 241 fig. 183. 407 408


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 99. Kerameikos strayfind remains of common Protogeometric circles kraters

successful Protogeometric style itself. The tradition continued under the skillful hands of the master of the Jewel Workshop, creator of the Geometric style in the late 10th c. However, Wild Style vestiges can be traced almost to the end of the Iron Age on a single traditional Mycenaean shape: the Type I ancestral krater.412

with three horizontal zones, or a broad zone of glaze or reserve flanked by narrower bands (51, 53, 54). The combination of 43 and 54 gives a rough impression of the profile and decoration of a typical MPG krater (Fig. 100). The few Kerameikos burials recognized as Middle Protogeometric in the Kerameikos rarely have associations with the krater outside pyre debris, 39, 42, 51. The remains support Lord-Smithson’s view that krater panel decoration persisted through all phases of Protogeometric (Fig. 101, 42 Gr. PG 10). Similar panel kraters are also found in Lefkandi and Ionia into the tenth century.413

Middle Protogeometric Kraters MPG Kraters in Athens Following the departure of the Melantho-Codrids, finer Athenian kraters at Precinct XX are elusive, if they existed at all. Those that have survived are mostly small, numerous, and lacking in innovation. the Alcmeonids did not bury any life-king in the first half of the tenth century, according to the Kings’ List. The kraters show signs of burning and breakage and it is clear their main function was for libation at the pyre. Their fabrication was technically competent often with a fine quality sheen to their glaze, but the potters’ main concern now seems to be the refinement of the product in hand. The phase is best defined by traditional light ground burial amphorae used as urns, but there is a cache of Middle Protogeometric kraters among some 2000 fragments of potters’ wastes, associated with pottery production in the Athenian Agora of the first half of the 10th century. The Agora kraters bear some resemblance to the decoration of kraters at Precinct XX in their antithetic arrangement of two (or three) circular motifs flanking a geometric center panel, a format inherited from the late Bronze Age kraters such as that found at Kition, Cyprus (Fig. 25). The lower bowl was dark glazed, sometimes

An interesting addendum to the meager MPG showing comes from a new storeroom find of twenty unpublished fragments of a krater, apparently originating from the pyre debris of Gr. PG 30, but unmentioned in the publication of that grave (Fig. 102, 39).414 The krater fragments were found in burial with a skyphos, and an oinochoe. These items from the grave’s pyre debris, can now be associated with the krater as a typical libation set for rites at the pyre. When found in the storeroom, the krater fragments were still covered in pyre residue and accompanied by a few fragments of calcined human bone. The straight profile of 39, its informally executed, overlapping alternating diagonals motif, and a border of wide splaying zigzag recall the Munich krater. The dark glaze was broken below the belly by reserved encircling bands, and its lower decoration Compare 25, 35, 92, 93, 95; BSA 29 1927/8, 233; ADelt. 28, 1973, 38; Lord-Smithson 1961, 168. Panelled MPG kraters Lefkandi II,1, pl. 21, 361-4; pl. 22, 366.368, stacked concentric circles; pl. 23, 371 and on the Bayrakli krater, AJA 66, 1962, pl. 96. 414 Gr. PG 30 Ker. IV, 35. They were found in storage sequestered in an MS tray together with a note ‘spät pg. fruh geom. aus den Gräbern Hegeso u Samakionbezirk 1937/1938 vgl. 1169.’ In the inventory record of the skyphos, Ker. 1169, krater 39 is listed as an accompanying vessel in Gr. PG 30. 413

Gr. SM 114, is an unusually rich Pompeion burial with Wild Style vases, including a kantharos, askoi and ring vases, rarely found outside the two elite Kerameikos precincts. It is also the only cistlined burial dated later than Krause’s Submycenaean Phase 3. It can probably be safely placed in the earlier phase, together with Grs. 22, 23 and 24 of Precinct XX. Kantharos Ker. 2728, Ruppenstein, 2007, 165. 412


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 100. Reconstruction of an MPG triple circles krater based on remains of 43 and 54

may have resembled that of the large lower bowl and foot remains of 43-54. The rare horizontal panel of alternating diagonals below the neck, appears on two unpublished krater fragments in Aegina with a slashed neck molding. The inclusion of these fragments in the pyre debris affords a rare instance of a fairly well defined krater from a datable burial context, although not the Late Protogeometric – Early Geometric date assigned by the excavators. Some unburned fragments of 39 have the metallic sheen associated with tenth century Middle Protogeometric fabric.

Fig. 101. Krater fragment 42 from the pyre of Gr. LPG 10

Fig. 102. Krater fragments and reconstruction of 39, from pyre of Gr. MPG 30


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 103. Kerameikos strayfind sherds of LPG date

Desborough, eyeing the dumpy, Middle Protogeometric Class II amphora found in Gr. PG 30 dated. The burial in the MPG phase, but late in that phase because of the accompanying skyphoi of a type usually placed in the Late Protogeometric phase.415 415

This type of skyphos has now been dated to the full Middle Protogeometric phase thanks to recent evidence from Lefkandi. Krause, pulling together additional kinds of evidence, also accepted an earlier date for this krater (his Phase 4).416 Krater 39 was at Catling and Lemos reported that the panel-circles type skyphos ‘appeared earlier in the Attic sequence than was indicated by the Attic evidence itself ’, Lefkandi II,1, 94. Krause 1975, 66-9, Table 20. 416

Desborough 1952, 7 f. 27.


Kratos & Krater least that old. Its burial was oriented in alignment with the transitional era Gr. PG 25 which appears to have initiated a line of Middle Protogeometric burials, 25, 30, 31, 34 (Fig. 53).

The foot of 57 is a straight-profiled cone, proportionately taller than the SM foot 14, and glazed overall with a reserved band at the lower edge, a common treatment in the Late Protogeometric phase. The rare handle remains of 57 represent a standard double loop with a small pointed boss, with overall glaze that extends out onto the surrounding sidewall. Around the outer handle onset on both 57 and 51 drip lines were drawn down from the handle outline, a feature that may have survived from Mycenaean times. The subsequent emulation of the handle features at Chalcis, Toumba, Lefkandi, and on Atticizing SPG kraters ANM 13745 and 27695 from Marmariani, suggest the type was fairly typical of Attic MPG, perhaps circulated in trade or guest friendship. The MPG krater 39 also has decoration found in Thessaly, namely a horizontally oriented strip of alternating diagonals motif. These features do not continue beyond MPG on Athenian kraters, which were soon dominated by the inroads of the Megacles Jewel Workshop innovations, but they continued elsewhere in the Aegean area. The historical import of this is discussed in Chapter IV in connection with a possible forerunner of the Kalaureian Amphictyony.

The ‘Phorbas’ Krater The burial grounds of the two earliest life-kings Archippos 1012-993, and Thersippos 993-952 BC have not been identified. They were perhaps not Alcmeonids. At the onset of the 10th c. it is likely that the funerary krater was used only by the Alcmeonids of Precinct XX. The third of the life-kings, Phorbas 952-922, was possibly an Alcmeonid, and his likely burial would have been Gr. PG 18 (v. Phorbas, Chapter V). If so, he started his rule in MPG, but ruled mostly during the Late Protogeometric phase. His amphora urn with its horse symbol supports high Neleid status, as does his epitymbion krater 57, of which a large foot and handle area is all that survives. It is the earliest epitymbion krater to be found associated with a burial. It has the MPG fabric and is larger than contemporary kraters, so was likely fabricated around his accession as his consortium krater. Consortium kraters converted to use as epitymbia sometimes show signs of wear and repair, and this one was no exception.

Kraters at Lefkandi Athenian vases were both imported and occasionally emulated at Lefkandi, and may have become part of

Fig. 104. Krater fragments from the fill of the tenth c chieftain’s house tomb at Lefkandi, where the Wild Style lasted longer than in Athens


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater the considerable Euboean prosperity based on trade connections. By contrast with Athens, the krater seems to have been wildly popular at Lefkandi, although this is partly an illusion based on the single mass of material from the Toumba house burial fill. The earliest kraters from the fill were strongly influenced by the Wild Style (Fig. 104). While the Athenian Protogeometric potters pursued their plodding course, limiting the range of geometric motifs as they concentrated on technique, the Lefkandi potters preserved more of the color of the Wild Style. Their styles reveal receptivity to a variety of newer influences (not always in comfortable assimilation), from interrelations with Thessaly, the Aegean islands, and Cyprus. A distinctly Euboean style evolved, characterized by bolder, more exuberant motifs, exemplified on the large consortium krater found in the house burial of the ‘Hero of Lefkandi’.

column as prime motif, and a framing of alternating diagonals, favored motifs in Athens since the 11th c. The decoration of the lower bowl and foot are the same found on Middle Protogeometric kraters such as 43-54 (Fig. 100). Newly associated fragments with a St. George’s cross (68), from the same workshop and probably from the same krater, also suggest a Late Protogeometric date. It betrays no knowledge of Megacles’ Jewel Workshop innovations, displayed on his krater 151. Krater 151 had almost certainly been his consortium krater, which has visible wear and repairs, and is no later than ca 900 BC. Krater 67 should be earlier, so perhaps Kübler’s dating in the third quarter of the tenth century is justified.417 The date of 67 is significant because Athenian kraters such as 43 and 67 are the modest remains of a class of Protogeometric vessel that had an influence on krater style abroad. The reconstruction sketch confirms Coldstream’s association of 67 with some of the best preserved kraters found anywhere, those from the Marmariani tombs in Thessaly. Those kraters are slightly earlier: Marmariani Geometric still took its inspiration from the Athenian Middle Protogeometric phase, including the sharpened handle boss tip and glaze overwashing onto the sidewall, a characteristic visible on the handle fragment of Middle Protogeometric 57. The Marmariani kraters may not have been directly influenced by Athens. Their style is Attico-Euboean, with Attic rows of alternating diagonals (Fig. 102, 39), or concentric circles, combined with Euboean vertical subdividers and still current Euboean Gulf slashed neck moldings.418

Lefkandi’s creative independence can be seen in new classes of ornament, perhaps taken from other media such as bronze and textile, including the earliest battlement meander, fringed concentric circles, and the butterfly motif. These were earlier considered Attic in origin, offering proof that Euboean MPG ended after the onset of Attic LPG, but there are hazards in uniform acceptance of Athens as the trendsetter. Lefkandi sometimes took the lead over its conservative, quality-control-obsessed Mainland neighbor. Lefkandi also ignored some of the developments of Athenian LPG such as the Jewel Workshop, which may also relate to the possibility of an earlier Kalaureian Amphictyony. The Lefkandi sequence suggests that its MPG concluded no later than 950 BC.

While most Athenian Late Protogeometric motifs were hand-me-downs, some new motifs such as meanders were combined with revived Wild Style in innovative combinations, expanding the decorative repertory on colorful products of the Jewel Workshop. Finally, the two krater decorative systems, antithetic concentric circles flanking a rectilinear motif , and the Munich krater type panel arrangements were fused into a single schema, this as the meander initiated its long association with the krater (Fig. 108, ANM 272). Both the meander and the new sinuous profile of ANM 272 were innovations of the Jewel Workshop of the era of Megacles (922-892 BC). The traditional krater with straighter sidewall and angular inner rim still remained current and persisted into the Geometric period as the Type I (Fig. 113, 176). Such was 117 a number of fragments of an unpublished krater from the badly damaged Late Protogeometric

Late Protogeometric Kraters The LPG Standard Type I Krater While Kerameikos krater remains of Late Protogeometric date are more numerous, they too are fragmentary. If further associations could be detected their numbers would be fewer. The only vessel with much profile preserved is 67, the grave marker on Gr. G 1. Newly found fragments have contributed to its reconstruction sketch (Fig. 105). Coldstream assigned krater 67 to Early Geometric, but it is probably better situated in the Late Protogeometric phase, along with the rest of the vases in its context, an everted lip pyxis, oinochoe and a neck-handled amphora. Krater 67 resembles its circle-adorned Middle Protogeometric predecessors in its traditional decoration and straight upper sidewall and rim, with only a slightly taller proportion of the foot, perhaps related to its freestanding use in consortium. It especially has the look of a Protogeometric vessel in its balance of dark and light, the choice of an ancestral lozenge

Ker. V,1, 273. Marmariani, BSA 31, 1930/1, 32 pl. 10 f. 141.142; Desborough 1952, 96, pl. 23. Atticizing kraters also come from LPG Boeotia and Ionia: Lefkandi I, pl. 16, 156; pl. 24, 585. IstMitt. 1959-60, pl. 55, 1.2; AJA 67, 1963, 358 f. pl. 83, 15. The slashed molding is also found on two unpublished krater frgts. in Aegina decorated with the same horizontal strip of alternating diagonals as on 39. 417 418


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 105. Reconstruction of LPG krater 67 from Gr. G 1

Gr. PG 49, datable from its location circa the mid-tenth century. The profile can be reconstructed from the rim to the lower sidewall if one includes 116 which almost certainly belongs (Fig. 156).419 117 has a taller, lightly concave neck with a prominent neck molding, remains of the onsets of a double loop handle that was outlined, a dark glazed lower body broken by at least three reserved bands, and drips pendant from the handles (116). The Late Protogeometric Kantharoid Krater (Type II) At the end of the Protogeometric period there was a spurt of ceramic innovation during which two new kraters joined the ancestral krater: a deep, straightsided pithoid form (Fig. 106, BM 1950.2-28.3) and more significantly, a kantharoid krater, both from the Jewel Workshop. One large kantharoid krater survives almost complete, ANM 18114 from Nea Ionia (Fig. 107). It has a rounded profile, a short, everted neck and two vertical, Fig. 106. British Museum 1950.228.3, a LPG pithoid form of the Jewel Workshop

Both frgts. of similar fabric and proportions, were found in storage, 117, inscribed Nr. 93 S49, and 116 with an accompanying note that it originated from Samakian 1938. They were probably both from Gr. PG 49, a badly destroyed context of ca. mid-tenth century based on location, with remains of a neck-handled amphora its only recorded content, Ker. IV, 46. 419


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 107. A large LPG kantharoid krater of the Jewel Workshop, ANM 18114, which anticipates the Geometric Type II krater

triple-gauge strap handles from sidewall to rim.420 The genesis of this new krater is described at length in the krater Context section. Its decoration, adopted from the panel decorated Type I krater, is unique. Its foot was missing and has been graphically reconstructed with a flaring ringed pedestal, as suggested by LordSmithson. Restored with such a foot, the Nea Ionia krater has a completely new appearance that sets it at the head of the Geometric series of Type II kraters. Interior overall glaze is indicative of a fluid content,

likely wine, since the krater had been placed on a funerary pyre, possibly following ritual dowsing. The companion drinking vessels of kantharoid kraters would have been the similarly profiled kantharos Ker. 2031, also newly introduced at this time. These vessels were not intended, to replace the standard krater, which continued in production, but to create ceramic versions of metal prototypes.421 Metal tripods were also reproduced in ceramic (Fig. 38).422 Karageorghis 1974, pl. 246. Dikaios BSA 37, 1936-37, 71f. fig. 6 (Fig. 73). 422 Ker. 554, Ker. I, pl. 63. 421

ANM 272, Graef 1909, pl. 10, 272; Nea Ionia, Lord-Smithson 1961, pl. 29. 420


Kratos & Krater Early Geometric Kraters (922-864) The period around 900 BC was an especially fruitful period of experimentation during which the basic character of two distinct Geometric kraters was established, the ancestral Type I krater, and the kantharoid Type II, both discussed at length in the krater context section preceding and in connection with the rule of Megacles. Each krater had its own canons of shape, ornament and sphere of use. The richer decoration and refined shapes of the new kraters allow some to be grouped in ‘workshops’, which are surveyed in sequel.

Fig. 108. Type I Krater ANM 272, LPG transitional to EGI, from the Acropolis

The EG Type I Krater There was further development in the decoration of the Type I, as the two prior forms of PG krater decoration, panel and antithetic circles, now converged to form the classic krater decorative scheme of the Geometric period. The meander began its long asociation with the krater, at first modestly subsidiary to the traditional central column of lozenges, but by Early Geometric II dominating the krater as the main vertical and horizontal framing element. Zones of double dotted dogtooth began during the transition, lasting into Middle Geometric I. The krater gradually acquired its characteristic flaring pedestal foot. seen in early use on krater 174.

types and weights in various locations: checkerboard, chevron and zigzag and two types of meander. The belly is ringed by a zone of double dotted dogtooth, while a common zone of triangles encircles the foot. On the sidewall, an extra vertical column of double dotted dogtooth is interceded on one side of the vase, a miscalculation perhaps: there were considerable new demands in the precision drafting of such extensive ornamentation. The essential character of the Type I Geometric krater through the mid-eighth century is already displayed on 151, assigned here to the EGI phase based on Megacles King List Chronology (ca. 900 BC). Coldstream dated it to his EGII phase (875-850).

The remains of circa twenty different bowls and a dozen different feet help to summarize krater development during the Early Geometric period. On the earliest, the transitional fragment ANM 272 from the Acropolis (Fig. 108) the flanking concentric circles, fringed and filled with diminishing segments, still float freely against a broad light ground, with massed vertical columns of main and subsidiary ornaments between.423

The ancestral Protogeometric krater profile with straighter sidewall and rim continued into Early Geometric II on 156, a group of 18 fragments from a single krater (Fig. 109). It continues the ornate character of the Jewel Workshop, with a new double column of stacked triangles motif that appears to be restricted to this phase (Fig. 110). Below the upper sidewall encircling zones of straight-sided triangles are accompanied by a new zone of multiple zigzag. To judge from its decorative scheme and heavy sidewall, this krater was larger than previous Early Geometric kraters. With its size, straighter sidewall and prominent rim, and the increased sophistication in the accumulation of decorative elements, this vase would have had a more monumental appearance. It is the immediate forerunner of large kraters such as 176 described below.

The preserved feet were generally still black glazed with reserve or a few encircling bands at the lower edge, and on the early Eleusis foot a zone of alternating diagonals (Fig. 43). The best-preserved krater from the Early Geometric phase is 151 (Fig. 37), an upper sidewall and foot which was the epitymbion on Gr. G 2. The foot is proportionately taller than that of the Late 67, curves out gently and has a raised ridged molding at the top. The new harmony in the dynamics between shape and decoration begins to reflect the kraters’ more dignified aspect as the prime vase of Athens’ Neleid leadership. The clay ground has succumbed to a rich tapestry of overall decoration, with the two antithetic concentric circles now anchored in twin metopes framed by meander and other motifs. This was still a phase of experiment as the painter tested motifs of various

The EG Type II Krater The large Late Protogeometric krater (Fig. 107), from Nea Ionia discussed above is the earliest Type II krater, possibly created as an early krater specifically for consortium. The contemporary large foot from Eleusis (Fig. 43), suggests it was not unique. However, the prototype of the smaller Geometric Type II krater was probably a smaller bronze krater. The traditional mastoi on the Type II rim reproduce the rivets reinforcing the

ANM 272 may be Protogeometric. Graef 1909, pl. 10, 272; AM 113, 1998, pl. 3,5, LPG-EGI Acropolis, ANM 275, AM 113, 1998, pl. 3,1. EGI Agora, Brann 1961, 105 pl. 18. 423


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater



Fig. 109. Reconstruction of Early Geometric II 156, a more ornate and monumental Type I krater

Fig. 110. A selection of EG krater sherds


Kratos & Krater handle of a bronze original, and the overall dark glaze sheen appears to be in emulation of the luster of bronze. The radiating lines around a depiction of a bronze krater from Kaloriziki suggest the gleam of bronze was highly prized (Fig. 73). The smaller Type II krater makes rare and fragmentary appearances in the Kerameikos prior to the Middle Geometric period. Not having any tradition of painted decoration, its only concession to ornament was a modest strip of decorative motif, triangles or meander, placed horizontally beneath the rim, 130-136. The use of the meander on these earliest kantharoid vessels (133, 134) is best appreciated on an Atticizing krater from Argos, which is most likely EGI (Fig. 111). The meander, in a canonical arrangement of a central, horizontal strip flanked by vertical subsidiary columns of the same, remained the Hauptmotif of the Type II from Protogeometric times through Late Geometric I, during which time the meander panel increased in size and complexity as the vessel was made in ever larger proportions (Fig. 54, 279). Fig. 111. Early Geometric Attic or Atticizing Type II krater from Argos

The earliest well-preserved Type II Attic krater was found at Toumba, Lefkandi (Fig. 112). Its Early

Fig. 112. Reconstruction of an imported, Attic EGII, Type II krater found in the Lefkandi cemetery


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater Geometric II date is supported by its low proportions, its vertical, triple-gauge, strap handle with flanking lateral rim braces as on the Nea Ionia krater,424 and the single foot molding (compare Early Geometric kraters 141 and 151). The decoration is early and experimental: the free-floating concentric circles on the shoulder were borrowed from the typical EG I Type I krater (as Fig. 108). A strip of triangles was inexpertly draped down the sidewall on each side as a framing element, an idea that does not appear to have been repeated. In sequel rectangular metopes replaced the circles, and the dogtooth strip was restricted uniformly to the base of the neck, but apart from that, this krater is an early blueprint for the canonical Type II krater going forward.

the multiple zig-zag or meander zones, but otherwise the Middle Geometric decoration remained tied to canonical motifs, including the concentric circles, lozenge column and checkerboard that had remained in continual use since the 11th century. Kraters such as 176 must have presented an impressive appearance as monuments over burials, but the repair holes and other adaptations on 176 and even larger kraters reveal that they were not fabricated for funerary use. Nevertheless, during the Middle Geometric phase as the krater was elevated as a status symbol, it was not long before one was fabricated especially for erection over a burial. Krater 193 has several unique features, including funerary symbolism and variant construction that confirm its creation specifically to serve as a funerary monument, the only incontrovertible case of such in the Middle Geometric phase (Figs. 76, 77). Both 176 and 193 are discussed in the context of workshop associations below.

Middle Geometric Kraters The MG Type I Krater The bulk of preserved krater remains in the Kerameikos are of Geometric date. In spite of their number they are so fragmentary that making reconstitution of the appearance of an entire krater is not easy. The best preserved of Middle Geometric I date is the Mourner Krater 193, a well-preserved upper bowl fragment and foot from Gr. G 43 (Figs. 70, 76, 77abcd). A graphic restoration has been made for 176, a finely executed fragmentary bowl fragment, now augmented by its foot and many new sidewall fragments (Figs. 69, 113, 114). The part-photo, part-graphic montage reconstruction of 176, Fig. 69, reveals a complete Middle Geometric I krater that is well supported by the surviving remains. It has the more traditional straight sidewall of PG ancestral kraters, some of which may have been still available as heirlooms or on view in the Precinct XX burial ground. Its proportions are extended vertically, especially those of the foot, which now has an accumulation of low necking rings at the top. The krater’s height would have been ca. 85-90 cm. Such tall proportions had been gradually developing during Early Geometric II, observable on 156 (Fig. 109), and the foot 174 from the transitional Gr. G 42. Part of the 176 double loop horizontal handle with a central boss is preserved with traces of the standard stripe decoration Krater 176 incorporates motifs seen on 151 (Fig. 37) but they are more systematically applied. There are more horizontal zones of ornament to fill the kraters’ extended height. Except for a few minor developments, nearly all Type I kraters were decorated with essentially the same, repetitive decorative scheme of 176 until the advent of the Late Geometric figural style. In sequel, the tall triangle zones of 176, typical of the EGI-II transition, became increasingly more fluid in execution, and better characterized as dogtooth. The double-dotted dogtooth belly zone soon yielded to 424

The MG Type II Krater With the transition to the Middle Geometric period larger Type II vessels were enabled as the vertical strap handles were buttressed with reinforcing struts, creating the characteristic Type II stirrup handle. The new handle was actually a hybrid that combined the Type II krater’s vertical strap with the Type I’s double horizontal loop. The stirrup handle appeared not only on the krater but incongruously on the personal drinking vessels of party sets, such as the two low kantharoi Ker. 2143-4 from transitional Gr. G 4. The stirrup handle is especially well preserved on a fine Middle Geometric II bowl fragment from Eleusis, a product of the Early phase of the Pre-Dipylon Workshop (Fig. 116).425 The decoration was further refined, and regularly included side panels with figural motifs, such as the horse and bird (Fig. 116). By the Middle Geometric II phase it was the preferred settlement krater even for large formal gatherings of the elite (Fig. 121, 239-241). The well-preserved krater 200 from Gr. G 22 points up the essential difference in the Type II compared with the Type I. The proportions are lower, the bowl profile more rounded and capacious, and it has a flaring foot that was more practical and stable for the frequent domestic use this vessel experienced (200 has numerous repair holes). While the flaring foot of the Type II was at first clearly distinguished from that of Type I, the occasional borrowing of features between the two types of kraters makes it risky to classify a krater type solely on the basis of the foot profile: during the Middle Geometric period the Type I krater acquired a ringed upper section at the same time that the lower flare of the Type II was reduced. The canonical decorative scheme

Lefkandi III, pls. 88, 110, Pyre 14.



EL 19766.8-90. Eleusis AEphem, 1898, pl. 3, 3; Prakt 1954, 58 f.

Kratos & Krater

Fig. 113. Reconstruction of MGI, Type I Krater 176 of the Agora Rich Lady Workshop

of the Type II krater is best illustrated on Krater 200. Whereas the concentric circles metopes are the focus of the Type I, on the Type II the meander strip is supreme, placed horizontally in one or more strips at the center, and vertically at both sides. This central conformation was usually flanked by unframed rectangular metopes containing a distinctive motif or the occasional figural decoration: a swastika on the Eleusis krater, a horse on 200 and 239 (Fig. 121) and a marshbird on the small 254. The Type II krater was the first Geometric vessel to be regularly decorated with figural representation.

Once formulated, the Type II krater remained as static as the Middle Geometric Type I, retaining the meander even as the vessel grew to enormous proportions, requiring ever more novel solutions to cover its large surface with accumulations of this prime motif.426 Stacked swastika metopes were incorporated on 239 (Fig. 121), and extra swastikas, an animal frieze and metopes on the sole Late Geometric Type II, 279 (Fig. 54). On large Middle Geometric ktaters there is 426


Ker. V,1, 138.

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 114ab Section profile and bowl sherds of krater 176


sometimes a zone of battlement meander below the main belly zone (Fig. 121, 241). Whereas Geometric Type I kraters are now found in one fairly consistent large size (ca. 60 cms. rim diameter), by contrast Type II kraters occur in sizes ranging from small to extremely large, and their quality of fabric is more variable. Unlike the Type I, the Type II was exported abroad, detectable as much in its influence on regional production elsewhere as in actual exports. XeropolisLefkandi had accepted it early in the ninth century, importing Attic examples but still decorating its own production in local style.427 Coldstream studied remains of several Attic kraters at Lefkandi.428 He also tracked the widespread dissemination of the Middle Geometric Type II, which has been found in Euboea, Cyprus and Crete and even as far as Spain. The pedestalled variety lived on elsewhere after it terminated in Athens itself.429 A low-footed version of the Type II, best represented by an Attic import found at Knossos, survived in Athens into the Late Geometric II period (289, 291).430 Lefkandi III, pls. 88. 110. Eretria, BSA 47, 1952, pl. 2 A1, a MGII frgt which joins to a krater found positioned in the apse of an apsidal building, Verdan 2013, 929-942, pl. 96, Cat. 335; AntK 44, 2001, 84-7 esp. 86. 428 Personal communication. Studied, in the Eretria Museum during 2003. Most showed signs of burning from pyres. Two surface finds did not and he suggested they could have been epitymbia:Lefkandi III, pl. 96a, lower body, 97b, foot. 429 Coldstream 1983, 201-7; Spain: loc. cit. 203 n. 14; HuelvaA 2, 1977, 397-99, fig. 169 according to Coldstream, personal communication, was low foot lidded as Paris A514. Cyprus: Karageorghis 1974, 35 pl. 5. P. Dikaios, A Royal Tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, AA 1963, 199-204, No. 222. Atticizing, Coldstream 2001, pl. 24c. 430 Knossos: Coldstream 1996, 135, pl. 49A. Coldstream-Catling 1996, IV, pl. 202, 42. LGII low-footed Type II, Munich 6234, Davison 1961, fig. 78. 427



Kratos & Krater

Fig. 115. Hypothetical reconstruction of Type I krater 205, Ker. 1247, of the Group of Kerameikos 1247

Late Geometric Kraters

Because of the decline of the main Precinct XX burial site during the Late Geometric phase, there are representative remains from only a single preserved krater of Type I, 284, found not at Precinct XX, but on a nearby grave to the north on the Sacred Way. Krater 284 is an early work of the Hirschfeld Workshop, to be dated in the LGIa phase. It is most closely related to ANM 990 from the Irian Gate cemetery which has the same funerary motif, simple figural style, early subsidiary zones of meander and zigzag, and as yet undotted

The LG Krater Type I Since there exist already a number of solid independent studies of the Late Geometric figural kraters, this section concentrates on a few newer items from the Kerameikos, and the large epitymbia from the elite burial precinct in the Irian Gate cemetery. A number of the strayfind Late Geometric krater fragments from the Kerameikos are listed with find spots in the Catalogue from 267 on. 150

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 116. MGI-II, Athenian Type II krater from Eleusis

lozenge zones.431 The close association between these two kraters allows a fairly reliable hypothetical reconstruction drawing of 284 from its fragments (Figs. 124, 196, 197, 198). Since the preserved fragments of the upper section of the obverse are almost identical to those of ANM 990 (Fig. 198), it has been restored with the same prothesis-cum-ekphora scene of that krater, a motif that had originated in the Late Geometric Ia Dipylon Workshop.432 Support for restoration with this motif comes from the similar arrangement of lines of figures and superimposed medallions that flanked the main scene of both vessels, indicating the same tall center field required for such a hybrid motif. Moreover there had been a tall Pferdherrscher figure similar to that on ANM 990, arm raised towards the bridle controlling the two horses of the wagon on which the bier was transported. Only the four legs and breast of the horse, and nothing of the wagon and bier are preserved. Both kraters have flanking medallions in their uppermost register, which are framed by decorative strips on ANM 990, but apparently free floating in a field of mourners and fill ornament on 284. The reverse sides of the two kraters have the traditional framed medallions, now in

a row on the upper register, but on 284 the meander strip of ANM 990 placed below is substituted by an additional line of male mourners. The lower frieze of knights on both vases is also different in composition: the longer chariots of 284 suggest more than a single occupant, a Dipylon warrior likely accompanied by his driver, and marching groups of three Dipylon warriors punctuate the procession of chariots. On both kraters there are similar birds in the handle area, with a similar row of mourners beneath the handle, of which only the upraised arms are preserved on 284. The ovoid shape and tall neck and foot of both kraters are typical of Late Geometric I manufacture. The neck fragment 285 came from another krater of the Hirschfeld Workshop found at the Naiskos just south of the Dipylon Gate. There is only a handful of krater epitymbia remains of the Dipylon Workshop in the Kerameikos, none from Precinct XX (267-272). By contrast there are more fine Late Geometric I krater remains from that workshop from the nearby Irian Gate area cemetery now held in the Athens National Museum the Louvre and elsewhere.433 There is a reappraisal of some of the

M. Weber, Die Bildsprache des Hirschfeldkraters, AM 114, 1999, 2937, pl. 4 f. 432 ANM 803, Ahlberg 1971b fig. 53; the same motif on Bonn. Univ. 16, Ahlberg pl. 55 a b. 431

Villard and Kunze pulled together this fractured material, recognizing hands and establishing an early sequential relationship; Davison 1961, workshop relationships in a single comprehensive 433


Kratos & Krater

a Fig. 117ab MGI-II, Type II Krater 200 of the early Pre-Dipylon Workshop and its profile section

Irian Gate epitymbia in the context of the Philaid life-king Agamestor above. Apart from a couple of anomalous epitymbion fragments on the Acropolis, pedestalled kraters later than Late Geometric I occur only outside Athens in connection with rural estates.434


Other Krater Types There are several other types of krater current during the Late Geometric period. The stamnos pyxis, a lowfooted, lidded vessel with both single and double roll horizontal handles, is a hybrid combining features of both krater and pyxis. It makes a rare and inconsistent appearance until the Middle Geometric period, when it becames more common in Athens, Argos, and especially in Crete.435 The Attic and many Cretan kraterpyxides follow the Attic Type II krater in decoration: a large meander complex on the shoulder, sometimes flanked by side metopes with a horse or some other motif. Wine service was obviously part of their use, for

The LG Krater Type II The only preserved Late Geometric, Type II pedestalled krater, 279, is discussed below with its Middle Geometric counterparts in the context of the Pre-Dipylon Workshop. There are remains of low-footed hybrid krater-pyxis or krater-stamnos, with bowls similar to the Type II krater, which are considered below. study; Coldstream 1968, 29-90, further refinements in a broader LG context. 434 Rombos 1988, 357-368 pls. 10, 11, 66; Geroulanos 1973, 1-54 pls. 6, 7, 25, 52.

Bohen 1976, 1-22 pls. 3 f. 1988, 99. 18-20, pls. 1 f. Argive MGII stamnos-pyxis, Courbin 1996, pl. 79, C43, Coldstream 1968, pl. 25 b. Bone content, personal communication Professor Coldstream, after Pottier catalogue. 435


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater they sometimes come with inner glaze and knobs in the shape of typical drinking vessels. The best-known Athenian example, Louvre A 514, was found by Fauvel in 1813. Its decoration of pigs, an oinochoe-shaped knob, and inner glaze, are all suggestive of a lively barbecue for the elite males symbolized in the horse metopes painted on the vessel’s shoulder. Like most Middle Geometric kraters Louvre A 514 was a settlement vessel employed in burial: it contained the remains of a cremation.436 An altogether different lidded type is represented by the stamnos pyxis 219, which has no interior glaze and was therefore not a wine dispenser. It had the tall pedestal foot of a krater, and a helmet-shaped knob, and it was suggested earlier that it may have been specially created as a burial marker above the grave of a warrior (Fig. 123). However, since it is well preserved, and certainly would not have retained its lid for long as an epitymbion, it was likely employed, like Paris A 514 and the Cretan series, as an urn.437

Fig. 118. Generic profile based on the smaller, spouted LGII domestic krater remains 291-300

interior prothesis ANM 295, found on the Acropolis (Fig. 59), smaller dinoi such as 305 and pedestalled cauldrons (Fig. 65). Small, spouted kraters of the last quarter of the century evolved on the domestic scene (Fig. 118). They have a standard decoration of a frieze of animals: deer, horses, and running dogs below the rim, and a striped lower body (Figs. 191-193, 291300).441 Fabricated in the Workshops of ANM 894 and 897, they were well represented in the Late Geometric II Kerameikos strayfind material from the Sacred Gate and in the Agora.442

While typical Attic Middle Geometric stamnos-pyxides are perked up and have a pyxis-style inturned ledge for the lid to rest upon, the Late Geometric lidded type is an ovoid krater with an upright collar neck for the receipt of a bevel-edged lid. There is a single example from the Kerameikos, neck fragment 290 but more evidence comes from the Agora, where kraters may have been used in a settlement rather than a funerary context. So there are a number of large Late Geometric lids that would have been used on krater-type shapes (not from regular pyxides as suggested there).438 In the Kerameikos no lids occur prior to Midddle Geometric II, but the impromptu holes chopped into the rims of some earlier Kerameikos kraters, e.g. 176, may have been for the attachment of some kind of provisional covering. Agora lid P 8210 originally had a large central boss and a flange, as the helmet krater 219, and is one of several wide lids from that area that could have come from kraters. Agora P 17204 was an enormous lid, 57 cms. in diameter.439 The most familiar lidded krater is the elaborate Euboean example in the Cesnola Collection of New York.440

Formal kraters reappeared in the Kerameikos again during the LGIIb-Protoattic transition, their type unclear (301-303). Most were found as strayfinds in the Rundbau burial precinct off the Sacred Way. Fragment 302 depicts a checker-winged striding horse or goat, a motif found at Anavyssos. 303 has a checkerboard metope with alternating panels of dots and crosshatching with a zone of hooked lozenges below.443 A similar metope is found on vases of the Workshop of ANM 897 and on a well-preserved Late Geometric IIa epitymbion from Trachones (Fig. 126). Davison associated the hooked lozenge with the early Protoattic Analatos Painter.444

Following the demise of the large pedestalled epitymbion and consortium kraters in Athens at the end of the Late Geometric I phase, representational kraters cease except in the rural sites. Exceptions were the single fragment of an epitymbion krater with

Geometric Krater Workshops The Jewel Workshop (LPG-EGI) The Rich Lady Workshop (EGII-MGII The Group of Kerameikos 1247 (MGI-II) Pre-Dipylon Early Workshop MGI-II

An oinochoe knob on a similar MGII stamnos-pyxis, part of a group of Attic vessels found in a Knossos tomb T 219, Coldstream-Catling 1996, pl. 202. 437 Bohen 1976, 1-22, pls. 2-3. 438 Agora P 7318, 8210, 17204, 25406, D 42 cms., 8210, D 44 cms. Brann 1961, 113, 136, pl. 21. Bevelled rim on P 7318. Lid P 25406 could have come from a krater very much like P 25263. 439 P 25263, Brann 1962, 62, 273, pl. 16. 440 Kahane 1973, pl. 25 f. 436

Coldstream 1968, 86; Munich 6234, CVA (3) pls. 104 f. 107. Brann 1962, 70 f. pl. 20, 339. Davison 1961, figs. 27 a b, 41. 443 Bohen 1980, 92 pl. 16, 62; other kraters, 56-58 and 60. 444 Ker. XII, 92 pl. 16. 62; Tr. 81, AM 88, 1973, pl. 25; Davison 1961, 51 fig. 67. 441 442


Kratos & Krater Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop (MGII) Dipylon Workshop Transitional (MGII-LGIa) The Dipylon Workshop (LGIa-b) Workshop Continuity

only workshop associations of the Geometric phase will be examined. The idea of a single workshop enduring through centuries may not receive easy acceptance in all quarters, although it is worth noting that the contemporary Talavera family pottery works in Mexico has been passed down from one generation to the next since 1824.

Central to strong cultural traditions, the Attic Iron Age krater retained a conservative decoration that had its origins extending back into the Mycenaean era. Under the tutelage of the worthy patrons of Precinct XX, there seems to have been a single longstanding evolution from the earliest Kerameikos remains down through the Protogeometric and Geometric periods, when the Mycenaean lozenges, chevrons and circular motifs, in antithetic arrangement flanked by rectilinear panels, still appear on the latest Iron Age kraters. There was a break when the Melantho-Codrids departed c 1068 BC, when the Wild Style slacked off under the Medontid regime, and both kraters and surving amphorae followed a more Sub-Granary style. The odd Wild Style motif, such as the checker panel, lozenges, chevrons and circular motifs persisted. Also the panel krater seems to have survived through to the Late Protogeometric period, when the Jewel Workshop adopted a colorful style reminiscent of the Wild Style, expecially on kraters.

Workshop associations are explored here because they underline the continuity of both clientele and potters. They are also an essential preliminary to the establishment of a sounder relative chronology. An approach recognizing the community of certain groups of vessels in both synchronic and diachronic terms augments the standard chronologies based on finite phases. The term ‘workshop’ must be applied cautiously during the Iron Age, since there is much still to learn of ceramic production at that time. Here the term is used only in a general sense of a perceived affinity of particular groups of vases created by artisans working in close association, but sometimes it is suggested that a particular hand was at work. Up to now Geometric workshop attributions have been based almost solely on Late Geometric figural decoration.447 Determining the workshop affiliations of Geometric vessels decorated with a modest repertory of geometric motifs has attracted limited interest. It has been restricted to the occasional notation of a workshop relationship between vessels found together in a tomb, e.g. the Rich Lady’s burial and a group of similar Attic vessels in a Knossos tomb.448 These attempts are quite legitimate. Observation of a limited number of abstract motifs, as well as the character of potting, painting and firing, allowed the recovery of pyxides and kraters from thousands of unsorted Kerameikos strayfind sherds.

The Jewel Workshop introduced vessels characteristic enough to be convincingly grouped as the oeuvre of a single establishment. However, venturing earlier, one notes a similarity between the style of the horse iconography of the Jewel Workshop amphora Ker. 1260, and that of several emblematic horses of the Middle Protogeometric period, as on Ker. 560, the ‘Phorbas’ amphora, from the Middle Protogeometric Gr. PG 18.445 The fluid lines of the horses, especially in the curving hindquarters and neck, the proportions of the elements and depiction of the mane are similar enough to suggest a continuing tradition within the same establishment.446

Jan Bouzek and I were able to carry out a small control of the effectiveness of determining workshop affiliation as follows: Geometric pyxides were sorted into workshops based on the sculptured horses attached to the lids, the work of the potter. Significantly it emerged that the shape, and painted decoration of the vessel, even the exclusively abstract ornamentation, was almost as reliable a criterion for the workshop distinctions as the sculptures. Certain workshops (e.g. the Filla and Agora P 4784) had their own styles of shape and decoration, including ‘trademark’ preferences in profile, and combinations of abstract motifs in decorative schemes. There is also clear evidence of the retention of specific favored motifs and schemata from one generation to the next, the small emblematic horse, and the Geometric quartered lozenge, for example, underlining

The extension of the Alcmeonid tradition well back into the tenth century, and the inclusion of figural representation, indicates that the creativity began in that maligned earlier period. Indeed a case can be made for even earlier origins for the workshop tradition: the refinement of technique in both potting and painting had been initiated in the 11th century, traceable via technique, figural representation and a long series of classic amphorae such as Ker. 560. Strengthening this supposition is the continuity in the evolution of the krater over the same time, the retention of the same panel decor, and antithetic circular motifs. This suggests a single talented pottery works catering primarily to subsequent generations of a distinguished and increasingly discriminating clientele, the Alcmeonids burying at Precinct XX. For the moment 445 446

Coldstream 1968, 29, n. 2. Knossos burial with MG amphora, stamnos-pyxis and other vases of Athenian production attributed to a single workshop, Coldstream 1996, 135. 447 448

Ker. I, pls. 56.58. Ker. IV, pl. 27, Ker. 911. 560. 1260.


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater the continuity of workshop traditions, in some cases over a long timespan (Fig. 42a).

the differences in firing practices, and shape/decoration preferences, suggest that they at least constituted two separate kilns.

The three Geometric workshops highlighted below appear to be part of such a longstanding tradition, perhaps a single establishment, with a life history resembling that of the proverbial old hammer, kept in service over two hundred years by seven new handles and five new heads. While the artisans who oversaw the geometric tradition are usually lost to view in the environment of abstract ornament, workshop designations allow a modicum of recognition. Creativity and skill were maintained even as individual artisans came and went in a process that is occasionally palpable: for example when a Middle Geometric artisan specializing in kraters and horse pyxides lapsed and was immediately superseded by another artisan specializing in the same two shapes, retaining some elements of iconography, but applying his/her own distinctive style.

The slackening of creativity at this juncture was likely a function of the strong influence cast on subsequent pottery production by the highly talented founders of the elite Geometric style. Products of the Jewel and Rich Lady workshops, on display in the quasi-art gallery of Precinct XX, were superior enough to subject decades of subsequent production to emulation. It took the innovation of figural style to loosen the hold of the abstract decorative style, an event furthered in the Pre-Dipylon Workshop, where the discreetly placed emblematic horse of the tenth century acquired a new showcase occupying the main panel of the krater (Louvre 500-502). For the figural to dominate with narrative scenes, it took new patronage by a new ‘first family’, those buried in King Agamestor’s Irian Gate precinct beneath the large epitymbia Athens 804, 805, 806 and 807.449 The masterpiece of their burial precinct, the Dipylon Vase ANM 804, was executed by an extraordinary artist, one equally fluent in both the geometric and figural styles, and the ablest artisan of the Iron Age. This was the Dipylon Master, who appears at work in both the Middle Geometric II Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop and the Late Geometric I Dipylon Workshop. The evolution of these workshops is given special treatment below, and is also the subject of studies by Coldstream, Davison, Rombos and many others.

One can imagine some kind of apprenticeship was essential, logically within a family structure when the aptitude was available. The more imposing and elaborate kraters of the Geometric phase were not easily potted. The execution of the schematic ornament was demanding, requiring special talent, training and discipline The affluent patrons of the Geometric era would almost certainly have retained the same experienced potters and the apprentices for the production of such challenging vessels. Three prominent groups of kraters ranging from the Late Protogeometric to the Late Geometric period help to demonstrate the structure and continuity of workshops in the prehistoric period: the Jewel, Rich Lady and PreDipylon Workshops were fabricators not only of kraters but of other ornate vases used by the elite, such as the formal amphora and the horse pyxis. These were the ‘by appointment’ potters of Athens’ most prominent citizens. From the onset of the Geometric period, as affluence, prominence and custom began to extend beyond the ranks of those burying at Precinct XX, the finer wares increasingly made their way into other significant burial sites, such as the Areopagos, Irian Gate, and Eleusis cemeteries.

The Jewel Workshop (LPG-EGI) Kantharos, Ker. 2031, Gr. PG 48, Ker IV, pl. 21 Handled Kalathos(?), Ker. 577, Gr. PG 20, Ker I, pl. 71 Askos, Kerameikos uninv. Strayfind, Ker. I, pl. 60 Hydria, T. 19, HTr. Strayfind, Ker. I, 122, Amphora, Ker. 576, PG 20, Ker I, pl. 56 Miniature Neck-handled Amphora, Ker. 2012, Gr. PG 40, Ker. IV, pl. 8 Shoulder-handled Amphora, Ker. 2131, Gr. PG 39, Ker. IV, pl. 12, Amphora, Ker. 1260, HTr. Strayfind, Ker. IV, pl. 27 Krater, ANM 18114 (Fig. 107) Nea Ionia, Pyre A, Hesperia 30,2,167, pl. 29 Stamnos-pyxis, BM 1950.2-28.3 (Fig. 106), Ker. XIII, pl. 2,3 Krater frgt., ANM 275, Acropolis Strayfind, AM 113, 1998, pl. 3 Skyphos, Agora P 19242, Boot Grave, Hesperia 18, 1949, 275, fig. 8, pl. 67,14 Globular Horse(?) Pyxis, Agora P 19240, Boot Grave, loc. cit. 290, fig. 3, pl. 67,3

The brilliant Jewel Workshop products were initiated in the last quarter of the tenth c. in a changing political climate under life-king Megacles. This workshop appears to have morphed directly into the Rich Lady Workshop in the Early Geometric II phase, when two distinct artisans can be detected collaborating on a single vessel. The Rich Lady Workshop achieved the highpoint of the purely abstract style, especially in its tour de force, the Mourner krater). From this workshop arose two capable offshoots, the Pre-Dipylon and Ker. 1247 Workshops which continued the same established prototypes. If these were not two distinct workshops,



Bohen 1991, 59-65.

Kratos & Krater Pointed Pyxis, Agora P 19239, Boot Grave, loc. cit. 290f., fig. 4, pl. 67,4 Inverted Lip Pyxis, Agora P 19229, Boot Grave, loc. cit. p. 289f. pls. 67,2; 68,2 Neck-handled Amphora-Oinochoe Combination, Tomb T.55.2, Lefkandi III, pl. 61,2 Outsized Oinochoe, Kerameikos uninv. Giant Oinochoe, Athens Private Collection (Fig. 119), found near Piraeus St., Schweitzer 1971, 29, 31, figs. 7, 8 after Hesperia 21, 1952, 279f., pls. 76-78 Krater, Ker. 935 (Fig. 37), Gr. G 2, Ker. V,1, pl. 17, Coldstream 1968, 14 Tripod Stand, Ker. 931 (Fig. 38 ), Gr. G 2, Ker. V,1, pl. 68 Krater, Ker. 5467, 156 (Fig. 109), HTr. and hS Strayfind Krater fragments 149, 150, 153, 155 (Fig. 110)

replica of a bronze tripod stand from Ker. Gr. G 2 (Fig. 38). Other preferred motifs of this workshop were a fine gauge checkerboard, triangles, alternating diagonals and double dotted dogtooth set in zones and panels often in ripe combinations. Strips of these motifs are inserted randomly above a vertical column of some other motif, and there is a periodic subdivider for relief, comprising a vertical column of dark glaze. Such characteristics relate several kraters (British Museum BM 1950.2-28.3 (Fig. 106), Nea Ionia ANM 18114 (Fig. 107), ANM 275, amphorae Ker. 2012 and Ker. 1260, all of which have the signature broad glaze column subdivider. Amphora Ker. 1260, also has the early horse, painted beneath the handle, the only common figural motif prior to the onset of the figural phase, and likely already symbolic. Another appears on an uninventoried Kerameikos strayfind of this phase (Fig. 78). While the ornament of the Jewel Group was miniaturized and often intricate, paradoxically it was placed on newly outsized vessels, kraters, amphorae, even the giant Piraeus St. oinochoe over 50 cm tall.

It was Blegen who first observed a possible workshop association in several vessels grouped around a giant oinochoe found on Piraeus St. (Fig. 119). The rubric Jewel Workshop arises from this atelier’s sparkling panels of varied light ground motifs set off against a lustrous dark background. A single creative Late Protogeometric artisan may have been responsible for the experiments that broke the tedium of the Athenian Protogeometric repertory, introducing not only new motifs in rich combinations, but new shapes and sizes and possibly the earliest figural representation and plasticity.

During Early Geometric I the Jewel Workshop elevated the prosaic Late Protogeometric krater into a display piece. Created for the highest elite, banquet kraters such as 151 were few in number and their production, could have been easily handled by a single proficient workshop. Care was lavished on this krater in the formulation of a unique system of variable motifs. In Early Geometric II, larger, more refined kraters, 154156 and 158, laid the groundwork for the products of the ensuing Rich Lady group.

The new dark-glazed Geometric style emerges first on the kantharos Ker. 2031 from the elite burial PG 48, and on the kalathos and inverted and everted rim and pointed pyxides from the Agora Boot Grave (P 19229). Interest in sculptural form is manifest in the perfectly fabricated namesake boots of this context (a similar pair came from the Eleusis cemetery), and there were traces of a four-legged sculptured animal broken away on what is likely the earliest preserved Attic horse pyxis, P 19240, dated at the end of the tenth c. A strange neck-handled amphora-oinochoe combination found at Lefkandi was likely a unique, one-time experiment from this same masterful atelier.450 This preoccupation with the new and unusual gives the Jewel Workshop first consideration for the introduction of the ceramic Type II krater, as well as new decorative elaboration, an alternative profile, and new monumentality for the standard Type I.

These kraters reveal there were at least two artisans operating in the Jewel Workshop. The first made kraters with a sinuous profile, with a concave neck and convex sidewall (151). The second artisan made larger, more monumental kraters with the traditional straighter sidewall (154, 156). Two different hands can also be recognized in the painting. Krater 151 has a typical early freehand meander with unidirectional hatching. Such meander also appears in segments on the later 156 alongside segments of finely drafted, alternating direction meander executed with a multiple brush, obviously the work of another artisan. The collaboration noticeable on 156 supports a single workshop for these products. The Rich Lady Workshop (EGII-MGII)

On the sidewall of kantharos Ker. 2031 is the motif most characteristic of the new style, the earliest Attic meander, a regular form on one side of the vessel and battlement on the other. An identical dot-filled battlement with dot rows between the arms is found on the contemporary Boot Grave pyxis P 19229 and a clay 450

Amphora Agora P 27629 (Fig. 120), Areopagos, Hesperia 37, 1968, pl. 20 Granary Dowry Chest (Fig. X), Agora P 27646, loc. cit., 94-97 pl. 24 Pointed Pyxis, Agora P 27639, loc. cit. pl. 23 Amphora, Gr. 12, Kriezi St. Irian Gate area cemetery, AAA, 1968, cover

Lefkandi. III, pl. 61, 2.


Fig. 119. Early Geometric giant oinochoe of the Jewel Workshop c. 900 BC, found on Piraeus St. Athens

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater


Kratos & Krater Amphora, Ker. 2146, Gr. G 41, Ker. V, 1, 235, pl. 46 Amphora, ANM 4524, Kerameikos, Schweitzer 1971, pl. ll Amphora, Ker. 2140, Gr. G 42, Ker. V,1, pl. 28 Pyxis with Boukranion, ANM 15318, from Adrianou St. burial, CVA, Greece I, 3, pl. 1,9 Pointed Pyxis, ANM 15317, loc. cit., pl. 1,8 Giant Globular Pyxis, Munich 6232, Schweitzer 1971, pl. 16 Krater, Lefkandi Pyre 14, 16, (Fig. 112), Lefkandi III, pls. 88,110 Krater, Ker. 1149, 176 (Fig. 113), HTr. Strayfind Krater frgt. Ker. 5454, 181, HTr. Strayfind Krater frgts., Ker. 5475, 179, HTr. Strayfind Krater, Ker. 1254, 193 (Figs. 76, 77), Gr. G 43, Ker. V,1, pls. 22, 146 Krater, Ker. 1247, 205 (Fig. 115), Gr. G 23, foot, Ker. V,1, pl. 18 There is sufficient continuity from the Jewel Workshop to suggest that the Rich Lady Workshop was a later phase of the same establishment. There is the same lineup of precisely executed motifs: meander, lozenge chain, double dotted dogtooth, and fine checkerboard, the latter now limited to small accents. There was the same penchant for plasticity and large scale and dramatic profiles. The finer hand of the Jewel Workshop krater 156 can be detected in the refined meander and multiple zigzag of the Rich Lady Amphora (Fig. 120). A second hand with a more delicate touch was involved in the fine gauge multiple zigzag on 176 (Fig. 113 ), 193 (Fig. 77) and the Rich Lady’s granary chest (Fig. 42). Two potters are at work fabricating the same two krater profiles surviving from the earlier phase: the straight on 176 and the curving on 193. There is collaboration: both of these kraters, so dissimilar in bowl profile were equipped with the same type of lofty tubular foot, ringed above, almost certainly the work of a single potter.

Fig. 120. Agora P 27629, eponymous amphora of the Workshop of the Early Geometric Agora Rich Lady

the counterpoint of their strongly profiled necks and rims, vs the curve of the body, and the high quality of their fabrication: potting, painting and fabric. The arrangement of the decorative elements is complex, well-organized and precisely executed, designed to enhance appreciation of the vase as a threedimensional entity. Without the groundwork laid at this stage, there would have been no later Dipylon Vase ANM 804 (Fig. 45).452 As with the Jewel Workshop, there is noticeable interest in sculptured form: the handles on the Rich Lady amphora and attachment on the Adrianou St. pyxis, both fashioned into small bovines, and the dowry chest topped by five carefully modelled model granaries. This skill would soon be tapped in the earliest preserved series of inverted rim horse pyxides.

While there were obvious holdovers from the earlier workshop phase, a new name for the Rich Lady Workshop can be justified in recognition of the milestone reached in the monumentality and fine execution of the namepiece amphora. The Rich Lady Amphora is probably the most perfect extant Geometric vase of the abstract geometric style. However, some comparable grandeur is reflected in the reliable graphic reconstruction of the Kerameikos krater 176 of the same workshop.451 These two vessels are especially related by their taller, more graceful proportions,

Krater 193, the Mourner Krater, the latest in this group, has the full convex profile and lower rim. It expands on the earlier, isolated attempts at figural representation

The heights of the neck, upper sidewall and foot of 176 are reasonably accurate. The proportions of the lower bowl and foot are extrapolated from the frgts. and similar contemporary kraters, such as 179, 193 and 205. Agora krater P24841, similar to 176, also belongs in this group, Brann 1961, 115 pl. 18. 451



Bohen 1991, 59-65.

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater to create the earliest funerary iconography: a small mourning woman painted aside the handles, and beneath them a horse (Fig. 76). A number of new fragments have been associated with 193 including part of the neck (Fig. 77, 194), the lower leg of another mourner, the hindquarters of a second horse and many fragments of lower bowl, decorated as 176 with a zone of double-dotted dogtooth (Fig. 70).

Group of Ker. 1247 was almost certainly a continuation of the Rich Lady Workshop. Krater 205 replicates the Mourner Krater closely, if one excludes the latter’s loftier proportions and its extra labor-intensive zones of meander. They were likely executed by the same careful painter who was a little less meticulous in maturity (the dogtooth zone on 205 is more fluid in execution). Confirming the connection between these two kraters is the similarity in fabric and evidence for common firing practices: the clay in this group is not the typical EG-MGI rose-beige/buff clay with black glaze, but a clay with a generally yellowish cast, covered usually with a brown glaze ranging to dilute, and sometimes black to red and fleeting.

The Group of Ker. 1247 (205, MGI-II) Krater, Ker. 865, 201 (Fig. 80 left), Gr. G 11, Ker. V,1, 216. 273, pl. 21; Coldstream 1968, 18 Krater, Ker. 8833, 202, N. of Precinct XX Strayfind Krater, Ker. 7757, 203, HTr. Strayfind Krater, Ker. 8848, 204, HTr. Strayfind Krater, Ker. 1247, 205 (Fig. 115), Gr G 23 Ker. V,1, pl. 18, and Htr. Strayfind Krater, Ker. 5477, 206, Street of Tombs Krater, Ker. 8854, 207, HSE, Sacred Way East) Krater, Ker. 5478, 208, Htr. Strayfind Tray MS 17 Krater, Ker. 5479, 209, Htr. Strayfind Tray MS 7 Krater, Ker. 7759, 210, Htr. Strayfind

The Dipylon Workshop MGI-II Early Workshop Type II krater (Fig. 118), Eleusis AE 1898, 99, pl. 3, 3; PAE 1954, 58 ff. Type II krater, Ker. 290, 200 (Fig. 116), Gr. G 22, Ker. V,1, pls. 20 f. MGII Intermediate Workshop Stamnos-pyxis, Louvre A 514, Coldstream 1968, pl. 4, e-h Type I krater, Ker. 5480-5482, 232 f. (Figs. 122, 196), Strayfind Htr. Type II krater, Ker. 5484, 239, 240 (Fig. 121), frgts. LZB, SA (Samakian?), MS 15,16; foot 240, strayfind HTr. Type II krater, Eretria Sanct. Apollo 90657-13, Eretria XXII, pl. 71, Cat. 118 Type II krater, Eretria, Sanct. Apollo, Verdan 2013, 929942 , pl. 96, Cat. 335; BSA 47, 1952, pl. 2, A1453 Type II? krater, Agora P 8357, Agora VIII, 63, pl. 16, 280 Type II krater, Louvre 500-502, CVA Louvre (18) pl. 5 Krater sherd, from stamnos pyxis, Huelva, Spain, Huelva A 2, 1977, 397-99, fig. 169454 Type II kraters, several strayfind frgts. Irian Gate cemetery, CVA Louvre 18, pls. 1-5455 Amphora Louvre A 515, CVA Louvre 16, pl. 5 Amphora Ker. 1256, Strayfind Htr. Ker. V,1, pl. 47 f.

As the Neleid nobles prospered during the Middle Geometric period their increased demand for large kraters necessitated workshop expansion. By Middle Geometric II krater production fell into two categories, both likely continuations of the Rich Lady Workshop: the Type I Group of Krater 1247 (Fig. 115, 205) and the Type II Pre-Dipylon Group (239, 240). The creative surge which had launched the Geometric style was essentially losing steam after the onset of Middle Geometric I, in spite of the fine quality and impressive dimensions of individual vases. The Group of Krater 1247 essentially repeated the formula perfected in the Rich Lady Workshop. A mitigating factor in the repetitive style was the gradual elevation of figural representation in the Pre-Dipylon group, and its placement as the main focal point of the vase by the end of Middle Geometric II (Louvre 500-502). Notable too is the continuing interest in sculptural features: it would appear that the kraters of the Early phase of the Pre-Dipylon Workshop and the horse-pyxis Workshop of Kerameikos 3627 were creations of a single proficient potter-painter.

The MGII-LGIa Transitional Workshop Amphora ANM 805 (Fig. 45), Irian Gate cemetery precinct, Kahane 1940, pl. 24 Type I krater, ANM 806 (Fig. 44), Irian Gate cemetery precinct, Kahane 1940, pl. 25

Kraters of the Group of Ker. 1247 (205) were made for use in the settlement: they lack the elaborate décor of 193 and show signs of wear or repair (208 still has a lead repair clamp piercing its sidewall, Fig. 71). There is no surviving example of a MGII standard krater, but 205 had sufficient pieces preserved that one could assess its height, profile, standard decorative scheme, and with a goodly amount of plaster, recreate a facsimile (Fig. 74a). A drawing made based on that reconstruction breathes some life into it (Fig. 115), revealing that the

Athenian similar to 239-241, Verdan 2013, 929-942; S. Verdan, AntK 44, 2001, 84-87. 454 Personal communication Professor Coldstream, same shape as Paris A 514 stamnos krater. 455 A cohesive group of Type II frgts. said to represent fourteen kraters, but probably fewer. 453


Kratos & Krater offset heads, short wide necks, legs with a pronounced muscular upper section, defined kneecaps, and even hocks on the rear legs. The need to define is most clearly demonstrated in the sexual characteristics of the horses painted on krater 200, and the human figure on the Mourner krater 193 of the Rich Lady workshop. The female sex of the human figure is indicated by breasts, the stallion status of the horse by a penis. The horse on krater 200 even has two clearly depicted testicles.

The LGIa Dipylon Workshop Amphora ANM 804 (Fig. 47), Coldstream 1998, 29-31, pl. 6, Davison 1961, 21-28, Bohen 1991, 59-65 The LGIb Dipylon Workshop Type II krater, Ker. 1255, 279 (Fig. 54), Graves G 24-6, LG1b MGI-II Early Workshop

MGII Intermediate Workshop

The fabrication and exacting standards of the ornament, as well as figural representation, suggest that the Pre-Dipylon Workshop is also a survival of the Rich Lady Workshop, specializing at first in pedestalled Type II kraters and other settlement shapes, such as the lidded stamnos-pyxis Paris A514. Its regular use of figural decoration allows recognition of several phases of operation. The Eleusis krater may date to the latest MG I and Kerameikos 200 is not much later, both placed here in the Pre-Dipylon Early Workshop. Both are adorned with the finest abstract ornamentation to be found at this time. With the exclusion of the doubledotted dogtooth, the same favored motifs of the Rich Lady Workshop continued: most notably the male horse, the meander, multiple zigzag, checkerboard and lozenge chain, the latter either multiple outlined, or in the quartered version found on the Rich Lady granary chest (Fig. 42). The only new introductions were a swastika and a rare bird in shoulder metopes.

Support that a single artisan handled production of both pyxides and kraters comes at the transition to the second phase of the Pre-Dipylon Workshop, here termed the Intermediate Workshop, as both oeuvres were now produced by a new artisan. The decorative repertory remains the same: the characteristic metope horse still has a star above its back and a chevron below its belly. However, it is a new style of horse, no longer analytically portrayed, but now with simpler anatomical detail, a more fluid profile curving out in a breast, a taller curving neck, and a well-defined mane as on Paris Louvre A 514. A new type of horse figurine appears at the same time on the foremost horse pyxides of this phase, the Filla Group, which has the same characteristics as those painted on the kraters of the Intermediate Workshop. This strongly suggests that both horse pyxides and kraters were produced in the same workshop by two consecutive artisans.

The horse now achieved new prominence, on 200 emerging from the obscurity of the handle to occupy antithetic metopes flanking the still dominant meander panel. The early workshop’s interest in the horse was exercised in another prime vessel from this workshop: the horse pyxis. A creation of the Jewel Workshop, the horse pyxis was likely a settlement shape appearing once in the tomb c 900, then absent for several decades. It was most numerous in finer burials from Middle Geometric II, although not as exclusive a shape as the krater. The horses on the early Pre-Dipylon kraters have the same style and quality of production as the modeled horses on the lids of the horse pyxis Workshop of Kerameikos 3627, the finest produced during the early Middle Geometric II phase.456 There is little doubt they were made in the same atelier, and probably by the same artisan.

This new artisan may be the youthful Dipylon Master who was carefully trained in the geometric style, becoming its foremost practitioner. The nomenclature of Pre-Dipylon, helps connect his Middle Geometric contribution to his later Dipylon Workshop production. They are all a single tradition, and some are from this single, notable artisan who was the main force behind the incredibly high standards of this remarkable workshop. He catered to the demand for large Type II consortium kraters in the Middle Geometric phase. His fine geometric hand is displayed on MG krater Louvre 500-502 and other fragments in that collection, as well as the Type II krater (239-240, Fig. 121) from the Kerameikos. He likely created the sole MG Type I epitymbion from the same site (232, Fig. 122, 196). Kraters of the Intermediate Workshop include the stamnos-pyxis Paris A514, a species of lidded krater (it has interior glaze and an oinochoe knob suggesting it was used for wine service). Several Type II krater fragments from the Irian Gate display the fine geometric hand that supports that the Middle Geometric Intermediate Workshop was the locus of the Dipylon Master’s apprenticeship. There is also the amphora Ker. 1256 which had been assigned to the Middle Geometric I phase by Coldstream who no doubt felt justified in setting it close to the Rich Lady

The horses on the nine horse pyxides listed for this workshop were adorned with the same favored motifs: the multiple zigzag, lozenge chain and swastika. They are most closely linked on stylistic grounds, for significantly the modeled horses share with the painted horse of krater 200 an analytical approach that partitions their anatomy into its component parts, with clearly defined details: they both have similar 456

Bohen 1988, 46-49.


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater


Fig. 121ab Hypothetical Reconstruction of the large Type II krater 239-240, of the MGII Intermediate PreDipylon Workshop



Kratos & Krater Workshop.457 It has a similar impressive profile and refined decorative scheme and is obviously carrying forward that workshop’s tradition. On the other hand, a date for the amphora in Middle Geometric II is supported by the increased proportions of the neck, and the decrease in the amount of dark ground in favor of a lighter net of ornament.

three superimposed swastikas and one or two flanking columns of meander. Its foot is likely 240 of similar fabric and proportions. The height of krater 239 can be estimated at ca. 86-88 cm based on the hypothetical reconstruction of its decorative program. The amphorae from this workshop had a similar increase in size: ANM 805 from the Irian Gate cemetery stands at 138 cm (Fig. 45). In its size, decorative program, and expertise, this late Middle Geometric amphora is a predecessor of the monumental Dipylon Amphora ANM 804 from the same family grouping.

The forte of the Dipylon Master during the MGII phase had been the Type II krater, but there is that single ancestral, Type I krater produced in the Pre-Dipylon Intermediate workshop, Ker. 232 (Figs. 122, 196). It presages the preoccupation of the Dipylon Workshop with large figural epitymbia in the Late Geometric I phase. Poorly preserved, it can be reconstructed with confidence graphically thanks to the conservatism of this series. It was a large krater with the usual straight sidewall and lofty rim of the Type I, and modest figural decoration of marsh birds flanking the main frieze. It has four potted ‘vents’ roughly midway up the foot, which have been associated with the stabilization of epitymbia over the grave. Prior to this only one other krater had been made with special features for use as an epitymbion, the Mourner Krater, Kerameikos 193 (Fig. 77). Ker. 232 is the forerunner of the many Type I, LGIa monumental krater epitymbia with figural decoration that have been found in the Irian Gate cemetery and on Piraeus Street.

Experimentation was taking place here, but the technical competence for the fabrication of ever larger vessels did not always keep pace with their increasing size. The foot 240 has a crack that appears to have been the result of insufficient drying before this thick-walled krater was fired. During this phase, the glaze on a single large krater can vary from bright orange through brown, purple, to black, the result of uneven firing. Viewing the fine glaze on the LGIa Dipylon Vase ANM 804, one can appreciate how much technical experimentation occurred in the Intermediate Phase to reach its extraordinary quality of production. It is clear that the Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop was where the Dipylon Master cut his teeth, transmitting some of the style and techniques surviving from a longstanding sequence of competent workshops to his Late Geometric I masterpiece the Dipylon Vase. A stylistic breakthrough on Paris S 500-502, a late Type II krater, takes the figural decoration out of the shadow of the handles, as the coveted shoulder panel, given over to the tyranny of the meander for 150 years, now yields to a frieze of horses. This innovation was ably exploited by the Mourner frieze on the Late Geometric Dipylon Vase ANM 804.460

There appears to be a clear link between this first workshop of figural art, and the Late Geometric Dipylon Workshop in both the fine linear execution of the abstract decoration, and the figural decoration. It is probably no coincidence that the longer necked horse depicted on late kraters of the Intermediate Workshop, the long-necked, full-chested model horses of the early Filla pyxides, and the sinuous horses depicted on the Late Geometric Dipylon Workshop krater epitymbia all have elements in common. Davison stopped short of recognizing a direct relationship between the figural decoration of Middle Geometric II kraters and those of the LGIa Dipylon Workshop.458 It is likely that neither she, nor Coldstream had the further evidence of the Middle Geometric II figural kraters of the Irian Gate cemetery published in Louvre CVA 18 as well as the unpublished material from the Kerameikos. However, Coldstream noted ‘the Dipylon Master had clearly learned his trade in a good MG workshop’.459

MGII-LGIa Transitional Dipylon Workshop Two significant epitymbia of the Irian Gate cemetery, ANM 805 and krater 806 (Figs. 45, 44) precede the appearance of ANM 804 and likely come from the same atelier. ANM 805 anticipates the Dipylon Vase ANM 804 in its dominating neck, and all have the same subsidiary zones: similar finely executed meander, hatched leaf zones, dotted rhomb chains, dogtooth and fine gauge zigzag. The Dipylon Amphora has a row of caprids on its neck closely similar to those bordering the metope on the krater. Both ANM 806 and ANM 804 could lay claim to being the earliest vessels decorated with an extended scene of human activity, a prothesis on the central shoulder zone. However, their styles could not be more different.

The Intermediate Workshop kraters show the increase in size that anticipated the onset of the Late Geometric period. To judge from the surviving accumulation of decoration on the fragmentary krater 239 (Figs. 121, 191) it had two to three horizontal strips of meander in the center, flanked on both sides by a column of Coldstream 1968, 20. Davison 1961, 129 f. 459 Coldstream 1968, 37.

Louvre CVA (18) pl. 5. The break where the linear decoration yields to the dominance of the figural, is surveyed in Coldstream 1968, 2933.





Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater


Fig. 122ab Reconstruction of Large Type I, MGII krater 232 of the Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop



Kratos & Krater The Dipylon Master may have executed all of the decoration on ANM 804. The bulk of its decoration is still in the Middle Geometric abstract tradition, and so is the figural style. Its early line of mourners are still subject to the discipline of the purely geometric ornament in which the Dipylon Master had been schooled, the rhythm of the line of mourners betraying the artist’s habituation with static but pulsating motifs such as the meander. ANM 804 should not be viewed only as the first vessel in the Late Geometric figural tradition. It is also the summation and culmination of the longstanding, Iron Age geometric style, i.e. a transitional piece. The Dipylon Master may have also been involved in the production of krater ANM 806, but not its figural decoration. Both the the prothesis on its shoulder and the lower figural zone with a funerary chariot race have clearly been executed by a second artist of an altogether less disciplined temperament: The lively figures in a drawing based on the figural zone of krater ANM 806, include a galloping horse that has clearly shaken free of the Geometric mold. I have assigned this krater as the epitymbion of life-king Agamestor, q.v. in Chapter IV.

epitymbion on the adjacent LGIb burial Gr. G 24, which I have assigned to the Alcmeonid king Alcmeon. (no other grave in the area could have displayed it). It may have been readied to celebrate his accession to the life-kingship in 755 BC, and served during his brief rule as his royal consortium krater, the largest to survive. New fragments of krater 279 occasioned a reconstruction of the bowl, revealing a close kinship with products of the Middle Geometric II Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop. In its decoration krater 279 is old-fashioned, following not the new panoramic figural style but the traditions of the Middle Geometric Type II stallion kraters (such as Figs. 121, 191) with similar meander based upper section, antithetic horse metopes and subsidiary zones. Fabricated as a consortium krater to the usual conservative requirements of the Alcmeonids, Krater 279 certainly would not have attracted the Dipylon Workshop’s best talent. The zone of deer is its only concession to modernity. In the depiction of the horse and grazing deer its closest association is with the Dipylon Workshop, although Coldstream felt its style did not accord with that workshop.461 Perhaps a master of the old style had emerged from retirement to complete the order. The standard meander scheme and the hardened style of the horses suggest a skilled but more elderly practitioner of the traditional abstract geometric style of the Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop such as the artist of the pig krater, Paris A514, which Coldstream rightly perceived as an antecedent of 279.

The LGI Dipylon Workshop An increase in wealth and population in the first half of the eighth century brought wider demand for the traditional burial vessels of the elite, including the krater and the horse pyxis. The workshop centered on prototypes of the Dipylon Master expanded. Subsidiary players played a role in the decoration of the enormous vessels characteristic of that phase, most surviving from the Irian Gate cemetery and discussed at length by Davison, Coldstream and others. The geometric art was now fully subordinated to the figural genre, as the static rows of mourners were extended out into more lively representations of prothesis, ekphora, expansive sea battles, and funerary games, with occasional individualization of the folk portrayed.

Workshop Continuity Workshop continuity seems to be supported in the sequence of vases outlined in these Geometric workshops. A traditional geometric style inherited from the prosaic Protogeometric period, evolved by the end of the tenth century into the brilliance and innovation of the Jewel Workshop. The shapes as well as the decorative schemes of the krater were codified during the early ninth century in the Rich Lady Workshop, almost certainly a continuation and maturation of the Jewel Workshop. The three stages of the ensuing PreDipylon Workshop with the richer, more diagnostic decorative schemes and figural motifs, allow the progression to be followed with more certainty. The development shows a remarkable combination of conservatism and innovation. The Type II krater of this workshop anticipates developments pioneered by the Dipylon Master, in being the first vessel to dilute the domination of the Geometric schema and open the way for figural motifs. The spandrel mourner of the Mourner Krater of the mid-ninth c. (Fig. 76) survived and was moved to center stage on krater ANM 806 and

The LGIb Type II Krater 279 (Fig. 54) One notable exception to that trend was Kerameikos krater 279, a unique, enormous, Type II pedestalled krater, on which traditional geometric motifs predominate, the only Late Geometric example of such from Athens. It has remained unattributed to any of the recognized workshops of Late Geometric monumental kraters, all of which appeared to be fabricating Type I memorials. On the other hand, fabrication of this huge vessel could only have been accommodated in one of the established potteries of such large funerary wares. Found collapsed on top of an existing female amphora epitymbion in Gr. G 26, it originally had been the



Coldstream 1968, 39.

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater


Fig. 123ab MG II ovoid krater and profile reconstruction


Fig. 124ab Hypothetical reconstruction of the large, Type I, LGIa epitymbion krater 284




Kratos & Krater

Fig. 125. LGIb-II epitymbion krater New York Metropolitan Museum

the Dipylon amphora ANM 804,462 to be followed by more expansive narrative scenes of prothesis and sea battles. These larger pictorial representations may have been inspired by heirlooms or unearthed remains from the Mycenaean era, such as Tanagra sarcophagi, and 462

the similar LHIIIC Late prothesis scene from Elis (Fig. 14).463 The most dramatic and finely executed were the panoramic scenes of combat on land and sea from the Dipylon Workshop found in the Irian Gate cemetery.464 463

Bohen 1991, 59-65 figs. 1.2.



Crouwel 2009, 57, fig. 14. Ahlberg 1971a, 1971b.

Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 126. LGII epitymbion krater from Trachones, Piraeus Museum


Kratos & Krater

Endplate Graphics

Fig. 127. Kerameikos Cat. 3, Inv. 5400

Fig. 128. Kerameikos Cat. 8, Inv. 9046


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 129. Kerameikos Cat. 9, Inv. 9752

Fig. 130. Kerameikos Cat. 11, Inv. 5414

Fig. 131. Kerameikos Cat. 12a, Inv. 5485a

Fig. 132. Kerameikos Cat. 12b, Inv. 5485b


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 133. Kerameikos Cat. 13, Inv. 5445

Fig. 134. Kerameikos Cat. 14, Inv. 916

Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 17, Inv. 9054

Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 18, Inv. 5415


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 19, Inv. 7723

Fig. 135. Kerameikos Cat. 22, Inv. 5402

Fig. 136. Kerameikos Cat. 23, Inv. 532


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 137. Kerameikos Cat. 24, Inv. 5432

Fig. 138. Kerameikos Cat. 36, Inv. 7727

Fig. 139. Kerameikos Cat. 37, Inv. 7716


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 140. Kerameikos Cat. 40, Inv. 5417

Fig. 141. Kerameikos Cat. 43, Inv. 11515

Fig. 142-3. Kerameikos Cat. 55, Inv. 5448; Cat. 56, Inv. 5449

Fig. 144. Kerameikos Cat. 57, Inv. 739a


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 145. Kerameikos Cat. 58, Inv. 5443

Fig. 146. Kerameikos Cat. 59, Inv. 5444

Fig. 147. Kerameikos Cat. 62, Inv. 5440ab


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 148. Kerameikos Cat. 66, Inv. 609

Fig. 149. Kerameikos Cat. 68, Inv. 5428

Fig. 150. Kerameikos Cat. 80, Inv. 5420


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 151. Kerameikos Cat. 84, Inv. 5426

Fig. 152. Kerameikos Cat. 85, Inv. 5416

Fig. 153. Kerameikos Cat. 91, Inv. 6314


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 154. Kerameikos Cat. 104, Inv. 5466

Fig. 155. Kerameikos Cat. 105, Inv. 6313

Fig. 156. Kerameikos Cat. 117, Inv. 5472


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 157. Kerameikos Cat. 123, Inv. 919

Fig. 158. Kerameikos Cat. 125, Inv. 6446

Fig. 159. Kerameikos Cat. 126, Inv. 5447

Fig. 160. Kerameikos Cat. 129, Inv. 10578


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 161. Kerameikos Cat. 130, Inv. 5469

Fig. 162. Kerameikos Cat. 132, Inv. 930

Fig. 163. Kerameikos Cat. 138, Inv. 1291


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 164. Kerameikos Cat. 139, Inv. 5492

Fig. 165. Kerameikos Cat. 141, Inv. 1294

Fig. 166. Kerameikos Cat. 142, Inv. 1292


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 167. Kerameikos Cat. 147, Inv. 5425

Fig. 168. Kerameikos Cat. 152, Inv. 5431

Fig. 169. Kerameikos Cat. 156, Inv. 5453, 5467


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 170. Kerameikos Cat. 161, Inv. 5462

Fig. 171. Kerameikos Cat. 162, Inv. 5494

Fig. 172. Kerameikos Cat. 163, Inv. 5487

Fig. 173. Kerameikos Cat. 169, Inv. 5486


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 174. Kerameikos Cat. 171, Inv. 5488

Fig. 175. Kerameikos Cat. 172, Inv. 5499

Fig. 176. Kerameikos Cat. 174, Inv. 1187


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 177. Kerameikos Cat. 177, Inv. 5471

Fig. 178. Kerameikos Cat. 178, Inv. 7773

Fig. 179. Kerameikos Cat. 194, Inv. 7771


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 180. Kerameikos Cat. 195, Inv. 871

Fig. 181. Kerameikos Cat. 198, Inv. 8811

Fig. 182. Kerameikos Cat. 199, Inv. 5500


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 183. Kerameikos Cat. 201, Inv. 865

Fig. 184. Kerameikos Cat. 202, Inv. 8833

Fig. 185. Kerameikos Cat. 203, Inv. 7757

Fig. 186. Kerameikos Cat. 204, Inv. 8848


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 187. Kerameikos Cat. 221, Inv. 5489

Fig. 188. Kerameikos Cat. 223, Inv. 5490

Fig. 189. Kerameikos Cat. 227, Inv. 7765

Fig. 190. Kerameikos, Cat. 232-3, Inv. 5480


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 191. Kerameikos, Cat. 239, Inv. 5484

Fig. 192. Kerameikos Cat. 246, Inv. 8872

Fig. 193. Kerameikos Cat. 289, Inv. 8893


Chapter V The Athenian Iron Age Krater

Fig. 194. Kerameikos Cat. 291, Inv. 789

Fig. 195. Kerameikos Cat. 292, Inv. 1143

Fig. 196. Kerameikos Cat. 294, Inv. 1329


Kratos & Krater

Fig. 197. Kerameikos, Cat. 296, Inv. 9000

Fig. 198. Kerameikos Cat. 300, Inv. 1336

Fig. 199. Kerameikos Cat. 307, Inv. 8814


Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue

The Character & Source of the Finds

The Sacred Way, hS, HS, Rundbau, Rb, Westlich Rundbau, WRb, Sacred Gate, Torgasse, Bldg. Y and Z (SE corner of the Kerameikos).

Few kraters have been found in association with context, but aware of the special place the krater occupied in the Iron Age repertory, decades of Kerameikos excavators have taken the trouble to record the site of origin of many strayfind krater sherds. Of the 312 krater remains documented in this study, 129 come with some notation of origin, whether burial or strayfind. The practice was initiated at least from 1910, the earliest find date inscribed on a krater sherd, and is currently continued by recording the krater’s number and source in the inventory record. This has added to the value of the present study in determining where concentrations of kraters flag elite funerary activity.

Precinct XX & the Hagia Triada Great Mound The largest amount of Iron Age strayfind material was reported excavated from Precinct XX and the Hagia Triada Great Mound (G) in the nineteen thirties and early forties, but only a few, mostly significant fragments, were actually published as coming from there. The diligence with which krater sherds from other sources were inscribed with their site of origin suggests that the bulk of the uninscribed and unsourced sherds came from Kübler’s strayfind cache from the mound that he intended publishing as a Kerameikos Vol. V,2.466 Sixty-eight of the inventoried items can be securely related to this area: 11 associated with graves, 43 annotated strayfinds. Sherds of 22 kraters were found in the Great Mound (G).467 Additionally krater material had been grouped in grey cardboard trays, sometimes with ash and bone material indicating that it was remains of pyre debris. Cards accompanying the trays recorded an MS number and sometimes an origin, although not always legible because of the damage caused by silverfish in the post-war years. Such notation allowed a connection to be made to an existing burial in the case of kraters 106 and 116. Many sherds were grouped in grey cardboard trays with a label ‘MS’ and a number, a few with a second notation of origin, either a Precinct XX burial number or the mound, ‘Grabhügel’. Krater sherd 81 with notation from the mound was found in an MS 17 tray. Also in MS 17 trays were sherds excavated directly from the Precinct XX area graves: 166, with notation P51, from the Potamian burial area, and sherd 253 from Gr. G 30. Other krater remains could be associated to this area by inventory numbers listed in close proximity to those on vases from particular Precinct XX burials or Hagia Triada strayfinds. (the sherds had been decomposed into shape categories before the significance of the tray housing vis-a-vis the Mound and Precinct XX had been recognized, although all legible MS numbers had already been recorded).

The catalogue lists most of the surviving prehistoric krater remains from the Kerameikos, but from space constraints only a sampling of them are illustrated. Kerameikos Krater Sites In order of frequency formal kraters were found in locations with the following nomenclature: Precinct XX Area, which here signifies Precincts XVIII (Potamian), XIX (Koroiban), and XX (Samakian). The Samakian (XX, LZB, or S), the Koroiban, and Potamian Precincts (XVIII, XIX or P), Hegeso, collectively cited here as the Precinct XX cemetery. The oldest notation from here is WBXIX 2.11.1910, i.e. Westliche Bezirk Precinct XIX, and date. Hagia Triada (HTr.) named for the former chapel on this site, and location of the sixth c. BC Great Mound (G) of the same name, and sometimes extended to include burials of Precinct XX and the nearby Plattenbau. Naiskos, site of a Hellenistic structure outside the central section of the Kerameikos moat. Dipylon Gate Cemetery, Eridanos north, Academy St., Vor Dipylon, VD, Veck, all to the west of the Dipylon Gate and Pompeion

Hamdorf (v. 267). The remainder can be related to S. Eridanos cemeteries by MS numbers or ascription to the area (166, 178, 206). 466 Kerameikos IV, 46, Kerameikos V,1, Vorwort. 467 Some sherds from the Great Mound (G) joined with vessels found in Precinct XX area graves, including several pyxis fragments, the wellknown clay stag, Ker. IV, pl. 26, Ker. V,1, 5, and sherd 74, from the same krater as 73, found in Potamian PG Gr. 19 pyre debris.

The Pompeion (P). 465 Prefers to either Potamian or Pompeion, and it is clear in each instance which area is intended. Pompeion sources have been 465


Kratos & Krater Of the remaining strayfind material, another 65 fragments notated ‘Alter Bestand’ came from the bulk strayfind crates of material housed in the storage depot. This material cannot certainly be related to a particular origin, however, its state of preservation was a telltale sign that it was not average strayfind material, but more like content from disturbed burials. It was presumed to be mostly scavenged material dumped wholesale in the Hagia Triada mound during its construction in the sixth c. BC. It contained many pyxis fragments which reconstituted into numerous individual vessels and part vessels published in Kerameikos Vol. XIII. However, the krater sherd 154 with notation 1910 from the Precinct XX burial area was found in these crates, as well as the odd krater strayfind inscribed from more recent excavations elsewhere in the Kerameikos. Thus while there is little doubt that the bulk of the strayfind kraters noted Alter Bestand came from the Hagia Triada area, some contamination from excavations of other areas over the years must be taken into account.

Kübler worked on the excavation and study of the Hagia Triada material into the war years until German occupation was no longer tenable. The condition of the material, with cardboard notes regarding origin, etc. reveals notes of a work in progress that was interrupted. He never returned to Athens following the war to complete the task of publishing the Great Mound sherds. One must presume that had he done so, there would have been much to add to his short summary of the Great Mound content and other outstanding material.468 Dr. Bettina von Freytag, a colleague and friend, retrieved his excavation logs and returned them to Athens following his decease in 1990. However, it must be assumed that some data from his personal experience was lost to the record. The most unfortunate omission for the krater is the space he left in the log for his decision on the potential origin of the last epitymbion, 279 -- to be filled in later.



Ker. I, 109-130.

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue

The Catalogue

Submycenaean Wild Style Amphorae

shoulder, and on the belly a row of encircled opposed semicircles motif, which Papadopoulos describes as ‘Mycenaean shield core’: the motif is similar to Late Geometric phase Dipylon shields, but has its origin in Late Helladic III C, Mountjoy, 1999, 582, No. 393. It may be as late as LHIIIC Late. The shape and banding system of the Agora amphora are similar to those of amphora Inv. 11238: Papadopoulos 2007, 98.

Inv. 11238 (Figs. 30, 31, 92). Twenty-six frgts. from two or three almost identical belly-handled amphorae (reconstruction Fig. 31). Fabric typical of the Submycenaean period. Clay rose buff, friable, with small red inclusions; glaze varies from dark brown to dilute warm to reddish brown, preserved on some sherds, thin and worn elsewhere, and on some sherds flaked away. A suggestion of wash on some frgts. The thickness of the sherds varies widely ca. 5-1 cms thick, and is not the only evidence that the pieces represent more than one vessel. The vessel decorative program, which is fairly uniform, has variations in motif and size, and the variant quality and superfluous repetitions are inconsistent with a single vessel. Several sherds are pierced by repair holes. On the shoulder areas antithetic, complex arcade motifs, alternating with vertical strips of outlined dots. On the belly, panels of cross-hatching alternating with harlequinade, bordered by columns of zigzag, flanked in the wings by outlined and fringed arcs, and bordered above and below by broad and narrow zones of glaze. The handles were striped and the neck was overall glazed.

Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: Late Helladic IIIC Late Pub: A few sherds in Ker. I pl. 39 lower right The Kraters 1. Inv. 7718 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 4,5 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff, burned; glaze red-brown. To the right, part of a checkerboard motif, bordered by a vertical row of dots. From a large krater decorated in early style, possibly LHIIIC Late. It is burned, suggestive of use in burial rites. Source: strayfind. Phase: LHIIIC Late Neg. KER 22845

The four complex arcade motifs on the shoulder are very similar to Argive decoration, foremost, a closely similar arcade on a fragment of closed vessel found at Tiryns in a LHIIIC Middle context: Tiryns V, 14 f., pl. 18, 3, Megaron W (Fig. 30, top). See also arcade FurtwänglerLöschcke 1886, pl. 22 (Fig. 91). A Proto-White Painted amphora of similar type and similar complex arcade motif on its shoulder comes from a chamber tomb in Kaloriziki, Cyprus, Benson, pl. 20, K 122.167 (Fig. 32).469 The rare harlequinade motif on the belly of Inv. 11238 is found as here on the shoulder of a remarkably ornate, large stirrup jar from Palaiokastro in Arcadia, an area that appears to have become a holdout of Mycenaean culture during the waning years of the Bronze Age: AR 36, 1989-1990, Frontispiece. Harlequinade is also found at Kaloroziki on K 378, pl. 63. The motif may be an outgrowth of the Mycenaean lattice or net, Furumark 1941, 378 f., 383, Motif 57,2, 413 f. Motif 75,3.

2. Inv. 5401 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 4,4 W: 7,5 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay rose beige with mica inclusions; glaze peeling black on exterior and red on interior. Remains of vertical columns of zigzag, loops and another motif, possibly alternating zigzags. Such decoration is found on the latest LHIIIC wares. Alternating diagonals and the edging of loops appear on the latest Pylian cups and krater left in the dromos of Tomb K-2, C. Blegen, Pylos III pl. 289ab, and also on a krater from Lefkandi Phase II, Excavations at Lefkandi Euboea 1964-6, 21 fig. 45. Notably a rare instance of a krater fragment found beneath the Pompeion. Source: strayfind Pompeion. Phase: LHIIIC Late Neg. KER 22845 3. Inv. 5400 (Fig. 97, 127). Two sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) H: 13,5 W: 9,0 b) H: 5,5 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze orange-red, micaceous. Sidewall slightly curved. a) a broad panel of freehand alternating diagonals flanked by remains of two flanking columns of vertical zig-zag. Overall glaze below broken by remains of a horizontal reserved band. b) similar alternating diagonals. Experimental application of what became a standard motif. The

Inv. 11238 is a richly decorated Wild Style Style vessel, one of the latest products of the Mycenaean age. Later, EPG examples such as the Munich krater, were termed ‘Wild Style’ by Desborough. John Papadopoulos kindly drew my attention to another such Submycenaean amphora, Agora P7692. It has simplified arcades on the 469

Benson 1973, pl. 20, K167.


Kratos & Krater freehand style sets this piece early among the Kerameikos kraters. Source: strayfind. Phase: LHIIIC Late Neg. KER 22845

on each face. The panel is bordered in the wings by an opposed arc motif bordered irregularly with dots. Lower part of vessel with two broad horizontal bands outlined with narrower bands. Striped handles. Glazed rim, foot, and interior. Compare krateriskos 23. Such krateriskoi replicate standard kraters in miniature. As von Freytag notes, the tall foot is unexpected on a krater this early, but it facilitates grasp on a vessel that may have been used for both mixing and drinking. Krater 8 was found blocking the mouth of the amphora urn in one of the more affluent burials of this phase, cremation grave TN 94-2, at the Sacred Gate. Source: Sacred Gate (TN 94-2). Phase: SM Pub: von Freytag 1995 640. 647f. fig. 35. Ker. XVIII 31 Gate Gr. 146,2, Beil. 15 pls. 36. 37 Neg. KER 22913–22917

4. Inv. 5405 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,0 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay yellow beige with some mica; glaze thin, peeling black, typical Submycenaean. Remains of three, possibly four, antithetic groups of concentric semicircles executed freehand, against a dark glazed background. The motif, common in the Transitional phase, has LHIIIC antecedents: N. Prokopiou, Pottery Chronology and Terminology in: E. Hallager - B.P. Hallager (eds) Athens Acts Meeting Danish Inst. Aug. 12-14, 1994 fig. 25. 26p, 382, LMIII. Ker. I 129. Compare the situla, Ker. I pl. 39 top left, where it is executed with a compass. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: SM Pub: Ker. I 128 pl. 51 Neg. KER 22845

9. Inv. 9752 (Fig. 129). Neck fragment. H: 3,0 W: 6,0 Thick: 0,7 Rest. Inner D: 32,0-35,0 cms. Clay reddish yellow; glaze reddish brown. Fairly straight outer profile with softer inner profile resembling that of 11, so likely had a plain lower molding. Monochrome glazed, the upper surface reserved with diagonal stripes. Source: Sacred Gate pyre debris Gr. 145, 4 (Gr. TN 94-4). Phase: SM Pub: von Freytag 1995 640, fig. 23. 649. Ker. XVIII 29f. 131. 133 Beil. 14 pl. 34

5. Inv. 5423 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,2 W: 6,4 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay buff; glaze red-brown, fleeting and thin on the interior. Bold checkerboard design with band below. Of Submycenaean aspect and fabric. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: SM Neg. KER 22844

10. Inv. 5410. Sidewall and rim fragment. H: 5,8 W: 5,7 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay grey burned with some mica; glaze black on exterior, red on interior. Straight profile. Low neck molding and rim with lip broken away above. Reserved sidewall; neck dark glazed except for the neck molding, below which a horizontal band with a pendant row of loops in dilute glaze (compare 11). Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22858

6. Inv. 7719 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,5 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,8-2,0 Rest. D: 60,0 -70,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze dirty red-brown. From a very thick walled krater decorated with checkerboard. Similar to 1 but even larger: its upper sidewall was over 1,8 cms. thick, and a maximum diameter of 70 cms. is not out of the question. Submycenaean aspect in both fabric and decoration. This krater shows the continuation of very large kraters suitable for expansive ceremonial and convivial use. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22844

11. Inv. 5414 (Fig. 89, 130). Eight fragments from a single small krater. a) three joining frgts. H: 14,0 W: 17,0 Thick: 1.0 b) H: 8,3 W: 15,4 c) H: 8,5 W: 11,0 d) H: 6.0 W: 4,0 e) H: 6,0 W: 6,7 Rest. D: ca. 60 cms. Clay buff and micaceous; glaze thin, flat pale red. Neck & sidewall frgts. from a krater with fairly straight profile. Neck concave on the exterior with projecting lip, and raised encircling molding below neck. Foot frgts. 12 of similar red fabric with mica, may belong. Preserved is part of central panel decoration with two opposing arcs outlined and fringed with short parallels. Panel bordered above and below by a row of squiggle, and on either side by partly preserved columns of alternating diagonals, similarly fringed. Part of indeterminate motif preserved in lower right hand corner. Rim and lower body glazed overall. The main motif was repeated on the vase at least one more time. The outlined, fringed arc motif evolves

7. Inv. 8817 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 2,5 W: 2,9 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze reddish brown and fleeting. Decorated with checkerboard. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER. 22845 8. Inv. 9046 (Fig. 85, 128). Krateriskos. H: 28,3 W: 31,6 H foot: 7,0 D foot: 12,7 cms. Clay beige; glaze reddish to dark brown, lightly burned and fleeting. Recomposed from numerous frgts. Straight sided profile curving in sharply to a conical foot with a pronounced offset. Lightly everted rim. Frgts. of lip and foot restored. On each side a double loop handle. Central panel of checkerboard 194

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue from LHIIIC prototypes: compare LH IIIC Late amphora Inv. 11238 (Fig. 30). The fringes were often pared in Athens: compare 23, Ker. I, 128, pl. 63), and Miletus, IstMitt 1959/60, 53 pl. 51 1-3. At Lefkandi, fringed streamers have been dated in the tenth c: Lefkandi II pl. 19 328. If one excepts the Munich krater, 11 is the most significant Athenian piece from SM to EPG. It is not out of the question that this krater was left on a burial: its exterior decoration is quite well preserved, but there are just a few traces of glaze on a heavily eroded interior. If this krater was used as a marker it would push back the date of the onset of this custom to the mid-eleventh century BC. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: SM Pub: Ker. I 127-30.144 pl. 50. Desborough 1952, 93 Neg. KER 3198

surviving remains. Foot and body sharply offset. Glazed overall, light red on exterior, and dark brown on the interior. Thick ridges on the interior from the turning process. A low or flat foot with underside turned as the foot on amphora Inv.530, Ker. I pl. 54. The frgts. have been provisionally inventoried as Inv. 530a. Source: Gr. PG 3. Phase: SM Pub: Ker. I 94. 130. 144. 208 16. Inv. 5495. Foot fragment. H: 4,0 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay buff with mica and some red inclusions; glaze flat red with a light wash on the surface. Lower edge of a flaring cone, clay ground foot decorated with two red bands. No close comparanda for the flaring profile, which is found in the latest Mycenaean phases. The mica and flat red glaze suggest a date in SM, but possibly earlier. Source: strayfind Vor Dipylon. Phase: SM Neg. I. Kaiser

12ab. Inv. 5485 (Fig. 131). Two fragments of foot from a single krater. a) H: 4,5 W: 7,5 b) H: 7,3 W: 10,5 Thick: 2,0 D at base ca. 20,0 cms. Clay buff micaceous; glaze pale red, thin and poorly preserved. Low cone foot with part of the bowl preserved above. Wear on the base of foot and little glaze remains on the inside bowl. Decoration of three horizontal bands on a reserved ground, only two preserved on a). May belong with krater bowl 11, preceding entry. Krater 13 is contemporary. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. I. Kaiser

17 Inv. 9054 (8900) (Fig. 95, 135). Neck fragment. H: 7,2 W: 13,05 Thick: 1,1 Rest. inner D: ca. 56,0 cms. Clay reddish orange; glaze dark brown to black. Projecting rim with horizontal molding below, punctured with diagonal rows of triangles. On sidewall remains of a vertical line and to right freehand style stacked concentric semicircles abutting a vertical line. Dark glaze on rim and interior. This and frgts. 9, 18, and 19 represent the second type of krater neck current in the 11th century, with incised molding and angular inner profile, found on the Acropolis and common on Mainland Greece in LHIIIC: Hesperia 8, 1939, 352 f. fig 26 f. Rutter has similar profiles in the latest Mycenaean at Corinth: Rutter 1979, 361, fig. 2,28;4,6 with slashed rather than punctured rim. Stylistically the Kerameikos kraters relate best to the Terrace Wall group, his final phase 5, Rutter 1979, 382 f., i.e., contemporary with Lefkandi phase 3, and Kerameikos Submycenaean. An EPG import on Paros represents the latest Athenian krater of this type: AM 42, 1917, 81 f. While Attica preferred the punctured decoration, Euboea continued the Bronze Age ropepattern incision well into the tenth century (a single Lefkandi frgt. with punctured rim decoration looks Attic: Lefkandi II pl. 21 364). The motif of stacked handdrawn semicircles abutting a vertical line, inherited from the Bronze Age, is common on Kerameikos transitional frgts. It occurs on Acropolis kraters, LHIIICtrans., Graef 1909, pl. 6 191, and in the NW Peloponnesus and Kephallonia, Mountjoy 1999 I 358. 134. 361. 140. 465. 84. Krater 17 comes from beneath the cover slab of an SM-EPG grave in the elite burial area at the Sacred Gate (v. krater 8). Ruppenstein did not agree that it was of Euboean origin as proposed in AA 1995, 648. Source: Sacred Gate Gr. 146,10 (TN 1994-2). Phase: SM Pub: von Freytag, AA 1995, 640. 648, Ker. XVIII, 33. 131133. 135. 182, Beil.16 pl. 39 Neg. KER 22846

13. Inv. 5445 (Fig. 133). Foot fragment from a krater(?). H: 6,5 W: 14.0 Thick: 1,7 Rest. D: 24,0 cms. Clay poor quality buff; glaze dirty brown, flat, and thin. The fabric and fairly straight profile set this krater quite early. Preserved almost to full height. Part of an encircling glazed band on the upper and lower edges. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1969. Phase: SM Neg. I. Kaiser 14. Inv. 916 (Fig. 134). Small, low conical foot. H: 3,9 D: 11,2 cms. Clay beige; reserved with a single band of worn brown glaze at the lower edge. From the surviving photograph it was calcified, in very crumbling condition, and is likely no longer extant. It was mentioned in the publication of Gr. PG 25 as blocking the mouth of the urn, but not illustrated (Ker. IV 33). Desborough 1952, 7f. relates the neck handled amphora Inv. 915 found with 14 to one from the very early Tomb A. Source: Gr. PG 25. Phase: SM Pub: Ker. IV 7. 33. Desborough 1952, 7f. 93. 95 Neg. KER 4236 15. Inv. 530a. Foot fragments. Described by Kraiker this foot was used to close the urn in Gr. PG 3. It is not extant, no photo survives, and it cannot be related to any 195

Kratos & Krater 18. Inv. 5415 (Fig. 135). Neck fragment. H: 4,2 W: 10,0 Rest. D: ca. 50 cms. Clay orange buff, with mica; glaze red. Shape as preceding entry. Broad ledge rim above, its top broken away, and below a horizontal neck molding incised with diagonal rows of three rectangular punctures perhaps executed with a broken multiple brush, or some other tool. See discussion under kraters 17 and 19. From its fabric and the coarse instrument used to make the incisions, this may be the earliest of the three surviving necks with incised neckbands. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22846

crosshatching; c) sidewall frgt. with checkerboard; d,e) two rim frgts. preserving the horizontal molding. The motif of a) is repeated on kraters 31 and 42. From its fabric datable SM, so an early krater decorated in the panel style of Munich 6157, CVA Munich (3) pl. 103f.; BSA 31, 1930/31, pl. XI; Die Antike XV 220 fig. 25l; Lemos 2002, 51. Source: frgt. (e) from hS63 zu IV. Phase: SM Bohen Sketch 23. Inv. 532 (Fig. 17,140). Krateriskos. Rest. H: 16,6 W: 19,5 cms. Good quality glaze with light sheen. Although small in size, the krateriskos is included here because its shape and decoration closely reflect those of the larger krater. Double loop handles and tall, flaring foot with offset. Some restoration of sidewall, foot and decoration. A repair hole. Tripartite decorative scheme: a central panel of four opposed freehand concentric arcs, with their interstices dark glazed; flanking columns of a wide-splaying zigzag of early type, and outlined arc motif in the handle area. On the lower portion of the vessel wide zone of glaze, flanked by narrower zones, with three further zones on the reserve below. An overall glazed foot. Compare 8 and 11 for the opposed arcs motif, 4 for the freehand central motif and 24 and ANM 273 for a compass-executed version, Graef 1909, 26 f. pl. 9, 273. The outlined arcs in the wings was common in several landscapes from LHIIIC (compare LHIIIC Late amphorae Inv. 11238, p. 111). The lower zone arrangement is found with similar opposed concentric arcs motif on the LHIIIC Late krater from Tiryns, Podzuweit 2007, pl. 119. Krateriskos 23 has been assigned to the elite Wild Style group. Source: Gr. SM 1. Phase: SM Pub: Ker. I 91 pl. 63. Desborough 1952, 2 f. Neg. KER 2684

19. Inv. 7723 (Fig. 135). Neck fragment. H: 5,7 W: 12,0 Rest. D: 55,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze poor black and worn. Shape as preceding two entries. Straight interior sidewall with projecting rim above, and below a pronounced necking ring incised with slanting rows of holes pierced in a single operation by an instrument having at least 13 heads (defunct multiple brush?). The upper surface of the rim is reserved with decoration of four bands terminating in one and two radiating lines. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22846 20. Inv. 7746. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 11,0 W: 7,5 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay orange buff with mica; glaze thin, dark brown to dilute red. Remains of two vertical glaze lines, outlining from the handle region, and two handle stripes. Two horizontal encircling bands and dark glaze below. The mica and thin glaze sets this in the Submycenaean phase. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22847

24. Inv. 5432 (Fig. 97, 137). Sidewall fragments. a) two joining frgts. H: 11,5 W: 10,5 b) H: 4,0 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze thin orange to black, close to Submycenaean. a) remains of two concentric semicircles motifs in a panel of opposed compassexecuted semicircles abutting the sides of a panel (comparanda previous entry). To right remains of a bold panel of checkerboard. b) checkerboard. Characteristic thin Submycenaean type glaze combined with the use of the compass. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: SM Pub: Ker. I 128, pl. 51 Neg. KER 22844

21. Inv. 7745 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 4,0 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze red-brown, almost entirely gone on the interior. A column of vertical zigzag of early aspect is all that is preserved. Compare similar execution on krateriskos 23. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22845 22. Inv. 5402 (Fig. 135). Four fragments from a single krater. a) H: 10,0 W: 6,3 Thick: 1,25 cms. Clay orange buff with mica; glaze poor quality red to brown. a) straight profiled sidewall and lower neck, with horizontal molding at juncture, and rim broken away above. Decoration: remains of a vertical column of filled triangles, apices pointing left, trace of cross hatching to left and checkerboard to right. Decoration on remaining frgts. greatly eroded: b) sidewall frgt. with

25. Inv. 7728 (Fig. 104d). Sidewall fragment. H: 3,5 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay orange buff with traces of mica; glaze orange-red. A central column of groups of alternating diagonals flanked by columns of zig196

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue zag. From a Wild Style krater with panel arrangement (compare the Munich krater, Fig. 94). Good quality fabric and execution for this date, akin to that of the Wild Style krateriskos 23. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22859

left. Decoration of two columns of triangles with apices pointing sideways, flanked by panels of checkerboard. For motif compare kraters 22 and 42. Source: strayfind from the Samakian Precinct (Precinct XX vicinity). Phase: SM-EPG Neg. KER 22844

26. Inv. 7720 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H:10,5 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay buff; glaze dirty brown, thin in places. From a modest vessel decorated with vertical strips of zigzag between bands, beneath which a zone of horizontal bands and dark glaze. Source: strayfind Vor Dipylon. Phase: SM Neg. KER 22845

32. Inv. 8818. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,2 W: 4,3 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay beige; glaze black and fleeting. Vertical column of zigzag with trace of crosshatching to right. Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG KER Sketch 33. Inv. 5406 (Fig. 104a). Four joining sidewall fragments. H: 6,0 W: 8,5 cms. Clay pinkish buff with some mica; glaze black. Remains of checkerboard, and to right, column of zig-zag and three curving lines of a concentric circles motif. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967 strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22856

27. Inv. 7730.2 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment. H: 4,0 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze almost completely peeled off. Repair hole in upper left corner. Part of columns of checkerboard and zig-zag; dark glaze below broken by two reserved lines. Not from same vessel as 7730.1(110). Source: strayfind. Phase: SM-EPG Neg. KER 22858

34. Inv. 7717. Sidewall fragment from a krateriskos. H: 4,5 W: 5,0 Thick: 0,6 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze worn dirty grey. Decoration of checkerboard to left, a trace of column of alternating diagonals to right, and two horizontal bands below. Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22844

28. Inv. 8816. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,8 W: 3,5 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay beige; glaze grey and fleeting. Checkerboard to right, and remains of a zigzag or crosshatching to left, separated by verticals. From a large krater. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: SM-EPG KER Sketch

35. Inv. 7726. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,5 W: 3,5 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. From a large krater decorated freehand, with part of a vertical column of groups of alternating diagonals. Compare Munich 6157 (Fig. 94) CVA Munich (3) pl. 103f.; Lemos 2002, p.51 Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22858

29. Inv. 5412. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,7 W: 7,2 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay buff; glaze black and peeling with trace of burning. To left, trace of zigzag or cross hatching, to right remains of checkerboard. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM-EPG KER Sketch 30. Inv. 7722. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,3 W: 5,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay grey and burned; glaze black on interior and fleeting on exterior. Checkerboard motif and to right perhaps the remains of a vertical panel of alternating diagonals. Source: strayfind. Phase: SM-EPG KER Sketch

36. Inv. 7727 (Fig. 138). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,5 D ca. 60,0 cms. Clay dirty buff; glaze grey to thin brown. Slightly curving profile. From the lower sidewall of a large krater. Decorated with part of an alternating diagonals motif with three vertical bands to left. Two horizontal bands and dark glaze below. Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22858

31. Inv. 5408 (Fig. 97). Two sidewall fragments probably from a single krater. a) H: 4,9 W: 7,5 b) H: 5,5 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay orange buff with some mica; glaze black and peeling. Frgt. b) is burned. a) remains of checker panel, to the left, cross hatching, and a zone below. b) two joining frgts. and remains of repair hole to the

37. Inv. 7716 (Fig. 104d, 139). Sidewall fragment. H: 10,9 W: 12,0 Thick: 1,5 Rest. D: ca. 50 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze dark brown, lighter in places. Lightly curved profile. Remains of a central panel of checkerboard, with trace of vertical zigzag flanked by triple bands to left. Below a broad horizontal band of dark glaze, below which 197

Kratos & Krater a narrow reserve band. Interior wall eaten away in places. Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22859

was found with ash debris and frgts. of it were burned. Remarkably this standard krater and an accompanying oinochoe were used in burial rites that included a bellyhandled amphora urn and other grave gifts indicative of a female deceased. Krater 39 is a rare instance of a fairly well defined krater from a clearly dated context, one that included a MPG Class II belly-handled amphora. Source: Gr. PG 30. Phase: EPG-MPG Pub: Ker. I l93 Neg. KER 22820

38. Inv. 5442 (Fig. 104a). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,3 W: 10,8 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay orange buff partly burned with some mica inclusions; glaze red. Lightly curving sidewall. Part of central panel of a vertical column of filled lozenges(?) flanked by vertical bands, and on the left side, a wavy line. To the right a partly preserved concentric circles motif. Source: strayfind. Phase: EPG Neg. KER 22856

40. Inv. 5417. (Fig. 140). Two sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) H: 7,4 W: 14,0 b) H: 8,5 W: 5,0. Rest. D outer rim: 64,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze fleeting, grey brown, mostly gone on the interior. A large krater with straight sidewall, and neck with angular inner profile, horizontal upper surface, strongly projecting rim and low encircling molding below. a) a panel of crosshatching between verticals, and left, a column of dots, and above, a dark glazed neck. b) crosshatching, and to the right, three vertical lines and trace of concentric circles. An Attic frgt. from Paros has similar profile and decoration combined with the punctured neckband typical of the Transition (compare krater 19). The Munich krater has a similar strongly projecting rim combined with panels of concentric circles, semicircles and cross-hatching. The location of the concentric circles motif high on the vase sidewall of 40 is preserved into the MPG period on fragmentary krater 43. Krater 40 can be reconstructed as an antithetic arrangement, with two sets of concentric circles flanking a panel of cross-hatching, or as alternating panels of stacked circles and cross-hatching. Compare the well-preserved Old Smyrna krater, Akurgal E. The Early Period and the Golden Age of Ionia, AJA 66, 1962, 369-373 pl. 96. Smithson concluded from the Agora material that such panel decoration was continuous through MPG, and kraters 40 and 41 may well span this poorly represented phase (1025-975). The angular inner profile of neck, and the panel of crosshatching lapse on the Athenian krater from this point, although the neck profile not entirely: it reappears on ancestral straight sidewalled kraters of the Geometric period, such as 176. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EPG-MPG Neg. KER 22857

39. Inv. 1213 (Fig. 102). Twenty sidewall and neck fragments from a single krater. Neck frgts., a) H: 5,8 W: 4,1 b) H: 4,5 W: 3,8 c) H: 5,9 W: 5,8 d) H: 5,7 W: 8,5 e) H: 5,1 W: 5,0; sidewall frgts., f) H: 4,6 W: 5,4 g) two joining frgts. H: 4,8 W: 10,5 h) H: 3,5 W: 7,3 i) H: 3,6 W 4,0 j) H: 6,4 W: 4,0 k) H: 3,6 W: 3,4 l) H: 4,7 W: 5,0 m) H: 5,0 W: 7,4 n) H: 5,9 W: 7,2 o) H: 8,3 W: 8,4 p) H: 5,7 W: 4,6 q) H: 5,2 W: 6,2 Thick: ca. 0,9 cms. Rose buff clay, some frgts. burned; shiny metallic glaze, similar to MPG, red to black. Preserved are a straight sidewall and neck with a projecting rim and a low molding below. The preserved frgts. represent a height of approx. 22 cms. Avg. Thick of bowl sidewall .8 cms. The reconstruction represents ca. 28 cms. H, based on the typical shape of its phase. The neck is slightly concave on the exterior and flat on the interior, with an angle where it meets the flat top. A hole is drilled vertically through what remains of the lip which is broken away, a feature found on some Geometric kraters. Main decoration of a horizontal strip of large alternating diagonals with horizontal bands of zig-zag above and below; overall glazed rim; glazed lower body, with trace of reserve below. The motifs, execution, and profile are not unlike the best preserved Attic Protogeometric krater Munich 6157 (note especially the similar overlapping alternating diagonals motif, and the loosely executed zigzag). The horizontal decorative panel is rare in Athens (v. krateriskos 105) but is found in Aegina (unpub.), in Euboea, Lefkandi I pl. 26, 711, and on several LPG-EPG Thessalian kraters. Krater 39 was found in storage with an accompanying card reporting that it had been found in Gr. 30 with 9023, and 1170-1. The inventory report refers the krater to skyphos Inv. 1169 from Gr. 30 (‘spät pg. fruh geom. aus den Gräbern Hegeso u. Samakionbezirk 1937/1938 vgl.1169’) which in turn is reported found with 902-3, 1170-1, and the krater 1213 (39). Although no mention is made of krater 39 in the publication of Gr. 30, Ker. IV 35, and standard kraters are usually not found in graves, it does seem to have been part of the original burial content. It was likely part of the pyre debris for it

41. Inv. 5437. Neck fragment. H: 7,4 W: 15,0 Thick: 1,0 Rest. D: 55,0 cms. Clay buff, glaze black. Part of a tall, lightly concave neck with projecting ledge rim above, square in section, horizontal upper surface, and a low molded ring below (compare 40 preceding entry). Neck glazed except for reserved upper surface adorned with groups of thirteen parallels in a fluid style found in the earlier phases of PG. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22822 198

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 42. Inv. 747 (Fig. 101). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,6 W: 10,0 cms. Clay rose buff burned grey in places; glaze black. Upper sidewall frgt. with rim broken away above. Fairly straight profile, with barely discernible projection for necking ring. Three columns of triangles with apices pointing sideways, flanked by double lines. Desborough believed there was the onset of an arch motif to the right, but this is unclear. The motif is found as early as EPG, v. Ker. IV pl. 3, and kraters 22 and 31. It appears on an MPG Attic import and Atticizing frgts. in Euboea, Lefkandi II pl. 21 363-365. Kübler independently assigned 42 to MPG, a date supported by the accompanying juglet, and the location of the grave. Source: Gr. PG 10, 1935. Phase: MPG. Pub: Ker. I 185 pl. 74. Desborough 1952, 95 Neg. KER 3470

46. Inv. 7740 (Fig. 99). Three sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) two joining H: 8,0 W: 8,7 b) H: 7,4 W: 6,7 Thick: 1.0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black. Sidewall and part of rim with unpronounced neck molding. Remains of two concentric circles motifs which had a central motif (cross?). Dark glazed neck with a horizontal band below; b) has a long accidental drip of glaze. This should probably be restored as a krater with a triple arrangement of concentric circles as krater 43, a format quite common on kraters and amphorae at this time. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg: KER 88268 47. Inv. 7743. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,0 W: 4,2. Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze dirty light brown, dark brown on interior. To right part of a concentric circles motif, to left a roughly executed zigzag, separated by three vertical lines. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg: KER 22840

43. Inv. 11515 abc (Fig. 100,141). Sidewall and neck fragments. a) four joining frgts. H: 13,0 W: 19,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. b) H: 3,5 W: 3,6 c) H: 5,0 W: 4,8 Rest. D at rim: ca. 40 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze orange red with a fine sheen. a) a large frgt. of upper sidewall and neck. Lightly curving sidewall; a concave neck with low molding below, and projecting lip sloping outwards. Decoration of three groups of concentric circles with central St. Andrew’s cross. Dark glazed neck below which a dilute horizontal wavy line. Groups of eight glaze strokes on the reserved upper surface of the rim. The two smaller sidewall frgts. preserve parts of a concentric circle motif with St. Andrew’s cross. Although only of medium size, this krater can be considered representative of a common MPG Attic krater decorated with a row of three concentric circle motifs. The reconstruction drawing, Fig. 100, combines it with one of the best preserved lower portions of a krater of this phase, 54. The softer inner S. profile of 43 continues that of the SM-EPG krater 11. Similar execution of motif on a skyphos from Tomb 28, S. Acropolis, ADelt 28, 1973, pl. 19. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: MPG. Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 51, above left. Desborough 1952, 12 KER Sketch

48. Inv. 5411 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 7,0 W: 6,7 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay orange buff with some mica; glaze red. To right part of a concentric circles motif, center a vertical dilute squiggle, left two vertical lines. Source: MS 16. Phase: MPG Neg. KER 22868 49. Inv. 5409 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,5 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay orange-buff, some mica; glaze brown. To right, part of concentric circles motif with remains of a central St. George’s cross filling, center three vertical lines, left vertical column of zigzag. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22868 50. Inv. 7734. Sidewall fragment of a small krater. H: 1,5 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze brown. To left remains of a concentric circles motif, three vertical lines, and right remains of a panel of cross hatching. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22840

44. Inv. 7739. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,5 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze red. Part of a concentric circles motif is preserved to the right. At left a hole for repair in antiquity. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22868

51. Inv. 734. Sidewall fragment reported from Gr. PG 17 pyre debris, with a photo negative number, but not located. The inventory record gives following information H: 12,1 W: 9,0 cms. Clay burned grey; glaze a poor red to dark brown, a thick wall, interior glaze and some decoration. The photo reveals a krater sidewall frgt. of approx. these dimensions with part of a concentric circles motif on its upper sidewall, below which three zones and a reserved lower bowl area, and to the right

45. Inv. 8825. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,6 W: 3,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black. Decorated with part of a concentric circles motif. Source: strayfind Messenian Precinct. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22840 199

Kratos & Krater two drips descending from a missing handle. This could easily be a krater frgt. of MPG date, and also has the requisite burning clearly visible on the photograph linking it to the missing krater Inv. 734. A frgt. of krater handle on the same photo, vertically striped and outlined, may belong. Desborough 1952, 92. 95: “possibly from a conclusion can be drawn from the doubtful sherd of tomb 17.” Source: Gr. PG 17 pyre debris, 1935. Phase: MPG. Pub: Ker. I 191f. 215. Desborough 1952, 9-11. 95 Neg. KER 3482

underside. Likely from same vessel as krater 56. Similar in shape and decoration to the foot of krater 54. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. I. Kaiser 56. Inv. 5449 (Fig. 143). Foot fragment. H: 5,9 W: 14,7 Thick: 2,0 Rest. D: 26,0 cms. Clay rose buff; black glaze. Lower part of a cone foot, very worn on the base underside. Decoration, dark glazed with a horizontal reserved zone along the lower edge as on 54 and 55. Likely from same vessel as krater 55. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG Neg. I. Kaiser

52. Inv. 7749. Lower bowl fragment. H: 10,5 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black and eroded on the interior. Part of the lower bowl terminating in the foot which has broken away. The profile as that on krater 54. Reserved with only a band of glaze at the lower edge. Source: MS 16. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22847

57. Inv. 739 (Fig. 144). Foot, four sidewall and handle fragments, probably from a single krater. a) Foot H: 10,0 D: 23,7 b) H: 8,8 W: 6,0 c) H: 5,0 W: 4,3 d) H: 3,7 W: 3,2 e) H: 8,8 W: 11,8 cms. Clay rose buff; good metallic black glaze. a) splaying cone foot with remnants of sidewall; b) outer onset of a handle with outlining; c) d) two undecorated sidewall frgts. from lower body; e) preserves the lower part of the central boss of a double arc handle, with its tip broken away. A hole was drilled through the sidewall of the foot frgt. for repair in antiquity. None of the decoration is preserved. Glaze on the handle boss which extends out onto the sidewall as on krater 106, sherd lower left. Foot glazed with a reserved lower edge and a trace of reserved sidewall above. The krater had prior damage and repair and may be earlier than its context. It reveals the gradually increasing height of the foot in MPG, and that the bowl above the foot was reserved: compare kraters 51-54. Krater 57 has a rare instance of a preserved Attic MPG handle, and its emulation on later kraters from Marmariani hints that it was probably typical. By analogy with those kraters it was likely of compact form with a modest pointed boss. It was covered overall in dark glaze that Kübler reported tapered downward in two drips (not evident on the available frgts.). Athough poorly preserved this krater was found with MPG pottery, including Inv. 740-2 and the belly-handled amphora Inv. 560 decorated with Sub-Granary wavy lines on the belly and a rare figural motif: a horse. The krater was likely an epitymbion (v. under Phorbas in the Kings section above. The bowl profile may have been similar to that of krater 106. Source: Gr. PG 18, Precinct XX, Nov. 1935, with Inv. 740-2 and 560. Phase: MPG. Pub: Ker. I 193 pl. 69. Desborough 1952, 92-5. Neg. KER 3471, 3624, 22820

53. Inv. 7750. Lower bowl fragment. H: 8,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 2,0 cms. Clay orange-buff; glaze brown-black. The frgt. comes from the lower section of a large krater. The three horizontal glaze bands are reminiscent of the triple glaze bands found on Middle Protogeometric amphorae. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22847 54. Inv. 5436 (Fig. 100). Lower bowl and foot frgts. from a large krater. a) H: 23,4 W: 40,5 b) H: 5,1 W: 11,7 Thick: 1,8 Rest. D at rim: ca. 55,0 D foot lower edge: 26,0 D at juncture with bowl: 14,0 cms. The reconstruction drawing, Fig. 100, combines 54 with one of the best preserved upper portions of a krater of this phase, 43. The reconstruction was completed with refs. to typical proportions of MPG kraters, resulting in a restored height of ca. 50,0 cms. Clay good rose buff; glaze orangebrown, black on the interior. Large, thick-walled lower bowl frgt. preserving the full curve into the foot, a frgt. of which is preserved almost to its full height. Foot with repair hole and wear from use on the underside. The overall glaze of bowl and foot are broken by a broad band of reserve with two narrow zones below, and a broad zone of reserve at the lower edge of the foot. The fabric as well as the proportions of the foot, similar to those of 57. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. KER 22832, 22883

58. Inv. 5443 (Fig. 145). Foot fragment. H: 9,0 Thick: 1,2 D: 22,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black. About half a splaying cone foot preserving a frgt. of lower bowl. Black glazed with reserved band at lower edge, and

55. Inv. 5448 (Fig. 142). Foot fragment. H: 7,4 W: 10,5 Thick: 1,7-2,0 Rest. D: 26,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black. Lower part of a cone foot, very worn on lower 200

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue black glaze inside bowl. Proportions similar to MPG feet 171, 221 and 57. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG. Neg. I Kaiser

Neg. KER 22868 64. Inv. 7737 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,5 W: 5,3 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay good buff; glaze dark brown, metallic. Slightly curving sidewall frgt. with remains of a horizontal two horizontal bands above, and traces of a concentric circles motif below. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22840

59. Inv. 5444 (Fig. 80, 146). Foot fragment. H: 10,0 W: 17,0 Rest. D: 26,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze red to black. Less than half a splaying cone foot and bowl frgt. with one repair. Signs of wear on foot underside. Decorated as preceding entries. While the glaze on the bowl interior has peeled away almost completely, the exterior glaze is in excellent condition, characteristics of a krater that had served as an epitymbion. It is slightly taller in proportions compared to krater 57 so is placed in the transition to LPG. Source: strayfind. Phase: MPG-LPG. Neg. I. Kaiser

65. Inv. 8824. Six sidewall fragments from different kraters. a) H: 3,0 W: 3,0 Thick: 1,0; b) H: 3,6 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,0; c). H: 3,0 W: 4,5 Thick: 0,8 d) H: 2,8 W: 4,2 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay varies from yellowish to beige; glaze from reddish to black. All frgts. are decorated with remains of concentric circles motifs, one with a St. Andrew’s cross filling. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22840, 22868

60. Inv. 7731.1 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,0 W: 3,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze good shiny black. Remains of two sets of concentric circles on the upper sidewall of a small krater. Not from the same vessel as krater 7731.2 (103). Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22840

66. Inv. 609 (Fig. 148). Krateriskos. H: 24,0 cms. Clay, beige; glaze black to brown. This LPG krateriskos gives a suggestion of the appearance of the poorly represented MPG -LPG kraters decorated with antithetic concentric circles flanking a geometric panel. Straight sidewall, lightly everted lip, and gracefully flaring foot. Restoration of parts of the sidewall and handles. Decorated with a central panel of crosshatching flanked by two concentric circle motifs filled with St. Andrew’s cross. Three reserved bands at the lower edge of the foot. Compare Inv. 606, Ker. I pl. 49, and krateriskoi from S. Acropolis Tomb 28, ADelt 28, 1973, pl. 19. V. 91 for the LPG krateriskos. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22808

61. Inv. 7742. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,5 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Yellow buff clay; grey and fleeting glaze. Remains of a concentric circles motif. Similar to krater 62 following. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22840 62. Inv. 5440 (Fig. 99, 147). Two sidewall and neck fragments from a single krater. a) H: 6,5 W: 8,0 b) H: 4,6 W: 3,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay soft orange buff with mica; orange glaze. The interior very worn with the glaze eroded away, characteristic of the weathering of an epitymbion. Both are rim frgts. with the top broken away, and a) has a partly preserved concentric circles motif. Dark glazed neck with a single band below the neck molding. Kraters 43, 80, and an unpublished frgt. in Aegina of probable Attic production also have the circles directly beneath the rim. Placed here in LPG, but from the fabric and mica inclusions could be earlier. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22840.

67. Inv. 2133 (Fig. 41, 105). Fragmentary krater and five fragments of the same. H: 51,0 W: 56,0 D lower foot: 30,0 Rest. H: 60,0, new frgts. not restored: a) rim H: 9,0 W: 10,3 ) rim H: 9,0 W: 10,8 c) handle area H: 5,5 W: 7,8 d) sidewall H: 5,0 W: 4,5 e) sidewall H: 4,2 W: 5,0 cms. The krater’s capacity was measured by computer at 70.6 cubic liters, assuming a fill point clearing the top of the circles. Clay yellowish rose beige; glaze black. Much of upper sidewall, handles and rim missing. Wear within the bowl consonant with settlement use or perhaps its tenure as an epitymbion on Gr. G 1, the earliest context with an in situ marker krater. Its foot was not broken through. A fairly straight sided krater, curving in towards a medium height cone foot. Remains of onset for two double loop horizontal handles on either side. Lower neck fairly straight with a slight molding below. Side a) remains of central column of lozenges, flanked by columns of hatching, with part of a concentric circles

63. Inv. 7744 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 7,5 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze brown. Part of a concentric circles motif to left, and a vertical column of zigzag flanked by triple lines in the center. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: LPG. 201

Kratos & Krater 71. Inv. 7753. Two joining sidewall fragments. H: 6,0 W: 9,5 Thick: 0,8 Rest. D: 60,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze brown metallic and thin in places. To the left part of a vertical strip of cross-hatched lozenges flanked at right by two vertical strips of dilute wavy zigzag and an area of reserve. Likely from a center panel of a krater adorned with antithetic concentric circles, v. 67, 70. One frgt. published earlier (Ker. I pl. 51) and additions made from the strayfinds. This is a fine example of excellent PG fabric that allowed such a large vessel to be fashioned with such a thin wall. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG. Pub: Ker. I pl. 51. Desborough 1952, 92f. pl. 12 Neg. KER 22841

motif, from an apparently symmetrical arrangement. Side b) had a similar flanking concentric circles, between which two columns of cross-hatched lozenges separated by columns of alternating diagonals. The hypothetical reconstruction sketch restores probable further columns of alternating diagonals at the handles, and a St. George’s Cross filling in the circles by analogy with the closely similar krater frgt. 68. Lower bowl dark glazed, broken by a broad zone of reserve with two narrow bands. A dark glazed foot with reserved lower edge and a dark glazed neck. The missing rim was probably similar to that of MPG krater 43. Source: Gr. G 1, Precinct XX. One frgt. nearby Hegeso, 1937 with notation Gr. 75(?). Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. V, l 210 pl 16. Coldstream 1968, 12. Neg. KER 4640

72. Inv. 8841. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,5 W: 5,6 cms. Clay grey burned; glaze black. Straight profile similar to that of 67. Remains of two cross-hatched lozenges, and to right, four vertical lines. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22886

68. Inv 5428 (Fig. 149). Two sidewall fragments, probably from a single krater. a) H: l6,0 W: 17,0 b) H: 5,0 W: l0,5 Thick: 1,0-1,2 cms. Clay yellow buff; glaze black. Lightly curving sidewall frgt. with traces where handle broken away at right. A vertical column of alternating diagonals flanked by triple vertical lines at left. Handle base striped and double outlined in glaze. The smaller frgt. (b) has remains of a concentric circle motif with traces of a central cross of St. George type, and, to right, traces of a motif perhaps checkerboard, bordered by triple vertical lines. From a krater of similar proportions, execution and yellowish fabric as krater 67 but not the same krater to judge from the execution of the alternating diagonals motif. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG. Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 5. Frgt. b) Desborough 1952, 92-3 pl. 12. Neg. KER 22842

73. Inv. 728. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,0 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay hard warm buff; glaze fine black. Desborough (1952, 93) mentions two sherds under this inv. number, but the records indicate only one, and Kübler describes and illustrates only one (Ker. I 194 pl. 70). Krater 74 following of identical fabric and decoration, may be the other frgt. To right, part of checkerboard, and to left a vertical column of zig-zag flanked by vertical lines, and glaze. 73 is dated LPG by its context: Gr. PG 19 which included a well-preserved neck-handled amphora of that date (Inv. 571, Ker. I pl. 57). Similar krater from cemetery S. of the Acropolis, ADelt. 28, 1973, pl. 38. Source: Gr. PG 19 pyre debris, Potamian Precinct, Fall, l935. Phase: LPG. Pub: Ker. I, 194 pl. 70. Desborough 1952, 93 Neg. KER 3986/87 left

69. Inv. 7735. Sidewall and neck fragment. H: 4,0 W: 4,0 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay rose-beige; glaze brown-black. Unpronounced neck ring, as on 67. Sidewall decorated with remains of a vertical strip of diagonal hatching, flanked by triple bands. Above, the neck is dark glazed. Diagonal hatching only on krater 67 at this time, to which this neck frgt. may belong. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22842

74. Inv. 5413. Sidewall fragments. H: 4.0 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay hard warm buff; glaze fine black. A vertical column of zigzag flanked by triple bands; above left, the remains of two horizontal bands edged below by loops. See preceding entry, krater 73 to which this appears to belong. Krater 97 is also similar. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. I pl. 51. Desborough 1952, 92 f. pl. 12

70. Inv. 7729. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,0 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. From the handle area. To the left a column of cross-hatched lozenges and to right three vertical lines and indecipherable motif, possibly traces of a mourning figure from the handle area as on the Mourning Krater 193 (above the projecting elbow, below part of the leg). Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22841

75. Inv. 8827. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,2 W: 4,2 cms. Clay burned grey; glaze black and fleeting. Vertical column of zigzag. Compare 73. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG KER Sketch 202

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 76. Inv. 7747. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,0 W: 4,5 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay buff; glaze flat black. Part of a concentric circles motif with a central St. George’s cross. From a fairly large krater comparable to krater 67. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG. Pub: Ker. I pl. 51, upper r. center. Desborough 1952, 92 f. pl.12 Neg. KER 22840

Neg. KER 22856 81. Inv. 5419 (Fig. 104a). Three joining fragments of sidewall. H: 7,5 W: 15, 5 Thick: 1,2 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze fleeting black. Remains of a central panel of checkerboard flanked by zig zag columns and, to right, a trace of concentric circles motif. Bands and dark glaze below. One additional frgt. added since 104earlier publication (Ker. I pl. 51, lower left). Similar to krater 80. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). and MS 17. Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. I 129, pl. 51 Neg. KER 22856

77. Inv. 7738 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 4,5 W: 6,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay deep rose buff; black glaze. Part of a concentric circles motif with remains of a central St. George’s cross motif, with a horizontal strip of glaze above. From a krater comparable to 67. Source: strayfind LZB 1973. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22840

82. Inv. 7736 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 5,5 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay reddish buff, some mica; glaze dark brown. Remains of a concentric circles motif. Almost certainly from krater 80. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22840

78. Inv. 5430. Two joining sidewall fragments. H: l4,3 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose buff; black glaze. Preserved is handle base to left. Decor of two concentric circles motifs side by side, with trace of a central cross motif; striped handle base. Below, three horizontal bands on a reserve ground. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG

83. Inv. 6400 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: 8,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay buff; glaze dark brown. Lightly curving sidewall of small krater. Decorated with concentric circles motif in fine execution as on kraters 80-82. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22840

79. Inv. 5418 (Fig. 99). Sidewall fragment. H: l0,0 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,6 cms. Clay orange buff, glaze red to black, with some mica. Part of a concentric circles motif, and to left remains of a vertical column of zigzag between bands. Horizontal bands and dark glaze below. Source: strayfind Naiskos. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22868

84. Inv. 5426 (Fig. 104b, 151). Four sidewall fragments. a) three joining frgts. H: 8,0 W: 16,0 b) H: 6,5 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,0 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze fleeting black. a) has part of a rim with projecting neck ring below, and lip broken away above. Partly preserved vertical columns of alternating diagonals, and remains of checkerboard(?) to left, separated by vertical columns of zig-zag. Dark glazed rim. (b) preserves remains of a zig-zag and checkerboard. One of several panel decorated kraters, v. 80 and following entries. The profile with projecting neck molding is similar to that of 117 which likely came from nearby Samakian burial Gr. PG 49, among the earliest LPG burials from that area. Source: b) strayfind LZB 1973. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22869

80. Inv. 5420 (Fig. 104a, 150). Fragments of sidewall and rim. a) H: 8,0 W: 15,0 b) H: 3,4 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,0 cms. Rest. D: 50 cms. Clay reddish buff with some mica; glaze fleeting black. a) three joining frgts of sidewall and tall neck with lower molding. Part of central panel of checkerboard motif, and left, vertical zig-zag and concentric circles. Dark glazed rim. b) with vertical zigzag column and part of checkerboard motif. Two additional frgts. added to a) since Kraiker first published it (Ker. I pl. 51, lower left). Sidewall frgt. 82 with concentric circles also may belong. Compare Attic imported skyphos, Lefkandi II,1 pl. 43 889. This krater, and following entry 81, represent a common MPG decorative scheme surviving continuously from Mycenaean times: a central panel of checkerboard flanked by one or two circular motifs (e.g. the LHIII C Early krater from an Enkomi temple, BCH 95, 385 fig. 96). The smaller counterpart of 80 is the LPG krateriskos 66. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 51

85. Inv. 5416 (Fig. 104b, 152). Three sidewall fragments from a single krater. Frgt. 86 following entry also belongs. a) H: 12,5 W: 13,0 b) H: 6,0 W: 4,5 c) H: 7,0 W: 11, Thick 1,0-1,5 D: 55,0-60,0 cms. Clay buff with some mica; glaze black and fleeting. From a large krater. Frgts. a,b with barely perceptible curve of sidewall, and a pronounced molded neck ring with the rim broken away above; molding as on 117. a) a central column of cross hatched 203

Kratos & Krater lozenges alternating with checkered lozenges, flanked by carefully executed columns of zig-zag. To right, part of a concentric circles motif with central St. Andrew’s cross, bands below, and glaze on remains of neck above. b) from the reverse side has remains of the lower crosshatched lozenge of the center panel, with zigzag, with three horizontal zones below. A third frgt. c) from the handle region preserves part of the lower neck and a trace where the handle was attached. Krater 86 following preserves part of the broad belly zone, with two narrower zones, and the onset of the reserve zone of the lower sidewall, which has a repair hole at the lower edge. Krater 85 resembled 67 in its decorative center panel of lozenges combined with flanking concentric circles, and similar lower bowl zones, but it belongs to the latest phase of LPG when the more colorful effects of the Jewel Workshop were introduced. The St. Andrew’s cross was still current, but the St. George and segmented crosses became more common with the passage to EG. Mica inclusions are considered a feature of the earliest SM-EPG phase, but they can occur at any time. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 51 Neg. KER 22869, KER graphic

of a krater decorated with antithetic concentric circles. For motif of stacked triangles compare amphora Inv. 2027, Ker IV pl. 10. The floruit of this motif is latest PG into EG, its last appearance on the EGII krater 156, but variant forms last into MG. Source: strayfind Naiskos. Phase: LPG. Neg. KER 22864 90. Inv. 7754. Sidewall fragment. H: 2,7 W: 3,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze dark brown. Decoration of a central vertical column of bars flanked by vertical triple lines. To the right remains of checkerboard(?), to the left of zig-zag(?). This bar motif is found as a subdivider outside Attica on a group of Marmariani kraters that reflect Attic and Lefkandi influence: ANM 13745, 27695. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22843 91. Inv. 6314 (Fig. 153). Krateriskos. H: 16,8 W: ca. 19,0 cms. Clay rose, lighty porous; glaze grey-brown to black and worn. Most of the rim, both handles and part of sidewall missing. A curving sidewall and proportionately tall, lightly concave neck. Part of the ribbed stem of its pedestal is preserved, and there are traces where a handle was broken away (compare 132). Some restoration of sidewall and neck. Decorated in panel format with vertical strips of checkerboard alternating with crosshatching; rim glazed with groups of reserved parallels; handle onset shows cross-hatching; dark lower zone. The Athenian PG krateriskoi 66, 91, 105, and 132 all reproduce the three schemata of the larger kraters: a series of vertical panels, a central panel flanked by concentric circles, and a horizontal panel. The curving profile of 91 is found on the contemporary large kantharoid krater found at Nea Ionia, ANM 18114, Smithson 1961, 168 pl. 29, and increasingly as an alternative to the standard krater’s straight sidewall. The krateriskos combines both mixing and drinking capability in a single vessel. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22810

86. Inv. 7724. Fragment of lower sidewall. H: 5,5 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay buff; glaze grey mostly peeled. Part of a broad zone, two glaze bands, and reserve zone of the lower sidewall. At the lower edge a hole for a repair in antiquity. This frgt. belongs to preceding krater 85. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG KER Sketch 87. Inv. 8826. Neck fragment. H: 7,2 W: 6,0 Thick: 0,7 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze grey and fleeting. Rim broken away above. Low ring molding below. Neck glazed; sidewall reserved. Medium sized krater. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG 88. Inv. 7748 Sidewall fragment. H: 7,5 W: 6,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff, burned grey in places; glaze black. Part of concentric circles motif with center filling of checkerboard. Traces of double lines above and to right. The checkerboard filling of a concentric circles motif is rare. It occurs on an Attic LPG imported amphora in Lefkandi Gr. 48, ARepLond 35, 1988-89, 119. 125 fig. 14. Source: strayfind LZB 1973. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22856

92. Inv. 5427 (Fig. 104d). Sidewall fragments. a) two joining sidewall frgts. H: 8,5 W: 13,5 b) H:8,0 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,3 Rest. D 50,0 cms. Clay orange buff with inclusions; glaze dark brown. A fairly straight sidewall with raised neck molding and rim broken away above. At right checker panel, at center vertical columns of alternating diagonals and at left a zig-zag. Black glaze on the neck. c) reserved frgt. from the handle area. With resemblances to the Munich krater, this krater is placed only tentatively in LPG. It is not easy to date kraters that retain the same style and motifs over a century (v. text, p. 19). With its very worn interior and quite pristine exterior, krater 92 could have been an epitymbion.

89. Inv. 5438 (Fig. 110). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,8 W: 5,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. Lightly curved frgt. decorated with a single vertical column of triangles flanked by triple lines. From the center or handle area 204

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue Source: MS 15. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22859

Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22844

93. Inv. 5403 (Fig. 104d). Sidewall fragment. H: 7,5 W: 8,5 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay orange buff with some mica; brown glaze. Slightly curved sidewall with remains of two vertical columns of alternating diagonals separated by a column of zig-zag. Very similar to 92 in both shape, fabric and decoration. V. 92 for questions of date. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22859

98. Inv. 8829. Sidewall fragment. H: 2,1 W: 4,9 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black. Checkerboard, to the right a column of zigzag and to left dark glaze. For similar careful execution coupled with the intermittent broad glaze divider, compare works of the Jewel Workshop, including Inv. 1260, Ker. IV pl. 27, and London BM 1950.2-28.3, Ker. XIII pl. 2, 3, here Fig. 106. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 2864

94. Inv. 5422 (Fig. 104c). Three sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) H: 4,3 W: 6,7 b) two joining frgts. H: 5,8 W: 5,6 c) H: 4,0 W: 5,8 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown to black. Lightly curving sidewall. b) seems to have been roughly cut in a circle, as also 274-5, perhaps for use as a stopper or game counter. Preserved on each frgt. is part of a panel of a carefully executed checkerboard flanked by columns of alternating diagonals with a border of dots. The schema is unclear. Frgts. 95-6 of similar fabric and decoration may belong. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG-LG Pub: Ker. I 128 f. pl. 51, lower right Neg. KER 22858

99. Inv. 5421. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,7 W: 5,7 cms. Clay beige, glaze black and fleeting. Part of a checker panel with three verticals and trace of a concentric circles motif to the right. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG KER Sketch 100. Inv. 7733. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,0 W: 3,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze brown-black. To left remains of a vertical column of alternating diagonals; in center a vertical zig-zag motif flanked by triple bands; to the right remains of a broad glaze divider(?). Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER. 22858

95. Inv. 5407 (Fig. 104d). Sidewall fragment. H: 9,5 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze dark brown. Remains of checker panel and to the right a column of alternating diagonals. Very similar to 94 but found remote from that krater. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22859

101. Inv. 7755. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,5 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown-black. To the left part of vertical column of zig-zag flanked by bands, and to right, groups of alternating diagonals. Compare krater 98. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22858

96. Inv. 5455. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,4 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff with inclusions; glaze black and brown. At the left a checkerboard, at center, a vertical column of zig zag, and at right, the remains of a vertical column of alternating diagonals. For decoration compare the LPG-EG Jewel Workshop, such as London, BM 1950.228.3, Ker. XIII pl. 2, 3. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22865

102. Inv. 5424 (Fig. 104c). Sidewall fragment from the handle zone of a large krater. H: 14,0 W: 8,5 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze red. Slightly curving sidewall of fairly large krater, with four repair holes piercing it. Traces of onset of handle to right. Left, a column of alternating diagonals; below two horizontal bands, and lower body dark glazed. The vertical line at right is the drip dependant from the handle outlining. Compare krater 67. Interior surface eaten away, exterior much better preserved, characteristic of a krater used as an epitymbion. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22858

97. Inv. 7721 (Fig. 97). Sidewall fragment of a large krater. H: 4,0 W: 5,5 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay buff; glaze red-brown. Remains of a repair hole below. Decoration from left, part of checkerboard panel, a zigzag column flanked by triple vertical lines, then a column of alternating diagonals(?). This combination of decorative motifs occurs both in Early and Late Protogeometric (v. previous entries). The fabric could be as early as EPG, however, the decoration and triple horizontal line offsets are more typical of the LPG period.

103. Inv. 7731.2. Two sidewall fragments, probably from same vessel. H: 6,0 W: 7,0 H: 2,5 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,0cms. Clay buff; glaze black. Both frgts. have at right part of 205

Kratos & Krater a column of groups of alternating diagonals, and at left parts of two vertical columns of zigzag. Not from same vessel as 7731.1 (60). Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22841

dark glazed lower bowl. This may come from a krater decorated with zones as on 109 following. See Lefkandi II pl. 26, 421, and possibly Attic, pl. 80, 898. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22847

104. Inv. 5466 (Fig. 110, 154). Neck fragment. H: 8,5 W: 10,5 Thick: 1,0 Rest. D: 55,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black. Lightly concave neck with projecting rim above, molding below, and overall glaze. On the sidewall remains of checkerboard, and to the right, a zig-zag, with triple bands between. The neck can be considered transitional from PG to G, continuing the rectangular inner profile found on PG kraters from the earliest times (40, 41). Its stronger profile anticipates EG kraters such as 151, 158, and 176. The hint of a belly in its profile also sets it in the LPG-EG transition. Source: strayfind Naiskos WB. Phase: LPG Neg. KER. 22865

109. Inv. 8815. Two fragments from a single krater. a) H: 11,5 W: 10,5 b) H: 5,0 W: 9,6 Thick: 8,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze flat brown. a) preserves a necking ring and part of the neck, with the lip broken away above. b) rim frgt. decorated with dark glaze and six reserved horizontal bands flanking a zone of squiggle. An unusual horizontal system of decoration in contrast to the concentric circles and the vertical panels of most other kraters. This is found too on Aeginetan and Euboean kraters (Lefkandi II pl. 26 421), but there is no close comparanda, and it may be a krater of more common use, as also krater 108. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22841

105. Inv. 6313 (Fig. 155). Krateriskos. H: 19,5 cms. Fairly shallow bowl, and proportionally tall lip. Remains of only one of two handles preserved. Parts of sidewall, lip and foot restored. Glazed overall except for a horizontal panel of alternating diagonals on the sidewall, reserved zones on lower sidewall, and two opposed zones of dogtooth on the foot. The horizontal decorative system is a reflection of that found on the larger krater 39. Compare 91. Transitional to Early Geometric. One of the earliest uses of the dogtooth zone around the base of an open vessel. The carination at the top of the foot is picked up on larger kraters such as EGII 151 from Gr. G 2. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22807

110. Inv. 7730.1. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,0 W: 4,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze purplish black and fleeting. Lightly curving sidewall. Above, remains of alternating diagonals motif in a horizontal arrangement, with three horizontal bands and dark glaze below (compare 107). Not from same vessel as 7730.2 (27). Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22858 111. Inv. 7751. Sidewall fragment with onset for a handle. H: 11,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze fleeting black. From a large krater. Preserved is a straight sidewall with the central portion of a double roll handle. Remains of two holes for repair in antiquity to the left. There are traces of horizontal lines on the boss which was outlined in glaze. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1969. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22855

106. Inv. 7741. Neck fragment. H: 4,0 W: 6,5 cms. Clay buff; glaze grey. The rim flat on top and its lip broken away. Trace of onset of neck molding below. Overall glaze. Date in any phase questionable. Source: MS 10. Phase: LPG

112. Inv. 8823. Sidewall fragment of a small krater. H: 9,7 W: 8,6 cms. Clay beige; glaze black. Onset of a horizontal loop handle; neck broken away above, and no trace of a molding. Three horizontal bands where sidewall meets neck. Two glaze lines for outlining above the handle, and stripes across its base. Source: strayfind Naiskos. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22883

107. Inv. 8843. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,4 W: 3,7 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze fleeting. Same profile as krater 135. Rim broken away above. Glazed rim, with two reserved zones, and below that a horizontal row of alternating diagonals. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22843

113. Inv. 8820. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 5,0 W: 7,7 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay beige; glaze black. At lower edge, a hole for repair. Three horizontal bands of glaze. From a very large krater similar to 54.

108. Inv. 8819. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 9,9 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay reddish beige; glaze black. Horizontal row of squiggle, below which two encircling zones, and 206

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22847

several kraters of LPG date (see preceding entries). One frgt. was inscribed ‘Nr. 93 S49,’ probably referencing the damaged Gr. PG 49 in the Precinct XX area, as preceding krater 116 with which 117 likely belongs. Source: annotations Hegeso 1937 and Nr. 93 S49, v. Ker. IV 46. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22855

114. Inv. 7732. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 5,0 W: 3,5 cms. Clay buff; glaze black, mostly gone on the exterior. The only decoration is the remains of three broad bands on the upper part. There is a hole for a repair in antiquity on the lower right edge. As preceding entry, placed here, but precise dating is difficult. Source; strayfind. Phase: LPG

118. Inv. 5441. Neck fragment. H: 5,8 W: 8,7 cms. Clay rosebuff; glaze peeling grey. Vertical neck with molding, and rim broken away above. Mend hole in sidewall below neck ring. Neck overall glazed. Source: MS Tray. Phase: LPG

115. Inv. 5474. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 11,0 W: 11,6 Thick: 0,9 Rest. D: 45,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black. From below the handle, decorated with horizontal bands. Remains of glaze drip pendant from the handle outlining. Inscribed “Gr. 37,” probably Precinct XX burial PG37, which excavators assigned as the burial of a woman. Gender specific allocation of vase types was not always consistent prior to the Geometric period. Source: inscribed Gr. 37, probably Gr. PG 37 of the Samakian Precinct. Phase: LPG Neg. KER. 22812

119. Inv. 7725. Sidewall and neck fragment. H: 9,5 W: 7,0 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay buff; glaze good black. Two joining frgts. from a thin-walled krater. Straight profile with a low molding at the base of neck, and lip broken away above. Overall glazed neck and molding; reserved sidewall with two glazed bands above. A repair hole at lower left. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22842

116. Inv. 5473. Lower sidewall of nine joining fragments. H: 7,0 W: 15,5 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black; some frgts. burned. Lightly curving profile. Overall dark glaze with three reserve horizontal bands at the lower edge. Remains of two vertical drips pendant from the handle outlining. It was found uninventoried in storage with an accompanying note that it originated from Samakian 1938, Gr. PG 49, a badly damaged LPG grave. This is likely a lower sidewall frgt. of 117 from the same burial, following entry. Neither is mentioned in the publication of PG Gr. 49, which does record some uninventoried frgts. including the mouth and handle of a neck-handled amphora so far unidentified. Source: Samakian Gr. PG 49 1938. Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. IV 46 Neg. KER 22855

120. Inv. 8830. Sidewall and neck fragments. a) sidewall, H: 5,4 W: 9,7 b) neck, H: 6,7 W: 5,1 cms. Probably all from a single vessel. Krater 121, following entry, may also belong. Neck frgt. from the handle area with low molding and rim broken away above. Neck overall glazed. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: PG-EG 121. Inv. 7756. Sidewall and neck fragment. H: 3,7 W: 4,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze good black. The rim is broken away above. Glazed neck, reserved sidewall with a reserved band below which a zig-zag between triple bands, and to right, part of a checkerboard. May belong with 120. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22842

117. Inv. 5472 (Fig. 156). Nine sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) seven joining frgts. sidewall and lower neck H: 17,5 W: 16,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. b) neck and sidewall frgt. H: 5,8 W: 9,0 cms. c) rim frgt. H: 4,5 W: 6,7 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze metallic black and peeling, some frgts. burned. a) preserves part of fairly straight sidewall and neck, with traces where a double roll handle was broken away. b) neck frgt. with pronounced molding below, and lip broken off above. c) preserves rim and molding. Handle outlining that may have been drawn down onto lower zones; to left, two vertical lines and a zone below molding, with neck dark glazed. The profile would have resembled that of the MPG krater 43 but with the more prominent neck molding found on

122. Inv. 5429. Sidewall and neck fragment. H: 7,3 W: 8,0 cms. Clay rose beige; black glaze. Rim frgt. with lip broken away above and unpronounced molded neck ring below, overall black glazed. On the sidewall a vertical column of zig-zag with triple vertical lines to the right. One repair hole above. Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 51. Desborough 1952, 92f. pl. 12 123. Inv. 919 (Fig. 157). Kantharos. H: 11,5 cms. W: 11,8 cms. Clay beige; black glaze. Early low-footed, undecorated kantharos. 207

Kratos & Krater 130. Inv. 5469 (Fig. 161). Neck fragment of a Type II krateriskos. H: 3,3 W: 10,3 Thick: 0,8 Rest. D at rim: 40 cms. Clay buff; glaze red to black. Sidewall curving to neck and flat projecting rim above. Dark glazed with remains of horizontal strip of three triangles and bands below rim. The upper surface of the lip is decorated with bars in groups and parts of two butterfly motifs. From an early Type II krater or krateriskos. Refs. under 134. This is the earliest pres. Type II krater with the strip of triangles/dogtooth edging the rim, subsequently canonical on this type of krater. Source: MS16. Phase: EGI Neg. KER 22867

Source: Gr. PG 26. Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. IV 33 pl. 21 Neg. KER 4237 124. Inv. 7764. Sidewall and neck fragment. H: 4,5 W: 6,6 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze grey-black and fleeting. Sidewall, neck with molding, and rim broken away above. Neck glazed with reserved neck molding. From left, zig-zag column, three vertical bands and cross hatching; glazed neck with reserved molding. Source: strayfind LZB 1973. Phase: LPG 125. Inv. 6446 (Fig. 158). Foot fragment. H: 6,0 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,0 D: 20,0 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze red. From a conical foot of a small krater. Glazed with reserved line at lower edge. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LPG Neg. KER 22847

131. Inv 8840. Fifteen fragments of sidewall from a single krateriskos. a) nine joining frgts. H: 14,2 W: 14,7 b) two joining H: 15,0 W: 10,4 c) three joining H: 8,5 W: 10,0 d) H: 6,6 W: 7,4 Rest. D: ca. 28,0 cms. Clay beige, burned grey; glaze yellow beige. This group of plain black body sherds recompose to a rounded bowl, insufficient to reconstruct the full shape of the vessel, but it closely resembled the Attic or Atticizing Type II krater from Argos C204, Courbin 1966, 123. 162. 203 pl. 27 (Fig. 111). Other refs. v. 134. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EG

126. Inv. 5447 (Fig. 159). Two foot fragments from a single small krater. a) H: 7,0 W: 7,6 b) H :7,1 W: 6,6 Rest. D: 26,0 cms. Clay rose-buff, glaze black. Bowl broken away above. Flaring foot of unusual profile, preserved to full height. No wear on underside. Black glazed with a reserved band at lower edge. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG(?) Neg. I Kaiser

132. Inv. 930 (Fig. 162). Kantharoid krateriskos. H: 16,5. With curving sidewall, tall ringed stem, flaring base, and the canonical meander panel, it is a reflection of the larger kantharoid, or Type II krater. Source: Gr. G 2. Phase: EGI-II Pub: Ker. V,1 pl. 84 Neg. KER 4361

127. Inv. 10583. Foot fragment. H: 5,0 W: 11,6 Rest. D: 25,0 cms. Clay yellow buff; glaze fine black to red. Frgt. overall glazed with a narrow reserved band at lower edge. From a small krater. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG-EG

133. Inv. 8835. Sidewall and rim fragment of a small Type II krater. H: 5,8 W: 5,4 Thick: 0,8 Rest. D: 30,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze brown. Small vessel with short upright rim and curving shoulder. Remains of horizontal meander on shoulder and three narrow zones below the rim which is decorated on its upper surface with groups of parallels. The meander below the rim, and the parallels above and strip of triangles below the rim, remain the canonical decoration of the Type II krater throughout its floruit. For refs. v. the following, similar Type II meander frgt. 134. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22867

128. Inv. 909. Krateriskos foot. H: 7.3 cms. Straight profiled cone foot. Dark glazed with three reserved bands at lower edge. Source: Gr. PG27. Phase: LPG Pub: Ker. IV 34, pls. 7. 35 Neg. KER 4232 129. Inv. 10578 (Fig. 75, 160). Foot fragment. H: 5,6 W: 15,4 Thick: sidewall, 2,3, at bowl center, 0,7 Rest. Max. D: ca. 25,0 cms. Clay light cream, buff on outer surface; glaze grey, preserved on the exterior and heavily eroded on the interior. Two joining frgts. of a conical foot. On the underside the foot was slashed at regular intervals, apparently while the clay was yet unfired, likely to increase adhesion to an add-on section that is not preserved. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG

134. Inv. 8836. Sidewall fragment of a Type II krater. H: 3,5 W: 5,9 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze exterior dark brown, interior red. Horizontal meander, probably from beneath the rim of an early Type II krater. With a wall thickness of 1,0 cms. this is more krater than 208

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue krateriskos. Compare the Attic or Atticizing krater from Argos, CGA pl. 27, H: 38,2 cms. Other early Type II kraters are 130. 131. 133. 135(?). 136. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22867

Pub: Ker. V,1 pl. 19 Neg. KER 5216 139. Inv. 5492 (Fig. 164). Lower foot fragment of a Type II krater. H: 8,5 W: 9,6 Rest. D: 26,0 cms. Clay burned black; glaze good black. Splaying foot offset from the stem of which there are remains of two necking rings above. Decorated at lower edge with a zone of dogtooth between bands. Traces of wear on the underside of the foot. Found with 140 which may belong. Similar, larger Type II foot, krater 141. See also the well-preserved krateriskos 132. For refs. v. 134. Source: Vor Dipylon (11). Phase: EGI-II Neg. KER 22871

135. Inv. 8842. Sidewall fragment, possibly from a Type II krater. H: 6,1 W: 4,5 cms. Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black and fleeting. Rim broken away above. No lower neck molding, only a slight offset from shoulder, so probable Type II. Three reserved bands, and below, part of a horizontal row of meander. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22843 136. Inv. 8837. Two neck fragments from a small Type II krater. a) H: 3,5 W: 6,8 b) H: 2,4 W: 8,1 Thick: 0,9 Rest. D: 34,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black to light reddish brown. a) short upright rim as on 134, and a mastos, typically found on the rim of the Type II krater in the handle region. On the side of the rim two horizontal bands, and on its upper surface groups of parallels. b) similar rim with onset of a striped vertical handle. Refs. v. 134. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGI-II Neg. KER 22867

140. Inv. 5498. Fragment of the mid-section of a Type II krater foot. H: 6,7 W: 5,4 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay gray burned; glaze black. Traces of ridged bands with the profile curving out below. From the same location and similarly burned as 139, to which it likely belongs. Source: Vor Dipylon (11). Phase: EGI-II. Neg. KER 22871 141. Inv. 1294 (Fig. 165). Foot fragment of a large Type II(?) krater. H: 15,4 D at lower edge: 30,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. Six joining frgts., three newly added from strayfinds, reconstituting the full diameter of the foot. Concave profile with remains of three necking rings and a trace of lower bowl above. Dark glazed with a zone of triangles at the lower edge. The squat straightsided triangles and low proportions set it early in the EG phase: v. same motif on London BM 1950 1950.2-28.3 (Fig. 106), usually placed no later than EGI. The widely splaying pro file of the lower foot suggests a large Type II krater perhaps a successor of the LPG ANM 18114 (Fig. 107) and Eleusis DAI Neg. EL 469 (Fig. 43). Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI-II Pub: Ker V,1 pl. 16 Neg. KER 22803

137. Inv. 5496.Foot fragment of a Type II(?) krater. H: 5,5 W: 4,9 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze red to brown. Foot glazed with three bands at lower edge. Probably from a small EG Type II krater, which often have this simple decoration of bands at the lower edge. Compare 133, 134, 136, 156. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI-II Neg. KER 22837 138. Inv. 1291 (Fig. 163). Foot from a Type II krater. H: 16,6 D: 23,7 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze red to black. Nearly all the foot and part of the bowl preserved with one new addition from stray finds. The bowl appears to have been broken through. The vertical upper section has ten necking rings. The splaying lower section is decorated at the lower edge with a zone of dogtooth, hereafter common on this krater type. There is considerable wear on the bowl interior and under the surface of the foot. Compare the EG Attic or Atticizing krater Argos C204, CGA pl. 27 (Fig. 111), and the kantharos, 132, Gr. G 2, Ker. V,1 pl. 84. Such feet are not easily dated, since a similar shape and decoration of dogtooth or bands is found well into MGII: v. the Attic Type II krater from the ‘royal’ tomb at Salamis, Cyprus, Karageorghis 1974, 35 pl. 5. Foot 138 may belong to the fine medium sized MGII krater 254. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI-MGII

142. Inv. 1292 (Fig. 166). Foot. H: 16,3 D lower edge: 28,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze black. Splaying foot with carinated neck ring and a frgt. of lower bowl preserved above. Lower bowl possibly broken through. Decor of overall dark glaze, and three reserved bands at lower edge. Similar fabric, perhaps belonging to 143 following. The molded neck ring was favored in EG, likely to strengthen the juncture with the bowl as these kraters became larger. It occurs on kraters of both Type I and II (compare the EGII-MGI Attic import, Lefkandi, III, pls. 88, 110, Type II (Fig. 112). Foot 142 may be Type I since it appears to belong to the Type I krater frgt. 143 following. V. 151, 174 and krateriskos 105. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI-II 209

Kratos & Krater Pub: Ker. Vol. V,1 273 pl. 16 Neg. KER 5208

following may be from the same krater. Profile with the accentuated curve of the EG period. The triangles may constitute the upper framing of a metope with concentric circles. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI Neg. KER 22841

143. Inv. 5435. Sidewall fragment with handle onset from a Type I krater. H: 9,7 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Fabric as 142 to which it may belong. Trace of a lower neck molding, the rim broken away above, and the onset of a handle to left. Trace of handle glazed, and double outlined and three lines of vertical framing of the sidewall panel; glaze on the neck. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG-EG Neg. KER 22841

148. Inv. 5452. Sidewall fragment from a Type I krater. H: 4,4 W: 4,7 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. Parts of a column of zig-zag between bands and a horizontal strip of dogtooth to left. May belong with 147. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGI Neg. KER 22842

144. Inv. 5434. Sidewall fragment with handle onset from a Type I krater. H: 8,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay rosebeige; good black glaze. Traces where the handle broken away, with glaze outlining and three verticals to right. From a large, fine walled krater. Neck frgt. 119 of similar clay and glaze may belong. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG-EG Neg. KER 22841

149-150. Inv. 5450-1 (Fig. 110). Two fragments from a single Type I krater. (149) H: 7,0 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff, burned; glaze black. To right, part of a fringed concentric circles motif with cross-hatched segments in the center; center a column of zigzag flanked by triple bands, and left a vertical column of triangles. (150) H: 5,7 W: 7,5 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze brown. Central vertical column of triangles flanked by columns of zig-zag between triple lines. A trace of glaze at left likely from the fringe of a concentric circles motif. To right checkerboard beneath which chevron or some other motif (a checkerboard column broken by some other motif, occurs on the EGII-MGI transitional krater 176). These two frgts. came from a standard antithetic circles arrangement set within vertical panels of ornament as on 151 following. The stacked triangles belong to the LPG-EG transitional phase (v. 89, 156, 166). Source: strayfinds, 149 RB 1969. Phase: EGI Neg. KER 2864

145. Inv. 9065. Sidewall fragment with handle onset from a Type I krater. H: 6,3 W: 13,5 Thick: 0,7 Rest. D: ca. 50 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown. From the handle region with a trace where the handle was broken away. Two glaze lines for outlining the handle region. Trace of stripe on pres. part of handle. Interior pitted as from water damage, while exterior well preserved, characteristics of an epitymbion. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG-EG Neg. KER 22855 146. Inv. 5453 (Fig. 110). Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 4,7 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay buff, burned; glaze purplish. Decor of checkerboard with remains of sloping parallels to the left. Below, three horizontal lines, and part of a zone of triangles. May belong with krater 156. The same motifs, checkerboard, sloping parallels in a herringbone arrangement, and a zone of triangles, are executed with similarly informal subdivision on the belly of the pyxis Inv. 2135, Gr. G 1, probably both from the Jewel Workshop, as also krater 151 with same central combination. Source: strayfind. Phase: LPG-EGI Neg. KER 22865

151. Inv. 935 (Fig. 37). Fragmentary Type I krater. H bowl frgt.: 21,3 W: 42,5 Thick: 1,0 Rest. D at rim ca. 58,0 H foot: 18,0 lower D: 30,5 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze good quality black. More than half the sidewall, including all the lower bowl missing. Parts of upper foot missing. Lightly curving sidewall with onset of the handle preserved; concave neck with low molding below, and projecting lip above; compare 158, 167, 175. Three additional frgts. from the opposite rim and sidewall of the vessel added from the strayfinds, one with two repair holes. Wide splaying foot with lightly concave profile, terminating above in a pronounced molded collar where the bowl begins its curve (v. 142). Four holes circa 0,8 cm. wide were drilled around the foot, post-firing, at roughly even intervals approx. halfway up the foot. There are traces where three other holes were started but not carried out. These holes were not related to repairs. Two symmetrically placed metopes with concentric circle motifs, surrounded by horizontal and vertical zones of geometric decoration. The center panel

147. Inv. 5425 (Fig. 167). Sidewall and neck fragment from a Type I krater. H: 7,4 W: 7,5 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown to greenish. Lightly curving sidewall and lower neck frgt. with rim broken away above. Horizontal row of triangles with remains of border of horizontal and vertical triple bands. Rim dark glazed. Krater 148 210

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue comprises a broad column of checker flanked by meander, chevron and (at left only) double dotted dogtooth. The metopes have fringed concentric circles with a central St. George’s cross. Above the left metope there is a horizontal row of double dotted dogtooth, and below a multiple outlined battlement meander. Above the right metope is a zig-zag, and below a regular meander. A frgt. from the reverse reveals similar framing elements: a zigzag upper motif, and a battlement meander lower motif. Between the metope and the handle zone are vertical columns of meander and checkerboard, flanked by chevron (152 with chevron column may belong here). Handle area reserved, with a trace of a double outlined and hatched handle. Beneath the main ornament field there is a zone of double dotted dogtooth, and below that traces of a zone of triangles. Neck and rim are decorated overall with black glaze. Foot glazed with a reserved zone of straight sided triangles at midheight, and a reserved band at the lower edge. This krater is the earliest preserved demonstration of the characteristic Type I Geometric krater. Gr. G2 has been assigned to the life-king Megacles, who ruled 922-892 BC based on a newly credible King List and other factors discussed in the text. It is the work of the Jewel Workshop which was initiated during the rule of Megacles, and this was likely his consortium krater. The proportions of the rim, the broad checker column, the straight sided triangles, the combination of EGI unidirectional hatching of the meander with alternating direction, and the shape and reserved lower zone of the foot suggest a date no later than the first decade of the ninth c. (compare the tapestry-like quality of e.g. stamnos-pyxis London BM 1950,2-28,3 (Fig. 106). The repairs, as well as the exploratory character of this krater, compared with e.g. 156, also support a date earlier than the other vessels associated with Gr. G 2. The decorative scheme is still in an experimental stage, especially with respect to the most appropriate motifs for framing borders of the metopes newly introduced on this krater: four different ones are tried out here. The intentional variation betrays a fresh, youthful hand, not fully qualified in technique but eager to try something new. Apart from the circles, the complex decoration appears to have been executed freehand, without the aid of the multiple brush. This krater has been placed in the Jewel Workshop, q.v., for its experimental character, its colorful application of ornament, including that workshop’s favored motifs: battlement and regular meander, double dotted dogtooth, and checkerboard. Source: Gr. G 2, Precinct XX. Phase: EGI Pub: Ker. V,1 211 pl. 17. Coldstream 1968, 14. Schweitzer 1971, pl. 12 Neg. KER 22896, 22897, 4362, 4965

beige; good black brown glaze. May belong to krater 151 in spite of the discrepancy in diameter (that of the larger frgt. 151 is more reliable). Concave neck with rim broken away above. Reserved sidewall with trace of vertical column of chevron, and glazed neck above. Kraiker, Ker. I 129, sets this frgt. in the PG-EG transition, but the motif is similarly freehand executed on 151, and this frgt. could come from the handle area of that vessel, which has similar shape, fabric and decoration. Chevron occurs on handles, and on Kerameikos amphorae, Inv. 1215, Ker. IV pl. 35; Schweitzer 1971, pl. 11. It may have survived on heirlooms of LHIIIC date e.g. from Naxos, Prakt 1965 pl. 220 γ Source: strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: EGI-II Pub: Ker. I 129 pl. 51. Desborough 1952, 92f. pl. 12 153. Inv. 5461 (Fig. 110). Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 6,4 W: 9,5 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay buff; glaze purplish brown. Two joining frgts. of sidewall, with part of a metope of concentric circles containing a complex St. George’s cross motif. To right vertical columns of double dotted dogtooth and triple zig-zag between bands, and below a trace of a horizontal line bordering the metope. Compare kraters 154 and 155, with similar double dotted dogtooth, but with fringed concentric circles, all likely from the same Jewel Workshop. Source: MS 16. Phase: EGI-II Neg. KER 22864 154. Inv. 5459. Sidewall and neck fragment of a large Type I krater. 155 following may belong. H: 5,0 W: 8,7 Thick: 1,5 Rest. D: 52 cms. Clay burned grey; glaze black. Rim broken away above. A section of framing from the upper part of a metope, comprising a horizontal strip of quadruple zig-zag (compare 158) below which is part of a fringed concentric circles motif. To the left, part of a column of double dotted dogtooth between bands. Black glazed rim. Very similar to epitymbion 151, and certainly also a product of the Jewel Workshop. From the remains, it likely had the same type of lofty rim seen on krater 158 with which this frgt. may belong. It was a libation krater burned on a pyre. Source: strayfind from Precinct XX, annotated Bezirk XVIII 1910. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22850 155. Inv. 5460 (Fig. 110). Two sidewall fragments from a single Type I krater. 154 may belong. a) H: 4,0 W: 6,6 b) H: 2,0 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay buff; glaze dark brown. a) Part of a fringed concentric circles motif with traces of a complex St. George’s cross, and a single corner dot rosette, above right. To left part of a vertical column of double dotted dogtooth between bands. b) traces of fringed concentric circles, a corner rosette and a framing element of horizontal strip of zig-zag above.

152. Inv. 5431 (Fig. 168). Sidewall and neck fragment of a Type I krater. H: 7,5 W: 8,5 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay rose 211

Kratos & Krater 154 may belong (it is thicker from its location at the neck juncture). These are large kraters with D at the rim at least 60 cms. Compare 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, all Jewel Workshop. Corner dot rosettes in metopes, more typical of MG, begin in EGII, v. 167. Source: frgt. b) MS 7. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22864

stacked triangles and chevron, varied framing elements, and the same fringed concentric circles motif with a St. George’s cross. Source: Mostly strayfinds Great Mound (G), e) in 1935; two frgts. hS 1963. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22866 157. Inv. 7763. Lower sidewall fragment. H: 3,4 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze black. Decorated with the remains of a zone of straight-sided triangles, below which three horizontal bands, as on 156. Source: strayfind HS 1963. Phase: EGII.

156. Inv. 5467 (Fig. 109, 169). Eighteen upper sidewall fragments from a single large Type I krater. a) H: 6,2. W: 7,4, sidewall and neck stump with rim broken away above; fringed concentric circles motif bordered above by horizontal zigzag; dark glazed neck. b) H: 6,3 W: 6,9, part of concentric circles motif with central cross. c) H: 6,0 W: 6,7, fringed concentric circle with central cross; to left column of triangles. d) H: 4,3 W: 5,2, parts of vertical column of meander and, to right, column of triangles. e) H: 6,6 W: 5,2, parts of two vertical columns of meander, separated by triple bands. f) two joining frgts. H: 7,7 W: 11,3, parts of two vertical columns of meander; to right, column of hatched lozenges, and checkerboard; below, zone of triangles. g) two joining frgts. H: 10,6 W: 9,4, part of horizontal zones of triangles and multiple zigzag. h) H: 3,3 W: 5,0, zones of triangles between bands; trace of multiple zigzag above. i) H: 4,4 W: 3,8, multiple zigzag with trace of triangle above. j) H: 6,3 W: 6,1, multiple zigzag, with triangles below. k) two joining frgts. H: 10,6 W: 6,7, multiple zigzag with row of triangles below. l) two joining frgts. H: 10,5 W: 13,4, with zone of triangles between bands. m) H: 4,1 W: 4,6, two joining fragments with triangles between bands. n) H: 4,8 W: 6,2, from handle area, with triangles. Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay buff; glaze ranges red, purplish and black. One frgt. (i) is burned. The hypothetical reconstruction of this krater restores an Early Geometric Type I krater of impressive dimensions with rows of vertical and horizontal ornament marshalled around two medallion-like concentric circle motifs. Framing the metope above, a horizontal strip of zig-zag, and below a checkerboard. Vertical columns of ornament, primarily meander, also included chevron flanked by triangles and cross hatched lozenges (this motif could have been positioned in the outer wings, but more likely towards the belly center, because of the tendency to emphasise special motifs by more prominent placement). Beneath this were at least two zones of triangles, with a zone of multiple zigzag between. This krater appears to be the immediate successor of krater 151, likely from the same Jewel Workshop, and similarly a significant milestone in the evolution of the typical Geometric krater. The foot 169, neck 158 and sidewall frgt. 146, of similar fabric either belong to 156, or come from a closely similar contemporary krater from the same workshop. They are all of similar fabric and demonstrate a willingness to experiment with monumentality, different colorful motifs, including awkward combinations such as the

158. Inv. 5458. Neck fragment of a Type I krater. H: 8,0 W: 9,5 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay rose buff; good black glaze. Neck overall glazed, concave with a broad ledge rim, flat on top, with slight slope outwards, and low molding below, a profile similar to that of 151 and 175 but taller proportioned as 176. Of sidewall decoration, a trace of a checkerboard column(?) to the left, and at right a horizontal strip of multiple zig-zag from the upper framing element of a metope. Compare also 151 and Agora P24841 from Well J, Brann, 1961, 115 pl. 18. Likely from the Jewel Workshop. This neck could belong to 154, so it is instructive that it comes from Naiskos, while 154 was found in Bezirk XVIII (Koroiban) of the main Precinct XX site. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22850 159. Inv. 7758. Two neck fragments from a single Type I krater. a) H: 6,2 W: 9,0. b) H: 4,0 W: 5,7 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze brown-black. Overall dark glaze, and profile not unlike 158 to which it may belong. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII 160. Inv. 9010. Lower sidewall fragment. No measurements available.Clay yellow beige with a light surface wash; black glaze. Dark glazed with two reserved bands. Source: strayfind WRB. Phase: LPG-EG 161. Inv. 5462 (Fig. 170). Sidewall and neck fragment of a Type I krater. H: 9,8 W: 11,0 Thick: 1,6 Rest. D: at least 65,0 cms. Clay buff, burned; glaze reddish to black. Straight sidewall merging with a slight molding into an incurving neck, its rim broken away above. To the right, a horizontal row of meander separated from a vertical column of meander to the left, by two vertical lines. The horizontal meander must be the upper framing of a metope with concentric circles. Compare 156 which has the same combination of unidirectional and alternating direction meander hatching and the rarer dual rather than triple linear subdivider. With its 212

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue vertical sidewall, the meander bordering the metope, and from the vestiges, what appears to have been a tall, strongly profiled neck such as 158, this krater was an obvious antecedent of 176. To judge from the ornament and sidewall thickness, 1.6 cms., it would have been even larger than 176. Source: MS 17. Phase: EGII-MGI Neg. KER 22836

triangles above and traces of a vertical column of zigzag to the right. The row of triangles above a column of other ornament lasts from the LPG transition into EG: compare stamnos-pyxis, London, BM 1950.2-28.3, Ker. XIII, pl. 2,3, and others under Jewel Workshop. The careful decoration of the meander with its alternating hatching, sets this piece in EG II. Fabric and delicate execution relate both 164 and 165 to krater 179. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22843

162. Inv. 5494 (Fig. 171). Five foot fragments from a single Type I krater. a) H: 9,5 W: 13,4 b) three joining H: 12,5 W: 4 c) H: 5,5 W: 8,8 d) H: 5,0 W: 6,7 e) H: 8,4 W: 7,3 Thick: 1,3 Rest. D: 30,0 cms. Clay rose beige to orange, cream on surface; glaze black; frgt. e) burned. The upper section preserves part of the onset of a carinated collar neck, with a flaring foot below. Overall dark glaze broken by a zone of tall triangles flanked by reserved bands around the midsection, and a broad reserve band at the lower edge. Almost identical to the foot on the Jewel Workshop krater 151, with the carinated collar favored by that workshop. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22839

166. Inv. 7767 (Fig. X). Sidewall fragment. H: 6,0 W: 5,0 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay burned dark grey; glaze burned black and fleeting. Remains of a meander to left, and a vertical column of zig zag between bands to right. Source: strayfind P51(likely Potamian precinct MS 17. Phase: EGII 167. Inv 5465. Four fragments of neck and sidewall from a single small Type I krater. H: 5,7 W: 9,7 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. a) concave neck frgt. with projecting lip above, and light molding at shoulder. A part of a multiple segmented concentric circles motif, with a St. George’s cross in the center, and dot rosettes in the corners of its frame. To the left, a column of zig-zag between bands. b) a neck and sidewall frgt. decorated with zig-zag and rosette. c) Lower body frgt. with remains of a zone of triangles. d) Lower body frgt. with horizontal bands. The small size of this krater may be the reason why it lacks the usual framing elements for the concentric circle medallions. The visuals, reasonably accurate freehand sketches, reveal a profile close to that of 151 and 158. The dot rosettes set it no earlier than EGII

163. Inv. 5487 (Fig. 172). Foot fragment of a Type I krater. H: 8,0 W: 10,3 Thick: 1,2 Rest. D: 35,0 cms. Clay orange, burned; glaze black. Profile less flaring than previous entry and very close in profile and decoration to that of 176. Dark glazed with decoration of carefully executed zone of tall triangular dogtooth, and a reserved zone at the lower edge. The dogtooth is assuming its canonical MG form and position towards the base of the foot. This foot lies intermediate between those of 162 and 176. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22851 164. Inv. 7760. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 4,0 W: 8,2 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black on interior, mostly gone on the exterior. Part of a metope containing concentric circles on a field of dots, and at right a dotted fringed radial motif (in lieu of the usual dot rosette), all bordered by two vertical bars to the right, and three above. A horizontal strip of meander above. This metope panel has no parallels, but the careful execution and the filling with dots suggest a date early in the Geometric period. 165 following is closely related, and both appear to belong to the large krater 179. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22843

Source: Hegeso 1937 (an additional notation, Gr. 75 must refer to a post-Iron Age burial). Phase: EGII Bohen Sketch 168. Inv. 8845. Foot fragment of a fairly large Type I krater. H: 6,6 W: 9,8 cms. Clay deep rose to buff, poorly fired and cracking in places; glaze black and fleeting. Foot set off sharply from a trace of the lower bowl which is eroded from use on the inside. Low ribbing on lower part.

165. Inv. 5476. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 5,3 W: 5,8 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze peeling. Part of vertical column of meander with a strip of 213

Kratos & Krater Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22854

Source: strayfind N. of Precinct XX in 1965. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22892, 22893

169. Inv. 5486 (Fig. 173). Four foot fragments from a single krater. a) H: 9,2 W: 8,9 b) two joining, H: 4,4 W: 10,9 c) H: 6,0 W: 10,1 Thick: 1,5 Rest. D: 33,0 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze black. From the lower part of a foot with a lightly flaring profile, glazed with a zone of dogtooth and reserved bands at the lower edge. Similar fabric and execution of triangles on 156, to which this may belong. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22851

173. Inv. 8807. Foot fragment. H: 4,0 W: 5,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Rose buff clay; dark brown glaze. From the lower edge of a foot decorated with a zone of the expansive multiple zigzag current at the transition from EGIIMGII, v. preceding entry 172. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI Neg. KER 22838 174. Inv. 1187 (Fig. 176). Foot of a Type I krater. H: 26,5 D: 35,3 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze brown to black, and worn in places. Upper foot wall fairly straight, flaring slightly downward. Broad raised collar above, and a trace of the onset of the bowl which was broken through. Foot split probably from misfire, with holes for a repair clamp. Upper foot glazed with two groups of encircling reserved zones and a zone of dots on the raised collar. Lower foot decorated with a zone of multiple zigzag flanked by bands and zones of dots, and at the lower edge a zone of dogtooth, rather than straight sided triangles. The first appearance of the classic Type I foot of the MG period, taller proportioned, with more zones, and with dogtooth in its canonical MG position at the lower edge. The neck collar is here muted, and this is its last appearance before LG. Source: Gr. G 42. Phase: EGII-MGI Pub: Ker. V, 1, 237, pl. 18 Neg. KER 5077

170. Inv. 8839. Foot fragment. H: 4,0 W: 6,5 Thick: 1,6 cms. Clay grey burned; glaze fine shiny black. From the foot of a small Type II krater, similar to 139. Decorated with a horizontal row of tall triangles. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase. EGII Neg. KER 22871 171. Inv. 5488 (Fig. 174). Foot fragment of a Type II krater. Pres. H: 11,4 W: 18,0 Thick: 1,5 Rest. D: 35,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. A flaring foot overall glazed with a zone of triangles between bands at the lower edge. It has shape and decoration comparable to the foot 141 but its triangle zone is of the later form, moving towards dogtooth. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII Neg. KER 22837 172. Inv. 5499 (Fig. 175). Eight fragments of a large Type II foot. a) three joining H: 8,7 W: 23,0 b) H: 21,5 W: 26,5 c) H: 8,3 W: 5,0 d) H: 4,2 W: 6,0 e) H: 4,7 W: 5,2 f) H: 6,7 W: 7,4 Foot Rest. H: ca. 27,5 stem D: 17,0 Rest. D lower base: 40,0; Thick at base: 3,2 cms. Clay yellowish to rose beige; glaze grey and fleeting; frgt. e) burned. Splits in the exterior wall could be from misfiring or the heat of the pyre. Flaring foot from a large krater, likely Type II, continuing the earlier EG form of 141 but with a taller stem. Preserved is about a quarter of the lower foot and half the upper part, with five thick necking rings of the vertical stem and a small part of the lower bowl above. Where the bowl begins to curve out, the vessel is pierced ca. every 4 cms. with holes (five preserved), not for repair but likely to promote even firing of this large vessel. The foot was possibly broken through. The expansive style of the quintuple zones of zigzag and the tall triangles on the lower part of the foot, as also the size, relate this krater to the Rich Lady Workshop. This larger, more squat form of krater may have gained popularity for certain gatherings as the taller proportions of the Type I (e.g. 176) became less practical for convivial use.

175. Inv. 5456. Neck fragment of a small Type I krater. H: 6,7 W: 11,0 Thick: 0,9 Rest. D of rim: 40,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze red burned dark. Short concave neck with a low molding below and part of a curving sidewall. In the center a segment of a unidirectional hatched meander column flanked by vertical columns of zig-zag between bands. Neck glazed. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII, possibly earlier. Neg. KER 22850 176-177. Inv. 1149 (Fig. 113, 114, 177). Twenty-eight sidewall fragments from a single large Type I krater. Many new frgts. from the strayfinds. a) H: 8,2 W: 15,0 b) H: 12,0 W: 34,7 c) H: 3,7 W: 11,0 d) H: 5,5 W: 9,2 e) H: 4,7 W: 7,7 f) H: 8,5 W: 12,5 g) H: 2,5 W: 2,5 h) H: 8,7 W: 9,2, hole to the right where the handle was broken away i) H: 6,8 W: 6,0 j) H: 11,0 W: 13,0 k) H: 7,0 W: 11,0 l) H: 16,0 W: 19,7 m) H: 5,3 W: 9,2, handle broken away, pierced for even firing n) H: 12,0 W: 14,0, a repair hole on lower left edge, a horizontally pierced hole on the handle boss o) H: 5,5 W: 7,5 p) H: 5,1 W: 4,3 q) H: 3,7 W: 7,4 r) H: 5,0 W: 5,5, a repair hole at left, the lower part of handle 214

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue boss at right s) H: 4,0 W: 4,3 t) from handle area H: 4,9 W: 7,1 u) two joining frgts lower sidewall with a repair hole on the upper breakline: H: 5,3 W: 5,5, two joining frgts with a repair hole on the breakline to right: H: 11,0 W: 8,0 Thick upper sidewall: 1,2, lower sidewall: 1,5 Rest. H: 85,0-90,0 Rest. D: ca. 68,0, at rim ca. 60,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze good orange-red to black, the result of uneven firing. No frgts. burned. The foot separately inventoried as Inv. 5471 (177) following entry. The krater had a straight sidewall curving in towards the lower bowl, a tall neck, the inner face straight with an angular profile, concave on the outer, terminating above in a projecting ledge rim, and below in a light molding. The form of its double loop handle with circular projecting boss can be almost fully reconstructed with reference to a closely similar handle 184. Its foot 177, of similar fabric, decoration, and proportions, is a tall tube flaring slightly downwards, similar to that of 174, but of even taller proportions. Its form closely resembles that of 193 the Mourner Krater. There are a number of holes of various purpose. Five holes are for repairs. One hole made roughly horizontally through the central boss in the handle region of frgt n) and another made horizontally through the handle bow attachment of frgt. h) were made in the wet clay to promote even firing at these thick points of juncture. The remaining holes, made post-firing include six larger holes pierced vertically through the rim on frgts. b) and c) at intervals of circa 5,5 to 8,5 cms. made by a pointed tool (their diameter tapers downward from 1,0 cms. on the upper surface to 0,6 cms. below). Such vertical rim perforations are found otherwise only on the MPG rim 39, on 178 and 179. The neck of 176 was also pierced horizontally by holes ,5 cms. spaced 10,0 to 11,5 cms. apart at roughly the same height. For discussion of these post-firing modifications. The reconstruction reveals a symmetrical scheme of decoration: a metope containing a fringed concentric circles motif with inner St. George’s cross within multiple segments, and rosettes in the angles. Framing the metopes above and below, horizontal strips of meander, with an additional strip of zigzag below. Between the metopes a panel comprising a central double chevron column flanked by vertical columns of meander, then a similar double chevron column that terminates above and below in a segment of checkerboard. The panel between the metopes and handle region has a central column of triple chevron flanked by columns of meander, all framed by strips of zigzag above and below. This unit is flanked by a double chevron with an additional column of zigzag between the two outer columns. Below the shoulder panels were horizontal zones of double dotted dogtooth, multiple zigzag, and steep triangles that can now be characterized as dogtooth. Glazed neck, with a dot zone on the outermost edge of the rim. The handle was double outlined, and part of its decoration of

diagonal stripes is preserved at the onset. Remains of a chevron-like motif on the boss, which presumably continued up the handle merging into diagonal stripes where the two bows of the handle split off, as on 184. The reconstruction includes one frgt. from the reverse side of the vessel which varied slightly from the obverse in the absence of the checkerboard segments and the outer column of double chevron. The foot 177 is the latest krater with the PG reserved band at the lower edge. Krater 176 has been associated with the Rich Lady Workshop that in the mid-eighth century specialized in creating kraters for the group burying at Precinct XX: 179, 180, 182, 189, 225, as well as the well-known Rich Lady amphora from the Areopagos burial (Fig. 120). The straight bowl profile of 176 had a long history extending back into the late Bronze Age. Although the evidence is fragmentary, this profile was associated with the krater of special formal use, notable for its large size and complex decoration, before its adoption as the LG epitymbia (154, 156, 161, 181 and the MGII 232). Frgts. of krater 176 were found in various locations, most from the Great Mound (G), and the larger pieces from LZB. Source: u) Precinct XVIII in 1910; a) b) LZB in 1930s, and other frgts. in 1973; m) hS IV in 1963; other frgts. from the Great Mound (G). Phase: EGII-MGI Pub: Ker. V, 1 20 f. 165.168 fn.142.171. Coldstream 1978, 18 Neg. KER 22828, 22829, 22830, 22831, 22852 Bohen-Feyman Photo-Graphic Sketch 177. Inv. 5471 (Fig. 177). Foot fragment of a Type I krater. Rest. H: 35,0 Rest. D at base: 29,8 Avg. Thick: 2,2 cms. Clay rose beige to orange, and good quality black to red glaze. This has been associated with the bowl, 176, preceding entry, which has the same fabric, decoration and proportions. Slightly conical foot with traces of eight low necking rings preserved above, and a small part of the base at the lower edge. Decor of three horizontal zones of triangular dogtooth flanked by wide and narrower zones of glaze. Source: one frgt. strayfind hS 1963. Phase: EGII-MGI. Pub: Ker. V,1 pl. 18 Neg. KER 22805, 22816 178. Inv. 7773 (Fig. 178). Two neck fragments from a single Type I krater. a) H: 8,0 W: 10,5 b) H: 10,8 W: 14,6 Thick: ca. 1,7 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze greyish to black and fleeting. Tall slightly concave neck with molded neck ring below, and a projecting lip above, its flat upper surface sloping down towards the outer edge. The outer rims were broken away. On frgt a) the rim was pierced vertically with two holes ca. 8 cms. wide, and 5 1/2 cms. apart. b) the rim was pierced with a hole 1,2 215

Kratos & Krater cms wide, narrowing to 0,8 below. All these holes were executed post-firing, and were not for repair. Compare similar holes on the rim of 39, 176 and 179, all with similar tall, strongly profiled necks. Neck black glazed. The sidewall of b) has trace of a probable multiple outline battlement meander, a motif that appears on the contemporary amphora Inv. 1249, Gr. G 43 (Ker. V,1, 238 pl. 2). Since krater decoration had now become formalized, the battlement(?) motif must have occupied the space above the double loop handle which from now is occasionally decorated (205). A strip of battlement is found in the handle region of an Atticizing krater from Marmariani ANM 27695 of the early ninth century. This is sufficient reason to place 178 no later than EGI-II, as the earliest of the imposing rims, and from a krater that was possibly larger than 176 with which it is linked by the same large, vertical rim perforations made with a tapering tool (point of a knife?). Krater necks of similar proportions are 154, 156, 161. Source: P45 (likely Potamian, if so, 45 refers to a postIron Age burial); MS7. Phase: EGII-MGI Neg. KER 22822

lower bowl. The outlining for the handle of 186 was hatched and double outlined. The foot frgt. 180 may belong although it was found at Naiskos, at a wide remove from 179; it is of similar fabric, is decorated with the same steep triangular dogtooth, and has evidence of a similar destructive blow. Kraters 176 and 179 are certainly from the same workshop, and likely from the same settlement context. Closely contemporary (179 slightly older) it is not impossible that they were used in the same elite funeral, 179 as the libation krater subsequently smashed and cast on the pyre, and 176 as the epitymbion. Source: neck frgt. MS. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22853 180. Inv. 8870. Foot fragment of a Type I krater. H: 8,5 W: 7,5 cms. Clay pinkish beige; glaze black and fleeting. From the upper part of a foot with profile similar to that of 176-177 decorated only with a zone of dogtooth and an area of black glaze above. May belong to 179, although found at a wide remove. The number of krater remains at Naiskos suggests the possibility of a common central pyre location there. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22823

179. Inv. 5475. Eight fragments from a single large Type I krater. a) H: 5,3 W: 7,7 b) H: 5,2 W: 8,0 c) H: 4,8 W: 7,3 d) H: 4,7 W: 5,0 e) H: 5,5 W: 4,5 f) H: 23,0 W: 26,5 g) H: 4,5 W: 5,8 Thick: 1,0-2,0 Rest. D at rim: 65-70 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze unevenly fired, alternate shiny black to peeling and some burning. Cat. 179 comprises frgts. of upper sidewall, two large frgts. of the lower bowl, and three frgts. of the neck (abc), however several other frgts. have more recently been associated with this krater: foremost the unusual metope frgt. 164 with a dot filling and wheel-shaped rosette; next sidewall 181 with meander combined with a vertical column of checkerboard; frgt. 165 part of the meander segment in the wings; the handle frgt. 186. All are executed in the same delicate hand and are of similar fabric. The lower body frgt. of 179 appears to be burned at the upper right, and to have sustained a heavy blow at the lower right. The neck has a sharply projecting lip above, and two frgts. of it are pierced vertically with a hole D: 0.7 cms. as on 176. The krater is from the same hand of the Rich Lady Workshop as 176 and apart from the eccentric metope decoration, very similar down to the post-firing adaptations. The frgts. of neck have a similar tall profile and prominent rim and overall glaze with a zone of dots on the outer rim, also the same vertical piercings of the upper rim unrelated to repair. From the limited evidence of the sidewall it had the same decorative schema as 176, the rare narrow column of checkerboard in the centerpanel (181), and in the wings a similarly rare abbreviated segment of meander cut short above by a horizontal strip of ornament (165). The belly has the same steep dogtooth zones combined with multiple zigzag and three groups of reserved triple bands on the glazed

181. Inv. 5454. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 4,6 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,3 Rest. D: 60,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze black. Fairly straight sidewall with a column of checker flanked by vertical zig-zag between bands to the left, part of a meander to the right, and a zone of triple bands below. From a large Type I krater decorated with the same narrow gauge checker column combined with meander as on 176 of the Rich Lady Workshop. Likely part of 179. Source: strayfind. EGII-MGI Neg. KER 22865 182. Inv. 8828. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 2,4 W: 6,8 cms. Clay reddish beige; glaze black. Part of a column of checkerboard with a trace of a concentric circle ornament to the left, and possibly a trace of a chevron to the right. compare 176 attributed to the Rich Lady Workshop. Source: Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22865 183. Inv. 5464. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H:4,7 W: 6,5 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay beige, glaze fleeting black. To left trace of fringed concentric circles motif. At center, a column of double chevron between bands. To right, part of a vertical column of meander. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI Neg. KER 22838 216

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 184. Inv. 776. Two sidewall fragments with handle remains, from a single Type I krater. a) two joining H: 18,0 W: 14,8 b) H: 9,5 W: 12,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze dilute to dark brown. a) preserves the center section and right loop of a double loop handle, outlined and decorated with a chevron which forks into simple diagonal hatching on the handle loop. The central boss is pierced vertically to insure even firing, and its projecting boss is broken away. b) outer. right onset of a double loop handle, outlined and hatched, with the remains of a dot rosette(?) to the right, and similarly pierced. The handle closely resembles that of 176 in the shape, hatching and double outlining, and the piercing of the thick center section to insure even firing. The handle remains of 176 and 184 each provides the missing part of the other, in toto providing our best evidence for a complete MGI handle. Krater 184, as 176, from the Rich Lady Workshop. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22889

189. Inv. 8810. Upper part of a foot of a Type I krater. H: 8,5 W:12 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze dark brown. It resembles that of 176 but without necking rings. At the upper edge a trace of the outward curve where the bowl begins. Part of a zone of dogtooth of the tall, thin type found on EG II-MGI kraters such as 176-7, 179. The shape, craft, glaze and decoration are similar on the following three feet, all likely the output of the artisan of krater 176, i.e. the Rich Lady Workshop. Like 179 this krater seems to have sustained a heavy blow. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22823 190. Inv. 8850. Foot fragment. H: 7,5 W: 6,3 Thick: 2,1 cms. Clay rose orange; glaze red. Upper foot with necking rings, and a trace for the onset of the bowl. Overall glaze. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22816

185. Inv. 9066. Sidewall fragment from a Type I krater. H: 7,8 W: 9,3 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown. The base of a handle preserved, striped and outlined, with a trace of vertical line to the right. Similar to the handle on 176. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22883

191. Inv. 8849. Foot fragment. H: 6,5 W: 6,1 Thick: 2,3 cms. Clay rose orange; glaze red. Upper foot with necking rings, and trace for the onset of the bowl. Overall glaze with remains of three reserved bands below. V. krater 189. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22816

186. Inv. 7770. Sidewall fragment with handle onset from a Type I krater. H:10,5 W: 8,0 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze black and fleeting. The base of a horizontal loop handle is preserved, double outlined and hatched. Fabric and execution very similar to that of 164. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22822

192. Inv. 8847. Foot fragment. H: 7,8 W: 15,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze fine red to dark brown. Above remains of three necking rings. Glazed with three reserved bands below. Fabric and shape similar to 177 and 241, also v. 189. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22823

187. Inv. 7762. Sidewall fragment with handle onset from a Type I krater. H: 9,0 W: 7,2 cms. Clay beige; glaze black and fleeting. The onset of a roll handle, its base striped and outlined. To the right a vertical column of zig-zag bordered by triple vertical lines. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22822

193. Inv. 1254 (Figs. 76, 77abcd ) Fragmentary krater of Type I. Many new frgts. from the strayfinds. Sidewall H: 29,0 W: 36,0 Foot H: 35,0 lower D: 32,5 cms. Clay unevenly fired, ranging from yellow beige to rose buff; glaze variable, red to dirty black, peeling in places, black on the interior. Earlier published remains constituted a large sidewall frgt. with a curving profile, part of a horizontal loop handle to the right, and a well preserved foot. Eighteen additional frgts. of the bowl have been identified, including part of another horse from beneath the far handle, concentric circles of a metope, a column of lozenges, further decorative zones from the belly and lower bowl, and 194 the probable neck. The krater had an ovoid profile bowl similar to that of 205 below. The Foot recomposed from many frgts was proportionately taller, flaring slightly downward, with

188. Inv. 7772. Neck fragment of a Type I krater. H: 5,5 W: 14,5 Rest. D rim: 60,0 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze brown and black. Concave neck with a projecting ledge rim above, flat on its upper surface. A similar strong, dotted rim profile with dotted outer edge as on 176, but with less angular inner edge. Source: strayfind. Phase: EGII-MGI. Neg. KER 22819 217

Kratos & Krater remains of six necking rings above. The interior of the lower foot was closed in below with a central hole 3,5 cms. in diameter cut by the potter prior to firing, as was a smaller hole cut in the base of the bowl. The decorative scheme of the upper sidewall lies intermediary between kraters 176 and the MGII 205: a central double chevron edged by zigzag, flanked by columns of meander, and columns of double outlined lozenges edged by zigzag. One of the antithetic metopes is pres., filled with a concentric circle motif with central St. George’s cross and dot rosettes in the metope corners. A strip of battlement meander frames the metope below, part of a similar battlement above (compare). Flanking the metope on the right is a vertical column of meander flanked by zigzag. On the belly below is a broad zone of meander flanked on either side by zones of multiple and single zigzag. Below that were zones of dogtooth, broad and narrow bands of glaze and new frgts. reveal a zone of double-dotted dogtooth as on both 151 and 176. The handle is triple outlined, and decorated with a chevron motif rather than the usual stripes. The upper necking rings of the foot are glazed as also the mid-section, with three reserved bands; the lower section repeats the decoration of the belly: a horizontal zone of meander flanked by multiple zigzag, with a zone of dogtooth at the lower edge. The most remarkable aspect of the decoration is a small figure of a mourner in the corner of the handle region, and from below the handles, the hind end of a horse facing right on one side, and the legs and tail of a similar horse facing left on the other (Fig. 76). In shape and decoration close to krater 205, but employing the double dotted dogtooth motif seen on the earlier kraters 151 and 176. The foot 193 is the only feature of the profile similar to that of 176, but the decoration suggests that both came from the same Rich Lady Workshop. Also associated with these two kraters: the fine amphora Inv. 2140 from Gr. G 42 with zones of meander and double dotted dogtooth similarly combined on their bellies. The foot disc has various explanations. The modest figural decoration was still appearing on the LG provincial production of a century later, when a similar mourner was located in the same handle zone region of the New York krater MMA 34.11.2 CVA (5) 2004 1-8 pls. 1-7, and the Trachones krater, AM 88, 1973, pl. 52, 5, while small horses were placed under the handle of the Thorikos krater, M. Bingen-J. Bingen, Le cratère géométrique récent de Thorikos, in Homages del Charles Delvoye, Brussels 1982, p. 80, fig. a. Source: Gr. G 43 Precinct XX. Phase: MGI Pub: Ker. V,1, 238 pl. 22. 146. Benson 1970, pl. 32, 4 Neg. KER 4760 – 4763

comparable to the variable fabric of 193 to which it probably belongs. Fairly straight profile on the inner surface; neck outer face slightly concave, with a projecting ledge rim above, and flat on its upper surface; a full ring molding below the neck. Decoration of dark glaze on the neck, with a row of dots on the outer edge of the lip and along the ring molding. Groups of parallel lines on the upper surface of the rim. Three horizontal bands on the sidewall. Source: MS 7. Phase: MGI Neg. I. Kaiser 195. Inv. 871 (Fig. 180). Foot and wall fragments of a Type II krater. a) Foot, Pres. H: 26,0 D at base: 33,0 b) H: 4,3 W: 6,7 c) H: 5,2 W: 7,4 d) H: 5,0 W: 5,3 e) H: 3,4 W: 4,5 f) H: 5,3 W: 4,9 g) H: 13,5 W: 7,0 h) H: 10,3 W: 6,7 i-o) Max. Dimens. 7,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay yellow beige to grey; glaze brown to grey, not unlike that of 193, some frgts. burned. The foot frgt. a) has remains of the lower bowl which was broken through from the bottom; below that a short vertical stem with five necking rings, then the krater flares strongly towards the base. There are repair holes bored in the lower edge of the foot, and another single hole, 0,7 cms. wide, further up that was not for repair (compare 151, where it is suggested such holes were for securing the krater in position over the grave). The foot is glazed with reserved bands at the midpoint, and dogtooth at the lower edge. Krater 195 was found above Gr. G 37, a well-defined MGI context. It is the earliest preserved Type II epitymbion. Several frgts. from the strayfinds related through a similar unusual quality of burned yellow clay may belong. Frgts. b-f had dogtooth motif, and b) gear motif. There were wide and narrow horizontal bands on frgts. g-o) from the dark glazed lower body. One upper sidewall frgt. reveals dark glaze at the termination of the panel decoration, a hallmark of the Type II krater (the Type I has reserve). The frgt. 197 may belong. Remarkably several frgts. including parts of the foot were burned, which is curious on a vessel used as an epitymbion. The contiguous burned and unburned sections show that it was broken and scattered before the flames reached all of it, a common pattern with vessels committed to the pyre (see the EG globular pyxis in Ker. XIII, pl. 5,65 among others). The krater appears to have been salvaged from whatever fire consumed it, and reconstituted with clamps to serve as a grave marker. Source: Gr. G 37. Phase: MGI Pub: Ker. V,1 233. 273 pl. 19. Coldstream 1968, 16 Neg. KER 4581 196. Inv. 8831. Krater foot fragment. H: 5,0 W: 6,3 Thick: 2,1 cms. Clay yellow beige with burning; glaze black and fleeting. Frgt. of upper foot with traces of three plastic rings.

194. Inv. 7771 (Fig. 77b, 179). Neck fragment of a Type I krater. H: 8,0 W: 12,5 Thick: 1,0 cms. Rest. D: c 60 cms. Clay orange to buff; glaze grey-black and fleeting, 218

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22816

On the shoulders antithetic metopes containing a representation of a horse. Below the shoulder main panel, a horizontal zone of dogtooth bordered above and below by bands; dark glazed lower body broken by groups of horizontal reserved bands. On the short, upright neck a zone of dots. On the upper surface of the rim alternating groups of parallels and multiple crosses. On the handle boss a multiple cross. Foot glazed with a zone of dogtooth bordered by bands at the lower edge. The horse is carefully rendered with respect to anatomy, with thickening for the upper musculature of the legs, projecting kneecaps and hocks, and hooves offset from the legs: compare those features on the modelled horse of the pyxis from Gr. G 69, Inv. 257, and others from same workshop, Ker. XIII pls. 20 f. Krater 200 is assigned to the earliest phase of the PreDipylon Workshop, which was likely a continuation of the Rich Lady Workshop. It had been placed in the open burial of Gr. G 22, presumably as an epitymbion, although it was too small to appear above grade. Coldstream assigned the context to MGII, but this krater had seen some use before its deposition, and is here set in the transition, MGI-II. The capacity was measured assuming a fill point about level with the horse’s back, i.e. about a fifth the volume of the LG Type II krater 279, and just under half the volume of the LHIIIC Grotta krater. Source: Gr. G 22. Phase: MGI-II Pub: Ker. V,1 223 pls. 20. 21 Neg. KER 4373-4375

197. Inv. 5463. Sidewall and neck fragment from a Type II krater. H: 8,3 W: 9,5 Thick: 1,7 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze black. Slightly curving profile. Rim broken away above. Frgt. inscribed “430.” From the left side of the main decorative panel. To the right remains of the central strip of meander which fell short, necessitating the intrusion of a zigzag filler. Beneath is the onset of another horizontal meander strip. To the left the common double chevron column may have been miscalculated, requiring an extra arm of the motif. Left, part of the usual vertical framing column of meander. Glaze on the neck above. May belong to 195. Source: strayfind 430(?). Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22838 198. Inv. 8811 (Fig. 181). Two fragments of foot from a single Type II krater. a) H: 8,5 W: 8,0 b) H: 7,5 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay reddish buff; glaze grey and fleeting. From the upper part of the foot of a small Type II krater with necking rings. Source: Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II. Neg. KER 22816 199. Inv. 5500 (Fig. 182). Five foot fragments from a single Type II krater. a) H: 8,4 W: 8,5 b) two joining H: 9,7 W: 10,3 c) two joining H: 10,0 W: 11,1; Thick: 1,4 Rest. D: 34,0 Foot Rest. H: ca. 21,5 cms. Clay rose; glaze grey and fleeting. Less than half the foot, but with full profile preserved. Thirteen necking rings above, and flaring foot below. Decoration of a zone of diagonals at the lower edge: compare oinochoe Inv. 300, Gr. G 22, Ker. V,1 pl.73. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22818

201. Inv. 865 (Fig. 183). Foot of a Type I krater. H: 26,0 D: 26,5 cms. Clay variegated, pinkish to yellow; glaze black to greenish brown, peeling; bowl interior red. A fairly tall splaying foot with a series of necking rings above. Part of the lower bowl preserved, not broken through. Foot glazed, with groups of reserved bands at the midheight, and further bands and a zone of dogtooth at the lower edge. Bowl glazed inside and out, with remains of three reserved zones on the outer wall. The foot comes from Gr. G 11, transitional to MGII. Neck 203 may belong. Both have similar proportions and fleeting glaze, dark on the outside and red on the inside, and both have a workshop affilation with group of Ker. 205 Source: Gr. G 11. Phase: MGI-II Pub: Ker. V,1, 216. 273 pl. 21. Coldstream 1968, 18 Neg. KER 4321

200. Inv. 290 (117ab). Krater of Type II. H: 52.5 D at rim: ca. 47.0 Foot H: 18.0 D at base: 30,3 cms. Computer est. capacity: 45 cubic liters. Clay rose beige; glaze black, fleeting. Missing parts of the upper sidewall and rim restored with plaster. A full bellied vessel with a short upright neck, strongly outcurving foot, and remains of two standard stirrup handles on each side. Molded warts on the neck either side of the handle onset. Necking rings on the upper half of the foot. In the sidewall six .5 cms. holes drilled for repairs, four on one side of the vessel, two on the other. The base of the krater was broken through. On the sidewall, a central strip of horizontal meander, bordered above and below by a strip of multiple zig-zag, and on each side by vertical strips of meander flanked by zig zag, and an outer vertical strip of lozenges.

202. Inv. 8833 (Fig. 184). Sidewall fragment. H: 16,5 W: 9,2 cms. Clay beige; glaze black, peeling, red on the interior. Lower bowl glazed with an upper zone of dogtooth, below which two zones of of triple reserved bands. Like 201, from the workshop group of krater 205 Source: strayfind N. of Precinct XX in 1965. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22812 219

Kratos & Krater 203. Inv. 7757 (Fig. 185). Neck and sidewall frgt. H: 7,3 W: 15,4 Thick: 0,8 Rest. D: 55,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze grey and fleeting on the exterior, black to red on the interior. Slightly concave neck with ledge rim flat on top. Sidewall curves out from the neck with a curve on its inner face. A low horizontal molding below the neck. Dark glazed all over except for a reserved line below the neck molding and reserved sidewall. Probably belongs with foot 201. A workshop affiliation with krater 205. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22819

flanked by single zigzag, and below that a broad band of glaze flanked by two zones of zigzag. Upper part of the foot with broad and narrow bands. Lower part of the foot with multiple zigzag flanked by single zigzag, and at the lower edge a zone of dogtooth. Striped handle. MGI antecedents of this krater are 201, and the Mourner krater 193. Krater 205 appears to be a more commonplace version of the latter: absent the meander zones it is very similar in shape and decoration, with the same battlement metope frames, columns of meander, double outlined lozenge, double chevron, zigzag, and multiple zigzag on the belly. Its foot is also similar in shape and decoration, again absent the meander zone and taller proportions of 193. Its relationship to the Mourner Krater provides the link between the Rich Lady Workshop and a group of eight kraters affiliated with 205, all of which appear to stem from a hand located in the early Pre-Dipylon Workshop, and specializing in Type I kraters (201. 202. 203. 204. 206. 207. 208. 209). In spite of heavy reconstruction 205 allows a glimpse of shape and decoration of the non-funerary Type I krater of ca. 800 BC. Unlike 193, the group of Inv. 205 seem to have been created for formal use in the community by members of the aristocracy: 208 still has a repair clamp. The group of 205 is a further illustration of the essential conservatism of the Iron Age krater: the concentric circle scheme separated by vertical strips of canonical ornament has appeared on the krater at this point for a full century (compare EGI krater ANM 272, Fig. 108). Source: Gr. G 23 foot; remainder from Great Mound (G) strayfinds. Phase: MG I-II. Pub: Ker. V,1 pl. 18 (foot) KER Sketch

204. Inv. 8848 (Fig. 186). Foot fragment. H: 8,6 W: 6,5 Thick: 2,1 Rest. D: 17,0 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black and peeling. Upper foot with five necking rings and a trace for the onset of the bowl. Overall glaze with the remains of two reserved bands on the plain mid-section, and possibly two more at the lower edge. This comes from a Type I krater foot similar to 201. A workshop affiliation with krater 205 Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22816 205. Inv. 1247 (Fig. 74ab, 115). Krater of Type I. Rest. H: 74,0; Rest. D. bowl: 65,0; Rest. D. at rim: 59,0 Thick rim: 1,6 Foot lower D: 25,9 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze thin brown, greyish inside. Krater of deep ovoid shape with a tall, slightly flaring foot. Medium height concave neck with projecting lip. Only frgts. of the curving sidewall and part of a double loop horizontal handle, the remainder heavily restored in plaster. A well preserved foot flaring slightly downward, lacking necking rings, broken through above, the breakage ca. 10,2 cms. in diam. In spite of its fragmentary condition both shape and decoration have been fairly reliably reconstructed for the hypothetical reconstruction. This krater was chosen as the example that yielded the best assessment of height and decoration, to be restoredin both gypsum and graphic, for estimating the several other Kerameikos kraters from this group. On each shoulder a metope filled with concentric circles and a star in each corner. Center filling of the circles probably was a St. Andrew’s cross by analogy with the similar contemporary krater of the same group, 206. Above and below the metope a battlement meander. Between metope and handle part of a vertical meander column flanked by columns of zigzag. In the shoulder center a column of lozenges flanked by vertical meander columns, and columns of single and multiple zigzag. The neck is black glazed with a zone of dots on the outturned lip. In the handle region above the handle a star, and below the rim a horizontal row of dots bordered below by three horizontal bands. The lower body has a horizontal zone of multiple zigzag

206. Inv. 5477. Fifteen fragments from a single Type I krater. a) three joining H: 11,0 W: 11,0 b) H: 9,5 W: 10,0 c) H: 4,0 W: 7,5 d) H: 4,0 W: 7,0 e) H: 8,5 W: 7,3 f) H: 8,0 W: 8,5 g) H: 6,5 W: 8,0 h) H: 4,0 W: 3,5 i) H: 4,0 W: 5,0 j) H: 7,5 W: 12,3 k) H: 6,0 W: 7,0 l) H: 4,0 W: 6,3 m) H: 8,0 W: 10,4 cms. Clay poorly levigated rose buff; glaze brown. Frgts. of neck (a, b) and sidewall. Frgts. 207 and 214, following also belong. Short concave neck with a projecting rim above, and a low molding below. Lightly curving sidewall. Foot frgts. not identified among the strayfinds. The decoration can be reconstructed as two antithetic metopes on the shoulders with concentric circles filled with an old-fashioned hatched St. Andrew’s cross, with metope corners filled with dot rosettes. Upper metope framing a row of sigmas. The panel between the metope and handle had a column of double chevron, meander and simple zigzag (v. similar 207 following). The same three motifs flanking a central lozenge column was the likely decoration of the unpreserved center panel (as on 205, Fig. 115). Five frgts. reveal the lower part of this krater was dark glazed with horizontal zones of dogtooth, multiple zigzag, and bands. The neck was 220

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 209. Inv. 5479. Sidewall and neck fragments of a Type I krater. a,b) two joining, H: 8,5 W: 18,0 c) H: 5,3 W: 7,1 Thick: 1,1 Rest. D: 55,0-60,0 cms. Clay yellowish to grey, partly misfired (or pyre damage?); glaze brown to grey. Medium height neck with low molding and sidewall curving out. The neck is dark glazed with a reserved upper surface, and vertical stripes along the lip edge. From the handle area: reserved with a trace of handle outlining. From the group of 205, with similar profile and fabric. Source: MS 7. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22819

glazed overall with short vertical bands on the outer edge of the lip. This krater is from the same workshop as krater 205, with similar profile, fabric and decorative motifs, differing only in the motifs framing the metopes. One may take the liberty of restoring the missing center column of 206 with the traditional center column of lozenges found on the Mourner Krater 193, on 205 and on many other kraters, since PG times. Returning the favor, the concentric circles of 205 should likely be restored with the same St. Andrew’s cross filling seen here. This filling motif, not preserved on any Attic krater since the PG period, may be intentional archaizing at this point. Source: P5l (likely Potamian with 51 a post-Iron Age burial); Street of Tombs 1959. Phase: MGI-II. Neg. KER 22891

210. Inv. 7759. Three sidewall fragments from a single Type I krater. a) H: 6,5 W: 7,2 b) H: 4,5 W: 4,0 c) H: 5,0 W: 4,0 Thick: 1,2 Rest. D: 50,0 cms. Clay rose beige with a yellowish slip; glaze grey and fleeting. Frgts. a) b) preserve a trace of the neck molding and the dark glazed neck. a) central vertical strip of dogtooth with apices pointing to the left flanked by triple bands and to the right part of a vertical column of multiple zig-zag. b) similar zigzag, and obscure motif to right. c) part of a vertical column of multiple zig-zag flanked by bands. The rare column of dogtooth with apices pointing sideways is found sporadically from the earliest Iron Age through MG (22 SM-EPG; 42 MPG). The motif is found similarly framing the handle region, on the MG amphora Louvre CA5898, Louvre CVA (18) pl. 13, one of the more ornate pieces from the group of krater 205. Source; strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22843

207. Inv. 8854. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 5,8 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze brown. Remains of two columns of double chevron. Belongs to 206. From the group of 205. Source: HSE (hS east?). Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22863 208. Inv. 5478. Seventeen fragments from the neck, sidewall and foot of a single Type I krater. a) three joining, H: 10,1 W: 13,8 b) H: 4,2 W: 8,3 c) H: 5,5 W: 6,4 d) H: 4,0 W: 5,9 e) H: 4,0 W: 7,6 f) H: 7,1 W: 8,2 g) three joining H: 17,0 W: 12,5 h) 9,0 W: 13,0 i) two joining H: 9,1 W: 22,0 j) two joining H: 8,8 W: 26,7 k) H: 8,4 W: 12,0 l) H: 5,6 W: 7,2 m) H: 5,2 W: 4,9 Thick: 1,2-1,7 Rest. D at rim: ca. 60ms. Clay poorly levigated dirty yellow to beige; glaze brown to grey peeling; vessel either misfired or placed near pyre. Frgts. from the neck, sidewall and foot. Neck of medium height with a projecting lip above, and an offset at the shoulder. Curving sidewall. Part of the lower rim of a splaying foot is also preserved. Decoration of vertical strips of meander separated by double chevron columns and on one frgt. a trace of a concentric circles motif. Overall glazed neck has reserved sidewall area of the handle region, with a decorative horizontal strip of zigzag. Other frgts. reveal that the lower part of the bowl was dark glazed with reserved horizontal zones of zigzag, multiple zigzag and dogtooth. On the foot frgt. a horizontal zone of zigzag with dogtooth zone below. From the group of 205 and closely similar in profile, style, and motifs, especially in the novelty of a strip of decoration across the top the handle zone (v. 205, Fig. 115) Krater 208 was a vessel of use in the community: frgts. h) and m) from the lower bowl both preserve repair holes and part of a lead repair clamp still in place (Fig. 71). Source: MS17. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22824, 22825, 22887, 22898

211. Inv. 8874. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,5. W: 4,0 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black. Column of zigzag and to left trace of multiple zigzag motif. This frgt. is probably part of the upper framing element of a metope that contained a concentric circles motif (compare the similar framing element on 154 and 158) but it could also be from the lower horizontal strip of a Type II krater. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22842 212. Inv. 8838 Sidewall fragment. H: 4,6 W: 3,7 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay beige; glaze fleeting black. From a medium krater. Vertical column of meander with trace of zigzag column to left. Source: HS 63 (hS 1963?) Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22863, 22884 213. Inv. 8871. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,0 W: 6,8 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black, fleeting. From a large krater. Remains of vertical meander column and a trace of a double chevron column to the right. 221

Kratos & Krater Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER. 22863

an offshoot of the creative Rich Lady Workshop. Further study of epitymbia indicates this lidded probably too well-preserved to have been placed above a burial, as suggested in that article, unless it was taken down soon after erection. Ovoid lidded, krater-like vessels were not typical burial vases except on Crete, where they were protected in chamber tombs. This inturned lip variety is followed by LG examples with a raised collar, as the remains of the ovoid krater 290 and the better preserved Agora P 25263, Brann 1962, 62, 273 pl. 16, LGIa. Source: strayfind Great Mound. Phase: MGII Pub: AM 91, 1976, 15-22, pls. 3f. Ker. XIII 19 pl. 2,18 Beil. 3 Neg. KER 10142. 10143

214. Inv. 9008. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,2 W: 5,9 cms. Clay rose beige, glaze brown and fleeting. Decoration of double chevron column, and to right trace of a meander. May belong to 206. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22863 215. Inv, 8852. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 6,4 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,4 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze brown. From the sidewall at handle onset. A column of double chevron between bands. Three lines outlining the handle region. Trace of handle stripes. The panels termination close to the handle onset indicates. Type I krater, similar to 208, which it resembles in fabric. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22863

220. Inv. 8813. Foot fragment. H: 8,0 W: 6,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze dirty brown and peeling. Lower edge of a splayed foot decorated with a zone of multiple zigzag, and below that, a zone of dogtooth. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: MGI-II

216. Inv. 8832. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,6 W 6,2 Thick: 0,7 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze brown. From the same krater as 217. The onset of a handle decorated with parallel lines. Placed in MGI-II when such yellowish beige clay and brown glaze are typical of the group of 205. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II

221. Inv. 5489 (Fig. 187). Foot fragment. H: 5,9 W: 7,4 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay yellow buff; glaze fleeting black. From its more vertical profile, likely from a Type I krater. Decorated with a zone of dogtooth at the lower edge. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22851

217. Inv. 8834. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,7 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown. A handle onset decorated with parallel lines. Belongs with 216. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II

222. Inv. 8812. Foot fragment. H: 11,8 W: 11,0 Thick: 1,6 Rest. D: 35,0 cms. Clay pinkish buff, glaze light brown. Lower edge of a splaying foot decorated with triple row of zigzag, with a zone of dogtooth below. Source: Vor Dipylon. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22888

218. Inv. 10579. Lower bowl fragment. H: 9,0 W: 17,2 Thick: 1,0-1,5 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze thin dirty brown to reddish, very fleeting. From an intermediate sized krater with no decoration. Fabric of the group of 205. Inside there are marks from a blow with two or three deeper gouges, possibly attempts to break through the foot. Source: strayfind HTr. Phase: MG II

223. Inv. 5490 (Fig. 188). Foot fragment from small krater. H: 5,6 W: 8,9 Thick: 1,2 Rest. D: 30,0 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze red. Decoration as 221. Upper bowl frgt. 255, same fabric and proportions may belong. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22888

219. Inv. 2855 (Fig. 123ab). Fragmentary lidded krater: stamnos-pyxis. Pres. H: 43,0, with lid 65,0 W: 45,0 D rim 24,0 cms. Clay yellow-buff; glaze varies from dark black to thin brown and orange-red, well-preserved in some places, fugitive elsewhere, the result of uneven fired. A full description in AM 91, 1976, 15-22, pls. 3f. and Ker. Vol. XIII, 19 f. pl. 2,4) where it was termed a stamnospyxis (it has no interior glaze). The fabric is typical of the group of 205, like the early Pre-Dipylon Workshop,

224. Inv. 8808. Foot fragment of a Type I krater. H: 9,0 W: 16 Thick: 1,7 Rest. D: 35,0 cms. Clay pinkish orange; glaze dark brown. Lower edge of slightly flaring Type I foot decorated with a row of triple zigzag, below which a zone of dogtooth. The tall, straight-sided dogtooth, and the orange clay, and brown glaze are similar to that of 225. Source: WB. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22888 222

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 225. Inv. 3941. Foot fragment of a Type I krater. H: 14,6 W: 14,2 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze orange-brown. Slightly flaring profile, v. 177. Dark glazed with a zone of dogtooth between triple reserved bands at lower edge. Source: strayfind HS. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22823

sidewall frgt. with low neck molding and rim broken away above. Remains of a concentric circles metope framed above with a horizontal band of chevron. Source: MS16. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22863 231. Inv. 5483. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,4 W: 9,8 cms. Clay orange; glaze, exterior red-orange, interior black. Part of a metope with a meander strip as the lower framing element, a dot rosette in the angle, and vertical columns of chevron and zigzag to the left. Compare krater 176. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22812

226. Inv. 7769. Two sidewall fragments from a single Type I krater. a) 7769, two joining frgts. H: 6,8 W: 12,0 Thick: 1,2 cms. b) Cat. 264. Clay pinkish orange to buff; glaze brown. From the upper sidewall panel decoration, it preserves part of a vertical strip of meander; to left part of a vertical column of zig zag between bands; to right two such columns. The juxtaposition of two subordinate columnar motifs and the fabric is characteristic of the Type I kraters of the group of 205. Source: MS17. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22863

232-233. Inv. 5480 (Fig. 190). Fourteen fragments of sidewall and neck from a single large Type I krater; probable foot 233 below. a) three joining H: 14,4 W: 15,5 b) H: 7,5 W: 20,0 c) H: 3,7 W: 11,3 d) H: 9,5 W: 6,2 e) H: 5,4 W: 6,7 f) H:8,8 W: 8,2 g) H: 2,7 W: 9,1 h) H: 7,8 W: 7,8 i) H: 2,9 W: 4,1. j) H: 3,2 W: 9,0 k) H: 7,4 W: 10,3 l) H: 4,0 W: 6,4 m) two joining H: 15,2 W: 9,0 n) H: 2,2 W: 9,5 Thick: 1,31,5 Rest. D at rim ca. 70,0 cms. Clay pinkish to orange; glaze ranges through black, brown to purplish and red, wholly fleeting in places, fabric and variable glaze typical of MGII transiting into LGI. Foot 233, following entry, of similar fabric, style and proportions appears to belong. A tall lightly concave neck with a prominent neck ring below, and above a strongly projecting rim, with its flat upper surface creating an angle with the inner face (i.e. the typical ancestral profile: compare 176). Inner profile fairly straight with a slight curve into the sidewall. Part of a double loop handle. At 66-70 cms. approx. D at the outside rim, it is of comparable size to krater 176, so among the largest pres. Type I kraters through MG. The hypothetical reconstruction (Fig. 122) restores a continuation of the standard Type I schema seen in the group of 205: antithetic metopes with concentric circles, of which are preserved only traces of two upper frames of quartered lozenges, and a dot rosette in the framing angle. Of the center panel only a broad column of meander flanked by zigzag is pres. (m). By analogy with the group of 205 and most other large MG kraters of this type, the central motif should be restored as a column of multiple outlined lozenges, flanked by columns of broad meander, multiple zigzag and simple zigzag. The wing panel had one or more columns of a narrow gauge motif, flanked by columns of zigzag and double chevron. The rare figural decoration of birds flanking the sidewall panel emulates the broader use of figural decoration on the Type II krater. Birds also appear on krater 254). The neck is overall dark glazed with a zone of dots along its reserved edge, and the handle is striped and double outlined. Only a single zone of zigzag preserved of the belly decoration. The lower bowl would have resembled

227. Inv. 7765 (Fig. 189). Nine sidewall fragments from a single small Type I krater. a) H: 6,0 W: 4,0 b) H: 4,0 W: 6,3 c) H: 5,2 W: 6,0 d) H: 3,3 W: 3,7 e) H: 8,0 W: 8,0 f) H: 5,2 W: 5,5 g) H: 5,0 W: 4,0 h) H: 4,0 W: 4,0.i) H: 4,0 W: 3,0 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown. A fine, delicately executed Type I krater unique in such small size. Frgt. e) has a dot rosette, part of another below, so this may be flanking shoulder decoration rather than a concentric circles metope. Frgts. of the upper sidewall decorated with meander f), a horizontal zone of zigzag and part of a glazed concave neck with a raised lower molding and rim broken away above. This krater has the rare strip of ornament above the handle as found in the group of 205 (v. 205, 208). Source: MS 17. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22843, 22863 228. Inv. 8867. Sidewall fragment. H: 2,9 W: 4,8 cms. Clay beige orange; glaze black to dilute brown. Vertical and horizontal zigzag row. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22815 229. Inv. 885654. Sidewall fragment of a Type I krater. H: 9,0 W: 8,0 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay beige; glaze black to brown. A medium sized krater preserving a trace of a corner rosette and horizontal zigzag framing from a metope, sets of triple verticals to the right once framed a zigzag column. Below a zone of steep straight sided dogtooth. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGI-II Neg. KER 22861 230. Inv. 5457. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,7 W: 6,0 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze red to black. Neck and 223

Kratos & Krater 235. Inv. 8809. Two fragments from a single krater foot of a Type I krater. a) H: 18,5 W: 13,5 b) H: 10,5 W: 6,0 cms. Clay pinkish orange; glaze varies from dark brown to bright orange on the interior. From a lightly flaring krater foot. a) has a broad necking ring above decorated with checkerboard, and below, quadruple zigzag bordered by zones of dogtooth. b) preserves a frgt. of necking ring decorated with checkerboard, and part of the interior of the bowl. Similar raised collars decorated with checkerboard are found on MGII-LGIa ANM 806 and on a LGIa krater from Piraeus St., ADelt Chron. 17, 1961-2, 23 pl. 22, Coldstream 1968, 31, by a close associate of the Dipylon Master. See also LG Paris A 552, CVA Louvre (11) pl. 11, and the MG Type I, Munich 6204 CVA (3) pl. 141, Schweitzer, 68 fig. 29, cited variously as Melian or Athenian. The zones of multiple zigzag and dogtooth set 235 in the transition from MGII to LGIa. Source: a) probably strayfind HTr Mound; b) hS 1965. Phase: MGII-LGIa Neg. KER 22813

that on 239 and 241 below, which are almost certainly from the same workshop. Birds are rare during MGII. They appear on krater 254, and under the handles of the amphora ANM 805, AJA 44, 1940, pl. 25, MGII- LGIa. Both the execution of the geometric ornament, and the birds relate this krater to the Intermediate Pre-Dipylon Workshop, a continuation of the Rich Lady Workshop. The quartered lozenge panel is found earlier on the end panels of the Rich Lady’s granary chest (Fig. 42), Hesp. 37, 1968, pl. 24. The birds of krater 232 are similar to those of the Filla Pyxis workshop (the Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop) as well as those of the early Dipylon Workshop, which may include the just mentioned ANM 805. Since it is adorned with figural decoration, rare on a Type I, and its foot (233) has potted holes that may be associated with epitymbion stabilization, this krater may be the second krater following the Mourner Krater 193 specifically manufactured for erection over a burial. Krater 232 may be the earliest of the series of funerary epitymbia made in the Dipylon Workshop. Source: bowl from the Potamian precinct; frgts. of its foot 233 have the following origins: Precinct XX, XVIII, l9l0; N. of Precinct XX,1965, & Great Mound. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22827, 22873, 22874

236. Inv. 8844. Krater foot fragment. H: 9,2 W: 11,9 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze grey and fleeting, red on interior. An upper portion of foot with an offset collar and part of bowl above, as 235. Overall glaze. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII-LGIa Neg. KER 22854

233. Inv. 1290 (Fig. 190). Fragmentary Type I foot incorporating frgt. Inv. 3656. H: 30,5, Lower D: 37.5 cms. Clay pinkish to orange; glaze black, brownish purple to maroon and fleeting in places. Lightly flaring form with eight necking rings above and small part of the bowl. Prior to firing it was pierced just below the juncture of the bowl with four holes of 1,5 cms. D, regularly spaced around the foot (v. 151). Upper part overall glazed, with three reserved bands at the midpoint, and lower zone of quadruple zigzag between zones of dogtooth, separated by narrow bands of glaze. Likely from the Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop, compare Louvre CVA (18) pl. 6 of the Dipylon Workshop. The necking rings appear similarly on Type I kraters 176, 193 and 201. Fabric, proportions and a Dipylon Workshop affiliation connect this foot to bowl 232, preceding entry. Additionally, both had sustained blows. Four holes piercing the base became common on LG funerary epitymbia. Source: strayfind Great Mound; Precinct XVIII, l9l0; N. of Precinct XX,1965. Phase: MGII Pub: one frgt. Ker. V,1 pl. 146 Neg. KER 5209, 22809

237. Inv 8846. Neck fragment from a Type I krater. H: 5,0 W: 9,0 Thick: 1,7 cms. Clay light orange rose; glaze black. Glazed with zone of dots on outer rim. Demonstrates the strongly profiled MGI rim continuing into MGII, and that epitymbia were being erected in the Vor Dipylon area. An antecedent of 232. Source: Vor Dipylon. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22819 238. Inv. 8875. Three neck fragments from a single Type I krater. a) H: 6,4 W: 7,5 b) H: 5,7 W: 7,4 c) H: 7,3 W: 7,3 Thick: 1,7 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black, reddish on the interior. Lip broken away above. Swelling for onset of molding. Overall glazed, with a triple row of zigzag on reserved band around neck. This is perhaps the earliest preserved instance of a zone of decoration around the Type I neck which to this point had been uniformly dark glazed. The light weight multiple zigzag was replaced by a band of meander as krater proportions increased in height at the transition to LGIa. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22819

234. Inv. 8876. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,9 W: 3,4 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze grey, peeling. From a large krater. Decoration: part of the body of a so-called marshbird is preserved. The bird is less common than the horse in MGII. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII-LGIa Neg. KER 22887

239-240-241. Inv 5484 (Fig. 121). Twenty fragments from a single large Type II krater. a) two joining H: 9,0 W: 26,5 b) three 224

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue joining H: 12,0 W: 16,0 c) H: 6,0 W: 15,0 d) H: 5,0 W: 11,0 e) H: 6,9 W: 5,3 f) H: 7,0 W: 7,0 g) H: 2,9 W: 2,6 h) H: 6,2 W: 4,5 i) H: 27,0 W: 26,0 j) H: 14,0 W: 13,0 k) H: 4,0 W: 5,0 l) H: 13,0 W: 8,0 m) H: 7,5 W: 7,5 n) H: 6,8 W: 7,0 o) H: 8,0 W: 6,5 p) H: 4,5 W: 3,0 q) H: 9,0 W: 12,5; Rest. Diam. at rim ca .66,0. Thick varies: upper sidewall ca.1,3, lower 2,6 cms. Fabric wholly variegated. Clay rose to yellow beige; glaze black to bright red and reddish brown. k) and a frgt. of lower bowl were burned. The sherds recompose into five frgts. from the rim and upper sidewall, and eight frgts. from the lower bowl. The Type II foot 240 following, of appropriate style, proportions, and fabric, almost certainly belongs. Also krater 241 below from the same workshop is probably the reverse side of this krater: reconstruction of the dimensions, and a decorative program incorporating the 241 battlement meander brought very close correspondence. Also both 239 and 241 have traces of a swastika metope, likely from a column of such. The missing zone below the main panel of 239 would most likely have been the battlement zone, common on this workshop at this time (v. 241, Inv. 1256, Ker. V,1, pl. 47.48, the Attic krater from Eretria, AntK 44, 2001, 84-87; BSA 47, 1952, pl 2, A1). The. lower half of the vase has been restored from the surviving fragments positioned with an eye to the usual hierarchy of encircling zones. Short vertical rim with sidewall curving out below. Superb precision drafting of the painted decoration by the same artist as stamnos-pyxis Louvre A 514, possibly from a hand of an early Dipylon Workshop artisan, perhaps the master himself. Sidewall center with broad horizontal strip of meander, above which a horizontal strip of sigmas on one face and a row of zigzag on the reverse. Below the meander there were probably further horizontal strips of meander, or possibly a panel of horses, as on the contemporary krater from the same workshop, Louvre 500-502, CVA Louvre (18) pl. 5. The center panel was flanked by a column of swastika metopes of which only part of one metope is preserved; similar metopes on the Type II krater 241 below, and.on.ANM 805, AJA.1940, pl.24, both perhaps from the same workshop. Of the wing panels, only frgts. of vertical columns of meander and double chevron are preserved. There were horse metopes on each shoulder, of which only two legs of a horse are preserved, facing left, with a rosette in the field above and vertical columns of dots and chevron below: compare similar representations on the well-preserved Type II kraters 200, 279 and Louvre A 514. A dark glazed frgt. comes from the area over the handle. Because of the large proportions of this Type II krater, the usual dot zone of the neck was replaced by a triple zone of zig zag with dogtooth below (triple zigzag also on the neck of the Type I krater 238). On the flat upper surface of the rim, groups of bands executed at intervals with a 14 stroke brush. Frgts. from the lower body are decorated with two zones of dogtooth and broad and narrow bands against a dark ground.

The foot, 240, has the typical widely flaring Type II profile with eight encircling molded bands preserved above. It is overall glazed except for a zone of zigzag and dogtooth on the lower section, decorated in the same fine hand that adorned the bowl. Two holes 0,7-1,0 cms. are drilled for repair along a crack line. No lead clamp has survived, but white residue in the repair holes may be lead oxide. Both frgts. from the upper bowl and the foot show signs of deliberate destruction. On the lower section a series of long striations were scratched, as if this heavy krater had been dragged over rough terrain. The large dimensions of 239-240 anticipate the even greater scale of krater 279. In spite of their size, these large Type II kraters were not constructed as funerary monuments, but for use in elite consortium and signal events in the community. Krater 239 had been broken and repaired in use before being assigned to funerary libation. Contiguous burned and unburned frgts. reveal it was shattered before the pieces were burned, the blows clearly visible on the lower sidewall frgts. From the same workshop as krater 232 and 241, i.e. PreDipylon Intermediate Workshop. Source: q) LZB; other frgts. SA (Samakian?); MS 15,16; foot 240 strayfind Great Mound (G). Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22835, 22849, 22874, 22880 240. Inv 3657 (Fig. 121). Foot from a Type II krater. H: 23,3 Lower D: 43,0 Thick above, 2,7 below 3,7 cms. Clay, glaze and execution as on fragmentary krater 239, to which it likely belongs. The foot was originally not much taller than its preserved remains. Source: strayfind Great Mound. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22806 241. Inv. 5482 (Fig. 121). Sidewall fragments from a single Type II krater, likely the reverse of krater 239, q.v. Ten frgts. of sidewall a) H: 9,3 W: 12,5 b) H: 4,7 W: 5,5 c) H: 8,0 W: 9,0 d) three joining H: 19,0 W: 12,5 e) H: 6,5 W: 8,0 f) 14,0 W: 14,0 g) two joining H: 12 W: l6,0 h) H: 5,0 W: 8,0 i) H: 6,0 W: 5,5 j) H: 7,5 W: 7,0 Rest. D: ca. 65,0 Thick varies: 1,5 above, to 1,98 – 2 cms. below. Clay reddish orange; glaze bright orange to black. A fairly straight upper sidewall decorated with vertical and horizontal columns of meander flanked by columns of zigzag and double chevron, above which part of what may have been a row of swastikas. Lower zones of battlement meander, dogtooth, zigzag and groups of wide and narrow bands. Area of reserve from the handle zone. From a very large krater dated late in MGII probably 239: both have similar dimensions, clay & variegated range of glaze. Décor same motifs but different arrangement on reverse, as also occurs on 67, and 151. Compare 231 and its parallels. From the same workshop as 239, 240 and 232. A similar slightly later krater with battlement from Eretria AntK 44, 2001, 84-87; BSA 47, 1952, pl. 2, A1 may be from the same, slightly later workshop. For 225

Kratos & Krater strips of swastika metopes compare ANM 205, AJA 44, 1940, pl. 24, Pre-Dipylon Intermediate Workshop. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22826

glaze broken by two groups of three narrow reserved zones. A short neck adorned with a row of dots, and on the upper surface groups of parallels. A flaring foot with remains of two necking rings above, overall glazed with four reserved bands at the lower edge. The simple horizontal zones on the lower edge of the foot extend from PG into MG. A common household krater, 246 has the wear pattern typical of use as an epitymbion and may indicate the stratification that existed within a single elite group as the display of an epitymbion was extended to lesser scions. For decoration, compare Salamis, Cyprus, AA 1963, 2, 199f. fig. 40 222; Karageorghis 1974, p. 35 pl. 5. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22833, 22834 and I Kaiser

242. Inv. 9007. Sidewall fragment from a Type II krater.H: 6,8 W: 12,2 Thick: 1,0 Rest. D: ca. 60 cms. Clay beige; glaze grey, fleeting. Decorated with a meander panel, the central motif, with three horizontal lines above. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22861 243. Inv. 8858. Sidewall fragment from a small Type II krater. H: 5,0 W. 7,1 Thick: 0,7 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze brown to black, worn. Diminishing rectangles motif used as a flanking shoulder panel. 244 may belong. Similar to 254. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22861

247. Inv. 8862. Sidewall fragment from a medium Type II krater. H: 8,6 W: 8,5 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze fleeting grey, black on the interior. From the lower handle region, very similar to 246, preceding entry. Onset of the handle with striping, and below, a broad zone of butterfly alternating with groups of verticals. Refs. 246. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22861

244. Inv. 8853. Sidewall fragment from a small Type II krater. H: 6,5 W: 8,7 cms. Clay beige; glaze black and peeling, reddish on interior. Resembles 243, to which it may belong. Left a column of double chevron; right trace of handle outlining, with the area between dark glazed. Glaze around the handle indicative of a Type II krater. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22861

248. Inv. 8894. Sidewall fragment from a Type II krater. H: 4,2 W: 4,1 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay yellow beige; glaze black fleeting. Lower sidewall of medium krater. Decoration of vertical lines from a zone of butterfly motif alternating with groups of parallels. Refs. 246. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22814

245. Inv. 8859. Sidewall fragment from a Type II krater. H: 5,3 W: 6,0 Thick: 0,6 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black to brown. From the dark glazed area around the handle of a small Type II krater. Decorated with a zone of three reserved bands, and to the left, three vertical lines of center panel framing. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22861

249. Inv. 8869. Three sidewall fragments from a Type II krater. a) H: 6,7 W: 4,6 b) H: 7,1 W: 4,4 c) H: 5,0 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,2-1,7 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze black to red, brown on interior. All from the belly of a large krater. a) Zone of butterfly motif alternating with groups of parallels. bc) zones of bands and dots. Refs. 246. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22814

246. Inv. 8872 (Fig. 192). Eleven fragments of a medium Type II krater. a) two joining H: 8,0 W: 11,2 b) two joining H: 6,4 W: 10,1 c) H: 7,4 W: 5,0 d) H: 4,7 W: 4,3 e) H: 6,3 W: 8,1 f) H:19,0 W: 18,0 g) H: 5,2 W: 14,6 h) H: 6,5 W: 7,0 i) H: 11,0 W: 12,0. j) H; 39,0 W: 18,0 Thick: 1,1 Rest. D at rim: 45,0 cms. Clay poorly levigated orange; glaze thin red. Similar in shape to 200 (Fig. 117). Parts of the sidewall, rim, central boss of the handle and foot preserved. Of the main sidewall panel there are columns of double chevron and zigzag as framing elements for a main meander motif not pres. A handle onset with a trace of striped decoration. Below the main panel remains of an encircling band of butterfly motif alternating with groups of parallels, a common motif on less formal Type II kraters (247, 248, 249, 250). Below that dark

250. Inv. 5491. Eight foot fragments from a single Type II(?) krater. a) two joining H: 8,0 W: 11,4 b) H: 18,0 W: 7,7 c) H: 9,0 W: 6,2 d) H: 5,4 W: 7,3 e) H: 3,0 W: 9,3 f) H: 4,7 W: 6,4 g) H: 4,9 W: 8,3 Thick: 1,2 Rest. D: 38,0 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze black. Flaring base, eight necking rings with a frgt. of the bowl interior above. Overall glazed except for a zone of butterfly motif, alternating with groups of parallels, between horizontal reserve lines at the lower edge. Refs. 246. Profile similar to 200 (Fig. 117). Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22870 226

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 251. Inv. 5497 (pl. 32). Foot fragment of a Type II krater. H: 5,3 W: 9,2 Thick: 1,3 Rest. D: 33,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze red to brown. From the lower part of a flaring Type II foot decorated with three reserved bands on the lower edge. Compare 246. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22837

marshbird from the righthand side panel, with zigzags above the bird and a rosette below. c) rim with mastos indicating handle region. d) handle area with remains of striped handle, dark glaze above, reserve below and a section of the belly zone of dogtooth between triple bands e) the lower border of the center panel with a horizontal row of triple zigzag g) two joining frgts. of belly with a dogtooth zone. It resembled the larger 200 in appearance. Its foot may be 138. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22817, 22875

252. Inv. 1293. Krater foot and bowl frgt. a) four joining frgts. lower bowl H: 10,1 W: 20,0 b) H: 6,3 W: 5,8 c) two joining frgts. H: 12,1 W: 11,4 d) foot H: 17,0 lower D: 26,3 e) H: 9,0 W: 5,5 Sidewall Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose buff; glaze exterior black, interior bluish. Vertical upper section of foot with eleven necking rings, a flaring lower portion, overall glazed with three reserved bands at the lower edge. The foot is broken through. b-e) lower bowl frgts. decorated with reserved bands. e) the onset of a handle, outlined and striped. Not easily dated: this type of foot with narrow necking rings and foot flaring below has been the characteristic Type II krater foot since EG times. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII Pub: Ker. V,1 273 pl. 19 Neg. KER 5215, 22890

255. Inv. 8890. Two sidewall and rim fragments from a single Type II krater. a) H: 4,3 W: 9,9 b) H: 7,8 W: 5,6 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze brownish red. From the handle region of a small Type II krater. A short upright rim with traces where a handle broke away. On the outside rim remains of a horizontal row of tangential blobs and groups of parallels on its upper surface. On the sidewall below the rim, part of a strip of vertical parallels. Glaze in the handle area, and a trace of striping on the handle. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22860

253. Inv. 283. Foot of a medium Type II krater. H: 16,5 D: 24,7 sidewall frgt. (orig. Inv. 7766) H: 6,0 W: 5,8 cms. Clay rose; glaze fleeting on the exterior and black on the interior and black to red on the foot. Flaring foot with nine necking rings above, dark glazed with two reserved bands on the lower edge. Sidewall frgt. with partial horizontal meander motif and a segment of battlement meander. The foot has considerable wear on its interior bowl. It served as an epitymbion but its bowl was not pierced. For type compare 199 and 254. Source: foot from Gr. G 30, sidewall frgt. Inv. 7766 from MS 17 with annotation from Gr. G 30. Phase: MGII Pub: Ker. V,1 21. 33. 126. 229. 273 pl. 19. Coldstream 1968, p. 21 Neg. KER 3552

256. Inv. 8891 Two rim fragments from a single Type II krater. a) H: 4,2 W: 7,9 cms. b) H: 3,9 W: 6,7 Thick: 1,1 Rest. D: 60,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze black. Short upright collar rim from a fairly large krater, with one mastos preserved on a). A zone of dots on the neck, and groups of parallels on the upper surface. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22860 257. Inv. 8864. Rim fragment from a Type II krater. H. 5,2 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,3 Rest. D: 60,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black, grey inside. Fairly large krater with short upright neck preserving a mastos of the handle region. A row of dots along the neck and groups of parallels on the upper surface of the rim. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22860

254. Inv. 8855. Six sidewall fragments from a single Type II krater. a) H: 8,3 W: 10,3 b) 7,4 W: 7,9 c) H: 2,9 W: 9,2 d) two joining H: 12,6 W: 10,7 e) H: 4,0 W: 3,3 f) H: 4,3 W: 3,6 g) orig. Inv. 8857, H: 8,0 W: 10,0 Thick: 0,8 Rest. D at rim: 45,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze dilute brownish red, brown to black. Medium krater with curving sidewall and short upright collar neck. The central meander panel is not preserved. a) flanking ornament from the left side of sidewall with vertical columns of zigzag bordered by double chevron, a horizontal chevron above, and to the left remains of a side panel with a marshbird and trace of a rosette. The neck is adorned with a row of dots between bands and groups of parallels on its upper surface. b) part of a similar

258. Inv. 8865. Rim fragment from a Type II krater. H: 2,7 W: 5,2 Thick: 1,5 Rest. D: 60,0 cms. Clay rose orange; glaze black. Upright collar neck of fairly large krater. Dot row along the neck. Groups of parallels on the rim upper surface. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22860 259. Inv. 8866. Rim fragment from a Type II krater. H: 1,8 W: 4,1 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay rose orange; glaze brown to 227

Kratos & Krater black. Dot row along neck and groups of parallels on the upper surface. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22860

Source: strayfind N. of Precinct XX, 1965. Phase: MG-LG 267. Inv. 3747. Three sidewall fragments from a single Type I epitymbion krater. a) H: 10,2 W: 10,3 b) two joining H: 9,4 W: 10,4 cms. c) H: 7,7 W: 4,9 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze red to dark brown, orange on the interior. a) part of a frieze with upper part of a warrior moving right with a Dipylon shield, two spears, trace of sword, and plumed helmet. Fill ornament of butterfly to left and a star to right. Above, three horizontal bands, and part of a zone of dotted lozenges. b) the lower edge of a ship’s keel with two lowered oars, and two fish to left. Below, three horizontal bands, part of a zone of dotted lozenge and trace of two further bands. c) lower front section of a ship’s keel and part of the rowers’ bank above, with traces of what may be three raised oars. Below, part of a zone of three horizontal bands, below which are remains of a horizontal zone of dotted lozenges. Hamdorf connected 267 to the Dipylon Workshop and Paris A 517, CVA Louvre (11) pl.1, 2.5. He reported two other closely similar sherds from Pompeion sector P54a, one a likely neck frgt. 268 b) following, which from fabric, motifs and execution could belong to this krater. A further frgt. from P9 decorated with horse legs has so far not been identified among surviving sherds. Similarity of decoration and fabric of the sherds of 267 and 268 suggests all came from a single krater of the Dipylon Master. The association of 267 with Louvre A517 had been recorded. Dr. Stephan Karl has cited the similar Dipylon Master krater in Graz University, G 741 with frgts. dispersed in Göttingen, Louvre and Athens, as well as Graz, CVA Graz I, (2014) pl. 11, 34-36. Source: Strayfind, Pompeion. Phase: LGIa Pub: W. Hoepfner, Das Pompeion, Ker. X (1976), 197 f. figs. 209.210.

260. Inv. 8861. Two sidewall fragments. a) H: 4,8 W: 3,9 b) H: 4,0 W: 5,2 Thick: 0,7 cms. Clay orange beige; brown to black glaze. From a medium sized krater. A zone of dogtooth on each. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGI Neg. KER 22862 261. Inv. 90. Lower sidewall fragments from various MG kraters decorated with horizontal rows of dogtooth. a) H: 6,8 W: 10,1 b) H: 5,7 W: 7,1 Thick: 1,5 c) H: 5,5 W: 6,6 d) two joining H: 5,7 W: 7,0 Thick: 1,2 e) H: 7,1 W: 4,6 f) H: 5,8 W 3,3 Thick: 1,4 g) H: 5,7 W: 4,9 h) H: 6,6 W: 7,4 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay beige to orange; glaze brown to black. a) and b) are from same vessel. d) is burned. Source: c) strayfind Vor Dipylon. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22862 262. Inv. 8851. Foot fragment. H: 6,6 W: 5,2 Avg. Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay beige; glaze grey. Upper part of foot with necking rings. Overall glaze with two reserved bands. Compare 190, 191, 204 of similar type. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22816 263. Inv. 8860. Sidewall fragment decorated with four zones of glaze. H: 5,1 W: 4,0 cms. Clay beige; glaze grey brown, fleeting. Source: strayfind HS 63 (hS 1963?). Phase: MG-LG

268. Inv. 8881 (Fig. 192). Sidewall and neck fragments of a large Type I epitymbion krater. a) H: 10,4 W: 9,3 b) H: 9,9 W: 18,3 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze red. a) a lower neck fragment decorated with a meander, below which an angular molding decorated with dots, and a lower zone of dotted lozenge between horizontal bands. b) A tall, lightly concave neck frgt. decorated with a finely executed complex meander, and a horizontal band. These two frgts. appear to come from a single krater of the Dipylon Master. They are so similar to 267 q.v. in fabric and decoration, that frgt. b) may be the frgt. referenced by Hamdorf as originating from the Pompeion ‘Randstück mit einem breiten Mäanderband, aus P 54a,’ Ker. X, 197, under K1. Source: likely the Pompeion, v. 267. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22821

264. Inv. 9067. Two sidewall fragments from a single krater. a) is Cat. 226 b) 9067, H: 5,3 W: 4.7 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay pinkish orange to buff; glaze brown. Part of a meander. Source: MS17. Phase: MGII Neg. KER 22863 265. Inv. 9006. Sidewall fragment. H: 4,6 W: 5,3 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze brown. Fairly large krater decorated with a horizontal zone of zigzag of same compacted type found on amphora ANM 805, AJA 1940, pl. 24. Source: strayfind. Phase: MGII-LGIa Neg. KER 22814 266. Inv. 10582. Sidewall fragment. H: 11,5 W: 9,5 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay orange-buff. Glaze almost entirely flaked away. A lower bowl frgt. glazed inside and out.

269. Inv. 8884. Neck fragment of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 8,0 W: 7,5 cms. Clay beige; meander of the 228

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 273. Inv. 8879. Three joining fragments of sidewall from the handle region of a large Type I krater. H: 11,1 W: 8,0 cms. Clay rose beige to orange; glaze brown. Trace of handle outlining. To left trace of a double axe; to right remains of an indistinguishable, figural(?) motif. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22815

Dipylon Workshop. Very close to 270 in both fabric, execution and dimensions, but not from the same vessel. Source: strayfind Vor Dipylon. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22821 270. Inv. 8880. Neck fragment of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 7,4 W: 7,7 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze good quality black to dilute red. Rim with molding broken away below. From a large krater. Remains of a complex meander as those on krater necks of the Dipylon Master. Very similar to 269 in both fabric, execution and dimensions. The inscribed notation 387 is encircled, which suggests a Pompeion source. Source: ‘387’. Phase: LGIa. Neg. KER 22821

274. Inv. 8888. Lower sidewall fragment from a large Type I epitymbion krater (or pyxis?). H: 5,7 W: 5,7 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown. From the lower sidewall of a krater, decorated with a zone of hatched and double outlined leaves, below which trace of a zone of tangential blobs. The leaf zone appears in the lower registers of amphorae, e.g. ANM 804, and on krater ANM 806, Davison 1961, 33 fig. 18, and on the undersides of numerous pyxides. Frgt. 274 was cut into a round shape possibly for use as a gaming piece, lid or stopper, as suggested by R. Young, Hesperia Suppl. II, 1939, 86 fig. 57. Several have been found in the Agora, Hesperia 30,2 1961, 140 pl. 22. Ker. VI, 2, 380 f. 394 f; Lefkandi. I 83f. pl. 65, i, k, m, where, as here, they are found mostly in LG tombs; AEphem 1983 84f. pl. 58; Paris CA 3374, Louvre CVA (18) pl. 8,14. Simple unpierced discs may be pessoi, counters representing board games found in association with seventh c. burial: Vari gaming table, ADelt 18 1963, 122f. pls. 49-51. ADelt 28 1973, pl. 28; Similar discs: 275, 276 following. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22814

271. Inv. 8878. Sidewall fragment of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 4,9 W: 6,4 cms. Clay rose orange; glaze red. Remains of necks of two horses moving right, hair of mane, and reins depicted. Although the fabric is similar it is not from the Hirschfeld Workshop krater 284 from that area for the scale is too large. This large scale suggests that the horses could only have come from the same rare motif depicted on 284 q.v., namely the ekphora with horse-drawn wagon pulling the deceased lying on a bier. This motif originated in the early Dipylon Workshop on one of the largest preserved epitymbia: the amphora ANM 803, Ahlberg 1971b, fig. 53 from the Irian Gate cemetery. The dotted lozenge over the horses’ back and the form of the necks are also characteristic of the Dipylon Workshop. Source: HSE (hS East?), 1313, Grube au. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22815

275. Inv. 9068. Sidewall fragment from a Type I epitymbion krater. H: 5,9 W: 5,1 cms. Clay pinkish beige; glaze brown. Decorated with part of a horizontal zone of meander with trace of three lines below. Cut into a rough circular shape as 274. Source: strayfind. Phase: LGIb Neg. KER 22814

272. Inv. 8976. Sidewall fragment of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 5,9 W: 4,4 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze brown, dilute brown, and fleeting. From a monumental epitymbion type krater with a naval scene. To right remains of ship’s prow moving right with ‘eye’ and horn curving back; part of the deck with mast; above is the yard arm from which hangs the rectangular sail, just over half of it preserved, at its lower right edge, the halyard, one of the two lines used to guide the sail. At the upper edge center where the yard attaches to the mast is a ring. The function of such fittings is better illustrated on a depiction from the Thera W. House, where a series of such rings are depicted at intervals on the mast, as a sail is hoisted: AAA 1986-7, 118-120. For rigging, Periplus, SIMA 127, pl. 5. A number of contemporary representations of ships have come from the 19th c. excavations at the Irian Gate: Louvre, CVA (11) p. 7 fig. 3 pls. Source: strayfind Sacred Way Bldg. Y (Upsilon). Phase: LGIa.

276. Inv. 8822. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,3 W: 6,5 Thick: 1,3 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze reddish brown. Decorated with horizontal bands. Cut into a rough disc shape as 274. Source: VEck. Phase: LGIb Neg. KER 22847 277. Inv. 8882. Neck fragment from a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 5,1 W: 4,6 cms. Rose beige clay; brown glaze. Decorated with a meander zone. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22821 278. Inv. 8885. Neck fragment from a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 4,8 W: 7,2. cms. Clay orange beige; glaze red. 229

Kratos & Krater Vertical neck with projecting angular rim. Part of a meander zone preserved. Lip with trace of vertical striping. Upper surface overall glazed. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22821

hatched. Foot with a zone of tangential oblong blobs on the upper and lower parts, separated by a broad zone of dark glaze, with a dogtooth zone at the lower edge. An extremely large vessel, this was not created like other LG pedestalled kraters as an epitymbion, but for consortium or ceremony, the last of its kind preserved. It was adapted for use as an epitymbion by the hole in the base. The decoration is conservative, recalling the earlier MGII oeuvre with central meander accumulations and flanking horse or bird metopes, especially the PreDipyon Intermediate Workshop. Since this krater had seen use it is possibly older than its context (Chapter IV for discussion of the problematic find circumstances and attribution to burial of life-king Alcmeon). Continues the genre of MGII Type II kraters from the Irian Gate area cemetery. It fits best in the LGIb phase, although there is no comparable Athenian krater of that date. Source: the foot and much sidewall were found on the filling of Gr. G 26 above an amphora epitymbion, but its likely origin was from the nearby destroyed burial Gr. G 24. Phase: LGIb. Pub: Ker V,1 138.227 pls. 23.140.141 Neg. KER 4769, 4770, 22899, 22900, 22901

279. Inv. 1255 (Fig. 54). A large Type II krater. H: 95,5 W: 87,0 D lower foot: 53,0 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze black to reddish brown. Recomposed from numerous frgts. with a considerable amount of bowl, handle and foot restored in plaster. The krater is extremely large and capacious, ca. 95 cms. tall, and including the handles, the width was about the same as the height. A new restoration was undertaken in the 1970s to include newly found frgts. from the strayfinds, and the bowl profile is now tighter, and closer to the only other well preserved Athenian Type II krater, the MGII 200. Capacity was computer estimated at 228.4 cubic liters by Hans Birk of the DAI, using an Auto Cad program on the inner profile of the vase, and based on a fill to the level of the horses’ backs. A strongly curving sidewall with a short concave collar rim. Traces of two stirrup handles on both sides, comprising a vertical triple gauge central strap flanked by two horizontal rolls. Sturdy splaying foot with a number of narrow necking rings on the upper half. Kübler reported that the vessel foot had been carefully broken through, but this could no longer be ascertained since the lower bowl-foot juncture was fragmentary and wholly permeated by the plaster buildup of the earliest restoration which was not disturbed. The large size, weight and fragile nature of the krater discouraged efforts to view the krater from below. Kübler’s description and the fact that this was the kind of krater made for the living rather than the dead, would suggest the hole was not potted in, but rather broken through to adapt it for use as an epitymbion. Central on the vessel shoulder is the remains of a complex meander bordered above and below by horizontal strips of zigzag, and simple meander. This panel is flanked on either side by two vertical strips of meander, with zigzags between. In the wings are two stacked metopes, the upper containing a horse facing inwards, with chevrons, zigzag, and wavy lines as fill ornament, and the lower containing a large swastika ornament. On the belly a zone of metopes containing grazing deer with double axe, zigzag and star as fill ornament, each metope framed by two hatched verticals and lines, with a bordering zone of zigzag above and below. Below that are two zones of dogtooth separated by broad and narrow bands of glaze, and there are at least four groups of broad and narrow bands to the base of the bowl. On the outer surface of the short neck a zone of dotted lozenges, below which a zone of dogtooth, and groups of parallels on the flat upper surface of the rim. The handles were

280. Inv. 8897. Sidewall fragment. H: 9,1 W: 11,8 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay beige; glaze black, fleeting. Two joining frgts. A horizontal meander, above which a row of tangential oblongs. The meander was occasionally used as the lower zone of the krater, e.g. on 193 and 284. Tangential oblong blobs on the foot of the LGIb krater 279. Source: strayfind WB (Westliche Bezirk), Precinct XIX, on 2.11.1910. Phase: LGIa-b Neg. KER 22814 281. Inv. 8886. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,7 W: 7,3 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze dark red. Curving profile. Remains of a prothesis scene. A naked female, distinguished by breasts, arms raised in typical gesture of mourning, flanked by a dot chain interrupted by a rosette. Two legs of a beir to left, and part of the bier frame above. Far left, feet of another mourner, far right leg or a third. Part of a horizontal zigzag above. From a prothesis scene possibly on a Type I funerary krater. R. Tölle, AA 1963, 660-4 fig.16 for analysis. Bonn Inv. 16 closely related: Tölle, 660-662 figs. 17f. 19. 20. 21. There is also a stylistic relationship with the figures on the Hirschfeld krater ANM 990, Schweitzer 1971, pl. 40 (Fig. 207c), and on the Kriezi St. amphora, ADelt 22 Chron 1967, 95 pl. 89, attributed to the Hirschfeld Workshop Ahlberg1971a, 311 fig. 3, and see also 27 fig. 26. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa-b Pub: R.Tölle, Figürlich Bemalte Fragmente vom Kerameikos, AA 1963, 660-3 No. 19 fig. 16 Neg. KER 7517,2, 22815 230

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue 282. Inv. 8896. Sidewall fragment from a Type I epitymbion krater. H: 4,3 W: 5,3 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze purplish brown. Upper sidewall frgt. with remains of a metope containing an octofoil with hatched leaves, bordered above by triple horizontal bands, and to the side by a vertical column of zigzag between bands. The motif is found identically in a column of such metopes on the shoulder of krater ANM 806, where it alternates with swastika (Fig. 44). It is commonly found on pyxides in metopal zones, and was a favored motif of the Hirschfeld master. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa Neg. KER 22815

horses almost certainly pulling a waggon with bier, as on ANM 990. Frgts. a) e) come from the krater reverse shoulder, by analogy with ANM 990, decorated with a row of similar, large, fringed, concentric circles motifs filled with a hatched rosette, dot rosettes and dot rows in the interstices. These reverse concentric circles by contrast with those of the obverse, are enclosed by traditional flanking columns of double and triple zigzag with a horizontal border below. Frgts. f) five joining frgts. from the lower frieze: remains of a chariot drawn by two horses preceded by three Dipylon warriors, with dot rosettes, swastikas zigzags, and multiple zigzags in the field. Frgts. h) six small frgts from the same frieze with remains of warriors with Dipylon shields, horses, and a wheel. Frgt f) and g) have remains of a broad zone of meander bordered by zizag zones, and a lower zone of parallel wavy verticals. Frgts. a) b) d) h): handle region, with one angle above the handle preserved containing a marsh bird, and a swastika surrounded by dots. Above the handle a horizontal row of tangential blobs; below the handle traces of the raised arms of a line of mourners as on ANM 990; neck with preserved. segments of a tall, complex meander; hatching on the outer rim of the neck, and butterfly motif alternating with groups of parallels on its flat upper surface. Glazed foot with a meander zone flanked by bands, and at the lower edge, a band of coarse zigzag. Lower bowl dark glazed with a zone of four reserved bands. Krater interior glazed. Krater 284 finds its closest parallel in ANM 990, which appears to be closely contemporary, both among the earliest kraters of the Hirschfeld Master. Schweitzer 1971, pl. 40 (Fig. 207c), M. Weber, Die Bildsprache des Hirschfeldkraters, AM 114, 1999, 29-37, pl. 4f. Other Hirschfeld Workshop kraters, listed Coldstream 1968, 41. 46 are later in date. Full bibliography on the Hirschfeld Workshop, Moore 2004, 10-13. The central motif of the bier on a cart originated with the Dipylon Master: v 271. Compare 285, a Hirschfeld neck frgt. with similar meander. Krater 284 was found above Gr. hS 290, a male inhumation burial located under the Sacred Way, north of the main Precinct XX site, halfway between the Antidosis precinct and the Tritopatreion. The krater appeared to have been shoved over on its side (‘noch in Sturzlage,’ Vierneisel 1963, 30, pl. 29a), so protecting it from the fate of other Kerameikos epitymbia. Its burial context is illustrated on Fig. 57. Source: Gr. hS 290 Sacred Way. Phase: LGIa-b Pub: one frgt. ADelt Chr. 18, 1, 1963, 29 pl. 29 b; one frgt. Ahlberg 1971b, fig. 64a. Neg. KER 7052, 7053, 7054, 7055, 22872, 22876, 22877, 22878, 22879, 22885

283. Inv. 8877. Sidewall fragment from a Type I epitymbion krater. H: 8,1 W: 11,6 Thick: 1,5 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze brown. From the lower bowl of a large krater. Decorated with a zone of double outlined dogtooth, in this form found on horse pyxides of the Workshop of Tübingen 1087, Ker. XIII 60f. LGIa-b. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa-b Neg. KER 22814 284. Inv. 2943 (Fig. 124). Foot, sidewall and neck fragments of a large Type I epitymbion krater. Foot, D at lower edge: 47,0 cms. Upper sidewall and neck frgts. a) eight joining frgts. of neck H: 18,5 W: 42,0 b) neck frgt. H: 7,5 W: 16,0 c) three joining sidewall frgts. H: 15,0 W: 13,5 d) sidewall and neck frgt. H: 12,5 W: 15,0 e) sidewall frgt. H:13,0 W: 13,5; seven joining lower sidewall frgts. f) H: 31,0 W: 29,0 g) seven joining frgts. H: 22,5 W: 32,5, and h) six small frgts. of frieze. Avg. Thick: 1,3 cms. The similar krater ANM 990 (Fig. 207c) was 1.23 m. tall. A hypothetical reconstruction of this krater was created based on the remains and comparanda of closely similar kraters, discussed both here and in the text. Using the foot dimensions and increased zones as a basis points, the restored height of 284 could have been as tall as 1.36 m. Clay rose to orange; glaze black to orange. The foot and lower sidewall are fairly complete and partly restored with plaster. Handle, only traces on a) where broken away. The graphic reconstruction relied on the contemporary and closely similar krater ANM 990. The indications are an ovoid bowl offset above the shoulder by a tall vertical neck terminating above in a projecting angular rim, and below, a fairly straight profiled foot flaring slightly towards the lower edge. A hole ca. 2,9 cms. in diam in the bottom of the bowl was cut before firing (Fig. 81 right). Decoration: frgt. c) from the obverse side of the krater has all that remains of a significant, upper register center panel with three warriors, to their left the forequarters of a horse, and in the field above, part of a freestanding concentric circles motif. The taller warrior at left, arm raised towards the horse, was controlling a team of

285. Inv. 8883. Neck fragment from a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 10,2 W: 8,4 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze red 231

Kratos & Krater to brown. Full height of neck preserved, with lip broken away above. Lightly concave profile, preserving three segments of a complex meander. From a large krater of the Hirschfeld Workshop. Compare 284 to which it does not belong. Source: strayfind Naiskos. Phase: LGIa-b Neg. KER 22821

variety in LGIb, v. 291, Munich 6234, Davison 1961, fig. 78. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIa-b Neg. KER 22860 290. Inv. 9075. Fragment of a large ovoid krater. H: 8,7 W:16,0 Thick: 2,6 D: ca. 60 cms. Clay pinkish buff, glaze brown to dilute red. A vertical collar neck rather than a foot frgt., since it lacks the flat standing surface of the latter. The interior is unglazed, and it almost certainly came with a lid. Decorated with a horizontal zone of complex meander with traces of two horizontal bands above. The upper portion of an impressive ovoid krater of similar date is published Agora, P 25263, Brann 1962 62 273 pl. 16, LGIa, along with several lids from this kind of krater. Earlier neck. Since the ovoid krater was not a typical Athenian burial vase, few are preserved. Many MG Atticizing versions with inturned rim come from the central Cretan cemetery of Fortetsa, along with an Attic example, J. K. Brock, Fortetsa (Cambridge, 1957) pls. 30f., Attic, fig. 454. Use spread elsewhere in LG, and it is a question which area evolved the vertical neck found on the latest ovoid krater-pyxides. Agora, P 25263, Brann 1962, 62 pl. 16,273 (MGII-LGIa). Argos, Coldstream 1968, pl. 26. Euboea, P. Kahane, Ikonologische Untersuchungen zur Griechischgeometrischen Kunst. Der Cesnola-Krater aus Kourion im Metropolitan Museum, AntKunst 16,2, 1973, 114-138 pls. 25f. The latest Attic example

286. Inv. 8887. Fragment of sidewall and neck of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 4,2 W: 7,7 cms. A straight vertical neck with light offset from the sidewall. A trace of meander on the neck, and three horizontal bands on the sidewall, below which a vertical column of solid lozenges between bands. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIb Neg. KER 22815 287. Inv. 8889 Sidewall fragment of a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 6,1 W: 10,1 Thick: 1,2 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze dark brown and eroded. A zone of double outlined dogtooth between triple bands. Motif same as on 286. A trace of what may be a zone of dotted lozenges with dotted angles, a motif favored by the Hirschfeld Workshop. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIb Neg. KER 22814 288. Inv. 8892. Foot fragment from a large Type I epitymbion krater. H: 15,0 W: 20 cms. Clay orange buff; glaze red. Upper section of foot with a thick collar and slightly flaring profile below. On the collar, a zone of crosshatched, double outlined triangles. For the raised collar compare 235, 308. One of the latest pedestalled kraters Type I to be found in Athens. The zone of cross-hatched triangles begins in LGI in the Dipylon workshop, continuing into LGII in the Sub-Dipylon workshop. Zones of cross-hatched triangles are found on the late krater New York MMA 14.130.15, Moore 2004, 13, pls. 14-18. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIb Neg. KER 22854

AM 88, 1973, pl. 18a, LGII from Trachones. Source: strayfind Torgasse 1995 (TG 152), level 45, 4045, 20 between cut 54 and 44 (Kleinsteinmauer). Sketch adapted from an original courtesy B. von Freytag gen. Löringhoff Cat. 290

289. Inv. 8893 (Fig. 194). Fragment of sidewall and rim of a small Type II krater. H: 5,9 W: 6,9 Thick: 0,9 Rest. D: 40,0 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze brown to black. Upright collar neck and curving sidewall. On the neck a zone of tangential blobs. On the sidewall below, a zone of zigzag flanked by zones of two bands. A trace of meander bordered by parallels below left, and part of a dotted circle(?) below right. On the upper surface of the rim groups of parallels. For type compare Coldstream, Knossos Pottery Handbook, p. 47. This is one of the less formal, possibly low-footed Type II kraters, a type that outlived the demise of the standard pedestalled

291. Inv. 789 (Fig. 194). Upper bowl portion of a krater. H: 22,3 W: 29,5 cms. Clay beige; glaze brown to black. Curving sidewall, narrowing to a short vertical rim. A single horizontal roll handle on either side of the vessel. No trace of a spout pres. Broad shoulder zones filled with a row of bold wheel motif in a framework of triple bands, with a zone of large cross-hatched triangles below; lower bowl with horizontal lines, 232

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue interrupted by a wide band of dark glaze. Vertical rim with a zone of dots and groups of parallels on the upper; handles dark glazed. The wheel a motif current since Mycenaean times, is found on other elite shapes (e.g. the base of a pyxis, Agora P5060, Brann 1962, pl. 15,269; Coldstream 1968, pl. 9). This is one of the rare Athenian kraters found in funerary use following the demise of the large pedestalled kraters. The closest parallel, is perhaps Agora P 25638, Brann 1962, 63 pl. 16,285. Krater 291 and the later 300 may also be related to LGII kraters found at Menidhi, JdI 14, 1899, 110f. figs. 18f. 27. Kübler believed 291 to be a low-footed spouted type, Ker, V,1 273, i.e. a more formal version of the class of small, low-footed, spouted kraters decorated with animal friezes, that have been found in domestic context, 294-299, Coldstream 1968, 86. The earliest is a LGIa spouted version of the Hirschfeld Master, Davison 1961, fig. 27 ab. All share multiple horizontal zones on the lower half. However, not all LGII kraters are spouted, including 292 following and Munich 6234 (CVA) 3 pls. 104f. 107. Coldstream viewed the latter as a low-footed survival of the Type II krater, Coldstream 1968, 86, but it is a true hybrid, combining the profile of the Type II with the double horizontal handle and taller neck of the Type I, and adding the lid that now became common. Krater 291 comes from a LGIIa context well defined by the inclusion of a bowl from the Birdseed Workshop, Coldstream 1968, 68, no. 21e. Source: Vor Dipylon Gr. G 91 in 1936. Phase: LGIIa Pub: Ker. V,1 269. 273 pl. 24 Neg. KER 3492

bands. The casual execution of the lozenge chain sets this krater in the LGII period. It was larger than the series of animal frieze kraters represented by 294, and may have resembled the pedestalled 292. Source: strayfind. Phase: LGIIb Neg. KER 22815 294. Inv 1329 (Fig. 118,196). Sidewall and rim fragment of a spouted krater, so-called “louterion.” H: 13,7 W: 21,5 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black, fleeting. A curving upper sidewall frgt. with a short collar neck, with at left the remains of a spout, and at right traces where a horizontal handle had been attached. Between spout and handle area a dog running to the right, zigzag fill ornament in the surround. To the right a metope of vertical bars with a column of coarse zigzag between. Above the handle attachment area to right, a wavy line. Glaze on the neck, with groups of bars on its upper surface, the lower bowl with continuous zones of narrow bands, and bands on the spout. Glazed inner surface. From a low footed krater of a type that survived into the Protoattic period. From a Plattenbau burial, but there are five similar spouted kraters decorated with animal friezes, all emanating from the vicinity of Bau Z at the Sacred Gate: 295-299. Type and refs. v. 295, 300 and Coldstream 1968 p. 86. Found with demonstrably LGIIb footed bowls. Source: Gr. G 53 Plattenbau. Phase: LGIIb Pub: Ker. V,1 248. 273 pl. 24, Coldstream 1968, 84. 86 Neg. KER 5368 295. Inv. 8873.. Three joining fragments from a small spouted krater. H: 10,0 W: 30,0 cms. Clay rose beige, grey inside; glaze black to dilute red. Short collar neck, full curving sidewall. To left trace where a horizontal handle was broken away (as on Inv. 789, Ker. V l, pl. 24). A dog almost fully preserved running to right, and behind it the necks of two birds facing right. Butterfly, squiggle and chevron as fill ornament in the field. To left, remains of a framing element of vertical lines with hatching between the center lines. On the neck a row of dots and four bands below, with groups of parallels on the upper surface. The running dog frieze, here and on 294 and 296, is found on LGIIb vessels in Plattenbau Gr. G 53 and is surveyed Rombos 222f. For similar spouted kraters with running dogs, Bonn 15, Davison 1961, 45f. fig. 41 attributed by Cook to the Painter of Athens 897. The same hand on an Agora spouted krater, Brann 1962, pl. 20,339, where the dog alternates with horses, and on olpai, pl. 21,359, pl. 7,83f. The same hand, krater 296 with confronting deer, and 297 with confronting deer and horse. The motifs were possibly copied from relief bands of Cypriote bronze tripods depicting dogs pursuing deer: Rept. Dept. Antiquities, Cyprus, 2003, figs. 4f. Frgt. 295 was found in a trench with the other krater frgts. 296-299, perhaps remains from funerary libation ritual.

292. Inv. 1143 (Fig. 195). Small krater. H: 31,2. Beige fabric with fleeting glaze. Ovoid form on a high foot only one frgt. of which was preserved (Kübler believed the foot was restored too tall, Ker. V l, 214). A short, inward sloping collar neck, and two double loop horizontal handles on either side. Decoration on each shoulder of a panel of two horses facing right, each with a butterfly motif above and a lozenge below. The lower sidewall with narrow horizontal zones broken in two places by a zone of vertical columns of wavy lines; a similar zone of wavy lines on the neck; striped handles. Horizontal bands and a zigzag on the foot. A small spoutless krater with a double loop handle, this modest vessel may be the last hurrah of the pedestalled Type I in Athens. It is probably symbolic production for ritual and placement within the grave. V. preceding entry for discussion. Source: Precinct XX Hegeso Precinct, 1937. Gr. G 6. Phase: LGIIb Pub: Ker. V,1 214. 273 pl. 24. Coldstream 1968, 84. Neg. KER 4569 293. Inv. 9011. Sidewall fragment. H: 7,6 W: 5,5 cms. Rose beige clay; red to black glaze. Remains of a horizontal zone of lozenges bordered above and below by three 233

Kratos & Krater Source: strayfind Bldg. Z trench Sacred Gate, with other Geometric sherds. Phase: LGIIb Neg. KER 22895

Sidewall glazed; underside of the foot reserved with three concentric glaze circles. May belong with 296 and 298 with which it was found. Type, refs. and workshop, u. 295. Source: Bldg. Z trench. Phase: LGIIb Neg. KER 22894

296. Inv. 9000 (Fig. 197). Sidewall fragment of a spouted krater. Nine joining frgts. H: 20,5 W: 27,5 cms. Clay orange beige; glaze reddish brown. Curving upper straightening towards the lower sidewall. Upper frieze preserves a deer(?) moving right towards another moving left. Of the left animal, part of the torso, front and back legs, and trace of muzzle(?) preserved; of the right animal, parts of breast, neck, forelegs, muzzle and ear (the legs of the left animal are more horizontal as found on a dog, but a trace of the end of a long deer muzzle similar to the righthand deer is preserved). In the field below a fill ornament of groups of vertical wavy lines, horizontal squiggles, butterfly and chevron. The lower sidewall is decorated with multiple horizontal bands with a broader glaze band as the lowest edge. Found with 299 in Bau Z, and perhaps from the same vessel. Type, refs. and workshop, u. 295. Source: strayfind Bldg. Z trench with 299. Phase: LGIIb Neg. KER 22881, 22894

300. Inv. 1336 (Fig. 198). Upper sidewall fragment of a krater. H: 25,5 W: 28,0 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze black to red. Curving sidewall with short upright collar neck. Recomposed from a number of frgts. No spout pres. On the upper sidewall a panel arrangement of vertical columns of crosshatching, hatching and wavy lines separated by triple bands. To right and left, groups of four horizontal rows of lozenges on a reserved field. Remains of a concentric circles motif outlined with dots, to the right. A zone of dots on the neck and groups of parallels on the flat upper surface of the rim. Lower sidewall with multiple zones of narrow bands. The interior glazed. Probably from a low-footed, horizontal handled krater similar to 291 q.v. It closed the mouth of a burial amphora. Source: Gr. G 46 Plattenbau. Phase: LGIIb Pub: Ker. V,1, 239. 273 pl. 24 Neg. KER 5367

297. Inv. 8898. Sidewall and rim fragment of a spouted krater. H: 7,3 W: 10,9 cms. Clay rose beige; black peeling glaze. Curving sidewall with a short collar neck and spout. Spout bridge support broken away. To the right, a grazing horse, head lowered, moving left: the mane in short upright parallels which continue onto the animal’s back. Under the spout the forequarters of a deer striding right, its head uplifted. Above the horse three rows of squiggle, and below the remains of three upright parallels, possibly multiple zizag. Stripes on the spout and groups of parallels on the flat upper surface of the rim. For the horse compare Brann 1962, 69f. pl. 20,339. Type, refs. and workshop, u. 295. Source: strayfind Bldg. Z trench. Phase: LGIIb Neg. Bohen

301. Inv. 3684. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,3 Thick: 0,8 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze exterior black, interior red. Remains of a winged goat or horse with checkered wing, and horizontal zigzag rows to right. Workshop of Athens 894, as several other frgts. from the same deposit, v. 302 for shape, motif and refs. Source: strayfind Rundbau. Phase: LGIIb Pub: Ker. XII 92 pl. 17 56 302. Inv. 3688. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,3 Thick: 1,1 Rest. Dm. 40,0 cms. Clay reddish-beige with some impurities; glaze black. The type of krater, whether cauldron, or a revival of the earlier series of formal kraters is unclear. Checkered wing and tail(?) of an animal moving left, possibly a winged goat. Above remains of a horizontal zone of checkerboard and three bands. To the right a column of zigzag bordered by vertical lines. Fill ornament of a star, a zigzag and chevron(?). Workshop of Athens 894, as several other frgts. from the same Rundbau deposit, four of which are also adorned with a checker-winged animal including krater 301. Similar checkered wing animal combined with a checkerboard zone on the tondo of bowl ANM 14441, Prakt. 1911, p. 121 fig 18 from Anavyssos; Paris CA 1780, CVA Louvre (16) pl. 39 1. 2. Coldstream 1968, 58-60. Ker. VI,2, 98. Rombos 1988, 254 f. reviews others. The checkered winged goat appears for the first time in LGII, perhaps originating from the Near East. Source: strayfind in Rundbau red stratum. Phase: LGIIb

298. Inv. 9001. Sidewall and rim fragment of a spouted krater. H: 3,3 W: 13,6 cms. Clay beige; glaze black, fleeting. A curving sidewall, vestigial collar neck, decorated with trace of an animal frieze, with squiggle and butterfly motif at intervals below the rim. Dots on the rim, and groups of parallels on its upper surface. Found in the Bau Z trench with 296 and 299, which may belong. Type, refs. and workshop, v. 295. Source: strayfind Bldg. Z trench. Phase: LGIIb Neg. KER 22895 299. Inv. 8899. Base of a spouted krater. H: 3,3 W: 13,9 cms. Clay rose beige; glaze light reddish brown. Two joining fragments of a flat foot, slightly offset from the sidewall. 234

Chapter VI The Krater Catalogue Pub: Ker. XII 92 pls. 16f. 60 Neg. KER 7995, 10395, 10396

conformation, penetrating well forward into the ship’s bow. The shields and a stash of pikes or lances in a rack above the ship’s eye define this vessel as a warship. If this is an Argive frgt. as suggested by the excavator, the horizontal wavy lines may represent water, as on the ship scene 304, and on the Argive krater C 240, with a depiction that has been interpreted as a waterside ritual, Coldstream 2003, 143 fig. 45 b. To the left a large outlined and dotted floral motif of the type favored by the Analatos Painter. Ship refs. AA 1995, 634, n. 18. Source: strayfind from Bldg.Y. Phase: LGII-EPA. Pub: Kerameikos 1992-94, AA 1995, 633f. n. 18, fig. 13 I Neg. KER 22801

303. Inv. 3690. Sidewall fragment. H: 3,6 Thick: 0,9 cms. Clay beige with some impurities. Good black glaze inside and out. From a medium krater. Metope with checkerboard of cross hatching alternating with dots above left, and part of a spiral ornament to the right. Below three horizontal bands and a zone of hooked dotted lozenges. For the checkerboard motif compare ANM 897, BSA 42, 1947, pl. 20 b; Paris A 511, CVA Louvre (16) pl. 3; Trachones Tr. 81, AM 88, 1973, pl. 25, LGII (Fig. 126). For the hooked lozenges, Agora P 4990, Hesperia Suppl. 2, 1939, 55f. figs. 37. 38, and BM 1910.6-16.1, Davison 1961, fig. 67. For the spiral motif, ANM 810, AM 17, 1892, pl. 10. This krater was a likely successor to the latest formal krater from Trachones. There is no evidence that these Rundbau kraters were pedestalled epitymbia, a tradition that was terminated in Athens during LGIb, only to be renewed in a new Corinthian skyphoid form in the Protoattic period: Ker. VI,1 18-21, Ker. VI,2 pl. 29 (670-660 BC). Source: strayfind in Rundbau red stratum. Phase: LGIIbEPA Pub: Ker. XII 92 pl. 16,62 Neg. KER 7996, 10395, 10396

306. Inv. 3685. Sidewall fragment. H: 5,35 Thick: 1,1 Rest. Dm: 40,0 cms. Clay reddish beige with inclusions. Glaze outside reddish brown, inside, black to brown. From a large krater with remains of two hindlegs of animal moving to right, with fur on the upper part, and a claw or a hoof below. Filling ornament of lozenge star and squiggle, and a horizontal line below. Geometric artists rarely depict animal hair beyond the horse mane: this krater is transitional to the Protoattic phase. For refs. and Boeotian comparanda, Ker. XII, 92 no. 57 pl. 17. Source: strayfind Rundbau. Phase: EPA Pub: Ker. XII 92 pl. 17

304. Inv. 2988. Two rim and sidewall fragments of a small krater. H: 6,0 W: 13,0 cms. Strongly curving sidewall. Representation of a ship, and remains of four oarsmen, with pointed prow moving left. Above and below to the left, horizontal zig-zags, perhaps representing waves, and a butterfly motif. On the second frgt., a lion, head missing, moves to the right. Dark glazed interior. Remains of two modelled snakes and traces where more such broken away reveal cauldron, probably footed, as ANM 810, AM 17, 1892, pl. 10; R. Hampe, Ein frühattischer, Grabfund (Mainz 1960) 54, fig. 38. Similar ship motif and wavy line on 305 following entry. For analysis, R. Tölle, AA 1963, 653.656f. fig. 11f. 15, with parallels for the ship. Agora P 21233, P 22440, Brann 1962, 67.69, nos. 323, 339. Source: strayfind. Phase: LGIIb-EPA Pub: R. Tölle, AA 1963, 654f. fig. 11 Neg. KER 12906

307. Inv. 8814 (Fig. 199). Foot fragment. H: 9,5 W: 16,0 cms. Clay rose buff, glaze dark brown. Two joining frgts from the upper part of a foot. Collar above with a row of opposed triangles; dark glaze below broken by narrow horizontal zones and trace of a checkerboard zone. Similar checkerboard and zones on 308. Likely from a fenestrated cauldron. Source: strayfind Alter Bestand. Phase: LGIIb-EPA Neg. KER 22854 308. Inv. 8895. Foot fragment. H: 8,2 W: 9,8 cms. Clay buff with a cream wash; glaze black to red. Straight foot profile. Horizontal zones below with remains of checkerboard as on 307, preceding entry. It too may come from a fenestrated foot of the type current at the end of the eighth century. Compare Ker. XII pl. 16, 44.66, and possibly Menidhi kraters, JdI 14, 1899, 110f. figs. 18f. 27. Miniature lidded kraters with fenestrated foot in an adult burial, Irian Gate Gr. VIII, Brückner-Pernice 1893,115f. pl. 8,1. Source: strayfind Naiskos 1967. Phase: LGIIb-EPA Neg. KER 22854

305. Inv. 8783. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,8, W: 11,2 cms. Clay yellowish-green, Argive or Corinthian fabric; glaze fleeting. From a dinos, the more elegant counterpart of the common LGII kraters listed above under 295. A partly preserved ship’s prow moving left, with ship’s eye, and to the right the remains of two shields, one fully preserved with perhaps a trace of a warrior’s head above it, the other only partly preserved, outlined. Below are the seats for the rowers in a notable

309. Inv. 5470. Rim fragment. H: 4,4 W: 5,6 Thick: 1,0 cms. Clay buff; glaze black. Decoration of bands and some 235

Kratos & Krater 311. Inv. 10581. Sidewall fragment. H: 6,4 W: 7,7 Thick: 1,1 cms. Clay pinkish-beige; glaze thin red to brown. Swelling above for the onset of the rim collar. Decoration of horizontal squiggles. Glazed interior. No Geometric comparanda: probably a vessel of common use. Source: Alter Bestand strayfind.

other poorly preserved motif below. The lip upper surface is decorated with groups of bands alternating with butterfly motif. Source: strayfind Bldg. Z. Phase: LG Neg. KER 22867 310. Inv. 10580. Rim fragment. H: 6,7 W: 12,7 Thick: 1,0. Thick at rim: 3,5. Rest. D rim: 60,0 cms. Clay pinkish-beige, yellowish on outer surface. Glaze grey, and fleeting. Rim sloping outwards somewhat, and overall glazed. Glazed sidewall. No comparanda. It is likely a krater of more common use. Source: Bldg. Z, RD 17/18. Phase: LG?

312. Inv. 9005. Base center of a krater bowl. H: 11,5 W: 9,5 cms. Clay orange beige, glaze black. Part of a disc popped out along a potted line of weakness at the thinner center section in the base of the bowl. It shows no signs of having been deliberately broken out. The pitting in the center likely from weathering Source: Alter Bestand strayfind. Phase: Geometric. Neg. Bohen.


Concordance: Inventory & Catalogue Number

0283 0290 0530a 0532 0609 0728 0734 0739 0747 0789 0865 0871 0909 0916 0919 919 0930 0935 1143 1149 1187 1213 1247 1254 1255 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1329 1336 2133 2855 2943 2988 3657 3684 3685 3688 3690 3747 3941 5400 5401 5402 5403 5405 5406 5407 5408

253 200 15 23 66 73 51 57 42 291 201 195 128 14 327 123 132 151 292 176 174 39 205 193 279 233 138 142 252 141 294 300 67 219 284 304 240 301 306 302 303 267 225 3 2 22 93 4 33 95 31

5409 5410 5411 5412 5413 5414a-e 11 5415 5416 5417 5418 5419 5420 5421 5422 5423 5424 5425 5426 5427 5428ab 5429 5430 5431 5432 5434 5435 5436 5437 5438 5440 5441 5442 5443 5444 5447ab 5448 5449 5450 5451 5452 5453 5454 5455 5456 5457 5458 5459 5460ab 5461 5462 5463 237

49 10 48 29 74 18 85 40 79 81 80 99 94 5 102 147 84 92 68 122 78 152 24 144 143 54 41 89 62 118 38 58 59 126 55 56 149 150 148 146 181 96 175 230 158 154 155 153 161 197

5464 5465 5466 5467 5469 5470 5471 5472 5473 5474 5475 5476 5477 5478 5479a 5480 5481 5482 5483 5484 5485ab 5486 5487 5488 5489 5490 5491 5492 5494 5495 5496 5497 5498 5499 5500 6313 6314a 6400 6446 7716 7717 7718 7719 7720 7721 7722 7723 7724 7725 7726 7727

183 167 104 156 130 309 177 117 116 115 179 165 206 208 209 232 324 241 231 239 12 169 163 171 221 223 250 139 162 16 137 251 140 172 199 105 91 83 125 37 34 1 6 26 97 30 19 86 119 35 36

Kratos & Krater 7728 7729 7730.1 7730.2 7731.1 7731.2 7732 7733 7734 7735 7736 7737 7738 7739 7740 7741 7742 7743 7744 7745 7746 7747 7748 7749 7750 7751 7753 7754 7755 7756 7757 7758ab 7759 7760 7761 7762 7763 7764 7765 7767 7769 7770 7771 7772 7773 8783 8807 8808 8809 8810 8811 8812 8813 8814ab 8815

25 70 110 27 60 103 114 100 50 69 82 64 77 44 46 106 61 47 63 21 20 76 88 52 53 111 71 90 101 121 203 159 210 164 184 187 157 124 227 166 226 186 194 188 178 305 173 224 235 189 198 222 220 307 109

8816 8817 8818 8819 8820 8822 8823 8824 8825 8826 8827 8828 8829 8830 8831 8832 8833 8834 8835 8836 8837 8838 8839 8840 8841 8842 8843 8844 8845 8846 8847 8848 8849 8850 8851 8852 8853 8854 8855 8856 8857 8858 8859 8860 8861 8862 8864 8865 8866 8867 8868 8869 8870 8871 8872

28 7 32 108 113 276 112 65 45 87 75 182 98 120 196 216 202 217 133 134 136 212 170 131 72 135 107 236 168 237 192 204 191 190 262 215 244 207 254 229 320 243 245 263 260 247 257 258 259 228 322 249 180 213 246


8873 8874 8875 8876 8877 8878 8879 8880 8881 8882 8883 8884 8885 8886 8887 8888 8889 8890 8891 8892 8893 8894 8895 8896 8897 8898 8899 9054 8976 9000 9001 9067 9004 9005 9006 9007 9008 9010 9011 9046 9054 9065 9066 9068 9075 9752 10578 10579 10580 10581 10582 10583 111515abc

295 211 238 234 283 271 273 270 268 277 285 269 278 281 286 274 287 255 256 288 289 248 308 282 280 297 299 17 272 296 298 264 261 312 265 242 214 160 293 8 17 145 185 275 290 9 129 218 310 311 266 127 43

Concordance, Kraters & Kerameikos Locations

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

7718 5401 Pompeion