archaic architectural terracottas from sector byzfort at sardis

38 Pages·2008·7.44 MB·English

ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS
FROM SECTOR BYZFORT AT SARDIS
(PLATE8S1 -88)
T O A TRAVELER approachingS ardis,w hether eastwardu p the valley of the Hermus
or westward to Ionia, a dominant natural feature of the lower part of the city is a
pair of flat-toppedh ills that project from the north slope of the acropolis like promontories
overlookingt he Hermus riverp lain.' Between 1983 and 1991, the Harvard/Cornell Sardis
Expedition carried out a series of excavations on the western hill of this pair, which was
occupied from the 7th century to the 6th century after Christ (Fig. 1:23 [grid square
B.C.
E 600-700/S 300-400], P1. 81:a, arrow). A major result of these excavations was the
recoveryo f a rich and closely datable assemblageo f Archaic architecturalt erracottas.2
Since 1958, the year of the Sardis Expedition's first campaign, the archaeological
nickname given to this hill or spur has been the "ByzantineF ortress",s o called after the
sizeable chunks of Late Antique masonryv isible in severalp laces on the slopes of the hill. It
has always been clear, however, that the hill was first occupied long before the Byzantine
era; the surroundinga rea is unusuallyr ich in surfacef inds of Archaic date, and it was long
suspectedt hat the evident terracingo f the north and east sides of the hill might also belong
in its earliest phases to the Archaic period. George Hanfmann, in a speculative article
publishedi n 1975, even suggestedt hat the so-calledB yzantineF ortressw as possibly the site
of the palace of Croesus.3
On the basis of a surface survey conducted in 1981 ,4 the northeast corner of the hill,
retitled" SectorB yzFort"w, as chosen as the startingp oint of a programo f excavation,b egun
in 1983 for the purpose of investigatingt he early history of this site. Over the course of
the next eight years, an area of approximately6 50 square meters was exposed across the
north end of the hill, and severals mallert renchesw ere dug in various locations to the south
and east (Fig. 2). The principal result of these excavations was the discovery of a large
terrace wall, built of limestone ashlar masonry,e nclosing the hill on its north and east sides
1 This report is based on researchc onducted under the auspiceso f the Sardis Expedition and its sponsors,
Harvard and Cornell Universities;I am grateful to the field director,C rawfordH . Greenewalt,J r., both for
permission to work on this subject and for his kind advice and encouragement. My thanks are also due
to Andrew Ramage and Nancy A. Winter, who gave me many helpful criticismsa nd suggestions;t o Maria
Daniels, who took most of the photographs;a nd to Eliza Proctora nd CatherineA lexander,w ho collaborated
on the reconstructiond rawings. The argumentso ffered here were first presented at the Annual Meeting of
the ArchaeologicalI nstitute of America in December, 1992; this report was written while the author was a
National Endowment for the HumanitiesF ellowo f the AmericanR esearch Institutei n Turkey.
2 Preliminary reports on the excavation of this sector have appeared in BASORo r its supplements or
in AASORa s follows: Greenewalt, Rautman, and Meris 1986; Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987a;
Greenewalt, Cahill, and Rautman 1987b; Greenewalt, Cahill, Dedeoglu, and Herrmann 1990; Greenewalt
1990; Greenewalt,R atte, and Rautman 1994; Greenewalt,R atte, and Rautman forthcoming.
3 Hanfmann 1977.
4 Greenewalt,S ullivan,R atte, and Howe 1985, p. 59.
Hesperia6 3.3, 1994
American School of Classical Studies at Athens
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Hesperia ®
www.jstor.org
362 CHRISTOPHER RATTE
*S oo W A00 300 200 21000 0 _ E?0 200 0 So? ?0 ?000 ? ?00 ?0 ?0 000
_YNSJ~BT ANRTES AI 0BIDNG0WZNNECUC 3 ABEFONAIN 00RBCLSMUE TEE 3'0B07400
MASTER
SYNAGOGUE 17 TEMPLEO F ARTEMIS 30 BUILDINCG OlOMABB ASUCAS 44 MINOR NOMAB BUILDING 09 RLGR 8 TETRAPYLON 74 MOERIS3
O RU 3, M
4n ROUOSFEB rONZES 10 EAGIRLIRT _PE 32 CLAUDIAA RTOMASABINATOMB4 0 PBE-RCLLEMOTlCWALL RI REST RIAS
gmAN PROAMAPN GR CRIGEITL EO AOURLA2SUE0S 00.T2A OOAA. CR3ARC O POACRTLSOISN OLORROYR U3AP3R34 BTO_R EODUH LRUMLtT IEWO7SOAM0 BEOM NR B448 9WB AL LUSENTRT LOEURS0LSE0 YA 7S- 1IA9S 5N4 0290210
O SOUTWEST GAT 21 CROPUS UNNES 9R SOROA LR0SMIL SOSHEAS SOA 60000 C NN
6RRIDaNE t.2 b C O O I 64T3 RA LWE SA LL S
12 hAOt O 5SAiA 9R8L A SES FGt 5 Y tDR ?tTR 9"O FGLfFFSO 20 Ki
(sPi1d.e ,servPeAd1,C.b81IyT1 AN 3rL EL: b;S).I NDUSI?TS R SEPIOAYS PLRUNAAT6RHM6EiEIE1NSS eIATnRt l68 YATHWOTAAEMOrrA granTc R 222oF70r I iGtg0RiT naHHanIl3dlLyaP CD tLPOE LFTC WtAhrMeeE4gB2uRlEEelSaa I'rs itzLinSg 34 1UILOtY PFOO CU'PAN'lNDSRa SAOn I LNO BAoa0V fr eaEmSurSb t ~ fla~t1 51RS73~3 tORt RSS L~tHLNRi TEgt~o tSpl I~aAOrNdF~ iPs ~IPa1TnEo~ tdSOnA M ~R~O ~~7H2~0QN1.LCI~55 oG0R9fm R W~eaStTe~NErsRtTlho~OAen U g~t 4D0 ~ 1t1h~T itl Ol,~tIol tu~r ~~T~ET~9B~, BE oRn9i Ets ea2 theRh il
intowAlC TOWS aaOnTd platfor'mth' n of al monumhlesno tal 3'YATN wr proportifoinllse.d wit aT o maSsitvh is enAdR, ubbL StPhae spaces between potter the recoveretde rrac
(Pl 81b.Trig5nerlyca, 02e0s0 slogo 10 150 mtr hg n ises
side, mosere, b nagn n euaiigtefa rao o ftehl,t untehl
intoa~ ~~C~~la~tGfoYr NSUMST OTEMSAA RI2B9FLBoEIpOtoa r tionsN I To 4t3h is C7O3LceN bSN TDREEt OEM BSth e terrac
MaSTE
the2MSYLMA GatGurUa ROMFwAAeNrrEeoIpMN S3U5 L9l'e(R wMithN BSLCa)4a sv TEpTaRRk iA YLOe 4M oU2NeoDere
ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS FROM SECTOR BYZFORT AT SARDIS 363
SectoB FP la
PTS 0 99S
Fie.. 2. Plan of Sector ByzFort
/ 3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F.PJH.AT, .h, tL Th
Sector BF Plan f
FIG. 2. Plan of Sector ByzFort
364 CHRISTOPHER RATTE
from this packinga nd from the earthp iled up againstt he foundationso f the terrace( deposits
which also yielded many of the architecturalt erracottasp resented in this report) gives an
approximatec onstructiond ate in the mid-6th century
B.C.
In addition to the discovery of this terrace, excavation both on top and along the
sides of the hill yielded evidence for more or less continuous occupation of the site from
the 7th century B.C. through the 6th century after Christ. The earlier phases of this long
sequence, however,w ere only scantilyp reserved. Two distinctb uildingp hases predatingt he
constructiono f the monumentalt erracew ere identifiedf rom pits containing rich deposits of
pottery and from truncated foundations. A later 6th- or earlier 5th-century layer yielded
fragmentso f Achaemenid bowls and other artifactst ypical of the Persian period at Sardis.
Evidence for the Hellenistic period is somewhat fuller; but in the early first century after
Christn ew terracew alls were built for a large buildingc omplex, perhapsa villa, on the top of
the hill, and it is this constructionp rojectw hich is responsiblef or the poor preservationo f the
earlierl ayers.
The effort to reconstructt he nature of the earliesto ccupation of this site must therefore
rely in large part on less direct forms of evidence than actual building remains. The
architecturalt erracottasp resented in this report constitute one such form of evidence, but
this is not the only or even the primarys ignificanceo f this material. The finds from Sector
ByzFort,i ncluding thirty-oddd ecorativep ieces as well as approximately 165 fragmentso f
plain pan and cover tiles, also significantlye nlargeo ur knowledgeo f the repertoryo f designs
availablet o Lydian coroplasts;a nd, most important,t hey are more securely dated than any
other such group of architecturalt erracottasf rom Sardis.
As a source of Archaic architecturalt erracottas,S ardisi s among the richest sites in Asia
Minor,b oth for the quantityo f tiles it has produceda nd for the varietyo f decoratives chemes
and subjects represented.5 Most of the decorated tiles from Sardis apparently belonged
to simas or gutters, whose vertical faces were adorned with figural or ornamental designs,
modeled in relief and gaily painted. Some fragments of similarly decorated terracotta
revetmentp laques have also been identifiedo n the basis of nail holes punched through the
faces of the plaques. It is often impossible,h owever,t o tell a fragmentaryr evetment plaque
from a fragmentarys ima tile, and some of the pieces previouslyi dentified as simas may in
fact have belonged to revetments. Many pitched antefixes are also known, but these seem
in general to be later than the decorateds ima tiles. The precise dating of the decorateds imas
and revetments is controversial,b ut all agree in placing their heyday sometime in the 6th
centuryB .C.
The publicationb y GeorgesR adet in 1909 of a fragmentaryt ile from Sardisi n the Louvre
marks the beginning of the study of this subject.6 More importantw as the appearance in
1925 of the reportb y T. LeslieS hearo n the Archaica rchitecturatl erracottasr ecoveredb y the
firstS ardisE xpedition.7 Of the twenty-fivep ieces (includings everalc omplete tiles)p resented
in that volume, most were found in the fill of a terraceo n the west bank of the PactolusR iver
5 For general discussions,s ee Akerstrom1 966, pp. 216-217; SardisMo5n, pp. 38-41; Billot 1980, pp. 291-
294; Winter 1993b, pp. 30-31.
6 Radet 1909.
7 SardisX , i.
ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS FROM SECTOR BYZFORT AT SARDIS 365
acrossf rom the Temple ofArtemis, and severalh ad been reusedi n a smallt ile grave. Many of
the tiles publishedb y Shear were casualtieso f the fightingb etween Turkisha nd Greek forces
in the area around Sardisi n 1922; others, includinga number of tiles not included in Shear's
catalogue,w ere sent to the ArchaeologicalM useum in Istanbulo r brought back to America,
some to the MetropolitanM useum of Art in New York,o therst o the PrincetonU niversityA rt
Museum. The terracottasf ound by the first Sardis Expedition were studied and published
anew by Ake Akerstrdmi n 1966.8 By this time, the Harvard/Cornell Sardis Expedition
had begun to unearthm ore tiles, and those found between 1958 and 1975 were publishedb y
Andrew Ramage in 1978.9 Ramage's catalogue included 67 sima or revetment tiles (for
the most part very fragmentary),3 2 antefixes, 1 disk akroterion, 1 ridge tile, and 7 plain
pan or cover tiles. Most of these were found in Excavation Sectors HoB, in the Archaic
period a commerciala nd industriala rea, and PN, the site of the Archaic Lydiang old refinery
and of a small residentialn eighborhood. They are now kept either in the SardisE xpedition's
storage depots at the site or in the Manisa Museum nearby. The terracottasp ublished by
Ramage were reexaminedi n 1980 in a long review articleb y Marie-FrantoiseB illot,1Iw ho
will also present a new study of the tile firstp ublishedb y Radet in her forthcomingc atalogue
of architecturalt erracottasf rom Greece and Asia Minor in the Louvre. More recently,
Nancy A. Winter has reexaminedt he role played by Lydia and her last king, Croesus,i n "the
diffusiono f Greek mainlanda rchitecturalt erracottast o Ionia."'1 In addition to these purely
academic studies, the Sardis Expedition also carried out and completed between 1976 and
1981 a permanentr econstructionp rojecti n which reproductionso f Lydiant iles are exhibited
in an architecturals etting in the compound of the excavation house; a monograph on this
project is being preparedb y Eric Hostetter.12
The architectural terracottas from Sector ByzFort were found in several different
contexts, of which the most importanta re the rubblep ackingo f the Archaic terrace and the
earth piled up against the foundationso f the northeastc orner of the terrace wall. Because
these contexts can be dated independently( without reference to the terracottas),t hey will
be discussedf irst, before the presentationo f the terracottast hemselves.
THE CONTEXTS IN SECTOR BYZFORT
During the excavation of the area below the northeast corner of the terrace, it became
apparentt hat the lower severalc ourseso f the terracew all belonged to the foundationso f the
terrace and were buried as soon as they were built. The evidence that establishedt his fact
was a serieso f layerso f limestonec hips incorporatedi nto the earth in front of the terracea nd
coinciding in several places with the seams between successive courses of the terrace wall;
these are probably layers of working chips, deposited during the trimming of the masonry,
and are clearly associated with the constructiono f the wall (P1.8 1 :c). The earth beneath
8 Akerstrom1 966.
9 SardisMo5n.
10 Billot 1980.
1
Winter 1993b.
12 Hostetter 1994.
366 CHRISTOPHER RATTE
and between these layers included numerous small finds, most notably, fragmentso f local
and importedp ottery and severalo f the architecturalt erracottasp resentedb elow. The local
pottery formed a homogeneous assemblageo f types usually dated to the early or mid-6th
century Only a few fragmentso f importedp ottery were found, but these are crucial for
B.C.
the more precise dating of the layer;t he latest datable piece is a fragmento f an Attic black-
figureda mphora attributedb y Dietrich von Bothmert o the Paintero f Louvre F6 and dated
to the mid-6th centuryb ut not, in the opinion of Guven Bakir,b efore 560 B.C. (P1.8 2:a, left).1 3
On top of the terrace, the rubble packing retained by the terrace wall was revealed in
plan. This packing, which is also visible in section in many places on the east side of the
hill, is easilyr ecognizable,a nd it was sealed, on top of the terrace,b eneath layerso f limestone
chips comparable with the constructionl ayers excavated at the base of the terrace. The
packingc onsistsm ostly of smallishr ocks,f ist-sizedo r slightlyl argerb ut seldom bigger than a
man's head, and when a portion of it was excavated, it proved to be the richest source of
architecturalt erracottasi n the sector. It is interestingt o note that the terracottasw ere almost
all preservedo nly in fragmentsa bout the same size as the rocks of the packing, as if they
had been deliberatelyb roken up for inclusion in this layer. The rubble packing was less
rich in pottery than the constructionl ayers at the base of the hill, but the nature of the
assemblagew as similar;i n this case, the latest precisely datable object is a fragment of an
Attic black-figuredk ylix attributedb y Nancy H. Ramage to the Heidelberg Painter and
again dated to the mid-6th centuryB .C. (P1.8 2:a, right).1 4
The evidence recoveredf rom the layers associatedw ith the constructiono f the terrace
provideso nly a terminups ost quemo f about 560 B.C. for the terracei tself. It seems unlikelyt hat
the terracew as constructedm uch later than this terminusf,o r, as noted above, the occupation
of the surroundinga rea appearst o have been more or less continuous from the 7th century
onward, and if the terrace had been constructed more than a generation or so after the
mid-6th century,o ne would have expected to find at least some artifactso f later 6th-century
date in the relativelyr ich assemblageo f objects recovered. Thus the terrace seems to have
been constructedi n the last decade or so of the Lydiane mpire or in the firstf ew decades after
the Persian conquest. The last kings of Lydia, Alyattes (ca. 61 0-ca. 560 B.C.) and his son
Croesus( ca. 560-ca. 546 B.C.), were notablya ctiveb uildersa, nd in the absenceo f evidence
suggesting that the same was true of the first Persian satraps, I favor the earlier date, but
certaintyi s out of reach.
The date of the assemblageo f material buried during the constructiono f the terrace,
however,i s independent of the date of the terracei tself. This assemblagei s, as noted above,
rich and relatively homogeneous, and it most likely representst he occupation of the hill
and surroundinga rea before the constructiono f the terrace. The architecturalt erracottas,
which adorned the buildings associatedw ith this occupation phase, are probably not later
than the latest datable pottery and could be substantiallye arlier (how much earlier may
be determined by examination of the style of the terracottas,a s attempted below). Thus,
while severald ecades may separatet he period of occupationr epresentedb y this assemblage
and the constructiono f the terrace,i t seems likelyt hat the architecturalt erracottasi ncluded
13 SardisI nv. No. P 85.29/9107. Greenewalt,C ahill, and Rautman 1987, p. 78.
Sardis Inv. No. P 86.93/9343. Greenewalt,C ahill, Dedeoglu, and Herrmann 1990, p. 160.
1
ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS FROM SECTOR BYZFORT AT SARDIS 367
in this assemblaged ecoratedb uildingsd ating in their latestp hases to the reign of Alyatteso r
to that of his son, Croesus.
But the terracottasf ound in the construction deposits associated with the terrace or
in layers beneath these deposits constitute only part of the assemblage; two-thirds of the
decorated architectural terracottas from this sector come from later fills and so could,
on purely stratigraphicg rounds, be considerablyl ater. It is my opinion that these other
fragmentsf orm a homogeneous group with the more precisely datable pieces and may be
dated by association to the same period. Since this argument rests in part on typological
and stylisticc onsiderations,h owever,i t will be postponed until after the presentationo f the
terracottast hemselves.
THE TERRACOTTAS
The basic fabric of the tiles found at Sector ByzForti s the same micaceous "pinkishr ed"
(around Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) clay used in local Lydian pottery and in the architectural
terracottasf ound in other areas of the city site; it is discussed in detail in a contribution
by Diana C. Kamilli to Andrew Ramage's monograph in the Sardis publication series.15
Ramage also discussest he slipsa nd "glazes"u sed to decorateL ydiana rchitecturatl erracottas,
and his comments apply equally well to the material from ByzFort: "the range of colors is
small, consisting of the usual four, familiarf rom Archaic Greek pottery: black, white, red,
and brown";t he "approximateg eneral"M unsellv alues given by Ramage also hold good for
the ByzFort material: black, N 2.5/0; white, IOYR 8/2; red, 2.5YR 5/8 (i.e., the same
as the fabric, but glossier);b rown, 2.5YR 2.5/2.16 Some of the tiles from Sector ByzFort
are painted with the "streaky"r eddishb lack glaze also found on Lydian pottery.
COVER AND PANT iLEs
Approximately 165 fragments of cover and pan tiles were recovered from the layers
associatedw ith the constructiono f the Archaict errace. Of these, roughly3 5 are fragmentso f
pitched, that is, "Corinthian-style"c,o ver tiles;'7 10 are fragmentso f "combination-hybrid"
tiles, combination because they consist of a pan and a cover tile attached to each other,
hybrid because they combine flat or Corinthian-stylep ans with curved or "Laconian-style"
covers;183 0 are fragmentso f Laconian-stylec over tiles which do not preservea ttachedp ans,
although they may also have belonged to combination tiles; and roughly 90 are fragments
of flat, that is, Corinthian-style,p an tiles. As noted above, almost all these fragments are
relatively small, fist-sized or slightly larger; no complete tiles survive. All these fragments
are now housed in the SardisE xpedition'ss torage depots on the site.
15 SardisMon5p, p. 12-14.
16 SardisMo5n, p. 12.
17
I use here the terminology established by Nancy A. Winter in her handbook on Greek architectural
terracottas (Winter 1993a): thus "pitched" instead of "peaked", "Corinthian-style"a nd "Laconian-style"
instead of "Corinthian"a nd "Laconian".
18 Akerstrcjm1 966, pp. 197-198.
368 CHRISTOPHER RATTE
Before these classeso f fragmentsa re discusseds eparately,i t should be noted that among
the finds from Sector ByzFortt here wasj ust one fragmento f an antefix, of Laconian style (30
in the catalogue of decorated pieces below). All the antefixes found earlier at Sardis are
Corinthianr ather than Laconian in style, and none of them predates the 6th century B.C. 19
Thus the absence of Corinthian-stylea ntefixesf rom the mid-6th-centuryd eposit at Sector
ByzForti s not surprising,a nd it lends new weight to the hypothesis that antefixesw ere not
used on Corinthian-styler oofs at Sardis before the late 6th century. The presence, on the
other hand, of even just one Laconian-stylea ntefix is noteworthya nd should indicate that at
least one hybrid roof at Sector ByzFortw as decoratedw ith antefixesa long the eaves instead
of a sima (a couple of decoratedp ieces which may be fragmentso f eaves tiles are included in
the catalogue below as 25 and 27). It should also be noted that in addition to the decorated
sima fragments from Sector ByzFort, at least one fragment of a plain and rather crudely
modeled lateral sima was found; this may be a repair to a roof originally supplied with
decorated simas, but it is also possible that some of the fragments of pan and cover tiles
discussedb elow may have belonged to plain roofs, distinct from those representedb y the
decorativep ieces.
The Corinthian-stylec over tiles (P1.8 2:b) are of a uniform average thicknesso f 0.02 m.,
ranging from 0.01 m. at the thinnest part of the tile, usually the bottom edge, to 0.03 m.
at the thickestp art, usually the peak of the "gable". On none of the fragments is the full
height of the tile preserved, but they all seem roughly equivalent in size to the complete
example in Istanbul published by Akerstrom,w hich is 0.19 m. high.20 As far as one can
tell, they are all of the same type with a flange projectingf rom the back of the tile, which
was slotted in underneath the next tile up. Almost all the fragments are painted in some
way. Most as preservedb ear a uniformc oat of red or streakyg laze; a few are solid white; and
eight are decorated in two colors: four with red diamonds on a white or plain ground, four
with white diamonds on a red ground.
As noted above, the 40-odd fragments of Laconian-stylec over tiles found at Sector
ByzForti nclude about 10 pieces with attached Corinthian-stylep an tiles. Of the roughly
30 other fragments recovered, however, on none do two separate lateral edges survive;
thus it is possible that these too belonged to combination tiles. The same is true of all the
Laconian-stylec over tiles recoveredb y the first SardisE xpeditiona nd studiedb y Akerstrdm
and of all those recovered by the current Sardis Expedition and studied by Ramage.21 To
my knowledge,o nly one Laconian-stylec over tile which clearlyd id not have an attachedp an
tile has ever been found at Sardis,i n the excavationsa t the base of the Archaic gate in Sector
MMS.22I t should be noted, however,t hat Corinthian-stylec over tiles preservingb oth lateral
edges are equally rare;t he only example that I know of is the one alreadym entioned, found
by the first Sardis Expedition and publishedb y Akerstrom. Moreover, as Nancy A. Winter
has pointed out to me, "even roofs with combination tiles need one row of single cover
tiles to cover the seam where the pan elements of the left-handa nd right-handc ombination
19 SardisMon5 , p. 31.
20 Akerstrwm1 966, p. 60, pl. 36: 1.
21 Akerstrom1 966, pp. 68-69; SardisMo5n, pp. 14-15.
22 Sardis Inv. No. T 88.2/9601. Found in the mid-6th-centuryP ersiand estructionl evel.
ARCHAIC ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS FROM SECTOR BYZFORT AT SARDIS 369
tiles meet at the center of the roof. Therefore the existence of a few single cover tiles does
not signify a separate roofing system."23 Still, it is of course possible that the roof tiles of
one or more buildings in this area consisted of separatelym ade Laconian-stylec overs and
Corinthian-stylep ans.
The Laconian-style cover tiles (P1. 82:c) are more regular in thickness than their
Corinthian-stylec ounterparts;t hat is, they do not show the same variation in thickness
from one part to another of a single tile, and they are also slightlyt hicker,o n average about
0.025 m. rather than 0.02 m. The tiles seem to have a uniform height and diameter of
approximately0 . 17 m. None of the fragmentsr ecovered preserves any trace of a flange
or other specialf eaturef or fittings uccessivet iles in the same row together,a nd it is likely that
they simply overlapped. Like the Corinthian-stylet iles, almost all the Laconian-stylec overs
are painted but always in solid colors, about evenly divided between red, black (possibly
misfired red), streakyr eddish black, and white. A couple of the fragmentsp ainted white
have their front (or back) edges preserved, and in both cases, a band 0.02-0.03 m. thick
is painted in glaze at the front of the tile, one red, the other black. Of the fragmentst hat
preserve attached pan tiles, about half are painted solid red or black and about half are
bichrome, with white covers attached to red or black pans.
The 90-odd fragmentso f pan tiles found (P1.8 2:d)r ange in thicknessf rom ca. 0.015 m. to
ca. 0.03 m. About 25 are between 0.015 m. and 0.020 m. thick, the remainder,a bout 65,
between 0.021 m. and 0.03 m. thick. It is tempting, in the absence of much in the way
of other criteria, to try to sort the tiles into two separate groups on the basis of thickness
and to associate the thinner ones with the Corinthian-stylec over tiles, the thicker ones with
the Laconian-stylec over tiles, but as there is no clear division between the thinner tiles and
the thicker tiles, any such division would be essentiallya rbitrary.O f the tiles whose lateral
edges are preserved, most conform to a single standard type. The edges are on average
0.05-0.06 m. high. The top or upper surface of the tile is flat in the middle and curves
smoothly up toward the edges; the bottom or underside is also flat in the middle, but the
profile of the edge is angularr ather than curved, consistingo f two roughly equal segments,
the lower tilted at about a 45-degree angle to the bottom, the upper vertical. In a few cases,
the front end (the end that overlappedt he tile below)i s preserved. Here, the undersideo f the
tile has been cut back at the laterale dges (or was originallym olded) so as to follow the curve
of the upper surface,t hus creating a projectingf lange that overlappedt he next tile. Behind
this flange, the angular edges of the underside of the tile butted up against the smoothly
curving edges of the upper surfaceo f the tile below, preventingt he tile from slipping down
the roof. There are no examples in the Archaic levels at Sector ByzForto f the other type
of pan tile, common in other areas of Sardisa nd in later layers at Sector ByzFort,w hich has
verticale dges and a considerablym ore complex systemf or fittingt he tiles together,f eaturing
notches cut in both the front and back edges of the tile and a downturned lip on the front,
which overlapped a raised ridge on the back of the tile below.24 The Archaic tiles from
Sector ByzFortt hus presumablyp redate the introductiono f this type of tile at Sardis.
23 Personalc ommunicationo f November 29, 1992.
24 SardisMo5n, pp. 35-36.
370 CHRISTOPHER RATTE
Like the cover tiles, almost all the pan-tile fragmentsa re painted in some way. Most,
about 75, bear a uniform coat of red or streakyg laze on the flat part of the tile; the edges
are often unglazed. On two tiles, the glaze is black, perhaps due to misfiring;a bout ten
fragmentsa re white-slipped;a nd three fragmentsp reserved ecoration in two colors: on the
firstt wo, the edges of red diamondsp ainted on a white ground, on the third, apparentlyt he
edge of a white diamond on a red ground. More than half of the pan-tile fragmentsc ollected
are edge tiles, perhaps because these are thickert han fragmentsf rom the middle of the tile
and thus easier to recognize during excavation. Since the diamond painted in the center
of the tile extends to the edges in only four places, the preponderanceo f tiles painted in solid
colors in relation to tiles decorated with painted diamonds may not have been so great as
it appears. But of the tiles discussed by Ramage, most decorated with painted diamonds
bore red or black diamondso n a white ground.25S ince most of the tiles from Sector ByzFort
were painted red or black rather than white at the edges, tiles painted in solid colors do
seem to have been more common.26
Ramage believed that tiles decorated with diamonds were generally earlier than tiles
painted a uniform color.27I f this theory is correct, then the tiles from Sector ByzFortw ould
for the most part postdate the period when diamonds were in fashion; but this would be
surprising,s ince these tiles are as early as almost all other securely datable examples. As
alreadyo bservedi n the discussiono f the cover tiles from Sector ByzFort,a painted diamond
occurs on approximatelyo ne-third of the Corinthian-stylec over tiles found but on none
of the Laconian-styleo r hybride xamples. The distinctionb etween these decoratives chemes
may thus have been typological as well as, or instead of, chronological, hybrid roofs being
decorated in solid colors, even though the covers are sometimes a differentc olor from the
pans, and Corinthian-styler oofs being decorated with diamond patterns. Akerstr6ma nd
Ramage believed that the hybridr oofings ystemw as earliert han the Corinthian-styles ystem
in Asia Minor,28b ut it is possible that the two systemsc oexisted from an early date.
In sum, then, at least two and possibly three differentr oofing systems are represented:
the Corinthian-style,t he hybrid with combination pan and cover tiles, and possibly the
hybrid with separately made pan and cover tiles. At least one Corinthian-styler oof was
decorated with a diamond pattern; the decoration of the hybrid roof or roofs, by contrast,
was more sober, consisting only in the use of different colors for different rows of tiles.
No Corinthian-stylea ntefixes were found, and the Corinthian-styler oof or roofs must all
have been supplied with both lateral or raking simas, although these were not necessarily
decorated. The presenceo f one Laconian-stylea ntefixi ndicatest hat at least one, conceivably
the only, hybrid roof was decorated with antefixesr ather than simas on the sides. The fact
that the Laconian-stylec over tiles are on average slightlyt hicker than the Corinthian-style
25 SardisMo5n, pp. 35-36.
26 The 7th-century temple at Corinth offers a very early parallel for the decoration of a roof in at least
two and possiblyt hree colors;s ee Robinson 1976, pp. 233-234; Robinson 1984, pp. 58-59. My thanksa re due
to one of Hesperia'asn onymous reviewersf or drawingm y attention to this parallel.
27 SardisMo5n, pp. 35-36.
28 Akerstrom 1966, pp. 197-198; SardisMo5n, pp. 14-15; but see Winter 1993b, p. 31, for the opposite
view.