² See Waterhouse for the history of the school.

³ BSAAR 1892–3, 17–18.

⁴ ‘During the interval that occurred before the arrival of any students or books I visited Sicily, and brought home with me to Athens some pamphlets and small casts from a beautiful terra-cotta in the museum at Palermo, which were presented to the library by Professor Salinas’ (BSAAR 1886–7, 12).

⁵ For Melos see n. 11. The finds that were brought to light in the excavations in Athens at Kynosarges (1895–6) and housed in the British School consist mostly of vases and a single terracotta figurine 161. Concerning the excavations and the pottery of Kynosarges see Droop, J. P., ‘Dipylon vases from the Kynosarges site’, BSA 12 (1905–1906), 80–92Google Scholar; Cook, J. M., ‘Protoattic pottery’, BSA 35 (1934–1935), 196–8Google Scholar; Waterhouse 14; Coldstream, J. N., ‘The BSA's geometric collection: Kynosarges et alia’, BSA 98 (2003), 331–46Google Scholar. Most of the objects of Cypriot production (2–6) included in the Collection are said to be from Kythra or Kythrea, a modern village located west of the small ancient centre of Chytroi. It is not known how these fragments, which are all datable to the Archaic period, were acquired. Until the second half of the 19th c. very little was known of the history and monuments of Chytroi. With the exception of sporadic finds, the first systematic excavations were conducted in 1876 and more in 1893, in the sanctuary of Aphrodite Paphia, on the hilltop of Skali, with findings datable from the Archaic to the Roman periods; see Ohnefalsch-Richter, M., Kypros. Die Bibel und Homer (Berlin, 1893), 14–15, 133, 138, 275Google Scholar.

Concerning the figurine 162, the provenance inked on its back is ‘Zagazig, Egypt, 24/IX/1900’.

⁶ With the exception of the animal figurines 104–5, 110 the provenance of the pieces from Abai was not accurately recorded. Concerning the terracotta 20, said to be from Abai, see n. 22 and the Catalogue. Certain considerations of technique, style, conservation, and inventory’ suggest that other terracottas in the collection, which apparently remained separate from it until 1947, may also be part of the material from Abai. They are 90, 97, 118, 143, and 98–9. The heads of the last two pieces were not joined to their respective bodies till August 2001. It is probable that, at that the time, only intact specimens were numbered and exhibited in Hall Case A of the Director's House. Other terracottas initially housed in Hall Case B and subsequently moved to Cupboards FV and V of the Macmillian Hostel Common Room (22, 24–6, 106–8) may also have been found in Abai.

⁷ BSA 6 (1899–1900), 131Google Scholar. Offers to acquire this material preceded its donation. BSA 3 (1896–1897), 224Google Scholar; 4 (1897–8), 104.

⁸ On George Finlay see Hussey, J. M., The Finlay Papers, A Catalogue (BSA supp. 9; London, 1973Google Scholar); ead., ‘George Finlay in Perspective—A Centenary Reappraisal’, BSA 70 (1975),135–44Google Scholar; ead., Journals and Letters, i, pp. xvii–xxxiii; George Finlay 1799–1875, Philhellene—Liberal—Historian—Traveller—Collector—Antiquarian. A Celebration of the Bi-Centenary of his Birth (BSA Library exhibition guide; Athens, 1999Google Scholar).

⁹ List of Antiquities; cf. Hussey, The Finlay Papers (n. 8), 111, C1.

¹⁰ Ibid., L6: ‘an ancient doll + fragments of legs + arms of dolls’; P3: ‘2 dolls and 3 fragments of dolls of terracotta’; L4: ‘14 female heads in terracotta with water jugs’; L5: ‘12 female heads in terracotta with various headdresses’; P1: 8 ‘Terracotta female heads with various headdresses’; P2: 14 ‘heads in terracotta’.

¹¹ The provenance ‘Melos’ pencilled on the back of some terracottas and often followed by a question mark may in certain cases be accurate; in some others, however, it is contrary to what the typological stylistic analysis of the piece suggests. Concerning the provenance, not always trustworthy, of the material acquired by Finlay, see also Bosanquet, B. C., Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (London, 1904), 224–7Google Scholar.

¹² Hussey, Journals and Letters (n. 8), ii. 209–54 (A10 Papers, 1–30: ‘Journal of a tour to several islands of the archipelago in August and September 1837’), esp. 212 (A10 Papers, 4): 16 August, Keos (ancient Iulis): ‘During the winter a number of small figures in terra cotta were found at a place called Merovigli. Of these I purchased a number of heads’. And also (A 10 Papers, 97–8): Antiquities purchased in this trip: Keos: a number of figures in the common terracotta. A seated female figure, a dove & (or) tortoise perfect. No other unbroken. Chiefly female heads.’

¹³ The indication of provenance ‘Aegina’ appears in List of Antiquities, L7 (‘a tortoise in terracotta from Aegina’) and was transcribed in the first typed catalogue. However, a correction made to the latter in December 1947, possibly on the basis of the passage of the Journals quoted in the previous note, assigns, the provenance of this piece to Keos.

¹⁴ Correction of December 1947 cited in the first typed catalogue: ‘One of 3 from Piraeus. One in B.M, one in possession of Miss Wyse.’ This piece, currently kept in the British Museum, was donated in 1899 (BMT i. 184, no. 694 = British Museum Reg. 54.8–10.2); the gift of the third cicada to Miss Winifred M. Wyse, niece of Sir Thomas Wyse, took place at an earlier date, and probably before the death of Finlay, G. in 1875 (see Journals and Letters, ii. 814, 853Google Scholar).

¹⁵ List of Antiquities, P4 ‘2 fragments of moulds of terracotta’.

¹⁶ On the visit to Kythnos (Thermia), 18 Aug. 1837, see Journals and Letters, 214 (A 10 Papers, 9–10). For terracottas thence see A. Mazarakis-Ainian, “᾿Επιφανειακὲς ἀρχαιολογκὲς ἔρευνες στὴν Κύθνος”, PAE 1995, 172–4, pls. 80–1; id., “᾿Αρχαία Κύθνος |στοριογραφία καὶαρχαιολογικὲς ἔρευνεσ”, in Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology: Proceedings of an International Symposium Kea-Kythnos, 22–25 June 1994 (Athens, 1998), 53 n. 35. Although systematic excavations have been undertaken only in recent years, a significant number of terracotta statuettes of the same type as those present in this collection (enthroned female figurines and hydrophoroi) have been found in the course of the various surveys carried out since 1990, mostly concentrated on the area of the ancient capital, the destination of numerous travellers in the 18th and 19th cc. (A. Mazarakis Ainian, ‘The Kythnos Survey Project: a preliminary report’, Ibid. 375).

¹⁷ Journals and Letters (A10 Papers, 97–8). The provenance ‘Melos?’ written on the back of this specimen may be later.

¹⁸ ‘The Fitzwilliam Museum possesses a scarab of Phoenician style bequeathed … in 1877, and the British Museum a scaraboid in lapis lazuli of a woman crouching and passing a tunic over her head, also the terracotta handle of an amphora, 24 handles of Diotae, four terracottas including a cicada and a bronze mirror. Some alas has disappeared, notably the Red figure vase in Benndorf … Vasenbilder 1869 XXXI. 1, and the charming inscription to Sybyrtios for which we searched the garden in vain. Several other small fragments of inscriptions and the relief shown in Conze Att. Grabreliefs no 1813 are also lost. Maybe they are in the vault of the National Museum, though we fear they may be in the foundations of the shed erected in the BSA grounds during the war’ (introduction to D. T. D. Clarke's unpublished draft catalogue; see below, n. 20).

¹⁹ The first work on the reorganization of the antiquities is owed, in all probability, to Wace, A. J. B. and Myres, J. L., BSA 22 (1916–1917/1917–18), 218Google Scholar; letter of Myres to Clarke dated 23 May 1948, BSA archive; Waterhouse 24), but many others collaborated in the 1930s in compiling a catalogue, and organizing the antiquities and sherds collection: J. H. Jenkins and Mrs Jenkins (BSAAR 1933–4, 8); M. E. Heurtley, T. J. Dunbabin, and H. Thomas, when the Museum was moved to the ‘new two-storied building’, the so-called Annex (BSAAR 1937–8, 7–8; Waterhouse 34).

²⁰ BSAAR 1947–8, 7; BSAAR 1948–9, 8. An unpublished typed copy of this catalogue is currently kept in the archive of the museum of the BSA: ‘A Catalogue of the Museum of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, edited by David T. D. Clarke, with sections by D. Hereward, W. H. Plommer, M. S. F. Hood’. Besides Hereward for the epigraphical section, Plommer for the architectural material, and Hood for the prehistoric artefacts, Clarke's catalogue boasted the collaboration of many other specialists on entire sections or even on single aspects or specimens: P. Corbett (Attic bf pottery), J. D. Beazley and B. Shefton (rf pottery), A. D. Ure (Boiotian pottery), R. V. Nicholls (terracottas).

²¹ Interestingly, traces of numerals written earlier on the pieces (eventually crossed out and replaced by the definitive numeration) allow us to reconstruct the work of those years, when an attempt was made to assign to the pieces a progressive numbering system reflecting an early typological classification (female figures, male figures, animals, large and small heads, jointed dolls, other subjects).

²² Unfortunately such information is not always accurate. Knowledge of the provenance of some pieces must have already been lost by 1947. Some vague information remained. Clarke himself writes in a note: In general the collection represents idol fragments which are common and of little interest. It is recorded that Finlay's collection contained “26 heads of dolls” from Keos. The material from Abai must be some of that listed in JHS 1896, 302.’

²³ The circumstances that prevented the final publication of Clarke's catalogue can be traced in the correspondence maintained in the archives, which dates from the years in question. It starkly illustrates the intellectual climate and the scientific criteria of the time. It is also intimately connected to the history of the formation of the collection itself. Not only were the catalogue and its photographic documentation never completed after work carried out in 1950 and 1951 (BSAAR 1951–2, 10), but we know from these letters that the main interest of the Director of the BSA, J. M. Cook, and of the Joint Editor, R. J. Hopper, was to deliver for publication the collection in its entirety and not subdivided.

²⁴ Between 1950 and 1951, three large architectural fragments found by Cook at the Asklepieion of Troezen became part of the collection of antiquities of the Museum, as well as others found by Pollard, J. R. T. on Mount Loutraki (BSA 45 (1950), 63–5Google Scholar, pl. 6b), and by J. Boardman at Haliartos. Vases and other artefacts were donated by A. D. Ure and a Miss Furness (BSAAR 1950–1, 13). Other private donations take place before this date: in the 1930s, T. C. Skeat donated a group of Protogeometric vases he had acquired in Athens, said to be from Thebes (Skeat, T. C., The Dorians in Archaeology (London, 1934), 18, 21Google Scholar; Desborough, V. R. d'A., Protogeometric Pottery (Oxford, 1952), 198Google Scholar). In 1948 two Corinthian vases, ‘bought in Shoe Lane’, were donated by Professor and Mrs Toynbee (BSAAR 1948–9, 8).

²⁵ BSAAR 1951–2, 10. Other donations were made in the same year by A. Clark.

²⁶ In the same year K. Scholes donated vases and Cycladic fragments and N. G. L. Hammond material found in graves at Dion in Macedonia (BSAAR 1952–3, 12). The following year, donations to the Museum consisted of a late Mycenaean piece (J. M. Cook, Kr. Chiron. (1955), 152–5, pl. Β′, and a votive plaque bearing an inscription found in Aigina by Boardman, now kept in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens (BSAAR 1953–4, 11; Boardman, J., ‘Painted votive plaques and an early inscription from Aegina’, BSA 49 (1954), 183–201, esp. 184–6Google Scholar).

²⁷ I should like to thank Mr Richard Nicholls warmly for the valuable information he has provided me in his kind answer to my queries (letter of 6 Sept. 2004). It is important to note that this period following the Greek civil war was a difficult one, forcing many museums to close and making travelling very dangerous. At times, farsighted scholars and archaeologists acquired archaeological artefacts, in particular vases and terracottas, which were not necessarily prestigious or of great value, from dealers of antiquities and donated them to School collections. This made possible the preservation of a large number of antiquities which would otherwise have made their way to anonymous private collections and would have been subsequently lost to the general public and scholars alike. It is for this reason that so many donations of vases were made to the BSA on behalf of A. D. Ure until 1957–8 (BSAAR 1956–7, 10). For the information on Ure, I am particularly indebted to Professor Paola Pelagatti. For further reference see Pelagatti, P., ‘Vasi beotici a figure rosse: il Pittore di Argos’, B. d. A 92 (1995). 33–48, esp. 33Google Scholar.

²⁸ The date 1928, on the back of the statuette 48 from Solygeia, may refer to either discovery or acquisition. The first systematic exploration of the site and the discovery of the sanctuary by N. M. Verdelis, Ephor of Antiquities in Corinth and the Argolid, took place in 1957–8; the preliminary report was published soon afterwards (Verdelis, N. M., ‘A sanctuary at Solygeia’, Archaeology, 15 (1962), 184–92Google Scholar), while the systematic publication of the excavation is more recent (Lorandou-Papantoniou). To the exploration of Mycenae of the same years (J. H. Jenkins?), or later (A. J. B. Wace and J. M. Cook?) may be due the acquisition of 58.

²⁹ Benton, S., ‘Further excavations at Aetos’, BSA 48 (1953), 353Google Scholar: ‘Four poor specimens were picked up in the sea off Polis’ (Ithake); ead., ‘Excavations in Ithake, III, The Cave at Polis II’, BSA 39 (1938–1939), 43Google Scholar.

³⁰ Letter of 6 Dec. 1955 (BSA archive); BSAAR 1955–6, 6–7 (with wrong mention of 80 pieces, reported in Waterhouse 70). The greater part of the G. Empedokles Collection was donated to the National Archaeological Museum of Athens in 1950. A few other artefacts, property of the Empedokles family, were acquired by the Archaeological Museum in 1994.

³¹ With regards to the T. J. Dunbabin collection, a typed list dated 18 Oct. 1945 and signed by Dunbabin himself (BSA archive) informs us that vases and terracottas, some of which previously belonged to the Payne Collection, were at that time housed in the School's Museum. In 1955 an inventory number was given to evenpiece included on that list.

³² BSAAR 1955–6, 6–7; 1956–7, 10. Although we have few data from which to reconstruct the work conducted in the Museum during these years, the completion of this first card catalogue is probably due mostly to J. Boardman. A typed sheet with the note ‘Museum. This is more or less satisfactorily organised …’ can be assigned to 1955. The sheet is important because it mentions that, at the time, a complete inventory was lacking: ‘I have not seen a complete inventory’ though one certainly once existed. David Clarke must have had one when compiling his catalogue.’

³³ BSAAR 1961–2, 2.

³⁴ BSAAR 1965–6, 13. The following year, the old museum was turned into the map room while ‘… the vases and type sherds have been transferred by the Assistant Director [Mrs Seiradhakis] to the new Museum where the vases are now properly displayed in new show cases, and the sherds have been housed in wooden drawers’ ( BSAAR 1966–7, 12–13; Waterhouse 44–5, 66, 70).

³⁵ After being packed and transferred to a temporary location in view of the extensions planned for the School's centenary celebration (1886–1986), the artefacts were placed in new showcases. The catalogue was computerized; some pieces, in particular vases, were restored, and the entire collection was photographed. Recent events concerning the collection are published in detail in the Annual Report of the Managing Committee, BSA (BSAAR 1982–3, 12; 1985–6, 11–12; 1991–2, 34; 1993–4. 36; 1996–7, 39; 1997–98. 43: 1998–99, 41: 1999–2000, 47; 2000–1, 48; 2001–2, 48–9).

³⁶ Catling, R. W. V. and Jones, R. E., ‘Protogeometric vases from Amorgos in the Museum of the British School at Athens’, BSA 84 (1989), 177–85Google Scholar; Arnott, R., ‘Early Cycladic object from Ios formerly in the Finlay Collection’, BSA 85 (1990), 1–14Google Scholar; R. W. V. Catling, ‘sub-Mycenaean and Protogeometric vases in the Museum of the British School at Athens’, Ibid., 37–46; Tomlinson, R. A., ‘Architectural pieces in stone in the collection of the British School at Athens’, BSA 95 (2000), 473–83Google Scholar; S. D. Lambert, ‘The Greek inscriptions on stone in the collection of the British School at Athens’, Ibid., 485–516; Coldstream (n. 5), 331–46; Smith, T. J., ‘Black-figure vases in the collection of the British School at Athens’, BSA 98 (2003), 347–68Google Scholar; F. Stilp, ‘“Melian reliefs’ in the collection of the British School at Athens’, Ibid., 437–46. For previous works on single classes of the material part of the Collection of Antiquities see Droop (n. 5); Cook (n. 5); Pollard (n. 24); Cook (n. 26); Boardman (n. 26); Betts, J. H., ‘Engraved Gems in the collection of the British School’, BSA 66 (1971), 49–55Google Scholar; E. French, ‘The development of Mycenaean terracotta figurines’, Ibid., 102–87; Phelps, W. W., Varoufakis, G.J., and Jones, R. E., ‘Five copper axes from Greece’, BSA 74 (1979), 175–84Google Scholar.

³⁷ For Chytroi, see n. 5, and J. Karageorghis 1977, 220 and n. 54.

³⁸ For Cypriot large-scale sculpture see Gjerstad, E., The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, ii (Stockholm, 1935), 777–83Google Scholar; V. Karageorghis 1993, esp. 101.

³⁹ V. Karageorghis 1995, 71–5, type II(i)b, pl. xxxvi. 5.

⁴⁰ Ibid., 76 ff., type II(i)c, pls. xxxvii. 7–9, xxxviii. 5–6.

⁴¹ Salamine, xii. 72–3; BCH 100 (1976), 919Google Scholar.

⁴² Hundreds of the late Cypro-Geometric and early Cypro-Archaic types have been found in sanctuaries of indigenous male deities, especially at Idalion, Salamis, and Kourion. Some were also deposited in tombs at Amathous and Kition: Caubet, A., Hermary, A., and Karageorghis, V., Art antique de Chypre au Musee du Louvre, du chalcolithique à l'époque romaine (Paris, 1993), 95Google Scholar.

⁴³ J. Karageorghis 1977, 206–7.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 207–8.

⁴⁵ Blinkenberg, C., Lindos, i. 489–90Google Scholar, pl. 91, 2023–37 had already argued that in the examples of this class discovered in Lindos, clothing may have originally been indicated by painting.

⁴⁶ Winter i. 41–2; Higgins, Greek Terracottas, 35, pls. 13 a 14 c.

⁴⁷ Ducat 61–4. For the class in general see also Maximova.

⁴⁸ Perachora, i. 251.

⁴⁹ Lindos, i. 511–13; Buschor 38; BMT i. 48, 57; Higgins, Greek Terracottas, 35.

⁵⁰ Morgan, C. H. II, ‘The Terracotta figurines from the north slope of the Acropolis’, Hesp. 4 (1935), 199–203Google Scholar, FIGS. 7 k, g e.

⁵¹ BMT i. 154, pl. 74. 565; Erythrai, ii. 103, pl. vi. 13.

⁵² BMT i. 49 with bibliography 50 n. 2, pl. 14. 63–4; the type also appears as a plastic vase.

⁵³ BMT i. 64–5, pl. 22. 121–3.

⁵⁴ Lindos, i. 515–17, pls. 96–7. 2129–41.

⁵⁵ For Rhodian protomes and their variants from Central Greece, see Szabó, ‘Contribution’, 12–22; Croissant, F., ‘Sur quelques visages ioniens de la fin de l'archaïsme’, Études delphiques (BCH suppl. IV; Paris, 1977), 337–63Google Scholar; Croissant 315–24, pls. 122–3 (N type).

⁵⁶ Higgins, Greek Terracottas, 68, pl. 27 B.

⁵⁷ Andriomenou, Nécropole, 116–17 FIGS. 18–19; Østergaard 122–3.

⁵⁸ Ure, Aryballoi, pl. XV. 86.275 (from Rhitsona); Andriomenou, Nécropole, 116 FIG. 16.

⁵⁹ Concerning the term ‘Pappas’ or ‘Brettidol’ and a general discussion on the class see Paul, E., ‘Die böotischen Brettidole’, Wiss. Zeit. Univ. Leipzig 8 (1958–1959), 165–206Google Scholar; Higgins, , Greek Terracottas, 46Google Scholar; Simon, E., Die Göiter der Griechen (Munich, 1969), 58–9Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Knoblauch, P., Studien zur archaisch-griechischen Tonbildnerei in Kreta, Rhodos, Athen und Böotien (Bleicherode am Harz, 1937), 191–2Google Scholar; Szabó 121–6.

⁶¹ The development of this class can be placed between the second half and the end of the 6th century BC on the basis of contextual evidence and correlation to the ceramic finds of Rhitsona. For a discussion of the type and possible comparisons: Burrows, R. M. and Ure, P. N., Excavations at Rhitsona in Boiotia, BSA 14 (1907–1908), 285–6Google Scholar; Ure, Aryballoi, 57–9; Grace, F. R., Archaic Sculpture in Boiotia (Cambridge, 1939), 27–48Google Scholar. More recently Szabó 74–7, FIG. 77–80 has shown the contrast between F. R. Grace's theory, which traces the chronological development of the whole class on the basis of the form of the face, and Ure's chronology, based on the design of the polos.

⁶² Ure, Aryballoi, 63–6.

⁶³ Burrows and Ure (n. 61), pi. XII f; Ure, Aryballoi, pl. xvi. 117. 6–7, and 86. 277.

⁶⁴ Østergaard 152–67, FIGS. 71–4 (‘La’ group).

⁶⁵ Kunsthistorisches Museum V. 1814; Sparkes, App. 13 a.

⁶⁶ Szabó 88–91 with relevant bibliography; Kokkou-Viridi 235, 255, nos. Β160–2, Γ35–6, pl. 49.

⁶⁷ The type is amply diffused throughout the Greek world, but in particular in Attica and Athens, where a large number of these terracottas have been found on the Acropolis: Casson, S. and Brooke, D., Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum, ii (Cambridge, 1921), 355–69Google Scholar. This is the origin of the name assigned to this class by P. Knoblauch (n. 60), 174–6. The discovery of such terracottas in precisely dated deposits at Athens (Hesp. 4 (1935), 199–200Google Scholar FIG. 7, 204 FIG. 10) suggested that the archetype first appeared around the last quarter of the 6th century BC and lasted until the first quarter of the 5th. For a discussion of the type see Nicholls, R. V., ‘Two groups of archaic Attic terracottas’, in Kurtz, D. (ed.), The Eye of Greece.: Studies in the Art of Athens (Cambridge, 1982), 89–122Google Scholar; Kerameikos, xv. 23–6. Some terracottas of this class bear an aegis painted on the breast, which has suggested their identification with Athena and an association with the Panathenaic festivals (Schmidt, Kat., 24, no. 1 and relevant bibliography). In the absence of clearly recognizable attributes, however, the generic name ‘enthroned female figurines’ has been assigned to them.

⁶⁸ Lindos, i. 515–17, pl. 100. 2191–5.

⁶⁹ Most replicas of this type come from Boiotia, but few of them are known in Attica, Locris and Phocis too (see Winter i. 71. 3, 5). For a discussion of the type see Poulsen, ‘Der strenge Stil’, 56–8.

⁷⁰ Concerning the material from Kyrrha, still unpublished, see BCH 61 (1937), 457–61Google Scholar, pl. 31 b; Szabó, ‘Contribution’, 5–11; F. Croissant, ‘sur quelques visages ioniens’ (n. 55), esp. 339 n. 9; Croissant 342–4 (R6–7 types) and 359–70 (U type).

⁷¹ Winter i. 243. 4; Croissant 360 n. 1 (another replica from Exarchos-Abai is preserved in the Museum of Chaironeia).

⁷² Szilágyi-Szabó, ‘Art antique’, 20, FIG. 11, according to whom the Rhodian prototype is exemplified by a protome from a private collection; see Schefold, K., ‘Antlitz einer Athenerin’, in Mélanges d'histoire ancienne et d'archéologie offerts à Paul Collart (Lausanne, 1976), 323–5Google Scholar, FIGS. 1–4. Some Boiotian protomes show a slight variation of the type, with a simplified stephane on the head (Copenhagen, Cat., 18, pl. 18.160 (from Thespiai); Winter i. 243, 3 (from Tanagra); National Archaeological Museum of Athens, inv. 3964–6 (from Chalcis).

⁷³ Croissant 116–24 (D8 type), pl. 37, no. 64 (with the same hairstyle, but not centrally parted). For the general rendering of the face see too Szabó, ‘Contribution’, 5 FIG. 2; Croissant, 363–70 (U4 type), pl. 144. 251; Szabó 131, FIG. 149. For a similar hairstyle and poorly defined eyes, see Leiden, Cat, pl. 22. 122; Croissant, 361–2 (U2 type), pl. 143. 244.

⁷⁴ For finds from Boiotia, Locris, and Phocis see Smith, H. R. W., Commemorative Studies in Honor of H. Leslie Shear (Hesp. suppl. 8; Princeton, 1949), 353 ffGoogle Scholar. n. 3; Szabó, ‘Contribution’, 3–22; Croissant, 359–70.

⁷⁵ Kunze, E., Olympia-Bericht, vi (1958), 184–7Google Scholar, Pl. 66–70; Croissant 118 n. 2, pls. 35–6.

⁷⁶ Croissant, 369–70 (about the style of Kyrrha and the comparisons between the types R7 and U 1–4); for the Athenian style see Croissant 244–55 (L 4 type).

⁷⁷ Corinth, xv. 2. 25–7 (class I, early group).

⁷⁸ Sparkes, App. 3–5; Pisani, M., ‘Vita quotidiana nel mondo greco tra il VI e il V sec. a. C: un contributo per la classificazione delle rappresentazioni fittili’, B. d. A. 123 (2003), 18–19Google Scholar, nos. 105, 107–8.

⁷⁹ The two known representations in the National Museum of Athens (Sparkes, App. 1–2) appear to be different as well. Both these pieces, no later that the middle or end of the 6th C. BC, include various stages of the bread-making process: grinding, sifting the flour, and baking in the oven.

⁸⁰ For the sphinx of Kalydon see Poulsen, F. and Rhomaios, K. A., Eester vorläufiger Bericht über die dänisch-griechischen Ausgrabungen von Kalydon (Copenaghen, 1927), 29–30Google Scholar, FIGS. 53–5; Rhomaios, K. A., Κεραμοι τῆς Καλυδῶνος(Athens, 1951), 39–46Google Scholar, FIG. 26; Wallenstein, K., Korinthische Plastik des 7. und 6. Jahrhunderts vor Christus (Bonn, 1971), 134Google Scholar, V/A 15, pl. 18, 1–2. For the marble sphinx from Corinth see Protonotariou-Deilaki, E., “῾Η Σφἰλξ τῆς Κορἰνθου”, AAA 6 (1973), 181–7Google Scholar; ead., ῾Η Σφἰλξ τῆς Κορἰνθου A. Delt. 29 (1973–1974), Chron. 2. 200Google Scholar; Walter-Karydi, E., ‘Die äginetische Bildhauer-Schule. Werke und schriftliche Quellen’, in Alt-Ägina, ii. 2. 57–9Google Scholar, FIGS. 63–8; For the Corinthian terracotta sculpture, see Weinberg, S. S., ‘Terracotta Sculpture at Corinth’, Hesp. 26 (1957), 289–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ Bookidis, N., ‘Archaic sculptures from Corinth (from the notes of Edward Capps Jr.)’, Hesp. 39 (1970), 313–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead., ‘Archaic Corinthian sculpture: a summary’, in Corinto e l'Occidenle. Atti del 340 Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7–11 ottobre 1994 (Taranto, 1997), 231–56, esp. 243 n. 44Google Scholar; Croissant, F., ‘Tradition et innovation dans les ateliers corinthiens archaïques: matériaux pour l‘histoire d'un style’, BCH 112 (1988), 91–167, esp. 130–2 and n. 128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸² For further parallels see Croissant, ‘Tradition’ (n. 81), 130 nn. 128–9; Bookidis, ‘Archaic Corinthian sculpture’ (n. 81), 243–4 nn. 44–7.

⁸³ Corinth, xv. 2. 94–6 (class XI).

⁸¹ Corinth, xii. 84–8. If 52 and 53 belong to the same type, they do not seem to have been produced in Corinth. They are nonetheless cast from overused moulds which led to the loss of certain details such as the horizontal rows of the hair. The polos appears to be slightly taller than in other Corinthian examples.

⁸⁵ The term ‘doll’ is employed in the literature even though it is uncertain whether they were actually used as toys. For theories concerning the different uses and meanings see Elderkin, K., ‘Jointed dolls in Antiquity’, AJA 34 (1930), 455–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corinth, xii. 13, xviii. 4. 49–50 n. 185 (including bibliography).

⁸⁶ Corinth, xii. 13.

⁸⁷ A confirmation of such dating may result from the fact that this type is not among those found in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.

⁸⁸ Following the studies of Waldstein, Ch., Argive Heraeum, ii. 3–16Google Scholar, and of Frickenhaus, A., Tiryns, i. 51–93Google Scholar, who developed an early classification of Archaic Argive terracottas on the basis of their style and their plastic ornamentation, the work of Jenkins, R. J. H., ‘Archaic Argive Terracotta Figurines to 525 BC’, BSA 32 (1931–1932), 23–40Google Scholar; id., Perachora, i. 191–255, of Blegen, C. W., ‘Prosymna: remains of post-Mycenaean date’, AJA 43 (1939), 420–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, of Cook, J. M., ‘Mycenae 1939–1953, Part III: The Agamemnoneion’, BSA 48 (1953), 30–68Google Scholar, and of Biers, W. R., ‘Excavations at Phlius, 1924: The Votive Deposit’, Hesp. 40 (1971), 397–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar has allowed us significantly to deepen our understanding of the influences on Argive coroplastic production. In particular, the comparison with contemporary terracotta production of other centres has allowed a correct historical interpretation of its development. It has also allowed the determination of the importance of Argive workshops and their products, as well as a more accurate chronological pinpointing. The chronology was confirmed more recently by the French excavations undertaken in Argos and the discovery of types which have been precisely dated through association with securely datable finds: Guggisberg, M., ‘Terrakotten von Argos: Ein Fundkomplex aus dem Theater’, BCH 112 (1988), 167–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁹ Guggisberg (n. 88), 170–5, 222–3.

⁹⁰ Banaka-Dimaki, A., ‘La coroplathie d'Argos: données nouvelles sur les ateliers d'époque hellénistique’, in Muller, A. (ed.), Le Moulage en terre cuite dans l'Antiquité: création et production dérivée: fabrication et diffusion (Lille III, 1997), 321–2Google Scholar, FIG. 4.

⁹¹ Waldstein, Ch., The Argive Heraeum, i (Boston, 1902), 44Google Scholar; Argive Heraeum, ii. 4–5, 17–19, pls. xlii f.

⁹² See Catalogue.

⁹³ Winter i, pp. xxxiv-xxxvi (for the findspots); Reichel, W. and Wilhelm, A., ‘Das Heiligtum der Artemis zu Lusoi’, JÖAI 4 (1901), 1–88, esp. 37–45Google Scholar; Dugas, Ch., ‘Le sanctuaire d'Aléa Athéna a Tégée avant le iv^e siècle’, BCH 45 (1921), 335–435, esp. 423–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kardara; Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Ladstätter, G., ‘Lousoi, Artemisheiligtum-Tempel’, JÖAI 66 (1997), 57–64, esp. 61–3Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Concerning the provenance from Melos and Keos of the heads belonging to the Finlay Collection, see The formation of the collection and nn. 10–12).

⁹⁵ Poulsen, ‘Der strenge Stil’, 48–50, FIGS. 26–7.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 70–3, FIGS. 42–4.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 55, FIG. 33, and 58, FIG. 37; Higgins, Greek Terracottas, 73, pl. 30 a; Kerameikos, xv. 19, pl. 3, no. 14 The prolonged use of this type is attested by the recent discovery in Corinth of a replica found in a deposit of a later date (the end of the 4th C. BC). See Corinth, xii. 45, pl. 22, 259; Corinth, xviii. 4. 94, pl. 11, C104.

⁹⁸ Replicas of the First and the Second Attic type were also found in Rhodes, Laconia, and Cyrenaica. See catalogue for references. Despite not having data concerning the provenance of 91, 92, 95, and 96, their style resembles that of Boiotian specimens.

⁹⁹ Poulsen, ‘Der strenge Stil’, 51–5.

¹⁰⁰ Higgins, Tanagra, 99–102. For the Attic type see Kerameikos, xv. 16, pl. 10. 37–8.

¹⁰¹ Higgins, Greek Terracottas, 46, pl. 19 f.

¹⁰² The chronology of this type, discussed by Poulsen, ‘Der strenge Stil’, 74, is supplied by its occurrence in a grave at Halai in a context dated between 450 and 420 BC (group D): Goldman–Jones 388, pl. xi. II. a. 6.

¹⁰³ The three projections of the polos may have, according to H. Goldman in Goldman-Jones 386, some local cult significance. The scholars have suggested that this kind of headdress may be connected to Aphrodite or to Hera, but it is also possible that Boiotian terracottas of this kind only allude to the deceased woman (or virgin) with whom the figure was buried. From the 5th c. BC onwards, the polos, in fact, assumes a particular meaning in the context of death and marriage. See Müller, V., Der Polos: Die griechische Götterkrone (Berlin, 1915), 41, no. 51Google Scholar; Ure, Aryballoi, 58; Simon, E., ‘Hera und die Nymphen: Ein böotischer Polos in Stockholm’, RA 1972/1972, 205–20Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Poulsen, ‘Der strenge Stil’, 77–9.

¹⁰⁵ Schmaltz 45–71.

¹⁰⁶ BSA 15 (1909), 74Google Scholar, pl. xx (second half of the 5th c. BC); BSA 14 (1907–1908), 23Google Scholar, pl. xv. 39; Hesp. 11 (1942), 386, 389Google Scholar pl. xiv. III. b. 1 (group D, 450–420 BC), 396 pl. xiv. III. b. 4 (group E, 420–390 BC), 403 pl. xiv, III. b. 9 (group F, 390–350 BC); Tanagra, 111–13, no. 71 (Tanagra, grave 2). The later replicas of the type are discussed by N. [= M.] Szabó, ‘Contribution à la question des ateliers de terre cuite béotiens de l'époque classique tardive’, B.Mus. hong. 37 (1971), 9–17Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ The graves of the soldiers who fell in the battle of Delium of 424 BC: Schilardi, D. U., ‘The Thespian Polyandrion (424 BC): the excavations and finds from a Thespian state burial’, 2 vols. (Princeton Univ. Phil. Diss., 1977Google Scholar).

¹⁰⁸ BSA 14 (1907–1908), 23Google Scholar, pl. xv. 39; Hesp. 11 (1942), 407, iii.Google Scholar b. 11 (group G: 350–335 BC).

¹⁰⁹ Wolters, P., AM 15 (1890), 355–64Google Scholar; Biesantz, H., Die thessalischen Grabreliefs (Mainz, 1955), 16Google Scholar, pl. K 26, 12; Kunze, E., 100. Winckelmannsprogramm (Berlin, 1940), 25–7Google Scholar; Hesp. 11 (1942), 386Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ BMT i 78.

¹¹¹ Nicholls, R. V., ‘La Fabrication des terres cukes’, Dossiers d'archéologie, 81 (1984), 24–31, esp. 28Google Scholar; id. ‘The Stele-Goddess Workshop: terracottas from Well U 13:1 in the Athenian Agora’, Hesp. 64 (1995), 405–92, esp. 468.

¹¹² For the dating of this type with the voluminous hair style see Ure, Aryballoi, 73, pl. xx; Goldman–Jones 392–3. The type with such large hair recurs in group E from Halai (420–390 BC) and in group F (390–350 BC), but it is to the latter that a figurine carrying a basket and fillet belongs. The treatment of the folds of the garment, as well as recent discoveries (Tanagra, 114–16, nos. 73–5, from Tanagra, grave 2), seems to point to the same chronology.

¹¹³ Corbett, P., ‘Attic pottery of the later fifth century from the Athenian Agora’, Hesp. 18 (1949), 311–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. 81.7.

¹¹⁴ BMT i. 225–6. Concerning the meaning see also Daumas, M., ‘De Thèbes à Lemnos et Samothrace: remarques nouvelles sur le culte des Cabires’, Topoi, 12–13 (2005), 851–81Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Corinth, xv. 2. 145–6 (type 1); xviii. 4. 53–4. Replicas from context dated around 400 BC were found in Athens: Thompson, D. Burr and Davidson, G. R., Small Objects from the Pnyx I (Hesp. suppl. 7; Princeton, 1943), 136Google Scholar, FIG. 53. 7; Kerameikos, xv. 53, pl. 30. 148.

¹¹⁶ Corinth, xviii. 4. 50–1.

¹¹⁷ I should like to thank Mr Richard Nicholls for providing me with valuable information and suggestions.

¹¹⁸ The generic term ‘Spilaion’ is written on the back of the protomes. See Section I and n. 29.

¹¹⁹ The presence of the meniskos in the iconography has been associated with the cult of Artemis Leukadia, which developed in the Ionian islands.

¹²⁰ Benton, ‘Excavations in Ithake, III’ (n. 29), 43.

¹²¹ Winter i. 251: 1–2; Szilágyi-Szabó, ‘Art antique’, 20–1, no. 9, FIG. 12.

¹²² Thompson, D. Burr, ‘The origin of Tanagras’, AJA 70 (1966), 51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²³ For a discussion of the type see Burr Thompson (n. 122), 58–9, ns. 72–3; Rühfel, H., Das Kind in der griechischen Kunst (Mainz am Rhein, 1984), 198–200Google Scholar, FIG. 79; J. J. Herrmann, Jr., in The Coroplast's Art, 117, no. 10. For votive meanings connected to the representation of young girls and boys, see Lönnquist 170–8. The Eretria figurines came from the excavation of the Thesmophorion and from a votive deposit probably connected with Artemis: BCH 95 (1971), chron., 1001, FIGS. 445–6Google Scholar; Metzger, I. R., Eretria, vii: Das Thesmophorion von Eretria (Bern, 1985), 31, 80–2Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ See Catalogue. Concerning Eretria see also Mekacher, N., ‘Matrizengeformte hellenistische Terrakotten’, in Eretria, xii (Bern, 2003), 26–7Google Scholar, pls. 3. 11, 4–5. 15–19, 52, pl. 37. 155

¹²⁵ Thompson, H. A., Thompson, D. B., and Rotroff, S., Hellenistic Pottery and Terracottas (Princeton, 1986), 138–9Google Scholar, pl. 36, 29–32. See also Tanagra, 161, no. 106 (from the Acropolis of Athens); Eretria, vii. 90, pl. 28. 1279 and 33, pl. 23. 885.

¹²⁶ BMT i, pl. 95. 727. For the ‘Sophocles type’ see Tanagra, 199–201.

¹²⁷ See catalogue and Louvre, Cat. iii. 15 pl. 12 f D 54, 21 pl. 21 d–e D94–5 (probably products from the same workshop), and Louvre, Cat. iv, pl. 15 f, D 4245 (slightly different, probably from reworked, intermediate prototypes).

¹²⁸ The Coroplast's Art, 116, no. 9; BMT iii. 64.

¹²⁹ Consisting of short cloak (chlamys), half-boots called endromides, and a hat (kausia), at times replaced by a petasos.

¹³⁰ Tanagra, 207, no. 141 (Tanagra, grave 40). For later replicas (2nd c. BC) see Winter ii. 237. 5 (Boiotia), 239. 9–10 (Athens and Myrina); Schürmann, Kat. 139–40 pl. 85.477 (Myrina).

¹³¹ Hutton, C. A., Greek Terracotta Statuettes (London, 1899), pl. iv. 5Google Scholar; Louvre, Cat. iii, pl. 39 b, d–f; Higgins, Tanagra, 151, FIG. 183; BMT iii, pl. 22. 2123.

¹³² See Schürmann, Kat., pl. 104. 625 (last quarter of 4th c. BC).

¹³³ See Catalogue and Burr Thompson, Troy, pl. xlviii. 225–30.

¹³⁴ For parallels see Catalogue. For face type and sculptural type of ‘Tanagra heritage’ circulating from early to the middle or late Hellenistic period, see Burr Thompson, Troy, 124, nos. 150–1.

¹³⁵ Thompson, D. Burr, ‘A bronze dancer from Alexandria’, AJA 54 (1950), 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar, FIG. 5. See also Tanagra, 146–9, nos. 95–7.

¹³⁶ Winter ii, pls. 145–55; Delos, xxiii, pl. 64, 645 (with bibliography).

¹³⁷ BMT iii, pl. 117, 2724.

¹³⁸ Winter ii, pls. 299–302; Corinth, xii, pls. 27–8; Louvre, Cat. ii, pls. 157 a, e, 158 a, b, d; BMT iii, pls. 131–2. 2802–7 (Cyrenaica, with bibliography) and 154–5. 2953–8 (Cyprus).

¹³⁹ The Persian tiara worn by this figure has been associated by some scholars with the iconography of the Dioskouroi. See Hermary, A., LIMC iii. 1 (1986), 592–3Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ See Catalogue.

¹⁴¹ Louvre, Cat. ii, pl. 221.

¹⁴² Louvre, Cat. iii, pl. 132 f, D644.

¹⁴³ Concerning the wreath see Pottier, E. and Reinach, S., La nécropole de Myrina (Paris, 1887Google Scholar), pls. vii, xiii, xiv. See also the discussion on the development and diffusion of this type of crown and that of the previous terracotta in Burr Thompson, Troy, 45–8.

¹⁴⁴ See Catalogue.

¹⁴⁵ Breccia, E., Catalogue général des antiquités égyptienne (Musée d'Alexandrie), N^os 1–624: La necropoli di Sciatbi, 2 vols. (Cairo, 1912), i. 132–3, ii, pl. lxx. 192Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁶ Burr Thompson, Troy, 43; Louvre, Cat. iii. 336, ED 2898.

¹⁴⁷ See Catalogue.

¹⁴⁸ Canciani, F., in LIMC iii. 1 (1986), 52–4Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ This is a hypothesis put forward by S. Mollard Besques, who notes that the subject appears at the same time in bronzes as well (Louvre, Cat. iii. 291).

¹⁵⁰ A. Sampson, “Τ᾿ο κοροπλαστικὀ ἐργαοτἡριο τῆς χαλκἱδας”, Arch. Eph. 1980, esp. 140.

¹⁵¹ A Hellenistic small bust of a young man from Athens is preserved in the National Museum of Belgrade. See Veličković, Milivoje, Katalog grčkih i rimshih terakota (Antika, 3; Belgrade, 1957), 46–7Google Scholar (in French 106), pl. xxi. 63.

¹⁵² Richter, G., Greek Portraits, iiiGoogle Scholar (Collection Latomus 48; Brussels, 1960), 33, 42–4.

¹⁵³ On small terracotta busts see van Boekel, G. M. E. C., ‘Roman Terracotta Figurines and Masks from the Netherlands, Introduction and Catalogue’, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, 36 (1986), 99–153Google Scholar. For another interpretation of terracotta portrait busts see Sampson (n. 150), 152, FIG. 57 n. 4.

¹⁵⁴ Poulsen, V., Les Portraits romains, 2 vols. (Copenaghen, 1974), 88–9Google Scholar, pl. lxxxix. 53; Richter, G., Roman Portraits (New York, 1948), FIG. 58Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁵ Perdrizet, P., Les Terres cuites grecques d'Égypte de la collection Fouquet (Nancy, Paris, and Strasbourg, 1921), 122Google Scholar interpreted the particular pose of these figures in the light of a passage from Plutarch (De Is. et Osir. 69) according to which Egyptian religion obliged women to celebrate the rite crouching on the ground, just as the Athenian women did for the Thesmophoria. For different interpretations see Török, L., Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt (Rome, 1995), 132–3Google Scholar. For the iconography of Baubo in the Greek and Roman world see Stathakopoulou, Th. Karaghiorga, in LIMC iii. 1 (Munich, 1986), 87–90Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁶ Concerning the suggested acquisition see Section I.

¹⁵⁷ On the Dionysiac thiasos and the iconography of maenads in Greek art see Krauskopf, I. and Simon, E., in LIMZ suppl. (Munich, 1997), 780–803Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. the so-called ‘Tolmeta’ type, attributed to a ‘Callimachean original’: Touchette, L. A., The Dancing Maenad Reliefs. Continuity and Change in Roman Copies, (BICS suppl. 62; London, 1995), 13 and 81Google Scholar, no. 46, pl. 30 c.

¹⁵⁹ Hauser, F., Die neu-attischen Reliefs (Stuttgart, 1889Google Scholar); Fuchs, W., Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs (Jdl Ergänzungsheft 20; Berlin, 1959Google Scholar); For the style see also Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum (London, 1926Google Scholar), pl. xxii. 1630; Levi, A., Le terrecotte figurate del Museo Nazionale di Napoli (Florence, 1926), 78–9Google Scholar, no. 335, FIG. 67;

¹⁶⁰ On the original function of these moulds and their possible different uses see the observations of Grandjouan, C., Hellenistic Relief Molds from the Athenian Agora (Hesp. suppl. 23; Princeton, 1989Google Scholar) on the group of Hellenistic moulds found in the Agora of Athens, and the rich repertoire of materials in Touchette (n. 158), 1–119. See also L. Bernabò Brea, ‘I rilievi tarantini in pietra tenera’, Rivista dell'Istituto nazionale d'archeologia e storia dell'arte, n.s. 1 (1952), 15, FIG. 8Google Scholar.

¹⁶¹ Presumably R. V. Nicholls. See also 153.

¹⁶² The wrong attribution to the Smyrna fabric could have originated from the other material associated with this fragmentary piece in the box where it was found, or from the generic similarities with other Ionic types (see, e.g. BMT i, pl. 64. 460). I should like to thank Professor E. Lippolis for the valuable suggestions he supplied me concerning this piece.