introduction to the site and circumstances of excavation 1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE SITE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EXCAVATION

Kenchreai, the Saronic Gulf port of ancient , is located about ten kilometers south- east of the agora of that city and about three and a half kilometers south of the sanctuary of Poseidon that lies near the eastern end of the modern Isthmian Canal (Plan I.1).1 Kenchreai’s harbor primarily served commerce and travel with the eastern Mediterranean, especially the , Asia Minor, and Egypt as the counterpart to Lechaion, the port of Corinth on the Corinthian Gulf for trade to the west.2 The excavations conducted from 1963 to 1968 by The University of Chicago and Indiana University, Bloomington, under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies in , were planned to reveal information about the “living and working conditions and facilities of the lowest classes, for the mechanics of operation of the Greek port, and for patterns of trade as well as evidence for the history of religion in .”3 The excavation of Kenchreai, whose remains lie partly under water, was also an opportunity for the application of the newly developing techniques of underwater and shallow-water archaeology. The project was advanced for its time in this regard and in relating all aspects of the site plan to a single grid based on the Greenwich meridian and all elevation points to sea level, indicated by + or -S.L.4 Thus, it is generally possible to recreate a three-dimensional plan of the site with finds positioned in their places of discovery. After excavation was underway, two circumstances significantly changed the character of the project. First, it was soon realized that the ancient Greek harbor town may have been located farther inland, perhaps on the top and upper slopes of a spur of land projecting toward the coast, with the inner harborage in shallow water at its base, an area that had silted up by the end of the Hellenistic period. The areas of the Greek town that were tested proved to have been quarried over and the slopes of the spur had eroded, leaving very little evi- dence for the early port or the town it had served. The location of the early port may be resolved by future survey or excavation. In the Roman period, harbor installations were built along the new seaside and two large quays that partially enclosed and protected the Roman

1 For a geographical description see Kenchreai I 2-5. additional acknowledgments, please refer to Kenchreai I 2 The distribution of imported lamp sources gives a xvii-xxi. rough estimate of the relative volume of commerce, which 4 To account for tidal changes, at first the sea level is the same as for Corinth generally except for the was measured hourly and the elevation of each find was markedly larger number of lamps imported from Asia calculated in reference to these levels. Subsequently an Minor during the late Empire and the absence of items average sea level was established and used as the con- from Syria or the Near East, see Kenchreai V 2, 91. stant. 3 See Kenchreai I xvii. For excavation participants and 2 chapter i

Plan I.1. Sketch map of (Repr. from Kenchreai I, fig. 1) ship basin (Plan I.2). It was on the southwest of these two quays that the second circum- stance occurred which affected the major emphasis of the excavation; namely, the discov- ery, in the closing days of the 1964 season, of a sunken room, then called the fountain court and now apsidal room, in which were found more than one hundred and twenty panels of glass opus sectile for which Kenchreai is famous (Plan I.3).5 The ivory, bone, and wood frag- ments that are the subject of the present volume were found in the same room as the glass panels. Since these materials may provide significant evidence for the dating and provenance of comparanda from elsewhere, which hitherto have proved difficult to pin down in respect to date and place of manufacture, a detailed account of their deposition is set forth here.6 The landward side of the quay at the southwest end of the harbor was occupied prima- rily by warehouses built during the Augustan period, although there may have been a shrine

5 See Kenchreai II. caution should be exercised by ceramic archaeologists 6 Contrary to the statement in Kenchreai V xvi that who might have taken some of the Kenchreai material the relevant deposit was sealed and firmly datable to A.D. to be more firmly dated than is justified. 375, the discussion in the present volume indicates that