Terracotta figurines from Ithaca. Local production and imported ware

BCH Supplément 54 Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine 1 Production, diffusion,étude Arthur M uller et Ergün l afli (dir.) Stéphanie H uysecoM -H axHi (coll.) B U L L E T I N D E C O R R E S P O N D A N C E H E L L É N I Q U E Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine Volume i Production, difusion, étude Arthur Muller et Ergün Lafli (dir.) Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi (coll.) É C O L E F R A N Ç A I S E D ’AT H È N E S Directeur des publications : Alexandre Farnoux Responsable des publications : Géraldine Hue Suivi éditorial : Sophie Duthion Révision des textes : Marie Valente, Katie Low Conception graphique et réalisation (intérieur et couverture) : Guillaume Fuchs Ébauche des planches : Christine Aubry Traitement des photographies : Gilbert Naessens Impression et reliure : n.v. Peeters s.a. Ouvrage publié avec le soutien de : Institut universitaire de France Institut français d’Études anatoliennes (Istanbul) Halma UMR 8164 (Lille 3, CNRS, MCC) Instrumentum (Groupe de travail européen sur l’artisanat et les production manufacturées de l’Antiquité à l’époque moderne) © École française d’Athènes, 2016 – 6 Didotou, GR – 106 80 Athènes, www.efa.gr ISBN 978-2-86958-274-3 Reproduction et traduction, même partielles, interdites sans l’autorisation de l’éditeur pour tous pays, y compris les États-Unis. BCH Supplément 54 L’École française d’Athènes et les Presses universitaires du Septentrion ont coopéré pour la publication des deux tomes de l’ouvrage : Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine Volume 1 Production, difusion, étude Volume 2 Iconographie et contextes Le volume 2 est paru dans la collection Archaiologia (2015) Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine Volume i Production, difusion, étude Arthur Muller et Ergün Lafli (dir.) Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi (coll.) Actes du colloque international organisé par l’université Dokuz Eylül d’Izmir COLLOQUIA ANATOLICA ET AEGEA ANTIQUA I en collaboration avec : l’École française d’Athènes le centre de recherche Halma UMR 8164 (Lille 3, CNRS, MCC) Instrumentum Groupe de travail européen sur l’artisanat et les productions manufacturées dans l’Antiquité Izmir, 2-6 juin 2007 Terracotta Figurines from Ithaca. Local Production and Imported Ware Joannis Mylonopoulos Columbia University, Department of Art History and Archaeology, New York, USA RÉSUMÉ Figurines en terre cuite d’Ithaque. Production locale et importations La plus ancienne ofrande en terre cuite dans la grotte de Polis sur l’île d’Ithaque est un exemplaire unique de sphinx crétois (?) de la in du viiie ou du début du viie s. Au cours du viie s. les ofrandes sont très rares : un peu plus de quinze fragments de petites statuettes modelées pourraient être datées de la seconde moitié du viie s. ou du début du vie, tandis qu’un vase plastique en forme de bélier appartient au viie s. À partir du vie s., ce sont des importations d’Acarnanie, d’Athènes, de Béotie, de Corinthe, d’Épire, d’Illyrie, de Rhodes ainsi que d’Italie méridionale, mais aussi des productions locales qui constituent le répertoire des ofrandes dans le sanctuaire. À l’époque hellénistique, ce sont des protomés féminines d’un type particulier qui dominent. Tout au long de l’histoire du sanctuaire, les statuettes masculines sont rares et il n’existe aucune protomé masculine. Les terres cuites votives de la grotte de Polis montrent ainsi qu’en dépit de son passé homérique, Ithaque est restée, pour la plus grande partie de son histoire, un réceptacle culturel au sein d’un réseau dont le centre de gravité est en Grèce de l’Ouest. mots clefs : Ithaque, Céphalonie, Nymphes, Ulysse, grotte de Polis, commerce, ofrandes. SUMMARY he dedication of terracotta votive oferings at the Polis cave on the island of Ithaca begins with a unique Cretan (?) sphinx from the late 8th to early 7th century. Terracotta votive oferings are very rare in the 7th century. here are more than iteen fragments of small hand-made igurines that can be dated to the second half of the 7th or the beginning of the 6th century, while a plastic vase in the form of a ram certainly belongs to the 7th century. From the 6th century onwards, terracotta objects were imported from Acarnania, Athens, Boeotia, Corinth, Epirus, Illyria, Rhodes, and southern Italy, but items produced locally are also amongst the small oferings found in the sanctuary. In the Hellenistic period female protomes of a very speciic kind predominate in the votive material. In all periods male igurines remain rare, and there is not a single male protome. Despite the island’s ‘Homeric’ past, the terracotta oferings from the Polis cave reveal that, for most of its history, Ithaca remained a recipient of cultural inluence in a loose network focused mainly on western Greece. keywords: Ithaca, Cephalonia, Nymphs, Odysseus, Polis cave, trade, votive oferings. 240 JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS Despite the indisputable importance of the strait between Cephalonia and Ithaca for trade routes to and from Corcyra, and further north and back again,1 the main focus of scholarly research on the two islands has been the question of the interrelation between geographical reality and the Odyssey.2 he almighty shadow of the Homeric epic has prevented generations of scholars from dealing with the islands beyond Homer or even in spite of him in a manner they certainly deserve.3 Indeed, the reports of the excavations conducted mainly by Greek and British archaeologists over the past one hundred years demonstrate how rich the two islands really are in archaeological material from the very beginning of the Bronze Age to the imperial era.4 Numerous terracotta igurines constitute just a small portion of the archaeology of Ithaca.5 his brief study6 focuses on material unearthed in Ithaca7 and, to a lesser extent, on comparable inds from Cephalonia. Its central point of reference is the clay objects that came to light during the British excavations in the so-called Polis cave.8 Western Europeans visiting the island in the 19th century collected the irst material relevant to this study, together with numerous pieces made of gold, silver, and bronze. In most cases, unfortunately, we are unaware of the exact provenance of the terracotta objects.9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Malkin 1998, pp. 64-67. Deoudi 2008 and Morgan 2008 were published ater the submission of this paper in September 2007. Because of their importance, they have been taken into consideration in the footnotes. Further bibliography, however, could not be considered. See for example J.V. Luce, Celebrating Homer’s Landscapes. Troy and Ithaca Revisited (1998), pp. 165-230. he fact that the most recent book on the two islands ofers a new and extensive discussion of the possible identiication of Homeric Ithaca based on an all too literal interpretation of the geographical information found in the Odyssey certainly speaks volumes, and does not need further explanation: R. Bittlestone, J. Diggle, J. Underhill, Odysseus Unbound. he Search for Homer’s Ithaca (2005). he authors suggest on pp. 248-279 that modern Ithaca is ancient Doulichion. One of the irst – perhaps even the irst – to conduct archaeological excavations in Ithaca with more or less ‘scientiic’ standards was the German Carl Haller von Hallerstein in 1814 (Steinhart, Wirbelauer 2002, pp. 106-146). Archaeological research on the island was and remains in Greek and British hands; the respective reports are to be found in periodicals such as ADelt, BSA, and Prakt. As with many other places in Greece, the early history and archaeology of Ithaca is much better studied than the periods ater the 7th and 6th century. Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999 remains an invaluable overview of the archaeology of the island to the late 8th century. he bronze tripods found during the British excavations at the Polis cave are still the best known archaeological inds from the island (Benton 1935a, pp. 56-68; Benton 1935b, pp. 80-94). hey continue to play a very prominent role in the ongoing discussion about Homeric Ithaca and the existence of an early cult of Odysseus at the Polis bay (see for example Malkin 1998, pp. 99-117). In my view, the tripods belong to a much later, perhaps Hellenistic, attempt by the Ithacans to recreate a Homeric landscape based on the Odyssey. hey probably bought the thirteen tripods in the Hellenistic antiquities market and placed them in the cave. I would like to express my thanks to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschat, which has funded my research on Ithaca. I am grateful to the British School at Athens and the École Française d’Athènes for permission to study and publish the terracotta votive oferings from the Polis cave (BSA) and the excavations conducted by W. Vollgraf (EFA) in a monograph. I would also like to thank the organisers of the conference for creating such a fruitful platform for all those working on Greek and Roman terracotta production in the eastern part of the Mediterranean. I am very much obliged to Irina Oryshkevich for improving the English text. IACPoleis 2004, no. 122, pp. 360-361. Benton 1935a; Benton 1939. Steinhart, Wirbelauer 2002, pp. 203-253 (a very useful catalogue of almost all known objects found during ‘excavations’ between 1811 and 1814). TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE 241 Today, the majority of them are either kept in London or Munich, or are considered lost and known only through drawings. In 1864 Loisos, an inhabitant of the village of Stavros, discovered the site of the Polis cave and conducted what we would today call an illicit excavation. He allegedly found a bronze tripod, which he melted down to avoid seizure. H. Schliemann, who happened to be on the island searching for Homer’s Ithaca, visited the site and briely reported on Loisos’ activities.10 W. Vollgraf, member of the foreign section of the École française d’Athènes, conducted the irst series of scientiic excavations all over the island between April and July 1904. According to his own published report, he had dug very briely in at least ten diferent sites on the island, among them the Polis cave, the site of Aetos, and the Marmarospilia cave.11 About thirty years later, the British School at Athens followed in Vollgraf ’s footsteps and started more extensive excavations in Aetos, the Polis cave, and Pelikata.12 In the case of Cephalonia, the most important relevant material was excavated in caves: the Melissani cave near Same and the Drakaina cave near Poros, both in the eastern part of the island opposite Ithaca.13 Recent Greek excavations in the Drakospilia cave in the western part of the island have brought new material to light.14 In the early 1930s, S. Benton systematically excavated the site on the north side of the Polis bay that had previously been discovered by Loisos. he inds and some fragmentary inscriptions discovered there revealed that the area had certainly been used in a cultic context.15 he only architectural feature at the site was a low wall with an external projection near its centre, which the evidence of certain ceramic inds allowed to be dated to the early 3rd century.16 Vase fragments show that the site was already used in the Bronze Age,17 although 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Schliemann 1869, pp. 45-48. Vollgraff 1905. he Stavros Valley Project, a cooperation between the Greek Ephorate (A. Sotiriou) and King’s College London (C. Morgan), aims to combine evidence collected by S. Benton in the Polis and Stavros area with modern archaeological and geomorphologic research in order to produce an archaeological map of the northern part of the island from early Helladic to medieval times. Ironically, the new Ithaca project called into doubt the only thing about the cave we thought we knew for sure, the very existence of a cave on the Polis bay (ARepLond 51 [2004], p. 38: “he conclusion drawn in 2002, that it is unlikely that any major cavelike structure could have existed at the site of the Polis ‘cave’, is conirmed. Instead, a preliminary reconstruction suggests a small, mostly open, sheltered area, protected from the sea by a large collapsed section of the south clif face”). We can certainly dismiss the idea of the huge cave already presupposed by Schliemann 1869, p. 45 (“Bei näherer Betrachtung der Oertlichkeit erkannte ich ohne Mühe, dass sich an dieser Stelle eine ungeheure Höhle mit der Oefnung gegen das Meer befunden hat, deren Decke wahrscheinlich in Folge des Erdbebens eingestürzt war”) but, until the results of Morgan’s research on the Polis bay are published, I would like to suggest that the most probable topographical situation was a combination of an open space directly by the sea and a small cave-like structure in the northwest part of this area. Aware of this problem, I will nevertheless continue to refer to the site as the ‘Polis cave’. J. Moschos, Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Αργοστολίου (2000), pp. 4-5, 15. During the conference in Izmir, S. Samartzidou presented some unpublished material found during excavations in the Drakospilia cave that reveals ainities to material from the Polis cave: see her paper in vol. II. See also the brief reference to the recent excavations in ARepLond 51 (2004), p. 38. Schliemann 1869, p. 46; Benton 1935a, pp. 54 f.; Benton 1939, pp. 31-35, nos. 4, 17a, 18, 41. Benton 1935a, pp. 48 f., ig. 4. According to the excavation reports published by Benton, the earliest ceramic inds apparently belong to the early Bronze Age, while there is also a reference to one painted sherd of “neolithic date”, Benton 1935a, p. 52. 242 JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS evidence suggests that its use for cultic purposes began only in the late 9th to early 8th century. A sphinx dated very broadly by Benton to the Geometric period marks the beginning of dedications of terracotta objects at the Polis cave.18 he latest securely-dated ind from the cave is a graito of a person named Epaphroditos, a perfume seller on the Via Sacra, which appears on a pithos fragment that belongs to the year 35 BC.19 Nevertheless, two coins dating to the early 4th century AD were also found during the excavation.20 Unfortunately, in her preliminary reports Benton never mentions exactly where these two chronologically isolated coins were found. Several aspects of the site are still much debated, but the most important question concerns the divine occupant of the sacred place. he oldest stone inscription found near but not in the cave dates to the mid-6th century and refers to a dedication to Athena Polias and Hera Teleia.21 Four vase fragments dating to the 3rd or 2nd century bear dedicatory graiti to the Nymphs.22 Hellenistic votive terracotta reliefs depicting nymphs support this epigraphic evidence. All the same, a single ind has monopolised the discussion of the sanctuary’s occupant: a small fragmentary terracotta protome dating to the Hellenistic period, apparently a dedication to Odysseus made in fulilment of a vow.23 K. Hallof suggested that the dedicator must have been a woman.24 Since the British excavations, the Polis cave has been interpreted at least in part as a hero sanctuary with links to Odysseus, and has played a decisive role in nearly every study dealing with the phenomenon of early Greek hero cults.25 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Benton 1939, pp. 38 f.; Kourou 2002, pp. 29-31. Benton 1939, p. 38; IG IX2 1, 1620. Benton 1939, p. 50, nos. 28, 29. IG IX2 1, 1614. IG IX2 1, 1616-1619. Benton 1935a, pp. 54 f., ig. 7. IG IX 1 IV, 1615. According to Benton 1935b, pp. 114 f., the tripods were dedicated to Odysseus during festivals that were accompanied by games. Malkin 1998, pp. 107-110, also supports the interrelation between the Polis cave and the cult of Odysseus, but does not suggest that games were organised at the Polis bay. M. Deoudi, Heroenkulte in homerischer Zeit (1999), p. 119, reluctantly accepts the existence of an early cult of Odysseus in the cave. For Polignac 1996, p. 62, the Polis cave was not only a cult place for Odysseus, but also a religious centre for the Ionian islands and their adjacent areas (Elis, Achaia, Acarnania, and hesprotia) as early as the 9th century. C. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (1995), pp. 152-155, remains much more sceptical, with good reason. Archaeological material seems to support her scepticism, since the earliest evidence for a cult of Odysseus in the cave deinitely belongs to the Hellenistic period. Deoudi 2008, pp. 345-349, reconstructs a joint cult of the Naiads, Athena, Hera, and Artemis. he Naiads are not, however, associated with the sea, while the inscriptions referring to Athena and Hera were not found in the cave but in the bay area. here is no epigraphic evidence for the cult of Artemis in the cave, although the terracotta material suggests her presence. his is not the place to discuss these admitedly interesting aspects of the cave more extensively, since the cultic use of the site is not the main focus of this study. Nevertheless, the Polis cave must have been an important sanctuary for the Nymphs, while Odysseus and Artemis seem to have been visiting heroes or gods. Larson 2001, pp. 231 f., rightly points out that, if the Polis cave was a cult place for the Nymphs, it was certainly an atypical one. On the other hand, the archaeological material from the site ofers absolutely no evidence for identifying the Polis cave with the Ithacan cult place of Odysseus (the Odysseion), where, according to an inscription from the very end of the 3rd century found in Magnesia on the Meander, the festival of the Odysseia took place, I Magnesia 36. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE 243 As noted, the oldest terracotta votive ofering from the site is a igure of a sphinx (ig. 1). Benton considered it Geometric without suggesting a more speciic date, although she did compare it to bronze igurines from the late 9th century.26 Today the partly-preserved igure stands at 30 cm, but originally it must have been at least 50 to 60 cm tall. In terms of both size and chronology it remains unique among all the other terracotta oferings found in the cave. Only its front part is preserved: its solid head, bust and part of its forelegs. Due to their backward inclination, both the shoulder area and the space between the forelegs suggest that the sphinx was depicted in a crouching position, and not standing on all four legs like the well-known Aghia Triada sphinx from Crete.27 he sphinx wears some sort of lat crown or polos. he head is clearly turned to the right which, according to Benton, lends support to the assumption that it might have belonged to a group.28 Since the surface of its face is poorly preserved, a detailed stylistic analysis and relevant comparisons are, indeed, diicult to make. Nonetheless, the structure of the triangular face with its disproportionately long nose deinitely calls to mind Sub-Minoan Cretan examples, which cannot be dated precisely.29 In his study of Cretan coroplastic art, G. Rethemiotakis demonstrated that examples of the so-called Sub-Minoan group were still being produced in the 7th century.30 Samian examples from the late eighth or early seventh century which, like the sphinx and the Cretan igures, also have triangular faces with long noses, are all much smaller.31 Solely on stylistic criteria, the sphinx from Ithaca can be dated to between the late 9th and the early 7th century. Too early a dating of the igure would, however, create a large hiatus in the material evidence of terracotta votive oferings, since the dedication of quite a number of igurines and protomes starts only in the late 7th to early 6th century. For these reasons, the sphinx most likely belongs to the late 8th or early 7th century.32 To the best of my knowledge, no exact parallel to the sphinx from Ithaca has been found on Crete or anywhere else in the Aegean or mainland Greece. Since the closest parallels 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Benton 1935a, p. 53; Benton 1939, pp. 38 f., Kourou 2002, p. 30, states that the sphinx “has been dated to the end of the Geometric period, ca. 700 BC” and that the sphinx and the bronze tripods were found “in the same stratum”. Benton never dates the sphinx that precisely, and the only information she gives us about the ind spot is “C 2 and 3, 0-0.90 m. below datum”. In her nearly epigrammatic catalogue of pottery found at the Polis cave, Benton 1939, pp. 1-38 lists several pottery fragments dated to between the 11th and the 5th centuries that were found in C 2 and C 3 0-0.9 below datum, and as a result a dating of the sphinx based exclusively on the archaeological context is impossible, despite the fact that the majority of the pottery fragments in this area seem indeed to have been of the Geometric period. Benton’s excavation diaries are not in the archives of the BSA, so the exact circumstances of the ind cannot be reconstructed. Rethemiotakis 1998, p. 34, ig. 59. Benton 1939, p. 39. See for example the head of a fragmentary statuette from Kalo Chorio, Rethemiotakis 1998, p. 90, pl. 74. Many of the Sub-Minoan statuettes, especially those from Aghia Triada, have a triangular face and a head slightly raised, like the one on the sphinx from Ithaca. S. Benton already noted an obvious link between the Ithacan sphinx and the Cretan coroplastic. Rethemiotakis 1998, pp. 87-95. For example, Jarosch 1994, p. 146, no. 697, pl. 55. here are also other, more general arguments concerning the actual date of the tripods’ dedication in the cave and the beginning of its cultic use, but discussing them would go beyond the scope of this article. On stylistic grounds, Morgan 2008, p. 38, suggests a date around 675 to 650 BC. 244 JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS regarding the igure’s overall size and the modelling of its face are Cretan, I suggest that this igure is indeed an import from Crete or a local product inluenced by older Cretan prototypes.33 he latter assumption presupposes the existence of imported Cretan products that functioned as visual ‘prototypes’ in Ithaca. As W.A. Heurtley and M. Robertson note, during this period “Cretan vase-painting makes an impression in Ithaca”.34 Evidence for terracotta votive oferings at the site in the 7th century is strikingly scarse. he only plastic vase found in the Polis cave is certainly a Corinthian import of the late 7th century. It is in the form of a seated ram (ig. 2). While the body is very well preserved, nearly the entire head is missing. Such vases with wheel-made bodies and hand-made heads, horns, legs and tails have been found in several places in Corinth as well as in the sanctuary of Hera at Perachora. An example from Perachora ofers an exact parallel in the rendering of the ram’s leece through carelessly crosshatched lines.35 About 15 handmade igurines may also belong to this period. Such, mainly female, igurines with more or less cylindrical bodies and pointed, faceless heads are well known in Corinth, Boeotia (with painted decorations and lat bodies), Rhodes, and many other places.36 Stratiied inds demonstrate that these igurines were still being produced at the beginning of the 6th century, but in the case of those from Ithaca nearly nothing is known about their chronological context.37 No doubt they were produced locally, despite the fact that the examples found by W. Dörpfeld at the church of Aghia Kyriaki opposite Nidri on Leucas are nearly identical.38 6th and early 5th century imports from Corinth and the western part of Greece appear among the terracotta votive material found in the cave. hese include the torso of a ‘doll’ imported from Corinth in the late 6th or more probably early 5th century (ig. 3).39 Two similar Corinthian examples in the British Museum are from Camirus on Rhodes and Naucratis,40 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Kourou 2002, pp. 30 f., is certainly right in stressing the Cretan inluence on or even the Cretan origin of the sphinx, but her assumption that this votive as well as the so-called primitive female igurines should be connected to a female deity that “was directly derived from the Minoan goddess with upraised arms” is highly speculative. W.A. Heurtley, M. Robertson, BSA 43 (1948), p. 124. On the contrary, S. Benton, BSA 48 (1953), p. 265, asserts that Crete had very little contact with Ithaca. Kourou 2002, p. 30, follows Robertson and assumes the great cultural inluence of Crete on Ithaca “widely attested […] in the material record from Aetos”. Deoudi 2008, esp. pp. 278-297, who made a new study of the pottery from the Polis cave, observed that there is no Cretan ware among the inds. his could be an argument for seeing the sphinx from the Polis cave as a local product. Fragmentary igurines – much smaller in size and belonging most probably to the 7th century – unearthed during the excavations of the Lindian acropolis show the same triangular face with a long nose: see, for example Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 80, no. 1861. Payne et al. 1940, p. 238, no. 211. See also a sphinx in the collection of the British Museum with a body modelled in an almost identical way, Higgins 1959, p. 40, pl. 27. Stillwell 1952, pp. 25-42; Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 84, no. 1889, pl. 87, no. 1958; Higgins 1954, pp. 204 f., nos. 761-766. Benton 1939, p. 39. Dörpfeld 1927, vol. I, p. 180; II, pl. 76, nos. 1-3, 5. he topographical situation resembles that of the Polis bay with an apparently small cult place for the Nymphs near a harbour. Benton 1939, p. 40, no. 31. A.N. Stillwell suggested that the ‘doll’ from Ithaca could have come from the same mould as an example from Corinth belonging to her Type 3: Stillwell 1952, pp. 147, 150, no. 11, pl. 31. Higgins 1954, pp. 248 f., nos. 910, 911. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE 245 while a ‘doll’ from Lindos can be closely compared to the one from the Polis cave, as A.N. Stillwell has already suggested.41 hree small cut-out reliefs of a sphinx, a rooster, and a running Gorgon seem to be of Corinthian provenance as well. he igure of the sphinx, which dates from the late 6th or more probably early 5th century (ig. 4a), belongs to a well-known, extremely homogeneous iconographic type that portrays the mythical creature crouching either to the let or to the right. Its head is always wearing a polos and rendered in frontal view. Almost all examples of this type found in Corinth have wings subdivided into three parts with a single line rendering the wing cap and two separate sections of feathers.42 While the sphinx from Ithaca also displays this tripartite wing arrangement, it contains a puzzling feature: stippling on the wing-cap, an element that has not yet been found in other examples of the Corinthian sphinx type. Two additional examples of crouching sphinxes in the collection of the British School at Athens, dating to approximately 470-460 BC, were recently published and attributed to an unknown east Greek workshop that produced so-called Melian reliefs. hese too cannot be compared to the sphinx from Ithaca: the rendering of their wings is completely diferent, and at least one of them must have depicted the igure’s head in proile.43 Based on its whitish-yellow clay, the igure from the Polis cave must be a Corinthian import, yet the stippling remains a puzzle. We are dealing most probably with a variation of the main type that has not yet been found in Corinth. he early 5th-century rooster relief (ig. 4b) is certainly Corinthian. he igure belongs to a very common type known from mainland Greece and the islands. he vast majority of these reliefs were found in and around Corinth.44 he small head of a Gorgon from the mid-6th century (ig. 4c) resembles those of igures found in Corinth, Argos, Lindos and Olynthos, which, according to A.N. Stillwell, were produced in Corinth.45 However, there are important technical and iconographical diferences between the Gorgon igures presumably produced in Corinth and the one found in the Polis cave: a) the heads of the Corinthian examples are completely cut out, while the head from the Polis cave still preserves a near-triangular background; b) in the case of the Corinthian igures, the hairline across the forehead is in the shape of a curve. In contrast, the forehead of the Gorgon from Ithaca is in the shape of a wide triangle, recalling that of the older Gorgon decorating the pediment of the Artemis temple on Corcyra. Standing and seated korai from the late 6th and early 5th centuries are poorly preserved examples of well-known Corinthian types (ig. 5). he standing kore is certainly one of the most widespread of the late Archaic Corinthian coroplastic types known from all over the ancient Greek world.46 More than 250 examples were unearthed solely during the excavations 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Blinkenberg 1931, pl. 112, no. 2389; Stillwell 1952, p. 147. Compared to the Corinthian example found in Corinth (Stillwell 1952, pl. 31, no. 11), the Lindian example seems to be much more similar to the Ithacan one. Stillwell 1952, p. 159, pl. 33, nos. 25, 26; pl. 34, nos. 21, 23, 24. Stilp 2003; Stilp 2006, p. 215, nos. 91, 92. Stillwell 1952, pp. 155 f., pl. 33, nos. 3-5, 8-10. Stillwell 1952, pp. 158 f., pl. 53, no. XII, 19; pl. 35, nos. XXII, 18, 20. he type is certainly Corinthian but, based on the clay used, most examples found in Boeotia, Cyrene, southern Italy, Rhodes and so on seem to have been locally produced, Besques 1954, p. 3, pl. II, no. B 2; X, 246 JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS of the Potters’ Quarter in Corinth.47 he type shows a maiden wearing a chiton and a polos while holding a dove, a fruit or a lower in her hands. Several fragments of igures of which only the front is mould-made have been connected to the Corinthian type of the seated kore who wears a long garment and polos while she holds a bird just beneath her breast.48 A small fragmentary head clearly showing the so-called ‘Archaic smile’ (ig. 6) belongs to the same group, as do several examples found so far on Leucas49 and in Karvounari in Epirus,50 all of which date to the late 6th century. Female protomes unearthed in Paramythia (Epirus)51 and Dyrrhachion52 can deinitely be connected to fragmentary examples from the Polis cave (ig. 7) and to at least one example from Aetos53 from the last quarter of the 5th century. Certain obvious diferences in the rendering of the drapery in the breast area suggest that these are not end products of the same mould. Nonetheless, the overall conception of the garment, the rich hair elegantly combed back in clearly deined strands, and the oval face that once had ine features, support the hypothesis that they all belong to the same western Greek workshop. In addition to the Geometric or early Archaic sphinx mentioned above, a further ind clearly stands out from the group of terracotta igurines and reliefs in the Polis cave. his is a relief dated to between 480 and 460 BC that belongs to the group of the so-called Melian reliefs and depicts the Judgement of Paris (ig. 8), a subject well known in Athenian vase painting, but not in Melian reliefs. F. Stilp has argued that there were at least two (perhaps even three) diferent workshops for the production of such objects. One of them must have been located somewhere in Attica.54 Based on the scene depicted, the relief from Ithaca can be linked to the Attic workshop, since Paris’ Judgement is a very popular theme in Attic art. In this case, Paris is shown seated on a rock, while Hermes guides Hera and Athena to him (the igure of Aphrodite is not preserved).55 In Athenian vase painting there is no clear hierarchy in the depiction of the three goddesses, although Hera is the only goddess to be 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. no. B 78. For a small fragment of such a igurine found in Lachidia on Leucas, see Dörpfeld 1927, pl. 78a. D.M. Robinson suggests a local production for the igurines of this type found at Olynthos, too: Robinson 1952, pp. 153-157, pl. 60. he explicit identiication of such small terracotta igurines with divinities such as Aphrodite or Artemis remains highly hypothetical and methodologically problematic. Stillwell 1952, pp. 84-94, pls. 15-17 (standing). When only the igurines’ heads are preserved, it is nearly impossible to determine whether we are dealing with a standing or a seated female igure. he standing igurine from Ithaca very closely resembles an example from the Corinthian so-called Shrine of the Double Stele: Stillwell 1952, p. 94, pl. 17, no. X, 36. It is quite interesting that, in a Boeotian cave where the Nymphs were most probably venerated, the same Corinthian type of a standing kore holding an ofering also appears among the small terracotta votives to the Nymphs: Vassilopoulou 2000, pp. 416 f., igs. 23, 24. Finds like those from Olynthos demonstrate, however, that there is no close interconnection between this type of votive ofering and the cult of the Nymphs. Stillwell 1952, pp. 94-97, pl. 17, esp. nos. XI, 1-3. Dörpfeld 1927, pl. 78a-b. Besques 1954, p. 24, pl. XVIII, no. B 143. G. Riginos, ADelt 53 (1998) [2004], B 2, p. 539, pl. 209 a-b. Muller et al. 2004, p. 612, ig. 7. Vollgraff 1905, p. 148, ig. 9. Stilp 2006, pp. 61 f. Deoudi 2008, p. 345, no. 69 describes Paris and Hermes standing between Hera and Athena. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE 247 shown relatively oten with the so-called anakalypsis gesture.56 Athena is easily recognizable, since she is wearing a helmet and has her aegis with the gorgoneion. his relief is of particular interest not only for its iconography – unique in the group of Melian reliefs – but also for the fact that it was produced locally, either with an imported mould or, as F. Stilp has argued, with a mould made from an imported original.57 Two Hellenistic reliefs depict nymphs in diferent situations, thus conirming (at least for this period) evidence provided by dedicatory graiti of a cult of the Nymphs in the cave. he irst of these examples depicts three women sitting in a cave-like structure (ig. 9a). Benton’s suggestion that this relief echoes the real topographical situation of the bay of Polis is highly speculative.58 he second, a relief disc showing nymphs dancing around a double aulos player, is extremely interesting (ig. 9b), since it is comparable to an example found in the Melissani cave on Cephalonia.59 A fragmentary example in which the igure of the musician in the middle is unfortunately missing has also been recently found at the excavations in the Drakospilia cave.60 he Cephalonian example from Melissani is not only larger, but also of higher quality, because it was made with an apparently better, less worn, mould. Despite the common general motif of dancing nymphs, in one respect it is signiicantly diferent. On the relief from Cephalonia, Pan is playing the double aulos, while on the example from Ithaca there is a normal aulos player (or another nymph playing the aulos), who is depicted frontally.61 On another relief from the Melissani cave, there is also a group of nymphs accompanied by Pan or, more precisely, a paniskos.62 he terracotta material from the Polis cave reveals no such obviously close connection between the nymphs and Pan. Hellenistic female protomes are by far the largest group of terracotta inds from the Polis cave. Indeed, among the numerous protomes there is not a single example depicting a male igure. his certainly has nothing to do with the fact that they are votive oferings, since male protomes are well known in other regions of Greece.63 In her preliminary publication, Benton distinguished three main types.64 My own study of the material revealed that there are at least six main iconographic types with further variations in size and in small, but important, iconographic details, such as earrings, garments, and the 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. See for example A. Kossatz-Deissmann, LIMC VIII (1997), s.v. “Paridis iudicium”, p. 179, no. 35. Stilp 2006, p. 198. Benton 1939, p. 45, no. 1. Dontas 1964, pp. 28-30, pl. 6a. It seems that the two relief discs from Cephalonia are not only iconographically but also technically related, but the publication by S. Samartzidou will ofer us many more new insights (see in vol. II). A very small fragment of a similar disc, which preserves some remains of two nymphs holding hands while dancing, was found on Leucas (Dörpfeld 1927, pl. 76c, no. 4). he position of their hands suggests that this disc most probably showed the nymphs in a diferent arrangement. Dontas 1964, pp. 30-31, pl. 7γ. For example, Boeotian protomes depicting Dionysos either bearded or as a beardless adolescent are well known: Higgins 1954, p. 233, nos. 873, 874. While focusing on the evidence from Tragilos, Chryssanthaki-Nagle 2006 clearly demonstrates that the functional context of such protomes was genuinely diverse. Benton 1939, pp. 43-45. 248 JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS exact rendering of hairstyles. he most recognizable of these is the so-called Artemis-Selene type (ig. 10a). In this, the goddess is depicted with a quiver, baldric, and half moon,65 and wears her hair in a bow-knot over her forehead (as does the so-called Belvedere Apollo) with strands of long hair falling over her shoulders from behind. he hairstyle with its bow-knot and strands of long hair recalls that of the Venus Capitolina or even the so-called Aphrodite Kallipygos.66 his is also the only type to wear an elaborate necklace. An identical example was found in 2005 during the excavations at the Drakospilia cave on Cephalonia. Benton’s earring type (ig. 10b) is in fact not the only one with earrings, but it is the one in which their form is the most striking. Well-preserved examples show rosettes with elongated rhombs as pendants. he hairstyle is identical to that of the Artemis-Selene type. his type can be further divided into examples with their heads depicted frontally and those with their heads slightly twisted to the right. Benton’s third category, the so-called ‘circlet type’ (ig. 10c), is very uncommon. In this case, the igure is not depicted frontally, but with an elegant movement of the head to the side. he circlet type also has a hairstyle with hair tied up and strands over the shoulder, but without the bow-knot so typical of the Artemis-Selene, earring, and Gorgon types. he so-called ‘oversimpliied type’ (ig. 10d) consists of a female bust viewed frontally with hair falling heavily over the face and neck. No traces of jewellery can be discerned. One of the best preserved examples of this type suggests that at least part of the hair was tied up in a knot. he quality of the surviving examples points to the use of extremely worn moulds. Compared to those of other types, the examples belonging to this one are all very thin and have a hard, nearly metallic texture. he so-called stephane type (ig. 10e) is easily recognizable. In this case, the female bust is presented in frontal view. here is no indication of breasts or a garment, and the hair is tied up in a knot covered by a stephane. he earrings are always round and none of the examples have strands of long hair over the shoulders, as is so characteristic of the other types. hree or four examples belong to what could be called the Gorgon type (ig. 10f), in which raised, curved, and spiralling elements suggesting snakes appear to rise from the knot of bound hair. On these igures too a garment is clearly indicated. Several examples of these types, made from the same moulds, have been found in other places on the island.67 Benton noted in her preliminary report that she “had picked up one in a cave in Kephallenia”.68 Dontas reported that, during excavations at the Melissani cave, a fragmentary example of the so-called circlet type was found. He described the igure as 65. 66. 67. 68. hese protomes of the Artemis-Selene type, but also the other types of female protomes from the Polis cave and Ithaca, almost certainly imitate late 3rd and 2nd-century prototypes in the form of gold and silver medallions and necklace pendants with busts of Artemis and other divinities such as Aphrodite, Helios etc.: see S.G. Miller, Two Groups of hessalian Gold (1979), pp. 35-38, pls. 20, 21. For this hairstyle and Artemis, see for example Kahil 1984, p. 643, no. 230, pl. 464. Vollgraff 1905, pp. 148 f., igs. 11, 12. here are many more examples in the Archaeological Museum of Vathy that are still unpublished. Benton 1939, p. 43. Pisani 2006, pp. 286, 351, no. 137, pl. 35a published the female protome, now in the Archaeological Collection of the BSA, which was ‘picked up’ by Benton on Cephalonia – it certainly belongs to the earring type. M. Pisani dated this example to the 4th century, despite the fact that the hairstyle, and especially the characteristic bow-knot, point to a Hellenistic date (the bow-knot was already used in the second half of the 4th century [see the so-called Belvedere Apollo], but became popular only during the Hellenistic period). TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE 249 wearing a necklace, a detail unknown in this type on Ithaca.69 Several examples of this apparently Cephalonian type of female protome were found during the excavations conducted by S. Samartzidou in the Drakospilia cave. Only a tiny percentage of the repertoire of the terracotta objects found in the Polis cave can be presented in this study, yet it must be stressed that this is highly interesting material that includes numerous other types of mainly, but not exclusively, female igurines and protomes from Acarnania, Athens, Boeotia, Corinth, Epirus, Illyria, Rhodes, and southern Italy.70 he vast majority of these terracotta oferings have suspension holes, and one imagines that some of them were nailed on wooden pickets, while others were possibly hung from tree-branches in a sacred grove that could also have been part of the sanctuary.71 he terracotta igurines from the Polis cave ofer evidence for contacts between this small Ionian island and the eastern part of mainland Greece and the Aegean (mainly with Corinth, Athens, and Rhodes), but more importantly, they clearly demonstrate that Ithaca was a recipient in a trade network that included parts of western Greece (Acarnania, Epirus, Cephalonia, Leucas) and Illyria. Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a small workshop existed on Ithaca itself, and that during the Archaic and Classical periods it produced a wide variety of both genuinely local and popular imitations of votive types like the Corinthian standing korai.72 In the Hellenistic period this workshop restricted itself to the continuous reproduction of a small range of votive oferings, thus supplying local sanctuaries primarily with female protomes. 69. 70. 71. 72. Dontas 1964, p. 32, pl. 7β. As suggested by the pottery, in the 10th and 9th centuries Ithaca had intensive contacts with Messenia, Aitolia, and Elis (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, pp. 115 f.) that cannot be discerned in the later terracotta votive material. On some of the various methods of display in sanctuaries see recently Salapata 2002, pp. 26-31. here are no moulds among the terracotta material from the Polis cave, so any ideas about locally produced imitations of igurine types known from other places must remain hypothetical. It is unclear whether we are dealing with objects made with imported moulds (which does not seem probable) or with moulds produced locally based on imported igurines. In this respect, see the highly interesting study of a igurine in the Archaeological Museum of Volos, Hornung-Bertemes et al. 1998. With regard to the so-called Melian reliefs, Stilp 2006, p. 39 rejects the mere idea of a trade in moulds. JOANNIS MYLONOPOULOS 250  2 0 2 cm  b a 0 0 5 cm 2 cm c  0 0 2 cm 1 cm  0 0 2 cm 5 cm Fig. 1. – Late Geometric Sphinx (author’s photo). Fig. 2. – Plastic vase in the form of a seated ram (author’s photo). Fig. 3. – Corinthian ‘doll’ (author’s photo). Fig. 4. – Cut-out reliefs: a. sphynx; b. rooster; c. gorgon (author’s photo). Fig. 5. – ‘Corinthian’ type korai (author’s photo). TERRACOTTA FIGURINES FROM ITHACA. LOCAL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTED WARE  251   0 2 cm 0 5 cm 0 5 cm  0 a 5 cm b  a 0 b c 5 cm d e f Fig. 6. – Archaic head (author’s photo). Fig. 7. – Classical female protome (author’s photo). Fig. 8. – So-called ‘Melian relief ’ (author’s photo). Fig. 9. – Nymph reliefs: a. Nymphs in a cave; b. dancing Nymphs (author’s photo). Fig. 10. – Hellenistic female protomes according Benton’s typology (author’s photo): a. Artemis-Selene type; b. earring type; c. circlet type d. ‘oversimpliied’ type; e. stephane type; f. gorgon type. Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine 1 Production, diffusion, étude Quelle qu’ait été leur faveur auprès du public depuis les découvertes de Myrina et Tanagra au xixe siècle, les terres cuites figurées antiques sont trop longtemps restées dans l’ombre d’une histoire de l’art passéiste. Ce n’est que tout récemment que leur étude a profondément évolué, grâce à la prise en compte de toutes leurs spécificités, tant celles des modalités de fabrication et de diffusion, qui en font un artisanat étonnamment moderne, que celles des contextes de trouvaille et des assemblages, qui renouvellent l’archéologie des pratiques funéraires et votives. Désormais objet d’études les plus exigeantes, les terres cuites figurées apportent une contribution originale à la connaissance de l’antiquité classique. Les contributions réunies dans ces deux volumes issus du colloque d’Izmir, le premier de cette importance sur ce sujet, font connaître une foison de documents nouveaux, illustrent toutes les approches des figurines – histoire de l’art, archéologie, archéométrie, iconographie, anthropologie culturelle… –, mais reflètent aussi les débats autour de leur interprétation : elles dressent ainsi un état des lieux dans ce domaine de recherche au dynamisme nouveau. É C O L E F R A N Ç A I S E D ´ A T H È N E S romaine