² The prominence of Lesbos (especially Mytilene) in the archaic period was recognized even in early accounts of a Greek history. Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte, i (Strasburg, 1912), 218–19Google Scholar (the Penthilidai), 256 (the literary sources for the Lesbian founding of Ainos), 351 (Pittakos' constitutional reforms), 374 and 388 (the tyrannies in Lesbos and the war for Sigeion). Unfortunately nearly all subsequent works have limited their discussions to almost exactly the same few historical events and given minimal consideration to archaeology.

³ Burn, A. R., The Lyric Age of Greece (London, 1960), ch. 12, pp. 226–46Google Scholar, constructed his own picture of archaic Lesbos (to which he devoted a whole chapter) simply from the literary sources, giving only five sentences of comment on archaeological data. Even more striking is the absence of archaeological comment on Lesbos in Jeffery, L. H., Archaic Greece: The City-states c.700–500 BC (London, 1976)Google Scholar: throughout the book much space is devoted to the archaeology of Greece and the Aegean islands, but for Lesbos it is considered sufficient to mention simply the events known through literary sources (pp. 47, 53, 89–90, 232, 237–41). Even the detailed picture of archaic Lesbos pieced together very skilfully by Page 149–243 contains only one sentence alluding to the archaeology of the island (p. 169, where the traces of worship of Dionysos in the island are mentioned). This ignorance of the material culture has continued to the present day, and the recently published paper of Mason, H. J., ‘Mytilene and Methymna: quarrels, borders and topography’, Classical Views/Échos du monde classique, 37 (1993), 225–50Google Scholar, reconstructs many events in archaic Lesbian history without recourse to material remains; once again, only lip-service is paid to the archaeology of the island: pp. 239–40, where the commentary on the single site discussed in any detail throughout the whole paper is poor.

⁴ In over a century there have been only four excavations that have been published in any detail. Messa: Koldewey, 47–61 and pls 18–26; Antissa: Lamb, Antissa 1930–1 and Antissa 1931–2; Thermi: Lamb, Thermi; Mytilene: Williams and Williams 1985, 225–33; 1986, 141–54, 247–62; 1987, 135–49; 1989, 167–81; 1990, 181–93; 1991, 175–91.

⁵ The main works on the island's archaeology since the late 19th cent. number only six: Koldewey; Lamb, Thermi; Buchholz; Kontis, Polyptycho and Lesbos; Axiotis i–ii. Of these books, Buchholz carried out little new fieldwork, largely cataloguing the finds made by others previously in the island, and the archaeological comment in both works by Kontis is often vague and inconsistent.

⁶ This last problem of the interpretation of EIA ‘non-Greek’ material from Lesbos is illustrated in Snodgrass, A. M., An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline (Berkeley, 1987), 177 fig. 52.Google Scholar In recent syntheses of Greek dark age and archaic archaeology there is an acute lack of awareness of the island's material, and in the indices of many such books ‘Lesbos’ or ‘Mytilene’ rarely appear: Sakellariou, M. B., The Polis-state: Definition and Origin (Athens, 1989), 403Google Scholar, wholly overlooks the Protogeometric and Geometric archaeological record in Lesbos in his examination of the Dark Age migrations to Ionia, whereas that of other regions of E. Greece is discussed. In the whole book, only the historical questions raised by the mention in the literary sources of the Penthilidai (p. 120) and Alkaios' description of Pittakos as ‘tyrannos’ (p. 176) receive attention and archaeological data for Lesbos are ignored completely. Another example is the absence of the EIA sites in Lesbos from the discussion of dark age settlement development and contact with the east in Whitley, A. J. M., Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge, 1991), 44–5.Google Scholar This lack of awareness of the island's archaeology has not been helped in recent years by the lack of reports in the Chronika of A. Delt. from 1976 until 1986.

⁷ The comparisons made are mostly with Kylonian or Solonian Athens and also Bacchiad Corinth: Page, 170, where comparison is made between the faction of Alkaios, including Pittakos, and the Kylonian conspiracy; Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London, 1960), 92–9Google Scholar, where the comparison of the tyrannies in Mytilene is made largely with Athens; Murray, O., Early Greece (London, 1980), 155–8Google Scholar, where the only discussion of archaic Lesbos focuses on the tyrannies in Mytilene and how they compare to the Bacchiads in Corinth; Snodgrass, A. M., Archaic Greece: The Age of Experiment (London, 1980), 94–5Google Scholar, where the settlement of the tyranny and stasis in archaic Mytilene by Pittakos is compared to the actions of Solon in Athens; Kordatou, G., Η Σαπφώ ϰαι οι ϰοινωνιϰοί αγώνες στη Λέσβο (Athens, 1982), 31.Google Scholar This hellenocentric bias in the study of the early historical periods has recently been criticized by Morris, S., ‘Introduction’, in Kopeke, G. and Tokumaru, I. (eds), Greece between East and West: 10th 8th Centuries BC (Papers of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 15–16 Mar. 1990) (Mainz, 1992), xv–xvi.Google Scholar

⁸ Kontis, , Polyptycho, 25–32Google Scholar; id., Lesbos, 146–52; Murray (n. 7); Snodgrass (n. 7); Kordatou (n. 7), 29–45: Sakellariou (n. 6), 120, 176; Page, 149–243. Page (ibid.) does indeed speak about the constitution of archaic Mytilene as portrayed in Alkaios (177–9) but is the only author to give due consideration to the eastern elements in the culture also. He discusses the very un-Greek nature of some of the armour and weaponry described by Alkaios (209–23), the issue of Pittakos' foreign ancestry (170 and n. 8), and the part played by Lydia in the history of archaic Lesbos (n. 9 below).

⁹ Page, 52–7, 88, 92–6, 132, 226–34.

¹⁰ The coastline of Anatolia is much closer even than the nearest island (Chios), being only c.18 km across the Mytilini strait, while Chios lies some 45 km to the S.

¹¹ The link to Anatolia from the EBA is examined below. Even in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, however, many families in Lesbos still had relatives living on the continent, others possessed lands there or went there for seasonal work, and some elements of the population on the coast of Asia Minor regularly made the journey over the narrow strait for important religious festivals on Lesbos. For families from Lesbos owning lands and working in Asia Minor see Siphnaiou, R., ‘Στοιχεία για την οιϰονομία ϰαὶ τὴν ϰοινωνία της Λέσβου το 190 αιώνα’, Λεσβιαϰά, 12 (1989); 317Google Scholar; id. ‘Η Λέσβος το 20 μισό του 190 αιώνα μέσα από τις προξενιϰές αλληλογραφί’, Λεσβιαϰά, 13 (1991), 289–90, 294. For the involvement of Greeks in Asia Minor in religious festivals in Lesbos see: Jacoby of Mytilene, ‘Εὑρήματα ἐν Λέσβῳ’, Μιϰρασιατιϰὰ χρονιϰά, 5 (1952), 3Google Scholar; Parakseuaidis, G. L., Μανδαμάδος Λέσβου (Thessaloniki, 1987), 74–5Google Scholar (the latter notes that until 1922 Greeks living in Ayvalik and Moschonisi regularly crossed the Mytilini strait for the festival at the Taxiarchis monastery near Mandamados on 8 Nov., near the E coast of the island).

¹² The one major study that both bridged the Greek Turkish border and also considered the archaeological data in great detail (Bayne) was never published. The political schism has exaggerated the break between the two halves of the study area, meaning that many finds from the island are today in museum collections in Turkey.

¹³ Kontis, Polyptycho; id., Lesbos; Axiotis i–ii.

¹⁴ Kontis, , Polyptycho, 5–14Google Scholar, and Lesbos, 136–7, begins his respective studies of the Bronze Age by emphasizing strongly the cultural links of bronze age Lesbos to Anatolia, but at the same time (Polyptycho, 7) points out that Lesbos is to be seen as firmly within the bounds of the E. Greek world. The short article of Charitonidis, S., ‘Ἡ ἰδιομορφία τοῦ λεσβιαϰοῦ πολιτισμοῦ στὴν ἀρχαϊϰὴ ἐποχή’, Λεσβιαϰά, 5 (1966), 161–8Google Scholar is also caught in this political minefield, since the author finds himself pushed into denying the eastern influences in archaic Lesbos (see esp. p. 167) despite arguing for a uniqueness of Lesbian material culture in this period when compared to the rest of Greece. It is noteworthy that studies of other E. Aegean islands have managed to bridge this gap when they focus on the archaeology and have been carried out by scholars who had no political interest in denying the eastern (Turkish) material, e.g. Shipley, G., A History of Samos 800–180 BC (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Kontis, Lesbos.

¹⁶ Kontis, , Lesbos, 58–87Google Scholar, in which only two pages (79–81) give somewhat sketchy comment on the archaeology of the peraea. A similar (more brief) review of the literary evidence for the Mytilenean peraea (without a single mention of archaeological remains) appears in Kontis, , Polyptycho, 24–5.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For the comparanda of Lesbian bronze age material with that from Troy, Yortan, and Beycesultan see Bayne, 137–9; Buchholz, 121–4. There are finds at Thermi which indicate contact with other areas in the Bronze Age. In towns I and II there are clear Cycladic elements in the culture: the broad, square house plans (not typically Anatolian), an assemblage of stone figurines and marble bowl fragments; see Lamb, , Thermi, 8, 208–9Google Scholar; Lambrianides, K., ‘Present-day Chora on Amorgos and prehistoric Thermi on Lesbos: alternative views of communities in transition’, in Spencer, N. (ed.), Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the ‘Great Divide’ (London, 1995).Google Scholar In the MBA Lamb noted echoes of MH and MM pottery in the local red and grey wares, and by the LBA there were imports (and local copies) of Mycenaean pottery, Mycenaean sword types and arrowheads; see Lamb, Thermi, 211–12. It remains true, however, that the overwhelming bias in the culture throughout was still very much an eastern one. It is also worthy of note that, as with the EIA and archaic archaeological data, the bronze age material from Lesbos has also been largely ignored in previous studies; e.g. Lesbos does not even receive an entry in Hope Simpson and Dickinson, GAC, even though nearby eastern islands such as Samos, Chios, and Psara are catalogued.

¹⁸ Lamb, Thermi.

¹⁹ Axiotis i, 149–50 and pl. 31.

²⁰ Axiotis, M., ‘Μία νέα προϊστοριϰή θέση στη Λέσβο’, Archaiologia, 40 (1991), 79–80Google Scholar; Axiotis, i. 185 and pl. 35.

²¹ Around the central gulf of Kalloni the sites at Chalakies, Lisbori, Kourtir, Pyrrha, Arisbe, Prophitis Ilias (Agia Paraskevi), and Makara have all produced evidence of EBA or MBA activity, again of the same ‘Anatolian’ character as the bronze age sites on the E coast. Chalakies: Charitonidis 1960, 237; Buchholz, 122–3; Axiotis ii, 580; BSA sherd archive, unpublished; DAI sherd archive, unpublished. Lisbori: Charitonidis 1960, 489–90; Axiotis ii, 550–1. Kourtir:Paraskevaïdis, M., ‘Νέες ἀρχαιολογιϰὲς ἐνδείξεις γιὰ τὴ Λέσβο’, Λεσβιαϰά, 5 (1966), 208, 217Google Scholar; Paraskevaïdis (n. 1), 259; Chatzi 1971, 457; Paraskevaïdis, M., ‘Τὰ νέα προβλήματα τῆς ἔρευνας τῶν προϊστοριϰῶν οἰϰισμῶν τῆς Λέσβου’, Λεσβιαϰά, 6 (1973), 128–9Google Scholar; Buchholz, 122–3; M. Paraskevaïdis, ‘Lesbos’ in PECS 503; Axiotis ii. 566–7; BSA sherd archive, unpublished. Pyrrha:Lamb, W., ‘Grey wares from Lesbos’, JHS 52 (1932), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar (the sherds are stored in the Göttingen Archaeological Institute); Schiering, W., ‘Zweihundert Jahre göttinger archäologische Sammlungen’, AA (1967), 432–3 and fig. 28Google Scholar; Paraskevaïdis, 262; Buchholz, 123, 136; Schiering, 344. Arisbe: Bayne, 246; French, D. H., Anatolia and the Aegean in the Third Millennium BC, i (unpublished Ph.D. thesis; Univ. of Cambridge, 1968), 232 fig. 29 a, b 1Google Scholar; Chatzi 1972, 594–5 and pl. 546 α, γ. Prophitis Ilias:Paraskevaïdis, M., ‘Ὁ προϊστοριϰὸς οἰϰισμὸς τοῦ λόφου Προφήτη Ἠλία Ἁγίας Παρασϰευῆς Λέσβου’, Λεσβιαϰά, 7 (1978), 161–88Google Scholar; id., “Ὁ προϊστοριϰὸς οἰϰισμὸς τοῦ λόφου Προφήτη Ἡλία Ἁγίας Παρασϰευῆς Λέσβου’, Το βῆμα, 15 July 1979; Axiotis, i. 340–1; BSA sherd archive, unpublished. Makara: French, op. cit. 232 fig. 29 a, b 1; BSA sherd archive, unpublished.

²² The report of Chatzi, dated 14 Sept. 1970, ran as follows: ‘An extent of more than 300 m is full of sherds, and a scarp approximately five metres in height is being eroded by the sea to the north-west side where parallel walls of houses can be made out (there are at least three strata of settlement) many of which are found at sea-level and entering into it. Sherds were picked out from different parts of the scarp, the majority of which are of EBA date similar to those from Thermi, a few are definitely late Neolithic, and a fair number are of the MBA. From all over the ground [above], which is intensively cultivated, were picked up a mass of middle and late bronze age Lesbian red and grey wares, but also a large number of imported Mycenaean sherds.’ (The whole report is quoted in Paraskevaïdis 1973 (n. 21), 128–9). Chatzi's confidence that the Late Neolithic was represented at Kourtir remains to be justified, although the pattern burnished sherd from Lesbos published by Felsch, R. C. S., Samos, ii: Das Kastro Tigani: die spätneolithische Siedlung (Bonn, 1988), 105 n. 413Google Scholar, may come from Kourtir (or Chalakies, see Davis, J. L., ‘Review of Aegean prehistory I: the islands of the Aegean’, AJA 96 (1992), 724).CrossRefGoogle Scholar For Kontis's conclusion regarding the original size of the settlement at Kourtir see Kontis, , Lesbos, 359.Google Scholar

²³ Begemann, F., Schmitt-Strecker, D., and Pernicka, E., ‘The metal finds from Thermi III–IV: a chemical and leadisotope study’, Studia Troica, 2 (1992), 237–8Google Scholar, cited in Davis (n. 22), 724 n. 106.

²⁴ Lesbos is usually assumed to be the ‘Lazpas’ of the Hittite documents. See del Monte, G. F. and Tischler, J., Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes, vi: Die Orts- und Gewässennamen des hethitische Texte (Wiesbaden, 1978), 245–6.Google Scholar

²⁵ Buchholz, 135–7, catalogues all the Mycenaean finds from the island, although no mention is made of the sherds at Kourtir, for which Chatzi's report (n. 22) is the only published account. The site Buchholz catalogues as ‘Hiera’ (cat. no. F 14 a.b/no. G 3, pp. 123, 136) is that named Perama by Cook and Bayne: Cook, J. M., ‘Archaeology in Greece 1949–50’, JHS 71 (1949–1950), 247Google Scholar; Bayne, 12–15, 139–40. Details of more unpublished late Mycenaean sherds from Antissa are listed in the archive of the BSA, n. 26.

²⁶ Bayne, 124, 139–40. The site at Perama has remained unexplored since the visits of Cook and Bayne (n. 25), but some sherds were brought back to Athens where they were stored in the BSA. The LBA settlement found by Lamb at Antissa was especially significant, exhibiting impressive structural remains and ceramics which included copies of LH II wares in the local grey and red fabric together with LH III A Mycenaean imports: Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 167–71Google Scholar; BSA W. Lamb archive, Antissa 60.

²⁷ Charitonidis 1961–62, 265; Axiotis, ii. 530–1 and pl. 62, 62 α.

²⁸ Dickinson, O., ‘Cist graves and chamber tombs’, BSA 78 (1983), 61–2Google Scholar; id.The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1994), 227, 231; Hood, M. S. F., ‘Mycenaeans in Chios’, in Boardman, J. and Vaphopoulou-Richardson, C. E. (eds), Chios: A Conference at the Homereion in Chios, 1984 (Oxford, 1986), 169.Google Scholar

²⁹ Davis (n. 22) 725 n. 110 (cist graves at Emporio, Chios), 727 (Psara). For the use of cist graves in the NE Aegean as evidence for a pre-Mycenaean local burial tradition see Dickinson 1983 (n. 28), 62. It is perhaps also worthy of note that even in the Iliad Lesbos is grouped very much with Anatolia, since Achilles speaks of the island as the furthest outpost of Priam's kingdom, Hom. Il. xxiv. 544–6.

³⁰ The literary references are collected by Bérard, J., ‘La migration éolienne’, RA (1959), 22–8.Google Scholar

³¹ See Mantzouranis, D. P., Οἱ πρῶτες ἐγϰαταστάσεις τῶν Ἑλλήνων στὴ Λέσβο (Mytilene, 1949)Google Scholar, passim; Buck, C. D., The Greek Dialects (Chicago, 1955), 147–54Google Scholar; Bayne, 158–62, 331–40; Kontis, , Polyptycho, 16Google Scholar; Cook, J. M., ‘Greek settlement in the eastern Aegean and Asia Minor’, CAH ii. 2 (Cambridge, 1975), 777–8Google Scholar; Kontis, , Lesbos, 116–24Google Scholar (for Lesbian dialect in general).

³² Cook (n. 31), 778. Mantzouranis (n. 31), 22, and Buchholz, 134 (and n. 338) also preferred to see the Greek arrival in the NE Aegean as predating the end of the LBA, for which the latter cited the graves on Psara and at Makara as evidence (despite the fact that such cist graves are extremely unusual when compared to mainland Greece in the LBA; see nn. 28–9 above).

³³ Cook, ibid.; Kontis, , Polyptycho, 14Google Scholar, repeats this link of the destruction at Thermi to the arrival of the Aiolians. Cook's justification for the ‘flourishing’ of LBA Mytilene was the fact the ‘Mycenaean sherds are said to have been found there’ (ibid.). The sherds to which Cook refers, however, are those in the British Museum found by Newton in the 19th cent., and these may not even come from Mytilene itself, but could be from anywhere on the island. The island is often called ‘Mytilene’ (its medieval and early modern name) as well as ‘Lesbos’, and the sherds were labelled simply ‘Mytilene’ in the Museum's handwritten inventory. Some Mycenaean sherds are said to have been found recently in the building work for the new museum in Mytilini town (on the sw slope of the later acropolis; see n. 43 below), but to describe the site of Mytilene as ‘flourishing’ in the LBA on the current evidence is pure Action. For the bibliography on the Mycenaean sherds from ‘Mytilene’ in the British Museum (and photographs of the sherds) see Buchholz, 136, pl. 14. d–i.

³⁴ Cook (n. 31), 778–9.

³⁵ See n. 25 for details of Mycenaean finds in Lesbos. The myths relating to the raid of Achilles on Lesbos during the Trojan war, his destruction of ‘high-gated Methymna’, together with place-names with Homeric echoes in the region S of Pyrrha (including ‘Achilopigado’ and the modern village of ‘Brisa’), have been suggested to be further hints of Greek activity in the area at some point in the LBA. See Green, P., Lesbos and the Cities of Asia Minor (Dougherty Foundation Lecture, Texas, 1984), 13–14Google Scholar, for the association of an unexplored ‘Cyclopean’ acropolis site E of Methymna with the literary references by Homer and Parthenios to the raid of Achilles on Lesbos and the ‘well-built’ and ‘high-gated’ cities of the island; Mantzouranis (n. 31), 28, for Brisa and Achilopigado; Shields, E. L., ‘Lesbos and the Trojan war’, CJ 13 (1917–1918), 673–4Google Scholar, for the hypothesis that the Homeric figure ‘Briseis’ is to be understood as a ‘girl from Brisa’.

³⁶ Cook (n. 31), 778 (where the claim is made that there was continuous occupation from the 14th cent, at Antissa); Kontis, , Lesbos, 139Google Scholar, repeats this mistaken interpretation of the finds at Antissa. Admittedly more work is required at all sites in the island before either continuity or a hiatus is proven, and the recent reports of PG material at Methymna (where previously only Geometric was known, see n. 40) indicate that one has to remain cautious.

³⁷ Kontis, , Polyptycho, 16Google Scholar; Buchholz, 134; Cook (n. 31), 778.

³⁸ Bayne, 230, 238, 240, 330.

³⁹ This doubt regarding the interpretation of the (largely non-Greek) material in the E. Aegean in EIA Lesbos is clear in Snodgrass (n. 6).

⁴⁰ Axiotis, i. 229 and ii. 740 n. 3, reports that in 1989 the island's archaeological ephoreia may have located strata of PG date at Methymna, but these finds remain to be corroborated.

⁴¹ Bayne, 339–40. The literary traditions also imply that the colonization was a long-drawn-out affair, see Bérard (n. 30, esp. 8, 16, 17, and the account of Strabo xiii. 1. 3 (582) quoted on p. 25) and Fossey, J. M., Topography and Population of Ancient Boiotia (Chicago, 1988), 1, 428–9.Google Scholar Fossey, (pp. 424–31) also notes that the discernable archaeological patterns in EIA Boiotia (from where some of the colonists to Lesbos are said to have come) supports the view that there was more than one wave of colonization: ‘The extensive involvement of Boiotians in the various migrations and the length of time over which these movements took place accord well with the picture of extensive and continuous depopulation during the centuries after the Mycenaean collapse’ (430); see also his fig. 52 (409) and the table (428) for details of the scale and duration of this depopulation throughout the EIA.

⁴² This possibility of a single movement is implied in Kontis, , Polyptycho, 14–16Google Scholar, despite the literary traditions and archaeological record which both suggest that the Iron Age settlements in Lesbos were founded over a long period (see n. 41).

⁴³ Finds of EBA date were reported by the archaeological ephoreia in a report of their work in 1990: Axiotis, i. 19; Mycenaean sherds have been reported from the same excavation, but the precise chronology of both groups of pottery is still not published.

⁴⁴ This feature was noted by Conze, A., Reise auf der Insel Lesbos (Hanover, 1865), 4Google Scholar; Koldewey, 3, 12, and pls 1–2; Kontis, , Polyptycho, 17–18Google Scholar and fig. 12; Kontis, , Lesbos, 211–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ The bridge was found under house foundations on the W side of the former channel near the Geni Tjami.

⁴⁶ Diod. xiii. 79. 8; Longus, 1. 1.

⁴⁷ The channel probably became impassable at some point during the Middle Ages, but no coring work has succeeded in determining the exact date of its disappearance.

⁴⁸ Kontis, , Polyptycho, 18Google Scholar; Kontis, , Lesbos, 211–12.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Archontidou-Argyri, , ‘Χρονιϰά Κ' εφορείας αρχαιοτήτων έτους 1986–1987’, Λεσβίαϰά, 12 (1989), 68.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ This site has recently been proposed to represent the temple of Apollo Maloeis, but there is not yet any proof for this identification. Balaska, S., ‘Να ϰαταχωθούν τα αρχαία’, Ελευθεροτυπία, 18 July 1992.Google Scholar

⁵² Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 57, 68.

⁵³ Ibid. 68.

⁵⁴ Chatzi 1971, 449.

⁵⁵ Ibid.

⁵⁶ L. Acheilara, pers. comm.

⁵⁷ Herbig, R., ‘Archäologische Funde in den Jahren 1927–28’, AA 1928, 620.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Bayne, 173–4.

⁵⁹ BSA W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1 (dated 13 Nov. 1928).

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ Kearsley, R., The Pendent Semi-circle Skyphos (BICS supp. 44; London, 1989), passim.Google Scholar

⁶² Herbig (n. 57), 620.

⁶³ BSA W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1.

⁶⁴ Compare the Mytilene example, BSA W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1, with those from Lamb, Antissa, Antissa 1930–1, pl. 27. 6Google Scholar The progression of Lesbian grey ware amphorae shapes is discussed by Clinkenbeard, B., ‘Lesbian wine and storage amphoras: a progress report on identification’, Hesp. 51 (1982), 248–68, pls 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁵ Birmingham, J. M., ‘The overland route across Anatolia in the eighth and seventh centuries BC’, Anatolian Studies, 11 (1961), 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The present ephor, Mrs A. Archontidou-Argyri, was unable to locate this fibula in the apothiki of Mytilene museum.

⁶⁶ Ibid. 186–8, fig. 11 (188–9).

⁶⁷ Ibid. 186.

⁶⁸ Desborough, , PGP, 217Google Scholar; cf. Kontis, , Lesbos, 211.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Bayne, 241.

⁷⁰ Ibid, and fig. 25 b, 1–3.

⁷¹ Williams and Williams 1988, 146.

⁷² Millar, R. J. O., ‘Mytilene 1990 excavation report: Epano Skala site’ (unpublished MS, 1990), 13–17.Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid. 14.

⁷⁴ Williams and Williams 1989, 177.

⁷⁵ The earliest piece is probably the sherd shown in Plate 33 a 4 (10th cent.). Main stylistic links are as follows: Plate 33 a, 1 find parallels in Thessaly and Euboia; Plate 33 a, 4 is extremely similar to a late PG amphora found at Smyrna, see Özgünzel, C., ‘Spaetgeometrische Keramik in Bayrakli (Alt-Smyrna)’, in Vallet, G. (ed.), Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l'Est et leur diffusion en Occident (Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 569: sciences humaines; Naples, 1978), 17 and figs. 2–2 aGoogle Scholar; Plate 33 b, 1, 3, both find parallels in E. Greece. The mica present in sherds Plate 33 a, 2, 4 and b, 2, 4–6 is most common in EIA pottery from the Cyclades, Smyrna, and inland sites in Thessaly. I am grateful to Dr Irene Lemos for discussing the probable provenance and date of these pieces.

⁷⁶ Dr Irene Lemos, pers. comm.

⁷⁷ Schiering, 344.

⁷⁸ Koldeway, 28 and pl. 11.

⁷⁹ Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 59; Acheilara, L., ‘Χρονιϰά Κ' εφορεία προϊστοριϰών ϰαι ϰλασιϰών αρχαιοτήτων’, A. Delt. 41 (1986), Chr. 203.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Styrenius, C. G., Submycenaean Studies (Lund, 1967), 116.Google Scholar ‘A new practice [in the late PG period] is the burial of infants in pots’.

⁸¹ Popham, M. R., Sackett, L. H., and Themelis, P. G. (eds), Lefkandi, i: Text (Athens, 1980), 200, 202, 358.Google Scholar

⁸² Schiering, figs. 11–12.

⁸³ Ibid. 355, fig. 13.

⁸⁴ Ibid. 351–2, fig. 14 (p. 355).

⁸⁵ Ibid. 351 and pers. comm.

⁸⁶ Buchholz, 87–9, 127.

⁸⁷ Ibid. 78 (Cat. no. D2) for the spindle-whorl; 90–1 and fig. 25 a (Cat. no. E13) for the Geometric sherd.

⁸⁸ Kearsley (n. 61), 128 (table 4), 141.

⁸⁹ Ibid. 141.

⁹⁰ BSA W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1, and plans 2–3.

⁹¹ Ibid.Methymna 1 (dated 2 Nov. 1928), and trench B on plan 2.

⁹² Ibid. For similar pottery at Antissa see Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, fig. 6 b–c (p. 52) and pl. 22. 11–20.

⁹³ Chatzi, D., ‘Εἰδήσεις ἐϰ Λέσβου’, AAA 5 (1972), 43.Google Scholar No illustrations are provided, but the stamped and engraved designs were compared to Lamb, , Antissa 1931–2, 52 (fig. 6) and pl. 22.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Eleni Bomboulaki, pers. comm. See also Axiotis (n. 40).

⁹⁵ Ibid.

⁹⁶ Methymna archaeological collection, unpublished.

⁹⁷ Smyrna (early Geometric, second or third quarter of 9th cent.): Akurgal, E., Alt Smyrna: Wohnschichten und Athenatempel (Ankara, 1983), 26, pl. 15.Google Scholarc–d; Karia (early/late Geometric period, 9th and 8th centuries): Özgünel, C., Carian Geometric Pottery (Ankara, 1979)Google Scholar, plates, passim; Kameiros (middle Geometric, early/mid-8th cent.) G. Jacopi, Clara Rhodos, 6–7 (Istituto Storico Archeologico di Rodi, 1932–9), fig. 235 (p. 196, no. LXXXII. 2). I thank Miss C. Dyer for these references.

⁹⁸ For the lack of similar shapes to the Methymna amphora even in the late Geometric era see Coldstream, J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery (London, 1968), pls 10a, 11 d, 11 g (Attic)Google Scholar, 28 b (Argive), 37 d, 40 e (Theran).

⁹⁹ Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 167–71, pl. 27. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ The two main articles from the excavations are Lamb, Antissa 1930–1 and Antissa 1931–2.

¹⁰¹ Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, 56 and fig. 9 a–c (p. 57).

¹⁰² Ibid.

¹⁰³ Desborough (n. 68), 217. Bayne, 238 also expressed doubt as to the early (PG) dating of the sherds, but did not propose any alternative chronology.

¹⁰⁴ Kearsley (n. 61), 15.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid. 112, 128 (table 4).

¹⁰⁶ Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, pl. 23. 1 and 23. 3; cf. Coldstream (n. 98), pl. 61 d (Rhodian, late Geometric).

¹⁰⁷ Lamb, , Antissa 1931–2, 47.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Coldstream, J. N., Geometric Greece (London, 1977), 262–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, followed by Fagerström, K., Greek Iron Age Architecture: Developments through Changing Times (SIMA 81; Göteborg, 1988), 89.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Lamb, , Antissa 1931–2, 44–5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Ibid. 56 and pl. 23. 6, 8, and 13. For the distribution of this ware see n. 216 below.

¹¹¹ Ibid. 62.

¹¹² Ibid. 47–8.

¹¹³ The argument in Coldstream (n. 108), 263, that the building cannot be earlier than the 7th cent. because of the polygonal masonry employed is not wholly proven. It is also suggested, however, that the stratified pottery finds may imply a 7th-cent. date (ibid.).

¹¹⁴ Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 167–9.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, fig. 6 (p. 52), pl. 22.

¹¹⁶ Gebauer, J., ‘Verschiedene graue Waren’, in Serdaroğlu, Ü. and Stupperieh, R. (eds), Ausgrabungen in Assos 1991 (Bonn, 1993), 83–4Google Scholar and fig. 4 no. 25 (no precise dating is given from the context of the find).

¹¹⁷ Popham, Sackett, Themelis (n. 81), 72–3.

¹¹⁸ For a detailed discussion of the three cemeteries and the ancestor cult see N. Spencer, ‘Respecting your elders and betters: ancestor cult at Antissa, Lesbos’ (forthcoming in Échos du monde classique/Classical Views).

¹¹⁹ Ibid. A late Geometric or early archaic fibula of Phrygian type was also found amongst the offerings to the two worshipped ancestors in the cemetery nearest to the acropolis; Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 176.Google Scholar See n. 144 below for the link between this type of fibula (Blinkenberg's XII. 5) and Phrygian workshops.

¹²⁰ Koldeway, 29–30, pls 13. 1, 14. 1–5.

¹²¹ Kontis, , Lesbos, 288–91, figs. 464–8.Google Scholar

¹²² Chatzi 1972, 593–5 and pls 543–7 α.

¹²³ French (n. 21).

¹²⁴ The plans drawn after the visits of Kiepert in 1841 and Koldewey in 1885 indicate that in the 19th cent, three gateways and a tower of polygonal masonry was visible. Koldewey's plan also seems to indicate that only the plateau to the E of the peak of the acropolis (now crowned by a small Byzantine kastro) was walled in antiquity; Koldewey, 29, 83 (excursion 38), pl. 13. 1. Kontis, Lesbos, fig. 47 marks a ‘bastion (end of 8th–beginning of 7th cent. BC)’ on the w side of the acropolis, but Koldewey did not map these remains and no such ‘bastion’ is visible today.

¹²⁵ Not even Chatzi's brief excavation could determine absolute dates for the construction of the enclosure wall or the chronological relationship of the wall to the houses within. Chatzi 1972, 593–5. Kontis, , Lesbos, 289Google Scholar, suggested a date of the second half of the 8th cent, or the early 7th cent, for the enclosure wall on account of the ‘early’ style of Lesbian masonry employed, but such a supposition remains to be proven.

¹²⁶ Hdt. i. 151. 2.

¹²⁷ Koldeway, pl. 13. 1.

¹²⁸ Koldewey, 22–6 and pls 8–10; Laskaris, G. L., ‘Τὰ λείψανα τῆς ἀρχαίας Ἐρεσοῦ’, Λεσβιαϰά, 3 (1960)Google Scholar, passim. An updated synthesis of the finds at Eresos is given in Spencer, N., Asty and Chora in Early Lesbos, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London, 1993, 56–8.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Birmingham (n. 65), 193.

¹³⁰ See Endnote on p. 306. Even after the Cimmerian invasions the continuing contact between Phrygia and E. Greece has led to suggestions that the overland route was being exploited in the later 7th cent. See Muscarella, O. W., Phrygian Fibulae from Gordion (London, 1967), 63.Google Scholar Morris (n. 7), xv, expresses doubts regarding the ‘overland route’ to the E. Aegean from Anatolia, but the detailed analyses presented here suggest that the links to the east in the archaic period concerned more than simply mercenaries (Morris, ibid., where Sappho and Alkaios are cited in support). This argument by Morris is another example of the lack of awareness of Lesbian material culture and the use of only literary sources as a basis for argument.

¹³¹ Sams, G. K., ‘Observations on western Anatolia’, in Ward, W. A. and Joukowsky, S. (eds), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century BC from beyond the Danube to the Tigris (Dubuque, 1992), 59.Google Scholar

¹³² Ibid.

¹³³ W. Röllig, ‘Asia Minor as a bridge between east and west: the role of the Phoenicians and Aramaeans’, in Kopcke and Tokumaru (n. 7), 97–100 and figs. 12–13. It is noteworthy, given these hypotheses of the widespread dissemination of Anatolian and Syrian languages through Anatolia in the EIA, that many place-names in Lesbos probably derive from eastern (especially Luwian) words. The μν- suffix which appears in Lesbian toponymns (Methymna, Ordymnos, Lepetymnos) is traced to a Luwian origin by Huxley, G. L., Crete and the Luwians (London, 1961), 24–5.Google Scholar Also, the name ‘Mytilene’ finds parallels in Hittite names, and the stem may be related to the Luvian muwa- (‘strength’) and Muwanannis (‘scribe’); the suffix -wana/-ana was commonly used in Luwian for historical and geographical names. See E. Laroche, Recueil d'onomastique hittite (Paris, 1952), 135; Huxley, op. cit. 40; Röllig, op. cit. 100 (where the incorrect use of Semitic syntax in the writing of the name Muwanannis in Phoenician-Aramaic script suggested to the author that the mother tongue of the ‘scribe’ was possibly Luvian); Umar, B., ‘The close affinity between the Iron Age languages of Luvian origin in Anatolia and the first Iranian languages: the possible connection between the name “Türk” and the Anatolian name “Tarkhun” (ruler, sovereign, lord)’, in Çilingiroğlu, A. and French, D. H. (eds), Anatolian Iron Ages: The Proceedings of the 2nd Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Izmir (4–8 May 1987) (BIAA monographs, 13; Oxford, 1991), 113–16.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Sams, G. K., ‘The early Phrygian period at Gordion: towards a cultural identity’, Source: Notes in the History of Art, 7.3–4 (1988), 10–12.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ O. W. Muscarella, ‘Greek and oriental cauldron attachments: a review’, in Kopcke and Tokumaru (n. 7), 35, 41, concludes that the ‘normal route’ for Phrygian material destined for East Greece would have been overland to the Aegean coast. For the idea that certain types of vessels were exported on a ‘supply and demand’ basis, see I, Strøm, ‘Evidence from the sanctuaries’ (in the same volume), 52, 57.

¹³⁶ Muscarella (n. 130), 66.

¹³⁷ Sams (n. 134), 13.

¹³⁸ Hdt. i. 14. 2–3; Pollux, ix. 83.

¹³⁹ For the dating of the three tumuli near Yenisehir (Sigeion) to the late 6th or early 5th cent, see Cook, J. M., The Troad (Oxford, 1973), 159–65Google Scholar; for a similar dating of the tumulus at Pasa Tepe S of Troy, ibid. 108. The dispute over the Sigeion area between the Athenians and the Mytileneans is reviewed by N. Spencer, ‘Colonization and conflict in the north-east Aegean: the struggle for Sigeion’ (forthcoming).

¹⁴⁰ For a review of the hero cult phenomenon see J. Whitley, ‘Tomb cult and hero cult: the uses of the past in archaic Greece’, in Spencer (n. 17).

¹⁴¹ Birmingham (n. 65), 193–5. Birmingham also suggested (ibid.) that the overland route had become popular after a period in the early 8th cent. when a sea route via Syria and Cyprus was employed, and before the Black Sea route subsequently was heavily used.

¹⁴² Jantzen, U., Samos, viii: Ägyptische und orientalische Bronzen aus dem Heraion non Samos (Bonn, 1972), esp. 48–55Google Scholar for Phrygian bronzes; Strøm (n. 135), 48–9; Muscarella (n. 130), 35; Birmingham (n. 65), 186 n. 3, fig. 7 (p. 187), fig. 11 (pp. 188–9), notes that both Samos and many other sites on the w coast of Asia Minor and in the E. Aegean islands have produced finds of Phrygian-style fibulae and bronze cauldrons, at least some of which are probably of Phrygian manufacture.

¹⁴³ Birmingham (n. 65), fig. 11 (pp. 188–9).

¹⁴⁴ Strøm (n. 135), 58. The types of fibulae represented at Antissa which are of Phrygian type are from Blinkenberg's/Muscarella's sub-groups XII. 5, XII. 13, and XII. 14; see Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 174, 176Google Scholar; ead., Antissa 1931–2, 62; for the definitive features of Phrygian fibulae see Kilian, K., Fibeln in Thessalien von der mykenischen bis zur archaischen Zeit (PBF 14. 2; Munich, 1975), 151–4.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Bayne, 300–1, notes that not only was the fabric of Phrygian pottery similar to the Aiolic grey wares by the start of the archaic period, but also that the two most common Phrygian shapes, the incurved rim bowl and the carinated bowl, were found widely in Aiolic grey ware and hinted at earlier contact. In Lesbos these two shapes were found commonly in the Geometric and archaic levels. Antissa: Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, pls 21. 2, 5 (incurved rim bowls), 22. 10 (carinated bowl); Bayne, 233, 235. Mytilene:ibid. 241 and fig. 25 b 4–6 (a carinated bowl from Bayne's own surface collection). Methymna: Lamb (n. 21), fig. 2. 9 (carinated bowl, Göttingen Archaeological Institute), 2. 19 (incurved rim bowl, GAI); Bayne, 243 (who notes more than one example of each). Pyrrha:ibid. 245 (carinated bowl fragment from Bayne's own surface collection). Arisbe:ibid. 246 (fragment of incurved rim bowl).

¹⁴⁶ At ‘Xiro’ near Pyrrha: Charitonidis 1964, 398 (where one of the ceramic finds was compared to the inscribed 6th-cent. kantharos from Antissa, Lamb, Antissa 1931–1, pl. 28. 3); and secondly at Monastiraki on the W mouth of the Gulf of Gera: Charitonidis (ibid.), 396 (where finds from what seems to be a disturbed tomb included an Attic blackfigure lekythos dated to c.500).

¹⁴⁷ For the use of mounds to cover groups of tombs in the archaic Athens and Attica see Humphreys, S. C., The Family, Women and Death (2nd edn, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1993), 94–101 and figs. 1–2 (pp. 96–7, 100).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ The comparative evidence for E. Greek burial practices in the archaic period has been collated recently by M.-C. Tzannes, Greek Excavations at the Archaic Cemetery of Klazomenai (forthcoming), passim.

¹⁴⁹ It is difficult to be certain of the exact position of some of the tombs, and therefore whether or not they are from the same groups of burials. The problem of relating the position of the sarcophagi found by Lamb in 1928 with those found by the Greek Archaeological Service in 1986 (which seem to have lain in approximately the same area) is especially difficult (n. 150, burial areas ‘D’ and ‘E’).

¹⁵⁰ Burial area A:Evangelidis, D., ‘Ἀνασϰαφιϰαὶ ἔρευναι ἐν Λέσβῳ 2: Μηθύμνη’, PAE (1925–1926), 150–4Google Scholar; Buchholz, 63–4 (cat. no. A 42) (a single sarcophagus burial). Burial area B: Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 72; Acheilara, L., ‘Χρονιϰά Κ' εφορεία προϊστοριϰών ϰαι ϰλασιϰών αρχαιοτήτων’, A. Delt. 42 (1987), Chr. 482, pl. 289 γGoogle Scholar (five clay archaic sarcophagi). Burial area C (the rock-chamber tomb): Buchholz, tomb E on fig. 1 (p. 21), 64 (Cat. no. A 43), 104–5 (Cat. nos. E 78–9), pls 18, 19. a, b. Burial area D: Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 58–9; Acheilara (n. 79), 202–3, pl. 142 γ (two large jars which contained ash, and presumably therefore are to be understood as cremations, were found among four later sarcophagus burials of 4th-cent. date). Burial area E: BSA W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1 (two Clazomenian-style sarcophagi lying side by side). The tombs in three of the burial areas are dated to the second half of the 6th cent., the Clazomenian sarcophagus found by Evangelidis NE of the modern kastro (A), although Evangelidis originally dated the sealstone found inside the sarcophagus, to the late 7th cent. (Evangelidis, 153–4). For comparanda of the seals see Buchholz, 64; the five archaic sarcophagi in the Dabia area of the town (B); and the disturbed tomb 800 m s of the modern town (C). The exact location of the archaic burials found recently ‘north-east of the town’ (D) is not specified, so one cannot be sure whether these tombs are part of the same group of which Lamb found two sarcophagi in 1928 (E).

¹⁵¹ Buchholz, tomb E on fig. 1 (p. 21), 64 (cat. no. A43), 104–5 (cat. nos. E 78–9). A cist grave was also found in the same plot as the five archaic sarcophagi of group ‘B’ in 1987, but no chronological details or illustrations of its only associated find (a bronze mirror) are given; Acheilara (n. 150), 482.

¹⁵² Burial area ‘D’ (n. 150). In the brief report the fibulae are said to be to be of ‘Asia Minor’ type, and they appear from the photograph to be two of Blinkenberg's sub-group XII. 5 which have also been found at Antissa (see nn. 111, 144 above).

¹⁵³ Spencer (n. 118). It is impossible to give precise numbers for all three cemeteries because the notes made by Lamb are not sufficiently detailed.

¹⁵⁴ Ibid. fig. 2 (another burial in a large jar was made a short distance to the N beyond the area represented on the plan).

¹⁵⁵ Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, 174–8Google Scholar; Antissa 1931–2, 63–7.

¹⁵⁶ For this inter-polis variation in terms of élite investment and expression in the archaic period see Spencer (n. 128), 85–200.

¹⁵⁷ Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 69–70; Acheilara (n. 150), 479. This type of grave may be what Buchholz means by his term ‘Felskammergrab’ for the grave at Methymna (n. 151).

¹⁵⁸ W. Lamb BSA archive, Methymna 1 (notes dated 13 Nov. 1928); Herbig (n. 57), 620.

¹⁵⁹ W. Lamb BSA archive, ibid.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid. For this practice of drilling holes in the bases of large vessels used as grave markers, see Kurtz, D. C. and Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs (London, 1971), 57–8Google Scholar; Whitley (n. 6), 116.

¹⁶¹ W. Lamb BSA archive, Methymna 1 (for sketches of the pottery from the tomb, or tombs).

¹⁶² Charitonidis 1964, 398; it is impossible to be precise regarding the dating of the finds since no illustrations are provided.

¹⁶³ Koldeway, 28.

¹⁶⁴ Laskaris (n. 128), 73 (again no pictures were provided of any of the finds).

¹⁶⁵ Koldeway, pl. 8.

¹⁶⁶ Naumann, F., Die Ikonographie der Kybele in der phrygischen und der griechischen Kunst (Ist. Mitt. supp. 28; Tübingen, 1983), table 3 (p. 125).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Cook (n. 31), 782.

¹⁶⁸ The significance of the cult of Apollo Maloeis is clear from Thucydides, who speaks of ‘the whole city’ of Mytilene celebrating the festival in the 5th cent. (iii. 3. 3); for the recent claim that the site of this cult has been found see n. 51.

¹⁶⁹ Steph. Byz. s.v. Νάπη. This cult has sometimes been linked with the archaic temple of Klopedi in Lesbos, but as was noted by Betancourt, P. P., The Aeolic Style in Architecture (Princeton, 1977), 82Google Scholar, there is no positive evidence for this association.

¹⁷⁰ Schiering, 365 n. 47. The position of the altar at the w end of the temple was suggested to signify the possibility that this structure had been a cult of either Apollo or Artemis, with Schiering preferring Apollo who was ‘favoured in Aiolis’ (ibid.).

¹⁷¹ These well-built walls of harbour installations underlie later structures on the SE shoreline of the harbour. Sections of six polygonal walls have been found: three constructed with massive blocks lie in the west room 1, south hellenistic room, and the north room; Millar (n. 72) 9, 12, 13–15 respectively. Two large-scale walls are very crude in style, and all three lie at the lowest levels near the sterile beach stratum which underlies the whole site; ibid. fig. 2. One of the crude examples is securely dated by stratified ceramic finds to the second half of the 6th cent., and the finer one is also securely dated to the 6th cent.; ibid. 9, 12, 13–15. A more synoptic account of these finds is presented in Williams and Williams 1991, 181, where it is also suggested that the walls could be associated with the archaic sanctuary found by Chatzi in 1973 (see below).

¹⁷² The building would have only been c.30 m from the ancient shoreline and harbour, even though today the sea has receded and is now a further 100 m distant: Williams and Williams 1991, 181.

¹⁷³ Chatzi 1973, 515–17 and pls 481–6.

¹⁷⁴ Ibid. 517. The lower courses of the supposed ‘peribolos’ wall close to the E side of the structure were constructed of polygonal masonry almost identical to that of the E wall of the ‘temple’ (and it may therefore not be a coincidence that the entrance to the oval building was on the side of this decorative enclosure/terrace wall). It was conceded by the excavator, however, that the wall could in fact be merely a terrace to ‘correct’ the natural E–W slope of the ground in this area of the town. Chatzi 1973, 517 and pl. 483 α. Whether an entire temenos wall did once exist will never be known because any trace of the wall to the w of the building seems to have been destroyed by building work later in antiquity, and the limitation of the excavation to the N and S allowed no further investigation (ibid. fig. 10).

¹⁷⁵ Ibid. 515–16.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid. 516.

¹⁷⁷ Ibid. Chatzi classifies this masonry as being ‘in the Lesbian style’ (ibid. 515–17), but the edges of the blocks are very regular, straight polygonal stones (ibid., pl. 483 β) and not curved as is prevalent in true ‘Lesbian’ style masonry. For a full discussion of the Lesbian style of polygonal masonry see Spencer (n. 128), 121–51.

¹⁷⁸ Mazarakis-Ainian, A., ‘L'architecture religieuse grecque des âges obscurs’, AC 54 (1985), fig. 12 (p. 29).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Chatzi 1973, wall ‘Σ’ on fig. 10 and clearly visible on pl. 482 γ.

¹⁸⁰ Ibid. 516.

¹⁸¹ Ibid.

¹⁸² Whether the concept of an oval plan for the building is another feature inherited from the east is difficult to say. Oval and apsidal structures certainly seem to have been the fashion in EIA Lesbos given the 8th-cent. apsidal building at Pyrrha (Schiering, fig. 11 (p. 349), fig. 12 (p. 350); fig. 13 (p. 355)), the Geometric (or possibly PG) buildings at Methymna (see n. 40), and the two superimposed apsidal buildings at Antissa (Lamb, , Antissa 1931–2, pls 18–19Google Scholar). At Antissa the first apsidal building (at least) was noted as being unique when compared to the rest of Greece, in respect of having wholly stone walls rather than merely a stone socle with a mudbrick superstructure: Fagerström (n. 108), 90. There are also, however, a large number of other EIA apsidal and oval buildings throughout Greece and the coast of Asia Minor (ibid., passim), and the origins of the form may simply be due to the practical advantage in terms of making the roofing of the structure more easy.

¹⁸³ Chatzi 1973, 517. For a photograph of the headless statuette of Kybele see Bodenstedt, F., Die Elektronmünzen von Phokaia und Mytilene (Tübingen, 1981), pl. 5. 11Google Scholar; for the other statuette see Chatzi 1973, pl. 485 α.

¹⁸⁴ Ibid. 517. The graffito ΑΠΟΛΛ is illustrated on pl. 484 γ.

¹⁸⁵ OCD ² s.v. Apollo.

¹⁸⁶ Alkaios fr. 129 (Campbell), where three deities share the shrine. Two of these are named as Zeus and Dionysos, and a third is termed ‘the glorious Aiolian goddess, mother of all’. Campbell, D. A., Greek Lyric (Loeb Classical Texts; Cambridge, Mass., and London), i (1982), 299 n. 2Google Scholar, takes this reference to be to Hera, but this ‘Mother’ goddess could equally be Kybele.

¹⁸⁷ de Polignac, F., La Naissance de la cité grecque (Paris, 1984), 71–2.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Ibid.

¹⁸⁹ Naumann (n. 166), nos. 57, 60 (p. 302), pls 17. 3 and 18. 2.

¹⁹⁰ Ibid. pls 16–18.

¹⁹¹ Archontidou-Argyri (n. 49), 61 (for the ‘early’ relief), 73; Acheilara (n. 79), 205; ead. (n. 150), 482.

¹⁹² Williams and Williams 1990, 185–6 and pl. 2; iid. 1991, 178.

¹⁹³ Williams, H., ‘Mytilene: the 1989 season’, Bulletin of the Canadian Mediterranean Institute, 11. 4 (1989), 2.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁹⁵ Williams and Williams 1990, 178.

¹⁹⁶ French, E. B., ‘Archaeology in Greece 1989–90’, AR 36 (1990), 65.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Hogarth, D., Excavations at Ephesus (London, 1908), pl. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Stronach, D., Pasargadae (Oxford, 1978), figs. 42–3 (pp. 83–5). pls 72–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Betancourt (n. 169), 58–98.

²⁰⁰ Ibid. In Lesbos recent finds of more archaic Aiolic-style pendent leaf elements have been made at Eresos (Sophoklis Roumeliotis, pers. comm.), and Pyrrha (Schiering, 367–74).

²⁰¹ Betancourt (n. 169), 17–49.

²⁰² Ibid. 3, 106–08, 122–33. The preoccupation with such angles is clear from the various terminologies for the style by scholars who considered the theme in detail: Aeolic, éoliqueionique, äolisch-ionisch (and ionisch-äolisch), Proto-Aeolian, Proto-Aeolic, and Proto-Ionie (ibid. 4).

²⁰³ Betancourt (n. 169), 93–8, 122–33.

²⁰⁴ BSA, W. Lamb archive, Antissa 5 (cat. no. 33/42).

²⁰⁵ Evangelidis (n. 149), 41–4; id. “Ἀνασϰαφὴ Λέσβου’, PAE (1927), 57–9; id. ‘᾿Αναοϰαφὴ Κλοπεδῆς Λέσβου’, PAE (1928), 126–37; Chatzi (n. 93), 43–5; Kontis, , Lesbos, 295–9.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ An Aiolic capital found on the acropolis of Mytilene at the end of the 19th cent. comes from a funerary or votive statuary context; Mendel, G., Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines (Constantinople, 1914), ii, no. 276 (p. 36).Google Scholar See also Rouse, W. H. D., ‘Lesbos’, BSA 2 (1895–1896), 148Google Scholar, who seems to refer to the original finding of this capital which was subsequently lost, rediscovered by Paton, and taken to Istanbul in Aug. 1898 (Mendel, ibid.). Schefold and Betancourt proposed that this capital had come from a large-scale building, perhaps even from Klopedi: Schefold, K., ‘Das äolische Kapitell’, ÖJh 31 (1938–1939), 46.Google Scholar Betancourt (n. 169), 87. Mendel clearly states, however, that there were cuttings in both its upper and lower surfaces, which strongly suggest that the piece is from a funerary or statuary monument. The cuttings in the upper surface are square, measuring 0.05 × 0.05 × 0.06 m; the circular dowel-hole in the base is 0.06 in diam. and 0.065 deep (Mendel, ibid.). Furthermore, the double edges to the volutes of the capital clearly distinguish it from the capitals of Klopedi and are paralleled in fragments of two similar Aiolic capitals found in the Athenian Agora and the Kerameikos (both of which exhibit double edges to their volutes and have cuttings). Betancourt (n. 169), 100, fig. 47 (p. 101) and pl. 52 (Agora fragment); Kübler, K., ‘Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos I’, AA (1938), fig. 16 (pp. 601, 605)Google Scholar (Kerameikos fragment). The fragment of an Aiolic capital from Eresos seems to be from a funerary or statuary monument, but its dating is unclear: see Kontis, J. D., ‘Capitello eolico di Eresso’, ASA 24–6 (1946–1948), 25–36Google Scholar; Betancourt (n. 169), 88.

²⁰⁷ See n. 200 above.

²⁰⁸ The use of the style in Aiolis was considered in detail by Betancourt (n. 169), ch. 4: ‘Aiolis, northern Ionia and the North Aegean’, which included treatment of the finds at Old Smyrna, Neandria, Larisa, Klopedi, Mytilene, Eresos, and Thasos (pp. 58–68). Recently four Aiolic-style capitals have been found also at Ainos in Thrace, another site which literary sources cite as an ‘Aiolic’ colony: Erzen, A. and Basaran, S., ‘1988 yili enez kazisi çalismalari’, Symposium, 11 (1989), 112 and fig. 25 (p. 122)Google Scholar; for the literary references to Ainos as an Aiolic, or specifically Mytilenean, colony see Hdt. vii. 58; Thuc. vii. 57; Scymn. 696; Strab. vii. 51 (52); Steph. Byz. s.v. Αἶνος.

²⁰⁹ Bayne, 328–31, concluded that there were a large number of basic features of the Iron Age grey wares (including colour, shape, design, and production technique) which were inherited from those of the LBA. It was only at a late stage in the development (from c.700 onwards) that other influences began to be exerted on the development of the grey wares from sources such as Phrygian metalwork and Greek painted pottery (ibid.). For possible imports of Aiolian grey wares to Lefkandi in the first half of the 10th cent. (including sherds from a kantharos, a popular grey ware shape in Aiolis from the 8th cent. at least), see Catling, R. W. V. and Lemos, I. S., Lefkandi, ii: The Protogeometric Building at Toumba, 1: The Pottery (London, 1990), 55–6Google Scholar and pls 5 j, 39, and 73 (kantharos = cat. no. 781). For examples of similar sherds from Methymna see Lamb (n. 21), fig. 1. 1–2.

²¹⁰ Bayne, 331, came to the conclusion that even at the end of the archaic period the local grey wares were as highly valued as the imported E. Greek painted ceramics.

²¹¹ The care taken to burnish and polish many Iron Age grey wares shows the trouble taken during the production of vessels, possibly as part of a desire to make the ceramic vessels appear similar in finish to their metal prototypes. See e.g. Lamb, , Antissa 1930–1, pl. 28. 3 a–b.Google Scholar

²¹² Wine and oil would have been two of these products carried in the amphorae; see Clinkenbeard (n. 64) and Dupont, P., ‘Amphores commerciales archaïques de la Grèce de l'Est’, PP 37 (1982), 193–208.Google Scholar

²¹³ The grey wares are commonly found in sanctuary contexts in Lesbos in the archaic period; outside the island the grey wares were used as dedicatory offerings to Aphrodite (and possibly Apollo) by Mytileneans at Naukratis in the second quarter of the 6th cent.: Petrie, W. H. F., Naukratis, i (London, 1886), pl. 32 no. 185Google Scholar; Gardner, E. A., Naukratis, ii (London, 1888), 65 and pl. 21 (nos. 786, 788, 790).Google Scholar For the dating of the inscriptions see LSAG ² 360.

²¹⁴ For a recent survey of archaic Chiote wares see Lemos, A., Archaic Pottery of Chios: The Decorated Styles (Oxford, 1991).Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Williams and Williams 1987, 258 (E. Greek plates); iid. 1988, 143 (Wild Goat, Clazomenian, and E. Greek bowls); iid. 1989, 177–8 (Milesian, Clazomenian, Fikellura, Chiote); iid. 1990, 189 (Wild Goat); Schaus, G. P., ‘Archaic imported wares from the acropolis, Mytilene’, Hesp. 61 (1992), 355–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Wild Goat, Chiote, Clazomenian, Fikellura, and ‘Ionian’, the last of which may be of Samian origin).

²¹⁶ G. Schaus, pers. comm. A corpus of Wild Goat pottery with its own peculiar characteristics seems to come from a mainland source in Aiolis, possibly Larisa, but there is no group which can be attributed to Mytilene or Lesbos as a whole (ibid.). Another style of late/sub-Geometric pottery apparently being produced in the NE Aegean was the so-called ‘G2–3’ ware found at Troy, Antissa, Hephaistia on Limnos, Samothrace, Thasos, and recently at Assos, but the production centre(s) of this corpus is/are still unclear. For a review of this whole corpus see Bernard, P., ‘Céramique de la première moitié du VIIe siècle à Thasos’, BCH 88 (1964), 88–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for the recent finds at Assos see K. Iren, ‘Archaische ostgriechische Keramik 1991’, in Serdaroğlu and Stupperich (n. 116), 47, fig. 1. 4 ( = pl. 15. 1), and F. Utili, ‘Ostgriechischer Teller’ (in the same volume), 58 (cat. no. 4) fig. 2. 4 ( = pl. 17. 2), 64 (cat. no. 24) fig. 4. 24 ( = pl. 17. 1). So far even the ceramic analysis work on grey ware sherds from Lesbos has failed to establish secure links to any clay sources known in the island today. This seems to be because there has been a break in the ceramic tradition in the island, and the modern potters now working in Lesbos returned from Asia Minor and the Dardanelles in the 19th and 20th centuries, at which point they began using clay sources which presumably were not those employed in antiquity. For the modern production centres of ceramics in Lesbos see Hampe, R. and Winter, A., Bei Töpfern and Zieglern in Süditalien, Sizilien und Griechenland (Mainz, 1965), 147–51Google Scholar; for the failure of analysis work to match the ancient clays to the modern clay sources see Buchholz, 93 (citing the neutron activation analysis of A. M. Bieber et al., ‘Compositional groupings of some ancient Aegean and eastern Mediterranean pottery’ (Brookhaven National Laboratory Abstract 18604; 1973), 17); Whitbread, I. K., The Application of Ceramic Petrology to the Study of Ancient Greek Transport Amphorae, with Special Reference to Corinthian Amphora Production, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Southampton, 1986, i. 234–44Google Scholar; Basiakos, G. and Archontidou-Argyri, A., ‘Λέσβος: έρευνα για εργαστήρια αμφορέων’, A. Delt. 41 (1986), Chr. 207–12Google Scholar (esp. 211–12 for the break in the ceramic tradition). Recent petrographic analyses carried out on archaic Lesbian amphorae have found that the clays include a large proportion of volcanic material, as one might expect from the volcanic geology of the centre and west of the island: I. Whitbread, pers. comm.

²¹⁷ Lamb devoted approximately the same amount of space to the grey wares and the imported wares in her (more detailed) report on the ceramics at Antissa: Lamb, , Antissa 1931–2, 51–60Google Scholar (c.3.5 sides of text to each). The true proportion of finds is only clear from the comments such as ‘the majority of our finds consisted of the native Lesbian Grey Ware … Amongst thousands of sherds …’ (pp. 51–2), while it is clear that for nearly all the imported wares reference is being made to a small number of sherds: ‘the earliest [imported] sherds are protogeometric … there are four or five of them’ (pp. 56); (Rhodian Geometric) ‘a few fragments’; (Rhodian Bird bowls) ‘nine fragments’; mention is made of approximately 10 Attic black-figure and 5 redfigure fragments (pp. 59–60). Only Protocorinthian is said to be represented by a ‘large number’ of fragments (p. 58), but this still cannot be on anything approaching the scale of the local grey wares. Lamb saved her more detailed synthesis of the grey wares for the article in JHS 1932 (n. 21).

²¹⁸ Schiering's report of the Boehlau excavations at Pyrrha again almost takes for granted the knowledge that the grey wares formed the bulk of the ceramic material on the so-called ‘temple terrace’ of the acropolis (and probably the majority of the pottery from the whole site): Schiering, 348 and C. Boehringer, pers. comm.; some of these grey wares were discussed in the preliminary study of Lamb (n. 21), 1–12; see also Bayne, 245–6.

²¹⁹ Mytilene: Williams and Williams 1988, 139, 146–7; 1989, 175, 177–8; 1990, 189–90; 1991, 181, 184–8 (for the large amounts of grey ware on the acropolis, almost the sole ceramic evidence for the late archaic and early classical periods in this part of the town, and for the archaic and classical levels on the lower town site including large amounts of grey ware). Methymna: BSA, W. Lamb archive, Methymna 1 and plans 2–3; the rarity of imported archaic pottery at the site is also noted by Buchholz, 93–4, 102–5 (and pl. 17 b–f), who published the few late Protocorinthian, E. Greek, and Attic sherds from Lamb's excavations together with his own surface finds.

²²⁰ For the high proportion of grey wares in the classical strata at Mytilene (even higher than the proportion in the archaic levels) see Williams and Williams 1988, 146; 1989, 178; 1991, 181; for the Geometric and archaic sequences at Antissa see Lamb, Antissa 1931–2, 51.

²²¹ Hom. Il. xxiv. 544.

²²² Diod. v. 57. 2; 81. 3. The traditions of Makar's colonization of Lesbos seem to be deliberately distinguished in the sources from the first ‘Greek’ presence in the island (the latter was achieved by Lesbos, son of Lapithes, after whom the island was named, v. 81. 5–6). Instead, Makar is associated with the (non-Greek) place names Mytilene and Methymna, who are his only two named daughters in the version preserved by Diodorus (v. 81. 7). This evidence suggests that Makar was a figure whose origins were vague even to the Greeks when they arrived in the island, and that they later used him in myth to explain features such as toponyms which also predated their arrival and were incomprehensible to them, distinguishing him in legend from any Greek activity in the island.

²²³ The references for this tradition in the literary sources are collected by Bérard (n. 30), 22–8.

²²⁴ Campbell (n. 186), Sappho fr. 71, Alkaios frs. 70, 75, 302; Arist. Pol. 1311 b 23–31.

²²⁵ Diog. Laërt. i. 81 ἡ γυνὴ [τοῦ Πιτταϰοῦ]...ἦν Δράϰοντος ἀδελφῆ τοῦ Πενθίλου, σφόδρα ϰατεσοβαρεύετο αὐτοῦ.

²²⁶ Ibid. i. 74 Πιτταϰὸς ῾Yρραδίου Μυτιληναῖος. φησὶ δὲ Δοῦρις τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ Θρα̨̃ϰα εἶναι Suid. s.v. Πιτταϰὸς Μυτιληναῖος υἱὸς Καϊϰοῦ ἢ Ὑρραδίου Θρᾳϰός Bremer, J. M., Kip, A. M. van Erp Taalman, and Slings, S. R., Some Recently Found Greek Poems (Mnemosyne supp. 99. Leiden, 1987), 101Google Scholar (Cologne Papyrus 2021 col. ii l. 47). Tradition held that Pittakos’ father had been βασιλεύς or τύραννος in Mytilene (Herodian, , Gr. ii. 858. 28Google Scholar), and if Hyrrhas had already attained such an eminent position, Alkaios’ slur of ϰαϰοπατρίδας on Pittakos (Arist. Pol. 1285 a 39) must therefore be a reference to his foreign ancestry rather than any idea that he was of low birth: see Page, 169–71.

²²⁷ Page (n. 9); Campbell (n. 186), Sappho frs. 39 (imports of Lydian leatherwork), 96 (freedom of movement between Lesbos and Lydia); Alkaios fr. 69 (and 306, a commentary on fr. 69, concerning Lydian interference in the factional disputes at Mytilene). For imports of Lydian ceramics to Mytilene see Schaus, G. P., ‘Imported west Anatolian pottery at Gordian’, Anatolian Studies, 42 (1992), 154 n. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²²⁸ Morris, pers. comm. (1993); Page 230.

²²⁹ Morris, ibid.

²³⁰ Page 209–23.

²³¹ Campbell (n. 186), Sappho fr. 94 a, b.

²³² Strabo, xiii. 600; Diog. Laërt. i. 74.

²³³ DeVries, K., ‘Greeks and Phrygians in the early iron age’, in DeVries, K. (ed.), From Athens to Gordion: The Papers of a Symposium for R. S. Young Held at the University Museum, Pennsylvania (3 May 1975) (Pennsylvania, 1980), 40–2Google Scholar, made the interesting observation that some features of Phrygian culture were very similar to those portrayed in the world of Homer. For the idea that funerary complexes in archaic Attica were deliberate evocations of the burials of Homeric heroes see Whitley (n. 140).

²³⁴ Aksik, I., ‘Recent archaeological research in Turkey’, Anatolian Studies, 21 (1971), 49–50.Google Scholar