Esse Quam Videri: A Reconsideration of the Kythnos Hoard of Early Cycladic Tools

Abstract

Since the time of its registration in the British Museum's collections in 1866, the so-called Kythnos of Early tools, first fully published in AJA 71 (1967), has been thought to consist of 10 items. Documentary evidence suggests, however, that only pieces originally came to the Museum in 1864. Scientific examination confirms that two of the 10 objects are unlikely to belong. While these two pieces are now without associations, the remaining can be shown to have been part of a larger hoard, consisting of 12 objects, four of which are now in the National Museum, Copenhagen. This newly reconstructed hoard was not Kythnos, but the island of Naxos. In 1866 A.W. Franks, Keeper of the Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography at the British Museum, reported to the Trustees the acquisition of ten the island of Thermia, the ancient Cythnus.' These objects, now known as the Kythnos Hoard, were transferred to the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities in 1969, since they had been recognized as being of Early manufacture, and were first fully published as such by Colin Renfrew in the 1967 volume of this Journal.2 The Hoard was first registered by Franks 2 February 1866, when all 10 objects were described as Purchased from C. Merlin Esq. and found in the Isle of Thermia, the ancient Kythnos.3 However, a marginal note in the Register, added by Franks at a later date, reads: Prof. Rhousopoulos says that together with others in a cave at a considerable distance from the town of Naxos. Others of the find are at Copenhagen.4 Franks makes no reference to the fact that this information contradicts the original entry, which became the orthodox version, and has generally been accepted without question. However, the pedigree of the additional information seems to be as good as that of the original entry, and, indeed, had it stood alone, it would not have seemed unlikely. Since it casts doubt both the association of the 10 objects as a hoard and their Kythnian provenance, it seems worthwhile to consider further the information contained in the note and to evaluate its significance. THE ACQUISITION OF THE KYTHNOS HOARD Some further light the acquisition of the Hoard comes from letters between Charles Merlin and Charles Newton (Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities between 1861 and 1886), which are preserved in the Greek and Roman Department. At the time of the correspondence Merlin was British Consul in Athens, where his duties seem to have left him plenty of time for a lively sideline in dealing in antiquities. He sold a number of objects to the British Museum over several years, and therefore corresponded regularly with Newton. The Kythnos appears in this correspondence for the first time in a letter from Merlin in Athens dated 15 August 1864. He describes a group of antiquities which he has sent to Newton for consideration as potential purchases, and goes have added a collection of and which I only acquired recently, a note of which I send separately. Later in the same letter he quotes prices for his antiquities, and includes axe heads as per separate note-?30. The note to which he refers is, unfortunately, missing. Newton's reply, dated 31 October 1864, includes * I would like to thank Soren Dietz of the National Museum, Copenhagen, for promptly and kindly sending me information essential to this article. I would also like to thank K. Branigan, B.F. Cook, P. Craddock, N. Gale, S. La Niece, C. Renfrew, and J. Swaddling for their help and encouragement. I dedicate this article to my friend Donald Bailey. 'Trustees Parliamentary Reports 1866. See also A.W. Franks, Communication, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 3 (1867) 436 and fig. p. 437. 2 C. Renfrew, Cycladic Metallurgy and the Aegean Early Bronze Age, AJA 71 (1967) 1-20. Infra p. 36 for a concordance of Renfrew's catalogue numbers with the British Museum Register numbers. 3 The current Register numbers of the Hoard are GR 1969.12-31.1 to 10. These replace the original British and Mediaeval Register numbers (B&M 1866.2-7.1 to 10), which were used until 1969. 4 Franks's nos. 1-8 = GR 1969.12-31.1 to 8. I would like to thank Virginia Smithson, of the Department of Mediaeval and Later Antiquities, British Museum, for her help in identifying Franks's handwriting. 31 American Journal of Archaeology 93 (1989) This content downloaded from 207.46.13.86 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 04:32:53 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 32 J. LESLEY FITTON [AJA 93 the following: With regard to the separate lot of bronzes for which you ask ?30, Mr. Birch is prepared to purchase them at once, but will not give more than ?16, which at the rate of for each implement he considers a fair price.5 The importance of this extract lies in the fact that clearly only had arrived in the Museum at this time. Merlin is anxious to increase the price. On 11 November 1864 he writes: observe that Mr. Birch offers ?16 for the I have not the slightest doubt that this is what he considers their full value, but as I paid Drs 600 = ?21.10s for the lot and have incurred above 30% expense getting them home I hope he will not object to giving me ?20 for them which I do not think will be robbing the National Collection-I shall then be minus ?3 in pocket, and plus that sum in expense. The phrase eight etc. is shorthand for bronze and implements, as in Merlin's first letter, and does not imply more than objects. This is confirmed in later letters from Merlin, since the whole collection of antiquities which he had sent was not purchased immediately, but remained in the Museum on approval. On 21 July 1865, Merlin lists again the objects, with their prices, which he hopes the Museum will buy, and says ... to which must be added the for which Mr. Birch offered me ?16. Again, in a similar letter of 31 August 1865, 8 axes are listed. It is not until 30 January 1866 that Newton writes to Merlin informing him that the Trustees have approved the purchase of the axes, along with an archaic aryballos, the agreed price of which was ?40. Merlin replies 10 February 1866: have to thank you for your lines of the 30th January informing me that the Trustees had purchased the Archaic aryballos and the Bronze and authorising me to draw a Bill for ?56 in account of the same. Merlin therefore was eventually paid ?16 for the small collection of and implements which he had sent from Athens in August 1864, and which had languished in the Museum for 18 months awaiting a decision. The sum was reckoned at a rate of ?2 per implement, and the assumption therefore must be that he was paid for pieces. At no stage during the protracted negotiations does he mention any number other than eight, nor is there any evidence that he sent two additional bronzes to London during this time.' How, then, are we to account for the fact that when the pieces were registe ed there were 10 of them, all firmly attributed to Merlin and to Kythnos? I have been unable to discover any further documentation that throws light this question. All that can be said is that the opportunity for confusion certainly existed. As soon as Newton received the objects in 1864 he passed them to Samuel Birch, Keeper of the Department of Oriental, British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography, and it was Birch's Department that, 18 months later, officially acquired them. In the meantime, Birch himself had no doubt given the pieces into the care of his Assistant Keeper, A.W. Franks. Franks became Keeper of the newly formed Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography in March 1866, just a month after the official acquisition of the bronzes, and it was to his Department that they thenceforward belonged.7 It is clear, then, that while Newton continued the negotiations for the bronzes, along with the rest of Merlin's collection, the pieces themselves were not under his eye. He was continually reminded by Merlin of the axes, but Birch and Franks were not, and it seems at least possible that two additional pieces could accidentally have been added to the original group during this time without their noticing the discrepancy. Franks later received information which partly corrected this error. He added this to the Register in the form of the marginal note, though by this time (as we shall see, some seven years later) he may not himself have been sure which was correct. In any case, his note could not stand up against the weight of the already published information.8 The orthodox version had been formed. THE MARGINAL NOTE: RHOUSOPOULOS, NAXOS AND