Proceedings ofthe Danish Institute at Athens • II

Edited by Seven Dietz & Signe Isager

Aarhus U niversitetstorlag Langelandsgade 177 8200 Arhus N © Copyright The Danish Institute at Athens,Athens 1998

The publication was sponsored by: The Danish Research Council for the Humanities. Consul General Gosta Enbom's Foundation. Konsul Georgjorck og hustru Emmajorck's Fond.

Proceedings of the Danish Institute at Athens

General Editor: Seren Dietz and Signe Isager Graphic design and Production by: Freddy Pedersen

Printed in Denmark on permanent paper

ISBN 87 7288 722 2

Distributed by: AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS University ofAarhus DK-8000 Arhus C Fax (+45) 8619 8433

73 Lime Walk Headington, Oxford OX3 7AD Fax (+44) 865 750 079

Box 511 Oakvill, Conn. 06779 Fax (+1) 203 945 94 9468

The drawing reproduced as cover illustration represents Kristian Jeppesen's proposal for the restoration of the Maussolleion, in particular of the colonnade (PTERON) in which portrait statues of members of the Hecatomnid dynasty said to have been carved by the famous artists Scopas, Bryaxis,Timotheos, and Leochares were exhibited. Drawing by the author, see p. 173, Abb. 5, C. The Early Sanctuary ofthe Argive Heraion and its External Relations (8th - Early 6th Cent. B.C.)

Bronze Imports and Archaic Greek Bronzes

Ingrid Strom Abstract territories of the city-state ofArgos, presumably having been appropriated sometime between the Thepresent article continues my studies of the years 615 and 515 B.C. Greek Geometric Bronzesfrom the Argive Heraion (IS IV) which concluded that until the early 1th Cent. B.C., the Greek bronzes ofAr- I. Introduction gos and the Argive Heraion differed to such a degree as to indicate the sanctuary as indepen The present paper should be seen as an dent of thesettlement ofArgos. immediate continuation of my article on the Greek Geometric bronzes from the Similar results concerning the bronze imports Argive Heraion which concluded that its having been reached earlier (IS II), the signi Greek Geometric and early 7th Cent, ficance of Near Eastern imports of bronze ves bronzes differed in so many respects from sels in wine sets is now stressed, suggesting that the contemporary bronzes ofthe sanctua the introduction of banquets with wine shortly ries and tombs of the settlement ofArgos before 100 B.C to some Greek sanctuaries was as to give the impression oftwo sites inde influenced via Phrygia. The banquet implements pendent of each other.' Previously, similar ingeneral emphasize the cult correspondance of conclusions were reached from the studies the two North East Peloponnesian sanc ofthe early monumental architecture of tuaries, the Argive Heraion and the Heraion of the Argive Heraion compared with that of Perachora. Argos as well as for the early Near Eastern connections ofthe two sites.2 Until the early 6th Cent. B.C., the Archaic Greek bronzes at the Argive Heraion are spora As stated in these papers, the ultimate pur dic apartfrom fibulae and some banquetting va pose ofmy studies is a deeper understan ses, and in contemporary Argos they are almost ding ofthe relations between the Argive absent. However, from the second quarter of the Heraion and Argos during the period of 6th Cent. B.C., a rich production of banquet- the emerging city-states with a view to a ting implements, a beginning of local bronze more general insight into the role played mirror manufacture and, inparticular, several by the sanctuaries in this crucial develop fine bronze statuettes indicate a revival of the ment.3 The present paper deals with the cult life at the Argive Heraion. From now on, imported bronzes and their close Greek the bronze sculptures at the Argive Heraion and imitations as well as with the EarlyArchaic Argos appear inseparable, continuing a stylistic bronzes ofthe 7th and the first half of the tradition which developed atArgos already in 6th Centuries B.C.The bronzes may pro the EG Period, but previously was unidentified vide a chronological frame for the time, at the Heraion, and showing a correspondance when the bronzes ofthe two sites - and of the two sites, also in their outside relations, thus the relations they represent —appear especially to the and Eaconia. The inseparable, possibly an indication that the Archaic Greek bronze sculptures, in particular, Argive Heraion was no longer an inde suggest that by the early 6th Cent. B. C, the pendent establishment, but had passed un Argive Heraion formed an integral part of the der direct control ofthe city ofArgos, such

37 Fig, 1A - B.Athens. National Museum. NM 23082 and 14032. Italic Bronze Fibulae "a serpeg^ianti".A.AH 853. Museum Photo. B.AH 854. From AH II,pi. LXXXVI.

Fig. 2. AH 855 - 857. Italic Bronze Fibulae "Navicella/Sanguisuga". Drawings. From AH II,pi. LXXXVI. as was definitely the situation in the Clas The Bronze Imports and sical Period. their Close Greek Imitations The paper will be divided into two main J. Italic Bronzes parts, one dealing with the bronze imports and the other with the Archaic Greek TheArgive Hera ion bronzes. The lettering ofthe sections is continued from my article on Geometric The few Italic bronzes at the Argive Hera bronzes, the first three sections ofwhich ion comprise five fibulae, AH 853 - 857, apply to both papers.4As in my previous only one ofwhich, AH 855, had a known paper on the Geometric bronzes, material find spot, the Back ofSouth Stoa.They are from the votive deposits near the Heraion all fragmentary, only their arches being will be included and the studies of the Ar preserved. gos bronzes will primarily be based on the finds in the sanctuaries, only secondarily AH 853 - 854 (NM 14032 and 23082) are on the bronzes in the Argos tombs. fibulae "a drago ", ofwhich only AH 854 has one ofits pair ofglobes preserved. In their fragmentary state, they measure 6 and 4.35 cm., respectively (Fig. I).5

38 Fig. 3 A - C.Athens. National Museum. NM 16554. Egyptian Bronze Statuette ofHarpocrates.Argive Heraion. A - B. Photo American School of Classical Studies. C. Museum Photo.

AH 855 - 857 are ofsanguisuga/navicella at the Argive Heraion, all Greek imita fibula types. Judging from their descrip tions; one has preserved some ofits bone tion, AH 855 is a sanguisuga fibula, its arch disks, while one separate ivory disk shows measuring 2.45 cm. in length, while AH remnants ofthe arch. Amber disks ofim 856 and AH 857 are navicella fibulae, their ported Italic fibulae were found on , arches measuring 2.5 and 3.35 cm. respe but most examples in are imita ctively. All three fibulae have engraved tions, known from many islands as well as Geometric ornamentation (Fig. 2).() the Mainland sanctuaries ofOlympia, Perachora, Pherai and Sparta." According to Kilian, the " a drago" fibulae in Greece were ofSouth Italian or Sicilian AH 1800 (NM 20689) is a small fragment origin and this observation may apply also ofa basin rim with raised points, measu to the sanguisuga/navicella fibulae.7 As in ring 9.2 X 4.8 cm.12There are similar Italy the former type was connected with Etruscan bronze vessels in Olympia, Pera male, the latter with female dress,8 their chora and Kerkyra; they were produced dedicators may perhaps be differentiated from the early 7th Cent, until the 5th accordingly. Without knowledge ofthe Cent. B.C. and had a very wide distribu length ofthe pins, the exact chronology of tion area, which besides Central Italy in the Argive Heraion Italic fibulae is not cluded Magna Graecia and Northern Italy easy to establish, but they are dated within as well as Europe north of Italy.13 Although the period ofthe second half ofthe 8th of Central Italic origin, the basin may have Cent. B.C. and the first half of the 7th reached the Argive Heraion via Magna Cent. B.C.9 Genuinely Italic fibulae are Graecia. known in Greece from many sanctuaries as well as from one tomb, in Exochi on Rho In general, the Italic bronze offerings at des.10 the Argive Heraion are ofhumble char acter and as such would have been given Ofthe arched fibulae with disks ofbone, by private persons, in most cases probably amber or ivory,there are several examples Greeks.14

39 The neighbouring votive the Argive Heraion statuette to the deposits and Argos Twenty-sixth Dynasty (664 - 525 B.C.). However, according to Bianchi, the No early Etruscan/Italic fibulae or other separately cast arms attached by a mortise- bronzes are published from either ofthese and-tenon system represent a tradition of sites.There is thus no reason to assume the Third Intermediate Period (ca. 1070 - that the Italic fibulae at the Argive Heraion 656 B.C.).Judging from technical and sty reached the sanctuary via the settlement of listic criteria as well as from its very fine Argos and its trading relations. execution, a work ofthe Nubian Twenty- fifth Dynasty (719 - 656 B.C.) seems a K. Egyptian Bronzes. more likely date,17 taking into account also the general absolute chronology of Egyp The A rgive Hera ion tian bronze figures found in Greece. Many are definitely products of the Twenty-fifth Only one Argive Heraion bronze is defini Dynasty, as e.g. the nude female figures tely of Egyptian origin, the statuette of the with movable limbs, two ofwhich come Horus child or Harpocrates from Blegen's from and two from the Heraion excavations ofthe Southern Slope (NM ofSamos, besides fragments ofseveral 16554) (Fig. 3). It is a seated, nude, young others.l8 male, his feet resting on a plinth. It measu res 9. 3 cm. in height. Like several other The largest collection ofEgyptian bronzes Egyptian bronze figures, it was apparently in Greece, that of the Samian Heraion, hollow cast,still with its casting core in numbers more than 130 items, dated from side. It has a fine greenish-black patina and the second half of the 8th Cent. B.C. is comparatively well preserved, although onwards;most are of Twenty-fifth Dynasty the head which measures 1.75 cm. in date, others at least produced and de height is somewhat damaged, the nose and dicated before 600 B.C.19 Even though the facial features badly rubbed. Except for Egyptian bronzes arrived in Greece from its lower part in very low relief, the Uraeus the Second Millenium B.C. until Helleni is missing.The head wears a veil, visible in stic times20 and several Egyptian bronze front and behind the ears; its border is ren vases from Crete and Lefkandi on Euboea dered in a double line and it is decorated can be dated to the 9th Cent. B.C.,21 most with an 0.1 cm. broad ribbon with Egyptian bronzes found outside Samos are grooved outline and engraved transverse ofthe same types as the Samian Heraion strokes.The hair lock on the right-hand ones and presumably have the same gene side of the head is missing, only remnants ral absolute chronology.This applies to being observable just above the right ear. Egyptian bronzes from Rhodes, either The head is oval, the fore-head low. The from the Athena Sanctuary of Kameiros or naturalistic left ear is well preserved, ofthe without exact provenance, as well as to the right ear only the lobe remains.The eyes mirror with Mut inscription from the and eye-brows are elongated and delicately Heraion of Perachora, dated to the early formed; the mouth is small, but full.The 7th Cent. B.C., whereas the chronology of details of the childish body are rather soft the fragmentary Ibis figure at the Athena and vague. The arms which are missing Sanctuary ofMiletos is uncertain.22 were made separately and placed in rectan gular sockets, 0.55 cm. high and 0.3 cm. Although the Argive Heraion Harpocrates wide. In general, it is a very fine, small statuette was not found in a secure con sculpture.15 text, it seems likely to be dated within the same period as the majority of Egyptian Similar Harpocrates statuettes were found bronzes from Greece, i.e. in the Twenty- in Greece on the Athenian Acropolis and fifth Dynasty, the late 8th Cent, or the first in the Heraion ofSamos.16 Blegen dated half of the 7th Cent. B.C.

40 The neighbouring votive deposits L. Near Eastern Bronzes There are no genuinely Egyptian bronzes The Argive Heraion. at any ofthe two neighbouring votive de posits, the Hera sanctuary west ofthe He The imported Near Eastern bronzes at the raion and the deposits ofthe Mycenaean Argive Herion chiefly consist oftwo main tombs of Prosymna. However, in one of groups, North Syrian/Assyrian and Phry the latter deposits, that ofTomb IX, pro gian. bably dated to the early 7th Cent. B.C., a seal ring ofsilver was found, in form imi To the former group belong a fibula,AH tating an Egyptian ring, its incuse decora 882 (NM 20894), two fragmentary rib tion of Geometric character.23 phialai, dated to the late 8th or the 7th Cent. B.C., AH 2017 and 2018 (NM Argos 20589 a and (3)25 and three fragments of attachment plates or handles of North Sy I do not know ofany Egyptian bronzes rian cauldrons. from Argos during the period in question. Ofone attachment plate, only the tail There is thus no reason to assume that the feathers ofa siren is preserved, slightly cur two representatives of early Egyptian con ved for the placing on the shoulder ofthe tacts at and near the Argive Heraion, the cauldron, AH 49 (NM 13988).The frag Harpocrates statuette and the model for ment measures 5.9 cm. in length, 8.9 cm. the seal ring from Prosymna Tomb IX, in largest width and 0.65 cm. in thickness; both presumably dated to not later than the one preserved nail hole is centrally the first half of the 7th Cent. B.C., arrived placed in the upper row ofthe engraved via Argos. On the contrary, the distribution tail feathers, some ofwhich have a double pattern ofthe Egyptian bronzes in 8th - central line, while others, like the feathers 7th Cent. B.C. Greece, rather points to ofthe lower row, have single lines; all specific relations between Egypt and cer feathers have small, irregular, transverse tain Athena and Hera sanctuaries in strokes. As normal for the sirens' attach Greece, most Egyptian bronzes ofthat ments, the tail feathers form an edge ofir period apparently having been found in regular semicurves. Apart from a few at sanctuaries of one or other of the two tachments ofpresumably Assyrian/Babylo goddesses, the Athenian Acropolis and the nian origin, all Near Eastern siren attach Athena Sanctuary ofKameiros, on the one ments are considered North Syrian in ori hand, the Argive Heraion and the Heraia gin. According to Herrmann, AH 49 be of Perachora and Samos, on the other. The longs to his early "Werkstatt A", with two mirrors with Mut inscriptions from counterparts in Gordion,Tumulus MM.26 the Heraia of Perachora and Samos, dated to ca.700 - 670 and ca. 650 - 620 B.C., re Another fragment consists ofthe end piece spectively, suggest an early identification of ofthe left wing ofa siren attachment with Mut with Hera, and thus an insight into the hand ofthe siren preserved and a solid the Egyptian religious milieu which may cast standing bull on top of the plate, NM have existed among the officials ofthe two 16552 (Fig. 4).The object was found NE distant Greek Hera sanctuaries.The identi of the Argive Heraion, the cauldron ap fication of Neith with Athena may also be parently being originally placed on the early.24 The extremely large number of Old Temple Terrace. The length ofthe Egyptian bronzes at the Heraion of Samos plate is 5.3 cm., its width 5.1 cm, its largest signify a central role for this sanctuary in thickness 0.7 cm. (at the siren's hand one the Egyptian/Greek contacts ofthe late cm); the length ofthe bull is 10.5 cm., its 8th and first half ofthe 7th Century B.C. height 7. 5 cm.The outermost one cm. of the plate is almost flat,but underneath the

41 Fig. 4.Athens. National Museum. NM 16552. Fragmentary Siren Attachment with Standing Bull. Argive Heraion. Photo Deutsches Archiiologisclu Institut.Athen. Neg. Nos. 72/1680 - 72/1677 and NM 4285. bull figure the plate is slightly curved, thus indicating a counterpart at the other adapted to its position on the shoulder of end ofthe plate.The head of the bull was the cauldron.The lower edge has irregular presumably originally almost square, but semicurves like the tail feathers ofAH 49. because ofdamage in the mould at its left- The front hooves ofthe bull end in a one hand side, the muzzle is misshaped. The cm. broad flange at 90 degrees to the plate, eyes are large and oval, with raised lids and indicating its fastening to the rim ofthe brows; only one bored nostril is preserved; cauldron. Only one nail hole is partly pre the mouth is a horizontal groove. The served, at the break just below the siren's head shows a rich engraved decoration: hand, ca. 0.5 cm. in diameter.The engra between the horns are two parallel lines ved details ofthe plate are less complicated and below them a triangular, crosshatched than those ofthe former attachment; mane lock, ending between the eyes. On chiefly, they consist ofirregular, small the right-hand side ofthe head, the strokes, but just at the break, the outline of muzzle is bordered by two parallel, semi one obliquely placed feather can be obser circular grooves.The body is heavy and, ved. Nor does the hand ofthe siren show except for its underside, engraved overall as many details as the siren attachments in with lines, in series ofsmall points and general; for example, apart from the sepa transverse strokes, which sometimes, e.g. rate thumb, there is no indication offin on the ridge ofthe back and the front of gers. However, these differences may be the neck, form a herring bone pattern. due to difficulties in engraving underneath Although essentially schematic, the en or close to the bull figure to which the graving indicates neck folds, shoulder and engraved details in general pay regard.Just ribs.The long tail which is slung on the at the break, the siren's arm seems to be of back of the bull also shows transverse a higher relief; possibly it is wearing an strokes and ends in long vertical lines. arm ring. In accordance with most other Only the hooves have no engraved details. scholars, I cannot see this fragment as any thing but part of a siren attachment plate, Stylistically, the bull with its square face, as first identified by Kunze.27 large,oval eyes with raised surroundings and, in general, heavy build corresponds The horns and right ear ofthe bull are well with other North Syrian bull rende broken, the right hindleg is damaged,and rings and, as observed by Kunze, its many there are several cavities in the surface; incised details are of the same character as otherwise the figure is well preserved.The those of the North Syrian sirens. I see no bull stands leaning forward and asymmetri reason to doubt that the bull was attached callyplaced on the plate, its head and to a siren attachment plate ofa North Sy slanting forelegs inclined towards the siren, rian cauldron.28

42 Fig. 5. . Inv. No. 8399. Fragmentary Siren Attachment with Standing Bull. Photo. Ecole Francaise d'Archeologie.Athenes. Neg. Nos. 31259, 31260 and 31217.

An apparent counterpart to NM 16552 it is asymmetrically placed on the plate, was found in Delphi, Inv. No.8399 (Fig. 5), presupposing a counterpart, for which, also a standing bull on a fragmentary however, there is no room. Its general ap plate.29 However, this object has many pearance corresponds well with that ofthe strange traits, as recognized by Muscarella. former bull, only its details are much The solid cast bull is placed on the plate in vaguer, and although the tips ofthe horns such a way that its hindlegs are conside are missing, they were not broken. rably longer than the forelegs and their lower parts are shapeless.Except for a mis Taken into account all these anomalies, I sing small triangle, the plate is whole, its cannot reach any other conclusion than edge at both sides forming a series ofsmall that the Delphi plate was formed over a semicurves.The plate measures 13.2 cm X fragmentary attachment plate ofthe same 9.2 cm. its thickness varying between 0.7 type as the Argive Heraion bull plate, but and 0.9 cm.The plate has no nail hole; on with only the forelegs ofthe bull still at the contrary, to the left ofthe bull, there is tached, the break running between fore- a raised, round irregularity of about half a and hindlegs. Not only the larger dimen cm. in diameter, corresponding with an ir sions point in this direction. The original regularity on the unworked underside of plate fragment (the left side), with rem the plate.The forelegs of the bull end in a nants of one nail still preserved, was evi flange like that ofthe Argive Heraion dently added to and a corresponding edge plate, but the plate is not adapted to the ofsemicurves formed on the new part. curvature of a cauldron. There are faint The hindlegs of the bull, apparently traces oftransverse strokes on the top of twisted in breaking, had to be prolonged the plate, but only on its left-hand side, to reach the reconstructed flat plate.The terminating under the body of the bull, in bull was partly left unaltered, with its a line between its forelegs and hindlegs. horns broken, the surface worn, and the engraved details vaguely visible,partly re From the plate a left human arm reaches shaped with prolonged hindlegs.The new, up, grasping the bull's right foreleg with clumsy human arm indicates at least a me the thumb in front of the leg, but other mory ofan arm on the original plate. In wise almost shapeless.The bull itself is contrast to the Argive Heraion bull plate, considerably larger than the Argive Hera this object could not possibly decorate a ion bull, measuring 14. cm. in length. Be cauldron. Remodelled into a new, separate cause ofthe strange way ofits fastening to object, the Delphi dedication at any rate the plate, with the much larger hind legs, offers evidence of the one-time existence the head and forepart of the body forms a ofone more siren attachment plate with a slanting line. Like the Argive Heraion bull, standing bull similar to the Argive Heraion

43 plate and ofthe same origin, in my opinion Fig. 6. Athens. North Syrian. Whether the original may National Museum. NM 16563. Cast Griffin come from the same cauldron as the AH Protome. Argive Heraion. attachment plate I do not find it possible Photo. American Schoolof to determine. Classical Studies. Athens. The close stylistic and typological rela tionship between the standing bull on the Argive Heraion attachment plate and the animal handles of Near Eastern bronze cauldrons, speaks for the North Syrian ori gin also ofthe latter group, as suggested by Kunze and Herrmann.30 Herrmann pro posed the existence ofmore than one workshop and other scholars question the theory of North Syrian origin ofthe ani mal handles. However,for the majority, their close stylistic correspondance with the Argive Heraion bull speaks for the same origin.31

The solid cast animal handle ofa goat, AH 21 (NM 13970), found buried in a sort of pocket at the Archaic Temple foundations, also fits in well with North Syrian animal The hollow cast griffin protome, NM figures. It measures almost 12 cm. in length 16563 (Fig. 6), found together with NM and 9.6 cm. in height; it is rather worn and 16552, decorated the rim ofanother its comparatively sturdy body is without bronze cauldron of the same function. The details, but its head with its curved, knob protome is well preserved, with only the bed horns, its large oval eyes with raised tips of its ears and tongue missing; it has a lids and brows,finds parallels in North Sy fine green patina and its eyes were inlaid in rian goat renderings.32 another material. The protome measures 14 cm. in length and 6.5 cm. in lower dia The North Syrian cauldrons with either meter; two ofits original rivets are still in siren attachments or animal handles are situ. It forms part ofthe series ofSamian dated to the late 8th Cent. B.C., reaching cast griffin protomes and must be a Samian into the 7th Cent. B.C.33 Judging from work of the early second quarter ofthe their find places at the Argive Heraion, 7th Cent. B.C.36 The Argive Heraion ex both North Syrian cauldrons ofwhich ample is the only known griffin protome NM 16552 and AH 21 formed part, were from the Argolid and there is no evidence, presumably originally placed on the Old at all, for an Argive production of the early Temple Terrace. My suggestion that the griffin cauldrons, a hypothesis which is ten metre wide terrace west and south of based on ' much later mention the Archaic Temple was meant for display ofa griffin cauldron as an Argive type.37 of such monumental objects has been fa vourably received by J. Hall and I still find The Near Eastern bronze cauldrons with it a reasonable explanation for this large bulls' heads which had three main pro open area.34 However, the acquisition and duction centres,Urartu, North Syria and primary function ofthe North Syrian Phrygia38, are not represented at the Argive bronze cauldrons I now see in connection Heraion, except as Greek imitations. Two, with the introduction in some Greek sanc possibly three bulls' head attachments are tuaries ofbanquets ofNear Eastern tradi known from the Argive Heraion. One tion including wine.35 from Rangabe and Bursian's excavations is

44 Fig. 7.Athens. National Museum. NM 13972. Bull's. Head Attachment. AH 23. Museum Photos.

lost; the two others are AH 23 and AH 25, and a rich engraved decoration, known the former found in the West Building, the e.g. from Gordion,Tumulus MM.4" latter on the Southern Slope.39 AH 25 (NM 13973), is also solid cast; it AH 23 (NM 13972) (Fig. 7) is a solid cast has a depression at the back, where its at bull's head, with hollow neck, measuring tachment plate was soldered to it. The 5.6 cm. in height and ending in a 0.5 cm. head measures 4.9 cm. in height.The plate wide elliptical plate, by which it was has a preserved height of 5.5 cm. and a soldered to the cauldron. The tip ofits width of 9.1 cm.The horns were soldered right horn is missing as well as its left ear to the head. The muzzle was sharpened in which had been soldered to the head.The modern times, giving it a rather disturbing head is ofa very angular form and with a front view. Apart from its simple, broad rich, engraved Geometric decoration. mane lock and the eyes which are formed From the whirligig on its forehead, Kyrie- as two extra lumps ofmetal, it shows leis identified it as definitely a Greek work. hardly any detailed rendering. However, its Although some ofits details, as e.g. its very narrow muzzle and the concave out large, oval eyes and its triangular mane line ofits cheeks, giving the head an al lock, are reminiscent of those of the North most triangular shape, is, acccording to Ky- Syrian bull, NM 16553, the immediate rieleis (who points out a counterpart in model for its triangular head and sche Delphi), another sign of Greek workman matic eye surrounds is more likely to be ship. For AH 25 also, the type ofits model found in a Phrygian type ofbull's head at is found in Gordion,Tumulus MM41 tachments, also with triangular mane lock which is dated to around 700 B.C.42 Both

Fig. 8. Athens. National Museum. NM 14018. Lion's Fig. 9. Athens. National Museum. NM 14018. Head Attachment. AH 2204. Museum Photo. Griffin's Head Attachment. AH 2205. Museum Photo.

45 bulls' heads, Greek imitations ofPhrygian groups ofobjects being represented in types, are thus presumably dated to the Greek imitations also. early 7th Cent. B.C. The Phrygian fibulae are characterized by a Two miniature attachments are also defini semicircular arch with heavy mouldings tely Greek. One is AH 2204 (NM 14018) and an elaborate form of catch. The classi (Fig. 8), a hollow cast lion's head with a fication used here is that ofBlinkenberg solid cast band ring on its top and a T - with a revision by Muscarella.45 For genu formed attachment plate; the head measu inely Phrygian fibulae I follow Kilian's de res 2.25 cm. in length and the plate, in finition: Symmetrically segmented ends of cluding the ring 6 cm. in height and 8 cm. the arch and usually a vertically grooved, in width. With three rivets, the plate was winged catch.46 According to Blinken- fastened to the oblique shoulder ofa berg/Muscarella's classification and Kilian's bronze vase, the diameter ofwhich cannot definition, the imported Phrygian fibulae be calculated.The lion head, which was at the Argive Heraion are, in my opinion, outwards facing, has small, triangular ears the following: AH 883, 886, - 889, 891, ofwhich only the left one is preserved; its 894 - 896 and 901 - 904 (NM 14031, mane is raised; its eyes are extraordinarily 14032 and 23097 - 23099) of Groups XII, large, almond-shaped and with deeply 5; XII, 9; XII, 13; XII, 14; XII, 14 A and bored pupils; the nostrils are indicated on possibly XII 7 A, as well as a Western Asia the right-hand side ofthe head and above Minor variety, AH 905, ofXII, 10.47 the mouth are two semicircular grooves. Possibly still of7th Cent. B.C. date, the Muscarella has suggested that AH 903, a lion's head is far removed from any Near fragment ofa flat crescent-shaped arch Eastern model. There are several rather tapering towards the end, is a XII, 1A fi close counterparts in Delphi.43 bula. If correctly identified (and in spite of its extremely bad preservation, the classifi AH 2205 (NM 14018) (Fig. 9) is a small cation seems convincing to me), it is the griffin; its tail is broken off, as well as the only one ofits type found outside Asia tip ofits right wing (originally it was defi Minor and the earliest Phrygian fibula at nitely T- formed) and the left-hand side the Argive Heraion. In Gordion, fibulae of ofits head is damaged. Its mouth is closed, type XII, 7 A were found in Tumuli W and the beak downwards slanting; its knob and G, dated to ca. 750 and 725 B.C., respecti right eye were made ofextra lumps ofme vely; apparently XII, 7 A fibulae were not tal. It is preserved at a length of5 cm. and produced after the Kimmerian invasion the plate has a width of8.7 cm.There are around 700 B.C.48 no details and the surface is worn. Its un derside has a depression, showing that the AH 895 belongs to Class XII, 5, characteri head of the griffin, facing inwards, rested zed by a large abacus at each end ofthe on the rim of a vase, the diameter of arch and is closely related to fibulae found which can be estimated to ca. 45 cm.; two in Gordion,Tumulus Kill, which was ofits three small nail holes are preserved. dated to ca. 725 B.C., and in the Kimme Its model is Phrygian and it may be dated rian destruction level of the city, from to the first half of the 7th Cent. BC, al around 700 B.C.49 though its exact chronology is uncertain.44 The fibulae XII, 9 have a flat arch decora The Greek, Orientalizing bronze at ted with hemispherical studs, which, how tachments at the Argive Heraion seem for ever, are lost in all the Argive Heraion ex the greater part to be imitations of Phry amples, AH 901, 902 and 904.The type is gian bronzes, while Phrygian bronze im known from pre-Kimmerian levels at Gor ports amount to a considerable number, dion, but continued into the 7th and pos comprising fibulae as well as bowls, both sibly even the 6th Cent. B.C. However, as

46 Fig. 10. Athens. 905, is fixed. Such fibulae were found National Museum. neither in Gordion nor at Bogazkoy, al Terracotta Figurine. /^tur>~-r\ though there is one example in Alicar Argive Heraion. Drawing. Hiiyiik. It is a Western Asia Minor pro FromAA 1973, 150, Fig. 1. taBCv^wl^t^S&k fi^^eZ&Ssri duct, its distribution area comprising the Wl^^Jld Troad and Ephesos as well as several other Greek sanctuaries.The fibula type is dated to the 7th Century B.C.54 initaH " w m iMw [M The genuinely Phrygian fibulae have a large distribution area outside Phrygia, in Asia Minor including , Central Asia Minor and Lycia;further east they are re presented on reliefs and they reach as far the greater part ofthe Gordion examples west as Latium.55 Although the genuine are late 8th or early 7th Cent.B.O, it is ness ofseveral Phrygian fibulae found in quite possible that the imports at the Ar Greece is still discussed, there seems to be give Heraion started early50 a reasonable agreement as to which sanc tuaries yielded imported Phrygian fibulae: The Phrygian fibulae XII, 13,have a cen besides the Argive Heraion, the Delion on tral moulding ofthe arch, usually ofthe Paros, the Artemisia of Ephesos, Sparta, and same type as at the ends. At the Argive Thasos, the Athena sanctuaries of Ialysos Heraion, AH 883, 886 - 888 and 896 are, and Lindos on Rhodes as well as ofTegea in my opinion, genuinely Phrygian.The and Pherai, and the Heraia at Olympia and type is long-lived,the earliest examples Samos.56 coming from Gordion,Tumulus W, from about 750 B.C., but the type continues The absolute chronology ofthe Phrygian into the 6th Cent. B.C.51 fibulae in Greece is still under debate, especially by Boehmer and Muscarella.57 Like XII, 13, the fibulae XII, 14 have a However, there seems no reason to doubt central ornament, but also an extra disk or that at least some ofthe Argive Heraion another kind of small decorative element Phrygian fibulae are dated earlier than 700 between the central ornament and the si B.C., a few perhaps even considerably ear milar ends.They are represented by AH lier, and that several others appear to have 889 and 891. The type begins before 700 an early 7th Cent. B.C. date.58 B.C., having been found in Tumulus MM in Gordion; but it is essentially of7th At the Argive Heraion there is also a large Cent. B.C. date.52 group of Greek, Phrygian-imitating fibulae ofBlinkenberg Groups XII, 13 - 15: AH One Argive Heraion fibula, AH 894, is of 885, 890, 892 - 893 and 897 - 900 (NM Muscarella's type XII, 14A, having several 14032 and 20880)59, as well as the so- decorative elements between the centre called "Scharnierfibeln", which Kilian se and the ends.The earliest examples in parated as a group from Blinkenberg's XII, Gordion come from Tumulus S 1, dated to 13 (q-s),XII, 14 (q) and XII, 15- 17.60 the first quarter ofthe 7th Cent. B.C., but Most Argive Heraion "Scharnierfibeln" are in Bogazkoy, the type is known from a late characterized by their mouldings forming 8th Cent. B.C. context. AH 894 is possibly two joined semiglobes.They can be divi early and thus presumably to be dated in ded into two main subgroups. One consi the early 7th Cent. B.C.53 sts ofAH 906 - 909 and AH 911 - 915; their arches are round in section and have Blinkenberg's Class XII, 10 has a transver one central moulding, identical with that sal bar which in some cases, as e.g. on AH ofthe ends; they appear to be a Pelopon-

47 nesian variety, in Greece known also from ian Heraion, Delphi, and Olympia; how Lusoi, Olympia and Perachora.The other ever,they are not among the Argive Hera subgroup, AH 910 and AH 916 - 918, with ion bronzes,68 where the only other Phry an angular section and two central moul gian or Phrygian imitating bronzes are dings, have parallels only in Perachora and bowls. in the Hera sanctuary west ofthe Argive Heraion; both subgroups were probably Two rim band fragments with spool-shap locally manufactured at the Argive Hera ed vertical elements of Phrygian shallow ion. They may imitate a specific type of bowls with swivelling ring handles were XII, 13 fibulae known from Gordion found at the Argive Heraion, AH 2215. - Tomb S 1, dated to the early 7th Cent. 2216 (NM 20628 a and p), both cast m B.C., and are presumably of7th Cent. B.C. one piece. Each "spool" has a central nail date.61 The central groups of the "Schar hole and upper globular protrusions, nierfibeln" which are considered of North reaching 1.2 - 1.5 cm. above the rim of Greek origin are sparsely represented at the bowl. In details they differ.The band of the Argive Heraion; their chronology AH 2215 measures 14. 2 cm. in length, 0.5 covers the Archaic and Classical Periods.62 cm. in diameter and has a very rough sur face; its spool-shaped element, measuring In contrast with the multiple use offibulae 4.7 cm. in height and 0.5 cm. in largest in the Gordion tumuli,63 the Phrygian fi width, is almost cylindrical with flaring bulae outside Phrygia apparently were ends; about 1 cm. from the top, it has an used only singly, as seen e.g. on the relief incised horizontal line and below the from Khorsabad which according to globe, its inside is slightly hollowed to Boehmer represents a tribute bearer in a adapt it to the rim of the bowl; the "spool" Phrygian embassy to Sargon II in 709 forms the end of the rim band.The frag B.C., or on the somewhat earlier Ivriz ment AH 2216 which is well polished relief with a Royal personage.64 measures 5.25 cm. in length and 0.5 - 0.65 cm. in diameter; its "spool" is ofthe One of the female terracotta statuettes at "waisted" type, measuring 3.75 cm. in the Argive Heraion wears on her shoulder height and 1.9 cm. in largest width and it a Phrygian fibula oftype XII, 13; whether has a ca. 0. 5 cm. deep inner, vertical cut genuine or imitation cannot be decided ting to facilitate its fastening to the rim. (Fig. 10).65 Although there are no recorded The band continues on either side of the finds of Phrygian type fibulae on the Old "spool", showing just at the break a raised TempleTerrace, the one primary find spot ring, 0.9 cm. in diameter, perhaps a transi being the Altar area, this fibula rendering tion to the handle attachment (although I may indicate the use of Phrygian or Phry do not know of any other Phrygian spool- gian-imitating fibulae for the dress ofthe shaped element placed so near the handle). wooden cult statue of Hera.66 There is no The diameters of the two bowls cannot be evidence ofPhrygian dress offerings in decided;but the known Phrygian shallow Greek sanctuaries. Nevertheless, there is bowls measure between ca. 20 and ca. 30 more in favour ofthis hypothesis than for cm. in diameter, their height varying be that of Italic dress dedications: Luxurious tween ca. 6 and ca. 9 cm.69 dresses or textiles are known as Near Eastern Royal gifts; already around 700 15 such bronze bowls were found in the B.C. Greek vase-painting appears to be in Royal Tomb at Gordion,Tumulus MM, fluenced by Phrygian textiles which, from ca. 700 B.C.The bowls are cast and therefore, must have reached Greece about polished and have either two or four rim that time; and Phrygian bronze belts were bands. However, their "spools"had an up presumably worn by another Greek cult per termination ofvertical bronze studs, statue, that ofArtemis Ephesia.67 Phrygian not globular protrusions as the Argive belt buckles are known also from the Sam Heraion rim bands which in this feature

48 Fig. 11. Athens. National Museum. NM 14009. Bronze Rim Band. AH 2788. Museum Photo.

resemble bowls from post-Kimmerian with spool-like elements. AH 2217 (NM Gordion. AH 2215 seems almost a replica 20628 y), is a close imitation, formerly re ofTurn.J 20, on which two pieces ofrim garded as an original74. band were notched into the ends ofthe bolster.Tumulus J is dated to the last quar AH 2788 (NM 14009)(Fig. 11). is a 21. 5 ter of the 7th Cent. B.C., but the bowl is cm. long fragment ofa 4.8 cm. wide and considered earlier, only slightly later than 2.7 cm. thick, solid cast bronze band, semi- the Kimmerian destruction.AH 2216 may curved and with three, vertically grooved, be compared to rim bands with deep cut relief parts, one ofwhich forms the end of tings from the 6th Cent. B.C.Tumulus A.70 the band; the relief parts measure between 1.6 and 1.8 cm. in width; the band dimi Phrygian shallow bronze bowls of this type nishes in width towards the break, close to are found at other sites in Asia Minor (An the swivel handle attachment.The outside kara and Magnesia on Hermos) as well as ofthe rim band is carefully polished, with in Greece, in the Heraion ofSamos and a black patina, its inside is left rough; be the Zeus-Hera Sanctuary of Olympia, tween the raised parts are a large iron nail while the Hera sanctuary ofPerachora had with a flat head, 0.6 cm. in diameter, and a Phrygian bronze bowls ofother types. nail hole. Presumably the rim band was ri- Since one whole shallow bowl from vetted to a wooden bowl. Its diameter is Olympia as well as one ofthe separate exceptionally large, measuring 99.5 cm.75 spool-shaped elements has bronze studs like the Gordion Tumulus MM bowls, the There are parallels in Samos and Olympia, Greek imports presumably started shortly but with diameters ofonly about 30 cm. before or around 700 B.C.71 In the Olympia publication they are regar ded as imitations ofCypriot bowls with The Gordion find contexts leave no doubt rim bands and swivel handles and since the that the bowls were drinking vessels. How relief parts of the bands are lacking on the ever, in Greek sanctuaries they were used Cypriot bowls, this trait is interpreted as an for libations, as suggested by their limited Archaic Greek innovation. However, I am numbers and demonstrated by the 6th more inclined to see the bowls as devel Cent. B.C. ivory figure in Ephesos ofa oped out ofPhrygian-imitating bowls with priestess holding such a bowl in one hand, a series either ofvertical, spool-shaped ele a libation jug in the other.72 ments or ofdeeply grooved bolster at tachments like those at the Phrygian hand A large number ofbolster handle at les.76 tachments and ring handles at the Argive Heraion have Phrygian handles as their The size ofAH 2788 suggests a perirrhan- models, but they do not comprise secure terion.These often measure about 1 m. in imports.73 Two fragments ofbronze rim diameter, and several early Greek stone bands are reminiscent of the shallow bowls perirrhanteria were inspired by another

49 kind of Phrygian shallow bowl, the type with wishbone handles, as A. Knudsen first observed, while there are early Greek terra-cotta perirrhanteria with bolster-sha ped decorative elements.77 The Greek stone and terra-cotta perirrhanteria are dated from ca. 650 B.C. onwards.The Isth- mia stone perirrhanterion in function ap parently succeeded the iron tripod close to which it was placed at the entrance to the Temple. AH 2788 cannot be dated exactly, but must be Early Archaic like the Olym pia examples. Nor is its exact position in the sanctuary known, but nevertheless the fragment should perhaps be viewed in the light ofthe above perirrhanteria.78

Ofmore importance is the large number of petalled bowls with ringed omphaloi in Greek sanctuaries, the so-called lotus bowls, closely imitating Phrygian models. At the Argive Heraion, they were mostly found in fragments, apparently numbering about 70, ofwhich about 50 were discarded. Apart from one fragment from the Upper Fig. 12.Athens. National Museum. M 49.64. Lotus Bowl.Argive Heraion. Photo. Hill, their find spots were secondary, AH American School of Classical Studies. Athens. 1975 - 1978,AH 1985 - 1986,AH 1988, AH 1990 - 2000 (NM 20485, 20576 and semicurves, separated from the standrings 20579 - 20584) and NM 49.64,79 by a plain part; they radiate towards the rim, where their pointed tips are inter The Greek lotus bowls are hammered twined with other petal tips. Essentially bowls, decorated with rows ofpetals in this decoration is a debased version of a cised from the front so deeply as to give an lotus flower and is usually rendered in a impression of relief (Fig. 12, cf. Fig. 16). comparatively naturalistic way in which The Argive Heraion bowls vary in height each petal divides into several tips (AH between ca. 2 and ca. 4 cm. and in diame 1975 - 1976, Figs. 13 - 14).The petals, ter between ca. 10 and ca. 17 cm.; how very varied in numbers, thus multiply con ever, most are too damaged for exact mea siderably near the rim, where the tips form surements. In a few cases, the omphalos is a row oftriangles. A more simplified ver partly preserved, made in one piece with sion shows just single petal tips at the rim the bowl. The omphalos is surrounded by sometimes accompanied by incised points one or two relief rings between incised (NM 49.64, Fig. 12, cf. Fig. 16). Another circles, the stand rings forming a flat sur version is schematic with straight, narrow face.The sides ofthe bowls are straight; the petals, giving the impression ofreeds, not types of rim differ, often outwards flaring, leaves (AH 1995 and 1998).The rim itself sometimes straight, but thickened. The is normally decorated with one or two slight differences in form do not corre rows ofraised points and an incised spond to decorative variations.The petals chequer pattern.80 vary in numbers, but because of the bad preservation of the Argive Heraion bowls, The lotus bowls developed in Phrygia, their numbers are difficult to determine. presumably in Gordion, during the second They rise from a series ofsingle or double half of the 8th Cent. B.C. as a hybrid be-

50 their function as drinking vessels, their hollow omphalos - in contrast with the solid one ofAssyrian phialai - offering a safe finger grip.83

The Gordion Tumulus MM lotus bowls

1976 are generally both larger and deeper than n id their Greek imitations, measuring between ca. 4 and ca. 7 cm. in height and between ca. 15 and ca. 26 cm. in diameter.They may have as many as seven inner rings around the omphalos, not showing on the outside, but normally they had fewer. The main areas ofpetals were hammered over a form, giving petals ofsuch high relief that they below formed a kind ofstandring. The petals tapered, radiating towards the Fig. 13. Athens. National Museum. NM 20485. Lotus Bowl.AH 1976. Museum Photo. rim, here interleaving with other petal tips, forming an upper pattern oftriangles. The rim was left undecorated, except for oc casional zigzags or arched punchlike marks over the incised tips ofthe petals.The basic number ofpetals are 16, but the numbers vary between 12 and 18 below, multi plying to from 48 to 72 near the rim. The bowls have a slight outturning at the rim.84

The type continued in post-Kimmerian Gordion tombs, showing small changes in form and decoration.The outturning at the rim is now absent and although the naturalistic decoration continues, it is in a slightly more simplified version, while si multaneously other bowls develop a new kind ofdecoration with straight and very narrow petals like reeds. Both post-Kim merian kinds ofdecoration are represented already in Tumulus S 1, from the first quar ter of the 7th cent. B.C.; the simplified na Fig. 14. Athens. National tween the ringed omphalos bowl and the turalistic version continues in bowls from Museum. NM 20485. Lotus Near Eastern blossom bowls, the earliest Tumulus Z and Tumulus J, ofthe 7th Bowl.AH 1976. Drawing. attempts at a variety of which were found Cent. B.C., while the "reed" version lasted in Tumuli W and P (W 9 - 10 and P 11) into the 6th Cent. B.C. where such bowls from ca. 750 B.C. and the last quarter of were excavated in Tumulus S 2.85The lat the 8th Cent. B.C., respectively.81 Before ter type must be the model for the "reed" 700 B.C. the lotus bowl was fully devel version of the Greek lotus bowls86. In Ana oped, 50 being known from the Royal Tu tolia lotus bowls are found in tombs at An mulus MM at Gordion as well as in some kara, Bogaskoy and Kerkenec Dag and examples from the destruction level ofone they are known also from .87 ofthe terrace buildings, both structures datable to around 700 B.C.82 Their num The one original Phrygian lotus bowl in ber and context in Tumulus MM confirm Greece, from Olympia, is ofthe Tumulus

51 MM type and probably reached Greece shortly before or around 700 B.C.88 The Greek lotus bowls with naturalistic design are close imitations of these rather short lived Gordion MM bowls and presumably their production must have begun almost immediately89 The first Greek examples of the "reed" bowls may be dated within the first half ofthe 7th Cent. B.C., whereas the Greek bowls with simplified naturalistic design have no immediate parallels in Gor dion and may represent a Greek decorative invention.Judging from the find at the Eastern Retaining Wall (Fig. 12), the Ar give Heraion lotus bowls were still being manufactured in the first half ofthe 6th Cent. B.C.90.There is no evidence that the production continued into the Classical Period.91

There are also Greek lotus bowls in the Hera —Zeus sanctuary of Olympia and at the Heraion of Perachora as well as an un published example from the Heraion of Samos. Others come from the Athenian Acropolis, the Athena Pronaia Sanctuary at Delphi, the Oracle ofAbas in Pho- cis, the sanctuary ofthe Ismenian Apollo at Thebes and the Artemis sanctuary of Lusoi. Payne mentions two bowls without secure provenance, one said to have come from and the other from the Troad. Ofthree bowls in the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary in Tocra, one comes from a deposit in the second half of the 6th imi mm hi linn I Cent. B.C. Five bowls were placed in a Late Archaic deposit in the Nemesis sanc tuary in Rhamnous. Outside Greece they have also been found in 6th Cent. B.C. 1994 tombs in South Italy and Trebenischte north of Greece. Judging from their distri bution pattern, the lotus bowls are essenti give Heraion bowls or the other lotus Fig. 15 A+B. Athens. ally of Greek Mainland production, princi bowls I have seen. In addition the forms of National Museum. pally Peloponnesian.92 the bowls differ at the two sanctuaries. At NM 20582e Lotus Bowl. Rim Fragment the former, they have a curved outline, at with Inscription. AH 1994. The above bowls all are ofthe same tech the latter their sides are straight. Such local Museum Photo and Drawing. nique and general form and essentially variations may indicate local production at they follow the same decorative scheme, the two sanctuaries. Also at other sites, the although there are variations. E.g., accor lotus bowls show slight differences. E.g. the ding to Payne, the Perachora bowls had Delphi and at least one ofthe Olympia their omphalos executed separately,a fea bowls lack the incised decoration at the ture which I have not noticed in the Ar- rim and the simplified decoration ofone

52 oftheTocra bowls seems without counter cult function ofthe lotus bowls. To collect parts.93 a total of200 Archaic bronze phialai for li bations in a sanctuary the size and signifi One ofthe Argive Heraion lotus bowls, cance of Perachora seems exaggerated. AH 1977, was found on the Upper Hill From their numbers alone, they are more and must be regarded as a , likely to be drinking vessels and the cult while two others have inscriptions mar function for which they were collected king them as the public property ofthe would be the banquets with wine drinking Hera Sanctuary: AH 1985 an engraved H which from the late 8th Cent. B.C. took and AH 1994 a longer inscription, contai place in a certain groups ofsanctuaries, in ning the words: TAI HEPAI AAMO (Fig. cluding those of Hera.99 Also, there is ge 15). Some ofthe lotus bowls from the neral agreement that at Archaic Perachora Athenian Acropolis also have inscriptions the banquets took place in connection signifying their belonging to the cult with the hearth building. equipment ofthe sanctuary, i.e. they had a cult function.94 Tomlinson refers to Gordion Tumulus MM, the Royal Tumulus, for a corre By far the largest number oflotus bowls sponding overwhelming number ofphialai come from the Heraion of Perachora, mesomphaloi, stating that the tomb con where more than 200 bronze phialai, for tained a complete symposion equipment: the greater part lotus bowls, were found in "Three large cauldrons, two small caul the so-called "Sacred Pool".95Tomlinson drons, thirty-one jugs, two situlae, twenty- interprets them as drinking vessels, sug one bowls with handles,but no less than gesting that originally they were con ninety-eight phialai mesomphaloi".100 nected with the hearth building which he earlier had identifed with the Archaic In general, there are such close similarities hestiatorion.96 Although having accepted in the Geometric/Archaic finds at the two this latter identification, Blanche Menadier nearby Hera sanctuaries, Perachora and the for various reasons refutes Tomlinson's in Argive Heraion, that the situation at one terpretation: because ofthe many unsolved sanctuary may contribute to the clarifica problems ofthe "Sacred Pool"; because of tion ofproblems at the other.101 At the Ar finds there ofother bronze vases as well as give Heraion also, the large number oflo ofobjects of definitely votive character tus bowls some ofwhich were definitely of and because ofthe late date ofthe closing cult function, speak for their use as drin of the deposit, the end ofthe 5th Cent. king vessels in the banquets.102 In particu B.C. Presumably the whole "Sacred Pool" lar, the correspondance in the symposion deposit was discarded in connection with a equipment ofTumulus MM at Gordion major building program ofthe sanctuary shortly before or around 700 B.C., on the in the early 4th Cent. B.C.97 one hand, and on the other, the contem porary imported Near Eastern bronze ves Though recognizing Blanche Menadier's sels or close Greek imitations at the Argive objections to the Perachora find spot in it Heraion is striking. Both comprise a couple self bearing evidence ofa connection be oflarge North Syrian cauldrons (Turn tween phialai and hestiatorion, I neverthe MM 2-3 and AH 49, AH 21 and NM less basically agree with Tomlinson's views. 16552), while other bronze cauldrons at Phialai are used as drinking vessels as well the Argive Heraion are close imitations of as for libations.98 The very large collection Phrygian cauldrons oftypes known from at the same find spot oflotus bowls and Gordion Tumulus MM (Turn. MM 1 and other Archaic phialai mesomphaloi point 12 - 13 and AH 23 and AH 25) and the to their having been used together and large number oflotus bowls correspond at from the Argive Heraion as well as the both sites, the typologically earliest Argive Athenian Acropolis we have evidence for a Heraion lotus bowls imitating the types

53 found in Gordion Tumulus MM.103 The Near Eastern bronze vessels, acquired or imitated at the Argive Heraion shortly be fore or around 700 B.C., form a complete wine set, all made for either holding or drinking wine, and the wine set is so si milar to the symposion equipment in Gor dion Tumulus MM, that, in my opinion, they illustrate closer ties than merely iden tical trade routes. They represent the same tradition in communal meals. However, although there are examples of communal meals in early Greek cult buildings, there is no evidence that they included wine drin king prior to the import ofthe Near Eastern bronze cauldrons shortly before and in a few Greek sanctuaries, primarily Fig. 16. Athens. 700 B.C. in the group of Greek sanctuaries the Athena Lindia sanctuary on Rhodes, National Museum. ofApollo, Artemis, Athena, and Hera.11'4 where such swivel rings also were com Lotus Bowl. Prosymna. Tomb VIII. Photo. American mon. Possibly the scarab production took On the evidence of these bronze vessels, I School of Classical Studies. find the Near Eastern banquetting tradi place in the last-mentioned sanctuary, the tion with wine drinking at the Argive Argive Heraion swivel rings imitating the Heraion so similar to the Phrygian sympo setting ofthese scarabs; at any rate they do sion tradition as observable in Gordion Tu not signify contacts with Phoenicians in mulus MM that I am inclined to suggest the Near East and probably they should be that it was modelled on it. The conside regarded as evidence ofinterrelations be rable numbers oflotus bowls at the Hera tween Greek sanctuaries.108 A similar type ion of Perachora indicate that the two ofswivel ring with a small suspension ring sanctuaries followed an identical pattern of on its back was used also for the North banquetting tradition.,(b Syrian Lyre-Player seals and is more cor rectly called Levantine.109 At the Argive Heraion, there are a few bronze vases or fragments with Cypriot The Neighbouring Votive models, AH 2022 (NM 13981), AH 2055 Deposits (NM 20644) AH 2074 (NM 20602 a) and AH 2077 (NM 20602 (3). However, not Greek imitations ofthe Phrygian lotus one is a Cypriot original and they are of bowls are found at both neighbouring de either so widely distributed types or so late posits.At the Hera sanctuary west ofthe a date that they cannot be taken as evi Heraion there are considerable numbers of dence ofArgive Heraion contacts with the same types as in the Argive Heraion Cyprus during the period in question.106 and Perachora; here also they may have served as drinking vessels in banquets.110 Nor do the four bronze swivel rings with Tomb VI11 ofthe Mycenaean chamber wire, AH 969 - 970 b, indicate direct tombs ofProsymna with a very rich depo Phoenician contacts. One has remains of sit ofthe first half of the 7th Cent. B.C."1 an ivory seal, while another, ofbronze, has had at least one lotus bowl (Fig. 16).112 At a Late Archaic intaglio decoration ofa fly; the former sanctuary there are also two they seem all to be local imitations ofa "Scharnier"- fibulae ofthe local variet Phoenician type, used for the setting of ies,113 as well as a Phoenician type silver Phoenician scarabs.107 However, the Phoe swivel ring of the same origin as those in nician scarabs in both the Argive Heraion the Argive Heraion.114 and the Heraion of Perachora have their parallels not in the Near East, but in Italy At the neighbouring deposits there are

54 thus no secure Near Eastern bronze im tact with either North Syria or Phrygia. Its ports, but Greek imitations of the same relations outside the Greek Mainland types as in the Argive Heraion, and in point toward Cyprus as well as to the some cases of local manufacture. Aegean islands and the Western coast of Asia Minor, i.e. a pattern similar to that Argos observable for Geometric Argos."9 Al though the material from Argos is very li There do not seem to be any Near Eastern mited, the evidence for Near Eastern con bronze imports in Argos during the period tacts at the two sites confirms the impres in question. The Geometric so-called sion received from the Greek Geometric "Kalotten-Schalen" imitated Cypriot bronzes that until some time after 700 bowls and in a Late Geometric tomb there B.C. the outside connections of the two is a miniature bowl with swivel handles of sites differed significantly.120 Cypriot type."''There are three Phrygian- imitating fibulae, two from the Athena The North Syrian, Phrygian and Phry Sanctuary on top ofthe Larissa, ofthe gian-imitating bronze vases ofthe culmi types of Blinkenberg XII, 11 and XII, 14, nation period at the Argive Heraion were and one in the Aphrodision, of type XII, strikingly similar to the symposion equip 13.The XII, 11 fibula, with a large central ment of Gordion Tumulus MM, possibly swelling ofthe arch, is presumably a the tomb ofKing Midas, or at any rate an Western Asia Minor product, dated to the aristocratic tomb of his time.121 I have for first half of the 7th Cent. B.C.; it has no merly advocated the idea that in the late counterpart at the Argive Heraion. Also 8th Cent. B.C., some Greek sanctuaries of the XII, 13 and XII, 14 fibulae imitating Apollo, Artemis, Athena and Hera (includ Phrygian fibulae of a wide distribution ing the Argive Heraion) adopted the Near area, may be of7th B.C. date, although the Eastern tradition ofbanquets with wine.122 former type continues into the 6th Cent. The similarities in the complete wine sets B.C.116 ofthe years shortly before or around 700 B.C. at the Argive Heraion and in Gordion M. Near Eastern Bronzes. Tumulus MM, respectively, call, in my opi Conclusions nion, for another explanation than com mercial ties or a vague formula of Near The Near Eastern bronze imports at the Eastern influences.123 I am inclined to in Argive Heraion and the models for their terpret them in the light ofan adoption at close Greek imitations point to a begin the Argive Heraion of the Phrygian sym ning ofthe Near Eastern relations of the posion tradition as observed in Gordion sanctuary not later than around 725 B.C., a Tumulus MM. Such a conclusion implies culmination period in the late 8th Cent. close cultural ties between the aristocracy B.C. and the years around 700 B.C., and a ofKing Midas' court at Gordion and the gradual fading out in the course ofthe 7th priesthood ofthe group ofsanctuaries in Cent. B.C. possibly setting in around 675 question.124 B.C.117 During this long period oftime, the strongest Near Eastern relations evi To this group of Greek sanctuaries belongs dently are with Phrygia, in the culmina also the Apollo sanctuary in Delphi, the tion phase only comprising also North Sy recipient ofKing Midas' gift ofa wooden ria.118 throne (Herodotus I 14), presumably a throne ofthe same type as the wooden This pattern of Near Eastern relations furniture in Tumulus MM in Gordion.125 forms a definite contrast to the one chara Muscarella views this gift in terms ofpoli cteristic ofArgos in the Late Geometric tical interests, suggesting that King Midas Period and the early 7th Cent. B.C. At Ar consulted the Delphic oracle - possibly gos there were no Near Eastern bronze even personally presented his gift to imports and no indications of direct con 55 Apollo - in connection with some ofthe B.C.;131 probably this should be viewed in international affairs in which he was invol the light ofSargon IPs conquests. ved. At any rate, that King Midas must have been acquainted with and believed in Although I see the early bronze wine sets the oracle ofApollo in Delphi and its poli at the Argive Heraion as due mainly to tical power.126 non-commercial Phrygian relations with a specific group of Greek sanctuaries, the Neither the distribution pattern ofthe Heraion ofSamos - with at least partly Near Eastern bronze wine sets in Greece, different banquet traditions —seems also to nor the history of King Midas' gift to have played a central role in the outside Apollo in Delphi imply a Greek ruler or connections ofthe Argive Heraion as re settlement having been involved. One gets flected in its imported bronzes.There is a the impression that the court of King Mi much larger variety of Near Eastern im das at Gordion saw the political power in ports in the Samian than in the Argive Greece as situated in the sanctuaries. Heraion, but nevertheless a certain simila rity in the pattern ofimported bronzes. Apparently the alphabet which was adop E.g. in the Phrygian shallow bronze ves ted in Phrygia was the Greek one; which sels, until now found in Greece only in may be another sign ofGreek-Phrygian Hera sanctuaries(although known also in cultural interchanges on a high level,127 not the Artemision ofEphesos), in the North necessarily indicating mercantile inter Syrian bronze cauldrons with animal ests.128 handles, apparently not known in Gor dion, in the Egyptian bronze figures ofthe In the wave ofPhrygian - Greek cultural Twenty-fifth Dynasty and, surprisingly ties around 700 B.C. we should perhaps enough, taking into acccount the over view not only the bronze wine sets, but whelming numbers of Near Eastern also the Phrygian fibulae at the Argive bronzes at the Samian Heraion, in the Heraion, since genuinely Phrygian fibulae apparent lack at both sites ofPhoenician and belt buckles are found in the same relief bowls.132 group of Greek sanctuariesas the equip ment for banquets in the Phrygian fashion. Unfortunately, there is a tendency among Friendly Phrygian - Greek cultural inter modern scholars to call all items of Levan changes on a high level may have resulted tine origin "Phoenician",133 thereby ob in actual Phrygian dress offerings in some scuring the pattern ofvarying Near major Greek sanctuaries.129 Eastern-Greek contacts. A distinction be tween North Syrian and Phoenician art Presumably, the majority ofthe Near objects is often difficult to make, but in Eastern imports in Greece went by ship such cases the term "Levantine" is prefer from Syrian-Phoenician harbours. How able. Recently W Rollig has clarified the ever, the North Syrian bronze vessels with cultural differences between the North Sy siren attachments at the Argive Heraion rian states under Mesopotamian domina most probably reached Greece by the land tion and the Phoenician coastal cities, route, which via Gordion ended at the strongly influenced by Egypt.The distinc west coast ofAsia Minor at either Smyrna tion is essentially the same as that given in or Ephesos, the vessels at the latter part of 1953 by H. Frankfort for identifying speci the route travelling together with the fic art objects of the two regions and Phrygian bronzes with which they form a should be used wherever possible.134 functional whole.130 As the Greek contacts with Phrygia survive the Kimmerian inva The same lack ofPhoenician contacts that sion, this event can hardly be responsible characterized the Near Eastern bronzes at for the apparent termination of North Sy the Argive Heraion is observable for the rian bronze imports in Greece around 700 Heraion of Perachora. The imported

56 hHPb

*'"twp«

'•/.''^ ill L:i-1S 1 i

Fig. 17.Athens. National Museum. NM 13942. BullStatuette. AH 24. Photo Deutsches Archdologisches Institut.Athen. Neg. Nos. 72/1675 and 72/1673.

bronzes at both sites include Italic fibulae, around 700 B.C. the Argive Heraion in its Egyptian bronzes ofthe Twenty-fifth Dy outside Greek relations was still turned nasty, North Syrian cauldrons, North Sy towards the east more than towards the rian/Assyrian rib phialai as well as Phry south, keeping up very close ties with the gian vessels and show correspondance in Corinthia.140 Several finds indicate the im the banquetting equipment, in the obeloi portance ofships in Hera cults, even at the as well as in the imitations ofthe Phrygian inland sanctuary ofthe Argive Heraion.141 lotus bowls. At neither site are there any One reason for the great similarity in the certain Phoenician bronze imports.135 It is, Archaic finds ofthe two sanctuaries may therefore, confusing that Imma Kilian- have been that the small harbour of Pera Dirlmeier for Perachora reached the con chora served the needs for access to the sea clusions that 78 % ofthe foreign objects in ofthe Argive Heraion.142 The situation of the sanctuary were Phoenician. However, the harbour at Perachora is not suitable for the Phoenician foreign objects at Pera direct journeys to and from the Near East, chora are for the greater part faiences of but would facilitate any traffic westwards, types known also from the Argive Heraion e.g. to Magna Graecia, and - much nearer and not produced in the Near East, but - to the two great Panhellenic sanctuaries probably in the Athena Lindia sanctuary ofDelphi and Olympia. on Rhodes.136 Instead ofindicating Phoe nician connections, at both North East The imported bronzes place the Argive Peloponnesian Hera sanctuaries they are Heraion as part ofa group ofsanctuaries more likely a sign ofclose contacts be which show particularly close contacts tween a group of Greek sanctuaries, which with the Phrygian aristocracy shortly be had developed a certain specialization of fore and around 700 B.C., contacts which crafts.137 apparently mutually influenced both socie ties. In the adoption ofthe Phrygian ban In general, one gets the impression that quet tradition, the two North-East Pelo there was a close correspondance between ponnesian Heraia seem to have been parti the two North-East Peloponnesian Heraia, cularly involved, while presumably the po in cult traditions138 as well as in outside re litical power ofApollo at Delphi is the lations. Presumably the route by which the very cause ofthe Phrygian interest for imports arrived was the same. Blanche Greece; it started earlier, but accelerated Menadier regards the harbour at Perachora during King Midas' reign, continuing also as significant for the foundation ofthe in the following decades. sanctuary139 and my studies ofthe Greek Geometric bronzes have shown that In this net ofcultural influences between

57 Phrygia and Greece in the two quarter Fig. 18. Athens. centuries on either side of700 B.C. in National Museum. which the Argive Heraion seems to have NM 13968. Lion Statuette. Bronze on Iron Rod. been centrally placed among other Greek AH 29. Museum Photo. sanctuaries, there is no sign ofArgos or the sanctuaries ofArgos having taken any part.

Archaic Greek Bronzes N. Figures in the Round, in Relief and Cut-Out Figures TheArgive Heraion It is not possible to decide the original placing ofthe Archaic bronze statuettes, as they are all found in a secondary position, near the East Stoa, in the North West Buil ding, at the Back of South Stoa, on the Southern Slope or at the Eastern Retain ing Wall.143

Animal Statuettes grooved lines with small transverse strokes. It shares some ofits facial features with the The two Early Archaic bronze horses, AH Phrygian-imitating bull's head ofan early 17 (NM 13984 + 13986) and AH 18 (NM 7th Cent, bronze cauldron, AH 23; not fin 13944), in direct continuation ofthe local ding any immediate counterpart in other Geometric bronze statuettes, are presum collections ofbronze statuettes, I am incli ably dated to the first half ofthe 7th Cent. ned to see it as a local work at the Argive B.C.144 Heraion.146

Ofthe bovide figures at the Argive Hera Two figures decorate iron rods. One is a ion,145 only one is Early Archaic, AH 24 human right hand with a mouse on its up (NM 13942) (Fig. 17), a small, solid cast per side, AH 30 (NM 13969); the whole bull, measuring 3.3 cm. in height and 6.85 object, which I cannot explain, measures cm. in length. It is comparatively well pre 11.6 cm. in length, the mouse 3 cm. in served; there is a repair ofits forehead and length; the hand is clenched round a circu the hooves ofits right legs are missing. The lar hole, 0.6 cm. in diameter. Presumably hoof ofits left foreleg is rather swollen; the an Archaic object, it may reflect Near hindleg ends in a thin plate, not an ordi Eastern influences.The seated lion, AH 29 nary base plate. The animal decorated (NM 13968) (Fig. 18), which is hollow another object, possibly the rim ofa vase. cast, measures 3. 5 cm. in height, and is The rather stout, short animal has a long placed on an iron rod, measuring 13. 4 cm. tail trailing between the hind legs.The one in height. It has a square head, off-set characteristic trait ofits body is the sche mane and open mouth, -where the eye matic, curved shoulder rendering, remini teeth and the lolling tongue are just vis scent of that ofPhrygian animals. Its head ible. Stylistically it belongs with a group of is triangular; it has forward pointing horns, Laconian lions ofthe first half ofthe 6th outward curving mane locks, triangular, Cent. B.C.147 raised eyebrows over the circular eyes and its muzzle is indicated by two curving Several other bronze figures at the Argive Fig. 19. Athens. National Museum. NM 13974. Bronze Figure of Bearded Man. AH 4. Photo. Deutsches Archdologisches Institut.Athen. Neg.Nos. NM 6053 and 6054.

3974

Heraion are Late or Post Archaic. Some are Except for the Geometric tripod handle too badly preserved to give much infor figure (NM 16551),153 we have no evi mation, others decorate various objects, dence ofhuman bronze figures at the Ar with which they will be studied.148 give Heraion before the 6th Cent. B.C., where they comprise a few leg fragments Human Figures of kouros statuettes, AH 6 - 7,154 and four fragmentary Archaic statuettes. The cult statue of Hera in the Archaic Temple was most likely a wooden statue of A 6 cm. high, solid cast statue ofa bearded a seated goddess.149 In a general sense, the standing man, in a kouros-like posture, many terra-cotta statuettes ofseated with his arms at his side and the legs close females at the Argive Heraion are repres together, presumably decorated the rim of entations of the cult statue.150 a vase or another object, judging from the slanting position ofhis feet, AH 4 (NM Like other Archaic sanctuaries, the Argive 13974)(Fig. 19).Two similar, bearded figu Heraion must have had many lifesize sta res from the Menelaion are dated to the tues in stone and terra-cotta, but only a early 6th Cent. B.C. The Argive Heraion few fragments in the former material have statuette is undoubtedly of the same work survived.131 Oflarge bronze statues only shop and must be a Laconian work ofthe two fragments offree hair locks remain, same date.155 both presumably ofLateArchaic or Early Classical date.lr>2 Ofthe bronze kouros, Athens NM 16357 (Fig. 20), only the lower part ofthe solid

59 Fig. 20.Athens. National Museum. NM 16357. Bronze Figure of Kouros. Argive Heraion. Museum Photo. cast figure is preserved; it is broken at waist well.157 Rolley placed the Argive Heraion and ankles and measures 14 cm. in kouros in a group ofbronze figures, the as height.156 Its surface is still in excellent sumed stylistic correspondance ofwhich I conditions. In its rather slender propor do not see; but in this group he also inclu tions as well as in details such as the abdo ded a lead kouros ofArgos production, to men - hip - thigh line and the rendering which it certainly has similarities (Fig. ofknees and thigh musculature, the kouros 30).158 Most likely, the Argive Heraion is closely related to the so-called Kleobis bronze kouros was manufactured in the and Biton statues in Delphi (Fig. 27), dated city ofArgos itself,in the stylistic develop to around or shortly after 600 B.C., as ment of the kouroi ofwhich settlement it Caskey observed in his excavation report. finds a natural position. The Argive Heraion kouros is somewhat later, presumably a work ofthe second AH 5 (NM 13975) (Figs. 21 - 22) is the quarter ofthe 6th cent. B.C.; from its find upper part ofa solid cast woman's figure context, it cannot be later and, in my opi measuring 9. 4 cm. in height.159 The stan nion, it may well be early in that quarter- ding woman was naked to the waist, but century presumably wore "briefs" or a loin cloth visible just at the break, below the navel.160 Stylistically it forms a further link in the Her left arm was raised,the hand missing; line of development which Croissant ob her right arm was stretched downward, served, leading from the late 8th Cent. B.C missing from the elbow and below.161 On bronze cuirass in Argos to the Delphi top of her head is a plate with a lotus or kouroi, in the early part ofwhich develop nament in relief and part ofan open work ment the Late Geometric bronze and volute. The hair dressing which is indicated terra-cotta sculptures ofArgos also fit as curly by a mass ofshort punch strokes, forms a low curved line towards the fore- 60 Figs. 21 - 22. Athens. National Museum. NM 13975. Mirror support. AH 5. Photo. Deutsches Archdologisches Insti tut.Athen. Neg. Nos. NM 6056 and 6058.

head and a semicircle on either side ofthe particular, the group ofmirror figures of neck; at the back it is dressed in an attempt slender youthful bodies, the earliest of at krobylos. From irregularities in the ren which are dated to shortly before 550 dering ofthe eyes it is evident that the fig B.C.164 It also copies characteristic Laco ure was turned slightly to the left. Head nian traits as e.g. the volute ornament on ornament and brows are incised as well as top ofthe head and the symmetrical ar the navel and a zigzag line at the neck, the rangement ofthe shoulder locks on either rendering ofa necklace. The surface is well side ofeach breast, features which are seen preserved, although the figure has several in Laconian figurative art ofthe second scratches and small damages, especially at and third quarters ofthe 6th Cent. B.C.165 the right-hand side ofhead and neck. On the other hand, in the rosette orna Jenkins had already recognized the figure mentation ofits hair and ears, in its round as a mirror support and Rolley suggested face with delicately rendered features, its that it formed an intermediary between large oval eyes and prominent chin, the fi Egyptian hand mirrors and Archaic Laco gure corresponds well with Argive terra nian stand mirrors with a naked woman.162 cotta figures ofthe second half ofthe 6th However, in my opinion, the mixture of Cent. B.C., Jenkins' Class F ofthe so- styles observable in this figure has another called "Ornate Style", while it also shares explanation, namely that given by Herfort- stylistic traits with terra-cotta heads ofJen Koch, that it is a local Argive imitation ofa kins Class C. In particular, one notes the Laconian mirror.163 The Argive Heraion specific Argive trait ofa "grooved U- mirror support imitates Archaic Laconian shaped line passing through the roots of stand mirrors with naked women as sup the nose, the corners ofthe mouth and ports, dated to the 6th Cent. B.C, and, in curving above the point ofthe chin" which

6i Fig. 23. Athens. National Museum. NM 13974. Rider's Statuette. AH 3. Photo Deutsches Archdologisches Institut.Athen. Neg. Nos.NM 4280 and 4281.

Jenkins observed in the Argive terra-cotta ly rounded facial features and the U-for- heads of his Classes C and D, dated to the med groove from nose to below the first half of the 6th Cent. B.C.166 As first mouth one sees characteristics ofthe Ar observed by Gjodesen,AH 5 is Argive167 give 6th Cent. B.C. sculpture, contrasting and judging from its stylistic parallels in with the angularity ofcontemporary Co Laconian sculpture and Argive figured rinthian heads, in spite ofthe general sim terra-cottas presumably dated to ca. 550 ilarities between the two regional styles.170 B.C. or shortly afterwards. Since some of The head ofthe mirror support, AH 5, is the above-mentioned Laconian traits, such somewhat broader, but there are features of as the shoulder lock arrangement, are not close similarity, e.g. in the hair dressing. general in Laconian art, I am inclined to The rider wears a fillet round his head and see the figure as an Argive imitation ofa a krobylos at the back ofthe neck, where specific Laconian mirror. the hair falls in exactly the same way in the two figures, even to the narrowing at An almost contemporary bronze mirror the place ofthe fillet,just as the rounded support ofa fully dressed woman in the border line of the hair at the forehead and (Br 4395) is likewise considered the two semicircles which the hair dressing Argive; However, some details, in particu forms at either side of the neck are identi lar ofthe top plate, indicate another ori cal. gin.168 Nor is the body with its broad shoulders, The solid cast rider statuette, measuring slim hips and a gently curving outline in 12.75 cm. in height, AH 3 (NM 13974) any way incompatible with those of other (Fig. 23), is well preserved except for the Argive statuettes, as. e.g. the Argos lead missing hands and missing legs from below kouroi (Fig. 30) or the boyish figure ofthe the knees. However, the surface ofthe fi mirror statuette, AH 5 (Figs. 21 - 22).The gure is extremely damaged, not allowing basically rounded lines ofboth figures are observations ofany subtly detailed featu quite different from the large angular res.169 Nevertheless, in the oval outline of planes ofthe bodies ofCorinthian figures, the head, the large oval eyes, in the definite expressing an essentially different statuary

62 conception.171 A comparison with the (Fig. 37).They were mostly found in the front view ofthe Argos lead kouroi (Fig. southern and eastern part ofthe sanctuary. 30) and the side view ofthe Argive Hera The cut- out figures presumably cover the ion kouros statuette (Fig. 20) make an greater part ofthe Archaic period, since identical origin probable, in spite ofthe some were found in the deposit at the battered surface ofthe statuette. Definitely Eastern Retaining Wall.At the Argive younger than the latter statuette, the Ar Heraion, there is no evidence for continu give Heraion rider,AH 3, presumably ation into the Classical Period.174 should be dated to the third quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. Cut-out figures ofthe same types are known from several Arcadian sanctuaries Summing up, while the Early Archaic ani (Asea, Lusoi andTegea) as well as from the mal bronze statuettes are mostly dated to Athenian Acropolis, but apparently not the 7th Cent. B.C. and continue earlier from other sanctuaries in the Argolid or stylistic trends ofeither local Late Geome from the Corinthia.175 tric style or imitations of Near Eastern im ports (AH 17 - 18 and AH 24, respecti Neighbouring Votive Deposits vely), the very few Archaic human bronze statuettes at the Argive Heraion, which are In the neighbouring votive deposits there all dated to the 6th Cent. B.C., represent a are no finds ofArchaic bronze statuettes, stylistic innovation, showing closer only ofcut-out figures, coming from Tomb contacts with both Sparta and Argos than VIII as well as from the Hera sanctuary observed for the late 8th - early 7th Cen west ofthe Heraion.176 turies B.C.172 There are two Laconian im ports, AH 4 and AH 29, while the mirror The most impressive find ofthe latter support, AH 5, because ofits surprisingly sanctuary is the 46. 3 cm. long fragment of strong Laconian influences may be inter bronze plate broken at both ends and with preted as an Argive imitation ofa specific figure decoration in repousse technique Laconian bronze mirror. The Argive Hera with incised details (Fig. 24).177The bronze ion human bronze figures are ofexcellent plate, less than halfa millimetre thick, mea quality and at least one, the kouros NM sures 18 cm. in width at the upper break 16537, is so closely related to the sculpture and is sligthly tapering downwards, measu ofArgos that it most likely had its origin ring about 1 cm. less at the lower break. in that city; the same may apply to other Two vertical rows of small nail heads show Argive Heraion statuettes.173 Although the that it was fixed to a back in a different material is limited, the indications of close material and the edges along the sides are contacts with both Argos and Sparta point bent round a wire. Probably it decorated to a radical change in the outside relations one leg of a wooden tripod.178 ofthe Argive Heraion between the years around 700 B.C. and those around 550 The figure relief is ofexcellent workman B.C. ship.The plate is divided into two large figure scenes by a horizontal guilloche Figured Reliefs and Cut-Out between two horizontal rows of raised Figures points. The lower panel with the figures fully preserved measures 23.5 cm. in There are no Archaic figured reliefs at the height. Argive Heraion, but there is a collection of Each panel has two figures. Ofthe up figures cut out in thin bronze sheet, with per panels only the lower part ofthe figu details in raised points; they comprise fa res is preserved, a warrior to the left and a bulous creatures and animals such as fish, woman to the right, both turned right. cocks, other birds, lions etc.; the largest The warrior, ofwhom only the head is fragment measures ca. 10 cm. in length missing, is fully equipped with helmet -

63 the tip of the crest ofwhich is seen behind Fig.24. Athens. National the shoulder —body cuirass, greaves and a Museum. Bronze Relief. Hera Sanctuary West of the Hera sword in its sheath at his side. Both cuirass ion. Photo. Deutsches Archdo and greaves represent metal armour, the logisches Institut.Athen. Neg. former, with thorax rendering, shows a Nos. 4288 and 4289. horizontal band ofincised circles, possibly for holding the sword; the greaves have in cised points along the edge indicating the fastening ofthe leather back, and a band behind the calves ofthe legs.The chiton is decorated with small incised points and a row of rings below, identical with that of the lower hem ofthe woman's dress. The woman, preserved from the waist down, is standing spinning, the lower part of her di staff seen in front ofher; she is wearing a long dress with irregularly incised circles and a Daedalic belt.The warrior walks to wards the woman, holding his right arm at his side, his hand clenched, and extending his left hand towards her, possibly catching hold ofher elbow.The whole scene gives a homely and peaceful impression.

This is not the case with the lower scene, where one woman is murdering another with a sword. Both women are fully pre served, except for the feet of the right- hand person, and both are standing, turned to the right.They are clad in long dresses, in all details identical with that ofthe wo man in the upper panel and apparently they wore the Daedalic small shoulder cloak, chlaina.The hair of the woman to the left is tied with a band behind the ears and falls in five, comparatively thick, straight locks, a much simpler hair-dressing is one ofseveral proposals for identifica than that ofthe other woman, with curls tion.179 at the forehead and long curling tresses fal ling down over her shoulders, in a kind of The figure drawing is well accomplished pearl locks.The woman behind her grasps except for the hands; only the thumb is one ofher forehead locks, at the same time drawn separately, the four fingers are pla thrusting the sword into her side; thus she ced inside a semicircle. has her head pulled backwards and at the same time she lifts both hands in evident The women's dresses and hair styles are of amazement. Daedalic type and they have the low fore heads ofDaedalic sculpture as well as the The most convincing interpretation ofthe schematic ear rendering of7th Cent. B.C. latter scene is that ofKassandra being mur figures.Their eyes are oval with circular dered by Klytaimnestra.The upper scene is pupils, only that ofKassandra shows a ren presumably thematically connected with dering ofthe eye brows. Both have a long the lower one; and Kassandra curving, unbroken profile line of the fore-

64 Fig. 25 B.Athens. National Museum. NM 2869. Limestone Relief. . Hirmer Photo Archiv. Munchen. No. 5610401.

Fig. 25A.Athens. National Museum. NM 14020. woman from the Acropolis ofMycenae Terra-cotta ReliefArgive Heraion. Photo Courtesy of the (Fig. 25 B) is Argive Middle Daedalic, styl British School at Athens. istically related to the Delphi kouroi; in head form and features it also resembles head and nose; their mouths are small and the head ofthe daemon of the terra-cotta horizontally incised, that ofCassandra plaque and both represent Argive Middle slightly protruding and both have firm Daedalic style ofthe third quarter ofthe chins. The figures are long and slender 7th Cent. B.C.181 In proportions and gene with a rather short upper part ofthe body, ral outline of the two men's bodies with corresponding with the proportions of7th their rather broad buttocks, there is close Cent. B.C. figure rendering, although they similarity, although Menelaos ofthe all have rather broad buttocks. An absolute bronze relief is in a less vigorous attitude date around the middle of the 7th Cent. than the winged daemon in "Knielauf- B.C. appears most likely. schema".

The closest stylistic parallel to the man's Stylistically the female figures on three body I see in the winged daemon on two small fibula plates oflead form the closest terra-cotta reliefs, at the Argive Heraion counterparts to the three women ofthe and the Heraion ofPerachora, respectively; bronze relief. In spite oftheir miniature they are made in the same mould, the for size, measuring 5.4 X 2.8 cm., the extre mer in Argive clay (Fig. 25 A), the latter in mely good quality ofthe lead reliefs allows Corinthian.180Although Payne observed a comparison with the large figures ofthe that the head was not Corinthian, he did bronze relief.The three rectangular lead not consider it Argive either, for the one plates, the pins ofwhich are missing, are reason that Jenkins did not recognize an cast from the same mould; one comes from Argive Daedalic style. However, as pointed the Heraion ofPerachora and another out by Croissant, the limestone relief ofa from a sanctuary on top ofthe Profitis Ilias

65 about 10 km. NE of Nauplion, while the third and best preserved one was found in 1960 during cleaning activities at the Se cond Temple of the Argive Heraion.The mould seems to have been new and the fi bula unused before the Argive Heraion de dication; the right-hand lower corner of the plate is missing and there is some slight other damage, but the details are easily distinguishable, in contrast with those of the two other plates in a more worn con dition. (Fig. 26)182

The rectangular figure panel is framed above by vertical indentations and below by a kind oftassels. In the figure scene a standing man and woman are facing each other, he grasping the tassels of his hima- tion, she holding a pomegranate in her left hand and a distaff in her right one. She wears a high polos as a goddess and has her hair falling in long twisted locks on to the shoulders, somewhat like the hair-dressing of Klytaimnestra on the bronze relief; her long dress as well as his himation are all decorated in chequer pattern, while the front ofher dress has horizontal panels, possibly panels for animal figures as often seen in Archaic painting and sculpture;183 Fig. 26. Museum ofNauplion. Fibula Plate of Lead. the panels are divided by a guilloche pat Argive Heraion. From BCH 1964, 527. tern which also decorates the lower hem of his himation. His hair-dressing is the normal Daedalic "Etagen-Periicke" which other Hera sanctuaries, are very similar, as together with her Daedalic belt, the low to hair style, profile line offorehead and forehead ofthe figures and their dispro nose, protruding mouth and chin, propor portionately long legs characterize them as tions and outline oftheir slim figures as 7th Cent. B.C. figures. well as the curving fall oftheir dresses, which are rendered in the same way; e.g. Alexandri's date to the early part ofthe the lower hem of the dress in both reliefs third quarter ofthe 7th Cent. B.C. appears form the same curved line, leaving the feet convincing, as does her interpretation of free in front, while reaching the ground the scene as Zeus and Hera, taking into behind.186 account that two, possibly all three, ofthe fibulae were found in Hera sanctuaries.184 In my opinion, the three lead fibula plates Against her attribution of the plates to a and the bronze tripod relief are representa Laconian workshop, Fittschen advocated a tives of the same regional style, to which North-East Peloponnesian regional style also belongs the Middle Daedalic terra which, in my opinion, is correct.185 cotta plaque, i.e. they should be considered Argive works ofaround 650 B.C. or the The women ofthe two reliefs, the bronze third quarter of the 7th Cent. B.C. Judging plate from the Hera sanctuary west ofthe from the provenances ofall these objects, Argive Heraion and the lead fibulae from found in Hera sanctuaries only, I am temp-

66 Fig. 27. Delphi. Argos Inv. No. 1524. Kouros Statue. So-called Kleobis. Statuettes Hirmer Photo Archiv. Miinchen.No. 5920516. Male as well as female bronze figures are published from the sanctuaries ofArgos, all of 6th Cent. B.C. date. Recently Croissant has reconstructed an Argive regional school ofmale figures in the 7th Cent. B.C., down to the Delphi kouroi of Kleo bis and Biton.188 His comparison material is Argive Late Geometric vase-painting; but although I find his observations impres sive,I am sceptical ofhis results concerning the early part ofthe period, since none of the bronze statuettes in question was found in Argos; nor do they conform well with the Late Geometric Argive regional style,as based on sculptural finds in Argos, which Croissant himselfpoints out.189

The Delphi kouros statues from around or shortly after 600 B.C., the Argive origin of which is secured from their artist's signa ture, must as an official dedication repre sent the Archaic school ofsculpture situ ated in the city ofArgos (Fig. 27). Closely connected with them are the Argive Hera ion bronze kouros, NM 16357 (Fig. 20) and a fragmentary bronze kouros statuette in the Museum ofBerlin ofwhich only the feet are preserved, wearing the same kind ofboots as the Delphi kouroi. The statuette was found in the Dioskouros sanctuary between Argos and Lerna and has an Argive inscription on its base plate. It must be a work ofthe city ofArgos,190 whereas another bronze kouros with an Argive inscription was recognized long ago as East Greek, probably Samian.191

In all, only four Archaic bronze statuettes ted to conclude that they were all manu have been published as coming from Argos factured at the Argive Heraion, by far the or its immediate vicinity; besides the most important ofthe Hera sanctuaries in above-mentioned base plate, a fragmentary question, and the one centrally placed in kouros statuette, most probably from the the distribution area ofthe reliefs. How Apollo Pythaios Sanctuary, a kouros figure ever, the comparison material is too limi from Kephalari SW ofArgos and a female ted for a definite conclusion at present.187 statuette from the Athena sanctuary on the Larissa.The last-mentioned figure, how ever, is published only in an old drawing and cannot be used for stylistic studies.192

67 Fig.28. Athens. National Museum. NM 14410. Bronze Statuette of Kouros. Argos. Apollo Pythaios Sanctuary. Museum Photo.

The kouros statuette from the Apollo Py outline of the torso and above all, its facial thaios Sanctuary, now in Athens, NM features. Also as regards the hair style the 14410 (Fig. 28), is a 3.7 cm. high fragment differences are obvious; although essenti of the head and upper part ofthe body of ally the same for the two figures, the front a solid cast bronze figure ofa standing hair of the Apollo Pythaios figure forms a young man with both arms stretched central triangle or gable and has an almost downwards, bent at the elbows. The hair straight fall, as opposed to the semicurves style is that ofa krobylos and the figure which characterize both these traits in the wears a round polos on its head; presum Argive Heraion rider. Although the face of ably it functioned as a support for another the latter is badly battered, its essentially object.193 rounded features speak for an Argive ori gin as opposed to the Corinthian essenti Krystalli-Votsi recognized the Corinthian ally angular ones ofthe Apollo Pythaios style ofthe figure: its bodily characteristics kouros.195 such as the broad triangular torso, built up ofplanes meeting at sharp angles as well as The third figure which Krystalli-Votsi uses its almost square head, with angular de for her comparative studies is a small, solid tailed features and the hair style in pearl cast bronze kouros, found at Kephalari, 8 locks which form a triangle or gable over km. SW ofArgos, where saw a the forehead. Krystalli-Votsi observes close sanctuary for Dionysos (Fig. 29).196The similarities with the Tenea kouros from the Kephalari kouros measures today 9 cm. in second quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. height; only the right foot and the left leg which seems a likely date also for the from above the knee are missing. It stands Apollo Pythaios bronze.194 in the normal kouros position and has es sentially the same hair style as the other Krystalli-Votsi, however, makes the same figures, a krobylos and a head band. It is comparisons for the Argive Heraion rider, badly worn, but was originally a fine piece AH 3 (Fig. 23). I fail to see more than a ofart.The hair is naturalistically wavy; the superficial likeness to the Apollo Pythaios head band is rendered with two horizon statuette. In contrast with the prevailing tal, fine relief lines and a row ofincised angularity ofthe latter figure, all features of points in between. In spite ofits bad con the Argive Heraion rider are basically dition, the oval head form of a conside rounded; the shoulders, the gently curving rable depth, the large oval and slightly pro-

68 The Archaic bronze statuettes found in Ar gos are difficult to use for a reconstruction ofthe Argos bronze sculpture in the 6th Cent. B.C, as they are either inadequately published or badly preserved or else they show close connection with other regions; one is apparently an import from Corinth, (the Apollo Pythaios figure), another seems to be strongly influenced from East Greece, (the Kephalari kouros). However, two of the Argive Heraion male figures, NM 16357 and the rider, AH 3, are works ofthe city ofArgos, stylistically related not only to the Delphi kouroi, but also to the other sculptures ofArgos origin, the lead kouroi, the production ofwhich is secure ly located to Argos, because ofthe many finds ofthese in the Aphrodision.198

The lead figurines present a definite indi cation of early Laconian influences on the metal work ofArgos. Lead reliefs ofvery varied types were produced in Sparta from the late 8th Cent. B.C. until the 4th Cent. B.C.199 In the sanctuary ofArtemis Orthia lead reliefs have been found to the number ofabout 100,000; they are known in large quantities also from the Menelaion and Fig. 29. trading eyes and the protruding chin are turn up in almost all Laconian sanctua Museum of Nauplion. discernible as well as - in particular, when ries,200 as well as several other Pelopon Inv. No. 36087. viewed from the left - the U-formed nesian ones.201 From stratigraphical crite Bronze Statuette of Kouros. Kephalari. Museum Photo. groove from nose to above the chin, facial ria,Wace classified the Menelaion and Ar features which conform well with the Ar temis Orthia lead reliefs into Groups 0 - give regional style.The hair style with its VI, Group 0 being the only one found curving line at the forehead and the semi with Protocorinthian pottery and presum circles at either side ofthe head is also si ably dating back to the late 8th Cent. milar to that ofthe above Argive Heraion B.C., while Lead I -VI correspond to the figures, AH 3 and AH 5. On the other same classes ofLaconian pottery. Wace hand, the body of the Kephalari kouros dated Lead I - II before 600 B.C. and Lead differs from these figures as well as from III/IV and following after that date, a the Apollo Pythaios kouros; it is much ful chronology which in the main is confir ler, the shoulders are sloping, the body med by the Menelaion excavations, the rounded, the thighs almost semicircularly crucial date now being given as 590 curving, bodily characteristics which are B.C.202 All Laconian lead reliefs are made neither Argive nor Corinthian, but close to in single moulds; in types they comprise a some East Greek kouroi, in particular large variety ofhuman figures, animals, fa those of Samos, and reminding me also of bulous creatures, ornaments etc. the above-mentioned East Greek bronze kouros with an Argive inscription.197 In In contrast to the very varied Laconian my opinion, the Kephalari kouros is an Ar production oflead reliefs,the Argos lead give work but under East Greek, probably figure production is more restricted in Samian influences. types, apparently represented only by

69 Fig. 30. Athens. National Museum. Collection Helene Stathatos. Lead Statuette. Kouros. From Bassai. Photo. Deutsches Archdologisches Institut.Athen. Neg.No.ATH.V.1170- 1171- 1172. kouroi and korai (Figs. 30 and 32), the for rious sanctuaries ofthe Argolid and the mer in at least three varieties, the latter in Corinthia.206 Except for the Aphrodision, two. In contrast with the single moulds of where both main figure types are represen Laconian lead reliefs, all Argos figures are ted, there seems a tendency in these two made in double relief moulds, one for the regions to have lead kouroi in the sanctua front and one for the back, soldered to ries of male deities, korai in those of fe gether vertically at the sides. In some cases male deities, a tendency which is not to be a flat base plate is preserved. The height of observed in the other Peloponnesian sanc the figures varies between 4 and 6 cm.; the tuaries with Argive lead figurines.207 The kouroi are apparently naked, although extremely large number oflead figurines some seem to wear a Daedalic belt; the at the Aphrodision ofArgos, in contrast to korai wear Daedalic belts and peploi with the isolated finds in other sanctuaries, horizontal panels imitating the woven frie point to the Aphrodision ofArgos as their zes ofanimals ofthe real peplos.All have place ofproduction, possibly at a very early long hair falling in symmetrical locks over date ofthe existence ofthe sanctuary. the shoulders in front and in a mass of From two closed find contexts in the long tresses at the back. The korai have a Aphrodision, the main production period high polos on their heads.The faces are can be assigned to the 6th cent. B.C. a rather broad with oval protruding eyes and chronology which is confirmed by the distinct eyebrows, whereas other facial de find. However, the production tails are difficult to distinguish in the pub must have been fully developed not later lished photographs.203 than ca. 600 B.C., as one kouros figure was found in the stratum ofLaconian Lead II The Argos lead kouroi and korai are found reliefs in the Artemis Orthia Sanctuary.208 in sanctuaries all over the .204 In Argos, besides the Aphrodision figures, Although somewhat slimmer in appear there is one lead kore figure from the ance, the proportions and general bodily Athena sanctuary on top ofthe Larissa.205 structure ofthe lead kouroi harmonize One or two examples are known from va well with those ofthe Delphi kouroi as

70 Fig. 31. Delphi. Inv. Nos. 7624 and 7547. Bronze Statuettes. Kouroi. Photo. Ecole Francaise d'Athenes. Neg. Nos. 31275 - 31276 - 31277.

well as with the Argive Heraion bronze ri As observed by Rolley, the existence of der, AH 3 which was stylistically related to five identical statuettes in the same sanc the mirror AH 5, (Figs. 30, 27 and 21 - 23). tuary indicates local manufacture. On the other hand, such a small mould is easily Five identical bronze kouros statuettes transported. Rolley suggested a Boiotian from Delphi, the best preserved one mea origin because ofthe similarity with the suring 14.5 cm. in height, are of the same Mantiklos Apollo, which I, however, find technique as the Argos lead figurines, front superficial and linked only chronologically. and back formed in two separate moulds After the finds oflead figurines in the and soldered together vertically at the same technique in Argos, this settlement sides. (Fig. 31).They are naked, but have presents itself as a likely candidate for their the Daedalic hair-dressing of"Etagen-Pe origin. In their broad faces with large pro riicke".209 Technically Rolley compared truding oval eyes as well as such bodily them with a lead kouros figure from characteristics as the broad shoulders and Samos,210 where the technique of using in slim hips, the Delphi bronze statuettes are termediate negative moulds for the wax reminiscent ofthe later Argos lead kouroi model, one for the front and one for the and may represent a preceding stylistic back side, was well-known in the Archaic phase.Technically they could have served Period,211 and chronologically with the as models for the Aphrodision lead figures, Mantiklos Apollon. Although, as Rolley differing in this respect from the Laconian points out, the very technique may ac lead reliefs. count for their more conservative appear ance, his absolute chronology ofthe figures The Aphrodision lead korai (Fig. 32) con within the first half of the 7th Cent. B.C. firm the attribution ofa 14.1 cm. high, so appears convincing.212 Stylistically, how lid cast kore figure in the University Col ever, the Delphi bronze statuettes have lit lection, Heidelberg (Inv. no. F 160) to the tle in common with either the Mantiklos Argive regional school, observed in 1975 Apollo or the Samos figure. by Gropengiesser (Fig.33). Except for her missing left underarm and right hand, the

7i Fig. 32A.Argos Museum. Lead Figurines ofKorai. Aphrodision. Photo. Ecole Francaise d'Athenes. Neg. No. L 2038. 30. kore figure is well preserved, although the kouroi from the Aphrodision is much surface is extremely damaged. Like the needed for confirmation ofthe above at lead korai, she wears a peplos without tributions as well as for the studies ofearly apoptygma which according to Gropen- Argive sculpture, in general. giesser and Borell does not show any sign offigured decoration.213 In proportions, Although Argive contacts with Corinth in hair style,form ofhead, facial features, her the late 7th and the 6th Centuries B.C. are comparatively slim body, where the full striking to anyone looking at Argive and breasts are indicated behind the thick Corinthian terra-cotta sculpture, they are woollen material ofthe peplos, and the not immediately felt in the stone and me slightly outswaying skirt, the Heidelberg tal sculpture in the round during the same kore statuette may well be compared with period. At Argos two other trends ofinflu the Argos lead korai and is most probably ences are stronger, one ofwhich leads also a work of art from the city ofArgos, from Samos, the other from Laconia, two dated to the second quarter ofthe 6th regions which had close interrelations in cent. B.C. the Archaic Period. Contacts between Ar gos and Laconia were observable already in From the above, it seems possible to follow the Late Geometric sculpture,214 a period the sculpture in the round manufactured at when Argos also showed connections to the settlement ofArgos from at least the the islands, although not in particular to late 7th Cent. B.C. until the third quarter Samos.215 ofthe 6th Cent. B.C., i.e. to a date when Argive sculpture is generally well known. Reliefs and Cut-Out Figures The Argos lead figurines take up a crucial position in the above line ofdevelopment As far as I know, no Archaic bronze reliefs and a full publication ofthe lead korai and nor cut- out figures are found in any of

72 Fig. 32 B - C Lead Figurine of Kore. Perachora. Photo Courtesy of the British School at Athens.

the sanctuaries ofArgos, the only coration, can be dated to the 7th Cent. published figured representation in bronze B.C., the figure scene probably being only plate being the plaque with a dedicatory slightly earlier. For stylistic reasons I agree inscription to the War God, Enyalios, exca with Foley who attributes the plaque to vated in a mixed stratum with votives of Corinth. the Athena Sanctuary on the top ofthe Larissa.216 The Argive shield straps with relief deco ration ofmostly mythological subjects Very few Enyalios sanctuaries are known. were to a large degree found in Olympia, Plutarch mentions one in Argos, which not a single fragment coming from the Ar- because ofthe provenance of this plaque golid.218 Nevertheless there is no reason to must have been situated on the Larissa, doubt that the majority were ofArgive close to the Athena Sanctuary, while other manufacture, Argive inscriptions having Enyalios sanctuaries were placed near been made already in the moulds,219 and Mycenae, at and in the Eastern Ar- the most plausible location for an Argive golid at Hermione.217 workshop ofbronze shields must be in Ar gos itself, taking into account also the Ar The plaque measures 5.3 cm. in height and gos tradition ofbronze armour manu 7 cm. in length and has an incised decora facture reaching back at least into the tion on the one side ofa horse and a rider, Geometric Period.220 framed by an irregular line and circles, and on the other a standing warrior. The The Archaic bronze shield straps with re plaque is dedicated in a re-used state, its lief decoration still present many problems. upper part cut-away, damaging the war However, the shield strap reliefs with Co rior's head leaving only a centre piece with rinthian inscriptions seem to differ slightly a hole for hanging it up.The dedicatory stylistically and although the moulds ofAr inscription which cuts into the warrior's give type reliefs were used also for figure and is deeper than the original de definitely Corinthian handle plates for

73 ^K^3P*rf^9^

-" rftt *

Fig. 33. Heidelberg. AtHikenmuseum undAbguus-Sammlung. Archdologisches Institut der Universitdt. Inv. No. F 160. Bronze Statuette of Kore. Museum Photo. Neg. No. NS. 2156f + g + h. mirrors, it now seems possible to distin the one shield strap which may remind us guish between the two production of the tripod leg relief is identified from its centres.221 Such a close collaboration of inscription as a Menelaos-Helena scene Argive and Corinthian bronze workers is and bears a Corinthian inscription.224 reminiscent of that known for the manu facture ofArchaic terra-cotta statuettes and The early tradition in Argos ofbronze terra-cotta reliefs.222 armour manufacture was apparently hand ed down through the Archaic Period into The earliest Argive shield straps from the Early Classical times and such a datable contexts are from the early second specialization is known also from quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. and presum Corinth.225 ably the production started in the begin ning ofthe century. However, the main Conclusions production period spans the second half of the 6th cent. B.C., reaching into the early The early locally manufactured handle at 5th Cent.B.C.223, and thus falls outside the tachments in the form ofanimals' heads or period relevant for this study. Nor are fabulous creatures and the early bull figure there any close stylistic or thematic con from the Argive Heraion, types without nections observable between the Argive parallels in the sanctuaries ofArgos, are shield straps and the only Early Archaic signs ofa renewal under Near Eastern in bronze figure relief in the Argive Heraion fluences ofthe production of figured ani area, the Kassandra-Klytaimnestra relief; mal bronzes known from the Late Geome-

74 tric/Subgeometric Argive Heraion; this Late Geometric Argos and in its Early Ar production probably lasted throughout the chaic lead figure production, but also in first half of the 7th Cent. B.C., local tradi the 6th Cent. B.C. Laconian figured tions at the same time continuing, e.g. in bronzes or imitations ofsuch found at the the two bronze horses, AH 17 and AH 18. Argive Heraion, where they are in contrast with the scarce signs ofLaconian con Towards the end ofthis period, around nections at the Geometric sanctuary226 650 B.C., the tripod leg from the Hera Possibly to be seen in the same light are Sanctuary west ofthe Heraion presents a the signs ofrelations with Samos which highly skilled and fully developed Archaic apparently influenced the 6th Cent. B.C. figure style. If I am correct in assigning this sculpture in the round in Argos and earlier, bronze relief as well as the lead relief plates maybe even the innovation of double re with corresponding mythological scenes to liefs in the lead figure production.227 a workshop at the Argive Heraion, it im plies that the production offigured About the same time, in the early 6th bronzes at the Argive Heraion continued Cent. B.C. the shield strap reliefs with my throughout the first halfofthe 7th Cent. thological figure scenes manufactured in B.C. on a very high artistic level.The relief Argos show the beginning ofa close col plates represent contacts with other Hera laboration with Corinthian bronze work sanctuaries in North East Peloponnese, ap ers which was not felt in the Geometric or parently still independent ofArgos, from early 7th Cent. Argos.228 and thus indicate which settlement we do not have similar a widening ofthe cultural sphere ofthe works ofart. On the other hand, on the city. present limited evidence the attribution of the reliefs is in no way certain. From the second quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C., the differences in bronze figure pro In the second half of the 7th Cent. B.C. duction and the outside relations which we have no examples offigured bronzes at were ofinfluence on it are no longer ob the Argive Heraion and when they come servable between the Argive Heraion and to light again in the second quarter ofthe Argos. However, from the long line of de 6th Cent. B.C. they are of a very different velopment offigured bronzes ofArgos aspect.The Argive Heraion bronze sculp there is no doubt that it is the Argos tradi ture in the round, dated to the two quarter tion which now prevails at both sites. centuries on either side of 550 B.C., repre sent a continuation ofstylistic characteri O. Mirrors stics which in Argos were followed from the Late Geometric sculpture to the Del The Argive Heraion phi kouroi around or shortly after 600 B.C., official dedications ofArgos. Besides the support for the Laconian-imi- tating stand mirror, AH 5 (Figs. 21 - 22), Judging from the Archaic figured bronzes, there is a second partially preserved stand the Argive Heraion was part ofthe cultural mirror at the Argive Heraion, AH 1588, sphere ofArgos at a date not later than the which judging from its incised decoration second quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. As is Late Archaic.229 there are almost no bronze figures from the immediately preceding ca. 75 years we The other mirrors are all hand mirrors of have no information of a possible period either normal or miniature size.230 Like the of transition. stand mirror, the Greek hand mirror may derive from Egyptian hand mirrors; how Another characteristic ofthis relationship ever, they do not imitate the women's fi is given by Laconian influences, observable gures ofthe Egyptian mirrors, nor their in the bronze and terra-cotta statuettes of elliptical disk form. Near Eastern mirrors

75 may be another possible model.231 On the Fig.34. Athens. other hand, in spite ofa considerable time National Museum. lag, Greek hand mirrors could perhaps be Hand Mirror. Inv. No. 14010. AH 1566. seen in the light ofMycenaean tradition. Museum Photo. At any rate, there are hand mirrors with a bronze disk and either an ivory handle or a wooden handle in the Late Mycenaean tombs in both Mycenae and Prosymna as well as in other parts ofthe Mycenaean world,232 and Greek hand mirrors existed at least as early as the Late Geometric Pe riod. Zimmer publishes two LG bronze mirrors with Geometric figure motives in matrice technique and a miniature bronze mirror was found in a late 8th Cent. B.C. grave in Delphi.233

The Archaic Greek hand mirrors, consist ing ofa circular disk, a rectangular handle plate and as a rule a circular end piece to the handle were usually made ofbronze, all in one piece.234 Except possibly for one mirror, AH 1586,235 this applies also to the mirrors ofnormal size at the Argive Hera ion. AH 1561-1566 and 1580 - 1584 and 1586 (NM 14012, 20453, 20456 and 20458) and NM 49.63 are of the same general type, with a rectangular or slightly mirror type to around 550 B.C. However, incurved handle plate, showing two small one mirror, NM 49.63 (Fig. 37),was found protrusions or "ears" at the transition to in the deposit at the Eastern Retaining the circular disk, while the circular end Wall, closed around 550 B.C. and the pro piece has a hole for hanging up the mir duction cannot have begun later than the ror.236 End piece as well as handle plate second quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C.; jud may have incised decoration, the former ging from the dedicatory inscription ofa usually a palmette, the latter a circle on Perachora mirror it lasted into the 5th each "ear" and sometimes a figured or or Cent. B.C. For most mirrors, however, a namental decoration; a dancing satyr,AH definite absolute chronology cannot be 1566 (Fig. 34), a standing woman, AH established.239 This mirror type is almost 1581 (Fig. 35), and a palmette ornament of exclusivelyfound at the Argive Heraion, a rather specific type, AH 1565, an imita except for one fragment at Troizen and tion of a Laconian mirror handles (Fig. two from the Heraion of Perachora, as well 36).AH 1581 has a dedicatory inscription, as a possible handle fragment from the dated to the third quarter ofthe 6th Cent. Aphrodision ofArgos.240 As observed by B.C. which seems later than the style of Oberlander, the production must be Ar the figure-drawing.237 give.The distribution pattern points more precisely to the Argive Heraion.241 The complete hand mirrors at the Argive Heraion measure between 14 and 23. 5 Only one mirror is ofa different type, the cm. and are usually made ofa very thin handle ending in a solid disk, M 49.94 bronze plate, indicating that they were (Fig. 37).242 The Laconian mirror type, meant for votive use only238 Oberlander where the handle ends in a palmette, was dates the beginning ofthe Argive Heraion imitated in one Argive Heraion mirror,

76 Fig. 35. Athens. NationalMuseum. Hand Mirror. Inv. Fig.36. Athens. National Museum. Hand Mirror. No. 14010. AH 1581. Drawing from AH II,pi. XCVI. AH 1565. Drawing.From AH II,pi XCIV

AH 1565 (Fig. 36).243 However, the typical miniature mirrors usually have a hole at Corinthian hand mirrors with a solid end the end ofthe handle for hanging them piece, a broad rectangular plate at the tran up; they generally measure between 3 and sition from disc to handle, and extra deco 5 cm. in length, although a few examples rative reliefplates, often taken from the are larger.They were made ofvery thin same moulds at the Argive shield bands are bronze plate, often decorated with a row not represented at the sanctuary.244 ofraised points along the rim ofthe disk. They were made exclusively for votive The few Argive Heraion mirrors ofnor purposes and like the votive mirrors of mal size, for which the find spots are normal size they must be local products. known, all came from a secondary The find at the Eastern Retaining Wall in position243, whereas of the miniature mir dicates the beginning oftheir local pro rors, AH 1560 and 1567 - 1579 (NM duction as not later than the mirrors of 14013, 20457, 20459 and 20526), two normal size.247 were found on the Upper Hill in their original position together with other vo- Although mirrors are not usually con tives; and another, M 49.77, was found at nected with the cult ofHera, they were the Eastern RetainingWall (Fig. 37).246 definitely ordinary votive gifts in the Ar chaic Period at the Argive Heraion and in Like the above mirrors of normal size, the normal as well as miniature size. Mirrors

77 Fig. 37. Athens. National Museum. Bronze. Miniature Vases, Mirrors, Cut-Out Relief and Sheet with Raised Points. Argive Heraion. Photo American School of Classical Studies.

are known also from other Hera cults in a mirror handle ofthe Argive type with a the Argolid/Corinthia, and recalling the hole in the end disk; another badly preser finds of Egyptian mirrors at the Heraia of ved bronze object was registered as a mir Perachora and Samos,248 mirrors may after ror in the excavations which yielded at all have played a role also in Hera sanctua least one miniature mirror, 73/552.252 The ries. Miniature mirrors in bronze which studies ofthe Aphrodision bronzes may are known at least from the late 8th Cent. identify other mirrors, since mirrors are B.C. onwards seem to have been in general normally connected with Aphrodite.253 favour throughout the Peloponnese in the 6th Cent. B.C. and later, chiefly in sanctua P. Vases ries of female deities.249 Like the stand mirrors, the hand mirrors at the Argive At the Argive Heraion more than a Heraion also show examples ofinfluences thousand fragmentary bronze vases or se from Laconia.250 parate fragments were found, including miniature vases as well as equipment con The Neighbouring nected with the function ofthe vases, such Votive Deposits as low stands, sieves, ladles etc.254 By far the majority ofvases of normal size were At the Hera Sanctuary West ofthe Hera found in a secondary position.255 A few, ion, there are mirrors ofnormal as well as such as the cup with a seated sphinx on miniature size ofthe main Argive Heraion the handle,AH 2034 (NM 13974)(Fig. types, definitely made for votive purposes 42), and possibly AH 2005 (NM 20587 (3), and most likely at the Argive Heraion.251 an ornamented rim ofa large vessel, as well as several phialai were mentioned Argos among the objects ofthe Western fill, which came from the Old Temple Terrace A fragmentary and badly damaged bronze and the Altar area,256 two spots which had handle in the Aphrodision, 73/658, may be also fragments oflarge cauldrons, while a

78 Fig.39. Athens. National Museum. NM 20667 b. Bronze wish-bone handle. AH 2067. Museum Photo. Fig. 38. Athens. National Museum. NM 20620. Bronze Handle.AH 2177. From AH II, pi. CXXII.

lotus bowl was placed on the Upper (NM 20611/ 6-7) compare well with the Hill.257 two early astragalos attachments in Olym pia, from 7th Cent. B.C. contexts, and are There are many fragments ofcauldrons, presumably dated to the second half ofthe but only one with all parts of the vessel 7th Cent. B.C.262 However, the greater preserved, AH 2039 (NM 20658). Several part ofthe bolster attachments at the Ar have parallels in Olympia and Perachora,258 give Heraion, gradually developing into a including the Archaic spool cauldron double concave form, belong to the 6th handle AH 2226 (NM 20631 a).259 Cent. B.C.

However, most Argive Heraion cauldron The handles connected with the Argive handles are connected with bolster at Heraion bolster attachments are usually tachments ofthe Phrygian-imitating type, plain, but there is one solid cast handle of known from many Greek sanctuaries.The rectangular form with an octagonal bar type continued into the Classical Period, and two flattened globes AH 2177 (NM decorating also other kinds ofimplements 20620) (Fig. 38), while another, AH 2170 such as stand mirrors, but since most ofthe (NM 20617) of rounded form is ofessen Argive Heraion examples seem too tially the same type. Both are presumably straight for a curved mirror rim and since of6th Cent. B.C. date.They have parallels stand mirrors are almost absent at the site, in several Peloponnesian sanctuaries the bolster attachments at the Argive Her (Apollo at Korynthos in Messenia, aion presumably were chiefly connected Hera/Zeus at Olympia, Poseidon at Isth- with handles oflarge bronze vessels.260 mia and the Heraion of Perachora) as well as at Delphi and the latter type is represen The bolster attachments with a lead core, ted also in the tombs ofTrebenischte.263 In measuring 1 - 4 cm. in length are accor the above-mentioned Peloponnesian sanc ding to Gauer the earliest Greek type, defi tuaries, the handles often were connected nitely of7th Cent. B.C. date and most with palmette or epheu plates ofopen likely ofthe first half ofthe century; they cauldrons, but such plates are not preserved are ofstraight form, their relief parts usu among the published Argive Heraion ally of equal width. Apparently almost bronzes, in spite of Gauer's suggestion of contemporary with them are the solid at their Argive origin.264 It is also possible tachments with the same relief decora that the handles from the Argive Heraion tion.261 According to Gauer, they were fol decorated the shoulders of a different form lowed by a type, the relief parts ofwhich ofcauldron with bolster handle attach gives the impression ofastragaloi, a decora ments that became particularly favoured in tion which begins slowly in the course of in the first half ofthe 5th Cent. the 7th Cent. B.C. AH 2141 and AH 2142 B.C.265

79 The wish-bone handles with a central Fig. 40.Athens. knob, AH 2061 - 2067 (NM 20666 - JSiss National Museum. 20667) (Fig. 39), varying in length be NM 14019. Tripod Stand with Lion's Paw. AH 2230. tween 5.8 and 9.5 cm. have almost the Museum Photo. same distribution area and are also chiefly of6th Cent. B.C. date. However, conside ring their close similarity with the more elaborate wish-bone handles ofthe Greek 7th Cent. B.C. stone perirrhanteria, their production may have started earlier.266 In a tomb at Ezerovo in Southern Bulgaria, wish-bone handles were still in situ on an open bronze bowl, measuring 20 cm. in diameter and 12 cm. in height; wish-bone Fig. 41. Athens. handles may have been generally con National Museum. Hydria nected with this type ofvessel. In Trebe Handle. AH 2206. nischte a wish-bone handle was found to From AH II,pi. CXXIII. gether with fragments ofa large open bronze bowl inside a low tripod stand with lions' paws, on which the bowl must have rested.267 as part oflarger objects definitely were At the Argive Heraion are fragments of produced in the Archaic Argive Hera two low tripod stands with lions' paws, AH ion.272, whereas most Olympia and Trebe 2228 (NM 14020) and AH 2230 (NM nischte stands are considered of Corin 14019) as well as two lions' paws from mi thian manufacture.273 Judging from the niature objects, AH 2227 and 2229 (NM chronology ofone ofthe Olympia tripods 20631 p and y).268The lion's paw ofAH of the same heavy fabric the two Argive 2228 was hollow cast and soldered to the Heraion stands should possibly be dated to underside ofa stand ring, ofwhich a third around 600 B.C.274 is preserved at a length of 11. 3 cm.; the stand ring with a notched outside had a According to the Trebenischte and Novi diameter of 19 cm.; the whole object mea Pazar finds, the low tripod stands usually sures 4. 65 cm. in height, the width ofthe carried an open shallow bowl, the diame ring is 2 cm. and its thickness is 0. 35 cm. ter ofthe stand being about half the dia The lion's paw, measuring 4. 3 cm. in meter ofthe bowl resting on its top.275 The height, has four toes in high relief and rests bowl connected with AH 2228 thus pre on a small base plate.269 sumably measured about 40 cm. in diame ter. Gauer does not interpret the function Such low tripod stands are widely distri of the stand rings and their bowls; how buted in sanctuaries all over Greece, in ever, a plausible interpretation was given South Italian tombs, in several Trebenischte already in 1944 by M.J. Milne, namely that tombs as well as in a deposit in Novi Pazar ofa foot bath, for which the comparatively in Bulgaria270 ofthe same general character large dimensions and the low position of and the same date, late 6th to early 5th the bowls seem appropriate.276 Such an Cent. B.C., as the Trebenischte tombs.271 identification is supported by the general In spite ofthe generous possibilities of context of the Trebenischte tombs, comparative material, only a stand ring definitely one ofsymposion equipment. from the dromos ofProsymna Tomb II forms a direct counterpart to the Argive The lion's paw ofAH 2230 (NM 14019) is Heraion ring (Fig. 46). Both are presum solid cast, but like the above it has four ably oflocal manufacture, since lions' paws toes in full relief; it measures ca. 3 X 3 cm.

80 Fig. 42. Athens. National Museum. NM 13980. Fig. 43. Athens. National Museum. NM 13982. Mug with sphinx on Handle. AH 2034. Deutsches Tankard. AH 2240. Museum Photo. Archdologisches Institut.Athen. Neg. No.NM 4286. and 4.5 cm. in height. The stand which see represented at the Argive Heraion is measures 7. 75 cm. in height and ca. 16 the situla.282 cm. in diameter, differs in type; it is made ofrather thin bronze plate, forming a flat AH 2002 (NM 20584 5),AH 2003 (NM upper part and a curved side.(Fig. 40),277 20586) and AH 2005 (NM 20587 p), all The stand ring is decorated in the tongue with a vertical rim and a profiled outside, pattern characteristic, in particular, of are presumably krater fragments, the largest North East Peloponnesian bronzes of the diameter being that ofAH 2003, ca. 55 6th Cent. B.C.278 The tongue pattern de cm.;283 AH 2005 has an engraved lotus pal corates many bronzes at the Argive Hera mette frieze, assigning it to the first half of ion, including a fragment ofan unfinished the 6th Cent. B.C.; AH 2002 and 2003 a vase, which may be another indication of punched ornamentation, the latter in the local manufacture ofthe low stand rings.279 characteristic North-East Peloponnesian 6th Cent. B.C. tongue pattern.284 Four examples ofdouble lions' paws con nected with a bar which shows traces of Only one horizontal hydria handle is pre iron rivets, AH 2231 - 2234 (NM 14024) served at the Argive Heraion, AH 2206, a are presumably parts offurniture, but I cast handle with incised palmettes and vo have no suggestion oftheir function.280 lutes (Fig. 41), very close to a handle in Perachora; these handles, the Olympia A rather large part ofthe Argive Heraion counterparts ofwhich are in relief decora Archaic bronze vases seems to belong to tion, are considered Corinthian by Gauer, banquetting services, comprising cauldrons and dated to before 550 B.C.285 and foot baths as mentioned above, but also kraters, hydriai, oinochoai, skyphoi There are some rim fragments ofjugs, AH and other drinking vessels,ladles, sieves 2024 - 2029 and possibly AH 1989 (NM and other implements for scooping, as well 20581) while several ofthe vertical hand as plates.281 The only vase type connected les,AH 2192-2198 (NM 20623), may with banquetting services as known from come from oinochoai;286 but I cannot de Olympia and Perachora which I do not termine the vase forms of the many ring feet, AH 1529 - 1539, similar in type to some Perachora finds.287

Apart from a few Corinthian skyphoi and the lotus bowls which I consider drinking vessels, there are fragments ofseveral cups or bowls in the Argive Heraion.288The best preserved is the two-handled mug, AH 2034 (NM 13980) (Fig. 42). It measu res 8 cm. in height and 5.5 cm. in diameter and is very thin-walled; its sides are deco rated in the tongue pattern characteristic 20588) has an incised guilloche pattern at Fig. 44. Athens. ofthe Argive Heraion workshops, but also the rim besides a row ofincised triangles National Museum. ofother Peloponnesian bronzes. Only one and leaves, reminiscent ofthe decoration NM 14027. Handle of Bronze Plate. ofits two vertical band handles is preser of the lotus bowls which it may imitate.291 AH 2071. Photo. Deutsches ved, terminating below in a palmette, and Archdologisches Institut. with a seated sphinx on top, an elegant and There are several ladles, one ofwhich is Athen. Neg. No. NM 4244. careful work ofaround 550 B.C.289 well preserved; of others only the handles are kept; they have counterparts in Pera AH 2034 is a smaller and more delicate chora.292 Ofone sieve, AH 2239 (NM version ofthe two-handled mugs, AH 14022), the central straining part is missing 2033 (NM 20597 y) and AH 2035, (NM and the upper part ofthe bowl itself is da 20705 ch-(3) Their heavy handles with a maged; it has a flat handle ending in a central ridge and high edges are preserved duck's head and with a 6th Cent. B.C. in including their fastening plates to the rim, scription, designing it as the property of the diameter ofwhich (for AH 2033) can Hera.293 be estimated at about 8 cm. They have co unterparts in Perachora, where the faste AH 2240 (NM 13982) is a tankard pre ning nails have the same exaggerated de sumably meant for scooping (Fig. 43). It corative effect; only the Argive Heraion consists ofa cut cylinder, 6.7 cm. in handles lack the rolled up ends characteri height, 5.1 and 5.3 cm. in largest diameter stic of the Perachora handles and represen at top and bottom, respectively; the thick ted also in an example from Mycenae and ness of its walls varies between 0. 25 and a vertical handle from Olympia.290 The Ar 0. 35 cm.The lower part with three feet give Heraion mugs, AH 2033 and 2035, was made separately, apparently soldered to are local variations ofan ordinary North the sides ofthe vase, which had one verti East Peloponnesian vase form, presumably cal handle on which only one ofits eyes mainly produced in the Corinthia. How remains. Both top and bottom are profiled, ever, the small and very fine mug, AH the former decorated in a tongue pattern 2034, with its different handle form looks like severalArgive Heraion 6th Cent. B.C. foreign in this group and was most likely a bronze vases. A counterpart in Olympia, votive offering brought from elsewhere, about double in size, was found inside a probably produced in some other Pelo cauldron, Le 13, which was dated to the ponnesian region. second quarter ofthe 7th cent. B.C. Gauer suggests that such tankards were used for AH 2037 (NM 20656) is the rim ofa pouring water into the wine, but they may one-handled, very fine Archaic cup, deco also have been used for serving the wine, rated in engraved horizontal lines framing and considering their solid manufacture, vertical strokes, and with a series ofraised perhaps even as a fixed measure.294 points below, presumably not later than the middle ofthe 6th cent. B.C., while the rim The many bronze vases at the Argive fragment ofan open bowl, AH 2011 (NM Heraion connected with wine drinkine

82 Fig. 45. Athens. National Museum. The plates also formed part ofthe ban Miniature Plate and Archaic quetting service, meant for the serving of fibulae. Archaic A. Prosymna Tomb VIII. Photo. American solid food. At the Argive Heraion, the School of Classical Studies. plates are represented by a few plain hand les, such as AH 2057, AH 2070 and AH 2071 a,297 riveted to the plate which may have been hammered, as e.g. was the case of the handle ofAH 2071 (NM 14027) (Fig. 44). AH 2071 is an angular, flat, cast handle, measuring 2. 25 cm. in width and 22. 8 cm. in length; at each end is a curved recession, allowing an estimate ofthe dia meter ofthe plate at 43. 8 cm. The handle has an incised decoration of hatched tri angles and maeanders and at each end is a once more stress the prominent role played horse's head in the round; they have long, by the banquets in the cult life ofthis incised mane locks and their harness sanctuary. In general, the bronze vases (without bits) is incised, the eyes and ears which form part ofthe banquetting servi plastically rendered.298 The type ofplate ces find their closest counterparts at was popular in the 6th Cent. B.C., especi Olympia and Perachora as well as in the ally in Magna Graecia299; but the Argive local tombs of the Northern Balkans, Heraion plate is definitely very early, as Trebenischte and Novi Pazar, the Greek observed by Jantzen, who considered it Ar bronzes ofwhich chiefly seem to be of give and dated it to the second half ofthe Corinthian manufacture. However, in spite 7th Cent. B.C. Considering its subgeome- ofgeneral similarities, there are several dif tric/Geometric ornamentation and the ferences in detailed features,295 presumably style ofits horses' heads, resembling AH 18 because the two North East Peloponnesian as well as two Proto-Archaic Olympia Hera sanctuaries each had their local ma horses, I am more inclined to place it in nufacture ofbanquetting equipment the first half of the 7th Cent. B.C.300 I which had proved functional in their com agree with Jantzen as to its probably local mon banquetting tradition. In general, the manufacture; although unique for its time, Olympia vases are closer to the Perachora it would fit in well with early 7th Cent. ones and may to some extent be of Corin Argive Heraion horse figures. thian manufacture. In spite of a fairly even chronological distribution throughout the Only a few Greek bronze vases of normal 7th and 6th Centuries B.C., so many Ar size at the Argive Heraion are not con give Heraion bronze vessels connected nected with banquets: the Protocorinthian with banquets are datable to the second pyxides, the alabastron handle or lekythos quarter ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. or around handle, AH 2202 (NM 20624) and the 550 B.C., a period which is well represen body fragment ofa closed vase, possibly a ted at the Argive Heraion also in bronze lekythos with an outside decoration of figures and mirrors; in all, they seem to in horizontal double relief lines, AH 2012 dicate a revival of the cult life ofthe sanc (NM 20588 e); I am inclined to see it as tuary. Some ofthe banquetting imple Protocorinthian.301 ments have inscriptions designating them as the property ofHera, but in no case an MiniatureVases actual votive inscription is found; possibly such cult vessels were manufactured or A few miniature vases are made of normal acquired in an organized way,dependent thick-plated bronze, AH 2201 (NM on the needs ofthe sanctuary.296 14021), a handle ofa jug ending in a lion's

83 head, and two plates, AH 1877 (NM 20454) and AH 1878, both with 6th Cent. B.C. dedicatory inscriptions, one ofthem by a Boiotian.302.

However, for the greater part the minia ture vases at the Argive Heraion are made ofvery thin plate and measure between 2 - 3 and 10-14 cm. in diameter, in most Fig. 46. Athens. cases with a stamped or engraved decora National Museum. tion of rosettes, tongue pattern, triangles BronzeTripod Stand. etc. or with raised points along the rim Prosymna Tomb II. Photo. American School of Classical like the miniature mirrrors. Obviously lo Studies. cally manufactured with the one purpose ofproviding votive offerings for the visi tors to the sanctuary, they represent a mass metal, mostly phialai, as well as some disks production like that ofthe miniature mir with small suspension holes.307 rors; in most cases, the miniature vases have a suspension hole. There are different kinds Apart from the lotus bowl (Fig. 16), Pro ofphialai mesomphaloi, plain phialai, mi symna TombVIII also contained a small niature lotus bowls, AH 1893 - 1898, AH Phrygian type bolster handle attachment 1900 - 1972 and M 49. 47 - 48, M 49. 75, which Blegen compared with AH 2133, M. 49. 80 and M. 49. 95 (Fig. 37) as well as one ofthe early examples with a lead core, two-handled plates, AH 1854 - 1875 and dated to the first half ofthe 7th Cent. M 49. 73, which in some cases are distin B.C.308 The most impressive fragment from guishable from miniature disks, such as AH the Prosymna tombs is the low stand with 1601 - 1701 and AH 1890 - 1899, only by a lion's paw (Fig. 46) from Tomb II, i. e. in their tongue pattern or their central ro a secondary, late context. It must be a local sette decoration (Fig. 37).303 work at the Argive Heraion, correspond ing with AH 2228 in construction, dimen There are miniature vases of the same sions and all details309 There were fragmen types in other Greek sanctuaries such as tary phialai mesomphaloi in several tombs e.g. the Heraion ofPerachora and the and in TombsVIII and IX Protocorinthian Athena Alea sanctuary ofTegea,but appa bronze vases; in the former also a shallow rently not in such an abundance as at the dish and a deeper bowl, both without om Argive Heraion.304 phalos.310 There is only one miniature vase, a plate, in Tomb VIII (Fig. 45), but there The Neighbouring Deposits were several votive disks in the tombs, for the greater part very small; like the Argive At the Hera Sanctuary west ofthe Hera Heraion votive disks, they measured be ion are a few examples of pyxides and sky tween ca. 3 and ca. 6 cm. in diameter, al phoi, at least some ofwhich are ofProto though one, in TombVIII, was larger,with corinthian types; several handles of differ a diameter of 15. 3 cm. and a decoration of ent kinds of vessels, one of which presum five concentric circles and raised points. ably a plate; and a few mesomphalic Most disks had a central hole for attach phialai, of the lotus bowl variety as well as ment.311 plain ones.305 Only one bronze vessel is of a type not known at the Argive Heraion, a Although more limited in numbers and shallow bowl with a spout, but without variety, the same kinds ofbronze vases as at handles, measuring 13. 4 cm. in diameter the Argive Heraion are represented at the and made ofthick bronze plate.306 There neighbouring deposits. are several miniature vases made ofsheet

84 Argos well as from the Hera Sanctuary west of it had no counterparts in Argos.318 There are very few fragments ofArchaic bronze vases in the Argos sanctuaries, but Some of the plain finger rings at the Ar both the Athena Sanctuary on the top of give Heraion as well as at the neighbour the Larissa and the Aphrodision have frag ing deposits may be Archaic and there are ments ofhandle plates with palmette- band rings which continue the Geometric volute ornaments.312 At the latter site there types,319 but there are also new types, as are a few fragments ofother bronze vases, e.g. the swivel rings, imitating Levantine including a vertical handle with a central rings and presumably not dated earlier ridge and raised edges like some ofthe Ar than the late 7th Cent. B.C.320The seal give Heraion handles;313 bronze phialai, of rings with intaglio decoration and the normal size and fabric as well as miniature other types offinger rings seem to be later phialai and a miniature disk with a tongue than ca. 550 B.C.321 I have seen no coun pattern.314 terparts in the sanctuaries ofArgos.

The bronze vases in the Archaic sanctua Fibulae ries ofArgos are so few that a comparison with the material from the Argive Heraion Several ofthe Geometric fibulae types at does not seem worth while; but at any the Argive Heraion continue into the 7th rate, there is no decisive sign of banquet Cent. B.C.322, ring fibulae, some ofwhich ting equipment having played the same have tongue patterns, definitely into the role as at the Argive Heraion. 6th Cent. B.C. A plain example comes from ProsymnaTombVIII323. According to J.M.Cook, one of the ring fibulae with a Q. Personal Ornaments threading ofwire, AH 947 (NM 20908), is a Western European type with a counter Pendants part in the Archaic deposit of the Agam- emnoneion at Mycenae.324 AH 946 (NM Several Geometric pendant types continue 14034) a fibula in the form of a crouching into the 7th Cent. B.C. and sometimes lion, the pin ofwhich is missing, is a well- later and no new types are recorded either known Laconian type, dated to the first at the Argive Heraion or in Argos.315 half of the 6th Cent. B.C.325 Again I do not know ofparallels in the sanctuaries of Rings Argos.

The types of hoop ear rings at the Argive Pins Heraion and the Hera sanctuary to the west ofthe Heraion lasted into the 7th Imma Kilian-Dirlmeier divides the greater Cent. B.C.316 At neither site are there ex part ofthe Archaic pins into classes A- F. amples of the Archaic pendant ear rings Archaic A pins, with a single disk and with an invertedpyramid or cone,a type globe, are again subdivided into four which appears in Argos in the 7th Cent. groups; they were produced throughout B.C., continuing throughout the Archaic the 7th Cent. B.C. and have a distribution and into the Classical Period and recorded area comprising the whole of the Pelo- from tombs as well as from the sanctuary ponnese, although at most sites in limited ofAthena on top ofthe Larissa and the numbers and with only a few finds outside Aphrodision.317 the Peloponnese. However, at the Argive Heraion, Archaic A pins are popular, with The bronze arm rings which might be about 70 representatives; a local production either Geometric or Early Archaic and seems possible (cf. Fig. 45).326 were known from the Argive Heraion as

85 The production ofArchaic B pins, with Fig. 47. Athens. two globes and an end knob above the National Museum. disk, which often has a supplementary de NM 20810. Archaic F Pin with Floral Head Ornament. coration, began before 700 B.C.The Ar AH 2764. Museum Photo. chaic B pins, which were first studied by Jacobsthal, are subdivided into six groups. BI started early, but continued alongside the other subtypes until around the middle of the 6th Cent. B.C. BI- III have a limi ted representation at the Argive Heraion as well as at Perachora and other North East Peloponnesian sites.Judging from their di stribution pattern, they are presumably of Laconian origin. B IV -VI which are more elaborate, are extremely well represented at the Argive Heraion with in all up to 200 pins; they are found also at other North- East Peloponnesian sites, including Pera chora. There may be several production rent size and an eye at the top, are subdivi centres, including that ofthe Argive Hera ded into E I - E IV; they have no exact ab ion, but some ofthe B IV -VI pins found solute chronology, but morphologically here may actually be Laconian.327 they are close to Archaic B pins and pre sumably started very early in the Archaic Archaic C pins have three or more globes; Period, since one was found in Prosymna their production may have started in the Tomb IX. Judging from the many finds in first half ofthe 7th Cent. B.C., but the few Arcadia (Lusoi, Ghortsouli andTegea), as datable contexts are from the second half well as in Olympia, they are presumably of the 7th Cent. B.C. and around 600 B.C. Arcadian.The type is fairly well represen Kilian-Dirlmeier subdivides the pins into ted at the Argive Heraion with about 30 C I and C II; the former group is ap examples.330 parently Laconian, the latter presumably Corinthian with a rich representation at Archaic F pins with a floral or figurative Perachora and elsewhere in the Corinthia end motifare subdivided into F I - F IV; besides Olympia and the Ghortsouli sanc they definitely lasted into the Classical Pe tuary near Mantinaea.There are a few ex riod. The first three subgroups have a finial amples ofC I pins at the Argive Heraion, in the form ofsome kind offruit or but the Corinthian type C II is not repres flower. F IV ends in an animal head. F I is ented. However, the F IV pin AH 720, known from one example at Lusoi, other (NM 20720) (Fig. 48), terminating in a wise only at the Corinthia, including Pera lion's head, shows exactly the same con chora, and at Olympia. F II - III are well struction and is most likely ofthe same represented at Olympia, in Arcadia, in the origin.328 Corinthia as well as in the Argolid, includ ingTiryns and the Argive Heraion. Archaic D pins, with one or two globes and an eye at the top, may also be of 7th There are two Fill pins at the Argive Cent. B.C. date, as they are close to Ar Heraion, AH 719 (NM 20719) and AH chaic A pins.This rather small group is 2764 (NM 20810) (Fig. 47); the latter is known all over the Peloponnese, but with uncleaned, a floral upper termination ofa only one example at the Argive Hera pin. Its base, which is quadrangular in ion.329 section, measures 1. 2 cm. at each side and 2. 8 cm. in height; there are traces ofan Archaic E pins, with two globes ofdiffe- iron pin at the bottom.The base shows

86 comprises a pin with an ordinary eye like a sewing needle.33'1

The local production ofbronze pins at the Argive Heraion, ofconsiderable impor tance in the Geometric Period, continues into the Early Archaic Period, supplemen ted by votive offerings ofpins ofArcadian, Laconian or Corinthian origin. Although some pin types were manufactured also in Fig. 48. Athens. three horizontal rows ofrelief pearls, while the Classical Period, the majority ofthe National Museum. the flower has a conical bud with a white Archaic pins at the Argive Heraion seem NM 20720. Archaic F Pin centre surrounded by pointed petals. Its to be ofEarly Archaic date.336 with Lion's Head. AH 720. closest counterparts (F III A) are from Museum Photo. Olympia and the Ghortsouli sanctuary as Neighbouring Deposits well as from an Archaic grave at Vitsa, where it was found together with a Corin At the Hera Sanctuary west ofthe Hera thian aryballos, the burial thus probably ion as well as at some Prosymna tombs dated to the Early Archaic Period. were found pins ofArchaic A, B and E (Fig. 45), i.e. a less varied representation of The Archaic F IV pins which end in a the same types as at the Argive Heraion. In lion's head, are known in only four exam Prosymna they come from the early tomb ples, two ofwhich come from the Argive deposits,TombsVIII, IX and XL.337 Heraion, one from the Classical Demeter and Kore sanctuary at Corinth and one Argos from Ghortsouli. AH 720 (NM 20720) (Fig. 48) must be of Early Archaic date, At Argos, there are no examples ofpins of judging from the style ofits lion's head as Archaic A, whereas Archaic B pins, Class B well as its correspondance with the Corin I, which begins before 700 B.C., although thian pin type ofC II; it is probably also of lasting through the greater part ofthe 7th Corinthian origin.331 Cent. B.C., were found in the Athena San ctuary on top ofthe Larissa as well as spo Several pin types, in particular those ofAr radically.A considerable representation of chaic C II, E and F III - IV, seem to indi Archaic pins is seen only for Class F, but cate rather close relations between the chiefly in Classical contexts.338 Hera sanctuaries in the North East Pelop- onnese and the Ghortsouli sanctuary near For the relevant period, Archaic pins are Mantinea, with votives of Geometric and thus almost non-existent at Argos and offer Archaic date. The female deity ofthe no material for the comparison with the Ghortsouli Sanctuary is unidentified, but Archaic pins at the Argive Heraion. usually interpreted as Artemis.332 Other Objects The loop pins, which continue into the Classical Period, are represented with only Most ofthe bronzes connected with one example at the Argive Heraion and a horses or carriages found at the Argive few at Perachora and Corinth, while they Heraion are difficult to date; there are are especially favoured in Olympia and some fragments ofMacedonian horse trap Arcadia.333 A few pins ending in a ring pings, AH 1555 and AH 2783, presumably head come from the Argolid,Tiryns as well ofEarly Archaic date,339 and fragments of as the Argive Heraion, but basically it is Greek horse bits, AH 2772 and 2759 - apparently a Central Peloponnesian 2761, as well as votive wheels, AH 2253 - type.334 The Argive Heraion material also 2254 (NM 14025 - 14026), and parts of

87 carriages, AH 2252 (NM 20633) and AH the outstanding figure relief dated to ca. 2255, the former an antyx with an Archaic 650 B.C. (Fig. 24), but the more humble votive inscription.340There are no certain bronze offerings are ofthe same types as finds ofweapons341; but several bronze im the Heraion bronzes, cut-out figures, a plements ofdifferent types, but uncertain mirror of normal size as well as a minia date, including two crotala, AH 2258 - ture mirror, several phialai including lotus 2259, two votive bells, knives and other in bowls, as well as some miniature vases and struments.342 Two legs of miniature furni disks, Phrygian-imitating "Scharnier"- fi ture, AH 2251 (NM 14002) and AH 2787 bulae, rings and pins ofArchaic A, B and (NM 14001), ofa chair and a kline re E.347 From its foundation in the Late Geo spectively,are possibly ofLate metric Period, the Hera Sanctuary always Archaic/Early Classical date.343 gave the impression ofbeing subordinate to the Argive Heraion. The large tripod Several Archaic bronze sheets have decora bronze relief may also be a local work, but tion of raised points, sometimes forming at any rate, it implies a growing impor dedicatory inscriptions to Hera, AH 1880 tance ofthe small sanctuary during the - 1889, but usually only placed in horizon first half ofthe 7th Cent. B.C. Since most tal rows, AH 1752 - 1778.The former ofits bronzes are duplicates of known group are presumably votive plaques, the types at the Heraion they indicate the latter which have parallels in Tegea,Sparta, same cult sphere for the Early Archaic Pe and Olympia, have been interpreted as riod with vases presumably used for ban diadems or bracelets, while some may just quetting and mirrors ofnormal as well as be coatings.344 miniature size.

Apart from knives and other simple instru The deposits in the Mycenaean tombs did ments there are no counterparts to the not contain any bronze object as spectacu above objects in the neighbouring deposits lar as the tripod relief ofthe Hera Sanctu or in the Argos sanctuaries. On the other ary,but Tomb VIII, in particular, was richly hand, the manufacture ofshields and other equipped with Early Archaic bronzes parts ofthe military equipment at Argos is which were presumably all ofArgive a very important side ofthe bronze work Heraion manufacture, as e.g. the lotus of the Archaic city;but apparently objects bowl (Fig. 16),a shallow dish and a deeper ofmilitary character were not dedicated at bowl, the bolster attachment handle ofan the Argive Heraion.345 early cauldron, the cut-out relief ofa grif fin, a rather large votive disk as well as two R. Archaic Greek Bronzes. miniature disks, a miniature plate, two pins Conclusions ofArchaic A (Fig. 45) and one ofArchaic B type, and a ring fibula; other tombs con In contrast with the Late Geometric Pe tained various vases, including phialai mes riod, when a few bronzes in the votive de omphaloi, miniature disks, rings and pins posits ofthe Mycenaean Prosymna tombs of Archaic B and E types.348 The richness differed significantly from the bronzes at ofTomb VIII, with Early Archaic material the Argive Heraion,346 the Archaic bronzes only,surpasses that ofthe slightly earlier ofthe Prosymna tombs as well as those of Tombs IX and XL, both deposits presum the Hera sanctuary west ofthe Heraion ably dated to around 700 B.C. For Tomb now all seem to correspond with those of VIII at any rate, there are reasons to as the Heraion, the locallymanufactured sume the presence ofa banquetting or bronzes presumably having been produced symposion equipment ofArgive Heraion at the main sanctuary. character,i.e. differing from that represen ted by the separate Late Geometric "Ka- The Early Archaic bronzes ofthe Hera lottenschale" ofArgos type in Tomb XL or sanctuary west of the Heraion included the ceramic drinking vessels ofother Pro-

88 symna tomb deposits.349 Although the There are striking similarities in the Geo Early Archaic bronzes ofthe Prosymna metric/Archaic finds, terracottas as well as tomb deposits correspond closely to the bronzes and other metals, at the Argive Argive Heraion material, there were defi Heraion and Perachora.356 There may be nitely bronze objects not considered sui close collaboration in the manufacture of table for offerings here. E.g. it can hardly humbler bronze dedications such as minia be by chance that there are no mirrors in ture mirrors, vases and disks, fibulae and the Prosymna deposits. pins;357 and there are definite signs ofiden tical cult traditions, not only in these dedi Compared with the Geometric Period, cations, but also e.g. in the offering ofthe some ofthe outside connections of the Ar lead relief fibulae and of mirrors at both give Heraion as represented in its bronzes sites, and, in particular, in the Archaic ban seem to continue unaltered, e.g. the con quetting equipment, which is oflocal ma tacts with Macedonia and Thessaly350 On nufacture, but from the very beginning of the other hand, it is no longer possible to closely corresponding types in the two observe the same close relations with Cen Hera sanctuaries as well as in Olympia.358 tral Greece,351 as only a few figured One may speak ofan almost identical cult bronzes have counterparts in Delphi.352 life.

As regards the Arcadian sanctuaries, the However, the general ties ofthe Argive close ties ofthe Geometric Period ap Heraion with the Corinthia, which parently still exist, but they are ofa diffe characterized the whole ofthe Geometric rent character. There is no sign ofinfluen Period,359 in the Archaic Period seem to ces from Arcadian bronze work, nor many have taken on another aspect. Now they Arcadian bronze imports in the Argive comprise the whole ofthe Argolid, includ Heraion, except for Archaic E pins, pre ing Argos, which in the Geometric Period sumably ofArcadian manufacture.353 How was isolated from the Corinthia.360 In the ever, there is some correspondance in the 6th Cent. B.C., the bronze workers of mi types ofvotive offerings, in particular the litary equipment in Argos and Corinth ap more humble ones, such as the cut-out pear to be closely collaborating;361 there is reliefs, the miniature vases and disks and stylistic correspondance also in the sculp the bronze sheets with raised points.354 It ture in the round ofArgos and Corinth seems that the cult sphere ofthe Ghort and among the few Archaic figured souli sanctuary, close to Mantineia, is influ bronzes found at Argos are more than one enced from the cult koine ofthe two Corinthian import.362 The estrangement North-East Peloponnesian Hera sanctua between the two settlements which was ries, the Argive Heraion and the Hera San observable on the basis of the Geometric ctuary ofPerachora. The pin types, especi bronzes even as late as around 700 B.C. is ally those ofmore specific character, are in the 6th Cent. B.C. a thing of the past.363 strikingly similar at the three sites and Ka- ragiorga observes that the Archaic terra For the relations with Laconia one gets a cotta statuettes at Ghortsouli are strongly correspondant impression. In the Geome influenced by the North-East Pelopon tric Period they differed considerably for nesian types.355 Whatever way these con the Argive Heraion and Argos, the Laco nections should be interpreted —and the nian contacts of the Heraion being re case for an Artemis Sanctuary at Ghort stricted, while the Argos bronzes were un souli may perhaps be questioned - there is der Laconian influences,364 whereas in the no published evidence that the banquet 6th Cent. B.C., there are not only many ting tradition which appears fundamental Laconian bronzes at the Argive Heraion, to the Archaic cult life in the two North but also local imitations,365 in part at least East Peloponnesian sanctuaries played a si products ofthe city ofArgos, which milar role in the Arcadian ones. throughout the Archaic Period continued

89 to be influenced by Laconian metal work, so well represented both at Argos and the as seen e.g. in the lead figure produc Argive Heraion, that a meaningful compa tion.366 rison could be made, showing that by the second quarter of the 6th Cent. B.C. at the It seems as ifthe outward relations of the latest, an Argive stylistic koine had been two sites, the Argive Heraion and Argos, in established,including the bronzes at the the Geometric Period going in divergent Argive Heraion in a sculptural tradition directions, by the first half of the 6th Cent. which had developed in Argos from the B.C. have fused into an identical pattern. Late Geometric Period onwards.371 The 6th Cent. B.C. bronze statuettes at the Ar The Geometric contacts ofArgos with the give Heraion may all be dedications by ci islands now appear to have focussed espe tizens ofArgos, but at the Heraion, there is cially on Samos, as one may deduce from no longer any sign ofa school ofbronze the technique used for the lead figurines sculpture independent ofthat ofArgos, al and from some 6th Cent. B.C. bronze though at exactly this time the sanctuary sculptures.367 provides evidence for local bronze work with figurative details.372 I find it hard to A comparison between the local bronzes interpret the material in any other way of the Argive Heraion and Argos is more than that at this time the Argive Heraion difficult for the Early Archaic than for the formed part of the immediate sphere of Geometric Period, mainly because ofthe influence of the city ofArgos and thus that very limited Archaic bronze finds at Argos, the annexation ofthe Argive Heraion by not only in the sanctuaries, but in particu Argos presumably had taken place earlier. lar in the tombs, which after the early 7th Cent. B.C. seldom had burial equipment Judging from the early bronzes ofthe Ar of metal. Ofthe personal ornaments only give Heraion compared with those ofAr the ear rings, differing in types at the two gos, the Argive Heraion in the early 7th sites,are well represented in Argos, while Cent. B.C. still was independent ofArgos the very few examples at the Argive Hera in its outside relations as well as in its local ion may belong to the Geometric Pe arts and crafts,373 whereas about a century riod.368 Some ofthe differences observable later, in both respects it formed part ofan may be due to different cult traditions; e.g. Argive koine, which continued the the rich collection ofArchaic bronze vases characteristics ofan Argos tradition oflong in the Argive Heraion appears almost ex standing, reaching back into the Late Geo clusively connected with banquets, for metric Period.374 From the only available which there is no evidence in the Argos archaeological comparison material ofa sanctuaries.369 certain quality and quantity, the bronzes, I find it reasonable to see the Argive Hera A detailed comparison between the ion by the second quarter ofthe 6th Cent. bronzes ofthe two Archaic sanctuaries, the B.C. as placed within the territories of the Argive Heraion and the Aphrodision of city-state ofArgos, the appropriation of Argos, will not be possible until the im the sanctuary by Argos presumably having portant excavations ofthe latter sanctuary taken place between the early 7th Cent. are published; however, there are certain si B.C. and the early 6th Cent. B.C., in abso milarities in their votive material, with lute dates, between ca. 675 B.C. and 575 mirrors and miniature mirrors, miniature B.C. vases and disks at both sites and offerings at the Argive Heraion ofthe lead korai While the first half of the 7th Cent. B.C. which presumably were produced at the represents a very active period in the cult Aphrodision.370 life ofthe Argive Heraion, observable not only in the bronzes,375 but in particular in Only the sculpture ofthe 6th Cent. B.C. is such major constructions as the Old

90 Temple Terrace and the Archaic Temple,376 and possibly the second half of the 7th the second half of that century gives an Cent. B.C. is the most likely period. In impression ofstagnation and comparative which way the appropriation took place,it poverty, in the bronzes377 as well as in the does not seem possible to determine today. building activity until the time of erection The implications ofthis conclusion for the of the North and North East Stoai around status ofArgos as a major city-state (pos 600 B.C.378 sibly seeking a consolidation ofits terri tory as suggested by other scholars380) for On the other hand, the bronzes ofthe first the change ofthe status ofthe Argive half of the 6th Cent. B.C., in particular Heraion as well as for the role played by those ofthe second quarter and the years this sanctuary in the urban development of around 550 B.C., definitely indicate a re Argos, are problems which cannot be vival ofthe cult life at the Argive Heraion solved on the basis ofbronzes alone. Other with e.g. several fine bronze statuettes, a kinds ofstudy material must be included. beginning oflocal bronze mirror manufac It is my hope that with the preceding ture and a rich production period ofban studies ofstrictly archaeological character I quetting implements.379 have created a chronologically sufficiently reliable and archaeologically sufficiently Judging from the archaeological material varied basis for further more general available for comparative studies ofthe studies of the relations between the early early Argive Heraion and Argos, the Argive Argive Heraion and Argos, in particular, Heraion, in my opinion, was annexed by and sanctuaries and settlements in general Argos sometime between the early 7th during the period of early Greek urbaniza Cent. B.C. and the early 6th Cent. B.C. tion.

91 Notes

NOTE 1 coming publication in PBF of South Italic were dedicated by Italic/Etruscans,by Gre IS IV, 92, Conclusions. fibulae for more precise information on re eks resident in or travelling to Italy, brin gional location and chronology). ging them as souvenirs (Karo 1937, 371), or NOTE 2 whether they reached Greece by way of IS I, 290 and IS II, 57 - 60. Cf. also below NOTE 10 trade (Herrmann 1983,358). pp. 55-58. Kilian 1973, 4 (with notes 21 - 26), 27 - 28 Italic weapons and larger Italic bronzes in and maps 1 - 2; v. Hase 1979, 69 and Gras Greek sanctuaries as well as Italic bronze NOTE 3 1985,655 - 662.The fibulae are mostly of votives of official character raise problems Cf. IS I, 200 and IS IV, 92. bronze, apart from one silver fibula in Pera of a different kind, irrelevant to the present chora,Payne 1940, pi.84, 18,cf.Philipp studies. NOTE 4 1981,289. IS IV 37 - 40, A-C and notes 1 - 42 are For the Delphi fibulae, cf. also Kilian 1977, NOTE 15 relevantalso to the present paper, while sec fig.3 f.The Olympia fibulae are repub Blegen 1939, 237 and fig. 24; NM 16554 tions D - H dealt exclusively with the Geo lished,Philipp,286 - 295, pis. 20 and 63 - Boardman 1980, 113 and IS IV, 95, note 24. metric bronzes. Cf. especially op.cit.note 3 65. For the Lusoi fibula,cf. nowVoyatzis, For the difficulty in distinguishing solid cast for reference systemto the objects in the 217 (Bonn.Akademisches Kunstmuseum C figures from hollow cast ones with their National Museum ofAthens. 55).The Exochi fibula, FriisJohansen 1957, casting core preserved, cf. Roeder 1956, 73 - 74, 184 and fig. 16 (Tomb Z 27). 515. NOTE 5

AH 853 - 854 (NM 14032 and 20892). NOTE 1 1 NOTE 16 AH II, 242, pi. LXXXVI. IS IV, 113, note 244 and AH II, 352, Ivories, Cf. Roeder 1956,119- 126, §170- 173 Blmkenberg, 200, nos. XI 4 d and 5 a; Ki no. 25, pi. CXXXIX. and pis. 18-20 for Harpocrates statuettes han 1973, 4 and note 24; Gras 1985, 661. Cf. Perachora I, 439 - 441; Kilian 1973, 11; ofthe same type. I have no information about the two fibulae Kilian 1975, 103 and notes 8-9; Sapouna- Pendlebury 1930,78, no. 159 and pi. IV which Furtwangler 1906, 404 mentions at Sakellarakis 1978,117-118. (Athenian Acropolis) and Jantzen, 13 and 15 No. 125 (quoted by Philipp,289), as unpub For the amber disks from Samos, cf.Kyrie- - 16, no. B 437 and pi. 13 (Samian Hera lished in AH II.They may actually be iden leis-Kienast-Weisshaar 1985,429, fig. 67 ion).The Harpocrates statuette,Jantzen, 22 tical with AH 853 - 854. with reference to Kilian 1975, 104. - 23, no. B 1064,pi. 25 is of a differenttype, In IS I, 202,1 misinterpreted Philipp's note solid cast and wearing a crown. for a reference to silver fibulae. NOTE 12 AH 1800. (NM 20689). NOTE 17 NOTE 6 AH II, 272 and pi. CIV. Bianchi 1990, 73 - 74. The head ofthe fi AH 855 - 857,AH II, 242, pi. LXXXVI. gure conforms well with the stylistic The fibulae are not in the National Mu NOTE 13 characteristics stated by Sliwa 1983, 387 - seum ofAthens and I know them only from Ol. IV, 94, no. 646, pi. XXXV with refer 388, concerning the Twenty-fifth Dynasty the drawingsin AH II. ence to a fragment, said to have come from head from Samos, no. 5. Kilian 1973, 4 and note 22;Sapouna-Sakel- the MenekratesTomb in Kerkyra; Perachora larakis 1978, 120; Gras 1985, 657. I, 159- 160. NOTE 18 Both Kilian and Gras use the term "fibulae Gras 1985, 501 - 506, figs. 57 and 59, cf. Rhodes: Br. Mus. Inv. nos. 47986 and 40959 a cuscinetto". (The latter adds"with long Romualdi 1981, 33 and fig. 31.According = Walters 1899,10- 11, nos. 132 and 138; pins";the pins,however, are missing). to Gras,the basins found in Magna Graecia Jantzen, 16, note 18, cf. Roeder 1956, 320, were imports, not local products. fig.415, pi. 12 d and p. 323, fig.420;Trolle NOTE 7 1978, 146 -147 with notes 43 - 44. Kilian 1973, 4,cf.Philipp 1981, 292 - 293. NOTE 14 The two figures were found in 1864 in There is no evidence for the Italic fibulae Salzmann and Billiotti's excavations; they NOTE 8 having been given as partof dress offerings, came from a well under the foundations of Bartolom 1989, 199. cf. Kilian 1973, 4 - 6; Kilian 1975 b, 119 - the AthenaTemple of the Acropolis, cf. 120; v. Hase 1979,69 - 71 and note 36. (For Higgins 1954,23 with note 8. NOTE 9 dress offerings in Greek sanctuariescf. refe Samos:Walter -Vierneisel 1959, 36 - 37 and Kilian 1975, 82, v. Hase 1979, 69 and Phi rences IS IV, 111,note 218 and here p. 48 Beil. 76 and Jantzen, 17, B 1216 and B 1517 lipp 1981, 291 - 293 (who here and on p. and belownote 67). Nor does it seem pos (and fragments: B 243, B 516, B 1078, B 286 refers to Fulvia lo Schiavo's forth- sible to decide whether the Italic fibulae 1237,B 1119,B 1183 and B 1141),pis. 13 - 15. Cf. Bianchi 1990,74. 92 NOTE 19 Dynasty,because they have only one Urae- (The Amnisos lotus handle, Matthaus 1985, Jantzen, 5-37 and pis. 1 - 36. Chronology, us; Roeder 1937, 249, to whom he refers, 195 - 196, no. 472 b, pi. 51, comes from a p. 88 - 89; Shwa 1983, publishes the Egyp speaks of a specific type of Harpocrates fi Cypriot type bowl, cf. Schafer 1992, 248 - tian bronzes at the Samian Heraion from gures (Type 348), stating that for this type 249, no. D 1, B 12, pis. 75 and 103, 2 and Wiegand's and Schede's excavations (1910 - two Uraeus snakes are a sign ofa Twenty- below note 106). 1914) which were transferred to Berlin: His fifth Dynasty date. He does not say that one Cat. nos. 4, 6, 8 and 9 are not included in Uraeus is a sign ofa Twenty-sixth Dynasty NOTE 22 Jantzen and his nos. 5 and 6 are with great date). For the Egyptian bronze finds in Greece, cf. probability ofTwenty-fifth Dynasty date, cf. in general,Jantzen, 5 - 6. Shwa 1983,380-381; NOTE 20 Two of the 10 Egyptian bronze figures from According to Bianchi 1990, 72 - 76, the A New Kingdom bronze statuette in the Rhodes are nude woman statuettes, cf. majority ofthe Samos Heraion Egyptian Dictaean Cave may have reached Crete in above note 18, while four are hawks' feet bronzes are ofTwenty-fifth Dynasty date. the Second Millenium B.C. (Pendlebury and one a Uraeus, all with counterparts in Apart from the women's figures, above note 1930, 12-13, no. 15, frontispiece, and the Heraion ofSamos, cf. Walters 1899, 11, 18, Bianchi especially refers to the fol Boardman 1961, 74), whereas a statuette no. 147 andTrolle 1978, 146, note 43 lowing figures with this chronology: B 204, found in Ephesos with an inscription ofthe (Uraeus) andjacopi 1932/33, 346, nos. 15 - (fragment of dressed figure), Jantzen, 8 and time of Psammetich II (595 - 589 B.C.) 18 and fig. 80 (Hawks' feet from Cameiros), 10, pi. 6; B 354 (Neith),Jantzen, 23, 27 and may have arrived in the , first noted by Jantzen, 6 (note 14) and 21; pis. 27 - 28; B 1287, (female figure), Jantzen, presumably belonging to the nearby Sera- for counterparts from Samos, cf. op. cit. pp. 23, 28 and pi. 29; B 1312 (with joining peum (Winter 1971, 154, Orientalia 42, 19-21 and pis. 21-22 and Sliwa 1983, fragments, male figure with leopard's skin) 1973,437 - 438 andTrolle 1978, 146). 391, Cat nos. 8-9,figs.17- 18. Jantzen, 7, 9 and pis. 1-4. Boardman 1980, 274, note 7, regards the For the Perachora mirror, cf. below note 24 The Egyptian bronzes found in either Well Pherai situla (Pendlebury 1930, 92, no. 227 and for the Pherai situla and the Vathy Apis, G, beneath the South Stoa or in strata ear and pi. Ill) as late.The Apis figure from cf. above note 20. lier than the South Stoa have the same Vathy,Samos, (Pendlebury 1930, 106, no. The Ephesos figure is possibly a Hellenistic chronology, i.e. they were discarded before 294), is not securely dated, cf. Parlasca 1953, acquisition, cf. above note 20.The fragmen 640/630 B.C., cf. Walter 1968, 85 - 89 and 135, note 61, who also mentions three tary Ibis figure from the Athena Sanctuary Jantzen, 12-14, 19 and 88, e.g. B 1212, B Hellenistic/Roman Egyptian bronzes in of Miletus seems to be without either a se 117 (belonging with the Bes statuette, B Greece. cure context or close stylistic parallels (Wei- 353), B 353, B 1087 and B 1139. The Tegea statuette, to which Boardman ckert 1957, 128, pi. 40, 2). (The Ibis figures The following are dated to the Twenty-fifth 1980, 274, note 7, refers, is now considered from Samos,Jantzen 1972,30 - 31 and pi. Dynasty or at least the 7th Cent. B.C. from Near Eastern, cf.Voyatzis, 122 - 123, B 7, pi. 32, are fragments ofdifferent and very large stylistic or technical criteria: the Mut statu 59. For Tegea cf. also below note 21. figures). ette, B 148,Jantzen, 23, pi. 28, cf.Walter - Vierneisel 1959, 37 - 38; the kneeling Nu NOTE 21 NOTE 23 bian,Jantzen, 23 and 26 - 27, B 1210,pl. 26: The lotus handle jugs from Crete and Lef Cf. Blegen 1937, 378 - 379 and fig. 1 and IS three cat figures,Jantzen, 21 - 22, B 445, B kandi, are genuinely Egyptian characterized IV, 104, note 150. Antonaccio 1995,61, 791 and B 1608 (for B 445, cf. Parlasca by the central ofthe three rivets oftheir with note 109, re-discusses the contents of 1953, 127); the Samos mirror with an in handles being decorative only, not functio Tomb IX. scription to Mut is also dated to before 600 nal, cf. Culican, 448.The Lefkandi contexts B.C., cf. below note 24. are 9th Cent. B.C. (Catling 1980, 249 - 50 NOTE 24 More recent finds ofEgyptian bronzes at and pi. 243 (T 33.15); Popham -Touloupa - The mirrors with Mut inscription in the the Samian Heraion, Kyrieleis 1986, 189, a Sackett 1982, 239, fig. 8 and pi. 33 a and h Heraia of Samos and Perachora (Munro bronze situla, and Kyrieleis 1990, 24 - 25, a (T.42.17) and Popham - Calligas - Sackett 1969;Jantzen, 33 - 35 (Munro), B 432, pi. priest statuette, B 2611, of7th Cent. B.C. 1989, 118 - 119 and fig. 7 (T 47), cf. Pop 33, and Perachora I, 142 - 143, pi. 46.) For date, at the latest. ham 1994, 17 and fig. 2.5). From their con their absolute chronology and religious sig For one figure only a 6th Cent. B.C. date texts the Cretan finds may be of 8th or 7th nificance, cf. Munro 1969,100 and 108 - seems adopted, the Neith figure,Jantzen, Cent. B.C. date, cf. Boardman 1961, 152, 109,respectively;Trolle 1978, 147 - 148 and 23, B 1287, and pi. 29, cf. Kopcke 1968, but considering the secure chronology of IS II, 57; for the identification of Neith 293, the Lefkandi finds, a 9th Cent. B.C. date ap with Athena, cf.Trolle, loc. cit. At the Hera (I do not understand the remark by Jantzen, pears likely.Cf. Catling 1996, 565 for the ion ofSamos are two Neith statuettes and 89, that the two Harpocrates statuettes in nore recent Knossos finds with a reference one Mut statuette, B 148, B 354 and B Samos must belong to the Twenty-sixth also to a fragment from Tegea. 1287,Jantzen, 27 - 28, pis. 27 - 29.

93 As suggested by Parlasca 1953, 135, note 62, NOTE 28 NOTE 34 occasionally dedications may have been by I follow Kunze and Herrmann in their IS I, 193 - 194, cf. Hall 1995, 603. Egyptians, not Greeks. North Syrian location, cf. references IS I, 192, note 137. (In Kunze's article:The NOTE 35 NOTE 25 "Van" type). For Muscarella's objections, cf. Cf. IS II, 52 - 56 and IS III, 50 and cf. pp. Cf IS II, 58 (with note 50) and 50 (with references above note 27. For comparisons 53-54 and below note 104. note 20 and figs. 3-4), respectively. with North Syrian bulls, cf. e.g. the Tell For the rib phiale, cf. also v. Hase 1995, 273, Halaf reliefs,Moortgat 1955, pis. 48 - 50). note 36 fig. 30. For absolute chronology, cf. p. 44 and refe NM 16563. rences below note 33. Blegen 1939, 428 - 30 and fig. 16;Jantzen NOTE 26 1955, 17, no. 53; AH 49 (NM 13988). NOTE 29 Herrmann 1979, 164, no. 170; cf. IS I, 192 - AH II, 206, pi. LXXVII; Kunze 1950, 101 Delphi Inv. no. 8399. 193, fig. 16, and note 138, for references re and pi. 18,3; Herrmann 1966, 58 (no. 50), Perdrizet 1908, 56, no. 178 and pi. XIV, 3; garding origin and date. 74 (with a list of"Werkstatt A" cauldrons), Rolley 1969, 94 - 95, note 2; Rolley 1984, For Samian production ofcast griffin pro- 76 and 148; IS II, 52 with further referen 282 - 283, referring also to the local bronze tomes, cf. Jantzen 1955, 48 and 57 - 60. ces, and pi.VII a. cauldron from Salamis on Cyprus with grif Among the earliest are three protomes The Gordion siren cauldrons,Turn MM 2 - fins placed on the wings ofsirens; Musca made in three piece-moulds, one for the 3, cf. Gordion I, 104 - 110, figs. 69 - 70 and rella 1992, 18, note 9. head and one for each side,Jantzen 1955, 57 pis. 51 - 57, and for the absolute chrono - 58, nos. 47 - 48, pi. 17 and 18, 1 - 2; Ko- logy of the tomb, cf. below note 42. NOTE 30 pcke 1968, 285, no. 101, pi. 113,4- 5, cf. For the location ofthe workshop to North Kunze, 1950, 96 - 99 ( the "Van" type, cf. Bol 1985, 49 - 50 and fig. 50 and Haynes Syria, cf. Herrmann 1966, 59 - 67 and 174 above note 28) and Herrman 1984,26. 1992, 43-46, pi. 5. - 183; Strom 1971, 132 - 134; and more re Cf. also IS I, 192 - 193, note 137 and IS II, The production ofhollow cast griffin pro cently, Muscarella 1993, 21 - 24, with other 52. For divergent views, cf. below note 31. tomes presumably began around 700 B.C., earlier references. In contrast to other scho not much later than that ofthe hammered lars, Muscarella considers also the Copenha note 31 ones, cf.Jantzen 1955, 84 - 86 and Herr gen (Delphi) and the British Museum siren Herrmann 1984, 33, modifies his views of mann 1979, 146 - 155. Herrmann, however, attachments as North Syrian. Recently, his p. 26 in the same article, cf. above note 30. is apt to date his comparative material too views were refuted by Curtis 1994, 11 - 14, Cf. Rolley 1969, 94 - 96, and Muscarella early; e.g. the Aigina griffin jug (Herrmann cf. figs.23 - 25, who suggests that the for 1992, 18; for the latter, cf. also above note 1979, 151) should be dated to around 675 mer may be an Assyrian provincial work, 27. B.C. or shortly after (cf. this volume p. 386 the latter, indisputably Mesopotamian, may and note 22) and the Bernardini and Barbe- be Babylonian. note 32 rini Tombs in Palestrina (Herrmann 1979, For absolute chronology, cf. p. 44 and refe AH 21 (NM 13970), Cf. IS I, 192,fig.l4 150 with note 28) to around 675 B.C. and rences below note 33. and notes 133, 134 (with earlier references) the second quarter of the 7th Cent. B.C., and 137 and IS II, 54 and pi.VII b. For respectively. (Cf. Strom 1971, 150 - 154; NOTE 27 North Syrian goat renderings, cf. e.g. the 157 - 159 and 170-171 and for the former NM 16552. Blegen 1939, 429 - 430, fig. Kerameikos bowl, KerameikosV, 1, 201 - tomb, Canciani - v. Hase 1979, 10.) On the 16; Kunze 1950,96 - 98 and pi. 16, 1 and 203, fig. 5 and pi. 162 (Inv.no. M 5), cf. other hand, since these tombs are dated 17, 1 - 2; cf. IS I, 192 (with other referen Markoe 1985,203 and 313 - 314, Cat. no. from their imports, including the cauldrons ces, notes 135 and 137) and IS II, 52 with G 1. For its North Syrian origin, cf. refer with griffin protomes, they ought not to be note 28 and pl.V c - d. Muscarella 1992, 18 ences IS II, 47, note 5 (the best illustrations used for establishing an absolute chronology (with other references in the text and in are Akurgal 1966, 148,fig.39 a and pi. 40) of the same imports. (Cf. Strom 1971, 131 - note 9), cannot see the hand which Blegen or the Carchemish stone reliefs, Woolley 134). had previously identified and does not ac 1921,pls.B23andB24. cept the object as part ofa siren's attach For absolute chronology cf. p. 44 and below NOTE 37 ment. Kunze refers also to the feather ren note 33. Herodotus IV, 152. dering ofthe plate. For the bull, cf. below Cf. Jantzen 1955,48 - 49; Herrmann 1979, note 28. NOTE 33 155 - 160 and Floren, 208 and 235, all three Cf. references, IS I, 192 - 193, note 137. supporting the theory ofseveral production centres, including the Argolid, and pointing

94 to this region for the earliest griffin caul Cf. Gordion, 112 and 222, MM 12-13, pi. Turn. W 3 - W 4, fig. 118 and pi. 88 B - C drons. 59 A - C and another head, pi. 95 B from a and Prayon 1987, 127-129 and 211, Cat. However, Kyrieleis 1990, 22, states (about terrace building of the destruction level (cf. nos. 90 - 93, pi. 20 d. For the date ofTumu the Olympia griffin protomes) that "hardly below note 42). Cf. Prayon 1987, 124 - 126 lus W, cf. above note 42. a piece., could be assigned with certainty to and 211, Cat. nos. 81 - 86,Type B. a workshop outside Samos". NOTE 45 The griffin cauldrons cannot be seen as NOTE 42 Phrygian Fibulae. successors to the Geometric tripods, in ty For the absolute chronology ofpre-Kim- Blmkenberg 1926, 210 - 226, XII, 2 -14; pological or in functional sense.Nor is merian tombs and levels at Gordion, cf. Muscarella 1967; Muscarella 1988,425 - there any evidence that the production of Gordion IV, 194 - 196:Tumulus W, ca. 750 427; and Muscarella 1989, 338 - 339. Cf. monumental Geometric bronze tripods was B.C.;Tumulus G, ca. 725 B.C.;Tumuli K III also Gordion I, 239 - 240, with fig. 30, and specifically connected with the Argolid, two and P, the last quarter ofthe 8th Cent. B.C. 269 - 270 and Gordion II 1,211 - 213. arguments advanced in favour of the above and Tumulus MM, ca. 700 B.C. contempor Boehmer 1972, 46 - 66, does not always hypothesis by Herrmann and Floren. For ary with the Kimmerian destruction level agree with Muscarella'sclassification and the possible function ofthe Geometric of the city. Caner 1983, 50 - 193, uses a different one. bronze tripods as perirrhanteria and for Tumulus K IV is pre-Kimmerian, but later A recent summary is given by Donder their production centres, cf. IS IV, 50 and than Tumuli K III and P. 1994,86-95. 51, respectively, and for the function in ban The relevant post-Kimmerian dates are the quets of the griffin cauldrons, cf. IS II, 55 - following: NOTE 46 56 and IS III, 50. Tumulus A, ca. 525 B.C., cf. Kohler 1980, Kilian 1975, 151, cf. IS II, 58 and note 51. 69;Tumuli F and J the last quarter ofthe NOTE 38 7th Cent. B.C., cf. Kohler 1980, 67 and NOTE 47 Cf. most recently Muscarella 1992, 25 - 35 Gordion II 1, 59, respectively. Phrygian fibulae. and Egg 1993/94. Tumulus M, ca. 575 B.C., cf. Kohler 1980, AH 883, 886 - 889, 891, 894 - 896 and 901 67. - 905 (NM 14031, 14032 and 23097 - NOTE 39 Tumulus N, the second quarter ofthe 7th 23099). For the Bursian-Rangabe bull's head, cf. IS Cent. B.C., cf. Gordion II 1, 86. AH II, 244 - 247, pi. LXXXVII. IV, 38; for the two other heads, cf. below Tumulus S 1 is later than MM, close to Z, In my present conception of the genuinely notes 40-41. i.e. the first quarter ofthe 7th Cent. B.C., Phrygian fibulae at the Argive Heraion, and Tumulus S 2 is dated to the first half of there are a few changes from IS II, 58, note NOTE 40 the 6th Cent. B.C., cf. Gordion II 1, 156 52. AH 23. NM (13972) and 144, respectively. AH II, 201 - 202 and pi. LXXV, cf. IS IV, Tumulus Z, ca. 670 B.C., cf. Gordion II 1, NOTE 48 94, note 21 (West Building) and 106. note 156. XII, 7 A, AH 903. Cf. Muscarella 1989, 170. 338, note 21. For the type, cf. Muscarella Kunze 1950, 98 and note 14 and pi. 16, 2; NOTE 43 1967, 17 - 18 and Boehmer 1972, 54 and Amandry 1956, 249; Rolley 1963, 94 - 95, AH 2204 (NM 14018) Gordion I, 210 - 211,W 35 - 55, cf. p. 244 fig. 33; Herrmann 1966, 123, note 28; Kyri AH II, 293 - 294, pi. CXXIII; Herrmann and pis. 91 -92. eleis 1977, 81 and Muscarella 1992, 32 and 1966, 137, note 1 and Muscarella 1992, 32, For the absolute chronology of Gordion, 33. note 73. Tumuli W and G, cf. above note 42. For the Phrygian model, cf. Gordion I, 102 For counterparts in Delphi, cf. inv. nos. This type is not represented at Bogazkoy, - 104, MM 1, figs. 67 - 68 A, pi. 47 A and 3513, 2583, 4128, Perdnzet 1908, 77 - 78, presumably because it belongs to a period 50 and Prayon 1987, 121, (fig.20 f), 124 - nos. 334 - 336, figs. 266 - 67. before Phrygian exports expanded cf. Gor 125 and 211, Cat. nos. 79 - 80,Type B. dion I, 269, and Boehmer 1972, 49 and 54. NOTE 44 NOTE 41 AH 2205 (NM14018). NOTE 49 AH 25 (13973). AH II, 294, pi. CXXIII; Herrmann 1966, XII, 5. AH 895. AH II, 202 and pi. LXXV, (cf. IS IV,95, 136, note 10 Blinkenberg, 212, XII, 5 h; Muscarella 1967, note 24 (Southern Slope), and 106, note Muscarella 1970,114, is inclined to see the 15-16 and note 9. However, both Boeh 170). Olympia griffon attachments as Phrygian, mer 1972, 50-51 and note 323, and Caner Herrmann 1966, 129; Kyrieleis 1977,87, although concluding by referring to them 1983, 104 and notes 6-7 believe that AH and pi. 31, 4 - 5 reference to Delphi, Inv. as,in general, of Near Eastern origin. 895 may just as well belong to no. 2351; Muscarella 1992, 32 and 35. For the Phrygian types, cf. Gordion I, 201,

95 Class XII 2; however, according to Musca since the ends of the arch differ and the also Martelli 1988,108 and note 43). (Sapo- rella 1988,425 - 426, no XII 2 fibulae have catches are not winged); Caner 1983, 131, una-Sakellarakis 1978, 120 - 129, pis. 50 - been reported outside Western Anatolia. note 6 (classified asJ - L); Gordion I, 247 54, catalogues all Phrygian and Phrygian For the type see also Kilian 1975, 151 - and Muscarella 1989, 338 - 339. imitating fibulae from the Greek islands); 152; Gordion I, 243 and Muscarella 1989, Philipp 311 -312, nos. 1116- 1119 (Olym 338. NOTE 53 pia); For the Tegea fibula, cf.Voyatzis, 213 - For the Gordion absolute chronology, cf. XII, 14 A, AH 894. Muscarella 1967, 25 - 214, B 256, pi. 167 (XII, 14).Voyatzis is not above note 42. 26; Boehmer 1972, 65, note 504 and Mus sure about its genuineness, but it seems to carella 1989,339. For the chronology of comply with the stated criteria, cf. above p. NOTE 50 Tomb S 1, cf. above note 42. Boehmer and note 46. XII, 9, AH 901, 902, and 904. Blinken 1979, 6, refers to the Bogazkoy find. berg 1926,216 (AH 901 = XII, 9 o); Mus NOTE 57 carella 1967, 19 - 20 and note 25, and p. 49 NOTE 54 Summary of the discussion, Muscarella with note 2 (AH 901 cast in an open XII, 10, AH 905. Blinkenberg, 218, XII, 10 1989,338 -339. mould); Boehmer 1972, 57, notes 392 and d; for the type cf. also Muscarella 1967, 20 - As Muscarella points out, the Pithekoussai 396, AH 901 (and possibly also AH 902) 21; Boehmer 1972, 57 - 58, note 398 (not finds certify that Phrygian XII 13 fibulae late 8th Cent. B.C. For the type, cf. also one from a certain 8th Cent. B.C. context), were copied in the West before 700 B.C. Kilian 1975, 152 - 153; Caner 1981,69 - and Kilian 1973, 153. Cf. Pithekoussai I, 403, and pis. 130 and 78, A IV ( = XII 8 and 9); Gordion I, 244 - CLIX (Tomb 355, nos. 7 - 8); cf. pp. 401 - 246 and Muscarella 1989,338. NOTE 55 402 for the LG II date ofthe tomb and There are no examples at the Argive Hera Muscarella 1967, 80-81 (Appendix C), Ridgway 1992, 69, for the LG II chrono ion of the Olympia-Samos variety ofXII 9 Boehmer 1983, fig. 8 and Caner 1983, pis. logy, last quarter of the 8th Cent. B.C. fibulae,Jantzen 1962; Jantzen, 48 - 49 and 74 - 75..The provenance ofthe so-called Philipp, 305 - 310, nos. 1104 - 1114. Assur fibula is not correct, cf. Boehmer NOTE 58 1984; for Lycia, cf. Boehmer 1979, 4, note AH 895 and AH 901 are earlier than 700 NOTE 51 18, and for Marino in Latium, references, B.C.; AH 894 and 902 - 903 are late 8th or XII, 13, AH 883, 886 - 888 and 896. Boehmer 1972, 57, note 394. For Phrygian early 7th Centuries B.C. (Groups XII, 5; Blinkenberg, 221, XII 4, 13 p, here also fi fibula renderings on Near Eastern reliefs, cf. XII, 7 A; XII, 9 and XII 14 A. cf. above pp. bulae of type XII 14 (cf. below note p. 48 and below note 64. 46-47. Probably also some of the XII, 13 fi 52):(fig.252=AH888). bulae are early,cf. above p. 47 and note 57. Muscarella 1967, 22; Boehmer 1972, 60, NOTE 56 note 430; Caner 1983, 122 and note 32 Many of the Phrygian fibulae in Greece re NOTE 59 (AH 883) and 119 and note 123 (AH 885 corded by Muscarella 1967, 80 - 81, Appen AH 885, 890, 892 - 893 and 897 - 900 and 896 (Class H). However, AH 885 does dix C, are left out as Greek imitations by (NM 14032 and 20880). not have the genuinely Phrygian type of Boehmer, 1972, 50 - 51, note 323.This ap AH II, 245 - 246, pi. LXXXVII, cf. Blin catch. plies e.g. to all Phrygian fibulae from Pera kenberg, 221 (XII 13 p), 225 (XII 14 r - s) For XII 13, in general, cf. Blinkenberg, 219 chora. Although Boehmer here also leaves and for AH 900, cf. IS II, 58, note 49. - 222; Muscarella 1967, 21-24; Kilian out fibulae from e.g. Ephesos and the De- For AH 883 and 887, cf. above note 51. 1975, 153 - 154; Gordion I, 246 - 247; Phi lion on Paros, he elsewhere refers to other lipp 311 -312, regarding nos. 1116- 1119, genuinely Phrygian fibulae at these sites, cf. NOTE 60 and Muscarella 1989, 338 - 339. Boehmer 1972, 48, note 294; 54, note 359; Kilian 1975, 155 - 156, cf. Philipp, 315 - For the Gordion chronology cf. above note and 57, note 390.1 have seen no references 317 and Donder 1994, 95 - 99. 42. to Phrygian fibulae from Delphi, although there are Phrygian belt buckles there, cf. NOTE 61 NOTE 52 below note 68. AH II, 247 - 248, pi. LXXXVIII. XII, 14, AH 889 and 891. Blinkenberg, For later publications see Jantzen, 48 - 49, B Blinkenberg 221 - 222 (XII 13, q = AH 225, XII, 13 p (cf. above note 51) and XII, 1513, pi. 44 (Samos); Kilian 1975, 151 - 906 - 909, 911- 912 and 914 - 915)(NM 14 r; Muscarella 1967, 24 - 25; Boehmer 154, pi. 58 (Pherai, presumably an Athena 14032); cf. Perachora I, 171, pi. 17, 10 and 1972, 63, note 496 (includes also AH 892 Enodia sanctuary, cf. op. cit. p. 7); Sapouna- pi. 73, 25, 29 and 32; Philipp, 315 - 316, and 893, which I accepted in IS II, 58, note Sakellarakis 1978, 124, no. 1617 and pi. 50 nos. 1128 - 30, pi. 70 (Olympia);Voyatzis, 52. However, they do not fulfil the criteria and p. 128, no. 1678, pi. 53 (Ialysos and 217, L 47, pi. 179 and note 292, and Mitso- given by Kilian, cf. above p. 46 and note 46, Thasos, respectively;for the former site, cf. poulos-Leon - Ladstatter 1996, 45, fig. 7 (Lusoi, five examples). 96 Cf. Muscarella 1967, 26 and pi. IX for the bulae, Hadascek 1902, 211 - 212, figs. 66 - (Inv. nos. 90/K 775, 777) figs. 27 - 33 and XII 13 fibula type in Gordion,Tumulus S 1; 67, cf. below note 141. Bammer 1996, 78 and figs. 93 - 94, publ cf. above note 42 for chronology. ishes Phrygian bronze belts from Ephesos, Blinkenberg, 226 - 227 (XII 15 c = AH NOTE 66 proposing that they were used for the cult 910 and 916 - 918) (NM 14031 and For the Argive Hera cult statue, cf. p. 59 and statue and referring to a Roman copy of 14032); Perachora I, 171, pi. 73, 19 and cf. below notes 141 and 149 - 150. Artemis Ephesia wearing such a belt, Bam p. 54 and below note 113. AH 883, 887, and 901 were found at vari mer 1991/92, 42, fig. 34 and Bammer 1996, ous places east ofthe Second Temple and 78 and fig. 95. NOTE 62 thus in the Altar area; AH 890, 897, 905, References above note 60. AH 884 (NM 907 and 915 were found either in the West NOTE 69 20880/2), cf. Kilian, 155, note 1; close to Building, at the Back ofSouth Stoa or on AH 2215 - 2216 (NM 20628 a and (3). Perachora I, pi. 73, 21 and 24, and Donder the Southern Slope, cf. AH II, 244 - 248. AH II, 294, pi. CXXIII, cf. IS II, 50 - 52 1994, 95 - 100, Cat. no. 49, pi. 11; and pos with other references, note 24, and pi.VI a - sibly also AH 2143 (NM 20612) = AH II, NOTE 67 b.(AH 2215 is photographed from the in 291 and pi. CXXI, a damaged fibula with For the suggestion ofPhrygian dress offer side, AH 2216 from the outside; the latter an irregular arch and a melonshaped central ings in Greek sanctuaries, cf.Jantzen 1962, photograph is turned upside-down. AH II, moulding; its ends are cut off. 42; Boehmer 1972, 53 and Boehmer 1973, pi. CXXIII has also an inside photograph of especially pp. 166 - 172, with references to AH 2216). For the measures of the Phry NOTE 63 Phrygian dresses in Greek Archaic vase-pa gian bowls, cf. references, below note 70, to Tumulus MM, cf. Gordion I, 101, 168 - 169 inting with conclusions p. 172; Boehmer Gordion, nos. MM 55 - 69. and 248 - 249; 30 fibulae were found either 1983, 75 - 80, especially fig. 4 and note 9, on the upper part ofthe body or on the with references to luxurious textiles as Near NOTE 70 bed, whereas 145 spare ones were wrapped Eastern Royal gifts or tributes. In particular, Shallow bowls with spool-shaped attach in a linen cloth and placed on the floor at the ornamental XII 9 fibula with double ments from Tumulus MM, cf. Gordion I, the head ofthe body. pins, one ofwhich was found in the Samian 125 - 131 and 229 - 233, MM 55 - 69, and For Tumulus S 1, cf. Gordion II 1,116- Heraion (cf.Jantzen 1962 and Jantzen, 48 - pis. 65 - 67. (The wooden shallow bowls of 117. 49, pi. 44, no. B 1513). is regarded as an ex Tumuh W and P, Gordion I, 171, 207 and ample of Royal gifts, Boehmer 1972, 53; 230, had only bolster-shaped attachments NOTE 64 Boehmer 1973, 151 - 152, and Boehmer and ring handles in bronze, not the spool Cf. Boehmer 1972, 46 - 47; Boehmer 1973, 1983, 78-80 and fig. 5. like elements). 150 - 152 and fig. 3; Boehmer 1983, 78 - For Phrygian textiles influencing Cycladic The bowl from Tumulus J, Gordion II 1, 59 80, pi. 21.3; and Caner 1983,Tafel C, for the vase-painting around 700 B.C. cf. this vo and 64, pi. 37 and fig. 26 D (no.Turn.J 20), Ivriz relief with a representation ofa XI1,9 lume, p. 386 and note 20. cf. Gordion I, 229 and 233, pi. 95 A.The fibula; and cf. Boehmer 1972, 51, and For the Artemis Ephesia cult statue, cf. bowls from Tumulus A are still unpublished, Boehmer 1983, 75 and fig. 2, for the Khor- below note 68. but described Gordion II 1,64 (B 325 and sabad relief with a representation ofa Phry For dress offerings in Greek sanctuaries, cf. 326). For the Gordion chronology,cf. above gian wearing a XII, 7 fibula, with reference references, IS. IV, 66 and note 218 and cf. note 42. to Barnett 1948, 9, who was the first to in- above note 14. The early date of the Argive Heraion bowls terprete this person as a Phrygian. which I gave, IS II, 50, was thus not correct. NOTE 68 NOTE 65 Phrygian and Phrygian-imitating belt NOTE 71 AH II, 24', Cat.Tc, no. 82, fig. 34, cf. Hada- buckles in Greece (the latter type from Cf. Matthaus 1985, 135 and note 9; Musca scek 1902,211 and fig. 65; Boehmer 1972, , Ephesos, Samos, and Smyrna), rella 1989, 339 and 340 with detailed refe 53 and Boehmer 1973, 149 - 50, fig.l. Boardman 1962; Boardman 1967, 214 - rences, also to the Perachora bowls, Pera Hadascek's other atttempts at identifying 221; Muscarella 1989,339; chora I, pi. 55, nos. 2 and 4; cf. IS II, 52, specific fibula types on the terra-cotta statu Jantzen, 49 - 53, pis. 45 - 46 (imitations as note 24. ettes of the Heraion are less convincing. well as Phrygian originals, Samos);Picard The whole Olympia bowl, BCH 1978, 683, The so-called spectacle fibulae, AH II, 20, et. al. 1991, 158 - 159, no. 22 and fig.22 fig. 86,The fragments in Olympia, Furt- tc. nos. 45 - 46, pi. XLII, 9, are not spiral or (Delphi). I thank dr.Thomas Volling for in wangler 1890, 136, nos. 852, Inv. nos. 7612 naments, but bosses surrounded by circular formation of an unpubished example in and 12386 (the last with vertical bronze relief lines; for the so-called serpeggianti fi Olympia. studs) are all regarded as genuinely Phrygian Bammer 1991/92,35 - 43, nos. 12-13 by Muscarella and other scholars. I have not

97 seen them, but the horizontally grooved de 1964, 68 and Isthmia IV, 28 with other NOTE 80 coration ofthe two first-mentioned references, note 55. Cf, in particular, the The Perachora lotus bowls have the same "spools" appear strange to me. Isthmia perirrhanteria in stone or terra basic variations ofdecorative scheme, cf. For imitations from Cyprus and Italy, cf. cotta ofabout the same dimensions as AH Perachora I, pi. 52, 2 and pi. 52, 1, respect below note 76. 2788 and the Corinth perirrhanteria, imita ively, for AH 1995 (NM 20583 a) and 1998 ting the bolster handles of the Phrygian (20583 5), cf.AH II,pi. CXVI. NOTE 72 shallow bowls. (The Isthmia stone perir- Floren, 390, with earlier references note 3, rhanterion, Isthmia IV, 1-61, pis. 1 - 26 NOTE 81 and pi. 34, l.The best illustrations are Akur- and plates A and B; the terra-cotta perir- Gordion I, 233 - 236; for Tumulus W 9 - gal 1961, 206, figs. 167 - 173. rhanterion, cf. Isthmia IV,28, pi. 81 A - B 18, cf. pp. 204 - 205 and for Tumulus P,pp. and pp. 15 - 16, note 6 and cf. pp. 18 - 19 11 and 14 - 15. For absolute chronology, cf. NOTE 73 for a list ofsimilar perirrhanteria in Greece above note 42. Young, Gordion I, 230, refers to AH 2087 - and pp. 26 and 51 for their chronology. Cf. 2190 and sees AH 2141 as a possibly Phry also Iozzo 1987, 356 and 361 - 362, nos. 10 NOTE 82 gian piece. AH II, 290 - 293, pis. CXXI - - 11, pi. 64 and Kerrscher 1996, 63 - 70 for Gordion I, 233 and 235 - 236, cf. 131 - CXXIII, cf. p. 79 and below notes 260 - Corinthian terra-cotta perirrhanteria dated 141, MM 74 - 123, pis. 69 - 70 and figs. 86 262. ca. 650 B.C. onwards and pp. 87 - 96 for and 90 A - B (MM 70 - 73 are slightly dif stone perirrhanteria). ferent, with a decorated omphalos); cf. Gor NOTE 74 dion II 2, 204 - 205. For the absolute chro AH 2217 (NM 20628 y). NOTE 78 nology ofTumulus MM and the Kimme- AH II, 294, pl.CXXIII, cf. IS II, 52, note 24 For the iron tripod used as a perirrhante- rian destruction level of Gordion, cf. above and pi.VI c. rion in Isthmia, cf. Isthmia IV,27, and pi. 80 note 42. d, and for the possibility ofa corresponding NOTE 75 function ofthe hammered tripod found NE NOTE 83 AH 2788 (NM 14009). of the Argive Heraion, cf. IS IV,50. Cf. in particular, Gordion I, 233 and 236, AH II, 329 and pi. CXXXV. Kerschner 1996, 95 - 96, disccusses also with reference to Luschey 1939, 4, for the metal perirrhanteria and, pp. 107 - 114, the Assyrian phiale with a solid boss. NOTE 76 placing of the perrrhanteria in the sanctu Jantzen, 54 - 55, nos. B 1397 and 13 1633, ary.Wooden perirrhanteria are, however, NOTE 84 pi. 50, and Gauer 1991, 34 - 35 and 190, Le not mentioned. References above note 82 and cf. Gordion 72 - 75, pi. 19, for Samos and Olympia, re II l,205:TheformMC 198, pi. 83.1. spectively. For the Cypriot type rim bands, NOTE 79 cf. below note 106 (AH 2074 and 2077), Lotus Bowls. NOTE 85 AH II, 329, reference to similar fragments AH 1975 - 1978, AH 1985 - 1986, AH Gordion II 1, 204 - 205 and 159 (form va from the Athenian Acropolis. 1988, AH 1990 - 2000(NM 20485, 20576 riations); 118 and 125 (Turn. S 1, 7 - 9, fig. I see an intermediate stage between the ori and 20579 - 20584) and NM 49.64. 52 B, C, D, F and pi. 65 A - C); 159 (Turn. ginal Phrygian bowls and AH 2788, in the AH II, 283 - 285 and 337 - 338, pis. CXIV Z 12, fig. 68 B and pi. 81 D); 59 - 60 (Turn Phrygian imitations from either Cyprus, - CXVI and Caskey - Amandry 1952, 179, J 2, fig. 25 A and pis. 33 A and 35 B - C Matthaus 1985, 134 - 136, nos. 372 - 375, no. 73, fig. 2, here fig. 12; presumably there (earlier than the tomb context in general; pi. 26 - 27, or Greece, e.g. a similar Olym are other lotus bowls among the phialai p. 59 regarded as only slightly later than the pia bowl, B 10369, about 40 cm. in diame mesomphaloi mentioned here. Kimmerian destruction and p. 159 dated la ter and decorated along the rim with se AH 1980, which was found in the Altar ter than Z 12 because oflack ofan incised veral such attachments. area, cf. IS I, 176, note 33, is not a lotus OUt-line of its petal tips)); 144 - 145 ( S 2,3 The Vulci bowl, Br. Mus. Inv. no. 50. 2 - 27. bowl, but a low open bowl on a ring foot; - 4, fig. 60 B - C and pi. 75 C). For absolute 19, cf. Haynes 1977, 29, pi 19 d, is, in my for AH 1981 - 1984 and 1987, cf. below chronology ofthe tumuli, cf. above note 42. opinion, Etruscan, having many detailed notes 258 and 288; AH 1989 is possibly an features which do not have parallelsin the oinochoe rim, cf.below note 286.The bowl NOTE 86 other examples. from the Upper Hill, AH 1977, cf. IS I, 192, Cf. above note 80. note 136.The other find spots were the NOTE 77 West Building, the Back ofSouth Stoa,the NOTE 87 For early Greek perirrhanteria being mo southern Slope and the Eastern Retaining Gordion I, 235 - 236 (Ankara, Bogazkoy delled on Phrygian bowls, cf. Knudsen Wall, cf. IS IV, 38 - 39. and Kerkeres Dag) and Matthaus 1985, 153 - 154, pi. 31, 415 (Cyprus) 98 NOTE 88 the 5th Cent. B.C. and connected with a The inscription may be secondary. ADelt 19 B, 1964, 67 and pi. 171 and BCH very deep spring; the shaft was filled up be Vollgraff 1948, 43, has a different reading 1966, 817, fig. 9. fore the middle of the 5th Cent. B.C. Ergon (cf. SEG XI.(1954), 39, no. 308) which/ 1984, 53 - 56, figs.81-82, cf. AR 1985 - however, does not correspond with the pre NOTE 89 86,17- 18. served letters. The chronology used to be based on the Tocra I, 158 and 160, nos. 56 - 58, fig. 75. The combination of Hera and Damos Perachora "Sacred Pool" deposit, cf. below One bowl comes from Deposit III, closed at marks the object as the public property of notes 95 - 97. ca. 530 B.C.; another has an extremely sim Hera. Cf. Miller 1994 a, 95 (with reference Menadier 1996, 91 - 116, restudies all Pera plified design for which I do not know of to AH 1,217 and 218) chora deposits, concluding that the absolute any parallel. Of the Athenian Acropolis lotus bowls of chronology often is considerably later than For the Trebenischte lotus bowls, cf. Filow which there apparently were a very large stated in the Perachora publication. I follow 1927, 75-76, fig. 93,TombVI, 30 and VII, number, only the inscriptions are published, her results. 25), and for the absolute chronology ofTre cf. de Ridder 1896, 72 - 73, nos. 219 - 223 benischte, cf. below p. # and note 271. and Bather 1892-93, 126, nos. 8 - 11, pi.VI, NOTE 90 At Berbati was found a fragmentary terra ofwhich nos. 8-9 have dedicatory inscrip The votive deposit at the Eastern Retaining cotta lotus bowl, which seems to have been tions, while nos. 10 - 11 have the inscripti Wall was closed around 550 B.C., cf. Caskey formed over an original bronze bowl. ons of: iepov xr\c, A6r)vcaac; andiepcx -Amandry 1952,210-212. Wells 1996, 200 - 201, no. 89, fig. 25. I AGnvaiaq. thank Gunnel Ekroth for information about NOTE 91 this piece. note 95 The latest primary context in Greece seems Lotus bowls in private collections, cf. Anti- The Perachora lotus bowls, cf. above note to be that of Rhamnous of early 5th Cent. ken aus rheinischem Privatbesitz 1973, 146 93. B.C. date, cf. below note 92. - 147, no. 221, pi. 105 and AAA 3. 1970, The Sacred Pool, Perachora 1. 120 - 122, cf. The inscription ofAH 1977 is Late Archaic 348, figs. 4-5. Menadier 1996, 83 - 84 and 100 - 104 with or Early Classical, but it may be secondary, earlier references. cf. below note 94. NOTE 93 Cf. Perachora I, 150, pis. 52 - 54; 134, 3 NOTE 96 note 92 and 10-11 and 135, 2-3. Compare the Tomlinson 1990, 99 - 100 andTomlinson For the Perachora bowls, cf. below note 93. outline drawings of the last-mentioned 1992, 333 - 337 and 349 - 350. (Discus References, in general, cf. Perachora I, 149 - plates with figs. 14 and 16, here. I have seen sion). 150. (The silver bowls to which Payne re some of the Perachora bowls in the Isthmia For the identification ofthe hearth building fers here are variations ofthe ordinary lotus Museum, but they are so encased in plaster (formerly the Hera Limenia Temple) as a bowl). that technical details are not observable hestiatorion, cf.Tomlinson 1977, 197 and Cf. also below the neighbouring votive de today. Tomlinson 1992,333. posits, p. 54 and notes 110 and 112. The decorative scheme ofthe bowls at the Presumably the hearth building was built in Athena Pronaia. Delphi, Inv. 8404, FdD two sites is very similar, cf. above p. # and the early 6th Cent. B.C., cf. Menadier 1996, II 3, 94, fig. 102. note 80. 88-90,110- 111 and 118- 119. Olympia Besides the bowl, Ol. IV, 141, no. For the Delphi, Olympia and Tocra bowls, 880, pi. LII, fragments ofothers are mentio cf. above note 92. NOTE 97 ned, loc. cit. Menadier 1996, 103 - 104, with reference Of Samos B 1332, only a fragment of the NOTE 94 to the conclusions ofSinn 1990, 103. How omphalos bottom with part ofthe side is AH 1977, cf. IS I, 192 with note 136. ever according to Menadier 1996, 104, the preserved, measuring 12.6 X 9.5 cm., AH 1985 (NM 20579 a+p), cf. AH II, 84 early 4th Cent, building program comprised showing the normal naturalistic lotus de and 337, pi. CXV not only the Upper Terrace, but also the sign. AH 1994 (NM 20582 e), cf. AH II, 284 and area immediately west of the Archaic hestia In the Museum ofTripolis two lotus bowls 337 - 338, pi. CXV (here fig. 15). Several of torion, the closing date of which was ca. are on exhibition, in a show case, labelled: the letters I cannot read; others I read diffe 450 B.C., cf. Menadier 1996, 121 - 122. "Various sanctuaries". rently from the publication in AH II. This chronology makes it quite possible that Rhamnous. Five bowls were found stacked, Jeffery 1961,151. The H is definitely open. the large "Sacred Pool" deposit ofvotives one inside the other, at the bottom of a According to Jeffery's diagram other letters and cult objects contained discarded mate vertical shaft more than 27 m. deep, under also point toward a Late Archaic/Early Cl rial from more than one cult building, thus the temple, dug out in the first decades of assical date, A 3; M 2 or 3; O 1; R 2 or 4. perhaps including that of the Archaic hestia torion.

99 NOTE 98 NOTE 105 NOTE 107 Cf. Richter- Milne 1935, 29.Tomlinson Menadier 1996, 160 - 164, refers to the AH 969 - 970 b. 1992, 350, with reference also to the cultic correspondance ofthe two sanctua AH II, 251, pis. LXXXIX and CXXXVII; Chostia/Chorsiai inventory list of banquet ries as observable,in particular, in the AH 969 conies from the Southeastern ting equipment,Tomlinson 1980, 221. The phialai and in the banquetting tradition of Slope, AH 970 from the Back ofSouth very small number ofdrinking vessels at the obeloi, cf. also IS III, 45 - 46 and 49. Stoa. this sanctuary (1 phiale and 12 skyphoi, as The drachme inscription in the Archaic he compared to 35 cauldrons) may be due to a stiatorion of Perachora is now dated to the NOTE 108 combination of metal and ceramic drinking 7th Cent. B.C.cf. Immerwahr 1990,16,ap Cf. Perachora II, 462 and H6lbl 1979, 179 vessels having been used, cf. the discussion, parently accepted by both Tomlinson 1990, and 212 - 214, for the distribution ofthe Tomlinson 1992,350 (Schachter). 333, and Menadier 1996, 111. so-called Perachora-Lindia scarabs (includ The initiation ceremony in which the ing the Argive Heraion and the Artemis Rhamnous bowls apparently were used be NOTE 106 Ephesia sanctuary) and their possibly Rho- fore being stacked at the bottom of the AH 2022 (NM 13981). dian manufacture. Cf. also below note 136. shaft (cf.above note 92) may have been a AH II, 286, pi. CXVII. For swivel rings with wire at the Athena drinking ceremony and not a libation, cf. A miniature jug, its vertical handle in the Lindia sanctuary, cf. Lindos I, 377 - 378, Wells 1988. form ofa snake, may ultimately derive from nos. 1365 - 1368, pi. 59. the Phoenician palmette jugs with vertical NOTE 99 handles ending in snakes heads; Matthaus note 109 Cf. above p. 44 and references, note 35. 1985, 252, note 1, compares it with nos. 552 Caskey - Amandry 1952, 176, no. 70 (M and 554, pi.73, the latter dated to CA II, i.e. 49,.97), pis. 46 - 47. Cf. Culican, 363 - 384; note 100 from shortly before 600 B.C. to shortly af Boardman - Buchner 1966 and Boardman Tomlinson 1990, 99 - 100 with reference to ter 500 B.C., cf. op. cit. p. 11.As a miniature 1990. Gordion I and to deVries 1980 b. vase, it is presumably later than its model. Also the situla types in Tumulus MM were AH 2055 (NM 20664) NOTE 110 used as drinking vessels, cf. Reade 1995, 44, AH II,288,pl.CXIX. Blegen 1939, 420 and fig. 8; the left bowl in figs. 9 and 12-13. A bowl handle with a lotus bud on its top; the illustration has a series of raised points the originally Egyptian type was imitated in in its outer omphalos ring, like some the NOTE 101 Cyprus in the early first Millenium B.C.; it Perachora bowls, cf. Perachora I pi. 54, 1 - Cf. summary, Menadier 1996, 153 - 172. has a wide distribution area in the Near 2. East, Greece and Italy. NOTE 102 Cf. Ol. IV, 146,at no. 911;Jacobsthal 1956, NOTE 111 Cf. abovep. and note 79.There were a large 47 - 49; Strom 1971, 129; Matthaus 1985, Cf.Antonaccio 1995,59 - 60:To Prosymna number oflotus bowls at the Athenian 124-127, pis. 20 - 2; (for Amnissos, cf. TombVIII belongs also the so-calleddepo Acropolis, cf. above note 94. above note 21) and Muscarella 1988, 667, sit north ofTomb VII, cf. here pp. 64 and fig. 3. 84-87, figs. 16 and 45 and notes 112, 176, NOTE 103 AH 2074 (NM 20602 a) and AH 2077 308, 323 and 337. Cf. above pp. 41-45 and 50-51 and notes 26 (NM 20602 (3). - 28, 32 and 40 - 41 for the cauldrons and AH II 289 and pi. CXXI. NOTE 112 notes 79 and 82 for the lotus bowls. Two bronze bands with rings for swivel Prosymna,TombVIII, Prosymna 164, cf. AH 49 even is attributed to the same handles. Blegen 1937, 380, fig.. 6, no. 1. Blegen does workshop as the Gordion cauldrons, while Matthaus 1985, 132, note 8. not state the types ofthe other mesom- the incised decoration of the bull of NM These bands are ultimately of Egyptian ori phalic bowls in this tomb as well as in 16552 reminds one ofthe incised decora gin;the Cypriot type which the Argive tombs IX, XIX, XXVI, XXXIV and XL. tion ofthe Gordion siren attachments. Heraion fragments imitate hasa very wide distribution area in the Near East as well as NOTE 113 NOTE 104 in Greece in the first Millenium B.C., cf. Blegen 1939, 412 - 414, fig. 4, cf. IS IV, 71, Cf. references above note 35.The role of Mathaus 1985, 132 and Gauer, 34 - 35 and fig. 35. the Zeus' sanctuaries in this respect is less 190 -191, in particular, 181, Le 81. certain. Cf. also p. 55 and below note 115. NOTE 114 Blegen 1939, 412, fig.2, cf. above p. 54 and notes 107 -108. Cf. also IS IV 84 and fig. 47 for a "Kalotten-Schale" in tomb XL.

IOO NOTE 115 Assyrian/North Syrian 8th.- 7th Cent. B.C. NOTE 126 Cf IS IV, 84 and fig. 47 and note 326 for fibula and rib phialai are not exactly dated, Muscarella 1989, 333 - 334 and 342; cf. the "Kalotten-Schale" and Courbin 1974, cf. above p. 41 and note 25. Muscarella 1992,42. 20 and 130, pi. 23, B 2,Tomb 6, 2, and Mathaus 1985, 132, note 8, for the bowl NOTE 119 NOTE 127 with swivel handles. Cf. above pp. 85-86 and notes 115 - 116 E.g. the following scholars see the Greek al and cf. IS IV, 61, 77 - 78, 84 - 85 and 88 - phabet as transmitted to Phrygia, Muscarella NOTE 116 89. 1989, 337; Gordion IV, 176(Sams); and Vollgraff, Br 1854 (both fibulae have the Kuhrt 1995,566. same number) and Aphrodision 73/633. NOTE 120 Cf. IS II, 59, note 53.(The Aphrodision fi IS IV, 92 (Conclusions), cf. IS II, 57 - 59. NOTE 128 bula is not a "Scharnierfibula" as stated Non-mercantile relations may explain the there). NOTE 121 scarcity of Greek pottery finds in Gordion. For XII, 11, cf. Blinkenberg, 218 and Mus Cf. above pp. 85-86 and notes 100 and 103. Cf. Muscarella 1989, 337 and Gordion IV, carella 1967, 21. XII 11 fibulae are found in Most scholars connected with the Gordion 176 for finds of early Greek pottery and Gordion Tumuli S 1 and N. (Cf. Gordion II excavations identify Gordion Tumulus MM Greek fibulae in Gordion. 1,86-87, pi. 50 A (Turn. N 2) and p. 130, with the tomb of King Midas, cf. Gordion fig. 31, (Turn. S 1,31) and above note 42 for I, 271 - 272; Gordion W, 176 and Gordion NOTE 129 absolute chronology); but the considerable II 1,228. Cf above pp. 47-48 and notes 56 and 68 swelling of the arch is characteristic ofthe However, Muscarella 1986, 196, believes and cf. the discussion on Phrygian dress of Western Asia Minor production, cf. Caner that the tomb was closed while King Midas ferings above p. 48 and note 67, and the 1983, 98-99, pis. 40-41 (E II 1), nos. 555 was still alive. Phrygian fibula ofone ofthe terra-cotta - 556 from Bursa and Ephesos and found statuettes at the Argive Heraion (fig. 10), see also on Ithaca. I cannot see any swelling of NOTE 122 notes 65 - 66. the Ithaca fibula to which Caner refers loc. References above note 35, cf. note 104. cit. NOTE 130 NOTE 123 Young 1963 and Birmingham 1961, in NOTE 117 In IS II, 60,1 saw the bronze vessels in particular fig. 11, in which the latter part of The earliest Phrygian import, the fibula AH question as "acquired within a short period the main route is divided, one branch end 903, above p. 46 and note 48. oftime and possibly from a limited Near ing at Smyrna, another at Ephesos. Cf. also For counterparts in Gordion Tumulus MM Eastern area" in " perhaps even a kind of Muscarella 1989, 337, with other references. of North Syrian cauldrons, of Phrygian- coordination of acquisitions" and asked the Morris 1992, XV, remains sceptical about imitating cauldrons and the imitations of question whether the group of Greek san the land route, However, for the particular the lotus bowls, cf above pp. 53-54 and re ctuaries might have some "kind oforgani wine sets of Near Eastern bronze vessels ferences note 103. For the early Phrygian zed dealings with the Near East?" and close imitations found at the Argive fibulae in general, cf above p. 47 and note Heraion, I see no other possibility than the

58 and for the early 7th Cent. B.C. Phry NOTE 124 route. gian and Phrygian-imitating bronze vessels, DeVries 1980 b, advocates similar ideas, but cf above pp. 48-51 and notes 69-70 and 85. in connection with the society ofthe Ho NOTE 131 The only definitely late Phrygian bronze is meric poems, i.e. the aristocracy ofthe Cf above p. 54 and references note 118. AH 2216, possibly of 6th Cent. B.C. date, settlements (in the Greek Mainland and on cf. above p. 49 and note 70. Ithaca), where we do not have the same NOTE 132 material evidence for late 8th Cent. B.C. Cf, in particular, IS II, 49 - 55 and figs. 3 note 118 contacts with Phrygia. and 5. Cf above note 117 for Phrygian contacts. For the Phoenician reliefbowls, cf. also The North Syrian connections are obser NOTE 125 below note 133. Cf. also the Samian griffin vable in the large cauldrons with siren at Gordion I, 176 - 181 and 183 - 187, figs. protome at the Argive Heraion, NM 16563, tachments or animal handles, AH 49, AH 21 104 - 107 and 110 - 111 and pis.44 - 45 Fig. 6, above p. 44 and notes 36 - 37 and for and NM 16552, all dated to the late 8th for a wooden inlaid table and wooden in the Egyptian bronzes at both sites,above p. Cent. B.C. or around 700 B.C., cf. above laid screens in Gordion,Tumulus MM. 40 and notes 15 and 16 - 19. pp. 41-44 and notes 26 - 28 and 32; for ab The banquet tradition at the Samian Hera solute chronology, cf p. 44 and note 33.The ion differs from the one at the Argive Hera-

IOI ion in the obeloi with Cypriot counter veral scholars have got the impression that. NOTE 143 parts, cf. IS III, 46, and in the very limited Kilian-Dirlmeier's Perachora studies refer to Cf. IS IV,38 - 39 and 94, note 17 (AH 17, use of lotus bowls, cf. above p. 52 and note Phoenician bronzes, cf. e.g.Tomlinson near East Stoa), note 21 (AH 30 and AH 51, 92. 1992, 323. Cf, also IS IV, 60 and note 185. West Building), note 22 (NM 16357, East The Phrygian and Phrygian-imitating fi Retaining Wall), note 23 (AH 33, Back of bula types at both sites are not quite identi note 137 South Stoa); p. 95, note 24 (AH 3, AH 5 cal and e.g. the "Samos-Olympia" type of Cf for specialization in Geometric bronzes and AH 27 - 28, Southern Slope)and note XII, 9 fibulae is lacking at the Argive Hera in different sanctuaries, IS IV, 88, and for 26 (AH 24 North-West Building). ion, cf. above note 50. other signs of early specialization, e.g. the stone seals ofthe Argive Heraion (IS IV,56, NOTE 144 NOTE 133 and references note 103); the iron manufa Cf. IS IV, 58. In particular, a distinction is required as re cture ofAthena Enodia in Philia (Kilian gards the Near Eastern so-called Phoenician 1983); the Samian production ofhollow NOTE 145 or Cypro-Phoenician relief bowls in cast griffin protomes (above note 36) and AH 26 and AH 27 are later than the here bronze, which in Greece definitely include the regionally determined imitations of relevant period, cf. IS I, 185, note 75;The North Syrian bowls as e.g. the Kerameikos Phrygian fibulae (cf. above note 50, the date ofAH 28 I cannot determine. bowl, cf references above note 32. E.g. Samos-Olympia type, and note 61, the Ar Markoe 1985, does not distinguish between give Heraion-Perachora types). NOTE 146 North Syrian and Phoenician bowls and his AH 24 (NM 13942) list comprises also at least one local relief NOTE 138 AH II, 202, pi. LXXV; cf. IS. IV, 106, note bowl, Perachora I, 154 and pi. 133, cf. Mar Cf. above p. 54 and note 105. 170. koe 1985,209, G 11, with a rim decoration Cf, above p. 43, Fig. 7 and note 40; for the similar to that ofthe Greek lotus bowls. note 139 shoulder rendering of Phrygian animals, e.g. Menadier 1996,216-217. Prayon 1987, pi. 39. NOTE 134 Rollig 1993, 93 - 94, cf. Frankfort 1953, note 140 NOTE 147 188; In my previous studies I have used IS IV, 86- 88. AH 30 (NM 13969) Frankfort's distinction between North Sy AH II, 203, pi. LXXVI. rian and Phoenician, cf. e.g. Strom 1971, NOTE 141 For Near Eastern parallels to the separate 237, note 163. Cf. A. Frickenhaus' identification ofthe arm, cf. Curtis - Reade 1995, 102, nos. 46 - large ornaments on the terra-cotta statuet 48 (stone) and Aubet 1971, 142 - 144 (pa note 135 tes in the Heraia ofTiryns, Perachora and rallels for the ivory arms ofthe Barberini Cf. above pp. 39-41 and 49-54 and notes the Argive Heraion as illustrations of ships Tomb in Palestrina). 10, 24, 25, 71, 80 and 93 and 105.1 regard decorated with flowers of the holy Asterion The mouse on the hand ofAH 30 is con the hammered griffin protomes as North (Tiryns 1,121 - 125, pi. Ill, cf AH 11,25- siderably more schematic than the bronze Syrian, cf. Strom 1971, 131 - 134 and IS II, 26, nos. 83 - 84 and 93, figs.35 - 36 and pi. figure ofa mouse from the Menelaion 54 with note 31 with reference to Pera XLV, 11, and Caskey - Amandry 1952, 185, coming from a fill,which mostly contained chora. no. 130, pi. 48, and cf.Perachora I, 243 - Archaic material, but also some early 5th There are no certain Phrygian fibula im 244,nr.245 and pi. 110). Cent.B.C. sherds. Catling 1976 - 77, 38 and ports at Perachora, cf. above note 56, but For the holy Asterion, cf. Pausanias II, 17, 2 fig. 37. the Phrygian-imitating fibulae at both sites andLIMC IV 1,664 - 665, no. 31, pi. 405. AH 29 (NM 13968). indicate close connections in their manu For wooden ship models at the Heraion of AH II, 203, pi. LXXVI, cf. Gabelmann facture,cf. above pp. 47-48 and note 61. Samos, cf. Kyrieleis 1993, 141 - 143, Fig. 7. 1965, 69 - 73 and Herfort-Koch 1986, 63 - The so-called Phoenician Perachora bowl is 10. 64 and cf in particular, the lion fibulae, to local, cf above note 133, and should be left which AH 946 belongs, p. 85 and below out in distribution maps of Phoenician re NOTE 142 note 325. lief bowls, cf. v. Hase 1995, 270, fig. 27. Cf. references above notes 101 and 105. Menadier 1996, 170, summarizes the overall NOTE 148 note 136 similar character of the finds in the two Late Archaic or Post Archaic bronze fi Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985, 225 - 230. For the sanctuaries. gures are in my opinion:The frog AH 31 faiences cf. above p. 54 and note 108.1. Ki (NM 13967)(AH II, 203 - 204, pi. LXXVI; lian-Dirlmeier does not refer to Holbl. Se because ofits realistic appearance I disagree

102 with Bevan 1986, 405, who catalogues it as possible interpretation of this object than milar finds on Aigina, in the Athenian Archaic); the large swan's head, AH 50 (NM that of the cult statue in the Archaic Hera Agora, in Delphi and at the Heraion of 13971) (AH 11,206 - 207, pi. LXXVIII, cf. Temple. Monrepos on . Rolley 1982, 94, with reference to Late Ar Also the feather, AH 51, AH II, 207, pi. chaic duck heads from Dodone, (Carapanos NOTE 150 LXXVII, 7 cm. in length, with an incised no. 382) and from Sybaris, fig. 210). Billot's theory, Billot op. cit., that the origi herring bone pattern, may come from a life The different kinds ofserpents' heads are nal Hera cult statue was a standing, not a size statue, cf. Bol 1978, 63 - 64, nos. 306 - badly preserved, AH 32 (NM 13999), AH seated figure, is partly based on the concep 315, pi. 58, although it has no immediate 33 and AH 35 (AH II, 203 - 204, pi. tion ofthe standing terracotta figures at the parallel in the published finds from Olym LXXVI) and the same applies to the hollow Argive Heraion as the earliest, for which pia. lion's head, AH 34 (NM 13998; AH 11,204 theory she refers to LIMC IV,2, 664. How The imitations ofleather equipment, AH and pi. LXXVI). ever, even though there are fewer seated 1849 and AH 2766 - 2768, AH II, 275 and For AH 720 (NM 20720), cf. below p. 87, than standing figures at the Argive Heraion 327, pis. CVIII and CXXXIV, may be horse Fig. 48 and note 331; for AH 946 (NM as compared with Tiryns, the seated figures reins from life-size equestrian Post- Archaic 14034), cf. below p. 85 and note 325; for are by far the most numerous at the Argive statues, cf. Bol 1978, 68 and 138, nos. 367 - AH 2034 (NM 13980) cf. below pp. 81-82, Heraion (ca. 1.800 figures ofthe former 70, pis. 61 -62. Fig. 42 and note 289; for AH 2071 (NM class against ca. 400 ofthe latter) and chro 14027) cf. below pp. 82-83, Fig. 44 and nologically, the standing figures have an NOTE 153 note 298 and for AH 2201 (NM 14021), cf. even distribution (cf. Alroth 1989, 41 - 43). IS IV,42 - 43 and fig. 3. below p. 84 and note 302. Seated terra-cotta figures are, in general, re garded as representations ofthe cult statue NOTE 154 NOTE 149 and at the Argive Heraion, in particular, of AH 6 - 7. AH II, 197 and pi. LXX. The Hera cult statue. Cf. about note 141. the Archaic Hera statue.(LIMC IV,2, 664 Athens NM Inv. no. 2702, a stone pillar and Alroth 1989,42). NOTE 155 found in the Western fill, I have earlier Actually, the whole collection ofterra-cotta AH 4. (NM 13974). identified with the throne for the wooden, figures at the Argive Heraion needs restu- AH 11,195- 196, pi. LXX. seated cult statue, IS I, 195 - 197, figs. 18 - dying (also for their absolute chronology), Herfort-Koch 1986, 39, note 146, considers 19. in view ofthe many new terra-cotta figure it an Argive work, but except for the ge I thank Madame M.-F. Billot for having collections found at Argos ( cf. e.g. Guggis- sture oftheir hands, it is exactly similar to sent me her unpublished article for the berg 1988 (the Theatre) and Croissant her two kouroi, no. K 76, pp. 32 - 33, 39 symposion, Sanctuaires de Hera; in this she 1973, 476 and 480, figs. 5 - 6 (Aphrodi and 104, pi. 10, fig. 8 - 11; the workshop seems to accept my identification ofthe sion). seems to continue into the second half of stone pillar, but she connects it with the the 6th cent. B.C., cf. op. cit. no. K 81, pp. Hera statue transferred from Tiryns after the NOTE 151 41,46-47 and 105, pi. 11, figs. 7 -9. fire ofthe Archaic Hera Temple in 423 B.C. AH I, 140- 141, fig. 71; Eichler 1919,144- and seen later by Pausanias (Paus. X, 17, 5). 148, figs.82 - 85 and Blegen 1939, 435 - NOTE 156 However, as the pillar was found low down 439, fig. 21, cf. Floren,207. NM 16357. in the Western Fill at the foundations of the Caskey - Amandry 1952,176- 179, no. 71, Second Temple, together with other worked NOTE 152 pi. 45. (For the chronology of the deposit, stones from the Archaic Temple which for AH 1 - 2. AH II,194,pl.LXX. cf. above note 9()). med a foundation for the upper strata, its For the closest counterparts, cf. Bol 1978, Himmelmann-Wildschutz 1965, 139. burial cannot be dated after the Classical 12- 18, 103 and 106; for AH l,cf.nos.45- Rolley 1975, 7-8, fig. 11 - 13. Period and the statue for which it served 47, pi. 10 and for AH 2, nos. 6 and 9-11, Floren, 209. cannot have been the one seen by Pausa pis. 6 and 8, and for their absolute chrono nias. (Cf. Brownson 1893, 224 - 225, IS I, logy, p. 18. Many were found in the Second NOTE 157 184 - 186 and 201. and for the date of the Stadion Wall or close to the Zeus Temple, Cf. Croissant 1992, 72 and figs. 1 - 2. foundations of the Second Temple to soon apparently demolished and buried in con There is also correspondance between the after 423 B.C., the construction ofwhich nection with the building activity here, i.e. bronze cuirass and the heavy muscular extended into the early years ofthe 4th in both cases before the middle ofthe 5th bodies ofthe two Geometric Argos statuet cent. B.C., cf. Pfaff, 1992, 301 - 305). If my Cent. B.C. and the type closest to AH 2 tes in bronze and terra-cotta, IS IV,61 - 62, identification ofthe pillar as a throne for a cannot be followed after the mid 5th Cent. figs. 23 - 24 with earlier references,notes wooden statue is accepted, I see no other B.C. Cf op. cit. p. 15 for references to si 187 and 189.

103 For Kleobis and Biton in general, cf. Floren, Herfort-Koch 1986,36 (Local Argive with 434, fig. 11 and Cnstofani 1985, 184 - 185, 205, Picard et. al. 1991, 33 - 36; Ridgway Laconian prototypes). nos. 7. 1 - 2; and the Laconian mirror in 1993, 86 - 87, 97, 107 and 114; and Hall Walter-Karydi 1987,66 and figs. 88 - 90 Berlin, Congdon 1981, 46 - 47 and 130, 1995, 593 - 596; and cf. here p. 67 and fig. (Argive). Cat. no. 6, pi. 6, 2. 27. Floren, 210 (Argive). note 166 NOTE 158 NOTE 160 Jenkins 1931 - 32,31 - 33, Class F,pl. 15 Rolley 1975. Cf. Walter-Karydi 1987, 66, pi. 17, l.and and Class C, pi. 13, and cf AH II, pi. XLV The considerably more muscular Ptoion Congdon 1981, 52 and 136 - 137, Cat. no. and XLVII and Perachora I, pis. 109 - 110. kouros,Athens NM 7382, Rolley 1975,7 - 14, pi. 10. The rosette ornamentation ofthe ears is 9, note 2 and figs. 14 - 16, does not have common in Class F and for the rosette or the sameslender lower part of the body as NOTE 161 namentation ofthe hair, cf.e.g. BCH 1969, the Argive Heraion kouros, nor the As only one arm is raised, I see no reason 996 - 998, fig. 22 (Argos. Aphrodision). For characteristic hip - torso line and its knee for the suggestion by Congdon 1981, 216, the characteristic U-formed groove ofthe rendering is much more schematic. that it might be a patera figure. face, cf.Jenkins 1931- 32, 29 (in contrast The kouros, Louvre MN 686, Cat. Br. with the angular features ofCorinthian 4510, Rolley 1975, 3 - 7, figs. 1 - 3 and 6 - NOTE 162 terra-cotta heads). For the chronology of 8, cf. Floren, 209 and note 22 with other Cf. above note 159,Jenkins and Rolley Class F (550 B.C. onwards), cf.Jenkins 1931 references, is considered a forgery by Ortiz 1986. - 32, 39 - 40 and Guggisberg 1988, 172 - 1990, 269, fig. 20 a - b, because of its.gene For Egyptian hand mirrors with naked fe 173;Jenkins, p. 40, dated Classes C - D to ral lack of spirit, the twisting of its wrists male figures as models for Laconian stand ca. 590 - 550. and the strange position ofits hands and, in mirrors, cf. Schefold 1940, 22; Oberlander particular,because of the many "pock 1967, 209 - 210;Jantzen, 33; Congdon NOTE 167 marks"in the surface,simulating a bronze 1981,11 - 12;andZimmer 1991,22. Cf above note 159, Gjodesen 1944; Her disease. According to Ortiz, the model of fort-Koch;Walter-Karydi and Floren.Jen- the Louvre kouros was the Ptoion kouros. NOTE 163 kin's arguments againstArgive origin were Since I have found it impossible to fit this Herbert-Koch 1986, cf. above note 159. only the small nose and mouth of the fi statuette into the development of Argive gure, arguments which to me seem insigni sculpture,as known from finds in the Argo NOTE 164 ficant in such an experimental sculpture. lid, I prefer to leave it out. Congdon 1981,46 - 47, Group I, in parti For the Argos lead kouros, Rolley 1975, 12 cular, nos. 5-7, pis.2-5; for absolute chro NOTE 168 and fig. 17 (here Fig.30), cf. also p.70 and nology, cf. pp. 97-99. Louvre Br 4395, Walter-Karydi 1987, 61 below note 207. and 69, figs. 75 - 77. Some details of the note 165 dress and, in particular,of the upper part of note 159 The volutes of the head ornament are com the top plate, showing a lion's mask be AH 5 (NM 13975). parable with those of riders and sphinxes on tween horse protomes, have no parallels in AH II, 196- 197, pi. LXX. Laconian vasesofe.g. the Naukratis Painter Argive Archaic bronzes. I thank conser- Jenkins 1931 - 32, 33 and pi. 15,7 (Not Ar and the Rider Painter, cf.Stibbe 1972,pis.4 vateur Sophie Decamps, Musee du Louvre, give). and 12, and pis. 106 and 108 - 109, dated to for references to a group ofbronzes with Payne 1934, 163, note 2. the second quarter of the 6th Cent. B.C. the same characteristics which are being Gjodesen 1944,157-158 (Argive). and the years around 550 B.C.,respectively; studied by Claude Rolley. Hafner 1965, 12 (no. S 11) and 90 - 91, for absolute chronology, cf.pp.48 - 50 and note 36 (Magna Graecia). pp. 153 - 154. Also the lotus ornament of NOTE 169 Gjodesen 1970, 152 - 153,fig.8 (Cretan). the top plate has parallels in Laconian art AH 3 (NM 13974). Congdon 1981,216, no. 123 ( Magna Grae (and not just in East Greek art as pointed AH 11,194- 195,pl.LXXI. cia). out by Rolley 1983 and 1986 a, cf. above Krystalh-Votsi 1986, 168 - 170, pi. 72, 1 - 2. Rolley 1983,231, fig. 234 (East Greek ? note 159);cf. works of the same painters, Floren, 209. Third quarter of the 6th Cent. B.C.) Stibbe 1972, pi.4. 1 and pi. 104, 1. Rolley 1986 a, 380 (East Greek; a link be For the arrangement ofthe shoulder locks, NOTE 170 tween Egyptian and Laconian mirror statu cf. e.g. the Crysapha Relief in Berlin, Cf above p. 61 and note 166 forJenkins ettes). Blumel 1940,11 - 13,A 12,pi.22 - 24; the observations of the U-formed groove in Ar bronze statuettes from Gravisca, PP 1977, give faces.For the sharp convergence of

IO4 frontal and lateral planes ofthe face as a Tegea. NOTE 180 Corinthian characteristic, cf. e.g. Payne Dugas, 1921, 352, no. 43 and fig. 19 (cf. Perachora I, 230 - 231, nos. 180 and 180 1931, 237, and for the Corinthian gable- Voyatzis, 281) and de Ridder, 1894, 192, no. bis, pi. 102. formed fore-hair, Jenkins 1931 - 32, 33; for 1050. characteristics ofArchaic Corinthian sculp (The Olympia sheet figures are ofa differ NOTE 181 ture, cf. e.g. Himmelmann-Wildschiitz ent type and at Bassai apparently only hu Croissant 1992, 84 - 85. Croissant convin 1965, 135:"..von knapper Prazision, ihre man figures are found. Kourouniotes 1910, cingly compares the head of the Mycenae Gesichtsflachen werden oft wie in Facetten 307, figs.23 - 24 are human figures). relief, Athens NM 2869, with those of Kle geschliffen" and cf. in general, Croissant obis and Biton. 1988. NOTE 176 Cf. Floren, 192, references note 40, for the The above remarks apply to e.g. both the Cf Blegen 1939, 418 - 420, fig. 7 (fig.7.3 former sculpture and cf. above note 157 for Dodona riders and the Tenea kouros (refe from Tomb VIII). For TombVIII, including the latter. rences Floren 1987, 188, note 12, and 203, the so-called deposit north of Tomb VII, cf. note 117, respectively) to whom Krystalli- above note 111. NOTE 182 Votsi 1986 refers for the three bronzes she Lead Fibulae. studies, cf. below pp. 68-69. NOTE 177 Alexandri 1964 (Argive Heraion). Hampe 1936, 71, pi. 41. Perachora I, 186, pi. 85, 1 and EAAVII, NOTE 171 Blegen 1939, 415 - 418 and fig. 6. 1254, fig. 1392. Cf. the note above for characteristics of the Matz 1950, 498 and pi. 292 b. ADelt. 18 B 1963, 65, pi. 82 (Profitis Ilias) facial features ofArchaic Corinthian sculp Neumann 1965, 104 and fig. 101. Cf. Fittschen 1969, 137, GP 15 and Hall ture; some ofthe observations apply also to Fittschen 1969, 187, no. SB 106 ( with ear 1995,597. the bodies of the kouroi with their sharp lier references). angularity, their bodies built up oflarge Karouzos - Karouzos 1981, fig. 47. NOTE 183 planes meeting at angles. Foley 1988, 94, (here said to have been Cf. e.g. the Aphrodision lead korai, p. 72, found at the Argive Heraion and interpret Fig. 32 and note 198. NOTE 172 ed as part ofa shield strap). Cf. IS IV, 52 - 62. Ahlberg-Cornell 1992, 88 - 89, no. 69, NOTE 184 fig.143. I agree with Hall 1995, 597, that the sanc NOTE 173 Schefold 1993, 152 - 153, fig. 156. tuary on top of Profitis Iliaswas most likely Cf. pp. 68-69. Ahlberg-Cornell 1996, 102, no. 69 and fig. a Hera sanctuary, precisely because ofthe 143. distribution ofthe lead fibulae in question. NOTE 174 However, I hesitate to accept his Table of AH 1832 - 1838. (NM 20695, 20697 and NOTE 178 Artifacts characteristic of Hera sanctuaries 23114).Two were found at the Back of Different kinds of bronze tripods continued in the Argolid. For one thing, our compari South Stoa. to be erected at the Argive Heraion in the son material from sanctuaries for other dei AH II, 274 and pi. CVIII Post-Geometric Period. Such may be the ties is extremely limited in this region; but, Caskey-Amandry 1952, 183, no. 117 (M interpretation ofa 54 cm. long bronze plate in particular, I find it questionable to use 49.62), pi. 46. For the absolute chronology with a stamped Archaic tongue pattern (cf. the presence ofsuch a normal cult vesselas ofthis deposit, cf above note 90. below note 279),AH 2722 (NM 14003), a bronze phiale as a basis for identification AH II, 324 and pi. CXXXIII; there is also of the deity ofa cult. In Argos itself we have NOTE 175 an Early Classical limestone basis measuring at least two bronze phialai in cult or votive Floren, 235. (In Arcadia, they comprise also ca. 50 cm. in diameter and 41 cm. in height, connections not related to a Hera sanctuary. human figures, not seen at the Argive Hera with a central support and dowel holes for One comes from the Aphrodision, BCH ion). the bronze feet; it has a dedicatory inscrip 1968, 1029; the other, Inv. no. B 173, from a Asea. tion of Dexxilos, dated to ca. 450 B.C.,Jef pithos in an early 6th Cent. B.C. context Rhomaios 1957, 150 - 159, figs. 43 - 54 fery 1990, 170, no. 33, cf. AH I, 205 and which comprised also a terra-cotta figure and Voyatzis,pi. 172. AJA 1896, 58; Lazzarini 1976, 232, no.401, group and 15 Corinthian miniature vases, Athens. cf.p. 119. BCH 1967, 833 - 834; for the terra-cotta De Ridder 1896, 123, no. 375 and Bather group cf. also Pierart-Touchais 1996, 37. 1892-93, 241, fig. 14. NOTE 179 (For miniature philai in Argos, the Aphrodi Lusoi. Cf. references Fittschen 1969, 187. sion, cf. also below note 314) Voyatzis, pi. 171, nos. 1530 and 1531. The published finds from the Argos sanctu-

105 aries are still very few and the publication The Dioskouros Sanctuary, Paus. II, 22, 5, NOTE 196 ofe.g. the terra-cottas from the Aphrodision cf. Papachadzis 1976,11, 171-172. Nauplion Museum. Inv. no. 36087. alone (cf. above note 150) may well change Krystalh-Votsi 1986, pi. 71. the pattern ofterra-cotta votives characteri NOTE 191 The Dionysos Sanctuary, Pausanias II 24, 7, stic of specific deities in the Argolid. Leningrad. cf Papachadzis 1976 II, 181 - 184. Jeffery 1990, 168, no. 5, pi. 26 with refer NOTE 185 ence to Dunbabin s attribution to East NOTE 197 Fittschen, cf. above note 182. Greece, p. 135, note 38, and p. 443. Cf. in particular, the Samos kouroi, Richter Himmelmann-Wildschiitz 1965, 156. 1970, 70-71, nos. 51 - 52, figs. 184 - 189 NOTE 186 Richter 1970, 71-72, no. 54, figs. 193 - and the Leningrad kouros above p. # and E.g. in the other Perachora lead reliefs, Per 195. note 191. achora I, pi. 85, 2 - 4, the dress has a straight Floren, 21 (land 364. lower hem. NOTE 198 NOTE 192 Lead Figurines. NOTE 187 Vollgraff 1928 a, 319, pl.VIII b. Aphrodision. Again one regrets the lack ofa full publica Vollgraff 1928 b, 5, pi.VIII b Croissant 1973, 476 - 481, figs. 7-8; Crois tion of the Argive Heraion terra-cottas as Vollgraff" 1928 c, 476. sant 1974, 761; Croissant 1992, 86, pi. 31, well as ofthe more recent finds from Argos, Floren, 210, note 37. fig. 45, cf. Pierart-Touchais 1996, 35. (Here in particular, the terra-cottas ofthe Aphro The figure represents a goddess with a high fig. 32.) dision, cf. above note 150. polos, long hair, which falls in a mass to the From the beginning Croissant recognized shoulders, a long, tight dress, presumably a their local manufacture. NOTE 188 peplos, and a pomegranate in her out Croissant 1992. stretched left hand; the date would seem to NOTE 199 be the first half of the 6th Cent. B.C. Wace 1908 - 09 and Wace 1929. NOTE 189 For the stratigraphy and chronology ofthe The group ofearly bearded male bronze NOTE 193 production, cf.Wace 1908 - 09, 127, and statuettes, Croissant 1992, 76 - 78, pis. 24 - Athens, NM 14410. Wace 1929, 250 - 252 and Cavanagh-Lax- 26. Vollgraff 1956,23 and fig. 22. ton 1984,34-36. I find a chronological discrepancy between Krystalh-Votzi 1986, pi. 72, 3-4. For technique, cf.Wace 1929, 252 - 253. the Argive Late Geometric vasesand the The statuette was found in the possession of bronze statuettes which wear the Daedalic one of the workmen during the excavations NOTE 200 belt and should be Post-Geometric; they are ofthe Apollo Pythaios Sanctuary on the From Artemis Orthia, cf.Wace 1929, with all found in either Delphi or Olympia. For Deiras ofArgos and although it cannot with pis. CXXIX - CC, (esp.251 - 252 for the the later Louvre statuette cf. above note 158. certainty be regarded as dug up in the sanc total numbers). Croissant 1992, 78, states that the Late Geo tuary, this is its most likely provenance; at From the Menelaion, cf.Wace 1908 - 09; metric Argos statuettes, (cf. references above any rate, it is extremely unlikely that it was Wace 1929, 249; Catling 1977, 38; Cava- note 157), ofwhich the terra-cotta figures, found outside Argos and its immediate vici nagh-Laxton 1984 (p.23: In the recent ex C 7830 - 7835 and C 9930, (Sarian 1969), nity. cavations more than 6.000 lead figures were were found in Argos, look "fort isole dans le It is difficult to decide to which kind ofob found). contexte du Geometrique recent", i.e. they ject it may belong: it is too small for a mir For other Laconian sanctuaries, cf.Wace are out ofcontexts with a group offigures ror support and the gesture ofits arms 1929,249-50. not found in Argos. speaks against an identificationwith a pa tera handle. NOTE 201 NOTE 190 Argos. Aphrodision. Croissant 1974, 761. Berlin. Staatliche Museen. Inv. no. NOTE 194 Bassai. Kourouniotes 1910, 324, fig. 45; 7837. Krystalh-Votsi, 1986, cf. above note 193. Wace 1929, 250 and Yalouris 1979, 91, pi. Neugebauer 1931, 78 - 79, no. 179, fig. 27 For the Tenea kouros and for Corinthian 14 a. and pi. 28. stylistic characteristics, cf.above p.62 and Lusoi ?, Sinn 1980, 31 - 32, fig. 8, considers Lazzarini 1976, 206, cf. pp. 61, 71, 85 and notes 170- 171. it a Laconian type. 112. Phlius ? cf. below note 206. Jeffery 1990, 156 and 168,no. 6, pi. 26 NOTE 195 Tegea, cf. Ostby 1994, 124 - 125, Cat.VI, Krystalli-Votsi 1986, cf. above p. 62 and no fig. 90. tes 169- 171. 106 NOTE 202 Cent, material, underneath layer of 5th 55, no. 21 and figs. Ill - 113. (Samos.Ti- Cf. above note 200,Wace 1929 and Cava- Cent. B.C. material. (Kouros). gani). nagh-Laxton 1984. Perachora. I, 186 and pi. 85, 10 and 17; here fig. 32B-C (Kore). note 211 NOTE 203 Phlius. (Corinthia), cf.Wace 1921 - 23, Cf. the griffin protomes above note 36 and Cf. above note 198 and cf. below following 364, seen in possession ofa boy; from cf. several 6th Cent. B.C. bronze statuettes notes. Wace's context presumably a kore. at the Samian Heraion, Kyrieleis 1990, 25 - 29. note 204 NOTE 207 Floren, 210, note 40, gives a long, but not Bassai. Apollo Temple, said to have been note 212 complete list ofthe provenances ofthe Ar found near the Temple. Athens. NM. Col Rolley 1969, 109. gos lead figurines, cf. following notes.The lection Helene Stathatos. For the Mantiklos Apollo, cf Richter 1970, only korai of which a photograph ofthe Richter 1970, 500 - 501, no. 13, figs. 114- 26, figs. 9 - 11; Kozloff-Mitten 1988, 52 - back is published, are the Perachora and the 116. 57 and Ridgway 1993, 103, note 330 and Hagios Petros korai, cf. below notes 206 - Rolley 1963, no. 194, pi. XL; Rolley 1969, pl.V,2.9. 207 and (for the former), here fig. 32 B - C. 107, fig. 30 and Rolley 1975, 12 and fig. 17. (Here fig. 30) Fragmentary kouros, missing NOTE 213 NOTE 205 from the knees and down. Baumgart 1916, 195 - 198, no. 24, figs. 22 - Argos. Aphrodision, cf. above note 198. Maurikia near Tegea (possibly a sanctuary 22a. Argos. Athena Sanctuary.Vollgraff 1928 a, for Artemis Knakeatis, cf.Voyatzis, 28 - 30.) Gropengiesser 1975. 319, pi.VIII, 2 and Vollgraff 1928 b, 5 and Voyatzis, 124 and 306, B 11 and B 12, pi. Borell 1986, 5-6, no. 5, pi. 2. pi.VIII, 2. (Kore). 62, cf. Miller 1994,377. Two kouroi, NOTE 214 NOTE 206 Aphrodision. Haghios Petros in NW Arca Cf. IS IV, 62 and 88. The Argive Heraion. dia. mentioned Wace 1921 - 23, 364, at no. 70 Kardara 1958, 50 - 51, pi. 20. (Kore). NOTE 215 (cf. Buchholz 1972, 14), together with the Sparta. Artemis Orthia. Cf IS IV 77 78 and 88. kore figure from Mycenae and presumably Wace 1929, 267 - 268, pi. CLXXXV, 28, also a kore. (Kouros). Found in stratum of Lead II and NOTE 216 Asine.The Apollo Pythaios Temple. thus dated to before ca. 590 B.C., cf above Vollgraff 1934. Frodin-Persson 1938, 33, fig.225, 1; Bu p. 69 and note 202. Jeffery 1990, 156 and 168, no., 2, pi. 26.. chholz 1972, 14:;Vollgraff 1956, 31, fig. 27. Foley 1988, 126. Found inside the rectangular temple which note 208 according to B.Wells was in use from the For the foundation date ofthe Aphrodision, NOTE 217 late 8th to the 5th Cent. B.C.,Wells 1987 - cf. references IS I, 199, note 173). For the Enyalios sanctuary in Argos, cf.Voll 88, 349.(Kouros). The lead figurines were found at the graff 1934. Epidauros. Apollo Maleatas Sanctuary. foundation of the Temple as well as in an A helmet fragment with an inscription to Prakt. 1975, 173 and pi. 149. Found in a other closed deposit ofthe same date, the Enyalios was found near Mycenae, Jeffery mixed stratum of the 6th down to the 4th last quarter of the 6th Cent. B.C., cf. Crois 1990, 173, no. 3, and 445, no. 3 a. Cent. B.C. (Kouros). sant 1973, 476 - 479 and BCH 1969,996. For Tiryns, cf. P-WV, 2, 2651 and for Isthmia. The Poseidon Sanctuary. IM 2647 For the Nemea find cf above note 206 and Hermione, op. cit. 2652 and Roscher I, (Kouros). According to Miller, Gnomon for the Artemis Orthia find above note 207. 1259. 1994, 377, made in the same mould as the Nemea kouros. NOTE 209 NOTE 218 Mycenae. Wace 1921 -. 23, 364, note 70, Rolley 1969, 105 - 110, nos. 164 - 168, pi. The Klytaimnestra relief cannot be part ofa cf Buchholz 1972, 14. Found by Mrs. XXVI; shield strap, as interpreted by Foley,cf. above Schliemann during excavations ofthe Tomb Rolley 1986 b, 94 - 95, fig. 64; Haynes pp. 64-65 and notes 177-178. of Klytaimnestra. (Kore). 1992, 43; Rolley 1993, 400 andTreister Nemea. Zeus Sanctuary. IL 201. 1996,54. NOTE 219 Hespena 47, 1978, 63, pi. 14 a. (Miller Kunze 1950 and Bol 1989. 1994, 377, made in the same mould as the NOTE 210 For the Argive inscriptions, cf. in particular, Isthmia kouros). Found in a layer with 6th Rolley 1969, 107, fig. 29, cf. Richter 1970, Kunze 1950,212 - 214; Bol 1989, 88 - 89

107 and for Argive workshops, 89 - 93, with ob are well-known, cf.e.g.Stibbe 1996, 235 - 3 right (mirror); and p. 48, pi.VI, 2 (oino servations on the stylistically different Co 246, with references. choe) and pp. 50-51, figs. 4-5 (Boiotian rinthian shield bands;Jeffery 1990, 159 and plate fibulae). 444, B (artist's signature), cf.J.P. Getty Jour NOTE 228 nal XIII, 1985,66.Mahbu.J. Paul Getty Cf. IS IV, 88 - 89. NOTE 234 Museum, Inv. no. 84 AC 11); Foley 1988, Oberlander 1967,4-5. 131. note 229 AH 1588. NOTE 235 note 220 AH II, 266, pis. XCVI - XCVIII. AH 1586 (NM 20458 e). AH II, 266, pi. Cf references IS IV, 85 and note 330. For the decoration of the beaded rim with XCVIII, is a handle fragment with rivet tongue pattern and guilloche, cf, in parti holes; however, the rivets may indicate a re NOTE 221 cular,Congdon 1981, 137,no. 15, pi. 12 - pair. Bol 1989,93- 101. 13 (Late Archaic. Laconian). Corinthian are Forms II and CXVIII. For AH 5, cf above pp. 60-61, Figs.21-22 NOTE 236 and note 159. Cf. above note 230. NOTE 222 Oberlander 1967, 22 - 25, Cat. nos. 24 - 32 Cf. above p. 65, Fig. 25A and note 180 and, note 230 and 34 with earlier references. in general, Perachora I, 241 - 248. Mirrors. AH 1561 - 1566, 1580 - 1584 and 1586 NOTE 237 note 223 (NM 14012,20453,20456 and 20458) and AH 1566. (NM 14010). The earliest datable context is the Noicat- M.49. 63 and M 49. 94. AH II,265,pl.XCV taro tomb ca. 570 B.C.; for the absolute AH II, 264 - 266, pis. XCII - XCVIII and Brommer 1937, 29 and 57, No. 14. chronology in general, cf. Kunze 1950, 231 Caskey - Amandry 1952, 180, nos. 84 and Oberlander 1967, 22, Cat. no. 24. -244 and Bol i989, 93- 101. 86 and pi. 46. Zimmer 1991, 13 and fig. 9. I leave out AH 1587,presumably the handle note 224 ofa vase,which in shape and decoration AH 1581. (NM14010). Bol 1989, 90 and 153 - 154, H. 44, Inv. B differs from the mirror handles, as well as AH II, 265 and 332, pi. XCVI. 4475, Form CXVII, fig.9 and 23 and pi. 76, AH 1585, similar to AH 1587, with a cen Oberlander 1967, 22, Cat. no. 25. cf. Kunze 1950,220 -221. tral ridge (Oberlander 1967, 23 - 25, Cat. The inscription, AH II, 322;Jeffery 1990, Jeffery 1990, 440, 38 B. nos. 33 and 35). 159 and 168, no. 11 and p. 443. For miniature mirrors, cf below note 246. Lazzarini 1976, 117 and 215, no. 275 b. note 225

Cf. the large votive dedication to Zeus in NOTE 231 AH 1565. Olympia by the Argives of spoilsfrom the Oberlander 1967, 1 - 3 and 257 - 258 (no AH II,265,pl.XCIV Corinthians, dated to around 500 B.C. and tes). Oberlander 1967, 23, Cat. no. 26. presumably ofCorinthian manufacture. For the model for Greek stand mirrrors, cf For the handle decoration of a Laconian Kunze-Schleif 1942, 76 - 77; Kunze 1967, above note 162. mirror in Munich, cf. Stibbe 1996, pi. 12. 91 - 95;Jeffery 1990, 162 and 169, no. 18, and p. 440; and Kunze 1991, 126. note 232 NOTE 238 Schafer 1958; Zimmer 1991, 10 - 12 and 15 Except for the disk ofAH 1561 which is NOTE 226 - 16 with earlier references. made oftwo very thin bronze sheet stuck Cf. IS IV, 88. together, they are all made of one thin plate. NOTE 233 NOTE 227 Zimmer 1991,7- 10 and 15 -21, figs. 4- 5 note 239 Cf. above the stylistic features of the Ke and 13, cf. Hockmann 1994. Oberlander 1967,28. phalari kouros,pp. 68-69 and note 197 and The miniature mirror, Delphi Museum. Inv. For the chronology of the deposit of M the Argive dedication ofa Samian bronze no. 5935, cf. Oberlander 1967, 241, Cat. no. 49.63, cf. above note 90. kouros,above p. 67 and note 191. 379,was found with a child's - presumably For the Perachora mirror handle, cf. below For the Samian piece-moulds in bronze as a girl's-burial-ina re-used Submycenaean note 240. well as lead figures, cf. above pp. 44 and 71 cist tomb; it is datedfrom its accompanying and notes 36 and 211.The Samian-Laco- late 8th Cent. B.C. oinochoe and two note 240 nian interconnections in the Archaic Period Boiotian plate fibulae, cf.Lerat 1937, 49, fig. Oberlander 1967, 26, nos. 36 - 38.

108 For no. 38, the Perachora mirror with a For M 49.77, cf. Caskey - Amandry 1952, no. 361. Judging from Blegen's text, he Corinthian dedicatory inscription, Pera 180, no. 85, pi. 46, and for AH 1569 and found also other mirrors here. chora I, 180, pi. 80, 13, cf. Dunbabm 1962, 1571, IS 1,192 and note 136. For a miniature mirror, cf. Blegen 1939, 401, pi. 170, no. 162 and Jeffery 1990, 129 Oberlander 1967, 237 - 241, Cat. nos. 363 - 414, fig. 5.2; Oberlander 1967, 237, Cat. no. and 132, no. 34. 378. 362. One mirror ofthe type is without exact Cf. Antonaccio 1995, 60, for a bronze disk provenance. Oberlander 1967, 26-27, no. NOTE 247 in Prosymna, Tomb XXV, perhaps a mirror 39, cf. Comstock-Vermeule 1971, 240 - For miniature mirrors in general, see Ober disk; it may be Mycenaean, cf. above p. 76 241, no. 351 .As observed by Oberlander, its lander 1967, 236 - 244. For the chronology and note 232. incised decoration is either modern or re of the find context of M 49. 77, cf. above For Tomb XXV, cf. also IS IV, 121, note touched in modern times, but the mirror it note 90. 367. self is genuine. Since it was bought in Athens and acquired by the Museum of NOTE 248 note 252 Fine Arts. Boston, in the year 1898, it may For Perachora, cf. Oberlander 243, no. 390 Aphrodision. 73/658. Fragmentary handle, 9 well come from the Argive Heraion excava and for the Hera Sanctuary West of the X 2.3 cm.; the hole in the end disk measures tions, cf. Comstock-Vermeule loc. cit. and Heraion, cf. below note 251. ca. 1 cm. AA 1899,135- 136, no. 9. For the Egyptian mirrors, cf. above p. 41 A mirror said to be in a bad state is mentio For the Aphrodision mirror handle, cf and note 24. ned BCH 1968,1029. below note 252. Jantzen, 34 - 35, refers to fragments of two Miniature mirrors are 73/552 ( L. 3.2 cm.; more, possibly Egyptian mirrors in the diam. ofdisk 3 cm.) and possibly 69/517. note 241 Heraion ofSamos. Oberlander 1967,28 (Argos). NOTE 253 NOTE 249 Most bronze fragments from the Aphrodi NOTE 242 For the early Delphi miniature mirror, cf. sion were unrestored, when I saw them in M 49.94, Caskey - Amandry, 1952, 180,no. above note 233. the magazines ofthe Museum ofArgos; 84, pi. 46, cf. Oberlander 1967, 42 - 53, Cat. For miniature mirrors in general, cf. Ober there may be more mirror fragments. nos. 48 - 69:"Griechische Einheitstypen". lander 1967, 236 - 244, and Zimmer 1991, For mirrors connected with Aphrodite, cf. 13. LIMC II, Aphrodite, 10, pi. 6, No. 8, Aphro NOTE 243 Cf. above note 248 and, for the Aphrodi dite (with inscription) with mirror in hand The Laconian mirrors, Oberlander 1967, 31 sion, cf. p. 78 and below note 252. on Red-figures Apulian vase ofthe early - 33, Cat. nos. 40 - 42 a. Haghios Sostasnear Tegea, Oberlander 4th Cent. B.C.and LIMC II, 17 - 18, nos. Cf. above note 237 for AH 1565. 1967, nos. 380 - 385. (Presumably a Deme- 87-97, pis. 12- 13; pp. 19-20, nos. Ill - ter and Kore cult, cf.Jost 1985, 154 - 156). 122, pis. 15 - 16 and p. 48, nos. 371 -377, pi. note 244 Kotilon, above the Apollo Temple in Bassai, 35 (mirror supports identified with Aphro Oberlander 1967, 7 - 20, Cat. nos. 1 - 23. Kourouniotes 1903, 175 - 176, Oberlander, dite. For the Argos shield straps, cf. above p. 73 nos. 386 - 389, (Artemis or Aphrodite, cf. and note 219. Jost 1985,97). NOTE 254 In the Museum ofTripolis is a miniature Vases. note 245 bronze mirror with raised points along the Cf.AH 11,275 -298,AH 1850-2217 and AH 1561 and AH 1582 come from the rim of the disk. The objects in the show 2225 - 2251, including ca. 375 discarded Back of South Stoa and the Southern case come from various sites in Arcadia. fragments and cf. Caskey - Amandry 1952, Slope, respectively, and M. 49.63 and M. 179 - 180, Nos. 72 - 79, pis. 46 and fig. 2, 49.94 from the Eastern Retaining Wall. NOTE 250 including several hundred discarded frag Cf. AH 5, above pp. 60-62, Figs. 21-22, and ments ofthin bronze vessels alone. Today it NOTE 246 notes 159 - 167, and cf. AH 1588, p. 75 and is not possible to determine how many of AH 1560 and 1567 - 1579 (NM 14013, note 229 and cf. AH 1565. p. 76, Fig. 36 and the discarded fragments might come from 20457, 20459 and 20526). note 237. the same vases. AH II, 264 - 265 and pis. XCII - XCV (For the Geometric tripods AH 2218 - AH 1570 comes from the Southern Slope, NOTE 251 2224, cf IS IV, 40-52). AH 1577 from West Building and two not Like Blegen 1939, 414 - 415, fig. 5, 1,1 re For imported bronze vases or their close identifiable mirrors from the Western Fill, gard this mirror disk as ofnormal size, in Greek imitations, cf. above pp. 39-46 and cf. IS I, 202. contrast with Oberlander, 1967, 237, Cat. 48-54.

109 For miniature vases,cf. p. 84 and below no NOTE 260 Central Workshop, dated to the third quar tes 302 - 303. AH 2087 - 2190, AH II, 290 - 292, pi. ter of the 6th Cent. B.C.) CXXI - CXXII, cf. above note 73. Cf Perachora I, 162 - 63, pi 67, 13 and 16 NOTE 255 The most recent study is Gauer, 35 - 44 with reference to Olympia and Korynthos. The West Building, the Southern Slope, the and 194 - 199, Cat. Nos. Le 102 - 175, pis. For the Olympia examples, cf. now Gauer, Back of South Stoa and the Eastern Retai 21 - 24. 67 - 69 and 223 - 229, Cat. Le 423 - 504, ning Wall, cf. IS IV, 38 - 39, notes 21 and 23 Only one attachment is still fixed to its pis. 36 - 52, fig. 16. - 24 and cf. also below note 256. plain, semicircular handle plate, AH 2087. There are such handles on exhibition in the AH II,290 and pi. CXXI. museums of Delphi and Isthmia. note 256 Many ofthe handles are just plain rings, AH AH 2170 (NM 20620). IS I, 201 -202,cf. 185 - 186. 2088 - 2130 (NM 20606), AH 2144 - 2151 AH II, 292, pi. CXXII, cf. Perachora I, 162, and AH 2169, while AH 2152 -2161 (NM pi. 65, 11 with reference to Trebenischte, note 257 20613) may be just pieces ofwire, AH II, Filow 1927, 77, nos. 109 - 110, fig. 28, 9 - Cf. IS I, 192, notes 131 - 132, for the Old 290 - 292, pis CXXI - CXXII. 10, tombsVI, 22 andVIII, 23 and cf Popo- Temple Terrace. (For AH 21, cf. above p. 44 For AH 2171 -2174 (NM 20618 and vic 1956, 33 and pi. 30, 35 - 36. and note 32) and IS I, 176, note 33, for the 20619), AH II 292, pi. CXXII, cf Gauer, For the chronology ofthe Trebenischte Altar area; however, the lotus phiale men 291 - 292, Var. 14 and Van 29 - 30, pi. 29. tombs and their Greek bronzes, cf. p. 80 and tioned here, is another type ofbowl, cf. Parts ofArchaic or Classical toilet requisi- below note 271. above note 79. (For the bull's head attach ties, not further classified. Korynthos, cf. ADelt. 1916, 86, fig. 21. ment, cf. IS IV,38 and above p. 45 and note For bolster attachments on rims ofstand There is an example in the Isthmia Museum. 39). mirrors, cf. e.g. Congdon 1981, pis. 29 and For Olympia, cf. Gauer 229 - 231, Le 505 - For the Upper Hill, cf. IS I, 192, note 136 31, and for stand mirrors in the Argive 532, fig. 17 and pi. 53. (Late Archaic). and above pp. 50 and 53 and notes 79 and Heraion, above pp. # and notes 159 and 94. 229. note 264 Gauer 1991, 67 - 70, pis. 35 - 50. NOTE 258 NOTE 261 The Berlin hydria which Gauer, 61, cf. p. AH 2039 (NM 20658), AH 11,287, Bolster handle attachments with lead core, 105, uses for his regional stylistic attribu pl.CXIX. AH 2133 - 2136 (NM 20610 - 20611),AH tion, was not found in the Argolid, cf. p. 96, The rim is of Gauer's Type A 2, dated to the 2140 (NM 20611/11) and AH 2180-2183 note 248, and I am not convinced about its 6th Cent. B.C., cf. Gauer, 24, 181 - 182 and (NM 20622). Argive origin. However, at Argos there are fig. 8, Le 24 - 26. AH II, 291 - 292 and pis. CXXI - CXXII. several finds ofvolute-palmette bronze (Cf. Gauer, 22-25, for his chronology of Cf. Gauer, 42 and 194 and pi. 21, 6, Le 102 handle plates, cf. p. 85 and below note 312. cauldrons, based on finds in wells and in - 112. stratified contexts). Solid attachments ofcorresponding decora NOTE 265 For the rim fragments ofAH 1983 - 84 tion, AH 2188 - 2189, (NM 20622/9 - 10), Cf in particular Amandry 1971, 602 - 610 (NM 20573 - 74) and M 49. 66 (AH II, AH II, 293 and pi. CXXII. and 621 - 626;Vanderpool 1969 and 284, pi. CXVI and Caskey-Amandry 1952, Cf. Gauer, 42, reference to Hencken 1958, Brouskari 1985, 69 and No. 1324 and for 179, no. 72, pi. 146, here fig. 37), cf. Gauer, 260, pi. 58, fig. 10 a, Syracuse Grave 556, Trebenischte, Filow 1927, 51 - 53, nos. 68 - 20 - 23 and 178 - 179, Le 1 and Le 8 and dated to the second quarter ofthe 7th. 69, figs. 49 - 53. fig. 5 (7th Cent. B.C.); for AH 2014 (NM Cent. B.C. 20588) and AH 2015(20588) (AH 11,285, NOTE 266 pi. CXVII), with outturned rims, hollow NOTE 262 AH 2061 - 67 (NM 20666- 20667). and solid, respectively,cf. Perachora I, 160, AH 2141 and 2142 (NM 20611/6-7). AH II, 288 - 289, pi. CXX. Cf. Perachora I, fig. 23. Presumably ofthe same type asAH AH 11,291 and pi. CXXI. 165, pi. 67, 8-9; Olympia IV,147 - 148, 2014 are AH 2028 (NM 20595) and AH Cf. Gauer, 42 and 198, Le 161, pi. 23, 4 no. 926, pi. LV and for Trebenischte, cf. 2036 (NM 20655) (AH II, 287 and pi. (found in the lowest layer under the Hera below note 267. CXVIII). Temple in Olympia). Korynthos, cf. ADelt. 1916, 87, fig. 21. For AH 2038, cf. IS IV, 95, note 34 (Bronze The wish-bone handles without the central scrap). NOTE 263 knob, AH 2059 - 60 (NM 20665), AH II, AH 2177 (NM 20626). 288, pi. CXX, cf. Perachora I, pi. 67, 4, may note 259 AH II, 292, pi. CXXII. be ofabout the same date as the above. Cf. IS I, 192, fig. 13 and note 132. Gauer, 61 and note 133 (belongs to his For the stone perirrhanteria, cf. references above note 77.

IIO NOTE 267 NOTE 272 local (p.82, Fig. 42 and below note 289); Filow 1927, 74, fig. 92 from Ezerovo. AH 2829 (NM 14009), cf. IS IV,39 - 40, AH 2056, foot ofvase (AH II, 288, pi. Trebenischte Tomb I 39; the wish-.bone fig.l. CXIX); handle belonged with a large, open bronze AH 2240, tankard (p. 82, Fig. 43 and below bowl, ca. 50 cm. in diameter; its type cannot NOTE 273 note 294); AH 2722, tripod leg (above note be determined, but presumably it was of the Cf. Gauer 1991,79-80. 178) and AH 2830, unfinished krater rim? above-mentioned Ezerovo type (cf. note (AH II, 331, pi. CXXXVI, cf. IS IV, 95, note 266), Filow 1927, 74, no. 94; it was placed NOTE 274 30). on the tripod, no. 86, Filow 1927, 70, fig. Gauer 1991, 77 and 243 - 244, U 1, pi. 63, Cf. also below note 303, references to mini 83, measuring 24.3 cm. in diameter. dated to ca. 600 B.C. ature vases. note 268 NOTE 275 NOTE 280 AH 2227 - 2230. For Novi Pazar, cf. above note 270 and for AH 2231 - 2234 (NM 14024). AH II, 295 - 296 and pis. CXXIV - CXXV Trebenischte,Tomb 39, above note 267. AH II, 296 and pl.CXXV Cf. Gauer, 78, note 174. For other Trebenischte stands, cf. e.g. Filow There is also a low tripod stand with block 1927, nos. 81 - 82; nos. 84 - 85; and nos. 88 NOTE 281 feet,AH 2225 (NM 20630),AH 11,295 and - 89 andVulic 1930 and 1933, above note Cf.Tomlinson 1980,221 222. pi. CXXIV. 270. The larger stands measure between 22 and 29.3 cm., the accompanying bowls be NOTE 282 NOTE 269 tween 46.5 and 51 cm.; the smaller stands Cf. Gauer 1991, 122 and 283 - 284, Cat. AH 2228 (NM 20420). AH II, 296, pi. between 11 and 12 cm., their bowls be nos. E 187 - 192,pl. 102 and cf. Perachora I, CXXIV. tween 24. 5 and 29 cm. The former group 164, pi. 69, 1 -4. It is a very irregularly cast lion's paw which measures between 10.4 and 12. 2 cm. in is the reason for the so-called extra toe, height, the latter between 4.4 and 5.2 cm. NOTE 283 mentioned loc. cit. in height. AH 2002 (NM 20584 5) and AH 2003 Cf. the Prosymna tripod stand, Fig. 46, cf. p. (NM 20586), for the two last-mentioned 84 and below note 309. NOTE 276 objects the diameter cannot be measured, Milne 1944, cf. Mano-Zisi-Popovic 1969, and AH 2005 (NM 20587 p),AH 11,285, NOTE 270 78 - 79, nos. 4 and 8. pis. CXVI - CXVII. References Perachora I, 165 - 167, pi. 71, The average size of feet of course differs. For AH 2005 cf. also Weber 1983, 39 - 40, cf. Milne 1944, 40 - 49 and, for Olympia, The Greek foot measures must have been definitely before 550 B.C.The lotus pal Gauer, 76 - 79 and 243 - 248, Cat. U 1- U based on the male foot and vary between mette frieze is reminiscent of that of the 36, pis. 63 - 66. ca. 28 and ca. 33 cm., cf. Isthmia I, 174 - Francois vase and several EC - MC Corin For Trebenischte cf. above note 267 and 181. thian vases,cf. Payne 1931,149, fig. 55 D Filow 1927, 68 - 76, figs. 72 - 88, nos. 81 - The female foot of the priestesses at the Ar and pi. 32. 82, 84 - 85 and 88 -89; Popovic 1956, 114- give Herion must have been smaller. AH 2003 is a volute krater fragment, cf. e.g. 115, pi. 24, 18 - 19 and Popovic 1994, 104 the Trebenischte kraters, Filow 1927, 39 - - 105, nos. 32 -35. NOTE 277 47, no. 63, pis. 7 - 8;Vulic 1930, 299, no. 13, Vulic 1930, 295, no. 10, fig. 14 and Vulic" AH 2230 (NM 14019). figs. 16-19 = Vulic 1932,19 - 23, no. 27, 1933, 177 - 178, nos. 26 - 27, figs. 90 - 91. AH II, 296, pi. CXXV, 1. pis. I - II; Popovic 1956,18, no. 17, pi. 23 Novi Pazar, cf. Mano-Zisi - Popovic 1969, and Popovic 1994, 103, no. 31. 78 - 79, nos. 4 and 8, pi. IV 1 - 2. and NOTE 278 Popovic 1994,116- 117, nos. 66 and 68. Cf. Neugebauer 1923/24; Payne 1931, 216 note 284 (The diameter ofthe latter bowl is 44.5 - 221 and Weber 1983, 37 - 43. Cf. above note 279. cm., that ofthe tripod 26.5 cm.) NOTE 279 note 285 NOTE 271 Cf. AH 944, ring fibula ( p. 85 and below AH 2206. The absolute chronology ofthe Trebe note 323); AH 1588, mirror (above p. 75 AH II, 294 and pi. CXXIII. nischte tombs, late 6th and early 5th Cent. and note 229);AH 1864 and 1875, phialai Cf. Perachora I, 165, pi. 69, 6 and B.C. cf. Filow 1927, 97; Popovic 1956, 79; (p. 84 and below note 303); AH 2003, krater Gauer 1991, 157 - 158, who considers the Mano-Zisi - Popovic 1969, 104; Popovic rim (p. 81 and below note 283); AH 2034, ornament with a droop-shaped palmette 1975, 78 - 80 and 84 and Popovic 1994, 56 mug with sphinx on handle, presumably not - 60.

III heart separating the volutes as an early stage NOTE 290 pretation, cf above pp. 52-53, Fig. 15 and ofdevelopment, dated to before 550 B.C. AH 2033 (NM 20597 y) and AH 2035 note 94. (NM 20705 a+p). NOTE 286 AH II, 287 and pi. CXVIII. note 294 AH 1989 (NM 20581), AH II, 284, pi. The handles of AH 2033 are strongly AH 2240. (NM 13982) CXV. curved, measuring 2.35 cm. in height, two AH II,297,pl.CXXXVI. AH 2024 - 2029, AH II, 286 and pi. cm. in width and the edges of the handles Cf Gauer, 126-127 and 288 - 289, Sh 1 - CXVII. are 0.45 cm. high. Below,the handle plate 6, pis. 111 - 112, 1 - 2. Sh 1 is the only well AH 2191 -2199 (NM 20623). was soldered to the vase, the preserved part -preserved one, found inside Le 13, cf AH II, 295 and pis. CXII - CXXIII. ofwhich was 0.2 cm. thick. Gauer, 180, fig. 6.3. Cf. also AH 1585 and 1587, above note The handles ofAH 2035 measure 4.7 cm. According to Rolley 1993, 390, the form 230. in height, 2.45 cm. in width and are 0.7 cm. was originally wooden. For wine measures, For AH 2196, in particular, cf. Perachora I, thick; the handle plate consisted of a piece cf. Tomlinson 1980,222. 163, pi. 68, 17- 18. ofbronze plate folded over the rim ofthe For the tongue pattern, cf. above p. 81 and vase. note 278 - 279. note 287 Both handles were fastened to the rim with AH 1529 - 1539,AH II, 263 - 264, pi. XCII. rivets, measuring 0. 6 cm. in diamter, while note 295 Cf. Perachora I, 160 - 161, pis.69 - 70. the inner decorative heads measured ca. 1 Cf e.g. the differences between AH 2033 cm. in diameter. and 2035 and their counterparts from Pera NOTE 288 Perachora I, 157, note 6, (with reference to chora, above pp. 82 and note 290 and the For Corinthian skyphoi, cf. IS IV, 84 and the Mycenae example, F-R III, 267,fig. lack ofexact counterparts in the production note 321, and for lotus bowls, above pp. 51- 125, 158 and pi. 58, 1.) Gauer 9 and note of low tripod stands,above p. 80 and notes 53 and notes 79 - 80 and 94. For other 21.The Olympia example, Gauer 9, 87 and 270 - 273. kinds of drinking vessels, cf. e.g.AH 1979 252, M 10, p. 82. (NM 20488 ) and AH 1980 (NM 20585) The rolled-up ends ofvertical bronze hand NOTE 296 (with a ring foot); AH 1981 - 1982 (NM les are quite common in Perachora, cf. e.g. Cf. above pp. 55-57 for the acquisition of 20577 and 20578) and AH 1987 (NM Perachora I, pi. 58, 3 - 4 and pi. 69, 9. Near Eastern cauldrons and Phrygian lotus 20581) and M 49.65, plain bowls some of bowls. which may have omphaloi and may have NOTE 291 functioned as phialai,AH II 284 - 285, pis. AH 2037 (NM 20656),AH 11,287 and pi. NOTE 297 CXV - CXVIII and Caskey - Amandry CXVIII. AH 2057, AH 2070 and AH 2071 a. 1952, 179, no. 74; also other phialai mesom AH 2011 (NM 20588),AH II, 285 and pi. AH II, 288 - 289 and pi. CXX. phaloi are mentioned here. AH 2007 - 2008 CXVII. (NM 20591 and 20588) are rim fragments note 298 of bowlswith handles, AH II, 285 and pi. note 292 AH 2071 (NM 14027) CXVII; and there are severalskyphos hand AH 2235 (NM 20599 a+p) is well preser AH II, 289 and pi. CXX. les,such asAH 2048 - 2053 (NM 20661 - ved;the other ladles are fragmentary, AH Jantzen 1938 - 39, 143, no. 12, pi. 26; pp. 20662),AH II, 288, pi. CXIX; Also AH 2236 - 2238 (AH 2237 = NM 20600) and 152 and 154. 2030 - 2032 (NM 20596 - 20597), AH II, AH 2482 (20770), only the handle with the Stubbe-Ostergard 1985,43. 286 and pi. CXVIII are presumably frag transition to the bowl is preserved and pos Wangenheim 1988, 67- 69, Cat. no. 31. ments ofdrinking cups. sibly one more handle of a ladle,(NM 20793). NOTE 299 NOTE 289 AH II, 296 - 297 and 309, pis.CXXV and A list is given byJantzen 1938 - 39, supple AH 2034. (NM 13980). (I have not seen CXXIX. mented by Stubbe-Ostergard 1985, 53, note this piece out ofthe show case). Cf. Perachora I, 182, pi. 80, 7. 7. AH 11,287 and pi. CXVIII. Perachora I, 158, note 1. note 293 NOTE 300 Weber 1983, 40, with reference to NM AH 2239 (NM 14022). Jantzen 1938 - 39,152 (absolute chrono 14923 from Tegea,dated to ca. 550 B.C. AH II, 207 and 338, pi. CXXV. logy) and 154 (Argive workshop); his results Rolley 1983, 236, fig.264. For ducks' heads, cf. Perachora I, 165,pi. 80, were repeated by Stubbe-Ostergard 1985, Cf. above pp.79 and 81 and notes 256 and 4-5 and 8. 43 and Wangenheim 1988, 69 who also,pp. 279 and below the following notes. For another Hera inscription and its inter 30 - 31, Cat. no. 9, refers to a plate from

112 Olympia which she considers contempor NOTE 303 NOTE 309 aneous, AA 1984,251 - 252, fig. 30, and Miniature phialai and plain miniature Blegen 1937, 381 - 382 and Prosymna, fig. dates to the third quarter ofthe 7th Cent. bowls, AH 1893 - 1898 and AH 1900 - 440. B.C. 1972 (NM 20474, 20480, 20482 - 20484, About two fifths of the ring is preserved, However, I do not find Jantzen's reference 20487,20489 - 20490, 20518 and 20520), the original diameter ofwhich was 19 cm.; to the Geometric decoration ofthe shield AH II, 279 - 283 and pis. CXII - CXIV. the ring is a flat band with a notched outer of the Chigi vase convincing; the hatched Caskey-Amandry 1952, 179 - 180, nos. 76 - edge 2.3 cm. wide and 0.4 cm. thick, iden triangles and the maeanders are normal 79, pi. 46. (Here fig. 37). tical with AH 2228; the lion's paw measured Geometric/Subgeometric ornaments. For Miniature two-handled plates, AH 1854 - 4.4 cm. in height. Cf. above p. 80 and note AH 18 and the Proto-Archaic Olympia 1875, (NM 20460 - 20465), AH II, 275 - 269. horses, which I all date to the first half of 277, pis. CVIII - CIX, cf.Jantzen 1938 - For Prosymna Tomb II, cf. IS IV, 121, note the 7th Cent. B.C., cf. IS IV, 106 and note 39, pi. 25. 368, and Antonaccio 1995, 154, note 186. 169, although Wangenheim 1988, 68 - 69, Caskey-Amandry 1952, 180, no. 83, pi. Cat. no. 32, dates AH 18 to the 6th Cent. 46.(Herefig.36). NOTE 310 B.C. and other scholars also date it later Miniature disks,AH 1601 - 1717 and AH Cf. Blegen 1937, 380, phialai mesomphaloi, than I,IS IV, note 169, 1850 - 1851, AH II, 267 - 269 and 275, pis. three examples in Tombs VIII and XIX and As observed by Stubbe-Ostergard 1985, 42 XCIX - CI and CVIII. one in each ofthe tombs IX, XXVI, - 43, Greek bronze plates with animal heads Caskey-Amandry 1952, 180, nos. 80 - 82, XXXIV and XL. are known from around 700 B.C. pi. 46. (Here fig. 37). For the dish and bowl in Tomb VIII, cf. Ble gen 1937, 381 and fig. 5, nos. 4 and 5. NOTE 301 NOTE 304 For Protocorinthian vases in Tombs VIII and For Protocorinthian pyxis fragments, cf. IS Cf. Jantzen 1938 - 39, 134 and pi. 46, for IX, cf. IS IV, 84 and 118, note 326. IV, 84 and note 321. miniature plates (NM 7984 - 7986) from For the Prosymna tombs in question, cf. AH 2202 (NM 20624). Tegea and reference to Dugas 1921, 364 Antonaccio 1995, 58 - 64 and for Tomb AH II, 293 and pi. CXXIII. and fig. 20, nos. 61 - 62 for phialai; Pera VIII, in particular, cf. above note 111. AH 2012 (NM 20588 e). chora I, 151 and 155 - 156, pi. 57 (phialai AH II, 285 and pi. CXVII. and plates) with references to the Athenian NOTE 31 1 The fragment measures 3.5 X 3 cm. and 0. 2 Acropolis, Dodone, and Tiryns. The plate in Tomb VIII, AJA 1939, 439, fig. cm. in thickness; it is strongly curved; its re 29. (Here fig. 45). Said to have come from lief decoration may remind of Protocorin NOTE 305 the deposit N of tomb VII, cf. above note thian conical lekythoi as e.g. FriisJohansen Blegen 1939, 420 and figs. 4 - 5 and 8 - 9. 111. 1922,pl.VIII.The illustration,AH II,pi. (Fig. 4 left centre, a handle ofa plate). The disks,AEphem 1937, 380, fig. 5,1 - 3, CXVII is misleading, as it is photographed For the Protocorinthian vases, cf. IS IV, 118 said to have come from Tombs XIX, XXV from the inside and the relief lines ofthe and note 326; for the lotus bowls, cf. above and XXVI, which each had one disk and outside are applied to an outline drawing of p. 54 and note 110 and for the plain phialai, Tomb VIII with three disks. the photograph. Blegen loc.cit., fig. 5, 9 - 10. For Tomb XXV, cf. references above note 251. NOTE 302 NOTE 306 AH 2201. (NM 14021). Blegen 1939, 420, fig. 9, 3. NOTE 312 AH 11,293 and pi. CXXIII. Vollgraff Br. 1853 and Aphrodision:71/25. Weber 1983, 267, Cat. no. I C 14, cf. pp. 15, NOTE 307 They are both very fragmentary; Br 1853 is 19 and map of distribution area, p. 17. Blegen 1939, 420 and fig. 5. a fragment ofa cast bronze plate with a pal- AH 1877 (NM 20454). mette-volute in relief, probably Late Ar AH II, 277 and 336, pi. CX. NOTE 308 chaic, and 71/25 are two fragments ofa si Boiotian dedicatory inscription. For the lotus bowl,cf. above p. 54 and note milar plate, measuring 4x2 and 3x2.5 AH 1878. 112. (here fig. 16). cm., respectively. In my notes from the mu AH II, 277 and 337, pi. CX. The bolster handle attachment, Blegen seum, I have not determined the type of Lazzarmi 1976, 74 and 189, no. 72. (Ca. 550 1937, 380,fig. 2, no.9 (= IS IV, 72, fig. 36). vase to which they belong; they may pro B.C.) For AH 2133, cf. above p. 79 and note 261. vide an argument in favour of Gauer's Cf. also above note 106, AH 2022, a minia theory of Argive origin of a specific group ture jug. of bolster attachment handles, cf. above p. 79 and note 264.

113 NOTE 313 chronology of the Greek rings, cf. Board- Caskey-Amandry 1952, 181, M. 49.119, pi. Aphrodision 72/1036, cf. AH 2193 and man 1970, 154. 46. 2198, above p. 82 and note 286. NOTE 321 NOTE 327 note 314 AH 964, with a fixed rectangular seal, bears Archaic B Pins.Jacobsthal 1956. Cf above note 184 and the miniature an Argive Archaic owner's inscription, ap K.-D. 219-258, pis. 87- 106. phialai, 72/1079 and 73/515 and a minia parently dated to after 550 B.C., AH II, 250 AH 219, 407, 410 - 411, 414 - 416, 418 - ture disk, 73/647; 72/1067 may be rem and 332., 419,421 - 427,431 - 440,443 - 444,446 - nants of a miniature plate. The seal ring, AH 965, with a rectangular 447,449 - 455,457 - 496, 500 - 503, 505 - For the tongue pattern, cf. above p. 81 and seal is ofBoardman's Type D, most common 511,517- 540, 542 - 552, 554 - 575, 583, notes 278 - 279. in the 5th Cent. B.C.; AH 966 - 967, oval 590 - 592, 589, 593, 595 - 600, 602 - 606, seals with intaglio,are of Boardman'sTypes 608,626 - 632,634,636 - 638, 641 - 646, NOTE 315 M and N, chiefly Late Archaic or Classical, 649, 660-662, 667-668, AH 11,211 - Personal Ornaments. AH II, 250 - 251, pi. LXXXIX, cf. Board- 232, pis. LXXIX - LXXXIII. Cf. IS IV, 62 - 66, for bird pendants, and 67 man 1970, 155 - 157, fig. 198 and cf. Phi Blegen 1939, 438 - 440 and figs. 25 (= IS - 69, for nonfigurative bronzes of Geome lipp, 155, Cat. nos. 576 - 613, 5th - 4th IV,63, fig. 27) and 27. tric types lasting into the 7th Cent. B.C. Cent. B.C. Caskey-Amandry 1952, 181, no. 96, M. AH 968, AH II, 251 and pi. LXXXIX, is of 49.126, pi. 46. NOTE 316 Roman Imperial date; a close parallel is Verdehs 1960,82,2 pins. IS IV, 69 and 70. Philipp, 183, Cat. no. 661, pi. 43. Cambridge. Fitzwilliam Museum, Inv. no. Gr. 12. 1970 (AR 1970 - 71, 69 - 70, no. 2 NOTE 317 note 322 q. and fig. 2, cf. IS IV, 93, note 10). A very elaborate pair of gold ear rings are Cf. IS IV, 71 -78. Cf. IS IV, 80, fig. 45. said to have been found in a tomb at Argos, datable to around 650 B.C. Amandry 1953, NOTE 323 NOTE 328 29 - 33, pi. X, nos. 43 - 44. For the earlier ring fibulae, cf. IS IV, 72. Archaic C I Pins: K.-D., 258 - 261, pis. 106 Cf. Philipp, 120 - 125, for the Olympia The Archaic types are AH 935 - 944 and - 107. finds and a general discussion of the type 948 (NM 20902 and 20909), AH II, 249 - AH 408, 497, and 612-613, AH II 218,223 and,121 - 122, note 303, for their proven 250 and pi. LXXXVIII. For the tongue pat - 224 and 229 and pis. LXXX - LXXXIII. ances including several Peloponnesian sites tern, cf. above p. 81 and notes 278 - 279. For AH 720, cf. below note 332. as well asAthens; but they seem to be parti Blegen 1937, 380, fig. 4 (Tomb VIII, cf. cularly favoured at Argos. above note 111). NOTE 329 There are two fragmentary ear rings in the Archaic D pins: K.-D. 262 - 264, pi. 108. Athena Sanctuary on the Larissa,Vollgraff NOTE 324 AH 666, AH II, 232 and pi. LXXXIII. no. Br 1852, and one at the Aphrodision no. AH 947 (NM 20908), AH 11,249 - 250, 73/534. and pi. LXXXVIII, cf. Cook 1953, 66 and NOTE 330 fig. 41. Archaic E Pins: K.-D. 264 - 273, pis. 108 - NOTE 318 111, IS IV, 69 - 70. NOTE 325 AH 670 - 699, AH II, 232 - 234 and pi. AH 946 (NM 14034),AH II 249, pi. LXXXIII. NOTE 319 LXXXVIII. Cf Philipp,317 - 318, who gi Blegen 1939, 438 - 440, fig. 27. There are band finger rings with parallel ves a summary of the studies of this fibula Cf. below note 337 for an E II pin in Pro horizontal grooves,AH 958 - 961, and type, at Cat.no. 1135 (pi. 70). symna,Tomb IX, and cf IS IV and 121, some with both grooves and slight, oblique note 370 for the absolute chronology of notching, AH 962 - 963, AH II, 250 and pi. NOTE 326 Tomb IX. LXXXIX. Archaic A pins: K.-D, 209 - 219,pis. 85 - For the Geometric Period, several ring 87. NOTE 331 types ofwhich continued, cf. IS IV, 70-71 AH 231, 288,384 - 405, 498, 504, 580 - Archaic F: K.-D, 273 - 279, pi. 112. and notes 236 - 238. 582, 584 - 587, 594, 614-617, 620 - 623, AH 705 - 719. AH II, 234 - 235 and pi. 647 - 648, 651 - 659, 663 -. 665, AH II, 211 LXXXIII. NOTE 320 - 232, pis. LXXX - LXXXIII. For AH 2764 (NM 20810), AH II, 327, K.- Cf. above notes 108-109, and for the Blegen 1939,438 - 440,fig. 27 (three pins) D 4840 - 4842 and Philipp, 81, no. 234 (pis.

114 5 and 34) and p. 78 the reference to the 1939, 412 and fig. 3. (NM 13995) and AH 1556, (NM 20672), Vitsa tomb. K.-D. Cat. nos. 3420 - 3421 (A I, cf. here the latter a miniature bell, AH II, 299, pi. Caskey-Amandry 1952, 182, nos. 106 - 107, fig. 45) and Cat. no. 3655 (B II, from Pro CXXVI and p. 264, pi. XCII, respectively; M 49.72 and 49. 92, pi. 46. symna Tomb VIII (cf. above note 111). various knives, including a possible spatula, K.-D. Nadeln. Cat. Nos. 4856 and 4858 (F Cat. no. 3814 (B IV, from Tomb XL) and AH 2264, AH 11,299 - 300, pi. CXXVI. IV)= AH 720 andVerdelis, 1960, 82. Cat. no. 4592 (E II, from Tomb IX) cf. Ble gen 1937, 378 and fig. 2 and IS IV, 72, fig. NOTE 343 NOTE 332 36. AH 2251 (NM 14002) and AH 2787 (NM Cf. above pp. 86-87 and notes 328, 330 and For the absolute chronology of the three 14001), AH II, 313, pi. CXXVI, and AH II, 331. Prosymna tombs, cf. references below note 328 - 329,pl. CXXXIV, respectively. For the Ghortsouli sanctuary, cf. Karagiorga 349. Cf. e.g. Richter 1966, Fig. 317. 1963, 88 - 89;Jost 1985, 136 - 137;Voyatzis, 30 - 32; and Karagiorga-Stathatopoulos NOTE 338 NOTE 344 1995, who points to the correspondance to Argos. AH 1880 - 1889, AH II, 277 - 278 and 337 the Argive Heraion and the Hera Sanctuary K.-D, Cat. nos. 3604 and 3606 (B I) (for and pis. CXI - CXII;AH 1752 - 1778,AH ofPerachora also in other pin types and in Archaic B pins, cf. above p. 86 and note II, 270 - 271, pis. CII - CIII, cf. Kasper the terra-cotta figurines. 327); nos. 4747 - 4748 (F I). (Br. Mus. 1972; Philipp 203 - 204 and Ostby et. al. 1950.5 - 10. 1. - 10. 2., cf.Jacobsthal 1956, 1994, 122 with other references. NOTE 333 28 - 29, fig. 118, said to have come from Loop pins, K.-D. 281 - 283, pis. 112 - 113. Argos, were in fact donated by Anne Roes NOTE 345 Cat. no. 4888, cf. Blegen 1939, 438 - 440 Vollgraff); 4796 - 4796, 4800 - 4808, 4827 - Cf. IS IV, 8 85 and above pp. # and notes and fig. 27. 4829 (F II. From 5th Cent. B.C. tombs) 219-225.

NOTE 334 NOTE 339 note 346 Pins with ring heads: K.-D, 284 - 285, pi. AH 1555 and AH 2783, cf. IS IV, 84 and The Laconian type "Pilzkopfnadel" in Tomb 113. note 322. IX and the so-called "Kalottenschale" in Cat. no. 4913, AH 721, AH 11,235 and pi. Tomb XL, cf IS IV, 91 with references to LXXXIV. NOTE 340 figs. 36 and 47, pp. 81 - 82 and note 298, The horse bits. For AH 2272, AH II, 328, and p. 84 and note 326. note 335 pi. CXXXIV, AH 949, AH II, 250 and pi. LXXXVIII. cf. Donder 1980, 58 - 60, Type IX, nos. 99 - NOTE 347 100, pi. 12, in particular; for AH 2759 - For the lotus bowl and the Phrygian-imita NOTE 336 2761, AH II, 326 - 327, pi. CXXXIV, cf. ting fibulae, cf. above p. 54 and notes 110 The Archaic A, B and E pins are all repres Donder 1980, 66 - 67, nos. 115- 121, pi. and 113; for the cut-out figures, above p. 64 ented in Prosymna Tombs VIII - IX and 13, from Dodone and pp. 49 - 53, nos. 74 - and note 176; for the mirrors, above p. 78 XL, cf. below note 337, while there are 81, pis.9 - 11, parts ofhorse bits from and note 251; for the vases,above p. 84 and other reasons for an early date ofthe Argive Olympia. notes 305 - 307 (the shallow bowl, note 306, Heraion F III and F IV pins, cf. above and The wheels, AH 2253 - 2254 (NM 14025 - is ofa type not represented at the Heraion, note 331, which Imma Kilian-Dirlmeier, 14026) are ofordinary types, but not of which may be fortuituous, considering the K.-D, 273 - 279, considers chiefly of Late normal size, contrary to the other parts of fragmentary character ofthe bronze vasesin Archaic or Classical date. chariots, AH 2252 (NM 20633) and AH the main sanctuary); and for the personal 2255, AH II, 298 - 299, pi. CXXVI.The ornaments, cf. above pp. 85-87 and notes NOTE 337 antyx,AH 2252, has an Archaic inscription, 316 - 320 and 337 and cf. also IS IV, 71, fig. Archaic Pins. dated to ca. 550 - 525 B.C., cf.Jeffery 1990, 35. Hera Sanctuary west ofthe Heraion. 168, no. 13. K.-D Cat. nos. 3430 and 3446 - 47, 3466, NOTE 348 3476 and 3500 (A II) and Cat. nos. 3620 - NOTE 341 Cf above pp. 54 and 84-85 and notes 112, 3621 (B I), 3633, 3637, 3649 and 3670 (B Cf. IS IV, 84 and notes 323 - 324. 308, 310 and 311 for the lotus bowl and II), 3728, 3740 - 3741, 3833, 3847, 3880, other bronze vases as well as the bronze di 3913 (B IV), 4051 (BV), 4184, 4205 and note 342 sks in Tomb VIII and other Prosymna tombs 4336 (BVI) as well as Cat. nos. 4588 (E I), The crotala AH 2258 - 2259 (NM 14023), (for the Protocorinthian vases ofTombVIII Prosymna Tombs 4640 (E III) = Blegen AH II, 259, pi. CXXVI; the bells,AH 2257 and IX, cf. IS IV 84 and note 326); p. 64

ii5 and note 176 for the cut-out figure of NOTE 355 NOTE 364 Tomb VIII; and pp. 85-87 and notes 319, Cf. above pp. 86-87 and references note 332 Cf. IS IV, 88. 323 and 337 and IS IV,72 fig. 36, for the also for the terra-cotta statuettes. personal ornaments. NOTE 365 NOTE 356 Cf. above pp. 58-60, Figs. 18-19 and 21 - NOTE 349 Cf above pp. 53-54 and notes 101 and 105 22, and notes 147 (AH 29), 155 (AH 4) and For the specific Geometric finds in Tombs with reference to the summary given by 159(AH5);pp. 75-78, AH 1588 a Late Ar IX and XL, cf IS IV, 91 and references note Menadier 1996; for the terra-cottas, cf also chaic, presumably Laconian stand mirror, 373 and for Tomb IX, also notes 150 and above notes 141, 170 - 171 and 180 and for note 229, and Fig. 36, AH 1565 a Laconian 370 as well as above p. 41 and note 23. For the lead reliefs also note 182. imitating hand mirror, note 237, and M. 49. the absolute chronology ofTombs IX and 94, a handle of a Laconian mirror, note 242; XL, cf. IS IV, 91 and notes 362 and 370. NOTE 357 p. 85, AH 946, a Laconian fibula, note 325, For Tomb VIII, cf. above p. 54 and referen Cf. above pp. 48, 78 and 84-87 and notes and p. 86, Laconian B and C pins, notes 327 ces note 111. 61, 249, 304,326 - 328 and 331 - 332. and 328. For the drinking vessels and other pottery forms in the Prosymna tomb deposits, cf. NOTE 358 NOTE 366 Haggl987,98-99. Cf pp. 66 and notes 182 and 185 (for the Cf. above pp. 69-70 The tripod stand from Tomb II (fig. 46) lead reliefs) note 248 (for the mirrors) and does not necessarily signify an original con pp. 79-81 for the Archaic bronze vases for NOTE 367 nection with a tomb deposit, cf. above p. 84 ming part ofthe banquetting implements; Cf. IS IV, 88 and note 346 for the insular and references note 309. cf. in particular the lotus bowls, the caul contacts of Geometric Argos and cf. above drons, the low tripod stands, the hydria p. 67 and note 191, the Samian bronze kou NOTE 350 handles, the mugs with decorative large ri ros with an Argive inscription; pp. 68-69 Cf. IS IV, 87 and note 344; many ofthe vets. Cf above pp. 53-57 for the adoption note 196 and fig. 29, the Kephalari kouros bronzes mentioned here are presumably of of the identical Phrygian banquetting tradi and pp. 71 and notes 210 and 211, the Sam Archaic date. tion. ian technique ofpiece moulds for Archaic lead and bronze figures. NOTE 351 NOTE 359 Cf. IS IV, 87, refererences note 344. For the connections ofthe Argive Heraion note 368 with the Corinthia in EG to LG, cf. IS IV, Cf. above p. 85, note 316 with reference to note 352 86 - 87. IS IV for the Argive Heraion ear rings. Apart from the two North Syrian siren at tachments with standing bulls, NM 16552, NOTE 360 NOTE 369 from the Argive Heraion, and the model for Cf. IS IV, 88 - 89. Cf. above pp. 83-85. Delphi, Inv.no. 8399, (cf.above pp. 41-44 and notes 27 - 29), the fragments ofGreek NOTE 361 NOTE 370 cauldrons, the bull's head AH 25 and the Cf. in particular the relief shield straps Cf. above pp. 78 and 85 and note 252 for miniature lion's head attachment AH 2204, above pp. 73-74 and notes 219-225. the mirror finds at the Aphrodision and havecounterparts in Delphi (cf.above pp. note 314 for the miniature vases and disks 45-46 and notes 41 and 43) NOTE 362 and cf. above pp. 69-71 and note 198 for Cf. above pp. 62-63 and notes 170 - 171 for the lead figurines and note 206 for the Ar NOTE 353 the difficulty in distinguishing Archaic Co give Heraion find. IS IV, 87 - 88 and notes 344 and 347. rinthian and Argive sculpture and above p. For Archaic E pins, cf. above p. 86 and note 68 and notes 193 - 194 for the Corinthian NOTE 371 330. Apollo Pythaios kouros and note 216 for Cf. above p. 75. the Corinthian Enyalios plaque, both found NOTE 354 in Argos. NOTE 372 Cf. above pp. 64, 84 and 88 and notes 175, Cf. IS IV, 39 - 40, fig. 1. 304 and 344. NOTE 363 Cf IS IV, 86 - 89. NOTE 373 Cf. IS IV,92 (Conclusions) and above pp. 55-58 (Conclusions). n6 NOTE 374 ing this for a down-dating of the Temple - Hemans 1992, 76, seem to confirm my Cf. also the altered relations ofthe Argive Terrace. Pointing out the existence ofa li proposed chronology ofthe Archaic Hera Heraion with the Corinthia and Laconia, mestone facing ofthe Terrace, C. Antonac Temple to the first half ofthe 7th Cent. above pp. 89-90. cio 1992, 93 - 95, alters our conception of B.C. the outward appearance ofthe Terrace, and, In her unpublished paper on the Argive NOTE 375 in my opinion, actually confirms the sug Heraion (cf. above note 149), M.-F. Billot The latest example being the tripod relief gestion ofa Mycenean model for its con suggests a new reconstruction of the Ar in the Hera sanctuary west ofthe Heraion, struction, since the limestone facing can be chaic Temple, the discussion of which I pre cf. above pp. 63-65 and Fig. 24; but cf. also parallelled with the white clay covering of fer to postpone until the publication with e.g. the hammered tripods, IS IV,48 - 50, the Mycenaean tholos tombs, cf.Taylor the final suggestions is available. and the bronze imports and their Greek 1955,219 - 220, and Taylor 1983,74. How imitations, above pp. 55, as well as e.g. the ever, I do not think that the information of NOTE 377 early Greek bolster attachments for the lo the note-book alters the date of the Terrace. Between the tripod relief, cf. above note cal cauldrons connected with the banquets, A term such as "Greek" sherds is useless and 374, and the kouros NM 16357, above pp. above pp. 79. I wonder how much one can rely on the 59-60 and Fig. 20, there are hardly any distinction between "Protocorinthian" and bronzes ofa qualifying standard at the Ar NOTE 376 "Corinthian" made by a student during the give Heraion. Cf.I.S. I, 177- 178 and 191 - 193 for the day's excavation work in 1929, before Temple Terrace and pp. 187 - 191 for the Payne's conclusive studies. For his chrono NOTE 378 Temple. logy Blegen must have used precisely the Cf.I.S. I, 196 197. The chronology ofthe Temple Terrace sherds mentioned by Darbishire. Until an (around 700 B.C.) was based on ceramic actual publication of Blegen's finds, I prefer NOTE 379 finds inside the Terrace as well as on the to rely on the information ofFrickenhaus' Cf. above pp. 59-63, p. 76 and p. 83. chronology ofmonumental objects placed and Miiller's investigations in 1911, cf IS on the Terrace itself, that of the Temple pri IV, 178 and note 42, which Antonaccio note 380 marily on its relative chronological position seems to mix up with Blegen's finds, Anto In this study,confining myselfto the early compared with other early Peloponnesian naccio 1992, 91, note 16. bronzes of the Argive Heraion and Argos, I Temples. As to the chronology ofthe Temple which I have left out all discussion of the more ge In an article in Hesperia, C. Antonaccio placed in close connection with the First neral theme ofthe urban development of 1992 refers to new information about the Apollo Temple of Corinth and the First Po Argos and thus of the theories of many investigations ofthe Temple Terrace from a seidon Temple of Isthmia, the new excavati scholars working on the same basic pro note-book by one of the trench supervisors ons at the latter site, dating this temple to blems. at Blegen's excavations, R.S. Darbishire, us the first half of the 7th Cent. B.C., Gebhard

117 Bibliography

Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992 Bammer, A. 1991/92. Blegen, CW 1939 Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art. Repre Multikulturelle Aspekte der friihen Kunst Prosymna: Remains of Post-Mycenaean sentations and Interpretations. SIMA C. im Artemision von Ephesos. OJh. 61. Bei- Date.AJA XLIII, 410 - 444. Jonsered. blatt, 16 - 54. Blumel,C 1940 Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1996 Bammer, A. - Muus, U 1996 Staathche Museen zu Berlin. Griechische Myt och Epos i tidig grekisk konst. Fram- Das Artemision von Ephesos. Mainz a. Rh. Skulpturen des sechsten und funften Jahr- stallning och tolkning.Jonsered 1996. hunderts v. Chr. Berlin/Leipzig. Barnett, R.D.S. 1948 Akurgal, E. 1961 Early Greek and Oriental Ivories. JHS Boardman,J. 1961 Die Kunst Anatoliens von Homer bis Alex LXVIII, 1 - 25. The Cretan Collection in Oxford. Oxford. ander. Berlin. Bartoloni, G. 1989 Boardman,J. 1962 Akurgal, E. 1966 La cultura villanoviana. Roma. Ionian Bronze Belts. Anatolia VI, 179 - 189. Orient und Okzident. Baden-Baden. Bather, A.G. 1892-93. Boardman,J. 1967 Alexandn, O 1964 The Bronze Fragments ofthe Acropolis: II. Excavations in Chios,. 1952 - 55. Greek Une broche dedalique Laconienne. BCH JHS XIII. Emporio. BSA Suppl.Vol. 6. 88, 525 - 530. Baumgart, G. 1916 Boardman,J. 1970 Alroth, B. 1989 Aus der Heidelberger Sammlung. AA 31, Greek Gems and Finger Rings. London. Greek Gods and Figurines. Boreas 18 Upp 166-203. sala. Boardman,J. 1980 Bevan,C 1986 The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies Alroth, B. 1989-90 Representations ofAnimals in Sanctuaries and Trade. 2nd. Ed. NewYork/London. Visiting Gods. Sc.Ant. 3 - 4, 301 - 310. ofArtemis. (BAR 315). Oxford. Boardman,J. 1990 Alroth, B. 1992 Bianchi, R.S. 1990 The Lyre-Player Group ofSeals.AA 1990, 1 Changing mode in the representation of Egyptian Metal Statuary ofthe Third Inter - 17. cult images. Iconography, 9 - 46. mediate Period (Circa 1070 - 656 B.C). From its Egyptian Antecedents to its Sam Boardman,J. - Buchner, G. 1966 Amandry, P. 1953 ian Examples. Small Bronze Sculpture, 61 - Seals from Ischia and the Lyre-Player Les bijoux antiques. Collection Helene 84. Group.Jdl 81, 1 -62. Stathatos I.Athens/ Strassbourg. Billot, M.- F. (In Press). Boehmer, R.M. 1972 Amandry, P. 1971 Recherches archeologiques a 1'Heraion Die Kleinfunde von Bogazkoy aus dem Collection Paul Canellopoulos I. BCH d'Argos. Geniere,J. de la. (Ed.) Sanctuaires Grabungskampagnen 1931 - 1939 und XCV, 585 - 626. de Hera, espaces sacres,pratiques votives. 1952 - 1969. Bogazkoy - HattusaVII. Ber- XVIeJournees d'Etudes du Centre de Re Antonaccio, CM. 1992 cherches Archeologiques de l'Universite Terraces,Tombs and the Early Argive Hera Ch.de Gaulle. Lille III. Boehmer,R.M. 1973 ion. Hesperia 61. 85 - 105. Phrygische Prunkgewander des 8.Jahrhun- Birmingham,J.M. 1961 dertsv.Chr.AA88, 149- 172. Antonaccio, CM. 1995 The Overland Route across Anatolia in the An Archaeology of Ancestors.Tomb Cult Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.CAnatSt Boehmer, R.M. 1979 and Hero Cult in Early Greece. Maryland. XI, 185- 195. Die Kleinfunde aus der Unterstadt von Bo 1995. gazkoy. Bogazkoy-Hattusa X. Berlin. Blegen, CW 1937 Post-Mycenaean Deposits in Chamber Tombs. AEphem 1937 1,377 - 390. u8 Boehmer, R.M. 1983 Catling, H.W DeVries,K. 1980 b. Eine tabalische XII 9 a Fibel aus Assur. Excavations at the Menelaion, Sparta. 1973 Greeks and Phrygians in the Early Iron (R.M. Boehmer- H. Hauptmann. Eds.) -76.AR 1976-77,24-42. Age.DeVnes 1980 a, 33 - 50. Beitrage zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens. Festschrift K. Bittel, 75 - 82. Mainz a. Rh. Catling, H.W. and E. 1980. Dietz, S. - Papachristodoulou ( Eds.). 1988 Objects of Bronze, Iron and Lead. Lefkandi Archaeology in the Dodecannese. Copen Boehmer, R.M. 1984 1,231 -262. hagen. Keine tabalische Fibel aus Assur. AA 1984, 223. Catling, H.W 1996 Donder, H. 1980 The Dark Age and Later Bronzes. In: Cold Zaumzeug in Griechenland und Zypern. Bol, PC 1978 stream,J. N. and Catling H.W (Eds.). Knos- PBF XVI 1. Grossplastik aus Bronze in Olympia. sos. North Cemetery-Early Greek Tombs. OlForsch. IX. Vol. II, 543 - 574. BSA Suppl.Vol. 28. Donder, H. 1994 Katalog der Sammlung Antiker Kleinkunst Bol, P.CI 985 Cavanagh,WG. - Laxton, R.R. 1984 des archaologischen Instituts der Universitat Antike Bronzetechnik. Miinchen. Lead Figurines from the Menelaion. BSA Heidelberg. Ill 2. Die Fibeln. Mainz. 79, 23 - 26. Bol, PC 1989 Dugas,C1921 Argivische Schilde. Ol.Forsch. XVIII. Comstock, M. -Vermeule, C 1971 Le Sanctuaire d'Alea Athena a Tegee. BCH Bonn/NewYork. Greek Etruscan and Romon Bronzes in the XLV, 335 - 435. Museum of Fine Arts. Boston. Boston. Bommelaer,J.-F. - Laroche, D. 1991 Dunbabin,TJ. 1962. Guide de Delphes. Le Site. Paris. Congdon, L.O.K. 1981 Perachora II. Oxford. Caryatid Mirrors of . Mainz BorelLB. 1989 a. Rh. Egg,M. 1993/1994 Statuetten, Gefasse und andere Gegenstande Eine bronzene Stierkopfprotome von aus Metall. Katalog der Sammlung antiker CookJ.M. 1953 Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum in Kleinkunst des archaologischen Instituts der Mycenae 1939 - 1952. Part III.The Aga- Mainz. MAnthrWien CXXIII/CXXIV, 47 Universitat Heidelberg. Dritter Band. memnoneion. BSA XLVIII, 30 - 68. - 60. Mainz a. Rh. Courbin, P. 1974 Eichler, R. 1919 Brommer, F. 1937 LesTombes Geometriques d'Argolide. Die Skulpturen des Heraion beiArgos. Ojh. Satyroi.Wiirzburg. 1.(1952- 1958).Et.Pel.VIII. 19 -20,15 - 153.

Brouskan, M. 1985 Cnstofam, M. 1985 Filow, B. 1927 The Paul and Alexandra Canellopoulos Civilta degli Etruschi. Milano. Die archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte Museum. A Guide. am Ochrida-See. Berlin/Leipzig. Athens. Croissant, F. 1973 LAphrodision. BCH 1973, 476 - 481. Fittschen, K. 1969 Brownson, C.L. 1893 Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagen- Excavations at the Heraeum ofArgos. AJA Croissant, El988 darstellungen Griechenlands. Berlin. VIII, 205-225. Tradition et Innovation dans les ateliers co- rinthiens archaiques: materiaux pour l'hi- Foley, A. 1988 Buchholz, H.-G. 1972 stoire d'un style. BCH 112, 91 - 166. The Argolid 800 - 600 B.C SIMA LXXX. Blei in mykenischer Kultur und Metallurgie Goteborg. Zyperns.Jdl 87, 1 - 59. Croissant, F. 1992 Les Debuts de la Plastique Argienne. Poly- Frankfort, H. 1954 Buchholz, H.-G. -Wangenheim, C.v., 1984 dipsion Argos, 69 - 86. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Fliigelpferde. AA 99, 237 - 262. Orient. Penguin Books. (1st Ed. 1954) Curtis,J. 1994. (Great Britain). Canciani, F. - Hase, Fr.W.v. 1979 Mesopotamian Bronzes from Greek Sites: LaTomba Bernardini di Palestrina. Roma. the Workshops of Origin. Iraq LVI, 1 - 25. FriisJohansen, K. 1922 LesVases Sicyoniens. Paris/Copenhague. Caner, E. 1983 CurtisJ.E.- ReadeJ.E. 1994 Fibeln in Anatohen. I. PBF XIV, 8 Art and Empire. Treasures from Assyria in FriisJohansen, K. 1951 Miinchen. the British Museum. London. Exochi, ein friihrhodisches Graberfeld. ActaArch28, 1 - 192. Caskey,J.L. - Amandry, P. 1952 DeVnes, K. (Ed.)1980 a. Investigations at the Heraion ofArgos, From Athens to Gordion. The Papers of a Frodin, O- Persson,W 1938 1949. Hesperia XXI, 165 - 221. Memorial Symposium for Rodney S. Asine. Results ofthe Swedish Excavations Young. Philadelphia. 1922- 1930. Stockholm.

119 Furtwangler, A. 1906. Hase, Fr.-W v. 1979 Hockmann, K. 1994. Agina. Das Heiligtum der Aphaia. Zur Interpretation villanovazeitlicher und Rezension Zimmer 1991. Gnomon 66, 373 Miinchen. friihetruskischer Funde in Griechenland - 375. und der Agais. Kleine Schriften aus dem Furtwangler, A.E. 1981 vorgeschichtlichen Seminar, Marburg. Hft. Immerwahr, U.K. 1990 Heraion von Samos: Grabungen in Siidte- 5, 62 - 99. Marburg. Attic Script. A Survey. Oxford. menos 1977, II. Kleinfunde AM 96, 73 - 138. Hase, Fr.-W. v. 1995 Iozzo, M. 1987 Agaische, griechische und vorderorientali- Corinthian Basins on High Stands. Hespe Gabelmann,H.1965 sche Einflusse auf das tyrrhenische Mittel- ria 56, 355 -416 Studien zum friihgriechischen Lowenbild. italien. RZGM 35,239-286. Berlin. Jacobsthal, P. 1956 Haynes, D 1992 Greek Pins and Their Connexions with Eu Gebhard, E.R. - Hemans, P. 1992 The Technique ofGreek Bronze Casting. rope and Asia. Oxford. University ofChicago Excavations at Isth Mainz a. Rh. mia 1981: 1. Hesperia 61, 1-77. Jacopi, G 1931. Haynes, S. 1977 Esplorazione archeologica di Cameiro I. Gjodesen, M. 1944 The Tomb. Do its Contents Form a Scavi della necropoli di Cameiro 1929 - 30. Bronze Paterae with Anthropomorphic Consistent Group ? La civilta arcaica diVu- Clara Rhodos IV. Handles. ActaArch 15, 101 - 187. lci e la sua espansione. Atti del X. Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici. Grosseto-Ros- Jacopi, G 1932/1933. Gjodesen, M. 1970 elle-Vulci. 29 maggio - 2 giugno 1975, 17 - Esplorazione archeologica di Cameiro II. B. The Artistic Context and Environment of 29. Firenze. Acropoh. Clara RhodosVI -VII, 223 - 365. Some Greek Bronzes in the Master Bronzes Rodi. Exhibition. Art and Technology, 145 - 169. Hencken, H. 1958 Syracuse, Etruria and the North: Some Jantzen, U 1938-39 Gras,M. 1985 Comparisons.AJA 62, 259 - 272. Griechische Bronzeteller. AM 63 - 64, 140 TraficsTyrrheniennes archai'ques. BEFRA - 155. 253. Pans. Herfort-Koch, M. 1986 Archaische Bronzeplastik Lakoniens. Boreas Jantzen, U 1955 Gropengiesser, H. 1975 Beiheft 4. Minister. Griechische Greifenkessel. Berlin. Archaische Kleinbronze in Heidelberg. AA 90,232 - 244. Herrmann, H.-V 1966 Jantzen, U. 1962 Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit. Phrygische Fibeln. N.Himmelmann-Wild Guggisberg, M. 1988 OlForsch.VI. Berlin. schutz - H. Biesantz (Hrsg.) Festschrift fur Terrakotten von Argos. Ein Fundkomplex Friedrich Matz, 39 - 43. Mainz. aus dem Theater. BCH 112, 167 - 234 Herrmann, H-V 1979 Die Kessel der orientalisierenden Zeit. II. Jeffery, L.H. 1990 Hadaczek, K. 1902 Ol.Forsch. XL Berlin. The Local Scripts ofArchaic Greece. Zur Schmuckkunst des altgriechischen Oxford. (Second Ed. with Supplement 1961 Mittelalters. Ojh.V, 207 - 213. Herrmann, H.-V. 1983 - 1987 by A.Johnston) Altitalisches und Etruskisches in Olympia. Hafner,U 1965 ASAtene LXI (1983), 271 - 292 and 357 - Jenkins, R.J. 1931 -32 Das Kunstschaffen Lakoniens in archaischer 358 (Discussion). The Early Archaic Argive Terracotta Figures Zeit. Minister. to 525 B.C. BSA 1931 - 32, 23 - 40. Herrmann, H.-V. 1984 Hagg,R. 1987 Kesselschmiick. Nachtrage. AM 99, 17-33. Jenkins, R.J. 1936. Gifts to the Heroes in Geometric and Ar Dedalica.A Study ofDorian Plastic Art in chaic Greece. Linders,T - Nordquist G. Higgins, R.A.I 954 the Seventh Century B.C Cambridge. (Eds.) Gifts to the Gods. Proceedings ofthe Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Depart Uppsala Symposium 1985. Uppsala.(Boreas ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities. Jost, M. 1985 15). 93-99. British Museum. London. Sanctuaires et Cultes d'Arcadie. Et.Pel. IX. Paris. HallJ.M. 1995 Himmelmann-Wildschutz, N. 1965 How Argive Was the "Argive" Heraion? Archaischer Bronzekouros in Wien.Jdl 80. Karagiorga,Th. 1963 The Political and Cultural Geography of 1965,124- 137. Apxat'a Mavxiveia. ADelt. 18B, 88 - the Argive Plain, 900 - 400 B.C AJA 99, 89. 577-613. H6lbl,G. 1979 Beziehungen der agyptischen Kultur zu Karagiorga - Stathatopoulos,Th. 1995 Hampe, R. 1936 Altitalien, 1 - 2. Leiden. UxoXiq Mavxiveiac,. AAA XXII (1989), Friihe griechische Sagenbilder in Boiotien. 113- 122. Athen.

120 Kardara, Ch.P. 1988 Kohler, E.L. 1980 Kyrieleis, H. - Kienast, HJ. - Weisshaar, Acppo5iTr| EpuKivr). Iepov Kai Cremations ofthe Middle Phrygian Period H.-J. 1985 uavxeiov eic, xr\v BA ApxaSvav. at Gordion. DeVries, 1980 a, 65 - 89. Phila Ausgrabungen im Heraion von Samos Athen. delphia. 1980/81. AA 1985,365 -450.

Kara. G. 1937 Kopcke, G. 1968. Kyrieleis, H. 1986 Etruskisches in Griechenland. Heraion von Samos: Die Kampagnen Chios and Samos in the Archaic Period. AEphem 100, 316 - 320. Karouzos, S. 1937 1961/1965 in Siidtemenos (8. - 6.Jahrhun- Chios, 187-204. Documents du Musee Nationale d'Athenes. dert).AM 83,250-314. BCH LXI, 349 - 363. Kyrieleis, H. 1990 Kourouniotes, K. 1903 Samos and Some Aspects ofArchaic Bronze Karouzos, Chr. and S. 1981 AvacKatpTi ev KcotiAg). AEphem. 1903, Casting. Small Bronze Sculpture, 15 - 30. Avr>oXoyn,pia dr|aat)pG5v too 151 - 188. E#viKOt> Maoaeiov. Athens. Kyrieleis, H. 1993 Kourouniotes, K. 1910 The Heraion of Samos. Greek Sanctuaries, Kasper,W. 1972 To ev Baoaaii; apxatoxepov iepov xov 125- 153. Die buckelverzierten Armbander Olympias. 'AtzoXXmvoc,. AEphem. 1910, 273 - 331. Miinchen. (Diss.) Kyrieleis, H. - RolhgW 1988 Kozloff, A.P. - Mitten, DC (Eds.) 1988 Ein altorientalischer Pferdeschmuck aus Kerschner, M. 1996 The Gods Delight.The Human Figure in dem Heraion von Samos. AM 103, 37 - 75. Perirrhanterien und Becken. Alt-Agina II 4, Classical Bronzes. 59- 132. Mainz a. Rh. Cleveland Lazzarini, M. L. 1976 Le formule delle dediche votive nella Gre- Kilian, K. 1973 Krings,V1995 cia arcaica. MemLinc. Ser.VIII, vol. XIX, 2, Zum italischen und griechischen Fibel- La civilisation phenicienne et punique. Lei 47 - 354. handwerk des 8. und 7.Jahrhunderts. den/NewYork/Koln. HambBeitr. Ill, 1,1 - 39. Lerat,L. 1937 Krystalh-Votsi, K. 1986 Tombes submyceniennes et geometriques a Kilian, K. 1975 a. Koopoq ano to KecpaXapi xov Delphes. BCH LXI, 44 - 52. Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen Apyouq. Plastik 1,165 - 170. bis zur archacischen Zeit. PBF XIV, 2. Luschey, H. 1939 Miinchen. Kuhrt,A. 1995 Die Phiale. Bleicherode am Harz. The Ancient Near East ca. 3000 - 330 B.C. Kilian, K. 1975 b. I- II. London/ NewYork. Mano-Zisi, D. - Popovic, L.B. 1969 Trachtzubehor der Eisenzeit zwischen Agais Novi Pazar. Beograd. undAdria. PZ 50,9- 140. Kunze, E. 1950 a. Verkannter orientalischer Kesselschmuck Markoe, G. 1985 Kilian, K. 1977 aus dem argivischen Heraion. G. Behrens - Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Zwei italische Kammhelme aus Griechen J.Werner (Eds.) Reinecke Festschrift zum Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley. land. BCH. Suppl. IV, 429 - 441. 75. Geburtstag von Paul Reinecke am 25. September 1947. Mainz. Martelli.M. 1988 Kilian, K. 1983 La stipe votiva dell'Athenaion di Ialysos:Un Weihungen aus Eisen und Eisenverarbei- Kunze, 1950 b. primo bilancio. Dietz - Papachristodolou tung im Heiligtum zu Philia. (Thessalien). Archaische Schildbander. Ol. Forsch. II. 1988,104- 120. Hagg. R.The Greek Renaissance ofthe Berlin. Eighth Century BCTradition and Innova Matthaus, H. 1985 tion. (Athens 1981). Stockholm 1983. Kunze, E. 1967. Metallgefasse und Gefassuntersatze der Waffenweihungen. OLBer.VIII, 83 - 110. Bronzezeit, der geometrischen und archai- Kilian- Dirlmeier, I. 1985 schen Periode auf Cypern. PBF II 8. Fremde Weihungen in griechischen Heilig- Kunze, E. 1991 Miinchen. tiimern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des 7.Jahr- Beinschienen. Ol.Forsch. XXL Berlin. hunderts v. Chr.JbZMusMamz 32, 215 - Matz, F. 1950 254. Kunze, E. - Schleif, H. 1938/39 Geschichte der griechischen Kunst. I Fran Die Waffenfunde. Ol.Ber. Ill, 76 - 118. kfurt a. M. Knudsen,A.K. 1964 From a SardisTomb:A Lydian Pottery Imi Kyrieleis, H. 1977 Mazarakis-Ainian,A.J. 1988 tation ofa Phrygian Metal Bowl ? Berytus Stierprotomen: Orientalisch oder Grie- Early Greek Temples: their Origin and XV, 59-69. chish.AM 92,71 -89. Function. Cult Practice 105 - 119.

121 Menadier, B. 1996 Muscarella. 1992 Popham, M.R. - Calligas, P.O. - Sackett, The Sixth Century BC Temple and the Greek and Oriental Cauldron Attachments: L.H. 1988 - 89. Sanctuary and Cult of Hera Akraia, Pera A Review. East and West, 16 - 45. Further Excavations at the Toumba Ceme chora. (Diss.) Ann Arbour. tery at Lefkandi, 1984 and 1986. A Prelimi Neugebauer, K.A. 1923/24 nary Report. AR 1988 - 89, 117 - 129. Miller, S. 1994, a Reifarchaische Bronzevasen mit Zungen- Review ofVoyatzis. Gnomon Vol. 66, 371 - muster. RM 38 - 39, 341 - 440. Popham, M. 1994 378. Precolonization: Early Greek contact with Neugebauer, K.A. 1931 the East.Tsetskhladze - Angelis. 1994, 11 - Miller, S. 1994 b I)ie minoischen und archaisch-griechischen 34. Sosikles and the 4th Century Building Pro Bronzen. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Ka gram in the Sanctuary at Nemea. Hesperia talog der statuarischen Bronzen I. Berlin. Popovic, Lj.B. 1956 Suppl. 27. Proceedings of the International Musee National. Beograd. Antiquites I. Ca Conference on Greek Architctural Terracot Neumann, G. 1965 talogue des Objets decouverts pres de Tre tas of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods., Gesten und Gebarden in der griechischen benischte. Beograd. December 12-15, 1991, 85 - 98. Kunst. Berlin. Popovic, L.B. 1975 Milne, M.J. 1944 Oberlander, P. 1967 Archaic Greek Culture in the Middle Bal A Greek Footbath in the Metropolitan Mu Griechische Handspiegel. Hamburg (Diss.) kans. Belgrade. seum ofArt. AJA XLVIIL26 - 63. Ortiz, G. 1990 Popovic, Lj.B. 1994 Mitsopoulos-Leon,V - Landstatter, G. 1996 Connoisseurship and Antiquity. Small National Museum. Belgrade. Collection of Lousoi. Artemis Heiligtum.Tempel. OJh 65 Bronze Sculpture, 253 - 280. Greek Antiquities. Belgrade. (Grabungen 1995), 40 - 46. Papachadzis, N.D. 1976 Porada, E. 1967 Moortgat, A. 1955 riauaavioD 'EAlaBoq 7tepir|yriai(; Deer, Bells and Pomegranates. IranAnt. 7, (Hrsg. M.v. Oppenheim) Tell Halaf III. Die (3i(3aio 2 Kai 3. Kopivdiaica icai 99 - 120. Bildwerke. Berlin. AaKCOViKa. II. (I -V. 1974 - 1981). Athens. Prayon, Fr. 1987 Morris, S. Parlasca, K. 1953 Phrygische Plastik.Tubinger Studien zur Introduction. East and West, XIII - XVIII. Zwei agyptische Bronzen aus dem Heraion Archaologie und Kunstgeschichte. 7.Tubin von Samos. AM 68, 127 - 136. gen. Munro, P. 1969 Eine Gruppe spatagyptischer Bronzespiegel. Payne, H. 1931 Reade,J.E. ZAS95,92- 109. Necrocorinthia. Oxford. Symposion in Ancient Mesopotamia. O. Murray - M.Tecusan. 1995, 35 - 56. Murray, OW - Tecusan, M. 1995 Payne, H.G.G. 1934 In vino Veritas. . A Bronze Herakles from the Benaki Muse Rhomaios. K.A. 1957 ums at Athens.JHS LIV, 163 - 164. Iepov A5n,va<; Icoxeipaq Kai Muscarella, O.W 1967 rioceiSrovoq Kocxa rnv Apica5iKr|v Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion. London. Pendlebury, J.D.S. Aoeav. AEphem. 1959, 114 - 163. Aegyptiaca:A Catalogue ofEgyptian Muscarella, O.W. 1970 Objects in the Aegean Area. Cambridge. Richter, CM.A. 1966 Near Eastern Bronzes in the West:The The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Question of Origin. Perdnzet, P. 1908. Romans. Phaidon Press. London/New Art and Technology, 109 -128. Mainz. Monuments figures. Petits bronzes, terre- York. cuites, antiquites diverses. FdD V Paris. Muscarella, O.W. 1986 Richter, CM.A. 1970 Review Caner 1983. BiOr, 43, 194 - 202. Pfaff, C.A.I 992 Kouroi. Archaic GreekYouths. The Argive Heraion:The Architecture of London/NewYork. Muscarella, O.W. 1988 the ClassicalTemple of Hera. Diss. N.Y Bronze and Iron. Ancient Near Eastern Richter, CM.A. - Milne, M.J. 1935 Artificts in the Metropolitan Museum of Picard, O et.al. 1991 Shapes and Names ofAthenian vases. New Art. New York. Guide de Delphes. Le Musee. Paris. York.

Muscarella, O.W. 1989 Pierart, M. -Touchais, G. 1996 Ridder, A.de. 1894 King Midas ofPhrygia and the Greeks. K. Argos. Une ville grecque de 6000 ans. Paris. Catalogue des Bronzes de la Societe Emre et. al. (Eds.) Anatolia and the Near Archeologique d'Athenes. Paris. East. Studies in Honor ofTahsin Ozgiic, Popham, M.R.- Touloupa, E. - Sackett, 333-344. Ankara. L.H. 1982. Ridder, A.de. 1896 Further Excavations oftheToumba Ceme Catalogue des Bronze trouves sur l'Acro- tery at Lefkandi, 1981. BSA 77, 213 - 248. pole d'Athenes. Paris.

122 Ridder, A.de 1915. recentes XIII.Varia 1989. RA 1991,281 - gie Mediterrannee de l'Academie polonaise Les bronzes antiques de Louvre II. Paris. 296. des Sciences.Warszawa

Ridgway.B.S. 1993 Rolley, CI 993 Stibbe, CM. 1972 The Archaic Style in Greek Sculpture. (2nd Les bronze grecs et remains: recherches LakonischeVasen des sechsten Jahrhunderts Ed.) Chicago/ Illinois. recents XVII - Olympie: statues et bronzes. v. Chr. Amsterdam/London. XVIII - Varia. RA 1993, 387 - 400. Ridgway.D. 1992 Stibbe, CM. 1996 The First Western Greeks. Cambridge. Romualdi, A. Das andere Sparta. Mainz a. Rh. Museo Archeologico di Firenze.Catalogo Roeder, G. 1937. del Deposito di Broglio inVal di Chiana. Strom, I. 1971 Agyptische Bronzewerke. Gliickstadt. Roma. Problems Concerning the Origin and De velopment of the Etruscan Orientalizing Roeder, G 1956. Sapouna-Sakellarakis, E. 1978 Style. Odense. Agyptische Bronzefiguren. Staatliche Mu- Die Fibeln der griechischen Inseln. PBF seen zu Berlin. Mitteilungen aus der agypti- XIV 4. Miinchen. Strom, 1.1984 schen Sammlung. Berlin. Aspetti delle Aristocrazie fraVIII eVII sec. Sanan, H. 1969 a. C. Problemi riguardanti l'influsso dei pa- R5lhg,W 1992 Terres cuites geometriques d'Argos. BCH esi mediterranei sulla formazione delle citta Asia Minor as a Bridge between East and XCIII.651 -673. etrusche e il ruolo delle aristocrazie. OPVS West. The Role of the Phoenicians and 111,355-365. Aramaeans in the Transfer ofCulture. East Schafer, J. 1958 and West, 93- 102. Elfenbeinsgriffe des zweiten Jahrtausends. Stubbe-Ostergard,J. 1985 AM 73, 73-87. Heste i handen - to graeske bronzehanke. Rolley, C. 1963 MeddelGlyp 41,33-55. Bronzes III. Figurines et Ustensiles. P. Schafer, J. 1992 Amandry (Ed.) Collection Helene Stathatos Amnisos. Nach den archaologischen, histo- Taylor, W 1955 111,90- 108. Strassbourg. rischen und epigraphischen Zeugnisse des Mycenae 1939 - 1954. Part IVThe Perseia Altertums und der Neuzeit. Berlin. Area. BSA L, 199-237. Rolley, C 1969 Monuments Figures: Les Statuettes de Schefold,K. 1940 Taylor, W 1983 Bronzes. FdD V,l. Griechische Spiegel. Die Antike 16, 11 - The Mycenaeans. (Rev. Ed.) London. 37. Rolley, C 1975 Tomlinson, R.A. 1977 Une statuette archai'que au Musee du Lou Schefold, K. 1993 The Upper Terraces at Perachora. BSA vre. RA 1975,3- 12. Gotter- und Heldensagen der Griechen in 1977,197-202. der Friih- und Hocharchaischen Kunst. Rolley, C. 1982 Miinchen Tomlinson, R.A. 1980 Les Vases de Bronze de l'Archaisme Recent Two Notes on Possible Hestiatoria. BSA 75, en Grande-Grece. Napoli. SchilbachJ.1984. 221 - 228. Eine Gruppe grosserprotoarchaischer Rolley, C 1983 Pferdestatuetten aus Olympia. AM 99, 5 - Tomlinson, R.A. 1988 Les Bronzes Grecs. Fribourg. 15. Water supplies and ritual of the Heraion Perachora. Greek Cult Practice, 167 - 171. Rolley, C. 1984 Schmidt, G. 1968 Les bronzes grecs: recherches recentes. Kyprische Bildwerke aus dem Heraion von Tomlinson, R.A. 1990 RA 1984,273-288. Samos. SamosVIII. Bonn. The Chronology ofthe Perachora Hestia torion and its Significance. Sympotica, 95 - Rolley, C 1985 Sinn, U 1980 101. Les bronze grecs: recherches recentes IV Bi Ein Fundkomplex aus dem Artemis-Heilig- joux et parures. RA 1985, 277 - 296. tum von Lusoi im Badischen Landesmuse- Tomlinson, R.A. 1992 um.JbBadWurt, 17,25-40. Perachora. O. Reverdin - B. Grange (Eds.) Rolley, C. 1986 a. Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique. Les bronzes grecs: recherches recentes V Sinn, U1990 XXXVII. Le sanctuaire grec, 321 - 351. Pa- Ecoles et Styles archai'ques. RA 1986, 377 - Das Heraion von Perachora: eine schmale 391. Schutzzone in der korinthischen Peraia. AM 105,53- 116. Treister, M.Y.I 996 Rolley, C. 1986 b. The Role of Metals in Greek History. Greek Bronzes. Fribourg. Shwa, J. 1983 Mnemosyne Suppl. 156. Leiden/New Egyptian Bronzesfrom Samos in the Staat York/Koln. Rolley, C 1991 liche Museen (Antikensammlung) in Berlin. Les bronzes grecs et remains: recherches EtTrav XIII, 379 - 392. Centre d'Archeolo-

123 Trolle,S. 1979 Wilter, H.1968. Young, R.S. 1963 An Egyptian Head from Camirus, Rhodes. Friihe samische Gefasse. Samos V Bonn. Gordion on the Royal Road. Proceedings ActaArch 49, 139- 150. of the American Philosophical Society. 107, Walter, H. - Vierneisel, K. 1959. 348 - 364. Tsetskladze, G.R. - Angehs, F.de 1994 Agyptische und orientalische Funde aus The Archaeology of Greek Colonization. Brunnen G und aus dem Bothros.AM 74, Zimmer, G. 1991 Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman. 35 - 42. Friihgriechische Spiegel. 132.Winckelman- Oxford. nsprogramm. Berlin. Walter-Karydi, E. 1987 Vanderpool, 1969 Die aginetische Bildhauerschule. (Hrsg. H. Ostby, E. et. al. 1994 Three Prize Vases. ADelt. 24, 1 - 5. Walter). Alt-Aigina II,3. Mamz/Rhein. The Sanctuary ofAthena Alea at Tegea: First Preliminary Report (1990 - 1992). Op- Verdelis, N. 1960 Walters, H.13. 1899 Ath.XX,89- 141. HpaTov Apyouq. ADelt. XVI. B,82 Catalogue of Bronzes. Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the Department ofGreek and Vollgraff,W 1928 a Roman Antiquities. British Museum. Lon Abbreviations Arx Argorum. Mnemosyne 56, 315 - 327. don. AH + No. Vollgraff,W 1928 b. Wangenheim, CF.v. 1988. AH II. Bronzes, No. Opgravingen te Argos. Meded. d. Kon. Archaische Bronzepferde in Rundplastik Akad. van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, und Relief. Bonn. AH II. 66, Serie B, no. 4. Amsterdam. Waldstein, CThe Argive Heraeum II. Weber, Th. 1983. Boston/ New York 1905. Vollgraff,W 1928 c. Bronzekannen. Studien zu ausgewahlten ar- Chronique des Fouilles. Argos. BCH LII, chaischen und klassischen Oinochoeformen AO. 476 - 479. aus Metall in Griechenland und Etrurien. Dawkins, R.M. Frankfurt a.M./Bern. Archaologische Stu The Sanctuary ofArtemis Orthia at Sparta. Vollgraff,W 1934. dien. Band 5. JHS. Supplementary Papers. 5. 1929. Une offrande a Enyalios. BCH. LVIII, 138 - 156. Weickert, L. 1957. Art and Technology. Die Ausgrabung beim Athena-Tempel in Doeringer, S.- Mitten, D.G. - Steinberg, A. VollgrafW. 1948 Milet. 1955. IstMitt.7, 102 - 132. (Eds.) Art and Technology. A Symposium on Verhn. Kon. Akad. van Wetenschappen Am Classical Bronzes. Cambridge. Mass./Lon sterdam. LI, 2, 43 - 45. Wells, B. 1987- 1988 don 1970. Apollo at Asine. Llpa/xi^a xou V Vollgraff,W 1956 Aiedvouq auveSpiox) ne^ovvqavaKcov Blinkenberg. Le sanctuaire d'Apollon Pytheen a Argos. onovboiv. 349 - 352. Blinkenberg, Chr. Les Fibules Grecques et Et.Pel. I. Orientales. Det Kgl. DanskeVidenskabernes Wells, B. 1988 Selskab. Historisk - filologiske Meddelelser Vulic, N. 1930 Early Greek Building Sacrifices. Cult Prac XIII, 1. (LindiakaV). Kobenhavn 1926. Das neue Grab von Trebenischte. AA 45, tice, 259 - 266. 276 - 299. Chios. Wells, B. 1996 Boardman,J. -Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. Vulic, N. 1933 The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey Chios. A Conference at the Homereion in Neue Graber in Trebenischte. OJh 28, 164 - 1988- 1990. Stockholm. Chios. Oxford 1986. 1986. 186. Winter, E. 1971 Culican. Wace, A.J.B. 1909. Eine agyptische Bronze aus Ephesos. ZAS Culican,W Opera selecta. From Tyre toTar- The Lead Figurines. (Wace,A.J.B. -Thomp 97,146- 155. tessos. SIMA. Pocketbook 40. Goteborg. son, M.S. - DroopJ.PThe Menelaion. BSA 1986. XV, 108- 141). BSA XV, 127- 141. Woolley,C.l921 Carchemish. II.The Town Defences. Lon Cult Practice. Wace,A.J.B. 1921 -23 don. R. Hagg, N. Marinatos and GO Nordquist. Mycenae. BSA XXV Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedings of Yilouns, N. 1979 the Fifth International Symposium in the Wace,A.J.B. 1929 Problems Relating to the Temple of Apollo Swedish Institute at Athens. 26 - 29 June Lead Figurines. AO, 249 - 284. Epikourios at Bassai. Coldstream, J.N. and 1986. ActaAth. XXXVIII. 1988. Colledge, M.A.R. (Eds.). Greece and Italy Wallenstein, K. 1971 in the Classical World. Acta of the XI Inter EAA Korinthische Plastik des 7. und 6.Jahrh. v. national Congress of Classical Archaeology. Enciclopedia dell'Arte Antica I -VII + Sup Chr. Bonn. London, 3-9 September, 1978. London. plement. Roma 1958 - 1996 + 1970 and 1994.

124 Economics ofCult. The Early Sanctuary of the Argive Heraion Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations of Linders,T - Alroth, B.(Eds.) Economics of and its External Relations ( 8th - Early 6th the British School ofArchaeology at Cult in the Ancient World. (Uppsala 1990). Cent. BC).The Greek Geometric Bronzes. Athens. 1930 - 1933, II: Pottery, Ivories, Boreas 21. Uppsala 1992. PDIA I. 1995,37- 127. Scarabs and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia. Oxford 1962. East and West. Isthmia. Kopcke, G. - Tokumara, I. (Eds.) Greece Be Isthmia.Excavations by the University of Philipp. tween East and West. 10th - 8th Centuries Chicago under the Auspices of the Ameri H. Philipp. Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia. BC (NewYork 1990). Mainz a. Rh. 1992. can School of Classical Studies at Athens. I- Ol. Forsch. XIII. Berlin 1980. 1971 - Princeton. Et.Pel. Pithekoussai I. Etudes Peloponisiennes. I - 1956 - Jantzen. G. Buchner - D. Ridgway. Pithekoussai I. La Jantzen, U Agyptische und Orientalische NecropolLTombe 1 - 723. Scavate dal 1952 FdD Bronzen aus dem Heraion von Samos. al 1961. MonAnt. Serie Monografica.Vol Fomlles de Delphes. Samos VIII. Bonn 1972. ume IV Roma 1993.

Floren. K.-D. Plastik. Floren, J. Die geometrische und archaische Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. Nadeln der friihhelladi- (Ed. H. Kyrieleis). Archaische und klassisch Plastik. Band I. Handbuch der Archaologie. schen bis archaischen Zeit von der Pelop- griechische Plastik. Akten des internaziona- Miinchen 1987. onnes. PBF XIII. 8. Miinchen 1984. len Kolloquiums. 22.- 25.April 1985. I. Mainz a.Rh. 1986 F-R. Kerameikos. Furtwangler, A-Reichhold, K, Griechische Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. I Polydipsion Argos. vasenmalerei I—II Miinchen 1900 - 1932. -.1939-Berlin. M. Pierart. (Ed.) Polydipsion Argos. Argos de la fin des palais myceniens a la constitu Gauer. Lefkandi I. tion de l'Etat classique. (Fribourg 1987). Gauer, W Die Bronzegefasse von Olympia. Popham, M. - Sackett, H. - Themelis, P.Lef BCH Supplement XXII. Fribourg/Paris Ol.Forsch.XX. Berlin 1991. kandi I. BSA.Supplementary Papers 11. 1992. London 1979- 1980. Gordion. Prosymna. The Gordion Excavations. Final Reports. I LIMC Blegen, CW Prosymna.The Helladic - 1981 - Philadelphia. (Ed. L. Kahil). Lexicon Iconographicum Settlement Preceeding the Argive Heraion. Mythologiae Classicae. I - 1981 - London 1937. Greek Sanctuaries. Ziirich/Miinchen. Marinatos, N. - Hagg, R. (Eds.) Greek Small Bronze Sculpture. Sanctuaries. New Approaches. Lindos I. Small Bronze Sculpture from the Ancient London/NewYork. 1993. Blinkenberg, C Lindos. Fouilles de l'Acro- World.Papers Delivered at a Symposium pole, 1902 - 1914,1: Les Petits Objects. Ber Organized by the Departments of Antiqui Iconography. lin 1931. ties and Antiquity Conservation and Held at Hagg, R. (Ed.) The Iconography of Greek the J. Paul Getty Museum March 16 - 19, Cult in the Archaic and Classical Periods. NM. 1989.TheJ. Paul Getty Museum. Malibu, Delphoi 16-18 November 1990. Kernos The National Museum ofAthens. California. 1990. Supplement 1.Athens 1992. Ol. Sympotica. IS I. E. Curtius - F.Adler.Olympia. Die Ergeb O.W.Murray.(Ed.) Sympotica.A Sympo Strom, I.The Early Sanctuary ofthe Argive nisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veran- sium on the Symposion. Oxford 1990. Heraion and Its External Relations (8th - stalteten Ausgrabung. I - IV 1890 - 1897. Early 6th Cent. B.C.).The Monumental Berlin Tiryns I. Architecture. ActaArch 59. 1988 (1989), 173 Frickenhaus,A. - Miiller,W - Oehlmann, F - 203. PBF. Tiryns. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen Prahistorische Bronzefunde I -. 1969 -. des Instituts. I.Athen 1912. IS II. Miinchen. Strom, I. Evidence from the Sanctuaries. Tocra I. East and West, 46 - 60. Perachora I. Boardman,J. - Hayes, J. Excavations at Tocra H. Payne. Perachora:The Sanctuaries of 1963 - 1965. I.The Archaic Deposits.BSA IS III. Hera Akraia and Limenia. Excavations of Suppl.Vol. 4. London 1966. Strom, I. Obeloi ofPre- and Proto-Mone- the British Schoolof Archaeology at tary Value in the Greek Sanctuaries. Econo Athens, 1930 - 1933,1: Architecture, Bron Voyatzis. mics ofCult, 41 - 51. zes, Terracottas. Oxford 1940. M.E.Voyatzis.The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea. Goteborg 1990. IS IV Perachora II. Strom, I. T.J. Dunbabin. Perachora, the Sanctuaries of

125 Acknowledgement I wish to thank most warmly the "Hellenisminitiative" and the State Research Council for the Humanities for providing me with a grant to write the present article and its fol low-up article (Houby-Nielsen 1997).And I thank Thomas Grane for having drawn Figs.4 and 7 and R.Tomlinson for having revised my English.