¹ I am grateful to the Managing Committee of the British School for its generous support of our work, and to the Committee for Archaeology in the University of Oxford for a travel grant from the Meyerstein Fund. I wish to thank the former Director of the British School, Dr E. French, and Helen Clark for obtaining the necessary study permit from the Greek authorities. I am grateful to Dr Th. Spyropoulos (ephor of Lakonia–Arkadia) for granting a study permit, and the staff of the Sparta Museum for helping to facilitate our work. Reference to unpublished material from the Menelaion is made with the permission of Dr H. W. Catling. I am further grateful to him for commenting on an earlier draft, and to my wife Pamela for help in making the drawings and for her constructive criticism. I have benefited greatly from discussions with Dr J. J. Coulton, who suggested many improvements to an early version of this article. Abbreviations:

AO = Dawkins, R. M. (ed.), The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta (Society for Promotion of Hellenic Studies, Suppl. Paper 5; London, 1929)Google Scholar

Belson = Belson, J. D., The Gorgoneion in Greek Architecture, i–ii (diss., Bryn Mawr Univ.; Ann Arbor, Mich., 1981)Google Scholar

Bookidis = Bookidis, N., A Study of the Use and Geographical Distribution of Architectural Sculpture in the Archaic Period (Greece, East Greece and Magna Graecia) (diss., Bryn Mawr Univ.; Ann Arbor, Mich., 1980)Google Scholar

Danner = Danner, P., Rivista di archeologia, 16 (1992), 36–48Google Scholar

Schattner = Schattner, T. G., Griechische Hausmodelle: Untersuchungen zur frühgriechischen Architektur (AM Beiheft 15; Berlin, 1990)Google Scholar

Winter = Winter, N. A., Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to the end of the Archaic Period (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar

All dimensions are expressed in metres.

² See BSA 89 (1994), 274. There are now at least nine terracotta building models, more than are known in any other single place. Attempts to find the published terracotta model fragment from Artemis Orthia (AO 159 no. 10, pl. 42. 8) in the Sparta museums were unsuccessful. Lakonian connections with the region of Skillous in Triphylia, where three clay building models were found (Schattner nos. 47–9), have recently been strengthened by the publication of the pottery from Babes, a site close by (AM 107 (1992), 43–105, pls 16–20), though the Lakonian affiliations of this material are in many cases overlooked. Sparta's connections with Triphylia are explored by Malkin, I., Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (Cambridge, 1994), 83–9.Google Scholar On the models from Lokroi, Hipponion, and Medma in S. Italy see Danner; for Sicilian examples see Quaderno imerese (Rome, 1972), 17–25 (Himera), and Mon. Ant. 32 (1927), 201, pl. 72, 2 (Selinous). The majority of models from Magna Graecia are much larger than the Spartan examples; they are also later, most apparently belonging to the late 6th and 5th centuries.

³ BA Besch. 68 (1993), 102 no. 28 a–b, fig. 44.

⁴ In more recent times the river bed has been used for dumping spoil from building sites in Sparta, often containing ancient material.

⁵ See Schattner 91–2 nos. 47–9. It is unclear from the publication how the details of the Artemis Orthia model (above n. 3) were rendered; the triglyphs are not visible in the photograph while the cover tiles seem to be modelled in relief (AO pl. 42. 8).

⁶ The very existence of this type of roof in early Greek architecture is questionable. Most of the alleged examples have been shown to be roofs of canonical type. The subject is treated by Goldberg, M. Y., AJA 87 (1983), 305–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see Winter 13 n. 5, 112, 121, 128–9 for a more critical approach.

⁷ Winter 85–109. Her evidence is derived almost exclusively from Artemis Orthia. Material from other excavations, notably the acropolis of Sparta, the Menelaion, and the sanctuary of Zeus Messapeus at Tsakona fills out the picture considerably, and it must be assumed that there is more from excavations by the Archaeological Service. Some of this evidence seems to blur the distinctions made by Winter between the Lakonian and the so-called Arkadian roofing systems (pp. 134–48). The crucial distinction between the types of antefixes of the two regions seems to be outweighed by the degree of similarity that exists. It may also be relevant that the more ornate ‘Arkadian’ antefixes are associated with much larger and more imposing buildings than any surviving Lakonian temple. There is besides good archaeological and historical evidence for Lakonian influence at the sites where the Arkadian roofs are found (Olympia, Bassai, Halieis, Tyros in Kynouria, and Asea in S. Arkadia).

⁸ AO 141 no. 39, fig. 104, where it is curiously misinterpreted. Its importance is recognized by Winter (pp. 96–7) but taken as an illustration of the standard type of roof. It is omitted from Schattner's catalogue.

⁹ The model seems to be at a scale of about 1: 6 or r: 7. If so, the maximum surviving projection of 0.02 would be equivalent to c.0.12–0.14. A similar but fully preserved flat projection found along the edge of the raking cornice is 0.028 wide, equivalent to c.0.17–0.20. The lateral projection is unlikely to have been less than this and may well have been wider.

¹⁰ In this context it may be noted that among the quantities of tile found in the Menelaion excavations there is a small number of unpainted flat tile fragments, made in a whitish fabric that differs from the standard variety of tile fabrics. Their date and structural purpose are not clear. The preceding discussion raises the possibility that they might have served as eaves-tiles.

¹¹ The only possible examples known to me are fragments from Delphi and Olympia: le Roy, C., Fouilles de Delphes, ii; Les Terres cuites architecturales (Paris, 1967), 268–9 no. 68, pl. 97Google Scholar; Moustaka, A., Grossplastik aus Ton in Olympia (Ol. Forsch. 22; Berlin and New York, 1993), 151 no. P 10, 165, pl. 117 dGoogle Scholar, possibly from a West Greek treasury. Belson (i. 38–40; ii. 211–12) casts doubt on the identification of the Delphi fragment as a pedimental plaque.

¹² On the use of the gorgoneion in architectural decoration see Belson, and, in general, the article on ‘Gorgon, Gorgones’, in LIMC iv. 284 ff.Google Scholar More specifically on Lakonian, gorgoneia see A. Delt. 19 (1964), Mel. 116–22, pls 68–73Google Scholar; Pipili, M., Laconian Iconography of the Sixth Gentury BC (OUCA Monographs, 12; Oxford, 1987), 14–18.Google Scholar

¹³ Best known is the pediment from the temple of Artemis on Kerkyra, illustrated in Rodenwaldt, G., Korkyra, ii: Der Bildwerke des Artemistempels von Korkyra (Berlin, 1939)Google Scholar, and dated c.580–570.

¹⁴ See Mon. Ant. 35 (1933), 196–8, pls 32–3.

¹⁵ See Belson i. 109–17; ii. 112, 121, 132, 144, 151–3, 161–2; also Bookidis 430–2. Danner publishes two miniature gorgoneia from Hipponion which he attributes to the pediments of temple models: Danner 40 nos. 9–10, 43. He also asserts (p. 43 with n. 65) that pedimental gorgoneia occur at Hipponion and Rhegion, without reference to Belson. One of the Locri plaques shows a gorgoneion at the apex of the pediment: Ausonia, 3 (1908), 228 fig. 79; reconstructed in Prückner, H., Die lokrischen Tonreliefs (Mainz, 1968), 17 fig. 1.Google Scholar It illustrates an apex antefix capping the end of the ridge such as frequently occur in Magna Graecia and is also known at Kalydon and Thermon in Aitolia: Belson i. 106–9; Hesp. 59 (1990), 258, 260–4.

¹⁶ All that survives of Lakonian architectural terracotta sculpture are the exiguous fragments of a life-size gorgon and a lion's head reported by Kourinou-Pikoula, E. in Πραϰτιϰά Γ′ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιαϰών Σπουδών, Καλαμάτα, 8–15 Σεπτεμβρίου 1985 (Athens, 1987–1988), 475–8.Google Scholar The gorgon, probably of the first half of the 6th cent., was apparently executed in relief with the wings and perhaps the head modelled in the round; it is interpreted as an akroterion. The lion's head, of 5th-cent. date, seems to have served as an apex antefix capping one of the open ends of the tiled ridge. The existence of terracotta metopes decorated in low relief of the first half of the 6th cent, may also be noted: ASAA n.s. 44 (1982), 329–41; Steinhauer attributed them to a Doric frieze with intervening wooden triglyphs. Also noteworthy are the unpublished fragments of a disc akroterion with a central gorgoneion in relief from the Menelaion.

¹⁷ AO 387 nos. 1–2, pl. 5; Bookidis 104–7. See also the miniature limestone reliefs of antithetic couchant lions in a pediment, AO 192 nos. 41–2, pl. 69.

¹⁸ BSA 26 (1923–5), 266–8, pl. 21, and Belson i. 31–2; ii. 41; it is 0.37 high, 0.33 wide, and made of sheet 0.001–0.002 thick. The possibility that it was attached to the pediment of a naiskos cannot be excluded.

¹⁹ See AM 89 (1974), 215 no. 11, fig. 2 (limestone), and above, n. 18, for fragments of a terracotta example from the Menelaion. Not far away at Tegea the temple of Artemis Knakeatis had a limestone disc akroterion depicting a running gorgon: AE 1952, 18, figs. 11 and 16. An unpublished terracotta disc akroterion with a gorgoneion from near Mantineia is referred to by Winter (p. 137 with n. 7).

²⁰ Winter 101 with n. 23.

²¹ On the Aitolian discs see Belson i. 25–6, ii. 16–18, 44, 47–8 with bibliography. On the Sicillian and South Italian discs see Hesperia 59 (1990) 260–4 with fig. 2; Kästner traces a connection between the Lakonian disc akroteria and the ‘shield’ discs of Magna Graecia. For models with discs see Danner 1992, 36–7 no. 1, 38 no. 3, 44 with figs. 4, 11–13.

²² See Winter 108–9 and 146–8 with tables 7.1, 7.2. The ridge tile from Artemis Orthia (AO 141 no. 37, fig. 100; Winter 109) implies an interaxial measurement between the cover tiles of 0.42.

²³ See Winter again for dimensions (above n. 22); tiles from Sparta are 0.80–0.90 long. The width of the known ridge tile is 0.36 (above, n. 22).

²⁴ The naiskoi referred to below in n. 27 have wall thicknesses of between 0.315 and 0.46. However, it should be noted that the orthostate block attributed to the ‘Old Menelaion’ is only 0.23 wide: AR 1976–7, 35 fig. 22.

²⁵ Winter 138; the diameters of the two akroteria are estimated as 0.52 and 0.62.

²⁶ Winter 139–40.

²⁷ Best known is the mid-5th-cent. naiskos that preceded the famous temple of Athena Nike on the Athenian Acropolis, measuring c.3.65 × 2.47: see Mark, I. S., The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens: Architectural Stages and Chronology (AIA Monographs, n.s. 2; Hesp. Supp. 26; Princeton, 1993), 42 ff.Google Scholar For three other Classical naiskoi at Athens see Travlos, J., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens (London, 1971), 148 and 151 fig. 202Google Scholar; none is longer than 2.27 or wider than 2.26. Another example occurs at Olympia: the naiskos beside the Sikyonian treasury, which excluding the porch measures 3.88 × 3.95; see Mallwitz, A., Olympia und seine Bauten (Munich, 1972), 155–8, figs. 122–3.Google Scholar

²⁸ For a useful discussion of the peculiarities of Spartan architecture see Tomlinson, R. A., ‘The Menelaion and Spartan architecture’, in Sanders, J. M. (ed.), Φιλολάϰων; Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling (London, 1992), 247–55.Google Scholar

²⁹ See BSA 15 (1908–9), 112, pl. 5; also AR 1976–7, 34 fig. 21.

³⁰ BSA 12 (1905–6), 288–93.

³¹ AO 141 no. 37, fig. 100; also Winter 109.

³² The openings for the cover tiles in the ridge tile are about 0.11 high (AO 132 fig. 100). They would have slightly increased in height towards the lower end in order to accommodate the top of the next cover tile.

³³ It is estimated that the akroteria on the model rose c0.017 above the line of the ridge.

³⁴ AJA 86 (1982) 203–3, 215–17; Danner, P., Griechische Akrotere der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (Rivista di Archeologia Suppl. 5. Rome, 1989) 33–5Google Scholar; Hesperia 59 (1990) 251–7; Winter 101–4, 137–40. On the later Classical and Hellenistic hybrid akroteria unique to Lakonia see AM 89 (1974) 205–12, 225–30.

³⁵ Pipili (n. 12), 14.