Stone vessels represent one of the rarest artifactual categories of Neolithic Greece. Only several dozen specimens (mostly fragmentary) have been recovered from 65 sites. These objects are also some of the least studied; with few exceptions, they are known only through superficial reports. Thus, their potential to shed light on social and economic aspects of Neolithic life remains unexploited. In this article, I address this problem in two ways. First, I focus on a specific stone vase assemblage: that from the well-known site of Franchthi in the north-eastern Peloponnese. This is one of the largest assemblages and is presented here in detail. Secondly, I use the Franchthi assemblage as a point of departure to attempt a synthesis of the available information on Greek Neolithic stone vases.

This article publishes the terracotta thymiateria (incense burners) from Olbia Pontica which represent busts of Aphrodite with Erotes on her shoulders. They were used probably in activities related to Aphrodite's cult for diffusing incense and as votives. They derive from excavations at houses, a stoa and the bothroi (sacrificial pits) at the central and western temene; they date to the period between the late third and the first half of the second centuries bc. The publication of such items coincides with ongoing research into the southern sacral precinct in Olbia dedicated to Aphrodite. This article explores the significance of the iconography of these objects and their use in cult activity related to the cult of Aphrodite at Olbia.

Laconian figurines have been found on four sites at or in the neighbourhood of Sparta: by the British excavations at the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, at the Menelaion, and on the Acropolis at the Sanctuary of Athena of the Brazen House: and by the Greek and, subsequently, the German excavations at the Amyklaion. So far as I know only three archaic Laconian figurines have been found on sites which are not Laconian. Of these, two are from Tegea, a site which was open to Laconian, Argive and Corinthian influences; these two objects will be mentioned below. The third is the late archaic terracotta head from Olympia, which Langlotz classes as Sicyonian, but which is much more akin to late archaic Laconian heads. One would expect that seventh-century figurines of Laconian style would have been found at Tarentum, but as almost no archaic terracottas from that site have been published it is impossible to say whether such exist or no: the few I have seen in Berlin do not present any striking similarity with those from Laconia, although one of them is akin to the Cretan heads of about 625.

Excavations at the Sparta theatre were resumed in 1992: the objective was to survey it and clarify its history. Nine trenches were opened and a catalogue of architectural blocks compiled. A trench in the sw orchestra revealed two staircases; while the seats of honour, the walkway behind, and two or three rows of benches above are preserved, the remainder of the theatre was severely damaged in the 9th–13th centuries. The diazoma's foundations were revealed; below it were ten radial staircases, above seventeen. The lower cavea had thirty-one rows, the upper nineteen. At the top, rows 17–19 rested on concrete over an inner radial wall of concrete-bonded stones; there are traces of a Doric colonnade around the walkway here. The upper cavea yielded pottery suggesting an initial construction under Eurykles (c.30–20 BC); no certain evidence of an earlier theatre has been found. The stage building's architecture suggests Flavian and Severan reconstructions and later repairs. The site's use as a theatre ended c. AD 400, but finds indicate early Byzantine continuity and three later occupation phases (9th–13th centuries). Sculptures found include a statuette of Apollo or Dionysos, an Antonine female portrait (priestess?), and an important late Roman male portrait head.

There are several explanations current about the origin of the triglyph. First, that the frieze of triglyph and metope started from a decorative feature of Mycenaean art and survived—invisibly to us–until eventually Doric architecture emerged. Secondly, that triglyphs are the fossilised remains of barred wooden windows, which early Greeks needed but their successors did not. Thirdly, that triglyphs are the flattened vestiges of an upper row of columns, abandoned by the timid masons of the seventh century. Fourthly, that the triglyph represents the end or a facing of the end of a wooden beam, this though in all ascertainable early instances the beams run from the course above the triglyph. Fifthly, and liable to the same objection, that the metopes were originally the ends of beams and the triglyphs bars between them. To each of these explanations—and probably to any other that has been or can be devised—there are serious objections. But since the treatment and the prominence of the orthodox triglyph give it an appearance of being an important structural member and particularly one of wood, the most popular explanation is the fourth, which derives the triglyph from the wooden beam. If this is accepted, the argument may reasonably be pushed further.

In the course of a search for tombs in the Knossos area during the spring of 1951 I noticed some large blocks of limestone masonry with curved edges that had just been removed from a newly planted vineyard, the property of Georgios Kargatzes, near the top of the hill forming the southern end of the long ridge on the northern tip of which stands the Isopata Royal Tomb. The site is about 250 metres north-west of the Zafer Papoura cemetery of Late Minoan tombs dug by Evans in 1904, and at the bottom of the slope to the west is a high bank with important Geometric tombs (Knossos Survey 15), explored by Hogarth during the first year of the excavations at Knossos in 1900.

The curving blocks, together with the situation on the top of a hill less than half a kilometre south of the Kefala tholos tomb (Knossos Survey 8), excavated by Mr. R. W. Hutchinson in 1939, immediately raised hopes that another tholos tomb might await discovery here; and the fragments of Minoan pottery everywhere on and below the surface encouraged this belief. Dr. N. Platon, Ephor of Antiquities for Crete, visited the site and granted permission for the School to make trials to discover from what the blocks came. The Director of the School, Mr. J. M. Cook, gave his sanction for the work and asked me to undertake it. The plans were drawn by Mr. Piet de Jong, then the School's Curator at Knossos; the drawings of the vases are by Miss Susan Wood.

This article originated from a suggestion by Dr. Chadwick, that it would be useful to those studying the Linear B archives from Knossos to have a list of sites which archaeologists believe to have been occupied at the time of the destruction of the Palace in whose ruins the tablets were found.

An opportunity to follow up this suggestion came when the author was invited to contribute to a volume of studies in honour of Professor Doro Levi. Unfortunately the study was not finished in time, but it remains, as intended, a small offering to a senior Italian colleague.

This shell applique in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford was acquired by Evans in Crete in 1894. He was told that it came from the Mesara, but there is no evidence to link it with the Ayios Onoufrios deposit. The material is Aegean Spondylus gaederopus L., not Tridacna from the Red Sea. The plaque is probably Cretan work of the period of the Early Palaces (Middle Minoan I–II), not Early Minoan or Archaic Greek as Evans at different times believed. It seems to represent, not a negro or ‘negroid’ as often claimed, but a physical type attested by other representations of Bronze Age date in Crete and elsewhere in the Aegean area.

Nobody flashed a shield at the Battle of Marathon, for it is scientifically impossible: hoplite shields were curved, and you cannot reflect a flash from a curved surface. The shield can only have been waved (as Herodotus says), making it a short range signal, not from far-off traitors in Athens but traitors at Marathon, signalling the movements of their own army to the enemy. The Persians' voyage round Sounion was long and tedious, and the quickest way to Athens would be to land as soon as possible after Marathon, at Loutsa, and for the cavalry to dash for the city. The signal warned that this route was blocked, hence Plan B—Sounion.

This article argues for a revision of the theories and assumed production methods used in Hellenistic and Roman mosaic glass. Knowing how glass behaved in different circumstances under differing heat processes allowed for the possibility of experimenting and demonstrating the inconsistencies in many of the accepted explanations of mosaic production. Experiments were run to test new production ideas, contrasting the findings with previously suggested production methods. The findings bring into question many of the accepted hypotheses for mosaic production. The evidence and hypotheses formed from the experiments challenge many of the traditionally held ideas for the production of this glass and reinforce the need for experimental and practice-based approaches to this type of work.

The first substantial corpus of developed and complex stone vases emerged on the Greek mainland in the shaft graves of Mycenae (Middle Helladic III – Late Helladic I) and was certainly, in large part, of Minoan origin. However, a Mycenaean industry appeared in the Late Helladic III period, which suggests a link with Minoan technology. Indeed, there is an extremely strong possibility that expatriate craftsmen had gradually transmitted their knowledge to local Mycenaean apprentices. A technological study of a corpus of 24 stone vases from Mycenae, dated to the Late Helladic I/II–III, enables the identification and reconstruction of the manufacturing processes and techniques involved in mainland production. It appears to be the case that a great part of the Mycenaean know-how derives from contact with Minoan craftsmanship. However, if a large number of technical elements (use of tubular drilling for the hollowing process, production of the vessels in several parts) may come from a Minoan heritage, the Mycenaeans seem to have quickly developed their own approach – with their own technological emphases, serving purely Mycenaean forms. The vase, based on separately made elements, was a Minoan approach but became properly a mainland concept, which appeared far less commonly in other regions of the eastern Mediterranean. Similarly, the single-tool approach developed for the drilling process (for hollowing the interior of the vessels and for cutting the inlay decoration of the exterior), entirely based on the use of the tubular drill, is purely a native one and is uncommon among eastern Mediterranean vessel traditions. A technological study indicates also the possible coexistence of different types of organisation in the Mycenaean workshops. Thus, the manufacturing processes used, as well as the organisation of the production, are distinct from those of other eastern Mediterranean centres, including Crete.

This paper examines a set of the most characteristic decorated vases from the Temple Repositories at Knossos. The aim is to re-assess the date of the destruction of the shrine to which the Temple Repositories material belonged.

In the sepulchral inscription IG ii2. 10453 we are offered Άγλώκρ[ιτος] Τορωνα[ος]. The name Aglokritos, however, cannot stand, for there is room only for a name with a maximum of nine letters. The two extant transcriptions by George Finlay appear to offer two additional letters (AT/IA) at the end of each line, letters which were read by no-one else, Koumanoudes included. It is suggested in this article that Finlay failed to maintain his customary accuracy in making his sketches, and that we should place no faith in the supposed letters AT/IA at the right-hand edge of the stone. We believe that the only nine-lettered male candidate—the female name Aglokrate being less likely than the expected, but ten-lettered Aglokrateia—is Aglokreon.

The Roman ‘Agora’ of Gytheum appears to be a large compound with an interior peristyle; its width is 52 m and its length at least 61 m. Excavations have revealed the remains of the north-east corner and a portion of the west wing. The extant architectural blocks allow the reconstruction of the colonnades. Column shafts were made of local red limestone and at least some of them were crowned with lotus-and-acanthus capitals. Three different interaxial column spacings are present. A single column must have stood on each corner of the peristyle. The style of the column capital suggests a date after the year ad 100. The entablature is almost identical, in both style and dimensions, to the one found on the Captives' Facade at Corinth. The inscription on two epistyles reveals the private dedication of an exedra to theoi Sebastoi and the city. Most probably the exedra was behind the colonnaded space; the mention of theoi Sebastoi might suggest imperial cult either in the exedra alone or both in the exedra and in the entire colonnaded compound. Quite possibly, and following A. Themos' suggestion, a large part of the colonnaded compound that is conventionally termed the ‘Agora’ can be identified with the Sebasteum/Caesareum of Gytheum; this latter structure is attested in other inscriptions from the city.

Duncan Mackenzie's interpretation of the Phylakopi stratigraphy, which he presented in 1904 as the final chapter of the excavation report, continues to structure discussion of the site's history. Mackenzie proposed a sequence of three ‘Cities’, which are seen to correspond to EC III, MC, and LC periods of occupation respectively. This paper examines Mackenzie's interpretation in light of his own notes taken during excavation, and the results of subsequent excavations undertaken by Dawkins and Droop in 1911 and Renfrew from 1974 to 1977. It concludes that while the urban sequence at Phylakopi is probably more complex than Mackenzie appreciated, his suggestion of a three City succession is broadly correct, but that the Second City should be redated to MC–LC II, and the Third City to LC III.

Η ερμηνεία του Duncan Mackenzie για την στρωματογραφία της Φυλακωπής, που παρουσίασε το 1904 στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο της σχετικής ανασκαφικής έκθεσης, εξακολουθεί να προκαλεί συζήτηση για θην ιστορία της τέσης. O Mackenzie πρότεινε τη διαδοχή τριών ‘Πόλεων’, οι οποίες φαίνεται ότι αντιστοιχούν στις IIK III, MK και YK περιόδους κατοίκησης. Το εν λόγω άρθρο εξετάζει την ερμηνεία του Mackenzie σύμφωνα με τις προσωπικές του σημειώσεις κατά την ανασκαφή και τα αποτελέσματα μεταγενέστερων ανασκαφικών ερευνών, που διεξήχτησαν το 1911 από τους Dawkins και Droop και την περίοδο 1974–1977 από τον Renfrew. Συμπεραίνεται ότι ενώ η διαδοχή των οικιστικών φάσεων στη Φυλακωπή είναι πιθανώς περισσότερο περίπλοκη από την αρχική εκτίμηση του Mackenzie, η πρότασή του για την ύπαρξη τριών διαδοχικών Πόλεων είναι γενικά σωστή. Ωστόσο, η Δεύτερη Πόλη θα πρέπει να επαναχρονολογηθεί στη MK–YK II και η Τρίτη στην YK III.

The expression λιμὴν κλειστός appears 29 times in ancient Greek literary sources; however, it has prompted four different interpretations and three possible English translations. As a contribution to the ongoing discussion of the expression's meaning, this paper analyses its appearances in Strabo's Geography; this work, with its nine references, is, in fact, the source in which it appears second most often. In particular, focus will be placed upon two issues: the extent to which the expression is employed consistently in the Geography and its possible origin; and what meaning(s) – if any – can be assigned to it. To gain further insight into the expression's meaning(s), the aforementioned cases of ‘closed harbours’ will be compared with the available archaeological and geomorphological evidence.

In discussing the so-called Alexandrian Grotesques in a paper in this Annual last year I expressed the opinion that they should be assigned to Campanian art. I have, however, since then been enabled to study these grotesques more closely; and have in consequence been led to modify my former opinion very considerably. Though these grotesques were very popular in Italy during the late republican and the imperial periods, they were by no means peculiar to the west. They fall naturally into several classes, which, for convenience, are here given in tabular form.

A visit to the monasteries of Meteora is easier now than in 1834, when Curzon, escorted by a party of “klephts,” reached them from the North. One feels, in reading the account of his rapid passage from Corfu to the valley of the upper Peneus and back again, that it was touch and go in those days. Now the traveller can approach Meteora by the railway, the chief outward and visible sign of improvement in the region assigned to Hellas by the Treaty of Berlin. To any one who has the time to spare I can strongly recommend a week in Thessaly, as it contains several objects of first-rate interest, and is in many respects unlike the rest of Greece. The population is largely Wallachian, and their bronzed shaggy faces suggest the uncomfortable thought, that the veneer of civilisation is even thinner than elsewhere in these parts. It is easy to believe that such a population would like nothing better than frisking into Macedonia in surreptitious bands.

This paper presents the collections history and typological characteristics of a small collection of Laconian lead figurines from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia currently held in the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. The collection, which first belonged to Ramsay Traquair, serves as a case study for the applicability of the traditional lead figurine typology to decontextualised artefacts, demonstrating its limitations for assigning precise and accurate dates based on style without the benefit of stratigraphic and contextual evidence. The paper further attests to the value of comprehensively analysing small museum and gallery collections in order to gain more individualised understandings of the figurines within the large Laconian corpus than could be afforded upon excavation. Thus, this study helps to elucidate some of the limitations to the means by which we interpret Laconian material culture as well as to nuance our understanding of Laconian lead figurines by demonstrating the varied capability of the typology and published comparanda in dating and stylistic description.

The temptation to probe the origins of a people who brought war and destruction with them, but whose absorption was followed by the great renaissance of Greece is infectious. Philologists have not regarded the warning of Beloch who twenty years ago wrote ‘Gewiss werden Wanderungen auf der griechischen Halbinsel in vorhistorishcher Zeit stattgefunden haben; aber wir wissen dariiber nichts, absolut gar nichts, und wer es anders sagt, der tauscht sich selbst und sein Publikum’ and now the anthropologist is emboldened to try. Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1890, and I make the plunge. I take leave to change the question from the usual formula, ‘Who were the Dorians?’ to ‘Who are the Dorians?’ The attempt is made from the point of view of physical anthropology, in the hope that it may prove a contribution; for the aid of archaeology and philology is obviously needed in the solution of such an involved question.