25. Bronze Vessels and Related Instrumenta at Delphi: Remarks on Morphology, Provenance, and Chronology

The circumstances under which the École Française d’Athènes conducted the chief excavation of the sanctuary of Delphi are well known: the so-called Grande Fouille represents a foundational page in the history of archaeological excavations in Greece during the nineteenth century. Between 1892 and 1903, French archaeologists brought to light the major part of the site (fig. 25.1), unveiling the ruins of the celebrated monuments described in the literary texts and contributing to the understanding of one of the most famous sanctuaries of the ancient world.¹

Topography, architecture, and sculpture were of course the main objectives, while the remaining evidence received far less attention during the excavations and in the subsequent studies. The Journal de la Grande Fouille, written during the decade of archaeological work, is proof of this attitude. Some pages, like the ones by Paul Perdrizet dealing with ceramics and small bronzes (fig. 25.2), represent exceptions in the general picture one gets from browsing the excavation journal.²

This approach toward exploration and the recording of data—aiming for the grand sweep of history and emphasizing rare treasures while discounting or ignoring smaller, more common artifacts—was widespread at the time and absolutely the norm in the nineteenth century. It inevitably caused the loss of a considerable number of pieces and of a wide body of information regarding the specific, original contexts and depositional conditions from which objects were retrieved. This paucity of information also concerns the association with other anathemata. It has hampered our understanding of various aspects related to the presence and use of these items in the sanctuary—for example, the crucial distinction between offerings and ritual devices—and made it difficult to identify assemblages of objects related to specific religious practices performed in the sacred area.

After the Grande Fouille, a consistent publication program started, including the small finds, which were published by Perdrizet himself in 1908.³ In this volume, which is still a fundamental work, a first selection of bronzes was documented. In the following decades, finds from new excavations were presented in preliminary reports in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (BCH)⁴, while the majority of the contributions concerning the bronzes at Delphi were left to Claude Rolley. He was responsible for the systematic publication of the statuettes and the geometric tripods⁵ and the synthesis in the Guide de Delphes⁶ and was the author of numerous articles published mainly in the BCH.⁷

In the last few years, some specific categories of objects have seen systematic or at least partial publication, for example the helmets by Heide Frielinghaus⁸ and the seventh-century bronzes by Hélène Aurigny.⁹ The publication of a recent excavation in L’aire du pilier des Rhodiens by Jean Marc Luce (2008)¹⁰ provided fresh evidence concerning bronzes and their contextualization, an issue that previous documentation had made it difficult to approach at Delphi.¹¹

Despite this progress, the vessels and the related instruments dating from Archaic to Roman times remained mostly unpublished, apart from some selective or preliminary studies. The aim of my work, which is still ongoing, is to put these disiecta membra and unpublished pieces in a wider perspective and to contribute to the understanding of offering choices, ritual practices performed in the sacred place, and the circulation of the metal objects.

Given the space constraints of this volume, I will expand only on some aspects of this broad topic. In light of the recent systematic survey, it is noteworthy that the dossier concerning the bronze vessels is meager compared with evidence coming from other contexts, for example Olympia and the Athenian acropolis, which is now the subject of reappraisal.¹² The melting down of artifacts and the poor preservation of bronze due to the soil conditions at Delphi¹³ surely played a role in conservation (or lack thereof) and in determining the selection of the pieces to retrieve from the ground during past excavations.

In order to try to reestablish a reliable picture of the occurrence of bronze vases and instrumenta in the sanctuary, we should also take into account the data coming from epigraphic evidence and from literary sources, even on precious vessels. Herodotus mentions the six gold kraters offered by Gyges; the monumental silver krater on an iron stand by Glaukos of Chios, offered by Alyattes; and the golden cups and the two kraters offered by Croesus—one of silver and one of gold, attributed to Theodoros of Samos—which were positioned before the Temple of Apollo.¹⁴ Bronze vases, even monumental ones, must have been a very common sight among the offerings in the sacred area and even among the furniture and ritual tools: bronze tripods, for example, are less numerous than expected among the unearthed objects; nevertheless they play a crucial role in the imagery related to the sanctuary and are evoked during the whole life of the sacred place, long after the Geometric period. The presence of bronze phialai mesomphaloi as divine attributes and their use as ritual instruments are also widely reflected in official monuments and iconographies.¹⁵

Though it is not possible to present it in detail here, a general picture of the occurrence, morphology, and chronology of bronze vessels recovered from Delphi is now available. The quantitative indications are provisional and subject to change as the study progresses; in addition, a range of factors have yet to be taken into account in statistical analysis.¹⁶ Notwithstanding these difficulties, a quantitative approach is crucial and offers a fresh means of investigating the régime des offrandes—and their meaning—in the sacred context.¹⁷

As previously stated, contextualization is problematic at Delphi, but nevertheless it rewards study. Although the majority of the finds of known provenance come from the sanctuaries of Apollo and Athena at Marmaria, some evidence was retrieved from funerary and domestic contexts as well. In general, the number of bronze vases and instruments dramatically decreases starting from the fourth century BC. Among the pieces of known provenance, the Hellenistic and later ones mainly come from profane contexts, a sign of the progressive change in ritual practice and offering strategies.

Open shapes are predominant. Among them we find the drinking vessels and the libation vases par excellence, phialai mesompaloi, both in the “plain” and in the “lotus-bowl” versions, together with large, deep bowls (fig. 25.3). Kantharoi, kylikes, and other handled cups, skyphoi, and mugs are far less attested, while handles are the only surviving parts of paterae.

Various types of large and medium-sized basins are widely documented, as well as deinoi with their characteristic profile. I could identify the presence of at least two fragments pertaining to basins with embossed rims, a shape that was not attested previously at Delphi.¹⁸ These vessels provide clues to the attendance at the sanctuary, or rather to the circulation of bronze objects. The shape of these basins is of certain Etruscan origin and the majority of the specimens known so far come from the Tyrrhenian area and from the central Italian peninsula. Nevertheless, the vessel type is widely documented, from the barbarian contexts of central-western Europe to central-eastern Mediterranean. In Greece, these basins are definitely rare and occur in only a few sites, namely sanctuaries, including Olympia.¹⁹ In the last few decades, the version bearing a single row of bosses—like the specimens attested at Delphi—has been noticed in eastern Sicily, where these vessels mainly occur in graves as funerary receptacles:²⁰ the proposal of local production has been advanced, based on technical and morphological features. In Southern Italy as well, the discovery of a homogeneous group of basins of this type in Greek contexts—mostly coming from the sanctuary of Scrimbia at Hipponion in southern Calabria²¹—showing close affinities with the Sicilian group, corroborates the hypothesis of a western Greek manufacture inspired by Etruscan prototypes. Technical details would in some cases support the Greek colonial provenance of some of the basins found in Greece. In the case of the fragments from Delphi, which do not preserve their entire profile, it would be difficult to ascertain their origin, apart from their western provenance: a south Italian or Sicilian production remains conjectural, though highly probable.

Kraters are attested by a few ascertained fragments, a pale echo of the presence of this shape in the sanctuary as recorded by the ancient sources. Among them, some can be ascribed to volute specimens, which are notoriously rare.²²

A few pieces attest to the presence of small forms like pyxides, bombylioi, bottles, and aryballoi, among which are also bronze disk rims that attached to small vases of perishable material, and one rare figured specimen in the shape of a tortoise.

Large closed shapes, which can be recognized as hydriai, olpai, and oinochoai, are mainly documented by fragments or miniature versions, with some exceptions. One is the known hydria dating to the mid-fifth century BC, which served as a cinerary urn in a tomb unearthed during the excavations for the building of the new museum.²³ Another example is a small, refined trefoil oinochoe, which can be compared with Macedonian specimens of the fourth century BC.²⁴

As expected, the number of handles is large. Some are figured specimens with stylistic features that significantly contribute to the identification of production areas and to the definition of circulation dynamics of bronze objects. The various types of attested vertical handles suggest a wider range of closed shapes in comparison to what is documented by other morphological forms (fig. 25.4).

Refined horizontal handles, sometimes with decorative elements, as well as figured appliqués, support the presence of large vases like podanipteres or kraters, which are also possibly echoed by fragments of stands with lion paws.²⁵ Some small tripods were connected to exaleiptra and to other small or miniature shapes (figs. 25.5a-b).

Among the instrumenta, lamps are attested especially in the Late Hellenistic and Roman times, when we find some figured specimens, like one in the shape of a grotesque figure (fig. 25.6).²⁶

a

b

Finally, we find a group of “vertical” instruments, namely candelabra, kottaboi, and other such articles. Some pieces—in particular a few curved arms with decorated finials showing serpent heads or floral motifs—are probably to be interpreted as parts of utensil stands, a rare class that is better known in western Greece, thanks to some specimens from Epizephyrian Lokroi (Locri, in Calabria).²⁷

Research on Delphic bronze vessels and instruments also seeks to record and explain the detectable traces of actions made during the sacred rituals and the consecrations of offerings, in order to better understand the behaviors performed by devotees and priests in the sacred precinct. The “partial” offering of metal objects has already been demonstrated in various Greek sacred contexts, especially regarding vases and weapons.²⁸ Modifications of and deliberate damage to bronze objects by breaking, bending, piercing, mutilating, and so on are known at many necropoleis and sanctuaries, including Delphi, where this practice is attested on some helmet cheek-pieces.²⁹

Notes