• 1 Fiorentini 1980-81, pl. LXXXIV, fig. 2; Raffiotta 2007, cat. 21, 22.
• 2 All the finds from Serra Orlando area labelled according the system used by the American Excavation (...)
• 3 Analysis made by S.T.Art-Test di S. Schiavone & C.

8Figurines B and C (fig.1b–c), with the same reddish fabric, were found during the excavation of the Sanctuary of San Francesco Bisconti, which is located on the steep slope of the deep valley between the Cittadella hill and the rest of Serra Orlando.1 Figurine A (fig.1 a), the only one that is complete, is reported to have been a sporadic find, but it is possible to have come also from the San Francesco Bisconti area.2 The backs of the figurines have long vertical impressions, almost as a recess and probably to facilitate attachment to some support with a glue or other sticky substance (fig. 2). The sides of the figure are smooth and molded as the front edge. X-ray fluorescence analysis of the traces of red color on Figurine B (fig. 1 b) shows that the red color is iron oxide3.

• 4 Bell 1981, 123 n. 2 a–b, pl. 3; Lyons 1996, 107 ff.
• 5 Pautasso 1996, 133 ff pl. XX:f. The figurine from Camarina is larger than the others and can be old (...)

9Two more figurines identical to these come from the Archaic settlement on the Cittadella hill at the eastern end of the Serra Orlando ridge, where the Archaic period site of Morgantina is located. One came from a deposit in the area of the settlement, the other from a chamber tomb.4 Outside the area of Morgantina the only other similar figurines are one from Camarina, now in the Museum of Ragusa and another, in the British Museum, said to come from Locri.5

• 6 Fiorentini 1980–81, Fiorentini 1988–89, Greco 2015.
• 7 Greco 2015.
• 8 Raffiotta 2007 cat.152.
• 9 Fiorentini 1980–1981, pls. LXXX-LXXXV.

10The sanctuary of San Francesco Bisconti dates back to the Archaic period, and it continued to be in use until the destruction of the city in 211 B.C.E. Proper excavation of the sanctuary began in the 1980s, after clandestine activities had resulted in the removal of a number of large-size, marble sculptures. Scientific excavations brought to light a series of small buildings identified as cult and service structures, as well as offering areas, arranged on three levels along the steep terraces above the valley (fig.3).⁶ The disposition of the buildings along what seems to have been a sort of ritual path, and the typology of the finds, suggests that this sanctuary was a Thesmophorion.7 A large number of terracotta finds, mostly mass-produced female figurines, have been recovered from the sanctuary, along with a fragment of a feline paw pertaining to furniture,8 and a few fragments of flat elements that could have been part of a larger structure. The presence of a fragment of a mold with drapery suggests that in the sanctuary area terracotta statuettes were made. Regarding the figurines in question, a recorded provenance is available only for Figurine B, which is Room Number 7 on the lower terrace. In the floor of this room there was a square base in sandy limestone and next to it a rectangular inset in the floor whose interior was completely plastered. These two features led Graziella Fiorentini, the director of the first excavations, to suggest that statues could have been placed in these positions.9

• 10 Van Der Meijden 1990; Pautasso 1997, fig.10.

11There is reason to believe that Figurines B and C from S. Francesco Bisconti, and perhaps also Figurine A, were once part of a fragmentary terracotta throne now on display in the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Vienna. The remains of the throne were published by Ella van der Meijden at the time that they were on display previously in Switzerland at the Basel Museum.10 The throne, dated to the second half of the sixth century B.C.E., consists of two fragmentary sides with flat rectangular elements to which there are attached two rows of draped kouroi below and korai above, as well as feline paws at the front. One side of the throne is complete with six figurines: three kouroi on the lower part and three korai with a dove on the upper part. The other side of the throne is much more fragmentary with only two kouroi remaining on the lower part of the side, while the upper part is missing. The female figures on the throne are identical to the figurines under discussion from Morgantina in every aspect — the size, surface texture, and surface color of the terracotta figurines from San Francesco Bisconti are identical to the size, surface texture, and surface color of the figurines in Vienna.

• 11 Van Der Meijden 1990, pl. 26: 5, 6.

12The feline paw from San Francesco Bisconti is larger in size than the paws in the front of the Vienna throne, but it is possible that this fragment could also have been part of another separated element such as a stool that almost always is associated with thrones in the representation of seated divinities. The flat elements from the Sanctuary also could be part of the terracotta encasing of the structure for a portion not yet identified in the manner of the other elements of the Vienna complex.11 Everything suggests that the three figurines missing from the throne are the figurines from the Thesmophorion at San Francesco Bisconti, which are of a higher quality, in comparison with the numerous, other mass-produced figurines from the same sanctuary.

• 12 On the acrolithis, see Marconi 2008; Maniscalco 2015. On the sanctuary see Greco 2015.
• 13 Marconi 2008, 9.
• 14 Analysis made by Lorenzo Lorenzini; Maniscalco 2015, 53, n. 4.
• 15 Maniscalco 2015 figs. 3–4.

13In the Archaeological Museum of Aidone there is on display a precious group of marble sculptural elements that comprise the oldest known acroliths in the Greek world. These were uncovered during clandestine excavations at Morgantina around 1979 and sold on the art market. In 2009 they were returned to Italy after a long court case established their provenance as the area of Morgantina, and more specifically the Thesmophorion of San Francesco Bisconti.12 Of the two acrolithic statues, which are larger than life-size, there survive only the marble parts: the heads, hands, and feet of Acrolith A, and the head, one hand, and one foot of Acrolith B. Differences between the two faces suggest that the sculptural intent was to distinguish two individuals different in age, and the current interpretation is that Acrolith A should represent Demeter and Acrolith B her daughter, Persephone. The proportions of the preserved parts and the similar shape and placement of the feet suggested to Clemente Marconi, the first to publish them, that the statues were represented seated and completely covered with clothes from the neck to the feet with only their extremities visible.¹³ Analysis showed that the acrolithic elements of the statues were made out of marble from a quarry at Cape Vathy on the island of Thasos.14 X-ray fluorescence analysis shows that the red color painted on the feet of Acrolith A to represent sandals is iron oxide, just like the red paint on one of the figurines. The differences between the upper part of the head of Acrolith A and that of Acrolith B may be interpreted as differences due to hairstyle and/or related headdress15. The curved shape of the upper part of the head of Acrolith A could have served for the placement of a high, closed crown with which Demeter is often represented, while for the head of Acrolith B, a suggestion for the headdress may come from that of Figurines A and B, which consist of a diadem and a veil. This latter headdress would be appropriate for the goddess Persephone.

• 16 Maniscalco 2015, fig. 11.
• 17 Hamilton 2000.

14A silver ring, a silver fragment of a tiara, and a silver earring, all sporadic finds from the Thesmophorion of San Francesco Bisconti, can be listed among the offerings, and we should consider the possibility that they were used for the embellishment of statues.16 A hint of what a Thesmophorion like the one at San Francesco Bisconti could hold comes from the inventories of the sanctuaries at Delos, which range in date from the late fourth century B.C. to the second century A.D.17 There are particularly detailed lists of objects dedicated at the Delian Thesmophorion. One list begins — and presumably this is a sign of importance — with two acrolithic statues, set on thrones, adorned with tiaras and gilded wooden earrings and dressed in clothes of purple linen. The items that follow include ceramics, various kinds of wood and metal objects, many torches in gold and silver of various sizes that evidently were given in offering. Perhaps some of these torches could have been used as attributes of the divinities and may have been mounted in the fists of the statues in Delos.

• 18 Marconi 2008, 7.
• 19 Castiglioni 2008, 375 ff.

15Since there is reason to believe that in antiquity the acrolithic statues from Morgantina were represented as being seated, for the presentation in the Museum of Aidone seats were created in careful proportion to the dimensions of the feet, the arms and the head of each figure, following indications in Marconi’s publication (207 cm. for Acrolith A, 180 cm. circa for Acrolith B should be their respective heights) (fig.4).18 But, also in antiquity, a support in the shape of a chair was necessary to hold the marbles, and we must think that the construction of such a statue group would have been a major enterprise for the city. We know that acrolithic statues were made from different materials, and this required specialists able to work in stone, wood, terracotta, glass paste, and metals, in order to make not only the anatomical stone portions of the statues, but also the wig, the eyes, the attributes, and the jewelry. We must think, also, of the many other tools and materials that would have been necessary to construct the bodies and to connect all the separate pieces to the same support. A strong and also practical and beautiful support could be of wood, but what kind of wood would have been available at that time and place and suitable to the task? And how would the wood be presented — painted or perhaps covered with stucco or elements in terracotta? We do not have any analysis of wood from the excavations at Morgantina, but we do from the relatively close sanctuary of the Divine Palikoi near Mineo — that fir was a common building material.19

• 20 Fiorentini 1980-1981, 595, pl. LXXXIV:2.

16A graphic reconstruction of the acrolithic statues from Morgantina on the Vienna throne demonstrates that the dimensions of the throne fit perfectly the space required for the absent chair by the acrolithic statues. If the two statues were displayed side-by-side, such decoration may have been put only on the outer, visible sides of a single throne or pair of thrones that together formed a sort of bench (fig. 5). The decoration could have belonged, also, to a throne for only one of the sculptures (fig. 6). The published provenance of the only figurine for which an exact find spot is known is the very same room where the acroliths were found,20 and the presumed width of the terracotta throne in Vienna — 43 centimeters — is precisely the dimension reported in Fiorentini’s publication of the square limestone base in room no. 7 at San Francesco Bisconti. This width is also the width that resulted from the reconstruction of the display support made in 2008 for the acrolithic sculptures at the museum, thus suggesting again that all the measurements are consistent.

• 21 Raffiotta 2007, 119.

17Could such an enterprise have been completed at Morgantina? This is a possibility, at least, for the throne itself, as the rich coroplastic history of the town can demonstrate. The figurines B - C were not imported, but rather were locally made,21 and the topography of the Sanctuary located in a deep valley with very steep slopes suggests that the statuary structure, composed of heavy marble parts and fragile terracotta elements, could only have been assembled in loco.

• 22 Pautasso 1996, 114; Barletta 1983, passim. For Morgantina, Bell 1981, 9; Kenfield 1990, Kenfield 19 (...)
• 23 Pautasso 1996, 114; Marconi 2008, 17.
• 24 Pautasso 2012, 129.

18The artists involved in such a big enterprise were probably several in number, each with different, specialized skills. The strong East Greek influence on Sicilian archaic production in sculpture, pottery making, and architecture is well known.22 It is also known that in the Archaic period actual itinerant artists from different parts of the East Greek world were working in Sicily.23 The extensive activity in many sanctuaries in eastern Sicily during the sixth century B.C.E. seems to have created a familiarity and character in locally produced sculpture that seems to fall in line with a certain ‘stylistic geography’ that encompasses several sites, including Camarina and Naxos, as well as Morgantina, for the acrolith’s heads and these figurine’s heads.²⁴

• 25 Richter 1966, 14 ff., figs. 49, 60.
• 26 Van Der Meijden 1990, 131, note 6.

19Compelling evidence suggests that the fragmentary throne in Vienna not only came from San Francesco Bisconti, but that it was an element of the acrolithic statuary complex and served as a kind of casing for a supporting wooden structure. Unfortunately, we will never know if the acrolithic sculptures themselves were really in Room Number 7, and even if we did, we still would not know if they were presented as cult statues with all their attributes and paraphernalia or, instead, if the statues were there just for storage, or even if they had been hidden in anticipation of the Roman attack on Morgantina in 211 B.C.E. The floor of Room Number 7 was remade in the fourth or third centuries B.C.E., and it is possible that during the roughly two centuries that had elapsed since the time that the acrolithic statues had been created, some modifications may have been made to the statuary complex. Perhaps more elegant elements were added or simply substituted for old ones. Perhaps, in order to be more fashionable, ivory elements were added, as was common in Hellenistic times. The thrones of large seated figures of the Archaic period often bear simple decoration, limited to the feline paw of the legs, as one may see in the throne of the seated figure from Grammichele or in pinakes from Locri, even though we read in ancient literary sources descriptions of the thrones of cult statues, probably of later period, with rich reliefs and figures both on thrones and on footstools.25 The insertion of figurines on the side of the throne, however, seems to be a solution present only in this case, and this statistic in itself suggests a local provenance for the creation of the structure. The typology of the female figurine used on the throne originated from a mold perhaps from Camarina and seems to have been popular also in archaic Morgantina, since it was used in tombs, in the settlement, and in the Thesmophorion. The male figurine and particularly the draped male figure used in the throne are much rarer in Sicily, even if this typology is not completely absent.26

• 27 The appearance of fitted bronze statuary toward the end of the sixth century B.C.E. is, however, a (...)

20The acrolithic statues from Morgantina are rare examples of actual, large-scale cult statuary, but their significance goes much further than that. They represent not a carved approach to sculpture, nor a plastic approach to sculpture, but rather one of the first attempts in the Greek world to make built sculpture — a kind of art that involved a vast range of craftsmanship and complexity in design. There is relatively little discussion of built statues in the Greek world. The corporeal matrix in which acrolithic stone elements were placed is most visibly other stone, such as the metopes sculpted in relief with acrolithic elements from Temple E at Selinus or the rather bulky body of the so-called goddess of Morgantina. Greek statuary, whether small-scale terracotta figures, or large-scale statuary in stone, is generally known from solid materials that were modified through plastic or glyptic techniques. Bronze statuary is a case apart, in which bodily elements could be fitted together in a limited way.27

• 28 Lapatin 2001, 70–73. Of particular interest is a reference in Lucian (Jupiter tragoedus, 8) to holl (...)

21There is no question, however, that the large-scale chryselephantine statues of pan-Hellenic and other prominent sanctuaries were built works on the scale of architecture, or rather ship-building. Lapatin discusses the literary and limited physical evidence for the construction of such statues.28 There are clear traces of the armature, a kind of wooden mast, that supported the statue of Athena Parthenos in the Parthenon at Athens. The exterior construction with a sheathing of ivory perhaps together with clay and plaster is a conceptual parallel to the construction of the hull of a ship (often from the outside in, where the shape of the hull was built first and the skeletal structure of the craft was added successively or at least concomitantly during construction, in order to provide support), and ultimately such construction is identified as an actual derivation from nautical technology.

• 29 Semper 2004.

22We do not know exactly what the body structure that held the acrolithic pieces was like, but we can presume that it included socket joints of the sort that one sees in the acrolithic pieces themselves. While solid wood, ivory or other ‘soft’ material could have been carved as a whole for smaller statues, the scale of the Morgantina goddesses was far greater and would likely have required some sort of frame. In this sense the goddesses themselves would have been similar structurally to the thrones they sat on. The clothing, like the appliqués, to the throne would have been a form of dressing, much along the lines of interpretation of Gottfried Semper for Greek architecture, in which sculpture and painted decoration was essentially independent of the basic three-dimensional frame of a building.29