¹ I am most grateful to the Council of the British School at Athens for permission to rcpublish Aetos 600 and to study excavation records from Aetos, and to the Ephor and staff of the 6th Ephorate, Patras, for permission to study in Vathy Museum and for practical assistance. Professor Giorgio Buchner kindly invited me to study and publish the Pithekoussai material (with the kind permission of the Soprintcndente, Dr De Caro), and was most generous with his academic assistance and hospitality on Ischia. I also thank Sarandis and Nancy Symeonoglou for their hospitality on Ithaka and for much helpful discussion. Nicolas Coldstream and Maria Kosmopoulou kindly commented on earlier drafts of the text. Richard Nicholls offered valuable guidance at the outset of this study. The former Archivist of the BSA, Anne Sackett, assisted me in consulting Sylvia Benton's papers, now held in the School. Photographs of Aetos 600 are by Doug Gaubatz (Aetos Excavations, Washington University in St. Louis), and those of Pithekoussai material by the author. Drawings are by the author unless otherwise noted; I am grateful to Immo Beyer and Martin Robertson for permission to reproduce FIGS, I and 7. Financial support for travel to Ischia was provided by the School of Humanities, King's College London.

The following special abbreviations have been used:

Benson 1995 = Benson, J. L., ‘Human figures, the Ajax Painter, and narrative scenes in earlier Corinthian vase painting’, in Carter, J. and Morris, S. P. (eds), The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (Austin, 1995), 335–62Google Scholar.

Benton 1953 = Benton, S., ‘Further excavations at Aetos’, BSA 48 (1953), 255–361Google Scholar.

Beyer 1976 = Beyer, I., Die Tempel von Dreros und Pumas A (Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar.

Buchner 1970- 1 = G. Buchner, ‘Recent work at Pithekoussai (Ischia), 1965–71’, AR 1970–71, 63–7.

CGA = Courbin, P., La Ceramique géométnque de l'Argolide (Paris, 1966)Google Scholar.

Coldstream 1981 = Coldstream, J. N., ‘Some peculiarities of the Euboean Geometric figured style’, ASA 59 (1981), 241–9Google Scholar.

Isthmia, viii = C. Morgan, Isthmia, viii. The Late Bronze Age Settlement and Early Iron Age Sanctuary (Princeton, 1999)Google Scholar.

Kahil 1979 = Kahil, L., ‘Une “ronde” sur un col d'amphore Eubéen’, in Cambitoglou, A. (ed.), Studies in Honour of Arthur Dale Trendall (Sydney, 1979), 97–101Google Scholar.

Mazarakis Ainian 1997 = Ainian, A. Mazarakis, From Rulers' Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 BC) (SIMA 121; Jonsered, 1997)Google Scholar.

Mersereau 1991 = Mersereau, R., ‘Prehistoric Architectural Models from the Aegean’ (Ph.D. diss., Bryn Mawr College, 1991)Google Scholar.

Morgan 1999 = Morgan, C., ‘The human figure in eighth century Corinthian vase painting’, in Puig, M.-C. Villanueva, Lissarague, F., Rouillard, P., and Rouverct, A. (eds), Céramique el peinture grecques (Paris, 1999), 279–87Google Scholar.

Pithekoussai, i = Buchner, G. and Ridgway, D., Pithekoussai, i. La Necropoli: Tombe 1–723 scavate dal 1952 al 1961 (Rome, 1993)Google Scholar.

Robertson 1948 = Robertson, M., ‘Excavations in Ithaka V: the Geometric and later finds from Aetos. The finds’, BSA 43 (1948), 9–124Google Scholar.

Schattner 1990 = Schattner, T. G., Gnechische Hausmodelle. Untersuchungen zur frühgnechischen Architektur (Berlin, 1990)Google Scholar.

² Robertson 1948, 101–2, cat. 600 (Ithaka, Vathy Museum 244). Schattner 1990, 28-9 for a list of sherds and their positions, including a full and correct reconstruction of the roof (contra Beyer 1976, fig. 25, here FIG. 1).

³ See e.g. Williams, C. K. II, ‘Demaratus and early Corinthian roofs’, in Στήλη: Τόμος εἰς μνήμην Νικολάου Κοντολέοντος (Athens, 1980), 346Google Scholar; Heiden, J., Korinthische Dachziegel (Frankfurt, 1987), 24–5Google Scholar; Robinson, H. S., ‘Roof tiles of the early seventh century BC’, AM 99 (1984), 58Google Scholar; Cook, R. M., ‘A note on the origin of the triglyph’, BSA 46 (1951), 50 n. 6Google Scholar; id., ‘The archetypical Doric temple’, BSA 65 (1970), 1 n. 1; Roebuck, M. C., ‘Archaic architectural terracottas from Corinth’, Hesp. 59 (1990), 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Significant objections to the identification of tiles on such a steeply pitched roof have been raised by Williams and Cook, cited above, also Wikander, O., ‘Ancient roof-tiles use and function’, Op. Ath. 17 (1988), 205Google Scholar n. 21; Winter, N., Greek Architectural Terracottas (Oxford, 1993), 18Google Scholar n. 24 (probably thatched).

⁴ It is thus listed by McDonald, W., Coulson, W., and Rosser, J. (eds), Nichoria, iii. Dark Age and Byzantine Occupation (Minneapolis, 1983), 40Google Scholar.

⁵ See e.g. Felten, F., Griechische tektonische Friese archaischer und klassischer Zeit (Waldsassen, 1984), 30Google Scholar, pl. 10. 1, 2, who cites it as a precursor of a sequence of painted buildings beginning with the temples at Isthmia and Corinth; also Broneer, O., Isthmia, i: Temple of Poseidon (Princeton, 1971), 35 n. 32Google Scholar. Many others merely mention its existence: e.g. Drerup, H., Gnechische Baukunst in geometrischer Zeit (Arch. Horn. IIO; Göttingen, 1969), 074Google Scholar; Lorimer, H. L., Homer and the Monuments (London, 1950), 418Google Scholar.

⁶ R. V. Nicholls (pers. comm.); see also his review of Drerup (n. 5), in Gnomon, 44 (1972), 703Google Scholar, and his ‘Greek votive statuettes and religious continuity, c. 1200–700 BC’, in Harris, B. F. (ed.), Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E. M. Blaiklock (Auckland, 1970), 16Google Scholar and n. 194. Schattner 1990, cat. 4 n. 28.

⁷ Beyer 1976, 26, 40–1, and n. 90.

⁸ e.g. by Felten (n. 5) and Broneer (n. 5); the only published critique is Schattner 1990, 30 (I thank Dr Beyer for communicating his response, pers. comm.).

⁹ See Nicholls (both n. 6) and subsequently Schattner 1990, 29–31.

¹⁰ See also Schattner 1990, 30 n. 28, who comments on their lack of fit within the model. It is impossible to reconstruct their form, but EPC kalathoi are more common than stands and the overall scale of both pieces might make this the more likely. The fact that the ‘lintel’ sherd is 2.7 cm long and has no discernible curvature over its length cannot serve as an argument in either direction: the EPC kalathos, Isthmia, viii, cat. 465, is 2.9 cm long and equally flat.

¹¹ Nicholls (both n. 6); Schattner 1990, 30 n. 30.

¹² A: 7.5 YR 7/4. B: 7.5 YR 7/6 (5 YR 7/6 on base), c: between 7.5 YR 7/4 and 7/6. D: 7.5 YR 7/6 (section and base vary between 5 YR 7/6 and 6/6).

¹³ Robertson 1948, no. 359.

¹⁴ Salmon, J., ‘The Heraeum at Perachora and the early history of Corinth and Megara’, BSA 67 (1972), 186Google Scholar, proposes a Corinthian origin both for these sherds and for the roof, on the grounds of fabric. This is surprising, not least because mica is not attested in Corinthian fabric and the slip is also a distinctive local trait. By contrast Nancy Symeonoglou, Richard Nicholls (pers. comm.), and I all accept that the roof and the body sherds (excluding the two kalathos fragments) are Ithakan: a full study of Ithakan Geometric is being prepared by Nancy Symeonoglou.

¹⁵ Robertson 1948, 101–2.

¹⁶ Salmon (n. 14), 171–91, offers a full discussion (and refutation) of Payne's identification of the Perachora models, amongst other finds, as Argive; he too discusses and rejects Robertson's identification of the fabric of the Ithaka model, although his alternative attribution to Corinth cannot be sustained.

¹⁷ e.g. by Courbin, CGA 248, 552, who questions the Argive origin of the Perachora models but not that of Aetos.

¹⁸ A photograph of the model appears in Buchner, G. and Gialanella, C., Museo archeologico di Pithecusa, isola d'Ischia (Rome, 1994), 62, fig. 28Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Bibliography on winged horses is extensive: Amandry, P., ‘Plaques d'or de Delphes’, AM 77 (1962), 35–71Google Scholar offers a thorough review of work on a number of winged species (39–42 on horses). Bellerophon: Cornell, G. Ahlberg, Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art (SIMA 100; Jonsered, 1992), 118–21Google Scholar, noting (121) Robertson 1948, cat. 31, 14-17, fig. 7, pl. 14.

²⁰ e.g. Voyatzis, M. E., ‘Votive riders seated side-saddle at early Greek sanctuaries’, BSA 87 (1992), 263Google Scholar, lig. 4 (Olympia B1750).

²¹ See e.g. J. H. Crouwel and V. Tatton-Brown, ‘Ridden horses in Iron Age Cyprus’, RDAC 1988, 84–5.

²² It has, however, been advocated by Paul Courbin, CGA 420 n. 5; Courbin gives a list of possible rider poses but unfortunately cites only Aetos 600 (which, as noted, he accepts as Argive) to exemplify the leg bent up onto the horse's back. He further identifies the lines beneath the horse as part of an Argive-stylc fish, a suggestion which seems implausible, not least given a lack of parallels for the partial illustration of something that so little resembles a fish. As comparanda for the fish, Courbin cites examples illustrated by Roes, A., ‘Fragments de poterie géométrique trouvés sur les citadelles d'Argos’, BCH 57 1953)Google Scholar, Pl. 24, none of which bear any resemblance to Aetos 600A, where there is no preserved evidence of filling ornament.

²³ Robertson 1948, 102.

²⁴ Olympia B1750 (see n. 20) shows a similar discrepancy in height between the front and rear parts of the saddle, although this is not quite so pronounced.

²⁵ Voyatzis (n. 20), with full bibliography and discussion of Late Bronze Age and Cypriot evidence.

²⁶ Coldstream 1981.

²⁷ Ibid., 245 with bibliography.

²⁸ Buchner, G., ‘Figürlich bemalte spätgeometrische Vasen aus Pithekoussai und Kyme’, RM 60–1 (1953–1954), 51–5Google Scholar for discussion of the iconography and archaeological context (with reference to Mon. Ant. 22 (1913/1914)Google Scholar, cols. 328, 763).

²⁹ Buchner (n. 28), 53.

³⁰ D'Agostino, B. and Fratta, F., ‘Gli scavi dell'I.U.O a Cuma negli anni 1994–95’, AION n.s. 2 (1995), 204, 207Google Scholar.

³¹ Davison, J. M., Attic Geometric Workshops = YCS 16 (New York, 1961)Google Scholar, figs. 69, 70, attributed to the workshop of the Vulture Painter (p. 150).

³² Tiryns 4268 and 4269: unpublished, on display Nauplion Museum.

³³ AR 14 (1968), 36Google Scholar and fig. 10.

³⁴ Horse scenes from Corinth (unpublished, Corinth Museum): C74 192, Argive, LG II krater, confronted horses; C73 189A, Attic or Boiotian, closed vessel; C50 185, Argive, LG closed vessel, rear of animal; C70 467, Corinthian, LG skyphos, horse with Argive-style ‘blanket’; C72–28, Corinthian, LG krater, Argivizing horse. Isthmia, viii. cats. 322 (Corinthian, LG skyphos), 432 (Attic, LGII/EPA krater), see pp. 281–2 for discussion. Ag. Theodoroi (Krommyon), LG oinochoe: A. Delt. 17 B (1961–1962)Google Scholar, pl. 56 (probably local: Isthrnia, viii, 281–2, 292–3). Chariot scenes from Delphi (see Benson 1995) do not preserve enough of any horse for comparison.

³⁵ Salmon (n. 14), 185–6, although his conclusion that the two pieces may be by the same hand is surely incorrect given the chronological and iconographical discrepancies noted; Johansen, K., Les Vases sicyoniens (Paris and Copenhagen, 1923)Google Scholar, pl. 20. 1. On pose, Buchner (n. 28), 53 with further (if somewhat later) comparanda and discussion of Near Eastern origins.

³⁶ Kraiker, W., Aigina. Die Vasen des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, 1951)Google Scholar, cat. 191; Benson 1995, 342–3, noting a precursor for the motif in the earlier (EPC) silhouette rider on the Evelyn Painter's aryballos British Museum 1969, 12–15.1

³⁷ A: 3.8 cm. B: 1.8 cm (frame line to frame line) or 2.8 cm (angle to groove), c: 2.8 cm (frame line to frame line).

³⁸ Isthmia, viii. 277 81; Morgan 1999, 280–1; Benson 1995, 337 and fig. 20. 6.

³⁹ CGA 488–90, see e.g. pis. 145 (silhouette skirts), 147 (three-quarter length skirts); Coldstream, GGP 141. Noted by Robertson 1948, 43, also CGA 552 n. 6.

⁴⁰ C. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R. Young, Corinth, xiii. The North Cemetery (Princeton, 1964), 35–6Google Scholar, 45–7, Gr. 47–1, T2545, pl. 9.

⁴¹ Isthmia, viii. 279. I am grateful to Nancy Symeonoglou for drawing to my attention the plastic female figure from an oinochoe neck published by Benton 1953, 327, no. 1026, pl. 56 and dated by her to the first quarter of the 7th-c. (chiefly on the basis of the non-figurative decoration of the vessel). This figure wears a long, peplos-like belted robe (although the belt does not appear to hang down as that on our examples), with a checked bodice but a plain skirt. It thus offers little more than a general parallel for the use of a check design, although in view of its chronological proximity to Aetos 163 and 600, it serves to highlight the range of features depicted at this early date.

⁴² Benson 1995, no. 12, fig. 20. 5 a, b.

⁴³ CCA 489.

⁴⁴ The presence of stylized branches in the form of Ms flanking the figure on Delphi 1957/9 (see n. 42) indicates a funerary or other ritual context: G. Ahlberg, Prothesu and Ekphora in Greek Geometric Art (SIMA 32; Göteborg, 1971), 146–51. Short silhouette skirts (without belts) are worn by two mourning women on a handle from Eretria: I. K. Konstantinou, ‘Εκθεσις ἐργασιῶν ἐν Ἐρετρίᾳ’ PAR 1952, 159 fig. 4.

⁴⁵ Robertson 1948, 101–2 noted this as a trait evident on Argive vases with files of figures, but while this is so (CCA 433) it is not unique to the Argolid and accords well with the linear style of drawing evident both on Aetos 600 and the San Montano kantharos.

⁴⁶ Eretria 3275: Kahil 1979. For a male parallel, see A. Andreiomenou, ‘Γεωμετρικὴ καὶ ὑστερογεωμετρικὴ κεραμεικὴ ἐξ Ἐρετρίας. II’, Arch. Eph. 1977, pl. 44 β.

⁴⁷ Compare the crests on Corinthian kraters at Delphi: Benson 1995, especially no. 4, fig. 20. 1 c.

⁴⁸ Snodgrass, A. M., Early Greek Armour and Weapons (Edinburgh, 1964), 5–13Google Scholar (p. 5 for characteristics of depiction). For a further review of helmet depictions, see Ahlberg, G., Fighting on Land and Sea in Greek Geometric Art (Stockholm, 1971), 48–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Johnston, A. W., ‘Geometric squares’, OJA I (1982), 1–7Google Scholar; Jarva, E., Archaiologia on Archaic Greek Body Armour (Rovaniemi, 1995), 61–2Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Benson 1995 no. 6, fig. 20. 2 b and no. 4, fig. 20. 1 b respectively.

⁵¹ Contrast Benson 1995, no. 6 fig. 20. 2 b (Delphi 7408) outline, with the silhouette no. 7 fig. 20. 3 (Delphi 7410) and no. 13 fig. 20. 6 (Corinth C66 216).

⁵² Corinthian included: see Isthmia, viii. 372. For Attic: Davison (n. 31), fig. 36, 49, 119 (all short robes), figs. 48, 51, 54, 55. 57. 59. 69, 77. 98, 102 (long robes).

⁵³ A long silhouette robe is worn by the charioteer in one of the earliest (Sub-Dipylon, LG II A) Attic chariot depictions (British Museum 1899.2–19.1, GGP 55 no. 4, see also 56 n. 2 for the slightly earlier krater Athens 806: Benson, J. L., Horse, Bird and Man (Amherst, Mass., 1970), 51Google Scholar, pl. 13. 1–3, derives this from an LBA prototype. See Davison (n. 31). Tölle, R., Frühgriechische Reigentänze (Waldsassen, 1964)Google Scholar, pl. 6 illustrates the conventional range of short forms worn by ritual dancers; see also the short robes worn by a pair of figures dancing around a shield on a clay ball from the Sala Consilina cemetery, Padula, Museo della Lucania; Wegner, M., Musik und Tanz (Arch. Hom. III U; Göttingen, 1968)Google Scholar, cat. 127, pl. U 6. d. At Aetos, the only other robed male image yet discovered, a plastic male vase attachment which probably dates around the middle of the seventh century (Robertson 1948, 91–2, R557, pl. 41), wears a very different type of robe (a black top with two distinct flaps beneath which separate over the thighs leaving the genitaha exposed) for which Robertson adduces Cretan parallels. Benton 1953, 327 note 483, describes this figure as a rider, presumably on the basis of this dress as there are no further indications to support this.

⁵⁴ See Popham, M., Calligas, P., and Sackett, L. (eds), Lefkandi, ii. 2Google Scholar. The Protogeometric Building at Toumba: The Excavation, Architecture and Finds (London, 1993),Google Scholar preface and p. 20; full publication is awaited.

⁵⁵ Benson (n. 53), 106–7 discusses the development of 8th c. male dress in the context of Bronze Age tradition, but focuses on the charioteers in particular and the development of short kilts.

⁵⁶ Kontorh-Papadopoulou, L., Aegean Frescoes of Religious Character (Göteborg, 1996), 87–8Google Scholar, see e.g. pl. ng (the offering procession from the vestibule of the Palace of Nestor at Pylos, see also Lang, M., The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia ii. The Frescoes (Princeton, 1969), 38 40, 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar). It is striking, in view of the Cretan connections evident at Aetos (which will be discussed in the forthcoming publications of the excavations conducted by the Washington University in St. Louis), that the two notable instances of this occur at Knossos and Pylos. Sakellarakis, J. A., The Mycenaean Pictorial Style in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens (Athens, 1992)Google Scholar, see under cats. 1 (Kopreza, Attica; 2 figures with linked hands) and 4 (Athens, Acropolis; part of cross-hatched skirt with lower legs and feet projecting), with parallels and bibliography.

⁵⁷ For a brief review, Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Harmondsworth, 1954)Google Scholar, chs. 7 and 11 are still useful (see e.g. pls. 143, 146, and 153 for varying evidence from Ras Shamra).

⁵⁸ Ahlberg (n. 48), 73–5, fig. 62.

⁵⁹ Moscati, S., I Fenici (Milan, 1998), 429Google Scholar. See also Niemeyer, H.-G., ‘Die Phönizier und die Mittelmeerwelt im Zeitalter Homers’, JRGZM 31 (1984), 62–9Google Scholar on translations of the iconography of ritual and priesthood (citing mainly slightly later Iberian evidence).

⁶⁰ Boardman, J. and Buchner, G., ‘Seals from Ischia and the lyre-player group’, Jdl 81 (1966), 162Google Scholar (44 on dress); J. Boardman, ‘The lyre-player group of seals: an encore’, AA 1990, 1–17; id., ‘Orientalia and orientals on Ischia’, in B. D'Agostino and D. Ridgway (eds), ΑΠΟΙΚΙΑ. I più antichi insediamenti greci in occidente: funzioni e modi dell'organizzazione politica e sociale (AION, n.s. 1; Naples, 1994), 95–100; Huber, S. ‘Érétrie et la Méditerranée à la lumière des trouvailles provenant d'une aire sacrificielle au Nord du sanctuaire d'Apollon Daphnéphoros’, in Bats, M. and D'Agostino, B. (eds), Euboica. L'Eubea e la presenza Fuboica in Calcidica e in occidente (Naples, 1998), 114–18Google Scholar (noting fig. 2, pp. 114–15, procession with music, where the hem area of the robes is much reduced). While the above authors argue for North Syrian manufacture, the case for a Rhodian workshop operated by North Syrian craftsmen is restated by Martelli, M., ‘La stipe votiva dell'Athenaion di Jalysos: un primo bilancio’, in Dietz, S. and Papachristodoulou, I. (eds), Archaeology in the Dodecanese (Copenhagen, 1988), 110–12Google Scholar (with bibliography). The key issues in this present discussion, the origin of the imagery and its existence on Ithaka and Pithekoussai, are not disputed.

⁶¹ See e.g. Tölle (n. 53), 74–6.

⁶² Jung, H., Thronende und sitzende Göiter (Bonn, 1982), 70–1Google Scholar and n. 391. The base erroneously restored at the bottom of this line by Beyer derives from a misreading of an inclusion pit, as is evident on FIGS. 2, 3.

⁶³ Boardman and Buchner (n. 60), 22–3 (26 8 for Aetos catalogue).

⁶⁴ No such piece is evident on Robertson 1948, pl. 45 f, or in the storeroom of Vathy Museum. Beyer's study postdates the 1953 earthquake, which severely damaged the old museum and its holdings (see Kalligas, P. G., ‘Ἀρχαιολογικὰ εὐρήματα ἀπὸ τὴν Ἰθάκη’, Κεϕαλληνιακὰ Χρονικὰ, 3 (1978–1979), 45–7Google Scholar), the only occasion after the Occupation when material was damaged or lost on a large scale, and so 1 doubt the existence of any further fragment.

⁶⁵ However, C is unlikely to belong beside an angle in view of the thin section.

⁶⁶ Schattner 1990, 30 n. 28 states that the wall sections were not made in the usual ‘plate technique’ (described in his ch. 4), but rather in one piece. While this is possible, there seems to be insufficient evidence to demonstrate exactly how the piece was made since there is ample scope for lost joins.

⁶⁷ Robertson 1948, 102; Schattner 1990, 200–10.

⁶⁸ Reproduced in mirror image in relation to Robertson 1948, pl. 45 c.

⁶⁹ Nicholls 1970 (n. 6); Schattner 1990, 30 n. 28.

⁷⁰ Brümmer, E., ‘Griechische Truhenbehälter’, Jdl 100 (1985), 1–168Google Scholar for a review of the evidence (for PG and G examples, see figs. 2, 4, 5). The Late Geometric and Archaic examples which she cites, mainly from Cyprus, bear no resemblance to Aetos 600.

⁷¹ Ibid., 4–22 for a review of terminology and literary attestations.

⁷² As e.g. Ohly, D., Griechische Goldbkche des 8. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Berlin, 1953)Google Scholar, pl. 16.

⁷³ Compare the arrangement of e.g. ibid., figs. 18–20.

⁷⁴ S. and N. Symeonoglou (pers. comm.).

⁷⁵ Auberson, V., ‘La rcconstitution du Daphnéphoreion d'Érctrie’, AK 17 (1974), 60–8Google Scholar (I am grateful to J. J. Coulton for discussion of this reconstruction, noting that emendations do not bear on the issue of the presence of internal and external wall posts); McDonald el al. (n. 4), 30–9, fig. 2. 23, see 50 for unit IV–5.

⁷⁶ Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 105–6, 253: Klein, J., ‘A Greek metalworking quarter’, Expedition, 14 (1972), 36Google Scholar, fig. 3; Buchner 1970–1, 64–6.

⁷⁷ Mersereau 1991, esp. 227 9, 264–313 (on post-palatial and post-Minoan Crete).

⁷⁸ Catling, R. W. V., ‘A fragment of an Archaic temple model from Artemis Orthia, Sparta’, BSA 89 (1994), 269–75Google Scholar; id., Archaic Lakonian architecture: the evidence of a temple model’, BSA 90 (1995), 317–24.

⁷⁹ Morgan 1999; Benson 1995.

⁸⁰ The excavation notebooks held in the BSA archives do not mention it, and little can therefore be added to the general description of the excavation given by Heurtley, W., ‘The Geometric and later finds from Aetos: Introductory note’, BSA 43 (1948), 1–8Google Scholar. Trench designations are marked in pencil on the back of the sherds as follows (I am grateful to Nancy Symconoglou for the information added as scholia): A = Lower Deposit 1932, BX, 3.20 [trench BX not located, though vessels designated Upper or Lower deposit should be associated with deposits between walls 6 and 7]. B = BI west, 5–7[?] and BII west 1–1.50 [trenches not located; not among the B trenches mentioned by Heurtley]. C: no further information. D: 1934 D[cposit?] East, Be [? or d; not located although likely to come from the eastern part of the British excavation area]. In general, items that lack further designation in Robertson 1948 probably come from the area between terrace walls 7 and 11. It is therefore clear that all of the fragments come from the central cult area; and while they were scattered in different trenches, this is not unusual at Aetos, since the site has been regularly disturbed and pots are frequently restored from disparate locations (N. Symeonoglou, pers. comm.).

⁸¹ Robertson 1948, 102.

⁸² CGA 488–90; GGP 141.

⁸³ On C66 216, which is a LG shape; see also Isthmia, viii. cat. 371 and pp. 277–8 n. 87.

⁸⁴ Pithekoussai, i. 31–2; Ridgway, D., The First Western Greeks (Cambridge, 1992), 4–6Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Benton in particular tended to characterize Ithakan fabrics as redder and to treat pale fabrics as Corinthian (Benton 1953, 265–6). However, local production in a pale, Corinthian-like fabric, which is generally much softer-fired (and with results that are lighter in weight), is amply attested, notably by the existence of kiln debris (e.g. the test piece Robertson 1948, no. 359, noted as similar in fabric to Aetos 600A) and the appearance of potters’ marks of the Kandyliotis workshop on vases in such fabric (including pieces from Vitsa and Perachora previously considered Corinthian); PAE 1992, 294. Nancy Symeonoglou is currently preparing to publish these marks and I thank her for sìght of her manuscript; I concur in her view that the majority of 8th-c. vessels found on Ithaka were made locally. Sec also Morgan, C., ‘Some thoughts on the production and consumption of Early Iron Age pottery in the Aegean’, in Crielaard, J.-P., van Wijngaarten, G.-J., and Stissi, V. (eds), The Complex Past of Pottery (Amsterdam, 1999), 231–4Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ The burial is unpublished; I am grateful to Dr Buchner for this information.

⁸⁷ Robertson 1948, cat. 491, 79, pl. 34, cat. Bi, 114, pl. 46.

⁸⁸ GGP 224–5, 229 (221–12 for PG antecedents). Compare examples illustrated by Benton 1953, pls. 45–7 (the majority of which are local); sec also generally Robertson 1948, 63–5 (noting local derivation) pls. 18–21.

⁸⁹ e.g. Weinberg, S., Corinth, vii. iGoogle Scholar: The Geometric and Orientalizing Pottery (Cambridge, Mass., 1943)Google Scholar, cat. 81 (plainware); Stillwell, A. N. and Benson, J. L., Corinth, xv, iiiGoogle Scholar. The Potters' Quarter: The Pottery (Princeton, 1984)Google Scholar, cat. 16, Gr. V (MG II); Payne, H., Perachora, i (Oxford, 1940)Google Scholar, pl. 13. 8, 9; Pfaff, C., ‘A Geometric well at Corinth: well 1981–6.’ Hesp. 57 (1988), no. 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar (also likely to be MO II ). See also the shape distribution data presented by Pfaff, C., ‘The Early Iron Age pottery from the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth’, Hesp. 68 (1999), 68–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, table 1.

⁹⁰ As e.g. Benton 1953, no. 727; see also Neeft, C. W., ‘Observations on the Thapsos class’, MEFRA 93 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, table 3.

⁹¹ e.g. Heilmcyer, W.-D., ‘Wagenvotive’, 01. Ber., x (Berlin, 1981), 69 fig. 43Google Scholar.

⁹² Brunnsåker, S., ‘The Pithecusan shipwreck’, Op. Rom. 4 (1962), 208 n. 1Google Scholar; Crouwel, J. H., Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece (Amsterdam, 1992), 30–1Google Scholar.

⁹³ Morgan 1999: Benson 1995, 335–9.

⁹⁴ These are quite unlike the crested helmets on the Pithekoussai shipwreck krater: Brunnsåker (n. 92), figs. 6, 7.

⁹⁵ As e.g. Heilmeyer, W.-D., 01. Forsch., vii: Frühe olympische Tonfiguren (Berlin, 1972), no. 174Google Scholar, pl. 28.

⁹⁶ Morgan 1999 for review of Corinthian figure scenes. Chariots: Benson 1995, 336–7 nos. 4–6, noting also fragments of warrior figures nos. 7, 11. No. 4 shows two figures on a chariot with a clear superstructure plus a third figure with a javelin; no. 5 shows a section of the superstructure of the front of the chariot with the legs of one occupant; no. 6 shows a helmeted warrior with part of the mane of a horse.

⁹⁷ Davison (n. 31); the short-robed cases offer parallels for the dress depicted here.

⁹⁸ Hinrichs, E., ‘Totenkultbilder der altischen Frühzeit’, Ann. Sarav. 4 (1955), 136 43Google Scholar, suggests that at least in the context of funerary depictions, this signifies a chariot race; Crouwel (n. 92), 55 65 for a review of the uses of chariots.

⁹⁹ Coldstream, J. N., ‘A Protogeometric nature goddess from Knossos’, BICS 31 (1984), 93–104Google Scholar, noting also Coldstream's discussion in Coldstream, J. N. and Catling, H. W. (eds), Knossos North Cemetery: Early Greek Tombs (London, 1996), 155, 315–16Google Scholar, fig. 109, pls. 155–6; Pare, C., ‘From Dupljana to Delphi: the ceremonial use of the wagon in later prehistory’, Antiquity, 63 (1989), 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs. 3. 1, 17; Crouwel (n. 92), on pl. 18. 5.

¹⁰⁰ Guggisberg, M., ‘Vogelschwärme im Gefolge der großen Göttin. Zu einem Drillingsvogelgefäß der Sammlung Giamalakis’, AK 41 (1998), 78–80Google Scholar, pls. 15. 1, 15. 3; Bouzek, J., ‘Die frühetruskischen Rindvogelwagen’, in Heres, H. and Kunze, M. (eds), Die Welt der Etrusker (Berlin, 1990), 135–8Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Olympia: Heilmeyer, W.-D., ‘Geometrische Wagen in Olympia’, Ο Ομηρικός Οίκος ― Από τα Πρακτικά του Ε Συνεδρίου για την Οδύσσεια (11–14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1989) (Ithaka 1990), 227–39Google Scholar; id. (n. 91), 59–71. Chariots: Crouwel (n. 92) offers the fullest review. See also Rombos, T., The Iconography of Attic Late Geometric II Pottery (SIMA Pocketbook 68; Jonsered, 1988), 92–131Google Scholar, tabulated on pl. 15; Wiesner, J., Fahren und Reiten (Arch. Hom. IF; Göttingen, 1968)Google Scholar, ch. 2. For Corinthian chariots from Delphi, see n. 96 above.

¹⁰² K. Kübler, Kerameikos, vi. 2. Die Nekropole des späten 8. bis frühen 6. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1970), 484Google Scholar, cat. 77, pl. 73.

¹⁰³ Beyer 1976, cat. 4g, pl. 33. 2.

¹⁰⁴ Ohly (n. 72), EI, 12, and pl. 13. 1, figs. 24, 29.

¹⁰⁵ Tagliente, M., ‘Brocchetta indigena’, in Bottini, A. (ed.) Armi. Gli strumenti della guerra in Lucania antica (Bari, 1994), 79–81Google Scholar n. 14.

¹⁰⁶ Somewhat closer are the horses with high rumps on the Lakonian LG cup pyxis, GGP, pl. 46 j, p. 218, although their backs are much straighter and their legs properly proportioned; indeed, as Coldstream notes, they are closest to contemporary Argive styles. It should, however, be noted that the horse on the base of the Ithakan small oinochoe (Robertson 1948, no. 491) resembles Corinthian much more closely; Robertson (pp. 112–13) regards this as part of a group of small oinochoai which relate both to mainstream Corinthian and to the Cumae group, and which may be the work of one artist or group of artists. This should serve as a further reminder of the stylistic plurality evident on Ithaka during the late 8th and early 7th c.

¹⁰⁷ Noting also Robertson 1948 no. 491.

¹⁰⁸ For a review, see Emiliozzi, A. (ed.), Carri da guerra e principi Etruschi (Rome, 1997)Google Scholar, with a full catalogue of extant remains; see 311–12, cats. 8–10 for remains from Pontecagnano.

¹⁰⁹ J. N. Coldstream, ‘Pithekoussai, Cyprus and the Cesnola Painter’, in D'Agostino and Ridgway (n. 60), 7–86.

¹¹⁰ Coldstream, J. N., ‘Some unusual Geometric scenes from Euboean Pithekoussai’, in Berlingò, I., Cordano, F., Guzzi, P. G., and Lentini, M. C. (eds), DAMARATO: Studi di antichità classica offerti a Paola Pelagatti (Milan, 2000), 92–8Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Morgan 1999; ead. (n. 85), 240 1; Benson 1995.

¹¹² Ridgway, D., ‘The Pithekoussai shipwreck’, in Betts, J. H., Hooker, J. T., and Green, J. R. (eds), Studies in Honour of T. B. L. Webster (Bristol, 1988) ii. 97–107Google Scholar; Brunnsåker (n. 92).

¹¹³ Buchner 1970–1, fig. 8; Coldstream (n. 10), 94.

¹¹⁴ Buchner id. 67, fig. 3, describes them as women with spindles; Coldstream 1981, 242 suggests the Fates (see also id. n. no, 93–4); Kahil 1979 notes similarity with the procession on Erctria 3275.

¹¹⁵ Reichel, W., Griechisches Goldrelief (Berlin, 1942), 39–40Google Scholar, cat. 38, pl. 11. For a ceramic parallel, see e.g. the skyphos from Kerameikos illustrated by G. Wickert-Micknat, Die Frau (Arch. Hom. IIIR; Göttingen, 1982), R35 fig. 4

¹¹⁶ A comparison I have made myself elsewhere (perhaps with undue emphasis on Corinth); Morgan 1999, 280; Isthmia, viii, 279.

¹¹⁷ For discussion and bibliography see Isthmia, viii, 279 nn. 99 and 100.

¹¹⁸ Rombos (n. 101), cat. 304, pl. 68 b, noting that the chequerboard is a favoured motif of this workshop, although this is the only instance in which it is placed on a skirt. For iconographical links between the Burly Workshop and Corinthian human figure iconography, see Isthmia, viii, 278–80. In Corinth, the motif is rare and later: e.g. the long skirt worn by Athena on Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 504 discussed above (Johansen n. 35, pl. 20. 1).

¹¹⁹ Coldstream, J. N., ‘A figured geometric oinochoe from Italy’, BICS 15 (1968), 86–96Google Scholar, (90–1).

¹²⁰ Pithekoussai, i, SpI/5, 697, pl. 235, cf. Coldstream (n. 110), 94; see also Scarico Gosetti 137.27–31, unpublished, local Euboiamzing krater (early 7th c.).

¹²¹ Here one might note the analogous conclusions of B. D'Agostino and A. Soteriou, ‘Campania in the framework of the earliest Greek colonisation in the west’, in Bats and D'Agostino (n. 60), 355–68, who stress the possible links between Kephallenia, Ithaka, and the west, but regard this ‘Corinthian’ circuit as distinct from Euboian circles.

¹²² Pithekoussai: Coldstream, J. N., ‘Euboean Geometric imports from the acropolis of Pithekoussai’, BSA 90 (1995), 251–67Google Scholar. Euboianizing on Ithaka: Robertson 1948, cats. 567–8, pl. 43; C. Morgan, ‘Euboians and Corinthians in the area of the Corinthian Gulf?’, in Bats and D'Agostino (n. 60), 297–9. Benton 1953, cat. 809 is listed as perhaps Argive, but lacks good parallels: the fabric description also seems closer to Euboian (see e.g. Andreiomenou, A., ‘Ἀψιδωτὰ οἰκοδομήματα καὶ κεραμεικὴ τοῦ 8ου καὶ 7ου αἰ․ π․Χ․ ἐν Ἐρετρία’, ASA 59 (1981), 231Google Scholar, fig. 96 for diamond under horse).

¹²³ Ridgway (n. 84), chs. 4, 5 for summary; J. N. Coldstream, ‘Drinking and eating in Euboean Pithekoussai’, in Bats and D'Agostino (n. 60), 303–10. On plates, see Buchner, G., ‘Die Kolonie Pithekoussai und der nordwestsemitische Raum’, in Niemeyer, H. G. (ed.), Phönizer im Western (Madrider Beiträge, 8; Mainz, 1982), 283–90Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ G. Buchner (pers. comm).

¹²⁵ Illustrated in Pithekoussai, i under T150. 1, T152. 2, T354, T438. 1, T474, T509. 1 (part of a figure frieze), T653. 1.

¹²⁶ e.g. Robertson 1948, no. 293, pl. 16 (local kantharos), no. 519, pl. 35 (local Subgeometric oinochoe).

¹²⁷ GGP 107 n. g, noting that the example cited (Pfuhl, E., ‘Der archaische Friedhof am Stadtberge von Thera’, AM 28 (1903)Google Scholar, pl. 33. 7, K34, listed as Protocorinthian) comes from Thera.

¹²⁸ Benton 1953, 292, dark late kantharoi; cf. Ithakan mugs as Robertson 1943, no. 352.

¹²⁹ Pithekoussai, i. T355. 2 (where the fabric is plausibly Corinthian, but could equally be Ithakan) and local imitations from T389, T309A (see also T949, Ischia Museum display). Examples on display in Ischia Museum include inv. 169321, 169317, 169176 from the Scarico Gosetti.

¹³⁰ D'Agostino, B., ‘Le necropoli protostorichc della Valle del Sarno. La ceramica di tipo greco’, AI0N 1 (1979), 65 no. 8Google Scholar, fig. 37; D'Agostino, B., ‘La ‘Stipe dei Cavalli' di Pithecusa’, Atti e memorie della Società Magna Grecia, 3rd ser. 3 (1994–1995), cat. 38, pl. 37Google Scholar.

¹³¹ Morgan (n. 85), 229–34.

¹³² Corresponding to Schattner's ‘rooftile clay’ (1990, 200).

¹³³ Kahil 1979.

¹³⁴ Buchner 1970–1, fig. 8.

¹³⁵ Ridgway (n. 84), 91–3.

¹³⁶ C. Gialanella, ‘Pithecusa: gli insediamenti di Punta Chiarito. Relazione preliminaire’, in Ridgway and D'Agostino (n. 60), 169–204.

¹³⁷ S. De Caro, ‘Appunti per la topografia della chora di Pithekoussai nella prima eta coloniale’, in D'Agostino and Ridgway (n. 60), 37–45.

¹³⁸ Mersereau 1991, 322–3 (highlighting the lack of evidence for architectural scale models or literary evidence for use of models of this period; cf Schattner 1990, 194–7). As she points out (pp. 227–9), if one accepts any one feature of a model as a realistic representation, there is no logical necessity to suggest that the entire model must be realistic; the final appearance will always reflect a balance between architectural representative function and ceramic tradition, as well as the skills and interests of individual craftsmen. For specific comparisons see e.g. Schattner 1990, 173–6 (focusing on Perachora).

¹³⁹ W. Hermann, ‘Archäologische Grabungen und Funde im Bereich der Superintendenzen von Apulien, Lucanien, Calabrien und Salerno von 1956 bis 1965’, AA 1966, 355, fig. 128.

¹⁴⁰ Etruscan: Staccioli, R. A., Modelli di edifia etrusco-italica. I modelli votivi (Florence, 1968)Google Scholar: F. Prayon, Früketruskische Grab und Hausarchitektur (RM Ergh. 22, 1975), 122 el passim (pls 76 8); A. Müller-Karpe, Vom Anfang Roms (RM Ergh. 5, 1959); Danner, P., ‘Tonmodelle von naiskoi aus Kalabrien’, RdA 16 (1992), 36–48Google Scholar.

¹⁴¹ Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 243. I am grateful to Dr Mazarakis Ainian for discussion of the Pithekoussai model, on which we now find ourselves in substantial agreement.

¹⁴² Schattner 1990, e.g. cat. 46, Sellada (Thera), pl. 24.

¹⁴³ Bartoloni, G., Buranclli, F., D'Atri, V., and De Santis, A., Le urne a capanna rinuenute in Italia (Rome, 1987), 109Google Scholar, fig. 85, pl. 48, cat. 177, from tomb 2500 on Landolfi property, Pontecagnano (Museo Nazionale del'Agro Picentino 36299). The tomb context is dated to Pontecagnano Phase I A (first half of the 9th c).

¹⁴⁴ Schattner 1990, 218 n. 524 with bibliography, rightly stressing the fallacy of Müller-Karpe's proposed connection between hut-urns and Cretan models.

¹⁴⁵ Buchner and Gialanella (n. 18), 62, 64.

¹⁴⁶ Ridgway (n. 84), 83–91.

¹⁴⁷ Merscreau 1991, cat. 46, MG—LG model from a Geometric dwelling, apparently in a residential area, in the west court of room R3 of the palace at Phaistos, Crete.

¹⁴⁸ I am grateful to Nancy Symeonoglou for details of this building sequence and discussion of evidence for ritual activity; both will be explored fully in her Ph.D. thesis along with evidence for the identity and nature of the deities worshipped. A summary discussion of building evidence with bibliography is provided by Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 241–2, 309–10. Cult: see also Benton 1953, 259–60; Kalligas (n. 64), 61–2.

¹⁴⁹ The idea of building models as toys (i.e. effective secular in meaning) has rightly been rejected by Schattn 1990, 197, 204, and Merscreau 1991, 329–31. Both agree the they are in certain (and probably varying) senses, ritual objects, embodying the concept of dedicating built sparta (Mersereau 1991, 332–3). There is surely a link between the concept and the idea of the built temple as a votive object (one of several probable routes by which Greek temple building came into being from the 8th c. onwards). For the reason above all, the debate about whether early architectural models represent temples or domestic structures seems somewhat peripheral; the cautious conclusions of Schattn 1990, 210–17 have much the same import.

¹⁵⁰ Fclten (11. 5) and Bronccr (n. 5).

¹⁵¹ Broneer (n. 5), fig. 56.

¹⁵² Ibid., pls. a c; the dimensions of the horse manes, for example, suggest that figures are unlikely to be more than c. 30 cm high (an observation made by John Boardman).

¹⁵³ Buttresses: Gebhard, E. and Hemans, F., ‘University of Chicago excavations at Isthmia, 1989: I’, Hesp. 61 (1992), 28–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ The pottery that provides this date is illustrated by ibid., pl. 13 b.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. e.g. material illustrated by Schattner 1990 (noting that he excludes models of other building forms); Mersereau 1991; Bretschncider, J., Architekturmodelle in Varderasien und der östlichen Ägäis vom Neolithikum bis in das 1. Jahrtausend (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991)Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁶ Hägg, R., ‘The Cretan hut-models’, Op. Ath. 18 (1990), 95–107Google Scholar lists 16 examples, all circular (see fig. 2 a–b for the Archanes model); see also Mersereau, R., ‘Cretan cylindrical models’, AJA 97 (1993), 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar (figs. 25, 26 for the Knossos Spring House model, cat. 18); Mersereau iggi, 264–313. Hägg emphasizes Syrian influences, highlighting evidence from Ras Shamra, whereas Mersereau sees them as products of an indigenous tradition. A later instance of similar decoration occurs on Cyprus: cf. J. Boardman, ‘Θεῖος ἀοιδός’, RDAC 1971, 37–42, and Karageorghis, V., ‘Remarks on a Cypriote “naiskos”’, in Ειλαπίνη: Τόμος τιμητικός για τὸν καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα (Herakleion, 1987), i. 359–62Google Scholar, although this model is variously dated 8th–6th c. and is thus too late for direct comparison with Crete. Post-Bronze Age Cypriote architectural models are generally too late for useful comparison here: see Mersereau 1991, table 6 for a summary list.

¹⁵⁷ Schattner 1990, 53, cat. 21, pl. 2. 1, 85 9, cats. 44–5, pl. 23. I leave out here the ‘Olive tree’ pediment from the Athenian Acropolis (Schaltncr's cat. 51) since its identity as a model seems unclear. I also exclude the pedimental gorgoncion on a model from Artemis Orthia, Sparta; see Catling (n. 78) 321–2.

¹⁵⁸ M. Weber, ‘Ein Tempelabbild in Perachora für Hera Akraia’, AA 1998, 365–71; she notes the existence of three unpublished figurines from the deposit in which the model was found (Payne (n. 89), 33), although these are reported as ‘only three’ (ie. a comment on their rarity in contrast to those of the ‘Limenia’ deposit). Payne catalogues only one (66–7, cat. 304), a well-modelled nude female upper torso from the ‘geometric deposit’ which may be 7th c.

¹⁵⁹ In his long description, first of the ‘temple’ and then of the models, Payne himself, (n. 89), 27–32, 34–51, related the two and saw them as similar in date. Erom this position, it is easy to resort to circular argument, since it is clear that the only satisfactory chronological resolution will be reached by considering the two as separate phenomena in the first instance. On the ‘first temple’: Menadier, B., ‘The Sixth Century BC Temple and the Sanctuary and Cult of Hera Akraia, Perachora’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati, 1995), 77–8Google Scholar (doubting the identification and postulating an EH date); see also Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 63–4 lor a review and acceptance of 8th-c. dates for the building and models. Weber (n. 158) acknowledges the concerns raised by Menadier, but while she accepts that the date of the first temple and also the Perachora models remain to be established (and further acknowledges the possibility of a 7th c. date for the models), she argues that the model and statue reflected contemporary reality. The debate about whether the Perachora model is a ritual or domestic structure has proved long and inevitably inconclusive. The form is clearly embedded within the local domestic tradition: Markman, S., ‘Building models and the architecture of the Geometric period’, in Mylonas, G. E. (ed.), Studies presented to David Moore Robinson (St. Louis, 1951), i. 259–71Google Scholar, though favouring an 8th-c. date, which is less certain. Eighth century architectural evidence from Corinth itself remains fragmentary, Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 255.

¹⁶⁰ Mersereau 1991, table 5 lor Levantine examples; Bretschneider (n. 155) for a catalogue and review of numerous relevant examples, e.g. cat. 57 pls. 60, 61 (Megiddo 2986), see also ch. 6 on religious significance.