• Former Inventory Number in the Mykonos Museum: Laumonier (1956: 261) notes that this object was formerly no. 46 in the museum’s inventory.
Previous Publications: Deonna (1938: 357); Laumonier (1956: 261, pl. 91, no. 1212); Chryssoulaki (1989: 151, no. 80); Hatzidakis (2003: 287, 435 n. 510, fig. 510, 2004a: 388, pl. 1718, no. 107 .X); Barrett (in press) .
Height: 159.7 mm
Iconographic type: Ithyphallic Harpocrates with aged features, hunchback, lotus buds, and ovoid jar; rides own phallus like an animal (Chapters 4 3 2, 4 4 1, 4 6 2, 4.7.1) . The combination of multiple divine features on a single deity recalls the genre of “henotheistic” or “pantheistic” images of Bes (Chapter 4.6.1.1)
Archaeological Context: Private grave in Rheneia necropolis (Chapters 4.3.2, 5.8) . This grave may have contained a number of other figurines, possibly including MM 149, but the extant records are inconclusive on this point (Chapter 5.8) .
Fabric Type: Nile silt with possible straw or chaff temper (Chapter 2.5 . 4; compare Chapter 2 3 3)
Manufacturing Techniques:
• Type of temper used (Chapter 3.4.1): Possible straw or chaff temper (Table 9; cf. Barrett 2009a: 183-184, and in preparation [a])
• Number of molds used (Chapter 3.4.2): Double-molded
• Condition of mold: Fairly good
• Solid or hollow: Hollow
• Presence of vents (Chapter 3.4.3)? Small round vent in center of back side. Pinhole-size round hole in head of phallus would also have helped to vent figurine during firing. Additionally, the bottom of figurine’s base is open.
• Presence of separate base? Roughly rectangular base with flat sides and an open bottom
• Presence of visible fingerprints? No prints per se, but numerous marks from finger smoothing
• Evidence of reworking (Chapter 3.4.3)? Use of fingers, and possibly also fine cloth, to smooth the figurine’s surface; the resulting marks are mainly visible on the front of the base and on the back side of the figurine. Some retooling. Cutting of vent into figurine’s back.
• Handmade applique elements present (Chapter 3.4.2)? Lotus buds; possibly also the rosette pattern on round disc
• Method of attachment of head, limbs, etc. (Chapter 3.4.2): Head and limbs appear to come from the same double mold as body
• Evidence of “bubbles” created by plaster mold (Chapter 3.4.2)? No
• Appearance of back of figurine: Convex; unmodeled or very roughly modeled
• Presence of preserved slip, self-slip, and/or limewash (Chapters 3.4.4, 3.4.5)? Minimal traces of limewash
• Presence of preserved paint (Chapter 3.4.5)? No
• Evidence for repair: No evidence for repair in antiquity, but this figurine has seen extensive modern repair. Modern restorers used plaster and glue to reassemble the figurine from a number of separate fragments.
Photograph: Figs F11, D49
No line drawing available.
World History
