The Temple of Apollo Patroos Dated by an Amphora Stamp

Home , 290s, 4th century, Histria (ancient city), Xoanon

HESPERIA 78 (2OO9) THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO Pages 387-403 PATROOS DATED BY AN AMPHORA STAMP

ABSTRACT

to The Temple of Apollo Patroos in the Athenian Agora is often dated ca. 330 B.C. A fragment of a Thasian amphora with a stamp bearing the eponym riofiA/uc,was found in a pit closed no later than the period of the ca. temples construction. This stamp dates to 313 B.C. The temple must thereforehave been constructed in the very late 4th or very early 3rd century. Review of the textual and other archaeological evidence related to the temple ca. and itsvicinity clarifies the physical development of this cult site from 375 to ca. 300 B.C.

INTRODUCTION

to The purpose of this article is reconsider the date of the small L-shaped on west temple the side of theAthenian Agora between the Stoa of Zeus a and theMetroon (Fig. 1). New evidence for the date of Thasian amphora an stamp found in associated pit,H 8:2, prompts this reconsideration.1 Ever on since the publication in 1937 ofHomer Thompson's initial report the excavations there has been widespread, though not universal, acceptance both of as his identification of the building theTemple ofApollo Patroos and of his to over dating of the construction the period when Lykourgos saw Athenian finances and dominated Athenian political and cultural life,

1. is file at the Athenian drew I am Thompson 1937, pp. 77-115, Agora. Grace extremely grateful for the very the excavation of the attention to the Thasian primary report stamp pub helpful commentsprovided by the structure known as the of lished that Homer Temple here, observing anonymous Hesperia reviewers. Dis a brief dis to Apollo Patroos, following Thompson neglected mention it cussionswith Aileen Ajootian, John cussion inT L. Shear's 1935 inhis of of report publication theTemple Camp, Catherine Keesling, Carol See also When Grace wrote that Susan (1935, pp. 352-354). Agora III, Apollo. note, Lawton, Rotroff, Lea Stirling, and 136-139. the date of the Thasian and me pp. 50-53, Agora XIV, pp. accepted stamp Chavdar Tzochev encouraged The for this article came could well have fit to this inspiration reasonably Thomp pursue point of interest and froma briefnote Grace in son's date of the Advances in were byVirginia temple. helpful in clarifyingthe final her our of report(dated February 19,1986) knowledge Thasian amphora result. on O-R 7-10 under the have since are own. Agora deposit stamp chronologies raised All translations my a Stoa ofAttalos, copy ofwhich is on thedifficulty addressed in thisarticle.

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 388 MARK L. LAWALL

nNEW BOULEUM0

c i a --e

jTO& ANNLX

LATE..eA" W* .0 *

- '-a H8m

348 178 GPL.AT DPAIN r 2 23 0 f z F sous

ca. 1.Area of the of between 338 and 326 B.C.2 Thompsons arguments for this date included Figure Temple a with H 8:2, on mid-4th-century pottery in stone-built pit under the smaller naiskos em Apollo Patroos, pit thewest side of theAthenian Agora. braced by the L-shape of the larger (and, inThompsons view, later) temple; After by J.Travlos, in 1937, "non-committal sherds of the fourth in areas of construction plan Thompson century" p. 219, fig. 126 related fill leftundisturbed by the late-19th-century German excavations of the area; architectural comparisons with other structures dated to the 330s and 320s; and Pausanias's claim that Euphranor, whose other attested works span at least the years from the 360s through the 330s, carved the cult statue on ofApollo Patroos display in the building. Thompson concluded was that "the temple built after its small neighbor, i.e. after themiddle of the 4th century B.C. But since Euphranor made the cult statue it cannot ... a have been much later materials and technique would agree with date ca. B.C. towards 330 perhaps in the time of Lykourgos."3 are so The sherds, however, not "non-committal." One, in particular? a a no ca. B.C. stamped amphora handle?requires date earlier than 313 more Hence the construction of the building likely occurred at the very or end of the 4th beginning of the 3rd century. Reconsideration of the excavation records, pottery, and other finds from the vicinity of this build a ing along with the relevant literary testimonia permits the definition of events series of in the latter half of the 4th century marking the gradual at on elaboration of the cult ofApollo Patroos this location thewest side some connec of theAthenian Agora. While there is likely still temporal to can tion the period of Lykourgos in this process, the L-shaped temple no as 2. On see Buchanan longer be regarded part of the Lykourgan age. Lykourgos, Mitchel and a 1962, pp. 74-80; 1970; Before turning to the archaeological evidence, few points of terminol Humphreys 1985. ogy are needed to avoid The often referred to as ambiguity. L-shaped temple 3.Agora XIV, p. 137. See Thompson the of is here referred to as the The identification Temple Apollo "temple." 1937, pp. 102-104, forhis arguments as to so more of the building sacred Apollo is somewhat at issue here, the for this range of dates. THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 389

neutral term is preferable. The small building between the temple and the as Stoa of Zeus, traditionally identified theTemple of Zeus Phratrios and Athena Phratria, is here referred to as the "naiskos." The stone-lined pit found below the naiskos, often referred to as a bothros, is here referred to as the "basin."4 The term "east-west terracewall" refers to thewall leading eastward from the southern end of the retaining wall built behind the Stoa of Zeus against the slopes of the Kolonos Agoraios.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Earlier German (1895-1896) and Greek (1907-1908) excavations along so thewest side of theAgora exposed the main part of the temple itself, few undisturbed sections remained to be explored when the American came excavations began in 1931.5 For the most part, any undisturbed fill over fromLate Roman destruction levels the temple, from the naiskos, and a from the south end of the Stoa of Zeus. Fragments of marble kithara, were area for example, recovered in these fills in the between the temple and the Stoa of Zeus.6 In lotsA102, A103, and A177, however, excavation areas reached undisturbed levels in the foundation of the temple and the naiskos. Lot A177 is foundation fill for the southern wall of the naiskos.

While most of the diagnostic material here is datable to the second quarter one of the 4th century, there is plain-rim kantharos fragment similar to a form in use ca. 340-325 B.C.7 Lots A102 and A103 are foundation fills room for the northwest of the temple, and here too most of the diagnostic a pottery is datable within the firsthalf of the 4th century,with few pieces, as a a a such molded-rim kantharos and rolled-rim plate with thickened wall, possibly dating within the third quarter of the century.8 The greater part of the temples excavation falls into the "Old Excava tion" (OE) section, just to the south, and Thompson refers to pottery lots from this sector in his 1937 report.Most immediately relevant to the date a = of the temple is small bit of foundation fill (lotOE 159 H 7:4) excavated

4. A whose Thompson's original description Agora inventory 41, findspot tivelydated simplywithin the third is in of thispit (1937, pp. 86-88), espe described section A notebook, quarter of the 4th century. For the his of an as a.d. see cially description outlet chan pp. 134, 668, 4th-5th-century plate, thickened walls of plates nel and mortared floor and levels between the Stoa of Zeus and the no. carefully Agora XII, p. 310, 1059, dated mortared makes the common small northwest room of the ca. exterior, temple. 325 B.C.; and Agora XXIX, p. 309, as a to nos. identification of this feature 7. The profile from the rim the 632 and 633, also dated ca. 325. bothros shoulder of the kantharos resembles to on a quite unlikely. Again, itmay be safer settle no. 684. 5. Dorpfeld 1896, pp. 107-108; Agora XII, pp. 284-285, date anywhere from the middle to the 8.While the molded-rim 1897, p. 225; with summaryin 1937 kantharos third quarter of the 4th century. Two 1939, vol. 1, pp. 77-88, and extended starts to appear near the middle of the other lots?Al75 and A176?are discussion in vol. reit the from this lot described as 2, pp. 146-167, century, piece may clearing "Dorpfeld's Stoa belief show some in a area eratinghis that the temple is the development having Basileus," i.e., the of the naiskos Stoa of the 6th B.C. The taller neck than is common and east end of the Royal century among larger temple. The Greek excavations are in those from reported very published Olynthos.While description in the notebooks of these fashion Kawadias and no. dated the general by (1907 AgoraXII, p. 283, 662, contexts, however, opens possibility ca. and that are somewhat 1908). 325, Agora XXIX, pp. 245-246, they disturbed by 6. nos. all resemble the at one Thompson 1961, pp. 37-39, fig.7; 37-42, fragment later activity, and least Hellenis these are as more conserva fragments brought together from A102, this piece is ticplate rim appears inA176. 39? MARK L. LAWALL

as part of the conservation and consolidation of the temple's walls.9 This fill contained are primarily small bits of fineware, and these indeed quite in terms "non-committal" of the dating of the temple.10 A seconddeposit (H 7:3) comprisesthe fillwithin (lotsOE 64-65) and around (OE 62-63, 66-67) the basin, all within the foundations of contents the naiskos.11 Both the of this deposit compared with the few fills associated with the larger temple and the architectural relationship of the two adjacent buildings convinced Thompson that the naiskos predated the temple thatwrapped around it.He noted the close parallels at Olynthos for some of the finewares and dated the contents ofH 7:3 near themiddle of fillwas numer the 4th century.12This very rich in pottery?including ous a amphora fragments, plainware basins and lekanai, storage tin and a half of black-glazed pottery, and large fragments of tile and unevenly fired mudbrick, possibly kiln fragments?and yet nothing of this material is necessarily datable later thanThompson's initial suggestion of themid-4th to century. Indeed, much of thematerial dates the late 5th century.Along a with the pottery, the fill also included fragmentary mortgage inscrip a an one tion and fragment of official dry measure.13 There is miniature a krater here, perhaps votive, but nothing else about the fill is particularly terms area. distinctive in of typical dumped fills in the Agora Given the late-5th-century date of much of the fill, the debris?especially the tile come and kiln-wall pieces?may have from construction activity related to the Stoa of Zeus and its retaining wall.14 Thus far, then, a review of the ceramic finds related to construction even a of the naiskos and of the L-shaped temple does not require date ca. later than 325. Thompson's mid-4th-century date for the construction of the naiskos over the earlier basin (of uncertain date) remains the best interpretation of the evidence. a The necessary changes in chronology come, instead, with second a deposit related to the construction date of the temple: the fillof small pit whose related drain was seemingly put out of use by the temple's construc = tion (pottery lotOE 112 H 8:2) (Figs. 2, 3).15The pit, with its bottom m course surface 1.44 below the top level of the euthynteria of the temple,

in see no. for the 9.Thompson 1937, p. 102;OE illustrated Thompson 1937, p. 89, Agora XIX, p. 40, H85; measure see notebook, pp. 472-473. fig.46. Related fillunder thenorth official (P 3719), Agora X, are corner of the floor of this smaller no. a 10. Two pieces inventoried p. 53, DM53, given only general fromthese foundationfills: (1) from building (lotsOE 68-69, OE note date in the second quarter of the 4th to lotOE 159, P 13342, a black-glazed book, pp. 276-277) likewise included century with reference this findspot. no. a date late in the 14. On behind plate (=Agora XII, p. 312, 1087, nothing requiring potters' workshops see dated to the late 5th century B.C.); and 4th century.Thompson (AgoraXIV, the Stoa ofZeus, Thompson 1937, (2) L 3496, a lamp ofType 23A, also pp. 137-140) clearlybelieved that the pp. 19-20; cf.Papadopoulos 2003, of the late 5th century(Agora IV, p. 57, smaller naiskos of Zeus and Athena p. 277, and, for possible fragments of no. An uninventoried wall was reduced in size in kiln 2:120. 219, pi. 22). deliberately lining,p. 184, fig. Cromey's a of the discussion of thisfill fragment shows white-painted floral anticipation plannedTemple (2006, p. 67) and as he "the on the absence of a vo motif in the stylepreceding the intro of Apollo, yet, wrote, places weight true inwhich the levels tive this does not duction of West Slope decoration, way intervening deposit; expectation from the were shows that the take account of the fact that debris but this could date anytime managed temple was an area such as we have here late 5th centuryon (Thompson 1934, built after its small neighbor, filling cen not come in p. 438). i.e., after the middle of the 4th need have from activity see also Hedrick the immediate area. 11.Thompson 1937, pp. 86-90; tury b.c." (p. 137; OE notebook, pp. 209-215. 1988, p. 191). 15.Thompson 1937, pp. 101-102; horos OE 398-401. 12. A selection of these pieces is 13. For the security (I 1888), notebook, pp. THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 391

Plan Figure 2. and north-south section on lineAB from thewest of drainage pitH 8:2 and nearby features. Drawing M. L. Lawall and on J.Vickers, based measured sketch by H. A. Thompson inOE notebook, p. 397

Figure 3. Drainage pitH 8:2 and southern line of the euthynteriaof theTemple ofApollo, viewed from the south. Thompson 1937, p. 101, fig. 54 392 MARK L. LAWALL was a found just south of the porch. Thompson published photograph of on a more area this pit in 1937, and the feature appears general plan of the same as in the report (reproduced here Figs. 1 and 3). A drain at the bot tom of the pit led northeast to join themain channel of the Great Drain as a (Figs. 1, 2). Thompson proposed that the pit served runoff drain for water to west to coming down the slopes, especially the and somewhat the south. The water would then be taken down the pit, through the drain, and safely out into the Great Drain. The preserved fieldstone curbing of so to the pit laywell below the level of the euthynteria, the pit is likely as was have been filled in the ground level south of the temple raised to east-west was build the temple over the earlier terrace wall. Thompson were use convinced that the pit and drain put out of by the construction cover of the temple, even though the temple itself does not the pit (the corner southeast of the porch does overlie the drain). one or As in other contexts associated to degree another with the construction of the temple, the identifiable and datable pieces of fine-ware are a ca. pottery inH 8:2 roughly compatible with closing date of 325. context cata Transport amphora fragments from the retained pottery one toe a that logued below include Thasian (Fig. 4:1) of form would not be more common for the early 3rd century, but that in itself is suffi cient to force a date later than 325 for the context. Two different southern are a later than 325. Aegean mushroom rims likewise suggestive of date area a One, from the of Knidos (Fig. 4:2), has fairly thick triangular on cross-section of the sort seen vessels from the Kyrenia shipwreck of area the 290s B.C. The other, likely to be from the of Ephesos (Fig. 4:3), a too is rounded over the top with downward-sloping outer face; it has contexts. At this neither parallels in early-3rd-century point, however, so as to a ca. B.C. for rim form is securely datable exclude date of 325 the temple.

4 1 Thasian amphora toe Fig. P 35706. H 8:2, lotOE 112. toe 12.1 cm. Toe is 60% with of the Max. Diam. 5.3, p.H. preserved part

lower body. on Reddish brown fabricwith a darker red-brown slip (not preserved the a of small stamped rim and handle fragment),quite micaceous, with dense packing core a tomedium-size (up to 0.5 mm) pale gray glassy bits; 5YR 6/6; slip gives similar reading. For similar forms in the 3rd century,see Monakhov 1999, p. 481, pi. 206:1, ca. from theZelenskoe kurgan,which was closed 280 B.C.;Grandjean 1992, p. 568, a near Silen Gate on Thasos no later fig. 14, no. 89, from phase of the houses the no The than 250 B.C., and p. 561, fig.9, no. 60, later than the early 3rd century. Public Well on Thasos, closed ca. 330 B.C., includes nothing like this particu Mulliez and larlynarrow hoof form (cf.Blonde, Muller, and 1991, p. 217, fig.2, p. 219, fig.3, no. 19).

area 4 2 Amphora rim from the ofKnidos Fig. P 35707. H 8:2, lotOE 112. rim at 7.2 cm. over a Est. Diam. top edge 10.0, p.H. Fragment preserves just no trace of handles but of neck wall quarter of the rim; preserved, part present. some brown with notice Light brown surfacewith pale slip preserved very corewith 15%-20% able largeflakes of gold mica; slightlydarker brown density THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 393

of inclusions of tan bits calcareous, and dark Figure 4. Amphoras frompit H 8:2: gray-brownglassy likely gray stony bits; core 5YR 6/4. Thasian hoof-shaped toe (1); Knidos For Rhodian rims of the same form and date from the area rim (2); Ephesos-area rim (3). Kyrenia shipwreck, see an for a in Scale 1:3. Drawings M. L. Lawall Katzev 1969, p. 58; and for furtherprofiles and argument date the 290s, see Lawall, forthcoming.The fabric of this particular rim,however, is not Rhodian but from the adjacentmainland, probably closer toKnidos itself,for the fabric showswidely scatteredbut readilyvisible largegold flakes ofmica.

3 Amphora rim from the area ofEphesos Fig. 4 P 35708. H 8:2, lotOE 112. Est. Diam. rim at the 4.1 cm. a top edge 12.0, p.H. Fragment preserves quarter of the rim,a small part of the neckwall, and the traceof one upper handle attach ment that has smeared the rim. Very pale tan fabric,chalky to grittyin feel, and verymicaceous; visible inclu sions present in a density of ca. 5%, includinggray glassy bits, but dusky dark gray opaque bits aremost readilyvisible. Many inclusionsmay not be visible against the very pale core; core 10YR 7/3. For from contexts at see examples early-3rd-century Ephesos, Lawall 2004, p. 180, fig.4, upper left.

a While the above amphora fragments raise the strong possibility of date after 325 for the filling of the drainage pit and the construction of the a a adjacent temple, single previously inventoried object from the pit, a Thasian amphora rim and neck (4) bearing stampwith the name IIo'ua/dc, moves near or (Fig. 5), the date beyond 310 b.c.

4 Thasian amphora rim and stamped handle Fig. 5 SS 6597. H 8:2, lotOE 112. Est. Diam. rim 17.3 cm. over a of 10.0, p.H. Fragment preserves just quarter rim,parts of neckwall, and large segment of one handle. Squared interiorprofile of a rim. Lower outer rim convex roughly wedge-shaped face of with somewhat curve as it back toward the neck. on outer angles Stamped impression the face of curve the upper of the handle. dark red-brown micaceous surface with ca. Hard, fine-grained core, with 20% density of inclusions,mostly small gray glassy; a very few are quite dark gray, rare white lime bits; core 2.5YR 5/8. [0]aaico[v]

16. dolphin The presentation of the text follows [n]outa>c.16 epigraphic conventions. The This is in dotted letters are somewhat visible but stamp included the corpus ofThasian stamps published byA.-M. not are Bon andA. Bon no. The restoration is secure on ac clearly so; letters in brackets (1957, 1409). of the eponym broken or were never count of the absence of other known away impressed Thasian eponyms with these last three letters due to the curvature of the handle. (see eponym lists inDebidour 1986,Avram 1996, and Garlan 2004-2005). 394 MARK L. LAWALL

Q^^^^^^fc Figure5. Thasian amphorarim and ^^1^^^^ neck(4) from pit H 8:2,with detail ^^^H of stamped handle. Scale 1:3 (viewand ^^^B profile)and 1:1 (detail).Photos A. Sideris, ^^^H drawingM. L. Lawall; courtesyAgora ^|Hp Excavations

on runs as The argument for the date of the stamp amphora 4 fol one lows.With only name?that of the annual magistrate?along with as the ethnic and the device, the stamp belongs to the group referred to names the "recent series." Earlier stamps carry two (one the magistrate a and the other the fabricant) along with the ethnic and usually device. This change in the syntax of Thasian stamps was initially linked to the over was imposition ofMacedonian control Thasos in 340 B.C.,17but later to thought be roughly contemporary with the construction of Pnyx phase III same no around the date, for this large fill contains new-style stamps in undisturbed levels.18The date of the shift from the older to the recent style to continues be the subject of debate, but most recentlyYvon Garlan has a ca. a suggested transition 333 B.C.19Arriving at such date depends largely on one how arranges the stamps in relative chronological order.Garlan and a others?in particular his colleague Michel Debidour?have compared on numerous series of dumped fills atworkshop sites Thasos itself, closed on across deposits both Thasos and the Black Sea region, stylistic similari names ties between groups of stamps, and links between required by the an s a phenomenon of earlier stamp die having been recut tomake later die. names By this process, ithas been possible to assemble discrete packets of and arrange these packets in relative chronological order.20

17.Grace cf.Grace the latertransition date to 1949, p. 182; (Lawall 2001, tion the new-style stamps, for the where with the on further most recent 1956, p. 123, problems p. 534) but, consideration, old-style stamps securely evidence for of now Macedonian control I support it (Lawall 2005). There, associated with the fill are AocuacTnc. Thasos are noted. I the fill III is too, argue that of Pnyx and nav(pdr|c. of group F2, at least 15 18. Grace the still datable to the 340s 1946,1956; sequence primarily (cf. years earlier than the transition point. n. of arguments is summarized in Lawall Avram 1996, p. 24, 48; and Garlan 20. See Debidour 1979,1986,1998; 2005, pp. 38-39. 1999, p. 52, both ofwhom follow the Garlan 1979,1986,1990,1993,1999, 19. Garlan 1999; see also Garlan Lykourgan date forPnyx III), but the 2004-2005; Avram 1996. 1990;Avram 1996.1 have questioned Pnyx III fill is irrelevantto the transi THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 395

or Absolute dates are then derived by counting forward backward names through the sequence of from fixed points. Beginning with the names at ante packet represented by those found Koroni (terminus quern names to 262 B.C.), one can count the number of assigned to packets back the transition from old- to new-style stamps.21Of course, the latest stamp at Koroni in the relative sequence need not have been produced in the last year of thewar, the camp itselfneed not have been occupied for the entire at length of the war, and the precise order within the packet represented some room Koroni is open to adjustment, so there is forminor changes ca. B.C. an in the absolute chronology. Garlan's transition date of 333 is seems to most approximation, but thus far it fitwith known constraints on the evidence.22 to case Applying this process the of Iloi)aa)(; both demonstrates the a method and leads to the conclusion that the stamp dates roughly decade after the death of Lykourgos. Dies of stamps naming the eponym Tiuokatic, were recut to make the stamps of nouA-vc,, and dies of ApiGTocpdvnc, I, riouJux;, and A?uc8i5r|cjwere recut to make stamps of Gococov I.23 Indeed, a seven web of die recuttings links the entire packet of names, including rio\)a/d(;, in Garlan's group IV, and further connects this group to the names first three in the next packet. Stylistic similarities likewise unify group IV and link that group to the preceding and subsequent packets. Stamps dated by riouADC,have been found at fourThasian workshop sites, two ofwhich?Chioni and Vamvouri Ammoudia?appear to have begun production only in the last two decades of the 4th century.24 riouA/ugap on pears also in the lower strata at the Zeus Gate Thasos, accompanied by stampsmatched at theKoukos workshop site, contexts that again encourage a date.25 late-4th-century a A somewhat broader clustering is derived from farmhouse excavation near Evpatoria in Crimea inwhich IlouXtx; is found along with Thasian stamps of AXk8i5t|(;, AeocAkoc,,Ap%fjvoc^, and Kpdxivoc,. The chronologi one cal utility of this particular assemblage is considerably reduced when

are 21. Garlan 1993, p. 169; 1999, p. 52; e.g., Debidour 1979, pp. 298-299; renovations linked to the construc and 2004-2005, pp. 319, 323-326. 1986, pp. 317, 319, 324, 331; Picon and tion of the Southwest Fountainhouse, The date of 262 b.c. as a terminus ante Garlan 1986, pp. 303-304; Garlan which shares thenewly thickened is based on a date of 263/262 for same west quern 1993, pp. 175-178. This Apiaxo wall of the Rectangular Peribolos the of to archonship Antipatros (see Reger cpdvTKI, dated byGarlan (2004-2005, {AgoraXXVIII, p. 101). Renovations nn. cf. alternatives to ca. on a both 1998, 12-17; of p. 324) 314 b.c, appears buildings have entered historians' 262/261 or 261/260 discussed discussions of see b.c, by stamp (SS 14437) founddeep within Lykourgos (e.g., Dreyer 1999, pp. 342-351). the courtyard fill of the Rectangular Mitchel 1970, p. 42; Humphreys 1985, 22. The nature of approximate this Peribolos, contemporary with the addi p. 206). This Thasian stamp and others transitional date is the tion a row rooms west same emphasized by of of along the in the fillpush thedate of these fact that there are four more names side of thebuilding (Stroud 1998, otherbuildings to thevery end of the than listed 4th years byGarlan (2004-2005, pp. 95-102; Agora XXVIII, p. 102.The century. court was not table 1) for theperiod between 333 and peristyle added until after 24. Garlan 2004-2005; for earlier 262 b.c. If all of these names Sulla's sack of as indicated of these see belong Athens, by publications workshops, before then the transition date b.c. a.d. 262, lst-century and lst-century Garlan 1979; 1986, pp. 203-220. should be closer to 337. in the surface cut the inser 25. Garlan most pottery by 1966; and, recently, 23. The full of is tion of the see range recuttings peristyle; section K Grandjean, Koselj, and Salviat 2004 presentedby Garlan (2004-2005, notebook,p. 4095; cf.Agora XIV, p. 65, 2005, pp. 256-257. see pp. 317, 324); also past studies, andAgora XXVIII, p. 102).The same 39^ MARK L. LAWALL

a considers that span of 60 years may be represented by the Chersonesan at same amphoras present the site.What is useful about the assemblage, however, is that neither the very numerous Chersonesan stamps nor the are ca. B.C. plentiful Sinopean stamps thought to date any earlier than 325 seems It unlikely that theThasian stamps should be earlier either.26Finally, are so more stamps of rio\)AA)c; known fromAlexandria, the eponym likely than not should date afterAlexanders foundation of that city in 331 B.C.27 ca. B.C. on names Garlan's suggested date of 313 for rioCAuc;,based counts of ca. B.C. in their packets either forward from the transition date of 333 or backward from the latest Thasian stamp at Koroni (Garlan suggests T8vd5r|c; at 266 B.C.), fits all of these constraints.28The room for adjust means a or so or ments that year earlier later remains possible,29 but it is not our current tomove possible given understanding ofThasian chronology riouAnq all theway back towithin the lifetime of Lykourgos. was The stamp itself is in good condition (the original impression not on are complete), and all the breaks the neck and handle fragments crisp. reason Nevertheless, there is little to think that this amphora fragment no entered the pit in the precise year of its production. While there is pos sibility of estimating the amphora's precise "lifetime,"30 the drainage pit no H 8:2 is likely to have been filled earlier than the last decade of the 4th century.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

The most specific evidence Thompson used in arguing for the date of the was statue temple that ithoused Euphranor's ofApollo Patroos. Thompson arrived at a construction date for the the dates building by combining likely 26. For the Evpatoria assemblage, career area a see Kolesnikov for the dates of of Euphranor's with the of intersection between range of dates 1985; the see derived from architectural comparanda spanning the second half of the Sinopean stamps present, now Conovici 1998;Garlan 2004; for its 4th century. If the building must be dated later than 313 B.C., does use in theThasian stamp thatmean that it is to disassociate it from statue and building necessary Euphranor's see Avram 30. chronology, 1996, p. the cult of Patroos? Is it tomaintain the elabora Apollo possible apparent 27. Debidour 1986, p. 331. milieu of Athens? cf. tion of the cult ofApollo within the cultural Lykourgan 28. Garlan 2004-2005, p. 324; can Debidour who Some connection between the statue and the temple be maintained, (1986, p. 331), proposed a ca. 335-325 b.c. when still but the statue now appears to have been part of a slow elaboration of the period a transition date in the 340s. cult site.This of elaboration was in the using process completed only generation 29. Two of the extra names as com in Garlan's following Lykourgos. pared with years allocated The link between the and comes from Pausanias most recent are before temple Euphranor list placed so (1.3.2-5): noDAix;, if the transition point of b.c. moves to 333 is kept, then IIovXdc 8e Kovcov eoxnKe koc! Kovco (2) %Xr\G\ov xfjc,oxoac, TiuoOeoc, vibq 311. Alternatively,if one keeps 'I5v&5r|<; statues extra names?the voq kocI paoiAe-uc, Kurcpicov Euayopac,... [and the list of at 266, then the later ... ecjxnKe two that fall after nov^Dq?could continues, ending with ] zvxavQa Zevq ovouoc^ojLievoc, push Ilofitax;back to 315.Avram (1996, 'EAeuOepux;... p. 53, table 1) suggesteda date for (3) oxod 5e O7cia08v

Se Tot) veoo xov (LievAeco%dpr|c;, ov 8e KaAxyuaiv AA,?îkcckov KdJuxuic, . . 87TOIT|OE. . (5) 'QKo86|LirixaiSe kou Mnxpoc, 0ecov iepov, rjvOeuSiac, eipydaaxo, 01 Koci 7i^r|oiov xcov TievxaKoaicov Kaô-ouivcov fkroê'oxfipiov, po-o Xevovgiv evioroxov AOrjvcuoic/ Boutaxioi) 8e ev auxcp Kelxou ôavov

Aioq kou ArcoMlcov xe%vr| neimou ...31

(2) Nearby the stoa [the Royal Stoa] stand Konon and Timotheos, son of Konon, and Euagoras, king of the Cypriotes.... Here stands . . . an image of Zeus, named Eleutherios a (3) Behind has been built stoa [the Stoa of Zeus] with paintings of are the gods who called theTwelve...... (4) Euphranor painted these pictures for theAthenians; and he also crafted theApollo Patroos, in the temple nearby. In front of an the temple is Apollo by Leochares, and Kalamis crafted another called Alexikakos ... (5) And a sanctuary of theMother of the Gods has been built; her a image is work of Pheidias. Nearby is the Council House of those as called the fivehundred, who serve annually councillors for the a xoanon an Athenians: there is of Zeus Boulaios in here and Apollo, thework of Peisias ...

a Pausanias describes sequence of buildings, moving from the Royal Stoa, as the Stoa of Zeus, the temple the setting for three images ofApollo, the Metroon, and then the [New] Bouleuterion.The location of the L-shaped building, "nearby" the Stoa of Zeus, accords perfectlywell with this descrip as tion.The juxtaposition of the Stoa of Zeus and theTemple ofApollo indicated by the preposition 7r^r|aiov ismatched by the close proximity of same theMetroon and the Bouleuterion, linked by the word.32 In this pas as uses sage, elsewhere, Pausanias the verb cpKo86ur|xai to clarify that he is one or moving from structure series of objects to another "site."33Just before a the quoted passage, Pausanias describes series of statues starting near (nXr\awv) the Royal Stoa, continuing presumably south, and ending with the statue of Zeus Eleutherios. Now, having worked his way to a separate, new near building (albeit also very the Royal Stoa), Pausanias introduces the Stoa of Zeus with cpKo56ur|xcu.Likewise, theMetroon is brought in as a new sitewith same the verb after the listing of statues ofApollo. a The Metroon, however, is fairly complex group of rooms, and one can one structure. imagine multiple functionswithin the Perhaps Pausanias was describing the northern half of theMetroon as the location of the

31.The textused here is thatof the to move from one structure (the en Loeb edition trance to to next (Cambridge, Mass., 1978). the sanctuary) the (the 32. need not indi nXrioiov always temple itself). This element of Pausa cate such close cf. 1.14.6 nias s was proximity: syntax noted by Otto Walter the for shrineof Aphrodite Ouraneia (1937) in correctlyarguing that the (Shear 1984, pp. 24-33) and the Royal Stoa and the Stoa of Zeus were Hephaisteion. differentbuildings. Thompson (1937, 33. In Pausanias's description p. 225) provides this referenceto the of the of Ismenian Theban which (9.10.2) Sanctuary sanctuary, only strength at the same ens Apollo Thebes, verb is used this element ofWalter's argument. 39& MARK L. LAWALL

on to Euphranor statue before moving the shrine of the goddess herself in the southern part of the building.34 The fact that in Pausanias the verb cpKo86ur|Tai tends to introduce a different structure,not a further,connected same part of the building, makes this somewhat unlikely.And yet, the pos at a sibility should least be considered, for statue ofApollo, which iswidely as one was accepted the by Euphranor that Pausanias saw,35 found by the m Greek Archaeological Society in 1907,20 south of the temple and within the northern section of theHellenistic Metroon.36 Further aspects of the more remains found south of the Stoa of Zeus, however, make it likely that the Euphranor statue originally stood furthernorth, not in theMetroon. a First, fragments of marble kithara (noted above) and fragments of drapery to from another statue, neither ofwhich matched that attributed Euphranor, were near or found above the remains of the L-shaped temple. Indeed, the were at kithara fragments found the north side of the temple, away from one was near theMetroon area.37 So at least of the threeApollos broken move the temple and the Stoa. Second, it is clear that blocks did southward at some a from the temple point: Thompson notes that threshold block from was to the temple found with the statue attributed Euphranor and that step and stylobate blocks were reused for Late Roman monument bases in the area just north of theMetroon.38 area The Metroon and the open just to the north of that building also a amount or provide certain of negative evidence suggesting the location

s.v. as a in 1929. Homer 34. Lippolis (1998-2000, pp. 142 pp. 229-230, Euphranor (I) gift Thompson 162) argues that the northern part of (W.Miiller). Hedrick (1988, pp. 198 added marginalia with this information, is the but those notations cannot have been theMetroon complex Temple 200), Stewart (1990, p. 179), and ofApollo (asDorpfeld 1937-1939, Ridgway (1997, pp. 335-336) all written earlier than 1929. The figure of some m not in earlier vol. 2, pp. 216-220). The architectural express hesitation in linking the 20 is mentioned any in of this statue with the seen Greek account of the excavation. Stais comparisons offered support Euphranor Apollo on a conflation of Pausanias. Pausanias does mention hypothesis depend by (1916, p. 80) and Keramopoullou and Roman another in the Bouleuterion? both describe the the Hellenistic Late phases Apollo (1929, pp. 94-95) concern the statue Peisias?and this location as near the foundations of the building. His proposal by findspot (7tapoc) of the to would have been ofwhat called the ing the longevity predecessor roughly equidistant Dorpfeld Royal Stoa, of theMetroon where the of Kawadias's the Hellenistic Metroon ignores the from the part i.e., Temple Apollo. use was found. Since account of the excavations? lack of evidence for of the building the Apollo Patroos (1907) 2nd cen else is known of Peisias a discussion of their cost and from the 5th through early nothing (Kiinst primarily b.c. that s.v. Peisias W. next to tury It further ignores the fact lerlexikon, p. 201, [U. importance?says nothing area in the one can about the of the the seating put place along Gottschall]), however, only discovery statue, only late in note that there were other statues of that statues and were slope of the Kolonos Agoraios inscriptions in the area that could have come found. For a discussion of the the 5th century continues behind the Apollo thorough to rest in theMetroon. function of this northern area location of that earlier temple: the possible is of thisdis of theMetroon see Valavanis pottery from under the blocks 36.The only description complex, with the Stoa that mentions the location with 2002. roughly contemporary covery of in 37. For the of the kithara of Zeus construction fills, and includes any degree precision appeared discovery a that the same second edition of the see section A cup skyphos shows Judeich's Topo fragments, notebook, seen on such forms vonAthen "die 668. The "proto-rouletting" graphie (1931, p. 333): pp. 134, nonjoining drapery m von were found over the of fromthe Porticello shipwreckof the rund20 siidlichder Dorpfeld fragments steps 4th b.c Lawall fur die Stoa Basileios Reste the but these seem less early century (see 2005, gehaltenen temple, directly unvermauert worden ist." identifiable with statue or pp. 40-48). gefunden any particular the attribution of The Excavations have a statue 35. Accepting Agora copy type. feredearly on by Stais (1916, p. 80), see of thefirst edition of theTopographie 38. See Thompson 1937, p. 107, to n. for the threshold and 202 Thompson 1961; Palagia 1980, pp. 13 (1905),which belonged Dorothy 3, block, p. it monument bases. 20; Latini 2001; andKtlnstkrkxikon, Burr Thompson, who had received for the THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 399

area intended location of the Euphranor Apollo in the of the L-shaped we temple. If accept thatEuphranor, active from the 360s through the 330s, are carved theApollo, there few candidates for its intended location.39The or Metroon as a distinct building dates to Ihe middle third quarter of the 2nd century on the evidence of the pottery in its foundation trenches.40 as areas a Just the excavated to explore theMetroon show jump in the on pottery dates from the earlier, 6th-century building the site to the later, so 2nd-century construction, too in the open area north of theMetroon a the various pits and pockets of fill in the bedrock show jump from the to an Archaic the laterHellenistic period. Textual attestations of earlier a building for civic archives, function served by theMetroon, must refer to some other building, perhaps the Old Bouleuterion.41 In light of these arguments against attributing any part of theMetroon area to the cult ofApollo, the just south of the Stoa of Zeus offers themost saw likely candidate for the temple where Pausanias three statues of the area was a god. The development of the gradual process spanning much of the 4th century, including much of theworking lives of both Euphranor and Lykourgos. area And yet, the only sign of activity in the with any chronological career correspondence with Euphranor's is the basin followed by the naiskos just south of the Stoa of Zeus and, slightly further to the south, the east west terrace area wall marking the change in ground level between the of area the Stoa of Zeus and the higher further south. This east-west wall appears to have been built in the second quarter of the 4th century; however, the ceramic evidence for its date is so scanty as to allow a somewhat earlier or a later date without difficulty.Thompson suggested date shortly after was to new 362 B.C.; in his view thewall intended protect the paintings by Euphranor of the Battle ofMantinea on the interior back wall of the Stoa a not a of Zeus. This date is possibility but necessity.42Then sometime in the third of was over quarter the 4th century the naiskos built the seemingly unfinished basin. Numerous arguments have been put forward in recent

39.While trenches little Thompson's date for the produced datable pottery, available fordating thewall (lotA259) as temple is often cited the strongest but lotsE297 and E302 do contain comes from its foundation trench evidence for a late in point Euphranor's fragments of moldmade bowls, in behind the Stoa of Zeus. Here are a other attributed to him a of a bowl few no career, activity cluding piece long-petal pieces datable later than the in later sources in much most to the late 140s or mid-4th even most literary points likelydating century, though of the same direction: see Coulson later. general the material is late 5th century. Since 1978, pp. 1-2, 36; Palagia 1980, pp. 6, 41. See Thompson 1937, pp. 115 the masonry at the end of the east-west Latini for the excavations in and around 13-25; 2001, p. 89.Hedrick 217, wall resembles much of the masonry of theMetroon and the (1988, pp. 195-199) argues for thepos history of the the main north-south wall behind the that Kalamis or Leochares area's cf. Stoa of sibility use; Lippolis 1998-2000, Zeus, Thompson concluded carved this but even so the 142-162. that both walls a Apollo, pp. represent single build same holds?no one dates the 42. problem Thompson (1937, p. 69) argues ingperiod. We shouldnot ignorethe career of of these for a date near 362 B.C. any sculptors beyond very for this scantiness of the remains of this wall, ca. at least a decade and on he 320, probably wall; however, p. 56 implies that the stones of which were robbed out in much before thedate the difference in time between the con longer of the antiquityfor much of its lengthin the and a and a struction of stoa L-shaped temple century the and that of the east-west direction; furthermore, there half before the construction of the wall shouldbe fairlybrief, for unused is everypossibility that thewall was Metroon as a distinct blocks from the stoa were used in some extended at building. different points in its life. 40. The Metroon foundation places for thewall. The only pottery 400 MARK L. LAWALL

decades against Thompsons suggestion linking the naiskos to Athena Phratria and Zeus Phratrios.43 One alternative is tomake the naiskos the

firstTemple of Apollo Patroos.44 It must be admitted, however, that the carve commission of Euphranor to the Apollo Patroos and likewise the to carve at same commission of Leochares another Apollo roughly the time was (if this other statue carved specifically for its eventual place of display) a case may be of putting the cart before the horse. There was, at best, only a a area small naiskos and temenos available for their display. enters to Lykourgos explicitly the narrative with his motion reward Neoptolemos for his promise to gild the altar of "Apollo in theAgora."45 a The only extant candidate for such an altar is base found in front of the an naiskos, upon which Thompson placed altar block naming Zeus Phra trios and Athena Phratria. If the naiskos is the early, and only Lykourgan, core manifestation of the cult site ofApollo Patroos, then this could be the use ofNeoptolemoss altar.Thompson noted two phases in the of this base: m a first, to carry an upper stone 0.91 long, and, second, to carry stone m m a 0.78 long by 0.65 wide.46 Thompson suggested that Pentelic-marble near altar slab naming Apollo Patroos found the old Varvakeion school was a s the slabwould fitas possible candidate forNeoptolemos altar; altar m part of the second phase of this base.47 The Varvakeion fragment is 0.96 m two to receive long with 0.087-0.10 insets along the vertical sides a the adjacent slabs. These marble slabs would have fitvery well around x m as restores on block 0.78 0.65 Thompson it for the later phase this one base. Placing the Varvakeion slab at end of the long side of the base to near a band would bring the opposite edge just roughly 0.20-m-wide wear one of considerable along short side of the base block. Associating the Varvakeion slab with the later, post-Lykourgan temple fitsvery well assessment "The of letter with Thompson's of the date of the slab: style in fourth ing and the workmanship of the block would fitwell the late or was early third century."48 Indeed, assuming that Neoptolemoss altar was the altar for the naiskos and that it replaced by the Varvakeion slab new at the time of the construction of the temple brings the chronology of of the areas building phases into very close harmony with the phases the altar blocks use.

twice linked area the to the south 43. Hedrick 1988; Cromey 2006. monly mentioned and alongside temple 50 have become a more 44. For arguments against the iden with Apollo Pythios (AgoraIII, pp. may preferable for new dedications. This tificationof theArchaic buildingunder 51, nos. 108,110). JohnCamp kindly spot to a as an earlier drew to attention a third comes closest of any the temple apsidal temple my explicit inscription the direct reference to a named for ofApollo Patroos, seeHedrick 1988. linkbetween Delphi and Apollo temple not so FdD Patroos. The foundation trench is clearly Patroos temple in theAgora, III.2, Apollo 1st honor 46. 1937, 106-107. apsidal in photographsas it is in the 161, from the century a.d., Thompson pp. state of the the bit Demetrios son of Aristarchos with 47. The altar slab isIG IP 4984; the plans area; preserved ing seems to curve one bronze statue to be Varvakeion school was 500 m of the back wall hardly (lines 18-21) roughly vaw tou at north of the area on Athinas at all. put up 7cpo<; xcp [Atc6]^Xcovo(; Agora another to be set Street. 45. [Plut.]Xorat 843F-844A; Delphi and up Tiocpa a no. tg) AtioXXcovi inAthens. It 48. 1937, p. 110,with Agora III, pp. 52-53, 113.While [7ta]ip(pcp Thompson attestations of seem that this time the and of the slab, Wycherley does gather does likely by photograph drawing two cults in the front of the inAthens was p. Ill, 57,58. other Apollo Agora, temple figs. Patroos is the one most com crowded with other statues, and the Apollo THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 4OI

The following sequence of events fits the available evidence. First is the construction of the east-west terrace wall and of the basin, both of which could fall at some point in the second quarter of the 4th century. There is no evidence for the date of construction of the basin; since it is a even inserted into larger rectangular cutting in the bedrock, the leveling of the bedrock south of the Stoa of Zeus could have taken place while the basin was under construction. Second are commissions made sometime ca. B.C. two statues to between 360 and 320 for perhaps represent Apollo: one statue from Euphranor and another from Leochares. The ofApollo a Alexikakos by Kalamis could be third, roughly contemporary commis one or sion (if accepts Hedricks arguments for the "younger Kalamis"),49 an some itmay have been older statue brought to the site at point from com elsewhere. Third in the sequence, though easily overlapping these missions, is the construction of the naiskos in the third quarter of the 4th century.The construction of the altar to be gilded by Neoptolemos would coincide with the construction of the naiskos. Fourth, and finally, is the ca. or construction of the L-shaped temple 310 later, at which time the altar, too, was refurbished.50 There is a clear sense of slow of the area. In none of the 49. Hedrick 1988, pp. 196-197,199. development is there a to see east-west ter 50. Cf. Lippolis 1998-2000, whose stages requirement long-term planning. The the race not we chronological sequence making wall need have anticipated the creation of the basin (indeed, do main room of the with not came was not a temple along know which first); the basin placed with view toward thebasin before themiddle of the first, either the earlier naiskos could have been its location near the or ca. temple; given 4th century down to 340, fol Stoa of Zeus to a wider space free to the south forwhatever lowedby thenaiskos and theback simply keep function was served either the lower terrace of the Stoa of Zeus or room of the templeat the end of the by by 4th can be reconciled neither the area overlooked century, by the seating along the Kolonos Agoraios.51 Once the with the ceramic evidence was was presented larger temple built, there clearly less interest in preserving either here nor with the fact that the founda two areas as or of these open space in preserving whatever sightlines may tions for the and its back room temple have been intended from the area. one continuous fill seating represent (Thomp This fits well with other testimonia relevant to the son 1937, pp. 96-97, fig.51). impression very 51. Hedrick (1988, p. 193) makes cult of Apollo Patroos. Xavier de Schutter, Charles Hedrick, and, more this observation. recently,Robert Cromey have drawn attention to the emergence ofwor 52. See de Schutter 1987;Hedrick of Patroos as a civic cult for ship Apollo Athens only in the 4th century.52 1988; 2006. Cromey Datable on to the latterhalf of the 4th two reliefs 53.The reliefclosest indate to the stylisticgrounds century, and a statuette Patroos much as he is in the statue EuphranorApollo is thoughtto be showing Apollo depicted to Athens NM 3917 (onwhich see Pala attributed Euphranor may be considered part of this same trend.53 no. Even if the no a gia 1980, pp. 14-16,19, 1, fig.18); larger L-shaped temple is longer part of "Lykourgan the other relief isAthens in 4th-century program" the strictest sense, the commission of statues by, at least, NM 1359 (see Palagia 1980, p. 19, Leochares and Euphranor, along with the smaller naiskos over the older no. 2); the statuette isAthens NM 230 basin and Neoptolemoss promise to the altar, attests to an interest in (see Palagia 1980, p. 19, no. 3, fig.28). gild Patroos time 54. Hence we need not abandon the Apollo during the of Lykourgos.54 Furthermore, the practices of the discussions of such con for the financial resources of the entirety improving city,cultivating various religious see nections; de Schutter 1987, pp. 114 and various artistic and interests, encouraging architectural developments? 115; Knell 1994;Hintzen-Bohlen all ofwhich to have been appear accelerated under Lykourgos?need not 1997; Knell 2000, p. 88; Latini 2001. have ceased with his death around 324 B.C. Even this late-4th- or 55.Townsend (1982) findssimilari early can stillbe considered but in the sense tiesof styleacross both thosebuildings 3rd-century temple Lykourgan, only that it reflects the influence of dating from the timeof Lykourgos and lingering Athenian political and artistic cul those from decades. ture in subsequent the time of Lykourgos.55 402 MARK L. LAWALL

REFERENCES

= The Athenian Results R. D. 2006. Patroos -. 2004. Les timbres Agora Agora: of Cromey, "Apollo ceramiques Excavations Conducted theAmeri the sur et sur tuiles by and Phratries,"^?/C/75, sinopeens amphores can School Classical Studies at 41-69. trouves a Presentation et of pp. Sinope: Princeton sur Athens, Debidour, M. 1979. "Reflexions les catalogue, Istanbul. III = R. in -. "En visitant et E. Wycherley, Literary timbres amphoriques thasiens," 2004-2005. andEpigraphical Testimonia, 1957, Thasiaca (BCHSuppl. 5),Athens, revisitant les ateliers amphoriques repr. 1973. pp. 269-314. de Thasos," BCH128-129, = -. IV R. H. Howland, Greek 1986. "En classant les timbres pp. 269-329. and 1958. in and Garlan V. R. 1946. Thasian Lamps Their Survivals, thasiens," Empereur Grace, "Early X =M. 311-334. Lang and M. Crosby, 1986, pp. Stamped Amphoras,"^//f 50, and 1964. -. 1998. Rev. of Avram in 31-38. Weights, Measures, Tokens, 1996, pp. = -. 1949. "Standard XII B. A. Sparkes and L. Topoi 8, pp. 397-406. Pottery "Le Containers of the Greek Talcott, Black and Plain Potteryof the de Schutter, X. 1987. culte d'Apol World," 6th, 5th, and4th Centuries B.C., 1970. lon Patroos a Athenes," AntCl 56, in Commemorative Studies inHonor = Leslie Shear XIV H. A. Thompson and pp. 103-129. ofTheodore (Hesperia E. The Ath 1896. 175-189. R. Wycherley, Agora of D6rpfeld,W. "Funde,"^M21, Suppl. 8), Princeton, pp. ens: and Uses 107-109. -. 1956. Wine The History, Shape, of pp. "Stamped Jar an Ancient 1972. -. 1897. in Small City Center, "Funde,"^M22, Fragments," Objects from = XIX G. V. Lalonde, M. K. pp. 225-228. thePnyx II (HesperiaSuppl. 10), M. B. -. X911-19^9. Alt-Athen und 117-189. Langdon, and Walbank, Princeton, pp. Poletai seine uber die Y. 1992. "Contribution a Inscriptions: Horoi, Records, Agora: Untersuchungen Grandjean, Leases Public 1991. der altesten und l'etablissement dune des of Land, Entwicklung Burg typologie = und thasiennes: Le materiel XXVIII A. L. Boegehold, Stadt Athen ihrespolitischen amphores M. des du de la Porte J.McK. Camp II, Crosby, Mittelpunktes, Staatsmarktes, amphorique quartier R. F. 2 Berlin. du BCH 541-584. M. Lang, D. R.Jordan, and vols., Silene," 116, pp. Lawcourts at 1999. zur and F. Salviat. Townsend, The Athens: Dreyer, B. Untersuchungen Grandjean, Y.,T. Koselj, Proce Geschichte des Athen 2004-2005. "La Porte de Zeus a Sites, Buildings, Equipment, spatklassischen 175 dure, and Testimonia, 1995. (322-ca. 230 v. Chr.) (Historia Ein Thasos," BCH 128-129, pp. = 268. XXIX S. I. Rotroff, Hellenis zelschrift 137), Stuttgart. tic Athenian and and Y. C. 1988. "The Pottery: Imported Empereur, J.-Y., Garlan, eds., Hedrick, W., Jr. Temple sur les of Patroos in Wheelmade Table Ware and Related 1986. Recherches amphores and Cult Apollo Material, 1997. grecques(?C//Suppl. 13),Athens. Athens,"AJA 92, pp. 185-210. a une 1997. Die Kultur Avram, A. 1996. Histria: Les resultats Garlan, Y. 1966. "Contribution Hintzen-Bohlen, B. VIII. 1: Les timbres am etude de l'enceinte desEuboulos unddes desfouilles stratigraphique politik Lykurg: Bucharest. BCH 586-652. Die Denkmdler- und in phoriques: Thasos, thasienne," 90, pp. Bauprojekte 355 322 v. Blonde, F, A. Muller, and D. Mulliez. -. 1979. "Koukos," in Thasiaca Athen zwischen und Chr., Berlin. 1991. "Le comblement dun puits {BCH Suppl. 5),Athens, pp. 213 a 5: Le materiel 268. S. C. 1985. of public Thasos Humphreys, "Lycurgus 213 -. 1986. nouveaux Butadae: An Athenian Aristocrat," amphorique," BCH115, pp. "Quelques a in The theAncient Historian: 242. ateliers amphoriques Thasos," Craft of and Garlan inHonor Chester G. Starr, Bon, A.-M., and A. Bon. 1957. Les in Empereur 1986, Essays of de Thasos 201-276. ed. W. Eadie and Lan timbres amphoriques pp. J. J.Ober, -. 199-252. {Etudes thasiennes 4), Paris. 1990. "A propos de la chro ham, Md., pp. des timbres 1905. von Buchanan, J.J. 1962. Theorika:A Study nologic amphoriques Judeich,W. Topographie to in A. Athen, Munich. ofMonetary Distributions the Thasiens," Mvijjur) Aa^apiSrj: -. 1931. von Athenian Citizenryduring theFifth nSXiq Kai xcopa orryv ap%aia Mccks Topographie Athen, koci 2nd Munich. and Fourth Centuries B.C., Locust Sovia Opdia], ed. P. Triantaphyl ed., rev., N.Y. 478-483. M. L. 1969. "The Valley, los,Thessaloniki, pp. Katzev, Kyrenia -. Conovici, N. 1998. Histria: Les resul 1993. "Nouvelles remarques Shipwreck,"Expedition 11:2, tats VIII.2: Les timbres sur la des timbres am 55-59. desfouilles chronologie pp. tcov Bucharest. 1993, Kawadias, P. 1907. ""EK0eoi<; amphoriques: Sinope, phoriques thasiens," JSav 149-181. Korea to Coulson, W. D. E. 1978. Euphranor: pp. TteTCpocyijivcGVxfjq fExaipe(a<; B.C. -. 1999. Les timbres exoq Prakt 1907, 51-74. A 4th Century Greek Sculptor amphoriques 1907," pp. de 1: Timbres et -. 1908. tcov 7ie7ipaY (Occasional Publications inAn Thasos protothasiens ""EkBeok; Korea to thropology,Archaeology series8), thasiens anciens (Etudes thasiennes (levcov if|<; 'ETaipeiaq eToq Athens. Prakt 51-69. Greeley, Colo. 18), 1908," 1908, pp. THE TEMPLE OF APOLLO PATROOS 403

D. 1929. in the Black Sea Area BMCR 1998.10.17. Keramopoullou, A. u'Ynb Chronologies of Biography, c. 400-100 ed. V. F. toc npo7c6^ocia xr\qAKpoTio^ecoq," in the Period B.C., http:///bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1998/ 1998-10-17.html ArchDelt 12, pp. 73-101. Stolba and L. Hannestad, Aarhus, (accessed July 31-68. Knell, H. 1994. "Der jiingere Tempel pp. 2009). Patroos auf der Athener -. Hellenis B. S. 1997. des Apollo Forthcoming. "Early Ridgway, Fourth-Century tic from Two Closed in Greek Madison. Agora,"/;//109, pp. 217-237. Amphoras Styles Sculpture, -. and T. L. 1935. "The of 2000. Athen im 4. Jahrhundert Contexts: Kyrenia Shipwreck Shear, Campaign 340-370. v. Chr.: Eine Stadt verdndert ihr EphesosWell LB," 7thScientific 1934," Hesperia 4, pp. onHellenistic Ai T. 1984. "The Athenian Gesicht. Archdologisch-kulturgeschicht Meeting Pottery, Shear, L, Jr. Darmstadt. Athens. Excavations of liche Betrachtungen, gion, Greece, April 3-9, 2005, Agora: 1980-1982," 1-57. Kolesnikov, A. B. 1985. "Keramicheskie Lippolis, E. 1998-2000. "Apollo Hesperia 53, pp. u Zeus Eleutherios: V. 1916. ev kleyma iz raskopok usadeb Evpa Patroos, Ares, Stais, "'Epyaoitxi xoiq Culto e architettura di stato ad ArchDelt 77-84. toriyskogo mayaka" [Ceramic stamps uoDorunq," 2, pp. tra e i F. Greek from the excavation of the farm Atene la democrazia Mace Stewart, A. 1990. Sculpture: at ASAtene 139-218. An New Haven. house Eupatoria lighthouse], dom? 76-78, pp. Exploration, W. Athens: R. S. 1998. The Athenian Grain VDI(2),pp. 67-93. Mitchel, F. 1970. Lykourgan Stroud, = der Cincinnati. Tax Law b.c. Kunstlerlexikon Kunstlerlexikon 338-322, of374/3 (Hesperia Y. 1999. Princeton. Antike, ed. R. Vollkommer, Munich Monakhov, S. Grecheskiye Suppl. 29), v H. A. 1934. "Two Centu 2001. amfory Prichernomore: Kompleksy Thompson, Vll?IIvekov do ries of Hellenistic Latini, A. 2001. "L'attivita di Eufranore keramicheskoy tary Pottery," Hesperia n. e. in the Black 311-476. nell'Atene di YAcmgo" ASAtene 79, [Greek amphoras 3, pp. -. on theWest pp. 83-102. Sea: Ceramic container complexes 1937. "Buildings in of the 7th-2nd Saratov. Side of the Lawall, M. L. 2001. "Amphoras the century B.C.], Agora," Hesperia 6, 1990s: In of O. 1980. Leiden. 1-226. Need Archaeology," Palagia, Euphranor, pp. K. 2003. Ceramicus -. Patroos of AJA 105, pp. 533-537. Papadopoulos, J. 1961. "The Apollo -. Context Redivivus: The Iron Pot 30 2004. "Archaeological Early Age Euphranor," ArchEph 1961, pp. ters'Field in theArea the Classical 44. and Aegean Amphora Chronolo of ofHellenistic R. 1982. of Athe gies:A Case Study AthenianAgora (HesperiaSuppl. 31), Townsend, "Aspects in Princeton. nian Architecture in the Second Ephesos," Transport Amphorae in Roman in and Trade theEastern Mediterra Pena, J.T. 2007. Pottery the Half of the Fourth Century b.c." nean. Acts the International Collo Univ. of North of Archaeological Record, Cambridge. (diss. Carolina, at theDanish Institute at and Y. Garlan. 1986. quium Picon, M, Chapel Hill). 2002 "Recherches sur des D. on the Athens, September 26-29, Fimplantation Valavanis, P. 2002. "Thoughts of Insti a et (Monographs the Danish ateliers amphoriques Thasos Public Archive in theHellenistic tute at ed. and de la des Athens 5), J. Eiring analyse pate amphores Metroon of the Athenian Agora," in J. Lund, Aarhus, pp. 171-188. thasiennes," Empereur and AM 117, pp. 221-255. -. 2005. Chronolo Garlan 287-309. "Negotiating 1986, pp. Walter, O. 1937. "Zeus- und Konigs gies: Aegean Amphora Research, Reger, G. 1998. Rev. of J. J.Gabbert, halle der athenerAgora," OJhBeibl Thasian II Chronology, and Pnyx III," Antigonus Gonatas:A Political 30, pp. 95-100.

Mark L. Lawall

University of Manitoba

department of classics

366 university college

224 dysart road

winnipeg, manitoba r3t 2m8 canada

[email protected]