Download - Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Transcript
Page 1: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace
Page 2: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone

Proceedings of the IX ASMOSIA Conference (Tarragona 2009)

Page 3: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace
Page 4: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone Proceedings of the IX Association for the Study of Marbles

and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009)

Edited by Anna Gutiérrez Garcia-M.Pilar Lapuente Mercadal

Isabel Rodà de Llanza

Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

Tarragona, 2012

23

Page 5: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Comitè editorialJuan Manuel Abascal (Universitat d’Alacant), José María Álvarez Martínez (Museo Nacional de Arte Romano, Mérida), Carmen Aranegui (Universitat de València), Achim Arbeiter (Universitat Georg-August de Göttingen, Alemanya), Jean-Charles Balty (Universitat de París-Sorbona [París IV], França), Francesco D’Andria (Universitat del Salento, Itàlia), Pierre Gros (Universitat de Provença, França), Ella Hermon (Université Laval, Quebec, Canadà), Rosa Plana-Mallart (Universitat Paul-Valéry Montpeller 3, França), Lucrezia Ungaro (Sovraintendenza Capitolina, Direzione Musei, Itàlia) i Susan Walker (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, Regne Unit).

© d’aquesta edició, Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC) Plaça d’en Rovellat, s/n, 43003 Tarragona Telèfon 977 249 133 – Fax 977 224 401 [email protected] – www.icac.net

Durant els nou primers mesos de publicació, qualsevol forma de reproducció, distribució, comunicació pública o transformació d’aquesta obra només es pot fer tenint l’autorització dels seus titulars, amb les excepcions previstes per la llei. Adreceu-vos a CEDRO (Centre Espanyol de Drets Reprogràfics, www.cedro.org) si heu de fotocopiar o escanejar fragments d’aquesta obra.

A partir del desè mes de publicació, aquest llibre està disponible en format PDF a la web de l’ICAC i s’autoritza el públic en general a reproduir, distribuir i comunicar l’obra sempre que se’n reconegui l’autoria i les entitats que la publiquen i no se’n faci un ús comercial, ni lucratiu, ni cap obra derivada.

© d’aquesta edició, les editores; i dels articles, els autors© de la fotografia de la coberta: ICAC

Primera edició: maig del 2012Coordinació: Publicacions de l’ICACDisseny de la col·lecció: DièdricCoberta: Gerard Juan GiliFotografia de la coberta: Placa de broccatello de la vil·la romana dels Munts, a Altafulla (Tarragona).

Maquetació i impressió: Indústries Gràfiques Gabriel GibertDipòsit Legal: T-336-2012 ISBN: 978-84-939033-8-1

Biblioteca de Catalunya - Dades CIP

Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones used in Antiquity. International Symposium (9è : 2009 : Tarragona, Catalunya)

Interdisciplinary studies on ancient stone : proceedings of the IX Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA) Conference (Tarragona 2009). – (Documenta ; 23)BibliografiaISBN 9788493903381I. Gutiérrez Garcia-Moreno, Anna, ed. II. Lapuente Mercadal, Pilar, ed. III. Rodà, Isabel, 1948- ed. IV. Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica V. Títol VI. Col·lecció: Documenta (Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica) ; 231. Escultura en marbre – Roma – Congressos 2. Construccions de marbre – Roma – Congressos 3. Marbre – Roma – Anàlisi – Congressos 4. Pedres de construcció – Roma – Anàlisi – Congressos 5. Pedreres – Roma – Història – Congressos904-03(37):552.46(061.3)

Aquesta obra recull les aportacions (comunicacions orals i pòsters) que es van presentar durant el IX Congrés Internacional de l’Association for the Study of Marbles and Other Stones in Antiquity (ASMOSIA), organitzat per l’ICAC en el marc del programa de recerca HAR2008-04600/HIST, amb el suport del programa d’Ajuts ARCS 2008 (referència expedient IR036826) de la Generalitat de Catalunya i del Ministeri de Ciència i Innovació (Accions Complementàries HAR2008-03181-E/HIST), i celebrat a Tarragona entre el 8 i el 13 de juny del 2009.

Aquesta publicació ha estat possible gràcies a l’ajut del programa d’Ajuts ARCS 2008 (referència expedient IR036826) de la Generalitat de Catalunya i del Ministeri de Ciència i Innovació (Accions Complementaries HAR2008-03181-E/HIST), i també als projectes de recerca HAR2008-04600/HIST (“Explotación, uso e intercambio de materias primas inor-gánicas entre el norte de Hispania, el sur de la Galia y los puertos de Roma”) i HAR2011-25011 (“La explotación y comercio de los recursos naturales en el N. de la Hispania romana: lapis, metalla, aqua”) del Ministeri de Ciència i Innovació.

Page 6: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

5

Abbe, M. B., Lamar Dodd School of Art, University of Georgia, Athens, GA (USA)

[email protected] Abramitis, D., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York (USA) [email protected] Albiach, R., Servei d’Investigació Prehistòrica, Museu de

Prehistòria de València, València (Spain) [email protected] Àlvarez, A., Unitat d’Estudis Arqueomètrics, Institut

Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC), Tarragona / Departament de Geologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected]; [email protected] Andreu, J., Departamento de Historia Antigua, Univer-

sidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid (Spain)

[email protected] Antolinos, J. A., Universidad de Murcia, Murcia (Spain) [email protected] Antonelli, F., Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali An-

tichi (LAMA), Università Iuav di Venezia, Venezia (Italy)

[email protected] Apostolaki, C., Department of Mineral Resources En-

gineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania (Greece)

[email protected] Arana, R. † Passed away in June 2011; Departamento de

Química Agrícola, Geología y Edafología, Universi-dad de Murcia, Murcia (Spain)

Arana, S., Escuela Oficial de Idiomas de Lorca, Exten-sión Mazarrón, Mazarrón (Spain)

[email protected] Arola, R., Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Attanasio, D., Istituto di Struttura della Materia, Con-

siglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ISM-CNR), Roma (Italy)

[email protected] Aulinas, M., Departament de Geoquímica, Petrologia i

Prospecció Geològica, Universitat de Barcelona, Bar-celona (Spain)

[email protected] Aylward, W., Department of Classics, University of Wis-

consin, Madison, WI (USA) [email protected] Barker, S. J., University of Oxford, Hertford College,

Oxford (UK) [email protected] Beltrán, J., Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología,

Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Blanc, A., Laboratoire de Recherche des Monuments

Historiques, Champs-sur-Marne (France)

Blanc, Ph., Laboratoire de Biominéralisations et Paléoen-vironnements, Université Pierre & Marie Curie (UPMC), Paris (France)

[email protected] Blume, C., Courant Forschungszentrum Bildung und

Religion, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Göt-tingen (Germany)

[email protected], G. E., Museum of Art, Rhode Island School

of Design, Providence, RI (USA) [email protected] Brilli, M., Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingeg-

neria, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IGAG-CNR), Roma (Italy)

[email protected] Bromblet, Ph., Centre Interrégional de Conservation et

de Restauration du Patrimoine (CICRP), Marseille (France)

[email protected] Bruno, M., Roma (Italy) [email protected] Bugini, R., Istituto Conservazione e Valorizzazione

Beni Culturali, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ICVBC-CNR), Milano (Italy)

[email protected] Burrell, B., Department of Classics, Brock University, St.

Catharines, Ontario (Canada) [email protected] Buzov, M., Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb (Croatia) [email protected] Cancelliere, S., Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali An-

tichi (LAMA), Università Iuav di Venezia, Venezia (Italy)

[email protected] Carlson, D., Institute of Nautical Archaeology, Texas

A&M University, College Station, TX (USA) [email protected] Cau, M. A., Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis

Avançats (ICREA) / Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètrica de la Universitat de Barcelona (ER-AAUB), Departament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected] Cavari, F., Dipartimento di Archeologia e Storia delle

Arti, Università di Siena, Siena (Italy) [email protected] Cebrián, R., Parque Arqueológico de Segóbriga, Saelices

(Spain) [email protected]

erniková, A., Institute of Applied Mathematics and Information Technologies, Charles University in Prague, Praha (Czech Republic)

[email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Page 7: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

6

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES ON ANCIENT STONE. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IX ASMOSIA CONFERENCE (TARRAGONA 2009)

Chávez, M. E., Departamento de Prehistoria, Arque-ología, Antropología e Historia Antigua, Universidad de La Laguna, Islas Canarias (Spain)

[email protected] Cipriani, M., Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Paes-

tum, Capaccio Scalo (Italy) [email protected] Corremans, M., Sagalassos Archaeological Research

Project, Department of Archaeology, Catholic Uni-versity of Leuven, Leuven (Belgium)

[email protected] Cox, J., University of Georgia, Athens, GA (USA) [email protected] Cuchí, J. A., Escuela Politécnica Superior, Universidad

de Zaragoza, Huesca (Spain) [email protected] Davidovi , J., Museum of Srem, Sremska Mitrovica (Ser-

bia) [email protected] De Dapper, M., Department of Geography, Ghent Uni-

versity, Gent (Belgium) [email protected] Degryse, P., Centre for Archaeological Sciences, Division

of Geology, Catholic University of Leuven, Heverlee (Belgium)

[email protected] Del Pietro, L., Dipartimento di Scienze Archeologiche,

University of Pisa, Pisa (Italy) [email protected] De Paepe, P., Department of Geology and Soil Science,

Ghent University, Gent (Belgium) [email protected] Dessandier, D., BRGM (French Geological Survey),

Marseille (France) [email protected] Djuri , B., Department of Archaeology, University of

Ljubljana, Ljubljana (Slovenia) [email protected] Dobruna-Salihu, E., Instituti Albanologjik i Prishtinës,

Prishtinë (Kosovo) [email protected] Domènech, A., Unitat d’Estudis Arqueomètrics, Institut

Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC), Tarragona / Deptartament de Geologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected] Domingo, J. Á., Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,

Roma (Italy) [email protected] Donelli, I., Arts Academy, University of Split, Split

(Croatia) [email protected] Dotsika, E., Laboratory of Archaeometry, Institute of

Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”, Aghia Par-askevi (Greece)

[email protected] Droghini, F., Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali “G.

Sarfatti”, Università di Siena, Siena (Italy) [email protected]

Džin, K., Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb / Centre for Archaeological Research, International Research Centre for Archaeology, Brijuni-Medulin, Pula (Croatia)

[email protected] Eguíluz, L., Departamento de Geodinámica, Universidad

del País Vasco UPV-EHU, Vitoria/Gasteiz (Spain) [email protected]çi, H., Dokuz Eylül University, Torbali Vocational

School, Torbali- zmir (Turkey) [email protected] Fachard, S., École Suisse d’Archéologie en Grèce,

Lausanne / Athína (Greece) [email protected] Fant, J. C., Department of Classical Studies, Anthropol-

ogy and Archaeology, University of Akron, Akron, OH (USA)

[email protected] Folli, L., Istituto Conservazione e Valorizzazione Beni

Culturali (ICVBC-CNR), Milano (Italy) [email protected] Friedland, E. A., Department of Classical and Near East-

ern Languages and Civilizations, The George Wash-ington University, Washington, DC (USA)

[email protected] Gaggadis-Robin, V., Centre Camille Jullian, CNRS,

Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence (France) [email protected] Gaied, M. E., Faculté des sciences de Sfax, Sfax (Tunisia) [email protected] Galán, E., Departamento de Cristalografía, Mineralogía y

Química Agrícola, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Gallala, W., Faculté des sciences de Gabès, Gabès (Tu-

nisia) [email protected] Gallego, A., Valencia (Spain) [email protected] Garcés, C., Instituto de Estudios Altoaragoneses (IEA),

Huesca (Spain) [email protected] García-Prósper, E., Valencia (Spain) [email protected] Garcia-Valles, M., Departament de Cristal·lografia, Mi-

neralogia i Dipòsits Minerals, Universitat de Barce-lona, Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected] Gasull, N., Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Gazda, E., Department of the History of Art and Kel-

sey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (USA)

[email protected] Genera, M., Departament de Cultura, Generalitat de

Catalunya, Barcelona / SEDPGYM, Madrid (Spain) [email protected] Giamello, M., Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali “G.

Sarfatti”, Università di Siena, Siena (Italy) [email protected]

Page 8: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

7

Girardi Jurkic, V., Department of Latin Studies, Univer-sity of Zagreb, Zagreb (Croatia)

[email protected] Grillo, S. M., Dipartimento di Geoingegneria e Tec-

nologie Ambientali, Università di Cagliari, Cagliari (Italy)

[email protected] Gromet, L. P., Brown University, Providence, RI (USA) [email protected] Gutiérrez Deza, M. I., Convenio Ayuntamiento de

Córdoba - Universidad de Córdoba, Córdoba (Spain)

[email protected] Gutiérrez Garcia-M., A., Unitat d’Estudis Arqueomètrics,

Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC), Tar-ragona / Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i l’Edat Mitjana, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected]; [email protected], M., University M’Bougara of Boumerdès,

Bourmedes (Algeria) [email protected] Herrmann, J. J. Jr., Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA

(USA) [email protected] Hipol, S., University of Georgia, Athens, GA (USA) [email protected] Jovanovi , D., Geological Institute of Serbia, Beograd

(Serbia) [email protected] Khalfallah, C., National Archaeological Museum, Setif

(Algeria) [email protected] Kidd, B., Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of

Missouri, Columbia, MISS (USA) [email protected] Kozelj, T., École Française d’Athènes, Thassos (Greece) [email protected] Lapuente, P., Área de Petrología y Geoquímica, Depar-

tamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza (Spain)

[email protected] Laroche, D., École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture

de Strasbourg, Strasbourg (France) [email protected] Lazzarini, L., Laboratorio di Analisi dei Materiali Antichi

(LAMA), Università Iuav di Venezia, Venenzia (Italy) [email protected] Leka, E., Direction of Prehistoric and Classical Antiqui-

ties, Ministry of Culture, Athína (Greece) [email protected] León, P., Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología,

Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain) [email protected], L., Laboratoire de Recherche des Monuments

Historiques (LRMH), Champs-sur-Marne (France) [email protected] López Aldana, P., Sevilla (Spain) [email protected]

López Melción, J. B., Grup d’Investigació Prehistòri-ca, Departament d’Història, Universitat de Lleida (UdL), Lleida (Spain)

[email protected] López Vilar, J., Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

(ICAC), Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Loza Azuaga, M. L., Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio

Histórico (IAPH), Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Uriarte, M., Iterbide S.C., Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain) [email protected] Macias, J. M., Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica

(ICAC), Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Maniatis, Y., Laboratory of Archaeometry, Institute of

Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”, Aghia Par-askevi (Greece)

[email protected] Mañas, I., Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales

(CCHS-CSIC) / Departamento de Historia Anti-gua, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid (Spain)

[email protected], R., Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Marcopoulos, T., Department of Mineral Resources Engi-

neering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, (Greece) [email protected] Mariottini, M., Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione

ed il Restauro, Roma (Italy) [email protected] Martínez-Torres, L. M., Departamento de Geodinámi-

ca, Universidad del País Vasco UPV-EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain)

[email protected] Mas, C., Equip de Recerca Arqueològica i Arqueomètri-

ca de la Universitat de Barcelona (ERAAUB), Depar-tament de Prehistòria, Història Antiga i Arqueologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected] Mascione, C., Dipartimento di Archeologia e Storia delle

Arti, Università di Siena, Siena (Italy) [email protected] Matijaca, M., Croatian Conservation Institute, Split

(Croatia) [email protected] Matsas, D., Archaeological Museum, Komotini (Greece) [email protected] Maver, A., Department of Archaeology, University of

Ljubljana, Ljubljana (Slovenia) [email protected] Menchon, J. J., Museu d’Història de Tarragona, Ajunta-

ment de Tarragona, Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Miras, A., Departamento de Cristalografía, Mineralogía

y Química Agrícola, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain)

[email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Page 9: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

8

INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES ON ANCIENT STONE. PROCEEDINGS OF THE IX ASMOSIA CONFERENCE (TARRAGONA 2009)

Miró, C., ICUB- Servei d’Arqueologia, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] Molist, N., Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya-Olèrdo-

la, Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] Moretti, J. C., IRAA du CNRS, MOM, Université de

Lyon 2, Lyon (France) [email protected] Moya, A., Grup d’Investigació Prehistòrica, Departa-

ment d’Història, Universitat de Lleida (UdL), Lleida (Spain)

[email protected] Muñoz, A., Museu Bíblic Tarraconense, Tarragona

(Spain) [email protected] Niso, J., Iterbide S.C., Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain) [email protected] Nogales, T., Museo Nacional de Arte Romano de Mérida

(MNAR) / Consejería de Educación y Cultura, Junta de Extremadura, Mérida (Spain)

[email protected]; [email protected], J. M., Área de Arqueología, Universidad de

Murcia, Murcia (Spain) [email protected] Ontiveros, E., Laboratorio de Geología, Instituto Anda-

luz del Patrimonio Histórico (IAPH), Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Orfila, M., Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología,

Universidad de Granada, Granada (Spain) [email protected] Otiña, P., Salou (Spain) [email protected] Ovadiah, A., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Israel) [email protected] Paduan, I., Croatian Conservation Institute, Split

(Croatia) [email protected] Pensabene, P., Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità,

Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma (Italy) [email protected] Pérez, C., Unidad de Arqueología, IE University, Segovia

(Spain) [email protected] Perna, S., Department of Classics Royal Holloway, Uni-

versity of London, London (UK) [email protected]; [email protected], S., Department of Earth and Environmental Sci-

ence, Willamette University, Salem, OR (USA) [email protected] Pitarch, A., Laboratory of X-ray Analytical Applications

(LARX), Institut de Ciències de la Terra “Jaume Alm-era” (ICTJA-CSIC), Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected]; [email protected], D., Department of Geology and Paleontology,

Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava (Slovakia)

[email protected] Pojani, I., University of Tirana, Tirana (Albania) [email protected]

Polikreti, K., University of Tirana, Tirana (Albania) [email protected] Pollini, J., Department of Art History, University of

Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (USA) [email protected] Preite-Martinez, M., Dipartimento di Scienze della Ter-

ra, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Roma (Italy) [email protected] P ikryl, R., Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and

Mineral Resources, Charles University in Prague, Praha (Czech Republic)

[email protected] Prochaska, W., Department of Applied Geological Sci-

ences and Geophysics, University of Leoben, Leoben (Austria)

[email protected] Rébé, I., Centre Archéologique de Ruscino, Perpignan

(France) [email protected] Revilla, E., Museu d’Història de Barcelona (MUHBA),

Barcelona (Spain) [email protected] Reyes, O., Unidad de Arqueología, IE University, Sego-

via (Spain) [email protected] Riache, C., National Archaeological Museum of Setif,

Setif (Algeria) [email protected] Riera Rullan, M., Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears (Spain) [email protected] Rižnar, I., Ljubljana (Slovenia) [email protected] Rodà, I., Institut Català d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC),

Tarragona / Departament de Ciències de l’Antiguitat i l’Edat Mitjana, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona (Spain)

[email protected] Rodríguez, O., Departamento de Prehistoria y Arque-

ología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Romano, I.B., American School of Classical Studies at

Athens, Princeton, NJ (USA) [email protected], M., Servicio de Arqueología, Ayuntamiento de

Antequera, Málaga (Spain)Royo, H., Unitat d’Estudis Arqueomètrics, Institut Cat-

alà d’Arqueologia Clàssica (ICAC), Tarragona / De-partamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza (Spain)

[email protected] Russell, B., Classics Department, King’s College Lon-

don, London (UK) [email protected] Salán, M., Madrid (Spain) [email protected] Scardozzi, G., Istituto per i Beni Archeologici e Monu-

mentali, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IBAM-CNR), Lecce (Italy)

[email protected]

Page 10: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

9

Soler, B., Instituto de Arqueología de Mérida (IAM-CSIC), Mérida (Spain)

[email protected]Š astná, A., Institute of Geochemistry, Mineralogy and

Mineral Resources, Charles University in Prague, Praha (Czech Republic)

[email protected] Storage, W., Office for History of Science and Technol-

ogy, University of California, Berkeley (USA) [email protected]; [email protected], T., Department of Archaeology, Sofia Univer-

sity “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia (Bulgaria) [email protected] Stoyanova, D., Department of Archaeology, Sofia Uni-

versity “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia (Bulgaria) [email protected] Sturgeon, M., Department of Art, University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (USA) [email protected] Taelman, D., Department of Archaeology, Ghent Uni-

versity, Gent (Belgium) [email protected] Tambakopoulos, D., Laboratory of Archaeometry, In-

stitute of Materials Science, NCSR “Demokritos”, Aghia Paraskevi (Greece)

[email protected] Taylor, R., Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología,

Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain) [email protected] Teixell, I., Museu d’Història de Tarragona, Ajuntament

de Tarragona, Tarragona (Spain) [email protected] Toma, N., Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Christian-

Albrechts-Universität, Kiel (Germany) [email protected] Tykot, R. H., Department of Anthropology, University

of South Florida (USF), Tampa, FL (USA) [email protected] Ungaro, L., Sovraintendenza Beni Culturali, Comune di

Roma, Roma (Italy) [email protected] van den Hoek, A., Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge,

MA (USA) [email protected] Van Keuren, F., Lamar Dodd School of Art, University of

Georgia, Athens, GA (USA) [email protected]

Varti-Matarangas, M., Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME), Athína (Greece)

[email protected] Vázquez, M. A., Departamento de Cristalografía, Min-

eralogía y Química Agrícola, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla (Spain)

[email protected] Vermeulen, F., Centro Interdisciplinar de História, Cultu-

ras e Sociedades (CIDEHUS), Universidade de Évora, Évora (Portugal)

[email protected] Villa, I., Isotopengeologie, Mineralogisch-Petrographi-

sches Institut, Universität Bern, Bern (Switzerland) [email protected] Visona, D., Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, Univer-

sità di Padova, Padova (Italy) [email protected] Vitti, M., Sovraintendenza Beni Culturali, Comune di

Roma, Roma (Italy) [email protected], M., Sagalassos Archaeological Research

Project, Department of Archaeology, Catholic Uni-versity of Leuven, Leuven (Belgium)

[email protected] Wescoat, B. D., Art History Department, Emory Uni-

versity, Atlanta, GA (USA) [email protected] Wielgosz, D., Institute of Archaeology, University of

Warsaw, Warszawa (Poland) [email protected] Wurch-Kozelj, M., École Française d’Athènes, Thassos

(Greece) [email protected] Yavuz, A. B., Geological Engineering Department,

D.E.Ü. Engineering Faculty, zmir (Turkey) [email protected] Younès, A., Faculté des Sciences Humaines et Sociales de

Tunis, Tunis (Tunisia) [email protected] Zachos, G. A., Research Centre for Antiquity, Academy

of Athens, Athína (Greece) [email protected]

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Page 11: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

Nota bene

The quality of the texts and images relies on the quality of the originals provided by the authors.

Page 12: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

263

AbstractThe Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace rose to prominence in the second half of the 4th century BC with the construction of splendid marble build-ings connected with the special allegiance of the Mac-edonians. The monuments arose in rapid succession, culminating in the famous Hellenistic statue, Nike of Samothrace. It has long been assumed that their marble came chiefly from the nearby Thasos, but visual inspec-tion suggested other marbles as well. Samples for mar-ble provenance investigation were taken from a wide range of monuments. The techniques of Maximum Grain Size measurements, EPR spectroscopy and Stable Isotope analysis were jointly used. The results showed a complex pattern of provenance including Thasian, Pentelic, Parian and Proconnesian marble, sometimes in combination. The presence of Proconnesian marble at least by the early 3rd century BC confirms the use of this marble in the early Hellenistic period. The Nike and its ship base were also investigated and the marble identified.

KeywordsSamothrace, Sanctuary of the Great Gods, marble, provenance, EPR, stable isotope analysis, maximum grain size.

Introduction

Samothrace is the furthest north-east Aegean island of Greece, situated in the sea lanes crossing mainly be-tween the south Aegean, the north Greek mainland, and the Dardanelles. It is not very far from the marble pro-ducing islands of Thasos and Proconnesos (Fig. 1).

On its northern shore, the Sanctuary of the Great Gods rests in a cleft at the base of Mt. Phengari, in a dramatic setting that physically integrates the divine forces of earth, sky, and sea that played a fundamental role in the mysteria. Indications of religious activity in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods date back to the 7th century BC, but construction of monumental buildings began only in the 4th century BC. This development is associated with the munificence and the political inte-rests of the royal house of Macedon, as early as the reign of Philip II. Alexander’s successors continued the royal patronage of the sanctuary, which attained its greatest glory in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. The abandon-ment of the sanctuary and the cult took place towards the end of the 4th century AD. Archaeological research, dating from the second half of the 19th century, has so

far provided a picture of the sanctuary and its develop-ment (Wescoat 2010), although details of the cult re-main controversial (cf. Clinton 2003; Marconi 2010). A recent plan of the sanctuary monuments and their approximate dates is shown in Fig. 2.

It has long been assumed that the marble used in the construction of the major monuments came from the nearby island of Thasos. However, this assumption needed verification or modification with the application of scientific techniques. The aim of this work is there-fore to determine the provenance of the marble of a wide range of monuments using optical and physicochemical analysis in order to reveal the pattern of marble usage, trade and material preferences of the prominent people who commissioned the monuments and the architects and masons who built them.

Samples and analytical techniques

A large number of architectural and other marble elements (building blocks, columns, capitals, bases, sculptures etc) from most of the monuments in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods in Samothrace were ex-amined visually in situ and the maximum grain sizes and colour variations were recorded. Following the in-spection, 31 (thirty one) representative samples were obtained from different kinds of architectural mem-bers and sculptures of several structures, including fa-mous monuments such as the Propylon of Ptolemy II and the Nike of Samothrace, and some of the lesser

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE:

AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Y. Maniatis, D. Tambakopoulos, E. Dotsika, B. D. Wescoat and D. Matsas

Fig. 1. Map of Greece showing the island of Samothrace and the nearby marble sources of Thasos and Proconnesos.

Page 13: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

264

known or more recently found monuments.1 The sam-ples were obtained in the form of a small chip taken from a suitable place of an already existing old or new break so that there was no loss of any archaeological/art-historical information or aesthetic value. Taking samples with a drill has long being abandoned due to

the damage the drill causes on the sample crystal lat-tice, resulting in loss of important grain size and ion concentration information. All the samples are pre-sented in Table 1, together with the architectural ele-ment or sculpture they come from and the monument to which they belong.

1. The structures sampled were in chronological order: Hall of Choral Dancers (2 samples); Altar Court (1 sample); Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV (2 samples); Rotunda of Arsinoe II (1 sample); Propylon of Ptolemy II (3 samples); Hieron (1 sample); Neorion (3 samples); Milesian Dedication (1 sample); Ionic Porch (2 samples); Nike Monument (Nike of Samothrace: 2 or 3 samples); Byzantine fac-tory (1 sample). Also, 4 samples were taken from unknown monuments and 5 from smaller monuments on the Eastern and Western Hills.

Fig. 2. Sanctuary of the Great Gods, Samothrace. General site plan; restored, 1st century AD. Legend: 1-3. Unidentified late Hellenistic buildings; 4. Unfinished early Hellenistic building; 6. Milesian Dedication; 7. Dining rooms; 8, 10. Rooms adjacent to the Theater; 9. Archaistic niche; 11. Stoa; 12. Nike Monument; 13. Theater; 14. Altar Court; 15. Hieron; 16. Hall of Votive Gifts; 17. Hall of Choral Dancers; 20. Rotunda of Arsinoe II;22. Sacristy; 23. Anaktoron; 24. Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV; 25. Theatral Circle; 26. Propylon of Ptolemy II; 27. Southern Necropolis; 28. Doric Rotunda; 29. Neorion; 33. Ionic Porch.

Fig. 3. Maximum Grain Size distribution of the measured samples. Superimposed is the MGS as estimated from the in-situ visual examination of a large number of architectural elements.

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 14: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

265

Sample Sample source Monument

1 Corinthian capital, lowest leaf, 64.0288 Propylon of Ptolemy II

2 Sculptured frieze block fragment, 64.0933 Propylon of Ptolemy II

3 Ionic capital fragment, 64.0905 Propylon of Ptolemy II

4 Doric column drum fragment Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV

5 Fragment of Doric triglyph from the wall frieze Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV

6 Working chip Ionic Porch

7 Ionic capital fragment, 94.0512 Ionic Porch

8Fragmentary frieze block of dancing maidens,

88.0074Hall of Choral Dancers

9Anthemion drum crowning the shaft of the

Ionic column, 70.939Hall of Choral Dancers

10 Parapet block M13 Rotunda of Arsinoe II

11 Tendril from the central akroterion, 49.0623c Hieron

12Lintel of the ordered door frame (in form of an

epistyle) M28Neorion

13 Wall block Altar Court

14 Fragment of the ship’s prow, 52.0233b Nike Monument

15Fragment of a monumental left hand found on

the Western Hill, 67.1208Similar to the Nike Statue

16 Fragment of feather, 62.0335 Nike Monument

17 Working chip, western pileWestern Hill, Neorion terrace, unidentified

monument

18 Working chip, eastern pileWestern Hill, Neorion terrace, unidentified

monument

19 Stylobate (?) block M66Western Hill, Neorion terrace, unidentified

monument

20 Doric column drumWestern Hill, unidentified monument, SE of the

Milesian Dedication

21Crown block of an orthstate monument with

cuttings for insertion of male statueStoa hill, Large Orthostate Monument

22 Marble block from an unidentified monument Stoa hill

23 Doric column drum (northernmost) Stoa hill, Column monument to Philip V

24 Ionic column drum, 01.074Monumental Ionic column, but not part of Milesian

Dedication or Propylon of Ptolemy II

25 Head, 65.0844 Eagle, Eastern Hill

26 Wing, 65.0845a-c Eagle, Eastern Hill

27 Wing, 65.0846/68.0465 Eagle, Eastern Hill

28 Arm (AKMS) Table Leg, Papa-Vounos (SW coast of Samothrace)

29 Nike Akroterion, 49.490 Hieron

30 Coffer lid with floral motif, 67.305 Ionic Porch

31 Coffer lid with profile head, 49.355 Hall of Choral Dancers

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Table 1. Description of elements and monuments from which each sample comes.

Page 15: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

266

The collected samples were analyzed at the Labora-tory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Demokritos” using the following techniques (Maniatis 2004):

Measurements of Maximum Grain Size (MGS) under a stereoscopic microscope and qualitative exami-nation of the marble crystalline features.

Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (EPR).

Stable Isotope Analysis (IRMS) for carbon and oxi-gen.

Results

At first the samples were examined as-received un-der a stereoscopic microscope. The marble colour of the samples ranges from pure white to gray but one sam-ple is dark gray-bluish (no. 14). The Maximum Grain Size values are also exhibiting a significant amount of variation, with values from 0.8 mm to 11.0 mm (Table 2). Fig. 3 shows the MGS distribution of the measured samples in the laboratory which is centred on 2-3 mm

Sample Colour MGS (mm) Mn2+ (r.u.) Width (G) Fe3+ (r.u.) 13C‰ 18O‰

1 White, gray veins 2,0 447 2,7 1,3 2,91 -0,44

2 White 2,0 226 2,4 0,4 2,93 -0,97

3 White 2,0 603 2,5 3,8 3,40 -4,94

4 White 1,0 5046 3,5 11,3 2,70 -7,46

5 Grayish 3,5 1779 2,7 2,8 2,85 -1,51

6 White 0,8 4350 3,2 4,5 2,66 -7,66

7 White 2,0 253 2,9 1,5 2,88 -6,42

8 White 5,0 618 3,4 7,9 2,80 -1,78

9 White 4,0 615 1,6 6,9 2,53 -1,13

10 White/grayish 3,8 2797 2,9 4,6 3,01 -0,14

11 White 1,8 252 2,4 0,9 2,71 -4,12

12 Grayish 5,0 890 2,7 0,3 3,15 0,07

13 White/grayish 4,0 2059 2,2 1,0 3,15 0,25

14 Dark gray 2,5 168 1,8 18,3 2,18 -3,03

15 White 1,0 287 1,7 1,8 5,38 -2,76

16 White 1,5 186 1,9 4,5 1,92 -0,78

17 White 11,0 808 2,3 2,6 2,64 -0,89

18 White 5,0 458 1,6 3,5 2,69 -0,98

19 White 3,0 1142 3,2 10,3 2,60 -1,98

20 White, gray bands 2,0 237 2,4 0,1 3,43 -8,90

21 Grayish 2,0 234 2,6 5,1 2,70 -0,50

22 White, yellow veins 1,1 488 2,8 14,6 3,81 -2,17

23 Gray 4,0 815 2,0 11,7 2,28 -3,74

24 White 2,0 331 2,4 0,1 2,58 -3,17

25 White 2,5 157 2,3 1,3 3,61 -0,51

26 White 2,0 219 2,6 5,2 3,09 -0,75

27 White 1,5 214 2,3 2,8 3,34 -0,57

28 White (yellowish) 2,0 21 4,3 4,7 2,90 -3,45

29 White 2,0 432 2,1 5,8 3,30 -0,29

30 White 2,0 1468 1,9 12,4 2,82 -1,10

31 White 2,0 245 1,5 4,7 2,77 -5,15

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Table 2. Optical, EPR and IRMS measurements of the sanctuary samples.

Page 16: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

267

grain sizes. Superimposed on it is the estimated MGS from the in-situ visual examination of a large number of architectural elements (grey shaded area) indicating that the majority of the architectural elements are made of coarse marble.

Following the initial examination all samples were then mechanically cleaned by removing the weathered layers from the surface and then ground in an agate mor-tar and sieved to fractions between 63 and 180 µm. The obtained samples were analyzed first by EPR spectrosco-py and the parameters Mn2+ and Fe3+, expressed in rela-tive units (r.u.) and Width expressed in Gauss (G), were measured as described in Polikreti and Maniatis 2002. In addition, aliquots of the prepared samples consisting of very fine grain fractions (<63 µm) were submitted for isotope analysis to a mass spectrometer (IRMS) and the values for the carbon ( 13C‰) and oxygen ( 18O‰)

isotopes were measured normalised to the international PDB standard (Herz 1985, 1987, 1988). All measure-ments are presented in Table 2.

The procedure for determining the provenance for each of the Samothrace sample involves a stepwise ap-proach.

The first step is presented in Figs. 4 and 5, where all the samples (1 to 31) are plotted against the da-tabase values of the most well known ancient marble quarries using two separate bivariate plots; a) the loga-rithm of the Mn2+ intensity: Ln(Mn2+), measured with EPR, versus the logarithm of the Maximum Grain Size: Ln(MGS) (Fig. 4) and b) the isotopic signature of 13C‰ versus that of 18O‰ (Fig. 5). As it can be seen from the above two diagrams only a few samples are falling in a single, non overlapping quarry area and not the same in both diagrams. On the other hand, the database of EPR is formed from a different set of samples than the isotope database and thus cannot be amalgamated into a single one. This prohibits the use of statistical treatment of all the parameters together with a discriminate analysis program. Nevertheless, ex-perience has shown that the use of multi-parameter sta-tistics does not necessarily improve the discrimination between quarries (Polikreti and Maniatis 2002) neither helps significantly in sorting out the provenance of an unknown object whose parameters fall in overlapping quarry field areas. Furthermore, the coincidence or proximity of a sample’s parameters to certain quarry fields is better understood and rated using separate and simpler bivariate pots. Thus, the best way in assigning the provenance of a marble is the so called step-wise ap-proach which also uses the qualitative parameters of the marble in hand and the human brain. This involves in using first the database of Ln(Mn2+) versus Ln(MGS) (Fig. 4) and assigning a sample to the possible quarries in this database. Then using the isotope database (Fig. 5) and record the possible quarries for the sample in that database. This is followed by screening the result-ing quarries against the MGS database. This procedure progressively excludes quarries and narrows down the search to only a few. The final step involves the use

of more EPR parameters and the qualitative physical properties of the marble in order to discriminate be-tween the final 2-3 quarries in question.

Using the procedure described above the marble of the objects from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods can be progressively assigned to the following origins:

Thasos

Samples 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 23 and 30 are falling in the Thasos quarry areas on both diagrams (Figs. 4 and 5). All other possible quarries are excluded either due to MGS or by discrepancy between the databases as described above.

Penteli

Samples 4 and 6 are falling in the Penteli – Afyon overlap field region and Naxos and Proconnesos fields. The last two are excluded by the MGS. For discriminat-ing between Penteli and Afyon we use more parameters of the EPR spectrum and statistical discriminant analy-sis, which produces the best possible separation between these two quarry regions (Fig. 6a). From this it is clear that the two samples fall solely in the Penteli quarry field.

Proconnesos

A large number of samples (1, 2, 7, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 31) give parameters that fall in such parts of the quarry database values that are either purely Procon-nesian or, by using the exclusion principle between tech-niques, Proconnesos evolves as the only possible origin. For example sample 28, as can be seen from the diagram of Fig. 4, falls exclusively in the Proconnesos-2 field with-out any overlap; hence, its origin is readily assigned to Proconnesos. On the other hand the samples 1, 2, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 31 fall in the overlap of Proconnesos, Paros and Aphrodisias in the EPR-MGS database (Fig. 4) but in the Proconnesos and Thasos overlap in the iso-tope database (sample 26 falls also in the borderline of the Hymettos field) (Fig. 5) leaving Proconnesos as the only possible origin. Thasos can be excluded in any case due to higher MGS (above 2.5 mm) and Hymettos is also excluded for sample 26 due to lower MGS (below 1.2 mm). Equally, sample 7 falls also in the overlap of Proconnesos, Paros and Aphrodisias in the EPR-MGS database (Fig. 4) and in the Proconnesos, Penteli, Afyon and Naxos overlap in the isotope database (Fig. 5); thus Proconnesos is the only possible origin compatible with both databases.

Paros

There is only one sample, no 15, which readily and securely can be assigned to Paros, since in the isotopic diagram (Fig. 5) falls clearly in the non overlapping re-gion of one of the Paros fields, namely the filed of the famous Lychnites marble which was quarried in the un-

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Page 17: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

268

Fig. 4. Ln(Mn2+) vs Ln(MGS) diagram of known ancient quarries and the Samothracian samples. The quarries are: Afyon, Penteli, Naxos Apollon (Naxos-Apol), Naxos Melanes (Naxos-Mel), Ephesos (Eph), Aphrodisias (Aphr-1 and Aphr-2), Paros Lychnites (Paros-L), Paros Marathi (Paros-M), Paros Lakkoi (Paros-LK), Proconnesos (Proc-1 and Proc-2) and Hymettos. The database is that of the Laboratory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Demokritos” (Maniatis et al. 1988; Mandi 1993; Polikreti 1999; Maniatis and Polikreti 2000; Polikreti and Maniatis 2002; Tambakopoulos 2007). For the new treatment and separation of the Parian quarries see (Tambakopoulos and Maniatis 2012, in this volume).

Fig. 5. 13 vs 18O‰PDB diagram of known ancient quarries and the Samothrace samples. The quarries are: Afyon, Penteli, Naxos, Ephesos (Ephesos-1 and Ephesos-2), Aphrodisias, Paros Lychnites (Paros-L), Paros Marathi (Paros-M), Paros Lakkoi (Paros-LK), Proconnesos (Proc-1 and Proc-2), Thasos Aliki (Thasos-Al), Thasos Phanari and Acropolis (Thasos Ph&A) and Hymettos. The database used for the isotopes is an amalgamation of the Laboratory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Demokritos” data and that published in the literature (Herz 2000; Gorgoni et al. 2002; Moens 2003; Attanasio et al. 2006). For the new treatment and separation of the Parian quarries see (Tambakopoulos and Maniatis 2012).

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 18: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

269

derground quarries of the Marathi Valley and most likely in the underground quarry of the Nymphs. In addition, the MGS = 1.0 mm is very much in consistence with this marble quality.

Paros-Proconnesos

These two quarries have a certain overlapping region which occurs with many techniques used for marble provenance, a well-known universal problem. Hence, samples that fall in this particular overlapping region are difficult to discriminate. In the case of the Samothracian sanctuary, we have three samples that fall in this overlap in both databases, namely samples 11, 16 and 24. In an attempt to improve the discrimination between these two quarry fields to the best possible degree, we use a new approach which involves taking some more param-eters from the EPR spectrum and in particular, the pa-rameters Width and Fe3+ combined in such a way so that the discrimination is the maximum possible. This com-bination is, by repeated testing, found to be given by the formula: (2xWidth-0.1xLnFe3+). Fig. 6b shows the range of the database points of the new combined parameter for Paros and Proconnesos in a statistical box-plot dia-gram. As it can be seen, the discrimination between the two quarry regions is as good as it could ever be. The Samothracian samples in question are plotted next to the box-plot.

According to this plot the samples 11, and 24 have a much higher probability to be from Proconnesos than from Paros, as they fall close to the median value of the proconnesian parameter distribution and outside the Paros bulk parameter distribution. Contrary to this sam-

ple 16 falls in the bulk of the Paros distribution and out-side the bulk of the Proconnesos distribution. This sam-ple therefore has a higher probability to be from Paros than Procennesos. In order to clarify further the prov-enance of sample 16 which comes from a wing feather of the Nike statue, we examine in detail its position on the isotopic database in relation to the distribution of the actual isotopic signatures of the quarry samples. Given the fact that in the general isotopic field diagram of Fig. 5 sample 16 falls in the overlap of Proconnesos-1 and Paros-Lakkoi we plot the actual points that compose the fields of these two particular quarry regions together with sample 16 (Fig. 7). As it can be seen from this fig-ure, sample 16 falls within the main distribution of the Paros-Lakkoi field confirming thus the provenance of the wing of the Nike statue from this particular location on Paros.

It should be noted here that sample 29, which is from the wing of an Akroterial Nike of the Hieron, assumed to be Hellenistic (Lehmann 1969, I, 364-368; Palagia et al. 2008) was clearly assigned to Proconnesos (see paragraph on Proconnesos above). The same is also true for a sam-ple from a reclining male figure from the Hieron pedi-ment (Palagia et al. 2009). This sample was analysed in a previous work and it fall in the overlap between Paros and Proconnesos (Palagia et al. 2009). However, newer interpretation of the Paros quarries described in Tamba-kopoulos and Maniatis (2012) and also presented in Figs. 4 and 5 shows that the signature of this sample, like no 29, is out of the Paros quarries and can now be safely as-signed to Proconnesos. This leads to the conclusion that Proconnesos is the origin of the marble for all the fine sculptures of the Hieron.

Fig. 6. Discriminant and combined parameter statistical analysis. a) Discriminant analysis variable NVar1 vs LnMn2+ for Penteli and Afyon quarries and samples 4 and 6 from Samothrace [Var1=0.78xWidth+0.13xLn(MGS)+0.21xLn(Mn2+)-0.49xLn(Fe3+)]. b) A new approach using the combination (2xWidth-0.1xLnFe3+) of EPR parameters shown in Box-plot for Paros and Proconnesos and questionable Samothracian samples.

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Page 19: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

270

Rhodes

Sample 14 is a dark gray-bluish marble with irregu-lar and light greyish or whitish regions (Fig. 8d) coming from a fragment of the prow which forms the base for the Nike statue (Fig. 8a). The parameters of this sample have been plotted against the databases in Figs. 4 and 5; however, it should be noted that these databases are formed from white marbles and as such the compari-son is not so useful. Similarity of the isotopic signature of this sample with the signatures of grey marbles from Aphrodisias (Lazzarini 2007) should be noted, although the appearance is not very similar and the grey marble of Aphrodisias is not known to have been exported. This led us to look for other sources, especially the so called lartios lithos, a grey marble quarried in the southeast of Rhodes island in the areas around the village of Lartos (present day name: Lardos) and also west of the Marmari mountain at Agios Georgios, where ancient tool marks are visible and quarrying activity is apparent (Papavas-siliou 2004). This marble is described as dark-grey-bluish or light grey with whitish irregular smaller or larger re-gions and a very variable grain size from 0.02 mm to 1 cm (Papageorgakis 1966, 259-260) which fits perfectly the appearance of the Nike ship fragment. This stone is known to have been used for various monuments locally in Rhodes and particularly for bases of statues from Hel-lenistic until medieval times (Papavassiliou 2004). With the help of Ms K. Bairami we obtained two samples from an accumulation of characteristic lartios lithos fragments in the gardens of the KB’ Archaeological Ephorate of

Rhodes coming from various Hellenistic monuments in the city of Rhodes2. One was of grey-bluish colour and the other light grey. These samples were analysed and their parameters are shown on Table 3, together with the parameters of sample 14 from the base of the Nike statue. As can be seen, the parameters are all closely re-lated except perhaps Fe3+ but given the lack of homo-geneity of this kind of material and the Fe veins occa-sionally present in the geological formation --and our sample from the Nike ship just happens to contain such veins, (Fig. 8d, left)-- this variation is quite acceptable. Most striking is the presence of the peaks with g=2.0033-2.0034 and g=1.9998-2.0001 in all three samples. The first is probably due to organic remnants (carbon radicals with high molecular number or in unmetamorphosed in-clusions of marine origin (Kadish and Ruoff 1994, 982; Miki et al. 1993); the second is most likely surface defects in the calcite crystals induced by grinding (Maniatis and Mandi 1992). The similarity in the general appearance of the prow fragment with the lartios lithos fragments from Rhodes is also remarkable (Fig. 8d, right). All these leave no doubt that the provenance of sample 14 is from the lartios lithos quarries of Rhodes.

Questionable origins

Sample 3 is placed between the quarries of Naxos, Ephesos, Proconnesos and Aphrodisias, with no fur-ther discrimination or probability differentiation being possible. Sample 20 in the isotope database (Fig. 5) is placed in the field of Penteli, close to Naxos and Pro-

Fig. 7. The distribution of isotopic signatures of the quarry samples from Provennesos-1 and Paros-Lakkoi with Sample 16 from Samothrace plotted on them. It is clear that the sample from the Nike statue falls within the bulk of Paros-Lakkoi quarry samples. The isotope data for the quarry samples is from Herz (2000), Attanasio et al. 2006 and from the Laboratory of Archaeometry, NCSR “Demokritos”.

2. According to Ms K. Bairami, of the KB Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities in Rhodes, this grey-bluish stone is very characteristic and well known to the archaeologists of Rhodes. It has been frequently used in the Hellenistic times for marble constructions such as altars, votive stelai, bases of statues and other monuments. See also Papavassiliou 2004.

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 20: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

271

connesos-2. However, in the EPR–MGS database (Fig. 4) is clearly out of Naxos and in the overlapping area of Proconnesos, Paros and Aphrodisias. Thus, the iso-topes exclude Paros and Aphrodisias as possible origin and the EPR-MGS exclude Penteli; colour and macro-scopic characteristics of the sample lead us to consider the Proconnesos origin as the most probable, although not undoubtedly. Sample 22 is a rather strange type of marble regarding the structure of the fabric. Its signa-ture suggests tentatively Afyon as a probable origin and in the same time its structure excludes Paros, Thasos and Naxos as possible origins.

The final provenance assignments of all the samples analysed and examined using the above combination of techniques and approaches for each sample or group of samples are summarised in Table 4.

Discussion

As it appears from Table 4, the detailed treatment of the samples using three techniques and two databases as well as new combinations and methodological approach-es leads to the accurate determination of provenance de-

Sample Origin Colour MGSCalcite/

DolomiteMn2+ Width Fe3+ 13C 18O

Special peaks

Special peaks

RoLar1Rodos, Lartios lithos

Dark Gray 0,01-5,00 85% 157 1,99 5,66 2,16 -3,89 2,0033 1,9999

RoLar2Rodos, Lartios lithos

Gray 2,00 75% 124 1,889 3,23 1,33 -3,75 2,0033 1,9999

14 Nike ship Dark gray 2,5 95% 168 1,8 18,3 2,18 -3,03 2,0034 2,0001

3. She kindly provided the photo: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/L5SBKI4e01Mv4NbuNMA6Dg.

Fig. 8. Nike of Samothrace. a) Statue on the ship at Louvre Museum (photo by Elizabeth Towle3), b) feather from the wing of the Nike statue (62.0335) found close to the Nike monument at Samothrace (Paros-Lakkoi marble), c) Hand of a monumental statue found on the Western Hill (67.1208) at Samothrace (Paros-Lychnites marble), d) Comparison of colours and textures: A) The sample 14 from the Nike ship, B) A sample of lartios lithos from Rhodes.

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Table 3. Comparison of parameters between two lartios lithos samples from Rhodes and the Sample 14 from the Nike ship fragment.

Page 21: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

272

fined to a single quarry for the majority of the samples; most of the remaining samples were confined to two pos-sible quarries, while only two float between more than two possibilities of origin.

The results confirm the extensive use of the coarse and slightly greyish calcitic marble from Thasos (mostly from the Aliki quarries) in the majority of monuments, as it has been verified with the samples analysed in combination with the visual examination of the architectural elements in-situ. The use of marble from the nearby Thasos quar-ries for the monuments of Samothrace had been previous-ly assumed, but it is now certain that its use, although ex-tensive, was not the exclusive material. In fact it was often restricted to major construction elements (blocks, shafts, drums, etc), which were either plain or sometimes bore basic sculptural decoration (Fig. 9a). The very long frieze from the Hall of Choral Dancers is an exception. Sig-nificantly, the pure white dolomitic marble from Thasos (Vathi-Saliara quarries: Grandjean and Salviat 2000, 180) has not been found in any of the monuments examined. One can hypothesize various reasons for its absence: a) there was a preference to a greyish marble for the main construction elements in order to produce a contrast with the white finer marbles used for more decorative elements (capitals, akroteria, sculpture etc). This is spite of the fact that the decorative elements might have been painted to a certain extent, their white background and translucence would give them an aesthetic contrast with the coarse and greyish Aliki marble; b) the higher water absorption coef-ficient of the dolomitic marble (0.23%) compared to the calcitic one (0.10%) caused staining and discolouration it used outdoors (otherwise the mechanical properties of the dolomitic marble are by no means inferior to the cal-citic one); and c) there were some economic or logistical reasons for choosing marble from the Aliki quarries (fa-vourable contract; ease of access).

For many of the finer sculptured architectural ele-ments, including column capitals, akroteria and even an entire façade, the results reveal a pattern of white marble importation from several different sources, such as Pen-teli, Paros, Proconnesos and perhaps others, giving the Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace a cosmopoli-tan and “international” character.

The presence of white Proconnesian marble in Samo-thrace is testified in several different monuments of the sanctuary and in periods rather earlier than expected for Proconnesian marble. Of special interest is the Propylon of Ptolemy II (Frazer 1990), one of the most innovative architectural monuments of the early Hellenistic period (Fig. 10a). It was built between 285 and 281 BC and served as the official gateway into the sacred space. It is a unique example of a “bilingual building” having an Ionic eastern façade that faces the ancient town, and a Corinthi-an western façade that faces into the sanctuary. The sofa-shaped anta capitals from the Corinthian facade are deco-rated with a relief group of two griffins attacking a fallen deer, an image especially favored in the northern Aegean region (Frazer 1990, 179-189). The supporting elements of the building (walls, columns, etc) are constructed with

coarse Thasian marble. However, the Corinthian capitals, sculptured friezes (Fig. 10b, c), and probably the Ionic capitals were made in marble from Proconnesos.

Although known best today as the favoured marble of the Roman imperial period, evidence for the use and value of Proconnesian marble reaches back into the Ar-chaic period (Attanasio et al. 2008). Vitruvius states that it was one of the materials under consideration for the archaic Temple of Artemis at Ephesos (10.2.15). Both Vitruvius (2.8.10) and Pliny (NH 32.15.1) describe its use for the façade of the Mausoleum in Halicarnassos. Both of these instances as well as others have now been scientifically confirmed through later research (Walker and Matthews 1988; Walker and Hughes 2000), suggest-ing that the Proconnesian marble was used for important monuments at least the third quarter of the 6th century BC. Additional discoveries in the Granicus River basin show that Proconnesian marble remained an important material for buildings, sarcophagi, and sculpture through the Classical period (Rose et al. 2007, 74-75). It is the marble of choice in Hellenistic Pergamon (Cramer et al. 2002). To this point, the evidence for the early use of the Proconnesian marble appears to be confined to Asia Minor. Mass production and exportation outside Asia Minor, on present evidence, started only in the second half of the 1st century AD during the Flavian period (At-tanasio 2008; Ward-Perkins 1980; Pensabene 1998). It is therefore very interesting to identify the exportation and use of Proconnesian marble in the Propylon of Ptol-emy II in Samothrace as early as the beginning of the 3rd century BC. Although this is a significant development, it should not be considered particularly surprising given the proximity of Samothrace to Proconnesos and the fact that Proconnesian marble was already travelling widely around Asia Minor in earlier periods.

The use of Proconnesian marble was also identified in two other cases of sculptures which could be of an even earlier date. The first case (sample 31) is the head on a coffer lid that decorated the ceiling of the hall of Choral Dancers. This building may have been commissioned by Philip II and as such it would date in the second half of the 4th century BC. The second case is the monumen-tal head and two wings fragments of an eagle or eagles found on the East Hill (Fig. 10c and d) also made in Pro-connesian marble. The age of these eagle pieces remains somewhat open; if, as we suspect, the eagles served as akroteria for the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV, then they could belong as early as the late 4th century BC (McCredie 1968).

The aforementioned building, the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV, is especially significant from the perspective of using multiple types of marble. The hexastyle prostyle Doric building can be precisely date to between 323 and 317 BC, because it bears a dedicatory inscription on its epistyle naming the patrons (Fig. 11) (McCredie 1968; Wescoat 2003; Wescoat 2010). The Dedication forms a covered pavilion oriented both to-ward the descending Sacred Way and onto the Theatral Circle, a gathering place at the entrace to the sanctuary.

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 22: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

273

Sample Sample source Monument Provenance

1Corinthian capital, lowest leaf,

64.0288Propylon of Ptolemy II Proconnesos-1

2Sculptured frieze block fragment,

64.0933Propylon of Ptolemy II Proconnesos-1

3 Ionic capital fragment, 64.0905 Propylon of Ptolemy IIProconnesos-1, Naxos-Apollon,

Ephesos or Aphrodisias

4 Doric column drum fragmentDedication of Philip III and

Alexander IVPenteli

5Fragment of Doric triglyph from

the wall friezeDedication of Philip III and

Alexander IVThasos Aliki

6 Working chip Ionic Porch Penteli

7 Ionic capital fragment 94.0512 Ionic Porch Proconnesos

8Fragmentary frieze block of dancing maidens, 88.0074

Hall of Choral Dancers Thasos-Aliki

9Anthemion drum crowning

the shaft of the Ionic column, 70.939

Hall of Choral Dancers Thasos-Aliki

10 Parapet block M13 Rotunda of Arsinoe II Thasos-Aliki

11Tendril from the central

akroterion, 49.0623cHieron Proconnesos-1 or Paros?

12Lintel of the ordered door frame

(in form of an epistyle) M28Neorion Thasos-Aliki

13 Wall block Altar Court Thasos -Aliki

14 Fragment of the prow, 52.0233b Nike Monument Rhodes (Lartos)

15Fragment of a monumental left

hand found on the Western Hill, 67.1208

Similar to the Nike Statue Paros-Lychnites

16 Fragment of feather, 62.0335 Nike MonumentParos-Lakkoi (different quarry

from no 15)

17 Working chip, western pileWestern Hill, Neorion terrace,

unidentified monumentThasos (Phanari?)

18 Working chip, eastern pileWestern Hill, Neorion terrace,

unidentified monumentThasos-Aliki

19 Stylobate (?) block M66Western Hill, Neorion terrace,

unidentified monumentThasos (Aliki or Phanari)

20 Doric column drumWestern Hill, unidentified

Monument, SE of the Milesian Dedication

Proconnesos?

21Crown block of an orthstate monument with cuttings for

insertion of male statue

Stoa hill, Large Orthostate Monument

Proconnesos-1

22Marble block from an

unidentified monumentStoa hill, Philip V monument Afyon?

23Doric column drum

(northernmost)Stoa hill, Philip V monument Thasos Aliki

24 Ionic column drum, 01.074Monumental Ionic column,but not part of Milesian Dedication

or Propylon of Ptolemy IIProconnesos-1 or Paros?

25 Head, 65.0844 Eagle, Eastern Hill Proconnesos-1

26 Wing, 65.0845a-c Eagle, Eastern Hill Proconnesos-1

27 Wing, 65.0846/68.0465 Eagle, Eastern Hill Proconnesos-1

28 Arm (AKMS)Table Leg, Papa-Vounos (SW

coast of Samothrace)Proconnesos-2

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Page 23: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

274

Presumably, the building provided a sheltered place for the participants in the cultic activities performed in this area. The façade, from the Doric columns through the pediment and raking geison, were of white fine marble. So, too, were the antae (accentuated wall ends). However, the krepis, and the walls that comprised the other three sides of the building, were constructed in coarser mar-ble. The analyzed samples showed that the façade with the Doric columns was made in Pentelic marble while the other three sides, including the Doric frieze and the western pediment, were made of Thasian Aliki marble (Table 4). Near the monument were found fine working marble chips. Analyses of these chips showed that were of Pentelic marble. These chips indicate that the Pentelic blocks were finished in situ, and the blocks came to the sanctuary semi-worked as was the usual practice (Korres 1993). This evidence in combination with the technique of joining and architecture (Wescoat 2003) supports and confirms the earlier suggestion proposed by James Mc-Credie and Bonna Wescoat (Wescoat 2003) that Attic and Thasian masons were both employed by the Mace-donian kings to construct their respective parts of this monument.

The Ionic Porch attached to the western side of the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV also employs

at least two varieties of marble. The main architectural elements can be identified by visual inspection as Tha-sian. However, the volute capital is clearly a more fine-grained marble. Tests show that it is most certainly made of Proconnesian marble (Sample 7) (Fig. 9b). It is once more clear that Samothracian patrons and their archi-tects carefully selected marble from different quarries to suit specific architectural needs.

Finally, the Nike Monument which housed the fa-mous statue of the winged Victory (Nike) standing on the prow of a warship with her wings open, now at the Louvre Museum (Fig. 8a) is one of the most important monuments in the Sanctuary of Great Gods in Samo-thrace and certainly is one of the finest statues of the Hellenistic period (Thiersch 1931; Mark 1998; Ha-miaux 1998, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2007; Palagia 2010; Astier 2011). We had the opportunity to analyze some fragments associated with the statue that were recovered in excavations conducted by Karl Lehmann and Jean Charbonneaux in the vicinity of the monument, and by James R. McCredie in the region north of the monu-ment on the Western Hill, in the area of the Byzantine fortification (Lehmann 1952, 20; McCredie 1968, 211-212). The fragments tested include part of a feather from a wing (Fig. 8b - sample 16), a part of a left hand

29 Nike Akroterion, 49.490 Hieron Proconnesos-1

30Coffer lid with floral motif,

67.305Ionic Porch Thasos-Aliki

31Coffer lid with profile head,

49.355Hall of Choral Dancers Proconnesos-1

Fig. 9. a) Anthemion Drum at top of shaft (70.939), Hall of Coral Dancers (Thasian-Aliki mable), b) Volute capital (94-0512) from Ionic Porch (Proconnesian marble), c) Head of Eagle (Proconnesian marble) and d) Wing of the Eagle from Eastern Hill (Proconnesian marble).

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Table 4. Final marble provenance assignment of the samples from the Sanctuary of the Great Gods.

Page 24: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

275

(Fig. 8c - sample 15), which is similar in style to the right hand of the Nike, now in the Louvre, but smaller in scale, and a fragment of the ship (Fig. 8d - sample 14) which was made of a grey-bluish marble. The analysis showed that the feather is made of fine-grained Parian marble from the open quarries of the Lakkoi Valley from which a large number of Classical and later sculpture was made (Maniatis and Polikreti 2000; Herz 2000) but not from the famous Lychnites variety quarried in the underground and open quarries in the Marathi Val-ley4, contrary to what has thus far been proposed in the absence of scientific testing. The hand, however, is in-deed made of the fine quality Parian Lychnites marble. Clearly, the two pieces do not come from the same block of marble or the same quarry. Likely, they do not be-long to the same statue. However, it is worth bearing in mind that the Nike was made from several joining pieces of marble. Until all components are tested, we must leave open the possibility that some elements of the Nike may come from different Parian quarries. The base in the form of a ship’s prow proved to be made of the grey-bluish marble of Rhodes (lartios lithos) quarried near the village of Lartos in the southeast of Rhodes island. Scientific analysis now verifies the visual association that has been generally proposed (Thiersch 1931; Mark 1998; Hamiaux 2006; Palagia 2010; Astier 2011). This grayish-bluish marble was used extensively

4. For a description of the qualities of Parian marble and the quarries see: Maniatis and Polikreti 2000; Herz 2000; Korres 2000; At-tanasio et al. 2006.

for altars, votive steles, inscriptions, bases of statues and other monuments of the Hellenistic period and later on Rhodes itself (Papavassiliou 2004) and there is also evidence that it has travelled to nearby islands such as Karpathos where it is found in inscriptions (Beaudouin 1884). However, no evidence existed so far for exporta-tion greater distances. Its presence therefore on distant Samothrace in the North Aegean is now scientifically documented for the first time.

Conclusions

This scientific work aiming at determining the mar-ble provenance of several monuments from the famous Sanctuary of the Great Gods of Samothrace has been quite intriguing. The results showed that marble from several different sources was imported and used for the various monuments, which on the one hand demon-strated the important role of this sanctuary in antiquity but on the other hand proved quite demanding scientifi-cally as all options of provenance where wide open, i.e., including quarries in Asia Minor even for objects dating in the 4th century BC.

In order to tackle the complicated provenance ques-tions we used three different scientific techniques, EPR, stable isotopes and maximum grain sizes. In addition,

Fig. 10: Propylon of Ptolemy II: a) Drawing of the Propylon. A side view from the south, with the Corinthian facade on west (left) and the Ionic facade on the east (right). The walls were made of Thasian-Aliki marble, while the decorative elements of Proconnesian, b) Fragment 64.0288 of a Corintian capital (Proconnesian marble), c) Fragment 64.0933 of the sculptured frieze (Proconnesian marble).

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Page 25: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

276

we developed new methodological approaches by using combined EPR parameters in order to increase the dis-crimination between specific quarries.

The overall outcome is scientifically satisfying: out of the 31 samples analysed the provenance for 26 was positively identified to a single quarry of origin, for an-other 2 was narrowed down to 2 possible quarries (giv-ing tentative probability priorities) and for 1 sample the provenance could not be narrowed down to less that four possible quarries of origin. Finally, for 2 samples a single origin is given but with a certain degree of un-certainty.

A particularly difficult task was differentiating between Paros and Proconnesos for a number of samples that showed very similar marble parameters and characteris-tics. Several of these doubtful cases were overcomed using a new approach and interpretation of the Paros quarries.

The summarised provenance results are as follows. The coarse calcitic marble from Aliki on Thasos was

massively imported and used extensively for the krepis, walls, and basic architectural elements of almost all the major monuments constructed in marble. This type of marble was also used for sculptural decoration when the element formed a substantial part of the structure of the building, for example the extraordinarily long frieze of dancing maidens from the Hall of Choral Dancers, or the parapet of the Rotunda of Arsinoe.

Contrary to the above, the pure snow-white dolomit-ic marble from Thasos, known in Antiquity since Archaic times, was not used at all. The reasons for preferring Aliki over dolomitic marble could be economic (affordability of the material), logistical (availability; contract with the quarry), or aesthetic (a preference to a greyish marble for the basic construction elements in order to produce some contrast with the white decorative ones even if these were painted.)

In several buildings constructed between the third quarter of the 4th century and the later 3rd century BC, including the Hall of Choral Dancers, the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV, the Propylon of Ptolemy II, the Hieron, and the Ionic Porch, fine-grained and white

marble was used for at least some of the fine sculptures and more intricate architectural elements (e.g., capitals, akroteria, sculpture, façades, etc). The fine-grained mar-ble appears to have been imported from several sources, including Penteli, Paros, Proconnesos, and probably others.

Proconnesian marble is much more abundantly used for the fine sculptures than Paros and its presence was attested in monuments dating at least to the early 3rd cen-tury BC and this verifies the earliest known use of this marble outside Asia Minor. Furthermore, it is possible that Proconnesian was used even earlier (4th century BC) in the ceiling of the Hall of Choral Dancers and for the eagles if in fact they served as akroteria for the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV. Furthermore, Proconne-sian marble was used in the akroterion Nike of the Hi-eron and its pedimental sculptures. One additional point we can draw from this analysis is that the Proconnesian marble appears to have been very carefully selected to have the same characteristics as the Parian marble, i.e., similar grain size and white colour.

Examination of a feather fragment from the wing of the famous Nike, now in the Louvre Museum showed that it was made of Parian marble from the open air quar-ries in the Lakkoi valley region. The hand found on the Western Hill, although stylistically similar to the right hand of the Nike, was made of Lychnites marble from the underground quarry of the Nymphs. The difference in marble, combined with the hand’s smaller scale, argue against it belonging to the Nike. While the statue of the Nike has long been thought to be Parian marble, this study confirms the identification scientifically and links the marble with the Lakkoi valley.

Finally, the dark grey-bluish marble used for con-structing the ship’s prow forming the base of the Nike statue, is certainly identified as the lartios lithos coming from the quarries near the village of Lartos in Rhodes Island, as had been assumed through earlier visual ex-aminations. Here, scientific evidence is now provided to secure the identification and presence of this marble at such distance from Rhodes.

Fig. 11. Dedicatory inscription on the epistyle of the Dedication of Philip III and Alexander IV naming the patrons (Pentelic marble).

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 26: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

277

References

Astier, M.-B. 2011: Winged Victory of Samothace, www.louvre.fr [Accessed: 16/2/2011]

Attanasio, D.; Brilli, M.; Bruno, M. 2008: “The properties and identification of marble from Pro-connesos (Marmara island, Turkey): A new database including isotopic, EPR and petrographic data”, Ar-chaeometry, 50 (5), 747-774.

Beaudouin, M. 1884: Décret de Karpathos, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 8, 353-361.

Clinton, K. 2003: “Stages of Initiation in the Eleusin-ian and Samothracian Mysteries”, in: Cosmopoulos,

M. B. (ed.), Greek Mysteries. The Archaeology and Rit-ual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults, Routledge, London and New York, 50-78.

Cramer, T.; Germann, K.; Heilmeyer, W. D. 2002: “Petrographic and Geochemical Characterization of the Pergamon Altar (Telephos Frieze) Marble in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin”, in: Lazzarini, L., (ed.), ASMOSIA VI: Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Padova, 285-291.

Frazer, A. K. 1990: Samothrace, Excavations Conducted by the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University, Vol. 10, The Propylon of Ptolemy II. Princeton: University Press, Princeton.

Grandjean, Y.; Salviat, F. 2000: Guide de Thasos, École Française d’Athènes, Paris.

Hamiaux, M. 1998: Musée du Louvre, les sculptures grecques; II. La période hellénistique (IIIe-Ier siècles avant J.-C.), Réunion des Musées Nationaux, Paris, 27-40.

Hamiaux, M. 2001: “La Victoire de Samothrace: décou-verte et restauration”, JSav Janvier-Juin, 153-223.

– 2004: “La Victoire de Samothrace: étude technique de la statue”, Monuments Piot, 83, 61-127.

– 2006: “La Victoire de Samothrace: construction de la base et reconstitution”, Monuments Piot, 85, 5-60.

– 2007: La Victoire de Samothrace, Département des An-tiquités grecques, étrusques et romaines, Paris.

Herz, N. 1985: “Isotopic Analysis of Marble”, in: Rapp, G. J., Gifford, J. A. (eds.), Archaeological Geology, Yale University Press, New Haven, 331-351.

– 1987: “Carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios: A database for classical greek and roman marble”, Archaeometry, 29(1), 35-43.

– 1988: “The oxygen and carbon isotopic database for classical marble”, in: Herz, N., Wealkens M. (eds.), Classical Marble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade, AS-MOSIA I, Lucca, Italy, May 9-13, 1988, NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences 153, Dordrecht, Boston, 305-314.

– 2000: “The Classical Marble Quarries of Paros: Paros-1, Paros-2 and Paros-3”, in: Schilardi, D. U., Katsonopoulou, D. (eds.), “Paria Lithos”, Proceed-ings of 1st International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades, Paros, October 2-5, 1997, Athens, 27-33.

Kadish, K.M.; Ruoff, R.S. (eds.) 1994: Fullerens: Recent advances in the Chemistry and Physics of Fullerens and

related materials, The Electrochemical Society inc., New Jersey.

Korres, M. 1993: From Penteli to Parthenon, Melissa editions, Athens.

– 2010: (In Greek:) , « µ», in: Schilardi, D. U., Katsonopoulou, D.

(eds.), “Paria Lithos”, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cycla-des, Paros, October 2-5, 1997, Athens, 61-82.

Lazzarini, L. 2007: Poikiloi Lithoi, Versicvlores Macvlae: I Marmi Colorati Della Grecia Antica, Fabrizio Serra, Pisa - Roma.

Lehmann, K. 1952: “Samothrace: Fifth Preliminary Re-port”, Hesperia, 21, 19-43.

– 1998: Samothrace. A Guide to the Excavations and the Museum, 6th ed. rev. by J.R. McCredie, Thessaloniki.

Lehmann, P. W. 1969: Samothrace 3, The Hieron, Princ-eton University Press, Princeton.

Maniatis, Y.; Mandi, V. 1992: “Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Signals and Effects”, Marble Induced by Working, Journal of Applied Physics, 71(10), 4859-4867.

Maniatis, Y. 2004: “Scientific techniques and meth-odologies for the provenance of white marbles”, in: Martini, M., Milazzo, M., Piacenntini, M.,

(eds.), Physics methods in archaeometry proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Var-enna on Como Lake, Villa Monastero, Societa Italiana di Fisica, 17-27 June 2003, Ios Press, Amsterdam, 179-202.

Maniatis, Y.; Polikreti, K. 2000: “The characterisation and discrimination of Parian marble in the Aegean region”, in: Schilardi, D. U., Katsonopoulou, D., (eds.), “Paria Lithos”, Proceedings of 1st International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cycla-des, Paros, October 2-5, 1997, Athens, 575-584.

Marconi, C. 2010: “Choroi, The riai and Interna-tional Ambitions: The Hall of Choral Dancers and its Frieze”, in: Palagia O., Wescoat, B. D., (eds.), Samothracian Connections: Essays in honor of James R. McCredie, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 106-135.

Mark, I. 1998: “The Victory of Samothrace”, in: Pa-

lagia, O., Coulson, W., (eds.), Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture, Oxford, 157-165.

McCredie, J. R. 1968: “Samothrace: Preliminary Re-port on the Campaigns of 1965-1967”, Hesperia, 37, 200-234.

Miki, T.; Kai, A.; Murata, T. 1993: “Radiation-induced radicals in Sulfite-Doped CaCO3”, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, 44 (1-2), 315-319.

Palagia, O. 2010: “The Victory of Samothrace and the Aftermath of Pydna”, in: Palagia, O., Wescoat,

B. D. (eds.) 2010: Samothracian Connections: Essays in honor of James R. McCredie, Oxbow Books, Ox-ford,154-164.

Palagia, O.; Maniatis, Y.; Dotsika, E.; Kavoussanaki, D. 2009: “New Investigations on the Pedimental Sculpures of The ‘Hieron’ of Samothrace: A prelimi-nary Report”, in: Maniatis, Y., (ed.), ASMOSIA VII,

Y. MANIATIS, D. TAMBAKOPOULOS, E. DOTSIKA, B. D. WESCOAT AND D. MATSAS

Page 27: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace

278

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénistique Supl. 51, 113-132.

Papageorgakis, J.E. 1966 (in Greek):

, 18, 1967, 193-270.Papavasiliou, E. 2004: , « -

», µ µ µ , Athens, 129-136.

Pensabene, P. 1998: “Il fenomeno del marmo nella Roma tardo-repubblicana e Imperiale”, in: Pensabe-

ne, P., (ed.), Marmi antichi II. Cave e tecnica di lavo-razione, provenienze e distribuzione, Studi Miscellanei 31, L’Erma di Bretschneider, Roma, 333-391.

Polikreti, K.; Maniatis, Y. 2002: “A new methodology for marble provenance investigation based on EPR spectroscopy”, Archaeometry, 44 (1), 1-21.

Rose, C.B.; Tekkök, B.; Körpe, R. 2007: “Granicus River Valley Survey Project, 2004-2005”, StTroica 17, 65-150.

Tambakopoulos, D.; Maniatis, Y. 2012: “The search for the prehistoric marble sources in the Cyclades”, in this volume.

Thiersch, H. 1931: “Die Nike von Samothrake, ein rhodisches Werk und Anathem”, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philolo-gish-historische Klasse, 337-378.

Walker, S.; Hughes, M. 2000: “Parian marble in the dynastic monuments of Lycia and Caria”, in: Schi-

lardi, D.U., Katsonopoulou, D. (eds.), “Paria Lithos”, Proccedings of the 1st International Conference on the Archaeology of Paros and the Cyclades, Athens, 445-452.

Walker, S.; Matthews, K.J. 1988: “Recent work on stable isotope analysis of white marble at the British Museum”, in: Fant, J. C. (ed.), Ancient marble quar-rying and trade, British Archaeological Report Inter-national Series 453, Oxford, 117-125.

Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1980: “Nicomedia and the marble trade”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 48, 23-69.

Wescoat, B. D. 2003: “Athens and Macedonian Royalty on Samothrace: the Pentelic Connection”, in: Pala-

gia O., Tracy S., (eds.) Macedonians in Athens, 323-229 BC, Oxford, 102-116.

– 2010: “James R. McCredie and Samothracian Archi-tecture”, in: Palagia, O., Wescoat, B. D. (eds.), Samothracian Connections: Essays in honor of James R. McCredie, Oxbow Books, Oxford, 33-49.

THE SANCTUARY OF THE GREAT GODS ON SAMOTHRACE, GREECE: AN EXTENDED MARBLE PROVENANCE STUDY

Page 28: Sanctuary of the Great Gods on Samothrace