Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros144.2Chronology of the Sarapieia A & B...

Chronology of the Sarapieia A & B on Delos

La chronologie des Sarapieia A et B à Délos
Η χρονολόγηση των Σεραπείων A και B στη ∆ήλο
Hélène Brun-Kyriakidis et Edyta Marzec

Résumés

L’article examine les indices permettant de situer chronologiquement la première installation des Sarapieia A et B à Délos, en s’appuyant sur le matériel des fouilles récentes. L’étude céramique conduit à réviser des positions qui semblaient établies : la date de construction du Sarapieion B notamment doit être abaissée d’environ un siècle, tandis que celle du Sarapieion A paraît correspondre à celle généralement admise, à partir de la datation des textes épigraphiques. Se pose alors le problème de la discordance entre les deux séries de données, épigraphiques et céramiques, pour la datation du Sarapieion B.

Haut de page

Notes de l’auteur

We would like to thank Marc Moszycki, Catherine Bouras and Sally Ruddock-Rivière for proofreading this paper. Unless specified, all dates mentioned are BC.

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Roussel 1915–1916.
  • 2 On work at the Sarapieia of Delos, see the chronicles published regularly in the BCH.
  • 3 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 864–883.

1The Sarapieia of Delos, located in the Inopos Quarter (fig. 1), were discovered at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The inscriptions from the sanctuaries were rapidly published by P. Roussel1 who also designated the three sanctuaries by the letters A, B and C, which he believed corresponded to their chronology. Since the book of P. Roussel, several studies have been devoted to the Isiac cults on Delos, although the architecture of these sanctuaries is still unpublished. We have resumed the study of these monuments for several years and conducted further excavations2. The study of the material found during the summer of 2014 in Sarapieia A and B3 provides new insight into their architectural history and helps to answer one major question: which was the first Sarapieion built on Delos, and when was it founded?

Fig. 1 — Delos, Inopos quarter.

Fig. 1 — Delos, Inopos quarter.

Moretti (ed.) 2015.

Current status

  • 4 Roussel 1915–1916, p. 13.
  • 5 Moyer 2011, pp. 142–144 and 194–197.

2Sarapieion A (fig. 2; fig. 3) is generally considered to be the first establishment devoted to the worship of Sarapis founded on the island; Sarapieia B and C would have followed shortly after. This reconstruction, based on the hypothesis advanced by P. Roussel and established on the inscriptions found in the sanctuaries4, was recently contested by I. Moyer5.

Fig. 2 — Sarapieion A as viewed from the South.

Fig. 2 — Sarapieion A as viewed from the South.

Fig. 3 — Sarapieion A, axonometry.

Fig. 3 — Sarapieion A, axonometry.

Drawing F. F. Muller.

  • 6 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 71–83, no. 1 (with French translation).
  • 7 This text has been the subject of many comments from its first publication. The most developed is t (...)
  • 8 Moyer 2008, pp. 101–102.

3The most important text regarding the construction of Sarapieion A, and the introduction of the Egyptian cult to Delos, is inscribed on a small marble column (fig. 4) found in the sanctuary by J. Pâris in 1912. It was firstly published by P. Roussel in the IG corpus (IG XI.4, 1299) and later in his book devoted to the Egyptian cults on Delos6. This document, also known as the “Chronicle of the Sarapieion”7, relates how a priest named Apollonius built a sanctuary for Sarapis and how a miracle performed by his god saved him from legal proceedings brought against him. The text also states that the statue of the god Sarapis was brought from Egypt to the island of Delos by the priest’s grandfather (Apollonius the Elder) and that his son, Demetrius (father of the priest Apollonius), continued to serve the god after him. According to this Chronicle therefore, the builder of the sanctuary, Apollonius, is heir to a long-held priesthood in his family. In it, the same story is related twice: first in prose, and then in hexameters by a poet named Maiistas. The dating of this inscription, based only on palaeographical indicia, remains quite uncertain. According to P. Roussel, and indeed to most scholars, the Chronicle dates from the end of the 3rd century. In 2008, I. Moyer re‑examined the column and dated the Chronicle between 220 and 190, but he also stressed “the uncertainties involved in palaeographical dating”8.

Fig. 4 — The inscribed column found in Sarapieion A, in 1912 (IG XI.4 1299).

Fig. 4 — The inscribed column found in Sarapieion A, in 1912 (IG XI.4 1299).
  • 9 IG XI.4, 1240; Roussel 1915–1916, p. 102. Moyer 2011, p. 196, no. 173, quotes that it is possible t (...)
  • 10 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 105–106 (commentary to no. 39 = ID 2551) and p. 263.

4Judging by the inscriptions, the foundation dates of Sarapieion B (fig. 5; fig. 6) and Sarapieion A seem relatively close. Numerous texts found during the earlier excavation date back to the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 2nd century (before 167). One such text engraved on a bench mentions a worshipper from Kios: this city-state was destroyed by Philip V of Macedon in the year 202, and the ethnic name kianos was no longer used after this event9. According to P. Roussel, all dedications and inscriptions from the sanctuary dated back to the Period of Independence, except ID 2551, which he thought may date to the second Athenian domination; but its original location is uncertain10.

Fig. 5 — Sarapieion B as viewed from the West.

Fig. 5 — Sarapieion B as viewed from the West.

Fig. 6 — Sarapieion B, axonometry.

Fig. 6 — Sarapieion B, axonometry.

Drawing N. Bresch.

  • 11 ID 1417, A, II, l. 89–91: the offering was made by a former priest of Apollo. It dates from 215. Ro (...)
  • 12 IG XI.4, 1306; Roussel 1915–1916, no. 40, p. 106; Moyer 2011, p. 195.
  • 13 IG XI.4, 1215; IG XI.4, 1062; IG XI.4, 1242 et IG XI.4, 1235. Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 108–109 and p. (...)

5Some inscriptions from Sarapieion C also provide evidence of an early foundation date, perhaps even prior to the official recognition of the Sarapis cult by the Delians, around 190–180: in the beginning of the 2nd century, the Athenian administrators of the public sanctuary of Sarapis (Sarapieion C) recorded an ex‑voto from the 3rd century11. In the same Sarapieion, a dedication to Isis by an Egyptian woman named Taessa possibly dates from the beginning of the 3rd century12. Despite a number of uncertainties, four other texts from the same sanctuary may date to the same period13.

  • 14 Moyer 2011, p. 195.
  • 15 Moyer 2011, p. 197: he assumed that the trial against Apollonius was caused by the rivalry between (...)

6As I. Moyer remarked, “the priority of Sarapieion A is, in fact, far from certain, and Roussel was obliged to dismiss evidence that other sanctuaries of the Egyptian gods may have been contemporary or earlier”14. As he quite rightly points out, there are difficulties in dating the Sarapieia of Delos; but his reconstruction of the history of the Egyptian cults on Delos and his interpretation of the Chronicle text15 are also not completely accurate. It would seem that it is impossible to establish when exactly the sanctuaries were founded based solely on the inscriptions. However, data resulting from the recent excavation shed new light on the chronology of Sarapieia A and B.

New excavations – new data concerning the foundation of Sarapieia A and B

  • 16 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 864–883.
  • 17 The study has been funded by the National Science Center, Poland, grant Sonatina, no. 2019/32/C/HS3 (...)

7The fresh evidence found during the recent archaeological campaign in Sarapieia A and B provides the opportunity to reconsider this question. A complete report concerning the excavation has already been published16. The study of the “small finds”, however, and particularly the ceramic material, is still in progress. The first results of this study, conducted by Edyta Marzec, are presented here17. The chronological information provided by the excavations in trenches opened in the two sanctuaries is also difficult to interpret in terms of the cultic history of Isiac gods on Delos. While the archaeological indicia clarify the architectural history of the shrines and chronology of the construction of the buildings, they are of no help in ascertaining the history of Sarapis’ arrival on Delos. Nor do they shed any light on the credibility of Apollonius’ tale of the cult’s origins.

8The chronology is based on the ceramic material and a particular attention is drawn to fine ware pottery, which is the most sensitive to change in time. For this reason, it is one of the most obvious types of material culture for investigating the chronology. Although the sanctuaries are Hellenistic, a considerable amount of earlier material dating from the Proto-geometric to the Classical period has been identified, especially in Sarapieion A. The majority of this residual material consists of Classical black gloss pottery. Despite their common occurrence, the residual finds are only briefly discussed here: they are not relevant to the issue discussed in this paper. Most of the material presented includes diagnostic vessels and fragments dating the formation of the contexts that are important to ascertain the chronology of the complexes.

Sarapieion A: first construction phase

9The stratigraphy of two trenches excavated in Sarapieion A provides useful information concerning the sanctuary’s construction date, as well as its subsequent repairs.

Trench 1 (Room I)

  • 18 # A1009, A1011, A1013, A1014, A1015, A1016, A1017. Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2016–2017, pp. 866–868.
  • 19 # A1001, A1002, A1003, A1005, A1006, A1008, A1012. Roussel 1915–1916, p. 29 also mentioned the rest (...)

10Trench 1 was opened in Room I of Sarapieion A (fig. 7) and revealed two successive layers: the first layer was related to the construction of the east wall of the room, i.e., the first occupation of the plot18. The second corresponded to a second stage of the sanctuary’s development. It was marked by a general repair of the room, which consisted of raising the level of its floor19.

Fig. 7 — Sarapieion A: location of trenches (2014).

Fig. 7 — Sarapieion A: location of trenches (2014).

Material from Trench 1

  • 20 Colour-coated ware (CCW) is a class of fine pottery produced in the Eastern Mediterranean from the (...)
  • 21 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 87, 247, nos. 53, 56, fig. 7, pl. 6, pp. 87, 250, no. 81, fig. 8, pl.  (...)
  • 22 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 162, 339, no. 978, fig. 62.
  • 23 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 157, 330, no. 871, fig. 59.
  • 24 Similar to James 2018, pp. 117, 186, no. 269, fig. 34, pl. 30.
  • 25 Shape similar to James 2018, pp. 110, 182, no. 244, fig. 32, pl. 26.
  • 26 Élaigne 2002, p. 162; Élaigne 2007a, pp. 118–120; Élaigne 2007b, pp. 523–524; Marzec 2017, pp. 203– (...)
  • 27 Kögler 2010.
  • 28 Lapp 1961, p. 204, Type 151:4; Bruneau 1970, p. 256; Guz-Zilberstein 1995, p. 294; Rotroff 1997, pp (...)
  • 29 Kögler 2010, pp. 149–150, similar to Aa.8, fig. 72.

11The vast majority of the ceramic finds from the lower layer of this trench (# A1009, A1011, A1013, A1014, A1015, A1016, and A1017) consist of amphorae, plain and fine wares of the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods (fig. 8). Additionally, some sherds of Proto-geometric, Geometric, and Archaic vessels were identified among the fine pottery. The fine ware assemblage contains black gloss (BG) pottery of various origins, including Attic, dated to the Classical and Early Hellenistic periods, as well as Early Hellenistic colour-coated ware (CCW)20 vessels. It includes drinking cups and vessels for wine and food service. Among BG pottery, few forms dating to the late 4th and 3rd centuries were identified: a base of an Attic cup-kantharos (fig. 8.1)21, a rim of an Attic echinus bowl (fig. 8.2)22 and a bowl with an out-turned rim of non-Attic origin (fig. 8.3)23. Moreover, some vessels bear West Slope decoration, and most of them date from the late 3rd to the mid-2nd century. They are represented by a rim fragment, probably of a plate with an offset rim with a groove and a decoration of incised concentric squares24, a conical bowl with a painted rosette on the inner surface and two grooves above it (fig. 8.4)25, as well as a fragment of a kantharos (fig. 8.5) with two grooves below the rim and a row of dots between them and incised geometric decoration below. Among CCW vessels, Rhodian26 and Knidian27 imports were identified. The former includes the so-called Palestinian cups (figs. 8.6 and 8.7), which are characterised by a conical shape and a relatively massive, sharply cut base, and two handles attached to the widest part of its body and pressed in the middle to form two small loops. It seems that they were produced and exported from the beginning of the 3rd century. Their exportation particularly increased in the late 3rd and the early 2nd centuries, and they were manufactured until the late 2nd or the early 1st century28. The Knidian imports are represented by an echinus bowl with a sharply cut base (fig. 8.8) dating from the 3rd century29. Other CCW forms of unidentified origin are a plate (fig. 8.9) and a lekane (fig. 8.10).

  • 30 According to A. Marangou, the examination of the amphorae suggested the same chronology. In her unp (...)

12Although some forms, such as Palestinian cups, present a wider chronological range, the assemblage does not include any pottery typical of the late 2nd or the 1st century, such as Eastern Sigillatas and mould-made bowls, and most of the pottery covers the late 3rd and the mid-2nd centuries. Based on these observations, it can be suggested that the deposition of the context took place between the late 3rd and the mid-2nd century30.

Fig. 8 — Vessels found in the lower layer of Trench 1 in Sarapieion A.

Fig. 8 — Vessels found in the lower layer of Trench 1 in Sarapieion A.

1. cup-kantharos; 2. echinus bowl; 3. bowl with out-turned rim; 4. conical bowl; 5. kantharos; 6. Palestinian cup; 7. Palestinian cup; 8. echinus bowl; 9. plate; 10. lekane.

Trench 4 (Room or Stoa II)

  • 31 # A4019, 4021, 4022. This layer was not excavated fully due to time limitation. See Brun-Kyriakidis(...)

13Trench 4, located in Room (or Stoa) II in Sarapieion A (fig. 7), also shows traces of two successive layers. Only a part of this trench, against the South wall of the room was excavated deeper than the rest, accessing the lower layer of the trench related to the foundation of the room31. However, even in this part, the bedrock has not been reached. Nevertheless, this layer can be associated with the transformation of the South wall of this room, whose dating is important to understand the architectural development of the sanctuary.

14In the same way as Room I, Room II experienced one or several overhauls for which the excavation revealed indications. But just like in Trench 1, those levels are less relevant regarding the foundation date of the sanctuary. On the other hand, it gives us information about the duration of the occupation of the area.

Material from Trench 4

  • 32 Rotroff 1997, p. 269, no. 264, fig. 17.
  • 33 Rotroff 1997, p. 342, no. 1010, fig. 63, pl. 76.
  • 34 Kolia 2006, p. 208, Θ 62.
  • 35 Kögler 2010, pp. 128–130, similar to D.45, fig. 10.
  • 36 Form like Meyer-Schlichtmann 1988, pp. 67–70, type S8, fig. 29: 30. For more information about Perg (...)
  • 37 Hayes 1985, pp. 14–15; Hayes 2008, pp. 21–24. For more information about ESA see Slane 1997; Bes 20 (...)

15The lower layer (# A4019) contains amphorae, plain, cooking and fine wares dated from the Classical to Late Hellenistic period (fig. 9). The fine ware assemblage includes Classical and Early Hellenistic BG vessels, such as an Attic kantharos (fig. 9.1)32 and an echinus bowl (fig. 9.2)33. However, among the fine pottery, the most common are CCW vessels dated from the mid‑2nd to the mid-1st century. They are represented by: a lekane (fig. 9.3)34, a bowl with an outturned rim (fig. 9.4), and a fishplate (fig. 9.5) of unknown origin as well as a bowl from Knidos, form VI D35 (fig. 9.6). Similar chronology is suggested for other vessels present in the context, such as a skyphos from Pergamon (fig. 9.7)36. Additionally, the context yielded a rim fragment of an Eastern Sigillata A (ESA) plate Atlante form 3 or 437. Based on this evidence, it seems that the last phase of the context deposition dates between the mid‑2nd and the mid-1st century.

Fig. 9 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion A.

Fig. 9 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion A.

1. kantharos; 2. echinus bowl; 3. bowl with out-turned rim; 4. fishplate; 5. lekane; 6. bowl; 7. skyphos.

Summary

16The excavation demonstrated that Sarapieion A was constructed quite early. The evidence provided by the ceramic material from Trench 1 accords with that provided by inscriptions for the construction of the sanctuary. Constructions on the plot that may be related to the Sarapis sanctuary exist as early as the end of the 3rd / beginning of the 2nd century. The excavations did not reveal such ancient layers throughout the sanctuary; as stated earlier, in Room (or Stoa) II, the earliest fill seems to date back only to a later date (from the end of the 2nd to the mid-1st century for the more recent pieces).

Sarapieion B: first construction phase

17After studying the ceramic finds from Sarapieion A, the evidence from Sarapieion B can now be examined. As mentioned above, the date attributed to the epigraphic texts found in the sanctuary, according to their palaeography, suggest that it was built towards the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 2nd century. Deep trenches excavated in different locations of this Sarapieion (fig. 10) enabled the collection of ceramic data, helpful in specifying the chronology of its constructions.

Fig. 10 — Sarapieion B: location of trenches (2014).

Fig. 10 — Sarapieion B: location of trenches (2014).

Trench 6 (corridor leading to the Sarapieion B)

  • 38 # B6003, B6004 (partly), B6005 (partly), B6006, B6007, B6008, B6010 (partly), B6011, B6014, B6015, (...)

18Trench 6 is located in the corridor leading to Sarapieion B (2,30 m × 3,15 m; fig. 10). After the removal of a surface layer, an ancient stratum was excavated until the bedrock had been reached (starting alt. 24.73 m; closing alt. 23.86 m)38. This layer was an embankment located under the floor; the east and west walls of the corridor stood directly on bedrock.

Materiel from Trench 6

19The vast majority of ceramic material found in this layer includes very small sherds of amphorae, pithoi, and cooking, plain and fine wares. Due to the state of their preservation, many fragments are of little value for establishing the chronology of the context. The diagnostic sherds include a fair amount of Late Hellenistic pottery, as well as material dated to the Early Hellenistic period, which seems to be residual in the context (fig. 11).

Fig. 11 — Vessels found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 11 — Vessels found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.

1. mould-made bowl; 2. mould-made bowl; 3. Knidian bowl; 4. Knidian cup; 5. unguentarium; 6. unguentarium.

  • 39 Both examples represent profile type 2b according to Rogl 2014. Fig. 11.1 presents a rim of a mould (...)
  • 40 For Ephesian production see Laumonier 1977; Rogl 2014; for Attic long petal bowls see Rotroff 1982, (...)
  • 41 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.
  • 42 Kögler 2010, pp. 128–129, similar to E.54 and E.55, fig. 19.
  • 43 For examples from Knidos see Kögler 2010, p. 86, from Delos see, e.g., Hatzidakis 1997, p. 299, fig (...)
  • 44 Rotroff 2006, p. 154, category 5.
  • 45 Rotroff 2006, p. 154, category 6.
  • 46 Hayes 1991, pp. 68–69; Dotterweich 1999; Rotroff 2006, pp. 157–158; Marzec 2011; Lund 2015, pp. 198 (...)
  • 47 Amicone et al. 2014, pp. 7–8.
  • 48 The lopades are in the same type as one which is illustrated on fig. 17.5.
  • 49 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, similar to D 223, pl. 48; Zapheiropoulou 1998, p. 199, left, p. 186, no. 207; (...)

20The fine ware assemblage is composed of mould-made bowls, ESA, CCWs, BG, as well as a few fragments of vessels with West Slope decoration and painted lagynoi. Mould-made bowls frequently occurred in this context. They are represented by several fragments of Ephesian imports, bearing various decorations (figs. 11.1 and 11.2)39 and a few fragments of Attic long petal bowls (fig. 12) dated to the second half of the 2nd century40. ESA mainly includes very small fragments of bodies and bottoms of bowls and plates, but also a rim fragment of a bowl, iden­tified as Atlante form 22A dated from the late 2nd century BC to 10 AD41. CCWs are represented by vessels from various production centres, such as Rhodes and Knidos. The Knidian imports include a bowl, probably form 6 type D (fig. 11.3)42 and a Knidian cup, form 1 type A (fig. 11.4)43, both date to the late 2nd and the beginning of the 1st century. Unguentaria include several fragments of Aegean type, category 5 (fig. 11.5)44 and category 6 (fig. 11.6)45, as well as few body fragments of domed-mouth type46. Among the cooking pottery, there are fragments of lopades, chytras and pans, the macroscopic fabric of which looks like examples pinpointed tentatively to Phocaea on the basis of laboratory analysis47. On Delos, lopades of this type48 are often found in contexts from the late 2nd and the beginning of the 1st century49.

21Summing up, the pottery from this context indicates its deposition was between the late 2nd and the early 1st century.

Fig. 12 — Fragment of Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 12 — Fragment of Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Trench 3 (sanctuary’s upper court)

22In the sanctuary’s courtyard (fig. 10 and fig. 6), Trench 3 gave some chronological clues that were interesting, yet difficult to interpret.

  • 50 # B3009, B3010, B3031 and B3034.

23In the courtyard’s southeast section, a yellow-coloured fill was unearthed that contained numerous gneiss and stone fragments. This layer is present all over in this part of the courtyard and constitutes a land levelling. It seems contemporary or posterior to the South wall of the sanctuary and it was also connected with an East‑West oriented wall revealed in the excavation and whose foundations were simply built over this fill50.

  • 51 The rock rises rapidly to the north: the wall is only about 1 m long; the altitude of the rock, and (...)

24In the southwestern part of trench 3, the rock is found at a lower level, due to the slope. In the corner of the courtyard, there were indications of an earlier state, partly preserved: it consists of a bench-foot preserved on its base, facing west, similar to those that have been found in the sanctuary in its latest state (fig. 13). Against its north face leaned a roughly built low wall51 retaining the yellow-coloured fill mentioned above: this means that this layer is contemporary to the primary arrangement of the sanctuary. This early arrangement is altogether the same as the one seen in the sanctuary’s final state, where the space between the bench feet placed perpendicularly to the temple is also filled by a rough low wall.

Fig. 13 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: bench-foot on its base as viewed from the West.

Fig. 13 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: bench-foot on its base as viewed from the West.

a. general view; b. detail of the bench-foot.

  • 52 Bank (fill) # B3014, B3016, B3017, B3021, B3023, B3025, B3028, B3029, B3033, B3036: corresponding t (...)

25This primitive state has been modified and the courtyard was backfilled and levelled by a fill that was excavated52. Blocks belonging to the sanctuary were messily thrown into this fill, including some bench feet and a small piece of bench with the beginning of a dedication to Sarapis. The material in this layer provides information about the repair of the sanctuary and a terminus ante quem for its first state. In addition, the material contained in the yellow-coloured fill, east of the trench, which is contemporary with the first state, also provides a clue to its date.

Material from Trench 3

26• Southeastern part of the courtyard: # B3009, B3010, B3031, and B3034 (embankment – yellow layer – under the east-west direction wall and against the wall under the bench – first state)

  • 53 Rogl 2014, pp. 122, 125, fig. 11 type 2b, pp. 133–134.
  • 54 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.

27The ceramic assemblage from this context (# B3031 and B3034) is small and includes some fragments of amphorae, plain and cooking wares, terracotta lamps, as well as fine pottery, such as black gloss, mould-made bowls, and CCWs. The presence of mould-made bowls from Ephesus (figs. 14.1 and 14.2) suggests that the context dates between the second quarter of the 2nd and the early 1st century53. Moreover, the chronology of this layer can be narrowed down to period between the late 2nd and the early 1st century due to the presence of an ESA bowl Atlante form 22 (fig. 14.3)54.

Fig. 14 — Vessels found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B. South-East part of the courtyard.

Fig. 14 — Vessels found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B. South-East part of the courtyard.

1. mould-made bowl; 2. mould-made bowl; 3. ESA Atlante form 22. South-West part of the courtyard: 4. mould-made bowl; 5. echinus bowl; 6. echinus bowl; 7. unguentarium.

28• Southwestern part of the courtyard (repair): fill # B3014, B3016, B3017, B3021, B3023, B3025, B3028, B3029, B3033, and B3036 corresponding to the development of the second state (current state) of the courtyard.

29This context produced a larger number of ceramic materials, including amphorae, pithos, plain and cooking wares, and fine pottery, which date from the Early to Late Hellenistic period.

  • 55 Rogl 2014, pp. 122, 125, fig. 11 type 2b, pp. 133–134.
  • 56 Kögler 2010, pp. 305, 336 and 436, C.60, pl. 6.
  • 57 Hayes 1985, p. 15; Hayes 2008, pp. 23–24.
  • 58 Rotroff 1997, pp. 226–227; Kögler 2010, p. 439, similar to C.92, pl. 7.
  • 59 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, similar to D 223, pl. 48; Hatzidakis 2000, 127, fig. 3:22, pl. 76: β; Rotroff(...)
  • 60 Martz 2016, pp. 288, 291, fig. 1: 6. Peignard-Giros 2000, pp. 210–214; Peignard-Giros 2012, pp. 253 (...)

30The fine pottery assemblage is composed mainly of BG, CCWs, mould-made bowls, and ESA. Mould-made bowls dated from the late 2nd to the early 1st century were identified as imports from Ephesus (fig. 15)55 and Knidos (fig. 14.4)56. Moreover, several fragments of ESA, including a rim fragment of a plate Atlante form 4A57, were found in the context. CCWs are represented by various echinus bowls (figs. 14.5 and 14.6) of different fabrics. The context includes also a lower part of a fusiform unguentarium (fig. 14.7) covered with metallic brown slip and a shoulder fragment of a white-ground lagynos decorated with painted orange bands58. Apart from fine wares, the context yielded also diagnostic cooking pottery from the late 2nd and the 1st centuries (and later), such as a lopas of possible Phocaean origin59 and an Italian baking dish60. Overall, most of the pottery from this context date between the late 2nd and the early 1st century.

Fig. 15 — Ephesian mould-made bowl found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B, South-West part of the courtyard.

Fig. 15 — Ephesian mould-made bowl found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B, South-West part of the courtyard.

Irini Miari.

Trenches 4 and 5 (Room or Court V)

  • 61 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 879–881.

31Trenches 4 and 5 were dug into Room (or Courtyard) V and the small room, which was possibly a small chapel built in the South-West corner of the main space (fig. 10 and fig. 6). In these two trenches, under the surface soil followed by a modern layer, the same ancient fill was recovered. It was excavated all the way to the bottom of both trenches61.

  • 62 # B4005, B4006 and B4008.
  • 63 # B5004, B5005, B5006, B5007, B5008, B5009 and B5010; the fill was spotted at an altitude of ca. 27 (...)

32In Trench 4, the ancient layer was yellowish and contained extremely large amounts of pottery fragments62. It appeared at an altitude of 27.78 m and was excavated until 27.25 m, without reaching the bedrock. In Trench 5, the ancient layer was quite similar63.

Material from Trenches 4 and 5

Trench 4

  • 64 The decorative motif similar to Rotroff 2018, fig. 1.2a.
  • 65 Élaigne 2007a, p. 110, fig. 6. 517‑83. In terms of type and the macroscopic appearance of the fabri (...)
  • 66 Kolia 2006, p. 208, Θ 62.
  • 67 Rotroff 2006, p. 156, category 5.
  • 68 Peignard 1997, p. 312, pl. 231, e.
  • 69 Rotroff 2006, p. 188.

33This layer (# B4005, B4006 and B4008) consists of fragments of amphorae, plain, cooking and fine ware pottery dated from the Early to the Late Hellenistic period (fig. 16). The fine wares include few small fragments of BG vessels of various origins, one body sherd of Attic mould-made bowl decorated with boukrania64, and several fragments of CCWs. The latter includes a rim fragment of a Rhodian plate with a rolled rim dated to the 2nd century (fig. 16.1)65. Other vessels of various origins, such as a rim fragment of a lekane (fig. 16.2)66 and an echinus bowl (fig. 16.3), date between the mid‑2nd and the mid-1st century. The layer also produced an Aegean type fusiform unguentarium (fig. 16.4) with a completely solid stem and a groove indicating the foot67. The cooking pottery present in the context, such as a chytra (fig. 16.5)68 and a baking dish (fig. 16.6)69 also indicates similar chronology. The diagnostic pottery found in the context suggests that its deposition took place between the late 2nd and the early 1st century.

Fig. 16 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 16 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion B.

1. plate with a rolled rim; 2. lekane; 3. echinus bowl; 4. unguentarium; 5. chytra; 6. baking dish.

Trench 5

34This context (# B5004, B5005, B5007, B5008, B5009, and B5010) produced amphorae, plain and fine wares, as well as a considerable amount of cooking pottery. The finds are numerous, and the majority date to the Hellenistic period. Only few fragments belong to the Classical period. Fine wares include BG, CCWs, ESA, and mould-made bowls (fig. 17).

Fig. 17 — Vessels found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 17 — Vessels found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

1. ESA Atlante form 22; 2. ESA Atlante form 6; 3. mould-made bowl; 4. unguentarium; 5. lopas; 6. baking dish of the orlo bifido type.

  • 70 Morel 1986; Hayes 1991, p. 8; Élaigne 2007b; Lund 2015, p. 188.
  • 71 Similar to Kögler 2010, pp. 83–86, E.2, fig. 16.
  • 72 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.
  • 73 Hayes 1985, pp. 14–15; Hayes 2008, pp. 21–23.
  • 74 Hayes 1985, pp. 17–18; Hayes 2008, p. 25.
  • 75 Hayes 1985, p. 21.
  • 76 Rogl 2014.
  • 77 Rotroff 1982, pp. 35–36; Rotroff 2011, p. 635; Rotroff 2018.
  • 78 Hayes 1991, pp. 59–60: 1, fig. 22, 1; Peignard-Giros 2000; Peignard-Giros 2013.
  • 79 Marabini Moevs 1973, pp. 49–50.
  • 80 Hatzidakis 1997, pl. 225: γ; Peignard-Giros 2000, pp. 216–217; Peignard-Giros 2013, p. 156.
  • 81 Rotroff 2006, p. 156, category 5.
  • 82 Rotroff 2006, pp. 183–186; Amicone et al. 2014.
  • 83 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, nos. D223, D 224, pl. 48; Zapheiropoulou 1998, p. 199, left, p. 186, no. 207; (...)
  • 84 Berlin 1993, pp. 35–37; Bruneau 1970, p. 259, no. D 222, pl. 49; Hatzidakis 2004, p. 653, pls. 319: (...)

35Among BG pottery, there are few fragments of plates identified as Campanian imports. These Italian products reached Delos mainly in the 2nd century, with the peak of their distribution dating to the mid-2nd century70. CCWs include a number of Knidian imports, mostly fragments of cups form I A, which predominantly date between the mid‑2nd and the mid-1st century71. ESA includes several fragments of bowls Atlante form 22 (fig. 17.1)72 and plates Atlante forms 2A and 373. There are also fragments of a plate Atlante form 6 (fig. 17.2)74 and a krater Atlante form 1575. For the former, a date from around the late 2nd century to 50 is generally accepted, while the latter form dates to the first half of the first century. In addition to ESA, there are numerous mould-made bowls, mainly represented by Ionian (figs. 17.3, 18, 19 and 20)76 and Attic imports (fig. 21)77 dated from the mid‑2nd to the early 1st century. Moreover, the layer yielded two fragments of thin walled vessels, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker (figs. 22 and 23)78. In Italian contexts, they date from the 2nd to the 1st century79, while on Delos, they usually occur in contexts of the first third of the 1st century80. Unguentaria are numerous in this context, most of them were classified as the Aegean type, category 581 (fig. 17.4), but there is also one buff unguentarium of the same shape and a body fragment of a large domed-mouth type. Cooking wares are represented by numerous fragments of small and large lopades of possible Phocaea origin (fig. 17.5)82. On Delos, they are often found in contexts of the very late 2nd and the beginning of the 1st century83. There is also an Italian baking dish of the orlo bifido type (fig. 17.6) showing similar chronology84.

36Overall, the majority of the ceramic material dates from the mid‑2nd to the mid-1st century. However, the presence of forms associated only with the 1st century suggests that the deposition of the context took place in that century.

Fig. 18 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 18 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Fig. 19 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 19 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Fig. 20 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 20 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Fig. 21 — Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 21 — Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Fig. 22 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 22 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Fig. 23 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Fig. 23 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.

Irini Miari.

Summary

37The excavations carried out in Sarapieion B uncovered contexts associated with the sanctuary’s various structures (the corridor wall, the stairs, the upper courtyard wall, and the walls in Room V; fig. 6). All these contexts revealed material dating from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 1st century. It can be therefore concluded that Sarapieion B’s architecture and general disposition could not be earlier than sometime towards the end of the 2nd / beginning of the 1st century. And, judging by their masonry and stratigraphic data, the construction of the sanctuary’s walls seems to be homogeneous, with the exception of the above-mentioned repair in the upper courtyard (Trench 3).

Summary and conclusions

  • 85 IG XI.4, 1299, l. 18–19 et l. 53–55. See Bruneau 1973, pp. 111–136 and specifically pp. 133–136.

38The evidence provided by the excavations for the chronology of Sarapieion A’s construction accords with the epigraphical data. Therefore, one can believe that the sanctuary was founded in a place “full of dirt”, as stated in the Chronicle, and probably free of construction, purchased by the priest Apollonius85.

  • 86 White’s attempt to date the walls of Sarapieion A and to draw conclusions about the history of cons (...)
  • 87 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 871–873.
  • 88 See DELOS. – Sarapieion A – 2017, Chronique des fouilles, n. 6782, online, https://chronique.efa.gr (...)

39This sanctuary undoubtedly had a long architectural history. Firstly, its buildings’ masonry shows traces of successive repairs that are mostly impossible to date even relatively86; secondly, the excavations revealed important repair works at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century, particularly in Room II (Trench 4)87, where contexts date to this period. The ceramic material from the water-crypt under the temple of the sanctuary88 (fig. 3) – mostly amphorae, plain and cooking wares, collected in 2015 and 2016 during its cleaning – belongs to the same period and shows the Sarapieion was still in use at this time. All this evidence confirms that the sanctuary’s last state of development, before its final collapse, is not particularly old.

  • 89 Except for one inscription whose provenance is not assured, Roussel 1915–1916, no. 39 = ID 2551 and (...)

40On the contrary, in the case of Sarapieion B, the contrast between the archaeological evidence found and the information from epigraphical texts is striking. As mentioned above, according to P. Roussel, no text dating from the time of the second Athenian domination exists89, while all the archaeological contexts belong to the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century. In addition, the walls’ masonry is remarkably uniform and shows almost no sign of repair. It must therefore be concluded that this sanctuary dates from the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century.

41Judging from its architectural features, only the temple erected in Sarapieion B could be older. Its southern façade is composed of regularly assembled marble blocks (figs. 6 and 24); the alternating white and bluish-coloured marble recalls a number of Delian constructions dating from the period of Independence, notably the Inopos Krene (fig. 25) or the Aphrodision, both located near the Sarapieion (fig. 1). Judging by the presence of blocks presenting oblique joints stored in the sanctuary and which may have come from this temple, irregular trapezoidal masonry can be restored for its façade, as in the walls of the Krene or the Aphrodision. Unfortunately, the excavation of this small temple cannot provide any additional evidence as the walls are constructed directly on the bedrock exposed all throughout the cella.

Fig. 24 — Sarapieion B: naos as viewed from the South.

Fig. 24 — Sarapieion B: naos as viewed from the South.

Fig. 25 — Walls of the Krene of Inopos.

Fig. 25 — Walls of the Krene of Inopos.
  • 90 Vallois 1944, p. 203; Bruneau 1973, pp. 125–126; Bruneau 1990, pp. 556–557; Tréheux 1988, pp. 156–1 (...)

42Moreover, the architectural comparison with constructions from the period of Independence is not completely certain. Unlike other Delian constructions of the period, only the exterior masonry of the south façade was built using marble blocks, while its internal face and the side walls of the pronaos, like those of the naos, were built with rubble. It could be assumed that the marble blocks were reused from an older building. Reusing stones from collapsed buildings to build new constructions was a common practice, and the “House of Inopos” (figs. 1 and 26) presents a good example. Its walls contain a great number of marble blocks with oblique joints, which are quite similar to those seen in the Inopos Krene. The presence of these blocks and more importantly, the masonry of its façade, indicates that this house could date back to the period of Independence90. However, a detailed examination of this masonry shows that the marble blocks were probably reused: they are poorly assembled with open joints and small wedges (or plugs) are fitted between the layers. Such practice is not attested in the well-constructed walls of the Independent period. Everything suggests that this house was constructed during the Athenian period, probably around the beginning of the 1st century, re‑using blocks from the neighbouring Krene, which was already partially ruined. The history of the temple in Sarapieion B could therefore be similar. It is not certain that even this temple is earlier than other buildings in the sanctuary.

Fig. 26 — House of Inopos.

Fig. 26 — House of Inopos.

a. the South façade; b. detail of the masonry.

  • 91 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, p. 879 (Trench 3), pp. 881–882 (Trench 6).

43The large discrepancy between the chronological results produced by the study of ceramic material and those revealed by the epigraphic testimony creates a situation which is particularly challenging to interpret. To explain why the furniture of this sanctuary dates prior to its buildings, it could be assumed that inscribed blocks, furniture (benches, altars) or offerings (statuettes, various bases) had been brought from another Isiac cult place after the construction of Sarapieion B at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century. It should also be noted that in the same sanctuary, storage vessels or amphorae with cut necks were found in situ and they belonged to the last state of occupation of the sanctuary (fig. 27)91. These vessels, whose function is still unclear, show several traces of repair, testifying to the duration of their use. They could also have been taken from another place, together with the rest of the sanctuary’s furniture.

Fig. 27 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: pithos in situ as viewed from the East.

Fig. 27 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: pithos in situ as viewed from the East.
  • 92 Moretti 1996, pp. 617–638, and especially on displaced inscriptions, pp. 626–629: “Alors que sa con (...)
  • 93 ID 1417, A II, l. 59–141; Prêtre et al. (eds.) 2002, pp. 219–221 (French translation).
  • 94 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 263–264.
  • 95 On the architecture of this temple and its successive repairs, see Vallois 1944, pp. 93–95.

44Parallels of this kind of transfer exist on Delos, e.g., in a gymnasium built at the end of the second century (GD 76), where numerous inscribed blocks (including dedications), originating from the Independence Gymnasium (GD 67) were found92. The transfer of offerings from one place of deposit to another should also be mentioned, and is documented by inscriptions, notably the Inventories of the beginning of the 2nd century: the Athenian administrators quote numerous objects from the “Sarapieion” (it is generally considered that they came from Sarapieion C)93 in the Artemision. The motive for the transfer remains unknown94, but one can assume it could be related to the construction – or the repair – of temple F of Sarapieion C (i.e., the temple of Sarapis)95. It is therefore possible to admit that Sarapieion B, newly built at the end of the 2nd century, was furnished with older objects from an abandoned establishment or (why not?) from another Sarapieion. In which case, it is more likely they came from Sarapieion C, where congestion could have justified a kind of “swarming”. Nonetheless, the original location of these inscribed blocks stays entirely unknown.

45One difficulty, however, remains: according to the dates suggested by P. Roussel, no Sarapieion B inscription is later than 167. It seems odd that a place of worship and meeting for the faithful would not have received even the smallest offering, or that no epigraphic trace remains. It is possible that P. Roussel was mistaken in the dating of Sarapieion B’s inscriptions, which is supported almost only by the palaeography. It may eventually be possible to clarify these observations, however, in the state of this study’s documentation, we cannot be certain of any explanation. It must also be noted that in Sarapieion A dedications dated after 167 are very few, even though the sanctuary apparently continued to exist and develop architecturally

Relative chronology of the sanctuaries’ foundations

46As is often the case on Delos, the reopening of an “old file” – whether through excavations or through its study – forces a general revision of previously accepted positions. The results presented in this paper must be interpreted with caution; however, singular the case of Sarapieion B may be, it is not without parallel, and proves that epigraphic documentation cannot always be relied upon to date a construction. This general remark, however, shifts the focus from the main question – the chronology of the Sarapieia of Delos, which we will now attempt to conclude.

  • 96 Roussel 1916, p. 251; Bruneau 1990, p. 562 and n. 3. For a summary of the hypothesis, Siard 1998, p (...)
  • 97 Moyer 2011, p. 195: “[…] but perhaps the legal threat to the sanctuary of Apollonios did in fact co (...)

47The question now appears in a different light. In terms of construction and architecture, the order of succession of Sarapieia A and B is beyond doubt and P. Roussel’s opinion, which places Sarapieion A first, must be accepted. It is certain that it was older than Sarapieion B. On the other hand, this architectural history is not sufficient to trace the religious history nor the history of the development of the Isiac cults on Delos. It remains therefore impossible to determine whether Sarapieion A represented the first establishment dedicated to the worship of Egytian deities on the island or if, as suggested by I. Moyer, this sanctuary was founded at a time when these cults were already well established. This point cannot be settled by this investigation and probably never will be. As a result, the interpretation of the story of Apollonius in the Chronical remains difficult, and it seems particularly unfeasible to know the exact motive of the trial against him following the construction of the sanctuary. Was it, as P. Roussel and Ph. Bruneau supposed96, an administrative difficulty or, as I. Moyer suggested97, a rivalry between Isiac worshippers? It seems impossible to decide.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Amicone et al. 2014 = Silvia Amicone, Nina Fenn, Lars Heinze, Gerwulf Schneider, “Cooking Pottery in Priene: Imports and Local/Regional Production from Late Classical to Late Hellenistic Times”, Frankfurter elektronische Rundschauzur Altertumskunde 25, 2014, pp. 1–27.

Berlin 1993 = Andrea Berlin, “Italian Cooking Vessels and Cuisine from Tel Anafa”, Israel Exploration Journal 43, 1993, pp. 35–44.

Bes 2015 = Philip Bes, Once upon a Time in the East: The Chronological and Geographical Distribution of Terra Sigillata and Red Slip Ware in the Roman East, Oxford, Archaeopress, Roman and Late Antique Mediterranean Pottery 6, 2015.

Bruneau 1970 = Philippe Bruneau, “La vaisselle”, in Philippe Bruneau et al., EAD XXVII. L’îlot de la Maison des comédiens, Paris, De Boccard, 1970, pp. 239–262.

Bruneau 1973 = Philippe Bruneau, “Le quartier de l’Inopos à Délos et la fondation du Sarapieion A dans un ‘lieu plein d’ordure’”, in Études déliennes, Athens, EFA, BCH Suppl. 1, 1973, pp. 111–136.

Bruneau 1990 = Philippe Bruneau, “Deliaca VIII”, BCH 114.1, 1990, pp. 553–591.

Bruneau 1991 = Philippe Bruneau, “La céramique pergaménienne à reliefs appliqués de Délos”, BCH 115.2, 1991, pp. 597–666.

Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016 = Hélène Brun-Kyriakidis et al., “Travaux aux Sarapieia A et B (2014)”, BCH 139–140.2, 2015–2016, pp. 865–883.

Constantakopoulou 2017 = Christy Constantakopoulou, Aegean Interactions: Delos and its Networks in the Third Century, Oxford, OUP, 2017.

Domżalski 2007 = Krzysztof Domżalski, “Hellenistic Fine Pottery Production in the Eastern Mediterranean as Reflected by Imports in the Pontic Area”, in The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges, Aarhus, UP, Black Sea Studies 6, 2007, pp. 161–181.

Dotterweich 1999 = Ulrich Dotterweich, Unguentarien mit kuppelformiger Mündung aus Knidos, Möhnesee, Bibliopolis, 1999.

Élaigne 2002 = Sandrine Élaigne, “L’introduction des céramiques fines du bassin oriental de la Méditerranée à Alexandrie : importations et imitations locales”, in Francine Blondé, Pascale Ballet, Jean-François Salles (eds.), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines : productions et diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre, Égypte et côte syropalestinienne). Actes du colloque tenu à Lyon (mars 2000), Lyon, TMO 35, 2002, pp. 159–173.

Élaigne 2007a = Sandrine Élaigne, “Les importations de céramiques fines hellénistiques à Beyrouth (site BEY 002) : aperçu du faciès nord levantin”, Syria 84, 2007, pp. 107–142.

Élaigne 2007b = Sandrine Élaigne, “La circulation des céramiques fines hellénistiques dans la région égéenne : un aperçu à partir du mobilier de Délos et Thasos”, BCH 131.1, 2007, pp. 515–557.

Engelmann 1975 = Helmut Engelmann, The Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis, Leiden, Brill, EPRO 44, 1975.

Guz-Zilberstein 1995 = Bracha Guz-Zilberstein, “The Typology of the Hellenistic Coarse Ware and Selected Loci of the Hellenistic and Roman Periods”, in Ephraim Stern (ed.), Excavations at Dor, Final Report IB. Areas A and C: The Finds, Jerusalem, Hebrew University, Institute of Archaeology, 1995, pp. 289–433.

Hatzidakis 1997 = Panagiotis Hatzidakis, “Κτίριονότια του ‘Ιερού του Προµαχώνος’. Μία taberna vinaria στη ∆ήλο”, in ∆’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Μυτιλήνη 1994, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 1997, pp. 291–307.

Hatzidakis 2000 = Panagiotis Hatzidakis, “΄Οψοποιικάσκεύη από τη ∆ήλο”, in Ε’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Χανιά 1997, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 2000, pp. 115–130.

Hatzidakis 2004 = Panagiotis Hatzidakis, “Τα µαγειρικά σκεύη στους αρχαίους ΄Ελληνες κωµωδιογράγους και στη ∆ήλο”, in ΣΤ’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Βόλος 2000. Πρακτικά, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 2004, pp. 641–654.

Hayes 1985 = John W. Hayes, “Sigillate Orientali”, in Enciclopedia dell’arte antica classica e orientale: Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche, II: Ceramica Fine Romana nel Bacino Mediterraneo (Tardo Ellenismo e Primo Impero), Rome, Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1985, pp. 1–96.

Hayes 1991 = John W. Hayes, Paphos III: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Nicosia, Department of Antiquities Cyprus, 1991.

Hayes 2008 = John W. Hayes, Roman Pottery: Fine-Ware Imports, Princeton, ASCSA, The Athenian Agora 32, 2008.

Hübner 1993 = Gerhild Hübner, Die Applikenkeramik von Pergamon: Eine Bildersprache im Dienst des Herrscherkultes, Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, PergForsch 7, 1993.

Hübner 1997 = Gerhild Hübner, “Die Keramik mit aufgesetztem Relief aus Pergamon: Herstellungsverfahren und arbeitstechnische Organisation”, in ’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Μυτιλήνη 1994, Athens, 1997, pp. 257–266.

James 2018 = Sarah A. James, Hellenistic Pottery: The Fine Wares, Princeton, ASCSA, Corinth 7.7, 2018.

Japp 2014 = Sarah Japp, “Sigillata of Pergamon – Eastern Sigillata C: Problems of Classification and Chronology”, in Meyza, Domżalski (eds.) 2014, pp. 11–22.

Kögler 2010 = Patricia Kögler, Feinkeramik aus Knidos: Vom mittleren Hellenismus bis in die mittlere Kaiserzeit (ca. 200 v. Chr. bis 150 n. Chr), Wiesbaden, Reichert, 2010.

Kolia 2006 = Erofili-Iris Kolia, Ελληνιστική Κεραµική από τη Νάξο, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 2006.

Lapp 1961 = Paul W. Lapp, Palestinian Ceramic Chronology, 200 B.C.–A.D. 70, New Haven, American School of Oriental Research, 1961.

Lätzer-Lasar 2020 = Asuman Lätzer-Lasar, Die vermeintlich pergamenische Importkeramik in Ephesos: Studien zur Typologie, Provenienz und Herstellungstechnik von so genannter Weißgrundiger Ware, Applikenkeramik und Pergamenischer Sigillata, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2020.

Laumonier 1977 = Alfred Laumonier, EAD XXXI. La céramique hellénistique à reliefs, 1: Ateliers «ioniens», Athens, EFA, 1977.

Lund 2015 = John Lund, A Study of the Circulation of Ceramics in Cyprus from the 3rd Century BC to the 3rd Century AD, Aarhus, UP, Gösta Enbom Monographs 5, 2015.

Marabini Moevs 1973 = Maria Teresa Marabini Moevs, The Roman Thin Walled Pottery from Cosa (1948–1954), Rome, American Academy, MAAR 32, 1973.

Martz 2016 = Anne-Sophie Martz, “Traditions et innovations dans la vaisselle céramique de la Maison de Fourni, Délos”, in Sarah Japp, Patricia Kägler (eds.), Traditions and Innovations: Tracking the Development of Pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial Periods, Wien, Phoibos, 2016, pp. 287–295.

Marzec 2011 = Edyta Marzec, “Domed-mouth Unguentaria from Cyprus”, SAAC 15, 2011, pp. 151–158.

Marzec 2017 = Edyta Marzec, Provenance and Technology of Colour-coated Ware Pottery from Nea Paphos on Cyprus (from the late 4th to the 1st century BCE), PhD thesis, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, 2017.

Marzec, Kajzer 2020 = Edyta Marzec, Małgorzata Kajzer, “Hellenistic Table Ware Pottery (from the late 4th to the 1st century BCE)”, in Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka (ed.), Paphos Agora Project (PAP), 1: Interdisciplinary Research of the Jagiellonian University in Nea Paphos, Unesco World Heritage Site (2011–2015): First Results, Kraków, Historia Iagellonica, 2020, pp. 223–247.

Meyer-Schlichtmann 1988 = Carsten Meyer-Schlichtmann, Die Pergamenische Sigillata aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon: Mitte 2. Jh. v. Chr.–Mitte 2. Jh. n. Chr., Berlin, New York, De Gruyter, PergForsch 6, 1988.

Meyza 2014 = Henryk Meyza, “So‑called Pergamenian Sigillata from Delos: Post-analysis Review of Evidence”, in Meyza, Domżalski (eds.) 2014, pp. 171–174.

Meyza, Domżalski (eds.) 2014 = Henryk Meyza, Krzysztof Domżalski (eds.), Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean Coast of Anatolia: Their Production, Imitation and Use, Warsaw, Editions Neriton, Travaux de l’Institut des cultures méditerranéennes et orientales de l’Académie polonaise des sciences 1, 2014.

Meyza, Peignard-Giros 2009 = Henryk Meyza, Annette Peignard-Giros, “Analyses de tessons de « sigillées pergaméniennes » de Délos”, BCH 133.1, 2009, pp. 227–240.

Meyza, Peignard-Giros 2011 = Henryk Meyza, Annette Peignard-Giros, “The sigillata of Delos, Greece: Archaeological Report”, Études et Travaux 24, 2011, pp. 117–158.

Morel 1986 = Jean‑Paul Morel, “Céramiques à vernis noir d’Italie trouvées à Délos”, BCH 110.1, 1986, pp. 461–493.

Moretti 1996 = Jean‑Charles Moretti, “Le gymnase de Délos”, BCH- 120.2, 1996, pp. 617–638.

Moretti (ed.) 2015 = Jean‑Charles Moretti (ed.), EAD XLIII. Atlas, Athens, EFA, 2015.

Moyer 2008 = Ian S. Moyer, “Note on Re‑reading the Delian Aretalogy of Sarapis (IG XI.4 1299)”, ZPE 166, 2008, pp. 101–107.

Moyer 2011 = Ian S. Moyer, Egypt and the Limits of Hellenism, Cambridge, UP, 2011.

Peignard 1997 = Annette Peignard, “La vaisselle de la Maison des Sceaux, Délos”, in ∆’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Μυτιλήνη 1994, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 1997, pp. 308–316.

Peignard‑Giros 2000 = Annette Peignard-Giros, “Habitudes alimentaires grecques et romaines à Délos à l’époque hellénistique : le témoignage de la céramique”, Pallas 52, 2000, pp. 209–220.

Peignard-Giros 2012 = Annette Peignard-Giros, “Les céramiques communes à Délos à l’époque hellénistique tardive (iie-ier siècles av. J.‑C.)”, in Les céramiques communes dans leur contexte régional : faciès de consommation et mode d’approvisionnement. Actes de la table ronde organisée à Lyon les 2 et 3 février 2009 à la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, Lyon, MOM Jean Pouilloux, TMO 60, 2012, pp. 243–256.

Peignard-Giros 2013 = Annette Peignard-Giros, “Importations et imitations de céramiques occidentales à Délos à la fin de l’époque hellénistique tardive”, in Nina Fenn, Christiane Römer-Strehl (eds.), Networks in the Hellenistic World: According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and beyond, Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR IS 2539, 2013, pp. 153–162.

Peignard-Giros 2014 = Annette Peignard-Giros, “Eastern sigillatas (ESA, ‘Pergamene’ and others) in the Delos Houses: Proportions and Uses”, in Meyza, Domżalski (eds.) 2014, pp. 161–170.

Peignard-Giros, Meyza 2009 = Annette Peignard-Giros, Henryk Meyza, “Les sigillées de Délos”, Annales du Centre scientifique de l’Académie polonaise des sciences à Paris 11, 2009, pp. 63–68.

Prêtre et al. (eds.) 2002 = Clarisse Prêtre et al. (eds.), Nouveau choix d’inscriptions de Délos : lois, comptes et inventaires, Athens, EFA, Et. epig. 4, 2002.

Rogl 2014 = Christine Rogl, “Mouldmade Relief Bowls from Ephesos: The Current State of Research”, in Pia Guldager Bilde, Mark L. Lawall (eds.), Pottery, Peoples and Places: Study and Interpretation of Late Hellenistic Pottery, Aarhus, UP, Black Sea Studies 16, 2014, pp. 113–139.

Rotroff 1982 = Susan I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls, Princeton, ASCSA, The Athenian Agora 22, 1982.

Rotroff 1997 = Susan I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material, Princeton, ASCSA, The Athenian Agora 29, 1997.

Rotroff 2006 = Susan I. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery: The Plain Wares, Princeton, ASCSA, The Athenian Agora 33, 2006.

Rotroff 2011 = Susan I. Rotroff, “The Date of the Long-petal Bowl: A Review of the Contextual Evidence”, in Ζ’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Αίγιο 2004, Athens, ΤΑΠΑ, 2011, pp. 635–644.

Rotroff 2018 = Susan I. Rotroff, “Athenian Moldmade Bowls on Delos: Laumonier’s Sample”, BCH 142.2, 2018, pp. 567–692.

Roussel 1915–1916 = Pierre Roussel, Les cultes égyptiens à Délos du iiie au ier siècle av. J.‑C., Paris, Nancy, Berger-Levrault, 1915–1916.

Siard 1998 = Hélène Siard, “La crypte du Sarapieion A de Délos et le procès d’Apollonios”, BCH 122.2, 1998, pp. 469–486.

Slane 1997 = Kathleen W. Slane, “The Fine Wares”, in Andrea Berlin, Kathleen W. Slane, Tel Anafa II.1: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery, Ann Arbor, Kelsey Museum, JRA Suppl. 10, 1997, pp. 247–406.

Tréheux 1988 = Jacques Tréheux, “Le sanctuaire de l’Inopos à Délos”, Museum Helveticum 45, 1988, pp. 154–157.

Vallois 1944 = René Vallois, L’architecture hellénique et hellénistique à Délos jusqu’à l’éviction des Déliens (166 av. J.‑C.), part I: Les monuments, Paris, De Boccard, BEFAR 157, 1944.

White 1990 = L. Michael White, The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, vol. 1: Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews and Christians, Valley Forge, Trinity Press International, Harvard Theological Studies 42, 1990.

Zapheiropoulou 1998 = Photini Zapheiropoulou, ∆ήλος: Μαρτυρίες από τα µουσεια εκθέµατα, Athens, Αδάµ-Πέργαµος, 1998.

Zapheiropoulou, Hatzidakis 1994 = Photini Zapheiropoulou, Panagiotis Hatzidakis. “∆ήλος Κεραµική από τον δρόµα βόρια του Ανδήρουτων Λεόντων”, in Γ’ Επιστηµονική Συνάντησηγια την Ελληνιστική Κεραµική, Θεσσαλονίκη 1991, Athens, Η εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογική ῾Εταιρεία, 1994, pp. 235–248.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Roussel 1915–1916.

2 On work at the Sarapieia of Delos, see the chronicles published regularly in the BCH.

3 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 864–883.

4 Roussel 1915–1916, p. 13.

5 Moyer 2011, pp. 142–144 and 194–197.

6 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 71–83, no. 1 (with French translation).

7 This text has been the subject of many comments from its first publication. The most developed is that of Engelmann 1975 (English version of a study first published in German in 1964). Moyer 2011, appendix 1, pp. 282–286 provides a new English translation. For an up‑to‑date bibliography on this document, see Constantakopoulou 2017, pp. 83–85.

8 Moyer 2008, pp. 101–102.

9 IG XI.4, 1240; Roussel 1915–1916, p. 102. Moyer 2011, p. 196, no. 173, quotes that it is possible that this man kept his ethnic name after the destruction of the city if he was living abroad.

10 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 105–106 (commentary to no. 39 = ID 2551) and p. 263.

11 ID 1417, A, II, l. 89–91: the offering was made by a former priest of Apollo. It dates from 215. Roussel 1915–1916, p. 250; Moyer 2011, p. 196.

12 IG XI.4, 1306; Roussel 1915–1916, no. 40, p. 106; Moyer 2011, p. 195.

13 IG XI.4, 1215; IG XI.4, 1062; IG XI.4, 1242 et IG XI.4, 1235. Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 108–109 and p. 250 where he refutes those clues, considering them too uncertain to prove Sarapieion C’s chronology.

14 Moyer 2011, p. 195.

15 Moyer 2011, p. 197: he assumed that the trial against Apollonius was caused by the rivalry between different groups of worshippers or Egyptian sanctuaries already installed on the island.

16 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 864–883.

17 The study has been funded by the National Science Center, Poland, grant Sonatina, no. 2019/32/C/HS3/00591.

18 # A1009, A1011, A1013, A1014, A1015, A1016, A1017. Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2016–2017, pp. 866–868.

19 # A1001, A1002, A1003, A1005, A1006, A1008, A1012. Roussel 1915–1916, p. 29 also mentioned the restoration of Room I, and remarked that “le sol de la chambre est en grande partie fait de débris de poterie.” He also quoted that the benches arranged in this room were found scattered about.

20 Colour-coated ware (CCW) is a class of fine pottery produced in the Eastern Mediterranean from the beginning of the Hellenistic period (late 4th century BC) until Early Roman times (the 1st century AD). It includes table wares characterised by the presence of a matt or semi-lustrous slip of variable colours. The slip was applied by dipping rather than painting and as a result it covers only the internal and the upper external surface of a vessel, often dribbling down irregularly over the lower part of the body towards the base. CCW was originally defined by J. W. Hayes in a publication of Hellenistic and Roman ceramics from the House of Dionysos in Nea Paphos (1991).

21 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 87, 247, nos. 53, 56, fig. 7, pl. 6, pp. 87, 250, no. 81, fig. 8, pl. 8.

22 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 162, 339, no. 978, fig. 62.

23 Similar to Rotroff 1997, pp. 157, 330, no. 871, fig. 59.

24 Similar to James 2018, pp. 117, 186, no. 269, fig. 34, pl. 30.

25 Shape similar to James 2018, pp. 110, 182, no. 244, fig. 32, pl. 26.

26 Élaigne 2002, p. 162; Élaigne 2007a, pp. 118–120; Élaigne 2007b, pp. 523–524; Marzec 2017, pp. 203–204, Fabric Group 7; Marzec, Kajzer 2020, pp. 231–232.

27 Kögler 2010.

28 Lapp 1961, p. 204, Type 151:4; Bruneau 1970, p. 256; Guz-Zilberstein 1995, p. 294; Rotroff 1997, pp. 117–118; Domżalski 2007, p. 172; Kögler 2010, p.95, Form I Typ B.

29 Kögler 2010, pp. 149–150, similar to Aa.8, fig. 72.

30 According to A. Marangou, the examination of the amphorae suggested the same chronology. In her unpublished report, she indicated the presence of an amphora from Mende, dating to the 5th century (A1006.A2) and a Thasian amphora from the 4th century (A1009.A3, A1012.A1).

31 # A4019, 4021, 4022. This layer was not excavated fully due to time limitation. See Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 871–873.

32 Rotroff 1997, p. 269, no. 264, fig. 17.

33 Rotroff 1997, p. 342, no. 1010, fig. 63, pl. 76.

34 Kolia 2006, p. 208, Θ 62.

35 Kögler 2010, pp. 128–130, similar to D.45, fig. 10.

36 Form like Meyer-Schlichtmann 1988, pp. 67–70, type S8, fig. 29: 30. For more information about Pergamenian pottery see Hübner 1993; Hübner 1997; Japp 2014; Lätzer-Lasar 2020; for Pergamenian pottery on Delos see: Bruneau 1991; Meyza, Peignard-Giros 2009; Peignard-Giros, Meyza 2009; Meyza, Peignard-Giros 2011, pp. 123–127; Meyza 2014; Peignard-Giros 2014.

37 Hayes 1985, pp. 14–15; Hayes 2008, pp. 21–24. For more information about ESA see Slane 1997; Bes 2015. For ESA on Delos see Meyza, Peignard-Giros 2011, pp. 120–123; Peignard-Giros 2014.

38 # B6003, B6004 (partly), B6005 (partly), B6006, B6007, B6008, B6010 (partly), B6011, B6014, B6015, B6016, B6017, B6019, and B6020.

39 Both examples represent profile type 2b according to Rogl 2014. Fig. 11.1 presents a rim of a mould-made bowl decorated with a frieze with Ionian kyma. Fig. 11.2 displays a rim of a mould-made bowl decorated with a frieze of rosettes.

40 For Ephesian production see Laumonier 1977; Rogl 2014; for Attic long petal bowls see Rotroff 1982, pp. 35–36; Rotroff 2011, p. 635; Rotroff 2018.

41 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.

42 Kögler 2010, pp. 128–129, similar to E.54 and E.55, fig. 19.

43 For examples from Knidos see Kögler 2010, p. 86, from Delos see, e.g., Hatzidakis 1997, p. 299, fig. 220, γ, ε. Peignard 1997, p. 314, fig. 234: e.

44 Rotroff 2006, p. 154, category 5.

45 Rotroff 2006, p. 154, category 6.

46 Hayes 1991, pp. 68–69; Dotterweich 1999; Rotroff 2006, pp. 157–158; Marzec 2011; Lund 2015, pp. 198–199; this type dates from the late 3rd to the 1st century.

47 Amicone et al. 2014, pp. 7–8.

48 The lopades are in the same type as one which is illustrated on fig. 17.5.

49 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, similar to D 223, pl. 48; Zapheiropoulou 1998, p. 199, left, p. 186, no. 207; Zapheiropoulou, Hatzidakis 1994, p. 246, pl. 197:5; Hatzidakis 2000, 127, fig. 3:22, pl. 76: β, ca. 90–70; Rotroff 2006, pp. 183–186, form 5.

50 # B3009, B3010, B3031 and B3034.

51 The rock rises rapidly to the north: the wall is only about 1 m long; the altitude of the rock, and the top of the wall, is about 30.59 m.

52 Bank (fill) # B3014, B3016, B3017, B3021, B3023, B3025, B3028, B3029, B3033, B3036: corresponding to the development of the second state (current state) of the court.

53 Rogl 2014, pp. 122, 125, fig. 11 type 2b, pp. 133–134.

54 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.

55 Rogl 2014, pp. 122, 125, fig. 11 type 2b, pp. 133–134.

56 Kögler 2010, pp. 305, 336 and 436, C.60, pl. 6.

57 Hayes 1985, p. 15; Hayes 2008, pp. 23–24.

58 Rotroff 1997, pp. 226–227; Kögler 2010, p. 439, similar to C.92, pl. 7.

59 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, similar to D 223, pl. 48; Hatzidakis 2000, 127, fig. 3:22, pl. 76: β; Rotroff 2006, pp. 183–186, form 5; Amicone et al. 2014, pp. 7–8.

60 Martz 2016, pp. 288, 291, fig. 1: 6. Peignard-Giros 2000, pp. 210–214; Peignard-Giros 2012, pp. 253–254; Peignard-Giros 2013, pp. 154–156.

61 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 879–881.

62 # B4005, B4006 and B4008.

63 # B5004, B5005, B5006, B5007, B5008, B5009 and B5010; the fill was spotted at an altitude of ca. 27.50 m; the excavation stopped at 26.95 m and bedrock was not reached.

64 The decorative motif similar to Rotroff 2018, fig. 1.2a.

65 Élaigne 2007a, p. 110, fig. 6. 517‑83. In terms of type and the macroscopic appearance of the fabric, the presented here plate looks the same as a plate from the Aphrodision of Stesileos on Delos pinpointed to Rhodes on the basis of elemental analysis (WD‑XRF) and thin section petrography. The first results of these analyses were presented in a poster entitled Hellenistic colour-coated plates from the Aphrodision of Stesileos, Delos by E. Marzec, J.‑S. Gros, N. S. Müller and E. Kiriatzi on the fourth conference of International Association for Research of Pottery of the Hellenistic Period in Athens, 11th–14th November 2019.

66 Kolia 2006, p. 208, Θ 62.

67 Rotroff 2006, p. 156, category 5.

68 Peignard 1997, p. 312, pl. 231, e.

69 Rotroff 2006, p. 188.

70 Morel 1986; Hayes 1991, p. 8; Élaigne 2007b; Lund 2015, p. 188.

71 Similar to Kögler 2010, pp. 83–86, E.2, fig. 16.

72 Hayes 1985, p. 23; Hayes 2008, p. 27.

73 Hayes 1985, pp. 14–15; Hayes 2008, pp. 21–23.

74 Hayes 1985, pp. 17–18; Hayes 2008, p. 25.

75 Hayes 1985, p. 21.

76 Rogl 2014.

77 Rotroff 1982, pp. 35–36; Rotroff 2011, p. 635; Rotroff 2018.

78 Hayes 1991, pp. 59–60: 1, fig. 22, 1; Peignard-Giros 2000; Peignard-Giros 2013.

79 Marabini Moevs 1973, pp. 49–50.

80 Hatzidakis 1997, pl. 225: γ; Peignard-Giros 2000, pp. 216–217; Peignard-Giros 2013, p. 156.

81 Rotroff 2006, p. 156, category 5.

82 Rotroff 2006, pp. 183–186; Amicone et al. 2014.

83 Bruneau 1970, p. 259, nos. D223, D 224, pl. 48; Zapheiropoulou 1998, p. 199, left, p. 186, no. 207; Zapheiropoulou, Hatzidakis 1994, p. 246, pl. 197:5; Hatzidakis 2000, p. 127, fig. 3:22, pl. 76:3; Hatzidakis 2004, p. 651, pls. 318:β, 320:8.

84 Berlin 1993, pp. 35–37; Bruneau 1970, p. 259, no. D 222, pl. 49; Hatzidakis 2004, p. 653, pls. 319:γ, 320:9; Rotroff 2006, p. 192; Peignard-Giros 2000, pp. 211–212, fig. 4A; Peignard-Giros 2012, pp. 253–254; Peignard-Giros 2013, p. 155.

85 IG XI.4, 1299, l. 18–19 et l. 53–55. See Bruneau 1973, pp. 111–136 and specifically pp. 133–136.

86 White’s attempt to date the walls of Sarapieion A and to draw conclusions about the history of construction and that of the Egyptian cults on Delos seems fruitless. See White 1990, pp. 35–36 and fig. 2 p. 34.

87 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, pp. 871–873.

88 See DELOS. – Sarapieion A – 2017, Chronique des fouilles, n. 6782, online, https://chronique.efa.gr/?kroute=report&id=6782, version 17 May 2019, accessed 30 April 2021.

89 Except for one inscription whose provenance is not assured, Roussel 1915–1916, no. 39 = ID 2551 and see above, p. 600.

90 Vallois 1944, p. 203; Bruneau 1973, pp. 125–126; Bruneau 1990, pp. 556–557; Tréheux 1988, pp. 156–157.

91 Brun-Kyriakidis et al. 2015–2016, p. 879 (Trench 3), pp. 881–882 (Trench 6).

92 Moretti 1996, pp. 617–638, and especially on displaced inscriptions, pp. 626–629: “Alors que sa construction (i.e., GD 76) est située de manière cohérente par des critères architecturaux, stylistiques et épigraphiques dans les environs de 100, le monument contenait, quand il fut fouillé, un mobilier erratique partiellement antérieur à cette date.” (p. 626).

93 ID 1417, A II, l. 59–141; Prêtre et al. (eds.) 2002, pp. 219–221 (French translation).

94 Roussel 1915–1916, pp. 263–264.

95 On the architecture of this temple and its successive repairs, see Vallois 1944, pp. 93–95.

96 Roussel 1916, p. 251; Bruneau 1990, p. 562 and n. 3. For a summary of the hypothesis, Siard 1998, pp. 479–480.

97 Moyer 2011, p. 195: “[…] but perhaps the legal threat to the sanctuary of Apollonios did in fact come from other Sarapieia, or at least from other groups involved in the cult of Egyptian gods.”

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 — Delos, Inopos quarter.
Crédits Moretti (ed.) 2015.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 750k
Titre Fig. 2 — Sarapieion A as viewed from the South.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 650k
Titre Fig. 3 — Sarapieion A, axonometry.
Crédits Drawing F. F. Muller.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 538k
Titre Fig. 4 — The inscribed column found in Sarapieion A, in 1912 (IG XI.4 1299).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 613k
Titre Fig. 5 — Sarapieion B as viewed from the West.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 721k
Titre Fig. 6 — Sarapieion B, axonometry.
Crédits Drawing N. Bresch.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 639k
Titre Fig. 7 — Sarapieion A: location of trenches (2014).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 452k
Titre Fig. 8 — Vessels found in the lower layer of Trench 1 in Sarapieion A.
Légende 1. cup-kantharos; 2. echinus bowl; 3. bowl with out-turned rim; 4. conical bowl; 5. kantharos; 6. Palestinian cup; 7. Palestinian cup; 8. echinus bowl; 9. plate; 10. lekane.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 360k
Titre Fig. 9 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion A.
Légende 1. kantharos; 2. echinus bowl; 3. bowl with out-turned rim; 4. fishplate; 5. lekane; 6. bowl; 7. skyphos.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 257k
Titre Fig. 10 — Sarapieion B: location of trenches (2014).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 659k
Titre Fig. 11 — Vessels found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.
Légende 1. mould-made bowl; 2. mould-made bowl; 3. Knidian bowl; 4. Knidian cup; 5. unguentarium; 6. unguentarium.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 294k
Titre Fig. 12 — Fragment of Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 6 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 612k
Titre Fig. 13 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: bench-foot on its base as viewed from the West.
Légende a. general view; b. detail of the bench-foot.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 506k
Titre Fig. 14 — Vessels found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B. South-East part of the courtyard.
Légende 1. mould-made bowl; 2. mould-made bowl; 3. ESA Atlante form 22. South-West part of the courtyard: 4. mould-made bowl; 5. echinus bowl; 6. echinus bowl; 7. unguentarium.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 241k
Titre Fig. 15 — Ephesian mould-made bowl found in Trench 3 in Sarapieion B, South-West part of the courtyard.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 511k
Titre Fig. 16 — Vessels found in Trench 4 in Sarapieion B.
Légende 1. plate with a rolled rim; 2. lekane; 3. echinus bowl; 4. unguentarium; 5. chytra; 6. baking dish.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 256k
Titre Fig. 17 — Vessels found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Légende 1. ESA Atlante form 22; 2. ESA Atlante form 6; 3. mould-made bowl; 4. unguentarium; 5. lopas; 6. baking dish of the orlo bifido type.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 365k
Titre Fig. 18 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 573k
Titre Fig. 19 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 622k
Titre Fig. 20 — Ionian mould-made bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 506k
Titre Fig. 21 — Attic long petal bowl found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 573k
Titre Fig. 22 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 452k
Titre Fig. 23 — Fragment of a thin walled vessel, bearing dotted decoration in barbotine technique, possibly net-beaker, found in Trench 5 in Sarapieion B.
Crédits Irini Miari.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 385k
Titre Fig. 24 — Sarapieion B: naos as viewed from the South.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 598k
Titre Fig. 25 — Walls of the Krene of Inopos.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 615k
Titre Fig. 26 — House of Inopos.
Légende a. the South façade; b. detail of the masonry.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 770k
Titre Fig. 27 — Sarapieion B, Trench 3: pithos in situ as viewed from the East.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/bch/docannexe/image/1163/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 662k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Hélène Brun-Kyriakidis et Edyta Marzec, « Chronology of the Sarapieia A & B on Delos »Bulletin de correspondance hellénique [En ligne], 144.2 | 2020, mis en ligne le 11 mai 2022, consulté le 12 novembre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bch/1163 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/bch.1163

Haut de page

Auteurs

Hélène Brun-Kyriakidis

Sorbonne Université, UMR 8167 (Orient et Méditerranée)

Edyta Marzec

The Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Fitch Laboratory, British School at Athens.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search