Eckhard Deschler-Erb, Philippe Della Casa (eds.). New Research on Ancient Bronzes. Acta of the XVIIIth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes. Zurich Studies in Archaeology, Vol. 10, 2015, 77–83.
Contextualizing a set of classical bronze vessels from Macedonia Despina Ignatiadou Despina Ignatiadou, Formerly Curator of Metalwork, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Curator of Sculpture, National Archaeological Museum, Athens, dignatiadou@culture.gr Among the objects of a private collection donated to the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki are five bronze vessels which probably originate in the same burial: a ladle, an “achaemenid-style” almond phiale, a small round jug, a plain or handled phiale, and a handled lebes. Analysis showed that all the vessels are composed of high-tin bronzes. The available evidence indicates that the vessels were interred in a single burial, in a cemetery which has not yet been identified. Comparison of the vessels with excavated finds from northern Greece helps date them to the first half of the 5th century B. C. Key words: vessels, Macedonia, high-tin bronze, classical period, contextualization
1. Introduction Recent excavation activity in Macedonian cemeteries has revealed a large number of bronze vessels from the Archaic and Classical periods. Additionally, several unprovenanced vessels have been added to museum collections, either as donations or as confiscated finds of illegal digs. Part of the Mitsobounis private collection was donated to the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (Protocol nr. 7472 / 19. 10. 1987). The collection comprises hundreds of ancient objects of different materials, among them metal vessels, jewelry and arms. Their typological and stylistic examination shows that they were mostly found in Macedonia, possibly its central part. Eight bronze vessels in the collection are dated to the late archaic and the classical period and appear in a variety of shapes: a handled lebes, two different kinds of phiale, two jugs, a strainer, two ladles and some handles. Among them
we can single out five vessels which probably originate from the same burial. These were given consecutive collection inventory numbers, perhaps meaning they were also acquired as a group. With variations, these shapes appear as a set in local burials of the classical period. This particular (possible) set consists of a ladle, an “achaemenid-style” almond phiale, a small round jug, a plain or handled phiale, and a handled lebes.
2. Catalogue 2.1. Bronze ladle SM 355 Bronze ladle with small deep bowl and long handle ending in a swan’s head (fig. 1, 2.1). The bowl is slightly tapered into a flat plain rim and is placed at an obtuse angle and continuous to the straight handle. The latter starts from the bowl as a triangular strip, then continues as a shaft which is rectangular in cross-section, curves at the top and ends in the
2.1 Fig. 1. Bronze ladle SM 355. (Photo: D. Ignatiadou)
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
Fig. 2. Bronze ladles from central Macedonia, 5th century B. C. (Compilation: D. Ignatiadou)
77
Fig. 3. Bronze almond phiale SM 356. (Photo: D. Ignatiadou)
3.1
3.2
swan’s head. The bird has a long head and flat wide beak. The details are incised: circular eyes and ears, and long curved nostrils. Missing the lower bowl. Green corrosion products everywhere. Blue corrosion inside the bowl and at the back of the handle. L preserved 29.5 cm. D bowl 5 cm. H preserved bowl 2.5 cm. Date: 480–450 B. C. A survey of the contemporary ladles in the collection of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki showed that the variety of finials is limited to, mainly, swan-heads and, rarely, heads of other birds. A goose is possibly shown on a ladle from a 5th century B. C. grave in Thermi (Sedes) near Thessaloniki (Skarlatidou 2007, 81). Most swan-head finials from ladles excavated in central Macedonia, although they are not identical, share common characteristics, i. e. they are long, narrow swan heads with more or less protruding foreheads and fan-shaped beaks, and also delicate incised curved lines marking the anatomical details on the head. Parallels: 1. Bronze ladle Py 718, Makrygialos – ancient Pydna, field 947, grave 47 (fig. 2.3). Bessios 2010, 149. Ladle of standard size ending in a big swan head with protruding forehead, fan-shaped beak with fine curved lines, and a small boss for an eye. 2. Bronze ladle, no inv. number, Makrygialos – ancient Pydna, field 951, grave 186 (fig. 2.4). Unpublished. Small ladle ending in a narrow swan head with a marked fanshaped beak. There are fine details on the beak and the sides of the head, and the eye is formed by a circle. Bowl with flat everted rim. 78
3. Bronze ladle MTh 8532, Sindos, grave 37 (fig. 2.5). Sindos 1985, cat. no 237. L 35 cm, D bowl 6.5 cm. The only ladle unearthed in the Sindos ancient cemetery was found in an early 5th century B. C. burial but outside the grave. It has a deep bowl with flat everted rim. 4. Bronze ladle, Plana, Chalkidiki (fig. 2.6). Unpublished and not inventoried. Pr. L 38.5 cm, D bowl 5.3 cm. Ladle with long handle and bowl with flat everted rim. The shaft’s width is slightly narrowed 5.2 cm before its upper end. Confiscated in Plana, near Akanthos, along with a strainer with a swan’s head. 5. Bronze ladle SM 354, Mitsobounis collection, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (fig. 2.2). Unpublished. L 33.2 cm, D bowl 5.5 cm. Bowl with flat everted rim. The second ladle in the Mitsobounis collection has a head of similar shape but smaller, although the ladle itself is longer. The head preserves fine details of curved lines on the beak and around the eye which is not recessed. The two finds were perhaps looted from the same cemetery.
2.2. Bronze almond phiale SM 356 Bronze almond phiale with shallow body continuous with the outsplayed wide rim, ending in a plain rim lip (fig. 3.1–2). Body decorated with eleven vertical embossed almonds (pointing down), concave on the inside and convex on the outside. Small and short omphalos. Whole but fragments missing from the body; one large at the upper part of two almonds and the corresponding area of the rim, and six smaller ones at the upper part of six almonds, plus two holes on two more almonds. Green corrosion products on the surface and blue corrosion plus sediment on one side of the rim inside. The corrosion on the vessel indicates that it had been placed in the tomb tilted. This resulted in the creation of the sediment “strip” along one part of its edge, above a blue-corrosion “halo”. H 4 cm. D 23.3 cm. TH body less than 1 mm. TH rim 2 mm. H almonds 4.5 cm. D omphalos 2 cm. H omphalos 3 mm. Date: 480–460 B. C. An almond phiale is depicted in the hands of a Persian dignitary in the Karaburun chamber tomb (Özgen & Özturk 1996, 47, fig. 89), and several almond phialae survive. It is rare that their decoration consists only of almonds, without a complementary design (e. g. the phialae from Achal Gori, and Kamid el-Loz; see Abka’i-Khavari 1988, F1c14 and F2c12. Also a silver bowl from Lydia, with 8 almonds, but of different proportions; see Özgen & Özturk 1996, cat. nr. 45); perhaps an indication that the western examples are plainer than the eastern ones, thus an indirect evidence on the existence of regional workshops (on the workshops see Sideris 2008 and Miller 2010, 868–875). The small omphalos on our vessel, only 2 cm wide, is also unusual.
Fig. 4. Almond phialae. 5th–4th century B. C. (Compilation: D. Ignatiadou) Fig. 5. Bronze jug SM 360. (Photo: D. Ignatiadou) Fig. 6. Bronze jugs. 5th–4th century B. C. (Compilation: D. Ignatiadou)
The number of almonds on the vessels is not always supplied in the corresponding publications, but those usually appear in even numbers; our vessel with 11 almonds is an unusual case. These so-called “lobes” must be distinguished from the lotus buds which are similar but are placed with the tip up. They should be considered to be almonds, representing the (bitter) almond, the seed connected to Phrygian mythology (Ignatiadou 2008, 331–332). Parallels: 1. Bronze phiale BM 108764, Deve Hüyük (fig. 4.1). Moorey 1980, 8, 35, fig. 6.97 and Abka’i-Khavari 1998, F1d4, and on the types 112–113. H 4.5 cm, D 18 cm. Mid-5th century B. C. It is wider and slightly higher but essentially the same shape as our phiale. 2. Silver phiale ANE 1998-1–27,1, Mazanderan province, northern Iran (fig. 4.2). Curtis and Tallis 2005, cat. nr. 103. The 14 almonds are complemented by a relief star design. 3. Glass phiale, Bonhams Sale 1st May 2013 (fig. 4.3). With 12 “incised” elongated petals alternating with 12 almonds placed at the bottom and a horizontal groove at midheight. Based on what we know about glass vessels of this period, it can be dated around or after the middle of the 4th century B. C. Another glass find decorated with 12 almonds, from Macedonia, is the beaker from Derveni tomb B (Ignatiadou 2002, fig. 3). It is very similar to a beaker found in Gordion (Jones 2005, fig. 8.10), but the Macedonian find lacks the complementary incised design that exists there among the almonds. 4. Bronze phialae KTK 19–24, Tuch el-Karamus (fig. 4.4). Pfrommer 1987, 268–269, pl. 19–22). Comparable decoration, with 18 almonds and incised decoration instead of an omphalos.
2.3. Bronze jug SM 360 Bronze vessel with flat rim, narrow sloping neck continuous with the short round body, short cylindrical inherent base, and flat bottom (fig. 5.1–2). At mid-height on the body is visible a mark in the shape of an ivy leaf. It is green but with a blue corrosion halo that was obviously created by the lower attachment of a handle; it is not clear how that handle was fastened on the rim. Undecorated. Almost complete but with detached base. Small parts missing from the neck and lower body. Green and blue corrosion products on the surface outside. On the inside, blue corrosion on most of the upper part and green near the floor; separated by a distinct line. H 7 cm. D rim 4.9 cm. D neck 3.4 cm. D body 8.5 cm. D base 4.4 cm. TH rim 1 mm. TH body less than 1 mm. Missing the handle. Date: 480–470 B. C. The excavated examples are often missing the handle but there are parallels showing how it would have been at-
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5.1
5.2
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
79
Fig. 7. Bronze (handled?) phiale SM 361. (Photo: D. Ignatiadou) Fig, 8. Bronze handled phiale from central Macedonia, 5th century B. C. (Compilation: D. Ignatiadou)
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
tached on the rim. The type is known from examples found in Apulia, but it has been suggested that the Greek finds are perhaps locally made, as the shape is represented in Greek pottery too (Tarditti 1996, 167). Parallels: 1. Bronze jug, Livadia, Chios (fig. 6.1). 6th century B. C. Archaiologikon Deltion 35, 1980, B2, 481–483 (G. Mastoropoulos). H 8 cm. Found in an un-looted stone sarcophagus. It had probably been placed on the small tripod found with it; its built-in base would fit very well inside a tripod ring. Other burial finds were two bronze strigils, a lidded marble vessel, a bronze blade, a clay hydria and a terracotta sphinx. 2. Bronze jug 2255, Vitsa, Epirus, tomb 117 (fig. 6.2). Vokotopoulou 1986, 39, pl. 52 b, dr. 83 d, and 289, 480–460 B. C. From a 5th century B. C. tomb; it was the only grave good. Missing the handle but a circular mark is described on the shoulder for the “silver-soldering of a handle”. 80
3. Bronze jug – “aryballoid prochous”. Galaxidi (fig. 6.3). Zimi, Sideris 2000, 48, fig. 19 b. Part of the so-called Galaxidi treasure. The arched handle is attached on the edge of the rim by means of two side elements, but does not seem to end below in an ivy leaf. 4. Bronze jug, Pella. Chrysostomou 1989, fig. 1. Missing the handle. It was unearthed in a field and contained 336 silver coins, dated to the 5th and early 4th centuries B. C.; the hoard was hidden in the decade between 389 and 379 B. C. 5. Two bronze handles, Olynthus. Robinson 1941, 206, cat. nr. 661, inv. nr. 31.127, pl. LV, and cat. nr. 662, inv. nr. 34.372a. Dated before 348 B. C. The one shown in the publication is not a very fine example. 6. Silver jug, Bojkov collection, Sofia (fig. 6.4). Marazov 2011, cat. nr. 106. D 5.3 cm, H 6.3 cm. Dated to the 4th century B. C. through comparison to a parallel found in Krushare. The best-preserved example of this period. It is carinated and its handle is attached to the body by means of an ivy leaf.
2.4. Bronze (handled?) phiale SM 361 Bronze phiale with shallow body continuous with a nearly vertical wall and rim (fig. 7.1–2). The rim lip is plain and slightly inverted. The bottom is flat. The body is undecorated except two horizontal incised lines 3 mm and 5 mm below the rim. Whole but fragments missing from four places on the body; one with corresponding break of the rim. Green corrosion products on the surface, blue corrosion at an area below the sediment, and brown sediment on one side of the rim inside and outside. The corrosion on the vessel indicates that it had been placed in the tomb tilted. The lower part was soon covered with soil and corroded to a green patina. The rest was subjected to the winter-summer rising of the water or mud level in the tomb. This resulted in the creation of the sediment “strip” along its rim and below that. H 5 cm. D 22.8 cm. TH body less than 1 mm. TH rim 2 mm. Date: 480–450 B. C. Plain phialae do not appear in Macedonian funerary contexts. It is possible that this vessel was originally a handled phiale, known from elite burials. That shape is conventionally called patera, but more correctly herniptron or herniveion. Our bowl is missing parts and perhaps one of the two larger gaps corresponds to the original place of the missing handle. When that was detached, part of the wall came off along with it. Parallels: 1. Bronze handled phiale MTH 5127, Stavroupolis, Thessaloniki (fig. 8.1). Rhomiopoulou 1989, 205, pl. 49a–c. From a late 5th century B. C. burial. It has a plain bowl with two incised lines below the rim. Its handle bears incised decoration and is soldered on the bowl.
Fig. 9. Bronze handled lebes SM 362. (Photo: D. Ignatiadou)
2. Handle of a handled phiale. Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki (fig. 8.2). Unpublished. Date: 480–450? It is still riveted on a wall fragment and is decorated with incised palmettes.
2.5. Bronze handled lebes SM 362 Bronze handled lebes (fig. 9.1–2) with twin moving handles, narrow mouth with flat rim – flush with the horizontal shoulder, almost vertical wall and convex bottom. The handle attachments were attached at opposite points on the shoulder. Each consists of an ivy leaf topped by twin rings. Each ring starts as a strip from the upper middle of the ivy leaf and then curves to form a loop. The rings are separated by a middle bud with two sepals and a straight vertical stem starting from the center of the attachment. Between the leaf and the rings are two protruding lozenges. The attachments are not identical; one leaf is bigger than the other. Each handle is a curved vertical strip terminating at each end at a curved shaft circular in section and ending in a flower bud with a base ring and a globular top. When folded down, the handles rest flat on the rim. The lower body and bottom are preserved in fragments. One attachment leaf is missing its tip. Green corrosion products on the surface, blue corrosion “halo” below the sediment, and brown sediment on one side of the rim inside and outside. The handles are detached but their attachment marks are visible on the shoulder. The corrosion on the vessel indicates that it had been placed in the tomb tilted. The lower part was soon covered with soil and corroded to green products. The rest was subjected to the rising of the water or mud level in the tomb. This resulted in the creation of the sediment layer at the upper part and the blue corrosion “halo” below that. H preserved 16 cm. D body 22.8 cm. D rim 18 cm (outer) 15.5 cm (inner). H rim 3 mm. TH body less than 1 mm. TH rim 2–5 mm. L handles (detached) 19.5 cm and 27 cm (with the attachments). H handles 8.2 cm. Date: 480–460 B. C.
The shape of the lebes with flat shoulder and narrow mouth, the so-called dinos, appears in metalwork and pottery in the 6th and 5th centuries B. C., but its use is debated. In early representations with a “symposium” scene, the lebes appears on a high stand in place of a krater; it is therefore concluded that it contained wine or mixed wine (e. g. on a relief from Paros, see Kontoleon 1965). Rumpf argued that this is the Argive krater mentioned in the literary sources (Hdt. IV,152,4; see Despini 2011, 337–339, note 11). In the burial of a priestess in Sindos in the late 6th century B. C., however, the lebes was associated with a water ritual, as there was no evidence for a symposion and it was deposited together with a clay hydria (Ignatiadou 2012, 396–397, cat. no 26). Parallels: 1. Bronze lebes – “dinos” with Silenus handle attachments, Py 598, Kitros 1987 (fig. 10). Vokotopoulou 1997, cat. nr. 116–117. Bessios 2010, 268. It is standing on a ring base
Fig. 10. Bronze handled lebes from Pydna, 5th century B. C. (After Vokotopoulou 1997, cat. nr. 116–117)
81
Fig. 11. Remains of fabric on the bronze ladle SM 355. (Photo D. Ignatiadou).
Fig. 12. Azurite and sediments on the surface of the vessels. (Photos D. Ignatiadou).
with three spool-shaped feet and is dated to 500–480 B. C. Based on the style of the Silenus handle attachments, Julia Vokotopoulou concluded proximity to a Corinth-influenced workshop but also raised the question of possible Macedonian manufacture. Another lebes from the same site, still unpublished, is not handled but has the same kind of base. We do not know whether our vessel was standing on such a base as well; we will be able to tell once all the base fragments are assembled. The resemblance of the Mitsobounis handled lebes to the Pydna finds might indicate a connection to earlier illegal activity in that area; the cemeteries of ancient Pydna and of present-day Makrygialos and Kitros were extensively looted before the controlled rescue excavations started in the 1980s. 2. Bronze lebes – “situla” from Staro-Selo near Sliven, Bulgaria. Venedikov 1964, fig. 16. From a group of vessels dated to 480–470 B. C. The lower part is fragmentary.
linen fabric (fig. 11). As some of the vessels were obviously placed in the tomb tilted, we can suppose that this green surface coincides with the depth of the soil, or rather mud, which filled the lower part of the tomb. This part of each vessel remained buried for most of its life within the tomb. Above this level there was probably an amount of water which flooded the tomb. When the water receded, were formed a hard siliceous yellowish sediment, and azurite below that (fig. 12). This bright blue compound is not encountered very often, and it is certainly not a coincidence that it appears on all the vessels of the group. On the open shapes azurite covers the upper outside surface above a distinct line. In the small jug it is formed on the upper part of the interior surface. The formation process of the corrosion is considered valuable for the identification of the site; it was therefore decided to keep the vessels untreated for some time, so that they could be compared with other looted finds.
3. Discussion All the vessels presented are nearly whole and not very damaged. The fact that they are not crushed but retain their original shape indicates that they were retrieved from a tomb which was not violently destroyed and which still preserved empty space inside. Taking into account the period to which they date, we can deduce that they were found in a stone-built cist tomb or in a stone sarcophagus. They were in contact with a light brown soil, remains of which are preserved on all of them. As the finds are still untreated, it is evident that they were exposed to similar, or most probably the same, environmental conditions. The nature and similarity of their corrosion products and the sediments on their surface, as well as the patterns of their formation, is a major indication that they were probably interred in the same burial. The corrosion and an understanding of its formation mechanisms can help us conclude a few facts about the burial. The surface on all the vessels is not covered by a protective stable patina but by unstable green corrosion. On the ladle and the lebes are some surviving fragments of a 82
4. Chemical analysis An XRF analysis of the bronze was conducted in the analytical laboratory of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki by chemist Christos Katsifas (fig. 13). The results show a homogeneous picture. All the vessels are high-tin bronzes, although this golden and shiny alloy is not visible in pristine condition, not even in small patches. They do not contain lead, although the other similar ladle in the same private collection does.
Object Ladle
Cu (%)
Sn (%)
Pb (%)
As (%)
Fe (%)
86.6
13
0.1
0.03
0.08
Almond phiale
84
15.5
0.16
0.1
0.07
Jug
85
14
0.2
0.07
0.18
Handled (?) phiale
86
13
0.57
–
0.08
87.5
12.4
0.1
0.02
0.07
Lebes
Fig. 13. Micro-XRF analysis. (Ch. Katsifas)
5. Conclusions All evidence indicates that the five bronze vessels from the Mitsonounis Collection were interred in a single burial, in a cemetery which has not yet been identified. Comparison of the vessels with excavated finds from northern Greece dates them to the first half of the 5th century B. C.
Aknowlegdements The author wishes to thank Prof. Stella Drougou for permission to publish detail photos of the Pydna ladles, and Demosthenes Kechagias for the visual identification of the fabric.
Bibliography Abka’i Khavari M. (1988). Die achämenidischen Metallschalen. Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 21, 91–137. Bessios M. (2010). Pieridon Stefanos: Pydna, Methone and the Antiquities of North Pieria. (Katerini). Chrysostomou P. (1989). A Treasure of Early Macedonian Silver Coins from Pella. Ancient Macedonia V/1, 621–644. Curtis J. & Tallis N. (eds.) (2005). Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia. (London). Despini E. (2011). Grave Offerings and Mortuary Beliefs. The Testimony of the Sindos Burials. In: Νάματα. Festschrift für Prof. Demetrios Pandermalis, 335–343. (Thessaloniki).
Ignatiadou D. (2002). Colorless Glass in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Macedonia. Journal of Glass Studies 44, 11–24. Ignatiadou D. (2008). Psychotropic Plants on Achaemenid-Style Vases. In: Darbandi S. M. R. & Zournatzi A. (eds.). Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters, 327–337. (Athens). Ignatiadou D. (2012). The Sindos Priestess. In: Stambolides N. & Giannopoulou M. (eds.). Princesses of the Mediterranean in the Dawn of History, Cycladic Art Museum, 388–411. (Athens). Jones J. D (2005). Glass Vessels from Gordion. In: Kealhofer L. (ed.). Trade and Influence along the Royal Road. The Archaeology of Midas and the Phrygians: Recent Work at Gordion, 101–116. (Philadelphia). Kontoleon N. M. (1965). Archaic Frieze from Paros. In: Festschrift Anastassios K. Orlandos, vol. A, 348–418. (Athens). Marazov I. (2011). Thrace and the Ancient World. Vassil Bojkov collection. (Sofia). Miller M. C. (2010). Luxury Toreutic in the Western Satrapies: CourtInspired Gift-Exchange Diffusion. In: Jacobs B. & Rollinger R. (eds.). Der Achaemenidenhof / The Achaemenid Court, 853–897. (Wiesbaden).
Moorey P. R. S. (1980). Cemeteries of the First millennium B. C. at Deve Hüyük. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 87. (Oxford). Robinson D. M. (1941). Metal and Minor Miscellaneous Finds. Excavations at Olynthus 10. Baltimore). Özgen I. & Özturk J. (1996). The Lydian Treasure, Heritage Recovered. (Istanbul). Pfrommer M. (1987). Studien zu alexandrinischer und grossgriechischer Toreutik frühhellenistischer Zeit. (Berlin). Rhomiopoulou K. (1989). Closed Burial Contexts of the Late Classical Period from Thessaloniki. In: Φίλια Έπη, Festschrift to George E. Mylonas 3, 194–218. (Athens). Sideris A. (2008). Achaemenid Toreutics in the Greek Periphery. In: Ancient Greece and Ancient Iran: Cross-Cultural Encounters, 339–350. (Athens). Sindos (1985). Exhibition Catalogue, Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. (Athens). Skarlatidou E. (2007). The Ancient Cemetery beneath the Modern Town, 81. (Athens). Tarditi Ch. (1996). Vasi di bronzo in area Apula. Produzioni greche ed italiche di età archaica e classica. (Lecce). Venedikov I. (1964). La trouvaille de Staro Selo. Bulletin de l’Institut d’Archéologie, Académie Bulgare des Sciences XXVII, 77–109. Vokotopoulou J. (1986). Vitsa. The cemeteries of a Molossian settlement. (Athens). Vokotopoulou J. (1997). Silver and Bronze Works of Art, Greek Art. (Athens). Zimi E. & Sideris A. (2003). Bronze Vessels from Galaxidi. Initial Approach. In: Themelis P. & Stathaki-Koumari R. (eds.). Galaxidi from the Antiquity till Today, First International Congress, 37–60. (Athens).
83