Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:15:01.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artemis Orthia and chronology1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

John Boardman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British School's work in the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta was in its day generally hailed as a classic example of carefully observed stratigraphic excavation in Greece. Equally general has been the reluctance of scholars to accept the dates which were proposed by the excavators for their finds on the basis of their observations on stratigraphy and pottery contexts. In this the excavators were at fault in their choice of absolute dates for the main periods; and, equally, critics have been at fault in failing to adjust their dating. Kunze pointed out the major inconsistencies and the results of accepting some of the excavators' dates in his review of Artemis Orthia (published in 1929 by the Hellenic Society) in Gnomon ix (1933) 1–14. In their answer to another review the excavators gave an excellent account of their method and of the use and abuse of stratigraphy (JHS 1 (1930) 329–36). By reconsidering the absolute dates they proposed I think it is possible to recover much of the value of the observations they made about the stratigraphy and the relative chronology of the finds, and to make some new suggestions about the history of the site and dating of some Laconian objects.

The main feature in the stratigraphy of the sanctuary was a blanket of sand which covered the whole area, and which, according to the excavators, sealed deposits earlier than about 600 B.C. Beneath the sand there was a succession of deposits down to virgin soil, which clearly represented a gradual, although by no means even, accumulation of earth and discarded votives. The only significant physical difference in levels which could be observed was offered by the presence of a pebble pavement which was associated with remains of the earliest altar on the site. This pavement, preserved only in small patches, was embedded in the main ‘Geometric’ level, as it was defined by the excavators. This contained much burnt material. The pavement was assigned to the ninth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 58 , November 1963 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 The stratigraphy is described in AO ch. i. In the earlier reports in BSA separate strata were observed: an ‘Archaic’, an ‘Intermediate’ (with ‘Protocorinthian’, ‘Archaic’, and ‘Geometric’), and the ‘Geometric’, but it was admitted that there were no sharp dividing lines. The ‘Intermediate’ strata were the richest; their pottery is later described as ‘Geometric, Protocorinthian and Laconian I’.

3 I use inverted commas for the excavators' terms which we have yet properly to define in current terminology.

4 BSA xlix (1954) 302, no. 4.

5 Ann. xxxiii–xxxiv (1955–6) 11 ff., esp. 18.

6 For the Menelaion excavation see BSA xv (1908–9) 108 ff.

7 The starting date for East Greek orientalizing (the Wild Goat style) has similarly had to be lowered from about 700 to at least the middle of the century.

8 As at Taranto, , Boll. d'Arte xlvi (1961) 267.Google Scholar

9 Thus MissBenton, (JHS lxx (1950) 17 f.)Google Scholar, but she also draws attention (p. 22) to a few fragments of Protogeometric type said to be from the site (Desborough, , Protogeometric Pottery 289, pl. 38).Google Scholar See below, n. 24.

10 AO 70, 114–30: 6 per cent. of the ‘Protocorinthian’ with ‘Geometric’ alone; 14·2 per cent. with ‘Geometric and Subgeometric’; 37·3 per cent. with ‘Geometric, Subgeometric, and Laconian I’; 9·7 per cent. with ‘Subgeometric’ and Laconian I; 8·2 per cent. with Laconian I only and scraps of Laconian II.

11 This was observed by Miss Benton, op. cit. Lane (op. cit. 112, pl. 25e) has this as a Laconian imitation.

12 The Polyphemos fragment and another (BCH lxxix (1955) 1 ff., figs. 1–4, 16), the Argive Heraeum stand (ibid., figs. 9, 15; BSA xxxv (1934–5) pl. 52). When black-figure is adopted it is in the Attic manner: BSA xlviii (1953) 56 f., fig. 30. A sherd from Mycenae, (Archaeologia lxxxii. 33, fig. 17d)Google Scholar shows the developed outlinestyle beside the new black-figure. It is no longer fashionable to see Argive influence in the Fusco craters from Syracuse (BCH lx (1936) pls. 10–14, except 11a, Corinthian, according to R. M. Cook; Cook, , Greek Painted Pottery 147Google Scholar; Villard-Vallet, , Mél. lxviii (1956) 23)Google Scholar, but their connexion with such pieces as BCH lxxxv (1961) 676, fig. 4 from Argos (very close to the Fusco crater, pl. 12b), Argive Heraeum ii, pl. 56. 8–10, and Perachora ii, pl. 44. 4001 seems to me undeniable.

13 These depend on the accepted dating of Corinthian pottery. For this I follow Payne, although it seems likely that a slight down-dating of Transitional and Early Corinthian may prove justified.

14 Kunze, , Kretische Bronzereliefs 254 n. 23.Google Scholar

15 Kunze, , Archaische Schildbänder 65Google Scholar, dates it in the late seventh century.

16 Pl. 106. 1—from two plaques, cf. Dunbabin, , The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours 86.Google ScholarKunze, , Schildbänder 136Google Scholar, dates this to the early sixth century, but Perseus' head recalls the Nessos Painter.

17 Kunze, op. cit. 56, dates it in the second half of the seventh century.

18 See Perachora ii, pt. 2 for a valuable study of these ivories.

19 The Emporio (Chios) excavations have given a good stratified sequence.

20 Cf. Lorimer, , Homer and the Monuments 179 f.Google Scholar on their significance.

21 In The Aegean and the Near East (Studies presented to Hetty Goldman) 185 ff.

22 Fresh evidence for these seals from Ischia (still unpublished) confirms this date.

23 Zeit und Herkunft 55 ff., with pls. 5–6, chronology on pp. 72 ff.

24 In Bonner Jahrbücher 158 (1958) 170 ff. Kirsten discusses the early structures. He had identified pottery of ‘Protogeometric’ Amyklaion type (see above, n. 9) in Sparta Museum, from below the cobble pavement. He believes it typical of the finds below the pavement, and that this, and the Early Temple which soon followed it, belong with the earliest of the ‘Geometric’ deposit, no later than c. 750. But the ivories below the pavement (see above) go with the rest of the ‘Geometric’ deposit, whatever we may think of the date of the earliest pottery.