Euboea and Athens

Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace

Athens 26-27 June 2009

2011

Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece Publications de l’Institut canadien en Grèce

No. 6

© The Canadian Institute in Greece /

L’Institut canadien en Grèce 2011

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Euboea and Athens Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace (2009 : Athens, Greece) Euboea and Athens : proceedings

of a colloquium in memory of Malcolm B. Wallace : Athens 26-27 June 2009 / David W. Rupp and Jonathan E. Tomlinson, editors.

(Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece = Publications de l'Institut canadien en Grèce ; no. 6)

Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-9737979-1-6

1. Euboea Island (Greece)--Antiquities. 2. Euboea Island (Greece)--Civilization. 3. Euboea Island (Greece)--History.

4. Athens (Greece)--Antiquities. 5. Athens (Greece)--Civilization. 6. Athens (Greece)--History. I. Wallace, Malcolm B. (Malcolm Barton),

1942-2008 II. Rupp, David W. (David William), 1944- III. Tomlinson, Jonathan E. (Jonathan Edward), 1967- IV. Canadian Institute in

Greece V. Title. VI. Series: Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece ; no. 6.

DF261.E9E93 2011 938 C2011-903495-6

The Canadian Institute in Greece Dionysiou Aiginitou 7

GR-115 28 Athens, Greece

www.cig-icg.gr

189

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

Wrestling with the Evidence: Decorative Cohesion and the House of the Mosaics at Eretria*

The site of Eretria has yielded several examples of houses from the late Classical period, including several large structures originally labelled as palaces by the excavators. Renewed excavations in recent years, along with reinterpretations of these structures, have led to more moderate conclusions. Unlike other roughly contemporary domestic remains, the fine state of preservation of the material at Eretria allows for a more in-depth examination of singular examples of domestic space, decoration and sculpture. In total, the remains of seven domestic structures have been uncovered in two separate excavation areas. The eastern excavation area has produced one complete house, the House of the Mosaics, along with parts of two other houses. Some 300 m to the west, a larger grouping of five structures was found that have been designated Houses I, II and IV and Buildings III and V. Of all these houses, the earliest and justly most famous is the House of the Mosaics, which provides an unparalleled opportunity to examine the living and decorative conditions of an early and wealthy Greek home. Archaeological Background

Built sometime in the early 4th century B.C., the House of the Mosaics was destroyed approximately 100 years later by fire, thus preserving many of its architectural and material elements.1 The * I wish to thank Sylvian Fachard for his help in obtaining the necessary research permits at Eretria, as well as for his comments and generally convivial nature. For bibliographic help and input on various issues I thank Barbara Tsakirgis,

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

190

building covers approximately 625 m2 in area and likely had only one story. In plan (Fig. 1), the house represents a large and wealthy residence, with numerous rooms placed off of two large courtyards. The house was entered from the south, passing through a corridor that led to the western peristyle courtyard (a–c). On the evidence of its numerous andrones, which place an emphasis on dining and entertaining, this western section of the house seems to have been more public than the eastern section. Rooms 9 and 7 may confidently be identified as andrones based on the raised benches for dining couches that were uncovered. Room 9 had enough space for nine couches, while the larger Room 7 could hold eleven couches.2 Room 5 appears to have been a smaller andron with enough space for three couches, while Room 4 may have served as a cloakroom for the guests that frequented the home. The rest of the rooms in this western section were likely storage areas, though the function of Room 2 remains uncertain.3

The eastern section of the home was likely the more private area of the house. The ruinous state of the dividing wall between the two sections makes the identification of a doorway difficult, so it is uncertain how this area was entered. The central courtyard (13) is again flanked by various rooms, with Rooms 10, 11 and 12

Peter Schultz, and Lea Stirling. Since this paper is a re-working of part of my dissertation, I want to thank the members of my committee – Mark Fullerton, Tim McNiven, and Steve Tracy – for their observations throughout. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2005 AIA Annual Meeting in Boston; I greatly appreciate the constructive comments of the participants and audience there, as also the remarks of attendees at the Euboea and Athens conference and of the anonymous referee. All errors remain my sole responsibility. 1 See Eretria VIII for the publication of the House of the Mosaics, especially the general discussion of the house (pp. 31–51); no re-occupation seems to have occurred after the house’s destruction, though a Hellenistic-period tomb was cut into one room (pp. 159–170). 2 The interpretation of these rooms: Eretria VIII, p. 47. 3 Room 5: Eretria VIII, pp. 45–46. Room 4 as a cloakroom, based on the presence of a marble table and an emplacement for an amphora in the room that suggests public use, though not as an andron: Eretria VIII, p. 44. Nevett (1999, p. 111) suggests that this also may have been an area for guests to relieve themselves using a chamber pot, as there are no other obvious facilities in the home and the well head in Room 3 could have provided a ready water supply.

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

191

understood as living quarters.4 Because much of the stone in the southern section was robbed, interpretation remains tentative, though the courtyard has been surmised to be a garden, given the limited evidence for extensive paving in the area.5 The presence of a watertight mosaic floor in Room 16, along with a channel that may have led water to the street outside, suggests that the room may have been a bathroom, but the interpretation of Room 14 as a kitchen complex by analogy is difficult in light of the limited evidence.6 It is probable that such activities took place in this section of the house, but precisely where remains an open question.7

More remarkable than the architecture and spatial layout of the House of the Mosaics, however, is the quantity of decoration that has survived, so much that the excavators describe it as “exceptionnellement luxueux et particulièrement bien conserves.”8 Almost all of the surviving decoration comes from the western portion of the house.9 While this western area is in general more public, the decoration is concentrated in its most public rooms, namely Rooms 5, 7, 8 and 9 – the andrones. The most noteworthy aspect is the famed mosaics for which the house is named; Room 9 contains the most elaborate of them, a floor embellished with a central star motif surrounded by a figural band of Arimaspians fighting griffins and lions attacking horses. This in

4 Eretria VIII, p. 47. Reber (1988, p. 664) interprets these rooms as the house’s living area. Room 10 may have served the general function of a pastas, though this is uncertain: Krause 1977, p. 167. 5 Ducrey (1991, p. 27) used the term “garden,” though Eretria VIII, p. 47, refers to a court simply augmented by “quelques plantations.” 6 E.g., no evidence exists for a hearth or a flue, and the finds remain inconclusive: Eretria VIII, p. 48. The parallels cited from the western domestic area at Eretria are also questionable, as room B in House 1B is interpreted by the excavation team as a storeroom/pantry off room U, the “actual kitchen” (Eretria X, pp. 56–57), while room A in House II is one of a series of rooms constituting a kitchen complex with diagnostic finds such as a stone fireplace (Eretria X, pp. 101–102). 7 A well in the courtyard attests to a separate water supply: Nevett 1999, p. 111. 8 Eretria VIII, p. 31. 9 Unadorned mosaic pavements covered the floors of four of the six rooms in the eastern section, while traces of painted wall plaster were uncovered in Rooms 11 and 12: Eretria VIII, pp. 36–38.

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

192

turn was surrounded by an outer band containing a meander pattern (Fig. 2). Just past the threshold of Room 9 is another mosaic that depicts a Nereid riding a hippocamp (Fig. 3), while Room 8, the andron’s antechamber, contains a rectangular mosaic portraying sphinxes and panthers surrounded by garlanded palmettes but with no other significant finds.10 Room 7, the largest andron, contained a floor mosaic as well, though the later Hellenistic tomb cut through its center makes it impossible to tell whether it was figural or not.11 Numerous small finds were uncovered in this room, however, that clearly attest to the decorative wealth once on display. Though the most abundant finds were small terracotta figurines, several unique terracotta appliqués were also uncovered, including a Gorgoneion, the heads of a satyr and a silen, a snake, and two rosettes.12 Lastly, Room 5, the smallest of the andrones, contained another small figural mosaic depicting two panels separated by a guilloche band (Fig. 4). One panel contains an eight- petaled rosette surrounded by palmettes, the other a Gorgoneion surrounded by six large flowers, with a band of ivy leaves framing the whole.13

Just beyond Room 5 was uncovered the one piece of domestic sculpture from the House of the Mosaics (Fig. 5). Often overlooked in discussions concerning this house’s decoration, the plinth for the statue and other elements of the sculpture were discovered in situ in the courtyard right outside Room 4. The statue itself stands 0.72 m tall, the base 0.06 m. The preserved elements include the lower legs and feet, plus a drapery-covered pillar that supports the left elbow.14 The style of the sculpture is typical of the late 4th

10 For these mosaics, see Eretria VIII, pp. 86–96; Dunbabin 1999, pp. 8–10. 11 The Hellenistic tomb: Eretria VIII, pp. 159–170. 12 Terracotta small finds: Eretria VIII, pp. 118–124, nos. 89–105. Based on parallel finds from the small sanctuary to Demeter, the excavators suggest that many of the terracotta statuettes may somehow have been associated with the Thesmophoria celebrated at Eretria (Eretria VIII, p. 124). The Eretrian Thesmophoria and Demeter sanctuary statuettes: Metzger 1985, pp. 23–43, 69–93. 13 Room 5: Eretria VIII, p. 46 (no other finds of significance in the room), pp. 85–86 (the mosaic). 14 Eretria Museum, M644; Metzger 1979, no. 9; Harward 1982, p. 195, cat. no. 83; Eretria VIII, pp. 44–45, no. 106, Abb. 201. The base was found in situ, with pieces of

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

193

century; the excavators noted its form’s cursory resemblance to the Hermes with baby Dionysos from Olympia, though the placement of the feet more closely parallels that of the so-called Sisyphos I from the Daochos Monument at Delphi, suggestive of a date in the last quarter of the 4th century.15 The piece more than likely represented a nude youth, possibly an ephebe.16 Domestic Decoration

The mosaics, the statue of the nude youth, and the other decorative material found provide us with a unique opportunity to examine the House of the Mosaics in its totality – to analyze the decorative material cohesively in its spatial context, to uncover its themes, and to view the whole in an integrated and holistic manner. What is perhaps most noteworthy is how well the various elements of decoration play off of one another thematically and visually within the house. While Ducrey saw little cohesion among the themes of the decorative material, suggesting that they were part of the general decorative vocabulary of the late Classical period, Metzger saw an overall Dionysian theme in the material that revolves around male transitions.17 A better interpretation would see a general agonistic theme unifying the subject matter of the mosaics and appliqués, though apotropaic qualities cannot be ruled out. The mosaic representing the battle with the Arimaspians, the several gorgoneia, and the monsters in mosaic and terracotta all evoke the realm of the heroic, including the

the statue found beside it in the courtyard and in Room 3. The statue itself remains incompletely published. 15 Metzger 1979, p. 17; Eretria VIII, p. 124. Harward (1982, p. 35) noted the similarity to Sisyphos I. Auberson and Schefold (1972, p. 171, n. 168) compared this piece to a male torso uncovered at Eretria dated to 330 B.C., which would generally be in line with the Daochos Monument. 16 Metzger (1979, p. 17) suggested that it is an ephebe. The drapery, if it represents a chlamys, is perhaps indicative, but not all nude males were ephebes. 17 Eretria VIII, p. 179; Metzger 1980, pp. 45–47. Salzmann (1982, pp. 47–52) discusses the mosaics more generally, in the context of the larger corpus of Dionysiac-themed material.

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

194

battles and contests it took to overcome them. Broadly agonistic themes and associations with male heroics would suit the overall nature of symposia, the activity most often associated with the andron, the type of room in or near which this material was uncovered. Such a general agonistic theme in the decorative scheme is also supported by specific elements of the house.

Several Panathenaic amphorae, most notably with scenes of wrestling, that date to the time of the house’s occupation were uncovered both in the peristyle court and immediately to the south of the house.18 This has prompted the suggestion that one of the home’s owners may have been a champion wrestler, which would explain the agonistic nature of the home’s decoration.19 These amphorae, perhaps even on display in the home, would fit well into the agonistic subject matter of the rest of the house’s decoration and may suggest why a youth/ephebe was chosen as the subject of the sculpture, given its associations with the gymnasium. Indeed, the House of the Mosaics was situated near the Stadium and Upper Gymnasium as well as on the main road that led down to the Lower Gymnasium. What is particularly interesting is the possibility that the statue may be a “familial” monument, given the chronology of the decoration. The Panathenaic amphorae date to the late 360s B.C., while the mosaics have been dated to either 360 or 350–340 B.C., suggesting that the same individual may have won the amphorae and commissioned

18 Eretria VIII, nos. 36–39. The name of the archon ΧΑΡΙΚΛΕΙ∆ΗΣ appears on two of the four vases from the House of the Mosaics, dating them to 363/2 B.C. Fragments of Panathenaic vases attributed to the year of the archon ΚΑΛΛΙΜΗ∆ΕΣ (360/359 B.C.) were also uncovered: Eretria VIII, p. 105. Nine other Panathenaic amphorae were excavated in a pit along the processional way, just south of the House of the Mosaics. The depositional context is such that they may have belonged to the House of the Mosaics: Eretria VIII, p. 105, n. 25. Three each of these vases have the inscriptions of ΧΑΡΙΚΛΕΙ∆ΗΣ and ΚΑΛΛΙΜΗ∆ΗΣ. These amphorae: Themelis 1969, pp. 409–416, and 1974, pp. 34–46. One of the vases (cat. no. 39) from the House of the Mosaics has a representation of wrestlers on one side, while two of the vases from the pit also have representations of wrestlers. Possible secondary use of such material and these amphorae in general: Valavanis 1991; Bentz 1998. 19 I thank Kevin Glowacki for this suggestion.

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

195

the mosaics.20 The statue seems some 20 to 30 years later and so could have been commissioned by the same individual at a later date, or perhaps by a younger relative. Given the similarities between this statue and the Daochos monument, for the piece to be a commemoration of “ancestral” glory would be intriguing, a sign that themes and intentions found in public monuments could also be found in domestic contexts.

In addition to thematic links within the material, there may have been a concerted effort to link the material visually. Any decorative elements displayed in the courtyard would have been most visible to people in the rooms radiating off the courtyard. Given the statue’s findspot, it is noteworthy that individuals in parts of anteroom 8 and andron 7 would actually have had an unobstructed view of the statue (Figs. 6 and 7). The wall that divided Room 9 from its antechamber (Room 8) was replaced by a partial wall capped by two columns and a doorway open to the antechamber and beyond. This arrangement partially opened up the southern area of the andron, thus enabling a clear view of the anteroom and its mosaic and providing a strong architectural link with antechamber 8, which had wider angles of sight for diners looking out into the courtyard.21 Similar care with regard to sightlines and viewing is also observable in Room 7, where a window with a richly carved and fluted Ionic stone mullion was placed in the southern wall facing into the peristyle court.22 This arrangement, much like the columns in Room 9, would have maximized viewing potential and allowed those seated in the andron a fuller view onto the courtyard. The sight lines for diners reclining on the eastern couches of the rooms would have run

20 Eretria VIII proposes the earlier date for the mosaics; Salzmann 1982 supports the later. 21 Reber 2007, pp. 282–284. Originally, Reber reconstructed the division between andron and antechamber as separated solely by two Doric columns flanking the doorway between the two rooms, which would have dramatically opened the vistas into the courtyard. His current reconstruction limits the sightlines from andron 9, but not from the anteroom as guests entered or left the dining room, or possibly even for the diner occupying the room’s south-easternmost couch. See Eretria VIII, pp. 58–61, esp. p. 60, fig. 65 (reconstruction); Eretria X, p. 100, fig. 159. 22 Eretria VIII, pp. 47, 61–63 (reconstruction p. 62, fig. 69).

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

196

between the columns of the courtyard. Likewise, the statue would have been visible to individuals entering the house and entering andron 5. Thus, the sculpture of the nude youth could have acted as a foil to the mosaic decoration at the diners’ feet.23

Overall, this type of concentrated decorative effect, traditionally viewed as a trait found among the finer homes, villas, and estates of Romans of the late Republic and Empire, represents something rather atypical for a Classical-period home.24 Private or Communal Residence?

Given the amount and the cost of the decoration present in the house, the proposed theme of male competition and heroics, and the rather unusual spatial arrangements, it can reasonably be asked whether in fact this is a house at all, or perhaps something more akin to a lesche. Here, the lesche would be a “clubhouse” for wrestlers or simply for those interested in athletic pursuits. The location of the House of the Mosaics – away from the main residential district, close to the city’s stadium and on two main roads – suggests that an effort was made to situate the house in an

23 This may be a smaller-scale reflection, mimicked in private architecture, of what Pollitt and other scholars have identified as a “theatrical mentality” in Hellenistic public architecture. The opening up of the interior wall to the anteroom, with its concomitant emphasis on sight lines and viewing, does seem to reflect “an increased interest in the manipulation of interior space for emotional effects” (Pollitt 1986, pp. 230–242, at 230). 24 With its collection of domestic sculpture, the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum demonstrates par excellence just such a degree of decorative cohesion and sophistication. That ensemble not only constitutes the largest grouping of domestic sculptures from antiquity, but has traditionally been viewed as a cohesive display unit reflecting the civic and intellectual values of the Roman élite at the end of the Republican period. Individual pieces of learned allusion, complex display contexts, and doublets for comparison all show a concern for concerted decorative effect in the home: Pandermalis 1971; Sauron 1980; Wojcik 1986; Neudecker 1988, pp. 105–114; Conticello 1989; Bartman 1991; Mattusch 2005. While the Villa dei Papyri represents an advanced version, the House of the Mosaics material is an early example, showing that such ideas were familiar to Greeks as far back as the 4th century.

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

197

area of maximum traffic. Similarly, the number of andrones in the house emphasizes large-scale dining, something to be expected in the communal and public environment of a lesche. While this is a possibility, the House of the Mosaics seems in fact to have been a private home of the double courtyard type rather than a more communal building.25 This is strengthened by the fact that other homes at Eretria follow a similar pattern.

Located in the western residential section of the site, House II also presents a double courtyard plan, though it is particularly large, covering an area of over 1000 m2, and contains many rooms in a complex arrangement. The excavators note two separate construction phases, dating to the beginning of the 4th century and the beginning of the 3rd century respectively.26 Most notable of the house’s rooms is the complex of Rooms i, m, e, and g/f. Room i is a forecourt for this complex, which is interpreted as a large dining area with three separate andrones. Room g possesses an anteroom f, in an arrangement that mirrors that of Rooms 9 and 8 from the House of the Mosaics.27 The floor of both rooms is covered with a non-figural, multicoloured pebble mosaic and no threshold divides the two. Thus, a seven-couch andron is reconstructed in a manner similar to that in the House of the Mosaics, with a similar emphasis on open views through Room g into Room i. Likewise, based on architectural form and parallels in

25 The articulation of domestic space represented by the double-courtyard type closely parallels Vitruvius’ description of a “typical” Greek house (Vitr. De arch. 7). The excavator of the 4th century double courtyard house at Maroneia in Thrace thus interpreted the two primary areas as an andronitis and a gunaikonitis: Karadedos 1990, p. 279. Not all of the house survives, however, and such a spatial arrangement would have made supervising work within the house more difficult. Notwithstanding Vitruvius’ “typical” Greek house, Nevett (1999, p. 108) has pointed out that the arrangement of the Maroneia house is in fact atypical. Eretria X, pp. 166–169, offers a “Vitruvian” reading of the three houses at Eretria with double courtyards. This type of gendered reading remains generally problematic, as no architectural evidence survives to support such a division: Nevett 1994, 1995. 26 Eretria X, pp. 111–112. 27 The profiles of the column capitals found in this complex also match those found in Rooms 8–9 of the House of the Mosaics: Eretria X, pp. 98–99.

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

198

the House of the Mosaics, Room e is interpreted as an eleven-couch andron and Room m as a small three-couch andron.28

House IV, with its two separate building phases, illustrates similar spatial divisions found in Eretrian houses. In Phase 1, the unit was originally two separate houses, one to the east and one to the west. The eastern house was constructed first, sometime in the early 4th century, while the western house was begun a little later. In Phase 2 (with three subsections), the western house annexed its neighbour, thereby creating one unit with two courtyards, though the structure seems to have maintained a functional division based on the separate original structures, with the eastern section for manufacturing and the western for living. This second construction phase dates from the late 4th/early 3rd centuries, with further work done in 268/7 B.C. and at the end of the 3rd century. The house was destroyed in the Roman sack of Eretria in 198 B.C.29 Like the other houses at Eretria, the “domestic” section of House IV highlighted public entertaining. Though the remains are poor, during the first construction phase the building had one securely identified andron, Room 2, located off of the open area that became Courtyard 10, while Rooms 3 and 4 are possible andrones based on the off-center door in Room 3 and their size and shape, comparable to Room 7 in the House of the Mosaics.30 Room

28 Besides brickwork, nails, and other small finds, a decorative bronze instrument with an animal head in relief was found in Room e, as well as fragments of two “skylight” tiles, suggesting the need for lighting in a room that was not directly off the peristyle court: Eretria X, p. 98. The parallel for Room m is the small andron (Room 5) in the House of the Mosaics. The assemblage of finds from Room m is typical, though the presence of loom weights suggests that some craft activity may have taken place here at some point, and fragments from a “skylight” tile were also found: Eretria X, p. 99, 126 (skylight tiles); Wikander 1983. 29 House IV generally: Eretria X, pp. 67–93, esp. 72–73 and 87–89 (dating of the building phases). 30 Room 2 has space for seven couches and a non-figural mosaic floor, while Room 3 can hold eleven. Finds from Room 3 are inconclusive, though fragments of two large pithoi suggest that the room could have been used for storage at least in the latest phase. Should Room 3 be an andron, the cuttings for the two doorways in its northern wall would be odd. Although both Rooms 3 and 4 have separate entrances onto the open area, they do seem to have some connection with each other in the first construction phase. Given the poor evidence, Reber suggested

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

199

2 had a non-figural mosaic floor. This complex emphasizes the importance placed on public entertaining by the Eretrians. Unless several of the houses excavated in two separate areas of the site turn out to be leschai, then it would seem that the Eretrians simply regarded public entertaining as particularly important. Each of these houses has multiple andrones, indicating that the city’s wealthier citizens would have a choice of small, medium, and large dining rooms depending on how many guests they were entertaining on any given occasion. The reasons were manifold, but may reflect a changing political and personal climate when individual wealth was meant to be displayed in the size of a man’s home, its decoration, and in the sharing of its hospitality among as many as possible. Conclusion

The House of the Mosaics at Eretria provides a stunning example of what a complete house from the Hellenistic period would have looked like. The material suggests that there was thematic cohesion among the various decorative elements of the home, including the sculpture of a naked youth. The piece was found in situ outside of one of the house’s andrones, allowing for examination of the appropriate sight lines. The statue would have been visible from the entrance of the house and the doorways of the other two andrones, a sign of the importance of the sculpture’s display for the homeowner. The House of the Mosaics was occupied in the early 4th century, which suggests that lavishly decorating one’s home may have been a 4th-century phenomenon among the élite generally, a theory that corresponds with the overall chronology of the literary sources.31 Such an emphasis on

(Eretria X, p. 67–69, at 69), “Da beide Räume von den Form und von der Grösse her als Andrones zu interpretieren sind, haben wir hier einen erweiterten Repräsentationstrakt vor uns, der für Symposia und Versammlungen von grösseren Gruppen benutzt werden konnte.” See also Schefold 1974, p. 72. 31 See Hardiman 2005, pp. 18–41. This analysis owes much to the methodology of Kreeb (1988), who presented similar findings for the Hellenistic houses on Delos.

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

200

display and increasing decoration may follow a trend from the 4th century onward and represent an early manifestation of the private appropriation of public forms for domestic use.32 The display in the House of the Mosaics, however, seems to have a conscious thematic program revolving around certain agonistic concepts, with special reference to wrestling implied by the Panathenaic amphorae.33 These amphorae illustrate the pride winners took in their victories in athletic competition, as they dedicated material not only in the great athletic sanctuaries for all to see, but also in their own homes to be viewed by invited guests. This sphere of reference, then, together with the building’s central location near the Stadium and Upper Gymnasium and on the main road that led down to the Lower Gymnasium, suggests that the house may have been owned by an ex-wrestler who often entertained people of similar interests. If this is so, then we can imagine a retired champion wrestler, hulking about in his home, getting ready for an evening’s entertainment and ready to regale his audience with tales of the athletic competitions and heroic battles of his glorious past. That we can even picture this scene demonstrates the enduring importance of the House of the Mosaics, offering a human dimension that brings these amazing finds to life.

32 The general thesis of Walter-Karydi (1994), who examined several examples of domestic architecture including the House of the Mosaics. It may also strengthen the argument that the statue of the youth evokes the Daochos monument, suggesting that allusions could be made to specific public monuments and meanings. 33 The total number of amphorae uncovered should not be considered excessive, given that a first-place finish in wrestling at this time would net 60 amphorae, a second-place 12. As well, the names of several multiple athletic victors and athletic families have survived, suggesting that it is quite possible that the homeowner won all of the amphorae. See Shear 2001, pp. 403–404.

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

201

Figure 1. Plan, House of the Mosaics. After Eretria VIII, p. 32, fig. 25 © Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

202

Figure 2. Arimaspian Mosaic from Room 9, House of the Mosaics. Photo courtesy Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

203

Figu

re 3

. Ner

eid

Mos

aic

from

Roo

m 9

, Hou

se o

f the

Mos

aics

. Pho

to c

ourt

esy

Swis

s Sch

ool o

f Arc

haeo

logy

in G

reec

e

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

204

Figure 4. Gorgon Mosaic from Room 5, House of the Mosaics. Photo courtesy Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

205

Figure 5. Statue of a Youth. Eretria Museum, M644. H = 0.72m. Photo C. I. Hardiman

EUBOEA AND ATHENS

206

Figure 6. Plan, House of the Mosaics, indicating the sight lines toward the Statue of a Youth. After Eretria VIII, p. 32, fig. 25 © Swiss School of Archaeology in

Greece

CRAIG I. HARDIMAN

207

Figu

re 7

. Vie

w fr

om R

oom

8, H

ouse

of t

he M

osai

cs, t

owar

ds th

e lo

catio

n of

the

Stat

ue o

f a Y

outh

(illu

stra

ted

by D

r. S

ylvi

an F

acha

rd).

Phot

o C

. I. H

ardi

man