Pottery, Continuity, and Cult in Late Archaic a N D C La

Home , Gortyn

HESPERIA 7I (2002) A P H RATI AN D Pages4I-90 KATO SYME POTTERY,CONTINUITY, AND CULTIN LATEARCHAIC AN D C LAS S I CA L C RE T E

ABSTRACT

The analysisof ceramicsfrom Aphrati sheds valuable new light on the his- toryofthis Cretansettlement and on its relationshipwith a nearbyrural sanctuaryat Kato Symein the LateArchaic and Classicalperiods. It has long beenheld thatAphrati was desertedfrom ca. 600 to 400 B.C. A potterydeposit fromthe domesticquarter, however, now supportsoccupation of the city duringthis period.A ceramicclassification system is presentedand the morphologicaldevelopment and absolutechronology of severalkey shapes atAphratiand Kato Syme are plotted. Historical implications ofthe ceramic evidenceare also explored.

To date,the mostimpressive finds of the historicalGreek periods from Aphrati,the site of a polisin EastCrete (Fig. 1), consistof gravegoods fromthe Geometric and Orientalizing burial ground excavated by the Ital- iansin the 1920sunder the direction of DoroLevi.1 On thebasis of mag- nificenttomb furnishings, Levi inferredthe existenceof an important 7th-centurysettlement at Aphrati. With few exceptions, none ofthe material fromLevi's excavations commands a datelater than the 7th century. Forthis reason, Levi concluded that Aphrati suffered a majorreversal after ca. 600 s.c.2 Basedon this conclusion,historians have presupposed a majordisruption of cultat the nearby rural sanctuary at Kato Syme com- mensuratewith the presumedbreak in occupationat Aphrati.Didier Viviers,following the preliminaryconclusions of the sanctuary'sexcava- tor,Angeliki Lebessi, notes a progressivediminution of offeringsat the sanctuaryin the courseof the 6th century.Viviers interprets this phe- nomenonas the effectof a widespreadeconomic decline of the area,with

1. Levi 1927-1929,p. 528. the exceptionof a 5th-centuryinscrip- to Hoffmann(1972, pp. 42-44), the 2. Levi 1927-1929,p. 528, followed tion,IC I v 4, whichrecords a dedica- latestexamples of inscribedbronze by Boardman1982, p. 227;Watrous tionmade to Athena.Levi (1927-1929, armorfrom the Aphratihoard, dis- 1982,p. 23; Huxley1994, p. 128.The pp.22, 37) reportsfinding a stray cussedbelow, date to ca.600-575. epigraphicalrecord at Aphratigives Argivesilver coin in the courseof his Viviers(1994, pp. 241-244) briefly littleindication of subsequentactivity excavations,dated by him to the third summarizesthe archaeologicaldis- in the 6th or followingcentury, with quarterof the 5th century.According coveriesat Aphrati.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Hesperia ® www.jstor.org F i ' , 7s I 1 E r I w ts t: 1 -

co o

0 5 10 15 2t) Milas 1) 5 10 15 ZQ tS 3{) Kilometree;

Figure1. Map of Crete.After Talbert 2000, map 60 APHRATI AND KATO SYME 43

particularlysevere repercussions for the sanctuary.3 From Viviers' perspec- tive,the root cause lies in a reorganizationof the territories of Biennosand Dattallain responseto the growthof theirpowerful neighbor, Lyktos. Viviersattributes the supposedabandonment of Aphratito Lyktianag- gression.His reconstructionfurther holds that the sanctuary at KatoSyme fell out of use as a resultof the politicalsubjugation of Biennosand the absorptionof its territoryby Lyktosca. 600 B.C. When andhow this processof territorialexpansion came about, if indeeda "policy"of Lyktianaggression existed in the firstplace, remain mattersof dispute.4The acknowledgeddifficulty of identifyingand accu- ratelydating the post-Minoanceramics from Kato Syme has impeded previousefforts to assessthe developmentof the sanctuaryin theArchaic andClassical periods, and to clarifythe historyof settlementin thispart of Crete.Whether the lacunae in thearchaeological record reflect histori- calreality or a problemof archaeologicalperception is opento question. Specialistsworking at individualsites on Cretehave noted breaks in the ceramicsequence between ca. 600 and 400 B.C., buthave made no effortto assemblethe ceramicevidence from across the islandto forma compre- hensivepicture of localor regionaldevelopments.5 Without established ceramicsequences, all othercategories of archaeologicalevidence lack a chronologicalanchor.6 The presentarticle is intendedto establisha sequenceof shapesand anabsolute chronology for pottery at the sanctuary.The catalogueentries includeall diagnosticexamples from Kato Syme, and can thereforebe regardedas a comprehensivepublication of its LateArchaic and Classical pottery.My presentationof the findsfrom Kato Syme and Aphrati treats thepottery from both sites together in a chronologicalfashion. I proposea regionalmodel of consumptionaccording to whichpotters from Aphrati suppliedthe sanctuaryat KatoSyme with a continuousseries of drinking cupsof a characteristicshape and pale brown fabric between ca. 600 and 400.A domesticdeposit from Aphrati provides an invaluable chronologi- calpoint of referencefor this sharedlocal ceramic tradition. Contrary to the acceptedpicture of Cretandecline, this collection of potterydemon- stratescontinuity of activityat boththe sanctuaryand settlement. I fur- therargue that around 400, Lyktos,a rivalpolis, replaced Aphrati as the

3. Regardingthe fateof the sanctuary territoryto the southcoast of Cretetook Knossosis somethingof an exception;see in the 6th century,Viviers (1994, p. 256) placeat the endof the 3rdcentury. Viviers below,n. 127.Morris (1998, pp. 66-68) concludes:"Le sanctuaire n'est pourtant (1994,pp.252-259), Watrous (1982, discussesthe problemof potteryidentifi- paslaisse a l'abandon."The traditional pp.22-24), andHaggis (1996, pp.415, cation. identificationof the site at Aphratias 419, n. 117) arguethat the processbegan 6. The resultspresented here stem ancientArkades has recently been chal- in the 6th century.Van Effenterre and froma morecomprehensive study (Erick- lengedby Viviers(1994, p. 257),who Gondicas(1999, pp.136-137) examine son 2000) of the islandpottery styles offersthe alternativeidentification of the evidencefor political dependencies ca.60>400 B.C. I limitmy discussion Dattalla. of Lyktos. hereto Aphratiand neighboring sites. 4. Chaniotis(1996, pp. 3-5, 13-16) 5. Kanta's(1991, p.500) summaryof While coinsmight be expectedto provide regardsthe formationof powerfillCre- the currentstate of knowledgeof the Cre- a reliablechronological anchor, most Cre- tancity-states with sizableterritories as tanceramic record deserves repeating: tanpoleis did not beginminting until the a creationof the Hellenisticage. Van <

EXCAVATION AND CONTEXTS

APHRATI Evidencein supportof continuedoccupation at Aphrati comes in theform of a potterydeposit from a housein the domesticquarter of the ancient cityexcavated by the GreekArchaeological Service (Fig. 1). Lebessipro- videsa planof the buildingin the preliminaryreport of herexcavations conductedin 1969.7The house'sdestruction sealed a layerof debrisover theremains of oneof its floors.Among the debriswas recovered a host of intacthigh-necked cups, representatives of a previouslyunknown Classi- cal Cretanceramic tradition. The discoveryof thesecups in association withdatable lamps (85-88), discussed below, places the destruction of the housewithin the narrowchronological limits of ca.425 and400 B.C. The size of this deposit,its remarkablepreservation, and the presenceof un- usuallygood evidence for its datecombine to makeit a potentialcorner- stoneof Cretanchronology in the 5th century.

KATOSYME Excavationsconducted by the GreekArchaeological Service under the directionof Lebessiin 1972discovered on the remotesouthern flanks of Mt. Diktenear the modernvillage of KatoSyme a smallopen-air sanctu- arydedicated jointly in the Hellenisticperiod to Aphroditeand Hermes (Fig.1).8 This identificationis basedupon secure epigraphical sources in conjunctionwith the character of thefinds. The earliest signs of cultactivity at KatoSyme date to the MiddleMinoan IB period.9The sanctuary 7. Lebessi(1973, p. 459, fig.2, experiencedits greatestpopularity during the LateMinoan period, but pl. 402:a-b)briefly describes the the siteretained its sacredcharacter in laterhistorical times. Indeed, Kato contentsof the depositand illustrates Symehoused one of thelongest-lived cults known in the ancientAegean twolamps and a proto-Hadrahydria. world.The findsdocument a periodof uninterruptedactivity across the Preliminarystudy of the findssug- normallyturbulent period of transitionfrom the Late Bronze to theEarly gestedto her(p. 460) a 5th-century datefor the deposit.Prior evidence for IronAge. The Late Archaic and Classical periods present the last remaining occupationbetween ca. 600 andthe obstacleto documentingfilll continuity at this Cretan cult center. late-5th-centurydomestic deposit is The physicallayout of the sanctuaryin the historicalGreek periods discussedbelow, n. 17. consistedof a seriesof terracesthat followed the naturalcontours of the 8. The successivearchaeological hill.Theseterraces, in turn,supported an extensive open-air platform higher campaigns,and their preliminary upthe hill, equipped with a centralaltar and a largehearth. The sanctuary results,are summarized by Lebessi (1985). also includedsubsidiary buildings of uncertainfunction. The mainfo- 9. Watrous(2001, pp. 217-218) cus of cultconcerned sacrificial offerings and the ritualconsumption of surveysthe earlyhistory of the foodand drink. These activities have left the most substantial traces in the sanctuary. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 45

materialrecord in the formof enormousdeposits of burntearth mixed withbroken pottery and sacrificial debris. Stratified Late Minoan deposits werefound at the deepestlevels. The thinnerstrata above consisted of disturbedfill, an indiscriminatemixture of Minoanpottery with an as- sortmentof Geometric,Archaic, and later material. A lamentablelack of "clean"deposits of homogeneousfill fromthe historicalperiods poses a specialproblem for the studyof thepost-Minoan phases of the sanctuary. Amongthe most spectacular finds from the sanctuary in thehistorical periodsare a largecollection of EarlyIron Age zoomorphicbronze figu- rinesand a richseries of Orientalizingbronze cutout plaques. The bronze cutoutplaques have generated considerable interest among art historians becauseof theirfine execution,lively style, and range of subjectmatter. Theydepict the principaldeities of the sanctuaryor humanworshippers bearinganimals intended for sacrifice.A 7th-centurydate has been as- signedto themajority of theseDaedalic plaques on stylisticgrounds. Pro- ductionis thoughtto havesubsided in the firstquarter of the 6th century. Forthe remainderof the 6th century,the archaeologicalrecord indicates analmost total absence of metalartifacts. Fifth-century bronzes from the sanctuaryremain equally elusive.l°

THE POTTERY

The magnificenceof thesemetal objects from the sanctuary has overshad- owedstudy and publication of the pottery.This is unfortunate,since the ceramicevidence has the potentialto correctthe impressionof declining activityor evenabandonment of the sanctuarybetween 600 and400 B.C., an impressiongenerated principally by the ebband flow of metalofferings.My studyof the black-glosspottery from Kato Syme is the firstef- fortof its kindto recognizelocal ceramics of LateArchaic and Classical date,either from the sanctuary or from this region of Crete.llThe pottery fromKato Syme, if the equationwith a productioncenter at Aphratiis correct,affords a substantiallyfuller glimpse of theseperiods of ceramic developmentthan that provided by anydiscoveries made until now at the presumedcenter of productionat Aphrati.

10. Forthe figurinesfrom the centurybronze plaque (Lebessi 1974, debris.These upper levels contained a sanctuary,see Schurmann1996. For p. 197,pl. 185:a);and a 5th-century mixtureof Minoanand later pottery. I the cutoutplaques, see Lebessi1985. terracottaplaque (Lebessi 1977, p. 325, examinedall savedfine ware recovered PublishedLate Archaic and Classical pl. 257:c). duringthese two years of excavation.In votivesfrom the sanctuaryinclude a 11.The potteryfrom Kato Syme is addition,I selectivelysurveyed pottery 6th-centuryinscribed bronze handle housedat the HerakleionArchaeologi- fromsubsequent years of excavation, (Lebessi1975b, p. 191,pl. 193:c);a calMuseum. My studyconcentrates concentratingon boxesof previously 6th-centurybronze figurine of a goat upona representativesample. The ex- sortedpost-Minoan pottery. I wasfor- (Lebessi1977, p. 325,pl. 256:b);a cavationsof 1972and 1973 proved to tunateto haveAthanasia Kanta as my bronzefigurine of a youthwith an be the mostfruitfill years for the study guidein the storeroomsof the Hera- inscribedbase dated to the second of the post-Minoanperiods, since these kleionMuseum, increasing my debtto quarterof the 5th century(Lebessi initialcampaigns dealt with the re- herimmeasurably. 1990,p. 276, pls. 133:b,134:a); a 5th- movalof the upperlevels of sacrificial 46 BRICE L. ERICKSON

FABRICANALYSIS AND PROVENIENCE Potteryspecialists working on Cretehave noted that ceramics vary con- siderablyeven between neighboring sites.l2 Consideration of fabrictexture,hardness, inclusions, slip, gloss, and other variables assists archaeolo- gistsin determiningfabric and ware groups.The consistency offabric color in anassemblage is alsorelevant in attemptingto differentiatefabrics and attributeundecorated pottery to its source.l3The colorof the fabricmay varyas a resultof theutilization of differentclay sources, differences in the preparationand the firingof the clay,or a combinationof thesefactors.l4 Furthermore,it is widelyrecognized that variations in fabriccolor may be dueto postdepositionalconditions unrelated to differencesin theoriginal materialor variationin firing.For these reasons, the valueof coloras a meansof characterizingfabrics has occasionallybeen questioned.The emphasishere upon color as a meansof distinguishingCretan fabrics and proposedproduction zones therefore requires explanation. As partof my programof dissertationresearch, I had the opportunityto examinelarge quantitiesof unpublishedLate Archaic and Classical pottery from sites all overCrete, enabling me to identifyten regional production centers. In my estimation,fabric color varies considerably from one site to thenext, even, somewhatsurprisingly, in the caseof neighboringsites. Personal experi- encehas led me to considercolor, alongside fabric texture, hardness, slip, 12. See Coldstream1973b, pp. 46- andgloss, as an importantfactor in differentiatingCretan fabrics on a 47. macroscopiclevel. My hypothesizedware groups and source attributions, 13. Complicationsarise in tryingto however,will needto be testedagainst evidence from future fieldwork, determinethe exactplace of manufac- ceramicpetrography, and surveys of claysources. tureon the basisof fabricalone. Recognitionof a "local"fabric need not The characteristicfabric of the LateArchaic and Classical pottery at implythe exclusivemanufacture of KatoSyme consists of a fineclay of a somewhatchalky consistency fired potteryat a singlesite. Arnold (1985, to a verypale brown color (Munsell lOYR 8/3).15 The resemblanceof this pp.58-59) argueson the basisof fabricto Corinthianfabric is oftenclose. A poordull gloss, black or occa- ethnographicevidence that neighboring sionallystreaky brown and prone to flaking,is anotherdistinguishing fea- communitiesas muchas 12 to 18 km tureof this group.The potteryexhibits a remarkabledegree of internal apartmight exploit overlapping re- sourceareas, including common clay consistencywith respect to fabrictexture, hardness, color, and gloss. There beds,thereby increasing the likelihood arereasons for thinking that the pottery used at Kato Syme was not manu- of a singleregional fabric. facturedat the sanctuary.Local manufacture of potteryseems somewhat 14. Sinopoli1991, pp. 12-13; unlikely,given the remotelocation of the sanctuaryand the absenceof Orton,Tyers, and Vince 1993, pp. 132- excavatedkilns, kiln wasters, or othersigns of ceramicproduction such as 138. 15.This fabriccontains very few potterywheels. While negative evidence of thiskind is hardlydecisive- inclusionsvisible to the nakedeye. It is and thus the sanctuaryremains a possiblecandidate for production- relativelysoft andpowdery. The color stylisticconsiderations discussed below suggest another possibility. occasionallyborders on reddishyellow A morelikely scenario posits a productioncenter at a nearbysettle- (Munsell7.5YR 7/6). mentas the supplier of potteryto the sanctuary.Aphrati and Pyrgos stand 16. Eiring(2000, p. 54) character- izes the Hellenisticfabric of Pyrgosas out as the two mostpromising candidates for the placeof manufacture "soft,powdery, and very pale." Another on the basisof reportedfabric color and consistency.l6 Both siteslie in obviouscandidate on the basisof geo- closeproximity to KatoSyme (Fig. 1), which suggests that a palebrown graphicproximity to the sanctuaryis fabricwas characteristic of the region.Fabric color thus has its limitsin the ancientpolis Biennos. The standard revealingexact provenance, even under apparently favorable conditions. palebrown fabric at KatoSyme seems Of thetwo suggested places of manufacture,Aphrati seems the more likely. to be identicalin everyrespect to the predominatefabric of a seriesof re- Whilethe Graeco-Romansettlement at Pyrgosremains unexcavated and markablepolychrome vessels from Late its ceramictradition poorly understood, at Aphratia discerniblelocal Orientalizingtombs at Aphrati;see traditionexists which, although once thought to haveconsisted solely of Levi1927-1929, pp. 530-532. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 47

the materialfrom the Geometricand Orientalizingtombs, is now un- derstoodto haveincluded a thin representationof 6th-centuryresidual material.This materialderives from a buildingsoutheast of the acropolis excavatedby Lebessi.l7 In addition,the later domestic deposit from Aphrati, mentioned above, documentsproduction of high-neckeddrinking cups in the finalquarter ofthe 5thcentury. These cups exhibit an identical form and fabric to those of contemporarypottery from Kato Syme. Peculiarities of thisstyle, most prominentlythe penannular ring underfoot, are found in thelocal fabric at virtuallyno otherCretan site. The availableevidence points to Aphratias the sourceof the palebrown pottery at KatoSyme, although naturally Pyrgoscannot be wholly excluded as an alternative source of votives. More- over,the possibilitycannot be ruledout thatBiennos or anotheras yet unexcavatedsite will produce pottery of closelysimilar style to thatof the sanctuary.A decisive conclusion must await further exploration of thearea andgreater understanding of the localpottery styles. Aphratimust have been the site of animportant Classical polis, alter- nativelyidentified either as Arkades or Dattalla.l8 I suggest, on the grounds of a commonfabric and the exact correspondence of forms, that Aphrati is likelyto havebeen the supplier of potteryfor the nearby sanctuary through- outthe Late Archaic and Early Classical periods. A settlementwith a long traditionof potterymanufacture is a moreprobable source of production thana remotemountain sanctuary. If it is the casethat pottery production tookplace at KatoSyme, then the observed similarity between the sanctu- arystyle and that of the settlementwould raise the possibility that potters eitherfrom Aphrati or trained in thelocal school worked at the sanctuary. The modelof consumptionadvanced here remains tentative pending fu- tureefforts to defineclay and inclusion sources, kiln sites, and spatial and temporaldistinctions. It is evenconceivable, however unlikely, that Kato Symesupplied pottery to the settlement. Around400, or shortly thereafter (the chronology is discussedbelow), the predominantpale brown fabric at the sanctuaryabruptly gave way to a new one,of an entirelydifferent character and presumably a different origin.Replacing the pale brown fabric at the sanctuaryis onewith silver micaand a darkreddish-brown hue (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6 to 5YR5/4). The primarydistinguishing feature ofthis newfabric is its extremecoarseness, whichmakes it a rarityamong the ClassicalCretan fabrics employed in theproduction of drinkingcups and other fine-ware shapes.l9 As a general rule,gritty fabric is moretypical of cookingand coarse wares. Evidently

17. In the preliminaryreports of her wasdiscovered near Aphrati at Orthi thatpotters choose different clays or excavations,Lebessi (1970, p. 416, Petra;see Lebessi1983. temperingmaterials in the manufacture fig. 1, pls.425-426; 1973, pp. 457, 459, 18. See above,n. 3. of vesselsintended for different pur- figs.1-2) describesthe discoveryof a 19.A multiplicityof fabricsat a sin- poses.Yet at KatoSyme there is no largequadrangular building southeast of gle site canbe interpretedin various indicationthat functional categories of the acropolishill, a buildingthat she ways.A varietyof fabricsis a conceiv- potteryplayed a determiningrole in the interpretsas a shrine.The reportsmen- ableoutcome of a productioncenter characterof the fabric.Gritty reddish- tionvolumes of Geometricand Orien- whoseoutput included a rangeof brownfabric suddenly became the pre- talizingfinds along with a scatterof 6th- coarse,cooking, and fine-ware shapes; ferredfabric for thewhole range of centurymaterial. I havenot seenthe see Stissi1999, p. 87. Plog (1980, Cretanshapes at the sanctuary,as typical potteryfrom this building. In addition, pp. 86-88) examinesethnographic of largecoarse basins as of the finest a tombof presumed6th-century date evidencein supportof the conclusion drinkingcups. 48 BRICE L. ERICKSON this new fabricwas incapableof takinga fine coloredslip. A fabricof apparentlythe samecharacteristics distinguishes Lyktos from all other Cretanproduction centers (Fig. 1). A coarsereddish-brown fabric with silvermica may well be a signaturetrait of Lyktianfine-ware production duringthe Classicaland Early Hellenistic periods. The siteof Lyktosre- mainslargely unexplored, although a seriesof campaignsundertaken by the GreekArchaeological Service has brought to lightHellenistic phases of occupation.20The materialfrom these excavations derives from a de- structiondeposit dated to the 3rdcentury B.C., a findplausibly connected witha documenteddestruction of Lyktosat the conclusion of theLyktian 20. See Platon1952, p.480; 1957, Warin 221.After examining this material, I concluded that the 4th-cen- p.336;Alexiou 1969, p.539. Lebessi turypottery from Kato Syme issues from the samesource as the later (1975a,pp.494-496, pls.512-513) Lyktianwares.21 Yet this identification cannot be confirmedby exactcor- reportsthe discoveryof Archaicpithoi respondencebetween ceramic forms from one siteto the next,since the in a Hellenisticdestruction level. The ceramicrecord at Lyktos remains a blankduring much ofthe 6th,5th, and excavatednecropolis of Lyktoshas yieldedlocal and Attic pottery dated to 4th centuries.Lyktos provides yet anotherexample of the needto clarify the secondhalf of the 4th century;see the localfabrics and potterystyles of the ClassicalCretan production Lebessi1980, p. 886,pl. 661. Forim- centers. portedHellenistic black-gloss pottery While the vastmajority of the LateArchaic and Classicalpottery fromLyktos, see Englezou2000. fromKato Syme falls neatly under the general rubric of eitherpale brown 21. I extendmy profoundthanks orgritty reddish-brown fabric, notable exceptions occur, as in thecase of a to MariaEnglezou of the Herakleion ArchaeologicalMuseum for permitting smallcup characterized by a hemisphericalbowl and a shortupright rim me to examinethe Hellenisticmaterial (110),a commonCretan type that can be datedto ca.500-480.22 Another fromLyktos. She agreeswith my exceptionis a cupbase with a splayedpedestal stand (109), whose pro- identificationof Lyktosas the probable poseddate of ca.425-400 rests upon general stylistic grounds and specific sourceof the 4th-centurypottery from parallelswith cups from Gortyn. The finepale red fabric (Munsell 2.5YR KatoSyme. Here, reassuringly, we have the publishedobservations of another 6/8) seenin bothexamples suggests that they are Gortynian imports.23 pairof scholarswho independently The cupbase is coatedwith a lustrousblack gloss of uncommonlyhigh reachedthe sameconclusion that gritty quality,another characteristic of Gortynianproduction in the Classical redfabric is a hallmarkof Lyktian period. fine-wareproduction. Regarding the fabricof the potteryfrom the Hellenis- tic contextat Lyktos,Callaghan and SIXTH_CENTURYPOTTERY (1-27) Jones(1985, pp.14-15) remark,"the provincialityof its localceramic in- OINOCHOE(1) dustryis quiteclear. The vastmajority of its 'black-glazed'shapes are made of Mypresentation ofthe findsfrom Aphrati and Kato Syme follows a chro- a redgritty clay and are covered with a nologicalarrangement (proceeding from closed to openshapes, large to thindull wash. Some shapes, which small,within each period). I postponea detaileddiscussion of thecontents wouldhave been glazed at Knossos,are of the5th-century domestic deposit at Aphrati until the appropriate place left plain." in the chronologicalsequence. An oinochoefrom this deposit(Fig. 2) is 22. Unpublishedexamples from Knossos,deposit RR:H (see Cold- treatedhere because it suggestsa 6th-centurydate on the basisof style. stream1973b), provide a dateof Thishigh-necked, broad-bottomed oinochoe is decoratedwith a separate ca.500-480 forthe type. tonguepattern on the shoulderand bottom. A 7th-centuryCorinthian 23. My reasonsfor ascribingthis prototypelies behind the production of thisunusual Cretan shape. lightred fabric to a separateCretan Aphratiseems to havespecialized in copiesof Corinthianjugs, to productioncenter at Gortynare dis- judgefrom numerous examples of localmanufacture from the 7th-century cussedmore fully in Erickson,in press. 24. Levi(1927-1929, p.220, cemetery.24The oinochoefrom the domesticdeposit differs from these fig.247) illustratesan examplefrom earlierexamples in tworespects. First, the decoration exhibits an apparent his excavationsof the Orientalizing simplificationof the 7th-centuryscheme. Most notable in thisrespect is cemeteryat Aphrati. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 49

Figure2. Oinochoe. Scaleca. 1:2

the tonguepattern, a secondarymotif of 7th-centurypotters, which now occupiesthe entireshoulder of theoinochoe. In contrast,7th-century pot paintersfrom Aphrati favor narrow zones of decorationcomposed of smaller elements.Second, the base or stand indicated by the broken protrusion at the bottomof thejug probablyreflects a 6th-centurydevelopment, since thisfeature is absentfrom 7th-century jugs. The lackof anythingresem- blinga seriesof 7th-or 6th-century jugs ofthis type complicates any attempt to datethis vessel. All in all,the differencesboth in formand decoration betweenthis oinochoe and its 7th-centurypredecessors are relatively mi- nor,so I amreluctant to accepta datefor it laterthan the firsthalf of the 6th century.

1 Oinochoe,body Fig.2 9.4 cm. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Decoratedwith a separatetongue Aphrati.1969.A5. High-necked, patternalong the shoulderand bottom. broad-bottomedoinochoe. Fragmen- Firsthalf of the 6th century(?). taryneck and base. Diam. (max.)

CUPS,DEEP AND SHALLOW VARIETIES (2-8) The 6th-centuryceramic repertoire at the sanctuaryconsists chiefly of cups,of whichthree types predominate. The firsttwo types (Fig. 3) signal the strengthof an independentlocal tradition, while the thirdcategory manifestsdirect borrowing from a mainlandGreek source. The firsttype of cupis composedof a broadbowl with a wideopening at the mouth, whoseshort inset rim either flares or is outturned(2-6). The convex shoul- 25. See Boardmanand Hayes 1973, derof preservedexamples recommends reconstructing the cupas a deep pp.37-38,no.2104,fig. 16,pl.20, shape.A secondvariety of cup,of equalancestry at the sanctuary,exhibits ca.575-550 B.C. a differentprofile defined by a narrowershoulder, depressed bodily pro- 26. See Boardmanand Hayes 1966, portions,and a hemisphericalbowl (7-8). This cupis likewiseequipped p.78. witha shortoutturned rim. 27. I owea debtof gratitudeto NikolaosStampolidis, the directorof The datingof thesetwo types of cup,both the deepand the shallow the excavationsof the Universityof varieties,depends upon parallels with material from better-dated contexts Creteat OrthiPetra, for invitingme to elsewhereon Crete,at Knossosand Eleutherna, or fromthe Greekover- studythe unpublishedLate Archaic seascolony atTocra, Libya. One-handled Cretan mugs from Tocra exhibit andClassical finds from his excavations a similarprofile to the deeperof the two sanctuaryshapes.25 Since a re- (Eleutherna,Tomeas III). The 6th- portedlypale brown fabric is characteristicof the centurydate for the parallelis based exportsfrom Tocra, a uponsecure stratified deposits whose sharedsource with the supplier of thesanctuary at KatoSyme is a distinct contentsinclude datable imported possibility.26A cup of similarconception to the deepervariety from Kato Laconianpottery. Symewas producedlocally at Eleuthernain the 6th century,27and a 5o BRICE L. ERICKSON similartype of cupappears at Knossosby the end of the6th century.28 The evidencesuggests a progressionin the6th centuryfrom a cupwith a high flaringrim to a shortone, either everted or upright,with hemispherical bodilyproportions eventually giving way to a deeper,more voluminous form.It seemsclear, judging from the streamlinedproportions of a de- scendantof the cupat KatoSyme (6), that this class felt a laterinfluence fromthe repertoireof the ClassicalKnossian low-necked cup or another similarsource on its development.29 The second type of cupat Kato Syme the shallowvariety with a hemisphericalbowl (7, 8) is datableby refer- enceto cupsin late-7th-or early-6th-centurydeposits from Eleutherna.

2 ) ( 5 )

3 ) 7 ? 6 ) | ( (,

4 ) I ( 8 > Figure3. Cup rims. Scale1:3

2 Deep cup,rim and Fig. 3 6 Deep cup,rim and Fig.3 shoulder shoulder KatoSyme (1977). Level 1, Kato Syme (1972). Level2, OM87. Diam. (rim) 13.1 cm. Pale OM5. Diam. (rim) 11.0 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 6th brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 5th century. century.

3 Deep cup,rimand Fig. 3 7 Hemisphericalcup,rim Fig. 3 shoulder and shoulder Kato Syme (1972). Level2, KatoSyme (1972). Level 4, OM5. Diam. (rim) 13.0 cm. Pale OM67. Diam. (rim) 11.4 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 6th brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 6th century. century.

4 Deepcup,rim and Fig.3 8 Hemisphericalcup,rimFig. 3 28. The Knossiancup comes from shoulder andshoulder an unpublishedClassical well deposit KatoSyme (1972). Level 11, KatoSyme (1972). Level 6, fromthe StratigraphicalMuseum OM21.Diam. (rim) 11.6 cm. Pale OM17.Diam 11.3 cm, of rim11.1 Excavations(J/JN7.4987). On typo- brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. 6th cm.Pale brown (1OYR 8/3). Black logicalgrounds, it ranksamong the century. gloss.6th century. earliestpottery from the well.I am gratefulto PeterWarren for permission to mentionunpublished finds from his 5 Deep cup,rim and Fig. 3 recentexcavations and for giving so shoulder generouslyof his time. KatoSyme (1977). Level 2, 29. The "Shrineof Glaukos"at OM35. Diam. (rim) 11.2 cm. Pale Knossosprovides the closestparallels brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 6th forthis shape;see Callaghan1978, century. pp.6-7, nos. 10-12, fig. 5, pl. 2. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 5I

CUPS, KOTYLAI(9-18) Thethird major variety of drinkingcup at the sanctuary in the6th century is a deepshape whose walls define a simplecontinuous curve that runs frombase to rim(9). This local cup is closelymodeled upon the form of a Corinthiandrinking cup, the kotyle. An apparentMiddle Corinthian pro- totypehelps pinpoint the dateof an intactexample to ca. 575-550.3° The baseof thislocal cup has a distinctiveprofile underfoot formed by a verticalinset underneath where the flaring stand meets the bottom wall of the base.This unusualtreatment of the foot resultsin a mirrorimage of the standard6th-century"stepped" profile underfoot (see below). A large groupof identicalbases (Figs. 4-5) indicatesextensive production of the cupin the middleand second half of the 6th century,provided that the dateof thefragments lies near that of the intactcup (1F18). Thesebases showlittle uniformity in size,a factorthat suggests a fieldof production encompassingcups, large and small, and jugs. This type of baseis encoun- teredelsewhere on Cretein thelocal fabric of Praisos.31 One of the basesfrom Kato Syme (18) bearspainted decoration in the formof a rowof dotsin a reservedband on the outsideedge of the foot.The rarityof painteddecoration, figural or otherwise,in the Cretan repertoireof 600-400 attractsattention to this particularexample. Its decorationrepresents an apparentsimplification of the pictorialtradition of the OrientalizingCretan pot painters,whose other 6th-century works includeCretan exports at Tocraand Cyrenedecorated with simplified spiraland floral ornaments.32 Since Aphrati was the seat of a majorOrien- talizingvase-painting tradition, the existenceof 6th-centurypainted dec- orationat KatoSyme, even in a debasedform, strengthens the proposed connectionbetween Aphrati and the sanctuary.

9 Cup Figs.4-5 12 Cup,base Fig.4 KatoSyme (1974). Level 11, KatoSyme (1973). Level 1, orth.Delta, no.21107. H.8.2 cm; OM167. Diam. (base)6.1 cm. Pale Diam.13.0 cm, of rim 12.8 cm, of brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. base 6.7 cm. Palebrown (7.5YR 5/4 Middle or secondhalf of the 6th 30. Forthe Corinthianshape, see to 10YR 6/3). Blackgloss. Close copy century. Payne1931, p.241. Amyx(1988, of Middle Corinthiankotyle. pp.48-67) discussesabsolute dating Ca.575-550. 13 Cup,base Fig.4 of MiddleCorinthian pottery. KatoSyme (1974). Level 5, 10 Cup,base Fig.4 31.The basefrom the Praisos OM33. Diam. (base)6.8 cm. Pale survey(1994, Site 506.3)remains KatoSyme (1972). Level 15, brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. unpublished.Whitley, Prent, and OMl9. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. Pale Middle or secondhalf of the 6th Thorne(1999) provide a preliminary brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. century. My thanks reportof the surveyresults. Middle or secondhalf of the 6th go to JamesWhitley for permission to 14 Cup,base . . . century. mentlont l1S pleCe. KatoSyme (1975). Level 12, 32. See Boardmanand Hayes 1966, 11 Cup,base Fig.4 Fig.4 pp. 77-80, nos.921-931, pls.55-56; OM50. Diam. (base)7.5 cm. Pale 1973,pp.36-38, nos.2101-2108, KatoSyme (1973). Level 5, brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. pl.20. The sameCretan source has OM30D. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. Pale Middle or secondhalf of the 6th beenposited for the exported6th- brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. century. centuryCretan pottery from Cyrene, Middle or secondhalf of the 6th Libya;see Schaus1985, p. 10. century. 52 BRICE L. ERICKSON

13; 1 (

129 ! ( 15 > + <

17 > ] t 1s g Figure4. Kotylai.Scale 1:3

18 15

Figure5. Kotylai

15 Cup,base Figs. 4-5 brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Middle or secondhalf of the 6th KatoSyme (1973). Level 7, orth. century. Epsilon.Diam. (base)6.0 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 18 Jug,base and lower Figs. 4-5 Middle or secondhalf of the 6th body century. KatoSyme (1975). Level 3, 16 Cup,base OM-AB. Diam. (base)12.1 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. KatoSyme (1974). Level 11, Decoratedwith dots alongreserved orth.Delta. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. outeredge. Middle or secondhalf of Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. the 6th century. Middle or secondhalf of the 6th century.

17 Jug,base Fig.4 KatoSyme (1973). Level 6, OM110.Diam. (base) 12.5 cm. Pale APHRATI AND KATO SYME 53

CUPS, BASE WITH STEPPED PROFILE UNDERFOOT(19-27) A relatedtype of 6th-centurybase, mentioned in passingabove, consists of a diskfoot with a "stepped"profile underfoot formed by a verticalinset wherethe rootof the flaringfoot meetsa projectingconcentric disk, or "medallion,"below (Figs. 6-7). While the steppedfoot boastsof a long traditionon Cretebeginning in the 7th century,an articulateddisk foot witha pronouncededge and a steppedprofile underfoot is a combination of featuresthat suggests a moreadvanced stage in the developmentof the Cretancup base. At Knossos,P. J. Callaghanhas tentativelydated this typeto ca.525-500 B.C.33 On presentevidence, it is notpossible to distin- guishOrientalizing cup bases of thistype from possible 6th-century de- scendantsmanufactured before ca. 525, assumingthat production of the basecontinued during the firsthalf of the 6th century.While itselfof uncertaindate, the Knossianparallel provides an approximateguide for the datingof the localbase at KatoSyme. Unfortunately, no intactex- ampleof the cupor differenttypes of cupto whichthese bases belonged survives,either at Knossosor elsewhereon Crete.Even so, mainlandin- spirationin the cup'sdesign can be inferredfrom the similarityof these basesand the relatedtype from Kato Syme of demonstrableCorinthian origin(9), discussed above.

I 19 9 g 23 >_1 (

20 >-| g 24 >-1 q

21 ^-1 q 25 = ] g

22 _ | ( 26 >- > (

Figure6 Cupbases Scale13 27 ; | 4

19 Cup,base Fi}g. 6 brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. Secondhalf of the 6th century. KatoSyme (1972). Level 8, OM46.Diam. (base) 5.0 cm.Pale 22 Cup,base Fig. 6 brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Secondhalf of the 6thcentury. KatoSyme (1973). Level 3, orth. 1, OM201. I:)iam.(base) 7.4 cm. Pale 20 Cup,base Fi}g. 6 brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. Secondhalf of the 6th century. KatoSyme (1972). Level 15, 7.0 cm.Pale OM19.Diam. (base) 23 Cup,base Figs. 6-7 brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Secondhalf of the 6th century. KatoSyme (1977). Level 10, OM231. Diam. (base)6.4 cm. Pale 21 Cup,base Figs.(6-7 brown ( 1OYR 8/3 ) . Black glo s s . face.Second KatoSyme (1974). Level 10, Reservedband on outer half of the 6th century. 33. Callaghan1992, p. 92. OM42.Diam. (base) 6.7 cm.Pale 54 BRICE L. ERICKSON

24 26 Figure7. Cup bases

24 Cup,base Figs.6-7 26 Cup,base Figs.6-7 KatoSyme (1972). Level 18, KatoSyme (1973). Level 2, OM107.Diam. (base) 7.7 cm.Pale OM16.Diam. (base) 6.5 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Secondhalf of the 6thcentury. Secondhalf of the 6th century.

25 Cup,base Figs.6-7 27 Cup,base Fig. 6 KatoSyme (1973). Level 5, KatoSyme (1973). Level 8, OM129. Diam. (base)6.3 cm. Pale OM13. Diam. (base)7.2 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Secondhalf of the 6th century. Secondhalf of the 6th century.

FIFTH-CENTURYPOTTERY (28-81) Knowledgeof the 5th-centuryceramic record at KatoSyme relies to a greatextent upon the fragmentary evidence of cupand jug bases. With the exceptionof a singlegroup of intactClassical high-necked cups from the domesticdeposit at Aphrati, fragmentary bases from Kato Syme form the sole basisfor plottingthe morphologicaldevelopment of a sharedlocal sequenceduring the 5th century.Fortunately, connections with Knossos expressthemselves in clearways in thelocal repertoire, a factor that facili- tatesa chronologicalarrangement of the material and helps in establishing absolutedates for the sequence. This method of datingassumes that Crete possessedthe meansof communicationnecessary to ensurethe swiftand steadypromulgation of newstyles, at leastamong major production centers.Whether innovations were disseminated first from Knossos, Aphrati, orsome other prominent center is anopen question. The influence of new stylesmay have taken longer to reachperipheral areas. Distance and geog- raphypresumably impeded the diffusionof new ceramicstyles into re- moteareas, or in extremecases developments may have completely by- passedconservative communities. Against these uncertainties, the domestic depositfrom Aphrati provides independent chronological evidence for the datingof thelocal sequence around 400.

JUGS(28-38) Somelocal bases of a distinctlydifferent form and uniformly larger size than the remainingexamples of cup basesfrom the sanctuarydeserve APHRATI AND KATO SYME ss

specialcomment (Figs. 8-9). This category of baseranks among the most distinctivecreations ofthe indigenous potters. No exactparallels are known to me,although a comparableseries of largebases has been recovered from surfacesurvey in the neighboringVrokastro and Gournia regions, east of KatoSyme.The fabric is intrinsicallydifferent from that ofthe KatoSyme bases,however, suggesting a separateproduction center.34 Thelarge bases from Kato Syme have a uniformdiameter of approxi- mately9 cm,representing an increasein size of roughly50 percentover the standardcup varieties. A flaringfoot with a pedestalstand forms the usualmeans of support.These larger bases probably belong to a seriesof generouslyproportioned cups or jugs, although the absenceof intactex- amplesat KatoSyme makes an exactdetermination of the shapeimpos- sible.35If theiridentification as the supports of largecups is valid,a simple deepshape, along the lines of anAttic skyphos or Corinthiankotyle, is a preferablereconstruction given the preserved curvature of thelower body. It shouldbe noted,however, that an intacttrefoil-mouthed jug froma 5th-centurydeposit at Aphrati(37) possessesa baseof similarsize and profileto oneof thefragmentary examples from the sanctuary (34).36 This comparisonsuggests that at leastone of the basesfrom Kato Syme be- longedto a jug. The difficultyof determininga clearline of developmentfor this seriesof basesis matchedby the problem of ascertainingthe absolute chro- nologyof thesequence. With no independentlydated archaeological con- textsto shedlight on thematter, and few exact parallels with other Cretan basesto serveas a guide,the datingremains tentative and subject to revi- sionpending future discoveries. What may be theearliest examples of this type(e.g., 28) sharea featurein commonwith a groupof standardcup basesmanufactured in the middleand second half of the 6th centuryun- derheavy Corinthian influence (9-18). Both typesexhibit a distinctive profileunderfoot formed by a sharpvertical inset where the rootof the flaringfoot meetsthe bottomwall of the base.This peculiartreatment, discussedin greaterdetail above, creates a reverseimpression of the stan- dard6th-century stepped profile. If this comparisonis valid,it suggests thatthe oversizedcup or jug was first conceived in the middleof the 6th centuryas a largeroffshoot of the maingroup.37

34. Cretanblack-gloss pottery from resultsof the Gourniasurvey. Lebessi(1983, p. 342) andOrlandos surveysof the Vrokastroand Gournia 35. None of the largebases from (1976,pp. 196-197)report the dis- regions,an areaof Creteencompassing KatoSyme preserves gloss on the coveryof a trefoil-mouthedjug from the ancientterritories of Hierapytna, interior.This wouldsuggest a recon- a 6th-centurytomb in the areaof Istron,and Oleros, remains unpub- structionof thesebases as the supports Aphrati.It suggestslonger-lived local lished.Thanks to the kindnessof the of jugs,although most examples are productionof the shapethan otherwise directorsof theseprojects, Barbara probablytoo heavilyworn to preserve indicated. Haydenand L. V.Watrous respectively, gloss. 37.The conclusionthat the "over- I wasgranted permission to examine 36.The bestparallels for thisjug sized"cup or jug beganas a variantof thisbody of material.Preliminary comefrom the Orientalizingcemetery the standardgroup is hardlysurprising, reportsof the VrokastroSurvey appear at Aphrati;see Levi1927-1929, sinceexamples of the "standard"group in Hayden,Moody, and Rackham pp. 190,406, figs.210, 525.A splaying in realityshow little uniformity in size, 1992;Hayden 1997. Watrous and pedestalbase distinguishes the 5th- the maximumdiameter of the base Blitzer(1995) discuss the preliminary centuryjug fromearlier examples. rangingfrom approximately 6 to 13 cm. 56 BRICE L. ERICKSON

The maindevelopmental tendency of the basein the secondhalf of the 6th andthe 5th centuryinvolves a proposedshift toward a lessbroad foot,with a higherstand and greater extension of theouter edge. One jug base(32) bears a resemblanceto the basesof skyphoiproduced in Attic workshopsca. 500 B.C.; thiscomparison offers welcome confirmation of a LateArchaic date, inferred on the basisof thevessel's position within an internalstylistic sequence.38Around themiddle ofthe 5th century, or shortly thereafter,the localpotters achieved a fullerintegration of the baseand standby dispensingwith the "stepped"profile underfoot and equipping the basewith a newwedge-shaped stand that makes a lessabrupt transi- tionwith the belly (33-35). Influence from the local repertoire of standard cupbases may be responsiblefor these changes. Finally, toward the end of the 5th century,a baseless broadwith a substantiallyhigher foot, fully pedestalin form,appears (38).

288-1 ( 33 > 0

29 > ] 9 34 ffi ] X

30; 1 0 35 ; 4

32 s- 4

38 )-1 < Figure8.Jugbases. Scale 1:3

28 Jug,base Fig.>-8 32 Jug,base Fig.8 KatoSyme (1977). Level 10, KatoSyme (1974). Level 2, OM231.Diam. (base) 9.1 cm.Pale OM50.Diam. (base) 8.5 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Ca.55s500. Ca.500-475.

29 Jug,base Fiig. 8 33 Jug,base Fig. 8 KatoSyme (1974). Level 3, KatoSyme (1974). Level 5, orth. OM51.Diam. (base) 9.7 cm.Pale Omicron,OM4. Diam. (base)9.3 cm. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca.525-500. Ca. 500-475. 38. As AgoraX;lI, p. 257, no. 311, fig.4, pl. 14.An exportfound at Itanos 30 Jug,base Fig.8 34 Jug,base (1996.6052.17)stands at this pointin KatoSyme (1974). Level 5, KatoSyme (1973). Level 7, orth the sequence.It comesfrom the OM4. Diam. (base)9.5 cm. Pale Epsilon.Diam. (base)10.0 cm. Pale recentlyexcavated cemetery, from a brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca. levelparticularly rich in LateArchaic Ca. 525-500. 475-450. andEarly Classical finds. Greco et al. (1996,p. 950;1997, pp. 820-822; 31 Jug,base 35 Jug,base Fig. 8 1999,pp. 525-526) present a preliminaryreport of the excavationsof the Kato Syme (1975). Level 3, KatoSyme (1974). Level 8, orth. Archaic-Hellenisticnecropolis at OM124. Diam. (base)10.2 cm. Pale Omicron,OM12. Diam. (base)9.0 Itanos.I amgrateful to DidierViviers brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. cm. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Black forpermission to examineunpublished Ca. 500-475. gloss. Ca. 475-425. potteryfrom these recent excavations. -

APHRATI AND KATO SYME 57

- -

itS: . r

:.&

Figure9.Jug. Scale 1:3

36 Jug,base base9.6 cm. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca. 425-400. Kato Syme (1973). Orth.Delta, OM228. Diam. (base)9.1 cm. Pale 38 Jug,base Fig. 8 brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca.425-400. Kato Syme (1975). Level 2, OM7. Diam. (base)8.5 cm. Pale 37 Jug Fig.9 b brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca. 425-400. Aphrati.1969.18777.H.19.4 cm;Diam. 16.0 cm, of rim 6.6 cm, of

CUPS, FORERUNNERS(39-45) Severalnew types of basesappear at the sanctuaryat the turnof the 6th and5th centuries (Fig. 10). One new type of base,comprised of a lowdisk foot with a concaveprofile underneath, displays a distinctivearticulated footwith a wedge-shapededge (39-41).39 It leadsthe way to a richseries of 5th-centurycup bases presumably belonging to a locallow-necked cup whosesubsequent development is treatedin greaterdetail below. Another contemporaryvariety of baseexhibits a lessstrongly articulated foot (42- 45), a primitivefeature that fosters an initialimpression of an earlydate; thisnotion is dispelled,however, by the sharpvertical facet of the edgeof thefoot, an indication of a laterdate. Parallels for both types exist at Knossos in a closeddeposit dated ca. 500-480.4°

39 Cup,base Fig.10 Articulatedvertical foot with faceted 4 wedge-shapededge. Ca. 500-475. Kato Syme (1972). Level OM67. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. lPale 41 Cup,base Fig.10

brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackglosz s. 39. A similartype of baseis found Wedge-shapededge. Ca. 500--475. KatoSyme (1974). Level 3, in the repertoireof Knossianlow- OM51.Diam. (base) 6.1 cm.Pale neckedcups; see Callaghan1978, 40 Cup,base Fig.10 brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. pp.6-7, nos. 1>12, fig. 5, pl. 2. Grooveunderfoot. Wedge-shaped 40. Datableparallels come in the Kato Syme (1972). Level 6, edge.Ca. 500-475. formof unpublishedcup bases from OM18. Diam. (base)6.2 cm. lPale

Knossos,deposit RR:H. brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackglosz s. 40 ( ( 454443 (( 4

58 BRICE L. ERICKSON

39; ( 42 _1 4

41\_ 1 4 Figure10. Cup bases.Scale ca. 1:2

42 Cup,base Fig. 10 44 Cup,base Fig. 10 KatoSyme (1975). Level 12, KatoSyme (1972). Level 25, OM50. Diam. (base)6.5 cm. Pale OM62. Diam. (base)5.6 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Beveledouter edge. Ca. 500-475. Beveledouter edge. Ca. 500-475.

43 Cup,base Fig.10 45 Cup,base Fig. 10 KatoSyme (1973). Level 9, Kato Syme (1973). Level 9, OM47. Diam. (base)6.5 cm. Pale OM47. Diam. (base)6.2 cm. Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Rich redgloss. Beveledouter edge. Ca. 500-475. Beveledouter edge. Ca. 500-475.

HIGH-NECKED CuPS (46-71) Twofuller series of cupbases become available for tracking development in the 5th century(Figs. 11-12). These two mainlines of development representan apparentintensification of localproduction. They nicely il- lustratethe majorcharacteristics of local productionin the Classical period.Both types of baseshow a remarkablyconsistent pattern of morphologicaldevelopment, the individualstages of whichcan be precisely plottedthanks to parallelswith cups from Knossos. Moreover, a chronologicalanchor exists in the formof a closeddeposit of ca.425-400 from Aphratithat contains intact high-necked cups whose form and fabric match thoseof thecup bases from Kato Syme. This evidence is of crucialimpor- tance,for it strengthensthe contention that Aphrati is thelikely source of the Cretanpottery at the sanctuaryin the 5th centuryand, by extension, the sourceof the 6th-centurypottery of the samepale brown fabric. Distinguishingfeatures of thehigh-necked cup include the following: a tallinset vertical rim, a singlevertical handle, a sharptransition between theshoulder and rim, and a deepbody with a narrowshoulder. Also characteristicof the cup is a base with a low disk foot and a concentric penannulargroove below; the articulated foot displays a thick convex "rolled" outeredge anda "droppedfloor" creating a hollowconcavity inside. A prototypeof the baseoccurs at the sanctuaryca. 500-475 in a broader 41. A grooveunderfoot is found configurationthan later examples and lacking, at thisearly stage, the later on earlierbases dated on typological trademark"dropped floor" and groove below (46). Judging from Knossian groundsto the 6th century,both at parallels,the introductionof thesetwo featuresin the high-neckedcup KatoSyme and Aphrati (Aphrati SurveyCollection, Knossos Strati- repertoiretook place simultaneously a generation later in the secondor graphicalMuseum), but the groove thirdquarter of the 5th century(47).41 Subsequent development of the doesnot becomea regularfeature of typein the secondhalf of the 5th centuryled to a narrowerversion of the localproduction until the 5th century. . . P .

APHRATI AND KATO SYME s9 basewith greater extension of theouter edge (48-49). Later examples (ca. 425-400)also have a higherfoot thatmeets the bellyat an increasingly narrowpoint of attachment.Steady attenuation of the basecomes to a swiftconclusion at the endof the 5th centurywith the completereplace- mentof the low diskfoot by a highconical support, whose hollow trun- catedcone adds greater emphasis to the"dropped floor" inside (51).42 A groupof intacthigh-necked cups from Aphrati (58-71) standsat roughlythe samepoint in time(ca. 425-400) within a sharedlocal tradition(Figs. 14-16). These cups provide invaluable information about every aspectof thisshape. The similaritiesbetween the examplesfrom Aphrati andKato Syme extend to minordetails of potting,including a concentric grooveunderfoot of the samecircumference (within a millimetertoler- ance).Thetwo cups shown in Figure12, one of whichcomes fromAphrati (60),the otherfrom Kato Syme (51), aresurely contemporary and may 42. A dateof ca.425-400 for the evenbe by the same potter. These high-necked cups differ from a contem- latestbases in thisseries rests upon poraryKnossian version of the shapein severalkey respects:a beveled theirresemblance to the conicalbases shouldermarks the juncture with a deeplyinset rim, and the profile of the of Knossianhigh-necked cups at a body,whether tall and cylindrical or depressed and "baggy," is invariably of comparablestage of developmentand greatervolume than that of theKnossian examples. Another minor differ- the independentchronological control of glossor providedby a largedeposit from enceis thatthe underside of thebase receives either a filllcoat Aphratiof 5th-centurycups in the is reserved;never is it decoratedwith irregular strokes of dilutegloss in the companyof datablelamp forms. mannerfavored by ClassicalKnossian potters.43 The penannulargroove 43. Coldstream(1973b, p. 48) underfootalso distinguishes the local vessels. Finally, the cups from Aphrati coinedthe term"smearing" for this possessa longerstrap handle, which, unlike the handleof Knossiancups Knossiandecorative practice. of thislate date, attaches outside the rim.44One cup (58) differs from the 44. Accordingto Callaghan(1978, p. 6), afterca. 475 Knossianpotters others.It exhibitsa stoutprofile with a smoothtransition at thejunction beginattaching the handleinside the of therim and shoulder. This cup possesses a broadlow foot that lacks the rim.The localcups from Aphrati bear elaborationof a "droppedfloor" inside. These features suggest an earlier a closerresemblance to a different datefor the cup,ca. 475-425. shapeat Knossos,the 5th-century Local productionof high-neckedcups remainedlargely free of kantharos;see Callaghan1978, pp. 1F 11, nos.24-25, fig. 7. Likethe Knos- Knossianinfluence. Yet manifest examples of Knossianinfluence appear siankantharos, the high-neckedcups fromtime to timeat KatoSyme, as in the caseof a pedestalbase (57) in fromAphrati exhibit a beveledshoulder thelocal pale brown fabric (Fig. 13), which differs from other varieties in moldingand a footwith a "dropped havinga recessedcentral medallion underfoot and a filletmarking the floor"inside. junctionbetween the base and belly. This combinationof featuresrecalls 45. Fromthe "Shrineof Glaukos,k' anunpublished base from Knossos.45 This base, in additionto a fragmen- trench42. 46. As Callaghan1992, p. 93, no. 3, tarycup from Kato Syme whose cylindrical shoulder is closelysimilar to a pls.76, 105:c,dated ca. 40s375. cupfrom Knossos,46 attests a sporadicbut definite influence ofthe Knossian 47. This varianttype of baseis high-neckedcup upon local production (Fig. 13). On thisbasis, we might discussedby Callaghan(1978, p. 8, postulatea sidelineproduction by Aphratipotters emulating or uninten- no. 16),who identifiesit as an earlier tionallycopying Knossian wares while the mainoutput of cupsis of dis- featureof Knossiancup production. cupfirst appeared at Aphrati at 48. The presenceof foreignartisans tinctlylocal inspiration. The high-necked at Knossoswould not be surprising. approximatelythe samepoint in time(500-475) as at Knossos.Aphrati Perlman(1992, p. 202) callsattention evenexerted a reciprocalinfluence upon the Knossianfield of production, to the provisionsof a smallnumber tojudge from the occasional appearance in theKnossian fabric of a variant of LateArchaic and Early Classical high-neckedcup distinguished by a basewith a "rolled"edge, "dropped lnscrlptlonst lat reterto resldent floor,"and groove below.47 The productionof thisvariant cup at Knossos foreignersat Eleutherna,Lyktos, and Gortyn.She concludesthat they mayreflect the activitiesof itinerantpotters from Aphrati who worked at probablyemigrated from other Cretan Knossosor indigenousKnossian potters intimately familiar with a neigh-

. . cltles. boringstyle.48 47 & 9

60 BRICE L. ERICKSON

46 > | %

49 1 a

48 - - | S 51 J_1 X Figure11. Cup bases.Scale ca. 1:2

60 51 Figure12. Cup bases

46 Cup,base Fig.11 50 Cup,base KatoSyme (1974). Level 4, KatoSyme (1974). Level 7, OM18.Diam. (base) 8.8 cm.Pale OM26.Diam. (base) 7.4 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Prototype,ca. 500-475. Ca.425-400.

47 Cup,base Fig.11 51 Cup,base Figs. 11-12 KatoSyme (1972). Level 6, KatoSyme (1972). Level 12, OM15.Diam. (base) 8.0 cm.Pale OM7.Diam. (base) 7.1 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Unglazed. Penan- brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. nulargroove underfoot. Similar to Penannulargroove underfoot. Callaghan1978, no.l6, fig. 5, pl.2. Ca.425-400. Ca.450-425. 52 Cup,base 48 Cup,base Fig. 11 KatoSyme (1975). Level 2, KatoSyme (1973). Level 2, OM146;Diam. (base) 7.9 cm.Pale OM4.Diam. (base) 8.1 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Penannulargroove underfoot. Penannulargroove underfoot. Similar Ca.425-400. to anunpublished base from Knos- sos,deposit SEX: J/JN7.4982. 53 Cup,base Ca.450-425. KatoSyme (1974). Level 10, 49 Cup,base Fig.11 OM42.Diam. (base) 7.4 cm.Pale brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. KatoSyme (1973). Level 5, Penannulargroove underfoot. OM26.Diam. (base) 7.5 cm.Pale Ca.425-400. brown(1OYR 8/3). Black gloss. Penannulargroove underfoot. Ca.450-425. APH RATI AND KATO SYME 6 I

Figure 13. High-neckedcups. Scaleca. 1:2 56 )

54 Cup,rim 60 Cup Figs.12,14-15 66 Cup Figs.14-15 Kato Syme (1974). Level 11, Aphrati.1969.18760. H. 16.9 Aphrati.1969.18766. H.17.2 orth.Delta. Diam. (rim) 11.1 cm. cm;Diam. 11.4 cm, of rim9.2 cm,of cm;Diam.10.1 cm, of rim10.0 cm, Palebrown (10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. base7.9 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 8/3). of base7.6 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 5th century. Blackgloss. Penannular groove 8/3).Black gloss. Penannular groove underfoot.Ca. 425-400. underfoot.Ca. 425-400. 55 Cup,base 61 Cup Figs.14-15 67 Cup Figs.14-15 KatoSyme (1974). Level 10, OM42. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. Pale Aphrati.1969.18761. H. 17.1 Aphrati.1969.18767. H. 14.8 brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. cm;Diam. 11.3 cm, of rim9.9 cm,of cm;Diam.10.6 cm, of rim10.3 cm, Penannulargroove underfoot. base7.9 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 8/3). of base7.8 cm.Pale brown (lOYll Ca. 425-400. Blackgloss. Ca. 425-400. 8/3).Black gloss. Ca. 425-400.

56 Cup,rim and shoulder Fig. 13 62 Cup Figs.14-15 68 Cup Figs.14-15 Kato Syme (1972). Level 5, Aphrati.1969.18762. H. 16.5 Aphrati.1969.18768. H. 17.5 OM172. Diam. 10.2 cm, of rim 10.0 cm;Diam. 11.0 cm, of rim10.3 cm, cm;Diam.10.9 cm, of rim9.9 cm,of cm. Palebrown (10YR 8/3). Black of base8.1 cm.Pale brown (1OYR base7.3 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 8/3). gloss. Cf. Callaghan1992, p. 93, no. 3. 8/3).Black gloss. Penannular groove Blackgloss. Penannular groove Ca. 400-390. underfoot.Ca. 425-400. underfoot.Ca. 425-400.

57 Cup,base Fig. 13 63 Cup 69 Cupor jug Fig.16 Kato Syme (1977). Level 10, Aphrati.1969.18763. H. 16.9 Aphrati.1969.A6. Diam. 10.9 OM231. Diam. (base)5.7 cm. Pale cm;Diam. 11.0 cm, of rim10.2 cm, cm,of base8.3 cm.Pale brown brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Pede- of base8.0 cm.Pale brown (1OYR (1OYR8/3). Black gloss. Ca. 425- stal support.Similar to an unpub- 8/3).Black gloss. Penannular groove 400. lishedbase from Knossos,deposit underfoot.Ca. 425-400. UM.TR12.42.Ca. 425-400. 70 Cup,base 64 Cup Figs.14-15 58 Cup Figs. 14-15 Aphrati.1969.A5. Diam. (base) Aphrati.1969.18764. H. 17.7 7.6 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 8/3). Aphrati.1969.18769. H. 15.7 cm; cm;Diam. 10.5 cm, of rim11.2 cm, Blackgloss. Penannular groove Diam. 12.0 cm, of rim 9.8 cm, of base of base7.5 cm.Pale brown (1OYR underfoot.Ca. 425-400. 7.6 cm. Palebrown (10YR 8/3). Black 8/3).Black gloss. Double penannular gloss. Ca. 475-425. grooveunderfoot. Ca. 425-400. 71 Cup,base

59 Cup Figs. 14-15 65 Cup Fig.16 Aphrati.1969.A5. Diam. (base) 8.2 cm.Pale brown (lOYll 8/3). Aphrati.1969.18759. H. 17.9 cm; Aphrati.1969.18765. H. 15.8 Blackgloss. Ca. 425-400. Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim 9.9 cm, of base cm;Diam. 11.2 cm, of rim9.9 cm,of 7.9 cm. Pale brown(10YR 8/3). Black base7.9 cm.Pale brown (1OYR 8/3). gloss.Penannular groove underfoot. Blackgloss. Penannular groove Ca. 425-400. underfoot.Ca. 425-400. 62 BRICE L. ERICKSON

62 64

Figure14. High-neckedcups. Scale 1:3 APHRATI AND KATO SYME 63

Figure15. High-neckedcups. Scale1:3 64 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Elgure16. High-neckedcups.

LOW-NEC KED CuPS (72-81) A parallelprocess of developmentoccurs in the caseof a secondmajor varietyof 5th-centurycup (Fig. 17). Its distinguishingfeatures include a lowdisk foot with a wedge-shapededge and a penannulargroove underfoot (72-80).The presenceof a grooveunderfoot links these bases with the previousclass, and is a hallmarkof 5th-centurylocal production.49 A comparisonof thesebases with similar examples from Knossos encourages reconstructingthe localshape as a low-neckedcup, but in the absenceof intactexamples either from the sanctuary or the presumed seat of production at Aphrati,the proposedidentification requires further corrobora- tion.A fragmentaryrim (6) fromthe sanctuarymay belong to a Classical low-neckedcup, but again,this identificationremains uncertain. More compellingevidence for the production of thelow-necked cup at Aphrati is providedby a findfrom Knossos, a Cretanlow-necked cup distinguish- ablefrom Knossian wares on thebasis of itsreportedly pale brown fabric.50 It maybe a productof Aphrati,although other possible sources for pale brownfabric, discussed above, complicate interpretation. Its base displays a wedge-shapedfoot andgroove underneath, characteristics of the Kato Syme-AphratiGroup. In addition,the squatshape and wedge-shaped supportof a vesselfrom a 5th-centurydomestic deposit at Aphrati(81) suggestits reconstruction asa low-neckedcup (Fig. 18), although the frag- mentarycondition of thispot forbids confident reconstruction of the shape. 49.The additionof a groove The developmentof this localcup followssuit with respectto the underfootcreates a decorativering high-neckedcups, beginning with early "prototypes" that lack the distin- comparableto the paintedones guishingfeatures of a grooveunderfoot and a "droppedfloor" inside (72- adorningthe bottomof Attic andother 73).The developmentof thisseries also culminates at the endof the 5th mainlandbases. 50. Callaghan(1978, p. 7) describes centuryin the formationof a highpedestal foot with a widelyextended the fabricof no. 15 as "thepale fabric outeredge and a "droppedfloor" inside (e.g., 80). Close parallels with dat- commonin the southand west coast of ablematerial from the KnossianKiln Group (KKG) establish a dateof ca. Creterather than the buffto redof the 400 B.C., or shortlythereafter, for the endof thisseries at the sanctuary.5l centralcoast." 51. See Homann-Wedeking1950, 72 Cup,base Fig.,.17 brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. p. 171,pl. 13:a(c).Coldstream (1999, Prototype.Wedge-shaped edge. p. 323, no. R29,fig. 2, pl. 31) illustrates KatoSyme (1972). Level 6, Ca. 500-475. a closeparallel for 80 fromKKG, dated OM18.Diam. (base) 7.0 cm.Pale to ca.400-375. 72 | <

APHRATI AND KATO SYME

73 -1 9 79 =1 9

74 ^- ( Figure17. Cup bases. Scale ca. 1:2 < 80 )-1

81 \_

Figure18. Low-neckedcup. Scaleca. 1:2

73 Cup,base Fig. 17 Blackgloss. Penannulargroove underfoot.Ca. 475-450. Kato Syme (1972). Level 14, OM23. Diam. (base)7.3 cm. Pale 78 Cup,base brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Prototype.Wedge-shaped edge. KatoSyme (1973). Level 6, Ca.500-475. OM110. Diam. (base)7.1 cm. Pale brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. 74 Cup,base Fig.:17 Penannulargroove underfoot. Ca. 450-425. Kato Syme (1972). Level 1, OM381. Diam. (base)8.0 cm. Pale 79 Cup,base Fig. 17 brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Penannulargroove underfoot. KatoSyme (1975). Level 5, Ca. 475-450. OM90. Diam. (base)6.6 cm. Pale brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. 75 Cup,base Fig. ]17 Penannulargroove underfoot. Ca. 450-425. Kato Syme (1972). Level 1, OM381. Diam. (base)7.6 cm. Pale 80 Cup,base Fig. 17 brown(1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Penannulargroove underfoot. KatoSyme (1975). Level 3, Ca. 475-425. OM124. Diam. (base)7.6 cm. Pale brown(10YR 8/3). Blackgloss. As 76 Cup,base Coldstream1999, p.323, no. R29, fig.2, pl.31. Ca.400-390. Kato Syme (1974). Level 3, OM39. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). 81 Cup Fig. 18 Blackgloss. Penannulargroove underfoot.Ca. 475-450. Aphrati.1969.A5. Diam. 13.0 cm, of base 7.6 cm. Palebrown 77 Cup,base (1OYR8/3). Blackgloss. Penannular grooveunderfoot. Ca. 475-425. KatoSyme (1974). Level 3, OM45. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). 66 BRICE L. ERICKSON

LATE-5TH-CENTURYPOTTERY (82-90) BELL CRATER(82) Notableamong the findsfrom the 5th-centurydomestic deposit from Aphratiis a smallbell craterof curiouslyconservative appearance (Fig. 19).This shapefinds no exactparallel in the ClassicalCretan repertoire. Knossosprovides the closestcomparison in the formof a largebell crater

Figure19. Bell crater.Scale 1:3 of Protogeometricdate.52 Such cratersare absentfrom the Geometric- Orientalizingcemetery at Aphrati,suggesting that the Classicalversion is eithera revivalof an earlierunattested shape or a new creationof Classical potters.53If the latterexplanation is correct,the resemblanceof the 5th- centurybell craterto the ProtogeometricKnossian shape may be fortu- itous.The bell craterfrom Aphrati bears painted decoration on the wall in the form of a frieze of stackedtriangles and a row of dots consignedto a 52. Coldstreamand Catling (1996, separatefield below,documenting the survivalof the Orientalizingpot pp.368-372)illustrate a selectionof paintingtradition at Aphratiwell into the 5th century.The simplified, Protogeometriccraters from the North Cemeterycomparable in shapeto 82. geometricdecorative scheme enhancesthis vessel'sconservative appear- 53. A craterpreserved in a ance.A datefor the pot in the finalquarter of the 5th centuryis suggested Protogeometricburial from Aphrati both by the profileof the foot a high splayingstand comparable to the (seeLevi 1927-1929, p. 176,fig. 196) supportsof 5th-centuryjugs and by the date of the deposit. bearsa resemblanceto andmay be a distantrelative of the Classicalshape, althoughthe comparisonis not exact. Callaghan(1978, pp. 12-15, nos.37- 82 Bellcrater Fig.19 gloss.Banded decoration with a row 41, fig. 9, pl. 4:a)publishes 5th-century of dotsand a seriesof stacked Knossiancraters of a typesimilar to our Aphrati.1969.18776. H. 18.8cm; trianglesin a separatereserved field. examplefrom Aphrati, suggesting more Diam.13.2 cm, of rim15.6 cm, of base Finalquarter of the5th century. extensiveCretan production of craters 9.2 cm.Pale brown (1OYR 8/3). Black in the Classicalperiod. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 67

PROTO-HADRAHYDRIA (83) Alsofrom the 5th-centurydomestic deposit, a proto-Hadrahydria ranks Aphratiamong select sites known to haveproduced a Classicalprecursor of the HellenisticHadra hydria, a popularexport to Egyptin the2nd and 1stcenturies s.c.54 Callaghan andJones attribute these Hellenistic exports to a Cretansource on the basisof fabric,while they trace the ancestryof the typeat Knossosback to the Archaicperiod.55 Knossos and Phaistos haveyielded evidence for the production of the shapein the5th century.56 Bothsites later became centers for the manufacture of Cretan hadra hydriae in the Hellenisticperiod. The discoveryof a 5th-centuryexample from Aphratidemonstrates comparable local ancestry of thetype and raises the questionof a Hellenisticproduction center at Aphrati, although this suggestionis not supportedby presentevidence from the Hellenisticsettle- ment.Moreover, the exactrelationship between the Classicaland Helle- nlstlc. . types remalns . unc ear.

83 Proto-Hadrahydria Bandeddecoration with curvilinear designsconsigned to reservedfield. Aphrati.1969.A5. Pale brown Ca. 425-400. (1OYR8/3). Blackgloss. Illustrated by Lebessi1973, p. 460, pl. 402:b.

B OWL (84) Fromthe samedeposit comes a largebowl equipped with two horizontal cylindricalhandles (Fig. 20). Otherdistinguishing features of the shape includea collaredrim and a ringbase. Like the bell craterand hydria discussedabove, this bowl is thesole known representative of its typefrom ClassicalAphrati. A 7th-centuryprototype for the bowlfrom an earlier depositat Aphrati exhibits banded decoration, a deep body, and wide strap handles,marking a departure from its Classical counterpart.57 Despite these minordifferences, the proportions and dimensions of thesetwo deep bowls areremarkably close, enabling one to posita directline of descent.58

54. Lebessi(1973, p. 460, pl. 402:b) ChiaraPortale brings to my attentiona publishesa photographof thishydria. proto-Hadrahydria from the areaof It is not illustratedhere. Chalaranear Phaistos (Herakleion 55. CallaghanandJones 1985, p. 11, ArchaeologicalMuseum, no. 4475). n. 47. It is a surfacefind dated to the 5th 56. ForKnossos, see Coldstream centuryon the basisof the Knossian 1973b,p. 50, nos. 16-11, fig.5; Cal- parallelscited above. laghan1978, p. 15, no. 42, pl. 4:c. 57. See Lebessi1973, p. 458, In addition,a proto-Hadrahydria has pl. 400:a. cometo lightin a Classicalwell in the 58. A smallshallow bowl from a areaof the StratigraphicalMuseum, late-5th-or 4th-centurydeposit at Knossos,from a contextdated ca. 450- Knossosfalls under the samegeneral 425. I thankPeter Warren for permis- category;see Coldstream1973a, p. 26, sionto mentionthis unpublished find. no.C12,fig. 14. - -

68 BRICE L. ERICKSON

Figure20. Bowl. Scale1:3

84 Bowl Fig. 20 of base 11.6 cm. Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. Ca. 425-400. Aphrati.1969.18774. H. 10.0 cm;Diam. 21.6 cm, of rim 23.2 cm,

LAM Ps (85-88) Fourlamps from the domesticdeposit at Aphrati(Figs. 21-22) provide thesecure pegs upon which the late-5th-century date for the deposit hangs. An importedKnossian or Gortynianlamp (85) that copies an Attic form datableto thefinal quarter of the5th century provides an invaluable chro- nologicalpoint of reference.59This Cretanequivalent of Howland'sType 21 is a lampwhose profile is definedby a continuouscurve formed by a 59. As AgoraIV, p. 47, no. 169, sidewall joined seamlessly to a curvingrim. This type enjoyed widespread pls.6, 34.The Atticparallel comes popularityamong the Cretan production centers in themiddle and second fromwell depositM18:8. Agora X1I, halfof the 5th century.60The otherthree lamps from Aphrati resemble p. 395, offersa reviseddate of ca.430- Howland'sType 20, althoughthe comparisonis not exact.They exhibit a 420 forthis depositand thus the lamp. curvedside wall and a ridgearound the filling hole, features that ally them My attributionof the Cretanlamp to a with an Atticpredecessor of the standard5th-century type. The Cretan productioncenter at Knossosor Gortyn is basedupon consideration of the versionappears to havecontinued in productionfor a longerperiod of fabric. timethan the Athenian shape, to judge from the evidence ofthe depositat 60.The earliestdatable examples Aphrati. on Cretederive from closed 5th- The absenceof lampsat KatoSyme is somewhatsurprising in lightof centurydeposits at Knossos;see theirpopularity at otherClassical Cretan cult centers. In the caseof the Coldstreamand Macdonald 1997, p. 227, no. K77,fig. 18;Callaghan sanctuaryof Demeterat Knossos, Coldstream plausibly connects the lamps 1992,p. 92, no. 8, pl. 75;Coldstream withthe nocturnalceremonies held in honorof Demetermentioned by 1973a,pp. 24-25, nos.B10-11, fig. 14, DiodorusSiculus (5.77.3).61 An obviouspractical use comesto mindin pl.ll. the caseof lampsfrom a caveconsecrated in the Classicalperiod to Pan 61. Coldstream1973a, p. 186. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 69

andthe Nymphs at Lerain the territoryof Kydonia.62No singleexplana- tioncan do justice to thevariety of ritualcontexts in whichlamps appear on Crete.The absenceof lampsfrom an unequivocal cult context at Kato Symemay reflect cult or dedicatorypractices out of stepwith other parts of the island.

85 _ V

86 Figure 21. Lamps. Scaleca. 1:2

B':X E\r i

85 87 88 Figure22. Lamps

85 Lamp Figs.21-22 87 Lamp Figs. 21-22 Aphrati.1969.18773.H.1.9 cm; Aphrati.1969.A12.18771. H. Diam.5.5cm, of base4.0 cm.Pale 3.4 cm; Diam. 8.2 cm, of base5.0 cm. orange(7.5YR 7/6). Unglazed. Strap Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. handle.Illustrated by Lebessi 1973, Raisedbase. Strap handle. Ca. 425- p.460,pl.402:a. Similar to AgoraIV, 400. p.47,no.169,pls.6,34.Ca.43F 420. 88 Lamp Figs.21-22 86 Lamp Fig.21 Aphrati.1969.A11.18772.H. 3.3 cm; Diam. 8.1 cm, of base5.0 cm. Aphrati.1969.A8.18770. H. 3.2 Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. 62. Guest-Papamanoliand Lam- cm; Diam. 9.8 cm, of base5.4 cm. Raisedbase. Strap handle. Illustrated braki(1980, pp. 221-222, fig. 11, Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. by Lebessi1973, p.460, pl.402:a. pl. 46) illustratea selectionof lamps Profilesimilar to Coldstream1973a, Ca. 425-400. fromLera. p. 24, no. B9, fig. 14. Ca. 425-400. 7o BRICE L. ERICKSON

VOTIVEMINIATURES (89-90) Twovotive miniatures from Kato Syme attest a definiterole of potteryas a dedicationat the sanctuary(Fig. 23). The firstexample (89) indicates localproduction of ajug shape attested at Knossos by a singleunpublished examplein a LateArchaic deposit (RR:H). This type is distinguishedby a deep,rounded body and an insetflaring rim thickened at the lip to form anoverhanging projection. The secondexample (90), a krateriskos,finds a closecomparison inclayvotives from the sanctuary of Demeterat Knossos.63 89 2 |

89 Votiveminiature, Fig.23 > 90 Krateriskos Fig. 23 rim and shoulder KatoSyme (1972). Level4, KatoSyme (1974). Level 40, bothros.H. 3.5 cm;Diam. 4.0 cm, of OM37. Diam. 5.3 cm, of rim5.1 cm. rim 4.3 cm, of base2.6 cm. Pale Palebrown (1OYR 8/3). Blackgloss. brown(1OYR 8/3). Unglazed.5th 6th or 5th century. century. 90 '

Figure 23. Votive miniatures. FOURTH-CENTURYPOTTERY (91-106) Scaleca. 1:2 At the turnof the 5th and4th centuriesa fundamentalchange in the characterof the localceramics marks an importantturning point in the life of the sanctuary.An abruptand almost complete replacement of the palebrown pottery presumably from Aphrati with pottery of a completely differentcharacter, and arguably from another production center, took place around400 B.C.,or shortlythereafter. Two strandsof interlockingevi- dence thetiming of thepale brown fabric's virtual disappearance atKato Symeand the swiftintroduction of newshapes in a gritty,reddish-brown fabric documentthe change.Fortunately, this importantevent in the historyof thesanctuary can be accuratelydated on thebasis of theinternal typologiesof thetwo production centers. Stylisticanalysis of threedifferent series of Classicalcup bases of pale brownfabric indicates that pottery from Aphrati comes to an abruptand uniformend at the sanctuaryin the finalyears of the 5th century.The latestexamples of palebrown fabric include a cupbase, discussed above (57),whose close approximation of a Knossianform yields a chronological rangeof ca.425-400;another cup base (80) with demonstrable parallels in shapewith the KnossianKiln Group (KKG), ca.400_390;64 and a frag- mentaryhigh-necked cup (56) of identicalconstruction to an example froma closeddeposit at Knossos,UM:H5, dated to ca. 400-390.65It is 63. Krateriskoipreserved in a late- reasonableto concludefrom these parallels that the latestpottery used at 5th-centurycontext from the sanctuary providethe closestparallel; see Cold- the sanctuarybefore the palebrown fabric disappears dates to ca. 400- stream1973a, p. 25, nos.B14-15, 390. pl. 11. Theearliest appearance atthe sanctuary of cupsin thegritty reddish- 64. See Homann-Wedeking1950, brownfabric can be datedto the firstquarter of the 4th centuryon the p. 171,pl.l3:a(c), republished in Cold- basisof parallelsin shapewith Knossianmaterial (Figs. 25-26). Forex- stream1999, p. 323, no. R29,fig. 2, ample,a newtype of cupbase at the sanctuary(95), whose distinguishing pl.31. 65. Callaghan1992, p. 93, no.3, featuresinclude a highpedestal foot, a widelyspreading edge, and a nar- pls.76, 105:c. rowpoint of attachmentto the belly,mirrors developments first seen at 66. See Homann-Wedeking1950, Knossosin the early-4th-centurydeposit KKG.66 Another type of basein p. 171,fig.4:a. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 7I

the newfabric (97) is characterizedby a highpedestal stand. It findsan equallyvalid comparison in the early-4th-centuryceramic repertoire at Knossos.67A third base, composed of a particularlymassive pedestal foot, occursin considerablequantities at the sanctuary(99). Its hollowtrun- catedcone is accompaniedby an exaggerated"dropped floor" inside. The ultimatesource of inspirationfor this typeof baseis foundin the Attic repertoireof Classicalkantharoi, but a moreimmediate influence springs froma Cretansource, given the factthat Attic basessimilarly inspired Knossianproduction from ca. 375 to 350. I suggestedabove that this gritty, reddish-brown, silver micaceous fabric wasproduced at Lyktos.While micaceousfabrics appear periodically in ClassicalCretan contexts, particularly in the caseof cookingand coarse wares,the useof grittyfabric for the productionof finewares is rare,and probablysets Lyktosapart from its neighbors.This hypothesisrequires furthersupport, either through further investigation of the siteof Lyktos anddelineation of itslocal pottery style or analysis of nearbyclay beds and mineralsources. If the proposedLyktian origin of the 4th-centurymate- rialfrom Kato Syme is valid,this body of materialsupplements our knowledgeof the ceramicoutput of ancientLyktos in animportant way. These exportscompensate in partfor a deficitin therecord of settlementat Lyktos itself,where, owing to the limitedscope of archaeologicalinvestigation, potteryfrom the 4th centuryand earlier historical periods remains largely unattested. 67.The parallel,not illustrated, of Crete,as comesfrom an unpublishedearly-4th- Potteryof possibleLyktian origin68 turns up in otherparts centurydeposit at Knossos,SEX: J/ atan unpublished survey site in thevicinity of Hierapetra,tentatively iden- JN6.Thanks go to PeterWarren for tifiedby L. V.Watrous and Harriet Blitzer as ancientLarisa (Fig. 1).69 In allowingme to examineClassical addition,an intact small Cretan cup with a lowoffset rim and hemispheri- materialfrom his recentexcavations. calbowl, exported to Knossosand subsequently discarded in a 5th-cen- 68. My identificationof Lyktosas turywell, exhibits the samecoarse, silver micaceous, reddish-brown fabric the sourceof thispottery is basedupon examinationof the fabricor the thatI attributeto Lyktianproduction.70 This cup is clearlyan antecedent correspondencein formwith 4th- of Callaghan's"glazed cup with everted rim," a typeotherwise known to centurymaterial from Kato Syme (or existat Lyktosand Knossos only in a Hellenisticmanifestation.7l From both). thenew evidence of thisClassical forerunner, it can be surmisedthat little 69. GourniaSurvey, Site 106. orno changeoccurred in thecup's design from the 5th to the 3rdcentury. Watrousand Blitzer (1995) give their reasonsfor identifying the site of In addition,there is evidencein thedomestic deposit at Aphrati (ca. 425- ProfitisIlias with Larisa.Pottery of 400)of threepresumed Lyktian imports (Fig. 24): a smalljug (91), lekane presumedLyktian origin from Site 106 (92), and cup (93), eachin the characteristicLyktian fabric as defined datesto the middleof the 4th century. here.This groupranks as the largest-knownassemblage of 5th-century DonaldHaggis (pers. comm.) points Lyktianpottery from the island.It alsoserves as an importantreminder out thatthis site lies in a phyllite- thatscholars' neglect of post-MinoanCrete has led to gapsin thearchaeo- quartzitezone with richsources of silvermica and biotite (gold mica). logicalrecord at majorsites, such as Lyktos, where preliminary excavation Localproduction of redmicaceous hasshown the likelihood of producingrich Classical deposits. fine-warepottery cannot be ruledout. On the solebasis of Lyktianexports, then, an otherwiseunattested 70.This cupcomes from an historyof localceramic production in the 5th and4th centuriescan now unpublishedClassical well fromthe be appreciated(Figs. 24-26). The voluminous shoulder of the5th-century StratigraphicalMuseum Excavations (J/JN7.4982)dated ca. 450-425. Lyktiancup (93) found at Aphratigives the impressionof a conservative 71. Callaghan1978, p. 18, nos.56- localtradition, although naturally one would wish for a greaternumber of 57, fig. 10. exampleson which to base such a conclusion.Lyktian cup production during / | s / \. .. : I ; C .; ...... _ / l l _ -.' l B_- ''t | _

72 B RICE L. ERICKSON

91 ,/

92 _ f

\ .? _ { 8 . E J B|-11 - _ \ _ 93 * 1 = <0 _ Figure24. Lyktianpottery. Scale 1:3

the4th century,it seems,remained largely derivative from Knossian, save forthe one distinguishingfeature of an insetnotch at thejunction of the baseand belly in placeof a filletthat normally marks the transitionat Knossos.The smalllekane (92) is a distinctivelyLyktian shape. Compa- rableexamples from Kato Syme and the sanctuaryof Apolloat Aghia Pelaghiaindicate wider distribution of theseLyktian products.72 Similar bowlsfrom Knossos in Knossianfabric confirm a chronologicalrange of ca.425-400 for the Lyktianexample.73

72. A totalof fourlekanai two p. 92, no. 6, pl. 75, froma depositdated fromKato Syme, one of whichis pub- ca.475-450 (myrevised chronology), lished(Lebessi 1990, p. 268, pl. 127:e, andColdstream and MacDonald 1997, datederroneously to the LateMinoan p. 224, no. 44, fig. 18, froma deposit IIIC or Protogeometricperiod), and datedca. 475-450 (myrevised chro- two unpublishedspecimens from Aghia nology),but prior to Callaghan1992, Pelaghia havebeen identified. p. 101,no. 28, pl. 81, froma deposit 73.The Lyktianbowl represents an datedto the lastquarter of the 4th intermediatestage of development, century. subsequentboth to Callaghan1992, 105 R

APHRATI AND KATO SYME

94> t

95; t 104 -d

97 > >

Figure25. Lyktiancup andjug bases. Scaleca. 1:2 99; 0 106 L (

91 Jug,reconstructed profile Fig. 24 Lyktianmanufacture. Similar to an unpublishedbase from Knossos, de- Aphrati.1969.A5. Neck is positKKG. Ca.400-375. missing.H. 12.7cm; Diam. 6.8 cm, of rim4.5 cm,of base3.3 cm.Silver 96 Cup,base micaceous,reddish-brown fabric (2.5YR5/6 to 5/8).Unglazed. KatoSyme (1973). Level 7, Lyktianmanufacture. Ca. 425-400. OM50.Diam. (base) 7.5 cm.Silver micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric 92 Lekane Fig.24 (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian manufacture.Ca. 400-375. Aphrati.1969.18779. H. 5.5 cm; Diam.13.5cm, of rim15 .5 cm, of 97 Cup,base Fig. 25 base5.4 cm.Silver micace zous, reddish-brownfabric (2.5 YR 6/6). KatoSyme (1972). Level 1, Unglazed.Lyktian manuf ^acture. OM381.Diam. (base) 7.2 cm.Silver 94 Ca.425-400. micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian 93 Cup,lower body Fig.24 manufacture.Cf. Knossosdeposit KKG. Aphrati.1969.A5.Dtiam.13.9 Ca.400-375. cm,of base8.0 cm.Silver reddish-brownfabric (2.5 YR5/6 to 98 Cup,base 95 k 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian n nanufacture. KatoSyme (1974). Level 7, Ca.425-400. OM26.Diam. (base) 7.6 cm.Silver micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric 94 Cup,base Figs.25-26 (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian KatoSyme (1972). C )M94 ofmanufacture. baseand belly. Inset Ca.400-375. notch at junction Diam.(base) 7.4 cm.Silv er mlca- 99 ceous,reddish-brown, griltty fabric 99 Cup,base Figs.25-26 (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Ungla zed. Figure26. Lyktiancup bases Lyktianmanufacture. Ca. 400-375. KatoSyme (1972). Level 10, OM6.Diam. (base) 7.1 cm.Silver 95 Cup,base Figs.25-26 micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian KatoSyme (1974). L ,evel 5, manufacture.Similar to anunpublished OM4.Diam. (base) 7.4 ctm. Silver basefrom Knossos, deposit K67:71, micaceous,reddish-brown l, gritty trench13, level 31A. Ca.375-325. fabric(2.5YR 5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. 74 BRICE L. ERICKSON

100Cup, base fabric(2.5YR 5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. 105 Cup,base Fig. 25 Lyktianmanufacture. Pedestal base KatoSyme (1972). Level 13, withflat resting surface. Ca. 375-325. KatoSyme (1974). Level 8, OM1.Diam. (base) 7.5 cm.Silver OM12.Diam. (base) 7.9 cm.Silver micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty 103Cup, base micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric(2.5YR 4/2). Unglazed. fabric(2.5YR 5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktianmanufacture. Ca.375-325. KatoSyme (1973). Level 11, Lyktianmanufacture. Ca. 375-325. OM180.Diam. (base) 8.0 cm.Silver 101Cup, base micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric 106 Jug,base Fig. 25 (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktian KatoSyme (1972). Level 15, manufacture.Ca. 375-325. KatoSyme (1972). Level 36, OM19.Diam. (base) 7.7 cm.Silver OM81.Diam. (base) 12.1 cm. Silver micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty 104 Cup,base Fig.25 micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric(2.5YR 5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. fabric(2.5YR 5/6 to 6/6).Unglazed. Lyktianmanufacture. Ca.375-325. KatoSyme (1972). Level 10, Lyktianmanufacture. 4th or 3rd OM6.Diam. (base) 6.7 cm.Silver century. 102Cup, base micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty fabric (2.5YR5/6 to 6/6).Brown wash. KatoSyme (1972). Level 15, Unglazed.Lyktian manufacture. OM19.Diam. (base) 7.7 cm.Silver Pedestalbase. Late 4th or3rd century. micaceous,reddish-brown, gritty

IMPORTS (107-110) Importedpottery arrives at the sanctuary only in minutequantities during the 6th and5th centuries(Fig. 27). Two Corinthian aryballoi (107, 108), preservedonly in theirtop sections,constitute the onlydiscernible im- portsof mainlandGreek pottery during the entire period under consideration.The vastmajority of the LateArchaic and Classical pottery at the sanctuarycomes from a nearbyproduction center presumably located at Aphrati.Gortynian products appear only on occasion.The extremepau- cityof importsreinforces the local character of the sanctuary.

107 v 1-, 108- l1 1 1

109 > I X Figure27. Imports.Scale ca. 1:2 t 110\

107 Corinthianaryballos, Fig,. 27 109Gortynian cup, base Fig. 27 rim KatoSyme (1973). Level 9, KatoSyme (1973). Level2, OM81.Diam. (base) 6.0 cm.Clean, OM84. Diam. (rim)4.3 cm. lightred fabric (2.5YR 5/6 to 6/8). Ca. 600-550. Lustrousblack gloss. Ca. 425-400.

108 Corinthianaryballos, Figr. 27 110Gortynian cup, rim Fig.27 rim to lowerbody KatoSyme (1972). Level 15, KatoSyme (1974). Levels5-12, OM20. Diam. (rim)4.7 cm. orth.Omicron-Delta. Diam. 8.6 cm, Ca. 600-550. of rim 7.4 cm. Light redfabric (2.5YR6/8 to 4/8). Blackgloss. Ca. 500-480. APHRATI AND KATO SYME

HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS 75 The sanctuaryat KatoSyme occupies an important place in recentdiscus- sionsabout ancient settlement and the territorial configuration ofthe Cretan poleisin the LateArchaic and Classical periods. On thebasis of purport- edlynegative findings from Aphrati and Kato Syme, Viviers infers a processof Lyktianterritorial expansion on a grandscale in the late 7th or early6th century,involving the incorporationof territorybelonging to Lyktos'sneighbors to the south(Fig. 1).74 According to thisview, Lyktian successcame at the expenseof the neighboringcommunities and their cults.Viviers entertains the possibility that the "gaps" in thearchaeological recordof numerousCretan poleis and sanctuariesreflect the abandon- mentor economicdecline of smallersites as strongerneighbors consoli- datedpower by expandingtheir territory.75 This explanationbuilds upon ideasadvanced earlier by Watrous, whose study of settlementpatterns on the Lasithiplateau documents an extinctionof smallhamlets and rural sanctuariesat the endof the 7th century.He interpretsthis evidence as a potentialindex of the territorialambitions of Lyktos.76According to Watrous,the destructionof Arkades(identified with the ancientsite at 74. Viviers1994, pp.254-258. Aphratiand mentioned by a 4th-centuryauthor) was part of an earlier 75. Viviers1994, p.259. offensiveby the Lyktiansto expandtheir territory further south.77 76. Watrous1982, pp. 84-86. Ceramicevidence from Kato Syme and Aphrati now challenges this 77.Watrous 1982, pp.22-23. reconstructioninsofar as it is premisedupon a supposedremission of ac- Seneca(Q Nat. 3.2.5)preserves tivityat both places. Finds of black-glosspottery, predominately drinking Theophrastus'saccount of the destruction of Arkades.Guarducci (1935, p. 6) cups,document continuity at KatoSyme during much of the 6th andthe discussesthe evidence. wholeof the5th century. They demonstrate that the religious festivities at 78. Raubitschek's(in Hoffmann the site,in particularthe venerable practice of ritualdrinking, continued 1972,pp. 15-16) proposedLyktian longafter the practiceof makingbronze dedications had waned. This is originfor the armoris followedby notto say,however, that an expansion of Lyktianterritory in thedirection Boardman1982, p. 227, andHuxley ofAphrati could not have taken place as early as the 6th century. For instance, 1994,p. 129. 79. If the Archaicscript of Aphrati a conceivablymore benign policy of Lyktianexpansion might have stopped wereshown to employanother form of shortof the outrightdestruction or totaleconomic eclipse of its south- omega,the caseof the armor'sorigins ernneighbors. Aphrati may have become a politicaldependency of Lyktos wouldbe decidedin favorof Lyktos. in theArchaic period. As it is, thereexist no otherArchaic in- Not a shredof positiveevidence unequivocally supports a 6th-century scriptionsfrom Aphrati to forma basis fora decision.The Spensithiosdecree, expansionof Lyktosto thesouth coast of Crete.While this is notthe place whichrecords a possibledecision of for a full discussionof Lyktianterritorial expansion, it is worthbriefly the Dattallians,presumably one of the consideringthe natureof the evidenceupon which previous arguments Cretanpoleis in the area(although havebeen based. A pieceof evidencecommonly adduced in supportof a otherinterpretations are possible), em- hostiletakeover of Aphratiat the endof the 7th century,the supposedly ploysan identicalform of omega. Lyktianletter forms of the inscribedbronze armor found at Aphrati,has Whether,as Viviers(1994, pp. 240- 241) argues,Dattalla should be iden- little foundation.Antony Raubitschek first proposed the ideathat this tifiedwith the site of Aphrati,or, if cacheof bronzearmor, allegedly looted from Aphrati, was originally set Dattallawas a cityat all,it occupieda up as Lyktianspoils of warin newlyacquired territory.78 Yet the solebasis differentlocation, it standsto reason forthis intriguing suggestion, an inscribedomega with a doublecircle, is thatthe use of a doubleomega in an orthographicdetail that, as Raubitschekhimself rightly cautions, may anotherdocument outside Lyktos favorsan interpretationof the letter wellbe a regionalcharacteristic of Archaic Cretan scripts, not a hallmark formas a regionalcharacteristic of of Lyktosalone.79 Given the remaininguncertainties about Archaic Cre- Cretanscript. tanscripts, it is equallypossible that the inscribedbronze armor found at 76 B RICE L. ERICKSON

Aphratioriginated there and commemorated one of the city'sown victo- riesover a defeatedneighbor. As forthe literary testimony, although Theo- phrastusin the 4th centuryrefers to anearlier destruction of Arkades,he doesnot specifically attribute the destruction of thecity to Lyktos,nor has thetraditional identification ofArkades with Aphrati stood unchallenged.80 A strongercase can be madefor Lyktian control of the Lasithiplain, tentativelysuggested both by the commandingposition of Lyktosalong one of its naturalarteries of communicationand by the supposedaban- donmentof ruralsettlements on the plateauin the 6th century.8lThe acknowledgeddifficulty of recognizing6th-century Cretan ceramics war- rantsextreme caution in theinterpretation ofthese survey results.82 Lyktian aggressionhas also been entertainedas a possibleexplanation for the troublesplaguing Knossos in the 6th century,when for sometime (ca. 600-525)Knossos seems to havebeen severely depopulated, if not com- pletelyabandoned.83 If warfare is a validexplanation for the declineof Knossos,Lyktos is a possibleculprit, but giventhe lackof decisiveevi- denceit is bestto refrainfrom making a finaljudgment. At anyrate, hy- pothesizedinstances of Lyktianaggression against Knossos or settlements on the Lasithiplain around 600 neednot implya contemporarydefeat of Aphratiand expansion of Lyktianterritory to the southcoast. The riseof Lyktianpower may have proceeded at differentstages in differentareas. Theevidence from each part of Creteshould be allowedto speakfor itself. In consideringthe historical implications of thenew ceramic evidence availablefrom my study, I dividethe discussion into four parts. In thefirst section,I tracean evolvingdedicatory practice characterized by an in- creasingemphasis upon pottery and a declininguse of bronzesat the sanctuaryafter ca. 600. Second, I addresscentral questions raised by the study concerningthe originof thevisitors, and by extension,the controlof the sanctuary.Next, new evidence from Kato Syme is presentedthat points to a dateof about400 forLyktian territorial expansion to the southcoast of Crete.In the finalsection, I proposea historicalcontext for Lyktianex- pansionin the aftermathof the PeloponnesianWar.

80. Forthe literarytestimony, see plainfoot andbeveled edge (Watrous above,n. 77. Viviersproposed 1982,p. 82, no. 71, fig. 12, pl. 20:b,which identificationof Aphratias the siteof he datesto the Classicalperiod). The ancientDattalla removes the conjec- bufffabric and fine black gloss of both turedlink between Theophrastuss examplessuggest a non-Lyktiansource. testimonyand the supposedabandon- 83. Hood andSmyth (1981, p. 19) mentof Aphrati. andColdstream and Huxley (1999, 81. SeeWatrous 1982, pp. 22-26. pp.301-302) addressthe possibilityof Spratt(1865, vol. 1, p. 112) noticedthe a Lyktianattack against Knossos. This advantagesof Lyktos'sposition in terms suggestionis supportedby indirect of maintainingcontrol over the Lasithi literarytestimony. Pausanias (2.21.3) plateau. refersto a warbetween Sparta and 82. I havenot examinedthe Knossos,set in the timeof the Cretan materialfrom the surveyof Lasithi. seerEpimenides. In connectionwith Publishedexamples include two cup this,the employmentof Lyktianarchers basesof suspected6th-century date: a by the Spartansin the conflictsof the basewith an articulatedfoot and SecondMessenian War (Paus. 3.12.11) bevelededge (Watrous 1982, p. 82, hasbeen construed as evidenceof a no. 70, fig. 12,which he datesto the militaryalliance between Sparta and 5th century)and a secondbase with a Lyktosin the 7th century. APHRATI AND KATO SYME 77

CULTPATTERN S Fromstudy ofthe sanctuary'stwo principal categories of bronzeofferings, includingthe series of zoomorphicfigurines and cutout plaques,it is clear thatneither type played an appreciablerole at the sanctuaryafter about 575. How,then, do we explainthe declineof metalofferings given the persistenceof potteryat the sanctuary?I consider two possibleexplana- tionsfor the pattern.First, the ebband flow of metalofferings at Kato Symecan be interpretedwithin a contextof evolvingritual practice. While thebasic character of worshipat Kato Syme, with its emphasis upon open- airburnt animal sacrifices and the attendantconsumption of wine,prob- ablynever underwent substantial modification during the longlife of the sanctuary,84the preciseways in whichreligious piety was expressed may havebeen influenced by changing fashions. An interlockingchronological patternarises from a considerationof the correspondingdecline and rise of the two categoriesof bronzeofferings at the sanctuary.Zoomorphic bronzefigurines predominate in the archaeologicalrecord from the 10th to the firsthalf of the 7th century,after which they are almost completely absent.85The timingof theirdisappearance coincides with the introduc- tion of the bronzecutout plaques, whose steady increase during the 7th centurycontrasts with the patternof decliningzoomorphic dedications. The bronzeplaques, in turn,begin to dwindlein numberduring the first quarterof the 6th century,precisely when an economic decline is thought to haveaffected the sanctuary. A mere thirteen plaques from the sanctuary canbe datedto the 6th century,as opposedto sixty-oneexamples in the 7th century.86 Againstthis backdrop of evolvingdedicatory practice at the sanctuary,the specialemphasis placed on potteryto the exclusionof all other categoriesof findsbetween ca. 575 and400 takeson greatermeaning. It maymark another substantial shift in the customsof thevisitors, involv- ingan almost complete substitution of potteryfor metal goods and a new preferencefor utilitariandrinking equipment instead of symbolicoffer- ings,although the lackof statisticaldata reduces the forceof this argu- ment.According to thisview, to the extentthat pottery served a dedica- toryfunction at KatoSyme rather than a personalor utilitarianrole, it substitutedfor the more costly metal votives of earlierperiods. Votive min- iaturesattest unequivocally pottery's occasional role as a dedicationat Kato Syme,while a morepractical function best suits the evidence of plaincups 84. As hasbeen recently emphasized presumablyemployed in ritualdrinking.87 Thus, the potteryforms a new by Kanta's(1991) studyof the Minoan continuumof materialculture whose initial period of emphasiscoincides andIron Age ceramics. witha declinein metalofferings. 85. See Schurmann1996. Historicalcauses may lie behind this apparent shift in dedicatoryprac- 86. See Lebessi1985, p.222. tice.As AnthonySnodgrass emphasizes, the disappearance of small metal 87. Morgan(1990, pp.28-29), in herstudy of the potteryfrom Delphi votiveofferings at Greeksanctuaries at the endof theArchaic period is a andOlympia, emphasizes that it is not panhellenicphenomenon. It marksa changein materialculture that, in alwayseasy to distinguishbetween a hisview, reflects an evolvingreligious outlook, a newpreference for what utilitarianand dedicatory function in he calls"converted" offerings rather than "raw" ones.88 At severalmainland the caseof potteryleft at ancientGreek Greeksanctuaries, such as the Sanctuaryof the Kabeiroiin Boeotia,exca- sanctuaries. offeringsare largely replaced by terracotta 88. Snodgrass1989-1990. vatorshave noticed that metal 89. See Schmaltz1980, pp.113, substitutesand vases.89 The sanctuaryat KatoSyme represents another 164. clearinstance of thesubstitution of potteryfor bronze offerings, although 78 B RICE L. ERICKSON the discrepancyin datebetween the shifton the mainland(ca. 500) and the changeat KatoSyme (ca. 600) arguablyreflects somewhat different historicalcircumstances. A modificationof thecult with a greaterimpact upon the character of worshipand the size of the gatheringsmay have occurred if Lebessiis correctin inferringfrom the scantyarchitectural remains a contractionin the size of the sanctuaryduring the periodsunder consideration.90 If so, the architecturalevidence may hint at a genuinedownturn in the local economy,although this hypothesis posits an unsubstantiated link between thearchitectural elaboration of a remoterural sanctuary and the economic resourcesof thesurrounding area. It is difficultenough to determineif the sanctuarybecomes richer or poorerin absoluteterms between 600 and 400;one might question whether it is evenpossible to connecta putative declineat the sanctuarywith a recessionof the"state" economy. A secondexplanation for the change from bronze to potteryofferings at KatoSyme deserves consideration. Perhaps the decrease in metaloffer- ingsis connectedwith the availabilityof naturalresources not readilyob- tainableon the island.Crete boasts of few knowndeposits of copperand noneof tin.9lConsequently, the islandremained heavily dependent upon overseassources to supplyit withthe rawmaterials necessary for bronzeworking.John Boardman, who recountsthe achievementsof the Orien- talizingCretan bronzeworkers, considers the paucityof 6th-century bronzeworkto be a reflectionof economicand cultural decline.92 Ernst Kirstenmost fully developed the ideaof Cretanisolation from the commercial,political, and military mainstream of ancientGreece.93 His work has becomethe canonicalview on the subjectas epitomizedby Gerald Cadogan'sauthoritative statement in TheAerialAtlasof Ancient Crete: "in the fifthcentury Crete seems to havebeen something of a backwater,on thewhole undisturbed by the stirringevents in mainlandGreece and the restof theAegean."94 In aneffort to explainthe "inevitable Cretan terminus" in thearchaeo- logicalrecord around 600, Sarah Morris revives an earlier commercial explanationfor Crete's decline, first entertained by PierreDemargne (who rejectedit in favorof a generalcultural failure); she attributes the troubles to a collapseof the Cretaneconomy precipitated by military conquests in Syriaand the reconfiguration of Near Eastern trade routes.95 It is doubtful thatthe economywas devastated to the extentthat Morris claims, given

90. Lebessi1985, p.222. ment.The argumentfor commercial iso- 95. Morris1992, pp. 17S172. See 91. In contrast,Crete is comparative- lationfinds apparent support in the archae- alsoDemargne 1947, pp. 214-225. Dun- ly richin depositsof iron.Morris (1992, ologicalrecord. A noteworthyabsence of babin(1952, p. 195)takes issue with p. 151) suggeststhat iron was central to 6th-centuryimports is the tentativepicture the contentionthat Cretan trade was Cretancommercial success in the Iron emergingfrom preliminary excavation divertedto otherchannels after Nebu- Age. Rackhamand Moody (1996, pp.14, reports.On the basisof a studyof the chadnezzarsconquest of Syria.He 18) surveythe mineralresources of the ceramicrecord of Kommos,Johnston pointsout (pp.195-196) that there is island. (1993,p. 377) concludes:"If the negative littleevidence for connections between 92. Boardman1961, pp.141-146, pictureof sixth-centuryCrete remains Creteand Syria in the Orientalizing 159; 1982, p.230. afterfurther sites on the islandhave been period.Yet Dunbabin fails to consider 93. Kirsten1942, pp.10-24,63-67. investigatedand published, we will have the possibilitythat developments in 94. Cadogan1992, p.39. Morrow to assumeisolation from the new'interna- Syriahad an indirecteffect upon Cretan (1960, p.17) expressesa similarsenti- tional'trading circuit." trade. APHRATI AND KATO SYME

the evidencefrom local ceramic sequences that settlement continued in 79 the largerCretan poleis.96 Moreover, it is inherentlyimplausible that the localeconomies of thevarious Cretan cities, dependent as they all presum- ablywere on anagricultural base, would have experienced such a devastat- ingblow from losing access to Easternmarkets. Indeed, a recenttrend in scholarshipis to doubtwhether the gaps in theCretan archaeological record directlyreflect demographic or historicalrealities.97 Be thatas it may,a reorientationof overseastrade patterns at the end of the 7th centuryhas much to recommendit as an explanationfor fluc- tuationsin the availabilityof rawmaterials not available on Creteand the removalof Orientalizingexotica from local elite circulation.Prolonged isolationfrom overseas trade goods and raw materials may have, in turn, influencedlocal taste thetwo explanations are not mutuallyexclusive- leadingto an evengreater emphasis upon local pottery at the expenseof importedbronze. The interplay of severalfactors rather than a singlecause mightbe expectedto createa clearerpattern in the archaeologicalrecord.

KATOSYME AND THE SETTLEMENTAT APHRATI Anotherimportant question raised by the operationof cultat KatoSyme involvesthe identityof the worshippers.The LateArchaic and Classical potteryfrom the sanctuaryis overwhelminglylocal Cretan, and the majorityof it apparentlyderives from a singleproduction center. The predominantpale brown fabric at the sanctuary links the pottery to a production centerat Aphrati,plausibly identified either as the ancientpolis of Arkadesor Dattalla.98The cumulativeweight of this newevidence suggeststhat Aphrati was hometo one of Crete'slongest-lived production centersin the historicalGreek period (ca. 800-400 B.C.). Moreover, con- traryto previousopinion, the tradition of Orientalizingpot painting does notdie out at Aphrati at the end of the7th century.99 A glimpse at pottery fromthe 5th-centurydeposit at Aphratireveals a continuationof this tradition,employing a restrictedrepertoire of Orientalizingmotifs (now limitedto stackedtriangles, rows of dots,tongue patterns, and lobes) accompaniedby simplifiedexecution and arrangement of the motifs.

96. See Erickson2000. potteryboth at Knossosand within the proposedreconstruction of events.By 97. Rizza(1967-1968, p. 298) widerCretan context. Kontoleon (1970, virtueof its location,the ancientcity anticipatedcurrent thinking about the pp.86-87) attributesthe apparentde- at Aphratiwould presumably have problemof the 6th-century"gap"; clineof Creteto a conservativeArchaic resistedLyktian expansion to the south regarding6th-century Cretan terra- societywhich, it is claimed,prevented coast. cottaworkshops, he concludesthat the the emergenceof a truepolis founded 99. In his seminalstudy of the apparentdecline in productionmay upona citizenhoplite army. Cf. Whit- Orientalizingceramic and bronze- be dueto "lanostra conoscenza dei ley (1997,p. 659),who assertsthat the workingtraditions at Aphrati,Levi materiali."Callaghan (1992, p. 133) failureof an aristocraticclass to develop (1945,p. 18) wistfullyand poetically firstentertained the possibilitythat andcommemorate its deeds,rather concludesthat in the "ceramicproducts, the problemof the 6th-centurygap thandemographic realities, lies behind aswell as in contemporarybronze ob- stemmedfrom the difficultyof dis- the apparentdecline of 6th-century jectsof the secondhalf of the 7th tinguishingLate Archaic ceramic styles Creteand its inabilityto leavea "lasting centuryB.C., we see the last flightof fromthose of theirOrientalizing coun- tracethat the archaeologistor historian imaginationof the old civilizationof terparts.Prent (1997) hypothesizes canrecover.z See alsoMorris 1998, Cretebefore it settlesinto the darkness "lingeringstyles" to explainthe p.68. of its exhausted,lethargic sTeep." apparentabsence of 6th-century 98. Eitheridentification will suitthe 80 BRICE L. ERICKSON

The discoveryof importedpottery at Tocraand Cyrene, apparently madeof the samepale brown fabric as theAphrati material, provides an- otherindication of thevitality of thelocal Cretan tradition.l°° An identificationof Aphratias the source of thispottery also makes sense in termsof theisland's geography, since Aphrati lies a shortdistance from the south- erncoast of Creteon a moreor lessdirect line across the seafrom Libya. Chemicalanalysis of the Cretanpottery found at Tocra has confirmed its centralCretan origin.l°l Moreover, the base of oneof the exporteddrink- ing cupsfrom Tocra matches the profileof fragmentarycup bases from KatoSyme.l02 The findsfrom Tocra and Cyrene constitute the only iden- tifiedinstances of Cretanpottery exported overseas in the 6th century;as such,they form a potentialbasis for assessing the strength of Cretanlong- distancecommercial ties in the LateArchaic period.l03 Myhypothesized ware groups and estimates of provenancelead to the conclusionthat the vast majority of the potteryleft at KatoSyme during theperiods under consideration was manufactured bypotters from Aphrati. Whetherlocal potters set up stallsat festivaltime andsold their wares directlyto visitors,as CatherineMorgan suggests may have been the case at Olympiaand Isthmia,l04 or worshippersprocured cult equipmentat Aphratiand transported it themselves to the sanctuary,is difficult to say. Whileit mightbe arguedthat other Cretans obtained pottery from Aphrati foruse at the sanctuary,why would they go to thistrouble on sucha con- sistentbasis? Pottery from Aphrati did not circulatewidely in Crete.On presentevidence, only sporadicexchange of local potterytook place betweenneighboring communities. Thus, a specialexplanation would be neededto accountfor the overwhelmingpreponderance of pottery from Aphratiat KatoSyme between 600 and400 if normalmechanisms of tradeare assumed. A thirdpossibility the manufactureof potteryat the sanctuaryitself findsno supportin the archaeologicalrecord, either di- rectlyin theform of excavatedkilns or indirectly in theform of standard- izedequipment at the sanctuary. Fora varietyof reasons,it seemssafe to concludethat the preponder- anceof palebrown pottery at KatoSyme at thistime reflects substantial activityat the sanctuarybyvisitors from Aphrati.l05The only othervisitors to thesanctuary whose presence can be detectedin thesurviving archaeo-

100. See Boardmanand Hayes 103.Unless, that is, theseCretan potteryat Cyreneand Tocra may well 1966,p. 78; Coldstream1973b, p. 47, "exports"reflect not tradebut the be- indicatethe presenceof Cretancolonists; n. 23; Schaus1985, p. 10. longingsof colonialGreek settlers who see Boardman1980, pp. 122-125;Treis- 101. See Coldstream1973b, pp. 46- broughtpottery and other personal terand Shelov-Kovedyayev 1989, p. 295. 47. belongingswith them on thevoyage. 104.Morgan 1990, p. 124. 102.Also worthmentioning in this While thereis no directevidence of 105.Viviers (1994, p. 256) argues contextis the painteddecoration of Cretanparticipation in the colonization thatthe sanctuaryat KatoSyme be- 6th- and5th-century pottery from of Tocra,Herodotos (4.161) informs us longedwithin the territoryof Biennosin KatoSyme (2,18, 82). Painteddeco- thatthe Cretanssent a contingentof the Archaicperiod. More work needs to rationis a rarityon potteryfrom Cre- settlersto Cyrenaica,another Libyan be doneto definethe localceramic tra- tanproduction centers but common- colony,in the secondgeneration after its ditionof thatpolis. On currentevidence, placeamong the Cretanfinds from foundation,an eventto be datedin the potteryfrom Biennos cannot be identi- Tocraand Cyrene. firsthalf of the 6th century.Cretan fiedat KatoSyme. APH RATI AND KATO SYME logicalremains (109, 110) hail from Gortyn, one of thechief poleis of the neighboringMesara plain (Fig. 1). A laterGortynian pilgrim left an in- scribedHellenistic dedication as a tokenof hisvisit.l06 On the strengthof thislater testimony it seemsreasonable to connectindividual finds of Late Archaicand Classical Gortynian pottery with earlier visits, but this inter- pretationis by no meansmandatory. The provisionalhistorical picture presented here, dependent chiefly uponmy study of the pottery,indicates a smallrural sanctuary under the politicalcontrol of theprincipal nearby polis, attracting visitors from filr- therafield rarely, if at all.Epigraphical sources do littleeither to confirm or rejectthe hypothesizedlocal origin of the worshippersat KatoSyme. The onlycontemporary epigraphic evidence for a specificpresence at the sanctuaryis an inscribed bronze handle of a 6th-centurybowl, which records the signatureof a craftsmanfrom Dattalla.l07 If Viviers' proposed identificationof Aphratias the siteof ancientDattalla is correct,this piece of evidencemight substantiate a link between Kato Syme and Aphrati, but sincethe signature belongs to anartisan, not a visitor,the case is consider- ablyweakened. On theother hand, an intact Late Orientalizing ring vase fromKato Syme with demonstrable parallels in shapeand decoration to fimeraryequipment at Aphrati provides compelling evidence for a visitor fromAphrati in the 7thcentury.l08 Moreover, excavations at Aphratihave yieldedbronze cutout plaques identical in typeto thoseleft in largenum- bersat the sanctuary.l09 These finds raise the possibility that Aphrati, long acknowledgedas the sourceof the richhoard of 7th-centurybronze armor,was the seatof an extensivebronzeworking industry, whose other productsmay have included the cutoutplaques in vogueat the sanctuary.ll°On thewhole, this evidence strengthens my hypothesis of 6th-cen- turyvisitors from Aphrati by providinga possibleprecedent for the pro- posedlater activity.

106.The Hellenisticdedications Hoffmann(1972, pp. 32-33) discuss fromKato Syme await final publica- findsof similarbronze cutout plaques tion.These inscriptions, the majorityof foundelsewhere on Crete. whichwere scratched on the sidesof 110.Hoffmann (1972, p. 30) notes potsor on piecesof tile,frequently thatKnossos, Gortyn, and Aphrati are recordthe ethnicand name of the "clearlyof centralimportance as major dedicant,including visitors from schools"for bronzeworking. Boardman Lyktos,Knossos, Tylissos, Hierapytna, (1961,p. 142;1982, pp. 230-232) dis- Priansos,and Arkades. I expressmy cussesthe cacheof bronzearmor from thanksto AngelikiLebessi for allowing Aphrati.Hoffmann (1972, pp. 32-33) me to examinethis body of evidence. noticeda stylisticaffinity between the 107.For the inscription,see Lebessi smallerbody of plaquesthen in exis- 1975b,p. 191,pl. 193:g;Viviers 1994, tenceand the bronzearmor from p.240. Aphrati.Kato Syme exhibits by farthe 108. See Kanta1991, p. 501, fig. 38. greatestconcentration of theseplaques, 109.The bronzecutout plaques butthey appear sporadically at other fromAphrati are illustrated by Levi Cretansanctuaries, as forinstance at 1927-1929,pp. 28, 30, figs.8-9. the DiktaianCave; see Boardman1961, Boardman(1961, pp. 46-49, 142) and p.142. BRICE L. ERICKSON 82 TERRITORIALEXPANSION OF LYKTOS Oneexpected outcomeofthe conflicting territorial claims of rivalingGreek poleisis thattheir cults,and particularly the ruralsanctuaries situated on theirborders, might becomecontested areas and symbolic battlegrounds in the settlementof territorialdisputes. FranSois de Polignachas amassed anextensive body of evidencein supportof his argumentthat rural cults playedan important politicalfunction by servingas territorialmarkers in thecontext of the emergingGreek poleis of the 8thcentury s.c.lll While dePolignac's reconstructionof ancientGreek cult practice has not gone unchallenged,it has provedto be a highlyfruitful way of exploringthe relationshipbetween cultactivity and the constructionof civicidentity in theearly Greek poleis.ll2Angelos Chaniotis argues that Cretan cults served asimilar purpose in the historicalGreek period. Indeed, the capacityof Cretancults to serve asmarkers of territorywas not lost even upon Helle- nisticparticipants, whoseinscribed arbitrations of borderdisputes in the 3rdand 2nd centuriesB.C. frequently mention sanctuaries at contested pointsalong the frontier.ll3Chaniotis proposes that the sanctuaryofHermes andAphrodite at KatoSyme itselfbecame a territorial marker on the fron- tierbetween two powerfillHellenistic rivals, the poleis of Hierapytnaand Lyktos.ll4 Whatrole mightthe sanctuary at KatoSyme have played during ear- lierterritorial disputesfor which we haveno epigraphicdocumentation? Mystudy of the two Cretanproduction centers whose products are at- testedat KatoSyme revealsa fundamentalchange in the compositionof Cretanpottery at the sanctuaryca. 400-390,when Lyktianshapes re- placedpottery of the distinctivepale brown fabric of Aphrati.The change isabrupt and complete.One way of interpretingthis evidence, given the proposedassociation of localpottery at the sanctuarywith visitors from Aphrati,is to infera cessationof pilgrimagesfrom Aphrati after about 400 B.C.,when the sanctuarymay have been taken over by the Lyktians.A noticepreserved bytheancient geographer Pseudo-Skylax furnishes a fur- therpiece of evidencepertaining to Lyktianexpansion. In hisgeographic itineraryof the Cretancities, Pseudo-Skylax describes Lyktos in the fol- lowingmanner: £V ,U£a0Y£60S8£AVXTOSS Z0tC8LYiX£L o*VTr 0S,U(POT£P@0£V.115 Pseudo-Skylax's testimonysuggests that Lyktos gained territory on the southcoast of Creteby the middleof the 4th century.ll6

111. See de Polignac1995, pp. 33- sanctuaryandthe existence 41. of ethnics toJonas Eiring for publication. thatrecord the namesof Hellenistic 112.Critics point to a greater 115.Pseudo-Skylax 47. Viviers ,* visitors . from . Lyktos . and . . Hierapytna cegree ot reg1ona. varzatzon (1994,p. 253) drawsthe sameconclu- 1nanczent thatKato Syme became a contested Greekcultpractice than sionfrom this passage, namely that admittedby de frontiersanctuary in the Hellenistic Polignac;see Carter 1994, pp. Lyktoswon controlover territory on 18F183. period.Viviers (1994, p. 256, n. 157) 113.Chaniotis (1988) thesouth coast of Crete.But he dates furnishes reachesthe same conclusion. The examplesof Cretan theevent ca. 600, longbefore the cultsthat served as ceramicevidence supports the territorialmarkers con- earliestevidence, literary or otherwise, as indicatedby clusionthat the sanctuary epigraphic, at Kato forLyktian aggression. archaeological,and literary Symegrew in popularityto evidence. becomea 116.Viviers (1994, p. 253, n. 138) regionalcultcenter during the 114.Chaniotis Helle- discussesthe dating of . . Pseudo-Skylax's (1988,p. 33) argues nisticperiod. The Hellenistic onthebasis of the pottery ltlnerary. locationof the fromKato Syme has been assigned APHRATI AND KATO SYME 83

If Lyktianencroachments precipitated a conflict with Aphrati, it is reasonableto inferthat the important rural cult center at Kato Syme would havecome under pressure. On theother hand, had Lyktos taken an interest in the sanctuaryas earlyas 600 B.C., the datesuggested by Viviers, its potterymight be expectedto turnup at KatoSyme, if onlyin minute quantities.ll7As it is, thereis no indicationwhatsoever of Lyktianvisitors or Lyktianproducts reaching the sanctuarybetween 600 and400. When Lyktianpottery suddenly appears at KatoSyme shortly after 400, it is completelywithout precedent. Moreover, it totally replaces the earlier pale brownpottery of Aphrati.The observedabsence of Lyktianceramics at KatoSyme before this date raises the possibility of theexclusion of Lyktos fromthe ritesof Hermesand Aphrodite. Anotherpossibility warrants attention. The suddenappearance of Lyktianpottery at the sanctuaryarguably represents a responseto the growthof a rivalpolis, Hierapytna, whose conjectured expansion of terri- toryinto the hills above Biennos would have presented a threatto Lyktos. If Aphratidid fall under the politicalsway of Lyktosduring the 6th century,as Vivierssuggests, but continuedto sendvisitors to the sanctuary untilthe end of the5th century, then the change from pale brown to gritty redfabric would require a differentinterpretation. Rather than marking thepoint at which Lyktos established political authority over Aphrati, the changein ceramiccomposition at KatoSyme might imply a moread- vancedstage of Lyktianterritorial expansion. Kato Syme may have first attractedLyktian visitors as a counter to Hierapytnianexpansion. The earlier absenceof Lyktianpottery at KatoSyme, according to thisview, signifies Lyktos'sdisinterest in its holdingson the southcoast of Crete,a malaise brokenby Hierapytnianpressure. Lyktian pottery found at KatoSyme afterca. 400 is thusseen as a valuablesource for historical reconstruction, whilethe pottery from Aphrati dating between 600 and400 is assumedto be unrelatedto the politicalcontrol of the sanctuary. Bothinterpretations are based on assumptionsabout religious practice as a validexpression of politicalcontrol, and they take for granted a correlationbetween the originof thepottery and the people who left it at thesanctuary. It would bolster either case to be ableto citeparallels for the relationshipbetween pottery and the politicalcontrol of sanctuaries,but unfortunatelylittle comparativeevidence has been collectedfrom else- wherein the Greekworld. What little work has been done has focused primarilyupon panhellenic sanctuaries where the presence of ceramicsfrom a wide varietyof sourcescomplicates interpretation.ll8 Morgan and Whitelawidentify Argive pottery at the Heraionduring the 8th and7th centuriesB.C. asone manifestation ofthe emergenceof Argivehegemony

117.The observedabsence of shownthat Lyktian wares did not panhellenicsanctuaries from produc- Lyktianpottery before ca. 400 B.C. does possesssocial or symbolicvalue in the tion centerswhose citizens are known not,of course,argue decisively against venueof publicdisplay before 400, the to haveparticipated in the festival.For an earlierLyktian presence at the potterywould not be expectedto turn instance,Morgan (1990, p. 53) puzzles sanctuary.Too littleis stillknown up at KatoSyme. This issuerequires overthe absenceof Corinthianpottery aboutthe social,cultural, and economic furtherconsideration. at Olympiabefore ca. 675 B.C., a date dimensionsof potteryconsumption in 118.A particularproblem is howto long afterthe earliestattested Corin- this case.For instance, if it couldbe interpretthe absenceof potteryat thianparticipation in the festival. 84 BRICE L. ERICKSON

in theplain.ll9 Insofar as the Argive Heraion was a ruralsanctuary associ- atedwith a specificrite of passage,its positionmay be analogousto thatof the sanctuaryof Hermesand Aphrodite at KatoSyme.l20 Giventhe paucityof examplesof allegedpolitical control of Greek sanctuariesand the lackof a theoreticalfoundation from which to assess the relationshipbetween pottery and political control, a decisionbetween the two proposedexplanations for the changein potterycomposition at KatoSyme requires further deliberation. A centralquestion is whetheror notthe preponderance of pale brown pottery at Kato Syme connotes ownershipof the sanctuary.Both hypothesesposit a politicalconsequence to theappearance of Lyktianpottery, although the first interprets it within the compassof a territorialdispute between Aphrati and Lyktos, the secondas partof a widerpolitical confrontation between Lyktos and Hierapytna. Thefirst explanation seems preferable for several reasons. The second hypothesisfails to explainwhy the community of Aphratistopped partici- patingin thecult after 400 B.C. Cultpractice provides a meansof demon- stratinga unitedfront to an externalfoe. Lyktoswould presumably have hadan interest in garneringthe support of its alliesin theface of growing Hierapytnianpressure. In addition,the hypothesisof Hierapytnianex- pansionimplies increased importance for KatoSyme in the 4th century, on the assumptionthat it becamea regionalcult centeron the border betweentwo powerfulrivals. My impressionof the evidencefrom Kato Syme,however, is thatthe 4th centurymarks a periodof decline,characterizedby fewer offerings (bronzes disappear completely at thistime) and less utilitarianpottery. Judging from the totalvolume of potteryleft at KatoSyme, visits occurred on a moresporadic basis in the 4th century. In supportof thealternative explanation of a conflictbetween Lyktos andAphrati, additional signs of a changein ownershipof KatoSyme in the 4th centurybuttress the ideaof an enemytakeover of the sanctuary. The time-honoredpractice of makingburnt offerings in the openair ap- parentlyfell out of favor.l2lOn the strengthof thisevidence, it seemsrea- sonableto concludethat a fundamentalchange in worshiptook place at KatoSyme in the earlyyears of the4th century.Another potential sign of discontinuityin thispart of Creteis thedestroyed house, discussed above, in the settlementrecord of Aphrati.l22While the excavatedremains give noindication of directLyktian involvement in thedestruction ofthis house, thetiming of theevent in thefinal years of the5th centurycoincides with the cessationof offeringsfrom Aphrati at KatoSyme, thereby suggesting

119.Morgan and Whitelaw 1991, cultto legitimizeterritorial conquests. dominanceby takingover the Apollo p. 84.There is a wealthof evidenceto Archaeologicalevidence supports the cultand incorporating it into the ritual suggestthat the ArgiveHeraion fell traditionthat Argos destroyed Asine systemof the plain,and that the cultat underthe politicalsway of Argosin the ca. 710 B.C., althoughthe Temple of Asinewas maintained as a reminderof Classicalperiod. Argos instituted and Apolloat Asineapparently survived the the newstatus quo." Whileplausible, controlledthe cult,and a procession destructionand continued to attractwor- this explanationlacks evidence in sup- fromArgos forged a physicallink shippersto the ruinedcity. According to portof Argivecontrol of the sanctuary. betweencity and sanctuary. Morgan(1990, p. 11),the maintenanceof 121. See Lebessi1985, p. 222. 120.Argive expansion provides thisprincipal cult of the defeatedpopu- 122.For a preliminaryreport of the anotherpossible example of the use of lationsuggests that "Argos reinforced its excavations,see Lebessi1973. APH RATI AND KATO SYM E 85

a connectionbetween the two. More work needs to be doneto determine theextent of thisdestruction horizon: was it confinedto a singlehouse or the domesticquarters, or did it extendacross the entiresettlement?l23 Despitethese remaining uncertainties, the existing archaeological evidence raisesthe possibilityof a destructionof Aphratiby Lyktosaccompanied by the replacementof cultactivity at a principalshrine in the newlycon- queredterritory with a Lyktianpresence. Lyktian activity at KatoSyme perhapsserved not only to legitimizeterritorial conquests and enforce the statusquo with Aphrati,but alsoto stakea claimin the newlycreated borderbetween Lyktos and Hierapytna.

LYKTOSAND THE GREEKWORLD The archaeologicalsources identify the end of the5th century as a turning pointin thehistory of Lyktosand Aphrati, a timeof politicaland military upheaval.It is worthspeculating about what might have triggered a po- tentiallymore aggressive policy of Lyktianterritorial expansion around 400 B.C.The timingof theseevents, as determinedby the studyof the ceramicsequences of Aphratiand Lyktos, coincides with a majorevent in Greekhistory, the defeatof Athensat the endof the PeloponnesianWar in 404 B.C.and the loss of its overseasempire. The eclipseof Athenian hegemonyin the Aegeanand the ascendancyof Spartaprofoundly upset thebalance of powerin manyparts of the Greekworld, in manifoldways. Theclearest documented instance of Spartaflexing its power on the Medi- terraneanstage in theimmediate aftermath of thePeloponnesian War in- volvedthe toppling of thedemocratic constitutions of inimicalGreek poleis in favorof oligarchicrule headed by pro-Spartanexecutive committees. Literarysources, chief among them Xenophon, emphasize Spartan in- volvementin the affairsof the Greekcities of AsiaMinor upon the con- clusionof the PeloponnesianWar. In the caseof Lyktianexpansion in 400-390,a combinationof indi- rectevidence urges consideration of tacitSpartan approval or evendirect militaryassistance on behalf of theLyktians as a contributingfactor. Greek traditionheld that Lyktos was one of Sparta'scolonial foundations, and regardlessof the historicalmerits of the claim,there seems to havebeen definitesubstance to the relationshipbetween Lyktos and Sparta in the Archaicand Classical periods.l24 Moreover, a later documented instance of Spartanmilitary intervention on Creteon behalfof Lyktosin 343/2, theyear in whichArchidamos of Spartaled a forceto Cretein supportof

123.The epigraphicevidence from froma pithosburial from Aphrati. It is around600 B.C. tendsto supportthe the site remainsequivocal. After a long the soleevidence for 4th-century occu- tradition.Malkin (1994, p. 80) expresses hiatusof approximately200 years,in- pationat the site.If myproposed date for reservationsabout the purportedSpartan scriptionsagain appear at Aphratiin the pyxisin the finalquarter of the 4th foundationof Lyktos.Since our main the middleof the 3rdcentury B.C.; see centuryis correct,the tombmay signify a sourcesfor this, Ephoros (FGrHist 70 F Guarducci1935, pp. 6-28. Yetsuch Hellenisticrecovery of the town. 147-149)and Aristotle (Pol. 1271b.28- a gap,even of this duration,is not 124.Malkin (1994, pp. 78-80) 29), wrotetheir accounts long afterthe unparalleledamong the epigraphic examinesthe traditionof Spartan eventshad taken place, it is easyto see recordsof Classicaland Hellenistic colonization.Coldstream and Huxley's howthe traditioncould have been manu- Cretanpoleis. Alexiou (1968, p. 406, (1999,p. 297) proposalthat Sparta sided facturedto supportSpartan military pl. 435:a)illustrates an alabasterpyxis with Lyktosin a waragainst Knossos activityon Cretein the 4th century. BRICEL. ERICKSON 86 directmilitary Lyktiansagainst Knossos,125 raises the possibilityof the history.To be interventionat an earlierunattested point in the island's concernforeign mili- sure,theearliest episodes of recordedCretan history thatthe Samians taryexpeditions to the island.Herodotos (3.59) relates of Kydoniain 519. andthe Aeginetansfought for control over the colony returnedto Inaddition, Thucydides (2.85.5) reveals that the Athenians Furtherstudy of Kydoniaa century later to meddlein West Cretan affairs. illuminateother pos- theCretan archaeological record has the potential to sibleinstances of foreignmilitary intervention. end of the 5th The fatesof Lyktos,Aphrati, and Kato Syme at the Cretanhistory centurycall into question the long-held tenet of Classical in the 340s B.C. the thatprior to the greatforeign military expeditions left to pursue,in islandwas a backwaterin the majorcurrents of history, insularity.''126The G.L. Huxley'swords, "a separate development in secure premierClassical Sic. 16.62.3-4.Perlman timingof a majorterritorial expansion of oneof Crete's 125.Diod. Greekhistory (1992,p.200, n.39), Callaghan(1992, poleissuggests otherwise. The majorevents of mainland developments,al- p.134), and Huxley (1994, p. 132) mayhave helped shape the courseof internalCretan werefelt on the island discussthis passage. thoughthe preciseways in whichthese influences 126.Huxley 1994, p. 132. remainobscure. 127.Coldstream's (1973b) publicationof a LateArchaic well deposit (RR:H)sheds valuable light on Cretan developmentsca.500-480 B.C. CONCLUSION Callaghan(1978) complements his publishinga selectionof 5th- a substantialvoid in workby Ceramicevidence from Aphrati and Kato Syme fills centuryshapes from an unstratified The LateAr- thepublication record of post-MinoanCretan archaeology. depositfrom the Classical"Shrineof completeblank in contrast,6th-century chaicand Classical periods have constituted an almost Glaukos."By owingto the lackof at- Knossosis devoid of identifiable thehistory of the island'sceramic development, a of an establishedceramic pottery,the onlyexception being tentionto post-Minoansites and the absence characterizedby a apartas the only Clas- groupof cupbases classificationsystem and typology. Knossos stands "stepped"profile underfoot, a type to formulatea par- sicalCretan site where archaeologists have attempted datedby Callaghan(1992, p. 92) to let aloneclose, the tialchronological sequence, although efforts to narrow, ca.525-500. metwith limited 128.Coldstream and Huxley (1999, 6th-centurygap in the ceramicsequence have thus far as a ClassicalCretan pro- pp.289-301)summarize the evidence success.127Now Aphrati may also take its place possible formswithin a sec- fromKnossos and examine ductioncenter, thereby allowing an analysis of ceramic forthe apparent6th- andjugs from Kato explanations ondregion. In addition,a continuousseries of cups centuryrecession. They limit their dis- animportant Symespanning the years between 600 and 400 B.C. provides cussionto Knossosand sites within its ceramicproduction Aphratihas figured promi- correctionto the impressionof anisland-wide gap in territory. evidence nentlyin earlierdiscussions of 6th- inthe 6th century.The absenceof identifiablearchaeological previouslyled historiansto centuryCretan decline. Brock (1957, fromKnossos between ca. 600 and525 has interpretsthe or culturalde- p.219),for instance, concludethat most Cretan poleis suffered a demographic mortuaryrecord at Knossosand for the continuous clineof unprecedentedproportions.128 New evidence Aphratias a directreflection of pop- Aphrati)indicates remarks manufactureof pottery at a sitein EastCrete (probably ulationlevels in his concluding is inaccurate.His- in the publicationof the Fortetsaceme- thatthis presumptionof island-wideabandonment of the supposedsettlement gap or tery,Knossos: "How can one account toricalspeculation regarding the cause eclipseat the end of the thatcomparable breaks exist else- forthe sudden recessionshould await concrete evidence seventhcentury of the flourishing in the Cretanarchaeological record. communitiesround Knossos? Arkades, where andKato The aboveformulation of a ceramicsequence for Aphrati furtherinland, remained prosperous a futurediscover- butby the sixthcentury Symewill serve as a partialframework for incorporating littlelonger, resultssuggest thewhole of Creteseems to have ies,inviting new avenues of historicalinquiry. Preliminary to theancient city becomeaffected by the sameparalysis." thatthe rural sanctuary at KatoSyme was linked at first APHRATI AND KATO SYME 87 nearAphratiand then, from 400 B.C. onward,to therising power of Lyktos. SubsequentLyktian activity at KatoSyme served to legitimizeterritorial conquestsand enforce the newpolitical status quo with Aphrati.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An earlierversion of thispaper was presented at the AnnualMeeting of the ArchaeologicalInstitute of Americain SanDiego in January2001. The financialsupport of a FulbrightFellowship (1997-1998), the Bert HodgeHill Fellowshipof the AmericanSchool of ClassicalStudies at Athens(1998-1999), a Universityof TexasFellowship (1999-2000), and researchgrants from the 1984Foundation (summer 1999, fall 2000) made possiblemy programof research.I owe a debtof gratitudeto Angeliki Lebessi,Polly Muhly, and Athanasia Kanta for permission to publishthe LateArchaic and Classical pottery from their excavations at KatoSyme andAphrati. All threegave generously of theirtime and expertise in the interpretationof the results.This project could not havebeen completed withouttheir help. AlexandraKaretsou, director of the HerakleionMuseum, graciously madethe potteryfrom these sites available for study,drawing, and pho- tography.The authoris responsiblefor the profiledrawings and photo- graphs.I extend mywarmest thanks to Antonino Di Vita,Barbara Hayden, NikolaosStampolidis, Peter Warren, and L. V.Watrous for permission to mentionunpublished finds from their respective excavations or surveys at Gortyn,Vrokastro, Eleutherna, Knossos, and Gournia. My debtto Didier Viviersextends not onlyto his kindinvitation to examineunpublished potteryfrom Itanos, but also to his generosityin discussingthis material andthe historicalproblem of 6th-centuryCrete. Athena Tsingarida and MariaEnglezou helped resolve questions concerning the potteryfrom Itanosand Lyktos. NicolasColdstream, Lisa Kallet,Jack Kroll, and Cynthia Shelmerdine readearlier drafts of thisarticle in theform of dissertationchapters. Their suggestionsinspired numerous changes and saved me fromcountless er- rors.Paula Perlman, the chairof mydissertation committee, lent a critical eyeto earlydrafts and advised in matterslarge and small. I amprofoundly gratefill.My thanksalso go to TraceyCullen, Tracy Dickinson, Donald Haggis,JerryRutter, and the anonymous reviewers of Hesperia,whose sug- gestionsimproved the finaldraft beyond measure. The INSTAPStudy Centerprovided an excellentbase of operationsfor my activitiesin East Crete.I owe thanksto Tom Brogan,the directorof the center,for his tirelessefforts on mybehalf. Above all, I wishto thankthe people of Crete whoso unfailinglyextended hospitality to a strangerand offered constant goodcheer. I ampleased to offersomething, however inadequate, in re- turnfor their generosity. The naturalattractions of the islandinspired an earliervisitor, J. D. S. Pendlebury,to write (TheArchaeology of Crete, p. ix): "Tohave stood on Ida,on Dikte,and on Aphendes-Kavousiin the clearshrill wind and to havetoiled through the hot littlevalleys with thatunforgettable smell of herbsis an experiencethe memoryof which nothingcan ever take away from you." I wholeheartedlyagree. BRICE L. ERICKSON 88 REFERENCES

AgoraIV = R. H. Howland, Greek Carter,J.C. 1994."Sanctuaries in the Lampsand TheirSurrvirvals, XpovoRoycxa =p0pi(8a1=, Xi£CÎA Choraof Metaponto,"in Placing Princeton1958. CTV>O2Of,£e0yOCCTeOCOf, S. Drogouet the Gods:Sanctuaries and AgoraXII = B. A. SacredSpace al.,eds., Athens, pp. 61-68. Sparkesand in AncientGreece, S. E. L. Talcott, Alcockand Erickson,B.2000. "LateArchaic and Blackand Plain Pottery R. Osborne,eds., of the Oxford,pp. 161- ClassicalCrete: Island 6th, 5th, and 4th CenturiesB.C., 198. Pottery Princeton1970. Stylesin anAge of Historical Chaniotis,A. 1988."Habgierige Alexiou,S. 1968. Transition"(diss. Univ. of Texas, "'ApxaLoq£gxaL Gotter,habgierige Stadte: Heilig- ,uvN,u£tax£vtpLxN5 xat Austin). ava°XtxtlS tumsbesitzund Gebietsanspruch in KpNrr5," ArchDelt 21, . In press."Historical Greek 1966, B' 2 denkretischen Staatsvertragen," [1968], pp. Potteryfrom the Odeion,Gortyn," 405-411. Ktema13, pp.21-39. . 1969. "XpovLxa:At ASAtene74-75. . 1996.Die Vertragezwischen apxatorr£g KPNrsS Greco,E., et al. 1996."Itanos (Crete xata to 1967," kretischenPoleis in der CretChron hellenistischen orientale),"BCH 120,pp. 941-952. 21, pp.533-543. Zeit, Stuttgart. Amyx,D. A. 1988. Corinthian . 1997."Itanos(Crete Vase- Coldstream,J. N. 1973a.Knossos: Paintingof the The orientale),"BCH 121,pp. ArchaicPeriod, Sanctuary 809-824. of Demeter(BSA Suppl.8), . 1999."Itanos(Crete Berkeley. London. orien- Arnold,D. 1985. Ceramic tale),"BCH 123,pp.515-530. Theoryand .1973b."Knossos1951-61: CulturalProcess,Cambridge. Guarducci,M. 1935.Inscriptiones Orientalizingand Archaic Pottery Boardman,J.1961. The Creticae,opera et consilioFriderici Cretan fromthe Town," BSA 68, Collectionin pp.33-63. HalDherrcollectae 1: Tituli Cretae Oxford,Oxford. . 1999."Knossos . 1951-61: mediaepraeter Gortynios, Rome. 1980. The GreeksOrverseas, 3rd Classicaland ed., HellenisticPottery Guest-Papamanoli,A., and A. London. fromthe Lam- Town,"BSA 94, pp.321- braki.1980. "Les grottes . 1982. "Crete,"in CAH III.3: 351. de Leraet TheExpansion de l'Arkoudiaen Creteoccidentale of the GreekWorld, Coldstream,J.N., and H. 8th to W. Catling, auxepoques prehistoriques et 6th CenturiesB.C., J. Boardman eds.1996. his- KnossosNorth Cemetery: toriques,"ArchDelt 31,1976, andN. G. L. Hammond,eds., Early A GreekTombs (BSA Suppl.28), [1980],pp. 178-243. Cambridge,pp. 222-233. London. Boardman,J., and J. Haggis,D. 1996."Archaeological Hayes.1966. Coldstream,J.N., and G. L. Excarvationsat Huxley. Surveyat Kavousi,Eastern Crete: Tocra,1963-1965: 1999."Knossos: The TheArchaic ArchaicGap," PreliminaryReport," Hesperia 65, DepositsI (BSA BSA 94, pp.289-307. Suppl.4), London. pp.373-472. Coldstream,J.N., and C. F.Mac- . 1973. Excarvationsat Hayden,B.J. 1997."Rural Settlement Tocra, donald.1997. "Knossos, Area of 1963-1965: TheArchaic of the Orientalizingthrough Early DepositsII South-westHouses: Early Hellenic and LaterDeposits ClassicalPeriod: The Meseleroi (BSA Suppl.10), Occupation,"BSA 92, pp. London. 191-245. Valley,East Crete," AegeanArchae- Demargne,P. 1947. La Cretede'dalique: Brock,J. K. 1957. Fortetsa: ology2,pp.93-144. Early Greek Etudessur les originesd'une Tombs renais- Hayden,B.J., J. A. Moody,and nearKnossos, Cambridge. sance,Paris. Cadogan,G. 1992. O. Rackham.1992. "The Vrokastro "Ancientand dePolignac, F.1995. Cults, ModernCrete," in Territory, SurveyProject, 1986-1989: Re- TheAerialAtlas and the Originsof the Greek ofAncient City- searchDesign and Preliminary Crete,J. W. Myers, State,Chicago. E. E. Myers,and G. Results,"Hesperia 61, pp.293-353. Cadogan,eds., Dunbabin,T.J. 1952.Rev. of P.De- Berkeley,pp. 31-43. Hoffmann,H. 1972. Early Cretan margne,La Cretede'dalique, in Callaghan,P.J. Armorers,Mainz. 1978. "KRS1976: Gnomon24, pp. 191-197. Excavationsat a Shrineof Glaukos, Homann-Wedeking,B. 1950. "A Kiln Eiring,J.2000. "Hellenistic Pottery Siteat Knossos,"BSA 73, pp. 1-33. Knossos,"BSA 45, pp. 165- fromPyrgos at Myrtos,"in 2000: E' 192. . 1992. "Archaicto Hellenistic EgTccylcUowexr SvvofvCÎCXRX£X0a8CX(: XxOopoAoycxA toRoman Colony: Excarvations at ArchaeologicalSurrvey of theKnossos GTsOOpi(8=I=, Xi£CÎA AVV02=, Area(BSA theUnexplored Mansion 2 (BSA Suppl.14), London. Suppl. £X0yOCCTsOCOf,S. Drogouet al.,eds., Huxley,G. L. 1994."0n Knossosand 21), L. H. Sackett,ed. Athens,pp.53-60. London,pp. 89-136. HerNeighbours (7th Centuryto Englezou,M.2000. "EAhvtoxN Callaghan,P.J., Mid-4thCentury B.C.)," in Knossos, andR. E.Jones.1985. x£pa,uLxNaso mv "Hadra apxata Airro," aLabyrinth of History:Papers Pre- Hydriaeand Central Crete: A in2000: Fabric E'EgTcaz,uowexr7avvos>czr7 sentedin Honourof SinclairHood, Analysis,"BSA 80, pp.1-17. ycorqv £mUpCaICXr X£X0a8CX(: D.Evely, H. Hughes-Brock,and APHRATI AND KATO SYME 89

N. Momigliano, eds., London, du Ve auIersieclea?X..t-C.(EtCret pp. 123-133. 15), Paris. Johnston, A. 1993. "Potteryfrom Levi,D. 1927-1929."Arkades: Una Archaic Building Q at Kommos," cittacretese all'alba della civilta Hesperia62, pp.339-382. ellenica,"ASAtene 10-12, pp. 1-710. Kanta,A. 1991. "Cult,Continuity, and . 1945.Early Hellenic Pottery the Evidence of Pottery at the of Crete,Princeton. Sanctuaryof Syme Viannou, Crete," Malkin,I. 1994.Myth and Territory in La transizione dal miceneo all 'alto in the SpartanMediterranean, arcaismo,dalpalazzo alla citta:Atti Cambridge. del Con?vegnoInternazionale, Roma, Morgan,C. 1990.Athletes and Oracles: 14-19 marzo1988, D. Musti et al., TheTransformation of Olympia eds., Rome, pp.479-505. and Delphi in the 8th CenturyB.C., Kirsten,E. 1942. Das dorischeKreta I: Cambridge. Die InselKreta im funften und ?vierten Morgan,C., andT. Whitelaw.1991. Jahrhundert,Wurzburg. "Potsand Politics: Ceramic Evi- Kontoleon, N. 1970. Aspectsde la Grece dencefor the Riseof the Argive preclassique,Paris. State,"AJA 95, pp. 79-108. Lebessi, A. 1970. "ApxaLorr£5 xat Morris,I. 1998."Archaeology and MVM£La X£VTpCXNg xat ava°XtX!S ArchaicGreek History," in Archaic KPfrsS: Acppat,"ArchDelt 24, 1969, Greece:New Approachesand New B 2 [1970], pp. 415-418. E?vidence,N. Fisherand H. van . 1973. "ApXaLorr£5xaL Wees,eds., London, pp. 1-91. MVM£La, X£VTpCXNgfi xaLfi avaTotLxNg> fi Morris,S. 1992.Daidalos and the KpnqS: Agpat,"ArchDelt25, Originsof GreekArt, Princeton. 1970, B 2 [1973], pp. 455-460. Morrow,G.1960. Platos CretanCity: . 1974. " I£pov Ep,uoi)xat A HistoricalInterpretation of the 'AgPo8CqS £tS SUM!V Kpnqg, Laws, Princeton. Prakt 1972 [1974], pp. 193-203. Orlandos,A. K. 1976."KpNrr: . 1975a. "ApXaLorr£5 xaL £pL^UX0yn apxatxv £tS AuxNv MVM£La, X£VTpCXNgfi xatfi avaTotLxNg> fi KpNrrv,"Ergon, 1975 [1976], KpNrr5:Airro5,"ArchDelt26,1971, pp.195-202. B 2 [1975], pp. 493-499. Orton,C., P.Tyers, and A. Vince. . 1975b. " I£pov Ep,uoi)xat 1993.Pottery inArchaeology, ACPP°8trsS£tS Si,uNv Btavvou," Cambridge. Prakt 1973 [1975], pp. 188-199. Payne,H. 1931.Necrocorinthia: A . 1977. " I£pov Ep,uoi)xaL Studyof CorinthianArt in theAr- 'ACPPO8GrSS £65 S{),UNV BLavvou," chaicPeriod, Oxford. Prakt 1975 [1977], pp. 322-329. Perlman,P. 1992."One Hundred- . 1980. "ApXaLorr£5xat CitiedCrete and the'Cretan

MVM£La X£VTpCXNg xaL avaToALxNg sOUC£La"' CP 87, pp. 193- KpnqS: Auog,"ArchDelt29, 205.

1973-1974, B' 3 [1980], pp. 886- Platon,N.1952. "XpovLxa: 'H 887. apxaLoSoyLxNxcvaL5 £V KpNTn

1983. "ApXaLorr£Sxa C xaTa To £T0g 1952,"CretChron 6,

MVM£La X£VTp6XNg KP!S, pp.471-481.

ArchDelt30, 1975, B' 2 [1983], . 1957."XpovLxa: 'H pp. 341-342. apxaLoXoyLxN XLVaLS £V Kpq

. 1985. To C£X00TOV 'EXoUryxosc xaTa To £T0g 1957,"CretChron 1l, q5 Aoodcqs orfj SvUryBcofwov: pp.326-340. XOfiXt>= XxO(TCXATOsO£V8aT=, Plog,S. 1980.Stylistic Variation in Athens. PrehistoricCeramics: Design Analysis . 1990. " I£poToi) Ep,uNxaL in theAmericanSouthwest, Cam- vIS A

DarkAges:Papers on Mediterranean Storia,archeologia, antropologia 3-4, M. Bellancourt-Valdherand Archaeology(Caeculus 3), pp.35-46. pp.287-294. J.-N. Corvisier,eds., Arras, pp.127- Rackham,O., andJ.Moody.1996. Spratt,T. A. B.1865. Tra?velsand 139. TheMaking of the CretanLandscape, Researchesin Crete,London. Viviers,D.1994. "Lacite de Dattallaet Manchester. Stissi,V.1999."Production, Circulation, l'expansionterritoriale de Lyktosen Rizza,G. 1967-1968."Leterrecotte di andConsumption of ArchaicGreek Cretecentrale," BCH 118,pp.229- Axos,"ASAtene45-46, pp.211-302. Pottery(Sixth and Early Fifth 259. Schaus,G. P.1985.The Extramural CenturiesB.C.)," in The ComplexPast Watrous,L. V. 1982.Lasithi:A History Sanctuaryof Demeterand Persephone of Pottery:Production, Circulation, and of Settlementon a HighlandPlain in at Cyrene,Libya. Final Reports2: Consumptionof Mycenaeanand Greek Crete(Hesperia Suppl. 18), Princeton. TheEast Greek,Island, and Laconian Pottery(Sixteenth to EarlyFifth .2001. "Cretefrom Earliest Pottery(University Museum, Uni- CenturiesB.C.), J. P.Crielaard, V. Stissi, Prehistorythrough the Protopalatial versityof Pennsylvania,Monograph andG. J. vanWijngaarden, eds., Period,Addendum: 1994-1999," in 56), Philadelphia. Amsterdam,pp. 83-113. AegeanPrehistory. A Re?view(AJA Schmaltz,B. 1980.Das Kabiren- Talbert,R. J. A., ed.,2000.Barrington Suppl.1),T. Cullen,ed., Boston, heiligtumbei ThebenVI: Metall- Atlas of the Greekand Roman World, pp.216-223. fguren aus demKabirenheiligtum bei Princeton. Watrous,L. V.,and H. Blitzer,1995. Theben,Berlin. Treister,M. J., andT. V. Shelov- "TheGournia Survey Project: A Schurmann,W. 1996.Das Heiligtum Kovedyayev.1989. "An Inscribed PreliminaryReport of the 1992- desHermes und derAphroditein Syme ConicalClay Object from Her- 1994Field Seasons,"AJA 99, p.313 Viannou2: Die tierstatuettenaus monassa,"Hesperia 58, pp.289-296. (abstract). metall,Athens. vanEffenterre, H., andM. Bougrat. Whitley,J. 1997."Cretan Laws and Cre- Sinopoli,C. M. 1991.Approaches to 1969."Lesfrontieres de Lato," tanLiteracy,"AJA 101, pp. 635-661. ArchaeologicalCeramics, New York. CretChron21, pp.9-53. Whitley,J., M. Prent,and S. Thorne. Snodgrass,A. 1989-1990."The Eco- vanEffenterre, H., andD. Gondicas. 1999."Praisos IV: A Preliminary nomicsof Dedicationat Greek 1999."Lyttos, ville fantome?" in Reporton the 1993and 1994 Sur- Sanctuaries,"Scienze dell'antichita: La demographiehistorique antique, vey Seasons,"BSA 94, pp.215-264.

BriceL. Erickson DARTMOUTHCOLLEGE DEPARTMENTOF CLASSICS 3I6 REEDHALL HANOVER,NEW HAMPSHIRE 03755 brice [email protected]