Orientation

The obverse text of all ‘plaques’ faces right. The reverse text of three fragments (Tsountas 2-3, Mylonas 1) also faces right, whilst four reverse texts (Tsountas 1, 4, 6, Taylour 1) unmistakably face left. The remainder are indeterminate as preserved. Also, most fragments show the individual signs positioned higher on the obverse than the reverse, whilst

Am especially grateful to Eleni Palaiologou (widow of Dr. Kourachanes) of the 5th Ephoreia, for taking the time to discuss with me her late husband’s research.

11  All code references to hieroglyphic signs correspond to the sign list in Gardiner 1957, 438-548.

12  Note that the right border line of Tsountas 3 obverse and the flag on Tsountas 6 reverse are no longer visible, but could be seen shortly after the fragment was discovered; see Tsountas 1891: pl. 3.4 and Fimmen 1921:176 fig. 171, lower right and upper left. As for Tsountas 5, with no decoration visible on either face, either all the paint has worn off or it was never inscribed.

B)

I

I I

A)

|:|

C)

Fig. 3 Drawings of all plaques, with obverse shown at left and reverse at right. In order, top to bottom:

A)  From the area north-east of the Lion Gate: Mylonas 1 (MycM BE 13887+13888 = MM 1499+1498); Tsountas 1 (NMA 2566.1); Tsountas 2 (NMA 2566.5); Tsountas 3 (NMA 2566.2); Tsountas 4 (NMA 2566.4); Tsountas 5 (NMA 2566.3);

B)  From the ‘Cult Centre’ area: Taylour 1 (MycM BE 18340 = MM 1501); Taylour 2 (MycM BE 18532); Tsountas 6 (NMA 2718); c) General position uncertain, most likely north-east of Lion Gate: Tsountas 7 (NMA 12582)

Tsountas 4 and 6 have the obverse text lower instead, thus limiting options for compatibility even within text orientation. The ‘long’ Cline reconstruction (1990, 208 fig. 4) is impossible using the fragments we have, as is the Helck reconstruction (1979, 96 fig.) as illustrated, despite their generally accepted text reconstruction. Whilst it is possible that some indeterminate fragments might be associated with another on this criterion, they are rejected on other grounds.

Thickness

The ‘plaques’ range between 12.6 and 17.1 mm in thickness, and some simply cannot be associated with another on the basis of their incompatible thicknesses.606 This includes Taylour 1 and 2, previously linked

By Cline (1990, 206, pl. 3). Their thicknesses are too disparate to be the same ‘plaque.’ Taylour 1 is 15.1-17.1 mm thick and Taylour 2 is 13.3 mm thick. Large individual fragments are somewhat thicker at the centre than at the preserved edges, but the thinning is gradual and relatively even. Not all differences can be explained in this manner. Whilst glaze thickness, preservation and conservation also must be taken into account for this criterion, the 1.8 mm difference at the same location near the preserved edge, where glaze preservation is similar, still remains too great to associate Taylour 1 and 2.