The Stone Vessels
Chapter 8
The Stone Vessels
Introduction
by Colin Renfrew
Fragments of stone vessels were, after the broken pot-
tery, the most frequent finds at Dhaskalio Kavos. By
far the greatest number were of marble, representing
most of the forms known from the Early Cycladic cem-
eteries of the time. But unlike most of the specimens
recorded from the cemeteries, the specimens from Ka-
vos recovered by us were without exception broken,
although it is possible that some complete examples
have been removed from the site by looters.
By far the most numerous fragments in this cat-
egory were the marble open bowls, a prominent find
in the cemeteries of the Keros-Syros culture (Early
Cycladic II). These are studied in Section A, below,
by Sophia Voutsaki. The other marble vessels are
described by Giorgos Gavalas in Section B, vessels of
grey marble and of limestone by Kiki Birtacha in Sec-
tion D, and the fragments of vessels of chlorite schist
in Section C by Colin Renfrew.
The stone vessels offer considerable scope for the
study of the breakage patterns. Polished marble expe-
riences surface changes, including patination, with the
passage of time after the polishing episode, as well as
undergoing erosion to the surface (often described as
‘wear’) through weathering when exposed to the ele-
ments. These two processes offer, at least in principle,
the possibility of studying the nature and the timing
of the episodes of breakage reflected in their fragmen-
tary condition. This issue is addressed in Chapter 12:
‘Thraumatology (breakage patterns)’. It has also been
studied in detail here by Sophia Voutsaki in Section
8A with respect to the marble open bowls. It should
be noted that the different approaches employed in
these two studies have led to differing conclusions:
this is a matter which can perhaps be resolved in the
future using more specialised analytical methods.
Meanwhile the data are presented here without any
attempt at reconciliation. Until such technical analy-
sis is undertaken both studies must be considered as
provisional and open to subsequent revision.
The marble vessels recovered during the ear-
lier work at Dhaskalio Kavos in 1964 and 1967 have
285
been studied by Devetzi (1992). The survey of Early
Cycladic stone vessels by Getz-Gentle (1996) sets out
comprehensively the repertoire of known forms.
A. The marble open bowls
by Sophia Voutsaki
Stone vases are together with figurines the trademark
of the EC civilization. Among the stone vases plain
marble bowls are the most popular vessel type found
in the EC period. The plain marble bowls found in
Dhaskalio Kavos, Keros constitute the largest group
found in a single site. The 1987 investigation alone
has produced 262 fragments, while previous explo-
rations (Doumas 1964; Zapheiropoulou 1967; 1968a)
report hundreds of fragments found on the surface.
(It should be added that complete examples, said to
come from Keros, are now in private collections: e.g.
Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 53). The study of the bowl frag-
ments may elucidate not only the function and use
of the vase type, but also the nature of this rich and
complex site.
The main characteristics of the assemblage are
the following:
• large quantity;
• quality of manufacture;
• chronological consistency;
• relative homogeneity within each type; and
• the broken and sometimes poorly preserved
state.
These various aspects of the material will be discussed
in this chapter. First, the raw material and methods of
manufacture will be discussed, followed by a pres-
entation of the main morphological characteristics of
the bowls. The chapter will conclude with a discus-
sion of the preservation and breakage patterns of the
material. A full catalogue of the plain bowl fragments
will follow.
1. The material
In this section some basic observations concerning the
colour and texture of the Keros marble bowls will be
made in order to detect the range of materials used in
Keros. These observations rely on a visible inspection
 Chapter 8

of the material, as no provenance analyses have been one hand, and other morphological characteristics
carried out on the material. Anyway, provenance anal- such as diameter, thickness or rim type. This would
ysis of marble has not proved particularly conclusive perhaps allow us to detect different ‘workshops’ or
so far (Renfrew & Peacey 1968; Herz & Doumas 1991; sources of provenance. However, no such correlation
see Sherratt 2000, 111 for more recent bibliography). could be established.
Deposits of marble are scattered among the Cycladic
islands, though not found in Keros itsef. Not all islands 2. Techniques of manufacture
have high quality marble; Naxos and Paros were prob- The observations on manufacturing techniques and
ably the main sources of marble in prehistory just as equipment used are based on bibliographic infor-
in the historical periods. It is not possible to establish mation. The bowls themselves rarely show traces of
whether marble was quarried at this time; it is likely manufacture, as both their inner and outer surfaces
that loose blocks naturally split from outcrops were are as a rule carefully smoothed. However, traces
used (Oustinoff 1987, 90–91). of manufacture have been detected in other vessel
The material used for the Keros marble bowls types, e.g. on the inner surface and around the lugs
is by far white fine-grained marble (see Tables 8.1 & of kandiles or on pyxides (Papathanasopoulos 1962,
8.2). This is true for the overwhelming majority of 109–11).
ECII bowls, although very occasionally darker banded The bowls are usually well made, regular in
marble is used (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). The contrast shape, with smooth surfaces. It would seem that a
with the (earlier?) lug bowls which were made from primitive compass was used in their design (Getz-
white marble and darker marbles in roughly equal Preziosi 1987a, 299). It is possible that they were made
proportions (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289; Getz-Gentle with a rotating drill which removed small cores of
1996, 65) is perhaps significant. Devetzi (1992, 46) lists stone all around the interior with the aid of abrasive
the few examples of EC bowls made of stones other powder — at least this method has been proposed
than white marble. for the manufacture of the contemporary EMII stone
The visual homogeneity of the material is strik- vases (Warren 1969, 157–65). Devetzi (1990, 117) has
ing. However, visual homogeneity does not imply a suggested that the use of the drill is attested already
common, let alone a single origin; the possibility that in ECI.
the raw material was imported from different sources, It is possible that emery (from Naxos) was em-
or that the objects themselves were manufactured in ployed as an abrasive, a ‘chisel’ or a drill, although there
different places remains. If anything, the variety of is little evidence for its use in EC period (Oustinoff 1987,
fabrics among the pottery found at the site would 91). It should be noted that emery has been found at
rather reinforce this possibility (Broodbank 2000a, Dhaskalio Kavos (Broodbank 2000a?, 231; Chapter 9B).
232ff; Chapter 6 this volume). Abrasion marks may also have been removed by means
An attempt has been made to see whether any of obsidian tools or pumice. The use of pumice for stone
correlation exists between colour and texture on the working is not attested in the EC period, but pumice has
Table 8.1. Colour of marble.
been found in graves — e.g. in Phoinik-
ies, Amorgos (Tsountas 1898, 145–6),
Colour Quantity and in a domestic or ritual (?) deposit
White 217 in Kato Akrotiri, Amorgos (Tsountas
Greyish-white 23 1898, 166–8; see now Yiannouli 2002 for
Grey 5 further investigations in the area). Nor
White with grey shades 3 do we have direct evidence of the use of
Light grey 2 obsidian tools for stone working, but the
White with faint grey vein 1 nearly abrasion-free surfaces of marble
White with brown-greyish veins 1 vases (and figurines) suggest that some-
White with few brown speckles 1 thing of this kind was used (Oustinoff
White with greyish speckles 1 Table 8.2. Texture of marble. 1987, 93–4). The fact that the peak in
White with faint reddish veins 1 stone vase production in ECII coincides
Greyish-white with grey speckles 1 Texture Quantity with the more widespread use of metal
Greyish-white with brown speckles 1 Very fine grains 49 tools might not be fortuitous, but once
Brownish-white 1 Fine grains 187 more we have no direct evidence for
Colour not visible 1 Coarse grains 20 their use in stone carving.
Colour not recorded 3 Not recorded 6 The question of the provenance
Total 262 Total 262
and place of manufacture of the bowls
286
 The Stone Vessels

found in Keros has already been addressed above.

Zapheiropoulou (1968a, 381; 1979, 540) mentions that
fragments of unfinished stone vases, as well as pieces
of marble were found on the site. Getz-Preziosi (1982,
42) has noted the existence of one unfinished figurine
among the so-called ‘Keros hoard’. The material found
in the 1987 investigation has now produced strong
evidence for local manufacture of vases in the form of
one unfinished bowl (151: see Chapter 8(D), this vol-
ume) and a roughly worked piece of obsidian which
might be a waste product from manufacture (066: see
Chapter 9(A), this volume). Evidence for local produc-
tion in other crafts is discussed more extensively by
Broodbank (2000a, 231–2).

3. Form: general characteristics

(i) Form
The characteristics of the ECII stone vases in general
are standardization within specific types alongside
increased overall diversity of forms, and the occasional
production of highly complex examples (Getz-Preziosi
1977, 95, 98; Devetzi 1990, 117–18; Getz-Gentle 1996,
98–9).
In ECII the plain marble bowl becomes the
most popular shape (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 98; Doumas
1983, 42; Devetzi 1992, 61; Getz-Gentle 1996, 97). The
preponderance of plain bowls illustrates the ECII ten-
dency ‘to simplify, standardize, and ease production’
(Getz-Gentle 1996, 98–9). There is, however, variation
within this basic type: there are bowls with vertical
lugs or horizontal rim lugs, with a spout or a pedestal
as well as multiple examples (Getz-Preziosi 1987a,
299). Plain bowls are quite homogeneous, although
no two bowls are exactly alike (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99)
— each example was individually produced, even if
it conformed to a general type.
However, plain bowls display differences in
shape. Some have a flat base, but others either have Figure 8.1. Examples of rim types A to E.
no base at all, or have just a small circular depression,
or indentation underneath (Doumas 1983, 42; Getz- their profile, and most specifically, the curvature of the
Preziosi 1987a, 299; Devetzi 1992, 61–72; Getz-Gentle thickened rim and the depth of the grove beneath it.
1996, 97ff.). It has been suggested that bowls with a • Type A is the most common rim type (Table 8.3), and
flat base tend to have straighter walls, while those can be described as the classic plain marble bowl:
without a base display a more curved profile (Hek- the rim is thickened in the interior, and ends in a
man 2003, 135). Their depth varies, though most are slight carination; the grove at the interior is fairly
relatively shallow. The rim is almost always thickened pronounced.
and rolled on the interior, and is often defined by a • Type B is less common: the rim is slightly thickened,
shallow grove on the inside. and does not form a carination; the grove is conse-
The material found in Keros in 1987 conforms quently quite shallow.
more or less to this basic description. Rims are as a rule • Type C is quite rare: the thickened rim is curved
thickened on the interior, although the exact profile and thicker than in rim type B; it does not have a
varies slightly. The rim fragments recovered in the carination, and the grove is rather shallow.
1987 investigation have been classified into five dif- • Type D has a deep grove, and the thickened rim
ferent types (A, B, C, D, E: see Fig. 8.1) on the basis of ends in a fairly sharp carination.
287
 Chapter 8

• Type E: there is only one example. The rim is almost observations about the profile of the bowls, or their
straight and ends in fairly sharp edge. The exist- proportions. The angle of the base in base fragments
ence of plain marble bowls with a straight (rather vary from 138° to 170° with most examples clustering
than thickened) rim had already been noted by between 150° and 160°.
Devetzi (1992, 35, 61). Finally, considering the base of the bowls, again
It should be emphasized that these types are not clear- the fragmentary state of the material does not allow
ly distinct; as can be seen on Table 8.3, two examples us to differentiate clearly between examples with and
share features of both type A and type B. those without a defined base. While flat fragments
No chronological significance can be attributed can easily be identified as belonging to the base of a
to this typological division, since the material was bowl (17 fragments), those with a strong curvature but
unstratified. We have already established above (sec- without defined base are more difficult to identify as
tion 1 above) that rim profile correlates with neither such (see, for instance, cat. nos. 232, 37, 665 & 697), and
the texture nor the colour of the marble. might be underrepresented in our assemblage.
An attempt has been made to examine whether
rim profile correlates with other features, such as the (ii) Size
size of the vase (Table 8. 4). (Rim fragments which may Size has already been discussed in connection with
be either type A or type B have been excluded.) the different rim types. To begin with a few general
Bowls with the classic thickened rim type A vary observations, ECII vases are said to be smaller than
across all size categories and go into the larger category. their ECI counterparts (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 98; 1987b,
Type D rims which have a more pronounced carination 67). However, this does not really hold for ECII plain
and a deeper grove are in general smaller and cover a bowls which vary considerably in size. While (ECI?)
range of size from 5 to 15 cm. In contrast, the bowls lug bowls range in diameter from 6cm to at the most
whose rims are less thick in the interior (especially 37cm (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289; Getz-Gentle 1996,
type B, and E?) tend to be small, and might therefore 66), (ECII?) plain bowls may reach nearly 60 cm. The
have been used for drinking as well. The only larger majority of bowls , however, range from 10 to 20 cm
bowl with rim type B (with a diameter of 17 cm) has a (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99).
heavily encrusted inner surface, and its classification Examples found previously in Keros have a
was uncertain. In another two cases of rim type B the diameter of 38 cm (Zapheiropoulou 1968a, 381), and
diameter has not been recorded, but on the basis of the even 57 cm (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). Indeed Kavos,
wall thickness these should be small examples. Keros seems to have produced the largest examples
Unfortunately the fragmentary condition of (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100) — a fact that once more em-
the Keros 1987 material does not allow us to make phasizes the special character or status of this site
— but large examples said to come from
Table 8. 3. Frequency of Naxos have also been mentioned.
rim types.
It is time to look systematically at the
material from the Keros 1987 investigation.
Rim type No.
Table 8.5 presents the distribution of bowls
A 43
across the size range (based on rim diam-
B 15
eter).
A or B 2
C 7
Table 8.5 shows that that the material
D 19
from Dhaskalio Kavos confirms Getz-Gen-
E 1? tle’s general observations about the size of
not recorded 2 marble bowls (see above), as the majority of
Figure 8.2. Frequency of rim types. not classifiable 10
Total 99 Table 8.5. Rim diameter of marble bowls.

Table 8. 4. Rim type versus size (rim diameter). Rim diameter Number of bowls
0–4.99 0
Rim type 5.0–9.9 10.0–14.9 15.0–19.9 >20 not recorded Total 5–9.99 34
A 11 14 7 6 7 45 10–14.99 26
B 12 1 2 15 15–19.99 9
C 1 4 1 1 7 >20 cm 7
D 9 8 2 19 not recorded/not known 11
E? 1 1? Total 87

288
 The Stone Vessels

Table 8.6. Relation between size (rim diameter) and maximum thickness.

cm 0.1–0.50 0.51–0.99 1.0–1.50 1.51–1.99 >2.0 Total

5–9.99 6 26 2 34
10–14.99 16 10 26
15–19.99 2 7 9
20–22.00 3 1 4
>22 1 1 1 3
Total 76

Table 8.7. Base diameter of marble bowls.

Base diameter (cm) Number of bowls

0–1.99 0
2–3.99 1
4–5.99 8
Figure 8.3. Variation in rim diameter. 6–8.99 4
9–10 1
bowls vary between 10 and 20 cm. However, it should not recorded/not known 3
be pointed out that the number of bowls between 5 Total 17
and 10 cm in size is almost equal. Unfortunately, due
Table 8.8. Base diameter versus max. thickness.
to the limited time available for the study of the mate-
rial, it was not possible to establish the diameter of the cm 0.51–0.99 1.0–1.49 1.51–1.99 Total
large examples with more precision. 2–3.99 1 1
It is worth examining whether there is any stand- 4–5.99 5 3 8
ardization in rim diameter. 6–8.99 4 4
Figure 8.7 shows that this is not really the case. 9–10 1 1
The bowls clearly cluster around the 7–10 cm diameter Total 14
(38 out of the 80 examples for which we have accurate
measurements are in these categories), but there is a categorize as plain bowls were not used for a single
certain continuum in size from 5 to 20 cm. purpose. While, for instance, the smaller examples
Considering the relation between size, rim diam- with straighter rim might have been used both as
eter and thickness between, Getz-Gentle (1996, 102) containers and as drinking cups, the more ‘classic’
has suggested that if the rim is thicker than 2 cm, a rim plain bowls with the shallow profile and thickened or
diameter larger than 45 cm should be reconstructed. rolled rim must have been used to contain something
While there is an overall correspondence, Table 8.6 solid, or at the most a thick liquid — in which case
shows that the correlation is not absolute. Here, of the rolled rim would prevent the liquid from spilling
course, the size of the rim fragment plays a role as the out (Getz-Gentle 1996, 99). The lack of a defined base
walls tend to become thicker towards the base. in some bowls may imply that they were held in the
Table 8.7 presents the variation in base diameter, hand (the smaller examples) or on the lap (the larger
and shows that most base fragments cluster around bowls) — either way, it is unlikely that they were
the 5 cm.While there is little point in discussing supposed to stand, or to be displayed on a surface.
standardization in base diameter, it is worth noting The ones with a flat base, however, could be used for
a broad correlation between (max.) thickness and these purposes.
base diameter (Table 8.8), which does not, however, We have seen that plain bowls vary significantly
constitute a rule. in terms of size and thickness, hence also in terms of
weight. It is not easy to establish whether differences
(iii) The function of plain marble bowls in size imply a different function. The material from
The discussion on the morphological characteristics Dhaskalio Kavos cannot help us with this question:
of the plain marble bowls allows us to reflect on their its fragmentary nature does not allow us to examine
function. We have observed a certain differentiation whether differences in size correlate with morpho-
between smaller examples, in some (but not all) cases logical differences (e.g. whether larger examples were
with straighter and less thickened rim, and examples more stable, or more shallow, etc.). Having said that,
with more pronounced thickened rim which vary in all the larger examples in the 1987 assemblage belong
size and profile. This variation implies that what we to the more classic type with thickened rim (which, of
289
 Chapter 8
course, makes sense as it would be impossible to drink
out of these large and heavy examples).
Nor is it possible to ascertain whether differences
in size implied differential value of the bowls (and
presumably, different status of the person presenting
or receiving it as offering). Getz-Gentle has already
suggested that larger stone vases and large figu-
rines were deposited together in richer graves (1996,
100–102), but this is supported by only three examples
recovered from scientific excavations. Once more, the
Keros material cannot help us with this question.
The question whether marble bowls (and stone
vases in general) were used for exclusively funerary
purposes is still debated. Although by far the major-
ity of bowls has been found in graves, or can be said
to come from graves because of their relatively good
condition, bowls must have been used in everyday
life as well. This is supported by the fact that they are
occasionally found in settlements: fragments of marble
bowls have been found in a domestic (or ritual?) de-
posit in Amorgos, Kato Akrotiri (Tsountas 1898, 166–8;
Yiannouli 2002, 1–2), while stone vases in general are
reported in Kastri (Tsountas 1899, 122; Bossert 1967,
60–64; Marthari 1998, 28); in Kastraki, Naxos (Fotou
1983, 28); in Phylakopi (Evans & Renfrew 1984, 66);
in Grotta, Naxos (Kontoleon 1949Not in refs, 119); in
Akrotiri, Thera (Devetzi 1992, 119), in Skarkos, Ios,
(Devetzi 1992, 119) and in Dhaskalio, Keros (Doumas
1964, 411). Keeping in mind the dearth of excavated
ECII settlements, it is safer to conclude that marble
bowls were used in practices taking place in both the
settlements and the cemeteries.
(iv) Traces of colour
The traces of colour found usually in the inner surface
of the bowls have to be brought into the discussion at
this point. Different colours are found, though red is
most commonly found. The red (now sometimes pink)
Table 8.9. Plain bowls found together with other elements of the cosmetic tool-kit.
Grave Marble bowl
Paros, Pyrgos 98 Lug bowl
Paros, Panagia 56 Plain bowl
Naxos, Ayioi Anargyroi 5 Lug bowl
Amorghos, Dhokathismata Deep bowl
Siphnos, Akrotiraki 142 Bowl
Syros, Chalandriani 356 2 plain marble bowls. Clay bowl
Syros, Chalandriani 355 3 plain bowls
Syros, Chalandriani 356 Plain bowl
Naxos, Spedhos 21 Plain bowl
colour is identified as hematite or cinnabar (mercuric
sulphide: see more recently Sherratt 2000, 8, 112,
118–19), while the blue colour (now usually black) is
said to be azurite. In some cases the soil found inside
the bowl was red or blue (Dümmler 1886, 17–18); this
provides proof that the bowls were used as contain-
ers of colour.
Traces of colour are found already in the ECI
period though not in all vase types: they are attested in
lug bowls and palettes (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96; 1987a,
307 cat. no 129; Doumas 1983, cat. no 130; Sherratt
2000, 117 where more examples are listed), but not in
beakers and kandiles (Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 289). It is
therefore possible that marble bowls and palettes were
used as mortars for pulverizing and mixing colours
since ECI times (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96).
Traces of colour are found in other ECII vase
types as well: in a bowl with four lugs at the rim, in a
spouted bowl with lug, in one of twin cups with ped-
estal, in a chalice (Sherratt 2000, 121), in a pedestaled
cup and a pedestaled bowl (Dümmler 1886, 17–18;
Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 306–7, 321–3; Devetzi 1992, 121;
Sherratt 2000, 120; see also Chapter 8(B), this volume
for colour in pedestaled bowls and cups, spouted
bowls, etc.).
However, plain bowls in particular are regularly
found in association with pestles or lumps of colour
(Getz-Gentle 1996, 79), as can be seen in Table 8.9
(based on Tsountas 1898; 1899; Varoucha 1926; Pap-
athanasopoulos 1962; Doumas 1977; Hekman 2003).
Plain marble bowls, therefore, seem to be part of
a cosmetic tool-kit used for applying painted or tat-
tooed decoration on human face and body (Hekman
2003, 159). We are not dealing with a standardized
assemblage, but with various possible combinations
of objects: These may be stone bowls and palettes or
bone tubes containing red or blue colour, lumps of
colour, grinders or pestles (or obsidian cores used as
Use of colour
Marble pestle. Traces of colour found in the bowl and on the pestle.
Bowl found on top of obsidian core -serving as pestle? Found together
with a palette and a lump of red colour (according to Getz-Gentle
(1996, 79) the lump might be a piece of pumice with red colour on it).
Stone handle of a bronze implement bearing remains of red pigment,
found inside a lug bowl.
Pebble, lump of colour.
Lump of red colour.
Bone tube with traces of blue colour. 2 lumps of red colour.
Traces of blue pigment in one.
Traces of red colour. Lumps of pigment. Palette. Grinder. Tweezers.
Bone tube. Scraper. Pins.
Traces of red colour in bowl. Small bone tube found in the soil inside
the bowl.
290
 The Stone Vessels
pestles: Sherratt 2000, 168) to pulverize the pigment,
bronze scrapers and tweezers used for depilation,
obsidian blades used for shaving, or bronze needles
for tattooing. Hekman has reconstructed the process
(Hekman 2003, 186–7): Colouring material (red or blue
pigment) was ground in marble bowls or other stone
vases, and mixed with a liquid, probably water or oil.
Bodily hair was removed by shaving or depilating,
and the mixed and prepared paint may have been ap-
plied to human skin by means of hollow bone tubes.
Alternatively, designs could be tattooed by using bone
or metal pins.
This cosmetic tool-kit, together with a wide vari-
ety of ornaments from various materials, shapes and
types (pins, diadems, beads, necklaces, armbands, etc.)
imply a need for differentiation between the burial
population, as well as the objectification and display or
difference through the modification and decoration of
the body. For longer discussions on this phenomenon
during the EC period, see Nakou 1995,15; Broodbank
2000a, 247–8; Hekman 2003, 174).
While we are dealing with a loosely defined rath-
er than a standardized assemblage, a recent analysis of
the Chalandriani assemblage (Hekman 2003) suggests
that marble (and ceramic) bowls, together with smaller
jars, frying pans, stone tools (pestles, hammers, pol-
ishers), stone palettes, bone tubes and pigment, tend
to occur more often in circular tombs, which Hek-
man associates (very tentatively) with female burials
(Hekman 2003, 173). In contrast, rectangular tombs
(where perhaps men were buried) contain more often
larger storage vessels, footed drinking cups, metal
tools (punch, needle, tweezers, scarpers, spatulas)
and jewellery (stone beads, bone and metal pin, bone
ring, shells). However, it should be emphasized that
the distinction is in terms of frequency rather than
presence/absence; therefore elements of the cosmetic
tool kit appear in both types of tombs.
Hekman’s conclusions should be used with some
caution, as they are based on a problematic and imper-
fectly known assemblage. Moreover, it is dangerous
to project observations made in one site to another,
especially since there are some marked differences
between the assemblage at Chalandriani and that at
Dhaskalio Kavos (e.g. at Dhaskalio Kavos there are
hardly any ceramic bowls (Broodbank 2000a, 236); at
Chalandriani there are fewer marble figurines (Hek-
man 2003, 140–44), etc). Hekman’s observations on
the Chalandriani assemblage do not seem to support
Broodbank’s suggestion (2000a, 249) that colour was
found in rich graves.
Another question is whether colour was used in
everyday life, or was used especially to adorn the dead
(Doumas 1983, 42). There is, of course, ample evidence
291
for the use of colour to adorn the face of figurines
— although we ought to keep in mind that artistic
representation might not necessarily reflect everyday
reality. Lumps of colouring material have been found
in graves (to give just one example, in three graves
in Chalandriani: Tsountas 1899, 104; Hekman 2003,
63, 67), but they are also reported from settlements
(Oustinoff 1987, 99; e.g. in a house in Avdheli, Naxos
where pigment was found together with a piece of
emery, an obsidian blade, and a grinder: Doumas 1977,
124). The evidence therefore, though not conclusive,
points to the use of colour in everyday life as well.
The Keros material confirms these general ob-
servations on the use of colour. Twelve fragments
with traces of red colour have been found. This is a
rather low number, but the exposure of the material
may have caused the disappearance of colour traces.
In nine cases the traces were on the inner surface; in
one case possible traces were found on the outer sur-
face; in one case (cat. no. 520) possible traces of red
colour have been found on one of the breaks. Out of
the twelve cases, three are rim fragments, all of them
of type A, and varying in size from 11 cm to 20 and
larger than 22 cm.
(v) Decoration (?)
While the use of vases as mortars or containers of
colouring material is certain, in some other cases the
internal surface of the bowl is fully covered — i.e.
effectively painted — with red colour (see Thimme
1977a or b?, cat. no. 301), and the colour clearly stops at
just below the rim. While it is possible that these bowls
were deposited full of paint in liquid, or semi-liquid
form (Getz-Gentle 1996, 103), it cannot be excluded
that in these cases the use of colour was decorative.
This possibility is supported by the discovery of a
marble bowl found outside graves in the cemetery
in Kouphonisi (Zapheiropoulou 1970b, 429) covering
two intact figurines. The internal surface of the bowl
had strong traces of red colour, while no colour traces
were found on the figurines themselves.
The discussion on traces of colour brings us to
the question of painted decoration on marble vases.
Getz-Preziosi (1977, 96, 100; 1987b, 72) mentions
two or three examples with a painted line or band
on the inner surface below the rim, and a number
of unpublished vessels — fragments mostly — with
red-painted details, such as encircling lines and zig-
zag motifs, on the outer surface. However, in a later
publication (Getz-Gentle 1996, 103) she mentions only
one example of a bowl with vertical stokes on the
external surface.
Finally, there are only two marble bowls with
incised decoration: a small lug bowl found in Avyssos
 Chapter 8
107, Paros has five incised lines radiating from the base
of the bowl outwards (Tsountas 1898, 160); a lug bowl
with incised parallel grooves with zig zag in between
is in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum (Sher-
ratt 2000, 117).
To return to the Keros 1987 material: The inter-
nal surface of rim fragment cat. no. 458 (rim type A,
rim diameter: 20 cm) is fully covered by paint which
stops just below the grove. No examples of painted or
incised decoration are attested in the material.
4. Chronology
The assemblage found at Dhaskalio Kavos seems to
fall clearly into the ECII period. This conclusion is
based mostly on the absence of bowls with suspen-
sion lugs which are considered an early — i.e. ECI
— feature (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 96; Doumas 1983,
37ff; Devetzi 1992, 25ff.; Sherratt 2000, 110.). Hence
the Keros assemblage seems to confirm the division
between ECI period (bowls with lugs) and ECII period
(plain bowls). However, some caution is necessary:
the dating scheme, and in particular the neat division
between ECI and ECII, has been constructed on the
basis of largely unprovenanced and hence undatable
examples (Getz-Gentle 1996). Dating seems to be
based on an evolutionary assumption, whereby plain
bowls provided with a tiny depression for stability are
considered technologically more advanced than lug
bowls without a defined base (Doumas 1977, 105).
Devetzi in her thorough study of the (more relia-
ble, but less plentiful) material held in Greek Museums
has divided the stone vases into three groups (1992,
25ff.). She dates her group I (which includes bowls
with perforated lugs) to ECI, and group II (which
includes plain bowls and a wide range of other types)
to ECII. Devetzi places her group III (which contains
elements of both groups — including in a few cases
‘ECII’ plain marble bowls) in the transition between
group I/ECI and group II/ECII (Devetzi 1992, 39).
While her conclusion might be correct, her argument
runs the risk of becoming circular. If we examine more
closely the date of plain marble bowls included in her
list, we can observe that the division between ECI and
ECII is not fully watertight. For instance, one plain,
lugless bowl has been found in a tomb belonging to
Group I (gr. 106, Avyssos, Paros: Devetzi 1992, 25,
table 2). At the same time, plain bowls, as mentioned
above, have been found in mixed (Group III) assem-
blages containing both ECI and ECII elements (gr.
12, Spedhos, Naxos; gr. 16, Ayioi Anargyroi, Naxos;
grave assemblage from Nero, Kato Kouphonisi; gr.
149, Vathy, Siphnos: Devetzi 1992, 29–32). Finally,
certain bowls share both ‘early’ and ‘late’ typological
characteristics (Devetzi 1992, 62–3). It seems to me that
292
the clear typological division between ECI and ECII
(at least, as concerns the marble bowls) is more an as-
sumption than a conclusion which can be conclusively
demonstrated.
In general, therefore, Getz-Preziosi’s conclusion
(1987b, 67) that an entirely new and expanded reper-
tory of vase shapes made its appearance fully formed
early in ECII, and remained virtually unchanged
throughout the period seems rather unwarranted.
We simply have to admit that the absence of context
for the majority of stone vases prevents us from un-
derstanding their stylistic evolution within the ECII
period.
5. Breakage patterns
Perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the
marble bowls from Dhaskalio Kavos (and indeed of
most stone vases and figurines found at the site) is
their broken state.
This was noted during the first investigations at
the site (Doumas 1964; Zapheiropoulou 1968a) and led
to several theories about the nature of the site. While
there is serious disagreement about the interpreta-
tion of Dhaskalio Kavos (see Chapter 3, this volume
for a discussion of earlier interpretations of the site),
there is a general consensus concerning the date and
cause of breakage: it is agreed that the stone objects in
Dhaskalio Kavos were broken already during the ECII
period, and it is more or less automatically assumed
that they were broken in a deliberate and ritualized
manner. Only Getz-Gentle adopted a more sceptical
position: she accepted the possibility of ritual and
deliberate breakage, but also suggested an alternative
explanation, namely that the site may have been looted
and destroyed by human attackers — ‘vandals (or
iconoclasts?)’, as she put it (Getz-Gentle 1996, 100). In
reality, however, it has never been demonstrated that
the stone objects were deliberately broken during the
ECII period (but see now the discussion of breakages
in Chapter 12). The evidence from Dhaskalio Kavos
has not been examined systematically until now. Fur-
thermore, it has never been systematically compared
to ritual practices attested in other EC sites. The tacit
assumption has always been that Keros is unique in
this respect, and that the breakage of offerings is not
a practice attested in the Cyclades.
The discussion that follows will attempt to exam-
ine the evidence and to address the question directly:
were the marble vases and figurines broken deliber-
ately during the EC period — or were they damaged
during later destruction or in looting episodes from
the 1960s onwards?
The rich marble bowl assemblage from the
Dhaskalio Kavos 1987 investigation allows us to inves-
 The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.4. Wear of marble bowl fragments (Breaks 1, 2

and 3).
Figure 8.5. Discolouration of marble bowl fragments
tigate this question systematically. All the fragments (Breaks 1, 2 and 3).
have been carefully described in terms of wear, discol-
ouration and encrustation (i.e. the formation of deposits
of calcium carbonate) of their inner and outer surface
as well as the surface of all breaks. Each break of each
fragment has been numbered and recorded separately.
The following recording scheme has been
adopted for all surfaces:

Table 8.10. Scheme recording preservation of marble bowl fragments.

1 = sharp
2 = slightly worn
3 = fairly worn
4 = worn
Wear = w
5 = very worn
1 = clean
2 = very lightly discoloured
Discolouration = d 3 = lightly discoloured
4 = discoloured
5 = very discoloured
1 = no encrustation, or very lightly encrusted
2 = lightly encrusted
Encrustation = e 3 = some encrustation
4 = almost entire surface encrusted
5 = entire surface encrusted
In this way the state of preservation has been recorded
in a systematic manner. Of course, a certain caution
is necessary. The main problem is that the rate of
deterioration cannot be assumed to be constant nor
to correlate directly with the passage of time. More
specifically, discolouration and encrustation of the
surface (which are widely observed on EC material:
Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 122) depend also on other factors
such as humidity, or the chemical composition of the
soil. For this reason, I consider wear a more reliable
measure, and will use discolouration and encrusta-
tion only as auxiliary measures. However, it should
be stressed that observations on wear may allow us to
reconstruct a relative sequence of breakage episodes,
but they cannot establish their absolute date.
293
Figure 8.6. Encrustation of marble bowl fragments
(Breaks 1, 2 and 3).
With these cautionary notes in mind, we should
nevertheless formulate an initial hypothesis. It could
be proposed that the majority of the breaks date to the
ECII period, if it can be demonstrated that:
i) the majority of breaks are ‘older’; or at least that
the majority of fragments have one or several ‘old’
breaks;
ii) distinct breakage episodes (i.e. ‘old’ versus ‘mod-
ern’ breaks) can be distinguished;
iii) fragments with poorly preserved surfaces and ‘old’
breaks come primarily from the looted area of the
site rather than from the settlement area.
Here questions (i) and (ii) will be explored; the spatial
aspects will be discussed by Whitelaw (Chapter 4,
this volume).
Figures 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 present the evidence
for wear, discolouration and encrustation for breaks
1, 2 and 3. (The investigation will examine only these
three breaks, as the number of fragments with more
than 3 breaks is smaller.)
 Chapter 8
If we look at the histograms, it becomes apparent
that the same pattern is repeated for each break: a peak
in the categories 2 and 3 for wear, a double peak for
1 and 3 for discolouration, and peak in either 1 or 2
for encrustation. The similarities between the differ-
ent breaks are encouraging, as they suggest that we
are dealing with a consistent pattern. The differences
between the three aspects of preservation are caused
by several factors: first, while a similar scale of values
from 1 to 5 has been given for all three aspects, for the
reasons that were pointed out above the values them-
selves are not equivalent. To give an example: value
1 for wear is gven to a break which was made during
the 1987 investigation. In contrast, 1 for discolouration
and encrustation does not necessarily mean that the
break is recent — it is also possible that we are dealing
with a fairly old break which got neither discoloured
nor encrusted because of the levels of humidity, or
the chemical composition of the soil surrounding it.
For this reason, I shall be first looking at wear, and
examine discoouration and encrustation primarily in
order to confirm any observations.
The first question is: what is the proportion of
‘older’ breaks. i.e. breaks with higher values?
If we examine the evidence for wear for the first
three breaks, we see the same pattern across all the
histograms (Figs, 8.8, 8.9 & 8.10):
• There are very few fragments in category 1 (as
pointed out above, these are regarded as the ones
that were damaged during the 1987 investigation).
• There is effectively one peak in categories 2 and 3
(slightly and fairly worn, respectively).
• There is a very distinct drop between categories
3 and 4, while category 5 contains the very rare
examples which had been eroded by the sea.
I should admit that this pattern came as a surprise. It
is difficult to assume that ‘slightly worn’ and ‘fairly
worn’ breaks, which constitute the overwhelming
majority, are to be attributed to the ECII period. In
contrast, the number of ‘very worn’ pieces is consist-
ently very small.
Discolouration presents a markedly different
curve: there are peaks in categories 1 and 3, while
2 and 4 have clearly lower figures (the discrepancy
differs among the 4 breaks). While there is therefore
a higher number of ‘discoloured’ pieces, it is difficult
to interprete the pattern.
Encrustation again presents a slightly different
picture, with clear peaks in the lowest categories 1 and
2, and a fairly steep fall-off towards the higher catego-
ries. Despite the differences, however, it confirms the
basic pattern: that the majority of fragments are white,
or are very slightly discoloured. Once more, it is dif-
ficult to attribute the breaks to an EC II horizon.
294
Table 8.11. The preservation of the surface of the breaks.
Fragments with at least one ‘very worn’ (value 5) break 2
Fragments with at least one ‘worn’ (value 4) break 38
Fragments with at least one ‘fairly worn’ (value 3) break 143
Fragments with at least one ‘slightly worn’ (value 2) or one 76
‘sharp’ (value 1) break
Figure 8.7. The preservation of the surface of the breaks.
We should perhaps approach the problem from
a different angle, by establishing the proportion of
fragments with at least one ‘old’ break. Table 8.11
and Figure 8.11 show the number and proportion of
fragments which have at least one break which can
be described as ‘very worn’ (value 5), ‘worn’ (value
4), ‘fairly worn’ (value 3), ‘slightly worn’ (value 2) and
‘sharp’(value 1).
They show that the proportion of fragments with
at least one ‘worn’ break is not very high, while the
proportion of fragments with at least one ‘fairly worn’
(value 3) break predominate. Should we assume that
those are the ‘old’ ECII breaks? There are problems with
this conclusion. Our second hypothesis, based on our
knowledge of the history of the site, was that we should
expect two distinct breakage horizons. If value 3 = old
= ECII, then are the ‘slightly worn’ breaks with value 2
to be attributed to the recent (since the 1960s) intense
looting of the site? The problem is that it is difficult to at-
tribute two contingent categories to breakage episodes
separated by something like 4000 years.
Therefore, the evidence does not really allow us to
distinguish clearly between ‘old’ versus ‘new’ breaks.
(It should be noted that a different approach to this
problem is taken in Chapter 12.) The picture we have is
more of an incremental process of deterioration rather
than two distinct and chronologically widely separated
breakage episodes. In this case, it makes more sense to
look for several factors causing this deterioration, rather
than attribute it to one distinct cause. The following
possibilities will be discussed below:
• purposeful breakage at deposition, i.e. during the
primary burial;
• purposeful or accidental breakage during the re-
use of the tomb and the secondary treatment;
 The Stone Vessels
• accidental breakage due to post-depositional fac-
tors (collapse of cover slabs, disintegration of the
flesh, etc.);
• destruction of the entire cemetery (and settlement)
— by human attack?;
• looting and/or accidental destruction.
a) Sumptuary practices in the EC Cyclades
The idea of purposeful, ritualized breakage at deposi-
tion underlies both Renfrew’s original interpretation of
Dhaskalio Kavos as a ‘Pan-Cycladic’ shrine (Renfrew
1991, 50, 99–101) and Broodbank’s counter-suggestion
that it was a rich cemetery with its associated settle-
ment (2000a, 223ff.).
Renfrew sought parallels in the caches of broken
and complete figurines found outside graves in Aplo-
mata (Kontoleon 1971b, 178–9; 1972b, 150–53) and the
two marble figurines found under a marble bowl in the
cemetery at Ano Kouphonisi (Zapheiropoulou 1970a
or b?). In both cases we may be dealing with some
kind of ritual practices, but they are most likely to be
of funerary nature. However, accidental destruction
of earlier graves cannot be excluded. A possible ritual
or domestic (?) deposit was excavated by Tsountas in
Kato Akrotiri, Amorgos (Tsountas 1898, 166–8; Yian-
nouli, 2002, 1–2) — but Renfrew (1991) did not use it
as part of his argument.
If we now examine funerary practices, we
soon realize that breakage at deposition (either at
the primary burial, or during re-use and secondary
treatment, whenever this was practised) was more
common than we tend to think (contra Broodbank
2000a, 228). Already Ludwig Ross (1855, 52ff.) noted
that obsidian blades found in Cycladic graves were
very often broken. Bent (1885, 52) reported that
in some graves he found only the legs of a marble
figurine, or a headless figure. The presence of broken
and incomplete objects in graves has been discussed
mostly in connection with the possible use of these
objects in everyday life (Doumas 1977, 62). While such
use is, of course, possible, it cannot be excluded that
objects were broken, or deposited incomplete as part
of the funerary ritual itself.
Table 8.12 lists the evidence for broken and/or
incomplete stone vases and figurines found in burials
(the sources are Dümmler 1886; Tsountas 1898; 1899;
Varoucha 1925; Papathanasopoulos 1962; Doumas
1977). Objects that were broken and mended (e.g.
Getz-Gentle 1996, 100) have not been taken into ac-
count, as these clearly point to previous use.
This list might not look impressive when com-
pared to the scores of graves containing (apparently)
only intact objects, but it is important to realize that
the breakage of grave offerings has never been system-
295
atically recorded in the Cyclades. I should also point
out that I have not included the evidence for broken
pottery (for instance, most frying pans in Chaland-
riani are found broken: Hekman 2003), as pottery is
of course much more fragile than stone artefacts. On
the other hand, it has been noted that obsidian blades
(e.g. in tomb Kapsala 5, Amorgos), or metal tools and
weapons (e.g. tomb Kapsala 10, Amorgos) or other
objects (e.g. most bone tubes in Chalandriani: Hekman
2003) are often found broken. Again, the absence of
systematic observation does not allow any certainty
— but there are at least good indications that break-
age during the funerary ritual is more common and
widespread than we tend to assume. While this phe-
nomenon is attested more often in multiple graves, it
is observed in single burials as well.
The discussion so far indicates that the broken
state of the Keros assemblage can be attributed at least
partly to ritual practices at deposition. The discus-
sion also provided more parallels, and hence [in the
author’s view] more support for the ‘cemetery’ theory
than the ‘Pan-Cycladic shrine’ theory.
b) Post-depositional processes
Of course, it is also possible that funerary offerings
suffered further damage after deposition. Stone objects
recovered from scientific excavations are sometimes
found complete, but broken, because of post-deposi-
tional processes such as the disintegration of the flesh,
the subsidence of skeletal remains, the collapse of the
covering slabs, the infiltration and accumulation of
earth etc. An examination of Doumas’s (1977) pub-
lication of Cycladic cemeteries reveals several stone
artefacts found complete, but broken into pieces, or
even incomplete (e.g. Doumas 1977, pls. XXVIII h, j–k;
XXXII f–g; XXXIV f; XXXVII f; XLIX a, k, l).
One ought also to consider Getz-Gentle’s sug-
gestion (1996, 100) that the site of Dhaskalio Kavos
suffered some kind of catastrophic attack. Indeed, if
Kavos was such an important and special site —what-
ever its nature was — then it could easily have become
a target. The destruction and desecration of graves
— or sanctuaries, for that matter — is an act often
attested in warfare. While this might be speculative,
it cannot really be excluded. It is interesting that the
limited information about the ECII house excavated
by Doumas at Kavos mentions a destruction layer with
strong traces of fire (Doumas 1964, 410). The possible
fortification wall in Dhaskalio (Doumas 1964, 410)
might also point to insecurity in the area.
c) Looting
If we observe a process of deterioration rather than
distinct breakage episodes, it is is difficult to main-
 Chapter 8

Table 8.12. Broken and incomplete stone objects in single and multiple graves.

Grave Mode of Broken Broken

disposal stone vases figurines
Kapsala 5, Amorgos Single burial Figurine, broken into 3 pieces.
Stavros 12, Amorgos Single burial Marble bowl, broken into several fragments.
Panaghia 56, Paros Single burial Getz-Gentle (1996, 850) mentions a partial
palette whose break was smoothed before
deposition.
Krasadhes 115, Single burial Head of schematic figurine broken off,
Antiparos found at the other side of tomb.
Karvounolakkoi 6, Naxos Single burial Broken and incomplete marble figurine.
Spedhos 10, Single burial Marble bowl, spout missing. Figurine broken, incomplete.
Naxos
Spedhos 12, Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine.
Naxos
Spedhos 14, Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine.
Naxos
Spedhos 18, Single burial Broken and incomplete marble bowl. Broken
Naxos bowl.
Spedhos 19, Single burial Broken bowl.
Naxos
Louros 26, Single burial Broken figurines.
Naxos
Roon 39, Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine.
Naxos
Aphentika 40, Single burial Broken and incomplete figurine of
Naxos musician.
Akrotiri 5, Single burial Part of neck of collared jar missing. Incomplete schematic figurine.
Naxos,
Akrotiri 9, Single burial Incomplete schematic figurine.
Naxos
Akrotiri 19, Single burial Incomplete figurine.
Naxos,
Plastiras 9, Single burial Incomplete marble bowl. Incomplete figurine.
Paros, Collared jar, one lug missing.
Plastiras 16, Single burial Small bowl, broken into two.
Paros,
Chalandriani Single burial Incomplete stemmed cup.
Doumas 3,
Naxos
Dhokathismata A, Single burial? Broken stemmed bowl. broken plain bowl.
Amorgos
Dhokathismata B, Single burial Only half a marble bowl.
Amorgos
Dhokathismata, Uncertain Head of figurine broken off.
Amorgos
Dhokathismata C, Uncertain Entire contents of grave
Amorgos broken, some incomplete.
Leivadhi 125, Despotikon Multiple burials Few fragments of possibly 3 stone vases.
Akrotiraki 143, Multiple burials 2 broken marble bowls.
Siphnos,
Akrotiraki 146, Multiple burials Schematic figurine, head missing.
Siphnos,
Plastiras 20, Multiple burials Broken collared jar.
Paros
Plastiras 21, Paros, Multiple burials Incomplete bowl. Incomplete figurine.
Lakkoudhes A II, Naxos Multiple burials Incomplete collared jar.
Naxos, Avdheli 1 Uncertain Broken small bowl. Incomplete figurine.
Head of another figurine.
Paros, Kampos 5 Uncertain 1 incomplete palette.
296
 The Stone Vessels
tain what most discussions about the nature of the
Dhaskalio Kavos site assume: that looting started only
in the 1960s. If this was indeed the case, then Keros
constitutes an exception. We have plenty of evidence
that looting (or, of course, accidental destruction) had
started already in the nineteenth century, and was
quite widespread by its last decades. Dümmler (1886,
25–6, 30) mentions that the (probably later) cemetery
at Phylakopi had been effectively cleared out since
the 1821 War of Independence. Papadopoulos, who
located the cemetery at Chalandriani in the 1860s
mentioned that many tombs had been opened by the
local peasants (Papadopoulos 1862, 225). Bent men-
tions that he found ‘lots of marble bowls and figurines
in the peasants’ houses’ which they had found while
digging in their fields (Bent 1884, 58), and that the in-
habitants of Antiparos had located several cemeteries
(Bent 1884, 47). By Tsountas’s time the cemeteries at
Panagia, Drios, Mnimoria, Kamari in Paros, the ones at
Apantima, Soros, Petalidhi, Krassadhes in Antiparos,
Dhokathismata in Amorgos, Akrotiraki in Siphnos
and Chalandriani in Syros had already been looted.
Stephanos mentions that there was a tradition of loot-
ing in Naxos (Stephanos 1903, 53); indeed among the
297
cemeteries he excavated in Naxos, Karvounolakkoi,
Mnimouria, Kammeno Mitato Psarra, Pherentaki,
Ormos Apollonos and Roon were already looted (Pa-
pathanassopoulos 1962, 106–8). Evans acquired the
majority of the EC objects for the Ashmolean during
the last decade of the nineteenth century (Sherratt
2000, 2); in fact, in 1900 locals were commissioned by
Mackenzie (or perhaps indirectly by Evans himself)
to excavate EC cemeteries (Sherratt 2000, 3). Should
we then assume that serious looting in Keros started
only in the 1960s? We should keep in mind that Keros
had been mentioned as the provenance of musician
figures, the most coveted type of figurines (Köhler
1884); it is therefore more than likely that it attracted
looters and collectors. It is beyond doubt that looting
intensified during the 1960s, and that from this period
onwards the response of the local Archaeological
Service became more systematic — but in my view it
is unlikely that it started then. If looting is viewed as a
process that started already in the nineteenth century,
and if it is seen as only one among several factors caus-
ing breakage and damage, we are perhaps in a better
position to understand the state of preservation of the
Keros material.
 Chapter 8

241

318 216

214

034
315

231

394
556

115

378??

546

258

622

Figure 8.8. Marble open bowl rims (scale 2/3). 553

298
 The Stone Vessels

137
397

381 552

095
617

491
378

258 622

244
268

378?? 222

294 328

Figure 8.9. Marble open bowl rims (scale 2/3).

299
 Chapter 8

306
155

664
014

153

524
Figure 8.10. Marble open bowl bases (scale 2/3)

300
 The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.11. Fragments of marble bowl rims.

301
 Chapter 8

a b

Figure 8.12. Fragments of marble bowl bases (a and b) and body sherds.

302
 The Stone Vessels
Catalogue of marble bowls
Rim fragments
TYPE A
034 D / P From survey unit 180:555, unit 319
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment of large vessel, type A.
Max. L. 9.45. Max. W. 5.7. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.25 (below rim)
Max. T. 1.34 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 100 g.
Coarse-grained, white-greyish marble with brown speckles.
062 From survey unit 170:520, unit 103
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.49. Max. W. 2.67. Max. T. 1.09 (rim). Min. T. 0.81 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 18–20. Wt 25 g.
Coarse-grained, white marble (?) with greyish spots. Colour un-
certain, discoloured.
Not drawn, because too worn.
067 From survey unit 175 :525, unit 702
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 1.61. Max. W. 1.55. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.48 (below
rim). Med. T. 0.42 (wall).
Very small fragment, diameter cannot be established.
Fine-grained, white marble.
086 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A. 203 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304
Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 2.11. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 13–14. Wt 10 g.
Fine-grained, white marble.
089 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.46. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
109 From survey unit 185:545, unit 606
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 4.05. Max. T. 1.3 (rim). Min. T. 1.12 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.49 (wall). Wt 15 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
115 From survey unit 165:515, unit 601
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.6. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Min. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, probably white marble. Colour uncertain, discol-
oured.
131 From survey unit 175:410, unit 40
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.0. Med. W. 3. Max. T. 0.99 (rim). Min. T. 0.8 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.01 (wall). Rim diameter 14. Wt 22 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
148 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.64. Max. W. 1.71. Max. T. 0.62 (rim). Min. T. 0.51 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 5 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
161 From excavation Trench II, level 3, unit 304
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.96 (rim). Min. T. 0.86 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.93 (wall). Rim diameter 11. Wt 15 g.
Fine-grained, white marble. Traces of red colouring on interior.
303
166 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 1.35.
Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.48 (below rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall).
Impossible to measure diameter because upper surface of rim not
preserved.
Fine-grained, white marble.
167 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.61. Max. W. 2.78. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.59 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 5 g.
Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
Too worn to be drawn.
185 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.3. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.61 (wall).
Very small fragment, diameter cannot be established.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
200 From survey unit 155:535, unit 308
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.32. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.4 (rim). Med. T. 0.34 (below rim).
Med. T. 0.39 (wall). Rim diameter 7 cm.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 1.4 (rim). Med. T. 1.35 (below rim).
Rim diameter 12.
Fine-grained, white marble.
216 D From survey unit 175:555, unit 623
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 6.6. Max. T. 1.6 (rim). Min. T. 1.2 (below rim).
Med. T. 1.35 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 100 g.
Coarse-grained, white marble with faint grey vein.
218 From survey unit 195:550, unit 313
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 2.48. Max. T. 1.32 (rim). Min. T. 1.2 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.31 (wall). Rim diameter 16. Wt 17 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
222 From survey unit 175:565, unit 717
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.86. Max. W. 2.68. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Rim diameter 10. Wt 6 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
231 From survey unit 160:470, unit 633
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 3.05. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Min. T. 0.77 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Wt 15 g.
Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
242 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2, unit 1302
Plain marble (or limestone?) bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.21 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.12 (wall). Rim diameter >13. Rim diameter difficult to
establish; fairly small fragment. Wt 25 g.
Very fine-grained, brownish-white stone.
301 From excavation Trench XI, level 5, unit 1105.
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 7.6. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 1.39 (rim). Min. T. 1.09 (below rim).
 Chapter 8
Max. T. 1.19 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 60 g.
Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
315 D From excavation Trench V, level 1, surface
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 12.4. Max. W. 6.6. Max. T. 1.7 (rim). Min. T. 1.8 (below rim).
Med. T. 1.8 (wall). Rim diameter >22. Wt 250 g.
Coarse-grained, light grey marble.
318 D From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 9.15. Max. W. 6.5. Max. T. 2.11 (rim). Min. T. 1.61 (below
rim). Med. T. 2.4 (wall). Rim diameter >22. Wt 200 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble. Very faint traces of red colour on
inner surface.
337 From excavation Trench VII, level 2, unit 704
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. (not recorded). Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.17
(below rim). Max. T. 1.38 (wall). Wt 50 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
383 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 1.39. Max. W. 1.35. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Min. T. 0.62 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall).
Very small part of rim preserved, hence rim diameter cannot be
measured.
Coarse-grained, white marble.
417 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.61. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.72 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.72 (wall).
Very fine-grained, white marble.
432 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 5.16. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 1.01 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 13. Wt 27 g.
Very fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
433 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, probably type A, but some
similarities with type B.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Med. T. 0.56 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 11.
Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
434 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.73 (rim). Med. T. 0.51 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.63 (wall). Rim diameter 15. Wt 15 g.
Coarse-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, dis-
coloured.
436 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 1.96. Max. W. 2.81. Max. T. 0.67 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 5-6. Wt 10 g.
Fine-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discol-
oured.
458 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709
Plain marble bowl. Three joining pieces of rim fragments, type A.
Max. L. 10.83. Max. W. 3.67. Max. T. 1.5 (rim). Min. T. 1.31 (below
rim). Max. T. 1.5 (wall). Rim diameter 20. Wt 88 g.
304
Coarse-grained, white marble. Traces of red colour on inner surface
up to the grove below the rim.
459 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.86 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 8 g.
Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
546 From excavation Trench XIV, level 2, unit 1402
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.72. Av. W. 3.29. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Min. T. 0.75 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.75 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 20 g.
Fine-grained, white marble with brown-greyish veins.
554 D From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.15. Max. W. 4.07. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.71 (below
rim). Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 15. Wt 27 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
555 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.6. Max. W. 2.79. Max. T. 1.2 (rim). Med. T. 0.95 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.01 (wall). Rim diameter 10–11. Wt 15 g.
Coarse-grained, white marble.
556 From survey unit160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.19. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.83 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
587 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 2.62. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.45 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.45 (wall). Rim diameter 8. Wt 10 g.
Coarse-grained, white-greyish (?) marble. Colour uncertain, dis-
coloured.
613 From survey unit 165:500, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.2 (rim). Med. T. 0.9 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 18. Wt 17 g.
Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
675 From excavation Trench VIII, level 13, unit 813
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 1.6. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.31 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.4 (wall). Rim diameter 7–8. Only a very small part of the
rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white(?) marble. Discoloured.
686 From survey unit 150:520, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 4.4. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.8 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.91 (wall). Rim diameter >15. Only a very small part of the
rim preserved, hence diameter uncertain (estimated from curve
below rim).
Fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
713 From excavation Trench IX, level 4, unit 904
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type A.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.51 (rim). Med. T. 0.39 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.39 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
 The Stone Vessels
TYPE B
087 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.41. Max. W. 1.52. Max. T. 0.57 (rim). Min. T. 0.49 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Wt 5 g.
Coarse-grained, white marble.
137 D From survey unit 150:535, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.71 (wall). Rim diameter 8.
Fine-grained, white marble.
138 From survey unit 150:535, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Min. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 8.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
145 From survey unit 150:535, unit 409
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.51. Max. W. 2.35. Max. T. 0.71 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.68 (wall). Rim diameter 9. Wt 10 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
146 From survey unit 150:535, unit 409
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.68 (rim). Med. T. 0.57 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 9 (?).Only small part of rim
preserved, hence diameter uncertain.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
191 From survey unit 155:525, unit 306
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.4 (rim). Med. T. 0.31 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.31 (wall). Rim diameter 5-6 (?).Rim chipped off, hence
diameter uncertain.
Fine-grained, white marble.
221 From survey unit 175:565, unit 717
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.5. Av. W. 2.9. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Min. T. 0.81 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.92 (wall). Rim diameter 17. Wt 20 g.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
381 D. From excavation Trench VI, level 14, unit 614
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. 4.61. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.41 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured
442 From excavation Trench VIII, level 11, unit 811
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.62. Max. W. 4.06. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.41 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.41 (wall). Rim diameter 5–6(?).Only small part of the
rim preserved; rim diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white(?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
491 D From survey unit 170:550, unit 674
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Min. T. 0.41 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.35 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble.
552 D From excavation Trench I, level 22, unit 132
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 5.2. Max. W. 3.86. Max. T. 0.57 (rim). Min. T. 0.5 (below rim).
305
Max. T. 0.44 (wall.). Rim diameter 6.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
564 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Probable rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.52. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.6. (rim). Med. T. 0.51 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.51 (wall). Rim diameter 6.
Fine-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
588 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.45 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.45 (wall). Rim diameter 6.
Fine-grained, white marble.
617 D From survey unit 180:550, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.69 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.62 (wall). Rim diameter 8-9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
629 From survey unit 175:550, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 4.06. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Min. T. 0.52 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 12 (?). Rim diameter approximate,
only small part of rim preserved.
Coarse-grained, white (?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
662 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type B.
Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 0.6 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.69 (wall). Wt 12 g.
Very fine-grained, white-greyish(?) marble. Colour uncertain,
discoloured.
TYPE C
214 D From survey unit 175:555, unit 623
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 2.6. Max. W. 1.25. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.81 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 16 (?).Only small part of rim
preserved, hence diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white marble.
241 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2 , unit 1302
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 5.2. Max. W. 2.57. Max. T. 1.18 (rim). Min. T. 1.01 (below
rim). Max. T. 1.16 (wall). Rim diameter 13. Wt 25 g.
Fine-grained, white marble with faint reddish veins.
244 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.6 (wall). Med. T. 0.50 (rim). Min.
T. 0.46 (below rim).
Fine-grained, white marble.
390 From excavation Trench X, level 10, unit 1010
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 2.12. Max. W. 1.45. Max. T. 0.56 (rim). Med. T. 0.49 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.49 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble.
394 From excavation Trench XIII, level 3, unit 1306
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 7.3. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.09 (rim). Min. T. 0.99 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.3 (wall). Rim diameter 12. Wt 80 g.
Coarse-grained, grey marble.
 Chapter 8
527 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.06. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 13.
Fine-grained, white marble.
542 From survey unit 160:380, unit 444
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 5.69. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.35 (rim). Med. T. 1.09 (below
rim). Min. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter >22.
Very fine grained, white marble.
553 D From excavation Trench I, level 22, unit 132
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type C.
Max. L. 3.79. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 1.0 (rim). Med. T. 0.83 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 10.
Fine-grained, white marble.
TYPE D
095 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 2.42. Max. W. 1.49. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.63 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.65 (wall). Rim diameter 11.
Fine-grained, white marble with a few brown specks.
208 From survey unit 195:545, unit 312
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 4.3. Max. W. 2.29. Max. T. 0.8 (rim). Med. T. 0.74 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble.
244 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.5 (rim). Med. T. 0.46 (below rim).
Med. T. 0.6 (wall). Rim diameter 6.
Fine-grained, white marble.
258 From excavation Trench VIII, level 4, unit 804
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 9.5. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Med. T. 0.69 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.81 (wall). Rim diameter 10.
Fine-grained, white marble.
268 From excavation Trench X, level 3, unit 1003
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 0.76 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 8.
Fine-grained, white marble.
378 D From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 6.1. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.95 (rim). Med. T. 0.83 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.1 (wall). Rim diameter 8.
Fine-grained, greyish-white marble.
382 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.53 (wall). Rim diameter 10–11. Diameter approximate;
only small part of rim preserved.
Fine-grained, white marble.
384 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 2.59. Max. W. 3.43. Max. T. 0.75 (rim). Med. T. 0.68 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.56 (wall). Rim diameter 10(?). Only small part of rim
306
preserved, hence diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white marble.
397 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.45. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 0.66 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall).
Fine-grained, white marble.
430 From excavation Trench I, level 7, unit 114
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.39. Max. W. 1.56. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.61 (wall). Rim diameter 8.
Fine-grained, white marble.
509 From survey unit 185:570, unit 418
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 0.61 (rim). Med. T. 0.5 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.59 (wall). Rim diameter 7–8 (?).Only small part of
rim preserved, hence diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white marble.
526 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 10.75. Max. W. 3.85. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.8 (wall). Rim diameter 14.
Fine-grained, white marble.
557 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 0.9 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 13–14. Wt 20 g.
Fine-grained, white marble.
616 From survey unit 180:550, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.71 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble.
622 From survey unit 185:540, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.77 (rim). Med. T. 0.68 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.7 (wall).
Very fine-grained, white marble.
630 From survey unit 180:530, GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.81 (rim). Med. T. 0.72 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.88 (wall). Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble (brown patch on outer surface).
663 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 3.51. Max. T. 0.72 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.91 (wall). Rim diameter 11.
Very fine-grained, grey marble.
674 From excavation Trench VIII, level 13, unit 813
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type D.
Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Med. T. 0.67 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.67 (wall). Rim diameter 13.
Fine-grained, white (-greyish?) marble.
TYPE E
071 From survey unit 175:540, unit 406
Plain marble bowl. Small rim fragment, type E.
 The Stone Vessels
Max. L. 0.85. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 1.02 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.62 (wall). Rim diameter 8-10. Only small part of rim
preserved, hence diameter approximate.
Fine-grained, white marble.
328 D From excavation Trench XI, level 2, unit 1102
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.4 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.3 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
378a D From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.
Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 0.94 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.5 (wall). Rim diameter 10.
Very fine-grained, white marble with greyish shades.
294 D From excavation Trench XII, level 2, unit 1202
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, type E.
Max. L. 4.3. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.7 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.8 (wall).
Rim diameter 7.
Fine-grained, white marble.
RIM TYPE NOT KNOWN
184 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (type not recorded).
Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.65. Max. T. 0.69 (rim). Med. T. 0.6 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.6 (wall).
Fine-grained, white marble.
435 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (rim type not recorded).
Max. L. 3.39. Max. W. 3.09. Max. T. 1.22 (rim). Med. T. 0.91 (below
rim). Max. T. 0.9 (wall). Rim diameter 18(?). Wt 25 g.
Coarse-grained, white(?) marble. Colour uncertain, discoloured.
051 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (?) with rounded edge, not clas-
sifiable.
Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. >1.1 (rim). Only upper curve of
rim preserved. Hence neitehr the thickness nor the diameter can
be measured.
Very fine-grained, white marble.
129 From survey unit 165:530, unit 209
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable. Only a strip
along the rim preserved.
Max. L. 2.32. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Wt 5 g.
Fine-grained, white marble.
139 From survey unit 150:535, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 1.93. Max. W. 1.19. Very small fragment. Neither the thick-
ness nor the diameter can be measured.
Fine-grained, white marble.
282 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 1.9. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 1.31 (rim). Med. T. 1.2 (below rim).
Rim diameter 22(?).
Fine-grained, white marble.
Very small fragment, hence diameter approximate and rim type
cannot be ascertained.
285 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment (?), not classifiable.
307
Fine-grained, white marble.
Max. L. 0.20. Max. W. 0.10. Measurements approximate. Diameter
cannot be established
Very small fragment, possibly the upper surface of a rim that has
chipped off. Only one surface preserved.
497 From survey unit 200:380, unit 733
Plain marble bowl. Rim (?) fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 0.9. Max. T. 0.85 (rim). Only small part pre-
served, hence thickness can only be measured at the rim. Rim
diameter 9.
Very fine-grained, white-greyish marble.
559 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Probable rim fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 1.61. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 0.9 (rim). Rim diameter 9-11.
Fine-grained, white marble.
Wall not preserved; only a very small part of the rim preserved,
hence diameter approximate.
631 From Beach GRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 6.9. Max. W. 3.42. Max. T. 0.7 (rim). Med. T. 0.61 (below rim).
Max. T. 0.7 (wall). Rim diameter 9.
Fine-grained, white marble.
Very worn by the sea. Hence thickness measurements not ac-
curate.
632 From BeachGRAB
Plain marble bowl. Rim fragment, not classifiable.
Max. L. 5.0. Max. W. 5.2. Max. T. 1.1 (rim). Med. T. 0.97 (below rim).
Max. T. 1.0 (wall). Rim diameter 16.
Fine-grained, white marble.
Very worn by the sea. Hence thickness measurements not ac-
curate.
Body fragments
003 From survey unit 175:535, unit 104
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.25, Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
023 From survey unit 170:540, unit 108
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 6.6. Max. W. 2.9. Max. T. 2.1. Min. T. 1.9.
White, fine-grained marble.
026 From survey unit 180:530, unit 206
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
036 From survey unit 180:555, unit 319
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.55. Min. T. 0.45.
Few scattered traces of red pigment on inner surface.
White, fine-grained marble.
039 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.2. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
040 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 1.1.
White, fine-grained marble.
 Chapter 8
041 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.15. Max. W. 5.45. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.93.
White, fine-grained marble.
Inner surface almost entirely encrusted; not possible to assess
discolouration.
042 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of rim?
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.4.
Curved.
White, fine-grained marble.
045 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.6.
White-greyish, fine-grained marble.
The encrustation of the outer surface extends over break 4.
046 From survey unit 160:515, unit 801
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 5.9. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.8.
White-greyish, fine-grained marble.
048 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 4.85. Max. T. >0.9. Min. T. >0.45. Thickness can-
not be measured; outer surface probably not preserved.
Fine-grained marble. Colour not recorded.
Inner surface totally encrusted; discolouration cannot be assessed.
Traces of red pigment.
049 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 3.7. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.98.
White, coarse-grained marble. Has been affected by humidity (?).
050 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
053 From survey unit 175:530, unit 603
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.7. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
Buried upside down? Outer surface more encrusted than inner.
054 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 8.25. Max. W. 5.0. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 0.7
White, fine-grained marble.
055 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 4.95. Max. T. 1.65. Min. T. 1.48.
Might belong together with 547.
Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.
065 From survey unit 165:520, unit 602
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.51. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.25. Min. T. 1.15.
White, fine-grained marble.
068 From survey unit 175:540, unit 406
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.3. Max. W. 4.25. Max. T. 2.0. Min. T. 1.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
308
070 From survey unit 175:540, unit 406
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.25. Max. W. 3.9 Max. T. 1.3 Min. T. 1.2.
Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.
076 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.75. Max. W. 6.85. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.75.
White, fine-grained marble.
Chipped off at the back.
077 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 5.0. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 0.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
Black encrusted patches. Caused by humidity?
078 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.8 3.1
White, fine-grained marble.
079 From survey unit 160:525, unit 403
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.55. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7.
White-greyish, fine-grained marble.
The inner surface more curved than the outer — perhaps from
below the rim of the bowl?
083 From survey unit 155:510, unit 202
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.15. Max. W. 2.85. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.2.
White, fine-grained marble.
Must have been half buried; different preservation in ‘right’ and
‘left’ part.
Preservation measurements: ‘right’/‘left’.
084 From survey unit 150:510, unit 402
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.15. Max. W. 2.75. Max. T. 0.65. Min. T. 0.55.
White, fine-grained marble.
090 From survey unit 165:525, unit 802
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.35.
White, fine-grained marble.
Not possible to assess discolouration because of red colour.
096 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.1. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.48. Min. T. 0.45
White, fine-grained marble.
097 From survey unit 170:525, unit 204
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.65. Min. T. 1.65
White-greyish, fine-grained marble.
100 From survey unit 180:540, unit 704
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 9.4. Max. W. 6.4. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
106 From survey unit 180:545, unit 107
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.15. Max. W. 2.45. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.9.
White, fine-grained marble.
Outer surface almost flat — near the base, or part of base?
 The Stone Vessels

108 From survey unit 160:535, unit 210 Striations.

Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 6.2. Max. T. 1.53. Min. T. 1.48.
White, fine-grained marble. 250 From excavation Trench XI, level 4, unit 1104
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
112 From survey unit 180:535, unit 106 Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 4.85. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 2.15. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.8.
White marble, very fine grains 264 From excavation Trench X, level 4, unit 1004
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
125 From survey unit 175:545, unit 208 Max. L. 7.65. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. White marble, very fine grains.
Max. L. 5.15. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. ? Min. T. ? On outer surface possible traces of red colour.
White, fine-grained marble.
Flake, only one small patch worked. Only one, probably outer 267 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906
surface preserved. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.3. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7.
132 From survey unit 175:510, unit 401 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 6.5. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.5. Min. T. 0.95. 279 From excavation Trench X, level 5, unit 1005
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.23.
134 From survey unit 170:535, unit 205 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.6. 286 From excavation Trench V, level 8, unit 508
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.0. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 0.45. Min. T. 0.35.
141 From survey unit 170:530, unit 404 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 2.4. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.9, 289 From excavation Trench V1a, level 10, unit 508
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.5. Max. W. 3.85. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.0.
159 From excavation Trench VI, level 2, unit 602 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim. Very bright and dense red pigment.
Inner surface quite hollow - rim type A? Not possible to see if inner surface discoloured; some encrustation
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 0.9, Min. T. 0.8. on top of red pigment.
White marble, very fine grains.
291 From excavation Trench VII, level 3, unit 705
199 From survey unit 155:535, unit 308 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim. Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0. White, fine-grained marble.
White, fine-grained marble.
305 From excavation Trench VI, level 8, unit 608
213 From survey unit 190:545, unit 710 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 2.0. Min. T. 1.95.
rim. Greyish-white, coarse-grained marble.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.88. Min. T. 0.6
White, fine-grained marble. 307 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
232 From survey unit 160:470, unit 633 Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. White marble, very fine grains.
Max. L. 5.4. Max. W. 5.9 Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5
Very curved — must be part of base. Or may belong to globular 308 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906
vase? Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
White marble, very fine grains. Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.53.
White marble, very fine grains.
235 From excavation Trench XIII, level 2, unit 1302 Curved; might come from near the base.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves very beginning of
rim. 313 From excavation Trench V1a, level 12, unit E513
Max. L. 5.75. Max. W. 6.4. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.68. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Grey (?), fine-grained marble. Max. L. 1.2. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.3.
Burnt (hence difficult to establish discolouration). White, fine-grained marble.

243 From excavation Trench VIII, level 2, unit 802 329 From excavation Trench IX, level 2, unit 1102
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Slight carination — beginning Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
of rim. Max. L. 2.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.47. Min. T. 0.25
Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 3.35. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 0.9. White-greyish, fine-grained marble.

309
 Chapter 8

330 From excavation Trench IX, level 2, unit 1102
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 0.95 . Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 1.75. Min. T. 1.65.
White, fine-grained marble.
Too flat, too small a fragment; not possible to distinguish which is
the inner and which is the outer surface.
341 From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. >1.4, Min. T. >0.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
Not possible to assess discolouration of inner surface and breaks
because of dense red pigment.
Thickness difficult to establish; outer surface broken off.
342 From excavation Trench VIII, level 5, unit 805
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 1.4, Min. T. 0.6.
White, coarse-grained marble.
Max. L. 2.25. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.65. Min. T. 0.50.
White, fine-grained marble.
377 From excavation Trench XII, level 3, unit 1204
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
Curved — could be part of base?
379 From excavation Trench X, level 9, unit 1009
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.45. Max. W. 3.55. Max. T. 0.85. Min. T. 0.75
White, fine-grained marble.
385 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7
White, fine-grained marble.
Inner surface encrustation extends partly over break 3.

345 From excavation Trench V, level 5, unit 505 386 From excavation Trench VI, level 4, unit 604
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 8.4. Max. W. 5.5. Max. T. 1.7. Min. T. 1.5. Max. L. 1.7. Max. W. 0.8. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.6.
Greyish-white marble with grey speckles, fine-grained. White, fine-grained marble.

346 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201 404 From excavation Trench VI, level 5, unit 605
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L 2.95. Max. W. 1.65. Max. T. 0.53. Min. T. 0.45. Max. L. 2.0. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.45.
White marble, very fine grains. White marble, very fine grains.

349 From excavation Trench V, level 7, unit 507 407 From excavation Trench V1a, level 10
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.9. Max. W. 5.7. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.2. Max. L. 1.2. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5
White, fine-grained marble. White, fine-grained marble.

354 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509 409 From excavation Trench VIII, level 7, unit 807
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 1.75. Min. T. 1.5. Max. L. 3.8. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.05.
White, fine-grained marble. White, fine-grained marble.
Striation marks on inner surface.
410 From excavation Trench IX, level 7, unit 907
355 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509 Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Max. L. 4.0. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.7.
Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 6.65. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.53. White, fine-grained marble.
White, fine-grained marble.
Curved. Broken into two parts; repaired. Striation marks inside. 414 From excavation Trench VIII, level 12, unit 812
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
356 From excavation Trench V, level 9, unit 509 Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 4.15. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 1.05.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 1.5. Min. T. >0.7. Thickness cannot be measured;
only very small part of inner surface preserved 415 From excavation Trench VIII, level 12, unit 812
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.0. Max. W. 1.15. Max. T. 1.08. Min. T. 1.03.
358 From excavation Trench IV, level 1, unit 401/2 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 16.4. Max. W. 9.2. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.9. 419 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.4. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.6.
365 From excavation Trench VI, level 7, unit 607 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Curved.
Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 3.8. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.45.
White, fine-grained marble. 420 From excavation Trench VII, level 5, unit 707
Broken during excavation; repaired. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Inner surface encrustation extends over breaks 3 and 4, but not Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.0.
over breaks 1 and 2. White, fine-grained marble.

373 From excavation Trench X, level 2, unit 1002 425 From excavation Trench VIII, level 12, unit 812
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
310
 The Stone Vessels
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
Not possible to assess discolouration of outer and inner surface
because of thick red pigment. Not possible to assess discolouration
of outer surface because of thick encrustation.
443 From excavation Trench VIII, level 11, unit 811
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 9.8. Max. W. 9.9. Max. T. 2.0. Min. T. 1.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
450 From excavation Trench X, level 11, unit 1011
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.95. Max. W. 3.35. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 0.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
It might be part of a base.
460 From excavation Trench VII, level 7, unit 709
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.7. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
466 From survey unit 180:480, unit 631
Plain marble bowl? Body fragment?
Max. L. 1.3. Max. W. 1.45. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 1.3.
Greyish marble, very fine grains.
Not absolutely certain that it is worked. Too flat, slightly uneven.
Not possible to distinguish which is the inner and which is the
outer surface.
475 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 7.4. Max. W. 5.1. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
477 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.45.
White, fine-grained marble.
478 From excavation Trench III, level 6, unit 306
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 6.45 . Max. W. 9.5. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.63.
White, fine-grained marble.
Broke to pieces during excavation; repaired.
520 From survey unit 160:490, unit 427
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 2.6. Max. T. 0.65, Min. T. ?
White, fine-grained marble.
A few flecks of red pigment on break 3 on the inside.
Shape unclear — fragment not curved, ending on a fairly sharp
edge ?
521 From survey unit 160:49, unit 427
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 2.3. Max. T. 0.6. Min. T. 0.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
A more recent break (break 2) on top of earlier break 3.
523 From survey unit 160:490, unit 427
Plain marble bowl? Body fragment?
Max. L. 1.4. Max. W. 2.1. Max. T. 5.5. Min. T. 5.0.
White-greyish marble, very fine grains.
Some doubts as to whether it is worked. Flat and rather uneven
inner and outer surfaces; hence discolouration and encrustation
not recorded.
311
529 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.6. Thickness cannot be measured, because
one surface is missing — not certain if it is the inner or the outer
surface.
White, fine-grained marble.
538 From excavation Trench X, level 15, unit 1015
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.9. Max. W. 3.6. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.7.
Not possible to establish original colour of marble; too discoloured.
Fine-grained.
539 From excavation Trench IV, level 3, unit 404
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 6.5. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9.
White, fine-grained marble.
545 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 4.8. Max. T. 1.7. Min. T. 1.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
547 From survey unit 185:165, unit 620
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.35. Min. T. 1.35.
Greyish-white, fine-grained marble.
Might belong together with 055.
550 From excavation Trench III, level 7, unit 307
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 8.0. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.05.
White, fine-grained marble.
Traces of red colour.
Fragment may come from near the base because of the curvature.
Thick encrustation on inner surface, but localized.
560 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves beginning of rim.
Max. L. 3.4. Max. W. 1.8. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.8.
White marble, very fine grains.
561 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.8. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 1.0.
White, fine-grained marble.
Curved.
566 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.2. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.4. Min. T. 0.3.
White, fine-grained marble.
567 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.8. Max. W. 1.5. Thickness cannot be measured; entire outer
surface broken off.
White marble, very fine grains.
568 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.6. Max. W. 2.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.8.
White marble, very fine grains.
598 From survey unit 220:370, unit 669
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment. Preserves the very beginning
of the rim.
 Chapter 8
Max. L. 6.5. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
Encrustation of inner surface extends over break 4.
599 From survey unit 220:370, unit 669
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0.
White, fine-grained marble.
Break 4 is either too worn and discoloured or unworked; too thick
to be chipped off.
665 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.5. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.7. Min. T. 0.6.
Curved - part of base?
White, fine-grained marble.
Part of the fragment buried and discoloured. Preservation measure-
ments: upper/lower part. Greenish patch — caused by humidity?
666 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 4.0. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.7.
White, fine-grained marble.
667 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 4.9. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.4.
White, fine-grained marble.
Half-buried? Lower part discoloured. Preservation measurements:
upper/lower.
668 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 3.1. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.8.
White, fine-grained marble.
669 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.65. Min. T. 0.63.
White, fine-grained marble.
(673) From survey unit 150:430, unit 728
Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment?
Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.50. Min. T. 0.5.
Greyish-white marble, very fine grains.
Probably not worked: made of limestone, rather than marble; flat,
uneven surface.
Recently broken into two pieces; not glued together.
Preservation not assessed.
(676) From survey unit 170:430, unit 637
Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment?
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.9.
Probably not worked: made of grey limestone; flat, uneven sur-
face.
679 From excavation Trench XI, level 1, unit 1101
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.4. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.4. Min. T. 0.4.
White marble, very fine grains.
680 From excavation Trench XI, level 1, unit 1101
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.7. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.25.
White, fine-grained marble.
681 From excavation Trench II, level 1, unit 201
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
312
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 1.3. Max. T. 0.53. Min. T. 0.53.
White marble, very fine grains.
683 From survey unit 220:380, unit 335
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 1.9. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.5.
Curved.
White, fine-grained marble.
687 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 2.9. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.0.
White, fine-grained marble.
Broken into two pieces; not repaired.
688 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment.
Max. L. 3.7. Max. W. 2.5. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 1.0.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
Outer surface too flat (but only a small part preserved!) - base
fragment?
689 From survey unit 155:520, unit 408
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.4. Max. T. 1.4. Min. T. 1.2.
White marble, very fine grains.
693 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.75.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
694 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.85. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.95.
White, fine-grained marble.
695 From survey unit 160:545, unit 304
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.2. Max. W. 1.4 Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.0.
White marble, very fine-grained.
697 From survey unit 155:525, unit 306
Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment.
Max. L. 5.0. Max. W. 4.1. Max. T. 0.83, Med. T. 0.75. Min. T. 0.61.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
Curved — perhaps base fragment? Thicker at the centre than at
the edges.
700 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 2.8. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.25.
White, fine-grained marble.
701 From survey unit 210: 360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.1. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.45. Min. T. 0.45.
White, fine-grained marble.
702 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 5.9. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 0.9.
White, fine-grained marble.
(703) From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble. bowl? Body fragment?
Max. L. 3.2. Max. W. 1.2. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 1.0.
White, fine-grained marble.
 The Stone Vessels
Not certain whether it is worked! Fragment too small and flat.
Not clear which is the inner and which is the outer surface.
704 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.5. Min. T. 0.5.
White, fine-grained marble.
706 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.7. Max. W. 1.7. Max. T. 0.4. Min. T. 0.35.
White, fine-grained marble.
Piece too small and flat; not clear which is the inner and which is
the outer surface.
707 From survey unit 135:525, unit 677
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 7.2. Max. W. 3.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.36.
White, fine-grained marble.
Break 1: uneven preservation: partly discoloured and encrusted.
708 From survey unit 175:520, unit 203
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.8. Max. W. 3.6. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.95.
White, fine-grained marble.
710 From survey unit 180:420, unit 342
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.1. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.8. Min. T. 0.8.
Grey marble, very fine grains.
711 From survey unit 200:380, unit 733
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 4.9. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.55.
White marble, very fine grains.
714 From survey unit 195:530, unit 311
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.3. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.6.
White marble, very fine grains.
Curved.
715 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.9. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.83. Min. T. 0.71.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
716 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.62. Max. W. 2.35. Max. T. 1.48. Min. T. 1.0.
White, fine-grained marble.
The encrustation of the outer surface extends over break 1.
717 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 3.2. Max. T. 0.55. Min. T. 0.55.
White, fine-grained marble.
Slightly curved incised line across the surface - but might have
been by accident.
718 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.5. Max. W. 2.0. Min. T. >0.9. Thickness cannot be measured;
only one surface preserved.
White, fine-grained marble.
313
719 From survey unit 170:540, unit 108
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.0. Max. W. 1.6, Min. T. >0.8. Thickness cannot be measured;
inner surface not preserved.
White, fine-grained marble.
721 From survey unit 200:380, unit 733
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 6.1. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.7.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
723 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.7. Max. W. 3.5. Max. T. 0.95. Min. T. 0.6.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
724 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.1. Max. W. 3.7. Max. T. 1.85. Min. T. 1.85.
White, fine-grained marble.
Faint traces of red pigment on inner surface.
725 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.5. Max. W. 2.15. Max. T. 0.52. Min. T. 0.45.
White (?), fine-grained marble.
726 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.3. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.9,
White, fine-grained marble.
727 From survey unit 150:530, unit 609
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 2.9. Max. W. 1.6. Max. T. 0.9. Min. T. 0.72.
White, fine-grained marble.
731 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645
Plain marble bowl. Body (or base?) fragment.
Max. L. 10.1. Max. W. 7.7. Max. T. 1.0. Min. T. 0.6.
White marble with greyish patches, coarse-grained.
Curved, probably base.
732 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 2.2. Max. T. 0.78. Min. T. 0.7.
White marble, very fine grains.
733 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.4. Max. W. 2.7. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 0.9.
White, fine-grained marble.
734 From survey unit 210:380, unit 645
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 4.2. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.15. Min. T. 1.15.
White, fine-grained marble.
735 From excavation Trench IX, level 6, unit 906
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 1.1. Max. W. 1.0. Max. T. 0.35. Min. T. 0.35.
White(?), fine-grained marble.
736 From survey unit 155:515, unit 302
Plain marble bowl. Body fragment.
Max. L. 3.6. Max. W. 1.5. Max. T. 0.55. Min. T. 0.55.
White, fine-grained marble.
 Chapter 8

Base fragments Diameter and angle of base cannot be measured; only small part
064 From survey unit 165:520, unit 602 preserved.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.9. Min. T. 1.6.
Not possible to measure diameter of base. Angle of base 167°. 453 From excavation Trench VI, level 13, unit E514
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Max. L. 7.0. Max. W. 4.5. Max. T. 1.2. Min. T. 1.2.
153 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303 Base diameter 6.0. Angle of base 170o.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 10.8. Max. W. 7.2. Max. T. 1.1. Min. T. 0.7 (base).
Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 156°. 524 From excavation Trench III, level 5, unit 305
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Surface of base more encrusted than outer surface. Max. L. 9.6. Max. W. 5.5, Max. T. 1.0 (carination) Med. T. 0.7 (wall).
Min. T. 0.6 (base).
154 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303 Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 159°.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 13.1. Max. W. 8.5. Max. T. 1.4 (base), Min. T. 0.9 (wall).
Base diameter 4.0. Angle of base 155°. 528 From excavation Trench VII, level 8, unit 708
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Chipped off during 1987 excavation. Max. L. 6.0. Max. W. 4.3. Max. T. 1.3 (carination). Med. T. 1.0 (wall).
Min. T. 0.7 (base).
155 From excavation Trench III, level 3, unit 303 Base diameter 7.0–9.0. Angle of base 151°.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 11.3. Max. W. 7.5. Max. T. 1.5 (wall), Min. T. 0.8 (base).
Base diameter 10.0. Angle of base 152°. 541 From excavation Trench XIV, level 4, unit 1404.
White, fine-grained marble. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Max. L. 10.8, Max. W. 7.3. Max. T. 1.4 (base). Min. T. 0.9 (wall).
165 From survey unit 150:520, unit 608 Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 158°.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White, fine-grained marble.
Max. L. 4.5. Max. W. 4.3. Max. T. 1.5 (carination, base). Min. T. 1.5.
Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 148°. 569 From survey unit 160:480, unit 724
White, fine-grained marble. Humidity patches. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Max. L. 8.8. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.6. Min. T. 1.1.
270 From excavation Trench X, level 3, unit 1003 Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 154°.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. White marble with grey shades — burnt? Coarse-grained.
Max. L. 8.2. Max. W. 3.4. Max. T. 1.2 (base). Min. T. 1.0? (wall). Dif-
ficult to measure thickness of wall, as outer surface has chipped off. 611 From survey unit 200:565, unit 352
Base diameter >4.0–5.0 (difficult to measure, as only small part Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
preserved). Max. L. 8.7. Max. W. 6.9. Max. T. 1.3. Min. T. 0.9.
Angle of base 152°. Base diameter 6.0. Angle of base 152°.
White, fine-grained marble. White, fine-grained marble. Black patches; burnt in recent (but not
in 1987) fire.
273 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. 664 From survey unit 210:370, unit 336
Max. L. 6.0. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 1.6 (base). Min. T. 1.5 (wall). Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Base diameter 4.0. Angle of base 144°. Max. L. 4.7. Max. W. 4.6. Max. T. 0.9 (carination of base). Med. T. 0.7
White, fine-grained marble. (wall). Min. T. 0.4 (base).
Base diameter 3.0. Angle of base 147°.
306 From excavation Trench III, level 2, unit 302 White, fine-grained marble.
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
Max. L. 10.2. Max. W. 6.2. Max. T. 1.4 (base). Min. T. 1.0 (wall). 705 From survey unit 210:360, unit 337
Base diameter 5.0. Angle of base 151°. Plain marble bowl. Base fragment.
White, fine-grained marble. Max. L. 7.5. Max. W. 5.3. Max. T. 1.2 (carination). Med. T. 1.0 (base).
Min. T. 0.7 (wall).
343 From excavation Trench XII, level 1, unit 1201 Base diameter 5.0 (difficult to measure, as only small part pre-
Plain marble bowl. Base fragment. served).
Max. L. 5.6. Max. W. 3.3. Max. T. 1.0 (carination of base). Min. T. Angle of base 158°.
0.8 (base, wall). White, fine-grained marble.

314
 The Stone Vessels

Table 8.13. Wear (W) Discolouration (D) and Encrustation (E), each 0n a scale of 1 to 5, on the outer and inner surfaces and at the breaks (up to the
fifth Breakage) for each marble bowl fragment recovered.

Inv. Outer surface Inner Breaks

no. surface 1 2 3 4 5
W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E
003 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1
023 4 4 1 3 2 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 1 3 4 1
026 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3
034 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2
036 2 3 1? 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 1? 2 3 1?
039 3 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 1? 3 4 1? 3 3 2 3 3 1? 1 1 1
040 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1
041 2 2 ? 2 ? 4 2 2 1 2 2 2
042 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3
045 2 1? 2 3 ? 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
046 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
048 - - - 3 ? 5 3 1 1? 2 3 1 2 3 1?
049 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 2
050 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 2 2 3 1? 2
051 ? ? ? 4 4 5 4 ? 4 4 ? 4 4 ? 4 4 1 1 4 1 1
053 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1? 3 2 1? 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2
054 3 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 2 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 4 1
055 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 1
062 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 2
064 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 1? 2 2 1? 3
065 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1 3 1? 2
067 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
068 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2
070 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 - 2 1
071 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1
076 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1? 3 2 3 3 2 3
077 3 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 3
078 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 3 1
079 2 1? 1 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1
083 2 3 1 2 4 3 2/2 4/1 3/1 2 1 1 2/2 4/1 3/1 3 4 3
084 2 2 1? 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2
086 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2
087 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
089 2 3 1 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 3 2
090 2 3 1? 2? ? 1? 3 3 1? 2 ? 1
095 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 2
096 2 1? 1 2 2 1? 2 1? 1 2 1 1 2 1? 1
097 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
100 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2
106 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
108 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2
109 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
112 2 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2
115 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
125 2 3 3 - - - 2 1 2 2 3 3 2 ? 4
129 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
131 2 1 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 2
132 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1
134 2 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 1
137 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1

315
 Chapter 8

Table 8.13. (cont.)

Inv. Outer surface Inner Breaks

no. surface 1 2 3 4 5
W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E
141 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1
145 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
146 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 4 2 1 1
148 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
153 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4
154 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 3 3 4
155 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
159 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 4 1 2
161 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 3
165 3 2 1? 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 2
166 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
167 3 5 3 3 4 2 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 3 4
184 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2
185 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
191 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
199 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 ? 4 3 1? 3 2 1? 1
200 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3
203 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 2 4 2 -
208 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 3 2 3
213 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 3 1 3 1? 1 - - 1
214 2 2 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 4
216 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3
218 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 2
221 3 ? 5 2 ? 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
222 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1
231 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
232 3 1? 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 3 3
235 2 3? 1 2 3? 1 2 3? 1 3 3? 1 3 3? 1 3 3? 3 3 3? 4
241 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 1
242 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 4 3
243 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
244 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
250 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 2 2
258 2 21 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1
264 2 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 3 2 4 2
267 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 1? 1 3 3 2 3 3 2
268 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 3
270 2 1 3 2 3 5 4 3 4 3 1? 3
273 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 4 2 2 1? 2 1? 1?
279 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
282 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1
285 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 ? 2 3 2
286 2 4 3 2 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 1
289 2 3 2 ? ? 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 4
291 2 3 3 2 2 1? 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
294 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
301 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2
305 2 3 ? 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1
306 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1
307 3 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
308 3 4 5 2 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1

316
 The Stone Vessels

Table 8.13. (cont.)

Inv. Outer surface Inner Breaks

no. surface 1 2 3 4 5
W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E
318 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3
328 2 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1
329 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1
330 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1
337 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
341 - - - ? ? 4 2 ? 4 3 ? 4
342 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 4 3 2 4 4 2
343 4 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3
345 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2
346 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
349 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1
354 2 ? 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1? 2 2 3 3 2 4 5
355 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 ? 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3
356 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
358 3 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 1
365 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2
366 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2
377 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2
378 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3
378a 2 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 3
379 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 2
381 3 3 5 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 2
382 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1
383 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
384 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2
385 2 3 2 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3
386 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 2 2
390 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
394 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4
397 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 3 3 2
404 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1? 1 2 1 1 2 1? 1
407 2 3 1 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
409 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 3 2
410 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2
414 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
415 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
417 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2
419 2 1 2 2 4 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 2 4 2
420 2 1? 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 1? 2
425 3 ? 5 2 ? 1 2 3 4 2 1 1? 3 3 2
430 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2
432 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3
433 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
434 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 3 4 2
435 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3
436 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3
442 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4
443 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3
450 3 2 1 4 5 5 3 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 1
453 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
458 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4

317
 Chapter 8

Table 8.13. (cont.)

Inv. Outer surface Inner Breaks

no. surface 1 2 3 4 5
W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E
466 2 1? 2 2 3 3 4 ? ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2
475 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
477 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 4 5 2 1? 4 3 4 5
478 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3
491 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 2
497 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 ? 3 3 ? 3 3 3
509 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2
520 3 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2
521 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 4 4 2 4 3 3
523 2 ? ? 2 ? ? 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
524 2 3 4 2 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
526 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3
527 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2
528 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 4 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 2 4 3 2
529 - - - 2 2 2 2 ? 1 2 ? 2 3 3 3
538 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
539 2 3 1? 2 3 1? 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1 3 1? 1
541 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 4
542 4 3 3 2 1 4 3 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 2
545 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1
546 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2
547 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
550 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
552 2 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
553 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
554 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 3
555 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 1 2
556 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
557 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1
559 2 3 3 ? ? ? 1 1 2 1 1 2
560 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
561 3 4 1 2 1? 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1
564 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 1
566 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
567 - - - 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 1
568 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2
569 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 1 3 4 2
587 4 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2
588 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2
598 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 1 4 3 2 2 1 1 4 3 3
599 3 4 3 2 1? 1 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4
611 3 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 ? 3 4 ? 3 4 ?
613 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1
616 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 2 2
617 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2
622 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1
629 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
630 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
631 2 3 1 2 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1 5 3 1
632 4 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1
662 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3

318
 The Stone Vessels

Table 8.13. (cont.)

Inv. Outer surface Inner Breaks

no. surface 1 2 3 4 5
W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E W D E
665 2/3 4/2 3 2/3 4/2 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 4 4 2 3 2 3 4 3
666 2 4 1 ? 3 4 2 3 3 1? 3 3 1? 4 4 3
667 2/3 1/4 1/2 2/2 1/4 1/? 3/3 1/4 1/2 2/3 1/4 1/2
668 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2
669 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 1 1? 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4
674 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 ? 4
675 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3
2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
679 3 3 1? 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 2 3 3 1
680 2 ? 3 2 ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1? 2
681 2 1? 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2
683 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 3 2
686 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 ? 4 3 3 3
687 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 1
688 3 3 1 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 1 3 - -
689 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3
693 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 3 3 3
694 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4
695 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 3 1 3 2 1? 2
697 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 4 3
700 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 3 4 2
701 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 4 1
702 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3
3 4 2 3 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2
704 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 2
705 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 2
706 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 1 2 3 1
707 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2/4 3/4 3 4 1? 3 4 2 3 4 1
708 2 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
710 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2
711 3 4 3 2 2 1? 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2
713 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
714 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 3 1? 1 2 1 3
715 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 4 1
716 2 2 1 3 2 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 2 2 2 2
717 3 4 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2
718 - - - 2 1? 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 2
719 2 2 1? - - - 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1
721 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3
723 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3
724 2 1? 1 2 1? 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 3 1? 4 2 1? 3
725 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1
726 2 2 1? 2 2 1? 3 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 1
727 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1
731 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 ? 2 4 ? 3 4 ? 3
732 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 3 3 2
733 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 1 4 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
734 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 - - 1
735 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1
736 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1? 1 2 1? 1 2 1? 1

319
 Chapter 8

Table 8.14. The colour and the texture of the other marble vessels. B.i. The other marble vessels
by Giorgos Gavalas
Colour Texture Quantity
White Fine grained 29 Forty-one marble fragments assigned to various mar-
Whitish Coarse grained 1 ble vessel forms, beyond the open bowls described
White with grey veins Coarse grained 8
above, were found during the investigations at
Greyish Coarse grained 3
Dhaskalio Kavos. Most of them were collected during
the surface survey. Only one is nearly intact (156); the
Table 8.15. The typology of the marble vessels found on Dhaskalio rest are very small sherds. Their fragmentary condi-
Kavos. tion and the lack of systematic publications of excava-
tion assemblages from Early Bronze Age Cycladic sites
Type Fig. Inv. no.
makes difficult their classification and dating. As noted
8.13 311
above the marble artefacts constitute a very significant
Cylindrical pyxis 8.13 562
category of material within the material culture of the
8.13 088
Early Bronze Age Cyclades. They have usually been
Spherical vessel 8.13 558
Collared jar - krateriskos 8.13 269
found as grave goods (see Chapter 8(A)).
8.13 474
Palette or grindstone 8.13 223 The material
8.13 195 Most of the fragments are of fine-grained white-col-
Frying pan 8.14 256 oured marble. The strong preference for this fine white
8.13 476 marble held by the population of the Early Bronze Age
Dove-vessel, plate (pinakio) Cyclades is of note as Devetzi (1992, 45) has indicated.
8.16 002
8.15 156 Only one fragment is of coarse grained whitish marble
8.15 172 while another eight pieces are of coarse grained mar-
8.15 173 ble with grey veins. Three fragments are of greyish
8.15 101 marble. Vessels of grey marble and of limestone are
8.15 247 discussed in Chapter 8(C).
A 8.15 418 Hitherto there has been no consensus about
8.15 722 a standard procedure for the determination of the
Footed bowl 8.15 698 place or the places of origin for marble (see Renfrew
8.15 038 & Peacey 1968, 45ff.; Waelkens 1992Not in refs, 5;
8.15 499 Herz & Doumas 1991; Sheratt 2000). The geology of
8.15 506 Keros has so far yielded no evidence for the existence
Kylix
8.16 369 of high-quality marble sources suitable for the arte-
8.16 449
facts found in the area. It seems more probable that
8.16 283
the source of marble used for these vases was either
8.16 059
Naxos or Paros. Naxos is a very short distance from
8.16 160
B Keros, especially the southern part where most of the
8.16 249
marble sources are to be found.
Footed cup 8.16 334
8.16 692
8.16 729
The technique
8.16 110 It is likely that obsidian, emery and metal tools were
8.16 368 used for the production of these objects (Getz-Preziosi
Pedestal base 8.16 025 1977, 99; 1987a, 35, 90–95; Oustinoff 1984, 42; Doumas
8.16 196 1968, 23; Devetzi 1992, 43). Such tools have been found
8.16 403 on the site (see Chapters 9 & 11).
Bowl with lugs on the rim 8.16 190 It is not easy to determine whether these arte-
8.16 510 facts were manufactured on the site or whether they
Large deep bowl: Lekanis 8.16 563 were imported in finished form from a neighbouring
8.13 585 island. Some evidence for unfinished artefacts was
Non-diagnostic
8.16 1014 reported by Zapheiropoulou during earlier work on
the site (Zapheiropoulou 1968a,b). Our own work
produced just one unfinished bowl of grey marble
151 (see Chapter 8(D)) and it seems possible that at
320
 The Stone Vessels
least some of the marble artefacts were produced at
the site.
Classification
The classification of these fragments and their assign-
ment to the known types of marble vessels from the EC
period is based mainly on comparison with drawings
of such objects by Devetzi in her unpublished doctoral
thesis (Devetzi 1992; forthcoming), where she studied
the excavated material from the Cycladic cemeteries
and the Dhaskalio Kavos material found during earlier
work. It correlates well with the work of Getz-Gentle
(1996) although since much of the material recorded
there has no provenance it is to be used with caution.
It should be noted that some variation in form is to
be expected in products of marble which were evi-
dently made by skilled craftsmen. Getz-Gentle (1996)
suggested that the hands of individual craft workers
can be identified and that these were the same work-
ers who produced the marble figurines. This may
have been the case, but the recognition of individual
‘hands’ would seem even more problematic for the
marble vessels than it has proved to be for the figu-
rines (Cherry 1992). Most of the marble vessels seem
to follow rather standard rules of production, so that
their shapes look rather conventional. But nevertheless
they are handmade works, each unique and individu-
ally made, and in that way distinguishable from each
other. The classification of the forty-one fragments that
come from Dhaskalio Kavos is shown in Table 8.15.
Cylindrical pyxis
These low open-mouthed cylindrical containers with
a lid (Devetzi 1992, 75–7; Getz-Gentle 1996, 112) are
known as pyxis vessels because of their resemblance to
similar vessels of classical times (Marangou 1995Not
in refs, 32). Generally the diameter of the body is
greater than the vessel’s height (Devetzi forthcoming:
Pyxis). Their main characteristic is that the base and
the top of the lid have a protruding flange so that the
whole resembles a spool. These protruding flange
surfaces often have perforations for fastening and for
the suspension of the vessel. This type is seen for the
first time during the EC II period also at miniature
scale. The largest known example has a rim diameter
of 16.2 (MN 4428).
In the ceramic repertoire this type is rather
rare (Tsountas 1899, pl. 8:11; Devetzi 1992, 77). Most
of those known come from either Naxos or Keros.
Most have incised horizontal decorative grooves on
the body, as with the examples from Spedhos (De-
vetzi 1992, cat. no. 248), from the Aplomata cemetery
(Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 249–52) and from Keros (1967
finds) (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 253–4, fig. 26–7).
321
The function of this vessel is still obscure. Since
most have been found in graves it has been suggested
that they belong to the category of burial gifts. They
may have been used to store pigments, or orna-
ments and beads, and some containing beads have
indeed been found (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 102; 1987,
309; 1996).
The undecorated fragment 311 (8.13–8.17) has
a close parallel in the Apeiranthos Museum, MA 827
which probably comes from Keros, diam. H. 5.4, D.
rim 9.4 D. base 13.1 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 258, fig.
27, pl. 61). It seems that the spool pyxis was popular
on Keros. The same form, with incised horizontal
grooves, is also found in limestone 204 (see below
Chapter 8(D)).
311 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench V, 1A, level 12.
08/09/87
Fragment from the body and the base of a spool pyxis.
H. 2.4, D. Body c. 12, D. base 16
White marble.
The vertical walls are undecorated. The surface on the exterior is
smooth. The interior is roughly worked, and tool marks are vis-
ible. The base is flat and has a protruding flange (W. 2.2). There is a
perforation of circular section in the base flange, partly preserved
(D. hole 0.3).
Preservation: Exterior surface slightly worn, some interior damage,
breakage sharp with some traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.
562 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 160: 480, Unit 724. 04/09/87
Fragment from the circular base of a spool pyxis.
L. 3.1, W. 2.5, T. 1.5, D. base ca10
White marble.
The surfaces are smooth with protruding base flange. There is a
perforation of circular section (D. hole 0.4).
Preservation: Exterior surface slightly corroded, breakage sharp
with slight traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.
088 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 165:525, Unit 802. 01/09/87
Fragment of the base of a spool pyxis.
L. 2.6, W. 2.7, T. 1.6 D. base c. 16.
White marble.
The surfaces are smooth.
Preservation: Upper surface with small breaks slightly corroded,
breakage sharp. Modern breakage.
Spherical vessel
This type of vessel has usually a small flattened spheri-
cal body with out-turned flat rim. There are two va-
rieties, one with stem and the other without (Devetzi
1992, 56). Usually accompanied by a lid.
Most researchers use the term spherical pyxis for
this vessel type (Stephanos 1903, 55; Papathanosopou-
los 1962, 111; Kontoleon 1972a, 150; Getz-Preziosi 1977,
99; Doumas 1984, 113). Devetzi prefers the more gener-
al term spherical vessel because she believes that such
vessels were used to contain liquid rather than as box-
es (Devetzi 1992, 27, 57). According to Devetzi 77 per
cent of the known examples come either from Naxos
or from Keros (Devetzi forthcoming: spherical vessel).
 Chapter 8

088 562
311

558

269

223
195

474

476
585

Figure 8.13. Marble vessels: cylindrical pyxis (311, 088, 562); spherical pyxis (558); krateriskos (269); palette (223;195;
474); dove vessel (476, 585) (scale 2/3).

The closest parallels for 558 are from the Aplo-
mata cemetery (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 23–37) where
the rim shape is similar and another example from
Keros, (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 43–6, fig. 7) where the
walls are thicker.
558 Fig. 8.13 from surface unit 165: 525, Unit 802. 01/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a spherical vessel.
L. 2.6, W. 2.7, T. 1.6, D. base c. 16.
White marble.
322
The surfaces are flat and smooth.
Preservation: Exterior surface eroded, partly corroded. Interior
surface corroded. Breakage fairly eroded, encrustation. Ancient
breakage.
Collared jar (krateriskos)
The vessel with flattened spherical body and high neck
in the form of a truncated cone is known as a collared
jar or krateriskos (Doumas 1963, 278; Getz-Preziosi
1977, 104, fig. 85; Devetzi 1992, 53; Getz-Gentle 1996, ).
 The Stone Vessels
It seems that some had lids (Papathanasopoulos 1962,
110; Devetzi 1992, 54, fig. 3: 21), while others did not
(Papathanosopoulos 1962, pl. 42).
This vessel has its exact parallel in the ceramic
repertoire (Doumas 1963, 278; Devetzi 1992, 54) and
notably among the footed collared jars of the so called
‘Amorgos Group’ (Thimme 1977a or b?, 77, cat. nos.
378–87). It is well dated to the EC II period. It is a
development of the shape of the earlier collared jar
or kandila.
The closest parallels to fragment 269 (Figs.
8.13–8.17) come from the earlier Keros investigations:
fragments MN 4318 (Devetzi 1992, 191, cat. no. 24, fig.
7b) and MN 4313 (Devetzi 1992, 191, cat. no. 25, fig. 7a)
and from the Aplomata cemetery (Kontoleon 1970, pl.
192b). There is an uncatalogued example from Keros
in the Naxos Museum, dim. H. 5.4, D. rim 14.6 (Devetzi
1992, 191, cat. no. 26, fig. 3, pl. 7g). The thickness of
the neck and the rim are identical.
269 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench X , level 3, Unit 1003.
04/09/87
Four joining fragments from the neck and the rim of a collar jar.
H. 4.1, L. 3.5, T. 0.5, D. rim c. 4–6.
White marble.
The rim is angular, out-turned and slopes upwards. The walls are thin.
Preservation: Surfaces quite eroded. Breakage rounded, fairly
eroded. Ancient breakage. Modern break at the rim.
Palette or grindstone
This flat and rectangular shaped form has a low flat
rim in the form of a raised border and was known by
earlier scholars as a plate (pinakio) (Tsountas 1898,
99–100; Stephanos 1910, 272; Varoucha 1925, 101; Dou-
mas 1984, 69, 79, 91). On the flat upper surface there
are often traces of colour, suggesting use as grindstone
or palette (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 104; Devetzi 1992,
87–8). Devetzi has distinguished four varieties: the
rectangular, the trough-shaped, the bowl-shaped and
the chest-shaped. Most of the known examples come
from either Naxos or Keros. They constitute some 10
per cent of the stone vessels of the EC II period. In
some of them the scanty traces of grinding indicate a
small scale use with small rubbers or pestles, probably
for the grinding of a small quantity of colour during
burial ceremonies (Mylonas 1959, 103).
Fragment 474 (Figs. 8.13–8.17) is similar to exam-
ples from the Aplomata cemetery (Devetzi 1992, 28)
where it is securely dated to EC II. The closest parallel
to this is from Keros MN 4321, diam. L. 24.7, W. 18.8
(Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 319).
Fragment 223 although thinner than most of the
known examples resembles to a palette from Keros
(Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 307).
Fragment 195 is unusual through its peculiar
323
shape, resembling a vessel from Cheimarros on Naxos
(Devetzi 1992, 281, cat. no. 312, fig. 36, pl. 78d).
474 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench III, level 6, Unit 306.
03/09/87
Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular
grindstone or palette.
H. 4.2, L. 13, W. 13.5, T. 2.6–3.4
Greyish marble.
The flattened raised border is emphasized by a groove in the interior.
The sides are straight and form an obtuse angle with the flat base.
The upper surface is slightly concave and has traces of grinding.
Preservation: Surfaces slightly corroded. Breakage with slight traces
of erosion. Ancient breakage.
223 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 175: 565, Unit 717. 03/09/87
Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular
grindstone or palette.
H. 3.3, W. 2.6, T. 1.8
White marble with grey veins.
The walls are straight and rough and incline inwards forming an
acute angle with the flat base. The upper surface is slightly concave.
Preservation: Surfaces slightly worn. Breakages rounded, worn,
and incrusted. Ancient breakage.
195 Fig. 8.13 from surface unit 150: 525, Unit 707. 02/09/87
Fragment from the body and the raised border of a rectangular
grindstone or palette.
L. 6.1, W. 4.3, T. 1.8.
White marble with gray veins.
With rounded corners and trough-shaped section giving an ellipti-
cal form. The raised border it is not preserved. The upper surface
is concave from use.
Preservation: Surfaces slightly damaged and worn. Breakage edges
show slight traces of erosion. Ancient breakage.
Frying pan
The marble frying pan has a disc-shaped body, which
protrudes beyond the low walls to form a flange. There
is a flat oblong horizontal handle (Kontoleon 1972b;
Devetzi 1992, 81, fig. 31). This form is well known in
clay (Tsountas 1898, 85). The clay form with the flange
and the very elaborated decoration is best known from
Chalandriani on Syros (Tsountas 1899) and is known
as the Syros type frying pan. This differs from the fry-
ing pan of Kampos type, which has no flange (Zaphei-
ropoulou 1984). The function of this type of vessel is
uncertain (Getz-Preziosi 1977, 99–100; Coleman 1985,
191–204; Goodison 1989; Devetzi 1992, 126). It should
be noted that in the ceramic assemblage from the 1987
Dhaskalio Kavos investigations this type of vessel is
lacking entirely (see Chapters 6 & 13).
Examples in marble or other stone are rare and
the only others known until this find are the examples
from Aplomata cemetery on Naxos (Kontoleon 1972b,
pl. 140–41; Lambrinoudakis 1976, pl. 196) and from the
earlier work on Dhaskalio Kavos (Devetzi 1992, 38–9),
together with the frying pan of chlorite schist and of
unknown provenance in Karlsruhe (Getz-Gentle 1996,
fig. 107, pl. 113).
 Chapter 8

0 3 cm

256

0 3 cm

Figure 8.14. Marble frying pan (256) (scale 2/3) with reconstruction.

Fragment 256 is very similar to the fragment MN the handle, which is of horseshoe form, see fig. 8.14
4413, dim. L. 3.4, D. rim 11.1–11.6, D. base 17–17.5, for possible reconstruction. It may be compared with
which comes from the same site (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. many ceramic examples (Coleman 1985, 192, fig. 2,
286–72, fig. 31, pl. 69). A special feature is the shape of cat. no. 32 from Naxos).

324
 The Stone Vessels
256 Figs. 8.14–8.18a & b from surface cleaning of the area of
Trench VIII, 165:525. 03/09/87
Fragment of a frying pan with protruding flange and cylindrical
walls and part of the handle.
H. 2.6, L. 12, W. 8.1, T. walls1.2, D. rim c. 16.
White marble
The walls are straight on the outside and concave in the interior.
Their section is triangular. The rim is plain and vertical. The base has
a flange of a width 1.7 from the walls and is slightly convex. Only a
little of the handle is preserved and is of horseshoe form.
Preservation: Most of the handle is missing. On the surfaces some
small recent wear and weathering. Breakages weathered. Ancient
breakage.
Plate (pinakio) or Dove vessel
This type is a large circular plate of marble with low
and very thin vertical sides, with a thin plain rim and
with a flat slightly protruding base. The only well-
preserved example has a line or a row of schematic
birds (doves) sculpted in relief at the interior. The flat
disc of the plate is there c. 40 cm in diameter and the
straight wall is 4 cms high. The line of the birds at the
interior has suggested the term dove vessel for this
marble plate (Doumas 1984, 134; Devetzi 1992, 82;
Getz-Gentle 1996). There is no equivalent shape in the
ceramic repertoire of the Early Bronze Age although
there are some similarities in shape with the frying
pan (Doumas 1968, 118). Most scholars agree that
they must have served some symbolic or cult function
(Doumas 1968, 174; Getz-Preziosi 1987a, 344; Devetzi
1992, 125).
The only intact example is in the Goulandris
Museum of Cycladic Art (Doumas 1984, col. no. 329,
pls. 171–4) which may well have come from Dhaskalio
Kavos. The only other documented fragment is MN
4439 found during Doumas’s excavations at Dhaskalio
Kavos (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 287, fig. 32, pl. 72 dim.
H. 4.1, D. rim 38.8, D. base 40.6).
Fragments 476 and 002 have been assigned to this
shape following the criterion of that they both have
very thin base and a slight protrusion on the upper
surface which might indicate the central row of birds
(not here preserved). The thin flat surface precludes
the open bowl or palette form. The uncertain fragment
485 (see below) seems to come from a similar vase.
476 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from excavation Trench III, level 6, Unit 306.
11/09/87
Body fragment of suggested dove vessel
L. 4.4, W. 4.3
White marble.
The upper surface rises a little towards the centre (T. 0.9–0.8). The
exterior, lower surface is flat and smooth.
Preservation: Exterior surface slightly weathered. Interior fairly
worn. Breakage fairly worn and rounded. Ancient breakage.
002 Figs. 8.13–8.17 from surface unit 175:535, Unit 104. 11/09/87
Body fragment of suggested dove vessel
L. 6.5, W. 6.6, T. 1.5.
325
Greyish marble.
The upper surface has a slightly concave curvature and is very
smoothed. The exterior surface is flat.
Preservation: Surfaces slightly weathered. Breakages fairly worn.
Ancient breakage.
Footed bowl (Kylix type A)
The Kylix is an open bowl or cup with a cylindrical
stem (Varoucha 1926, 102; Doumas 1984, 78, 80,90;
Devetzi 1992, 73; Getz Gentle 1996). The common
features of these vessels are: the thin walls of the body;
the stem usually cylindrical or more frequently conical
with concave walls widening towards the base; the
size is usually small. They are seen in contexts of the
EC II period. This shape is second in frequency after
the marble bowls. Most of the examples of both types
known from systematic excavations come from Syros,
forming 40 per cent of the known examples (Devetzi
forthcoming: Kylikes).
The Kylix is present in two varieties (Devetzi
1992, 73) the footed bowl(type A) and the footed cup
(type B).
The footed bowl (Getz-Gentle 1996, 160–62) has
a hemispherical body. The rim is usually vertical and
terminates in a rounded edge (Devetzi 1992, 73, fig.
24). Kylikes of this form are known from the Aplomata
cemetery and a burial from Thera (Devetzi 1992, 73).
The form is seen in some clay vessels (Zervos 1957, pl.
78) and in two silver kylikes mentioned by Dümmler
(1886, 73; Devetzi 1992, 74).
The best-preserved example from Dhaskalio
Kavos is 156 (fig. 8.15-8.19) which resembles a kylix
from Amorgos (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 224, fig. 24, pl.
55) NAM 5002, H. 7, D. rim 10.8. No. 698 probably
comes from a kylix of small size which is relatively
shallow. Rim 038 is notably narrowed. Fragments 499
and 506 are from deeper kylikes.
156 Figs. 8.15–8.19 from excavation Trench I, level 2. 01/09/87.
Four joining fragments from the body and the rim of a hemispheri-
cal kylix.
White marble
H. 5.1, D. 12.5, Rim, T. walls 0.8, D. of stem 2.3
Most parts of the body and the top of the cylindrical stem preserved.
The walls are thin. There is a rolled rim, which is defined by a groove
in the interior. The body at the angle of the join with the stem is
convex and smooth. The top of the stem at this point is wider.
Preservation: On the body recent breaks. Surface slightly weathered.
Breakages: at the stem sharp, slightly weathered; at the walls more
worn. Ancient breakage at the stem.
172 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:545, Unit 407. 02/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: On the rim traces of erosion. Surfaces slightly dam-
aged and fairly worn on the exterior more than the interior. Breakage
sharp slightly weathered.
 Chapter 8

0 3 cm

156

101
172

698
418

499
247

173
722

506

038

Figure 8.15. Footed bowls (kylix Type A) (scale 2/3).

173 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:545, Unit 407. 02/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 14.
The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved.
The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: On the rim some damage and traces of erosion. Sur-
faces fairly worn. Breakages rounded, weathered. Ancient Breakage.
101 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 180:540, Unit 704. 01/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.7, L. 3.1, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 14.
The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment are pre-
served. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-
rior. Breakages sharp. Modern Breakage.
247 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from excavation Trench IX, level 4, Unit 904.
04/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble with grey veins
H. 2.4, L. 2.1, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 12.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakages sharp, slightly
weathered.

326
 The Stone Vessels

369

249

334

449
059

283
160

368

190

510

025

403 196

563

0 3 cm
002

Figure 8.16. Footed cups (kylix Type B) and other vessels (scale
2/3).

327
 Chapter 8
418 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from excavation Trench VII, level 7, Unit 707.
04/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.9, L. 2.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 12.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces fairly worn. Break-
ages rounded, slightly weathered. Ancient Breakage.
722 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 150:530, Unit 609. 02/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.4, L. 3.5, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.
The walls are thin, thickening towards the rim. The rim is nearly
vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn with traces of encrustation.
Breakages: one sharp (modern), with encrustation; the other very
weathered. Ancient breakage.
698 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 165:535, Unit 705. 01/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 1.9, L. 2.9, T. wall 0.7, D. rim c. 10.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn with thin encrustation. Breakages
sharp slightly weathered. Ancient breakage.
038 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 160:515, Unit 801. 01/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 4.2, L. 4.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 18.
The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved.
The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces with small damages and worn. Breakages
rounded, very weathered. Ancient breakage.
499 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 200:380, Unit 733. 08/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble with grey veins.
H. 2.8, L. 3.1, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 16.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-
rior. Breakages rounded, slightly weathered. Ancient breakage.
506 Figs. 8.15–8.18 from survey unit 180:370, Unit 445. 07/09/87.
Fragment of the body and the rim of a hemispherical kylix.
White marble
H. 2.4, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 16.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn, the exterior more than the inte-
rior. Breakages rounded and weathered. Ancient breakage.
Footed cup (Kylix type B)
The body of this kylix variety is approximately conical
with slightly concave and thin walls. The form resem-
bles that of the conical cup frequently seen during the
EC II period but with the addition of a stem. The rim
is usually plain and sometimes strongly out-turned
with convex or flat edge (Devetzi 1992, 73–4; Getz-
Gentle 1996, 164–7).
Fragments 369, 449, 283, 059, and 160 are very
similar to a kylix of unfortunately unknown prov-
enance (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 245, fig. 25, pl. 57) NAM
11339, H. 5, D. rim 8.8–9.
328
Fragment 249 (Figs. 8.16–8.18) is similar to a kylix
from Chalandriani on Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 243,
fig. 25, pl. 57) MS 179, H. 7.8, D. rim 9, but might in-
stead belong to a conical cup (see Devetzi 1992, 70).
Fragment 334 is similar to a kylix from Chaland-
riani on Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 240, fig. 25, pl. 59)
MS 402, H. 7.7, D. of Rim 12.1. Fragments 692, 729, and
110 are too small to be assigned to a specific variety.
369 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench IX, level 1, Unit 901.
03/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 1.9, L. 0.6, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 6.
The walls are thin. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved.
The rim is nearly vertical, inturned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp, slightly weath-
ered.
449 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench X, level 11, Unit 1011.
10/09/87
Four joining fragments of the body and the rim of a footed cup
(Kylix type B).
White marble with grey veins, fairly transparent.
H. 3.0, L. 4.8, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 10.
The walls are thin. The rim is out-turned and narrow.
Preservation : Surfaces worn. Breakage sharp, slightly weathered.
283 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench V, level 8, Unit 508.
14/09/87
Two joining fragments of the body and the rim of a footed cup
(Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 2.5, L. 5.3, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 8.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical and rounded.
Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces fairly worn,
encrustation. Breakages rounded, weathered and encrustated.
Ancient breakage.
059 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 170:530, Unit 404. 01/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 0.8, L. 1.3, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 6–8.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp.
160 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench VI, level 2, Unit 602.
02/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 1.0, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 6.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, rounded.
Preservation: Some damage on the rim. Surfaces fairly worn, the
exterior more than the interior. Breakages sharp and weathered.
Ancient breakage.
249 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench X, level 4, Unit 1004.
07/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 3.3, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.5, D. rim c. 11.
The walls are thin and concave, and the body might have been deep
conical. The rim is out-turned and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakage sharp and weathered.
Ancient breakage.
 The Stone Vessels

c
b

Figure 8.17. Marble vessels: (a) cylindrical pyxis (311, 562, 088), (b) krateriskos (269); (c) Palette (474, 223) and (d)
dove vessel (476, 002) and uncertain (485).

329
 Chapter 8

a b

Figure 8.18. (a) and (b) Frying pan (256); (c) Footed bowls; (d) Footed cups (449, 249).
330
 The Stone Vessels
334 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from excavation Trench I, level 1, Unit 101.
01/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 1.4, L. 2.5, T. wall 0.3, D. rim c. 12.
The walls are thin. The rim is nearly vertical, out-turned and narrow.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn. Breakages sharp and weathered.
Ancient breakage.
692 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 4.2, L. 4.3, T. wall 0.8, D. rim c. 10.
The walls are thin, vertical. The rim is nearly vertical and rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces very worn and eroded. Breakages rounded
and very weathered. Ancient breakage.
729 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 140:520, Unit 767. 11/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 2.6, L. 3.9, T. wall 0.4, D. rim c. 14–16.
The walls are thin, vertical and concave.
Preservation: Surfaces very worn and eroded. Breakages very
weathered. Ancient breakage.
110 Figs. 8.16–8.18 from survey unit 185:545, Unit 606. 01/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a footed cup (Kylix type B).
White marble
H. 3.6, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.5.
The walls are thin, out-turned and concave.
Preservation: Surfaces exterior fairly worn, interior with some dam-
age and traces of thin encrustation. Breakage sharp and weathered.
Ancient breakage.
Pedestal base
Both of the varieties of the kylix type have bell-shaped
stems that terminate in trumpet-like feet, whose lower
surface while approximately flat, is slightly concave.
Fragments 368, 025, and 196 are very difficult to
assign to a specific variety of the kylix type or to other
stemmed shapes. There is no standard norm since
kylikes with very small body and rim diameter may
have a very tall stem and broad feet, like MN 6905
(H. of the stem 9.4). Alternatively a kylix with very
large rim diameter may have a very small stem with
large foot, like MA 441 (D. of rim 19.8, D. of feet 7, H.
of stem 9.3) (Devetzi 1992).
Fragment 368 resembles the feet of kylikes from
Amorgos NAM 3965 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 229, fig.
24, pl. 55) and from Syros ( Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 240,
fig. 25, pl. 59) but it seems to belongs to a large size
foot. A fragment of the cylindrical stem of a vessel of
large size NAM 11683 (Devetzi forthcoming: Kylix)
is similar.
Fragment 025 is very similar to two feet from
Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 237, fig. 25, pl. 59a) NAM
5119, and NAM 5174 (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 238, fig.
25, pl. 57d).
Fragment 196 seems to be from a foot of large
size and can be compared with 368.
331
368 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from excavation Trench V, level 2, unit 502.
02/09/87
Fragment of trumpet-like foot.
White marble
W. 1.8, T. wall 0.9, D. foot c. 8.
The foot is flat and slightly concave.
Preservation : Surfaces fairly worn and traces of thin encrustation.
Breakages sharp, slightly weathered.
025 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 170:540, Unit 108. 01/09/87
Fragment of trumpet-like foot.
White marble
H. 3.6, L. 1.8, T. wall 0.5.
The foot is conical and its lower flat surface is slightly concave. Its
exterior is smooth.
Preservation: Surfaces exterior fairly worn. Breakages sharp, slightly
weathered.
196 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 150:525, Unit 707. 02/09/87
Fragment of trumpet-like foot.
White marble
H. 3.6, L. 0.9, T. wall 0.3, D. foot c. 12.
The foot is flat.
Preservation: Surfaces: exterior slightly worn, interior fairly worn.
Breakages sharp and slightly weathered.
Bowls with lugs on the rim
This is a variety of the plain bowl type. In most ex-
amples there are four diametrically opposed lugs on
the rim. The body is usually conical with flat base.
Usually they are of medium size and are fairly deep
(Devetzi forthcoming: Phialae). The lugs are oblong
and compact and have a crescent-like shape. Their
upper surface is the continuation of the rim (Devetzi
1992, 67). These bowls are dated to the EC II period
and many examples have been found both in settle-
ments and cemeteries. Traces of pigment, bones and
shells have been found in association with them.
Fragments 403 and 190 are similar to the bowl
with lugs from Syros (Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 177, fig.
19, pl. 43a,b) NAM 50455, H. 4.5, D. rim 10.9.
Fragment 510 seems to come from a relatively
deep bowl similar to an example from Syros (Devetzi
1992, cat. no. 182, fig. 19, pl. 42g) NAM 5123, H. 5, D.
rim 12.3.
403 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from excavation Trench VI, level 5, Unit 605.
08/09/87
Fragment of the body and rim of a bowl with lugs.
White marble with grey veins.
H. 4.5, L. 1.1, T. wall 1.7, lug: L. 1.2, W. 0.3.
The body is nearly conical with thin walls. Only a little of the rim
is preserved. The lug is crescent-like and projects slightly from the
rim. In the interior traces of red pigment preserved.
Preservation: Surfaces: exterior fairly worn, interior some damage
fairly worn. Breakages sharp and slightly weathered.
190 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 155:525, Unit 306. 02/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a bowl with lugs.
White marble
H. 3.0, L. 3.3, T. wall 0.5, lug: L. 1.4, W. 0.3.
The body is conical with thin walls. The rim is rounded and vertical.
 Chapter 8

Figure 8.19. Footed bowl (156). Diameter 12.5 cm.

332
 The Stone Vessels

c d

Figure 8.20. Other marble vessels (a) Footed cups and pedestal bases; (b) Bowls with lugs; (c) Pedestal base (368); (d)
Rim of lekanis (563).

333
 Chapter 8
The lug is crescent-like and projects slightly from the rim.
Preservation: On the rim some damage. Surfaces: exterior slightly
worn, interior fairly worn. Breakages sharp and slightly weath-
ered.
510 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 185:570, Unit 418. 03/09/87
Fragment of the body and the rim of a bowl with lugs.
White marble
H. 1.7, L. 2.8, T. wall 0.6, lug: L. 1.5, W. 0.4.
The body is conical with thin walls. The rim is rounded and em-
phasised by an exterior shallow groove. The lug is crescent-like and
projects slightly from the rim.
Preservation: Damage at the rim and the lug. Surfaces: exterior fairly
worn. Breakages weathered. Ancient breakage.
Large deep bowl (Lekanis)
This is another variety of the plain bowl but is a very
deep bowl of large size (Devetzi 1992, 62).
Fragment 563 is similar to the lekanis from Syros
(Devetzi 1992, cat. no. 169, fig. 18, pl. 38g) NAM 5150,
H. 7, D. rim 19.2.
563 Figs. 8.16–8.20 from survey unit 160:480, Unit 724. 04/09/87
Fragment from the rim of a large deep bowl.
White marble
H. 0.9, L. 4.1, D. rim c. 17.
The rim is rounded.
Preservation: Surfaces fairly worn with thin encrustation. Breakages
sharp and slightly weathered.
Non-diagnostic
Fragments 585 and 1014 could not be assigned to a
specific shape because of their small size.
585 from survey unit 140:410, Unit 671. 10/09/87
Fragment from the body of either a dove vessel or a large shallow
bowl.
White marble with grey veins
L. 3.6, W. 3.2, T. 0.7-0.6.
The surfaces are flat and smooth. One surface is slightly concave.
Preservation: Surfaces: exterior fairly worn, interior slightly worn.
Breakages rounded and slightly weathered. Ancient Breakage.
1014 from excavation Trench VII, level 7, Unit 709. 09/87
Fragment from the body of an object with two worked surfaces
meeting in acute angle.
White marble with grey veins
L. 2.8, W.1.3, T. 0.9.
Preservation: Surfaces very worn. Breakages very weathered, one
with recent break. Ancient breakage.
Preservation
The discussion of the preservation of the fragments
offered here has not followed the system used for the
open bowls (see Chapter 8A). It, however has been set
out in detail in order to contribute to the discussion on
the thraumatology question (see Chapter 12). For the
breakages a conventional scale has been used giving:
first, the degree of weathering of the surfaces (slightly
worn, fairly worn, very worn), and the breakages
334
(sharp, and rounded); second, the encrustation and
the modern breaks or other damage caused during the
excavation or the sieving, have been also noted.
It is noticable that from the 41 fragments only
three are larger than 10 cm (474, 256, 156) both from
the excavation and the surface survey. The largest
dimensions of the rest are between 2 and 6 cm in size.
Study of the weathering showed that most of the frag-
ments have one weathered surface while a few are
weathered on both, indicating that these were exposed
for a considerable time. The breakages of such frag-
ments are rounded. The most weathered often have a
layer of encrustation seen on fragments 558, 223, 722,
698, 449, 283, 110, 368, 563. A few examples have very
fresh breaks from rather recent activity (probably
looting): 088, 269, 256, 101, 722, 1014.
These observations lead us to the conclusion that
these vessels were broken in antiquity. Further discus-
sion on this issue is found in chapter 12.
Discussion
The function of the marble vessels found at Dhaskalio
Kavos has already been discussed (see Chapter 3).
A few marble vessels have been found in EC
settlements such as Phylakopi on Melos (Renfrew
1975Not in refs, 65; 1985, 66), Grotta on Naxos (Kon-
toleon 1949Not in refs, 119), Kastri on Syros in Kastri
(Tsountas 1899, 122; Bossert 1967, 60–64) or Akrotiri
on Thera (Devetzi 1992, 119). The recent finds from
Markiani are also rather few (Scarre 2006). This fact
along with the observation that all the marble vessel
shapes with the exception of the dove vessel have been
found in the Cycladic cemeteries in many cases as
burial offerings has suggested their funerary use. The
traces of red pigment noticed in many examples (see
Chapter 8(A), and Devetzi 1992, 97) has been adduced
as additional evidence for this suggestion.
The exclusive use of the marble vessels for funer-
ary purposes does not however seem very likely for
the full range of the shapes. We should probably ac-
cept that these vessels, although not in everyday com-
mon household, use probably had multiple functions,
of which probably only the last was burial (Devetzi
1992, 97; Getz-Gentle 1996).
The considerable disturbance at Dhaskalio Kavos
through looting has prevented the recovery of undis-
turbed deposits in the area of the Special Deposit. For
this reason our only criterion for the dating of the frag-
ments has been their classification to specific types, all
of which are dated to the EC II period (Devetzi 1992,
22–4). Most of the other material recovered both from
earlier research and during the 1987 investigations is
likewise dated to this period.
 The Stone Vessels
Figure 8.21. Fragments (226 and 591) of Fluted marble vessel (scale 2/3).
B. ii Note on two fragments of marble vessels
by Colin Renfrew
226 Figs. 8.21–8.22 From survey unit 616 (195:575)
Rim sherd of marble vessel with fluted decoration, of fine white
marble.
H. 2.0; L. at rim 1.8; T. 0.7; Radius (est.) c. 10.
Small fragment of what could be an open bowl with incuse fluted
decoration on the outside. The fluting is 0.8 wide, with 1.3 from the
middle of one fluting to the middle of the next. Depth of fluting c.
0.02. This piece may related to the next, which may relate to pieces
from Keros in the Naxos Museum. Both pieces have a similar golden
patina, which extends to the edges, indicating old breaks.
591 Figs. 8.21–8.22 From survey unit 417 (195:580)
Body fragment of fluted marble vessel.
L. 2.5; W. 1.8; T., (max.) 0.7; T. at fluting 0.3; Distance between ridges
of fluting 1.3.
The fragment is slightly concave across the fluting (radius c. 15 cm).
The outer surface gives an effect of simple corrugation.
These two pieces clearly belong to the same vessel.
The Naxos Museum has at least four fragments of a
fluted marble vessel or vessels from Keros, including
fragments of a rim with a horizontal lug handle set
one or two centimetres below, below which the verti-
cal fluting begins. The vessel represented by nos. 226
and 591 and by the pieces in the Naxos Museum is an
important find, since it constitutes what appears to be
an entirely new form for the Cycladic Early Bronze
Age, and one unknown elsewhere in the Early Bronze
Age Aegean.
Getz-Gentle makes a comparable observation,
creating for the pieces displayed in the Naxos Mu-
seum a new category (Getz-Gentle 1996, 107, fig. 52) of
‘Cupcake Bowls’ (by which she means fluted bowls).
Her observation are based exclusively upon ‘several
unpublished fragments in Naxian museums’ and re-
ferring to ‘deep vertical or slightly oblique grooves’.
335
Figure 8.22. Fragment (226) of Fluted marble vessel.
She states: ‘Two fragmentary examples, found on
Keros, have long delicate lugs, quite like those of the
horizontal lug bowls attributed to a single sculptor
above’. Here she is referring to the fragments in the
Naxos Museum mentioned above.
Her associated footnote (no. 211) reads as fol-
lows: ‘Apeiranthos MA 137 (“Panermos, Naxos”);
Naxos, MA: five or six fragments, four presumably
from one vessel, all found on Keros’. In her discussion
she compares the fluting on these bowls with that
naturally occurring on shells, and refers to the finds
of actual seashells in Cycladic graves including the
site at Aplomata. She further observes (Getz-Gentle
1996, 223, no. 212) : ‘Pieces of large “sculptured” shells
were found on Keros mixed with the marble objects’.
The source of this observation is not clear — and in
the context when she speaks of ‘sculptured’ shells
she is referring to the natural form of the conch or
of Dolium, not to imitations of shell in marble. This
observation runs counter to my impression: I do not
recall that shell fragments were frequent finds at
Dhaskalio Kavos
However the complete form of this fluted marble
vessel (or vessels if there is more than one) has not
yet been reconstructed. Some aspects of the curvature
 Chapter 8
and of the fluting at one time gave me the impression
that there might be here a shape more elaborate than
simply a fluted marble bowl. I have in mind several
Late Minoan carved stone vessels in the form of shells.
There is a fine example from Aghia Triadha, which is
carved in obsidian from Giali (Renfrew et al. 1965, pl.
63, d) into the form of a shell of the genus Dolium , and
an example in alabaster from the cemetery at Kalyvia
near Phaistos imitating a Triton shell (Marinatos &
Hirmer 1960, pl. 115, lower).
This marble vessel has not yet been adequately
reconstructed. But in any case it is clearly of sig-
nificance that the finds contribute a new form to the
Cycladic repertoire.
This is the second entirely new marble form es-
tablished by well-documented finds from Keros. The
first of course is the dove bowl (see Chapter 8(B.i),
above), attested by fragments in the 1967 excavations
of Zapheiropoulou (Zapheiropoulou 1968b, 100) and
seen almost complete in the vessel in the Goulandris
Collection acquired in 1968 (Doumas 1983, 173).
C. The grey marble and limestone vessels
by Kiki Birtacha
The grey marble vessels
Only eight very small and very fragmentary preserved
pieces come from vessels of grey marble. Because of
their poor preservation only very few elements were
helpful for their typological classification.
No. 151 (Figs. 8.23–8.24), the only unfinished
marble artefact recovered in the course of the inves-
tigation, is a partially worked unfinished bowl that
comes from Trench III and is very interesting. Heavy
percussion is clearly visible on the whole of its exterior
surface, which is very rough. The tool marks around
the base of the vase are particularly strong while traces
of the working with a sharp tool are clearly visible
on both exterior and interior surfaces. The preserved
traces of red pigment on the interior surface led to
the suggestion that this was used as grinder for pig-
ments. The roughness of its interior surface could have
facilitated grinding.
043 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:515, Unit 801. 01/09/87
H. 2.35, Wd 1.5, T. 0,77
Very small body fragment of a vessel of grey marble. Polished.
103 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 180:525, Unit 703. 01/09/87
H. 2.7, W. 1.6, T. 0.5
Very small body fragment of a vessel of grey marble. Polished.
Eroded surfaces.
140 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 408. 02/09/87.
H. 2.5, W. 2.2, T. 0.7
Very small body fragment of an open vessel of grey marble. Pol-
336
ished. Very eroded and thin fragment.
144 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 409. 02/09/87
H. 2.3, W. 1.3, T. 0.575
Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel, possibly a
shallow bowl, of grey marble. External diameter c. 16 cm. Eroded.
151 Figs. 8.23–8.24 from excavation Trench III, layer 3, Unit 303.
H. 8.5, W. 6.8, T. 1.6.
The ellipsoid base and part of the body of an unfinished open shal-
low vessel of grey marble. Heavy traces of percussion on the exterior
surface and around the base. The internal surface is eroded, rough
and bears traces of red pigment.
398 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 210:380, Unit 645. 08/09/87
H. 4.1, W. 1.9, T. 0.85
Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel of grey marble.
Polished. Eroded.
684 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench X, Unit 1002. 03/09/87
H. 1.15, W. 0.8, T.0.7
Very small fragment from the rim of an open vessel of grey marble.
Polished with some encrusted breaks.
181 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:530, Unit 609. 02/09/87
L 2.8, W. 1.6, T 0.4, D. 8 cm
Eroded and discoloured body fragment of an open vessel of
grey marble. The edges are worn and rounded by erosion. Very
encrusted.
The limestone vessels
The use of relatively soft limestone for vessels and
small cylindrical pestles begins in the EC II period.
The colour of the stone varies from dark orange or
reddish with light coloured veins to buff and yellow.
This graduation of the colour and the light coloured
veins create a natural polychromy for these objects.
Vases of this veined limestone, which exists in large
quantities in the nearby Kouphonisia islands, are rare
and have been found until now mainly on Keros. The
unfinished bowl 741 (Figs. 8.25–8.26) is an indication
of the transport of the material from the nearby Kou-
phonisia and suggests that the manufacture of the
vessels was taking place in the site. We shouuld note
here that unfinished stone objects were found during
the early excavation on the Dhaskalio Kavos (Zaphei-
ropoulou 1980, 540) and that there are unfinished
objects in the so called ‘Keros Hoard’ (Getz-Preziosi
1982,42; 1987b, 151, no. 109; Broodbank 2000a, 231–2).
Another example of an unfinished vessel is the bowl
of grey marble 151 (Figs. 8.23–8.24).
The preserved fragments are very small and in
some cases cannot be assigned to vessel types. Most
of them seem to belong to shallow or deep bowls
with simple rim and flat base. One intact example of
a deep bowl of orange-coloured limestone, now in
the Museum of Naxos, comes from Keros (Marangou
1990, cat. no. 125).
A unique fragment with horizontal, parallel
grooves (204) probably belongs to the body of a
 The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.23. Unfinished bowl of grey marble (151) (scale 2/3).

Figure 8.24. Unfinished bowl of grey marble (151)

337
 Chapter 8

144
593

709
739

147
712

205

469
204

691

429

720

421 ??? 741

Figure 8.25. Vessels of grey marble (043, 103, 140, 144, 689) and of limestone (scale 2/3)

spool pyxis, a type known from the marble vessels
(see Chapter 8(B); Getz-Gentle 1996, 142–53, pl. VIIB,
80–87). As for the technique used for the manufacture
of these vessels it is interesting to note that fragment
741 of an unfinished bowl has been roughly shaped
by flaking the original block of limestone.
204 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87
H. 2.5, Wd 2.3, T. 0.75
Yellowish limestone
Body fragment of a vessel with parallel incised horizontal grooves.
Probably body fragment of a spool pyxis.
Eroded and discoloroured.
147 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 165:540, Unit 706. 02/09/87

338
 The Stone Vessels

206 147

b c

421 204

d e

469 ???
720 429
???

??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ???

Figure 8.26. Vessels: (a) of grey marble; (b–e) of limestone.

H. 2.65, Wd 1.9, T. 0.87. D. c. 10. 421 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench VII, level 5, Unit 707.
Orange limestone H. 5.2, W. 3.7, T. 0.65–0.9
Rim fragment of an open vessel. External diameter c. 10. Orange limestone
Fragment from the base and the body of a deep bowl. The base
205 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:545, Unit 304. 02/09/87 is flat.
H. 2.2 W. 2.25, T. 0.5 Slightly eroded. The breakage is old. The diameter of the base is
Orange limestone c. 8.
Small body fragment of a hemispherical open vessel. A small part
of the rim preserved. 469 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:370, Unit 644. 08-09-87
Eroded. H. 6.5, W. 2.6, T. 1.05
Orange limestone

339
 Chapter 8

Body fragment of an open vessel. chlorite schist vessels, of a category known also from
Eroded, two fresh breaks and two worn. Cretan finds, are among the most remarkable pieces of
593 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 210:390.Unit 734. 08/09/87 craftsmanship from the Aegean Early Bronze Age.
H. 3.3, W. 3.1, T. 1
Buff-orange limestone Chlorite schist double pyxis with lid
Small fragment from the body of an open vessel preserving part of 327 Figs. 8.27–8.29 From excavation Trench XI, level 2
a flat rim. External diameter of the rim c. 10–12 cm. Part of a pyxis lid of grey-green chlorite schist, decorated with
relief spirals, broken on three sides. This piece has subsequently
691 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 155:520, Unit 408. 02/09/87 been joined — see below — in the Naxos Museum with a further
H. 3, W. 2.1, T. 0.8. Diam. c. 16 cm. large fragment from the same pyxis lid which derives from the
Buff-orange limestone excavations (Zapheiropoulou 1976, 84, pl. 8, lower) conducted in
Small fragment possibly from the rim of an open vessel. The rim 1967 (Naxos Museum catalogue KK 4442). The lid is evidently as-
is flat and angular. sociated with a large pyxis body fragment, likewise from the 1967
Eroded excavations also in the Naxos Museum (67.2666). These pieces are
included in the discussion here.
709 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 160:520, Unit 502. 01/09/87 Max. pres. L 5.2 ; W. 4.5; Th. at break 1.1; max. Th. at peak c. 1.2
H. 3.25, W. 2.7, T. 0.6 to 1.3.
Buff-orange limestone The material is dark grey-green chlorite schist.
Small fragment from the body of an open shallow bowl. External It is broken on three sides.
diameter of the body c. 16. The fragment includes most of one of the apical spirals (see below),
along with parts of three peripheral spirals, each of which has a link
712 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:380, Unit 733. 08/09/87 to it from the respective apical one. The edge with the apical spiral
Orange limestone joins with the piece discussed next. However no part of the original
Small fragment from the body and the rim of an open vessel. The rim or edge of the lid is preserved on this fragment.
rim is flat with angular edges.
Naxos Museum KK 4442 From 1967 Kavos excavations
720 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:180, Unit 733. 08/09/87 (Getz-Gentle 1996, no. 419 (Zapheiropoulou 1976,
H. 3.07, W. 2.8, T. 1.05 gives the number 4472) 84, pl. 8, lower)
Orange limestone Part of a pyxis lid of grey-green chlorite schist, decorate with relief
Body fragment of an open vessel. Worn edges. spirals, broken on five sides, joining with the preceding.
L. 8.7, W. 8.5, Th. 1.4.
728 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 200:370, Unit 644. 08/09/87 This piece represents the ‘saddle’ between the two apexes, one
H. 2.4, Wd 2.2, T. 0.6–0.9 of which is partly preserved on this piece. There is a join at the
Buff-orange limestone other side with 327. Hardly any of the original edge of the lid is
A flat and angular rim fragment of an open vessel. The rim is flat preserved, except for a length of just a couple of millimetres at the
with angular edges mid point of one side (i.e. at the saddle), where a short length of a
line in relief is seen.
739 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from excavation Trench II, level 2, Unit 202. Fragment 327 could initially be recognized as a fragment of the lid
02/09/87 either of a cylindrical or conical pyxis or of a double pyxis of similar
H. 3.75, W. 2.67, T. 0.83 form which, following the subsequently-effected join, proves to be
Buff-orange limestone the case.
Rim fragment of an open vessel. External diameter of the rim c. 10. The shape of the pyxis lid after the joining together of the two
fragments has the outline of a figure-of-eight with two axes of sym-
741 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 150:535, Unit 409. 02/09/87 metry. Along the major axis there are two peaks, each of which no
L. 8.1, W. 6.35, T. 2.7–2.4 doubt corresponds to the centre of the relevant compartment of
Buff-orange to whitish limestone the double pyxis which the lid evidently covered. The ingenious
Large fragment of a bowl. The base and part of the body is pre- decoration is a complex one of interlocking relief spirals. The
served. Both the interior and the exterior surfaces are rough, without decoration of each half consists of a relief spiral at the peak or apex
smoothing. Unfinished. The original surface is very rough. The which itself links with each of six peripheral spirals arranged in a
diameter of the rim is less than 13. circle around it. One of these is located centrally at the mid point
of the major axis of the lid, so that this key or nodal spiral serves
429 Figs. 8.25–8.26 from surface unit 180:360. Unit 643.07/09/87 simultaneously as a peripheral spiral to both of the two apical ones
D. 4.7, T. 1.1–1.3 already mentioned, thus linking the patterns on the two halves of
Whitish limestone the lid. The lid is incompletely preserved, so that this arrangement
Circular object. One of the surfaces is smooth with a small pierced is not immediately obvious, but there are sufficient indications to
hole of diameter 0.2. Could be from either vase or tool. permit the whole schema to be reconstructed. Each of the two apical
spirals lies at the centre of its half of the lid and establishes a linkage
D. Vessels of chlorite schist by means of a radiating line to each of the six connecting spirals
peripheral to it. The nodal spiral at the mid point of the major axis
by Colin Renfrew (the one which is peripheral at the same time to both of the apical
spirals) also has six linkages, namely with the two apical spirals and
The site of Dhaskalio Kavos is exceptional for the with the two nearest of their satellites in each case. Those linking
number of vessels discovered there, albeit in very satellites which link with the central nodal spiral have four linkages.
The remaining three spirals situated at each end of the lid each have
fragmentary condition, made of dark green stone, in three linkages. The total number of relief spirals on the lid is this
some cases steatite and in others chlorite schist. The 13, formed of the two apical spirals, each with six satellites (2 x (1

340
 The Stone Vessels

Figure 8.27. Lid of chlorite schist double pyxis (scale 2/3).

341
 Chapter 8

Figure 8.28. Lid of chlorite schist double pyxis (327) at right after joining with fragment in Naxos Museum (KK 4442).

342
 The Stone Vessels
Figure 8.29. Detail of lid of double pyxis.
+ 6)), but each apex sharing one satellite with the other , the shared
satellite being the nodal spiral in the middle of the major axis (i.e.
: 2 x (1 + 6) – 1 = 13).
The relief lines forming the spirals are about 0.15 wide and
0.05 deep. On the two apical and one central nodal spiral, each line
does about two complete loops (of 360°) and then leaves again,
so that counting right across the diameter one may cross up to 24
lines in relief.
The lid as preserved has no rim or flange, except as noted above,
but will have sat square upon the body. The underside of the lid is
however not entirely symmetrical, since there is a tiny platform in
relief some 0.7 cm long at one end of the minor axis running across
the waist of the figure-of-eight, which is not seen at the other end
of the minor axis.
It was at first thought possible that 121 originally formed part
of the lower double pyxis for which this lid (327) served as a cover.
However the join with Naxos Museum KK 4442 which enlarged
the lid makes this seem less likely, and it is clear that the lid served
to cover the piece described next (67.2666).
Naxos Museum 67.2666 Figs. 8.30 & 8.31 From 1967 Kavos
excavations
(Zapheiropoulou 1976, 84, pl. 8, lower)
Part of double pyxis of chlorite schist, decorated with relief spirals.
This piece matches with the lid of a double pyxis formed by joining
Small Find 327 with Naxos Museum KK 4442, as noted above.
Pres.H. 6.3, Radius (incomplete) c. 5.0, T. of Base 1.1 T. of wall 0.7.
In two joining pieces.
The fragments preserve part of the base, with a small protuber-
ance forming a narrow foot, and the wall to a height of 5.5 although
the lip or rim at the top of the vessel is not preserved. Parts of two
rows of running relief spirals are preserved. This wall is almost
343
vertical, so that each of the two components was roughly cylindrical
in form, although in reality the wall slopes inwards very slightly.
Probably only about 1 cm is missing from the top of the wall of
the pyxis, in which case the decorative schema would be two rows
of conjoined spirals. However it is theoretically possible that the
wall was some three cms higher, allowing for a decorative schema
of three rows of spirals : but this seems unlikely. With the decora-
tive schema of two rows of spirals, each spiral in the lower register
would have a link with its predecessor and successor and with the
spiral above Figure 8.31. Each spiral in the upper register would
similarly have a link with its predecessor and successor and with
the spiral below. At the bottom of the cylindrical wall is a protruding
ledge, width 0.5 cm decorated with hatched triangles alternating
with plain triangles.
This piece in isolation might not be clearly identifiable as part
of a double vessel, although the protrusion at the base would give
a clear indication, but the figure-of-eight configuration of the lid
makes this abundantly clear. There is no indication as to how the
two constituent cylindrical pyxides would come together in the
middle, but some possibilities are raised by a consideration of 121
(see below). At first this was thought possibly to come from part of
the vessel to which 327 formed the lid. But with the subsequent lid
join and the recognition of the body fragment under consideration
here, this now seems less likely.
The protuberance on the base offers further insight into the
arrangement of the two constituent pyxidal components, suggest-
ing that there may have been a counterpart on the other side so
that the entire vessel would have stood on two small feet of this
kind. This pierced hole in this foot may have been intended to take
a string, possibly for suspension, and the hypothetical other foot
(now missing) was probably similarly pierced. It is conceivable
also that threads through the two feet in this way could have been
 Chapter 8

Figure 8.30. Body fragments of chlorite schist double pyxis (NM 67.2666) (scale 2/3).

used to secure the lid to the body of the vessel. There is no sugges- by two sherds from the vessel beneath. The deco-
tion that the lid was pierced, but it could be secured to the body ration of lid and body is not of relief spirals but a
by looping the string.
complicated meander.
2. The second is the cylindrical pyxis and conical lid
Discussion
with relief spirals from Dhokathismata Tomb A in
This vessel with lid forms a significant addition to
Amorgos, published by Dümmler (1886, 17–18),
the small group of chlorite schist vessels with relief
now in Berlin (Antikensammlung, Staatliche Mu-
decoration which come from known contexts in the
seen, Preussischer Kulturbesitz Misca Inv. 8102:
Cycladic Islands. They are well reviewed by Getz-
acquired from Dümmler in 1889: Thimme 1977a
Gentle (1996, 190–99).
or b?, no. 361; Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 110c)
1. The best documented (although not yet well-pub-
3. The third, reportedly from Naxos, is in the National
lished) comes from Grave 21 at Aplomata on Naxos
Archaeological Museum in Athens (NAM 5358).
(Kontoleon 1972b) now in the Naxos Museum. It
I believe it may be identified (see Renfrew 1972,
has an almost complete oblong lid, accompanied
344
 The Stone Vessels
Figure 8.31. Body fragments of chlorite schist double pyxis.
519, no. 32) with a piece mentioned by Duncan
Mackenzie as from Petasi in Naxos (Sheratt 2000).
It has two registers of running spirals on the body,
but these are arranged in blocks of four, unlike the
running spirals on the other examples discussed
here. The lid has a schema of spirals which it is
profitable to compare with our example here, but
as we shall see the arrangement is not the same
and the Petasi lid has two more spirals (15) than
the Kavos one (13). (See Zervos 1957, fig. 30; Ma-
rangou 1990, 55 no. 21; Getz-Gentle 1996, pls. XB
& 112c).
4. One further example in this series from the Cyc-
lades has long been known, the so-called granary
model, now without lid, in the Staatliche Antik-
ensammlung in Munich (1839 WAF; Zervos 1957,
figs. 28 & 29; Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 110b).
In addition to these long-known examples from the
Cyclades, it is pertinent to mention several more pieces
in chlorite schist which have appeared in the antiqui-
ties trade in recent years, which are to be presumed
the product of illicit excavations, and which must have
345
left Greece illegally. Three of these have now found
their way to European museums in apparent con-
travention of the International Council of Museums
Code of Ethics. In each of these three cases it has been
claimed or suggested, inevitably without persuasive
documentation, that the piece may have come from
Keros, although we shall find supporting arguments
in one instance. Mindful of the cautionary words of
Gill & Chippindale (1993) we must not accord these
unproveanced pieces the same evidential status as
the foregoing, and indeed arguments can be found
for considering one to be a fake.
A. The first is a double pyxis, now in the Musée
Barbier-Mueller in Geneva (Zimmerman 1993,
no. 13; Getz-Gentle 1996, pls. XA & 110a), which
first came to light in the Karlsruhe exhibition of
1976 (Thimme 1977a or b?, no. 363) where it was
stated to be in a Swiss private collection, with the
rubric ‘from Keros’, and on loan to the Badisches
Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe. It has herring-bone
decoration characteristic of the Grotta-Pelos culture
and a curious arrangement at the intersection of the
 Chapter 8
two pyxides. No pieces resembling it have come
from documented excavations, and all the other
chlorite schist vessels known with relief decoration
can be assigned to the Keros-Syros culture. In these
circumstances this piece could well be a modern
concoction which appeared on the market shortly
before 1976. I suspect this to be a fake, and do not
propose to refer to it further here.
B. The second is a frying pan bearing an elaborate
decoration in relief spirals, now in the Badisches
Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe (75/11) where it was
acquired under the curatorship of Jürgen Thimme.
Again it first surfaced during the exhibition organ-
ised by Thimme in Karlsruhe in 1976 (Thimme
1977a or b?, 364a) with the rubric ‘from Naxos’
but without a word of explanation as to how or
from where the Landesmuseum acquired the piece,
which is listed as ‘unpublished’. Getz-Gentle (1996,
200) suggests that ‘possibly it, too, may have been
recovered on Keros’, although without offering the
grounds for the suggestion.
C. A further recently-surfaced object with relief spirals
is a section of a two-part vessel from the Erlenmeyer
Collection, which was sold at Sotheby’s in 1990 as
‘a section of a Minoan stone two-part vessel, Early
Bronze II’ (Sotheby’s 13–14 December 1990b, lot 132;
Getz-Gentle 1996, pl. 111, c). The sectional arrange-
ment of this piece suggests, that if authentic, it may
well be Early Minoan (cf. Warren 1969, 81).
D. For our purpose the most interesting of these pieces
is a fragment of a cylindrical pyxis (‘hut pyxis’) of
chlorite schist, acquired by the Museé du Louvre in
1960 (Louvre cat. no. MND 2228 (Ma 3564); Getz-
Gentle 1996, pl. 112 a, 1 & 2; Hamiaux 1992, no. 15).
It carries the rubric ‘Keros’ and was donated by the
well-known antiquities dealer N. Koutoulakis.
This piece seen in the excellent photographs
published by Getz-Gentle (1996, pl. 112a, 1 & 2 and
pl. 114a) bears a number of striking similarities
to Naxos Museum 67.2666, discussed here. There
can, I think, be little question of forgery or imita-
tion , since the closely similar piece from Kavos,
now in the Naxos Museum, was not discovered
until 1967. Indeed the year 1960 was three years
before the archaeological world came to know of
the site of Dhaskalio Kavos, with my own visit
and the excavations of Christos Doumas in 1963.
But the rubric ‘from Keros’ carries conviction in
view of the discovery in 1967 of the piece under
discussion here. It would seem that this was the
first time that an object which we may reasonably
accept as coming not just from Keros but from
the site of Dhaskalio Kavos itself, came into the
public domain. With the gift to the Louvre by Mr.
346
Koutoulakis we are clearly coming as close as we
have so far been able to do, to the discovery of the
site of Dhaskalio Kavos, to its consequent looting,
and to the removal from Greece, contrary to Greek
law, of significant antiquities.
Of course it will at once be remarked that
the Louvre piece has a foot, analogous to those
on the ‘Melos’ granary model in Munich, which is
not seen on the item under consideration here. It
seems possible, however, that the corresponding
foot on our piece had been broken, and the break-
age subsequently repaired by filing down, so that
the remaining broken fragment was removed.
What particularly catches the eye is the protruding
ledge with hatched triangles which is common to
both pieces. Not surprisingly, Getz-Preziosi in her
careful discussion (1996, 203) assigns both pieces to
the hand of the same sculptor : it seems likely that
they formed part of the same vessel. They are not
however likely to join, since the foot arrangements
may imply that they were at opposite ends of the
figure-of-eight configuration of the double pyxis.
But when there is the opportunity to compare the
two pieces directly, I predict that they will indeed
prove to be two parts of the same object.
Fragment of a double pyxis
121 Figs. 8.32 & 8.33 From survey unit 405 (185:530)
Fragment of double pyxis of chlorite schist, with incised herring-
bone decoration, and with indications of relief spiral decoration on
the external surface of the cylindrical pyxides.
Preserved H. 5.0; Pres. L. of large half 4.2; T. of pyxis wall 0.7; Th.
between the two halves 2.0.
The material is dark green chlorite schist, matching that of no. 327.
This is a key fragment located at the point where two cylindrical
pyxides join. Seen in elevation from the rear the circumferences of
the two pyxides almost touch, leaving a narrow vertical space be-
tween to form a V. Seen in elevation from the front, however, there
is instead a narrow vertical panel, measuring 4 across and 5.0 in
preserved height, decorated with alternating blocks of incisions.
Seen from the front, the left-hand pyxis is largely gone, but
fragments of that on the right remain, revealing traces of relief spiral
decoration and some further relief decoration.
Seen from the underside, the base has a small peg foot 0.2 cms
in height, which lies immediately below the vertical panel just
described.
It seem possible that this may have been part of a double pyxis
very similar to that for which 327 formed part of the lid. At the
same time, however the two pyxides in this case (121) were each
almost entirely circular and the distance from front to back across
this piece is only 4 cm. This is much less than the 4 cm across the
narrowest part of the figure-of-eight lid of which 321 forms part,
so that the lid could not have given a snug fit to cover this piece.
(Unfortunately it did not prove possible to relocate 121 during the
study season in 2002 subsequent to the joining of the 327 with Naxos
Museum KK 4442, so that direct comparison of this piece with KK
4442b was not feasible.)
The material of 122 (see below) is similar and it is possible that
this may have formed part of the double pyxis of which 121 also
formed a part, but there is no join between them.
 The Stone Vessels
366
239
Figure 8.32. Fragments of vessels of chlorite schist and steatite (scale 2/3).
Vessel fragments of chlorite schist
122 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 405 (185:530)
Part of chlorite schist vessel with relief spirals.
L. 2.0; W. 1.6; Th. 0.8
The vessel of which this formed part seems to have been cylindrical
in form, the radius being difficult to estimate, perhaps c. 6.5 cm.
There is one linking line, which joins the relief spiral of which 6
parallel lines are documented (but there may have been more, up
to 2 more, before the centre was reached). The thickness of the relief
lines is c. 0.05. The breaks may be fairly recent.
This may have been a body sherd associated either with KK 4442b
or with 121 (but comparison with the former did not prove feasible).
240 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench XI, level 1
Small fragment of chlorite schist vessel with relief spirals,
L. 2.1; W. 0.9; Th. (max.) 0.6
The vessel seems to have been of cylindrical form with a radius
of perhaps c. 3 cm. The wall is definitely thinner than that of 122,
and they do not appear to be from the same vessel. Moreover the
material is not as dark in colour as in the case of 327 and 122, and
has only a little of green in it being close to dark grey. However
the material does not show a crystalline structure and is probably
chlorite schist. foregoing pieces. The colour is less dark than small finds 327 and
347
240
121
The outer of the concentric spirals or circles has a radius of
rather more than 1 centimetre, and the width of the lines in relief
is c. 0.05. Four concentric lines are preserved. The breaks may be
fairly recent.
239 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench XI, level 1
Small fragment of chlorite schist vessel without preserved decoration.
L. 3.4; W. 1.4; Thickness narrows from 0.6 to 0.4
The material resembles that of 240. This is so both for the smoothed
but not polished outside grey surface as well as for the darker, better
polished inside surface.
Despite the thinning, the sherd is from a cylindrical vessel of
radius c. 5 cm. The traces of rubbing or polishing on the outside are
vertical. Although the estimated radius of Small Finds 240 and 239
are different, both pieces are small, and the varying thickness of 239
suggests some lack of regularity, so that they may well belong to
the same vessel. This might be conical in form, which would allow
for the difference in estimated radius.
Fragments of vessels in grey or green stone
066 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 602 (165:520)
Roughly worked fragment of steatite. The material is related to the
 Chapter 8
a b
121
c
505
571 438
366
066 014
Figure 8.33. Fragments of vessels of chlorite schist and steatite: (a) and (b) Double pyxis no 121; (c) and (d) other
fragments.
121, with a paler grey green. The material does not show crystals
or glints at the break. The feel is definitely soapy.
L. 4.7; W./ 2.7; Th. 1.5
The piece seems to be a waste product from manufacture — it has
itself no finished polished surface. There are no conspicuously
recent breaks.
571 joining 438 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey units 336 and 337
(both 210:370)
Part of spherical pyxis of dark green stone.
H. 3.0; W. 2.4 T. (max.) 0.6; T. at rim 0.25; Radius at rim c. 1.5; Max.
outer radius c. 3.5
The material resembles grey steatite, but with tiny glinting high-
lights at the break. The stone is very soft and soapy to the touch. This
was a small spherical pyxis with a narrow, slightly out-turned rim.
The form may have been comparable to the spherical pyxides noted
by Getz-Gentle (1996, fig. 70), although the form is here not everted
at the rim. The break at the join has some wear and seems old.
505 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 336 (210:370)
Small fragment probably from the same vessel as the foregoing.
L. 1.7; W. 0.9; T. at rim (eroded): 0.2.
As noted, probably part of the above spherical pyxis. An old break.
348
121
d
122 240
Scales?
366 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From excavation Trench V, level 8
Base of vessel in dark green stone.
L. 4.9; W. 4.3; Th. (base) 0.5; Th. (wall) 0.3; Radius of base c. 2
The outer surface somewhat brown, the inner surface dark green,
both quite well polished. Superficially this looks like chlorite
schist, but it is finely crystalline at the break. (Sample sent to Fitch
Laboratory).
The base is slightly incuse. But the interior is well smoothed,
and indeed polished with what look like burnishing marks. The
mouth must have been wide enough to allow access, but not fully
open : a deep bowl or a spherical pyxis? One break is weathered,
one is more recent (with fresh black colour).
014 Figs. 8.32–8.33 From survey unit 206 (180:530)
Base of vessel of grey stone
L. 4.3; W. 2.0; Th of base 0.4; Th. of wall 0.5; Radius of base pos-
sibly c. 2.
Grey steatite or schistose material with small glistening highlights.
The is definitely not marble but appears somewhat crystalline at
the break. Rather silvery surface.
The inside is effectively smoothed but not polished; the outside
polish has been lost by weathering. This could be from a spherical
pyxis. The breaks may be recent.
 The Stone Vessels
Discussion At the same time it is fair to say that the hut pyxides
Our investigations at Dhaskalio Kavos have yielded
at least three vessels of chlorite schist, and at least
three more in grey or green stone. This must rival the
quantity recorded from any other early Bronze Age
site in the Aegean.
At this point it is necessary to compare the Cycla-
dic examples, especially those with relief spirals or
relief meander, with the well-known finds from Early
Minoan Crete, notably the circular vessel of chlorite
or chlorite schist from Maronia (Warren 1969, 81, Ppl?
452). It seems appropriate to focus upon those show-
ing a decoration of spirals raised in relief, and to sepa-
rate this group from other vessels of similar material
where the decoration consists simply of incised lines,
such as an example from Grave 408 at Chalandriani in
Syros (Tsountas 1899, pl. 8, 2). Warren lists a number
of pieces, among his Pyxides of Group A, including a
fragment from Vrakhasi (Herakleion Museum 2633,
Warren 1969, 81, Ppl? 455) which has a decoration in
relief spirals closely resembling the Cycladic pieces
discussed above. Warren notes the Cycladic similari-
ties of the vessels in his Group A, which indeed led
Marinatos to suggest that the Maronia pyxis might be
a Cycladic import (Marinatos & Hirmer 1960, 117), but
Warren feels that the Maronia piece, like the others in
his Group A is of Minoan manufacture. He infers the
same for the three chlorite dog-lids, originally from
pyxides, in his Group B (but unhesitatingly and rightly
regards two marble pyxides from Aghios Onouphrios
in his Group C as Cycladic).
By identifying a coherent group of pyxides
of chlorite schist from Early Minoan Crete Warren
(1969, 81) established a good case for the Cretan man-
ufacture, at least of some of them. But those found in
Crete do not fall within the category of hut pyxides.
349
with relief spirals do seem to form a coherent group,
with the principal finds established in Cycladic con-
texts : at Keros (Kavos), Naxos (‘Petasi’), Amorgos
(Dhokathismata) and ‘Melos’. Their apparently
exclusive presence in the Cyclades is all the more
notable since vessels of coloured stone are otherwise
not common in Early Cycladic contexts, although
they certainly occur in a few cases. Moreover there
is no consistent pattern of Early Minoan imports into
the Cyclades, while the figurine evidence (as well as
the marble pyxides from Aghios Onouphrios) shows
that quite a few Early Cycladic objects of stone were
imported into Crete. It seems likely that these hut
pyxides were indeed of Cycladic manufacture, but
that other chlorite schist vessels, some with relief
spirals (such as the Maronia pyxis), may have been
made in Crete. The case for Cycladic manufacture
of these Cycladic examples would have been further
strengthened by the form and decoration of the chlo-
rite schist ‘frying pan’ in the Badisches Landesmu-
seum in Karlsruhe (item B in the discussion above)
were this not an unprovenanced acquisition from the
trade, and therefore (if authentic) a looted piece. It is
sad that there is no archaeological context for such
an interesting find.
At the moment we are left with the intriguing
possibility that one group of vessels of chlorite schist
(notably the hut pyxides with relief spirals) was made
in the Cyclades, while many of the others (including
perhaps the Maronia pyxis, and the pyxides with
dog-lids) were produced in Crete. It is possible, how-
ever, that further finds might lead one to assign the
manufacture of all the pieces with relief spirals to a
single area, whether in Crete or the Cyclades. For the
moment the matter remains uncertain.