Dimensions

•  Height of A3732a (body): 65.2 mm

•  Distance from shoulder to hand on A3732b (arm): 63.7 mm

Iconographic type: Left arm (A3732b) and lower body (A3732a) of an “Oriental Aphrodite” figurine of the seated, nude type wearing crossed chains studded with round medallions. Two of those medallions are still visible on the left side of the figure’s stomach (A3732a) . Snake circlets are present on both the arm and the figure’s left thigh, and the arm also wears a plain bracelet at the wrist. Left arm is bent slightly at the elbow; fingers of the hand are closed.

Archaeological Context: Unknown (Chapter 5.10.1)

Fabric Typ e: Reddish “Cycladic” fabric, untempered, levigated; visible zoning at

Breaks (Chapter 2.5.3)

Manufacturing Techniques:

•  Type of temper used (Chapter 3.4.1): Untempered

•  Number of molds used (Chapter 3.4.2): Body and arm come from separate double molds

•  Condition of mold: Good, though slightly used

•  Solid or hollow: Arm is solid; body is hollow

•  Presence of vents (Chapter 3.4.3)? N/A for arm. Body is too fragmentary to answer this question, as its back side is largely missing.

•  Presence of separate base? No

•  Presence of visible fingerprints? No

•  Evidence of reworking (Chapter 3.4.3)? Piercing the shoulder of articulated arm for attachment to body

•  Handmade applique elements present (Chapter 3.4.2)? No

•  Method of attachment of head, limbs, etc. (Chapter 3.4.2): Articulated arm would have been attached to the body with some sort of rod or string. Too fragmentary to tell how head was attached

•  Evidence of “bubbles” created by plaster mold (Chapter 3.4.2)? No

•  Appearance of back of figurine:

•  Presence of preserved slip, self-slip, and/or limewash (Chapters 3.4.4, 3.4.5)? Limewash. A greenish-yellow discoloration, likely post-depositional, makes limewash’s color range from 5Y 8/2 5Y 8/1.

•  Presence of preserved paint (Chapter 3.4.5)? No. Laumonier (1956: 149) speaks of yellow paint on the arm and yellow-brown paint on the bracelet, but these traces are no longer visible; cf. Bourgeois 2007: 83-84 on some pigments’ tendency to decay rapidly after excavation.

•  Evidence for repair: No

Photograph: Fig. D32

Other: In order to confirm that A3732a and A3732b really belong together, it would be desirable to know more about the circumstances of their discovery These objects’ findspot is unknown, but the fact that they share the same museum number suggests that (1) they were found together, and (2) the initial excavator believed that they were part of the same figurine. Other evidence seems consistent with the interpretation of these fragments as part of the same figurine. They both belong to the same figurine type; their proportions suggest that they come from a figurine of the same size; and their stylistic qualities, and the condition of the mold from which they came, are highly similar Also very similar is the high degree of preservation of limewash on both pieces, as well as the unusual greenish discoloration of that limewash—testifying, at the very least, to closely comparable post-depositional environments. While it may not be possible to prove for certain that these pieces came from the same figurine, there is a strong likelihood that this was the case

Inventory Number in the Delos Museum: A3738 Previous Publications: Laumonier (1956: 147, pl. 43, no. 396)

Height: 63.7 mm

Iconographic type: “Oriental Aphrodite” head, wearing a multi-tiered crown incorporating a radiate crown, vegetal elements, and a figural relief depicting what appears to be an enthroned figure flanked by Erotes holding garlands (Chapter 4.2.2.2).

Archaeological Context: Unknown (Chapter 5.10.1)

Fabric Type: Reddish “Cycladic” fabric, untempered, levigated (Chapter 2.5.3)

Manufacturing Techniques:

•  Type of temper used (Chapter 3.4.1): Untempered

•  Number of molds used (Chapter 3.4.2): Single mold for head (though intact examples suggest that the body was probably double-molded)

•  Condition of mold: Worn

•  Solid or hollow: Solid (though intact examples suggest that the body was probably hollow)

•  Presence of vents (Chapter 3.4.3)? N/A

•  Presence of separate base? Too fragmentary to tell

•  Presence of visible fingerprints? No

•  Evidence of reworking (Chapter 3.4.3)? Some retooling; use of burin to remove excess limewash (Chapter 3 4 5 3)

•  Handmade applique elements present (Chapter 3.4.2)? Projecting blob of clay at back of head

•  Method of attachment of head, limbs, etc. (Chapter 3.4.2): Too fragmentary to be certain of how head would originally have been attached to body

•  Evidence of “bubbles” created by plaster mold (Chapter 3.4.2)? No

•  Appearance of back of figurine: Roughly molded

•  Presence of preserved slip, self-slip, and/or limewash (Chapters 3.4.4, 3.4.5)? Limewash

•  Presence of preserved paint (Chapter 3.4.5)? Pink traces (MICHEL color: 23

0-3) on the blossom shapes on topmost tier of crown. One speck of yellow (10YR 6/8), overlaid with a speck of gilding, on the tier of the crown that contains the figural reliefs. Dark red-brown (2.5YR 3/6) on hair.

•  Evidence for repair: No

Photograph: Fig. D18