A 'Macedonian Bronze' Juglet from Zagora, Andros - Stavros A. Paspalas

The islands of the Cyclades may not immedi-ately come to mind when first consideringthe relationship between Macedonia and the

central and southern Aegean during the eighth andseventh centuries B.C., but as we shall see there isrelevant material from that quarter that deserves tobe better known. Towards that end this paper focuseson a find excavated at Zagora on Andros and whichpoints northwards, very probably to specificallyMacedonian origins. I hope that the inclusion ofthis brief study in the present volume will meet withthe approval of our honorand, a scholar native toAndros who has devoted so much of his research ef-forts both to Andros and to early Macedonia (amongmuch else).

The find in question is a bronze juglet (Figs 1-2),probably best or at least canonically identifiedon the basis of parallels to be discussed below as apendant1. The jug is badly corroded, and was dis-covered in a number of pieces. It has been restoredand is currently on display in the ArchaeologicalMuseum, Chora, Andros. The jugs major losses aretwo relatively large sections approximately at itsbodys point of maximum diameter, and its handle,of which only the lower attachment is preserved. Aspreserved the handle attachment suggests that thehandle may have been approximately rectangular orsquare in section. The rim is severely abraded, buta small part of its original surface shows that when

complete the vessel had a cut-away rim. As con-served the jug is 3,9 cm in height, and weighs 23,8g. In the Guide to the Zagora exhibition our pieceis described as a miniature bronze jug, and itsprovenance is given as From the temple2. The jugcan be described as possessing a biconical body,

527

Stavros A. Paspalas

A Macedonian Bronze Juglet from Zagora, Andros

* I gratefully acknowledge the assistance granted by the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Pu - blications which enabled the research that in part resulted in this paper.

1. Zagora excavations inventory number 1790. Excavated in 1971 during the third field season of the ArchaeologicalSo cie ty at Athens excavations directed by Professor A. Cambitoglou (University of Sydney). I thank Professor AlexanderCam bitoglou for permission to publish this juglet. For two pendant juglets, of a different form to that from Zagora, stillsuspended from the base atop which stands a bronze horse, from Asproula in western Macedonia, see Karametrou-Mente-side 1999, 147, fig. 35. For the wider use of various pendants of the Macedonian bronzes category as embellishmentssuspended from womens belts: Zimmermann 1999, figs on pp. 54-55; Savvopoulou 2007, 611-613; Chrysostomou 2011,581.

2. Cambitoglou 1981, 91 no. 287; it is tentatively dated to the eighth century.

Fig. 1. Bronze juglet from Zagora (Andros) excavations, inv.no. 1790 (Australian Archaeo lo gical Institute at Athens,pho to: B. Miller).

from which its flaring neck rises. The neck termi-nates in a cut-away rim that rises from the upperhandle attachment towards the spout. A faintly de-fined base can be distinguished; in its current stateof preservation it may be described as discoid inform with tapering edges. On the evidence providedby parallel pieces the handle would have been up-swung; as on most parallels the height of the handleprobably would not have surpassed that of the spout.Two horizontal encircling incised lines can be dis-cerned at the neck-shoulder transition.

The jug was excavated in the antechamber of thetemple, which is situated close to the eastern ridgeof the highest area of the site. The construction ofthe temple proper has been dated by its excavators,on the basis of the pottery found in its foundationtrench, to the second quarter of the sixth century,long after the inhabitants of Zagora left their set-tlement in c. 7003. The area, in which the temple wasbuilt, however, appears to have been a centre of culticactivity at least from the Late Geometric I period,when the levelling fill in this area was laid. Thisphase was followed by two distinct, successive, floorsboth of which are Late Geometric II in date. The lat-est of these is dated as latest LGII. The excavatorsargued that all activity in this sacred area duringthese early phases took place in the open. The altar,which must have been the focus of cultic rituals andwhich was incorporated into the later temple, ap-pears to rest on the lower Late Geometric II floor

which is dated to the last quarter of the eighth cen-tury4.

Although there does not appear to have been aresident population at Zagora after c. 700 a smallnumber of seventh-century objects found in the sanc-tuary area, primarily in the trench directly to thesouth of the (later) temple, provide evidence that theopen-air sanctuary was still remembered and hon-oured prior to the construction of the temple. Ob-jects excavated in the sanctuary deposits clearly dat-able to the sixth and fifth centuries testify to the factthat the temple continued to be an important focalpoint for at least some Andrians, and their atten-dance at the temple may well have served the purposeof confirming their links (real or imagined) withZagora and so establishing their right of access toany productive resources in the area and to any cul-tural capital the abandoned settlement may havepossessed5. The sanctuary at Zagora during the ar-chaic and early classical periods must now be exam-ined in light of what are in all likelihood the remainsof a sanctuary at Stavropeda approximately 3.5 kmto the northeast, at which finds dated as early as theseventh century have been noted and collected6.Stavropeda (as its modern name that may be trans-lated as plain at the crossroads suggests) sits ata point within the wider area where natural paths,including some leading to the fertile Chora valleymeet7. The area around Stavropeda itself is also agri-

528 Stavros A. Paspalas

3. For the date of the construction of the temple: Cambitoglou 1981, 84; Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 170-171. For the exca -va tion and architectural character of the temple: Zapheiropoulos 1960, 249; Cambitoglou et al. 1971, 20-21, 32; Cambitoglou1981, 83-84; Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 161-171; Kampitoglou 1972, 255-257, 264-269.

4. For an exposition of these phases: Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 165-169 and 170. Held 1988, esp. 361-362 argued thatan earlier, Geometric-period, temple preceded the later one and that the feature identified by the excavators as an altarwas a statue base.

5. For the suggestion that sanctuaries may have acted as tags of ownership of natural resources see Forsn 2008, 252and 256 (though the argument there is for the polis of Tegea as a whole as regards the sanctuary at Mavriki and the Do -lia na quarries). Note that ibid. 254-255 and 257 suggests that the sanctuary at Mytikas Palaiopyrgou, approximately 1km east of the acropolis of Arcadian Orchomenos, was established in the seventh century on the remains of a settlementthat may have been the Mycenaean predecessor of Orchomenos. Closer to Zagora, note too that the temple at Koukounaries,Pa ros, was maintained and visited long after the abandonment of the settlement: Schilardi 1988, 44-47. The same holdstrue for the temple of Athena at Emborio, Chios: Boardman 1967, xi.

6. Paschales 1925, 593-594; Paschales 1933, 65; Peck 1934, 67-68; Televantou 2009, 78-80.7. Prior to the late 1920s the only carriageable road on the island ran from Chora to the bay of Chalkolimionas, on the

west coast approximately three km north of Zagora and so must have traversed Stavropeda: Moustakas 1924, 25. Thecarriageable road northwards postdates the appearance of Stavropeda as a toponym. The modern, at least, road continuesnorthwestwards from Stavropeda in the direction of the asty of ancient Andros, modern Palaiopolis. For gates in theeastern wall of the asty and cemeteries along the routes that passed through them eastwards: Tiverios 1993, 216 and 218;

culturally exploitable8. In the current state of ourknowledge it is still too early to posit how heavy thetraffic through the area of Stavropeda would havebeen or how much activity took place in this partof the island during the period of concern here, butundoubtedly some of those who passed this waycould have turned westwards towards the sanctuaryat Zagora, and entered the once thriving settlementthrough the gate, re-furbished probably in the sixthcentury, of the old fortification wall9. The possibility,though, that some of Zagoras visitors may have comefrom the sea cannot be ruled out.

The bronze juglet presented here was found inthe eastern section of the temples ante-chamber, ina deposit that lay between the fallen schist roof slabsand the powdery floor overlay of the room which, inturn, rested on the hard floor packing. These samestratigraphic features had previously been identifiedin the cella10. While the southern part of this sectionhad been disturbed during the excavations of Dr N.Zapheiropoulos in this section of the temple, thenorthern part in which the juglet was found be-neath a roof slab had not11. It and the other ma-terial that lay on the temples floor had been sealedby the collapse of the roof12. Most of the materialon the cella floor dates to the sixth and fifth cen-

turies, but some residual material dating as far backas the Late Geometric period was also found13.

The best parallels for the Zagora bronze jugletwith its cut-away rim are found in the category ofrelatively small metal objects conventionally knownas Macedonian bronzes. (The term should be placedin inverted commas in order to indicate its conven-tional nature as used by modern researchers, and soavoid any mistakenly exclusive ethnic assumptionsthat may otherwise be associated with the designa-tion.) This category is largely, though by no meansexclusively, comprised of various forms of pendants,including jugs (which do not require suspensionholes as their handle would have served this purposewell)14. As has been repeatedly noted the form ofthese small bronze jugs with cut-away neck findsready parallels in functional ceramic versions of theshape in the pottery repertoire of the northwesternAegean and its hinterland15. Owing to the fact thatsome forms within the Macedonian bronzes reper-toire are closely paralleled by a number of piecesmade in central, and even southern, Greece, as wellas to regions well into the Balkans the definition ofsome aspects of the category is not particularlytight16. Similarly, opinions differ as to the precisechronological span to which these bronzes date. J.Bouzek would place their origins early in the eighth

A Macedonian Bronze Juglet from Zagora, Andros 529

Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 1996, 214-215 and 233-234; Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 2007, 31 and 40. While one may posit that theseroutes could have continued along the islands western coast in the direction of Stravopeda and Zagora it must be notedthat Palaiokrassa 1993, 126 writes that the tomb-lined roads led to the coast. Note too that before the advent of the modernroad system both Christian Brandis (1842, 387) and Ludwig Ross (1843, 23) appear to have reached Palaiopolis from theCho ra valley (Messaria) via Menites and the high ground north of Stavropeda. Of course, both had the set purpose toreach the antiquities of Palaiopolis and not to explore the path/road system as used by those who worked the land.

8. For other antiquities in the immediate vicinity that testify to significant activity in the area: Televantou 1996, 53fig. 27; Televantou 1994, 678 and 686; Televantou 2009, 79, esp. 79-80 fn. 5 for late antique finds convincingly associatedwith agricultural installations.

9. For the gateway: Kampitoglou 1972, 257, 269-272; Kampitoglou 1974, 175-179; Cambitoglou 1981, 23; Cambitoglouet al. 1988, 54-62.

10. For the powdery level above the hard floor packing in the cella: Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 166.11. For Dr Zapheiropoulos excavations: Zapheiropoulos 1960.12. Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 168 and 170.13. Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 168, pls 261c and 262a. So too was a Siphnian cup (Cambitoglou 1981, 85 no. 261), a

vessel type that dates back into the seventh century and is well represented in the sanctuary, elsewhere on Andros andat the northern Andrian colony of Argilos; and another in the temples floor packing (inv. 1798, unpublished). Both havean offset rim which appears to ally them more closely to seventh- rather than sixth-century examples of the type, for whichsee Perreault Bonias 2006, 51-52 pl. II 2-29; Perreault Bonias 2010, 230 figs 156-157a; Bonias et al. 2012.

14. See above fn. 1.15. E.g. Bouzek 1974, 38; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 225.16. For the possibility that some types were imitated in southern Italy and Sicily: Bouzek 1997, 111.

century17, while K. Kilian and I. Kilian-Dirlmeierwould lower their starting date to a point closer tothe end of that century18. It appears that by the latesixth century these bronzes were effectively no longerproduced in any great numbers, though some exam-ples have been found in early fifth-century contexts.The area in which they were manufactured probablyencompassed the Axios/Vardar river valley, and somegood way to the west and east, including regions ofthe Chalkidike19. While the Paionians have most re-cently been associated with their manufacture itcannot be stated with certainty that the groups out-put was restricted to one tribal entity alone20. Todate Emathia and Pieria, where the Macedoniansper se were resident for most of the period duringwhich the bronzes were produced, have offered rel-atively little material21. Nonetheless, it should benoted that the discovery in late eighth-/early sev-enth-century contexts of moulds for the manufac-ture of beads of a type included in the Macedonianbronzes repertoire has recently been reported fromMethone22. This settlement, with its important Eu-

boian and wider associations, was an importantmanufacturing and trading centre in the eighth cen-tury and into the seventh, and more relevant mate-rial may come to light. On the basis of currently pub-lished material, though, it is not possible to deter-mine how large a range of types included in the Ma -ce donian bronze category are attested to at Me -thone.

A large number of bronze juglet types were pro-duced in the northern Aegean area and neighbour-ing regions23. The Zagora juglet is best paralleledby pieces of the Macedonian bronzes category.Nonetheless, the precise categorization of our jugletis not a straightforward matter owing to its poorstate of preservation, particularly that of its rim. Ifone were to employ Bouzeks scheme then it wouldbe placed in his Group B given that is has a broadbiconical body and its neck is not sharply offsetfrom its shoulder (a feature of his Group A pieces)24.However, the Zagora bronze differs from most ofBouzeks Group B pieces in that its bodys maximumdiameter is at a significantly higher point than that


17. Bouzek writes of the canonical Macedonian bronzes category so as to distinguish it from other bronze outputfrom the wider region of similar and earlier date: Bouzek 1997, 110. For his dating Bouzek 2006, 97-99 (revising upwardsthe date suggested in Bouzek 1974, 166).

18. Kilian 1975a, 99-101; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 4. See further the comments of Rolley 1985, 292-295 and Rolley 1999,374. Mitrevski 1997, 258 would date them no earlier than the seventh century; Krstevski Sokolovska 1997-1999, 86 alsopla ce the earliest examples in the first half of the seventh century. Pabst 2011, 39 fn.162 notes the appearance c. 800 ofnew forms of pendants and beads that have been included by Bouzek and Kilian-Dirlmeier in the Macedonian bronzesca tegory.

19. Bouzek 1974, 166-168; Bouzek 1997, 112; Petrova 1999, 51-53; Zimmermann 1999, 32-35; Savvopoulou 2004, 315fig. 13; Bouzek 2006, 108; Savvopoulou 2007, 615. Examples, including jugs, have been found considerably to the west inthe area of Kozane, eg.: Touratsoglou 1973-1974, 720 fig. 4; Karametrou-Menteside 1990, 355, pl. 158; Karametrou-Men -te side 2011, 281-282, 284-287, 291-292; and in the wider region of Pella: Chrysostomou 1999, 269-270, drawings 4 and5; Chrysostomou 2011, 581. A number of bronzes, including juglets, are said to have been found at Amphipolis to theeast: Foltiny 1964, esp. 91, 95-97 pl. 6, 1, 3 and 9 for juglets. For a recent discussion on Macedonian bronzes that focusesparticularly on the later phases of the category see Misaelidou-Despotidou 2011.

20. For the use of the term Paionian Bronzes: Mitrevski 1997, 258. For the term Macedonian-Paeonian: Krstevski Sokolovska 1997-1999, 86-87. For the view that this category of bronzes, or at least some of its constituent pieceswere produced more widely: Bouzek 1997, 112; Zimmermann 1999, 32-35.

21. Though note: the pendant from Vergina (Aigai) from a late grave probably datable to the seventh century (Andronikos1969, 256 fig. 92, pl. 83 I); Phaklares 1987, 928-929 drawing 5 and p. 932; and the recently illustrated pendants from thesame site dated from the tenth to the eighth century: Kottaridi 2011, 99 fig. 87, 241 nos 130-136, 138-139. Note too thelater, sixth-century, bronze necklace from the same site: Kottaridi 2011, 108 fig. 99, 250 no. 403.

22. Besios 2003, 449 (where it is suggested that Methone was a distribution point for Macedonian bronzes invertedcommas added to central and southern Greece); Besios et al. 2004, 369 (for the Late Geometric context); Kotsonas 2012,229. Gimatzidis 2011a, 102 writes that moulds for the casting of jug-stoppers and other pendant types are includedamong the material excavated at Methone. Note too the bronze jewellery found in a sixth-century tomb from Pydnasnorth cemetery: Besios 2010, 102 with photograph.

23. See, for example, Vickers 1977, 27-30 and the works cited here by Bouzek and Kilian-Dirlmeier.24. Bouzek 1974, 42 (Group B), 41 (Group A).

of most of the pieces of that group. Kilian-Dirlmeierbased her classification system on whether a jugletsrim was sloping and so formed a beak-like profile(Group A) or if the rim was horizontal for its greaterpart before it was sharply cut-away as it approachedthe handle (Group B)25. As the rim of our juglet isso abraded it is difficult to be certain of its originalform. Nonetheless, the angle at which the cut-awayrim meets the handle can be most profitably com-pared with pieces placed by Kilian-Dirlmeier in herGroup B, and indeed the form of our jugs body,and its base, is well paralleled by two of these pieces,one from Gevgelija, in the middle reaches of theAxios/Vardar river valley, and the other reportedas having been found at Potidaia26. Bouzek datedthe closest parallels of the Zagora juglet at the latestto the first half of the seventh century27, while Kil-ian-Dirlmeier dated good parallels to the IIB phaseof the Macedonian Iron Age a period that largelyco vers the second half of the seventh century andinto the sixth28.

Other, and frequently later, Macedonian bronzejuglet types are known, but they are usually slimmerin form and are regularly characterized by a sharpcarination point set relatively low on their body29.Furthermore, there is little possibility that the juglet

excavated at Zagora was manufactured in Thessaly,a region where bronzes allied to those conventionallyreferred to as Macedonian were also produced.Thessalian juglets are usually characterized by theirfar slimmer shape30, and the rare example with afuller form that has been found in Thessaly has beenidentified as an import from areas that producedMacedonian bronzes31. There is little doubt thatthe Zagora juglet belongs to the category of Mace-donian bronzes.

Although Macedonian bronzes were predom-inantly distributed from western and across to cen-tral Macedonia, and particularly from the north-west Chalkidike northwestwards into the Axios/Var-dar valley they were by no means solely restrictedto this core area; they have been found, in admittedlyrelatively small numbers, far further afield thoughtheir identification may not always be straightfor-ward32. Some of the earliest pieces identified asMacedonian bronzes that have been found far dis-tant from home are those from the Italian peninsu-la33. A juglet was excavated in a Late Geometric IItomb on Pithekoussai, while another was found ina grave at Kyme (Cumae) on the Campanian coastopposite Pithekoussai34. The context date of the lat-ter piece has been debated; Bouzek would place it


25. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 221 pls 78-80. For further pieces that belong to Kilian-Dirlmeiers Group B: Krstevski So kolovska 1997-1999, 75 fig. 16, dr. 12 (English summary p. 86).

26. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 222-223 nos 1415 and 1444, pls 79-80. Candace Richards kindly brought to my attentiona similar juglet, though with a lower point of gravity, excavated at Bylazora (on the upper Axios/Vardar) by E. Matthewsand W. Neidinger (Texas Foundation for Archaeological and Historical Research): http:/tfahr.org/SN09_find.html.

27. Bouzek 1974, 38-39.28. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 225 (p. 4 for an explanation of her use of K. Kilians chronological scheme, for which see

Ki lian 1975a, 99-101 and Beilage I). Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 225 dates the earliest bronze juglets no earlier than the begin -n ing of phase II of the Macedonian Iron Age, i.e. c. 700, which is the very lowest chronological limit assigned to thecontext of the juglets found at Pithekoussai and Kyme (Cumae) (see below).

29. Bouzek 1974, 44-45; Descamps-Lequime 2011, 173 no. 76/6 (c. 600); Chrysostomou 2011, 581 fig. 5.30. Bouzek 1988, 55; Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002, 64 nos 975-980, pl. 63.31. Admitedly, something of a circular argument. Kilian 1975b, 175 (where he refers to no. 65 but clearly means no.

64), pl. 80 no. 64, classified by Kilian-Dirlmeier as belonging to her Group B of Macedonian bronzes juglets: Kilian-Dirl meier 1979, 223 no. 1428, pl. 80.

32. For example, a juglet that was excavated at Perachora (Payne 1940, 183 no. 23, pl. 83) was rejected as a Macedonianbronze by Bouzek (1974, 45), while it was seen as a probable Macedonian import by Kilian-Dirlmeier (1979, 225). SeeBouzek 2006, 108 for the late production of such bronzes in southeastern Albania.

33. Pingel 1980; Bouzek 2000.34. Pithekoussai: Buchner Ridgway 1993, 264 and 269 Tomb 208 no. 24, pl. CXXXVI and 91; Macnamara 2006, 270

fig. 1, 6. Kyme: Gabrici 1913, col. 227 fig. 75; Rescigno Cuozzo 2008, 191 fig. 1 (I owe my knowledge of the latter referenceto the kindness of Dr Francesca Mermati). Bouzek 2000, 363-364 suggests that they may have been worn as amulets bywomen from northern Greece.

prior to c. 720, Kilian-Dirlmeier c. 70035. A recentassessment of the date of the tomb places its contextin the last quarter of the eighth century36. A secondMacedonian bronze, a bird pendant, from a sim-ilarly dated grave context has also been publishedfrom Pithekoussai37. A partly preserved pyxis-shapedpendant, a form that is also common in the Mace-donian bronzes repertoire, was found in a grave inthe Monte Michele cemetery of Veii, and is datedon the grounds of context to the first quarter of theseventh century38. A grave at Megara Hyblaia thathas been dated variously to c.630 or to c.600 and in-to the first half of the sixth century included furtherpieces39. Most of these early pieces from centralMediterranean sites have been interpreted as arriv-ing at their final destinations with immigrants fromthe Aegean40, and even evincing a network that re-volved around a largely Euboian axis which con-nected the northern Aegean with the TyrrhenianSea, though a more varied cast of actors is posited41.

Macedonian bronzes have also been excavatedcloser to the areas where they have been found ingreatest numbers. Bronzes have been identified assuch from sanctuaries in central and southern Gree -

ce, as far south as Sparta42. A small number of Ma -ce donian bronzes, and other northern Aegeanbronzes, are also known from the Ephesian Artemi-sion, including a Macedonian bronze juglet43 andother relatively isolated pieces from the northernAegean have also been excavated at the Samian He -raion, the sanctuary of Athena at Lindos, and at thesanctuary of Athena at Emborio, Chios44. Closer toAndros bronzes, including a spectacle fibula, of thelate eighth and early seventh century, that may wellderive from Macedonia and Thessaly have been iden-tified at the sanctuary at Hyria on Naxos45; similarfibulae were also excavated at the sanctuary of Apol-lo on the island of Despotiko, to the southwest ofAntiparos46. A bronze bird pendant, dated to thesecond half of the eighth century, from the sanctuarylocated on the acropolis of Hagios Andreas on Siph-nos may be a Macedonian bronze, though its fullpublication is required for confirmation on thispoint47. Closer yet to Zagora, a surface survey find,from Plakari in the Karystia in southern Euboia,collected from the surface of a modern road pointsnorthwards as noted by D. R. Keller, as it is a Mace-donian bronze pendant in the form of a juglet that


35. Bouzek 1988, 48; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 225 with fn. 18. See too the discussion in Rolley 1985, 292-295.36. Rescigno Cuozzo 2008, 191.37. Buchner Ridgway 1993, 387 Tomb 329 no. 4, pl. 126; Felsch 2007, 73.38. Martelli 1997, 207 fig. 1. Bouzek 2000, 367 suggests that this bronze may be an import from the western Balkans

and that it probably reached Etruria via Picenum. For a recent survey of Picene-Etruscan links: Riva 2007, 94-99.39. Bouzek 2000, 364 fig. 259 and 368 Grab 660 with a listing of other (later) relevant finds from Megara Hyblaia. Ki -

lian 1975a, 100 (with pls 1 and 2, 1) dates the grave context to c. 600 or into the first third of the sixth century. Verger2011a, 154-156 suggests that the terminal context date of these pieces could extend throughout the first half of the sixthcen tury; Verger Pernet 2013, 31-34 date the tomb to c. 600. Verger 2011b, esp. 25, 35, 64-66 raises the possibility thatsome Balkan bronze objects from the Thesmophorion at Gela may be from Macedonia.

40. Bouzek 2006, 107.41. Gimatzidis 2011b, 962.42. E.g.: Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 222 no. 1418, pl. 79; Margreiter 1988, 16 (Aigina, Sanctuary of Apollo); Strm 1995,

67-68 and 87 (Argive Heraion); Rolley 1985, 289. Dr Susanne Bocher kindly brought to my attention the fact that thebronze juglets excavated at Olympia appear to be southern products that can be contrasted with those of a Macedonianpedigree: Philipp 1981, 359.

43. Klebinder-Gau 2007, 211, 266 no. 793, pls 57 and 110.44. The references are conveniently collected in Klebinder-Gau 2007, 211.45. Semantone-Bournia 2001-2002, 143-144, 147 and 151, pls 6 and 7. Note that Gehrig 1964, 81 n. 1 refers to a

juglet pendant in the Mykonos Archaeological Museum. Note too the head ornament (?) from Kythnos: Mazarakis Ainian2010, 39-40.

46. Kourayos 2005, 118, pl. 26c. The bronze pendant of a bird sitting on a circular openwork base (Kourayos 2005, fig.12; Kourayios 2009, 114 and 116) appears to be better paralleled by central Greek and Thessalian, rather than Macedonianpieces. These parallels may have circular or pyramidal bases: Kilian 1975b, 182-183; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 168-169 nos990-999, pl. 54; Zimmermann, 1988, 39-40 fig. 1; Felsch 2007, 265-266 nos 164-170, pl. 21.

47. Televantou 2008, 102 fig. 156.

sits atop a vertical shaft (Fig. 3)48. The type is knownfrom a small number of other examples, most with-out a firm provenance. One, however, was found farto the north at Donja Dolina in northern Bosnia, ina grave placed within a phase dated to the late sixthcentury and into the fifth49. While Bouzek does notrule out such a late date for the type he readily ac-knowledges the possibility of an earlier one; Kilian-Dirlmeier places it firmly within the seventh centu-ry50, a dating which corresponds better with the gen-eral developmental scheme of Macedonian bron -zes. Some supporting evidence for such a date is of-fered by the Plakari piece. Although it was found onthe surface of a modern road it, in all likelihood,had eroded out of a deposit that was exposed in the

roads scarp. This deposit consisted of material thatis to be associated with the sanctuary which wasidentified a few metres to the north, higher on thehillsides slope51. The recent excavations conductedby the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the IAEphorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquitieshave now excavated nearly all of this deposit whichyielded over 28,000 fragments of Early Iron Age ce-ramics, hundreds of votive offerings and a great dealof bone. J. P. Crielaard has kindly informed me thatthis deposit from whence the bronze derives itshould be remembered consists of material thathad been deposited during the period of the sanc-tuarys use though some items may have slippedfrom their original place of deposition52.


48. Keller 1985, 272-273 jug-stopper, fig. 40. I thank Dr D. R. Keller for granting me permission to reproduce thedrawing of this piece in this paper. See note 22 above for a report of the excavation of moulds for the manufacture of jug-stoppers (precise type or types not specified) at Methone, Pieria.

49. For the type see: Bouzek 1974, 85-86 no. J4, fig. 24, 5; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 221 Type C, 224 nos 1449-1452, pl.81, 225 (where one piece is posited to be Thessalian); Blome 1990, 65 no. 108 (=Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 24 no. 1450). Forthe Donja Dolina pendant: Mari 1964, 41, pl. 15, 5; Bouzek 1974, 85 no. J5.

50. Bouzek 1974, 86; Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979, 225.51. For an introduction to the site and a brief account of the excavations undertaken there in 1979: Chidiroglou 2003-

2004, esp. 69-72, and now Cullen et al. 2013, 22. D. Keller identified this deposit as a pit or apothetes and cautiouslyraised the possibility that the pit may have had funerary implications largely on the basis that the parallels he cites forthe Macedonian bronze were found in northern graves. I believe that the material should be associated with the sanctuarygiven that in central and southern Greece Macedonian bronzes are systematically found as votives in sanctuaries (seebelow); the northern funerary uses of these bronzes did not apply in these more southerly regions.

52. For the excavation see Crielaard et al. 2011/2012. For the finds from an earlier survey at the site dated to the eighth

Fig. 2. Bronze juglet from Zagora (Andros) excavations, inv.no. 1790 (Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens,drawing: G. Neil).

Fig. 3. Bronze pendant from Plakari, Karystia, Southern Eu-boia (reproduced with the permission of Dr D. R. Keller).

Links between central and southern Aegean cen-tres with the northern shores of the Aegean can bedocumented through other means long before theproduction date of the pendant picked up near Ka -ry stos or those found elsewhere from the central andsouthern Aegean53. Without rehearsing the full listof evidence, the early contacts evinced by Late Pro-togeometric ceramic material at Vergina may bementioned54. Similarly, central Aegean, primarilyEuboian and Athenian material, of earlier, Proto-geometric, date has been found in sites on the Ther-maic Gulf and the Chalkidike peninsula55. And con-tacts between various centres in the central Aegeanand the northwestern Aegean continued in the fol-lowing centuries and into the seventh56. The bronzejuglet from Zagora is not a unique northern find inits wider region, and indeed, it like most Macedon-ian bronzes found in central and southern Greeklands had been deposited no doubt as a votiveat a sanctuary57.

On the basis of stylistic analysis the Zagora ju-glet finds its best parallels among pieces which havebeen dated to the very end of the eighth century andinto the seventh. Given its state of preservation,though, some leeway must be allowed as regards itsexact classification. Nonetheless, it is sufficientlyclear that it does not find close counterparts amongthe juglet types which have been dated into the sixth

and fifth centuries. However, its context the floorof the temples ante-chamber is dated, as is thefloor of the cella, by its most recent contents to thelate fifth century. If its suggested stylistic date holdsit may be that this small votive, which was manu-factured and possibly (though certainty cannot beachieved on this point) dedicated before the con-struction of the temple, had been offered as a votiveat the open-air sanctuary, and unlike other earlydedications it did not find its way into the templesfloor packing nor into the area directly south of theante-chamber in which many votives were excavat-ed58. The juglet increases our evidence for the rangeof exotica that were offered at Zagoras sanctuary.Not only were orientalia such as a scarab offeredalong with seals from the Islands and East Greece59,but so was a Macedonian bronze, an object froma corner of the Aegean with which at least some Cy-cladic islanders, along with their Euboian and otherneighbours, must have been familiar. Indeed, thosesettlements that were recognized in antiquity as An-drian foundations, established in the seventh century,are all located in the northern Aegean although,admittedly, in the area of the eastern Chalkidike60.The Zagora juglet testifies, albeit modestly, to a se-ries of extensive networks to which Andros had ac-cess and which involved peoples from various re-gions of the Aegean and beyond.


century: Keller 1985, 180-181 and Cullen et al. 2013, 22. It must, however, be noted that fifth- and fourth-century remainshave been excavated further up the hill. If the report of the discovery of jug-stopper moulds (or even one) at Methoneis substantiated (see above, note 22) then the earlier dating of the Plakari find is strengthened.

53. See now Mazarakis Ainian 2012 for the sea routes that linked the northern and central Aegean.54. Popham Sackett 1980, 360 (and 363 for possible Macedonian earrings in a Subprotogeometric II context at Lef -

kan di); Desborough 1980, 288 and 296. See further Tiverios 2008, 9. The suggested northern associations of a MiddleGeo metric II kantharos with high-swung handles from Tsikalario on Naxos are under re-examination: Charalampidou2010-2012, 169 with fn. 73.

55. For contacts between these areas: Lemos 2002, 149-150, 183-184, 203-204, 207; Catling Lemos 1990, 64-65, 94-95,pls 40 and 74; Papadopoulos 2005, 575-578 where (with pp. 585-589) evidence for even earlier contacts is also noted.

56. Lemos 2012. Tiverios 2008, 17-50; Gimatzidis 2010, 307-311; Gimatzidis 2011a, 101-102; Kotsonas 2012, 227-239,where activities of individuals from the central Aegean in the region especially at Methone during the eighth centuryand into the seventh are examined along with those of locals and individuals from other areas. See too Moschonesiote2004, 280-281 for the central Aegean links of the late eighth- and early seventh-century the incised pithamphorae fromMende.

57. Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985.58. Packing: e.g. seventh-century relief plaque of an armed female figure (Cambitoglou 1981, 91 no. 289, fig. 49). For

the finds immediately to the south of the temple: Cambitoglou 1981, 82-83; Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 171-173.59. Scarab: Cambitoglou 1981, 91 no. 296; Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 235, pls 291-292. Seals: Cambitoglou 1981, 91 nos

293-295, figs 52-54; Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 235, pls 287-290; Huber 2003, 93-96; Huber Poplin 2009. For anotherscarab found in the fill of a domestic unit (H25) see: Cambitoglou et al. 1988, 235, pl. 293; Skon-Jedele 1994, 981 and 983.

60. Tiverios 2008, 52-64.

Andronikos 1969: M. Andronikos, . - , Athens.

Besios 2003: M. Besios, 2003,AEMTh 17, 443-450.

Besios 2010: M. Besios, : , ,Ka terini.

Besios et al. 2004: M. Besios A. Athanasiadou E.Ge rophoka M. Christakou-Tolia, 2004,AEMTh 18, 367-376.

Blome 1990: P. Blome (ed.), Orient und frhes Griechen-land. Kunstwerke der Sammlung H. und T. Boss -

hard. Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Lud-

wig, Basel.Boardman 1967: J. Boardman, Greek Emporio. Excava -

tions in Chios 1952-1955, BSA Suppl. 6, Athens.Bonias et al. 2012: Z. Bonias J. Perreault S. A. Paspa -

las Ch. Televantou, : , in M. Tiverios B. Misaelidou-Despotidou E. Manakidou A.Ar vanitake (eds), -

(700-480 ..). -

, 19-22 2011, Thessa-lonike, 209-214.

Bouzek 1974: J. Bouzek, Graeco-Macedonian Bronzes(A nalysis and Chronology), Prague.

Bouzek 1988: J. Bouzek, Thessalian and MacedonianBron zes, ArchEph 127, 47-59.

Bouzek 1997: J. Bouzek, Greece, Anatolia and Europe:Cul tural Interrelations during the Early Iron Age,Jon sered.

Bouzek 2000: J. Bouzek, Makedonische Bronzen in Ita-lien, in F. Krinzinger, (ed.), Die gis und das west-liche Mittelmeer. Beziehungen und Wechselwirkun-

gen 8. bis 5. Jh. v. Chr. Wien, 24. bis 27. Mrz 1999,Vienna, 363-389.

Bouzek 2006: J. Bouzek, Macedonian Bronzes 30Years Later, Folia Archaeologica Balkanica 1, 97-109.

Brandis 1842: C. A. Brandis, Mittheilungen ber Grie-chenland. Erster Theil, Leipzig.

Buchner Ridgway 1993: G. Buchner - D. Ridgway, Pi-thekoussai I. La necropoli: Tombe 1-723 scavate dal

1952 al 1961, Rome.Cambitoglou 1981: A. Cambitoglou, Archaeological

Mu seum of Andros. Guide to the finds from the ex-

cavations of the Geometric town at Zagora, Athens.Cambitoglou et al. 1971: A. Cambitoglou J. J. Coulton

J. Birmingham J. R. Green, Zagora 1. Excavation

of a Geometric Settlement on the Island of Andros,

Greece, Athens.Cambitoglou et al. 1988: A. Cambitoglou A. Birchall

J. J. Coulton J. R. Green, Zagora 1. Excavation ofa Geometric Town on the Island of Andros, Athens.

Catling Lemos 1990: R. W. V. Catling I. S. Lemos,Le fkandi II. The Protogeometric Building at Toum-

ba. Part I. The Pottery, BSA Suppl. 22/23, London.Charalampidou 2010-2012: X. Charalampidou, -

- : - , Ar-chaiognosia 16, 149-186.

Chidiroglou 2003-2004: M. A. Chidiroglou, - . - ,ArchEubMel 35, 69-80.

Chrysostomou 1999: A. Chrysostomou, - , in Ancient Macedonia VI. Papersread at the Sixth International Symposium held in

Thes saloniki, October 15-19, 1996, Volume 1, Thes-salonike, 259-280.

Chrysostomou 2011: A. Chyrsostomou, - . , in A. Maza -ra kis Ainian (ed.), The Dark Ages Revisited. Actsof an International Symposium in Memory of Wil -

liam D. E. Coulson. University of Thessaly, Volos,

14-17 June 2007, Volume II, Volos, 579-593.Crielaard et al. 2011/2012: J. P. Crielaard F. Songu

M. Chidiroglou M. Kosma, The Plakari Archaeolo -gi cal Project: project outline and preliminary reporton the first field season (2010), Pharos 18, 83-106.

Cullen et al. 2013: T. Cullen L. E. Talalay D. R. Keller L. Karimali W. R. Farrand, The Prehistory of thePa ximadi Peninsula, Euboea, Philadelphia.

Desborough 1980: V. R. Desborough, The Dark AgePot tery (SM-SPGIII) from the Settlement and Ceme-teries, in M. R. Popham L. H. Sackett P. G. The -me lis (eds), Lefkandi I. The Iron Age, 281-354.

Descamps-Lequime 2011: S. Descamps-Lequime (ed.),Au royaume dAlexandre le Grand. La Macdoine

antique, Paris.Felsch 2007: R. C. S. Felsch, Die Bronzefunde, in R. C.

S. Felsch (ed.), Kalapodi. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabun-gen im Heiligtum der Artemis und des Apollon von

Hyampolis in der antiken Phokis II, Mainz, 28-422.Foltiny 1964: S. Foltiny, Frheisenzeitliche Bronzefunde

von Amphipolis, MAGW 93/94, 90-103.


Bibliography

Forsn 2008: B. Forsn, Sacred Topography and Identityin Arcadia, in A. H. Rasmussen S. W. Rasmussen,Religion and Society. Rituals, Resources and Identity

in the Ancient Graeco-Roman World. The BOMOS-

Conferences 2002-2005, Rome, 249-258.Gabrici 1913: E. Gabrici, Cuma, MonAnt 22, Milan.Gehrig 1964: U. L. Gehrig, Die geometrischen Bronzen

aus dem Heraion von Samos, Hamburg.Gimatzidis, 2010: S. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos. Eine

Siedlung von der spten Bronze- bis zur klassischen

Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien, Prhi -sto rische Archologie in Sdosteuropa, 26, Rahden.

Gimatzidis 2011a: S. Gimatzidis, Counting Sherds atSindos: Pottery Consumption and Construction ofIdentities in the Iron Age, in S. Verdan T. Theurillat A. Kenzelmann Pfyffer (eds), Early Iron Age Pot-tery: A Quantative Approach. Proceedings of the In-

ternational Round Table organized by the Swiss

School of Archaeology in Greece (Athens, November

28-30, 2008), BAR-IS 2254, Oxford, 97-110.Gimatzidis 2011b: S. Gimatzidis, The Northwestern

Aegean in the Early Iron Age, in A. Mazarakis Ain-ian (ed.), The Dark Ages Revisited. Acts of an In-ternational Symposium in Memory of William D.

E. Coulson. University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17

Ju ne 2007, Volume II, Volos, 957-970.Held 1998: W. Held, Zum Athenaheiligtum in Emporio,

AA 1998, 347-363.Huber 2003: S. Huber, Eretria XIV. LAire sacrificielle

au nord du Sanctuaire dApollon Daphnphoros. Un

ritual des poques gomtrique et archaque, Gollion.Huber Poplin 2009: S. Huber F. Poplin, Les sceaux

en os dans le glyptique genne lpoque archaque,BCH 133, 627-632.

Kampitoglou 1972: A. Kampitoglou, - , Prakt [1974] 250-273.

Kampitoglou 1974: A. Kampitoglou, - , Prakt [1976] 163-180.

Karametrou-Menteside 1990: G. Karametrou-Mente-side, . . - , ArchDelt 45 [1995] Chronika B2, 353-356.

Karametrou-Menteside 1999: G. Karametrou-Mente-side, . - , Thessalonike.

Karametrou-Menteside 2011: G. Karametrou-Mente-side, , in A. Mazara-kis Ainian ed., The Dark Ages Revisited. Acts ofan International Symposium in Memory of William

D. E. Coulson. University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17

Ju ne 2007, Volume I, Volos, 279-311.

Keller 1985: D. R. Keller, Archaeological Survey inSouthern Euboea, Greece: A Reconstruction of Hu-

man Activity from Neolithic Times through the By -

za ntine Period (Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University).Kilian 1975a: K. Kilian, Trachtzubehr der Eisenzeit

zwischen gis und Adria, PZ 50, 9-140.Kilian 1975b: K. Kilian, Fibeln in Thessalien von der

my kenischen bis zur archaische Zeit, PrhistorischeBronzefunde XIV, 2, Munich.

Kilian-Dirlmeier 1979: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Anhngerin Griechenland von der mykenischen bis zur spt-

geometrischen Zeit. (Griechisches Festland, Ionische

Inseln, dazu Albanien und jugoslawisch Mazedo-

nien), Prhistorische Bronzefunde XI, 2, Munich.Kilian-Dirlmeier 1985: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Fremde

Weihungen in griechischen Heiligtmern vom 8. biszum beginn des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., JRGZM 32,215-254.

Kilian-Dirlmeier 2002: I. Kilian-Dirlmeier, Kleinfundeaus dem Itonia-Heiligtum bei Philia (Thessalien),Mainz.

Klebinder-Gau 2007: G. Klebinder-Gau, Bronzefundeaus dem Artemision von Ephesos, Forschungen inEphesos XII/3, Vienna.

Kotsonas 2012: A. Kotsonas, : , , - , in Y. Z. Tziphopoulos (ed.), - : , -

-

, Thessalonike, 113-303.Kottaridi 2011: A. Kottaridi, Queens, princesses and

royal priestesses: the role of women at the Macedo -nian court, in Y. Galanakis (ed.), Herakles to Alexan-der the Great. Treasures from the Royal Capital of

Ma cedon, a Hellenic Kingdom in the Age of Demo -

cracy, Oxford, 93-126.Kourayios 2009: Y. Kourayios, .

, Athens.Kourayos 2005: Y. Kourayos, Despotiko Mandra: a

sanctuary dedicated to Apollo, in M. Yeroulanou M. Stamatopoulou (eds), Architecture and Archaeo -lo gy in the Cyclades. Papers in honour of J. J. Coul-

ton, BAR-IS 1455, Oxford, 105-133.Krstevski Sokolovska 1997-1999: C. Krstevski V.

So kolovska, Novi naodi na Makedonsko-Pajonskibronzi, Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 16, 65-87(English summary 86-87).

Lemos 2002: I. S. Lemos, The Protogeometric Aegean.The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Cen -

turies B.C., Oxford.


Lemos 2012: I. Lemos, A Northern Aegean Amphorafrom Xeropolis, Lefkandi, in P. Adam-Velene K.Tzanavare (eds), . , Thessalonike, 177-182.

Macnamara 2006: E. Macnamara, Pithecusan Glea-nings II. Other Bronze Objects, in E. Herring et al.(eds), Across Frontiers. Etruscans, Greeks, Phoeni-cians and Cypriots. Studies in honour of David Ridg-

way and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway, London,268-279.

Margreiter 1988: I. Margreiter, Alt-gina II,3. DieKleinfunde aus dem Apollon-Heiligtum, Mainz.

Mari 1964: Z. Mari, Donja Dolina, Glasnik Zema -ljs kog Muzeja u Sarajevu. Archeologija 19, 5-128.

Martelli 1997: M. Martelli, Un pendaglio macedone aVeio, in G. Bartoloni (ed.), Le necropoli arcaiche diVeio. Giornata di studio in memoria di Massimo

Pal lottino, Rome, 207-209.Mazarakis Ainian 2010: A. Mazarakis Ainian, Ein an-

tikes Heiligtum auf Kythnos, in H. Frielinghaus J.Stroszeck (eds), Neue Forschungen zu griechischenStdten und Heiligtmern. Festschrift fr Burkhardt

Wesenberg zum 65. Geburtstag, Mhnesee, 21-53.Mazarakis Ainian 2012: A. Mazarakis Ainian, Eu-

boian mobility towards the north: new evidence fromthe Sporades, in M. Iacovou (ed.), Cyprus and theAegean in the Early Iron Age. The Legacy of Nicolas

Coldstream, Nicosia, 53-75.Misaelidou-Despotidou 2011: V. Misaelidou-Despoti-

dou, , Thessalonike.

Mitrevski 1997: D. Mitrevski, Protoistoriskite zaednitsivo Makedonija: preku pogrebuvanjeto i pogrebnite

manifestatsii, Skopje (English summary 231-275).Moschonesiote 2004:

- , in N. Ch. Stampolides A. Yiannakoure(eds), . . , 1-4

2002, Athens, 277-293.Moustakas 1924: D. E. Moustakas, -

, Athens.Pabst 2011: S. Pabst, Bevlkerungsbewegungen auf der

Balkanhalbinsel am Beginn der Frheisenzeit unddie Frage der Ethnogenese der Makedonen, JdI 125,1-74.

Palaiokrassa 1993: L. Palaiokrassa, , in .

. , 5-9 1991, - 21, Andros, 117-141.

Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 1996: L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, .

, Andros.Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa 2007: L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa

(ed.), . - .

Papadopoulos 2005: J. K. Papadopoulos, The Early IronAge Cemetery at Torone, Los Angeles.

Paschales 1925: D. P. Paschales, , Athens (2005 reprt.)

Paschales 1933: D. P. Paschales, - , Athens.

Payne 1940: H. Payne, Perachora I. The Sanctuaries ofHera Akraia and Limenia. Architecture, Bronzes, Ter -

racottas, Oxford.Peck 1934: W. Peck, Griechische Inschriften, AM 59,

35-80.Perreault Bonias 2006: J.-Y. Perreault Z. Bonias,

Lha bitat dArgilos, les cramiques archaques: unaperu, in J. de La Genire (ed.), Les clients de la c-ramique grecque. Actes du Colloque de lAcadmie

des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres. Paris, 30-31 janvier

2004, Cahiers du CVA 1, Paris, 49-54.Perreault Bonias 2010: J.-Y. Perreault Z. Bonias,

Argilos aux VIIe-VIe sicles, in H. Treziny (ed.), Grecset indignes de la Catalogne la Mer Noire. Actes

des rencontres du programme europen Ramses2

(2006-2008), Aix-en-Provence, 225-233.Petrova 1999: E. Petrova, Paeonia in the 2nd and the

1st Millennia BC, Skopje.Phaklares 1987: P. B. Phaklares,

, in S. Drougou C. Saat-soglou-Paliadeli M. Tiverios (eds), . -

, Thessalonike, 923-934.Philipp 1981: H. Philipp, Bronzeschmuck aus Olympia,

OlForsch 13, Berlin.Pingel 1980: V. Pingel, Balkanische Bronzen der l-

teren Eisenzeit in Sizilien und Unteritalien, in Zbor-nik posveen Stanetu Gabrovcu ob estdesetletnici,Situla 20/21, 165-175.

Popham Sackett 1980: M. R. Popham L. H. Sackett,Historical Conclusions, in M. R. Popham L. H.Sackett P. G. Themelis (eds), Lefkandi I. The IronAge. The Settlement. The Cemeteries, BSA Suppl.11,2, London, 355-369.

Rescigno Cuozzo 2008: C. Rescigno M. A. Cuozzo,La necropolis greca, in Museo archeologico dei Cam-pi Flegrei. Catalogo generale. Cuma, Naples.

Riva 2007: C. Riva, The Archaeology of Picenum. TheLast Decade, in G. Bradely E. Isayev C. Riva


(eds), Ancient Italy. Regions without Boundaries,Exeter, 79-113.

Rolley 1985: C. Rolley, Les bronzes grecs: recherches r-centes, RA 1985, 277-296.

Rolley 1999: C. Rolley, Les bronzes grecs et romaines:recherches rcentes, RA 1999, 371-385.

Ross 1843: L. Ross, Reisen auf den griechischen Inselndes gischen Meeres, Stuttgart Tbingen.

Savvopoulou 2004: Th. Savvopoulou, , in N. Ch.Stampolides A. Yiannakoure (eds), .

. , 1-4 2002,Athens, 307-316.

Savvopoulou 2007: Th. Savvopoulou, , , in Ancient Macedonia VII. Macedonia fromthe Iron Age to the Death of Philip II. Papers read

at the Seventh International Symposium held in

Thes saloniki, October 14-18, 2002, Thessalonike,605-624.

Schilardi 1988: D. U. Schilardi, The Temple of Athenaat Koukounaries. Observations on the Cult of Athenaon Paros, in R. Hgg N. Marinatos G. C. Nord -quist (eds), Early Greek Cult Practice. Proceedingsof the Fifth International Symposium at the Swedish

Institute at Athens, 26-29 June, 1986, Stockholm,41-48.

Semantone-Bournia 2001-2002: E. Semantone-Bournia, , Ar-chaiognosia 11, 141-153.

Skon-Jedele 1994: N. J. Skon-Jedele, Aigyptiaka: A Cat-alogue of Egyptian and Egyptianizing Objects exca-

vated from Greek Archaeological Sites, ca 1100-525

B.C., with Historical Commentary (Ph.D. thesis, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania).

Strm 1995: I. Strm, The Early Sanctuary of the ArgiveHeraion and its External Relations (8th Early 6thCent. B.C.). The Greek Geometric Bronzes, Proceed-ings of the Danish Institute at Athens 1, 37-127.

Televantou 1994: Ch. A. Televantou, , ArchDelt49 [1999] Chronika B 2, 678-687.

Televantou 1996: Ch. A. Televantou, . - , Athens.

Televantou 2008: Ch. A. Televantou, Siphnos. Acropolis

at Aghios Andreas, Athens.Televantou 2009: Ch. A. Televantou, .

, in D. I. Kyrtatas L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa M. Tiverios, M. (eds),. . ,Andros, 51-111.

Tiverios 1993: M. Tiverios, - , in - . . , 5-9 -

1991, 21, Andros,117-141.

Tiverios 2008: M. Tiverios, Greek Colonisation of theNorthern Aegean, in G. R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), GreekCo lonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and

Other Settlements Overseas, Volume 2, Leiden Boston, 1-154.

Touratsoglou 1973-1974: I. P. Touratsoglou, - , ArchDelt29 [1980] Chronika B 3, 701-726.

Verger 2011a: S. Verger, Sotto la protezione delle Eliadi.La collana della tomba 660 di Megara Iblea, Medici -na nei secoli 23, 151-176.

Verger 2011b: S. Verger, Dvotions fminines et bronzesde lextrme Nord dans le thesmophorion de Gla, inF. Quantin (ed.), Archologie des religions antiques.Contributions ltude des sanctuaires et de la pit

en Mditerrane (Grce, Italie, Sicilie, Espagne),Ar chaia 1, Pau, 15-76.

Verger Pernet 2013: S. Verger L. Pernet, Sur lestraces des Hliades. clats de bronze entre Gauloiset Grecs de Sicile, Archologia 514, 26-35.

Vickers 1977: M. Vickers, Some Early Iron Age Bronzesfrom Macedonia, in Ancient Macedonia II. Papersread at the Second International Symposium held

in Thessaloniki, 19-24 August 1973, Thessalonike,17-31.

Zapheiropoulos 1960: N. Zapheiropoulos, ., ArchDelt 16 [1962] 248-249.

Zimmermann 1988: J.-L. Zimmermann, Oiseaux go-mtriques de Grce centrale et septentrionale, NumAntCl 17, 37-53.

Zimmermann 1999: J.-L. Zimmermann, Bronzes orne-mentaux de Genve et parures archaques de Mac-

doine, Geneva.



, . , , 8 . ..

. , , . , , - .

A.

Documents

A 'Macedonian Bronze' Juglet from Zagora, Andros - Stavros A. Paspalas