The history of archaeological research on Keros

Keros first attracted archaeological interest in 1884, when Ulrich Koehler, without spec-
ifying the exact location, mentioneds the discovery of the quadrilateral grave that con-
tained the famous marble figurines of the flutist and harpist, now in the National
Archaeological Museum in Athens,s and two female figurines with folded arms.7 It is,
however, in the 1950s and early 1960s that this small isolated island became famous in
the archaeological community and international antiquities market after a series of ex-
tensive illicit excavations at Kavos, at the western tip of the island, revealed a great
concentration of EC marble and terracotta finds. As a result of this intensive looting a
great number of EC objects, primarily in marble, were illegally exported from Greece
and flooded the International antiquities market under the name of the "Keros Hoard."
In order to deal with this situation, Christos Doumas was appointed to supervise
systematic excavations at Kavos in September 1963.8 Surface survey and trial trench-
es in the looted area (figs. 1, 3) and to its north and south produced a great number of
fragments of Cycladic marble figurines and vases, of which some had incised decora-
tion, and painted pottery sherds primarily of the EC II period. According to the excava-
tion report the finds were scattered about on the surface, at varying depths inside the
fill between small stones and large boulders, and in rock crevices. Rare traces of de-
cayed bones were also noted. The large number of finds and their context of discovery
led the excavator to conclude that the site was a large EC cemetery that had been de-
stroyed by geological phenomena - such as earthquakes, landslides, or subsidence -
of uncertain date.9 The modern appearance of the site supports this hypothesis of
geological upheaval: huge boulders of relatively soft stone have separated from the
mountain and rolled down the slope or fallen into the sea.
2. MAP OF KEROS

KEROS
 3 MAP OF TllE CYClAO£S 10 Plasbl1ls
11. Leflces
I. Agia lrlni 12. Kamari
2. Keph/Jla 13. Panag:i
3. ChalancnanrKBstrl 14
4 Ftelia 15 OlyphD
5 Akrolwak, 16.Mtotr tNaxos)
6 Sa/,a(JO$ 17 Aplomata
7 Krasadcs 18. ApeltDntho$
8 Zoumbaria 19 T KnllldeS
Kea •• 9 leivadl 20 Ag,o, Ariergyroi
21 Aphena.'lca
22. K mpos Ma.ns
23.KllrvounolaU.:d
24. M,kn Vig/a
25 Kasttak/
26 l.ouros
27 Phyrroges
28.Roon
29 Spedos
30. Kopsa/a
31 t<apros
32. Mandres too Roussou
33 Dokatn smata
34 Skarl<os
35. Trlp,t1
36 PhylaJ<tJpJ
37. Ph,,a
38 Al<rotirl (Tllenl)
Naxos
Paros
•
1 0
17
•
.,6
Donouss

•• •
6 e11
Antiparos 12 13
8 7
Despot1kon • •
• • 14

9
• 15
•
29 Ano • Kato Kouphornssa

Schoinoussa

32-•3j
Heraklea 31
e:id Amorg
Ano • Kato Antlken

Anaphe

Chnstlana
 Doumas excavated a rectangular building with two rooms, oriented east-west, ap-
proximately 250 m to the south of the looted area of Kavos and close to the nearby islet
of Daskalio (figs. 3-4). This building is preserved to a length of approximately 6.50 m and
is approximately 5 m wide. Much of the west room, which lay only 10 m from the sea, had
been destroyed by erosion from the waves. But even in the better preserved east room
(fig. 2) only the north wall and the northeast corner were preserved to a height of 0.90 m
from the floor; the east and south walls did not exceed 0.15 m in height. A bench,
0.45-0.85 m wide x 0.20-0.25 m high, found with traces of ash and small fragments of
charcoal on it, was built at the northeast corner of the room. Charcoal was also noticed
over the entire surface of the floor, which was made of hard packed clay and showed
traces of burning. A partition wall approximately 0.50 m high divided the two rooms,
which communicated through a door in the southern part of the wall. The walls were
made of natural stone slabs with earth bonding. This structure was dated to the EC II pe-
riod, based on construction technique contemporary with the cemetery.
During the same time, investigations at the nearby islet of Daskalio (figs. 3-4) revealed
on its northeast slope the remnants of a fortified prehistoric settlement, whose defensive
circuit probably had bastions.10 The southwest slope of the islet is particularly steep and
difficult to access. The settlement was also dated to the EC II period on the basis of the
pottery collected on the surface. The surface of the islet does not exceed 5,000 rn2.
Given that it is only 50 m from Kavos and that the sea that separates it from Keros is no
more than 5-6 rn deep, Doumas concluded that in prehistoric times Daskalio was con-
nected to Keros by a narrow strip of land.11 Although the site remains unexcavated, the
results of the September 1963 investigations give some idea of the settlement. The foun-
dations of a small Christian church occupy the islet's peak. Walls, both straight and
curved, of prehistoric houses were partially uncovered to the southeast of the church, and
a small room, 3 m x 3 m, the west wall cut into bedrock, was excavated 5 m north of the
church. A bench 0.46 m high was built at the base of the bedrock over the entire width
of the room; the north and south walls. which butted against the rock, were pres_erved to
a height of 1.25 m and made of the same masonry as the Kavos building. There was a
passage in the eastern section of the south wall. Traces of ash were identified in the
northwest and southeast corners of this room.
The investigations at Daskalio yielded quantities of pottery fragments from large do-
mestic vessels, a few fragments of marble vases, small rounded plaques used as lids
for storage jars, stone tools, seashells, fragments of obsidian, and other objects.
Doumas suggested that the devastated Kavos cemetery belonged to the Daskalio set-
tlement and that the rich grave goods indicated the settlement was an important mer-
chant seaport that provided protection against piratical raids and a safe haven no mat-
ter the weather conditions.
Having noticed abundant fragments of EC marble and clay vases east of the area ex-
cavated by Doumas during a visit to Kavos in November 1966, Photeini Zapheiropoulou
decided to conduct a new and final excavation campaign in the looted area. The exca-
vation, led by Zapheiropoulou and Kostas Tsakos from July 20 to August 13, 1967,12
revealed a large number of fragments of marble figurines and vases (particularly bowls,
URE 1. The tooted area of some of them quite large, but also spool pyxides with horizontal grooves on the outer
Kavos as seen from the sea surface and rectangular palettes), a plethora of pottery sherds with painted decoration,
(view from the west). fragments of chlorite vases with relief spiral decoration, and a complete 0.58 m high
figurine of the Spedos variety.13 These finds were scattered throughout the topsoil and
between the loose rocks of the lower layer, which sat on virgin soil. Excavations in a
previously undisturbed area revealed a grave that contained two vases (collared jars)
and two obsidian blades placed near the head of the deceased.14 This led
Zapheiropoulou to suspect that the looters had not discovered an actual cemetery.
According to her, the great number of marble figurine and vase fragments of all types
found near the settlement - that is, near the rectangular two-room building investigat-
ed by Doumas - indicated that Keros was an important marble carving center; she re-
garded the discovery of unfinished marble objects and several unworked marble frag-
ments as supporting her theory.1s
Another small excavation took place in 1967 at Gerani on the northwest coast of
Keros, approximately 4 km north of Kavos.16 The site was believed to be a possible undis-
turbed cemetery on account of the large quantities of sherds collected there during the
1966 visit, during which the remains of an EC settlement were also identified on the hill
west of the site.17 Yet no graves or waHs were found during trial excavations, only backfill
0.30 m thick over an area 7.0 m x 8.0 m that contained large numbers of EC I sherds and
the head of a small marble figurine.
Other remnants of EC occupation were identified during the 1960s at Keros, particu-
larty along the northwest coast. Colin Renfrew mentions having collected EC sherds from
the precipitous coast at Konakia and fragments of marble objects, including a bowl, from
Gialada, approximately 400 m west of Konakia.1s Zapheiropoulou mentions the remains of
an EC settlement at Megalo Kastro, although Renfrew does not confirm the dating.19
Finally, Michalis Bardanis reports rock art, consisting of small depressions arranged in a
spiral pattern and plaques bearing similar representations, from Rachidi and Daskalio.20
During a visit to Keros in 1975, Despoina Chatzi-Vallianou recovered antiquities from
the disturbed area at Kavos, which continued to be looted despite previous excavations.21
Her finds included EC sherds, "two small vases filled with Egyptian blue,"22several obsid-
ian blades, and fragments of marble figurines and bowls.
The great quantity of pottery sherds and fragments of marble vases and figurines
discovered on this small, precipitous, and mostly arid island intrigued scholars from the
outset. Various interpretations were formulated in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1976 Olaf
Hockmann and Jurgen Thimme were the first to attribute a religious significance to the
great concentration of vase and figurine fragments in the looted area at Kavos, which
they interpreted as a possible votive deposit related to rituals honoring the dead.23
Building on this theory, Renfrew suggested that Kavos functioned during the EC period
as a large open-air, pan-Cycladic sanctuary, where worshipers dedicated and intention-
ally smashed objects of great symbolic value as part of specific rites.24 Other scholars,
including Doumas, the first excavator of the site, more or less accepted Renfrew's opin-
ion,2s and Doumas took it further by suggesting that Keros represented to the EBA
Cycladic islanders what the "isle of the blessed" was to later Greeks. For this reason he
believed that the bones of the deceased and their accompanying grave gifts were
brought here from other islands.26
In order to reassess the role of Keros in the third millennium s.c. on the basis of newly
excavated evidence, the joint teams of the universities of Cambridge, Athens, and
loannina, in collaboration with the Twenty-first Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical
Antiquities of the Cyclades, investigated Kavos again in 1987.27 Surface finds were col-
 FIGURE 2. The east room of
the small building at Kavos as
seen from the south (courtesy
Professor Christos Doumas).
lected from the entire area of Kavos, and small test trenches to virgin soil were opened in
the looted area. No undisturbed layers were identified. The finds included fine and coarse
pottery sherds, both decorated and plain; fragments of marble vases and figurines; frag-
ments of chlorite vases with relief spiral decoration; pieces of obsidian; and copper slag.
Todd Whitelaw's study of the find distribution pattern showed that the fine pottery, marble
fragments, and human bones were concentrated in the looted northern part of Kavos.28
The larger southern part of Kavos, in contrast, yielded no marble objects. which explains
why it was largely undisturbed by illicit digging. The study and analysis of the pottery by
Cyprian Broodbank gave the following results:29(1) The pottery dated primarily to the EC
II period, but also included characteristic types of the so-called "Kastri group." (2) At least
45 to 48 percent - and possibly two-thirds or even 100 percent - of the pottery found at
Kavos was imported from other Cycladic islands, from the Greek mainland (Attica, Euboia,
the northeastern Peloponnese), and, possibly, the southeastern Aegean. (3) 80 to 90 per-
cent of the pottery came from islands in the immediate vicinity of Keros, particularly from
those included in the so-called "Keros Triangle" (formed by Naxos, los, and Amorgos). (4)
A "special deposit" in the looted area contained marble vases and figurines and specific
ceramic types in greater concentrations than in other areas at Kavos. (5) The large major-
ity of the ceramic types from the "special deposit" were found in association with graves or
cemetery sites on other Cycladic islands.
Based on these observations, Broodbank and Whitelaw agreed with the first

35
interpretation of Kavos-Daskalio, concluding that the finds from this site were the re-
mains of a large settlement and its cemetery. According to their interpretation the set-
tlement, which was located south of the looted area and on the islet of Daskalio, was
an important commercial center with a pivotal role in the network of maritime commu-
nication routes in the EB 2 period; the numerous finds from the "special deposit" were
probably the remains of a large and unusually rich cemetery, where the ritual deposit
of objects may have taken place.
My recent study of the pottery collected by archaeologists at Kavos-Daskalio in the
1960s confirmed some of the above observations, but led me to disagree with oth-
ers.30 The comparative study of the pottery from each of the three investigated areas
{looted area, small building at Kavos, Daskalio) revealed significant differences among
the three groups. It also demonstrated the extraordinary richness in every respect of
the ceramics from the looted area, particularly when compared with the pottery not
only from Daskalio and the small building at Kavos, but also from other contemporary
sites in the Cyclades. The study also showed that although all three areas were occu-
pied during the EC II period and the transitional EC 11-111"Kastri" phase, occupation of
the looted area began a little earlier, in the transitional EC 1-11 "Kampos" phase, and
ended a little later, in early EC Ill. Moreover, the percentage of imported wares pro-
posed by Broodbank (at least 48 percent) appears to be extremely high. As for the
character of the pottery from the looted area, the study showed that the 1960s mate- FIGURE 3. The looted a
rial Included large amounts of pottery In types found in both settlements and ceme- Kavos and the adjacent
teries, equally large amounts in types found mainly in cemeteries, and a relatively small Daskalio from the north
amount in types found mainly or exclusively in settlements. Finally, concerning the in-
terpretation of the site itself, the evidence collected thus far suggests, in my opinion, FIGURE 4. The islet of D
that the looted area at Kavos was used for ritual deposition of objects of symbolic val- and the opposite coast o
ue, during which the objects were deliberately smashed. from the northwest.
 The "Keros Hoard"

The term "Keros Hoard" was first introduced in the literature of Cycladic archaeology by
Pat Getz-Preziosi-Gentle, in "The 'Keros Hoard': Introduction to an Early Cycladic
Enigma," published in 1983 in the volume dedicated to Thimme.31Evocative of a large
quantity of objects, this term was used to describe an extensive group of EC finds,
mostly fragments of marble figurines, allegedly from a single site at Keros. Thimme
had referred to the group in 197532 and again a year later in the catalogue of the ex-
hibition on the art and culture of the Cyclades held in the Badisches Landesmuseum
of Karlsruhe, where it was suggested that the "hoard" came from the looted area of
Kavos-Daskalio.33
In her article Getz-Preziosi-Gentle stated that she had abandoned her former in-
URE 5. The figurines of the tention to dedicate a monograph to this subject because of the dispersal of the origi-
eros Hoard' formerly in the nal group among various private collections and the impossibility of tracing all the ob-
Ertenmeyer Collection. jects it initially comprised. She therefore intended to present the evidence she had col-
lected thus far through her study of a large part of this group to which she had access
and discuss its interpretation in order to provide the necessary background for any fu-
ture reference to the subject. She then mentioned that she had first heard of the
"hoard" in 1968, the earliest information concerning it having come from two sources:
its first buyer, and Marie-Louise Erlenmeyer, widow of Professor Hans Erlenmeyer,
who had purchased a large part of the original group from its first owner and published
several pieces in scientific journals.34Both sources informed Getz-Preziosi-Gentle that
these objects had been discovered in the late 1950s or early 1960s, and that they had
come from a single findspot; no other information on the conditions of discovery was
available to her. The group consisted primarily of fragments of "folded-arm" figurines,
but also contained a number of complete or almost complete figurines, including sev-
eral schematic ones, as well as complete and fragmentary marble and clay vases, a
large number of obsidian blades, at least one bone tube with incised decoration, and
bone or seashell polishers.
Getz-Preziosi-Gentle also mentioned that she had not been allowed access to the
schematic figurines or the vases, except for a small number of fragments, but that she
had understood from the descriptions of the first owner that the schematic figurines
belonged to the Apeiranthos type and the marble vases to the EC II period (bowls,
conical cups, kylikes, palettes, pyxides, lamp models). The latter may have included a
palette characteristic of the previous phase. She reported that the "hoard" contained
more than 350 figurines, all fragmentary except for twelve complete or nearly com-
plete examples. She presented only two of the complete figurines known to her at that
time,35 rightly supposing that the rest had been sold as separate works of art shortly
after the initial purchase of the group. Of the original total of 350 figurines she identi-
fied approximately half (165) - that is, those figurines that had been published or at
least photographed. The largest part of this subgroup (143 or 144) belonged to the
Erlenmeyer Collection, fifteen were in other private collections, four in American mu-
seums (Chicago, Missouri, Pasadena, San Francisco). and two in the Badlsches
Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe.36
In the same article, Getz-Preziosi-Gentle stated that between 1968 and 1975 she
had been able to examine approximately 307 fragments - 167 still in the possession of
the original owner and approximately 140 in the Erlenmeyer Collection (fig. 5). Many
fragments preserved the head and various body parts, some preserved larger parts
than others, and a small number of figurines consisted of two or three joining frag-
ments. The surface of the breaks was almost consistently eroded and encrusted, but
although this showed that the breaks were old, it did not necessarily prove, according
to Getz-Preziosi-Gentle, that the figurines were broken in the EBA, as similar erosion of
the marble and surface deposits can occur in a shorter period than the 4,500 years be-
tween then and now. The chronological homogeneity of the objects, the similarities in
the state of surface preservation on most fragments, and the fact that many fragments
appeared to be the work of the same sculptors indicated, according to her, that the
fragments belonged to the same group. Moreover, the many and great similarities in the
contents, typology, and state of preservation between this group and the archaeologi-
cal finds from Kavos at Keros, the fact that at least four different artists had been iden-
tified in both groups, and the evidence for extensive looting of this site supported, ac-
cording to Getz-Preziosi-Gentle, the probability that the "hoard" came from Kavos.
 Much the same information and similar remarks concerning the "hoard" are repeated
in Getz-Preziosi-Gentle's 1987 monograph Sculptors of the Cyclades: Individual and
Tradition in the Third Millennium a.c.37 In this study, however, and in an exhibition cata-
logue of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond, published in the same year,38 Getz-
Preziosi-Gentlementioned twenty-five new fragments from the same group.39She had al-
so presented a further twenty-four fragments from the "Keros Hoard" in an article of
1984.40 Getz-Preziosi-Gentle returned to the subject in a monograph published in 2001,
where she questioned the accuracy of the term "Keros Hoard" and gave further informa-
tion on the Cycladic figurines that may belong to this group and on the date of their illicit
trade.41 First, she admitted that the term "Keros Hoard" was inaccurate and deceptive, as
the group consisted of objects collected randomly and not of a complete or "closed" as-
URE 6. The objects of the semblage of finds. She then mentioned that, according to her sources, many of the
ros Hoard" now exhibited in Cycladic figurines removed from Keros at different times had reached the international an-
Museum of Cycladic M. tiquities market and were published as finds of "unknown provenance," and that she re-
alized their relation to the "hoard" only later. As a result, she attributed thirty more figurines
to this group, some with more certainty than others.42 Finally, she stated that although her
initial impression was that the objects of the "Keros Hoard" were first sold to collectors,
museums, and antiquities' dealers between 1955 and 1960, later information demon-
strated that some of these had reached western Europe some time earlier, even before
the Second World War, and that the process of the illicit removal of antiquities from Keros
had begun as early as the end of the nineteenth century.
In 1990 Mrs. Erlenmeyer decided to sell the rich collection of ancient art she and
her husband had amassed over the twenty years from 1943 to the early 1960s, and to
donate the money from the sale to the Erlenmeyer Foundation created in 1981 for the
protection of animals and the natural environment.43 The Erlenmeyer Collection was
sold almost entirely in three auctions at Sotheby's, London: on July 9, 1990;
December 13-14, 1990; and July 9, 1992. The objects sold during these three auc-
tions included 110 fragments of figurines from the "Keros Hoard."44 In the July 1990
auction the Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation purchased four Cycladic objects,45 in-
cluding one fragment of a figurine from the "Keros Hoard."46 In the December 1990
auction the same foundation purchased five marble figurines of the Erlenmeyer
Collection,47 of which four belonged to the "Keros Hoard."48 Twenty-four Cycladic ob-
jects purchased during the same auction by the board of directors of the Commercial
Bank of Greece were deposited at the Museum of Cycladic Art on permanent loan for
display.49 Seventeen of these were figurine fragments from the "hoard."50 In the July
1992 auction the Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation bought all fifty-three fragments of
figurines from the "Keros Hoard" offered for sale.51 The foundation bought another fig-
urine fragment (233 - numbers in boldface refer to catalogue numbers in this volume:
see chapter 3), allegedly from the "hoard,· in New York in 1991. In 2001 the Cycladic
Art Foundation of New York lent four fragments donated anonymously and allegedly
from the "hoard" (235, 247, 250, 254) to the Museum of Cycladic Art for permanent
exhibition. Finally, the Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation purchased one last fragment
of the "Keros Hoard" (147) from the Erlenmeyer Collection at an auction at Sotheby's,
New York, in June 2003. The Museum of Cycladic Art was thus able to repatriate and
house eighty-one fragments of the "Keros Hoard" (fig. 6), the largest number from this
group in all the known private collections.
The Nicholas P. Goulandris Foundation invited me to publish the "Keros Hoard" in
May 2001. My study was to be based not only on the fragments of figurines in the
Museum of Cycladic Art, but also on any other fragments I could locate elsewhere. By
reconstructing as much of the original group as possible I could contribute, through its
reexamination, to the understanding of the important role played by the tiny island of
Keros in the third millennium s.c. The main sources of information for identifying the
objects from the "hoard" were the already mentioned works by Getz-Preziosi-Gentle,
who was the first to be drawn to the subject and whose interest. to judge from con-
tinuing references to it in her work, has never ceased. Based on Getz-Preziosi-
Gentle's studies and on the rest of the relevant bibliography, I was able to identify 254
objects allegedly from the "Keros Hoard." One is a fragment of a marble vase, and the
remaining items are figurines, of which few are complete. Apart from ten objects from
the Erlenmeyer Collection, which may or may not belong to the "Keros Hoard,"52 sev-
eral other pieces were not included in our group:
 • Two fragmentary figurines, which, according to Marie-Louise Erlenmeyer (as re-
ported by Getz-Preziosi-Gentle), did not belong to the "hoard"53 but were included by
mistake in a photograph of the objects from the "hoard" contained in the Erlenmeyer
Collection (fig. 5, nos. 42 and 51).54 This information is partially confirmed by the cat-
alogue of the auction of July 1990, where one of the figurines (no. 41) is attributed to
the "Keros Hoard" and the other (no. 51) is not. ss
• A figurine in the Art Institute of Chicago (inv. 1978.115). Jack Davis, who first pub-
lished this piece, mentions that it was bought in 1978 from an American art dealer, who
claimed that it came from Naxos and had been outside Greece for more than thirty years
before he bought it in London in 1977. According to Getz-Preziosi-Gentle's sources, how-
ever, the object did belong to the "Keros Hoard."56In reply to a letter addressed to the Art
Institute of Chicago, the collection's curator repeated Davis's information on the figurine's
Naxian provenance and stressed there was no evidence to link it to the "Keros Hoard."
• A fragmentary figurine in the Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of
Missouri, Columbia (inv. 76.214). This fragment is mentioned both as of unknown
provenance57 and as coming from Kerossain the same Karlsruhe exhibition catalogue.
Getz-Preziosi-Gentle regards it as belonging to the "Keros Hoard" in all her studies.s9
The museum, however, informed us that the object was purchased in 1976 and that
there is no evidence to associate it with the "hoard."
Similarly, other objects in the present catalogue should be treated with some cau-
tion, especially those not formerly in the Erlenmeyer Collection,60 and more particular-
ly those figurines Getz-Preziosi-Gentle attributed to the "hoard" with reservations and
only in her 2001 monograph,61 contradicting at times other scholars or earlier studies
of her own in which they were designated of unknown provenance. Getz-Preziosi-
Gentle justifies these contradictions by stating she was only later informed of any con-
nection of these objects to the "hoard."62 Any doubt over their belonging to the
"hoard" is logical and acceptable, as the information on their provenance comes sole-
ly from art dealers, who may have associated the objects with the "Keros Hoard" in
order to increase their market value. Early on Getz-Preziosi-Gentle called attention to
this uncertainty and the danger of associating objects of differing origins with the
"Keros Hoard. "63 She also recognized, however, that complete figurines - or those
that retained the head or torso - would probably have fetched more if sold separately
and not as part of a group of objects.&! Indeed, the best possible state of preserva-
tion, size, rarity, and elaborate decoration of an object have a greater bearing on its
market value than its affiliation to an archaeological assemblage no matter how im-
portant that assemblage - a quick glance through the Sotheby's sale catalogues of
the Erlenmeyer Collection is enough for anyone to recognize this.
In any case, the unfortunate looting of Keros has for many years now been a fact
that nothing can change. I have taken great care to cross-check my information with
the existing bibliography, and have mentioned the different opinions of scholars re-
garding the provenance of these objects. In addition, I have contacted all foreign mu-
seums that own fragments attributed to the "Keros Hoard," asking for photographs,
publication permits, and all relevant information. Apart from the two museums in
Chicago and Missouri, which were doubtful whether the figurines in their collections
came from the "Keros Hoard," no other museums questioned the provenance of their
object(s). Moreover, none of the museums had any further information concerning
them or the fate of the other objects from the "hoard." The provenance of several
pieces in this catalogue remains, therefore, uncertain and may well stay that way.
Nonetheless, my research has assembled all the relevant diffuse information on this
particularly interesting yet problematic group, thoroughly reexamined the evidence,
and presented again the case of the so-called "Keros Hoard" for future consideration.
For this alone, I believe that my endeavors have been worthwhile, particularly since my
research, to the extent to which I was able to pursue it, proved me right.
The question of the provenance of at least some of the objects included in this study
inevitably revives the controversy that has prevailed among foreign archaeologists since
the late 1980s over the roles played by collectors in the boom of illicit excavations and
trade in the Cyclades, and by scholars or the state, whose actions indirectly yet overtly le-
gitimize private collections.ss Collectors are accused of having promoted both the system-
atic looting of Cycladic graves and mass production of fakes through their desire to acquire
Cycladic figurines. The looting resulted in the destruction of entire archaeological sites, loss
of crucial historical information, and falsification of archaeological data.
Meanwhile, scholars who study collections of looted objects are criticized not only
because they seem to endorse the social acceptance of looted artifacts and their col-
lectors, but also because through their scientific publications they validate these col-
lections and enhance their market value. Consequently, I anticipate the following criti-
cisms of my research: (1) that it is based on objects obtained through the antiquities
market and not through official archaeological research, and, therefore, of questionable
provenance and authenticity; and (2) considering these objects legitimizes the results of
looting and minimizes, possibly even obscures, the destructive consequences of illicit
excavations in Cycladic archaeology. Obviously, this was not the intention of this study.
First, these objects have been accepted as part of the so-called "Keros Hoard" for
many years or have already been published as belonging to this group: that they come
from illicit excavations is also well known. In fact, most, if not all, of the Cycladic objects
in the great museums of western Europe and North America have traveled the same
route. By ignoring all these artifacts we would have to pretend they do not exist. But
they do exist and we have to accept that much of our knowledge of Cycladic civiliza-
tion in the third millennium s.c. as a whole is based on objects of unknown or uncertain
provenance, and possibly even of doubtful authenticity - unless of course we accept
that the knowledge derived from these objects is also of doubtful authenticity. To ignore
all the material looted forty or fifty years ago or more will not solve the problem of illicit
excavations. Instead of castigating private individuals for collecting antiquities and
scholars for studying them, we should focus on finding more efficient ways of fighting
illicit excavations and trade, and devising scientific methods of confirming the authen-
ticity of objects that do not derive from official archaeological investigation. Let us not
forget that both collecting and grave looting or treasure hunting are practices that date
back to antiquity: they are not phenomena of the twentieth century.
In the case of the "Keros Hoard,· bringing together and presenting the objects that
it allegedly comprises certainly does not legitimize the fact that they come from illicit
trade. On the contrary, the difficulty in interpreting the assemblage and the site that
produced such a wealth of material itself bears witness to the destructive conse-
quences of illicit excavations. In fact, this reexamination of the looted artifacts justifies
the actions taken by the state, the collector, and the scholar, who might be otherwise
accused of indirectly encouraging and legitimizing illicit excavations and their finds.
Comparison of the "Keros Hoard" figurines now in the Museum of Cycladic Art with
those excavated by official archaeological authorities at Kavos on the island of Keros
showed that the two groups are similar in every way, and enabled the identification of
fragments that join or belong to the same object.66 This proves beyond any doubt that
the two groups are part of a single body.
These results vindicate first of all the Greek state, which, in order to prevent the il-
licit export and dispersal of antiquities abroad, early on gave legal authority to the cre-
ation of private archaeological collections and, subsequently, museums.67 It also ex-
onerates the collector who purchased a large part of the "Keros Hoard" in London and
thus enabled their return to their country of origin, as well as my part in this study. This
reassembly of the looted antiquities to the group from which they were forcibly re-
moved and the certification of their authenticity is a particularly important event for
Cycladic archaeology and scholarship and could not have been achieved without the
combined efforts of all three agents just mentioned. Professor Doumas, who has the
publication rights for the finds discovered during the early archaeological investiga-
tions at Kavos-Daskalio, very willingly granted me permission for the comparative
study of the objects. He also stressed how important it is to search for joining figurine
fragments from Keros and that he, too, has suggested this to several of the foreign
museums that house objects from this island. The present study puts the controver-
sial issue of the "Keros Hoard" back on center stage and thus provides a renewed op-
portunity for all museums that possess objects allegedly from Keros to contribute to
the search for joins by sending casts of those fragments kept outside Greece, and to
verify the archaeological provenance and authenticity of their artifacts to the benefit of
Cycladic archaeology and scholarship.

44
1. Phytrolakis 1977.
2. AA iron oxide with powerful magnetism.
3. On thename and histoiy or the island In ancient and
modern literary sources. see Marang01.1 in Renfrew et
al. (forthcoming). I warmly thank Professor Lila Ma•
rangou for allowing me access to her unpublished text
and the use of this lnformatiOn. I also drew information
from the following encyclopedias: Megali Bliniki Engy•
klopaidia, 14:278; Neoteron Engyklopaidikon LeXJ1<on
'lliou,' 10:634; Papyros Larousse Britanniea, 33:188.
4. Sotirakopoulou 2004, 1308.
5. Koehler 1884.
6. For the flutist, see Koehler 1884. pl. 6: left: Zervos
1957. pl. 302: Renfrew 1972, pl. 27:1: 1977, 66, fig. 37;
1991, 163, pl. 108; Getz-Preziosi 1980. 13, 32: no. 22,
fig. 15.22; 1987b, pls. VIIIB, right, 10: 1; Papa-
thanasopoulos 1981, 212-15, pls. 130-34; Frtton1989,
57, fig. 50; Doumas 1994, 80, 305, no. 58. For the
harpfst, see Koehler 1884, pl. 6: right: Zervos 1957, pls.
333-34; Getz-Preziosi 1977, 81, f,g. 65; 1980, 7-13, 19,
31: no. 16, figs. 14.16, 20c; 1987a, 62, fig. 33a: 1987b,
pls. VlllB, left. 10.2; Renfrew 1977. 69, fig. 39; 1991,
163, pt 107; Papathanasopoulos 1981, 11, nos.
124-29; Hockmann 1982; Fitton 1989. 57, fig. 49;
Doumas 1994, 81. 305-6, no. 59; Broodbank 2000a,
254. fig. 82: Getz-Gentle 2001. 34. f,g. 16d.
7. (1) Zervos 1957, pls. 300-1; (2) Renfrew 1969, 20:
l' .F.17; Thimme 1977, 258, 463, no. 147; Frtton 1989,
56, figs. 47-48. Although generally referred toascoming
from Amorgos, these figurines were identified by Pat
Getz-Preziosi-Gentle and Lesfie Frtton in 1987 as those
reported by Koehler to have been discovered in the
same grave as the flutist and harpist from Keros (Getz·
Preziosi 1987b, 148, n. 57; Frtton1989, 56-57).That the
figurines were considered to be from Amorgos can be
explained by the fact that Keros belonged to the rieh
monastery of Chozoviotissa on Amorgos until 1952, and
that any important archaeologieal find discovered on
Kerosin the latenineteenth century wouldbe brought to
Amorgos to be sold.
8. Doumas 1964, 409-10; 1977b, 187. For a survey or
the archaeological investigations at Kavos-Daskalio.
see also Alram-Stern 2004, 902-7; Sotirakopoulou
2004. 1305-8.
9. On the possibility or geologieal changes in the area.
see also Bassiakos/Doumas 1998.
10. Doumas 1964, 410-11: 1972, 163.
11. See also Bassiakos/Doumas 1998, 58. fig. 4.
12. Zaflropoulou 1968, 97-100; lapheiropoulou1968,
381; 1975.
13. Zafiropoulou 1968, 97, fig. 1; Zaphelropoul01.11968,
381, pl. 334a; 1980, 534: no. 8, pl. 240.
14. lapheiropoulou 1968, 381, pl. 332d.
15. Zapheiropoul01.1 1980. 540: Getz-Preziosi 1987b.
151, n. 109.
16. lapheiropoulou 1968, 381.
17. Zapheiropoulou 1967, 466.
18. Renfrew 1972, 521: Hape Simpson/Dickinson
1979, 338.
19. Zaphelropoulou 1967, 466; Renfrew 1972, 521;
Hope Simpson/Dickinson 1979, 338.
20. Bardanis 1966, 75; Renfrew 1972. 521.
21. Chatzi-Vallianou 1975.
22. These are aryballoi NM 6494 and 6495 (Marangou
1990a, 68-69. nos. 49-50; Sotirakopoulou 2004,
1323, pl. 14b), whieh probably contained azurite.
23. Hockmann 1977a. 46, 50; Thimme 1977. 588.
24. Fitton 1984a, 33-35; Renfrew 1984, 27-28; 1991,
50.99-101, 186;2003b.
25. Getz-Preziosi 1985, 84; 1987b, 138-39; 1994, 78;
Barber 1987. 132: Getz-Gentle 1996, 101. 102.
26. Doumas 1990, 95; 2000, 30; Bassiakos/Doumas
1998.
27. Annual Report 1986-1987, 33; Renfrew et al.
(forthcoming).
28. Whitelaw 2002/2003.
29. Broodbank 2000a, 223-72: 2000b; forthcoming. I
wamily thank Cyprian Broodbank, who sent me the
manuscript of his extensive study and allowed me to
use it in my research.
30. SotirakOPOl.llou 2004.
31. Getz-Preziosi 1983.
32. Thimme 1975, 20, fig. 14.
33. Thimme 1976. 577; 1977. 588.
34. Erlenmeyer 1955, pl. IX: fig. 21X: fig. 23XI: fig. 24;
1965, pls. 17-20.
35. Getz-PreziOsi 1983, 38. figs. 1-2
36. Getz-Preziosi 1983, 43 n. 1.
37. Getz-Preziosi 1987b, 134-39.
38. Getz-Preziosi 1987a.
39. See cat. nos. 150, 152, 170, 173, 175, 179, 181,
190-191, 193, 201, 203-204, 212, 217, 219-220,
230,233,23&-238,245,247,249.
40. Getz-Preziosi 1984b. Seecat. nos. 154-158, 160,
162-168, 184, 205-206, 211, 213-214, 232,
240-241,246,252.
41. Getz-Gentle 2001, 141, nn. 134-35.
42. See cat. nos. 63, 171, 17 178, 180, 186, 188,
194-198, 200, 207-208, 216, 218, 222-229, 231,
236, 239, 242.
43. Sotheby's (LondOn) 1990a, 6-7; 1992a, 7.
44. Sotheby's (London) 1990a, 84-105, lots 118-30,
132, 134--36; 1990b, 96-105, lots 140, 143, 145-51,
153. 155-56; 1992a, 156-58. lots 283-88.
45. Marangou 1991. 62-63. figs. 54-56. These are 1he
objects with coll. nos. 969-71. 1066. See Sotheby's
(l.OndOnl 1990a,lots101, 112. 122, 137: Doumas 2000.
90, no. 58; 121, no. 162; 148, no. 215; 185,no. 308.
46. See cat. no. 70. The initial impression that the
marble kernos with coll. no. 970 and the frying-pan
vessel with coll. no. 971 belong to the "Keros
Hoard" (Marangou 1991, 63, figs. 55-56) is not
verified in either the auction catalogue (Sotheby's
(London] 1990a. 68. tot 101: 78, tot 112), the
relevant bibliography (Thimme 1977, 321. 510, no.
310; 354, 532, no. 402; Ooumas 2000, 90. no. 58:
127, no. 162). or other sources (Getz-Gentle 1996.
230, n. 366).
47. Marangou 1991. 64. figs. 57, 59, 63 (the correct
coll. nos. on thecaption of figs. 57 and 63are 984 and
988, respectively); 2001, 33. Theseare theobjects with
coll. nos. 984-988. See Sotheby's (London) 1990b,
lots 149-50, 154-55: Ooumas 2000, 170. no. 252;
183-84. nos. 303-4: 187, nos. 318-19.
48. Seecat.nos. 67 .731,48. Theprovenance of1he
h'yt)rld figurine with col. no. 987 from the "Keros Hoard"
(Marangou 1991, 64, 68 n. 68. fig. 59; Ooumas 2000,
187, no. 318; Marangou 2001, 33, n. 89) is not
confinned by the auctioo catalogue (Sotheby's [London]
1990b. 104, lot 154) or by the relevant bibliography
(Thimme 1977, 243. 447. no. 101).
49. Marangou 1991. 64. figs. 58. 60-62 (the correct
coll.no. on thecaption of fig. 58isET 24): 2001, 33-34.
These are the objects with coll. nos. ET 1-24. See
Sotheby's (London) 199Cl>. lots 122, 130. 140, 145-47,
153; Ooumas 2000, 97, no. 75; 168-69, nos. 243-45;
170, nos. 253-54; 172, nos. 259-61; 175, no. 269;
177,no. 277; 183, no. 300; 185, nos. 310-11: 186-67,
nos.313,315-17;219,no.374.
so. See cat. nos. 3, 12-13, 18, 24, 58, 83, 103, 109,
121, 126, 12&-129, 136, 140-142. The clay collared
jar/crattl( with coll.no.ET 1 theSOt stonepestles with
colt nos. ET 2-7 were IMialy thought to belong to the
"KerosHoard" (Getz-Preziosi 1983, 37. 43n. 3:Lernbesi
et al. 1991, 535; Marangou 1991, 64. 68 n. 69, fig. 60:
2001, 33,n. 90). This provencn:e isnot confirmed, how-
ever. in theauciioncatalogue (Sotheby's (London] 1990b,
87, lot 122: 92. lot 130) or in the relevant bibliography
(Thimme 1977. 345. 528. no. 384: 374, 548-49, nos.
469-70: Ooumas 2000. 97.no. 75; 219, no. 374).
51. Marangou 2001. 19 andn. 21; Sotheby's (London)
1992a, 156-58, lots 283-88. These are the objects
with coll.nos. 1009-61. Seecat. nos. 6-9, 14, 17, 19,
21, 23, 25-26, 29-37, 40-50, SS-56, 72, 74-76,
86-87, 89-90, 95, 97, 110, 112-113, 115-116, 119,
134, 143, 146, 149.
52. See notes 46, 48, and 50 supra.
53. Getz-Preziosi 1981. 29,nos. 15, t8: 1983. 43-44,
nn.1, 13.
54. Thisphotograph was first published in 1975(ThiTime
1975, 20, fig. 14) and became better known with the
publication of the catalogue of the exhibition at the
Bacisches Landesmuseum, Kaisruhe, in 1976 (lli'nme
1976, 87, fig. 71; 1977, 85, fig. 71).
55. Sotheby's (London) 1990a. 94-95, lot 131: 98-99.
lot 133.
56. Davis 1984. 15, 20 n. 3. See also Getz-Preziosi
1983, 37. 43 n. 1;1987a, 176-77. no. 38.
57. Thimme 1977, 272,471, no. 177.
58. Thimme 1977. 594.
59. Getz-PreZiosi 1983. 37. 43 n. 1: 1987a, 246-47,
cat. no. 81; 1987b, 105, fig. 42e; 108, 160.31; Getz·
Gentle, 2001, 163. 31.
60. Cat. nos 150-254.
61. Cat. nos. 111, 176-178, 180,186,188, 194-195,
198, 200, 208, 210, 212, 221-223, 227, 229-231,
236.
62. Getz-Gentle 2001, 141 nn. 134-35.
63. Getz-Preziosi 1983, 44 n. 13.
64. Getz-Prerosi 1983, 37, 43 n. 10.
65. Elia 1993a, 1993b: Gil/Chlppindale 1993,
1995; Renfrew 1993, 2003a. For an extenSive
commentary on this sub)8CI and relevant bibliography,
see Voudouri 2003, 432-40.
66. See chapter 5.
67. Voudouri 2003, 417-25.