A Bronze Hydria With Two Inscriptions

ATHANASIOS SIDERIS A B RONZE H YDRIA WITH T WO I NSCRIPTIONS aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 215 (2020) 104–112 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 104 A B RONZ E HY DR I A WITH TWO I NSCR I P T IONS In the Vassil Bojkov Collection in Sofia (hereafter VBC) there is an unpublished bronze hydria under the inventory number 2531 (Figs. 1–5), found allegedly with a bronze podanipter (inv. 2541) in north-eastern Thrace.1 It measures 42.4 cm to the rim.2 The vase is hammered up from a cast blank. The handles and the base are cast separately, and soldered or riveted onto the body. The hydria underwent significant repairs in antiquity. There are four oblong-ovoid-circular patches on the current front side, which have been applied on the upper part of the belly to repair holes and leakage. Just above them there are three rivets originally serving to secure the lower attachment of the vertical handle, before it was moved to the opposite side (Fig. 3). Two more rivet heads are visible on the corresponding area of the rim, remnants of the initial position of the upper attachment. The mouldings on the rim, polished to accommodate the handle, are yet another witness to its original position. The bottom of the vase-body has been also repaired with an added bronze sheet, extending 1 cm above the base. The surface is dark green with large brown and reddish-brown spots. The original yellowish colour of the bronze appears on a few parts of the rim and handles. Two inscriptions, one chiselled and one dotted cover the entire inner circumference of the lip. The piriform body of the hydria tapers rapidly near its bottom. On the slightly inclined and defined shoulder rests the wide offset neck, with a fillet at its mid height. It is concave in profile and terminates in a wide horizontal lip with a pendent rim of convex profile. The rim is decorated with vertical mouldings topped by a row of framed beads. The ogive-profiled base bears incised double contour tongues and a row of beads above. The grip of each horizontal handle is oval in cross-section; it forms an arc whose external surface has three central and two lateral mouldings. At the handle ends half-reels project above and below, and a nine-petal palmette continues the horizontal axis. These palmettes have pointed leaves and their volutes are set back-to-back, with duck heads executed in low relief on the end of the handle-grip’s central moulding. The duck heads show disproportionately long beaks (Fig. 2). The disks of the half-reels have a beaded circumference, and the surface of the upper disks is decorated with worked seven-petal half-rosettes. Four rivets, one each on the concave section of the four half-reels, fasten each handle to the body. The vertical handle combines anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and vegetal decoration. From the upper attachment plaque, which is nested underneath the rim and secured with two rivets, two crouching lions lie along the rim of the hydria. They have triangular faces, framed by rich manes, turned towards the viewer, as well as round ears; their tails, resting on the handle-grip, terminate in a fusiform tuft. The handle-grip is roughly oval in cross-section with a row of framed beads (or simplified astragal between mouldings) running along its centre. A similar row of beads is placed at its top, between the lions, and above it in turn there are five double-contour tongues. The lower attachment of the handle is shaped as a palmette with nine pointed petals pendent from its rhomboid heart. The volutes of the palmette evolve horizontally into smaller volutes, each one supporting a crouching ram. The rams repeat the stance of the above lions and have their bodies covered with dots in an approximate representation of the fleece. Between them there is a human face, presumably female, even though there are no details allowing one to securely identify the gender. She or he has oval face (somewhat eroded as to its details), a ribbon knotted around the head, two long tresses falling on either side of the neck, and a set of lines radially disposed from the top of the skull, denoting the hair thereon (Fig. 1). 1 I am thankful to my colleague Yannis Kalliontzis, who red a draft of this paper and made valuable comments and suggestions, as well as to Jaime Curbera for consultation on onomastics. 2 Detailed measurements: H. to the top of handle 44.2 cm, rim diam. 27.3 cm, rim w. 5.4 cm, rim h. (pendent part) 13–14 mm, base diam. 17.1 cm, base h. 2.4 cm, base thickness 3–4 mm, h. to added bottom part 3.3 cm, max. body diam. 34.5 cm, l. with handles 43 cm, vertical handle: h. 19.8 cm, upper attachment l. 14 cm, lower attachment l. 13.3 cm; lateral handle: l. 16.7 cm, h. 6.9 cm, half-reel top diam. 3.4 cm, grip cross-section w. 14 mm; incised letters h. 7–11 mm, dotted letters h. 7–13 mm, dotted weight symbol max. w. 22 mm, underneath bottom sign 15 × 7 mm; repair patches dimensions: l. 3.5–4.8 cm, h. 3.1–4 cm. [h.: height, w.: width, diam.: diameter, l.: length, max.: maximum]. A Bronze Hydria with Two Inscriptions 105 Fig. 1. The hydria VBC inv. 2531; rear side view. Photo Thrace Foundation / Marin Karavelov Fig. 2. The same, lateral view. Photo Thrace Foundation / Marin Karavelov Fig. 3. The same, front view with repair patches. Photo Thrace Foundation / Marin Karavelov Fig. 4. The same, top view of the mouth with the inscription. – Photo Thrace Foundation / Marin Karavelov 106 A. Sideris Fig. 5. Drawing of the inscription on the rim of the hydria VBC inv. 2531. Drawing Thrace Foundation / Vania Malakchieva Fig. 6. The dotted letter gamma under the base of the hydria VBC inv. 2531. – Photo author On the rim run both a dedicatory and a ponderal inscription. The letters of the longer dedicatory inscription are composed from blows by a thin-edged punch or rather chisel. It reads: ΕRΑ ∆ΑΜΑΤRΙ ΚΑΣΙΟΝ ΑRΙΣΤΟ ΑΝVΣΣΟ ΑΝΕ⊕ΕΤΑΝ. The words in this inscription, however, are not separated, nor is there any kind of punctuation. Next to it is the shorter ponderal inscription in dotted letters: ΟΛΚΑ ∆Μ with the ∆Μ written as a monogram – mu is actually inscribed within the delta and its slanting bars coincide with those of the delta (Figs. 4–5). An isolated letter gamma (Γ) is dotted underneath the base (Fig. 6). This well preserved hydria belongs to a small group, discussed already by Neugebauer and Diehl, but studied in detail by Claude Rolley, who called it the ‘Paestum – Sala Consilina Group’ after the localities where four entirely preserved examples of high quality were found.3 One more entire (restored) exemplar in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens comes from Eretria in Euboea, and another of unknown origin is kept in the Houston Museum of Fine Arts.4 Among the few isolated handles belonging to similar hydriae one, now kept in Heidelberg, comes reportedly from Greece, and a couple have been excavated in Olympia.5 More handles of the same type but of unknown provenance are kept in Oxford and Boston.6 Conrad Stibbe called this the ‘Gitiadas Group’ and strived to associate it with the rather obscure figure of a Laconian bronze sculptor of the same name, known only from two passages by Pausanias.7 However, this association is rather speculative, as Sowder has already observed, and I would preferably retain the initial appellation.8 Three more entire hydriae are related to the main group, but they show minor differences in the decoration of the handles, which ultimately point at a slightly earlier date. For two of them the alleged provenance is respectively Sicily and South Italy.9 The VBC hydria matches perfectly the vases from Paestum, Sala Consilina and Eretria in as much as concerns the general shape and the handles. Nevertheless, there are three details in which it differs from 3 Neugebauer 1925, 188–190; Diehl 1964, cat. B 26–B 35; Rolley 1982, 17–22, figs. 25–59. 4 Politis 1936, 147–149, figs. 1–2, 9–11, pl. 1. The second exemplar was on display in the Houston Museum of Fine Arts in May 2013 (unpublished?). 5 Gauer 1991, no. Hy 14; Stibbe 1992, nos. D2, F7–8. 6 Stibbe 1992, no. F9; Comstock–Vermeule 1971, no. 418. 7 Paus. 3.17.2–3, 3.18.8; Stibbe 2006, 125–127, 230. 8 Sowder 2009, 77–78. 9 Neugebauer 1925, 188–189, fig. 8; Bothmer 1975, 116 with ill.; Stibbe 1992, 14–17, nos. D1, D3, F1; Stibbe 2006, 246, nos. 26, 28–29. A Bronze Hydria with Two Inscriptions 107 them. First, the rams of the vertical handle have their fleece rendered by stippling, while on the other exemplars it is shown as lozenges or oblong tufts of wool. Then, the base has an ogive profile, not a slightly concave cone. Finally, it bears a narrow plastic fillet at the neck’s mid height, which is absent from the remaining specimens of the group. This fillet characterizes a series of hydriae with ivy leaves as handle attachments (and exceptionally palmettes), the production of which seems to span a long period, from the mid-6th to the early 4th centuries BC.10 Moreover, the profile of these ivy-handled hydriae is the same: wide horizontal lip with short pendent rim, wide neck, nearly horizontal shoulder dropping abruptly to a squat body. A fragmentary exemplar from Krestaina, Elis, sports also the exact same type of horizontal handles combining rotelles, palmettes and duck heads, whilst its vertical handle ends with an ivy leaf, illustrating thus an intermediate type between the two series, Paestum – Sala Consilina and Ivy Leaf.11 Similar body shape, neck fillet, and lateral handles occur as well on a hydria from Novi Pazar, Serbia, which on the basis of its kouros-shaped vertical handle and gorgoneion attachment is considered a Corinthian work.12 The core of the Paestum – Sala Consilina Group more probably originates in a South Italian workshop (Poseidonia?) blending Laconian and Corinthian traits, not in Laconia as Stibbe alone stipulates.13 The Ivy Leaf Group is either Corinthian or, more probably, north-west Peloponnesian.14 The former dates in the third quarter of the 6th century BC and the latter, as we already mentioned above, covers a much longer period, but its earliest exemplars, which also happen to be those more closely related to the VBC hydria, date also from the same period. When discussing stylistic affinities and the blending of decorative motifs on bronze vases, we need to remember that the cast parts, such as the handles, were easily copied by moulding and so could be reproduced with or without alterations to the original design. The Corinthian workshops, especially in the Archaic period, were notorious for copying and adapting models from both East Greece and Laconia. On the other hand, the particular details of the shape grew to be specific to each workshop and were less easy to replicate, since they resulted from free hammering (regardless of whether one started with a cast blank or a sheet of bronze). I would thus associate our hydria also with the Ivy Leaf Group and the Novi Pazar exemplar, and consequently I would ascribe it either to Corinth or, more probably, to Achaea. An important feature of the VBC container is the dedicatory inscription on its lip, for which we don’t know if it has been applied immediately after its creation or later. One thing seems sure: the broad- and thinedged puncher, which has been used, is not an everyday instrument, and therefore the chiselled/punched inscription was produced by a toreut. To the same conclusion lead also the regularity of the characters and the assurance of the strokes by which they have been traced. The inscription reads: Ἔρα ∆άματρι Κασίν Ἀριστ Ἀνυσσ ἀνέθεταν and means “Kasion, Aristo (and) Anysso dedicated (this) to Hera (and) Demeter”. The male name Κασίν as we will see below, can be red as well, or even more probably, as the female name Κάσιον. A broad-edged chisel has been used and each straight line of the letters is executed by a single stroke. The three omicrons and the theta are all of square form while the sigmas are all four-bar; the rhos are tailed and the ypsilon is like a “V” (Fig. 5). The loss of the initial aspiration in (H)Era is called psilosis, a linguistic phenomenon common to many Archaic dialects (the so-called psilotic dialects), including those of Achaea and Elis.15 The form ‘Damatri’ instead of ‘Demetri’ nonetheless, is regular in the Dorian and Western Greek dialects. 10 Rolley 1963, 459–471; Sowder 2009, 88–97, 497–504. Her no. 8.28 however is misidentified. It comes from Olbia, it has chiselled palmettes on the attachments and dates from the first half of the 5th century BC: Bodzek 2006, 205, cat. 31 (entry by S. B. Okhotnikov). 11 See also the fragmentary exemplar from Babes in Elis, also with neck fillet but with all its handle attachments as ivyleaves: Rolley 1963, 467–470, figs. 12–17; Sowder 2009, 501–502, cat. 8.14, 8.18. 12 Popović et al. 1969, 78, cat. 3, pls. 3 a–b; Rolley 1982, 53, 89, figs. 184–185, 195, 198; Stibbe 1992, 36–37, 58, cat. H 13; Rolley 2003, 140, fig. 100; Sowder 2009, 85, 509, cat. 9.9. 13 Stibbe 1992, 16–22, 55; Stibbe 2006, 135–137, 228–230. Against: Diehl 1964, 13–15, 19, 149; Rolley 1982, 95–97; Vocotopoulou 1997, 246, no. 104; Sowder 2009, 76–78. 14 Rolley 1963, 481–484; Bothmer 1965, 605–606. 15 Schwyzer 1939, 87, 145, 220–221; Lundquist 2014; van der Velden 2017, 13; Méndez Dosuna 2014, 21. 108 A. Sideris Most of the letter forms are to be found in several local scripts. The square omicron and theta may provide some help here. A square with crossbars is used in the Argive script for the aspirate (h), while the omicron sometimes is cut as a rhomboid.16 Square theta and omicron occur as well in two Laconian inscriptions, on a fragmentary bronze vessel rim and on a bronze disk respectively, and it has been rightly observed that the angled shapes were easier to cut in metal.17 However, a square-crossed theta and a square omicron are attested in Achaea carved in stone, while their rhomboid versions are known from the Achaean colonies in the West.18 On the other hand, Jeffery’s lists should not be taken as the definitive verdict for the occurrence or absence of a particular character form in a local script, since sometimes the inscriptions on artefacts are neglected in publications, as in the case of Attica, where no square theta or omicron are registered by Jeffery, although both are perfectly documented on ostraka of the first half of the 5th century BC.19 The form ‘Damatri’ of the goddess’s name, however, does not permit one to link our inscription to Attica. An alternative reading of the beginning would be ⟨Ἰ⟩ερὰ ∆άματρι … ‘Sacred to Demeter …’. However, this is a less plausible reading, since it would imply not only the psilosis (omission of the aspirant h), but also the omission of the iota, an inconceivable assumption for the beginning of the sentence; especially so since there is absolutely no trace of other letter before the epsilon.20 Besides, as I have argued elsewhere, the two formulae ‘ἱερός/-ά’ (sacred) and ‘ἀνέθηκε/-αν’ (dedicated) are most of the time semantically contradictory.21 The former refers to objects made or acquired by decision of ἱεροποιοί and related to the ritual needs of a sanctuary,22 while the latter is the result of the pious act of a private or public initiative and documents the name(s) of the dedicant(s). Exceptions do exist but are really rare.23 The form ‘anethetan’ is rather rare. The verb ἀνατίθημι has a regular third plural of aorist ἀνέθηκαν and a less frequent but still widespread second aorist ἀνέθεσαν. It seems that epigraphically the version ‘anethetan’ is attested only ten times in Boeotia and five times in Peloponnesus between the late 6th and the mid 3rd centuries BC.24 This form, spelled as ἀνεθέταν, is always considered a dual in the Aeolic dialect (of Boeotia) and it has been even counted among the characteristic Aeolic elements of the Homeric epic.25 On the VBC hydria, however, this version cannot be a dual since three names are preceding it. Thus, a connection to Boeotia does not seem likely, especially in the absence or extreme rarity there of some specific character forms used in our inscription (delta, theta omicron, upsilon). The presence of this dual form in Argolis and Arcadia, on the other hand, suggests that the form is not exclusively Aeolic, and that in Peloponnesus, at least in earlier times, it may have been confounded with the third plural of aorist. 16 Jeffery, LSAG, 151–152. 17 Jeffery, LSAG, 183, 190, 199, nos. 11, 14, pl. 35.11. Our inscription, though, cannot be Laconian since the featuring forms of delta, epsilon and sigma are introduced in Laconia respectively in the 4th century, in the second quarter and around the middle of the 5th century BC (ibidem, 183). 18 Jeffery, LSAG, 221–222, 248–249, pls. 44.3, 50.30. 19 Lang 1990, fig. 22 no. 697, fig. 24 no. 947, pl. 3 no. 651, pl. 4 nos. 1149–1150 and 1171, pl. 11 no. 1318; Banou–Bournias 2014, p. 288 on top, p. 289 bottom right; Brenne 2018, nos. 2194, 2202, 7161–7162, 7171–7172, 7291–7292, 7299, 7454, 8084. 20 In contrast to a bronze lebes rim sacred to Artemis, where the initial iota is supposedly not omitted but badly preserved: [ἰ]ερὰ τ⟨ᾶ⟩ι Ἀρταμ⟨ί⟩τι, Jeffery, LSAG, 209, 214, 408, no. 3, pl. 40.3 = IG V,2 401. However, the probable names of the vase (lebes, dinos) are masculine and do not justify the feminine form of the adjective ἰερά. It possibly was meant as ‘kakkabe’ or ‘chytra’. 21 Sideris 2002, 178–180. 22 De Ridder 1896, 73, 76, nos. 221, 229; Robinson 1942, 194–197, figs. 29–30, Jeffery, LSAG, pls. 8.7, 22.2, 40.3; Gauer 1991, 184, fig. 45.1, Harris 1995, p. 58, nos. 79–82, p. 101, no. 53, pp. 152–154, nos. 211–115, p. 162, no. 261, p. 211, no. 32, p. 214, no. 47; Sideris 2016, 314–315, no. 146. Also below, nt. 36. 23 Dunst 1972, 138, 144–145, pl. 54.1; Jeffery, LSAG, pls. 7.2b, 7.5. 24 The dual ‘anethetan’ in Boeotia is known from Orchomenos (seven occurrences), the sanctuary of Apollo in Ptoion (two), and Thisbe (one): CEG I 337; IG VII 2229, 3211, 3212, 4160; SEG 53:462; Amandry–Spyropoulos 1974, 177–186, nos. 2–5. The same form is known as well from Epidaurus (three occurrences), the Argive Heraion and Tegea in Arcadia (one each): IG IV 514; IG IV2,1 140, 159, 161; IG V,2 74. 25 Blümel 1982, §§ 159, 211; Parry 1932, 28. A Bronze Hydria with Two Inscriptions 109 The male name Kασίων is very rare: actually it was before this a hapax in a Hellenistic inscription from Thasos.26 More frequent are the versions Κάσιος (29 occurrences in LGPN) and Κάσσιος (8). Ἀριστώ on the other hand is a female name mostly widespread in continental Greece (88 occurrences in LGPN), but attested as well in the islands, Asia Minor and the Black Sea region. Still, our inscription seems to belong among the earliest occurrences.27 As for Ἀνυσσώ, it is a female name unattested thus far. The variants Ἀνυταία (Thera), Ἀνύτα (Athens), and Ἀνύτη (Tegea), are equally rare, each with a single entry in the LGPN.28 The three dedicants are perhaps members of the same family, maybe siblings, or possibly husband, wife and daughter. It does not seem any special connection to have existed between female dedicants and the hydriae.29 Given, however, the rarity of the name Kασίων one should not exclude the possibility that this is a female name, such as Νάννιον or Κνώσιον, and spelled as Κάσιον.30 Actually female names ending in -ion are very common among prostitutes and slaves. A recent work on prostitution in ancient Greece records no less than 38 names in -ion for fictional or real-life sex-workers.31 If all three names on our hydria are feminine we should reconsider as well their relationship. They still can be family or, more plausibly, proud co-working hetaerae, in which case the dedication to the solemn matrimonial and maternal goddesses may endorse an expiatory character. Besides, the ancient sources mention often courtesans participating in the festivals of Demeter.32 The dedication implies that there was a sanctuary where Hera and Demeter were jointly worshiped. I know only one such sanctuary – in Gravisca, the harbour of Tarquinia, but there must have been more not documented in our sources.33 The sister goddesses, symbolizing two of the socially most important female roles, the wife and the mother, did not share much of their mythology. But there could have been more common elements, related to the Thesmophoria or to the mysteries of Demeter, which still elude us.34 A hydria, said to be from Elis but bearing inscriptions in what appears to be Arcadian script, is designated twice as sacred: once to Demeter and again to Artemis Paphrakia.35 In this case, however, the inscriptions are distant in time and they indicate successive sanctifications of the vase in different sanctuaries rather than the simultaneous worship of the two deities. Yet another hydria, allegedly from the same region (Mantineia) was sacred to Demeter.36 Starting immediately after the end of the dedicatory inscription there is a second, ponderal inscription with dotted letters. The shallow dots are made with a very fine puncher and the characters are less bold than those of the first inscription (Fig. 5). It reads: ὁλκᾷ ∆Μ with the delta and mu in ligature (the mu is inscribed inside the delta). It means “weight ten minae” (∆Μ = δέκα μναῖ) in the acrophonic numerical system. One mina is 100 drachmae and according to which standard 26 LGPN V1-39951 = IG XII (8) 302.8. 27 The earliest thus far has been an inscription from Delos dated 510–500 BC: LGPN V1-81610 = ID vol. 6, no. 33.2. 28 LGPN V1-9567, V2-6301, V3a-6977. A male version Ἀνύσσαν is known from Roman Egypt. 29 Only two bronze hydriae are recorded among the eleven bronze vases with dedicatory inscriptions by females on the Acropolis: Avramidou 2015, 4–15. 30 The rare female version Κασία is documented in the Roman Imperial times (LGPN V3a-16518, V3a-18615, V3b12565). See also Curbera 2008, 196. 31 Kapparis 2018, 386–453. 32 Svoronos 1901, passim; Tiverios 2008, 129–130. Both also comment on the famous πίναξ dedicated by Ninnion to the Eleusinian goddesses. 33 In Gravisca, the joint cult included Aphrodite as well and it is better documented for the period of exclusive Etruscan frequentation of the sanctuary, after the battle of Cumae in 474 BC: Haynes 2000, 172–174. 34 For an overview of their relationship, see Kloeckner 2008. 35 Fragandreas 1991, 123–126. See below nt. 38. 36 Diehl 1964, 15–16, cat. B 39a. See below nt. 38. For the formula “sacred” see above nts. 21–23. On these hydriae see also the discussion in Sideris 2019, 138–139. 110 A. Sideris we follow the weight meant in the inscription could be 2,900 g in the Corinthian standard, or 4,310 g in the Attic, or 6,100 g in the Aeginetan one. It is clear by its position, by the form of the letters, and even by the technique of their execution that the ponderal inscription is later than the dedicatory one, and thus the weighing probably took place in the sanctuary, where the hydria was already dedicated, as part of an established process of recording the possessions of temples and sanctuaries. The ponderal inscription must have been punched sometime in the 5th or first half of the 4th centuries BC, before the acrophonic system went out of use. No matter in which standard it has been weighed, the inscription reflects only the weight of the vase, not that of its possible content. Given the volume of the vase any presumed content would produce a much heavier weight. Further, inscribing the weight of the vase would serve a double purpose: to document the amount of bronze used, especially as a sanctuary property, and also to know easily what the tare (weight empty) was, that should be subtracted during any weighing when the vase contained some product. In all probability the original weight of the hydria (before the modern restoration interventions) was closer to six kilos, and thus it would have been created and weighed against the Aeginetan standard, which was in use in the entire Peloponnesus, except Corinth.37 Two more ponderal inscriptions expressed in minae are known on bronze hydriae, and both incidentally are those inscribed as sacred to Demeter.38 It is noteworthy that the weights of all three are in the same range: 7.5, 8 and 10 minae, indicating an established practice. Although much later, a silver hydria from Tsayezi near Amphipolis bears also an inscription on the lip expressing its weight in minae and drachmae of the Attic standard (14 minae and 3 drachmae) and thus resulting in an original weight of 6,047 g, which is very close to the presumed original weight of our hydria (6,100 g).39 Finally, the silver hydria of the Tomb III in Vergina, conceived intentionally as a funerary urn, bears also an inscription recording its weight as 5 minae and 68 drachmae, presumably as well in the Attic standard. But the actual weight of the vase falls light of what it should be according to the inscription.40 The meaning of the dotted letter gamma (Γ) underneath the base is not clear (Fig. 6), but it should be probably understood as a classification rather than an ownership mark. Isolated letters as marks are recorded on eight silver hydriae (all made by the toreut Nikokrates of Kolonos) and on a gold phiale in the Hecatompedon inventories .41 Such marks may have served the precise placement of the objects in a temple or treasury, and/or their distinction from other similar vessels. Our hydria was probably created somewhere in Achaea under Laconian and Corinthian influences during the third quarter of the 6th century BC.42 Subsequently it has been dedicated by Kasion, Aristo and Anysso to a sanctuary of Hera and Demeter, presumably in the same region. In the sanctuary, sometime later, it has been weighed and inscribed with its weight, which was equivalent to ten minae. It must have served for long enough to suffer significant damage to the body, which needed to be repaired with patches.43 The vertical handle fastening became loose and for this reason the handle was removed and refastened on the opposite side of the vase. Eventually it was probably plundered or sold on from the sanctuary and deposited in its last owner’s grave, which would explain its relatively good state of preservation. 37 Psoma 2016, 95–98. 38 One bears a double dedication to Demeter and Artemis: it is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Olympia, and weighs 7.5 minae: Fragandreas 1991, 123–126; Andreou 1998, 135–141. The other is said to come from Mantineia in Arcadia, now kept in the Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, and weighs 8 minae: Diehl 1964, 15–16, 44, cat. B 39a; Stibbe 1992, 39, 60, cat. I 2. On both Sowder-Koch 2015, 25, 30–31, cat. 2.2 and 2.3. 39 Zimi 2011, 110, 178–179, fig. 11, cat. 1. In its current state the Amphipolis hydria is missing several parts and it is extensively restored. Zimi in the text and table 4 (p. 110) reports the inscription as “MNAI : Ι∆ ∆ΡΑ ΙΓ”, but the drawing of the inscription that she gives in fig. 11.1 (p. 107) shows “MNAI : Ι∆ ∆ΡΑ : Γ”. Thus the original weight of the hydria should be 1403 drachmae rather than 1413. 40 Andronikos 1984, 212, 217, ill. on p. 214; Gill 2008, 337; Zimi 2011, 110, 179, table 4, cat. 2. The current weight is 2,300 g while according to the inscription (ΜΝΑΙ Ε ∆ΡΑ ΞΗ) it should be 2,448 g. 41 Harris 1995, 153, 158–161, 176, nos. 217–218, 251, 298, 342. 42 The hypothesis on Achaea expressed by Rolley 1963, 484 finds support in the character of the script, which fits better in this region of Peloponnesus. 43 On ancient repairs and patches see: Sideris 2016, 128–129, 233–234, nos. 56, 92; Treister 2019, 317–319, figs. 5–9. A Bronze Hydria with Two Inscriptions 111 Its alleged origin in north-eastern Bulgaria may seem surprising, but this is certainly not the first vase from a Greek sanctuary to land up in a grave somewhere in the North. A late archaic silver phiale inscribed sacred to Athena in Megara has been found in a much later grave in Kozani, while another dedicated to Apollo Hegemon in Phasis ended up in a Scythian burial mound in Kuban.44 Two bronze griffins from 7th century cauldrons, which where exclusively sanctuary dedications, come respectively from Dourouti in Epirus and from Tsotyli in Macedonia.45 Finally a fragmentary late archaic bronze Etruscan infundibulum dedicated to Ephesian Artemis came up in Panticapaeum in disturbed layers of the Early Imperial period.46 These cases serve as an indication of how many more uninscribed metal vases found in graves may originate in some Greek sanctuary. The main inscription, besides enriching the index of Greek anthroponyms, helps by its script to corroborate an earlier hypothesis about the location of the workshop of these hydriae in Achaea. Bibliography Amandry P. – Spyropoulos Th. 1974: Monuments chorégiques d’Orchomène de Béotie, BCH 98, 171–242. Andreou I. 1976: Ιωάννινα, ADelt 31, 1976, B2 [1984], 206–209. – 1998: Άρτεμις Παφρακία, AAA 29–31 (1996–1998), 135–146. Andronikos M. 1984: Vergina. Ther Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens. Avramidou A. 2015: Women Dedicators on the Athenian Acropolis and their Role in Family Festivals: The Evidence for Maternal Votives between 530–450 BCE, Cahiers «Mondes anciens» [online] 6, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/mondesanciens/1365, consulted April 19, 2019. Banou E. S. – Bournias L. K. 2014: Kerameikos. Athens. Blümel W. 1982: Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus generativer Sicht. Göttingen. Bodzek J. (ed.) 2006: Treasures from the Black Sea Coast. Catalogue of the exhibition at the National Museum in Cracow, March – June 2006. Cracow. Bothmer D. von 1965: Review of Diehl 1964, Gnomon 37, 599–608. – 1975: Greek and Roman Art, in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Notable Acquisitions 1965/1975. New York, 114–131. Braund D. 2018: Greek Religion and Cults in the Black Sea Region. Goddesses in the Bosporan Kingdom from the Archaic Period to the Byzantine Era. Cambridge Mass. Brenne S. 2018: Die Ostraka vom Kerameikos. Kerameikos, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 20. Wiesbaden. CEG I: Hansen P. A., Carmina epigraphica graeca saeculorum VIII–V a. Chr. n., vol. I. Texte und Kommentare 12. Berlin 1983. Comstock M. – Vermeule C. 1971: Greek Etruscan and Roman Bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston. Curbera J. 2008: Onomastic Notes, in Bosnakis D., Ανέκδοτες επιγραφές της Κώ. Επιτύμβια μνημεία και όροι. Athens, 191–196. De Ridder A. 1896: Catalogue des bronzes trouvés sur l’Acropole d’Athènes. Paris. Diehl E. 1964: Die Hydria. Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des Altertums. Mainz am Rhein. Dunst G. 1972: Archaische Inschriften und Dokumente der Pentekontaetie aus Samos, AM 87, 99–163. Fragandreas K. 1991: Επιγραφές χάλκινης υδρίας από ιδιωτική συλλογή στην Ηλεία, Meletemata 13, 123–126. Gauer W. 1991: Die Bronzegefässe von Olympia. Olympische Forschungen 20. Berlin. Gill D. W. J. 2008: Inscribed Silver Plate from Tomb II at Vergina. Chronological Implications, Hesperia 77, 335–358. Harris D. 1995: The Treasures of the Parthenon and Erechtheion. Oxford. Haynes S. 2000: Etruscan Civilization: A Cultural History. Los Angeles. Jeffery L. H., LSAG: Local Scripts of Archaic Greece. Revised edition of the original publication 1961, with a supplement by A. Johnston. Oxford 1990. Kallipolitis V. G. – Feytmans D. 1949: Νεκρόπολις κλασσικών χρόνων εν Κοζάνη, AEphem 1948–1949, 85–111. Kapparis K. 2018: Prostitution in the Ancient Greek World. Berlin. 44 Kallipolitis–Feytmans 1949, 92–96, figs. 8–9 (grave of late 4th century BC) and SEG 40-533; Tsetskhladze 1994, passim, but esp. 201–204, figs. 2–3 (late 5th century BC phiale deposited in Sarmatian grave under the Principate) and SEG 60-1642. 45 Andreou 1976, 209, pl. 153a (between graves of the 5th century BC); Proskynitopoulou 2003, 427, no. 709 (precise circumstances unknown, but all other metal ware from Tsotyli comes from graves). 46 Treister 1990, 37–40, fig. 1; Naso 2006, 253, 274, no. 60 with earlier bibliography. Dedicated whether as an entire utensil or as a figure confectioned out of it, is irrelevant for the issue discussed here: Braund 2018, 106–108, fig. 7. 112 A. Sideris Kloeckner A. 2008: Hera und Demeter – Die Mütter, in Grassinger D., de Oliveira Pinto T., Scholl A. (eds.), Die Rückkehr der Götter. Berlins verborgener Olymp. Exhibition in Berlin catalogue. Regensburg, 128–137. Lang M. L. 1990: Ostraka. The Athenian Agora 25. Princeton. LGPN: Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford 1987– ). Lundquist J. 2014: Psilosis, in Giannakis G. et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Greek Linguistics. Leiden–Boston, vol. 3, 192–193. Méndez Dosuna J. 2014: The Dialect of Achaea and Its Colonies, in Giannakis G. et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Ancient Greek Language and Greek Linguistics. Leiden–Boston, vol. 1, 19–22. Naso A. 2006: Anathemata etruschi nel Mediterraneo orientale, in Della Fina G.M. (ed.), Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo. Commerci e politica (Orvieto, 16–18.12.2005), Annali della Fondazione per il Museo Claudio Faina 13. Rome 2006, 351–416. Neugebauer K. A. 1925: Archaische Bronzehydrien, AA, 177–202. Parry M. 1932: Studies in the Epic Technique of Oral Verse-Making: II. The Homeric Language as the Language of an Oral Poetry, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 43, 1–50. Politis L. 1936: Χαλκή υδρία εξ’ Ερετρίας, AEphem, 147–173. Popović et al. 1969: Popović L., Mano-Zisi Ð., Veličković M., Jeličić B. (eds.), Grčka bronza u Jugoslaviji / Greek bronze in Yugoslavia. Belgrade. Proskynitopoulou R. 2003: Προτομή γρύπα, in Stambolidis N. (ed.), Πλόες … Από τη Σιδώνα στη Χουέλβα. Σχέσεις λαών της Μεσογείου 16ος – 6ος αι. π.Χ. Athens, 427. Psoma S. 2016: Choosing and Changing Monetary Standards in the Ancient Greek World During the Archaic and Classical Periods, in Harris E. M, Lewis D. M., Woolmer M. (eds.), The Ancient Greek Economy. Markets, Households and City States. Cambridge, 90–115. Robinson D. M. 1942: New Greek Bronze Vases. A Commentary on Pindar, AJA 46, 172–197. Rolley Cl. 1963: Hydries de bronze dans le Péloponnèse du Nord, BCH 87, 459–484. – 1982: Les vases de bronze de l’archaïsme récent en Grande-Grèce. Naples. Rolley Cl. (ed.) 2003: La tombe princière de Vix. Paris. Schwyzer E. 1939: Griechische Grammatik. Munich. Sideris A. 2002: Bronze Drinking Vases Bearing Dedicatory Inscriptions, Eirene 38, 167–201. – 2016: Metal Vases and Utensils in the Vassil Bojkov Collection, vol. 1. Sofia. – 2019: An Archaic Hydria in Sinope, in Kaba H., Kan Şahin G., Akarsu B. M., Bozoğlan O. (eds.), Ancient Sinope and the Black Sea. International Symposium on Sinope and Black Sea Archaeology, 13–15 October 2017, Sinope University. Sinop, 133–149. Sowder A. A. 2009: Greek Bronze Hydriai, PhD thesis, Emory University, Atlanta. Sowder-Koch A. 2015: Far from the Fountain: Inscriptions on Bronze Hydriai and the Uses of Water Jars in Ancient Greece, BABesch 90, 13–42. Stibbe C. M. 1992: Archaic Bronze Hydriae, BABesch 67, 1–62. – 2006: Agalmata: Studien zur griechisch-archaischen Bronzekunst. BABesch supplement 11. Leuven (collected essays previously published in various journals). Svoronos J. N. 1901: Ερμηνεία του εξ Ελευσίνος μυστηριακού πίνακος της Νιννίου, JIAN, 169–191, 233–270. Tiverios M. 2008: Women of Athens in the Worship of Demeter: Iconographic Evidence from Archaic and Classical Times, in Kaltsas N., Shapiro A. (eds.), Worshipping Women. Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens. New York, 124–135. Treister M. 1990: Drevneishii predmet etruskogo proizvodstva v severnom pichernomorie i nekotoriye problemi rannei istorii Pantikapeya, Kratkie Soobshteniya 197. Zheleznii vek vostochnoi Evropi. Moscow, 37–44. – 2019: Second-Hand for the Barbarians? Greek and Roman Metalware with Signs of Repair from the Nomadic Burials of Scythia and Sarmatia, in Cojocaru V., Ruscu L., Castelli Th. et al. (eds.), Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology and Religion. Cluj-Napoca, 313–345. Tsetskhladze G. R. 1994: The Silver Phiale Mesomphalos from the Kuban (Northern Caucasus), OxfJA 13, 199–216. Velden van der, M. J. 2017: The Dialect of Elis and Its Position within the Greek Dialectological System. MA thesis, University of Leiden. Vocotopoulou J. 1997: Αργυρά και χάλκινα έργα τέχνης. Ελληνική Τέχνη. Athens. Zimi E. 2011: Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate from Macedonia. Oxford. Athanasios Sideris, Thrace Foundation, Sofia – Charles University, Prague [email protected]