voutsaki 2008 marble bowls keros early cycladic

285

The Stone Vessels

Chapter 8

The Stone Vessels

been studied by Devetzi (1992). The survey of Early Cycladic stone vessels by Getz-Gentle (1996) sets out comprehensively the repertoire of known forms.

A. The marble open bowlsby Sophia Voutsaki

Stone vases are together with figurines the trademark of the EC civilization. Among the stone vases plain marble bowls are the most popular vessel type found in the EC period. The plain marble bowls found in Dhaskalio Kavos, Keros constitute the largest group found in a single site. The 1987 investigation alone has produced 262 fragments, while previous explo-rations (Doumas 1964; Zapheiropoulou 1967; 1968a) report hundreds of fragments found on the surface. (It should be added that complete examples, said to come from Keros, are now in private collections: e.g. Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 53). The study of the bowl frag-ments may elucidate not only the function and use of the vase type, but also the nature of this rich and complex site.

The main characteristics of the assemblage are the following:• large quantity;• quality of manufacture;• chronological consistency;• relative homogeneity within each type; and• the broken and sometimes poorly preserved

state. These various aspects of the material will be discussed in this chapter. First, the raw material and methods of manufacture will be discussed, followed by a pres-entation of the main morphological characteristics of the bowls. The chapter will conclude with a discus-sion of the preservation and breakage patterns of the material. A full catalogue of the plain bowl fragments will follow.

1. The materialIn this section some basic observations concerning the colour and texture of the Keros marble bowls will be made in order to detect the range of materials used in Keros. These observations rely on a visible inspection

Introductionby Colin Renfrew

Fragments of stone vessels were, after the broken pot-tery, the most frequent finds at Dhaskalio Kavos. By far the greatest number were of marble, representing most of the forms known from the Early Cycladic cem-eteries of the time. But unlike most of the specimens recorded from the cemeteries, the specimens from Ka-vos recovered by us were without exception broken, although it is possible that some complete examples have been removed from the site by looters.

By far the most numerous fragments in this cat-egory were the marble open bowls, a prominent find in the cemeteries of the Keros-Syros culture (Early Cycladic II). These are studied in Section A, below, by Sophia Voutsaki. The other marble vessels are described by Giorgos Gavalas in Section B, vessels of grey marble and of limestone by Kiki Birtacha in Sec-tion D, and the fragments of vessels of chlorite schist in Section C by Colin Renfrew.

The stone vessels offer considerable scope for the study of the breakage patterns. Polished marble expe-riences surface changes, including patination, with the passage of time after the polishing episode, as well as undergoing erosion to the surface (often described as ‘wear’) through weathering when exposed to the ele-ments. These two processes offer, at least in principle, the possibility of studying the nature and the timing of the episodes of breakage reflected in their fragmen-tary condition. This issue is addressed in Chapter 12: ‘Thraumatology (breakage patterns)’. It has also been studied in detail here by Sophia Voutsaki in Section 8A with respect to the marble open bowls. It should be noted that the different approaches employed in these two studies have led to differing conclusions: this is a matter which can perhaps be resolved in the future using more specialised analytical methods. Meanwhile the data are presented here without any attempt at reconciliation. Until such technical analy-sis is undertaken both studies must be considered as provisional and open to subsequent revision.

The marble vessels recovered during the ear-lier work at Dhaskalio Kavos in 1964 and 1967 have

286

Chapter 8

of the material, as no provenance analyses have been carried out on the material. Anyway, provenance anal-ysis of marble has not proved particularly conclusive so far (Renfrew & Peacey 1968; Herz & Doumas 1991; see Sherratt 2000, 111 for more recent bibliography). Deposits of marble are scattered among the Cycladic islands, though not found in Keros itsef. Not all islands have high quality marble; Naxos and Paros were prob-ably the main sources of marble in prehistory just as in the historical periods. It is not possible to establish whether marble was quarried at this time; it is likely that loose blocks naturally split from outcrops were used (Oustinoff 1987, 90–91).

The material used for the Keros marble bowls is by far white fine-grained marble (see Tables 8.1 & 8.2). This is true for the overwhelming majority of ECII bowls, although very occasionally darker banded marble is used (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). The contrast with the (earlier?) lug bowls which were made from white marble and darker marbles in roughly equal proportions (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289; Getz-Gentle 1996, 65) is perhaps significant. Devetzi (1992, 46) lists the few examples of EC bowls made of stones other than white marble.

The visual homogeneity of the material is strik-ing. However, visual homogeneity does not imply a common, let alone a single origin; the possibility that the raw material was imported from different sources, or that the objects themselves were manufactured in different places remains. If anything, the variety of fabrics among the pottery found at the site would rather reinforce this possibility (Broodbank 2000a, 232ff; Chapter 6 this volume).

An attempt has been made to see whether any correlation exists between colour and texture on the

one hand, and other morphological characteristics such as diameter, thickness or rim type. This would perhaps allow us to detect different ‘workshops’ or sources of provenance. However, no such correlation could be established.

2. Techniques of manufactureThe observations on manufacturing techniques and equipment used are based on bibliographic infor-mation. The bowls themselves rarely show traces of manufacture, as both their inner and outer surfaces are as a rule carefully smoothed. However, traces of manufacture have been detected in other vessel types, e.g. on the inner surface and around the lugs of kandiles or on pyxides (Papathanasopoulos 1962, 109–11).

The bowls are usually well made, regular in shape, with smooth surfaces. It would seem that a primitive compass was used in their design (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 299). It is possible that they were made with a rotating drill which removed small cores of stone all around the interior with the aid of abrasive powder — at least this method has been proposed for the manufacture of the contemporary EMII stone vases (Warren 1969, 157–65). Devetzi (1990, 117) has suggested that the use of the drill is attested already in ECI.

It is possible that emery (from Naxos) was em-ployed as an abrasive, a ‘chisel’ or a drill, although there is little evidence for its use in EC period (Oustinoff 1987, 91). It should be noted that emery has been found at Dhaskalio Kavos (Broodbank 2000a?, 231; Chapter 9B). Abrasion marks may also have been removed by means of obsidian tools or pumice. The use of pumice for stone working is not attested in the EC period, but pumice has

been found in graves — e.g. in Phoinik-ies, Amorgos (Tsountas 1898, 145–6), and in a domestic or ritual (?) deposit in Kato Akrotiri, Amorgos (Tsountas 1898, 166–8; see now Yiannouli 2002 for further investigations in the area). Nor do we have direct evidence of the use of obsidian tools for stone working, but the nearly abrasion-free surfaces of marble vases (and figurines) suggest that some-thing of this kind was used (Oustinoff 1987, 93–4). The fact that the peak in stone vase production in ECII coincides with the more widespread use of metal tools might not be fortuitous, but once more we have no direct evidence for their use in stone carving.

The question of the provenance and place of manufacture of the bowls

Table 8.1. Colour of marble. Colour QuantityWhite 217Greyish-white 23Grey 5White with grey shades 3Light grey 2White with faint grey vein 1White with brown-greyish veins 1White with few brown speckles 1White with greyish speckles 1White with faint reddish veins 1Greyish-white with grey speckles 1Greyish-white with brown speckles 1Brownish-white 1Colour not visible 1Colour not recorded 3Total 262

Table 8.2. Texture of marble. Texture QuantityVery fine grains 49Fine grains 187Coarse grains 20Not recorded 6Total 262

287

The Stone Vessels

found in Keros has already been addressed above. Zapheiropoulou (1968a, 381; 1979, 540) mentions that fragments of unfinished stone vases, as well as pieces of marble were found on the site. Getz-Preziosi (1982, 42) has noted the existence of one unfinished figurine among the so-called ‘Keros hoard’. The material found in the 1987 investigation has now produced strong evidence for local manufacture of vases in the form of one unfinished bowl (151: see Chapter 8(D), this vol-ume) and a roughly worked piece of obsidian which might be a waste product from manufacture (066: see Chapter 9(A), this volume). Evidence for local produc-tion in other crafts is discussed more extensively by Broodbank (2000a, 231–2).

3. Form: general characteristics(i) FormThe characteristics of the ECII stone vases in general are standardization within specific types alongside increased overall diversity of forms, and the occasional production of highly complex examples (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 95, 98; Devetzi 1990, 117–18; Getz-Gentle 1996, 98–9).

In ECII the plain marble bowl becomes the most popular shape (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 98; Doumas 1983, 42; Devetzi 1992, 61; Getz-Gentle 1996, 97). The preponderance of plain bowls illustrates the ECII ten-dency ‘to simplify, standardize, and ease production’ (Getz-Gentle 1996, 98–9). There is, however, variation within this basic type: there are bowls with vertical lugs or horizontal rim lugs, with a spout or a pedestal as well as multiple examples (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 299). Plain bowls are quite homogeneous, although no two bowls are exactly alike (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99) — each example was individually produced, even if it conformed to a general type.

However, plain bowls display differences in shape. Some have a flat base, but others either have no base at all, or have just a small circular depression, or indentation underneath (Doumas 1983, 42; Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 299; Devetzi 1992, 61–72; Getz-Gentle 1996, 97ff.). It has been suggested that bowls with a flat base tend to have straighter walls, while those without a base display a more curved profile (Hek-man 2003, 135). Their depth varies, though most are relatively shallow. The rim is almost always thickened and rolled on the interior, and is often defined by a shallow grove on the inside.

The material found in Keros in 1987 conforms more or less to this basic description. Rims are as a rule thickened on the interior, although the exact profile varies slightly. The rim fragments recovered in the 1987 investigation have been classified into five dif-ferent types (A, B, C, D, E: see Fig. 8.1) on the basis of

their profile, and most specifically, the curvature of the thickened rim and the depth of the grove beneath it.• Type A is the most common rim type (Table 8.3), and

can be described as the classic plain marble bowl: the rim is thickened in the interior, and ends in a slight carination; the grove at the interior is fairly pronounced.

• Type B is less common: the rim is slightly thickened, and does not form a carination; the grove is conse-quently quite shallow.

• Type C is quite rare: the thickened rim is curved and thicker than in rim type B; it does not have a carination, and the grove is rather shallow.

• Type D has a deep grove, and the thickened rim ends in a fairly sharp carination.

Figure 8.1. Examples of rim types A to E.

288

Chapter 8

• Type E: there is only one example. The rim is almost straight and ends in fairly sharp edge. The exist-ence of plain marble bowls with a straight (rather than thickened) rim had already been noted by Devetzi (1992, 35, 61).

It should be emphasized that these types are not clear-ly distinct; as can be seen on Table 8.3, two examples share features of both type A and type B.

No chronological significance can be attributed to this typological division, since the material was unstratified. We have already established above (sec-tion 1 above) that rim profile correlates with neither the texture nor the colour of the marble.

An attempt has been made to examine whether rim profile correlates with other features, such as the size of the vase (Table 8. 4). (Rim fragments which may be either type A or type B have been excluded.)

Bowls with the classic thickened rim type A vary across all size categories and go into the larger category. Type D rims which have a more pronounced carination and a deeper grove are in general smaller and cover a range of size from 5 to 15 cm. In contrast, the bowls whose rims are less thick in the interior (especially type B, and E?) tend to be small, and might therefore have been used for drinking as well. The only larger bowl with rim type B (with a diameter of 17 cm) has a heavily encrusted inner surface, and its classification was uncertain. In another two cases of rim type B the diameter has not been recorded, but on the basis of the wall thickness these should be small examples.

Unfortunately the fragmentary condition of the Keros 1987 material does not allow us to make

observations about the profile of the bowls, or their proportions. The angle of the base in base fragments vary from 138° to 170° with most examples clustering between 150° and 160°.

Finally, considering the base of the bowls, again the fragmentary state of the material does not allow us to differentiate clearly between examples with and those without a defined base. While flat fragments can easily be identified as belonging to the base of a bowl (17 fragments), those with a strong curvature but without defined base are more difficult to identify as such (see, for instance, cat. nos. 232, 37, 665 & 697), and might be underrepresented in our assemblage.

(ii) SizeSize has already been discussed in connection with the different rim types. To begin with a few general observations, ECII vases are said to be smaller than their ECI counterparts (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 98; 1987b, 67). However, this does not really hold for ECII plain bowls which vary considerably in size. While (ECI?) lug bowls range in diameter from 6cm to at the most 37cm (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289; Getz-Gentle 1996, 66), (ECII?) plain bowls may reach nearly 60 cm. The majority of bowls , however, range from 10 to 20 cm (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99).

Examples found previously in Keros have a diameter of 38 cm (Zapheiropoulou 1968a, 381), and even 57 cm (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). Indeed Kavos, Keros seems to have produced the largest examples (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100) — a fact that once more em-phasizes the special character or status of this site

— but large examples said to come from Naxos have also been mentioned.

It is time to look systematically at the material from the Keros 1987 investigation. Table 8.5 presents the distribution of bowls across the size range (based on rim diam-eter).

Table 8.5 shows that that the material from Dhaskalio Kavos confirms Getz-Gen-tle’s general observations about the size of marble bowls (see above), as the majority of

Table 8. 3. Frequency of rim types.

Rim type No.A 43B 15A or B 2C 7D 19E 1?not recorded 2not classifiable 10Total 99

Figure 8.2. Frequency of rim types.

Table 8. 4. Rim type versus size (rim diameter).

Rim type 5.0–9.9 10.0–14.9 15.0–19.9 >20 not recorded TotalA 11 14 7 6 7 45B 12 1 2 15C 1 4 1 1 7D 9 8 2 19E? 1 1?

Table 8.5. Rim diameter of marble bowls.

Rim diameter Number of bowls0–4.99 05–9.99 3410–14.99 2615–19.99 9 >20 cm 7not recorded/not known 11Total 87

289

The Stone Vessels

bowls vary between 10 and 20 cm. However, it should be pointed out that the number of bowls between 5 and 10 cm in size is almost equal. Unfortunately, due to the limited time available for the study of the mate-rial, it was not possible to establish the diameter of the large examples with more precision.

It is worth examining whether there is any stand-ardization in rim diameter.

Figure 8.7 shows that this is not really the case. The bowls clearly cluster around the 7–10 cm diameter (38 out of the 80 examples for which we have accurate measurements are in these categories), but there is a certain continuum in size from 5 to 20 cm.

Considering the relation between size, rim diam-eter and thickness between, Getz-Gentle (1996, 102) has suggested that if the rim is thicker than 2 cm, a rim diameter larger than 45 cm should be reconstructed. While there is an overall correspondence, Table 8.6 shows that the correlation is not absolute. Here, of course, the size of the rim fragment plays a role as the walls tend to become thicker towards the base.

Table 8.7 presents the variation in base diameter, and shows that most base fragments cluster around the 5 cm.While there is little point in discussing standardization in base diameter, it is worth noting a broad correlation between (max.) thickness and base diameter (Table 8.8), which does not, however, constitute a rule.

(iii) The function of plain marble bowlsThe discussion on the morphological characteristics of the plain marble bowls allows us to reflect on their function. We have observed a certain differentiation between smaller examples, in some (but not all) cases with straighter and less thickened rim, and examples with more pronounced thickened rim which vary in size and profile. This variation implies that what we

categorize as plain bowls were not used for a single purpose. While, for instance, the smaller examples with straighter rim might have been used both as containers and as drinking cups, the more ‘classic’ plain bowls with the shallow profile and thickened or rolled rim must have been used to contain something solid, or at the most a thick liquid — in which case the rolled rim would prevent the liquid from spilling out (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99). The lack of a defined base in some bowls may imply that they were held in the hand (the smaller examples) or on the lap (the larger bowls) — either way, it is unlikely that they were supposed to stand, or to be displayed on a surface. The ones with a flat base, however, could be used for these purposes.

We have seen that plain bowls vary significantly in terms of size and thickness, hence also in terms of weight. It is not easy to establish whether differences in size imply a different function. The material from Dhaskalio Kavos cannot help us with this question: its fragmentary nature does not allow us to examine whether differences in size correlate with morpho-logical differences (e.g. whether larger examples were more stable, or more shallow, etc.). Having said that, all the larger examples in the 1987 assemblage belong to the more classic type with thickened rim (which, of

Figure 8.3. Variation in rim diameter.

Table 8.6. Relation between size (rim diameter) and maximum thickness.

cm 0.1–0.50 0.51–0.99 1.0–1.50 1.51–1.99 >2.0 Total5–9.99 6 26 2 3410–14.99 16 10 2615–19.99 2 7 920–22.00 3 1 4>22 1 1 1 3Total 76

Table 8.8. Base diameter versus max. thickness.

cm 0.51–0.99 1.0–1.49 1.51–1.99 Total2–3.99 1 14–5.99 5 3 86–8.99 4 49–10 1 1Total 14

Table 8.7. Base diameter of marble bowls. Base diameter (cm) Number of bowls0–1.99 02–3.99 14–5.99 86–8.99 49–10 1not recorded/not known 3Total 17

290

Chapter 8

course, makes sense as it would be impossible to drink out of these large and heavy examples).

Nor is it possible to ascertain whether differences in size implied differential value of the bowls (and presumably, different status of the person presenting or receiving it as offering). Getz-Gentle has already suggested that larger stone vases and large figu-rines were deposited together in richer graves (1996, 100–102), but this is supported by only three examples recovered from scientific excavations. Once more, the Keros material cannot help us with this question.

The question whether marble bowls (and stone vases in general) were used for exclusively funerary purposes is still debated. Although by far the major-ity of bowls has been found in graves, or can be said to come from graves because of their relatively good condition, bowls must have been used in everyday life as well. This is supported by the fact that they are occasionally found in settlements: fragments of marble bowls have been found in a domestic (or ritual?) de-posit in Amorgos, Kato Akrotiri (Tsountas 1898, 166–8; Yiannouli 2002, 1–2), while stone vases in general are reported in Kastri (Tsountas 1899, 122; Bossert 1967, 60–64; Marthari 1998, 28); in Kastraki, Naxos (Fotou 1983, 28); in Phylakopi (Evans & Renfrew 1984, 66); in Grotta, Naxos (Kontoleon 1949Not in refs, 119); in Akrotiri, Thera (Devetzi 1992, 119), in Skarkos, Ios, (Devetzi 1992, 119) and in Dhaskalio, Keros (Doumas 1964, 411). Keeping in mind the dearth of excavated ECII settlements, it is safer to conclude that marble bowls were used in practices taking place in both the settlements and the cemeteries.

(iv) Traces of colourThe traces of colour found usually in the inner surface of the bowls have to be brought into the discussion at this point. Different colours are found, though red is most commonly found. The red (now sometimes pink)

colour is identified as hematite or cinnabar (mercuric sulphide: see more recently Sherratt 2000, 8, 112, 118–19), while the blue colour (now usually black) is said to be azurite. In some cases the soil found inside the bowl was red or blue (Dümmler 1886, 17–18); this provides proof that the bowls were used as contain-ers of colour.

Traces of colour are found already in the ECI period though not in all vase types: they are attested in lug bowls and palettes (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96; 1987a, 307 cat. no 129; Doumas 1983, cat. no 130; Sherratt 2000, 117 where more examples are listed), but not in beakers and kandiles (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289). It is therefore possible that marble bowls and palettes were used as mortars for pulverizing and mixing colours since ECI times (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96).

Traces of colour are found in other ECII vase types as well: in a bowl with four lugs at the rim, in a spouted bowl with lug, in one of twin cups with ped-estal, in a chalice (Sherratt 2000, 121), in a pedestaled cup and a pedestaled bowl (Dümmler 1886, 17–18; Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 306–7, 321–3; Devetzi 1992, 121; Sherratt 2000, 120; see also Chapter 8(B), this volume for colour in pedestaled bowls and cups, spouted bowls, etc.).

However, plain bowls in particular are regularly found in association with pestles or lumps of colour (Getz-Gentle 1996, 79), as can be seen in Table 8.9 (based on Tsountas 1898; 1899; Varoucha 1926; Pap-athanasopoulos 1962; Doumas 1977; Hekman 2003).

Plain marble bowls, therefore, seem to be part of a cosmetic tool-kit used for applying painted or tat-tooed decoration on human face and body (Hekman 2003, 159). We are not dealing with a standardized assemblage, but with various possible combinations of objects: These may be stone bowls and palettes or bone tubes containing red or blue colour, lumps of colour, grinders or pestles (or obsidian cores used as

Table 8.9. Plain bowls found together with other elements of the cosmetic tool-kit. Grave Marble bowl Use of colourParos, Pyrgos 98 Lug bowl Marble pestle. Traces of colour found in the bowl and on the pestle.Paros, Panagia 56 Plain bowl Bowl found on top of obsidian core -serving as pestle? Found together

with a palette and a lump of red colour (according to Getz-Gentle (1996, 79) the lump might be a piece of pumice with red colour on it).

Naxos, Ayioi Anargyroi 5 Lug bowl Stone handle of a bronze implement bearing remains of red pigment, found inside a lug bowl.

Amorghos, Dhokathismata Deep bowl Pebble, lump of colour.Siphnos, Akrotiraki 142 Bowl Lump of red colour.Syros, Chalandriani 356 2 plain marble bowls. Clay bowl Bone tube with traces of blue colour. 2 lumps of red colour.Syros, Chalandriani 355 3 plain bowls Traces of blue pigment in one.Syros, Chalandriani 356 Plain bowl Traces of red colour. Lumps of pigment. Palette. Grinder. Tweezers.

Bone tube. Scraper. Pins. Naxos, Spedhos 21 Plain bowl Traces of red colour in bowl. Small bone tube found in the soil inside

the bowl.

291

The Stone Vessels

pestles: Sherratt 2000, 168) to pulverize the pigment, bronze scrapers and tweezers used for depilation, obsidian blades used for shaving, or bronze needles for tattooing. Hekman has reconstructed the process (Hekman 2003, 186–7): Colouring material (red or blue pigment) was ground in marble bowls or other stone vases, and mixed with a liquid, probably water or oil. Bodily hair was removed by shaving or depilating, and the mixed and prepared paint may have been ap-plied to human skin by means of hollow bone tubes. Alternatively, designs could be tattooed by using bone or metal pins.

This cosmetic tool-kit, together with a wide vari-ety of ornaments from various materials, shapes and types (pins, diadems, beads, necklaces, armbands, etc.) imply a need for differentiation between the burial population, as well as the objectification and display or difference through the modification and decoration of the body. For longer discussions on this phenomenon during the EC period, see Nakou 1995,15; Broodbank 2000a, 247–8; Hekman 2003, 174).

While we are dealing with a loosely defined rath-er than a standardized assemblage, a recent analysis of the Chalandriani assemblage (Hekman 2003) suggests that marble (and ceramic) bowls, together with smaller jars, frying pans, stone tools (pestles, hammers, pol-ishers), stone palettes, bone tubes and pigment, tend to occur more often in circular tombs, which Hek-man associates (very tentatively) with female burials (Hekman 2003, 173). In contrast, rectangular tombs (where perhaps men were buried) contain more often larger storage vessels, footed drinking cups, metal tools (punch, needle, tweezers, scarpers, spatulas) and jewellery (stone beads, bone and metal pin, bone ring, shells). However, it should be emphasized that the distinction is in terms of frequency rather than presence/absence; therefore elements of the cosmetic tool kit appear in both types of tombs.

Hekman’s conclusions should be used with some caution, as they are based on a problematic and imper-fectly known assemblage. Moreover, it is dangerous to project observations made in one site to another, especially since there are some marked differences between the assemblage at Chalandriani and that at Dhaskalio Kavos (e.g. at Dhaskalio Kavos there are hardly any ceramic bowls (Broodbank 2000a, 236); at Chalandriani there are fewer marble figurines (Hek-man 2003, 140–44), etc). Hekman’s observations on the Chalandriani assemblage do not seem to support Broodbank’s suggestion (2000a, 249) that colour was found in rich graves.

Another question is whether colour was used in everyday life, or was used especially to adorn the dead (Doumas 1983, 42). There is, of course, ample evidence

for the use of colour to adorn the face of figurines — although we ought to keep in mind that artistic representation might not necessarily reflect everyday reality. Lumps of colouring material have been found in graves (to give just one example, in three graves in Chalandriani: Tsountas 1899, 104; Hekman 2003, 63, 67), but they are also reported from settlements (Oustinoff 1987, 99; e.g. in a house in Avdheli, Naxos where pigment was found together with a piece of emery, an obsidian blade, and a grinder: Doumas 1977, 124). The evidence therefore, though not conclusive, points to the use of colour in everyday life as well.

The Keros material confirms these general ob-servations on the use of colour. Twelve fragments with traces of red colour have been found. This is a rather low number, but the exposure of the material may have caused the disappearance of colour traces. In nine cases the traces were on the inner surface; in one case possible traces were found on the outer sur-face; in one case (cat. no. 520) possible traces of red colour have been found on one of the breaks. Out of the twelve cases, three are rim fragments, all of them of type A, and varying in size from 11 cm to 20 and larger than 22 cm.

(v) Decoration (?)While the use of vases as mortars or containers of colouring material is certain, in some other cases the internal surface of the bowl is fully covered — i.e. effectively painted — with red colour (see Thimme 1977a or b?, cat. no. 301), and the colour clearly stops at just below the rim. While it is possible that these bowls were deposited full of paint in liquid, or semi-liquid form (Getz-Gentle 1996, 103), it cannot be excluded that in these cases the use of colour was decorative. This possibility is supported by the discovery of a marble bowl found outside graves in the cemetery in Kouphonisi (Zapheiropoulou 1970b, 429) covering two intact figurines. The internal surface of the bowl had strong traces of red colour, while no colour traces were found on the figurines themselves.

The discussion on traces of colour brings us to the question of painted decoration on marble vases. Getz-Preziosi (1977, 96, 100; 1987b, 72) mentions two or three examples with a painted line or band on the inner surface below the rim, and a number of unpublished vessels — fragments mostly — with red-painted details, such as encircling lines and zig-zag motifs, on the outer surface. However, in a later publication (Getz-Gentle 1996, 103) she mentions only one example of a bowl with vertical stokes on the external surface.

Finally, there are only two marble bowls with incised decoration: a small lug bowl found in Avyssos

292

Chapter 8

107, Paros has five incised lines radiating from the base of the bowl outwards (Tsountas 1898, 160); a lug bowl with incised parallel grooves with zig zag in between is in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum (Sher-ratt 2000, 117).

To return to the Keros 1987 material: The inter-nal surface of rim fragment cat. no. 458 (rim type A, rim diameter: 20 cm) is fully covered by paint which stops just below the grove. No examples of painted or incised decoration are attested in the material.

4. ChronologyThe assemblage found at Dhaskalio Kavos seems to fall clearly into the ECII period. This conclusion is based mostly on the absence of bowls with suspen-sion lugs which are considered an early — i.e. ECI — feature (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96; Doumas 1983, 37ff; Devetzi 1992, 25ff.; Sherratt 2000, 110.). Hence the Keros assemblage seems to confirm the division between ECI period (bowls with lugs) and ECII period (plain bowls). However, some caution is necessary: the dating scheme, and in particular the neat division between ECI and ECII, has been constructed on the basis of largely unprovenanced and hence undatable examples (Getz-Gentle 1996). Dating seems to be based on an evolutionary assumption, whereby plain bowls provided with a tiny depression for stability are considered technologically more advanced than lug bowls without a defined base (Doumas 1977, 105).

Devetzi in her thorough study of the (more relia-ble, but less plentiful) material held in Greek Museums has divided the stone vases into three groups (1992, 25ff.). She dates her group I (which includes bowls with perforated lugs) to ECI, and group II (which includes plain bowls and a wide range of other types) to ECII. Devetzi places her group III (which contains elements of both groups — including in a few cases ‘ECII’ plain marble bowls) in the transition between group I/ECI and group II/ECII (Devetzi 1992, 39). While her conclusion might be correct, her argument runs the risk of becoming circular. If we examine more closely the date of plain marble bowls included in her list, we can observe that the division between ECI and ECII is not fully watertight. For instance, one plain, lugless bowl has been found in a tomb belonging to Group I (gr. 106, Avyssos, Paros: Devetzi 1992, 25, table 2). At the same time, plain bowls, as mentioned above, have been found in mixed (Group III) assem-blages containing both ECI and ECII elements (gr. 12, Spedhos, Naxos; gr. 16, Ayioi Anargyroi, Naxos; grave assemblage from Nero, Kato Kouphonisi; gr. 149, Vathy, Siphnos: Devetzi 1992, 29–32). Finally, certain bowls share both ‘early’ and ‘late’ typological characteristics (Devetzi 1992, 62–3). It seems to me that

the clear typological division between ECI and ECII (at least, as concerns the marble bowls) is more an as-sumption than a conclusion which can be conclusively demonstrated.

In general, therefore, Getz-Preziosi’s conclusion (1987b, 67) that an entirely new and expanded reper-tory of vase shapes made its appearance fully formed early in ECII, and remained virtually unchanged throughout the period seems rather unwarranted. We simply have to admit that the absence of context for the majority of stone vases prevents us from un-derstanding their stylistic evolution within the ECII period.

5. Breakage patternsPerhaps the most interesting characteristic of the marble bowls from Dhaskalio Kavos (and indeed of most stone vases and figurines found at the site) is their broken state.

This was noted during the first investigations at the site (Doumas 1964; Zapheiropoulou 1968a) and led to several theories about the nature of the site. While there is serious disagreement about the interpreta-tion of Dhaskalio Kavos (see Chapter 3, this volume for a discussion of earlier interpretations of the site), there is a general consensus concerning the date and cause of breakage: it is agreed that the stone objects in Dhaskalio Kavos were broken already during the ECII period, and it is more or less automatically assumed that they were broken in a deliberate and ritualized manner. Only Getz-Gentle adopted a more sceptical position: she accepted the possibility of ritual and deliberate breakage, but also suggested an alternative explanation, namely that the site may have been looted and destroyed by human attackers — ‘vandals (or iconoclasts?)’, as she put it (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). In reality, however, it has never been demonstrated that the stone objects were deliberately broken during the ECII period (but see now the discussion of breakages in Chapter 12). The evidence from Dhaskalio Kavos has not been examined systematically until now. Fur-thermore, it has never been systematically compared to ritual practices attested in other EC sites. The tacit assumption has always been that Keros is unique in this respect, and that the breakage of offerings is not a practice attested in the Cyclades.

The discussion that follows will attempt to exam-ine the evidence and to address the question directly: were the marble vases and figurines broken deliber-ately during the EC period — or were they damaged during later destruction or in looting episodes from the 1960s onwards?

The rich marble bowl assemblage from the Dhaskalio Kavos 1987 investigation allows us to inves-

293

The Stone Vessels

tigate this question systematically. All the fragments have been carefully described in terms of wear, discol-ouration and encrustation (i.e. the formation of deposits of calcium carbonate) of their inner and outer surface as well as the surface of all breaks. Each break of each fragment has been numbered and recorded separately.

The following recording scheme has been adopted for all surfaces:

Table 8.10. Scheme recording preservation of marble bowl fragments.

Wear = w

1 = sharp2 = slightly worn3 = fairly worn4 = worn5 = very worn

Discolouration = d

1 = clean2 = very lightly discoloured3 = lightly discoloured4 = discoloured5 = very discoloured

Encrustation = e

1 = no encrustation, or very lightly encrusted2 = lightly encrusted3 = some encrustation4 = almost entire surface encrusted5 = entire surface encrusted

In this way the state of preservation has been recorded in a systematic manner. Of course, a certain caution is necessary. The main problem is that the rate of deterioration cannot be assumed to be constant nor to correlate directly with the passage of time. More specifically, discolouration and encrustation of the surface (which are widely observed on EC material: Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 122) depend also on other factors such as humidity, or the chemical composition of the soil. For this reason, I consider wear a more reliable measure, and will use discolouration and encrusta-tion only as auxiliary measures. However, it should be stressed that observations on wear may allow us to reconstruct a relative sequence of breakage episodes, but they cannot establish their absolute date.

With these cautionary notes in mind, we should nevertheless formulate an initial hypothesis. It could be proposed that the majority of the breaks date to the ECII period, if it can be demonstrated that: i) the majority of breaks are ‘older’; or at least that

the majority of fragments have one or several ‘old’ breaks;

ii) distinct breakage episodes (i.e. ‘old’ versus ‘mod-ern’ breaks) can be distinguished;

iii) fragments with poorly preserved surfaces and ‘old’ breaks come primarily from the looted area of the site rather than from the settlement area.

Here questions (i) and (ii) will be explored; the spatial aspects will be discussed by Whitelaw (Chapter 4, this volume).

Figures 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 present the evidence for wear, discolouration and encrustation for breaks 1, 2 and 3. (The investigation will examine only these three breaks, as the number of fragments with more than 3 breaks is smaller.)

Figure 8.4. Wear of marble bowl fragments (Breaks 1, 2 and 3).

Figure 8.5. Discolouration of marble bowl fragments (Breaks 1, 2 and 3).

Figure 8.6. Encrustation of marble bowl fragments (Breaks 1, 2 and 3).

294

Chapter 8

If we look at the histograms, it becomes apparent that the same pattern is repeated for each break: a peak in the categories 2 and 3 for wear, a double peak for 1 and 3 for discolouration, and peak in either 1 or 2 for encrustation. The similarities between the differ-ent breaks are encouraging, as they suggest that we are dealing with a consistent pattern. The differences between the three aspects of preservation are caused by several factors: first, while a similar scale of values from 1 to 5 has been given for all three aspects, for the reasons that were pointed out above the values them-selves are not equivalent. To give an example: value 1 for wear is gven to a break which was made during the 1987 investigation. In contrast, 1 for discolouration and encrustation does not necessarily mean that the break is recent — it is also possible that we are dealing with a fairly old break which got neither discoloured nor encrusted because of the levels of humidity, or the chemical composition of the soil surrounding it. For this reason, I shall be first looking at wear, and examine discoouration and encrustation primarily in order to confirm any observations.

The first question is: what is the proportion of ‘older’ breaks. i.e. breaks with higher values?

If we examine the evidence for wear for the first three breaks, we see the same pattern across all the histograms (Figs, 8.8, 8.9 & 8.10): • There are very few fragments in category 1 (as

pointed out above, these are regarded as the ones that were damaged during the 1987 investigation).

• There is effectively one peak in categories 2 and 3 (slightly and fairly worn, respectively).

• There is a very distinct drop between categories 3 and 4, while category 5 contains the very rare examples which had been eroded by the sea.

I should admit that this pattern came as a surprise. It is difficult to assume that ‘slightly worn’ and ‘fairly worn’ breaks, which constitute the overwhelming majority, are to be attributed to the ECII period. In contrast, the number of ‘very worn’ pieces is consist-ently very small.

Discolouration presents a markedly different curve: there are peaks in categories 1 and 3, while 2 and 4 have clearly lower figures (the discrepancy differs among the 4 breaks). While there is therefore a higher number of ‘discoloured’ pieces, it is difficult to interprete the pattern.

Encrustation again presents a slightly different picture, with clear peaks in the lowest categories 1 and 2, and a fairly steep fall-off towards the higher catego-ries. Despite the differences, however, it confirms the basic pattern: that the majority of fragments are white, or are very slightly discoloured. Once more, it is dif-ficult to attribute the breaks to an EC II horizon.

We should perhaps approach the problem from a different angle, by establishing the proportion of fragments with at least one ‘old’ break. Table 8.11 and Figure 8.11 show the number and proportion of fragments which have at least one break which can be described as ‘very worn’ (value 5), ‘worn’ (value 4), ‘fairly worn’ (value 3), ‘slightly worn’ (value 2) and ‘sharp’(value 1).

They show that the proportion of fragments with at least one ‘worn’ break is not very high, while the proportion of fragments with at least one ‘fairly worn’ (value 3) break predominate. Should we assume that those are the ‘old’ ECII breaks? There are problems with this conclusion. Our second hypothesis, based on our knowledge of the history of the site, was that we should expect two distinct breakage horizons. If value 3 = old = ECII, then are the ‘slightly worn’ breaks with value 2 to be attributed to the recent (since the 1960s) intense looting of the site? The problem is that it is difficult to at-tribute two contingent categories to breakage episodes separated by something like 4000 years.

Therefore, the evidence does not really allow us to distinguish clearly between ‘old’ versus ‘new’ breaks. (It should be noted that a different approach to this problem is taken in Chapter 12.) The picture we have is more of an incremental process of deterioration rather than two distinct and chronologically widely separated breakage episodes. In this case, it makes more sense to look for several factors causing this deterioration, rather than attribute it to one distinct cause. The following possibilities will be discussed below: • purposeful breakage at deposition, i.e. during the

primary burial;• purposeful or accidental breakage during the re-

use of the tomb and the secondary treatment;

Table 8.11. The preservation of the surface of the breaks.

Fragments with at least one ‘very worn’ (value 5) break 2Fragments with at least one ‘worn’ (value 4) break 38Fragments with at least one ‘fairly worn’ (value 3) break 143Fragments with at least one ‘slightly worn’ (value 2) or one ‘sharp’ (value 1) break

76

Figure 8.7. The preservation of the surface of the breaks.

295

The Stone Vessels

• accidental breakage due to post-depositional fac-tors (collapse of cover slabs, disintegration of the flesh, etc.);

• destruction of the entire cemetery (and settlement) — by human attack?;

• looting and/or accidental destruction.

a) Sumptuary practices in the EC CycladesThe idea of purposeful, ritualized breakage at deposi-tion underlies both Renfrew’s original interpretation of Dhaskalio Kavos as a ‘Pan-Cycladic’ shrine (Renfrew 1991, 50, 99–101) and Broodbank’s counter-suggestion that it was a rich cemetery with its associated settle-ment (2000a, 223ff.).

Renfrew sought parallels in the caches of broken and complete figurines found outside graves in Aplo-mata (Kontoleon 1971b, 178–9; 1972b, 150–53) and the two marble figurines found under a marble bowl in the cemetery at Ano Kouphonisi (Zapheiropoulou 1970a or b?). In both cases we may be dealing with some kind of ritual practices, but they are most likely to be of funerary nature. However, accidental destruction of earlier graves cannot be excluded. A possible ritual or domestic (?) deposit was excavated by Tsountas in Kato Akrotiri, Amorgos (Tsountas 1898, 166–8; Yian-nouli, 2002, 1–2) — but Renfrew (1991) did not use it as part of his argument.

If we now examine funerary practices, we soon realize that breakage at deposition (either at the primary burial, or during re-use and secondary treatment, whenever this was practised) was more common than we tend to think (contra Broodbank 2000a, 228). Already Ludwig Ross (1855, 52ff.) noted that obsidian blades found in Cycladic graves were very often broken. Bent (1885, 52) reported that in some graves he found only the legs of a marble figurine, or a headless figure. The presence of broken and incomplete objects in graves has been discussed mostly in connection with the possible use of these objects in everyday life (Doumas 1977, 62). While such use is, of course, possible, it cannot be excluded that objects were broken, or deposited incomplete as part of the funerary ritual itself.

Table 8.12 lists the evidence for broken and/or incomplete stone vases and figurines found in burials (the sources are Dümmler 1886; Tsountas 1898; 1899; Varoucha 1925; Papathanasopoulos 1962; Doumas 1977). Objects that were broken and mended (e.g. Getz-Gentle 1996, 100) have not been taken into ac-count, as these clearly point to previous use.

This list might not look impressive when com-pared to the scores of graves containing (apparently) only intact objects, but it is important to realize that the breakage of grave offerings has never been system-

atically recorded in the Cyclades. I should also point out that I have not included the evidence for broken pottery (for instance, most frying pans in Chaland-riani are found broken: Hekman 2003), as pottery is of course much more fragile than stone artefacts. On the other hand, it has been noted that obsidian blades (e.g. in tomb Kapsala 5, Amorgos), or metal tools and weapons (e.g. tomb Kapsala 10, Amorgos) or other objects (e.g. most bone tubes in Chalandriani: Hekman 2003) are often found broken. Again, the absence of systematic observation does not allow any certainty — but there are at least good indications that break-age during the funerary ritual is more common and widespread than we tend to assume. While this phe-nomenon is attested more often in multiple graves, it is observed in single burials as well.

The discussion so far indicates that the broken state of the Keros assemblage can be attributed at least partly to ritual practices at deposition. The discus-sion also provided more parallels, and hence [in the author’s view] more support for the ‘cemetery’ theory than the ‘Pan-Cycladic shrine’ theory.

b) Post-depositional processesOf course, it is also possible that funerary offerings suffered further damage after deposition. Stone objects recovered from scientific excavations are sometimes found complete, but broken, because of post-deposi-tional processes such as the disintegration of the flesh, the subsidence of skeletal remains, the collapse of the covering slabs, the infiltration and accumulation of earth etc. An examination of Doumas’s (1977) pub-lication of Cycladic cemeteries reveals several stone artefacts found complete, but broken into pieces, or even incomplete (e.g. Doumas 1977, pls. XXVIII h, j–k; XXXII f–g; XXXIV f; XXXVII f; XLIX a, k, l).

One ought also to consider Getz-Gentle’s sug-gestion (1996, 100) that the site of Dhaskalio Kavos suffered some kind of catastrophic attack. Indeed, if Kavos was such an important and special site —what-ever its nature was — then it could easily have become a target. The destruction and desecration of graves — or sanctuaries, for that matter — is an act often attested in warfare. While this might be speculative, it cannot really be excluded. It is interesting that the limited information about the ECII house excavated by Doumas at Kavos mentions a destruction layer with strong traces of fire (Doumas 1964, 410). The possible fortification wall in Dhaskalio (Doumas 1964, 410) might also point to insecurity in the area.

c) LootingIf we observe a process of deterioration rather than distinct breakage episodes, it is is difficult to main-

296

Chapter 8

Table 8.12. Broken and incomplete stone objects in single and multiple graves. Grave Mode of

disposalBrokenstone vases

Brokenfigurines

Kapsala 5, Amorgos Single burial Figurine, broken into 3 pieces.Stavros 12, Amorgos Single burial Marble bowl, broken into several fragments.Panaghia 56, Paros Single burial Getz-Gentle (1996, 850) mentions a partial

palette whose break was smoothed before deposition.

Krasadhes 115,Antiparos

Single burial Head of schematic figurine broken off, found at the other side of tomb.

Karvounolakkoi 6, Naxos Single burial Broken and incomplete marble figurine.Spedhos 10,Naxos

Single burial Marble bowl, spout missing. Figurine broken, incomplete.

Spedhos 12,Naxos

Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine.

Spedhos 14, Naxos


Spedhos 18, Naxos

Single burial Broken and incomplete marble bowl. Broken bowl.

Spedhos 19, Naxos

Single burial Broken bowl.

Louros 26, Naxos

Single burial Broken figurines.

Roon 39, Naxos


Aphentika 40, Naxos

Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine of musician.

Akrotiri 5, Naxos,

Single burial Part of neck of collared jar missing. Incomplete schematic figurine.

Akrotiri 9, Naxos

Single burial Incomplete schematic figurine.

Akrotiri 19,Naxos,

Single burial Incomplete figurine.

Plastiras 9, Paros,

Single burial Incomplete marble bowl.Collared jar, one lug missing.

Incomplete figurine.

Plastiras 16, Paros,

Single burial Small bowl, broken into two.

ChalandrianiDoumas 3,Naxos

Single burial Incomplete stemmed cup.

Dhokathismata A,Amorgos

Single burial? Broken stemmed bowl. broken plain bowl.

Dhokathismata B,Amorgos

Single burial Only half a marble bowl.

Dhokathismata,Amorgos

Uncertain Head of figurine broken off.

Dhokathismata C,Amorgos

Uncertain Entire contents of grave broken, some incomplete.

Leivadhi 125, Despotikon Multiple burials Few fragments of possibly 3 stone vases.Akrotiraki 143,Siphnos,

Multiple burials 2 broken marble bowls.

Akrotiraki 146, Siphnos,

Multiple burials Schematic figurine, head missing.

Plastiras 20, Paros

Multiple burials Broken collared jar.

Plastiras 21, Paros, Multiple burials Incomplete bowl. Incomplete figurine.Lakkoudhes A II, Naxos Multiple burials Incomplete collared jar.Naxos, Avdheli 1 Uncertain Broken small bowl. Incomplete figurine.

Head of another figurine.Paros, Kampos 5 Uncertain 1 incomplete palette.

297

The Stone Vessels

tain what most discussions about the nature of the Dhaskalio Kavos site assume: that looting started only in the 1960s. If this was indeed the case, then Keros constitutes an exception. We have plenty of evidence that looting (or, of course, accidental destruction) had started already in the nineteenth century, and was quite widespread by its last decades. Dümmler (1886, 25–6, 30) mentions that the (probably later) cemetery at Phylakopi had been effectively cleared out since the 1821 War of Independence. Papadopoulos, who located the cemetery at Chalandriani in the 1860s mentioned that many tombs had been opened by the local peasants (Papadopoulos 1862, 225). Bent men-tions that he found ‘lots of marble bowls and figurines in the peasants’ houses’ which they had found while digging in their fields (Bent 1884, 58), and that the in-habitants of Antiparos had located several cemeteries (Bent 1884, 47). By Tsountas’s time the cemeteries at Panagia, Drios, Mnimoria, Kamari in Paros, the ones at Apantima, Soros, Petalidhi, Krassadhes in Antiparos, Dhokathismata in Amorgos, Akrotiraki in Siphnos and Chalandriani in Syros had already been looted. Stephanos mentions that there was a tradition of loot-ing in Naxos (Stephanos 1903, 53); indeed among the

cemeteries he excavated in Naxos, Karvounolakkoi, Mnimouria, Kammeno Mitato Psarra, Pherentaki, Ormos Apollonos and Roon were already looted (Pa-pathanassopoulos 1962, 106–8). Evans acquired the majority of the EC objects for the Ashmolean during the last decade of the nineteenth century (Sherratt 2000, 2); in fact, in 1900 locals were commissioned by Mackenzie (or perhaps indirectly by Evans himself) to excavate EC cemeteries (Sherratt 2000, 3). Should we then assume that serious looting in Keros started only in the 1960s? We should keep in mind that Keros had been mentioned as the provenance of musician figures, the most coveted type of figurines (Köhler 1884); it is therefore more than likely that it attracted looters and collectors. It is beyond doubt that looting intensified during the 1960s, and that from this period onwards the response of the local Archaeological Service became more systematic — but in my view it is unlikely that it started then. If looting is viewed as a process that started already in the nineteenth century, and if it is seen as only one among several factors caus-ing breakage and damage, we are perhaps in a better position to understand the state of preservation of the Keros material.

298

Chapter 8

Figure 8.8. Marble open bowl rims (scale 2/3).

318

315

115

394

231

214

216

034

556

378??

546

258

241

622

553

299

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.9. Marble open bowl rims (scale 2/3).

397

137

381 552

617

491

095

378

258 622

268244

378??

294

222

328

300

Chapter 8

Figure 8.10. Marble open bowl bases (scale 2/3)

014

524

153

306

664

155

301

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.11. Fragments of marble bowl rims.

302

Chapter 8

Figure 8.12. Fragments of marble bowl bases (a and b) and body sherds.

a b

303

The Stone Vessels

Catalogue of marble bowls

Rim fragmentsTYPE A034 D / P From survey unit 180:555, unit 319Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment of large vessel, type A.Max. L. 9.45. Max. W. 5.7. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.25 (below rim) Max. T. 1.34 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 100 g.Coarse-grained, white-greyish marble with brown speckles.

062 From survey unit 170:520, unit 103Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.49. Max. W. 2.67. Max. T. 1.09 (rim). Min. T. 0.81 (below rim). Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 18–20. Wt 25 g.Coarse-grained, white marble (?) with greyish spots. Colour un-certain, discoloured.Not drawn, because too worn.

067 From survey unit 175 :525, unit 702Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 1.61. Max. W. 1.55. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.48 (below rim). Med. T. 0.42 (wall). Very small fragment, diameter cannot be established.Fine-grained, white marble.

086 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 2.11. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 13–14. Wt 10 g.Fine-grained, white marble.

089 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.46. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, white marble.

109 From survey unit 185:545, unit 606Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 4.05. Max. T. 1.3 (rim). Min. T. 1.12 (below rim). Max. T. 1.49 (wall). Wt 15 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

115 From survey unit 165:515, unit 601Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.6. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Min. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, probably white marble. Colour uncertain, discol-oured.

131 From survey unit 175:410, unit 40Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.0. Med. W. 3. Max. T. 0.99 (rim). Min. T. 0.8 (below rim). Max. T. 1.01 (wall). Rim diameter 14. Wt 22 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

148 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.64. Max. W. 1.71. Max. T. 0.62 (rim). Min. T. 0.51 (below rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 5 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

161 From excavation Trench II, level 3, unit 304Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A. Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.96 (rim). Min. T. 0.86 (below rim). Max. T. 0.93 (wall). Rim diameter 11. Wt 15 g.Fine-grained, white marble. Traces of red colouring on interior.

166 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 1.35. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.48 (below rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall).Impossible to measure diameter because upper surface of rim not preserved. Fine-grained, white marble.

167 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.61. Max. W. 2.78. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.59 (below rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 5 g.Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.Too worn to be drawn.

185 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.3. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Very small fragment, diameter cannot be established.Very fine-grained, white marble.

200 From survey unit 155:535, unit 308Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.32. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.4 (rim). Med. T. 0.34 (below rim). Med. T. 0.39 (wall). Rim diameter 7 cm.Very fine-grained, white marble.

203 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 1.4 (rim). Med. T. 1.35 (below rim). Rim diameter 12.Fine-grained, white marble.

216 D From survey unit 175:555, unit 623Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 6.6. Max. T. 1.6 (rim). Min. T. 1.2 (below rim). Med. T. 1.35 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 100 g.Coarse-grained, white marble with faint grey vein.

218 From survey unit 195:550, unit 313Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 2.48. Max. T. 1.32 (rim). Min. T. 1.2 (below rim). Max. T. 1.31 (wall). Rim diameter 16. Wt 17 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

222 From survey unit 175:565, unit 717Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.86. Max. W. 2.68. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below rim). Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Rim diameter 10. Wt 6 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

231 From survey unit 160:470, unit 633Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 3.05. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Min. T. 0.77 (below rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Wt 15 g.Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

242 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2, unit 1302Plain marble (or limestone?) bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.21 (below rim). Max. T. 1.12 (wall). Rim diameter >13. Rim diameter difficult to establish; fairly small fragment. Wt 25 g.Very fine-grained, brownish-white stone.

301 From excavation Trench XI, level 5, unit 1105.Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 7.6. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 1.39 (rim). Min. T. 1.09 (below rim).

304

Chapter 8

Max. T. 1.19 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 60 g.Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

315 D From excavation Trench V, level 1, surfacePlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 12.4. Max. W. 6.6. Max. T. 1.7 (rim). Min. T. 1.8 (below rim). Med. T. 1.8 (wall). Rim diameter >22. Wt 250 g.Coarse-grained, light grey marble.

318 D From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 9.15. Max. W. 6.5. Max. T. 2.11 (rim). Min. T. 1.61 (below rim). Med. T. 2.4 (wall). Rim diameter >22. Wt 200 g.Very fine-grained, white marble. Very faint traces of red colour on inner surface.

337 From excavation Trench VII, level 2, unit 704Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. (not recorded). Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.17 (below rim). Max. T. 1.38 (wall). Wt 50 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

383 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 1.39. Max. W. 1.35. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Min. T. 0.62 (below rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Very small part of rim preserved, hence rim diameter cannot be measured.Coarse-grained, white marble.

417 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.61. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.72 (below rim). Max. T. 0.72 (wall). Very fine-grained, white marble.

432 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 5.16. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 1.01 (below rim). Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 13. Wt 27 g.Very fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

433 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, probably type A, but some similarities with type B.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Med. T. 0.56 (below rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 11.Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

434 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.73 (rim). Med. T. 0.51 (below rim). Max. T. 0.63 (wall). Rim diameter 15. Wt 15 g.Coarse-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, dis-coloured.

436 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 1.96. Max. W. 2.81. Max. T. 0.67 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 5-6. Wt 10 g.Fine-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discol-oured.

458 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709Plain marble bowl. Three joining pieces of rim fragments, type A.Max. L. 10.83. Max. W. 3.67. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.31 (below rim). Max. T. 1.5 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 88 g.

Coarse-grained, white marble. Traces of red colour on inner surface up to the grove below the rim.

459 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.86 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 8 g.Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

546 From excavation Trench XIV, level 2, unit 1402Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.72. Av. W. 3.29. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Min. T. 0.75 (below rim). Max. T. 0.75 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 20 g.Fine-grained, white marble with brown-greyish veins.

554 D From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.15. Max. W. 4.07. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.71 (below rim). Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 15. Wt 27 g. Very fine-grained, white marble.

555 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724 Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.6. Max. W. 2.79. Max. T. 1.2 (rim). Med. T. 0.95 (below rim). Max. T. 1.01 (wall). Rim diameter 10–11. Wt 15 g.Coarse-grained, white marble.

556 From survey unit160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.19. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.83 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, white marble.

587 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 2.62. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.45 (below rim). Max. T. 0.45 (wall). Rim diameter 8. Wt 10 g.Coarse-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, dis-coloured.

613 From survey unit 165:500, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.2 (rim). Med. T. 0.9 (below rim). Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 18. Wt 17 g.Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

675 From excavation Trench VIII, level 13, unit 813Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 1.6. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.31 (below rim). Max. T. 0.4 (wall). Rim diameter 7–8. Only a very small part of the rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white(?) marble. Discoloured.

686 From survey unit 150:520, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 4.4. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.8 (below rim). Max. T. 0.91 (wall). Rim diameter >15. Only a very small part of the rim preserved, hence diameter uncertain (estimated from curve below rim).Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

713 From excavation Trench IX, level 4, unit 904Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.51 (rim). Med. T. 0.39 (below rim). Max. T. 0.39 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, white marble.

305

The Stone Vessels

TYPE B087 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.41. Max. W. 1.52. Max. T. 0.57 (rim). Min. T. 0.49 (below rim). Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Wt 5 g.Coarse-grained, white marble.

137 D From survey unit 150:535, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.71 (wall). Rim diameter 8.Fine-grained, white marble.

138 From survey unit 150:535, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Min. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 8.Very fine-grained, white marble.

145 From survey unit 150:535, unit 409Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.51. Max. W. 2.35. Max. T. 0.71 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.68 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 10 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

146 From survey unit 150:535, unit 409Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.68 (rim). Med. T. 0.57 (below rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 9 (?).Only small part of rim preserved, hence diameter uncertain.Very fine-grained, white marble.

191 From survey unit 155:525, unit 306Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.4 (rim). Med. T. 0.31 (below rim). Max. T. 0.31 (wall). Rim diameter 5-6 (?).Rim chipped off, hence diameter uncertain.Fine-grained, white marble.

221 From survey unit 175:565, unit 717Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.5. Av. W. 2.9. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Min. T. 0.81 (below rim). Max. T. 0.92 (wall). Rim diameter 17. Wt 20 g.Very fine-grained, white marble.

381 D. From excavation Trench VI, level 14, unit 614Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. 4.61. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.41 (below rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 7. Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured

442 From excavation Trench VIII, level 11, unit 811Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.62. Max. W. 4.06. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.41 (below rim). Max. T. 0.41 (wall). Rim diameter 5–6(?).Only small part of the rim preserved; rim diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white(?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

491 D From survey unit 170:550, unit 674Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.41 (below rim). Max. T. 0.35 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble.

552 D From excavation Trench I, level 22, unit 132Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 5.2. Max. W. 3.86. Max. T. 0.57 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below rim).

Max. T. 0.44 (wall.). Rim diameter 6.Very fine-grained, white marble.

564 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Probable rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.52. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.6. (rim). Med. T. 0.51 (below rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 6.Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

588 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.45 (below rim). Max. T. 0.45 (wall). Rim diameter 6.Fine-grained, white marble.

617 D From survey unit 180:550, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.69 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.62 (wall). Rim diameter 8-9.Fine-grained, white marble.

629 From survey unit 175:550, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 4.06. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Min. T. 0.52 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 12 (?). Rim diameter approximate, only small part of rim preserved.Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

662 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below rim). Max. T. 0.69 (wall). Wt 12 g.Very fine-grained, white-greyish(?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

TYPE C214 D From survey unit 175:555, unit 623Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 2.6. Max. W. 1.25. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.81 (below rim). Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 16 (?).Only small part of rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white marble.

241 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2 , unit 1302Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 5.2. Max. W. 2.57. Max. T. 1.18 (rim). Min. T. 1.01 (below rim). Max. T. 1.16 (wall). Rim diameter 13. Wt 25 g.Fine-grained, white marble with faint reddish veins.

244 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D. Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Med. T. 0.50 (rim). Min. T. 0.46 (below rim).Fine-grained, white marble.

390 From excavation Trench X, level 10, unit 1010Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 2.12. Max. W. 1.45. Max. T. 0.56 (rim). Med. T. 0.49 (below rim). Max. T. 0.49 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble.

394 From excavation Trench XIII, level 3, unit 1306Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 7.3. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.09 (rim). Min. T. 0.99 (below rim). Max. T. 1.3 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 80 g.Coarse-grained, grey marble.

306

Chapter 8

527 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.06. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 13.Fine-grained, white marble.

542 From survey unit 160:380, unit 444Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 5.69. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.35 (rim). Med. T. 1.09 (below rim). Min. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter >22.Very fine grained, white marble.

553 D From excavation Trench I, level 22, unit 132Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.Max. L. 3.79. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Med. T. 0.83 (below rim). Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 10.Fine-grained, white marble.

TYPE D095 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 2.42. Max. W. 1.49. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.63 (below rim). Max. T. 0.65 (wall). Rim diameter 11.Fine-grained, white marble with a few brown specks.

208 From survey unit 195:545, unit 312Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 4.3. Max. W. 2.29. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.74 (below rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble.

244 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.46 (below rim). Med. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 6.Fine-grained, white marble.

258 From excavation Trench VIII, level 4, unit 804Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D. Max. L. 9.5. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.69 (below rim). Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 10.Fine-grained, white marble.

268 From excavation Trench X, level 3, unit 1003Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 0.76 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 8.Fine-grained, white marble.

378 D From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 6.1. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.95 (rim). Med. T. 0.83 (below rim). Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 8.Fine-grained, greyish-white marble.

382 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.53 (wall). Rim diameter 10–11. Diameter approximate; only small part of rim preserved.Fine-grained, white marble.

384 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 2.59. Max. W. 3.43. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.68 (below rim). Max. T. 0.56 (wall). Rim diameter 10(?). Only small part of rim

preserved, hence diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white marble.

397 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.45. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 0.66 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Fine-grained, white marble.

430 From excavation Trench I, level 7, unit 114Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.39. Max. W. 1.56. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 8.Fine-grained, white marble.

509 From survey unit 185:570, unit 418Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below rim). Max. T. 0.59 (wall). Rim diameter 7–8 (?).Only small part of rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white marble.

526 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 10.75. Max. W. 3.85. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Rim diameter 14.Fine-grained, white marble.

557 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 0.9 (below rim). Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 13–14. Wt 20 g.Fine-grained, white marble.

616 From survey unit 180:550, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.71 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble.

622 From survey unit 185:540, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.77 (rim). Med. T. 0.68 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Very fine-grained, white marble.

630 From survey unit 180:530, GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.81 (rim). Med. T. 0.72 (below rim). Max. T. 0.88 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble (brown patch on outer surface).

663 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 3.51. Max. T. 0.72 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.91 (wall). Rim diameter 11.Very fine-grained, grey marble.

674 From excavation Trench VIII, level 13, unit 813Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Med. T. 0.67 (below rim). Max. T. 0.67 (wall). Rim diameter 13.Fine-grained, white (-greyish?) marble.

TYPE E071 From survey unit 175:540, unit 406Plain marble bowl. Small rim fragment, type E.

307

The Stone Vessels

Max. L. 0.85. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 1.02 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.62 (wall). Rim diameter 8-10. Only small part of rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.Fine-grained, white marble.

328 D From excavation Trench XI, level 2, unit 1102Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.4 (below rim). Max. T. 0.3 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, white marble.

378a D From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 0.94 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Rim diameter 10.Very fine-grained, white marble with greyish shades.

294 D From excavation Trench XII, level 2, unit 1202Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.Max. L. 4.3. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Rim diameter 7.Fine-grained, white marble.

RIM TYPE NOT KNOWN184 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (type not recorded).Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.65. Max. T. 0.69 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Fine-grained, white marble.

435 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (rim type not recorded). Max. L. 3.39. Max. W. 3.09. Max. T. 1.22 (rim). Med. T. 0.91 (below rim). Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 18(?). Wt 25 g.Coarse-grained, white(?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.

051 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (?) with rounded edge, not clas-sifiable.Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. >1.1 (rim). Only upper curve of rim preserved. Hence neitehr the thickness nor the diameter can be measured.Very fine-grained, white marble.

129 From survey unit 165:530, unit 209Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable. Only a strip along the rim preserved.Max. L. 2.32. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Wt 5 g.Fine-grained, white marble.

139 From survey unit 150:535, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 1.93. Max. W. 1.19. Very small fragment. Neither the thick-ness nor the diameter can be measured.Fine-grained, white marble.

282 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 1.9. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 1.31 (rim). Med. T. 1.2 (below rim). Rim diameter 22(?). Fine-grained, white marble.Very small fragment, hence diameter approximate and rim type cannot be ascertained.

285 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (?), not classifiable.

Fine-grained, white marble.Max. L. 0.20. Max. W. 0.10. Measurements approximate. Diameter cannot be established Very small fragment, possibly the upper surface of a rim that has chipped off. Only one surface preserved.

497 From survey unit 200:380, unit 733Plain marble bowl. Rim (?) fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Only small part pre-served, hence thickness can only be measured at the rim. Rim diameter 9.Very fine-grained, white-greyish marble.

559 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Probable rim fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 1.61. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Rim diameter 9-11.Fine-grained, white marble.Wall not preserved; only a very small part of the rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.

631 From Beach GRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 6.9. Max. W. 3.42. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 9.Fine-grained, white marble.Very worn by the sea. Hence thickness measurements not ac-curate.

632 From BeachGRABPlain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.Max. L. 5.0. Max. W. 5.2. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 0.97 (below rim). Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 16.Fine-grained, white marble.Very worn by the sea. Hence thickness measurements not ac-curate.

Body fragments003 From survey unit 175:535, unit 104Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 2.25, Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.8.White, fine-grained marble.

023 From survey unit 170:540, unit 108Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 6.6. Max. W. 2.9. Max. T. 2.1. Min. T. 1.9.White, fine-grained marble.

026 From survey unit 180:530, unit 206Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5. White, fine-grained marble.

036 From survey unit 180:555, unit 319Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.55. Min. T. 0.45. Few scattered traces of red pigment on inner surface.White, fine-grained marble.



308

Chapter 8

041 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 2.15. Max. W. 5.45. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.93.White, fine-grained marble. Inner surface almost entirely encrusted; not possible to assess discolouration.

042 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of rim?Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.4. Curved. White, fine-grained marble.

045 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.6. White-greyish, fine-grained marble.The encrustation of the outer surface extends over break 4.

046 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 5.9. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.8. White-greyish, fine-grained marble.

048 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 4.85. Max. T. >0.9. Min. T. >0.45. Thickness can-not be measured; outer surface probably not preserved.Fine-grained marble. Colour not recorded.Inner surface totally encrusted; discolouration cannot be assessed.Traces of red pigment.

049 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 3.7. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.98. White, coarse-grained marble. Has been affected by humidity (?).

050 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble.

053 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.7. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble.Buried upside down? Outer surface more encrusted than inner.

054 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 8.25. Max. W. 5.0. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 0.7White, fine-grained marble.

055 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 4.95. Max. T. 1.65. Min. T. 1.48. Might belong together with 547.Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.

065 From survey unit 165:520, unit 602Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.51. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.25. Min. T. 1.15.White, fine-grained marble.


070 From survey unit 175:540, unit 406Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.25. Max. W. 3.9 Max. T. 1.3 Min. T. 1.2.Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.

076 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.75. Max. W. 6.85. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.75.White, fine-grained marble.Chipped off at the back.

077 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 5.0. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 0.8.White, fine-grained marble. Black encrusted patches. Caused by humidity?

078 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.8 3.1White, fine-grained marble.

079 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.55. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7.White-greyish, fine-grained marble. The inner surface more curved than the outer — perhaps from below the rim of the bowl?

083 From survey unit 155:510, unit 202Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.15. Max. W. 2.85. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.2.White, fine-grained marble. Must have been half buried; different preservation in ‘right’ and ‘left’ part.Preservation measurements: ‘right’/‘left’.


090 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.35. White, fine-grained marble. Not possible to assess discolouration because of red colour.

096 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.1. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.48. Min. T. 0.45 White, fine-grained marble.

097 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.65. Min. T. 1.65 White-greyish, fine-grained marble.


106 From survey unit 180:545, unit 107Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.15. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.9.White, fine-grained marble.Outer surface almost flat — near the base, or part of base?

309

The Stone Vessels


112 From survey unit 180:535, unit 106Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 2.15. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.8. White marble, very fine grains

125 From survey unit 175:545, unit 208Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.15. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. ? Min. T. ?White, fine-grained marble. Flake, only one small patch worked. Only one, probably outer surface preserved.



141 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 2.4. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.9, White, fine-grained marble.

159 From excavation Trench VI, level 2, unit 602Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim. Inner surface quite hollow - rim type A?Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 0.9, Min. T. 0.8. White marble, very fine grains.

199 From survey unit 155:535, unit 308Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim.Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble.

213 From survey unit 190:545, unit 710Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of rim.Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.88. Min. T. 0.6 White, fine-grained marble.

232 From survey unit 160:470, unit 633Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.4. Max. W. 5.9 Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5 Very curved — must be part of base. Or may belong to globular vase?White marble, very fine grains.

235 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2, unit 1302Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of rim.Max. L. 5.75. Max. W. 6.4. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.68.Grey (?), fine-grained marble. Burnt (hence difficult to establish discolouration).

243 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Slight carination — beginning of rim.Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 3.35. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 0.9.

Striations. White, fine-grained marble.

250 From excavation Trench XI, level 4, unit 1104Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 4.85. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6. White, fine-grained marble.

264 From excavation Trench X, level 4, unit 1004Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 7.65. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6.White marble, very fine grains.On outer surface possible traces of red colour.

267 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.3. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble.

279 From excavation Trench X, level 5, unit 1005Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.23. White, fine-grained marble.

286 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.0. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 0.45. Min. T. 0.35. White, fine-grained marble.

289 From excavation Trench V1a, level 10, unit 508Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.5. Max. W. 3.85. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble. Very bright and dense red pigment.Not possible to see if inner surface discoloured; some encrustation on top of red pigment.

291 From excavation Trench VII, level 3, unit 705Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9. White, fine-grained marble.

305 From excavation Trench VI, level 8, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 2.0. Min. T. 1.95. Greyish-white, coarse-grained marble.

307 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9. White marble, very fine grains.

308 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.53. White marble, very fine grains. Curved; might come from near the base.

313 From excavation Trench V1a, level 12, unit E513Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.2. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.3. White, fine-grained marble.

329 From excavation Trench IX, level 2, unit 1102Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.47. Min. T. 0.25 White-greyish, fine-grained marble.

310

Chapter 8

330 From excavation Trench IX, level 2, unit 1102Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 0.95 . Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 1.75. Min. T. 1.65.White, fine-grained marble. Too flat, too small a fragment; not possible to distinguish which is the inner and which is the outer surface.

341 From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. >1.4, Min. T. >0.5. White, fine-grained marble. Not possible to assess discolouration of inner surface and breaks because of dense red pigment.Thickness difficult to establish; outer surface broken off.

342 From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 1.4, Min. T. 0.6. White, coarse-grained marble.

345 From excavation Trench V, level 5, unit 505 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 8.4. Max. W. 5.5. Max. T. 1.7. Min. T. 1.5. Greyish-white marble with grey speckles, fine-grained. 346 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L 2.95. Max. W. 1.65. Max. T. 0.53. Min. T. 0.45.White marble, very fine grains.

349 From excavation Trench V, level 7, unit 507 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.9. Max. W. 5.7. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.2.White, fine-grained marble. 354 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rimMax. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 1.75. Min. T. 1.5. White, fine-grained marble. Striation marks on inner surface.

355 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 6.65. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.53. White, fine-grained marble. Curved. Broken into two parts; repaired. Striation marks inside.

356 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 1.5. Min. T. >0.7. Thickness cannot be measured; only very small part of inner surface preservedWhite, fine-grained marble.

358 From excavation Trench IV, level 1, unit 401/2Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 16.4. Max. W. 9.2. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.9.White, fine-grained marble.

365 From excavation Trench VI, level 7, unit 607Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.45. White, fine-grained marble. Broken during excavation; repaired.Inner surface encrustation extends over breaks 3 and 4, but not over breaks 1 and 2.

373 From excavation Trench X, level 2, unit 1002Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.

Max. L. 2.25. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.65. Min. T. 0.50.White, fine-grained marble.

377 From excavation Trench XII, level 3, unit 1204Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble. Curved — could be part of base?

379 From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.45. Max. W. 3.55. Max. T. 0.85. Min. T. 0.75White, fine-grained marble.

385 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7 White, fine-grained marble. Inner surface encrustation extends partly over break 3.

386 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.7. Max. W. 0.8. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.6. White, fine-grained marble. 404 From excavation Trench VI, level 5, unit 605Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.0. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.45. White marble, very fine grains. 407 From excavation Trench V1a, level 10Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.2. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5 White, fine-grained marble.

409 From excavation Trench VIII, level 7, unit 807Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.05. White, fine-grained marble.

410 From excavation Trench IX, level 7, unit 907Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble. 414 From excavation Trench VIII, level 12, unit 812Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 4.15. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 1.05. White, fine-grained marble.


419 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.4. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.6. White, fine-grained marble. Curved.

420 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble. 425 From excavation Trench VIII, level 12, unit 812Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.

311

The Stone Vessels

Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble. Not possible to assess discolouration of outer and inner surface because of thick red pigment. Not possible to assess discolouration of outer surface because of thick encrustation.


450 From excavation Trench X, level 11, unit 1011Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.95. Max. W. 3.35. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 0.8.White, fine-grained marble. It might be part of a base.

460 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.7. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble.

466 From survey unit 180:480, unit 631Plain marble bowl? Body fragment?Max. L. 1.3. Max. W. 1.45. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.3. Greyish marble, very fine grains. Not absolutely certain that it is worked. Too flat, slightly uneven. Not possible to distinguish which is the inner and which is the outer surface.

475 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 7.4. Max. W. 5.1. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.8. White, fine-grained marble. 477 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.45. White, fine-grained marble.

478 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 6.45 . Max. W. 9.5. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.63.White, fine-grained marble. Broke to pieces during excavation; repaired.

520 From survey unit 160:490, unit 427Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 0.65, Min. T. ? White, fine-grained marble. A few flecks of red pigment on break 3 on the inside.Shape unclear — fragment not curved, ending on a fairly sharp edge ? 521 From survey unit 160:49, unit 427Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5. White, fine-grained marble. A more recent break (break 2) on top of earlier break 3.

523 From survey unit 160:490, unit 427Plain marble bowl? Body fragment? Max. L. 1.4. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 5.5. Min. T. 5.0.White-greyish marble, very fine grains. Some doubts as to whether it is worked. Flat and rather uneven inner and outer surfaces; hence discolouration and encrustation not recorded.

529 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.6. Thickness cannot be measured, because one surface is missing — not certain if it is the inner or the outer surface.White, fine-grained marble.

538 From excavation Trench X, level 15, unit 1015Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.9. Max. W. 3.6. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.7. Not possible to establish original colour of marble; too discoloured. Fine-grained.

539 From excavation Trench IV, level 3, unit 404Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 6.5. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9. White, fine-grained marble. 545 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 4.8. Max. T. 1.7. Min. T. 1.5. White, fine-grained marble.

547 From survey unit 185:165, unit 620Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.35. Min. T. 1.35. Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.Might belong together with 055. 550 From excavation Trench III, level 7, unit 307Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 8.0. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.05. White, fine-grained marble. Traces of red colour.Fragment may come from near the base because of the curvature.Thick encrustation on inner surface, but localized.

560 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim.Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.8. White marble, very fine grains.

561 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble. Curved.


567 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 1.5. Thickness cannot be measured; entire outer surface broken off.White marble, very fine grains. 568 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.6. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.8. White marble, very fine grains.

598 From survey unit 220:370, unit 669Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves the very beginning of the rim.

312

Chapter 8

Max. L. 6.5. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7. White, fine-grained marble. Encrustation of inner surface extends over break 4.

599 From survey unit 220:370, unit 669Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble. Break 4 is either too worn and discoloured or unworked; too thick to be chipped off.

665 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.5. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.6. Curved - part of base?White, fine-grained marble. Part of the fragment buried and discoloured. Preservation measure-ments: upper/lower part. Greenish patch — caused by humidity?


667 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 4.9. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.4. White, fine-grained marble. Half-buried? Lower part discoloured. Preservation measurements: upper/lower.


669 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.65. Min. T. 0.63. White, fine-grained marble. (673) From survey unit 150:430, unit 728Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment? Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.50. Min. T. 0.5. Greyish-white marble, very fine grains. Probably not worked: made of limestone, rather than marble; flat, uneven surface.Recently broken into two pieces; not glued together.Preservation not assessed.

(676) From survey unit 170:430, unit 637Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment? Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.9. Probably not worked: made of grey limestone; flat, uneven sur-face. 679 From excavation Trench XI, level 1, unit 1101Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.4. Min. T. 0.4. White marble, very fine grains.

680 From excavation Trench XI, level 1, unit 1101Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.7. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.25. White, fine-grained marble.

681 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.

Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 1.3. Max. T. 0.53. Min. T. 0.53. White marble, very fine grains.

683 From survey unit 220:380, unit 335Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.5. Curved.White, fine-grained marble.

687 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 2.9. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble. Broken into two pieces; not repaired.

688 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment. Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 2.5. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.0.White (?), fine-grained marble. Outer surface too flat (but only a small part preserved!) - base fragment?

689 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.2. White marble, very fine grains.

693 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.75. White (?), fine-grained marble.


695 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.4 Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0. White marble, very fine-grained.

697 From survey unit 155:525, unit 306Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment.Max. L. 5.0. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 0.83, Med. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.61. White (?), fine-grained marble. Curved — perhaps base fragment? Thicker at the centre than at the edges.


701 From survey unit 210: 360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.Max. L. 5.1. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.45. Min. T. 0.45. White, fine-grained marble.

702 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 0.9. White, fine-grained marble. (703) From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment? Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble.

313

The Stone Vessels

Not certain whether it is worked! Fragment too small and flat.Not clear which is the inner and which is the outer surface.


706 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.4. Min. T. 0.35. White, fine-grained marble. Piece too small and flat; not clear which is the inner and which is the outer surface.

707 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 7.2. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.36. White, fine-grained marble. Break 1: uneven preservation: partly discoloured and encrusted. 708 From survey unit 175:520, unit 203Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.6. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.95. White, fine-grained marble.

710 From survey unit 180:420, unit 342Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.8. Grey marble, very fine grains.


714 From survey unit 195:530, unit 311Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.6. White marble, very fine grains. Curved.

715 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.83. Min. T. 0.71.White (?), fine-grained marble.

716 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.62. Max. W. 2.35. Max. T. 1.48. Min. T. 1.0.White, fine-grained marble. The encrustation of the outer surface extends over break 1.

717 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.55. Min. T. 0.55. White, fine-grained marble. Slightly curved incised line across the surface - but might have been by accident.

718 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 2.0. Min. T. >0.9. Thickness cannot be measured; only one surface preserved.White, fine-grained marble.

719 From survey unit 170:540, unit 108Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.6, Min. T. >0.8. Thickness cannot be measured; inner surface not preserved.White, fine-grained marble.

721 From survey unit 200:380, unit 733Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 6.1. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.7.White (?), fine-grained marble.


724 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.7. Max. T. 1.85. Min. T. 1.85. White, fine-grained marble. Faint traces of red pigment on inner surface.


726 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9, White, fine-grained marble.


731 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment.Max. L. 10.1. Max. W. 7.7. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6. White marble with greyish patches, coarse-grained. Curved, probably base.


733 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 0.9. White, fine-grained marble. 734 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.2. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 1.15. White, fine-grained marble.

735 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 1.1. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.35. Min. T. 0.35. White(?), fine-grained marble.


314

Chapter 8

Base fragments064 From survey unit 165:520, unit 602Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.6. Not possible to measure diameter of base. Angle of base 167°.White, fine-grained marble.

153 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 10.8. Max. W. 7.2. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.7 (base).Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 156°.White, fine-grained marble.Surface of base more encrusted than outer surface.

154 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 13.1. Max. W. 8.5. Max. T. 1.4 (base), Min. T. 0.9 (wall).Base diameter 4.0. Angle of base 155°.White, fine-grained marble. Chipped off during 1987 excavation.

155 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 11.3. Max. W. 7.5. Max. T. 1.5 (wall), Min. T. 0.8 (base).Base diameter 10.0. Angle of base 152°.White, fine-grained marble.

165 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 4.3. Max. T. 1.5 (carination, base). Min. T. 1.5. Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 148°.White, fine-grained marble. Humidity patches.

270 From excavation Trench X, level 3, unit 1003Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.2 (base). Min. T. 1.0? (wall). Dif-ficult to measure thickness of wall, as outer surface has chipped off.Base diameter >4.0–5.0 (difficult to measure, as only small part preserved). Angle of base 152°.White, fine-grained marble.

273 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 6.0. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 1.6 (base). Min. T. 1.5 (wall). Base diameter 4.0. Angle of base 144°.White, fine-grained marble.

306 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 10.2. Max. W. 6.2. Max. T. 1.4 (base). Min. T. 1.0 (wall).Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 151°.White, fine-grained marble.

343 From excavation Trench XII, level 1, unit 1201Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 1.0 (carination of base). Min. T. 0.8 (base, wall).

Diameter and angle of base cannot be measured; only small part preserved.White, fine-grained marble.

453 From excavation Trench VI, level 13, unit E514Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.2. Base diameter 6.0. Angle of base 170o.White, fine-grained marble.

524 From excavation Trench III, level 5, unit 305Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 9.6. Max. W. 5.5, Max. T. 1.0 (carination) Med. T. 0.7 (wall). Min. T. 0.6 (base). Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 159°.White, fine-grained marble.

528 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 6.0. Max. W. 4.3. Max. T. 1.3 (carination). Med. T. 1.0 (wall). Min. T. 0.7 (base). Base diameter 7.0–9.0. Angle of base 151°.White, fine-grained marble.

541 From excavation Trench XIV, level 4, unit 1404.Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 10.8, Max. W. 7.3. Max. T. 1.4 (base). Min. T. 0.9 (wall).Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 158°.White, fine-grained marble.

569 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 8.8. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.1.Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 154°.White marble with grey shades — burnt? Coarse-grained.

611 From survey unit 200:565, unit 352Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 8.7. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 0.9. Base diameter 6.0. Angle of base 152°.White, fine-grained marble. Black patches; burnt in recent (but not in 1987) fire.

664 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 4.7. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 0.9 (carination of base). Med. T. 0.7 (wall). Min. T. 0.4 (base). Base diameter 3.0. Angle of base 147°.White, fine-grained marble.

705 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.Max. L. 7.5. Max. W. 5.3. Max. T. 1.2 (carination). Med. T. 1.0 (base). Min. T. 0.7 (wall). Base diameter 5.0 (difficult to measure, as only small part pre-served). Angle of base 158°.White, fine-grained marble.

315

The Stone Vessels

Table 8.13. Wear (W) Discolouration (D) and Encrustation (E), each 0n a scale of 1 to 5, on the outer and inner surfaces and at the breaks (up to the fifth Breakage) for each marble bowl fragment recovered.

Inv. no.

Outer surface Innersurface

Breaks1 2 3 4 5

W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E003 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1023 4 4 1 3 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1026 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3034 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2036 2 3 1? 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 1? 2 3 1?039 3 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 1? 3 4 1? 3 3 2 3 3 1? 1 1 1040 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1041 2 2 ? 2 ? 4 2 2 1 2 2 2042 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3045 2 1? 2 3 ? 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1046 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1048 - - - 3 ? 5 3 1 1? 2 3 1 2 3 1?049 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 2050 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 2 2 3 1? 2051 ? ? ? 4 4 5 4 ? 4 4 ? 4 4 ? 4 4 1 1 4 1 1053 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1? 3 2 1? 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2054 3 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 4 1055 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 1062 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2064 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 1? 2 2 1? 3065 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1 3 1? 2067 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2068 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2070 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 - 2 1071 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1076 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1? 3 2 3 3 2 3077 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 3078 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 3 1079 2 1? 1 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1083 2 3 1 2 4 3 2/2 4/1 3/1 2 1 1 2/2 4/1 3/1 3 4 3084 2 2 1? 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2086 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2087 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1089 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2090 2 3 1? 2? ? 1? 3 3 1? 2 ? 1095 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2096 2 1? 1 2 2 1? 2 1? 1 2 1 1 2 1? 1097 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1100 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2106 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2108 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2109 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2112 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2115 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1125 2 3 3 - - - 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 ? 4129 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1131 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 2132 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1134 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 1137 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

316

Chapter 8

Inv. no.


Breaks1 2 3 4 5

W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E141 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1145 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1146 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 1 1148 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1153 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4154 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 4155 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3159 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 4 1 2161 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 3165 3 2 1? 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2166 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1167 3 5 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 3 4184 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2185 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2191 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1199 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 ? 4 3 1? 3 2 1? 1200 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3203 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 -208 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 3213 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 3 1 3 1? 1 - - 1214 2 2 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 4216 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3218 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2221 3 ? 5 2 ? 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2222 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1231 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2232 3 1? 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 3 3235 2 3? 1 2 3? 1 2 3? 1 3 3? 1 3 3? 1 3 3? 3 3 3? 4241 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1242 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3243 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2244 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2250 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 2 2258 2 21 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1264 2 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 2267 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1? 1 3 3 2 3 3 2268 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 3270 2 1 3 2 3 5 4 3 4 3 1? 3273 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 2 1? 2 1? 1?279 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2282 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1285 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 2286 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 1289 2 3 2 ? ? 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 4291 2 3 3 2 2 1? 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 2 2 3 2 2294 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3301 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2305 2 3 ? 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1306 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1307 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3308 3 4 5 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1

Table 8.13. (cont.)

317

The Stone Vessels

Inv. no.


Breaks1 2 3 4 5

W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E318 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3328 2 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1329 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1330 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1337 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2341 - - - ? ? 4 2 ? 4 3 ? 4342 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 4 4 2343 4 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3345 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2346 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2349 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1354 2 ? 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1? 2 2 3 3 2 4 5355 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 ? 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3356 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2358 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1365 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2366 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2377 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2378 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3378a 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 3379 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2381 3 3 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2382 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1383 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1384 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2385 2 3 2 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3386 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2390 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1394 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4397 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 2404 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1? 1 2 1 1 2 1? 1407 2 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2409 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 3 2410 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2414 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1415 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2417 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2419 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 4 2420 2 1? 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 1? 2425 3 ? 5 2 ? 1 2 3 4 2 1 1? 3 3 2430 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2432 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3433 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3434 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 3 4 2435 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3436 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3442 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4443 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3450 3 2 1 4 5 5 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1453 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3458 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4

Table 8.13. (cont.)

318

Chapter 8

Inv. no.


Breaks1 2 3 4 5

W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E466 2 1? 2 2 3 3 4 ? ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2475 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2477 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 5 2 1? 4 3 4 5478 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3491 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2497 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 ? 3 3 ? 3 3 3509 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2520 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2521 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 2 4 3 3523 2 ? ? 2 ? ? 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3524 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2526 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3527 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2528 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 2 4 3 2529 - - - 2 2 2 2 ? 1 2 ? 2 3 3 3538 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3539 2 3 1? 2 3 1? 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1 3 1? 1541 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4542 4 3 3 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 2545 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1546 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2547 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2550 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3552 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1553 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2554 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3555 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2556 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1557 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1559 2 3 3 ? ? ? 1 1 2 1 1 2560 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2561 3 4 1 2 1? 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1564 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1566 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1567 - - - 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1568 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2569 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 2587 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2588 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2598 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 4 3 3599 3 4 3 2 1? 1 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4611 3 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 ? 3 4 ? 3 4 ?613 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1616 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2617 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2622 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1629 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1630 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2631 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1632 4 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1662 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3

Table 8.13. (cont.)

319

The Stone Vessels

Inv. no.


Breaks1 2 3 4 5

W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E665 2/3 4/2 3 2/3 4/2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 3666 2 4 1 ? 3 4 2 3 3 1? 3 3 1? 4 4 3667 2/3 1/4 1/2 2/2 1/4 1/? 3/3 1/4 1/2 2/3 1/4 1/2668 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2669 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 1 1? 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4674 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 ? 4675 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3

2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2679 3 3 1? 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 2 3 3 1680 2 ? 3 2 ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1? 2681 2 1? 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2683 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 2686 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 ? 4 3 3 3687 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1688 3 3 1 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 1 3 - -689 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3693 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 3694 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4695 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 3 1 3 2 1? 2697 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3700 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 3 4 2701 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1702 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3

3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2704 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 2705 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2706 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 1707 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2/4 3/4 3 4 1? 3 4 2 3 4 1708 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2710 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2711 3 4 3 2 2 1? 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2713 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3714 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 3 1? 1 2 1 3715 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 4 1716 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 2 2717 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2718 - - - 2 1? 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 2719 2 2 1? - - - 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1721 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3723 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3724 2 1? 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 4 2 1? 3725 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1726 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1727 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1731 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 ? 2 4 ? 3 4 ? 3732 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 2733 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 1 4 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1734 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 - - 1735 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1736 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1

Table 8.13. (cont.)

320

Chapter 8

B.i. The other marble vessels by Giorgos Gavalas

Forty-one marble fragments assigned to various mar-ble vessel forms, beyond the open bowls described above, were found during the investigations at Dhaskalio Kavos. Most of them were collected during the surface survey. Only one is nearly intact (156); the rest are very small sherds. Their fragmentary condi-tion and the lack of systematic publications of excava-tion assemblages from Early Bronze Age Cycladic sites makes difficult their classification and dating. As noted above the marble artefacts constitute a very significant category of material within the material culture of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades. They have usually been found as grave goods (see Chapter 8(A)).

The materialMost of the fragments are of fine-grained white-col-oured marble. The strong preference for this fine white marble held by the population of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades is of note as Devetzi (1992, 45) has indicated. Only one fragment is of coarse grained whitish marble while another eight pieces are of coarse grained mar-ble with grey veins. Three fragments are of greyish marble. Vessels of grey marble and of limestone are discussed in Chapter 8(C).

Hitherto there has been no consensus about a standard procedure for the determination of the place or the places of origin for marble (see Renfrew & Peacey 1968, 45ff.; Waelkens 1992Not in refs, 5; Herz & Doumas 1991; Sheratt 2000). The geology of Keros has so far yielded no evidence for the existence of high-quality marble sources suitable for the arte-facts found in the area. It seems more probable that the source of marble used for these vases was either Naxos or Paros. Naxos is a very short distance from Keros, especially the southern part where most of the marble sources are to be found.

The techniqueIt is likely that obsidian, emery and metal tools were used for the production of these objects (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 99; 1987a, 35, 90–95; Oustinoff 1984, 42; Doumas 1968, 23; Devetzi 1992, 43). Such tools have been found on the site (see Chapters 9 & 11).

It is not easy to determine whether these arte-facts were manufactured on the site or whether they were imported in finished form from a neighbouring island. Some evidence for unfinished artefacts was reported by Zapheiropoulou during earlier work on the site (Zapheiropoulou 1968a,b). Our own work produced just one unfinished bowl of grey marble 151 (see Chapter 8(D)) and it seems possible that at

Table 8.14. The colour and the texture of the other marble vessels.

Colour Texture QuantityWhite Fine grained 29Whitish Coarse grained 1White with grey veins Coarse grained 8Greyish Coarse grained 3

Table 8.15. The typology of the marble vessels found on Dhaskalio Kavos.

Type Fig. Inv. no.

Cylindrical pyxis8.13 3118.13 5628.13 088

Spherical vessel 8.13 558Collared jar - krateriskos 8.13 269

Palette or grindstone8.13 4748.13 2238.13 195

Frying pan 8.14 256

Dove-vessel, plate (pinakio)8.13 4768.16 002

Kylix

A

Footed bowl

8.15 1568.15 1728.15 1738.15 1018.15 2478.15 4188.15 7228.15 6988.15 0388.15 4998.15 506

B

Footed cup

8.16 3698.16 4498.16 2838.16 0598.16 1608.16 2498.16 3348.16 6928.16 7298.16 110

Pedestal base8.16 3688.16 0258.16 196

Bowl with lugs on the rim8.16 4038.16 1908.16 510

Large deep bowl: Lekanis 8.16 563

Non-diagnostic8.13 5858.16 1014

321

The Stone Vessels

least some of the marble artefacts were produced at the site.

ClassificationThe classification of these fragments and their assign-ment to the known types of marble vessels from the EC period is based mainly on comparison with drawings of such objects by Devetzi in her unpublished doctoral thesis (Devetzi 1992; forthcoming), where she studied the excavated material from the Cycladic cemeteries and the Dhaskalio Kavos material found during earlier work. It correlates well with the work of Getz-Gentle (1996) although since much of the material recorded there has no provenance it is to be used with caution. It should be noted that some variation in form is to be expected in products of marble which were evi-dently made by skilled craftsmen. Getz-Gentle (1996) suggested that the hands of individual craft workers can be identified and that these were the same work-ers who produced the marble figurines. This may have been the case, but the recognition of individual ‘hands’ would seem even more problematic for the marble vessels than it has proved to be for the figu-rines (Cherry 1992). Most of the marble vessels seem to follow rather standard rules of production, so that their shapes look rather conventional. But nevertheless they are handmade works, each unique and individu-ally made, and in that way distinguishable from each other. The classification of the forty-one fragments that come from Dhaskalio Kavos is shown in Table 8.15.

Cylindrical pyxisThese low open-mouthed cylindrical containers with a lid (Devetzi 1992, 75–7; Getz-Gentle 1996, 112) are known as pyxis vessels because of their resemblance to similar vessels of classical times (Marangou 1995Not in refs, 32). Generally the diameter of the body is greater than the vessel’s height (Devetzi forthcoming: Pyxis). Their main characteristic is that the base and the top of the lid have a protruding flange so that the whole resembles a spool. These protruding flange surfaces often have perforations for fastening and for the suspension of the vessel. This type is seen for the first time during the EC II period also at miniature scale. The largest known example has a rim diameter of 16.2 (MN 4428).

In the ceramic repertoire this type is rather rare (Tsountas 1899, pl. 8:11; Devetzi 1992, 77). Most of those known come from either Naxos or Keros. Most have incised horizontal decorative grooves on the body, as with the examples from Spedhos (De-vetzi 1992, cat. no. 248), from the Aplomata cemetery (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 249–52) and from Keros (1967 finds) (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 253–4, fig. 26–7).

The function of this vessel is still obscure. Since most have been found in graves it has been suggested that they belong to the category of burial gifts. They may have been used to store pigments, or orna-ments and beads, and some containing beads have indeed been found (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 102; 1987, 309; 1996).

The undecorated fragment 311 (8.13–8.17) has a close parallel in the Apeiranthos Museum, MA 827 which probably comes from Keros, diam. H. 5.4, D. rim 9.4 D. base 13.1 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 258, fig. 27, pl. 61). It seems that the spool pyxis was popular on Keros. The same form, with incised horizontal grooves, is also found in limestone 204 (see below Chapter 8(D)).

311 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench V, 1A, level 12. 08/09/87

Fragment from the body and the base of a spool pyxis. H. 2.4, D. Body c. 12, D. base 16White marble.The vertical walls are undecorated. The surface on the exterior is smooth. The interior is roughly worked, and tool marks are vis-ible. The base is flat and has a protruding flange (W. 2.2). There is a perforation of circular section in the base flange, partly preserved (D. hole 0.3).Preservation: Exterior surface slightly worn, some interior damage, breakage sharp with some traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.

562 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 160: 480, Unit 724. 04/09/87Fragment from the circular base of a spool pyxis. L. 3.1, W. 2.5, T. 1.5, D. base ca10White marble.The surfaces are smooth with protruding base flange. There is a perforation of circular section (D. hole 0.4).Preservation: Exterior surface slightly corroded, breakage sharp with slight traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.

088 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 165:525, Unit 802. 01/09/87Fragment of the base of a spool pyxis. L. 2.6, W. 2.7, T. 1.6 D. base c. 16.White marble.The surfaces are smooth.Preservation: Upper surface with small breaks slightly corroded, breakage sharp. Modern breakage.

Spherical vessel This type of vessel has usually a small flattened spheri-cal body with out-turned flat rim. There are two va-rieties, one with stem and the other without (Devetzi 1992, 56). Usually accompanied by a lid.

Most researchers use the term spherical pyxis for this vessel type (Stephanos 1903, 55; Papathanosopou-los 1962, 111; Kontoleon 1972a, 150; Getz-Preziosi 1977, 99; Doumas 1984, 113). Devetzi prefers the more gener-al term spherical vessel because she believes that such vessels were used to contain liquid rather than as box-es (Devetzi 1992, 27, 57). According to Devetzi 77 per cent of the known examples come either from Naxos or from Keros (Devetzi forthcoming: spherical vessel).

322

Chapter 8

Figure 8.13. Marble vessels: cylindrical pyxis (311, 088, 562); spherical pyxis (558); krateriskos (269); palette (223;195; 474); dove vessel (476, 585) (scale 2/3).

311562088

558

269

223195

474

476 585

The closest parallels for 558 are from the Aplo-mata cemetery (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 23–37) where the rim shape is similar and another example from Keros, (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 43–6, fig. 7) where the walls are thicker.

558 Fig. 8.13 from surface unit 165: 525, Unit 802. 01/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a spherical vessel. L. 2.6, W. 2.7, T. 1.6, D. base c. 16.White marble.

The surfaces are flat and smooth.Preservation: Exterior surface eroded, partly corroded. Interior surface corroded. Breakage fairly eroded, encrustation. Ancient breakage.

Collared jar (krateriskos)The vessel with flattened spherical body and high neck in the form of a truncated cone is known as a collared jar or krateriskos (Doumas 1963, 278; Getz-Preziosi 1977, 104, fig. 85; Devetzi 1992, 53; Getz-Gentle 1996, ).

323

The Stone Vessels

It seems that some had lids (Papathanasopoulos 1962, 110; Devetzi 1992, 54, fig. 3: 21), while others did not (Papathanosopoulos 1962, pl. 42).

This vessel has its exact parallel in the ceramic repertoire (Doumas 1963, 278; Devetzi 1992, 54) and notably among the footed collared jars of the so called ‘Amorgos Group’ (Thimme 1977a or b?, 77, cat. nos. 378–87). It is well dated to the EC II period. It is a development of the shape of the earlier collared jar or kandila.

The closest parallels to fragment 269 (Figs. 8.13–8.17) come from the earlier Keros investigations: fragments MN 4318 (Devetzi 1992, 191, cat. no. 24, fig. 7b) and MN 4313 (Devetzi 1992, 191, cat. no. 25, fig. 7a) and from the Aplomata cemetery (Kontoleon 1970, pl. 192b). There is an uncatalogued example from Keros in the Naxos Museum, dim. H. 5.4, D. rim 14.6 (Devetzi 1992, 191, cat. no. 26, fig. 3, pl. 7g). The thickness of the neck and the rim are identical.

269 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench X , level 3, Unit 1003. 04/09/87Four joining fragments from the neck and the rim of a collar jar. H. 4.1, L. 3.5, T. 0.5, D. rim c. 4–6.White marble.The rim is angular, out-turned and slopes upwards. The walls are thin.Preservation: Surfaces quite eroded. Breakage rounded, fairly eroded. Ancient breakage. Modern break at the rim.

Palette or grindstoneThis flat and rectangular shaped form has a low flat rim in the form of a raised border and was known by earlier scholars as a plate (pinakio) (Tsountas 1898, 99–100; Stephanos 1910, 272; Varoucha 1925, 101; Dou-mas 1984, 69, 79, 91). On the flat upper surface there are often traces of colour, suggesting use as grindstone or palette (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 104; Devetzi 1992, 87–8). Devetzi has distinguished four varieties: the rectangular, the trough-shaped, the bowl-shaped and the chest-shaped. Most of the known examples come from either Naxos or Keros. They constitute some 10 per cent of the stone vessels of the EC II period. In some of them the scanty traces of grinding indicate a small scale use with small rubbers or pestles, probably for the grinding of a small quantity of colour during burial ceremonies (Mylonas 1959, 103).

Fragment 474 (Figs. 8.13–8.17) is similar to exam-ples from the Aplomata cemetery (Devetzi 1992, 28) where it is securely dated to EC II. The closest parallel to this is from Keros MN 4321, diam. L. 24.7, W. 18.8 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 319).

Fragment 223 although thinner than most of the known examples resembles to a palette from Keros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 307).

Fragment 195 is unusual through its peculiar

shape, resembling a vessel from Cheimarros on Naxos (Devetzi 1992, 281, cat. no. 312, fig. 36, pl. 78d).

474 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench III, level 6, Unit 306. 03/09/87Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular grindstone or palette. H. 4.2, L. 13, W. 13.5, T. 2.6–3.4Greyish marble.The flattened raised border is emphasized by a groove in the interior. The sides are straight and form an obtuse angle with the flat base. The upper surface is slightly concave and has traces of grinding. Preservation: Surfaces slightly corroded. Breakage with slight traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.

223 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 175: 565, Unit 717. 03/09/87Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular grindstone or palette. H. 3.3, W. 2.6, T. 1.8White marble with grey veins.The walls are straight and rough and incline inwards forming an acute angle with the flat base. The upper surface is slightly concave.Preservation: Surfaces slightly worn. Breakages rounded, worn, and incrusted. Ancient breakage.

195 Fig. 8.13 from surface unit 150: 525, Unit 707. 02/09/87Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular grindstone or palette. L. 6.1, W. 4.3, T. 1.8.White marble with gray veins.With rounded corners and trough-shaped section giving an ellipti-cal form. The raised border it is not preserved. The upper surface is concave from use.Preservation: Surfaces slightly damaged and worn. Breakage edges show slight traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.

Frying panThe marble frying pan has a disc-shaped body, which protrudes beyond the low walls to form a flange. There is a flat oblong horizontal handle (Kontoleon 1972b; Devetzi 1992, 81, fig. 31). This form is well known in clay (Tsountas 1898, 85). The clay form with the flange and the very elaborated decoration is best known from Chalandriani on Syros (Tsountas 1899) and is known as the Syros type frying pan. This differs from the fry-ing pan of Kampos type, which has no flange (Zaphei-ropoulou 1984). The function of this type of vessel is uncertain (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 99–100; Coleman 1985, 191–204; Goodison 1989; Devetzi 1992, 126). It should be noted that in the ceramic assemblage from the 1987 Dhaskalio Kavos investigations this type of vessel is lacking entirely (see Chapters 6 & 13).

Examples in marble or other stone are rare and the only others known until this find are the examples from Aplomata cemetery on Naxos (Kontoleon 1972b, pl. 140–41; Lambrinoudakis 1976, pl. 196) and from the earlier work on Dhaskalio Kavos (Devetzi 1992, 38–9), together with the frying pan of chlorite schist and of unknown provenance in Karlsruhe (Getz-Gentle 1996, fig. 107, pl. 113).

324

Chapter 8

Figure 8.14. Marble frying pan (256) (scale 2/3) with reconstruction.

0 3 cm

0 3 cm

256

Fragment 256 is very similar to the fragment MN 4413, dim. L. 3.4, D. rim 11.1–11.6, D. base 17–17.5, which comes from the same site (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 286–72, fig. 31, pl. 69). A special feature is the shape of

the handle, which is of horseshoe form, see fig. 8.14 for possible reconstruction. It may be compared with many ceramic examples (Coleman 1985, 192, fig. 2, cat. no. 32 from Naxos).

325

The Stone Vessels

256 Figs. 8.14–8.18a & b from surface cleaning of the area of Trench VIII, 165:525. 03/09/87Fragment of a frying pan with protruding flange and cylindrical walls and part of the handle. H. 2.6, L. 12, W. 8.1, T. walls1.2, D. rim c. 16.White marbleThe walls are straight on the outside and concave in the interior. Their section is triangular. The rim is plain and vertical. The base has a flange of a width 1.7 from the walls and is slightly convex. Only a little of the handle is preserved and is of horseshoe form.Preservation: Most of the handle is missing. On the surfaces some small recent wear and weathering. Breakages weathered. Ancient breakage. Plate (pinakio) or Dove vesselThis type is a large circular plate of marble with low and very thin vertical sides, with a thin plain rim and with a flat slightly protruding base. The only well-preserved example has a line or a row of schematic birds (doves) sculpted in relief at the interior. The flat disc of the plate is there c. 40 cm in diameter and the straight wall is 4 cms high. The line of the birds at the interior has suggested the term dove vessel for this marble plate (Doumas 1984, 134; Devetzi 1992, 82; Getz-Gentle 1996). There is no equivalent shape in the ceramic repertoire of the Early Bronze Age although there are some similarities in shape with the frying pan (Doumas 1968, 118). Most scholars agree that they must have served some symbolic or cult function (Doumas 1968, 174; Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 344; Devetzi 1992, 125).

The only intact example is in the Goulandris Museum of Cycladic Art (Doumas 1984, col. no. 329, pls. 171–4) which may well have come from Dhaskalio Kavos. The only other documented fragment is MN 4439 found during Doumas’s excavations at Dhaskalio Kavos (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 287, fig. 32, pl. 72 dim. H. 4.1, D. rim 38.8, D. base 40.6).

Fragments 476 and 002 have been assigned to this shape following the criterion of that they both have very thin base and a slight protrusion on the upper surface which might indicate the central row of birds (not here preserved). The thin flat surface precludes the open bowl or palette form. The uncertain fragment 485 (see below) seems to come from a similar vase.

476 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench III, level 6, Unit 306. 11/09/87Body fragment of suggested dove vesselL. 4.4, W. 4.3White marble.The upper surface rises a little towards the centre (T. 0.9–0.8). The exterior, lower surface is flat and smooth.Preservation: Exterior surface slightly weathered. Interior fairly worn. Breakage fairly worn and rounded. Ancient breakage.

002 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 175:535, Unit 104. 11/09/87Body fragment of suggested dove vesselL. 6.5, W. 6.6, T. 1.5.

Greyish marble.The upper surface has a slightly concave curvature and is very smoothed. The exterior surface is flat.Preservation: Surfaces slightly weathered. Breakages fairly worn. Ancient breakage.

Footed bowl (Kylix type A)The Kylix is an open bowl or cup with a cylindrical stem (Varoucha 1926, 102; Doumas 1984, 78, 80,90; Devetzi 1992, 73; Getz Gentle 1996). The common features of these vessels are: the thin walls of the body; the stem usually cylindrical or more frequently conical with concave walls widening towards the base; the size is usually small. They are seen in contexts of the EC II period. This shape is second in frequency after the marble bowls. Most of the examples of both types known from systematic excavations come from Syros, forming 40 per cent of the known examples (Devetzi forthcoming: Kylikes).

The Kylix is present in two varieties (Devetzi 1992, 73) the footed bowl(type A) and the footed cup (type B).

The footed bowl (Getz-Gentle 1996, 160–62) has a hemispherical body. The rim is usually vertical and terminates in a rounded edge (Devetzi 1992, 73, fig. 24). Kylikes of this form are known from the Aplomata cemetery and a burial from Thera (Devetzi 1992, 73). The form is seen in some clay vessels (Zervos 1957, pl. 78) and in two silver kylikes mentioned by Dümmler (1886, 73; Devetzi 1992, 74).

The best-preserved example from Dhaskalio Kavos is 156 (fig. 8.15-8.19) which resembles a kylix from Amorgos (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 224, fig. 24, pl. 55) NAM 5002, H. 7, D. rim 10.8. No. 698 probably comes from a kylix of small size which is relatively shallow. Rim 038 is notably narrowed. Fragments 499 and 506 are from deeper kylikes.

156 Figs. 8.15–8.19 from excavation Trench I, level 2. 01/09/87.Four joining fragments from the body and the rim of a hemispheri-cal kylix.White marbleH. 5.1, D. 12.5, Rim, T. walls 0.8, D. of stem 2.3 Most parts of the body and the top of the cylindrical stem preserved. The walls are thin. There is a rolled rim, which is defined by a groove in the interior. The body at the angle of the join with the stem is convex and smooth. The top of the stem at this point is wider. Preservation: On the body recent breaks. Surface slightly weathered. Breakages: at the stem sharp, slightly weathered; at the walls more worn. Ancient breakage at the stem.

172 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:545, Unit 407. 02/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: On the rim traces of erosion. Surfaces slightly dam-aged and fairly worn on the exterior more than the interior. Breakage sharp slightly weathered.

326

Chapter 8

0 3 cm

Figure 8.15. Footed bowls (kylix Type A) (scale 2/3).

156

172

698

499

173

038

101

418

247

722

506

173 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:545, Unit 407. 02/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 14.The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: On the rim some damage and traces of erosion. Sur-faces fairly worn. Breakages rounded, weathered. Ancient Breakage.

101 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 180:540, Unit 704. 01/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.7, L. 3.1, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 14.

The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment are pre-served. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-rior. Breakages sharp. Modern Breakage.

247 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from excavation Trench IX, level 4, Unit 904. 04/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marble with grey veinsH. 2.4, L. 2.1, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 12.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakages sharp, slightly weathered.

327

The Stone Vessels

0 3 cm

Figure 8.16. Footed cups (kylix Type B) and other vessels (scale 2/3).

369

449

283

190

249

334

059

160

368

510

403

002

025

196

563

328

Chapter 8

418 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from excavation Trench VII, level 7, Unit 707. 04/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.9, L. 2.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 12.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces fairly worn. Break-ages rounded, slightly weathered. Ancient Breakage.

722 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 150:530, Unit 609. 02/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.The walls are thin, thickening towards the rim. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn with traces of encrustation. Breakages: one sharp (modern), with encrustation; the other very weathered. Ancient breakage.

698 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:535, Unit 705. 01/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 1.9, L. 2.9, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn with thin encrustation. Breakages sharp slightly weathered. Ancient breakage.

038 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 160:515, Unit 801. 01/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 4.2, L. 4.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 18.The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces with small damages and worn. Breakages rounded, very weathered. Ancient breakage.

499 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 200:380, Unit 733. 08/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marble with grey veins.H. 2.8, L. 3.1, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 16.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-rior. Breakages rounded, slightly weathered. Ancient breakage.

506 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 180:370, Unit 445. 07/09/87.Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.White marbleH. 2.4, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 16.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-rior. Breakages rounded and weathered. Ancient breakage.

Footed cup (Kylix type B)The body of this kylix variety is approximately conical with slightly concave and thin walls. The form resem-bles that of the conical cup frequently seen during the EC II period but with the addition of a stem. The rim is usually plain and sometimes strongly out-turned with convex or flat edge (Devetzi 1992, 73–4; Getz-Gentle 1996, 164–7).

Fragments 369, 449, 283, 059, and 160 are very similar to a kylix of unfortunately unknown prov-enance (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 245, fig. 25, pl. 57) NAM 11339, H. 5, D. rim 8.8–9.

Fragment 249 (Figs. 8.16–8.18) is similar to a kylix from Chalandriani on Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 243, fig. 25, pl. 57) MS 179, H. 7.8, D. rim 9, but might in-stead belong to a conical cup (see Devetzi 1992, 70).

Fragment 334 is similar to a kylix from Chaland-riani on Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 240, fig. 25, pl. 59) MS 402, H. 7.7, D. of Rim 12.1. Fragments 692, 729, and 110 are too small to be assigned to a specific variety.

369 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench IX, level 1, Unit 901. 03/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 1.9, L. 0.6, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 6.The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp, slightly weath-ered.

449 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench X, level 11, Unit 1011. 10/09/87Four joining fragments of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marble with grey veins, fairly transparent.H. 3.0, L. 4.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 10.The walls are thin. The rim is out-turned and narrow.Preservation : Surfaces worn. Breakage sharp, slightly weathered.

283 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench V, level 8, Unit 508. 14/09/87Two joining fragments of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 2.5, L. 5.3, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 8.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical and rounded.Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces fairly worn, encrustation. Breakages rounded, weathered and encrustated. Ancient breakage.

059 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 170:530, Unit 404. 01/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 0.8, L. 1.3, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 6–8.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp.

160 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench VI, level 2, Unit 602. 02/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 1.0, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 6.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, rounded.Preservation: Some damage on the rim. Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the interior. Breakages sharp and weathered. Ancient breakage.

249 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench X, level 4, Unit 1004. 07/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 3.3, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 11.The walls are thin and concave, and the body might have been deep conical. The rim is out-turned and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp and weathered. Ancient breakage.

329

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.17. Marble vessels: (a) cylindrical pyxis (311, 562, 088), (b) krateriskos (269); (c) Palette (474, 223) and (d) dove vessel (476, 002) and uncertain (485).

bc

d

a

330

Chapter 8

Figure 8.18. (a) and (b) Frying pan (256); (c) Footed bowls; (d) Footed cups (449, 249).

c

a b

d

331

The Stone Vessels

334 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench I, level 1, Unit 101. 01/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 1.4, L. 2.5, T. wall 0.3, D. rim c. 12.The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and narrow.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakages sharp and weathered. Ancient breakage.

692 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 4.2, L. 4.3, T. wall 0.8, D. rim c. 10.The walls are thin, vertical. The rim is nearly vertical and rounded.Preservation: Surfaces very worn and eroded. Breakages rounded and very weathered. Ancient breakage.

729 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 140:520, Unit 767. 11/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 2.6, L. 3.9, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 14–16.The walls are thin, vertical and concave.Preservation: Surfaces very worn and eroded. Breakages very weathered. Ancient breakage.

110 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 185:545, Unit 606. 01/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).White marbleH. 3.6, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.5.The walls are thin, out-turned and concave. Preservation: Surfaces exterior fairly worn, interior with some dam-age and traces of thin encrustation. Breakage sharp and weathered. Ancient breakage.

Pedestal baseBoth of the varieties of the kylix type have bell-shaped stems that terminate in trumpet-like feet, whose lower surface while approximately flat, is slightly concave.

Fragments 368, 025, and 196 are very difficult to assign to a specific variety of the kylix type or to other stemmed shapes. There is no standard norm since kylikes with very small body and rim diameter may have a very tall stem and broad feet, like MN 6905 (H. of the stem 9.4). Alternatively a kylix with very large rim diameter may have a very small stem with large foot, like MA 441 (D. of rim 19.8, D. of feet 7, H. of stem 9.3) (Devetzi 1992).

Fragment 368 resembles the feet of kylikes from Amorgos NAM 3965 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 229, fig. 24, pl. 55) and from Syros ( Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 240, fig. 25, pl. 59) but it seems to belongs to a large size foot. A fragment of the cylindrical stem of a vessel of large size NAM 11683 (Devetzi forthcoming: Kylix) is similar.

Fragment 025 is very similar to two feet from Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 237, fig. 25, pl. 59a) NAM 5119, and NAM 5174 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 238, fig. 25, pl. 57d).

Fragment 196 seems to be from a foot of large size and can be compared with 368.

368 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from excavation Trench V, level 2, unit 502. 02/09/87Fragment of trumpet-like foot. White marbleW. 1.8, T. wall 0.9, D. foot c. 8.The foot is flat and slightly concave. Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn and traces of thin encrustation. Breakages sharp, slightly weathered.

025 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 170:540, Unit 108. 01/09/87Fragment of trumpet-like foot. White marbleH. 3.6, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.5.The foot is conical and its lower flat surface is slightly concave. Its exterior is smooth. Preservation: Surfaces exterior fairly worn. Breakages sharp, slightly weathered.

196 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 150:525, Unit 707. 02/09/87Fragment of trumpet-like foot.White marbleH. 3.6, L. 0.9, T. wall 0.3, D. foot c. 12.The foot is flat. Preservation: Surfaces: exterior slightly worn, interior fairly worn. Breakages sharp and slightly weathered.

Bowls with lugs on the rimThis is a variety of the plain bowl type. In most ex-amples there are four diametrically opposed lugs on the rim. The body is usually conical with flat base. Usually they are of medium size and are fairly deep (Devetzi forthcoming: Phialae). The lugs are oblong and compact and have a crescent-like shape. Their upper surface is the continuation of the rim (Devetzi 1992, 67). These bowls are dated to the EC II period and many examples have been found both in settle-ments and cemeteries. Traces of pigment, bones and shells have been found in association with them.

Fragments 403 and 190 are similar to the bowl with lugs from Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 177, fig. 19, pl. 43a,b) NAM 50455, H. 4.5, D. rim 10.9.

Fragment 510 seems to come from a relatively deep bowl similar to an example from Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 182, fig. 19, pl. 42g) NAM 5123, H. 5, D. rim 12.3.

403 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from excavation Trench VI, level 5, Unit 605. 08/09/87Fragment of the body and rim of a bowl with lugs.White marble with grey veins.H. 4.5, L. 1.1, T. wall 1.7, lug: L. 1.2, W. 0.3.The body is nearly conical with thin walls. Only a little of the rim is preserved. The lug is crescent-like and projects slightly from the rim. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved. Preservation: Surfaces: exterior fairly worn, interior some damage fairly worn. Breakages sharp and slightly weathered.

190 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 155:525, Unit 306. 02/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a bowl with lugs.White marbleH. 3.0, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.5, lug: L. 1.4, W. 0.3.The body is conical with thin walls. The rim is rounded and vertical.

332

Chapter 8

Figure 8.19. Footed bowl (156). Diameter 12.5 cm.

333

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.20. Other marble vessels (a) Footed cups and pedestal bases; (b) Bowls with lugs; (c) Pedestal base (368); (d) Rim of lekanis (563).

c

a

b

d

334

Chapter 8

The lug is crescent-like and projects slightly from the rim. Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces: exterior slightly worn, interior fairly worn. Breakages sharp and slightly weath-ered.

510 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 185:570, Unit 418. 03/09/87Fragment of the body and the rim of a bowl with lugs.White marbleH. 1.7, L. 2.8, T. wall 0.6, lug: L. 1.5, W. 0.4.The body is conical with thin walls. The rim is rounded and em-phasised by an exterior shallow groove. The lug is crescent-like and projects slightly from the rim. Preservation: Damage at the rim and the lug. Surfaces: exterior fairly worn. Breakages weathered. Ancient breakage.

Large deep bowl (Lekanis)This is another variety of the plain bowl but is a very deep bowl of large size (Devetzi 1992, 62).

Fragment 563 is similar to the lekanis from Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 169, fig. 18, pl. 38g) NAM 5150, H. 7, D. rim 19.2.

563 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 160:480, Unit 724. 04/09/87Fragment from the rim of a large deep bowl.White marbleH. 0.9, L. 4.1, D. rim c. 17.The rim is rounded.Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn with thin encrustation. Breakages sharp and slightly weathered.

Non-diagnostic Fragments 585 and 1014 could not be assigned to a specific shape because of their small size.

585 from survey unit 140:410, Unit 671. 10/09/87Fragment from the body of either a dove vessel or a large shallow bowl.White marble with grey veinsL. 3.6, W. 3.2, T. 0.7-0.6.The surfaces are flat and smooth. One surface is slightly concave.Preservation: Surfaces: exterior fairly worn, interior slightly worn. Breakages rounded and slightly weathered. Ancient Breakage.

1014 from excavation Trench VII, level 7, Unit 709. 09/87Fragment from the body of an object with two worked surfaces meeting in acute angle.White marble with grey veinsL. 2.8, W.1.3, T. 0.9.Preservation: Surfaces very worn. Breakages very weathered, one with recent break. Ancient breakage.

PreservationThe discussion of the preservation of the fragments offered here has not followed the system used for the open bowls (see Chapter 8A). It, however has been set out in detail in order to contribute to the discussion on the thraumatology question (see Chapter 12). For the breakages a conventional scale has been used giving: first, the degree of weathering of the surfaces (slightly worn, fairly worn, very worn), and the breakages

(sharp, and rounded); second, the encrustation and the modern breaks or other damage caused during the excavation or the sieving, have been also noted.

It is noticable that from the 41 fragments only three are larger than 10 cm (474, 256, 156) both from the excavation and the surface survey. The largest dimensions of the rest are between 2 and 6 cm in size. Study of the weathering showed that most of the frag-ments have one weathered surface while a few are weathered on both, indicating that these were exposed for a considerable time. The breakages of such frag-ments are rounded. The most weathered often have a layer of encrustation seen on fragments 558, 223, 722, 698, 449, 283, 110, 368, 563. A few examples have very fresh breaks from rather recent activity (probably looting): 088, 269, 256, 101, 722, 1014.

These observations lead us to the conclusion that these vessels were broken in antiquity. Further discus-sion on this issue is found in chapter 12.

DiscussionThe function of the marble vessels found at Dhaskalio Kavos has already been discussed (see Chapter 3).

A few marble vessels have been found in EC settlements such as Phylakopi on Melos (Renfrew 1975Not in refs, 65; 1985, 66), Grotta on Naxos (Kon-toleon 1949Not in refs, 119), Kastri on Syros in Kastri (Tsountas 1899, 122; Bossert 1967, 60–64) or Akrotiri on Thera (Devetzi 1992, 119). The recent finds from Markiani are also rather few (Scarre 2006). This fact along with the observation that all the marble vessel shapes with the exception of the dove vessel have been found in the Cycladic cemeteries in many cases as burial offerings has suggested their funerary use. The traces of red pigment noticed in many examples (see Chapter 8(A), and Devetzi 1992, 97) has been adduced as additional evidence for this suggestion.

The exclusive use of the marble vessels for funer-ary purposes does not however seem very likely for the full range of the shapes. We should probably ac-cept that these vessels, although not in everyday com-mon household, use probably had multiple functions, of which probably only the last was burial (Devetzi 1992, 97; Getz-Gentle 1996).

The considerable disturbance at Dhaskalio Kavos through looting has prevented the recovery of undis-turbed deposits in the area of the Special Deposit. For this reason our only criterion for the dating of the frag-ments has been their classification to specific types, all of which are dated to the EC II period (Devetzi 1992, 22–4). Most of the other material recovered both from earlier research and during the 1987 investigations is likewise dated to this period.

335

The Stone Vessels

B. ii Note on two fragments of marble vesselsby Colin Renfrew

226 Figs. 8.21–8.22 From survey unit 616 (195:575)Rim sherd of marble vessel with fluted decoration, of fine white marble.H. 2.0; L. at rim 1.8; T. 0.7; Radius (est.) c. 10.Small fragment of what could be an open bowl with incuse fluted decoration on the outside. The fluting is 0.8 wide, with 1.3 from the middle of one fluting to the middle of the next. Depth of fluting c. 0.02. This piece may related to the next, which may relate to pieces from Keros in the Naxos Museum. Both pieces have a similar golden patina, which extends to the edges, indicating old breaks.

591 Figs. 8.21–8.22 From survey unit 417 (195:580)Body fragment of fluted marble vessel.L. 2.5; W. 1.8; T., (max.) 0.7; T. at fluting 0.3; Distance between ridges of fluting 1.3.The fragment is slightly concave across the fluting (radius c. 15 cm). The outer surface gives an effect of simple corrugation.

These two pieces clearly belong to the same vessel. The Naxos Museum has at least four fragments of a fluted marble vessel or vessels from Keros, including fragments of a rim with a horizontal lug handle set one or two centimetres below, below which the verti-cal fluting begins. The vessel represented by nos. 226 and 591 and by the pieces in the Naxos Museum is an important find, since it constitutes what appears to be an entirely new form for the Cycladic Early Bronze Age, and one unknown elsewhere in the Early Bronze Age Aegean.

Getz-Gentle makes a comparable observation, creating for the pieces displayed in the Naxos Mu-seum a new category (Getz-Gentle 1996, 107, fig. 52) of ‘Cupcake Bowls’ (by which she means fluted bowls). Her observation are based exclusively upon ‘several unpublished fragments in Naxian museums’ and re-ferring to ‘deep vertical or slightly oblique grooves’.

Figure 8.21. Fragments (226 and 591) of Fluted marble vessel (scale 2/3).

Figure 8.22. Fragment (226) of Fluted marble vessel.

She states: ‘Two fragmentary examples, found on Keros, have long delicate lugs, quite like those of the horizontal lug bowls attributed to a single sculptor above’. Here she is referring to the fragments in the Naxos Museum mentioned above.

Her associated footnote (no. 211) reads as fol-lows: ‘Apeiranthos MA 137 (“Panermos, Naxos”); Naxos, MA: five or six fragments, four presumably from one vessel, all found on Keros’. In her discussion she compares the fluting on these bowls with that naturally occurring on shells, and refers to the finds of actual seashells in Cycladic graves including the site at Aplomata. She further observes (Getz-Gentle 1996, 223, no. 212) : ‘Pieces of large “sculptured” shells were found on Keros mixed with the marble objects’. The source of this observation is not clear — and in the context when she speaks of ‘sculptured’ shells she is referring to the natural form of the conch or of Dolium, not to imitations of shell in marble. This observation runs counter to my impression: I do not recall that shell fragments were frequent finds at Dhaskalio Kavos

However the complete form of this fluted marble vessel (or vessels if there is more than one) has not yet been reconstructed. Some aspects of the curvature

336

Chapter 8

and of the fluting at one time gave me the impression that there might be here a shape more elaborate than simply a fluted marble bowl. I have in mind several Late Minoan carved stone vessels in the form of shells. There is a fine example from Aghia Triadha, which is carved in obsidian from Giali (Renfrew et al. 1965, pl. 63, d) into the form of a shell of the genus Dolium , and an example in alabaster from the cemetery at Kalyvia near Phaistos imitating a Triton shell (Marinatos & Hirmer 1960, pl. 115, lower).

This marble vessel has not yet been adequately reconstructed. But in any case it is clearly of sig-nificance that the finds contribute a new form to the Cycladic repertoire.

This is the second entirely new marble form es-tablished by well-documented finds from Keros. The first of course is the dove bowl (see Chapter 8(B.i), above), attested by fragments in the 1967 excavations of Zapheiropoulou (Zapheiropoulou 1968b, 100) and seen almost complete in the vessel in the Goulandris Collection acquired in 1968 (Doumas 1983, 173).

C. The grey marble and limestone vesselsby Kiki Birtacha

The grey marble vesselsOnly eight very small and very fragmentary preserved pieces come from vessels of grey marble. Because of their poor preservation only very few elements were helpful for their typological classification.

No. 151 (Figs. 8.23–8.24), the only unfinished marble artefact recovered in the course of the inves-tigation, is a partially worked unfinished bowl that comes from Trench III and is very interesting. Heavy percussion is clearly visible on the whole of its exterior surface, which is very rough. The tool marks around the base of the vase are particularly strong while traces of the working with a sharp tool are clearly visible on both exterior and interior surfaces. The preserved traces of red pigment on the interior surface led to the suggestion that this was used as grinder for pig-ments. The roughness of its interior surface could have facilitated grinding.

043 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:515, Unit 801. 01/09/87H. 2.35, Wd 1.5, T. 0,77Very small body fragment of a vessel of grey marble. Polished.

103 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 180:525, Unit 703. 01/09/87H. 2.7, W. 1.6, T. 0.5Very small body fragment of a vessel of grey marble. Polished. Eroded surfaces.

140 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 408. 02/09/87.H. 2.5, W. 2.2, T. 0.7Very small body fragment of an open vessel of grey marble. Pol-

ished. Very eroded and thin fragment.

144 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 409. 02/09/87H. 2.3, W. 1.3, T. 0.575Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel, possibly a shallow bowl, of grey marble. External diameter c. 16 cm. Eroded.

151 Figs. 8.23–8.24 from excavation Trench III, layer 3, Unit 303.H. 8.5, W. 6.8, T. 1.6.The ellipsoid base and part of the body of an unfinished open shal-low vessel of grey marble. Heavy traces of percussion on the exterior surface and around the base. The internal surface is eroded, rough and bears traces of red pigment.

398 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 210:380, Unit 645. 08/09/87H. 4.1, W. 1.9, T. 0.85Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel of grey marble. Polished. Eroded.

684 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench X, Unit 1002. 03/09/87H. 1.15, W. 0.8, T.0.7Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel of grey marble. Polished with some encrusted breaks.

181 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:530, Unit 609. 02/09/87L 2.8, W. 1.6, T 0.4, D. 8 cmEroded and discoloured body fragment of an open vessel of grey marble. The edges are worn and rounded by erosion. Very encrusted.

The limestone vesselsThe use of relatively soft limestone for vessels and small cylindrical pestles begins in the EC II period. The colour of the stone varies from dark orange or reddish with light coloured veins to buff and yellow. This graduation of the colour and the light coloured veins create a natural polychromy for these objects. Vases of this veined limestone, which exists in large quantities in the nearby Kouphonisia islands, are rare and have been found until now mainly on Keros. The unfinished bowl 741 (Figs. 8.25–8.26) is an indication of the transport of the material from the nearby Kou-phonisia and suggests that the manufacture of the vessels was taking place in the site. We shouuld note here that unfinished stone objects were found during the early excavation on the Dhaskalio Kavos (Zaphei-ropoulou 1980, 540) and that there are unfinished objects in the so called ‘Keros Hoard’ (Getz-Preziosi 1982,42; 1987b, 151, no. 109; Broodbank 2000a, 231–2). Another example of an unfinished vessel is the bowl of grey marble 151 (Figs. 8.23–8.24).

The preserved fragments are very small and in some cases cannot be assigned to vessel types. Most of them seem to belong to shallow or deep bowls with simple rim and flat base. One intact example of a deep bowl of orange-coloured limestone, now in the Museum of Naxos, comes from Keros (Marangou 1990, cat. no. 125).

A unique fragment with horizontal, parallel grooves (204) probably belongs to the body of a

337

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.23. Unfinished bowl of grey marble (151) (scale 2/3).

Figure 8.24. Unfinished bowl of grey marble (151)

338

Chapter 8

Figure 8.25. Vessels of grey marble (043, 103, 140, 144, 689) and of limestone (scale 2/3)

144

709

712

469

691

720

429

741

204

593

739

147

205

421 ???

spool pyxis, a type known from the marble vessels (see Chapter 8(B); Getz-Gentle 1996, 142–53, pl. VIIB, 80–87). As for the technique used for the manufacture of these vessels it is interesting to note that fragment 741 of an unfinished bowl has been roughly shaped by flaking the original block of limestone.

204 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87H. 2.5, Wd 2.3, T. 0.75Yellowish limestone Body fragment of a vessel with parallel incised horizontal grooves. Probably body fragment of a spool pyxis. Eroded and discoloroured.

147 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 165:540, Unit 706. 02/09/87

339

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.26. Vessels: (a) of grey marble; (b–e) of limestone.

a

b c

d e

206 147

421 204

469720 429

???

??? ??? ???

???

??? ??? ??? ???

H. 2.65, Wd 1.9, T. 0.87. D. c. 10.Orange limestoneRim fragment of an open vessel. External diameter c. 10.

205 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87H. 2.2 W. 2.25, T. 0.5Orange limestoneSmall body fragment of a hemispherical open vessel. A small part of the rim preserved. Eroded.

421 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench VII, level 5, Unit 707.H. 5.2, W. 3.7, T. 0.65–0.9Orange limestoneFragment from the base and the body of a deep bowl. The base is flat.Slightly eroded. The breakage is old. The diameter of the base is c. 8.

469 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:370, Unit 644. 08-09-87H. 6.5, W. 2.6, T. 1.05Orange limestone

340

Chapter 8

Body fragment of an open vessel. Eroded, two fresh breaks and two worn.

593 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 210:390.Unit 734. 08/09/87H. 3.3, W. 3.1, T. 1 Buff-orange limestoneSmall fragment from the body of an open vessel preserving part of a flat rim. External diameter of the rim c. 10–12 cm.

691 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 155:520, Unit 408. 02/09/87H. 3, W. 2.1, T. 0.8. Diam. c. 16 cm.Buff-orange limestoneSmall fragment possibly from the rim of an open vessel. The rim is flat and angular.Eroded

709 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:520, Unit 502. 01/09/87H. 3.25, W. 2.7, T. 0.6Buff-orange limestoneSmall fragment from the body of an open shallow bowl. External diameter of the body c. 16.

712 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:380, Unit 733. 08/09/87Orange limestoneSmall fragment from the body and the rim of an open vessel. The rim is flat with angular edges.

720 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:180, Unit 733. 08/09/87H. 3.07, W. 2.8, T. 1.05Orange limestoneBody fragment of an open vessel. Worn edges.

728 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:370, Unit 644. 08/09/87H. 2.4, Wd 2.2, T. 0.6–0.9Buff-orange limestoneA flat and angular rim fragment of an open vessel. The rim is flat with angular edges

739 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench II, level 2, Unit 202. 02/09/87H. 3.75, W. 2.67, T. 0.83Buff-orange limestoneRim fragment of an open vessel. External diameter of the rim c. 10.

741 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 409. 02/09/87L. 8.1, W. 6.35, T. 2.7–2.4Buff-orange to whitish limestoneLarge fragment of a bowl. The base and part of the body is pre-served. Both the interior and the exterior surfaces are rough, without smoothing. Unfinished. The original surface is very rough. The diameter of the rim is less than 13.

429 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 180:360. Unit 643.07/09/87D. 4.7, T. 1.1–1.3Whitish limestoneCircular object. One of the surfaces is smooth with a small pierced hole of diameter 0.2. Could be from either vase or tool.

D. Vessels of chlorite schistby Colin Renfrew

The site of Dhaskalio Kavos is exceptional for the number of vessels discovered there, albeit in very fragmentary condition, made of dark green stone, in some cases steatite and in others chlorite schist. The

chlorite schist vessels, of a category known also from Cretan finds, are among the most remarkable pieces of craftsmanship from the Aegean Early Bronze Age.

Chlorite schist double pyxis with lid327 Figs. 8.27–8.29 From excavation Trench XI, level 2Part of a pyxis lid of grey-green chlorite schist, decorated with relief spirals, broken on three sides. This piece has subsequently been joined — see below — in the Naxos Museum with a further large fragment from the same pyxis lid which derives from the excavations (Zapheiropoulou 1976, 84, pl. 8, lower) conducted in 1967 (Naxos Museum catalogue KK 4442). The lid is evidently as-sociated with a large pyxis body fragment, likewise from the 1967 excavations also in the Naxos Museum (67.2666). These pieces are included in the discussion here.Max. pres. L 5.2 ; W. 4.5; Th. at break 1.1; max. Th. at peak c. 1.2 to 1.3. The material is dark grey-green chlorite schist. It is broken on three sides.The fragment includes most of one of the apical spirals (see below), along with parts of three peripheral spirals, each of which has a link to it from the respective apical one. The edge with the apical spiral joins with the piece discussed next. However no part of the original rim or edge of the lid is preserved on this fragment.

Naxos Museum KK 4442 From 1967 Kavos excavations(Getz-Gentle 1996, no. 419 (Zapheiropoulou 1976,gives the number 4472) 84, pl. 8, lower) Part of a pyxis lid of grey-green chlorite schist, decorate with relief spirals, broken on five sides, joining with the preceding.L. 8.7, W. 8.5, Th. 1.4.This piece represents the ‘saddle’ between the two apexes, one of which is partly preserved on this piece. There is a join at the other side with 327. Hardly any of the original edge of the lid is preserved, except for a length of just a couple of millimetres at the mid point of one side (i.e. at the saddle), where a short length of a line in relief is seen.Fragment 327 could initially be recognized as a fragment of the lid either of a cylindrical or conical pyxis or of a double pyxis of similar form which, following the subsequently-effected join, proves to be the case.

The shape of the pyxis lid after the joining together of the two fragments has the outline of a figure-of-eight with two axes of sym-metry. Along the major axis there are two peaks, each of which no doubt corresponds to the centre of the relevant compartment of the double pyxis which the lid evidently covered. The ingenious decoration is a complex one of interlocking relief spirals. The decoration of each half consists of a relief spiral at the peak or apex which itself links with each of six peripheral spirals arranged in a circle around it. One of these is located centrally at the mid point of the major axis of the lid, so that this key or nodal spiral serves simultaneously as a peripheral spiral to both of the two apical ones already mentioned, thus linking the patterns on the two halves of the lid. The lid is incompletely preserved, so that this arrangement is not immediately obvious, but there are sufficient indications to permit the whole schema to be reconstructed. Each of the two apical spirals lies at the centre of its half of the lid and establishes a linkage by means of a radiating line to each of the six connecting spirals peripheral to it. The nodal spiral at the mid point of the major axis (the one which is peripheral at the same time to both of the apical spirals) also has six linkages, namely with the two apical spirals and with the two nearest of their satellites in each case. Those linking satellites which link with the central nodal spiral have four linkages. The remaining three spirals situated at each end of the lid each have three linkages. The total number of relief spirals on the lid is this 13, formed of the two apical spirals, each with six satellites (2 x (1

341

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.27. Lid of chlorite schist double pyxis (scale 2/3).

342

Chapter 8

Figure 8.28. Lid of chlorite schist double pyxis (327) at right after joining with fragment in Naxos Museum (KK 4442).

343

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.29. Detail of lid of double pyxis.

+ 6)), but each apex sharing one satellite with the other , the shared satellite being the nodal spiral in the middle of the major axis (i.e. : 2 x (1 + 6) – 1 = 13).

The relief lines forming the spirals are about 0.15 wide and 0.05 deep. On the two apical and one central nodal spiral, each line does about two complete loops (of 360°) and then leaves again, so that counting right across the diameter one may cross up to 24 lines in relief.

The lid as preserved has no rim or flange, except as noted above, but will have sat square upon the body. The underside of the lid is however not entirely symmetrical, since there is a tiny platform in relief some 0.7 cm long at one end of the minor axis running across the waist of the figure-of-eight, which is not seen at the other end of the minor axis.

It was at first thought possible that 121 originally formed part of the lower double pyxis for which this lid (327) served as a cover. However the join with Naxos Museum KK 4442 which enlarged the lid makes this seem less likely, and it is clear that the lid served to cover the piece described next (67.2666).

Naxos Museum 67.2666 Figs. 8.30 & 8.31 From 1967 Kavos excavations (Zapheiropoulou 1976, 84, pl. 8, lower)Part of double pyxis of chlorite schist, decorated with relief spirals. This piece matches with the lid of a double pyxis formed by joining Small Find 327 with Naxos Museum KK 4442, as noted above.Pres.H. 6.3, Radius (incomplete) c. 5.0, T. of Base 1.1 T. of wall 0.7.In two joining pieces. The fragments preserve part of the base, with a small protuber-ance forming a narrow foot, and the wall to a height of 5.5 although the lip or rim at the top of the vessel is not preserved. Parts of two rows of running relief spirals are preserved. This wall is almost

vertical, so that each of the two components was roughly cylindrical in form, although in reality the wall slopes inwards very slightly.

Probably only about 1 cm is missing from the top of the wall of the pyxis, in which case the decorative schema would be two rows of conjoined spirals. However it is theoretically possible that the wall was some three cms higher, allowing for a decorative schema of three rows of spirals : but this seems unlikely. With the decora-tive schema of two rows of spirals, each spiral in the lower register would have a link with its predecessor and successor and with the spiral above Figure 8.31. Each spiral in the upper register would similarly have a link with its predecessor and successor and with the spiral below. At the bottom of the cylindrical wall is a protruding ledge, width 0.5 cm decorated with hatched triangles alternating with plain triangles.

This piece in isolation might not be clearly identifiable as part of a double vessel, although the protrusion at the base would give a clear indication, but the figure-of-eight configuration of the lid makes this abundantly clear. There is no indication as to how the two constituent cylindrical pyxides would come together in the middle, but some possibilities are raised by a consideration of 121 (see below). At first this was thought possibly to come from part of the vessel to which 327 formed the lid. But with the subsequent lid join and the recognition of the body fragment under consideration here, this now seems less likely.

The protuberance on the base offers further insight into the arrangement of the two constituent pyxidal components, suggest-ing that there may have been a counterpart on the other side so that the entire vessel would have stood on two small feet of this kind. This pierced hole in this foot may have been intended to take a string, possibly for suspension, and the hypothetical other foot (now missing) was probably similarly pierced. It is conceivable also that threads through the two feet in this way could have been

344

Chapter 8

Figure 8.30. Body fragments of chlorite schist double pyxis (NM 67.2666) (scale 2/3).

used to secure the lid to the body of the vessel. There is no sugges-tion that the lid was pierced, but it could be secured to the body by looping the string.

DiscussionThis vessel with lid forms a significant addition to the small group of chlorite schist vessels with relief decoration which come from known contexts in the Cycladic Islands. They are well reviewed by Getz-Gentle (1996, 190–99).1. The best documented (although not yet well-pub-

lished) comes from Grave 21 at Aplomata on Naxos (Kontoleon 1972b) now in the Naxos Museum. It has an almost complete oblong lid, accompanied

by two sherds from the vessel beneath. The deco-ration of lid and body is not of relief spirals but a complicated meander.

2. The second is the cylindrical pyxis and conical lid with relief spirals from Dhokathismata Tomb A in Amorgos, published by Dümmler (1886, 17–18), now in Berlin (Antikensammlung, Staatliche Mu-seen, Preussischer Kulturbesitz Misca Inv. 8102: acquired from Dümmler in 1889: Thimme 1977a or b?, no. 361; Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 110c)

3. The third, reportedly from Naxos, is in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (NAM 5358). I believe it may be identified (see Renfrew 1972,

345

The Stone Vessels

519, no. 32) with a piece mentioned by Duncan Mackenzie as from Petasi in Naxos (Sheratt 2000). It has two registers of running spirals on the body, but these are arranged in blocks of four, unlike the running spirals on the other examples discussed here. The lid has a schema of spirals which it is profitable to compare with our example here, but as we shall see the arrangement is not the same and the Petasi lid has two more spirals (15) than the Kavos one (13). (See Zervos 1957, fig. 30; Ma-rangou 1990, 55 no. 21; Getz-Gentle 1996, pls. XB & 112c).

4. One further example in this series from the Cyc-lades has long been known, the so-called granary model, now without lid, in the Staatliche Antik-ensammlung in Munich (1839 WAF; Zervos 1957, figs. 28 & 29; Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 110b).

In addition to these long-known examples from the Cyclades, it is pertinent to mention several more pieces in chlorite schist which have appeared in the antiqui-ties trade in recent years, which are to be presumed the product of illicit excavations, and which must have

left Greece illegally. Three of these have now found their way to European museums in apparent con-travention of the International Council of Museums Code of Ethics. In each of these three cases it has been claimed or suggested, inevitably without persuasive documentation, that the piece may have come from Keros, although we shall find supporting arguments in one instance. Mindful of the cautionary words of Gill & Chippindale (1993) we must not accord these unproveanced pieces the same evidential status as the foregoing, and indeed arguments can be found for considering one to be a fake.A. The first is a double pyxis, now in the Musée

Barbier-Mueller in Geneva (Zimmerman 1993, no. 13; Getz-Gentle 1996, pls. XA & 110a), which first came to light in the Karlsruhe exhibition of 1976 (Thimme 1977a or b?, no. 363) where it was stated to be in a Swiss private collection, with the rubric ‘from Keros’, and on loan to the Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe. It has herring-bone decoration characteristic of the Grotta-Pelos culture and a curious arrangement at the intersection of the

Figure 8.31. Body fragments of chlorite schist double pyxis.

346

Chapter 8

two pyxides. No pieces resembling it have come from documented excavations, and all the other chlorite schist vessels known with relief decoration can be assigned to the Keros-Syros culture. In these circumstances this piece could well be a modern concoction which appeared on the market shortly before 1976. I suspect this to be a fake, and do not propose to refer to it further here.

B. The second is a frying pan bearing an elaborate decoration in relief spirals, now in the Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe (75/11) where it was acquired under the curatorship of Jürgen Thimme. Again it first surfaced during the exhibition organ-ised by Thimme in Karlsruhe in 1976 (Thimme 1977a or b?, 364a) with the rubric ‘from Naxos’ but without a word of explanation as to how or from where the Landesmuseum acquired the piece, which is listed as ‘unpublished’. Getz-Gentle (1996, 200) suggests that ‘possibly it, too, may have been recovered on Keros’, although without offering the grounds for the suggestion.

C. A further recently-surfaced object with relief spirals is a section of a two-part vessel from the Erlenmeyer Collection, which was sold at Sotheby’s in 1990 as ‘a section of a Minoan stone two-part vessel, Early Bronze II’ (Sotheby’s 13–14 December 1990b, lot 132; Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 111, c). The sectional arrange-ment of this piece suggests, that if authentic, it may well be Early Minoan (cf. Warren 1969, 81).

D. For our purpose the most interesting of these pieces is a fragment of a cylindrical pyxis (‘hut pyxis’) of chlorite schist, acquired by the Museé du Louvre in 1960 (Louvre cat. no. MND 2228 (Ma 3564); Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 112 a, 1 & 2; Hamiaux 1992, no. 15). It carries the rubric ‘Keros’ and was donated by the well-known antiquities dealer N. Koutoulakis.

This piece seen in the excellent photographs published by Getz-Gentle (1996, pl. 112a, 1 & 2 and pl. 114a) bears a number of striking similarities to Naxos Museum 67.2666, discussed here. There can, I think, be little question of forgery or imita-tion , since the closely similar piece from Kavos, now in the Naxos Museum, was not discovered until 1967. Indeed the year 1960 was three years before the archaeological world came to know of the site of Dhaskalio Kavos, with my own visit and the excavations of Christos Doumas in 1963. But the rubric ‘from Keros’ carries conviction in view of the discovery in 1967 of the piece under discussion here. It would seem that this was the first time that an object which we may reasonably accept as coming not just from Keros but from the site of Dhaskalio Kavos itself, came into the public domain. With the gift to the Louvre by Mr.

Koutoulakis we are clearly coming as close as we have so far been able to do, to the discovery of the site of Dhaskalio Kavos, to its consequent looting, and to the removal from Greece, contrary to Greek law, of significant antiquities.

Of course it will at once be remarked that the Louvre piece has a foot, analogous to those on the ‘Melos’ granary model in Munich, which is not seen on the item under consideration here. It seems possible, however, that the corresponding foot on our piece had been broken, and the break-age subsequently repaired by filing down, so that the remaining broken fragment was removed. What particularly catches the eye is the protruding ledge with hatched triangles which is common to both pieces. Not surprisingly, Getz-Preziosi in her careful discussion (1996, 203) assigns both pieces to the hand of the same sculptor : it seems likely that they formed part of the same vessel. They are not however likely to join, since the foot arrangements may imply that they were at opposite ends of the figure-of-eight configuration of the double pyxis. But when there is the opportunity to compare the two pieces directly, I predict that they will indeed prove to be two parts of the same object.

Fragment of a double pyxis121 Figs. 8.32 & 8.33 From survey unit 405 (185:530)Fragment of double pyxis of chlorite schist, with incised herring-bone decoration, and with indications of relief spiral decoration on the external surface of the cylindrical pyxides.Preserved H. 5.0; Pres. L. of large half 4.2; T. of pyxis wall 0.7; Th. between the two halves 2.0.The material is dark green chlorite schist, matching that of no. 327.This is a key fragment located at the point where two cylindrical pyxides join. Seen in elevation from the rear the circumferences of the two pyxides almost touch, leaving a narrow vertical space be-tween to form a V. Seen in elevation from the front, however, there is instead a narrow vertical panel, measuring 4 across and 5.0 in preserved height, decorated with alternating blocks of incisions.

Seen from the front, the left-hand pyxis is largely gone, but fragments of that on the right remain, revealing traces of relief spiral decoration and some further relief decoration.

Seen from the underside, the base has a small peg foot 0.2 cms in height, which lies immediately below the vertical panel just described.

It seem possible that this may have been part of a double pyxis very similar to that for which 327 formed part of the lid. At the same time, however the two pyxides in this case (121) were each almost entirely circular and the distance from front to back across this piece is only 4 cm. This is much less than the 4 cm across the narrowest part of the figure-of-eight lid of which 321 forms part, so that the lid could not have given a snug fit to cover this piece. (Unfortunately it did not prove possible to relocate 121 during the study season in 2002 subsequent to the joining of the 327 with Naxos Museum KK 4442, so that direct comparison of this piece with KK 4442b was not feasible.)

The material of 122 (see below) is similar and it is possible that this may have formed part of the double pyxis of which 121 also formed a part, but there is no join between them.

347

The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.32. Fragments of vessels of chlorite schist and steatite (scale 2/3).

366

239

240

121

Vessel fragments of chlorite schist122 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 405 (185:530)Part of chlorite schist vessel with relief spirals.L. 2.0; W. 1.6; Th. 0.8The vessel of which this formed part seems to have been cylindrical in form, the radius being difficult to estimate, perhaps c. 6.5 cm. There is one linking line, which joins the relief spiral of which 6 parallel lines are documented (but there may have been more, up to 2 more, before the centre was reached). The thickness of the relief lines is c. 0.05. The breaks may be fairly recent.

This may have been a body sherd associated either with KK 4442b or with 121 (but comparison with the former did not prove feasible).

240 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench XI, level 1Small fragment of chlorite schist vessel with relief spirals,L. 2.1; W. 0.9; Th. (max.) 0.6The vessel seems to have been of cylindrical form with a radius of perhaps c. 3 cm. The wall is definitely thinner than that of 122, and they do not appear to be from the same vessel. Moreover the material is not as dark in colour as in the case of 327 and 122, and has only a little of green in it being close to dark grey. However the material does not show a crystalline structure and is probably chlorite schist.

The outer of the concentric spirals or circles has a radius of rather more than 1 centimetre, and the width of the lines in relief is c. 0.05. Four concentric lines are preserved. The breaks may be fairly recent.

239 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench XI, level 1Small fragment of chlorite schist vessel without preserved decoration.L. 3.4; W. 1.4; Thickness narrows from 0.6 to 0.4The material resembles that of 240. This is so both for the smoothed but not polished outside grey surface as well as for the darker, better polished inside surface.

Despite the thinning, the sherd is from a cylindrical vessel of radius c. 5 cm. The traces of rubbing or polishing on the outside are vertical. Although the estimated radius of Small Finds 240 and 239 are different, both pieces are small, and the varying thickness of 239 suggests some lack of regularity, so that they may well belong to the same vessel. This might be conical in form, which would allow for the difference in estimated radius.

Fragments of vessels in grey or green stone066 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 602 (165:520)Roughly worked fragment of steatite. The material is related to the foregoing pieces. The colour is less dark than small finds 327 and

348

Chapter 8

Figure 8.33. Fragments of vessels of chlorite schist and steatite: (a) and (b) Double pyxis no 121; (c) and (d) other fragments.

c

d

a b

121, with a paler grey green. The material does not show crystals or glints at the break. The feel is definitely soapy.L. 4.7; W./ 2.7; Th. 1.5The piece seems to be a waste product from manufacture — it has itself no finished polished surface. There are no conspicuously recent breaks.

571 joining 438 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey units 336 and 337 (both 210:370)Part of spherical pyxis of dark green stone.H. 3.0; W. 2.4 T. (max.) 0.6; T. at rim 0.25; Radius at rim c. 1.5; Max. outer radius c. 3.5The material resembles grey steatite, but with tiny glinting high-lights at the break. The stone is very soft and soapy to the touch. This was a small spherical pyxis with a narrow, slightly out-turned rim. The form may have been comparable to the spherical pyxides noted by Getz-Gentle (1996, fig. 70), although the form is here not everted at the rim. The break at the join has some wear and seems old.

505 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 336 (210:370)Small fragment probably from the same vessel as the foregoing.L. 1.7; W. 0.9; T. at rim (eroded): 0.2.As noted, probably part of the above spherical pyxis. An old break.

366 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench V, level 8Base of vessel in dark green stone.L. 4.9; W. 4.3; Th. (base) 0.5; Th. (wall) 0.3; Radius of base c. 2The outer surface somewhat brown, the inner surface dark green, both quite well polished. Superficially this looks like chlorite schist, but it is finely crystalline at the break. (Sample sent to Fitch Laboratory).

The base is slightly incuse. But the interior is well smoothed, and indeed polished with what look like burnishing marks. The mouth must have been wide enough to allow access, but not fully open : a deep bowl or a spherical pyxis? One break is weathered, one is more recent (with fresh black colour).

014 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 206 (180:530)Base of vessel of grey stoneL. 4.3; W. 2.0; Th of base 0.4; Th. of wall 0.5; Radius of base pos-sibly c. 2.Grey steatite or schistose material with small glistening highlights. The is definitely not marble but appears somewhat crystalline at the break. Rather silvery surface.

The inside is effectively smoothed but not polished; the outside polish has been lost by weathering. This could be from a spherical pyxis. The breaks may be recent.

571 438505

066

366

014

122 240

121

121

Scales?

349

The Stone Vessels

Discussion Our investigations at Dhaskalio Kavos have yielded at least three vessels of chlorite schist, and at least three more in grey or green stone. This must rival the quantity recorded from any other early Bronze Age site in the Aegean.

At this point it is necessary to compare the Cycla-dic examples, especially those with relief spirals or relief meander, with the well-known finds from Early Minoan Crete, notably the circular vessel of chlorite or chlorite schist from Maronia (Warren 1969, 81, Ppl? 452). It seems appropriate to focus upon those show-ing a decoration of spirals raised in relief, and to sepa-rate this group from other vessels of similar material where the decoration consists simply of incised lines, such as an example from Grave 408 at Chalandriani in Syros (Tsountas 1899, pl. 8, 2). Warren lists a number of pieces, among his Pyxides of Group A, including a fragment from Vrakhasi (Herakleion Museum 2633, Warren 1969, 81, Ppl? 455) which has a decoration in relief spirals closely resembling the Cycladic pieces discussed above. Warren notes the Cycladic similari-ties of the vessels in his Group A, which indeed led Marinatos to suggest that the Maronia pyxis might be a Cycladic import (Marinatos & Hirmer 1960, 117), but Warren feels that the Maronia piece, like the others in his Group A is of Minoan manufacture. He infers the same for the three chlorite dog-lids, originally from pyxides, in his Group B (but unhesitatingly and rightly regards two marble pyxides from Aghios Onouphrios in his Group C as Cycladic).

By identifying a coherent group of pyxides of chlorite schist from Early Minoan Crete Warren (1969, 81) established a good case for the Cretan man-ufacture, at least of some of them. But those found in Crete do not fall within the category of hut pyxides.

At the same time it is fair to say that the hut pyxides with relief spirals do seem to form a coherent group, with the principal finds established in Cycladic con-texts : at Keros (Kavos), Naxos (‘Petasi’), Amorgos (Dhokathismata) and ‘Melos’. Their apparently exclusive presence in the Cyclades is all the more notable since vessels of coloured stone are otherwise not common in Early Cycladic contexts, although they certainly occur in a few cases. Moreover there is no consistent pattern of Early Minoan imports into the Cyclades, while the figurine evidence (as well as the marble pyxides from Aghios Onouphrios) shows that quite a few Early Cycladic objects of stone were imported into Crete. It seems likely that these hut pyxides were indeed of Cycladic manufacture, but that other chlorite schist vessels, some with relief spirals (such as the Maronia pyxis), may have been made in Crete. The case for Cycladic manufacture of these Cycladic examples would have been further strengthened by the form and decoration of the chlo-rite schist ‘frying pan’ in the Badisches Landesmu-seum in Karlsruhe (item B in the discussion above) were this not an unprovenanced acquisition from the trade, and therefore (if authentic) a looted piece. It is sad that there is no archaeological context for such an interesting find.

At the moment we are left with the intriguing possibility that one group of vessels of chlorite schist (notably the hut pyxides with relief spirals) was made in the Cyclades, while many of the others (including perhaps the Maronia pyxis, and the pyxides with dog-lids) were produced in Crete. It is possible, how-ever, that further finds might lead one to assign the manufacture of all the pieces with relief spirals to a single area, whether in Crete or the Cyclades. For the moment the matter remains uncertain.

voutsaki 2008 marble bowls keros early cycladic

Documents