This article was downloaded by: [Signe Barfoed]On: 30 March 2015, At: 02:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

World ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwar20

The significant few. Miniature pottery fromthe Sanctuary of Zeus at OlympiaSigne Barfoeda

a University of KentPublished online: 13 Jan 2015.

To cite this article: Signe Barfoed (2015) The significant few. Miniature pottery from the Sanctuary of Zeusat Olympia, World Archaeology, 47:1, 170-188, DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2014.992077

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.992077

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The significant few. Miniature potteryfrom the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia

Signe Barfoed

Abstract

Miniature pottery is omnipresent in the ancient Greek world, especially in sanctuaries, from the Prehistoricto the Hellenistic period. This article will present and discuss a significant absence of miniature pottery inone of the best-known sanctuaries in Greece, the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia during the Archaic period.The reasons behind this scarcity are at one level clearly related to the pan-Hellenic character of thesanctuary. However, by comparing the assemblages at Olympia with other sanctuaries, largely in thePeloponnese, it becomes clear that the roles of miniature pottery may be quite complex. This absence in atleast some pan-Hellenic contexts, in combination with the kinds of shapes that are most common inparticular assemblages, suggests that miniature pottery has significance that goes beyond the ‘votive’, astraditionally construed by Classical archaeologists, to include commemorative and possibly ritual roles.

Keywords

Miniature pottery; Olympia; dedications; Archaic; Zeus.

Introduction

Various aspects of Greek sanctuary organization have been well studied by archaeologists andhistorians, but miniature pottery, found in sacred contexts throughout the Greek world, is still anunderstudied kind of archaeological material (Osborne 2004). It is widely accepted that minia-tures appear in Greek sanctuaries largely in a votive capacity, that is, indicating a gift to a deityin response to a prayer or a request, or given in a more general context of worship or celebration(Ekroth 2003, 36; Osborne 2004, 1; Shanks 2004, 189). It has frequently been assumed that theyserve as a substitute for more costly ‘normal sized’ votive items (Waldstein et al. 1905, 96;Ekroth 2003, 36). By ‘miniature pottery’ I mean vessels replicated at a small scale so that theiroriginal functions as containers are no longer feasible and they take on new functions insanctuary (votive) or funerary contexts (Pemberton 1970, 293, n. 49).

World Archaeology Vol. 47(1): 170–188 Miniaturization© 2015 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2014.992077

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

This article discusses the miniature pottery found in a selection of Greek sanctuaries in theArchaic period (800–479 BCE), most in the Peloponnese. Archaic miniature pottery is found atsites throughout the Peloponnese: the Argive Heraion in the Argolid where nearly 900 miniaturevessels were found (Caskey and Amandry 1952; Waldstein et al. 1905), Perachora in Corinthia(Payne and Dunbabin 1962); Tegea in Arcadia (Dugas 1921; Hammond 1998, 2005; Voyatsis1990); Sparta (Artemis Orthia, Dawkins 1929), and many more. Often miniature assemblagesare dominated by locally produced miniatures with a smaller amount of imported Corinthianminiatures as at Kombothekra (see below).

Within this wider context, my particular focus is on one of the most prominent, the Sanctuaryof Zeus at Olympia, where there is a striking absence of miniature pottery. An investigation ofthe contextual settings of miniatures in other Greek sanctuaries, especially in the Peloponnese,can help to clarify the significance of this absence at Olympia, and opens up new possibilitiesfor understanding the meanings of miniature pottery in Archaic and Classical Greek sanctuarycontexts.

The athletic competitions at Olympia were among the most prestigious in the ancient Greekworld and a prominent setting for the display of social status and civic pride, demonstrated bythe dedication of grand monuments and valuable metal offerings such as weapons and tripods(Morgan 1990, 30–9; Burkert 1985, 93). At Olympia there appears to have been a particularlocal dedicatory practice orientated towards public and civic display. If miniature pottery isconsidered to be purely votive (in the sense of gifts dedicated to the deity), it is possible thatofferings of miniature pottery simply were not appropriate in this grand, and often civic, context.As I shall argue, while this may partly explain their absence, it may not be the whole story.

Miniature pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia

The best-known votive offerings in the Sanctuary of Zeus are the numerous metal and terracottafigurines, for instance, bronze figurines of horses, bulls and the so-called Zeus figurines most ofwhich can be dated to the ninth–eighth centuries BCE (Heilmeyer 1979, 21, 22 graph; Mallwitz1972, figs 9–10, 41, 44–6). Heilmeyer published more than 1,000 examples of bronze figurinesrepresenting rams, horses, bulls, wagons, men and gods dating from the tenth–seventh centuriesBCE with a concentration in the eighth century BCE (Heilmeyer 1972, appendix ‘a.Zahlenübersicht zu den frühen olympischen Tonfiguren’, 1979).

Despite the wealth of dedications in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia at this time, pottery(c. 900–700 BCE) is generally sparse, and no contemporary miniature pottery has beenidentified (Kyrieleis 2006; Morgan 1990, 49–56, 235–47). The earliest regular-sizedCorinthian pottery imported to the sanctuary dates to c. 675 BCE, about fifty years afterCorinth began participating in the festival (Morgan 1990, 53; Moretti 1957, 61; also seebelow on the wide distribution of Corinthian pottery). The most popular shape groups are oilvessels and cups, in total 245 Corinthian regular-sized vessels (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, andBurow 2000, 170–97; Table 1). The earliest of the published miniatures is a Corinthian two-handled drinking cup (kotyle) with petals in the handle zone and banded decoration that canbe dated to the late sixth century BCE (Fig. 1) (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, 192,no. 83, pls 59, 67); a parallel comes from a grave in Corinth (see Risser 2001, 60–1, no. 130,

The significant few 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

fig. 7, pl. 10). In total, eight Corinthian miniature vessels dating to the Archaic period havebeen published from the entire sanctuary (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, 99–105).

Some of the published miniature vessels stem from the south-eastern part of the sanctuary(‘Südostgebiet’) where an altar dedicated to Artemis has been identified. Metal finds, potteryand figurines were discovered in a black layer surrounding the Artemis Altar (Heiden 2012,145–6; Himmelmann 2002, 91–2, figs 1–4). At least two miniatures found very close to the altarmust have been deliberately deposited, and probably dedicated (Kunze-Götte et al. 1994, 16;Mallwitz 1972, 200; Heiden pers. comm.). These can be dated to the sixth century BCE (Heiden2012). Heiden shows that the earliest Corinthian vessels from that area are two oil vessels(spherical aryballoi) dating to the period 625–590 BCE. The remaining pottery from the area

Table 1 Published Archaic Corinthian pottery from Olympia (Kunze-Gütte, Heiden, andBurow 2000, 172)

Shapes Amount regular size Amount miniatures

Oil vessels (alabastra, aryballoi, lekythoi) 104 0Kotylai 103 6Jugs (oinochoai) 9 0Kraters 7 0Lids 6 0Pyxides (boxes) 4 0Kantharoi and Skyphoi 3 0Figure vases 3 0Various 2 0Small amphora 1 0Plate 1 0Phiale 1 0Kylix 1 0Hydriai 0 2Unknown 0 6

Total 245 14

Figure 1 Corinthian miniature kotyle with pattern decoration, K 10,146. Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow2000, no. 83, pls 59, 67. Reproduced by courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. DAI-Athen-1996/2561. Photo: Ingrid Geske.

172 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

around the Artemis Altar is predominantly oil vessels, especially Corinthian aryballoi, and Atticblack-figure lekythoi (Heiden 2012, 145).

Of the twenty-five unpublished miniature pots which I have recently examined, nineteenexamples are Elean or of local manufacture, five are Corinthian and one is Lakonian (Schilbach,pers. comm.; Table 2). Five examples originate from the south-eastern part of the sanctuary; fivestem from the north part of the stadium, and three were found in the area of the Prytenaion, butthe provenance of the rest remains unknown. The limited parallels for the local/Elean miniaturesmake the dating of these pots problematic. The earliest of the unpublished Corinthian miniaturesis a jug (oinochoe), which can be dated to the late sixth century BCE (Fig. 2). (Pemberton 1989,170, no. 515, pl. 50 (not same decoration, but approximately same shape); Kocybala 1999, 66,no. 247, pl. 40; Payne and Dunbabin 1962, 293, no. 2863, pl. 117); and the remaining fourunpublished Corinthian vessels can all be dated within the sixth–fourth centuries BCE. Theearliest miniature that can be identified in the Sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia is hence around oneand a half centuries later than the appearance of Corinthian pottery in the sanctuary. The objectsmentioned here constitute the complete body of miniature vessels from Olympia.

Among the miniatures, cups are most popular, which is interesting because cups (and oilvessels) are the preferred shapes among the regular-sized Corinthian pottery (Tables 1–2).Perhaps this pattern is due to the popularity of the Corinthian kotyle, but it could also be dueto the importance of drinking either during banqueting or in a ritual setting. This correlationmight also suggest that the deposition of miniature cups might then commemorate such events, a

Table 2 Unpublished miniature pottery shapes, Olympia

Shapes Amount

Cups 8Miniature kraters 7Miniature hydriai 6Jugs 2Medicine Bottle 1Pyxis (Lid) 1

Total 25

Figure 2 Corinthian miniature oinochoe, 573/4–1. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photo enhancing: LloydBosworth.

The significant few 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

role slightly different from ‘votive dedication’ as traditionally interpreted, though of coursethese meanings need not be mutually exclusive.

Although miniature cups could not be used for drinking in the same way as regular-sizedfunctional cups, they could still have been used as containers for very small amounts of grain orother food, wool or a lock of hair, or a liquid offering, for instance, wine, oil or water. The lattercould even have been poured out as a ‘mini-libation’, or used in some other ritual way (e.g.water for purification). Though it is difficult to prove that such uses were made of miniaturepottery, many of the vessels themselves certainly have the capacity to be used in these ways.

It may be significant that the only published items of pottery with incised dedications to Zeusare four fragmentary Lakonian kylikes (stemmed two-handled drinking cups), one of whichcarries a representation of Zeus seated on a throne (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, no.36, 63–9, pls 17–19). All four can be dated to the end of the sixth century BCE (Kunze-Götte,Heiden, and Burow 2000, nos 37, 40–1, 64–75). These regular-sized cups could have been usedin rituals of libation to Zeus, or perhaps as a dedication of a devotee’s personal belongings.Moreover, about half of the Corinthian regular-sized pottery in Olympia consists of cups, and 90per cent of the published Lakonian pottery is made up of cups (Bentz 2009, 15). Only oneArchaic phiale in clay, the libation bowl par excellence, has been published (Kunze-Götte,Heiden, and Burow 2000, no. 68, 188, pl. 57; Von Bothmer 1962, 154–5), but the second mostpopular shape after lekythoi found at the Artemis Altar is the bowl, which could also have beenused for libations in banquet settings (Heiden, pers. comm).

Other miniaturized items that appear in the Sanctuary of Zeus are significant since they areeither made in metal or underrepresented in pottery shapes. The only metal miniature vessels aretwo miniature bronze jugs on display at the Olympia museum dating to the sixth and fifthcenturies BCE respectively. Compared to the many thousands of metal miniature figurines, two isa very low number.

Olympia in the context of other sanctuaries to Zeus

Comparison of Olympia with other sanctuaries of Zeus is enlightening. The Zeus sanctuaries atNemea and Olympia share a scarcity of miniature vessels, most likely due to the pan-Helleniccharacter of the sites. However, when miniature pottery does appear, it is found at secondaryshrines to female deities in the pan-Hellenic sanctuary’s immediate surroundings.

Only seventy-eight miniature vessels have so far been published from the Zeus Sanctuary atNemea (from two deposits and the Opheltes hero shrine) (Miller 1975, 148–9; Birge, Kraynakand Miller 1992, 259; Bravo 2006). As seen in Figure 3 miniature kraters and cups are the mostpopular shapes, and, since kraters were used for mixing wine and water, and cups for drinking,for instance, diluted wine, the miniatures could be understood as commemorating ritual diningor other types of banqueting events in the sanctuary. Commemorative actions or actions ofremembrance are perhaps more easily understood when it comes to dedicatory statues orinscribed stelai (Burkert 1985, 69; Van Straten 2000, 212). Such evidence is more tangiblewhen inscriptions are present that explicitly explain that the statue or stele is commemorative;nevertheless, it is possible that miniature vessels had a similar meaning.

Outside the Sanctuary of Zeus, about 700m east of the sanctuary, a votive deposit was foundwhich contained about 1,000 vessels, over one-third (405 vessels) of which were miniature (the

174 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Rawson Deposit, Table 3), and thirteen fragments of Argive terracotta figurines of a seatedfemale. The location not far from a spring indicates a possibly rural spring shrine either to afemale deity based on the terracotta figurines or perhaps to the water nymph Nemea (Barfoed2009, 2013). Corinthian decorated miniature kotylai, and Corinthian black-glazed miniaturehydriai (water jars) dominate the assemblage, and the occasional presence of Corinthianminiature offering trays like the ones from Acrocorinth (see below) suggests that the deposit

Table 3 Miniature pottery shapes, Rawson Deposit, Nemea (Barfoed 2009, 2013)

Shapes Available Missing Total

Kotylai 77 60 137Hydriai 77 0 77Skyphoi 20 17 37Miniature kraters 0 32 32Kalathiskoi/Flaring kalathoi 19 5 24Offering trays 0 19 19Bowls 1 10 11Phialai 0 10 10Dishes 0 10 10Cups 7 2 9Saucers 0 9 9Amphorai 8 0 8Exaleiptra/kothons 3 3 6Kana 0 6 6Jugs 3 1 4Pyxides 3 0 3Oinochoai 3 0 3

Total 220 184 405

26 25

5 4 3 2 2 1

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Am

ount

Shapes

Miniature Pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus,Nemea

Figure 3 Miniature pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus, Nemea (Miller 1975, 2004; Birge, Kraynak, andMiller 1992 I; Bravo 2006). (The miniature pottery in the Zenon Deposit was determined based onphotographs of the display case in the Nemea Museum. A publication of the pottery from Nemea willprobably alter the amount of miniature pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus, Nemea.)

The significant few 175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

might belong to a smaller sanctuary to Demeter, since this shape occurs predominantly inDemeter sanctuaries (Bookidis and Pemberton, forthcoming).

At the Sanctuary of Zeus Ombrios (‘Showery Zeus’) on Mount Hymettos in Attica, however,a different pattern emerges. The sanctuary flourished from the tenth to the sixth centuries BCE,but the majority of pottery dates to the seventh century BCE. Users of this sanctuary are likely tohave been local for the most part (Langdon 1976, 7). Sherds with graffiti carrying the formula‘So-and-so dedicated me to Zeus’ (nineteen sherds) confirm Zeus worship. Out of the 175pottery entries published by Langdon only five were miniatures, but he mentions that about 100additional votives were saved (most were plain miniature two-handled cups) and that the totalnumber was probably greater (1976, 70–1, nos 317–19, 326, 328; Fig. 4).

Miniature cups serve as ‘substitutes’ for regular-sized functional cups in rituals, but couldalso have been used as containers in a ritual context in different ways than their full-sizedcounterparts (Burkert 1985, 68–70). Langdon suggested that the large number of drinkingvessels indicates some kind of drinking ritual (1976, 78) and burned bones found near thealtar indicate animal sacrifices. The miniature cups could certainly be seen as having a com-memorative function and represent drinking in the sanctuary given the large number of one-handled and two-handled cups found in the sanctuary (Fig. 4).

127

1 2 735

336

9 23

562

69 81105

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Am

ount

Shapes

Pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus Ombrios,Mount Hymettos

Figure 4 Pottery in the Sanctuary of Zeus Ombrios, Mount Hymettos (Langdon 1976).

176 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Only a few metal objects, and only one ‘horse and rider’ terracotta figurine, were found atMount Hymettos; thus the few metal objects, the lack of figurines and the large group ofdedicated pottery with inscriptions to Zeus show a different preference in dedications comparedto both Nemea and Olympia, probably because this was a different kind of Zeus, and not a pan-Hellenic shrine, consequently deriving from different traditions or customs (Kilian-Dirlmeier1985, 243–4; Dowden 2007, 45). The epithet, and not the god as such, was the important featurein determining the character of the cult. Different epithets resulted in different cult practices andvotive patterns from one Zeus sanctuary to another (Dowden 2007, 41–2).

The idea that the lack of miniature pottery had to do with Zeus per se, or that it was simplynot a suitable dedication for a powerful weather and warrior god (Dowden 2006, 2007, 46), thefather of gods and men (Homer, Il.1.533), can be dismissed. The comparatively small amountsof pottery of any kind in pan-Hellenic sanctuaries (e.g. Nemea, Olympia) might be partiallyexplained by greater use of metal vessels in settings where elaborate public display wasimportant (see below). However, when miniature pottery does appear in pan-Hellenic sanctu-aries, it seems to be related to cult activity that is not fully a part of the pan-Hellenic aspect ofthe main deity. In both of the cases presented here, it is linked to cults of goddesses, Artemis andDemeter.

Banqueting: miniature pottery as commemorative offering

Kombothekra

As in the case of pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, the favourite miniature shapes in sanctuaries else-where in the Peloponnese appear to be those related to banqueting settings. An example isKombothekra in Elis, about 25km southeast of Olympia, at the Sanctuary to Artemis Limnatis.The sanctuary was in use from the Geometric to the Hellenistic period (about 900 to 146 BCE)and hundreds of complete miniature pots as well as terracotta figurines have been found (Müller1908; Sinn 1978, 1981; Gregarek 1998), though the miniature pottery remains unpublished.Most is certainly locally produced; popular shapes are the kanthariskos (two-handled cups),miniature kraters (the examples from Kombothekra imitate full-size kraters in great detail to theextent that different types are distinguishable), and miniature hydriai (Figs 5–7). The popularvotive cup type from Corinth, a diminutive kotyle with vertical bands in the handle zone,appears at both Kombothekra and Olympia (Figs 8–9). Additionally, three Corinthian kotylai arefound with the distinctive Conventionalizing decoration with two bands (also called ‘patternkotyle’). Based on parallels from Corinth these three kotylai can be dated from the late sixth tothe early fifth centuries BCE (Figs 10–11). (Risser 2001, 61–2, no. 139, pl. 11; Pemberton, 1989,175, no. 567, pl. 52). In shape, size and decoration these miniatures resemble two publishedCorinthian kotylai from Olympia (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, nos 101–2, pl. 62).

Only five animal bronze figurines were found in Kombothekra, compared to many thousandsunearthed in Olympia (Sinn 1981, 64; Heilmeyer 1979, 14, n. 38). The Archaic regular-sizedvessels were exclusively oil vessels; oddly no other shapes, or plain-ware pottery, were found(Müller 1908, 325–6; Sinn 1981, 64). The assemblage from the Sanctuary of Artemis Limnatisconfirms that devotees there had different interests and rituals appropriate to a different deityand that the users there were different kinds of worshippers (Parker 2011, 225–36).

The significant few 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

The three most popular shapes are miniature cups, miniature kraters and miniature hydriai.At regular size, cups and mixing bowls are associated with dining, and it is clear from thepresence of dining-room facilities at other Artemis sanctuaries, such as Brauron in Attica(Nielsen 2009), that dining was one of the activities which might well have taken place in thisritual context (see below on dining at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth). Waterjars (hydriai) could also be associated with dining, but might also, at normal size, have beenassociated with drawing water for the ritual bathing associated with marriage, especially in asacred context involving Artemis (Cole 2004, 193). Hence, as at Olympia, the dedication ofthese shapes in miniature might have a commemorative as well as a more strictly ‘votive’function.

Figure 6 Miniature kanthariskos from Kombothekra, 263–32. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photo enhan-cing: Lloyd Bosworth.

43

2419 19

3 5

05

101520253035404550

Miniaturekraters

Cups Miniaturehydriai

Pyxides Jugs Misc

Am

ount

Shapes

Unpublished Miniature Pottery in the ArtemisLimnatis Sanctuary, Kombothekra

Figure 5 Unpublished miniature pottery in the Artemis Limnatis Sanctuary, Kombothekra.

178 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Corinth

The rising popularity of miniature pottery in the Greek world during the Archaic period seems to beconnected with an increased production of miniatures at Corinth. Clearly there was a demand forthese products in sanctuaries. During the sixth century BCE production of miniatures in Corinthappears to have increased substantially, and Corinthian miniatures were found over a very broad

Figure 7 Miniature krateriskos from Kombothekra, 655/5–15. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photo enhan-cing: Lloyd Bosworth.

Figure 8 Corinthian diminutive kotylai from Kombothekra, 658/2–5. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photoenhancing: Lloyd Bosworth.

The significant few 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Figure 9 Corinthian diminutive kotylai from Olympia, 618/2–1. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photoenhancing: Lloyd Bosworth.

Figure 10 Corinthian miniature kotylai from Kombothekra, 659/3–1. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photoenhancing: Lloyd Bosworth.

Figure 11 Corinthian miniature kotylai from Kombothekra, 659/3–3. Unpublished. Photo: Author. Photoenhancing: Lloyd Bosworth.

180 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

geographical area. Corinthian and Attic pottery travelled widely throughout Greece and theMediterranean in the seventh and sixth centuries BCE (Shanks 1995, 208; Morgan 1988), but maynot always have been carried by Corinthians or Athenians (Shanks 1995, 208; Morgan 1988).

It is probable that the distinctive Corinthian miniature pottery used at the Demeter and KoreSanctuary at Acrocorinth was produced in Corinth’s Potters’ Quarter given the location, thespecificities of the fabric and the well-known types (Stillwell and Benson 1984). The frequencyof shapes is different from that at the pan-Hellenic sanctuaries, including both specific shapesrelating to ritual events, as well as shapes related to banqueting (Fig. 12).

The earliest examples of miniature pottery from a reliably dated context are three miniaturevessels from the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Acrocorinth dating to the late eighth centuryBCE (kotyle, skyphos and amphora/hydria, nos 98, 108 and 130, see Pfaff 1999, 71). As seen inFigure 12 the most popular are offering trays/likna (miniature clay trays holding small cups orimitations of food), miniature ‘kalathos’ (also called ‘kalathiskos’, at full size a vessel used to

10194

100

2217

812

82 3 6 8

4 3 20

20

40

60

80

100

120

Am

ount

Shapes

Miniature Pottery in the Sanctuary of Demeter andKore, Acrocorinth

Figure 12 Miniature pottery in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, Acrocorinth (Corinth XVIII.1; CorinthXVIII.7 forthcoming (offering trays); Brumfield 1997 (likna)). (It is hard to determine when phialaibecomes miniature; here phialai with a diameter less than 17cm. have been included. An exhaustivetable is not achievable since only a selection of the pottery found has been published. Total: 390 vessels.)

The significant few 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

hold wool) and libation bowls, also called phialai, used for liquid offerings (Pemberton 1989,64; Burkert 1985, 70–1).

Pemberton’s recent study shows that there were more than 1,000 fragments of miniature offeringtrays dating to the end of the sixth to the early fifth century BCE and this shape was predominantlyfound at Demeter and Kore sanctuaries (Bookidis and Pemberton, forthcoming; Barfoed 2013,89–91). This shape is not one that forms part of the normal Greek repertoire of domestic dining orcooking wares at full size. The precise function of these trays in the rituals is difficult to understand,but Pemberton suggests that they served as commemorative offerings. The tray could have heldgrain or other food stuffs, and the containers inside the tray, despite their small size, could have heldsmall amounts of liquid. Processions of women carrying trays on figure decorated pottery mightsupport this interpretation (Bookidis and Pemberton, forthcoming). It is difficult to connect specificshapes to specific deities and cults, and naturally such preferences would have differed across theGreek world. For instance, miniature water jars (hydriai/hydriskoi) are commonly found in largenumbers in sanctuaries to female deities especially in south Italy where Demeter is often thought tobe the recipient, e.g. Metaponto, Siris-Herakleia, Timmari and Monte Papalucio (Lo Porto 1981;Hinz 1998, 187–94; Lo Porto 1991; Ciaraldi 2000). However, miniature hydriai are not confined tosanctuaries for female deities, but are also found in sanctuaries to male deities, for example Apollosanctuaries in both Eutresis and Amyklai (Goldman 1931, 262; Diehl 1964, 197–9).

Large amounts of cooking ware were also found in the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary atAcrocorinth, which implies cooking and dining in association with religious activities andevents (Pemberton 1989, 68–75). Excavation has yielded thirty-six dining rooms whichwere in use around 400 BCE (Bookidis et al. 1999, 4), and the cooking ware consisted ofpredominantly cooking pots, casseroles, kraters, pitchers and cups (Pemberton 1989, 69;Bookidis 1990, 92). The casseroles and stew pots suggest that boiling or stewing waspreferred over roasting (Bookidis 1990, 92). Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare thisevidence to Olympia since local cooking ware from Olympia and elsewhere in the region ofElis has rarely been published.

In summary, in the Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, the evidence for banqueting, and itspossible commemoration through miniatures, is clearly different from that in the sanctuary atKombothekra or the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Acrocorinth. The absence of miniaturepottery could indicate that banqueting was done on a different scale or using different objects,presumably depending on the habits of the various civic groups present in Olympia. Morgan hassuggested that pottery in general was sparse in the sanctuary at Olympia and argues that it was arather poor commodity compared to metal. Since metal is a rarer and more valuable material,dedications of metal (less likely to survive in the archaeological record than pottery) would havebeen a more effective signifier of status and wealth, especially in a setting where elites met andmade elaborate dedications (Morgan 1990, 22–9) and where city-states used conspicuousdisplay to compete with each other. It is possible, given the general scarcity of pottery inOlympia, that the use of metal vessels was more common than elsewhere (Burkert 1985, 93).This would have emphasized the grandeur of the sanctuary, the display aspect of dedicatingmetal objects and the focus on large monuments and impressive large-scale marble dedications,such as sculptures.

182 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

The ambiguity of miniatures

Miniature pottery has often been termed dysfunctional and unusable. However, even very smallminiature vessels can serve as containers for ritual use. Miniature oil vessels. such as lekythoi oraryballoi, could have contained a small amount of precious perfume for dedication. It is known thatlibations were part of the ritual dining and took place before the meal (Ekroth 2012; Burkert 1985, 70,107). The question is then why a commemorative event might have happened in miniature. TheLakonian kylikes mentioned above could have been used for libation and it is curious that they appearto be rare examples of pottery dedications to Zeus within the Olympian Sanctuary (much of the potterythat appear in sanctuaries was not necessarily ‘votive’, but was used for cooking and dining). Spartahad considerable influence in the area in the sixth century BCE, even though the pottery at the sanctuarydoes not reflect this, so it is possible that the Lakonian kylikes were part of a specific Spartan orLakonian ritual to Zeus. An inscription on one of these vessels reads ‘Olympioi’, so it is certain that thededicated cup was meant for the Olympian Zeus (Kunze-Götte, Heiden, and Burow 2000, 66).

Lakonian pottery does, however, not necessarily mean that Lakonian people themselvesbrought the pots to Olympia. Like the popular Corinthian and Attic pottery, it could havearrived by other means, for instance, locals (Eleans) travelling to Lakonia and bringing the cupsback from Sparta. Additionally, Corinthian, Attic and even Lakonian pottery was imitated and isfound at Olympia (Schilbach, pers. comm). Similarly, locally produced pottery, made and soldin the Sanctuary of Zeus, could also have been purchased by a visiting Athenian and dedicated,or used, when visiting Olympia. We do not know whether potters brought stands to sanctuariesand sold their goods. Pottery of all kinds would be useful for sanctuary visitors: for utilitarianuse, for ritual dining and for dedications. A much later inscription from Samos dating to c. 245BCE attests to four leased shops in the Hera sanctuary, and it seems plausible that such activitiestook place within many sanctuaries (Dignas 2007, 172) in earlier periods as well.

It is also possible that people brought pottery with them, perhaps especially smaller items, such asvotives, or perishable goods that were easy to carry. Bentz suggested that Attic red-figure pottery, forinstance kraters, were brought to the sanctuary for personal use, for instance, for celebrating after anathletic contest (Bentz 2009, 16). However, the impracticality of transporting such a bulky item overlong distances, the likelihood of breakage on route, perhaps suggest that, if affordable, metalcauldrons or vessels were a better choice for transport.

Scale and miniaturization

An understanding of the ancient Greeks’ way of thinking about scale and miniaturization is hardto access. From the evidence presented here, miniaturization in ancient Greece appears to havebeen a deliberate choice, and not necessarily simply an inferior alternative. Like regular-sizedpottery, the miniatures were produced with the consumer in mind, as seen, for instance, in thecase of the offering trays in the Demeter and Kore Sanctuary at Acrocorinth where this specificshape was linked to particular commemorative rituals.

As Bailey points out, there are numerous ways to think about the processes of reducing the size ofan item. Themost commonway is probably to think ofminiaturization as a reduction of proportions,that is, to think in term of scale. The second is to think of the reduction of scale by taking the body asthe measure of scale (Bailey 2005, 28–9). Knappett (2012, 93–6) shows how large storage jars

The significant few 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

(pithoi) were reproduced in smaller size fromMalia, Crete, in the Bronze Age, and suggests that theexistence of the miniatures must in some way have impinged upon its full-scale versions. This issimilar to the pattern in the case of the miniature kraters from Olympia and Kombothekra. All theminiatures from Olympia are scaled-down versions of regular sized vessels, such as cups, kraters,hydriai and jugs (Table 2). This supports the suggestion that the miniature vessels from Olympiaindeed might have been functional to an extent, even if that function was not the same as that of thefull-sized original. One possible use could be for making miniature libations or other ‘miniatureofferings’. In this way the meaning of miniatures may have been related to the remembrance ofrituals, and their importance should not be dismissed.

Conclusion

The lack of miniature pottery in the renowned Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia may be a deliberatechoice in the context of the pan-Hellenic character of the sanctuary, which encouraged atradition of grand and showy dedications both by individuals and by city-states. The area inOlympia where most miniature pottery was found is in the vicinity of the Altar of Artemis, asmaller shrine which was probably not a part of the sanctuary involved in the competitivedisplay behaviours associated with the pan-Hellenic games to the same extent as other areas.

This is supported by comparison with Nemea, where a similar pattern emerges. Comparisonwith the more modest and quite different cult of Zeus Ombrios at Mount Hymettos in Atticareveals a different kind of votive assemblage, suggesting that the distinctive pattern seen at thepan-Hellenic sanctuaries is not simply characteristic of Zeus as a deity per se.

The relative scarcity of miniatures in both Olympia and Nemea, and consideration of thespecific areas in which miniature pottery does appear in these and other Peloponnesian sanctu-aries, opens up the possibility that these tiny vessels served commemorative and ritual as well asvotive functions. This commemorative aspect is rarely emphasized, perhaps due to its elusivenature, but based on broader contextual analysis it appears that commemoration could beanother facet of the deeper significance of miniature pottery’s presence or absence in manyGreek sanctuaries. When a large amount of miniature pottery is present combined with theremains of dining rooms as seen in Corinth or Brauron in Attica, this suggests that miniaturesmay reflect eating and drinking, or other uses of food and drink such as libations, as part ofsacred events. The traditional view of miniature pottery in sanctuaries simply as votive dedica-tions in a relatively narrow sense needs to be explored from new perspectives.

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Reinhard Senff and Ulrich Sinn for giving me permission to work on theminiature pottery from Olympia and Kombothekra, and Joachim Heiden and Jürgen Schilbachfor stimulating conversations about Olympia and its cult and pottery. The research stays inOlympia were made possible by the Elisabeth Munksgaard Foundation and the Svend Fiedlerand Wife Foundation, who sponsored my work and stay at Olympia in April 2012 and 2013,and the Danish Institute in Athens provided a room in Athens in 2010 when I first went to

184 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Olympia. I also want to thank Lin Foxhall for her invaluable support and the anonymousreviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Signe BarfoedUniversity of Kent

s.barfoed@kent.ac.ukbarfoed.signe@gmail.com

References

Bailey, D. W. 2005. Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. London:Routledge.

Barfoed, S. 2009. “An Archaic Votive Deposit from Nemea – Ritual Behavior in a Sacred Landscape.” MAdiss., University of Cincinnati.

Barfoed, S. 2013. “The Mystery of the Seated Goddess – Archaic Terracotta Figurines of the North-EasternPeloponnese.” In Vessels and Variety - New Aspects of Danish Research in Ancient Pottery (Acta Hyperborea 13),edited by K. B. Johannsen, A. Rathje, and H. Thomasen, 85–105. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Bentz, M. 2009. “Athenian Red-Figure Pottery from Olympia.” In Athenian Potters and Painters 2, editedby J. H. Oakley and O. Palagia, 11–17. Oxford: Oxbow.

Birge, D. E., L. H. Kraynak, and S. G. Miller. 1992. Excavations at Nemea – Topographical and ArchitecturalStudies: The Sacred Square, The Xenon and the Bath (Nemea I). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bookidis, N. 1990. “Ritual Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth. Some Questions.” InSympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion, First Symposium on the Greek Symposion, Oxford, September4–8, 1984, edited by O. Murray, 86–94. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bookidis, N., J. Hansen, L. Snyder, and P. Goldberg. 1999. “Dining in the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore atCorinth.” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 68: 1–54. doi:10.2307/148389.

Bookidis, N., and E. G. Pemberton. Forthcoming. Corinth XVIII.7: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore:The Greek Lamps and Offering Trays. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Bravo, J. J. 2006. “The Hero Shrine of Opheltes/Archemoros at Nemea: A Case Study of Ancient GreekHero Cult.” PhD diss., University of California, Berkeley.

Brumfield, A. 1997. “Cakes in the Liknon: Votives from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore onAcrocorinth.” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 66: 147–72.

Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Caskey, J. L., and P. Amandry. 1952. “Investigations at the Heraion of Argos, 1949.” Hesperia: TheJournal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 21: 165–221. doi:10.2307/146728.

The significant few 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Ciaraldi, M. 2000. “Food Offerings at the Archaic - Hellenistic Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone atMonte Papalucio (Oria, Apulia, Southern Italy).” AccordiaResP 7 (1997–98): 75–92.

Cole, S. G. 2004. Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space - the Ancient Greek Experience. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.

Dawkins, R. M. 1929. The Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta, Excavated and Described by Membersof the British School at Athens, 1906–1910. London: British Council.

Diehl, E. 1964. Die Hydria: Formgeschichte und Verwendung im Kult des Altertums. Mainz am Rhein: P.von Zabern.

Dignas, B. 2007. “A Day in the Life of a Greek Sanctuary.” In A Companion to Greek Religion, edited byD. Ogden, 163–77. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dowden, K. 2006. Zeus. London: Routledge.

Dowden, K. 2007. “Olympian Gods, Olympian Pantheon.” In A Companion to Greek Religion, edited byD. Ogden, 41–55. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dugas, C. 1921. “Le sanctuaire d’Aléa Athéna à Tégée avant le IVe siècle.” BCH 45: 335–435.doi:10.3406/bch.1921.3054.

Ekroth, G. 2003. “Small Pots, Poor People? The Use and Function of Miniature Pottery as Votive Offeringsin Archaic Sanctuaries in the Argolid and the Corinthia.” In Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext:Akten des Internationalen Vasen- Symposions in Kiel vom 24.-28.9.2001 veranstaltet durch dasArchäologische Institut der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, edited by B. Schmaltz and M.Söldner, 35–37. Münster: Scriptorum.

Ekroth, G. 2012. “Libations, Greek.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edited by R. S. Bagnell,London: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah17240.

Goldman, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gregarek, H. 1998. “Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra. IV. Die Terrakotten derarchaischen und klassischen Zeit.” AM 113: 75–102.

Hammond, L. A. 1998. “The Miniature Votive Vessels from the Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea.” PhDdiss., University of Missouri-Columbia.

Hammond, L. A. 2005. “Arcadian Miniature Pottery.” In Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the ThirdInternational Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, edited by E. Østby, Norwegian Institute at Athens, May 7–10, 2002, 415–27. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens.

Heiden, J. 2012. “Artemis-Altäre.” In Mythos Olympia: Kult und Spiele, edited by S. Bocher, H.-J. Gehrke,G. E. Hatzi, W.-D. Heilmeyer, and N. E. Kaltsas, 145–48. München: Prestel.

Heilmeyer, W.-D. 1972. Frühe olympische Tonfiguren. (Olympische Forschungen 7). Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Heilmeyer, W.-D. 1979. Frühe olympische Bronzefiguren: die Tiervotive. (Olympische Forschungen 12).Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Himmelmann, N. 2002. “Frühe Weihgeschenke.” In Olympia 1875-2000: 125 Jahre DeutscheAusgrabungen: Internationales Symposium, Berlin, November 9–11, 2000, edited by H. Kyrieleis,91–107. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.

Hinz, V. 1998. Der Kult von Demeter und Kore auf Sizilien und in der Magna Graecia. Wiesbaden:Reichert.

Homer, and A. T. Murray. 1924. The Iliad. London, William Heinemann, Ltd. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 1985. “Fremde Weihungen in Griechischen Heiligtümern vom 8. bis zum Beginn des7. Jahrhunderts v.Chr.” JbRGZM 32: 215–54.

186 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Knappett, C. 2012. “Meaning in Miniature: Semiotic Networks in Material Culture.” In Excavating theMind: Cross Sections through Culture, Cognition and Materiality, edited by N. Johannsen, H. J. Jensen,and M. D. Jessen, 87–109. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

Kocybala, A. 1999. The Extramural Sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Cyrene, Libya. FinalReports, 7. The Corinthian Pottery. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Kunze-Götte, E., J. Heiden, and J. Burow. 2000. Archaische Keramik aus Olympia. (OlympischeForschungen 28). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kunze-Götte, E., A. Mallwitz, K. Herrmann, W.-D. Heilmeyer, M. Söldner, H. Kyrieleis, and E. Kunze.1994. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 9. Herbst 1962 bis Früjahr 1966. Berlin: Walter deGruyter.

Kyrieleis, H. 2006. Anfänge und Frühzeit des Heiligtums von Olympia. Die Ausgrabungen am Pelopion1987-1996 (Olympische Forschungen 31). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Langdon, M. K. 1976. The Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (Hesperia Suppl. 16). Princeton, NJ:American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1981. “La stipe votiva di contrada ‘Crucinia.’” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei,Notizie degli scavi di antichità 35: 291–391.

Lo Porto, F. G. 1991. Timmari. L’abitato, le necropoli, la stipe votiva. Rome: Bretschneider.

Mallwitz, A. 1972. Olympia und seine Bauten. München: Prestel-Verlag.

Miller, S. G. 1975. “Excavations at Nemea, 1973–1974.” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School ofClassical Studies at Athens 44: 143–72. doi:10.2307/147585.

Miller, S. G. 2004. Nemea – A Guide to the Site and the Museum. Athens: Archaeological Receipts Fund.

Moretti, L. 1957. Olympionikai: i vincitori negli antichi agoni olimpici. Roma: Accademia Nationale deiLincei.

Morgan, C. 1988. “Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and Western Greece during the Eighth Century B.C.” BSA83: 313–38.

Morgan, C. 1990. Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth CenturyBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Müller, K. F. 1908. “Artemistempel bei Kombothekra. Vorläufiger Bericht.” AM 33: 323–26.

Nielsen, I. 2009. “The Sanctuary of Artemis Brauronia. Can Architecture and Iconography Help toLocate the Settings of the Rituals?” In From Artemis to Diana: The Goddess of Man and Beast (ActaHyperborea 12), edited by T. Fischer-Hansen and B. Poulsen, 83–116. Copenhagen: MuseumTusculanum Press.

Osborne, R. 2004. “Hoards, Votives, Offerings: The Archaeology of the Dedicated Object.” WorldArchaeology 36: 1–10. doi:10.1080/0043824042000192696.

Parker, R. 2011. On Greek Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Payne, H., and T. J. Dunbabin. 1962. Perachora. The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia, II. Pottery,Ivories, Scarabs, and Other Objects from the Votive Deposit of Hera Limenia (Perachora II). Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Pemberton, E. G. 1970. “The Vrysoula Classical Deposit from Ancient Corinth.” Hesperia: The Journal ofthe American School of Classical Studies at Athens 39: 265–307. doi:10.2307/147647.

Pemberton, E. G. 1989. Corinth XVIII.1: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: The Greek Pottery.Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Pfaff, C. A. 1999. “The Early Iron Age Pottery from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth.”Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 68: 55–134. doi:10.2307/148390.

The significant few 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015

Risser, M. K. 2001. Corinth VII.5: Corinthian Conventionalizing Pottery. Corinth VII.5. Princeton, NJ:American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Shanks, M. 1995. “Art and an Archaeology of Embodiment: Some Aspects of Archaic Greece.”Cambridge Archaeological Journal 5: 207–44. doi:10.1017/S0959774300015031.

Shanks, M. 2004. Art and the Greek City State: An Interpretive Archaeology. 2nd ed. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Sinn, U. 1978. “Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra. Elische Lekythen.” AM 93: 45–82.

Sinn, U. 1981. “Das Heiligtum der Artemis Limnatis bei Kombothekra. II. Der Kult.” AM 96: 25–71.

Stillwell, A. N., and J. L. Benson. 1984. Corinth XV.3: The Potters’ Quarter – The Pottery. Corinth XV.3.Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Van Straten, V. 2000. “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries.” In Oxford Readings in Greek Religion,edited by R. G. A. Buxton, 191–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Von Bothmer, D. 1962. “A Gold Libation Bowl.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21: 154–66.doi:10.2307/3257939.

Voyatzis, M. E. 1990. The Early Sanctuary of Athena Alea at Tegea and Other Archaic Sanctuaries inArcadia. Göteborg: P. Åströms.

Waldstein, C., G. H. Chase, H. Fletcher de Cou, T. W. Heermance, J. C. Hoppin, A. M. Lythgoe,R. Norton, et al. 1905. The Argive Heraeum II. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Signe Barfoed has a BA in Classical Archaeology from Copenhagen, and an MA in Classicsfrom the University of Cincinnati. She has worked at archaeological projects in Greece, Italy,Turkey, Ukraine, Denmark and Spain. She has been part of the Danish Institute at Athens’project in Kalydon since 2011, and since 2013 she has been in charge of the finds registration.Her main research interests are centred around religious behaviour, but also trade, colonizationand production based on pottery analyses are of her interest. She is currently working on herPhD thesis with the working title: ‘Miniaturization and Materiality: The Ritual Significance ofMiniature Pottery Votives in Ancient Greek Sanctuaries’. The main question of this dissertationis: what role did miniaturization play in the sanctuaries and the rituals in ancient Greek society?The argument will be constructed around the issue of whether miniature objects were believedto have distinct material qualities. They were too small to be functional: would that have madethem more appropriate for the realms outside everyday human life, such as sanctuaries, that isthe realm of the immortal gods?

188 Signe Barfoed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [S

igne

Bar

foed

] at 0

2:20

30

Mar

ch 2

015