Overseas Connections of Knossos and Crete in the Archaic And

Home , 420s, 520s BC, Frank Edward Brown, Hermogenes (potter), Humfry Payne, Prinias

Overseas Connections of Knossos and Crete in the Archaic and

Classical periods: A Reassessment Based on Imports from the

Unexplored Mansion

A Thesis submitted to the

Graduate School of the

University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Classics

of the College of Arts and Sciences

Eirini Paizi

B.A. University of Heidelberg

May 2016

Committee Chair: Kathleen M. Lynch, Ph.D.

Committee Member: Antonios Kotsonas, Ph.D. ABSTRACT

For Crete, the Early Iron Age (12th–7th centuries B.C.) was an era of great prosperity and intense contacts with the Aegean and the Near East. However, in the periods that follow, the 6th–5th centuries B.C., signs of overseas activity and even human occupation diminish sharply on the island. The abrupt change from the rich material culture of the Early Iron Age to the material indigence of the Archaic and Classical periods has attracted wide-ranging attention in the scholarship. According to scholarly consensus, Crete fell into material and cultural decline after the collapse of Phoenician trade networks around 600–575 B.C., which cut her off from her contacts with the outside world. Most discussions of this decline have focused on the major site of

Knossos, which is taken to present an extreme manifestation of the phenomenon. Indeed, many scholars assume a complete absence of archaeological finds at the site between

600/ 590 B.C. and 525 B.C. and some argue for a decline of overseas connections at the city around 475–425 B.C., which they explain with a hypothesized Athenian interference in the trade networks of the Aegean.

My thesis revisits these ideas in the light of previously unpublished imported pottery from the area of the Unexplored Mansion, a settlement site located northwest of the Minoan Palace of Knossos. I identify a number of imported fragments of sympotic, perfume, and cosmetic vessels from the Aegean (Attica, Corinth, Laconia) and the

Eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus) which date from the purported chronological “lacunae” and indicate that latter may be more apparent than real. This thesis further discusses isolated finds from other sites within the Knossos valley which date to the periods in question. I suggest that important fragments have often remained unpublished and

ii occasionally they have been assigned an incorrect date, which has helped establish and maintain the traditional idea that there are “gaps.” This situation has had a negative impact on our understanding of Crete in the Archaic and Classical periods, which can be remedied by new studies of old material and the questioning of old assumptions.

iii

Eirini Paizi

2019

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am immensely thankful to my supervisors, Profs. Kathleen M. Lynch and

Antonis Kotsonas, for introducing me into the study of ancient pottery and for mentoring my thesis. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Todd Whitelaw for facilitating access to primary material kept at the Stratigraphical Museum of Knossos to

Prof. Kotsonas, who thus identified the promising body of material from which I selected the pottery discussed in the present thesis. I am indebted to Prof. Kotsonas for encouraging me to take up the study of this material and to both Prof. Whitelaw and Prof.

Kotsonas for their valuable help with my application for a study permit. I would also like to express my very great appreciation to the curator of the Stratigraphical Museum of

Knossos, Dr. Kostas Christakis, for allowing me to use the library, the museum, and all facilities of the British School at Athens in Knossos for the purposes of my thesis, as well as to all members of the British School at Athens who have contributed to granting me permission for the study of material from the Unexplored Mansion. Moreover, the completion of thesis would not have been possible without the extensive training I received on the classification, dating, and illustration of Attic pottery from the Athenian

Agora by Prof. Susan I. Rotroff, Aspasia Efstathiou, and especially by Prof. Kathleen

Lynch during the summer seasons 2018 and 2019. I am also particularly grateful to Fani

Skalida for introducing me into the techniques of archaeological illustration and for her assistance with the drawings of the pottery presented below, to Prof. Lynch for her corrections on my drawings of the Attic pottery, to my mother Maria Papantelaki and my sister Despoina Paizi for their help with the inking of the drawings, and to both Prof.

Lynch and John Wallrodt who trained me to digitize the drawings. I also thank very much

Dr. Giorgos Bourogiannis, Prof. Lynch, and Prof. Andrew Stewart for their response and advise – respectively – on the dating of the Cypriot pottery, the Attic pottery, and of the sculptural fragments mentioned in the text, as well as Prof. Giada Giudice for her useful comments on the distribution of Corinthian pottery of the 6th and 5th century B.C. in

Sicily and South Italy. In addition, I am deeply thankful to Profs. Eleni Hatzaki and

Steven J. R. Ellis for vital theoretical insights they have shared with me, especially into processes of site formation, and again to Prof. Hatzaki for her immense help with formalities as a graduate supervisor. I also thank Prof. James G. Schryver for proofreading parts of my thesis. Finally, I would like to offer my special thanks to the

Marion and Dorothy Rawson Memorial Fellowship for the additional financial aid it has provided to me for travelling to Knossos for the purposes of my M.A. research and to the

Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati for supporting me in every possible way in the course of this project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures viii

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter 2 KNOSSOS AND THE UNEXPLORED MANSION IN 27 THE 6TH AND 5TH CENTURIES B.C.

Chapter 3 SELECTED ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL POTTERY 59 FROM THE UNEXPLORED MANSION

Chapter 4 SYNTHESIS 110

Chapter 5 CONCLUSIONS 126

Catalogue 132 Abbreviations 159 References 160 Figures 182

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Map of Crete with major archaeological sites of the Archaic and Classical periods. From:

Erickson 2010a, fig. 1.1.

Fig. 2: Azoria. Block Plan. From: Haggis et al. 2017, fig. 1.

Fig. 3: Map of the Knossos area. Section from: Hood and Smyth 1981, folded map.

Fig. 4: Part of the northwestern outskirts of Knossos: the area between Ayios Ioannis (N), Tekke

(S) and the Venizeleion (E). Section from: Hood and Smyth 1981, folded map.

Fig. 5: Block plan of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion. From: Popham 1984, vol. 2, pl. 1 (b).

Fig. 6: Site plan showing the sections and trenches of the strata above the Minoan Unexplored

Mansion. From: Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 1.

Fig. 7: Pits and wells with post-Bronze Age material at the site of the Unexplored Mansion.

From: Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 5

Fig. 8: Section E through Trench XV. From: Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 10.

Fig. 9: Section F across the Roman street (Trenches V-VIII). From: Sackett and Jones

1992, pl. 12 (a).

Fig. 10: Section C across the Trenches VII-IX-VIII. From: Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 8.

Fig. 11: Kouros head from the Little Palace North excavations. From: Erickson 2014, p. 83, fig.

viii

Fig. 12: Marble metope with Herakles and Eurystheus from Knossos. Frrom: Benton 1937, pl. III upper.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The relative dearth of archaeological evidence for Archaic and Classical Crete has been partly shaped by disciplinary traditions. From the early 20th century until the

1990s, archaeological research on Crete was mainly focused on the excavation and the study of the Bronze Age remains of the island.1 However, the last 20 years are characterized by a burst of works dealing with the archaeology of Early Iron Age,2

Archaic, and Classical Crete.3 This development provides an ideal context for revisiting traditional assumptions about Crete of the historical period.

The present study reassesses new and old evidence regarding ceramic imports from overseas to the major Cretan city of Knossos between 600 and 400 B.C.

According to the current scholarly consensus, Knossos of the 6th century B.C. – the so-called “Archaic” period4 – features as an economically, culturally and socio- politically collapsed community. Excavated cemeteries, sanctuaries and settlements of this era offer so little information about human activity that the city is occasionally thought to have been abandoned and resettled in the course of the 6th century B.C.5

1 Haggis et al. 2004, p. 345 with n. 15; Erickson 2010a, p. 67. 2 Important monographs are the following, for instance: Prent 2005; Tsipopoulou 2005; Kotsonas 2008. 3 Indicatively, books and conferences devoted to this period include: Sjörgen 2003; Sjörgen 2008; Erickson 2010a; Wallace 2010; Pilz and Seelentag 2014. 4 The period from ca. 600 to 525/500 B.C. is characterized here as the “Archaic” period. In some cases, I have to refer to the final quarter of the 6th century B.C. and the first quarter of the 5th century B.C. separately as the “Late Archaic” period, because the material remains of this time span are often distinctive both in quantity and in nature from those of the preceding and following phases. A similar division of Cretan history in chronological sections that occasionally deviate from the periodization of the mainland has also been suggested by other scholars (cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. vii–viii). Since these periods are inventions of modern historians and archaeologists, their limits need to be regarded as fluid, approximate, and conventional. 5 For a survey of the problem and the scholarship, see: Coldstream 1991; Huxley 1994; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 289–295; Kotsonas 2002, pp. 37–40, 45, 48. Cf. Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 18; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–3, 235–245; Erickson 2014.

Most of the following century – i.e., the “Classical” period6 – is associated with a moderate revival in activity (even though evidence from burials continues to be elusive).7 However, it has been hypothesized that Knossos and the rest of Crete experienced a break in connections with the outside world for much of the 5th century

B.C.8 It is argued in the present work that the theories of the purported chronological

“lacunae” between 600 and 400 B.C. at Knossos are connected with traditional archaeological and historical problems of Archaic and Classical Crete, as well as with scholarly conventions and beliefs regarding life on the island during the Iron Age. For that reason, a brief survey of these pan-Cretan historical problems is offered in the immediately following sections, while the specifics of the archaeology of Knossos are explained in Chapter 2.

CRETE IN THE 6TH CENTURY B.C.

The 6th century B.C. on Crete is conventionally seen as an era of economic, artistic, and demographic crisis. Archaeologists and historians of the last few decades characterize this period as one of “substantial cultural discontinuity”9 and of “a catastrophic decline in population,”10 as a “period of silence,”11 as “the inevitable

Cretan terminus,”12 and as “the best candidate for being a „Dark Age.‟”13 The negative evaluations have their root in culture historical ideas of the first half of the

20th century. The most important early proponent of such ideas was the French

6 The 5th century B.C., from 475 to 400 B.C., is conventionally called here the “Classical” period, as opposed to the 4th century B.C. (until 323 B.C.), which is referred to as the “Late Classical” period. 7 Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 18; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 295–297. 8 Erickson 2005; Erickson 2010a, pp. 272–308. 9 Erickson 2010a, p. 11. 10 Erickson 2010a, p. 11. Cf. Boardman 1982, p. 230; I. Morris 1998, pp. 66, 68. 11 Stampolidis 1990, p. 400. 12 S. Morris 1992, pp. 157 (cf. also p. 169). 13 The expression was coined by Nicolas Coldstream (1991, p. 298), who used to describe the Archaic period at Knossos (cf. Coldstream and Catling 1996, p. 722). Mieke Prent (1996–1997, pp. 35, 45) views the Archaic era as the best candidate for being a “Dark Age” across the island.

2 historian and archaeologist Pierre Demargne, who viewed the 7th century B.C. as a cultural “renaissance” of the island‟s old (Minoan?) glory.14 This renaissance was owed, in Demargne‟s eyes, to a passive reception of ideas and influences from the

Near East. Current scholarship has moved away from Demargne‟s approach but the wealth of archaeological finds for Crete of the 7th century B.C. and of earlier phases of the Iron Age is still contrasted with the material impoverishment on the island during the Archaic period. The numerous habitation sites, the signs for early urbanization, the ornate fine-ware pottery and metalwork, and the prestigious off- island imports of the Early Iron Age seem to disappear towards the end of the

“Orientalizing” period.15 Nonetheless, scholarship of the last 20 years has embarked on a justified critique of the division of time in neat, 100-year periods that are thought to be internally uniform across the island, but very different from the preceding and following centuries.16 This scholarship has also recognized the dire need to explain the assumed stark contrast between the archaeological record of the 6th century B.C. and that of the Early Iron Age.17

An overview of symptoms of “decline” during the Archaic era on Crete has recently been offered by Brice Erickson, the leading authority on Cretan pottery of the

6th and 5th centuries B.C.18 Erickson emphasizes on the absence of the following categories of evidence: a) bronze votives, b) monumental stone sculpture, c)

14 Demargne 1947. 15 See indicatively: S. Morris 1992, pp. 150–172; I. Morris 1998, pp. 61–68; Kotsonas 2002, pp. 37, 40–41, 42–44, 48–49; Haggis 2004, p. 344; Erickson 2005, pp. 625–636; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–22, 279–291; Hatzaki and Kotsonas 2019, pp. 1038–1042, 1044–1046. Against the idea of a reduction of settlements during the 6th century B.C. stands Lena Sjörgren (2003, pp. 23, 30, 66; 2008, p. 53). It is noteworthy that some scholars have identified signs of material decline on Crete already since the 7th century B.C. (I. Morris 1998, pp. 59–61; Kotsonas 2017, pp. 17, 23). The 7th century B.C. is the period in which the first legal inscriptions regulating the power of civic magistrates appear on the island (e.g. the Dreros law, see: Whitley 2001, pp. 188–189). The term “Orientalizing” period refers in the present thesis to the 7th century B.C. 16 Cf. Kotsonas 2016a; Erickson 2010a, p. 11, n. 48; Kotsonas 2017, pp. 17, 23. 17 For example: Kotsonas 2002; Erickson 2002; 2010a. 18 Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–22.

3 terracottas, d) relief pithoi, e) and painted pottery. More specifically: he argues that the number of bronze miniature shields and votive armor from the Idaean and

Diktaean caves and the sanctuaries at Kato Syme and Aphrati (fig. 1) declines sharply after ca. 600 B.C.19 In addition, he argues that Archaic monumental stone sculptures, which abound elsewhere in Greece, are limited to five examples from Crete.20

Furthermore, he describes a steep decrease in the volume of terracotta figurines and plaques offered at sanctuaries in the 6th century B.C., with the exception of the sanctuary at Axos (fig. 1).21 He also notes the disappearance of monumental relief pithoi with “Orientalizing” motifs22 and the substitution of decorated with monochrome pottery.23 On the whole, the current scholarly view is echoed in

Erickson‟s words: “Nearly every facet of the craft and artistic production [of the island] … points to a decline or changed priorities in the 6th century.”24

The dearth of identifiable and published material from the 6th century B.C. has given rise to scenarios that picture Crete or specific cities of the island as victims of military, political, environmental, or economic catastrophes.25 The drawback of the internal wars scenario is that we find no general destruction horizons at a considerable number of sites. The theories of a possible drought, flood, or similar natural events also seem hard to prove, especially if the few available environmental data regarding climatic conditions in Archaic and Classical Crete and Greece are taken into

19 Erickson 2010a, pp. 6–7. 20 Erickson 2010a, pp. 7–8. 21 Erickson 2010a, pp. 8–9. 22 Erickson 2010a, p. 9. 23 Erickson 2010a, pp. vii–viii with n. 2 and pp. 23–42. This problem is central to the study of Archaic and Classical Crete, since the lack of chronologically sensible decorated pottery impedes the close dating of other possible classes of evidence and stratigraphic contexts from the 6th–5th centuries B.C. On that issue see: Whitley 2001, pp. 247–250; Kotsonas 2002, pp. 40–41. 24 Erickson 2010a, p. 9. 25 Watrous 1982, pp. 21–23; S. Morris 1992, pp. 169–172; I. Morris 1998, pp. 65–66; Huxley 1994, pp. 128–129; Viviers 1994, pp. 252–258; Prent 1996–1997, pp. 43–45; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 303–304; Erickson 2000, p. 332, n. 4 and pp. 333–349. 2002, esp. pp. 82–87; 2010a, pp. 235–245, 298–345.

4 consideration: cold and dry conditions appear to have prevailed from the Geometric to the Hellenistic period, with peaks both in the 6th century B.C. and in the 3rd–1st centuries B.C.26 Floods and especially hot summers with heavy rainfall are attested for example in central Peloponnese, western Crete (Kournas Lake), and Attica at ca.

500 B.C., ca. 450 B.C. and the end of the 5th–beginning of the 4th century B.C. respectively.27 Nonetheless, in the case of mainland Greece, extreme climatic conditions seem not to have interrupted occupation at a regional level. Other explanations offered for the “gap” are systematic migration of the population due to colonization, mercenary service overseas, piracy, and other causes.28

A further scenario seeks to connect the peculiar archaeological picture of the

6th century B.C. with transformations connected the nascence of the Archaic polis on

Crete. The changes in mortuary display and burial practices, the abandonment of organized cemeteries with collective burials, the recession of cult places visited since the end of the Bronze Age, shifts in the material and the quantity of grave goods and religious offerings, and discontinuities in the stratigraphy and the location of urban nuclei may be manifestations of that phenomenon.29 According to this theory, the abandonment and location change of sites could be a result of centralized reorganization of space; the shift from collective to individual burial may reflect changes in social mentality; the drop in mortuary display could be symptomatic of

26 Ghilardi et al. 2019, p. 4 27 Ghilardi et al. 2019, p. 4. For the floods in central Peloponnese: Finné et al. 2014. The evidence for the flood in western Crete (Kournas area) is unpublished and cited in: Walsh et al. 2019. As for Attica, Diodorus Siculus and Demosthenes refer to heavy rains which caused problems to farmers in 427 B.C., 418 B.C., and 385 B.C. (see Sallares 1991, pp. 261, 393). 28 Cf. S. Morris 1992, pp. 170–171; I. Morris 1998, p. 68. 29 Kotsonas 2002, pp. 50–57. Cf. Stefanakis et al. 2007, pp. 303–304; Wallace 2010, p. 328. A similar explanation was suggested by Marja C. Vink (1996–1997) for the low archaeological profile of 7th century B.C. Greece: according to Vink, the emergent Greek city-state perhaps no longer needed the forms of wealth expression used in the Late Geometric era and gradually abolished them.

5 increasing state control over elite behavior or of a change in the arenas of elite competition.30

Erickson was one of the first ceramic specialists to attempt to create a relative and absolute sequence of the black-glazed ware production at Eleutherna, Knossos,

Gortyn, and various other sites of western, central, and eastern Crete between 600 and

400 B.C.31 The pottery of this period was admittedly little understood before

Erickson‟s work.32 Erickson‟s absolute and relative sequence was built upon the chronology of other Greek ceramic classes (mainly Attic and Corinthian fine-ware), through the correlation of the local pottery with Greek imports in stratified contexts of the island.33 His contribution is of immense value, as he shows that western Crete

(Phalassarna and Kydonia), Eleutherna, Gortyn, the Vrokastro area, and Praisos (fig.

1) probably survived the “collapse” of the 6th century B.C.34 To Erickson, these findings suggest that the purported “lacuna” might be a mirage caused by the criteria of excavation and publication of Cretan material35 (which often favor Bronze Age contexts),36 the vagaries of preservation,37 processes of site formation,38 as well as the

30 Cf. Stefanakis et al. 2007, p. 303. Similar developments took place in Athens at the transition from the 6th to the 5th century B.C.: the disappearance of free-standing sculpture and relief stone stelai (the two types of monuments which were marking Archaic elite graves at the cemetery of Kerameikos) toward the end of the 6th century B.C has been connected with the development of political institutions which ultimately led to the birth of Athenian democracy (I. Morris 1992, pp. 128–155). 31 Erickson 2000; Erickson 2010a. The first to have undertaken such a task on a smaller scale was Peter Callaghan (1978, pp. 6–21), who had created a sequence for the fine-ware pottery from the Shrine of Glaukos at Knossos. 32 Cf. Kotsonas 2002, pp. 40–41; Erickson 2010a, pp. vii–ix, 1, 23–42. 33 Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 116, 119, 120, 243. 34 Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 45–67, 86–95, 104–113 (Eleutherna), 178–188 (Gortyn), 190–192 (Vrokastro area), 199–216 (Praisos). On the survey material from Praisos see also: Whitley 1992–1993; 1998; Whitley, O‟Conor, and Manson 1995; Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999. Further reports of the surveys in the Vrokastro area (Hayden 1997) and Gournia (Watrous and Blitzer 1995) and the excavations at Kommos (Shaw 2000), Itanos (Greco et. al. 1996; 1997; 1998; 1999; 2000), and Azoria (Haggis 2004; 2007; 2011a; Mook and Haggis 2013) also show that the 6th century B.C. is not completely elusive, especially on East Crete. 35 Erickson 2005, p. 632; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1, 247. 36 Haggis 2004, p. 345, n. 16; Erickson 2005, p. 632; Erickson 2010a, pp. vii, p. 67. 37 Erickson 2010a, pp. 1, 20. 38 Cf. Erickson 2010a, p. 178.

6 difficulty of identification and dating undecorated fine-ware.39 However, Erickson does not break entirely with tradition since he proposes that Knossos is perhaps the only Cretan site for which the occupational “hiatus” is true.40 My goal in this thesis, and especially in Chapter 3, is to reexamine this hypothesis, using both published and unpublished ceramic imports from overseas found at the Unexplored Mansion of

Knossos: an area 400 m northwest of the Minoan Palace of Knossos which has yielded extensive traces of domestic activity for the Early Iron Age and historical periods (fig. 3).

In addition to Praisos and other sites in which Erickson identified signs of activity during the 6th century B.C., an intensive survey (1989–1992) and systematic excavation (2002–2017) conducted on the hill of Azoria, near Kavousi (figs. 1–2), revealed a thriving community of the 6th–early 5th century B.C. This field research was exceptional in uncovering an extensive part of a site while applying detailed methods of recovering and analyzing the botanical, faunal, and other organic residues.

A series of informative preliminary reports on Azoria seem to contradict every single conventional belief about the society and economy of Archaic and Late Archaic

Crete.41 However, given the singular nature of the site, some experts have warned

39 Kotsonas 2002, pp. 40–41; Erickson 2010a, pp. vii–ix, 1, 23–42. 40 Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–3, 235–245. 41 The site is densely built and extends over an area of 2 hectares (fig. 2). The main construction and occupation phases span the full length of the Archaic and Late Archaic periods (Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 386, 390, 393; Mook and Haggis 2013, p. 60–61, 73). Thirteen main building complexes were revealed, erected on different terraces and centered on a megalithic “spine wall” which was built in the late 7th–early 6th century B.C. (Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 351–352, 390; 2011a, p. 2; Mook and Haggis 2013, pp. 60–61). Two complexes, the “Communal Dining Building” (Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 248–295; 2007, pp. 14–16) and the “Monumental Civic Building” (Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 295–301; 2007, pp. 16–42), comprise dozens of rooms and have yielded abundant evidence for the communal consumption of food and drink, the storage and display of armor, the performance of sacrifices and the segregation of social groups during communal feasts. These along with other complexes, such as the Service Building (Stefanakis et al. 2007, pp. 43–62) and the West Building (Haggis et al. 2017, pp. 2–8), have produced evidence for centralized wine, olive oil, and textile production and the large-scale storage of cereals, pulses, almonds, olive oil, and wine in specially designated spaces. Numerous fine and cooking ware imports, as well as transport amphoras from Attica, Aegina, East Greece, and the Northern Aegean date the abandonment and destruction phase of the settlement to the beginning of the 5th

7 against “enshrining Azoria as a new type site and inferring from it a healthy picture of the island in the 6th century” B.C.42

Erickson‟s aforementioned reconsideration of the 6th century B.C. involved a completely new approach to the external contacts of the island during this period.

Traditionally, the abundance of ivory, metal, faience, and ceramic imports from

Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant found in the Early Iron Age on Crete was explained as a byproduct of Phoenician commercial activity in the Eastern

Mediterranean. According to this former scholarly consensus, Crete was a stopping point of Phoenician merchants on their route from North Syria to North Africa from the 9th through the 7th centuries B.C.43 In the beginning of the 6th century B.C., military upheavals led to the fall of the Assyrian Empire and consequently, the siege and conquest of Tyre by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II.44 This blow to the

Phoenician East is supposed to have caused the collapse of Phoenico-Aramaean trade networks and to have had “an indirect but drastic effect on the „gateway communities‟ of Crete, which lost their Oriental sponsor.”45

Erickson interpreted the assumed loss of the eastern trade routes as a catalyst for the reorientation of Cretan trade towards the Aegean. In 2005 he proposed that

Crete was part of an exchange network that connected the Peloponnese with North

Africa during the Archaic period.46 This exchange was conducted, in his view, by

century B.C. (Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 358–359, fig. 13, p. 360, fig. 14, p. 377; 2011a, p. 36, fig. 25; 2011b, p. 442, n. 26; Stefanakis 2007, p. 249, fig. 4, p. 251, fig. 6.5, p. 258, fig. 11, pp. 260–262, fig. 15, p. 284, figs. 30.1–2, p. 285, figs. 31.1–3). 42 Erickson 2014, p. 69. 43 S. Morris 1992, pp. 150–170, 182; Whitley 2001, p. 121; Stampolidis 2003, pp. 43–44; Erickson 2005, pp. 625–627; Erickson 2010a, p. 279. 44 Erickson 2005, p. 627. 45 S. Morris 1992, p. 170. 46 Erickson 2005, pp. 627–636. Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 281–298.

Laconian, Aeginetan and/ or Samian merchants,47 and its theoretical existence is based on the following observations: a) the discovery of Laconian pottery in Libya, as well as on Samos and Crete from the end of the 7th to the beginning of the 5th century

B.C.,48 b) the presence of 6th-century B.C. Cretan pottery at Tocra and Cyrene,49 c) the existence of (6th- and 5th-century B.C). Aeginetan coins at Knossos, Matala, and

Kydonia,50 d) the influx of Attic pottery to Crete in the Late Archaic period51 and to

Egypt in the first half of the 5th century B.C.52 (before the destruction and colonization of Aegina by the Athenians in 457 B.C.),53 e) a passage in Herodotus

(3.59) claiming that Kydonia was a colony established by pro-Laconian Samian exiles in 524 B.C., but was taken over by the Aeginetans in 519 B.C.54

The affiliation between Crete and the Peloponnese is perhaps strengthened by the sources that refer to various Cretan cities as Spartan colonies (Phalassarna,

Polyrrhenia, Aptera, Axos, Gortyn, and Lyktos).55 The involvement of Cycladic merchants in the eastern part of the island is also a possibility according to Erickson, judging from unpublished Late Archaic Cycladic pottery found at Olous, Azoria, and

Itanos.56 In his view though, Crete itself played the passive role in this network as a mere transshipment point. Greeks passed from the island on their way to North Africa

47 Erickson 2005, pp. 628–633, 635–636. 48 Erickson 2005, p. 628. On Crete there is both Laconian and Argive pottery: Erickson 2005, pp. 630– 633. 49 Erickson 2005, p. 630. 50 Erickson 2005, pp. 633, 648. For the Aeginetan kraters from the Greek temple above the Minoan Palace of Knossos, see Chapter 2. 51 Cf. Erickson 2005, pp. 635–636; Erickson 2010a, pp. 292–293. 52 Erickson 2005, p. 635. 53Thuc. 105.2–3; Diod. 11.78.3–4. Cf. Welwei 1992, p. 96. 54 Erickson 2005, pp. 634–635; Erickson 2010a, pp. 291–292. 55 For a summary of literary references see: Malkin 1994, pp. 77–83. 56 Erickson 2005, p. 636: “The long east-west axis of the island apparently encouraged the development of two distinct trade networks, one in the west and the other in the east with a Cycladic orientation. Surprisingly, the new dawn of overseas trade proved to be a false start, and there followed an unprecedented disruption of overseas imports in the island‟s archaeological record.” Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 294–295.

9 and it was them – or, earlier, the Phoenicians– rather than the Cretans who actively undertook this movement of goods.57

Before going on to discuss of the archaeology of Classical Crete, it is important to note that the only category of evidence which admittedly does not disappear from the island in the 6th (and the 5th) century B.C. is inscriptions.58 A rich record of legal documents inscribed usually on building blocks at Gortyn, Eleutherna,

Prinias, Axos, Lyktos (fig. 1), and other cities have been attributed to the Archaic and

Late Archaic periods and suggest that a central authority in each of these places was issuing decrees during the purported Archaic “hiatus.”59 A study of the inscriptions from Eleutherna conducted by Paula Perlman has demonstrated that, by the Late

Archaic period at latest, the city had specialized craftsmen (especially hide and leather workers), some of which were appointed or financed by the state, and that the economy was partially monetized.60 This contradicts the traditional model for Crete of the historical periods – especially the years before the Roman conquest – according to which the island had a simple subsistence economy that was based on small-scale farming and animal husbandry and abstained from craft production and commercial activities.61

57 Cf. Erickson 2005, pp. 625–636. 58 Whitley 2001, p. 248: “It is in one respect an exaggeration to say that we know nothing about sixth- century Crete. For there are plenty of inscriptions. It is the rarity of pots and the abundance of inscriptions that make sixth-century Crete stand out from any other region of Archaic Greece.” Erickson 2010a, p. 20: “In fact, one category of evidence, inscriptions, does continue, implying a stable population… [However] the lack of a secure archaeological context renders inscriptions useless as a foundation for dating other classes of evidence.” 59 Whitley 2001, pp. 248–250, esp. p. 250. 60 Perlman 2004. 61 Kirsten 1942; Willetts 1955; Chaniotis 1999.

CRETE IN THE 5TH CENTURY B.C.

Archaeological remains of the 5th century B.C. are supposed to be more numerous than those of the previous century.62 In practice, however, the archaeology of Classical Crete has many similarities with that of the Archaic period. Burials in general remain elusive.63 Inscriptions continue.64 Important sanctuaries of the Bronze

Age and Early Iron Age experience changes that are reflected in the archaeological record of both the 6th and the 5th century B.C. Kommos, in the south-central part of the island (fig. 1), has hardly any votives between 600 and 400 B.C. except a massive deposit in Building Q dated to the Late Archaic period.65 At Kato Syme, bronze offerings (in the form of figurines and cutout plaques) are believed to have been replaced by pottery after the lapse of the Orientalizing period.66 The ceramic finds span the entire length of the 5th century B.C. and only parts of the 6th century B.C.

Erickson has suggested that the change in the material and types of offerings might be connected with evolving cult practices.67 Deposits of feasting and drinking debris from Pryniatikos Pyrgos (fig. 1) are confined to the second quarter of the 5th century

B.C.,68 and a domestic destruction deposit at Aphrati covers the time span of ca. 425–

400 B.C.69 All in all, this period is somewhat better attested than the Archaic era.

Although Erickson views the 5th century B.C. on Crete as a period of resumed activity, he postulates that imported pottery from overseas is absent at virtually every site of the island between 460 and 400 B.C. Most notably, he argues that the plentiful

62 Erickson 2010a, p. 41. 63 Morris 1998, p. 61. 64 See for instance the corpus from Gortyn in: Gagarin and Perlman 2016, pp. 290–461, nos. G4–G140. 65 Johnston 1993. 66 Erickson 2002, pp. 44–70, 74–75, 77. 67 Erickson 2002, p. 77. 68 Erickson 2010b, pp. 309–328. 69 Erickson 2002, pp. 44, 58–59, 66, 77.

Late Archaic70Attic and Laconian imports at the cities and cemeteries of Phalassarna,

Kydonia, and Kastello Varypetrou cease abruptly between 470/450 and 410/400

B.C.71At the necropolis of Itanos (fig. 1), an Attic cup of ca. 460 B.C. is said to be the last Greek import before a revival of off-island products around 425–400 B.C.72 At the burial grounds of Eleutherna, a site that shows a steady flow of imports from 800 to 250 B.C., Erickson notes a steep reduction of Attic, Corinthian, and Laconian pottery after the lapse of the 6th century: only 23 Attic sherds date to ca. 500–475

B.C. and a single fragment belongs to the interval of 460–400 B.C.73 At Knossos too,

Erickson reports a scarcity of ceramic imports from the end of the Classical period and only a handful or examples from the years between ca. 475 and 425 B.C.74 The datable and published evidence of material other than pottery is not numerous. There are Classical relief stelai of Attic style on the island,75 but Erickson doubts whether such finds attest to political affiliations with Attica during the period in which he assumes a break in Greek-Cretan relations.76 Nevertheless, the existence of itinerant artists and merchants moving independently of political developments should perhaps not be excluded.

To contend with the apparent diminution or complete disappearance of mainland Greek and other imports to Crete in roughly the second through last quarters of the 5th century B.C., Erickson examined a set of hypotheses before concluding on the one he favored. Firstly, he considered the possibility of an import ban against

70 For the sudden burst of Greek imports to Crete in the Late Archaic period see: Erickson 2010a, pp. 306–307. 71 Gondicas 1988, pp. 108–116; Erickson 2000, p. 260, n. 104, p. 262; Erickson 2005, p. 637; Erickson 2010a, pp. 291–296. 72 Greco et al. 1997, pp. 820–822; Erickson 2005, p. 638. 73 Erickson 2000, pp. 175–177; Erickson 2005, p. 637. 74 Erickson 2000, pp. 112–115; Erickson 2005, pp. 637–638. 75 Bowsky 1997. 76 Erickson 2005, p. 644. For a contrary view see: Kirsten 1942, p. 21.

Athenian products imposed by Cretan cities on their citizens.77As he noted, “since the distinction between Dorian and Ionian backgrounds plays a major role in Herodotus‟ account of hostilities between Aegina and Athens, Crete‟s Dorian affiliation lends credence to the suggestion that the Cretans deliberately stopped importing Attic pots in the fifth century B.C.”78 Similar theories of a boycott against Athenian products have also been proposed for Corinth and East Greece and have been rejected.79

However, Erickson asserts that “Crete stands apart from these examples by virtue of the severity of the decline … and the consistency of the pattern over a wide area….

This sharp break points to outside interference.”80

Instead of the hypothesis of a pan-Cretan embargo on Athenian products

Erickson seems to favor the following explanation for the disappearance of imports in the second half of the 5th century B.C. The scholar conjectured that the Athenians started to undermine the Peloponnesian trade with Egypt, as their competition with

Sparta grew and their naval control over the Aegean expanded during the

Pentakontaetia, the 50-year period paving the way for the Peloponnesian War.81 He assumed that Athens was systematically undercutting this trade route, which presumably used Crete as a transshipment point, until the end of the Peloponnesian war (404 B.C.) through “informal patrols sent on an ad hoc basis to discourage

Peloponnesian merchant vessels from sailing.”82 Thus, for a second time since the fall of Tyre, Crete is said to have been completely cut-off from its contacts with the outside world. Since Erickson‟s argument is founded primarily on the evidence of

77 Erickson 2005, pp. 643–645. 78 Erickson 2005, p. 643. Cf. Erickson 2010a, p. 296. 79 MacDonald 1982; Miller 1997. 80 Erickson 2005, p. 644. 81 Erickson 2005, pp. 648–658; Erickson 2010a, p. 297. 82 Erickson 2005, p. 655.

13 pottery, the re-examination of 5th-century B.C. ceramic imports to Knossos presented in this thesis can have considerable implications for this theory.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this thesis is to put traditional ideas about the archaeology of

Crete in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. to test by focusing on material from Knossos that dates from these periods. I chose Knossos since it is often regarded as a key site for Archaic and Classical Crete and features prominently in most discussions of the island‟s material culture between 600 and 400 B.C.83 The area of the Knossos valley has been systematically excavated and surveyed since the late 19th century,84 but early excavators would sometimes remove the post-Bronze Age ruins without due consideration to get down to the Minoan levels.85 Moreover, the site has been occupied from the Neolithic to the Medieval period, plundered for construction material in the Ottoman, Venetian, and earlier periods, and partly destroyed by the expanding modern city of Herakleion.86 Last but not least, this is the city for which the Archaic period is still regarded as “Dark Age,” even by those who have challenged the existence of a 6th-century B.C. “lacuna” in the rest of the island.87

One of the settlement sites that has yielded extensive traces of Iron Age occupation within the Knossos valley is the Unexplored Mansion, the area where the primary material of this thesis derives from. The term “Unexplored Mansion” refers to a Late Minoan building in the area, the eastern façade of which was discovered by

83 Cf. Morris 1998, pp. 61–68; Erickson 2000; 2002; 2010a; Haggis et al. 2004, pp. 344–346, esp. p. 344. 84 Coldstream 2000, p. 260; Kotsonas 2002, p. 38; Erickson 2010a, p. 235. 85 Evans 1921, pp. 93–96, fig. 45. Cf. Coldstream‟s (2000, p. 262) justified doubts on whether the present number of Early Iron Age, Archaic, Classical, and later finds kept from Evans‟ excavations of the Minoan Palace of Knossos offer a representative picture of how much was initially excavated. 86 Kotsonas 2016b. 87 Cf. Haggis et al. 2004, p. 344; Erickson 2010a.

Sir Arthur Evans in 1908.88 Due to the dense accumulation of post-Bronze Age material found in Evans‟ test trials, the structure was left largely uninvestigated in the first decades of the 20th century.89 The next systematic excavations were conducted between 1967 and 1977 by the British School at Athens. In the first three campaigns of this project the deep post-Bronze Age occupation layers above the Unexplored

Mansion (fig. 3) were carefully excavated and recorded before they were removed to reveal the Minoan remains.90 A series of detailed preliminary reports from the 1970s and a comprehensive volume which appeared in 1992 publicized the finds from the contexts of the Early Iron Age, Greek, and Roman periods at the site.91 The excavation and publication history of this area render the Unexplored Mansion the best known site in the Knossos valley that has produced Archaic and Classical material. The finds from the Unexplored Mansion form the backbone of the present study, which seeks to address questions pertaining to the occupation and external relations of Knossos in the Archaic and Classical periods.

The first goal of the present study is to re-evaluate the theory of disappearance of all signs of activity, including imported ceramics from overseas, during the purported “lacuna” of ca. 590–525 B.C. at Knossos. Only a handful of excavations and studies have targeted the period in question and they have proved unsuccessful.92

Nonetheless, the imported pottery from the settlement site of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, that is mostly unpublished and is analyzed in the present work, can raise

88 Popham 1984, pp. 1–2. 89 Popham 1984, p. 2, n. 265 90 Popham 1984, p. 2; Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi. 91 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973; Coldstream and Sackett 1978; Sackett 1992. 92 Erickson 2010a, p. 115. Most notably, the “Archaic dig” conducted by T. J. Dunbabin and R. W. Hutchinson in 1936–1937 aimed at investigating the Archaic phases of Knossos but uncovered only Proto-Geometric and Geometric remains (Megaw 1936, p. 150; Young 1937, pp. 137–138. Cf. Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 50, no. 207; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 294; Erickson 2010a, p. 115). Hood and Smyth (1981, p. 1) note also on the little systematic research that has been made on Classical and Hellenistic Knossos.

15 novel insights into the access of the local community to overseas products during the

“critically lean”93 Archaic period.

The second goal of this project is to revisit the existence of an “import gap” at

Knossos between ca. 475 and 425 B.C., based again on unpublished ceramic imports from the domestic remains at the site of the Unexplored Mansion. This material can challenge the notion of a break in overseas imports to Crete during the Classical period, and can contribute to the discussion of the various scenarios put forward by

Erickson in order to explain the alleged absence of foreign products.

To achieve these goals I have structured my thesis as follows. In Chapter 2, which consists of two parts, I firstly summarize the evidence for human activity during the Archaic and Classical periods, as well as for the presence of contemporary foreign imports in selected cemetery, sanctuary, and settlement sites within the

Knossos valley. In the second part of the same chapter, I focus on the site of the

Unexplored Mansion, and I elucidate its excavation history, facets of its occupational history, problems of stratigraphy, as well as methodological choices involved in the publication of its remains. I also mention the layers which produced the pottery presented in Chapter 3. In Chapter 3, I analyze the shape and decoration of selected

Archaic and Classical imports from the Unexplored Mansion and discuss their chronology. Most of the material is unpublished, but a few published pieces have been included as well, since the dates previously attributed to them need to be revisited. In Chapter 4, I examine how a synthesis of the archaeological data presented in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 provides several insights into the problems of

Archaic and Classical Crete summarized earlier in this chapter and highlights the contribution of the present study to the relevant scholarly discourses. The subsequent

93 For the expression see: Erickson 2010a, p. 238.

Chapter 5 briefly reviews the conclusions that can be deduced from this thesis. The catalogue with the pottery discussed in Chapter 3 is appended to the end of the thesis.

The imported 6th- and 5th-century B.C. pottery from the Knossos Unexplored

Mansion discussed here does not derive from its primary context. It rather represents residual material in later contexts, later intrusions in earlier contexts, as well as finds from layers with no stratigraphic value. Thus, it cannot offer insights into the chronology of structures, layers, or contextual assemblages, which limits its interpretative potential. To completely overthrow the well-established “gap” scenarios, one would need more systematically excavated sites with extensive architectural remains and rich material culture (both produced locally and imported) such as Azoria. To paraphrase Erickson‟s words, we need more “Azorias” in order to delete the Archaic “lacuna”94 as well as thoroughly explored Classical sites to test the assumed seclusion of the island from international trade in the second half of the 5th century B.C. Nevertheless, the present work attempts to show that a careful study of even scrappy material from a Cretan site with a very complex occupational and excavation history can make an important contribution to the discussion of the archaeological and historical problems explicated above. This study can further stimulate consideration about the ways in which the vicissitudes of fieldwork and publication and the availability of small samples of published data can lead to questionable assumptions when taken at face value by the experts.

94 Cf. Erickson 2014, p. 69.

NOTES ON CHRONOLOGY

The most closely datable artifacts in a given stratigraphic context of the

Archaic and Classical periods on Crete, as in other regions of the Mediterranean, are considered to be decorated fine-ware ceramics produced especially in Attica or

Corinth. The absolute chronology of these ceramic classes is traditionally used to date all other classes of evidence, including Cretan pottery of the 6th and 5th centuries

B.C.

Since this thesis seeks to answer problems of chronological nature on Crete on the basis of pottery imports from overseas, one needs to reflect on the possibilities and limitations of ceramic chronology. Pottery is said to be “the benchmark by which” we can date all other categories of evidence.95 Ethnoarchaeological studies have proved that ceramics, especially eating and drinking vessels, have a much shorter life span in relation to other archaeological objects.96 Hence, it represents the most closely datable means by which one can examine the Cretan problems of the assumed lack of imports during the short97 time span of 75 years in the 6th century (590–525 B.C.) and of 50 years in the 5th century (475–425 B.C.).

The selected imports from the Unexplored Mansion discussed in the present study consist entirely of fine-ware, which has been preferred over coarse-ware due to its higher chronological value.98 The relative and absolute chronology of the different wares and styles represented by this material follows the established and most authoritative classifications and relies on universally accepted conventions. The dates proposed here are approximate and they refer to the manufacture dates of the

95 Erickson 2010a, p. vii. 96 Rice 1987, pp. 269–299. 97 Short in relation to the total occupational period of the site. 98 Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 24–25.

18 imported vases, since there is no way to calculate how much time elapsed between their production, their advent to Crete and their final deposition in the secondary, tertiary, or other contexts in which they were found.99

In the following pages, I briefly discuss the classification systems of shape and decoration used to date the pottery classes represented in the catalogue appended to the end of this work: namely Attic, Corinthian, Laconian, and Cypriot pottery. An attempt will be made to reveal some of the limitations of these systems and the debated nature of the absolute chronology they are linked to. One aim is to clarify which typo-chronological systems are applied here and the reasons for which these were chosen over alternative schemes. A further desideratum is to highlight that, even robust chronological systems of Greek pottery, depend on fix-points which are subject to change as knowledge of the discipline advances.

The most studied and refined relative and absolute Greek ceramic sequence is that of Attic figured ware. The foundations of this system were laid in the beginning of the 20th century by Sir John Beazley and Ernst Langlotz. To begin with, Beazley‟s meticulous art-historical study of vase-painters and workshops100 has created a relative series of decoration styles. This series was tied by Beazley,101Langlotz,102 and others to stratigraphic sequences from the Athenian Acropolis related to historical events, the chronology and historicity of which were regarded as fixed by earlier scholarship. The resulting dating scheme has been refined by many other experts,103 and it was also used in the 1970s by Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott in their study

99 Studies have shown that the life span of a pot and the time between its manufacture and destruction/ deposition cannot be estimated with accuracy: Rice 1987, pp. 297–299. Cf. Vanderpool 1946, p. 268; Rotroff 2009, p. 251. 100 ABV2; ARV2; Beazley 1986. 101 Beazley 1986. 102 Langlotz 1920. Cf. Studniczka 1887. 103 See indicatively: Agora XXIII; Agora XXX; Boardman 1974; 1979; 1989; 2001; Cook 1997; Mannack 2002.

19 of Attic black-glazed and plain pottery found in association with Attic figured ware in stratified excavations of the Athenian Agora.104

Both Langlotz‟s absolute dates for Attic figured ware105 and Sparkes‟ and

Talcott‟s morphological sequence106 have been challenged in recent times. Most importantly, many of the supposed historical fixed points which constitute the basis of

Attic absolute chronology have now been discredited,107 and many voices speak for a slight down-dating of the early Attic red-figure ware.108 None of the suggested alternatives has found broad resonance among the specialists. Thus, the traditional scheme used in Agora XII, XXIII, and XXX is also followed here. However, any student of Attic pottery who is using this body of evidence as a means to approach questions of dating needs to bear in mind Sparkes‟ remarks on the limitations of that method: “chronology based solely on the relation of vase shapes, decoration, and technique is likely to be both overprecise and imprecise at the same time [;]109 ….as

Greek pottery did not make news and the association of datable historical events and vases is as a consequence accidental, assistance from one to the other is usually tangential.”110

The absolute chronology of Corinthian pottery was established by Fries H.

Johansen and Humfry Payne in the 1920s and 1930s,111 and it is largely followed to the present.112 However, this scheme has also not escaped critique by later experts.113

104 Agora XII. 105 Tölle-Kastenbein 1982; Neer 2002, pp. 198–205; Rotroff 2009, pp. 255–256. For an overview of the problems and the relevant bibliography, see: Steskal 2004, pp. 21–46, 77–88. 106 Mussche 1975, pp. 45–61 and esp. 54–58; Blondé 1983, p. 31; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 15–16. 107 Cf. Tölle-Kastenbein 1982; Sparkes 1991, pp. 32–59; Neer 2002, pp. 186–198; Rotroff 2009, pp. 250–255. 108 Neer 2002, pp. 190, 198–205; Rotroff 2009, pp. 255–256. 109 Sparkes 1991, p. 29. 110 Sparkes 1991, p. 31. 111 Johansen 1923, esp. p. 185; Payne 1931, pp. 21–27, 32–34, 55–57. 112 Cf. Amyx 1988, p. 399.

Despite the problematic nature of the argument regarding the “foundation dates” of the Greek apoikiai in the West and other chronological markers provided by the literary sources on which the initial scheme was based, there are a number of clues that support the validity of Payne‟s chronology in its broader outlines.114 However, the cumulative evidence of funerary contexts from Corinth, southern Italy, and northern Greece in which Corinthian pottery appears side by side with Attic figured and black-glazed indicate that Payne‟s chronological limits between the Early and

Middle Corinthian styles do not coincide neatly with the barrier of ca. 600 B.C., as the traditional scheme postulates. Middle Corinthian pottery is associated now with Attic vessels of the first quarter of the 6th century B.C, now with pots of the second quarter of the same century, and similar patterns are observable in the contexts of Late

113 The initial scheme depended largely on the “foundation dates” of the Greek establishments in Sicily and Southern Italy provided by Thucydides in his preamble to the Sicilian expedition (6, 3–5), as well as other sources (cf. Payne 1931, p. 22; Amyx 1988, p. 399). This chronological framework, which is still commonly used today, was predicated on the premise that the earliest pottery found at those sites would be roughly concurrent with the arrival of the Greek migrants to the Italiot and Sicilian apoikiai, the time of which was regarded as fixed by the historical accounts. On the methodological dangers lurking behind this assumption see: Amyx 1988, p. 434. For a brief summary of views on the highly debated accuracy of the “foundation dates” see: Amyx 1988, pp. 409–413, 429–430; Hornblower 2008, pp. 272–278. On a critique on the idea that the “colonization” of the West as depicted in the sources – with a group of settlers arriving to a place at a specific date and formally establishing an apoikia under an eponymous oikistes – might in fact be an oversimplification of the actual migration process see: Osborne 1998, pp. 264–265. For an example that justifies that critique on the traditional “colonization” model, cf. the results of American field research and studies on the early phases of Metaponto, in Southern Italy (Carter 1993). On the argument about the destruction date of Old Smyrna as suggested by Herodotus (1, 16–25) see: Amyx (1988, pp. 403–404, 412–413). Herodotus‟ account can be manipulated to support any of the dating systems suggested for the end of the Early Corinthian period, as admitted in: Anderson 1958–1959, p. 48. 114 Stylistic comparisons between figured Corinthian and early Attic black-figure pottery seem to roughly confirm Payne‟s initial scheme. For instance, there are a number of striking similarities in shape, repertoire, technique, pictorial, and ornamental style, as well as syntax between Late Corinthian I figured vessels and Attic vases of the “Tyrrhenian” tradition, the works of Lydos, and other Attic black-figure vases commonly dated to the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. (Kleinbauer 1964; Amyx 1988, p. 425). These speak for the approximate validity of the traditional absolute chronology for Corinthian pottery. Furthermore, the physical association between Late Corinthian I vases and Attic plain and black-figure cups of the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. in graves from the North Cemetery of Corinth (Corinth XIII, pp. 191–192, grave 173, pl. 27, p. 199, graves 200, 202, pl. 31, pp. 203–204, grave 220, pl. 32) and from Taranto (Lo Porto 1961, pp. 275–280, tomba IV, figs. 12–18) seem to confirm Amyx‟s dating of the Late Corinthian period between 570 and 550 B.C. (Amyx 1988, p. 428), which is not far from Payne‟s initial dates for that period (575–550 B.C., cf. Payne 1931, p. 319).

Corinthian I pottery, traditionally dated to 675–650 B.C.115 These inconsistencies probably hint to flaws inherent in our uniform 25-year steps of stylistic development116 and in our assumption that most finds in a funerary context are expected to be more or less contemporary. At any rate, considering the above described synchronisms between Corinthian and Attic pottery, it appears that a moderate down-dating of the upper and lower limits for Middle and Late Corinthian pottery should be adopted, as suggested by Robert J. Hopper117 and Darrell A.

Amyx.118 Amyx has proposed to lower the dates for the Middle Corinthian style from ca. 625–600119 to ca. 595/590–570 B.C.120 This revision has been considered by

Payne himself,121 and today it has found broad resonance. For these reasons, the present work follows Amyx‟s absolute dates for Corinthian pottery styles, as opposed

115 Excavations conducted at Taranto in 1922 and 1958 have revealed graves which associate late Middle Corinthian vases with Attic Komast Cups and Siana Cups of the late second quarter of the 6th century B.C. (Lo Porto 1959–1960, pp. 195–202, complesso no. 84, figs. 168–179; Lo Porto 1961, pp. 269–272, tomba II, figs. 2–5). The same phenomenon, with figured and pattern vases of the advanced Middle to early Late Corinthian I period appearing next to Attic black-figure cups of the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. (mainly Siana Cups and early Little Master Cups) has been observed in the cemeteries of Thermi (Skarlatidou 2002, pp. 291–303) and Sindos in Northern Greece (Tiverios 1985– 1986, pp. 71–80; Tiverios 2016, p. 25). However, since the associations between Attic and Corinthian pottery at the North Cemetery of Corinth do not support a radical down-dating of the Middle Corinthian style to 575–550 B.C. and of Late Corinthian I style to 550–525 B.C. (cf. n. 80 above), Amyx‟s slight revision appears to be the best solution. 116 Cf. Neeft 2008, p. 494: “quarter-century datings would better transmit the artificiality of the system.” 117 Hopper 1949, p. 180. 118 Amyx 1988, pp. 421, 426–429. 119 Payne 1931, pp. 281, 301, 319; Perachora II, p. 6. 120 Amyx 1988, pp. 421–429. 121 Payne 1931, p. 57: “I do not wish to obscure the fact that the lower limits of the early group are extremely ill-defined… I have chosen the end of the seventh century as the lower limit for the early Corinthian style because very few fragments of early Corinthian vases were found at Naukratis, and because a very considerable cycle of development has to be accomplished before the disappearance of the orientalizing style in the middle of the sixth century. It is possible that the lower limit of the early style should be placed a little after 600 B.C. at about 590; but in any case the margin of error is comparatively small.” Naukratis was later rejected as an argument, since we do not have any information about the “foundation date” of this Greek settlement (Hopper 1949, p. 177, n. 65; Amyx 1988, p. 405).

22 to Payne‟s system, despite the fact that Payne‟s chronology has been followed by all publications of Corinthian imports from Knossos thus far.122

The absolute dates of Attic and Corinthian decoration styles and shapes have offered the grounds for dating almost every other class of Greek pottery, including

Laconian123 (and even the Knossian pottery).124 The reason for that is that the Attic and Corinthian ceramic sequences are believed to enjoy fixed correlations with historical events. The relative sequences built by stratified finds of Laconian material have acquired absolute chronological value through stylistic and stratigraphic correlations mainly with Corinthian pottery. Since the dating system of Laconian pottery depends largely on the Corinthian dating system,125 the former will not be treated here in detail, but relevant comments are offered in Chapter 3.

Conversely, the classification system of Iron Age Cypriot pottery is quite distinct from the Attic, Corinthian, and other ceramic sequences. The fundamental principles for Iron Age Cypriot typo-chronology were laid in the 1940s and 1960s by the Swedish archaeologist Einar Gjerstad.126 The basis of Gjerstad‟s relative chronology constitutes a stylistic seriation of intact vessels from Cypriot rock-cut chamber tombs, which received multiple burials over long periods of time.127 The stratigraphic association between Cypriot pottery and Egyptian scarabs, as well as between Cypriot and mainland Greek or Levantine pottery in tombs on Cyprus and

122 See for instance: Coldstream 1973b; 1992; Coldstream and Sackett 1978; Coldstream and Macdonald 1997; Erickson 2010a. 123 Cf. Boardman 1963, pp. 2–3. 124 Erickson 2010a, p. 30–31. 125 Cf. Boardman 1963, pp. 2–4. 126 Gjerstad 1948; Gjerstad 1960. 127 Gjerstad 1948, pp. 185–186; Georgiadou 2014, p. 370.

23 the Near East, has facilitated the creation of Gjerstad‟s nexus of relative and absolute chronology.128

In his bible of Iron Age Cypriot ceramics, Gjerstad classified the native painted fine-ware from the island in 15 groups, depending on their surface finish and decoration technique,129 as well as in seven phases of stylistic evolution (so-called types) expressed by Roman numerals that accompanied the ware titles.130 Vases of the same type and different ware rated as contemporary, since there was, in Gjerstad‟s view, a common palette of formal and ornamental features from which all concurrent classes drew.131 As each of the aforementioned collective tombs on Cyprus usually contained different ware classes and stylistic types,132 it became a standard practice to date each context according to the type which prevailed in it.133 For instance, type V is the best represented style in tombs assigned conventionally to the Cypro-Archaic II

128 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp. 421–427; Gjerstad 1974. 129 These comprise the following ware: White Painted, Bichrome, Bichrome Red, Polychrome White, Black-on-Red, Polychrome Red, Black Slip Painted, Black Slip Bichrome, Black Slip, Red Slip, Grey and Black Polished, Stroke Polished, Black Lustrous, Red Lustrous, and Plain White: see Gjerstad 1948, pp. 48–90. 130 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp. 48–90; Gjerstad 1960, p. 109. 131 Gjerstad 1960, p. 109. 132 On the fixed points of the traditional scheme, see: Gjerstad 1948, pp. 421–427. The graves are a shaky ground for absolute chronology since they often contain pottery assemblages that cannot be dated accurately. On graves with mixed secondary burials with later disturbance and thus complex stratigraphy, see: Gjerstad 1948, pp. 184–185. To the problematic contexts one can add the tombs that have not been excavated stratigraphically: see for instance the tombs 5 and 6 at Phlasou, which have yielded some of the richest deposits of Cypriot and Greek pottery, faience and jewelry (Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, pp. 29–34, 42–43). These difficulties have urged some scholars to dismiss the evidence from the cemeteries as chronologically unreliable (Gaber 2000, pp. 471–472). But there is not much more to rely on. Few sanctuaries offer additional help, since in most cases their occupation strata are either disturbed or of too wide-ranging chronology, provided merely by stylistically and approximately dated Cypriot pottery and sculpture (for Ajia Irini and Kition see: Birmingham 1963, pp. 19–21; for the Aphrodite sanctuary of Amathous: Fourrier and Hermary 2006, pp. 2–3, 21–25, 52–126; for Phases III, IV and Va in the sanctuary of Kition-Bamboula: Caubet, Fourrier and Yon 2015, pp. 130–147, 174–181). Moreover, the chronologically broad stratigraphical and architectural phases of the sanctuaries usually do not coincide with the conventional divisions of Cypriot chronology (Gjerstad 1948, 196). As for the stratified domestic contexts, these are also rare (Georgiadou 2014, p. 370). Levantine chamber tombs which have yielded Cypriot pottery were used over several generations as well, and thus present similar problems with Cypriot sepulchers (Schreiber 2003, p. 225). The chronology and the quality of the stratification at Levantine habitation sites is equally insecure (Birmingham 1963, 24; Schreiber 2003, pp. 224–225). As a result, critics of Gjerstad‟s methodology ultimately have no alternative but to use the same precarious contexts that he used in order to reassess the traditional typo-chronological scheme (cf. Birmingham 1963; Schreiber 2003). 133 Cf. Gjerstad 1974, pp. 118, 121–123; Demetriou 1978.

24 period (ca. 600–475).134 On the other hand, type VI is more typical for the Cypro-

Classical I (ca. 475–400 B.C.)135 and Cypro-Classical IIA periods (ca. 400–350 B.C.), while type VII dominates the assemblages of the Cypro-Classical IIB period (ca. 350–

325 B.C.).136

The resulting typological system consists of pottery types ascribed to periods which overlap with the date range of previous or successive types, have fluid and approximate limits,137 and remain in circulation for very long time spans.138 Although recent discoveries and theoretical studies have significantly enhanced our knowledge of the relative sequence of shapes, the stylistic evolution of figural vases, the differences between regional styles, and the identification of workshops and hands, the revisions regard merely the Cypro-Geometric periods (ca. 1050–750 B.C. according to current chronology).139 For the remaining phases of the Iron Age,

Gjerstad‟s system is still in use, with one exception:140 the absolute dates of the

Cypro-Geometric III period have been re-dated from ca. 850–700 to ca. 900–750

B.C.141 and the beginning of Cypro-Archaic I phase has thus risen from ca. 700 B.C.

134 Gjerstad 1948, p. 195. 135 Gjerstad 1948, p. 200. 136 Gjerstad 1948, p. 201. 137 Indicative of the artificiality of Gjerstad‟s system is the scholar‟s reason for placing the limit between the Cypro-Geometric I and the Cypro-Archaic II period around 700 B.C.: “If thus the first part of Cypro-Archaic I covers the time from c. 700–650 B.C., the date of its conclusion should be c. 600 B.C., provided that the two phases of the period were of approximately equal length.” (Gjerstad 1948, p. 424). 138 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, p. 427. 139 Charles M. Adelman‟s (1976), Aggeliki Pieridou‟s (1973), Maria Iacovou‟s (1988; 1991), and Anna Georgiadou‟s (2014) studies on the shapes, figural decoration, and regional styles of specific categories of Early Iron Age Cypriot vases have contributed significantly to our understanding of the typology of Cypro-Geometric pottery and its predecessors. Nicola Schreiber (2003), Giorgos Bourogiannis (2008), and Kleinman (et al. 2019) have dealt extensively with the problem of the introduction and the origins on Black-on-Red ware, as well as the contexts in which it is found during the Cypro-Geometric and the Cypro-Archaic I periods. For a summary of recent developments in the field of Iron Age Cypriot pottery, see also: Nys 2008, pp. 75–81. 140 The important contribution of Gjerstad is also emphasized in: Merrilles 1991, pp. 237–238; Schreiber 2003, pp. 225–226, 233–234; Nys 2008, p. 82. 141 On the evidence that justifies this modification see: Karageorghis and Kahil 1967, pp. 134–135; Demetriou 1978, pp. 12–16, 19–25.

25 to ca. 750 B.C.142 Nonetheless, Gjerstad‟s exact dates for the Cypro-Archaic II and the Cypro-Classical I–II periods, with which this thesis is mainly concerned, have not undergone revisions that are uniformly accepted.143 Hence, the Cypro-Archaic and

Cypro-Classical material from the Unexplored Mansion analyzed in Chapter 3 is classified and dated along the lines of the traditional system. Despite the fact that the dates suggested for the Cypriot pottery are far more approximate that those proposed for the Attic, Corinthian, and Laconian fragments, the fascinating possibility that these Eastern Mediterranean imports may fall in the period of the purported import breaks” of the 6th and 5th century B.C. renders these sherds worthy of consideration in the framework of the present study.

142 Cf. the revised scheme in: Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 10. 143 Demetriou (1978, esp. pp. 16–19, 22, 25) has suggested that the beginning of the Cypro-Archaic II period should be placed back into the second half of the 7th century B.C., but his suggestion has not been universally adopted by the scholarly community (cf. the absolute dates used in: Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 10). His association of late Cypro-Archaic I to early Cypro-Archaic II pottery is echoed by strata VI-V at Al Mina (Syria), cf. Gjerstad 1974, pp. 112–115, 116 with n. 23, 123. Despite suspicions that the beginning of the Cypro-Archaic II period might need to be pushed back into the 7th century B.C., excavations conducted at the settlement of Kition-Bamboula in the second half of the 19th century verify Gjerstad‟s schema for the dates of the late Cypro-Classical I and the Cypro-Classical II period in its broader outlines. The site in question has yielded namely structures dating from the end of the 5th to the middle of the 4th century, as well as a drainage system used from between 375/350 and 310 B.C. The White Painted V–VI and Plain White VII shapes unearthed from these excavations were accompanied by Attic red-figure and black-glazed fragments, confirming roughly Gjerstad‟s dates for the later stages of the Cypro-Classical pottery, based initially on his finds from the cemetery of Marion. On the ceramic assemblages of Kition-Bamboula and their contexts see: Salles 1983, pp. 22–46, 50–58, 60–87.

CHAPTER 2

KNOSSOS AND THE UNEXPLORED MANSION IN THE 6TH AND 5TH

CENTURIES B.C.

EVIDENCE FOR HUMAN ACTIVITY AT KNOSSOS IN THE 6TH–5TH CENTURIES

B.C.

THE PROBLEM

According to current scholarly views, Knossos experienced a severe decline in population if not a wholesale abandonment during the 6th century B.C.144 Signs of resumed activity are recognized in the Late Archaic period,145 but the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C are viewed as “still a dark chapter in the city‟s history.”146 The situation changes again in the end of the Classical era, when a greater number of datable deposits and vestiges of religious architecture appears.147 As in the rest of Crete, a disruption of overseas trade is assumed for Knossos in parts of the 5th century B.C.148 In the case of Knossos, though, the break is placed in the years between 475 and 425 B.C.149 This does not entirely overlap with the purported disappearance of finds from overseas between 460 and 400 B.C. that has been observed at many other Cretan sites.150

A reduction in all categories of material culture is considered to testify for an economic and demographic recession at 6th century B.C. Knossos,151 but the situation

144 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, 289; Erickson 2000, pp. 18–20; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1, 3, 235. 145 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 295–297; Erickson 2010a, pp. 116–120. 146 Erickson 2010a, p. 3. Cf. Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 240. 147 For an overview see: Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 296–297; Erickson 2010a, pp. 118–119. 148 See also above: Chapter 1, pp. 10 – 12. 149 Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 298; Erickson 2006, p. 637; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1, 3, 121. 150 See above: Chapter 1, pp. 11–13. 151 Erickson 2010a, p. 235.

27 is said to be especially acute in the case of ceramic evidence. After exhaustive attempts to identify Archaic Knossian pottery even from mixed or later contexts,152 experts have concluded that “not a single scrap of pottery can be dated within the lean period of ca. 590–525 B.C.” 153 Thus, a substantial reduction, if not a complete hiatus in the Archaic fine-ware production of the city has been suggested, as well as a disruption of imports from other parts of Crete and from overseas.154 In addition, a military destruction of the Knossos by one of its rival cities during the 6th century

B.C. has been offered as an explanation for the dearth of Archaic material,155 despite the fact that no Archaic destruction layers have been identified at the site. At any rate,

Erickson contends that Knossos has been used as a type site for the entire island, projecting its true “Archaic gap” to other sites. In his view, this city “bears chief responsibility for the current impression of an island-wide economic, demographic, or cultural” crisis in the 6th century B.C.156 The first aim of the current section is to offer a brief overview of selected contexts and categories of evidence that point to this

152 Erickson 2010a, p. 236. 153 Erickson 2010a, p. 238. 154 Erickson 2010a, p. 238. 155 Dunbabin 1952, pp. 196–197; Viviers 1994; Huxley 1994, pp. 128–129; Erickson 2010a, pp. 238– 245. The rival cities that are usually blamed for the alleged destruction of Knossos in the Archaic period are Lyktos, to the southeast of Knossos‟ territory, and Gortyn, to the south. Proponents of the theory that wants Knossos to have been defeated by Lyktos base their claims on literary sources that depict Lyktos as a Spartan colony (Paus. 3.12.11.) and report that around the time of the Knossian seer Epimenides, who was called to Athens to purify it from the Cylonian agos (Aristot. Ath. Polit. 1; Diog. Laert. 1.10.110.), Knossos was at war with Sparta (Paus. 3.12.11.). By extension, Lyktos is believed to have sided with its mother-city in this war (Viviers 1994; Huxley 1994, pp. 127–129. Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 238–239). No archaeological remains can support this assumption, since ancient Lyktos has not been excavated systematically. On the other hand, the conjecture that Archaic Knossos was annihilated by Gortyn is also based on shaky ground. Shared coins types between Gortyn and Phaistos from the third quarter of the 5th century B.C., a Classical decree indicating that the unidentified site of Rhitten was a political dependency of Gortyn, and the abandonment of Kommos and Ayia Triada in the 6th century B.C. are taken by Erickson as evidence for the territorial expansion and unification of the Messara valley under Gortyn in the Archaic period (Erickson 2010a, pp. 240–241). The evidence seems insufficient, to say the least. Gortyn has yielded no more Archaic material than Knossos (Kotsonas 2011, p. 82. Cf. Morris 1998, p. 62), and when Archaic evidence is found (e.g. pottery or inscriptions), it usually stems from later or mixed contexts, just as in Knossos (Erickson 2010a, pp.178–180). 156 Erickson 2010a, p. 235. Cf. pp. 1, 23.

“uniform impression of declining activity” in Archaic Knossos,157 before the discussion focuses on the imported ceramic material from Unexplored Mansion.

The 5th century B.C. is believed to represent a period of a modest revival of the city after the Archaic “hiatus.” However, many problems of archaeological visibility remain. One of them is the continued rarity of signs for funerary activity since the preceding century. A further problem is connected to the apparent disappearance of ceramic imports during 475–425 B.C. Because the chronology of

Knossian pottery has traditionally depended on its stratigraphic correlations with

“securely dated … Attic and Corinthian pottery” and the bulk of Classical overseas imports from published assemblages is currently concentrated in the first and last quarters of the 5th century B.C., the “lacuna” in imports may be to blame for the infrequency of identifiable Knossian material after 475 and before 425 B.C.158 In recent years, a local relative and absolute sequence has been established by Erickson, based both on the formal development of the Knossian shapes, as well as their cross- references with Greek imports.159 As a consequence, some assemblages dated previously to the beginning of the 5th century B.C. on the basis of Greek imports, have been moved towards the middle of the Classical period due to the more developed local shapes contained in them.160 But even after “a more equitable chronological distribution of deposits … in the 5th century B.C.” was achieved, the second and third quarters of the Classical era “remain poorly represented in the occupational history of Knossos.”161 Thus, the second objective of the present chapter is to examine this contention by surveying different types of Classical contexts from

157 Erickson 2010a, p. 236. 158 Erickson 2010a, pp. 119, 121. 159 Erickson 2010a, pp. 115–164. 160 Erickson 2010a, pp. 119–121. 161 Erickson 2010a, p. 121.

29 the leading excavations of the British School that have yielded imported material from overseas. Significant non-ceramic finds that may imply connections with the mainland in the period of the “import gap” will be mentioned as well.

THE ABANDONMENT OF THE CEMETERIES AND THE CHANGES IN DECORATED

POTTERY

An important factor that has contributed to the impression of an Archaic lacuna with lasting repercussions in the Classical period is the fact that the rich Early

Iron Age cemeteries on the northern and southern outskirts of the city – notably

Fortetsa/ Tekke, North Cemetery, Ayios Ioannis, Lower Gypsades – show almost no traces of use after 630/600 B.C.162 The rite of cremation, which had culminated in ostentation and opulence during the Orientalizing period,163 disappeared abruptly at the turn of the 7th to the 6th century B.C.,164 and a simultaneous downturn in the quality of fine-ware pottery was perhaps precipitated by the disappearance of funerary urns and other storage, pouring, and drinking vessels destined for mortuary display.165

The wide range of elaborately decorated Geometric and Orientalizing vessels from the tombs gave way to a much more limited repertory dominated by black-glazed drinking cups and jugs – which are usually found in small, badly preserved fragments within wells and pits.166 It has been proposed that the deterioration of painted fine- ware at Knossos – and in general on Crete – might reflect changes in the ceramic consumption of Greece and the Aegean. Apparently, Crete could not follow the trend of replacing the Orientalizing decoration with the black-figure and red-figure styles

162 Brock 1957, p. 219; Coldstream and Catling 1996, p. 718; Huxley 1994, p. 128; Coldstream 1992, p. 85; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, 294–296; Kotsonas 2002, p. 44; Erickson 2010a, pp. 163 Cf. Kotsonas 2006. 164 Kotsonas 2002, pp. 38–45; Coldstream and Huxley 1999; Brock 1957, p. 219. 165 Kotsonas 2002, pp 40–41. On the Early Iron Age pottery recovered mostly from tombs see: Brock 1957; Coldstream 1972; Coldstream and Catling 1996; Coldstream, Eiring, and Foster 2001. 166 Cf. Coldstream 1973b; Coldstream 1999; Erickson 2010a, pp. 115–164.

30 which had developed in the mainland during the Archaic and Classical periods. Thus, its production was confined to black-glazed fine-ware until the beginning of the

Hellenistic period.167

Only the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th century B.C. heralds a few signs of resurgence as regards to the funerary material.168 The only well- documented example is a pithos burial above the Early Iron Age Tomb V at Fortetsa that yielded an Attic black-figure skyphos of ca. 500 B.C.169 Furthermore, John

Boardman has reported the fortuitous discovery of a Late Archaic bronze exaleiptron with a gorgoneion attachment in 1936, by workmen laying pipes next to the road between Ayions Ioannis and Tekke (fig. 4, no. 24). Attic black-figure sherds of the last third of the 6th century B.C. are said to have come from the same area. The bronze exaleiptron and the Attic imports might suggest the existence of a disturbed

Late Archaic grave in the area.170 Last but not least, a limestone relief sphinx, perhaps from a Late Archaic funerary stele, was recovered during construction work in the area where Heraklion‟s vast medical facility, the Venizeleion hospital, was erected in the 1950s (fig. 4, no. 72).171 After the lapse of the first quarter of the 5th century B.C., nothing is known about burial activity in the Knossos valley. The “dead still remain elusive” in the Classical period.172

167 Kotsonas 2002, pp. 40–41. 168 Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 18; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295. 169 Brock 1957, pp. 26–27, pl. 17. Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295. 170 See: Boardman 1962, pp. 28–30; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 296, n. 45. 171 Boardman 1962, p. 30, pl. 3c; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 296, n. 45. 172 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295. More tangible signs of burial activity are said to appear in the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods: Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295 with n. 44. See also Kotsonas (2002, p. 44, n. 86) for the reuse of organized cemeteries in the Hellenistic period at other Cretan sites, after a hiatus in the Archaic and Classical eras.

THE SANCTUARIES

A demise in cultic activity and in the quantity and quality of offerings is often surmised for Archaic Knossos,173 with a modest increase of attendance at its sanctuaries in the Classical period.174 However, the equally low numbers of Early Iron

Age votives imply that there is no considerable discontinuity of Archaic stratigraphic horizons at sanctuaries, as was the case in the cemeteries. In the 5th century B.C., the sanctuaries are thought to epitomize the absence of imports between 475 and 425 B.C. better than any other type of context.175 In fact, there is more material from the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C. than it is usually assumed.

For reasons of brevity and sharper focus, three of the better studied and published relevant excavations of the British School are discussed here. The

Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore176 on the Lower Gypsades hill, which overlooks the

Minoan Palace of Knossos from the south of the town (fig. 3, no. 286), was excavated in 1957 under Sinclair Hood‟s directorship and in 1960 by Nicolas Coldstream.177 The earliest traces of ritual activity in the temenos have been traced back to the late 8th century B.C.178 The site yielded 5,000 fragments of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 terracotta figurines of human and animal form, as well as female busts and plaques:179

267 pieces have been published by Reynold Higgins180 and six have been attribute to

173 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295; Erickson 2010a, p. 236. 174 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 295, 296; Erickson 2005, p. 640, n. 156. 175 Erickson 2005, p. 640, n. 156. 176 The identification of the cult is secured through dedicatory inscriptions on two silver rings found in the sanctuary. One of them is dated to the first half of the 5th century B.C., while the second one is Hellenistic. See: Coldstream 1973a, 131, 133–134, nos. 14, 25 and p. 132, fig. 29. 177 Coldstream 1973a, pp. 1–2. The sanctuary was probably subject to looting since the 16th century. Marble statues and terracottas possibly deriving from the site have been identified in various museums and collections of Europe (see: Kotsonas 2016b, pp. 308–309). 178 Coldstream 1973a, p. 4; R. A. Higgins in Coldstream 1973a, p. 56; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 292. 179 R. A. Higgins in Coldstream 1973a, p. 56. 180 Cf. R. A. Higgins in Coldstream 1973a, pp. 57–92.

32 the 6th century B.C.;181 14 date from the late 8th–7th century B.C. and three belong either to the 7th or the 6th century B.C. The overwhelming majority of the published votives belong to the Classical and later periods.182 Interestingly, all phases of the 5th century B.C. are represented, and some Classical pieces show Attic, Boeotian, or

Rhodian influence.183 The paucity of terracotta figurines and plaques in the Archaic phases of the sanctuary has been repeatedly used as an argument for reduced cultic activity in the respective period.184 However, the reduction in the number of terracottas since the Early Iron Age is mild.

In addition to the terracottas, two Doric capitals of Early Classical style were found scattered on the hill and might belong to a temple within the sanctuary.185

Ceramic groups with Attic imports of the last quarter of the 5th century B.C.186 were

181 Late 8th–7th century B.C.: Coldstream 1973a, nos. 1–4, 252–261. 7th or 6th century B.C.: nos. 5, 262–263. 6th century B.C.: nos. 6, 11, 196–197, 240, 264. The catalogue of Archaic finds from the sanctuary includes also two imported, Argive (?) cups, and two Eastern Greek figurines, one made of bronze and the other of faience. See Coldstream 1973a, p. 53, nos. K 5, K 6, p. 156, no. 210, pp. 175– 176, no. 360. 182 5th century B.C.: Coldstream 1973a, nos. 12–25, 39, 61–68, 142–156, 161, 168, 198–205, 218, 226–227, 230, 233–234, 237–239, 250–251, 266–269, 271–272 (65). Late 5th or 4th century B.C.: nos. 46, 188, 219 (3). 4th century B.C.: nos. 26–38, 40–41, 43–60, 69–71, 139–141, 157–162, 171–173, 180, 182–186, 206, 220, 228, 232, 235–236, 273 (61). Hellenistic: nos. 71–138, 163–167, 169–170, 174–179, 181–187, 189–190, 193–195, 207–215, 217 (103). Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 296: “This is the period [i.e. the 5th century B.C.] when clay votives at the Sanctuary of Demeter begin to be locally mass-produced.” 183 R. A. Higgins in Coldstream 1973a, pp. 59–69, 79–81–85. For figurines influenced by Rhodian and Attic models: p. 68, no. 62, p. 77, no. 142–147, p. 86, no. 230. For figurines with Boeotian parallels see for instance: p. 64, no. 42. 184 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295; Kotsonas 2002, p. 45; Erickson 2010a, p. 236. The statistics presented in these works are misleading. It is claimed that “a single terracotta figurine out of 1,000 catalogued specimens from the sanctuary emerges as the only item dated to ca. 600–525 B.C.” (Erickson 2010a, p. 236). The actual number of published terracottas is 267; more specimens have been attributed to the 6th century B.C. (6) than Erickson suggests (1) and the Geometric and Orientalizing figurines (14) are not so numerous as to support his contention that the sanctuary shows “an appreciable drop in the number of figurines during the 6th century B.C.” (Erickson 2010a, p. 236). A similar impression is conveyed by Coldstream and Huxley (1999, p. 292), who add bronze and clay beads, bronze pins, and fibulae to the Early Iron Age votives. The problem of the less datable nature of figurine fragments, pins, and other types of votives that are used (instead of pottery) to argue for a decline in the number of votives from the Early Iron Age to the Archaic period at the Sanctuary of Demeter needs to be taken into consideration. In my view, both Archaic and Early Iron Age finds seem underrepresented in contrast to the Classical and later material. 185 Coldstream 1973a, p. 14, pl. 5e. Coldstream compares them to the capitals from the Olympeion of Akragas, although dates them to the late 5th century B.C. based on the idea of “Knossian conservatism.” 186 Coldstream 1973a, pp. 6, 22–25, “Deposit B,” figs. 13–14, pl. 11.

33 associated with a walling inside the shrine that might represent the foundation of the same temple.187 This “foundation deposit (“B”),”188 along with the earliest scatter of votive material (group “C”),189 produced Attic imports from the middle190 and the end191 of the 5th century B.C., but the latest imported pieces are concentrated in the years around 400 B.C.192

About 300 meters to the east of the Minoan Palace of Knossos and 100 meters west of the Acropolis hill lies another temenos, uncovered through rescue campaigns in 1974 and 1976 (fig. 3, no. 197).193 Peter Callaghan has ascribed it to the local hero

Glaukos.194 Excavations of limited extent due to modern habitation have brought to light a roofed rectangular room with a courtyard and features such as a stone table and a “cupboard” containing vessels and ash. The room was packed with votive pottery and plaques of Classical, Late Classical, and Hellenistic date.195 The nine Attic imports found at the site are confined to the years around 400 B.C.196 An

Orientalizing floor below the shrine has been ascribed to a house of that period due to

187 Coldstream 1973a, pp. 6, 12–14. 188 Coldstream 1973a, pp. 6, 22–25, “Deposit B,” figs. 13–14, pl. 11. 189 Coldstream 1973a, pp. 25–27, “Deposit C,” figs. 13–14, pl. 12. 190 Coldstream 1973a, p. 25, no. C 1 (Attic stemmed dish ca. 460–440 B.C.) and p. 26, C 2 (Attic small bowl, ca. 450–425 B.C.), C 11 (Attic sessile kantharos, ca. 450–420 B.C.). There is also one import that has been dated to the second half of the 5th century B.C.: p. 22, no. B 2 (Attic red-figure oinochoe) and a possibly misdated piece: no. C 3 (p. 26) is the half of a horseshoe-shaped horizontal handle of an Attic skyphos (type A most probably) and has been assigned to the late 5th century B.C. However, this degree of chonological precision cannot be deduced with any confidence from a handle fragment without rim, in the case of this shape. The handles of these skyphoi are changing with extremely slow rhythms from an Archaic, bell-like form to a Classical loop-form in the 5th century B.C. In the last 20 years of the 5th and in the 4th century B.C. the roots are progressively coming closer together, giving the handles a rather triangular form. Due to their standardization in the Classical era, it is extremely hard to date Attic skyphoi of type A with a precision of 25 years within the 5th century. The best chronological evidence comes the lower body of this shape, which tends towards creating a double curve in the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. and clearly shows the curve at ca. 400 B.C. (see Agora XII, pp. 84–85). 191 Coldstream 1973a, p. 22, nos. B 1–3 and p. 26, nos. B 4–10 (all Attic: a lekanis, three drinking vessels, two bell-kraters, a lekythos and a pelike). 192 Cf. Erickson 2010a, p. 119. 193 Callaghan 1978, p. 1. 194 Glaukos was the mythical son of Minos who fell into a honey jar, died, and was resurrected by means of a herb brought by a snake: Callaghan 1978, pp. 23–26. 195 Callaghan 1978, pp. 1–4, 6–21, pl. 19. 196 Callaghan 1978, pp. 4–6, nos. 1–9, fig. 4 (bolsals and Attic type skyphoi).

34 the non-ritual character of its pottery.197 In the 6th century B.C., another earth floor has produced domestic pottery including fragments of pithoi, a louterion, a fenestrated stand, and an ash deposit.198 Due to striking differences between the character of the finds from the Orientalizing–Archaic eras (domestic pottery) and the Classical through Hellenistic phases of the shrine (sympotic equipment, miniature vessels, terracotta plaques depicting a rider with a snake), Callaghan has suggested that major changes in the manifestation of the cult took place around 500 B.C., or that an 7th- to

6th-century B.C. residence was incorporated into an expanding neighboring shrine at the same period.199

The so-called Temple of Rhea was a structure built of reused Minoan blocks on top of the Western wing of the Minoan Palace (fig. 3, no. 219), above the South

Propylaeum.200 It was discovered and removed by Arthur Evans during his excavations at the Palace of Knossos in the early 20th century.201 The identification of the deity202 and the construction date of the temple are not secure.203 The beginnings of the cult are placed in the 8th century B.C., but this hypothesis is based on shaky ground: Evan‟s identification of a single Geometric “animal figurine” and perhaps

197 Callaghan 1978, p. 1. 198 Callaghan 1978, pp. 1–3. 199 Cf. Callaghan 1978, p. 3: “There were no structural changes between this [Archaic] phase and its [5th century B.C.] successor though the numerous votive pots and relief plaques of the Classical and Hellenistic periods make it quite clear that the latter was part of a heroön. It will be seen below that this heroön was the focal point of a state hero-cult which is unlikely to have insinuated itself into an already existing house. We might either suppose that cult requirements were different in the Archaic period, or that there was some rearrangement within a larger shrine complex about 500 B.C.” Callaghan (1978, p. 26.) has also suggested that the room and court dedicated to Glaukos (?) formed a part of a larger sanctuary of Zeus, the tutelary deity of Knossos who is also depicted on the city‟s coins. 200 Coldstream 2000, pp. 284, 286. 201 Evans 1928, pp. 5–7, 346, 349, 712. 202 Based perhaps on a quote of Diodorus Siculus (5.66), in Latin translation, that contains a vague reference to the visible foundations of a Rhea temple somewhere at Knossos: Cnossium in terra Titanes habitarunt, ibiquae Rheae domus fundamenta monstrantur. For the reference: Coldstream 2000, p. 284. 203 Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 292. Cf. Coldstream 2000, p. 286: “So vexed is the stratigraphy here that the date of the oblong building [above the Palace] will remain a matter for discussion. Nevertheless, the existence of a Greek temple would be quite consistent with the record of a more recently excavated sanctuary for Rhea‟s daughter, Demeter, across the Vlychia stream on the lower slopes of the Gypsades hill.”

“Geometric” pottery, now lost or misplaced in the boxes of the Stratigraphic museum.204 No other known votive dates before the Classical era.205 The local drinking cups and miniature votives that are mainly attested from the sanctuary present “a continuous sequence…beginning in the early fifth century.”206 Notably, four Aeginetan silver staters recovered from this context belong to the first,207 second, and third quarters of the 5th century B.C.208 Two of the coins fall in the period of the assumed interruption of Knossian contacts with the outside world,209 and may represent an exception to the general rule.

Last but not least, a number of stray sculptural and architectural finds might point to the existence of further buildings of some sophistication – and possibly of religious function – in the Archaic and Classical periods. An Archaic statue head made of limestone and bearing stylistic resemblance to Greek kouroi of the mid-6th century210 was found in a Roman foundation trench during excavations to the north of the Little Palace of Knossos (fig. 3, no. 86, fig. 11).211 The discovery of the statue may speak for the existence of an Archaic sanctuary in the area. Two fragments of terracotta palmette antefixes of late 6th-century B.C. style were found in the 1960s in a well to the north of the Minoan Royal Road, the monumental paved road which led from the town to the north entrance of the Palace.212 Imports and local pottery date the sealing of this context to the early 5th century B.C. Furthermore, a bovine leg,

204 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 292. 205 Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 297. Cf. Coldstream 2000, pp. 286–288. 206 Coldstream 2000, p. 286. 207 Coldstream 2000, p. 288, nos. J 12–J 13, pl. 58. 208 Coldstream 2000, p. 288, nos. J 14–J 15, pl. 58. 209 On the 5th century B.C. disruption of relations with Greece and the Aegean: Erickson 2005, pp. 637–644, esp. pp. 640–641, n. 156. 210 For the facial features see the kouros from Volomandra (Bol 2002, vol. 2, pl. 249). For the fashion of both the face and the ears cf. the Naxian sphinx (Bol 2002, vol. 2, pl. 244). For the coiffure see the kouros head from the metope of Temple C at Selinus (Hellenkemper 1998, p. 109, fig. 34). I am grateful to Prof. Andrew Stewart who verified the chronology suggested here for the statue. 211 Whitley 2002–2003, p. 81, fig. 134; Erickson 2014, p. 83, fig. 7. 212 Coldstream 1973b, pp. 60, 61, nos. L 117, 118, pl. 25.

36 constituting part of a bronze stand, was found in another Late Archaic pit to the southwest of the palace.213 Both the antefixes and the bronze stand may stem from one or more nearby sanctuaries, including that of Rhea. A further fragment of a 7th- century B.C. architectural relief is also reported from the area and might point to the existence of an earlier temple.214 Finally, a marble metope215 with a relief scene depicting Herakles carrying the Erymanthian boar to Eurystheus, who is frightened at its sight and hides in a pithos, was found reused in a Roman drain between the western slopes of the Acropolis hill and Knossos Stratigraphical Museum (fig. 3, no.

132, fig. 12).216 The style of the metope betrays strong influence from Attic models of ca. 470–430 B.C.217 Hence, a Classical temple might have stood in the area.

To sum up, slight signs of ritual activity during the Archaic period are attested by means of terracotta figurines at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore on the

Gypsades hill. A few ceramic imports belong to the middle of the 5th century B.C., but the bulk dates to the last quarter of the Classical era and later periods. At the

Shrine of Glaukos, no clear traces of cultic activity are preserved before ca. 500 B.C., but this impression could be attributed to changing cult practices. The Attic imports from the Glaukos Shrine belong to the turn of the 5th into the 4th century B.C., the period in which imports resume to Knossos according to Erickson.218 The temple of

Rhea offers no material that falls into the “Archaic gap,” but does provide evidence

213 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. K 80, fig. 18, pl. 48; Catling in Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 243. 214 Poulsen 1906, pl. XXIII; Megaw 1936, p. 150; Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 41, no. 209. 215 Benton 1937, p. 2: “The marble is so badly weathered that I cannot determine its origin.” 216 Benton 1937. For further references see: Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 44, no. 132. Cf. also Warren 1984–1985, p. 127. 217 The relief scene probably draws inspiration from models that can be dated stylistically between the metopes of the Zeus temple in Olympia (470–457 B.C.) and those of the Parthenon (447–432 B.C.). A similar date range has been suggested by Benton (1937, p. 41). However, as Prof. Andrew Stewart has pointed to me, peripheral workshops often show slower development than Attic workshops, so that a broad dating in the 5th century B.C. is preferable. 218 Cf. Erickson 2005, p. 640, n. 156.

37 against the complete disappearance of overseas products in the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C., by means of Aeginetan coins. The Attic style metope of Herakles and Eurystheus (fig. 12) can be interpreted in the same vein, although a date in the last quarter of the 5th century B.C. cannot be excluded. Unstratified sculptural finds that can support the existence of unexcavated Archaic sanctuaries cannot completely overthrow the impression of an Archaic “hiatus,” offered by most well-documented contexts. However, a revival of dedications and religious architecture is attested in the Late Archaic period through architectural and metal finds from a well to the north of the Royal Road.

All things considered, the aforementioned material from sanctuaries within the

Knossos valley cannot prove that there was extensive occupational activity at the site during the assumed chronological hiatus of ca. 600/590 and 525 B.C., nor can it rebut the scenario of a decrease in the quantity of pottery imported to Knossos from outside the island during 475–425 B.C. Nevertheless, there are indications that human presence did not entirely disappear from Knossos in the 6th century B.C., and that ritual activity during the Archaic era did not considerably diminish since the Early

Iron Age. Furthermore, there are off-island products from sanctuaries at Knossos dating to the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C. that are often overlooked by scholarship that advocates a disruption of imports in the Classical period. The disruption seems not to have been as complete as previously depicted.

THE SETTLEMENTS

As in the case of sanctuaries, well-studied domestic contexts revealed at

Knossos during the excavations of the British School cannot prove the extensive inhabitation of the Knossos valley between 590 and 525 B.C. The bulk of the

38 stratified material, including ceramic imports, is concentrated in the early 6th, late 6th, and early 5th century B.C. Evidence for overseas connections during the interval of

475–425 B.C. is also meager. However, exceptions exist and their significance has been underestimated.

The excavations conducted in 1960 under the supervision of Hugh Sackett and

John Ellis Jones by the Royal Road, the monumental street which was connecting the

Minoan Palace to Bronze Age town (fig. 3, no. 211), revealed two important wells, one from the second half of the 7th century B.C. and one from the early 5th century

B.C.219 The former, Well LA, has been assigned to the years between ca. 650 and 620

B.C.,220 on the basis of the Corinthian imports and imitations it produced.221 Well H in the same area, which also yielded the terracotta palmette antefixes mentioned above,222 is believed to have been filled within a short time during the Late Archaic period,223 and the affluent Greek and East Greek imports and imitations it produced suggest a closing date in the first quarter of the 5th century B.C. There were also

Corinthian tiles,224 and a single Corinthian exaleiptron from the middle of the “gap” period, ca. 550 B.C.225 In addition, some Knossian copies of Laconian and Corinthian shapes have been generally attributed to the Archaic period,226 and two local sherds227 resemble Cretan exported pots to the Theran colony of Taucheira (Tocra) in Libya,

219 Coldstream 1973b, pp. 34, 45 with n. 17. 220 Coldstream 1973b, p. 34. 221 Late Proto-Corinthian/ Transitional: Coldstream 1973b, p. 43, nos. J 32, 34, pls. 15, 16. “Late seventh century” Corinthian: p. 43, no. J 35, pl. 16. Local imitations of Corinthian black-figure vessels: pp. 42–43, nos. J 16, 37, 3, pls. 15–16. 222 Coldstream 1973b, “Deposit L,” pp. 60, 61, nos. 117, 118, pl. 25. 223 Cf. Coldstream 1973b, p. 46. 224 Coldstream 1973b, p. 45. 225 Coldstream 1973b, “Deposit L,” p. 60, no. 109, pl. 24. A parallel for this vessel is said by Coldstream to have been found in a mixed context, see p. 62, no. M 11, pl. 26. 226 Erickson 2010a, pp. 122–123, nos. 240–242, 244, fig. 4.2. 227 Coldstream 1973b, p. 48, no. 2, pl. 18 (hydria), p. 51, no. 22, fig. 6, pl. 19 (pyxis). See pp. 48, 51 for the Tocran parallels suggested by Coldstream.

39 which are datable in the first half of the 6th century B.C.228 This suggests that, even if the well was actually filled and sealed within a very short time as Coldstream suggests

(ca. 500–480 B.C.),229 there seem to be isolated, earlier intrusions.

To the southwest of the Palace of Knossos, above Minoan buildings termed by

Evans the Southwest House and the House Northwest of the South House, excavations conducted by the British School in 1992 and 1993 revealed vestiges of domestic structures of Early Iron Age, Late Archaic, and Early Classical date.230 A kiln and a dirt road dated to the Early Orientalizing period may be associated with numerous early walls in the area.231 A Late Archaic pit cutting through the

Orientalizing kiln produced “the largest post-Minoan deposit of pottery” in the area,232 and included Attic imports of the early 5th century B.C.233 A local stirrup krater of Laconian influence was also present in the pit,234 as well as the bronze bull‟s leg235 from a fenestrated stand,236 the very same piece that is mentioned in the previous section. In addition, a paved road was found, overlying the earlier pathway,237 as well as a series of external or internal surfaces.238 The road was probably constructed in the Classical period,239 judging by the local pots and an Attic,

228 Tocra I, pp. 78–80; Tocra II, pp. 36–38. Cf. Coldstream and Eiring (2001, p. 77) who claim, however, that the Cretan exports to Tocra are unlikely to be Knossian. Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 295. Erickson (2010a, p. 79) suggests Aphrati as a production center. For the difficulty of dating the Cretan pottery from the Demeter sanctuary at Tocra see: Johnston 2005, pp. 390–391. 229 Coldstream 1973b, p. 45. 230 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, esp. pp. 192, 194. 231 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 194, 196, 197–199, 200, 202. 232 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 199–200. 233 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, nos. K 69–78 (red-figure kraters, an Attic skyphos, black- figure pelikai, a floral band, a Corinthian type skyphos, and lamps), fig. 18, pl. 45. 234 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 224, no. K 25, fig. 14. 235 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. K 80, fig. 18, pl. 48; H. W. Catling in Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 243. 236 Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 297. 237 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 194, 196, 199, p. 200 fig. 4. 238 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 196–197. 239 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 194, 242.

Corinthian type skyphos of the mid-5th century B.C.240 that were found directly below the paving.241 Two of the surfaces were attributed to the Late Archaic242 and one in the Early Classical period.243 There is a small amount of pottery associated with the

Late Archaic surfaces, and it is all local except perhaps an unusually shaped skyphos base that may copy Attic examples.244 The Classical surface produced a wall fragment of an Attic red-figure krater, depicting perhaps Oedipus and the sphinx, from the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.,245 as well as an Attic type skyphos dated to the middle of the century.246 The greatest part of the excavated area had suffered disturbance both in the Hellenistic period and by trial pits conducted in the late 19th and early 20th century.247

Less extensively published are the Archaic and Classical finds from the excavations to the west of Knossos Stratigraphical Museum (fig. 3, no. 188), conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s by Peter Warren on behalf of the British

School. In his publication of selected post-Bronze Age finds in 1984–1985, Warren notes: “The most notable feature of Greek Iron Age occupation is the absence of building remains from the end of the Sub-Minoan (or possibly Early Protogeomertic) around 970 B.C. until Hellenistic in the later 3rd century.”248 Very little Archaic and

Classical material is known from that site, but a Classical pit “datable to about 450

B.C.”249 has been reported, as well as rubbish pits containing Attic pottery assigned

240 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 230, no. O 1, fig. 19, pl. 26. Cf. p. 242. 241 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 230. 242 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, “Deposits L” and “M”. Cf. p. 199. 243 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, “Deposit N”. Cf. p. 199. 244 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. M 2, fig. 19, pl. 46. 245 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. O 1, fig. 19, pl. 46. See p. 242 for the date. 246 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, no. O 3, fig. 19, pl. 46. See p. 242 for the date. 247 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, pp. 192–194, 196. 248 Warren 1984–1985, p. 124. 249 Warren 1984–1985, p. 127. This is probably the pit dubbed as “SX:U6” by Erickson (2010a, p. 116), containing three intact local pots.

41 vaguely to the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.250 More recently, the existence of a

“Classical” well251 was mentioned by Erickson. According to the scholar, the well contained unpublished Attic imports of the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C. and a black-figure band cup with the depiction of a feline in ripe Archaic style.252 A published Corinthian pyxis with convex sides, from the third quarter of the

6th century B.C., also derives from this well.253

In the 1950s a medical center, nowadays known as the Venizeleion Hospital, was erected over an area of approximately 2.5 hectares (ca. 26,000 square meters) at the northern limits of the Knossos valley – in a region which should have been protected as an archaeological zone (fig. 4, nos. 71–73 and farther east). During works related to the drainage system of the hospital, 15 wells, dating from the Late

Geometric to the Early Byzantine periods, were investigated by means of rescue excavations.254 Very little pottery was kept and no excavation records survive for at least five wells,255 while only five have been published (of Geometric and Late

Classical date).256 Finds from the undocumented Well 2 have often been listed among stray or unstratified Archaic pottery from Knossos.257 It is said to have contained

“much Late Archaic pottery, including local shapes comparable to those found in”

Well H from the Royal Road258 and imports of the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., as for

250 Warren 1984–1985, p. 128. 251 Erickson 2010a, p. 116 (the pit is designated as SX:J/JN7). 252 Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 120, 122. Another band cup (ca. 550–525 B.C.) was included in Coldstream‟s list of stray finds (Coldstream 1973b, p. 63, no. M 17, pl. 26). Note that, elsewhere, Erickson proposes a Late Archaic date for the Attic imports, implying that they were older “antiques” in comparison to their contextual local shapes (ca. 450–420 B.C): Erickson 2010a, p. 116 with n. 9. 253 Erickson 2010a, p. 123, no. 243, fig. 4.2. Cf. Erickson 2010a, p. 122 for the date. 254 Cook 1952, p. 108; Coldstream 1972, p. 64; Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 41, no. 88; Coldstream 1999, p. 322. 255 Coldstream 1972, p. 45; Coldstream 1973b, p. 44. 256 Coldstream 1972, pp. 81–84, “Deposit D” (=Well 1, first phase), pls. 20–21, pp. 84– 85, “Deposit E” (=Well 6), pl. 21; Coldstream 1999, p. 325, “Deposit N,” pl. 25, pp. 325–328, “Deposit O,” pl. 25, pp. 328–329, “Deposit P,” pl. 6. 257 See for instance: Coldstream 1973b, p. 44, nos. K 6, K 8 pl. 16, p. 45, nos. K 22, K 23 pl. 17. 258 Erickson 2010a, p. 119.

42 instance a Middle Proto-Corinthian kotyle and a Laconian stirrup krater.259 There was also unpublished Attic black-glazed pottery described as “of the early 5th century.”260

The discovery of Well 2 at the site of the later Venizeleion has led scholars to conclude that “this concentration of Late Archaic material so far north of the palace hints at an area of Greek habitation in a new location beyond the present limits of excavation.”261

To summarize, settlement contexts in the Knossos valley that were excavated by the British School testify to the Early Iron Age, Late Archaic, and Classical occupation of the site. Finds that can be dated to the interval of 590–525 B.C. comprise intrusive (?) Archaic pottery from Well H to the north of the Royal Road.

The second quarter of the 5th century B.C. is represented by architectural vestiges such as a floor or walking surface and a road in the area of the Southwest Houses.

These contexts have yielded Attic pottery that falls within the period of the purported break in overseas contacts between Crete and mainland Greece. Other contexts that are said to have produced important Archaic material and/or numerous Classical imports are wells in the area of the Venizeleion and pits and wells by the

Stratigraphical Museum of Knossos, but these assemblages are unpublished and/or lack excavation records.

The best known and investigated settlement site that has produced finds relevant to the “Archaic gap” and the Classical break in the record of imports will be considered in detail in the section that follows. That site is the Unexplored Mansion.

THE UNEXPLORED MANSION

259 Published by Erickson (2010a, p. 122, no. 239, fig. 4.2). 260 Coldstream 1973b, p. 34. 261 Erickson 2010a, p. 119.

THE HISTORY OF THE EXCAVATIONS

The Minoan Unexplored Mansion is a large residential building (14.5 x 24.5 m)262 of Late Minoan date, situated approximately 400 m northwest of the Minoan

Palace of Knossos (fig. 3, no. 186, fig. 5). The site borders the Little Palace to the east and now lies east of the Knossos Stratigraphical Museum. This wider area has yielded extensive traces of domestic activity from the Late Bronze Age to the Roman period.263 The Mansion was identified in 1908 by Arthur Evans, who uncovered its ashlar-built eastern façade,264 as well as large parts of its southeastern sector (Room

Q, South Corridor, Corridor L, South Platform), when excavating the Little Palace.265

However, Evans chose not to investigate the area fully, partly due to the absence of impressive portable finds recovered from his test trenches in the southeastern part of it, but also due to the dense levels of post-Bronze age material accumulated above the

Minoan strata.266 This is probably unsurprising since Evans was very selective as regards to the sites he chose to excavate. He aimed mostly at well-preserved elite structures with rich deposits267 and had little interest in post-Bronze Age remains, which were removed summarily by means of the „wager‟ system: according to this method the workman who reached the Minoan levels first was rewarded.268

For archaeologists interested in the historical periods of Knossos, it was fortunate that the dense accumulation of Greek and Roman remains above the Minoan building forced Evans to interrupt his investigation of the area269 and leave the

262 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973, p. 51; Popham 1984, p. 1. 263 For an overview cf. Hood and Smyth 1981, pp. 40–41, no. 86, pp. 47–48, nos. 186, 188. 264 Popham 1984, p. 14. 265 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973, p. 50; Popham 1984, pp. 1, 41, 88, 95. 266 Popham 1984, p. 2 267 Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 223. 268 Popham 1984, p. 265, n. 1; Hatzaki 2011, p. 78. Cf. Popham 1984, pl. 17; Evans 1921, pp. 93–96, fig. 45. 269 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973, p. 50; Popham 1984, p. 2.

Mansion mostly “Unexplored.”270 An illicit archaeological excavation was conducted in 1941 along the northern end of the Unexplored Mansion by German archaeologists and Greek captives of war working on behalf of the Austrian Major General Julius

Alfred Ringel, the head of the infantry corps which invaded Crete in May 20, 1941.271

However, it seems that this investigation was of limited scale, revealing only part of a

2nd–3rd-century A.D. house and not continuing below the Roman levels.272 Formal excavations were resumed in the 1960s and 1970s by Hugh Sackett and Mervyn

Popham.273 The first two seasons were devoted to the exploration of the northern half of the site, with Sackett digging the post-Bronze Age remains in 1967 and Popham revealing the Minoan ruins in 1968.274 In 1971 an excavation of the post-Minoan occupation levels and structures above the southwestern part of the Bronze Age building was conducted by Sackett, Tony Spawforth, and Nicolas Coldstream, and it was followed by an investigation of the southern half of the Minoan structure and its contents in 1972 by Popham.275 In 1973 the excavators focused on the examination of the wells.276 Lastly, 1977 was a short season dedicated to remains of all periods in the

South Corridor and the South Platform.277

270 Popham 1984, p. 2. 271 This excavation took place without permission of the Greek Ministry of Culture, the Greek Antiquity Service or the German Archaeological Institute at Athens. See Flouda 2017, esp. pp. 8–10, 13–15. On Ringel‟s position and activities at Knossos, see pp. 8–17. Despite the suspicions of the Ephor of Antiquities on Crete, Nikolaos Platon, that Ringel was interested in uncovering Minoan remains, the excavators “felt uneasy at digging a site which until then was the research territory of the British School at Athens.” For this reason, the excavators did not penetrate further than the Roman strata, according to the post-war director of the German Archaeological Institute, Ulf Jantzen and the supervisor of the excavation August Schörgendorfer. These claims were also confirmed by a post-war report of the representative of the British School, Thomas Dunbabin (Flouda 2017, p. 14). 272 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973, p. 50; Popham 1984, p. 2; Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 48, no. 185. See also n. 271 above. On the excavation of the North House cf. also Sackett and Jones 1992, pp. 47– 54. 273 Popham 1984, p. 2; Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi. 274 Popham 1984, p. 2; Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi. 275 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi. 276 Sackett et al 1992, p. xi (wells 5, 8a and 12). 277 Popham 1984, p. 2; Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi.

Although Evans discussed his work in the area only in passing,278 the excavations of the 1960s and 1970s were presented in much detail. An informative preliminary report appeared first in 1972–1973.279 Thereafter, an isolated well of over

14.40 m in depth, penetrating the Minoan floor of the Mansion and the bedrock, and containing Late Orientalizing pottery was published 1978 by Coldstream and

Sackett.280 A few years later, a detailed account of the Minoan remains at the site was published in 1984 by Popham,281 while a monograph on the post-Bronze Age contexts and finds was edited in 1992 by Sackett.282 These works make the Unexplored

Mansion one of the best published excavations in the Knossos valley.

THE CHARACTERISTICS AND THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE SITE

Before the post-Bronze Age levels were removed to expose the Minoan structure, the northern, central, and southern parts of the site were dominated by substantial remains of three 2nd–3rd-century A.D. buildings: the so-called North

House, the East House in the central sector of the excavation, and the House of the

Diamond Frescoes in the South.283 There is also evidence of earlier Roman (mostly of the 1st century A.D.)284 and Hellenistic285 predecessors below these houses. In addition, a section of paved road with retaining walls was traced in the northwestern part of the excavation (Trench VI, section F, figs. 6, 9).286 Terrace walls of the 3rd and 4th century B.C. below it show that there were probably earlier phases,287 while some stratigraphic features indicate that a track-road existed in the wider area already

278 Evans 1914, pp. 78–79, pl. VII; Evans 1928, pp. 542–546, figs. 318, 347. 279 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973. 280 Coldstream and Sackett 1978. 281 Popham 1984. 282 Sackett 1992. 283 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xii; Sackett and Jones 1992, pp. 35–55. 284 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xii; Sackett and Jones 1992, pp. 18–33. 285 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xii; Sackett and Jones 1992, pp. 16, 55–56. 286 Sackett and Jones 1992, pp. 56–57. 287 Cf. Sackett et al. 1992, p. xi; Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 56 and pl. 12 (= fig. 9).

46 in the Geometric period.288 A glut of wells and quarrying, as well as rubbish pits and a handful of fragmentary terrace walls and earth surfaces or floors289 constitute the main evidence for domestic activity in this region from the Sub-Minoan to the Hellenistic period.290

The intensive occupation of the site from the Late Minoan IB/II to the Roman period (2nd–3rd century A.D.) has produced a very complex stratigraphy, which makes it hard for the archaeologist to reconstruct the area‟s history and formation processes.291 The Late Minoan II and IIIA1 layers were disturbed already by Late

Minoan IIIA2292 and IIIB293 builders who aimed at robbing and reusing construction materials from the Mansion (such as ashlar and rubble masonry, wood etc.).

Subsequently, especially in the Early Iron Age but also in the later Greek and Roman periods the site was turned into a quarry of massive dressed blocks.294 Additionally, there were numerous rubbish pits and abandoned or abortive wells filled with more or less homogeneous debris.295 Some of the pits and wells reach as far as the Minoan destruction and occupation levels, causing contamination and confusion of all levels encountered in the process of their excavation.296 Such operations not only represent pockets of later material penetrating into the earlier strata, but also resulted in deposits accumulated over longer periods of time.

It is not only the wells and pits but also the constant reoccupation and rebuilding of the area that have caused a stratigraphic havoc to all levels prior to the

288 Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2, pl. 9, section D, nos. 23–27. 289 Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2. 290 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xii; Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2. 291 Cf. Sackett 1992, p. xi. 292 Cf. Popham 1984, p. 7 (Room C of the Unexplored Mansion). 293 One robbing pit cut through the southwestern corner of the Pillar Hall (Room H) and Corridor F goes back to Late Minoan IIIA2 (Popham 1984, p. 8). 294 Popham and Sackett 1972–1973, p. 55; Popham 1984, pp. 5, 6, 7, 95; Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2. 295 Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2. 296 Compare the situation described by Popham (1984, p. 5) in Room B of the Unexplored Mansion.

2nd–3rd century A.D. Older, still standing structures were reused by later occupants after abandonment or destruction debris was swept away.297 This type of site formation process is quite hard to detect. The waste removed could be added to an existing fill or an abandoned well or could just be thrown away in heaps near or far from its previous location of use. Lastly, terracing in preparation of later building activity also resulted into the destruction or contamination of earlier contexts.298

As noted above, extensive architectural remains survive at the site only from the Late Minoan and Roman periods.299 There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, in these chronological stages, building at Knossos involved more substantial walls and foundations. In the intervening periods, flimsier structures erected above the densely built Neopalatial and Final Palatial town seem to have faced stability problems.300

Secondly, the notoriously deep foundations of 2nd century A.D. buildings usually damaged all stratigraphic horizons above the Minoan or Early Iron Age levels.301

Indicative of these problems is the situation gleaned from section E, which was drawn by the excavators to elucidate the stratigraphy in the central southern part of the site (fig. 8). The walls of the House of the Diamond Frescoes (Middle Imperial period) and the packing of its floor (fig. 8, nos. 5 and 4 respectively) stand only a few centimeters above the lowest courses of the walls of the Unexplored Mansion, some

Late Minoan II destruction debris (fig. 8, no. 22) and a Late Minoan IIIA2 pit fill (fig.

8, no. 20) in the northern half of the section.302 In its southern half and outside the

House of the Diamond Frescoes there is a sequence of Geometric and Orientalizing

297 Popham 1984, p. 9; Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 5. 298 Cf. Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 286. 299 Cf. Popham 1984, pp. 99–126; Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2, 17–59. 300 Cf. Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 10; Coldstream and Huxley 1999, p. 292; Hatzaki and Kotsonas 2019, p. 1035. 301 Cf. Sackett et al. 1992, p. xii; Hatzaki and Kotsonas 2019, p. 1035. 302 Cf. Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 37.

48 layers (fig. 8, nos. 16–17) penetrated by pit fills assigned to the 6th, early 5th and 4th centuries B.C. (fig. 8, nos. 11, 13–15) which are overlaid by Hellenistic occupation and wash layers accumulated below the shallower foundations of the 1st century A.D.

Southwest House. The contrast between the northern and the southern halves of the section vividly demonstrates how Middle Imperial occupation has wiped out intervening strata between this period and the Minoan era.303 Likewise, section F (fig.

9) which passes through the northwestern part of the site and the remains of the

Hellenistic – Roman paved street, shows the confusion caused to earlier levels also by

Late Classical and Hellenistic building activity. In the northwestern part of the section there is a sequence of Bronze Age, Geometric, Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic levels below the foundations of the early 2nd century A.D. North House, as well as the early 1st century A.D. road and its retaining walls. In the southeastern half of the section the sequence below the Neronian levels is disturbed by 4th–3rd century B.C. fills and foundations of terrace walls, probably erected to support a street of similar date (fig. 7).

Foundation trenches also contribute to the confusion. Foundations of new buildings and terracing not only destroy earlier structures, but they also contain backfill which may have been drawn from more than one context with different chronology. As a result, archaeological finds of various dates can be moved to locations different than their original abandonment or destruction layers. An example that might illustrate this case is the upper fill of a robbing pit opened in the Late

Minoan IIIC or the Sub-Minoan period in the northeastern part of the site (fig. 10, no.

22).304 The pottery from these layers has a well-preserved surface which militates against its identification with worn slope-wash falling down the hill; at the same time,

303 Cf. Sackett 1992, p. xi. 304 Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2.

49 it is very fragmentary, as if intentionally broken and redeposited as fill.305 The contents of the pit in question were also contaminated by Geometric pottery, either because of material which intruded from the Early Iron Age pits in the area306 or perhaps due to the fact that a secondary deposition of the Sub-Minoan debris at that spot took place in the Geometric period. All things considered, some of the strata below the 2nd–3rd century A.D. and earlier structures might constitute a redeposited, deliberate fill, which is entirely out of its “original” place and context.307

METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE UNEXPLORED

MANSION: REFERENCE SYSTEMS OF STRATA AND POTTERY GROUPS AND THE

PROBLEMATIC MEANING OF THE TERM “DEPOSIT”

Understanding the methodological choices involved in the publication of the

Minoan Unexplored Mansion is essential for the comprehension of the excavation contexts and their finds. In the present section, I explain the reference systems and the nomenclature of find groups used in Sackett‟s edited volume, which is the main publication as regards to the periods on which the present study is focusing.

One complication facing any scholar studying material from the Unexplored

Mansion is the parallel use of different systems of reference to stratigraphy.

Frequently, the trench and stratigraphic level numbers that were associated with each find or group of finds during the excavation do not match the numbers recording the context of the pottery from the Unexplored Mansion stored in boxes at the

Stratigraphical Museum of Knossos. Furthermore, these numbers can vary from those used in the principal publication of the post-Bronze Age finds from the site, as Sackett

305 Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 2. 306 Sackett and Jones (1992, p. 2) opt for this option. 307 Sackett and Jones (1992, p. 4) also applied this interpretation to two Proto-Geometric–Early Geometric pit fills found in the northern half of the excavation: the “Deposits” GB and GC. For the problematic concept of the “original context of use” cf. Schiffer 1987, pp. 17–18.

50 explains.308 However, a concordance between the publication and the excavation numbers is usually offered for closed, stratified contexts. Due to time reasons no study of the excavation notebooks with a view to the establishment of cross- references between the original trench and level numbers and the labels used in the publication could be undertaken. Be that as it may, a detailed re-examination of the context of all diagnostic published and unpublished pottery dating to the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. could, in my view, shed some more light to the nature, quality, and perplexity of the layers that have yielded material from these periods.

The best specimens of Archaic and Classical pottery recovered from the area of the Unexplored Mansion were divided by Nicolas Coldstream and Peter Callaghan into 10 groups, which were christened as “deposits.”309 The term is not always to be understood in a strict sense. Most of the groups represent pit fills or parts of them, often contaminated with later material. Such cases include: the Orientalizing/ Archaic

“deposit” GG, which consists of the upper fill of well 8a sunk though the Minoan staircase J (fig. 5); the Archaic “deposits” H2–H4, which comprise material from Pits

15, 8, and 5 (fig. 7); and the Classical/ Late Classical “deposits” H5–H6 and H8, which are drawn from Pit 23, Well 5, and Pit 57 respectively (fig. 7). H7 derives from layers associated with an earth floor or surface between Trenches I and V in the North

(fig. 6).

Nonetheless, there are also assortments of material which have been grouped together as “deposits” even though they do not come from the same stratigraphic horizon. A case in point is the assorted “deposit” GH. According to Coldstream, its pottery derives “not from well-stratified contexts” but is “nevertheless of intrinsic

308 Sackett et al. 1992, p. xiii. 309 Relevant to the present study are Coldstream‟s groups GG and GH and Callaghan‟s H1–H4, H6 and H11.

51 interest.”310 The material ranges from the 9th to the late 7th century B.C. and is arranged chronologically.311 Some of the sherds included in “deposit” GH have been removed from stratigraphic contexts published as separate “deposits.”312 Callaghan follows a similar methodological approach. In his introduction to the chapter “Archaic to Hellenistic Pottery” he notes:

The deposits in this section are arranged as far as possible in some sort of chronological order but I have felt it more important to keep stratified sequences together and this has led to a number of dislocations, the most severe of which is the inclusion of [“deposit”] H9 in the Classical section. H11 and H38 are both collections of material dating to the Archaic/Classical and Hellenistic periods respectively. In order to keep classes of material together some objects in H38 have been removed from their stratified deposits.313

Although Callaghan explains that he gives priority to stratigraphic provenance, he makes an exeption for “deposits” H11 and H38. These “deposits” comprise assorted pottery from different layers, including sherds that share the same contexts with other published groups but are presented separately from their contextual finds.

In particular, H11 is a miscellaneous agglomeration of pottery assigned to the 5th and

4th centuries B.C.314 Also indicative is Callaghan‟s “deposit” H1, which consists of

“three scrappy deposits ... all sharing certain forms and with associated lamps that can be dated to the period 525–500 B.C.”315 H1(A) comes from a layer of dark earth in

Trench XIII, in the southeastern part of the excavation area (fig. 6–7),316 H1(B) from a pit fill in the southeastern extension of the dig conducted in 1977 (Trench XVI, figs.

310 Coldstream 1992, p. 67. 311 Or from the 9th to the early 6th centuries B.C., as I argue below. 312 For example, the Corinthian alabastron GH 32 (Coldstream 1992, p. 77) comes from Pit 57, which is published as “Deposit H8” (Callaghan 1992, pp. 95–96). 313 Callaghan 1992, p. 89. 314 Cf. Callaghan 1992, p. 97. 315 Callaghan 1992, p. 90. 316 Callaghan 1992, p. 90.

6–7),317 and H1(C) from a pit at the far north-central part of the site (Trench V, fig. 6) which contained considerable amounts of earlier pottery (Geometric and

Orientalizing).318 Thus, three pottery groupings of varied provenance were assorted together into “deposit” H1 on the basis of their shared chronology.

It is clear from the above that the stratigraphic context of the published, post-

Bronze Age finds from the Unexplored Mansion has not always been the priority of the experts. A greater emphasis seems to have been placed on style and typological dating.

Taking these problems into account, the term “deposit” will not be used in the following parts of this work, in order to prevent confusion with the varied and problematic meaning that the word assumed in the publication of the Unexplored

Mansion. Agglomerations of pottery that stem from the same archaeological context319 will be referred to as “stratigraphic units” and chronological or random groupings of ceramic finds from different contexts will be denoted as “pottery groups.”

THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL POTTERY FROM THE KNOSSOS UNEXPLORED

MANSION IN CONTEXT

In this final section I briefly present the stratigraphic contexts of the

Unexplored Mansion which have yielded the Archaic and Classical imported pottery that is examined in Chapter 3. By introducing the reader to these contexts, I also mention the individual strata which produced each of the fragments discussed in the

317 Callaghan 1992, p. 90. 318 Callaghan 1992, p. 91. 319 Even though, in some cases, no decisive evidence can be brought in support of this assumption.

53 following analysis and catalogue. Finally, I identify the pieces in question which were not derived from a closed context or seem to be intrusions in later layers.

As alluded to above, the pottery of the 1st millennium B.C. from the

Unexplored Mansion has been analyzed in two chapters by Coldstream, a connoisseur of Geometric ceramics, and Callaghan, a specialist in Hellenistic ware. The

“stratigraphic units” and “pottery groups” studied by Coldstream were labeled with a

G, which stands for “Geometric,” and those by Callaghan with an H, which stands for

“Hellenistic.”320 These labels seem to be indicative of the priorities and research foci of the two scholars,321 and of their potential impact in the study of the intervening

Archaic and Classical periods.

There are 10 of Coldstream‟s and Callaghan‟s “stratigraphic units” and

“pottery groups” that contain Archaic and Classical ceramic material. “Stratigraphic unit” GG and “pottery group” GH are the most relevant in including pottery of the 6th century B.C. GG represents the upper fill of a well sunk into staircase J of the Minoan building and most of its pottery has been attributed to the 7th century B.C.322

However, a few sherds of Archaic date have been recognized, such as the Atticizing lamp GG 17, the Cretan copy of a Laconian krater GG 7, and some local style pottery.323 Coldstream has suggested the first quarter of the 6th century B.C. as the closing date for the “stratigraphic unit.”324 On the other hand, GH is a collection of ceramic finds from miscellaneous layers. Fragments of finely decorated Corinthian

320 According to Prof. Antonis Kotsonas (pers. comm.). 321 It is noteworthy that Coldstream and Callaghan have also been the publishing authorities for ceramic material of the early Greek and Greek periods from the wider Knossos area (see for example: Coldstream 1972; 1973a; 1973b; Callaghan 1978; 1992; Coldstream 1991; 1992; 1999; Coldstream and Macdonald 1997; Coldstream and Huxley 1999; Coldstream 2000; Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003). 322 Cf. Coldstream 1992, p. 72. 323 Coldstream 1992, pp. 72, 85–86. See esp. p. 85: “It seems, however, that some pieces in our deposit GG may fall within this sixth-century „dark age‟ in the Knossian sequence.” 324 Coldstream 1992, p. 72.

54 pottery were included in this assemblage, some of which fall between the Transitional

(630–620/610 B.C.) and the Middle Corinthian periods (595/590–570 B.C.) but are hard to date more precisely. Coldstream placed them in the Early Corinthian period, following Payne‟s dating for this phase (625–600 B.C.).325 If we follow Amyx‟ revised chronology the date range of these pieces would cover the first decade of the

6th century B.C.326 Two fragments contained in this “pottery group,” – Coldstream‟s no. GH 136327 (no. 19 here) and an unpublished piece (no. 21) – are re-examined in the catalogue and analysis that follow.

A further context that heralds the advent of the 6th century B.C. at the

Unexplored Mansion is the fill of Well 12. The well at issue was sunk through the central southern sector of the Unexplored Mansion and was sealed by the concrete lining of a Hellenistic cistern.328 Corinthian imports and local imitations included in this well led Coldstream and Sackett to propose a closing date of ca. 600 B.C.329 An

Ionian cup listed among the finds seems to have been considered as a 6th century B.C. intrusion by the authors,330 and thus the barrier of ca. 600 B.C. was strictly maintained: “We shall not be far wrong ... in dating this well deposit to the years around 600 B.C. By a small margin it reduces our ignorance of the Knossian Archaic sequence; but there still remains a long lacuna lasting throughout the sixth century when no substantial deposit has yet come to light.”331

325 Coldstream 1992, p. 79, nos. GH 126–GH 137. 326 Amyx 1988, pp. 421, 428–429. 327 Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 136, pls. 59, 73. 328 Coldstream and Sackett 1978, p. 49. 329 Coldstream and Sackett 1978, pp. 58, 60. 330 Coldstream and Sackett 1978, p. 56, no. 53. 331 Coldstream and Sackett 1978, p. 60. Cf. Coldstream and Huxley 1999, pp. 294–295: “The Unexplored Mansion site … has produced at least one well deposit with material slightly later than the general abandonment of the cemeteries. The pottery fill of Well 12, which includes many complete vessels from the water level together with a Corinthian import, takes us to the very end of the seventh century … The site has also produced, contemporary with this fill, a dozen unstratified fragments of Early Corinthian imports, from oinochoai, alabastra and pyxides; but after c. 600 these imports stop.”

In his own chapter Callaghan argued that the Archaic material from the

Unexplored Mansion is all confined to last quarter of the 6th and the first quarter of the 5th century B.C.,332 observing the purported lacuna of ca. 590–525 B.C. The Late

Archaic material he published comprises “stratigraphic units” H2–H4, which are all pit fills, and the “pottery group” H1, which consists of three different stratigraphic assemblages as illustrated below. Callaghan assigned H1 to ca. 525–500 B.C., while he deemed H2–H4 as contemporary with Well H of the Royal Road and thus datable to the first quarter of the 5th century B.C. The chronology seems to be based on individual Attic imports and lamps. Hence, by problematizing the date of a single imported piece one can cast doubts on the dating of the “stratigraphic unit” or the

“pottery group” it belongs to. For instance, “stratigraphic unit” H2 is based on the dating of rim fragment no. 1 to 490–480 B.C.333 The piece is designated as an Attic skyphos,334 while it is clearly a cup-skyphos, and the parallel Callaghan offers is a bolsal of ca. 425 B.C.335 Parallels for the piece are known from Athens and many date to ca. 480 B.C.336 However, its concave inset lip is a feature that seems to go down to ca. 470 B.C.337 Such a slight downdating can undermine the absolute conviction that the pottery contained in this “stratigraphic unit,” as well as its parallels from Well H of the Royal Road, cannot be later than 480–475 B.C. The rigidness of these chronological limits can also be tested on a number of unpublished fragments from the “stratigraphic units” H2 and H4, two of which are examined in the following sections of the present work (nos. 15 and 17).

332 Callaghan 1992, pp. 89–98. 333 Callaghan p. 91, no. H2.1, pl. 74. 334 See under: Callaghan p. 91, no. H2.1. 335 Agora XII, no. 537. 336 Cf. Agora XII, p. 276, no. 577. 337 Agora XII, p. 276, no. 579.

The 5th century B.C. – apart from its first quarter – is represented in the

Unexplored Mansion only by “stratigraphic unit” H6 and “pottery group” H11. The former (H6) constitutes the fill of Well 5 in the northern sector of the excavation. The well was abandoned when a level of hard rock was reached below the Minoan floor and it was subsequently filled with debris.338 The sherds most useful for dating are five fragments of the 4th century B.C.,339 including two Attic cup-kantharoi.340

Nonetheless, the well has also yielded significant amounts of 5th century B.C. pottery.341 Unpublished ceramics from this fill, which belong to the period of the

“Archaic gap” and Classical “break” in imports, will be discussed in the following chapter (nos. 1, 5). On the other hand, H11 is simply a collection of Archaic and

Classical sherds from different contexts. Apart from the published specimens, which include sherds of an early and late 5th-century B.C. date, I consider three unpublished

Archaic fragments listed under H11 worthy of discussion in the context of this thesis

(nos. 2–4). They all represent residual material in later levels (VII 7, XIV 12, and VIII

33 #736).

Most of the pottery presented in the present catalogue and analysis was not included in the publication of 1992 and derives from contaminated contexts or was found in later, Hellenistic and Roman layers (nos. 2–4, 6–12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21–23,

25, 26).342 Beside the aforementioned specimens from pit fills H2, H4, and H6, there are two further fragments that come from interesting stratigraphic horizons. These include: import no. 13, from an earth floor dated by Coldstream to the 7th century

338 Callaghan 1992, p. 94. 339 Callaghan 1992, p. 94, nos. H6.1–5, pl. 77. 340 Callaghan 1992, p. 94, nos. H6.1–2, pl. 77. 341 Callaghan 1992, p. 94. 342 Contexts: VII 7; XIV 12; VIII 33 #736; V Pit 9; XII 27; XIII 30A floor packing (=Hellenistic, cf. Sackett, Cocking et al. 1992, p. 394); II 18; VII 35; XIV 21; XII 34; II 4; SW 29; XIV Pit 1a; XIII 16; II RE II; V 4; RH I 32 Pit XIc; I 23c; VI 10; VIII unknown level.

B.C. The floor in question has produced the Orientalizing “stratigraphic unit” GF.343

Moreover, fragment 20 is a Corinthian import and derives from Trench I Pit XI. This is a massive layer, the upper fill of which contained the “stratigraphic unit” H8 and was assigned to the Late Classical period. Its lower fill comprised “stratigraphic unit”

GC and has been ascribed to the Proto-Geometric B – Early Geometric period.344 Last but not least, another fragment out of context is no. 25, a Cypriot import that has been published under “pottery group” H38,345 which is an agglomeration of Hellenistic pottery from different contexts.346 Although some published finds from the same stratigraphic level as 25 are indeed Hellenistic,347 certain characteristics of its decoration indicate that its date needs to be re-assessed.

To conclude, this section offered an introduction into the history of the excavations and the publication of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, the characteristics of the site and the complexity of its stratigraphy, as well as the

“stratigraphic units” of the area which yielded either already identified Archaic and

Classical imports or pieces which are analyzed below. Together with the discussion conducted in the first half of this chapter about the Archaic and Classical ceramic, sculptural and other evidence from Knossos, the examination of the Unexplored

Mansion and its published finds can generate a fuller understanding of the contemporary material culture that is hitherto known from that major Cretan city. A new contribution that supplements that picture is offered by the unpublished ceramic imports from the site that are investigated below.

343 Cf. Sackett and Jones 1992, p. 6; Coldstream 1992, p. 74. Note, however, that the same level is described in Section A, no. 16 not as a floor, but as a Geometric to Orientalizing wash level (Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 6, no. 16). 344 Cf. Callaghan 1992, p. 95, H8, pls. 77–78; Coldstream 1992, pp. 69–70, GC, pls. 52, 62; Sackett and Jones 1992, pl. 5, nos. 57, 60 and pl. 9, nos. 16–17. 345 Callaghan 1992, p. 132, H38 no. 78, pl. 117. 346 Callaghan 1992, pp. 89, 127. 347 See for instance: Callaghan 1992, p. 130, H38 no. 39.

CHAPTER 3

SELECTED ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL IMPORTED POTTERY FROM

THE UNEXPLORED MANSION

INTRODUCTION

The present chapter discusses the provenance and chronology of restudied published and unpublished imported pottery from the Knossos Unexplored Mansion that is diagnostic and dates to the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. The material covered includes Attic, Corinthian, Laconian, and Cypriot pottery that dates especially from the portions of these centuries which are poorly represented in the published ceramic record of the Unexplored Mansion and of Knossos in general (ca. 590–525 B.C. and

475–425 B.C.).

The question of provenance is approached through a macroscopic inspection of technical features, such as the color and consistency of the fabric and the glaze.

Other factors, such as the style of painted decoration and the shape of the diagnostic pieces, have also been taken into consideration. An exhaustive stylistic and morphological analysis of the fragments is used to address chronological questions of the material. These chronological considerations can trigger, as it will be shown in later sections of this work, a valuable discussion on the historical implications of published and unpublished archaeological evidence from Knossos.

The chronological systems of Attic, Corinthian, Laconian, and Cypriot pottery, including their approximative nature and their weak points, have already been discussed in Chapter 1. It is worth repeating here that the absolute dates deduced for these relative ceramic sequences are conventional and should not be regarded as cast

59 in stone. From this vantage point, the very notion of a habitation gap in Knossos from

590 to 525 B.C. and an import gap from 475 to 425 B.C. on the grounds of ceramic finds from the site is itself problematic, since absolute chronology based on the stylistic evolution of archaeological artifacts is admittedly fluid. Regardless, it is the author‟s hope that, a systematic study of new material that covers these short intervals in compliance with traditional chronology, is an important step will be made toward acknowledging the fact that the aforementioned lacunae might be more apparent than real.

It is very unfortunate that most of the pottery examined here does not come from sealed and stratified archaeological contexts. This drawback is perhaps compensated by the fact that some fragments find parallels among the ceramic corpus of significant Archaic and Classical stratigraphic contexts at Knossos such as the fill of Well H to the north of the Royal Road, the pits and pathways in the area of the

Southwest Houses, the foundation and votive assemblages at the Sanctuary of

Demeter, the wells in the vicinity of the Venizeleion hospital, as well as “stratigraphic units” GG, H2–H4 and Well 12 from the Unexplored Mansion itself. Extensive comparisons between the material of the present catalogue and the previously published body of evidence are made in the following pages, in order to demonstrate that some of the known stratigraphic contexts of Knossos might begin or end in periods that overlap with the purported chronological breaks of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. and that the relevant evidence has been largely overlooked owing to the entrenched belief in the “gaps.”

The state of preservation of the finds presented for the first time in the current study deserves a brief comment. The material derives from a settlement site which presents continuous occupation and continuous disturbance from the Early Iron Age

60 to the Roman times348 and with no traces of well-preserved destruction layers.349

Therefore, the pottery is very fragmentary and the high degree of fragmentation is, in some occasions, a hurdle to the precise typological and chronological classification of the vessels. However, the surface of the fragments is in most cases relatively well- preserved, which might suggest that the sherds had not been lying on the ground too long before being swept away, or that they have not been sliding downhill after their deposition. They are thus quite well-preserved for a body of domestic pottery.

The following analysis is divided into four sections, according to the provenance of the fragments. Moving geographically from north to south, the discussion will treat first the Attic imports, subsequently the Corinthian, the Laconian and, finally, the Cypriot.

ANALYSIS OF THE ATTIC POTTERY

There are sixteen Attic fragments that can be assigned a stylistic date within the assumed lacunae of the Archaic and Classical periods at Knossos, namely from

600/590 to 525 B.C. and from 475 to 425 B.C. The first four black-figure pieces represent open shapes: drinking cups and a krater in particular (1–4). Another black- figure sherd comes from a lekythos (5). The three red-figure fragments constitute kraters (6–8). The remaining fragments are all black-glazed drinking and eating vessels (9–16). The arrangement of the material that follows is based on the criteria of ware (black-figure, red-figure and black-glazed), shape (from open to closed and from smaller to larger, in the order of shapes followed in Agora XII) and date.

348 It is worthy to note again that the site has also been investigated both by early excavators targeting Bronze Age remains and by illicit excavators during World War II. Cf. Chapter 2, pp. 45–59. 349 Cf. Chapter 2, pp. 45–59.

The first black-figure fragment (1) comes from the base of a Little Master

Cup. The features that led to this identification are the tall, all-black stem of the sherd, the high hollow cone that runs from the base up inside the stem, the carination of the interior cone‟s walls, and the sharp angle (so-called “heel”) at the transition from the cone to the foot‟s underside.350 The origins of this shape go back to the years shortly before 550 B.C., but the main period of production coincides roughly with the third and early fourth quarter of the 6th century (ca. 550–510 B.C.).351 Some Little Master cups (e.g., the band cups and their variations) continued to be produced in the late 6th and early 5th century B.C., but the fragment in question does not seem to be so late.

The reasons are numerous. Its solid stem resembles more the thick-walled and relatively broad stems of the earliest Little Master Cups.352 Furthermore, the abrupt change of angle from the lower to the upper interior of the stem can best be compared with a band cup of the Hermogenes Painter from about 555–535 B.C.,353 a cup in

Kassel dated to the years around 540 B.C.,354 and a series of examples in Munich, all attributed to the third quarter of the 6th century B.C.355 Therefore, a chronological placement of no. 1 between 550 and 525 B.C. seems quite reasonable.

Fragment 2 is a Cassel cup, a shape that has been encountered previously at

Knossos, in a surface context at the site of the Roman Villa Dionysos.356 Although we

350 On these characteristics see CVA, New York 2 [USA 11] pp. 4, 8; Heesen 2011, pp. 4–6. On the differences between Little Master cups and Droop cups that allow us to exclude an identification with the latter category, see: Ure 1953, p. 55. 351 On the production dates of Little Master Cups: Ure 1953, p. 51; Fellmann 1990, p. 19; Heesen 2011, pp. 1, 7, 13–14. On their form and decoration: Beazley 1932, pp. 167–203; Villard 1946, pp. 162–169; Beazley 1986, pp. 52–56; Fellmann 1990, pp. 20–22, 25–36; CVA, New York 2 [USA 11], pp. xvii, 4, 8; Heesen 2011, pp. 4–9. 352 Cf. Heesen 2011, p. 4. 353 Heesen 2011, p. 103, no. 137, fig. 59. 354 CVA, Kassel 1 [Germany 35] pl. 30 [704]:3, pp. 51–52, fig. 11. 355 CVA, Munich 10 [Germany 56] pl. 28 [2170], pp. 46–47, Appendix 8,1 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 34 [2147]: 5–6, pp. 55–56, Appendix 10,3 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 36 [2262]:5–7, pp. 58, Appendix 11,1 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 37 [2260]:1–3, pp. 58–59, Appendix 11,2 (550–525 B.C.). The second (no. 2147) also exhibits the same rounded cavities at the upper part of the stem‟s cone. 356 Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 305, S 51, pl. 27.

62 only have a small fragment of the floor decorated with rays on the outside (an ornament that can appear on a variety of cup types, especially on Komast cups, Siana cups, and Droop cups),357 the identification of the fragment as a Cassel cup is more than plausible, based on the following criteria: the presence of a solid black disc as opposed to a thin black band around the stem of the cup; the added red circle on the top of a slightly wider, white circle at the edge of the solid disc, just below the rays; and the reserved medallion on the inside.358 The best parallels for the form of the rays

– which are thin, closely spaced and a little hastily drawn judging from their irregular widths and heights – as well as for the combination of circles of added colors that occurs on this fragment have been assigned dates within the third quarter of the 6th century B.C.,359 a period which also seems to coincide roughly with the main manufacture period of this cup type.360 According to the comparanda and the conventional floruit of the Cassel cups – of which 2 seems to be a standard example –

I suggest a date around 530 and 520 B.C.

Another piece that belongs to the same transitional period is no. 3. This fragment comes from a Droop cup, a shape that is akin to Little Master cups just as

357 Cf. Brijder 1993, p. 142. 358 On the form of Cassel cups see: ABV2, 197; Heesen 2011, p. 7. On their decoration see: Beazley and Payne 1929, p. 271; Beazley 1932, pp. 191–192; Villard 1946, p. 169; Boardman 1974, p. 62; Brijder 1993, pp. 140–145; Heesen 2011, p. 7. 359 CVA, Kassel 1 [Germany 35] pl. 30 [487]:4, p. 52 (ca. 530 B.C.); CVA, Munich 10 [Germany 56] pl. 36 [2262]:5–7, p. 58, Appendix11,1, (550–525 B.C.), pl. 37 [2261]:4–6, p. 59, Appendix 11,3 (550– 525 B.C.); Brijder 1993, p. 139, fig. 23 (ca. 530 B.C.), p. 143, fig. 27 (ca. 530 B.C.). 360 There is no absolute agreement in scholarship on the exact period of production of Cassel cups. François Villard‟s time-honored study on the development of black-figure drinking vessels had placed them around 530–510 B.C. (Villard 1946, p. 180), while more recently, Bert Fellmann assigned them a date between ca. 540 and 520 B.C. (Fellmann 1990, p. 23). I adopt here Herman A. J. Bridjer‟s chronology, who limits their production between ca. 540 and 510 B.C. and deems 530–520 B.C. as the decade of their highest popularity (Brijder 1993, p. 142). These dates have also been accepted by the authority on Little Master cups, Peter Heesen (2011, p. 8) who disputes John Boardman‟s late dating in 530–500 B.C. (Boardman 1974, p. 62). In general, it seems that the standardized form is currently attributed by most scholars to ca. 530–520 B.C. or more broadly to the third quarter of the 6th century B.C. The only other known example of a Cassel cup that has been discovered in Knossos is a fragment from a non-diagnostic part of the base as well. It was dated by Coldstream (Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 305, S. 51, pl. 27) to the last quarter of the 5th century B.C. based on a parallel from Boardman‟s handbook whose base rays are hardly discernible in the illustration (Boardman 1974, p. 62 and fig. 130).

63 the Cassel,361 but presents a number of major differences in shape and decoration.362

The most important idiosyncratic feature of Droop kylikes that helps us assign 3 to this category of drinking vessels is the lip, which is both more sharply offset than that of the Little Masters and has the reserved band on the inside of the rim at a lower level.363 The current fragment comes from the upper body below the black, offset rim and exhibits a figural zone at the level of the handles showing a horse and its rider in silhouette technique. The figured handle zone is a feature of Percy N. Ure‟s class III of Droop cups.364 Only a little black portion survives from the lower zone, so that it is hard to tell whether it belongs to subclass III.A with a black lower bowl, or III.C with ornamental friezes below the figured zone, alternating with black bands.365 The thin parallel lines that serve as ground lines for the figural handle zone of 3 are also typical of cups of this class.366

The chronology of this shape is a little more ambiguous. The earliest pieces are dated by Ure to shortly before the middle of the 6th century B.C.,367 while a recent study by Maria Pipili places the Laconian prototypes of Droop cups in the second

361 There is a great debate regarding the question of whether Droop cups derive from Attic Little Master cups or from Laconian cups of the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. Beazley and Payne (1929, p. 271) advocate the former, while Droop (1910, pp. 21–27), Ure (1953, pp. 46–50), Heesen (2011, pp. 8–9) and Pipili (2009) plead for the latter case. 362 This is not a place to list all the differences between Little Master cups and Droop cups; a detailed and very illuminating contrast of the shape and decoration of these two types has been made in Ure 1932, p. 55. 363 On the form and decoration of Droop cups: Droop 1910, pp. 21–25; Ure 1932, pp. 55–68, esp. p. 55; Ure 1953, p. 45; Agora XXIII, pp. 65–66; Heesen 2011, p. 8. Compare also the rim profiles of Droop as opposed to Band cups in: CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3]: figs. 12–16 (for Band cups) and figs. 17–20 (for Droop cups). 364 On this class cf. Ure 1932, pp. 56, 63–68. 365 For an impression of how the arrangement of the decorative friezes would look like, see: Ure 1932, fig. 7, no. 82 and pl. III, no. 96. 366 See for example: Ure 1932, pl. III, nos. 85, 86, and 96; CVA, New York 2 [USA 11] pl. 21 [06.1021.161]:34a. Some Eye cups have these multiple horizontal lines at the bottom of the figured frieze as well (cf. CVA, New York 2 [USA 11] pl. XXVII [96.18.50]:41a–b), but the offset rim prevents the identification of fr. 3 with an eye cup. 367 Haspels (1936, p. 108) questioned that and dated the birth of the shape a little later (around or post- 540 B.C.); but her position has been severely criticized by Ure (1953, pp. 47–50) and others (Stibbe 2004, pp. 10, 26, 53).

64 quarter of the 6th century B.C.368 Ure believed that the production of these vessels thrived between 540 and 510 B.C.; 369 François Villard narrowed down their period of florescence to 530–520 B.C.370 This assessment, however, does not find resonance among all scholars.371 The lower chronological limits of the shape are also quite unclear: Cups with at least “some Droop features” continue into the 5th century B.C. according to Ure,372 while John Boardman even mentions a “Haimonian Droop cup” without further clarifications373 – but some are skeptical about this.374 The latest pieces from Boeotian Rhitsona come from graves of ca. 515 B.C., 375 and Pipili ends the chronology of the most advanced pieces from Athens‟ National Museum at 520–

515 B.C. as well.376 Given that the production dates do not help us much, since they are still debated, the best chance to date no. 3 more closely is through the style of its figures. The horse and rider are rendered in silhouette. The front legs of the horse resemble more closely human than equine legs, a characteristic that is more common in the iconography of centaurs rather than horses.377 The swelling joints of the horse‟s rear legs as opposed to the schematic representation of the remaining part of the figures suggests that the fragment belongs stylistically to the transitional stage between the third and the fourth quarters of the 6th century B.C. This is the reason why an approximate date of production around 530–520 B.C. is suggested here.378

368 Pipili 2009, supported also by Heesen 2011, pp. 8–9. 369 Ure 1953, 51. 370 Villard 1946, p. 180. 371 Heesen (2011, p. 8, n. 56) characterizes his start date for Droop cups as “too late” and his end date as “too early.” 372 Ure 1953, p. 51. 373 Boardman 1974, p. 62. 374 Heesen 2011, p. 8, no. 56. 375 Ure 1953, p. 51. 376 CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3] pl. 46 [660]:3–4, pp. 55–56. 377 Cf. Baur 1912, pp. 78–129, nos. 202–315, pls. X–XII, XV. 378 Kathleen M. Lynch (pers. comm.) has characterized this as the “last gasp” before the simplification of black-figure forms on drinking vessels taking place in the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th century B.C. I think that the closest counterparts to the style of the horse can be found on two Little Master cups published by Heesen (2011, pl. 166b, no. 664 and pl. 164.a, no. 658), as well as a Cassel

The next black-figure fragment comes from a krater (4). Since no diagnostic parts of the original vase are preserved, the piece is only datable on the basis of its figural decoration. It depicts part of a draped figure apparently moving to the right and raising its angled right arm upward. The figure wears a short-sleeved chiton with white points on the border of the sleeve, has a very thin waist forming a sharp contrast to its broad, frontally-depicted chest, and has long, straight locks of hair fall on part of its right shoulder. There are a number of black-figure amphoras with figures that hold their arms in a similar way, have white dots on the hems of their garments or on the crests of their helmets, show a thin waist upon which a frontally-depicted, triangular chest sits – in the typical Archaic manner – and carry middle short hair, the locks of which are indicated by straight, densely incised lines.379 The chronological range of the parallels rests within the second half of the 6th century B.C., and any date within this period is possible for the fragment. Nevertheless, it is important to note that most comparanda come from the earlier part of this time span and that some characteristics of the sherd such as the detailed and careful incision at the border of the sleeve and the hair locks, the clearly drawn white dots, the stiff posture of the figure and the articulation of the body as a sum of distinct parts that stand on their own are more typical for the style of the Archaic than that of the Late Archaic period.

Cup in the National Museum of Athens (CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3] pl. 38 [21027], p. 46–7), all three assigned to the 520s B.C. The rear legs seem more schematic and advanced than the Droop cup in CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3] pl. 42 [9711], p. 51, fig. 17 (ca. 540–530 B.C.) but more detailed, thus stylistically earlier than the cup-skyphos in CVA, Athens 4 [Greece 4] pl. 49 [18735]:1-2, p. 55 (about 500–490 B.C.) and the Late Archaic cups in CVA, Bologna 2 [Italy 7] pl. 32 [331]:1–3 and pl. 33 [332]:1–2. 379 The closest parallels are two amphoras in Munich: CVA, Munich 9 [Germany 48] pl. 1 [1550]: 4, pp. 14–15 (ca, 510 B.C.), pl. 2 [1510]:1–2, pp. 11–12 (ca. 510 B.C.). On the posture of the arm cf.: CVA, Kassel 1 [Germany 35] pl. 19 [T. 679]:1–2 and pl. 20,1–4, p. 42 (ca. 540 B.C., belly amphora of the Affecter), pls. 21 [384]: 1 and 22,1–3, p. 43 (ca. 540 B.C.); CVA, Munich1 [Germany 3] pls. 14 [1380]:1 and 15,1–3, pp. 14–15 (in the tradition of Exekias, ca. 540 B.C.); Agora XXIII p. 214, no. 884, pl. 80 (ca. 500 B.C.). On the treatment of the hair and other similarities: CVA, Munich 1 [Germany 3] pls. 21–23 [1383] p. 18 (ca. 550 B.C., Amasis Painter), pls. 10 [1379]:4,13,1–2 and 28,3, p. 13 (ca. 540 B.C.).

The only closed shape among the black-figure wares that is represented in the current catalogue is fragment 5, from the central body zone of a white-ground lekythos decorated with palmettes and a human figure walking between them.380 The palmette frieze is bounded below by a checkerboard. This specimen belongs to a group of small pattern lekythoi attributed to the Beldam Painter‟s workshop that were adorned with a central floral frieze on the body and framed above and below by patternwork.381 They are thought to have been produced mainly in the second and third quarter of the 5th century B.C.382 In her fundamental study of Attic black-figure lekythoi, C. H. Emilie Haspels refers to a “late” piece in London with palmettes on the main zone and the figure of a hoplite fitted between them, but unfortunately does not illustrate it.383 Donna C. Kurtz, writing nearly forty years later on the same topic, comments on the scarcity of examples with figures incorporated in the palmette zone and illustrates only one example of this kind; she gives this piece only a general date within the first half of the 5th century B.C.384 However, elsewhere in her monograph,

Kurtz reasserts Haspels‟ starting date for the Beldam lekythoi in the second quarter of

380 White-ground, black-figure pattern lekythoi are more frequently associated with domestic contexts than funerary contexts and should not be confused with the polychrome white-ground Attic lekythoi produced exclusively for funerary use during the 5th century B.C. For such pattern lekythoi from the Athenian Agora see: Agora XII, p. 249, no. 1216, pl. 87; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 96, no. 135, pl. 42. 381 On the decoration of the Beldam lekythoi: ABL, pp. 170–191, esp. pp. 181-2, 187; Kurtz 1975, pp. 153–155. 382 Cf. ABL, p. 187: “The Beldam pattern-lekythoi must have begun about 470, and gone on at least till the middle of the century.” Kurtz (1975, p. 153) agrees that they do not start before the second quarter of the 5th century B.C. Boulter (1953, pp. 71–72) reaffirms Haspel‟s starting dates, as well as mentions a handful of pieces from the Athenian Agora dated to the third quarter of the 5th century B.C., while Kerameikos VII.2 abounds with examples of this type from graves of the second and third quarters of the century: see pl. 70, nos. 418.1–2 and 427, 1–2, pl. 88, nos. 489.1–6, pl. 91, nos. 525.1–2 and 533.1– 3, pl. 93, nos. 543.1–2. Corinth XIII has many later examples (cf. pl. 55, nos. 346.7–8, pl. 59, no. 365.3, pl. 58, nos. 366.14–15, pl. 59, nos. 367.11–12, pl. 60, no. 369.4, pl. 60, no. 371.5 etc.), mainly of the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. and the transition to the 4th, most decorated with an ivy-berry tendril instead of a palmette zone, a trend that Kurtz assigns to the second half of the century (Kurtz 1975, 154). Only Ernst Langlotz (1932, vol. 2, pl. 108, nos. 389a–b and vol. 1, p. 73), who publishes his Würzburg catalogue before Haspels‟ meticulous classification of the black-figure lekythoi, dates two pieces of the palmette and pattern group to the beginning of the 5th century B.C. 383 ABL, p. 182. 384 Kurtz 1975, pp. 153–154, 231, pl. 70.1

67 the century.385 Although white pattern lekythoi with figures are scarce, a great number of pieces comparable to no. 5 in respect to the syntax of the decoration, the style of the palmettes, as well as the secondary ornaments come from graves in Kerameikos and the North Cemetery of Corinth that are dated between 475 and 425 B.C. 386 The

Attic lekythos from Knossos is most likely contemporaneous with them.

With nos. 6 and 7 we transition to the Attic red-figure ware. Both of these fragments come from red-figure column kraters, and there is even a possibility that they belong to the same pot. The former (6) is a part of the rim and neck of such a mixing bowl. It has a reserved band with interlaced lotus buds on the top of the rim, and its neck is glazed inside and out except for a reserved part just behind the missing rim overhang. Both the decoration and the preserved profile of this fragment have a form that can only broadly be attributed to the 5th century B.C. From the first years of this century, the mouth and neck of red-figure column kraters are thought to have acquired a canonical form and decoration conventions that show little change until

425 B.C.387 In addition, the lotus-bud ornament makes its first reluctant appearance on the top of the lips of those vessels as early as the Late Archaic period.388 The standard form that developed from around 500 B.C. is believed to have remained popular until the last quarter of the century, when the number of those kraters dropped exponentially.389 The early decades of the following hundred-year period are

385 Kurtz 1975, p. 153. 386 Corinth XIII, p. 253, no. 363.5, pl. 58 (450–425 B.C.); Kerameikos VII.2 p. 103, no. 403, 1, pl. 71,6. (460 B.C.), pp. 136–137, no. 525, 2 pl. 91 (460 B.C.), p. 140, no. 543, 1, pl. 93 (470–450 B.C.), p. 97, no. 382, 1, pl. 63,7 (475–450 B.C.); Kurtz 1975, pl. 71,1. 387 Cf. Agora XXX, pp. 21–22; CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] p. 15; Mannack 2001, pp. 50–55, 61–63. 388 Cf. Agora XXX, p. 21; Mannack 2001, p. 61. Note that these early examples that are roughly contemporary with the birth of the red-figure technique are very few (Agora XII, p. 54; Agora XXX, p. 21; Mannack 2001, p. 50). Their primitive lotus buds have a stouter form than those on no. 6, are more widely spaced and have large crude dots in the interstices between them, see for example Agora XXX, p. 157, no. 164, pl. 25 (ca. 520 B.C.). 389 CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] p. 15; Campenon 1994, p. 31; Mannack 2001, p. 50. On the formal changes on those kraters that took place toward the end of the 5th century B.C. see Mannack 2001, pp. 55–56.

68 considered the swan song of red-figure column kraters before they finally vanish from the Attic repertoire. However, the Late Classical specimens undergo a number of formal and decorative changes that help us exclude a 4th century B.C. date for the fragment under discussion.390 Taking into account the production dates of the canonical red-figure column kraters, as well as the closest parallels that can be offered for the style of the lotus buds391 and for the rim profile,392 the most secure upper and lower chronological limits that can be suggested for no. 6 are ca. 500 and 425 B.C. respectively.

Similarly, fragment 7 comes from the handle plate of such a krater, not impossibly from the same vessel as no. 6. It is glazed on all sides except the top, which is adorned with a palmette flanked by tendrils, and the underside is reserved.

Again, the profile of the handle plate allows us to classify it among the standardized type of 5th century B.C. red-figure column kraters, but cannot provide us with a closer date.393 What is more, the decoration of the handle plate with a black lyre palmette is a trend that developed already in the late 6th century B.C.394 Nonetheless, the palmette of 7 belongs to a type that appears quite later: Its palm leaf has a reserved

390 For example the neck and the mouth become considerably smaller and the top of the rim is now more commonly adorned with ivy berry. In general, the last column kraters of the early 4th century B.C. receive numerous influences from the decoration systems and form of the most popular Late Classical shape, the bell krater. See CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] p. 15; Campenon 1994, pp. 31–33. 391 For the style of the lotus buds see: CVA, Tübingen 4 [Germany 52] pl. 15 [67.5806]:4–5, pp. 42–44, figs. 10–11 (ca. 460 B.C.). CVA, Baltimore [USA 28] pls. 17 and 19:3, p. 14 (ca. 440 B.C.); CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] pl. 12 [4027]:1–6, 74:5, pp. 20–21, Appendix 4:2, (ca. 470–460 B.C.). 392Agora XII, p. 240, no. 57, fig. 20 (ca. 500 B.C. ostrakon of Aristeides); CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] pl. 5 [31404]:1–3 and 74,1, Appendix 2:1, pp. 15–16 (ca. 480), pls. 7 [V.I. 3155]:1–3, 8:1–5 and 74:2, p. 17, Appendix 2:2 (ca. 475 B.C.), pls. 9 [V.I. 3163]:1–4, 10:1–3 and 74;3, pp. 18–19, Appendix 3:1 (c. 475–470 B.C), pls. 11 [V.I. 3206]:1–7 and 74:4, pp. 19–20, Appendix 4:1 (ca. 470 B.C.), pls. 14 [V.I. 3172]:1–3, 15:1–6 and 74:7, pp. 22–24, Appendix 5:1 (ca. 440 B.C.), pl. 78 [L 31]:1–6, pp. 76– 77, Appendix 15:1 (440–430 B.C.). Mannack 2001, pp. 51–55, figs. 6:1 –6:47 (kraters painted by the Mannerist group, first through third quarters of the 5th century B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 106, no. 204, fig. 12, pl. 48 (460–450 B.C.). 393 Comparable to the profile of 7 are the following: CVA, Tübingen 4 [Germany 52] pl. 15 [67.5806]:4–5, pp. 42–44, figs. 10–11 (ca. 460 B.C.); CVA, Baltimore [USA 28] pl. 19 [48.71]:1, p. 11 (ca. 470–460 B.C.), pl. 19 [48.66]:2, pp. 12–13 (ca. 460–440 B.C.); CVA, Yale [USA 38] pls. 12–13, 20 [1933.175]:1–2, pp. 9–10, fig. 8 (ca. 475–470 B.C.). On the standardization of the shape from 500 to 425 B.C. see again: CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] p. 16; Mannack 2001, 50–55. 394 Mannack 2001, p. 61. Cf. Agora XXX, p. 22.

69 semi-circular heart, four instead of two volutes on its base, and twelve well-sized and broadly-spaced petals. Those characteristics can be best compared with the respective details on the palmettes of kraters drawn by the so-called Earlier Mannerists, especially with three painters of this group that were active from the 480s to the

440s.395 Most red-figure kraters have a different type of palmette, one with a black heart and two volutes at the base, and this might be chronologically significant.396

Despite this stylistic detail, and since we do not have parts of the vessel that are more chronologically sensitive than the handle plate, the piece can be assigned to main production period of this type of column kraters: the first to third quarters of the 5th century B.C.

Rim fragment 8 represents another variety of Attic red-figure mixing bowls, a bell krater. In this case closer dating is possible. The emergence of the bell krater goes back to the Late Archaic period397 with the best known early examples having been attributed to the Berlin Painter and his contemporaries, in the beginning of the 5th century B.C.398 These early specimens of the shape are clearly distinguished from later ones through the former‟s square flaring rims, their small lug-handles, their massive form, as well as other characteristics.399 According to these criteria, we can rule out an early 5th-century B.C. date for the piece under consideration. In the ensuing quarter of a century, a second type of bell kraters is introduced with upward-

395 Especially the Leningrad and the Agrigento Painters (see Mannack 2001, pp. 62–63). On the chronology of those painters: Mannack 2001, pp. 117–119. For comparanda for the palmette on no. 7: CVA, Baltimore 1 [USA 28] pl. 19 [48.71]:1, p. 11 (ca. 470–460 B.C., Agrigento Painter); Mannack 2001, p. 62, figs. 7.6a–c. 396 Cf. Mannack 2001, pp. 61–63. 397 M. B. Moore mentions that the earliest known specimen is attributed to the Hischylos Painter and dated to around 530–525 B.C. (Agora XXX, p. 31). 398 Agora XXX, p. 31; Agora XII, p. 55; ARV2, p. 1632; Mannack 2001, p. 56. 399 Agora XXX, pp. 31–32; Mannack 2001, p. 56. Compare also the profiles in: Agora XII, fig. 2, no. 59; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, fig. 2, no. 27 and fig. 12, no. 202.

70 curled loop handles and a flaring rounded mouth.400 Its rim is usually black-glazed with a reserved band of laurel wreath or other ornaments beneath. This second variety acquires a standardized form in the final years of the Classical period and becomes the most popular shape of the Late Classical era.401 The rims of the standard late 5th- and

4th-century B.C. type have a continuous concave profile, occasionally interrupted by a reserved groove between the lip and the reserved ornamental band below.402 No. 8 does not share those late characteristics. In their earliest stages of development during the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C., some loop-handled bell kraters have a quite distinct rounded rim that is furnished with a sharp edge on the top of its inside, as well as a number of protruding moldings just below the lip on the outside.403

And this is exactly the class to which the fragment from Knossos belongs, judging from its profile.404 The sherd must therefore date between ca. 475 and 425 B.C. The ribbon pattern instead of the laurel wreath beneath the rim has not been taken to be of chronological importance,405 but comparanda that bear the same ornament also fall within this period.406

Fragments 9 and 10 are bases of Corinthian type skyphoi. The preserved portion of their lower body with a reserved band of parallel vertical lines (a feature

400 Agora XXX, pp. 31–33. 401 Agora XXX, p. 33; Campenon 1994, p. 34. 402 Mannack 2001, pp. 56–57; Kathariou 2002, p. 16. Compare the following which are characteristic of this type: CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany 86] pls. 44 [F 2641]:1–3, 45,1–6 and 76,3, pp. 47–48, Appendix 10:1 (about 420 B.C.); CVA, Louvre 25 [France 38] pl. 7 [G 500]:1–3, pp. 19–20, fig. 2 (ca. 430–420 B.C.). 403 Cf. Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 20; Mannack 2001, p. 56. Some examples have a fascia of vertical section decorated with ovolo combined with the reserved ornament band below the rim (e.g. Agora XXX, pp. 32, 185, no. 296, pl. 40, ca. 470 B.C.; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 76–77, no. 48, fig. 5, pls. 20–21, ca. 450 B.C.), others have a triangular ledge below the reserved zone (Mannack 2001, p. 56, figs. 6.53–6.53; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 105–106, no. 203, fig. 12, pl. 48, ca. 460–440 B.C.), while very few, including no. 8, have a triple molding of alternating sloping and concave zones decorated with various patterns (cf. Mannack 2001, pp. 56–57, figs. 6.49–6.50). 404 For comparanda, see: Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 68–69, no. 28, fig. 2, pl. 8 (475–425 B.C.), p. 69, no. 30, fig. 3, pl. 8 (475–450 B.C.), pls. 20–21, no. 48, pp. 76–77, fig. 5 (ca. 450 B.C.); Mannack 2001, pp. 56–57, nos. N.16 (475–425 B.C.) and Paris A 258, figs. 6.49–6.50. 405 Cf. Agora XXX, p. 33. 406 Agora XXX pp. 188–189, no. 309, pl. 41 (ca. 440); Blome 1999, p. 30, fig. 29 (ca. 450).

71 that appears both on black-glazed and red-figure specimens of the shape)407 does not allow us to classify them with absolute confidence in either category, although figured examples of this vessel class are quite rare. Since no traces of a figured zone survive it seems safer to include the fragments in question in the category of black-glazed ware.

The low flaring ring foot of these skyphoi and the reserved band of rays above the base is very suggestive of a chronology within the 5th century B.C.408 In particular, no. 9 has a very wide base (about 9 cm in diameter) and sturdy walls, details that can be contrasted both with the predilection for stubby vessels in the beginning of the 5th century B.C.409 and with the delicacy which the shape acquires from ca. 425 B.C., when the bases start becoming extremely narrow in proportion to their body and the walls exceptionally thin.410 Regarding its lower body, 9 shows no sign of the gradual contraction that takes place from the end of the century and gives especially the Late Classical skyphoi an egg-shaped body form.411 The vertical lines above the foot are tightly crammed, as opposed to the rather widely spaced rays of the first half of the 5th century B.C.;412 but they are still more neatly drawn than on some late 5th-century B.C. pieces.413 Hence, they seem to poise on the brink of the final stage just before the disappearance of this decorative element and its replacement by

407 Cf. Agora XII, p. 81 and pl. 14; Oakley 1988, p. 170 and pls. 50–51, 53–54. 408 On the flaring ring foot of the 5th century B.C. see: Agora XII, p. 82 and fig. 4, nos. 318, 322; Oakley 1988, p. 169 and pp. 166–167, nos. 11, 15, 17, 33, 41, 54, figs. 1–2; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 98–99, nos. 146–151, fig. 9. On the rays compare: Boulter 1953, pp. 72–74; Agora XII, pp. 81–83; Oakley 1988, p. 170; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 16, no. 148, pl. 43. 409 Agora XII, p. 82; Kerameikos IX, p. 46; Oakley 1988, p. 168. 410 Boulter 1953, p. 74; Agora XII, p. 83; Oakley 1988, pp. 169–170. 411 Talcott 1935, p. 506, 1936, p. 341; Boulter 1953, p. 74; Agora XII, p. 83; Oakley 1988, p. 169. 412 On the appearance of the base rays earlier in the 5th century B.C. compare 9 with: Oakley 1988, pp. 176–177, nos. 10–11, pl. 54 (480 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, p. 267, no. 267,2, pl. 62:7 (around 450 B.C.). 413 Toward the end of the third and throughout the last quarter of the 5th century B.C. the base rays are gradually becoming more and more sketchy: they deviate from being parallel to each other, are very closely packed and sometimes cross each other. See the following examples, which are strikingly similar to the style of frs. 9 and 10: Agora XII, nos. 319 (450–430 B.C.) and 320 (425 B.C.), p. 257, pl. 15; Oakley 1988, pp. 182–183, no. 41, fig. 2, pl. 51 (440–430 B.C.), p. 183, no. 43, pl. 53 (440–430 B.C.), p. 183, no. 44, pl. 53 (440–425 B.C.), p. 185, no. 52 pl. 54 (ca. 430 B.C.), p. 185, no. 54, fig. 2, pl. 51 (ca. 440 B.C.).

72 hasty crosshatching.414 It is hard to find exact parallels for the unusual foot of fragment 9, which has a long oval section and a lower body that forms an unusual angle with the underside.415 Experiments and odd pieces could occur at any time within the history of the shape, especially before the standardization of the Corinthian type skyphos between 425 and 350 B.C.416

To sum up, if we put aside some peculiarities, the most chronologically important features of fragment 9 are: a) its substantial foot and thick straight lower walls, which are typical of the second to third quarters of the 5th century B.C. and b) the rather later 5th- century B.C. appearance of its base rays. Notwithstanding the problems of closely dating a sherd with no close parallels, which belongs to a shape that shows little characteristic developments for a long period between 480 and 420

B.C.,417 I find it tempting to date the skyphos in question, with its bizarre combination of old-fashioned, progressive, as well as isolated elements, to the second to third quarters of the 5th century B.C.

Fragment 10 is less perplexing. Its estimated base diameter is not very narrow

(about 5 cm) in proportion to the rest of the skyphos, which seems to have been of small size in general. Its foot is mildly flaring and has the concave outer profile that is common from ca. 500 B.C;418 also, it is not as shallow and widely splaying as in many late 5th- and 4th-century B.C. examples.419 Furthermore, the walls are neither too delicate, nor too thick, and they find parallels from the 470s B.C. down to the end

414 Cf. Talcott 1935, p. 506; Agora XII, p. 83; Oakley 1988, p. 170. 415 Comparable are perhaps the following: Agora XII, p. 257, no. 317, fig. 20 (ca. 450 B.C.); Roberts and Glock 1986, p. 27, no. 54, pl. 8 and p. 28, fig. 17 (ca. 500 B.C.); Oakley 1988, pp. 182–183, no. 41, pl. 51 (440–430 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 65, no. 15, fig. 1, pl. 53 (475–425 B.C.). Note that the third example has very broadly spaced vertical lines above the foot, which justifies its considerably earlier date than no. 9, despite the similarity in the profile. 416 On that matter cf. Talcott 1935, p. 506; Agora XII, p. 83; Oakley 1988, pp. 169–170. 417 Cf. Oakley 1988, p. 169. 418 On that chronological criterion see: Agora XII, p. 82. 419 Cf. Talcott 1935, p. 506; Agora XII, p. 83; Oakley 1988, p. 169.

73 the century.420 The rays above the foot are identical in style with those of the previously discussed Corinthian skyphos: they are tidy, but closely spaced. The latter two traits of this base indicate that it should date roughly to the same period as no. 9

(i.e. to 475–425 B.C.).

The remaining Attic pieces can securely be classified in the category of black- glazed ware. Nos. 11 and 12 are bases of Attic skyphoi of the more common “type A” with horizontal handles.421 They have the stereotypical characteristics of the 5th- century B.C. bases of this shape: The projecting torus foot, which establishes itself already in the beginning of the century and has a black outer edge especially after the second quarter,422 as well as the reserved underside with one or more small circles and a dot in the center.423 The preserved part of the body on these fragments also suggests that they begin to form a gentle concave curve in their lower wall, a feature which started to appear after 480 B.C., but it is accentuated in the end of the 5th and especially during the 4th century B.C.,424 giving the vessel a pronounced S-shaped profile. Since this double curve is not yet as prominent on these two skyphoi from

Knossos as on examples from Athens dated to the last quarter of the 5th century

B.C.,425 they have both been assigned to the third quarter of this hundred-year period, with 12 placed rather later within this time scale than 11 because of its slightly more progressed lower body curve.426

420 Agora XII, no. 318, p. 257, fig. 4, pl. 15 (450–430 B.C.), p. 258, no. 322, fig. 4, pl. 15 (ca. 400 B.C.); Corbett 1949, pp. 319 – 320, no. 27, fig. 2, pl. 85; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 98–99, nos. 146–151, fig. 9, pls. 43–44 (475–425 B.C.). 421 For this type in general: Agora XII, pp. 84–86. 422 Agora XII, p. 85. 423 Agora XII, p. 84. For exceptional treatments of the underside even after the early 5th century B.C., see: Agora XII, pp. 84, 259, no. 338, pl. 16; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 18, 97, nos. 137 and 141, fig. 8, pl. 43. 424 Talcott 1936, p. 341; Agora XII, p. 84; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 15. 425 Compare them with: Corbett 1949, p. 319, no. 138, fig. 1; Agora XII, fig. 4, nos. 349, 352. 426 Additionally, 11 and 12 have a further feature that might be chronologically significant as suggested by Boulter 1953, p. 75. They both have a scraped groove at the junction between the body and the foot.

Rim fragments 13 through 15 come from a type of bowl with a single horizontal handle just below the rim, a shape that is traditionally known as “one- handler.”427 More specifically, our examples belong to the entirely black-glazed variety. The thickened rims of this sub-class are very characteristic because of their top surface, which is usually flat, slightly rounded or inward sloping.428 This type of rim seems to have been mostly popular during the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C.429 Earlier examples from about 490–480 B.C. are known, but they are very few, and in general their rims tend to have a little projection or overhang on the inside.430 The earliest pieces are also a little shallower than the fully developed ones,431 and the sherds from the Unexplored Mansion, despite their fragmentation, seem substantially deeper than the primitive form.432 Moreover, toward the end of the

Classical and the beginning of the Late Classical period, rims of black one-handlers start to evert outward.433 The three pieces selected here are probably from the middle stage of this morphological development. The completely flat rim of 13434 and the

The overwhelming majority of known examples with such a groove are dated between 480 and 425 B.C., even though there are a few exceptions to the rule. Cf. Talcott 1936, p. 340, inv. no. P 5145, fig. 8 (480–450 B.C.); Corbett 1949, no. 20, pl. 85 (425–400 B.C.); Boulter 1953, p. 69, no. 11, pl. 26 and p. 75, nos. 30–31, pl. 29 (all around 450 B.C.); Agora XII, p. 259, nos. 336 (500 B.C.), 340 (480–470 B.C.), 341 (480–450 B.C.), 342 (470–460 B.C.), 343 (460–440 B.C.) and 344 (440–425 B.C.), pl. 16 and p. 260, no. 352, fig. 4, pl. 17 (330 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 97, no. 137, fig. 8, pl. 43 (second to third quarter of the 5th century B.C.). The red wash that covers the reserved underside of 11 seems also to be a common characteristic of the mid-Classical period (cf. Boulter 1953, p. 75). These are not decisive arguments but can perhaps corroborate the above suggested chronology based on the lower curve of the walls. 427 Cf. Agora XII, p. 124; Kerameikos IX, p. 49. 428 Cf. Agora XII, p. 126; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 20. 429 Rotroff and Oakley (1992, p. 20) deem this more as a characteristic of the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. But there are some examples from the second quarter as well, see for example: Kerameikos VII.2, p. 38, no. 96, 2, Appendix 1 (480–460 B.C.). 430 Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 20. Cf. the examples in Agora XII, p. 289, no. 744, fig. 20 (ca. 490 B.C.), p. 289, no. 747, fig. 8 (ca. 480 B.C.). 431 Kerameikos IX, p. 50. Compare Agora XII, fig. 8, no. 747 (ca. 480) with no. 754 (420–400 B.C.), which have the same rim diameter but different depth. 432 See the better preserved nos. 13 and 14. 433 Cf. Agora XII, p. 290, nos. 755 (ca. 400 B.C.) and 757 (ca. 375 B.C.), fig. 4. Compare also the remarks on the development of the rim in Agora XII, p. 126. 434 Boulter 1953, p. 82, no. 64, fig. 3, p. 84–85 (460–440 B.C.); Kerameikos VII.2 p. 38, no. 96, 2, Appendix 1 (480–460 B.C.), p. 98, no. 383,3, Appendix 1 (450–425 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 11 (before 433/2 B.C.).

75 slightly round ones of 14435 and 15436 find numerous parallels from the Athenian

Agora and the Kerameikos from contexts dated to the years between 480 and 420

B.C. Another important indication that these one-handlers date before the last quarter of the 5th century B.C. is the profile of their wall: both 14 and 15, that have a substantial part of their bodies preserved, show no trace of the double curve that starts to form on the outside wall of the bowls after ca. 425 B.C.437 Based on the comparable vases mentioned above, fragments 14 and 15 can be dated to about 460–

425 B.C., with 16 possibly descending into the later 420s B.C. due to the vestigial outturning of its rim.

Our last fragment, no. 16 has a very unusual shape. It shares some characteristics of a subcategory of black-glazed bowls with “deep wall and convex- concave profile” and may therefore be identified as such. These characteristics are the projecting ring foot, the sharp contrast between its concave outer foot edge and the gently convex curve of the body, as well as its rounded inner foot face and resting surface.438 However, the foot of 16 is considerably lower and less projecting than other published examples that have been attributed to this category. The best comparandum for its profile is a bowl from the Athenian Agora dated to 450–430

B.C.439 Brian A. Sparkes and Lucy Talcott maintain that the production of this class starts in the beginning and ceases in the end of the 5th century B.C., but most known examples belong to the earlier part of that period.440 Fragment 16 apparently does not

435 Kerameikos VII.2 p. 38, no. 96,2, Appendix 1 (480–460 B.C.), p. 98, no. 383,3, Appendix 1 (450– 425 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 12 (before 433/2); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 106, no. 207, fig. 13, pl. 48 (475–450 B.C.). 436 Boulter, 1953, pp. 84–85, nos. 62 and 64, p. 82, fig. 3 (460–440 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 12 (before 433/432 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 107, no. 211, fig. 13, pl. 49 (460–440 B.C.). 437 This mostly reflects the changes in the rims, which start to flare in this period. Cf. Agora XII, p. 126; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 20. 438 On the formal characteristics of this class: Agora XII, p. 130. 439 Agora XII, p. 294, no. 814, fig. 8 (450–430 B.C.). 440 On the chronology of the shape: Agora XII, p. 130.

76 belong to the standard examples of the shape. One last feature that might speak for a date of manufacture around the middle of the 5th century B.C. is the circle of dilute glaze around the solid black disc at the center of the bowl‟s underside. This decoration trend appears on the undersides of many drinking vessels of the mid-

Classical period.441

To recapitulate, sixteen previously unpublished but diagnostic Attic fragments from the Unexplored Mansion seem to cover part of the purported “import gaps” in the archaeological record of 600/590–525 B.C. and 475–425 B.C. at Knossos. In accordance with the current system of absolute chronology, the Little Master cup (1) and the black-figure krater (4) date to the third quarter of the 6th century B.C., while the Cassel cup (2) and the Droop cup (3) are transitional between the third and the second quarters of the same century. Most of these shapes are by no means unusual or hitherto unattested at Knossos. Part of the figured bowl of a band cup from 550–525

B.C. is a sporadic find of the Royal Road excavations,442 while Well H on the northern side of the Royal Road has yielded another example of a black-figure krater

– albeit of Later Archaic style and hence later than no. 4 – with half of its body surviving and adorned with a figured scene depicting Heracles fighting against a centaur (Nessos or Eurytion?).443 Furthermore, a Cassel cup fragment which preserves part of its base rays and myrtle band was uncovered in the southeastern drain of the

Roman Villa Dionysos and was ascribed a date in the last quarter of the 6th century

B.C.,444 probably predicated on the assumption that Attic imports do not reach

Knossos before 525/520 B.C. However, the sherd in question is very close

441 Cf. the undersides of the following pieces: Agora XII, pl. 16, no. 343 (460–440), pl. 24, no. 532 (ca. 430), pl. 30, no. 741 (475–450); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pl. 45, no. 170 (date of the deposit: 475–425 B.C.) 442 Coldstream 1973b, p. 63, M 17, pl. 26. 443 Coldstream 1973b, pp. 57–58, L 76, fig.11, pl. 22. 444 Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 305, S 51, pl. 27.

77 stylistically to the Cassel cup from the Unexplored Mansion (2) and should therefore not be too far from the years between 530 and 520 B.C.

Turning to the red-figure fragments, the form and decoration of the two column kraters (6–7) are characteristic of the years between 500 and 440 B.C. and the bell krater (8) corresponds to the early variety of loop-handled bell kraters that developed from 475 to 425 B.C. Column kraters are quite common at Knossos. They begin to appear already around 500 B.C. in Well H,445 as well as other sections of the

Royal Road.446 The lotus buds on the top of these rim fragments from the Royal Road are of distinctively early form.447 However, the lotus-and-chain pattern on the rim fragment of a red-figure column krater from Pit X of Trench 6 in the area of the

Southwest Houses,448 resembles no. 6 very closely and can be placed within the same date range, if not later than the specimens from the Royal Road excavations. Nicolas

J. Coldstream‟s claim that “the linked chain of lotus-buds, with dots in the interstices, is a typical motif on this shape at the end of the sixth century”449 is not sustainable.

The occurrence of this motif on red-figure column kraters of the late 6th century B.C. is rare and is rendered much more crudely than the rim lotuses on kraters of the 5th century B.C., which is the main production period of this shape.450 What is more, red- figure bell kraters are also abundant at the site and, interestingly, they are not only restricted to the late 5th and 4th century B.C.451 Wall fragments of one (or more?) bell kraters with the representation of a human figure leaning on a staff in front of a crouching feline (Oedipus and the sphinx?) from one of the floors or surfaces below

445 Coldstream 1973b, pp. 57–58, L 76–L 79, figs. 11–12, pl. 22–23. 446 Coldstream 1973b, pp. 62–63, M 15, pl. 26. 447 Cf. Coldstream 1973b, M 15, pl. 26. The lotus buds are very triangular and stiff, unlike the standardized examples of the advanced first half and third quarter of the 5th century B.C. 448 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 227, K 69, fig. 18, pl. 46. 449 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 241. 450 See above, p. 69 with n. 388. 451 On specimens of late 5th century B.C. date see for instance: Coldstream 1973a, p. 22, B 1, fig. 13, pl. 11, p. 26, C 4–C 6, pl. 12, p. 53, pl. 21.

78 the Classical road in the region of the Southwest Houses,452 have been dated to the second quarter of the 5th century B.C.453 Hence, there are at least two Attic bell kraters from Knossos that fall within the period of the purported break in Classical imports from overseas (i.e. ca. 475–425 B.C.).

All black-glazed fragments discussed here fall between 475 and 420 B.C. The

Corinthian type (9, 10) and the Attic type skyphoi (11, 12) are datable to the third quarter of the 5th century B.C., the one-handlers (13–15) find parallels from contexts of the second and third quarters of the same century, while the unusual “deep bowl with convex-concave profile” (16) seems to come from the years around 450 B.C. It is noteworthy that especially black-glazed skyphoi of the Attic type are found in very large quantities at Knossos, but since most Archaic and Classical examples are either unpublished or briefly mentioned in preliminary reports, it is difficult to track parallels from safer contexts for nos. 11 and 12. Despite that fact, I have been able to detect one handle fragment of such a skyphos from the earliest votive scatter of the

Demeter Sanctuary that has the typical horseshoe form of the years between 500 and

425 B.C.454 The fragment in question has been attributed to the last quarter of the 5th century B.C., unjustifiably as it seems, since the skyphoi handles of the late 5th century B.C. begin already to develop a triangular form.455 Another skyphos recovered from unstratified levels under the Roman Villa Dionysos and identified as an early 4th century B.C. example of the Attic variety,456 bears striking similarities to

452 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 228, N 1, fig. 19. 453 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 242. Another wall fragment of a red-figure krater datable to ca. 450 B.C. comes from the “Graeco-Roman” levels above the House of the Frescoes, excavated summarily by Arthur Evans in 1923 and 1926, but since no diagnostic portions survive it is unclear to which variety of krater it belongs (Coldstream 2000, p. 267, B 15, pl. 48). 454 Coldstream 1973a, p. 26, C 3, p. 12. 455 Cf. Agora XII, p. 85. 456 Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 295, E 15, fig. 7. An Attic skyphos with such a wide base, thick foot, and flaring lower walls would be highly unusual for the 4th century B.C. Compare the typical Late Classical examples from the Athenian Agora in: Agora XII, nos. 349, 352, fig. 4.

79 the profile of the Corinthian type specimen of the present study, no. 9. The bulky, oval-shaped, splaying foot-ring and the unusual angle at the transition from the lower bowl to the foot, as well as from the inner foot face to vessel‟s underside is perhaps the best parallel to the peculiar base of skyphos 9 from the Unexplored Mansion, attributable to the late third quarter of the 5th century B.C. as it has been argued above.

All in all, the impression that the present assemblage conveys is that there is a steady, albeit slow flow of Attic imports to the city from the second half of the 6th century B.C. down to the end of the 5th century B.C. In relative terms, there seems to be no interruption in the Attic repertoire from the floruit of the Little Master cups and the figured kraters contemporary with the style of Exekias and the Amasis Painter to the final stages of the Attic black-figure technique, coeval with the lekythoi of the

Beldam workshop. It is commonly accepted that the number of stratigraphic contexts containing Attic pottery increases exponentially in the Late Archaic period. But following this interval, red-figure kraters continue to reach the city – the presence of the early variety of bell kraters with up-curled loop handles is an important proof – and so do Corinthian type and Attic type skyphoi that just precede the excessively delicate antecedents of the Late Classical period.

ANALYSIS OF THE CORINTHIAN POTTERY

This section will treat four Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion that date from the two the centuries during which archaeological evidence from

Knossos is attenuated, according to orthodox opinion. They consist of one open drinking vessel (17) and four closed shapes, in particularly pyxides (18–21). Two of the fragments (20, 21) can be assigned to the category of vases that are commonly

80 described as “Conventionalizing.”457 The term was coined by Agnes Newhall

Stillwell and encompasses vases with linear, patterned, or stylized floral ornaments that were produced in Corinth from the middle of the 6th to the end of the 5th century

B.C.458 The chronological development of certain shapes of this style is still not fully understood,459 and the fragmentation of the present material does not allow precision in dates. For the remaining three vases (17–19), which were probably produced in the first half of the 6th century460 but were adorned also with linear, curvilinear and simple pattern motifs – most notably vertical zigzags – the term “Conventionalizing” does not apply due to chronological reasons, although their decoration essentially does not vary from the two aforementioned sherds. The problems with the terminology and classification of the non-figured Corinthian wares of the Archaic and

Classical periods become evident here. This is a rather understudied branch of

Corinthian pottery, thus its chronology and typology remain in some cases obscure.

The order of the fragments has been arranged according to shape and chronology.

Vase no. 17 consists of three fragments deriving originally from a Corinthian kotyle of relatively small size.461 Most of its preserved exterior is reserved, adorned merely with a few horizontal bands and stripes of red, orange, and black paint. The kotyle seems therefore to be a characteristic example of the Late Corinthian “white style,” in which scant polychrome linear or sometimes pattern decoration was applied

457 Corinth VII.1, p. 83; Corinth VII.5, pp. 1–3; Corinth XIII, pp. 100–101 (using the term “Pattern” ware instead); Corinth XV.3, p. 269 (favoring the term “Linear style”); Bentz 1982, pp. 1–3, 11 n. 38. 458 Newhall 1931, p. 16; Corinth VII.1, p. 83; Corinth VII.5, pp. 1–2. 459 Cf. Bentz 1982, p. 3. 460 According to the traditional chronology of Middle Corinthian and Late Corinthian I. On the subdivisions of Late Corinthian used by different scholars see the discussion in: Corinth VII.5, p. 3; Bentz 1982, pp. 11–12. 461 The estimated diameter of the base is 7 cm. For the formal distinction between “small” and “large” kotylai, cf. Corinth VII.2, p. 74; Bentz 1982, pp. 15, 28–32.

81 to large, otherwise undecorated surfaces of the pale clay ground.462 This type of decoration first appears in its fully developed form in the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. (Late Corinthian I) and continues in use for over two centuries (Late

Corinthian II–III).463

The most detailed accounts for the evolution of this shape from the Early through the Late Corinthian periods are Patricia Lawrence‟s study of the kotylai from the potter‟s dump of the Anaploga well at Corinth,464 as well as Julie L. Bentz‟s analysis of the drinking vessels from various domestic and funerary contexts of the same city.465 Lawrence emphasized three criteria that are important for the chronological classification of those pots: the style of their decoration, the profile of their foot in section, and the curvature of their undersides. The preserved decoration of no. 17 cannot provide us with more than a terminus post quem of circa 575 B.C. for the manufacture of the base,466 but the profile of the foot-ring is reminiscent of

Lawrence‟s type V,467 common during the first half of the 6th century but not surviving thereafter according to Bentz.468 Furthermore, in the course of the 6th century the vessels develop a flatter bottom,469 while by the end of the Archaic era even small kotylai acquire a much heavier and thicker foot profile in relation to that of no. 17.470 Both of these stylistic developments would favor a date rather earlier than

550 B.C. for the Knossian piece. Finally, a last factor that needs to be considered is

462 On the “white style” see: Payne 1931, pp. 322–32; Corinth VII.1 p. 83; Corinth VII.5, p. 5; Corinth XIII, p. 101; Asine II.6.1, p. 28. 463 Cf. Bentz 1982, pp. 20, 77, 78; Corinth VII.1, p. 83; Corinth VII.5, pp. 5, 39; Corinth XIII, p. 101. 464 Corinth VII.2, pp. 73–78. 465 Bentz 1982, pp. 14–36. 466 It is unfortunate that we do not have the entire underside of no. 17 preserved, since the decoration of this part of the vessel seems to have born chronological significance. Cf. Corinth VII.2, p. 75; Bentz 1982, pp. 16, 18–19. 467 Cf. Corinth VII.2, pp. 74, 77, no. An 66, fig. 2. 468 Bentz 1982, p. 19. 469 Cf. Bentz 1982, p. 19 and fig. 18 (third quarter of the 6th century B.C.). 470 Cf. Asine II.6.1, pp. 13–15, no. 1971-8:8, figs. 10–11 (early 5th century B.C.); Bentz 1982, fig. 19 (late 6th century B.C.).

82 the use of added colors. The application of red without black undercoat on the exterior of the ring-foot first occurs in the end of the second quarter of the 6th century on

Corinthian kotylai,471 which should deter us from dating no. 17 earlier in the first half of this hundred-year period.

If one takes into consideration the aforementioned criteria of stylistic development, as well as the chronology of the closest parallels for this vessel,472 a production date in the middle decades of the 6th century B.C. seems very likely.

However, caution is advised since both Lawrence‟s and Bentz‟s shape studies have largely concentrated on black-glazed kotylai, and systematic research on the evolution of patterned kotylai of the 6th and 5th centuries – especially of those in “white style”

– is still lacking. Such a study might have the potential to highlight better criteria for the chronology of the specific variety to which 17 belongs.

Powder pyxides were first devised in the Late Proto-Corinthian and

Transitional periods.473 However, the fully blown form of a low cylinder box with a flat-topped, slip-on cover that fits over the body, which has grooved moldings on the upper end of the lid and the lower end of the body, as well as pattern decoration on all of its outer surfaces (usually vertical strokes or squiggles in various combinations with lines and bands), makes its appearance in the Early and Middle Corinthian periods (ca. 625–575 B.C.) and persists until Classical times.474 Throughout the 6th century, scholars have recognized that there is little change in the shape, as well as the style of the decoration: Payne describes the ornaments as becoming “looser” with

471 Bentz 1982, p. 18. 472 For the foot see: Bentz 1982, p. 368, nο. D6-5, fig. 18 (550–525 B.C.); Corinth VII.5 p. 56, between nos. 108 and 117, fig. 7 (575–550 and 550–525 B.C. respectively). For similar kotylai in “white style”: Payne 1931, p. 334, no. 1517, fig. 181 B (after 550 B.C.); Lawrence 1964, pl. 20, (early 6th century B.C.); Corinth VII.2, p. 107, no. An 42, pl. 66 (575–550 B.C.). 473 Payne 1931, p. 293. 474 Cf. Payne 1931, pp. 293–294; Amyx 1988, vol. 2, p. 456; Corinth VII.5, p. 49; Corinth XIII, p. 116.

83 time,475 while Lawrence laments the fact that powder pyxides can hardly be attributed a precise chronology when they lack a dated context, except they are either “very early” or “very late.”476 Despite the caveats that concern the close dating of these pyxides in the Archaic period, there are a number of indications that can help us limit the date range of the two relevant fragments from the Unexplored Mansion that will be presented here: nos. 18 and 19.

Fragment 18 comes from the center of the lid or floor of a powder pyxis.

Although no diagnostic parts of the profile of the pyxis are preserved, some details of the decoration are of chronological significance. The solid disk in the center of the fragment is painted with purple over black, just as the circular band separating the two reserved zones with vertical strokes. The use of purple on black undercoating is a characteristic of the first half of the 6th century B.C. During the second half of the century, not only does the use of purple become occasional and finally extinct, but when any added colors are used in general, they are applied directly on the clay, not over a black ground, as was the norm previously.477 As regards the ornaments themselves, the flat surfaces478 of powder pyxides of the 7th century tend to sport more elaborate and carefully drawn patterns and stylized floral motives479 than those of the following century.480 This is an indication that fragment 18 postdates the Early

475 Payne 1931, p. 294. 476 Lawrence 1964, p. 101. I take this phrase to mean “very early” or “very late” in the Corinthian period, i.e. Early Corinthian (late 7th) or Late Corinthian III (5th–4th centuries B.C.), the stages during which the shape seems in fact to be more distinctive. 477 Corinth VII.5, p. 23. 478 Unfortunately it has been impossible to study the development of the floors, since they are rarely illustrated in the publications. Hence the following analysis has concentrated on the decoration of the lids. 479 These include multiple zones of continuous or grouped vertical bars or upright zigzags with neat, straight strokes combined with dotted bands, tongues, petals or wheel-motifs. Cf. CVA, Oxford 2 [G.B. 9]: IIIc pl. 2:36 and pl. 3:16, p. 66; Perachora II, p. 118, no. 1153, pl. 51; Corinth VII.2, p. 128, no. An 151, pl. 73; Corinth XV.3, nos. 1498, 1508, 1509, pl. 62, no. 1543, pl. 63. 480 In the 6th century powder pyxides tend to bear simpler combinations of maximum two rows of bars or zigzags alternating with bands, lines or painted grooves and ridges. The strokes of the zigzags gradually become more curled, giving a squiggly appearance to the zigzags. Cf. the following Middle

Corinthian period. The latter parameter in combination with the above discussed conventions in the application of added colors, suggest a date within the first quarter of the 6th century B.C. (Middle Corinthian–Late Corinthian I) for the fragment in question. The chronology of the best comparanda also fall within this range of dates.481

No. 19 constitutes the body of another powder pyxis.482 It has previously been published as Early Corinthian,483 but there are a number of features which suggest a later date. As hinted above, Early Corinthian and 5th-century specimens of this shape are more easily distinguishable than the 6th-century B.C. pieces. Not only is the pattern decoration more elaborate in the late 7th century,484 but also many of the earlier pyxides seem to have a quite distinctive, slightly convex body which flares considerably toward the bottom.485 In addition, the ridges and moldings on the lids show a tendency to diminish as the 6th century B.C. progresses according to Hazel

Palmer,486 which might go hand in hand with the growth of respective flanges on the lower end of the bodies of the pyxides.487 Nevertheless, other scholars appear more uncertain about the development of the shape during the hundred-year period at

and Late Corinthian I–II examples: Corinth XIII, no. 157-t, pl. 23, no. 159-12, pl. 24, nos. 168-8 and 168-9, pl. 27, no. 225-1, pl. 32; Lawrence 1964, p. 101, nos. E24–E26, pl. 19; Tocra I, pp. 23, 32, no. 230, pl. 15. 481 The best parallels for that system of decoration, with two reserved friezes containing groups of bars circumscribing a central purple-on-black (or red-on-black) disc and alternating between glazed bands are found on a pyxis from Tocra that is not precisely dated (Tocra I, pp. 23, 32, no. 230, pl. 15, “Late Corinthian”), and three pyxides from a grave at Examilia dated to the Middle Corinthian period (Lawrence 1964, p. 101, nos. E24–E26, pl. 19, ca. 600–575 B.C.) 482 The color of the clay has a different nuance in nos. 18 and 19 (10YR 8/4 and 10YR 7/4 in the Munsell scale respectively), which makes me believe that they must have come from different vessels. 483 Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 136, pls. 59, 73. 484 See again: CVA, Oxford 2 [G.B. 9]: IIIc pl. 2:36 and pl. 3:16, p. 66; Perachora II, p. 118, no. 1153, pl. 51; Corinth VII.2, p. 128, no. An 151, pl. 73; Corinth XV.3, nos. 1498, 1508, 1509, pl. 62, no. 1543, pl. 63. 485 Cf. Payne 1931, p. 294, no. 672, fig. 131; Corinth VII.2, p. 128, no. An 151, pl. 73. 486 Corinth XIII, p. 116. 487 Cf. Payne 1931, p. 333, no. 1513, fig. 178 = CVA, Oxford 2 [G.B. 9]: IIIc pls. 2:32 and 3:12, p. 65 (late 6th–early 5th century B.C.).

85 issue.488 Conversely, the 5th-century B.C. examples show considerable formal and stylistic changes in relation to their predecessors, since the bodies acquire more height,489 their walls start to curve slightly inward,490 and the vertical zigzags on the reserved friezes degenerate into densely packed, elongated wavy lines, with no angled transitions from one stroke to the other.491

Consequently, pyxis 19 which has a broad, low cylinder body and is decorated with neat, but not as angular zigzags as the Early Corinthian examples, is more likely to date within the limits of the 6th century B.C. Last but not least, if we take into consideration Martha K. Risser‟s observation that the vertical wiggly lines are more typical ornaments on the sides of the pyxides during the first half of the 6th century B.C., rather than the second part of the same century in which horizontal grooves and ridges prevail,492 we might consider a date in the years between 600 and

550 B.C. as somewhat more probable.

No. 20 is part of the base of a convex-sided pyxis, but it is impossible to decide with certainty whether it belongs to the unhandled variety or to the one with vertical handles on the shoulder. The former is a shape invented already in the Proto-

Corinthian and Transitional periods but more commonly produced after the beginning of the 6th century B.C.493 From the middle of the 6th down to the middle of the 5th century B.C., these vases appear frequently in “white style,” exactly the decoration style which fragment 20 features.494 The development of the shape throughout this

488 Lawrence 1964, p. 101. 489 Corinth XIII, p. 116. 490 This change occurs from the middle of the 5th century B.C. onward: Corinth VII.5, p. 49. 491 Cf. Corinth XIII, pp. 225–227, nos. 286-2, 286-3, 288-2, 292-1, pl. 41. 492 Corinth VII.5, p. 49. 493 Payne 1931, p. 293. 494 Payne 1931, p. 331; Corinth VII.5, p. 39. However, it is worthy to note that a few “white style” examples are known also from the second quarter of the 6th century B.C. (cf. Payne 1931, p. 323, no. 1326, fig. 164) and, in fact, Bentz (1982, p. 77) places their beginning in the course of that quarter of a

86 period has neither been considered chronologically sensitive, nor has it constituted the subject of detailed formal studies.495 Therefore, in case pyxis 20 belongs to the convex type without handles, it can be only generally assigned the broad chronological range of 550 to 400 B.C.

There is also a possibility that no. 20 is a fragment of a “white style” convex- sided pyxis with upright handles, just as no. 21. This is a shape that existed in the

Corinthian repertoire from the beginning of the 6th through the 4th century B.C.496

The first examples in fully developed “white style” appear in the middle or second quarter of the 6th century B.C.,497 and the latest that I know of come from dated contexts of the end of the 5th century B.C.498 The development of this variety is slightly better known than that of other subcategories of convex pyxides, but the most important chronological criterion is the form of the body,499 which we do not have preserved in the case of fragment 20. Thus, it is not possible to suggest a more precise date of manufacture for this piece than 550 to 400 B.C., in case the pyxis featured vertical handles.500

century. On the other hand, she also admits that more simple specimens adorned only with sparse banding on the largely reserved ground begin around 550 B.C. 495 The following statement of Bentz (1982, p. 77) is indicative: “Corinthian pyxides usually do not have particularly sensitive shapes, and although several different types were found in Cemetery A, Deposit 3, and Deposit 6, they generally add little to our knowledge of the development.” 496 According to Amyx (1988, pp. 449–450) and Risser (Corinth VII.5, p. 44), the shape first appears in the Middle Corinthian period. Conversely, Bentz (1982, p. 77) places its birth in the end of the 7th century B.C. 497 Bentz 1982, p. 77; Amyx 1988, vol. 2, p. 450; Lambrugo 2013, p. 156, T. BQO 462.3, fig. 96.3, p. 171, LP 1.7, fig. 112.7. Cf. the examples in: Payne 1931, p. 323, no. 1326, fig. 164; CVA, Oxford 2 [G.B. 9]: IIIc pl. 5:3, p. 69; Corinth XV.3, p. 300, no. 1634, pl. 65. 498 Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1933–1935, p. 3, fig. 3, the two pyxides on the lower right (410–400 B.C.); Perachora II, p. 279, no. 2715, pl. 113 (last quarter of the 5th century B.C. or slightly earlier); Asine II.6.1, pp. 15, 17, 18–19, no. 1971–9:3, figs. 17–18, pp. 22, 18–19, no. 1971–9:9, figs. 17–18 (both from a grave of ca. 475 B.C.). 499 Bentz 1982, pp. 77–78; Corinth VII.5, p. 44; Corinth XIII, p. 115. 500 Even though the best published parallels for the profile of the foot that I have been able to identify stem from the early 5th century B.C. (Asine II.6.1, p. 22, no. 1971–9:9, figs. 18–19 on pp. 18–19), it is better not to attempt a closer dating on this basis since no scholar has drawn attention to the development of the foot as a chronological factor so far, and in view of the fact that no published

No. 21 on the other hand, which is a shoulder and upper body fragment, has part of an upright cylindrical handle preserved and can be safely assigned to the respective category of convex-sided pyxides. Unfortunately we do not possess the full profile of the body, which is the most important element for the chronological evolution of the shape: the globular body with a rounded shoulder of the earlier part of the 6th century B.C. gradually develops into an ovoid after the middle of the century, with a sloping shoulder meeting the upper body at an angle. In the subsequent one hundred years the shoulder tends to become flat, the body increasingly tapering toward the bottom, and the base contracts.501 In the case of 21, the steep shoulder indicates that the vessel has passed the earliest stage of development before 550 B.C.,502 but since a very small part of the upper body is preserved it is difficult to judge how far it has progressed. The “white style” decoration which is common after the middle of the 6th century B.C. offers again only a terminus post quem.503 What is more, the earliest parallels for the style of the tongues, which are sloppily drawn and of the petal-shaped form rather than the earlier, neatly painted scalloped-shaped form are found from the beginning of the Late

drawings of those vessels exist from a variety of well-dated contexts throughout the 6th and 5th centuries. 501 Bentz 1982, pp. 77–78; Corinth VII.5, p. 44; Corinth XIII, p. 115. 502 Caution should be exercised when using the profile of the body as a chronological criterion as well. Even though there is an accordance among scholars that the shape grows from spherical to egg-shaped and then tapering with an angular, abrupt transition from the flat shoulder to the slightly convex body, examples from graves of the late 5th century B.C. found at Argos indicate that the ovoid body and rounded shoulder survive down to the very end of the 5th century B.C. (Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1933, p. 3, fig. 3, the two pyxides on the lower right). The only way to avoid the conclusion that the development of the shape was not steady and consistent, is perhaps to assume that the respective pyxides were much earlier than the other furnishings of the grave. Such a conjecture sounds highly unlikely, even though not impossible, as the example of a burial in the necropolis of Messagne, in Southern Apulia, has shown: a lavish primary burial that has yielded a multitude of pottery and other finds covering a huge period from ca. 330/300 to 170/160 B.C. (Yntema 2009, pp. 147–156, esp. pp. 149–152). This is perhaps an extreme paradigm that exemplifies how some materially or symbolically valuable artifacts could be preserved and deposited long after their manufacture and how carefully one needs to be when interpreting an archaeological assemblage. 503 Cf. above, p. 87 with n. 494.

Corinthian period onward.504 Last but not least, the added red and purple lines applied directly over the clay on the upper body, perhaps speaks for a date within the second half of the 6th century B.C., since it has been observed that the use of black undercoating for the added colors ceases after 550 B.C., and purple gradually loses its vogue during the subsequent 50 years until it falls out of use.505 However, since the best well-dated parallels both for the shape and the decoration of this pyxis that have been identified come from contexts of various periods, such as the third quarter of the

6th,506 and the first507 and last quarter of the 5th centuries B.C.,508 no closer date suggestion has been ventured than the broad limits of 550 to 400 B.C.

The notion that has prevailed so far is that the latest Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion date to the Early Corinthian period.509 The discussion of fragments 17–21 of the present catalogue has hopefully demonstrated that this impression is not correct. No. 19, published previously in Coldstream‟s catalogue of

Geometric, Orientalizing, and Archaic unstratified pieces as GH 136,510 is a powder pyxis certainly belonging to the 6th century B.C., probably its earlier half. A very similar example with reserved zones decorated with groups of vertical zigzags has been recovered from a well by the Villa Ariadne discovered in August 1958.511 The well contained two superimposed layers of which the lower has been equated with the

504 See for instance: Payne 1931, p. 335, no. 1519, fig. 335 (Late Corinthian II) and no. 1472, pl. 42 (Late Corinthian I). On the Early and Middle Corinthian tongues with scalloped ends cf. Corinth XV.3, p. 300, no. 1634, pl. 65 (575–500 B.C.) 505 Corinth VII.5, p. 23. 506 Corinth VII.5, p. 44, no. 51 pl. 4 (550–525 B.C.). 507 Asine II.6.1, pp. 15, 17, 18–19, no. 1971–9:3, figs. 17–18, pp. 22, 18–19, no. 1971–9:9, figs. 17–18. 508 Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1933, p. 3, fig. 3, the two pyxides on the lower right; Perachora II, p. 279, no. 2715, pl. 113. 509 Sackett and Coldstream 1978, pp. 294–295: “The Unexplored Mansion site … has produced at least one well deposit with material slightly later than the general abandonment of the cemeteries. The pottery fill of Well 12, which includes many complete vessels from the water level together with a Corinthian import, takes us to the very end of the seventh century … The site has also produced, contemporary with this fill, a dozen unstratified fragments of Early Corinthian imports, from oinochoai, alabastra and pyxides; but after c. 600 these imports stop.” 510 Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 136, pls. 59, 73. 511 Coldstream 1973b, p. 41, H 66, fig. 3, pl. 14.

89 period of use of the well and the upper with its reuse as a rubbish pit. The powder pyxis in question was found in the lower stratum, but it has plausibly been suggested that it had slipped from the later, upper levels.512 It finds very close comparanda among the Middle Corinthian pyxides of the Examilia grave published by

Lawrence,513 just as fragment 19, and it undoubtedly falls in the purported 6th-century

B.C. “gap,” whether we choose to follow the traditional or chronological scheme or not.

Other pieces that most likely date between 600 and 550 B.C. are our nos. 17 and 18 from the Unexplored Mansion as we saw above, as well the kotyle “H 68” from the upper fill of the aforementioned well at Villa Ariadne.514 Although the latter fragment has been published as Early Corinthian, the looser form of its vertical squiggles does not find parallels before the Middle Corinthian period.515 Furthermore, a Corinthianizing black-glazed kotyle from Well H of the Royal Road, apparently treated as an intrusion by Coldstream,516 seems to imitate the low splaying foot of

Corinthian kotylai of Lawrence‟s type V, produced during the first half of the 6th century B.C.517 – the very type to which our fragment 17 belongs.

The convex pyxides 20–21 take us down to the Late Corinthian period. Their decoration along the lines of the White style, the syntax of which remained invariable from 550 to 400 B.C., their shape, about the development of which little is known, and the fact that the most chronologically sensitive parts of the profile do not survive, discourage any attempts to closer dating. Exaleiptra of the White Style are already

512 On the context see: Coldstream 1973b, p. 34. 513 Lawrence 1964, pl. 19, nos. E 24–E 26. 514 Coldstream 1973b, p. 41, H 68, pl. 14. 515 Compare the Early Corinthian zigzags (Corinth XV.3, pl. 18, nos. 342, 347) with the Middle Corinthian squiggles (Corinth XV.3, pl. 25, no. 521) on the rims of such kotylai. 516 Coldstream 1973b, p. 62, M 7, fig. 14, pl. 26. The piece has been included in the unstratified finds. The suggested date of late 7th–early 6th century B.C. is somewhat too early in my view. 517 Corinth VII.2, p. 78.

90 known from Knossos: One has appeared in the fill of Well H from the Royal Road excavations, and has been attributed to the Late Archaic period on account of its context,518 while a second was a stray find and has been rightly given a broad date range within the 6th century B.C.519 Comparable Corinthian exaleiptra have been uncovered also in Ajia Pelajia, a few kilometers to the west of Knossos.520

These finds imply that the flow of Corinthian imports to Knossos was not interrupted in the Middle and Late Corinthian periods. There may be few pieces that are diagnostic enough to provide us with a close stylistic date and even fewer that come from secure and well-dated contexts, but this may have to do with the vagaries of excavation, preservation, and correct identification of this category of imports. In any case, Conventionalizing and pattern Corinthian wares are not unattested in the city, which is indicative of its continuous socio-economic connections between mainland Greece and the southern Aegean. Similar Corinthian sherds with pattern decoration and specimens in white style are attested throughout the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. in North Africa, notably Cyrene521 and Tocra.522

ANALYSIS OF THE LACONIAN POTTERY

The Laconian material recovered from the site of the Unexplored Mansion that shall be discussed below consists of a single fragment of a stirrup-handled krater of the all-glazed variety (no. 22). A counterpart of this piece was recovered in a

Knossian well of obscure contents, found in the area of the Venizeleion hospital.523

518 Coldstream 1973b, p. 60, L 109, pl. 24. 519 Coldstream 1973b, p. 62, M 11, pl. 26. 520 Alexiou 1972, p. 237, fig. 8. 521 Kocybala 1999, pp. 5–12. 522 Tocra I, pp. 21–40. 523 According to Erickson (2010a, p. 119), the well contained “much Late Archaic pottery, including local shapes comparable to those found in deposits RR:H and UM:H1-H4” and this Laconian krater (Erickson 2010a, p. 122, no. 239, fig. 4.2, dated in the “6th century” B.C.). However, two further

Apart from those two original Laconian vessels, only Laconicizing material is attested. A krater of Knossian fabric that imitates a Laconian prototype is known from the Late Archaic well H to the north of the Royal Road.524 Another local copy derives from the upper fill of Well 8a of the Unexplored Mansion, a context which is currently dated to the 7th and early 6th century B.C.525 In addition to the kraters,

Knossos has also yielded two locally made drinking vessels, modeled on Laconian types.526 The only Cretan site where a greater number of Laconian pottery and local imitations were found is the cemetery of Orthi Petra at Eleutherna, in the northwestern part of the island, where kraters and cups of this provenance are attested from the beginning of the 6th century B.C. down to the Late Archaic period.527

The fragmentary state of the krater from the Unexplored Mansion (22), of which only part of the rim, the neck, and the beginning of the strap handle survives, presents a challenge to the exact dating of the piece. The most important chronological indicators for this class of stirrup kraters which are completely coated in black (Stibbe‟s class F) are namely the following: a) the overall proportion of the vessel‟s height to its maximum diameter, b) the angle that is formed between the

sherds – including a figured Proto-Corinthian kotyle – were published by Coldstream (1973b, p. 44, M 6, p. 45, M 22, pls. 16–17) and have been assigned a 7th century B.C. In addition, there is good reason to believe that the Laconian stirrup krater published by Erickson predates the last quarter of the 6th century B.C., as we shall see below. Hence, it seems that the contents of the well spanned a wider range of dates than Erickson reports. Nonetheless, caution is advised by Coldstream‟s statement that during the rescue excavations in which the well at issue, along with 14 others, were discovered, only a sample of the pottery was saved and no dig records survive for wells 1 though 5 (Coldstream 1973b, p. 44; Coldstream 1999, p. 322). Furthermore, there is more Geometric and Orientalizing material associated with those wells which has been characterized as “sporadic” and included in the publications of miscellaneous assortments of pottery from different Knossian contexts (Coldstream 1972, p. 76, no. 37, fig. 2, pl. 19 (“LPG”), p. 88, no. 7, pl. 7 “MG”, p. 91, no. 51, pl. 26 “MG”; Coldstream 1973b, p. 44, M 8, pl. 16 (“LO”), p. 45, M 23). The question that arises here is, whether some of this “sporadic” material initially came from stratigraphic contexts at the Venizeleion region, which according to the aforementioned remarks of Coldstream, have not been documented properly. For further information on the contexts under discussion see: Cook 1952, p. 108; Hood and Smyth 1981, p. 41, no. 88; Coldstream 1972, p. 64; Coldstream 1973b, pp. 34, 44; Coldstream 1999, p. 322. 524 Coldstream 1973b, p. 52, no. L 23, fig. 7, pl. 19. 525 Coldstream 1992, p. 75, GG 7, pls. 67, 77. 526 Erickson 2010a, pp. 122–123, nos. 241–242, fig. 4.2. 527 Erickson 2010a, pp. 56–62, nos. 22–45, figs. 3.4–3.5.

92 upper part of the handle, known as the “strap,” and the lower, column-like part, the

“grip,” as well as c) the dimensions of the krater‟s foot.528 These criteria are unfortunately of little use in the case of no. 22. However, a number of other features can help us establish a chronology that is precise enough to associate the fragment with the times in which Knossos was so far considered to have been unoccupied or in decline.

The earliest fully developed examples of these undecorated black-glazed kraters appear in the beginning of the 6th century B.C. At this early stage, only a limited number of vases are known which are distinguished from later examples by the straight vertical contours of their necks, the square or triangular profile of their rims, as well as the very pointed and downward projecting lower end of the strap handle at its junction with the lower end of the rim.529 In the next fifty years the rims become higher, thicker, as well as slightly concave on the outside, the necks become shorter and, though still straight in profile, they often show a subtle inclination outward, while the lower end of the strap is usually less protruding and angular.530

Finally, in the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th century B.C., the rims of

Laconian stirrup kraters develop a distinctive rounded top which slopes outward and

528 Cf. Stibbe 1989, pp. 38–39. 529 Stibbe 1989, p. 38, nos. F3–F7, figs. 43–45, pls. 9.2–9.3. The most important chronological criteria of this early group are the low and broad feet, the inward angle between the strap and the grip handle, and the greater width of the vessel in relation to its height; but since 22 preserves only part of the rim and neck, we cannot apply these criteria here. 530 For the second quarter of the 6th century B.C., see Stibbe 1989, p. 39, nos. F8–F36, figs. 46–64, pls. 9.4–10.1. Again, the most important developments, which we can unfortunately not use here, are the raise in height and contraction in width of the feet, the increase of the overall vessel height which surpasses their maximum diameter by the mid-century, and the outward angle at which strap and grip handle meet (Stibbe 1989, p. 38). In the subsequent 25-year period, little change is to be observed on the rims and the necks of the vessels, except the fact that the latter become shorter. The most important changes are observable in the feet and the general proportions of the kraters. (Stibbe 1989, p. 40) Thus, it is difficult to assign rim and neck fragments of these kraters a closer date within the period of 575– 525 B.C. What makes the distinction even more difficult is the fact that there are a number of kraters, dated by Stibbe in the third quarter of the 6th, which are described as a “continuation” of the shape characteristic for the second quarter. (cf. Stibbe 1989, p. 40). For the examples he dates in 550–525 B.C. see: Stibbe 1989, nos. F37–F52, figs. 65–70.

93 downward. This slope affects the point at which the upper end of the rim meets the strap handle, at which now an angle and downward slant is being formed. Last but not least, the exterior profile of the neck becomes discernibly concave in the Late Archaic period, and the neck inclines even more outward than in previous times.531

Taking into consideration the chronological development of the shape, as it has been outlined by Conrad M. Stibbe and summarized above, it seems that fragment

22 should be grouped with the kraters of the second and third quarters of the 6th century B.C. This is suggested by the thickness and the profile of the rim, the straight line of the neck, as well as the absence of the sloping top and slant at the junction between upper rim end and strap handle that characterize the kraters of the Late

Archaic period. Most of the parallels for 22 are dated in the second quarter of the 6th century B.C.,532 while the best comparison, placed stylistically in the third quarter of the century by Stibbe, is an intact krater from a tomb in the Laghetto necropolis at

Caere, in southern Etruria, with grave goods that spanned a chronology between 575 and 525 B.C.533

In my view, the Laconian krater from the Venizeleion well,534 which, judging from its profile, is an exact parallel of no. 22 of the present catalogue, also dates in the same fifty year period. To those two Laconian kraters found at Knossos we can also add the extraordinarily preserved upper half of a locally made black-glazed stirrup krater recovered from well H at the Royal Road,535 and the rim and neck fragment of another Cretan imitation from well 8a of the Unexplored Mansion.536 The contents of

Royal Road, Well H have mostly been dated to the early 5th century B.C. on the

531 Stibbe 1989, pp. 40–43, nos. F 53–F94, figs. 71–80. 532 Stibbe 1989, p. 106, no. F24, fig. 57, p. 107, no. F30, fig. 63, no. F31, fig. 64. 533 Stibbe 1989, p. 108, no. F41, fig. 68. 534 Erickson 2010a, p. 122, no. 329, fig. 4.2. 535 Coldstream 1973b, p. 52, L 23, fig. 7, pl. 19. 536 Coldstream 1992, p. 75, GG 7, pls. 67, 77.

94 grounds of the latest Attic imports it included.537 Even though it is hard to date a

Knossian product based on the chronological evolution of the models it might have been inspired from, it is worthy to note that the particularly high rim of this krater would be extremely unusual for a Late Archaic specimen in the Laconian repertoire.

Further features, such as the straight profile of the neck and the proportion of the rim‟s total width in relation to the vase‟s maximum diameter, also suggest a date earlier in the 6th century B.C. for the prototype of this Cretan krater, perhaps between

575 and 525 B.C.538

Even if we may assume that a certain interval must have elapsed between the production of the prototype and its importation and copying on Crete, the gap between the apparent date of the original and the contextual date of the Knossian imitation is quite large. This is not necessarily an indication that the date of Royal Road‟s well H, which was so far believed to have been filled and sealed within a very short period between 500 and 480 B.C, needs to be reassessed. Material from the earlier half of the

6th century B.C. lying in the area might have been mixed by chance with contemporary refuse and thrown in the well before it was sealed around 480 B.C. A similar assumption might be true for the Knossian imitation of a black-glazed

537 Cf. Coldstream 1973b, p. 45. 538 Cf. Stibbe 1989, pp. 38–40. For parallels of the profile of Coldstream 1973b, p. 51, L 23, fig. 7, see: Stibbe 1989, nos. F28–F29, figs. 61–62 (575–550 B.C., from Sparta); Erickson 2010a, p. 60, no. 24, figs. 3.4–3.5 (575–550 B.C., from Eleutherna). In his publication of “L 23” from the Royal Road Well H, Coldstream cites a very good parallel for this piece from Tocra (Tocra I, no. 974), from a context dated to 590–560 B.C. His second reference is an addendum note in Perachora II, using an Etruscan graffito on a black-glazed stirrup krater from Agrigento (Syracuse) as an approximate chronological indication for the date of this shape, long before Stibbe had elucidated the chronological development of Laconian kraters. Arguing that the graffito is attributable on epigraphical grounds to ca. 525 B.C., B. B. Shefton suggests an approximative placement of Laconian kraters from Perachora II (p. 540, addendum to 385 n. 1) around those years, and Coldstream uses this note to push the stirrup krater from Well H of the Royal Road toward the end of the 6th century B.C. The weaknesses of this line of reasoning are obvious. Suffice to say that the chronological development of letter forms is highly imprecise, and it would be wiser to date the graffito from Agrigento after the krater which bears it, not vice versa.

Laconian stirrup krater from the Unexplored Mansion‟s well 8a.539 This sherd cannot be earlier than the end of the 6th century B.C. judging from the strongly concave exterior profile of its neck,540 despite the fact that its contextual pottery spans from the

Orientalizing period to the very beginning of the 6th century B.C. The Late Archaic piece can namely be considered as intrusive, just as were some Late Geometric sherds also recovered from the well, according to Coldstream.541

Be that as it may, fragment 22 of the present study shows that Laconian pottery finds from Knossos are not limited to the Late Archaic period, but some of the pottery was produced and perhaps imported to the city earlier in the Archaic epoch. In fact, this was also the case for the city of Eleutherna, situated only 75 km away from

Knossos, where Laconian kraters and cups were imported and imitated throughout the entire life-span of the shape, from 600 to 475 B.C.542 Interesting is also the fact that

Tocra543 and the extramural sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Cyrene544 have yielded

Laconian stirrup kraters in the period of 575–525 B.C., in which the Knossian piece

(22) is dated. There is apparently no reason to reject the idea that Knossos and other

Cretan cities engaged in the exchange of ceramic goods manufactured in Laconia during the period in question, and it is not unlikely that the island might have even belonged to the same exchange network that linked mainland Greece with North

Africa in the same years.

539 Coldstream 1992, p. 75, GG 7, pls. 67, 77. 540 For parallels cf. Stibbe 1989, no. F43, fig. 78 and F82, fig. 80; Erickson 2010a, p. 61, nos. 30, 34, figs. 3.4–3.5. The carination on the inside of the neck however, is a feature I have never encountered before on Laconian kraters and might reflect local tastes. 541 Cf. Coldstream 1992, p. 75. 542 Erickson 2010a, pp. 56–62, nos. 22–45, figs. 3.4–3.5. 543 Tocra I, nos. 973–974, pl. 66. 544 Schaus 1985, pp. 24–28, nos. 85–124, pls. 6–8.

ANALYSIS OF THE CYPRIOT POTTERY

Four fragments of imported Cypriot vessels revealed during the excavations at the Unexplored Mansion of Knossos are of particular interest for the present study

(23–26). Despite the fact that they have not been subjected to a chemical analysis, the consistency of the fabric545 and the surface treatment546 leaves, in my view, little room for doubt on the Cypriot origin of those fragments. All of them derive from closed shapes (23–25) except one piece that comes from a large bowl (26). Three different decoration techniques are represented: White Painted (23), Bichrome (24, 25), and

Black-on-Red (26).

Imported Cypriot pottery and local imitations inspired by Cypriot vases are ubiquitous at Knossos and other Cretan cities during the Geometric and Orientalizing periods.547 The earliest known imports from Cyprus that appear on the island can be attributed to the late 9th century B.C.,548 while the first attested imitations of Cypriot wares might go as back as the beginning of the first millennium B.C.549 The latest published Creto-Cypriot reproductions have been assigned to the Late Orientalizing

545 The fabric is of a pinkish to reddish brown color, containing some mica, as well as white and black inclusions. 546 The White Painted sherd (23) is covered with a white slip on which the black banded decoration is applied. The Bichrome (24–25) fragments have a white undercoating as well, but the linear designs and circles with which they are adorned are in black and red color. The Black-on-Red fragment (26) has a matt red glaze as a ground for its black lines and bands. The black on both the Bichrome and the Black- on-Red is of violet or purple color, while on the White Painted piece it varies from matt black to matt brown. On the technique of White Painted in general see: Gjerstad 1948, pp. 48–59. On Bichrome cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp. 60–68; Hodos, Knappett and Kilikoglou 2005, p. 70. On the Black-on-Red technique: Gjerstad 1948, pp. 68–73; Schreiber 2003, pp. ix, 6; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, pp. 29–30; Bourogiannis 2012, pp. 184–185. 547 Cf. Coldstream 1984; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, pp. 310, 312, vol. 2, pp. 237–319; Kotsonas 2008, pp. 65–69, 164–167, 170–174, 181–182, 284–287; Kotsonas 2012, pp. 165–168; Karageorghis et. al. 2014, pp. 16–292. 548 Coldstream 1984, pp. 123, 125–126, nos. 1 (Bichrome jug, transitional CG II/III), 2–3 (Red Slip juglets, around 800 or early 8th century B.C.). Cf. Βourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, pp. 295–296. 549 The first known imitation seems to be a grooved juglet from a late 11th–early 10th century B.C. tomb at Pantanassa (municipalty of Rethimno): Tegou 2001, p. 129, no. 6. Cf. Kotsonas 2008, p. 284. However, Vassos Karageorghis (et al. 2014, p. 12) has doubted the common interpretation that this type of vessels drew inspiration from Cypriot Black Slip Bucchero prototypes. Another 10th century B.C. piece comes from a Proto-Geometric tomb at the cemetery of Fortetsa (Knossos): Brock 1957, p. 14, no. 92.

97 period.550 It is generally believed that Cypriot imports to Crete cease soon after 700

B.C.551 and that Cretan imitations of Cypriot wares only persist until the end of the

Orientalizing period.552 No published Cypriot originals or Cretan copies have been dated after 600 B.C.,553 in terms of conventional absolute chronology, or classified later than type IV and the Cypro-Archaic I period, in relative terms. As pertains to the most common shapes and types of wares imported and copied at Knossos and other

Cretan sites, the overwhelming majority consists of Black-on-Red and Bichrome pinched-rimed jugs and juglets of globular, oval or sack-shaped body554 that are usually interpreted as containers of perfumed oils.555 In view of these tendencies, the four Cypriot fragments from the Unexplored Mansion that are about to be discussed appear to be quite unusual. Their order has been determined according to ware (White

Painted, Bichrome, and Black-on-Red) and chronology.

550 Brock 1957, pp. 108–109, 190, nos. 1251, 1262, pl. 109 (although Brock‟s Late Orinetalizing date for the juglet no. 1262 from tomb P of Fortetsa has been questioned, see: Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1 p. 311, vol. 2, pp. 257–258); Karageorghis et. al. 2014, pp. 182–184, nos. 34–36, 39 (from Ambelokipoi Tekkes, one of the northern burial clusters of Knossos), p. 240, no. 91 (from Kommos). 551 Coldstream 1984, p. 137; Schreiber 2003, p. 306; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, pp. 95, 297–298, 377. This tendency is not observed only on Crete. The other great import and reproduction centers of Cypriot Black-on-Red during the 9th and 8th centuries in the Aegean – mainly Rhodes and Cos – also seem to lose interest in Cypriot products in the course of the 7th century B.C. (Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 67). The production of Black-on-Red juglets, bowls and other shapes is thought to decline in Cyprus itself after the middle or end of the 7th century B.C. (Schreiber 2003, p. 283; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 67), and the island seems to become, from an exporter, to an importer: it imports Eastern Greek aryballoi, drinking cups, and transport vessels in the 6th century B.C. (Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, pp. 45–46; Fourrier 2009a, pp. 131–133) and Attic tableware during the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.: see for instance the finds from Marion (Gjerstad et. al. 1935, pp. 851–853); for a summary of the evidence for Attic imports to Cyprus see Maier 1985, pp. 37–38. 552 Coldstream 1984, p. 137; Kotsonas 2012, p. 166; Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 13. According to Bourogiannis (2008, vol. 1, pp. 311–312, 320, 322–323, 329, 377) not only Cretan, but also Dodecanesian copies of Cypriot wares survive only until the advanced stages of the Orientalizing period and the quality and quantity of the imitations decreases gradually in the course of this era (Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 95). 553 Only one Cretan vessel imitating Cypriot Black Slip juglets derives from a context firmly dated to ca. 600 B.C. That is Well 12 of the Unexplored Mansion (Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 124, pl. 73). 554 Cf. Coldstream 1984, p. 131; Coldstream and Catling 1996, vol. 2, pp. 406–408; Schreiber 2003, pp. 294, 298, 306; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 312, vol. 2, pp. 237–319; Kotsonas 2008, pp. , 164–167, 170–174, 181–182, 286; Karageorghis 2014, pp. 13, 16–292. 555 Coldstream 1984, p. 136; Coldstream and Catling 1996, vol. 2, p. 406; Schreiber 2003, 62–73; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 65; Kotsonas 2008, p. 286. Corinthian aryballoi are believed to replace the imports of Cypriot unguent juglets in the 7th and 6th century B.C., both on Crete and on Rhodes. Cf. Kotsonas (2008, p. 263) and Bourogiannis (2008, vol. 1, p. 65) respectively.

No. 23 derives from a White Painted large closed vessel, most probably an amphora or a large oval-shaped jug. Amphoras are a very common shape represented throughout the typological series of White Painted, Bichrome, and other wares, from type I to VII.556 The varieties with a wide, straight neck, and a swollen ring-shaped rim, to which 23 is likely to belong, exist in types IV through VI557 and are chiefly belly-handled. There is a nice Bichrome Red II (V) parallel for the upright, cylindrical neck, the annular rim with a rounded outer profile, and the banded decoration on the outside and inside of the lip and neck from the drain channels of the settlement at

Kition-Bamboula (southeastern Cyprus) which were in use from the second to the last quarter of the 4th century B.C.558 The same features reappear on a Bichrome IV amphora from tomb 105 at the necropolis of Salamis, which contained two burials dated to the transition of the Cypro-Archaic I to II (currently dated ca. 600 B.C.),559 a

Bichrome Red II (V) amphora from the “North Wall deposit” of Amathous,560 dated between 525 and 475 B.C.,561 and two Bichrome V specimens from grave 135 of the

Hadji Abdullah necropolis at Kouklia (ancient Palaepaphos),562 which were associated with the last burial of this chamber tomb, assigned to the Cypro-Archaic II period

(600–475 B.C.).563

Despite the general proximity of the aforementioned vessels to the profile of no. 23, there is one vexing characteristic of this sherd that can cast doubts on its

556 Gjerstad 1960, p. 120. 557 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp.; Gjerstad 1960, pp. 119–120. Type VII should be probably excluded, since the neck 558 Salles 1983, p. 61, no. 160, fig. 23. On the find context and its chronology see: Salles 1983, pp. 56– 58. The abundance of Attic, Eastern Greek, and Levantine imports have played a major role in the establishment of the absolute chronology of the sewage system and the structures found at this site: cf. Salles 1983, pp. 21–55, 99–106, esp. 54–55. 559 Karageorghis 1970, p. 152, tomb 105 no. 16, pl. CCXLVI. On the date of the tomb see: Karageorghis 1970, p. 155. 560 Fourrier 2009b, p. 49, fig. 118. 561 On the deposit, its pottery, and date see: Fourrier 2009b, pp. 6–7, 54–55. 562 Karageorghis and Raptou 2014, pp. 102, 108, tomb 135 nos. 2 and 120, pl. LXVI. On the context see Karageorghis and Raptou 2014, pp. 18, 102–112. 563 Karageorghis and Raptou 2014, p. 112.

99 identification with a belly-handled amphora. That is, the discernible downward flare of the neck. Conversely, on most amphoras of types IV to VI the neck is either straight and upright, or tapering downward. The few exceptions to this rule I have been able to detect are not comparable to 23.564 An alternative solution would be to identify no. 23 with a large, oval-shaped jug with an erect neck and vertical handle from rim to shoulder. The problem with this identification though, is that the classification of jugs suffers from many deficiencies. Neither in his canon of Cypriot ceramics, 565 nor in his later refinement of shape types and their evolution566 did

Gjerstad establish a standard terminology and typology for this type of vessel. One of his jugs classified as White Painted VII has a strikingly similar profile of neck and rim with 23.567 So does also a Plain White VI–VII jug from the 4th century B.C. sewers of Kition-Bamboula.568 The same type of rim and neck appears on a different shape: a Plain White pithos from the bothros at the Aphrodite sanctuary of Amathous, attributed to the Cypro-Archaic I period (750–600 B.C.).569 However, judging from its proportions, fabric, burnishing and decoration, no. 23 cannot be a pithos.

The fragmentary state of no. 23, in combination with the shortcomings of Iron

Age Cypriot typology, discourages an exact classification and dating of the sherd.

564 Gjerstad 1948, fig. LI, 1 (Bichrome V). 565 In 1948, he published three pots that could be grouped together under a single category. The first he described as an “oval jug with wide, tapering neck, annular rim, and a handle from neck to shoulder”: Gjerstad 1948, p. 89, fig. LXIII, 2 (Plain White VI). This pot has slightly concave neck as opposed to the stiffly straight section of no. 23, but the rim is very similar and the widening of the neck toward the bottom is also a common feature. The second was pictured as a “depressed oval” jug “with flat, raised base, almost cylindrical, wide neck and a ring-shaped rim:” Gjerstad 1948, p. 58, fig. LVIII, 10 (White Painted VI). The straight outturned rim and the cylindrical neck of this specimen distinguish it clearly from no. 23. The third, which is the closest parallel to the profile the Knossian fragment, was merely classified as a jug: cf. Gjerstad 1948, p. 59, fig. LXIV, 11 (White Painted VII). The decoration of this vessel though is a little looser than on 23. Note that all three specimens belong to types VI to VII. 566 Gjerstad 1960, pp. 114–119, figs. 7–12. 567 Gjerstad 1948, p. 59, fig. LXIV, 11. Cf. above, n. 565. 568 Salles 1983, p. 82, no. 280, fig. 32. The rim is unfortunately missing on this example. 569 The appearance of types III through VII in this context (Fourrier and Hermary 2006, pp. 52, 54–58, 61, 64–66, 71, 79, 82–83), along with the excavators‟ note on the unfavorable conditions for the examination of the site‟s stratigraphy (Fourrier and Hermary 2006, p. 2) seem to advise caution while assessing the chronological indications of this context.

100

Taking into account the above outlined parameters and parallels, the fragment probably belongs to a Plain White amphora or a large, oval, vertical-handled jug of

Gjerstad‟s types V, VI, or VII which are traditionally associated with the Cypro-

Archaic II (600–500 B.C.) to Cypro-Classical II (400–325 B.C.) periods.

We shall now move forward to our two Bichrome pieces from the Unexplored

Mansion. No 24 comes from a barrel-shaped jug, a form previously unattested to

Knossos and the rest of Crete, to my knowledge. Gjerstad maintained that this subcategory of jug was represented in White Painted and Birchrome wares I through V in his stylistic evolution scheme.570 However, the shape of the vessel‟s body in types I–

III can easily be distinguished from later specimens, as it approximates more the form of a bobbin with rounded sides and a raised nipple at the end of each body half.571

From type IV onward the cylindrical body becomes markedly more elongated and tapering toward the ends of each side, resembling the shape of an ostrich egg.572

Fragment 24 should rather belong to the latter developmental phases because of the pointed, tapered tip that its preserved side seems to have. As regards to the decoration, even though the encircling bands and stripes around the tip and central knob of each of the two body halves is common from the early stages of the shape, the hectic alternation of consecutive circles of different thickness and color filling most of the jug‟s rounded sides and leaving little undecorated space is more typical of the advanced stages of the so-called “circle style,” and is therefore rather comparable to the ornamental trends followed by type IV and V jugs. 573 The purple or violet hue of the black paint on no. 24 is also a technical feature that appears, according to

570 Cf. Gjerstad 1960, p. 114. 571 Cf. Gjerstad 1960, fig. 7, 1–3. 572 Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLVI:7 (White Painted V), fig. XLIX: 1–2 (Bichrome V); Karageorghis 1970, p. 10, tomb 7 no. 11, pl. CCIV (White Painted IV), p. 21, no. 108, pl. CCVIII (White Painted V), p. 153, no. 23, pl. CCLVI (Bichrome IV). Cf. also Gjerstad 1960, p. 114. 573 On the “circle” or “western style” see: Gjerstad 1948, pp. 56–58, 64–65, 67; Gjerstad 1960, p. 105.

101

Gjerstad, in types IV through V.574 Counterparts for the decoration and the pointed ending of the jug‟s rounded side can be found among Gjerstad‟s Bichrome V examples,575 among some Bichrome IV jugs from the cemeteries of Xylotymbou and

Salamis associated with burials dated to the transition between the Cypro-Archaic I and Cypro-Archaic II periods (around or shortly before 600 B.C.),576 and a White

Painted V specimen from Salamis577 recovered from a much disturbed chamber tomb that seems to have been in use for a long time, since it contained material ranging from the end of Cypro-Archaic I to the end of the Cypro-Classical period.578 Taking into consideration potential inaccuracies in the relative and absolute chronology of the shape and the contexts of its parallels, I believe that the safest attribution for jug 24 would be to the categories Bichrome IV–V, toward the later stages of the Cypro-

Archaic I or in the Cypro-Archaic II period (thus to approximately 650–475 B.C.).

The second Bichrome fragment in the present catalogue (25) is a part of the shoulder of a medium-sized closed vessel, perhaps a jug, or a small amphora or jar.

Although the piece does not preserve a diagnostic portion of the vessel‟s profile, some technical features and details of the decoration are of chronological importance. The black paint has a light purple to brownish tone, which is reminiscent of Gjerstad‟s description of the black color on White Painted and Bichrome V to VII wares.579 Most notably, the lotus or trefoil ornament that is located on the shoulder zone, below the

574 Gjerstadt 1948, pp. 56–57, 62, 66. Type IV is considered as the stylistic boom of the “circle style” (Gjestad 1948, p. 67). Type V, on the other hand, is connected with the beginning of degeneration of this style, but is also seen as the time when the circle ornaments are used excessively, covering nearly the entire surface of the vase (Gjestad 1948, p. 67). 575 Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLIX, 1–2; Gjerstad 1960, fig. 7, 5. 576 On the examples from Salamis: Karageorghis 1970, p. 10, no. 11 (tomb 7), pl. CCIV and p. 153, no. 23 (tomb 105), pl. CCLVI. On the chronology and finds of those chamber tombs: Karageorghis 1970, pp. 13, 155. On the specimen from Xylotymbou, tomb 153, see: Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, p. 10, no. 70, colour pl. VIII. On the excavation conditions and the chronology of this grave: Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, pp. 2–4, 19. 577 Karageorghis 1970, p. 21, no. 108, pl. CCVIII (tomb 10). 578 Karageorghis 1970, pp. 22–23. 579 Gjerstad 1948, pp. 57–59, 66–68.

102 series of black and red lines and bands covering the neck, does not appear in this highly simplified form before type V,580 during which it is in its highest vogue.581

Only jugs and amphoras of types V and VI bear this type of lotuses.582 The stylistic parallels include numerous pinched rim juglets from the necropolis of Salamis, all classified as Bichrome V: some of the specimens come from chamber tombs with homogeneous material of type V, which can be safely attributed to the Cypro-Archaic

II horizon (600–475 B.C.),583 while two other juglets originate from the dromoi of two tombs, the first associated with a burial dated to the middle of Cypro-Classical I period (ca. 440 B.C.),584 and the second from a mixed stratum with Cypro-Archaic II to Cypro-Classical I material (600–400 B.C.).585 All things considered, no. 25 probably represents a Bichrome V–VI vessel of Cypro-Archaic II to Cypro-Classical I chronology.

The last Cypriot fragment, no. 26, is a large Black-on-Red bowl with an offset or raised, contracted rim, according to Gjerstad‟s terminology.586 The father of

Cypriot pottery classification distinguished two varieties of this shape, one with horizontal handles on the shoulder and one without handles. He believed that the former ran from types III through V and the latter from types IV through type VII.587

He also delineated the development of this shape‟s body as progressing from a

580 Compare the great difference with the more elaborate stylized lotuses of the type IV: Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXI, 8 and p. 65, fig. 18. 581 Gjerstad 1948, p. 67. 582 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLVI, 13 (White Painted V), fig. XLIX, 8–9 (Bichrome V), fig. LIX, 3 (Plain White VI). 583 Karageorghis 1970, pp. 71–72, nos. 5, 23 (tomb 41), pl. CXXIII, pp. 101–102, no. Ch. 5 (tomb 62), pl. CXLVI, pp. 132–133, nos. 5–6 (tomb 85A), pl. CLXVII. The absolute date of tomb 62 is also confirmed by Attic imports, cf. Karageorghis 1970, p. 102. 584 Karageorghis 1970, pp. 84, no. Dr. 1, pl. CXXXIV. On the date of the context, confirmed by an Attic black-glaze sherd, see: Karageorghis 1970, p. 85. 585 Karageorghis 1970, pp. 128, no. 15 (tomb 84), pl. CCXLVI. On the chronology see: Karageorghis 1970, p. 129. 586 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp. 62, 70–71 (referring to his figs. XXXI:1, XXXVII:10, 22 and LII:2 respectively); Gjerstad 1960, p. 111 (referring to fig. 2). 587 Gjerstad 1960, p. 111 and fig. 2.

103 hemispherical to a conical, more angular form.588 The fragment from the Unexplored

Mansion cannot be securely grouped under a specific variety: not only is it impossible to say whether the vessel initially had handles or not, but it also shares characteristics of bowls assigned to both classes and to a wide range of stylistic periods. The oblique, straight, and upward flaring rim of the sherd finds parallels among Gjerstad‟s handled White Painted IV589 and Black-on-Red III (V)590 specimens, as well as his handless Black Slip (VI)591 and Bichrome Red IV (VII) ware.592 As concerns the shoulder, although on the earliest of those pieces it is steep and tends toward growing angular, it still lacks the carination that the specimen from Knossos shares with the

Black Slip VI and Red Slip V (VI) examples, an element that rather suggests a placement of no. 26 in the later stages of Black-on-Red ware.

Considering, firstly, that the best parallel both for the dimensions and for the decoration of no. 26 – with a black band on the rim followed by a reserved band with groups of vertical stripes below, around the upper body – has been sorted as Black- on-Red II (IV);593 secondly, Gjerstad‟s remark that no other shapes were known to him from the last two typological phases of Black-on-Red ware than a few, quite poorly decorated jugs and jars,594 and, finally the widespread belief among modern scholars that the production of Black-on-Red declined noticeably, if not ceased altogether, soon after the end of the 7th century B.C.,595 I would suggest that the piece

588 Gjerstad 1960, p. 111. 589 Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXX:19. 590 Gjerstad 1948, fig. LII:2. 591 Gjerstad 1948, fig. LXI:14. 592 Gjerstad 1948, fig. LXVI:10. 593 Gjerstad 1948, fig. XXXVII:22. 594 Gjerstad 1948, pp. 72–73. 595 Cf. Schreiber 2003, p. 283. This claim is of course connected with Schreiber‟s proposal of raising the dates for the introduction of Black-on-Red from Cypro-Geometric III (850–750 B.C.) to Cypro- Geometric II (950–850 B.C.) in order to gap the discrepancy in absolute dates between Palestinian sites yielding Black-on-Red pottery in the 10th century B.C. according to the local conventions, and the earliest occurrences of Black-on-Red pottery in Cypriot chamber tombs, dated in the Cypriot scheme to the end of Cypro-Geometric II and the Cypro-Geometric III period (Schreiber 2003, pp. 212, 221–225,

104 in question should classified as Black-on-Red II (IV)–III (V) and date to the very end of Cypro-Archaic I (late 7th century B.C in the current system) or the Cypro-Archaic

II period (about 600–475 B.C.). This surmise can perhaps be confirmed by an approximate Bichrome Red I (IV) parallel from Xylotymbou, tomb 153. The rest of the finds for this tomb have also been stylistically dated between the late Cypro-

Archaic I and early Cypro-Archaic II period (conventionally 600 B.C.).596

To summarize, the excavations at the Unexplored Mansion have given us four

Cypriot fragments that do not exactly fit the mold of the bulk of Cypriot pottery found in Knossos and on Crete in general. No imports of this origin have hitherto been placed later than the early Orientalizing period,597 and no Cretan reproductions of

Cypriot vessels are thought to postdate the end of the same era. The latest known imitations constitute the necks of two grooved jugs, possibly inspired by Red Slip

252–273). If this hypothesis is correct, the absolute chronology of the entire Black-on-Red series would probably have to be reassessed. Nonetheless, Schreiber seems to be almost exclusively concerned with the earlier phases of this typological series, that is Gjerstad‟s Black-on-Red I (III) or her own “Phase I,” which she places between the end of the tenth and the beginning of the 9th century B.C. (Schreiber 2003, p. 213). Her dates are based on the biblical chronology for the Israeli sites in which early Black- on-Red ware is found (cf. Iacovou 2004, p. 65). As for her Phases II and III, corresponding to Gjerstad‟s Black-on-Red II (IV)–III (V), she finds it hard to distinguish between the two (Schreiber 2003, p. 253), since the third is apparently barely found on the mainland (Schreiber 2003, p. 5), and hence she decides to give them a “tentative” date of 880– 800 and 800–730 B.C. respectively (Schreiber 2003, 309). To put it in Maria Iacovou‟s (2004, p. 65) words, “although all in Cyprus suspect that BoR starts earlier than G suggested,” it is still highly disputable whether the introduction of this ware should be placed in the Cypro-Geometric II or III period (cf. Iacovou 2004, p. 63; Georgiadou 2014, p. 383) and Schreiber‟s revision of the absolute chronology is far from being generally endorsed (Iacovou 2004, p. 65; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 64). Hence, I would prefer to classify the Cypriot Black-on-Red specimen from Knossos with regard to the traditional scheme. It may contain some inherent flaws like most relative sequences and absolute chronologies based on the stylistic development of archaeological artifacts, but the revisions so far suggested are, arguably, no more satisfactory than the Swedish Cyprus Expedition‟s conventions. 596 Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, p. 14, no. 112, fig. 1.21. The shoulder on that bowl is quite steep, but still does not have the carination that no. 26 and Gjerstad‟s type VI–VII examples show. The rim is slightly concave and outturned, not quite like the fragment under discussion. The decoration in successive parallel bands though, without much reserved space between them, is comparable. 597 A possible exception is the fragment of a Black-on-Red II juglet from the Little Palace, a site immediately to the south of the Unexplored Mansion. The sherd in question was found in a scrappy Orientalizing layer with its latest pieces dating to the end of the 7th century B.C. (Hatzaki et al. 2008, p. 247, B5.19, pl. 33d.). Another fragment of the same shape was unearthed in room 10 of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion (Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 124, pl. 73). The piece is obviously an intrusion in the Minoan strata. Although it has been classified as Black-on-Red II, its decoration does not necessarily exclude a Black-on-Red III (V) date. Cf. Gjerstad 1948, figs. XXXVIII: 7, 12 (BoR II) and LII: 6 (BoR III).

105

Bucchero models from Cyprus, recovered from the fill of Well 12 of the Unexplored

Mansion,598 which has been dated to ca. 600 B.C.599 The above discussed fragments though seem to break the pattern.

The Bichrome barrel-shaped jug (24) and the Black-on-Red bowl (26) belong stylistically to types that are most commonly encountered in Cyprus and elsewhere from the end of the Cypro-Archaic I through the Cypro-Archaic II period.600 The conventional dates for these intervals span from ca. 600 to 475 B.C., although we have seen in a previous chapter that the absolute chronology of Cypriot pottery might be a little skewed – downward, to be precise. Hence, we cannot assert with certainty that those vessels were imported to Knossos during the 6th century B.C., but even if this is the case, no imports from the second half of the Orientalizing period have been recorded so far, in the city or on the island. The White Painted piece (23) is a puzzle, but since most of its comparanda are of later types (V–VII), it may be wiser to group it chronologically with the Bichrome jug (25), which is certainly of type V or VI and can be quite reasonably placed in the Cypro-Archaic II or the Cypro-Classical I period

(currently 600–400 B.C.). We cannot exclude a 4th century B.C. date for fragment 23, in case it represents a large jug, for the typology and chronology of this variety of shape has not been extensively studied. It is important to note that nos. 24 and 25 have already been published in Peter J. Callaghan‟s haphazard collection of Hellenistic sherds from the site, the “pottery group” H38.601 Callaghan suggests as a parallel to the Bichrome jug with the schematized lotus (25) a Bichrome V amphora from the pre-Persian levels of Olynthus,602 which indeed bears a very similar decoration and

598 Kotsonas 2012, pp. 161–162, fig. 3; Karageorghis et al. 2014, p. 207, no. 2. 599 Coldstream and Sackett 1978, pp. 58–60. 600 Cf. Gjerstad 1948, pp. 193, 195. 601 Callaghan 1992, p. 132, H38 nos. 77–78, pl. 117. 602 Olynthus V, p. 34, no. P 50, pls. 32, xxxiii.

106 has been grouped among the finds dated by the excavators to the late 6th to early 5th century B.C.603 Nevertheless, the inclusion of nos. 24 and 25 in a Hellenistic assortment of sherds gives the impression that the pieces are Hellenistic. This is not the case, as we have seen above. Despite the fact that the fragments do not come from a safe archaeological context,604 24 is of late Cypro-Archaic I or Cypro-Archaic II style, and 25 is a product of the Cypro-Archaic II to Cypro-Classical I periods.

Leaving the discussion on absolute chronology behind, which is viewed as uncharted territory by many archaeologists of Iron Age Cyprus,605 the above discussed Cypriot imports from Knossos suggest that later ceramic types of this origin reached the city and that there was no complete break of imports from the east to the years following the middle of the Cypro-Archaic I period. They also add to our knowledge of Cypriot shapes imported to the polis of Knossos, other than the omnipresent Black-on-Red and Bichrome juglets that have been connected to the perfume trade of mainly the 8th century B.C.606 The bowl and at least some of the jugs presented here perhaps testify to an interchange of tableware between the two islands as well.

CONCLUSION

It follows from the preceding analysis that the theories arguing for a gap in the ceramic record on Knossos from ca. 600 to 525 B.C. and an interruption in the flow of imports from overseas between 480 and 420 B.C. need to be reconsidered on the basis of unpublished, sporadic finds from the Unexplored Mansion, as well as of comparable pottery from published stratified horizons that have been pushed,

603 Olynthus V, p. 59. 604 Cf. Callaghan 1992, p. 132. 605 Cf. Iacovou 2004, pp. 62–64; Bourogiannis 2008, vol. 1, p. 295. 606 Coldstream and Catling 1996, vol. 2, p. 406; Schreiber 2003, pp. 298–299; Kotsonas 2008, pp. 68– 69.

107 consciously or subconsciously, to time spans outside the assumed lacunae, which results in circular reasoning.

The Cypriot fragments assignable to the transition between the Cypro-Archaic

I and Cypro-Archaic II periods (23, 24, 26) indicate that Cypriot imports may continue to reach Knossos in the late 7th or early 6th century B.C., if the current system of absolute chronology for this ceramic class is to be trusted. They certainly speak for the presence of post-type IV Cypriot pottery in the city, along with fragment

25 which is certainly type V or VI. These styles are roughly aligned with the 6th and the 5th century B.C. respectively, according to current conventions. The Late

Corinthian I kotyle (17) and the Middle to Late Corinthian pattern pyxis (18) exemplify that the first half of the 6th century B.C. is clearly represented at Knossos through Corinthian imports. The Middle or Late Corinthian pattern pyxis no. 19 is more generally datable to the Archaic period, the Laconian stirrup krater (22) comes either from the second or the third quarter of the 6th century B.C., while the Attic

Little Master cup (1) and other black-figure Attic fragments (2–4) cover the hitherto underrepresented third quarter of the 6th century B.C. The remaining

Conventionalizing Corinthian fragments (20, 21) could stem from any time between

550 and 400 B.C. but could perhaps cast doubts on an assumption that Corinthian pottery ceases abruptly at a specific time following the middle of the 6th century B.C.

Finally, the majority of the Attic material discussed above can establish the fact that, in the Unexplored Mansion of Knossos, there is no break in the flow of Attic imports during the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C. The black-figure lekythos in the tradition of the Beldam workshop (5) and the early loop-handled red- figure bell krater (8), and the black-glazed one-handlers (13–15) can be dated with confidence between ca. 475 and 425 B.C., according to the conventional typological

108 system. The black bowl no. 16 probably covers the middle decades of the 5th century

B.C. and the Corinthian and Attic type skyphoi (9–12) are assignable to the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. – or to the passage from the third to the fourth quarter of the same century as regards no. 12.

109

CHAPTER 4

SYNTHESIS

This chapter gives a synthesis of the findings and main contributions of the present thesis, together with a discussion of their ramifications for the archaeology of the Unexplored Mansion, Knossos, and Crete of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. In addition, the chapter demonstrates how the knowledge gained by the present study can offer important insights into exchange networks of the Aegean and the Eastern

Mediterranean during the Archaic and Classical periods.

THE “ARCHAIC GAP” IN THE UNEXPLORED MANSION, KNOSSOS, AND THE REST

OF CRETE

The excavation in the area of the Unexplored Mansion, which was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s by the British School, is arguably the best published field project that has taken place at Knossos. The site, which has admittedly a very complex occupational history, was hitherto believed to have yielded no overseas imports of the first three quarters of the 6th century B.C. Nonetheless, the Archaic overseas imports from the Unexplored Mansion analyzed in Chapter 3 suggest that the area was not completely abandoned between 590 and 525 B.C. On the contrary, inhabitants of the region probably imported and consumed dining equipment (e.g. nos.

1–4, 17, 22), as well as perfume (e.g. no. 24), and cosmetic containers (e.g. nos. 18,

19) from the Aegean (Attica, Corinth, and Laconia) and the Eastern Mediterranean

(Cyprus) that were manufactured between the first and third quarters of the 6th century B.C. Fragments of these vessels – which were probably not left exposed to the

110 elements for a long time after their destruction and discard607 – were mixed in later construction fills or intruded other strata at the site of the Unexplored Mansion at

Knossos.

It was previously though that off-island pottery at the Unexplored Mansion disappears around 600 B.C. The latest previously published imports included a number of Corinthian sherds in black-figure and pattern decoration. These have been designated as “Early Corinthian” by Coldstream who has squeezed them in the last quarter of the 7th century B.C., following Payne‟s chronological scheme.608 However,

I have demonstrated that the date for some of these supposedly “Early Corinthian” sherds, such as the published fragment 19 of the present catalogue,609 needs to be revised as Middle Corinthian. In addition, I have identified a number of further

Middle Corinthian imports from the Unexplored Mansion, such as nos. 17–18, which were previously unpublished. This thesis has also shown that the final publication of the site excluded a Laconian stirrup krater (no. 22), which can be dated precisely between the second and third quarters of the 6th century B.C., and Attic black-figure pottery of ca. 550–525/520 B.C (e.g. nos. 1–4). Last but not least, I have shown that broadly dated pieces, such as the Corinthian Conventionalizing fragments 20–21 and the Cypro-Archaic fragments 24, 26 may fall within the assumed “lacuna” of 590–525

B.C. but were not included in Coldstream‟s and Callaghan‟s “pottery groups” and

“stratigraphic units” treating the finds of the 1st millennium B.C. from the

Unexplored Mansion.

607 Cf. above, Chapter 3, p. 61. 608 Coldstream 1973b, p. 41, H 61–70, fig. 3, pl. 14; Coldstream and Sackett 1978, pp. 56, 59–60, Well 12 no. 52, fig. 10, pl. 13; Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 126–137, pl. 73. For reasons addressed in Chapter 1 (pp. 20–23), it is preferable, in my view, to use Amyx‟s update of the traditional scheme that lowers the dates for Early and Middle Corinthian pottery by 10–15 years. 609 Previously published in: Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 136, pls. 59, 73.

111

Moreover, the present study contributes to scholarly discourses regarding not only the Unexplored Mansion, but Archaic Knossos in general. The overview of cemetery, sanctuary, and settlement contexts of the Knossos valley offered in Chapter

2 verifies the scholarly opinion that very few remains of the 6th century B.C. have been identified at this major site of central Crete, after more than a century of systematic excavation and research.610 Burials seem to disappear completely from the organized Early Iron Age cemeteries of Knossos after the end of the 7th century B.C. and, at the same time, the rites of cremation and the practices of lavish mortuary display seem to be abandoned. Pits and wells filled with domestic debris or with finds of votive character represent the main source of the known Archaic material. The best datable assemblages are concentrated around 600611 and 525–475 B.C.612 and thus a

“gap” in human activity at the site is hypothesized during the interval of 600/590–525

B.C. The local fine-ware pottery of this period becomes plain, monochrome, and hardly diagnostic, especially when it is preserved in small fragments, so that the dating of “stratigraphic units” often depends on overseas imports. Such imports are thought to be scarce during the period of the Archaic occupational “break.”613

Nevertheless, some relevant finds exist and they are considered to be unstratified or intrusive in layers of different date. Even though this published ceramic evidence seems to be out of context, it needs to be taken into consideration, along with non- ceramic finds that may overlap with the period of the assumed “hiatus.” Most notably, the date of the limestone statue head from the Little Palace North excavations (fig. 11)

610 Coldstream 2000, p. 260; Kotsonas 2002, p. 38; Erickson 2010a, p. 235. 611 These assemblages were found in the area of the Unexplored Mansion: they comprise Well 12, and “stratigraphic unit” GG. See Chapter 2, pp. 54–55. 612 These include: a) Well H of the Royal Road, b) “stratigraphic units” K and L from the area of the Southwest Houses, c) “stratigraphic units” H1–H2 from the Unexplored Mansion, d) Well 2 of the Venizeleion, and e) Late Archaic floor assemblage from the Shrine of Glaukos. Cf. above Chapter 2, pp. 34–35, 39–43, 55–57. 613 Cf. Chapter 2, pp. 34–35, 39–40.

112 needs to be contemplated seriously, as the style of the fragment seems not incongruent with the style of Greek kouroi from the third quarter of the 6th century B.C.614

The identification of the above mentioned, previously unpublished sherds from the Unexplored Mansion does not only contribute to the bridging of the

“Archaic gap.” It also indicates the ways in which scholarly choices made in the study and publication of the material from the Unexplored Mansion may obscure the understanding of the archaeology of the 6th century B.C. at Knossos. Similar problems are identifiable in the study and publication of other excavated settlement contexts in the Knossos valley. I have shown that parallels of Attic fragments 1–4 of the present catalogue appear in Well H and other sites in the area of the Royal Road, as well as in mixed levels above the Villa Dionysos.615 The date range previously attributed to these Archaic pieces has been compressed to help maintain the “hiatus” of 590–525 B.C. devoid of finds. Likewise, I have argued that a black-glazed

Laconian stirrup krater from Well 2 of the Venizeleion area seems to have an identical profile with fragment 22, which I date to ca. 575–525 B.C.616 Erickson, who published this parallel from Venizeleion Well 2, avoided to offer a precise date for the sherd and placed it vaguely within the 6th century B.C.617 Such broad dating implicitly undermines the possibility that the finds in question derive from the

“critically lean”618 period of the first through third quarters of the 6th century B.C.619

614 Cf. above, Chapter 2, p. 36 with n. 210. 615 Cf. Chapter 3, pp. 77–78. 616 See above Chapter 3, pp. 91–92 with n. 523 and pp. 95–96. 617 Erickson 2010a, p. 122, no. 329, fig. 4.2. 618 For the expression see: Erickson 2010a, p. 238. 619 When ceramic or other finds from Knossos can only be assigned a broad chronology, scholars have hitherto excluded a priori the time span of the Archaic “lacuna” from the date range of these artifacts. For instance, a “white-style” Corinthian pyxis from Evans‟ excavations at the site of the Minoan Palace was dated by Coldstream (2000, p. 289, no. K9) to the late 6th or early 5th century B.C. As shown in Chapter 3 (pp. 86–88), the morphological development of this shape between 550 and 400 B.C. is hardly perceptible and the lack of published contexts that can illuminate all the stages in the evolution of this shape between the middle of the 6th and the end of the 5th century B.C. do not allow such a precise date range. Hence, I believe that the “white-style” convex pyxis from the Minoan Palace of

113

These examples suggest that methodological choices in the study and publication of

Archaic remains from Knossos, as well as the persistent assumption that no archaeological material whatsoever dates to the “gap” of 590–525 B.C. reflect scholarly biases which stem from traditional scholarly views about Archaic Crete.

Notwithstanding the identification of these imports from Knossos, it must be admitted that such finds do not seem to become numerous before the Late Archaic period, and that most of them derive from mixed construction fills of later periods or represent intrusive material in pits, wells, or other contexts of different date. The reason for this paucity of well-preserved Archaic contexts may be a population decline during the 6th century B.C., or a change in the location of the Archaic habitation center further to the north, beyond the present limits of investigation.620

However, the complex occupational and excavation history of the Unexplored

Mansion and other sites within Knossos, as well as the emphasis of the ceramic experts on earlier or later periods may also lie behind this impression of decline.

The implications of these remarks for the archaeology of Crete are considerable. As I have explicated in Chapter 1, the demise of mortuary display during the Archaic period on Crete and the paucity of stratigraphic contexts other than

Knossos derives from the same period as fragments 20 and 21 of the present catalogue, namely from 550–400 B.C. The Corinthian Conventionalizing shape in question is often attested to Knossos (cf. Chapter 2, p. 42 with n. 253) and thus it is critical to establish its correct chronology. Due to his deep belief in the “Archaic gap” and perhaps also to the idea that most of the 5th century B.C. (except from its first quarter) is rather poorly attested in the archaeological record of Knossos, Coldstream fails to consider the possibility that the Corinthian “white-style” pyxides at Knossos could actually date from years in which Greek imports to Knossos are underrepresented, but not totally absent. 620 A concentration of Late Archaic material in wells in the area of the Venizeleion Palace, approximately 900 m north of the Minoan Palace of Knossos, and fragments of two Archaic inscriptions from the area of the Roman Basilica, have led Erickson (2010a, p. 119) and Coldstream (2000, pp. 297–298) to suggest that the limits of the Iron Age city expanded further north of the Minoan urban nucleus. Later, however, Erickson (2014, p. 84) altered his opinion and claimed that the failure of recent excavations to the north of the Little Palace of Knossos to locate further Archaic remains, speaks against the existence of an Archaic civic center toward the north borders of the Knossos valley.

114 rubbish pits and wells datable to the same era621 has led experts to consider the 6th century B.C. as an age of material and demographic indigence.622 Despite more nuanced understandings of the problem precipitated by the discovery of a rich Archaic settlement at Azoria,623 as well as by an increased number of recent publications which reviewed remains of the 6th century B.C. on Crete, the theory of the “Archaic gap” has not been completely abolished. Some scholars have depicted Knossos as the only Cretan site that experienced an occupational “hiatus” during the 6th century

B.C.624 and have centered the general picture of decline in various parts of the island on this important site.625

As indicated by the findings of the present study, the hypothesis that Knossos presents the most extreme case of decline or abandonment during the Archaic period needs to be reconsidered. The existence of 6th- and 5th-century B.C. remains at the site has been obscured by methodological choices in the study and publication of the area. Knossos has yielded Archaic material of the same quantity and unstratified nature as Gortyn,626 the major city of the Messara valley that is thought to have destroyed Knossos in the 6th century B.C.627 In order to support his contention that

Gortyn was flourishing in Archaic times, Erickson suggested that “the complicated

621 Cf. Erickson 2010a, p. 29. 622 Cf. Chapter 1, pp. 2–4. For an overview see: Morris 1998, pp. 60–68; Perlman 2000, p. 59; Whitley 2001, pp. 188–193, 243–245; Kotsonas 2002, pp. 2–50; Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–22. A set of hypotheses have been suggested to explain this apparent impoverishment of the island during the Archaic period. Popular scenarios assume that the island was struck by a natural catastrophe (Boardman 1982, pp. 230; Erickson 2010a, pp. 13–15, 238), was paralyzed by internal warfare or was afflicted by changes in economic opportunities and in the exchange networks of the Mediterranean (Demargne 1947, pp. 214– 225; Dunbabin 1952, p. 195; Morris 1992, pp. 168–172; Erickson 2002, pp. 78–79; Erickson 2005, p. 627). Cf. Chapter 1, pp. 4–6. Recent studies have shown that none of these scenarios can account for all facets of the problem: Boardman 1982, p. 230; Morris 1998, pp. 75–77; Whitley 2001, pp. 245–252; Stefanakis et al. 2007, pp. 303; Erickson 2010a, pp. 13–15. 623 Cf. Haggis et al. 2004; Stefanakis et al. 2007; Haggis et al. 2011a; 2011b; Mook and Haggis 2013; Haggis et al. 2017. 624 Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–2, 235–238, 242–243, 247–248. 625 Erickson 2010a, pp. 1–2, 235, 243. Cf. Haggis 2004, p. 344. 626 Erickson 2010a, pp.178–180. Cf. Morris 1998, p. 62; Kotsonas 2011, p. 82. 627 Cf. Erickson 2010a, pp. 240–242.

115 building history of Gortyn makes one suspect damage to Archaic and Classical structures, which might account for the disproportionately slight survival of material from this periods.”628 I agree and I believe that the scattered Archaic finds from

Knossos can lead to the same conclusion. This conclusion, in addition to 6th-century

B.C. evidence from sites like Praisos629 and Azoria, Axos630 and Kato Syme631 enhances the impression that the “Archaic gap” is not uniform and may encourage scholars to seek for regional explanations for the short-term boom of some sites and the bust of others in the 6th century B.C., rather than for catastrophic scenarios which claim to be applicable on the entire island.

“BREAK” IN IMPORTS OF THE CLASSICAL PERIOD AT THE UNEXPLORED

MANSION, KNOSSOS, AND THE REST OF CRETE

The Unexplored Mansion has produced significant evidence that militates against the disappearance of overseas products for an interval of 50 years during the

Classical period. The overwhelming majority of unpublished off-island imports that were unearthed in the area of the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos and were discussed in Chapter 3 represent Attic dining and perfume vessels and belong to the 5th century

B.C. The red-figure column kraters 6–7 are datable to the first through quarters of the

5th century B.C. and the decoration of their overhanging rim and handle plate, which showed little change throughout this period, cannot support a more precise chronology. Other Attic sherds from the site, such as the white-ground pattern lekythos 5, the red-figure bell krater 8, and the black-glazed one-handlers 13–15 and

628 Erickson 2010a, p. 178. 629 On the survey material from Archaic Praisos see: Whitley 1992–1993; 1998; Whitley, O‟Conor, and Manson 1995; Whitley, Prent, and Thorne 1999; Erickson 2010a, pp. 199–216. Cf. above, Chapter 1, p. 6 with n. 34. 630 On the rich 6th- and 5th-century B.C. terracottas, sculptures, and architectural fragments from Axos, see: Rizza 1967–1968, pp. 241–287. 631 On Kato Syme see: Lebessi 1972; 1973; 1974; Erickson 2002, pp. 77–78. Cf. Chapter 1, p. 11.

116 bowl 16, and the Corinthian type, as well as Attic type skyphoi (9–11) can be placed with confidence between 475 and 425 B.C. Last but not least, there is an Attic type skyphos (12) which seems to be a transitional piece of the late third or early fourth quarter of the 5th century B.C. In addition to the Attic pieces, the Unexplored

Mansion has yielded two Corinthian Conventionalizing pyxides 20–21, which cannot be more closely dated within the time span of ca. 550–400 B.C., but may well fall into the Classical period, which is underrepresented at the site. The same is true for the

White-Painted Cypriot fragment 23, which is broadly dated to the Cypro-Archaic II–

Cypro-Classical II period (600–325 B.C.) and the Bichrome Cypriot piece 25 which is

Cypro-Archaic II or Cypro-Classical I (600–400 B.C.).

The fact that the above mentioned fragments were not included in the main publication of the post-Bronze Age remains of the Unexplored Mansion, has enhanced the impression that the 5th century B.C., and especially its second through third quarters, are virtually unattested at the site. One of the goals of this thesis has been to correct this impression, and to show that the Unexplored Mansion has produced Classical imports that can be used to challenge the notion of a 50-year break in overseas imports to Knossos after ca. 475 B.C.

Material that falls within the assumed “import lacuna” has already been unearthed at other sites within the Knossos valley, as mentioned in Chapter 2, and it has already appeared in publications. The Classical road in the area of the Southwest

Houses yielded Attic pottery of the second quarter of the 5th century B.C., including a loop-handled bell krater like no. 8, which was decorated with a red-figure scene.632

632 Coldstream and Macdonald 1997, p. 230, O 1, 3, fig. 19, pl. 26, p. 242. Cf. above, Chapter 2, pp. 40–41 and Chapter 3, pp. 78–79. Pit X in the area of the Southwest houses is also likely to have produced overseas imports of the second through third quarters of the 5th century B.C. An Attic red- figure column krater from this pit is namely comparable to nos. 6–7 of the present catalogue, as I

117

The Sanctuary of Demeter has produced not only pottery of the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C.,633 but also numerous figurines of the 5th century

B.C., including specimens that show an inspiration from Attic, Boeotian, and Rhodian coroplastic traditions.634 Finally, two silver Aeginetan staters from the so-called

Temple of Rhea above the Minoan Palace of Knossos cover the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C.,635 while a marble metope reused in a Roman context near the Acropolis hill bears a relief scene that seems heavily influenced by Attic models of ca. 470–430 B.C. (fig. 12).636 These finds can support the contention that the overseas connections of Knossos and the exchange networks that connected the city with the outside world did not entirely collapse around 475–425 B.C.

Nonetheless, imported finds seem to be less copiously attested at Knossos between 475 and 425 B.C. than they are during first and fourth quarters of the 5th century B.C. I am reluctant to believe that this was a result of an external political or economic stimulus, rather than a consequence of regional fluctuations in the demand and supply of ceramic products, an effect of the vagaries of preservation, or of methodological choices in the documentation of the material. It is hard to prove such historical events without the aid of written texts and on the basis, mainly, of fine-ware pottery.

Conversely, the disturbing paucity of overseas imports at Knossos between

475 and 425 B.C. and on the rest of Crete between 460 and 400 B.C.637 has been

suggested previously (Chapter 3, p. 78), and has lotus decoration of distinctively later form on its rim than the column kraters from Well H of the Royal Road. This piece represents a further case in which the chronology of imported pottery to Knossos may have been distorted by scholarly biases. 633 Coldstream 1973a, p. 23, fig. 13, p. 26, no. C 2 (450–425 B.C.), pp. 40–41, nos. H 34–37 (ca. 450 B.C.). 634 Cf. Chapter 2, p. 33 with n. 183. 635 Coldstream 2000, p. 288, nos. J 14–J 15, pl. 58. Cf. above, Chapter 2, p. 36. 636 Benton 1937. Cf. above, Chapter 2, p. 37. 637 Erickson 2005, pp. 637–638. Cf. above, Chapter 1, pp. 11–12.

118 explained by Erickson with a hypothesis involving measures taken by Athens against the Peloponnesian trade with Crete and North Africa in the context of the

Peloponnesian War and its prelude. According to Erickson‟s main hypothesis, Athens conducted routine patrols along the coasts of Crete and prevented Greek merchant ships from mooring on the island.638 Other theories hold that Crete cut off intentionally its contacts with the Aegean due to political reasons (anti-Athenian sentiments) or cultural motives (isolationism).639

The main reason why I am hesitant to embrace the hypothesis that overseas imports declined on Crete in parts of the Classical period because of a blockade imposed by Athens to cut off the entire island from its contacts with the Peloponnese and North Africa in the Pentakontaetia and the Peloponnesian War, is the lack of uniformity in the upper and lower chronological limits of the “break” in foreign products from one region to the other, established by Erickson himself. After an influx of Attic and Laconian fine-ware in the cemeteries and settlements of western

Crete during 500–475 B.C., Erickson argues that off-island pottery ceased at the western part of the island between 460 and 400 B.C.640 In the cemetery of Orthi Petra, at Eleutherna, he proposes a temporary “hiatus” in foreign products around 475–425

B.C. – that is, at the same when he suggests an “import lacuna” for Knossos.641 At the cemetery of Itanos, on the furthest eastern part of the island, he claims that the Attic and Cycladic imports cease at about 460 B.C., but reappear around 425–400 B.C.642

Considering this lack of uniformity, I believe that a regional explanation should be sought for the changes in the ebb and flow of imports in different areas of the island.

638 Erickson 2005, pp. 648–658. Cf. above, Chapter 1, pp. 13. 639 Erickson 2005, pp. 643–645. Cf. above, Chapter 1, pp. 12–13. 640 Erickson 2005, p. 637. 641 Erickson 2005, pp. 637–638. 642 Erickson 2005, p. 639.

119

Import gaps of Attic pottery have been identified elsewhere in Greece and beyond but recent interpretations have challenged assumptions about the role of politics in the formulation of these lacunae. Having identified inconsistencies in the patterns of a purported decline in Classical Attic imports to Corinth and its environs, a decline which was traditionally connected to Corinth‟s anti-Athenian sentiments during the Peloponnesian War,643 Brian R. MacDonald has shown that reasons unrelated to the political landscape often lie behind fluctuations in the flow of imports to a given area.644 MacDonald observed that while the sanctuary of Hera at Perachora did not curtail Attic pottery at all in the 5th century B.C., a brief gap in Attic imports at the Lechaion cemetery, and a gradual decrease in the presence of Attic ceramic grave goods is observed in the North Cemetery of Corinth since the middle of the 5th century B.C.645 The period of highest import of Attic products to the North Cemetery coincided with an earlier phase of hostilities between Athens and Corinth (the period of alliance between Megara and Athens, ca. 460–445 B.C.),646 while the reduction in

Attic imports began in a period when the black-figure style in Athens was gradually being displaced by the red-figure style.647 MacDonald has convincingly argued that the reason of the decrease in Attic imports to Corinth ca. 450–400 B.C. was that, in

Corinth, there was a demand for black-figure pots, which Athens gradually ceased to produce.648 Similar considerations were made by Margaret S. Miller with regard to changes through time and from site to site, in the flow of Attic imports to the

Achaemenid Empire. According to Miller, the lack of uniformity in the ebb and flow of Attic imports to different regions the Persian Empire suggests that, probably, no

643 Cf. Corinth XIII, p. 121. 644 MacDonald 1982, esp. pp. 113–114, 118, 121–122. 645 MacDonald 1982, p. 113. 646 MacDonald 1982, p. 114. 647 MacDonald 1982, p. 114. 648 MacDonald 1982, pp. 114–116.

120 deliberate, coordinated action with interregional effects was ever taken against the importation of artifacts from enemy states.649

These case studies indicate that political interests rarely intersect with the distribution of Attic pottery overseas,650 that Attic pottery circulated throughout the

Mediterranean mainly due to its good quality,651 and that fluctuations in the patterns of imports depend mostly on changes in the demand and supply of certain products.652

POTTERY TRADE IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN: INSIGHTS FROM THE

UNEXPLORED MANSION

The defeat of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Babylonian conquest of

Phoenicia in the early 6th century B.C. are traditionally deemed as a catalyst to the apparent economic decline of Crete in the Archaic and Classical periods. The fall of

Tyre is thought to have precipitated a change with long-lasting repercussions in the economic networks of the Mediterranean: the focus of the Phoenician trade is thought to have shifted from the East to the West thereafter. According to experts in the Early

Iron Age archaeology of Crete, this change may have pushed Crete out of the major exchange routes that used to connect it with the Eastern Mediterranean and may have had a detrimental impact on its economy. This scenario is supposedly confirmed by the precipitous decline in the quantity of value products (metals, faience, ivory etc.)

649 Miller 1997, pp. 65–72, 88. 650 Cf. MacDonald 1982, pp. 50–51. 651 Cf. Cook 1997, pp. 264. 652 Erickson (2005, p. 644) has stated that “Crete stands apart from … [the above mentioned] examples by virtue of the severity of the decline and the consistency over a wide area.” The negative evidence for overseas imports to the island is supposed to come “from a wide range of stratified and unstratified deposits, of various categories, including cemeteries, sanctuaries, and settlements.” (Erickson 2005, p. 640). In contrast to Erickson, I see no consistent absence of imports over a wide area. The chronological limits of the purported “break” vary considerably from site to site (e.g. western Crete, Knossos, and Itanos experience a decline in imports at different time spans). Additionally, published primary material from various contexts within Knossos and unpublished Classical imports from the area of the Unexplored Mansion examined in the present study, demonstrate that there is also no consistent break of overseas imports between 475–425 B.C. at every excavated context within smaller geographical regions, such as the Knossos valley.

121 and off-island ceramic imports to the island, as well as the scarcity of Cretan imports overseas.653

Although few in number, the Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical imports to

Knossos found at the site of the Unexplored Mansion (nos. 23–26) challenge the traditional hypothesis that Crete was entirely cut off from its contacts with the Eastern

Mediterranean in the eras that immediately succeeded the Fall of Tyre (ca. 573 B.C.).

Because of problems inherent to the classification and dating system of Cypriot Iron

Age pottery, as well as of the fragmentary state of the material, I have only been able to date these fragments approximately between the Cypro-Archaic II and the Cypro-

Classical II periods (in the years namely between 600 and 325 B.C. according to the traditional absolute chronology). Although these fragments cannot contribute to the debates of the “Archaic gap” and the Classical “break” in imports, given their imprecise date, they do indicate contact between Cyprus and Knossos between the

Archaic and Late Classical periods.

The Cypriot material from the Unexplored Mansion can be associated with results of recent provenance tests conducted on ceramics from the Levant, Cilicia,

Cyprus, and Egypt which date to the 5th and 4th century B.C. This pottery has been traditionally included in an “East Greek” class or was considered local, but it was recently proven to come from (probably central) Crete.654 Interestingly enough, many of the vessel shapes defined as Cretan by this study were so often found in the Levant that they were considered local,655 while they have never been identified on Crete

653 Demargne 1947, pp. 214–225; Dunbabin 1952, p. 195; Morris 1992, pp. 168–172; Erickson 2002, pp. 78–79; Erickson 2005, p. 627. 654 Gilboa et al. 2017. 655 See Gilboa et al. 2017, pp. 579–580 with references.

122 itself. 656 It seems that they may have been made exclusively for export. In any case, this new body of evidence, together with the since long known 6th-century B.C.

Cretan exports to Libya657 and the Cypro-Archac and Cypro-Classical material from the Unexplored Mansion presented in the current thesis, are an index of continued relationships between Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Archaic and

Classical periods.658 The lesson to be learned is that Crete was not totally isolated from outside markets for parts of or for the entire period between 600 and 325 B.C.

THE CORINTHIAN POTTERY TRADE FROM CA. 550 TO CA. 400 B.C.: NEW

EVIDENCE FROM KNOSSOS AND THE UNEXPLORED MANSION

The Unexplored Mansion at Knossos has produced at least two fragments of

Corinthian Conventionalizing ware, namely the white-style convex pyxides 20–21 of the present catalogue. Due to the standardization of this shape and its decoration from the Late Corinthian II phase onward and due to the lack of secured contexts with such vessels that could help us pin down chronologically even the slightest changes in style and form, such pyxides cannot be dated more closely within the time span of ca. 550–

400 B.C. A further specimen of this shape, which has been kept from Evans‟ excavations at the site of the Minoan Palace during the early 20th century, was ascribed by Coldstream to the late 6th or early 5th century B.C.659 I deem this date range as overly precise, given our lack of knowledge with regard to the development of the shape and its decoration from the middle of the 6th to the end of the 5th century

656 Gilboa et al. 2017, pp. 579–582, 587. 657 Tocra I, pp. 78–80; Tocra II, pp. 36–38; Boardman and Schweizer 1973; Cf. Coldstream and Eiring 2001, p. 77. See also above, Chapter 1, p. 9 and Chapter 2, p. 39. 658 Cf. Gilboa et al. 2017, pp. 581–587. 659 Coldstream 2000, p. 289, no. K9.

123

B.C.660 and would place the pyxis from the Minoan Palace within the same chronological framework I have suggested for nos. 20–21 of the present catalogue.

Conventionalizing ware is a class of vessels with linear, patterned, or stylized floral decoration, which is often frugal and leaves large areas of the vases reserved.661

This category of pottery was produced at Corinth since the middle of the 6th century

B.C. and throughout the Classical period. It has often been implied or explicitly stated in earlier scholarship that Conventionalizing ware was manufactured exclusively for local use and was not exported to other regions of Greece and the Mediterranean.662

This assumption has often been based on the “aesthetically unappealing” aspect of this pottery,663 or predicated on the premise that Corinth lost its foreign markets to

Athens during the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.664 This impression has been seriously challenged in the last 20 years. In her volume on Conventionalizing ware from

Corinth, Martha K. Risser has demonstrated that Corinth did continue to export its pottery from the Black Sea (Histria) to southern France (Marseille) and Spain

(Emporion) and from northern Greece (Sindos) to Cyprus and North Africa

(Naukratis, Cyrene, Carthage).665 The distribution is especially high in Sicily (e.g. the environs of Gela),666 South Italy (e.g. Reggio Calabria),667 and some sites in mainland

Greece (e.g. the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta and the sanctuary of Artemis

660 Cf. n. 619 above. 661 Cf. Chapter 3, pp. 80–81. 662 Salmon 1984, p. 102; Benson 1985, p. 18. 663 Corinth VII.5, p. 177; Cf. Benson 1953, pp. 108–109; Benson 1985, p. 18. 664 Bentz 1982, p. 149: “It is an indisputable fact that by the middle of the sixth century, Corinth has been replaced by Athens as the principle producer of fine painted pottery for export.” Cf. Bentz 1982, p. 156. Cf. also Menard (1990, p. 410), who uses this competition with Athens as an argument for an apparent “break” in Corinthian exports to Paestum after ca. 550 B.C. (but see also Corinth VII.5, pp. 176–177 on the Archaic Corinthian pottery and imitations at Paestum). 665 Corinth VII.5, pp. 175–177. 666 CVA, Gela 2 [Italy 53] pls. 21–22; CVA, Caltagirone 1 [Italy 78] pls. 18–20; Corinth VII.5, pp. 175– 176; Lambrugo 2013, p. 156, T. BQO 462.3, fig. 96.3, p. 171, LP 1.7, fig. 112.7. 667 Prof. Giada Giudice (pers. comm.). Cf. Corinth VII.5, pp. 175–177.

124 and Apollo at Kallapodi).668 The identification of Corinthian Conventionalizing pieces from the Unexplored Mansion made in Chapter 3 and the realization that such vessels appear also elsewhere at Knossos, on central Crete, contribute to the reassessment of the traditional hypothesis that Corinthian pottery trade overseas collapsed due to a competition with Athens during the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.

668 Corinth VII.5, p. 175 with nn. 14–15.

125

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

For Crete, the Early Iron Age (12th–7th centuries B.C.) was an era of great prosperity. Numerous cemeteries and sanctuaries have yielded rich finds such as gold, bronze, and ivory objects, jewellery, faience vessels, terracotta figurines, votive plaques and elaborately decorated pottery. A large proportion of these finds was imported from the Aegean and the Near East. Nonetheless, imported objects are much fewer in number and much more limited in range for most the Archaic and Classical periods (6th–5th centuries B.C.). In the course of these 200 years Crete seems to enter an era of significant changes in material culture. The local pottery becomes plain and archaeologically visible burials in organized cemeteries disappear. These factors have contributed to the difficulty of identifying excavated contexts of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.

The Archaic period is generally poor in archaeological finds. For that reason, the 6th century B.C is often viewed as an era of economic crisis, depopulation, and abandonment of habitation sites; according to some scenarios, the entire island was annihilated by natural destructions or internal wars during this century. The problems of archaeological visibility are exacerbated by the reduction of imported ceramics from the Aegean and the Mediterranean to Cretan sites. The apparent decline in imports is often attributed to the collapse of the Phoenician trade networks of the

Eastern Mediterranean in the early 6th century B.C.

The 5th century B.C. is regarded as an era of moderate revival in activity.

After a resumption off-island imports to Cretan sites during the Late Archaic period, which has facilitated the identification of numerous Late Archaic contexts in North-

126 western, north-central, and northeastern Crete, another decline in imports has been suggested for the second through fourth quarters of the 5th century B.C. This new disruption in overseas imports to Crete of the Classical period has been attributed to

Athenian attempts during the Pentakontaetia and the Peloponnesian War to sabotage trade routes, supposedly established in the Archaic period, that connected the island with the Peloponnese and North Africa.

The scholarly discourse on the transformation of Cretan material culture from the Early Iron Age to the Archaic and Classical periods has often focused on the major site of Knossos, on the north-central part of the island. After over a hundred years of excavations and studies, Knossos is believed not to have produced significant remains of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. and hence the site is taken to represent an extreme case of the Archaic “hiatus” and the purported “break” in imports of the 5th century B.C. This thesis has put to test the hypothesis that Knossos represents an extreme case of study for the problems of Archaic and Classical Crete by examining published, as well as previously unpublished primary material from the area of the

Unexplored Mansion, a well-documented settlement site northwest of the Minoan

Palace of Knossos which yielded evidence for occupation from the Bronze Age to the

Late Roman period.

Indeed, I have identified a number of unpublished pottery imports from overseas among the primary material from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos that is diagnostic and dates to the purported chronological “lacunae” of 590–525 B.C. and

475–425 B.C. The fragments in question are not only indexes of activity at Knossos datable to the “lean” phases of the 6th century B.C., but also suggest that the city maintained its overseas exchange networks, to some extent, both during the Archaic and the Classical era.

127

More specifically, the first half of the 6th century B.C. is represented by the

Corinthian “white style” and pattern fragments (17–19), while the date range of the

Laconian stirrup krater (23) spans the second and third quarters of the 6th century

B.C. The Attic black-figure imports (nos. 1–5) cover the third quarter of the 6th century B.C. and the transition to the Late Archaic period (ca. 530–520 B.C.). More pieces belong to the assumed phase of decline in imports that is reported for the

Classical period (ca. 475–425 B.C.): the Attic late black-figure lekythos in white- ground (5), the Attic bell krater no. 8, and the Attic black-glazed skyphoi and bowls

9–11 and 13–16. The chronological limits of the Attic red-figure column kraters (6–7) encompass both parts of the richly attested Late Archaic period and of the more elusive Classical period (ca. 500–440 B.C.), while the Attic type skyphos no. 12 marks the transition of the third quarter of the 5th century B.C. to the better attested, last quarter of the same century. It has been argued that parallels for those pieces from other published contexts within the Knossos were attributed dates that deliberately avoid the “gap” limits. However, the revisited chronology suggested here is based on independent comparanda outside Crete and overlaps with parts of the chronological

“import gaps” of the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.

The primary material included in the present catalogue, taken into consideration together with published finds of the Classical period from the Knossos area, indicate that a considerable amount of Attic and perhaps also Corinthian and

Cypriot vessels reached Knossos between ca. 475 and 425 B.C. These exceptions to the general dearth of imports of the second and third quarters of the 5th century B.C. at Knossos, as well as the regional discrepancies in the upper and lower limits of the

“import gap” at different sites within Crete (see Chapters 1, 4) are of paramount importance. The lack of uniformity in the patterns and the chronological limits of the

128 decline casts serious doubts to the hypothesis of that Athens systematically obstructed the trade routes connecting the island with the rest of the Aegean during the

Peloponnesian War and its prelude. Studies of similar purported lacunae in the record of Attic imports at Corinth669 and in the Achaemenid Empire670 during the 5th century

B.C. have shown that regional fluctuations in the circulation of Classical Attic ceramics in regions hostile to the Athenian Empire were probably unrelated to political developments.

The Corinthian Conventionalizing fragments 20–21 cannot be placed more precisely within the time span of 550–400 B.C. However, considering the unexpected chronology of the above mentioned imports from the Unexplored Mansion, these

Corinthian sherds may date to the poorly attested intervals of the 6th and 5th centuries

B.C.; this possibility should not be precluded on the sheer basis of a belief in the

“lacunae.” More broadly, the Conventionalizing pieces from Knossos suggest that

Corinthian pottery continued to be exported abroad considerably later than the apogee of its black-figure production and distribution in the 7th and early to mid-6th centuries

B.C. This underscores the dire need for more comprehensive studies of the chronology and the circulation patterns of the Conventionalizing ware.

Notwithstanding its broad dating, the Cypriot pottery from the Unexplored

Mansion provides important information about Knossian relationships with the

Eastern Mediterranean in the Archaic, Classical, and Late Classical periods. Although the upper chronological limits of two fragments (24, 26) fall with the late 7th century

B.C., the other two pieces discussed here (23, 25) certainly represent Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical imports that entered Crete after ca. 600 B.C. The downfall of the

669 Macdonald 1982. 670 Miller 1997.

129

Neoassyrian empire and the destruction of Tyre in the beginning of the 6th century

B.C. is traditionally considered as marking a collapse in the exchange networks that connected Crete with the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean. However, the long known

6th century Cretan pottery from Tocra and Cyrene, and the recently identified 5th and

4th century B.C. (central) Cretan ceramics in Cyprus, the Syro-Palestinian coast,

Cilicia, and Egypt (cf. Chapters 1, 4) reinforce the possibility that communication between Cyprus and central Crete was not totally disrupted during the Archaic and

Classical periods and after the fall of the Neo-Assyrian empire.

Surveys and geological studies conducted in mainland Greece, Spain,

England, and other parts of the Mediterranean and Europe have shown that considerable amounts of surface or residual pottery are often dispersed over wide areas around settlement sites, due to incidental processes and major erosion events.671

If the habitation center of Archaic Knossos differed from the urban nucleus of preceding periods and lies outside the present boundaries of field research – a fear that even proponents of the “Archaic gap” have expressed672 – or has been destroyed by later occupation and rebuilding, then what we would expect to find would be unstratified, surface pottery and intrusions in earlier and later contexts that represent vestiges of the Archaic period. The imports from the Unexplored Mansion analyzed in the present study and their discussed comparanda from other areas of Knossos show that this picture fits exactly the archaeological record that we have from the Archaic city.

To conclude, the identification of ceramic imports from the Unexplored

Mansion that speak against established scholarly views of an economic and

671 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988. 672 Coldstream and Huxley 1999; Coldstream 2000; Erickson 2010a, p. 237.

130 demographic crisis at Knossos and Crete during the Archaic period and of a collapse in the exchange networks that connected the city and the rest of the island with the outside world during the Classical period; they indicate at least that the “gaps” are neither complete, nor uniform. The present study has not completely overthrown these theories. However, it has made a step toward acknowledging that chronological

“lacunae” in the archaeological record of a given site or wider region can be created by the vicissitudes of preservation or publication and should not be automatically explained with historical and natural events. Furthermore, this work has shown that it is possible to bridge such prima facie “gaps” by re-examining published assemblages or by scanning the unpublished archaeological record for pieces from the periods that are allegedly underrepresented. It is the hope of the author that more stratified contexts will be discovered at Knossos in the future that will highlight the chronological relations between the local pottery and the Greek ceramic sequences of the Archaic and Classical periods, will improve the understanding of the local ceramic typology and chronology, and will help archaeologists fathom long-term changes in the ceramic consumption of the site.

131

CATALOGUE

Abbreviations used: est. = estimated, H = height, PH = preserved height,

PL = preserved length, MC = Middle Corinthian, LC = Late Corinthian, CA = Cypro-

Archaic, CC = Cypro-Classical

ATTIC POTTERY

BLACK-FIGURE

1. (K68) Little Master Cup. Ca. 550–525 B.C.

Context: “stratigraphic unit” H6 (pit XIB)

PH: 4 cm est. BD: 7 cm

Fragment of stem and transition to foot plate. Tall stem with thick walls, broad standing plate and high, hollow cone beneath. Rounded cavity at the upper part of the

132 cone inside, a jag at its middle and an almost right-angle edge between the cone‟s bottom and the foot plate. The cone and the underside are reserved, the stem on the outside is glazed.

Parallels: CVA, Kassel 1 [Germany 35] pl. 30 [704]:3, pp. 51–52, fig. 11; CVA,

Munich 10 [Germany 56] pl. 28 [2170], pp. 46–47, Appendix 8,1 (550–525 B.C.), pl.

34 [2147]:5–6, pp. 55–56, Appendix 10,3 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 36 [2262]:5–7, pp. 58,

Appendix 11,1 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 37 [2260]:1–3, pp. 58–59, Appendix 11,2 (550–

525 B.C.); CVA, Munich 11 [Germany 57] pl. 11 [v. Schoen 50]:1–5, pp. 20–21,

Appendix 2,5 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 18 [2207]:2–6, pp. 26–27, Appendix 4,2 (550–525), pl. 23 [2241]:1–3, pp. 30–31, Appendix 5,2 (550–525 B.C.), , pl. 53 [Inv. 9453]:1–7, pp. 58–59, Appendix 12,2 (550–525 B.C.); Heesen 2011, p. 53, no. 88, fig. 31 (550–

540 B.C.), p. 103, no. 137, fig. 59 (555–535 B.C.).

2. (K33) Cassel cup. Ca. 530–520 B.C.

Context: Trench VII, level 7

PH: 2 cm PL: 3 cm

Bottom fragment with traces of battering and wear both on the inside and the outside.

Underside reserved with central black disc and radiating rays. Traces of an added red circle at the base of the rays, possibly founded on a slightly broader white band.

Interior glazed with reserved medallion in the center.

133

Parallels: Brijder 1993 p. 139, fig. 23 (ca. 530 B.C.), p. 143, fig. 27 (ca. 530 B.C.);

Coldstream and Hatzaki 2003, p. 305, no. S 51, pl. 27 (525–500 B.C.); CVA, Kassel 1

[Germany 35] pl. 30 [T. 487]:4, p. 52, fig. 12 (ca. 530 B.C.); CVA, Munich 10

[Germany 56] pl. 36 [2262]:5–7, p. 58, Appendix 11,1 (550–525 B.C.), pl. 37

[2261]:4–6, p. 59, Appendix 11,3 (550–525 B.C.); CVA, New York [USA. 11] pl. XX

[X.248.16]:33a–c, p.12.

3. (K34) Droop cup. Ca. 530–520 B.C.

Context: Trench XIV, level 12

PH: 3.2 cm PL: 4.5 cm

Body fragment with beginning of the offset concave rim, mended from two sherds.

Reserved frieze with horse rider to left. Below traces of a black band. Interior glazed with reserved band at the transition from bowl to rim.

Parallels for the style of the figures: Heesen 2011, pl. 166b, no. 664, pl. 164:a, no.

658; CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3] pl. 38 [21027]:1, p. 46-7, pl. 43 [1107]:3–5, p. 52–53, fig. 18 (all from the 520s B.C.). Between CVA, Athens 3 [Greece 3] pl. 42 [9711], p.

51, fig. 17 (540–530 B.C.) and CVA, Athens 4 [Greece 4] pl. 49 [18735]:1–2, p. 55

(500–490 B.C.).

134

4. (K26) Black-figure krater. Ca. 550–525 B.C.

Context: Trench VII, level 33

PH: 2.3 cm PL: 3.5 cm

Body fragment with chipping, mended from two sherds. Thick, slightly curved wall.

Draped figure to right, with its right arm angled and raised. The garment is short- sleeved and locks of hair are falling on the shoulder. The chest is rendered in frontal view. White dots on the sleeve of the garment. Interior glazed, fired red.

Parallels: Agora XXIII no. 884, p. 214, pl. 80 (ca. 500 B.C.); CVA, Kassel 1

[Germany 35] pls. 19 [679]:1–2 and 20,1–4, p. 42 (ca. 540 B.C., Affecter Painter), pls. 21 [T. 384]:1 and 22 [384]:1–3, p. 43 (ca. 540 B.C.); CVA, Munich1 [Germany 3] pls. 10 [1379]:4, 13,1–2 and 28, 3, p. 13 (ca. 540 B.C.), pls. 14 [1380]:1 and 15,1–3, pp. 14–15 (in the tradition of Exekias, ca. 540 B.C.), pls. 21–23 [1383] p. 18 (ca. 550

B.C., Amasis Painter); CVA, Munich 9 [Germany 48] pl. 1 [1550]:4, pp. 14–15 (ca,

510 B.C.), pl. 2 [1510]:1–2, pp. 11–12 (ca. 510 B.C.).

135

5. (K2) Black-figure pattern lekythos, white-ground. 475–425 B.C.

Context: “stratigraphic unit” H6 (pit XIB)

PH: 4.3 cm est. D: 5 cm

Chipped body fragment with peeled slip. Cylindical body. Decoration in brownish black on added white base: frieze with a standing palmette and the feet of a striding figure to right. Below, checkerboard.

Parallels: for the human figure between the palmettes: ABL, p. 182; Kurtz 1975, pp.

153, 231, pl. 70.1 (500–450 B.C.). For the style of the palmettes: Corinth XIII, p. 253, no. 363.5, pl. 58 (grave of 450–425 B.C.); Kerameikos VII.2, p. 103, no. 403, 1, pl.

71, 6 (context of ca. 460 B.C.), pp. 136–137, no. 525,2, pl. 91 (context of 460 B.C.), p. 140, no. 543, 1 pl. 93 (context of 470–450 B.C.), p. 97, no. 382, 1 pl. 63,7 (grave of

475–450 B.C.); Kurtz 1975, pl. 71,1.

RED-FIGURE

6. (K14) Red-figure column krater. 500–425 B.C.

136

Context: Trench V, pit 9

PH: 4.1 cm est. RD> 25 cm

Fragment of the rim and neck of a column krater. Glaze fired black but streaky on the outside, fired red on the inside, as well as on the top of the lip. Rim slightly rounded on top, sloping down and outward. High steep neck. Top of the lip reserved, with black lotus-and-chain pattern. On the exterior reserved band just below the rim, brown line of thin slip (?) and irregular thickness below and black glaze on the remaining preserved part of the wall, carelessly applied or dipped.

Parallels: for the profile: Agora XII, p. 240, no. 57, fig. 20 (ca. 500 B.C.); CVA, Berlin

11 [Germany 86] pl. 5 [31404]:1–3 and 74,1, pp. 15–16, Appendix 2,1 (ca. 480 B.C.), pls. 7 [V.I. 3155]:1–3, 8,1–5 and 74,2, p. 17, Appendix 2,2 (ca. 475 B.C.), pls. 9 [V.I.

3163]:1–4, 10,1–3 and 74,3, pp. 18–19, Appendix 3,1 (ca. 475–470 B.C.), pls. 11

[V.I. 3206]:1–7 and 74,4, pp. 19–20, Appendix 4,1 (ca. 470 B.C.), pl. 14 [V.I.

3172]:1–3, 15,1–6 and 74,7, pp. 22–24, Appendix 5,1 (ca. 440), pl. 78 [L 31 B.C.]:1–

6, pp. 76–77, Appendix 15,1 (440–430 B.C.). Mannack 2001, pp. 51–55, figs. 6.16.47

(attributed to the Mannerists, first to third quarters of the 5th century); Rotroff and

Oakley 1992, p. 106, no. 204, fig. 12, pl. 48 (460–450 B.C.). For the style of the lotuses: CVA, Tübingen 4 [Germany 52] pl. 14 [67.5806]:4–5, pl. 15,1–2, pp. 42–44,

137 figs. 10–11 (ca. 460 B.C., tradition of Leningrad Painter); CVA, Berlin 11 [Germany

86] pl. 12 [4027]:1–6, 74,5, pp. 20–21, Appendix 4,2 (ca. 470–460 B.C.).

7. (K10) Red-figure column krater. 500–425 B.C.

Context: Trench 12, level 27

PH: 3.9 cm est. RD > 27 cm PL: 8.8 cm

Handle plate fragment, with chipping and flaked glaze. Top face slightly concave and reserved, with a black palmette that has 12 leaves, a reserved heart, as well as volutes at its base and is flanked by a convoluted tendril and double black line on each of its sides. All other sides are glazed except the underside, which is reserved but has stains of black.

Parallels: for the profile: CVA, Tübingen 4 [Germany 52] pl. 15 [67.5806]:4–5, pp.

42–44, figs. 10–11 (ca. 460 B.C.); CVA, Baltimore 1 [USA 28] p. 19 [48.71]:1, p. 11

138

(ca. 470–460 B.C.), pl. 19 [48.66]:2, pp. 12–13 (ca. 460–440 B.C.); CVA, Yale [USA

38] pls. 12–13, 20 [1933.175]:1–2, pp. 9–10, fig. 8 (ca. 475–470 B.C.). For the style of the palmette: CVA, Baltimore 1 [USA 28] pl. 19 [48.71]:1, p. 11 (ca. 470–460 B.C.,

Agrigento Painter); Mannack 2001, p. 62, figs. 7.6a–c (second to third quarters of the

5th century, Mannerists).

8. (K13) Red-figure bell krater. 475–425 B.C.

Context: Trench 13, level 30A

PH: 6.8 cm est. RD > 27 cm

Rim fragment with chipping. Thick, rounded rim in three degrees, with a sharp inner edge. All black at the top and upper outer face, with a thin line of dilute glaze and a reserved band at the bottom of its outside. Protruding sloping band of ovolo beneath, with dots in the intervals between the eggs. Below, reserved stripe and a zone of slightly concave profile with inverted ribbons and dots in the interstices. Beginning of a second concave surface below, with scraped, reserved stripe. Interior black glazed, with narrow reserved band at the upper and lower ends of the rim.

Parallels: Mannack 2001, nos. N.16 (Nausicaa Painter, second quarter of the 5th century) and Paris A 258, pp. 56–57, figs. 6.49–6.50; Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp.

139

68–69, no. 28, fig. 2, pl. 8 (475–425 B.C.), p. 69, no. 30, fig. 3, pl. 8 (475–450 B.C.), pp. 76–77, no. 48, fig. 5, pls. 20–21 (ca. 450 B.C.). For the ribbon pattern see: Agora

XXX pp. 188–189, no. 309, pl. 41 (ca. 440 B.C.); Blome 1999, p. 30 fig. 29 (ca. 450

B.C.).

BLACK-GLAZED

9. (K64) Corinthian type skyphos. Late third quarter of the 5th century B.C.

Context: unknown

PH: 2 cm est. BD: 9 cm

Base fragment and part of the lower wall. Chipping on the resting surface, glaze heavily worn on the bottom inside and fired red to brown on the outside and underside. Flaring ring foot with pointed toe, sloping top and rounded resting surface.

Convex underside of base. Thin, flaring body walls. All glazed except a reserved zone with vertical parallel lines (degenerate rays) above the foot, a narrow reserved

140 band at the transition between the foot and the bowl on the underside, and reserved undersurface with at least a glazed circle placed at great distance from the center.

Traces of an added white circle on the outer face of the foot, at the junction with the bowl.

Parallels: Agora XII, p. 257, no. 317, fig. 20 (ca. 450 B.C.); Oakley 1988, pp. 182–

183, no. 41, pl. 51 (440–430 B.C.); Roberts and Glock 1986, p. 27, no. 54, p. 28, fig.

17, pl. 8 (ca. 500 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley p. 65, no. 15, fig. 1, pl. 53 (475–425

B.C.). On the style of the rays compare: Agora XII, p. 257, nos. 319 (450–430 B.C.) and 320 (425 B.C.), pl. 15; Oakley 1988, pp. 182-183, no. 41, fig. 2, pl. 51 (440–430

B.C.), p. 183, no. 43, pl. 53 (440–430 B.C.), p. 183, no. 44, pl. 53 (440–425) p. 185, no. 52, pl. 54 (ca. 430), p. 185, no. 54, fig. 2, pl. 51 (ca. 440 B.C.); Rotroff and

Oakley 1992, p. 65, no. 15, fig. 1, pl. 53 (475–425 B.C.). For the reserved band at the junction between the toe and the underside see: Agora XII, no. 321, p. 258, pl. 15

(425–400 B.C.).

10. (Κ66) Corinthian type skyphos. Late third quarter of the 5th century B.C.

Context: Trench II, level 18

141

PH: 1.3 cm est. BD: 5 cm

Fragment of foot and lower wall. Glaze largely peeled off inside. Flaring ring foot with pointed toe. Slightly raised ridge at junction between foot and wall. Thin walls.

All black except reserved zone with vertical parallel strokes (degenerate rays) above foot and reserved resting surface with circle. Red wash seems to have been applied on reserved surfaces, including the underside and the raised ridge above the foot.

Parallels: Agora XII, p. 257, nos. 318, 319, pl. 15 (450–430 B.C.) , no. 320, pl. 15

(425 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, pp. 98–99, nos. 146–151, fig. 9, pls. 43–44

(475–425 B.C.); Talcott 1935, fig. 23, no. 22 (450–425 B.C.). Similar also to: Corbett

1949, no. 27, pp. 319–320, fig. 2, pl. 85 (425–400 B.C.). On the style of the rays see the comparanda for no. 9 above.

11. (K72) Attic type skyphos, Type A. Ca. 450–420 B.C.

142

Context: Trench VII, level 35

PH: 3 cm PBD: 8.8 cm (est. 12 cm)

Fragment of base and lower wall. Heavy, projecting torus foot. Scraped line at junction of foot with bowl. Thick, slightly flaring walls. All black except the resting surface and the underside. The latter is covered with red wash.

Parallels: Agora XII, p. 259, no. 343 (460–440 B.C.) and 344 (440–425 B.C.), pl. 16;

Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 7 (grave of 433/2 B.C.)

12. (K75) Attic type skyphos, Type A. Around 425 B.C.

Context: Trench 14, level 21

143

PH: 2.2 cm est. BD 7 cm

Fragment of base and lower wall with some chipping. Projecting torus ring foot with sloping top. Scraped line at the junction of bowl with foot. Flaring walls. Reserved: resting surface; underside.

Parallels: Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 97, no. 139, fig. 8, pl. 43 (475–425 B.C.)

13. (K42) One-handler, black variety. 480–425 B.C.

Context: Trench 12, level 34

PH: 6.2 cm est. D 24 cm:

Rim and part of the upper body. Flat rim. Convex body wall with a continuous curve from rim to bowl. Glazed inside and out.

Parallels: Between Agora XII no. 747, pp. 290–291, fig. 8 (ca. 480 B.C.) and no. 754

(420–400 B.C.); Boulter 1953, pp. 84–85, no. 64 and p. 82, fig. 3 (460–440 B.C.);

Kerameikos VII.2 p. 38, no. 96, 2, Appendix 1 (grave of 480–460 B.C.), p. 98, no.

383,3, Appendix 1 (grave of 430–20 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 11 (grave of

433/2 B.C.).

144

14. (K43) One-handler, black variety. 460–425 B.C.

Context: Trench 12, level 34

PH: 3 cm est. RD: 14 cm

Rim fragment, part of the upper body and a trace of the handle root preserved. Inner and outer edges of the lip, as well as the outside of the body are moderately battered.

Thickened rim with roundish top, gently sloping inwards. Convex body walls. Handle was horizontal, slightly uptilted and attached to the rim. All glazed inside and out.

Parallels: Between Boulter 1953, pp. 84–85, nos. 62 and 64, p. 82 fig. 3 (460–440

B.C.);

Kerameikos VII.2 p. 38, no. 96,2, Appendix 1 (grave of 480–460 B.C.), p. 98, no.

383, 3, Appendix 1 (450–425 B.C.); Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 12 (grave of 433/2

B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p. 106, no. 207, fig. 13, pl. 48 (475–450 B.C.).

15. (K51) One-handler, black variety. 460–420 B.C.

145

Context: “stratigraphic unit” H2

PH: 2.4 cm est. RD 15 cm

Fragment and small part of the upper wall. Thick squared rim, very lightly projecting outwards. Convex wall. Scraped groove at inner edge of the lip.

Parallels: Boulter, 1953, pp. 84–85, nos. 62 and 64, p. 82 fig. 3 (460–440 B.C.);

Kerameikos IX, pl. 112, no. 12 (grave of 433/432 B.C.); Rotroff and Oakley 1992, p.

107, no. 211, fig. 13, pl. 49 (460–440 B.C.).

16. (K69) Bowl. Variety: Deep, with convex-concave profile. Around 450 B.C.

Provenance : SW extension level 29

PH: 3.1 cm est. BD: 7 cm

146

Fragment of base and lower wall. Slight signs of wear inside, at the bottom of the vessel and limited battering on the resting surface. Thin, curved wall, deep bowl. Ring foot with projecting edge; outer face of the foot concave in the upper and convex in the lower part; inner face and standing surface have a convex profile. All glazed except the resting surface and the underside with solid central black disc outlined with a circle of dilute glaze.

Parallels: Agora XII, p. 294, nos. 809 (ca. 500 B.C.) and 814 (450–430), fig. 8;

Boulter 1953, p. 86, no. 72, p. 67, fig. 1 (460–440 B.C.).

CORINTHIAN POTTERY

17. (K83) Small “white style” kotyle. Ca. 560–540 B.C.

147

Context: Trench XIV, Pit 10 fr. a: PH: 2.2 cm fr. b: PH: 2.2 cm fr. c: PH: 2.2 cm est. BD: 7 cm

Fine pale yellow fabric (2.5Y 8/4)

Two joining and one non-joining fragment of the base and lower body. Glaze worn in parts. Small, splaying ring foot, with a slightly concave upper outer edge and a convex lower edge, resting surface, and inner face. Low, subtly convex underside.

Purple band without undercoat on the edge of the foot and black-glazed groove at the junction between foot and bowl. Large unglazed area above the foot adorned merely with two orange lines. Traces of a black band or line above. Underside, standing surface and interior completely reserved.

Parallels: on the profile of the foot see: Bentz 1982, p. 368, no. D6-5, fig. 18 (550–

525 B.C.); Corinth VII.2 p. 77, between An 66 (early 6th century) and An 42 (575–

550 B.C.); Corinth VII.5 p. 56, between nos. 108 and 117, fig. 7 (575–550 and 550–

525 B.C. respectively). For the decoration: Payne 1931, p. 334, no. 1517, fig. 181 B

(after 550 B.C.); Lawrence 1964, pl. 20, (from an early 6th century grave); Corinth

VII.2, p. 107, no. An 42, pl. 66 (575–550 B.C.).

18. (K78) Powder pyxis (or lid) with pattern decoration. 600–550 B.C.

148

Context: Trench II, level 4

PL: 3.4 cm

Fine pale brown fabric (10YR 8/4)

Fragment of the floor or lid. From the center outwards: solid disc of added purple on black ground, outlined with black circle; two reserved bands with groups of triple strokes in orange paint separated by a purple and black band.

Parallels: CVA, Karlsruhe 1 [Germany 7] pl. 39 [B 1463]:2 (late 7th century B.C.);

Corinth XIII, p. 184, no. 157-t, pl. 23 (580–570 B.C.), p. 205, no. 225-1, pl. 32 (late second–third quarter of the 6th century B.C.?); Lawrence 1964, p. 101, nos. E24–E26, pl. 19 (early 6th century B.C.); Tocra I, pp. 23, 32, no. 230, pl. 15 (LC).

19. (GH 136) Powder pyxis (or pyxis lid) with pattern decoration. 6th century B.C.

(probably 600–550 B.C.)

149

Context: SW extension, level 29

H: 3.8 cm est. BD: 10 cm

Fine pale brown fabric (10YR 7/4)

One third of the vase preserved: parts of the base, body and rim mended from two sherds. Rim rounded on the exterior, slightly offset from the body. Low cylindrical body with straight walls, flaring a little towards the bottom. Grooved, slightly projecting molding on the base and flat underside. Decoration: Purple on the grooved foot. On the body, groups of six vertical zigzags in orange between thin bands of brownish black (two below the rim and one above the base). On the underside, from the center outwards: black disc or circle (?), reserved band with groups of triple vertical zigzags and black circle.

Published in: Coldstream 1992, p. 79, GH 136, pls. 59, 73.

Parallels: Lawrence 1964, p. 101, nos. E24–E25, pl. 19 (600–575 B.C.); Corinth XIII, p. 205, no. 224-5, pl. 33 (ca. 550 B.C.) For the shape see also: CVA, Kassel 1

[Germany 35] pl. 10 [T.403]:8–9, p. 32, fig. 2 (early 6th century B.C.); Corinth VII.5, p. 50, no. 75, fig. 6 (late 6th–early 5th century B.C.). On the decoration, cf.: CVA,

Copenhagen 2 [Denmark 2] IIIC pl. 84:4, p. 65.

150

20. (K79) Convex pyxis in “white style.” 550–400 B.C.

Provenance: Trench I, Pit XI, 0755

PH: 1.5 cm est. BD = 10 cm

Fine pale yellow fabric (2.5Y 8/3)

Base and lower body fragment with abraded glaze. Low, flaring ring foot with beveled edge, shallow body with very thin walls. The resting surface, the lower inner face, as well as the outer side of the foot coated in brownish black. Above the base two glazed bands, the first of purple, the second of black color. Traces of black glaze in the interior.

Parallels: Corinth XIII, p. 205, no. 224-6, pl. 33 (ca. 550 B.C.); Lawrence 1964, pl.

18, nos. E2–E6 (from a MC grave); Asine II.6.1, p. 22, no. 1971–9:9, figs. 18–19 on pp. 18–19 (from a grave of 475 B.C.).

151

21. (K84) Convex pyxis with upright handles in “white style.” 550–400 B.C.

Context: Trench XIV, Pit 1a

PH: 3.8 cm PD: 5.1 cm Th: 0.32 cm

Fine pale brown fabric (10YR 7/4)

Fragment of body and handle. Sloping shoulder with vertical loop handle, round in section; roundish, thin-walled body, joining the shoulder at an angle. Black tongues outlined with dilute glaze on the shoulder. Below, at the junction with the upper body, four stripes: black, direct-purple, black and direct-red. Handle black-glazed except the roots. On the upper end of the interior a hastily black-coated area.

Parallels: Papaspyridi-Karouzou 1933, p. 3, fig. 3, the two pyxides on the lower right

(410–400 B.C.); Perachora II, p. 279, no. 2715, pl. 113 (last quarter of the 5th century or slightly earlier); Asine II.6.1, pp. 15, 17, 18–19, no. 1971–9:3, figs. 17–18, pp. 22, 18–19, no. 1971–9:9, figs. 17–18 (both from a grave of ca. 475 B.C.); Corinth

VII.5, p. 44, no. 51 pl. 4 (550–525 B.C.). For the shape only: Corinth VII. 5, p. 46, between nos. 55 and 59, fig. 4 (550–540 B.C.); Corinth XV.3, no. 909, pp. 174–175,

152 pl. 42 (550–525 B.C.). For the decoration only: Corinth XV.3, p. 98, no. 369, pl. 21

(second half of 6th century, probably third quarter);

LACONIAN POTTERY

22. (K85) Stirrup krater. 575–525 B.C.

Context: Trench 13, level 16

PH: 6.7 cm RH : 3.3 cm est RD > 25 cm

Fine pale brown fabric (10YR 6/3)

Fragment of neck and rim with beginning of handle strap. Light brown clay, grey in core, with a few black inclusions and dull dark glaze. Offset squared rim, flattish on top and slightly concave to straight on the outer side; straight neck. All-black.

Parallels: Stibbe 1989, pp. 39–40, 106–107, nos. F24, F30–F31, figs. 57, 63–64 (575–

550 B.C.), p. 40, 108, no. F41, fig. 68 (550–525 B.C.); Erickson 2010a, p. 122, no.

329, fig. 4.2 (600–500 B.C.).

153

CYPRIOT POTTERY

WHITE PAINTED WARE

23. (K87) Amphora, hydria or jar with raised neck. White Painted V–VII, CA II–CC

II (600–325 B.C.).

Context: Trench II, RE II

PH: 5.4 cm est. RD: 12–16 cm

Reddish brown clay (2.5YR 6/4) with few white and dark inclusions.

Fragment of rim and upper body. Thickened rim and vertical neck walls. Decoration in black and brownish paint on white ground. Black, brown and black bands on the exterior of the rim and the transition to the neck. One black, and two brown lines below the rim. On the interior: white glaze only on the upper part. Black band at the height of the rim.

Parallels: as an amphora: Karageorghis 1970, p. 152, tomb 105 no. 16, pl. CCXLVI

(Bichrome IV, transitional CA I/II, ca. 600 B.C.); Salles 1983, pp. 61–62, no. 170, fig.

23 (Bichrome Red II (V), context of ca. 375–300 B.C.); Fourrier 2009b, p. 49, fig.

118 (Bichrome Red II (V), context of 625–475 B.C.); Karageorghis and Raptou 2014, pp. 102, 108, 112, tomb 135, nos. 2 and 20, Pl. LXVI (Bichrome V, burial assigned to

154

CA II). As a jug: Gjerstad 1948, p. 59, fig. LXIV, 11 (White Painted VII); Salles

1983, p. 82, no. 280, fig. 32 (Plain White VI–VII).

BICHROME WARE

24. (K89) Barrel-shaped jug. Bichrome IV–V, CA I–II (625–475 B.C.)

Context: fr. a) Trench V, level 4 fr. b) RH I, level 32, Pit XIc fr. c) Trench I, level 2 a) PH: 6.1 cm D: 8.3 cm b) PH: 2.5 cm c) PH: 5.9 cm

Reddish brown clay (5YR 6/4), grey in core, with very few white and dark inclusions and some mica.

Body fragments: shoulder fragment a) mended from three sherds, fragments b) and c) joining with each other but not with a). Squat body. Smoothened exterior with traces of thin white slip. Reserved zone at the point of maximum diameter; dark and red bands of uneven width on the shoulder and the transition to the neck.

Published in: Callaghan 1992, p. 132, no. 77, pl. 117 (“Deposit H38” ).

Parallels: Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLIX:2 (Bichrome V); Gjerstad 1960, fig. 7, 5 (type V);

Karageorghis 1970, p. 10, no. 11, pl. CCIV (Bichrome IV, tomb 7, transitional CA I/II

155 ca. 600 B.C.), p. 21, no. 108 pl. CCVIII (White painted V, tomb 10, CA I–CC II), p.

153, no. 23 pl. CCLVI (Bichrome IV, tomb 105, transitional CA I/II ca. 600 B.C.);

Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, p. 10, no. 70, colour pl. VIII (tomb 153, transitional

CA I/II ca. 600 B.C.).

25. (K88) Jug with a pinched rim, small amphora or small jar. Bichrome V or early

VI, CA II–CC I (600–400 B.C.)

Context : Trench VI, level 10

PH: 6.9 cm est. RD: ca. 12 cm

Pinkish clay (7.5YR 7/4). Thin fabric with very few white and dark inclusions.

Shoulder fragment. Ovoid body. The exterior is smoothened and carries a trefoil lotus in red slip on the shoulder zone, as well banded decoration on the upper shoulder and the lower end of the neck (one of the bands in red but most in black).

Published in: Callaghan 1992, p. 132, H38 no. 78, pl. 117.

Parallels: for the decoration only see: Gjerstad 1948, fig. XLVI, 13 (White Painted V fig. XLIX:8–9 (Bichrome V), fig. LIX:3 (Plain White VI); Karageorghis 1970, pp.

71–72, nos. 5, 23, pl. CXXIII (tomb 41, 600–475 B.C.), pp. 84–85, no. Dr. 1, pl.

CXXXIV (burial of ca. 440 B.C.), pp. 101–102, no. Ch. 5, pl. CXLVI (tomb 62, 600–

156

475 B.C.), pp. 128, no. 15, pl. CCXLVI (tomb 84, 600–400 B.C.), pp. 132–133, nos.

5–6, pl. CLXVII (tomb 85A, 600–475 B.C.).

BLACK-ON-RED WARE

26. (K86) Bowl with offset rim. Black-on-Red II (IV)–III (V), late CA I–CA II (625–

475 B.C.)

Context: Trench VII

PH: 4 cm est. RD> 29 cm

Reddish brown clay (2.5YR 7/6) with few white, dark, and red inclusions, as well as mica. Fragment of rim and upper body with chipping. High, flaring rim, offset from the body. The maximum diameter is on the shoulder, which is carinated at that point.

Below the carination the body begins to taper towards the bottom. Decoration in violet black paint on red mat glaze. Exterior of the rim and transition to the shoulder

157 black. Zone with irregularly spaced vertical strokes below. Red glaze on the interior and black band at the height of rim.

Parallels: Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV.2, fig. LXI:14 (Black Slip VI), fig. XXXII:

22 (Bichrome IV); Georgiou and Karageorghis 2013, p. 14, no. 112, fig. 1.21 (tomb

153).

158

ABBREVIATIONS

Agora XII = Sparkes, B. A. and L. Talcott, Black and Plain Pottery of the 6th,

5th and 4th Centuries B.C. (The Athenian Agora XII), 2 vols., Princeton, 1970.

Agora XXIII = Moore, M. B. and Z. P. Philippides, Attic Black-Figured

Pottery (The Athenian Agora XXIII), Princeton, 1986.

Agora XXX = Moore, M. B., Attic Red-Figured and White-Ground Pottery

(The Athenian Agora XXX), Princeton, 1997.

Asine II.6.1 = Rafn, B. Results of the Excavations East of the Acropolis 1970–

1974, (Asine II), Fasc. 6: The Post-Geometric Periods. Part 1: The Graves of the

Early Fifth Century B.C., Stockholm, 1979.

Corinth VII.1 = Weinberg, S. S. The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery

(Corinth VII.1), Princeton, 1943.

Corinth VII.2 = Amyx, D. A. and P. Lawrence. Archaic Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well (Corinth VII.2), Princeton, 1975.

Corinth VII.5 = Risser, M. K. Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery (Corinth

VII.5), Princeton, 2001.

Corinth XIII = Blegen, C. W., H. Palmer, and R. S. Young, The North

Cemetery (Corinth XIII), Princeton, 1964.

Corinth XV.3 = Stillwell, A. N., J. L. Benson, A. L. Boegehold, and C. J.

Boulter, The Potter’s Quarter. The Pottery (Corinth XV.3), Princeton, 1984.

Kerameikos VII.2 = Kübler, K. and E. Kunze-Götte, Die Nekropole von der

Mitte des 6. bis zum Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos VII) 2: Die Beigaben,

Munich, 1976.

Kerameikos IX = Knigge, U, Der Südhügel (Kerameikos IX), Munich, 1976.

159

Olynthus V = Robinson, D. M. Excavations at Olynthus. Mosaics, Vases, and

Lamps of Olynthus Found in 1928 and 1931 (Olynthus V), Baltimore, London, and

Oxford, 1933.

Perachora II = Dunbabin, T. J. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia.

Excavations of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 1930–1933. Pottery,

Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia,

(Perachora II), 2 vols., Oxford, 1962.

Tocra I = Boardman, J. and J. Hayes. Excavations at Tocra 1963–1965. The

Archaic Deposits I (Tocra I, BSA Suppl. 4) Oxford, 1966.

Tocra II = Boardman, J. and J. Hayes. Excavations at Tocra 1963–1965. The

Archaic Deposits II and Later Deposits (Tocra II, BSA Suppl. 10) Oxford, 1973.

REFERENCES

Adelman, C. M. 1976. Cypro-Geometric Pottery: Refinements in

Classification (SIMA 47), Gothenburg.

Alexiou, S. 1972. “Ἀναζκαθὴ εἰς ηὴν Ἁγίαν Πελαγίαν Ἡρακλείοσ,” AAA 5, pp. 230–244.

Amyx, D. A. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, vol. 2,

Commentary: The Study of Corinthian Vases, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London.

Anderson. J. K. 1958–1959. “Old Smyrna: The Corinthian Pottery,” BSA 53–

54, pp. 138–151.

Baur, P. V. C. 1912. Centaurs in Ancient Art. The Archaic Period, Berlin.

Beazley, J. H. 1932. “Little Master Cups,” JHS 52, pp. 167–203.

Beazley, J. H. [1951] 1986. The Development of Attic Black-Figure, repr.,

Berkeley.

160

Beazley, J. H. and H. G. G. Payne. 1929. “Attic Black-Figured Fragments from Naucratis,” JHS 49, pp. 253–272.

Benson, J. L. 1953. Die Geschichte der korinthischen Vasen, Basel.

Benson, J. L. 1985. “Mass-Production and the Competitive Edge in Corinthian

Pottery,” in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum II, pp. 17–20.

Benton, S. 1937. “Herakles and Eurystheus at Knossos,” JHS 57, pp. 38–43.

Bentz, J. L. 1982. “Pottery of Ancient Corinth from Mid-Sixth to Mid-Fifth

Century B.C.” (diss. Univ. of Cincinnati).

Bintliff, J. and A, Snodgrass. 1988. “Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A

Regional and Inter-regional Perspective,” CurrAnthr 29, pp. 506–513.

Birmingham, J. 1963. “The Chronology of Some Early and Middle Iron Age

Cypriot Sites,” AJA 67, pp. 15–42.

Blome, P. 1999. Basel Museum of Ancient Art and Ludwig Collection, trans.

N. Humphrey and M. Johnson, Geneva.

Blondé, F. 1983. Greek Lamps from Thorikos, (Miscellanea Graeca VI),

Ghent.

Boardman, J. 1962. “Archaic Finds at Knossos,” BSA 57, pp. 28–34.

Boardman, J. 1963. “Artemis Orthia and Chronology,” BSA 58, pp. 1–7.

Boardman, J. 1974. Athenian Black-Figure Vases. A Handbook, London.

Boardman, J. 1979. Athenian Red-Figure Vases. The Archaic Period. A

Handbook, repr., London.

Boardman, J. 1982. “Crete,” in Cambridge Ancient History 3.3: The

Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., ed. by J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond, Cambridge, pp. 222–233.

161

Boardman, J. 1989. Athenian Red-Figure Vases. The Classical Period. A

Handboook, London.

Boardman, J. 2001. The History of Greek Vases. Potters, Painters and

Pictures, New York.

Boardman, J. and F. Schweizer. 1973. “Clay Analyses of Archaic Greek

Pottery,” BSA 68:267–283.

Bol. P. C. ed. 2002. Die Geschichte der Antiken Bildhauerkunst I.

Frühgriechische Plastik, 2 vols., Mainz.

Boulter, C. 1953. “Pottery of the Mid-Fifth Century from a Well in the

Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 22, pp. 59 – 115.

Bourogiannis, G. 2008. “Κσπριακή και θοινικική κεραμική ζηο Αιγαίο καηά

ηοσς πρώιμοσς ιζηορικούς τρόνοσς: εμπορικά δίκησα και ηο πρόβλημα ηοσ Black-on-

Red”, 2 vols. (diss. National and Kapodistrian Univ. of Athens, Athens).

Bourogiannis, G. 2012. “Pondering the Cypro-Phoenician Conundrum. The

Aegean View of a Bewildering Term,” in Iacovou 2012, pp. 183–205.

Bowsky, M. W. B. 1997. “An Atticizing Stele from Western Crete,” ZPE 118, pp. 197–206.

Brijder, H. A. G. 1993. “Simply Decorated, Black Siana Cups by the Taras

Painter and Cassel Cups,” BABesch 68, pp. 129–145.

Brock, J. K. 1957. Fortetsa. Early Greek Tombs Near Knossos, Cambridge.

Callaghan, P. J. 1978. “KRS 1976: Excavations at the Shrine of Glaukos,

Knossos,” BSA 73, pp. 1–30.

Callaghan, P. J. 1992. “Archaic to Hellenistic Pottery,” in Sackett 1992, vol. 1 pp. 89–136; vol. 2, pls. 74–118.

162

Campenon, C. 1994. La céramique attique à figures rouges autour de 400 avant J. C. : Les principales formes, évolution et production, Paris.

Carter, J. C. 1993. “Taking Possession of the Land: Early Greek Colonization in Southern Italy,” in Eius Virtutis Studiosi: Classical and Postclassical Studies in

Memory of Frank Edward Brown (1908–1988), ed. by R. T. Scott and A. R. Scott,

Hannover, pp. 343–367.

Caubet, A., S. Fourrier, and M. Yon. 2015. Kition Bamboula VI: Le sanctuaire sous la colline, Paris.

Chaniotis, A. 1999. “Milking the Mountains: Economic Activities on the

Cretan Uplands in the Classical and Hellenistic Period,” in From Minoan Farmers to

Roman Traders. Sidelights of the Economy of Ancient Crete, ed. by A. Chaniotis,

Stuttgart, pp. 181–220.

Coldstream, J. N. 1972. “Knossos 1951–1961: Protogeometric and Geometric

Pottery from the Town,” BSA 67, pp. 63–98.

Coldstream, J. N. 1973a. Knossos: The Sanctuary of Demeter, (BSA Suppl. 8),

Oxford.

Coldstream, J. N. 1973b. “Knossos 1951–61: Orientalizing and Archaic

Pottery from the Town,” BSA 68, pp. 33–63.

Coldstream, J. N. 1984. “Cypriaca and Cretocypriaca from the North

Cemetery of Knossos,” RDAC 1984, 122–137.

Coldstream, J. N. 1991. “An Urban Nucleus in the Dark Age?,” in Musti et al.

1991, pp. 287–299.

Coldstream, J. N. 1992. “Early Hellenic Pottery,” in Sackett 1992, vol. 1, pp.

67–88; vol. 2, pls. 51–73.

163

Coldstream, J. N. 1999. “Knossos 1951–1961: Classical and Hellenistic

Pottery from the Town,” BSA 94, pp. 321–351.

Coldstream, J. N. 2000. “Evan‟s Greek Finds: The Early Greek Town of

Knossos, and Its Encroachment on the Borders of the Minoan Palace,” BSA 95, pp.

259–299.

Coldstream, J. N. and H. W. Catling. 1996. Knossos North Cemetery: Early

Greek Tombs, 4 vols. (BSA Suppl. 28), London.

Coldstream, J. N. and L. J. Eiring. 2001. “The Late Archaic and Classical

Periods,” in Coldstream, Eiring, and Foster 2001, pp. 77–90.

Coldstream, J. N., L. J. Eiring and G. Foster, eds. 2001. Knossos Pottery

Handbook. Greek and Roman (B.S.A. Studies 7), London.

Coldstream, J. N. and E. M. Hatzaki. 2003. “Greek Occupation under the

Roman Villa Dionysos,” BSA 98, pp. 279–306.

Coldstream, J. N, and G. L. Huxley. 1999. “Knossos: The Archaic Gap,” BSA

94, pp. 289–307.

Coldstream, J. N. and C. F. Macdonald. 1997. “Knossos: Area of South-West

Houses, Early Hellenic Occupation,” BSA 92, pp. 191–245.

Coldstream, J. N., and L. H. Sackett. 1978. “Knossos: Two Deposits of

Orientalizing Pottery,” BSA 73, pp. 45–60.

Cook, J. M. 1952. “Archaeology in Greece, 1951,” JHS 72, pp. 92–112.

Cook, R. M. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery, 3rd ed., London and New York.

Corbett, P. E. 1949. “Attic Pottery of the Later Fifth Century from the

Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 18, pp. 298–351.

Demargne, P. 1947. La Crète dédalique : études sur les origines d'une renaissance. Paris.

164

Demetriou, A. 1978. “Die Datierung der Periode Cypro-Archaisch I nach

Fundzussamenhängen mit griechischer Keramik,” AA 1978, pp. 12–25.

Droop, J. P. 1910. “The Dates of the Vases Called Cyrenaic,” JHS 30, pp. 1–

34.

Dunbabin, T. J. 1952. Rev. of Demargne 1947, in Gnomon 24, pp. 121–127.

Erickson, B. L. 2000. “Late Archaic and Classical Crete: Island Pottery Styles in an Age of Historical Transition ca. 600–400 B.C.” (diss. Univ. of Texas at Austin).

Erickson, B. L. 2002. “Aphrati and Kato Syme: Pottery, Continuity and Cult in Late Archaic and Classical Crete,” Hesperia 71, pp. 41–90.

Erickson, B. L. 2004. “Eleutherna and the Greek World, ca. 600–400 B.C.” in

Crete Beyond the Palaces: Proceedings of the Crete 2000 Conference, ed. by Day, L.

P., M. S. Mook and J. D. Muhly, Philadelphia, pp. 199–212.

Erickson, B. L. 2005. “Archaeology of Empire: Athens and Crete in the Fifth

Century B.C.,” AJA 109, pp. 619–663.

Erickson, B. L. 2009. “Roussa Ekklesia, Part 1: Religion and Politics in East

Crete,” AJA 113, pp. 353–404.

Erickson, B. L. 2010a. Crete in Transition: Pottery Styles and Island History in the Archaic and Classical Periods, Hesperia Supp. 45, Princeton.

Erickson, B. L. 2010b. “Pryniatikos Pyrgos and the Classical Period in Eastern

Crete: Feasting and Island Identities,” Hesperia 79, pp. 305–349.

Erickson, B. L. 2014. “Mind the Gap: Knossos and Cretan Archaeology of the

6th Century,” in Pilz and Seelentag 2014, pp. 67–90.

Evans, A. 1914. “The „Tomb of the Double Axes‟ and Associated Group, and the Pillar Rooms and Ritual Vessels of the „Little Palace‟ at Knossos,” Archaelogia or

Miscellaneous Tracts Relating to Antiquity 65, pp. 1–94.

165

Evans, A. 1921. The Palace of Minos at Knossos I. London.

Evans, A. 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos II. London.

Fellmann, B. 1990. “Typen der Kleinmeistershale,” “Dekorationssysteme,” in

Kunst der Schale. Kultur des Trinkens, ed. K. Vierneisel and B. Kaeser (Exhibition

Catalogue Munich), Munich, pp. 18–40.

Finné, M., M.Bar-Matthews, K. Holmgren, H. S. Sundqvist, I. Liakopoulos,

Q. Zhang, 2014. “Speleothem evidence for late Holocene climate variability and floods in Southern Greece,” Quaternary Research 81, pp. 213–227.

Fisher, N and H. van Wees, eds. 1998. Archaic Greece: New Approaches and

Evidence, London.

Flouda, G. “Archaeology in the War Zone: August Schörgendorfer and the

Kunstschutz on Crete During World War II,” BSA 112, pp. 1–37.

Fourrier, S. 2009a. “East Greek and Cypriote Ceramics of the Archaic

Period,” in Cyprus and the East Aegean: Intercultural contacts from 3000 to 500 BC:

An international archaeological symposium held at Pythagoreion, Samos, October

17th-18th 2008 , ed. by V. Karageorghis and O. Kouka, Nicosia, pp. 131–138.

Fourrier, S. 2009b. “Le dépôt archaïque du rempart Nord d‟Amathonte VII.

Autres productions chypriotes et importations levantines,” BCH 133, pp. 1–98.

Fourrier, S. and A. Hermary. 2006. Amathonte VI: Le sanctuaire d’Aphrodite des origines au début de l’époque impériale, Paris.

Gaber, P. 2000. “The Pottery from Idalion,” in Πρακηικὰ ηοῦ ηρίηοσ διεθνοῦς

Κσπρολογικοῦ ΢σνεδρίοσ, Λεσκωζία, 16 -20 Ἁπριλίοσ 1996. Α΄ Ἁρταίον ημῆμα, ed. by

G. C. Ioannides and S. Hadjistyllis, Nicosia, pp. 471–484.

Gagarin, M. and P. Perlman. 2016. The Laws of Ancient Crete c. 650–400

BCE, Oxford.

166

Georgiadou, A. P. 2014. “Productions et styles régionaux dans l‟artisanat céramique de Chypre à l‟époque géometrique (XIe-VIIIe s. av. J.-C.),” BCH 138, pp.

361¬385.

Georgiou G., and V. Karageorghis. 2013. A Cypro-Archaic Tomb at

Xylotymbou and three Cypro-Classical Tombs at Phlasou: From Exuberance to

Recession (Studies in Mediterannean Archaeology 140), Upsala.

Ghilardi, M., J. Revelles, A. Glais, K. Theodorakopoulou, T. Theodoropoulou,

L. Lespez, F. Longo, A. Rossi, O. Bellier, L. Benedetti, J. Fleury. 2019.

“Reconstructing Human-Environment Interactions in the Western Messara Plain

(Phaistos, Crete, Greece) From the Emergence of City States to Byzantine Times,”

JAS: Reports 26, pp. 2–15.

Gilboa, A., Y. Shalev, G. Lehmann, H. Mommsen, B. Erickson, E. Nodarou, and D. Ben-Shlomo. 2017. “Cretan Pottery in the Levant in the Fifth and Fourth

Centuries B.C.E. and Its Historical Implications,” AJA 121, pp. 559–593.

Gjerstad, E. 1948. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV.2: The Cypro-

Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods, Stockholm.

Gjerstad, E. 1960. “Pottery types. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical,”

OpAth 3, pp. 105–122.

Gjerstad, E. 1974. “The Stratification at Al Mina (Syria) and Its Chronological

Evidence,” ActaArch 45, pp. 107–123.

Gjerstad, E., J. Lindros, E. Sjöqvist, and A. Westholm. 1935. The Swedish

Cyprus Expedition III: Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931,

Stockholm.

Gondicas, D. 1988. Recherches sur la Crète occidentale : de l'époque géométrique à la conquête romaine. Amsterdam.

167

Greco, E., Th. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1996. “Travaux menés en collaboration avec l‟École française en 1995: Itanos (Créte Orientale),” BCH 120, pp. 941–952

Greco, E., Th. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1997. “Travaux menés en collaboration avec l‟École française en 1996: Itanos (Créte Orientale),” BCH 121, pp. 793–807.

Greco, E., Th. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1998. “Travaux menés en collaboration avec l‟École française en 1997: Itanos (Créte Orientale),” BCH 122, pp. 585–602.

Greco, E., Th. Kalpaxis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 1999. “Travaux menés en collaboration avec l‟École française en 1998: Itanos (Créte Orientale),” BCH 123, pp. 515–530.

Greco, E., Th. Kalpaxis, N. Papadakis, A. Schnapp, and D. Viviers. 2000.

“Travaux menés en collaboration avec l‟École française en 1999: Itanos (Créte

Orientale),” BCH 124, pp. 547–559.

Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, M. C. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and W. C. West III.

“Excavations at Azoria, 2002,” Hesperia 73, pp. 339–400.

Haggis, D. C. M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitzimons, M. C. Scarry, L. M. Snyder, and

W. C. West III. 2011a. “Excavations in the Archaic Buildings at Azoria in 2005–

2006,” Hesperia 80, pp. 1–70.

Haggis, D. C., M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitzimons, M. C. Scarry, L. M. Snyder.

2011b. “The Excavations of Archaic Houses at Azoria in 2005–2006,” Hesperia 80, pp. 431–489.

Haggis, D. C. and M. S. Mook. 2017. “Azoria Project Final Report 2017.” http://azoria.web.unc.edu/files/2018/10/Azoria-Project-Final-Report-2017.pdf.

168

Haspels, C. H. E. 1936. Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi, Paris.

Hayden, B. J. 1997. “Rural Settlement of the Orientalizing through Early

Classical Period: The Meseleroi Valley, Eastern Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 2, pp.

93–144.

Hatzaki, E. 2011. “From LM IB Marine Style to LM II Marine Motifs.

Stratigraphy, Chronology and the Social Context of a Ceramic Transformation: A

Response to Maria Andreadaki-Vlazaki,” in LM IB Pottery. Relative Chronologies and Regional Differences. Acts of a Workshop Held at the Danish Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the INSTAP Study Center for East Crete, 27–29 June 2007, vol.

1, (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens XI,1) ed. by T. M. Brogan and E.

Hallager, Athens and Oakville, pp. 75–92.

Hatzaki, E., M. Prent, J. N. Coldstream, D. Evenly, and A. Livarda. 2008.

“Knossos, the Little Palace North Project, Part I: The Early Greek Periods,” BSA 103, pp. 223–273.

Hatzaki, E. and A. Kotsonas. 2019. “Knossos and North Central Crete,” in A

Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the Mediterranean, ed. by I.

Lemmos and A. Kotsonas, Malden, Oxford and Carlton, pp. 1039–1053.

Heesen, P. 2011. Athenian Little Master Cups, Amsterdam.

Hellenkamper, H., ed. 1998. Die neue Welt der Griechen. Antike Kunst aus

Unteritalien und Sizilien. Ausstellungskatalog Römisch-Germanisches Museum der

Stadt Köln, Mainz.

Hodos, T., C. Knappett, and V. Kilikoglou. 2005. “Middle and Late Iron Age

Painted Ceramics from Kinet Höyük: Macro, Micro and Elemental Analysis,” AnatSt

55, pp. 61–87.

169

Hood, S. and D. Smyth, Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (BSA

Supp. 14), Oxford and Northampton.

Hopper, R. J. 1949. “Addenda to „Necrocorinthia‟,” BSA 44, pp. 162–257.

Hornblower, S. 2008. A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 3, Books 5.25–

9.109, Oxford.

Huxley, G. 1994. “On Knossos and Her Neighbours (7th Century to Mid–4th

Century B.C.),” in Knossos: A Labyrinth of History. Papers presented in honour of

Sinclair Hood, ed. by D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, N. Momigliano, Oxford and

Northampton, pp. 123–133.

Iacovou, M. 1988. The Pictorial Pottery of Eleventh Century B.C. Cyprus

(SIMA 89), Gothenburg.

Iacovou, M. 1991. “Proto-White Painted Pottery: A Classification of the

Ware,” in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, ed. by J. A. Barlow, D.

L. Bolger, and B. Kling, Philadelphia, pp. 199–202.

Iacovou, M. 2004. “Phoenicia and Cyprus in the First Millennium B.C.: Two

Distinct Cultures in Search of their Distinct Archaeologies,” BASOR 336, 61–66.

Iacovou, M, ed. 2012. Cyprus and the Aegean in the Early Iron Age: The

Legacy of Nicolas Coldstream. Proceedings of an Archaeological Workshop Held in

Memory of Professor J. N. Coldstream (1927-2008), Monday, 13 December 2010,

Archaeological Research Unit, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.

Johnasen, F. 1923. Les vases sicyoniens, Copenhagen.

Johnston, A. W. 1993. “Pottery from Archaic Building Q at Kommos,”

Hesperia 62, pp. 339–382.

Johnston, A. W. 2005 “Kommos: Further Iron Age Pottery,” Hesperia 74, pp.

390–393.

170

Kocybala, A. 1999. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at

Cyrene, Libya. Final Reports 7: The Corinthian Pottery. Philadelphia.

Karageorghis, V. 1970. Excavations in the Necropolis of Salamis II. 2 vols.

(text) and (plates), Nicosia.

Karageorghis, V. and L. G. Kahil. 1967 “Témoignages Eubéens a Chypre et

Chypriotes à Érétrie.” Antike Kunst 10, pp. 133– 35.

Karageorghis, V., A. Kanta, N. C. Stampolidis, and Y. Sakellarakis. 2014.

Kypriaka in Crete: From the Bronze Age to the End of the Archaic Period, Nicosia.

Karageorghis, V. and E. Raptou, 2014. Necropoleis at Palaepaphos from The

End of The Late Bronze Age to The Cypro-Archaic Period. Nicosia.

Kirsten, E. 1942. Das Dorische Kreta, Teil I: Die Insel Kreta im fünften und vierten Jahrhundert, Chicago.

Kathariou, K. 2002. Σο εργαζηήριο ηοσ ζωγράθοσ ηοσ Μελεάγροσ και η εποτή

ηοσ. Παραηηρήζεις ζηην Αηηική κεραμική ηοσ πρώηοσ ηεηάρηοσ ηοσ 4οσ αι. π. Χ.,

Thessaloniki.

Kleiman, A., A. Fantalkin, H. Mommsen, and I. Finkelstein. 2019. “The Date and Origin of Black-on-Red Ware: The View from Megiddo.” AJA 123, pp. 531–555.

Kleinbauer, W. E. 1964. „The Dionysios Painter and the „Corinthio-Attic‟

Problem,” AJA 68, pp. 355–370.

Kotsonas, A. 2002. “The Rise of the Polis in Central Crete,” Eulimene 3, pp.

37–74.

Kotsonas, A. 2005. “Ceramic Styles in Iron Age Crete: Production,

Dissemination, and Consumption: A Study of Pottery From the Iron Age Necropolis of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna” (diss. Univ. of Edinburg).

171

Kotsonas, A. 2006. “Wealth and Status in Iron Age Knossos,” OJA 25, pp.

149–172.

Kotsonas, A. 2008. The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in

Eleutherna: The Iron Age Pottery, Athens.

Kotsonas, A. 2011. Rev. of Erickson 2010a, in AJA 115. https://www.ajaonline.org/book-review/993.

Kotsonas, A. 2012. “„Creto-Cypriot‟ and „Creto-Phoenician‟ Complexities in the Archaeology of Interaction between Crete and Cyprus” in Iacovou 2012, pp. 155–

182.

Kotsonas, A. 2016a. “Politics of Periodization and the Archaeology of Early

Greece,” AJA 120, pp. 239–270.

Kotsonas, A. 2016b. “Greek and Roman Knossos: The Pioneering

Investigations of Minos Kalokairinos,” BSA 111, pp. 229–234.

Kotsonas, A. 2017. “Ceramics, Analytical Scales and Cultural Histories of

Seventh-Century Crete,” in Interpreting the Seventh Century B.C. Tradition and

Innovation, ed. by X. Charalambidou and C. Morgan, Oxford, pp. 15–23.

Kurtz, D. C. 1975. Athenian White Lekythoi. Patterns and Painters, Oxford.

Lambrugo, C. 2013. Profumi di Argila. Tombe con unguentari corinzi nella necropolis arcaica di Gela (Studia Archaeologica 185), Roma.

Langlotz, E. 1920. Zur Zeitbestimmung der strengrotfiguringen Vasenmalerei und der gleichzeitigen Plastik, Leipzig.

Langlotz, E. 1932. Griechische Vasen aus Würzburg, 3 vols., Munich.

Lawrence, P. 1964. “Five Grave Groups from the Corinthia,” Hesperia 33, pp.

89–107.

172

Lebessi, A. 1972. “Ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀθροδίηης εἰς ΢ύμην Κρήηης,” Prakt

1972, pp. 193–203, pls. 177–194.

Lebessi, A. 1973. “Ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀθροδίηης εἰς ΢ύμην Βιάννοσ,” Prakt

1973, pp. 188–198, pls. 185–207.

Lebessi, A. 1974. “Ἱερὸν Ἑρμοῦ καὶ Ἀθροδίηης εἰς ΢ύμην Βιάννοσ,” Prakt

1974, pp. 222–227, pls. 160–169.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1959–1960. “Ceramica arcaica dalla necropoli di Taranto,”

ASAtene 21–22, pp. 7–230.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1961. “Recenti scoperti di tombe arcaiche in Taranto,” BdA

46, pp. 268–282.

MacDonald, B. R. 1982. “The Import of Attic Pottery to Corinth and the

Question of Trade during the Peloponnesian War,” JHS 102, pp. 113–123.

Maier. F. G. 1985. “Factoids in Ancient History: The Case of Fifth-Century

Cyprus,” JHS 108, pp. 32–39.

Malkin, I. 1994. Myth and Territorry in the Spartan Mediterranean.

Cambridge.

Mannack, T. 2001. The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-Painting, Oxford.

Mannack, T. 2002. Griechische Vasenmalerei. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart.

Megaw, H. 1936. “Archaeology in Greece, 1935–1936,” JHS 56, pp. 135–158.

Menard, T. D. M. 1990. “The Archaic and Classical Pottery from the

Sanctuary at località Santa Venera in Paestum, Italy” (diss. Univ. of Michigan).

Merrilles, R. 1991. “The Principles of Cypriot Bronze Age Pottery

Classification,” in Cypriot Ceramics: Reading the Prehistoric Record, ed. by J. A.

Barlow, D. L. Bolger, and B. Kling, pp. 238–240, Philadelphia.

173

Miller, M. C. 1997. Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century B.C.: A Study in

Cultural Receptivity, Cambridge.

Mook, M. S. and Haggis, D. C. 2013. “Excavation of an Archaic City at

Azoria in Eastern Crete,” in Kreta in der geometrischen und archaischen Zeit: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums am Deutschen Archäologischen Institut, Abteilung

Athen, 27.-29. Januar 2006, ed. by W.-D. Niemeier, O. Pilz, I. Kaiser, Munich, pp.

59–77.

Morris, I. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity,

Cambridge and New York.

Morris, I. 1998. “Archaeology and Archaic Greek History,” in Fischer and van

Wees 1998, pp. 1–91.

Morris, S. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art, Princeton.

Mussche, H. 1975. “Thorikos in Archaic and Classical Times”. In Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times: Papers and Contributions of the

Colloquium Held in March, 1973, at the State University of Ghent, (Miscellanea

Graeca I), Ghent.

Musti, D., A. Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa, L. Sportiello, and M.

E. Giannotta, eds. 1991. La transizione dal miceneo all’alto arcaismo: Dal palazzo alla città. Atti del convegno internazionale, Roma, 14–19 marzo, 1988, Rome.

Neeft, C. W. 2012. “Absolute Chronology and Corinthian Pottery,” in La

Sicilia nella età arcaica. Delle apoikiai al 480 A.C., ed. by R. Palvini and L. Sole,

Caltanisseta, pp. 485–496.

Neer, R. T. Style and Politics in Athenian Vase-Painting. The Craft of

Democracy, ca. 530–460 B.C.E., Cambridge and New York.

Newhall, A. 1931. “The Corinthian Kerameikos,” AJA 35, pp. 1–30.

174

Nys, K. 2008. “The Study of Cypriote Iron Age Pottery after the Swedish

Cyprus Expedition: Inflation or Deflation of Gjerstad‟s Legacy?,” in The Swedish

Cyprus Expedition 80 Years. Proceedings of the Symposium in Honour of the Memory of Einar Gjerstad Held in the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities,

Stockholm, 28 September 2007, ed. by P. Åström and K. Nys, Sävedalen, pp. 67–91.

Oakley, J. H. 1988. “Attic Red-Figured Skyphoi of Corinthian Shape,”

Hesperia 57, pp. 165–191.

Osborne, R. 1998. “Early Greek Colonization? The Nature of Greek

Settlement in the West,” in Fisher and van Wees 1998, pp. 251–270.

Papaspyridi-Karouzou, S. 1933–1935. “Ἀναζκαθὴ ηάθοσ ηοῦ Ἄργοσς,”

ArchDelt 15, pp. 16–53.

Payne, H. 1931. Necrocorinthia. A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic

Period, Oxford.

Perlman, P. 2004. “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor: The Economies of Archaic

Eleutherna, Crete.” ClAnt 23, pp. 95–137.

Pieridou, A. 1973. Ὁ Πρωηογεωμεηρικὸς Ρσθμός εν Κύπρῳ, Athens.

Pipili, M. 2009. “Some Observations on the Laconian Droop Cup: Origin and

Influences,” in Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-Modern, ed. W. G.

Cavanagh, C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis, London, pp. 137–142.

Pilz, O and G. Seelentag, eds. 2014. Cultural Practices and Material Culture in Archaic and Classical Crete, Proceedings of the International Conference, Mainz,

May 20–21, 2011, Boston.

Popham, M. P. “The Excavation,” in The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at

Knossos, vol. 1: Text, ed. by M. P. Popham, Oxford, pp. 1–98.

175

Popham, M. P. and H. L. Sackett. 1972–1973. “The Unexplored Mansion at

Knossos: A Preliminary Report on the Excavations from 1967 to 1972,” AR 19, pp.

50–71.

Poulsen, F. 1906. “Eine kretische Mitra,” AM 31, pp. 373–391, pl. XXIII.

Prent, M. 1996–1997. “The Sixth Century B.C. in Crete. The Best Candidate for Being a Dark Age?” Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Gronigen

University), pp. 35–46.

Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults: Continuity and Change from

Late Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 154),

Leiden.

Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook, Chicago and London.

Rizza, G. 1967–1968. “Le terrecotte di Axos,” ASAtene 45–46, pp. 211–302.

Roberts, S. and A. Glock. 1986. “The Stoa Gutter Well a Late Archaic Deposit in the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 55, pp. 1–74.

Rotroff, S. I. 2009. “Early Red-figure in Context,” in Athenian Potters and

Painters, vol. 2, ed. by J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia, Oxford and Oakville.

Rotroff, S. I. and J. H. Oakley. 1992. Debris from a Public Dining Place in the

Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 25), Princeton.

Sackett, L. H., ed. 1992. Knossos. From Greek City to Roman Colony.

Excavations at the Unexplored Mansion 2, 2 vols., (BSA Suppl. 21), London.

Sackett, L. H. et al. 1992. “Introduction,” in Sackett 1992, vol. 1, pp. xi–xiii, vol. 2, pl. vii.

Sackett, L. H. and J. E. Jones. 1992. “Excavation and Architecture,” in Sackett

1992, vol. 1, pp. 1–58, vol. 2, pls. 1–41.

Sallares, R. 1991. The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World. Ithaca.

176

Salles, J.-F. 1983. Kition-Bamboula 2: Les égouts de la ville Classique, Paris.

Salmon, J. B. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 B.C.,

Oxford.

Schaus, G. P. 1985. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at

Cyrene, Libya: Final Reports 2: The East Greek, Island, and Laconian Pottery,

(University Museum Monograph 56) Philadelphia.

Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, 1st ed., Alrburenque.

Schreiber, N. 2003. The Cypro-Phoenician Pottery of the Iron Age, Leiden and Boston.

Shaw, J. W. 2000. “Ritual and Development in the Greek Sanctuary,” in

Kommos IV: The Greek Sanctuary, ed. by J. W. Shaw and M. C. Shaw, Princeton, pp.

669–732.

Sjörgen, L. 2003. Cretan Locations: Discerning Site Variations in Iron Age and Archaic Crete (800–500 B.C.) (BAR-IS 1185), Oxford.

Sjörgen, L. 2008. Fragments of Archaic Crete: Archaeological Studies on

Time and Space (Boreas 31), Upsala.

Skarlatidou, E. 2002. “Una tomba arcaica in Macedonia. Nuovi dati per un riesame della cronologia della ceramica corinzia,” ASAtene 80, pp. 281–307.

Sparkes, B. A. 1991. Greek Pottery. An Introduction. Manchester and New

York.

Stampolidis, N. 1990. “Eleutherna on Crete: An Interim Report on the

Geometric–Archaic Cemetery,” BSA 75, pp. 375–403.

Stampolidis, N. 2003. “A Summary Glance at the Mediterranean in the Early

Iron Age (11th – 6th c. B.C.),” in Sea Routes … from Sidon to Huelva:

177

Interconnections in the Mediterranean, 16th–6th c. B.C., ed. by N. Stampolidis,

Athens, pp. 41–79.

Stefanakis, M. I., W. C. West III, D. C. Haggis, M. S. Mook, R. D. Fitzimons,

M. C. Scarry, and L. M. Snyder. 2007. “Excavations at Azoria, 2003–2004, Part 1:

The Archaic Civic Complex,” Hesperia 76, pp. 243–321.

Steskal, M. 2004. Der Zerstörungsbefund 480/79 der Athener Akropolis: Eine

Fallstudie zum etablierten Chronologiegerüst, Hamburg.

Stibbe, C. M. 1989. Laconian Black-Glazed Pottery 1: Laconian Mixing

Bowls. A History of the Krater Lakonikos from the Seventh to the Fifth Century B.C.

(Allard Pierson Series Scripta Minora 2), Amsterdam.

Stibbe, C. M. 2004. Lakonische Vasenmalerei des sechsten Jahrhunderts v.

Chr., Suppl., Mainz.

Studniczka, F. 1887. “Antenor der Sohn des Eumares und die Geschichte der archaischen Malerei,” JdI 2, pp. 135–168.

Tegou, E. 2001. “Θολωηός ηάθος ηης πρώιμης εποτής ηοσ ΢ιδήροσ ζηην

Πανηάναζζα Ν. Ρεθύμνης,” in Πρακηικά ηοσ ΢σμποζίοσ Κάσζεις ζηην Εποτή ηοσ

Χαλκού και ηην Πρώιμη Εποτή ηοσ ΢ιδήροσ, Ρόδος, 29 Απριλίοσ–2 Μαΐοσ 1999, ed. by N. Ch. Stampolidis, Athens, pp. 121–153.

Talcott, L. 1935. “Attic Black-Glazed Stamped Ware and Other Pottery from a

Fifth Century Well,” Hesperia 4, pp. 476–523.

Talcott, L. 1936. “Vases and Kalos-Names from an Agora Well,” Hesperia 5, pp. 333–354.

Tiverios, M. 1985–1986. “Archaische Keramik aus Sindos,” Makedonika 25, pp. 70–87, pls. 1–2.

178

Tiverios, M. 2016. “Κεραμικὴ ΢ίνδοσ,” in ΢ίνδος ΙΙ: Σο Νεκροηαθείο,

αναζκαθικές έρεσνες 1980–1982, ed. by Ai. Despini, Athens, pp. 15–31.

Tölle-Kastenbein, R. 1983. “Bemerkungen zur absoluten Chronologie spätarchaischer und frühklassischer Denkmäler Athens,” AA 1983, pp. 573–584.

Tsipopoulou, Μ. 2005. Η Αναηολική Κρήηη ζηην Πρώιμη Εποτή ηοσ ΢ιδήροσ,

Athens.

Ure, P. N. 1932. “Droop Cups,” JHS 52, pp. 55–71.

Ure, P.N. 1953. “Droop Cups, Black and Figured,” in Studies Presented to

David Moore Robinson on his Seventieth Birthday 2, ed. by G. E. Mylonas and D.

Raymond, St. Louis, pp. 45–54, pls. 10–14.

Vanderpool, E. 1946. “The Rectangular Rock-Cut Shaft,” Hesperia 15, pp.

265– 336.

Vink, M. C. 1996–1997. “The Archaic Period in Greece: Another Dark Age?”

Caeculus 3 (Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, Gronigen University), pp. 1–18.

Viviers, D. 1994. “La cité de Dattalla et l‟expansion territoriale de Lyktos en

Crète centrale,” BCH 118, pp. 229–259.

Walsh, K. J., J. F. Berger, N. Roberts, B. Vannière, M. Ghilardi, A. Brown, J.

Woodbridge, L. Lespez, J. Estrany, A. Glais, A. Palmisano, M. Finné, G. Verstraeten.

2019. “The Relationship between Holocene Demographic Fluctuations, Climate and

Erosion In the Mediterranean: A Meta-Analysis. The Holocene,” in N. Roberts, R.

Fyfe, S. Shennan, A. Bevan, J. Woodbridge, A. Palmisano. 2019. “The Changing

Face of the Mediterranean: Land Cover, Demography and Environmental Change,”

The Holocene 29 (5), pp. 864–885.

Warren, P. 1984 – 1985. “Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum Excavations,

1978–1982, Part III,” AR 31, pp. 124–129.

179

Watrous, L. V. 1982. Lasithi: A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in

Crete (Hesperia Supp. 18), Princeton.

Watrous, L. V. and H. Blitzer. 1995. “The Gournia Survey Project: A

Preliminary Report of the 1992–1994 Field Seasons,” AJA 99, p. 313 (abstract).

Welwei, K. W. Athen. 1992. Vom neolitischen Siedlungsplatz zur archaischen

Großpolis. Darmstadt.

Whitley, J. 1992–1993. “Praesos,” AR 39, pp. 77–79.

Whitley, J. 1998. “From Minoan to Eteocretans: The Praisos Region, 1200–

1500 B.C.,” in Post-Minoan Crete. Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Post-

Minoan Crete Held by the British School at Athens and the Institute of Archaeology,

University College London, 10–11 November 1995 (BSA Studies 2), ed. by W.G.

Cavanagh, M. Curtis, J. N. Coldstream, and A. W. Johnston, London, pp. 27–39.

Whitley, J. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge.

Whitley, J. 2002–2003. “Archaeology in Greece,” AR 49, pp. 1–88.

Whitley, J., K. O‟Conor, and H. Manson. 1995. “Praisos III: A Report on the

Architectural Survey Undertaken in 1992,” BSA 90, pp. 405–428.

Whitley, J., M. Prent, and S. Thorne. 1999. “Praisos IV: A Preliminary Report on the 1993 and 1994 Survey Seasons,” BSA 94, pp. 215–264.

Willetts, R. F. 1955. Aristocratic Society in Ancient Crete, London.

Villard, F. 1946. “L'évolution des coupes attiques à figures noires (580-480),”

RÉA 48, pp. 162–169.

Wallace, S. Ancient Crete. From Successful Collapse to Democracy’s

Alternatives, Twelfth to Fifth Centuries BC, Cambridge.

180

Yntema, D. 2009. “Material culture and plural identity in early Roman

Southern Italy,” in Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition, ed. by T. Derks and N. Roumans, Amsterdam, pp. 145–166.

Young, G. M. 1937. “Archaeology in Greece, 1936–1937,” JHS 57, pp. 119–

146.

181

FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Crete with major archaeological sites of the Archaic and Classical periods

Figure 2: Azoria. Block Plan.

Figure 3: Map of the Knossos area. Figure 4: Part of the northwestern outskirts of Knossos: the area between Ayios Ioannis (N), Tekke (S) and the Venizeleion (E).

Figure 5: Block plan of the Minoan Unexplored Mansion Figure 6: Site plan showing the sections and trenches of the strata above the Minoan Unexplored Mansion.

Figure 7: Pits and wells with post-Bronze Age material at the site of the Unexplored Mansion Key to Figure 7 Figure 8: Section E through Trench XV

Figure 9: Section F across the Roman street (Trenches V-VIII)

Figure 10: Section C across the Trenches VII-IX-VIII

Figure 11: Kouros head from the Little Palace North excavations.

Figure 12: Marble metope with Herakles and Eurystheus from Knossos.