² On Early Gycladic stone vases in general see Devetzi, A., ‘Τα λἱθινα Πρωτοκυκλαδικἁ σκεὐη’. (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Athens, 1992)Google Scholar; ead., ‘Η παρπυσἱα των λιθἰνων αγγεἰων ως ἐνδειξη των σχἐσεων των νησιὠν του Βορεἰου Αιγαἱου με τον υπὀλοιπο Αιγαιακὁ χὡρο’, in Doumas, C. and Rosa, V. La (eds), Poliochni and the Early Bronze Age in the North Aegean (Athens, 1997), 556–68Google Scholar; Getz-Gentle, P., Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze Age (Pennsylvania, 1996)Google Scholar. On the stone vases of Minoan Crete see Warren, MSV, and for local practice of the craft in particular, 157–65.

³ On the Egyptian and Minoan imitations of Egyptian vases see Pendlebury, J. D. S., Aegyptiaca: A Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aegean Area (Cambridge, 1930)Google Scholar; Warren, MSV, 105–15; Warren, P., ‘The lapidary art—Minoan adaptations of Egyptian stone vessels’, in Laffincur, R. and Betancourt, Ph. P. (eds), TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, (Aegaeum, 16; Liège, 1997), 209–23Google Scholar; Phillips.

⁴ Doumas, C., Thera: Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean: Excavations at Akrotiri 1967–1979 (London, 1983), 130Google Scholar writes characteristically: ‘The prosperity of sites such as Akrotiri was not based on agriculture aloneh… Trade would have been the life of these communities’, cf, id., ‘Trade in the Aegean in the light of the Thera Excavations’, in M. Marazzi, S. Tusa, L. Vagncti (eds), Traffici micenei nel Mediterraneo: Problemi storici e documentazione archeologica (Taranto, 1986), 233–9, at 236: ‘… the development of an extensive urban centre of Thera, an island with limited resources, can only be understood in its context as a trading-station and shipping centre’.

⁵ Stone vases were luxury items, on account of their small number and special raw material. They were also valuable, on account of the time and effort invested in making them and the consequently limited production.

⁶ In addition to the hundreds of clay vases recovered from this room, bronze objects, two ostrich eggs and sixteen stone vases and lids were found (Thera, v, 20–2, 30, 32, pls. 67–74).

⁷ The problems that the erroneous identification of the raw material and its provenance can cause for the identity of a stone vase, and indeed of unusual type, are pointed out by Lilyquist with reference to the stone vases of Egypt and Palestine (Kamid el-Loz, esp. 134–44).

⁸ For analyses and identifications of volcanic stones sec Einfalt, H. C., ‘Stone materials in ancient Akrotiri—a short compilation’, in Doumas, C. (ed.), Thera and the Aegean World, 1: Papers presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, August 1978 (London, 1987), 523–7Google Scholar; Papatrechas, Ch. and Perdikatsis, B., Πετρολογικἡ Μελἑτη δειγμἀτων ηφαιστειακὡν πετρωμἀτων απἱ τον Αρχαιολογικὀ Χὡρο του Ακρωτηρἱου Σαντορἱνης (typewritten study, Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens, 1987)Google Scholar.

⁹ The determination of the imported stones used for making vases is based on the study of Einfalt, Papatrechas, and Perdikatsis (n. 8), on the recent study of Perdikatsis (to be published) and on Warren's discussion of all the materials used by the Minoan stone vase makers (Warren, MSV, 124–56). On red marble specifically see H. C. Einfalt, ‘Petrological analyses of the bucket-jar from the House of the Ladies, Thera, and of rosso antico samples’, in Warren, Akrotiri, 110–13, at 110.

¹⁰ On the types of marble present in Crete and their use for making stone vases see Warren, MSV, 132–3.

¹¹ Even from macroscopic observation of the finds at Akrotiri two different types of veined marble can be distinguished. In one type the bluish-grey veins form parallel bands of varying width. This material was used for the hand lamp Akr. 3455 (Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera, vi (1972 season; Athens, 1974), 34Google Scholar, pl. 84a), and bore cores such as Akr. 3002, 1844 and an unfinished lid Akr.^*1289 (unpublished, the asterisk denotes the catalogue in which stone artifacts are inventoried). In the other type the bluish veins are diffuse and irregular, and also include orange patches, creating a truly wonderful visual effect. Various vases are made of this material, such as the chalice Akr. ^*1934 (unpublished, PLATE 35 b), as well as waste pieces such as Akr. 3834 (unpublished).

¹² This material was used for an unfinished cylindrical pithos, attesting to its working locally (P. Warren, ‘The unfinished red marble jar at Akrotiri, Thera’, in Doumas 1978 (n. 8), 555–68; PLATE 33 a), a conical rhyton Akr. 1836 (Thera, v, 33, pl. 73b; here PLATE 34 d and fig. 4), a chalice Akr. ^*1864 (C. Doumas. ‘Ανασκαφἡ Ακρωτηρἱου Θἡρας’, PAE 1994. pp. 155 66, at p. 161 and pl. 87b; PLATE 35 a) and a small disc-shaped lid Akr. ^*1799 (unpublished).

¹³ It is difficult if not impossible to identity a stone precisely from macroscopic examination alone. Akrotiri has indeed yielded many finds of white, fine-grained material. In Perdikatsis' recent analysis of ten samples the mineral calcite was identified. One of the samples, from which a thin section was taken, is marble. Consequently those vases which Warren describes as limestone (Warren, Akrotiri, 102) may well be marble too. The pitfalls of identifying stones only from macroscopic examination is borne out by two vases, Akr. 1877, 1876, which Warren refers to as of white marble (ibid. 93), whereas recent analysis by Perdikatsis at the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration has demonstrated that they are of gypsum (see below pp. 19–20).

¹⁴ On serpentine in Crete and its use for making stone vases see Warren, MSV, 138–140.

¹⁵ On the presence and use of gypsum in Crete see ibid. 132. On the identification of gypsum, its presence in Egypt and its use for making vases see Aston, B. G., Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, 5, Heidelberg, 1994), 27, 47 8, 50–1Google Scholar. She notes the existing confusion in the bibliography and the use of the term alabaster for two different but visually very closely related stones, gypsum (calcium sulphate) and of calcite (calcium carbonate). On the use of gypsum in Palestine sec Ben Dor and Kamid el-Loz.

¹⁶ Warren, MSV, 140.

¹⁷ Most of the vases of Minoan type and presumably Cretan origin were catalogued and commented on by Warren (Akrotiri).

¹⁸ The vase Akr. 3835, with badly eroded surface, from room 17 of Complex Delta (Warren, Akrotiri, 99–100, fig. 10). Its material is limestone according to Perdikalsis' analysis.

¹⁹ In the exhaustive study of the cylindrical Egyptian and Egyptianizing vases of Crete, which she dates from the 5th Dynasty to the First Intermediate Period, Phillips, 85 (no. 96) includes the fragment from Akrotiri in the same group. The morphological detail that distinguishes the specific developmental stage of the type is the form of the base. The material and the form of the hollow also preclude a later dating, as proposed by Warren (Akrotiri, 99). He in any case proposed an earlier dating for the Egyptian cylindrical vases of Crete (Warren, MSV, 111). On the development of the type in Egypt see Petrie, SMV, 3–5, pls. vi–xii; Ward, W., Egypt and the Mediterrannean World 2200–1900 BC: Studies in Egyptian Foreign Relations during the First Intermediate Period (Beirut, 1971), 102Google Scholar, fig. 17.

²⁰ The opening of a hole in the bottom in order to convert a vase into a rhyton was a common intervention of Minoan craftsmen in imported stone vases (Phillips, 93; Warren 1997 (n. 3).

²¹ The vase Akr. 183, with very badly eroded surface, from the Pithoi Magazine in Sector Alpha (Warren, Akrotiri, 94).

²² Alabastron is used in Minoan and Mycenaean terminology for clay and stone piriform vases, the majority without handles or lugs. On the clay type see Pendlebury, J. D. S., The Archaeology of Crete (London, 1939)Google Scholar; Betancourt, Ph. P., The History of Minoan Pottery (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar; Furumark, A., The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, 1941), 39Google Scholar. On the stone type see Warren, MSV, 4–6, type 1. Phillips, 49 uses the same term for the corresponding Egyptian type, in order to cover all the variations referred to by various names at various times, depending on the shape of the body, such as drop-, baggy-, pear-shaped. Lilyquist, in her scholarly reexamination of the type as it appears in Egypt and Palestine, considers the alabastron to be Syro-Palestinian (Lilyquist, ESV, 7–9; Kamid el-Loz, 145–6).

²³ Ben Dor, 102, type B, variations 2 and 3. Warren also considers this vase as Syro-Palestinian, primarily on account of the gypsum, and assigns it to Ben Dor's type C of closed vases (Warren, Akrotiri, 94). However the walls in these vases flare upwards, in contrast to the Akrotiri fragment in which they converge towards the mouth, a feature characteristic rather of the body of piriform vases. Unfortunately the surface is so eroded that it is impossible to see traces of carving the hollow, which is for some scholars a further diacritical trait for Syro-Palestinian vases.

²⁴ Warren, MSV, 186–90, pls. 12, 13.

²⁵ Id., Akrotiri, 106.

²⁶ Type 14, according to Warren's typology (Warren, MSV, 34–5). Bibliography on the pilhos in n. 12 above. For the material see also Einfalt 1979 (n. 9).

²⁷ Vessels Akr. 1834. of microdiorite, and Akr. 1897, of hornblende andesite (Warren, Akrotiri, 84, figs. 1, 2), which are associated with variations of the Minoan type of bowl with moulded base (id., MSV, 78–80, type 32).

²⁸ The tripod mortar is a very common type in the Syro-Palestinian region, where it is also rendered in marble. Buchholz, in a detailed study of the type, considered the mortars in Greece, and later those at Akrotiri too, to be imports from there (H. G. Buchholz, ‘Steinerne Dreifußschalen des ägäischen Kulturkreises und ihre Bezichungen zum Osten’, Jdl 78 (1963), 1–77; id., ‘Some observations concerning Thera's contacts overseas during the Bronze Age’, in C. Doumas (cd.), Thera and the Aegean World, ii: Papers and Proceedings of the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978 (London, 1980), 227–40). Warren, in his study of the stone vessels of Crete, ascertained that the tripod mortars were imports, but not from the Syro-Palestinian region, on account of their material which is neither Cretan nor the basalt of the Eastern examples (MSV, 115–16). His study of the mortars at Akrotiri, which he assessed as ‘one part of the dacitc industry of the island’ also confirmed the Theran provenance of the Cretan ones (Akrotiri, 108).

²⁹ Amphora Akr. 3767 (S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera, vii (1973 season; Athens, 1976) 30, pl. 49 b). On its date see Buchholz 1980 (n. 28), 228, with relevant bibliography. Amphora Akr. 7577 (Doumas 1994 (n. 12), 161, pl. 83 b). On the ostrich eggs see Thera, v, 22, 35, pl. 36 b; Buchholz 1980 (n. 28), 230; I. Sakellarakis, ‘The fashioning of ostrich-egg rhyta in the Creto-Mycenaean Aegean’, in D. A. Hardy with C. G. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis, P. M. Warren (eds), Thera and the Aegean World, iii: Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Sanlorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989 (London, 1990), 285–308.

³⁰ Clay vessels Akr. 6824 and 6825 (C. Doumas, ‘Ανασκαφἡ Θἡρας’, PAE 1990, 224–35, at 229 and pl. 140 b; id., ‘Ανασκαφἡ Ακρωτηρἱου Θἡρας ’, PAE 1992, 176–88, at 180 and pl. 75 a). These objects resemble Egyptian stone tables (Petrie, SMV, 5–6, pl. XIV; A. El-Khouli, Egyptian Stone Vessels, Predynastic Period to Dynasty III: Typology and Analysis (Mainz, 1978), class xxxiii, pls. 123–6), and the white slip coating their surface imitates well their stone models.

³¹ Warren, Akrotiri, 84–5, fig. 1, and 105.

³² On the determination of the material see Warren's discussion under Rhyton (ibid. 98–9).

³³ Akr. 1836 (n. 12). On the type in clay see Marthari, M., ‘Ακρωτἡρι Θἡρας Η κεραμεικἡ του στρὡματος της ηφαιστειακἡς καταστρογἡς’ (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Athens, 1992), 98–9Google Scholar. Although Warren acknowledges that the vase is unique, he believes that it is a Minoan creation because its material was used in Crete for making rhytons (Akrotiri, 99). Marthari believes that the rhyton was made by a Theran stonecarver and modelled on clay rhyta.

³⁴ Akr. 3455 (n. 11). It was considered to be a lamp by its excavator and Warren espoused this view, regarding it as a product of Minoan stonecarving (Akrotiri, 97).

³⁵ Waste pieces of veined marble have been found (n. 11).

³⁶ Chalice Akr. ^*1934 and base Akr. 1849 are of veined marble, chalice Akr. ^*1864 is of red marble (n. 11 and n. 12, PLATE 35).

³⁷ On the clay type of the chalice and its distribution and development see Marthari (n. 33), 86–8. She notes differences between the clay chalices at Akrotiri and the corresponding Minoan ones, as well as details that lead to the conclusion that they imitate models in stone.

³⁸ C. Doumas, ‘Ανασκαφἡ Ακρωτηρἱου Θἡρας’, PAE 1993, 164–87, at 183 and pl. 113 a. No petrological analysis has been made of the material because of the difficulty of taking a sample. Nevertheless it has the characteristic parallel, zigzag veins.

³⁹ The amphora with diametrically opposed vertical handles from the rim to the shoulder appears in Aegean pottery from the Early Bronze Age (in Crete in EM III, Pendlebury (n. 22), 81, pl. XIII 4: d; Betancourt (n. 22), fig. 65). In Egypt handles were not usual on stone vases, except lugs on certain early types such as the globular vase and the small amphores. Handles, horizontal or vertical, appeared on the amphora from the New Kingdom (Petrie, SMV, 13 notes that ‘in fact, handles in general are due in Egypt to foreign influence’, see also pl. xxxiv).

⁴⁰ See Petrie, SMV (n. 39), and Lilyquist, ESV, 10, who remarks: ‘The shape is rare in Dynasty 18 in Egypt’. The best examples of the type are from the tomb of Tutankhamun (El-Khouli, A., Holthoer, R., Kaper, O., and Hope, G., Stone Vessels, Pottery and Settlings from the Tomb of Tut'Ankhamun (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar, pls. 20: b, d, 21: b, 24: a).

⁴¹ The shape of the body was initially tall and slender. The formation of the base and the bottom indicate that the lower part of the vase had broken and was subsequently repaired. Further details will be given when it is published.

⁴² I warmly thank the painter Manolis Zacharioudakis for his valuable help. His knowledge and experience of various materials' behaviour and durability, and his aesthetic taste led him to propose the reconstruction of the vase's original form, with which I am in agreement. On the representations of amphoras in the Theban tombs see Wachmann, S., Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 20; Leaver 1987), pls. lvi: 16–17, lviii: 34–7Google Scholar. A ewer depicted in the tomb of Menchcrresonb has a body of the same shape, pl. LVII: 22. Also Vercoutter, J., L'égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique: étude critique des sources égyplimnes (du début de la XVIIIe à la fin de la XIXe Dynastie) (Cairo, 1956), pls. xlviii, xlixGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ Ibid. 336, ‘Les vases-us’; Wachsmann (n. 42), 67. For further information on the ideogram of the vase and its symbolism see Wilkinson, R., Reading Egyptian Art (London, 1994), 205Google Scholar. For a depiction of the vase see the tomb of Amenhotep (Davis, N. de G., The Tombs of Two Officials of Tuthmossis the Fourth. Nos 75 and 90 (London, 1923), pl. VIII)Google Scholar. Solid stone vases of this type of handleless ewer date from the 12th Dynasty (Petrie, , SMV, 10, pl. xxix: 644, 645Google Scholar). On the corresponding clay type and its development and distribution see Kelley, A.The Pottery of Ancient Egypt. Dynasty I to Roman Times (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, 1976)Google Scholar, pls. 4.18:41, 26.14:95 D-T, 30.11:84h; v, 34.8:95 A L.

⁴⁴ Davis (n. 43).

⁴⁵ Akr. 1872, found in room 16 of Complex Delta (Warren, Akrotiri, 88, fig. 4).

⁴⁶ Warren, Akrotiri, 88.

⁴⁷ Lilyquist, Kamid el-Loz, 145–6.

⁴⁸ For Ben Dor, 97 the chisel marks are one of the technological features of Palestinian creations in gypsum. Lilyquist has refuted him, showing that the use of a chisel or drill is not a local characteristic but depends on the hardness of the raw material (Kamid el-Loz, 146). Moreover, the chisel was also used in Crete for working soft stones (Warren, P., ‘A stone-maker's workshop in the Palace at Knossos’, BSA 62 (1967), 195–201Google Scholar; Evely, R. D. G., ‘Some manufacturing processes in a Knossian stone vase workshop’, BSA 74 (1979), 127–37)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Ben Dor (101) was the first to observe the oval horizontal section of Palestinian alabastra, which according to Lilyquist is a purely local morphological trait, since it also occurs in the early pottery of the Syro-Palestinian region (Kamid el-Loz, 145).

⁵⁰ Lilyquist, ESV, fig. 3.

⁵¹ On the alabastron type see Warren, MSV, 4 and other types that imitate Egyptian models: P359, 367, 396, 399.

⁵² Akr. 1359, found in room 2 of Complex Delta (Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera, iv (1970 season, Athens, 1971), 40Google Scholar, pl. 97 a; Warren, Akrotiri, 94–5, fig. 7, pl. 20 e). The periphery of its mouth is irregular, probably due to the pronounced erosion of the material rather than to an intervention to remove a pre-existing neck, although this cannot be precluded absolutely.

⁵³ He claims that the only close parallels are Ben Dor's type C vases, which are, however, distinctly slimmer, with everted rim and imitate Egyptian types of the Middle Kingdom (Warren, Akrotiri, 94; Ben Dor, 102; Petrie, SMV, pl. xxix).

⁵⁴ The closest stone vase is the barrel-shaped type (Petrie, SMV, 8, pl. XXV, and especially 459, 460; El-Khouli 1978 (n. 30), class III, mainly type J, especially pls. 74:1721, 75:1725, and type L, which includes vases of small dimensions, especially pl. 78:1915, 1920). On clay vases of this type see Kelley (n. 43), pls. 4.7, 42.7:541 p, r, t, 44.10:541 m, r, t, v, w.

⁵⁵ For collected examples see Phillips, 93, sub-type Ia; Warren 1997 (n. 3).

⁵⁶ Akr. 1873, from room 16 of Complex Delta (Thera, v, 32, pl. 73 a, left; Warren, Akrotiri, 89–90, fig. 4, pl. 18 a).

⁵⁷ I refer to Warren's types 8 and 32. Type 8 usually has an everted rim and a raised base, but bowls exist without a formed base, as well as with grooved decoration on the exterior of the rim (Warren, MSV, 21–5, especially a bowl of variety J, from Gournia, 25, D91, P141). Type 32 usually has a raised base but a plain rim, sometimes decorated with grooves on the exterior (ibid, 78, especially the bowls of variety C., P446 from Malia and D243 from Mochlos).

⁵⁸ Warren cites a wooden bowl from Jericho. The similarity in the shape of the body and primarily the use of gypsum led him to suggest a Syro-Palestinian provenance for the vase at Akrotiri (Warren, Akrotiri, 89–90).

⁵⁹ Akr. 1874 (Thera, v, 32, pl. 72 b; Warren, Akrotiri, 98, pl. 22 a).

⁶⁰ Marinatos also describes the lid as alabaster. The damage they have suffered and the considerable erosion of their surface does not permit a secure identification of the material on macroscopic examination alone. Warren bases his argument for their Syro-Palestinian provenance on the lack of parallels in the Aegean, yet cites no comparanda from the Syro-Palestinian region.

⁶¹ Warren, MSV, 68, type 27:B.

⁶² Akr. 1875 (Thera, v, 32, pl. 72a).

⁶³ Warren, Akrotiri, 98.

⁶⁴ On the subject of the rosette in Minoan and Theran pottery see Marthari (n. 33), 321–4, with relevant bibliography.

⁶⁵ Ch. Televantou discusses analytically the subject of the rosette as encountered in the wall paintings at Akrotiri, as well as in examples of the minor arts (Ακρωτἡρι Θἡρας Οι Τοιχογραφἰες της Δυτικἠς Οικἰας (Athens, 1994), 155Google Scholar, no. 51). Two further rosettes, of faience, have been discovered recently; Doumas 1990 (n. 30), 234, pl. 146 b. where the better preserved is illustrated.

⁶⁶ Akr. 1831, from room 16 of Complex Delta (Thera v, 32, pls. 69, 70: Warren, Akrotiri, 89, pl. 17 a–c).

⁶⁷ I refer to the type of shallow bowls with flat base and concave walls, which usually bear two horizontal lugs at rim level (such as bowl no. 386 in the Syros Museum and bowl no. 4363 in the Naxos Museum, Devetzi 1992 (n. 2), 174, drawing 18:168).

⁶⁸ The bucket-jars have horizontal bow-shaped handles (Warren, MSV, 34, type 14). On large ewers the neck and handle are separately worked, as is the neck on rhyta (Ibid., 42 and 84 respectively). Separate parts were usually added to convert imported vases (Phillips, 92–3).

⁶⁹ Akr. 1828, from room 16 of Complex Delia (Thera v, 32, pl. 71 a). Marinates describes il as a pyxis, perhaps with a wooden lid.

⁷⁰ Warren, Akrotiri, 95.

⁷¹ Akr. 1877, found in room 16 of Complex Delta together with lid Akr. 1876. Both are referred to by Warren as marble (ibid. 93).

⁷² On Egyptian lids see El-Khouli 1978 (n. 30), pl. 81:2139, 2184; Petrie. SMV, pls. xii, xxix; Lilyquist, ESV, figs. 8–9. 66, 84–86, 89, 139. On Cycladic lids see Devetzi 1992 (n. 2).

⁷³ Warren, MSV, 68 and 70, type 27.IC6.

⁷⁴ For Warren the chalice is a Minoan type made in a large variety of stones (MSV, 36, type 15). Evans, PM iv. 391 expressed the view that the shape of the chalice ‘corresponds with that of a well-known XVIII-Dynasty type of alabastron’, referring to the type of lotus-shaped handless cup (see Petrie, SMV, 12, pl. XXXII:813 19; Aston, D. A., Egyptian Pottery of the New Kïngdom and Third Intermiediate Period (Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, 13; Heidelberg, 1996), 74Google Scholar, figs. 100.47–52, 127.900, 178.426, 218. e, for the stone and the clay example respectively).

⁷⁵ Akr. 138, from room 1A of Complex Delta (Warren, Akrotiri, 98, as unnumbered).

⁷⁶ Warren, MSV, 68, type 27.IA.

⁷⁷ On Minoan vases outside Crete see Warren, P., ‘Minoan stone vases as evidence for Minoan foreign connexions in the Aegean Late Bronze Age’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Siciely; New Series, 33 (1967), 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A characteristic ease at Akrotiri is the locally produced rhyton of red marble or rosso antico (see above p. 129–31), of which Warren, Akrotiri, 99 writes: ‘Although this magnificent vessel is unique in shape there can be little doubt that it is a Minoan piece from Crete’.

⁷⁸ I cite the alabastra of ‘Egyptian alabaster’ that have been found outside Egypt (for Greece see Pendlebury 1930 (n. 3); Warren, MSV, 112; for Palestine see Ben Dor, 101). Warren similarly writes of the two disc-shaped lids with bow-shaped handle: ‘Given their probable material and absence of any Aegean parallels they may perhaps have a Syro-Palestinian origin’ (Warren, Akrotiri, 98).

⁷⁹ He writes characteristically: ‘All these details show the expert and systematic methods of the stone-cutters. This tradition of the Cycladic marble-artists and craftsmen still persists after three and a half millennia’ (Thera v, 32).

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ Caskey, J., ‘Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961’, Hesp. 31 (1962), 261–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 272 and pl. 98; Warren, Akrotiri, 106; Cummer, W. W. and Schofield, E., Ayia Irini: House A (Keos, iii, Mainz, 1984), 140Google Scholar, especially bore cores nos. 141 a, 216, 217, 556 a, 1091–3, 1186, 1404, pl. 43, unfinished rhyton no. 396, vases of local veined marble nos. 87, 318, 1721, 1501, pl. 42).

⁸² Hemispherical bowl without base, Akr. 1833 (Thera v, pl. 71 b), all the parts of hemispherical bowls with moulded base and grooves on the exterior of the rim (Warren, MSV, type 32), Akr. 423, 1304, 1308 (Warren, Akrotiri, fig. 4), ^*1975, 4373 (unpublished), (fig. 1, PLATE 30 d–e), lid Akr. 138 (unpublished) (PLATE 38 d).

⁸³ Apart from small pieces of white marble, which might be from making vessels though this is not certain, bore cores have been found, such as Akr. 3537, 3913 a, 4644, and waste pieces with drill marks, such as Akr. 4417, ^*1288 (unpublished). The bore core Akr. 4644 is of extremely fine-grained marble (thin sectioned by Perdikatsis) and proves the local working of this material about which much has been said (see above, p. 124).

⁸⁴ I refer to the large andesite pithos (Marinatos, S., Excavations at Thera, iii (1969 season, Athens, 1970), 22Google Scholar, figs 7, 9; on its date see Sotirakopoulou, P., ‘The dating of the Late Phylakopi I as evidenced at Akrotiri on Thera’, BSA 91 (1996), 113–36, at p. 129Google Scholar), to quern-palettes, such as Akr. 184 (S. Marinatos, Excavations at Thera, i (1967 season, Athens, 1968), 38, fig. 54) and to an andesite vessel, thought by Marinatos to be a ‘bench’ (Marinatos 1970 (above), 22, pl. 22.2).