No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Protogeometric Vases from Amorgos in the Museum of the British School
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 September 2013
Abstract
Two vases, a cup and an oinochoe, from Arkesine in south-west Amorgos are published for the first time. It is argued that both are probably Middle Protogeometric, one an import from Euboia, the other from the south-east Aegean; chemical analysis supports both attributions. Their implications for the early history of Amorgos are discussed.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1989
References
Abbreviations in addition to those in standard use.
AKGP I = Archaische und klassische griechische Plastik. Akten des internationalen Kolloquiums 1985, in Athen I, ed. Kyrieleis, H. (Mainz 1986)Google Scholar
Kos = Morricone, L., ASAtene 56 (1978) 9–427Google Scholar, ‘Sepolture della prima Età del Ferro a Coo’
Les Cyclades = Les Cyclades. Matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique. Table ronde réunie à l'Université de Dijon, 1982 (CNRS. Paris 1983)
Stele = Stele. Tomos eis Mnemen Nikolaou Kontoleontos (Athens 1980)
1 I thank the Managing Committee of the British School for permission to study and publish these vases and also the Director and Staff of the School for facilitating this work. I have benefitted from correspondence with Dr Furness on this subject. I am grateful to Elizabeth Catling for drawing the two vases, to Dr R.E. Jones of the Fitch Laboratory for agreeing to analyse them at short notice, and to H.W. Catling and G.D.R. Sanders for reading and commenting on the text.
2 See JHS 71 (1951) 251 on their acquisition. With them were acquired a group of three fragmentary bronze weapons of the first half of the second millennium B.C.: see AJA 71 (1967) 11–2, 20 nos. 70–2, pl. 8.
3 See Simpson, R. Hope and Dickinson, O.T.P.K., A Gazeteer of Aegean Civilisation in the Bronze Age, Vol. I: The Mainland and Islands (Gothenburg 1979) 339Google Scholar for a summary and further references concerning the Bronze Age settlement; add Marangou, L.I. in Cycladica. Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris ed. Fitton, J.L. (London 1984) 100.Google Scholar
4 See Les Cyclades, 114, fig. 2 for a photograph of the site and 118, fig. 7 for a map indicating its and the other cities' location. The best description remains that of Ross, L., Inselreisen II (Stuttgart and Tübingen 1843) 46–8.Google Scholar
5 PGP, 55, 99, 101, 214, with corrections and addenda on p. 314.
6 PGP, 214. Dr Furness informs me that the vase was in the possession of the same farmers from whom she acquired our two vases.
7 AM 1 (1876) 334; Ross, L., Inselreisen II, 46, 48.Google Scholar The gravestones concerned are: IG XII 7 139, 141–2 (6th C); 107, ?143 (5th C); 108–11, 148, 155, 167, 175, 190, 195 (4th C); 116, 149, 158, 164, 166, 169, 171–4, 176, 181, 187, 193–4, 196, 199 (Hellenistic); 185 (Roman).
8 AE 1898, 208–10.
9 Meliarakis, A., Ypomnemata Perigraphika ton Kykladon Neson. Amorgos (Athens 1884) 45–6.Google Scholar
10 See PGP, 98–101; also GDA, 154.
11 Note that W.D.E. Coulson has advocated the term ‘Dark Age’ for those regions, mainly West Greek, where the pottery is not closely related to classic PG: Nichoria III (Minneapolis 1983) 3; BSA 80 (1985) 29.
12 Closest are flat-based cups from Ithaka: BSA 33 (1932–3) 45. fig. 19; 39 (1938–9) 13 no. 49. pl. 6.
13 Closest is a flat-based cup from Kos: Kos, 91 S. 10, 12, fig. 93.
14 It should be emphasised that this is likely in part to reflect the chance of excavation and publication. It is, for instance, likely that such cups will be found at Miletos, where Attic and Euboian influences were felt. In Crete, on the other hand, published finds are numerous enough for this assertion to be valid; Zigzag Cups are unlikely to be found unless as imports.
15 Lefkandi I, 293–7, esp. 295.
16 I use the term Thessalo-Euboian rather than Thessalo-Cycladic since there is inadequate evidence for the existence of a Thessalo-Cycladic koine before the ninth century (the SPG period); most of the Cyclades have produced nothing earlier than the late tenth-early ninth century.
17 Argos: AE 1977, 178 T.IV, 2–3, fig. 1c, pl. 55d–f. Tiryns: AA 1988, 241, fig. 6 no. 11. Asine: Asine II, 4:3, 207 nos. 357–60, figs. 152–3; 251 no. 697, figs. 189–90; 274 nos. 899–900, fig. 206.
18 GDA, 223. He also considered the Zigzag Cup to be a LPG innovation at Lefkandi, part of the wave of Attic influence perceived by him at this time: Lefkandi I, 286–8, 295–6; also in Stele, 56–8. The MPG assemblage from the Toumba building has called for a revision of these views.
19 I know of no exception to the single zigzag.
20 Note its absence in late groups such as the Nea Ionia assemblage: Hesperia 30 (1961) 147–74, pls. 24–30; also the LPG grave T 39 at Lefkandi in which two ‘lip-band’ cups (nos. 14 and 16) occur: BSA 77 (1982) 218, pl. 18.
21 Athens: Early – CVA Heidelberg 3, pl. 101, 2–3. Middle – Ker I, pl. 36 Inv. 243; pl. 69 Inv. 733; Ker IV, pl. 24 Inv. 1079–87; Inv. 2104–8; Hesperia 5 (1936) 24, fig. 22; 6 (1937) 367, fig. 30. Late – Ker IV, pl. 24 Inv. 1104; Hesperia 21 (1952) 108, pl. 27c; AD 22 (1967) Chr, 49, pl. 70b. Uncertain – Hesperia 2 (1933) 558, fig. 16, 39; Camp, J.M., The Athenian Agora (London 1986) 29, fig. 13.Google Scholar There are many unpublished examples of all the PG phases from the Agora: PGP, 99 and BSA Photograph Collection. The only example known to me from Attika is from Alyki: CVA Heidelberg 3, pl. 102, 8.
22 Argos: BCH 78 (1954) 176, fig. 34. Asine: Asine II, 4:3, 208–9 nos. 361–3, figs. 152–3; 251 nos. 698–9, figs. 189–90; 274 nos. 901–3, figs. 203, 206; 287 no. 10381, fig. 226. Tiryns: Jantzen, U., Führer durch Tiryns (Athens 1975) 156, fig. 34Google Scholar; AA 1988, 241, fig. 6 no. 12.
23 Furtwängler, A., Aegina. Das Heiligtum von Aphaia (Munich 1906) Pl. 125, 47Google Scholar; Kraiker, W., Aigina. Die Vasen des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts vor Chr. (Berlin 1951) 24 no. 10, Pl. 1Google Scholar; unpublished example from Kolonna (1987).
24 Vranezi Kopaidos: AE 1985, 61 no. 5, fig. 1, Pl. 11; Andreiomenou (p. 75) seems to accept Dcsborough's view that it is an Attic import.
25 Siphnos, : BSA 44 (1949) 42 no. 6, Pl. 14, 2.Google ScholarNaxos, : AA 1972, 410, fig. 37, 67.Google Scholar ?Keos, : Hesperia 33 (1964) 333, Pl. 63c.Google Scholar?Tenos: GGP, 149.
26 In the MPG assemblage from the Toumba building, to be published in Lefkandi II: cat. nos. 894, 896, and ?897. Several of the local cups resemble the Attic: cat. nos. 25 (?import), 26–27a.
27 Lefkandi, : Lefkandi I, 28, pls. 13 and 30 (late LPG)Google Scholar; 46, pls. 24 and 34 (LPG); 271, pls. 276 and 284 (LPG); 275–7, Pl. 279 (MPG); for the cemetery see list on p. 297 (all LPG except MPG P. Pyre 11, 9–10, pace Desborough); BSA 77 (1982) 226 T. 44, 2, 5, and 7, Pl. 24 (LPG); numerous MPG examples from the Toumba building to be published in Lefkandi II: cat. nos. 25–92. Challas, : BCH 109 (1985) 62 nos. 60–3, figs. 2, 5, 27Google Scholar; all the Chalkis examples are probably LPG–SPG I and apparently had flat bases as no conical feet were found.
28 Desborough, in Stele, 56–8, Pl. 11Google Scholar; Marangou, L.I., Ancient Greek Art. The N.P. Goulandris Collection (Athens 1985) 61 no. 64Google Scholar; OJA (1986) 324, fig. 6.
29 OJA 5 (1986) 331–7.
30 Iolkos, : PEA 1960, 56, Pl. 37b.Google ScholarVergina, : Andronikos, M., Vergina I (Athens 1969) 100Google Scholar Tymbos Phi 1, 180–1, fig. 31, Pl. 55. Paralimni, : AD 28 (1973)Google ScholarChr, 266, Pl. 218d. Delos, : BCH 71–2 (1947–1948) 245, Pl. 43e.Google Scholar A small fragment from Kalapodi in eastern Phokis was probably associated with a flat base, as it came from a SPG level: AA 1987, 44, fig. 61, 10.
31 Gjerstad, E., Greek Geometric and Archaic Pottery found in Cyprus (Stockholm 1977) 23 nos. 2–3, Pl. 1.Google Scholar
32 It differs principally in its rim form; at Lefkandi MPG Zigzag Cup rims tend to flare and taper to a fine lip. The closest published parallel for our cup's rim and bowl form is Lefkandi I, T. 7, 2 of LPG date.
33 PGP, 45–66; also GDA, 151.
34 Those known to me are: Early – Ker I, Pl. 67 Inv. 755; AM 81 (1966) 6 Gr. 4, 2, Beil. 10, 3; Middle – Hesperia 5 (1936) 24, fig. 22; AD 28 (1973) Mel, 32–3 XXXIX Tomb 21, Pl. 21d; Late – CVA Cambridge 1, 1 no. 12, Pl. 1; Uncertain – Hesperia 43 (1974) Pl. 80b.
35 Lefkandi I, 316–21. Small oinochoes are not certainly represented in the MPG material from the Toumba building. Elsewhere in the region: Chalkis: Andreiomenou, A. in Charisterion eis A.K. Orlandon 2 (Athens 1966) 253–4 no. 7, Pl. 17a (?MPG)Google Scholar; BCH 1 to (1986) 91 no. 6, fig. 7 (EPG), 92 no. 12, fig. 13 (LPG). Iolkos, : PAE 1960, 55, Pl. 36b (?MPG).Google ScholarPagasai, : Apostolides, P., Ai Pagasai (Athens 1912) 34 fig. 1 (MPG).Google ScholarHalos, : BSA 18 (1911–1912) 6, fig. 4, 2 (LPG).Google Scholar
36 PEA 1960, 55, pl. 36b.
37 Kos, MPG: Serraglio (hereafter S.) 6, 2, fig. 56; Ginn. A, 2–3, figs. 834–5; S. Par. 2, fig. 844. LPG: S. 3, 4, fig. 66; S. 10, 9, fig. 90; S. 15, 2–4, figs. 228–9; S. 16, 2, fig. 234; S. 21, 1, fig. 292; S. 22, 5, fig. 303; S. 35, 8–9, figs. 441–2; S. 38, 1, fig. 454; S. 42, 1, fig. 461; S. 63, 5, fig. 559; S. 67, 2–5, figs. 596–9; Halv. A, 3, fig. 630; Pizz. II, 1, fig. 644; S. Pant. A, 1–2, figs. 840–1; S.A, 1–2, figs. 850–1; S. B, 6–7, figs. 862–3.
38 CIRh 6–7, 119 Tomb 35, 1, fig. 135; 130 Tomb 43, 2, figs. 144 and 146; 132 Tomb 45, 5, figs. 148 and 152. CIRh 8, 165 Tomb 45, fig. 153.
39 GDA, 223; also PGP, 314 with an inaccurate description of the vase.
40 Rhodes, : Kameiros, : CIRh 6–7, 122, fig. 134Google Scholar; 128, fig. 144; 353, fig. 100. Lindos: Blinkenberg, C., Lindos I (Berlin 1931) 236, 239 nos. 831–3, Pl. 33.Google ScholarMiletos: IstMitt 9–10 (1959–60) 55, nos. 3 and 6, Pl. 55. Dirmil: AJA 67 (1963) 360, Pl. 84 fig. 18; also in Boysal, Y., Katalog der Vasen in Museum in Bodrum (Ankara 1969) 31, Pl. 37Google Scholar, 1. A vase in Athens without reliable provenance: AM 22 (1897) 245, fig. 16. The motif occurs once at Lefkandi on a MPG hydria where it links sets of concentric circles to the belly handles: to be published in Lefkandi II, cat. no. 473.
41 A jug of Attic PG type in the Eleusis Museum allegedly was found on Amorgos but there are good reasons to doubt it: PGP, 67, 214. Marangou refers to finds of PG pottery from survey in Praestant Interna. Festschrift fúr Ulrich Hausmann (Tübingen 1982) 190; until more details are available this material cannot be regarded as firm evidence.
42 The case for a low PG chronology has most recently been made by Hankey, V., JdI 103 (1988) 33–7.Google Scholar
43 Note by Marangou, in AKGP I, 127 n. 71.Google Scholar For brief accounts of fieldwork see BCH 106 (1982) 607; 109 (1985) 841.
44 PAE 1981, 310, Pl. 220c–d; 1982, 273, fig. 1a, 276, fig. 1b; 1983, 319–20, fig. 1; 329, 331–3, pls. 219–213; Ergon 1984, 85; 1985, 66–7, figs. 71–2.
45 Marangou in Les Cyclades, 122.
46 Schol, ad Dionysium 525 (Müller, , GGM II, 451Google Scholar).
47 Steph. Byz. sv Amorgos. In RE Suppl. IX, 381 he is understood to be oikist of Minoa alone.
48 Suidas (Adler) sv Simmias; also sv Amorgos and Strabo 10. 5. 12.
49 Steph. Byz. sv Amorgos. The calendar of Minoa may have been identical with that of Samos: see Bilabel, F., Die ionische Kolonisation (Leipzig 1920) 165–7Google Scholar with comparative calendars tabulated on p. 166; to the Minoan calendar may now be added the months of Lenaion, (IG XII Suppl. p. 144 245 + 237)Google Scholar and Artemision, (SEG 34, 873)Google Scholar; Panemos should stand in place of Hekatombaion, Bilabel's (IG XII 7237, 48, 69).Google Scholar It is likely that the Samian settlers of the Hellenistic period introduced their native calendar as well as their own magistracies. Arguments based on the calendar are therefore not decisive.
50 Delamarre, in IG XII 7, viiGoogle Scholar; Busolt, G., Griechische Geschichte III, 552–3Google Scholar; most recently Shipley, G., A History of Samos, 800–188 B.C. (Oxford 1987) 118Google Scholar; contra Meiggs, R., The Athenian Empire (Oxford 1972) 250–1.Google Scholar
51 Les Cyclades, 131–4. On the Samian settlement see REG 46 (1933) 437–42 (= Robert, L., Opera Minora Selecta I (Amsterdam 1969) 563–8)Google Scholar and 92 (1979) 484–5.
52 Kontoleon was led by this and archaeological evidence to suggest an Archaic Milesian colonization of Aigiale: Aspects de la Grèce Préclassique (Paris 1970) 5.Google Scholar See Ehrhardt, N., Milet und seine Kolonien (Frankfurt 1983) 27–8.Google Scholar
53 Argued by Marangou in Stele, 413–20 (esp. 418–20) and AKGP I, 126–7. In Les Cyclades, 134 reference is made to imported Archaic Samian pottery at Minoa. In favour of Rougemont's suggestion is the evidence collected by Marangou for strong Parian influence on the late Archaic and early Classical sculpture of Amorgos, (AKGP I, 119–26)Google Scholar, found side by side with Naxian and Ionian influences; yet this is certainly no indication of a Parian presence on Amorgos, unless of individual craftsmen.
54 SGDI 3, 548–51; LSAG, 293.
55 In the Stadiasmus Maris Magni 273, 281 and esp. 282 (Müller, , GGM I, 497–9Google Scholar) Amorgos consistently figures on the recommended route for crossing the south Aegean; particular mention is made of the harbour of Minoa. The Mycenaean site at Xylokeratidi in Katapola bay perhaps served maritime traffic between the Peloponnese and the Dodekanese and further east.
56 Well expressed by Rougemont, op cit, 132–4. Particularly striking is Ross' description of Amorgos in 1837 as the frontier of free Greece, : Inselreisen I. 174–6, 179–80.Google Scholar
57 See P.M. Bikai and J.N. Coldstream on PG finds from Tyre, in RDAC 1988, 35–44Google Scholar where there is evidence for unbroken contact with the Aegean from the Late Bronze Age to the eighth century; Bikai, P.M., The Pottery of Tyre (Warminster 1978) pls. 22, 1Google Scholar; 30, 1 and 3; 34, 3(?); 39, 20. Also relevant are the three PG vases from Cyprus (above n. 31) and the early Eastern imports at Lefkandi, : Lefkandi I, 218–9Google Scholar (P. 24, 14; P. 25B, 5), 347–8 (S. 46, 3); BSA 77 (1982) 237, 239–40, 242–5 (faience and bronze objects from T. 39); AR 1984–85, 15 (T. 55); AR 1986–87, 13 (T. 59).
58 Verdelis, N., O Protogeometrikos Rythmos tes Thessalias (Athens 1958) 55, Pl. 15, 7–8.Google Scholar Recent finds have added little similar material earlier than the ninth century; an exception is a fragmentary ?MPG kantharos shown in Les Cyclades, 168, fig. 4.
59 Add to the material assembled by Desborough, (PGP, 153–63, 186)Google Scholar and Coldstream (GGP, 151–7): Amorgos, : PAE 1983, Pl. 220Google Scholar; Ergon 1985, fig. 72. Andros, : Cambitoglou, A., Archaeological Museum of Andros (Athens 1981) 47 nos. 60–3Google Scholar; 103 nos. 348–9. Delos, : Delos XVII, Pl. 36, 7.Google ScholarDonousa, : AD 25 (1970) Chr, Pl. 368aGoogle Scholar; 28 (1973) Chr, Pl. 508b. Naxos, : AA 1972, 387Google Scholar, fig. 1 nos. 10–11; PAE 1983, Pl. 200b; ASAtene 61 (1983) 110, figs. 1–2 and 126, fig. 12. Tenos, : PAE 1955, Pl. 100b.Google Scholar I have myself seen fragments of PSC skyphoi on the surface at the ancient city of Melos and at a site south of Batsi on Andros.
60 Thera, : AM 28 (1903) 150 C59–61Google Scholar, Beil. 20; 170 E4–10, Beil 22 and fig. 49. Donousa, : AD 24 (1969) Chr, pls. 399, 400a–b, 401Google Scholar; 25 (1970) Chr, pls. 367a–b, 3668a–b; 28 (1971) Chr, pls. 473c–d, 474a; 28 (1973) Chr, Pl. 508a, c–d. Note a fragment of a Koan MG flask on Delos, : Délos XV, Pl. 14, 57.Google Scholar
61 A Euboian presence in East Aegean waters may be visible in the small number of SPG imports or imitations in the region. Add to Desborough's list (PGP, 185): Chios, : Boardman, J., Emborio (London 1967) 117, fig. 72, Pl. 30Google Scholar; Horos 4 (1986) 127, Pl. 27, 1. Samos: Walter, H., Samos V (Bonn 1968) pls. 2, 18Google Scholar; 6, 27. Kos, : Kos, 202 S. 27, 16, fig. 394Google Scholar; 333 Fad. 1, 17, fig. 718. Rhodes, : (Vati) ASAtene 61 (1983) 14Google Scholar, fig. 4. The roles of the Dodekanese and Euboia in ninth century eastern trade are explored by Coldstream, J.N. in Acts of the First Cyprological Congress 1 (Nicosia 1972) 15–22.Google Scholar
62 See Liddy, D.J. in Proceedings of the 25th International Archaeometry Symposium. Athens 1986 ed. Maniatis, Y. (Amsterdam 1988)Google Scholar forthcoming.
63 The vases belong to composition Group 2 in OJA 5 (1986) 331–5, fig. 14. The A1 and K contents of (I), however, are high and fall just outside the Group 2 ranges (see Table 1).
64 The Laboratory's reference data (by optical emission spectroscopy) for Rhodes is described in Jones, R.E., Greek and Cypriot Pottery (Athens 1986) 294–7, 667–70.Google Scholar In addition, the Laboratory has (unpublished) data (by atomic absorption spectrometry) for Rhodian Hellenistic vases, (2) matches the latter group satisfactorily except in Mg.