¹ The excavations were supported financially by the British School at Athens, the British Academy, the Russell Trust, the Science and Engineering Research Council, and the University College of North Wales. To all these bodies warm thanks are due. JEJ also wishes to thank numerous individuals who in various ways made this project possible: Dr N. Yalouris, then head of the Greek Archaeological Service; Dr V. Petrakos, Ephor of Classical Antiquities in Attica; Dr E. Kakavoyiannis, then epimelete at Laurion, and other members of the Greek Archaeological Service; Dr H. W. Catling, then director of the BSA, the successive assistant directors of the School, and Dr R. E. Jones, then director of the School's Fitch Laboratory. We also thank the many members of the School, in particular L. H. Sackett, D. Smyth, R. Varian, N. V. Sekunda, and R. C. E. Jones, who assisted in the field during several seasons; Prof. H. F. Mussche and his colleagues of the Belgian School for much practical help; and N. Trikaliotis and S. Dalaretos, successive foremen, and the local workmen whose doughty work brought the ancient remains to light. More detailed acknowledgements await full publication of the site.

Special abbreviation: LA = Conophagos, C. E., Le Laurium antique (Athens, 1980)Google Scholar, page nos. of Greek edn (the work appeared simultaneously in French).

² The analytical work has been made possible through a six-month fellowship at the Fitch Laboratory of the BSA (1987–8) and a continuation of this study through a British Academy Small Grants award; both institutions are warmly thanked. In the course of this work various individuals very kindly made their instrumentation available: in particular, thanks are due to Dr N. Walsh, Dr I. Young, Dr V. Perdikatsis, Dr E. Aloupi, and Dr Y. Maniatis for (respectively) ICP at the Geology Department, Royal Holloway and Bedford College; the Electron Microprobe at the Geology Department, University College London; X-ray diffraction at the Institute for Geological and Mining Exploration, Athens; and SEM at the NRC ‘Demokritos’, Athens. Many individuals offered helpful suggestions, and to all those we are grateful: Dr N. J. Seeley, Dr E. Kakavoyiannis, Mr J. Turner, and the late Professors R. F. Tylecote and C. Conophagos. Thanks are also extended to Mrs E. Louka, Dr I. Whitbread, and the present staff of the Fitch Laboratory. The authors are indebted to Prof. A. Hendry (Department of Metallurgy, University of Strathclyde) for reading and commenting on the MS. It is undeniable that without the cooperation of Dr V. Petrakos and the encouragement and support of Dr H. W. Catling and Dr R. E. Jones, this work could not have been carried out.

³ AR 24 (1977–8), 13–15: 25 (1978–9), 6–7; 26 (1979–80), 17–19; 28 (1981–2), 12–13; 30 (1983–4), 13; ‘Laurion: Agrileza, 1977–1983: excavations at a silver-mine site’, AR 31 (1984–5), 106–23; ‘Eine Erzwaschanlage in Agrileza: britische Ausgrabungen im attischen Silberbergbaugebiet von Laurion’, Der Anschnitt, 1987.4, 142–52. On some architectural aspects see also Jones, J. E., ‘The planning and construction of Attic ergasteria’, in Hoffmann, A., Schwandner, E.-L., Hoepfner, W., and Brands, G. (eds), Bautechnik der Antike (internationales Kolloquium in Berlin vom 15–17. Februar 1990) (Mainz, 1991), 107–15Google Scholar; also A. Delt. 32 (1977), Chr. 43–5; 33 (1978), Chr. 60–2; 34 (1979), Chr. 111–14; 36 (1981), Chr. 73–5; 41 (1986), Chr. 18–19.

⁴ The ancient forms ‘Laureion’ and ‘Laurion’ are found, as well as ‘Laureotikê’ (Plut. Nik. 4. 2), and in the general use probably covered much the same area as the modern name Laureotiki denotes: an area extending roughly N–S from the Plaka pass to Sounion, and E–W from the sea to the Legraina valley. The location of the more specific place-name is not known for certain, but may have been some way inland from the modern coastal town of Laurion (Crosby, M., Hesp. 19 (1950), 194, 214 no. 5, 50–1Google Scholar; 264 no. 20, 41; 276 no. 28, 12; 277 no. 29, 5; 286; 290; Hesp. 26 (1957), 13 no. S5, 7). The modern town grew up as a port to serve the coastal smelteries of the revived mining industry (now defunct), and was at first called Ergastiria (‘workshops’), but was in classicizing style renamed Laurion, appropriately enough.

⁵ Alexandrinus, Hesychius, Lexicon (ed. Latte, K., 1953, 1956), 419–24Google Scholar, on laura, laurê, and Laureia (mines).

⁶ Le Roy, J.-D., Les Ruines des plus beaux monuments de la Grèce considérées du côte de l'histoire et de l'architecture (Paris, 1770)Google Scholar; Dodwell, E., Classical and Topographical Tour through Greece (London, 1819)Google Scholar; Fiedler, , Reise durch alle Thaile des Koenigreiches Griechenland im Auftrage der koeniglichen griechischen Regierung in den Jahren 1834–1837 (Leipzig, 1840)Google Scholar; Russeger, , Reisen in Europa, Asien und Africa (Stuttgart, 1841–1848).Google Scholar Le Roy's view of the Thorikos temple is reproduced in Mussche, H. F., Thorikos: eine Führung durch die Ausgrabungen (1978), 13 and fig. 60Google Scholar; also views by Le Roy and Dodwell in Mussche, H. F., Thorikos: la vie dans une ville minière de la Grèce antique (1986).Google Scholar

⁷ Reitmauer, J., Geschichte des alten Bergbaues und Hüttenwesens (Göttingen, 1785), 51–81Google Scholar; Boeckh, A., Ueber die laurischen Silberbergwerke in Attika (Berlin, 1815), 85–140Google Scholar; Boeckh, A., The Public Economy of Athens: To which is Added a Dissertation on the Silver Mines of Laurion (trans. Lewis, G. C.; 2nd edn, London, 1842), 615–75Google Scholar, with 677–8 (extracts from Dodwell).

⁸ Cordellas, A., Le Laurium (Marseilles, 1869)Google Scholar; Ardaillon, E., Les Mines du Laurium dans l'antiquité (Paris, 1897)Google Scholar; also Negris, P., Laveries anciennes du Laurium (Annales des Mines; Paris, 1881).Google Scholar

⁹ Publications listed in Mussche 1978 (n. 6), 76.

¹⁰ Bremer, M., Une laverie antique du Laurium (Revue de la Société de Penarroya, 1947).Google Scholar

¹¹ Crosby, M., Hesp. 5 (1936), 393–413Google Scholar; 10 (1941), 14–27; 19 (1950), 189–312; 26 (1957), 15–18; Langdon, M. K., ‘Poletai records’, in Agora, xix: Inscriptions (1991), 57–143.Google Scholar

¹² Young, J. H., ‘The Salaminioi at Porthmos’, Hesp. 10 (1941), 163–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Studies in south Attica: country estates at Sounion’, Hesp. 25 (1956), 122–46; ‘Greek roads in south Attica’, Antiquity, 118 (1956), 94–7; Hopper, R. J., ‘The Attic silver mines in the fourth century BC’, BSA 48 (1953), 200–54Google Scholar; id., ‘The mines and miners of ancient Athens’, G&R (2nd ser.) 8 (1961), 138–51; ‘The Laurion mines: a reconsideration’, BSA 63 (1968), 293–326; R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, vii–ix; Lauffer, S., Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion (1955–1956).Google Scholar

¹³ Belgian publications include a series of interim reports (with maps, plans, and illustrations) entitled Thorikos, i: 1963 (1968), ii: 1964 (1967), iii: 1965 (1967), iv: 1966–7 (1969), v: 1968 (1971), vi: 1969 (1973), vii: 1970–1 (1978), viii: 1972–6 (1984), ix: 1977–82 (1990); one volume of the final report, Fouilles de Thorikos, i: Les Testimonia (1978); several guides: H. F. Mussche, Thorikos: A Guide to the Excavations (1974); id. 1978 and 1986 (n. 6); and a series dealing more generally with Attic archaeology, Miscellanea Graeca, i (1975)—viii (1987).

¹⁴ Thorikos, ii: 1964 (1967), 29–30 (litharge in Geometric context); iii: 1965 (1967), 9, 20–4 (in Middle Helladic context); viii: 1972–6 (1984), 151–71 (Early Helladic, Late Mycenaean and late Roman sherds in mine no. 3); ix: 1977–82 (1990), 114–43 (Early Helladic–Archaic working traces in mine no. 3).

¹⁵ Mussche, H. F. and Conophagos, C. E., ‘Ore-washing establishments and furnaces at Megala Pefka and Demoliaki’, Thorikos, vi: 1969 (1973), 61–72.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Miscellanea Graeca, i: Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times (1975), 206–7.

¹⁷ Archaeological Service fieldwork is briefly reported, generally year by year, in A. Delt., ‘Chronika’ (usually vol. B 1 for Attica). For Laurion sites see A. Delt. 18 (1963), Chr. 45–6; 19 (1964), Chr. 73; 24 (1969), Chr. 89–92; 27 (1972), Chr. 147–51; 30 (1975), Chr. 36–7, 48–51; 32 (1977), Chr. 43; 33 (1978), Chr. 60; 34 (1979), Chr. 88–9; 35 (1980), Chr. 75–6; 36 (1981), Chr. 55–6; 37 (1982), Chr. 58–9; 38 (1983), Chr. 54–8; 39 (1984), Chr. 49–55. (No Laurion area entries in 40 (1985), 41 (1986), or 42 (1987), published in 1990 and 1992.) The paucity of details and a lack of plans necessarily limit the use of these reports, and therefore these sites, for comparative studies. Briefer English summaries: AR 17 (1970–1), 6; 24 (1977–8), 12–13; 27 (1980–1), 5; 28 (1981–2), 12; 29 (1982–3), 11; 30 (1983–4), 13; 31 (1984–5). 11; 32 (1985–6), 16; 33 (1986–7), 9; 34 (1987–8), 13; 35 (1988–9), 17–18; 36 (1989–90), 9, 10; 37 (1990–1), 11; 38 (1991–2), 8.

¹⁸ e.g. Liangouras, A. and Kakavoyiannis, E., AAA 9 (1976), 24–44Google Scholar, on work at Gaidouromandraki bay and near Thorikos; Salliora-Oikonomakou, M., ‘Αρχαία αγορά στο Λιμάνι Πασά Λαυρίου’, A. Delt. 34 (1979), Mel. 161–73 (plan)Google Scholar; Zorides, P., Arch. Eph. 1980, 75–84Google Scholar, on washeries N of Thorikos (plans, reconstruction drawings).

¹⁹ The surroundings have changed considerably during the last 20 years. The valley had been forested with pine trees which flourished since the decline of active mining after the second world war. However, forest fires in the mid- and late 1980s swept away the trees and scrub, creating a landscape which probably resembled that of Laurium at the time of its most intensive exploitation, both in antiquity and in modern times. These changes in the landscape caused by the fires prompted a short season of ground surveying and kite photography in spring 1990: AR 37 (1990–1), 12. The forest is rapidly reestablishing itself.

²⁰ The name is that recorded by J. H. Young in his article on towers and enclosures in the Sounion area, Hesp. 25 (1956), 122–46, esp. 126.

²¹ LA (see n. 1)—Conophagos's major work—has maps of the Laurion area, showing known ancient pits in red and marking this pit on the S slope of Mt. Michaili as ‘P. Argentifere’, but without any network of blue or violet lines around it which would denote ancient galleries re-explored.

²² The westerly features only, and the tower to compound C, are included in Fig. 1. For a more detailed description of these westerly ground remains, see Ant. Cl. 45 (1976), 149–72; interim report, AR 31 (1984–5), 106–23.

²³ Mussche, H. F., Thorikos i: 1963, 97–104Google Scholar with plan 6, on laverie no. 1 at Thorikos; Conophagos, C. E., ‘Η μέθοδος τοῡ ἐμπλουτισμοῡ τῶν μεταλλευμάτων τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἑλλήνων εἰς τὰ ἐπίπεδα πλυντήρια τῆς Λαυρεωτιϰῆς’, PAA 29.1 (1970)Google Scholar; also LA 224–47, 375–86. Conophagos illustrates two types of rectangular washeries at LA 234, figs. 10–16: type I with all its channels and basins in front of the stand-tank, type II with its first channel in front but other channels and basins behind. Agrileza washeries A–C are basically all of type I: Jones, J. E., ‘Ancient Athenian silver mines, dressing floors and smelting sites’, Journal of Historical Metallurgy, 18 (1984), 65–81.Google Scholar

²⁴ Illustrated examples of the inclined draining-board may be seen in LA 225; 235; 236.

²⁵ BSA 77 (1982), 195–6; the plan of room V in fig. 2 shows both the shelf inside the tank and the slabs outside in the N half of the room.

²⁶ The discovery in 1979 of terracotta bathtub fragments in the earth fill above room VI suggests the possibility that this base was the surround for embedded bathtubs. Two terracotta hip-baths were found in place in a small plastered room in the compound of washery 2 at Soureza: LA 383, 387.

²⁷ This material, being extremely heavy and showing a crystalline appearance in the break, looked as if it had been set or hardened in shallow hollows or moulds; when found, it was taken to be ‘litharge’ and described as such in earlier interim reports, esp. AR 25 (1978–9), 6.

²⁸ After the forest fires of the late 1980s, three excellent examples of such complete grinding-blocks, still in situ, are to be seen in the corners of the SW corner room of Agrileza B. One is white limestone, two are of a massive ochre-coloured rock, known locally as sideropetra (ironstone); they are visible on the N edge of the trackway at the w end of that compound. Three similar, even more heavily worn stones, set in the corners of the grindery room, are to be seen at Soureza, S of washery 2; cf. LA 227. Others are to be found in the long rooms (AA, AB) on the E side of washery no. 1 at Thorikos; cf. Mussche, H. F., Thorikos, i: 1963, 97–100, plan 6.Google Scholar

²⁹ The hopper quern type of handmill is briefly described and drawn in G&R (2nd ser.) 29 (1982), 176–7, fig. 4. Cf also LA 228–30.

³⁰ Conophagos refers to the former as level or flat (ἐπίπεδα), the latter as helicoidal. In plan the washeries are rectangular and circular respectively. The latter, discovered only relatively recently, differ from the former in shape and possibly in the type of ore they were intended to process: Conophagos, C. E. and Mussche, H. F., ‘Τὰ ἑλιϰοείδη πλυντήρια τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἐλλήνων εἰς τὸ Λαύριον· μία ἀπολεσθεῑσα ἀρχαία ἑλληνιϰὴ ἑφεύρεσις’, PAA 29.2 (1970), 1–21.Google Scholar

³¹ For all stages in silver recovery as practised in Laurion see LA fig. 6. 1.

³² LA consists of a comprehensive survey of the whole field, encompassing a summary history of ore exploitation in the Laurion in antiquity and in modern times, an account of all technical aspects of the industry as interpreted by Conophagos, and a brief review of his excavations, generously illustrated and with useful maps. C. never hid his admiration for ‘the glory that was Laurion’: LA reads in places like a panegyric to the men—freemen and slaves—who made it, in its heyday, possibly the most efficiently run industrial plant the ancient world had known. However, in his attempt to grasp and interpret the whole picture of this very complex industry, and having a metallurgist's approach to the subject, he often relegated field data to a minor position, making it difficult to establish how he arrived at his often ingenious interpretations. Materials such as tailings, litharge, lead ingots, etc., are rarely presented in association with their findspot within a stratified context, but are instead discussed primarily on the basis of their composition and properties alone. Similarly, stuctures like cupellation hearths are freely reconstructed more on the basis of an understanding of the processes in which they might have been involved, rather than actual evidence in the field. Such a holistic approach to the interpretation of a large area spanning a number of centuries of operation was bound by its very nature to create many gaps in our understanding of the workings there. Nevertheless, Conophagos's work, and that of others summarized in LA, does offer us a unique framework on which to build by adding to his observations or modifying them as new evidence comes to light.

³³ Cordellas, A., Le Laurium (Marseilles, 1869).Google Scholar

³⁴ Negris (n. 8).

³⁵ Sagui, C. L., ‘Economic geology and allied sciences in ancient times’, in Economic Geology (New Haven, Conn.), 25 (1930), 72.Google Scholar The washeries similar in structure to those in Laurion that Sagui claims to have seen in the N of Greece, in the Chalkidiki, have actually eluded most researchers.

³⁶ According to Cordelas the finely ground ore was dressed in jigs, a wire mesh for separating ore by shaking it in water, operating within the stand tank. See Kakavoyiannis, E., ‘Μια νέο άποψη για την λειτουργία των πλυντηρίων μεταλλεύματος τῆς Λαυρεωτιϰής ϰατά τους ϰλασσιϰούς χρόνους’, Proceedings of the First Archaeometry Symposium (Athens, 1992), 79–93, at p. 92 n. 9.Google Scholar

³⁷ Conophagos and Mussche (n. 30).

³⁸ Conophagos (n. 23), 1, 6.

³⁹ Ibid. 9.

⁴⁰ Ibid. 8. Conophagos was probably referring to wear on the inside of the funnel-holes and the interior of the stand-tank as well as on the outside.

⁴¹ Trikkalinos, I., ‘Περὶ τῆς μεταλλείας τοῦ ἀρχαίου Λαυρίου· βιβλιογραφιϰὴ ἀνάλυσις, ἐρευναὶ ϰαὶ ϰρίσεις’, PAA 1978) 302.Google Scholar

⁴² Tsaimou, C., Εργασία ϰαι ζωή στο αρχαίο Λαύριο σε εγϰαταστάσεις εμπλουτισμού μεταλλευμάτων τον 4ου αιώνα π.Χ. (Ph.D. thesis, Dept of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, National Metsovion Polytechnic; Athens, 1988), section 4, 289–327Google Scholar; id., ‘Ο εμπλουτισμός του μεταλλεύματος στα επίπεδα πλυντήρια του αρχαίου Λαυρίου’, Proceedings of the First Archaeometry Symposium (Athens, 1992), 67–78.

⁴³ Kakavoyiannis (n. 36).

⁴⁴ Ibid. 86–7, figs. 4–6.

⁴⁵ Ibid. 85.

⁴⁶ Ibid. 86 and n. 20. Kakavoyiannis reports that ‘the sherds amount to thousands’ (p. 86). He stresses that because all sherds had been classified according to vessel type, ‘the statistical figures given are precise and not by approximation’ (n. 20).

⁴⁷ Ibid. 90.

⁴⁸ Tsaimou, C., ‘Τα sluices στο αρχαίο Λαύριο ϰαι η ονομασία τους’, Ορυϰτός πλούτος, 70: 49–56.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Krysko, W. W., ‘The operation of the washeries at Laurion’, in Jones, J. E. (ed.), Aspects of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy: Acta of a British School at Athens Centenary Conference at Bangor (1986) (1988), 93–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. 93. Krysko suggests that the effect was that of the principle of gravitational concentration by the method of shaking-tables.

⁵¹ Conophagos, C. E. and Badeka, E., ‘Αἱ δεξαμεναὶ ὑδατὸς τῆς ἀρχαίας μεταλλουργίας εἰς το Λαύριον ϰαὶ τὸ εἰδιϰὸν στεγανοποιητιϰὸν ἐπίστρωμα τούτων’, PAA 49 (1975), 251–61.Google Scholar

⁵² The reconstruction of the shaft furnaces for lead smelting as they surfaced in Puntazeza, a coastal site in Laurion, has been a matter of debate on account of their ‘complete destruction’. Conophagos himself was pondering over the location of the tuyeres in relation to the height of the shaft (LA 288; 297). In reference to the cupellation hearths which have never been found in Laurion, Conophagos consulted two 16th-cent. authors, Agricola (1556) and Biringucci (1540), who produced invaluable manuals on contemporary methods of metals extraction and processing, and adopted their model for a cupellation hearth (LA 313–14, figs. 12. 1; 12. 2). See also Conophagos, C. E., ‘La technique de la coupellation des grecs anciens au Laurion’, in Maniatis, Y. (ed.), Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium, Athens (Elsevier Press, 1989), 271–89.Google Scholar

⁵³ Tsaimou, C., ‘Ὁ ἀνδρῶνας τοῦ πλυντηρίου Σίμου στὴ Σουρέζα τῆς Λαυρεωτιϰῆς’, AAA 12 (1979), 15–23Google Scholar (with French summary).

⁵⁴ See n. 14.

⁵⁵ Gale, N., Gentner, W., and Wagner, G. A., ‘Mineralogical and geographical silver sources of archaic Greek coinage’, Metallurgy in Numismatics, 1, (1980), 3–49Google Scholar (p. 25 for ref. to Agrileza); Gale, N. and Stos-Gale, Z., ‘Cycladic lead and silver metallurgy’, BSA 76 (1981), 169–224Google Scholar (p. 204 for ref. to Agrileza). The establishment of a distinct Laurion field, based on the ratios of three lead isotopes and the matching of these ratios with those of copper, bronze, and silver objects dating to the Bronze Age, has proved conclusively the importance of Laurion as an active metals-producing area throughout that period. For a recent review of the significance of the lead isotope results on Aegean archaeology, see Stos-Gale, Z. and Macdonald, C. F., ‘Sources of metals and trade in the bronze age Aegean’, in Gale, N. H. (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (SIMA 90; Jonsered, 1991), 249–88Google Scholar, as well as other papers in the same volume.

⁵⁶ For technical refs. to iron and iron-making in the classical period see Varoufakis, G., ‘The iron clamps and dowels of the Parthenon and Erechtheion’, Journal of Historical Metallurgy, 26 (1992), 1–18Google Scholar; Conophagos, C. E. and Papademetriou, G., ‘Η τεχνιϰή της παραγωγής σιδήρου ϰαι χάλυβος από τους αρχαίους Ελληνες στην Αττιϰή ϰατά την ϰλασσιϰήν περίοδον’, PAA 56 (1981), 148–72Google Scholar; also, for a comprehensive overview both archaeological and literary, Pleiner, R., Iron Working in Ancient Greece (National Museum, Prague, 1968).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Conophagos points out (LA 54) that the need may arise in the future to exploit existing slag-heaps, since they contain about 7 per cent zinc and 21–25 per cent iron.

⁵⁸ Wills, B. A., Minerals Processing Technology (4th edn; Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1988), fig. 1. 6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid. fig. 1. 7.

⁶⁰ LA 218.

⁶¹ LA 233.

⁶² Gravitational methods for ore-dressing were the norm in the ancient world. However, hydrometallurgical practices like heap-leaching were also practised, esp. in Cyprus and Spain. The method is suited for mixed sulphide ores. For a description of the process see Koucky, F. and Steinberg, A., ‘Ancient mining and minerals dressing in Cyprus’, in Wertime, T. E. and Wertime, S. (eds), Early Pyrotechnology: The Evolution of the First Fire-using Industries (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC), 149–80, esp. fig. 23.Google Scholar

⁶³ Large particles are those whose diameter is comparable with that of a moving thin film of water. Although water may be running in a channel as deep as 45 cm, like that in washery C, it is only a thin layer at the top that performs the separation. This is due to frictional forces emerging from the channel floor, hampering the movement of water (Wills (n. 58), 402).

⁶⁴ Ibid. 403.

⁶⁵ For a description of how the jigs might have worked based on Strabo's accounts (iii. 2. 8–10) of gold-working in Spain, see LA 417–23, esp. fig. 21. 1.

⁶⁶ Kakavoyannis (n. 43).

⁶⁷ Conophagos reports the following (LA 125). Ore, either galena or cerussite, with more than 30% Pb was sent directly to the smelters. Ore with 7–30% Pb was sent for enrichment, while ore with less than 7% was considered waste to be discarded. Ekvoládes, the waste produced after hand-sorting, usually outside the mine, contained 3–7% Pb. He also writes that in antiquity the charge to the smelting furnaces must have had a silver-to-lead ratio of 12,000 g of silver to a ton of lead, and that this must have dropped with continuous expoitation to 2,000. He states that at the time he was working with the French Company the ratio had fallen from 2,000 g/ton to 1,200 or even 1,000 (LA 146).

⁶⁸ Photos, E., ‘Αναλύσεις εργαστηριαϰών υπολειμμάχτων από την Αγριλέζα Λαυρεωτιϰής’, Proceedings of the First Archaeometry Conference (Athens, 1992), 55–66.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ These pieces were part of the collection of ‘small finds’ and are currently kept in the Laurion Museum.

⁷⁰ M. J. Blackman, ‘The manufacture and use of burnt lime plaster at Proto-Elamite Anshan, Iran’, in Wertime and Wertime (n. 62), 108.

⁷¹ C. E. Conophagos, ‘Concrete and special plaster waterproofing in ancient Laurion, Greece’, in Wertime and Wertime (n. 62), 117–24; J. Mishara, ‘The plasters of the ore washing structures at Laurion’, in Maniatis (n. 52).

⁷² Ibid. 120.

⁷³ In the course of excavation it had been classified as litharge on account of its texture and its considerable weight.

⁷⁴ Photos (n. 68), 61.

⁷⁵ For a review of the various physicochemical techniques applied to archaeology and the potential of application of each analytical method, see Tite, M. S., Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology (Seminar Press, 1972).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Marinos, G. and Petrascheck, W. E., Lavrion: Geological and Geophysical Research, iv (Athens, 1956)Google Scholar; Marinos, G., ‘Αἱ γεωλογιϰαί γνώσεις τῶν ἀρχαίων εἰς τὸ Λαύριον’, Annales géologiques des pays helléniques, 29 (1979), 689 ff.Google Scholar; Paepe, R., ‘Le cadre régional du site de Thorikos’, Thorikos, i: 1963, 10–2Google Scholar; id., ‘Geomorphic surfaces and quaternary deposits of the Adami area (S. E. Attica)’, ibid. iv: 1966–7, 7–52; id., ‘Geoelectrical prospection of the temple site in the Adami plain’, ibid, v: 1968, 9–16; id., with D. Deraymaeker, ‘Geomorphological and quaternary mapping of the Adami-Potami area (S. E. Attica)’, ibid, vi: 1969, 79–99.

⁷⁷ Analysis by SEM involved the characterization of a single phase by spot analysis, or of many phases by area analysis at the desired magnification. SEM area analyses, although not directly comparable with bulk chemical composition, can at least give an indication of the approximate average content of each element sought.

⁷⁸ The entire catalogue of the Agrileza industrial remains will be presented in a future publication.

⁷⁹ We are indebted to Mr D. Turner (Geology Dept, University of Glasgow) for these analyses.

⁸⁰ Samples of slag were collected from near the freestanding cistern to the S of compound C. One or two slag specimens were also collected as surface finds near Panormos bay. The latter samples were most likely associated with contemporary smelting activities nearby, as reported by Conophagos (LA fig. 11. 10).

⁸¹ Conophagos classified litharge into platy, conical, and tubular. Examples of each can be seen in LA figs. 12. 12; 12. 15; 12. 19. The platy litharge was the outcome of skimming off the top surface of the melt during cupellation and its subsequent collection into ceramic vessels (LA figs. 12. 11; 12. 9). Conophagos reports thickness of platy litharge between 1 and 6 cm.

⁸² This material was classified as ‘small finds’ and not included in the collection of samples intended for analysis.

⁸³ Silica is not measured by ICP because of the method of digestion with nitric and hydrofluoric acids. The presence of silica is deduced from the examination of a polished section of the same sample, where silica-rich phases like fayalite have been identified. Silica is also the main constituent of the glassy phase in a slag.

⁸⁴ See n. 71.

⁸⁵ The authors are indebted to Dr R. Evershed (Department of Biochemistry, University of Liverpool) for carrying out the gas Chromatographie (GC and GC–MS) analysis of this sample.

⁸⁶ LA 161.

⁸⁷ LA 252.

⁸⁸ Conophagos writes in LA 273: ‘it seems that (apart from enriching low-grade ores) the ancient Greeks enriched litharge as well. The concentrate they fed together with charcoal in a low hearth’.

⁸⁹ See n. 28.

⁹⁰ Photos, E., Early Extractive Iron Metallurgy in Northern Greece: A Unified Approach to Regional Archaeomelallurgy (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 1987), section 3.4.Google Scholar