Visit https://ebookfinal.

com to download the full version and

explore more ebook

Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context 2nd Edition

Marisa Marthari

_____ Click the link below to download _____

https://ebookfinal.com/download/early-cycladic-
sculpture-in-context-2nd-edition-marisa-marthari/

Explore and download more ebook at ebookfinal.com

Here are some recommended products that might interest you.
You can download now and explore!

Macroeconomics in Context 2nd Edition Neva Goodwin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/macroeconomics-in-context-2nd-edition-
neva-goodwin/

ebookfinal.com

Spanish Grammar in Context 2nd Edition Juan Kattan Ibarra

https://ebookfinal.com/download/spanish-grammar-in-context-2nd-
edition-juan-kattan-ibarra/

ebookfinal.com

Local Media Local Journalism in Context 2nd Edition Bob

Franklin

https://ebookfinal.com/download/local-media-local-journalism-in-
context-2nd-edition-bob-franklin/

ebookfinal.com

The Beatles in Context Composers in Context Kenneth Womack

(Editor)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-beatles-in-context-composers-in-
context-kenneth-womack-editor/

ebookfinal.com
Roman Portraits in Context Image Context 1st Edition
Fejfer

https://ebookfinal.com/download/roman-portraits-in-context-image-
context-1st-edition-fejfer/

ebookfinal.com

The Mediterranean Context of Early Greek History 1.

Auflage Edition Nancy H. Demand

https://ebookfinal.com/download/the-mediterranean-context-of-early-
greek-history-1-auflage-edition-nancy-h-demand/

ebookfinal.com

Grammar in Context 2 Grammar in Context Sixth Edition

Sandra N. Elbaum

https://ebookfinal.com/download/grammar-in-context-2-grammar-in-
context-sixth-edition-sandra-n-elbaum/

ebookfinal.com

Grammar in Context Basic Grammar in Context Sixth Edition

Sandra N. Elbaum

https://ebookfinal.com/download/grammar-in-context-basic-grammar-in-
context-sixth-edition-sandra-n-elbaum/

ebookfinal.com

Plant Endosomes Methods and Protocols 1st Edition Marisa

S. Otegui (Eds.)

https://ebookfinal.com/download/plant-endosomes-methods-and-
protocols-1st-edition-marisa-s-otegui-eds/

ebookfinal.com
Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context 2nd Edition Marisa
Marthari Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew, Michael J. Boyd
ISBN(s): 9781785701986, 1785701983
Edition: 2
File Details: PDF, 20.82 MB
Year: 2017
Language: english
EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE I N CONTEXT
Early Cycladic Sculpture
in Context

Edited by

Marisa Marthari
Colin Renfrew
Michael J. Boyd

Oxford & Philadelphia

Published in the United Kingdom in 2017 by
OXBOW BOOKS
The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JE
and in the United States by
OXBOW BOOKS
1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083

© Oxbow Books and the authors 2017

Hardcover Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-195-5

Digital Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-196-2

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Marthari, Marisa, editor. | Renfrew, Colin, 1937- editor. | Boyd, Michael J., editor.
Title: Early Cycladic sculpture in context / edited by Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew,
Michael Boyd.
Description: Philadelphia : Oxbow, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016026849 (print) | LCCN 2016026918 (ebook) |
ISBN 9781785701955 (hardback) | ISBN 9781785701962 (epub) |
ISBN 9781785701979 (mobi) | ISBN 9781785701986 ( pdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Sculpture, Cycladic. | Excavations
(Archaeology)--Greece--Kyklades. | Kyklades (Greece)--Antiquities. |
Greece--Antiquities.
Classification: LCC NB130.C78 E28 2016 (print) | LCC NB130.C78 (ebook) |
DDC 733/.30938--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016026849

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in
writing.

Typeset in the UK by Frabjous Books

Printed in Malta by Gutenberg Press

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:

UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Oxbow Books Oxbow Books
Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449 Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
www.oxbowbooks.com www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group

Front cover: Grave XI at Chalandriani, Syros, with detail of figure SM1176. See chapter 20.
Back cover (from left to right): Seated figurine NM10674 from Kouphonisi; Seated figurine NM5468 from Aplomata; Head and torso of figure from
Phiondas, Naxos; Sculpture of the Grotta-Pelos culture; Marble canonical female folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
Spine: Canonical figure of the Spedos variety.
 CONTENTS

List of contributors ............................................................................................................................................................................. viii

Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................................................................................ix
List of figures ...........................................................................................................................................................................................x
List of colour plates ..............................................................................................................................................................................xv
List of tables ...........................................................................................................................................................................................xv
Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................................. xvii

1 Early Cycladic sculpture: issues of provenance, terminology and classification ................................................................1

Colin Renfrew
2. Early Cycladic sculptures as archaeological objects ...............................................................................................................13
Marisa Marthari

Origins: the Neolithic settlements

3 The sculptures of Neolithic Saliagos .........................................................................................................................................23
Colin Renfrew
4 Figurines from the Late Neolithic settlement of Ftelia, Mykonos ......................................................................................30
Adamantios Sampson & Vagia Mastrogiannopoulou
5 Figurines from Strofilas, Andros ................................................................................................................................................39
Christina A. Televantou

The early phase

6 Figurines from Akrotiri, Naxos and Plastiras, Paros...............................................................................................................53
Christos Doumas
7 Schematic marble figurines from secure Early Cycladic I grave contexts on the islands of Ano Kouphonisi,
Antiparos, Dhespotiko, Naxos, Paros and Siphnos..................................................................................................................65
Jörg Rambach
8 A schematic figurine of shell from Mersinia on Kythnos......................................................................................................88
Theodora Papangelopoulou

The Early Cycladic II and III settlements

9 The Cycladic marble figurines from EBII Ayia Irini, Kea: evidence for ritual deposition in domestic contexts .........93
David Wilson
vi CONTENTS

10 A fragment of an Early Cycladic figurine from the prehistoric settlement at Plakalona on Seriphos .......................103
Peggy Pantou
11 Sculptures from Akrotiraki, Siphnos and its cemetery........................................................................................................107
Zozi D. Papadopoulou
12 Cycladic figurines in settlements: the case of the major EC II settlement at Skarkos on Ios .......................................119
Marisa Marthari
Appendix: non-invasive examination of marble figurines from Skarkos on Ios, Yannis Maniatis
13 The figurines from the settlement at Dhaskalio ...................................................................................................................165
Colin Renfrew
14 Figurines from Potamia on Epano Kouphonisi (Pandelis Tsavaris property) ..................................................................171
Olga Philaniotou

The Early Cycladic II cemeteries

15 The cemetery at Aplomata on Naxos ......................................................................................................................................183
Christos Doumas & Vassilis Lambrinoudakis
Appendix: pottery from the cemetery of Aplomata, Naxos, Olga Philaniotou
16 Sculptures from Phiondas, Naxos ............................................................................................................................................219
Irini Legaki
17 Sculptures from Aghioi Anargyroi and Avdeli, Naxos..........................................................................................................255
Christos Doumas
18 Figurines from the cemetery of Tsikniades, Naxos ..............................................................................................................263
Olga Philaniotou
19 Marble figurines from sites on Epano and Kato Kouphonisi ..............................................................................................272
Giorgos Gavalas
20 Figurines in context at the Chalandriani cemetery on Syros .............................................................................................297
Marisa Marthari
Appendix: non-invasive examination of marble objects from Chalandriani, Syros, Yannis Maniatis
21 The Early Cycladic figurines from the excavations of Clon Stephanos on Syros and a note on his work
on Naxos: towards context ........................................................................................................................................................310
Lena Papazoglou-Manioudaki
Appendix: optical examination of fourteen Cycladic figurines from Syros, Dimitris Tambakopoulos
& Yannis Maniatis

The sanctuary (the special deposits) at Kavos, Keros

22 The complete canonical sculpture of Spedos variety from Dhaskalio Kavos on Keros ..................................................335
Photeini Zapheiropoulou
23 Selected sculptural fragments from the Special Deposit North at Kavos on Keros ........................................................345
Peggy Sotirakopoulou, Colin Renfrew & Michael J. Boyd
24 The figurine fragments recovered from the Special Deposit North at Kavos in 1987 ....................................................369
Colin Renfrew
25 The stone vessels found at Dhaskalio Kavos in 1987 ............................................................................................................373
Giorgos Gavalas
 CONTENTS vii

26 Selected sculptural fragments from the Special Deposit South at Kavos on Keros ........................................................379
Colin Renfrew & Michael J. Boyd
27 Marble and other spools from the excavations at Dhaskalio and the Special Deposit South at Kavos, Keros
(2006–2008), and related Cycladic finds..................................................................................................................................395
Judit Haas-Lebegyev

Sites with Early Cycladic sculptures in later deposits

28 Recontextualised Neolithic and Early Cycladic figurines at the acropolis of Koukounaries, Paros.............................409
Stella Katsarou & Demetrius U. Schilardi
29 Early Cycladic figurines in later contexts at Ayia Irini, Kea ...............................................................................................421
Carol R. Hershenson & John C. Overbeck
30 The marble sculptures from Phylakopi on Melos .................................................................................................................436
Colin Renfrew & Michael J. Boyd
31 Early Cycladic sculptures from the settlement at Akrotiri, Thera.....................................................................................446
Christos Doumas
32 Terracotta figurines from Mikre Vigla, Naxos.......................................................................................................................455
R.L.N. Barber

Material, technique & manufacture

33 The marble of the Cyclades and its use in the early Βronze Αge ......................................................................................467
Dimitris Tambakopoulos & Yannis Maniatis
34 An experimental approach to the manufacture of Cycladic-type figurines with folded arms:
preliminary observations ..........................................................................................................................................................483
Yiannis Papadatos & Epaminondas Venieris
35 Examining the paint on Cycladic figurines ............................................................................................................................491
Kiki Birtacha

Index .....................................................................................................................................................................................................503
Colour plates ........................................................................................................................................................................................509
 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

R.L.N. BARBER YANNIS MANIATIS JÖRG RAMBACH

University of Edinburgh NCSR ‘Demokritos’ Austrian Academy of Sciences
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

KIKI BIRTACHA MARISA MARTHARI COLIN RENFREW

Peristeri, Athens Ephor Emerita of Antiquities University of Cambridge
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MICHAEL J. BOYD VAGIA MASTROGIANNOPOULOU ADAMANTIOS SAMPSON

University of Cambridge Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica University of the Aegean
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CHRISTOS DOUMAS JOHN C. OVERBECK DEMETRIUS U. SCHILARDI

University of Athens University at Albany Ephor Emeritus of Antiquities
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

GIORGOS GAVALAS PEGGY PANTOU PEGGY SOTIRAKOPOULOU

Cambridge Keros Project Ephorate of Antiquities for the Independent researcher
[email protected] Cyclades [email protected] [email protected]

JUDIT HAAS-LEBEGYEV YIANNIS PAPADATOS DIMITRIS TAMBAKOPOULOS

Cambridge Keros Project University of Athens NCSR ‘Demokritos’
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CAROL R. HERSHENSON ZOZI D. PAPADOPOULOU CHRISTINA A. TELEVANTOU

University of Cincinnati Ephorate of Antiquities for the Strofilas Excavations
[email protected] Cyclades [email protected] [email protected]

STELLA KATSAROU DORA PAPANGELOPOULOU EPAMINONDAS VENIERIS

Ephorate of Paleoanthropology and Ephorate of Antiquities for the Tsikalaria, Chania
Speleology Cyclades [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
LENA PAPAZOGLOU-MANIOUDAKI DAVID WILSON
VASSILIS LAMBRINOUDAKIS Keeper Emerita of the Prehistoric University of Western Ontario
University of Athens Collection of the National [email protected]
[email protected] Archaeological Museum
[email protected] PHOTEINI ZAPHEIROPOULOU
IRINI LEGAKI Ephor Emerita of Antiquities
Ephorate of Antiquities for the OLGA PHILANIOTOU Nea Philadelphia, Athens
Cyclades Ephor Emerita of Antiquities
[email protected] [email protected]
 ABBREVIATIONS

cat. no. catalogue number L. length

cm centimetre LN Late Neolithic
CM Chora Museum (Kea) m metre
D. diameter MAP Apeiranthos Museum
EAM National Archaeological Museum, Athens mm millimetre
EC Early Cycladic NM Naxos Museum
FN Final Neolithic PM Paros Museum
g gram SM Syros Museum
H. height T. thickness
IM Ios Museum W. width
km kilometre Wt. weight
 LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 The development of Early Cycladic sculptures. 5.14 Clay figurine number 11.
1.2 The Cycladic Islands showing findspots of the ‘name 5.15 Plaka, rock-art representation of portrait of a deity or
pieces’ of different types, varieties and sub-varieties. sacred figure.
1.3 The two folded-arm figures excavated at Dokathismata 5.16 Plaka, pair of hands from the wrist, with ring-idol figurine
on Amorgos. and pebble-type figurine.
2.1 The site of Skarkos on Ios. 5.17 Plaka, rock-art representation of a possible Early Cycladic
2.2 Settlement sites referred to in the text where Early figurine.
Cycladic marble figurines have been found in secure Early 5.18 Plaka, head of the possible Early Cycladic figurine.
Cycladic contexts. 5.19 The development of Cycladic figurines from FN to ECI
2.3 Sites referred to in the text where Early Cycladic figurines period.
have been found in later deposits. 6.1 Early Cycladic cist-grave of type A
3.1 Plan of the excavations at Saliagos. 6.2 EC I cemetery at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.2 Torso of a terracotta figurine. 6.3 EC I cemetery at Plastiras, Paros
3.3 Anthropomorphic pendant of bone. 6.4 The context of grave 3 at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.4 Anthropomorphic pendant of stone. 6.5 The context of grave 21 at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.5 ‘The Fat Lady of Saliagos’. 6.6 The context of grave 9 at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.6 Marble head. 6.7 The context of grave 5 at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.7 Violin figurine of marble. 6.8 The context of grave 20 at Akrotiri, Naxos
3.8 Neck of schematic figurine. 6.9 The context of grave 9 at Plastiras, Paros
3.9 Schematic figurine. 6.10 Grave 3 at Akrotiri, Naxos, during excavation.
3.10 Anthropomorphic pebbles. 6.11 Plastiras, Paros, grave 9, during excavation
4.1 ‘The lady of Ftelia’. 7.1 Schematic figurines from Glypha, Panayia and Pyrgos on
4.2 Figurine fragment of type 1. Paros.
4.3 Figurine head of type 2. 7.2 Schematic figurines from Pyrgos on Paros.
4.4 Figurine head of type 3. 7.3 Schematic figurines from Krasades on Antiparos.
4.5 Figurine fragments of type 4. 7.4 Schematic figurines from Krasades on Antiparos and
4.6 Figurine of type 5. Livadhi on Dhespotiko.
4.7 Figurine of talc. 7.5 Schematic figurines from Livadhi and Zoumbaria on
4.8 Foot fragments of large figurines. Dhespotiko and Akrotiraki on Siphnos.
4.9 Foot fragment. 8.1 The island of Kythnos.
4.10 Foot fragment. 8.2 The grave at Mersinia.
4.11 Figurine fragment. 8.3 Shell figurine from Mersinia.
4.12 Head of a pig. 8.4 Shell figurine from Mersinia.
5.1 Ring idol figurine number 1. 9.1 SF-226.
5.2 Ring-idol figurine number 2. 9.2 SF-227.
5.3 Ring-idol figurine number 3. 9.3 SF-228.
5.4 Ring-idol figurine number 4. 9.4 SF-229.
5.5 Rock art representations of ring-idol motifs, Strofilas. 9.5 SF-230.
5.6 Rock art representations of ring-idol motifs, Strofilas. 9.6 Location of SF-227 beneath the early Period II Lower
5.7 Strophilas, rock-art representations, ring-idol figurine, Western Road.
and ‘frying-pan’ from Naxos. 9.7 Location of SF-226 in late Period II House E room 3.
5.8 Pebble-type figurine number 5. 9.8 Approximate locations of SF-228 – SF-230 beneath the
5.9 Multipartite figurine number 6. floors of late Period III House D.
5.10 Headless ‘violin’ figurine number 7. 10.1 Map of Seriphos.
5.11 Upper torso of ‘violin-like’ figurine number 8. 10.2 Physical setting of Plakalona.
5.12 Figurine head, number 9. 10.3 Excavation trench at Plakalona.
5.13 Figurine head, number 10. 10.4 Ceramic bowl from Plakalona.
 LIST OF FIGURES xi

10.5 Ceramic bowl from Plakalona. 13.2 Schematic figurines of marble and shell from Dhaskalio.
10.6 Copper slags and furnace fragments from Plakalona 13.3 Schematic figurines from Dhaskalio.
10.7 Figurine fragment from Plakalona 13.4 Schematic figurines from Dhaskalio.
11.1 Siphnos: Platy Yialos and Lazarou. 14.1 Naxos and the Small Cyclades
11.2 Akrotiraki, graves 1 and 2. 14.2 Pandelis Tsavaris plot and Agios Nikolaos chapel from the
11.3 Pebble figurine. east
11.4 Possible Louros figurine. 14.3 Pandelis Tsavaris plot from the west.
11.5 Head of Apeiranthos figurine. 14.4 The eroded southwest part of the peninsula.
11.6 Folded-arm figurine. 14.5 The southwest sector of Pandelis Tsavaris’ property:
11.7 Detail of figurine. settlement remains.
11.8 Schematic, violin-type figurine. 14.6 Excavation plan of northern sector.
11.9 Schematic, violin-type figurine. 14.7 Hat-shaped vessels in situ.
11.10 Trenches K 5 and I 4. 14.8 ‘Brazier’ from the large deposit.
11.11 Metallurgical finds and talc-ware pottery from Akrotiraki. 14.9 Seated figurine
11.12 Schematic figurine of pebble type. 14.10 Seated figurine
11.13 Head of figurine of Louros type. 14.11 Schematic figurine
11.14 Head of Apeiranthos type figurine. 14.12 Left leg fragment of folded-arm figurine
11.15 Neck of figurine. 14.13 ‘Thighs’ of figurine
11.16 Part of a figurine of undetermined type. 14.14 Headless schematic figurine
11.17 Traces of metal-working at Vouni on Antiparos. 14.15 Figurine of the Spedos variety
11.18 Remains of cist-graves and entrances of metallurgical 14.16 Figurine of the Spedos variety
galleries at Krassades, Antiparos. 14.17 Detail of figurine of the Spedos variety
12.1 Contour plan of Skarkos hill showing the excavated 14.18 Head of folded-arm figurine
settlement. 14.19 Fragment of head of folded-arm figurine
12.2 The northeastern part of Skarkos settlement and the 14.20 Head of folded-arm figurine
Building of the Figurines. 15.1 Plan of the cemetery at Aplomata, Naxos, with graves of
12.3 Finds from Skarkos Phase I. all periods.
12.4 Plan of the Building of the Figurines showing figurine 15.2 Plan of the EC II cemetery at Aplomata, Naxos.
findspots. 15.3 The context of grave 4 at Aplomata, Naxos.
12.5 Sections of the Building of the Figurines showing strati- 15.4 The context of grave 13 at Aplomata, Naxos.
graphy and findspots of figurines. 15.5 The context of grave 19 at Aplomata, Naxos.
12.6 Building of the Figurines, figurines in situ. 15.6 The context of grave 23 at Aplomata, Naxos.
12.7 Pottery from the Building of the Figurines. 15.7 The context of grave 27 at Aplomata, Naxos.
12.8 Marble vessels from the Building of the Figurines. 15.8 Head of folded-arm figurine of Kapsala variety from
12.9 Complete and unfinished marble vases from the settlement Aplomata grave 4.
at Skarkos. 15.9 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.10 Obsidian and stone tools. grave 4.
12.11 Spools and stone tool. 15.10 Precanonical figurine from Aplomata grave 13.
12.12 Bone tube, lumps of mineral pigments and oblong pierced 15.11 Folded-arm figurine of Kapsala variety from Aplomata
objects. grave 13.
12.13 Figurines from Skarkos settlement. 15.12 Folded-arm figurine of Kapsala variety from Aplomata
12.14 Schematic figurines with indications of paint, and folded- grave 13.
arm figurines of Chalandriani variety. 15.13 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.15 Heads of folded-arm figurines of Chalandriani variety, and grave 13.
schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 1. 15.14 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.16 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 1. grave 13.
12.17 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 2. 15.15 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.18 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 2. grave 13.
12.19 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 2. 15.16 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.20 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 3. grave 13.
12.21 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 4. 15.17 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
12.22 Schematic figurines of Apeiranthos type, form 4. grave 13.
12.23 Schematic figurines of the Apeiranthos type, irregular 15.18 Seated figurine from Aplomata grave 13.
forms. 15.19 Seated figurine from Aplomata Grave 13.
12.24 Schematic figurines of the Apeiranthos type, irregular 15.20 Seated figurine from Aplomata Grave 13.
forms. 15.21 Seated figurine from Aplomata Grave 13.
12.25 Schematic figurines, irregular Apeiranthos type, and other 15.22 Figurine of shell.
forms. 15.23 Figurine of shell.
13.1 Plan of the settlement at Dhaskalio, showing findspots of 15.24 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata
schematic figurines. grave 19.
xii LIST OF FIGURES

15.25 Seated marble figurine from Aplomata grave 23. 19.2 Plaquette with a relief figure.
15.26 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata 19.3 Head of a figurine of Louros type.
grave 27. 19.4 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
15.27 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata 19.5 Detail of head, showing paint ghosts.
grave 27. 19.6 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
15.28 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Aplomata 19.7 Detail of head, showing paint ghost.
grave 27. 19.8 Head of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
15.29 Fragmentary double figurine from Aplomata grave 27. 19.9 Detail of head, showing paint ghosts.
16.1 Location of Phiondas on Naxos. 19.10 Neck of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
16.2 Naxos Museum. Showcase with the Phiondas figurines. 19.11 Neck and upper torso of folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.3 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. variety.
16.4 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 19.12 Detail of neck and torso, showing paint ghosts.
16.5 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 19.13 Neck and upper torso of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.6 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. variety.
16.7 Comparison of NM166, NM167 and NM170, reclining. 19.14 Detail of neck and torso, showing paint ghosts.
16.8 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 19.15 Lower torso and thighs of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.9 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. variety.
16.10 Detail of head. 19.16 Lower torso and thighs of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.11 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. variety.
16.12 Striations on the crown of the head and underside of feet. 19.17 Thighs of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
16.13 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 19.18 Thighs of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
16.14 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 19.19 Thighs and calves of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.15 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. variety.
16.16 Details of NM171. 19.20 Knees and calves of folded-arm figurine of Spedos
16.17 Folded-arm figurine of Kapsala or Spedos variety. variety.
16.18 Details of NM172. 19.21 Calf of a folded-arm figurine of the Spedos variety.
16.19 Kontoleon’s draft of a letter to the Department of 19.22 Calf and foot of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
Antiquities. 19.23 Thigh and calf of a figurine.
16.20 Naxos Museum catalogue entries for Phiondas material. 19.24 Head and neck of a schematic figurine.
16.21 Clay pyxis with note inside. 19.25 Headless folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety.
16.22 Phiondas. The location of the cist grave. 19.26 Epano Kouphonisi, Alonistria Chousouri, rock pit 5.
16.23 Clay pyxis with paper with toponym ‘Phiondas’ written 20.1 Chalandriani cemetery, Western Sector, the Potamia ravine
on it. and the Kastri height.
17.1 EC II cemetery at Aghioi Anargyroi, Naxos 20.2 Chalandriani cemetery, part of recently excavated cluster
17.2 EC II cist-grave of type B with corbelled grave XI.
17.3 EC II cemetery at Avdeli, Naxos 20.3 Chalandriani cemetery, grave XI with the skeleton of the
17.4 EC II grave of type E dead and the grave goods.
17.5 The context of grave 21 at Aghioi Anargyroi, Naxos 20.4 Chalandriani cemetery, plan of grave XI with the skeleton
17.6 The context of grave 1 at Avdeli, Naxos of the dead and grave goods.
18.1 The cemetery from the west 20.5 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from grave 345,
18.2 Schematic figurine from grave 5. Chalandriani.
18.3 Marble shallow bowl, rectangular palette and clay pyxis 20.6 Folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety from grave
from grave 5. 447, Chalandriani.
18.4 Schematic figurine. 20.7 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos type from grave 415,
18.5 Torso of Louros type figurine. Chalandriani.
18.6 Grave 17: stone heap, figurines in situ, spatial relationship 20.8 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos type from grave 468,
between the figurines, and possible original position of Chalandriani.
figurines in grave 17. 20.9 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos type from near grave
18.7 Schematic figurine. II at Chalandriani.
18.8 Head of schematic figurine. 20.10 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Chalandriani
18.9 Schematic figurine, with bead. grave XI.
18.10 Grave 113. Schematic figurine, covered by clay pyxis. 20.11 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Chalandriani
18.11 Pre-canonical figurine. grave XI.
18.12 Grave 121 with figurine 20.12 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety from Chalandriani
18.13 Folded arm figurine. grave XI.
18.14 Head of Louros type figurine. 20.13 Ceramic frying pan from Chalandriani, grave XI.
18.15 Schematic figurine. 20.14 Ceramic footed jar from Chalandriani, grave XI.
18.16 Fragment of schematic figurine. 20.15 Bone pin with a head in the shape of a naturalistic figurine
19.1 Map of the Kouphonisia and the location of the areas from Chalandriani grave VII.
investigated in 1969 and 1970. 20.16 Bowls from Chalandirani cemetery.
 LIST OF FIGURES xiii

21.1 Clon Stephanos in 1912 22.7 (fold-out). NM4181.

21.2 Sauceboat from Chalandriani. 22.8 NM4181.
21.3 Drawing of a Cycladic figurine amidst Greek and Roman 22.9 Detail of head and possible paint ghosts.
inscriptions 22.10 Detail of back of head and possible paint ghosts.
21.4 Folded-arm figurine of Dokathismata variety. Not to scale.
21.5 Folded-arm figurine of Dokathismata variety. 22.11 Possible paint ghosts.
21.6 Folded-arm figurine of late Spedos variety. 23.1 Leg of folded-arm figure of Spedos or Kapsala variety.
21.7 Folded-arm figurine of late Spedos variety. 23.2 Upper and lower legs of folded-arm figure of Spedos
21.8 Folded-arm figurine of late Spedos variety. variety.
21.9 Hybrid figurine. 23.3 Foot of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
21.10 Folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety. 23.4 Left leg of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
21.11 Folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety. 23.5 Lower torso, waist, pelvis and upper legs of Spedos variety.
21.12 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.6 Feet and lower legs of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
21.13 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.7 Left foot of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
21.14 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.8 Upper torso of a folded arm figure of the Spedos variety.
21.15 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.9 Right foot of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
21.16 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.10 Examples of the Akrotiri sub-variety.
21.17 Schematic figurine of Apeiranthos variety. 23.11 Torso, waist, pelvis and upper legs of Akrotiri sub-variety
21.18 Possible schematic figurine. of Dokathismata variety.
21.19 Ceramic hollow figure of a hedgehog. 23.12 Torso, waist, pelvis and upper legs of Akrotiri sub-variety
21.20 Multiple pyxis. of Spedos variety.
21.21 Pedestalled triple sauceboat. 23.13 Outlines of torsos of the Goulandris Master.
21.22 Pedestalled cup. 23.14 Examples of the Kavos sub-variety.
21.23 Frying pan depicting ship. 23.15 Torso of the Kavos sub-variety of the Spedos variety.
21.24 Frying pan depicting ship. 23.16 Torso of the Kavos sub-variety of the Spedos variety.
21.25 Frying pan depicting ship. 23.17 Neck, torso and waist of figure of the Spedos variety.
21.26 Frying pan. 24.1 Heads and torsos of figurine fragments from the Special
21.27 Frying pan. Deposit North, 1987.
21.28 Frying pan. 24.2 Legs and feet of figurine fragments from the Special
21.29 Pedestalled jar. Deposit North, 1987.
21.30 Pedestalled jar. 24.3 Schematic figurine fragments from the Special Deposit
21.31 Pedestalled jar. North, 1987.
21.32 Sauceboat. 25.1 Distribution of marble bowl fragments in the 1987 survey
21.33 Footed cups. and excavations.
21.34 Beak spouted jug. 25.2 Finds from the Special Deposit North in 1987.
21.35 Black burnished ‘tea pot’. 26.1 Frequencies of preserved lengths of figurine fragments
21.36 Biconical jar. in the Special Deposit South.
21.37 Footed marble bowl. 26.2 Frequency of estimated original heights of folded-arm
21.38 Footed marble bowl. sculptures in the Special Deposit South.
21.39 Footed marble bowl. 26.3 Waist joining with pelvis and upper legs of folded arm
21.40 Lugged footed marble bowl. figure of Spedos variety.
21.41 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 26.4 Left upper leg of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety.
21.42 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 26.5 Part of head of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
21.43 Grave assemblage from Louros cemetery, grave 26. 26.6 Large left foot of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
21.44 Figurine of Louros type. 26.7 Large lower leg fragment of folded-arm figurine of Spedos
21.45 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety, pregnant, from variety.
Polichni, Naxos. 26.8 Left foot of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
21.46 The iron box containing the finds from Stephanos’ 26.9 Right arm and waist of large folded-arm figurine of Spedos
excavation. variety.
21.47 Tall pyxis from Pherendaki, Naxos. 26.10 Waist and top of pelvis of large folded-arm figurine of
21.48 Fragmentary pyxis with lid from Pherendaki, Naxos. Spedos variety.
21.49 Obsidian blades. 26.11 Neck (or possibly waist) of folded-arm figurine of Spedos
22.1 Excavation and recovery underway in 1967: the site seen variety.
from the northeast. 26.12 Examples of the Kea sub-variety.
22.2 Location of the two tombs, and main zone where broken 26.13 Torso and pelvis of the Kea sub-variety of the Chalandriani
marble artefacts were found. variety.
22.3 Stones possibly from a tomb of Syros type 26.14 Waist and pelvis of the Kea sub-variety of the Chalandriani
22.4 Ceramic collared jars from a burial. variety.
22.5 Figurine found between loose stones in 1967. 27.1 Findspots of spools on Dhaskalio.
22.6 Figurine upright, after discovery. 27.2 Spools made of marble and limestone from Dhaskalio.
xiv LIST OF FIGURES

27.3 Spools of Spondylus gaederopus and of lead from Dhaskalio. 30.14 Schematic figurine with incised arms.
27.4 A selection of stone spools from the Special Deposit South 31.1 Plan of the settlement at Akrotiri, Thera.
at Kavos. 31.2 Akrotiri, Thera. The ‘cenotaph’ area.
27.5 Complete and fragmented spools from the Special Deposit 31.3 Akrotiri, Thera. The cairn of the ‘cenotaph’.
South at Kavos. 31.4 Akrotiri, Thera. Figurines from the settlement area.
27.6 A selection of Spondylus spools from the Special Deposit 31.5 Folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety.
South at Kavos. 31.6 Figurine of Plastiras type.
27.7 Stone spools fragmented by sawing, Special Deposit South. 31.7 Figurine of Plastiras type.
27.8 Plan of the Special Deposit South with findspots of spools. 31.8 Figurine of Plastiras type.
28.1 Plan of the hill of Koukounaries, showing plateaux and 31.9 Figurine of Plastiras type.
terraces. 31.10 Head of figurine of Plastiras Type.
28.2 Plan of the Mycenaean Mansion, where the location of 31.11 Figurine of precanonical type.
figurines 1-4 is indicated. 31.12 Figurine of precanonical type.
28.3 Schematic figurine from the corridor. 31.13 Folded-arm figurine of Kapsala variety.
28.4 Clay figurine head. 31.14 Lower legs of folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety.
28.5 Precanonical figurine head. 31.15 Marble collared jar.
28.6 Folded-arm figurine head. 32.1 Map of Naxos
28.7 Folded-arm figurine pelvis and upper legs. 32.2 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: site from the southeast, and remains
28.8 Zoomorphic figurine head. of building on summit.
28.9 FN pendant figurine. 32.3 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: terracotta figurines.
28.10 Map of Trench 13, with indication of different levels and 32.4 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: terracotta figurines.
location of figurine. 32.5 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: terracotta figurines.
28.11 FN female pebble figurine. 32.6 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: terracotta figurines.
28.12 Plan of the Northeastern Building as revealed in 1991. 32.7 Mikre Vigla, Naxos: terracotta figurines.
29.1 Dates of contexts of marble figurines from A. Irini. 33.1 Overview of sampling in the Cyclades
29.2 Distribution of figurine fragments from post-EBA contexts 33.2 Simplified geological map of Keros.
at A. Irini. 33.3 Simplified geological map of Naxos.
29.3 Fragment of a folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety. 33.4 Simplified geological map of Ios.
29.4 Torso to knees of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 33.5 Simplified geological map of Syros.
29.5 Folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety. 33.6 Simplified geological map of Nikouria.
29.6 Waist to knees of pregnant folded-arm figurine. 33.7 Simplified geological map of Schinousa and Iraklia.
29.7 Torso to knees of folded-arm figurine of Kea sub-variety. 33.8 Simplified geological map of Paros.
29.8 Figurine fragment, possibly Plastiras-type. 33.9 Box plot diagrams of MGS in mm.
29.9 Lower legs of folded-arm figurine. 33.10 Mn2+ vs MGS on a logarithmic scale for figurine fragments
29.10 Leg of folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. from Keros and for marble outcrops in the Cyclades.
29.11 Head of folded-arm figurine of Chalandriani variety. 33.11 IRMS parameters for figurine fragments from Keros and
29.12 Head of folded-arm figurine. for marble outcrops in the Cyclades.
29.13 Head of folded-arm figurine. 33.12 Summary of provenance for figurine fragments from
29.14 Head of folded-arm figurine. Keros.
29.15 Head of folded-arm figurine. 33.13 Estimated marble provenance for figurine fragments from
29.16 Fragment of schematic figurine. Keros.
29.17 Body of schematic figurine. 33.14 Probable provenance of figurines from Skarkos.
29.18 Fragment of Phylakopi I-type figurine. 34.1 The finished products: figurines 1 and 2.
29.19 Fragment schematic figurine. 34.2 The finished products: figurines 1 and 2.
29.20 Fragment, perhaps of schematic figurine. 34.3 The finished products: figurines 1 and 2.
29.21 Fragment of schematic figurine. 34.4 A selection of emery tools used during the experiment.
29.22 Head of folded-arm figurine. 34.5 Figurine 1: outline, central axis and basic anatomical details.
30.1 Plan of Phylakopi showing findspots of figurines. 34.6 Figurine 1 after shaping by percussion.
30.2 Folded-arm figurine. 34.7 Figurine 2 during the phase of shaping by percussion.
30.3 Torso of a folded-arm figurine of Spedos variety. 34.8 Figurine 1: small marble fragment flaked off at the right
30.4 Head of folded-arm figure of Spedos variety. foot.
30.5 Head and neck of a folded arm figurine of the Chalandriani 34.9 Figurine 1: the original and the new central axes.
variety. 34.10 Figurine 1 during the phase of abrasion.
30.6 Head and neck of ‘pre-canonical’ or Plastiras type figure. 34.11 Figurine 1: the formation of the face.
30.7 Complete schematic figure of shouldered form. 34.12 Figurine 1: incision of the pubic triangle.
30.8 Schematic figurine with a long neck and modest shoulders. 35.1 MN4274.
30.9 Complete schematic figurine. 35.2 MN2234.
30.10 Schematic figurine of Phylakopi I type. 35.3 MN4137.
30.11 Schematic figurine of Phylakopi I type. 35.4 MN5460.
30.12 Schematic figurine of Phylakopi I type. 35.5 MN747.
30.13 Schematic figurine.
 LIST OF COLOUR PLATES

1 Sculptures of the Grotta-Pelos culture from Akrotiri and 9 Enthroned figure from Aplomata on Naxos.
Louros (L) on Naxos 10 Top: seated figure from Kouphonisi; bottom: view from
2 Canonical figures of the Kapsala variety from Aplomata above of enthroned figure from Aplomata.
on Naxos. 11 Seated figure from Aplomata on Naxos.
3 Canonical figures of the Spedos variety from Chalandriani 12 Large figure from the Special Deposit North at Kavos,
on Syros and Spedos on Naxos. Keros.
4 Canonical figure of the Dokathismata variety from 13 Top: head and shoulders of the large figure from the
Chalandriani. Special Deposit North, Keros; bottom: head and torso of
5 Canonical figure of the Dokathismata variety from figure from Phiondas, Naxos.
Chalandriani. 14 Figure from Phiondas, Naxos.
6 Canonical figures of the Chalandriani variety from Skarkos 15 Schematic figurines of the Keros-Syros culture from
on Ios (a, b), Kavos on Keros (c, d) and Chalandriani on Skarkos on Ios (top two rows), Chalandriani on Syros (next
Syros (e, f and g). row), and Dhaskalio, Keros (bottom row).
7 Large figure from the Special Deposit South at Kavos, 16 Sculptures in context from (top) Skarkos, Ios; (middle)
Keros. Dhaskalio, Keros; (bottom) Special Deposit South, Keros.
8 Enthroned figure from Aplomata on Naxos.

LIST OF TABLES

6.1 Stages of development of Early Cycladic society 7.4 Doumas’ excavations on Naxos.
6.2 Material from grave 3 at Akrotiri, Naxos. Associations of EC I schematic marble
6.3 Material from grave 21 at Akrotiri, Naxos. figurines in graves.
6.4 Material from grave 9 at Akrotiri, Naxos. 7.5 Philaniotou’s excavations on Naxos. Associations of EC
6.5 Material from grave 5 at Akrotiri, Naxos. I schematic marble figurines in graves.
6.6 Material from grave 20 at Akrotiri, Naxos. 9.1 Ayia Irini figurines in EBII contexts: concordance of
6.7 Material from grave 9 at Plastiras, Paros. Items marked publication, inventory, and Chora Museum numbers.
with an asterisk were stolen from the Paros Museum 9.2 Context and date of Ayia Irini figurines SF-226-230.
and have not yet been recovered. 12.1 Schematic figurines of the Apeiranthos type in context.
7.1 Tsountas’ excavations on Paros, Antiparos, Dhespotiko 12.2 Findspots of Skarkos figurines
and Siphnos: associations of EC I schematic marble 15.1 Material from grave 4 at Aplomata.
figurines in graves. 15.2 Material from ‘grave’ 13 at Aplomata.
7.2 Bent’s excavations on Antiparos. 15.3 Material from grave 19 at Aplomata.
Associations of EC I schematic marble 15.4 Material from grave 23 at Aplomata.
figurines in graves. 15.5 Material from grave 27 at Aplomata.
7.3 Stephanos’ excavations on Naxos. 17.1 Material from grave 21 at Aghioi Anargyroi.
Associations of EC I schematic marble 17.2 Material from grave 1 at Avdeli.
figurines in graves. 19.1 Kouphonisia: the Early Cycladic marble figurines.
xvi LIST OF TABLES

20.1 Numbers of figurines found in excavated graves at 30.1 The marble sculptures from Phylakopi: a synopsis.
Chalandriani by excavation. 31.1 Figurines found in the settlement.
21.1 Optical Examination results for the figurines. 31.2 Figurines found at the cenotaph.
25.1 Quantities of stone vessel and marble figurine fragments 34.1 Comparison of size and time of manufacture between
found in 1987. the figurines produced by Oustinoff (1984) and the
25.2 Materials and quantities of stone vessels found in 1987. present experiment.
29.1 Changing designations for the periods of occupation and 34.2 Changes in the size and weight of the figurines during
their pottery at A. Irini. the various phases of work.
29.2 Sub-phases of the local stratigraphic periods at A. Irini. 34.3 Duration of the different phases of work.
29.3 Concordance of A. Irini figurine numbers republished in 34.4 Amount of material removed in each phase of work.
the Keos volumes.
 PREFACE
Marisa Marthari, Colin Renfrew and Michael J. Boyd

The sculpture of the Early Bronze Age Cyclades has been Society on 25 and 26 May 2015, will soon follow under the
systematically studied since the time of Christos Tsountas title ‘Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context from beyond the
at the end of the 19th century. But that study has been Cyclades’. Relevant finds from Crete were presented at the
hampered by the circumstance that so many of the symposium ‘Cycladica in Crete: Cycladic and Cycladicizing
subsequent finds come from unauthorised excavations, figurines within their archaeological context’, held in
where the archaeological context was irretrievably lost. Athens on 1–2 October 2015, organised by Nicholas
Largely for that reason there are still many problems Stampolidis and Peggy Sotirakopoulou.
surrounding the chronology, the function and the meaning The editors would like to express their thanks to
of Early Cycladic sculpture. the Secretary General of the Archaeological Society at
This volume sets out to rectify that situation by pub- Athens, Dr Vassileios Petrakos, for making the rooms of
lishing finds which have been recovered in controlled the Society available for the meeting, and to Mrs Dora
excavations in recent years, as well as earlier finds for Vassilikou, member of the Board of the Society, for much
which better documentation can now be provided. Using valued assistance. We also thank the participants for
the material from recent excavation projects, and drawing their valuable contributions. We are very grateful to the
on the papers presented at the symposium held at the Leverhulme Trust and the John Templeton Foundation for
Archaeological Society in Athens from 27–29 May 2014, generous financial assistance for the symposium and its
it is possible now to undertake a fresh overview of the publication. We are grateful also to Doug Faulmann and
entire body of sculpture from the Cycladic islands which to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory for assistance and
has been found in secure archaeological contexts. That is support with the drawing of the sculptures, and to Dieter
the purpose of the present volume. Depnering for photography.
It is hoped that the comparable material from Mainland Note that in general the sculptures are systematically
Greece and the North and East Aegean, presented at a illustrated here at a scale of 1:2.
symposium which we organised at the Archaeological
 1

EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF

PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION
Colin Renfrew

‘Ὅπως δὲ τὰ δύο εἰδώλια τοῦ τάφου 14 ὁμοιάζουσιν ἀλλήλοις καὶ φαίνονται ἔργα τῆς αὐτῆς
χειρός…’. (Tsountas 1898, 195).

‘The two figurines from grave 14 are similar to one another and appear to have been the works
of a single artisan’

ethical publication policy, such as the American Journal of

Cycladic sculpture ‘in context’ Archaeology whose website (accessed 22/12/2013) states:
The title for this volume indicates its underlying aspiration, In keeping with the 2004 policy of the AIA, the AJA will not
that the archaeology of the Early Cyclades should be accept any article that serves as the primary publication of
firmly founded upon discoveries made in the context of any object or archaeological material in a private or public
archaeological excavations, authorised by the competent collection after 30 December 1973 unless its existence is
authorities, undertaken by professional archaeologists, documented before that date or it was legally exported from
and published by them in adequate detail. Those are the the country of origin. An exception may be made if, in the view
standards to which the editors of this volume seek to aspire. of the Editor-in-Chief, the aim of the article is to emphasize
Finds lacking such well-documented (and published) the loss of archaeological context. Reviews of exhibitions,
context of discovery in the course of systematic archaeological catalogues, or publications that do not follow these guidelines
excavation are often termed ‘unprovenanced’. One relevant should state that the exhibition or publication in question
includes material without known archaeological findspot (see
factor is the risk that an unprovenanced piece is not an
Norman 2005, 135–6).
authentic Early Cycladic sculpture, but a modern imitation:
a forgery created to deceive, usually for commercial gain, For the present volume our ambition is to be yet more
in a transaction of the illicit trade in antiquities (Gill & careful, and in that sense more restrictive. We would prefer
Chippindale 1993; Renfrew 2000). To discourage the illicit to rely, so far as possible, exclusively upon finds from
trade, museums and public collections in many countries documented excavations, and will plan to make explicit
now avoid the acquisition – even by gift – of pieces which mention, with some accompanying rationale, when this
have first appeared on the market after 1970, the year self-imposed rule is breached. It should be noted, moreover,
of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting that forgeries of Early Cycladic sculptures were being
and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of produced well before 1970 (see Marthari 2001, 166; Craxton
Ownership of Cultural Property (Renfrew 2000, 93–102). A & Warren 2004), so that the UNESCO cut-off point of 1970
comparable convention determines the rules governing (or 1973 with the AJA) may be considered insufficiently
the publication of antiquities in journals which apply an restrictive for some research purposes.
2 COLIN RENFREW

The corpus of professionally excavated Early Cycladic Questions of terminology

sculptures, although expanding as the papers in this
volume document, is however somewhat limited in scale. For a volume on Early Cycladic sculptures which focuses
So it may be permissible to make reference to some early upon the context of their discovery in well-recorded
finds, documented indeed so early that their authenticity excavations, it may be appropriate to turn again to some
may be considered reasonably reliable, even though they issues of terminology. While some of these might at first
are not from secure contexts. It may be suggested that most seem somewhat pedantic, it transpires that the only secure
pieces published before the First World War (1914–1918) way of achieving a systematic analysis of this material is to
are likely to be genuine, although the possibility of the treat carefully the associations with other artefacts found
forgery of Early Cycladic sculptures for commercial gain during excavation, and with the locations and contexts
before that date certainly merits further consideration (see of discovery. A cautious and systematic approach may
Sherratt 2000, 163–4 for a doubtful piece acquired by the open the way towards a valid consideration of the work
Ashmolean Museum in 1898). There is room for further of individual craft workers or sculptors.
research there which now needs to be undertaken. The study of Early Cycladic sculpture leads on to a series
While the authenticity of finds published or documented of questions involving craftsmanship, craft production,
prior to 1914 may provisionally be considered likely, the iconography, ritual, communal action, and aesthetics. How
accompanying information as to their context is not (other far the dominant forms, notably the canonical folded-arm
than from well documented excavations such as those of figure, had a predominantly social significance, and how
Tsountas (1898; 1899) and Stephanos (1903; 1904; 1905; far they had a religious meaning are matters for discussion
1906; 1908; 1909; 1910; see Papathanasopoulos 1962). In a (see Höckmann 1977; Renfrew 2013a). That many were
recent article Galanakis (2013) has noted that some of the buried in the Early Cycladic cemeteries is relevant to the
most notable Early Cycladic antiquities in public collections understanding of their function. That many more ended
acquired in the last decades of the nineteenth century were up in fragmentary condition in the two ‘special deposits’
all purchased from the single dealer Ioannis Palaiologos of found at Kavos on Keros is indicative of ritual practices
Amorgos. These include the celebrated flautist and harpist which prevailed for several centuries in the early bronze
‘from Keros’, and the tall (1.53m) figure and the large head age. Those found in fragmentary condition in or near
(EAM3909) both ‘from Amorgos’ in the National Museum in burials may also have been broken deliberately in the
Athens, and the large head with painted decoration in the practice of ritual. The same could be argued for finds in
National Museum in Copenhagen (inv. no. 4697: Renfrew settlements, which are usually fragmentary. Yet still we lack
1969, pl. 8a). This need not call the authenticity of these much understanding of the production of these sculptures
finds into serious question: they were the precursors of or of the marble vessels which often accompanied them.
better documented and better contextualised discoveries The work of Tambakopoulos & Maniatis (in press; this
with resemblances of detail difficult to explain otherwise. volume, Chapter 33) on the marble from which they were
But it brings into question their places and circumstances made leads to the conclusion that many of them were
of discovery. Galanakis (2013, 195–6) suggests that the produced on the island of Naxos. But no workshops for
ascription ‘from Amorgos’ to some of them might possibly their production have yet been discovered.
include the nearby Mikres Kyklades, including the island of Already it was possible 45 years ago to establish the
Keros itself. That possibility cannot at present be excluded. outlines of the development of Early Cycladic sculpture
But a broader and related conclusion is also disquieting: not (Renfrew 1969) within the context of successive cultural
a single large Early Cycladic sculpture, in any collection, phases and to distinguish a number of varieties of the
public or private, of total height greater than 587mm (that canonical folded-arm type (Fig. 1.1). That classification
of the largest find by Stephanos in Grave 10 at Spedos in seems largely to have stood the test of time, as will briefly
Naxos (Stéphanos 1905, 221, top fig.; Papathanasopoulos be reviewed below.
1962, pl. 46α), other than those fragmentary pieces from In 1987, in her major work Sculptors of the Cyclades, Pat
Kavos on Keros cited in this volume, comes from a secure Getz-Preziosi (1987a), utilising that existing classificatory
and documented context. system of types and varieties, set out to go further and to
Although ideally it would be preferable to restrict establish more detailed categories, or sub-varieties, among
the discussion entirely to pieces with an excavation the already recognised varieties of the canonical folded-
context, the pioneering research of Pat Getz-Preziosi arm figure type. These newly-recognised groups of closely
(1987a), writing later as Getz-Gentle (2001), despite the similar sculptures she sought to identify as the work of
accompanying ethical and terminological issues noted individual sculptors or ‘Masters’. These she named in each
below, raises important research problems which remain case after the museum or owner of the private collection
to be addressed. in which a typical product of the work of the specific
1. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION 3

Fig. 1.1 The development of the Early Cycladic sculptures, showing principal types and varieties.
4 Colin Renfrew

sculptor – the ‘name piece’ – was at that time located. In two encouraged the ongoing looting of ancient sites with
cases (Kontoleon and Doumas) they were named after the the consequential loss of archaeological context of the
excavator of the ‘name-piece’. This procedure of naming resulting finds. My own work, The Cycladic Spirit (Renfrew
‘Masters’ after collectors (e.g. ‘Schuster Master’, ‘Stafford 1991), published around that time, did also illustrate
Master’) gave rise to considerable debate and to several many unprovenanced pieces, and was criticised for the
objections (Cherry 1992; Morris 1993; Gill & Chippindale same reason (Broodbank 1992; Gill & Chippindale 1993).
1993). These will be addressed briefly below. However, I now agree that such publication tends to legitimise and
in the course of that debate her success in recognising therefore encourage the illicit traffic (see Renfrew 2000).
closely similar pieces and in proposing a more detailed The consequences of this traffic, both the ongoing looting
classification of the sculptures than had hitherto been and the circumstance that many sculptures acquired by
achieved was sometimes overlooked. collectors and museums from that market have been
Here an attempt will be made first to identify and accompanied by forgeries, is inescapable, and raises
isolate the less satisfactory elements of the procedures difficult questions of authenticity, which are addressed
used by Getz-Preziosi (subsequently writing as Getz-Gentle) below.
and then to focus on the positive and fresh new insights The critique on terminology in those early critical
which her work has offered. For while the reliance on papers, however, was sometimes not clearly separated
unprovenanced pieces (lacking any archaeological context) from that on interpretation. To claim that the work of
may not be procedurally sound, and the recognition of the individual sculptors was being recognised was a bold and
‘hands’ of individual sculptors may be open to question, her interesting claim. To name these alleged master-sculptors
recognition that a more detailed systematic classification after individual ‘name pieces’ in private collections,
may be possible than the division into types and varieties designating the name piece (and the sculptor) by the name
established in 1969 is of considerable interest. For while the of the collector seemed particularly questionable on at
more detailed typology which emerges might be dismissed least two grounds, one interpretive, one procedural and
as mere ‘connoisseurship’, underlying it (if it indeed proves ethical. First, were these groups of closely similar figures
viable) there must in reality have been social conditions – really the work of a single sculptor? Secondly, to name these
traditions, workshops – whose elucidation would be of real after private collections was perhaps inappropriate, paying
significance for the understanding of Early Cycladic society. undue respect to rich collectors who by their purchases of
What follows is intended as an introductory review of unprovenanced pieces were fuelling the looting process.
these general problems. It is hoped to use the insights And third, to name these groups (sub-varieties) on the
originally offered by Getz-Preziosi, combined with a basis of ownership rather than place of discovery was to
different (and perhaps more acceptable) system of lose sight of the archaeological context.
classification and nomenclature for closely similar In what follows I shall seek to address these issues. I shall
sculptures, to establish a series of categories (here termed argue that these sub-varieties, or ‘microstyles’ of form as
‘sub-varieties’) at this more detailed level. The hope must be Morris (1993) might conveniently term them, are perhaps
that future work in the field, in Naxos and in other islands, best regarded as the work of ‘traditions’ or ‘workshops’
will give a more direct insight into the customs and social rather than as the work of identifiable individual sculptors.
conditions underlying the production of these sculptures It will be argued that wherever possible they should be
of which these sub-varieties were the direct result. named after the place of discovery of the ‘name piece’.
And I shall argue first that pieces of doubtful provenance
should first be excluded from the discussion, since they
Beyond the ‘connoisseurship’ critique risk introducing considerable confusion to it.

The early criticisms of the classification by Getz-Preziosi

(1987a) of the Early Cycladic sculptures into works Problems of authenticity
identifiably as by the hands of named ‘Masters’ or ‘sculptors’ To work with antiquities which, lacking secure context
were based on several objections – on ‘connoisseurship’, of association, are ‘unprovenanced’ in this way, as with
on the selection of material and accompanying doubts nearly every piece in a volume published in the same
over authenticity, on terminology, and on interpretation. year (Getz-Preziosi 1987b) carries with it the risk of
The critique on connoisseurship, notably by Gill & using spurious pieces, which may seriously mislead the
Chippindale (1993) deprecated the treatment of these scholar. An example of such a misfortune is offered by
sculptures as works of art on the grounds that this led the designation by Getz-Preziosi (1987a, 123–6) of one
directly to their attaining a high commercial value on Early Cycladic ‘sculptor’ as ‘The Stafford Master’ on the
the market for illicit antiquities. In consequence this basis of a figurine then in the collection of a Mr and Mrs
 1. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION 5

Frederick Stafford. This ‘name piece’ (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, recognised as characteristic of his personal style (e.g. ‘the
230–1, no. 72) was later recognised by her as a forgery. She Elbows Out Painter’).
wrote (Getz-Gentle 2001, 104): ‘It has become necessary Although she does not make explicit reference to the
to delete from this Chalandriani variety sculptor’s list of work of Beazley, this is very much the system followed by
works as many as four complete pieces I had previously Getz-Preziosi (1987a, 69–130 and 155–64) in ‘isolating the
ascribed to him including his name piece because I have individual hand’, offering ‘checklists of figures attributed
come to regard them as forgeries’. She went on to re-name to sixteen sculptors’. These ‘Masters’ are sometimes named
the artist as ‘the Louvre Sculptor’. The Stafford Master fake by her after the excavator (e.g. Doumas; Kontoleon) of a
was first published in 1954; the Louvre piece was acquired characteristic ‘name-piece’ of a stylistically close group of
in 1913. Her new list in 2001 (169–70) of the works of the sculptures. Sometimes they are designated by the name
‘Louvre Sculptor’ contains eight supposedly authentic of the museum (e.g. Metropolitan; Athens; Ashmolean)
pieces, including the Louvre ‘name piece’ acquired in or collector (e.g. Bastis; Steiner) curating the selected
1913. Only two of these, both from Keros, have a published example, designated the ‘name piece’, from the relevant
‘provenance’, being recovered by archaeologists in well- list. Later (Getz-Gentle 2001) she preferred to use the term
published circumstances, further considered below. The ‘Sculptor’ rather than ‘Master’ for the notional maker
Louvre example, in view of its discovery before the First associated with each list of closely similar pieces. The
World War, might also be considered as likely to be genuine. number of named sculptors was then increased to 20.
The other five have no such warranty. Critics (Cherry 1992; Gill & Chippindale) have focussed
This unfortunate episode highlights the risks involved mainly on the attempt by Getz-Gentle to identify the work
in using unprovenanced pieces when undertaking scholarly of the hands of individual masters or sculptors. Here I
work. As discussed further below it seems poor practice agree with them that it is difficult to establish whether,
to designate sculptors or individual pieces after collectors when two pieces are closely similar, this is because they
or museums which have acquired them after 1914 – that have been made by the same sculptor, or because one
is to say in the past century. It underlines the point made worker has closely copied the work of another. That is
by Gill and Chippindale (1993), although I would argue, in why I would prefer the term ‘tradition’ – implying that the
apparent contradiction of their view, that to disregard finds form of one piece has influenced the form of another – or
already documented prior to 1914 risks excluding much ‘workshop’, implying that the makers were in some way
potentially useful and validly usable material. associated. Until excavation gives more information about
the context of production of such sculptures we shall not
know whether there were indeed locations systematically
‘Individuals’ and ‘workshops’ used for the production of such sculptures which might
In the Aegean world much discussion of the work of properly be termed ‘workshops’. But for the moment this
individual artists or craftsmen refers first to the studies does seem a convenient model, carrying with it the notion
by Sir John Beazley culminating his Attic Red-figure Vase that craftspersons were sometimes working in association.
painters (Beazley 1942), Here he used his detailed study of The convenient term ‘microstyle group’ used by Morris
stylistic similarities, influenced, it is said, by the analysis (1993, 54) perhaps offers a more appropriate designation.
of Giovanni Morelli (1893) in his Italian Painters: Critical Within the terminology hitherto used (Renfrew 1969) and
Studies of their Works, to compile lists of Attic vases which he followed here for identifying ‘types’ and ‘varieties’, the
considered to be painted by the same ‘hand’. Here he was designation ‘sub-variety’ may be appropriate, if slightly
assisted by the circumstance that some Attic vase painters cumbersome, for this more closely defined category.
(as well as potters) did sometimes sign the vases that they Yet the positive point which arises here, going beyond
had painted. Where he had the evidence of a signature on the choice of an appropriate terminology, has not been
at least one of the vases on his list, Beazley felt he could sufficiently stressed. In most cases the lists offered by
assign all the items on it to the named painter. In other Getz-Preziosi really do group together sculptures which
cases, when no painter’s signature had been observed (e.g. are closely similar. She lists no fewer than 76 pieces
‘the Kleophrades Painter’) he was able to attach a name to which she assigns (Getz-Gentle 2001, 161–6) to ‘the
the group of stylistically similar paintings by naming the Goulandris sculptor’. That the system of nomenclature
potter who had signed (as potter) some vases painted by may not be entirely appropriate is not the main point
the still-anonymous vase painter. Quite often he used the here. More relevant is to ask how many of these mainly-
name of the museum curating a key example, the’ name- unprovenanced pieces can be considered authentic, and
piece’ of that painter’s work (e.g. ‘the Berlin Painter’). And then to consider why some of them are so closely similar.
on occasion the hypothetical painter thereby recognised For it is perfectly possible that some may be modern copies,
was designated by a characteristic and notable feature just as the forgery in the Stafford Collection, noted above,
6 COLIN RENFREW

turned out be to be a copy of a piece acquired by the Louvre in a specific workshop rather than as the handiwork of a
in 1913. It is indeed remarkable, and a depressing indicator single named sculptor. In questioning here the perhaps
of the scale of looting in recent years, that only four out rather romantic ascription of these works to the hands
of 76 in her list of sculptures assigned to the ‘Goulandris of individual named sculptors, one should nonetheless
Sculptor’ come from systematic archaeological excavations. acknowledge the positive insights arising from Getz-
But the circumstance that they do permits us to confirm Preziosi’s perceptive observations on these sub-varieties.
that at least some of these are authentic pieces, and there It is this point which I would seek to stress among the
are arguments for thinking that several more on the list other complexities and complications which may arise in
are genuine. Other lists (e.g. those for ‘the Israel Museum the ensuing discussion.
Sculptor’, or ‘the Rogers Sculptor’) contain no pieces at
all deriving from an archaeological context and no pieces
which were known and published before 1914. For the Classifying the Early Cycladic sculptures:
present these two lists and the sculptures on them must
therefore remain suspect. Some of the other ‘sculptors’ types
designated by Getz-Gentle in the lists of the pieces assigned Fortunately the consideration of context does facilitate the
to them do have individual finds on their list which derive classification of the Early Cycladic marble sculptures. The
from published archaeological contexts (e.g. those of system described here follows the contextual analysis set
‘the Doumas Sculptor’, ‘the Kontoleon Sculptor’). So the out in 1969 (Renfrew 1969), with a single modification: the
sub-varieties or ‘microstyle groups’ recognised by Getz- form there classified as the Kea variety of the folded-arm
Gentle do in favourable cases document groups of pieces figure is here re-designated as the Kea sub-variety of the
some of which are closely similar stylistically, thus posing Chalandriani variety of the folded-arm figure. How that
fascinating questions about production, organisation and fits in will become clearer below.
distribution. These preliminary questions of authenticity During the earlier, Grotta-Pelos, phase (Early Cycladic I)
and of terminology do however remain to be addressed of the Early Cycladic period (Renfrew 1972) several figurine
in each case. forms were in use: the Schematic type (in its various forms:
The risk of constructing imagined life histories for these violin, notch-waisted, shouldered etc.), the Plastiras type
notional individual sculptors or ‘masters’ should be clearly and the Louros type. The terminology for these has been
recognised, and perhaps avoided. For in not a single case widely accepted and is retained here. It should be noted
yet documented archaeologically can the works assigned that the Kampos Group (late in the Grotta-Pelos culture and
to a specific workshop (or if one chooses to follow the regarded sometimes as transitional between Early Cycladic
individualising approach of Getz-Preziosi, to the hand of a I and Early Cycladic II) is better understood following the
specific sculptor) be placed in any chronological sequence excavations on Ano Kouphonisi by Zapheiropoulou (1984).
for which there is stratigraphic or contextual evidence. It The position and chronology of the Keros-Syros culture
is of course not difficult to arrange the sculptures which and of the Kastri Group is now better understood, after
have been classified together and assigned to a specific the publication of the excavations at Ayia Irini (Wilson
sub-variety (or ‘sculptor’) into some kind of notional 1999), Markiani (Marangou et al. 2006) and Dhaskalio
typological evolutionary sequence. Then one may compose (Renfrew et al. 2013). The Dhaskalio stratigraphy may be
an imagined and entirely fictional narrative: interpreted to show the development of the early Keros-
‘As the sculptor gradually sharpened his skills, he seems also Syros culture (Dhaskalio Phase A) to a later phase with
to have increased the size of his figures … At some point the pottery showing elements of the Kastri Group (Dhaskalio
sculptor began to add to the interest of his images by showing phase B). It continued, apparently without break (Renfrew
the arms in relief, separated by a clear space, and by incising et al. 2013; Sotirakopoulou 2016) to yield, in Dhaskalio phase
the fingers’ (Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 232). C, more Kastri group pottery in association with pottery
Such an artistic biography is not warranted by any with relations to that found at the ‘First City’ of Phylakopi
secure chronological argument. in Melos: Phylakopi I (Early Cycladic III) and in Arkesine
In some papers which follow in this volume (Chapters 23 grave G on Amorgos.
and 26) a coherent attempt is undertaken, using sculptures The sculptures associated with contexts of the Keros-
whose authenticity is confirmed by secure archaeological Syros culture were set out by Renfrew (1969), and the
context, to gather evidence for sub-varieties of the kind classification and terminology has been followed by
which Getz-Preziosi has proposed. As already noted, subsequent scholars (Thimme 1976; Thimme & Preziosi
it seems a simpler explanation to explain the internal 1977; Getz-Preziosi 1987a). Thimme usefully referred to
similarities within a sub-variety as arising from production the folded-arm form of this period as the ‘canonical’ form,
 1. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION 7

and this consistent terminology has been followed by later Varieties and sub-varieties: microstyle
scholars. The sculptures of the canonical folded-arm type
fall within the time range of the Keros-Syros culture. None
groups
has been found in any earlier context. It seems likely that
Variety
this type went out of production before the end of the
early bronze age. It is indeed possible that sculptures of The terminology offered in 1969 for the varieties of the
this type may still have been produced in the later, Kastri canonical folded-arm has proved a convenient one. Each
phase of the Keros-Syros culture, Dhaskalio Phase B (note, variety (i.e. Kapsala, Spedos, Dokathismata, Chalandriani
however, that the main Kastri group phase at Dhaskalio is and Koumasa) is named after a findspot (in each case a
Phase C). But the scarcity of finds of such sculptures from cemetery) where an example of the variety with a good
the Early Cycladic settlements – none has been found in archaeological context was first published (Fig. 1.2). These
the settlement at Dhaskalio – and the decline in the use contexts are well documented in the work of Tsountas (1898;
of cemeteries during the time of the Kastri Group, results 1899); Stephanos (1903, 1905; 1906), Papathanasopoulos
in a paucity of well-stratified archaeological contexts for (1962), Xanthoudides (1924) and, more recently, Doumas
the folded-arm form after the earlier phase of the Keros- (1977) respectively. (As noted above, the Kea variety is now
Syros culture with its relatively abundant cemetery finds. regarded as a sub-variety: see further below).
Some further progress is now becoming possible The definitions of the various varieties of the canonical
allowing us better to understand the development and folded-arm figure will not be repeated here. Reference
chronology of the folded-arm sculptures. For example should be made instead to the original descriptions
the sculptures of the Kapsala variety occur in sufficient (Renfrew 1969) which remain valid.
contextual associations in the cemetery at Aplomata in The link between form and place in the nomenclature
Naxos (this volume, Chapter 15) to permit this variety to is in most cases arbitrary. Each of these locations is a well-
be recognised as an early form of the folded-arm figure on established findspot, but that findspot is certainly not to
the basis of secure context rather than just on typological be assumed as the place of manufacture of the sculpture in
grounds, as was already suggested by its occurrence with question. It should be noted that sculptures of the Koumasa
a kandila of the Grotta-Pelos culture in grave 12 at Spedos variety have been found exclusively in Crete.
(Papathanasopoulos 1962, pls 52–3).
The very special group of seated sculptures, including
the flautist and harpist from Keros and an important group
Sub-variety: towards the individual hand, tradition
from Aplomata on Naxos (this volume, Chapter 15) are
closely related to the folded-arm sculptures. So too are
or workshop.
the unusual double figurines. They all belong to the time It is largely due to the careful observations of Pat Getz-
span of the Keros-Syros culture. Gentle that a more detailed classification for these folded-
An important feature of the repertoire of sculptural arm sculptures has been developed beyond that of the
forms during the time of the Keros-Syros culture is basic varieties, established in 1969. While recognising
the production of schematic figurines of the so-called the principal varieties and retaining these for the main
Apeiranthos type, which may be a continuation of the categorical divisions of the canonical folded arm figure,
schematic ‘Brettidolen’ of the Grotta-Pelos culture. she has proposed a whole series of such sub-varieties,
Figurines of Apeiranthos type are known from the mainly within the Spedos, Dokathismata and Chalandriani
Chalandriani cemetery on Syros, at Spedos on Naxos and varieties. These she initially classified using her terminology
at Aplomata (grave XIII). They are also found at Skarkos of ‘Masters’ (e.g. Goulandris Master, Schuster Master,
on Ios (this volume, Chapter 12), all in contexts in the Stafford Master, Dresden Museum Master etc.), where the
Keros-Syros culture, which should be contemporary with master was conceived as the individual sculptor creating
Dhaskalio phase A. They are commonly found in the two all the extant pieces of that category. Later she modified
special deposits at Kavos on Keros, usually in fragmentary the terminology referring to these workers as ‘sculptor’
condition. At the settlement on Dhaskalio they occur in rather than as ‘master’.
Phase B and more abundantly in Phase C (Renfrew 2013b), Here the case will be made that some of these sub-
which suggests that their production continued until late in varieties can indeed be recognised as valid on the
the early bronze age. They perhaps have their counterpart stricter criteria proposed here, using in the first instance
in the schematic figurines of Phylakopi I type, with their sculptures which have been recovered in secure contexts
characteristic arm stumps, found during the Phylakopi I from published archaeological excavations. Sometimes
culture on Melos. the contexts, as at the site of Ayia Irini on Kea or in the
special deposits at Kavos on Keros or indeed at Akrotiri
8 COLIN RENFREW

Fig. 1.2 The Cycladic Islands showing findspots of the ‘name pieces’ of the different types, and of the varieties and sub-varieties of the
canonical folded-arm figure.

on Thera, may not give a narrowly-defined date. Indeed it may be prudent to call them into question at this stage,
at Ayia Irini and perhaps at Akrotiri these are often not so as to prevent the inclusion in the scientific literature
primary contexts of original deposition. But they are of categories which may be tainted by the inclusion of
published from systematically conducted archaeological inauthentic pieces.
excavations, so that their authenticity should not be in It is the case that several other named ‘sculptors’ in
doubt. It is proposed that, in order to establish a tenable the lists published by Getz-Gentle in 2001, following her
sub-variety or microstyle, two or more closely similar earlier work, would currently fail to pass the ‘documented
sculptures should be used to define the taxonomic class authenticity’ test proposed here of containing at least
(sub-variety) in question, where the two sculptures in two examples which derive either from documented
question are documented from authorised and published archaeological excavations or at least are securely
archaeological excavations. For one of the defining pieces documented prior to 1914. Among those of the canonical
a find well-documented before 1914 may be used instead, folded-arm type listed, but currently failing on those
when a second piece from the context of an archaeological criteria might be the works of:
excavation is not available.
The application of this rule has the consequence, at (a) ‘The Israel Museum Sculptor’
least at this stage, of invalidating some of the sub-varieties (b) ‘The Bent Sculptor’
or named ‘sculptors’ which have been proposed by Getz- (c) ‘The Copenhagen Sculptor’
Preziosi, as noted below. Some of these sub-varieties may (d) ‘The Karlsruhe/Woodner Sculptor’
yet be supported by further discoveries in the future. But (e) ’The Steiner Sculptor’
 1. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION 9

(f) ’The Rodgers Sculptor’ often regrettably only fragmentary pieces, which may serve
(g) ‘The Bastis Sculptor’ to suggest the reality of some of the groupings (‘sculptors’,
(h) ‘The Berlin Sculptor’ ‘sub-varieties’, ‘microstyles’) which she has made, even if
others are to be called into question. Two such cases will
The lists for the ‘Karlsruhe/Woodner Sculptor’, the be made here, drawing upon properly documented finds
‘Steiner Sculptor’ and the ‘Rodgers Sculptor’ are composed from the Special Deposit North at Kavos on Keros (this
entirely of unprovenanced pieces emerging on the market volume, Chapter 23).
not only after 1914 but in fact after 1950! Further work The first case to be considered, the Kea sub-variety,
may however bring to attention closely similar pieces to was already recognised in 1969 (Renfrew 1969, 18) where
those listed which are not yet published. Relevant examples it was inappropriately termed a variety rather than a sub-
may yet be recognised from the two special deposits on variety. The pieces in question were subsequently assigned
Keros or from pre-1914 museum collections, just as will by Getz-Preziosi (1977; 1987a, 126–30; Getz-Gentle 2001,
be documented below for her ‘Goulandris Sculptor’ and 170) to the ‘Dresden Museum Master’. Here the proposal
the ‘Schuster Sculptor’. is to re-establish the Kea sub-variety on the basis of pieces
A separate objection holds for her list of sculptures from documented excavations, supplemented by pieces
assigned to the ‘Dresden Museum Master’ (Getz-Preziosi known and published prior to 1914. It now seems possible
1977; 1987a, 164; Getz-Gentle 2001, 170). Here, as noted to re-define the Kea sub-variety. It may now be regarded
below in the discussion of the Kea sub-variety (this volume, as a sub-class of the Chalandriani variety of the canonical
Chapter 26) she has grouped together on more general folded-arm figurine. One ‘single arresting feature sets it
stylistic grounds, several pieces – one of them the ‘name- apart’, as noted in 1969 (Renfrew 1969, 18):
piece’, a male figure – which are not very closely similar ‘This is the presence of horizontal rolls of flesh at the waist,
in form. While it may well be argued on such stylistic extending to the pubic triangle. There may be three, four
grounds that these are the works of a single sculptor, they or five parallel rolls. It is possible that these indicated the
certainly do not belong in the same taxonomic category condition of a mother immediately after giving birth’.
or sub-variety.
The danger should be realised that when only one This single, salient trait is not, however, sufficient in
well-contextualised piece exists in the list of a named itself to define the sub-variety, as Getz-Preziosi (1977, 91,
‘sculptor’, it could be argued that the others are recent note 8) rightly observed. There are now, however, two
imitations (forgeries) based upon it, created to deceive examples from Kea to draw upon, and two from the Special
potential purchasers, as with the original name-piece of Deposit South at Kavos. These are discussed in detail below
the ‘Stafford Master’. This might conceivably be the case (Chapter 26).
with the so-called ‘Berlin Master’, the name piece being a Next it is appropriate to turn to a second and notably
recent acquisition of 1978 which might have been recently prolific sub-variety, first recognised and bought to
modelled on the example in the National Museum in attention by Getz-Preziosi (1977, 80; 1987a, 159) as the
Athens (EAM9096: see Getz-Gentle 2001, pl. 88, c and d). ‘Goulandris Master’ on the basis of three pieces in the N.
She has offered observations that ‘should put any doubts P. Goulandris Collection of Early Cycladic Art. It is now
to rest’ (Getz-Gentle 2001, 103), but takes generally what possible to identify and document some pieces of what she
may seem a rather phlegmatic view of the possibility of recognised as the same sub-variety or microstyle (Getz-
forgery and deception (Getz-Gentle 2001, 106). Such could Gentle 2001) from the systematic excavations at Kavos on
conceivably be the case with two works attributed by her Keros. These are curated in the Naxos Museum. They are
to the so-called ‘Ashmolean Sculptor’, one of them a much described in detail elsewhere in this volume (Chapter 23).
admired sculpture in the Goulandris Museum of Cycladic They are sufficient to establish what is here termed the
Art (Doumas 1968, 111 no. 206; Renfrew 1991, pl. 54 and Kavos sub-variety instead of the ‘Goulandris Sculptor’, on
66). The other, likewise a recent acquisition, is in the de the basis of authentic excavated examples.
Menil Collection in Houston, Texas (Getz-Gentle 2001, pl. A third sub-variety, the Akrotiri sub-variety, can now
86, c and d; also Getz-Preziosi 1987a, pl. 42, 3 and 2). Such similarly be established on the basis of examples from the
very closely similar pairs, in such excellent condition, excavations at Akrotiri on Thera and from the excavated
must raise doubts about authenticity which are at present special deposits on Keros. These sculptures correspond to
difficult to allay. some of those identified by Getz-Preziosi (1978a, 162) as
These cautionary points do not, however, detract from the work of the ‘Schuster Master’ or ‘Schuster Sculptor’.
the acuity of Getz-Gentle in perceiving many of the striking We propose that examples of this specific sub-variety or
resemblances between some of these pieces. Indeed in some microstyle which derive from published excavations or
cases it is now possible to document more fully examples, from collections published prior to 1914 should in the
10 COLIN RENFREW

future be assigned to the Akrotiri sub-variety, and that The most long, thin, angular and elegant figurines are of the
the terminology associated with the collector Schuster be Dokathismata variety. All are thin, with rather sinuous lines,
abandoned. It should not be assumed that all the pieces broad and often very angular at the shoulders. The surface
attributed by Getz-Preziosi (1987a, 162) to the ‘Schuster of the figurine is flat, so that details, especially at the pubic
triangle, are shown by incision.
Master’ are authentic. The possibility that some might be
The head is sometimes triangular, with cheeks straight,
recent copies of an authentic prototype (as in the Stafford/
although the chin is usually rounded, not pointed. The head
Louvre case) cannot automatically be excluded. sometimes has a slightly S-shaped edge in profile. The crown
Further sub-varieties will no-doubt emerge as newly- of the head is indicated by a smooth vertical plane, as in the
excavated material comes to light. Already it seems that a Spedos variety. The head and neck are not clearly distinguished
find made on the Special Deposit North at Kavos on Keros at the back.
(Renfrew et al. 2007, fig. 3.8b and fig. 3.14) may offer the The shoulders are wide and pointed, the breasts very flat.
necessary topographic documentation to validate the The arms across the waist, sometimes show a gentle upward
name-piece of Getz-Gentle’s ‘Louvre sculptor’ (Getz-Gentle curve at the middle, and sometimes the belly bulges a little
2001, 169). As she was the first to recognise (Getz-Gentle, in profile. The upper arm is distinguished from the torso by
in lit. and 2001, 170 no. 4) the piece which I found at Kavos an incision, which sometimes cuts right through to separate
the arm. But there is no rounding or modelling.
in 1963 is closely similar to the sculpture donated to the
The waist is not usually narrower than the torso and
Louvre in 1913. It is proposed to designate this microstyle
the thighs, and the buttocks are indicated by a ridge at the
as the Special Depost North sub-variety. The matter will be rear, which appears in profile as a miniscule protrusion.
documented and further addressed when the finds from The waistline is often not delineated by an incision, but the
the Special Deposit North are described in detail (Renfrew, pubic triangle usually is. The leg above and below the knee
Sotirakopoulou & Boyd in prep.). is indicated by a continuous single line, so that the knees are
It is one thing to recognise and set out to define these not shown by any relief. The legs are not flexed. The feet are
microstyles or sub-varieties of the canonical folded-arm on tiptoe, with flat, widening soles.
figure. It is a different, and perhaps more difficult to seek
Certainly when looking at these two name-pieces of the
to explain with confidence the precise circumstances of
Dokathismata variety (Fig. 1.3), both conform rather closely
inspiration and production which gave rise to such close
to the general description of the variety. They are (1) thin,
similarities. When such a class of closely similar entities is
(2) angular, (3) sinuous in profile, (4) broad, (5) flat, (6) with
described, it is always to some extent an arbitrary matter
incised detail, (7) triangular at the head, (8) with straight
to decide which should be included within the group and
cheek, (9) with rounded chin, (10) with a cranial plane, (11)
which excluded. The criteria for inclusion are polythetic
with wide and pointed shoulders, (12) with the upper arm
(see Sokal & Sneath 1963) and can be differently weighted
distinguished from the torso by incision, (13) lacking in
to give different outcomes. The simple, perhaps simplistic
modelling of the arms, (14) with no narrowing to indicate
explanation of attributing all within the class to a single
the waist, (15) with buttocks indicated by a ridge at the rear,
‘hand’ or ‘sculptor’ has been criticised (Cherry 1992). As
(16) with the feet on tiptoe. In addition the treatment of the
noted earlier, to ascribe them to the products of a single
nose is very similar. Not all these traits are independent,
‘workshop’ is an equally arbitrary solution, when no
but there are at least a dozen defining features.
workshops for the production of these sculptures have yet
Yet, although one could well imagine these two pieces,
been located. That such sub-varieties or microstyles can,
which were found together in the same grave, to be the
in favourable cases be recognised and documented does
work of the same sculptor, as Tsountas (1898, 195) himself
however seem a significant contribution to Cycladic studies.
suggested (as noted in the epigraph at the head of this
paper), there are some clear differences in treatment,
A problematic example particularly at and below the waist. Should they be
regarded as belonging to the same sub-variety? It is perhaps
The difficulty of defining sub-varieties or microstyles,
of note that Getz-Preziosi (1987a; Getz-Gentle 2001) has
particularly from incompletely preserved sculptures, is
not proposed a sub-variety or ‘sculptor’ among whose
well illustrated by the two sculptures of the Dokathismata
handiwork they should together be recognised. The larger
variety found in Grave 14 at Dokathismata in Amorgos
piece has well-defined breasts, which the smaller lacks. It
(Tsountas 1898, pl. 10, 1; Fig. 1.3). On inspection they
has also a pubic triangle well-defined by three incised lines,
are similar, although of different size. Their ascription
where the smaller piece has no such incisions. Instead the
to the Dokathismata variety is justified, with relation to
pubic area is shown there by light modelling at the top of
the original definition of the variety (Renfrew 1969, 16)
the legs. Moreover, while the knees are indicated by a light
as follows:
flexion in the larger piece, there is in the smaller piece some
 1. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURE: ISSUES OF PROVENANCE, TERMINOLOGY AND CLASSIFICATION 11

Engagements: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, eds N. Brodie

& C. Hills. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, 109–14.
Doumas, C., 1968. The N. P. Goulandris Collection of Early Cycladic Art.
New York (NY): Frederick A. Praeger.
Doumas, C., 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades.
Göteborg. Paul Åströms Förlag.
Elsner, J., 1990. Significant details: systems, certainties and the
art-historian as detective. Antiquity 64, 950–2.
Galanakis, Y., 2013. Early prehistoric research on Amorgos and
the beginnings of Cycladic archaeology. American Journal of
Archaeology 117, 181–206.
Getz-Gentle, P., 2001. Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture.
Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.
Getz-Preziosi, P., 1977. Cycladic sculptors and their methods, in
Art and Culture of the Cyclades, eds J. Thimme & P. Getz-Preziosi.
Karlsruhe: C.F. Müller, 71–91.
Getz-Preziosi, P., 1987a. Sculptors of the Cyclades. Individual and
Tradition in the Third Millennium BC. Ann Arbor (MI): University
of Michigan Press.
Getz-Preziosi, P., 1987b. Early Cycladic Art in North American
Collections. Richmond (VA): Virginia University Museum of
Fine Arts.
Gill, D.W.J. & C. Chippindale, 1993. Material and intellectual
consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures. American Journal
of Archaeology 97, 601–59.
Höckmann, O., 1977. Cycladic religion, in Art and Culture of the
Fig. 1.3 The two folded-arm figures excavated by Tsountas in tomb Cyclades, eds J. Thimme & P. Getz-Preziosi. Karlsruhe: C.F.
14 at Dokathismata on Amorgos. Scale 1:2. Müller, 37–51.
Marangou, L., C. Renfrew, C. Doumas & G. Gavalas (eds), 2006.
Markiani, Amorgos. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement.
London: British School at Athens.
modelling at the thighs which may indicate the knees, but Marthari, M., 2001. Altering information from the past: illegal
which is placed rather high in relation to the length of the excavations in Greece and the case of the Early Bronze Age
leg, nor do the feet widen at the soles. Cyclades, in Trade in Illicit Antiquities: the Destruction of the
This example is offered here as an illustration of World’s Archaeological Heritage, eds N. Brodie, J. Doole & C.
the problems of judgement and definition which can Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
arise, even when one is dealing with well-published and Research, 161–72.
complete pieces with a good archaeological context. It is Morelli, G., 1893. Italian Painters: Critical Studies of their Works.
not surprising therefore that these issues of provenance, London: John Murray.
terminology and classification have proved so troublesome. Morris, C., 1993. Hands up for the individual! Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 3, 41–66.
Yet there are grounds for optimism that when the emphasis
Norman, N.J., 2005. Editorial policy on the publication of recently
is indeed upon archaeological context some progress can
acquired antiquities. American Journal of Archaeology 109, 135–6.
be made. Papathanasopoulos, G., 1962. Κυκλαδικὰ Νάξου [Kykladika
Naxou]. Archaiologikon Deltion (Meletai) 17A, 104–51.
Renfrew, C., 1969. The development and chronology of the Early
References Cycladic figurines. American Journal of Archaeology 73, 1–32.
Renfrew, C, 1972. The Emergence of Civilisation: the Cyclades and the
Beazley, J.D., 1942. Attic Red-figure Vase-painters. Oxford: Clarendon Aegean in the Third Millennium BC. London: Methuen.
Press. Renfrew, C., 1991. The Cycladic Spirit. Masterpieces from the Nicholas
Broodbank, C., 1992. The spirit is willing. Review of C. Renfrew, P. Goulandris Collection. London: Thames & Hudson.
The Cycladic Spirit. Antiquity 66, 542–6. Renfrew, C., 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: the Ethical Crisis
Cherry, J.F., 1992. Beazley in the Bronze Age? Reflections on in Archaeology, London: Duckworth.
attribution studies in Aegean prehistory, in EIKON Aegean Renfrew, C., 2013a. The sanctuary at Keros: Questions of
Bronze Age Iconography: Sharping a Methodology (Aegaeum 8), eds materiality and monumentality. Journal of the British Academy
R. Laffineur & J.L. Crowley. Liège: Université de Liège, 123–44. 1, 187–213.
Craxton, J. & P. Warren, 2004. A Neocycladic harpist?, in Material Renfrew, C., 2013b. The figurines from Dhaskalio, in The Sanctuary
12 COLIN RENFREW

on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: the excavations Stephanos, C., 1908. Ἀνασκαφικαὶ ἐργασίαι ἐν Νάξῳ [Anaskafikai
of 2006–2008, Vol. I: The Settlement at Dhaskalio, eds C. Renfrew, ergasia en Naxo], Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias
O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & M.J. Boyd. Cambridge: 63, 114–7.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 483–90. Stephanos, C., 1909. Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Νάξῳ [Anaskafai en Naxo],
Renfrew, C., C. Doumas, L. Marangou & G. Gavalas (eds), 2007. Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias 64, 209–10.
Keros, Dhaskalio Kavos the investigations of 1987–88. Cambridge: Stephanos, C., 1910. Ἀνασκαφικαὶ ἐργασίαι ἐν Νάξῳ [Anaskafikai
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ergasia en Naxo], Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias
Renfrew, C., O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & M.J. Boyd 65, 270–3.
(eds), 2013. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Tambakopoulos, D. & Y. Maniatis, in prep. Marble artefact studies,
Ritual Practice: the excavations of 2006–2008, Vol. I: The Settlement in The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice:
at Dhaskalio. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological the Excavations of 2006-2008, Vol. III: the Marble Finds from Kavos
Research. and the Archaeology of Ritual, eds. C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N.
Renfrew, C., P. Sotirakopoulou & M.J. Boyd, in prep. Monumentality, Brodie, G. Gavalas & M.J. Boyd. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
Diversity and Fragmentation in Early Cycladic Sculpture: the finds for Archaeological Research.
from the Special Deposit North at Kavos on Keros. Thimme, J. (ed.), 1976. Kunst und Kultur der Kykladeninseln im 3.
Sherratt, S., 2000. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities in the Ashmolean Jahrtausend v. Chr. Karlsruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum.
Museum. The Captive Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thimme, J. & P. Getz-Preziosi (eds.), 1977. Art and Culture of the
Sokal, R.R. & P.H.A. Sneath, 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. Cyclades. Karlsruhe: C.F. Müller
San Francisco (CA): Freeman. Tsountas, C., 1898. Κυκλαδικὰ [Kykladika], Archaiologike Ephemeris
Sotirakopoulou, P., 2016. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins 37, 137–212.
of Aegean Ritual Practice: the excavations of 2006–2008, Vol. IV: Tsountas, C., 1899. Κυκλαδικὰ ΙΙ [Kykladika II]. Archaiologike
The Pottery from Dhaskalio. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Ephemeris 38, 73–134.
Archaeological Research. Wilson, D.E., 1999. Keos IX. Ayia Irini Periods I–III. The Neolithic and
Stephanos, C., 1903. Ἀνασκαφαὶ Νάξου [Anaskafai Naxou], Praktika Early Bronze Ages Settlements. Part I. The Pottery and Small Finds.
tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias 58, 52–7. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
Stephanos, C., 1904. Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Νάξῳ [Anaskafai en Naxo], Xanthoudides, S.A., 1924. The Vaulted Tombs of the Mesara. London:
Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias 59, 57–61. Hodder & Stoughton.
Stéphanos, C., 1905. Les tombeaux prémycéniens de Naxos, in Zapheiropoulou, P., 1984. The chronology of the Kampos group,
Comptes rendus du Congrès International d’Archéologie. Athens: in The Prehistoric Cyclades. Contributions to a workshop on Cycladic
“Hestia” C. Meissner & N. Kargadouris, 216–25. chronology, eds J.A. MacGillivray & R.L.N. Barber. Edinburgh:
Stephanos, K., 1906. Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Νάξῳ [Anaskaphai en Naxo], Department of Classical Archaeology, 31–40.
Praktika tis en Athenais Archaeologikis Etaireias 61, 86–9.
 2

EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURES AS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS
Marisa Marthari

Towards publication and a new sometimes include forgeries (Craxton & Warren 2004); and
approach 3) they treat figurines exclusively as works of art.
Works of this nature were heavily criticised during the
It was a February afternoon in 2009, in the prehistoric first half of the 1990s, as they were seen to create hype
antiquities room of the Archaeological Museum of Naxos, about the art of the Early Cycladic world, thus pushing,
when I first talked with Colin Renfrew about the publication indirectly, collectors and museums either to enrich their
of all the Early Cycladic figurines found in excavations. Early Cycladic collections or to create new ones (Marangou
Our conversation took place among the cases in which 1990, 137; Broodbank 1992; Cherry 1992, 140–4; Gill &
the antiquities from Keros, and all the large figurines Chippindale 1993; Chippindale & Gill 1995; Renfrew 1993;
from Aplomata, Phiondas, and other sites are exhibited. 2000). Now that the number of Early Cycladic figurines in
Renfrew, as the excavator of Keros, where a large number context has grown through recent excavations, we have
of marble figurine fragments and vases have been recently been given a fantastic opportunity to face this problem
found, wanted to look for comparanda in the excavated not just with criticism but with action.
material. The author, as the then Ephor of the Ephorate The symposium and volume Early Cycladic Sculpture
of Antiquities for the Cyclades but also the excavator of in Context constitute a broad, holistic treatment of Early
Skarkos, wished to see all the excavated material published. Cycladic figurines, and it is the exact opposite of those
Thus we joined forces and after a long collaboration our earlier publications as: 1) it focuses on figurines found
efforts materialised in the form of a symposium entitled in excavations, which are presented by the excavators
Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context, held at the Athens themselves; and 2) it treats the figurines as archaeological
Archaeological Society on 27–29 May 2014. The results of objects, as carriers of multiple levels of information for
this symposium are presented here. their period. Even those figurines which come from police
The current volume aims to publish a very important seizures, or donations to public museums are not included,
class of material, partly unknown to scholarship. At the even though they are genuine and we know the islands, or
same time it constitutes a break from the usual way of in some cases the sites, where they were found. The only
treating and publishing Early Cycladic sculptures. Up exception here is the sculptures from Phiondas. Based on
until now the usual way of publishing Early Cycladic information given in the catalogue of the Museum of Naxos,
figurines and vases is either in the form of monographs they were earlier mistakenly thought to have originated
or temporary exhibition catalogues (e.g. Τhimme 1976; from Kontoleon’s excavations. However, after a thorough
Getz-Preziosi 1987; Getz-Gentle 1996; 2001), which all share archival research carried out for the presentation at this
the following characteristics: 1) they focus on figurines conference, there is no longer any doubt that in reality
and marble vessels that come mostly or exclusively from these antiquities were donated to Kontoleon, who later
illicit excavations, and thus are lacking context; 2) they visited the site (Legaki, this volume, Chapter 16).
14 MARISA MARTHARI

the late 19th century was not coincidental nor was it

Cycladic figurines and current Cycladic dictated by research questions. On the contrary this focus
archaeology was the result of the attempts made by archaeologists of
the Greek state to tackle the problem of looting (Τsountas
The current volume can be more easily understood if 1898, 140; Doumas 1977, 28; Marthari 2002, 109–10; Merkouri
treated as but a link, hopefully a strong one, in a series of 2002). Cemeteries have always been the looters’ main
efforts that have taken place in recent years, aimed at the target owing to their spectacular and well-preserved
improvement of Cycladic archaeology as a whole, both in funerary offerings. Better tackling of looting by the police
terms of research and the protection and promotion of and judicial authorities (Marthari 2001; Boutopoulou et al.
Early Cycladic antiquities. New developments playing an 2008) meant that Cycladic archaeology could be expanded to
important role include: a) excavations and surface surveys include the investigation of settlement sites.
at Early Cycladic sites, and the study of the archaeological Since the 1980s there have been excavations in new,
artefacts produced by them, b) the creation of museum important habitation sites such as Zas on Naxos (Zachos
exhibitions on the islands which highlight the artefact 1996; 1999; Zachos & Douzougli 2008), Skarkos on Ios
assemblages from these sites, and c) the enhancement and (Μarthari 1997; 2004; 2008a and this volume, Chapter 12),
conservation of the sites themselves. These are shaping the Markiani on Amorgos (Marangou et al. 2006), Potamia on
fresh image now being formed of the Early Cycladic world. Ano Kouphonisi (Philaniotou, this volume, chapter 14),
Research into that Early Cycladic world has always Plakalona on Seriphos (Pantou, this volume, Chapter 10),
been characterised by a strongly scholarly archaeological Koukounaries on Paros (Katsarou-Tzeveleki & Schilardi
trend, which is represented by a series of synthetic 2008), and Vathy on Astypalaia (Vlachopoulos 2012;
works that have influenced Aegean prehistory as a whole 2013). Moreover, excavations have been carried out in
(Tsountas 1898; 1899; Atkinson et al. 1904; Renfrew 1972; previously excavated settlements such as Kastri on Syros
Doumas 1977; Barber 1987; Broodbank 2000). In the field (Marthari 2006; 2007; 2008b; 2009b; 2010; 2011; 2012),
of Early Cycladic sculpture, Renfrew’s synthetic work on Dhaskalio on Keros (Renfrew et al. 2013), Akrotiraki on
figurines (Renfrew 1969), which remains unsurpassed, Siphnos (Papadopoulou, 2011 and this volume, chapter
as well as some publications of Early Cycladic figurines 11), and Akrotiri on Thera (Doumas 1999; Sotirakopoulou
in context (e.g. Papathanasopoulos 1962; Doumas 1977; 2008; the latter has yielded an EC cemetery as well). The
Sotirakopoulou 1998; Rambach 2000; Renfrew 2013), all publication of older excavations of settlements, such as
follow this archaeological trend. Kynthos on Delos (MacGillivray 1980), Kastri on Syros,
Modern approaches continue to enhance this trend, Pyrgos and Avyssos on Paros (Rambach 2000), Ayia Irini on
while the increasing number of fieldwork projects has Kea (Wilson 1999; 2013), Akrotiri on Thera (Sotirakopoulou
greatly broadened our knowledge. The picture we have 1999), Phylakopi on Melos (Renfrew & Evans 2007), and
today of the Early Cycladic world is quite different from Panormos on Naxos (Angelopoulou 2008; 2014) has also
the one we had 25 years ago. First of all our knowledge of helped us to gain a better understanding of habitation sites.
the Cyclades before the Early Bronze Age has increased Investigations in settlements expand our knowledge of
greatly, mainly due to work on five important sites: Stelida the complexity of Cycladic societies in the 3rd millennium
on Naxos, dated to the Middle Palaeolithic and possibly the BC and give us the opportunity to paint a more complete
Early Palaeolithic period (Séfériadès 1983; Sampson 2006, picture of the Early Cycladic world. The foundations of
22; Legaki 2012; Carter et al. 2014), Maroulas on Kythnos, Early Cycladic archaeology are changing, as the focus is now
dated to the Mesolithic period (Sampson et al. 2010), Ftelia more on stratigraphical data than on funerary contexts.
on Mykonos, dated to the Late Neolithic period (Sampson Investigations in cemeteries situated in a more appro-
2002; 2008), Zas on Naxos inhabited in both Late and Final priate research and interpretative framework do exist,
Neolithic period (Zachos 1996; 1999), and Strofilias on although they are not numerous. The most important
Andros, dated to the Final Neolithic period (Televantou investigations have been undertaken at the sites of Mersinia
2006; 2008a; 2013). The latter, with its rich rock-carved on Kythnos (Papangelopoulou, this volume, Chapter 8),
evidence, helps us better to understand the Early Bronze Tsikniades on Naxos (Philaniotou 2008 and this volume,
Age Cyclades, and their art and symbolism, which derives Chapter 18), Potamia on Kouphonisi (Philaniotou, this
from the Final Neolithic tradition. volume, Chapter 14), Chalandriani on Syros (Marthari, this
For the Early Bronze Age in general the move towards volume, Chapter 20), Vathy on Astypalaea (Vlachopoulos
systematic fieldwork and the study of settlements is 2013), Galanado on Naxos (Legaki 2013) and Rivari on Melos
of paramount importance. Very few settlements were (Televantou 2008b).
excavated before the 1970s (Renfrew 1972, 507–25; Doumas Another important development for Early Bronze Age
1972). The focus on cemeteries in most excavations since archaeology is systematic research at Kavos on Keros. This
 2. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURES AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 15

site, emblematic for the prehistoric Cyclades, was extensively National Archaeological Museum at Athens. Moreover marble
looted in the past (Sotirakopoulou 2005; Galanakis 2013), figurines were for the first time used not just to promote Early
despite the heroic efforts of the archaeologists of the Cycladic art but to inform visitors about various aspects of
Ephorate of Antiquities for the Cyclades in the 1960s – a daily life in the Cyclades during the Early Cycladic period. For
time when research on remote islands like Keros was still example, two seated figurines from grave XIII at the cemetery
very difficult (Doumas 1964; Zapheiropoulou 1968; 2007, of Aplomata were used in the section ‘Dwelling-Furniture’ in
29–30). Systematic research has consisted of three projects, order to highlight the basic pieces of furniture of an Early
which have greatly increased our knowledge of a Cycladic Cycladic household, such as the stool and the throne. In
island which is so important, but at the same time full of addition a seated harpist figurine from grave 40 at Afentika
negative connotations for archaeology (Renfrew et al. 2007a; was exhibited in the section ‘Music-Dance’ in order to shed
2007b; Renfrew et al. forthcoming). This research has helped more light on the way Cycladic musicians would have used
us better to understand the nature of the so-called ‘Special the harp.
Deposits’ at Kavos, as the ‘Special Deposit South’ was found As far as museum catalogues are concerned, the catalogue
undisturbed and was systematically excavated. of the prehistoric Cycladic antiquities of the Ashmolean
Since the 1970s much has been done for the protection Museum at Oxford (Sherratt 2000) paved a new way. The
and promotion of Early Cycladic antiquities. I shall refer Ashmolean holds a significant number of Early Cycladic
briefly and selectively only to certain individual issues as objects, including numerous marble figurines and vases. In
this theme would require a special and extensive discussion this monumental work Susan Sherratt used the museum
which is not the purpose of this introduction. archives, offering detailed information about the way
First the strengthening of international law for the these antiquities were obtained. So that catalogue not
protection of cultural property has had good results for the only contributed greatly to the field of archaeology and
protection of Early Cycladic figurines and Early Cycladic museum ethics but also offered vital information on the
artefacts generally - among the antiquities most intensely antiquities’ provenance. Although Sherratt’s work has yet
traded illegally. The important international or European to be followed, it demonstrated a new way for museum and
legal texts with legal authority in Greece are three: collection catalogues to treat material which does not come
from excavations.
1) the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of In the area of the Cyclades itself, on the island of Ios,
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export a plan to display the Early Cycladic world through the
and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (in enhancement of the site at Skarkos (Fig. 2.1) and through
Greece Law 1103/1980); a fresh museum organization to exhibit its movable finds,
2) the EC Directive (93/7) on the Return of Cultural focusing on new perceptions for the protection of cultural
Objects Unlawfully Removed from the Territory heritage, has been implemented by the author on behalf of
of a Member-state (in Greece Presidential Decree the Ephorate of Antiquities for the Cyclades. Ios is one of those
133/1998); and Cycladic islands whose Early Cycladic cemeteries have been
3) the 1995 Unidroit Convention on the International extensively looted. The most ‘famous’ looter operating on Ios
Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural and the nearby islands was the self-taught marble sculptor
Objects (in Greece Law 3348/2005). Angelos Batsalis (also known as ‘Angelos o Niotis’, ‘the man
from Ios’, in the islands around Ios), who also produced
Furthermore the Greek legal framework was modernized, fake figurines (Marthari 2001). As has already been shown,
helping to protect antiquities on Greek territory including the seated harpist figurine exhibited at the Metropolitan
Early Cycladic ones, primarily via the new law On the Museum in New York (Τhimme & Getz-Preziosi 1977, 495:
Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage in General (Law no. 493, pls 253a–b) is one of Batsalis’ forgeries (Craxton &
3028/2002), which replaced the previous law On Antiquities Warren 2004). However the systematic excavation at Skarkos
(Law 5351/1932; Pantos 2008; Vrellis 2008). since the end of the 1980s, which brought to light a large and
In the context of temporary exhibitions, of special note well-preserved settlement of the Early Cycladic period, not
was Cycladic Culture: Naxos in the 3rd Millennium BC, organised only provided us with more information about Ios during the
in 1990 in the Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation – Museum Early Bronze Age but also helped in the better understanding
of Cycladic Art (Marangou 1990). That exhibition was of Early Cycladic culture in general.
different from most of the temporary exhibitions of the The plan to promote Early Cycladic Ios began with the
time. The exhibits were objects which came mostly from establishment of a museum, which opened to the public
excavations and were kept in four public museums: the Naxos in 1999. The permanent exhibition about the Early Bronze
Archaeological Museum, the Apeiranthos Archaeological Age in general and Early Cycladic Skarkos in particular, in
Museum, the Melos Archaeological Museum, and the the museum’s main room, helps to highlight the complexity
16 MARISA MARTHARI

Figure 2.1 The site of Skarkos on Ios.

of Early Cycladic society, as evidenced by recent research. figurines. On one level, recent developments in research
The marble figurines found at the settlement of Skarkos are presented, while older finds are re-examined based
constitute one of the exhibition’s thematic sections, the other on new data. At a second level, the volume promotes
sections being those relating to the settlement’s architecture, the protection of Early Cycladic antiquities, as it shows
ceramics, agricultural economy and diet, lithics and obsidian that these antiquities can have a voice only when their
industry, communication networks and social structure archaeological context is known.
(Marthari 1999; 2001). Colin Renfrew, in his introductory study ‘Early Cycladic
Local museums are, in a way, an extension of archae- Sculpture in Context: issues of provenance, terminology and
ological sites. In the latter one can see the architectural classification’, refines further the classification of Cycladic
remains, while at the museums one can see the movable figurines, which he himself created in his seminal paper
artefacts. This is the only way to get as full a picture (Renfrew 1969), by introducing, in addition to types and
as possible of a world that no longer exists. The plan varieties, further sub-varieties or microstyles instead of
to highlight Early Cycladic Ios was completed with the ‘masters’ or ‘sculptors’ (Renfrew, Chapter 1).
opening of the Skarkos site to the public in 2009 (Μarthari The first section, ‘Origins: The Neolithic settlements’,
2009a). Although the Cyclades have been researched since examines the Cycladic figurines of the Late and Final Neolithic
the second half of the 19th century, Skarkos is the first (the precursors of the Early Cycladic ones) which come both
organised Early Cycladic site to be open to the public. The from the old excavations at Saliagos (Renfrew, Chapter 3) as
project for the presentation and enhancement of the Skarkos well as from the more recent excavations at the settlements
site was awarded the 2008 European Union Prize for Cultural of Ftelia (Sampson & Mastroyiannopoulou, Chapter 4) and
Heritage, the Europa Nostra Top Prize for Conservation Strofilas (Televantou, Chapter 5). The wide variety of figurine
(Neale, Braamhorst & Quaedvlieg-Mihailović 2008, 22–4; types from Strofilias, in particular, indicates that many of
Europa Nostra 2008). the main characteristics of almost all of the basic types of
EC I figurines are to be found in those of the Final Neolithic
in the Cyclades.
Two sections, the second and the fourth, are allocated to
Early Cycladic sculpture in context Early Cycladic cemeteries. In the second section, ‘The early
All aspects of modern Cycladic archaeology are reflected phase’, all the figurines found in EC I cemeteries on Naxos,
in this volume through the examination of Early Cycladic Paros, Antiparos, Dhespotiko, Ano Kouphonisi and Siphnos
 2. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURES AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 17

Figure 2.2 Settlement sites referred to in the text where Early Cycladic marble figurines have been found in secure Early Cycladic contexts.

Figure 2.3 Sites referred to in the text where Early Cycladic figurines have been found in later deposits.
18 MARISA MARTHARI

are re-examined, with an emphasis on their excavation The fifth section, ‘The sanctuary (the special deposits) at
context (Doumas, Chapter 6; Rambach, Chapter 7). At the Kavos, Keros’, examines the figurines found at Kavos during
same time, a figurine of that period is presented here for excavations and field surveys since the 1960s. Amongst them
the very first time; it is from a grave at the site of Mersinia is a large intact figurine found by Zapheiropoulou and Tsakos
on Kythnos (Papangelopoulou, Chapter 8). in 1967 near a grave with two marble footed jars, next to
The fourth section, ‘The Early Cycladic II cemeteries’, re- the ‘Special Deposit North’ (Zapheiropoulou, Chapter 22),
examines figurines from mainly EC II tombs in cemeteries on fragments of large figurines excavated by Doumas in 1963
Naxos, Ano Kouphonisi and Syros excavated and presented in and by Zapheiropoulou and Tsakos in 1967 in the ‘Special
the past, with an emphasis on their excavation connections Deposit North’ (Sotirakopoulou, Renfrew & Boyd, Chapter 23),
(Doumas, Chapter 17; Gavalas, Chapter 19; Marthari, Chapter fragments of small figurines found in the same deposit in 1987
20). Assemblages, and not just individual finds, from the (Renfrew, Chapter 24), and fragments of large figurines which
rich cemetery of Aplomata are presented for the first time came to light during the recent excavation of the ‘Special
(Doumas & Lambrinoudakis, Chapter 15). Moreover the old Deposit South’ (Renfrew & Boyd, Chapter 26). Moreover
finds of Klon Stefanos from the cemetery of Chalandriani are two chapters treat artefacts related to the figurines, such as
examined for the first time as a whole. His finds from the the stone vessels from the ‘Special Deposit North’ (Gavalas,
cemeteries of Naxos are only briefly mentioned, as these have Chapter 25) and the marble and other spools from both Kavos
been published by Papathanasopoulos (1962; Papazoglou, and Dhaskalio (Haas-Lebegyev, Chapter 27). Thus for the first
Chapter 21). Also, figurines recently found in well-known time we have a complete picture of the most important finds
cemeteries are published, including those from Chalandriani found at Kavos-Keros, which was a site of special importance
(Marthari, Chapter 20), Tsikniades on Naxos (where also to the Early Cycladic world.
EC I figurines have been found: Philaniotou, Chapter 18), The sixth section, ‘Sites with Early Cycladic sculptures
and Potamia at Ano Koufonisi (Philaniotou, Chapter 14). in later deposits’ (Fig. 2.3) is dedicated to the numerous
This fresh and almost complete examination of the finds Early Cycladic figurines found in later (Middle Cycladic
from cemeteries helps us towards a better understanding to Mycenaean) layers in sites such as Ayia Irini on Kea
of the Cycladic figurines as funerary offerings. In addition, (Hershenson & Overbeck, Chapter 29), Phylakopi on Melos
the impressive figurines from the cemetery of Phiondas, (Renfrew & Boyd, Chapter 30), Akrotiri on Thera (Doumas,
both published and unpublished, are examined and all the Chapter 31), Mikre Vigla on Naxos (Barber, Chapter 32) and
details regarding their delivery to the Museum of Naxos are Koukounaries on Paros (Katsarou & Schilardi, Chapter 28).
described (Legaki, Chapter 16). The reasons behind the presence of such figurines in later
The third section ‘The Early Cycladic II and III settle- layers, which according to excavation data must have been
ments’ presents the figurines found in settlements (Fig. numerous and diverse, are sought.
2.2), in secure early and late EBA ΙΙ contexts (and EC III in The seventh and last section, ‘Material, technique and
the case of Dhaskalio). The extensive excavations at the manufacture’, includes a study of the main material used
early EBA II settlement at Skarkos (Skarkos II: Marthari, (marble), which came from several islands (Tambakopoulos
Chapter 12) and the relatively extensive excavations of later & Maniatis, Chapter 33) as well as a study of the painted
deposits at the settlement of Dhaskalio (Renfrew, Chapter decoration of the figurines (Birtacha, Chapter 35). It is
13) provide us for the first time with a very good picture important to note that these studies focus on figurines
of settlement figurines, as 52 examples came to light in that come from known excavated sites, so the reliability
the former and 13 in the latter, with the vast majority of their results cannot be disputed. There is also a chapter
belonging to the schematic Apeiranthos type. The few on manufacturing techniques, based on experimental
examples of both folded-arm and schematic figurines which archaeology, which expresses fresh ideas highlighting the
were found in Early Cycladic contexts at Ayia Irini on Kea role of emery in the production of figurines (Papadatos &
(Wilson, Chapter 9), Plakalona on Seriphos (Pantou, Chapter Venieris, Chapter 34).
10), Akrotiraki on Siphnos (Papadopoulou, Chapter 11), Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context thus attempts, using
Potamia on Ano Kouphonisi (where a cemetery was also recent excavation data, to bring us, in the 3rd millennium
found; Philaniotou, Chapter 14), as well as at Phylakopi on AD, as close as possible to a deep level of knowledge of the
Melos (Renfrew & Boyd, Chapter 30, in the sixth section) Early Cycladic world of the 3rd millennium BC and its most
complete the picture. characteristic artefacts, the marble figurines.
 2. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURES AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 19

the beginnings of Cycladic archaeology. American Journal of

References Archaeology 117, 181–206.
Atkinson, T.D., R.C. Bosanquet, C.C. Edgar, A.J. Evans, D.G. Hogarth, Getz-Gentle, P., 1996. Stone Vessels of the Cyclades in the Early Bronze
D. Mackenzie, C. Smith & F.B. Welch, 1904. Excavations at Age. Pennsylvania (PA): Pennsylvania State University Press.
Phylakopi in Melos. (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Getz-Gentle, P., 2001. Personal Styles in Early Cycladic Sculpture.
Studies Supplementary Paper 4) London: Macmillan. Madison (WI): University of Wisconsin Press.
Angelopoulou, A., 2008. The ‘Kastri Group’: evidence from Korfari Getz-Preziosi, P., 1987. Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and
ton Amygdalion (Panormos) Naxos, Dhaskalio Keros and Tradition in the Third Millennium BC. Ann Arbor (MI): University
Akrotiri Thera, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of of Michigan.
the Cyclades, eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Gill, D.W.J. & C. Chippindale, 1993. Material and intellectual
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures. American Journal
149–64. of Archaeology 97, 601–59.
Angelopoulou, A., 2014. Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Katsarou-Tzeveleki, S. & D.A. Schilardi, 2008, Some Reflections on
Νάξου: Μια οχυρωμένη Πρωτοκυκλαδική ακρόπολη [Korfari ton EC domestic space arising from observations at Koukounaries,
Amigdalion (Panormos) Naxou: Mia ochyromeni Protokykladiki Paros, in Horizon: a Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades,
akropoli]. Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund. eds N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge:
Barber, R.L.N., 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age. Iowa City (IA): McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 61–70.
University of Iowa Press. Legaki, E., 2012. Η αρχαιολογική έρευνα για την προ-νεολιθική,
Boutopoulou, S., M. Mouliou, S. Kalliodi & V. Sakelliadis, 2008. Η Νεολιθική και Πρωτοκυκλαδική Νάξο ως προνομιακός μοχλός
προστασία των πολιτιστικών αγαθών από την παράνομη διακίνηση ανάπτυξης [I archaiologiki erevna gia tin pro-neolithiki,
και η διεκδίκησή τους [I prostasia ton politistikon agathon apo tin Neolithiki kai Protokykladiki Naxo os pronomiakos mochlos
paranomi diakinisi kai I diekdikisi tous]. Athens: Hellenic Ministry anaptyxis]. Naxiaka Grammata 2, 6–17.
of Culture. Legaki, E., 2013. Πρωτοκυκλαδικός τάφος στο Γαλανάδο της Νάξου
Broodbank, C., 1992. The spirit is willing. Review of C. Renfrew, [Protokykladikos tafos sto Galanado tis Naxou], in Θεμέλιον: 24
The Cycladic Spirit. Antiquity 66, 542–6. μελέτες για τον Δάσκαλο Πέτρο Θέμελη από τους μαθητές και τους
Broodbank, C., 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. συνεργάτες του [Themelion: 24 meletes gia ton Daskalo Petro Themeli
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. apo tous mathites kai tous synergates tou], eds Ε. P. Sioubara &
Chippindale, C. & D. Gill, 1995. Cycladic figurines: Art versus Κ. Psaroudakis. Athens: Society of Messenian Archaeological
archaeology, in Antiquities Trade or Betrayed: Legal, Ethical Studies, 305–23.
and Conservation Issues, ed. K.W. Tubb. London: Αrchetype MacGillivray, J.A., 1980. Mount Kynthos in Delos. The Early
Publications, 131–43. Cycladic settlement. Bulletin de corresondence hellénique 104,
Carter, T., D. Contreras, S. Doyle, D. D. Mihailović, T. Moutsiou & 3–45.
N. Skarpelis 2014. The Stélida Naxos Archaeological Project: Marangou, L. (ed.), 1990. Cycladic Culture. Naxos in the 3rd millennium
new data on the Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Cyclades. B.C. Athens: N. P. Goulandris Foundation.
Antiquity 88. http://journal.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/carter341 Marangou, L., C. Renfrew, C. Doumas & G. Gavalas (eds), 2006.
(accessed 4 June 2015). Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement.
Cherry, J.F., 1992. Beazley in the Bronze Age? Reflections on Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations. (BSA Supplementary
attribution studies in Aegean prehistory, in EIKON, Aegean Vol. 40.) London: British School at Athens.
Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology (Aegaeum 8), eds Marthari, M. 1997. Από το Σκάρκο στην Πολιόχνη: Παρατηρήσεις
R. Laffineur & J.L. Crowley. Liège: Université de Liège, 123–44. για την κοινωνικο-οικονομική ανάπτυξη των οικισμών της
Craxton, J. & P. Warren, 2004. A Neocycladic harpist? in Material Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού στις Κυκλάδες και τα νησιά
Engagements: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, eds N. Brodie του βορειοανατολικού Αιγαίου [Apo to Skarko stin Poliochni:
& C. Hills. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Paratiriseis gia tin koinoniko-oikonomiki anaptyxi ton
Research, 109–14. oikismon tis Proimis Epochis to Chalkou stis Kyklades kai ta
Doumas, C., 1964. Ἀρχαιότητες καὶ μνημεῖα Κυκλάδων: Κέρος, nisia tou voreioanatolikou Aigaiou], in Poliochni e l’antica età
Νάξος [Archaeotites kai mnimeia Kykladon: Keros, Naxos]. del bronzo nell’Egeo settentionale, eds C. Doumas & V. La Rosa.
Archaiologikon Deltion 19 B2, 409–12. Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 262–82.
Doumas, C., 1972. Notes on Early Cycladic architecture. Archäo- Marthari, M. 1999. Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Ιου: Σύντομη
logischer Anzeiger 87, 151–70. περιήγηση στις αρχαιότητες της Ιου μέσω των εκθεμάτων του
Doumas, C., 1977. Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades. Μουσείου [To Archaiologiko Mouseio tis Iou: Syntomi perigisi stis
Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag. archaiotites tis Iou meso ton ekthematon tou Mouseiou]. Athens:
Doumas, C., 1999. Ἀνασκαφὴ Ἀκρωτηρίου Θήρας [Anaskafi XXI Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities.
Akrotiri Thiras]. Praktika tis en Athinais Archaiologikis Etaireias Marthari, M., 2001. Altering information from the past: illegal
154, 155–202. excavations in Greece and the case of the Early Bronze Age
Europa Nostra 2008. EU Prize for Cultural Heritage/Europa Nostra Cyclades, in Trade in Illicit Antiquities: the Destruction of the
Awards 2008. http://www.europanostra.org/laureates-2008 World’s Archaeological Heritage, eds N. Brodie, J. Doole & C.
(accessed 6 June 2015). Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Galanakis, Y., 2013. Early prehistoric research on Amorgos and Research, 161–72.
20 MARISA MARTHARI

Marthari, M., 2002. Ο Χρήστος Τσούντας και η Σύρος: από την Pantos, P., 2008. Δυνατότητες και διαδικασίες διεκδίκησης
ανασκαφή στη Χαλανδριανή έως την έκθεση των ευρημάτων κατά το εθνικό, κοινοτικό και διεθνές δίκαιο [Dynatotites
στην Ερμούπολη [O Christos Tsountas kai i Syros: apo tin kai diadikasies diekdikisis kata to ethniko, koinotiko kai
anaskafi sti Chalandriani eos tin ekthesi ton evrimaton stin diethnes dikaio], in Η προστασία των πολιτιστικών αγαθών από
Ermoupoli], in 1898–1998. Εκατό χρόνια από τις έρευνες του την παράνομη διακίνηση και η διεκδίκησή τους [I prostasia ton
Χρήστου Τσούντα στη Σύρο, Διαλέξεις στο Πνευματικό Κέντρο politistikon agathon apo tin paranomi diakinisi kai I diekdikisi tous],
Ερμούπολης, 31 Οκτωβρίου 1998 [Ekato chronia apo tis erevnes eds S. Boutopoulou, M. Mouliou, S. Kalliodi & V. Sakelliadis.
tou Christou Tsounta sti Syro, Dialexeis sto Pnevmatiko Kentro Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 87–92.
Ermoupolis, 31 Oktovriou 1998], ed. M. Marthari. Athens: Ministry Papathanasopoulos, G., 1962. Κυκλαδικὰ Νάξου [Kykladika Naxou].
of Culture and Ministry for the Aegean, 101–44. Archaiologikon Deltion (Meletai) 17A, 104–51.
Marthari, M., 2004. Ios, Archäologisches Museum: Skarkos, in Papadopoulou, Z.D., 2011. Akrotiraki and Skali: new evidence
Kleinere Griechische Sammlungen: Neufunde aus Griechenland for EBA lead/silver and copper production from southern
und der westlichen Turkei, ed. I. Pini (Corpus der minoischen Siphnos, in Metallurgy: Understanding How, Learning Why, Studies
und mykenischen Siegel V, Supplementum 3). Mainz am Rhein: in Honour of James D. Muhly (Prehistory Monograph 29), eds
Philipp von Zabern, 281–9. P.P. Betancourt & S.C. Ferrence. Philadelphia (PA): INSTAP
Marthari, Μ., 2006. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου Press, 149–56.
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais Philaniotou, O., 2008. Naxos, Tsikniades: an Early Cycladic
Archaiologikis Etaireias 161, 111–3. cemetery, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades,
Marthari, Μ., 2007. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge:
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 195–207.
Archaiologikis Etaireias 162, 49–53. Rambach, J., 2000. Kykladen I. Die Frühe Bronzezeit. Grab und
Marthari, M., 2008a. Aspects of pottery circulation in the Cyclades Siedlungsbefunde. (Beiträge zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen
during the early EB II: Fine and semi-fine imported ceramic Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 33). Bonn: Rudolf
wares at Skarkos, Ios, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory Habelt.
of the Cyclades, eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Renfrew, C., 1969. The development and chronology of the Early
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cycladic figurines. American Journal of Archaeology 73, 1–32.
71–84. Renfrew, C., 1972. The Emergence of Civilization: the Cyclades and the
Marthari, Μ., 2008b. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London: Methuen.
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais Renfrew, A.C., 1993. Collectors are the real looters. Archaeology
Archaiologikis Etaireias 163, 87–92. 46, 16–17
Marthari, Μ., 2009a. Conservation and presentation of a significant Renfrew, C., 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: the Ethical Crisis
Aegean Bronze Age site and its special environment: The in Archaeology. London: Duckworth.
project at Skarkos on Ios, Cyclades, in The Best in Heritage in Renfrew, C., 2013. The figurines from Dhaskalio, in The Sanctuary
Partnership with Europa Nostra, ed. T. Sola. Dubrovnik: European at Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations
Heritage Association, 26–9. of 2006-2008, vol. I: The settlement at Dhaskalio, eds C. Renfrew,
Marthari, Μ., 2009b. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & M.J. Boyd. Cambridge:
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 483–7.
Archaiologikis Etaireias 164, 141–4. Renfrew, C. & P.K. Evans, 2007. The Early Bronze Age pottery, in
Marthari, Μ., 2010. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974–77 (Supplementary volume
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais 42), eds C. Renfrew, N. Brodie, C. Morris & C. Scarre. London:
Archaiologikis Etaireias 165, 113–8. British School at Athens, 129–80.
Marthari, Μ., 2011. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου Renfrew, C., C. Doumas, L. Marangou & G. Gavalas (eds), 2007a.
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais Keros: Dhaskalio Kavos, the Investigations of 1987–88. Cambridge:
Archaiologikis Etaireias 166, 85–6. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Marthari, Μ. 2012. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Καστρὶ Χαλανδριανῆς Σύρου Renfrew, C., O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas, E. Margaritis,
[Anaskafi sto Kastri Chalandrianis Syrou]. Praktika tis en Athinais C. French & P. Sotirakopoulou, 2007b. Keros: Dhaskalio, and
Archaiologikis Etaireias 167, 107–10. Kavos, Early Cycladic stronghold and ritual centre. Preliminary
Merkouri, C., 2002. Αρχειακές μαρτυρίες για τις έρευνες του report of the 2006 and 2007 excavation seasons. Annual of the
Χρήστου Τσούντα στις Κυκλάδες [Archeiakes martyries gia tis British School at Athens 102, 103–36.
erevnes tou Christou Tsounta stis Kyklades], in Εκατό χρόνια Renfrew, C., O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas & M.J. Boyd (eds),
από τις έρευνες του Χρήστου Τσούντα στη Σύρο, Διαλέξεις στο 2013. The Sanctuary at Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice:
Πνευματικό Κέντρο Ερμούπολης, 31 Οκτωβρίου 1998 [Ekato chronia The Excavations of 2006–2008, vol. I: The Settlement at Dhaskalio.
apo tis erevnes tou Christou Tsounta sti Syro, Dialexeis sto Pnevmatiko Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Kentro Ermoupolis, 31 Oktovriou 1998], ed. M. Marthari. Athens: Renfrew, C., M. Marthari, A. Dellaporta, M.J. Boyd, N.J. Brodie, G.
Ministry of Culture and Ministry for the Aegean, 26–99. Gavalas & J. Wright (eds), forthcoming. The Keros Island Survey.
Neale, L., W. Braamhorst & S. Quaedvlieg-Mihailović, 2008. Europa Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Nostra Annual Report 2008. http://issuu.com/europanostra/ Sampson, A., 2002. The Neolithic Settlement at Ftelia, Mykonos.
docs/0_final-annual_report-2008-oke-def (accessed 4 June 2015). Rhodes: University of the Aegean.
 2. EARLY CYCLADIC SCULPTURES AS ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBJECTS 21

Sampson, A. (ed.), 2006. The Prehistory of the Aegean Basin: Paleolithic Thimme, J. (ed.), 1976. Kunst und Kultur der Kykladeninseln im 3.
– Mesolithic – Neolithic. Athens: Kardamitsa. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Karlsruhe: Badisches Landesmuseum.
Sampson, A., 2008. The architectural phases of the Neolithic Thimme, J. & P. Getz-Preziosi (eds.), 1977. Art and Culture of the
settlement of Ftelia on Mykonos, in Horizon: A Colloquium on Cyclades. Karlsruhe: C.F. Müller
the Prehistory of the Cyclades, eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & Tsountas, C., 1898. Κυκλαδικὰ [Kykladika]. Archaiologike Ephemeris
C. Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological 37, 137–212.
Research, 29–35. Tsountas, C., 1899. Κυκλαδικὰ ΙΙ [Kykladika II]. Archaiologike
Sampson, A., M. Kaczanowska & J.K. Kozłowski, 2010. The Prehistory Ephemeris 38, 73–134.
of the Island of Kythnos (Cyclades, Greece) and the Mesolithic Vlachopoulos, A., 2012. Ἀνασκαφὴ στὸ Βαθὺ Ἀστυπάλαιας
Settlement at Maroulas. Kraków: Polish Academy of Arts and [Anaskafi sto Vathi Astipalaias]. Praktika tis en Athinais
Sciences. Archaiologikis Etaireias 167, 115–23.
Séfériadès, M., 1983. Un centre industriel préhistorique dans les Vlachopoulos, Α., 2013. Αρχαιολογικές έρευνες πεδίου στο Βαθύ
Cyclades: les ateliers de débitage du silex à Stélida (Naxos), in Αστυπάλαιας [Archaiologikes erevnes pediou sto Vathi
Les Cyclades: matériaux pour une étude de géographie historique, Astipalaias], in Νησιωτικές ταυτότητες. Η συμβολή της Γενικής
ed. G. Rougemont. Lyon: CNRS, 67–73. Γραμματείας Αιγαίου και Νησιωτικής Πολιτικής στην έρευνα και
Sherratt, S., 2000. The Captive Spirit. Catalogue of Cycladic Antiquities ανάδειξη του πολιτισμού του αρχιπελάγους [Nisiotikes taftotites.
in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. I symvoli tis Genikis Grammateias Aigaiou kai Nisiotikis Politikis
Sotirakopoulou, P., 1998. The Early Bronze Age stone figurines stin erevna kai anadeixi tou politismou tou archipelagous], ed. M.
from Akrotiri on Thera and their significance for the Early Alvanou. Mytilini: Geniki Grammateia Aigaiou kai Nisiotikis
Cycladic settlement. Annual of the British School at Athens 93, Politikis, 51–2.
107–65. Vrellis, S., 2008, Σύμβαση Unidroit [Symvasi Unidroit], in Η προστασία
Sotirakopoulou, P., 1999. Ἀκρωτήρι Θήρας: Ἡ Νεολιθικὴ καὶ ἡ Πρώιμη των πολιτιστικών αγαθών από την παράνομη διακίνηση και
Ἐποχὴ τοῦ Χαλκοῦ ἐπὶ τῃ βάσει τῆς κεραμεικῆς [Akrotiri Thiras: I η διεκδίκησή τους [I prostasia ton politistikon agathon apo tin
Neolithiki kai I Proimi Epochi tou Chalkou epi ti vasei tis kerameikis]. paranomi diakinisi kai I diekdikisi tous], eds S. Boutopoulou, M.
Athens: Archaeological Society at Athens. Mouliou, S. Kalliodi & V. Sakelliadis. Athens: Hellenic Ministry
Sotirakopoulou, P., 2005. The ‘Keros Hoard’: Myth or Reality? of Culture, 93–8.
Searching for the lost pieces of a puzzle. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Wilson, D.E., 1999. Keos IX. Ayia Irini: Periods I–III. The Neolithic and
Foundation. Early Bronze Age Settlements 1: The Pottery and Small Finds. Mainz:
Sotirakopoulou, P., 2008. Akrotiri, Thera: the Late Neolithic and Philipp von Zabern.
Early Bronze Age phases in the light of recent excavations at Wilson, D.E. 2013, Ayia Irini II–III, Kea: the phasing and relative
the site, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, chronology of the Early Bronze Age II settlement. American
eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge: Journal of Archaeology 82, 385–434.
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 121–34. Zachos, K.L., 1996. The Zas Cave, in Neolithic Culture in Greece, ed.
Televantou, C. A., 2006. Ο οικισμός του Στρόφιλα στην Άνδρο [O G.A. Papathanassopoulos. Athens: N.P. Goulandris Foundation,
oikismos toy Strofila stin Andro], in The Prehistory of the Aegean 88–9.
Basin: Paleolithic – Mesolithic – Neolithic, ed. A. Sampson. Athens: Zachos, K.L., 1999. Zas cave on Naxos and the role of caves in
Kardamitsa 185–94. the Aegean Late Neolithic, in Neolithic Society in Greece, ed. P.
Televantou, C. A., 2008a. Strofilas: A Neolithic settlement on Halstead. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 153–63.
Andros, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, Zachos, K.L. & A. Douzougli, 2008. Observations on the Early
eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge: Bronze Age sealings from the cave of Zas at Naxos in Horizon:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 43–53. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, eds N.J. Brodie,
Televantou, C. A., 2008b. The Early Cycladic cemetery at Rivari on Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
Melos, in Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, for Archaeological Research, 85–96.
eds N.J. Brodie, Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew. Cambridge: Zapheiropoulou, P., 1968. Κυκλάδες: ἀνασκαφικαὶ ἔρευναι –
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 209–23. περιοδεῖαι: Κέρος [Kyklades: anaskaphikai erevnai – periodeiai:
Televantou, C. A., 2013. The roots of pictorial art in the Cyclades: Keros]. Archaeologikon Deltion 23B, 381–3.
from Strofilas to Akrotiri, in A. Vlachopoulos (ed.), Paintbrushes: Zapheiropoulou, P., 2007. The 1967 rescue project. A further
Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the 2nd Millennium BC in note on work in 1966 and 1967 in Keros, Dhaskalio Kavos the
Dialogue (summaries). Athens: Society of the Promotion of investigations of 1987-88, eds. C. Renfrew, C. Doumas, L. Marangou
Theran Studies, 22–5. & G. Gavalas. Cambridge: McDonald Institute, 30–6.
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
population in the Italian quarter of the North End of Boston was said
to be nearly 1.40 persons per room.[201] In the Italian quarter of
Philadelphia investigators found 30 Italian families, numbering 123
persons, living in 34 rooms. In some of the Italian tenements in this
city, lamps were kept burning all day in some of the rooms, where
day could scarcely be distinguished from night.[202] The Jews at this
time were only a little less densely crowded than the Italians. In 1891
nearly one fourth of the whole number of Jews living in two of the
precincts of the North End of Boston were living with an average of
more than two persons to a room and were found to be very
uncleanly in the care of their homes. Among the Irish an average of
1.24 persons per room was found in Boston in 1891. On the whole
they kept their tenements cleaner than did the Jews or Italians.[203]
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, interest in the slum
population of our cities has centered itself about the Slavic and other
races of southeastern Europe, even more than about the Italians and
Jews. About one sixth of the entire population of Buffalo, or 80,000
individuals, is Polish. Of these, about 4000 families, representing
20,000 persons, own their homes. They are said to be thrifty, clean,
willing, and neglected. Nearly all the Poles live in small one and two
story wooden cottages. Good tenement work thirty years ago avoided
the serious structural conditions which prevail in most cities. The
principal evil now in the Polish section is room-overcrowding. The
two-story cottages hold six or more families, while the older one-
story cottage was built for four families, though the owner is likely to
occupy two of the rear apartments. There are 15,000 of these
cottages, all subject to the tenement law. A Pole was recently made
health commissioner, and gave promise of being the best incumbent
of that office that Buffalo has ever had. That there is plenty of work
for him to do may be judged from the description of some of the
conditions which prevail.
“Counting little bedrooms, living rooms, and kitchens (and they
are pretty nearly indistinguishable), Mr. Daniels tells us that half the
Polish families in Buffalo, or 40,000 people, average two occupants
to a room. There are beds under beds (trundle beds, by the way, were
once quite respectable), and mattresses piled high on one bed during
the day will cover all the floors at night. Lodgers in addition to the
family are in some sections almost the rule rather than the exception.
Under such conditions privacy of living, privacy of sleeping, privacy
of dressing, privacy of toilet, privacy for study, are all impossible,
especially in the winter season; and those who have nerves, which
are not confined to the rich in spite of an impression to the contrary,
are led near to insanity. Brothers and sisters sleep together far
beyond the age of safety. It begins so, and parents do not realize how
fast children grow, or how dangerous it all is.”[204]
Even in Buffalo, the congestion problem is not limited to the Poles.
The author just quoted describes the Italians as tending to establish
residences in old hotels, warehouses, and abandoned homesteads,
and says, “As late as 1906 we found Italians living in large rooms,
subdivided by head-high partitions of rope and calico, with a
separate family in each division.”
In Milwaukee there are three foci of the tenement evil, the Italian
quarter, the Polish quarter, and the Jewish quarter. While there are
not the large tenement houses that prevail in larger cities, there are
the same evil conditions in the small cottages of the laboring class.
The following paragraphs give a vivid picture of some of the
conditions in each of these three sections.
In the Italian district, “Entering one of these dwellings we had to
duck our heads to escape a shower bath from leaking pipes above the
door. Incidentally, we had to dodge a crowd of the canine family
which did not seem to be particularly pleased with our visit. The
rooms were dark. Something, which I supposed was food or intended
for food, was bubbling on a little stove. A friendly goat was playing
with the baby on the floor, and the pigeons cooed cheerily near by.
Through the door of the kitchen we got the odor of the stable. The
horses had the best room. In the middle room, which was absolutely
dark, on a bed of indescribable filth, lay an aged woman, groaning
with pain from what I judged to be ulcerated teeth, but which for
aught she knew might have been a more malignant disease. In this
single dwelling, which is not unlike many we saw, there lived
together in ignorant misery one man, two women, ten children, six
dogs, two goats, five pigeons, two horses, and other animal life which
escaped our hurried observation.”
“In the Ghetto, in one building, live seventy-one people,
representing seventeen families. The toilets in the yard freeze in
winter and are clogged in summer. The overcrowding here is fearful
and the filth defies description. Within the same block are crowded a
number of tenements three and four stories high with basement
dwellings. One of these is used as a Jewish synagogue. Above and
beneath and to the rear this building is crowded with tenement
dwellers. The stairways are rickety, the rooms filthy, and all are
overcrowded. The toilets for the whole population are in the cellar
adjoining some of the dwelling rooms, reached by a short stairway.
At the time of our visit the floors of this toilet, both inside and
outside, were covered with human excrement and refuse to a depth
of eight to twelve inches. Into this den of horrors all the population,
male and female, had to go.”
A typical dwelling of the Polish working people is thus described.
“There is an entrance, perhaps under the steps, which leads to the
apartments below. In this semibasement in the front lives a family.
There are perhaps two rooms, sometimes only one. In the rear of this
same basement lives another family. Above, on the first floor, lives
another family, likewise in two or three small rooms; and in the rear
is another. Thus four or more families live in one small cottage—and,
often, in true tenement style, they ‘take in’ boarders.... Here,
together, live men, women, children, dogs, pigeons, and goats in
regular tenement and slum conditions.”[205]
Such instances as these, which might be multiplied almost
indefinitely, are individual manifestations of conditions which are
represented en masse by the figures of the Immigration Commission.
It is apparent that slum conditions exist, fully developed, in other
places than the great cities, and in other types of building than the
regulation tenement. As will be seen later, they may be found in
communities which do not come under the head of cities at all. The
slum is a condition, not a place, and will crop up in the most
unexpected places, whenever vigilance is relaxed. The slum can never
be eradicated by erecting model dwellings, however well planned,
nor by any other superficial method alone. The foundation of the
slum rests in the social and economic relations of society, and can be
effectually attacked only through them.
In the foregoing quotations, frequent reference is made to the
filthy condition in which the dwellings of the foreign-born are kept.
It is the current idea among a large class of people that extreme
uncleanliness characterizes the great majority of immigrant homes.
Unfortunately there is all too large a basis of truth for this
impression. Yet there is undoubtedly much exaggeration on this
point in the popular mind. The Immigration Commission found that
out of every 100 homes investigated in its study of city conditions, 45
were kept in good condition, and 84 in either good or fair condition,
though the foreign-born were inferior in this respect to the native-
born. In many cases the filthy appearance of the streets in the
tenement districts is due to negligence on the part of city authorities,
rather than to indifference on the part of the householders. “In
frequent cases the streets are dirty, while the homes are clean.”[206]
Not only is it an error to suppose that all immigrants are filthy, but it
is also untrue that all immigrants who are filthy are so from choice.
While the standards of decency and cleanliness of many of our
immigrant races are undoubtedly much below those of the natives,
there are many alien families who would gladly live in a different
manner, did not the very conditions of their existence seem to thrust
this one upon them, or the hardship and sordidness of their daily life
quench whatever native ambition for better things they might
originally have had.
In the foregoing paragraphs mention has been made of the
boarder as a characteristic feature of life in the tenements. He is, in
fact, a characteristic feature of the family life of the newer immigrant
wherever found. Since so large a proportion of the modern
immigrants are single men, or men unaccompanied by their wives
(see p. 191), there is an enormous demand for accommodations for
male immigrants who have no homes of their own. This demand is
met in two main ways. The most natural, and perhaps the least
objectionable, of the two, where there are a certain number of
immigrant families of the specified race already in this country, is for
a family which has a small apartment to take in one or more boarders
or lodgers of their own nationality. In this way they are able to add to
their meager income, and thereby to increase the amount of their
monthly savings, or perhaps to help pay off the mortgage on the
house if they happen to be the owners. The motive is not always a
financial one, however, but occasionally the desire to furnish a home
for some newcomer from the native land, with whom they are
acquainted, or in whom they are interested for some other reason.
[207]
The second way of solving the problem is for a number of men to
band themselves together, hire an apartment of some sort, and carry
on coöperative housekeeping in one way or another. A description of
these households will be given later (p. 247).
The keeping of boarders or lodgers[208] is a very widespread
practice among our recently immigrating families.
Among the households studied by the Immigration Commission in
its investigation of cities, 13 per cent of the native-born white
households kept boarders, and 27.2 per cent of the foreign-born. The
following foreign-born nationalities had high percentages, as shown
by the figures: Russian Hebrews, 32.1 per cent; north Italians, 42.9
per cent; Slovaks, 41 per cent; Magyars, 47.3 per cent; Lithuanians,
70.3 per cent. A similar showing is made by the figures given in the
report of the Immigration Commission on Immigrants in
Manufacturing and Mining (abstract quoted). The percentage of
households keeping boarders, as shown in that report, is as follows:

PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS KEEPING BOARDERS[209]

Nativity Per Cent

Native-born white of native father 10.0
Native-born of foreign father 10.9
Foreign-born 32.9

Race (foreign-born)—

Norwegian 3.8
Bohemian and Moravian 8.8
Croatian 59.5
South Italian 33.5
Magyar 53.6
Polish 48.4
Roumanian 77.9
Servian 92.8

209. Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 147.
 The average number of boarders per household, based on the
number of households keeping boarders, was as follows:

AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOARDERS PER HOUSEHOLD BASED ON THE NUMBER OF

HOUSEHOLDS KEEPING BOARDERS[210]

Nativity Number
Native-born white of native father 1.68
Native-born of foreign father 1.52
Foreign-born 3.53

Race (foreign-born)—

Bulgarian 8.29
Croatian 6.39
Roumanian 12.23
Servian 7.25

210. Ibid., p. 149.

This prevalent custom of taking boarders brings numerous evils in
its train. Foremost among these is the absolute sacrifice of family life
in the households. It is difficult at best to maintain a decent degree of
privacy when the family is left to itself; the intrusion of outsiders
makes it wholly impossible. Secondly, the taking of boarders tends to
increase a congestion which is likely already to be extreme. Thirdly, it
lays additional burdens upon the already overworked housewife. Its
great advantage is, of course, the increase of the family income,
sometimes to an amount almost double that which could be obtained
without the boarders. Among the Slavs, for example, women are rare,
and are regarded as very valuable, first as wives, and second as a
means whereby a man may take boarders.[211] The arrangements
between the boarders and the housewife differ in different localities,
and under different conditions. In a Colorado mining camp $10 a
month is the customary price for a regular boarder. A very common
arrangement is for the men to buy each his own food, and pay the
woman to cook it. The sums paid range from $2 to $4 a month for
lodging, washing, and cooking.
 The life of such a housewife in a coal mining community has been
described in the following words: “The status of the immigrant
housewife from the south and east of Europe is deplorable. The
boarding system followed is one whereby a fixed sum is paid for
lodging, cooking, washing, and mending; an individual food account
being kept with each lodger. The housewife has the beds to make
each day for a dozen men, their clothing to wash and mend, their
meals to prepare. In many cases she has also to buy the food, which
necessitates many visits to the store and separate purchases for each
boarder. She has also to carry all the water used from the hydrant or
well, which may be ten or one hundred yards distant. When the men
return from work it is a part of her duties to help them in their
ablutions by scrubbing their backs. There are also numerous children
to care for and scores of other tasks demanding her attention. Under
these conditions the marked untidiness of the immigrant households
is not to be wondered at.”[212]
The second typical method of providing for the single male
immigrant, mentioned above, is coöperative housekeeping on the
part of a group of men, either with or without a female housekeeper.
This practice is very common among many of the newer races of
immigrants, as has been suggested. It is a makeshift to which the
foreigner is driven by the absence of a normal number of women of
his own race. In households of this sort are developed some of the
very worst conditions to be found among our foreign residents.
Under this system, a number of men of a certain foreign race club
together and hire an apartment, consisting of a few rooms in a
regular tenement house, or, very frequently, a large storeroom or
warehouse, which thereupon becomes their home. In order to
minimize expense, the greatest possible number of beds are provided
in each room. If the apartment consists of a storeroom, it is often
fitted up with tiers of bunks along the sides. Such a room may be
used by two sets of men, one during the day and one during the
night. If some of the men are peddlers, the peanut stands or barrows
will be kept at night in the unoccupied spaces in the room. The lack
of woman’s care in the upkeep of such apartments is very manifest.
The meals are either prepared in the apartment or secured at some
near-by restaurant, or the two methods are combined. In the absence
of all semblance of family life, every possible expedient to reduce
expense is adopted, with the unfortunate results that might be
expected. The following description of such a household will give a
concrete idea of the type:
“To-day, in a certain mining town, there are fourteen Slavs, all
unmarried, and with only themselves to support, who rent one large,
formerly abandoned, storeroom. This is taken care of by a
housekeeper, who also prepares the meals for the men. Each man
has his own tin plate, tin knife, fork, and cup; he has his own ham
and bread, and a place in which to keep them. Some things they buy
in common, the distribution being made by the housekeeper. For
beds the men sleep on bunks arranged along the walls and
resembling shelves in a grocery store. Each has his own blanket; each
carries it out-of-doors to air when he gets up in the morning, and
back again when he returns from his work at night. The monthly cost
of living to each of these men is not over four dollars. They spend but
little on clothes the year round, contenting themselves with the
cheapest kind of material, and not infrequently wearing cast-off
garments purchased of some second-hand dealer. For fuel they burn
coal from the culm-banks or wood from along the highway, which
costs them nothing but their labor in gathering it.”[213]
That housing conditions such as have been portrayed above should
prevail so generally all over the country is a serious indictment
against the social and industrial organization of the United States. It
has been intimated that these conditions are not in all cases due to
the choice of the immigrant, or to the lack of desire for better things
on his part. Whether they are not, to a large degree, actually due to
the presence of the immigrant in this country is quite another
matter, upon the decision of which must rest much of the final
judgment as to the desirability of immigration under the present
system.
Throughout the study of housing conditions among the foreign-
born, it becomes more and more evident that there is a marked
distinction not only between the homes of the native-born and the
foreign-born, but between those of the older and newer immigrants.
By whatever test the standards of each class are measured, there is
almost invariably a decided discrepancy in favor of the older races.
As regards the number of rooms per apartment, the size of
households, the number of persons per room, the number of
boarders, the care and upkeep of the apartment, the English,
Scandinavians, Germans, and Irish come much nearer to what might
be considered a reasonable American standard than do the Italians,
either north or south, the Slavs (except perhaps the Bohemians and
Moravians), the Greeks, Syrians, Bulgarians, etc. This distinction is
well brought out in mining localities, where the newer races have
displaced the older within recent years. A graphic comparison is
given by Mr. F. J. Warne in his book, The Slav Invasion and the
Mine Workers. He says that, by the time of the coming of the Slavs,
the Irish, English, Welsh, Scotch, and German mine workers had
grown accustomed to a “social life of some dignity and comfort.” The
English-speaking mine worker wanted a home and family. That
home was usually a neat, two-story frame house, with porch and
yard. Within were pictures on the walls, and carpets on the floors of
the best rooms. He wished to have no one as a permanent resident of
the house save his own family, or very near relatives. He desired his
wife to be well dressed and comfortable, and his children to have the
benefits of school. His wants were always just beyond his wages, and
always increasing.
The Slav had no wife and children, and wished none. “He was
satisfied to live in almost any kind of a place, to wear almost
anything that would clothe his nakedness, and to eat any kind of food
that would keep body and soul together.” He was content to live in a
one-room hut, built of driftwood and roofed with tin from old
powder cans. In the mining towns he drifted to the poorer and
cheaper sections to live. He did not care with whom or with how
many he lived, provided they were of his own nationality. When two
such standards are brought into competition, it is inevitable that the
higher should yield in some way or other.
This difference in standards is undoubtedly due in part to a
difference in natural instincts and aptitudes for decency and
cleanliness between the common classes of northern and southern
Europe, but probably more to the customary standards to which they
have become habituated in their native land. The effect is the same,
whatever the cause. The new immigrant desires a certain
improvement in his standard as a reward for emigration, but the new
standard need not be by any means the equivalent of that of the
immigrant races which have preceded him. As long as we continue to
draw our immigrants from more and more backward and
undeveloped nations and races we may expect to see a progressive
degradation in the customary standard of the working people.
There are many other considerations besides congestion which
determine the character of life in the slums. Many of these have
already been suggested in preceding paragraphs. Prominent among
them are ventilation, sanitary and cooking facilities, light, water
supply, healthfulness of surroundings, and play room for children.
The degree in which evils exist in these particulars, in any locality,
depends primarily upon the stringency of the local tenement and
public health laws, and the energy and faithfulness of their
enforcement. Much is being accomplished and has been
accomplished in recent years in the direction of securing better
conditions. Yet there is almost infinite room for improvement. The
futility of relying upon the individual benevolence and humanity of
builders, owners, and agents was demonstrated long ago. Here, of all
places, eternal vigilance on the part of the better classes of society is
the price of safety. Descriptions of the homes of the foreign-born are
full of accounts of dark and absolutely unventilated bedrooms,
houses unprovided with any water supply, filthy outdoor closets and
privy vaults, toilets used by ten or twelve families conjointly,
buildings covering the entire lot, dooryards flooded with stagnant
water and refuse, basements half filled with water, domestic animals
sharing the limited accommodations with the family, and a host of
other horrors. Detailed descriptions of these dwellings are
unnecessary. Any one interested may find them in abundance in the
accounts of housing conditions in the poorer sections of our cities
and towns, for, as the Immigration Commission has amply
demonstrated, the slum, wherever found, is distinctively the home of
the foreign-born.[214]
It is almost superfluous to add that there are thousands of
immigrants, even of the newer races, who live in conditions wholly
different from those we have been discussing. Individuals of every
race, in large numbers, have succeeded in raising themselves from
the lowly estate of their compatriots, and establishing homes of
culture and refinement, even of luxury. Examples of this class are
prominent, and are frequently referred to. Yet in spite of this, the
slum remains the characteristic home of the average immigrant to
this country, and as such it must be reckoned with.
The influence of the slum must of necessity be hampering and
degrading to its denizens. No poorer training school for American
citizens could be devised. Not only is the life prejudicial to health and
morals, and destructive of ambition, but it precludes practically all
incidental or unconscious contact with the uplifting influences of
American life. Almost the only actively assimilating agency with
which the slum dweller comes into immediate relationship is the
public school, and this lacks much of its value as an assimilating
force in districts which are so largely foreign that the pupils meet
few, if any, children of native-born parents. Any practical program
for solving the immigration problem must attack the slum boldly. In
the words of Mr. Frederic Almy, “You cannot make a silk purse out of
a sow’s ear, and you cannot make an American citizen out of a
tenement slum. The slum must go. If you spare the slum, you will
spoil the child.”[215]
In regard to the housing conditions of the foreign-born outside of
the larger centers of population it is more difficult to make
generalizations. Fortunately, it is also less necessary. Some of the
foremost housing evils are essentially city matters. Particularly is it
true of immigrants who have established themselves in independent
agriculture, that they have made a long step toward Americanization.
While every grade of dwelling may be found among foreign-born
agriculturists, from the wretched hovel of the Italian market
gardener to the home of the Swedish farmer of the Northwest which
ranks with the finest in the land, yet the alien who takes up his abode
in the country has, in many respects, removed himself from the
general problem of the immigrant, and his living conditions can, with
a reasonable degree of safety, be left to look after themselves. Yet it
has been abundantly proved that slum conditions can exist even in
the country, and in small towns. This is especially true in mining
camps, and in the smaller manufacturing communities. Some of the
worst conditions of the most crowded sections of the cities are
reproduced in the shacks of the miners or the dwellings of the factory
hands. Overcrowding, bad ventilation, unsanitary toilet facilities,
inadequate heating, and filth are not city monopolies. The taking of
boarders is especially common in these communities, and, in the
mining towns, brings a peculiar evil with it, in addition to all the
regular disadvantages. This lies in the necessity which every mine
worker is under of bathing every day after work. In the absence of
bathrooms, ablutions are customarily performed in a tub set in the
kitchen, and in the crowded quarters of the miner’s cabin, the
children of the household are accustomed to the sight of nudity from
their infancy up, to the serious injury of their moral sense.[216]
It is too often true that the worst conditions prevail in the company
houses. The extreme monotony of these identical rows of ugly
dwellings is in itself sufficiently depressing. But in addition, it
appears that many employers are wholly oblivious to the higher
needs of their employees, and provide the most meager shelter which
will suffice to keep body and soul together, charging therefor
exorbitant rates. To say that these men and women are treated like
beasts, is putting the case too mildly, for no well-to-do person would
house a valuable animal as some of these human workers are housed.
The shifting character of the population and the uncertain duration
of a mining camp offer a quasi justification for some of these evils.
Yet a self-respecting nation should not permit any type of industry to
persist which requires its army of workers to live as do hundreds of
thousands of these faithful toilers.[217]
In regard to the food of our immigrant population, such studies of
individual races as have been made seem to indicate that, while the
dietary of the average foreign family falls far short of what a native
American would consider a satisfactory standard and is very
deficient in variety, yet it is ordinarily sufficient in quantity and in
amount of nourishment. Of course there are countless immigrant
families of the poorer sort, just as there are of natives, who are
habitually undernourished; yet the ordinary immigrant working
family or individual appears not to suffer for lack of sustaining food.
This condition is made possible by a long habitude in European
countries to an exceedingly simple diet, and by a resulting knowledge
of cheap and nourishing foods. The food item in the budget of an
immigrant family from southern or eastern Europe is almost
incredible to an American. The average cost of food for an individual
immigrant mine worker in Pennsylvania runs from about $4 to $10
per month. Among the Italians in Boston, during the winter months,
about a dollar a week will suffice for the food of a man. The south
Italian berry pickers in New Jersey are said to be able to get along on
as little as 25 cents per week, and other races live almost as cheaply.
[218]

There appears to be a considerable difference in this respect

between the different races, even among the newer immigrants. The
lowest standard prevails among the south Italians, Greeks, Syrians,
Bravas, etc. The Slavs are inclined to spend more of their increasing
income on food; particularly is meat a more important part of their
diet. The Jews are said to rank well above the Italians in this regard.
The quality and preparation of food leaves much to be desired.
Italian children are sent to the markets of Boston to gather
vegetables which have been thrown away as unfit for use. A brief
walk through the East Side of New York, with an eye on the push
carts, will convince one of the undesirable quality of some, at least, of
the food eaten by the residents of that section. On the other hand, the
Greek laborers on the railroads of the West are said to live
remarkably well, and themselves complain of the staleness of
American food, and object to our practice of putting everything up in
“boxes.”[219] In general, the conclusion of investigators in regard to
the food of our working classes seems to be that the faults of their
dietary lie, not so much in the failure to spend an adequate amount
of money for food, as in wasteful and ill-judged purchases,
unsatisfactory preparation, and improper balance between the
essential food elements (especially lack of sufficient proteids) and too
much fat. It is not unlikely that in this particular the immigrants fare
better than the natives in the same class. It is certainly probable that,
taken on the whole, the standard of food of the immigrant families in
this country is superior to that to which they were accustomed in
their native land.
There is probably no other aspect of life in which the immigrant
shows at least a superficial Americanization more quickly than in the
matter of clothing. It is a matter where imitation is easy, and in fact
almost inevitable. Any purchases of clothing made after the
immigrant’s arrival in this country must, almost of necessity, be
American in type. And the younger generation, at least, are eager to
have their exterior appearance correspond to that of the older
residents of their adopted country,—so eager, often, as to lead them
to adopt the most extreme of the new fashions in cut and fitting,
however cheap and flimsy the materials may be. In fact, this
Americanization affects the immigrants even before they leave their
native home. Officials on Ellis Island say that it is rare nowadays to
see groups of immigrants arriving clad in their picturesque European
costumes; the prevailing garb now is of the American type. It is a
strange fact that some writers, apparently oblivious of the ease of this
transition, seem to regard American clothes as an evidence of real
assimilation.
As regards physical adequacy of clothing, the immigrant is
probably as well off on the average as his native fellow-worker. It is
not likely that any large proportion of our working classes actually
suffer physical harm from insufficient clothing, unless it be through
lack of proper protection against dampness, particularly in the
matter of shoes.[220] In respect to cleanliness, and even decency, there
is frequently room for improvement among the immigrants, just as
there is among the native-born. There is, on the other hand, a
recognized danger that the desire for a fashionable appearance,
particularly on the part of the women, may lead to an extreme
expenditure for dress, unwarranted by the family income.[221]
 CHAPTER XIII
THE STANDARD OF LIVING (continued)

The standard of living of any family or individual[222] is the

resultant of two principal factors. These are the desires and appetites
of the individual or family and the amount of income available for
the gratification of those desires and appetites. The casual observer,
in forming his estimate of the immigrant, is in danger of forgetting
the second of these factors, and of assuming that because the
immigrant is found living in a certain status, he is therefore satisfied
with that status and has no ambition to change it. It has already been
hinted, in the foregoing paragraphs, that this is not the case. A full
understanding of the limitations under which the immigrant is
placed can come only with a study of the customary wages or income
of the class to which he belongs.
 AVERAGE ANNUAL EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES IN THE INDUSTRIES SPECIFIED[223]
Industry Per Cent of Average Annual Earnings
Employees Males, 18 or Male Heads Average
Foreign-born Over of Families Family
Income
Iron and steel 57.7 $346 $409 $568
manufacturing
Slaughtering and
meat
packing 60.7 557 578 781
Bituminous coal 61.9 443 451 577
mining
Glass manufacturing 39.3 574 596 755
Woolen and worsted
manufacturing 61.9 346 400 661
Silk goods
manufacturing
and dyeing 34.3 431 448 635
Cotton goods 68.7 [224] 470 491
manufacturing
Clothing 72.2 513 530 713
manufacturing
Boot and shoe 27.3 502 573 765
manufacturing
Furniture 59.1 575 598 769
manufacturing
Collar, cuff, and shirt
manufacturing 13.4 637 662 861
Leather tanning,
currying,
and finishing 67.0 431 511 671
Glove manufacturing 33.5 625 650 904
Oil refining 66.7 591 662 828
Sugar refining 85.3 522 549 661
Cigars and tobacco 32.6 1.92[225]
manufacturing

223. Compiled from Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs.

224. Not given.

225. Daily wage only given.

 The matter of wages is one of the easiest aspects of the life of the
immigrant about which to secure reliable data. It lends itself readily
to exact measurement, averaging, and tabulation. It is a subject upon
which the immigrant himself can give accurate information if he is so
inclined. As a result, there is a considerable mass of data in regard to
the earnings of the foreign-born, and it is possible to make
trustworthy generalizations thereupon. The latest and most inclusive
figures on this point are those furnished by the Immigration
Commission in its various reports. Foremost among these stands the
report of Immigrants in Manufacturing and Mining, which presents
the results of a thoroughgoing investigation of twenty of the leading
industries of the country, and a less detailed study of sixteen others,
covering in all 17,141 households and 503,732 individuals. The great
majority of these are foreign-born, but there is a sufficient number of
native-born, both of native and foreign parentage, to serve the
purposes of comparison. The table on the previous page gives the
average annual earnings of employees and the average family income
in the different industries.
A noteworthy feature of the above table is the general excess of
average family earnings over the average earnings of heads of
families, showing the extent to which other members of the family
besides the head contribute to the family support.
The average weekly earnings of male employees, 18 years of age or
over, distributed according to nativity, are as follows. (The table
includes over 200,000 individuals.)

AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS OF MALE EMPLOYEES, 18 YEARS OF AGE OR OVER, BY

NATIVITY[226]

Nativity Average Weekly Earnings

Native-born white of native father $14.37
Native-born of foreign father 13.89
Foreign-born 11.92

226. Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs. p. 91.
There is a marked difference between races in this respect. The
lowest figures among the foreign-born were: Albanian, $8.07; Greek,
$8.41; Portuguese, $8.10; Syrian, $8.12; Turkish, $7.65. Some of the
foreign-born rank well above the natives, as, for instance:
Norwegian, $15.28; Scotch, $15.24; Scotch-Irish, $15.13; Swedish,
$15.36; Welsh, $22.02.
The average yearly earnings (approximate) of male employees 18
years of age or over were as follows:

AVERAGE YEARLY EARNINGS (APPROXIMATE) OF MALE EMPLOYEES, 18 YEARS OF

AGE OR OVER, BY NATIVITY[227]

Nativity Average Yearly Earnings

Native-born white of native father $666
Native-born of foreign father 566
Foreign-born 455

227. Ibid., p. 131.

In this table, the decrease of earnings of approximately $100 from
class to class is striking.
The average family income was as follows:

AVERAGE ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME, BY NATIVITY OF HEAD OF FAMILY[228]

Nativity Average Family Income

Native-born white of native father $865
Native-born of foreign father 866
Foreign-born 704

228. Ibid., p. 136.

Comparing the last two tables, and noting that while the average
yearly earnings of native-born male employees of foreign parentage
are $100 less than those of the native-born of native parentage, yet
the family income of the native-born of foreign parentage is $1 more
than that of the native-born of native parentage, the obvious
conclusion might be that the native-born of foreign parentage are
more inclined to rely upon some one besides the head of the family
for part of the income than are the native-born of native parentage.
Closer examination, however, proves that this is not the case. The
following table gives the percentages of families of different nativities
which receive the entire income from the husband.

PER CENT OF FAMILIES HAVING ENTIRE INCOME FROM THE HUSBAND, BY

NATIVITY[229]

Nativity Per Cent

Native-born white of native father 58.4
Native-born of foreign father 61.3
Foreign-born 38.0

229. Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 139.
Thus there is a smaller proportion of families among the native-
born of foreign fathers who rely upon other members of the family
than the husband for part of the family income than of the native-
born of native father. It appears that the explanation of the
peculiarity which has been noticed must be either that only the more
prosperous of the native-born of foreign parentage are heads of
families, or that those families of this class which do receive income
from other sources than the husband receive a much greater total
amount than among the native-born of native father, so as to raise
the average. The former explanation seems the more probable, for
while 67.3 per cent of the male native-born white employees of native
fathers, 20 years of age or over, were married, only 56.5 per cent of
the native-born of foreign fathers of the same age were married.
Native-born employees of foreign parentage who are old enough to
be the heads of families are predominantly representatives of the old
immigration, and hence stand high on the wage scale. The very small
percentage of families among the foreign-born which derive their
entire income from the husband indicates the extent to which the
children of this class contribute to the family support, and also the
extent to which boarders are taken.
Figures from other sources corroborate, in general, the showing
made in the foregoing tables, with some differences in detail. The
Immigration Commission in one of its other reports, namely that on
Immigrants in Cities, gives the average approximate yearly earnings
of over 10,000 male wage workers 18 years of age or over as follows:
native-born white of native father, $595; native-born of foreign
father, $526; foreign-born, $385.[230] These figures are less,
throughout, than those presented in the foregoing tables, and seem
to indicate that the average of wages in cities is less than in the
general run of organized industries throughout the country. It is
probable that a census of city workers would include many in
insignificant industries, and in occupations which could hardly be
classed as industries, where the wage scale is low.
The earnings of agricultural laborers on the farms of western New
York range from $1.25 to $1.75 per day of ten hours. South Italian
families of four or five members, engaged in this kind of work,
average from $350 to $450 for the season, extending from April to
November. Poles, working as general farm laborers the year round,
earn from $18 to $20 per month.[231] Among the anthracite coal
miners of Pennsylvania, the average yearly wage of the contract
miners, who make up about twenty-five per cent of persons
employed about the mines, is estimated at about $600 per year,
while “adults in other classes of mine workers, who form over sixty
per cent of the labor force, do not receive an annual average wage of
$450.”[232] In the extensive array of wage figures given by Mr.
Streightoff, distinction is not made between natives and immigrants,
but the general showing harmonizes so well with what has already
been given as to obviate the necessity of going into this question in
further detail.[233] We are justified in setting down the average
earnings of wage-working adult male immigrants as from $350 to
$650 per year, and the average annual income of immigrant families
at from $500 to $900.
The figures given for individual immigrant incomes have been
confined to male workers, for the reasons that they are
representative, and are of primary importance in determining the
status of the immigrant family in this country. The wages of female
workers range on the average from 30 to 40 per cent below those of
males. Full comparisons are given in the volume of the Immigration
Commission Report on Immigrants in Manufacturing and Mining.
The next question which arises is, to what degree are these
incomes, of individuals and families, adequate to furnish proper
support to an average family of five persons? This problem involves
the determination of the minimum amount on which a family can
live in decency under existing conditions in America. Numerous
efforts have been made to solve this question. The estimate of the
Bureau of Statistics of Massachusetts is $754.[234] The Charity
Organization Society of Buffalo regards $634 a year as the “lowest
tolerable budget which will allow the bare decencies of life for a
family of five.”[235] A special committee of the New York State
Conference of Charities and Corrections in 1907 made the following
estimates as to the income necessary for a family of five persons in
New York City.
“$600–$700 is wholly inadequate to maintain a proper standard
of living, and no self-respecting family should be asked or expected
to live on such an income.”
“With an income of between $700–$800 a family can barely
support itself, provided it is subject to no extraordinary expenditures
by reason of sickness, death, or other untoward circumstances. Such
a family can live without charitable assistance through exceptional
management and in the absence of emergencies.”
“$825 is sufficient for the average family of five individuals,
comprising the father, mother, and three children under 14 years of
age to maintain a fairly proper standard of living in the Borough of
Manhattan.”
Mr. Streightoff summarizes the evidence in the following words:
“It is, then, conservative to set $650 as the extreme low limit of the
Living Wage in cities of the North, East, and West. Probably $600 is
high enough for the cities of the South. At this wage there can be no
saving, and a minimum of pleasure.”[236]
The close correspondence of these various estimates gives them a
high degree of credibility. If we fix these standards in mind, and then
look back over the wage scales given on the foregoing pages, we are
struck with the utter inadequacy of the annual incomes of the
foreign-born to meet even these minimum requirements of decency.
It is obvious that an enormous number of immigrant families, if
dependent solely on the earnings of the head of the family, would fall
far below any of these standards, and that many of them, even when
adding to their resources by the labors of wife and children, and the
contributions of boarders, cannot possibly bring the total income up
to the minimum limit. Even the average income in many occupations
is far below this minimum, and it must be considered that while an
average indicates that there are some above, there must also be many
below, the line. What must be the condition of those below! The
average family income of the foreign-born studied in the
Immigration Commission’s investigation of the manufacturing and
mining industries was $704. Mr. Frederic Almy states that 96 per
cent of the Poles under investigation in Buffalo earn less by $110
than the $634 per year which was set as the “lowest tolerable
budget.”[237]
A vast amount of information covering a number of miscellaneous
aspects of human life, which fall under the general head of the
standard of living, is furnished by the Immigration Commission, in
its report on the manufacturing and mining industries. Some of the
most important of these facts are summarized in the following tables.
First, as to the situation of young children in the homes of
immigrants.
PER CENT OF CHILDREN 6 AND UNDER 16 YEARS OF AGE[238]
Male Female
At At At At At At
Home School Work Home School Work
Native-born white of
native father 5.4 90.9 3.6 6.9 90.5 2.6
Native-born of foreign
father 10.2 83.9 5.9 12.6 83.5 3.9
Foreign-born 13.2 77.0 9.9 19.1 73.6 7.3

237. The Survey, Feb. 4, 1911, p. 767.

238. Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., pp. 194–195.
Among the following races the following per cent of foreign-born
male children of the specified age were at work: German, 13.9; south
Italian, 13.3; Lithuanian, 14.3; Portuguese, 15.7; Ruthenian, 14.6;
Scotch, 19.0; Syrian, 22.6.
The following table, showing the per cent of literacy of the
employees studied in these industries, is based on information for
500,329 employees, and hence has a remarkable trustworthiness:
 LITERACY OF EMPLOYEES IN MINING AND MANUFACTURING[239]
NATIVITY MALES FEMALES
Per Cent who Per Cent who
Read Read and Write Read Read and Write
Native-born white of native father 98.2 97.9 98.8 98.4
Native-born of foreign father 99.0 98.7 99.0 98.8
Foreign-born 85.6 83.6 90.8 89.2

239. Ibid., pp. 162–165.

Foreign-born male employees of the following races have the
following literacy, as shown by the per cent who can read and write:
south Italian, 67.6; Macedonian, 67.1; Portuguese, 46.1; Ruthenian,
63.6; Servian, 69.5; Turkish, 54.1.
From the foregoing table it appears that in respect to literacy the
native-born employees of foreign fathers are superior to the native-
born whites of native fathers, and that the foreign-born females are
superior to the foreign-born males.
The important matter of ability to speak English is forcibly
portrayed in the following table:
PER CENT OF FOREIGN-BORN EMPLOYEES (EXCLUSIVE OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING
RACES) WHO SPEAK ENGLISH[240]
Nativity Male Female Total
Total 55.6 38.6 53.2
Bulgarian 20.3 80.0 (only 5) 20.6
Danish 96.5 98.3 96.6
German 87.5 80.2 86.8
Greek 33.5 12.3 31.5
Hebrew, Russian 74.7 75.7 75.0
Herzegovinian 14.6 14.6
Italian, south 48.7 25.8 44.4
Magyar 46.4 24.0 45.2
Norwegian 96.9 91.8 96.5
Polish 43.5 15.5 39.1
Portuguese 45.2 27.0 37.8
Slovak 55.6 26.6 55.1
Slovenian 51.7 30.3 50.9
Swedish 94.7 94.2 94.7

240. Rept. Imm. Com., Imms. in Mfg. and Min., Abs., p. 198.
 It is thus apparent how large a proportion of our foreign-born
laborers have not even taken the first essential step toward
assimilation. This evil is, of course, practically overcome in the
second generation. Almost all of the native-born persons of foreign
fathers, six years of age or over, speak English, though some races
show from 6 to 8 per cent who do not.
The percentage who can speak English naturally increases with the
length of residence in the United States, until a percentage of 83.1 is
reached for all foreign-born employees who have been in the United
States ten years or more. But even in this group a very low
percentage is found among the Cuban and Spanish cigar makers, of
whom almost three fifths are unable to speak the English language.
The age of the immigrant at the time of arriving in the United
States has a great deal to do with the ability to speak English. The
percentage of those who were under fourteen when they arrived who
can speak English is nearly twice as large as that of those who were
fourteen or over. The reasons for this are the greater adaptability of
the younger immigrants, and their greater opportunities of going to
school. The relatively poor showing of the females is probably due to
their greater segregation, which prevents them from coming in touch
with Americans or older immigrants of other races.
One of the special reports of the Immigration Commission deals
with the children of immigrants in schools and brings out some very
significant facts. Practically all of the information was secured in
December, 1908. Naturally this investigation involved a study of the
children of native-born fathers also. A general investigation was
made in the public schools of thirty cities, including the first twenty
cities in point of population, as shown by the census of 1900, with
the exception of Washington, D.C., Louisville, Ky., and Jersey City,
N.J. An investigation was also carried on in regard to parochial
schools in twenty-four cities, and an investigation of the students in
seventy-seven institutions of higher learning. In addition to this
general investigation, an intensive investigation was made in twelve
cities, including seven cities not in the previous list, making a total of
thirty-seven cities in which public schools were studied. The total
number of public school pupils for whom information was secured
was 1,815,217. Thus the investigation was a very inclusive one, and
the results may be taken as representative of educational conditions
in the cities of the entire country.
Of the total number of public school children studied in the thirty-
seven cities, 766,727 were of native-born fathers, and 1,048,490 of
foreign-born fathers. The children of native-born white fathers
constituted 39.5 per cent of the total, while among the children of
foreign-born fathers there were the following percentages of the total
number: Hebrews, 17.6; Germans, 11.6; Italians (north and south),
6.4; total, native-born father, 42.2 per cent; total, foreign-born
father, 57.8 per cent.
The different cities show a marked difference in the proportion of
children who come from foreign-born fathers, as the following table
will show:

PER CENT OF PUPILS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF FOREIGN-BORN FATHERS IN SPECIFIED

CITIES

City Per Cent

Chelsea 74.1
Duluth 74.1
New York 71.5
New Bedford 68.8
Chicago 67.3
Fall River 67.2
Shenandoah 67.1
New Britain 65.3
Boston 63.5
New Orleans 18.1
Kansas City 21.3
Johnstown 24.8
Cincinnati 27.1
Baltimore 28.5
St. Louis 31.9
Los Angeles 32.0
Cedar Rapids 34.2
Haverhill 39.1
“In only 7 of the 37 cities is the proportion of pupils who are children
of native-born white fathers as high as 60 per cent.” Four cities have
less than 30 per cent. The children of German foreign-born fathers
are most numerous in Milwaukee, Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland,
Meriden, Chicago, Cincinnati, and St. Louis; those of foreign-born
Russian Hebrew fathers in Chelsea, New York, Boston, Philadelphia,
Newark, and Baltimore, those of foreign-born south Italian fathers in
Providence, Newark, New York, Yonkers, Buffalo, and Boston.
A smaller proportion of the total number of children of foreign-
born fathers are in the higher grades of the public schools than of the
children of native-born white fathers, as the following table shows:
PER CENT OF PUPILS OF SPECIFIED NATIVITY IN THE SPECIFIED GRADES
Grade Native-born White Father Foreign-born Father
Kindergarten 4.3 4.4
Primary grades 52.1 57.6
Grammar grades 34.5 33.3
High school 9.1 4.7

Total 100.0 100.0

The Slovaks, south Italians, and Magyars have the largest
percentages in the kindergartens, and the Portuguese, Lithuanians,
Slovaks, south Italians, and Polish the largest percentages in the
primary grades. In the high schools, the Canadians, other than
French, the Scotch, the native-born white, the Welsh, Germans,
Hebrews, and English stand highest. This is due to two main facts,—
the longer residence of these latter races in the United States, and
their greater desire for a high education for their children, coupled
with a greater ability to give it to them. Especially in the case of the
kindergartens are the newer immigrating races very eager to have
their young children looked after so that the mother can be free to
work, or otherwise occupy herself.
Another interesting set of figures is that referring to the amount of
retardation among the pupils of different nativities. By “retardation”
is meant that a pupil is above the “normal” age for the grade in which
he is. In this respect the children of foreign-born fathers of the newer
immigration are decidedly inferior to those of the older immigration.
The latter, in fact, are on the whole superior to the children of native-
born white fathers. Of the total number of children of foreign-born
fathers for whom this information was secured, 77.2 per cent were
born in the United States, and 28.8 per cent were born abroad. There
is a considerably larger proportion of retardation for those children
eight years of age or over who were born abroad than among those
born in the United States. The proportion retarded increases as the
age at the time of arrival in the United States advances. The
proportion of retardation is greater among those children whose
fathers cannot speak English than among those who can, and greater
among those whose fathers have not taken out naturalization papers
than among those who have.
When we turn to the institutions of higher learning, we find a
comparatively small number of foreign-born students, as might be
expected.[241] The percentages for a total of 32,887 students are as
follows:

Nativity of Student Per Cent of Total

Native-born white of native father 64.0

Native-born of foreign father 25.3
Foreign-born 10.2

The Hebrews stand foremost among the foreign-born.

Of the 221,159 pupils included in the parochial school
investigation, 36.5 per cent are children of native-born fathers (36.3
per cent of native-born white fathers), and 63.5 per cent of foreign-
born fathers. Children of foreign-born Irish fathers number 26.9 per
cent of the total number of pupils, foreign-born German fathers, 9.7
per cent, Polish, 7.1 per cent, and Italian, 7 per cent. In the twenty-
four cities in which information was secured for both public and
parochial schools, there were 1,322,053 pupils in the public schools,
and 221,159 pupils in the parochial schools. In Philadelphia nearly
one fourth of the pupils were in parochial schools.
Information was also secured for teachers in the kindergartens and
elementary grades of the public schools in thirty cities, including
49,067 individuals. Of these, 49.8 per cent were native-born of
native white fathers, and 42.8 per cent native-born of foreign fathers,
and 5.8 per cent foreign-born. Of the foreign-born, only six races
were represented by as many as one hundred teachers each, viz.
Hebrew, English, Irish, German, Canadian (other than French), and
Scotch.
 CHAPTER XIV
THE EXPLOITATION OF IMMIGRANTS. RELIGION.
BIRTHS, MARRIAGES, AND DEATHS. RECREATION

There is a group of peculiar economic institutions which have been

developed by the immigrants in this country, and which are
especially characteristic of the new immigration. This group includes
the padrone system, the contract labor system, the immigrant bank,
and two or three similar institutions, particularly the sweating
system, which is now practically dependent on immigrants.
The word “padrone” is adopted from the Italian, and signifies
master or “boss.” In its application to American conditions, it refers
to a system of practical slavery, introduced into this country by the
Italians, and subsequently utilized by a number of other
southeastern European races. When immigration from Italy began to
assume considerable proportions, there were already in the United
States a few Italians who had been here some time, and had acquired
a certain familiarity with the language and customs of the land. They
were thereby especially fitted to be of assistance to their newly
arrived fellow-countrymen, and also, unfortunately, to exploit them.
In fact, they did both of these things. By way of assistance, they put
the green immigrants in touch with employers of labor, helped them
to find lodgings, and, in brief, acted as the go-between in every case
of contact between the immigrant and the life of the people around
him. On the other hand, the padrone charged the newcomer well for
every service rendered, and in too many cases subjected him to
various forms of extortion, which his ignorance kept him from either
recognizing or preventing. As certain of the newer immigrants
became familiar with the speech and customs of their new home,
they in turn became padrones, and extended their operations over
the ever increasing numbers of new arrivals. Thus the system spread.
 There are certain businesses or occupations which are particularly
adapted to the application of this system, such as railroad labor,
peddling, boot-blacking, etc. The Italians developed it primarily in
respect to the first of these. This race has now practically abandoned
this system in this country, but it has been taken up by others, and is
at present practiced by the Bulgarians, Turks, Macedonians, Greeks,
and Mexicans, and in some cases among Austrians and Italians.[242]
A more concrete idea of the workings of this system may be gained
by an examination of its operation in a single industry, as, for
instance, the shoe-shining industry among the Greeks. This business,
in a marked degree, combines the necessary elements for the
successful application of the system,—small capital, cheap unskilled
labor, close supervision, etc.,—and this race is well adapted to apply
it to its extreme extent, partly from natural aptitude, and partly from
custom and training. For the system, in its main outlines, has long
been familiar in Greece, though some of the most unfortunate
aspects do not develop there.
The padrone is a Greek who has been in this country for some
time, and knows the ways of the land. He decides to engage in the
boot-blacking trade, and to secure his necessary helpers contracts for
a number of boys from his native land to come over and work for him
for a certain length of time, for a specified sum. The arrangement is
sometimes made with the boys, sometimes with the parents, but
almost always with the parents’ consent. When these boys arrive,
they are taken to a room or set of rooms, which the padrone has
engaged and which thenceforth are their “home.” They are at once
put to work in the shop of the boss, and kept at work continuously
thereafter, with practically no time off which they can call their own,
except the meager allowance made for sleep. The hours are long—
twelve, fourteen, or even more hours per day. The boss furnishes
board and lodging, and pays a small sum in cash, perhaps $200 per
year. The rooms are frightfully overcrowded, miserably ventilated,
and wholly unhygienic. The boys do their own cooking, usually in
relays of two, and the noon meal is eaten hurriedly in a room in the
rear of the shop. The boys are prevented from attending night school,
and are forbidden to talk to patrons. In every way the padrone tries
to discourage their acquiring knowledge of American ways, for the
system rests on ignorance. In a majority of cases the padrone takes
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookfinal.com