Voyatzis-The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea

ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΣ

THE EARLY SANCTUARY OF ATHENA ALEA AT T E G E A

And Other Archaic Sanctuaries in Arcadia

by

MARY E. VOYATZIS

Goteborg 1990

Paul Astroms forlag

\Ό •At

I no Preface

© M.E. Voyatzis 1990 ISBN 97 7081 020 6

Printed in Sweden by Minab, 1990.21223

^ This book is derived directly from an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: The Sanctuary of Athena Alea 800-600 B.C., and its Relationship to Other Arcadian Sites (University of London: 1985). I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to my former supervisor, Professor J.N. Coldstream, for his invaluable guidance and support throughout the course of this research. My examiners. Dr. A. Johnston and Professor G. Huxley, offered very helpful suggestions for which I am also most grateful. There are many other archaeologists, classicists and historians as well as friends and family in Greece, England and N. America whose assistance made this work possible and to whom I am indebted. I would like to thank especially Dr. H. Catling, Dr. F. Cooper, Dr. D. Evely, Dr. A. Foley, Mr. R. Howell, Dr. T. Karageorga, Dr. E. Ostby, Dr. J. Roy, Dr. U. Sinn, Dr. G. Steinhauer, Dr. T. Spyropoulos and Dr. N. Yalouris.

I would like to thank Professor P. Astrom for accepting this book for publication in the SIMA series and the University of Arizona for a grant towards its completion from the Provost's Author Support Fund. For the final inking of the drawings and the printing and layout of the photographs, I thank Ms. L. Kain. To my husband, Mr. Frederick Frelinghuysen, I wish to express my deepest appreciation for his invaluable assistance in the final preparation of the text of the book for publication and for his constant support at every stage of this work.

The Arcadian-Laconian Ephor, Dr. T. Spyropoulos, was helpful throughout the duration of my research in this region and provided excellent assistance from the staffs at the Tegea, Tripolis and Sparta museums, for which I am most appreciative. I am very grateful alsolo the French School at Athens for permitting me to publish the material from Tegea, Dr. G. Steinhauer for allowing me to include unpublished material from his excavations at Tegea and Dr. T. Karageorga for permission to illustrate objects from GortsouH. I am equally indebted to the British School at Athens for facilitating access to all material studied, and for providing a most congenial base while in Athens.

Tucson, Arizona June, 1989

MEV

III

0 9au??d» ' 0^ m. 1992

To My Parents

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface List of Figures and Plates Abbreviations

Chapter One - Introduction

Chapter Two - Topography and Architectural Remains Section One: Tegea Section Two: Other Arcadian Sanctuaries

Mavriki Gortsouli Orchomenos

^— Asea Lousoi Alipheira Bassai Cretea Gortys

- Petrovouni Conclusions

Chapter Three - Pottery Section One: Pottery from Tegea

Mycenaean-Submycenaean Protogeometric Middle Geometric Late Geometric Protocorinthian Influence/Imports # Handmade and Miniature Pots Conclusions

Section Two: Pottery from Other Arcadian Sites Mavriki Gortsouli

— Orchomenos Bassai Cretea

m via

X

10 28 28 30 32 33 35 37 37 43 44 45 46

62 64 65 69 71 77 79 82 84 84 87 89 90 90

Gortys Lousoi

Conclusions: Arcadian Pottery

Chapter Four - Human and Animal Figurines in Bronze Section One: Human Figurines

Conclusions Section Two: Quadrupeds

Tegean Horse Figurines Conclusions: Tegean Horses Lousoi Horse Figurines Horses from Bassai and Phigaleia Conclusions: Arcadian Horses Deer from Tegea Other Quadrupeds from Tegea Other Quadrupeds from Lousoi Reclining Oxen from Tegea

Section Three: Birds Birds from Tegea and Mavriki Birds from Lousoi Bird from Bassai Conclusions: Arcadian Birds

Chapter Five - Pendants and Other Bronzes

Section One: Pendants Bronzes from Tegea and Arcadia Double Protome Pendants Stamp and Pomegranate Pendants Stamp Pendants Pomegranate Pendants

Conclusions: Stamp and Pomegranate Pendants Ring Pendants Wheel Pendants Hammer Pendants SoHd Ovoid Pendants Bulls' Heads Pendants Shield Pendant 'Composite' Pendant Staff Pendant Double Axes Pendants ' Beads Turtle Pendant

91 91 92

103 126 127 127 132 133 138 139 140 142 143 144 147 147 155 156 157 .

175 175 177 177 184 186 187 189 189 190 191 192 192 193 194 195 196

VI

Scarab Section Two: Other Bronzes

Miniature Votive Shields Votive Swords Bronze Arrowheads Miniature Phialai/Discs Votive Lyres Cauldron Rim Votive Tweezers Votive Combs Rectangular Plaques Pins Conclusions: Pins Fibulae Conclusions: Fibulae

Section Three: Bronzes From Other Arcadian Sites Miniature Armour from Bassai Gortsouli Cage

Chapter Six - Terracottas and Objects of Other Materials Terracottas from Tegea Terracottas from Lousoi Bassai Terracotta Terracottas: Conclusions Objects of Other Materials

Chapter Seven - Conclusions

Catalogue of Objects from Tegea and Mavriki

197 197 198 200 201 201 201 202 202 203 203 203 208 209 217 218 218 220

239 242 244 244 245

252

277

vu

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figures 8-16

Figures 16-18

Figures 19-21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

List of Figures and Plates

Map of Arcadia 800-600 B.C.

Map of Tegean Demes and Modern Tegean

Villages

Map of Tegean Town Walls (after Callmer, SGA

113, fig. 2)

Plan of Athena Alea Sanctuary (after Dugas, IV

Steele ph. I-II)

Gortsouli Temples (A: after Karageorga, ADelt

(1963): Chronika 88, fig. 1; B: from Mazarakis,

through correspondence)

Bassai Temples (after Yalouris, AAA 6 (1973):

39-55, fig. 1)

Chart of Arcadian Sanctuaries

Illustrations of Pottery from Tegea

Illustrations of Pottery from Mavriki

Illustrations of Pottery from Gortsouli

Distribution of 8th-7th century Human Figure

Types

Breakdown of Features of Tegean Horses

Breakdown of Features of Other Arcadian Horses

Distribution of Stamp and Pomegranate Pendants

Quadrupeds from Lx)usoi

Illustrations of Bronze Base-Plate decoration

Illustrations of Objects of Gold and Bronze from

Tegea (after Dugas, Tegea 384 no. 154, fig. 45; 428

no. 365, fig. 54)

Plates 64 (L2), 65 ( O ) 71 ' / ^ S . ^ h e Badisches Landesmuseum.

Plate 63 (LI): after Schweitzer, ^^Αρ^^^ζ^^

and Charlotte Ernstem.

Plates 1-45 Pottery from Tegea

Plates 46-53 Pottery from Mavriki

Plates 54-65 Human Figurines of Bronze and Lead

Plates 66-82 Quadrupeds of Bronze

Plates 83-91 Birds of Bronze

Plates 92-134 Bronze Pendants

Plates 135-172 Other Bronzes

Plates 173-184 Terracottas

Plates 185-187 Objects of Other Materials vc

Vlll

Abbreviations

Bibliographical:

AA

AAA

Alin, EMF

ADelt

AE

AJA

AM

AR

BCH

BICS

Blinkenburg, Fibules

Bouzek, GMB

Callmer, SGA

Cartledge, Sparta

Coldstream, GG

Coldstream, GGP

Cooper, Bassai

Courbin, CGA

Dawkins, Sparta

Archaoligischer Anzeiger

Athens Annals of Archaeology

Alin, P. Das Ende der mykensichen

Fundstdtten aufdem griechischen Festland.

Lund: 1962.

' kQxaioXoyixov AeXrlov

"AQxaioXoyLXYj Έφηΐλ€ρί$

American Journal of Archaeology

Mitteilungen des deutschen archaologischen

Instituts, Athenische Abteilung

Archaeological Reports

Bulletin de correspondance hellenique

Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies,

University of London.

Blinkenberg, C. Fibules grecques et ^

orientates. Copenhagen: 1926.

Bouzek, J. Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes:

Analysis and Chronology. Prague: 1974.

Callmer, C. Studien zur Geschichte

Arkadiens. Lund: 1943.

Cartledge, P. Sparta and Laconia: a

regional history, 1300-362 B.C. London:

1979.

Coldstream, J.N. Geometric Greece.

London: 1977.

Coldstream, J.N. Greek Geometric Pottery.

London: 1968.

Cooper, F. The Temple of Apollo at Bassai:

A Preliminary Study. New York: 1978.

Courbin, P. La ceramique geometrique de

lArgolide. Paris: 1966.

Dawkins, R.M. The Sanctuary of Artemis

Orthia at Sparta. London: 1929.

Desborough, GDA

Desborough, PGP

Desborough, LMTS

Dugas, IVSiecle

Dugas, Tegea

Dunbabin, Perachora II

Ergon

Frazer, Paus.

Furumark, MP

Gehrig, Samos

Heilmeyer, Tonfiguren

Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren

Hope Simpson, Gazetteer

Hope Simpson, MG

Hope Simpson, Gazetteer

and Dickinson

Desborough, V.R.d'A. The Greek Dark

Ages. London: 1972. Desborough, V.R.d'A. Protogeometric

Pottery. Oxford: 1952.

Desborough, V.R.d'A. The Last

Mycenaeans and their Successors. Oxford:

1964.

Dugas, C, J. Berchmans and M.

Clemmensen. Le sanctuaire dAlea Athena

a Tegee au IV^ siecle. Paris: 1924.

Dugas, C. "Le Sanctuaire d'Alea Athena a

Tegee avant le IV^ siecle," 5C//45 (1921):

335-435.

Dunbabin, T.J. Perachora Π. Pottery,

Ivories, Scarabs and Other Objects. Oxford:

1962.

To 'Έργοϊ^ Trjs 'AQxatoXoyLxris 'EratQetces

Frazer, J.G. Pausanais' Description of

Greece, vol. IV. (reprinted from 1898)

edition) New York: 1965.

Furumark, A. The Mycenaean Pottery:

analysis and classification, (reprinted

from 1941 edition) Stockholm: 1972.

Gehrig, U. Die geometrischen Bronzen aus

dem Heraion von Samos. Hamburg:

1964.

Heilmeyer, W.-D. FriXhe olympische

Tonfiguren. 0¥ 7. Berlin: 1976.

Heilmeyer, W.-D. Friihe olympische

Bronzefiguren die Tiervotive. OF 12. Berlin:

1979.

Hope Simpson, R. A Gazetteer and Atlas of

Mycenaean Sites. London: 1965.

Hope Simpson, R. Mycenaean Greece.

Park Ridge, New Jersey: 1981.

Hope Simpson, R. and O.P.T.K. Dickinson.

A Gazetteer of Aegean Civilization in the

Bronze Age, Vol. 1: The Mainland and the

Islands, Gothenburg: 1979.

XI

Jacobsthal, Pins

JbKuSammlBadWurt

Jdl

JHS

JOAI

Jost, Sanctuaires

Kilian, Fibeln

Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai

Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger

Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln

Mountjoy, MDP

i

OlBer

OF

OpAth

Orlandos, Alipheira

Papachadzis, Paus.

Payne, NC

Payne, Perachora I

Jacobsthal, P. Greek Pins and their

Connexions with Europe and Asia. Oxford:

1956.

Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Wurttemburg

Jahrbuch des deutschen archaologischen

Instutits

Journal of Hellenic Studies

Jahreshefte des osterreichischen

archaologischen Instuts in Wien

Jost, M. Sanctuaires et cultes d'Arcadie.

EtudeiPeloponnesiennes IX. Paris: 1985.

Kilian, K. Fiblen in Thessalien von der

Mykenischen bis Archaischen Zeit. PBF 14,

2. Munich: 1975.

" Ά ρ χ ο ί δ ι Χ Ε ^ και \oίκωvικes ΊδLoμoρφίes στα

Χαλκά Κοσμήματα^ ΚακωνικαΙ ΣτουδαΙ Δ'

Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. Anhdnger in

Griechenland von der mykenischen bis zur

spatgeometrischen Zeit. PBF 11,2.

Munich: 1979.

Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. Nadeln der

frUhhelladischen bis archaischen Zeit von der

Peloponnes. PBF 13,8. Munich: 1984.

Mountjoy, P.A. Mycenaean Decorated

Pottery: A Guide to Identification.

Gothenburg: 1986.

Bericht Uber die Ausgrabungen in Olympia.

Olympische Forschungen ,

Opuscula Atheniensia

Orlandos, A. Ή Ά ρ χ α δ ι χ τ / Ά λ ι φ β ι ρ ο ; καΐ

τα Μνημεία Trjs. Athens: 1968.

Papachadzis, Ν. ΥΙαυσανων Έ\\άδο$

UeρLΎjyησLS, Athens: 1980.

Payne, H.G.G. Necrocorinthia. Oxford:

1931.

Payne, H.G.G. Perachora. The Sanctuaries

of Hera Akraia and Limenia. Oxford: 1940.

PBF

Philipp, Bronzeschmuck

FAE

Vv'\ichcXi,SAGTI

VnXchtiU SAGTII

Pritchett,5/1G7F

RDAC

RA

REA Rolley,

Rolley,/O.K

SIMA

Schweitzer, GGA

Snodgr ass, y4G

Snodgrass, jD/iG

Snodgrass,^G.4i^

Van Buren, FR

Waldstein,^////

Yalouris, Bassai

Prahistorische Bronzefunde

Philipp, H. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia.

OF 13. Berlin: 1981.

YlQaκτίκa TYJS ev Αθηναία Άρχaio\oyLκr|S

'ETaiQeias

Pritchett, W.K. Studies in Ancient Greek

Topography, Part I. Berkley: 1965.


Topography, Part II. Berkley: 1969.


Topography, Part V. Berkley: 1985.

Report of the Department of Antiquities of

Cyprus

Revue archeologique

Revue des etudes anciennes RoUey, C. Monumenta Graeca et Romana.

Leiden: 1967.

Rolley, C. Fouilles de Delphes.

vol V: Monuments figures: les statuettes de

bronze. Paris: 1969 Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology.

Schweitzer, B. Greek Geometric Art.

London: 1971.

Snodgrass, A.M. Archaic Greece: The Age

of Experiment. London: 1980.

Snodgrass, A.M. Dark Age of Greece.

Edinburgh: 1971.

Snodgrass, A.M. Early Greek Armour and

Weapons from the End of the Bronze Age to

600B.C. Edinburgh: 1964.

Van Buren, D. Greek Fictile Revetments in

the Archaic Period. London: 1926.

Waldstein, C. The Argive Heraion, Vol.II

Boston: 1905.

Yalouris, N. "Problems relating to the

Temple of Apollo Epikourios," Greece and

Italy in Classical Archaeology, Acta of the XI

International Congress ofArchaoelogy, eds.

J.N. Coldstream and M.A.R. Colledge.

London: 1979, 89-104.

xni ^ xii

General:

TM no.

NM no.

F n o .

C n o .

G n o .

(TM)

(S)

(X)

(M)

(OX)

(no.)

Ρ no.

Β no.

Τ no.

Μ no.

L n o .

L T n o .

GP no.

MP no.

cm

m

Η

D

L

Myc.

PG

G

PC

Tegea Museum catalogue Number

Athens National Museum Number

Karlsruhe Badisches Landesmuseum

Number

Bonn Akademisches Kunstmuseum

Number

Oxford Ashmolean Museum Number

Listed in Tegea Museum catalogue as

coming from Mavriki or Tegea

Found in Steinhauer's excavations at Tegea

In Tegea Museum but with uncertain

provenance

From Mavriki Sanctuary

In Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

Dugas' catalogue number from BCH 45

(1921): 335-345.

Pottery Catalogue Number

Bronze Catalogue Number

Terracotta Catalgoue Number

Miscellaneous Catalogue Number

Lousoi Bronze Number

Lousoi Terracotta Number

Gortsouli Pottery Number

Mavriki Pottery Number

Centimetre

Metre

Height

Diameter

Length

Mycenaean

Protogeometric (EPG, MPG, LPG: Early,

Middle, Late PG)

Geometric (EG, MG, LG: Early, Middle,

Late G)

Protocorinthian (EPC, MPC, LPC: Early,

Middle, Late PC)

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

General Aims

This book concentrates on the physical manifestations of cult practices in

Arcadian sanctuaries in the eighth and seventh centuries, with a focus on the

Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea but embracing all other contemporary

Arcadian sites. My choice of Arcadia derives from both personal and

academic interests in this area of the Peloponnese. The former was inspired

by numerous visits since childhood to my father's hometown, Andritsaina (in

the southwest of ancient Arcadia). The latter was born out of curiosity about

the nearby temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai. I decided to concentrate

specifically on the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea when it became clear

in the course of my work that Tegea yielded the most accessible, numerous

and varied group of votive objects. My preference for the eighth and seventh

centuries was prompted by a particular interest in Greece's development

during this formative period, which is Htde understood for the region of

Arcadia.

My general aim is to trace the developments occurring in eighth and

seventh century Arcadia in the artistic, religious and architectural spheres, as

manifested in the buildings and votives of the sanctuaries, and to compare

this information with the evidence from Peloponnesian sanctuaries generally.

The limitations inherent in such an approach are clear to me. An exclusive

concentration on sanctuary sites is bound to yield an imbalanced picture; but

in face of the almost total lack of any comparative material from Arcadian

settlements or cemeteries, there is no alternative. The risk of presenting an

ill-proportioned picture is worth taking because it may spark greater interest

in the area and result in new and more specific avenues of inquiry for future

investigation.

xiv

Chapter One

Past Excavations and Surveys in Arcadia

A number of Arcadian sanctuary sites were first discovered by early

nineteenth century travellers but nearly none were excavated before the

second half of the nineteenth century. Pausanias inspired and guided the

numerous archaeologists from Greece, France, Germany, Austria, England,

Italy and Sweden in their search for many of the Arcadian sites. The main

goal of most early excavations was to uncover the Classical and Hellenistic

temples described by Pausanias in sometimes lavish terms. At eleven

Arcadian sites, however, remains dating back to the eighth and seventh

centuries were also inadvertently found. These last include the sanctuaries at

Tegea, Gortsouli, Orchomenos, Mavriki and Asea, in east-southeast Arcadia;

Alipheira, Bassai and Cretea in the southwest; Gortys in the west; Lousoi in

the north; and Petrovouni in the heart of the region. Other Arcadian

sanctuaries which have yielded evidence only later than 600 B.C. are outside

the scope of this research. They include Kotilon, Zeus Lykaion, Lykosoura,

Basilus, Bathros and Berekla in the southwest; Glanitsa in the west and

Hagios Sostis and Pallantion in southeastern Arcadia. 1 It remains a distinct

possibility that continued excavation and fuller publication of these sanctuary

sites might indicate that some of them were also in active use in the eighth

and seventh centuries B.C.

The pattern and degree of investigation at the eleven sites mentioned

above has been haphazard. In three cases, Orchomenos, Cretea and

Petrovouni, excavation and subsequent publication was undertaken once in

the early part of this century, while in more cases, at Mavriki, Asea,

Gortsouli, Gortys and Alipheira, the excavation or full publication thereof

occurred some generations later. Three Arcadian sites, first dug at the turn

of the century, are currently being investigated: Bassai (re-excavated and

studied from 1959 to present); Tegea (re-excavated on a small scale in

1976-77 and with future excavations planned for 1990); and Lousoi (currently

being excavated). The opportunity for my reappraisal has arisen in part

because of these recent excavations and their associated material finds;

equally valuable to this research have been the work of the present

generation of scholars to clarify numerous aspects of Geometric and Archaic

culture throughout Greece, providing the broader framework within which

this Arcadian material could be studied.

Introduction

General Arcadian Scholarship^

Most past scholarship in Arcadian matters relates only marginally or

indirectly to the research offered here. In the late nineteenth century,

Immerwahr and Berard each wrote a general work about Arcadian cults; the

books were largely literary interpretations of the statndard cults of the

region.'^ More recently, Leveque, Stiglitz, Jost and Borgeaud have

considered specific aspects of the cults and included general archaeological

references as well.^ In 1985, Jost's impressive book on Arcadian sanctuaries

and cults appeared.^ This work, with a broader scope than my own research,

offers a thorough analysis of the literary and inscriptional evidence and a

summary of the archaeological evidence for Arcadian cults and sanctuaries

throughout antiquity. Despite the apparent similarity of our respective

interests, Jost's work and my own are, in fact, complementary. My focus is

primarily an analysis of the archaeological information from Arcadian

sanctuaries within a specific time range (800 to 600 B.C.) while Jost's work

provides inteφretation of the ancient texts and inscriptions pertaining to

In addition to excavations in this region, numerous archaeological surveys

have been carried out over the last twenty-five years. A general survey of the

entire region was provided by Hope Simpson.^ Howell executed a survey

which focused on eastern Arcadia in the Bronze Age.^ More recently,

surveys have been completed in the vicinity of Megalopolis in southwestern

Arcadia, as well as in the Stymphalos area of northeastern Arcadia."* A

number of other topographical surveys have been carried out recently in this

region as well.^ While the information provided by most of the surveys has

not been directly relevant to the focus of this research, it has been extremely

useful in providing a background for understanding developments in various

regions of Arcadia in different periods.

For the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea specifically, the 1921 publication

by Dugas of the earlier excavations provides the fullest account of the early

evidence found at the site; for me, it was an invaluable guide. Dugas'

publication is severely limited, however, in the simplicity of its concept; it is

essentially a catalogue with inadequate illustrations. Re-examination of the

material from Tegea in light of recent research with improved illustrations of

the objects is clearly necessary to gain a better understanding of the early

sanctuary. The need for fresh study is further emphasized by the more

precise information now available from recent excavations at the site.

Chapter One Introduction

Limitations in Execution

In retrospect, few practical problems arose in the pursuit of this research. I was granted permission to study all the objects from Tegea in the Tegea Museum and, although some of them had been lost, there were also a number of unpublished pieces from the site which I examined and include here. I was also permitted to study all the objects from Mavriki and Asea in the Tegea Museum. I found the objects from Mavriki and Tegea to be very similar; in a few cases it appears that confusion had arisen as to their actual provenance. I thus decided to catalogue and illustrate the material from Mavriki as well as that from Tegea. I was greatly aidedTby access to the two hand-written tomes of the Tegea Museum catalogue. Steinhauer kindly allowed me to study his plans and the material from his excavations at Tegea in 1976 and 1977, housed in the Sparta Museum. I saw only a small amount of the objects, however. Most of the pottery was unwashed and unmended, although the ceramic conservationist there assisted me in cleaning some of the pottery for study. Also, I examined some of the objects of bone and metal which were readily accessible. Karageorga kindly permitted me to look at the material from her excavations at Gortsouli, housed in the Tegea Museum (now in the Tripolis Museum), and to publish my drawings of the pottery.

L

Chapter Three offers a study of the Tegean and Arcadian pottery, illustrated with plates and profile drawings, as well as a catalogue of the Tegea and Mavriki material. Profile drawings are also provided for the Gortsouli pots. Chapter Four deals with bronze human and animal votives from Tegea and elsewhere in Arcadia, with illustrations of many of these objects. Chapter Five is a study of pendants and other bronze dedications from Tegea and other Arcadian sites. There is also a catalogue of the Tegea and Mavriki bronzes. Chapter Six examines the objects of terracotta and other materials, with illustrations of the objects from Tegea and Lousoi and a catalogue of the Tegean material. The various classes of objects, considered in Chapters Three to Six, are assessed in terms of style, date, the extent of the local production and creativity, external influences, general distribution and any possible religious or other significance. The conclusions in Chapter Seven draw together the results of the above individual examinations and also consider the wider historical and religious implications relevant to the specific developments at Tegea.

Arcadian sanctuaries and cults as well as a general synopsis of the archaeological remains of Arcadian sanctuaries of all periods.

The sanctuary site at Bassai has been the subject of recent, detailed study by Cooper and Yalouris. The sanctuary at Lousoi has also recently received attention due to the publication of some previously unknown Geometric bronze votives. Finally, the sanctuary at Tegea has been excavated and studied in recent years, briefly by the Greek archaeological service in 1976 to 1977, and by 0stby, who has been studying the archaic temple. 12 There are also plans for future excavation at this site in 1990, directed by 0stby and under the auspices of the Swedish Institute of Archaeology.

The history of Arcadia has been the subject of considerable scholarship either as a study in its own right or as an integral part of the history of Greece. A number of scholars have taken the former approach, such as Callmer, who has considered the historical developments of Arcadia in general, and Hejnic, who has focused on the Archaic period and Pausanias' accounts. 1^ Roy also has published numerous works concerning Arcadian history, with an emphasis on the late Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. 1^

The concept of Arcadian figured art as a distinctive type was first presented by Furtwangler and then by Lamb, who based their hypotheses on a number of bronze figurines of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C.^^ Much later, and based on Furtwangler's and Lamb's studies, Weber attempted to prove that the earlier bronzes from Arcadia also possessed a distinctive nature.16 More recently, general analyses of early Greek pottery and bronzes have taken into account the artistic achievements in Arcadia as well; there are a number of studies of Geometric pottery, by Courbin and Coldstream and of bronzes, by Schweitzer, Herrmann, Heilmeyer, Bouzek, Kilian-Dirlmeier, KiHan and others.!^ These works have provided the most valuable and relevant sources for my own research.

My approach to the subject of early Arcadian sanctuaries incorporates analyses of excavation reports and examinations of architectural evidence, of votive objects and of selected Hterary references for the period between 800 and 600 B.C. In Chapter Two I present a general account of the topography and archaeological evidence of the Athena Alea sanctuary and the other Arcadian sites, with an emphasis on the earliest architectural remains.

1^

Chapter One Introduction

I was less fortunate with the objects from the site of Orchomenos, which were supposedly also in the Tegea Museum. Despite the fact that I had permission to study this material, it could not be found in the museum apotheke.

In a visit to Tegea in 1988, I discovered that many of the votives from Tegea and Gortsouli that I had originally examined in the Tegea Museum had been moved to the new Tripolis Museum. Tegean bronzes are now displayed in both museums but often incorrectly labelled in the latter. It is my impression that all the objects from Tegea will uUimately be housed in the Tegea Museum but there does not appear to be any rush to achieve this goal. I am thus extremely relieved to have had the opportunity to study the Tegean material while it was still in one place. The Tripolis Museum, however, has a most impressive display of recently discovered Arcadian artifacts and is situated in a beautiful old building, so it is well worth a visit.

In the National Museum in Athens, I was able to see the bronzes from Lousoi, Alipheira, Petrovouni, Kotilon, Zeus Lykaion, Lykosoura and Berekla. The terracottas from Lousoi were also made available to me here but none of the other clay evidence from any other site. I was also given permission by Sinn to study the Lousoi material in Germany, in the Bonn and Karlsruhe museums. The bulk of the Lousoi material, however, is housed in the Athens National Museum, and, due to the great number of objects, I was required to request only a sample of them for study. Finally, access to the Bassai dedications, originally in the Athens National Museum and now supposedly in the Olympia Museum, was essentially denied. I examined only some of the late miniature pots from this site, though I had permission to study all the material.

My overall examination of the Arcadian votive objects is thus far from complete. I was most successful in my examination of the material from Tegea, although even here I was not able to include all the objects from the site. Some of the pieces were lost, others in such poor condition that it was not worth including them in this study. My inclusion of unpublished pieces from the Tegea Museum, some from the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford and from Steinhauer's excavations, on the other hand, adds another dimension to this examination.

This work attempts to illuminate as many aspects as possible about Arcadian sanctuaries, especially that of Athena Alea at Tegea, from 800 to 600 B.C. I acknowledge that the evidence is of a specific and limited nature which can reveal only a partial image of Arcadian life in the eighth and seventh centuries: one which is directly or indirectly linked to the activities of the sanctuaries. The overall significance of such a study is justified by recent research on Archaic Greece which stresses the central role played by early Greek sanctuaries in their relation to the development of the polls or ethnos.l^ The activities occurring at early Greek sanctuaries reflect the accelerated rate of development in Greek towns and cities generally and in many ways were at the very heart of these developments. It is clear that an analysis of the evolution of sanctuary sites in a particular region can provide significant information about a variety of related developments within the region and potentially help to lay the foundations for further research and excavation.

It has become increasingly apparent that Arcadia in these formative years was far from a provincial backwater, unworthy of scholarly attention. Rather, the evidence indicates that it was an elusive, multi-faceted and remote district possessing unusual elements of cult, artistic creativity and older strands of beliefs and of language. At the same time, certain areas within Arcadia demonstrate considerable external contacts with other parts of the Peloponnese and of Greece. It is hoped that an increased understanding of Arcadia in relation to the areas surrounding it will result in a more precise definition of the distinctive qualities of this region in the eighth and seventh centuries.

Notes for Chapter One

1. See Jost, Sanctuaires 14-17 for a general survey.

2. Hope Simpson, Gazetteer 37-41; idem, MG, x-xxl; Hope Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer

76-84.

3. R. HoweU, "A Survey of Eastern Arcadia in Prehistory," BSA 65 (1970): 79-127.

4. MegalopoUs: AR (1982-83) 28-29; AR (1983-84) 26-27; Stymphalos: AR (1984-85) 19;

Mantinea: H. Hodkinson, "Mantinea and Mantinike: Settlement and Society in a Greek

Polls," i95>l 76 (1981): 239-296.

5. For example see I. Pikoulas, Horos 1 (1983): 45-55; idem, Hows 4 (1986): 99-123.

6. See also Jost, Sanctuaires 9-21 and recently, F. Felten, "Arkadien", Antike Welt (1987):

2-17 for a summary of scholarship in this region.

7. W. Immerwahr, Die Kulte und Mythen Arkadiens (Leipzig: 1891); V. Berard, De

I'origine des cultes arcadiens (Paris: 1894).

8. P. Leveque, "Sur quelques cultes d'Arcadie: princesse-ourse, hommes-loups et

dieux-chevaux," Information historique 23 (1961): 93-108; Stiglitz, Die Grossen

Gottinnen Arkadiens. Der Kultname MeyaXaL deal und seine Grundlagen (Vienna: 1967);

reviewed by M. Jost in REA 72 (1970): 138-151; idem, Sanctuaires; P. Borgeaud,

Researches sur le dieu Pan (Geneva: 1979).

9. Jost, Sanctuaires. See also J. Roy, "Arcadian Religion," review of Sanctuaires et cultes

d'Arcadie, by Madeleine Jost, in Classical Review 37 (1987): 225-228.

10. Cooper, Bassai; Yalouris, Bassai.

11. U. Sinn, "Ein Fundkomplex aus dem Artemis-Heiligtum von Lusoi in Badischen

Landesmuseum," y&Ai/ flmm/Bfli/TO/t 17 (1980): 25-40. In addition, important discoveries

have recently been noted, see AR (1987-88):24.

12. Steinhauer's excavations are currently unpubUshed; E. 0stby, "The Archaic Temple of

Athena Alea at Tegea," AAA XVII: (1984): 118-124; idem, "The Archaic Temple of

Athena Alea at Tegea," OpAth XVI.7 (1986) 75-102.

13. Calhner, SGA\ J. Hejnic, Pausanias the Perieget and the Archaic History of Arcadia

(Prague: 1961).

14. J. Roy, "An Arcadian League in the Earher 5th century BC?" Phoenix 26 (1972) 334-341;

idem, "Arcadian Nationality as seen in Xenophon's Anabasis," Mnemosyne 25 (1972):

129-136.

15. A. Furtwangler, "Arkadische Bronzestatuetten," Jueine Schriften Π 458-471; W. Lamb,

"Arcadian Bronze Statuettes, BSA 27: 133-148.

16. M. Weber, "Eine arkadisch-geometrische Bronzegruppe," Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1%7) 7-18.

17. Courbin, CGA\ Coldstream, GGP\ Schweitzer, GGA\ Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren;

Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger; idem, Nadeln; Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979):

Notes for Chapter One

^-l - R. Η V Herrmann, "Werkstatten geometrischer Bronzeplastik; /d/ 79 (1964)

Bronzes" (Ph.D. diss., Radcliffe College, 1958).

18. Snodgrass, A G 58-64.

I

CHAPTER TWO

TOPOGRAPHY AND ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

This chapter is divided into two principal sections. The first section concentrates on the topography of Tegea and the architectural remains at the sanctuary of Athena Alea. The second section examines the nature of the remains from the other Arcadian sanctuaries. Special emphasis is given to the earliest evidence for temple structures and the associated votive deposits found at these sites.

Section One: Tegea

The Athena Alea sanctuary is well situated in the southern part of the Tegean/Mantinean plain, a mountain plateau about 670 metres above sea level. The plain is blessed with good, rich soil and a considerable amount of water, enabling an abundance of grain, fruit and vegetables to be grown. The modern town of Tegea comprises eighteen villages and, although the entire region is referred to as Tegea, the individuals proudly distinguish themselves according to their local villages (fig. 2). A similar situation apparently existed in ancient Tegea; Pausanias informs us that in the time of Tegeates, son of Lykaon, only the region took its name from him and the human population was still divided into demes.^ In some cases, the ancient and modern divisions are roughly comparable (fig. 2). It is noteworthy, however, that in modern times the temple of Athena Alea and the Museum are located in the village of Alea (Piali);^ the theatre remains and the Classical agora are situated in the village of Palaio Episkopi one and one-half kilometres away, and the remains of the temple of Artemis Knakeatis are at a considerable distance to the south of Tegea, above Mavriki, the eighteenth Tegean village.

Strabo mentions that Tegea was synoecized by nine demes and Pausanias preserves the names of these demes.^ Their identification has been attempted by a number of scholars and there appears to be general

10

Topography and Architectural Remains

11

agreement in this m a t t e r T h e demes are: the Gareatai, the Phylakeans, the Karyatai, the Korytheans, the Potachidai, the Echeuetheans, the Oiatai, the Manthyreans and the Apheidantes (fig. 2). The Gareatai are thought to have been situated in the area of the river Gareatis, south-southeast of Tegea, in the DoHana valley. The Phylakeans have been connected with the location of Phylake where, according to Pausanias, the Alpheios had its source.^ The Vourvoura creek is also in this area. The Karyatai are thought to have been the inhabitants of Karyai, where Artemis Karyatis apparently had a temple.^ This border region seems to have alternated between inclusion in Laconian and Arcadian territories at various points in its history.^ The modern settlement of Karyai is called Arachova. The area of the Korytheans is connected with the temple of Demeter of the Korytheans mentioned by Pausanias on the road from Tegea to Argos.^ Romaios discovered the foundations of this temple east of Hagiorgitika, six kilometres northeast of Tegea. The deme of the Echeuetheans is tentatively placed to the north and west of Tegea near Tripolis and includes Merkovouni. The deme of the Potachidai or Botachidai cannot be connected with certainty to a location; Curtius placed it to the north of Tegea, around present Tripolis, where he also placed the Echeuetheans.^ Moraites and Kokkini thought it was in the eastern part of Tegea in the areas of Thana-Tziva-Moustaki. The Oiatai are thought to have been the inhabitants of Oion, in the Skiritis county, to the west of Karyatis. The plain of Manthyrea is mentioned by Pausanias to be on the right side of the route from Megalopolis to Tegea, where the road crosses the Taka swamp. The last deme is the Apheidantes, who are generally believed to have been located in the area of Hagios Sostis, Akra, and the area within the walls of Tegea. This deme, however, cannot be connected with any certainty to a location in the Tegean plain. Pausanias says that Apheidas' son, Aleos, founded the temple of Athena Alea,ll but this offers only a tentative link between this deme and the arealiround the temple. Callmer believed that the deme of the Apheidantes was the predecessor of the synoecized Tegea. Fougdres and Dugas thought that the Apheidantes were a band of Argive immigrants who settled in Tegea and established the altar of Alea.

At what point in history these nine demes were formally synoecized is not known but the most plausible suggested dates range from the end of the seventh century to the mid-fifth century. It is outside the scope of this research to consider these issues further but it is noteworthy that the building of the first monumental temple of Athena Alea at Tegea occurred at the end of the seventh century. Its construction may have been connected with a

Chapter Two

Tegean City Walls

The French team, Berard and Fougeres, discovered what they believed to

be four points of Tegea's city walls, first mentioned by Xcnophon.^^ From

these four points, Berard determined the general form of the walls to be an

irregular ellipse, with the long axis measuring 2000 metres and the short axis

1400 metres (fig. 3). Berard supported this reconstruction with the statement

that some of the present paths are located on old wall foundations.

The excavations revealed that the walls were made of clay bricks mounted

on rock bases, as was the case at Mantinea and Megalopolis. The four points

are the following (fig. 3): A. at the foot of the hill at Omertsaousi, a tower

corner; B. a piece of wall three to four metres long between Palaio Episkopi

and the Sarandapotamos river; C. a piece equal in size to B, but heavily

damaged, at Ibrahim Effendi; and D. an extremely damaged section of wall,

immediately east of Alea, which is considered a doubtful point even by the

excavators.l^ The date of the walls has been roughly assigned to the early

fourth century because of their apparent similarity with the walls at Mantinea

and MegalopoHs and the fact that Xenophon indicates that they existed in

370 B.C. 17

Borard's reconstruction of the walls is not at all certain. Callmer pointed

out that while the pieces of wall at points A, B, and C have external evidence

to support their locations, point D at Alea has none and its extremely

damaged state requires one to reconsider the circuit of the walls. Callmer

also thought that Tegea's size would have been smaller than what Berard

calculated; Berard's dimensions made it larger than Mantinea, which was

considered the largest Arcadian city after Megalopolis.

Near the questionable point D is the most secure item of the topography

of Tegea, the temple of Athena Alea, which Callmer suggested was in fact

12

i Topography and Architectural Remains

Tegean Agora

*

In his Tegean travels, Pausanias saw both the Agora and the theatre,

which are situated very near one another in the modern village of Palaio

Episkopi.^^ He informs the reader that the Agora was rectangular in shape,

like a brick. Though the Agora has not been found in its entirety by modern

excavators, the northeast corner was discovered by Berard 150 yards to the

west of the church of Palaio Episkopi (fig. 3). The corner is marked by a Hne

of ruined foundations on the east and a colonnade with Ionic and Corinthian

colunms on the north.26 Pausanias also mentions a number of monuments

13

located outside of and in front of the city walls. He argued that on the basis

of the famous inscription pertaining to the administration of the properties of

the goddess, 1^ one can deduce that the temple was surrounded by pastures,

which could not be used by the citizens of the city, and that a carriageway led

up to it. He thought that it was therefore logical that the sanctuary would

have been located in front of the city walls.^^ Berard, on the other hand,

following Pausanias' descriptions, believed that the Periegetes must have

entered the city through the Pallantic gate (facing southwest towards

Pallantion), and that he started his description of Tegea there, with the

temple of Athena Alea.^^ Xenophon also mentioned a Pallantic gate, but

not in connection with the Athena Alea temple.^^ Callmer concluded that

the city gate was located at Ibrahim Effendi (or Episkopi) in the west, and

that Pausanias began his account with the Athena Alea temple simply

because it was the largest and most famous feature of the city, which does not

necessarily mean that it was included within the city walls.^^

Pausanias does in fact mention some walls in connection with Tegea in his

description of his departure from Tegea to the south, en route to the

Laconian border, when he uses the walls as a fixed point from which to

measure the distance to some altars situated just south of Tegea.^^ One

cannot determine from Pausanias' reference to these walls, however, either

the location of the gate or the area of the walls.

Callmer's argument that the Athena Alea sanctuary was located outside

the city walls thus remains a possible inteφretation. I believe, however, that

it is more plausible that the Athena Alea temple, in the sacred precinct of

the goddess, was within the city walls, and that the gate was in the southwest,

as Berard argued. ^

formal or informal grouping of a number of these areas, perhaps in response

to the growing Laconian power to the south.

Tegea's most famous antiquities date from Classical times. A brief

examination of them here is valuable in clarifying the t()p()gra[)hy of the plain

and indicating the relative locations of the remains and extent of the

Classical city.

Chapter Two

Tegean Theatre

The remains of the theatre are located to the east of the church of Palaio

Episkopi (fig. 3). Both Ross and Berard noticed the remnants of a

semicircular wall with several tiers of seats, part of which supports the

church.^2 The remains were identified as the ancient theatre and confirmed

further by a number of inscriptions.^^ Vallois researched the theatre and

illuminated various aspects of it. "^ Callmer determined that the theatre was

in use in the fourth century.^^

Tegean Stadium

Another important part of the Classical city is the stadium, which is known

to have existed at Tegea, but has not yet been found. Pausanias mentioned

that he saw it not far from the temple of Athena Alca.- ^ Both Pausanias and

Pindar inform us of games, called the Aleaea, which were held in the Tegean

stadium.^7 Berard, in his search for the stadium, explored an area along the

narrow heights of Alea where there were many windmills, and thought he

14


Tegean Gymnasium

It appears from archaeological explorations that a gymnasium also existed

in the city, although Pausanias does not say anything about one. Berard

found a series of inscriptions, 300 metres north of the church at Palaio

Episkopi, which consisted of names of official people of the gymnasium and

lists of Ephebes.'^^ It therefore appears possible that the gymnasium of the

city was located at this spot." -

The fourth century city of Tegea appears from all accounts to have been

quite extensive, and included the Scopaic temple, city,walls, a theatre, and an

Agora, and probably a stadium and a gymnasium as well. We know from

ancient sources that Tegea also had a citadel which played an important role

in her conflicts with Sparta from the sixth century.^'*

15

located at the Agora which remain undiscovered.^^ On the strength of a

very damaged relief found in the Agora, Romaios attempted to locate the

temple of Athena PoHas, whose shrine was noted briefly by Pausanias.^^

Unfortunately, he uncovered absolutely no architectural remains to support

his proposed location.29

Jost suggested that Athena Polias may have been worshipped here at an

open-air shrine and would not necessarily have possessed a temple.^^

Callmer, on the other hand, believed that her temple ought to be sought on

one of the surrounding hills overlooking Tegea, such as Hagios Sostis.^^

Such a location, he argued, would be more appropriate for the chief

protectress of the city, Athena Polias, and more in keeping with her image

throughout Greece. It is hoped this research will show that conventional

explanations need not be imposed on the evidence from Tegea. On the basis

of the abundant archaeological evidence from the Athena Alea site to be

examined in detail in this book, as well as Pausanias' extensive accounts of

this temple, contrasted to only a passing reference to the shrine of Athena

Polias, it is clear that the most significant deity of this town was Athena Alea,

an ancient protectress in her own right.

had found Pausanias' 'Choma.' He did not excavate here, but was assured by

farmers of the village of Stadion that they carried away large quantities of

niarble from the narrow heights.^^ Frazer thought that from Pausanias'

descriptions the stadium must have been located closer to the temple of

Athena Alea.^^ Dugas believed that it was immediately to the north of the

sanctuary."^^ As no evidence of the stadium has been found by the various

explorers, the focus has shifted to inteφretations of Pausanias' text. Callmer

believed that Pausanias' expression 'not far from the temple' is too

ambiguous to determine the distance to the stadium and moreover, when

Pausanias uses the term 'choma,' he usually means a built-up dam or hill.

Callmer concluded that the stadium, like other buildings mentioned by

Pausanias in that paragraph, such as the temple of Athena Alea, were

located outside the city walls.^^

Until further exploration or excavation takes place at Tegea, the question

of the location of the stadium must remain open. It is noteworthy, however,

that the place from which the villagers claim to have carried great amounts

of marble, called Stadion, may have been so named after its original function

as a stadium.

Chapter Two Topography and Architectural Remains

Tegean Citadel

Tegea's citadel has proven to be a challenge to locate for there are at least two hills to the north of Tegea which could have played the role: Hagios Sostis, modern Tegean village no. 4, or Omertsaousi, modern Tegean village no. 3 (figs. 2 and 3). The higher of the two hills, excavated on a number of occasions from 1869 to 1910, is Hagios Sostis, at an elevation of 706 metres above sea level. From the nature of the finds discovered on this hill, it has been determined that it was a sacred site. In 1862, nearly 1800 objects were found, mostly clay figurines of votive nature, in an unscientific excavation on the northeast slope of the hill.45 Romaios began to work at this site in 1909 in search of a temple, but instead found more votives of various types in bronze and clay.'^^ In 1910, Romaios continued excavations there and apparently found a peribolos wall consisting of two stone walls with a space between them.47 Terracotta acroteria and roof tiles were also found and Romaios concluded that a temple stood between the two walls. Since no other architectural evidence was uncovered, he thought it was probably made of perishable material. A natural crevice in the ground, of a semicircular shape and about two metres in depth, lay between the two walls and it appears to have been the most important cult location. It was filled with a variety of objects, dating from the fifth century B.C. to Byzantine times, including pieces of lifesized terracotta figures (some entire heads, other small idols) and inscribed tiles. The best object is a small bronze statue, seated on a throne, holding a pomegranate."^^ Romaios thus concluded that this must be the site of the temple of Demeter and Kore, mentioned by Pausanias.49 Callmer pointed out, however, that Pausanias discussed the temple of Demeter and Kore in his description of the market place, not the citadel, so that the Hagios Sostis shrine may well be another one, not mentioned by Pausanias.^^

Eight years after Romaios had excavated at the site, he published some new ideas about it. He decided that the tiles found at the site must have belonged to at least three different structures, and as he thought it unlikely that they would have been three different temples, he concluded that there were at least four altars at the site in addition to the one to Demeter and Kore. These altars were like treasuries to house the votives and Romaios finally determined that from the nature of the remains, I lagios Sostis must be the *high place with altars' called Zeus Klarios.-'^l He believed, moreover, that the acropolis of Tegea should be located at Omertsaousi, where it would

be closer to the city walls and provide a good look-out point. Frazer also thought that the hill of Hagios Sostis must be Zeus Klarios, for he says it is the only point in the whole region of Tegea which could be called a high place.^^ In addition, he stated that since this hill commands such a fine view of the surrounding plain, that it may well have been the acropolis of Tegea, mentioned by Polybios.^^

Berard believed that Hagios Sostis was the acropolis, called Akra or Phylaktris in Polybius' and Pausanias' accounts,^"^ and that the lower hill, Omertsaousi, at 679 metres elevation, was the hill of Zeus Klarios, though no remains have been discovered there. Callmer agreed that the citadel was at Hagios Sostis, underneath the present village, where Berard apparently saw polygonal walls,^^ and that the temple of Athena Polias must have been located on the citadel, as is usually the case. As for the site of Zeus Klarios, he thought it would have been located on a third peak, immediately to the west of Omertsaousi, at 693 metres elevation.^^ More recently, Pritchett has added yet another dimension to the discussion of the citadel. He believes that Pausanias' high place is clearly within the walls of Tegea because when Pausanias says 'in Tegea,'^^ he implies that he is within the city walls. Pritchett thus concludes that there must have been another high place within the city walls as outlined by the French, which existed in Pausanias' time, but which no longer can be seen today, due to the great amounts of alluvial earth which cover the plain.^^

The problem of identifying Tegea's citadel, and determining its location from among references to high places and religious sites, is complicated mainly because scientific excavations are lacking at Hagios Sostis, and there have been no excavations or antiquities observed at all at Omertsaousi or other high points in the area. One is left with the frustrating situation of multiple interpretations of very limited evidence. From the material available at present, certain conclusions can be drawn. First, Hagios Sostis is the highest hill in the Tegean plain. (Until the hills we can see are studied properly, I see no reason to bring Pritchett's 'hidden hill' into the discussion.) Second, extensive remains found on the hill of Hagios Sostis indicate the existence of a sanctuary of Demeter and possibly others as well. As for the hill of Omertsaousi, and the hill between the two, I believe that excavations there would also reveal antiquities, but it would be impossible at this point to determine their function in ancient times. The hill of Hagios Sostis, with its abundant remains, was in any case an important site and ought to be further explored.^^

it 16 17

Chapter Two

Flow of Alpheios River

Another controversial feature of the Tegean plain is the flow of the

ancient Alpheios river. Modern topographers generally believe that it is the

present day Sarandapotamos, which to a certain extent follows the same

course as the Alpheios described by Pausanias (fig. 2). l^his problem bears

only oblique relevance to the main focus of this research, but it is important

in this topographical examination since the river was used as a landmark by

Pausanias and may or may not have flowed near some of the Arcadian

sanctuaries.60 The issue of the course of the Alpheios also requires that one

once again consider the reliability of Pausanias as a source. For these

reasons the main views will be considered briefly here.

Pausanias said that the Alpheios river was the boundary between Laconia

and the Tegean territories, that it began at a place called Phylake, and that

another water flowed into it at Symbola.^^ Today the Sarandapotamos river

flows past Vourvoura and is joined at Kryavrysi (Symbola); it then flows

north into the Tegean plain. The Sarandapotamos river seems to match

Pausanias' description of the Alpheios up to this point. A discovery made at

the turn of the century serves to confirm the evidence that the

Sarandapotamos is the Alpheios. Romaios found a bronze dedicatory bowl

with ΆΛΦΙΟΣ' inscribed on it in Archaic script, lliis was found east of

Vourvoura, southeast of Tegea, on the right bank of a stream which further

downstream becomes the Sarandapotamos (fig. 2). This bowl indicates that

the Sarandapotamos is the river that was known to the ancients as the

Alpheios.^^

Pausanias went on to say that the Alpheios differed from other rivers in

that it often disappeared beneath the earth and then rca[)[)earcd. So, flowing

from Symbola, it sank into the Tegean plain; it then rose at Asea, where it

mingled with its tributary stream Eurotas; then it sank again into the earth,

until it passed Olympia and emptied into the sea. - The Sarandapotamos

river diverges from Pausanias' description of the Alpheios at this point for,

rather than go west, it actually enters the Tegean plain to the cast of Alea

and receives a tributary from the southeast, the Garatcs. It continues to flow

north for one and one-half miles east of modern Icgca, then turns sharply to

the east to Steno, and disappears into three katavothras at the foot of Mt.

Parthenios.^^

18


19

Modern topographers have determined that in order to follow Pausanias'

description the Alpheios would have had to flow into the chasm which even

today drains the swamp of Taka in the southwest of the plain, and then to

have reappeared at the Frankovrysi at Asea. The Sarandapotamos, however,

goes nowhere near the Taka or Asea, for it flows eastwards. It has thus been

concluded by some scholars that Pausanias or one of his guides made a

blunder in the description of the upper course of the Alpheios.^^ Others,

such as Leake and Berard, concluded that the river has changed course since

antiquity, and that it once followed the path mentioned by Pausanias. Leake

thought that the Alpheios river turned west just south of Alea and Berard

believed it turned towards the Taka just north of the city.^^

A more interesting explanation is the one told by some local peeisants to

Ross on his journeys in 1834. One hundred years before the time of the

peasants, a Turk who owned Alea dug a new bed for the Sarandapotamos

river, joined it with the Garates, and obliged it to follow its present course.

A Greek high school principal in 1879 knew of the tradition; he attributed

the deed to an Ottoman, PeriaHs, eponym of Piali (today called Alea). This

diversion would have prevented the flooding of the village of Alea.^^

This attractive explanation was rejected by a French team of geologists,

who in 1879 investigated the Tegean topography and determined that the

upper course of the Sarandapotamos river could never have flowed the way

tradition assigns it.^^ This is due to the rising ground between the bed of the

Sarandapotamos and the western part of the Tegean plain. The distinct and

gradual rise in the ground in this area makes any diversion of the river to the

west impossible. The river could not have flowed higher in antiquity for its

present bed is hollowed out; in fact the bed has actually been raised due to

alluvial deposits, so that in antiquity it must have flowedlower. Finally, the

team concluded that even if the river did flow into the Taka, it could not then

have reappeared at Asea since the springs of Frankovrysi are 32 metres

higher than the last point to which the water flowed in the Taka.^^

Pritchett re-examines this issue and tries to defend Pausanias against the

attack that the Periegetes made a blunder.^^ He explains that from

geological studies done in the Tegean plain, it is apparent that a river

containing metamorphic debris flooded or flowed through ancient Tegea.

Metamoφhic material was also found in the southeast corner of the plain at

Vourvoura, at Analypsis, at a point 25 metres northwest of the temple, and in

the Sarandapotamos river. Pritchett determines that at the point where the

Chapter Two

river enters the Tegean plain it could have gone westwards but was purposely

diverted eastwards.^! Pritchett believes that the Turk changed the course of

the river and thinks he found the place where it happened.^^ But as Baladie

points out, Pritchett ignores the fact that Martel demonstrated that the

Alpheios could never have passed westwards, especially not from the Taka to

the Frankovrysi7^ More recently, Pritchett has defended his position,

arguing that Baladie had misinterpreted him. He emphasizes that, despite

the geological problems with the river flowing higher, the ancients certainly

believed that it was the Alpheios which emerged at Asea.^"^

Without geological expertise, it is difficult to dispute Martel's conclusions

regarding the impossibility of the Alpheios passing westwards through the

Tegean plain. On the other hand, it is conceivable thai Pausanias was

informed incorrectly by his guides about the river, though I do not believe

this was necessarily the case. Pausanias says that the Alpheios had the

unusual quahty of disappearing and reappearing again; such a trait in itself

would make identification of the river far more difficult when it re-emerged

from the ground. Moreover, it is known that the [)hcn()inen()n of rivers

disappearing into sinkholes or katavothras is common to many of the rivers

of Greece, for it is a Hmestone country.^^ If one imagines that other streams

or rivers besides the Alpheios disappeared and reappeared in this region of

the Peloponnese, the confusion in identification is explained. It is

conceivable, in fact, that we are dealing with two different rivers called

'Alpheios': one which flowed through the Tegean plain and another which

rose at Asea and flowed past Olympia into the sea. But because of the

existence of katavothras and the challenging problem of correctly identifying

rivers when they re-emerged, one can imagine how an incorrect judgement

regarding the actual course of the river may have resulted. It can thus be

concluded that the course of the Alpheios river recorded by Pausanias may

reflect both a generally accepted view in antiquity and, at the same time, a

geological impossibility in light of modern scholarship.

Architectural Remains of the Temple

The Athena Alea temple is indeed the most secure structure in the

topography of the Tegean plain, though it was a challenge to locate since it

was largely buried in alluvial soil. Dodwell was the first to recognize the

temple in 1806, from the architectural remains visible above the earth.^^ It

was not until 1879, however, that the first excavations took place at the site

20


21

under the direction of Milchhofer. He determined the exact position of the

temple by sinking exploratory trenches; in the lowest dark layers of earth in

the vicinity of the temple he found some three hundred small objects of clay

and bronze.77 Dόφfeld, in a more systematic study of the building a few

years later, obtained more precise measurements for the temple.^^ From

1900 to 1902, further excavation took place under the auspices of the French

School of Archaeology under the direction of Mendel. He carried out

extensive investigations at the site which were provisionally published in

1901. Mendel found more of the foundations of the temple, fragments of

architecture and pieces broken from sculpture and inscriptions. In the lowest

black layers of earth, he uncovered a considerable number of small bronzes

and pottery sherds.^^ The Greeks were the next to work at the site, in 1908,

when Romaios excavated the southwest corner of the temple, where he

uncovered the rest of the foundations. Towards the northeast of the temple,

in a layer of black earth, he also found many Geometric sherds and

bronzes.^^

From 1910 to 1913, Charles Dugas, of the French School, was assigned to

prepare a comprehensive publication of the temple of Athena Alea. He

explored in the vicinity of the sanctuary, especially around the altar, and

found new fragments of sculpture. From the region to the north of the

temple, he collected two column bases and some small 'Archaic' objects.^ ^

Publication was postponed due to World War I, however, and the

comprehensive work on the sanctuary never appeared. Instead, Dugas

published an article on the pre-fourth century temple in 1921,^^ and a book

on the fourth century temple in 1924.^^

In the 1960's, when the Athena Alea temple was cleaned, more sculptural

fragments were uncovered.^^ Most recently, in 1976 aftd 1977, excavation

took place in the area to the north of the temple under the direction of

George Steinhauer of the Greek Archaeological Service. A number of

Geometric objects were found in these excavations in the lowest levels.^^

Since the early excavations at the site, most research has concentrated on

aspects of the fourth century temple. From 1946 to 1954, an intensive study

of the architecture of the cella was carried out by Bert Hodge Hill of the

American School; this was never published. The latest work on the fourth

century temple, by Naomi Norman, also of the American School, is based on

Hill's unpublished papers and is a detailed architectural analysis of this

Chapter Two

22


23

s t r u c t u r e . T h e fourth century sculpture from the temple has been extensively studied recently by Andrew Stewart.

Further research on the earlier sanctuary, since Dugas' publication, has

been far more limited. In the last few years, the early architectural remains

at the Athena Alea site have been studied by Hrik 0stby, a Norwegian

architect.^^ He determined the existence and plan of a late seventh century

temple at the site. 0stby hopes to confirm this conclusion in excavations

planned at the site for 1990. Various categories of votive objects found at the

sanctuary have also received limited attention in recent times, such as the

pottery and the bronze horses, pendants and pins. These will be considered

in greater detail in relation to the architectural remains in the appropriate

chapters of this work. Finally, Jost's recent study on Arcadian sanctuaries

and cults offers a brief summary of the archaeological evidence from Tegea,

as well as some interesting views on the nature of the cult of Athena Alea.^^

In this section I would like to examine these early architectural remains in

relation to the votive deposits at the site, using the evidence from all past

excavations and incorporating recent research. In this way, I wish to

reconstruct the earhest phases at the sanctuary. Before embarking on this

examination, however, I shall present Dugas' basic interpretation of the

remains and his sequence of events at the sanctuary. He commences with

Pausanias, who informs us that the fourth century temple was preceded by a

large and dignified temple which was burnt in 395 B.C., and this was in turn

preceded by the first sanctuary founded by Aleos. ^^^ Dugas says that no

building constructions of any sort were found datable to the first stage of the

sanctuary, only votive offerings in black, oily e a r t h . D u g a s believes it

significant that Pausanias, in his description of the Aleos sanctuary, uses the

word 'leQOv and not VOLO^\ Dugas feels that this word choice is reflected in

the archaeological evidence which indicates that the first stage of the

sanctuary was an enclosed space with an open-air altar and no temple.^2

Dugas' account of the development of the cult of Athena Alea starts in

his 'Couche A,' in the area to the north of the Scopaic temple, and just west

of the fountain (see fig. 4).^^ A succession of very distinct strata was found

in this spot, beginning with modern remains, then a layer of Byzantine at .80

metres elevation, and below this, at 1.80 metres elevation, a level

contemporary with the fourth century temple and containing two statue

bases. At 2.80 metres elevation, a black layer with a thickness of .45 metres

was found, below which lay river stones. In this black layer were found a

small quantity of bronze objects and a rather greater number of coarse

pottery sherds. The excavators concluded that due to the lack of any

definitely datable characteristics of the objects,^"^ and the great depth of

their location, this area must be the first place of the cult.^^

Dugas next explains how the cult of Athena Alea extended during the

Geometric period to *Couche B' (fig. 4) to cover the entire region of the

fourth century temple.^^ The black earth here begins at .10-. 15 metres

elevation in the interior of the temple, and it has a thickness of .50-.80

metres. Below this level was found virgin soil, reddish in colour and mixed

with river stones. This layer of black earth contained only Geometric pottery

fragments and some Geometric bronzes such as pins, rings, weights or stamps

and one Geometric horse. The horse was found in Romaios' excavations in

the southwest corner.^^ At the northeast angle of the Scopaic temple, just

inside and outside the structure, the finds were abundant and Dugas

concluded that this area must have been an altar. Nearly all the bronze

statuettes were found here, as well as most of the pins, rings, other small

objects and Geometric pottery sherds. It was along the eastern part of Β that

Milchhofer found most of the 300 small objects of bronze and terracotta that

he mentioned in his account.^^

During the seventh to sixth centuries, Dugas states, the sanctuary was

extended once again, further east to 'Couche C,' where the next altar vyas

established (fig. 4).^^ Excavation in this region revealed, after .25 metres of

modern debris, a thick layer of black earth attaining a depth of 1.35 metres at

some points. Within this layer were found pins, rings, lead wreaths, and the

archaic bronze statuette of Athena. Dugas dates this deposit to

approximately the sixth century. The thickness of this layer and its proximity

to the built altar south of C, suggested to the excavators % a t the place was a

dump for the later altar, in addition to its earlier function as an altar

i t s e l f . H e thus argues that these deposits allow us the trace the

enlargement of the sanctuary progressively to the east.

Dugas informs us that the first monumental structure at the site was

erected about 600 B.C., at the time Couche C was in use.^^^ Dugas and the

others who studied the fourth century temple reported that a great number

of worked marble blocks were found in the fourth century foundations,

apparently re-used from an earlier structure. They were thought to come

from the earlier. Archaic t e m p l e . D o r p f e l d also noted that Archaic

Chapter Two

24


25

where the earliest altar was situated (i.e. before the Geometric date of

Couche B). Steinhauer's discovery here of pottery of distinctive styles, PG

and LG mixed, and the fact that the area consisted of flat levels of earth,

which were not clearly associated with any buildings or floors, serve to

undermine Dugas' theory about Couche A. There is no evidence to suggest

that an altar ever existed in this northern area nor is there any reason to

believe that this region was the first area of the cult since the finds uncovered

here are contemporary with or later than those found elsewhere at the site.

A number of bronzes were also found in Steinhauer's excavations. A

bronze bird (B54), a bronze pin (B240), double axes (B169) and a

miniature cauldron rim (B203) were uncovered in the ninth (seventh

century) stroma. Bone recHning quadrupeds (M3), related to the bronze

reclining oxen previously found at Tegea, were also found in this stroma. In

the lowest eleventh (eighth century) stroma, a tiny solid cast pomegranate

pendant (B156) and part of a Boeotian fibula (B248) were uncovered. These

bronze finds also reveal that the nature of this northern area was not as

obscure or confusing as Dugas had suggested.

The relatively greater depth of the finds uncovered in this northern area,

in comparison with those found in Couche B, is not necessarily a sign of

greater antiquity, as Dugas had concluded. Courbin also expressed doubt

about Dugas' stratigraphical sequence. He noted that Dugas did not take

into account the possibility of an inclination of the strata in the region to the

north of the t e m p l e . ^ T h i s is a significant observation and a likely

explanation for the greater depth of Couche A, where the objects from the

lowest levels are largely contemporary with those from Couche B.

The function and significance of this northern are^ is an interesting

question. Its location by the fountain and its proximity to the side door of the

fourth century temple may be significant, at least in later times. In the

eighth and seventh centuries, however, it is not clear what importance the

area around the fountain may have had. I thus tentatively propose here that

the function of this northern area in the region of Couche A, in its earliest

stages, was as a votive depository. Its importance may have been

considerable from the beginning and may be mirrored in the later, more

tangible, architectural developments at the site.^^-^

The great abundance of bronze and ceramic votives found in the northeast

corner of the later temple, in Couche B, indicate the existence of an

architectural fragments and some of the Doric capitals were also from the earlier temple.

Dugas attempts to relate the development of the cult of Athena Alea to

what he calls the 'historical events' reported by Pausanias. ^ ^ He suggests

that Couche Β should be attributed to the time of Aleos, because no temple

was uncovered for this stage; Couche C should be contemporary with the

Archaic temple, at the end of the seventh or early sixth century; and that

Couche A preceded the Aleos sanctuary. Dugas believes that A must be the

sanctuary of Apheidas, where he argues the Argive immigrants first

established the altar of Alea.^^^ An Argive origin of the 'Apheidantes' was

determined on the basis of the 'Argive character' of the cult at Tegea. The

altar of Athena Alea was apparently founded by the Argive, Melampous,^^^

and the name Apheidantes, similar to 'λττώόνί^ or '\τώ(χνΊ^%, may

designate Argives.^^^ Dugas' views of these developments at the sanctuary

have recently been reiterated by Jost.^^^

In light of recent excavations and research, an analysis more accurate than

that of Dugas is possible for the events at the early sanctuary. It is fortunate

that recently, in 1976-77, Steinhauer excavated in the vicinity of Dugas'

Couche A, to the north of the temple (fig. 4, west of fountain). Steinhauer's

trenches Al and A3 included parts of Dugas' Couche A and Steinhauer's

trench B2 was situated immediately to the north of it. The stratigraphical

sequence observable in Steinhauer's section drawings of trench B2 revealed

a fairly similar pattern to that described by Dugas above for Couche A.^^^

The first stroma was Byzantine, followed by a number of other layers without

finds; in stromata seven and eight was material contem[)()rary with the fourth

century temple. In stroma nine, there were seventh century remains and in

the lowest, eleventh stroma, were eighth century objects (mixed with a small

amount of tenth century material). It must be emphasized, however, that

since Steinhauer's excavations are still largely unpublished and the objects

only partially examined, all conclusions offered here are tentative.

From the small sample of pottery which I examined from Steinhauer's

excavations, I determined that in the lowest stroma (11), both PG and LG

pot sherds were found together (P6, P13, P52). The previous excavations by

the French in this area yielded much pottery, but Dugas described it as

largely consisting of coarse ware of indeterminate date: either Mycenaean or

Geometric. This observation, together with the depth of these finds in

Couche A, led Dugas to conclude that this area was the first place of the cult

Chapter Two Topography and Architectural Remains

important votive deposit in this area. Although for many of the objects a

specific provenance within the sanctuary cannot be determined from Dugas'

report, one can deduce that the finds from Β range in date from Mycenaean

IIIB/C until Late Protocorinthian/Transitional period, with a gap from the

late twelfth century until the late tenth century. It seems that by the last

quarter of the seventh century, or just before, the deposit in Layer Β was

sealed off to allow for the building of the first monumental temple of Athena

Alea.

0stby, the Norwegian architect who has been studying the early temple,

has determined that a huge late seventh century structure existed at the site;

it had a technical resemblance to but was slightly more primitive than the

Heraion of Olympia.^^ 0stby identified the so-called Byzantine remains

found by the French at the temple as Archaic in date and constituents of the

earlier temple described above.l^^ These remains consist of fairly complete

conglomerate foundations within the cella and pronaos spanning the length

of the interior in two rows (see fig. 4). 0stby also identified four stylobate

blocks in situ for the internal cella colonnades and a corner of the rear

toichobate, which was sufficient for him to make a fairly precise

reconstruction of the cella of the earlier temple. He thinks it likely that the

temple had a peristasis with six by eighteen columns and that the temple

would have covered only a slightly smaller area than the later building, with

roughly the same east to west orientation. A number of scholars have

confirmed 0stby's reconstructions of the late seventh century temple and

excavations are planned for 1990 to attempt to support this hypothesis with

stratigraphical evidence. Norman also briefly discussed these 'Byzantine'

foundations in her consideration of the later temple, and independently

proposed an Archaic date for the Έyzantine' remains as well; she believes

that they belong to the earlier temple of Athena at the site.l^^

0stby informed me of some other rather mysterious, rough walls he

uncovered at the site; he thinks they may be ancient. They have north to

south and east to west orientations but at present form no particular plan

since they are fragmentary in nature. 0stby noted that these walls appeared

to go below the seventh century ones at some points. They were

unfortunately not indicated in any of the previous plans of the temple

site.11'7 It is possible that they reveal the existence of an even earlier,

structure at the site and it is hoped that the upcoming excavations will clarify

their function, date and plan.

26

Dugas, Mendel and Doφfeld had determined that a number of worked

marble blocks were re-used in the fourth century foundations (see above

p. 23) and Dugas thought that they came from a temple built at the site

around 600 B.C. He believed that the temple was used in conjunction with

Couche C, which he said was an altar (fig. 4, C)}^^ He was fairly accurate in

his suggestion of a date for the earlier temple (though apparently incorrect

about the date of the 'Byzantine' remains, which 0stby and others argue

are Archaic!). In addition, Dugas' idea of 'moving altars' from A, to B, to C

and the extension of the sanctuary eastward over time is also questionable.

There is no reason to believe that Couche C was ever an altar; it is more

likely that the altar was situated in the same place as the fourth century one,

to the south of Couche C. Such a position for the altar would have been the

conventional one in any case, with the temple to the west of it. Moreover,

altars are not generally moved around in a sanctuary but remain in a fixed

place.

In his excavations, Milchhofer found Geometric pottery and bronzes in a

black layer below the monumental altar to the east of the temple, a fact

which Dugas failed to observe or mention. This suggests that the area of

the fourth century altar was used as such from Geometric times and that this

was the altar of the sanctuary throughout its history, although in its earliest

stages it was probably very simple in nature.

In summary, the remains found in Couche A probably represent a votive

deposit for the eighth and seventh centuries, perhaps associated with the

spring or fountain. The abundance of objects found in Couche Β indicate the

existence of a major votive deposit containing many of the finest Mycenaean,

PG, G and seventh century objects; it appears to have been sealed off by the

last quarter of the seventh century, when the monumental temple was built.

Finally, the remains from Couche C indicate that this area was used as a

votive dump after the first monumental temple was erected. When the

fourth century temple and altar were built, both apparently in the decade

345-335 B.C. according to Norman, 1^1 it is possible that the special

significance of the northern area was manifested in the building of the

northern side door and the elaborate fountain.

It has become increasingly apparent that Dugas' account was incorrect in

regard to the early phases of the sanctuary of Athena Alea. While there may

be a kernel of truth reflected in Pausanias' history of the sanctuary, Dugas

accepts the information without question and attempts to fit the excavated

27

Chapter Two

Section Two: Other Arcadian Sanctuaries

The ten excavated sanctuary sites, other than Icgea, which revealed

evidence ranging between 800 and 600 B.C. are considered here. They

include the sites of Mavriki, Gortsouli, Orchomenos and Asea in eastern

Arcadia; Lousoi in northern Arcadia; Alipheira, Bassai and Cretea in the

southwest, Gortys further west and, finally, Petrovouni, in the heart of the

region (figs. 1 and 7). I have also studied the archaeological reports and

actual votives, where accessible, from a number of other Arcadian sites

which will not be discussed.122 i have satisfied myself that there is little or

no other excavated evidence from these sites which falls within the

chronological span of this research. It is probable, however, that

unpubhshed or new material from these and other sites will one day emerge

and shed more light on the region of Arcadia in this early period.

Very few of these ten sites were well excavated or thoroughly pubHshed;

the reports are generally limited and incomplete. Nonetheless, these

remains offer the only available evidence for gaining any idea of the nature

and extent of the activity taking place at Arcadian sanctuary sites, or in the

region generally, between 800 and 600 B.C.

Mavriki: Sanctuary of Artemis (Knakeatis?) (Paus. 8.53.11?) ^23

In Pausanias' description of the route from Tegea to the Laconian border,

he stated that one passed the altars of Pan and Lykaion Zeus at a distance of

two stades from the Tegean walls and, after seven more stades to the south,

one reached the temple of Artemis Limnatis; finally, after ten stades more.

28


29

one came to the temple of Artemis Knakeatis. " Romaios followed

Pausanias' directions in his search for the temple of Artemis Knakeatis and

discovered a few remains of what he believed to be the temple of Artemis

Limnatis. ^25 He went ten stades further, to the modern village of Peφori,

but found no evidence of the temple of Artemis Knakeatis there.

Romaios eventually did discover the remains of a small marble temple

above the village of Mavriki at Psili Korfi, a summit of 1520 metres. 1^7 He

excavated this temple and determined that it must have been that of Artemis

Knakeatis. Romaios thought the epithet Κναχβάτι^ was related to the

whitish-yellow colouring of the earth in this region of the Doliana marble

quarries. He suggested that Knakeatis is a local name, derived from the

area probably called Knakea, in accordance with the Arcadian custom, i.e.

Tegea, Alea, Mantinea, Asea, Manthyrea, and so on. Romaios thus

concluded that Pausanias had made a mistake concerning the number of

stades from the Tegean walls. He believed that either there was an error in

the transcribing of Pausanias' information or that Pausanias said *19 stades'

to define the place where one began to climb from the main road to the path

which ultimately led to the sanctuary of Artemis Knakeatis.

Jost does not accept this explanation. She believes that the error in

distance does not take into account the isolated setting of this temple. She

states that it is unlikely that Pausanias would have mentioned a temple

situated on a secondary route without defining its unusual situation. Jost

concludes that it is more likely that there were two sanctuaries of Artemis in

the region and that Pausanias neglected to mention one of the two.l^^

Pritchett independently came to the same conclusion, that the Artemis

temple dug by Romaios was not the same one mentioned by Pausanias.

The excavations at Psili Korfi revealed the ruins of a small sixth century

marble temple of a Doric, tetrastyle, amphistyle type with an approximate

size of 14 χ 6 metres. Unfortunately, the site was plundered sometime

between 1907 and 1918, and it is therefore difficult to reconstruct the temple

accurately. Our knowledge of the earlier sanctuary comes from the

remains of small objects of bronze and clay which date from the Geometric

period. From these remains, Romaios concluded that the sanctuary was

founded on this solitary mountain top around 700 B.C. or maybe a little

earlier. Most of the Geometric bronzes and pottery sherds found there

are similar in type and style to those from the Athena Alea site. Later

votives include miniature lead kouroi, fine bronze sheet figures, a marble

evidence to it. Such interpretation may have been standard at an earlier

stage of the discipline, but it is unacceptable today. It is scientifically

unsound to attempt to attribute archaeological evidence (I)iigas' Couches A,

B, and C) to the times of mythical Tegean heroes. An alternative

explanation for the early developments at the sanctuary has been offered

here based upon an analysis of the earliest remains. It is hoped that the

future excavations at the site will provide abundant stratigraphical evidence

which will permit clarification of the nature and chronology of the earliest

activity at the Athena Alea sanctuary.

Chapter Two

Gortsouli: (Demeter/Artemis?) (Paus. 8.12.5,7)

The hill of Gortsouli, located about one kilometre north of the remains of Mantinea, rises in an isolated position. Most scholars today believe that Gortsouli is the ancient city of Mantinea, called Ptolis by Pausanias.^^^ Pausanias also mentioned a sanctuary of Artemis and, nearby to the right of the road, a lofty mound of earth where Penelope's grave was supposedly located, and from which one could see the small plain and the hill of Ptolis. A lower hill about one mile north of Gortsouli caused some

30


31

disagreement among nineteenth century travellers about which hill was the site of Ptolis. Boblaye, Ross and Frazer identified Gortsouli with PtoHs while Leake, Fougeres and Loring thought that the northern hill was Ptolis (though no ancient remains have been found there) and that Gortsouli was the place of Penelope's grave. More recently, Papachadzis notes that Gortsouli was the place of Penelope's grave and that the sanctuary recently discovered there was in honour of P e n e l o p e . J o s t , however, doubts the identification as Penelope's grave and suggests that the sanctuary may have been dedicated to Artemis, since Pausanias noted such a shrine in this vicinity, l'*^

Recent surveys and excavations at the site have served to confirm that PtoHs can be identified with the hill of Gortsouli. ^'^l In her excavations, Karageorga uncovered a variety of finds at numerous points around the hill, the most significant being a sanctuary on the west slope. On the eastern side of the hill, near a small church, Karageorga found a layer of 'Geometric' sherds together with bronze sheets, iron votives and fragments of coarse pottery. Along the northern side of the church fragments of pottery were found which ranged in date from Geometric times to the sixth century. An Early Helladic sherd was discovered with these fragments. Lower, on the southern slope of the hill, various trial trenches were dug and a third century inscription was found, as well as some tiles, clay plaques and pottery dating from 'Geometric' to Classical times. On the southwest slope, some Middle Helladic sherds were found.

The sanctuary uncovered by Karageorga, on the west slope, consists of two temples: a smaller one enclosed within a larger one (fig. 5A). 1^2 j h e larger building has walls with a thickness of .65 m. The cella 16.50 m long by 6.50 m wide; the enclosed smaller building has a width of 4.9 i#. The walls of the larger temple are founded in a thick layer of finds attributable to the Geometric period through Hellenistic times. The smaller structure apparently has slightly deeper foundations and probably belongs to the older sanctuary. The votives are dispersed in the region of the foundations of the larger temple, where at some point a destruction occurred.

Recently, Mazarakis has studied the architectural plan of the Gortsouli temple(s) and has offered a provisional alternative interpretation of the remains. 1" ^ He believes that what is described as the smaller, 'earlier' temple is in fact part of the larger temple and that there is only one structure. He has identified the long rows of blocks within the temple, not as a smaller

dog, 40 clay Artemis figures with dogs and 30 bronze arrows. The dedications range in date from the Geometric to the Hellenistic period.

There is a fair amount of unpubhshed pottery from Mavriki. There are also a few Geometric sherds described in Dugas' account as coming from the Athena Alea site but which are in fact from Mavriki, according to the Tegea Museum catalogue. All these are discussed and illustrated in Chapter Three. The bronze objects from the site are also considered and illustrated in Chapters Four and Five. The proximity of Mavriki to Tegea and the similarity of the votives from both places warrants the inclusion of the Mavriki material in the catalogue of votives from Athena Alea.

The temple of Artemis was probably in ruins when Pausanias was travelling through the area.^*^^ I doubt that he made the long climb to see the remains of this small local sanctuary. He was either unaware of its existence or simply obtained some general information about the site from his guides. This would explain the discrepancy between Pausanias' account regarding the exact location of the temple of Artemis Knakeatis and the more distant sanctuary site of Artemis dug by Romaios many centuries later. Whether or not Romaios' temple is the one described by Pausanias, it is, in any case, unlikely that Pausanias ever visited this site. It is conceivable, moreover, that the sanctuary of Artemis Knakeatis remains to be found.

Romaios' account of the excavations indicate that this was indeed a sanctuary dedicated to Artemis, if not Artemis Knakeatis. It does not, however, reveal anything about the earlier structures at the site or the existence of any altars there. He tells us only that Geometric objects were found in the deepest levels of the site.^^^ These votive objects are thus the only evidence we have for the earliest activity at this site.

Chapter Two

Orchomenos: (Poseidon or Aphrodite?) (Paus. 8.13.2)

The site of Orchomenos, modern day Kalpakion, in northeast Arcadia

revealed evidence of a sixth century sanctuary in its lower city.l^^ Inside a

terrace of marble and limestone slabs, 38.5 m χ 15.5 m, was found a

rectangular peripteral monument with indistinct foundations, and to its east a

deposit was uncovered containing potsherds (some unpublished Geometric

pottery, but mostly later ceramic remains, such as Corinthian aryballoi),

some Archaic terracotta figurines, and diverse ornaments. " ^ Sbcth century

terracotta antefixes were apparently found with the remains of the

structure.

32


Asea: Athena Soteira and Poseidon (Paus. 8.44.4)

The temple of Poseidon and Athena is situated between Pallantion and

Asea in southeast Arcadia. It was mentioned by Pausanias and excavated by

Romaios. Leake was the first to notice the temple, in 1806, and in 1834,

Ross visited the site.^^^ Ross was delighted to find the monument intact and

had decided to return in 1840 to excavate it. He discovered upon arrival in

1840 that the villagers from neighboring Vahetsion had built a new church in

1837 using many pieces of marble from the temple.

The temple was first excavated by Romaios and pubHshed in 1910.^^^

The excavations revealed an all-marble Doric temple dating from the

second half of the sixth century, below which an older wooden temple had

33

temple, but as two benches running along the inner faces of the two long

walls of the larger, 'second,' temple. Mazarakis suggests also that the short

wall in the back is a dividing wall separating the cella from the adyton (see

his reconstruction, fig. 5B). There is a problem, however, with the rear

dividing wall, which seems to end 30 cm before reaching the long walls of the

'second' temple. Mazarakis doubts that this rear dividing wall was an

exterior wall of a separate temple, however, since its width is only 35 cm.

Until further excavation is carried out at the site and proper sections of the

stratigraphy drawn, I doubt that this question of the early temple(s) and the

chronology can be settled.

The votives discovered at the sanctuary consist of about 200 clay

fragments of female figurines of the Archaic period, many bronze and iron

pins, about 100 bronze rings and some silver ones, stamped bronze sheets, a

female figure of bronze, mirrors, earrings, etc. Ί he ceramics are of poor

quahty on the whole, and range in date from Subgeometric through Classical

times. 1" ^ The objects of bronze and clay which fall within the chronological

scope of this research will be considered in the next three chapters. The

identification of the deity worshipped at this sanctuary is rather more

difficult to ascertain. On the basis of my analysis of the votives dedicated at

this site, I suggest a type of Fertility Goddess or Mistress of Animals was

worshipped here. Jost's suggestion that the site may be the one dedicated to

Artemis, based on Pausanias' reference, may also be correct.^^^^ It is not

clear, however, that this is the sanctuary site to which Pausanias referred, nor

can it be assumed that he ever visited the ruins on this mountain. The

identification of this sanctuary thus remains open.

Another temple was found west of the church at Kalpakion, also in the

lower city.l^^ Dodwell had uncovered earlier the existence of many Doric

capitals of m a r b l e . I n this area the French excavators found a

hecatompedon with no opisthodomos but a pronaos to the east. It was a

peripteral structure, with an east to west orientation, and six by thirteen

columns. From the discovery of diverse architectural terracottas, the temple

has been dated towards the end of the sixth century and the French believe it

was dedicated to Poseidon or Aphrodite, statues of whom were mentioned by

Pausanias. A fragment of a dentillated acroterion was found there

roughly datable to the end of the seventh century.^^^ The votive objects

found in conjunction with this site apparently date to earlier times. The

excavators think that a few of the bronzes recall some from Lousoi but they

illustrate none and give only very vague references to the Lousoi

pubhcation.^^^ In the upper city, the temple of Artemis Mesopolitis was

found, but, as it appears to have existed no earlier than the fourth century, it

falls outside the range of this study.

The remains from Orchomenos, in particular the Geometric sherds found

east of one of the structures and the small bronze objects from the

hecatompedon, indicate that the sanctuaries in the lower city may go back to

Geometric times. Unfortunately, as none of these early votives were ever

illustrated and could not be found in the apotheke of the Tegea Museum,

very little else can be deduced about the early sanctuaries at Orchomenos.

The earliest architectural evidence seems to be late seventh to sixth century

in date, which falls largely outside the scope of this research.

Chapter Two

34


Lousoi: Artemis Hemeral^^ (Paus. 8.18.7) i The sanctuary of Artemis Hemera is located in northern Arcadia in the

corner of a mountain plateau of 1000 metres elevation, at the foot of the

Chelmos Mountains (or the Aroania Mountains of antiquity). In their

travels, Dodwell and Leake observed some traces of antiquities in the area of

Lousoi. 1^^

The investigation of the Lousoi sanctuary did not follow the pattern of

most other sites, where a search was undertaken and an exciting discovery

often followed. Rather, the site was plundered just before the turn of the

century by farmers in the area; shortly thereafter 200 objects appeared on the

art market. It was then determined that these objects catne from the temple

of Artemis Hemera, described by Pausanias. 1^^ Two brief excavation

campaigns by the German and Austrian Institutes were mounted in 1898 to

recover the rest of the sanctuary before more looting took place. The

sanctuary was identified from inscriptions found at the site, and the

plundered area was also noted. The results of the investigations were

mediocre, however, and until recently no systematic study of the area had

occurred.1'75 The Austrian Institute, under the direction of V.

Metsopoulou-Leon, is currently excavating the temple of Artemis and many

significant artifacts have already been uncovered. 1 6

35

was dedicated at the first temple of wood and clay and that when the marble

temple was built it was incorporated into the metopes.

Holmberg excavated another temple in this area, at Hagios Elias, which

he thinks was the temple of Poseidon and Athena described by Pausanias,

although it is not located on the route which the Periegetes had indicated. 169

Holmberg's temple is a fifth century structure where no votives have been

found; it therefore falls out of the range of this study. In any case,

Papachadzis is more inclined to see Romaios' temple as that dedicated to

Athena and Poseidon, since its location coincides more closely with

Pausanias' description. 1'^^ Jost comes to the same conclusion as

Papachadzis and states that the location of the temple excavated by Romaios

and the antiquity of the remains there conform to the tradition reported in

Pausanias for the Athena and Poseidon sanctuary. 1^1

apparently existed. In 1918, Romaios returned to the site and this time he

felt he gained a better understanding of the sanctuary and the variety of

finds.161 He had no photographer or architect and was forced to do all the

drawings himself; his 'not very worthy drawings,' as he called them, turned

out to be of great value when he next returned to the site and found that the

temple had been further destroyed. The over-zealous efforts of a local

widow had resulted in the building of a church to Hagios Soteiras on the site,

ruining the scheme of the temple. When Romaios returned in 1942, he

photographed the ancient site with the modern church built on top of it.

In 1957, Romaios again returned to the site to study it and his results

revealed that at the end of the seventh century, c.63()-62(), a small temple was

built at the site, made of wood and clay. Some of the clay decorations from

this temple were found, including Laconian roof tiles and acroteria. About

four metres south of the door of the church were found small bronze and clay

votives, mked with a black level of earth and burnt animal bones; Romaios

identified this area as an altar. He thought that, although no stone or marble

architectural remains had been found, the early architectural terracottas

indicated that an early temple had existed and that these remains and the

location of the altar showed that the seventh century temple would have had

the same north to south orientation as the later one. ^^-^ A confirmation of

Romaios' date for the eadier temple appears to be provided by more recent

dating of dentillated acroteria, similar to those found at Asea, to the last

quarter of the seventh century. 164

The second, larger temple was built directly above the first temple and

measured 24 m χ 12 m. It is a large peripteral temple, made of marble and

with a north to south orientation; it dates between 570-540 B.C. The altar

was located to the north of the temple, four metres south of the church, and

appears to have served both the first and second t e m p l e s . I t contained

the black layers of sacrifices, small animal bones and votives, noted

above.

A variety of objects were found in these excavations, including animal and

human figures in bronze sheet, bronze quadrupeds and a rather impressive

marble plaque. 167 j ^ i s plaque consists of a partly preserved block of

DoHana marble measuring 10 χ 30 χ 25 cm. It was found in 1918 on a smaH

plateau about 100 metres to the east of the temple. Two female figures can

be discerned on the one face of the block and Romaios determined an

attribution of Middle to Late Daedalic.168 Romaios thought that this plaque

Chapter Two

36


Alipheira: Athena (Paus. 8.26.5-7)

In southwest Arcadia, the town of Alipheira is located on a high isolated

hill, northwest of Andritsaina. Pausanias tells us that Alipheira was one of

the places which lost most of its population to the combined settlement of

Megalopolis. Orlandos explored this area over the course of many years

and discovered the ancient town, and the temples of Asklepios and Athena

there. He tells us that, despite the Pre-Hellenic nature of the name of

Alipheira, the earliest architectural remains, found in precinct of Athena,

date to C.550 B.C.^^l

A small number of bronze Geometric pins, fibuMe and other early

bronzes were uncovered at this sanctuary; they indicate that the cult may go

back to the late eighth to early seventh centuries. These early bronzes are

examined in relation to the Athena Alea objects in Chapters Four and Five.

Bassai: Apollo Epikourios 1^2 (Paus. 8.41.7-10)

The temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai is situated in southwest

Arcadia on the scenic Mt. Kotilion. Pausanias described this site and the

temple in considerable detail. He informs the reader that the temple was

made totally of stone and that, of all the temples in the Peloponnese, this one

37

excavations in 1898. It is noteworthy that until recently no Geometric pottery

was found at the Lousoi sanctuary, just some late unpublished miniature

pots.l^^ During the 1988 season, however, in a pit in the northeast angle of

the later temple, a closed votive deposit was found which contained

fragments of Geometric and Archaic skyphoi, as well as numerous

bronzes. 1^7 Once published, these finds will considerably enhance our

knowledge of the early sanctuary at Lousoi.

Sinn recently amassed and studied many of the bronze objects found at

the Lousoi sanctuary, some of which had been previously unpublished.!^^

This work greatly increases the information about the sanctuary beyond that

available from Reichel and Wilhelm's report, which included only a small

section of the material found at the site. In the next four chapters, these

early Lousoi objects will be studied in relation to those found at the Athena

Alea site.

The Hellenistic sanctuary of Lousoi consisted of a number of buildings

including a Boulouterion, a fountain-house, and the famous temple of

Artemis. The temple was located southeast of the complex of buildings

and had a standard orientation of east to west. Ί he remains of a Byzantine

church and a small chapel still used today are built over the southeast end of the temple. 178

An earher structure is beheved to have existed prior to the Hellenistic

temple. The 1898 excavations revealed that among the great numbers of

acroteria which belonged to the Hellenistic temple were some of seventh to

sixth century date.179 excavators believed, moreover, that since

fragments of the cult statue datable to the sixth century were uncovered, it is

likely that an older temple to house this statue existed in the same location as

the later temple,

Recent research on the dentillated rims of the acroteria supports the

claim of the existence of an earlier temple at the site. These acroteria

fragments indicate that the earlier temple may have been constructed by the

end of the seventh century.l^l χο this older structure would then belong the

terracotta acroteria and the remains of small Doric columns and

half-columns which are clearly not part of the Hellenistic temple. No walls

from the earher temple were found, however, so this is the sum of what is

known about the early structure at the site.^^^

Although the early excavators did not find the remains of an altar, the

area west of the Boulouterion called Έ' may have been a votive deposit since

it contained much dark earth, with evidence of burning, and many terracottas

and bronzes. These objects all came from disturbed layers, however, so

nothing definite can be concluded about the stratigraphy. 1^3 ^ interesting

to note that in the recent excavations at the site, a rectangular layer of stone

was found east of the temple and it is believed that it may be the altar

foundation, presumably of the fourth century shrine.

It is known that the sanctuary of Artemis existed in the eighth century

from the great number of Geometric bronzes now scattered in various

museums in Europe. The original plundered 200 were purchased largely by

the Karlsruhe and Berhn Museums (although most of the Berlin collection

was lost in World War II). The rest of the objects are spread over fifteen

European m u s e u m s . T h e National Museum in Athens has a full

collection of terracottas and a great range of bronzes from the brief

Chapter Two

The temple which has received so much attention is the late fifth century

one of Doric, peripteral type, which runs north to south and has sk by fifteen

columns on the exterior. In his excavations in the early part of this century,

Kourouniotes uncovered extensive remains of this temple, and also found

some indication of an earlier sanctuary. He imagined that at an earlier stage,

in the innermost part of this small valley towards the northeast, there was a

simple temple of modest size and type. Near the temple, Kourouniotes

thought there would have been an altar or area for animal sacrifices. Indeed,

in the northwest corner of the later temple, a layer of burning was found.

Kourouniotes noted that it was primarily in the northern part of the later

temple that most of the pottery and metal objects were discovered, often in

black earth, while towards the south the earth was finer, without any trace of

burning and with far fewer votives. Architectural remains from an earlier

structure were also found, including unworked stones, roof tiles and acroteria.

Recently, Yalouris' and Cooper's work at Bassai has revealed a good deal

more information about the earlier stages at the sanctuary. In 1959, Yalouris

uncovered a great deal of miniature armour in bronze and iron as well as a

number of other objects in the northern area of the later temple. He also

found a very thick layer of burning and considerable remains of melted iron

38


39

might be placed first after the Athena Alea temple for the beauty of its stone

and its symmetry. He also states that Apollo received his epithet,

Epikourios, because of the help he gave the Phigaleians in the time of the

plague during the Peloponnesian War, and that the architect of the temple

was Iktinos, who also built the Parthenon at Athens.

The famous temple was discovered in the late eighteenth century; by 1812

it had been visited by various travellers and excavated by Haller von

Hallerstein.l^^ Slabs from the frieze and fragments of the metopes found

their way to the British Museum. About a century later, in 1902, more

systematic exploration began to take place, under the auspices of the Greek

Archaeological Service. Since 1959, Yalouris has been excavating and

studying the site, and, in 1975, he developed an extensive program to

examine every aspect of the temple, including the archaeological,

architectural and g e o l o g i c a l . C o o p e r studied the architectural

developments at the site and incorporated the results into a doctoral

dissertation. It is my understanding that this research will provide the basis

for a comprehensive book on Bassai.

ore, which he believes indicate the existence of an iron workshop to the

north of the Classical t e m p l e . I n 1969 and 1970, Yalouris and Cooper

uncovered evidence of a temple immediately below the Iktinian structure

and yet another building about seven and one-half metres to the south of the

Iktinian one.^^^

The foundations to the south of the Classical building were discovered on

a small rock platform; their general outline has in fact always been

visible.^^^ Cooper and Yalouris carried out extensive excavations in this

area and were able to trace the building plan (fig. 6A).201 The temple has a

north to south orientation and is 24 m χ 7.5 m. A cross-wall divides the cella

into two parts: a rectangular room at the front and a square adyton behind.

An extension of 2.5 metres beyond the rear cross-wall indicates the existence

of an opisthodomos. It cannot be determined, however, if there was a

pronaos or a row of internal columns.

In the temple area were found antefixes of local fabric with heraldic

sphinxes, Corinthian and Laconian clay tiles, clay disc acroteria, locally

produced pottery and much miniature weaponry of iron, similar to that

published by Kourouniotes.^^^

In their explorations below the Iktinian temple. Cooper and Yalouris

realized that most of the large, hewn irregular stones from below the

euthynteria level had come from an earlier structure of monumental size and

were reused in the Iktinian temple. More recently, in 1977, Yalouris found

an Archaic floor level within the Classical temple. He also found a wall

made of unworked flat slabs oriented north to south with Archaic objects

in its vicinity. Yalouris concluded that this wall, the floor and the stones

came from the pre-Iktinian temple, buiU c.lOO years before the Iktinian

one.203

In Yalouris' excavations in the lowest levels in the north and northwest of

the Iktinian temple, he found the most important early votives in a layer of

burning. These include a bronze Late Geometric horse, a bronze double

protome pendant (or harness) and many miniature weapons. Clay, iron and

lead figures and Eleian pottery were also found.^^

On the basis of much of this information. Cooper concluded that there

were four building phases at the Bassai site. He also concluded that the

earliest temple at Bassai was built at the same time as two smaller temples at

Chapter Two

40


212

As stated above. Cooper's main argument in favour of a joint building

project between these two areas is the existence of antefixes, presumably of

set one (B), at both Kotilon and Bassai. It must be stressed, however, that

only a single antefix was found at Kotilon and from Van Buren's description

it was in fact a specimen of set two (A) and not set one, as Cooper

impHes.213 Van Buren stated that this Kotilon fragment had a "heraldic

design of seated sphinxes, facing towards the middle, each with a forepaw

raised."214 Cooper's supposition moreover that the antefixes from Kotilon

and Bassai were cast from the same mould cannot be proven since a

fragment of this mould, found at Bassai, appears to be fo* the manufacture of

set one (B), no examples of which were found at Kotilon.

A further argument in favour of a joint building project is the existence of

Laconian roof tiles at Kotilon and Bassai. Cooper implies that these tiles are

of the same type at both sites and uses them to support his case for a joint

building project in the last quarter of the seventh century. Recent research

on the Laconian roof tiles from Bassai, which, like the acroteria fragments,

can be divided into two types, indicates that types belonging to Cooper's

Phase 1 and Phase 2 were found and continue to be found at Bassai.215 it

provides no information, however, about which types were actually found at

Kotilon.216 Cooper acknowledges a similarity between these tiles generally

41

Phase 2 is marked by a new set of antefixes found at Bassai. Cooper

describes the slight difference between the sets: the first set (Cooper's set

one) were made of coarse, local clay with the decoration of sphinxes facing

outwards and sitting on a row of lugs (originally rosettes); the second set

(Cooper's set two) were identical in size to the first but made of refined clay

of higher quality and decorated with inward facing sphinxes and with raised

forepaws which join in the middle. Cooper noted that the Kotilon temples

were never modified or rebuilt after their erection in Phase 1 and thus

impHes that only set one was found there.^lO

I have some doubts regarding the sequence of events in Cooper's building

Phases 1 and 2, as well as his idea of a joint building project. I would hke to

begin by stating that I generally accept Cooper's distinction of building

Phases 1 and 2 on the basis of the two sets of architectural terracottas (sets

one and two).211 I also accept both F. Cooper and N. Cooper's reversal of

Van Buren's and Romaios' conclusions about the sequence of these sets

(which they had called Έ' and'A') and agree that it is more reasonable to

regard Β (or Cooper's set one) as the earlier of the two sets,

Kotilon, situated on the same mountain (Kotilion). Kourouniotes excavated

at Kotilon at the turn of the century and discovered the foundations of these

temples 205 Cooper argues that they were part of the same building project

as the temple at Bassai in the last quarter of the seventh century.206

Cooper's four phases are:

Phase 1. 625-600 B.C.: the first temple was built at the site, based on

antefixes, acroteria and roof tile fragments found there. Similar antefixes

from Kotilon led Cooper to believe that the Bassai temple was the same size

as the Kotilon temple (15.5 m χ 6.5 m), that the Bassai and Kotilon temples

had been identically decorated and that they were thus part of the same

building project.

Phase 2. 575 B.C.: the temple was rebuilt and enlarged to the size of the

new building found at the site (24 m χ 7.5 m); Cooper thinks that new

architectural terracottas were added, of the same shape, size and general

motif as those assigned to phase 1, but cast of superior fabric.

Phase 3. 500 B.C.: the third temple was built of monumental size, and of limestone in the same location as the later Iktinian temple, the remains of which have been recently found.207

Phase 4. 429 B.C.: the fourth temple designed by Iktinos was built, the

remains of which can be seen today.

For the purposes of this research, I would Hke to concentrate on the first

two building phases at Bassai. Cooper argued that a Bassai-Kotilon complex

began in Phase 1 and that it covered an area of 750 χ 350 metres. One of

Cooper's main arguments in support of a joint building project is the

existence of the Archaic decorated antefixes cast from the same mould and

found at both places.208 On this basis, he argues that the temples were

constructed as part of a single building project. He thinks that by the end of

the seventh century, one temple was erected in the precinct of Apollo and an

identically decorated twin, presumably to Artemis, was erected in the Kotilon

precinct. He assumes that the Bassai and Kotilon temples would have been

the same size and believes that at the same time, another, smaller, plainer

structure was built at Kotilon, perhaps to Aphrodite. The discovery of

curved Laconian roof tiles at both Kotilon and Bassai of a general type

associated with the Heraion at Olympia c.600-580 is another reason for his

view of a joint building project.209

Chapter Two

42


Cretea: Apollo Parrhasios(?) (Paus. 8.38.2)

Not far from Bassai, at Cretea on Mt. Lykaion, Kourouniotes excavated what he believed to be the temple of Apollo Parrhasios described by Pausanias.22^ The site of Cretea, according to Pausanias, was where the Arcadians claimed Zeus was reared, not in Crete. Kourouniotes discovered a small Archaic 'polls,' as he called it, in the area above Hagios Yiannis. Ancient stones were built into the church and fragments of architecture and

43

(from Bassai and Kotilon) and those belonging to the Heraion at Olympia, dated to the early skth century, i.e. 600 to 580 B.C.,^!^ but the information is not sufficient or precise enough to allow for accurate dating.^lS

The resulting picture is that neither type of roof tile, in itself, can be securely dated to the seventh century, nor can it be shown that the 'earlier' type was ever found at Kotilon, which in any case would not necessarily imply a joint building project between the two precincts. The antefix fragments, moreover, indicate that only a single example of Cooper's second set (575 B.C.) was found at the Kotilon precinct; this can hardly support an argument for a major building project in the last quarter of the seventh century. I thus conclude that a joint building project between these two precincts is unlikely. In addition, I see no reasonable justification for the assignment of identical measurements to the earliest temple at Bassai and the larger of the two Kotilon temples on the basis of the antefix fragment found at the Kotilon site. This is especially true now in light of the discovery of the foundations of an earlier temple, to the south of the Iktinian temple, which is bigger than the larger Kotilon temple and apparently contained a thick layer of the earher type of roof tile.219

The considerable discrepancy in date between the earliest votives found at Bassai and Kotilon is also significant. The Bassai objects go back to the late eighth century and increase in number throughout the seventh century. The earliest votives found at Kotilon, on the other hand, are sixth century bronzes and terracottas and they clearly indicate the existence of a much later and poorer sanctuary.220 Cooper fails to acknowledge this discrepancy in date. Jost also erroneously states that religious activity goes back to the eighth century at both Kotilon and Bassai.221 it is unlikely that a temple would have been built at Kotilon as part of a joint building project in the late seventh century before any votive offerings had been dedicated at an open-air shrine at this site. The conventional pattern of sanctuary development is observable also at Bassai. Votive offerings are generally dedicated at an open-air site over a period of time (at Bassai, about 75 years) after which a temple (or series of temples) is built in honour of the god(s) at the site. A similar pattern is likely to have existed at Kotilon, though beginning at a later date and developing along different lines from Bassai. The establishment of these two sanctuaries at different times and their subsequent development in dissimilar directions does not preclude the possibility of later connections of cult in the fourth century, as indicated by inscriptions.222 These significant points of difference, however, do

emphasize further the improbability of a joint building project in the late seventh century. In Jost's recent book on Arcadian sanctuaries, she also concludes that Cooper's theory of a unique sanctuary incorporating the temples at Kotilon and Bassai remains to be proven.223

I offer an alternative reconstruction of events at Bassai and Kotilon. About 700 B.C., or a little later, a cult of Apollo was established at Bassai, where he was worshipped at an open-air site. A temple in his honour was buih in the last quarter of the seventh century or later, the foundations of which are likely to be those found to the south of the Iktinian temple. The antefixes, acroteria and roof tiles decorating the late seventh century temple were of set one, an abundance of which have been found in association with this early temple.^^"^ This stage was followed by a degree of destruction and rebuilding at the temple, and the replacement of some of the architectural terracottas with set two.^^^ At Kotilon, the temples were probably buiU later in the sixth century, incorporating architectural fragments similar to those (of set two) already in use at the neighboring sanctuary site at Bassai. I thus maintain that the Bassai and Kotilon sanctuaries began, grew and developed along very different lines and that any similarities or evidence for connections between them in the seventh and skth centuries are few and can be explained by the relative proximity of the sites.^^^ The only certain element shared by these two areas was their common relationship to Phigaleia, to which they both belonged.227

The votive offerings from Bassai and the early cult of Apollo will receive attention in the following chapters. Although access to this material proved difficult, some idea of its nature can be obtained from the numerous published reports which were my main source of information. Since the objects from the Kotilon site are skth century and later in date, they fall outside the scope of this research and will not be considered here.

Chapter Two

Gortys: Asklepios (Paus. 8.28.1)

In western Arcadia, at Gortys, the French excavated from 1941 to 1951

and found the remains of the temple of Asklepios in 1951.^^6 Pausanias says

that it was made of Pentellic marble and that Scopas was the architect.^^^ In

their excavations of the temple, the French found evidence which suggested

that the cult went back to Geometric times.

44


Petrovouni: Poseidon Hippios(?) (Paus. 8.36.2)

In the heart of Arcadia, a Hellenistic temple was found in the village of

Petrovouni, about two to three kilometres to the west of Methydrion and

about 1000 metres above sea level. Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann

excavated the limestone temple, which had been built on an earlier

foundation. The temple had the usual east to west orientation and measured

8.20 m X 16.40 m.240 o t h e r ancient ruins were noted by Meyer in the

neighborhood of Methydrion,241 though they were not explored. A circuit

wall on the southeast side of Methydrion was also found and dated to the

fifth century by Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann.242 j j^^ above

discoveries from Methydrion and Petrovouni and Pausanias' rather extensive

account of this area indicate that the region requires much more exploration.243

Very little is known about the Petrovouni sanctuary at any period.

Romaios, who studied the plans of the excavators, suggested that the

Hellenistic temple had anachronistic measurements taken from the older

temple, which he dated to the end of the sixth century.244 Callmer suggests

that the earlier foundations date to the seventh centu'i^.^^^ Van Buren

exan;dned fragments of two large disc acroteria which he dated to the second

half of the seventh century and other architectural fragments of the seventh

to sixth centuries.246 A most interesting bronze group on a rectangular base,

and Geometric in style (pi. 65) was found just to the west of the temple. The

four naively conceived figures are squat with stump-like, arms and horse-like

heads.247 xhe excavators believed, on the basis of this object, which they

thought consisted of ram-headed figures, that the sanctuary must have been

dedicated to the Ram god, Hermes, and to Hekate.248

Pausanias says that a shrine of Poseidon Hippios existed at Methydrion.

When early nineteenth century travellers saw a temple in ruins at

45

small marbles were found in the vicinity of the church. The church itself was

built on an ancient foundation of a temple which had a north to south

orientation. Excavations in front of the church revealed some large walls

which Kourouniotes thought were foundations of the krepidoma of the

temple.229 A few metres to the south of the church were the remains of a

small room, 3 m χ 2 m, made of smaller stones than those of the temple. In

this room many small bronzes were found, including an Archaic bronze

figurine.2^0 Kourouniotes suggested that this building might have been used

as an offering room.231

Kourouniotes also excavated the embankment of the terrace, where he

found dark earth with evidence of burning, fragments of roof tiles and

Geometric pottery sherds. The decoration of the pottery was similar to

Laconian Geometric, but of poor quality and badly worn. In the same area

were found a bronze phiale, iron spears and arrows, a damaged sickle, iron

cart wheels, fragments of bronze sheet, and, near the church, a small tub.232

The identification of this sanctuary site as that of Apollo Parrhasios is

doubted by Jost. She notes that Pausanias is very vague in his description of

this site and may be recounting legends. She believes that neither the

remains nor the location of the site necessarily correspond with Pausanias'

account and concludes that it is preferable not to offer an identification.233

Levi, on the other hand, believes that the sanctuary of Parrhasian Apollo was

probably the one found by Kourouniotes.234

The few remains from this site do not allow for a secure identification.

The Geometric sherds found in the vicinity of this temple suggest that the

cult may have been established as early as the Late Geometric period.

Kourouniotes concluded generally that the temple was built later on a sacred

site which had existed since Geometric times.235 Further excavation could

illuminate much more about this small regional sanctuary.

From a sounding in the western half of the fourth century cella, the

excavators uncovered a huge ruined wall which had an orientation of

northeast to southwest. This wall was thought to be the most ancient

foundation of the temple. Courbin determined that the cups found in the

immediate proximity were Corinthian Geometric or Subgeometric and could

thus date the wall back to the late eighth century.238 An inscription securely

identified the sanctuary as belonging to Asklepios.239

Chapter Two

Conclusions

It appears that temples had been built by the end of the seventh century at Tegea, Gortsouli, Bassai, Gortys, probably at Asea and possibly at Lousoi and Petrovouni. Recent research at Tegea and Bassai indicates that monumental stone structures were erected by this time; at Asea, it is believed that a structure was built as well, made of wood and clay. At GortsouH, evidence has revealed that at least one temple was erected in the seventh century, though further investigation is necessary to be able to date the structure accurately and determine its plan. The Geometric or Subgeometric pottery found in association with a wall at Gortys may indicate a temple or temenos wall in existence from as early as 700 B.C. Lousoi and Petrovouni revealed architectural fragments which may or may not date as early as the late seventh century but more architectural remains need to be found before any definite conclusions can be reached. Finally, it is conceivable that the future excavation at Tegea may reveal the nature of some rough walls which may precede the late seventh century temple.

At Alipheira, Orchomenos, Mavriki and possibly Cretea, the evidence indicates that temples were not erected until the sixth century. The temple at Cretea may also be sixth century in date but this is not clear from the excavation report. At all these sites, however, some Geometric material was found among the votive offerings, suggesting an early date for the first cult activity.

Altars of some sort no doubt existed at all these sites but the evidence for them is meagre. It is in any case noteworthy that while the remains of early altars are limited, they were likely to have played an important role in the early cult activity at all sites where early votive offerings were uncovered. At


46 47

Tegea, the existence of Geometric sherds and bronzes found in the lowest black levels in the area of the fourth century altar indicate that this place was likely to have been used as an altar from Geometric times. In its early stages, however, it was probably a simple ash altar. Remains of an ash altar were also found at Asea; it appears to have served both the seventh century temple erected at the site as well as the later, marble temple. Rupp describes the ash altar as the most common type of evidence for sacrificial activity at early sanctuary sites, consisting of a deposit of ash and burnt animal bones mixed with broken votive objects in a central area of the temenos.2^2 Such a deposit could conceivably be identified at Bassai as well, in the northeast area of the Classical temple (for use with the seventh century temple?) where evidence for burning, many votives and animal bones were found. It is rather more likely, however, that this area at Bassai represents a sort of votive deposit. The recent excavations at Lousoi may have uncovered the foundations of the fourth century altar to the east of the temple; this may well have been the location for the earlier altar as well. No other altars as such can be identified at Arcadian sites, though presumably further excavation, where possible, could reveal evidence of them.

A rather peculiar feature common to some temples in Arcadian sanctuaries is their orientation roughly north to south instead of the conventional east to west (see fig. 7). Early temples with this north to south orientation are those at Bassai and Asea; later examples are at Alipheira and Cretea. The Gortsouli and Gortys structures are oriented northeast to southwest.

This deviation in orientation of some Arcadian temples is a fact which has been briefly noted before,^^-^ and it has been observed"Ithat this feature is found outside of Arcadia as welL^^"* A common explanation is that the topography would permit no other layout for the temple. It is also possible that north to south orientation in temples bears a direct relationship to the early establishment and awareness of the conventions of Greek temple construction. At the sanctuaries of Artemis Limnatis at Kombothekra in Elis, Apollo at Eretria, Apollo at Portocheli, Apollo at Thermon, Aphrodite at Axos and others,255 the north to south orientation may have been adopted before the conventional east to west orientation had been widely established, though the east to west form was also found at some early temples (i.e. Samos). In geographically remote regions moreover, such as parts of Arcadia, the east to west orientation for temples may not have been standard

Petrovouni, they thought it must have been the one to Poseidon Hippios mentioned by Pausanias.^^^ Leake beheved he had found the sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios but could not understand why the remains were outside the city walls of Methydrion. The site at Petrovouni, however, is close enough to Methydrion to lead both Jost and Papachadzis to identify the sanctuary tentatively as that of Poseidon Hippios.^^O jost notes that Pausanias' description of Methydrion is so imprecise that it is possible to identify the Petrovouni temple with the shrine of Poseidon Hippios.^^l Further excavation at this site would indeed be welcome.

Chapter iwo

Conclusions

It appears that temples had been built by the end of the seventh century at Tegea, Gortsouli, Bassai, Gortys, probably at Asea and possibly at Lousoi and Petrovouni. Recent research at Tegea and I^assai indicates that monumental stone structures were erected by this time; at Asea, it is believed that a structure was built as well, made of wood and clay. At Gortsouli, evidence has revealed that at least one temple was erected in the seventh century, though further investigation is necessary to be able to date the structure accurately and determine its plan. The Geometric or Subgeometric pottery found in association with a wall at Gortys may indicate a temple or temenos wall in existence from as early as 700 B.C. Lousoi and Petrovouni revealed architectural fragments which may or may not date as early as the late seventh century but more architectural remains need to be found before any definite conclusions can be reached. Finally, it is conceivable that the future excavation at Tegea may reveal the nature of some rough walls which may precede the late seventh century temple.

At Alipheira, Orchomenos, Mavriki and possibly Cretea, the evidence indicates that temples were not erected until the sbcth century. The temple at Cretea may also be skth century in date but this is not clear from the excavation report. At all these sites, however, some Geometric material was found among the votive offerings, suggesting an early date for the first cult activity.

Altars of some sort no doubt existed at all these sites but the evidence for them is meagre. It is in any case noteworthy that while the remains of early altars are hmited, they were likely to have played an important role in the early cult activity at all sites where early votive offerings were uncovered. At

46


47

Tegea, the existence of Geometric sherds and bronzes found in the lowest black levels in the area of the fourth century altar indicate that this place was likely to have been used as an altar from Geometric times. In its early stages, however, it was probably a simple ash altar. Remains of an ash altar were also found at Asea; it appears to have served both the seventh century temple erected at the site as well as the later, marble temple. Rupp describes the ash altar as the most common type of evidence for sacrificial activity at early sanctuary sites, consisting of a deposit of ash and burnt animal bones mixed with broken votive objects in a central area of the temenos.^^2 Such a deposit could conceivably be identified at Bassai as well, in the northeast area of the Classical temple (for use with the seventh century temple?) where evidence for burning, many votives and animal bones were found. It is rather more likely, however, that this area at Bassai represents a sort of votive deposit. The recent excavations at Lousoi may have uncovered the foundations of the fourth century altar to the east of the temple; this may well have been the location for the earlier altar as well. No other altars as such can be identified at Arcadian sites, though presumably further excavation, where possible, could reveal evidence of them.

A rather peculiar feature common to some temples in Arcadian sanctuaries is their orientation roughly north to south instead of the conventional east to west (see fig. 7). Early temples with this north to south orientation are those at Bassai and Asea; later examples are at Alipheira and Cretea. The Gortsouli and Gortys structures are oriented northeast to southwest.

This deviation in orientation of some Arcadian temples is a fact which has been briefly noted before,^^^ ^nd it has been observedihat this feature is found outside of Arcadia as well.^^^ A common explanation is that the topography would permit no other layout for the temple. It is also possible that north to south orientation in temples bears a direct relationship to the early establishment and awareness of the conventions of Greek temple construction. At the sanctuaries of Artemis Limnatis at Kombothekra in Elis, Apollo at Eretria, Apollo at Portocheh, Apollo at Thermon, Aphrodite at Axos and others,^^^ the north to south orientation may have been adopted before the conventional east to west orientation had been widely established, though the east to west form was also found at some early temples (i.e. Samos). In geographically remote regions moreover, such as parts of Arcadia, the east to west orientation for temples may not have been standard

Petrovouni, they thought it must have been the one to F^)seidon Hippios mentioned by Pausanias.^'*^ Leake beheved he had found the sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios but could not understand why the remains were outside the city walls of Methydrion. The site at Pctrovouin", however, is close enough to Methydrion to lead both Jost and Papachadzis to identify the sanctuary tentatively as that of Poseidon Hippios.^^O j ^ ^ ^ notes that Pausanias' description of Methydrion is so imprecise that it is possible to identify the Petrovouni temple with the shrine of Poseidon Hippios.^^^ Further excavation at this site would indeed be welcome.

Chapter Two

even in the sixth century. Rather, their builders may have looked to earlier

local examples for guidance. Thus, once Bassai acquired the first temple to

Apollo with a north to south orientation in the late seventh century, it is

possible that the neighbouring sites of Kotilon, Alipheira and Cretea

followed suit in the sixth century and employed the same orientation.

Yalouris offers an interesting theory that the orientation of the Bassai

temple was the result of the nature of the cult of Apollo and its relation to

that of Apollo Boreas.^^^ If Yalouris is correct about the cult of Apollo

dictating the unusual orientation of the temples at Bassai, one must still

explain the north to south orientation found at temples where other deities

were worshipped. The issue of orientation thus remains an intriguing

problem.257

In comparison with other Greek sanctuaries, the Arcadian sites may look

somewhat backward in their development. There are a relatively small

number of temples built by the end of the seventh century but no securely

dated Geometric examples. Elsewhere in Greece some sanctuary sites

revealed temples in Geometric times, i.e. at Samos, Perachora, Eretria,

Mycenae and others. The evidence from a good number of sanctuaries

which produced Geometric votives, however, suggests that temples were

often not built until the seventh century.^58 χ^ί^ embellishment of Greek

sanctuaries with temples on a wide scale in the seventh century was no doubt

related to the increasing growth of the polis.^^^ While no true polls

emerged in Arcadia in the Archaic period, there was clearly a movement in

this general direction, reflected in the building of monumental temples by

the late seventh century at the sites of Bassai, Tegea, Gortsouli and Gortys,

probably Asea and possibly Lousoi and Petrovouni. To the members of the

local communities, these temples may have represented an increasing

independence and a broader sense of identity as residents of particular

regions within Arcadia. Some of the stimulus for such local cooperation may

have been in response, however obliquely, to the growing threat of such

powers as Sparta. More generally, these temples mirror the sorts of

developments occurring at a much accelerated pace at the urban centres.

The establishment of temples in Arcadia by the end of the seventh century,

in any case, indicates that these local communities were finding their

concrete expression, however modest, in this spiritual symbol of statehood.

48

Notes for Chapter Two

49

1. Pausanias 8.45.1.

2. Piali is the Turkish name for the village, which was renamed Alea; the former is still

occasionally heard today. It is interesting to note that the region where the sanctuary is

located was apparently called Alea in antiquity as well, see Jost, Sanctuaires 146, 382.

3. Strabo 8.3.2; Pausanias 8.45.1.

4. N. Moraites, ΊστορΓα τη^ Teyeas (Athens: 1932), 57-66; Callmer, SGA 12S-131\ B.

Kokkini-Domazou, Teyea (Athens: 1973), 8-9; V. Berard, "Tegee et la Tegeatide," BCH

16 (1892): 536-540; E. Curtius, Peloponnesos: Eine historisch-geographische Beschreibung

derHalbinsel (Gotha: 1851), vol. 1, 250 pi. I l l ; Jost, Sanctuaires 157.



7. Callmer, SGA 129.


9. Curtius, Peloponnesos^ 250-251.




13. See below, p. 24; Dugas, IV Si^cle 3; G. Fougeres, Mantinee et I'Arcadie orientate

(Paris: 1898), 216.

14 Jost says that the date most often cited is the first decades of the fifth century, Sanctuaires

143. See also: Moraites, Teyea, 57-66 (650-628); Callmer, SGA 67-70 (600-550);

Kokkini-Domazou, Teyea, 9; Cartledge, Sparta 215; W.G. Forrest, A History of Sparta

(London: 1968), 100 (c.470). Strabo 3.8.2 says that the synoecism occurred in 478-473

B.C. ^

15. Berard, BCH 16 (1892): 547-549, pi. XIII; Xenophon, Hellenica 6.5.8; 7.4.36-7.

16. Berard, BC//16 (1892): 547-549, pi. XIII.

17. Callmer, 112.

18. Ibid., 112-113.

19. /GV:2 8 N r 3 .

20. Callmer, 5 0 4 115.

21. V. Berard, "Teg^e et la Tegeatide," BCH 17 (1893): 1.


50


51

22. Xenophon, Hellenica 6.5.8; 7.4.36-37.

23. Callmer, SGA 115; Jost, Sanctuaires 151 n. 4.


25. Pausanias 8.48.1; 8.49.1.

26. Berard, BCH 17 (1893): 3-15.

27. 8.48.1-8.


29. K. Romaios, " Ή 'A^T^m Πολιάτι^ 'ej/T€7ea," Journal international d'archeologie numismatique 14 (1912): 49. Excavations have been carried out in this vicinity recently, in 1987 and 1988, by the Laconian-Arcadian Ephor, Spyropolous, but so far no evidence has been found of any shrine of Athena PoUas.

30. Jost, Sanctuaires 147.

31. Callmer, SGA 122-124.

32. L. Ross, Reisen und Reiserouten durch Griechenland I (Stuttgart: 1841), 68; Berard BCH 17 (1893): 14-16.

33. / G V:2 31 Nr 118.

34. R. Vallois, "Le theatre de Tegee," BCH 50 (1926): 135-173.



37. Ibid., Pindar, Olympia, Vn.l53.

38. The Turkish name for Stadion is Achouria; this is still heard today. Berard BCH 11 (1893): 3.

39. Frazer, Paus. 432.

40. Dugas, IVSiecle 71.


42. Berard, BCH 11 (1893): 16-23.


44. Polybius V.17.1-2; Pausanias 8.48.4.

45. F. Lenormant, "Terres-cuites de Tegee," Gazette archcologiquc IV (1878): 42-48; Berard,

BCH 16 (1892): 542ff.

46. K. Romaios, " 'λναοκαφαΐ 'ev τω Ίβρω του Ά γ . Σώστη," ΡΑΕ (1909): 316-318, ρ1. 8.

47. Κ. Romaios, 'Tei'ixr/ "E^r^eats τeQi τον \ν Teyea Άνασκαφον \ν 'erei 1910," ΡΑΕ

(1910): 274-276.

48. In the Athens National Museum, NM no. 14922.


50. CaUmer, SGA 126; see also Jost, Sanctuaires 154-55.

51. Pausanias 8.53.9; K. Romaios, "Eis την Αρκαδικηρ Ίοπο^ραφίανΓ ADelt 4 (1918): 102.

52. Frazer, Paus. 442.

53. Polybios V.17.1-2.

54. Polybios 5.17.2; Pausanias 8.48.4.

55. Berard, BCH 16 (1892): 542.

56. Callmer, 5 0 4 127-128.

57. Pausanias 8.53.7, 8.53.10.

58. Pritchett, 5L4Gr 7126-127.

59. For further discussion, see Jost, Sanctuaires 156.

60. Such as Asea; Pausanias 8.44.4.

61. Pausanias 8.54.1-3,8.44.3-4.

62. K. Romaios, ΆvaθημaτLκόs Καδίσκο$ μβτ 'επι^ραφψΓ AE (1904): 139; idem,

Hellenika (1957): 70; Callmer, SGA 109-111. There is a fragment of Aristotle which

mentions a treaty between Tegea and Laconia inscribed on a stele, apparently put on the

bank of the Alpheios, though its exact location is disputed by modern scholars. See

Cartledge, Sparta 138-139 and D.M. Lewis, review of Olympia in der Politik der

Griechischen Staatenwelt, by Augusta Holne, in Classical Review 20 (1970): 253-254. See

also Pritchett, SAGT V 89 and H.T. Wade-Gery, "The Rhianos Hypothesis," in Ancient

Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday, ed. E.

Badian (Oxford: 1966), 297, 302.

63. Pausanias 8.54.1-3.

64. Pritchett, 5L4Gr/124.

65. Frazer, Paus. 443-444.

Notes for Chapter Two Notes for Chapter Two

66. W. M. Leake, Peloponnesiaka (London: 1846), 114; Berard, BCH 16 (1892): 534, pi. 13; see also W. Loring, "Some Ancient Routes in the Peloponnese," JHS 15 (1895): 53-54, 67-69.

67. Frazer, Paus. 443; Pritchett, SAGT1128.

68. E A . Martel, Revue de Geographie 30 (1892), 336-341; Fougeres, Mantinee, 564-567.

69. Martell, Revue de Geographie 30 (1982), 336-341; Frazer, Paus. 443-444.

70. Pritchett, SAGT 1123ff.

71. See Pritchett, SAGT Π 41, where he reiterates his view of a modern diversion of the Alpheios to the east.

72. Pritchett, SAGT1128-130.

73. R. Baladie, Le Peloponnese de Strabon: etude de geographie histonque (Paris: 1980), 50.

74. Pritchett, SAGTV87-88.

75. Pritchett, SAGTV87 n. 8.

76. E. Dodwell, A Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece during 1801, 1805 and 1806 (London: 1819), 418-420.

77. A. Milchhofer, "Untersuchungsausgrabungen in T e g e a , " 5 (1880): 52-69.

78. W. Dorpfeld, "Der Tempel der Athena in Tegea," AM 8 (1883): 274-285.

79. G. Mendel, "Fouilles de Tegee," BCH 25 (1901): 241-281.

80. K. Romaios, " 'λνασχαφαΐ του NojoD τη% 'AXeas," PAE (1909): 303-316.

81. Ong2i%,IVSiecleX,Xl.

82. Dugas, Tegea 335-435.

83. Ougdis, IV Siecle.

84. C. Christou and A. Demakopolou, " Ε ρ γ α σ ί α t ets Χώροτ Ναοΰ 'AXeas 'Κθηνά^ 'ev

Teyear ADelt 20 (1965): Chronika 169-70.

85. These excavations are unpubhshed at present but Dr. Steinhauer has kindly shown me

plans of his excavations and allowed me to study some of the objects found.

86. N. Norman, "The Temple of Athena Alea at Tegea," AJA 88 (1984): 169-194.

87. See A.F. Stewart, Skopas ofParos (New Jersey: 1977).

88. 0sthy, AAA XVII (1984): 118-124 and idem, OpAth XVI:7 (1986): 75-102. Excavations

to confirm the date of the archaic temple are planned for 1990.

t

89. Jost, Sanctuaires 151-154, 368-385.


91. Dugas, Tegefl 335-336.

92. Ibid., 335.

93. Ibid., 337, fig.l; idem, IVSiecle, pi. MI, G.

94. Dugas says that the objects were either Geometric or Mycenaean, but nowhere in the text

does he indicate which objects in his catalogue come from Couche A, Tegea 338-339.

95. Ibid.

96. Ibid., 337-339.

97. Romaios, PAE (1909): 305.

98. Milchhofer, AM 5 (1880): 66-67, pi. IV.

99. Dugas, Tegea 337-338, fig. 1; idem, IVSiecle pi. I-II.

100. Now in the Athens National Museum, NM no. 14828.

101. Dugas, IVSiecle pis. I-II, A and B.

102. Dugas, Tegea 340.

103. Ibid., 336; Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 246, n. 2. Although Dugas and Mendel were correct in

their identifications of earlier blocks used in the later temple, they misinterpreted other

remains within the cella, which 0stby has identified as belonging to the archaic temple,

see 0stby, OpAth XVI:7 (1986): 76-77.

104. Dorpfeld,A^/8 (1883): 284.

105. Pausanias 8.45.4. ^


107. Pausanias 8.47.3

108. Dugas, IVSiecle, 3; Fougeres, Mantinee, 216; Jost, Sanctuaires 375.

109. Jost, Sanctuaires 152-153.

110. I am very grateful to Dr. Steinhauer for permitting to study some section drawings from

his excavations at Tegea.

111. Courbin, CGA 27 n. 5.

52 53

Notes for Chapter Two Notes for Chapter Two

54 55

112. Norman, 88 (1984): 189 n. 117. The earlier temple may also have had a side-door see 0stby, OpAth XVI.7 (1986): 86 for further discussion.

113. The proposed excavations for 1990 include plans to excavate in the region north of Couche A. It is hoped that this investigation may also provide some understanding of the function of this part of the sanctuary.

114. 0sthy, AAA XVII (1984): 123; idem, OpAth XVI:7 (1986): 101, fig. 29.

115. Dugas, IVSikle 11-13; 0stby, AAA XVII (1984): 120; idem, OpAth XVI:7 (1986): 77,

fig. 29; Dorpfeld and Schleif had made the same observation as 0stby some fifty years

ago, when they placed the Tegean remains in their proper seventh century context, Alt

Olympia (Berlin: 1935), 180-182.

116. Norman, ΛΛ4 88 (1984): 171, 172 n. 18.

117. 0sthy, AAA XVII (1984): 123.


119. Milchhofer, 5 (1880): 66, pi. II, area I; see also Norman, A/y4 88 (1984): 190 n. 120.

120. For early altars see Rupp in R. Hagg, ed. The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation (Stockholm: 1983), 101.

121. Norman, Λλ^ 88 (1984): 193.

122. See Chapter One for elaboration of this point. The site of Pallantion could conceivably

fall into the very end of this research since it has been recently re-excavated and a very

small number of the finds may indicate a date just prior to 600 B.C. Publication of this

site is forthcoming by 0stby and three Italian colleagues in Annuario delta Scuola

Archeologica Italiana diAtene. SCQ AR (1984-1985): 22-23 for a preliminary account, and

Jost, Sanctuaires 198-199, for references of past excavations at this site.

123. The sanctuary site hes just above the village of Mavriki, at Psili Korfi, but since Mavriki is

the closest village, this name is usually used to identify the location of the site.

124. Pausanias 8.53.11.

125. K. Romaios, ''TeyeanHal \ 'εττιγραφαι," BCH 36 (1912): 377-378.

126. In the area of Perpori, on a previous occasion, Romaios found three Mycenaean tholoi,

about twenty feet south of the right bank of the Sarandapotamos river, K. Romaios

''Teyeanxov 'legov Άρ76>ιδθ5 Κναχβάηδο^Γ AE (1952): 1 η. 1.

127. Κ. Romaios, " ΆνασκαφαΙ \v Teyea:\ ΡΑΕ (1907): 120ff.

128. Romaios,/l£(1952):3.

129. Romaios, ADe/i (1918): 103; idem, AE (1952): 2.


131. Pritchett, 5y4Gr κ81-82.

132. Romaios, PAE (1907): 120-121; i d e m , ^ (1952): 5, fig. 3.

133. Romaios,yi£ (1952): 26-27.

134. Papachadzis, Paus. 408 n. 3.

135. Romaios, PAE (1907): 121.


137. Pausanias 8.12.3, 5.

138. M. Boblaye, Reserches geographique sur les mines de la Moree (Paris: 1836) 140; Ross,

Reisen, 128. Fougeres, in an earlier publication, stated that Gortsouli must be ancient

Ptolis but later changes his mind, G. Fougeres, "Fouilles de Mantinee," BCH 14 (1890):

65; idem, Mantinee, 117-118; Frazer, Paus. 221-222; W.M. Leake, Travels in the Morea

(London: 1830), vol. Ill, 97; Loring,///S' 15 (1895): 84-85.

139. Papachadzis, Paus. 219-221.


141. Jost concludes that scholars generally identify this site with Ptolis though she believes that

it remains to be proven that the site was an establishment of some importance:

Sanctuaires 136-137. See also T. Karageorga, " ΆρχαΓα Ήίαντίβια;" ADelt 18 (1%3):

Chronika 88-89; R. Hope Simpson and J. Lazenby, The Catalogue of Ships in Homer's

Iliad (Oxford: 1970), 90; Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 86-87; S. Hodgkinson, BSA 86 (1981):

252-256.

142. Karageorga, .4Z)e/i 18 (1963): Chronika 88-89, plan 1.

143. Karageorga indicated in a discussion with me that her plans for stratigraphic excavation

of the temples were unfortunately curtailed due to a number of circumstances. The

chronology of the two building stages thus remains to be defined.

144. Dr. Mazarakis carried out his research on Dark Age Architecture under Professor

Coldstream in London. He very kindly shared his views with me about the architectural

remains at this^ site. A book based on his dissertation, "From Ruler's Dwellings to

Temples: A Study of the Origins of Greek Religious Architecture in the Protogeometric

and Geometric Periods," (Ph.D. diss.. University of London) is soon to be published in

SIMA.

145. Karageorga indicates in her publication that the pottery sequence began in Geometric

um&s, ADelt 18 (1%3): Chronika 88, pis. 103, 104. This issue is addressed more fully in

Chapter Three.

146. Pausanias 8.12.5; see n. 19 above.

147. G. Blum and A. Plassart, "Orchomene d'Arcadie," BCH 38 (1914): 81-88.


56



172. The epithet, Hemera, was used in all inscriptions found at the site, from Archaic until

Roman times. The form, Hemerasia, comes from the name of the festival which occurred

at Lousoi and was used by Pausanais as the epithet of the goddess, see Papachadzis, Paus.

247 n. 2. For a discussion of the inscriptional and literary evidence, see Jost, Sanctuaires

195-196.

173. Dodwell, Topographical Tour, 339; Leake, Morea, vol. II, 109; vol. Ill, 181.

174. Smn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 26; Pausanias 8.18.7.

175. W. Reichel and A. Wilhelm, "Das Heiligthum der Artemis zu Lusoi," JOAI 4 (1901): 8-15;

Smn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 27.

176. S&QAR (1986-87): '2Q\AR (1987-88): 24.

177. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 16, fig. 6.

178. Ibid., fig. 13. For a recent synopsis of the history of the sanctuary see Jost, Sanctuaires

48-50.

179. Van Buren, FR 46, 47; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 61, fig. 128; see also AR

(1987-88): 24, fig. 19 for a recently found clay antefix of sixth century date.

180. Ibid., 32, 35-36, fig. 23.

181. Cooip&T, Bassai 197-198; Kjellberg, Lcmfl, 140-141.

182. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 31-33.

183. Ibid., 23.

184. See AR (1987-88):24.

185. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 27.

I 186. Reichel and Wilhehn, JOAI 4 (1901): 44-45.

187. See (1987-88): 24.

188. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 25-40. »

189. Pausanias 8.26.5-7.

190. OxXdSiaos, Alipheira.

191. Ibid., 13; Papachadzis, Paus. 282-288; Jost, Sanctuaires 77-81.

192. The location of this site outside Phigaleia in a wooded area called Bassai, which may

mean wooded glen, seems to fit a pattern noted by Darice Birge for the worship of Apollo

at sacred groves. Darice Birge presented this view in a paper entitled, "Sacred Groves

148. Ibid., 81.

149. Van Buren, FR 152.

150. Blum and Plassart, BCH 38 (1914): 81-84; Jost, Sanctuaires 118.

151. Dodwell, Topographical Tour, 426.

152. Pausanias, 8.13.2

153. Van Buren, F/? 181.

154. Blum and Plassart, BCH 38 (1914): 84 n. 2.

155. Ibid., 73-76; Papachadzis, Paus. 223-229.

156. The temple is in fact situated at Vigla, in the dominion of Asea; Pausanias simply states that it is above Asea on the peak of Mt. Boreion, Pausanias 8.44.4.

157. Pausanias, 8.44.4; K. Romaios,/M£ (1910): 275-276; idem, '''leQov 'λθηνά^ Σωτ^ίρα^

καΐ YioaeLOoivos κατά την Άρκαδίκην 'AaeavJ'ΑΕ (1951): 114-163.

158. Leake, Morea, 83ff; Ross, Reisen, 64-65.

159. Ross, Reisen, 64-65. He states sadly that neither time, the sun, rain nor ice was the cause of destruction, but only man.

160. Romaios, PAE (1910): 275-276.

161. Romaios, (1918): 104ff.

162. Romaios,ylF (1957): 114-163, pi. 15.

163. Ibid., 117.

164. Cooper, Bassai 198; L. Kjellberg, LaHsa am Hermos: die Ergehnisse der Ausgrabungen,

1902-1934. II. Die Architektonischen Terrakotten (Stockholm: 1940), 131-132.

165. Romaios, PAE (1910): 276; idem, AE (1957): 126.

166. Ibid., 117.

167. Ibid., 147-159, pis. 36-56.

168. Ibid., 144-146, fig. 35; R.J.H. Jenkins, Dedalica: A Study of Dorian Plastic Art in the Seventh Century B.C. (Cambridge: 1936), 67, figs. 7-10.

169. J. Holmberg, "A Doric Temple near Asea in Arcadia." Gotcborgs Hagskolas Arsskrift XLVII:13 (1941): 2-25.

170. Papachadzis, 382-383.

57


and the Nature of Apollo," at a Symposium at the University of Arizona on the "Source of Apollo" (November 1988).

193. Pausanias, 8.41.7-10.

194. W.B. Dinsmoor, "The Temple of Apollo at Bassae," Metropolitan Museum Studies, IV (1933): 204-206.

195. N. Yalouris,"22. Φιγάλθία. Βάσσαι,'Έ/;^^/! (1959): 106-109; idem, δοκιμαστική

Ανασκαφή eU τον Nabv του Έτικουρίου ΆτΓΟ\\ωνο$ Βασσών^ΡΑΕ (1959): 155-159;

idem, Bassai 89-90.

196. Cooper, Bassai. See also Jost for a general summary of research on Bassai, Sanctuaires 92-96.

197. K. Kourouniotes, "To \v Baooais Άρχαιότβρον Ίβρον του Ατό\\ωνο$Γ AE (1910)· 275-278.

198. Yalouns, Ergon (1959): 108-109.

199. Ν. Yalouris, ΆνασκαφαΙ eis τον 'ev Βάσσαι$ Φΐ7άλ€ΐο:5 1<ίαον του Έπικουρίου

ΆτΓΟ\\ωνο$:' AAA 6 (1973): 49-51, fig. 1, plan 5; idem, Bassai 94-96.

200. Kourouniotes, £ (1910): 273, f ig. 2.

201. Yalouris,yi4/l 6 (1973): 50, plan 5.

202. Ibid., 50-53.

203. Yalouris, Bassai 94. Prior to the discovery of an earlier structure below the Iktinian

temple, Yalouris had thought that the building to the south was the pre-Iktinian temple,

AAA 6 (1973): 52-53.

204. Yalouris, Bassai 91-94.

205. K. Kourouniotes, " Ανασκαφή 'ev Κωτίλω" AE (1903): 271-332.

206. Cooper, Bassai 66-75; idem, "Bassai," Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites

(Princeton: 1976), 145-166; see Jost for a more detailed summary of Cooper's later

building stages at the site, Sanctuaires 92-96.

207. Yalouris, Bayifli 94-96.

208. Cooper, Bassai 68,196-201.

209. Ibid., 70 n. 10.

210. Ibid., 68,196-201.

211. These two sets. Types A and B, were discussed by Romaios, see K. Romaios,

" Έ χ τον Άρχαιότβρον Nabv r ^ s Φΐ7άλ6ΐα$," A E (1933): 2 . See also Van Buren, F R

19. They refer to them as Types *A' and Έ.'

58


59

212. Cooper, Bassai 196-201; N. Cooper, "The Development of Roof Revetment in the

Peloponnese" (Ph.D diss.. University of Minnesota, 1983), 106-107. See also Van Buren,

FR 19.

213. See n. 211 above.

214. Van Buren, FR 45.

215. N. Cooper, (see above n. 212) 106-107.

216. Ibid., 105.

217. Cooper, Bassai 70 n. 10; see also 0stby, OpAth XVI:7 (1986): 101.

218. N. Cooper, (see above n. 212) 108-109.

219. Ibid., 104,106.

220. Kourouniotes, £ (1903): 167-175.


222. Cooper, Bassai 29-44; Cooper discusses an inscribed bronze manumission of fourth

century date which could indicate some connection between these two areas in the fourth

century but it in no way supports his theory of a joint building project in the seventh

century.


224. N. Cooper, (see above n. 212) 104,106.

225. The date of these acroteria fragments is difficult to estabhsh. See Le Roy, who beheves

that both types are products of the first half of the sixth century, C. Le Roy, Les Terre

cuitesArchitecturales. FD.II (Paris: 1967), A185,90-91 n. 5.

226. There is evidence of a road which connected the areas of Bassai and Kotilon but, as

Cooper acknowledges, it can not be dated, nor does it necessarily indicate any special

building project between these two areas in the seventh century. Cooper, Bassai 68.

227. Pausanias, 8.41.7.

228. Pausanias, 8.38.2.

229. K. Kourouniotes," 'λνασκαφη ΚυκαίουΓ PAE (1903): 51-52.

230. In the Athens National Museum, NM no. 13226.

231. Kourouniotes,^£:(1910):30.

232. Kourouniotes,PAE (1903): 52; idem," 'Ανασκαφή Κυκαίου;" AE (1910): 29-36.

233. Μ. Jost, "Pausanias en Megalopolide," REA 15 (1973): 250; idem, Sanctuaires 185-186.


60


61

for temple orientation. I am very grateful to Dr. Worthen for many helpful discussions

about this issue.

258. Coldstream, GG 321-326. For a very interesting discusion regarding the possible function of the earhest structures at sanctuary sites and the relation of their development to the growth of the polls, see A J . Mazarakis Ainian, "Early Greek Temples: Their Origin and Function," in Early Greek Cult Practice, eds. R. Hagg, N. Marinatos and G.C. Nordquist (Stockholm: 1988), 105-119.

259. Snodgrass, 58-64. This development can be traced back to the eighth century, see n.

137, above.

234. P. Levi, Pausanias' Guide to Greece (Harmondsworth: 1979), 467 n. 280.

235. Kourouniotes,yl£(1910):32.

236. See Jost, Sanctuaires 203 n. 9 for full bibliography.

237. Pausanias, 8.28.1.

238. P. Courbin, "Gortys d'Arcadie," BCH 76 (1952): 245; J.M. Cook, "Archaeology in Greece,"///5 72(1952): 99.

239. R. Martin and H. Metzger, "Gortys d'Arcadie," BCH 65 (1942): 336.

240. F. Hiller von Gaertringen and H. Lattermann, Arkadische Forschungen (Berlin: 1911), 24-32, pis. 7-8.

241. E. Meyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen (Zurich: 1939), 31-33.

242. Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Arkadische, 22ff.

243. Pausanias, 8.36.1-4.

244. R o m a i c s , ^ (1952): 7.

245. Callmer SGA 11.

246. Van Buren, FR, 180, 77.

247. Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Arkadische, 41, pi. XIII, 3.

248. Schweitzer, GGA 155-156, pi. 193; Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Arkadische, 24-25.

249. Pausanias, 8.36.2.

250. Papachadzis, Paus. 328 n. 2; Jost, Sanctuaires 215-216.

251. Ibid., idem, REA 75 (1973): 252.

252. See Rupp in Hagg, Renaissance, 101.

253. R A. Tomlinson, Greek Sanctuaries (London: 1976), 119.

254. U. Sinn, "Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra," 96 (1981): 52 n. 97.

255. Ibid.

256. Yalouris, 96-103.

257. The question of temple orientation is being re-examined by Dr. Thomas Worthen of the University of Arizona. He is studying temples in the Argolid and exploring the possibility of astronomical factors as well as the alignment of significant mountains as explanations

CHAPTER THREE

POTTERY

Section One: Pottery from Tegea

The pottery uncovered at the Athena Alea site by Milchhofer and Mendel

was published by Dugas in 1921.1 Dugas hsted nearly 140 fragments or

whole pots from Tegea which he divided broadly into hand-made and

wheel-made wares; within these categories he subdivided them further into a

number of small groups. I had the opportunity to examine a representative

sample of this material, which I found in the apotheke of the Tegea

Museum. In addition, I studied a number of unpublished sherds and whole

pots listed in the Tegea Museum catalogue as coming from this site.^

Finally, I was permitted to see some of the pottery recently found in

Steinhauer's excavations at Tegea in 1976 and 1977.^

The following examination of the ceramic material from Tegea is

incomplete. This is due largely to circumstances beyond my control: in part

because of the missing pottery, both published and unpublished, which was

apparently lost in the museum apotheke, and also due to the fair amount of

ceramic remains from Steinhauer's excavations which still requires

examination. I did not include sherds which were in very poor condition, for

their contribution to this study would be negligible. While the selection of

pottery is not exhaustive, it provides a good idea of the nature of the ceramic

evidence from this site.

Dugas' pubhcation of the pottery was of invaluable assistance to me

in identifying much of the material in the Tegea Museum. On the other

hand, his classifications and analyses are very general, limited, and in some

cases incorrect. Taking into account more recent research, I now offer a new

classification of the Tegean pottery according to chronology, shape, and

decoration. A number of previously unpublished pots are also incorporated

and local features observable in the Tegean wares are distinguished.

Photographs and profile drawings serve to illustrate the text.

62 Ji

Pottery

The pottery described in Dugas' account was found throughout the extent

of the excavation.^ He said that some Geometric pottery, mked with black

earth, was uncovered in the area of the temple itself in Couche Β (fig. 4) and

that a good amount of these sherds was found in the northeast corner of the

later temple.^ Mendel also noted that the area corresponding to the pronaos

of the later temple yielded abundant, mixed ceramic fragments of both

Geometric and Mycenaean styles.^ Dugas mentioned no ceramic finds from

his Couche C to the north of the altar, but from the lowest levels of Couche

A, to the north of the temple, he claimed that the considerable amount of

coarse pottery found could belong to either the Geometric or Mycenaean

periods. This conclusion was based on the lack of distinguishing

characteristics which made it difficult to date this material. Because of the

depth of these finds in relation to the deposit at B, he attributed an earlier

date to A, stating that it was the most ancient part of the sanctuary and the

area where one ought to find the first place of the cult.^ According to the

original excavator. Geometric pottery was also found in a black layer below

the monumental altar,^ although Dugas apparently failed to note this fact.

Steinhauer's recent excavations to the north of the temple (in the area of

Dugas' Couche A) yielded a great deal of pottery. I had the opportunity to

examine some of the material from the lowest levels of B2 (fig. 4), a trench

just to the north of Dugas' Couche A. I was able to identify some

Protogeometric and Late Geometric sherds from the same level, just above

virgin earth, but I found no Mycenaean pottery. The results of Steinhauer's

excavated finds, especially when more thoroughly studied, will no doubt

serve to clarify the ambiguities inherent in Dugas' account of Couche A.^

The present evidence indicates, however, that contrary to Dugas '

conclusions, Couche A is contemporary with or later than Couche B. In this

section, I note those pieces found in Steinhauer's excavaliions; they are the

only artifacts from Tegea that have a known context.

It is unfortunate that no record of the exact findspots for the previously

excavated pottery was kept. This means that the ceramic material could have

come from the northeast corner of the temple, from the area to the north of

the temple, or from some other area within the temple; it also might be from

below the monumental altar. Although it is likely that a good deal of this

pottery was found in the northeast corner of the later temple, there is no way

of knowing which pieces came from that spot and which did not. It appears,

however, that the two fragments of Mycenaean pottery from the site were

63

Chapter Three

Mycenaean-Submycenaean

The two fragments of Mycenaean stirrup jars, Pl(248) and P2(247) (pi. 1), are the eariiest ceramic remains from the Athena Alea site.^^ It appears that they were found by Mendel in his excavations pubHshed in 190L16 Dugas discussed these pieces at the beginning of his section on wheel-made pottery, and said that although their clay and technique were like the rest of the locally made pottery, their form was peculiar to the Mycenaean period and he attributed them to this era.^^

An accurate dating of these fragments is rather difficult due to their fragmentary nature and the worn condition of their surfaces. It is known that the stirrup jar was used to store oil but was gradually replaced by the more practical lekythos after the Submycenaean p e r i o d . A number of scholars have considered the question of how early these two pieces can be dated. Alin thought one of the stirrup jar fragments from Tegea was datable to Mycenaean IIIC, though he did not say which one.^^ Hope Simpson at first suggested a date of Mycenaean IIIB/C for both fragments, but later opted for Mycenaean IIIB.^O Howell concluded that these two fragments were broken from Mycenaean IIIC stirrup jars.^l

64

Pottery

Protogeometric

The next type of pottery represented at Tegea is Protogeometric in style; there are eleven examples known. Desborough had identified P7(312) (pi. 3), as a definite example of PG from Tegea, and P8(256) (pi. 3), and P9(261), (pi. 4), as possible PG pieces.^S The other PG material included here consists of pottery which Dugas illustrated poorly, if at all, and pots recently found in Steinhauer's excavations. In sum, the PG pottery consists of the following pieces: an oinochoe fragment, P3; three jugs, P4-P6; six skyphos fragments, P7-P12; and a cup rim, P13.

65

After examining both pieces, I have determined that the dark-ground surface of PI suggests a very late date; it could be Mycenaean IIIC Late or Submycenaean.22 Many other dark-ground vessels from graves in Attica and the Argolid that have been determined to have such late dates provide support for this dating.23 Recent research on the distinction between Mycenaean IIIC Late and Submycenaean may permit the attribution of PI to Mycenaean IIIC Late on the basis of its decoration.^^ P2, on the other hand, appears to be earlier; the profile of its false mouth and its light-ground surface with simple, linear ornamentation indicate a date of Mycenaean IIIC Early.25

These two fragments prompt consideration of the extent and nature of activity in the area of Tegea, and in Arcadia generally, at the end of the Mycenaean period. From the sanctuary at Tegea, a small number of early objects were uncovered including a twelfth century bronze figurine, B8 (pi. 60), a terracotta psi-figurine of Mycenaean IIIC type, Tl (pi. 173), a terracotta quadruped possibly derived from Mycenaean Linear Two style, T5 (pi. 177), and two fibulae apparently Submycenaean, B243 and B244 (pi. 163). There is thus a good chance that some activity was taking place in the vicinity of the Tegea sanctuary at the end of the Mycenaean period and into the eleventh century, though it cannot be determined with certainty that the activity was specifically religious in nature. No other region in eastern Arcadia has yet revealed Late Bronze Age evidence as late as that from Tegea, though further excavation could prove illuminating in this regard.26 From western Arcadia, at Palaiokastro, some very high quality Mycenaean IIIC and Submycenaean pots were found in an extensive necropolis, indicating considerable activity in this part of the region.27

found in the area corresponding to the later pronaos, where Mendel said that Mycenaean pottery had been found mixed with Geometric.

Most of the pottery from the Athena Alea site appears to have been locally produced. ^ These pots were generally made of a pale yellow, porous clay, with a soft, powdery texture and some inclusions. A small number of the pots were made of a coarser, reddish clay with many inclusions. Courbin concluded that in general Tegean clay was not identical to Argive, though its structure was comparable. He described the Tegean clay as generally paler and duller. 12 a comparison with Laconian clay. Lane noted that the Tegean was more yellow than the typical orange-red clay of Laconia. There are some imports to the site too, from the Argolid, Laconia and Corinth; these can be determined, though not always easily, on the basis of fabric, decoration and pot shape. The Argolid had the strongest influence on the Tegean pottery, and attempts to distinguish the fine line between Argive imitations and imports have sometimes challenged even the experts.

Chapter Three

66

Pottery

67

The oinochoe fragment, P3(336) (pi. 2), unillustrated by Dugas, consists of

the lip and shoulder area of a small oinochoe, decorated with cross-hatched

lozenges on the shoulder.29 P4(TM) (pi. 2, fig. 9), a jug from the site, was

erroneously identified as one of five vases found in a Mycenaean tholos

tomb.^^ Hope Simpson noted that although P4 was displayed in the Tegea

Museum with four Mycenaean vases from the tomb, it probably did not

belong with this group.^l I was recently able to confirm that this jug, P4, did

in fact come from the Athena Alea sanctuary by checking its Tegea Museum

number in the unpubhshed museum catalogue. Though it had been broken

into a number of pieces, it is largely restored and one can distinguish its

decoration of cross-hatched triangles on the shoulder area of an otherwise

dark-ground vessel.

P5(260) (pi. 3), is a fragment broken from an amphora or jug which has

two sets of concentric circles painted on it. The cramped nature of these sets

recalls the decoration of Laconian pottery.^^ while Laconian Dark Age (or

Laconian PG) pottery tends to have rectilinear ornamentation, there are

some fragments which are decorated with concentric circles.^^ This

decoration persisted into LG and appears to have been particularly popular

in eighth century Laconia.^'^ This fragment may thus be later than PG.

P6(S) (pi. 3), was found in Steinhauer's excavations from the lowest level

(stroma 11) of trench B2 (see fig. 4). It appears to be broken from an

amphora or jug and is painted with large cross-hatched triangles with

horizontal bands below and then dark-ground.^^ This piece contains

standard PG elements in terms of decoration and shape.

P7(312) (pi. 3, fig. 8), is a rim fragment from a skyphos which Desborough

considered to be the only certain example of PG from the site. Dugas

thought it was an import from Tiryns but gave no parallels.^^ One can see

an Argive parallel from Barbouna.^'^ P7 has conventional PG decoration

of concentric circles and a vertical lozenge chain in silhouette.

The skyphos fragment, P8(256) (pi. 3, fig. 8), mentioned by Desborough as

a possible PG fragment, consists of two mended pieces decorated with

groups of concentric circles. The shape of this pot is not that of an ordinary

skyphos but of a bellied or carinated skyphos, a type peculiar to Laconia.^^

Other carinated skyphos fragments were found at Tegea (see below, P9) and

at the Arcadian site of Mavriki, MPS (pi. 48, fig. 17). The profile of P8,

however, does not conform to the standard shapes observed in the Laconian

Dark Age repertoire. It lacks the horizontal grooves at the lower lip and

handle areas and the sharp articulation normally found on the Laconian

carinated skyphoi.^^ P8's profile might in fact be closer to the LG

descendants of the PG bellied or carinated skyphos."^^ In addition, the

standard decoration on these Dark Age or PG Laconian skyphoi tends to be

linear with panels on the shoulder and diagonal cross-hatchings on the lip.^^

The choice of concentric circles to decorate this particular shape of vase

appears inappropriate and implies the continuation of the design and shape

from an earlier period.

According to Coulson, the vast majority of the Laconian Dark Age (or

Laconian PG) pottery dates to the period between 950 and 800 B.C., or from

the time when LPG through MGI were in use in Attica and the Aigolid.^^

The peculiar form of this Laconian shape, P8, combined with the choice of

decoration, suggest a date considerably later than the period of standard

production for this type of vase, i.e. after 800 B.C. The fabric of P8,

moreover, suggests local production. I thus conclude that this pot represents

the local continuation of older PG traditions, in a new form, and may be as

late as LG.

Another skyphos fragment, P9(261) (pi. 4, fig. 8), which Dugas had

thought was part of a lid, was identified by Desborough as a possible PG

fragment and by Coldstream as characteristic of the PG pots found at

Amyklai.^^ Such pottery often has diagonal cross-hatching on the rim and a

distinctive black, shiny glaze. Recent research on the Dark Age pottery of

Sparta permits this fragment, P9, to be incoφorated into Coulson's detailed

typology for carinated skyphoi. The profile drawing of P9 indicates that it

can be assigned to Coulson's category ΈΙ,^^ In view of the nature of the

stratigraphy available from Amyklai and Coulson's propotied ceramic phases

for Laconian Dark Age pottery,^^ P9 could range in date from roughly 950

to 800 B.C. It was probably an import from Laconia.

P10(315) (pi. 4), is a piece broken from either a skyphos or a kantharos

and has the characteristic PG feature of a chain of cross-hatched lozenges. It

also has a chain of vertical, small, plain lozenges, which is unusual in PG. An

example from Attica, from an amphora, has the decoration of a vertical row

of cross-hatched lozenges, three vertical lines and then a vertical chain of

solid small lozenges.'^^ This is almost identical to the decoration on PIO

except for the soHd interior of the lozenges. PG skyphoi from Attica with

vertical cross-hatched lozenges are also known.^^ Dugas thought that PIO

Chapter Three

68

Pottery

Middle Geometric

About nine pieces of pottery were found at the Athena Alea site which

may be attributed to MGII. These include an amphoriskos, Ρ14, two

oinochoe fragments, P15 and P16, a pyxis and its lid, P17a and b, a krater,

P18, a kantharos, Ρ19, fragments from an open vessel, P20, a shallow

skyphos, P21, and a high-footed cup, P22.

The neck-handled amphoriskos, P14(TM) (pi. 5, fig. 9), is unpublished; it

has a shape which became very popular in MGII in the Argolid. Compared

with its Argive counteφarts, however, it is much broader around the belly

and has a lower center of gravity. Its decoration of thin horizontal stripes

around the belly was apparently quite common in this period.^^ On the

shoulder it has a row of horizontal diamonds.

The unpublished oinochoe fragment, P15(X) (pi. 5), comes from a small

vessel largely covered in dark paint and with three white bands around its

neck.56 Oinochoe fragment Ρ 16(307) (pi. 6), has been identified by

Coldstream as an example of MGII at Tegea.^'^ CouAin mentioned this

fragment as one of the definite imports to Tegea from the Argolid, and on

this occasion was in agreement with Dugas.^^

The pyxis from the Athena Alea site, P17b(304) (pi. 7, fig. 10), was

identified by Coldstream as another example of MGII from Tegea.^^

Courbin considered la petite pyxis a pied' from Tegea to be a typical Argive

vessel and a possible import to Tegea.^^ It is apparently slightly bigger than

the usual Argive examples and has attached lug-handles which are

longitudinally pierced.^ ^

69

was stylistically related to pottery from Tiryns.^^ Courbin considered it to be

one of the Argive imports to Tegea."^^ Its relatively finer clay and buff

colour indicate that it probably was an import from the Argolid.

P l l ( X ) (pi. 4), is an unpublished and very worn fragment in the Tegea

Museum apotheke which originally came from a skyphos or kantharos. It has

an unusually long, unpainted and pronounced rim with concentric circles

below. Similarly decorated fragments were found at Amyklai.^^ The

possible connection with Amyklai may again indicate a date as late as the

beginning of LG for this sherd (see P5 above). P lTs very worn surface and

fragmentary nature do not encourage further comment about it.

P12(S) (pi. 4), from a skyphos or kantharos, was recently found by

Steinhauer in stroma no. 11 of trench B2 (see fig. 4). It consists of a number

of fragments broken from the same pot and is decorated with a horizontal

zigzag between horizontal bands. A possible parallel piece might be a

skyphos from Attica.^ 1

P13(S) (pi. 4), is a fragment from a cup also found in Steinhauer's

excavations in stroma 11, trench B2. It recalls the pots from Amyklai which

have a similar curve of the rim and decoration with cross-hatchings.^^

Couslon's recent study of Laconian Dark Age pottery, he illustrates various

categories of cups and Ρ13 may well represent an example of his Type P2' in

the 'Deep Cup' category.^^ The colour and quality of the fabric indicate that

this pot was an import from Laconia and it too may range in date from 950 to

800 B.C.

The PG pottery here considered includes six pieces which appear to be

definite examples of PG, contemporary with late PG types found elsewhere

in Attica or the Argolid: three fragments from jugs, P3, P4, P6; and skyphos

fragments P7, P12 and probably PIO. The other five fragments seem to have

Laconian connections. Apparent imports from Amyklai include skyphos

fragment, P9 and cup fragment, P13. These could range between 950 and

800 B.C. in date. Finally, the sherds P5, from an amphora or jug, P8, from a

bellied skyphos and P l l , from a skyphos or kantharos, all are decorated with

concentric circles which reveal ties with Laconian pottery as late as the

eighth century B.C. The profile of P8, moreover, with its softened, carinated

shape and lack of horizontal grooves, suggests an eighth century date; it may

be a local Tegean product.

This spectrum of pottery indicates that there was considerably more early

activity at the site than previously believed.^"* There is some very limited

evidence for the twelfth and eleventh centuries. An increase is notable after

the second half of the tenth century B.C. This material consists of standard

LPG pottery as well as Laconian style Dark Age pottery; the latter continues

into the ninth century B.C. or later. There is no evidence at the site of EG or

MGI wares. This gap offers further support for a continuation of Laconian

style pottery until c.800 B.C. when MGII appears on the scene.

Chapter Three

70

Pottery

Late Geometric

*

The Late Geometric vases make up the greatest abundance and variety of

all classes of pottery found at Tegea. Both open and closed vessels are well

represented and include amphorae, oinochoai, pyxides, kraters, skyphoi and

cups of various types, (P23-P59). There are also a number of

Protocorinthian influenced pieces and a few Protocorinthian imports

(P60-P72), some of which continue into the seventh century B.C.

71

cup with stirrup handles was unknown in the Argolid.'72 He also thought that

the dull clay and black varnish indicated local manufacture and offered four

other examples of such low cups from Attic tombs as well as one from

Corinth.'73 One of the examples of an MG low cup from the Kerameikos

offers a very good parallel for the Tegean example.^^ Courbin indicated that

the earlier example from Corinth was probably an imitation of an Attic type.

It is possible that P21 was also locally made under Attic influence. P21 may

thus reveal some Attic presence in the Tegean ceramic repertoire of MGII.

An unusual high-footed cup from Tegea, P22(303) (pi. 10, fig. 10), has no

parallels to my knowledge. Courbin noted that such a high foot was

unknown in the Argolid.'^^ It has very simple decoration with four horizontal

bands on the upper body and solid paint on the lower body. This

ornamentation indicates that P22 may be attributable to MGII. Its

unconventional appearance and lack of parallels suggest local production.

Another locally produced specimen from Tegea with a high foot is P90 (pi.

43, fig. 16), which was hand-made.

The nine examples considered above include seven which have very strong

connections with the Argolid. Three of them were probably imports to

Tegea from the Argolid: P16, the oinochoe fragment, P17a, b, the pyxis and

lid and P20, the open vessel fragments painted with quatrefoils. The other

four were probably locally made: P14, the amphoriskos, P15, the oinochoe

neck, P18, the fragments from the krater and P19, the kantharos. They all

have Argive parallels however and were no doubt influenced by the Argive

MGII style. P21, the low skyphos, reveals Attic traits though it was probably

locally made. Finally, P22, the high-footed cup, has no parallels outside of

Tegea and may reveal a possible local preference for high-footed cups.

During my studies of pottery at the Tegea Museum, I was happy to

discover that the pyxis lid, P17a(319) (pi. 7, fig. 10), actually joined with the

body of the pyxis, P17b. It is conical in shape with a horizontal

perforation,62 and decorated with Hght coloured horizontal bands on a

predominantly dark-ground surface, just as the pyxis is decorated. Courbin

considered the pyxis lid to be a true Argive import to Tegea, in agreement

with Dugas.63 since Ρ 17a and Ρ 17b clearly belong together, it is safe to

conclude that both the pyxis and its lid were imported to Tegea from the

Argolid.

The two fragments broken from a krater, P18(320) (pi. 6), are probably

also MGII in style. Parallels for the shape can be seen in two Argive pieces,

C.289 and C.423.64 The decoration consists of a panel with metopes of

hatched quatrefoil flowers and four vertical lines flanking the ends of the

panel. A dark ground can be detected beyond the panel decoration.

Although the general shape and nature of the ornament reveal an MGII

date, the cross-hatching in the quatrefoil flowers could indicate an LGI

date.65 Dugas erroneously considered this pot to be a Laconian import to

Tegea.66 On the basis of its shape and decoration it is more likely to be an

Argive inspired piece.

The nearly complete kantharos fragment, P19(299) (pi. 8, fig. 10), appears

to be of MGII date. Courbin called it a cup with low vertical handles and

states that it is a miniature version of the Argive type.^^ Although the

surface of this vase is very worn, one can see that the lower half is covered in

dark paint and the upper portion shows a series of vertical bands between

two horizontal bands. A parallel for this shape and general decoration can

be seen in an example from Mycenae.^^ P19 is also probably a local product

under Argive influence.

Two pieces broken from an open vessel, P20(314) (pi. 8), can also be

considered to be MGII in style. Both Dugas and Courbin concluded that P20

was a definite Argive import to Tegea.^^ χ^^ hatched quatrefoils with

painted stars as filling ornaments are particularly Argive features.'^O A

similarly decorated pot with quatrefoils, stars, a hatched meander, as well as

vertical and horizontal lines, can be seen in the pyxis from Argos, C.43.'71

P21(318) (pi. 9, fig. 11), is a fragment from a low skyphos, with stirrup

handles and a ring foot. Dugas had said that it was an Argive import but

Courbin concluded that it was certainly a local product since this sort of low

Chapter Three

72

Pottery

human legs pointing in the direction of the table or bier. It is interesting to note that this fragment, broken from a very large amphora of somewhat coarse fabric, is painted simply and in quite a free style. There is no indication in this piece of a direct imitation of a major style, though the artist who produced it may well have been generally influenced by Geometric conventions. The curious depiction of human legs with the connecting bar and its unparalleled counterpart in bronze may indicate an active attempt to portray a particular scene which had local significance. This freer style of painting can be observed on a number of other pots from Tegea (P27-P29, P31, P32, P41, P42, P43); these may reveal a local development of the figured style. The outline technique and freer style of painting may point to a later date, i.e. early seventh century B.C.

P27(277) (pi. 13), was also broken from an amphora and depicts a male figure with tiny arms and very long legs. He is standing next to what seems to be a wall. This fragment, broken from a large coarse pot, reveals a somewhat freer style of painting, indicating that it was probably a local product. The same might be true for P28(TM) (pi. 12), also broken from an amphora. A very worn scene on its coarse surface seems to have originally depicted a boat. P29(290) (pi. 13), must also have come from an amphora of large size and of coarse fabric. It too is painted in a fairly free style with a scene revealing a human figure's legs and, to the right, a quadruped with a very elongated body.

P30(267) (pi. 14), is painted with a horse which has an extremely narrow, long and cylindrical body. Below its belly is a bird with a worm-like scribble falling from its beak. Above, in the horizontal window, can be seen the legs of one bird and the claws of another next to it. In the Argive repertoire, painted birds below the bellies of the horses are not as popular as fish below the horses but some examples are known which are similar to the one on P30.^^ The length of the horse's body is so exaggerated that it is likely that P30 was locally produced, but under general Argive influence.

P31(289) (pi. 14), was broken from a large, thick and somewhat coarse amphora. Painted decoration consists of the lower half of the body of a man, walking on a ground line below. Underneath the ground line, one can see a horizontal band with small vertical lines, as on P24. This piece was probably locally made but reveals general Argive influence.

73

The amphorae with LG decoration include P23-P32. All of them have figured ornament and can be assigned to LGII. P23(284) (pi. 10, fig. 11), depicts the figure of a woman and possibly a second figure to her left. The decoration is quite worn and it is not clear what the woman is doing; she may be dancing.

P24(311) (pi. 11), was probably also broken from an amphora and reveals a very short *horse-tamer' between two large horses with fish under their bellies. Both Dugas and Courbin considered this piece to be an import to Tegea from the Argolid.^^ Horse-related themes were among the most popular figured scenes on Argive LGII pottery;^^ they were also well represented at Tegea. Courbin stated that the horses painted on the Tegean pottery generally recall those on Argive pots.^^ The scene painted on P24 cannot easily be assigned to any of the main workshops identified by Coldstream; the pot was therefore probably manufactured by a minor Argive workshop. There are a number of parallels observable between P24 and an Argive pyxis from Wiirzburg.^^ They include the relatively shorter size of the man in comparison with the horses, the horizontal panel of short vertical hues placed underneath the main scene, and the zigzag design in the rectangular panels above the horses. Other short 'horse-tamers' can be seen on two more pots from the Argolid.^^

Amphora fragment P25(285) (pi. 11), illustrates what appears to be a man rowing a boat; Coldstream notes that it is a rather unexpected scene to be found in a place so far from the sea.^^ Dugas had described it as the figure of a woman grasping a sort of post.^^ I am more inclined to see the scene as a man wearing a tunic, holding an oar and in a boat with the curved part rising just above his head. Parallels with rowers holding oars and inside similar boats can be found in Attic pottery in the Louvre.^^

Two fragments broken from an amphora, P26(286, 288) (pi. 12), depict a most unusual scene reveahng somewhat ambiguous leg-like forms. The pair of legs in the middle with the bar connecting them immediately bring to mind the bronze found at the Athena Alea sanctuary with a very similar and equally mystifying form, B162 (199) (pi. 121). To the right of these connected legs is what appears to be a table or bier, painted in outline.^"^ The forms to the left of the connected legs are probably human limbs, judging from the depiction of the feet; similar human feet can be seen in P31 (pi. 14) and P42-P43 (pi. 20). This painted scene may portray a ritual activity - perhaps a funerary scene - with the mysterious connected legs and the other

Chapter Three

74

Pottery

75

P32(268) (pi. 15), was apparently broken from the neck of an amphora. It shows a figure of a deer with a hatched horizontal frame above. Very few depictions of deer painted on LGII pots are known. There are two examples from the Argolid and these are very different in form from the Tegean example on P32.86 Courbin noted that the deer figure on this sherd, unlike the birds and horses painted on other Tegean pots, was apparently unrelated to the Argive ^XyltP It is noteworthy that a good number of bronze figurines of deer found at the Athena Alea sanctuary revealed a distinct independence of style (see Chapter Four, Section Two). It appears that representations of deer were popular at this site and had a special significance for the Tegeans.

Of the ten sherds from amphorae discussed above, only one, P24, is thought to be an Argive import to Tegea. P30, P31 and P23 all reveal some adherence to Argive figured drawing but are probably locally made. P25 has no known Argive parallels but does have Attic parallels. Finally, P26, P27, P28, P29 and P32 all seem to reveal a degree of freedom in the style of the painted decoration, though there is a certain adherence to general Geometric conventions.

Two oinochoe fragments of LG types were found at the Athena Alea sanctuary. P33(322) (pi. 15), was previously unillustrated by Dugas and consists of a single zigzag between horizontal bands. P34(TM) (pi. 16), is an unpublished oinochoe fragment from an apparently misfired or otherwise faulty vessel. It is decorated with a horizontal lozenge chain between horizontal bands.

An unpubhshed ring-vase fragment, P35(X) (pi. 16), may come from the Athena Alea site. It has a round section and preserves the spout and part of the ring. The decoration on this vase is generally LGII in style; it also recalls Early Protocorinthian Hnear decoration. Another unpublished ring-vase found at Mavriki, MP2 (pi. 47), has a square section and linear ornament. Further south, from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary, two more ring-vase fragments were found which both have linear LGII d e c o r a t i o n . A much later example (Middle Corinthian) was uncovered in southwest Arcadia, at the sanctuary of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai.89 The history of the ring-vase appears to have been a long one, beginning in the Bronze Age and represented in Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, West Anatolia, and Crete.^^ It is believed that the inspiration for the vertical ring-vases from Greece must have come from Cyprus.^ ^ During the Iron Age, it appears that the ring-vase

came into the Greek repertoire in PG times and again at the end of the eighth century.92

P36-P38 are fragments from closed vessels painted with figured decoration of LGII style. P36(263) (pi. 17), was broken from a large pot and was painted with a long row of Argive style herons.^3 P37(308) (pi. 17), also depicts Argive style birds. Courbin thought that it was unusual in its repetition of the same motif on two superimposed, decorated zones, which he said would have been unacceptable to the Argive painters. Paradoxically, Courbin elsewhere noted the possibility that P37 might be an Argive import to Tegea.^^ Dugas had considered this fragment to be a definite Argive import.^^ After examination of this piece, I am inclined to see it as an Argive import as well, on the basis of the quality of its decoration.

P38(283) (pi. 17), is a small fragment painted with a scene of dancing men holding branches. This scene is characteristic of the Argolid.^^ Male dancers holding branches are less common than female dancers, though there is another such example with male dancers from the Argive Heraion.^^

Fragments broken from five pyxides and one whole pyxis were found at the Athena Alea site. These pots reveal decoration of LGII style.

P39(264) (pi. 18, fig. 12), was apparently broken from the rim of an Argive style cylindrical pyxis. Courbin noted that the painted herons as well as the row of lozenges on the rim were typical Argive features, though the pot was probably locally produced at Tegea.99 P40a(274, 275, 279, 282) and P40b(280, 281) (pi. 19), are six fragments which were broken from a cylindrical Argive style pyxis of local manufacture at T e g e a . U p o n reconstruction, it can be seen that the fragments reveal a scene of a group of men dancing on one side of the pyxis and a group of women on the other. The necks of all of the figures are ridiculously elongated. Courbin said that this feature could also be seen on Argive human figures.^.^^ Coldstream noted that figures with very long necks were also found on the Amyklai pyxis, which depicts a scene of dancing figures as well.^^^ xhe dancers on the Tegean pot appear to have had a cord attached around their waists which connected them to each other; stars are also painted between the dancers. The cord and the stars may be Arcadian touches in an otherwise Argive scene.103

Chapter Three 1 Pottery

Protocorinthian Influence/Imports

A number of pottery fragments from the Athena Alea site reveal Protocorinthian influence or, in some cases, importation To the site. Dugas noted the existence of five Protocorinthian vases and two 'Corinthian' fragments. 11^ Both of the fragments which Dugas considered to be 'Corinthian' are in fact Protocorinthian. A Protocorinthian attribution is also in order for a number of other fragments which Dugas did not include in his account. The latest ceramic remains from the site are Late Protocorinthian to Transitional Corinthian in style and there do not appear to be any pieces which are clearly attributable to Ripe Corinthian.

P60(250) and P61(249) (pi. 29), are two very large handle fragments broken from conical oinochoai. P60 has a painted snake, flanked above and below by dots winding down the handle; P61 has a moulded snake with black

76 77

Courbin mentioned another fragment, P41(278) (pi. 18), which he thought might belong to this pyxis ,!^ but in fact it does not. The figures in P41 are more elongated than those in P40. I am inclined to believe that P41 was broken from a vessel similar to P40 in shape and decoration. P42(276) (pi. 20) and P43(317) (pi. 20), both depict pairs of dancing feet and were probably also broken from cylindrical pyxides with dancing figures. It is clear that such vessel shapes as well as dancing scenes were popular at Tegea.

P44(298) (pi. 20, fig. 13) is an entire small pyxis of Argive form. 105 Courbin considered it to be decorated with typical Argive, two-leg herons. The surface of the pot is extremely worn and the decoration on the main panel is in fact very difficult to distinguish. I believe that the decoration consists of a single large zigzag rather than a row of herons. Courbin thought that P44 may have been an Argive import to Tegea. A parallel for this pot can be seen from Mycenae.

An unpublished rim fragment from what appears to be a dinos, P45(X) (pi. 22), is in the Tegea Museum and may be from Tegea. It is decorated with floating chevrons and is probably Subgeometric in date.l^^

A number of fragments broken from LGI-II kraters were also found at Tegea. P46a and b(269) (pi. 21, fig. 12), are pieces broken from the same vessel which was originally decorated with dotted lozenges around the rim and with linear ornament below. Another krater rim, P47(TM) (pi. 22, fig. 11), is an unpublished sherd from Tegea. It is decorated with a row of lozenges around the rim and has concentric circles below. P48(273) (pi. 23), probably also broken from a krater, is painted with four dancing female figures. Courbin considered these waisted dancers very characteristic of the Argolid. 109 Krater fragment, P49(266) (pi. 23), reveals the hind legs of a horse and what appears to be a very worn fish below its belly. Courbin noted that the style of painting recalls that of Argive workshops. HO

P50(287) (pi. 24), was broken from an open vessel. It was originally painted with a human figure, the legs of which can be seen on this fragment. The legs appear to be in a walking position (or dancing?) on a ground line. The pot must have been quite large and the clay is rather coarse. P50 could be classified as one of the large coarse vessels with a somewhat freer style of painting discussed above. P51(324) (pi. 24), was also broken from an open vessel and reveals a female figure with three vertical bands to her left; she too may be a dancing figure.

A considerable number and variety of cup types were found at Tegea. P52(S) (pi. 24), was a piece recently uncovered in Steinhauer's excavations in the eleventh stroma of trench B2. It was broken from a skyphos and decorated with a row of herons, with vertical bands on the side. A number of similar fragments were also found in the Argolid.m P53(297) (pi. 26, fig. 13), is an almost complete miniature kantharos painted with linear ornament. Courbin described it as a high cup of Argive type.H^ P54(TM) (pi. 25, fig. 13), is an unpublished, largely complete kantharos from Tegea. It has a large painted zigzag on the main panel of the body. P55(237) (pi. 26, fig. 14), a two-handled cup, was decorated simply with horizontal bands painted in dark paint. This type of small cup with vertical handles and flat base was apparently unknown in the Argolid; 113 it appears to be hand-made.

A number of one-handled cups were found at the Athena Alea sanctuary, P56-P59. P56(TM) and P57(TM) (pi. 27, fig. 13), are simply decorated with horizontal bands and rows of dots on the main panel below the rim. These painted dots were apparently a common design on Argive pots towards the end of the Geometric period.H^ P58(291) and P59(238) (pi. 28, fig. 14), are painted with horizontal bands above and solid paint on the lower body. P59 also has a cross on the underside of its base (fig. 14). Courbin described P59 as a high cup of Argive type.H^ In fact, there is not much similarity in decoration or shape between P59 and the two parallels offered by Courbin. Only the cross below the base of P59 is a certain Argive feature.

Chapter Three Pottery

Two flat pyxis lids from Tegea, P65(313) and P66(330) (pi. 31), are decorated with concentric circles and recall PC examples of such lids. Dugas considered P65 to be an Argive import from Tiryns and P66 to be a Corinthian import. 124 The quality of the fabric of P65 and P66 suggests that they were both PC imports. In addition, the decoration of P66 is paralleled closely at Perachora and Corinth, further indicating importation to Tegea. 125

Three Protocorinthian aryballoi were also imported to the Athena Alea site: P67(329), P68(S) (pi. 32), and a third not illustrated here, Dugas no. 328.126 P67 reveals the lower body broken from a very small ovoid aryballos decorated with a horizontal band of rays around the base. Above the base, thin concentric bands separate horizontal panels. The lower panel depicts running dogs; a man and a bull are shown fighting in the central zone. It is probably an MPC piece. 127 P68(S) was recently found in Steinhauer's excavations but unfortunately has no context, for it was found outside of a trench, apparently in a dump. Much of the body of this vessel is preserved; it has a piriform shape with a very narrow base. The decoration consists of the usual horizontal band of rays and a number of panels separated by thin

Hand-made and Miniature Pots

Some of the more unusual pots from the Athena Alea site are the hand-made and miniature vessels, P73-P96, many of which have no exact parallels. A number of the hand-made vessels are round-bottomed, miniature pots with painted decoration: P75, P79, P80, P85, P91 and P92.

P75(235) (pi. 36), appears to be an oinochoe with a round lip and solid black dots painted on its body. P79(234) (pi. 38), is a globular jug with horizontal bands painted on its body. The addition of painted decoration on these hand-made, miniature vessels is unusual and Courbin notes that P75 and P79 would not have been painted in the Argolid. 1^4 P80(233) (pi. 38, fig. 16), is an aryballos with a very wide body and horizontal bands on its surface. P85(228) (pi. 41), is a shallow bowl with double handles, decorated with 'S' designs randomly painted both on the inside and the outside of the pot. P91(239) (pi. 44, fig. 16), is a miniature skyphos painted with thick horizontal bands. P92(240) (pi. 44), is a miniature cup also painted with horizontal bands. Four other examples of hand-made miniature pots with

78 79

dots painted on its body, also winding down the handle. Courbin thought that P61 was broken from a large amphora of Argive type.^^^ Coldstream identified it and P60 as handles from conical oinochoai which were imitating EPC pottery; he noted that they have Laconian parallels which also imitated EPC pottery. 120 it thus seems they are locally manufactured pieces of LGII date, but under EPC influence.

A neck fragment from a lekythos-oinochoe, P62(337) (pi. 30), may be imitating EPC vessels, to judge from the thin rows of horizontal bands around the neck. Dugas considered it to be an import from an unknown source. 121 it was probably a local product under EPC influence. P63(326) (pi. 30), is another neck fragment from a lekythos-oinochoe painted with multiple zigzags and a cross design between horizontal bands. Dugas considered it to be a PC import to the site. 1^2 its decoration and fabric suggest that it was probably locally made, under EPC influence. P64(325) (pi. 30), is a neck fragment broken from a conical oinochoe and painted in characteristic EPC decoration with large black rays between horizontal bands. Its very fine, yellowish clay and decoration indicate that it was an EPC import to Tegea. This fragment has parallels from Perachora and Laconia. 123

concentric bands. The central zone has three 'walking' lions and many Orientalizing filling motifs above and below it. It is attributable to LPC. 128 Dugas' no. 328 comes from the upper area of a much bigger aryballos which has a panel of large running dogs on its shoulder; it is LPC or Transitional Corinthian in style and appears to be the latest of the three. 129

A PC kalathos, F70(306) (pi. 33, fig. 14), with horizontal bands inside and outside was found at the Athena Alea site. Its short, wide, tub shape indicates a fairly early date.l^^ It may be an EPC import. P69(305) (pi. 33, fig. 14), was also mentioned by Dunbabin as a kalathos but he probably did not notice that it originally had a vertical handle which is now broken and missing. 131 It thus probably should be called a one-handled cup which might well have been inspired by an EPC kalathos in its decoration; it was probably locally produced. Courbin noted that such a vessel would not be found in the Argohd.132

Two kotyle bases, P71(340) and P72(341) (pi. 34), were found at the site and they appear to be LPC though their fragmentary nature and lack of preserved ornament make a precise attribution difficult. They may well be imports to Tegea. 1^3

Chapter Three

80

Pottery

81

rounded bottoms and painted decoration were found at Mavriki, MP9, MPIO, MP13, MP14 (pis. 51, 53, figs. 16, 18). These ten pots have no parallels and are among the most individual vessels found at Tegea and Mavriki.

Other distinctive vases from Tegea are the hand-made miniature pots with flat bottoms and painted decoration: P76(TM), P77(302), P93(245) and MPl l , from Mavriki. P76(TM) (pi. 37, fig. 15), is an unpublished miniature amphoriskos originally covered in black paint. P77(302) (pi. 37), is the base from a small conical oinochoe and is painted with solid paint at the bottom and horizontal bands above. Courbin notes that such a pot would have been left unpainted in the Argolid. 1^5 P93(245) (pi. 44, fig. 16), is a simple miniature cup with painted horizontal bands. M P l l (pi. 52, fig. 18), is a miniature kalathos.

Coldstream notes that the miniature pottery painted in a Geometric manner from Tegea might appear to initiate a trend which became widespread at Greek sanctuaries in the seventh century, but concludes that the local Tegean style was so backward that the earliest of these pots may be Subgeometric. 136 An earlier date is suggested, however, by the shape of the pots (i.e. the round-bottomed ones) which were probably imitating large vessels of the same types. A number of full-sized, somewhat coarse, round-bottomed but undecorated pots were found in tombs in the Argolid and range in date from Early Geometric to Late Geometric. 137 Although very little is known about the more common or domestic vessels from Tegea, it is quite possible that they resembled the full-sized Argive pots. These in turn could have provided models for the miniature pots. The reduction in size and the addition of Geometric decoration may have been done in order to make the pots more appropriate (though still relatively humble) offerings for dedication. It is thus conceivable that they were born out of a local pottery tradition, and that the dedication of these hand-painted miniatures could have begun before the end of the eighth century. Considerable excavation at settlements and cemeteries around Tegea would be necessary before such a theory could be proven.

It could also be argued that the custom of dedicating miniatures at sanctuaries, once initiated in the seventh century, provided the impetus for the Tegeans to develop their own style of miniature pottery dedications which differed from those found at other sanctuaries, both in their shapes

and painted decoration. A look at some of the other miniature pottery found at Tegea below might incHne one towards this latter view.

P74(218) (pi. 36, fig. 15), is an amphoriskos with a rounded base made of very coarse clay. It has two warts or mastoi placed between the handles at the neck level. Such protrusions are known to occur from time to time in Submycenaean, PG and G contexts both on standard wheel-made and on hand-made pots. 138 The significance of these applications is obscure. P74 has no exact parallel to my knowledge, but there is a monochrome conical oinochoe from the Argive Heraion that has similar protrusions. It is seventh century in date.139 P78(226) (pi. 38, fig. 16), is a small unpainted conical oinochoe, and is the only example of true 'monochrome' ware from Tegea. The conical oinochoe is the most common shape to be found in this fine, pale fabric and many examples were uncovered at Corinth, the Argolid, Perachora and elsewhere. 1^0 \i may well have been an import to the site (from Corinth) and could be as early in date as the late eighth century, 1 *1 though they continue to be made throughout the Protocorinthian period. 1^^ P81(TM) and P82(223) (pi. 39, fig. 15), are miniature hydriai made of coarse clay. P83(224) (pi. 40, fig. 15), is a similar pot also made of coarse fabric; it is in fact a miniature cauldron with three decorative handles. These three pots somewhat resemble the monochrome miniature hydriai from the Argive Heraion, where hundreds were found. 1^3

P86(227) (pi. 41, fig. 15), is a shallow bowl without painted decoration and with ornate handles which appear to imitate metal prototypes. I know of no parallels for this piece. P87 (241) (pi. 42), is a smaller, deeper bowl with a suspension hole around the rim; it is painted with groups of intersecting lines both inside and outside the vessel. Pots very similar to this one were found at Tiryns and the Argive Heraion and are probably mid^eventh century in date.l^"^ Three other bowls, with scalloped rims and suspension holes pierced at the rims, are: P88, P89 and MP12 from Mavriki. P88(242) (pi. 42, fig. 15), is the most carefully made of the three with a symmetrical shape; it was originally painted a dark colour on the outside. P89(229), (pi. 43, fig. 16), and the Mavriki example, MP12 (pi. 52), are similar but coarser vessels of the same type. P90(231) (pi. 43, fig. 16), is a high-footed cup with the same sort of scalloped or pinched edges around the rim.

The four other miniatures are clearly seventh century types. P84(S) (pi. 40), was found in Steinhauer's excavations in the ninth stroma of trench B2 together with the ivory or bone reclining rams, (pi. 186). It is a very small.

Chapter Three

Conclusions: Tegean Pottery

The pottery from Tegea consists of material which begins with Mycenaean IIIC and ends with Late Protocorinthian-Transitional Corinthian, though there is no ceramic evidence between the latest Bronze Age material and LPG. The apparent stylistic gap between LPG and MGII is likely to be the result of the continuation of the PG style (especially with Laconian Dark Age affinities); this would also coincide chronologically with the Laconian ceramic sequence. The relative scarcity of LGI might be due to a longer duration of MGII at the site and the brevity of the LGI phase generally. It must be acknowledged, however, that the relatively small amounts of LPG and MGII, especially in relation to LGII, reflect limited activity at the site till the second half of the eighth century. The most popular ceramic phase at

82

Pottery

83

Tegea was LGII and was largely inspired by Argive figured decoration. PC influenced wares and imports began in LGII and continued into the seventh century. The small numbers of LPC and Transitional Corinthian fragments mark the end of the pottery sequence at the site by the last quarter of the seventh century B.C.

The two stirrup jar fragments, which are the earliest ceramic remains from the site, are also some of the latest Bronze Age pieces known in eastern Arcadia. They appear to be locally made. The affinity of PI with the style of Submycenaean or Mycenaean IIIC Late is worthy of much more exploration. The presence at the site of this apparently very late stirrup jar fragment suggests some activity there during the early Dark Age. Until more is known about Tegea and its vicinity in the Late Bronze Age, however, it will not be possible to have an accurate understanding of the significance at this site of either of the two stirrup jar fragments.

The Protogeometric pottery with general Argive/Attic affinities was probably imported to the site. There is no clear indication, in any case, of local production of these wares. The PG style pots from Tegea which reveal similarities to the Laconian Dark Age ceramic repertoire are also likely to be imports but with a later range in date. Some other Tegean pots revealing general Laconian traits in decoration (i.e. cramped concentric circles) and shape (i.e. bellied skyphoi) were either locally produced or imported as late as LG. The Middle Geometric pottery revealed strong connections with the Argolid's MGII phase and one-third of these pots were likely to have been imported to Tegea. The low skyphos, P21, may reveal Attic influence at the site as well.

The Late Geometric pottery was predominantly derivid from the Argive LGII repertoire and figured scenes were the most popular form of decoration. Illustrations of horses, birds, and dancing figures were largely locally produced on amphorae, kraters, skyphoi and pyxides of Argive type. The illustration of a man rowing a boat on amphora fragment P25 may reveal distant Attic connections as well. Some Protocorinthian influence can also be discerned in the large handles with snakes broken from conical oinochoai, P60 and P61, and in the decoration of some of the lekythos-oinochoai, P62 and P63. There are also a number of PC imports, such as the aryballoi, which continue well into the seventh century. Finally, local traits and preferences can be noted especially in the figured decoration. They include the depiction of a painted deer on an amphora neck, P32, the unusual details

bucchero-like aryballos with vertical ribs. P94(221) (pi. 45), is an unpainted miniature kantharos with a rounded bottom and high handles. A similar example was found at the Argive Heraion.145 P95(246) (pi. 45), is an unusual high-footed, three-handled cup of minute size; it is painted a dark colour. P96(232) (pi. 45), is a votive cake or wreath which Dunbabin thought was generally related to the fabric of the monochrome vases. 147 Tegean example, however, is not made of the fine fabric of which the koulouria from Perachora are made, but of a coarse, dark pink clay. Courbin mentioned the Tegean example in his category of 'le gateau votif and indicated that it is like an example from Tiryns and some unpublished ones found at Magoula, south of the acropohs.148 He considered them seventh century in date.

Finally, there is a most unusual, large, hand-made vessel from the Athena Alea site yet to be considered, P73(251) (pi. 35). Dugas had described it as a cone which resembled, but probably was not, a rhyton.149 Courbin simply called it a rhyton and stated moreover that such a vessel would never occur in Argive workshops. 1^0 Coldstream referred to it as an enormous drinking horn. 151 Since it lacks an opening at the bottom of the vessel, it could not actually have functioned as a rhyton and is therefore probably best described as a drinking horn. The decoration of tangential concentric circles around the rim indicates a date of at least LGI.152 The vessel had vertical handles and two stumps at the bottom on which it was meant to stand. It clearly reveals local taste and may have had a particular function specifically related liLthe cult.

Chapter Three

Section Two: Pottery from Other Arcadian Sites

Mavriki: The Sanctuary of Artemis (Knakeatis?)

The pottery discovered at the Mavriki sanctuary was never published and

was mentioned only briefly by Romaios in his excavation report of the

site. He apparently considered it too fragmentary and worn to be worthy

of illustration. With the assistance of the hand-written Tegea Museum

catalogue, however, I was able to identify fourteen pots or fragments which

were found at this site. I understood from the catalogue that there was even

more pottery from Mavriki. The state of the Tegea Museum apotheke,

however, and the extremely worn catalogue numbers on the sherds prevented

any further identification of pots from this site.

There do not appear to be any pots earlier than LGII from Mavriki. The

pottery consists of a closed vessel fragment MPl, a ring-vase fragment, MP2,

84

Pottery

85

in the dancing scenes on the cyhndrical pyxis, P40, and particularly the freer

style of painted decoration on some of the large, coarse pots. This freer style

is clearly observable in the mysterious scene on P26.

The hand-made miniatures with painted decoration represent an unusual

element in the Tegean pottery repertoire. The large, hand-made

drinking horn with LG ornament is also an unparalleled piece. The

miniature vases may have begun to be produced and dedicated at the end of

the eighth century or earlier out of a local pottery tradition, but it is on

balance more likely that their dedication was prompted by the general move

to miniature pottery production which occurred at many Greek sites in the

seventh century. They are thus more likely to be Subgeometric. These

Tegean miniatures, however, reveal variations in terms of shape and painted

Geometric decoration which may have been derived out of a local tradition

of producing hand-made wares. It would be most useful at this stage to have

knowledge of the types of pots used in settlement and cemetery contexts in

Tegea, for puφoses of comparison. Until such information is available,

however, the question of the production of hand-made, painted miniatures

will remain unresolved. Finally, the unpainted miniatures from Tegea tend

to have at least distant parallels from other sanctuary sites such as Perachora,

Corinth and the Argive Heraion.

three skyphos fragments, MP3-MP5, a kalathos, MP6, two cup fragments,

MP7, MP8 and sbc miniature vessels, MP9-MP14.

MP1(257) (pi. 46), is a large closed vessel fragment with linear decoration

consisting of a horizontal panel with a wide zigzag above and a very worn

row of dotted lozenges below. Dugas had published this piece as coming

from Tegea but the Tegea Museum catalogue indicates that it had been

found at Mavriki. l "^

MP2(TM) (pi. 47), consists of a part of a ring-vase with a square section

and Geometric decoration. Along the outer side where the opening

protrudes, the vessel is painted with cross-hatched lozenges in a horizontal

panel. It may be significant that such decoration is introduced in EPC in

Corinth. Along the top face are horizontal bands with a single zigzag

between them. A ring-vase fragment may also come from Tegea, see P35 (pi.

16), and two from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary. Ring-vases seem to have

been popular at Corinth from EPC times and it is conceivable that the

ring-vases from Tegea, Mavriki and the Artemis Orthia sanctuary were made

under Corinthian influence.

Skyphos fragment, MP3(TM) (pi. 46, fig. 17), is decorated with a scene of

dancing male figures. The sherd is very worn but one can discern a certain

carelessness in the painting. The human figure is quite squat and stiff and

the upper torso seems to have been painted in outline with a painted 'V

inside. Dotted lozenges and simple rectilinear ornament (J-LTLTL) serve as

fining motifs. Such rectilinear ornament can be seen around the rim of a

krater from the Argolid which is probably datable to the end of LGII. 156

This fragment is thus very late LGII or even Subgeometric. < ^

Skyphos fragment, MP4(258) (pi. 48, fig. 17), comes from a very plain

vessel with simple linear ornament. Horizontal bands appear to cover the

body of the pot with a horizontal zigzag painted between two bands below

the rim. Although Dugas published this sherd as coming from Tegea, the

Tegea Museum catalogue states that it is from the Mavriki site.

MP5(TM) (pi. 48, fig. 17), is a bellied or carinated skyphos painted with

linear decoration. Two other vases of this shape were found at Tegea, P8

and P9. MPS has horizontal bands with a row of dotted lozenges below the

rim; there are then more horizontal bands with cross-hatched lozenges at the

belly. It appears to have been painted in dark paint below the belly. The

Chapter Three

86

Pottery

Gortsouli: Sanctuary of Demeter/Artemis?

'Geometric' pottery was described by the excavator of Gortsouli as coming from the area of the church on the top of the hill, from a small trench on the south slope and from the sanctuary on the west slope. 166 The excavator,

87

horizontal row of cross-hatched lozenges may be inspired by EPC decoration. 157 shape of this vessel ties it with Laconia, where beUied skyphoi were produced from the end of PG through LG.158 x^at this pot is LGII is apparent from the nature of its decoration and its profile, which lacks the horizontal grooving usually found on Laconian Dark Age (or PG) carinated skyphoi. 159

MP6(TM) (pi. 49, fig. 18), is a complete kalathos painted with a thick dark cross design on both the interior and exterior of the vessel. Its wide rim and short sides have some similarity with one from Perachora. 1^0 The decoration is peculiar for this sort of vessel, which ordinarily would have painted horizontal bands. Cross designs on small shallow vessels were found at Tiryns. 161 Its broad shape has a parallel in a kalathos from Tegea which was decorated in a more orthodox manner, P70(306) (pi. 33). MP6 may be early seventh century in date.

MP7(TM) (pi. 50), was broken from a cup and consists of two vertical handles side by side. It has no exact parallels to my knowledge. There is a bowl from Tegea, however, with double horizontal handles which offers a remote connection, P85 (pi. 41). Another cup fragment, MP8(TM) (pi. 50, fig. 16), is a standard LG type found in the Argolid and Tegea with painted dots around the rim, see P56 and P57 (pi. 27). 162

The remaining sk pots are hand-made miniatures. MP9(TM) (pi. 51, fig. 18), consists of a round-bottomed oinochoe painted a solid dark colour on its lower body, horizontal bands around the neck and a horizontal row of vertical lines around the shoulder. It has an incised snake on the outer face of its high handle. From Tegea, two handles from conical oinochoe also depict snakes: one painted and one moulded, P60 and P61 (pi. 29). Snake ornament on handles was also found at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary. 163

MPIO(TM) (pi. 51, fig. 18), is a miniature, round-bottomed globular oinochoe decorated with horizontal bands. It has a parallel from Tegea, P79 (pi. 41), in a jug form. MPl l (TM) (pi. 52, fig. 18), is a miniature kalathos with a broad profile, decorated with vertical and horizontal bands. Larger examples of similar vessels were found in the Argolid.l64

MP12(230) (pi. 52, fig. 18), is a small shallow bowl with pinched edges made of dark red, coarse clay. Similar vessels were also found at

Tegea. This piece was published as coming from Tegea, but it appears from the Tegea Museum catalogue that it may be from the Mavriki site. 165

MP13(TM) (pi. 53, fig. 16), is a tiny skyphos with a rounded bottom. It is decorated rather carelessly with horizontal bands to the middle, and with solid dark paint on the lower half of the body. There is a miniature skyphos with a rounded bottom and painted bands from Tegea, P91(239) (pi. 44).

MP14(TM) (pi. 53, fig. 16), is a tiny cup with a rounded bottom and one handle, painted with horizontal bands on the body and with a painted star design on the underside of the base. A similar miniature cup with horizontal bands was found at Tegea, P93 (pi. 44).

In sum, it is now possible to gain some idea of the early ceramic evidence from the Mavriki site, though this small sample of pottery permits only general conclusions to be drawn. The miniature pottery reveals the most direct links with the Tegean pottery and it is conceivable that the Tegean and Mavriki pots of this type were made in the same workshop, in the vicinity of Tegea. The bellied or carinated skyphos has links with Laconia in its shape, but its pale fabric resembles most of the other wares from Mavriki and Tegea, suggesting an eastern Arcadian production place. The fabric of MP3, the skyphos fragment with a dancing scene, reveals quite a dark orange clay suggesting a Laconian provenance, but this is by no means certain. It is conceivable that pottery was also produced at Mavriki itself, but the small sample examined above permits only tentative conclusions to be drawn. It is noteworthy that similar ceramic influences prevailed at Tegea, Mavriki and Sparta. For instance, scenes of dancing figures, snakes on oinochoe handles, bellied skyphoi and ring-vases were found at Tegea, Mavriki and Sparta, indicating some sort of relationship between these thre'i sites; a number of the bronzes also show this connection. The similarities are probably the result of the relative geographic proximity of these three sanctuary sites as well as the fact that the most likely land route to Sparta from the Argolid passed through or near Tegea and Mavriki.

Chapter Three Pottery

Orchomenos

A rather large deposit of worn pottery was found east of a rectangular terrace in the lower city of Arcadian Orchomenos. The ceramic material apparently included some unillustrated Geometric sherds but mostly Corinthian aryballoi. It is not clear from the report if the structure where the pottery was found was a temple. It appears to have consisted of the remains of a rectangular peripteral monument which, at the time of the excavation, preserved only indistinct foundations. 178

89

Karageorga, believed that two temples existed in the sanctuary, a larger one enclosing a smaUer one. She thought that the smaller one, which was slightly deeper than the other, was older and that 'Geometric' sherds were apparently found in association with it. From my examination of the pottery from Gortsouli, however, I saw no true Geometric ceramic remains. Although it was not possible to determine which pieces were found in the sanctuary and which were uncovered elsewhere at the site, none of the Iron Age pottery appeared to be earlier than Subgeometric. One must therefore assume that the earliest pottery found at the sanctuary was contemporary with the earliest from elsewhere on the hill.

From the eight sherds published in Karageorga's report, Coldstream concluded that the pottery was Subgeometric under Argive influence and datable to the first quarter of the seventh century. 169 After my examination of the pottery from the site, I am inclined to agree with Coldstream, though I would like to add that some of the unpublished pots also revealed Protocorinthian influence.

The pottery seems to be of local manufacture and the clay is generally either a pale pink or pale grey. The shapes of the vessels include amphorae, oinochoai, pyxides, kraters and various cups. Some of these pots are illustrated (figs. 19-21).

Three amphorae rims (fig. 19, GP1-GP3) reveal fairly narrow necks and quite simple decoration. One of the rims (GPS) has a leaf pattern in reserve on an otherwise dark painted rim. Only one sherd, which was probably broken from an amphora, revealed any figured decoration at all. It is one of the published pieces and illustrates the head of a crested bird with its eyes in outline, and to its side a group of vertical wavy lines, characteristic of Argive Subgeometric. 170

An unillustrated fragment, broken from the neck area of a conical oinochoe, is decorated with characteristic cross-hatched triangles. There are many parallels for such vessels, including some from Perachora. 171 It probably dates to the first quarter of the seventh century. Another unillustrated fragment, also apparently broken from a conical oinochoe, was decorated with a PC serpent and single rows of dots above and below it; higher up the sherd there are horizontal bands. An EPC example of such a vessel is in Naples. 172

A number of pyxis fragments found appear to have been broken from PC kotyle-pyxides (see figs. 20-21, GP6, GP7). A large number of vessels similar to the pieces from Gortsouli were found at Perachora and Corinth. 173 The vessels from Gortsouli are probably also datable to the early seventh century and reveal clear PC influence.

Krater fragments (fig. 20, GP4, GPS) from rather small-sized vessels were

found at the site and show Subgeometric design. Parallels from the Argohd

and Perachora can be seen. 174

One of the drinking vessels, (fig. 21, GP8) seems to be a fragment from a PC kyathos and is decorated with many horizontal zigzags between groups of vertical lines. Many more of this sort of vessel with similar ornament were found at Gortsouli. Parallels for this shape can be seen in pots from Perachora. 175 A later vessel from Gortsouli (LPC), appears to have been broken from an olpe. Other examples of olpai were noted at Corinth and Perachora. 176

On the basis of this small sample of pottery from Gortsouli, it is apparent that the earliest ceramic remains from this site are early seventh century and that they appear to continue well into the seventh century. 177 it seems that the traditionally large shapes such as amphorae and kraters were made in smaller sizes at Gortsouli. Some of the shapes reveal direct Protocorinthian influences, i.e. the kotyle-pyxides, the kyathoi and the olpe, and the decoration appears to be derived from both Argive Subgeometric and PC pottery. The pots were probably locally produced under the influence of Argolid and Corinth. Most of the early pots from Gortsouli have no parallels at Tegea. The sequence of pottery at Gortsouli in fact begins considerably later than at Tegea and is inspired by different types of ceramic traditions.

Chapter Three

Bassai: The Temple of Apollo Epikourios

No Geometric pottery has been discovered at the sanctuary of Apollo

Epikourios at Bassai. The earliest pot at the site is an LPC alabastron with a

painted sphinx decorating its body. χ^ί§ indicates a date roughly

corresponding to the middle of the seventh century for the earliest ceramic

evidence at the site. Another alabastron from Bassai, decorated with

horizontal bands around the upper and lower parts of the body and dots in

the central region, is an EC vessel. 1 2 Also uncovered was a tall, narrow EC

aryballos decorated with plain horizontal bands on the body and tongues

around the neck and base.l^^ A fair number of Corinthian aryballoi have

also been found at Bassai. 1^4 Excavations there also yielded an MC

ring-vase. 185 In addition, many other Corinthian vessels were uncovered, but

they fall well outside the chronological range of this research.

A considerable amount of late Laconian pottery was also discovered at

Bassai but nothing which dates before 600 B.C. 1^6 Xhe miniature pottery

found appears to have strong connections with Laconian miniatures. 1^7

After examining some of these from Bassai, I think that they were made of

local Elean fabric. They probably date from the skth century.

Although Kourouniotes thought that the rocky nature of the soil at Bassai

would make a local pottery workshop there unlikely. Cooper and Yalouris

believe that the pottery was made at the site, imitating Laconian and

Corinthian imports. 188

Cretea: Sanctuary of Apollo Parrhasios

At the site of Cretea, in the area of the temple of Apollo Parrhasios, two

Geometric sherds were excavated in the lowest levels of the terraced

90

Pottery

Gortys: Sanctuary of Asklepios

Below the temple of Asklepios at Gortys, some Corinthian sherds of

Geometric or Subgeometric style were found, in conjunction with an ancient

wall. 191 These sherds were not illustrated but Courbin believed that they

could indicate that this wall belonged to the earliest structure at the

sanctuary established at the end of the eighth century or the beginning of the

seventh.

Lousoi: The Sanctuary of Artemis Hemera

The early excavations at the sanctuary of Artemis Hemera revealed no

evidence of Geometric pottery dedications. According to the excavators,

however, a considerable quantity of unillustrated, plump, small vessels

measuring .01 - .02 metres high were found at the site; they were of the same

type known from other sanctuary sites. The vessels were decorated in what

the excavators considered to be 'Geometric' style, with painted parallel

rings. 192 Without illustrations or the opportunity to see these pots, it is

impossible to date them accurately or to say much more about them. One

should note, however, that if they are simply the standard miniature pots with

horizontal bands around their bodies, like those found at Bassai and various

91

From the sixth century temple in the lower city only a few small bronzes

were found and no pottery. 179 χ^^^^ ^^rly pottery remains from

Orchomenos consist of very few sherds and pots, nearly all of which are

unpublished. If the worn sherds stated above really are Geometric in style, I

imagine that they would be late in date, perhaps even Subgeometric. Such a

dating would coincide better with the later nature of the rest of the pottery

and other remains found at the site.

embankment. 189 Although the illustration of these pots is quite poor, it can

be determined that one of the sherds was broken from an oinochoe

decorated with zigzag lines and horizontal bands on the neck and

cross-hatched triangles on the shoulders. The other fragment looks like a

piece from a skyphos, and is decorated with a chevron panel and horizontal

bands. It recalls the standard Corinthian skyphoi with chevron panels which

began in MGII. The excavator, however, thought that the quality of the

workmanship and the yellowish slip on the sherds recalled Laconian

Geometric pottery. It is difficult to conclude anything more about these

sherds without seeing them. In any case, on the basis of present knowledge,

it is safe to assume that they were probably imported to the site. Their

existence at this remote and relatively unknown sanctuary site is suφrising in

view of the dearth of ceramic evidence for the Geometric period from

southwest Arcadia and the later date of the rest of the material found at the

site. 190 Further excavation in this region would thus be extremely useful in

clarifying the nature of the early activity at Cretea.

Chapter Three

Conclusions: Arcadian Pottery

Ceramic evidence was noted at eight of the eleven Arcadian sanctuary

sites within the 800-600 B.C. range of this research. 1 4 xhe Athena Alea

sanctuary is the only Arcadian site known to have revealed PG and MG

pottery. LG pottery was found in abundance at Tegea, and to a lesser extent

at Mavriki, Cretea and possibly Orchomenos, Gortys and Lousoi.

Subgeometric pottery was best represented at Gortsouli, and to a lesser

extent at Mavriki and Tegea, and possibly Orchomenos and Gortys.

Corinthian influence and imports were observable at nearly all the Arcadian

sites. Laconian influence or imports were observed in the pots from Tegea

and Mavriki in eastern Arcadia and in southwest Arcadia, at Bassai and

possibly Cretea. Argive traits dominated the Tegean pottery repertoire and

were also observable in the pots from Mavriki and Gortsouli. Miniature

pottery of Subgeometric date was found at Tegea and Mavriki; examples of

considerably later date were discovered at Bassai (and possibly Lousoi).

The incomplete picture of Arcadian pottery between 800 and 600 B.C.

would no doubt be greatly clarified and its scope broadened by further

excavation both at Arcadian sanctuary sites and at settlements and graves.

For the present one may conclude that the sanctuary of Athena Alea at

Tegea is the most productive and best-represented sanctuary site in Arcadia

in terms of the quantity and quality of the pottery, the variety of styles, the

chronological spectrum and the evidence for local independence of style. Its

position in the Tegean plain at the cross-roads of the Argolid and Laconia no

doubt played a role in its exposure to the conventions of ceramic production.

The ceramic remains from Tegea are impressive in relation to those from

other Arcadian sites. But when compared to the main pottery styles of

Attica, Corinth and Argos, the Tegean repertoire appears provincial and

derivative at best. The primary puφose of this study, however, is not to

92

Pottery

93

other sites, and this is what Reichel and Wilhelm indicate, they may well be

sixth century in date.

The recent Austrian excavations at the temple at Lousoi have uncovered

fragments of Geometric and Archaic skyphoi in a closed deposit in the

northeast angle of the later temple. 1^3 These are at present unpubhshed,

but, when more fully studied, they will no doubt shed considerable light on

the nature of the early pottery dedications at this site.

assess the innovative qualities or aesthetic appeal of the Arcadian pots. It is

to establish a relative chronological sequence for the pottery, to trace the

evolution of local ceramic industries and to determine the extent of external

influences and imports. In this way, it is possible to gain a greater

understanding of the early developments at Tegea and other Arcadian

sanctuaries.

Notes for Chapter Three

94


95

1. Milchhofer, AM (1880): 68; Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 256; Dugas, Tegea 394-423.

2. There is also a fair amout of uncatalogued and unpublished Geometric pottery which

may come from Tegea, in the apotheke of the Tegea Museum. Much of it is very

similar to the material already known from the Athena Alea site; I include a small

number of these pots in this study as well.

3. The material from Steinhauer's excavations is in the Sparta Museum and still requires

thorough examination. I am grateful to Dimitris Koukoutsis, a conservationist at the

museum, for helping me to clean some of this pottery so that I could study it.


5. Ibid., 337-338.

6. Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 256.


8. Milchhofer, AM 5 (1880): 66, pi. II, area I.

9. For a further discussion of the problems of Dugas' interpretation of Couche A and the

question of depth of strata, see pp. 24-25.

10. Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 256.

11. Dugas, Tegea 395; Courbin CGA, 549 n. 5.

12. Courbin, Ca4 500-501.

13. E A . Lane, "Lakonian Vase-Painting," BSA 34 (1933/34): 100 n. 4.


15. The Ρ numbers are my catalogue numbers and those in parentheses are Dugas' catalogue

numbers; (TM) indicates that the piece is catalogued in the Tegea Museum and the

provenance is known and (X) indicates that the piece is unpublished and the provenance

is uncertain.

16. Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 256. Fimmen recorded two stirrup jar fragments which he saw

in the Tegea Museum with TM nos. 942 and 946, D. Fimmen, Die Kretisch-Mykenische

Kultur (Leipzig: 1921), 10. Today, only P2(247) preserves a TM catalogue number on its

surface, and it is 880, the same number recorded by Dugas in his pubhcation. Since no

other stirrup jar fragments are known from this site, it is likely that this discrepancy in

numbers is due to some confusion in the recording of the TM numbers and that PI and

P2 are the same fragments that Fimmen saw.


18. Desborough, PGP 4; idem, GDA 37.

19. Alin, EMF 74.

20. Hope Simpson, Gazetteer 40 no. 89; Hope Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer 76 Β1; Hope

Simpson, MG 85 D l .

21. Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 113.

22. For discussion of late elements on pottery see Furumark, MP 580-582; Desborough, GDA

37; Snodgrass, DAG 39-40; Mountjoy, MDP 188-189, 199.

23. C.-G. Styrenius, Submycenaean Studies (Lund: 1967), figs. 20, 38, 49, 52, 57, 60, 62; J.

Deshayes, Argos. Les fouilles de la Deiras (Paris: 1966), pi. LXIV.4. For the most recent

evidence in support of Submycenaean as a distinct phase, see A. Papadimitriou, "Bericht

zur friiheisezeitlichen Keramik aus der Unterburg von Tiryns," 4/1 (1988): 227-243.

24. See P. Mountjoy, "LH III C Late versus Submycenaean," Jdl 103 (1988): 5-8.

25. Furumark, MP 85, fig. 23; 31, fig. 6 no. 176; Mountjoy, MDP 144-145, fig. 180.

26. Howell, BSA 65 (1971): 113-116.

27. For information about the site from the first excavations there, see P. Charneux and R.

Ginouv^s, "Reconnaissances en Arcadie: fortification de Palaiocastro, Saint

Nicolas et Hellenico," BCH 80 (1956): 523-538. The site was dug again by C.

Christou, see G. Daux, BCH 82 (1958): 717; Styrenius, Submycenaean, 126; M.

Voyatzis, "Arcadia and Cyprus: Aspects of their Interrelationship between the Twelfth

and Eighth Centuries B.C.," RDAC (1985): 157. The recent finds from Spyropoulos'

excavations are presently unpublished but on display in the Tripolis Museum. On a

recent visit to the museum, I saw an impressive amount of pottery from

Palaiocastro including some characteristic Submycenaean amphoriskoi.

28. Desborough, LA/r5 87 n. 5-7.

29. Dugas, Tegea 421, no. 336.

30. Fimmen, Kretisch-Mykenische, 10; H. Water house and R. Hope Simpson, "Prehistoric

Laconia: Part II," BSA 56 (1961): 130 n. 119 no. 5; Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 93-94, 116.

31. Hope Simpson, Gazetteer 40-41 no. 90; Hope Simpson and Dickinsd*r, Gazetteer 77-78 B8;

Hope Simpson MG 85-86 D5.

32. Desborough, PGP 283-290, pi. 38 no. 12; GDA 241; Coldstream, GGP 214-215, figs. 46

e-g-

33. W.D.E. Coulson, "The Dark Age Pottery of Sparta," BSA 80 (1985): 47.

34. Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34): 101 n. 3; Coldstream, GGP 214-215.

35. See for a parallel: Desborough, PGP pi. 9 no. 1085.

36. Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 5; Dugas, Tegea 417, no. 312.

37. R. Hagg, Excavations in the Barbouna Area at Asine, Fascicle 2 (Upsala: 1978), 109

102.59.


ii


96 97

38. Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 6; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 41-45; Coldstream, GGP 213.

39. Coldstream, GGP 213, pi. 46a; Heidelberg CVA 3, %-97, figs. 24-28.

40. Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34): 103, fig. 2L; Coldstream, GG/' 215.

41. Coldstream, GGP 213; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 42-43, 47, figs. 3, 4.

42. Ibid., 65.

43. Ibid., 44-45; Dugas, Tegea 408 no. 261; Coldstream, GGP 214; Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 7.

44. Couslon, 80 (1985): 41-42, fig. 3.

45. Ibid., 65; Coldstream, GGP 212, 214; Snodgrass, DAG 90 n. 65; E. Buschor and W. von Massow, "Vom Amyklaion Einzelfunde,"ylM 52 (1927): 32-33.

46. Desborough, PGP pi. 3, bottom right.

47. Desborough, PGP pi. 11 no. 2102.

48. Dugas, Tegea 417-418 no. 315.


50. Buschor and von Massow, AM 52 (1927): 47 pi. Ill, 17,18.

51. Desborough, PGP pi. 11 no. 546.

52. Heidelberg CK4 3, pi. 134.

53. See Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 55-56, fig. 10.

54. See Snodgrass, DAG 90, 277.

55. Coldstream, GGP 121, pi. 24j.

56. Courbin, CGA pi. 20, for a rough parallel from Tiryns.

57. Coldstream, GGP 352 n. 1.

58. Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5; Dugas, Tegea 417 no. 307.

59. Coldstream, GGP 352 n. 1.

60. Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5; 226.

61. Ibid., 254 n. 8 and 9.

62. Ibid., 230.

63. Ibid., 549 n. 5; Dugas, Tegea 418 no. 319.

64. Courbin, CG^ pi. 39.

65. Coldstream, GGP123-124; 129.

66. Dugas, Tegea 419 no. 320a, b.

67. Courbin, CGA 501.

68. Coldstream, GGP pi. 25c.

69. Dugas, Tegea 417 no. 314; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5.

70. Coldstream, GGP 123-124.

71. Ibid., pi. 25b.

72. Dugas, Tegea 418 no. 318; Courbin, CGA 502, 549 n. 5.

73. Courbin, CG/1 63 n. 5.

74. K. Kiibler, Kerameikos V: Die Nekropole des 10. his 8. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: 1954), pi. 93 no. 2143, gr. 42.

75. Courbin, CG/4 502.

76. Dugas, Tegea 417 no. 311; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5.

77. Coldstream, GGP 132-140. For a recent analysis of the significance of the horse-leader in Argive LG pottery see an interesting article by S. Langdon, "The Return of the Horse-Leader,"AM 93 (1989): 185-201.

78. Courbin, CG^ 501.

79. Ibid., pi. 78. g

80. Ibid., pi. 141, C.1263 and C.4437.

81. Coldstream, GG 156.

82. Dugas, Te^efl 414 no. 285.

83. Louvre CVA 11, pis. 1.7, 4.6-7; 6.8.

84. I thank Professor Coldstream for his suggestion that the the legs to the right are part of a bier or table.

85. Courbin, CGA pi. 29.

86. For deer painted on Argive Geometric pottery, see Waldstein, AH II pi. 57, 22; Courbin, CGA pi. 139, C.4177; Coldstream, GGP 143 n. 18.


98


99

87. Ibid., 501.

88. Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34): 105 pi. 21d; 120, fig. 10a.

89. Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 289-290, pi. 91.

90. Furumark, MP 68-69.

91. E. Gjerstad, Swedish Cyψus Excavations (Stockholm: 1948), vol. IV, pt. 2, 293.

92. For PG ring-vases, see K. Kubler, Kerameikos IV: Neufunde aus der Nekropole des II.

und 10. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: 1943), pi. 25 no. 2033; for later examples, see K.F.

Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens (Paris: 1927), 26-27; Dunbabin, Perachora II 121; Payne,

NC 313; P.N. Ure, "Ring ArybaUoi," Hesperia 15 (1946): 38-50.


94. Ibid., 502.

95. Ibid., 549 n. 5.

96. Dugas, Tegea 417 no. 308.


98. Ibid., pi. 147.

99. Ibid., 501.

100. R. ToUe, Fruhgriechisches Reigentanze (Waldsassen: 1964), 50-51, pi. 25; Courbin, CGA 501; Coldstream, GG 156.

101. Courbin, CGA 425 n. 12.

102. Coldstream, GG 159 fig. 52d.

103. Ibid., 156; Courbin, CGA 502.

104. Courbin, CGA 501; Tolle, Reigentanze, pi. 25d.


106. Ibid., 549 n. 5; 228.

107. Ibid., pi. 78.

108. Ibid., 209-210.

109. Ibid., 501.

110. Ibid.

111. Ibid., pi. 131, C.3718 and others.

112. Ibid., 501.

113. Ibid., 502.

114. Ibid., 386 n. 3, pi. 71, Type C.1577.

115. Ibid., 501, pi. 73, C.534 or C.3958.

116. Ibid., pi. 76.

117. Dugas, Tegea 419-421, nos. 325-329; 330-331.

118. Two other sherds in Dugas' account, Tegea 421 nos. 332 and 334, are Laconian in style

and shape and probably Transitional Laconian' pieces (675-650 B.C.). See Lane, BSA 34

(1933/34): 107-115 for Laconian parallels for two Tegean sherds.


120. Coldstream, GGP 216 n. 14; GG 156 n. 62.


122. Ibid., 419 no. 326.

123. Dunbabin, Perachora II37 no. 221; Coldstream, GGP 216 n. 14.

124. Dugas, Tegea 417 no. 313; 421 no. 330.

125. Dunbabin, Perachora II118 no. 1155; A.N. Stillwell and J.L. Benson, Corinth XV:IIL The

Potters' Quarter, The Pottery (New Jersey: 1984), 46 no. 176, pi. 9.

126. Dugas, Tegea 420 no. 328, fig. 51.

127. Payne, NC pi. 1 no. 5; R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (London: 1972), 45-58, pi. 9D.

128. For parallels see Dunbabin, Perachora II18, pi. 2 no. 43; Payne, NC pi. 3; Cook, Pottery,

44, fig. 5B.

129. See J. Ducat, "L'Archaisme a la reserche de points de repere chronologique," BCH 86

(1962): 171-172 n. 2 for running dog motif and dating; see also Cook, Pottery fig. 5B.

130. Dunbabin, Perachora II, 87-88; 91, no. 772.

131. Ibid. 87-88.


133. For paraUels see: Payne, Perachora 194, 7-10; S. Weinberg, Connth VIL'L The Geometric

and Orientalizing Pottery (Cambridge, Mass.: 1943), 51-52, pi. 23 no. 160.


100


101


135. Ibid.

136. Coldstream, GG 332 n. 21.

137. Courbin, CGA pis. 91-96.

138. E. Smithson, "The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 B.C.," Hesperia 37 (1968): 98.

139. J.L. Caskey and P. Amandry, "Investigations at the Heraion at Areos, 1949," Hesperia 21 (1952): 205 no. 273, pi. 57.

140. Dunbabin, Perachora II318-319.

141. Snodgrass, DAG 90, 96.

142. Caskey and Amandry, Hesperia 21 (1952): 202-207; 204 n.48.

143. Ibid., pi. 59, nos. 298-299, 302.

144. A. Frickenhaus, Tiryns I: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des Insituts (Athens: 1912) 99, fig. 31; Waldstein, .4//// 96, fig. 32a.

145. Caskey and Amandry, Hesperia 21 (1952): 204, no. 266.

146. See Weinberg, Corinth VII:I, pi. 13, 81.

147. Dunbabin,/'erflc/iom//329-330.

148. Courbin, CGA 249; H. Schliemann, Tiryns (New York: 1885), 148, fig. 73.

149. Dugas, Tegea 407-408, fig. 53.



152. Coldstream, GGP 128.

153. Romaios,yl£(1952):27.


155. Coldstream, GGP 106 pi. 21g. ^

156. Ibid., pi. 30a, 141,142.

157. Ibid., 106, pi. 21g.

158. Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 39-45; Coldstream, GGP 215.

159. Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34): 103 fig. 2L.

160. Dunbabin, Perachora Π 91 no. 770, pi. 35, fig. 6.

161. Frickenhaus, Tiryns /, 99, fig. 31.

162. Courbin, CGA pis. 71-75.

163. Coldstream, GGP 216.

164. Courbin, CGA pi. 69.


166. Karageorga,ylZ)^/i 18 (1963): Chronika 88-89.

167. The excavation report is vague regarding the question of stratigraphy. Discussion with

the excavator revealed that further excavation at the site would be necessary to

understand the stratigraphy. See also Chapter Two, Section Two regarding an alternate

interpretation for the temple(s).

168. I am very grateful to Karageorga for permitting me to study, draw and illustrate these

pots in my pubUcation. In recent discussions, Karageorga has indicated to me that she

agrees that the earliest pottery from the sanctuary is Subgeometric.

169. Karageorga, y4De/i 18, (1963): Chronika pi. 103; Coldstream, GGP 407; GG 156.

170. Karageorga, ylD^/i 18 (1963): Chronika pi. 103a; Coldstream, GGP 146.

171. Dunbabin, Perachora Π 43, 37, pi. 9, nos. 253, 215.

172. Coldstream, GGP pi. 21c.

173. See Weinberg, Corinth VII:I, 38, 45 nos. 120 and 153; Dunbabin, Perachora pis. 37-39.

174. See Coldstream, GGP 146; Courbin, CGA pi. 46 (C.208 - flower decoration); Dunbabin,

Perachora Π pi. 43 no. 1280 (for GP4); pi. 29 no. 1282 (for GP5.)^

175. Dunbabin, P^rflc/iora//72, pi. 43 no. 624.

176. Ibid., 34; Weinberg, Corinth VIIT, 48 pi. 23, no. 167. ^

177. EarHer pottery is known from this region, however. Recent excavations at MeUa, in the

vicinity of Mantinea, have revealed PG and G pottery and two Geometric kraters were

found at Mantinea itself. This unpubhshed pottery is on display in the Tripolis Museum.

See AR (1984-1985): 23-24.

178. Blum and Plassart, BCH 38 (1914): 81.

179. Ibid.

180. Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 287-289, fig. 8; Payne, NC 270.

181.

182.

183.

184.

185.

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

192.

193.

194.


See the chart in Ducat, BCH 86 (1962): 182, Table 1.

Kourouniotes, ylF (1910): 289 fig. 9; Payne, NC 284, 121 bis n. 1.

Kourouniotes, ylF (1910): 289-290, 9B; Payne, NC 286, 479A.

Kourouniotes, ylF 1910: 291-292, fig. 7; Yalouris, Ergon (1959): 108, fig. 113.

Kourouniotes, ylF (1910): 289-290, fig. 9A; Payne, NC 313, fig. 155.

Kourouniotes, (1910): 293-296, fig. 12.

Ibid., 297, fig. 15 and the pots more recently found in Yalouris' excavations. Ergon a959V 108, fig. 113. ^ ^'

Yalouris, Bassai 91; Cooper, in an unpublished report.

Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 31, 35, fig. 6.

Ibid., 29-36.

Courbin, BCH 16 (1952): 245.

Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI4 (1901): 44-45.

AR (1987-88): 24.

Two pots found at Asea were probably from graves. They are both LG. One is a

Laconian lakaina and the other is an Argive kantharos. See Coldstream, GGP 364.

CHAPTER FOUR

HUMAN AND ANIMAL FIGURINES IN BRONZE

Section One: Human Figurines

Nine bronze human figurines dating from before 600 B.C. were found at

the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea. Two more such figurines and two

tiny lead kouroi were uncovered at the sanctuary of Artemis near Mavriki.

This group of thirteen votives is examined in detail below.

According to Dugas, the Tegean figurines were found in the northeast

corner of the later temple in Couche B.l The greatest abundance of early

bronze and clay votives were uncovered in this area.^ Some of the figurines

have parallels at sites in Arcadia and in other parts of Greece, while a small

number appear to be unparalleled in their conception and style.

I consider the pattern of distribution for each figurine (see fig. 22), the

extent of local production and the significance of the votives. Sk other

figurines from Arcadian sanctuaries are also included: three from Lousoi,

one from Petrovouni, and two from Bassai. Figurines found outside of

Arcadia are also mentioned where relevant.

Β 1(49): Figure seated side-saddle on a horse^ (pi. 54, fig."^?)

This statuette of a human figure seated side-saddle on a horse on a

rectangular base is by far the smaHest figurine from the sanctuary of Athena

Alea; it is just under 3 cm in height. The human figure is very simply

portrayed with a rather thin, narrow body and a round, bare head. No facial

features are indicated, nor is there any attempt at musculature or modelling.

The tiny horse figure is reminiscent of a larger one found there in 1908, and

now lost.^ In his discussion of horse figurines from Tegea, Heilmeyer

mentions this little group, Bl, and concludes that it was of local Tegean

manufacture.^ The simple and slightly clumsy appearance of this work and

102 103

Chapter Four Human and Animal Figurines in Bronze

the fact that local parallels exist for the forms of the humaix figure and the

horse incline me to believe that Bl is indeed a Tegean product.^

Another Arcadian site which yielded this type of figure seated side-saddle

on a horse was the sanctuary of Artemis at Lousoi, where two such figurines

in bronze were found (LI and L2, pis. 63-64). In addition, an early Archaic

example in terracotta was uncovered there (pi. 183).^ Schweitzer argued

that the Lousoi example, LI, was so similar to the Tegean one, Bl, that it was

virtually a duplicate.^ It is possible that Schweitzer saw only the publication

photograph for Bl. Although Bl and LI are alike in conception, they are not

nearly identical. LI consists of a human figure with an oblong head, sitting

on a saddle with raised arm rests and a foot rest. There is no base below the

horse. The Tegean example, in contrast, has no saddle or foot rest, but it

does have a solid base-plate and a rather round head shape. L2, apparently

unknown to Schweitzer, consists of a female figure with breasts, an oblong

head, seated on a tall saddle and without a base below the horse; these

characteristics are not unlike those of LI. The horses of LI and L2 differ

quite a bit however, with the L2 horse having a huge, flat mane incised with

zigzags, while the mane of LI is small and plain. Despite these differences, it

is clear that LI and L2 are far more similar to each other than either of them

are to Bl.

Outside of Arcadia, bronze horse and rider figurines are known from

Olympia and Samos.^ The example from Olympia was found in the second

southern wall of the stadium and is generally quite similar to the above three

figurines though it differs in points of detail. For example, the face of the

human figure reveals features which are not at all apparent in the Tegea and

Lousoi examples. Like L2 from Lousoi, the Olympian human figure is

depicted with breasts; they are rather crudely made but serve to indicate her

gender. The figure sits on a saddle, as do LI and L2. Her arms are

outstretched at her sides with the forearms bent slightly forward; this may

have been the original pose of the arms of Β1 as well. The horse figure in

the Olympian example appears to be rather carelessly made in comparison

with the Tegean and Lousoi examples and it has no base below. Weber has

also noted that the Lousoi figurine, LI, was better made than the Olympian

example. 10 It may be significant that the Tegean figure, Bl, and the two

Lousoi works, LI and L2, are all finer and more carefully made pieces than

the Olympian example.

104

The Samian horse-and-rider group was discovered in the sanctuary of

Hera, to the south of the large altar. The rider is a tall female figure

wearing a necklace and her hair long down her back. Seated on an elaborate

saddle, she holds a baby to her left breast. Jantzen considers this group to be

*ungreek' and he offers parallels of objects from the Caucasian mountains

and the Luristan.l^ Yet Jantzen does not mention the existence of the four

Greek examples of riders seated side-saddle in relation to the Samian group.

This omission is particularly odd since the similarity in concept between the

Samian group and the other Greek riders appears as strong as with the

foreign parallels offered by Jantzen. There are clearly important elements of

likeness between the Samian bronze and the Caucasian and Luristan

examples, 1^ but its similarities to the Greek examples must also be taken

into account.

Schweitzer believed that the artist who produced the Samian example

must have been aware of the Olympian horse and rider figure but he

concluded that a Cypriot workshop ought to be credited with its production.

He offered Cypriot parallels for particular features of the Samian figure such

as the necklace, the long neck and the baby held to the breast. Since the

Samian Heraion was flooded with small scale Cypriot figurines of clay in

Geometric and Archaic times, the link between these places must have been

fairly strong. Schweitzer imagined that the Cypriot workshop that might

have produced this bronze would have been influenced by both early Greek

and Orientalizing elements although he stated that no rider seated

side-saddle had yet been found in an eighth century Greek settlement in

Cyprus. Recently, however, a terracotta figurine seated side-saddle on a

horse was found in a CGIII grave in the area of Old Paphos, where

Mycenaean Greeks had settled at the end of the Bronze Age.^^ This

figurine differs from the other Greek examples in that the human seated on

the horse is male and appears to derive from a Cypriot tradition. If Cyprus

played some role in the transmission of the iconographic type to Samos, it

was not so directly as Schweitzer had suggested.

Horse and rider figurines seated side-saddle are known in various media

from Greece, Crete and Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. Illustrations of

females seated side-saddle were produced on seal engravings of LMIII date

from Hagia Triada, Crete and on contemporary plaques from Dendra in the

Argolid. 1^ A lentoid seal and an ivory plaque from Mycenae also depict

females seated side-saddle on quadrupeds. 1^ These examples reveal the

image of a goddess, frequently with raised arms, and wearing a Minoan

105

Chapter Four

106

Human and Animal Figurines in Bronze

107

flounced skirt.20 it is likely that the inspiration for these female riders seated side-saddle was derived from Oriental or Egyptian iconography, where there were strong traditions of such depictions. Such images were incorporated into the Minoan and, later, the Mycenaean artistic repertoire.^l

A twelfth or thirteenth century terracotta group of horse and rider seated side-saddle found in a Mycenaean chamber tomb from Spata in Attica is now in the Stathatos Collection.22 The female figure is a Psi-Goddess type with upraised arms, seated on a rigid framed saddle.23 Another figure that could be riding side-saddle on a quadruped was painted on a krater from Mouliana, Crete that is possibly of LMIIIC date.^^ Finally, a terracotta example dated to LMIIIA2-C was found in Archanes, Crete. The figure is seated sideways on a rigid saddle but the gender of the rider is not indicated.25

The depiction of females seated side-saddle on quadrupeds reflects the actual custom of women riding sideways, as they continue to do in modern day Greece.26 But the side-saddle position was a practice not only for women but for important male dignitaries as well, as illustrated in Oriental and Cypriot art.^^ In fact, all the Cypriot examples known to us appear to be male. A mid-thirteenth century example of a male rider seated side-saddle on a horse is thought by Karageorghis to be of genuine Cypriot manufacture.28 The rider has a very long neck and sits tall in his saddle. Another Cypriot terracotta, the rider from the Bomford Collection, is dated to the eleventh century and consists of a huge horse rhyton and a little man seated side-saddle.29 The Bomford example may have been part of a tomb group from Xerolimni, near Kouklia.^O The later Cypriot example mentioned above of a terracotta horse and rider group discovered in a CGIII tomb at Old Paphos, consists of a long-necked male figure holding a lyre in his arms and riding side-saddle on a horse with a large mane. There was an apparent tradition in Cyprus to depict male riders in this side-saddle pose, beginning in the thirteenth century B.C.

Later examples of horse and rider seated side-saddle are known mainly from the Peloponnese; they are of terracotta and date from the seventh century onwards. In Arcadia, such figurines are known from the sanctuary sites at Lousoi and at Hagios Sostis near Tegea.^l In both examples the human figures are clearly female; in the Hagios Sostis example the woman sits on a camel rather than on a horse. The seventh century terracotta

from Lousoi continues the tradition of portraying a female seated side-saddle but this example is draped to the feet. Other Peloponnesian examples are known from sanctuaries in Sparta, Corinth, Perachora, and Kombothekra.32 Outside the Peloponnese there are single examples from Lesbos and Megara Hyblaea.^^

Figures seated side-saddle on quadrupeds have been shown to have a long and varied history. Those from Greece may well be derived from a Minoan-Mycenaean tradition. The Cypriot examples show a blending of influences; they may have been originally inspired by Greek mainland examples as well as by Oriental conceptions. It is noteworthy that these figurines in Cyprus do not appear until the thirteenth century B.C., which is roughly contemporary with the later Mycenaean examples. The Oriental riders, however, had a much longer history, beginning at least a thousand years earlier.^"^

The images of females seated side-saddle probably had a religious significance in Bronze Age Greece. It is noteworthy that the psi-goddess seated side-saddle on the horse from Spata is roughly contemporary with a tablet from Pylos which refers to a Totnia of the horse.' The tablet was found near an ahar and small chapel in the palace of Pylos. It has been argued that this findspot suggests that the Lady of the Horse was the divine protector of at least part of the palace.^^

During Geometric times, riders seated side-saddle were made particularly for dedication at sanctuary sites. As was the case with the Bronze Age figurines, the Geometric examples also seem to have had some religious significance in the sanctuaries where they were found, those dedicated to Athena, Artemis and Hera.^^ Bl and the other four d reek examples in bronze may represent a possible survival of a concept from the Bronze Age. The evident popularity of the type in Arcadia beginning in Geometric times suggests either that this region provided the source for the image or that, once the type was introduced to Arcadia, it was quickly adopted. The region of Arcadia had preserved a form of dialect which had the closest affinities with Linear B.^'^ Similarly, Arcadia might have preserved some memory of a concept of a rider seated side-saddle on a horse. Both Tegea and Lousoi were sufficiently isolated places to preserve older forms of cult, yet adequately exposed in Geometric times to acquire the skills of bronze-working and to express the cult in a tangible form.


Attempts have been made to determine a chronological sequence for these five bronze figurines.^^ This is difficult, however, since there is disagreement about the direction of the influence for the type and the places it was manufactured. The simplicity of the Tegean form in Bl and its parallels in both human and horse figures at Tegea suggests that it was locally made. The Lousoi examples are believed by Heilmeyer to have been made in Olympia,^^ ^^t I think this unlikely. The superior quality of the Lousoi examples and the apparent popularity of the theme there suggest that the inspiration for the type came from Lousoi. As will be seen with the other bronzes from the Lousoi site, a workshop in the vicinity of this sanctuary, with some apparent connections with Olympian workshops, is the most plausible explanation for the types of bronzes found at both sanctuaries. The Samian example surely reveals knowledge of the other Greek examples but has an Eastern appearance as well. It may have been influenced by Caucasian or Luristan types, though the location of the workshop for Geometric Samian bronzes is still uncertain.^^ The long history and wide distribution of this image of a figure seated side-saddle on a horse speaks for an identity of considerable significance and of an enduring and flexible nature.

B2(50): Group of a Human Figure Separating Two Animals (pi. 55, fig. 27)

Another small bronze group from Tegea is B2, which consists of a human figure separating two quadrupeds on a rectangular base. The group shows two playfully attacking quadrupeds with a human figure attentively checking them with hands gently placed on their heads. It is not clear if the human figure is male or female since no sexual attributes are indicated.41 Dugas describes the animals as a dog on the figure's right and a goat on the left; I am inclined to agree with his identification.'^^ go^h the human figure and the quadrupeds have an unmodelled and heavy appearance, yet flowing forms. These quahties recall many other figurines from Tegea and support a case for local production.

Among the collection of bronzes found at Tegea, figurines of humans as well as of dogs and other quadrupeds are known, but B2 is the only example of a group of three different types of figures on one base. There is no other such small sculptural group from Arcadia. The few sculptural groups known from other Greek sites are quite different from the Tegean example. One of the few Late Geometric Greek bronze sculptural groups containing three

108 i

figures is that from the Hera sanctuary at Samos."^^ It is constructed in the form of a small pyramid. A second similar group is said to come from Pisa, in Elis, and is now in private collection.^"^ The Tegean and Samian groups each contain one human figure and two animals on a rectangular base, but the scenes portrayed are very different. The Samian group shows a dog helping a man against a hon.^^ There is also greater articulation of form and musculature in the Samian human figure.

Rolley cites the unusual qualities of the Tegean group. He writes that the use of the third dimension employed in the layout of B2 is uncommon in Geometric art.'*^ Rolley adds that the theme of a dog attacking a goat is a rare one in the Geometric period. There is a later representation of the theme from Delphi, but the Tegea example, B2, is the earhest.^'^ Rolley dates B2 to between 750 and 700 B.C. The theme of 'human figure separating two animals' may have been inspired by an attempt at narrative. Schweitzer thought that the beginnings of group composition in bronze were "obviously inspired by the rapid spread of epic poems."^^ The Tegean group, B2, clearly has a potential for narrative which a single standing figure could not so easily attain. Its symmetry recalls the figured pottery scenes associated with the Argive school of 'Horse-Tamer between Two Horses;'^^ such an illustration is also known from a pottery sherd from Tegea (P24, pi. 11). It is conceivable that bronzesmiths were in some way influenced by these contemporary pottery representations, though it is not clear why this particular representation would be an appropriate one for dedication.

It is equally possible that the group, B2, represents a survival of a Minoan/Mycenaean concept of a master or mistress of animals; the quadrupeds in this group are appropriate to an Arcadian context as well. The association of a mistress of animals with this sitd* is suggested by a number of other votives: for instance, the bronze inscribed disc with the female standing on the quadruped, Dugas no. 154 (fig. 28), the small gold portrayal of a female flanked by beasts, Dugas no. 365 (fig. 28), and the bronze rider seated side-saddle, Bl above.^^

The base decoration on the underside of B2 consists of eight rows of zigzags in relief, a not uncommon design in Geometric art. It is found on the underside of some of the horses in the so-called Lousoi-Olympia group found at Olympia.51 In fact, one of the figurines in this group which consists of a horse and foal apparently has a base-plate decoration identical to that of B2.

109

Chapter Four

B3(52): Seated Figure (pi. 54, fig. 27)

B3 represents a creature of more or less human appearance, seated on a

cylindrical rod with his elbows resting on his knees. Although this figure is

incomplete (it is missing its circular base and parts of both legs and arms),

one can obtain an idea of its original pose from a similar object from

Mavriki, B9(M) (pi. 61), as well as from a number of other examples. The

Mavriki figure suggests that B3's arms may have continued from his knees up

towards his face as if he were drinking, playing a flute or simply resting his

chin in his hands. Such an arm position would necessitate a s h a φ bend in

the extremely long limbs, as one can see in B9, and is suggested from the side

view of B3. The head of the Tegean figurine has a wide area between the

ears, a narrow jutting chin, and only slight indentations to indicate facial

features. The ears and chin look particularly non-human; Dugas noted the

head resembled a monkey's.52 The figure rests on a rod which was originally

attached to a solid circular base with hnear ornament in relief.^^ Its

overall appearance with strange head and wiry body creates an impression of

ambiguity. This figurine has a number of parallels throughout Greece, in

addition to B9(M), from Sparta, Olympia, the Alpheios Valley, and

Eretria.54

The Mavriki example, B9, is one of the smallest of all these figurines,

measuring only about three and one-half cm high.^^ xê compact figure

appears to have arms longer than its legs and no neck. It is seated on a

circular base, the underside of which reveals the shape of a heart in relief

(fig. 27). Its legs are square in section, rather than circular like the Tegea

example. The example from Sparta also has upper legs which are square in

section.

The example found at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta is similar

to both the Tegean and Mavriki statuettes in general form.^^ xê figure

leans his elbows on his knees, holds his hands to his mouth and is seated on a

rod connected to a pierced circular base. This sort of pierced base is typical

of Laconian statuettes in bronze.^'^ It is noteworthy that the Tegea and

Mavriki figures have sohd Argive style bases with relief decoration below.

The arms of the Laconian figurine are longer than the legs, as was the case

110


111

The similarity of base-plates may simply indicate links or exchanges between

bronze workshop groups in the Peloponnese.

with the Mavriki example, and probably also with the Tegean piece in its

original form. The legs reveal no musculature. The shoulders are slightly

narrow in relation to the rest of the body. The rod on which the figure sits is

shorter than those of the two Arcadian examples and is rectangular in section

like the Mavriki rod, rather than round like that of B3.

The head of the Laconian example is a completely different shape from

both B3 and B9 and in fact from all other examples of this type. He has a

high forehead with a flattened top of head, circular impressions for eyes, and

at the nose area the head recedes and narrows into the lower face. Unlike

B3 or B9, he seems to lack ears. In most cases, the heads of these figurines

appear to be slightly tilted back with the chin extended upwards but in the

example from Sparta the head appears to be facing nearly straight ahead.

Perhaps the most well known of these seated figurines is the one allegedly

from the Alpheios Valley, now in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore.^^ it

differs from the above three examples in that the object held up to the mouth

is articulated into an oblong, almost biconical shape. Also, the seat on which

the figure sits is a rather more complicated design; it consists of a vertical

bronze band in a horseshoe shape and attached to it below, a flat T-shaped

base. The figure's body is very wiry and thin. His head is very simple in

shape and has a rounded top and indentations at the forehead and eyes. In

profile it appears that the object in his hands is being put up to his nose!

The final product presents a continuous flow of circular lines with extreme

simplicity of form, very similar to the Tegean figure. The torsos of these two

figures are remarkably alike.

Lamb suggested for the Laconian bronze in particular that the pieces of

bronze between the hands and chin and the figure's bottom and the base

were due to the limitations of the bronze caster and were not intentional.^^

Such an explanation, however, cannot apply to the Alpheios Valley bronze.

This figure holds an articulated object in both hands and has a fancy

horseshoe style base; these features reveal a conscious effort to portray

specific items and do not in any way indicate inadequacy on the part of the

bronze caster. It is argued by Schweitzer and Jantzen that this bronze from

the Alpheios Valley was the original seated figure.Ô

The Olympia example differs from the other four in that the figure has

both hands on his knees and not bent up to his chin.^l His body is thicker

and more substantial in appearance than the others and he seems somehow


more human in form. The figure is ithyphalHc and is in fact the only one of the group to indicate gender. The posture is also different; he is more or less upright but still sits on a rod connected to a circular base. The base is solid with the appearance of three flat discs placed on top of each other. The description of the base, "le plat orne d'un cercle en relief entoure de quatre menisques de meme," recalls the type of decoration below the bird recently found by Steinhauer at Tegea (B54); similar decoration is known from the underside of the base of a bird from Mavriki and perhaps another bird from Olympia.62 The male figure from Olympia has a very large nose, an indication of a mouth and eyes, a pointed chin and a wide head. Schweitzer apparently measured this figurine as well as the Alpheios Valley example and found that the heads of the two were identical down to the length of the forehead and the distance between the ears. He concludes that they both must have come from the same workshop.^^ While this is a possibility, the differences between these two figures must be recognized.

Another seated figurine comes from a site outside the Peloponnese, from Eretria; it is probably from the sanctuary of Apollo.^"^ This statuette was apparently found in the late nineteenth century excavations but forgotten in the National Museum apotheke until recently. As is the case with most of the other seated figures, the Eretria example has a wide head with a hint of facial characteristics, a jutting chin, and extremely long thin arms with elbows on the knees and hands at the chin. There is not any attempt to portray musculature in this figure and his shoulders are very narrow. Rather than a circular rod, he is seated on a flat, bronze rectangle. The base is most unusual as well; it is a pierced flat shape with one rounded end, recalling an apsidal building, not unlike the earliest structure found at the sanctuary of Apollo at Eretria.65

In addition to these sk seated figures of fairly certain provenances, there are at least three more of unknown provenance: one in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford and two in private collections. The example in the Ashmolean sits directly on a rectangular base with a thick rod below leading to a second base.^^ The figure sits with knees up, elbows resting on them and hands at chin. The second example in this category is in a private collection in America.^'^ The figure is hunched over and holds a very long object in his hands; he has a wide head with small protruding ears and depressed circles for eyes. It is unusual that the figure wears a belt at the waist and that the hands do not go up to the chin but grasp the long object at a point lower down. The rod on which the figure sits is fashioned in three

112

horizontal rounded sections on its back; the base is oval and has two cut-out crescents on either side. The figure's back, legs and general appearance reveal a more modelled human form than most of the other examples of this type.

Finally, the third example is in a private collection and published by Dorig.68 It sits directly on a flat rectangular base with knees bent up and elbows resting on them and with hands meeting chin. The head is round, wide at the top but narrow at the chin; the eyes consist of two incised circles. This figure also wears a belt around his waist and his body is bent very much forward. The solid base below has two rows of zigzag in relief on the underside. According to Dorig, the workshop of this bronze is definitely Peloponnesian, possibly in Sparta, Tegea, Argos or Arcadia. He concludes that the object probably comes from an Argive workshop because an identical base-plate was found below a Tegean deer, B22(13) (pi. 74). Dorig's assumption that a Tegean deer would necessarily have been made in Argos is incorrect on two counts. First of all, the deer from Tegea seem to be local products with no close parallels. And secondly, this particular deer figure was defined by Herrmann to be a Laconian style quadruped.^^ Its base-plate is certainly an Argive type but this does not require the workshop to be Argive. It is known that Argive style bases were favoured by the Tegeans and in a case where the torso of the animal is Laconian and the base-plate is Argive, a workshop in the vicinity of Tegea would be far more likely. On this basis then, a Tegean provenance for this seated figure ought to be considered at least as likely as an Argive one.

It seems to be unanimously agreed that this type of seated figure appeared first in the Peloponnese.^^ In the cases discussed above, where the provenance is known, only one example came from outsi(ie this region: the Eretria figurine. Objects very similar in conception to these seated figurines were mass-produced in miniature form on top of rather thin, cylindrical rods, with protruding buttons below; they were popular in Macedonia, the East Balkans and Thessaly.^^ Jantzen, who originally made a typological study of these tiny objects, interpreted them to be 'jug-stoppers' but their actual function appears to have been as decorative belt pendants, based on a number of such examples found in situ.^^ Schweitzer and Jantzen believe that the prototype for these httle figurines on top of the 'jug-stoppers' in northern Greece was the Alpheios Valley figurine.^^ Schweitzer thinks that this figure type spread to northern parts of Greece from the Peloponnese. Bouzek implies that the Laconian figurine was somehow related to the

113

Chapter Four

114


B4(51): Hydrophoros (pL 56, fig. 27)

B4 consists of a standing human figure with its right hand holding a vase on its head and left hand on the upper thigh. This figure stands on a raised base with a platform which is incised with five circles underneath. The human figure is very simply represented; there is little attempt at modelling but there are smooth curves in the body and a hint of movement. Nose and mouth are indicated and a small jug or hydria sits on the top of the figure's head. There is no indication of gender, though other such contemporary figurines and later ones are usually depicted as female. This statuette has a companion piece from neighboring Mavriki, BIO(M) (pi. 61), which is missing its head and right arm but otherwise intact and remarkably similar to B4.^6 Gehrig believes that these two figurines were probably made in the same workshop and he dates them to the last quarter of the eighth century; RoUey dates B4 to the last half of the eighth century.'^'^

Although there are no exact, contemporary parallels fo^'B4 or BIO, female figures carrying jugs on their heads are known from other sanctuary sites at Samos and Olympia.'^S The Samos example is described by Gehrig but without illustration. I gather that the Samian figurine holds the vessel with the finger tips of her left hand and has her right hand placed at the top of her head at the temple area. She is apparently carrying a jug or hydria on her head and appears to have more definite female attributes than either B4 or BIO, including breasts and a drawn-in waist. Gehrig dates this bronze to the turn of the eighth century, c.700 B.C.79

The Olympia bronze wears a short chiton, decorated with incised horizontal stripes from the upper arm to the knee area, and a wide belt.

115

have been due to an apparent regional affinity for the dedication of ambiguous representations which combine human and animal qualities.

After the end of the Geometric period, this seated figure type was no longer produced in the Peloponnese. There is one possible exception. At Tegea, a seated bronze figurine with a non-human looking head, knees up and arms extended up and outwards was produced probably in the early seventh century (B6, pi. 58). It appears to be a condensed but freer version of B3, from which it may have developed. To what extent these figures, B3 and B6, are related will be considered again in the discussion of B6.

northern jug-stoppers but considers it to be more primitive than the Alpheios Valley bronze.^^

Recent research on this type of seated figure stresses its simian qualities and argues persuasively that its source lies in the baboon of Egyptian religious iconography7^ Once introduced, the type was imitated at southern Greek sanctuary sites in the Geometric period. These imitations, in turn, inspired the smaller pendant versions found in graves in Macedonia and Thessaly. Although it is not clear what significance these figurines had in Greek sanctuary contexts, their rarity and unusual form suggest that they were a potent and meaningful votive object. By the time the type reached northern Greece and was mass-produced in pendant form, however, it became universally recognized and probably lost any special significance.

The similarities between the bronze seated figures from Tegea, Mavriki and Sparta may be due simply to the proximity of the workshops in that region. B3 was probably a local product whereas the Mavriki figurine, B9, shows fairly strong connections in detail with the Laconian figure; its miniature size however suggests local production under Laconian influence. A connection between the Olympian and Alpheios Valley objects may be noted in terms of the geographic proximity of the sites and the similarity in the sizes of the objects' heads, but it is by no means certain that they were products of the same workshop. The Eretria example is a clear imitation of these above types, though its base is unique. Its provenance in Eretria may reveal evidence for the northward movement of this type. It is significant also that the Tegean example and the Alpheios Valley one are quite similar in their torso shapes and that the Olympian figurine has the same base as birds from Tegea and Mavriki. These Peloponnesian figures appear to be more closely related than originally seemed to be the case. Of the three unprovenanced pieces, the one pubhshed by Dorig with a base similar to the Tegean deer may well have a Peloponnesian, if not Tegean, origin.

The Arcadian examples may offer an important link in the pattern of distribution for this seated figurine type. Once it was introduced into the Greek repertoire, probably in Sparta, the influence for this type moved upward to Mavriki and Tegea and then across Arcadia to the Alpheios Valley and Olympia. Outside of the Peloponnese, it then continued northwards to Eretria and finally to Macedonia, the East Balkans and Thessaly, where it was mass-produced. Its relative popularity in Arcadia may

Chapter Four

B5(53): Male Figure Wearing a Helmet (pi. 57)

B5, and another similar but unillustrated Tegean figurine (Dugas no. 54), consist of small nude male figures wearing conical helmets. B5's face is flattened in a deliberate manner and his facial features are incised in such a


B6(55): Bear-headed Figurine (pi. 58)

B6 is a particularly interesting figurine of mysterious identity from the Athena Alea sanctuary. It is described by Dugas as a seated figure with a human body and an animal's head (probably that of a bear) and with its arms extended. The figure appears to have broken away from the strict Geometric conventions and is probably seventh century in date. The figure's unusual head and general appearance led Romaios to conclude (in the Tegea Museum catalogue) that it was a monkey.

It is clear that the head of B6 is not human. It recalls most of all, to my mind, a bear's head, with its long snout and the high position of its forehead and ears.^3 Yet the body of this figure does not appear to be particularly bear-like; it is either human or made in human form.

116 117

Since both her arms are largely missing, it is difficult to tell what the exact gesture of her arms would have been. She definitely carries a vessel on her head, however, which appears to be the only similarity between this figure and B4 or BIO. Gehrig dates it to the first decade of the seventh century.^O Another unillustrated bronze vessel carrier in the Athens National Museum (according to Gehrig who apparently has seen it) has a strong affinity with the Tegean and Mavriki examples.^ 1 Finally, there is an unprovenanced vessel-carrying figure whose right hand touches the vessel on her head and whose left hand is on her thigh. Sexual characteristics are also indicated. Gehrig knows of this object through an art dealer in Paris.^^

An example of a bronze figure carrying a vessel on her head is known as far away as Hungary.83 The main similarity between B4, BIO and the Hungarian example is the pot on the head; the arm gesture and general pose of the Hungarian bronze are considerably different from the Tegea and Mavriki examples.

Many later vessel-carriers were found throughout Greece; in Arcadia a good number of terracotta examples were found at the sanctuary at Hagios Sostis in the vicinity of Tegea.^^ They appear to have had a widespread distribution and universal significance, especially in later periods.

In Geometric and early Archaic times, however, representations of vessel-carriers were not particularly common, but are known from at least four sanctuary sites: Samos, Olympia, Tegea and Mavriki. It is clear that the Tegean and Mavriki examples were made in the same workshop and one might include in this group the bronze in the National Museum which is apparently very similar to these two. There appears to be some relationship between cult and these vessel-carrying figurines, as is suggested by their appearance exclusively at sanctuary sites. One wonders if these figurines embody a hope or prayer or wish for rain in an area (i.e. in the vicinity of Tegea and Hagios Sostis), where even today such a condition is necessary for those whose livelihood depends on the land.^^

way as to reveal a rather awkward and amusing expression.^^ This figurine has a particularly rigid appearance with his arms straight out at his sides, his legs stiff and apart and his face flattened; he resembles a stick figure. This effect is created also by the distinct ridges in the figure's body at his sides and down his middle. Of all the contemporary Tegean bronze figurines, B5 and Dugas no. 54 are the only ones which clearly indicate sexual attributes. They have no close parallels in bronze, to my knowledge.^^

Snodgrass notes that the shape of B5's helmet falls into one of his two main categories of Geometric types; it is a conical helmet as opposed to a hemispherical or cap helmet. He considers it to be a backward tilted cone.^^ From the side view of B5 and the drawing of it in Kilian,^^ it appears to me more like a forward tilted conical helmet.^^ There is also some similarity with the forward tilted conical helmet of the Amyklai terracotta figure.^! In a general way, B5 has elements in common with these figures in the shape of their helmets and their big staring eyes.

B5 also possesses some distinctive features which may be regional in nature, such as the thick neck and thin limbs. In addition it is significant that the unusual ridges on his body are also seen in a deer figurine from Tegea, B26(17) (pi. 76), which Heilmeyer attributes to a local Tegean school.^^ ^ \^ thus probable that B5 and Dugas no. 54 were locally produced but with some adherence to existing Geometric conventions for the depiction of a warrior.

Chapter Four

118


119

This seated bear-headed bronze has no exact parallels from Arcadia or

any other site in Greece to my knowledge. It is probably a product of a local

bronze-working tradition at Tegea. Its torso is not unlike other human

figures from Tegea, including B2 and B4; in some ways B6 looks like a

squashed but freer version of B3. The most interesting feature about this

figurine, B6, is its animal head, which can be paralleled in Arcadia and

elsewhere. An examination of these parallels follows an attempt to clarify

the nature of B6.

The site of Petrovouni, in central Arcadia, produced a single bronze

object found near a temple, a group of what appear most like horse-headed

figures. They are ithyphallic and seem to be dancing on a rectangular base

(pi. 65). Schweitzer had thought that the Petrovouni figures were ram or

stag-headed but I think they most resemble horses.^'^ Schweitzer also said

that the four figures were standing on a round base and compared them to

other groups of figures on round bases. In fact, the base-plate is rectangular

and this group bears litde resemblance to groups on round bases. The

Petrovouni bronze is most unusual both in concept and style and appears to

be directly related to the cult at the sanctuary of Poseidon Hippios. This

might have involved the wearing of horse-masks, though masks are not

clearly indicated in the figures of this group. Mask-wearing recalls ritual

traditions in Cyprus, where masked figures were often depicted in religious

contexts; the connections between Cyprus and Arcadia are considered briefly

below.^^

Other Arcadian examples of animal-headed figures are considerably later

and include the fifth century bronze Pan from Lousoi,^^ as well as even later

figurines from Lykosoura, which consist both of terracottas wearing long

robes with a variety of animal heads, and of sculpted stone figures on

Despoina's drapery which are also animal-headed.^'^

In Arcadian myth and legend, animals, in particular bears, wolves and

horses, are known to have played a significant role.^^ This is not at all

surprising in a rural region Hke Arcadia, which had a largely agricultural

economy and was relatively isolated from the larger commercial centers. In

such an environment, animals, domestic or wild, would no doubt have been a

very important part of everyday life.99 The worship of Lykaion Zeus, Black

Demeter, Horse Poseidon and Pan all involve connections between animals

and gods. Arcadian legend tells of the daughter of Lykaion, Calhsto, who

gave birth to Arkas and was transformed into a bear. 100 jt conceivable

that the representation of a bear-headed figure would be perfectly at home in

Tegea, but let us first explore the other external parallels before returning to

this point.

Outside of Arcadia and Greece - in distant Cyprus - one finds relatively

similar parallels for animal-headed figures. Terracotta human figurines

wearing bull masks are known from the sanctuary of Ayia Irini; such

figurines were also found at Kourion in the deposits of the sanctuary of

Apollo, where a group of two bull-headed figures on a rectangular base was

discovered.lOl More examples of animal-headed figurines are known from

Amathous and from a number of pieces in the Cesnola collecdon.102

Although there is a general similarity between the Arcadian

animal-headed figures and the Cypriot ones, there are two main differences

which prevent a conclusion of common origin. First, the Cypriot figures are

all wearing masks and always emphasize this fact by holding one or two

hands up to the base of it. Second, the Cypriot examples appear to be part of

a much older tradition to venerate bulls in particular. ^03 it was apparently

not until the Late Bronze Age at Enkomi in Cyprus that the first evidence of

wearing animals' masks became apparent. Also in Cyprus, skulls of bulls and

other animals were found in large numbers in the twelfth and eleventh

century sanctuaries such as at Kition. Apparently only the frontal parts of

the horns and skulls survive - as if puφosely shaped as masks to be worn

during religious performances, in conjunction with bronze cult statues of a

god wearing a horned helmet. 104 Later examples of both oxen skulls and

Archaic terracotta masks have been found at various Cypriot sanctuaries as

well.105

It is thus clear that the Cypriot animal-headed exampJles are rooted in a

local tradition of veneration which evolved over the centuries. It is also

apparent that there is no strong evidence for such representations in the

Bronze Age Aegean. It is more likely that any similarities observed between

the Cypriot and Arcadian animal-headed figurines are due largely to chance

and possibly the fact that these areas were more isolated from the main

centres of Greek cultural life, thus enabling them to preserve local traditions

with greater ease. Both areas seem to have developed their own variety of

animal worship and representation which had special local significance. In

Arcadia, this can be seen with the Petrovouni example which may well be

related to the cult of Poseidon Hippios, an Arcadian deity. It is conceivable

that B6 had a local relevance to the cult at Tegea as well.


The myth of CalHsto, daughter of Lykaion, seems to have had a particular significance in Arcadia. The legend is that CaUisto, raped by Zeus, was transformed into a bear and gave birth to a son named Arkas. Pausanias mentions that Callisto's grave, Arkas' bones and the sanctuary of Artemis Kalliste were all located in Arcadia, in roughly the central r e g i o n . T h e fact that the legend of CalHsto and Arkas goes back in basic form to the time of Hesiod^O^ suggests that when the bronze, B6, was produced, the Tegeans could have been aware of the legend. A bear-headed figurine dedicated at the sanctuary of Athena Alea would thus be a most appropriate offering viewed in this light.

Recent research on bear figurines indicates that this Tegean bronze may be the earliest bear representation known in Archaic G r e e c e . I t has also been demonstrated that the bear was an emblem of motherhood, especially associated with Artemis. Why such an early depiction of a bear would be dedicated at the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea is an interesting question. Bevan suggests that it may be the result of Atalanta's connection with Tegea or the Arcadian link with CalHsto, already discussed above. As noted, CaUisto's connection with Arcadia is a conceivable and chronologically feasible explanation for the appearance of a bear-headed figure at Tegea. An additional reason is the ambiguous nature of the early cult at Tegea. There are numerous dedications from the Athena Alea sanctuary which indicate that the earliest deity worshipped there (Alea) possessed aspects of a Mistress of Animals, Vegetation and Fertility. It appears that these traits were overshadowed by others, more appropriate to the Panhellenic image of Athena, from the sixth century o n w a r d s . T h e seventh century bronze figure, B6, however, understood as a symbol of motherhood, would be a highly suitable dedication to such an early deity.

The similarity between B6 and B3 may be significant, for B6 appears to be a freer version of the earlier figure. The difference in arm gesture between the two figures may be the result of development from a closed to an open position. The difference in head shape and type is more difficult to assess; B3 has a head of dubious attribution - it may be human but is derived from a monkey. B6's head is that of a bear but it is not clear if it is developed from B3 or from something completely different. I am inclined to believe that these two figurines should be viewed as quite separate in their identities but I recognize that perhaps B6 was developed or derived from the form of B3 for the expression of a completely different being.

120

B7(57): Figure of a Female Nude (pi. 59)

This small female figurine, B7, is a most interesting and unusual type of votive object and without parallel from any other Greek site to my knowledge. Due to the worn surface of B7 it is difficult to determine if she is completely nude or wearing an extremely thin, sheer garment. There are other examples of female nudes at Tegea, however, which may argue for the former. It has already been mentioned that Bl and B4 are probably female, since objects of the very same types found at Samos, Olympia and Lousoi have clear indications of gender. B2 may depict a nude female as well. In addition, B8, discussed below, is a further example of a female nude from Tegea. Finally, a bronze disc found at the Athena Alea site illustrates a female nude standing on a quadruped (see fig. 28). Outside of Tegea, female nudes are known from Attica: five ivories from a Dipylon grave; and a figure in bronze from an unspecified location. Nude figurines in bronze are known too from Ithaka and Delphi. The Tegean figurine, B7, however, is unlike all these females figurines in style.

Dugas recognized the peculiarity of this object and identified it as an 'Egyptian statuette' for which he provided Egyptian paraHels.l^^ Jost has recently offered support to Dugas' conclusions by describing this figurine as Egyptian in s t y l e . I t appears to me, however, that there is not the slightest resemblance between B7 and Dugas' parallels. Dugas had in fact noted that these were not exact parallels and so concluded that B7 must have been a local imitation under Egyptian influence.

B7 has far closer parallels in north Syrian ivory figurines, in particular those of the Loftus Group from the southeast palace it Nimrud.^^^ The fleshiness of B7 with her sagging breasts, big stomach and rounded hips is generally similar to that of the Loftus Group females. Unfortunately, most of the detail from B7's head, hair, face, and body is worn so that it is unclear to what degree these elements are like those of the Loftus Group. The curious and very worn object crowning the head of B7 has fairly close affinities with what Barnett calls a 'Palm Capital' on top of the poloi worn by many of the females in this group.

B7 is on a much smaller scale however than any of the Syrian figurines at only six and one-half cm tall. This figurine differs also in her arm gestures. Most of the Syrian females have their arms firmly and stiffly against the sides

121

Chapter Four

122


B8(56): Nude Female Figure Pressing Hands to Breasts (pi. 60)

The final object to be examined within the Tegean repertoire of human

figures, is B8, a nude female figure holding her hands to her breasts. This

figurine is considerably heavier than any of her counteφarts in bronze and I

am inchned to believe that she contains some lead in her composition. 127

B8, while clearly a female nude, is odd in that the appearance of the head is

not at all feminine. There are no exact parallels for this female figurine

anywhere in the Greek world to my knowledge. There are, however, many

examples of females pressing their breasts with their hands, generally an

eastern gesture known from various periods and places. These include

Mycenaean terracottas, LBA Cypriot terracottas and the already mentioned

Syrian ivories of the Loftus Group. 128

A recently discovered bronze from the 'Founder 's Hoard ' on

Pyla-Kokkinokremos on Cyprus, of LCIIC date, reveals the strongest

similarity to the Tegean figure B8.129 The Cypriot object appears to be

male but the gesture of his hands on his chest is identical to the Tegean

figurine and in general appearance, posture and size, it is remarkably similar

toB8.130

The Cypriot bronze was probably derived from contemporary terracotta

figures with the same arm gesture but more appropriately depicting female

nudes. These Cypriot terracottas are also similar to B8 in their general

gesture and indication of sexual attributes. 1^1

The shape of the head of B8, however, is unlike those of the Cypriot

examples in bronze or terracotta but more related to those of the clay idols

of Mycenaean IIIB from Mycenae. 1^2 One of these idols is fully clothed but

holds her hands to her breasts in the same way as B8.133 There are also

123

the rest of the 'Geometric' deposit which he dates to the eighth century at the

earliest. 126 Oriental influence thus seems to have prompted the production

of couchant animals at Greek sites from as early as the end of the eighth

century and especially in the seventh century. At Tegea, craftsmen appear to

have translated the type into a simple bronze form with Geometric affinities.

It is also conceivable that B7, like the oxen, is an example of a local

translation into bronze of an Oriental prototype which occurred at the end of

the eighth century or later.

of their bodies and with their hands resting on their t h i g h s . L ^ S S

frequently in the Loftus Group they are portrayed with their hands to their

breasts. 120 ^ appears at first glance that B7 might have originally held her

hands up to her breasts, since her arms bend forward at the elbows but then

are broken. At closer examination however, one sees that her arms are not

properly aligned to portray such a gesture and it is rather more hkely that she

was holding something in her hands in a gesture of offering.

A much earlier but interesting parallel is a beautiful ivory from Megiddo

of which only the back has remained intact. 121 The back views of our

figurine, B7, and of the Megiddo ivory are surprisingly similar in general

form and style, though the latter is apparently nearly four times the size of

B7 and dates to no later than 1150 B.C.

Eastern parallels for B7 are considerable and suggest that Tegea was

exposed to these influences or imports in the late eighth or early seventh

century. The Loftus ivories provide a chronological framework for B7 since

they have been dated to between 824 and 703 B.C. 122 it is known that some

pieces similar to those in the Loftus group were seen and imitated by a

Greek artist in Athens who carved five shm naked women. These were

found in a grave in the Dipylon cemetery. 123 This Attic artist considerably

modified his Syrian model, for the Dipylon ivories have none of the

fleshiness or roundness of the Loftus figurines but are rather more angular

and slim. B7, in comparison with the Dipylon ivories, is far fleshier, rounder

and more like the original Syrian prototypes in body shape. Whether B7 is

an import or an imitation of a north Syrian female figure is difficult to

determine. It could be argued, however, that B7 was locally produced after

the north Syrian style, judging from its apparently unusual arm gesture, the

figure's particularly small stature, and the production of the type in bronze

and not ivory.

Other examples of north Syrian influence at Tegea can be observed in the

couchant oxen of bronze and particularly in the couchant rams of ivory or

bone (M3, pi. 186), which have parallels from the southeast palace at Nimrud

and the Loftus group. They are apparently contemporary with the ivory

female figurines. 124 Many couchant quadrupeds in ivory and bone were

found at the Artemis Orthia site at Sparta and are mid-seventh century or

later in date, according to Boardman's revised dates. Three of them,

however, were found below the patch of fine cobble pavement in the middle

of the arena. 125 Boardman thus considers these three ivories to belong to

Chapter Four

B l l and B12(M): Small Lead Kouroi (pi. 62)

The two very different figurines considered next are tiny lead kouroi from

Mavriki, which have parallels from the Artemis Orthia site. 137 The Mavriki

figurines were probably imports to the site from Sparta in the seventh

century, though this particular type of lead figurine was not a very common

type found at the Artemis Orthia site. In any case, the source for B l l and

Β12 was unlikely to have been Tegea where no such objects were found.

Lousoi: LI and L2: Figures Seated Side Saddle (pis. 63 - 64), see Bl above

Lousoi: L3: Male Figure (pi. 65)

A third figurine from Lousoi is an unpublished bronze male statuette in

the Karlsruhe museum. The unusual figure has well ardculated chest and

genital areas and his arms, now decomposed, were originally bent out at the

sides with hands coming up to the area of the chin. He generally reveals very

little musculature. The figure's body is long and his upper torso is

124


Bassai: Lead and Iron Figurines

A small number of lead and iron human figurines were found at the

sanctuary of Apollo at Bassai. They include a small lead female figure and

two large male statuettes in iron. (The female figurine falls outside the

scope of this study so is only briefly described below.)

The lead figurine was found in recent excavations in the area to the north

of the Iktinian temple. 138 The figure is winged and draped in a long dress

with cross-hatching. She is a typical Laconian type of mould-made and

mass-produced lead figure, of which thousands were found at the Artemis

Orthia site. 139 This particular type of representation is thought to portray

the winged nature goddess, Orthia. I' O she is probably skth century in date.

The larger of the two iron figures is .225 m tall and extremely crude in

manufacture. 1^1 His body is rectangular in shape and his arms are extended

out to the sides. The head is also rectangular with two small holes for the

eyes and a small protrusion for the nose.

The shorter iron figure is .18 m. tall and was found more recently in the

southwest area of the Iktinian temple. 1^^ j h i s figurine i^ somewhat more

advanced than the taller one and reveals some attempt at modelling. The

body shape is long and very narrow with some musculature attempted in the

legs. The tiny, round head is much too small for the body and is attached to

an extremely short neck. The arms are held close to the sides of the body

and seem to bend up at the elbows. Around the waist, a belt of sorts is

indicated. The overall appearance of this figure is very stiff and rigid.

Cooper believes that these two iron figures depict warriors, as indicated

by their headdresses and girdles. l'^3 Neither one wears a headdress,

however, and only the smaller one reveals what appears to be a girdle. Also,

the post-Geometric bronze figurines he mentions as possible parallels are

125

other examples of clothed females with their hands to their breasts from the

Argolid. 134 x^e nudity of the Cypriot examples and of the Tegean figure,

B8, is not paralleled in these Mycenaean examples and this is a significant

difference.

It thus appears that B8 possesses a blending of both Mycenaean and

Cypriot artistic conventions and its nudity indicates a stronger Cypriot

influence. The superiority of B8 to the Pyla-Kokkinokremos example is

clear. Karageorghis believed that the people who had settled at the Pyla site,

C.1230 B.C., were 'Aegeans and Anatolians' and that they were responsible

for the production of this bronze. It reveals a certain confusion regarding the

gesture which is generally assumed by female figures. 135 xhe qualities of B8

indicate that it was the product of a skilled craftsman who combined Cypriot

and Mycenaean elements but its place of production is unclear at present. I

am inclined to consider it an import to Tegea from Cyprus and a product of

the twelfth century, i.e. after the end of LCIIC in Cyprus and Mycenaean IIIB

in Greece. The implications of its discovery at the Athena Alea site and the

connections between Arcadia and Cyprus generally, between 1200 and 800

B.C., are considered elsewhere. 136

rectangular, not triangular like other Geometric figures. His face is wide and

flat and he has all his facial features indicated, including a wide mouth. This

figurine may date to the end of the Geometric period or the early seventh

century as it appears somewhat free of Geometric conventions. In any case,

it seems to be unparalleled in Greek art; for this reason, it could be argued

that the statuette was locally produced in the vicinity of Lousoi.


much more advanced than either of the two Bassai examples. It seems rather

that both iron figures were produced without knowledge or adherence to

standard Geometric or Archaic conventions of depiction. Indeed the larger

of the two is little more than a stick figure.

Their manufacture in iron rather than bronze (which was also the case for

much of the miniature armour) is significant. Figurines of standard

Geometric and Archaic type are almost always made of bronze. Iron,

however, seems to have been more accessible at this site. Yalouris claims to

have found the location of the iron workshop in the north and northwest

sector of the sanctuary, where much slag was uncovered. This apparent

popularity of iron further indicates the relative isolation of the Bassai site

from artistic conventions and standard materials in the seventh century B.C.

Conclusions

It can be seen that human figurines were relatively popular dedications at

Arcadian sanctuary sites, especially at Tegea. Many of the pieces from

Tegea are largely unparalleled (i.e. B2, B5, B6, B7, B8) in conception and

style. LI, L2 and Bl reveal a theme which appears to have been particularly

favoured at these Arcadian sites and may well derive from memories of the

Mycenaean concept of female riders seated side-saddle. B3, the seated

figure and B4, the hydrophoros from Tegea and the similar counteφarts, B9

and BIO, from Mavriki were represented at other Greek sanctuary sites as

well but neither type was common. The lead miniatures, Β11, Β12 and the

example from Bassai, were probably imports from Sparta. Both Tegea and

Mavriki appear to have produced locally the bronze human figures found at

the sanctuaries. Lousoi also probably had a local bronze workshop in the

vicinity of the sanctuary; this is even clearer in the examination of the

quadrupeds. Bassai, on the other hand, did not start producing human

figures until the seventh century and these first efforts were fairly crude

statuettes of iron.

For the most part, the Arcadian human figures are products of the second

half of the eighth century, though B7 may be seventh century, and B6, B l l

and B12 are more definitely seventh century products. In addition, Lousoi

figure L3 and the Bassai iron figurines can also be attributed to the seventh

century. B8, on the other hand, was probably made in the twelfth century.

Together with the other late Mycenaean material found at Tegea, it may

mark the earliest stages of the cult there.

Section Two: Quadrupeds

Tegean Horse Figurines

The excavations at the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea produced four

examples of bronze horses which are published by Dugas (nos. 8-11) and

catalogued here as Β13 - Β15, plus Dugas no. 9, now missing. Two other

bronze horses said to come from Tegea were acquired by the Ashmolean

Museum in Oxford in 1899 and are here discussed as B20 and B21. There

are also three bronze horses on display in the Tegea Museum which are

unpublished but labelled as coming from the Athena Alea sanctuary.

Though their provenance is not absolutely confirmed, there is good reason to

believe that they are local finds and are catalogued as Β17 - Β19. Finally, the

Artemis sanctuary at Mavriki produced a single horse figurine which is

included in the catalogue as Β16. This group of ten horses, B13 - B21 and

Dugas no. 9, is examined below in detail.

A number of horses from Tegea have received attention in the past

twenty-five years, since the publication of Herrmann's article on the

classification of bronze workshops. Herrmann's division of horse types

into three categories, Argive, Laconian, and Corinthian, has been generally

accepted as a framework for the stylistic evaluation of the various horses in

bronze, though the Argive type cannot be defined with the same certainty as

the other two and has thus caused some disagreement. t)nly a few of the

Tegean horses were included in Herrmann's account; they were generally

identified as Argive types. Recent research on bronze Geometric horse

types has attempted to define further the broad categories of horse-types into

various subdivisions. " ^ In Heilmeyer's examination of the variety of horse

figurines found at Olympia, he includes also a section on 'Argive-Arcadian

works' in which he discusses a number of Tegean quadrupeds. He provides a

further breakdown of the Tegean horses and mentions some of the

unpublished pieces, including two of Laconian style which Herrmann did not

include. It is apparent from the research already carried out that the horse

figures from Tegea lack the distinctive or innovative features of a major

horse type. The group of Tegean horses rather possess Argive and Laconian

126 127

Chapter Four

128


129

parallels to my knowledge. It is reasonable to conclude therefore, on the

basis of its adherence to the features of the Argive type, that this horse was

either an Argive import to Tegea or a local product under strong Argive

influence.

B14(10) (pi. 66, fig. 27), is a headless horse which stands on a soHd

rectangular base. Dugas did not illustrate this horse in his publication but

described it as similar to Dugas no. 9, which is discussed below. This horse

(B14) has an Argive appearance in general terms with a solid base-plate,

long body and fairly high rump. Its heavy limbs and rather unmodelled

appearance, however, reveal a distance from the Argive style and suggest

that this horse was produced locally but under Argive influence or

inspiration. Gehrig describes this horse also as a probable Tegean

product.

B15(l l) (pi. 66, fig. 27), is a smaU horse on a solid base with a rather

unusually shaped head. Heilmeyer considers it to be related to Argive

animal types and most of its features support this identification (fig. 23) but

its head is small, short and rather pointed at the snout. 155 It is possible that

the craftsman who made it had a different sort of animal in mind but based it

on a horse's body. Gehrig noted that its hind legs and tail recall Dugas no. 9

and this does seem to be so. 156 Since most of the features of Β15 appear to

be that of a horse, I am inclined to consider it as such; the unusual head

shape might be the result of local experimentation. Β15 may be an Argive

import but is more probably a local Tegean product; its Argive influence is in

any case very clear.

B18(X) (pi. 67), is an unpublished quadruped on display in the Tegea

Museum. It lacks both a head and a base-plate and has re&ived no mention

by any of the scholars who have studied Arcadian bronze quadrupeds. One

can discern from the body that this specimen is an Argive style work. It has a

long body, high rump and modelled, spirited appearance. In view of the lack

of a head and base-plate (the latter either missing or originally without one),

little else can be concluded.

The three horses which fall into the Laconian category are examined

below. They are B17, B19 and B21.

B17(X) (pi. 67, fig. 27), is an unpublished piece in the Tegea Museum and

is displayed as coming from the Athena Alea sanctuary. Heilmeyer mentions

styles in the form of imports or local products deriving from either or both styles.

In the following examination, I shall attempt to assess the nature of the

features in each Tegean horse and then the group of them in general. A

comparative study with the o t h e r bronze Geometric horses from Lousoi,

Bassai, and Phigaleia is also offered to permit a more complete analysis of

external influences and local creativity in the production of bronze horses in

Arcadia. Though it is not within the scope of this research to challenge

fundamentally the established classifications of horse-types as such, certain

ambiguities inherent in the present system emerge in this analysis.

Exploring these ambiguities may ultimately assist in establishing more

accurate definitions for the different horse-types.

In order to assess accurately the various Laconian and Argive features of

each Tegean horse, I provide a breakdown of the qualities characteristic of

these types, based on the general features attributable to each (see fig. 23).

The Argive horse generally has a long strong neck, tapering head, a curving

back with a high rump, long mobile legs (which are bent at the joints or are

leaning to the front), a lively spirited quality and a solid base plate below.

A Laconian horse, as defined by Herrmann, has a broad, low neck, a long,

undifferendated head, a short body with low rump, long, developed legs, a

styhzed appearance (in contrast with the lively Argive type) and a pierced

base-plate. x^e Tegean horses possess quahdes from both these types as

well as some minor independent features which correspond to neither style.

Let us begin with four horses which have predominantly Argive

characteristics and no apparent Laconian traits: B13, B14, B15 and B18.

Β 13(8) (pi. 66, fig. 27), is a small horse figure on a solid rectangular base

identified as Argive in style both by Herrmann and Heilmeyer. 1^1

Herrmann refers to two comparable examples to Β13: one from the Argive

Heraion and the other an Argive import to Perachora. 1^2 j ^JQ ^ot see a

particularly strong similarity between Β13 and either of these horses and

suspect that Herrmann did not actually see this horse but was using Dugas'

photograph when he made the comparison. Gehrig, who must have written

just before Herrmann's classification of horse-types appeared, notes that Β13

is an example of 'a probable Tegean product.' One wonders if by this Gehrig

means a horse that has affinities with the Argive type.153 3 1 3 indeed has the

basic characteristics attributable to an Argive style horse but it has no exact ^

Chapter Four

130


131

legs but is otherwise Laconian in appearance. This horse figure, B20, was

most likely an import to Tegea.

B21(Ox) (pi. 69), already mentioned above, was also acquired by the

Ashmolean Museum in 1899 and has remained completely unnoticed and

unpublished since then, to my knowledge. Its base-plate, pierced with

eighteen triangles, is a clear Laconian feature. Most of its features are in

fact Laconian except for its legs which lack stylization and have little

modelling. The legs of B21 do not have the sharp angularity coupled with

distinct curves found in other Laconian horses. This horse generally seems

to lack the degree of stiff stylization found in other Laconian quadrupeds.

This fact inclines me to believe that B21 was a local product at Tegea, rather

than a Laconian import, but made under fairly strong Laconian influence.

The following three horses, B16(M), B19(X), and Dugas no. 9, possess

qualities of both Laconian and Argive schools. B16(M) (pi. 67, fig. 27), is a

tiny horse figurine found at the sanctuary of Artemis near Mavriki.

Heilmeyer considers it to be a 'local p r o d u c t . ' I t appears to possess the

Argive features of a long neck, a solid base-plate and a fairly rounded

appearance. It also has the Laconian quahties of a long undifferentiated

head, a short body and low rump. Features that suggest local manufacture

are the large head, relative to the rest of the body, the incision on the neck

and the unmodelled legs. It is clearly under some degree of influence from

Argive and Laconian schools but also reflects a distance from both. The

place of its production is uncertain, but it is probably somewhere in the

Tegea or Mavriki vicinity.

B19(X) (pi. 68, fig. 27) is an unpublished horse in bronze on display in the

Tegea Museum and indicated as coming from the "Xthena Alea site.

Heilmeyer considers this piece also to be a local product. This horse

figure seems to contain a mixture of styles as well as its own pecuHarities.

The shape of its head and a fairly angular, stiff appearance are Laconian

characteristics, whereas its soHd base-plate, long neck and certain rounded

features are Argive in nature. More unusual features are the rather

shapeless legs, a quality noted in some other Tegean horses, and the

angularity of the horse's mane. I thus agree with Heilmeyer that this horse,

Β19, is a local product since it reveals traits from both schools but also some

degree of independence as well.

that it is an unpublished horse from Tegea and says that it is related to

Laconian prototypes. The base is clearly of Laconian type with six

pierced triangles decorating it. In fact, nearly all its features are Laconian

except for the legs which are rather shapeless and slightly unsteady in

appearance. It appears that Β17 is a depiction of an immature horse to judge

from the disproportionately long, wobbly legs and the portrayal of the neck

and head. It has an extremely close parallel from the sanctuary of Artemis

Orthia. In fact, these two horses actually appear to be virtually identical,

down to the wobbly legs. Without the ability to confirm that these two horses

are one and the same (possibly due to some confusion which could have

occurred in the early part of this century), one can only conclude that

they were made in the same workshop under strong Laconian influence.

B20(Ox) (pi. 68), is a striking horse of Laconian type which has been

housed in the Ashmolean Museum since 1899, when it was acquired together

with B21. Both horse figures were said to come from Tegea. B20 is one of

the finest horse statuettes examined so far and, if it is indeed from Tegea, it

is curious that it found its way to Oxford. 1^0 it known that the earhest

excavations at the Athena Alea site were carried out in the 1880's by the

Germans and again by the French in 1900.^^1 It is conceivable that between

the German and French excavations, some looting may have occurred at the

site which resulted in the sale or donation of these pieces to the Ashmolean

Museum. There is no particular reason to doubt that these objects were

found at Tegea at an early date.

Weber discusses this horse, B20, and notes that it is almost identical to

one from Olympia, now in I s t a n b u l . j j ^ ^ base-plates of B20 and the

Olympia horse are apparently identical with 14 cut-out triangles framed in

two sections. There is another very similar base-plate to that of B20

found at Tegea which deserves mention. Qn the basis of this base-plate

and the horse figure, B20, Heilmeyer concludes that the Laconian influence

at Tegea was strongest in the mid-eighth c e n t u r y . x ^ i s horse has all the

features one generally attributes to a Laconian horse (fig. 23). Rolley

indirectly refers to B20 in a discussion about the similarity of the Olympian

horse found in Istanbul to one from Delphi, both of which he considers to be

under Corinthian influence in the hammered legs. He notes that hammered

Corinthian works appear to have been imitated in the Olympia and Delphi

pieces mentioned above, but that the head types and general proportions

remain Laconian. 1 6 B20 also appears to have Corinthian style hammered

Chapter Four

Conclusions: Tegean Horses

Out of ten Tegean horses, four are clearly Argive in type, three are Laconian and three are a mixture. This means that the Argive style horses, either imports or local products under this influence, comprise forty percent of the total. The Laconian types make up nearly one-third of the horses which is not unsubstantial; it is even possible that one of the Laconian horses was made at Tegea (B21).175 xhe mixed forms in all cases indicate a predominance of Argive traits. This small sample thus yields a total ratio of approximately 3:2 of Argive to Laconian traits (see fig. 23).

The traits which might be considered to be local ones or at least peculiar to the Tegean quadrupeds are the following:

1) Long, unmodelled rod-like legs, somedmes with a dumpy or heavy appearance.

2) A blending of Argive and Laconian traits in one horse, with a predominance of Argive characteristics.

In conclusion, the Tegean horses can be classified as follows. B13 and B15 are possible Argive imports. B20 and possibly B17 are Laconian

132


Lousoi Horse Figurines

Seven bronze horse statuettes were found at the Artemis sanctuary at Lousoi. Three of these from the Austrian excavations are in the National Museum in Athens. The remaining four are in the Karlsruhe Museum, in Germany. The latter pieces, plundered from Lousoi together with a group of about 200 other objects, were sold to various European museums at the turn of the century. When the site was subsequently dug by the Austrians, a looted area of 200 square metres was noted. 1^6

Herrmann, in his classification of Geometric horse figures, mentioned one example of a bronze horse group from Lousoi in a footnote, but the first work to consider these horse figures from Lousoi as a group was Martha Weber's article on "Eine arkadisch-geometrische Bronzegruppe." 1^7 Weber studied a group of horses found at Lousoi which shared similar characteristics and listed them in a stylistic sequence as forerunners for some horse figures from Olympia with comparable features. Though her work has been criticized for being scientifically unsound, 1^8 she ought to be credited with the identification of a specific horse type found only at Lousoi and Olympia. Heilmeyer is very critical of Weber's conclusions but he himself discusses many of the same horses in his 'Lousoi-Olympia' group, albeit with different results. 1^9 sinn also discusses many of these hqrses in his research on Lousoi and has attempted to identify a small workshopVoup.180

In the following examination, each of the seven horses from Lousoi will be studied in an attempt to identify particular traits in the individual specimens and in the group as a whole (fig. 24). The considerable research already done on this subject is of great assistance. It is necessary, however, to guard against a tendency in recent scholarship to credit Olympia with the sole inspiration for and production of most of the Lousoi horses.

There are two horses from Lousoi, L4 (pi. 69), and L5 (pi. 70), which have been identified as Laconian in style. The latter, L5, is probably the most well-known as it is the only example illustrated (by a sketch) in the Austrian's

133

imports. B16, B19, Dugas no. 9 (and the horse figure in Bl) are local Tegean products with Argive and Laconian traits. B14 and B18 are appear to be local products under Argive influence and B21 may be of local manufacture under Laconian influence.

Dugas no. 9 (now missing, but illustrated by Dugas) ^ ^orse figurine considered by Herrmann to be of Argive s t y l e . H e offers a parallel from the Argive Heraion which is not, in my opinion, a particularly close one (with the Argive Heraion horse's mane standing high up on edge).!^^ conceivable that Herrmann's comparison was based on Dugas' photograph of the horse. The lack of modelling in the cylindrical legs is not a particularly Argive feature, but in other details, such as its solid base-plate, this horse reveals its Argive inspiration or influence. One notes that Weber refers to this horse as an example of the early Laconian style at Tegea. x^e short neck of Dugas no. 9 does indeed have a Laconian appearance, though I have not seen or studied the actual horse. The horse figure in Bl (the rider seated side-saddle) is not unlike Dugas no. 9 in its generally heavy appearance and lack of modelling; in fact the horse in Bl reveals an even greater distance from any Argive influence. The neck of the Bl horse is also low, though not wide. Heilmeyer considers the horse group (Bl) to be of local Tegean manufacture. Local production can thus equally be claimed for Dugas no. 9.

Chapter Four

134


135

but Heilmeyer does not beheve that the 'Lousoi-Olympia' horses can be compared in style to Argive works. Herrmann, in a review of Heilmeyer's book, states that one should refrain form attributing an overly restrictive spectrum of traits to the leading production centres; he concludes that the 'Lousoi-Olympia' group could conceivably be assigned to Argos.

L7 (NM 15338) (pi. 70), was found in the Austrian excavations and is now in the National Museum in Athens. It is missing its head so that one cannot assess the cut of the ears but in all its other features, this horse is in agreement with the main Lousoi-Olympia characteristics defined by Heilmeyer. L7's tail is also missing but this actually allows for a good view of the intersection of the thin flat neck and mane with the full rounded body. The curving back and high rump of L7 reinforce the existence of a connection of this type with the Argive school.

Horses L8 (F1933) and L9 (F1928) (pi. 71), are both in the Karlsruhe Museum in Germany. They have been identified by Weber, Sinn and Heilmeyer as, unusual products which share similar f e a t u r e s . B o t h possess all the essential qualities of Heilmeyer's Lousoi-Olympia group. L9 is a much thinner horse figure than L8 but they are otherwise very similar in appearance. They also have the same decoration, an incised angle ornament, on the underside of their base-plates.

Weber was the first to discuss these two horses as examples of her Arcadian workshop group. She views them and the nursing female horses as products of her 'Landschaftkunst' with the landscape being the Artemis sanctuary at Lousoi. She includes a number of other horses from Lousoi and Olympia in this group in an attempt to trace the development of the type. She imphes that the 'Landschaftkunst' of Lousoi in turn influenced the production elsewhere of similar types of horses which were dedicated at Olympia.191 Heilmeyer believes that it is impossible that the horse figures collected by Weber were invented at this remote edge of Arcadia without any previous models. In the cases where Weber offered examples of Lousoi horses as forerunners to similar Olympian horses, Heilmeyer finds that they could be assigned to local workshops at Olympia. He does concede, however, that a distinct group of horses, including L8, L9 and some others mentioned by Weber, can not as yet be localized to a particular artistic centre. It is these horses which comprise his Lousoi-Olympia group (see also pi. 72). Sinn criticizes Weber for basing her argument in favour of a Geometric Arcadian workshop at Lousoi on the later existence of distinctive

excavation report, Though most scholars agree that this yoked pair of horses on a pierced base (L5) is a Laconian style work, it is rather unusual that there are two horses on one base.^^^ The pierced base-plate with three rows of triangles is clearly a Laconian trait, as are the horses' short broad necks, long heads, short bodies and low rumps. The unmodelled legs and the fairly soft curves of the bodies of the horses, however, are not typical characteristics of this style, These atypical quahties plus the fact that the two horses are on a single base incline me to conclude that the horses were probably made in a local workshop but in a Laconian tradition. There is another yoked pair of horses from Thermon, but there appears to be no connection between the two pairs, l^'*

The other horse figure, L4, also stands on a Laconian type of pierced base-plate with twelve cut-out triangles. This horse appears to be Laconian not only from its base-plate but also due to its angular and somewhat stylized look. It also has an appropriately proportioned neck and high, rounded rump characteristic of the Argive style. Heilmeyer states that L4 must be recognized as Laconian if only from the form of the b a s e - p l a t e . S u c h a classification, however, does not satisfactorily account for its deviations. Perhaps it might be more accurate to conclude that L4 is a local product which reveals both Argive and Laconian traits but with a predominantly Laconian appearance.

An unpublished example of a horse in the Karlsruhe Museum, L6 (F1929) (fig. 26), is an incomplete specimen missing its entire head, neck and mane. It stands on a soHd rectangular base-plate and appears to be completely without modelling. It has a very high rump and thin body and limbs. The remains of L6 have affinities with the Argive type with its solid base-plate and high rump. The thin, unmodelled appearance of this horse figure suggest that it was produced at a distance from an Argive workshop but clearly under this influence.

The next three horses to be discussed, L7, L8, and L9, fall into Heilmeyer's 'Lousoi-Olympia' group. Heilmeyer defines this group on the basis of specific types of horses from Lousoi and Olympia which are unrepresented elsewhere in the Greek world. He describes the horses in this group as possessing the following qualities: 1) a characteristic cut of the ears (apparently in the mane); 2) a swollen form of the thighs; 3) fine ankles; 4) a flat neck which is clearly distinguished from the rounded body and 5) a sohd base-plate. The solid base-plate clearly links this group with the Argive style.

Chapter Four

136


137

Archaic and Classical bronzes from Arcadia. He finds the retrospective nature of her thesis logically untenable. ^ " Sinn identifies these two horse figurines, L8 and L9, as examples of a particular bronze-working school hnked with Lousoi especially and located somewhere in A r c a d i a . i t seems that the Geometric bronzes from Lousoi are distinctive in their own right, regardless of the nature of the Archaic and Classical bronzes from Arcadia.

Sinn discusses these two horses in conjunction with a bird figurine from Lousoi, L17 (pi. 90), housed in the Karlsruhe Museum (F1936), which has the same base-plate as L8 and L9. On the basis of these three objects with similar base plates, L8, L9 and the bird figure, Sinn proposes the existence of a local workshop. Sinn implies moreover that if these three objects with similar base-plate types form the nucleus of a workshop group, that the rest of the Lousoi-Olympia group would belong to this workshop circle. xhe location of this workshop is as yet uncertain but Sinn tries to show that it is likely to be somewhere in Arcadia, He brings another horse-group into the discussion, NM13252 (pi. 77), a nursing female horse, which Heilmeyer includes in his Lousoi-Olympia g r o u p . s i n n points out that this group was erroneously displayed in the National Museum as coming from Lousoi, when in fact it was bought in Mantinea. He feels that a second findplace in Arcadia, i.e. Mantinea, revealing a Lousoi-Olympian horse type indicates strongly a workshop in Arcadia.^OO In this context, Sinn notes evidence for some degree of bronze-working in the vicinity of the Lousoi sanctuary. A bronze sheet from Lousoi (F2001) with a variety of ornamental techniques punched out at random is now in the Karlsruhe Museum. Sinn states that this find at least reveals that punching of ornamental decoration was occurring at the sanctuary site.^Ol

LIO, (F1930) (pi. 73), identified as a horse figurine, is also in the Karlsruhe Museum. This quadruped has a strikingly different appearance from the Lousoi horses examined above; it is squat and thick-set, lacking a base, with a short neck, short thick legs, a small tail, a large tapered head and unusual ears. LIO resembles more a dog or a bull yet it is discussed as a horse by scholars who have considered it. Weber identifies it as a plain horse made in terracotta style. She places it at the beginning of her long sequence of Arcadian bronzes, which later produced L7 and I>< and finally the nursing female horse-group.202 Heilmeyer atlrilnitcs this type of horse to his 'Argive-Olympian' category of the late eighth century; he considers such quadrupeds to be Olympian derivatives of Argive prototypes.203 The reason

for Heilmeyer's classification is not apparent to me. I think LIO is very similar (in its hind region especially) to L l l , a bull figurine from Lousoi, which has parallels in Heilmeyer's ninth century Argive group from Olympia (see B l l , below). It is difficult to accept such a discrepancy in date and style between these two quadrupeds. In my opinion, LIO is more primitive than the other Lousoi horses (if indeed it is a horse); it does not strictly conform to a particular convention or have a very stylized look. While it may not be a direct forerunner to horses L7 or L8, as Weber argues, it may reflect a general Argive presence in a local workshop at Lousoi, which eventually produced such horses as those in the Lousoi-Olympia group.

In addidon to the seven horses mentioned above, the two riders seated side-saddle from Lousoi, LI and L2, should also be considered. They are discussed in more detail in Section One of this chapter (see Bl) . Heilmeyer dates both to the second half of the eighth century and considers LI to be of local Olympian style and L2 to be Argive-Olympian from an Argive prototype.204 He argues strongly against Weber's suggestion that this type of rider was established first in Lousoi and then produced elsewhere to be dedicated at Olympia.205 i^ my opinion, the parallels of horse types Heilmeyer offers to support his view regarding LI and L2 are not particularly close ones. It appears, moreover, that the rider from Olympia (also supposedly of 'Argive-Olympian' form) is inferior in quality to both LI and L2 and may well have been derived from the finer Lousoi example, L2. Finally, as was concluded in Section One above, the concept of 'rider seated side-saddle' may be attributable to Arcadia on iconographical grounds.

The quality of LI and L2 and their obvious connection with the Lousoi sanctuary incline me to believe more strongly that there must have been a local bronze workshop in the vicinity of Lousoi %hich had Argive connections particularly. The lack of any apparent similarities between LI and Heilmeyer's 'Olympian' group (contrary to his opinion) indicates to me once again that LI is likely to be a local product. The horses in the Lousoi-Olympia group might also have been produced in such a local workshop which had some Argive affinities. These horses in turn could have been dedicated at both Lousoi and Olympia. This suggestion remains speculation for the moment but by the same token one must guard against Heilmeyer's tendency to attribute all the pieces found at Lousoi to Olympian workshops, when there are other conceivable explanations.

Chapter Four

Conclusions: Lousoi Horses

In conclusion, the nine horses from Lousoi (seven plus the two riders) indicate the predominant presence of the Argive style, although in a derivative form. Some Laconian evidence has also been noted (in L4 and L5), though in mixed form. The possibility for local production in the vicinity of Lousoi for the horses in the Lousoi-Olympian group and the rider figurines must at least be acknowledged. This might also be the case for L6 and LIO, both of which have some Argive affinities but in a local, provincial forms. Despite the controversy surrounding these Lousoi horses, it is important to maintain an open mind concerning their production place and, while recognizing their connections with Olympia, not to automatically assume an Olympian origin.

Horses from Bassai and Phigaleia

There are two other bronze horse figurines from Arcadia to be discussed (see fig. 24). One was found in 1975 at the sanctuary of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai;206 and the other was acquired by the British Museum in 1905 and was said to have come from Phigaleia.^^^

The horse recently found at Bassai appears from its photograph to be an unusual specimen.208 base-plate seems to be a pierced Laconian type. The horse has a narrow belly and long thin limbs; the neck is wide and thick but not particularly short. The horse's narrow body is long and rises at the rump. This horse from Bassai seems to possess a combination of Argive and Laconian features, though its general sense of rigidity and stylization points more to a Laconian type; it is in any case very much a derivative product. Without an opportunity to study this horse properly, it is difficult to assess it with any degree of certainty. The general appearance and particularly long legs suggest a late date for this Bassai horse, perhaps the early seventh century.

The Thigaleia bronze horse' is a most interesting object; it is a Laconian style horse on an Argive style base, with an unusual intaglio decoration below. This horse was acquired by the British Museum in 1905. It is noteworthy that systematic excavation began at the site of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai in 1902.^09 conceivable that 'from Phigaleia' might well mean

138


Conclusions: Arcadian Horses

The horses from Arcadia, i.e. from Tegea, Mavriki, Lousoi, and Bassai-Phigaleia, possess both Argive and Laconian traits in varying degrees. The Argive features, by and large, outweigh the Laconian ones. Over half the Arcadian horses possess a mixture of Argive and Laconian traits. The horses from the eastern Arcadian region reveal the "Strongest Argive connections, both in terms of imports or imitations, which is understandable in view of the relative proximity of the Argolid. The Laconian influence in eastern Arcadia, while less than that of the Argive, is also considerable; this is no doubt due to Tegea and Mavriki's proximity to Laconia as well. The Lousoi horses indicate Argive influence in northern Arcadia but it is in a greatly locahzed form. These horses were probably derived from Argive prototypes and developed into a significant type in their own right (i.e. the Lousoi-Olympian group). Laconian influence is also notable at Lousoi but not in a particularly pure form. Finally, from southwest Arcadia, the two horses from Bassai and Phigaleia reveal a blending of Argive and Laconian qualities, though the Laconian traits appear to predominate in both horses.

139

that the horse was found at Bassai (sometime after the excavations had begun in 1902) and was sold in neighboring Phigaleia. This suggestion, however, must remain speculation since it is impossible to confirm it.

This horse has a low wide neck, short body, low rump, and long strong legs - all clearly Laconian characteristics.^^^ The solid base-plate is an Argive feature and the intaglio on the underside is a more elaborate one than usually depicted. The scene represents a pair of Siamese twins connected at their waists, forming an 'X' design, and each holding a spear. They have been identified as the Eleian twins, Aktorione or Molione, mentioned by Homer and Hesiod.^^^ Such representations of the twins are also found on Geometric vases and on the catch-plate of Boeotian fibulae.212

It is noteworthy that in modern-day Greece, the area of Phigaleia is not within the Nomos Arcadia but in Nomos Eleia (Elis); and even in antiquity it was located on the frontier of Elis and Arcadia. If this horse were made somewhere in the general vicinity of Phigaleia, this might serve to explain the choice of the scene of the twins below, whose traditional birthplace was apparently in Elis.


Deer from Tegea

The proportion of Geometric deer figurines among all bronze quadrupeds is higher at Tegea than at any other Greek sanctuary site.213 n appears that dedications of deer enjoyed particular popularity at this site. No other excavated Arcadian site yielded any deer figurines at all, although outside of Arcadia a number of sites produced some deer in bronze. None of these however, show any particular resemblance to the Tegean ones. The Artemis Orthia sanctuary, the Argive Heraion and the sanctuary of Hera at Perachora each yielded two bronze deer figurines. Representations of deer are also known from Olympia, Samos, Thebes and other sites.214

The Tegean deer appear to have very much their own individual style, attesting to the likelihood of local production.215 Bronze deer generally cannot be assigned to regional styles in the same way as horses because so few have been found at Greek sites. Deer do often reveal features common to quadrupeds generally, however, and these traits may be classified according to the regional styles already discussed: the Argive, Laconian and Corinthian categories of the horse types. Considering the deer as transformed quadrupeds with antlers and appropriate tails, however, provides only a limited basis for evaluation.

B22(13) (pi. 74), is an attractive stag figurine with a Laconian style body and an Argive style base. Both Herrmann and Heilmeyer attribute the shape of B22's body to the Laconian style.216 On either side of his neck, B22 has two ridges; such ridges are found on other Tegean bronzes, ie. deer figurine, B26, and the human figure, B5. The stag also has incised decoration along his muzzle as well as two incised lines around his belly. The Mavriki bronze horse, B16(M), also has incised decoration along its mane. The solid base-plate of B22 is clearly an Argive type and is incised below with two rows of zigzags.^l^ The obvious blending of Argive and Laconian traits in this stag figurine, the ridges and incised decoration, and the lack of any parallels for it indicate that this object was produced in the vicinity of Tegea.

B23(14) (pi. 74), is a stag figure without a base and with thin limbs and Argive features in his general form.218 The flowing, long body, high rump and rounded appearance are no doubt the reasons for Herrmann's Argive attribution. Yet no similar stag figurine has been found anywhere else and it is most hkely to be a local derivative of an Argive type of quadruped. The

140

triangular muzzle is much more appropriate for a stag than B22's cylindrical one. The antlers are also different from B22's. The representations of the deer may vary in part because they depict different species. The Tegean deer however are much too stylized to allow for attributions to any particular species.219

B24(15) (pi. 75, fig. 27), another stag from Tegea, has extremely long legs, a relatively short neck and a rather unusual sort of circular base-plate with open decoration. Heilmeyer identifies it as a local Tegean product, but Herrmann notes similarities between B25 and Corinthian bronze quadrupeds.220 Herrmann's reference to Corinthian features by Herrmann is unconvincing for there is no apparent evidence of hammering. His reference might be prompted by the shape of B24's head with the horns curling forward, or by the largely open base-plate. Such base-plates are also found on two pieces from 01ympia,221 one of them a horse.222 Neither of these Olympian examples, however, are close to the Tegean type of base. The unusual base-plate and the very long, thin limbs, which seem to be a Tegean feature, support Heilmeyer's identification of the stag figurine as a local product.223

B25(16) (pi. 75), is a small, rigid stag figurine with a hole horizontally pierced through its chest, presumably for suspension. It has no base-plate. Neither Herrmann nor Heilmeyer mention it, but Kilian-Dirlmeier states that it is 'without parallel.'224 Rolley also includes it in his catalogue of bronzes and dates it to the second half of the eighth century.225 The antlers of this stag form a fan of five fingers above his head, which is yet another variation of the depiction of antlers! There is no reason to doubt that B25 is a local product. ^

B26(17) (pi. 76), is a strange, long-necked quadruped which in some ways resembles a giraffe but is probably also a deer figurine. The long muzzle and very long neck are considerably out of proportion with the rather modest size of the rest of the body. Heilmeyer considers it to be a local Tegean product and elsewhere refers to it as 'the beautiful Tegean deer with cut edges.'226 Indeed this deer has a ridge which begins at the crown of his head and continues all the way down the back to the tail. This feature has already been noted in B22 and in the human figure, B5. The thin limbs of this deer are a local feature already commented upon by Heilmeyer, but its exceptionally long neck indicates considerable freedom from any

141

Chapter Four

Other Quadrupeds from Tegea

The following quadrupeds consist of a variety of animals. B29(19) (pi. 77,

fig. 27), is a heavy-set quadruped with a long tail, standing on a solid

base-plate. Dugas considered it to be a sheep.^^^ The general form of this

figurine is Argive in appearance with the curve of the back, long body, high

rump and solid base-plate. The decoration on the underside of the base

consists of a most unusual pattern of crescents and dots.^^^ It is

doubtful that B29 is a sheep but it is not clear what sort of quadruped it

was meant to represent. The head shape and lean body of this figure suggest

that it may be a large feline. Its heavy appearance and general resemblance

to other quadrupeds from Tegea, indicate that it is hkely to be a local

product.

142


Other Quadrupeds from Lousoi

Lousoi is the only Arcadian site, besides Tegea, where any Geometric or

early Archaic bronze quadrupeds other than horses are known. Later bull

143

B30(20) (pi. 77), is a tiny figurine probably representing a dog. The

exceptionally high rump of this quadruped creates the appearance of one

about to attack. Though Dugas classified this figure as a dog,^^^ Romaios

described it in the Tegea Museum catalogue as a horse, which is most

unlikely. In fact, its general appearance and open mouth are very similar to

those of the dog figure in B2 from Tegea, a bronze group portraying a human

separating a dog and a goat. A figurine of a dog has also been found at the

Artemis Orthia sanctuary.233

There are three other bronze quadrupeds to be considered in this section:

two standing bull figurines and one lion. All three may well be Archaic

in date.

B31(7) (pi. 77), consists of a small standing bull figurine without a base.

Dugas thought it revealed a break from Geometric conventions and that it

was probably of a later date.^-^^ There are somewhat similar examples of

early Archaic bull figurines from Olympia.^^^

B32(X) (pi. 78), is an unpublished bull figurine whose provenance is

uncertain, but it is displayed in the Tegea Museum as coming from the

Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea.^^^ Its crude manufacture with enormous

horns, large eyes, thick neck, heavy-set legs and sohd base-plate are most

unusual features indicating freedom from artistic convention. It is

unparalleled to my knowledge, but there are vague resemblances to some of

the bull figurines from Olympia which Heilmeyer considers local Olympian

products of the last quarter of the eighth century.^^^ B32, however, is

probably a local product and its distance from Geometric conventions could

date it to the seventh century.

B33(X) (pi. 77), is a small figurine of a lion seated with its back paws

under its hind legs and its front paws extended. The softness of the curves of

the body, the total lack of Geometric conventions and the naturalistic

appearance of the beast places it in the seventh century. The open mouth

indicates a north Syrian connection, perhaps via Perachora.^^^

conventional depiction of quadrupeds, found at Tegea or elsewhere. It may

well be an experimental piece and was no doubt locally made.

B27(18) (pi. 76), is a quadruped described by Dugas as a sheep, but his

attribution seems hesitant.^^^ The figure is much more likely to be a doe. It

is extremely close to B28(X), an unpublished quadruped which Heilmeyer

considered to be an Argive-related work.228 B27 is missing a base but is

clearly Argive in its body type with flowing curved back, high rump and

generally rounded look. Both B27 and B28 have the same tiny tails but their

heads vary in shape. B27's head is wide at the top and almost triangular in

shape, if viewed frontally. Dugas seemed to think that its horns were broken

off at the top of the head but I saw no indication of horns. B27 is, in any

case, unparalleled in type and depiction (despite its general Argive elements)

and it is likely to be a local Tegean product.

B28(X) (pi. 76, fig. 27), is a most beautiful bronze quadruped,

not published by Dugas but displayed in the Tegea Museum as coming from

the Athena Alea sanctuary. Its great similarity to B27, which is definitely

from this site, further inclines me to believe that B28 was also found at

Tegea. This figurine stands on a thick, solid Argive type base with a splendid

meander design on the underside in relief. The flowing curves of the body

and high rump are clearly Argive features and Heilmeyer mentions it as an

Argive-related work and includes a sketch of it.229 χ^ί^ figure seems to be a

doe, rather than any other sort of quadruped and it is likely that it too is of

local manufacture.

Chapter Four

Reclining Oxen from Tegea

The sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea has produced six examples of bronze oxen reclining on rectangular bases: B34-B37 and Dugas nos. 1 and 2 (the latter two are missing).^'^^ Very few of bronzes of this type are known from the rest of the Greek world and Tegea has produced the greatest number. From Sparta there are two examples: one similar to the Tegean ones and the other very tiny.245 olympia has yielded a single example of such a bronze figurine; it is small and rougher in appearance than the Tegean examples.^'^^

These figures of rechning oxen in bronze appear to be directly related to the similar images of couchant animals in bone and ivory of the Late Geometric and Orientalizing periods, found at a number of sites including


144 145

figurines were found at Asea (pi. 82) and Lykosoura.240 Three quadrupeds from Lx)usoi, two bulls and one bronze of uncertain attribution (dog?) are in the Karlsruhe Museum and are examined below.

L11(F1932) (pi. 81, fig. 26), and L12(F1931) (fig. 26), are two bull figurines from Lx)usoi. LI 1 is a heavy-set figure with very short, stubby legs. One can see parallels for this type of quadruped in Heilmeyer's ninth century Argive group from Olympia.241 L12 is similar to L l l , but a bit thinner and slightly damaged. It appears to correspond to similar quadrupeds from Olympia which Heilmeyer considers to be early eighth century Argive.242

Finally the third figurine, L13 (fig. 26), is tiny and missing its back legs. It has parallels with quadrupeds from Olympia as well, in particular with Heilmeyer's horse and bull figurines of Argive-Olympian form dating to the middle of the eighth century.243 n CQ^J^ considered to be a small dog.

It is clear that these three unpublished figurines confirm Argive influence at Lousoi, possibly as early as the late ninth century, though it is difficult to assign definite dates based on these fragmentary bronzes alone; also, Heilmeyer's relative dating of comparable Olympian bronzes is without secure context. Despite the fact that a precise date cannot be determined, the evidence indicates an Argive presence at a bronzeworking base at Lousoi, out of which the later Lousoi-Olympia group may have been developed.

Artemis Orthia at Sparta, Perachora and also recently at Tegea.^"^^ The connection of these couchant animals in bone and ivory to Oriental (north Syrian) depictions of reclining quadrupeds is strong and it is very likely that the latter served as prototypes for the Greek examples. This link has already been noted by a number of scholars.^^^

At the Artemis Orthia site in Sparta, most of the reclining figures in ivory and bone are dated to the mid-seventh century and later, according to Boardman's revised dating of the strata, but three are known to have been found "below the patch of fine cobble pavement in the middle of the arena."^'^^ Boardman beheves that these three ivories go with the rest of the 'Geometric deposit' which he dates to the eighth century at the earhest.^^^ A degree of Oriental influence may have been prevalent at the Artemis Orthia site at the end of the eighth century, when this series of animals began to be made. It is not clear which sites in Greece first began to produce the type in ivory or bone but the great number and variety found at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary support Sparta as the center of production.

Tegea's translation of this type into a simple bronze idiom appears to have been a local manifestation of this Oriental image, which was absorbed in either pure or, more Hkely, an already adapted form. The few ivory/bone figurines recently found at Tegea (M3, pi. 186) were uncovered in Steinhauer's ninth (seventh century) stroma and they may well be imports from Sparta. Despite the possibility that the type in ivory may go back to the late eighth century at Sparta and the 'Geometric' appearance of the bronze adaptations of the type, it seems unlikely that the bronze reclining oxen are earlier than the end of the eighth century. It is conceivable that when the ivory or bone couchant animals were translated into bronze, the change in medium (i.e. from ivory to bronze) also dictated a change fh style which was more in keeping with contemporary bronze production.

Kilian refers to these bronze reclining oxen as examples of what he calls 'Arcado-Laconian' form.^^l Kilian-Dirlmeier considers them to be a characteristic type of Peloponnesian pendant which was only manufactured in local sanctuary workshops.252 it appears most plausible that Tegea was the centre for the production of recHning oxen in bronze since it is here that the greatest number and variety of specimens of high quality were found; the isolated examples found at Sparta and Olympia were probably the result of exportation.


An examination of these bronze rechning oxen follows. It reveals the variation of types found at Tegea as well as their great degree of stylization.

B34(3) (pi. 78), is a reclining animal on a solid base-plate with a pierced hole through the middle of its body. The decoration of two deeply incised bars on the underside of the base is apparently the same sort as that found on the early examples from Sparta.253 Most scholars idendfy this stylized figure as an ox,254 ût Romaios, in the unpublished Tegea Museum catalogue, referred to it as a combined Ox-pig.' Its general appearance also brings to mind a goat figure like the sort still found on Arcadian mountainsides today. I am inclined, however, finally to accept the attribution of ox because of the figure's triangular muzzle and thick-set features.

B35(4) (pi. 79), is very similar to B34 and has the same sort of base decoration. It is also considered to be an ox by most scholars,255 ^nd an Ox-pig' by Romaios. Although this figure resembles a goat even more than does B34, the degree of stylization permits only an ambiguous attribution.

B36(5) (pi. 79), is a slightly different reclining animal from the previous two.256 This heavier specimen completely lacks a neck and its head disappears into its body! The ears appear to come out of the shoulders and it has a huge muzzle which is circular rather than triangular in section. These elements, plus its curly tail, suggest a pig figure more clearly than any of the others. Romaios did classify it as a pig but the generally consensus is that it is another ox. Also, B36 might be considered to provide the closest parallel to the tiny example from Olympia, mentioned above.

B37(6) (pi. 80), the most naturalistic of the group of Tegean reclining oxen, has a rounded, supple form and convincing ox-hke features. It also shows two suspension holes, rather than one.257 xê artist who produced this example appears to have used a real-life model to create it but did not abandon Geometric conventions altogether.

Finally, Dugas' nos. 1 and 2 (now missing or lost) are poorly illustrated in his publicadon.258 Dugas no. 2 is very similar in general form to B34 and B35. Because of its long flat body, Dugas no. 1 is most like one of the Spartan examples mentioned above.259

In conclusion, this group of six reclining quadrupeds presents a varied coUecdon of highly stylized animals which were probably developed locally

at Tegea. This type of couchant animal is linked directly with the bone and ivory examples, derived from Oriental prototypes, dedicated at a number of Peloponnesian sites, including Tegea. The variation among the bronze figurines appears to be one of stylization rather than type of animal. Thus, despite doubts as to the true nature of any given beast, a general attribution of 'reclining oxen' is probably the most accurate. These bronzes may date from the end of the eighth to the early seventh century B.C.

Section Three: Birds

Birds from Tegea and Mavriki

Twenty bird figurines in bronze will be examined in detail in this section. They include eighteen birds from Tegea and two from Mavriki, catalogued here as B38 - B56, plus Dugas no. 33.^60 One of the birds, B54, was found at Tegea recently by Steinhauer; most of the other bird figurines have been mendoned by Dugas though he did not illustrate them all.261 B55(M) is unpublished but listed in the Tegea Museum catalogue as coming from Mavriki; Kilian-Dirlmeier notes that the patina on this bronze is the same as another Mavriki bronze.262 The other bird from Mavriki, B56(M), was published by Romaios.263

A great variety of bird types was found at Tegea and Mavriki. They possess mixtures of influences which often make a production place difficult to determine with certainty. They have received considerable attention by scholars in the past. Bouzek has discussed a number of the Tegean bird figures in his research over the last twenty years.264 Kîan-Dirlmeier has also considered most of them in a comparative study which includes Geometric birds generally.^65 This past research has been invaluable for the following analysis, which examines these birds both individually and as a group in an attempt to isolate specific influences and local regional traits. The birds are studied in general categories of types possessing common features. In some cases, the bird types are represented by a number of examples at Tegea; in others, only one or two examples of a type were found.

The first bird type to be examined is the interesting group of birds called 'Hahne vom Typ Tegea' which was idendfied as such by Kilian-Dirlmeier.266 A group of nine hollow cast birds make up this collection and the majority

146 147

Chapter Four

148


149

Kilian-Dirlmeier called this type of bird of both variants, 'Hahne vom Typ

Tegea' and her conclusions point to Tegea as a possible place of origin. In

this context, she mentions the importance of understanding the nature of

other bronze dedications from the Athena Alea sanctuary (and notes the

existence of the Argive and Laconian style horses) but does not indicate

whether she believes these birds are predominantly local products or

imports.2^^ She stops short of declaring a local Tegean workshop as the

center of origin for the type. The possibility of local production at a creative

and prohfic bronze workshop at Tegea is not explored, even though the

nature and distribution of this bird type suggest it. With only a single bird of

this type from the Argolid and a single one from Laconia, it is difficult to

justify a classification of Argive or Laconian types. Rather, the evidence

points to the conclusion that the home of both variants was Tegea, where the

greatest number and variety of birds were found.

The question of inspiration for the 'Hahne vom Typ Tegea' also requires

some attention. As already noted, there existed another similar type of bird,

with hammered crest and tail, the 'Hahne vom Typ Perachora.'279 it is a

possibility that exposure to a new bird type might have come to Tegea via

Corinth, where the Perachora cocks were likely to have been produced.^^^

Bouzek believes that this type of cock with hammered crest and tail was

invented by Corinthian bronzesmiths and imitated elsewhere, including in

Macedonia and Thessaly.^^l Despite the more exaggerated nature of the

crests and tails of the Perachora cocks and their considerably smaller number

in comparison to the Tegean cocks, it appears that the latter type was

influenced by a Corinthian model.

The similar types of cocks made in great abundance in northern Greece,

in Macedonia and Thessaly, are generally beheved to hSVe been influenced

by the Corinthian type, with the influence moving from southern to northern

Greece.^^^ The lack of secure, datable contexts, however, allows for some

doubt as to the direction of this influence.^^^

It appears that the Tegean cocks of both variants were locally produced

for dedication at the Athena Alea sanctuary. The single examples at the

Argive Heraion and the Artemis Orthia site indicate connections between

these sites and Tegea. Such links between these sites have been observed on

numerous occasions. The existence of a creative and productive bronze

workshop at Tegea in the eighth century has already been indicated in the

examination of the Tegean human figures, horses and deer. The group of

were found at Tegea, B38-B44 (pis. 83-85).267 xêre was also one

uncovered at the Argive Heraion and one in the Artemis Orthia sanctuary at

Sparta.2^8 Bouzek, in his styhstic classification of Geometric bronze birds,

placed them all into his group of hollow-cast 'peacock hens' and determined

Argive and Laconian variants.269 Rolley, on the other hand, referred to the

birds in this group simply as Pelopoimesian products.^^^ It is now generally

agreed that these birds are probably cocks rather than peacocks.^^l

Kilian-Dirlmeier confirmed the existence of two types. Variants I and II,

which correspond to Bouzek's Argive and Laconian Groups. Both types

appear to be mould-made, though this cannot be ascertained for all of

them.272 xêy have decorated, flat and unhammered tails and crests. The

form of their tails and crests differs from the otherwise similar looking birds

from Perachora. The so-called Perachora cocks have much larger crests and

tails which were flattened by the hammer.^^^

Variant I or the 'Argive' type consists of six birds: five from Tegea,

B38-B42 (pis. 83-85), and one from the Argive Heraion.274 χ^^ \^[^^^ ^his

group generally have two squat legs which vary in their width (though for legs

B42 (pL 85), has a single rod), plus a high curved tail separated from the rest

of the body by one or two vertical rings or an indentation. They also have

triangular suspension loops and the shapes of their bodies approximate a

wide 'U' form. Kilian-Dirlmeier concluded that Variant I could have been

made at Tegea, if the relatively greater number of examples of this type from

Tegea is considered significant.^^^

Variant II or the so-called 'Laconian' type, consists of two examples from

Tegea, B43-B44 (pi. 85), and one from Sparta.^ô Xhese birds have a single

squat rod for legs with three claws below, and tails which curve downwards.

They have rectangular suspension loops with grooved top edges which are

very similar to the top edges on the stamp and pomegranate objects from

Tegea, (pis. 95-114).277 xîs connection led Kilian-Dirlmeier to t h e

conclusion that Variant II must have been made either in Sparta or Tegea.

Since only a single bird with grooved top edge was found at Sparta and the

other birds and the stamp and pomegranate pendants with the same top

edges were all found at Tegea, a Tegean workshop seems much more

plausible. Variant II or the Laconian type appears to be a derivative of

Variant I and there is no obvious reason to credit a Spartan workshop with

its production.

Chapter Four

150


151

Other birds on pyramidal bases like B45 are known in the Peloponnese from

Olympia and the Argive Heraion; one was found in each place.292

appears to be the case that both B45 and B46 were made in the same

Peloponnesian workshop, though the exact location cannot be determined

with certainty.293

The following birds, B47-B50 and B52, share similar features which

indicate that they ought to be examined as a group. These birds can be

considered to be in a 'Simple Style.' B47(32) (pi. 86), a horizontally-pierced

bird on a rectangular base, has an intaglio of an animal on the underside of

its base. B48(37) (pi. 87), also a horizontally-pierced bird on a rectangular

base, has two intersecting diagonal lines in relief on the underside of the

base. Kilian-Dirlmeier includes both birds in her category of

horizontally-pierced birds on rectangular bases cast in one piece. Of the six

in her category, two from Tegea are the only Peloponnesian examples; one is

from Philia and three are from Pherai.294

Two similar types of birds can be studied with B47 and B48: B49(35) and

B50(34) (pi. 87). These are also horizontally-pierced birds, but they rest on

round bases. B49 has a plain base on the underside and B50 has a cross

design in relief below the base. These birds fall into Kilian-Dirlmeier's

'horizontally-pierced birds on round bases.' In a discussion of a sub-division

of this type, she includes a similar bird from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary

and one with an unknown provenance.295 These four birds have rather

unarticulated, flat heads and, their unexceptional body shapes show a

simplified style. The common features of these birds and their concentration

in Tegea or Laconia leads Kihan-Dirlmeier to conclude that they can be

assigned to an east Peloponnesian workshop - either Laconia or Arcadia; she

attributes B47 and B48 to this workshop as well. B48 aift B50 share similar

base-plate decoration with the cross in relief, found primarily at Tegea,

usually on the underside of the various stamp pendants.296 Since the

majority of these bird types so far discussed were found at Tegea, with only

one example from Sparta, they were far more likely to have been produced

in Arcadia, in the vicinity of Tegea, than in Laconia.

Another bird from Tegea, B52(36) (pi. 88), should also be included in this

discussion. It consists of a bird standing on a slit 'bommeln,' or cage, which

terminates in a small, flat, circular base. The body of the bird has strong

affinities with B48 in the shape of the head and the curve of the body. Birds

on slit 'cages' are generally thought to be derived from northern Greek types;

Tegean cocks just examined underlines the likelihood of such a Tegean

workshop. The remaining examination of the birds, and the following study

of the pendants and other bronzes serves to confirm this increasingly

inescapable conclusion.

The next two birds from the Athena Alea site are B45(30) and B46(31)

(pi. 86), whose body forms are remarkably similar. B45(30) consists of a bird

resting on a quadrangular pyramid. Both Kilian-Dirlmeier and Bouzek

classify this bird as a Corinthian type.284 Kilian-Dirlmeier distinguishes five

different varieties of this type based on the profile of the base; B45 falls into

her Variant II since the bird stands directly on a sphere with rings on either

end. Bouzek places this bird in his Variant Β of the Corinthian type.

Kilian-Dirlmeier observes that these birds on pyramidal bases are found all

over the Greek mainland, spreading from the Peloponnese to Thessaly, and

also outside Greece in the Locrian colony of Locri Epizephyrioi.285

last offers a terminus post quem for the type of c.673 B.C., when the Greek

colony was established.286 Rolley dates B45 to the second half of the eighth

century.287

B46(31) consists of a bird, very much like B45(30) in the shape of its body,

perched on a vertical disc. It is a type found all over the Greek mainland,

extending from the Peloponnese to Thessaly.288 xhis Tegean bird falls into

Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant II of birds on discs (of which she discusses four

variants); it has a small horizontal ring and a double conical bead between

the bird and the disc.289 Bouzek classifies B46 as a Variant A example of

what he considers to be a Corinthian type. He beheves that this sort of bird

standing on a flat disc originated in Corinth and was then imitated in the

North.290 Kilian-Dirlmeier, on the other hand, says that there is no reason

to argue for a Peloponnesian or Corinthian origin for this type of bird on a

disc. She argues that it is rather more likely that these pieces were produced

in local Peloponnesian workshops. The six examples from the Peloponnese

indicate that such birds were far less common there and infrequently

produced in comparison with Central Greece.^^l This fact, however, does

not preclude the possibility of a Corinthian invendon of the type. The

similarity in shape of B46 to the Corinthian bird, B45, points to Corinth as

the source of inspiration for both pieces.

In addition to the two Arcadian examples of birds on discs (from Tegea

and Lousoi, see L14, below), the other Peloponnesian examples consist of

two from Olympia, two from Sparta and one from the Argive Heraion.


152 153

they hardly ever appear south of Thessaly.^^^ This example from Tegea is the only one known of this sort of bird on a slit cage in the Peloponnese.^^^ There is also an unpublished bird on a slit cage from Samos; it is apparently similar to B52.^^^ Bouzek concludes that B52 was produced by a Laconian workshop, betraying a dependence on Macedonian bird-types.^^^ Bouzek's 'Laconian' classification, however, seems to describe equally well a standard Tegean bird in a simple style.^^l I thus see no particular reason to attribute this bronze to a Laconian workshop.^^^

Macedonian parallels for this type of bird on a cage are numerous but the strong resemblance between the actual bird figurines of B52 and B48(37) is significant. As was discussed above, B48 (and B49) were probably made in a local Tegean workshop, though all the rest of the type in Kilian-Dirlmeier's category were from northern Greece. The similarity of B48 to B52 further

* suggests a Macedonian connection for B48. Kilian-Dirlmeier points out,

however, that the base-plate decoration of two intersecting diagonal lines on B48 was unknown in Macedonia.^^^ It thus appears that both B48 and B52 were produced in the same Peloponnesian workshop but derived from Macedonian bird pendant types; this workshop appears to have had some northern connections.^^^ It is likely that this centre of production was based at Tegea.

'•it

I It can be concluded that the above group of birds in simple style, i.e. i B47-50, B52 (plus the one from Sparta and the unpublished example I mentioned above), were likely to have been made in a local Tegean bronze I workshop. Five of the birds come from Tegea and only one from Laconia.

Once again, it is not clear to me why Tegea has not yet received recognition as a bronze-producing centre of potential significance, a conclusion which the evidence continues to support.

Two more bird pendants from Tegea, both missing their bases, are B51(38) (pi. 87), and Dugas no. 33.^0^ The birds are pierced horizontally and rest on a single cylindrical rod rather than legs. Neither has particularly close parallels nor do they appear to fall into any distinctive categories of bird type. They, too, are simple in style and may be modest local products.

B53(42) (pi. 88), a headless bird on a rectangular base, was erroneously classified by Dugas as a representation of a dolphin.^^^ In fact, this object is a bird with two long legs, its head missing and a with quadruped in relief on the underside of its base. Rolley views this bird, B53, as a more elaborate

version of a type known at Delphi.^^^ I see no real resemblance between this Tegean bird, on its long smooth legs and rounded back, and the Delphi examples which are far more angular, squat and rest on horizontally ribbed rods. The quadruped below B53's base appears to be a horse in relief;^^^ another Tegean bird, B47, also has a quadruped on the underside of its base. This might reflect a local preference, and is observable on a number of Tegean bronzes with solid base-plates.

B54(S) (pi. 89), is a previously unpublished bird figurine found in Steinhauer's excavations to the north of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea. It is notable for its unusually long suspension hook and its particularly wide crescent-shaped tail. This bird seems to embody features from various categories. For example, its flattened, pointed chest area is not unlike some of the birds considered by Heilmeyer to be Laconian, and found in Olympia,^^^ and the unusual suspension loop is like a longer variation of B52's hoop on the top of its back. Such exceptionally long hooks are found on some northern Greek bronzes,^^^ while in shorter form they are found on many other Tegean bronzes.^^^ It is conceivable that the bronzesmith made the loop so long because he was imitating pendants already suspended by wire.

The relief decoration below the sohd circular base of B54 is similar in conception to the decoration of the base of B56(M) (pi. 89), a long-legged bird from Mavriki. Although the base-plate of B56 is pierced, it consists of the same design, with a circle in the center of the base and four incomplete circles on the outer edge of the base.^^^ Similar decoration is incised on the underside of B54, and there is yet another bird from Olympia, which has a similar pattern. The Olympian bird is thought by Kilian-Dirlmeier to be so similar to the Mavriki bird, especially in the base decorgiiion, to permit one to conclude that they were both manufactured in the same workshop.^^^ Heilmeyer, incidentally, also notes the similarity .between B56 and the Olympia bird and considers them to be Argive products.^ The base decoration is what actually links B54 to these other birds, however, and it is noteworthy that the human figure seated on a rod from Olympia apparently has a similar base design below a sohd base-plate.-^ One can conclude that B54 displays a number of features of varying bird types; its body is most like that of a Laconian bird as defined by Heilmeyer and its base-plate decoration links it to birds of Argive style from Mavriki and Olympia. Such a combination of features suggests local manufacture at Tegea. The date of

Chapter Four

154


Birds from Lousoi

There are four known bronze bird statuettes from the sanctuary of Artemis at Lousoi, L14 - L17. One of the birds, L15, was found in the Austrian excavations at the site at the turn of the century and is in the National Museum in Athens.321 Until Sinn recently illustrated and discussed it, the piece had been unpublished.322 xhe other three birds are in Germany, where they were distributed after their sale at the turn of the century. L14 and LIT are in the Karlsruhe Museum and L16 is in the Akademisches Kunstmuseum in Bonn.323

L14 (pi. 90), is a fairly famihar type of bird perched on a verdcal disc. Although not included in Kilian-Dirlmeier's catalogue of such bird types, it would clearly fall into her Variant III because it has two or more ribs between the bird and the sphere. A circle is incised on the disc on both sides, as is a dot marking the center. Sinn, who first published this bird, attributes it to a Corinthian origin, on the basis of Bouzek's classification of this type of bird on a vertical disc.324 it has recently been suggested, however, that there is no particular reason to attribute this type of bird representation to Corinth or the Peloponnese since very few examples have been found in the Peloponnese compared with the great numbers of them from Central Greece. The addition of this bird from Lousoi slightly increases the number of known birds-on-discs from the Peloponnese from six to seven. The number from this region is still relatively small but it remains a possibility that the source for this type of bird was Corinth.325 xhe actual place of production for this Lousoi specimen is uncertain.

L15 (pi. 91), in the Athens Nadonal Museum, rests on two long cylindrical legs on a square, pierced base.326 Heilmeyer refers to it in a footnote as a Laconian type of bird because of the form of the base-plate.327 Elsewhere, he discusses the birds of Laconian type from Olympia; one observes similarity between L15 and his no. 936, especially in the form of the body.328 L15 may have been made in a Laconian workshop in the Olympia vicinity and eventually found its way to Lousoi. Kilian-Dirlmeier thinks that this bird and other similar ones were made in a local Elean workshop.329

L16 (pi. 91), in Bonn, is a tall two-legged bird which stands on a pierced circular base-plate. According to Sinn, the bird is of Argive type and he points out its similarities to one from Olympia.^^O Heilmeyer's no. 942 is the

155

B54 is presumably seventh century, based on its findspot in Steinhauer's ninth stroma.

B55(M) (pi. 89), was found at the sanctuary of Artemis above Mavriki, according to the Tegea Museum catalogue. It consists of an awkward looking bird figure resting on a biconical cage with six vertical strips of bronze and a horizontal band at the union of the two cones. Below the cage is a ring and a solid tiny cone-shaped base, not unhke B52's base, though with a rounded bottom. Kilian-Dirlmeier considers it to be of not particularly good quality, because of its thin body, long back and curving neck. She indicates, moreover, that no parallels for it are known from Laconia, elsewhere in Arcadia, in Thessaly, or in Macedonia. She thus concludes that since this piece was found at a small regional Arcadian sanctuary, and since no parallels are known for it, one may conclude that it was made in an Arcadian or Laconian workshop.316 A slit cage of circular type was found at Tegea (B52); this surely offers the closest parallel in terms of general type and location to the Mavriki example. I thus suggest an Arcadian workshop; this view is strengthened by the suspended slit cage recently found at Gortsouli (pi. 118), to the north of Tegea (see Chapter Five, Section Three).

B56(M) (pi. 89), the long-legged bird on a pierced circular base, was already mentioned above as coming from the Mavriki sanctuary.^l^ This bird is horizontally pierced through its middle and rests on fairly well-articulated legs (as opposed to the rod-like legs of B53, for example). It was noted that its base decoration is very similar to those of B54 and of an Olympian bird. Kilian-Dirlmeier concludes that B56 and the Olympian bird were made in the same workshop;318 Heilmeyer concurs and further suggests that the workshop is an Argive one.319 Rolley thinks that B56 (which he incorrectly attributes to Asea) is the type of bird standing on two legs and on a pierced base found only at Sparta and Tegea and that such a type is unknown at Delphi, where all the birds tend to stand on a single rod.320 Another somewhat similar example of a long-legged bird, horizontally pierced and standing on a pierced base was found at Lousoi and will be examined below (L16).


same bird as Kilian-Dirlmeier's no. 952 from Olympia; both agree about the similarity between this Olympia bird and the one from Mavriki, discussed above, B56(M).331 Heilmeyer considers both birds to be Argive types. This in turn resulted in Sinn's attribution of L16 to the Argive school. Although one can see some connection between L16 and the Olympia bird, there are also a number of differences in the form of L16's body, legs and the nature of the base-plate. Kihan-Dirlmeier considers LI6 to be unique because of its angular body, standing on two sturdy rods, and its base-plate pierced with triangles. She does, however, give a number of examples of similar round pierced base-plates from Olympia.^^^ In sum, L16, with its possible Argive connections and Olympian links in the base-plate, might suggest a local production in the vicinity of Lousoi, where other Argive and Olympian ties have already been observed in the horse figurines (i.e. in the Lousoi-Olympia group).

L17 (pi. 90), in the Karlsruhe Museum, stands on a rectangular base-plate with its legs bent slightly backwards and its neck and body at right angles to one another. This bird does not have any parallel or belong to a distinct group of bird types. It has a rather large head, thin, flat body, and a slightly heavy appearance. The angle ornament incised on the underside of the base-plate of this bird is very similar to that on the base-plates of two of the Lousoi horses from Karlsruhe, discussed above (L8 and L9). It is this similarity in the base-plate ornament which led Sinn to conclude that L17 and the two horses were made in a particular Arcadian workshop.^^^ Although Sinn has not pinpointed the workshop to any specific location, one can infer from his discussion that he is considering the possibility of bronzeworking at Lousoi. I am inclined to believe that Sinn's hypothesis may be right. There is a distinct possibility that L17 and the two horses, L8 and L9, form a core of a larger workshop group located in the vicinity of Lousoi, possessing links with Olympia and an Argive school of bronze-working.

Bird from Bassai

A very worn and corroded bird figurine is known from the temple of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai.^^^ stands on a rectangular, pierced base and has an angular chest and what appears to be a single, thick rod for legs; its head is missing. In view of its poor condition, one can comment only tentatively about its style. It seems to correspond roughly to some of Heilmeyer's Laconian birds found at Olympia, in particular its rectangular

pierced base-plate and angular chest area.^^^ This is the only bird figurine of Geometric style found so far at Bassai and it is likely to be an import to the site. Kihan-Dirlmeier thinks birds of this type may have been made in a neighboring Elean workshop.-^^^

Conclusions: Arcadian Birds

Bird figurines found in Arcadian sanctuaries reveal considerable variation in influences and styles. Once again, in all of Arcadia, Tegea was the source of the greatest number and variety of bronze bird figurines with eighteen; at Lousoi four bird figures were uncovered, at Mavriki two, and at Bassai one. Many of the bird types found in the Peloponnese have parallels in Thessaly and in Macedonia. Northern features are observable in some of the Tegean birds and a northern connection is also seen in some of the Tegean pendants, considered in the next chapter.

The Arcadian sites appear to have been exposed to a variety of influences prevalent in the Peloponnese (Laconian, Corinthian, Argive) and in some cases seem to have developed their own bird types, incorporating a mixture of different elements in a number of birds, (i.e. B47-50, 52, 54). It is sometimes challenging to determine a place of origin or center of production for certain bird types.^^^ There are a number of birds whose appearance suggests local manufacture. The 'Hahne vom Typ Tegea' is likely to have been developed in Tegea, though conceivably derived from the Corinthian type. The birds from Tegea in the group, B47-50 and B52, have a number of stylistically similar features and were probably locally made; B54 may also have been produced at Tegea. At Lousoi, L17 and possibly L16 are local products. The two birds from Mavriki, (B55 and B5i5), were probably locally produced in the vicinity of Tegea or Mavriki. Finally, the single Bassai example with Laconian traits was probably not locally produced but perhaps made in a nearby Eleian workshop.

More can be concluded from the bird figurines after the many other bronze pendants from Tegea and other Arcadian sites have been examined in the following chapter.

156 157

Notes for Chapter Four


2. Ibid., 337-338.

3. Dugas, Tegea 354 no. 49. Jost mentions this figurine in Sanctuaires 152. See also M. Voyatzis, "Female Riders Seated Side-Saddle: Revival of an Iconographic Type," A / ^ 93 (1989): 273. For a different consideration of the type, see Turnbull, (above Chapter One, n. 17) chapter one; idem, "Some Aspects of Greek Geometric Bronzes," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 65 (1961): 372-375.

4. Dugas, Tegea 346 no. 9, fig. 6; Romaios, PAE (1909): 305.

5. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5.

6. The solid rectangular base is typically Argive, which the Tegeans appeared to have favoured; this point will be discussed further in the Bronze Quadruped Section, Chapter Four, Section Two.

7. Schweitzer, GGA 156-157, pi. 196; E. Kunze, 0/5^/-/K (BerHn: 1940-1941), 107 fig. 89; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 38, fig. 29; Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 9; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 35, fig. 12. Schweitzer only mentions LI in his account; he does not appear to have been aware of L2.

8. Schweitzer, GGA 157.

9. Ibid., 156-158, pis. 194-195; Olympia: Kunze, OlBer IV 107, pi. 33.1; Samos: U. Jantzen, Samos VIII: Aigyptische und orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos (Bonn: 1972), 80-84, B452, pi. 8.1.

10. Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 9.

11. U. Jantzen, "Samos ,"^ 53 (1938): 580, pi. 23; idem, Samos VIII, 80 B452, pi. 8.1.

12. Jantzen, 53 (1938): 580; idem, Samos VIII, 83-85. See also J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas (London: 1980), 64-65. Recently, I had the opportunity to discuss the Caucasian and Luristan parallels for the Samian bronze with Jan Bouzek, who has seen many examples of such figurines from Georgia, USSR. He thus offers some support for Jantzen's conclusions about the inspiration for the Samian bronze.

13. Jantzen, Samos VIII, 83-84 ns. 298-302.

14. Schweitzer, GGA 157-158.

15. D. Ohly, "Fruhe Tonfiguren aus dem heraion von Samos I," AM, 65 (1940): 57ff.

16. V. Karageorghis, "A Late Bronze Age Horse and Rider from Cyprus," RDAC (1980): 128-131, pi. XVII 4.5; idem, Palaepaphos-Skales: an Iron Age Cemetery in Cyprus (Constance: 1983), 90 no. 2, pi. LXXIII.

17. See Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 161-162.

158


18. J.H. Crouwel, Chariots and Other Means of Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Amsterdam: 1981), 51; D.E. Levi, "La dea Micena a cavallo," in Studies presented to David Robertson, ed. G.E. Mylonas (St. Louis: 1951), 117ff; J.-C. Poursat, "Notes d'iconographie prehellenique: dragons et crocodiles," BCH 100 (1976): 461-464.

19. Crouwel, Chariots, pi. 113; A.C. Sakellariou, Die Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel des Nationalmuseums in Athen (Berlin: 1964), 189 no. 167, Poursat, BCH 100 (1976): 464.

20. MA.V. Gill, "The Minoan Dragon," BICS 10 (1963): 2-4.

21. Gill, BICS 10 (1963): 2-5; Poursat, BCH 100 (1976): 471-472.

22. Levi, in Studies Presented to David Robertson, 10-15, pi. 4. The authenticity of this piece has apparently been accepted by all scholars who considered it except E. French, see Crouwel, Chariots, 52 n. 46.

23. Crouwel, Chariots, 52, pi. 46 (T. 48).

24. Ibid., 46-47 n. 11.

25. Ibid., 52, pi. 47 T. 49; S. Alexiou, Guide to the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion (Athens: 1968), 85; J. Sakellarakis, Heraklion, Illustrated Guide to the Museum (Athens: 1978), 92; J. Wiesner, Archaeologia Homerica: die Denkmaler und das friihgriechische Epos. BD.I, Fahren und Reiten (Gottingen: 1968), 117, fig. 21.

26. Crouwel, Chariots, 51 n. 40.

27. M A . Littauer and J.H. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: 1979), 65-66, 96, figs. 23, 38.

28. Karageorghis, RDAC (1980): 131, pi. XVII 1,2.

29. H.W. Catling, "The Bomford Horse and Rider," RDAC (1974): 97ff, fig. 1.

30. Ibid., 100.

31. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 38, fig. 29; T. Karageorga^^'Die Gottin auf dem Kamel," AM 84 (1%9): 87-102, pi. 38. (In Athens National Museum, NM no. 4353.)

32. Sparta: Dawkins, Sparta 150f, pi. 33.7, 8, 10; Corinth (possibly): R.B. Richardson, "Terracotta figurines from Corinth," AJA 2 (1898): 210, fig. 11; Perachora: Payne, Perachora 1228, pi. 100; Kombothekra: Sinn, AM 96 (1981): 40, pi. 7, 5.

33. Lesbos: W. Lamb, "Antissa," BSA 32 (1931/32) : 60-62, pi. 25.6; Megara Hyblaea: Richardson, Monumenti antichi pubblicati per cura delta Reale Academia dei Lincei I (1889): 933, pi. 8 ,2 .

34. Crouwel, Chariots, 51 n. 41; Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 161.

35. M. Rousseau, Les Mentions Religieuses Dans les Tablettes Myceniennes (Rome: 1968), 118-120; idem, "Connections in Religion between the Mycenaean world

159


160


161

55. Romaios, AE (1952): 26, fig. 20d.

56. Lamb, BSA 28 (1926/27) 99, pi. XI; Dawkins, Sparta pi. LXXVIIa; Greek Ministry of

Culture, The Human Figure in Early Greek Art (Athens: 1987), 70 n. 7.

57. For Laconian horses with pierced base-plates see Chapter Four, Section Two and

Herrmann, 7^7 79 (1964): 21-24.

58. D.K. Hill, Catalogue of Classical Bronze Sculpttire in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore:

1949), 77 no. 167, pi. 36; E. Buschor, Die Plastik der Griechen (Munich: 1958), 11; N.

Himmelmann-Wildschutz, Bemerkungen zur geometrischen Plastik (Berlin: 1964), 11, fig.

51; Schweitzer, GGA 160-161, pi. 199; Bouzek, GMB 76-79; D.G. Mitten and S.F.

Doeringer, Master Bronzes from the Classical World (Mainz: 1968), 32 no. 9.

59. Lamb, 55^4 28 (1926/27): 99, pi. XL

60. J a n t z e n , ^ 68 (1953): 63; Schweitzer, GGA 161.

61. A. de Ridder, Musee du Louvre-les bronzes antiques (Paris: 1913), I, pi. 10, 84;

Schweitzer, GGA pi. 198.

62. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger pi. 52 nos. 952, 953.


64. Themelis, Ergon (1975): 32-35, pi. 30; P. Aupert, "Chronique des Fouilles en 1975," BCH

100 (1976): 701, fig. 277.

65. See plan of earliest temples, A. Mazarakis Ainian, "Geometric Eretria," Antike Kunst 1

(1987): 15 fig. 10 (building A.)

66. Jantzen, AA 68 (1953): 64, pis. 10, 67.

67. Pomerance Gallery of Ancient Art, 79 no. 89.

68. OiSng, Art Antique, no. lOA. h

69. See Chapter Four, Section Two, B22; Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 21 n. 14.

70. Schweitzer, GGA 160; Bouzek, GMB 76-79; Jantzen, yL4 68 (1953): 56-67.

71. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 208, pis. 61-65, nos. 1164-1208.

72. Jantzen, AA 68 (1953): 56-67; Bouzek, GMB 76-86; M. Vickers, "Some Early Iron Age

Bronzes from Macedonia," Archaia Makedonia 77 Acts of the Second Macedonian

Synedrion 1973 (Thessaloniki: 1977), 17-19; See also KiUan-Dirhneier, n/ianger 205 n. 4,

for an up-to-date compilation of the points of view regarding their function.

73. Schweitzer, GGA 161; Jantzen, AA 68 (1953): 56ff.

74. I agree with Bouzek that the Laconian example appears to be the most primitive of the

statuettes. Bouzek, GMB 79; idem, "Addenda to Macedonian Bronzes," Eirene 18 (1982):

and Anatolia," Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, eds. R. Crossland and A. Birchall (New Jersey: 1974), 166.

36. See E. Bevan, Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries of Artemis and Other Olympian

Deities, BAR International Series 315 (i), (Oxford: 1986), 202 who shows that Artemis is

the most popular recipient of riders seated side-saddle in bronze and later in terracotta.

37. J. Chadwick and M. Ventris, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2d ed. (London* 1973) 68-69; 73-75.

38. Schweitzer, GGA 157; Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 9 n. 12.

39. See Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 40 for a discussion of Arcadian bronze workshops.


41. See Jost, Sanctuaires 152, 373.


43. Schweitzer, GGA 151, pis. 186-187; Coldstream, GG 256.


45. See also E. Kunze, "Zu den Anfagen der griechischen Plastik," AM 55 (1930): 146 n. 7 for a brief discussion of B2 in relation to the Samian group.

46. Rolley, FZ).K53n. 4.

47. Rolley, MGR 2, no. 8; idem, FD. V137.


49. Coldstream, GGP pi. 28e, 29d, e.

50. Jost, Sanctuaires 152, 373; Stiglitz, Die Grossen Gottinnen Arkadiens, 90.

51. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 59 no. 455, 457.

52. Dugas, Tegea 355 no. 52. Many thanks to Professor Coldstream for bringing to my

attention a Bronze Age Cretan example in rock crystal of a monkey in the same pose as

B3, J.N. Coldstream, Knossos, the Sanctuary of Demeter (London: 1973), 163 no. 258.

53. Now lost but pubhshed by Dugas, Tegea 355, fig. 17bis 52.

54. Sparta: W. Lamb, "Excavations at Sparta," BSA 28 (1926/27): 99, pi. XI; Dawkins, Sparta

pi. LXXVIIa; Schweitzer, GGA pi. 197; Olympia: Schweitzer, GGA pi. 198; Alpheios

Valley: Schweitzer, GGA pi. 199; Eretria: P. Themelis, "4 Ε ρ έ τ ρ ι α , " Ergon (1975): pi.

30. See also Pomerance Gallery of Ancient Art (New York: 1966), 79 no. 89; U. Jantzen,

"Geometrische Kannenverschlusse,"yl4 68 (1953): 64, pi. 10 and 67; J. Obng, Art Antique:

collectionsprivees de Suisse Romande (Geneva: 1975), no. 104.

Notes for Chapter Four Notes for Chapter Four

ί

51. Turnbull, in her unpubhshed dissertation, argues that Tegea was the base for the

workshop which produced all these figurines; see Turnbull, (above p. 9, n. 17) 51. In

hght of the above analysis, I believe this is most unlikely.

75. S. Langdon, "From Monkey to Man: The Evolution of a Geometric Sculptural Type ''AJA 92 (1988): 272-273.

76. Dugas, Tegea 354 no. 51, fig. 17; Romaios, AE (1952): 27, fig. 20y.

77. Gehrig, Samos 21; Rolley, MGR 2, 9.

78. Samos: Gehrig, Samos 18-22; Olympia: A. Furtwangler, Die Bronzen und die

ubringen kleineren Funde von Olympia, vol. 4, (Berlm: 1890), pi. 15 no. 266.

79. Gehrig, Samos 18-19, 21.

80. Ibid., 21.

81. Ibid., N.M. 15129.

8Z Ibid., 20 n. 3.

83. G. Kossack, Studien zum Symbolgut der Umenfelder und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas (Berhn: 1954), 59 n. 4; pi. 13, 3.

84. F. Winter, Die antiken Terrakotten in Auftrag des Archaologischen Instituts des deutschen

Reichs (Berhn: 1903), vol. I, 57; J. Martha, Catalogues des figurines en terre cuite du musee

de la societe archeologique d'Athenes (Paris: 1880), 114-116; Coldstream, Knossos, 68.

85. See Jost, Sanctuaires 373, where she discusses these figurines and then- significance. She

believes that they must echo the importance of the water source in sanctuary contexts.

86. Dugas, Tegea 357-358 no. 53; see the drawing in Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 5.1.

87. Dugas, Tegea 358 no. 54. This figurine was thought to be lost but was recently put on

display in the new Tripolis Museum. Dugas never illustrated it but he described it and

indicated the size. It appears that since publication, it has been broken in half and now

only the top half survives. It is clearly larger but otherwise virtually identical to B5.

88. Snodgrass, EGAW9 n. 24.

89. KiUan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 5.1.

90. Like the figure from Samos: see Schweitzer, GGA pis. 186,187.

91. See Snodgrass, £G/l iK9n. 24, pi. 4.

92. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135 fig. 5.

93. This view is in agreement with Dugas, Tegea 356; the attribution has recently received

confirmation from E. Bevan, "The Goddess Artemis and the Dedication of Bears in

Sanctuaries," BSA 82 (1987): 17-21; idem. Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries, (i)

22-25.

94. Schweitzer, GGA 155; see also Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Arkadische,

24-25, 41, pi. XIII,3.

95. See Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 160 for connections between Arcadia and Cyprus.

96. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 36 fig. 14.

97. K. Kourouniotes, "To \v λυκοσούρα Μθγαροί^ τη$ AeaTroiVrjs," ,ΑΕ (1912): 158, figs.

30ff; P. Cawadias, Fouilles de Lykosoura (Athens: 1893), 1 pi. IV, 11.

98. Leveque, Information histonque 23 (1%1): 93.

99. Ibid., 93-94.

100. ApxQs = "Αρ>ίΤο$ =bear. The name Arcadia may mean simply the land of the bears;

legend also tells us that Aleos, supposed founder of the Tegean sanctuary, was Arkas'

grandson.

101. V. Karageorghis, "Notes on some Cypriote Priests wearing Bull-Masks," Harvard

Theological Review 64 (1971): 262. Many thanks to C. Dalbiac for this reference.

102. Amathous: A. Hermary, "Statuette d'un Pretre Masque," BCH 103 (1979): 735, figs. 6, 7.

Cesnola: J.L. Myres, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus

(New York: 1914), 150-151: 1029-1031; 340: 2046. From Myres' illustration of no. 1029,

it appears to have a bear's head, but Myres is certain that it is a bull. After seeing this

piece on display recently in the Cesnola Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art

(New York), I can confirm Myres' attribution.

103. Karageorghis, Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 261-263.

104. Ibid., 263.

105. V. Karageorghis, "Chronique des fouilles et decouvertes archeologiques a Chypre en

1969," BCH 94 (1970): 255-256, fig. 106; idem. Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971): 262.

106. Pausanias 8.35.8 and 8.9.3.

107. Fragmenta Hesiodea, eds. R. Merkelbach and M.L. West, (Oxford: 1%7), 79-80; W. Sale,

T h e Story of Callisto in the Hesiod," Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 105 (1962):

122ff, esp. 181a, 181c.

108. Bevan, BSA 82 (1987): 21.

109. Ibid.

110. See conclusions, p. 269.

111. Dugas, Tegea 384, fig. 45.

162 163


164


165

131. H. Catling, "A Cypriot Bronze Statuette in the Bomford Collection," in Alasia I, ed.

C.FA. Schaeffer, (Paris: 1971), 24, fig. 8, 10; J. Johnson, Maroni de Chypre, SIMA, 59

(Gothenburg: 1980), pi. XXIV no. 126, XXV no. 133; XLI no. 201; XX no. 102;

Karageorghis, Pyla-Kokkinokremos, 55; J. Karageorghis, La grande deese, 83 pis. 18d, 19a.

132. Taylour, Antiquity 43 (1969): pis. Xlb, XII-XIII; idem. Antiquity 44 (1970): pis.

XXXVIIIb, XXXIXa, b.

133. Taylour, /ji/^/7y 43 (1969): pi. XIIIc.

134. French, BSA 66 (1971): 108-112, fig. 2.

135. Karageorghis, Pyla-Kokkinokremos, 55.

136. See Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 155-163; J. Roy, "Pausanias VIII.5.2-3: Laodice Descendant

of Agapenor; Tegea and Cyprus," LAntiquite Classique LVI (1987): 192-200.

137. Dawkins, Sparta 267-268, pi. CLXXXV, 28.

138. Yalouris, Bassai 91, pi. 41a.

139. See Dawkins, Sparta 270-271, pi. CXCV, 11. This type was apparently found with

Laconian III and IV pottery.

140. L.F. Fitzhardinge, The Spartans (London: 1980), 120.

141. Kourouniotes, y 4 £ (1910): 309-310, figs. 28-29.

142. Yalouris, Ergon (1959): 108, fig. 112; idem, Bassai 91, e.

143. Cooper, Bassai 193.

144. Yalouris, Bassai 91; idem. Ergon (1959): 109.

145. Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 17-71.

146. Rolley, FD. V Ί3-Ί6; Coldstream, GG 149.

147. Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 25 n. 37.

148. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 99-109; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30.

149. Herrmann,/i//79 (1964): 24-25.

150. For Argive horses, see: Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 24-25; Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 99-100

n. 135; Coldstream, GG 149-150. For Laconian horses, see Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964):

21-24; Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 110-111 n. 155, 157; Rolley, FD.V74(i; Coldstream, GG

160.

151. Herrmann,/i// 79 (1964): 25 n. 37; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

152. Waldstein, AH Π pi. 72, no. 8; Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 28 n. 46.

112. Kunze, 55 (1930): 147ff.

113. Herrmann,/ii/ 79 (1964): 49, figs. 36-38.

114. Schweitzer, GGA pis. 128-131; Coldstream, GG 176.



117. R.D. Barnett,yl Catalogue of the Nimmd Ivories, 2d ed., (London: 1975), 210 pi. LXXIV.

118. Ibid., 210-211, S259c pi. LXXVIII.

119. Ibid., pis. LXXIV-LXXVI.

120. Ibid., pi. LXXVI S234, S231.

121. Schweitzer, GGA 136, fig. 96.

122. Barnett, Nimrud Ivories, 49.

123. KunzQ, AM 55 (1930): 147ff; Coldstream, GG 131, fig. 42b, c, d.

124. Barnett, Nimmd Ivories, 49; E.L. Marangou, Lakonische Elfenbein und Beinschnitzereien

(Tubingen: 1%9), 112-124. Here see Chapter Four, Section Two on "Reclining Oxen."

125. Dawkins, Sparta 231. See also, Fitzhardinge, The Spartans, 59.

126. J. Boardman, "Artemis Orthia and Chronology," BSA 58 (1963): 4, 7 n. 24; see also J.B. Carter, Greek Ivory Carving in the Orientalizing and Archaic Periods (New York: 1985), 72-101. Carter concludes that the three couchant animals in ivory can be dated to the second quarter of the seventh century, 82.

127. Dugas, Tegea 357-358 no. 56; Jost, Sanctuaires 153, 374. I am grateful to Dr. Delivorrias, of the Benaki Museum and formerly the Laconian-Arcadian Ephor, for first suggesting to me the possibility that B8 may contain lead.

128. For Mycenaean parallels, see E. French, "The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta

Figurines," BSA 66 (1971): 108-112, fig. 2; W. Taylour, "Mycenae 1%8," Antiquity 43

(1969): pis. Xlb, XII-XIII; idem, "New Light on Mycenaean Rehgion," Antiquity 44

(1970): pis. XXXVIIIb, XXXIXa, b. For Cypriot examples see: J. Karageorghis, La

grande deese de Chypre et son culte: a travers I'iconographie de Tepoque niolithique au

VIeme s.a.C (Lyon: 1977), 83, pis. 18d, 19a; Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 159, pl.XX. For

Syrian examples in ivory see Barnett, Nimrud Ivories, pi. LXXVI S234, 231.

129. V. Karageorghis, Pyla-Kokkinokremos: a late 13th century B.C. fortified settlement in Cypms (Nicosia: 1984), pi. XXV no. 62.

130. See Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 159, pl.XX.


166


11 A. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5.

175. It is noteworthy, however, that all three Laconian examples: Β17, B20 and B21, have

some ambiguity surrounding their provenance.

176. Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 26-27.

177. Herrmann, Jdl 19 (1964): 22 n. 19, 24 n. 24; Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1%7): 7-18.

178. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103,105; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 111980: 28.

179. neilmeycT, Bronzefiguren 1Q3-10S.

180. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 30-31.

181. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 48 fig. 63.

182. See Hermann, Jdl 19 (1964): 22 n. 19; 24 n. 24; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger pi. 61 no.

1154; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141; 107-108 n. 148, fig. 6; Coldstream, GG 156.

183. See Gehrig, Samos 50, who finds L5 similar to Tegean quadrupeds in size and general

workmanship. Weber incorrectly states that the group was identified as Argive in

Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1%7): 10 n. 17.

184. Kihan-Dirlmeier, /i^fl/i^er 192 no. 1152.

185. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141.

186 Ibid., 105, pi. 58.

187. H.-V. Herrmann, review of Fruhe olympische Bronzefiguren. Die Tiervotive. OF 12 by

W.-D. Heilmeyer, in Bonner Jahrbucher 182 (1982): 616.

188. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141, fig. 6.

189. See Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 7 n. 7, fig. 3; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980):

30 n. 18, fig. 6; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 139.

190. Ibid.

191. Weber, Stάdel-Jahώuch I (1967): 7 n. 7, fig. 3-8; 13,15.


193. Ibid., 108.

194. Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 8; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 11 (1980): 28.

195. Ibid., 30-31.

196. Ibid., 30 n. 22.

167

153. Gehrig, 5ίΖΑ7ΐί75 48.

154. Ibid.

155. Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

156. Gehrig, 5flmo5 47-48.

157. Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

158. See J.P. Droop, "The Early Bronzes," BSA 13 (1906/07): 111, fig. 2f; Gehrig, Samos 48.

159. Since its illustration in 1906/07, this horse from the Artemis Orthia site has not appeared

again in any photograph or discussion of horse-types to my knowledge, except for a brief

mention by Gehrig, who compares it to Β17 from Tegea. Β17 is virtually unpublished and

there is some doubt surrounding its provenance. It is thus possible that we are deaHng

with one and the same horse and that some mix-up occurred which obscured the actual

findspot of this bronze. A possible scenario is that the horse was found at Artemis Orthia

but accidently sent up to Tegea together with other Tegean bronzes, which are

periodically taken to the Sparta Museum for cleaning and restoration.

160. The Ashmolean Museum records note only that this horse was acquired in 1899 and that it was said to come from Tegea.

161. Milchhofer, AM 5 (1880): 52-69; Dorpfeld, AM 8 (1883): 274-275; Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 241-281.

162. M. Weber, "Zwei geometrische Bronzepferde in Istanbul," Istanhuler Mitteilungen 16 (1966): 92 pis. 9-10.

163. Ibid.


165. HeUmcytr, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

166. RoUey,FZ).K74n.4.

167. Romaios, ^£ (1952): 26, f ig. 20e.


169. Ibid.

170. Dugas, Tegea 345, fig. 6, no.9.

171. Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 25 n. 37.

172. Waldstein, AH II pi. 72.

173. Weber, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16 (1966): 92 n. 17.


168


197. Heilmeyer, however, states that the Lousoi-Olympia group can not be assigned to a particular Arcadian center since no findspot in Arcadia allows us to distinguish a local base-plate type, Bronzefiguren 108. Sinn has now effectively challenged this point of view.

198. Ibid., 103 n. 141.

199. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30 ns. 23-24.

200. Ibid., 30-31.

201. Ibid., 31.

202. Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 8-9, fig. 8.

203. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 83, pi. 44 no. 373; pi. 45 no. 376.


205. Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 9; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103.

206. Yalouris, Bassai pi. 41b.

207. Himmelmann-Wildschutz, Geometrischen Plastik, figs. 57-58; R. Hampe, Fruhe griechischer Sagenbilder in Bootien (Athens: 1936), 48-49, fig. 23, pi. 34; K. Fittschen, Untersuchungen zu Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bie dem GHechen (Berlin: 1%9), 70-75, M6; G. Ahlberg, Prothesis and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (Gothenburg: 1971), 246.

208. Yalouris, Bassai pi. 41b. Although I had obtained official permission to see the bronzes from Bassai, complications beyond my control prevented me from seeing this material.

209. See Yalouris, Bassai 89.

210. See Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 108 n. 149, pi. 61 no. 476; for a parallel: Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 22 n. 23.

211. Ahlberg, Prothesis and Ekphora, 248.

212. Ibid., 246-252. See also J. Boardman, "Symbol and Story in Geometric Art," in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, W. Moon ed., (Wisconsin: 1983), 25-26, who doubts the attribution generally.

213. Dugas, Tegea 346-347; Bevan, Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries, (i) 109; Appendix 8.5.

214. Ibid.; Gehrig, Samos 62-65 for references; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pis. 85, 87; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger pis. 59-60. See also W A . McDonald, W.D.E. Coulson and J. Rosser, Excavations at Nichoria in Southwest Greece, 3: Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation (Minneapohs: 1983), 281-282, 484 pi. 5-8 for a recently discovered deer figurine.

215. Gehrig believed that an unillustrated Samian example was similar to the Tegea deer in its long cylindrical body. He also believed that the Theban deer were generally Hke the

169

Samian and hence the Tegean deer: Samos 63-65, Cat. no. 12. Since it is not possible for me to compare the Tegean deer with the unillustrated Samian one, it is difficult to comment on Gehrig's observation. A general similarity between the Theban and some Tegean deer can be seen in their long, cylindical bodies but in every other aspect they are different. See B. Schmaltz, Metalfiguren aus dem Kabirenheiligtum bei Theben; die statuetten aus Bronze und Blei (Berlin: 1980), pi. 24 bottom.

216. Herrmann,/i//79 (1964): 21 n. 14; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

217. Dugas, Tegea 347 no. 13, fig. 7; Herrmann/i// 79 (1964): 25 n. 37.

218. Ibid., 29 n. 52.

219. Attempts were made to attribute the Tegean deer to actual species but the results were

inconclusive.

220. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5; Herrmann/i//79 (1964): 29 n. 52.

221. Furtwangler, Olympia 4, pi. 13 no. 206.

222. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 222 pi. 38, no. 326.

223. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100.

224. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 187-188, pi. 59 no. 1137.

225. Rolley, MGR 2 no. 17, pi. 5.

226. UeiXmQy&T, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135,102.



229. Ibid.

230. Dugas, Tegea 348 no. 19, fig. 8. g

231. Ibid.

232. Ibid., 348 no. 20.

233. Dawkins, Sparta 197 pi. LXXV, f.

234. Bronze reclining oxen are examined separately in the next category of quadrupeds.


236. See Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 98 nos. 801, 803.

237. See Daux, BCH 82 (1958): 717 for an entry of a bull figurine found at Tegea and taken to

the Tegea Museum. Perhaps it was this one?


170


259. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 80i.

260. I was unable to locate Dugas no. 33 when I worked in the Tegea Museum m 1981 and

1983 but I recently saw it on display in the Tripohs Museum in 1988; Kihan-Dirlmeier

illustrates li, Anhdnger 181; no. 1098, pi. 58.

261. Dugas, Tegea 349-351, nos. 23-39.

262. Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ifl/2ger 115 no. 630.

263. Romaios, AE (1952): 26, fig. 20z.

264. J. Bouzek, "Die griechisch-geometrischen Bronzevogel," Eirene 6 (1967): 115-139; idem,

GMB 13-23.

265. Kihan-Dirlmeier, AAi/ia/i er 87-88, 127-186.

266. Ibid., 128.

267. Dugas, Tegea 349-350; Kihan-Dirlmeier mentions only six from Tegea, but I think that

B42 ought also be considered with this group. She includes it in another group (Birds

with suspension loops on backs) and considers it to be a local Peloponnesian product:

Anhdnger 132 no. 727. I see no particular reason why this bird should not be considered

with the bird group currently under discussion, especially since it shares so many of the

same qualities.

268. Ibid., nos. 712-719.

269. Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 125-127.

270. Rolley, FZ).F 88-92.

271. See Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 128 n. 4; Bevan, Representations of Animals in

Sanctuaries, (ii) 356; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 125-127.

272. Mould-made bronzes are generally later in date than solid cast ones, so that these birds

may well date to 700 B.C. at the earliest. See Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 125-126; Rolley,

FD.V 1969: 88-89, no. 146; Coldstream, GG 175.

273. Kilian-Dirlmeier,A/i/zflAz^er 128-129; Rolley, FZ). F 90; Bouzek, £/re/ie 6(1967): 125.

274. Waldstein, AH Π 206 no. 47, pi. 77.

275. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Α/ιΛαΑΐ ^Γ 129.

276. B43 was not illustrated by Dugas, so Bouzek did not realize that it belongs to Variant II

(his Laconian group) and not Variant I (his Argive group) as he states: Eirene 6 (1967):

127 no. 2 n. 46. For Spartan example, see Dawkins, Sparta 197 pi. 76k.

277. Kilian-Dirlmeier first noticed this similarity, /i/ia/i^er 129; no. 178, nos. 708-710.

278. Kilian-Dirlmeier, A/i/ifl/iger 129 n. 8.

171

238. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren, pi. 96, no. 782.

239. For a later bronze example of a lion from Perachora, see Payne, Perachora 1137 pi. 43,9.

240. The bronze bulls found at Asea are sixth to fifth century in date and the bronze bull from

Lykosoura can be dated to the second half of the sixth century, M. Jost, "Statuette de

Bronzes archaiques provenant de Lykosoura," BCH 99 (1975): 339-340, figs. 35-38.

241. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 15, no. 95.

242. Ibid., pi. 16, nos. 102,105,108.

243. Ibid., pi. 35.

244. Dugas, Tegea 344 nos. 1-6, fig. 6 ; Jost, Sanctuaires 152.

245. Dawkins, Sparta 80 i, k; Kihan-Dirlmeier, yl/i/ia/i ^r 193-194 no. 1158, pi. 61.

246. Ibid., no. 1162.

247. Dawkins, Sparta 230-234, pis. 148-154; Dunbabin, Perachora II 407-410, pi. 174; Ithaka:

M. Robertson and WA. Heurtley, "Excavations m Ithaka V: The Geometric and Later

Finds from Aetos," BSA 43 (1948): 115, pi. 48 C3-7, D-2; S. Benton, "Further Excavations

at Aetos," BSA 48 (1953): 346 pi. 68c, 56, 61; Tegea: unpublished: a few examples recently

found by Stemhauer, see here pi. 186.

248. Carter, Greek Ivory Carving, 77-78; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 193 n. 43; Marangou,

Lakonische-Elfenbein, 112-123; Dunbabin, Perachora Π 407-408 η. 1; for parallels

see R.D. Barnett, "Early Greek and Oriental Ivories," JHS 68 (1948): pi. Villa; I. Winter,

"Phoenician and N. Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and

Distribution," Iraq 38 (1976): 1-22.

249. Boardman, BSA 58 (1963): 4, 7 n. 24; Dawkins, Sparta 231.

250. Boardman, BSA 58 (1963): 4, 7 n. 24; see also Carter, Greek Ivory Carving, 82.

251. KiUan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979) 35-36.

252. Kihan-Dh-hneier,A/i/ifl/i^grl94. . j

253. Dawkins, Sparta 232.

254. Dugas, Tegea 344 nos. 1-6; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 193 no. 1160, pi. 61; Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 35-36; Coldstream, GG 156.

255. See note 254 above; Kilian-Dh-hneier, ΑΛΛΑ/Ι Γ 193 no. 1159, pi. 61.

256. Ibid., no. 1161, pi. 61.

257. Kihan-Dirlmeier, .4Ai fl/iger 193-194 no. 1157, pi. 61.

258. Dugas, Tegea 343, nos. 1 and 2, fig. 2.


172


173

279. Ibid., pis. 37-38.

280. Ibid., 130; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 127 for discussion of production place.

281. Bouzek, GMB 178. I recently had the opportunity to discuss this question of origin with

Professor Bouzek, who thought that the type was probably invented in Corinth but

perhaps derived from a simpler, non-hammered northern style bird.

282. Ibid.

283. Kilian-Dirlmeier, >1/ιΛώ/ι βΓ 131; Rolley FD.F 92.

284. Y^dJi-OinmUQT, Anhanger 164 no. 968; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 119, fig. 2.

285. KiUan-Dirlmeier,^«/i«/iêr 164-167.

286. Coldstream, GG 238 n. 69.

287. RoUey,MG/?2no.20.

288. Kman-Dirhneier,Âi^fl/iger 157.

289. Ibid., 154-155.

290. Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 119 fig. 2.

291. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 157-158. Note that there are in fact seven examples of this

type known form the Peloponnese with the inclusion of the recently pubhshed example

from Lousoi (here L14): Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 28, fig. 4a.

292. KiUan-Dirhneier,^/j/ifl/jêr 155-156; 164-165.

293. Rolley discusses two birds on discs from Delphi and a Corinthian bird on a

pyramidal base which he thinks belong together in a group with B45, B46, as well as the

two bh-ds on discs from Sparta, FD.V92 n. 3.

294. Kihan-O'irhneier, Anhanger 180 nos. 1090,1091.

295. Ibid., 178-179, nos. 1075,1078,1079,1080.

296. Ibid., pis. 12,14.

297. Rolley, FD.V 92; Bouzek, GMB 62; idem. O p e n work 'Bird-Cage' Bronzes," in The

European Community in Later Prehistory (Studies in Honour of C.F.C. Hawkes)

(London: 1971), 87, 92, fig. 17.

298. Kilian-Dh-hneier,^/i/ifl/i^^r86.

299. Gehrig, Samos 66 n. 2, no. 14.

300. Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 123; idem, GMB 18, 72-73.

301. See Bouzek's primitive Laconian birds and his three later types, two of which are

incidentally from Tegea (B47 and B161): Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 116, fig. 1. Elsewhere

in the same article (p. 123), he mentions other 'Laconian' examples and these are also

from Tegea (B52 and B150). There appears to be a connection between Bouzek's

'Laconian' birds and many of the Tegean birds which may suggest that they are both

derived from a common source but independently made in local workshops. It is

noteworthy that Bouzek's primitive Laconian birds bear no resemblance to Heilmeyer's

Laconian types on pierced bases (which are presumably more developed), Bronzefiguren

pi. 118.

302. See Rolley who questions a Laconian classification, Rolley, FD.V92 n. 2.

303. Kihan-Du-lmeier,yl/i/ifl/i^^r86.

304. The northern elements observed in a number of the Tegean birds can also be seen in

some other bronzes from Tegea and are discussed again in Chapter Five, Section Three,

and in Chapter Seven.

305. KiUan-Dh-lmeier,^/i/ifl/iêr 81, pi. 58 nos. 1098-99.


307. Rolley, FD.K87-88, Type 2 nos. 134-136; idem, MGR no. 19.

308. Ibid., 88.

309. Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 118.

310. Kilian-Dirhneier,^/i/iflnêr pis. 21, 27.

311. See B52 and other pendants in Section Four.

312. For B56, see the illustration in Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger pi. 52 no. 953.

313. Ibid., 161-162, pi. 52 nos. 952-953.

I

314. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 187. *

315. See the Human figure section, B3, for discussion of parallel piece from Olympia.

316. Kilian-Dh-lmeier,>4/i/ifln^^r 116. ^

317. Romaios, AE (1952): 26-27, pi. 20z.

318. Kilian-Dirhneier,A/i/iartg6r 162.

319. Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 187.

320. RoUey,FZ).K92n. 1.

321. Athens N.M. no. 15335.


322. Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 29, fig. 5b.

323. Ibid., 28-29, figs. 4a, b and 5a.

324. Ibid., 28, fig. 4a; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 119, fig. 2.

325. Kilian-Dirlmeier, A/i/ifl/i er 157. See discussion above, p. 150, for information about this type of bird from Tegea.

326. Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 29, fig. 5b.


328. Ibid., 186, pi. 118.

329. Kihan-Dh-lmeier, A/i/iii/jger 163 n. 107.

330. Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 29-30; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 187 no. 942.

331. Kihan-Dirlmeier, /i/ifl/ig^r 162 no. 952.

332. Ibid., 163 n. 114, no. 963, pi. 52.

333. Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30.

334. Kourouniotes, Α£ (1910): 309-310, fig. 27.

335. Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 108 n. 149, pi. 118.

336. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Α/ιΛβ/z^er 163 n. 107.

337. See also Rolley FZ). Κ 87-92.

174

CHAPTER FIVE

PENDANTS AND OTHER BRONZES

In the foHowing section, three categories of bronzes will be examined:

I. pendant bronzes from Tegea and other Arcadian sanctuaries; II. various

non-pendant bronzes from Tegea also represented at other Arcadian sites;

III. certain types of bronzes uncovered only at other Arcadian sites.

The first category, pendant bronzes, is divided into over a dozen

sub-groups including ring pendants, bulls' heads pendants, stamp pendants

and so on. (Pendant bird figurines have already been considered separately

in Chapter Four, Section Three.) The name of the category indicates the

common factor which unites the objects: a suspension hole or loop by which

they were hung. Kilian-Dirlmeier's book on early Greek pendants

{Anhdnger) has been an invaluable guide in the following analysis.

Section One: Pendant Bronzes from Tegea and Arcadia

Double Protome Pendants (B57-B61: pis. 92-94)1

The following five pendants depict a protome at either end of a

crescent-shaped piece of bronze, with a vertical rod intersecting the crescent

and a suspension loop at the top. Kilian-Dirlmeier considers the objects

in this group, four from Tegea and one from Mavriki, in a separate section,

^Doppelprotomen-Anhanger;'^ this group, plus a similar object from Bassai,

are the only examples of this type of pendant found in Greece.

Kihan-Dirlmeier divides them into two types. Type A has a flat crescent

with a rectangular section and a T-shaped suspension area above (B61 and

possibly the Bassai object).*^ Type Β has a crescent with an oval or rhomboid

section on a short stand with a base (B57-B60). B57(102) (pi. 92), has a

rhomboid section and double bull protomes on a quatrefoil base. B58(103)

(pi. 92), has a much thicker rhomboid section and double bull protomes on a

square base with a cross design on the underside. B59(104) (pi. 93), also

175

Chapter Five Pendants and Other Bronzes

with a rhomboid section, has double bird protomes and, instead of a base,

the figure of an upside-down bird (missing its head) with a flat tail.

Kilian-Dirlmeier noticed considerable wear around the suspension loop of

this object which is not surprising since it could not have stood upright.'^ The

double bird protomes of B58 recall those on an otherwise very different

pendant from Aigion (Achaea) in the Ashmolean Museum.^ B60(105) (pi.

94), has an oval section, double bird protomes and a big, square base with a

single diagonal line in relief on the underside. B61(M) (pi. 93), with its

double horse protomes and no base also has a particularly worn suspension

loop probably because it could not have stood on its own.

The Bassai example appears to have a flat crescent (with rectangular

section?) and horse protomes with manes and ears indicated. It cannot be

denied that this object also resembles a harness, as Yalouris suggests, but it

seems equally to be related to the Tegea/Mavriki double protomes in a way

which might be further illuminated upon examination of the actual object.

The function of these double protome pendants was first discussed by

Milchhofer and Dugas who published the Tegean examples. They

considered them to be loom-weights.^ Gehrig suggested that they might

have been used as spindle-whorls.^ Kilian-Dirlmeier recommends an

attribution as pendants on the basis of three points: first, the pardcularly

worn suspension holes (of B59 and B61); second, analogous pieces from

Pherai of a hanging vessel with bull protomes and double cock protome

pendants; and third, the similarity of the base-plate decoradon of B57, B58

and B60 with the stamp pendants from Tegea.^ The general likeness of the

bases of these pieces to the Tegean stamp pendants (i.e. B83, B85,

B94-B103), which Kilian-Dirlmeier attributes to a Tegean or Laconian

workshop and which I assign to a Tegean workshop, indicates a Tegean

origin for the Tegea and Mavriki pendants at least. The same double

protome motif on very different types of pendants is known from Thessaly.^.

The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia also yielded numerous lead and terracotta

pendants depicting double protomes of horses with a head or body of a figure

(Artemis?) between them.^^ These may provide some clues in inteφreting

the nature of the double protome images from the Arcadian sites.

Stamp and Pomegranate Pendants (pis. 95-114, fig. 25)

The following objects consist of a variety of groups of stamp pendants and

a smaller number of types of pomegranate pendants found primarily at the

Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea, but also at Mavriki, Lousoi, Gortsouli and a

small number of sites outside of Arcadia (see fig. 25). Kilian-Dirlmeier

provides an extensive survey of these various pendants and her analysis has

been of great assistance in my research. It is clear that the greatest amounts

of these stamp and pomegranate pendants were found at Tegea. Some of the

types are represented solely at Tegea. Others have a very limited

distribution outside Tegea. Nearly all those found outside Tegea were

uncovered at sanctuary sites in the Peloponnese. These pendants are

examined below in terms of the variation between the types, their limited

distribution, their possible functions and general significance.

When he published these objects from Tegea in 1921, Dugas considered

them all to be miniature loom-weights specially manufactured for dedication

at the sanctuary.12 This was in agreement with Milchhofer, who first

discovered such objects at Tegea.^^ Dugas broke them down into six general

groups: 1. those with rectangular bases; 2. those with circular bases; 3. those

with bases having scalloped edges; 4. objects with pyramidal shape; 5. objects

with conical shape; 6. objects with pomegranate shape. Kilian-Dirlmeier, in

her consideration of these objects, disdnguished broadly between stamp

pendants, with nine main types, and pomegranate pendants, in one main

category, an arrangement which I have found most suitable for my study as

well.

A Stamp Pendants (B62-B125: pis. 95-109)

The stamp pendants are subdivided into nine categories depending on the

shape of the pendant and its base-plate. In addition to their above

mentioned attribution as miniature loom-weights by Dugas and Milchhofer,

Lamb thought that similar ones from Sparta were used simply as weights.

Droop and deCou thought, on the basis of a small number of examples from

Sparta and Argos, that they might have functioned as seals.

Kilian-Dirlmeier notes signs of wear around the suspension loops in all

categories (including the pomegranate pendants) and she doubts that this

176 177

Chapter Five

1. Solid Circular Base-Plates (B62-B69: pis. 95-96)

Eleven stamp pendants with sohd circular base-plates were found at

Tegea. 19 A total of nineteen objects of this type have been uncovered in

Greece. Kilian-Dirlmeier distinguishes them according to the nature of their

rods: Variant I, with a smooth rod; and Variant II, with a rod with a double

conical profile in the middle and a round disc and triangular suspension loop

above.20

Variant I comprises three examples from Tegea (B62, B63 and B64), one

from Olympia, one from Sparta and an unpublished example from Lousoi

(F1993). Variant II consists of eight from Tegea (B65-B69 and KD nos. 167

and 172) plus one from the Argive Heraion and three from Lousoi (LIS, pi.

109, KD no. 177 and F1995). Four of the Tegean pendants have a cross

design or a variation of it with four to eight radii on the undersides of their

178

Pendants and Other Bronzes

2. Pierced Circular Base-Plates

A fragment of a pendant from Tegea, with a pierced circular base, is

included by Kilian-Dirlmeier in her catalogue of nine sucK pendants, nearly

all from the Peloponnese.^l It appears, however, that only five of these nine

pendants can be considered suspendable and of the same type as the rest

discussed here: KD nos. 157-161. The Tegean example, KD no. 161 consists

of a smooth rod, broken suspension loop and broken base with only part of

the pierced design evident. Many of these pendants on pierced bases, such

as the ones from Sparta, Olympia and two from Drepanon, have very short

rods and enormous base-plates. The fragment from Tegea in particular is

very similar to Variant I of the Solid Circular Base-Plate type discussed

above, so it is likely to have been locally produced.

179

bases in rehef: B62, B64, B65, B67. Two of them have rather more unusual

hnear decoration below, B68 and KD no. 172. B66 has two horse-shoe

shaped designs in relief, on the underside of its base; B69 has a hollowed out

base and B63 has a quatrefoil of sorts in intaglio on the underside. KD no.

167 has an incised quadruped on its base-plate and B68a has wavy Hues and

dots in relief on its very wide base-plate. The non-Tegean examples consist

mostly of radial cross designs on the undersides of the bases, including the

unpublished Lousoi example, F1933 in Karlsruhe. The other two Lousoi

examples of this type, KD no. 177 and F1995, have hollowed out bases, hke

B69.

The Argive Heraion object (KD no. 170) is very similar to B67 and it is

probable that it was an import to Argos. The two Olympia examples and the

Spartan one are simple in design but without any direct parallels at Tegea or

elsewhere. One of the four Lousoi examples, L18 (pi. 109), has an unusual,

deep, base-plate with stamped dotted circles on the sides and the top of the

base. It is deeply hollowed out on the underside with a cross design and a

dotted circle in the middle. F1993, the unpublished example from Lousoi,

also has a very large, deep base with a cross design on the underside. KD no.

177 and F1995 from Lousoi are roughly the same shape and size as B69

except that the Lousoi bases have vertical rather than horizontal ribs on their

sides. It is conceivable that the Lousoi stamp pendants were made in the

vicinity of Lousoi for in many cases they display unparalleled local variations.

could have been the result of suspension only in the sanctuary, but rather of

continuous suspension over a long period of time.^^

The primary function of these stamp pendants, however, is not clear.

Kilian-Dirlmeier suggests their possible use as amuletic pendants or

suspended seals. The small scope of variation in the decoration on the

underside of the base-plates led her to conclude that they could not have

been used to identify individual owners but perhaps to acknowledge a

regularly repeated procedure. She suggests a modern day example, such as a

stamp guaranteeing the quality of an unopened tin. Such a function could

not apply to the pendants with thin, square plates and scribbled decoration

on them, for these could not create a distinguishable image.

Kilian-Dirlmeier thus concludes that if some of these pendant objects did

function as seals, then there also was a second type which were not for actual

use, but were only for dedication.!^

Kilian-Dirlmeier's suggestion that some of these objects may have

functioned as seals is supported by my examination. A small number of the

pendants revealed evidence of red colouring on the underside of the

base-plate (i.e. B88, Β124, Β130) though the cause of this colouring is not

clear. I also observed the areas of wear around the suspension loops and am

inclined to agree with Kilian-Dirlmeier that they were suspended for a long

period of time.^^


3. Conical Pendants (B70-B76: pis. 97-98)

There are eight examples of stamp pendants with conical bodies: seven from Tegea (B70-B76) and one from Gortsouli (KD no. 180). Two variants are distinguished by Kilian-Dirlmeier. Variant I has a huge solid body with the design on the underside in relief (B72, B75, B76 and the Gortsouli example, KD no. 180). Variant II has a conical body with a hollow interior and a cross design on the underside of the base (B70, B71, B73, B74). Both types have a triangular suspension loop on a round plate.^^ The majority of the conical pendants have a simple cross on the underside of their bases. Only B75 and B76 vary in their base design. B76 has a pattern with six segments shallowly hollowed out and B75 has an elaborate version of a cross design with double lines in relief. It is likely that these conical pendants were all produced in the vicinity of Tegea.

4. Trefoil-Shaped Base-Plates (B77-B82: pis. 98-99)

The next pendant type to be discussed is that with a trefoil-shaped base-plate of which there are ten examples.^-^ Kilian-Dirlmeier notes two basic variants. Variant I has a short, smooth rod (B81 and KD no. 188 from Tegea), and Variant II has a rod with a biconical profile in the middle and a round disc above (from Tegea and single specimens from both Lousoi and Sparta). The second variant is further subdivided into those with complete round openings hollowed out on the underside of the bases (B79, B78, B77) and those with circles divided in half by pieces of bronze (B80, KD no. 195 from Tegea and L19, pi. 109).^"^ B82 and the Spartan example vary a little more with the addition of a sphere in the middle of their rods. It is clear that the degree of variadon between these trefoil-based objects is small. It is therefore not unreasonable to suggest that all ten were made in the vicinity of Tegea, where the greatest number and variety of types were found.

5. Quatrefoil-Shaped Base-Plates (B83-B87: pis. 100-101)

Similar to the trefoil-based pendants are the seven known examples with quatrefoil-shaped bases: six from Tegea and one from Sparta.2^ Kilian-Dirlmeier divides this type into two variants: Variant I with a smooth rod (B87 is the only example) and Variant II, with a rod which

protrudes in the middle. Subdivision Variant Ila has a biconical profile (B84), while Variant lib has a flat disc in the middle of the rod (B83 and KD no. 201, from Sparta). Due to the fragmentary nature of KD no. 202, it can only generally be assigned to this category. B85 consists of a more elaborate rod with two round discs in the middle of the rod and cross designs in each of the four hollowed out circles on the underside. All of the above examples, except B86, have a central circle or diamond in the middle and four hollowed out circles for their base design. B86, as Kilian-Dirlmeier notes, is somehow related with these objects in the sense that it has four leaf-like cusps for a base but they are extremely flat, unlike the others of this type. The base of B86 has many tiny hollowed out circles on its underside. The single Spartan example, KD no. 201, is remarkably similar to B83, and it is likely that all of these quatrefoil examples were made in the Tegean vicinity.

6. Cinquefoil-Shaped Base-Plate (B88: pi. 100)

The sole example of a pendant type with a cinquefoil base-plate is from Tegea, B88.^^ It has a biconical bead in the middle of the rod, a triangular suspension loop with round disc below. The base-plate is deeply hollowed out with two half circles in each cusp, and a full circle in the middle. B88 is clearly a variation of the three and four cusped pendants from Tegea and they are all likely to have been locally manufactured.

7. Thin Rectangular Base-Plates (B89-B93: pis. 102-103)

The pendants which are considered next are th(^se with square or rectangular base-plates. They have thin, flat bases through which the rods were pierced and on which decoradon was scratched on both sides. There are seven of this sort: six from Tegea and one from Sparta.^^ The Spartan example (KD no. 208) has an enormous suspension hole and a tiny base-plate with linear design. B89-B90, B93, and KD no. 207 have varying types of zigzag decoration and B91-B92 have incised hnear ornament. B89-B92 are all missing their central rods. Dugas, in fact, had not included these flat plates with the other stamp pendants (or loom-weights as he thought) but separately in a general category of 'plaques.'^^ It is clear, however, that these ^plaques' were originally supporting a rod in the centre.

180 181


The concentration of these flat, rectangular based pendants at Tegea

indicates yet again that this area is the likely place for their manufacture.

8. Deep Rectangular Base-Plates (B94-B104: pis. 103-105)

There are 23 examples of pendants on rectangular bases with intersecting

central rods.^^ Kilian-Dirlmeier divides them into two main types: Variant I

has a smooth rod, and Variant II has protruding sections in the rod. She

mentions but does not illustrate a third variant with a basket handle, KD no.

235 from Kombothekra in Elis, southwest of Olympia.^^ Variant I includes

B94-B96, KD nos. 214, 215 and 218 from Tegea, KD no. 213 from Olympia

and KD no. 219 from Sparta. Variant II consists of B99-B103 plus KD no.

225 from Tegea and KD no. 222 of unknown provenance. Β101 has a disc in

the middle of the rod, while the others have biconical profiles in the middle.

Similar in appearance to Variant II are B97, B97a and Β104 and KD no. 232

(Thermon). B97a has a most unusual decoration in the middle of its rod;

it appears to be two vertical cones attached at their narrow ends.

Eighteen of these pendants have cross designs on their undersides. Of the

other five, the one from Thermon (KD no. 232) has half circles in relief on

the border of the base. The one with an unknown provenance (KD no. 222)

has two long, hollowed out bars at two sides and three smaller hollowed out

sections between them. The other three from Tegea show the following

base-plate decoration: B95, a human figure with arms and legs extended in

intaglio, KD no. 218, a quadruped and B97a, rows of triangles in intaglio.

BlOl, B102 and the Laconian example (KD no. 219) all have dotted stamped

circles on the side faces of their bases.

The pendants of this type found at Tegea and Sparta may well have been

made in the vicinity of Tegea. The two examples from Olympia and the one

from Kombothekra are connected geographically in terms of place pf

manufacture. The Thermon example is one of the only examples of such

pendant objects found outside the Peloponnese; it differs from the others

enough to permit the conclusion that it was made in another workshop.

9. Pyramidal Stamps (B105-B125: pis. 105-109)

There are 32 examples of pyramidal stamps known in the Greek world.^1

Kilian-Dirlmeier discusses two main variants. Variant I has a triangular

suspension loop, a rectangular plate immediately below (except Β105 which

has a round plate below the suspension loop) and a pyramid with decoration

on its underside (B106-B112; B108a, B119, B124, B125, and an unpublished

example from Lousoi, F1997). Variant II has a rectangular to trapezoidal

suspension loop crowning a small, compact body with a hollowed out mass

below the base. The latter variant is subdivided into pyramids with

undecorated sides, Ila (KD no. 250 from Tegea and KD no. 251 from

Sparta); those with stamped dotted circles on all four sides, lib (B114-B118,

B121, B122, KD nos. 253, 255); and those with a biconical bead above the

pyramid, lie (B113, Β120, 123, KD no. 262a from Sparta and KD no. 263

from Thessaly). Variant lib, with stamped circles on all four sides, was found

only at Tegea.

For Variant I, the decoration on the underside of the pyramids consists

mainly of cross designs or variations of this design. Exceptions are seen in

B i l l , B105 and B125, all of which have intaglios of human figures, and in

Β119 and Β124, which have two oblong hollows on their undersides. Variant

II bases consist of a hollowed out quatrefoil design on the underside. Β114

has a different sort of decoration, with circles and rectangles in intaglio.

There is sufficient similarity between the examples of both variants to assign

them all to the vicinity of Tegea for their place of manufacture.

Finally, there is an example of a pendant from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe

Museum which does not fall into any of these categoriesr(F1994). It consists

of a rounded suspension loop, a rod with nine horizontal ribs and a

triangular base-plate. The underside of the base has many small cut out

circles, like that of B86. It is a most unusual pendant, compared to the

pendants already discussed, but in its basic components it clearly belongs

with them. Although it remains unclear where this Karlsruhe pendant was

made, the similarity of its base-plate decoration to B86 reinforces the link to

the stamp pendants.

182 183

Chapter Five

B. Pomegranate Pendants (B126-B146: pis. 110-114)

Of the forty known representations of bronze pomegranates, thirty are

from Tegea, five from Sparta and five from further north in Greece (Phiha,

Valainida and one from Ithaka).^^ These objects vary quite a bit in

conception and style but are linked by their common portrayal as suspended,

stylized pomegranates.

Kilian-Dirlmeier distinguished four main types. Type A are circular

pomegranates and are further subdivided into those cast over a clay mould,

(A.1) all from Thessaly (KD nos. 674-677), and those cast solid (A.2) from

Tegea, Laconia and Ithaka (KD nos. 678-680). Type Β are cubic

pomegranates and both examples of this sort come from Tegea (B128 and

KD no. 682); Β128 is hollow and KD no. 682 is cast solid. Type C are

bell-shaped pomegranates with curved profiles; nearly all are hollow and

open below (except for B130 and B138 which were cast over clay cores).

These include ten from Tegea (B126-B127, B129-B132, B136, B138 and KD

nos. 693-694) and two from Sparta (KD nos. 685-686). Type D are biconical

pomegranates and are divided into four groups: 1. those cast over a clay core

with a disc and small suspension loop above (B142); 2. those both solid and

hollow cast with rectangular suspension loops and round discs at both ends of

the rods (B135, B135a, B137, B140, B143 and KD nos. 698 and 700); 3. those

of both solid and hollow varieties with ribbed profiles (B134, Β141 and

B141a); 4. those cast over a clay mould with a flat, truncated calyx blossom, a

fine spiked edge, a horizontally ribbed rod and a notched rectangular

suspension loop (B145-B146, KD nos. 709-710 and two from Sparta: KD nos.

711,711A).

The dis tr ibut ion of the bronze p e n d a n t p o m e g r a n a t e s of

Kilian-Dirlmeier's types A.2-D.4 is concentrated primarily at Tegea. As

already mentioned, the four examples of Type A.l from Thessaly are of a

very different type and no doubt of local Thessalian origin. The bell-shaped

and biconical pomegranates (Types C and D), according to Kilian-Dirlmeier,

reveal production in Spartan and Tegean workshops; she argued that this was

also the case for the stamp pendants and for the *Hahne vom Typ Tegea,'

Variant II, discussed above. She goes on to say that fragment KD no. 693

indicates that local bronze working may have occurred in the vicinity of the

Tegean sanctuary.^^ Finally, the two cubic examples (Type B) from Tegea


184 185

have no exact parallels but similarly shaped pomegranates are known in clay

from Piada and on the heads of two bronze pins from Perachora.^^

Representations of pomegranates in different forms have been found at a

number of Greek sites of the Geometric period, in clay or in bronze or

ivory, as pin heads.^^ Pomegranate pendants are known in the Aegean from

Mycenaean times, as Kilian-Dirlmeier points out.^^ It is conceivable, if not

provable, that the significant number of bronze votives of this type from

Tegea and Sparta may have been born out of a long preserved tradition of

pomegranate representation from Mycenaean times. Kilian-Dirlmeier notes,

however, that continuity of tradition cannot be shown since we do not have

any Submycenaean to Middle Geometric examples.^^ Nonetheless, the

possibility exists that the pomegranate remained important during these

centuries. The actual fruit may have played a role in ritual or the image may

have been depicted on perishable materials. It is also possible that the

Mycenaean pomegranate was the source of copies from the eighth century

onwards, indicating a revival of the concept.-^^ Whatever their origin,

pomegranate pendants in bronze (of Types A.2-D.4) became very popular at

Tegea, more so than at any other Greek site.

The five examples of pomegranate pendants from Sparta do not indicate

that Sparta played a particularly large role in the manufacture of this type,

though Kilian-Dirlmeier appears to think so. From my examination of the

Tegean cocks and the stamp pendants in particular, as well as the human

figures, the deer figurines and various other bronzes, it has become

increasingly clear that Tegea possessed an active, creative and relatively

independent bronze-working centre. There is no reason to assume, as

Kilian-Dirlmeier does, that Sparta played a significant role in the producdon

of the pomegranate pendants, the stamp pendants, the Tegean cocks or any

of the other bronzes for which she suggests an Arcadian-Laconian origin. So

few, if any, of these objects were found in Sparta, in contrast to the numbers

at Tegea, that it could just as easily be argued that they were all produced at

Tegea and their existence at neighboring Sparta was due to exportadon or

influence from Tegea. I acknowledge some link between these two centres,

but I doubt that the bond was nearly so strong or deliberate as

Kilian-Dirlmeier suggests. The evidence does not support her thesis, and

this examination of the pomegranate pendants confirms the fact that Tegea

ought finally to be recognized as a significant bronze-producing centre in its

own right.

Chapter Five

Conclusions: Pomegranate and Stamp Pendants

The above discussion of both types of pendants included over 150 objects

and of these, Olympia yielded a mere four pendants, the Argive Heraion,

two, Sparta, fifteen and Lousoi, seven (see fig. 25). There were a few from

other sites but Tegea yielded 112, the hon's share. Dugas, in his publication

of the pomegranate and stamp pendants, mentioned only 84 of them (plus

about half a dozen of the plaques which he did not recognize as the same

sort of object). The remaining twenty odd pendants were found mostly in the

Tegea Museum, except for B146(S), recently unearthed, and KD no. 682

from the Athens National Museum. Most of the ones in the Tegea Museum

are likely to be from Tegea, but it is known from the Tegea Museum

catalogue that about ten of them are from Mavriki,^^ though it is not clear

exactly which ten since many of the catalogue numbers have worn off the

objects and Dugas only published a sample of the Tegean pendants. It is

unlikely that these objects will ever be sorted out completely but it is useful

to remember that any ten of the unpublished pendants without TM numbers,

discussed as coming from Tegea, might well come from Mavriki.

In terms of the number of pendants from the various sites in Greece,

Tegea produced roughly 75 percent of the total of the stamp or pomegranate

pendants (or both), whereas Sparta yielded only about 10 percent of the total

(fig. 25). It thus seems most unlikely that Sparta was a centre of production

for these objects, though Kilian-Dirlmeier considers this a distinct possibility.

Rather, I believe that Tegea was the main centre for the production of these

pendant objects.

Tegea's geographic position on the eastern Arcadian frontier is the likely

explanation for the existence of the single conical pendant found at

Gortsouli, the ten pendants supposedly from Mavriki, the fifteen from Sparta

and the two from the Argive Heraion. All of these pendants could have been

exported from Tegea. It is perhaps significant that no pomegranate pendants

were found at Olympia or Lousoi, and the stamp pendants from these sites

(four from Olympia, seven from Lousoi and one from Kombothekra)

probably consist of Tegean exports and possibly local imitations. The small

physical size of the stamp and pomegranate pendants and their concentration

at Tegea indicate that they were easily transportable items from this centre

of production. The Thessalian pomegranates are explained by

Kilian-Dirlmeier as possible developments from comparable Mycenaean

186


Ring Pendants (B147-B151: pis. 115-117)

Ring pendants with suspension loops are found largely'^^concentrated in

Thessaly."^^ The first type, with a T-shaped suspension loop, consists of three

examples, all from Arcadia. Two of them are from Tegea, Dugas no. 63 and

B147(65); and one is from Lousoi, L20 (pi. 171).^"* These three pendants

have rhomboid cross sections and T-shaped loops forming a handle at the

top of them. Dugas no. 63 is simple and undecorated; Β147 is unusual in that

it has an extended bird figure on top of the ring and below the suspension

area. The example from Lousoi, L20, is decorated on both sides with

tremolo Hues which form an angle ornament all around the ring.

Kilian-Dirlmeier notes that, although T-shaped handles have remote

parallels from Macedonia and Thessaly, it is likely that these examples are

local products.^^ Moreover, the bird on figure Β147 is clearly related to

187

examples already in existence there, and are clearly unrelated to the Tegean

pomegranate pendant types.'^O

The earliest remains from the Athena Alea site indicate that the cult may

well have been established in the twelfth century B.C. and that the goddess

originally had a function as a fertility and vegetation deity.^^l The apparent

popularity of the pomegranate pendants at Tegea may thus be related to the

revival of the worship at the site, which may have emphasized the

significance of the concept of the pomegranate. Unfortunately, no

Mycenaean pomegranates have yet been found at Tegea. It must be

acknowledged, however, that a revival of the concept could have occurred

there independently of a Mycenaean model. In other contexts pomegranates

are symbols of life after death, fertility and also one of the attributes of

Demeter.^^

Stamp and pomegranate pendants were a very well represented votive

type at the Athena Alea site. The evidence also indicates that these

pomegranate and stamp pendants were made in the Tegean vicinity with

limited exportation. The dedication of pomegranate pendants in particular

may be hnked to the cult of the deity at Tegea, whose aspect as a fertility

goddess is reflected in numerous other early votives as well. Finally, these

objects reveal, in a fairly modest but nonetheless significant manner, the

individual and creative character of the Tegean bronze-producing centre in

the eighth century B.C.


other Tegean birds, B47 and B50, which were both made in the same

workshop.^^

The next three examples from Tegea have ornaments on their peripheries,

B148(67), B149(68) and B150(201) 47 Kilian-Dirlmeier divides this type into

two variants; Variant I has a relatively wide ring body with rectangular

secdon, is stamped on both sides with dotted circles and, on the periphery,

has three biconical globes with flat discs ordered in a cross-axis (B148 and

KD no. 35 from Argos). There is only a single example of Variant II, (B149),

which has a wedged-shaped section, a trapezoidal-shaped suspension handle,

a biconical globe on the opposite end of the ring and two bird figures

opposite each other on the periphery. The last Tegean example, (B150), is

related to the others generally and has a long basket handle, a D-shaped

section of the ring and four sitdng birds on short stands around the

periphery. An example from Pherai of this general type is completely

different, with small balls of bronze on its periphery.

The origin of the single Argive and the three Tegean pendants of this type

may well have been in the vicinity of Tegea. The four birds on Β150 are

similar in style to the Tegean bird, B50, in particular, which would indicate

local Tegean production for this one too. Pendant Β148, with what

Kilian-Dirlmeier calls biconical globes on the periphery, recalls the small

pomegranate pendants of Type D examined above,48 and I am inclined to

consider them to be pomegranates. This would mean a local provenance for

B148, as well as for KD no. 35 from Argos. Finally, the birds on B149 are

not unlike B47, which would tie this piece also to a Tegean workshop.

Related to these is another ring pendant from Tegea, B151, not

mendoned by Kilian-Dirlmeier; it consists of a fairly flat, wide ring and is

punched with fifteen dotted circles on both sides. At the one end it has a

very flat, angular bird figure seated on the periphery of the ring; at the other

end, the suspension loop is indicated but largely missing. Although the bird

figure has no exact parallels to my knowledge, the simplicity of its form and

the design of the ring, which is related to that of Β148, indicate that it too is

hkely to be a Tegean product.

Kihan-Dirlmeier concludes on the basis of the shapes and sections of the

rings, that they were individual ornamental pendants, not miniature tripod

handles as believed by Dugas, Reichel and Wilhelm.49 Moreover, no

evidence for tripods of any size has been found at Tegea, Lousoi or any other

Arcadian site. The function of these objects as miniature tripod handles thus

appears unlikely, though their actual significance is unclear.

Wheel Pendants (B152: pi. 117)

The sanctuary of Athena Alea yielded one example of a wheel pendant of

a pardcular type with a raised middle zone, Β 152(188). According to

Kilian-Dirlmeier, this type of wheel is related to those of the Suva Reka type

and comes in two variants: A, which includes Β152, is characterized by

relatively small round spoke-openings; and B, by large triangular

spoke-openings. Wheel pendants with raised middle zones of this type are

also known from the sanctuaries of Pherai, Philia(?), Sparta, Samos and a

grave at Megara Hyblaea. Kilian-Dirlmeier considers these and the one

from Tegea to have a northwest Macedonian provenance.^^

Other types of wheel pendants have been found at Peloponnesian

sanctuary sites such as at Sparta, Olympia, Argos and at Lousoi. The one

from Lousoi, L21 (pi. 171), is of a very different sort from that found at

Tegea. It consists of a plain, small, circular object with round

spoke-openings.^ 1 Kilian-Dirlmeier includes it together with 23 other

similar objects from the Peloponnese, Central Greece and Thessaly (and one

example from Chalkidike). From this sample, she concludes that this sort of

wheel pendant was a characteristic type throughout the Greek mainland.

Kilian-Dirlmeier believes the wheel pendants found in sanctuaries were

votives of dress components and not votive wheels, as interpreted by

Furtwangler.^2

Hammer Pendants (B153-B154: pis. 117-118)

Hammer pendants consist of a sohd bronze cross-bar of cyhndrical shape

which is intersected by a rod. Three examples were found at Tegea:

B153(73), B154(71) and KD no. 303 (Dugas no. 72). Kilian-Dirlmeier

discusses eight such objects which include, in addition to the three from

Tegea, three from Sparta, one from Phiha, and one from Ithaka. There are

two variants: I, with a smooth rod of round, rectangular or square section

(B153 and KD no. 303) and II, with a round rod whose end has a rolled and

ribbed profile (see Spartan examples). B154 from Tegea, with the addidon

188 189


5

of two birds seated on a cross-bridge, does not fall into either variant but

occupies a category of its own.^^

As regards the nature of the representations, Kilian-Dirlmeier considers

the possibility that these objects (not including Β154) might have been votive

offerings of the actual tool, i.e. the hammer. She is not certain if the

resemblance here is accidental or intentional, but mentions the dedication

of double axes at Greek sanctuaries, and miniature weapons at Bassai as

intentional representations of implements on a miniature scale.^"^ Dugas,

though he had not touched upon this issue, stated confidently that Β153 was

no doubt a tripod handle; this is by no means clear.^^ The broken

suspension loop at the top of this pendant is one of many reasons why Dugas'

suggestion is unlikely.

Rolley thinks that the lower cylindrical section of Β154 recalls the wheels

of a chariot.^^ Kilian-Dirlmeier notes the significance of the T-pin on which

the two birds are seated. She indicates that T-pins are generally datable to

LG and concludes that Β154 must also be roughly of this date.^^ Jacobsthal

had noted that the Argive and Arcadian T-pins have analogies with his

second group of Geometric pins (Geo. II) in the treatment of the shank.^^

In a general discussion of the type, Jacobsthal noted the long history and

widespread distribution of the T-pin and said that they reappeared in Greece

roughly in the Late Geometric period.^^ T-pins found in Argive graves are

from both MGII and LGII contexts.^O It is likely that Β154 was made in LG

times, when bronze production of birds and pins was apparently at its height

at Tegea. The bird figures on Β154 are very similar to B49 from Tegea.

Also, at least three T-pins were found at Tegea, (B224, pi. 163). Their

presence, in addition to the other variants of hammers discussed above, all

lead to conclusion that Β154 is a local creation.

Solid Ovoid Pendants (B155-B157: pi. 118)

The Athena Alea site yielded six examples of what Kilian-Dirlmeier calls

closed Έommeln, ' here called soHd ovoid pendants. Two of them,

Β 155(203) and B156(TM), fall into her category of closed types with simple

suspension loops.^l These oblong beads were found almost exclusively at

Tegea, with one example from Sparta, and are tied directly to the Tegean

area by the nature of their suspension loops, which are like those found on

the stamp and pomegranate pendants. It is likely that since the latter

pendants were probably made in the Tegean area, this is also the case for

B155, B156 and KD no. 314, from Sparta.

The other four examples from Tegea are also oblong and have the

addition of rods. Kilian-Dirlmeier considers them together with other

examples with rods and without any projections below.^^ Β 157(202) and KD

no. 337 have a short band-like rod with a suspension hole perforated at the

top. KD no. 340, also from Tegea, has a small body and a long smooth rod.

Finally, KD no. 344 from Tegea has a short, fluted rod with a trapezoidally

shaped suspension hole. Many other examples of such pendants with no

projections below which have spherical, biconical and oblong shapes are

known from Thessaly and Macedonia, as well as a few from Olympia and

Perachora.^"^ Bouzek thought that the Peloponnesian examples were

generally longer but not much finer in shape than the Macedonian ones.^^

Bulls' Heads Pendants (B158-B160: pi. 119)

An unpublished bull's head pendant, B158(TM), is a most attractive and

unusual object from the Athena Alea site.^^ It consists of a long bull's head

supporting a rod of square section, with a circular disc and a rounded

suspension loop above it. The head is three-dimensional and hollowed out

behind. There are bronze protrusions to mark the area of the eyes at the

front; the head tapers downwards and ends with a ridge at the end of the

muzzle. The horns are curved forward. It is decorated with punched dotted

circles on the front and sides of the head.

The suspension loop is very similar to those of other Tegean pendants

including some of the stamp, pomegranate and double prfttome pendants.

B158 seems to be directly linked to the unusual double bull protomes from

Tegea, particularly with B58, which has a very similar suspension loop, disc

and rod below, stamped decoration and the same general sort of head shape.

There are a number of other representations of bulls and oxen, reclining and

otherwise, from Tegea. These animals appear to have played an important

role at this sanctuary site.

Four other pendants in the form of buhs' heads were uncovered at the

Athena Alea sanctuary as well: Β159, Β160 and Dugas nos. 76 and 77.

Β 159(75) consists of a thin piece of bronze in the general shape of a bull's

head with the eyes slightly protruding and the horns curving forward. It is a

190 191

Chapter Five

Shield Pendant (B161: pi. 120)

B161(200) is an unusual pendant with a rectangular plate, decorated on

both sides with punched, dotted concentric circles and with two oval sections

cut out of it. At the top of the short side is evidence of a broken suspension

handle and at the bottom is a bird figure; each of the long sides are

decorated with bird figures as well. Bouzek considers the birds on this

plaque to be Laconian in type.^^ As indicated above, Bouzek's Laconian

attributions generally have much in common with local traits of the Tegean

birds. The birds on B161 are most like B47 from Tegea. The oval cut out

sections recall a number of votive shields from Tegea with similar cut out

patterns.70 It is conceivable that this pendant is meant to represent a

stylized rectangular shield itself.^^ It is an unparalleled pendant object

whose individual components seem most at home at Tegea. It is probably of

local manufacture and significance.

'Composite' Pendant (B162: pi. 121)

Β 162(199) is the most individual bronze pendant found at the Athena

Aleas site. It consists of the following elements: an H-shaped stand

comprising a pair of human legs and feet which form the vertical sections,

and a cross-bar with a bird perched on it that forms the horizontal section of

the H. Above the stand is a flat, wide, double protome of horses with a

single rod springing from the middle, which forms two antithetic birds' heads

192


Staff Pendant (B163: pi. 122)

Another pendant with bird figures is B163(187), consisting of a thick

twisted bronze staff with a bird at either end and a suspension hole pierced

at one end. Dugas described it as a bit to be put into a horse's mouth.76

Kilian-Dirlmeier, on the other hand, thought that the meaning of this object

was beyond comprehension.^^ She considered the two birds at either end of

the staff to be examples of Central Greek art. In light of the popularity of

horse votives at this site, B163 may in fact represent a bit as Dugas had

suggested.

193

above.72 These heads touch the backs of the necks of the lower protomes.

A hole is pierced through the centre of the rod.

Kilian-Dirlmeier points out the general similarity between its large double

protomes of horses (she says birds) and the double protome pendants,

discussed above, B57-B61. The addidon of an H-stand formed out of human

legs, however, is unique.^^ The litde bird on the horizontal cross-bar is

similar to other bird figures on pendants found at Tegea (B154, B150, B161).

The combination of all these features creates a most extraordinary product.

Deonna offers an interesting interpretation of this pendant as an

illustration of the frontal view of a double horse team, like one on a

Corinthian alabastron.^^ addition, I have observed the possibility that

there might be a connection between this pendant and a pottery fragment

from Tegea, P26 (pi. 12), which appears to depict a similar object. There is

also a similarity between this image and some lead pendants from the

Artemis Orthia sanctuary, consisdng of double protome pendants with a

female figure between them.75 B162 may be a sort of symbolic

representadon of the deity, though I think it unlikely that she is meant to be

shown in a frontally viewed chariot. There are other bronzes which link the

cult of the goddess to horses (ie. Bl, pi. 54) and birds (Dugas no. 365, fig.

28) but the overall significance of this composidon is likely to remain a

mystery for the moment.

very simple portrayal of a bull. A similar unpublished example was found at

Lousoi and is in the Karlsruhe Museum (F1940). B160(78) is a more

elaborately portrayed version of a bull's head; it has a short, wide muzzle,

protruding ears, stylized horns, large incised eyes and a neat small

suspension loop at the top. Related bulls' head pendants were found at

Sparta, the Argive Heraion, Delphi, Dodona and Lousoi.^^ It appears that

pendants like Β160 were standard offerings at a number of sanctuary sites.

The other two bulls' head pendants from Tegea are apparently very similar

to one another; Dugas no. 76 is illustrated.^^ They differ from the above two

types primarily in the treatment of the muzzle, which is long and cylindrical

in shape. Dugas suggested the possible funcdon of these four bulls' heads as

attachments to tripod handles, and perhaps also as pendants.^^ They are

more likely to have been simple pendants made especially for dedication.

Chapter Five

Double Axe Pendants (B164-B169: pis. 123-125)

The next category of find to be discussed is the votive double axe, of which

at least 23 examples were found at TegeaJ^ Kilian-Dirlmeier discusses the

double axes in two principal categories. One has straight sides and a flat

blade, of which type Tegea produced only one e x a m p l e t h e second

category has straight sides and thick blade centres, of which Tegea produced

22 examples (B164-B169).80 By far the greatest number of double axes

found in Greece were those discovered at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary at

Sparta, mostly in bronze but also in bone.^^ Second to the Artemis Orthia

sanctuary in terms of numbers of bronze double axes uncovered is the

Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea. Generally, one sees a concentration of

double axes at Peloponnesian sanctuary sites with relatively few from Central

Greece, Thessaly and the Ionian islands.^^

The single example from Tegea of the type with a flat blade is decorated

with crossing tremolo lines on both sides and has a flat strip coming out of

the middle with a suspension loop at the top.83 Of the skteen examples of

this type, ten are from Peloponnesian sanctuaries (Argolid, Laconia,

Olympia and Tegea), four from Philia, one from Pherai, and one from

Delphi. The largest group of double axes, however, are those with thick

blade centres of which type Kilian-Dirlmeier discusses 87 examples.^"^ The

22 from Tegea vary in size, shape and decoration; most are worn and have

some chipping around the edges. Many have stamped dotted circles on them

(i.e. Β164 and Β165 bottom). Nearly all of them had long rods intersecting

their middle sections though now many are broken or missing; these rods had

suspension loops at the ends (see B165, B166 left, B167). Some have very

narrow central sections (B165 top left, B166 right, B168, B169). Many of

these double axes were meant to be suspended, presumably in the sanctuary,

and are likely to have had a symbolic or amuletic character, as Dugas and

others have suggested.^^

From Lousoi, three examples of double axes found in the Austrian

excavations are now in the Athens National Museum;^^ they are illustrated

here as L29-L31. L29(NM15365) (pi. 169), is a plain double axe with a

broken rod intersecting it in the middle. L30(NM15312) (pi. 170), has a

suspension rod going through its centre and stamped concentric circles on

both sides of the axe. L31(NM15313) (pi. 170), has a missing rod and a

broken axe face with stamped concentric circles.

194


Beads (B170-B183: pis. 126-132)

Dugas described about 74 beads of three main types which were found at

the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea.^^ They can be divided into three

principal types. Type One is represented by 50 examples from Tegea (B170,

B171) 89 It consists of a wide, short barrel-shaped, ringless bead which has a

slight widening at the centre. A few beads of this type have been found at

other Peloponnesian sites: at Olympia, the Argive Heraion and the Artemis

Orthia sanctuary.^^ A greater number were uncovered at Pherai,^! and

among the variety of types found at Olynthus, some may fall into this

category as well.^^ | |

Type Two is represented by 20 examples from the site (B172-B181).9^

.There is also one from Lousoi (L25, pi. 133), and one from the Mavriki

lsite.9^ These beads are tubular in form with rims and have either a single

Wdge around the middle (B172-B178) or three ridges (B179-181). This

variant of the tubular bead in bronze is not known outside of Arcadia.

Eleven gold beads of similar shape were found at the Artemis Orthia site,^^

and they may have provided the inspiration for the bronze examples from

Tegea.

Type Three is represented at Tegea by only sk examples (B182-B183).9^

In addition, two examples were found at Lousoi, (L26, L27, pi. 133), one

195

It is clear that double axes within the Peloponnese were concentrated

primarily in the vicinity of Sparta and Tegea and, to a far lesser degree, in

Olympia and Lousoi. Olympia produced a total of about fifteen examples

and the Argolid revealed only three.

The dedication of these double axe pendants as votives at sanctuaries

predominantly in the region of Sparta and Tegea may be significant. It has

been recently argued that the role played by the double axe in Minoan and

Mycenaean religion, as an instrument of slaughter and a symbol of renewal

from sacrificial death, is reflected in later Archaic and Classical Greek

sacrificial practice.^^ It is conceivable that this association between ritual

sacrifice and the double axe was retained in this relatively isolated region of

the Greek world and expressed through the dedication of miniature double

axes to the local vegetation and nature deities (i.e. Artemis Orthia and

Athena Alea).


li

at Mavriki and one at Alipheira.^^ These are biconical beads, some with

one ridge in the middle and some with two. The Tegean, Mavriki, and

Alipheira examples have rims at either end, as does one of the Lousoi

examples (L27, pi. 133); the other Lousoi bead is ringless, (L26, pi. 133).

Biconical beads with rims are known from the Argive Heraion and from a

Geometric pithos burial from Achaea, near Drepanon.^^ Outside the

Peloponnese, a large number of such beads with and without rims were

found at Olynthus, in Macedonia and at Pherai.^^

It can be seen that Types One and Three from Tegea have parallels from

many sites throughout G r e e c e , w h i l e Type Two appears to be

represented only in Arcadia (in bronze) with the greatest concentration at

Tegea. The site of Athena Alea revealed the greatest amount of beads in the

Peloponnese. Bouzek noted that the Peloponnesian beads had a general

affinity with the northern examples, but concluded that all three types

were probably of Peloponnesian craftsmanship.

Robinson considered most of these beads from Macedonia, Ephesus and

Tegea to be Archaic in date and the beads from Olynthus to be seventh

century B.C. at the earliest. Bouzek indicated a date of roughly 700 B.C.,

for at least Types Two and Three. The beads of Type Three from the

Achaean grave were found with West Greek PG pottery, suggesting an

eighth century date. This might mean that in the Peloponnese generally,

Type Three beads were being produced prior to the end of the eighth

century. Type Two may be seventh century in date, if the bronze examples at

Tegea are imitations of the Spartan gold ones, which were found with

Laconian I pottery. Boardman suggested a revised date for this pottery of

650-620 B.C., so the bronze beads of Type Two might date to the second

half of the seventh century. Finally, it is conceivable that Tegea was a centre

of production for these bead types in the Peloponnese, since a great number

and variety were found there.

Turtle Pendant (B184: pi. 134)

Β 184(40) is an ornate figure in the form of a turtle with a round shell and

protrusions of the head, legs and the tail (which doubles as a suspension

loop). 105 Qf j g sj GU js stamped with dotted circles and it has a

circular design hollowed out on the underside. A very close parallel to this

turde is one found at the Artemis Orthia s a n c t u a r y . K i l i a n - D i r l m e i e r

196

notes that these are the only two examples in bronze in the Peloponnese and

that the Spartan one is less well-made than the Tegean example.

According to the Tegea Museum catalogue, there is another very similar

turde pendant from Mavriki, TM no. 394, though I have been unable to find

it.

Recent research on the significance of the turtle votive in sanctuaries (in

various media) indicates that this type of dedication tends to be found at

shrines of female deides. It is argued that they may represent an

embodiment of earth and moisture, reflecting the power of the goddess over

the earth and fertility. In this way turtle votives may be viewed as

appropriate offerings to a goddess whose identity is derived from a 'potnia

theron.'108

Scarab (B185: pi. 134, fig. 27)

B185(41) is a small rectangular object horizontally pierced through the

middle along its long axis. The top of it is rounded and on the underside it

seems to depict an figure in intaglio, possibly of a man with his arms and legs

extended. Both Dugas and Romaios considered it to be a turtle, but I think it

is more likely to be a scarab. It is, in any case, an unusual object without

direct parallel from other Greek sanctuary sites to my knowledge. There are

a great many Egypdan style scarabs of glazed composidon from Perachora,

often found in Protocorinthian contexts, which could conceivably have

influenced the producdon of the Tegean example in bronze.

Section Two: Various Other Bronzes from Tegea hid Arcadia

The next category to be considered consists of votives which do not reveal

pardcular evidence for having been suspended. It is often unclear whether

or not an object functioned as a pendant since holes were punched into

bronzes for puφoses of decoration as well as suspension. In the cases where

there is doubt in this matter, it is indicated. This category includes a variety

of sub-groups such as bronze plaques, pins and fibulae, each of which are

discussed below.

197

Chapter Five

Miniature Votive Shields (B186-B196: pis. 135-140)

About fifteen miniature votive shields, oval in shape and with two cut out

circles on each side were found at Tegea, B186-B196.m Three such shields

were also found at Lousoi, ! !^ L28 (pi. 141), and one was uncovered at

Alipheira. Outside of Arcadia, one was found at Olympia and one in the

Dipylon cemetery. 11"^ Kihan, who also discussed these shields, considered

them to be a particularly popular votive offering in Arcadia and the Olympia

example to be an Arcadian dedication,

Most of the Tegean examples are extremely worn, but it is clear that they

all have punched decoration around the edges and some down the middle as

well (i.e. B187, B190). Some also revealed punched decoration in various

designs covering the plate (i.e. Β190, Β191, L28). All the Tegean shields

have cut out circles, often with punched dots around their peripheries, (B187,

B190, B193-B197). Many of them also have raised bosses on their plates

(B188, B19M94). The Tegean examples vary in length between .065-.15 m

in length. A number have a tiny hole punched at either or both ends,

possibly for suspension or so that they could be fixed to something.

The Lousoi example, L28 (pi. 141), is basically like the Tegean shields

except that its cut out circles reach the edge of the plate. (The Tegean

examples B186 and B187 also have this appearance but I think it is due to the

breakage of the bronze at the edges.) The Lousoi example thus

approximates more a Dipylon shield than the Tegean s h i e l d s . L 2 8 has

punched dots all around the edges, a row of them down the middle and four

more intersecting rows; it also has four raised bosses. Another Lousoi

example, Reichel and Wilhelm no. 108, is much simpler with dots all around

the edges, two small cut out circles and three raised bosses down the middle.

Reichel and Wilhelm no. 122 is much bigger and broken, but the cut out

circles and punched decoration are evident. Finally, the example from

Alipheira is clearly of the same general type as those already mentioned but

without the cut out circles. It has punched dots around the edges, four raised

bosses in the middle and dots around them.

The type of shield being portrayed in these examples is related to the

Dipylon shield, frequently depicted on Attic LG pottery and the subject of

much controversy. It is debatable whether such a shield was in use in the

eighth century or if it is an artistic representation of an older Mycenaean

198


199

type of shield. Snodgrass has recently argued persuasively in support of the

latter view. He discusses representations of shields from the Mycenaean

period found at Menidhi in Attica and at Mycenae which look like

developments from the Mycenaean, figure-of-eight type shield and not unlike

the Geometric, Dipylon type. He concludes that it is less problematical to

explain the depictions of Dipylon shields as the result of chance discoveries

of such Mycenaean shields in the eighth century, prompting an artistic revival

of the shape, rather than to argue that this shield survived from the fifteenth

century to the eighth. With regard to the Tegean bronze examples, he

says elsewhere that the ridiculously small size of these objects emphasizes

how remote from the actual models the artists in fact were.^^^

Lorimer believed that these examples found at Tegea indicated that a

shield almost identical to the Dipylon type was actually in use in Arcadia in

Geometric times. She noted that the bronze examples had a marked

difference in shape from those depicted on Attic vases, being much narrower

at the top and bottom and less reduced at the waist. She thus thought they

represented a practical type. She believed that the findspot in Arcadia,

where survivals would be most probable and alien infiltrations least likely,

plus the difference of these shields from the Attic types, suggested the

use of these shields in the eighth century A r c a d i a . B o a r d m a n has

recently argued in favour of a broader use of the Dipylon shield. He

noted that their depiction was ubiquitous in Geometric art and concluded

that an actual shield of this form was in general use in eighth century

Greece. 120

The remoteness of the Tegean shields from any actual, practical type is

significant in this context. The examples to which Lorimer refers appear

from Dugas' illustrations to have a cut out circle interrupting each long

edge.121 my examination of them, however, I noticed no single example

which revealed a definite interruption of the edge. In all cases, the holes are

punched in the middle of the shield (though in some examples the edges

around the holes are worn, see Β186, Β187). This fact indicates an even

greater distance from any actual shield type and a high degree of stylization.

It can be concluded that these bronze shields found in Arcadia are

unusual and highly stylized votives which may reflect some sort of survival of

concept of a Mycenaean 'figure-of-eight' shield or a more evolved version of

the type. Any attempt to demonstrate actual use of this sort of shield in

eighth century Arcadia cannot be supported. Its relative popularity at Tegea


and other Arcadian sites suggests that this representation may have had a

special appeal and significance for the people living in this region, where

older elements of culture were preserved. 1^2 These votives are probably

eighth century or later in date, based on the images of Dipylon shields

depicted on Attic LG pots.

The frequent occurrence of this votive type at Tegea may be connected

with the early cult at this site. It is conceivable that these offerings reveal an

important aspect of the cult of Athena Alea, that of a protectress. The

choice of the Dipylon shape, moreover, may reflect a significant trait of the

eighth century deity at Tegea, hnking her to an earher Mycenaean cult.^^^

Snodgrass discussed certain round bronze plates as other examples of

miniature votive shields. Tegea yielded about twelve of these objects,

decorated with punched concentric c i r c l e s . i n addition to these

examples in bronze, a small number of similar discs were found with the

same decoration in gold.^^^ Round miniature shields are also known from

Bassai; they are of bronze and have stamped decoration. Such round

miniature shields in bronze were in fact found at various sites throughout the

Greek world. 1^7

Votive Swords

A tiny bronze votive sword was uncovered at the sanctuary of Athena

Alea. it has a blade with convex edges which taper towards the bottom.

The handle is topped with a flattened biconical bead and a projection above

the bead, recalling some of the Tegean pin types (B228). The blade is

decorated with incised tremolo ornament, which is also found on many other

Tegean bronzes (i.e. B89, B44, B169, B232, B244 and so on). A similar, less

ornate and somewhat larger bronze sword was found at the Artemis Orthia

sanctuary in Sparta.

There is apparently another sword from Tegea which is unpublished.

It is said to be 28.5 cm long, which is considerably larger than the votive*

example above but relatively small in comparison with other swords of this type.

Bronze Arrowheads

Approximately one dozen miniature arrowheads of various types were

found at the Athena Alea site.^^l Similar examples are known from other

Greek sanctuary sites as well. Elsewhere in Arcadia, arrowheads were found

at the sanctuary sites at Alipheira, Glanitsa, Bassai and Gortys.

Athena was the recipient of many war-related dedications at Greek

sanctuary sites. At Tegea, the goddess was offered, in addition to the

arrowheads, many Dipylon shields and two swords, discussed above. These

votives may provide some clues as to the early nature of Athena Alea as a

true protectress.

Miniature Phialai/Discs (B197-B199: pis. 142-143)

Five miniature phialai were found at the Athena Alea site, Β197 and

B198, left; also a large example was found and described by Dugas.

Miniature phialai were uncovered at a number of other sites including

Perachora, the Argive Heraion, Tiryns, the Athenian Acropolis, Dodona,

Corinth and Lousoi. They vary in their shape in the same way that large

phialai do; some are quite flat, some have a hole in the middle or a slight

boss, some are shghtly curved. Only Β198, left, has a hole in the middle; all

four on Β197 have slight bosses in the middle and somewhat curved edges.

B198 (right) and B199 are flat discs with decoradon on their faces; they

are related to the phialai above. Β198 (right) has punched dots on its face

and two holes pierced through on opposite edges of the ^isc. Β199 has an

angle ornament scratched in the middle and a single zigzag line around the

inner edge; it has one hole pierced on the edge, probably for suspension.

Votive Lyres (B200-B202: pis. 143-144)

Two bronze plaques from Tegea, B200(210) and B201(210) and one from

Mavriki, B202(M), appear to be representations of miniature lyres, as was

suggested by Romaios. Dugas considers these objects to most resemble

*axes.'1^7 The two from Tegea are incomplete and quite worn; B200 reveals

punched dotted circle decoration on the one side. All three have the same

200 201

Chapter Five

Cauldron Rim (B203: pi. 145)

In Steinhauer's excavations at Tegea just to the north of the temple, he uncovered the rim of a fairly small bronze vessel with a rim diameter of .13 m, B203(S). The rim is about .015 m high and quite thick; the slight hint of the vessel's body which remains indicates that it curved outwards from the rim forming a cauldron of sorts. A small, plain ring remains on the top of the rim and one probably originally existed on the other side. This vessel is unlike any of the miniature tripod cauldrons from Olympia. Its diameter indicates a size somewhere between a miniature cauldron and a fuU-sized one. The pronounced rim also differs from any of the Olympian examples. It thus appears that B203 was a fairly ordinary bronze pot but represents the only evidence so far from Tegea of the dedication of a bronze vessel.

Votive Tweezers (B204-B205: pi. 146)

The site of Athena Alea yielded two votive tweezers, B204(176) and B205(176).l'^^ The larger pair consists of two long triangular faces which connect at the tops of the triangles with a bead flanked by two discs; the top of this tweezer consists of a rod and a second, oblong bead and a round suspension loop on top. Both faces of the triangle are stamped with dotted concentric circles. The smaller tweezers are much simpler with plain triangular faces and a looped top. Similar tweezers to the smaller ones were also found in northern Greece, in Chauchitsa.^^l B204 appears to be an example of *pinched-spring tweezers,' a type which had a long history in the Aegean and in Cyprus, l'^^


Votive Combs (B206: pi. 147)

B206(158) consists of a rectangular plaque with what appear to be tiny teeth along one of the long sides, like a comb. Dugas identified it as such.^^^ The sheet is decorated with rows of punched dots and there appear to be two holes punched at either (short) end of the sheet, presumably to fix it to something. In many ways (except for the teeth) this sheet recalls the many other bronze strips found at Tegea and other sites, discussed below. It may well be an imitation of the ivory and bone combs found at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary, some of which have rectangular shapes. A second comb with a curved top edge and long teeth was also found at Tegea. 1"* This too may have been inspired by the Laconian examples in bone and ivory.

Rectangular Plaques

Rectangular plaques from Tegea, such as Dugas nos. 196-198, consist of flat strips of bronze with repousse decoration and range in size from .05 to .11 m. Such bands were found at many sites in the Peloponnese and the more elaborate ones have been identified as diadems by Payne.^"^^ It is possible that the Tegean rectangular strips are in fact either fragments or entire diadems, of actual or miniature size. From Arcadian sites, these strips have been found at Lousoi (see pi. 169), Alipheira and Bassai. There are many unpubhshed examples from Gortsouli and Orchomenos. 1" ^ Outside of Arcadia, they are known from a number of sites including the Argive Heraion and Sparta, with finer examples known from these and other sites as well.150 ^

Pins (B207-B242: pis. 147-162)

According to Dugas, over 100 pins were found at the Athena Alea sanctuary at Tegea. I examined about 400 bronze pins presumably from both Tegea and Mavriki in the Tegea Museum. Although no mention was made of any bronze pins from Mavriki in Romaios' publication of the site, Dugas indicated that many pins were uncovered there and said that they were a favourite votive object at Mavriki, as at other sites.

202 203

basic form: a U-shaped flat plaque with a thin horizontal bar going through and extending beyond the upper flanks of the 'U'. Along each of the sides are two carefully cut out oval to triangular designs. They are very similar to one another, though the Mavriki example is larger than the other two. An example of a bronze votive lyre originally with eight strings, now with six, was found at the Amyklai sanctuary. Also depicted on a Laconian LG straight sided pyxis from Amyklai is a lyre with dancers. Although the Amyklai bronze is more obviously a lyre than the Arcadian examples, it is clear, nonetheless, that the Tegea and Mavriki examples are stylized lyres. There is also a suggestion of some connection between the lyre and ritual activity at these sites.

Chapter Five

204


205

The Tegean pins specifically and the Arcadian ones generally are examined below in light of more recent excavations in the Peloponnese and new scholarship since Dugas' publication. The main study on the subject of Greek pins appeared in 1956 by Jacobsthal and his basic divisions are sdll generally followed today. Philipp, in a 1981 book on jewellery from Olympia, includes an examination of pin types which are divided according to Jacobsthal's classifications. Most recently, Kilian-Dirlmeier has published a book on Peloponnesian pins, which follows Jacobsthal in a very general sense but provides a far more sensitive and detailed analysis of pin types, taking into account recent archaeological discoveries.

The earliest pin from the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea is an iron one of PG type recently found in Steinhauer's excavations to the north of the temple, B207(S) (pi. 147); it is unpublished. This pin consists of a flat circular disc on top and a spherical bulb below; the shaft has a circular section. It is conceivable that with further excavation at this site, more of such early pins would be found. Many pins of this type were found throughout the Peloponnese, especially in the Argolid. There is a similar early pin from Alipheira, pubhshed by Orlandos.

Pins of Geometric type have been broadly divided into three categories by Jacobsthal: Geometric I, II and III. I examined approximately 35 examples of Geometric I pins in the Tegea Museum; these are probably all from the Athena Alea site, see B208 and B209 (pi. 148). They have the characteristic rectangular cross section above and below the bead; the bead is globular or biconical in shape. The heads of these pins generally have a disc and finial above, often in the shape of a vase.^^^ Other Arcadian sites which have produced Geometric I pins are Lousoi, where one example was found with a single globe (in Karlsruhe Museum, F1974),1^7 and Andritsaina, where two examples were found in a grave. Outside of Arcadia, there are parallels from the sanctuary of Hera Akrai at Perachora, the Argive Heraion and Aegina.1^9 There is an example of this type from Olympia,!^^ but none appear to have been found at Sparta. Jacobsthal's Geometric I group is comparable to Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type I and from her account of the distribution of these pins, it is clear that the Argolid was the best represented area for this pin type. In the cases where contexts are known, these pins tend to be datable to EGII-MGII contexts and later in some cases.

There are over 60 examples of Geometric II type pins from Tegea: B210-B217 (pis. 149-152), plus one illustrated by Milchhofer. 1^3 jhese pins

generally have moulded upper sections with globes, double-cones, cubes, prisms, truncated pyramids, beads and reels and so on. jis ^ if there is one, is usually placed further down the shank than in the Geometric I pins. Round and square sections seem to alternate in the shank and many of these pins are very long; an example from Tegea has the length of a spit, c.50 cm.l^^ From Arcadia, there are two more examples of Geometric II type pins from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe Museum. Other pins of this type come from the Hera Akraia sanctuary at Perachora, a few from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary and many from the Argive Heraion; there are also a number from Corinth and some from Olympia.

Kilian-Dirlmeier has broken down pins of general Geometric II attribution into about ten typological subdivisions.!^^ It appears that her Types II-III were usually found in EG-MG contexts; IV-VII were usually found in MG contexts and VIII-XI tended to be found in LG contexts, where this information was a v a i l a b l e . M o s t of the Tegean pins of Geometric II were of Kilian-Dirlmeier's Types VIII-XI, though the other types were also represented there.

A group of about 120 pins from Tegea, B218-221 (pis. 153-154), have long rows of spirals or of tiny biconical beads with cones on top. Below the row of spirals or beads are two larger biconical beads. They appear to be variants of the Geometric type II pins with some of the same elements. The beaded or spiral sections are often very long, as are the pins themselves. The monotonous repetition in these pins also indicates that they may be derivative of the Geometric II type. Elsewhere in Arcadia, these pins were found at Gortsouli (two unpublished examples) and Asea.^^O Other pins of this type were uncovered at the Argive Heraion and a few at Sparta. Their contexts are generally LG.^^^ ^

Other related pin types from Tegea include B222-B223 (pi. 155), which are very plain in design. They consist of two biconical beads and are of a rectangular section below the lower bead. B222 has a fairly flat, tiny knob at the top of the pin, while B223 has a small, vase-shaped finial. These pins have parallels from Olympia, and Philipp refers to them as 'Geometric to Archaic' in date.l^-^ These pins fall into one of Kilian-Dirlmeier's subdivisions of Type XVI.

T-pins, like the two from Tegea, B224 (pi. 155), are considered closest to the Geometric II pins in terms of the treatment of the shank. A third


The Tegean pins specifically and the Arcadian ones generally are examined below in light of more recent excavations in the Peloponnese and new scholarship since Dugas' publication. The main study on the subject of Greek pins appeared in 1956 by Jacobsthal and his basic divisions are still generally followed today. Philipp, in a 1981 book on jewellery from Olympia, includes an examination of pin types which are divided according to Jacobsthal's classifications. Most recently, Kilian-Dirlmeier has published a book on Peloponnesian pins, which follows Jacobsthal in a very general sense but provides a far more sensitive and detailed analysis of pin types, taking into account recent archaeological discoveries.

The earliest pin from the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea is an iron one of PG type recently found in Steinhauer's excavations to the north of the temple, B207(S) (pi. 147); it is unpublished. This pin consists of a flat circular disc on top and a spherical bulb below; the shaft has a circular section. It is conceivable that with further excavation at this site, more of such early pins would be found. Many pins of this type were found throughout the Peloponnese, especially in the Argohd.^^"^ There is a similar early pin from Alipheira, pubhshed by Orlandos.

Pins of Geometric type have been broadly divided into three categories by Jacobsthal: Geometric I, II and III. I examined approximately 35 examples of Geometric I pins in the Tegea Museum; these are probably all from the Athena Alea site, see B208 and B209 (pi. 148). They have the characteristic rectangular cross section above and below the bead; the bead is globular or biconical in shape. The heads of these pins generally have a disc and finial above, often in the shape of a vase.^^^ Other Arcadian sites which have produced Geometric I pins are Lousoi, where one example was found with a single globe (in Karlsruhe Museum, F1974),l^^ and Andritsaina, where two examples were found in a grave. Outside of Arcadia, there are parallels from the sanctuary of Hera Akrai at Perachora, the Argive Heraion and Aegina.1^9 There is an example of this type from O l y m p i a , b u t none appear to have been found at Sparta. Jacobsthal's Geometric I group is comparable to Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type I and from her account of the distribution of these pins, it is clear that the Argolid was the best represented area for this pin type. In the cases where contexts are known, these pins tend to be datable to EGII-MGII contexts and later in some cases.

There are over 60 examples of Geometric II type pins from Tegea: B210-B217 (pis. 149-152), plus one illustrated by Milchhofer. 163 These pins

204

generally have moulded upper sections with globes, double-cones, cubes, prisms, truncated pyramids, beads and reels and so on.l^^ The disc, if there is one, is usually placed further down the shank than in the Geometric I pins. Round and square sections seem to alternate in the shank and many of these pins are very long; an example from Tegea has the length of a spit, c.50 cm. From Arcadia, there are two more examples of Geometric II type pins from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe Museum. Other pins of this type come from the Hera Akraia sanctuary at Perachora, a few from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary and many from the Argive Heraion; there are also a number from Corinth and some from Olympia.

Kilian-Dirlmeier has broken down pins of general Geometric II attribution into about ten typological subdivisions. It appears that her Types II-III were usually found in EG-MG contexts; IV-VII were usually found in MG contexts and VIII-XI tended to be found in LG contexts, where this information was available. Most of the Tegean pins of Geometric II were of Kilian-Dirlmeier's Types VIII-XI, though the other types were also represented there.

A group of about 120 pins from Tegea, B218-221 (pis. 153-154), have long rows of spirals or of tiny biconical beads with cones on top. Below the row of spirals or beads are two larger biconical beads. They appear to be variants of the Geometric type II pins with some of the same elements. The beaded or spiral sections are often very long, as are the pins themselves. The monotonous repetition in these pins also indicates that they may be derivative of the Geometric II type. Elsewhere in Arcadia, these pins were found at Gortsouli (two unpublished examples) and Asea.l^^ Other pins of this type were uncovered at the Argive Heraion and a few at Sparta. 1^1 Their contexts are generally LG. ^

Other related pin types from Tegea include B222-B223 (pi. 155), which are very plain in design. They consist of two biconical beads and are of a rectangular section below the lower bead. B222 has a fairly flat, tiny knob at the top of the pin, while B223 has a small, vase-shaped finial. These pins have parallels from Olympia, and Philipp refers to them as 'Geometric to Archaic' in date . l^^ These pins fall into one of Kilian-Dirlmeier's subdivisions of Type XVI. 1 "

T-pins, like the two from Tegea, B224 (pi. 155), are considered closest to the Geometric II pins in terms of the treatment of the shank, l'^^ A third

205

Chapter Five

206


207

T-pin from Tegea published by Dugas, no. 132. B225 (pi. 155), with the two

conical caps at either end of the horizontal bar and intersected by a vertical

shaft, also falls into this T-pin group. Other examples of T-pins are

known from the Argive Heraion, where about thirty T-pins were found and

two from Aegina.177 Kilian-Dirlmeier notes that the contexts of these pins

are usually LG.

B226 and 227 (pi. 156), consist of a number of pins with solid, conical, tops

and with a biconical bead below. Ten examples of this type were uncovered

at Tegea. There is a parallel from Olympia in silver which has the same

general shape. The pins from Tegea are probably Subgeometric and may

well be locally produced. Another pin, from Lousoi, appears from the

drawing to be of this type.^^l

An unusual pin type not pubhshed by Dugas is probably from Tegea, B228

(pi. 156). It is clearly related to the above pin types and Kilian-Dirlmeier

includes them altogether in her category of Type XIX pins.^^^ It has a large

biconical bead extending disproportionately towards the top button which

crowns the pin; it has another biconical bead further down the shank,

and becomes rectangular in section immediately below this.^^^

The 'flat head pins,' so-called by Jacobsthal, consist of at least eight

examples from Tegea, B229-B233 (pis. 156-158). Jacobsthal considers

them to be 'Subgeometric' on the basis of the modelling of the shanks.

B233 consists of two ornate 'oar blades' with stamped dotted circles on both

sides of each. They both have holes pierced through the tops of the blades,

presumably for suspension. B229, B230 and B231 are all roughly related in

that they all have either oval, rounded or diamond shaped upper sections.

B231 is stamped with two dotted circles on each face, as is B232, which is

very similar to the upper part of B231. B232 was also originally attached to a

shank. From Alipheira, there is a similar pin with a flat, oval head.^^^

Examples of flat head pins outside of Arcadia can be seen in

Kilian-Dirlmeier's account but there are no apparent parallels for the

Tegean 'oar blades,' which are probably a local development.

B234( l l l ) (pi. 158), is related to the 'haiφin' types but it has only one

shank and flattened loops at the top, while the hairpins usually have two

shanks and the loops have a round section. Examples of pins similar to B234

are not known, but hairpin types were found at Bassai, Olympia and

elsewhere. Kihan-Dirlmeier discusses this pin, B234, with the other flat

head pins of her Type XX. She considers the haiφins in an examinadon

of much later pin types and includes a previously unpublished example of this

type from Tegea.

The Geometr ic III pins, B235-B236 (pis. 159-160), are the

best-represented group at Tegea (140 pins).l^l This type of pin has a flat

disc at the top of the shank followed by a row of beads of varying number

and shape, often with a cube below the row of beads. The cubes and the top

discs somedmes have dotted circles stamped on them. These pins are

generally much shorter than Geometric II pins.^^^ From Arcadia, there is

an ornate pin of this type from Lousoi, L32 (pi. 169); a second example

from Lousoi is (NM 15370), L33 (pi. 169). There are two more Geometric

III pins from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe Museum (F1973, F2030). Six examples

of this type were also found at Alipheira. Outside of Arcadia, pins of this

type were discovered in the Argolid, Perachora, Laconia, Olympia and one in

Delphi. Over 200 such pins were uncovered at the Argive Heraion,

where they appear to have been best represented.

Sparta yielded a number of bone pins similar to the Geometric III bronze

pins in style and technique. Dawkins suggested that the bone examples

developed out of the bronze t y p e s . J a c o b s t h a l thinks that the influence

worked the other way around, i.e. from bone to bronze. I am inclined to

agree with Dawkins on this point largely because the decoration of dotted

circles has been found on numerous Geometric bronze pendants and thus

need not have been taken from the bone pins of Geometric III type.

Moreover, one would not expect the new pin type to be invented in Laconia,

where relatively few pins of Geometric I or II have been found. I think it is

rather more likely that the type was developed, possibly in the Argolid, in the

late eighth century and imitated in Sparta from 700 B.C. S^r later in bone.

Kilian-Dirlmeier notes that these Type III pins, her 'Mehrkopfnadeln,' are

found in contexts dating to the end of LG and Subgeometric.

B237 (pi. 158), is a 'roll pin,' which is similar to a spiral pin except that the

upper, rolled section is flattened. Kilian-Dirlmeier discusses these roll pins

but does not mention the Tegean example. Other sites in Arcadia which

have yielded such pins are Alipheira, with four unpublished examples in the

Olympia Museum, and Bassai with one.^^O Outside of Arcadia, a number of

these pins were found at Olympia and elsewhere.^^l They appear to have

had a long history, originating in the Early Bronze Age in Europe and the

Near East, and continuing into the Iron Age.^^^


The Orientahzing or Archaic pins represent the next major category of pin type. Kilian-Dirlmeier discusses these pins in her group 'Nadeln archaischer Zeit.'^^-^ Dugas noted that this type of pin was not particularly popular at Tegea, with only a dozen e x a m p l e s . I examined 25 pins of this type, B238-B241 (pis. 160-161).205 of the Orientalizing I category are the pins B238, with large flat discs and plain globes below.^^^ B241 are pins with a 'top loop' which Jacobsthal considers to fall at the end of Orientalizing I.^^^ The Orientalizing II pins are represented by B239-B240 with thicker discs and more ornate globes, often with vertical or horizontal grooving. Lousoi yielded about four examples of Orientalizing I pins and about ten of Orientalizing II, L34-L37 (pis. 169-170).208 GortsouH also yielded a considerable number of this type of pin: roughly fifteen examples of Orientalizing I and about 75 examples of Orientalizing II. In addition about fifteen ornate pomegranate pins were found there.^^^ From Alipheira, two more examples of Orientalizing I were uncovered.^l^ Orientalizing pins were in fact found in great numbers throughout the Peloponnese, and Jacobsthal concluded from this concentration of evidence that the Orientalizing pins were a Peloponnesian creation which were exported or copied outside of this region.

B242a and B242b (pi. 162), are called 'knot head pins' by Jacobsthal and consist of the winding of the upper end of the pin around the shaft. They apparently had a long history in Europe and the Near East prior to their appearance in Archaic Greece.^ll Other examples of this type were found at Gortsouli, where seven unpublished examples were uncovered. Pins of this type were also found at Perachora and from Olympia.-^l^

Conclusions: Pins

The sequence of the pins from the Gortsouli sanctuary confirms the picture already suggested by the pottery and other votives from this site that the cult did not flourish until the second half of the seventh century or later.

Lousoi yielded a small number of Geometric I and II pins and a few examples of Geometric III. The best represented pins at Lousoi are the Orientalizing types, in particular. Orientalizing II. The picture created by the representations of Geometric and Archaic pins at Lousoi is comparable to that from Olympia in that a relatively small amount of Geometric pins were uncovered in relation to the large number of Archaic pins found. This resemblance reinforces the suggestion that a link may have existed between the bronze workshops at these two sites.

Southwest Arcadia produced evidence for a number of pins as well, at Alipheira, Bassai, and Andritsaina. The Andritsaina pins are stylistically early (Geometric I). Jacobsthal informs us that they were found in a tomb and that they were still being made, worn or dedicated in the late eighth century or even after that. This he determined on the basis of the other contents of the tomb, which apparently consisted of four late eighth century fibulae.213 The pins from Bassai are seventh century types, and Alipheira yielded a single PG type, some Geometric III pins but mostly later types.

It thus appears that the eastern Arcadian sites of Tegea and Gortsouli yielded the greatest variety and amount of Geometric and early Archaic pin types in the region and were no doubt influenced by the Argolid. Tegea revealed the earliest examples with one PG pin and about three dozen of the Geometric I type. Lousoi yielded some fine Archaic pins and revealed a connection with Olympia. .

The pins found at the sanctuary of Athena Alea reveal a great range of types with some very early pin types (PG and Geometric I). The best represented categories, however, are Geometric II, variants of Geometric II and Geometric III. Strong influence from the Argolid is clear since most of the pin types found at Tegea existed at the Argive Heraion in far greater numbers. Distinctive at Tegea are some of the flat head pins such as the 'oar blades,' and the popularity of the solid conical topped pins. Orientalizing pins were not well represented, with only some of the basic I and II types. Further north at Gortsouli, however, a variety of Orientalizing pins types were found, indicating that this sort of pin was a popular dedication there.

Fibulae (B243-B258: pis. 163-168)

The sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea produced about 32 fibulae of various types.^l^ in general, the fibulae found at Peloponnesian sites in Arcadia, and outside, at Olympia, the Argos, Sparta and Perachora indicate a much smaller number of finds and variety of types in comparison with the enormous amount of fibulae from Thessaly.^l^

The range of fibulae found at Tegea is, on the whole, characteristic of the types found a t o t h e r P e l o p o n n e s i a n si tes and inc ludes

208 209

Μ Pendants and Other Bronzes

Boeotian Fibulae (B247-B248: pi. 164)

B247(150), plus Dugas nos. 151, 152 and 194, fall into what Philipp cahs

the Teloponnesian-Atdc-Boeotian' category.232 Dugas no. 152 has a bird

incised on the plate.233 Part of a plate decorated with incised lines is

preserved in Dugas no. 151. B247 is damaged and the plate is not preserved.

One can see that the type consists of a very flat curved sheet for the arc, with

a pin below and with the plate attached to the end of the arc, when it is

preserved. Philipp correctly idendfied Dugas no. 194, which Dugas had

pubhshed simply as a plaque of bronze; she recognized it as the wide, flat,

arc section of a 'Boeodan' fibula.234 A fragment recently found in

Steinhauer's excavations at Tegea, B248(S), also appears to be broken from a

fibula of this type. It is an ornate piece with square section from the lower

area of the bow, decorated with zigzag tremolo lines. At one end it is curved

shaφly; at the other, after a biconical bead, it is broken away. Parallels for

this piece can be found at Olympia.235 in addidon to these examples, Kilian

illustrates other unpublished fibulae of this type, presumably from Tegea.236

He believes, on the basis of the engraved decoration, that Boeotian type

fibulae were also made in the Argolid and possibly in Arcadia as well.237

This point is discussed further in the consideradon of the disc, Dugas no. 154,

following. Fibulae of this type are also known from Lousoi and many were

found in various other Peloponnesian sanctuaries.238 ^

Thessalian Fibulae (B249a: pi. 165)

B249a(149) is well-known piece from this site but is unfortunately far less

complete today than it was when pubhshed by Dugas.239 it is described by

Blinkenberg as a 'Helladic' type and by Kihan as very similar to a Thessalian

type.240 A few examples of this general type of fibula (with globe on the

bow, flanked by reels) have been found at Olympia and a number are known

from many other Peloponnesian sites. This distribudon prompted Phihpp to

name the type, 'Peloponnesian-Thessalian' plate fibulae.241 Arcadian

211

Chapter Five

.1

Mycenaean/Submycenaean Fibulae (B243-B244: pi. 163)

B243(141) and B244(X) are the earhest fibulae found so far at the Athena

Alea site. B243 is an example of a Late Mycenaean violin bow fibula; it is

similar to examples in Blinkenberg's I.7a category.216 The top is long,

rectangular and flat with two holes at either end. A very similar unpublished

example was found at Gortsouli to the north. There is also an example of

this type from Lousoi, L38 (pi. 169).217 A few fibulae of this kind were also

found in Laconia, and there is a similar one from Olympia.218 This type of

fibula was apparently sdll in use at the end of PG.219 Snodgrass refers to

violin bow fibulae found in sanctuaries as survivals or heirlooms.220

B244(X) is a Submycenaean arched fibula, a characteristic type with

widespread distribution.221 it has a high, semi-circular bow above the pin.

Dugas did not publish it but it is illustrated by Kihan as a Tegean fibula

which he indicates was imported to the site.222 The existence of fibulae

B243 and B244 at the Athena Alea site, together with the other early

material found there, may mark the beginning of the cult. Alternatively they

may all be heirlooms or survivals.

Simple Geometric Fibulae (B245-B246: pi. 163)

Dugas no. 139 is a simple fibula with a high bow, apparently represented

by sk examples at Tegea.223 Kihan compares it to an example from Pherai.

He concludes that the type can be localized in southern Macedonia and

Thrace.224 Another example of this type is known from Lousoi.225

B245(X) is not published by Dugas; it is generally related to B244 above.

Kilian considers it and B244 to be imports to Tegea.226 B246(X) is a fibula

with a twisted arc; it was not pubhshed by Dugas but Kilian illustrates it and

considers it an import.227 He determined a Macedonian or Thracian origin

for a related piece from Tegea, Dugas no. 153.228 This sort of twisted,

210

'Peloponnesian-Thessalian' forms with catch-plate, Island Types,

'Peloponnesian-Attic-Boeodan' fibulae, spectacle fibulae and other variants

as well. A good deal of research has already been done on Greek fibulae so

it is sufficient here to describe the types of fibulae found at Tegea and in

Arcadia as a whole, and their significance, in light of recent research.

arched fibula was known from the very end of Mycenaean times and through

PG 229 Examples have also been found at Lousoi, L39 (NM 15326) (pi.

170), and four more from Lousoi are related in type.230 These twisted

fibulae are also known from the Argive Heraion, the Artemis Orthia site,

Perachora and Ithaka.231

Chapter Five

Island Fibulae (B249b-B250: pi. 165)

B249b(148) consists of a plate fibula with an oblong bead flanked by two smaller beads on either side of it on the bow. The plate is largely missing and has no apparent decoration on it. Kilian considers it to be a variant of fibulae found in Thessaly; Bhnkenberg classified it as an Island Type.^^^

The other three examples on pi. 165 are unpubhshed but presumably from Tegea, to judge from their display in the Tegea Museum. They consist of two more 'Helladic' types (top left and right) which have general Thessalian traits and a third (middle row, right) that may be related to Peloponnesian-Attic-Boeotian types.^'^^

B250(X) (pi. 65), is an unpublished example, similar to B249b, which appears to have strong affinities with some of Blinkenberg's Island Types.^^O It is very similar to two examples of Island Types from Olympia.251 Kilian notes the popularity of the Island types at Tegea and indicates that a single example of this type also came from Mavriki.252

212


Spectacle Fibulae (B251-B254: pis. 166-167)

Seven examples of spectacle fibulae (Blinkenberg Type XIV) were found at Tegea: B251-253, Dugas no. 144 plus three others mentioned by Dugas.2^3 There were also two examples with four spirals found at the site; one is illustrated here, B254(147). The spectacle fibulae from Tegea and all of southern Greece apparently originated in central and northeastern Europe and were carried through Macedonia to central and southern Greece. They were in vogue from the ninth to the seventh centuries.^^"^ The four-spiral types were apparently originally from Hungary, but the particular types found in southern Greece were actually developed in central Greece during the Geometric period.^^^ The earliest examples of spectacle and four-spiral fibulae were found in abundance at Sparta.^^^ Other Arcadian sites which produced spectacle fibulae were Lousoi, where at least five examples have been identified (L42, L43, pis. 169-170),257 and Alipheira, where fragments of two spectacle fibulae were u n c o v e r e d . T w o unpublished fragments of these spectacle fibulae were also apparently found at Mavriki.2^9 Spectacle and four-spiral fibulae were also found at Olympia as well as many other sites throughout Greece.^^^

Loop Fibula (B255: pi. 166)

B255(142) is an unusual fibula with four loops of bronze along its bow. Kilian mentions it as an import to Tegea.^^^ I know of no exact parallel for this fibula, though fibulae with more elaborate loops were known from Mycenaean IIIB and C contexts.^^^ A fibula from Vergina with three loops on its bow could be seen as related to the Tegean examplet^^^ Blinkenberg had classified it as an Intermediate Type,' and both he and Dugas noted that such loops were also found on a fibula from Halstatt.^^^ The existence of this fibula at Tegea may be significant, in view of the fact that it has no close parallels in the Peloponnese and its closest links appear to be with late Mycenaean and northern Greek types.

Phrygian Fibula (B256: pi. 167)

B256(156) is an example of Blinkenberg's 'Asia Minor' fibulae.^^^ In recent years it has become possible to classify this fibula more specifically as

213

examples were uncovered at Andritsaina, where four were found in a grave.2^2 Lousoi also yielded an fibula of this type; it is unillustrated.^^^

It is thought that the Tegean fibula, B249a, ought to be considered as a part of a group of fibulae that includes the four Andritsaina examples and also some from Elateia, Olympia and Delphi.^'^^ Coldstream notes that this Tegean fibula, B249a, is most at home in Arcadia and is similar to the Andritsaina examples. The Arcadian fibulae of this type all have figured themes enclosed in a heavy double border.^^^ The decoration of B249a originally consisted of rows of fish on the one side and a framed hnear decoration on the other; this fish motif was found on a number of other fibulae of this type.^'^^ The double border of the catch-plates, characteristic of these fibulae from Arcadia, can also be seen on a Boeotian fibula from Tegea and on one from Lerna.247 it is thus conceivable that in addition to the possibility of local production for the Boeotian fibula types that Peloponnesian-Thessalian fibulae were also being produced in Arcadia.

τ Chapter Five

Globe Fibula (B257: pi. 168)

B257(155) is an unusual fibula with five solid globes of bronze forming the

bow; it is broken at both ends and the pin is missing. Blinkenberg classified

it as an Intermediate' type and it seems to have close parallels with three

examples from Lindos, Rhodes.269

Disc Fibula (B258: pi. 168)

B258(157) is a most peculiar object, consisting of two bronze discs

connected by a rectangular piece of bronze. There appear to have originally

been two spirals at either end. Its general shape recalls the form of spectacle

fibulae and the spirals at either end of B258 reinforce this connecdon. This

fibula may have been an experimental piece derivative of the spectacle

fibulae. It may also be connected to the ivory examples of this type from

Sparta.2'70

A brief mention shall be made of Dugas no. 140,271 which are two

examples of objects pierced with holes and with a pin below. Blinkenberg

doubted that they were fibulae and thought it more likely that they were

earrings.272 Neither example was to be found when I was in the Museum, so

their funcdon will be left unexplored for the present.

Engraved Disc (fig. 28)

The similarity of the engraved drawing on the bronze disc, Dugas no. 154

(here fig. 28), with that of the catch-plates of the Boeotian and Thessalian

fibulae types requires that this disc be considered here in the examination of


214 215

a Thrygian' type, like those found at Gordion. There are examples of such

fibulae from the eighth and seventh centuries from Olympia, the Argive

Heraion, Perachora, Sparta, Samos and Lindos 266 There is no exact

parallel for the Tegean example, but it is similar to an example from

Olympia, and to some of the Gordion pieces.267 B256 might even be an

imitadon of a Phrygian type made in the Peloponnese, but Philipp concludes

that the quesdon of whether fibulae of this type found in the Peloponnese

are Phrygian or non-Phrygian works must be left open for the present.268

Tegean fibulae. Akhough less than half the disc was found,273 it clearly

contained a most interesting scene: a nude female figure standing on a

quadruped and holding a poppy in her upstretched left hand with a gigantic

bird flanking her on the left. On the other side is a large swastika decorated

with tremolo lines. Since its publication in 1921, this disc has received

considerable attendon. Muller discussed it first after Dugas and identified

the object in the female's hand as a poppy, not a pomegranate (as thought by

Dugas); he also identified the motif of 'Goddess on a Quadruped' as an

Oriental one.274 Hampe concluded that the quadruped was likely to be a

bull and refers generally to the disc as 'Boeotian.'275 Technau discussed the

Tegean disc in a more general review of the theme of goddesses standing on

bulls.276 Jacobsthal noted that the type of poppy in the lady's hand was

probably a papaver somniferum, as Muller first suggested.277 Others too

have mentioned this disc and it has become involved indirectly in some

matters of controversy.278 There is, however, general agreement that the

disc is a late eighth century product, that the quadruped looks like a bull, that

the object in the lady's hand is a poppy, and that the scene recalls an Oriental

motif of a goddess on a quadruped, depicted in Geometric convention.

The controversy concerns the place of production for this disc. The style

of the drawing is related to that on the Attic-Boeodan fibulae, which in turn

brings up the question of the place of manufacture for this type of fibula.

DeVries argues that the Attic-Boeotian types of fibulae found in the Argolid

were most likely to be from Boeoda. He says that the variety and small

number of fibula types found in the Peloponnese indicate no standard form

for this type of fibula from this region.279 On the other hand, a number of

scholars have recently argued for an eastern Peloponnesian origin for these

fibulae found in the Argolid and Tegea. In support of thj^ view, one could

cite an Argive style bronze horse (in Bonn) on whose neck are drawn two

birds in a similar style to that on the Attic-Boeodan fibulae.280 The

existence of this sort of drawing on an Argive horse, on the Attic-Boeotian

type fibulae found in the Argolid and Tegea, as well as on the Tegean disc

suggests that this style of drawing was being done locally in the eastern

region of the Peloponnese. Kilian concludes that fibulae of Attic-Boeotian

type were being manufactured also in the Argolid, and possibly in

Arcadia.281 Philipp comes to a similar conclusion; she suggests an Argive

origin for the Tegean disc, the Argive horse with birds drawn on the neck

and for the eleven known fibulae of this type from the Argolid and Tegea.282

-ν

Chapter Five

Fibulae from Lousoi

A very simple small fibula from Lousoi, L44 (pi. 169), consists of an

arched bow made of very thin wire and has a flat, broken catch-plate.^^^

Another fibula from Lousoi, L45 (pi. 169), consists of a variant of the type

made of twisted wire.^^^ It is almost rectangular in shape and has the

twisted section going all around the pin until it nearly reaches its pointed

end; it has no looped corner and Blinkenberg mentions it in relation to the


Fibula from Bassai

A single fibula of bronze was found at Bassai.^^^ It has a very flat, wide

bow facing horizontally and ends in a tiny rectangular plate above the point

of the pin. The pin is connected with the bow by means of a simple hinge

(with a piece of wire). The arched shape and simple form of this fibula

suggest that it was probably a local variant of the simplest sort of fibula. The

date is not clear but it may be seventh century at the earliest.

Conclusions: Fibulae

The above examination of Arcadian fibulae reveals an impressive

spectrum of types, found particularly at Lousoi and Tegea. Tegea yielded a

216 217

The drawing style of Dugas no. 154 is also related to that on the

Teloponnesian-Thessalian' fibula, B249a(149). For this class of fibulae, a

strong case can be made for local production in Arcadia.^^^ The similarity

in style between these two pieces offers further support in favour of local,

Tegean manufacture for Dugas no. 154.

The significance of the scene on this small disc is an intriguing question

related to the problem of place of production. The depiction of a nearly

naked female figure, standing on the back of a bull, holding a poppy and with

a giant bird twice her size at her side is clearly a scene one would not have

encountered in everyday life, even in eighth century B.C. Greece.^^"^

Coldstream notes that the concept of a deity standing on a quadruped could

have been borrowed from Neo-Hittite art; alternatively he suggests the

possibility of a Mycenaean derivation for a vegetation goddess of local

significance whose attributes might have been preserved in this Arcadian

landscape.2^5 A Bronze Age parallel for a female (probably a goddess)

holding poppies can be seen on a gold ring from Mycenae.^^^ The large

bird flanking the female figure on this disc may be a divine attribute of the

deity, further indicating a Mycenaean origin for the scene.^^^

One cannot be certain, however, if this potent depiction on the disc was a

deliberate expression relating to the early cult of (Athena) Alea or if it had a

general significance. Nor is it clear what the original function of this round

disc was. Was it made specifically and solely for dedication or did it have

another purpose prior to dedication? There is, in any case, considerable

evidence to support the suggestion that this disc was made in Tegea or in the

neighboring Argohd and that the nature of the depiction of a Vegetation

Goddess and Mistress of Animals was perfectly at home in the context of a

sanctuary, especially in this sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea.

earliest fibulae types.290 L46 (pi. 169), NM15319, was considered by

Blinkenberg to be a miniature fibula.^^l

Four Teloponnesian hinged fibulae' were also found at the Lousoi site,

one of which is illustrated, L47 (pi. 170).292 The mouldings of this type

consist of a round ball divided in two parts by thin beaded decoration and

flanked by beaded bands. Muscareha considers the examples of this type

from Lousoi, the Argive Heraion, Olympia and Perachora to be Greek

mainland products which were derived from Asia Minor types.^^^ They are

probably seventh century in date.

A small hinged fibula of northern Greek type is another example from

Lousoi, published by Reichel and Wilhelm.294 Bhnkenberg considered it to

be an Asia Minor type, but Philipp and Kilian indicate a northern origin.295

There are roughly similar examples to the Lousoi fibula from Olympia.^^^

An unpublished fibula from Lousoi, in the Bonn Akademisches

Kunstmuseum (C.55), is an Italian type called 'Navicella fibula;' it was

probably an import to the site.297 A number of these Navicella fibulae were

also found at Olympia and there are one or two fairly close parallels.^^^ It

consists of a pin with curled loop and above, a bird's head with moulded,

protruding eyes on either side of the head. The fibula is broken but probably

looked something like Olympia's no. 1058, when it was complete. There is

also a similar sort of fibula from Perachora.299


variety of fibulae which may have been acquired through its geographic proximity to other sites; it no doubt absorbed influences (or the actual objects) from Laconia, the Argolid and Corinth. Lousoi, once again, reveals a connecdon with Olympia in the nature of the types found, such as in the Peloponnesian fibulae and the northern Greek hinged types and the imported Navicella species found at both sites. The northern influences observed in a number of the fibulae from Tegea is notable, though some examples have been observed at other Peloponnesian sites. It appears that the Arcadian sites, particularly Tegea, were exposed and receptive to these various influences prevalent in the Peloponnese.

It is conceivable that in Arcadia , 'A t t i c -Boeo t ian ' and 'Peloponnesian-Thessalian' fibulae were locally produced with engraved catch-plates of a particular style consisdng of engraved double borders and themes of birds and fish. Kihan believes that the fibulae from Arcadia generally provide further evidence for the existence of local workshops.^^^

Section Three: Bronzes From Other Arcadian Sites

Some of the more important bronze objects found at other Arcadian sites and not at Tegea are discussed in this secdon. It is not possible to include all the bronze votives from the various Arcadian sites (see pis. 170-172 for some examples from Lousoi and Asea), but certain objects which trigger broader themes relevant to this study are examined.^^^

Miniature Armour from Bassai

The bronze miniature armour found in the excavations of the sanctuary of Apollo Epikourios at Bassai are unusual votive offerings. Some examples were pubhshed in 1910, and recently a good deal more of the same was found in excavadons at the site.^^^ The published examples consist of miniature helmets, cuirasses, greaves, shields and what may be arm guards. Snodgrass tells us that this miniature armour is a relatively rare phenomenon in Archaic Greece and that it was in fact a speciality of Crete. He suggests a Cretan inspiradon for the miniature armour at Bassai on the basis of similarities, particularly in the types of cuirasses found at Bassai and at Praisos and Gortyn in Crete. These are plain and elongated in shape. A less

pronounced resemblance can be seen in the helmets and greaves.^^^ Snodgrass offers a plausible context for the presence of Cretans in the vicinity of Bassai towards the middle of the seventh century during the dme of the Second Messenian War. According to Pausanias, Cretan mercenaries were fighting on the Spartan side in this war against the Messenians. The Arcadians were known to be the most prominent Messenian allies and the closing phase of this war was apparently fought on Mt. Hira, only five kilometres from Bassai in a direct line. Shortly after the siege of Hira, the Spartans apparently took Phigaleia, the city to which the sanctuary of Bassai belonged in c.659.^0^ Within this historical context, Snodgrass suggests that the Cretan mercenaries would have celebrated their success in the manner to which they were accustomed in Crete, by dedicating votive armour at the nearest major sanctuary site, in this case, the sanctuary of Apollo at Bassai. Once this custom was initiated at Bassai, it would have been continued under local impetus with considerable fervour.^^^

Cooper, on the other hand, considers this miniature armour to be token offerings made to Apollo, the patron god of the Arcadian 'Epikouroi.'^^^ Cooper believes that after the Second Messenian War was over, the Messenians sought refuge in Arcadia and that the Arcadians escorted them from Mt. Hira to the Bassai area.^^^ The sudden growth of the Bassai sanctuary would be explained by the fighdng of the Arcadian mercenaries (or the epikouroi) from Phigaleia on the side of the Messenians during the war and the setding of Messenians in the Bassai area after it. Miniature armour would be an appropriate offering to a god whose origin was as a patron deity of mercenaries.

These are the two main views regarding the miniature^armour at Bassai. Jost, who recently considered the nature of Apollo Epikourios, doubts he was ever a patron of mercenaries.^^^ She states that the Phigaleians were never called 'epikouroi' in contexts describing the Messenian conflicts in which the Phigaleians were involved. She concludes that Cooper's hypothesis is fragile. On the other hand, she believes that this Apollo may have funcdoned as a protector of warriors generally.

Excavations at the sanctuary of Apollo revealed only a few late Geometric votives and a few seventh century bronzes prior to the dedication of the miniature armour. Cooper determined that the first temple of limestone was built at the site in the last quarter of the seventh century. This would mean that at the dme of the Second Messenian War and the capture of Phigaleia,

218 219

Chapter Five

Gortsouli Cage (pi. 118)

A 'slit cage' was found at the sanctuary at Gortsouli by Karageorga. It consists of a hollow globe with seven vertical cut out crescent sections. It has

220


221

the Bassai sanctuary was probably no more than a small temenos with an open air altar and a small number of votives. The quickening of pace at the site from the second half of the seventh century onward suggests that the cult of Apollo Epikourios was developed and defined as a result of the Second Messenian War.

The general likeness of the Bassai votive armour to that from Crete and the apparent parallel in custom at Bassai and at Praisos and Gortyn in Crete (in the dedication of this sort of miniature armour at sanctuary sites) is significant. Questions surrounding this war and the siege of Phigaleia by the Spartans remain open for debate.^l^ It is conceivable, however, that Cretan mercenaries did visit Bassai after assisting the Spartans in the capture of Phigaleia, and that they did initiate the custom of dedicating miniature armour there, as Snodgrass suggests. Apollo, in this way, could have become identified as the patron of warriors. It is possible that the sanctuary of Apollo, which began originally as modest, local cult with no apparent distinguishing traits, became defined in the second half of the seventh century, through the events of the Second Messenian War. After initiation by Cretan mercenaries, the practice of dedicating miniature armour may well have been taken over by local worshippers, presumably to honour Apollo, whose identity was becoming defined as patron of warriors.^^^

The numerous bronze votive shields dedicated at the Tegea sanctuary (B186-B196) may be significant in this context as well. A few were also found at Lousoi and Ahpheira in Arcadia. The miniature armour from Bassai and the votive shields from Tegea, Alipheira and Lousoi are all votive weapons but the Bassai material is clearly imitating actual, real-life armour. The shield dedications, on the other hand, appear to be quite removed from actual shields in use and are linked to Bronze Age figure-of-eight shields in general form. All these miniature weapons may represent a concern for protection and reflect some response, however obliquely, to Spartan aggression. It is conceivable that many parts of Arcadia had to confront, either directly or indirectly, the reality of the expanding Laconian power to the south.

a rounded suspension loop with a flat disc on top of it and a thick disc below. Under the globe is a small, rounded button. This object, if it had been considered by Kilian-Dirlmeier, would fall generally into her category of 'geschlitzte bommelm mit einfacher ose, stiel und unterem forst atz.' It has three rough parallels from Ithaka and Leukas.^^^ The find is important since it represents the only example in the Peloponnese of a suspended 'slit cage' on its own; most examples of this general type have until now been found in central and northern Greece.^l^ Two examples of birds seated on 'slit cages,' however, are known from the neighboring Arcadian sites of Tegea and Mavriki, B52 and B55.314

Gortsouli, Tegea and Mavriki are all within close proximity to one another and flank the southeastern Arcadian frontier. It is interesting that only these three sites have yielded any evidence for these types of 'slit cages' in the Peloponnese. Kilian-Dirlmeier had concluded that B52 from Tegea was made in Laconia or Arcadia, but probably derived from Macedonian pendant types. Bouzek also reached the same conclusion, except that he considered B52 to be Laconian.^^^ In my own examination, I concluded that a local Tegean production place for this object and a number of similar bird figures is feasible.^l^ Kilian-Dirlmeier had determined that the Mavriki example, B55, was also locally produced in Arcadia or Laconia, since no parallels were known for it anywhere and because it was found in this small regional sanctuary. I explain above (in Chapter Four, Section Three) why there is no particular reason to attribute this bronze to Laconia, and now with a findplace even further north at GortsouH for a 'slit cage,' I feel my case is strengthened. The Gortsouli object is clearly related to the other two, particularly to the Tegean example, B52. It is likely that all three objects were made in the Tegean vicinity. ^

This find from Gortsouli emphasizes the necessity to explore an interesting issue which has developed in the course of this discussion of bronze votives. It has become increasingly apparent that Tegea and its vicinity (i.e. Gortsouli and Mavriki) have considerable parallels from central and northern Greece in the types of bronze objects found. In some cases, similar objects are also found at other Peloponnesian sites, indicating that Tegea absorbed various influences prevalent in the Peloponnese in the eighth and seventh centuries. In other cases, however, Tegea reveals types of bronzes which are only rarely represented at other Peloponnesian sites and otherwise found in more northern contexts, such as bronze beads, a certain type of wheel pendant and double-protome pendants. And finally, Tegea

Chapter Five

I

222 i

Notes for Chapter Five

1. Dugas, Tegea 374; these pendants are also mentioned briefly by Jost, Sanctuaires 152.

2. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 212, nos. 1320-1324.

3. Kilian-Dirlmeier does not include the Bassai object in her account. Yalouris pubhshed the Bassai pendant as a Geometric harness, Bassai pi. 41 c; it is also related to this group of pendants, especially the Mavriki example. There is another depiction of double protomes on a bronze handle from Bassai, see Kourouniotes, ^£ (1910) 322, fig. 43y.

4. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 212.

5. Jacobsthal, Pins 135, fig. 392 no. 8.

6. See Milchhofer, y4A/ 5 (1880): 67; Dugas, Tegea 374, nos. 102-105.

7. Gehrig, Samos 34.

8. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 212-213.

9. Ibid., 213; 240 and 241, nos. 1546, 1547.

10. Dawkins, Sparta 266 fig. 123.

11. Ibid., 30-42; 123-127.

12. Dugas, Tegea 369-373 nos. 80-95.

13. Milchhofer, AM 5 (1880): 67, pi. IVb, c.

14. Lamb, BSA 28 (1926/27): 102-104.

15. See Droop in Dawkins, Sparta 199; deCou in Waldstein, AH II264, no. 1558.

16. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 40.

17. Ibid., 40-41.

18. Note that the recently found pomegranate pendant, B146(S), and KD no. 682 both preserve short pieces of wire in their suspension loops. This is presumably how the stamp pendants were suspended as well.

19. Kilian-Dirlmeier mentions two not included in my catalogue: KD nos. 167 and 172. I include two unpublished pieces from Lousoi, housed in the Karlsruhe Museum, F1995 and F1993; these are not included in Kilian-Dirlmeier's account.

20. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 32-33.

21. Ibid., 30-32, pi. 10.

22. Ibid., 33-34, pi. 12.

223

and its vicinity, alone in the Peloponnese, yield specimens of certain northern types of objects. These apparent northern connections in the bronzes from Tegea may reflect in some cases a more ancient link between Tegea and the north, rather than a contemporary exchange between these regions. This subject is considered at greater length in Chapter Seven.

Notes for Chapter Five Notes for Chapter Five

23. Kilian-Dirlmeier includes two pieces from Tegea which are not included in my catalogue: Anhdnger 34-35, pi. 12 nos. 188,195.

24. KD no. 188 differs from the rest in the decoration of the underside of its base; within each circle it has a Τ design.

25. Kilian-Dirlmeier includes one example in this category which I do not have in my QdXdXogUQ, Anhdnger no. 202, pi. 13.

26. Ibid., 35-36.

27. Kilian-Dirlmeier includes one example in this group which I do not: Anhdnger 36 no. 207,

pi. 13.

28. Dugas, Tegea 392-393, nos. 204-206.

29. The following objects are not in my catalogue but are included in Kilian-Dirlmeier's:

Anhdnger 36-38, nos. 218, 225, 229, pis. 14-15.

30. Ibid., 38 no. 235.

31. I omit the example from Delphi with the quadruped on the top (KD no. 266) in this

tabulation. It is too unlike the others of this type. I do, however, include an unpublished

example from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe Museum, F1997, not in Kilian-Dirlmeier's

catalogue. Kilian-Dirlmeier located some examples from Tegea which I did not find in

the Tegea Museum, sec Anhdnger 38-40, nos. 250, 253, 255.

32. Dugas, Tegea 373 nos. 96-101; Kilian-Dirlmeier, ^/i/zc/i^er 123-127. She also includes five

pomegranate pendants and two fragments from Tegea which are not in my catalogue,

nos. 679, 682, 698, 709, 710 and fragments 693 and 694. I include B146(S) found in

Steinhauer's excavations which is not in Kilian-Dirlmeier's account.

33. Ibid., 126-127.

34. In the Argohd, at Piada: S. Charitonides, "ΎίηΚινη Γεωμετρική Ροιά," AE (1960): 155,

pi. la, b and catalogue, 163; Perachora: Payne, Perachora 1174, pls.76, 32, 37.

35. Jacobsthal, Pins 185-190; Samos: K. Verneisel and H. Walter, "Aigyptische und

orientalische Funde aus Brunnen G und dem Bothros," AM 74 (1959): 14 pi. 22;

Frickenhaus, Tiryns 186,160; Piada: Charitonides,yiE (1960): 155, 163.

36. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 126 notes 2, 4.

37. Ibid., 259.

38. I thank Professor Coldstream, who told me about a parallel for such a pomegranate

pendant from the sanctuary of Demeter at Knossos, Coldstream, Knossos, 163 no. 259, ,

fig. 41.

39. Romaios, in his publication of the votives from Mavriki, did not mention any such

pendants from the site but the Tegea Museum catalogue (hand-written by Romaios)

records some examples from Mavriki. Note also that since the opening of the Tripolis

224

Museum, the majority of these bronze pendants have been moved from Tegea to Tripolis,

where they are currently on display. One hopes this is a temporary arrangement.

40. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 127.

41. See Figs. B8, Tl and later, Dugas no. 154 etc.

42. See the bronze Demeter from Hagios Sostis, housed in the National Museum in Athens,

NM no. 14922. Romaios, PAE (1910): 274.

43. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 9-12.

44. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 58, fig. 118.

45. Klliain-O'lnmcicT, Anhdnger 11.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 11-12, pi. 2.

48. The lack of a spiked edge around the bases of the pomegranates on Β148 is a feature

noticeable on individual pomegranate pendants as well: see Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger

nos. 680, 711, pis. 35, 37.

49. Ibid., 11; Dugas, Tegea 364; Reichel and Wilhelm, lOAI 4 (1901): 58.

50. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 21-23, pi. 6 no. 93; see also Bouzek, GMB 140 no. 6.

51. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 50 fig. 74; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 17-18 no. 66,

pi. 4; Bouzek, GMB 140 no. 4, fig. 43.

52. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 18; Furtwangler, Olympia 4, 68-69.

53. Kilian-Dirlmeier, yin/ifl/i er 49-50.

54. Ibid. u


56. Rolley, MGR 3 no. 29.

57. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 50 n. 2; idem, Nadeln 150. '

58. Jacobsthal, Pins 141.

59. Ibid., 142.

60. P. Courbin, Tombes geometriques d'Argos, I 1952-1958 (Paris: 1974), pis. 22, 48;

Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 150.

61. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhdnger 54 nos. 312, 313, pi. 20; Dugas, Tegea 303.

225


ii

62. Kilian-Dirlmeier includes three which I do not have in my catalogue: Anhanger 57 nos 337, 340, 344.

63. Ibid., 56-59.

64. Bouzek, GM5 53.

65. It is on display in the Tegea Museum as a pendant from the Athena alea sanctuary; the

Tegea Museum catalogue confirms this provenance (TM no. 1835). There is, however,

the possibility of some confusion regarding this piece since Romaios mentioned but did

not illustrate a fine buU's head from the Mavriki sanctuary, Romaios, >1£ (1952): 27.

66. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 89d, p; A J.B, Wace, M.S. Thompson and LP. Droop, Excavations

at Sparta, 1909," BSA 15 (1908/09), pi. 9, 2-4, 6, 8; Waldstein, AH II pi. 75, 23; P.

Perdrizet, Fouilles de Delphes V (Paris: 1908), 77, 328; C. Carapanos, Dodone et ses

Ruines (Paris: 1878), pi. 20, 6; Lousoi: in Karlsruhe Museum, unpublished, no. F1939.

67. Dugas, Tegea 365, fig. 19.

68. Ibid., 368 no. 75-78.

69. Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 116, fig. 1.

70. See pis. 145-150 for votive shields from Tegea.

71. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 215 no. 1329, pi. 76.

72. Dugas identified the double protomes above the stand as bulls' heads and

Kilian-Dirlmeier says they are birds' heads, Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 199; Kihan-Dirlmeier,

Anhanger 214 no. 1328, pi. 76. I beheve they resemble horse's heads.

73. Ibid.

74. Jost, Sanctuaires 373; W. Deonna, "A propros d'une pendelogue archaique de Tegee,"

BCH 55 (1931): 229. Note that Deonna also considers the double protomes above the

stand to be horses, as I do.

75. Dawkins, Sparta 266 fig. 123. This similarity has also been noted by Deonna, though his

conclusions are different from mine, see above n. 74.


77. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 214 no. 1327, pi. 76.

78. Kilian-Dirlmeier mentions 22 double axes from Tegea, Anhanger 247-252; Dugas had said

that there were 27, Tegea 390. Steinhauer recently discovered at least one more example

from Tegea, Β169.

79. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 247 no. 1582.

80. Ibid., 248-252, pis. 94-96.

i t -

81. Ibid., 254 n. 33.

82. Ibid., 252-254; Bouzek, GMB 148-152. See also C. Simon, "The Archaic Votive Offerings

and Cults of Ionia" (Ph.D. Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1986) 400. There is

an interesting example from the sanctuary of Pallantion in Arcadia of a Prehistoric axe

with an added late sixth century inscription, see P.G. Calligas, Melanges N.M.

Kontoleon, ΣΤΗΛΗ (1980): 351-357.

83. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 247 no. 1582, pi. 91.

84. Ibid., 248-252.

85. Ibid., 252, n. 20; Dugas, Tegea 390.

86. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger nos. 1658, 1654, 1657; Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901):

49.

87. B.C. Deitrich, "The Instrument of Sacrifice," in Early Greek Cult Practice, eds. R. Hagg, N.

Marinatos and G. Nordquist (Stockholm: 1988), 35-40.

88. Dugas, Tegea 386 nos. 160-164.

89. Ibid., no. 160; Bouzek, GMB 105-107, Group C.

90. See Bouzek, GMB 107; Waldstein, AH II pi. 91; Dawkins, Sparta pi. 85.

91. Kihan, Fibeln pi. 75.

92. D.M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, X (Baltimore: 1941), pis. 8-10.

93. Dugas, Tegea nos. 163,164; Bouzek, GMB 117-118, Group I.

94. Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 12.2.

95. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 203, 12,13.

96. Dugas, Tegea nos. 161-162; Bouzek, GMB 110-114, Group F. ||

97. Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): pi. 12.1; Orlandos, Alipheira 104, fig. 71.

98. Waldstein,.4//// pi. 92 nos. 1547-1551; I. Dekoulakou, 'ΎβωμβτρίχοΙ ΎαφικοΙ UidoL

'e^ 'AxatasrAE (1973): Chronika 18ff, pi. IB, y.

99. Olynthus: Robinson, Olynthus X, pis. 8-11; Pherai: Kilian, Fibeln pis. 75-76.

100. See generally for Macedonia: S. Casson, "Macedonia II. Antiquities found in the British

Zone, 1915-1919," BSA 23(1918): 10-43, pi. VII no. 10; idem, "Excavations in Macedonia,"

BSA 24 (1919-21): 14, pi. 10; P. Petsas, ''Maxedopia: Kofat^r/," ADelt 17 (1961/62):

Chronika fig. 255; Delphi: Perdrizet, Delphes V, 112 fig. 405; Lindos: Blinkenberg I 95,

171, pi. 10; Ephesus: D.G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus; the Archaic Artemisia

(London: 1908), pi. IV, 24, XVIII, 42, 44, 45, pi. 45; Olympia: Furtwangler, Olympia 4, pi.

24; see also Bouzek, GMB 101-103 for a detailed account of beads.

226 227


101. Bouzek, GMB 105-107.

102. Robinson, Olynthus X 67 n. 27.

103. Bouzek, GMB 114, 118.

104. Boardman, BSA 58 (1963): 4.

105. Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 40. Bouzek considers this turtle (and another similar one from

Sparta) to resemble the frog figures from Sparta and Argos. He also thinks that the frogs

and the turtles bear resemblance to northern frog images and that this connection

mdicates the existence of a basic relationship between Macedonia and the southern

Peloponnese, GMB 100.

106. Dawkins, Sparta 197 pi. 80a.

107. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Ai/ia/i^er 215 no. 1332, pi. 73.

108. See E. Bevan, "Ancient Deities and Tortoise Representations in Sanctuaries," BSA 83 (1988): 1-6.

109. Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 41; Romaios, in the unpubhshed Tegea Museum catalogue. Bevan

follows Dugas' attribution and includes this object in her catalogue of turtle

representations, BSA 83 (1988): 1. This identification is probably incorrect.

110. Dunbabin, Perachora II461-513, pis. 192-193.

111. Dugas, Tegea 392 nos. 190-193.

112. L28 is an example from Lousoi in the Karlsruhe Museum (no. F1944). The other two

examples from Lousoi are published by Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): figs. 108,

113. OndJiaos,, Alipheira 101 no. 66.

114. Olympia: Furtwangler, Olympia 4 162, pi. 62, 1003-1004; Dipylon: y4M (1893): 125, fig. 20.

115. Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 36, pi. 10.

116. See below n. 117 for a discusion of the significance and representation of the Dipylon Shield.

117. A.M. Snodgrass, "Towards the Interpretation of the Geometric Figure-Scenes," AM 95

(1980): 51-58; see also Boardman, in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, ed. W.G.

Moon, 27-28, who proposes that the type contined to be used in the eighth century and

that it evolved from the Mycenaean figure-of-eight shield.

118. Snodgrass, iE:G/lW^60n. 87.

119. H.L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments (London: 1950), 159-160.

120. Boardman, in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, ed. W.G. Moon, 28.

121. Dugas, Tegea fig. 19, nos. 190,192.

122. I agree with Kilian, n. 115 above, that the single example from Olympia was an

Arcadian dedication; the single example from the Dipylon cemetery, however, is very

different from Tegean and other Arcadian examples and was probably an Attic product.

123. See the hmestone tablet from Mycenae painted with an image of a shield goddess,

holding a figure-of-eight type shield: Lord W. Taylour, The Mycenaeans (London: 1983),

45-46, fig. 20.

124. Snodgrass, EGAW41; Dugas, Tegea 392, no. 195.


126. Kourouniotes, (1910): 316, figs. 16-17.

127. Snodgraiss, EGAW41.

128. Dugas, Tegea 390 no. 182, fig. 20; Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 4.8.

129. For an illustration of it see Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 4.9.

130. Snodgrass, £:G/lir97 no. 37.

131. Dugas, Tegea 389 nos. 178-180; Simon, (see above n. 82) 237 no. 18; Snodgrass, EGAW

151.

132. For Alipheira, see Orlaindos, Alipheira 110, fig. 78 and generally, Snodgrass, EGA W151 n.

39; Simon, (see above n. 82) 237-240.

133. The issue of the early cult of Athena Alea is to be further discussed in Chapter Seven.

134. Dugas, Tegea 364 no. 61, fig. 20 and no. 62, unillustrated.

135. Perachora: Payne, Perachora I pi. 57; Argos: Waldstein, AH II pi. 112; Tiryns:

Frickenhaus, Tiryns I, 107 no. 240; Acropohs: de Ridder, VAcropole d'Athenes, 224;

Dodona: Carpanos, Dodone, 87 no. 16; Corinth (in Athens National Museum, no. 7943);

Lousoi: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 57 nos. 106, 107, 109 and six more in the

Athens and Karlsruhe museums.

136. Romaios, (1952): 26, fig. 20A. t

137. Dugas, Tegea 394 no. 210, fig. 39, 47.

138. K. Demakopoulou, To Ήίυκηναϊχό Ί^ρο στο Άμυκλαΐο καΐ "η ΤΕΙΙΙΓ llegLodos στη

Αακωνία (Athens:'l982), ρ1. 53 no. 121, 76-77. The size of the Amyklai lyre is .08 χ .04

m.

139. Cf. M. Maas, Die geometrischen Dreifusse von Olympia (Berlin: 1978), 117, pis. 63-69.


228 229


230


231


165. Ibid., 15, fig. 28. No spits as such were uncovered at Tegea, though some of the pins attain considerable lengths. See also Payne, Perachora 172.

166. These are unpublished: nos. F2004, F1967.

167. Perachora: Payne, Perachora I 70 fig. 11, 2; Artemis Orthia: Droop, BSA 13 (1906/07): 110, fig. 1, k; Dawkins, Sparta pi. 75; Argive Heraion: Waldstein, AH II pi. 79; Corinth: Jacobsthal, Pins 9; Olympia: Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 38-43 nos. 14, 21-25, pis. 26-27.

168. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 105-131, pis. 28-50; Types II-XI.

169. Ibid.

170. Ibid., pi. 56, nos. 1670-1671.

171. Ibid., Types XII-XVI, pis. 50-60; Argive Heraion: Waldstein, y l / / / / pi. 79: 332, 348, 334;

Sparta: Dawkins, Sparta pi. 75b, i, q.

172. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 131, 135,139.

173. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 47-49, pi. 28, nos. 52, 54, 55-59. See also Jacobsthal, Pins 15-16.

174. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pi. 55. She mentions a number of these pins as 'Arcadian,' possibly from Asea, but I do not know on what basis she suggests this. If, however, the pins are without clear provenance and housed in the Tegea Museum, the Mavriki sanctuary ought also to be considered as a possible source. Many pins were apparently found there, though none were illustrated; see n. 153 above.

175. Jacobsthal, P/Vw 141.

176. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pis. 61-62.

177. Jacobsthal, Pins 141; Waldste in ,^/ / / / pi. 80; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 109-110.

178. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 150 Type XVIII, pi. 61; laem, Anhanger m n. 2.

179. Dugas says eight were found, Tegea 381 no. 133, fig. 40.

180. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 82 no. 236, pi. 5.

181. Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 54 fig. 92.

182. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 151 nos. 1907-1909, 1912-1916, pi. 62.

183. Ibid., 151 no. 1917, type XIX, pi. 62.

184. Jacobsthal, Pins 144 figs. 429-432.

185. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 154 for new contexts; these pins may be LG in date.

141. Bouzek, GMB 147, fig. 47.9.

142. See Catling, Cypnot Bronzework, 228-29, fig. 22.3.


144. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 131, nos. 10, 11.

145. Dugas, Tegea 385 no.l59, fig. 20.

146. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 131.

147. Payne, Perachora 1181, pi. 81; Dugas, Tegea 196-198.

148. Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 56, figs. 64, 65; Alipheira: Orlandos, Alipheira 100 figs. 64, 65; Bassai: Kourouniotes,yl£ (1910): 324 no. 47.

149. Examples from Gortsouli now in Tripolis Museum; Orchomenos: Blum and Plassart, BCH 38 (1914): 84 (unillustrated).

150. Waldstein, AH II pl.s 102-103; Dawkins, Sparta pi. 85; Jacobsthal, Pins fig. 186; Payne, Perachora 1181; Furtwangler, Olympia 4, pi. 18, 299, 300.

151. Dugas, Tegea 375 nos. 108-138.

152. Romaios,yl£; (1952): 26-27.

153. Dugas, Tegea 341 n. 2. Unfortunately, none of the pins in the Tegea Museum have TM numbers, nor does Dugas publish many examples of the Tegean pins, so it is not possible to determine which pins come from the Mavriki site.

154. For a parallel see Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 69-74 no. 218, pis. 8-10.

155. Ibid., 70,198, Orlandos, Alipheira 108, fig. 74.

156. Jacobsthal, Pins 4-5.

157. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 91 no. 412.

158. Jacobsthal, Pins 1 no. 16.

159. Payne, Perachora I 70-71; fig. 11, pi. 17; Waldstein, AH II pi. 84; A. Furtwangler, Das Heiligtum derAphaia (Munich: 1906), pi. 11430, pi. 115.

160. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck pi. 26 no. 12.

161. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 89, 92, 93, 104-105, pis. 13-28; see also Coldstream, GG 36.

162. Some of these may also be from Mavriki.

163. Milchhofer,^M5(1880):pl.4a.


208. See Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 54 nos. 96, 94, 93, 95: (NM no. 15333: L34);

(NM no. 15334: L35); (NM no. 15369: L36); (NM no. 15368: L37). Also in Karlsruhe:

F1972, 1967, 1975,1970,1971; and in Munich: yL4 32 (1917), 27, fig. 1, c: three examples.

209. Karageorga, ADelt 18 (1963): Chronika pi. 103,2. Most of the Gortsouli pins were not

published by Karageorga but are illustrated by drawings in Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln

pis. 86-112. See also Jacobsthal, Pins 38; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 83 n. 212.

210. Orlandos, Alipheira 105, fig. 72 (middle and right).

211. Jacobsthal, Λ/ζί 133.

212. Perachora: Payne, Perachora I pi. 76, 1 and 3; Olympia: Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 93-94

nos. 295-301, pi. 36. See also Coldstream, Knossos, 147 no. 126; Kilian-Dirlmeier,

Nadeln 281-283, pi. 112-113.


214. Thirty-two examples are described in Dugas, Tegea 381, nos. 139-153. I discovered some

unpubhshed examples in the Tegea Museum apotheke, but not all the published pieces.

See also Kilian, Fibeln 168; idem, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 36-37, pis. 5-9.

215. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 260; Kilian, Fibeln 168-169.

216. See Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 141; Desborough, GDA 300 fig, 34a; Blinkenberg, Fibules 50.

217. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901) no. 76 (in Athens National Museum NM no. 15324).

218. Laconia: Dawkins, Sparta 82 p, r, t; Olympia: Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck pi. 59 no. 985.

219. S. lakovides, ΐίβρατή II. To Νβκροταφβΐον (Athens: 1969), 274, 452; idem. Excavations

of the Necropolis at Perati, Occasional Papers 8: Institute of Archaeology UCLA (Los

Angeles: 1980), 78-79, fig. 90.

220. Snodgrass, Z)^G 277-278.

221. Desborough, GDA 300, fig. 34c. ^

222. Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 38, fig. 9.6.


224. Kilian, Fibeln 21-22; idem, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 9.4.

225. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 52, no. 81.

226. Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 38, fig. 9.3.

227. Ibid., fig. 9.8.

228. Kilisin, Fibeln 22 n. 3.

232 233

186. ΟήΆηάο^ Alipheira 109 fig. 76.

187. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pi. 63, Type XXA, B.

188. Bassai: Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 326, fig. 50; Olympia: Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 97-102; generally, Jacobsthal, Pins 136.

189. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pi. 63 no. 1935.

190. Ibid., pi. 114 no. 4943.

191. Some of these 140 pins may be from Mavriki.

192. Jacobsthal, Pins 12, figs. 34-43.

193. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 55, fig. 97, NM no. 15387.

194. Ondjiaos, Alipheira 105, pi. 72 left; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 44 n. 186.

195. Argolid: Waldstein,^//// 208ff, pis. 78, 79; Prosymna: C. Blegen, "Prosymna: Remains of

Post Mycenaean Date," ΑΛ4 43 (1939), 439 fig. 27; Laconia: Droop, BSA 13 (1906/07):

110, fig. la, c, d; Menelaion: Wace, Thompson, Droop, BSA 15 (1908/09): pi. 8, 27-29;

Delphi: Perdrizet, Delphes K, 115, fig. 414a; Olympia: Philipp, Bronzeschmuck, 44-46.

See also Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 163-199.

196. Dawkins, Sparta 226.


198. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 200-203.

199. Ibid., 206-207, pi. 84.

200. Kourouniotes, (1910): 326, fig. 50; PhiHpp, Bronzeschmuck 88-89, n. 224.

201. Ibid., Jacobsthal, Pins 122; J. Boardman, "Excavations in Chios," BSA Supplement 6 (1967): 223-224; Coldstream, Knossos, 148.

202. Jacobsthal, Pins 122-123; Boardman, BSA Supplement 6 (1967): 223-224.

203. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 208-281, pis. 86-112.

204. Dugas, Tegea 381 nos. 134-138.

205. Some of these pins may have originally been from Mavriki.


207. Ibid., 134.


229.

230.

231.

232.

233.

234.

235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242.

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

249.

Furumark, MP II 91, fig. 3; Desborough, GDA 65-66, pi. 8.

U 9 : Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 53 no. 84; L40 (pi. 169): idem, no. 80, (NM no. 15321); L41 (pi. 170): idem, no. 97 (NM no. 15322). There are two more examples of this type in the Karlsruhe Museum: F1964, F1965 (unpublished).

Argive Heraion: Waldstein, AH II 85 nos. 844, 845; Sparta: Dawkins, Sparta pi. 88g, h; Perachora: Payne, Perachora I 73,6; Ithaka: Robertson and Heurtley, BSA 43 (1948): pi 50E.14.

Dugas, Tegea 384, nos. 150-152, 392 no. 194; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 216-11\ 280 n. 487.1 was unable to find Dugas nos. 151, 152 and 194 when I worked in the Tegea Museum but Kilian illustrates Dugas no. 152 and no. 194, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 8.2 and 6.4. For this type of fibula generally see also Hampe, Fruhe griechischer, no. 139; Bhnkenberg, Fibules 162, Type VIII 4, f; Payne, Perachora 1169.

Dugas, Tegea 384, fig. 44.

For illustration, see Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): pi. 6.4.

Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck pi. 61 no. 1017, 1021; pi. 62 nos. 1024, 1028.

Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 6; fig. 8.2-6.

Ibid., 37. See also discussion on Tegean disc and n. 279, below.

For Lousoi: Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 53 no. 82; Kilian, Fibeln 110 n. 6, no. 1312. For hst of places in the Peloponnese where other fibulae of this type were found see; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 280 n. 487.

Dugas, Tegea 383-384 no. 149, fig. 43, 19.

Blinkenberg, Fibules 136, fig. 168 VII 6.d; Kilian, Fibeln 121 no. 1405; idem, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 8.7.

Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 270-276, n. 458.

Jacobsthal, Pins 7-9.

Blinkenberg, Fibules 131, VII, c.

Jacobsthal, Pins 8-9; Schweitzer, GGA 203-204.

Coldstream, GG 157, fig. 51a.

Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 271-272 n. 458.

Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 8.2; 8.1.

Dugas, Tegea 383; Kilian, Fibeln 124 n. 2; Blinkenberg, Fibules 101IV 11,1.

Kihan, Fibeln 105 no. 1272.

i

250. For example, see Blinkenberg, Fibules 91, fig. 92.

251. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 267-268, nos. 1002, 1003.

252. Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 37 fig. 9.12.

253. Dugas, Tegea 383, nos. 143-147.

254. J. Alexander, "The Spectacle Fibulae of Southern Europe," AJA 69 (1965): 7-23, M.

Andronikos, BegyCva 1. To Νβκροταφβων των Ίύμβων (Athens: 1969), 227ff; Kilian,

Fibeln 146 n. 4.

255. Alexander, 69 (1965): 15.

256. Dawkins, Sparta pis. 81, 82.

257. Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 53 fig. 83; AA (1917): 28 fig. la; Bonn C.54; in

Athens National Museum (NM no. 15325): L42, L43 (see pis. 169-170).

258. Ouanaos, Alipheira 108 pi. 74.

259. Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 9.13-14.

260. Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck 295 n. 504.

261. Dugas, Tegea 383 no. 142; Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 38, fig. 9.10.

262. Furumark, MP vol. 2, 91 fig. 3.

263. Andronikos, BeQyiva , pi. 133 A, B.

264. Blinkenberg, Fibules 81-82, III 6.c; Dugas, Tegea 382 no. 142.

265. Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 156; Blinkenberg, Fibules 225, XII.14t.

266. O.W. Muscarella, Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion (London: 1967), 60 n. 2; Philipp,

Bronzeschmuck 313 no. 1123. ^

267. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 313, no. 1123; Muscarella, Phrygian Fibulae, pi. XV.

268. Fhuipp, Bronzeschmuck 313.

269. Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 155; Blinkenberg, Fibules III, Hi, fig. 86.

270. Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 157; Droop, BSA 13 (1906/07) 84, fig. 20c.

271. Dugas, Tegea 382 no. 140, pi. 42.

272. Blinkenberg, Fibules 217.

273. Today this disc is nowhere to be found; the illustration here is taken from Dugas' sketch,

Tegea 384 no. 154, fig. 45; Coldstream, GG 157, fig. 51b.

235 234


274. V. Muller, "Eine Bronzescheibe aus Tegea," ^ 37 (1922): 14-18.

275. Hampe, Friihe griechischer, 40 n. 4.

276. W. Technau, "Die Gottin auf dem Stier," Jdl 52 (1937): 89, fig. 9.

277. See n. 274 above; Jacobsthal, Pins 185 n. 1.

278. P.J. Riis, "The Syrian Astarte Plaques and their Western Connections," Berytus 9 (1949):

85; Kunze, Kretische, 201 n.99, 250; Schweitzer, GGA 111, 178; Fittschen, Untersuchungen,

218; N. Himmelmann-Wildschutz, "Geometrisches Bronzpferdchcn in Bonn," AA 89

(1974): 544-554; Coldstream, GG 157, fig. 51b; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 211 n. 470.

279. K. DeVries, "A Grave with a Figured Fibula at Lerna," Hesperia 43 (1974): 98-104.

280. Himmelmann-Wildschutz,^ 89 (1974): 544-554.

281. Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 36-37.

282. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 277.

283. Coldstream, GG 157; see also above pp. 211-212.

284. A related scene may be one in relief from a tripod leg, found at Olympia; it depicts a

male figure with upraised arms standing on a horse, Schweitzer, GGA 177-178; pi. 215.

Coldstream discusses reasons why this tripod and the style of the figured panel were likely

to have been the work of Argive smiths, GG 335-336.

285. Ibid., 157, fig. 51b.

286. M.P. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and its Survival in Greek Religion, 2d ed.,

(Lund: 1968), 347, fig. 158; note also the double axe and the shield carrying figure in this

scene. See Turnbull, (above Chapter One, n. 17) 11, who connects this image with the

riders seated side-saddle.

287. Bevan, BSA 83 (1988): 3 n. 18, 4.

288. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 52 no. 77; NM no. 15320.

289. Ibid., 52 no. 78 (NM no. 15323.)

290. Bhnkenberg, Fibules 41 fig. 6.

291. Ibid., 196 Xle; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 52 no. 75.

292. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 53 no. 85; NM no. 15327. Blinkenberg talks of

another two, Fibules XII, 13r; there is also an unpubhshed example in Karlsruhe, F1985.

293. See Muscarella, Phrygian Fibulae, 26; Philhp, Bronzeschmuck 315 n. 533. For other-

examples, see Payne, Perachora 1170.

294. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 53 no. 86.

295. Blinkenberg, Fibules 225, XII, 14u; Kilian, Fibeln 155-156, no.l742, which is very similar

to the Lousoi example; Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck 315-316 nos. 1131-1134.

296. Ibid.

297. Bhnkenberg, Fibules 197-201, XI, 6ab, 7ab, 8a; for examples from Ithaka see Benton,

BSA 48 (1953): 226, pi. 66 E225-E227.

298. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck no. 1058, pi. 64; no. 1060, pi. 20, 65.

299. Fayne, Perachora I pllS.l, 2.

300. Kourouniotes, £ (1910): 326, f ig. 50.

301. Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 37.

302. The bronze sheet figures from Asea (pi. 172) are pubhshed by Romaios, AE (1957):

148-158. Note that the fish in the middle of the Asea display (in the Tegea Museum),

here illustrated on pi. 172, is also pubhshed by Dugas as coming from the Athena Alea

sanctuary, Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 43, fig. 19.

303. Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 313-314, pi. 33; Yalouris, Bassai 91, pi. 39. Dr. Lembessi and

Dr. Cooper informed me about the general nature of the miniature armour found more

recently, which I was unfortunately unable to study. It is now apparently housed in the

Olympia Museum.

304. A.M. Snodgrass, "Cretans in Arcadia," Antichita Cretesi II, Croanache di Archeologia

(1974): 196-198.

305. Pausanias 8.39.3

306. Snodgrass, Croanache di Archeologia 13 (1974): 200.

307. Cooper, ββ^^β/20-21.

308. Ibid., 210-214. |


310. See Wade-Gery, Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on

his 75th Birthday, 289-299; G. Huxley, Early Sparta (London: 1962), 56; Cartledge, Sparta

127-128; J. Hooker, The Ancient Spartans (London: 1980), 107; W.G.G. Forrest, 4 History

of Sparta, 950-192, 2d ed., (London: 1980), 69-72.

311. Jost notes that at the end of the Archaic period that dedications of miniature armour

were becoming rarer at the site and that perhaps Apollo's sphere of protection was

extending to all humans who needed his aid. Jost, Sanctuaires 488-489.

312. Kilian-Dirlmeier, y4« fl>j ^r 81-82 nos. 512-514, pi. 26.

313. Ibid., pi. 102B.

236 237


314. See Chapter Four, Section Three and generally, Bouzek, in The European Community in Later Prehistory (Studies in Honour of C.F.C. Hawkes) 79, for a general discussion of 'bird cages.'

315. Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 86; 178-180; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 123; idem, GMB 72-73.

316. See above Chapter Four, Section Three, pp. 151-152.

CHAPTER SIX

TERRACOTTAS AND OBJECTS OF OTHER MATERIALS

A-238

Terracottas From Tegea

A large number of terracotta figurines were found at the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea. The exact number recovered is not known, but Dugas mentions eighteen main types in his account and notes that some of these types were found in great abundance at the site.^ Most of the terracottas date to the sixth and fifth centuries and hence fall outside the scope of this research. They are for the most part similar to figurines found at the sanctuary of Demeter at Hagios Sostis to the north of Tegea, where several thousand were uncovered.^ There are, however, only about ten examples of terracottas which fall into the chronological framework of this work; noteworthy also is a single psi-figurine from the site.

Terracotta figurines were found at other Arcadian sites as well. At Mavriki, a small number of such (unpublished) objects were discovered; they appear to be skth and fifth century in date. About 200 terracotta figurines or fragments were found at Gortsouli. Most are unpublished and date to the sixth and fifth centuries; some of them, however, are similar to Argive types of the seventh and sixth centuries.^ A great collection of terracotta figurines, largely unpublished, were found at Lousoi, some of which date to the seventh century.^ Terracottas were uncovered at many sites in southwest Arcadia as well; these are again mostly unpubhshed and a number of them are quite distinctive in style, especially those from the temple of Pan at Berekla.^ They range in date from the sixth to the fourth centuries. Indeed, a survey of regional Arcadian terracotta production from the sixth century onwards would prove to be an interesdng and useful area of research, since the terracottas reveal a considerable degree of regional diversity, occasional originality, and sometimes also a marked crudeness of style. In any case, the focus here is on the earliest terracottas found at Tegea and other Arcadian sanctuaries in an attempt to complete the picture of the nature of the early votives from these sanctuaries.

239

Chapter Six Terracottas and Other Objects

I!

Tl(345) (pi. 173), from Tegea, is the only certain example of a Mycenaean

terracotta from the site; it is a psi-figurine. The style and general appearance

of this figurine with disc-like breasts, pinkish clay and red/orange decoration

link it directly with the Amyklaion terracottas of the late psi-type.^ This

particular example falls into French's and Demakopoulou's category Β

because of the pellet breasts, heavy, irregular lines decorating the body

(where decoration can be discerned), and relatively short arm projecdon.

On this basis, it is probably Mycenaean IIIC in date.^

This psi-figurine plus the two stirrup jar fragments, the bronze figure, B8,

the violin bow fibula and the Submycenaean arched fibula are the earliest

objects found at the site of Athena Alea. There is no indication from the

published reports from which part of the sanctuary the psi-figurine was

found;^ only the stirrup jar fragments can be determined to have come from

the area corresponding to the later pronaos.^ One can conclude that these

objects either were heirlooms which were dedicated at the site sometime

during or after PG, when the cult was established, or that they mark an

earher phase of cult at the site which resumed tangible activity in the late

tenth-ninth centuries.

The remaining terracottas are animal figurines except for T2, which

is a horse and rider. T2(348) (pi. 174), consists of a completely unmodeUed

and heavy human figure (presumably male) missing his head and a horse

with a short pointed muzzle, high mane and a rigid, unmodelled body. The

human figure is rather too large for the small horse. It reveals hints of

originally having been painted. This general type has a fairly close parallel

from Perachora. 1^ Other such figurines are known from the Argive Heraion,

Tiryns and some later ones from Hagios Sostis. Payne says that this type is

'Archaic' and Higgins indicates that it is Argive, datable to the seventh to

sixth centuries. 1^ It thus appears that the Tegean example was made under

Argive influence and may be seventh century in date.

T3(362) (pi. 173), consists of the beak, head and long neck area of a bird

boldly painted in horizontal stripes of dark paint. The very long neck has a

round cross section, the head has two protrusions for eyes, while the beak is

also long and set at right angles to the neck. The eye area is oudined by a

circle of dark paint with a dot in the centre. The original size of the bird

would have been quite large in comparison with most of the terracotta

animals from the site. Another large bird was illustrated on the Tegean

bronze disc (fig. 28), where it flanked the female standing on the quadruped.

It is possible that birds played a special role in their association with the

deity at the site and this connection may reflect a survival from the Bronze

Age. The decoration on this terracotta bird, especially around the eye area

and the stripes, can be seen on a bird figure in terracotta from Amyklai.

The Amyklai bird has been dated to both the Geometric period and

Mycenaean Ilicl"^ The Tegean example is probably an eighth to seventh

century product, though its decoration may recall an earlier style.

T4(358) (pi. 175), is a quadruped missing its head, with a very long neck, a

cylindrical body, high tail and painted dots all over its body. It has one ear

intact which looks like that of a horse when viewed from the front. A

terracotta horse of similar style was found at Olympia; Heilmeyer dated the

Olympia example to the 'Reif Geometric period. Such a date, or a later

one, is conceivable for the Tegean horse as well. One notes that the

decoration of painted dots all over the body recalls earher (Mycenaean)

ornament painted on quadrupeds.!^

The next two objects are clearly related, T5(357) (pi. 177) and T6(360)

(pi. 176). They are fragments broken from similar quadrupeds, both with

painted linear design. T5 comes from the torso of a quadruped with a

curving back and high rump and what appears to be the beginnings of a

mane; it may well be a horse figure. It is painted with horizontal lines on the

body and verdcal ones on the legs. The painted hues recall Mycenaean

decoration found on quadrupeds and are also seen on Laconian

terracottas . !^ It is conceivable that T5's decoration may represent

Mycenaean 'Linear 2' style in a debased, provincial form.^^ T6 consists of

the neck and head of a horse figurine which was no doubt broken from a

horse similar to T5, though much larger. It has linear decoration and painted

chevrons on its neck. Its large size and natural form suggest that this piece is

a later product, possibly of the late eighth or seventh centuries.

T7(355), T8(356) and T9(X) (pis. 177-178) are pieces from quadrupeds

very much alike in terms of size and general appearance. They all have a

slight indication of a mane and so may be horses, though their necks are

short. T7 and T8 have similarly painted decoration with hatched lines

forming angular patterns (meanders, etc.) on the bodies of the quadrupeds.

T8 is largely covered in dark paint, except for the area around the hatched

line decoration. T7 is plain except for the hatched line ornament. They both

have small heads, short necks and litde bodies. The painted decoradon

generally recalls that found on LG pottery. T9 is a related figurine, except

240 241

Chapter Six

that it is painted a sohd dark colour. These figures probably all can be dated

to the end of the Geometric period, or the early seventh century.

ΉΟ(ΤΜ) (pi. 178), is a modelled ram figure with a pronounced curve of

the back, high rump and curled horns. Though unpublished, its Tegean

provenance can be ascertained from the Tegea Museum catalogue. Its body

form generally ties it to Argive styled quadrupeds in bronze, though it is not

nearly so stylized. It is possible that this figure too is datable to the seventh

century.

The rest of the terracottas from Tegea appear to be at least sixth century

in date, except for a female figurine illustrated in Dugas' account which

might be earher.^^ This terracotta has a pinched nose, pellet eyes, a long

thick neck and a moulded band across the shoulders. It has many parallels at

the Argive Heraion and is no doubt an Argive type.^^ This sort of terracotta

has been dated by Higgins to the seventh to sixth centuries.^l

Terracottas from Lousoi

Many terracotta figurines were uncovered at the Lousoi sanctuary in

northern Arcadia. Some of the earlier examples seem to have parallels

among the Laconian primitive types,^^ while others reveal an apparently

local style. There are also numerous terracottas of later periods from Lousoi

which will not be considered here.^-^

LTl (pi. 179), is a very simple terracotta figurine with head raised, arms

extended and a straight sided body. One can see similarities between it and

some Laconian primitive types.^^ LTl and at least one other example from

Lousoi, now in the National Museum at Athens, are standing on flat circular

bases of terracotta that have been broken. The arms of LTl extend out at

the sides and probably would have connected with the arms of neighbouring

figures originally on the same circular base. Bronze groups of figures on

circular bases are known from Olympia.25 There is also one with four

figures on a rectangular base from Petrovouni in central Arcadia (pi. 65).

These figures from Lousoi, apparently broken from circular groups, no doubt

portrayed a scene of similar significance to the bronze groups and may have

been a depiction, in a simple medium, of a dancing ritual.^^

242

Terracottas and Other Objects

243

LT2 (pi. 180), is an elongated figurine with a round base, a head of

pinched clay and a body with long straight sides and broken arms. LT3 (pi.

180), has a similar appearance in the extant upper half of its body, though it

is painted with horizontal lines on the head and neck area and with vertical

lines on the body. This painted decoration seems to imitate that found on

Mycenaean figurines. LT4 (pi. 181), is a related figurine but more complete

and unpainted. A number of other terracottas from Lousoi similar to

LT2-LT4 are in the National Museum in Athens. All bear some

resemblance to the Laconian primitive types but generally seem superior in

appearance.

LT5 - LT8 (pis. 181-184), have a distinctive style with square heads and a

sort of 'page-boy' hairstyle. This is probably the local version of the

orientalizing layer wig. They have jutting chins and a heavy squarish

appearance of the body. There are many more of this type from Lousoi in

the National Museum in Athens, all of which are unpublished. LT5 (pi. 181)

is a standing figure with a thickset body and a roughly rectangular base. LT6,

(pi. 182), is very close to LT5 in appearance, though it is broken below the

chest; it has an extremely thick, wide and disproportionately long neck. The

same features can be seen in LT7 (pi. 183), which consists of a figure seated

side-saddle on a quadruped, with arms extended. The quadruped is also very

heavy, without any modelling and with a tiny muzzle. Such depictions of

female figures seated side-saddle on quadrupeds are also seen in the two

bronzes from Lousoi, LI and L2 (pis. 63-64). Although the style differs

between the bronze and terracotta riders, the conception is clearly the same.

Another terracotta figurine of this type was also found at Kombothekra in

Elis.^^ Schweitzer considers the Lousoi terracotta to be datable to the first

quarter of the seventh century and identifies the female as Artemis

Soteira.2^ Schweitzer also states that LT7 is Corinthian in style though there

is no obvious reason for this attribution. There are no terracottas known

from Corinth, Perachora or elsewhere which particularly match LT7 in style.

At Louosi itself, though, there are a number of other pieces of very similar

style (LT5-LT8 and others in the National Museum at Athens).

LT8 (pi. 184), is a peculiar terracotta with two disc-like breasts attached to

the body, a thickset neck, arms extended (now broken), a short body and two

enormous feet. Its head, now missing but in place when first published,^^ is

like those of LT5-LT7 but this figure differs in the addition of breasts and the

indication of oversize feet. Schweitzer thought that this figure too would

have originally been seated on a horse, side-saddle.^^ After examining the


piece, I see that she could never have been seated side-saddle on a horse.

This is simply a very large-footed female figure.

I have mentioned above just a sample of the terracotta figures found at

the Lousoi site from the Austrian excavations. There are many others of the

same types in the National Museum in Athens. These terracottas seem to be

local seventh products and types LT5-LT8 reveal a particularly distinctive

style.

Bassai Terracotta

Most of the other terracottas found at Arcadian sites fall outside the range

of this research in terms of date. This is the case for the terracottas found in

southwest Arcadia.^ 1 A horse and rider of very simple style from Bassai

ought to be mentioned, however. It is completely unmodelled, and the rider

appears to be straddling, but not actually sitting, on a short-legged horse.

The horse has protrusions for the eyes, though the rest of his head and the

rider's are missing. Three of the four horse's legs are also mostly missing. It

is roughly consfructed and without any particular indications of style; it may

be of seventh or sixth century date.

Conclusions: Terracottas

While terracottas from Arcadian sanctuary sites are relatively rare before

the eighth century, they become increasingly popular in the seventh and even

more numerous in the sixth century and later. Terracotta votives are not

nearly so common as bronze dedications in the earliest phases of the

Arcadian sanctuaries but become a standard type of offering later. The

earliest examples from Tegea show no particular stylistic influences drawn

from the bronzes or from terracottas of other regions. The later terracottas

from Tegea, however, reveal connections with Argive types.

The Tegean painted animals appear to have been local developments.

Their decoration recalls Mycenaean motifs and suggests the possibility of

continuity of production in this medium. There is no other certain evidence

to support such a claim at present, however. The later figurines from Tegea

are mould-made, like those found at Hagios Sostis, and reveal mostly Argive

influence, but also some Corinthian elements of style.^^ x^e Lousoi

4 -

terracottas indicate that local production may well have taken place at the

site with a number of simple primitive types as well as the more distinctive

figurines with square heads and 'page-boy' hair cuts. It is conceivable that

the medium of clay provided a vehicle for local expression of cult in products

such as the riders seated side-saddle, the conception of which was probably

derived from the Geometric bronzes, LI and L2. The terracotta figures on

circular bases, with parallels in bronze of groups of dancing figures, may also

depict scenes which had local significance at Lousoi sanctuary.

The nature of the terracotta dedications may be compared with those of

bronze. It is likely that the bronze votives were thought of as finer, more

important offerings and their great variety, abundance and generally high

quality attest to their prominence. The similarity in types of bronze votives

found at various different sanctuaries, moreover, is frequently noted and

indicates the existence of certain standard conventions and manners of

depiction in bronze. The early terracottas, on the other hand, reflect a more

humble offering. While in some cases they may have finer counterparts in

bronze, other terracotta examples are without parallel and may even resist

inteφretation. These simple offerings in clay may be closer to the original,

unofficial cult than the fine bronze dedications. This situation changes when

terracottas began to be mould-made and mass-produced in Archaic times.

The earliest terracottas, however, are worthy of greater attention precisely

because of their simple, humble and sometimes mysterious nature.

Objects of Other Materials

Ml (363) (pi. 185) is an unusual object from Tegea. It consists of a

marble bust with a very long neck of rectangular section, a flattened face

without any features and a rectangular-shaped head. Along the top of the

shoulders, at the intersection with the neck, is a horizontal moulded band.

This object is quite large: 15 cm in height. Its primitive appearance

reminded Dugas of both Mycenaean and Cycladic idols.^^ The figure's

extremely long neck and moulded band along the top of its shoulders recall

some of the terracotta figurines of Argive type found at Tegea, Gortsouli,

and Hagios Sostis.^"* The simplicity of form and square head also resemble

some of the Lousoi pieces above, (LT5 - LT8) (pis. 181-184). The lack of any

facial features whatsoever is odd, but perhaps is intended to distinguish this

figure from any ordinary human depictions. The large size (in relation to

most of the votives), the fact that it is marble, its long neck and the moulded

244 245


band all suggest that this figure is a special one, not unlike some of the

terracottas in a general way, but in a superior medium and unusual form.

Perhaps it is meant to represent Alea herself. It may have been in use from

the dme of the first monumental temple at the site, i.e. from the end of the

seventh century.

This marble object brings to mind an important piece of monumental

sculpture found near Hagiorgitika, just to the east of Tegea (now in the

National Museum, Athens). Apparently it was found in the temple of

Demeter, east of Hagiorgidka.^^ It is an Archaic statue of stone (tufi) of a

seated female figure, .83 m high, whose face is completely worn. Apparently

peasants in modern dmes made two depressions in the upper part of the face

to indicate eyes.^^ This statue is the earliest example of monumental

sculpture from Arcadia; Jenkins calls it post-Daedalic.^'^ It is in fact related

to the style of the Cleobis kouros, and strongly influenced by contemporary

Argive sculpture. Jenkins concludes that despite some conservative features,

it probably dates to the first quarter of the sixth century.^8

Another object of marble was found at the temple of Poseidon and

Athena between Asea and Pallantion: a block of Doliana marble, only partly

preserved, measuring 10 χ 30 χ 25 cm. It was uncovered in 1918 on a small

plateau about 100 metres to the east of the temple. Two female figures, one

of them taller than the other, are illustrated on one of the faces of the block.

Romaios concluded that the figures are goddesses, one standing and one

sitting. If the block were complete, another two or three figures might have

been indicated. Romaios considered the figures to be roughly middle to late

Daedalic in style and of Laconian type.^^ He thought that the plaque dated

between 650 and 600 and was offered as a dedication at the first temple at

the site, made of wood and clay. Romaios believed that when the marble

temple was built in later years, this piece was incoφorated into the metopes

of the temple. It is likely that this object had a special significance at the site

when it was first dedicated there towards the end of the seventh century, and

it reveals a distinct Laconian presence at this southeastern Arcadian site.

Objects of various other materials were found at Tegea and elsewhere in

Arcadia. Dugas briefly discussed those from Tegean in a synopsis.^^ I shall

here mention some main categories and recent finds.

A small number of bone and ivory objects were found at the Athena Alea

site, including four bone seals which were horizontally pierced and

246

I

4 -

Stepped.^! Recently, Steinhauer found one more such stepped seal in bone

or ivory in his excavations to the north of the temple, M2(S) (pi. 186). It is

damaged and very worn but appears to be similar to Dugas no. 386 (an ivory

seal). A bone stepped seal was also found at the sanctuary of Apollo

Epikourios at Bassai.'*^ Seals of this type have been found at many Greek

sanctuary sites including numerous examples from Artemis Orthia, Argive

Heraion and Perachora."^^ Other objects of ivory or bone from Tegea

consist of a few reclining rams found in Steinhauer's excavations at Tegea,

M3(S) (pi. 186); they have already been discussed in relation to the bronze

reclining oxen, (above Chapter Four, Section Two). These rams have

parallels with similar objects found at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary and

Perachora."*"^ Their findspot permits them to be dated to the seventh

century. The inspiration for these reclining ram figures may well have been

Oriental prototypes of north Syrian type; the bone figures in turn seem to

have influenced the producdon of reclining oxen in bronze at Tegea."^^

Dugas also mendoned the existence of a number of glass objects from the

site,'*^ including about 50 beads of various types, apparently from a necklace.

In the Tegea Museum display, the beads are strung, see M4 (pi. 187).

Lead objects were also found at the Athena Alea site.'^'^ Six lead wreaths

were found at the sanctuary of the same types as those found at the Artemis

Orthia uit.^^ Other sites in Arcadia to yield such lead wreaths are

Gortsouli, to the north of Tegea, where a few of these wreaths were found

(these are unpublished), and Bassai, where one such wreath was

uncovered."^^ Two lead kouroi of tiny size, B l l and B12, were found at

Mavriki; they have parallels at the Artemis Orthia sanctuary and have

already been discussed in the Human Figure Section (Chapter Four, Section

One). A later lead female figure similar to Orthia examjples was also found

at Bassai. It is conceivable that all the above mentioned lead objects were

imports from Sparta, where there was considerable lead producdon from the

seventh century. ^

Finally, a small number of gold objects were found at the Athena Alea

site.^0 These include gold bands and discs with repousse decoradon, gold

wires and rolled rectangular bands, forming beads of sorts, see M4, (pi. 187).

A very interesting small, gold plaque depicdng a female figure flanked by

two wild beasts was also found at the site (fig. 28).^! This object could not

be located in the Tegea Museum apotheke and the illustration in Dugas is

poor, so it is difficult to discuss it in detail. It is clearly a Totnia Theron'

247

Chapter Sk

representat ion in gold, but it is not closely paral le led by any o t h e r piece in

gold from the P e l o p o n n e s e . A similar representat ion in lead, however, can

be seen from the Artemis O r t h i a s i t e 5 2 Genera l ly speaking, the A r t e m i s

O r t h i a site yielded m u c h m o r e m a t e r i a l in gold a n d o t h e r prec ious meta l s

than did the A t h e n a Alea site.53 To my knowledge, no gold has b e e n found

at any o t h e r Arcadian site of t h e eighth and seventh centuries

Notes for Chapter Six

1. Dugas, Tegea 423-426 nos. 345-362.

2. Lenormant, Gazette archoologique IV (1878): 42-43; Martha, Catalogues des figurines en

terre-cuites, 110-123, nos. 541-626 (in Athens National Museum); Romaios, PAE (1909):

316-18; Romaios also found some terracotta fragments from life-size figurines. See also

H.B. Walters, Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman

Antiquities, British Museum (London: 1903), 77-78; R. Higgins, Catalogue of the

Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London:

1954), 272-277.

3. Higgins, Terracottas, 269.

4. Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 38-44, figs. 26-53.

5. Many thanks to R.V. Nicholls for sending me reproductions of his photographs of the

terracottas from Berekla. See Kourouniotes, AE (1903): 167-170; idem, AE (1910):

299-300.

6. Demakopoulou, Άμυκλαίο, 44-50; French, BSA 66 (1971): 183.

7. See French, BSA 66 (1971): 109, fig. 1, 135-136; Demakopoulou, Άμυκλαω, 47-48, pi. 16,

fig. no. 40; Howell and Hope Simpson dated Tl to IIIB but they appear to have seen only

the publication photo, Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 92; Hope Simpson, Gazetteer, 40 no. 89.

8. Dugas says simply that the terracottas were "trouvees dans toute entendue de la fouille,"

Dugas, Tegea 423 n. 3.

9. Mendel, BCH 25 (1901): 256.

10. Payne, Perachora 1228 no. 166, pi. 100.

11. Argive Heraion: Waldstein, AH II pi. 48, nos. 244, 245. For other examples: Frickenhaus,

Tiryns I, 83, fig. 20; Higgins, Terracottas, 240 no. 985, 45; Martha, Catalogues des figurines

en terre-cuites, no. 602, 603; see also later sixth century example from Glanitsa, near

Gortys, Meyer, Peloponnesische Wanderungen, pi. XVb.

12. Higgins, Terracottas, 240; see also ArFoley, The Argolid 800-60^ B.C. An Archaeological

Survey (Gothenburg: 1988), 109. ' '

13. Demakopoulou, Άμνκλαΐο, pi. 49, no. 115.

14. Ibid., 66-68 n. 191, 192. t

15. Heilmeyer, Tonfiguren pi. 14.

16. French, BSA 66 (1971): pi. 26c.

17. Ibid., pi. 27a; Dawkins, Sparta pi. XCL no. 12.

18. French, BSA 66 (1971): 151 fig. 11,155.


248 249


250

1

4 -


251

20. Foley, The Argolid 800-600 B.C., 109.

21. Higgins, Terracottas, nos. 980-983, pi. 138.

22. Ibid., pi. 141.

23. Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI (1901): 41-42 figs. 35-39; other terracottas are unpubhshed and in the National Museum in Athens.

24. Higgins, Terracottas, 141, nos. 1004,1005,1006.

25. Schweitzer, GGA 155 n. 131, fig. 98.

26. Schweitzer, GGA 155-156; Turnbull, (see above Chapter One, n. 17) 63.

27. Sinn, AM 96 (1981): 40 pi. 7,5.

28. Schweitzer, GGA 159 n. 149.

29. Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 38 no. 27.

30. Schweitzer, GGA 159 n. 149.

31. Bassai: Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 299-300, figs. 16-18; Berekla: unpublished but mentioned in PAE (1902): 22-23, 72-75; Kotilon: Kourouniotes, (1903): 167-170, figs. 5; 6.

32. Higgins, Terracottas, 272.


34. Ibid., 424 no. 346.


36. V. B&rard, "Statue Archaique de T^gie," BCH 14 (1890): 382-384, pi. XI.

37. Jenkins, Dedalica, 76-78, pi. IX, 2.

38. Ibid., 76-77 for a detailed discussion.

39. Romaios, AE (1957): 144-146, fig. 35; Jenkins, Dedalica, 67: figs. 7-10.


41. Ibid., 431-432 nos. 381-387, figs. 66-67.

42. Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 323, fig. 44.

43. Dunbabin, Perachora II 410ff n. 5. ^

44. Dawkins, Sparta pis. 148-149; Dunbabin, Perachora II pi. 174.

45. For further discussion of Oriental inspiration and influence on the production of ivory and bone rechning quadrupeds, see Chapter Four, Section Two.

46. Dugas, Tegea 432 nos. 389-394.

47. Ibid., 428-429 nos. 370-378.

48. Dawkins, Sparta pl.180, 1-7; Wace, Thompson and Droop, BSA 15 (1908/09): 134, 20.

49. Kourouniotes, AE (1910): 323, fig. 45.

50. Dugas, Tegea 427-428 nos. 364-369.

51. Ibid., 428 no. 365, fig. 54.

52. Dawkins, Sparta pi. 188; R. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery, 2nd ed., (London:

1980), 116 pi. 19, B-E.

53. Ibid., 101; Dawkins, Sparta pis. 202-204.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSIONS

The geographic region of Arcadia, as defined by Pausanias and as known from historical and linguistic evidence from Classical times, is best understood for the period of the eighth and seventh centuries by reviewing the characteristics of the various internal regions and their relation to neighbouring areas. A brief synopsis of the remains from the excavated sanctuaries in the east, north, central and southwest parts of Arcadia follows. The conclusions pertain to the nature, date and distribution of the earliest votive objects, the existence of distinctive styles or workshops in bronze and pottery, the level of technical skills in relation to other regions and the extent of early architectural developments. A relevant historical framework within which these sanctuaries grew and developed is provided, particularly in relation to Tegea. Finally, the nature of the early cult of Athena Alea is examined, based on the material and historical evidence evaluated above.

East Arcadia

The eastern frontier of Arcadia is the most prolific district in terms of early dedications at sanctuary sites; it includes the sites of Orchomenos, Gortsouli, Tegea, Mavriki and Asea. The sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea yielded the largest collection of bronzes and pottery in Arcadia and appears to be the only one with evidence earlier than the mid-eighth century.

The earliest material found there consists of two stirrup jar fragments, a psi-figurine, a quadruped derived from the Mycenaean 'Linear 2' style (?), a bronze female figure with her hands on her breasts, a violin bow fibula and a Submycenaean arched fibula, most of which are datable to the twelfth century; the stirrup jar fragment, PI, is probably eleventh century in date. Later finds include a PG bronze pin, about thirteen pots or fragments of PG style of both Laconian and standard PG types and about ten examples of MGII wares of Argive style. LGII pottery is best represented at the site, mostly derivative of Argive wares. A number of the pots also reflect

252

Conclusions ^

253

Laconian and Protocorinthian styles. Seventh century pottery consists mainly of Protocorinthian wares and locally made miniature pots, which probably began to appear in the early part of the century. The great number and variety of bronze objects from the site are stylistically datable and range, for the most part, from the mid-eighth century to the mid-seventh century, though some of them may be earlier. Objects of terracotta, gold, bone, ivory, and lead were also found; these date to the late eighth or early seventh century and later.

The earhest secure architectural remains from Tegea belong to the last quarter of the seventh century, when it is believed that the first monumental temple of marble was built at the site. The date and exact layout of this early temple may be confirmed by the excavations planned for the site in 1990. The votive deposit in the northeast corner of the later temple, where most of the early dedications were found, must have been sealed off when this temple was built. An early altar probably existed in the same position as the later, fourth century altar to the east of the temple; it is now under the modern road. Any earlier structure at the site, of late eighth or early seventh century date, cannot at present be ascertained, aUhough it is possible that some sort of structure existed here prior to the late seventh century. Rough stone walls noted by 0stby appear to go below the late seventh century walls at some points, but they do not at present form a recognizable plan. Future excavations may confirm their layout and date. The present evidence suggests, however, that the early sanctuary of Athena Alea (from the mid-eighth to the mid-seventh century or a little later) was an open-air shrine with a simple altar and a natural spring as the centres of ritual cult activity.

The small sanctuary of Artemis above the village of Mavriki clearly benefited from its relative proximity to Tegea and to the route to Spai|ta. The small number of LGII and Subgeometric pot sherds and bronzes found there are for the most part remarkably similar in character to the Tegean examples. The pottery consists of both Argive and Laconian influenced wares, as weH as local miniature pottery. Many of the bronzes also have parallels from Tegea; the water carriers from Mavriki and Tegea are virtually identical. The seated figure from Mavriki with his hands to his mouth has parallels from both Sparta and Tegea. The two lead figures from Mavriki are probably Spartan imports. Since there is no architectural evidence from Mavriki before the mid-sixth century it is unclear if any structures existed at the site in conjunction with the early votives. On the

Chapter Seven

basis of these votives, it can be determined that the sanctuary was estabhshed

in the last quarter of the eighth century.

Near Asea, a temple made of wood and clay and dedicated to Poseidon

and Athena was apparently erected in the late seventh century. Seventh

century dedications consist of figurines of bronze sheet and a marble plaque

of Daedalic style. The sanctuary appears to have flourished in the sixth

century when a marble temple was built. It is noteworthy that both these

temples were orientated north to south instead of the usual east to west.

From Asea itself, two LG pots were found (probably from graves) in an area

where prehistoric and later Hellenisdc settlements were excavated. One of

the pots was an Argive style kantharos and the other a Laconian style

lakaina. This pottery shows that some activity was occurring in the region of

Asea from the late eighth century. The neighbouring sanctuary site was

conceivably in existence from the mid-seventh century.

At Gortsouli, the sanctuary yielded a considerable amount of

seventh century pottery, largely derivative of Argive Subgeometric and

Protocorinthian styles, a small amount of Geometric bronzes and many later

bronze votives. A good number of terracottas of seventh to sixth century

types and some lead, silver and bone objects were also found. Since the

excavations at Gortsouli were only trial in nature, stratigraphical evidence

from the temple structures is unavailable. Mazarakis has provisionally

suggested that there was only one temple, with a long bench and a dividing

wall separating the ceUa from the adyton, rather than two, with a larger

temple enclosing a smaUer one. Though the excavator believed that the

'earliest' temple was datable to Geometric times, Mazarakis and I are

both inclined to see a later date for the structure. On the basis of the votive

objects, which are largely seventh and sixth century in date, I tentatively

suggest a date towards the end of the seventh century for the temple at

Gortsouli. It is hoped that further excavation at the site and Mazarakis'

research will confirm a date and more precise plans for the temple(s).

Arcadian Orchomenos, to the north of Mantinea, revealed in its 'lower

city' a rather large deposit which was said to contain some worn Geometric

sherds. The deposit was found just to the east of a rectangular terrace which

had a peripteral monument inside it. Also in the lower city, from the skth

century temple possibly dedicated to Poseidon or Aphrodite, were found

smah bronzes such as round discs and bands decorated in repousse; these

may be LG or later. No earlier temple structures were found in the

Conclusions

excavadons at Orchomenos nor has any of the eighth to seventh century

material found there ever been published. It is conceivable, however, that

the cults there went back to the late eighth century, as they did at Arcadian

sites to the south of Orchomenos.

North Arcadia

The sanctuary of Artemis Hemera at Lousoi, the only known site with

Geometric remains from northern Arcadia, seems to have flourished from

LG times, to judge from the great amount of bronze objects found there.

The bronzes reveal regional preferences and styles and were most probably

made in a local workshop with Argive affinities. Some have parallels with

types found at Olympia and it is likely that the workshop at Lousoi

maintained contact with certain counteφarts at Olympia. The belief that all

the Lousoi bronzes were made at Olympia and brought to Lousoi is not

substantiated by the evidence. A small quantity of the bronzes was probably

imported, such as a number of the more elaborate fibulae types. Some types

of bronzes may have had local significance at the site (such as the female

riders seated side-saddle). Geometric pottery dedicadons appear to have

been made at Lousoi though little is known about them. The recent

excavations have uncovered some Geometric and Archaic skyphoi from a

closed deposit. Once pubhshed, they will provide important information

about the ceramic evidence from this site. A number of disdnctive

terracottas that date from the seventh century were probably produced in the

Lousoi vicinity.

The earliest architectural remains found at Lousoi consist of small Doric

columns and half columns, which apparently do not belong to the Hellenistic

temple, and seventh to sixth century acroteria. There is no evidence for any

earlier structure. The recent excavators at Lousoi believe they may have

unearthed the foundations of the fourth century altar to the east of the

temple; if this is so, it would be the hkely locadon for the earlier altar as well.

Despite both the plundering at the Lousoi sanctuary and the brevity of the

early excavations there, an array of bronze votives of high quality and

interest were recovered. These, and further significant discoveries from the

present excavadons, indicate the importance of this site from the mid-eighth

century. Our understanding of the early stages of the local cult will be

further illuminated by the publication of the current excavations.

254 255

Chapter Seven

Early Temples

There is no secure evidence for temple structures at any Arcadian sanctuary in the eighth century. From the later seventh century onwards, however, temples are known to have existed at many of these sanctuaries. The movement towards monumental temple building is somewhat later in this region than elsewhere in Greece; this may be linked to the slower development of the polls in Arcadia. The more gradual adoption of these trends appears to have resulted in the incorporation of some unusual features in the temples.

A number of the Arcadian temples have an approximately north to south orientation instead of the conventional east to west. This is true of the temples at Bassai, Asea, Gortsouli, Gortys and later at Alipheira, Cretea and Kotilon. The north to south orientation was also found at some early sanctuaries outside Arcadia. It may be the case that the north to south orientation was adopted before the east to west alignment had been widely established and that in geographically remote regions lacking a strong polls system, such as parts of Arcadia, the convention may have been ignored or unknown even by the end of the seventh century. In southwest Arcadia, for instance, once the Bassai temple had been built at the end of the seventh century with a north to south orientation, it is possible that the neighbouring (and even more remote) sites of Alipheira, Cretea and Kotilon followed suit in the skth century.

258

Conclusions

Pottery and Bronze Production

There is strong evidence for local production of both ceramics and bronzes in Arcadia. The greatest amount of pottery from any Arcadian sanctuary was found at the Athena Alea site in the eastern region. This pottery was for the most part locally produced under Argive influence, though Laconian and Protocorinthian styles can also be discerned; imports of these types were also found. The pottery ranges in date from Mycenaean IIIC to LPC, though there appears to be a gap in evidence between Submycenaean (or Mycenaean IIIC Late) and LPG. The lack of material between LPG and MGII at Tegea might be due to the continuation of production of the PG style well into MG, a characteristic feature of laconian Geometric pottery, where the PG sequence begins later and very little MG was found at all. The relative scarcity of LGI at Tegea might in turn be the result of continued production of the MGII style-until the LGII became established as the most popular pottery phase at the site. The miniature and hand-made painted pots found at Tegea are distinctive in type. Other notable traits in the pottery include a few differences in the detail of the LGII pottery decoration from standard Argive figured scenes and the freer style of painted decoration on some of the large coarse pots. Mavriki yielded LGII pottery of the same general type as that from Tegea but only a fraction of the amount; miniatures comparable to the Tegean ones were also found there. ^

The other Arcadian sites yielded much less contemporary ceramic evidence. The fourteen examples of Mavriki pottery reveal strong connections with Tegea and may have been made in the same workshop as the Tegean pots or in a closely related one. The cetamic material from Gortsouli, on the other hand, reflects no particular connection with Tegea. It consists of locally produced Subgeometric pottery, derivative of Argive and PC styles in decoration and shapes. The two pots from Asea were probably imports: one from Laconia and one from the Argolid. The northern Arcadian site of Lousoi yielded little pottery. The recently discovered ceramic material requires examination, as do the unpublished miniature pots. Southwest Arcadia produced two LG sherds from Cretea, which were probably imports to the site from Laconia; the Geometric cups from Gortys were probably Corinthian imports. Finally, a few LPC pots and later ceramic material were uncovered at Bassai, as well as some Laconian style miniature

259

of Sparta to its east. The apparent establishment of Olympia as a panhellenic sanctuary site in Elis in the eighth century might have been expected to have had more of an impact on the neighbouring regions in southwest Arcadia. That it did not suggests that the southwest remained remote and had only very limited external contact at the end of the eighth century. The north Arcadian site of Lousoi, however, revealed quite strong connections with Olympia in the second half of the eighth century or possibly earher; this can be seen in a number of the Lousoi bronzes possessing an Argive-related style with parallels at Olympia. In view of the considerable distance between these two areas, one may conclude that the link between Lousoi and Olympia was a deliberate one which served to benefit the Lousoi site.

Chapter Seven Conclusions

pots of sixth century date; the latter appear to have been locally produced in

Elean clay.

The bronze objects found at the Arcadian sites reveal a very different

picture from the pottery. They indicate the existence of Arcadian originality,

creativity and a considerable distinction in style. The nineteen human

figurines (datable before 600 B.C.) are a most interesting collecdon: nine of

them from Tegea, four from Mavriki (two of lead), three from Lousoi, a

group from Petrovouni and two (of iron) from Bassai. Those from Tegea

and Mavriki have similar elements of style in their simple flowing forms, lack

of modelling, heavy limbs and often solid base-plates. Some of the pieces

have no known parallels: B2, B5, B6, B7, and B8. Others have counterparts

at Sparta and,^elsewhere (B3, B9), or at Lousoi, Olympia and Samos (Bl).

Mycenaean revivals might be understood in the cases of the riders seated

side-saddle, Bl and LI and L2 from Lousoi. They all may have been derived

from a Mycenaean prototype, the memory of which could have survived in

Tegea, Lousoi or both. The type was relatively popular in Arcadia, first in

bronze and later in terracotta.

B8 appears to be a product of the Late Bronze Age; it may well be an

import to Tegea from Cyprus and probably dates to the twelfth century.

Other objects might be interpreted as having Laconian influence (B3, B9).

B7 appears to have been inspired by a north Syrian ivory workshop, though

the piece was produced in bronze. The male warrior, B5, and his twin

published by Dugas, resemble objects which were translated into bronze

from terracotta prototypes.

While eastern Arcadia, i.e. Tegea and Mavriki, yielded the greatest

amount and variety of bronze human figures, other Arcadian sites also

produced interesdng statuettes. The three Lousoi objects consist of the two

riders seated side-saddle (LI, L2) and an unparalleled, rigid, male figurine in

bronze. The bronze group from Petrovouni of four horse-headed figures on

a rectangular base is an exceptional piece. It may well have been locally

made in the vicinity of the site, but until more is known about this region of

Arcadia, the full significance and the place of producdon for this

group cannot be determined. The Bassai figurines are perhaps the simplest

and most unconventional of all. In general, it may be observed that there is a

marked degree of individuality of style and conception in these human

figurines throughout Arcadia. In comparison with other parts of the

Greek world, the abundance of free-standing human figurines from this

region is notable.

Twenty bronze horse figurines are known from Arcadia: ten from Tegea,

one from Mavriki, seven from Lousoi and two from Bassai/Phigaleia. The

horses from eastern Arcadia (Tegea, Mavriki) possess predominantly Argive

features, either as imports or as local products under this influence (B13,

B15, B14 and B18). Laconian influence is seen in three horses (B17, B20

and B21), one of which (B21) may have been locally made at Tegea. Three

of the horses (B16, Β19 and Dugas no. 9) have both Argive and Laconian

features but a predominance of Argive traits. Most of the Lousoi horses

reveal a strong Argive connection in a localized form. This influence was

probably derived from Argive prototypes and became a type in its own right,

the Lousoi-Olympia group (L7-L9). Two of the horses from Lousoi, (L4 and

L5), reveal a mixture of Argive and Laconian features, with a greater

proportion of Laconian qualities. From southwest Arcadia, the horses

from Bassai and Phigaleia consist of a blending of Argive and Laconian

traits, but with a greater amount of Laconian characteristics. In summary, it

can be said that the Arcadian bronze horses are derivative types which

sometimes develop disdnctive characterisdcs. They are most notable in the

manner in which they blend Argive and Laconian traits, and, in so doing,

form a hybrid style.

The seven bronze deer figurines from Tegea (B22-B28) are clearly local in

style and must have been a particularly popular dedication. These deer

possess some features attributable to the horses such as the solid base-plates,

high rumps and flowing backs, but in overall conception they are quite

individual products that may be connected to the early cult.

The sk reclining oxen (B34-B37) seem to be a local Tegean creation,

derived from the ivory and bone images of reclining quadrupeds found at

Perachora, Sparta and at Tegea itself. These ivory and bone examples were

in turn inspired by Oriental prototypes. The single reclining bronze ox from

Olympia and the two from Sparta were hkely exports from Tegea. The

bronze reclining oxen are probably late eighth to early seventh century in

date. There are bronze oxen from Lousoi of a very different and unrelated

style (L11-L12); they reveal a general Argive influence.

Twenty-five bronze bird figurines were found at Arcadian sites. There are

eighteen from the sanctuary of Athena Alea, two from Mavriki, four from

260 261

Chapter Seven

262

Conclusions

263

Lousoi and one from Bassai. Eastern Arcadia has the greatest number and variety of bronze birds. The Tegean cocks/ found largely at Tegea, with but one example known from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary and one from the Argive Heraion, were probably all made in Tegea in the late eighth or early seventh century. The source of inspiration for these birds is unclear but the type may have been invented in the Tegean vicinity under the influence of the Corinthian bronze type, 'the Perachora cock.' Another group of birds from Tegea, (B47-B50 and B52), could have been locally made as they share a number of common features and elements of construction. Some of the bird figures found at Tegea possess features observable in other Peloponnesian types; some may have been imported. The two Mavriki birds were probably made in the Tegea or Mavriki vicinity; one of them, B55 and the Tegean bird, B52, are both variants of the northern type of birds on cages. The Lousoi birds consist of four different varieties: a 'Corinthian' bird on a disc, a 'Laconian' bird on a pierced base, an 'Argive' bird with a rod on a solid base and a locally styled and produced specimen. Finally, the Bassai bird with a pierced base was produced in a Laconian workshop, possibly in Elis.

A great range of small pendant objects was found at the Athena Alea site. Some of the types in particular suggest that there were similarities between Tegean and Macedonian/Thessalian bronze workshops at the end of the eighth century and later. Links in bronze production with the North have already been noted at other Peloponnesian sites, such as Olympia and Perachora, and some of the votives found at those sites are believed to have been made in Corinth, where particular types of northern-styled objects were being manufactured.^ The northern types of bronzes found at Tegea, however, differ from those produced at Corinth and were probably locally manufactured. The evidence seems to suggest that Tegea was a second, smaller centre of bronze production in the Peloponnese, creating objects in a northern style. This second centre produced some bronzes which may reflect older, more deeply rooted connections with the northern regions rather than an active exchange in the eighth century.

The 'birds on cages' from Tegea and Mavriki and the recently found 'cage' from Gortsouli are all likely to have been local products under some sort of northern influence and these types are unparalleled in the Peloponnese. Their Macedonian counterparts were in turn inspired by Thraco-Cimmerian bronze cages. The type apparently originated from much further East in the tenth or eleventh centuries and spread westward. The eastern Arcadian

examples seem to have been derived from the Macedonian cages though the circumstances for the exchange are not clear. The usual date given for the Greek and Macedonian examples is the second half of the eighth and seventh centuries.^

Also from Tegea were the greatest number and types of bronze beads from all of the Peloponnese; such beads are well represented in northern Greece as well. Other northern types of objects include variants of solid ovoid pendants found at Tegea, some of which have connections with the locally-made stamp and pomegranate pendants, and are thus also probable Tegean products adapted from northern models. The one such pendant from Sparta was probably imported from Tegea. Different variants of these globular and ovoid pendants found at Perachora and Olympia were most likely produced in a Corinthian workshop. The ring pendants from Tegea are further examples of locally manufactured objects which have northern affinities. The simple birds from Tegea (and Laconia) are related to the earliest Macedonian bronzes, suggesting early connections between the southern Peloponnese and Macedonia. Bouzek notes that the primitive, barbarian traditions of the Peloponnese were evidently close to those of primitive tribes in Macedonia.*^

The bronze turtles found at Tegea, Sparta and, supposedly, Mavriki, together with the similar-looking frogs from Sparta and Argos, all bear resemblance to northern frog images; this connection emphasized for Bouzek the existence of a basic relationship between Macedonia and the southern Peloponnese."^ The nature and amount of 'northern' objects found at Tegea and its geographical position at the cross-roads of Laconia and the Argolid suggest that this region was exposed to a variety of external influences. Yet the Argolid yielded very little material with northern connections: a small number of beads, a body of a pyxis, part of a ring pendant and a frog pendant. The most significant objects from Sparta in this context are a number of Macedonian jugs found at the site, most of which were imported though a few may have been locally produced. It can be reasonably argued, therefore, that a bronze-producing centre with northern affinities was located in the Tegean vicinity. Some of the northern elements observable in the Tegean bronzes may reflect a more ancient connection between these two areas, whereas the bronzes from the Corinth reveal a contemporary and active exchange with the north in the later eighth century. It is possible that the local Tegeans produced these small, simple, traditional bronzes for dedication in preference to some of the more standard eighth

Chapter Seven

264

Conclusions

Chronology

Most of the votive objects uncovered at these Arcadian sites have no

stratigraphical contexts and hence are datable only according to style or

known contexts from other sites outside Arcadia. At Tegea, there is some

stratigraphical information now available from Steinhauer's excavadons but

it is limited in scope. The lowest, eleventh stroma (eighth century) contained

a variety of material including a mixture of PG and LG pottery, a tiny solid

cast pomegranate pendant and part of a Boeotian fibula. The ninth stroma

(seventh century) contained the bronze bird B54, a number of pins, a double

axe, a miniature cauldron rim and the ivory or bone reclining rams.

This small amount of stratigraphical evidence available from Tegea, while

only tentatively and incompletely assessed at the moment, offers some

support to the rough chronological framework I have oudined. Most of the

previously found pottery and bronzes were uncovered in the northeast corner

of the later temple and could be dated to the mid-eighth century, although

earlier material was found (i.e. twelfth century and PG). Some of the pots,

the miniature pots, and many bronzes are datable to the seventh century.

The bronzes include a number of the pins and fibulae, some of the birds and

possibly the reclining oxen. The stamp and pomegranate pendants were first

produced in the late eighth century and they probably continued into the

seventh.

The northern part of the sanctuary seems to have served the puφose of a

votive deposit used in conjunction with the spring situated immediately to the

east of it. By the fourth century, the significance of this northern area was

expressed in a more tangible form. A side door in the temple opened

directly to this northern region and the fountain was embellished with

marble blocks. The relationship of this northern area (Couche A) to the

northeast corner of the later temple (Couche B) in the earliest stages of the

cult is unclear. Both may have functioned as votive deposit areas situated

around the fountain. The votive deposit at Couche Β had no doubt been

sealed off by the last quarter of the seventh century, when the first

monumental temple was built. The deposit to the north of the temple.

265

century bronzes, such as tripod cauldrons. This preference may have even

provided a source of local pride.

The large and varied collection of stamp and pomegranate pendants

found at Tegea indicates the extent of the local creativity, individuality and

technical skill of the Tegean bronze craftsmen. It also emphasizes the

potential scope of the Tegean workshop as an important bronze-producing

centre in the Peloponnese. The relatively few examples of either type of

pendant from any other site indicates the popularity of these dedicadons at

Tegea. The pomegranate pendants may also be significant offerings related

to the cult.

A number of the bronzes found at the site are most unusual, such as the

'composite pendant' with human legs, double protomes of birds and horses

(B162), the shield with bird figures on all sides (B161), bronze lyres

(B200-B202) and miniature Dipylon shields (B186-B196). The great number

of bronze pins found at the site consists mostly of conventional types, like

those found in the Argolid, but with a few unusual examples too, such as the

'oar blades.' The fibulae found at Tegea reveal a variety of types similar to

those found in the rest of the Peloponnese, but with some quite early

examples. It is possible that there was local producdon of 'Boeotian' and

'Thessalian' fibulae occurring in the in the vicinity of Tegea (as well as in

the Argolid), since a number of these fibulae with unusual and distinctive

traits in their engraved decoration, as well as a bronze disc with a similar

style of ornamentation, were found at the Athena Alea site.

The evidence thus indicates that Tegea had the most productive and

innovative bronze producing centre in Arcadia; even with respect to the rest

of the Peloponnese, it was a respectable and prolific workshop. The large

amount and variety of bronze votives found at Lousoi also indicate the

existence of an important bronze workshop in its vicinity, probably the

second largest known centre in Arcadia in Geometric times. Interaction

between these two Arcadian centres appears to have taken place to a limited

degree but its nature and extent cannot be determined. There is also

evidence for influence and exchange between these centres at Lousoi and

Tegea and other bronze producing regions in the Peloponnese. The early

bronzes from Mavriki and Gortsouli may have also been produced in the

Tegean workshop or in local regional workshops which had des to Tegea.

The Petrovouni bronze group is so unusual and removed from standard

ardsdc convendons that it could well have been a local creadon but lack of

comparative material prevents any certain conclusion. Nor it is clear if the

bronzes from the southwest Arcadian sites, namely Bassai and Alipheira,

were produced in the vicinity of these sanctuaries or brought from elsewhere.

'ξ

Chapter Seven

Economic and Historical Framework

Recent research on the developments at Greek sanctuary sites has

revealed that beginning in the mid-eighth century there were dramatic

increases in the number of votive offerings dedicated throughout Greece.

The offering of metal objects, especially bronzes, increased significantly in

LG times. This reflects the extent of the acquisition and spread of materials

and skills, the subsequent rise in metallic producdon and more generally,

greater total resources. Snodgrass offers a clear description of the

complexity of forces operating and interacting with increasing momentum,

resulting in such marked increases by the mid-eighth century. A rise in

populadon can partially explain the abruptness of the increase in votive

objects; yet another factor was probably that a larger proportion of available

wealth was being reserved for and offered to the gods.^

A number of sanctuary sites in Arcadia began to receive dedications

from the mid-eighth century or later. Tegea was the only sanctuary site in

Arcadia to produce evidence prior to the mid-eighth century. The extent of

the increase in dedications in LG times is thus particularly apparent at the

Tegea site. The panhellenic image of increased prosperity and production of

dedications at sanctuary sites in LG times is also observable in Arcadia, its

clearest witness coming from the Athena Alea site.

The historical framework within which these Arcadian sanctuaries

began, grew and flourished can be reconstructed in a general way but the

specific events are more difficult to ascertain with confidence. Perhaps the

single most significant force to affect the Peloponnese from the late eighth

century was the growing power of Laconia. The extent to which Laconia's

aggressive behaviour affected Arcadia can be evaluated primarily from the

often conflicdng accounts of the ancient writers.

266

Conclusions

267

however, continued to be used as such (intermittently) until the fourth

century. It can be concluded that the first major stage of the cult at Tegea

lasted from roughly the mid-eighth until the mid-seventh century, although

some activity may have occurred as early as 950 B.C. With the building of

the monumental marble temple in the late seventh century, the nature of the

sanctuary was transformed and the significance and identity of the cult and

city enormously enhanced.

An account in Pausanias records a Spartan attempt to encroach on

Arcadian territory, involving the taking of Aigys in southern Arcadia by the

Spartans.^ An approximate date of 775 B.C. has been determined for this

action.^ Pausanias also recorded accounts of Sparta's increasing aggression

towards Messenia. The First Messenian War is thought to have taken place

in the late eighth century; it is generally beheved that the Arcadians

supported the Messenians against the Spartans.^ The Second Messenian

War, described in Pausanias^ and in fragments from the poet, Tyrtaios, is

approximately dated to the mid-seventh century. The Arcadians are

recorded as having fought on the side of the Messenians.!^ Another event

which may have indirectly affected the Arcadian region was the Argive

destrucdon of Asine and the subsequent Spartan resettling of the refugees in

southern Messenia at the end of the eighth century.!! Of more direct impact

was the Batde of Hysiai in 669 B.C., when the Spartans were defeated in a

confrontation which took place on the Argive and Tegean frontier. !2

Arcadia's alleged support of the Messenians in their conflicts with the

Spartans is certainly plausible but it is not clear if the entire region of

Arcadia was involved or only certain areas within it. It is in fact debatable

whether 'Arcadia' existed as a unified geographical entity in the late eighth

and seventh centuries. The archaeological evidence available from the

Arcadian sanctuaries, moreover, indicates limited interaction between the

areas within the region. It is conceivable that various regions within Arcadia,

especially those closest to Sparta and Messenia, were aware of and involved

in these conflicts. This may have been especially true for southwest Arcadia,

in light of its proximity to the northern fronders of Messenia. The fact that

many votive objects of bronze miniature armour began to be dedicated at

Bassai roughly at the dme of the Second Messenian War indicates a

connecdon between the growth and development of the^cult at Bassai and

this war. The extent and nature of this connecdon have been discussed at

length by Snodgrass and Cooper.

Snodgrass offers a persuasive argument based on the resemblance of the

Bassai miniature armour to Cretan parallels. He states that Cretan

mercenaries initiated the custom of the dedication of miniature weapons at

Bassai at the time of the Second Messenian War, when Cretan mercenaries

were supposedly fighting on the Spartan side, according to Pausanias.

Cooper, on the other hand, believes that Apollo Epikourios was a god of the

(Arcadian) mercenaries and that his cult at Bassai was expressed by the

dedicadon of miniature armour, from the time of the Second Messenian

Chapter Seven

268

Conclusions

probably Asea and possibly at Lousoi and Petrovouni, in the seventh century, when Sparta's power was at a peak, may be significant. These temples were no doubt intended to be signs of local power, importance, and statements of independence and pride of identity.

The Cult of Athena Alea at Tegea

The deity worshipped at Tegea eventually became identified with the conventional image of Athena. This is illustrated by the late sixth century bronze dedicated at the site which consists of an figure of an armed Athena. In the eighth and seventh centuries, however, the deity appears to have possessed other aspects in her character which can be surmised from some of the early votive offerings found at the site. Recent research by Jost on the literary and inscriptional evidence reveals that the goddess worshipped at this site was referred to as 'Alea' only until the Classical period, from which time the names Athena Alea or Alea Athena were used. 18 A closer examination of some of the early votives from the site might be of assistance in further identifying the nature of this earlier goddess, Alea.

Many of the early bronze dedications from the sanctuary of Athena Alea are of the standard Geometric types revealing little about the cult in particular. Others are unusual, however, and may reflect the nature of the early worship of the goddess there. They consist of a twelfth century naked female figure of leaded bronze with her hands on her breasts (B8), an incised bronze disc with a female figure standing on a quadruped and holding a poppy (Dugas no. 154), a figure of the female seated side-saddle on a horse (Bl), a group of a figure separating two animals (B2), a^bear-headed figure (B6), a water carrier (B4), numerous unusual deer figurines (B21-B28), a turtle pendant (B184) and a great number of pomegranate pendants (B126-B146). Naked female figures carrying water, controlling animals and with hands on breasts suggest the fundamental qualities of a Fertility goddess and Mistress of Animals. Recent research shows that bear figurines were emblems of motherhood, usually associated with Artemis, and that turtle votives may represent a goddess's power over earth and its fertility. Pomegranates are symbolic of fertility and life after death generally. The location of the sanctuary site on the Tegean plain, far from the later city-centre, but not on a hill overlooking the town or out in the wilderness, seems to suggest that the cult was an ancient one which originally was not

269

/

War, when Arcadians supposedly fought on the Messenian side. Until all the armour is fully studied and published, this issue may remain unresolved. It is conceivable, however, that the custom of dedicating miniature armour was introduced by Cretan mercenaries at the time of the Second Messenian War, when there is a plausible context for them to be in the region, as Snodgrass has shown. It is also possible that once the custom was initiated at the site, it continued under local impetus in honour of Apollo the protector of warriors, whose identity had become defined as a result of this same war.

Tegea was also probably involved in some way with the Spartan-Messenian conflicts. It is noteworthy that many bronze Dipylon shields of a distinctive type were found at Tegea; their dedication might indicate a reaction to the growing Spartan aggression expressed in a local idiom. Later, in the mid-sixth century, it is known that the Tegeans were asked by the Spartans to set up a public stele to banish Messenian fugitives from Tegea. 1^ This suggests that the Tegeans had been offering refuge to the Messenians prior to this time. The extent to which Tegea was directly involved with these conflicts cannot be determined. It is arguable, however, that it was under the stimulus of Spartan pressure that Tegea was prompted to evolve into a strong pohtical entity to protect herself, to maintain her position and identity and to avoid being swallowed up by the expanding Laconian power.

Tegea's evolution into a developed ethnos and not a polis as such is significant in this context as well. No direct confrontations between Tegea and Sparta are recorded prior to that of the mid-sixth century, but in this battle Tegea was able to defeat Sparta. Snodgrass speaks of the durable, flexible and adaptable nature of the developed ethnos such as Tegea, (consisting of a number of small villages scattered over a territory), which proved to be a powerful force in Archaic Greece. Tegea's geographical position may thus have played a pivotal role in her political and social development. The central location of the town of Tegea in the most fertile plain of the region and at the crossroads of Laconia and the Argolid permitted it to achieve a powerful position vis-a-vis the other towns and demes contained in its territory (see fig. 2). This position in turn provided the extensive support system needed to deal successfully with the Spartans.

Spartan aggression may perhaps have prompted some of the developments at Arcadian sanctuaries in the eighth and seventh centuries. The fact that monumental temples were built at Tegea, Bassai, Gortsouli,

Chapter Seven

270

Conclusions

271

necessarily or specifically associated with a particular deity. Aspects of

Artemis, Demeter or Athena may have existed in some embryonic form from

the beginning.

The evidence also indicates that the deity worshipped at this site was

always a type of Protectress. The votives discussed above can be seen to

portray her function as a protectress in the domain of fertility of the earth,

humans and animals. Other early votives indicate that she also functioned as

a protectress of the town from the eighth century. These include the two

helmeted, bronze warriors (B5 and Dugas no. 54), ten bronze arrowheads, a

bronze sword, and about fifteen bronze dipylon shields. It is conceivable that

after the seventh century, the military aspects overshadowed the others and

this shift in focus may have resulted in the natural association of Alea with

the more conventional image of protectress of the city, Athena. It is

interesting to note in this context that an analysis of the etymology of the

name 'Alea' reveals that it may have meant Protectress.

The possibility that this deity at Tegea originated in the Bronze Age is

worthy of exploration. As seen above, the site yielded a spectrum of votives

with limited evidence for the twelfth and eleventh centuries, somewhat more

for the tenth and ninth and an abundance of dedications during the course

the eighth. The existence of the early material there may be particularly

significant. It may indicate that religious activity occurred at Tegea in the

twelfth and eleventh centuries B.C. Among these early remains, the bronze

figurine with her hands to her breasts, B8, suggests that the nature of the

early deity worshipped there may have been a sort of fertility goddess. The

Mycenaean IIIC psi-figurine may further support this identificadon. The

later votive objects from the site, such as the rider seated side-saddle, the

Dipylon shields, the miniature double axes and the pomegranate pendants,

all have Bronze Age parallels with religious implications. Their dedication

at the eighth century sanctuary may reveal the survival of significant

Mycenaean concepts. The later inscriptional evidence from Tegea indicates

that the Arcadian dialect preserved older forms of the Greek language with

the strongest similarides to Linear Β of all the Greek dialects. It is

conceivable that, together with the preservadon of older forms of the Greek

language at Tegea, aspects of culture and cult were also retained. There thus

exists the possibility that a local Protectress and Fertility goddess called Alea

was worshipped here from the end of Mycenaean times. The lack of

evidence between the latest Bronze Age material and LPG is significant and

may indicate that, rather than continuity of cult, intermittent ritual activity

took place. Aspects of a Mycenaean deity could still have been preserved

and remembered. When activity began at the site in LPG, these aspects

could have been incoφorated into the local ritual. The above-mentioned

votive objects of eighth century date may thus represent the survival of older,

Mycenaean strands of cult.

It is equally possible that the Late Mycenaean and Submycenaean

material found at the site may simply be heirlooms or survivals, dedicated at

the sanctuary at a later period. It is impossible to determine the nature of

activity at this site in Mycenaean times due to the limited evidence from this

region. The discovery of this Bronze Age material at Tegea signifies either

that people were living in this vicinity in Late Mycenaean dmes or that

people setded here from elsewhere at some later period and brought their

belongings with them. If this site were not sacred in the twelfth to eleventh

centuries B.C., then the cult at Tegea was probably not established until LPG

at the earhest. At such a time or later, the Late Mycenaean bronzes,

terracottas and pots may have been dedicated. The survival of these artifacts

into the Iron Age was either accidental or deliberate and their apparent

dedication at the sanctuary may signify that memories of older elements of

cult were also retained among the local people. These memories may have

been expressed in the local manufacture of the particular eighth century

votive bronzes discussed above.

It is likely that by the end of the seventh century the deity worshipped at

Tegea had acquired aspects of the Panhellenic protectress of the city,

Athena. This acquisition is reflected in tangible and conventional form in

the building of the monumental marble temple in honour of this goddess.

The growing Spartan aggression from the south may have accelerated this

process. %

It is interesting to note that the cult of Demeter, on the neighbouring hill

site of Hagios Sostis, appears to have been directly affected by the building

of the first monumental temple at Tegea. From the early skth to fifth

centuries, thousands of terracottas were dedicated at the sanctuary of

Demeter at Hagios Sostis. It is conceivable that once the cult at Tegea

received monumental recognition and was clearly identified as Athena Alea

for ah to see, the aspects of a simple fertility and nature goddess became

focused on the more appropriate cult nearby. There has been no early

evidence yet discovered at Hagios Sostis, but whether or not this sanctuary

Chapter Seven Conclusions

The detailed examination of the early Athena Alea site may in fact

illuminate the sorts of developments that occurred at many Greek sanctuary

sites at a much accelerated pace. The assimilation of older, Mycenaean

aspects of cult to a Panhellenic image was probably a normal development at

the majority of Greek sanctuaries. In most cases, however, this process was

2 7 2

2 7 3

completed or at a further advanced stage by the eighth century. I suggest

that in relatively remote regions where the polis system did not take hold, the

early sanctuaries may reveal intermediate stages in their evolution with more

unconventional elements in the votives, the architecture and in aspects of the

cult. At Tegea, a glimpse of this transitional stage is beautifully illustrated

and preserved in the early dedications.

In general, it can be observed that Tegea's geographical position on the

eastern Arcadian frontier, in the most fertile plain in the region, with Sparta

to the south and the Argolid to the east, profoundly influenced, stimulated

and shaped the social, political, artistic and religious developments there. It

is not suφrising that Tegea became a major Arcadian town with a renowned

and beautiful temple. The sanctuary there has yielded the greatest amount

of votive objects of bronze and clay of the eighth and seventh centuries in all

Arcadia, with pronounced indications of considerable productivity, local

creativity and independence of style. This evidence cannot be attributed

merely to accidents of archaeological investigation or to incomplete research

in this region. It is clear that the sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea was a

significant religious centre in the Peloponnese from the mid-eighth century

B.C.

had a prior existence, the great abundance of dedications there in the early

sixth century could be seen as the direct consequence of the activity at Tegea.

After his elaborate descriptions of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea,

Pausanias briefly mentioned the existence of an Athena Polias temple also in

Tegea.^^ It has not been found, though Romaios searched for it in the agora

and recent excavations have been carried out in this region.^l Callmer

believed that this temple was to be sought at Tegea and that Athena Polias

was the protectress there, not Athena Alea, since this was the common image

throughout Greece.^^ He thought that the temple of Athena Polias could be

found, not necessarily in the agora, as Romaios had believed, but on one of

the hills overlooking Tegea, probably on Hagios Sostis. There is, however,

no evidence at Tegea or Hagios Sostis to support Callmer's hypothesis. The

fame, function and importance of the sanctuary Athena Alea at Tegea are

clear and it is unnecessary to try to mould the evidence to provide a more

conventional explanation for the nature of the primary deity worshipped at

Tegea. It remains a possibility, however, that a shrine to Athena Polias

existed as Pausanias mentions, though it did not necessarily contain a

temple.^^

The above controversy brings into question the nature of this primary

goddess at Tegea; she may seem unusual in comparison with the deities from

most other Greek sanctuaries. For instance, Athena is generally worshipped

in the city and often on the acropolis of the city, not on the edge of the town

by a spring.24 ^I^Q^ the early votives, unlike those from the Athena Alea

site, do not, as a rule, suggest particular attributes of the goddess or

ambiguity about her nature. It is conceivable that Tegea's relatively slow

movement towards the development of the pohs explains some of the

unusual features of this sanctuary. The evidence from such a site may

permit a view of the evolution of the goddess without the imposition of

official state conventions. The unusual qualities observable at the early

sanctuary at Tegea may simply reflect a mixture of the concerns and ancient

beliefs of the worshippers living on this mountain plateau in the eighth and

seventh centuries.

Notes for Chapter Seven Notes for Chapter Seven

1. Bouzek, GMB 178.

2. Bouzek, in The European Community in Later Prehistory (Studies in Honour of C.F.C. Hawkes),, 87-89, 94.

3. Bouzek, GMB 178.

4. Ibid., 100,178.

5. Snodgrass, 49-52.

6. Pausanias 8.27.4 and 8.34.5; 3.2.5.

7. Huxley, Early Sparta, 22; L.H. Jeffery, Archaic Greece (London: 1976), 114; Cartledge, Sparta 100,103.

8. Pausanias 4.4.4ff; Huxley, Early Sparta, 34.

9. 4.15.1-8.

10. See Huxley, Early Sparta, 56; Cartledge, Sparta 128; Hooker, The Ancient Spartans, 107; Forrest, History of Sparta, 69-72.


12. Pausanias, 11.24.7, S. Toynbee, Some Problems of Greek History (London: 1969), 181; Cartledge, Sparta 126.

13. Jeffery, Archaic Greece, 123 n. 6.

14. Ibid., 171.

15. Snodgrass, 42-44.

16. See Jost, Sanctuaires 368-385, for a fuller treatment of Arcadian cults generally.

17. Dugas, Tegea, no. 58; Jost, BCH 99 (1975): 349 n. 39; idem, Sanctuaires 379, 153, pi. 37, fig. 4.

18. See Jost, Sanctuaires 368-370.



21. Romaios, Journal international d'archeologie numismatique 14 (1912): 50-52, fig. 5. Excavations have been carried out in this vicinity recently (1987-1988), under the direction of the Arcadian-Laconian ephor. Dr. Spyropolous, but no remains of any temple have been found.



24. Coldstream, GG 327-328.

274 275

-1

277 280 281 281 281

282 300 303 303 306 311 316 339 342 345

CATALOGUE OF OBJECTS

FROM TEGEA AND MAVRIKI

Illustrated Objects from other Arcadian Sites Lousoi Bronzes Lousoi Terracottas Gortsouh Pottery Asea Bronzes Other Bronzes

Catalogue of Objects from Tegea and Mavriki Pottery from Tegea Pottery from Mavriki Bronzes from Tegea and Mavriki

Human Figures Quadrupeds Bb-ds Pendants and Other Bronzes Pins Fibulae

Terracottas and Objects of Other Materials

LOUSOI BRONZES

LI (pi. 63): Rider seated side-saddle (Vienna)

References: Schweitzer, GGA 156-157, fig. 196; Kunze, OlBer IV 107, fig. 89.

L2 (pi. 64): Rider seated side-saddle (F1927: Karlsruhe)

References: Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 35-36, fig. 13; Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 9, fig. 9. L3 (pi. 65): Nude Male Figure (F1925: Karlsruhe) Unpublished

L4 (pi. 69): Horse Figure (NM15336: Athens) References: Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141, fig. 6; Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 15 n. 43.

L5 (pi. 70): Horse Figure (NM15309: Athens) References: Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 22 n. 19, 24 n. 24; Yu^dJi-D'uXmUQi, Anhanger pi. 61 no. 1154; Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141, 107-8 n. 148, fig. 6; Coldstream, GG 156; Reichel and Wilhehn, JOAI 4 (1901): 48, fig. 63.

L6 (fig. 26): Horse Figure (F1929: Karlsruhe) Unpubhshed

1 277

Catalogue of Objects

L7 (pi. 70): Horse Figure (NM15338: Athens)

References: Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141, fig. 6; Weber, Stάdel-Jahώuch I (1967): 15 n. 43.

L8 (pi. 71): Horse Figure (F1933: Karlsruhe)

References: Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 7 n. 7; Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 139; Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30 n. 18, fig. 6.

L9 (pi. 71): Horse Figure (F1928: Karlsruhe)

References: Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 7 n. 7, fig. 3; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 130; S'mn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30 n. 18.

LIO (pi. 73): Horse Figure (F1930: Karlsruhe)

References: Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 8-9, fig. 8; generally, Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 83, pi. 44 no. 373; pi. 45 no. 376.

L l l (pi. 81; fig. 26): Buh Figurine (F1932: Karlsruhe)

Unpublished. Parallel: Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 15 no. 95.

L12 (fig. 26): Bull Figurine

Unpubhshed. Parallel: Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 16, nos. 102,105, 108.

L13 (fig. 26): Smah Quadruped (F1935: Karlsruhe)

Unpubhshed. Parahel: Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. 35.

L14 (pi. 90): Bkd Figure (F1937: Karlsruhe)

Reference: Smn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 28, fig. 4a.

L15 (pi. 91): Bird Figure (NM15335: Athens)

References: Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103, n. 141, fig. 6 ; ^um, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 29, fig. 5b.

L16 (pi. 91): Bird Figure (C.57: Bonn)

Reference: Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 29 n. 13, fig. 5a; Kilian-Dirhneier, Anhanser 163.

LIT (pi. 90): Bh-d Figure (F1936: Karlsruhe)

Reference: Sinn, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 28-29, fig. 4b.

L18 (pi. 109): Stamp Pendant (NM15316: Athens)

References: Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 33, no. 175, pi. 11; Reichel and WUhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 50, fig. 71.

L19 (pi. 109): Stamp Pendant (NM15315: Athens)

References: Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 34, no. 193, pi. 12; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 50, fig. 70.

L20 (pi. 171): Rmg Pendant (NM15350: Athens)

References: Kilian-Dirlmeier, /j/io/j r 11, fig. 32, pi. 2; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 ri901V 58, fig. 118.

278


L21 (pi. 171): Wheel Pendant (NM15317: Athens)

References: Kilian-Dirlmeier, ^n/ic/iger 17 no. 66, pi. 4; Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901):

51, fig. 74.

(L22-L24: numbers withdrawn)

L25 (pi. 133): Bead (F2001: Karlsruhe)

Unpubhshed


Unpubhshed


Unpubhshed

L28 (pi. 141): Shield (F1944: Karlsruhe)

Unpublished

L29 (pi. 169): Double axe (NM15365: Athens) Reference: Kilian-Dirlmeier, yl/z/iflAiger 251, no. 1658, pi. % .

L30 (pi. 170): Double axe (NM15312: Athens)

References: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 49, fig. 67; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 251,

no. 1654, pi. 95.

L31 (pi. 170): Double axe (NM15313: Athens)

References: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 49, fig. 68; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhaf^ger 251,

no. 1657, pi. 95.

L32 (pi. 169): Pin (NM15387: Athens)

References: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 55, fig. 97; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 196, no.

3202, pi. 82; Jacobsthal, Pins 12, fig. 40.

L33 (pi. 169): Pin (NM15370: Athens)

Reference: Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 169, no. 2219, pi. 68.

U4 (pi. 170): Pin (NM15333: Athens) ^

Reference: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 54, fig. 96.

L35 (pi. 170): Pin (NM15334: Athens)

References: Reichel and Wilhehn,/Oyl/4 (1901): 54, fig. 94; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 271 no.

4718, pi. 111.

L36 (pi. 170): Pin (NM15369: Athens) Reference: Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 224, no. 3654, pi. 88.

L37 (pi. 169): Pin (NM15368: Athens) Reference: Kihan-Dklmeier, Nadeln 271, no. 4731, pi. 111.

L38 (pi. 169): Fibula (NM15324: Athens)

Reference: Reichel and Wilhelm, JOAI 4 (1901): 52, fig. 76.

279


139 (pi. 170): Fibula (NM15326: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901); 53, fig. 84.

L40 (pi. 169): Fibula (NM15321: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilhehn, JOAI 4 (1901): 52, fig. 80.




L44 (pi. 169): Fibula (NM15320: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilheim,/OAT 4 (1901): 52, fig. 77.


L46 (pi. 169): Fibula (NM15319: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 52, fig. 78.


LOUSOI TERRACOTTAS

LTl (pi. 179): Human Figure (NM19811: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 40, fig. 33.

LT2 (pi. 180): Human Figure (NM19804: Athens) Unpubhshed

LT3 (pi. 180): Human Figure (NM19806: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilheim, JOAI 4 (1901): 40, fig. 34.



LT6 (pi. 182): Human Figure (NM19826: Athens) Reference: Reichel and Wilhehn, 7(24/ 4 (1901): 38, fig. 28.

LT7 (pi. 183): Rider Seated Side-Saddle (NM19800) Reference: Reichel and Wilhehn, JOAI 4 (1901): 38, fig. 29.

280


LT8 (pi. 184): Human Figure (NM19802) Reference: Reichel and Wilhehn, JOAI 4 (1901): 38, fig. 27.

GORTSOULI POTTERY

GPl (fig. 19): Amphora Rim Unpubhshed

GP2 (fig. 19): Amphora Rim Unpubhshed

GP3 (fig. 19): Amphora Rim Unpublished

GP4 (fig. 20): Small Krater Rim Unpubhshed

GPS (fig. 20): Small Krater Rim Unpublished

GP6 (fig. 20): Kotyle-Pyxis Rim Unpublished

GP7 (fig. 21): Kotyle-Pyxis Rim Unpublished

GPS (fig. 21): Kyathos fragment Unpublished

ASEA BRONZES

Quadrupeds (pi. 82): Tegea Museum

Reference: Romaios, AE (1957): 159, fig. 55. i

Sheet Figures (pi. 172): Tegea Museum ur u ^ u Reference: Romaios, y l£ (1957): 150-159, figs. 43-54. (note fig. 54 is also published by Dugas as commg from Tegea, Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 43, fig. 19).

OTHER BRONZES

Mantinea Horse Group (pi. 72): NM13252: Athens . References: Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 18 n. 43; Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980). 30

n. 23; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 41,104, fig. 6.

281


Horse Group (provenance unknown) (pi. 72): NM7647: Athens

References: Weber, Stadel-Jahrbuch I (1967): 18 n. 43; Sum, JbKuSammlBadWurt 17 (1980): 30

n. 23; Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 103 n. 141,104, fig. 6.

Petrovouni Bronze Group (pi. 65): NM13788: Athens

References: Hiller von Gaertringen and Lattermann, Arkadische 41, pi. XIII, 3; Schweitzer,

GGA 155, fig. 193.

Gortsouli Cage (pi. 118): Tegea Museum

H.044m

Unpubhshed. For parallels see Kiiian-OulmeicT, Anhanger 81-82, pi. 26 nos. 512-514.

POTTERY FROM TEGEA

PI (248): Sth-rup jar fragment (pi. 1)

H.05m

Fragment of spout and shoulder of stirrup jar.

Clay: Light pink, inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Mostly dark ground surface but with a hght-coloured band around neck on

shoulder and on the rim; possible bivalve flower above band on shoulder.

Date: Submycenaean/Mycenaean IIIC Late

References: Dugas, Tegea 403 fig. 61; Fhnmen, Kretisch-Mykenische 10; Alin, EMF 74; Hope

Shnpson, Gazetteer 40, no. 89; idem, MG 85, D l ; Hope Shnpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer 76,

no. Bl ; Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 113. General: Styrenius, Submycenaean Studies, fig. 47;

Mountjoy, MDP 199, fig. 267,183; idem, Jdl 103 (1988): 5-8.

P2(247): Stirrup jar fragment (pl. 1)

H.04m

Fragment of false-mouth and shoulder of sthrup jar.

Clay: Light pink, mclusions of grit.

Decoration: Light-coloured pot with faint evidence of a band around the shoulder. Date: Mycenaean IIIC Early

References: Dugas, Tegea 403 fig. 59; same as above; general: Furumark, MP 85, fig. 23,31, fig.

6, no. 176; Mountjoy, MDP 144-145, fig. 180.

P3(336): Oinochoe fragment (pl. 2)

Η .075m

Small oinochoe hp and shoulder.

Clay: Light grey, porous.

Decoration: Dark paint around trefoil lip, horizontal dark bands around neck and huge

cross-hatched triangles on shoulders and sohd dark paint below.

Date: LPG

Reference: Dugas, Tegefl 421 (unillustrated).

P4(TM): Small jug (pl. 2, fig. 9)

Η .08m; D(rmi) .038m; D(base) .028m

Jug broken m many pieces but largely restored.

Clay: Light pink, hard, with no inclusions; very fine.

Decoration: Dark pamt on lower part of body; handle zone has cross-hatched triangles. Date: LPG

282


Unpubhshed (TM no. 1881); mentioned but not illustrated m, Hope Simpson, Gazetteer 40-41

no. 90; idem, MG 85-86, D5; Hope Simpson and Dickinson, Gazetteer ΊΊ-Ί8, B8; Waterhouse

and Hope Simpson, BSA 56 (1961) 130 n. 119, no. 5; Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 116.

P5(260): Amphora/Jug fragment (pl. 3)

Η .058m

Fragment from a closed vessel, probably the belly area.

Clay: Medium pink with grit inclusions.

Decoration: Very worn pot; unpainted interior; exterior: four horizontal bands at top and

bottom of fragment with two groups of concentric circles and a cross-hatched triangle between

the sets of bands.

Date: LPG or later

References: Dugas, Tegea 408 fig. 56. ParaUels: Desborough, PGP 289-290, pl. 38 no. 12;

Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 47; Coldstream, GGP 214-215; Lane, BSA 34 (1933-34): 101 n. 3.

P6(S): Amphora/Jug fragment (pl. 3)

H.06m

Amphora or jug fragment from shoulder area of vessel.

Clay: Light orange, porous with mclusions of grit.

Decoration: Unpainted interior; exterior: cross-hatched triangles with horizontal bands and

dark ground below.

Date: LPG?

Unpubhshed. Found in Stemhauer's excavations m the eleventh layer of B2, north of temple.

ParaUel: Desborough, PGP pl. 9 (no. 1085).

P7(312): Skyphos rim fragment (pl. 3, fig. 8)

Η .06m; D(rmi) .14m

Skyphos rim fragment.

Clay: Light pink, inclusions of grit and with dark pmk core.

Decoration: Painted interior; exterior: two dark painted horizontal bands on rim, below, a

group of concentric circles and to left of circles, vertical looseness in silhouette, between two

vertical hnes.

Date: LPG

References: Dugas, Tegea 417 fig. 57; Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 5. Parallel: Hagg, Excavations

in the Barbouna Area at Asine, Fas. 2,109, fig. 102.59.

P8(256): Skyphos run (pl. 3, fig. 8) 1

Η .094m; D(rim) .16m

Fragment of run and body of belhed skyphos in two parts (now mended).

Clay: Light grey, inclusions of grit, small holes.

Decoration: Dark painted interior; exterior: large concentric ch-cles on body with solid paint

below and three horizontal bands above.

Date: LPG or later

References: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 54; Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 6; General: Coldstream, GGP

213, 215; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 41-45. Parallel: Droop, BSA 13 (1906/07): 120-21, fig. l,o;

Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34): 103, fig. 2L; Heidelberg, CVA 3, 96-97, figs. 24-28.

P9(261): Skyphos rim fragment (pl. 4, fig. 8)

Η .047m; D(rmi) c. .16m

Fragment from a rim of a carmated skyphos with indentation below rim.

Clay: Light pink, inclusions. Decoration: Interior painted in a dark paint; exterior has diagonal cross-hatching. This type of

283

Ιίΐ'


284


P15(X): Oinochoe fragment (pi. 5)

Η .058m

Trefoil hp, neck and handle from small oinochoe.

Clay: Medium cream with small inclusions.

Decoration: Painted black around rim and has dark horizontal bands around the neck and

handle; dark paint on shoulder.

Date: MG?

Unpublished. Provenance uncertain-in Tegea Museum. Parallel: Courbin, CGA pi. 20

(Tiryns).

P16(307): Oinochoe fragment (pi. 6)

H.06m

Fragment broken from the shoulder of an oinochoe.

Clay: medium pink/orange with inclusions

Decoration: Two horizontal bands painted in dark paint are followed lower down by

horizontal cross-hatched lozenges; below are three horizontal bands, then zigzags and more

horizontal bands below.

Date: MGII References: Dugas, Tegea 417, fig. 61; Coldstream, GGP 352 n. 1; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5.

P17a(319): Pyxis lid (pi. 7, fig. 10)

H.041m

Cone shaped pyxis hd, complete; it has a horizontal perforation.

Clay: Pale pink with inclusions.

Decoration: From base of cone to the middle of it, painted in sohd dark paint and above there

are three horizontal dark bands.

Date: MGII References: Dugas, Tegea 418, fig. 52; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5, 230.

P17b(304): Pyxis (pi. 7, fig. 10)

Η .098m; D(rmi) .05m

Almost complete pyxis, missmg one lug handle; attached lug handles have longitudinal

perforations. Clay: Dark cream/pale pink with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Most of vessel is covered in dark paint; only belly zone is decorated with seven

unpainted horizontal bands. m

Date: MGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 59; Coldstream, GGP 352 n. 1; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5, 226,

254 notes 8 and 9.

P18(320): Krater fragments (pi. 6) '

Η .049m; D(rim) c. .20m

Two fragments from a krater rim and shoulder.

Clay: Light pmk/yellow with no inclusions.

Decoration: Interior painted; exterior has dark painted dots around the rim with three

horizontal bands below; another row of dots with three horizontal bands repeated below on

shoulder, foUowed by a panel of hatched quatrefoil flowers separated by vertical bands.

Date: MGII-LGI

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 419, fig. 61; parallels: Courbin, CGA pi. 39 (shape); Coldstream,

GGP 123-124,129 (decoration).

285

decoration and shape is typical of Amyklaian pottery.

Date: LPG or later

References: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 56; Desborough, LMTS 87 n. 7; Coldstream, GGP 214; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 41-42, fig. 3; Snodgrass, DAG 90 n. 65; Buschor and von Massow, ylA/ 52 (1927) 32-33.

P10(315): Kantharos/Skyphos fragment (pi. 4)

H.048m

Fragment broken from kantharos or skyphos.

Clay: Light cream, no mclusions.

Decoration: Dark painted interior; exterior has dark vertical hues, vertical cross-hatched

pointed lozenges, more vertical hues and plain small lozenges, moving left to right.

Date: LPG

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 417-418, fig. 58; Courbm, CGA 549 n. 5; parallel (with cross-hatched

lozenges): Desborough, PGP pi. 11, no. 2102.

Pl l(X): Skyphos/Kantharos fragment (pi. 4)

Η .065m; D(rim) c. .16m

Rim fragment.

Clay: Light grey, very porous with large inclusions of grit.

Decoration: painted interior; exterior: dark paint around run and concentric circles below. Date: LPG or later

Unpublished: provenance uncertain-in Tegea Museum. Parahel (for decoration): Buschor

and von M a s s o w , 5 2 (1927): 47, pi. I l l , 17,18.

P12(S): Skyphos or Kantharos fragment (pi. 4)

Η .073m

Body fragments.

Clay: Light yellow/pink, inclusions.

Decoration: Interior painted with dark paint; exterior has dark horizontal zigzags between them.

Date: LPG

Unpubhshed. Found in Steinhauer's excavations in eleventh layer north of the temple (trench B2). Parallel: Desborough, PGP pi. 11, no. 546.

P13(S): Cup rim (pi. 4)

H.026m

Fragment broken from the rim of a cup.

Clay: Red/oraiige, fine with few inclusions.

Decoration: Interior pamted black; exterior has top of cross-hatched triangle visible below rim. Date: LPG or later

Unpublished. Found m Steinhauer's excavations in trench B2, eleventh layer, see fig. 4.

Parallels: Heidelberg CVA 3, pi. 134; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 55-56, fig. 10.

P14(TM): Amphoriskos (pi. 5; fig. 9)

Η .083m; D(rim) .03m

Neck-handled amphoriskos with very wide belly, missing one handle.

Clay: Light orange/pink, soft, slightly micaceous with a few inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Around neck, three horizontal bands of dark paint; on shoulder, a row of dotted

horizontal lozenges and below, eight horizontal bands to the base.

Date: MGII

Unpubhshed (TM no. 895); general reference: Coldstream, GGP 121,122.


P19(299): Kantharos (pl. 8, fig. 10)

Η .092m; D(rmi) .11m

Almost complete kantharos, missing handles.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with mclusions of grey and white particles and tiny holes.

Decoration: From the base to the middle of the vessel is pamted in dark paint; there are

vertical hnes in handle zone between horizontal bands.

Date: MGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 48; Courbin, CGA 501; paraUel: Coldstream, GGP pl. 25c.

P20(314): Fragments from a large open vessel (pl. 8)

Η .078m

Two fragments glued together from a large open vessel.

Clay: Pink-grey, hard.

Decoration: Interior painted; exterior painted m quatrefoil flowers with hatched leaves

separated by vertical bands and hatched meanders; painted stars serve as filling ornaments.

Date: MGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 417, fig. 58; Courbin, CGA 549 n. 5; parallel: Coldstream, GGP

123-124, pl. 25b (decoration).

P21(318): Shallow skyphos fragment (pl. 9, fig. 11)

Η .057m; D(rim) .20m

Fragment broken from one side of a shallow skyphos with stirrup handles.

Clay: Medium orange with a light pink shp, few inclusions in the clay.

Decoration: Metope-triglyph pattern consisting of vertical lines and hatched quatrefoil flowers;

also evidence of a hatched meander. Painted dark ground around handle area; horizontal

bands on top of stirrup handle and below metope-triglyph pattern on body; dcuk paint around

base.

Date: MGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 418, fig. 60; Courbin, CGA 502, 549 n. 5, 63 n. 5; parallels:

Weinberg, Corinth VII:I, 14 no. 45 (handles); Kubler, Kerameikos F, pl. 93, no. 2143, gr. 42

(shape).

P22(303): High-footed cup (pl. 10, fig. 10) Η .063m; D(rim) .068m

High-footed cup with one handle (which is missing).

Clay: Light pink, soft with mclusions of grit.

Decoration: Painted with dark paint inside; exterior painted in sohd dark paint from the base

to the handle area; from handle area to the rim are four horizontal bands.

Date: MGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 59; Courbin, CGA 502.

P23(284): Amphora rim (pl. 10, fig. 11)

Η .105m; D(rmi) .26m

Fragment broken from the rim of an amphora.

Clay: Dark cream with mclusions: inside core of clay is dark grey.

Decoration: Dark thick band of paint at rim, three thin bands below followed by a figured

scene: upper torso of a woman (?) with her arms extended; possibly another figure to her left.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 414, fig. 57.

286


P24(311): Amphora fragment (pl. 11)

L .078m

Fragment broken from the belly of an amphora.

Clay: Medium pmk with white and grey inclusions.

Decoration: Tiny 'horse-tamer' between two horses that have fish below their belhes and

rectangular frames above their rumps. Horizontal bands below; mterior unpainted. .

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 417, fig. 57; Coldstream, GGP 132-140; Courbin, CGA 549-50 n. 5;

parallel: Courbm, CGA pl. 78 (Wiirzburg pyxis) and pl. 141.


Η .088m

Fragment broken from an amphora.

Clay: Light pink/orange with a few inclusions.

Decoration: Consists of a human figure, probably male, m a tunic, holding an oar and standing

in a boat.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 414, fig. 57; Coldstream, GG 156; parallels: Louvre CVA 11, pis. 1.7,

4.6-7, 6.8.

P26(286 and 288): Amphora fragments (pl. 12)

H.13m

Two fragments glued together from a huge, thick-waUed amphora.

Clay: Soft, medium orange, coarse but wheel-made.

Decoration: Two painted horizontal lines indicate the ground hne; above; a number of pairs of

feet are discernible; the third pair from the left has a connecting bar, like Tegean bronze, Β162

(pl. 121). Object to the right is possibly a bier or table. Legs to the left of the 'connected legs'

are probably human, judging from the depiction of the feet; similar feet can be seen in P31,

P41-P43. The drawing style is quite free; it is perhaps an attempt to depict a narrative scene.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 414, figs. 56 and 57.


H.07m

Fragment broken from a thick-walled amphora.

Clay: Light orange, soft with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Male figure with tiny arms standing to the right of what a^ears to be a wall. Style

of painting is quite free, like P26 above.

Date: LGII


P28(TM): Amphora fragment (pl. 12) '

Η .08m; .013m thick

Fragment broken from a thick-walled closed vessel.

Clay: Soft, medium orange with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Very worn: difficult to distinguish the scene. Appears to be a bird or a bat

standing on a mast of a boat; below other indistinguishable figures too.

Date: LGII

Unpublished (TM no. 921)

287


P29(290): Amphora fragment (pi. 13)

Η .135m; L .20m

Fragment broken from a large, thick-waUed, closed vessel.

Clay: Light pink/orange with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Extremely worn but one can discern human legs on one side of the fragment and a

quadruped with a very long body on the other.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 414 (uniUustrated).


H.065m

Fragment broken from an amphora.

Clay: Dark cream with inclusions.

Decoration: Scene painted with a very long body of a horse; a bird with a worm is below the

horse's belly and above the horse is a rectangular frame with a bird mside.

Date: LGII References: Dugas, Tegea 409, fig. 57; parahel: Courbm, CGA pi. 29.


H.13m

Fragment broken from a large, thick-waUed, closed vessel.

Clay: Light orange with mclusions.

Decoration: Man's legs on ground hne, with horizontal bands below.

Date: LGII Reference: Dugas, Tegea 414, fig. 56.

P32(268): Amphora neck fragment (pi. 15)

Η .085m

Fragment from the neck of an amphora.

Clay: Medium orange/pink with inclusions of grit; interior painted.

Decoration: Illustration of a deer standmg below a rectilinear frame.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 409, fig. 57; parallels: Coldstream, GGP 143 n. 18; Courbin, CGA pi.

139, C.4177; Waldstein,^//// pi. 57, 22.

P33(322): Oinochoe lip and neck (pi. 15)

Η .072m

Fragment from the neck and lip of an oinochoe.

Clay: Light grey, inclusions of grit.

Decoration: On hp, painted m a thick dark band; below, three dark painted horizontal bands

fohowed by a single zigzag and three more horizontal bands below. The top of a cross-hatched

triangle is just visible at the top of the shoulder, where vessel is broken.

Date: LGII References: Dugas, Tegea 419 (unillustrated); parahel: Courbm, CGA pi. 25.

P34(TM): Oinochoe fragment (pi. 16)

H.061m

Oinochoe hp and neck from a misfu-ed or faulty vessel.

Clay: Light pink-grey with inclusions.

Decoration: Dark paint around trefoil lip; below, three horizontal bands then a horizontal

band of plain lozenges and three more horizontal bands below.

288


Date: LGI-II

Unpublished (TM no. 951).

P35(X): Ring-Vase fragment (pi. 16)

Η .104m

Spout and part of ring from a round-sectioned ring-vase.

Clay: Light pmk/cream with inclusions.

Decoration: Horizontal bands separated by rows of dotted lozenges on spout; on ring,

cross-hatched triangles.

Date: LGII

Unpublished. Provenance uncertain-in Tegea Museum. Parallels: Furumark, MP 68-69;

Johansen, Les vases sicyoniens, Dunbabm, Perachora II 127; Gjerstad, Swedish Cyprus

Excavations IV, 2 293; Ure, Hesperia 15 (1946): 38-50; Lane, BSA 34 (1933/34) 105, pi 21d

fig. 10a.

P36(263): Closed vessel fragment (pi. 17)

L .129m

Fragment broken from a large closed vessel.

Clay: Light pink with grey inclusions.

Decoration: Pcdnted with a row of herons.

Date: LGII



Η .05m; L .089m

Fragment broken from the belly area of a closed vessel.

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with grey inclusions.

Decoration: Two zones of bh-ds with hatched triangles between them; the zones are one on top

of the other and separated by three horizontal bands.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 417, fig. 55; Courbin, CGA 502, 549 n. 5.


H.05m

SmaU fragment broken from a closed vessel.

Clay: Medium pink with inclusions.

Decoration: Two dancing men apparently holding branches; vertic^ and horizontal bands

frame the figures to the right.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 414, fig. 55; Courbin, CGA 501, pi. 147.

P39(264): Pyxis rim (pi. 18, fig. 12)

Η .077m; D(rim) .32m

Rim fragment from a large Argive style cylindrical pyxis.

Clay: Light pmk/dark cream with mclusions.

Decoration: Row of lozenges along the rim; two horizontal bands below foUowed by a row of herons.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 55; Courbm, CGA 501; paraUels: Courbin, CGA pi. 83, pi. 65 (C.756).

289


290


P45(X): Dinos run fragment (pl. 22)

Η .042m; D(rmi) c.20m

Fragment from the rim of a dinos.

Clay: Dark cream/light pink, inclusions.

Decoration: Interior painted with dark paint; exterior is painted with vertical bands on rim;

below rim three horizontal bands. In window below, chevrons, and beneath window,

horizontal bands.

Date: Subgeometric

Unpublished. Provenance uncertain~in Tegea Museum; general parallel: Courbin, CGA

209-210.

P46a(269): Krater rim (pl. 21, fig. 12)

Η .069m; D(rim) .40m

Fragment broken from the rim of a large krater.

Clay: Light pink/yellow, soft with a few inclusions.

Decoration: Painted in dark paint with two horizontal bands at the rim, a row of unconnected

dotted lozenges below; two more horizontal bands below them and evidence of three diagonal,

cross-hatched hnes on body; mterior painted.

Date: LGI-II

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 410-411 fig. 54.

P46b(269): Krater fragment (pl. 21)

Η .105m

Fragment broken from the same krater as above, P46a: from body of krater.

Clay: same as above.

Decoration: Very worn but meander design discernible; below four horizontal bands, dotted

pointed lozenges and two more bands below that.

Date: LGI-II Reference: Dugas, Tegea 410-411 fig. 56.

P47(TM): Krater rim (pl. 22, fig. 11)

Η .13m; D(rmi) .26m

Fragment broken from the rim of a large krater.

Clay: Light pmk/yellow with an orange core and grit inclusions.

Decoration: Dark horizontal band painted at run and the large space below was originally

filled with a row of dotted lozenges; there are then three horizontal bands followed by a group

of large, (now very worn) concentric circles below.

Date: LGI-II

Unpubhshed (TM no. 929).

P48(273): Krater fragment (pl. 23) ^

H.068m

Fragment broken from the belly area of a krater.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with a few dark inclusions.

Decoration: Four female dancers m a row with tapered waists, wearmg skirts, and separated by

zigzag lines between the figures; there are at least four vertical bands on right of fragment.

Date: LGII References: Dugas, Tegea 411, fig. 54; Courbin, CGA 501.

P49(266): Krater fragment (pl. 23)

Η .059m Fragment broken from an open vessel.

291

P40a(274,275,279,282): Pyxis fragments (pl. 19)

Η .122m (fragments joined together)

Four fragments broken from a straight-sided, cylindrical pyxis.

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Row of long-necked women dancers holding hands and separated by stars. Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 411-13, figs. 58, 55; Courbin, CGA 501-2; Tolle, Reigentanze 50-51, pl. 25; Coldstream, GG 156.

P40b(280,281): Pyxis fragments (pl. 19) H.08m

Two fragments from same pyxis as P40a: a straight-sided cylindrical type. Clay: same as above.

Decoration: Row of long-necked men dancing with a cord attached around their waists and stars between them. Date: LGII

References: same as above.

P41(273): Pyxis fragment (pl. 18) H.108m

Fragment broken from a staight-sided, cylindrical pyxis.


Decoration: Men dancing in a row connected by a cord; stars between them. Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 411, fig. 54; Courbm, CGA 501; Tolle, Reigentanze 25d.

P42(276): Pyxis fragment (pl. 20)

Η .055m

Fragment broken from the lower part of a pyxis.


Decoration: Painted feet, below them: three horizontal bands and a checked zone. Date: LGII


P43(317): Pyxis fragment (pl. 20) Η .051m

Fragment broken from a pyxis.

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with a few inclusions; quite fme clay.

Decoration: Feet painted on a horizontal band with three more bands below; and area of solid dark paint at the bottom of the sherd. Date: LGII


P44(298): Pyxis (pl. 20, fig. 13)

Η .051m; D(rim) .057m

Small pyxis with two vertical handles, complete.

Clay: Light pink/orange with a few inclusions.

Decoration: Sohd dark paint from base to belly, then two horizontal bands above, and on main panel, a horizontal zigzag line (which Courbin thinks is a row of birds). Interior unpainted. Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 59; Courbm, CGA 501, 549 n. 5, 228; (pl. 78: parallel).


292

I-


P55(237): Cup, two-handled (pi. 26, fig. 14)

Η .056m; D(rmi) .062m

Two-handled cup, with one handle missing, appears to be hand-made.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with large inclusions of grit, rough.

Decoration: Pot m painted with about seven uneven horizontal bands.

Date: LGII References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 50; Courbin, CGA 502.

P56(TM): Cup, one-handled (pi. 27, fig. 13)

Η .053m; D(rim) .085m

One-handled cup, complete.

Clay: Light pmk with mclusions.

Decoration: Two horizontal bands around run area; then horizontal row of dots; below three

horizontal bands below and sohd paint to base; it has a pamted mterior.

Date: LGI-II

Unpubhshed (TM no. 1857); paraUel: Courbin, CGA 386 n. 3, pi. 71, C.1577.

P57(TM): Cup, one-handled (pi. 27, fig. 13)

Η .042m; D(rmi) .06m

Cup, largely complete except for missmg handle.

Clay: Light pmk with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Horizontal bands of paint around run; row of dots in handle zone; and about five

sloppily pamted horizontal bands to base; it has a pamted interior.

Date: LGII Unpubhshed (TM no. 1861); paraUel: Courbin, CGA pi. 71: Type C.1577.

P58(291): Cup with one handle (pi. 28, fig. 14)

Η .058m; D(rmi) .072m

Cup with one handle, broken a bit at rim.

Clay: Medium pmk/yeUow, soft.

Decoration: Evenly pamted with three horizontal bands from rim to bottom of handle and

sohd dark paint below; interior is painted.

Date: LGII


P59(238): Cup with one handle (pi. 28, fig. 14)

Η .049m; D(rim) .06m i

Cup with one handle, complete.

Clay: Light pink, soft, mclusions of grit, few holes.

Decoration: Three horizontal bands from run to handle area; sohd dark paint below to base;

on the underside of the pot is a cross design. It is unpainted inside.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 50; Courbin, CGA: 501; paraUel: Courbin, CGA pi. 73

C.534 and C.3958; pi. 76.

P60(250): Handle from a conical oinochoe (pi. 29)

Η .225m

Handle fragment from a large conical oinochoe.

Clay: Light pmk, quite fine, with a few mclusions.

Decoration: Mam part of handle is pamted with a long thick vertical snake; there are small

horizontal lines on either side of the handle and a part of a rectangle painted at the

intersection of the handle to the body. Reveals Cormthian mfluence/imitation.

293

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with inclusions.

Decoration: Rump of horse framed by vertical and horizontal bands, with a bird (?) painted below the horse's belly. Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 54; Courbin, CGA 501,

P50(287): Open vessel fragment (pi. 24)

Η .089m

Fragment broken from a large open vessel.

Clay: Dark cream/grey with mclusions; rather coarse fabric.

Decoration: Human legs (dancing?) on a horizontal ground hne; interior painted.

Date: LGII


P51(324): Open vessel fragment (pi. 24)

Η .03m

Small fragment broken from a thick-walled vessel.

Clay: Light pink/cream, very fine.

Decoration: Figure of a woman, possibly a dancer, with three vertical bands to her left; interior

is painted.

Date: LGII


P52(S): Skyphos fragment (pi. 24)

Η .049m

Fragment broken from the body of a skyphos.

Clay: Medium pink, many inclusions and holes.

Decoration: Three horizontal bands above, row of herons below with vertical bands on the side.

Date: LGII

Unpubhshed. Found in Steinhauer's excavations in trench B2, in eleventh stroma. Parallel: Courbin, CGA pi. 131 C.3718.

P53(297): Miniature kantharos (pi. 26, fig. 13) Η .04m; D(rim) .05m

Miniature kantharos, largely complete, missing handles.

Clay: Light pink, smaU grey mclusions of grit.

Decoration: Unpainted rim, five horizontal bands on body with vertical hues and zigzags at

belly; interior painted.

Date: LGI-II


P54(TM): Kantharos (pi. 25, fig. 13)

Η .055m; D(rim) .084m

Small kantharos with one handle missing.

Clay: Bright orange, soft with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Painted in dark paint now worn: four horizontal bands from the base to the handle

zone; vertical lines at the handle area; and a large zigzag in a panel on the body; it has a

painted interior.

Date: LGII



294


P66(330): Pyxis hd (pi. 31)

L .054m

Fragment from a flat pyxis hd.

Clay: Light pink, very fme.

Decoration: Bands of red and dark paint in concentric circles: wide bands at the center and

narrow bands toward the outside of the circle. Probably imported to Tegea.

Date: EPC

References: Dugas, Tegea 421, fig. 61; Parallels: Dunbabin, Perachora II 118, no. 1155;

StUlweU and Benson, Corinth XV.III, 46 no. 176, pi. 9.

P67(329): Aryballos, ovoid (pi. 32)

H.044m

Lower body and base of an ovoid aryballos.

Clay: Cream/grey, fine, no inclusions.

Decoration: Horizontal bands of rays around base, running dogs in next panel and fighting

figures in panel above that. Import to Tegea.

Date: MPC

References: Dugas, Tegea 420, fig. 51; paraUels: Payne, NC 10-15, pi. 1, no. 5; Cook, Greek

Painted Pottery, 45-58, pi. 9D.

P68(S): ArybaUos (pi. 32)

Η .057m; D(base) .01m

Most of lower body and base of piriform aryballos.

Clay: Very fme yeUow with a pale green tint.

Decoration: Horizontal bands of rays at base, vertical *s' designs above, a quadruped in the

next zone, and then vertical 's 's, checked area and curled hues at the shoulder. Import to

Tegea.

Date: LPC

Unpublished. Found in Steinhauer's excavations; parallels: Dunbabin, Perachora II18, pi. 2 no.

43; Payne, NC: pi. 3; Cook, Greek Painted Pottery, 44, fig. 5B.

P69(305): Kalathos/cup (pi. 33, fig. 14)

Η .055m; D(rim) .072m

Kalathos/cup with one handle which is missing; also one side of cup is missing.

Clay: Bright orange with pink 'slip', inclusions of grit. Decoration: Painted with ten horizontal bands around body. PC influence discernible.

Date: EPC ' ' References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 50; Courbin, CGA 502; Dunbabin, Perachora II87-88.

P70(306): Kalathos (pi. 33, fig. 14)

Η .045m; D(rmi) .10m ^

Clay: DuU pink/dark cream with small grit inclusions.

Decoration: Painted with five horizontal bands outside and four of the same inside; there is a

suspension hole at the top on one side of the vessel. Probably a Corinthian import.

Date: EPC

References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 51; Dunbabin, Perachora II87-88.

P71(340): Kotyle base (pi. 34)

Η .0315m

Base fragment broken from a kotyle.

Clay: Light pink, fme, no inclusions.

Decoration: Under base in center are a sohd dark circle and two concentric circles outside of

295

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 406, fig. 53; Coldstream, GGP 216 n. 14; idem, GG 156 n. 62.

P61(249): Conical oinochoe handle (pi. 29)

Η .176m

Handle fragment from a large conical oinochoe.

Clay: Medium pink with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Long plastic snake painted with dots apphed to the handle; on either side of the

snake is painted a d c i r k vertical band. Reveals EPC influence/imitation.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 406, fig. 52; Coldstream, GGP 216 n. 14; idem, GG 156 n. 62;

Courbin, CGA 501.

P62(337): Lekythos-oinochoe fragment (pi. 30) H.08m

Fragment from neck area of lekythos-oinochoe.

Clay: Medium pink with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Neck is painted with twelve horizontal bands; there is sohd paint above the bands

and along the region of the handle. It reveals imitation of EPC vessels.

Date: LGII


P63(326): Lekythos-oinochoe neck (pi. 30)

H.046m

Fragment from the neck of an oinochoe.

Clay: Light pink, fine.

Decoration: Three horizontal bands at top, below, an area of four horizontal zigzags and two

vertical hues; also an *X' design painted to the left; three horizontal bands below. It reveals

EPC mfluence.

Date: LGII


P64(325): Conical oinochoe neck (pi. 30)

H.086m

Fragment broken from the neck of a conical oinochoe.

Clay: Dark cream/yeUow, fme.

Decoration: Sohd paint above, then three horizontal bands foUowed by a row of painted rays

and then ten horizontal bands below the rays. It is probably a Corinthian import to Tegea.

Date: EPC

References: Dugas, Tegea 419, fig. 54; Coldstream, GGP 216 n. 14; paraUel: Dunbabin,

Perachora II ?n, no. 221.

P65(313): Pyxis hd (pi. 31)

L.04m

Fragment of a flat pyxis hd.

Clay: Light pink/cream, fme fabric.

Decoration: Concentric circles painted in dark paint. Pot is under PC influence.

Date: EPC



296


Date: Seventh century


P77(302): Conical oinochoe (pl. 37)

Η .05m

Conical oinochoe missing handle, neck and rim.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with inclusions, hand-made.

Decoration: Painted with eight dark horizontal bands around body, bands also around the

wide, flat base. Date: LGII-Subgeometric References: Dugas, Tegea 416, fig. 49; Courbin, Ca4 502, (pl. %, C.506; 241: general parallel).

P78(226): Conical oinochoe (pl. 38, fig. 16)

H.047m

Conical oinochoe, tmy and complete. Clay: Light pink/yellow, soft, few inclusions, hand-made.

Decoration: Unpainted. An example of 'monochrome ware.' It may be a Corinthian import.

Date: Late eighth to mid-seventh century

References: Dugas, Tegea 400, fig. 51; Dunbabin, Perachora Π 319; Courbin, CGA 241;

Snodgrass, DAG 90, %; parallels: Courbin, CGA pl. 98 C.55 (shape); Caskey and Amandry,

Hesperia 21 (1952): 202-207, 204 n. 48.

P79(234): Globular jug (pl. 38)

H.05m

Jug missing handle and back of hp area; has a rounded bottom.

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with inclusions; hand-made.

Decoration: Very worn: horizontal bands discernible on body.

Date: Subgeometric

References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 51; Coldstream, GG 332; Courbin, CGA 502; (pl. 98 C.914:

parallel for shape).

P80(233): Aryballos (pl. 38, fig. 16)

H.047m

Tiny aryballos with a cracked hp; has a rounded bottom.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with inclusions, soft, hand-made.

Decoration: Dark horizontal bands painted form top of vessel to its base; a few short vertical

lines on neck. %

Date: Subgeometric

References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 51; Coldstream, GG 332; Courbin, CGA 502 (shape), pl. 96

C.4022.

P81(TM): Miniature hydria (pl. 39, fig. 15) "

Η .054m

Tiny hydria, missing one handle.

Clay: Light pink with large inclusions of grit, holes, very rough, hand-made.

Decoration: Unpainted.


Unpublished (TM no. 1875); parahel: Courbin, CGA pl. 94 C.815; Caskey and Amandry,

Hesperia 21 (1952): pl. 59, nos. 298-299, 302.

297

it; another dark ch-cle is on the outside edge of the base; dark painted rays above. Possibly

Corinthian import.

Date: LPC?

References: Dugas, Tegea 422, fig. 61; Parallels: Payne, Perachora I 94, 7-10; Weinberg,

Corinth VII:151-52, pl. 23, no. 160.

P72(341): Kotyle base (pl. 34) Η .051m

Base fragment of a kotyle.

Clay: Light pmk, fine, no inclusions.

Decoration: Horizontal bands below base and on, lower external edge; above, on the exterior

part are five rays extendmg upwards; mterior pamted in sohd dark paint. Possibly a Corinthian

hnport.

Date: LPC

References: Dugas, Tegea 422; Parallels: same as P71, above.

P73(251): Drinking Horn (pl. 35)

Η .285m

Long conical-shaped vessel, missing its handles and run; two feet at bottom.

Clay: Medium pmk shade with inclusions of grit, thick-walled, appears to be hand-made.

Decoration: Most of body from the bottom is decorated with 43 thm horizontal bands in dark

paint; at the handle zone is a horizontal continuous sph-al made of concentric circles, then two

more horizontal bands above topped by a row of painted 'Vs.

Date: LGII

References: Dugas, Tegea 407-408, fig. 53; Courbin, CGA 502; Coldstream, GG 156.

P74(218): Amphoriskos with mammaries (pl. 36, fig. 15) H.06m

Belly-handled amphoriskos with four mammaries, two on each side.

Clay: Dark orange-pmk with many large inclusions of grit, tiny stones, a rough clay; vessel

hand-made.

Decoration: Unpainted. Two protrusions of mammaries on both sides of vessel at handle level. Date: Seventh century

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 397, fig. 49; parallels: Courbm, CGA pl. 91 C.2474 (similar shape); Caskey and Amandry, Hesperia 21 (1952): 205 no. 273, pl. 57; Smithson, Hesperia 37 (1968): 98.

P75(235): Omochoe with round lip (pl. 36)

H.04m

Mmiature vessel without handles, missing upper area, has a rounded base.

Clay: Light pink v dth mclusions, hand-made.

Decoration: Painted with large black dots all around and below.

Date: Subgeometric

References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 51; Courbin, CGA 502; Coldstream, GG 332.

P76(TM): Amphoriskos (pl. 37)

Η .046m; D(rmi) .027m

Amphoriskos with large neck and handles, complete (neck-handled).

Clay: Light pink with small grit inclusions.

Decoration: It appears that the vessel was originally painted in dark paint, now very worn.


298


vessel has a suspension hole at the rim.

Date: Mid-seventh century

References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 61; Coldstream, GG 332; Frickenhaus, Tiryns /, 99, fig. 3j;

Waldstein, AH Π 96, fig. 32a.

P88(242): Bowl with scaUoped rim (pi. 42, fig. 15)

Η .037m; D(rim) .128m

ShaUow bowl with scaUoped rim, complete.

Clay: Light pink, hard with inclusions of grit, hand-made.

Decoration: Originally covered in black paint; interior appears unpainted; vessel has a

suspension hole.

Date: Seventh century Reference: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 60; paraUel: Courbin, CGA pi. 94 C.636 (pinched edges).

P89(229): SmaU bowl with scaUoped rim (pi. 43, fig. 16)

Η .03m; D(rim) .05m Bowl with pinched edges at rim, complete.

Clay: Dark orange with huge mclusions of grit and white and red pieces of stone: very rough,

hand-made.

Decoration: Undecorated except for evidence of red paint on both interior and exterior;

suspension hole.

Date: Seventh century Reference: Dugas, Tegea 400, fig. 49; paraUel: Courbin, CGA pi. 94 C.636 (pinched edges).

P90(231): Cup with high foot (pi. 43, fig. 16)

Η .056m; D(rim) .048m

Cup with high foot, scalloped edges.

Clay: Light orange with inclusions, soft; hand-made.

Decoration: Unpainted, undecorated; suspension hole on one side.


Reference: Dugas, Tegea 400, fig. 63; parallel: same as P88 and P89 above.

I»91(239): Miniature skyphos (pi. 44, fig. 16)

H .028m; D(rim) .048m

Miniature skyphos with both handles missing.

Clay: Light pink/yeUow with inclusions, soft, hand-made.

Decoration: Uneven decoration: two thick horizontal hues on hoaji, interior painted with

vertical lines.

Date: Subgeometric


I»92 (240): Miniature cup (pi. 44)

II .027m

Miniature cup missing handle.

Clay: Light pink/dark cream with inclusions.

Decoration: Horizontal bands around body; interior painted black.

Date: Subgeometric References: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 48; Coldstream, GG 332, n. 21.

I>93(245): Miniature cup (pi. 44, fig. 16)

I \ .021m; D(rim) .024m

Miniature cup with highish handle, complete.

299

P82(223): Miniature hydria (pi. 39, fig. 15) H.062m

Miniature hydria with vertical handle missing.

Clay: Cream/grey colour with many inclusions, soft, hand-made. Decoration: Unpainted.


Reference: Dugas, Tegea 398, fig. 50; paraUels: Courbin, CGA pi. 94 C.814; Caskey and Amandry, Hesperia 21 (1952): pi. 59, nos. 298-299, 302.

P83(224): Miniature cauldron with 3 horizontal handles (pi. 40, fig. 15) Η .069m; D(rim) .075m

Cauldron with three horizontal handles; rounded bottom.

Clay: Orange/pink with inclusions of grit, soft, hand-made.

Decoration: Unpamted: unusual handles fixed to body of vessel are noteworthy and perhaps

have a decorative function.



P84(S): Aryballos (pi. 40) H.05m

SmaU arybaUos, bucchero-hke, cracked and reglued. Clay: Dark grey, fine.

Decoration: Unpainted, with vertical plastic ribs around body: bucchero-style. Date: Seventh century

Unpubhshed. Found m Steinhauer's excavations (with bone reclining rams) in ninth stroma of trench B2; (see here fig. 4).

P85(228): Plate/Bowl with double handles (pi. 41) Η .027m

Plate or shallow bowl with horizontal handles (three of the four handles are partly missing), chipped around the rim.

Clay: Light pmk with dark pink core, inclusions.

Decoration: Both interior and exterior of vessel are painted with *S' designs; on rim is a zigzag

decoration. There are horizontal lines on handles.

Date: Subgeometric


P86(227): ShaUow bowl (pi. 41, fig. 15)

Η .03m; D(rim) .10m

Shallow bowl with horizontal handles, complete.

Clay: Light pink/yeUow with inclusions of grit, soft, porous.

Decoration: Not painted but bowl has two ornate handles with triangles jutting out from either

side of the handle near the intersection of the handles with the body, perhaps an imitation

from metal.



P87(241): SmaU bowl (pi. 42)

H.028m

SmaU bowl, shipped around the rim.

Clay: Light pink with mclusions; hand-made.

Decoration: Painted with groups of horizontal and vertical lines, both on exterior and interior;


Clay: Light pink/grey, porous, grit inclusions; hand-made.

Decoration: Painted in uneven black horizontal hnes; interior unpainted.

Date: Subgeometric


P94(221): Miniature kantharos (pl. 45)

Η .045m; D(rim) .036m

Miniature kantharos with very high, pinched, handles, rounded bottom: nearly complete.

Clay: Light pink with large grit inclusions, very rough, hand-made.

Decoration: Unpainted.



P95(246): High-footed, three-handled cup (pl. 45)

Η .034m

High-footed cup with three handles; one is missing.

Clay: Medium pink/cream, soft with a few inclusions.

Decoration: Painted in dark paint.


Reference: Dugas, Tegea 402, fig. 61; parahel: Weinberg, Corinth VILT, pl. 13, 81.

P96(232): Wreath (pl. 45)

D .057m

Wreath of clay, broken and reglued in four places.

Clay: Light pink with huge bits of gravel m it.

Decoration: Unpainted, wreath-form with pinched edges.


References: Dugas, Tegea 400, fig. 54; Dunbabin, Perachora II329-330; Payne, Perachora 167; Courbin, CGA 249; Schhemann Tiryns 139, fig. 73.

POTTERY FROM MAVRIKI

MP1(257): Closed vessel fragment (pl. 46)

Η .108m

Fragment broken from a closed vessel.

Clay: Dark cream/grey with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Very worn: linear decoration of horizontal bands, a long zigzag and a particularly

worn row of dotted lozenges.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 55. (According to the Tegea Museum catalogue this sherd, TM no. 983, is from Mavriki.)

MP2(TM): Ring-Vase fragment (pl. 47) L.18m

Fragment of a ring-vase with a square section; mouth area included.

Clay: Dark cream with mclusions of grit.

Decoration: On side face: large cross-hatched lozenges and above them on top face, horizontal bands with a single zigzag. Date: LGII

300


Unpubhshed (TM no. 958). Parallels: Furumark, MP 68-69; Johansen, Vases sicyoniens 26-27;

Dunbabin, Perachora II127; Gjerstad, Swedish Cyprus Excavations, IV,2 293.

MP3(TM): Skyphos rim (pl. 46, fig. 17)

Η .037m; D(rmi) .14m

Fragment broken from the rim of a skyphos.

Clay: Medium orange core with hght pink exterior; grit inclusions.

Decoration: Dotted, pomted lozenges along rim, two horizontal bands below and on belly,

dancing male figure with head not visible, holding hands with other figure to his right (largely

missing); vertical hnes on one side of fragment. Interior is painted; decoration is in a brownish

paint.

Date: LGII-Subgeometric Unpubhshed (TM no. 985). Parahel: Coldstream, GGP pl. 30a (for decoration).

MP4(258): Skyphos rim (pl. 48, fig. 17)

Η .038m; D(rim) .14m

Fragment broken from the rim of a skyphos.

Clay: Medium orange with hght pink wash, grit inclusions.

Decoration: Seven horizontal bands with a single zigzag between the third and fourth band;

interior painted.

Date: LGII

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 408, fig. 55. (According to the Tegea Museum catalogue, this sherd,

TM no. 984, is from Mavriki.)

MP5(TM): Bellied skyphos rim (pl. 48, fig. 17)

Η .08m; D(rmi) .14m

Fragment broken from the rim of a belhed skyphos.

Clay: Light yellow/pink with inclusions.

Decoration: Worn linear design including horizontal bands with at least one row of dotted

lozenges and one row of large cross-hatched pointed lozenges; below belly, dark solid paint.

Date: LGII

Unpublished (TM no. 970); references (general): Coldstream, GGP 106, pl. 21g; Lane, BSA

34 (1933/34): 103, fig. 2L; Coulson, BSA 80 (1985): 39-45.

MP6(TM): Kalathos (pl. 49, fig. 18)

Η .036m; D(rim) .127m ^

Shallow bowl, complete; flat bottom. ^

Clay: Light pink with grit inclusions.

Decoration: Pamted with a thick, dark cross design on both interior and exterior of vessel; two

suspension holes at rim.

Date: LGII

Unpubhshed (TM no. 961); references (general): Dunbabin, Perachora II41 no. 770, pl. 35, fig.

6; Frickenhaus, Tiryns 199, fig. 31.

MP7(TM): Cup fragment (pl. 50)

Η .057m

Fragment broken from the handle area of a cup; has double handle.

Clay: Medium pink, worn, coarse with mclusions.

Decoration: Evidence of brown paint on parts of exterior of cup; interior painted in dark paint.

Date: LG?-Seventh century


301

iiii


302


MP14(TM): Miniature Cup (pi. 53, fig. 16)

Η .028m; D(rim) .037m

Miniature cup, with one handle, complete.

Clay: Light pink/yeUow; smaU grit inclusions, appears hand-made.

Decoration: Painted in brown paint with four uneven horizontal bands on body and a star

design painted under the rounded base area; interior also painted.

Date: Subgeometric


BRONZES FROM TEGEA AND MAVRIKI

Human Figures

Bl(49): Figure seated side-saddle on a horse (pi. 54, fig. 27)

Η .0295m; L .03m; Base .02 χ .01m

Human figure is missing most of both arms though in Dugas' pubhcation, left arm was still

intact; bronze surface is chipped, worn, discoloured. The decoration on the underside of the

base is barely visible because of the worn surface.

Human figure (female) seated side-saddle on a horse with a sohd, rectangular base-plate. The

female figure appears very simply formed without any modeUing, musculature or sexual

attributes mdicated. The horse figure somewhat recaUs Dugas no. 9 in its heavy form and

mixture of Argive and Laconian traits. Heilmeyer considered it to be a local Tegean product.

The underside of the base reveals a few grooves but a pattern cannot be determined.

Date: 775-750 (Schweitzer); 750-700 (RoUey)

References: Dugas, Tegea 354 no. 49, fig. 17(355); Schweitzer, GGA 156-57; Rolley, MGR 2 no.

16; HeUmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5; TurnbuU, (see Chapter One, n. 17) chapter

one; Voyatzis, AM 93 (1989): 273; see also Bevan, Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries,

(i)202.

B2(50): Group of human figure between two animals (pi. 55, fig. 27)

Η .037m; L .05m

Head of human figure is missing; animal to human figure's right is missing its ear.

Surface of the bronze is chipped and discoloured.

Group composition consists of a human figure standing frontally with legs apart and arms

outstretched in front and with each hand of the head of an animal, ^ h e quadruped on the

human's right appears to be a dog with its foreleg raised and on the left, a goat figure also with

its forelegs raised. The human figure is checking the apparently playful interaction between

the quadrupeds. Below the sohd base-plate are eight mcised zigzags. This group composition

reveals symmetry and considerable depth of dimension.

Date: 750-700 (RoUey) '

References: Dugas, Tegea 354 no. 50, fig. 17(355); RoUey, FD.V53 n. 4,137 n. 1; idem, MGR 2

no. 8; Jost, Sanctuaires 152, 373.

B3(52): Seated figure (pi. 54, fig. 27)

H.049m

Figure is missing right arm and most of right leg and lower left arm and lower left leg; the base

is broken off though at the time of Dugas' publication it was stiU intact.

Bronze surface is chipped and worn and there is some accretion.

A figure which appears to be quasi-human with a peculiar head, a wiry body and seated on a

circular rod. The figure has a jutting jaw, a low forehead, protruding, extended ears, horizontal

303

MP8(TM): Cup with one handle (pi. 50, fig. 16) Η .041m; D(rmi) .068m

One-handled cup, largely complete except for section missing on one side.

Clay: Light pink/yellow, soft, inclusions, porous.

Decoration: Lower half of cup is painted sohd; above horizontal bands and horizontal row of

dots around rim: very worn. Interior is painted.

Date: LGII

Unpubhshed (TM no. 981); paraUel: Courbin, CGA pis. 71-75.

MP9(TM): Miniature omochoe (pi. 51, fig. 18) Η .052m

Tiny oinochoe, complete.

Clay: Light pink/yeUow with grit mclusions.

Decoration: Sohd brown paint from base to belly; long vertical lines going round shoulder; two

horizontal bands on neck and hp. Handle incised with a snake design.

Date: Subgeometric


MPIO(TM): Miniature omochoe (pi. 51, fig. 18) Η .056m

Miniature oinochoe, missing handle.

Clay: Light pink with inclusions of grit, hand-made.

Decoration: seven horizontal bands on body, hint of vertical bands crossing horizontal ones at neck of vessel and at the base. Date: Subgeometric Unpublished (TM no. 962).

MPl l(TM): Miniature kalathos (pi. 52; fig. 18) L .08m; Η .028m

Kalathos, very smaU but complete.

Clay: Light pink/yellow with inclusions of grit.

Decoration: Vertical bands in centre of body and horizontal bands at either side. Date: LGII-Subgeometric

Unpublished (TM no. 959); paraUel: Courbin, CGA 219-220, pi. 69.

MP12(230): Bowl with scaUoped edge (pi. 52, fig. 18) Η .035m

Vase with pinched edges.

Clay: Dark orange with mclusions of grit, rough, hand-made.

Decoration: Undecorated.


Reference: Dugas, Tegea 400, fig. 59. (According to the Tegea Museum catalogue, this vase,

TM no. 986, is said to come from Mavriki.)

MP13(TM): Miniature Skyphos (pi. 53, fig. 16)

Η .039m; D(rim) .04m

Tiny skyphos, complete.

Clay: Light pink/yeUow with grit inclusions, hand-made.

Decoration: Rather uneven horizontal bands above handle level and sohd dark paint below; interior painted; underside of rounded base is unpainted. Decoration is in a brownish paint. Date: Subgeometric Unpubhshed (TM no. 969).

Catalogue of Objects Catalogue of Objects

ίϊΕΙί

1;

grooves on the face and a thick neck. The triangular chest narrows at the waist and widens at

the hip; the arms and legs are hke bent wh-es. It is not clear if the arms would have originally

bent upwards to the mouth or out to the front. The arms in any case rested on the knees and

the forearms were extended further. The base-plate was circular and solid with a linear

pattern below in relief.

Date: 750-725 (Schweitzer: date of type); 800-750 (RoUey)

References: Dugas, Tegea 354-355 no. 52, pl. 17(355); Schweitzer, GGA 159-61; RoUey, MGR 3

no. 26; R o m a i o s , ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 27, fig. 20d (Mavriki example); Bouzek, GMB 76-79; J a n t z e n , ^

68 (1953): 56-67; Langdon, 92 (1988): 272-273; Turnbull, (see Chapter one, n. 17) chapter

two; ¥^\din-Ou\me,\Qr, Anhanger 205 n. 4.

B4(51): Figure carrymg a vase on head (pl. 56, fig. 27)

Η .076m; Base .013 χ .012m

Figure is complete; bronze is chipped and discoloured on legs and there are scratches on the

arms.

Human figure is standing on a raised rectangular base-plate with a incised design on the

underside. It has one thin, unmodeUed arm on its hip and the other on a vase which it holds in

place on the top of the head; RoUey calls the vessel a hydria or an oinochoe. The head is quite

rounded with the eyes and mouth incised and the nose modeUed. The body is very simply

formed without any musculature but it is fluid and has a soft curvature; the figure is apparently

nude but no sexual characteristics are indicated. The legs are slightly bent at the knees and

below they flow into the base with no indication of feet. The underside of the base-plate

consists of four hoUowed out circles in each corner and a tiny circle in the middle. Figures of

this type are usually female.

Date: 750-700 (RoUey); 725-700 (Gehrig)

References: Dugas, Tegea 354 no. 51, fig. 17(355); Romaios, AE (1952): 27, fig. 20y; Rolley,

MGR 2, no. 9; Gehrig, Samos 21; Jost, Sanctuaires 373.

B5(53): Male figure wearing conical helmet (pl. 57)

H.067m

Figure is missing most of his right leg, both ankles and feet and most of both arms; the bronze

surface is chipped and scratched.

Male figure with arms extended and legs spread apart; he wears a conical helmet on his head

which appears to tilt slightly forward at the top. The face area is intentionally flattened and the

eyes and mouth are mcised. A vertical ridge divides the body in half along the front and back

of the figure from the neck area down; the legs also have a vertical ridge on the front and back

and the arms are divided by a horizontal ridge. These ridges give the figurine a very stiff

appearance. A protrusion in the front of his body marks his genital area.

Date: Eighth century

References: Dugas, Tegea 355 no. 53, fig. 19(365), 356 no. 54 (Dugas no. 54 was recently put on

display in Tripolis Museum); Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 5.1; Snodgrass, EGAW9

n.24.

B6(55): Figure with animal's head (pl. 58)

H.046m

Figure's left hand is missing and left foot is slightly broken; surface of bronze is chipped and

discoloured.

Seated figure with knees bent up towards chest and arms extended at sides of body. The head

has a long snout, smaU high ears and a general shape which resembles a bear most of aU. The

body has soft curves throughout, a slightly tapering waist but no musculature. The figure's

behind is flat which aUows it to be placed in an upright seated position. Its appearance

suggests that its position and strange head was derived from figure B3.

304


References: Dugas, Tegea 356 no. 55, fig. 17(355); P. Leveque, Information historique 23

(1961): 93; Bevan, BSA 82 (1987): 17-21; idem. Representations Animals in Sanchiaries, (i)

22-25; Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 160.

B7(57): Female figure (pl. 59)

H.067m

Largely complete figurine but with lower arms missing; object has a very chipped, worn bronze

surface apparently covered in a white film.

Figure of a female who is either nude or wearing only a very sheer garment through which the

form of her body can be seen. She is standmg on a smaU rectangular, vertical base. She wears

a sort of polos simUar to the Eastern 'Palm Capitals' and she holds her upper arms closely to

her sides with her forearms extended forward. The figurine is a full-figured female with

breasts indicated, a large stomach, large behind and long hair. Her legs are unmodelled and

there are mcisions on her feet, perhaps indicating toes.

Date: Late eighth to early seventh century

References: Dugas, Tegea 359 no. 57, fig. 18(358); General: Schweitzer GGA 135-36, fig. 96;

Barnett, Nimmd Ivories, pis. LXXIV-LXXVI; Carter, Greek Ivory Carving, 1-7, 72-82.

88(56): Nude female figure with hands on breasts (pl. 60)

H.104m

Exterior surface is worn, chipped, scratched with white spots aU over; the object is very heavy

and appears to contain lead. The head is broken and reglued, the right foot is broken and

missing; the breasts are chipped and the facial features are worn.

Female figure with her hands holding her breasts, her legs slightly bent at the knees and her

behind protruding. The figure's head is very large in relation to the body and has a peculiar

shape; the top of the head is rounded, the ears protrude at the sides of the head, and the nose

and chin are pronounced features. On the face the eyes are shghtly indicated by modelling and

the mouth consists of a straight incised line. The pubis is marked by an incised triangle. There

are a number of Cypriot parallels for this figure's gesture and the general appearance but the

head is more like Mycenaean figurines in terracotta.

Date: Twelfth century

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 357-358 no. 56, fig. 18; Voyatzis, RDAC (1985): 159, pl. XX; Jost,

Sanctuaires 153, 374; paraUels: Karageorghis, Pyla-Kokkinokremos 55, pl. XXV no. 62;

Taylour, Antiquity 43 (1969): pl. Xlb, XII-XIII; idem. Antiquity 44 (1970): pl. XXXVIIIb, c,

XXXIXa, b.

i B9(M): Seated male figure (pl. 61, fig. 27)

Η .036m; D(base) .02m

Figure is complete; bronze surface is chipped and scratched.

Figure is seated on a cylindrical shaft with his elbows resting on his knees and both his hands at

his chin. His wiry arms are longer than his legs; they both have rectangular cross-sections not

round ones like B3 from Tegea. The body of this figure is a squatter version of B3; the head is

a pecuhcu shape and it appears to be holding something at its chin area. No facial features are

indicated at aU and it is not clear if the head is human. The base has a design in relief in the

shape of a hesut.

Date: 800-750 (Rolley of type); 750-725 (Schweitzer)

References: Romaios, AE (1952): 26, fig. 20d; RoUey, MGR 3, no. 2 (for general type);

Schweitzer, GGA 159-61 (for general type); see also B3, above.

305


Quadrupeds

B13(8): Horse on a base (pi. 66, fig. 27)

Η .036m; Base .026 χ .01m

Horse is missing tail except for a smaU piece of it at the base. The bronze is a light green

colour and smooth, with a few chips and some discolouration.

Figure stands on a solid, rectangular base-plate incised with a zigzag with rounded corners on

the underside. It has thin but articulated hmbs and a dehcately shaped body of characteristic

Argive form.

References: Dugas, Tegea 346 no. 8, fig. 6 (p. 345); Herrmann Jdl 79 (1964): 25 n. 37;

Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5; Gehrig, Samos 48.

B14(10): Horse on a base (pi. 66, fig. 27)

H(existing) .053m; Base .053 χ .032m

Horse is missing its head, neck and mane area; also some of its left front leg is missing and the

right front leg is cracked. The bronze is very worn, chipped and discoloured.

306


The horse figxu-e stands on a sohd rectangular base-plate which is incised with seven rows of

zigzags on the imderside. The horse has a heavy appearance with unmodeUed hmbs. It reveals

Argive influence in some of its features but was probably locally produced at Tegea.

References: Dugas, Tegea 346 no. 10, uniUustrated; Gehrig, Samos 48.

B15(l l ) : Horse on a base (pi. 66, fig. 27)

H.041m; Base .032 x.017m

Quadruped is missing its front left leg and the base is damaged around the edges. The bronze

is worn, discoloured and chipped aU over.

The horse figure stands on a sohd thick, rectangular base which is incised below with zigzag

lines. The head is noticeably rather smaU for a horse, but the rest of its features are clearly

those of a horse. Its features are generaUy of the Argive style.

References: Dugas, Tegea 346 no. 11, uniUustrated; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5;

Gehrig, Samos 47-48.

B16(M): Horse on a base (pi. 67, fig. 27)

Η .045m; Base .025 χ .015m

Horse is in good condition. It is broken a httle at the point where the feet meet the base; there

are a few chips in the bronze and the decoration on the underside of the base is worn. The

bronze is a medium green.

This tiny horse figure is standing on a sohd rectangular base-plate which is mcised below with a

row of angles. The horse has a particularly large head and incision on its neck and mane. It

appears to consist of both Argive and Laconian elements and was probably a local product in

the MavrUci or Tegea vicmity.

References: Romaio^AE (1952): 26, fig. 20e; HeUmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

B17(X): Horse on a pierced base (pi. 67, fig. 27)

Η .062m; Base .048 χ .028m

Horse is complete except for a slight break m its left ear. The bronze is a dark green and has

many big chips in it as weU as discolouration and a scratched surface.

The horse figure is standing on a pierced base-plate which has six triangles pierced in it (three

on either side). The quadruped is basically Laconian in type but has very long, shapeless legs

which appear rather unsteady. The depiction of the legs particularly indicate that this is a

depiction of an immature horse. It has a very close paraUel from the Artemis Orthia sanctuary

and may weU be an import to Tegea.

Unpublished. On display in Tegea Museum; See drawing in Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n.

135; Gehrig, Samos 48; paraUel: OTOO^BSA 13 (1906/07): 111, fig. 2f.^

B18(X): Headless horse (pi. 67)

H.028m

The horse is missing its head, most of the neck and mane and its two front legs are largely

broken; the tail is also chipped. The bronze is a dark green but worn and chipped. This horse

figurme is nicely rounded and has Argive features m what we can see of it. It is not clear if it

originally had a base.

Unpublished. In Tegea Museum.

B19(X): Horse on a base (pi. 68, fig. 27)

Η .054m; Base .036 χ .017m

Horse is missing lower part of front right leg; its back left leg is broken but reglued and its taU

is slightly cracked. The bronze is a dark green with a few chips, holes, scratches and dark spots

on it. The horse figure stands on a rectangular sohd base-plate which is incised with smaU hues in the

307

BIO(M): Figure carrying a vase on head (pi. 61)

Η .055m; Base .016m square

Figure is missing head (and presumably the vase which was most hkely on top of it); it is also

missmg most of its left arm and its right arm. The bronze surface is worn and discoloured.

Human figure with right arm raised and left arm originaUy on hip (which can be assumed from

the piece of bronze still in place on the hip). It stands on a square base and its knees are

shghtly bent and its behind protrudes. No musculature is indicated at aU; the sex of the figure

can only be guessed to be female from other such depictions of female figures. The decoration

on the underside of the base could not be exammed smce the plate had been fixed to a wooden

block for display m the Tegea Museum. The figure is almost identical to B4.

Date: 750-700 (Rolley); 725-700 (Gehrig)

References: Romaios, (1952): 26, fig. 20y; Rolley, MGR 2 no. 9; Gehrig, Samos 21.

B l l ( M ) : Tiny lead kouros (pi. 62)

Η .035m

Figure is covered m accretion; its arms are missmg, lower legs also missing and its features

completely worn.

Kouros with long hak to shoulder, wearmg a band at his waist. His musculature is quite weU

articulated. The figure is extremely worn and it is therefore difficult to discern any details

about the head or face.

Date: Late seventh century

References: Romaios, AE (1952): 27, fig. 21a; Dawkins, Sparta 267-68, pi. CLXXXV, 28

(parallel).

B12(M): Tmy lead kouros (pi. 62)

Η .03m

Figure is covered in white accretion and cracked all over. 'Seams' where sides were connected are visible. Most of the arms and lower legs are missing; all details of the face, hair and body are indistmguishable.

Erect, standing male kouros with his head forward and shoulders back; he has a small waist, and an indication of his genital area. All other details are too worn for comment. Date: Late seventh century

References: Romaios, AE (1952): 27, fig. 21b; Dawkins, Sparta 267-68, pi. CLXXV, 28 (parallel).


form of 'V designs on the underside. This horse combines angular Laconian features plus rounded Argive quahties and is probably a local product. It has rather shapeless legs which may perhaps be a local trait.

Unpubhshed. In Tegea Museum; see drawing in Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135.

B20(Ox): Horse on a pierced base (pl. 68)

Η .101m; Base .068 χ .041m

Horse is missing part of left rear leg from just below the knee joint to the ankle area. The

surface on the bronze is chipped, cracked; left ear is also missing - otherwise horse is complete.

Tah erect horse figure standing on a thick base, pierced with fourteen cut out triangles. The

horse has a long muzzle with four ridges at the end of it, protrusions for eyes, long ears and

characteristic Laconian features. The joints in his legs are clearly articulated and the upper

part of the legs appear to have been hammered. It was probably an import from Tegea.

References: M. Weber, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 16 (1966): 92, pis. 9-10; general: Heilmeyer,

Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135; horse in Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (no. G.397).

B21(Ox): Horse on a pierced base (pl. 69) Η .062m; Base .057 χ .034m

Horse's ears are broken and missing; the bottom of the horse's front leg is broken but no part is missing; the surface of the bronze is worn.

The horse is standing on a pierced base with eighteen cut out triangles. He has a long

cylindrical snout with a ridge at the edge and his head points downwards slightly. It has a flat

ridge going down the middle of its body from the top of the mane down to the back. The legs

are not particularly modelled and the horse has slightly rounded elements. It has affinities with

the Laconian school but might be a local product under this influence.

Unpubhshed. In Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (no. G.3%).

B22(13): Stag on a base (pl. 74)

H.046m; Base .034 x.023m

Stag is complete but now is fixed on to wooden stand so that its underside is not visible. The

bronze is scratched, chipped and has some discolouration.

The stag figurine is standing on a solid rectangular base with two rows of zigzags incised below.

Its antlers are incised and consist of five branches of each horn. It has a long cylindrical

incised muzzle, a graceful sloping neck and rod-like legs. The shape of the body is considered

by Herrmann and Heilmeyer to be Laconian.

References: Dugas, Tegea 347 no. 13, fig. 2 (p. 343), 7 (p. 347); Herrmann, Jdl 79 (1964): 21 n.

14; Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5; Bevan, Representaions of Animals in Sanctuaries

(i), 106-111, (u), Appendk 8.5.

B23(14): Stag (pl. 74)

Η .054m; L .085m

Stag's legs are slightly chipped as are the tips of his antlers. The bronze is greatly discoloured with many chips, scratches and bumps.

The stag has a long cylindrical body and a flat triangular-shaped head. It has a large distance between each horn of its antlers. It has a long thin neck, thin rod-hke hmbs and a resemblance to Argive works m its flowing form.

References: Dugas, Tegea 347 no. 14, fig. 6 (p. 345); Herrmann, Jdl 19 (1964): 29 n. 52; see Bevan above, B22.

B24(15): Stag on a ch-cular base (pl. 75, fig. 27) Η .073m; D(base) .04m

Stag has a broken left ear, but is otherwise complete. The bronze is discoloured with some

308


chips and bumps m it.

The stag stands taU on a cb-cular base which has large openings; the bronze in the circular base

forms an *X' design. It has a short, cylindrically-shaped muzzle, a short neck in comparison

with its very long and slightly modeUed legs, a cylindrical body 2md antlers which curl forward

on the top of its head. Its back legs are longer than the front ones and so he leans forward a

bit. Herrmann considers it to be Corinthian in style.

References: Dugas, Tegea 347 no. 15, fig. 6 (p. 345); Herrmann Jdl 19 (1964): 29 n. 52;

Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren fig. 5,100 n. 135; see Bevan m B22, above.

B25(16): Stag (pl. 75)

Η .057m; L .06m

Stag is complete except for feet which seem chipped or slightly broken. The surface is

discoloured.

The stag figure has six branches of antlers, three on each side of his head, forming a fan-shape.

It has a very short triangular muzzle, straight back, rigid body, short legs and thick stumpy tail,

with three lines of incision on it. The suspension hole goes through the front shoulders. It is

considered to be without parallel.

References: Dugas, Tegea 341 no. 16, fig. 2(343); Rolley, MGR 2 no. 17, pl. 5; Kihan-Dirlmeier,

Anhanger 187-188, pl. 59, no. 1137; see Bevan B22 above.

B26(17): Deer with very long neck (pl. 76)

Η (greatest) .058m; L .074m

Deer is missing both front legs and part of each back leg; the bronze is chipped, rough and

worn.

A unique deer figure with a very long snout, ears back behind head, two incised eyes and a very

long neck with a flat profile. It has a cyhndrical body and a ridge which begins at the crown of

its head and goes down to its tail. References: Dugas, Tegea 341 no. 17, fig. 19(365); Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135, fig. 5.

B27(18): Deer (pl. 76)

Η .042m; L .035m

Quadruped has aU four legs either cracked or broken a bit, the base is probably missing. The

figure was broken at its 'waist' and glued together again. The bronze is very chipped,

discoloured and has a few spots.

This quadruped, probably a doe, has a triangular-shaped head seen frontahy, a wide flat neck,

a tiny tail and a generally 'Argive' appearance in the shape of the body.

References: Dugas, Tegea 348 no. 18, fig. 2(343); Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n. 135; see

Bevan in B22 above.

B28(X): Deer on a base (pl. 76, fig. 27)

Η .04m; Base .031 χ .019m

Quadruped is complete and in very good condition. The bronze has a few chips, scratches.

Quadruped on a sohd rectangular base incised with a meander design below. It is remarkably

similar to B27 and is also a doe figurine. It has a narrow head, flowing Argive body and Argive

style base and slightly modeUed legs. It is a beautiful specimen.

Unpublished. In Tegea Museum on display; see drawing in Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren 100 n.

135.

B29(19): Feline (?) (pl. 77, fig. 27)

Η .036m; Base .041 χ .023m

Quadruped is complete; the bronze is rather rough, discoloured and the base is worn on the

underside. The head is also very worn.

309

ill'!!


This quadruped has a small wide head, a short, fakly pointed snout, smaU ears on top of its

head, a thick flat neck and a fairly large rounded body. It stands on a sohd rectangular

base-plate incised with crescents, dots and lozenges. The body has a slightly Argive look; the

head shape, heavy appearance and long tail may weU indicate that it is a feline, but this is not

at aU certain. It is probably of local manufacture.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 348 no. 19, fig. 2(343), fig. 8(348).

B30(20): Dog (pi. 77)

Η .029m; L .037m

Dog's front legs and left back leg are chipped at the ends. The bronze is discoloured and worn

a great deal.

This baseless quadruped stands with its hind legs and rump particularly high in comparison

with the front of his body. It has a long muzzle, with ears behmd the head, a thick neck and

generally rounded features. The dog figure is similar to that one in B2, in the group of a man

separating a dog and a goat.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 348 no. 20, fig. 6(345).

B31(7): Buh walking (pi. 77)

Η .027m; L .042m

BuU is complete except for the left horn which is missing; the bronze is rather discoloured,

chipped and scratched.

Buh figure is walking with his front left leg forward and the head facing forward. The eyes,

hair and nostrils are incised; the head is triangular in shape. The figure has a very rounded,

heavy squat appearance. Probably seventh century.

References: Dugas, Tegea 346 no. 7, fig. 6(345); see Heihneyer, Bronzefiguren; pi. 98 nos. 801,

803, for similar examples.

B32(X): Bull on base (pi. 78)

Η .032m; Base .051 χ .025m

Quadruped is complete; bronze is fuh of scratches, accretion, and is chipped and discoloured.

This buh figurine is rather crudely made and stands on a sohd rectangular base with absolutely

no design below. His big, long head is facing downwards and his horns are pointed forward, as

if he were about to attack. He has a ridge along the top of his body, a very thick neck area and

tail, and stubby legs. He has two pehet eyes and a generally crude appearance. It is probably

locally made.

Unpubhshed. In Tegea Museum, on display; see BCH 82 (1958): 717 where mention is made

of a buh figure found at Tegea; see also Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pi. %, no. 782 for a similar

example.

B33(X): Lion (pi. 77)

Η .028m; L. 046m

Quadruped is largely complete though its incised decoration is worn on the face and toes.

Bronze is chipped, discoloured and scratched.

This figure of a seated lion with legs below him and mouth open (ready to pounce?) is clearly

free of the Geometric conventions. It has a soft curving body and is flat along the bottom as if

to be placed on a base.

Unpublished. In the Tegea Museum on display; for later parallel see Payne, Perachora 1137,

pi. 43,9.

B34(3): Rechning ox (pi. 78)

Η .036m; Base .033 χ .019m

Ox is missing a piece of its tail, also his nose area is a httle chipped. The bronze is very


discoloured and chipped.

The ox figure is reclining on a solid rectangular base which is incised below with two

rectangular bars in intaglio on the underside. It has a suspension hole going through its middle

and is extremely stylized m form.

References: Dugas, Tegea 344 no. 3, fig. 2(343), fig. 3(344); Dunbabin, Perachora Π 408 η. 11;

Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 193, pi. 61, no. 1160; Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 35-36;

Coldstream, GG 156; Marangou, Lakonische Elfenbein, 112-124; Carter, Greek Ivory-Carving,

11-1%.

B35(4): Reclining ox (pi. 79)

Η .033m; Base .036 χ .018m

Ox is nearly complete except for top of left horn and end of tail, which are chipped. The

bronze is discoloured and scratched on the surface.

The ox figure is reclining on a solid rectangular base with a suspension hole going through the

front section of its body, just above the base. The tail is quite curly (hke a pig's tail) and the

form is again very stylized, as in B34. The decoration on the underside of the base is the same

as that on B34.

References: Dugas, Tegea 344 no. 4, fig. 2(343); Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 193, pi. 61 no.

1159; same as for B34, above.

B36(5): Rechning ox (pi. 79)

Η .029m; Base .033 χ .016m

Ox is complete; bronze is somewhat discoloured, with some chipping and accretion.

Ox is seated on a solid rectangular base which has three roughly triangular incised areas in

intaglio. The ox seems to lack a separate form for its neck or head and his ears appear to

come out of the top of his back. He has a circular snout and a very curved tail (hke a pig's)

and is stylized with extremely simple form. The suspension hole is covered in accretion and

located roughly in the middle front of his body.

References: Dugas, Tegea 344 no. 5, fig. 2(343) and fig. 4(344) for base; Kilian-Dirlmeier,

Anhanger 193, no. 1161, pi. 61; same as for B34, above.

B37(6): Reclining ox (pi. 80)

Η .043m; Base .046 χ .024m

Ox figure is complete; bronze is slightly worn, chipped and discoloured.

The ox figure rests on a solid rectangular base with six squares hohowed out underneath and

two suspension holes going through its body, just above the base in the middle of the body and

at the back. It has a long snout and both its ears and horns indicated on its head. Its general

form is much softer and fuller that the above examples and it is more natural in appearance. It

also preserves some of the conventions of the above very stylized examples.

References: Dugas, Tegea 344 no. 6, fig. 2(343); Kilian-Dirhneier, Anhanger 193 no. 1157, pi.

61; same as for B34, above.

Birds

B38(26): Cock (pi. 83)

L.092m

Bird is complete except for chipping around the tail; the punched decoration is slightly worn.

This bird has a large half-moon shaped, flat crest, a flat curved tail, a rather long curved body

and a suspension attachment on the top of the back. Punched circles decorate the crest, tail

and the feet. It has been described as a cock by Dugas and Kilian-Dirlmeier cmd a 'peacock

hen' by Bouzek. It has a ring of bronze around the neck and two rings at the back before the

3 1 0 311


tail begins. Its two squat legs and high tail put it into Β ouzel 's 'Argive' group and Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I.

References: Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 26, fig. 10; RoUey, GMR 3 no. 23, pi. 6; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 134,pl. 10,4;KUian-Dirhneier,A/i^fl/i^€rl28no. 713, pi. 37.

B39(27?): Cock (pi. 83) L .081m Crescent of the bird is chipped and the bird is worn aU over. This bird is the same as the one above with a large half-moon shaped, flat crest, a flat curved taU, a rather long U-shaped body and a suspension attachment on the top of the back. B39 has a much thinner body than B38, however. Despite the considerable surface wear, one can see the remains of the punched circles on the crest, taU and legs. It has a rmg of bronze around the neck and an mdentation at the intersection of the rounded body to the flat tail. Its two squat legs and high tail put this bh-d too, m the 'Argive' group or Variant I. References: Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 27, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 128 no. 714, pi. 37.

B40(24):Cock(pl.84) L .078m Bird figure is complete except for some chipping around the crest; the punched decoration is worn. This is the same bird type as the above examples with the flat crest (crescent-shaped), flat curved taU and suspension hook on the top of the back; it is thinner and smaller than the other examples, however. It has an indentation at the intersection of the rounded body and the flat tail and punched ch-cles on the crest and tail. It too is an 'Argive' type or Variant I. References: Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 24, fig. 10; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 134, pi. 10,6; Kihan-Dirlmeier, AAi/ifl/i ^r 128, pi. 37, no. 715.

B41(29): Cock (pi. 84) L.06m Very worn, rough bkd figurine with considerable corrosion on the surface; chipped taU. This bird is a much smaller variety than the above-discussed examples; it has a small half-moon crest and a tiny head. Its body shape is very fuU around the beUy, but the neck is quite thin. It has a ring around the neck and an indentation at the intersection of the full body with the flat taU. It has two rods for legs, a suspension hole on the top of its back and no apparent decoration. This example falls into the 'Argive' type or Variant I. References; Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 29, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 128, pi. 37, no. 716.

B42(25): Cock (pi. 85) L .035m Crest and taU of the bh-d are chipped, scratched and the surface is worn aU over. This bird is a miniature version of the same sorts of birds discussed above. Its flat crest and high curved taU, rounded body and thin ring at intersection of the body with the tail are in keeping with the rest of the birds seen so far. This bird differs from them not only in its size but also in the fact that it has a single rod for legs (which is more like the 'Laconian' Variant II type's legs, though the latter usually also have three claws below the rod). It has tiny head and no apparent decoration. Kilian-Dirlmeier considers it to be a local Tegean product, derived out a blending of Variant I and II. Because of the high taU, I have included it m the text in the discussion of Variant I.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 25, unillustrated; Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 132 no. 727, pi. 39.

312

B43(28):Cock(pl.85) L .058m Bird is chipped around the crest and tail, it has a broken suspension hole and part of the foot (one of the claws) is turned upwards. This bird is a different sort from those already examined: it has a big wide crest, a tiny head, a taU curving downwards and a rectangular-shaped suspension hole with grooving along the top edge. Instead of two legs it has a single rod with three claws at the bottom of it; it also has a ring of bronze around its neck. Some decoration is apparent on the crest and on the tail. Because of the downward-curving tail, the rod and claws for the feet and the type of suspension hole, it is considered to be an example of Variant II. References: Dugas, Tegea 350 no. 28, uniUustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 128, pi. 37, no. 718.

B44(23): Cock (pi. 85) L.067m Bird is largely complete except for chips at its beak and front claws. This bird is similar to B43 in type; it has a rod and three claws to represent its feet, a tail which curves downwards and a rectangular suspension hook with grooved top. Its crest is quite long and almost oblong in shape. It has inscribed decoration which consists of zigzag lines on the crest and the tail which is unlike any of the other bu-ds. This bird falls mto Bouzek's 'Laconian' category and Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant II. References: Dugas, Tegea 349 no. 23, fig. 6; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 127-134, pi. 10,5; Kilian-Dirlmeier, A/i/ifl/i^er 129, no. 719, pi. 37.

B45(30): Bird on a quadrangular pyramid (pi. 86) H.045m Bird is largely complete, except for a few chips and scratches. This bird figure has a very long up-curving beak, a rounded body and a flat, horizontal tail. Its suspension hole is pierced obliquely through its chest to the middle of its back. The bird stands on a base in the form of a quadrangular pyramid and has a globe above the base with a ring on either end of the globe. Kilian-Dirlmeier and Bouzek agree that this bird is a Corinthian type. References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 30, fig. 10; Rolley, MGR 2, no. 20; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 164, pi. 52, no. 968; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): fig. 2.

B46(31): Bird standing on a flat vertical disc (pi. 86)

Η .054m; D(disc) .028m i

Bird figure is discoloured and chipped but largely complete except for a small piece missing in

the disc's rim; the incised decoration is worn.

This bird figure is very similar to B45 in its body shape with its long up-curving beak, rounded body and flat horizontal tail; it also has a hole pierced obhquely through the chest. This bird also stands directly on bronze globe with a ring on either end of it but below that it consists of flat disc, which is incised with zigzag decoration on both sides. There is also incised decoration on the top of the bird's head, its neck and before the tail on the top of the back. Bouzek classifies this bird with a vertical disc as a Corinthian type; Kihan-Dirlmeier concludes that it is a local Peloponnesian product made together with B45.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 31, fig. 10; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 119, fig. 2;

Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ifl/iger 155 pi. 50, no. 910.

B47(32): Bird on a rectangular base (pi. 86)

Η .038m; Base .025 χ .02m Bird in very good condition: complete except for a few chips on the body and base.

313


314


315

This bird figure has long downward-pointing beak and high flat tail; it is horizontally pierced through the middle of its body. The body of the bird meshes into a long piece of bronze which widens towards the base into which it flows. On the underside of the base is an intaglio of a horned quadruped.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 32, fig. 6; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, yl/i^fl«ger 180, pl. 57, no. 1091.

B48(37): Ekd on a rectangular base (pl. 87) Η .03m; Base .03 χ .02m

Complete bkd which has a scratched, worn surface.

This bh-d is quite shnilar to B47 m that it is a horizontally-pierced figure on a rectangular base

which has a downward pomtmg beak and a flat, fakly high tail. It differs from B47 in that its

features are much more dehcate, with a long, thin neck and tiny head and slender body. The

body of the bird flows into a large rectangular base. On the underside of the base are two

intersecting hnes (forming an *X' from corners of the rectangle) in relief; on the top of the

base-plate are stamped concentric circles.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 37, unillustrated; Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 180, pl. 57, no. 1090.

B49(35): Bkd on a small circular base (pl. 87) Η .030m; D(base) .01m

Very worn, chipped and scratched bird figure.

This bird is small with a high pointed beak, a flat tail, a hole pierced horizontally through the body and the body tapering downwards to small circular base. The underside of the base is flat and undecorated.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 35, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 178, pl. 57, no. 1078.

B50(34): Bh-d on a ckcular base (pl. 87) Η .041m; D(base) .028m

Bird is largely complete with just a few chips and some discolouration.

This bkd is similar to B49 and has high flat tail, an erect angular head, is horizontally pierced through the middle and has a very long shaft which connects the body of the bird to the large circular base below. In rehef on the underside of the base are two mtersecting lines. References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 34, fig. 64 (p. 425); Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 178, pl. 57, no. 1075.

B51(38): Bird missing base (pl. 87) L .047m

Bh-d broken from base and base missmg; tmy chips on surface of bronze. This bird figure has hole pierced through the chest in a horizontal direction. It has small, gracefully curved head, and very long body/tail area which is flat below. It is perched on a cylindrical rod.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 38, fig. 10; Kihan-Dirlmeier, y4/i/ifl/i er 181, fig. 58, no. 1099.

B52(36): Bh-d sittmg on a slit 'cage' (pl. 88) H.065m

Complete bird with a chipped and worn surface.

Bird with a dehcately shaped body with a slim neck, smaU pointed head and beak, a flat tail

and a disproportionately large suspension hole on the top of its back. This bird has strong

affinities with B48 m the shape of its head and the shape of the body. The sht cage on which

the bh-d rests is an unusual feature and is the only known of this type in the Peloponnese. It

consists of a hoUow sphere with eight vertical bands of bronze and with a small, flat circular

base below. Bouzek considers it to be of Laconian manufacture under Macedonian influence;

Kilian-Dirlmeier concludes that B52 and B48 were probably made in the same Peloponnesian

workshop but must have been derived from Macedonian types.

References: Dugas, Tegea 351 no. 36, fig. 6; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 85, fig. 27, no. 527;

Gehrig, Samos 66 n. 2; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 123; idem, GMB 62, fig. 19,5; Rohey, FD.V92;

MGR 2, no. 21.

B53(42): Headless bird on a rectangular base (pl. 53)

L .049m; H. .04m; Base .03 χ .023m

Bh-d with head and part of neck missing and edges of its tail chipped.

This bh-d figure has two very long, thin, rod-like legs, a fuU body and flat underside of body and

tail, a flat, crescent-shaped tail and a rectangular base with a quadruped in relief on the

underside. Dugas erroneously classified it as a dolphin which it clearly is not. Rolley sees this

bird as a more elaborate version of a type found at Delphi.

References: Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 42, fig. 6; Rohey, MGR no. 19; idem, FD.V88 n. 1.

B54(S): Bird with a high suspension hook (pl. 89)

Η .05m; D(base) .024m Bird in very good condition, with only a few chips on the body.

Bird with angular body shape around chest area, long cylindrical neck, high beak and very long

suspension hole coming out of its back. Its body shape recalls some of Heilmeyer's 'Laconian'

birds from Olympia. The exceptionally long suspension loop is unusual. The relief decoration

on the underside of the circular base consists of a circle incised in the middle and four

incomplete circles along the outer edge. The same sort of decoration is pierced through the

base-plate of B55 from Mavriki. One notes that this bird also has a long cylindrical rod for

legs and extremely wide, flat, crescent tail.

Unpublished. Found in Steinhaeur's excavations at Tegea m ninth stroma of trench B2. For

general parahel see Heilmeyer, Bronzefiguren pl. 118.

B55(M): Bird on a biconical 'cage' (pl. 89)

Η .078m

Bird figure is largely complete except for the chipped tail and a strip of bronze broken and

missing for the cage; the patina of this bronze is hke another bronze from Mavriki B61, noted

by Kihan-Dirlmeier.

Bird of awkward shape resting on a biconical cage with a particularly large head, long thin neck

and smah body. The biconical cage consists of six strips of bronze plus a horizontal strip of

bronze at the union of the two cones; below this is a globe and a^iny circular base with

rounded bottom. Kilian-Dirlmeier says that since no paraUels are known for it, that it probably

was made m an Arcadian or Laconian workshop. Its large head recalls that the big head of the

Mavriki horse, B16(M). References: Kihan-Dirhneier, >l/i/ifl>iger 115, pl. 33, no. 630; (in TM catalogue; no. 395).

B56(M): Bird on a ch-cular base (pl. 89)

Η .062m; D(base) .027m

Complete bird figure with only a few chips and scratches.

Long-legged bird with a large, horizontally pierced suspension hole through the middle of the

body. The head is again quite large and the beak extends forward considerably.

There is a marked bend at the middle joints of the legs. The taU is a wide, crescent shaped

form. Its base decoration, though pierced, is very similar to B53's m design with a circle in the

middle and four more ch-cles (incomplete) along the outer rim of the base. Kilian-Dirlmeier

and HeUmeyer both think that this bird and one similar one from Olympia were made in the

same workshop and Heilmeyer thinks that it was an Argive workshop. This bird is also similar

'!ΐ-:; ιΐιι;;



B57(102): Double protome pendant (pi. 92)

Η .083m; Base .018 χ .017m

Object worn with much accretion but complete; incised decoration is hardly visible.

Pendant consistmg of a long vertical rod with a crescent of rhomboidal section intersecting it in

the middle and with bull's head protome at either end of the crescent. The vertical rod is

perforated with a hole at the top and it rests on a high base with a quatrefoil shape on the

underside; five round openings are hollowed out under the base: one in each of the four cusps

and one in the middle. This object falls mto Kilian-Dh-lmeier's Type Β (with rhomboid

section) of the double protome pendants. It is stamped on both side of the crescent with

dotted circles.

References: Dugas, Tegea 374 no. 102, fig. 33; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Α/ίΛα/ι^^Γ 212 no. 1323, pi. 75.

(Although Kihan-Dirlmeier did not actually find this object in the Tegea Museum, I was

fortunate enough to locate it.)


Η .088m; Base .018 χ .018m

Top of pendant is broken around suspension hole; the muzzles of the bulls are broken and

there is a smah hole in the base. Also, the surface is very rough, chipped and the decoration is

worn. (There was also an ancient repair of the protomes and the base).

Pendant consists of a long vertical rod with rectangular section intersected by a crescent of

rhomboid section and buhs' heads on either end, just above the base. Near the top, the rod

has a circular disc with a perforated opening above it, for suspension. The high square base

has a cross design in relief on the underside. The object is decorated with punched dotted

circles on the crescent and on each side face of the base; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type B).

References: Milchhofer, AM 5 (1880): 67, pi. 4b; Dugas, Tegea 374 no. 103, fig. 33;

Kilian-Dirhneier, Α/ϊΛβ/ί /· 212, no. 1322, pi. 75.


Η .073m

Very worn pendant with chips on the surface and the decoration barely discernible.

Pendant with crescent of rhomboidal section and birds' heads at either end which intersect

with a thick vertical rod with rectangular section. The body of an upside-down bird with its

head missing and a flat tail are in heu of an actual base plate. Punched dotted circles decorate

both sides of the crescent as do smah tremolo hues. Dugas says that this piece was found in

the ceha of the temple at Tegea; (Kihan-Db-lmeier's Type B).

References: Dugas, Tegea 340 no. 104, fig. 20; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, A/j/ifl/iger 212, no. 1324, pi. 75.


Η .093m; Base .019 χ .018m

Complete object but with worn, chipped surface.

Pendant consists of vertical rod intersected by wide, flat crescent with bird protomes at either

end; crescent has an oval section. The rod has a smah hole pierced through the top of it for

suspension and a very tah, square base which is deeply hollowed out except for a single

316


317

diagonal line in rehef. It has no punched decoration apparent; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Type B).

References: Dugas, Tegea 374 no. 105, fig. 33; Kilian-Dirhneier, A^/ifl/iger 212, no. 1321, pi. 75.

B61(M): Double protome pendant (pi. 93)

Η .035m

Complete object but with worn discoloured surface.

Pendant consists of a crescent of rectangular section with double horse protomes, one on each

end of the crescent. It is intersected by a flat T-shaped piece of bronze in the top middle of the

crescent which has a smaU, worn hole pierced through the top of the T. No decoration is

apparent on the surface and the object is baseless; (Kihan-Dh-hneier's Type A). Similar to an

object recently found at Bassai (Yalouris, Bassai pi. 41c).

References: Romaios, AE (1952): 26, fig. 20B; Kihan-Dklmeier, Anhanger 212, no. 1320, fig.

75.

B62(TM): Stamp pendant with sohd cu-cular base (pi. 95)

Η .057m; D(base) .027m

Pendant largely complete except for a side of the base which is chipped; the surface of the

bronze is completely discoloured.

Stamp pendant with a round closed base-plate with a cross design in rehef below; the attached

rod is high and has a round disc below the long oval suspension loop at the top;

(Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lb of type on sohd, circular bases).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Α / ι Λ α / ι ^ ^ γ 32-33, no. 166, pi.

11; (TM no. 420).

B63(84): Stamp pendant with sohd circular base (pi. 95)

Η .057m; D(base) .017m

Pendant slightly broken around suspension loop; surface is worn, discoloured. Object has a

high round base and a hollowed out quatrefoU on the underside in rehef. It has a long rod and

a round disc below the suspension loop; (Kihan-Dirlmeier' Variant lb).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371 no. 84, fig. 22; KUian-Dh-hneier, A/i/ia/i er 32-33, no. 165, pi. 11;

(TM no. 401).

B64(TM): Stamp pendant with sohd, round base (pi. 95)

Η .047m; D(base) .025m

Crack and slight bend in the middle of the rod; surface is chipped.

Pendant with a high circular base with three horizontal flutes going around the sides of the

base; on the underside it has a cross design in rehef. The rod has indentation at the top at the

area of the suspension loop; (KUian-Dirlmeier's only example of Variant Ic of this type).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unillustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 32-33 no. 168, pi. 11;

(TM no. 421).

B65(TM): Stamp pendant with solid ckcular base (pi. 96) *

Η .049m; D(base) .026m

Object slightly broken at the top of the suspension loop; surface chipped and worn.

Pendant with a solid circular base and a cross in relief of the underside. The rod has a

biconical profile in the middle and a round disc at the top, below the triangular-shaped

suspension loop (broken at the tip). It has stamped dotted circles on the sides of the base

(Kihan-Dirhneier's Variant II of this type).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, A/i/iflAiger 32-33, no. 174, pi.

11; (TM no. 419).

to one from Lousoi, L16.

References: Romaios, AE (1952): 26-27, fig. 20Z; Rolley FD.V 92 n. 1 (he erroneously

attributes it to Asea); Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 161-62, pi. 52, no. 953; Heilmeyer,

Bronzefiguren 187.

,ιΐΐ:;::::!


318

I


conical pendants with hohowed bodies.

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, A/i/ifl/iger 33-34, no. 184, fig. 12;

(TM no. 456).

B71(92): Stamp pendant with conical body (pi. 97)

Η .045m; D(base) .028m

Object is complete; surface is worn and has some chipping.

Pendant with conical-shaped body of hollow type with a cross-design below. There is a small

ridge around the bottom edge; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 92, figs. 33, 34; Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ia/j er 33-34, no. 185, pi.

12; (TM no. 457).

B72(TM): Stamp pendant with conical body (pi. 97)

Η .047m; D(base) .026m

Object very worn, chipped and it is cracked at the suspension hole.

Pendant with a solid bronze, conical body, triangular shaped suspension loop and a cross

design on the underside in deep relief; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 33-34, no. 181, pi. 12;

(TM no. 458).


Η .049m; D(base) .039m Object is missing the suspension hole; some chips and discolouration on the surface.

Pendant with a hohow, conical body and with a cross-design below; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant

II).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kilian-Db-hneier, A/i/ifl/ig r 33-34, no. 186, pi. 12;

(TM no. 461).


Η .044m; D(base) .027m

Object very worn with chips on surface.

Conical pendant with hollow body, triangular suspension loop above and a cross-design below;

slight ridge around bottom of cone; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II).

References; Dugas, Tegea 373, fig. 33; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 33-34, no. 187, pi. 12; (TM

no. 459).

B75(TM): Stamp pendant with conical body (pi. 98) l|

Η .045m; D(base) .024m

Object complete with some wear and chipping.

Pendant with solid conical body, high triangular suspension attachment and with a variant of a

cross design m deep rehef on the underside; (Kihan-Dkhneier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 33-34, no. 183, pi. 12;

(TM no. 460).


Η .040m; D(base) .024m

Object with some chipped areas; worn especially around suspension loop.

Pendant with sohd bronze body in conical form, with a roughly triangular suspension loop with

an oblong shaped hole. On the underside a variant of a cross design in fairly deep relief;

(Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I). References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 94, fig. 33; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 33-34, no. 182, pi. 12.

319

B66(85): Stamp pendant with sohd circular base (pi. 96)

Η .048m; D(base) .026m

Object complete; surface is slightly chipped and worn.

Pendant with a sohd round base and a pattern on the underside in rehef which looks like two

horseshoes. The rod has a biconical profile m the middle; at the top of the rod it has a

triangular shaped suspension loop and a round disc below; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371 no. 85, fig. 22, 27; Kihan-Dirlmeier, ΑΛίΛα/ί^^/· 32-33, no. 173, pi.

11; (TM no. 416?).

B67(TM): Stamp pendant with sohd ch-cular base (pi. 96)

Η .046m; D(base) .035m

Pendant is complete; surface has some chipping, discolouration.

Object with a solid, ch-cular base plate with a large diameter and a pattern of nine radu in

relief on the underside. The rod has a biconical profile m the middle; at the top it has a

triangular suspension loop and a thin, round disc below. There are incised lines around the

point of the top; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, unihustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Α / ζ Λ α / ι ^ ^ γ 32-33, no. 169, pi. 11; (TM no. 418).

B68(TM): Stamp pendant with solid circular base (pi. 96)

Η .05m; D(base) .03m

Pendant is extremely worn, discoloured and chipped; Kilian-Dirlmeier noted a trace of burning.

Object on a sohd circular base with a variant of a cross-design on the underside. Same type of

rod and suspension loop as above, hence Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II.

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, unillustrated; Kihan-Dklmeier, A/i/za/i er 32-33, no. 171, pi.

11; (TM no. 417).

B68a(TM): Stamp Pendant with solid circular base (pi. 96)

Η .025m; D (base) .0375m

Pendant is complete and in very good condition.

Somewhat unusual pendant with very short rod and very large, flat base-plate. The rod

consists of two biconical beads topped by a large rectangular suspension loop with ridges on

the top edge. The base plate is decorated with wavy hues and dots in relief. It falls into

Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II.

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 33, no. 178, pi.

11.

B69(TM): Stamp pendant with sohd, circular base (pi. 96)

Η .037m; D(base) .016m

Object is very rusted, chipped, worn; the horizontal grooves are very worn.

Pendant has a round sectioned rod and a flat round disc in the middle of it. The high base is

completely hohowed below and the sides have many horizontal grooves going around them,

(roughly in Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370-373, unihustrated; Kilian-Dh-lmeier, A/i^c/i^er 32-33, no. 176, pi.

11; (TM no. 422).


Η .05m; D(base) .032m

Middle area of cone is missing; worn, chipped surface and also chipping around base.

Pendant with a conical shaped body and a triangular suspension loop above; it is hohow and

has a base-plate with a plain cross design. It falls into Kilian-Dh-lmeier's Variant II of these


320


321

divided in half by sticks of bronze (the half ckcle was left unfinished). It falls into

Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant l ib because of the swelhng m the rod.

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 34-35, no. 197, pl. 13;

(TM no. 428).

B83(TM): Stamp pendant vwth quatrefoU base (pl. 100)

H.049m Object complete with some chippmg on the siu-face.

Pendant with a flat disc m the middle of a rod with a circular base with four circles deeply

hoUowed out m each cusp and a diamond m the middle of the underside; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's

Variant lib of type).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 35, no. 200, pl. 13;

(TM no. 425)

B84(TM): Stamp pendant with quatrefoU base (pl. 100)

H.041m

Object m very poor condition with lower part of base missing and considerable wear on the

suspension loop; surface generally very worn.

Pendant with biconical profiled rod and a very worn suspension loop with disc below; base is in

the form of a solid quatrefoU with four circles hoUowed out in each cusp and a small circle in

the middle of the base; (Kilian-Dirhneier's Variant lla of the type).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 35, no. 199, pl. 13;

(TM no. 426).

B85(TM): Stamp pendant with quatrefoU base (pis. 101)

H.047m

Object is in fair condition with a rough surface and particularly worn on the upper part of the

rod and the suspension area.

Pendant with a rod having two round discs m the middle and sweUing above the middle; the

suspension loop is rounded with incisions on the top and a disc below. The base is quatrefoil

in shape with four cusps, each one having a cross design in it, and a diamond in the middle of

the underside; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 35, no. 203, pl. 13;

(TM no. 435).

B86(87): Stamp pendant with quatrefoU base (pl. 101)

Η .037m ^ Object m very good condition, complete with only a few chips below the base. Pendant with a smooth rod with a square section, rounded suspension loop with flat disc below

and a flat, spreading quatrefoU base plate with tiny ckcles incised below. (FaUs generally into

Kilian-Dirlmeier's category of pendants with quatrefoU bases.)

References: Dugas, Tegea 371 no. 87, fig. 22, 29; Kilian-Dirlmeier, ^/i/ifl/ig^r 35, no. 204, pl. 14;

(TM no. 436).

B87(80): Stamp pendant with quatrefoil base (pl. 100)

Η .021m

Object in good condition: surface has a few chips, scratches and base decoration is worn.

Pendant with a very smaU rod with a round section, rounded loop and a large quatrefoil base.

On the underside are four circles hollowed out in each cusp and a cut out diamond in the

centre of the underside; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370 no. 80, fig. 22; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 35, no. 198, pl. 13;

(TM no. 406).

B77(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoil base (pl. 98) H.063m

Object is in poor condition, missing much of its base; surface is chipped and worn. Pendant with a triangular topped suspension loop, a rod with a biconical profile in the middle and a round disc below the suspension loop. The base consists of three cusps of bronze which are hollowed out on the underside with three cncles, one m each cusp; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kihan-Dnhneier, Anhanger 34, no. 192, pl 12· (TM no. 433).

B78(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoil base (pl. 99) H.041m

Object is very worn just below the suspension loop and on the base underside; chipped.

Pendant with biconical profile m the middle of the rod (but with two ridges instead of just

one); a suspension loop with a rounded top and a wide, solid, trefoil shaped base with three

circles hoUowed out below; (Kilian-Dnlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 34, no 191 pl 12· (TM no. 431).

B79(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoil base (pl. 99) Η .047m

Object is complete and in good condition; only a few chips on the surface.

Pendant with thick biconical profile m the middle of the rod and with a round disc below a tall,

rounded suspension loop. Base has a trefoil shape with three circles hohowed out below;

(Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kilian-Dkhneier, Anhanger 34, no. 190, pl 12· (TM no. 432).

B80(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoh base (pl. 99) H.049m

Object is largely complete except for some chipping on base; worn on surface.

Pendant with thick biconical profile in the middle of the rod and a round disc below the

suspension loop with triangular top (and rounded corners). Base has a trefoil shape with three

deeply hollowed out circles each divided in half by a stick of bronze; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's

Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 34, no. 194, pl. 13' (TM no. 429).

B81(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoU base (pl. 99) Η .029m

Object largely complete with a few chips; worn surface.

Pendant is very short, smooth rod, long suspension loop with pointed to and trefoil shaped

base with deeply cut out circles each divided in half by a stick of bronze; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's

Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, umllustrated; Kilian-Dirhneier, Anhanger 34, no. 189, pl. 12·

(TM no. 427).

B82(TM): Stamp pendant with trefoU base (pl. 99)

Η .037m

Object with chipped suspension loop and worn surface.

Pendant with a pearl incorporated in the middle of the rod, a flat round disc below the

rounded suspension loop and a trefoU base with two and a half circles cut out shaUowly and

ΊΙ!ί!|


B88(86): Stamp pendant with cinquefoil base (pi. 100)

H.07m

Object is in fairly good condition with some wearing, discolouration and chipping on the

surface; there are traces of red paint(?) on the underside of the base.

Pendant with a triangular topped suspension loop, a flat disc below and a biconical pearl in the

middle of the rod with a disc above and below it. The base consists of an enormous cinquefoil

shaped area with five circles hollowed out, one m each cusp (divided in half by a strip of

bronze) and a hollowed out circle in the middle of the base underside. It is the only example

of this type (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371 no. 86, fig. 33, 28; KiHan-OirhnQier, Anhanger 35-36, no. 205, pi.

13; (TM no. 423).

B89(205): Stamp pendant with flat square plate (pi. 102)

Plate .029m sq.

Object is missing rod but plate is in good condition with only some chipping and wearing.

Square plate consists of one side incised with zigzag hues within a lightly incised square frame;

the other side has tremolo lines very shallowly scratched. The hole pierced through the centre

of the very thin, flat plate was originally meant for the rod to pass through.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 205, unillustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 36, no. 209,

pi. 14.

B90(206): Stamp pendant with a flat rectangular plate (pi. 102)

Plate .026 χ .022m

Object is missing its rod; plate is complete but decoration is worn.

Rectangular plate is decorated with scratched ornament on both sides. On one side it has three

concentric circles around the centre and chevrons around them; the other side has tremolo

lines decorating the plate randomly. Centre hole for the rod.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 206, fig. 39; KHian-Oirhneier, Anhanger 36, no. 212, pi. 14.

B91(204): Stamp pendant with flat square plate (pi. 102)

Plate .03m

Object is missing rod; plate is complete but worn and scratched around the edges.

Plate is scratched with a tremolo line on the edge of one side and on the other, shallowly

incised squares graded in size from small in the centre to large ones outlining the shape of the

edge; also two diagonal lines are incised in the decoration. Hole pierced in the centre for the

rod.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 204, fig. 42; Kihan-Dirhneier, A/i/ifl/i er 36, no. 210, pi. 14.

B92(TM): Stamp pendant with flat rectangular plate (pi. 102)

Plate .029 χ .03m

Object is missing rod, plate is cracked in the middle and the edges are chipped; decoration is

worn on both sides.

Plate has four incised squares with angle decoration incised towards the central hole; on the

other side, extremely worn but some zigzag lines visible.

References: Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 36, no. 211, pi. 14.

B93(TM): Stamp pendant with flat square plate (pi. 103)

Η .045m; Base .023m sq.

Object is very worn, rod has many chips in it and decoration on base is hardly visible.

Pendant with plain smooth rod with a flat suspension loop with rounded top, thick rectangular

base (i.e. thicker than those above) and decorated with tremolo hues on both the top and

bottom of the base.


References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unihustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 36, no, 206, pi. 13;

(TM no. 463).

B94(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pi. 103)

Η .048m; Base .023 χ .022m

Object is in poor condition: fuU of accretion, worn decomposed and with rough surface.

Pendant with suspension loop with triangular top intersecting with a broadened rod below; rod

is smooth and intersects a rectangular base plate which is deeply incised on the underside with

an oblique cross-design; also there are incisions on the top of the suspension loop;

(Kilian-Dh-hneier's Variant la of this type).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dklmeier, Anhanger 36-37, no. 216, pi. 14;

(TM no. 416).

B95(81): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pi. 103)

Η .045m; Base .026 χ .018m

Object is largely complete except for a chipped corner of the base; some wear evident on the

surface.

Pendant with high, large suspension loop, flat ckcular disc below and a plain rod with round

section and a deep rectangular base; the underside of the base has a human figure in rehef

with his arms and legs extended. Kihan-Dirlmeier notes the remarkable base-plate decoration;

(Kihan-Dirhneier's Variant la).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370 no. 81, figs. 22, 24; Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ia/i er 36-37, no. 217, pi.

14; (TM no. 396).

B96(83): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pi. 103)

H. 044m; Base.022 x.023m

Pendant with a long suspension loop with rectangular shape and a disc below it; the rod is

smooth and mtersects a deep rectangular base with three triangles and a small circle hollowed

out deeply below. The top side faces of the base have stamped dotted circles.

Kihan-Dh-lmeier noted many casting mistakes on the base-plate; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant

lb).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370 no. 83, figs. 33, 26; KUian-Dh-lmeier, A/i/ia/iger 36-37, no, 220, pi.

14; (TM no. 415).

B97(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pi. 104)

Η .037m; Base .026 χ .027m

Object is in good condition with a smah amount of chipping at the tojtbf base.

Pendant with a long suspension loop with a pomted top and mcised hues and a flat disc below.

In the middle of the rod with ch-cular section is a circular disc and below a rectangular base

with an obhque cross-design in rehef below. Kihan-Dklmeier noted that the suspension loop

is oriented on the diagonal axis of the base-plate.

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unillustrated; Kihan-Dkhneier, Anhanger 36-38, no. 233, pi. 15;

(TM no. 413).

B97a(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pi. 104)

Η .03m; Base .024 χ .025m

Object m good condition.

Pendant with rounded suspension loop and rod with rectangular section. In middle of rod is a

protrusion of two vertical cones mtersectmg at narrow ends. The rectangular base-plate is

decorated with rows of smah triangles m mtagho. It is related to Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant II,

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unihustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ia/ig^r 38, no. 234, pi. 15.

322 323

I iiiiiiii ,


B98(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 104) Η .047m; Base .026 χ .021m

Object m good condition with some wear and chips on one side particularly.

Pedant with a round topped suspension loop and a broad, flat disc below. Rod has a biconical

profile m the middle. The base consists of a deep plate with three triangles hoUowed out on the underside (and one left unhoUowed); (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dirhneier, Anhanger 36-37, no. 224, pl. 14; (TM no. 410)

B99(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 104)

Η .041m; Base .02 χ .018m

Object is complete but surface is worn and chipped.

Pendant with a rectangular, flat-topped suspension loop, a flat disc below and a rod with a

biconical profile in the middle. The base consists of a rectangular block with an obhque

cross-design m rehef on the underside; (Kihan-Dnlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unUlustrated; KUian-Dirhneier, Anhanger 36-37 no. 223, pl. 14; (TM no. 408).

BIOO(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 104)

Η .038m; Base .02 χ .021m

Object is complete but has a very worn surface.

Pendant with a triangularly topped suspension loop with mcised hnes and a flat disc below; rod has biconical profile in the middle and a large rectangular base below. The underside of the base is incised with an unusual linear design which forms a pattern of cut out squares and triangles, (Kilian-Dh-lmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dkhneier, Anhanger 36-37 no. 221, pl. 14; (TM no. 409).

BlOl(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 104) H.042m

Object with part of top and base area broken and missing. Surface is very worn and chipped; area below base is extremely worn. Kilian-Dirlmeier noted traces of surface burning. Original pendant had a suspension loop (now missing) with a flat circular disc below. In the middle of the rod is a flat circular disc and the base has an oblique cross in relief on the underside; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lie).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 36-37, no. 228, pl. 14; (TM no. 411).

B102(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 105) Η .058m; Base .029m sq.

Object is slightly broken at the edge of the base and has a hole on the top of the base; surface is worn and chipped.

Pendant with a long suspension loop with a triangular top and incised decoration and a flat

disc below. Rod with circular section consists of biconical profile m the middle and the square

base-plate has an obhque cross-design on the underside m rehef. It also has punched dotted

circles on the side faces of the base; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 36-37, no. 227, pl. 14; (TM no. 414).

B103(82): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 105) Η .054m; Base .030 χ .031m

Object is in good condition: top of suspension hole is broken and missing; otherwise complete.

324


Some wear evident on surface.

Pendant with apparen tly rounded suspension loop and a flat disc below; the rod is round in

section and has a biconical profile m the middle which mtersects a rectangular base-plate

below. The underside of the base has the standard obhque cross-design in relief;

(Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant Ila).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, no. 82, figs. 33, 25; KUian-Dh-hneier, /i/ifl/i^er 36-37, no. 226,

pl. 14; (TM no. 407).

B104(TM): Stamp pendant with rectangular base (pl. 105)

Η .029; Base .013m sq. Object with some chips and wearing on the siu-face.

Pendant with a long flat, rectangular suspension loop with a disc below; the rod has three

pearls with flat discs on it and the base is thin, flat and the underside is incised with diagonal

lines. (Kihan-Dklmeier considers it roughly with the rest of this category).

References: Dugas, Tegea 370, unUlustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, ^ Ι λ Λ α / ι ^ ^ γ 36-38, no. 231, pl. 15;

(TM no. 462).

B105(88): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 105)

Object is complete but very worn and chipped.

Pendant with high suspension loop which has an mcised, pomted top and round disc below.

The body consists of a square-shaped rod which tapers mto the rectangular base forming a

pyramid. Below it is mcised with the figure of a human (?) with his arms and legs extended;

(Kihan-Dh-hneier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371 no. 88, figs. 30, 22; Kiu^-O\r\meicT, Anhanger 38, no. 237, pl.

15; (TM no. 397).

B106(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl-106)

Η .042m; Base .019 χ .018m

Object is complete but worn and chipped.

Pendant with taU suspension loop and long pointed top, square below and pyramidal body with

an obhque cross-design m deep rehef on the underside; (KUian-Dnhneier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, yl/t^c/i^er 38-39, no. 247, pl. 15;

(TM no. 446).


Η .04m; Base .017m sq.

Object in good condition but surface is worn.

Pendant with a taU suspension loop and long pointed top with rectangular pyramid below with

the underside having an oblique cross-design; (KUian-Dh-lmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unUlustrated; Kilian-O'uhneicr, Anhanger 38-39, no. 238, pl. 15;

(TM no. 450).


Η .041m; Base .019 χ .02m Object complete but has a very chipped worn surface.

Pendant with a taU rectangular suspension loop with a long pomted top, thick square below

and then a pyramidal shaped body. Decoration on the underside consists of an obhque

cross-design m relief; (Kilian-Dnlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, ^1«Λα/ι^^Γ 38-39, no. 245, pl. 15;

(TM no. 447).

325


% ill

I. n!i I II;

> fl! 'ϊ-ϋ'

B108a(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 106) H.047m; Base .02 x.02m

Object is complete and m fair condition; its surface is very worn.

Pendant with tall rectangular suspension loop and pointed top. Body very much like BIOS

above. Base of pyramid consists of a cross-design in relief; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 39, no. 246, pi. 15.

B109(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 106) Η .036m; Base .018 χ .019m

Object complete but surface is rough, chipped and worn.

Pendant with pointed suspension loop and square below; pyramidal body with an unusual

variation of a cross-design below m relief; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38, no. 241, pi. 15;

(TM no. 452).

BllO(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 106)

Η .039m; Base .021 χ .020m

Object has a broken base; surface is very worn, rough, chipped.

Pendant with a round topped suspension loop with incised hues, an uneven square plate below and a pyramidal body under that. The underside of the base has an obhque cross-design in rehef; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38, no. 240, pi. 15; (TM no. 451).

B l l l ( T M ) : Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 106) Η .036m; Base .020 χ .021m

Object is in very good condition, slightly chipped at top.

Pendant with rounded suspension loop and square plate below; narrowly-shaped pyramidal body below which widens at the bottom. The underside is incised with a human figure with its arms and legs extended.

References: Dugas, Tegea 371; unillustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/ic/ig^r 38, no. 236, pi. 15.

B112(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 107) Η .048m; Base .018 χ .021m

Object is complete with some wearing and chippmg on the surface. Pendant with tall suspension loop with pointed top imd square plate below; pyriunid below with an incised line going just above the base-line. On the underside and uneven cross design in relief; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 38, no. 239, pi. 15; (TM no. 445).

B113(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 107) Η .044m; Base .020 χ .021m Object complete but very worn.

Pendant with tall rectangular suspension loop with square plate below; then a biconical pearl and a second square plate. Below is a small pyramid with a quatrefoil hollowed out on the underside. On each of the four faces it has dotted concentric circles; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant lie).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38-40, no. 264, pi. 16; (TM no. 440).

B114(90): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 107)

Η .037m; Base .028 χ .026m Object is broken and missing suspension loop, surface is chipped.

Pendant with flat plate below where the suspension loop would have been; the pyramid below

had dotted circles punched on each side. On the underside there is a circle in the middle and

five curves around the edge of the base; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 372 no. 90, figs. 22, 33; Kilian-Dirlmeier, A/i/iaAiger 38-39, no. 259, pi.

16; (TM no. 454).

B115(89): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 107)

Η .035m; Base .020m sq. Object complete with worn, discoloured surface.

Pendant with long, flat suspension loop with flat square plat below. Small pyramid has dotted

concentric circles stamped on all four faces. On the underside, it is deeply hollowed out in the

form of quatrefoil; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 372 no. 89, figs. 22, 31; Kilian-Dirlmeier, A/i/ia/i er 38-39, no. 257, pi.

16; (TM no. 437).

B116(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 107)

Η .035m; Base .021m sq. Object complete but surface is chipped, worn.

Pendant with tah, flat suspension loop and with thick square plate below. On small, pyramidal

shaped body are concentric circles punched on each face. The underside is deeply hollowed

out in the pattern of a quatrefoil; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unihustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, A/i/iflAig<?r 38-39, no. 256, pi. 16;

(TM no. 441).


H.025m; Base .022 x.023m

Object with suspension hole broken, surface of bronze is worn and chipped.

Pendant with square plate (also partly missing) and pyramidal body below with dotted

concentric circles on all faces. A quatrefoil pattern is hollowed out on the underside;

(Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 258, pi. 16;

(TM no. 444).

B118(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pi. 108) H

Η .029m; Base .025m sq. Object complete with worn, chipped surface.

Pendant with extremely long, flat rectangular suspension loop with a round disc and very small

pyramid below. Each face of the pyramid is stamped with a dotted circle. On the underside, a

quatrefoil is hollowed out; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kilian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 254, pi. 16;

(TM no. 438).


Η .038m; Base .016 χ .015m

Object is complete but surface is very worn and base decoration is not clear.

Pendant with rounded suspension loop with incised lines, square plate below and a narrow

pyramidal body which widens at the base. Underside has two oblong grooves hollowed out

with incised lines around them; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I).

326 327


328


329

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, no. 91, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 244,

pl. 15; (TM no. originally 398, now no. 453).

B126(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pl. 110)

Η .064m; D(base) .026m Object is chipped, worn, discoloured; top plate slightly broken.

Pendant with a triangular topped suspension loop with a round disc below and a small rod with

round section and round disc in the middle, underneath. This section rests on a bell-shaped

pomegranate body which is hoUow; (Kilian-Dnlmeier's Type C.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 690, pl.

36; (TM no. 480).

B127(99): Pomegranate pendant (pl. 110)

Η .078m; D(base) .025m

Object is complete but surface is very worn, discoloured, chipped; on the shoulder is a bronze

casting fault through which the tack stuck to repair it remains today.

Pendant with high, thick, rounded suspension loop with ckcular disc below and rod with round

section and disc in the middle of it; underneath, a beU-shaped, hoUow pomegranate with flat

spiked edge on the bottom; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Type C.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 99, fig. 33; Kihan-Dnlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 691, pl.

36; (TM no. 482).

B128(101): Pomegranate pendant (pl. 110)

Η .054m; D(base) .015m

Object with one of four faces broken in corner and two chips in coils at top; surface is worn.

Pendant with two flat horizontal discs with a hole in them for suspension; below the rod

consists of many horizontal ribs which lead into a cubically shaped pomegranate below. Each

of the four faces has four dotted circles on it. Below there is a wide circular tube and then a

spiked edge for the calyx blossom. Kilian-Dirlmeier says it was hollow-cast;

(Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type B).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 101, fig. 33; Kilmn-OiTlmQiQT, Anhanger 123-127, no. 681, pl.

35; (TM no. 488).

B129(97): Pomegranate pendant (pl. I l l )

Η .059m; D(base) .027m

Object is complete but extremely worn, chipped and has a rough surface.

Pendant with a very high suspension loop (with straight sides and high pointed top) and a flat

disc below: rod has a biconical profile which flows into a beU-shaped pomegranate. There is a

line of incision at the intersection of the rod with the pomegranate. It has a flat, spiked edge

for the calyx blossom; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Type C.l).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 94, fig. 33; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 683, pl.

35; (TM no. 484).

B130(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pl. I l l )

Η .06m; D(base) .017m

Object is complete but extremely worn with much accretion; there is a casting error on the top

of the rod; it also has a chipped surface. Red paint (?) is evident on the bottom of the base.

Pendant with a long suspension loop with two straight sides and high pointed top with

incisions; a round disc is below and a rod with biconical profile in the middle continues into a

bell-shaped pomegranate. A ridge marks the intersection. The calyx blossom at the bottom

consists of coarse spikes and a solid base. Kilian-Dirlmeier says that it was 'massively' cast

bronze, i.e. solid bronze; (her Type C.l).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 242, pl. 15; (TM no. 448).

B120(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 108)

Η .032m; Base .019 χ .020m

Object is complete but surface decoration is worn.

Pendant with long rectangular suspension loop, square below and a pearl with second plate below that. SmaU pyramid has dotted concentric ch-cles punched on each face. Quatrefoil is hoUowed out on the underside; (Kihan-Dnhneier's Variant lie).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 38-40, no. 265, pl. 16; (TM no. 439).

B121(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 108) H.028m

Object with bronze castmg flaw m pyramid and base and so disfigured; surface worn.

Pendant with thick, large, flat suspension loop; below a rounded bulge and then a deformed

pyramid of sorts; each face appears to have had a dotted circle originally. Decoration on the

underside in is not discernible; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unUlustrated; KUian-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 38-39 no. 260, pl. 16; (TM no. 455).

B122(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 108) Η .029m; Base .018 χ .017m

Object is in good condition with only slight wearing on the surface.

Pendant with long, flat suspension loop with round disc below and a small pyramid underneath. It has a stamped dotted circle on each face. Quatrefoil hollowed out on the underside; (Kihan-Dirhneier's Variant lib).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dklmeier, ^n/ifl/i^er 38-39, no. 252, pl. 16.

B123(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 108)

Η .03m; Base .018 χ .017m

Complete but worn, chipped surface.

Pendant with rectangular suspension loop, bead below and small pyramid underneath.

Each face punched with a single dotted circle. Underside has hoUowed out a pattern which

resembles a cinquefoU base; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant lie).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 262, pl. 16; (TM no. 442).

B124(TM): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 109) Η .028m; Base .016 χ .018m

Object complete but surface is very worn, chipped; red paint (?) discernible below. Pendant with long suspension loop with incisions, square plate below with horizontal incisions. Pyramid underneath with two oblong designs hollowed out on the underside; (Kihan-Dh-hneier's Variant I).

References: Dugas, Tegea 371, unillustrated; Kihim-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 38-39, no. 243, pl. 15; (TM no. 449).

B125(91): Stamp pendant with pyramidal body (pl. 109) Η .027m; Base .017m

Object complete but chipped and worn surface.

Pendant with high suspension loop and plain pyramid below. On the underside it has the

figure of a human with his large arms cmd legs extended; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Variant I). ]


References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no 687 pi 36; (TM no. 478).

B131(98): Pomegranate pendant (pi. I l l ) Η .085m; D(base) .020m

Object is complete but surface is very discoloured, worn, chipped and rough.

Pendant with long suspension loop with two straight sides and a pomted top with incisions and

a flat disc below. The short rod has a biconical profile in the middle which flows into the

beU-shaped pomegranate underneath; a ridge marks the mtersection. It is hohow and open

underneath with square spikes on the edge of the blossom; Kihan-Dh-lmeier's Type C.l).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 98, fig. 22, not that this object is mcorrectly indicated as no.

81 m Dugas' iUustration; Kilian-Dh-lmeier, Α/ΪΛΑ/Ι^^Γ 123-127, no. 684, pi. 35; (TM no. 477).

B132(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pi. 112) Η .053m; D(base) .015m

Object is complete but surface is worn, discoloured, chipped and stamped decoration is not very clear.

Pendant with five flat sided suspension loop and with three biconical pearls below. An angular, beU-shaped, hohow pomegranate is underneath. The calyx blossom is spiked and it is open underneath; (close to Kilian-Dirhneier's Type C.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 692 pi 36; (TM no. 483).

B133(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pi. 112) Η .042m; D(base) .019m

Object is in poor condition with suspension loop broken and surface extremely rusted,

discoloured and fuh of accretion; casting fault can be seen around the top of the object.

Pendant consists of a large, hohow pomegranate with a biconical profile and two ribs in the

middle. There is a hole on the underside and a spiked calyx blossom. Above the pomegranate

is a round disc and a flat-topped suspension loop, (Kihan-Dh-hneier's Type D.3).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unihustrated; Kilian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 706, pi.

B134(100): Pomegranate pendant (pi. 112)

Η .045m; D(base) .023m

Object is complete but surface is worn chipped and rough.

Pendant is sohd bronze pomegranate with a biconical profile with a thick ridge in the middle.

The underside has a shahow circular opening and a flat, shghtly spiked calyx blossom. The top

of the pomegranate has an unusual ridge and above it, a small suspension loop.

Kihan-Dh-hneier says this is due to a flaw m the castmg; (related to her Type D.3).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 100, fig. 20; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Α/ΙΛΑ/ΙΡ^Γ 123-127, no. 707, pi

37; (TM no, 481?).

B135(96): Pomegranate pendant (pi, 112)

Η ,050m; D(base) ,019m

Object is complete but surface is chipped and discoloured.

Pendant is a hollow pomegranate with a biconical profile; above, it has a rectangular

suspension loop and a disc below; this is foUowed by a smaU rod widening towards a second

round disc which crowns the top of the pomegranate. There is an opening on the underside

and a spUced edge; (KUian-Dh-lmeier's Type D.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373 no. 96, fig. 22; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Α/ΙΛΑ/Ι^^Γ 123-127, no. 699, pi. 36; (TM no. 488).

330

1 Catalogue of Objects

B135a(TM): Pomegranate Pendant (pi, 112)

Η ,069m; D(base) ,025m

Object in good condition,

A hollow pomegranate pendant with a biconical profile. The suspension loop is tall and

rectangular m shape, foUowed by a disc, a short rod and second disc above the biconical body;

(Kilian-Dh-hneier's type D.2). References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unUlustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, A«/ia/ig^r 125, no, 701, pi. 36.

B136(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pi. 113)

Η .050m; D(base) ,016m

Object is largely complete but chipped on surface and has much accretion; slightly broken at

the top.

Pendant with a beU-shaped pomegranate below a rod with a biconical profile in the middle. It

is hohow and open underneath and has a spiked edge at the bottom. The suspension loop is

slightly rounded at the top and has a flat disc below it; (Kihan-Dirhneier's Type C I ) ,

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; KUian-Dirhneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 688, pi.

36 (with mcorrect Dugas reference: Dugas no. 98 is B131, above).


Η .049m; D(base) ,017m

Object has smaU broken areas around the disc but it is otherwise complete; surface is very

rough and chipped.

Pendant consists of a hoUow biconical pomegranate with a rod and suspension loop above and

a flat, shghtly spUced calyx blossom edge below. The suspension loop has a pointed top and

below, a thick round disc; the smah rod below this has a round section and intersects with a

disc and a bead; (Kihan-Dirlmeier Type D.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, Α/ΙΛΑ/Ι^^Γ 123-127, no. 702; (TM

no. 486).

B138(TM): Pomegranate pendant (pi, 113)

Η ,049m; D(base) .017m

Object is slightly broken around the base but otherwise complete; surface is rough.

Pendant consists of a beU-shaped pomegranate with a rod of round section and two large discs

and a suspension loop above. The suspension loop has a pointed top and sits on a huge disc.

This is foUowed by a round rod, a second huge disc, a ridge and then the pomegranate. There

is a ridge at the lower end of the pomegranate too. The edge of the base is spiked and the

opening on the underside is blocked, Kihan-Dirlmeier says that i f ^ a s cast using a clay

nucleus; (her Type C.l).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 123-127, no, 689, pi,

36; (TM no. 479).


Object has a very worn, discoloured and chipped surface.

Pendant consist of two superhnposed small pomegranates with biconical profiles, one on top of

the other. The base of the upper one mtersects with the top of the rod of the lower one. The

top has a high pointed suspension loop with four ribs below. The base of the lower one

consists of a flat disc with spiked edges. It is an odd combination, perhaps the result of

experimentation. References: KUian-Dh-lmeier, An/ifl«ge/- 74, no. 482, pi, 25; (TM no. 501),

331



Η .049m; D(base) .014m

Object is in very good condition with only a few chips on the surface.

Pendant with long suspension loop with rounded top and wide flat disc below; rod continues

below with a second disc which sits on a sohd bronze pomegranate of biconical profile. Base

has spiked edges; (Kihan-Dh-hneier's Type D.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 696, pl.

36; (TM no. 496).


Η .046m; D(base) .017m

Object is complete but has a little discolouration, chipping on surface.

Pendant very shnUar to Β140, above; it has a shorter suspension loop with a flat top and two

flat ch-cular discs below separated by a short rod. The pomegranate has a biconical profile

with an indentation in the middle; the base has spiked edges and is solid; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's

TypeD.3).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dnlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 704, pl.

36; (TM no. 497).

B141a(TM): Pomegranate Pendant (pl. 113)

Η .044m; D(base) .0154m

Object is complete and in good condition.

Pendant with biconical body, circular rod above and topped with rectangular suspension loop.

The base has spiked edges and the pendant is solid. At the widest point of the body, where the

two cones meet, are two narrow ribs; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type D.3).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; Kihan-Dnlmeier, yl/i/ic/i ^r 125, no. 705, pl. 37.


Η .043m; D(base) .0156m

Object is extremely worn, chipped and discoloured.

Pendant with a very high rectangular, suspension loop with a flat top and thick round disc

below. This is attached to a pomegranate with a biconical profUe and a base with spiked edges

and a hole on the underside. Object was cast over a clay nucleus; (Kilian-Dirlmeier's Type

D.l).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 695, pl.

36; (TM no. 498).


Η .038m; D(base) .015m

Object with the side of the suspension loop broken; surface of bonze worn, chipped; some red

paint (?) apparent under base.

Pendant very shnUar in shape to Β139 but smaller. Biconical profiled pomegranate with a high

suspension loop, a circular disc, a smaU rod and second disc above the pomegranate. Base has

spiked edges; (Kihan-Dirlmeier's Type D.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, unillustrated; KUian-Dh-hneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 697, pl.

36; (TM no. 499).


Η .043m; D(base) .017m

Object complete but surface is quite worn, chipped and discoloured in areas.

Pendant consists of a hoUow pomegranate with a high triangular suspension loop and a

biconical profile. It has a flat disc below suspension loop and rod with round section; ridge just

332


333

above the beginning of the pomegranate. There is an opening on the underside and spiked

edge on the base; (near Kihan-Dirlmeier's Type D.2).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kilian-Dirhneier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 703, pl.

36; (TM no. 500).


Η .036m; D(base) .014m

Object complete but worn, discoloured surface.

Pendant cast over a clay core which has a smaU biconical profUe. Small, flat-topped suspension

loop with two ridges on top and below, four flat biconical ribs above pomegranate. Spiked

base edge and small opening on the underside; (Kihan-Dh-lmeier's Type D.4: she includes two

others like this one from Tegea).

References: Dugas, Tegea 373, uniUustrated; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 123-127, no. 708, pl.

37; (TM no. 495).

B146(S): Pomegranate pendant (pl. 114)

Η .024m

Object is in good condition.

Pendant is very smaU but simUar m type to Β145 in its biconical body. It reveals the suspension

loop as it would have been used, with a smaU thin piece of wire in the loop. The suspension

loop is flat and the base is tiny and not spiked.

Unpublished. Found in Stemhauer's excavations to the north of the Athena Alea temple in the

eleventh stroma of trench B2.

B147(65): Rmg pendant (pl. 115)

Η .065m; D .047m

Surface of bronze is very worn, discoloured but object is complete.

Ring with rhomboidal cross-section and a rectangular suspension loop above; between the

loop and the rmg is the figure of a bird.

References: Dugas, Tegea 366 no. 65, fig. 20; Kihan-Dkhneier, ^ Ι / Ι Λ Α / Ι ^ ^ Γ 11, no. 33, pl. 2.

Β148(67): Rmg pendant with ornaments on the periphery (pl. 115).

11 .033m; D.036m

Object is complete but with some chips, scratches and decoration worn on one side.

Ring with a wide, flat body of a rectangular section stamped on both sides with dotted circles.

On the periphery in a cross-axis, are three biconical beads with flat discs (or

pomegranate-shaped). Interior opening has an added top loop,'^below the rectangular

suspension area.

Ficferences: Dugas, Tegea 366 no. 67, fig. 20; Kiiian-OiihnQiQr, Anhanger 11-12, no. 34, pl. 2.

Β149(68): Ring pendant with ornaments on periphery (pl. 116)

11 .()62m; D .037m

( omplete object but covered m accretion, discoloured, worn, chipped.

I^ing with a wedged-shaped section and a trapezoidal-shaped suspension loop with a biconical

pearl opposite it; two bird figures arc on the other axis opposite each other on the periphery.

References: Dugas, Tegea 366 no. 68, fig. 20; Kilian-Dirlmeier, /i/ia/iger 11-12, no. 36, pl. 2.

11150(201): Ring pendant with ornament on periphery (pl. 116)

11 .()63m; D .026m

".iispcnsion loop at top is broken; surface scratched, worn. (In Dugas' publication the

iispcnsion loop stiU in place).

K i n g with 'D' shaped section and four birds on short s t a n d s on the periphery. Has a long


; ; a !

basket handle which originally had suspension loop on the top of it. Birds are similar to

Tegean bh-d, B50 m particular.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 201, fig. 20; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Α/ΙΛΛΑΙ^^Γ 12, no. 37, pi. 2.

B151(66): Ring pendant (pi. 117)

Η .057m; D .04m

Object is missing suspension loop, surface is chipped and worn in areas.

Flat, wide ring with rectimgular section and fifteen dotted circles stamped on both sides. There

is a very angular bird figure with a high tail sittmg on the periphery of the ring opposite the

area where the suspension loop would have been.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 366 no. 66, fig. 40.

B152(188): Wheel pendant (pi. 117)

D.066m

Object worn on the surface, broken a bit at top and chipped around edge.

Wheel-shaped pendant with four fairly small round openings (spokes) and a raised middle

zone. Kilian-Dirlmeier says that it is of northwest Macedonian provenance and related to Suva

Reka types.

References: Dugas, Tegea 391 no. 188, fig. 39; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 21-23, no. 93, pi. 6.

B153(73): Hammer pendant (pi. 117)

Η .031m

Object is chipped, scratched and broken at the end of the rod; otherwise complete.

Pendant in the form of a 'hammer' with a cylindrical cross-bar intersected by a vertical rod

with a round section. On either end of the cylmder, the discs are incised with intersecting

tremolo hues; the rod also has a vertical tremolo hne, on both sides.

References: Dugas, Tegea 368 no. 73, fig. 20; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 49, no. 304, pi. 20.

B154(71): Hammer pendant with birds (pi. 118)

Η .052m

Complete object with only some chipping and scratching on the surface.

Object consists of a solid, cylindrical cross-bar at the bottom with a T-shaped area with two

birds on it. It has no known parallels and appears to be purely decorative. Rolley thinks it

recalls the wheels of a chariot.

References: Dugas, Tegea 367, no. 71, 17; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 49-50, no. 307, fig. 20;

Rolley, MGR 3, no. 29; (TM no. 373)

B155(203): Sohd ovoid pendant (pi. 118)

H.046m

Complete object with worn surface and chipping at bottom point.

Solid bronze pendant with triangular suspension loop with a square disc below and an oblong

body. The suspension loop ties it directly with the stamp and pomegranate pendants from

Tegea.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 203, fig. 42; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 54, no. 312, pi. 20;

Bouzek, GMB 52, pi. 15, 8.

B156(TM): Sohd ovoid pendant (pi. 118)

H.045m

Complete object with only some wear on the surface.

Solid bronze pendant with rectangular suspension loop and disc below. The shape of the

pendant is wide at the middle and then it tapers to a point at the bottom. The suspension loop

hnks this one too, with the pomegranate and stamp pendants.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393, unihustrated; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 54, no. 313, pi. 20.

B157(202): Sohd ovoid pendant (pi. 118)

H.038m

Complete object except for the top of the suspension loop which is missing; surface is worn,

chipped.

Sohd bronze pendant with a short band-like rod with a hole perforated at the end of it. The

body of this pendant widens at the middle and then tapers to a point below.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 202, fig. 42; Kilian-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 57, no. 338, pi. 21;

Bouzek, GMB 51-53, fig. 15,4.

B158(TM): Bull's head pendant (pi. 119)

H.092m

Very good condition: object is complete with only a few scratches on the surface.

Buh's head pendant with a rounded suspension loop, ch-cular disc below and then a rod with a

square section. The head is vertical and three-dimensional, and tapers from the wide top of the

head to the narrow flat end of the muzzle. It has a thick front section ant two thick side

sections which intersect at right angles. Behind the head is hohow. The horns come from the

top back of the side sections and curl forward. The eyes protrude from the front. The three

faces are stamped with dotted concentric circles.

Unpubhshed. (TM no. 1835.)

B159(75): Buh's head pendant (pi. 119)

H.034m

Object broken around the top of its head; chipped around the edges and worn.

Bull's head of thin bronze sheet with a tapering flat head, horns turned forward and eyes

protruding slightly. Very simple portrayal.


B160(78): Bull's head pendant (pi. 119)

H.038m

Object complete but surface extremely worn, rough, much accretion.

Tiny buh's head with much detail moulded and incised. Rounded suspension loop and curled

horns from top section of bull's head; lower area consists of ears, eyes and rounded muzzle at

the bottom. Hollow behind.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 368 no. 78, fig. 19; parallel: Dawkms, Sparta pL 89 d, p.

Β161 (200): Rectangular plate with birds (pi. 120)

H . l l m

Object in very good condition with only the suspension loop broken and missing from the top;

the surface is somewhat worn and chipped.

A thin, flat rectangulcu- plate with two oblong circles cut out and bird figures attached to the

edges: two in each of the long sides and one on the short side, opposite where the suspension

loop would have been. Bird figures are similar to B46 from Tegea.

The oblong cut out sections recall some oval votive shields from Tegea which are similar in

conception. Both front and back are stamped with dotted concentric circles.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393 no. 200, fig. 40; Bouzek, Eirene 6 (1967): 116, fig. 1;

Kilian-Dirlmeier, Α/ιΛβ/ι^^Γ 215, no. 1329, pi. 76; Rolley, MGR 3,30 pi. 7.

334 335

:::;!ΪΙΙΪ


B162(199): Composite pendant (pl. 121)

Η .071m

Object appears to be largely complete but it has a very chipped, worn and discoloured surface;

the eiu-s of the horses are chipped.

Curious pendant object which consists of human feet and calves at the bottom with an

intersecting rod connecting the calves which has a bird perched on it. The lower legs continue

upward as thin rods of round section and mtersect a double protome of horses. (Dugas says

bulls and Kihan-Dirlmeier says birds.) My examination of this object revealed manes

protruding from the frontal view. Out of the middle of the double protomes is a rod which

divides into two antithetic birds' heads and it is pierced in the middle of the rod with a

suspension hole. Its meaning is obscure.

References: Dugas, Tegea 393, no. 199, fig. 19; Kihan-Dh-hneier, yl/i/ifl/zger 214, no. 1328, pl. 76;

Deonna, BCH 55 (1931): 229; RoUey, MGR 3, no. 28; Jost, Sanctuaires 373.

B163(187): Pendant staff (pl. 122)

Η .154m

Object is largely complete but the surface is very worn and covered in accretion; bird figure is

very chipped.

Object consists of a thick twisted staff of bronze with an angular bh-d seated on either end with

a suspension loop pierced through the bottom part of one of the birds. Dugas suggested the

interpretation of this object as a horse bit.

References: Dugas, Tegea 391 no. 187, fig. 42; Kihan-Dirlmeier, ^/i/ ic/ ige/- 214, no. 1327, pl. 76.

B164-B169(TM): Double axes (pis. 123-125)

Lengths vary between .031-.053m

Conditions vary: none are complete, aU have some part of rod broken and the blades are either

chipped or broken in varying degrees.

Double axes with thick blade centres, some with stamped dotted circles, some plain.

A number have very narrow middle areas. For a more complete hst (minus B169 recently

found m Steinhauer's excavations) see Kihan-Dh-lmeier (reference below). She accounts for a

total of 22 double axes from Tegea.

References: Dugas, Tegea 390 nos. 183-186, figs. 41-42; KUian-Dh-lmeier, Anhanger 247-254,

pis. 91-96; Simon, (see Chapter Five, n. 82) 400.

B170-B171: Beads (pl. 126)

Η varies between .03-.035m

Conditions vary too: most are complete but very worn, chipped, scratched surfaces; edges

chipped too.

Fifty examples of this type of bead (my Type One) which consist of barrel-shaped, rimless

objects which widen slightly at the middle where they have a ridge.

References: Dugas, Tegea 386 no. 160, fig. 42; Kihan, Fibeln pl. 75; Parallels: Robinson,

Excavations at Olynthus I pis. 8, 9; Dawkins, SpaHa pl. 85; Waldstein, AH U pl. 91; Bouzek,

GMB 105-107, Group C.

B172-B181(163-164): Beads (pis. 127-131)


Conditions vary somewhat but most beads have extremely worn surfaces with chips, scratches

and discolouration.

Beads of my Type Two (Dugas type no. 3) represented by 20 examples from Tegea. They are

of tubular form, with and without rims and they either have a single ridge in the middle or

three ridges.


References: Dugas, Tegea 386 nos. 163-164, fig. 42; KUian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979) fig.

12.2; Bouzek, GMB 117-118, Group I; parallels: Dawkms, Sparta pl. 203, no. 12,13 (in gold).

B182-B183(161-162): Beads (pl. 132)


Conditions vary but most are complete objects with very worn, chipped surfaces.

Beads of my Type Three (Dugas' no. 2) represented at the site by only six examples (Dugas

said only four). They are biconical beads with one or two ridges in the middle and tend to have

rims at either end.

References: Dugas, Tegea 386 nos. 161-162, fig. 42; KUian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979) pl. 12.1;

Bouzek, GMB 110-114, Group F; parallels: KUian, Fibeln pl. 75, 76; Waldstein, AH Π pl. 92;

Oudinaos, Alipheira 104, fig. 71; Robinson, Excavations at Olynthus, pis. 8-11.

B184(40): Turtle (pl. 134)

L.034m

Object is quite complete except for suspension loop (i.e. taU area) which is broken; surface is

quite worn and has some accretion.

SmaU ornate turtle figure of round shape with protrusions for head, legs and taU/suspension

loop. The top is stamped with dotted circles and on the underside is a circular design in rehef.

TM catalogue says there is a second one lUce this from MavrUci (TM no. 394 ~.028m long-I

have not seen it).

References: Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 40, fig. 42; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Anhanger 215, 1332, pl. 73;

Bevan, BSA 83 (1988) 1-6; ParaUel: Dawkins, Sparta 197, pl. 80a; Bouzek, GMB 100, 142 fig.

45,12; (TM no. 379).

B185(41): Scarab (pl. 134; fig. 127)

L .029m

Complete object with worn, chipped surface.

Small, high rectangular object with hole horizontaUy pierced along the long axis, presumably

for suspension. Top is rounded and on the underside is incised what appears to be a stick

figure of a human (?) Dugas and Romaios (in TM catalogue) both identify this object as a

turtle, but I rather think it is a scarab.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 352 no. 41; paraUels: Dunbabin, Perachora II461-513, pis. 192-193.

B186(190): Shield (pl. 135)

L .065m .,

Complete except for area around holes on either side where the bronze^ edges have worn away;

surface extremely worn; it also appears that this particular example had a suspension loop

which was broken at the top.

Thick bronze plate with two cut out circles on either side forming the image of a Dipylon

shield. Surface decoration is not apparent. Has a hole pierced at the end.

References: Dugas, Tegea 392 no. 190, fig. 19; Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 10.1.

B187(192): Shield (pl. 135)

L .082m

Complete shield except for worn edges around holes at sides; siu-face and decoration very

worn. Thin bronze sheet, oblong in shape with two cut out circles on either side and two holes

pierced through the top and bottom. Stamped decoration evident.


336 337


Jiillii

B188(191): Shield (pi. 136)

L.OSm

Complete object except for cracks at edges on either side, near holes; surface worn.

Rounded plaque of bronze with pointed top and bottom and very large cut out holes on either

side. A hole is pierced through one end; decoration imd bosses somewhat evident.


B189(TM): Shield (pi. 136)

L .082m

Condition is fair; part of object is missing on one side and surface is very worn.

Oval object with two cut out ch-cles and a hole pierced through one end. No surface decoration

is apparent, but a number of punched bosses can be seen.

Reference: Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 10.2.

B190(193): Shield (pi. 136)

L.091m

Complete object except for chipping around edge of one side where hole is and at top;

otherwise surface and decoration are fairly well preserved.

Shield of long curved form with pointed edges. Two very small holes on either side and lots of

punched decoration on the face of the shield. A tiny hole is pierced through both pointed

ends.

References: Dugas, Tegea 392 no. 193, fig. 39; Khian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 10.3.

B191-B196: Shields (pis. 137-140)

Lengths up to .14m

Conditions not very good generally: very worn surfaces, most missing parts etc. Seven objects

hke the ones just discussed above, B186-B190.

References: Generally see Dugas, Tegea 392 nos. 190-193; Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979):

fig. 10; Snodgrass, AM 95 (1980): 51-58; Boardman, in Ancient Greek Art and Iconography, ed.

W.G. Moon, 27-28.

B197-B199: Votive phialai/discs (pis. 142-143)

D between .032-.048m

Most have some chipping around the edges and any surface decoration is worn.

Circular objects which are defined as (B197 and B198 Left): phiales with holes or bosses in the

middle and some with upturned edges. B198(R) and Β199 appear to be simple flat discs with

decoration on their faces.

References: Dugas, Tegea 364 nos. 61-62, fig. 20; Payne, Perachora 1151ff.

B200(210): Votive lyre (pi. 143)

L(max.) .075m

One-third of object is missing, surface is very worn, chipped and cracked along edges.

A 'U' shaped object with stamped dotted circles and cut out sections on body; a thin bronze

band horizontally connecting the upper flanks of the 'U.'

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 394 no. 210, fig. 39,47; parallel: Demakopoulou, 'Ρ^μνκΧαΐο, pi. 53

no. 121, 76-77.

B201 (210): Votive lyre (pi. 144)

L .072m

One half of the object is missing; very worn, chipped and cracked all over. Object is the same

as above, B200, except that no decoration is apparent on the face, only cut out triangles.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea 394 no. 210, fig. 39, 47; parallel: see Demakopoulou in B200, above.

B202(M): Votive lyre (pi. 144)

L.065m

Complete object with just some chippmg around the edges and a worn surface.

'U' shaped bronze plaque like those described above, B200, B201 but this one is complete. No

decoration is apparent on the plate; m general form and details this is extremely similar to the

other two examples.

Reference: Romaios, AE (1952): 26-27, fig. 20a; paraUel: see Demakopoulou m B200, above.

B203(S): Cauldron run (pi. 145)

D(rmi) .013m; H(of run) .017m

Only rim of vessel survives which in itself is in fair condition, with a cracked, worn surface.

Rim from a cauldron of sorts with a ring of bronze attached on one side, probably originally

had a ring on the other side as weU.

Unpubhshed. Found in Steinhauer's excavations to the north of the temple in the ninth stroma

of trench A.l; see fig. 4.

B204(176): Tweezers (pi. 146)

L.05m

In good condition, complete, surfaces of both very worn; chipping around the edges.

Votive tweezers with two triangular shaped plaques of bronze with the wide ends at the

bottom. Plain, pinched-spring type with an indentation and then a loop at the top; it has

functional appearance in comparison to B205, below.

References: Dugas, Tegea 388 no. 176, fig. 40; Bouzek, GMB 147, fig. 47.9; parallel fiom

Chauchitsa: Cathng, Cypriot Bronzework, 228-29, fig. 22.3.

B205(176): Tweezers (pi. 146)

L.OSm

Good condition, complete; surface worn and decoration not clear; chipping on edges. Ί wo

triangular shaped plaques with a large bead and two smaU beads above the area of the union at

the narrow ends; a rod if above and another bead with a suspension loop above. It has stamped

circular ornaments on both faces.

Reference: Dugas, Tegea no. 176, fig. 40.

B206(158): Votive comb (pi. 147)

L.086m

Very poor condition: worn, discoloured surface, broken teeth of comb; decoration very faded

and chipped around the edges.

Rectangular sheet of bronze with tiny rectangular teeth cut out along one of the long sides.

Two pierced holes at either end; decoration consists of stamped dots in rows. This is probably

a comb in imitation of the Spartan examples in bone/ivory.

References: Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 158, fig. 39; paraUel: Dawkins, Sparta pi. 131, fig. 10.11 (in

bone/ivory).

Pins

B207(S): PG iron pin (pi. 147)

L c. .11m

Condition: bent shaft, very worn, corroded siu-face of U O U , broken at bottom.

Pin of PG type with small flat head and large globe below.

Unpublished. Found m Steinhauer's excavations to the north of temple; its exact context is not

338 339


' i f

Ill

available to me at present. References (general): Desborough, GDA 165, fig. 16; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Nadeln 72, no. 239, pl. 10; parallel: OrXanaos, Alipheira 108, fig. 74.

B208-B209: Geometric I pms (pis. 148) L range between .17-.34m (average .24m) Conditions vary but generally good: surface of bronze worn, discs are often chipped, bent, cracked or missing. Pms with finials at the top, often in the form of 'vases', foUowed by a large flat disc. Below the rod is one globe or a biconical bead. Below this, the rods have rectangular sections which then taper into a round section; (35 pins in TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 380 nos. 124, 130, 131, figs. 40, 41; Jacobsthal, Pins 4-5; KUian-Dh-hneier, Nadeln 89-104, pis. 13-28.

B210-B217: Geometric II pins (pis. 149-152) L vary between .21-.38m (but some .42, .50, 51) Conditions vary; discs usually chipped, broken or missing. Surface is often worn, and some pins are bent; somethnes they are broken towards the point of the pin. Pins with a great variety of elements including globes, biconical beads, cubes, pyramids, beads and reels etc., which interchange on the shank of the pin; also square and round sections alternate on the shank. Some very long pins of this type, (c.60 pins m TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 380 nos. 123, 125, 127, 128 etc.; Jacobsthal, Pins 9, fig. 28; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 105-131, pis. 28-50.

B218-B221: Spiral pins (Geometric II variants) (pis. 153-154) L vary between .11-.25m (average .18) Objects of this type vary in their conditions but most are worn, chipped and scratched on their surface; some are missing the lower parts of their pins; some are bent. Pins which consist of conical tops and below, a long area of spirals or tiny beads; below this are usually two or more biconical beads separated by an area of the shaft. Very monotonous design; (120 pins of this type in TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 378 nos. 115-118, figs. 40-41; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 131-144, Types XII-XVI, pis. 50-60.

B222-B223: Geometric-Archaic pins (pis. 155) L vary between .08-.018m (average .11) Conditions are fairly good: most complete with wearing, chipping on the surface. Pins have biconical beads, a tiny knob on the top (except for 223 which has a vase-shaped finial) and a cube below the lower bead. References: Dugas, Tegea 376-380 no. 113; see also Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 47-49, pl. 28, nos. 52, 54, 55-59; Jacobsthal, Pins 15-16; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln Type XVI, pl. 55.

B224(132): T-pins (pl. 155) L(right) .11m; (left) .13m Objects complete but have chipped, worn surfaces. Both pins consist of a horizontal bar with incised vertical hnes aU along it; this intersects a vertical shaft with horizontal incisions of its round section. On the shafts are two biconical beads separated by a rod with horizontal grooves. Below the lower bead the shaft has square section which becomes round lower down. References: Dugas, Tegea 380 no. 132, fig. 40 (Dugas mentions three from the site); Jacobsthal, Pins 141; Kilian-Dirlmcicr, Anhanger 50 n. 2; idem, Nadeln 150.

B225: Top of T-pin (pl. 155) L .033m Condition is fair: object is worn, discoloured, chipped, scratched and rod is covered in accretion. Top of T-pm consisting of two hollow conical cups attached at either end of a hoUow rod. References: Dugas, Tegea 394 no. 209, fig. 20; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pis. 61-62.

mie-^in. Conical topped pms (pis. 156) L .10-.14m Conditions are fairly good: surfaces quite worn, some pins bent but only one was slightly broken. Pins consist of solid bronze conical-shaped tops usually with horizontally incised spirals below; then a biconical bead and a shght square section below that, (ten examples in the TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 133, fig. 40; see also Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck 82, no. 236, pl. 5; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Nadeln 151, pl. 62.

B228(X): Pin with a large head (pl. 156) L.13m Condition is fairly good: surface is worn, bottom of pin is broken. Large-headed pin which consists of a biconical bead with a disproportionately tall upper part which tapers upwards into a narrow rod with a rounded button at the top; below the bead is a rod foUowed by a rod with a second biconical bead; then a square section. Unpublished. See drawing in Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 151, no. 1917, pl. 62.

B229-B233: Flat-head pins (pis. 156-158) L vary .08-.18m Conditions: aU complete but worn surfaces, chipped, some bent and very rough. B230 consists of two pins of spatula form which have rounded flat sections and a biconical bead on their shafts; B233 are called 'oar blades' and have fairly rectangular-shaped flat plates with stamped dotted circles and round rods below. Both have small holes pierced through their tops. B229 are all flat head pins with pointed tops and diamond-shaped plates; these have very flat rods with rectangular sections. B231 has a rounded flat plate with punched dotted circles and a disc below. The rod below has a round section. B232 has a very similar face as B231 and was probably originally the same; it has a suspension loop at the top and it ends below the head. References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. 112, 388 nos. 171-173; 394 no. 213, figs. 40, 41; Jacobsthal, Pins 144, figs. 429-432; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 154, pl. 63. ^

B234(l l l ): Flat head curled top pin (pl. 158) L . l l m CCondition: good-chipped, worn, bent. I*in with round shaft and flattened top. Top is simUar to 'hair pin' types except for flat area. References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. I l l , fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 122-123; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pl. 63, no. 1935.

B235-B236a and b: Geometric III pins (pis. 159-160) I. vary between .08-. 18m (average .11) ()bjects vary but most in fairly good condition; surfaces worn, chipped, decoration worn; some broken at ends of pins etc. Pins with flat discs at the top, followed by a series of rounded beads below; often there is a rectangular area below marked off with dotted circles on aU four sides. Dotted circles often on lop of the discs as weU, (c.l40 examples of this type).

340 341

'us


available to me at present. References (general): Desborough, GDA 165, fig. 16; Kihan-Dh-lmeier, Nadeln 72, no. 239, pi. 10; parallel: Orlandos, Alipheira 108, fig. 74.

B208-B209: Geometric I pms (pis. 148) L range between .17-.34m (average .24m) Conditions vary but generally good: surface of bronze worn, discs are often chipped, bent, cracked or missing. Pins with finials at the top, often in the form of 'vases', foUowed by a large flat disc. Below the rod is one globe or a biconical bead. Below this, the rods have rectangular sections which then taper into a round section; (35 pins in TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 380 nos. 124, 130, 131, figs. 40, 41; Jacobsthal, Pins 4-5; KUian-Dh-hneier, Nadeln 89-104, pis. 13-28.

B210-B217: Geometric II pins (pis. 149-152) L vary between .21-.38m (but some .42, .50, 51) Conditions vary; discs usually chipped, broken or missing. Surface is often worn, and some pins are bent; sometimes they are broken towards the point of the pin. Pins with a great variety of elements including globes, biconical beads, cubes, pyramids, beads and reels etc., which interchange on the shank of the pin; also square and round sections alternate on the shank. Some very long pins of this type, (c.60 pins in TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 380 nos. 123, 125, 127, 128 etc.; Jacobsthal, Pins 9, fig. 28; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 105-131, pis. 28-50.

B218-B221: Spiral pins (Geometric II variants) (pis. 153-154) L vary between .11-.25m (average .18) Objects of this type vary in their conditions but most are worn, chipped and scratched on their surface; some are missing the lower parts of their pins; some are bent. Pins which consist of conical tops and below, a long area of spirals or tiny beads; below this are usually two or more biconical beads separated by an area of the shaft. Very monotonous design; (120 pins of this type in TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 378 nos. 115-118, figs. 40-41; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 131-144, Types XII-XVI, pis. 50-60.

B222-B223: Geometric-Archaic pins (pis. 155) L vary between .08-.018m (average .11) Conditions are fairly good: most complete with wearing, chipping on the surface. Pins have biconical beads, a tiny knob on the top (except for 223 which has a vase-shaped finial) and a cube below the lower bead. References: Dugas, Tegea 376-380 no. 113; see also PhUipp, Bronzeschmuck 47-49, pi. 28, nos. 52, 54, 55-59; Jacobsthal, Pins 15-16; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln Type XVI, pi. 55.

B224(132): T-pins (pi. 155) L(right) .11m; (left) .13m Objects are complete but have chipped, worn surfaces. Both pins consist of a horizontal bar with incised vertical hues all along it; this intersects a vertical shaft with horizontal incisions of its round section. On the shafts are two biconical beads separated by a rod with horizontal grooves. Below the lower bead the shaft has square section which becomes round lower down. References: Dugas, Tegea 380 no. 132, fig. 40 (Dugas mentions three from the site); Jacobsthal, Pmj 141; Kihan-Dirlmeier, An/io/i^er 50 n. 2; idem, Nadeln 150.

340


B225: Top of T-pin (pi. 155) L .033m Condition is fair: object is worn, discoloured, chipped, scratched and rod is covered in accretion. Top of T-pin consisting of two hollow conical cups attached at either end of a hohow rod. References: Dugas, Tegea 394 no. 209, fig. 20; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pis. 61-62.

B226-B227: Conical topped pms (pis. 156) L .10-.14m Conditions are fairly good: surfaces quite worn, some pins bent but only one was shghtly broken. Pins consist of sohd bronze conical-shaped tops usually with horizontally incised spirals below; I hen a biconical bead and a shght square section below that, (ten examples in the TM). References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 133, fig. 40; see also Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 82, no. 236, pi. 5; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Nadeln 151, pi. 62.

B228(X): Pin with a large head (pi. 156) L .13m C'ondition is fairly good: surface is worn, bottom of pin is broken. Large-headed pin which consists of a biconical bead with a disproportionately taU upper part which tapers upwards into a narrow rod with a rounded button at the top; below the bead is a rod fohowed by a rod with a second biconical bead; then a square section. Unpublished. See drawing in Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 151, no. 1917, pi. 62.

B229-B233: Flat-head pins (pis. 156-158) Lvary .08-.18m Conditions: aU complete but worn surfaces, chipped, some bent and very rough. B230 consists of two pins of spatula form which have rounded flat sections and a biconical bead on their shafts; B233 are called Oar blades' and have fakly rectangular-shaped flat plates with stamped dotted circles and round rods below. Both have small holes pierced through I heir tops. B229 are all flat head pins with pointed tops and diamond-shaped plates; these have very flat rods with rectangular sections. B231 has a rounded flat plate with punched dotted circles and a disc below. The rod below has a round section. B232 has a very similar face as B231 and was probably originally the same; it has a suspension loop at the top and it ends below the head. References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. 112, 388 nos. 171-173; 394 no. 213, figs. 40, 41; Jacobsthal, Pins 144, figs. 429-432; Kilian-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 154, pi. 63.

B234(l l l ): Flat head curled top pin (pi. 158) L .11m Condition: good-chipped, worn, bent. Pin with round shaft and flattened top. Top is simUar to 'hah- pin' types except for flat area. References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. I l l , fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 122-123; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln pi 63, no. 1935.

B235-B236a and b: Geometric III pins (pis. 159-160) L vary between .08-. 18m (average .11) Objects vary but most in fairly good condition; surfaces worn, chipped, decoration worn; some l)roken at ends of pins etc. Pins with flat discs at the top, foUowed by a series of rounded beads below; often there is a rectangular area below marked off with dotted circles on all four sides. Dotted circles often on top of the discs as well, (c.l40 examples of this type).

341


References: Dugas, Tegea 380 nos. 119-120, figs. 40-41; Jacobsthal, Pins 12; Kihan-Dirlmeier, Nadeln 200-203.

B237(109): RoUed top pm (pl. 158) L.62m Good condition: chipped, worn ah over, bent. Flat-topped pm with a shnple roll at the top. References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. 109, fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 122-123, 136; Kilian-Dh-lmeier, Nadeln 206-207, pl. 84.

B238(135): Orientahzmg I pms (pl. 160) L vary between .08-.16m Conditions: good: very worn surfaces but most pms complete. Pms of Orientahzmg I type with large flat discs at the top and with plam globes below. References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 135, fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 20-24; Kihan-Dnlmeier, Nadeln 219-281, pis. 86-112.

B239-B240(S): Orientalizing II pms (pis. 161) L of complete pms up to .16m; many broken. Conditions fair: many have broken and/or bent shafts; surfaces very worn, chipped. Pins of Orientahzmg II type characterized by thicker discs than Orientahzmg I and more ornate globes with either horizontal or, more usuaUy, vertical grooving. B240: Unpubhshed. B239: References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 136, fig. 20; Jacobsthal, Pins 20-24; Kihan-Dh-hneier, Nadeln 219-281, pis. 86-112.

B241(138): Top loop pins (pl. 161) L vary between .10-.14m Pms in fair condition: some with top loops between; others have bottom of pin broken; surfaces of aU pins worn and chipped. Pins consist of a round suspension loop at the top which is attached to the top, large globe; there is a second smaller globe below. References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 138, fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 134; Kilian-Duhneier, Nadeln 266ff, pis. 108-110.

B242a and b: Knot head and sph-al pins (pis. 162) L vary .08-.13m Conditions are good. Objects are complete but have worn, chipped surfaces. The seven pms are all knot head pms and have theh- upper ends wound around the top of the shaft, below a loop of wire; (eighth to seventh century m date). References: Dugas, Tegea 376 no. 108, 109, fig. 39; Jacobsthal, Pins 133, 122; Payne, Perachora I pl. 76, 1,3; Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck 295-301 pl. 36; Coldstream, Knossos 141 no. 126; Kihan-Dirhneier, 281-283 Nadeln Type FIV, pl. 112.

Fibulae

B243(141): Mycenaean violin bow fibula (pl. 163) L.065m Complete but worn, chipped, discoloured and scratched. Violin bow fibula (Bhnkenberg I.7a) with a long flat rectangular top with two holes at either end and a pin below.

References: Dugas, Tegea 381 no. 141, uniUustrated; Dawkms, Sparta 82 p, r, t; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck pl. 59, no. 985; Snodgrass, DAG 277-278.

B244(X): Submycenaean arched fibula (pl. 163) L .058m Complete object with worn, scratched surface. Fibula with a semi-ch-cular arched bow above the pin. Characteristic Submycenaean type fibula with arched bow. References: KUian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 9.6; Desborough, GDA 300, fig. 34c.

B245(X): Shnple fibula (pl. 163) L.047m Condition: good; complete but has worn surface. Fibula has a rectangular form with a high bow of a thick rod, with a round section. Reference: KUian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 38, fig. 9.3.

B246(X): Twisted arc fibula (pl. 163) L.05m Condition: good, worn surface. Twisted arc fibula of simple type. References: Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 9.8; idem, Fibeln 22 n. 3.

B247(150): Peloponnesian-Attic-Boeotian fibula (pl. 164) L.lOm Object is chipped and broken all over; surface is very worn; plaque is missing. Fibula with a wide flat bow with four rows of tremolo hnes along the top of it; at the end of the wide section of the bow is a rod with a flat section ; at the other originally was the beginning of the plaque, now missing. The type may well have been made in the Peloponnese (Argolid, Arcadia?) m addition to Boeotia, where it was more common. References: Dugas, Tegea 384 no. 150, fig. 42 (plus Dugas nos. 151, 152, 194: same type); Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 276-277, 280 n. 487; Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 6.8.

B248(S): Rectangular-sectioned rod from fibula (pl. 164) L .13m Condition is good: worn surface; broken from rest of fibula. Object appears to be part of 'Boeotian' fibula from the lower area of the bow; it has a rectangular section and is decorated with zigzag tremolo hnes. At one nd it has a bead and is broken above (where it would connect with the top of the bow); other end is curved sharply, where it is broken from the coU. Unpubhshed. Parallel fragments also from Olympia: Philipp, Bronzeschmuck pl. 61 nos. 1017, 1021; pl. 62 nos. 1024,1028.

B249b(148) and B249a(149): Thessahan and other fibulae (pl. 165) b: L .049m; others L c. .07m; a: .05m (broken) Objects vary m their conditions: most are chipped and/or broken around plates and surfaces are worn, discoloured and cracked. B249b(148) is a plate fibula with an oblong bead flanked by two smaller biconical beads on the bow. Blinkenberg says it is an Island Type. Kihan says it is a variant of a Thessahan type. B249a(149) was a splendid fibula when originally pubhshed by Dugas; now it is missing most of its plate. It has a globe flanked by reels on the bow; the plate had a fish motif in a heavy double border and linear designs on the other side. It is a Peloponnesian-Thessalian type. Other fibulae: two with beads on bows and plates; one with a narrow flat bow with a protrusion

342 343


1

'.1 'Jill

towards the plate end of the bow.

References: 249b(148): Dugas, Tegea 383 no. 148, fig. 42; Kihan, Fibeln 124 n. 2; Blinkenberg,

Fibules 101 IV II, 1. B249a: Dugas, Tegea 383-384 no. 149, figs. 19, 43; Kilian, Fibeln 121 no.

1045; idem, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): fig. 8.7; Philipp, Bronzeschmuck 272 n. 458;

Coldstream, GG 157 fig. 51a; Bhnkenberg, Fibules 136, fig. 168; Jacobsthal, Pins 7-9.

B250(X): Island fibula (pi. 165)

L .032m

Condition: fair-good; plate broken but otherwise fine; surface is worn, chipped.

Fibula of Island Type with an oblong bead flanked by two biconical beads on either side.

References: Kihan, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979): 36-37 fig. 9.12; Blinkenberg, Fibules 91, fig.

92; Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck nos. 1002,1003.

B251-B253: Spectacle fibulae (pis. 166)

L .07, .078, .64m respectively

Conditions: B253 is broken in its spiral; others complete, extremely worn.

Tegea yielded seven examples of spectacle fibulae: here are three examples with two spirals

and two loops m the centres. These are of types were developed in northern and central

Greece.

References: Dugas, Tegea 383 nos. 143, 145, 146, fig. 41; Alexander, AJA 69 (1965): 15;

Blinkenberg, Fibules Type XIV; Dawkins, Sparta pi. 81, 82; Orlandos, Alipheira 108, pi. 4.

B254(147): Four-spiraled fibula (pi. 167)

L.09m

Fair condition: one of spirals is missing; surface is very worn and chipped.

Four sph-al type originated in Hungary but types found m southern Greece were developed in

central Greece. They consist of four spirals forming a quatrefoil and have a round disc in the

middle; many of this type are found m Sparta.

References: Dugas, Tegea 383 no. 147, fig. 19; Dawkins, Sparta pi. 81, 82; Alexander, AJA 69

(1965): 15; Phihpp, Bronzeschmuck 295 n. 504.

B255(142): Looped fibula (pi. 166)

L.069m

Worn, chipped surface; broken at point of pin.

Unusual fibula with four loops of bronze on its bow. Blinkenberg classifies it as an

'Intermediate Type' (III.6.C.).

References: Dugas, Tegea 383 no. 142, fig. 19; parahels: Bhnkenberg, Fibules 81-82, III.6.c;

Kilian, Lakonikai Spoudai 4 (1979) 38, fig. 9.10.

B256(156): Phrygian fibula (pi. 167)

L .055m

Object is in very good condition: surface is somewhat worn, chipped.

Phrygian type fibula with heavy ornate bow with beaded and ribbed decoration. Similar to

some from Olympia and Gordion.

References: Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 156 fig. 58; Blmkenberg, Fibules 225, XII.14t; Philipp,

Bronzeschmuck 313 no. 1123; Muscaiella, Phrygian Fibulae, pi. XV.

B257(155): Beaded bow of a fibula (pi. 168)

L.065m

Broken at either end of bow; surface is very worn, chipped.

Remaining fibula consists of bow with five sohd globes of bronze. Bhnkenberg's Intermediate

type shnhar to the three examples from Lmdos.

References: Dugas, Tegea 385 no. 155, fig. 58; Bhnkenberg, Fibules III, Hi, fig. 86.

B258(157)9: Disc fibula? (pi. 168)

L .072m

Sph-als at either end are broken; surface is worn, chipped.

Object with two discs connected by a thin rectangular plate of bronze; two spirals at either end

(origmaUy). Shape recaUs that of the sph-al fibulae: perhaps it is a derivative of the spectacle

fibula. It may be an experiment piece.


TERRACOTTAS AND OBJECTS OF OTHER MATERIALS

Tl(345): Psi figurine (pi. 173)

Η .08m; D(base) .031m

Object is missmg her head and right arm; surface is worn, painted decoration is very worn; clay

is a pale pink colour an the paint is a red-orange; hand-made.

A psi type figurme with fairly short upraised arms, outlined disc-hke breasts and a cyhndrical

body with a slight widening at the base. Evidence of pamted decoration can be seen on the

breasts, arms and along the front and back of the body. Similar to Type Β found at

Amyklaion; IIIC in date.

References: Dugas, Tegea 424 no. 345, fig. 63; (general): see French, BSA 66 (1971): 183;

Demakopoulou, Άμνχλαω, 44-53, pi. 40, 16; Howell, BSA 65 (1970): 92; Hope Simpson,

Gazetter 40 n. 89.

T2(348): Horse and Rider (pi. 174)

Η .017m

Object is missing two legs of the horse and the head and left arm of the rider; surface is worn,

scratched and chipped. Clay is a pinkish colour with grey mclusions and holes in it; worn paint

indicated; hand-made.

Completely unmodehed, heavy human figure seated on a similarly formed horse figure; the

rider's arm touches the mane of the horse and his legs are inchned forward towards the front

of the horse. The horse has a small pointed muzzle, a very high mane, a high, flat and short

tah and round legs. Worn paint on horse's body.

References: Dugas, Tegea 424 no. 348, fig. 63; parahels: Waldstein, A/M/ pi. 48, nos. 244, 245

(and 45 more examples); Payne, Perachora 1228 no. 166, pi. 100 (and seven more fragments):

'Archaic'; Frickenhaus, Tiryns I, 83, fig. 20; Martha, Figurines en terre cuites, 121 no. 602, 603

(Hagios Sostis); Higgins, Terracottas 240 no. 985, pi. 138 (Argive rider); Foley, The Argolid

800-600 B.C., m.

T3(362): Bh-d's head (pi. 173)

H.045m

Head broken from body (of bird) with chipping and wearmg on the surface. Clay is light pink

with inclusions, decoration is in dark paint but worn in areas; hand-made.

Head of a bird with along beak and long neck with round cross-section. It has two protrusions

for eyes. The neck if decorated with many horizontal bands; the area around the eye is

outhned m dark paint and there is a dot of paint for the eye. Along the beak are vertically

painted hues. A somewhat simharly decorated bird can be seen from the Amyklaion.

References: Dugas, Tegea 426 no 362, fig. 61; parallel: Demakopoulou, Άμνκλαΐο, no. 115, pi.

49.

344 345


;5 Ill

•..:iiit,

T4(358): Quadruped (pl. 175)

H.OSm

Object is missing back legs, head, part of tail, ends of front legs and left ear; clay is dark cream

to pink colour with inclusions; dark dots are painted all over the body.

Quadruped with a very long neck and a ridge along the top which probably indicates the mane

of a horse. The legs and body are cylindrical; the tail has rectangular section: on the top face

of the tail are painted chevrons. Dots are painted on the rest of the body. The tail extends

upwards away from the body. A shnilarly styled horse m terracotta with a long neck, mane,

high tail and cylindrical body was found in Olympia (see Heilmeyer, below). Decoration of

painted dots recalls Mycenaean type of decoration on some quadrupeds.

References: Dugas, Tegea 426 no. 358, fig. 63; parallel: Heilmeyer, Tonfiguren pl. 14 no. 77;

Decoration: French, BSA 66 (1971): pl. 26c.

T5(357): Quadruped (pl. 177)

H.06m

Headless, taiUess quadruped, with lower legs broken and plastered; clay is a medium pink

colour with inclusions; dark paint decoration is worn; surface is chipped, worn.

Quadruped appears to have the beginnings of a mane and is therefore, probably a horse: it is

roughly made, unmodelled but with a curving torso and high rump. It has horizontal lines

painted on the body and vertical Imes on the legs. The hnear decoration recalls Mycenaean

decoration on quadrupeds, particularly 'Linear ΙΓ style.

References: Dugas, Tegea 426 no. 357, fig. 67; paraUels: Heilmeyer, Tonfiguren pl. 15, no. 87;

French, BSA 66 (1971): 151 fig. 11,155; Dawkins, Sparta pl. XCI no. 12.

T6(360): Horse head (pl. 176)

L.12m

Neck and head area broken from a rather large horse. Clay is medium pink with grey

inclusions; surface is worn. Decorated with vertical hnes going down neck; it is quite worn.

Object with a long cylindrical head, high ears and a long neck which widens towards the base.

Painted decoration consists of vertical lines on neck and painted chevrons on neck underside.

The vertical hnes link it with the decoration on T5. Fairly naturalistic representation of a

horse.


T7(355): Horse fragment (pl. 177)

L.06m

Quadruped is missing most of head, front legs and aU of back of body surface worn. Clay is

pink with grey inclusions; decoration is m dark paint.

Quadruped with part of head, ears indicated and with front half of body remaining. It is

decorated with hatched line decoration on the body. On the top of the back is a hatched

meander; hatched lines are also on the front of the front legs and on the sides of the body and

legs. Decoration recalls LG pottery decoration.

References: Dugas, Tegea 426 no. 355, fig. 52; paraUels: Dawkms, Sparta pl. XLI, nos. 1-6;

HeUmeyer, Tonfiguren pl. 1 (Kerameikos no. 1310).

T8(356): Horse fragment (pl. 178)

L .056m

Object is missing back half of body; lower front legs are broken. Clay is a cream/pink colour

and it is decorated m a dark paint. Chipped worn surface.

Quadruped with cylindrical muzzle and ears behind; front legs mclined forward. Much of its

body appears to have been painted in a dark colour; it also has hatched hnes on the body and

down the front of the muzzle, like T7.

References: Dugas, Tegea 426 no. 356, fig. 52; paraUels: Dawkins, Sparta pl. XLI, nos. 1-6.

T9(X): Horse fragment (pl. 178)

L .058m

Quadruped missing back half of body; one of front legs is broken and surface is worn, chipped.

Clay is grey; pamted with black paint aU over body: now worn and scratched.

Horse with a shght mdication of a mane, short ears and a short neck. Difficult to discern any

decoration. Figure generaUy resembles T7 and T8.

Unpubhshed.

TIO(TM): Ram figure (pl. 178)

L .059m

Object is missing aU four legs; snout is chipped and horn is cracked; surface is very worn. Clay

is a pmk colour.

Ram figure with curled horns, a flowmg torso with a high rump, tapermg snout and a smaU tail

behind. Form of body ties it generally with Argive style bronze quadrupeds, with the high

curve of the back. Later terracotta rams are known from Corinth and Laconia.

Unpublished. (There is a simUar unpubhshed one from Gortsouh.)

Ml(363): Marble bust (pl. 185)

Η .153m

Good condition: marble worn a bit on surface.

Rectangular head shape, very long neck with rectangular section and a triangular shaped

shoulder and chest area. A moulded band runs horizontaUy across the shoulders and recaUs

the Argive style terracottas of the seventh-sbrth centuries.


M2(S): Stepped bone seal (pl. 186)

D .046m; Η .012m

Bone is chipped and cracked; broken into four pieces and reglued together, decoration is worn

and chipped. Chipped all around the edges. Lower quarter extremely worn.

Sepped seal with horizontal hole through the disc. Decoration is mcised on both top and

bottom of the seal but the bottom incision is completely indiscernible; the decoration on the

top reveals zigzag lines and the tail of a sphinx, perhaps. Many other such seals were found at

Tegea (not to be found m the TM). From Steinhauer's excavations, trench B2 ( see fig. 4).

Unpublished. For other examples from Tegea, see Dugas, Tegea 431 nos. 381-387, figs. 66-67.

M3(S): Ivory/bone rechning rams (pl. 186)

Left: Η .032m; Base .038 - 055iii; Right Η .028m; Base .06 χ .03m

Both figures have cracked and worn surfaces: nature of cracks suggests that substance is ivory.

(Fragments from a third ram were foui d as weU: not Ulustrated here).

Rechning rams with curled horns, eyes mcised; both have suspension holes pierced through the

middle of theh- bodies. Theh- surfaces are very smooth and carefully worked. They are simUar

in type to oriental ivory examples from north Syria and other (Greek examples) have been

found at Perachora, Sparta etc. There also is a strong connection between these rams and the

bronze rechning oxen, B34-B37, from Tegea.

Unpubhshed. See references under B34-B37.

346 347


M4: Gold objects and glass (pi. 187) Due to fragility of the gold pieces and the way m which ah these objects were mounted to the display board, it was hnpossible to take measurements. For the detsdls of size and descriptions of these objects. See Dugas, Tegea 432 nos. 389-393; gold: 428 nos. 364-369.

348

FIGURE 3

TEGEA

Tegean Town Walls

Δ

Γ

Β

Α ^ / / ^ F o u n t o i n

Temple of Athena ΑΙβα

50M

I I

3 Ο

Plan of Athena Alea Sanctuary

I.

1 - ^

51

ST

3 ο

FIGURE 6

, Λ. Λ.

It

Α ^ Λ

η

I

Α Ι - Ι

5Μ

Bassai Temples

Arcadian Sanctuaries FIGURE?

Sanctuary Site Orientation of Temple Date of Eariiest Evidence

(Approximate) 800

Tegea

Athena Alea (Paus. 8.45.4)

Mavriki

Artemis (Knakeatis?)

(Paus. 8.53.11?)

Gortsouli

Demeter/Artemis?

(Paus. 8.12.5,7)

Orchomenos

Podeison or Aphrodite (Paus. 8.13.2)

Asea Poseidon and Athena (Paus. 8.44.4)

I^ousoi

Artemis Hemera

(Paus. 8.18.7)

Alipheira Athena

(Paus. 8.26.5-7)

Kassai

Apollo Epikourios

(Paus. 8.41.7-10)

(retea

Apollo Parrhasia? (Paus. 8.38.2)

(iortys

Asklepios

(Paus. 8.28.1)

Petrovouni

Poseidon Hippios

(Paus. 8.36.2)

E-W

E-W

N-S

E-W

N-S

E-W

N-S

N-S

N-S

N-S

E-W

700 600

p- p— Β - Β -TC

Key: Ρ

1 0 - · -Τ Δ -

? Τ - Δ -

? ρ ?

Τ . Δ -

Ρ -

τ - Δ -

? Ρ - ρ —

? τ - Δ —

TC · -Τ - Δ -

ρ — ? Β

7 Τ - . Δ

? Τ - Δ — Δ -

Β

? τ - Δ

Pottery Β — — — Bronze

Terracotta Τ - Δ - Temple T C

ε

I

2

Ο Γ-Ι

! I

O h 2

2

ο

Ε u

I

I

!

Ε

LUDOr

K 9 W

50

ε

Ο

2

Ρ α

Ε ο ι - ι

!

ι

2

οι Ο

ρ 2:

3 )

ε

Ο

0 0

Ο

Ε ο

I

I

I

O n

ο

I

Figure 22

Distribution of 8th - 7th Century Human Figure Types

Tegea Mavriki Lousoi ^Arcadia' Sparta Olympia Samos Other

Figure Type

Rider seated side-saddle Β1 •

Figure with two quadrupeds B 2 H

Seated figure B 3 H B 9 B

Hydrophoros B 4 B B I O B

Helmeted male figure B 5 B

Animal headed figure B 6 B

Oriental female figure B 7 B

Female with hands on breasts B 8 B

Miniature lead kouroi Β 1 1 - 12i

• denotes very similar figure

+ denotes relation in general concept

L I , L 2 .

L 3 +

Alph. v . -

Petro.+

+

+

+

+

Cyprus+

Eretria+

in N.M.B

Cyprus+

Athens +

Cyprus +

i t o

Ar^ve Features (A)

Tall neck, flattened mane

Tapering head

Curving back, high rump

Mobile legs, bent or slanted to front

Solid base-plate

Round form, spirited

Style/Influence

Figure 23

Breakdown of Features of Tegean Horses

Dugas B 1 3 B 1 4 B 1 5 B 1 6 ΊΒ17 B 1 8 B 1 9 B20 B 2 1

no.9

L A ? A A L ? A L

A A ? - L L ? L L

A A A A L L A A L

A - A . . A - L

A # A A A L ? A L

A A A A A L A - L

A-L A A A A-L L A-L A-L L

L

L

L

Laconian Features (L)

Disproportionately low neck

Long, undifferentiated head

Short body, low rump

Long, developed legs

Pierced base-plate

Stylized form

Style/Influence Ο

Amve Features (A)

Tall neck, flattened mane

Tapering head

Curving back, high rump

Mobile legs, bent or slanted to front

Solid base-plate

Round form, spirited

Style/Influence

Figure 24

Breakdown of Features of Other Arcadian Horses

L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 LIO Bassai Phigaleia

L

L

L

A

L

A

L

L L A

L

L A-L A

A A L A L

L L A A L

A A A A L

L L

A A - L A

A A L

A-L A-L A-L A-L A-L

3 ο

Laconian Features Π λ

Disproportionately low neck

Long, undifferentiated head

Short body, low rump

Long, developed legs

Pierced base-plate

Stylized form

Style/Influence

Tegea Gortsouli Lousoi Sparta Argos Olympia Other Total

Pendant Type

Solid Circular Base 11 4 1 1 2 19

Pierced Circular Base 1 1 3 5

Conical Body 7 1 8

Trefoil-shaped Base 8 1 1 10

Quatrefoil-shaped Base 6 1 7

Cinquefoil-shaped Base 1 1

Thin Rectangular Base 6 7

Deep Rectangular Base 17 1 2 2 22

Pyramidal Body 25 1 4 1 2 33

Circular Pomegranate (A) 1 1 5 7

Cubic Pomegranate (B) 2 2

Bell-shaped Pomegranate (C) 10 2 12

Biconical Pomegranate (D) 17 2 19

Total Number

Stamp 82 1 7* 10 2 4 7 113

Pomegranate 30 0 0 5 0 0 5 40

Combined Total 112 1 7 15 2 4 12 153

3

t o

* Total includes F1994 from Lousoi

which does not fit in above categories

Ll l L12

L6

Quadrupeds from Lousoi'

03 4 i

W / \ \

\

S

- J

Ζά

U J 3

U

t ^ g i O U s D 6 n a

0 0

/

\

P | 0 9

9 9 2 ou

sD6na

Hi'

9dr

Sd

^ 1

i n fa H

PM

SJd

ZU

5

^ 3 1

υΐ

I I Ε υ

^^^^^^^^^^^

00

Η

Η

U U 3

1

.κ

ι

i

2

I α.

l e d

^ Ϊ ί

ma

Η

^4

m

9fd

1

1

I

I ε υ

m - ......^

I υ

5- .

1 ^ 3

Ltd

IT)

Η

U J 3

Η

OSdi

I

I Ε υ

f

I

ί5

O n

I i

I

I Ε υ

S9d

I Ρ9ά

ο

Ζ9ά

e9d

U J 3

LM

in

ZLd

Ltd 9Ld

I

IT)

Η

. ψ

i

I

ΐ ϋ 3

ο

9

06a> 68d

L U 3

i d Η

I

mm

1 '

Η ϊ

San

6dW

a, S

I

ΙΟ

υ

in

ω 3

r e

mi

in

•

ii

Ε

υ

5 9

L U 3

so

Η

IT)

Η

La

9e

00 ΙΟ

Η

I

I ! t

ο m

I 2

ί

Ε

υ

I/)

S a.

3

0 .

Η

so 00

Ξ

I

I

I

I υ

ON

Η

I υ

I

I Ε υ

on

ι ι Ε υ

?2

Η

I

I e υ

I ε υ

ι ι

00

Η

Ed

Η

χ

I

I υ

0

Η

ι ι υ

00

ι ι υ

as

Η

00 00

I

I υ

: m

I

I υ

Η

Z9a

0^

OS

I S

so

I

I

g

i

so as

ι

I

I

Ε

υ ιΓ)

§5 1 ^

0S9 6£Η

m

ί

I Ε υ

I

ι Ε υ

9 6 3 sen P6U

Ρ

Si

i i • Ε υ

i

I

I

m ο

I I

ο

I

tool

Ι3ί1

I

I ε υ

»4

ιετβ 6zm

Lzm

ta

i

ί 00

I

03

εετβ ζετο

O n

9pm spm ppm £pm

Η

1 mm

f

6sm

ε

1--

2

1

0

I υ

^9Τ9

0^

ί

ι I ε υ

ι ι ε υ

um zLm

ι a.

I

I Ε u

SQ

1

I

. . ^ j i t ^ ^z^^ \

I ε

υ

I

I

i8ia

I

I

LZT 9Zl

i um

^^^i ^^^^

I

2

so

^ ^ ^ ^

I

I ε υ

OS

00

ο

I

I Ε υ

(X

I

I ε υ

in

eu

Η

0^

I ε υ

I mm

9 0 Z 9

. -i^-^ \!.i>:

-5

sore

3

ι I ε υ

90

0^

1

Ι ϋ

hjUD

ΙΟ

ί

I

I mmuutnmnv • Hi

in

0.

IT) in

I ε υ

1

•

I

I ε υ

i

OS

I

I ε υ

00

i

I

I Ε υ

i

3

I

I Ε υ

2 m a

I

9nn

2

I

I ε υ

in so

I

I Ε

υ

m a

3

ί

I

I

SSZE

£SZ9

UJD

9S SO

i

I

I ε υ

9 Γ Ι

in

on

frn

ϊ

ει

ί2

PI

I

I Ε υ

Η

I

91

i5 Ed

i

-Η

i n

I

I υ I

00

PU

2

S3

911

00

S T U D I E S IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND LITERATURE

Pocket-books 20 September, 1990

Edited and published by Professor Paul Astrom W. Gibsons vag 11 S-433 76 Partille SWEDEN

1. p. Astrom, Cypern - motsattningarnas δ. 2. R.L. Murray, The Protogeometric Style. The First Greek Style. 3. (E.J. Holmberg, Aten. Out of print.) 4. R. Laffmeur, Les vases en metal preciewc ά I'epoque mycenienne. 5. (E.J. Holmberg, Delfi och Olympia. Out of print.) 6. L. Pomerance, The Phaistos Disc. 1. E. Wistrand, Politik och litteratur i antikens Rom. 8. E.J. Holmberg, Athens. 9. R.S. Merrillees, Introduction to the Bronze Age Archaeology of Cyprus.

10. E.J. Holmberg, Delphi and Olympia. 11. p. Astrom, Arkeologiskt detektivarbete. 12. E. Gjerstad, Ages and Days in Cyprus. 13. A. Andren, Capri - From the Stone Age to the Tourist Age. 14. A. Andren, Var van Horatius. 15. M.J. Alden, Bronze Age Fluctuations in the Argolid From the Evidence of Mycenaean

Tombs. 16. E.J. Peltenburg, Recent Developments in the Later Prehistory of Cypriis. 11. S.F.Kromholz, The Bronze Age Necropolis at Ayia Paraskevi (Nicosia). 18. Z.J.Kapera, Kinyras, Bibliography of Ancient Cyprus for the Year 1979. 19. A. Andren, Arkeologins marodorer. 20. A.G. Orphanides, Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines. 21. I. Skupinska-Lovset, Funerary Portraiture of Roman Palestine. 22. K. Westerberg, Cypriote Ships From the Bronze Age to c. 500 B.C. 23. B.A. Barletta, Ionic Influence in Archaic Sicily. 24. I. Pohl, Ostia, Roms hamnstad. 25. p. Astrom, L.R. Palmer & L. Pomerance, Studies in Aegean Chronology. 26. J. Weingarten, The Zakro Master and His Place in Prehistory. 21. A. Andren, Orvieto. 28. Z.J. Kapera, Kinyras, Bibliography of Ancient Cyprus for the Year 1978. 29. (Epiktetos. Oversattning av G. Grunewald. Out of print.) 30. (Antika motiv i modern grekisk poesi. Out of print.) 31. K.-E. Sjoquist & P. Astrom, Pylos: Palmprints and Palmleaves. 32. G. Saflund, Att tyda antika bildverk. 33. S. Sophocleous, Atlas des representations chypro-archaiques des divinites. 34. C. W. Shelmerdine, The Perfume Industry at Mycenaean Pylos. 35. O. Vessberg, Romersk portrattkonst. 36. A. Andren, Deeds and Misdeeds in Classical Art and Antiquities. 37. H. Hankey, Archaeology: Artifacts and Artifiction. 38. A. Ollfors, Hjalmar Soderberg och antiken och andra essayer. 39. 1. Algulin, Nyklassicism som litterdr tradition. 40. W. Culican, Opera Selecta. 41. (Κ.Ρ. Kavafis' samlade publicerade dikter. Out of print.) 42. A.B. Knapp, Copper Production and Divine Protection: Archaeology, Ideology and Social

Complexity on Bronze Age Cyprus. 43. W.D.E. Coulson, The Dark Age Pottery ofMessenia. 44. M.P. Nilsson, Cults, Myths, Oracles and Politics in Ancient Greece. 45. A.-M. & L. Didoff, Fragment av tid och rum. Antiken i konstnarligt ljus. 46. R.M. Rilke, Briefe an Ernst Norlind. Herausgegeben von P. Astrom. 47. p. Bien, Tre generationer av grekiska forfattare: L Konstantin Kavafis. Oversattning och

bearbetning av G. Grunewald.

48. 49. 50.

51.

.*)2. 53. 54. 55.

56-57. 58.

59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64. 65. %.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

72. 73. 74.

75.

76. 77.

78. 79.

KO.

n. <2. β . i4. {5. <6. \1. {8. {9. K).

1.

)2. 3.

M.

G.P. Shams, Some Minor Textiles in Antiquity. G. Walberg, Kamares. A Study of the Character of Palatial Middle Minoan Pottery. 2iul ed Y.G. Lolos, The Late Helladic I Pottery of the Southwestern Peloponnesos and Its ΙΑΗΊΙΙ

Characteristics. J.L. Crowley, The Aegean and the East. An Investigation into the Transference ol Am sin

Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age. Modern grekisk poesi. En antologi. Oversattning av G. Grunewald. B. Kurten-Lindberg, Women's Lib i Aristophanes'Athen? S. Smart Leach, Subgeometric Pottery from Southern Etruria. A. Schone, Der Thiasos. Eine ikonographische Untersuchung iiber das Gefolge des

Dionysos in der attischen Vasenmalerei des 6. und 5. Jhs. v. Chr. p. Astrom (ed.). High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absohitc Chronology Held in Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987. Parts 1-2. L.J. Bliquez, Roman Surgical Instruments and Minor Objects in the University of

Mississippi. Horatius, satirer och epistlar i urval. Originaltexter och oversattningar av A. Andren. N. Kazantzakis'filosofiska testamente. R.M. Rilke. Ett urval tolkningar av Patrik Reutersvard. O. Psychoyos, Deplacements de la ligne de rivage et sites archeologiques dans les regions

cotiires de la mer Egee, au Neolithique et ά I'Age du Bronze. J.P. Sartre, Barjona eller askans son. N. Kazantzakis, Odysseen. Sang I. Oversattning: G. Grunewald. L. von Rosen, Lapis lazuli in geological contexts and in ancient written sources. R.M. Rilke, Briefe an Tora Vega Holmstrom. Herausgegeben von B. Rausing und P.

Astrom. K. Czemohaus, Delphindarstellungen von der minoischen bis zur geometrischen Zeit. T. Rombos, The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery. D.N. Tripathi, Bronzework of Mainland Greece from c. 2600 B.C. to 1450 B.C. B. Mattsson, The Ascia Symbol on Latin Epitaphs. In preparation. A. Andren, Latinska dikter om karlek, lidande och dod. Originaltexter och metriska

oversattningar. P. Warren, Minoan Religion as Ritual Action. M.C. Astour, Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age. G. Saflund, Etrusker - vad menade ni egentligenl Etruskiskt bildspr^k - symbol och

mening. J.M. Webb, Ritual Architecture, Iconography and Practice in the Late Cypriote Bronze

Age. In preparation. M. Tsipopoulou, Archaeological Survey at Aghia Photia, Siteia. © E. Stavrianopoulou, Untersuchungen zur Struktur des Reiches von Pylos. Die Stellung der

Ortschaften im Lichte der Linear B-Texte. Q J.C. Overbeck, The Bronze Age Pottery from the Kastro at Paro^ — C. Vasdaris, Das dorische Kapitell in der hellenistisch-romischen Zeit im ostlichen ψ

Mittelmeerraum. In preparation. ^ P. Astrom (ed.), High, Middle or Low? Acts of an International Colloquium on Absolute il

Chronology Held in Gothenburg 20th-22nd August 1987. Part 3. C B. L i n d e g M & P. Astrom, Hippokrates och var tids sjukvard. ^ K.-E. Sjoquist & P. Astrom, Knossos: Keepers and Kneaders. In preparation. < Ovidius, Tristia. Oversattning av J.W. Kohler. C J. Weinstein Balthazar, Copper and Bronze Working in Early Through Middle Bronze Age

Cyprus. J. Gifford, The Geoarchaeology ofHala Sultan Tekke. In preparation. H. Hjelmqvist, A Cereal Find From Old Etruria. E.J. Holmberg, The Red-Line Painter and the Workshop of the Acheloos Painter. N. Kelly Cooper, The development of Roof Revetment in the Peloponnese. Johannes Edfelt och antiken. Med kommentarer av P. Astrom. " Gunnar Ekelofoch Gottfrid Wallden, Brevvaxling. Utgiven av P. Astrom. ^^ / P. Astrom, Gunnar Ekelofoch antiken. In preparation. Jeno Platthy and Antiquity. An Anthology edited by P. Astrom. In pre] L. von Rosen, Lapis lazuli in archaeological contexts. A. Andren, Minnen frdn min forntid. In preparation.

ο < < IM

.r

< Ο

ο

X

Voyatzis-The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea

Documents

Transcript of Voyatzis-The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea