East Greek Pottery (Routledge Readings in Classical Archaeology Series)

EAST GREEK POTTERY R.M. Cook and Pierre Dupont

^ ^ London aNd New YoRk

EAST GREEK POTTERY

East Greek Pottery pRovides a comprehensive suRvey of tHE potteRy Made by the Greek settlers aloNg the western coast of TurKey. The various styles of decoralion descriHed cover the period from tHe eleventh ceNtury to tHe Beginning of the fifth century HC. SubsequeNt)y) competitiON from Athens pressed local potters into using very simple ornament. Chapters include analysis of Grey ware, relief ware and archaic East Greek containers (or trade) amphoras, a class of pottery which is now attracting attention for its contribution to the study ol ancient economic history. East Greek pottery is a field that has been neglected, and much remains uncertain. Conjecture and fact have been clearly distinguished in this volume, and detailed references allow the evidence to He viewed and judged by the reader. R.M. Cook is Emeritus Professor of Classical Archaeology, Cambridge University. Pierre Dupont is at CNRS, Lyons, Prance.

I'irst published 1998 by Routledge I i New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29- West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 0 1998 R.M. Cook and Pierre Dupont Typeset in Garamond by Florence-type Limited, Stoodleigh, Devon Printed and bound in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire All rights reserved. No part of tins book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented; including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Ihitish Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data Cook, Robert Manuel. East Greek pottery/R.M. Cook and Pierre Dupont. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Pottery, Greek - Turkey - Aegean Sea Coast - Themes, motives. 2. Pottery, Ancient - Turkey - Aegean Sea Coast - Themes, motives. I. Dupont, Pierre. II. Title. NK3840.C67 1998 738'.0939'2-dc21 97-7494 ISBN 0^15-16601-2

To Catherine Dupont, who did most of the donkey work

CONTENTS

List of illustrations Preface Preliminary notes Glossary

x xxi xxii xxv

1 Introduction R.M. Cook

1

2 The evidence R.M. Cook

5

3 Chronology #./W. Coo*

8 '

4 Protogeornetric R.M. Cook

11

5 Geometric R.M. Cook Middle Geometric Z-cttc Geometric

15 15 17

6 Bird Howls And Rosette Howls fl.Af. Cook

26

7 Early Orientalising R.M. Cook

29

8 The Wild Goat style /J.A/. Coo£ South Ionia

32

C/)WJ

A/ortA /oni(! Aeolis Dorian region Caria Lydia Colonial imitations Thasos

33 46 51 56 61 63 66 66 67

— Contents

—

Etruria (the Swallow Painter) 'Melian'

68 70

9 Chian: Grand and Black-figure styles R.M. Cook The Grand style Black-figure groups

71 71 73

10 Fikellura R.M. Cook Metropolitan school Colonial imitations Caria (and some oddments)

77

11 Ionian Little Masters R.M. Cook

92

12 Cla/.omeniart Black-figure R.M. Cook

95

77 89 90

13 Northampton and Campana groups R.M. Cook Northampton and Campana groups Caeretan hydrias 14 Vroulian R.M. Cook

108 108 111 114 '

j

^15 Situlas R.M. Cook 5 16 Late Black-figure R.M. Cook

116 119

17 Clazomenian sarcophagi R.M. Cook

121

18 Ionian cups R.M. Cook

129

\ 19 Banded and Plain wares R.M. Cook

132

20 Grey ware and Bucchcro R.M. Cook Aeolian Grey ware 'Rhodian' Bucchcro

135 135 136

21 Relief ware R.M. Cook

138

viii

— Contents

—

22 Faience R.M. Cook

140

23 Archaic East Greek trade amphoras Pierre Ditpont Introduction Chian amphoras Clazomenian amphoras Lesbian amphoras Samian amphoras Milesian amphoras Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' amphoras Zeest's 'Thasian circle'

142 142 146 151 156 164 170 178 186

Notes /«(/ex

192 223

ILLUSTRATIONS

\ 5 i '!

v1 I || , ;! :v. * . *•-*$ 1 E•\>':'

. i: -.

-•'.'' ' • I* : , & ;'•' t': 'i i.'. :: f'

• '

-

1.1 Map of the Aegean and East GreeK region. 4.1 Coan Late Prologometnc oinochoe: Cos 440. Ht 22.7 cm. 950-900. (After ASA 56 (1978), fig. 48.) 4.2 Coan Late Proiogeometric skyphos: Cos 495. Ht 7.9 cm. 950-900. (After ASA 56 (1978), fig. 92). 4.3 Late Protogeometric amphora horn Dirmil, Caria. Bodrum. Ht 45.8 cm. c. 900. (AJA 67 (1963), pi. 83.16.) 5.1 Coan Middle Geometric lekytlios: Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology 461. Ht 22 cm. 800-750. (Museum photo.) 5.2 Rhodian Late Geometric krater: Berlin Inv. 2941. Ik 34.5cm. 750-700. (Jdl 1 11886], 135.) 5.3 Rhodian Late Geometric oinochoe: Berlin Inv. 2940. lit 48cm. Bird and Zigzag painter: 725-700. (JJI 1 11886|, 135.) 5.4 Rhodian Late Geometric oinochoe: Munich 455. Hi 22 cm. Bird kotyle workshop: 700-675. (Museum photo.) 5.5 Rhodian Subgeometric skyphos: Birmingham University. Ht 12.8 cm. c. 650. (Photo R.A. Tomlinson.) 5.6 Carian Late Cjeometnc kotyle: Cambridge, Museum ol Classical Archaeology 463A. lit 9.3cm. Related to Bird koiyle workshop: 700-650. (Museum photo.) 5.7 ,Rhodian Subgeometric aryballos: Lund 61. Ht c. 9 cm. Spaghetti group (Kreis-und-Wellenband style). 700-650. (Lindos t, 304 fig. 30.) 5.8 Chian Late Geometric krater (restored): Chios, from Emporio. 1 It 34 cm. c. 700. (Eniporio, fig. 62.) 5.9 North Ionian Late Geometric krater, fragment: Izmir, from Smyrna. Width ol fragment C. 35 cm. 725-700. (Photo J.M. Cook.) 6.1 Bird bowl: Copenhagen ABc 899. Ill 5.5cm. Mid 7th century. {Vroulia, fig. 44.) .

3 13 13 14 16 17 18 19 20

20 21 23 24 27

— 1 lliisirtit torn —

6.2

Rosette bowl: lost (from Vroulia). 1 It 9 cm. Early 6th century. (Vroulia, pi. 43.25—la.) 7.1 a Rhodian Early Orientalising onioclioe. fragment of shoulder: British Museum 61.4—25.48. Scale c. 2:3. Second quarter or middle of 7th century. (Kardara, fig. 2.) b Rhodian Early Orientalising fragment, perhaps from neck of very big amphora: British Museum 64.10-7.1237. Scale c. 2:7. Second quarter or middle of 7th century. (Kardara, fig. 3.) 7.2 Milesian Early Orientalising amphora, fragment of neck: Balat (Miletus), l i t of neck c. 10 cm. Second quarter or middle of 7tli century. (Excavation photo.) 7.3 North Ionian Early Orientalising fragments: Izmir (from Smyrna). Third quarter of 7th century. (Photo J.M. Cook.) 8.1 Syrian or Phoenician iridachn.i shell: private collection. Width 12.7 cm. 7th century. 8.2 South Ionian Early Wild C*>at style oinochoe, detail of shoulder: Brussels A1960. Scale c, 3:5. Mid 7th century. 8.3 South Ionian Early Wild Goat style oinochoe: Bocluun S985. l i t 23.2cm. c. 650-640. (Museum photo.) 8.4 South Ionian Early Wild Goal style oinochoe, detail of belly: l.aon 37.786. Scale c 1:3. c. 650-640. 8.5 South Ionian Middle I Wild Goat style oinochoe: St Petersburg T G I 2 . l i t 27cm. 640-630. (Museum photo.) 8.6 South Ionian Middle I Wild Goat style oinochoe: Richmond (Va) 82.203. I It 32.3 cm. c. 630. (Museum photo.) 8.7 South Ionian Middle II Wild Goat style oinochoe: Louvre A312. H i 30.5 cm. c. 625-615. (Kardara, fig. 59.) 8.8 South Ionian Middle 11 Wild Goat style oinochoe: Karlsruhe 72.133. l i t 35cm. c. 615-600. (Museum photo.) 8.9 South Ionian Middle 11 Wild Goat style oinochoe: Louvre A32O. I l l 33cm. c. 615-600. (Vrutilui, fig. 13.) 8.10 South Ionian Middle II Wild Goat style oinochoe: lost (from Vrouli.i). I It 27.5 cm. c. 600. (Vroulia, pi. 24.5.)

28

30

30

30

31 33

34

35 35

36

37 39

40

41

42

— 1/lustrations

—

8.11 South Ionian Middle 11 Wild Goat style stemmed dish: lost (from Vroulia). Diam. c. 34 cm. c. 625-600. {Vroulia, pi. 17.3a.) 8.12 South Ionian Middle III Wild Goat style oinochoe, fragment of shoulder: ISalat (Miletus) K89.506.1. Width of fragment 9.5 cm. First quarter of 6th century. (Excavation photo.) 8.13 Lotus flowers and buds. a Middle I and II Wild Goat style, c. 630-600. I • b Middle II Wild Goat style, c. 615-600. Cpd Late Wild Goat style, earlier 6th century. e I'ikellura, mid and later 6th century. 8.14 Middle Wild Goat style stemmed dish, fragment (probably Ephesian): British Museum 1907.12-1.679. ' Width of fragment 11.5 cm. Perhaps c. 625. r (D.G. Hogarth, Excavations at Ephesus, pi. 49.1a.) 8.15 Chian Middle II Wild Goat style chalice: Wiirzburg 1.128. lit 15.4 cm. End of 7th century. (Museum photo.) 8.16 Chian Chalice style chalice: Louvre A330.1. Ht 15 cm. lirst quarter ol 6th century or a little later. (S. Zervos, | Rhodes, Capitate du Dodecanese, fig. 38.) J" 8.17 North Ionian Late Wild Goat style krater, fragment: |j " Izmir (from Smyrna), c. 610-600. (Photo J.M. Cook.) 8.18 North Ionian Late Wild Goat style tlish: Tocra 636. n | Diam. 21.5 cm. c. 575. (After Tocra 1, pi. 35 and fig. 26.) 8.19 North Ionian Late Wild Goat style krater (the handles are ornamental): lost (from Vroulia). Ht 31 cm. I c. 600-575. (Vroulia, pi. 15.) 8.20 North Ionian Late Wild Goat style oinochoe: i Copcnhagen..5607. l i t 35.8cm. (The animals ON the shoulder are black-figured.) First third of 6th century. \0 '• , (Kardara, fig. 179.) 8.21 Aeolian Middle Wild Goat style oinochoe from 'Larisa', • .i -' • fragment: Gottingen. Ht of fragment c. 30 cm. End of | !;.' 7th or early 6th century. (Photo J. Boehlau.) 8.22 Aeolian Middle Wild Goat style amphora from Pitane: .Izmir 5625. Perhaps first quarter of 6th century. f (Photo J.S. Cole.) 8.23 Aeolian Middle Wild Goat style dinos: Izmir 5018. London Dinos group. First quarter of 6th century. (Photo J.S. Cole.) I 8.24 Dorian Wild Goat style plate: British Museum 60.4-4.1. Diam. 25 cm. First third of 6th century. (Kardara, fig. 284.)

43

45 46

47 48

50 52 53

54

55

58

59

60

62

— Illustrations — 8.25 Dorian Wild Goat style plate: Berlin 1-3917. Diam. 27.5 cm. (The details on the figures are incised.) Perhaps c. 575. 8.26 Carian Middle Wild Goat style oinochoe: Bochum S')H7. l i t 30.3cm. End of 7th century or early 6th. (Museum photo.) 8.27 Carian mixed Wild Goat and Fikellura style olpe: Tampa 97.1. I It 27 cm. Mid 6th century. (Photo J. Gaunt.) 8.28 I.ydian Middle Wild Goat style dinos, fragment: Manisa 5494 (from Sardis, P63.332.3732). Ht of fragment 24 cm. Decoration in matt black and shiny red paint: red for parts of lions, spots on deer, filling ornaments and dividing Hands. First Half of 6th century. (Excavation photo, retouched.) 8.29 Middle Wild Goat style olpe by the Swallow painter: Bochum. l i t 25.3 cm. End of 7th century. (Museum photo.) 9.1 Chian Grand style, fragmeNts of chalices: British Museum

9.2

9.3

10.1

63

64

65

67

69 72

a 88.6-1.788 + 507 b 88.6-1.515 + 516 c 88.6-1.504 d 88.6-1.510 e 88.6-1.480/;. Scale c. 3:4. Light brown for male flesh, except on e; on c purple on parts of dress that show white in the illustration. Second quarter of 6th century. (A.A. I.emos, Archaic Pottery of Chios 1, from figs 56, 57 and 59.) Chian Black-figure style, fragment of lid: Izmir 930 (from Erythrae). Width of fragment 14 cm. Sphinx and Lion group: first quarter of 6th century. (Lemos, fig. 81.) Chian Black-figure style, fragments of chalices. a Chios (from Emporio). b Chios (from Rizari). c British Museum 88.6-1.1072 d Reggio di Cal. 19148. Scale c. 1:1. Comast group: second quarter of 6th century. (Lemos, from fig. 96.) Fikellura amphora: British Museum 88.2-8.54. Scale rather under 1:3. Altenhurg painter: c. 560. (Museum photo.)

xiii

74 76

79

— Illustrations

—

10.2 I'ikellura amphora, fragments of shoulder: Nicosia I960/X-29/2. Scale rather under 1:3. Altenburg painter: c. 550-540. (Museum photo.) 10.3 Eikellura ampliora: Altenburg 191. Ht 31 cm. Altenburg painter: c. 550-540. (J. Boehlau, Aus ionischen and italiscben Nekropolen, fig. 26.) 10.4 I'ikellura oinochoe: Louvre A321. Ht 29 cm. Group S: mid 6th century. (Photo E.A. Lane.) 10.5 Eikellura oinochoe: Birmingham University. Ht 29.5 cm. Group R: second quarter of 6th century. (Photo R.A. Tomlinsoi),) 10.6 Eikellura amphora: British Museum 64.10-7.156. I k 34 cm. Running Man painter: c. 530. (Museum photo.) 10.7 I'ikellura amphora, detail from belly: British Museum 67.5-8.859. Scale c. 1:3. Running Man painter: c. 530. 10.8 Eikellura amphoras. a Basle 1906.252. Ht 31 cm. Group P: second half of 6th century, b Louvre A327. Ht 43 cm. Group O: later 6th century. 10.9 I'ikellura amphoriskoi: British Museum. a 60.4-4.39. 1 It 26 cm. Second half of 6th century. b 64.10-7.1350. I It 28 cm. Late 6th century. (Museum photos.) 10.10 I'ikellura amphoriskos, detail from belly: Rhodes 12396. Scale c. 2:3. Painter of the Running Satyrs: c. 520. (Tracing corrected by G.P. Sehaus.) 10.11 Ftkellura aryballos: Bochum S1030. Ht 7.3 cm. Mid 6th century. (Museum photo.) 11.1 Ionian Little Master cups, fragments: Samos and Athens (but lion sherd is lost). Scale c. 2:3. Mid 6ih ' century. (Photo Deutsches Archaologisehes Institut, Athens - Samos 1942.) 11.2 Ionian Little Master cup: Louvre E68. Diam. of bowl ' 23 cm. Mid 6th century. (Photo E.A. Lane.) 12.1 a North Ionian dish, fragment: Izmir (from Smyrna). Original diameter c. 42 cm. Whitish slip: purple and white retouches. Precursor of Clazomenian Black-figure: c. 560. (Photo J.M. Cook.) b North Ionian krater, fragment of neck: British Museum 88.6-1.520. Ht of figures c. 6.3 cm. Washy slip: purple on hair (or cap), white spots on dress. Precursor of Clazomenian Black-figure: c, 560. xiv

80 80 82 83 84 84 85

86

87 88

93 94

96

96

— /1In strut ions — 12.2

12.3

12.4

12.5

12.6 12.7 12.8 13.1

13.2 13.3 14.1 15.1

16.1

17.1

Clazomenian Black-figure amphora: Berlin INV. 4530. I It (as restored) 54 cm. Purple and white retouches. Tiihingen group: c. 550-540. (Antike Denkmdler 2, pi. 54.) Clazomenian Black-figure slim amphoras: British Museum a 88.2-8.7 la. Hi 46 cm. b 88.2-8.74. I It of fragment 28 cm. Petrie painter: 540-525. (Museum photos.) Clazomenian Black-figure aniphoras, fragments: British Museum. a neck: 88.2-8.82. Diam. at lip 17 cm. b upper part of body: 88.2-8.110. lit (as made up) 19.6 cm. Urla group: 540-525. (Museum photos.) Clazomenian (?) Black-figure amphora: Athens 12713. lit 26.5cm. Knipovilch group: 540-520. (Museum photo.) Clazomenian (?) Black-figure askos: Kiev. lit 15.4cm. Enmann class: 540-520. Clazomenian (?) amphora, from Rhodes: British Museum 63,3-30.4. l i t 44cm. 530-500. (Museum photo.) Clazomenian Black-figure hydria, fragment: Athens 5610. Width of fragment c. 9.5 cm. c. 540. Northampton group amphora (the 'Northampton amphora'): private collection (formerly Castle Ashby). lit 32.4 cm. 540-530. (Photo J. Boardman.) Campana dinos: Wurzburg 115352. Hi 20.8 cm. Painter of Louvre E676: 540-520. (Museum photo.) Caeretan hydria: Zurich, private collection. 1 It 42 cm. c. 515. (Photo 11.P. Isler.) Vroulian cup: Berlin Inv. 2960. Ill 15.5cm. Mid 6th century. (Jell 1 (1886], 143.) Situlas: British Museum. a 88.2-8.11. Ht 46 cm. (Jdl 10 [1895], 37 fig. 1) b 88.2-8.7 + 22. Scale c. 1:2. Late in third quarter of 6th century. c 88.2-8.13 +30 + 41. Scale c. 1:2. Third quarter of 6th century. Late East Greek Black-figure oinoclioe: Chersoii (?) (from Berezan). Last quarter of 6th century. (Photo Inst. Hist. Mat. Culture, St Petersburg, 111 9187/5143.) . Clazomenian sarcophagi. Borelli painter: c. 540-530. a headpiece: Athens 13939. Width at top 77.5 cm.

97 99, 100

102

103 104 105 106

109 110 112 115 117

119 122

— Illustrations

—

H

17.2

17.3 18.1

19.1

23.1

23.2

fragment i>l Headpiece and Iclt upper corner strip: llrilish Museum R6.3-26.I. Ill of headpiece 33cm. (Museum photo.) Clazomcnian sarcophagus. Berlin Inv. 3145, Length 2.37 metres. Albertiiumi group: 500-480. {Antikc Denkmaler 1, pi. 44.) Cla/omenian sarcophagus, detail of figure 17.2. (Antike Denkmaler I, pi. 44.) Ionian cups. The types quoted are those of Vallet and Villard and of 1 Iayes (see chapter 18, n.l). Tocra. a 2267 ( A l / I l l ) . b 1197 (Hl/V). c 1218 (A2/1X). d 1204 (152/Vlll). e 1299 (A2/Samian). f 1288 (K3/X). (J. Boardman anil J. 1 Iayes, Excavations at Tocra 2, fig, 23; I, lig. 55-7.) Handed and Plain wares. a alabastron: from Santos. li I yd ion: Munich 532. C lekylhos: trom Samos. d amphora: Munich 463. e flask: from Samos. » Scale 1:3. Middle and second hall of 6th century. (a, c, and e alter J, Boehlau, Aits loniscben ttnd italischen Nekropolen, pi. 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5; b and d after CVA Mitnchen 6, pi. 303.1 and 303.3.) Chian white slipped nmphoras a Third quarter of the 7th century h Last quarter of the 7tli century c Second half of the 7th century il Lnd ol the 7lh-bcginning of the 6th century e lirst quarter of the 6th century f Second quarter of the 6th century g Third quarter of the 6th century Chian 'Lambrino A' anil 'swollen-necked' amphoras a 'I.aniHrino A 1'. c. 560-530 I) 'Lambrino A 1'. c. 530-500 c 'LamHrino A 2'. c. 510-490 d 'Swollen necked' with painted rim. c. 500-480 c 'Swollen-necked' with unpainted run. c. 490—470 I 'Swollen-necked' unpamled. Second quarter of the 5tli century

124 125 130

133

147

150

— Illustrations 23.3

23.4

23.5

23.6

23.7

—

Cl.i/omenian amplioras I Type A. End ol the 7th-fnsl quarter ol the 6th century b Typ* A. Second quarter ol the 6th century c Type A. Third quarter of the 6lh century d Type A. Last quarter of the 6th-Heginning of the 5tli century e Type B. c. 600 -525 f Type C. Last third of the 6th~beginning of the 5th century g Type D. c. 600-525 h Type E. Last quarter of the 7th—first quarter of the 6tli ceNtury (?) Lesbian grey amplioras a Second half of the 7th century h First half ol the 6tli century c Third quarter of the 6th century d c. 520-490 e c. 480-460 f 'Table-amphora*. Clinkenbeard's Shape A g 'Table-amphora'. Clinkenbeard's Shape 15. First half of the 6th century h-i 'Phi' type. Second half of the 6th century Zeest's 'tumbler-bottomed' amphoras . a End of the 7th-first half ol the 6th century b Third quarter of the 6th century c End of the 6tli-first quarter of the 5th century d Zeest's 'high swollen-necked' amphora. Second quarter of the 5th century Grace's Samian amplioras. Early types a Early type, massive echinus rim. Detail of upper part b Early type, massive echinus rim. End ol the 7thbeginning of the 6th century c Early type, massive echinus rim. Iirst quarter (or half?) of the 6th century d Early type, massive echinus rim. First and second thirds of the 6th century e Early type, pear-shaped. Detail of upper part f Early type, pear-shaped, gently slanting shoulder. End of the 7th—first half of the 6th century g Early type, pear-shaped, steep slanting shoulder. End of the 7th-first half of the 6th century Milesian amplioras a Ovoid belly. Early type. End o( the 7th-first quarter of the 6th century

153

157

163

166

171

— I lliistrtitions

—

h

23.8

; 23.9

23.10

23.11

•

Ovoid belly. Middle type. Second-third quarters of the 6th century c Broad Helly. Later type. Third quarter of the 6th century d Ogival belly. Later type. Second half of the 6th century e Ovoid belly. Later type. Second half of the 6th century I Conical belly. Later type. Second half of the 6th century g 'Table' amphora. Early type. First half of the 6th century h Table1 amphora. Later type. Second half of the 6th century Milesian amphoias. Details of shapes a Early type. End of the 7th century b Standard type. Second-third quarters of the 6th century c Standard type. c. 560-500 d Standard type. Last quarter of the 6th century e Standard type. First half of the 5th century f Variants of rims g Variant model. Second half of the 6th century h Variant with thickened rim. Last third of the 6th century i-m Foot profiles Sainian and Milesian amphoias. Later types a Samiaii. Third quarter ol the 6th century b Sainian. Last quarter of the 6th century C Sainian. First hall of the 5th century d Milesian (high lip). First half of the 5th century e Milesian (thickened rim). Mid 5lh century I Milesian (thickened rim). First half of the 5lh century g Milesian (thickened rim). Mid 5th century Zeest's 'Samian' amphoias a-d Standard types. Second half of the 6th century e Pithoid variant. Last quarter of the 6th century (?) f—g Intermediary types between Zeest's 'Sainian' and 'Protolhasian' Zeest's 'Protothasian' amphoias a Large model with ogival belly. End of the 6thfirst quarter of the 5th century b Large model with conical belly. Beginning of the 5th century i

xvin

172

173

179

180

— Must rations — c—g Standard models. End ol the 6th—lirst thud ol the 5th century 23.12 Zcest's 'Samian' and 'Protoihasian' aniphoras. Details of shapes a-d Zeest's 'Samian* models. Rim profiles: standard (d) and variants (a-c) e-j Zecst's 'Samian' models. Toot profiles: simple(e-g) and double-bevelled (h-j) k-m Zeest's 'Samian' models. Pithoid variant. Last quarter of the 6th century n-p Zeest's 'Samian'/'Prototliasian' models. Intermediary types q-t Zeest's 'Protothasian' models. First third ol the 5tii century 23.13 Zeest's 'Thasian circle' amphoras a Type A. Broad-bellied (= Agora P. 24892 type) b Type A. Ovoid-bellied (= Agora P. 24888 type) c Type A. 'Table' model (= Agora P. 24894 type) d Type A. 'Memkan' (?) (= Agor.i P. 24893 type) e Type B, l i n i n g ring-foot (= Agoi.i P. 248KV) f Type B. Broad flaring 'ring-foot (= Agora P. 24887) g Type C. (= Zeest's type I8l>) 23.14 Map of the Black Sea region

181

188

191

PREFACE

When the general editor of this series asked me to write this Hook, I accepted partly because of the flattering implication that I was not obsolete and also to give myself some respectable occupation. My knowledge of East Greek pottery is patchy. I Have worked in some detail on the main decorated wares of the mid and late sixth century and, il one counts the Clazoinenian sarcophagi, the early fifth. In the Wild Goat style I have kept up a general interest but, when in 1934 1 proposed to study it more closely, the then Director of the British School at Athens warned me that it was reserved eventually for another student and, being young and vulnerable, I submitted. With the other styles my acquaintance is mostly secondhand, though 1 Have had advice from more knowledgeable colleagues. Prof. J.N. Coldslream went through Chapters 3, 4 and 5; Prof. J.M. Cook was informative about finds in Turkey; Dr Pierrre Dupont made valuable comments, especially about the Ionian cups and material in Russian and Ukrainian collections and, still more helpfully, contributed a long chapter on trade amphoras; Mine C. Dupont translated her husband's French and drew the figures to illustrate his text; Prof. G.I'. Schauss read my text and commented perhaps too politely; Dr G.B. Shepherd gave me practical help; and Mi J. Donaldson saved me from disaster on the word processor. Among those who have answered questions, provided illustrations or permitted their use there are Prof. E. Akurgal, Prof. P. Amandry, Prof. G. Bakir, Prof. T. Bakir, Prof. G.F. Bass, Prof. Sir John Boardman, Prof. J. Boehlau, Prof. C. Boehringer, Dr D. Christou, Mr J.S. Cole, Mr B.I'. Cook, Prof. K.-V. von Eichstcdt, Mr J. Gaunt, Prof. W. von Graeve, Prof. C.I I. Grcenewalt, Dr J.W. Hayes, Prof. J.M. Hcmehijk, Prof. 1 I.P. Isler, Dr V. Karageorghis, Prof. Ch. Kardara, Dr N. Kunisch, Dr A.A. Lemos, Dr M. Maass, Dr M.E. Mayo, Prof. P. Pelagatti, Mr R. Sword, Prof. E. Simon, Dr P.V. Shuvalov, Prof. R.A. Tomlinson, Dr O. Tzakou-Alexandri, Dr K. Vierneisel, Dr D.J.R. Williams and Dr I. Wehgartner. To all these, to others I have missed, to the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens, and to the various authorities of the Museums, whose photos are used in this book - and, I add with pleasure, without any charge for reproduction - I am, properly, most grateful. R.M. Cook

XXI

PRELIMINARY NOTES

DATES .All three-figured dates in this book are BC and so that sign has been -omitted. Al) dates, obvious enough Irom the context, are all four-figured. SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS t

•

IN addition to the standard abbreviations ol periodicals, shortened forms have been used lor a few books to which frequent reference is made. These are: Alt-Smyrna I: E. Akurgal, Alt-Smyrna 1 (Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1983). Bayrakli: E. Akurgal, Zcitscbrift der phiiosophischen Fakultat der Univenitat Ankara H.I (1950). .Clara jibodos: G. Jacopi, Clara Rhodos 3, 4, 6/7 (Rhodes, Istituio StoncoArcheologico, 1929, 1931, 1933); 1.. I aurenzi, Clara Rhodos 8 {ibid., 1936). Dupont: I\ Dupont, Dana 17 (1983), 19-43. •Emporio:]. llonrdman, Greek Emporiu (London,Thames and Hudson, 1967). Kardara: Ch. Kardara, Rodiaki Angehgraphia (Athens, listia, 1963). Sainos S: II. Walter, Samos 5 (Bonn, 1 labclt, 1968). Santos 6.1: E. Waltei-Kai ydi, Samos 6.1 (Bonn, I labclt, 1973). .yroulia: K.I'. Kinch, louilles de Vroulia (Berlin, Reinier, 1914).

\

.

N O N - S T A N D A R D ABBRliVIATIONS OF SLAVONIC A N D R O M A N I A N P E R I O D I C A L S (Chapter 23)

1JGA1MK.

l/vestiia Gosudarstvennoi Akademn Istoni Material'iioi Kul'tury (Moscow) 1VA1) Izvestiia na Varnenskoto Arkheologichesko Druzhestvo (Varna) KS1A Kiatkie Soobshclienija Institma Arheologii (Moscow) -MCA Materials si Cercetari Arheologice (Bucarest) Ross. Arkh. Rt>ssiiskaia Arklieologua (formerly Sovetskaia Arkheologiia) (Moscow) TG1M Trudy Gosudarstvennogo lstoricheskogo Muzeia (Moscow)

— Preliminary Nates — COLOUR OF CLAY AND PAINT Although it is becoming professional to relei to the Munsell Colour Charts to describe clays and paints, 1 did not have the opportunity to use them on most of the material mentioned in this book, nor do 1 think it would have been worth doing. The range of unintentional variation, even on the same pot, may be considerable, the result ol uneven Bring or, lor the paint, uneven density or application. Such variations I have ignored and my description of colours is conventional. 'Brown', of clay, covers a wide range, but is normally a medium tone, often with a reddish tinge. 'Black' or 'blackish' is used lor the dark paint which, when dilute, shades into brown or, if (as often) misfired, can be red. 'Purple' is an inaccurate description of the malt red paint used on many pots as a subsidiary colour; but 'ied' is wanted for the shiny and brighter red paint that on some Aeolian and other pots has an importance similar to that of the black paint. 'While' and 'whitish' includes cream and tends sometimes to yellowish. A look at a few specimens should make all this clear enough.

GLOSSARY

AI.ABASTRON A small, thin pot for toilet oil or scent with narrow aperture anil usually footless (Figure 19.1a). AMPI IORA A large, two-handled jar, usually with neck sharply set off from the body: proportions vary and the handles may He set vertically or horizontally (Figures 4.3, 8.22, 10.8, 12.2, 12.3a, 12.7, 13.1, 19.Id). AMPIIORISKOS

A small or miniature amphora (Figure 10.9).

ARYBALI.OS A small flask for toilet oil or the like, with narrow aperture, widish lip and round or pear-shaped body (Figure 5.7, 10.11). ASKOS A smallish, low closed pot, with a spoilt al one end ol the top and a handle behind it (Figure 12.6). BIRD VASE A sort of askos, shaped more or less like a bird: often called a 'duck vase'. BUTTERFLY MOTIVE

See 'Opposed Triangles'.

CABLE The true cable may He single (Figure 8.6), dmblc (Figure 10.1) or multiple (a triple form on Figure 10.3): later examples often have the outer angles filled (Figures 8.20, 8.26). The 'broken cable' is a simplification (Figure 5.8 on the lip, Figure 10.8). CHALICE The grandiose name given to a Cllian version of the cup (Figures 8.15, 8.16). CHORA

The territory of a city.

CHOUS

A type of small oinochoe (plural 'chocs').

CLOSED SI IAI'E A shape, such as thatol an amphora, the inside of which is not readily visible: krater and dinos are reckoned as closed shapes too. COLUMN KRATER A variety of krater with rectangular plaques joining the handles to the run. COM AST A drunken male reveller, sometimes with padded buttocks.

— Cl lossary — COMOS The revelry in which comasls cavort. CUP Usage varies: some extend the name to all drinking vessels, but in this book it is restricted - illogically - to post-Geometric ones with two horizontally set handles. CYLIX The word is still used by some students for cups of Little Master type (Figure 18.lt) and then successors. DIN OS A large bowl with incurving rim, for mixing wine in: it is distinguished from the krater by being footless and also may be without handles ((Figure 13.2).

D1P1NTO

Words etc., painted on a surface.

GLAZE A term often used - and not altogether wrongly - for the standard shiny black paint of much Greek pottery (and for the shiny red on some Aeolian and Lydian products). GLOSS A tentative substitute for 'glaze'. GRAFFITO In scholarly parlance this is used only of words etc. that are Scratched ('incised') on a surface; if painted, they are 'dipinti'. HEAD VASE A drinking vessel or oinochoe in the shape of a head, in fact a s<,)rt ol toby jug. HOOK SQUARE Examples on Figure 8.23 (under the dog's belly and between the goats) and, more complex, on Figure 8.21 (under the first and above the following goat). HOURGLASS ORNAMENT

See 'Opposed triangles'.

11YDRIA A water, jar, with a vertical handle for dipping and two horizontal handles for lifting (Higuie 13.3 - the vertical handle is at the back; the shape of this example is uStbier than usual). KANT11AROS A cup with two vertical handles (a footless variety on Figure 9.1b, in front of the figure's feet). K.OTYLE A deep, stemless cup without a distinct lip (Figure 5.6). Some call this a 'skyphos'. KOTYLE-KRATER A giant kotyle, much too big to drink from. Some call it a 'skyphos-kraler'. KRATER A big bowl with two handles and incurving rim, conventionally distinguished from the dinos by having a foot; there are several varieties of this vessel tor mixing wine and water (Figure 5.2, with strap handles). KYLIX ' A fancier spelling of 'cylix'.

— Glossary LEBES

—

A name some prefer for 'dittos'.

LEKANE

A shallow dish with two horizontal handles.

LEKYT1IOS Used of (stilish Masks for toilet oil, with narrow aperture and usually only one handle (some types on Figures 5.1, IV.lc and 19.le). LOOP PATTERN For normal form Figure 8.5, above and He-low meander on neck; for rectilinear form Figure 8.21. LOTUS The favourite Greek floral; for the main East Greek forms Figure 8.13. LOTUS CROSS A circular arrangement of lotus flowers and buds, two of each, used as the central decoration of some stemmed dishes. MARBLING

See p.66.

MEANDER AND SQUARE MEANDER CROSS MEANDRO1D MUG

As Figure 8.8, on the neck.

As Figure 10.8b, on the neck.

A disjointed version of the Geometric hatched meander.

A name used variously, buj here lor a tall one-handled cup.

NECKING RING 10.3, 12.3a, 12.4b). OINOCHOE

A ridge at the junction ol neck and body (Figures

A jug.

OLPE Used ot some narrowish jugs with sagging belly (the commonest variety Figure 8.29; another Figure 8.27). OPEN SHAPE readily visible.

A shape, such as that ol a cup, ol which the inside is

OPPOSED TRIANGLES Examples on Figure 4.2 (side panels) and Figure 5.4 (m the lowest band of decoration). ORIENTALISING The stage ol Greek art succeeding Geometric (and Subgeometric) and making use of animals and ornaments derived from Eastern models. PALMETTE A fan-shaped arrangement of petals (examples on Figures 10.8, 12.4b, and exuberantly, Figure 13.1). PANTIIER The conventional name for any feline drawn with frontal head (as on Figure 10.2). PERAEA

An island city's territory on the mainland opposite.

PH1ALE A saucer, often with a boss ('omphalos') in the middle, often used for libations.

— Cilossary — PLASTIC' VAST. A hollow figurine with an aperture, so that it can be used as a container. PROTHESIS

The lying in state of .1 corpse before burial.

PYXIS A circular lidded box for ointment or oddments. RESERVATION

On a painted pot an area that is uiipainted is said to

be 'reserved'.

RETOUCIIES Used conventionally of the purple and white enhancements put on figures and ornaments (clearly shown on Figure 8.19). RIBBON PATTERN An ornament like a zigzag string of sausages: if on Figure 10.5 another row of triangles, upside down, was fitted into those round the base, the spaces between their sides would make a ribbon pattern. ROTELLE A smallish disc on each side of the attachment of the handle to the lip of many oinochoes (Figures 8.6, 8.9), functional as a clip in metal, but for pottery only ornamental. ROUNDEL A sort of half rosette attached to the frame of a field: in Chian it is often exaggerated to a horseshoe shape. 1

SAW PATTERN See Figure 8.16, in the handle field: this is a favourite on Chian chalices of the sixth century. SIREN

1

A bird with a woman's head (examples on Figure 12.2).

SITULA Generally a sort of bucket, but the name is used also for a twohandled East Greek shape (Figure 15.1a). SK.YPIIOS Here used - inconsistently - for Protogeometric, Geometric and Subgeometric cups (Figures 4.2, 5.5). Some use 'skyphos' for what I call "kotyle*. SLIP A term used conventionally by Classical archaeologists for a coating of clay different from (and usually paler than) thai of the pot on which it is put; usually it covers only visible parts. A very thin slip is sometimes called a 'wash'. SPIRAL, DOUBLE An ornament favoured in the Late Wild Goat style and on the Dorian plates, and placed usually under the belly of animals (Figure 8.24). SPIRAL HOOKS

See Figure 5.7.

STAMNOS A large jar with short or vestigial neck and two handles, set horizontally. STAR PATTERN

See Figure 10.11.

— Glossary — TEA CUP handle.

Used here of small ami fairly deep cups with a single vertical

TOOTH PATTERN on the lip).

Used of a row of emphatic triangles (Figure 14.1,

TREE ORNAMENT

See Figure 5.4, second panel on the shoulder.

TREFOIL LIP A lip pinched in to make a spout (as Figures 8.9, 10.4). WASH

A thin, often streaky, coat of slip.

WASTER

Misfired or faulty pot (or fragment) discarded by the potter.

XXIX

CIIAI'TIR

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION The East Greeks inhabited the west coast ol Turkey and the islands offshore. The name is modem; in antiquity they were called Acolians in the north, lonians in the middle and Dorians in the south. Earlier, so excavation shows, there had been some Mycenaean settlements, most evidently on Rhodes and Cos and at Miletus, but these did not survive. Then, after an interval but early in the Iron Age, there came what is called the Ionian migration (which conventionally, like the 'Ionian revolt', includes the Aeolians and Dorians). This seems not to have been an officially planned operation, but a sequence of private ventures, not necessarily ol similar size or character. Dating is difficult, since it depends on finds in the settlements, and so far excavation has not been extensive or lucky; but the current opinion is that the migration began in the later eleventh century and may have continued for a hundred years or more. Internal migration, that is (lie foundation ol new settlements by established ones, went on much longer. The legends, recorded or invented in later times, are all more or less untrustworthy.' When the migration began there were no powerful native slates in western Anatolia and the local inhabitants were presumably expelled, exterminated, enslaved or, if — or so long as — those solutions were impracticable, allowed to coexist, some in time becoming fully 1 Icllenised members of the community. Even so, Greek settlement did not spread far inland, at most some 25 miles (40 km) up the big river valleys, although (heir art at least had an overwhelming influence in Caria and a more erratic one in Lydia. By the seventh century, when our knowledge ol East Greek events begins, there were a score or so ol major cities, ol winch Miletus was or was becoming the biggest, and they had annexed most of the smaller settlements. These major cities, Ionian, Aeolian and Dorian, had each their own federation, effective in ceremonial matters, but hardly interfering in the neighbourly wars so characteristic of the Greek poln. lly now the kingdom of Lydia, with us capital at Saidis about 50 miles (80 km) inland from Smyrna, was becoming strong enough to lie aggressive. For a time it was halted by the marauding raids ol the Cimmerians, who also did some damage to the Greeks, but before the end ol the seventh century the Lydians began attacking East Greek cities and, conveniently

— Introduction — loi atchaeologisls, deMioyed Smyrna.2 There was no unified resistance and l>y the middle ol the sixth ecnluiy all those on the mainland except Miletus had been subjected. Soon afterwards, about 547, Lydia in turn was annexed liy the Persians, who again subdued the mainland Greeks and later, when a licet was available, the islands too. Neither Lydian nor Peisian rule was haisli and the East d e c k cities continued to flourish, perhaps even more than before, since they could no longer indulge in fighting one another. Then, in 499, the East Greeks, or most of them, united at last to revolt, sacked Sardis and five years later, after the usual defections, were defeated in a naval battle off Miletus, which was then destroyed. But soon, in 479, the defeat of the Peisian invasion of European Greece gave Athens the opportunity to liberate and then subjugate the islands and coastal cities of the mainland, although the Persians still held the interior, so that some unfortunates suffered double taxation - Athenian tribute and Peisian land tax. The elfects of these political changes are not (or not yet) evident in

Figure 1.1 Map of the Aegean and East Greek region. (Only places mentioned in the text are marked.) 1 Acanthus 2 Galcpsos 3 Oisyme 4 Kavala 5 Tliasos 6 Abdera 7 Maroneia X Saniolhrace 9 Lemnos 10 Troy 11 Dnskylcion 12 Antis.sa 13 Methymna 14 Mytilene 15 Put gaintim 1C, Pitane 17 Mynna 18 Cyme 19 Phocaea 20 'Lniis.i' 21 Saidis 22 Smyrna

23 24 25 26 27 2H 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 H3

Cla/.omenac Mordogan Chios Erythrae ' Tens Colophon Clams Ephcsus Pygela (?) Samos Mella Miletus Didyma Komuradasi (Teichiussa ?) [asos Euromos (Selimye) Labraunda Mylasa(Milas) Lagina (Turgut) Aphrodisias Stiatonikeia

(Eskihissar) 44 Sinuri sanctuary 45 Comlekci 46 Halicarnassus 47 Dirmil 48 Asarlik 49 C a l y m n o s 50 Cos 51 Cnidus 52 Nisyros 53 CauNtis 54 lalysus 55 Camirus 56 Lindos 57 Vroulia 58 Thera 59 Paros' 60 Delos and Rheneia 61 Aegina 62 Argos 63 Corinth 64 Athens

— Introduction — the development of pottery. Perhaps the founders of some intrusive workshops HI Etruria were refugees from the first Persian conquest and the destruction of Miletus may have brought the Fikellura style to an end. East Greek communities did not, except at Gela and Siris, start colonising overseas before the middle of the seventh century and then it was northwards - the Aegean coast of Thrace, the Propontis and, a little before 600, the rilack Sea (or Pontus).1 Also in the last quarter of the seventh century the king of Egypt permitted a Greek trading establishment at Naucratis in the Delta and, to judge by Herodotus and dedications, the beneficiaries were largely East Greek. Fortunately all these settlements were regular users oi East Greek fine pottery, as long as it was made.

CHAPTER 2

THE

EVIDENCE

From want of evidence, and also of interest, East Greek pottery has not been studied with the same success as that ol other Greek regions. It was not exported much except to the colonies round the Black Sea and the Greek settlements in Egypt and Libya, anil none of them — to judge by finds so tar - goes back beyond (lie late seventh century. 1 In its home territory a fair quantity is available from the islands; but on the mainland, where excavation has concentrated on the more imposing remains of the Hellenistic anil Roman periods, finds of earlier pottery remain too often unpublished and inaccessible. The first considerable finds of decorated Bast Greek pottery - and this survey is concerned mainly with decorated wares - were made on Rhodes, where private entrepreneurs became busy in the 1850s and until 1912 (when Italy took possession of the island) supplied European and American collections with most of their complete East Greek pots. For these, of course, no contexts are available,2 but the loss was partly made good by more properly conducted excavations and their well illustrated publication. 3 On the little island of Nisyros some early sixth century graves have been found and published.'1 A big cemetery on Cos has also been published; it spans Protogt'ometric and most of Geometric.' On Santos excavation ol the important sanctuary ol Hera has provided much pottery from Protogeometrie on and some ol it in closed deposits, which allow a little relative dating; this Has been published satisfactorily, 6 as have the finds from a lew graves by the ancient town. 7 For Chios there are two small sanctuaries at Emporio with useful stratification and well published," a more important one at Plianai only summarily reported,'' and graves and stray finds, only a tew of them published, from Rizari beside the ancient (and modern) town. 10 On Lesbos the pottery from Antissa, some of it stratified, was reported only summarily;" and although excavation is now being productive IN the town of Mytilene, it is too early to expect detailed publication. It is worse with the mainland. In Aeohs excavations at Pitane, where there was a helpful cemetery, and - for what they were worth - at Cyme and the Ionian outpost of Phocaea are not yet published, though some of the Pitane pottery is exhibited without context. However, in the south, 10 miles (16 km) from the sea the minor site of Buruncuk, dubiously identified as Larisa (the Phrikonian one), yielded a fair amount of unsiratilied pottery, which alter forty years was published handsomely. 12 Coming to Ionia, 5

— The evidence — Smyrna is still Being excavated and of the rich finds, many from stratified deposits, there has so far been published little more than the Corinthian, Attic and mid and later sixth century East Greek from the earlier campaigns.13 Excavation has been done at Erythrae too, but so far the pottery is not available. At Clazomenae work has been resumed14 and publication cannot be expected yet, although the painted sarcophagi that continually turn up there are well enough known.15 Whatever was found at Colophon disappeared in the troubles of 1922. At Ephesus, it seems, finds of early pottery have been disappointing. For Miletus tantalising selections of sherds are published from time to time and some also from its adjunct Uidyma."' At Iasos, further down the coast, more pottery is reported, some from graves, but very little has been released.17 Long-term excavations, as some of these are, have a drawback; pottery is liable to turn up anywhere, so that a final report on it cannot be made until digging is over, and an interim report is not an attractive task, since new finds may quickly upset its conclusions. Caria to the south was not Greek, but its pottery - at least in the nearer parts - followed East Greek fashions. A few Protogeometric and Geometric pots have been published from graves at various places; and for later styles there are a hundred or more pots from a cemetery near Mylasa, dug up illicitly and so without contexts, although many of them are already accessible in collections, public and private, in four continents.1S In Lydia, which had its own styles, borrowing from East Greek was eclectic; only a small selection of finds is yet published, mostly yithout useful contexts." Further afield export of East Greek pottery was more or less limited to the eastern part of the Greek world. From early on a little went to the Cyclades and by the middle of the seventh century a respectable amount was reaching Aegina.20 At Al Mina, by the mouth of the Orontes,21 and at Pithecusae (Ischia) off the Bay of Naples22 finds go back to the mid eighth century. Elsewhere so far there is little before the late seventh, when Africa and the Black Sea were opening up. At Thasos, where Chian pottery was especially popular, a helpful selection has been published.23 Histria is better served and has some rough stratification.24 At Berezan and Olbia much has been found, but only a little published.25 Tocra too has some stratification and is published well,26 and there is a good publication of finds from Gyrene.27 There are also the innumerable sherds from Naucratis, scattered through the museums of the world and sporadically illustrated.28 Lastly, we have the small, but interesting deposits from Tell Defenneh at the eastern edge of the Nile Delta29 and from Mes.ad Hashavyahu in Israel,30 both - published. There are, of course, various small or isolated finds both in the East Greek homeland and elsewhere. But, as is obvious, what is available for study is an incomplete sample. Those major schools which exported should ' be represented reasonably well, but in so large a region there are likely to

— I he evidence

—

be minor schools of which we know little or nothing. Nor is the chronology of what we have secure throughout. New finds or the release of old ones may still upset favourite assumptions. Because of tlie importance of Rhodes as a supplier of modern customers most students (myself included) supposed until recently that it had a comparable importance in ancient times: it now appears that from the middle of the seventh century onwards very little decorated pottery was made on that island. As it happens this discovery came not from archaeological exploration or stylistic study, but from the physical analysis of pots, matched with the local clays of the region, which conveniently have a wide range of variation.31 It is a pity that so far such analyses have been done only on pottery of the late seventh and sixth centuries and not all varieties of that. East Greek studies are dogged by misfortune.

CIIAl'TLR

3

CHRONOLOGY

Laboratory processes of dating are at present too crude to be useful for pottery of the Greek Iron Age, though thermoluminescence can distinguish • between originals and fakes (if the fakers have not faked the criteria too). So the three traditional methods continue in use - stratigraphy, contexts and stylistic study. For stratigraphy one needs deposits which have accumulated without serious disturbance, so that the lower an object is the earlier it was deposited and, as a general rule, was made. Contexts, in closed deposits made at one time, give synchronisms: here burials, particularly when single, are the examples most used. Stylistic study, which arranges specimens in order of development or detects the influence of one style on !; another, is more subjective. For the first two methods several instances are !' desirable, since there is always the danger of strays or heirlooms. The third can he convincing, as for the dependence of the incising Late Wild Goat style on Corinthian; but sometimes the connection is vague or dubious, as in the relationship between East Greek and other l'rotogeometric and Geometric styles. The results so far for East Greek pottery are patchy. For East Greek Protogeometric no good stratigraphy is available; there . are some graves, though without helpful imports; and comparisons with other schools are not easy. Geometric pottery is more frequent and, although stratification is still not of much use, graves are more numerous, again mostly on Cos and Rhodes, the later ones sometimes containing datable imports and allowing stylistic comparisons which are convincing. The Subgeometric Bird bowls, happily, have good contexts, but for other Subgeometric, the Early Orientalising experiments and the earlier stages of the Wild Goat style none of the three methods has done much yet. The last third of the seventh century (roughly the period of Early Corinthian) is well documented on Rhodes by published graves; and at Smyrna in the siege mound there is an overlap of the Late Wild Goat style with Early Corinthian. Then comes a gap, partly filled by stratification at Histria and Tocra, until in the second half of the sixth century Rhodian graves become ' useful again, particularly for Fikellura; this is found regularly with Attic pottery, which has been classified well enough. For East Greek Black-figure comparisons with Attic are almost all that we have and although for the Situlas there are contexts, these are not easy to reconcile. Stratigraphy, contexts and stylistic study can give a relative chronology, attached to that worked out for other parts of the Greek world, but it is

— Chronology — at least convenient to express it IN calendar years, using il possible hxcd dates from Near Eastern records, since Greek ones are suspect before the late sixth century. The system so concocted is far from reliable tor the earlier part ol the Iron Age, but should not He far wrong from the late eighth century on.' f lalf a dozen of these fixed dates, some very shaky, are directly relevant for East Greek pottery.-' (1) At Mesad 1 lashavyahu in Israel there was a short occupation of a fort, which - il Has been demonstrated - must have come to an end between 60V and 598: here therewas Wild Goat pottery of Middle II style and not early in that style. 3 (2) Smyrna, according to Herodotus, was taken by Alyaltes of Lydia; lie does not say when in that king's long reign, which he gives as 57 years (617-560), 4 but it should have been early, though after his five seasons of campaigning against Miletus. This would make the city's lull not earlier than 612, though since Herodotus's date ol 667 lor the death of Gygcs, an earlier l.ydian king, is apparently some fifteen years too high, his dale for Alyattes' accession may also need to be lowered.'' Anyway the excavators of Smyrna found a siege mound and destruction level with Corinthian pottery not later than the Early stage and not of the end ol that stage, and so put Alyalies' action at about 600.'' (3) Again according to I lerodotus, Alyattes, who died in or about 560^was buried under an enormous tumulus7 and this is fairly certainly identifiable; in it was found a little pottery, some of an East Greek variety independently dated to the mid sixth century." (4) At Sardis a small deposit of pottery usually assigned to the mid sixth century was sealed by the collapse ol what seems to have been a fortification wall, lor which a reasonable occasion would be the Persian conquest in or about 547; it included an early 1'ikellura sherd. 9 (5) At Tell Delenneh, a fort at the east of the Nile Delta, 1'ikellura, Cla/omenian Black-figure and Situlas were found along with bungs stamped with the names ol Egyptian kings; it seems likely that these belonged to Greek mercenaries in Egyptian .service, whose occupation of the site ended in 525 with the Persian invasion. 10 (6) Lastly, Miletus was destroyed in 494; so Eikelluia cannot have been made there alter that date, if indeed it was not already defunct. Not surprisingly there is some variation in the chronological systems derived from the fixed dates. For the part where Corinthian pottery provides the framework three of these systems are set out in Table 3.1, of which the first is probably the most widely used and the one lollowed in this book. The second is a modification lhal may well be more accurate;" but since the modification is small and for the period concerned precise dates have little or no historical relevance, it is not worthwhile disturbing orthodox convention, anyhow at present. The thud system has few adherents, but should be noted, since it is used in Santos 5 and 6, the two best collections of photos of East Greek pottery, and in other studies by their authors. 9

— Chronology — lubh- i. I PayneColdstream 1 an- Cor. (ieomctne Karl) I'icHocoiintliian Middle I'rotocorinthian 1 Middle I'roliKorinthian II L.Uc l'lotocoriluliMii

transitional I'.arlv Corinthian Middle < 'in indii.in 1 .we t Corinthian 1

1 AU Corinthian II

750-720 720~()9O 690-670 670-650 6S0 (.40 640-625 625-600 600 575 575-550 550-

Hoppcr

Langtotz

650-630 630-620/15 620/15-.595/90 595/90-570 570 550 550-

640-620 EWG 620-600 MWG I 600-575 MWG 11 575-550 I.WG 550-530 530Fikellura

(Hy the end of the Middle Corinthian stage the basis of the system lias changed from Corinthian to Attic.)

IO

CHAPTER 4

PROTOGEOMETRIC

In the sequence of Greek pottery Protogeometnc follows Submycenaean; these terms though cumbrous - and there is worse to come - arc at least art-historically instructive. The new style is characterised Hy a deliberate insistence on regularity, most obvious in its favourite motives, circles and semicircles, NOW drawn with a multiple compass and no longer freehand and at once a favourite decoration. The genesis of Protogeometrie, it is generally accepted, was m Athens in the second half of the eleventh century, or more accurately about the beginning of the Greek Iron Age, and during the next hundred or so years it was adopted throughout Greek lands except IN Western Greece, l.acoma and for the most part Crete. The local schools so formed developed in different ways and some of them persisted well after Athens hail moved on to a Geometric style, although in time Geometric too was accepted generally. Finds of Protogeometric pottery have been reported, perhaps not all correctly, throughout the East Greek region1 at Antissa and perhaps Mytilene on Lesbos, at Phocaea, Smyrna, Clazomenae, Mordogan (on the east side of the Lrythrae peninsula), Erythrae, Chios perhaps, Teos, Claros, Samos, Pygela (if that is the ancient name ol the site near Kus.adasi), Melia, Miletus, Komuradasi (probably Teichiussa), lasos (though in ("aria a more or less Greek city), Assarlik, Dirmil and Comlekgi (near I lalicarnassus), on Cos, at lalysus, Camirus and Lindos on Rhodes, at Gaunus (again IN Cana) and in I.ydiau Sardis. The list is not likely to be complete. Some of these are surface finds and most are not of more than a few pots or sherds, but Smyrna, Miletus, lasos perhaps and Cos have been more productive and Rhodes, Dirmil and Assarlik provide useful graves. So far only the material from the last lour of these places has been published adequately; from Miletus and Smyrna we have only samples, not necessarily representative, and the little illustrated from lasos may in fact be no earlier than Subprotogeometnc. It is usually assumed that there was very little trade in pottery in the Greek Early Iron Age and so the examples we have are in general taken to have been made near where they were found: this is reasonable, though one should not forget the Protogeometric noted on Lesbos, where local production was dominamly ol monochrome Grey ware. Still the available finds from most ol the sites listed are too scanty for local schools to be distinguished.

— ProtogeoHict

ric

—

The only good series ol East Greek Prologeometric yet available is Irom a cemetery ON COS. This cemetery is usually and perhaps rightly thought to go back 10 the beginning ol lion Age Greek settlement of the island, and it continued in regular use until the time when the subsequent Geometric style was in its Late stage, hi cemeteries there tend to he fashions in the choice of grave goods, so that some shapes of pots are frequent and others not. lor the Coan graves, which also are largely of children and so liable lo he furnished with smaller pots, the favourite is the trefoil oinochoe (Figure 4.1) and next the skyphos (Figure 4.2),2 its foot at first high and conical or (unlike its Attic counterpart) flaring, but later sedately low. There are also lekythoi, hydnas, bird-vases and mugs, these last mostly footless and undecorated and, as on Rhodes, with steep sides. Sizable amphoras are rare and there are no kraters. The decoration, which rarely goes below the shoulder of closed pots, recalls that of Attic Protogeometric in its Late stage, but there is no doubt that here we have a distinct school. Concentric circles and semicircles of course appear - the circles sometimes linked by wavy lines - but the easier row of triangles, hatched, cross-hatched or boxed, is and remains popular. Other favoured motives are a pair of crosshatched opposed triangles (the hourglass or butterfly ornament), . cross-hatched lozenges and groups of narrow or diminutive tongues, hanging from the top of the field of the shoulder. Tongues of this sort, linked circles and also vertical rows of dots (as on Figure 4.3) occur in - East Greek Protogeometric elsewhere and are not necessarily Coan inventions: later, when useful comparisons can be made, Cos appears relatively backward. The ancestry of Coan Piotogeomeuic is obscure. Affinities with Argive have been detected, perhaps rather optimistically, and there is the fashionable .suggestion of Cypriot influence too, principally based on the occurrence of bird-vases, which seem to have been obsolete at Athens before the Coan ones begin. Later, m the Subprotogeometric stage, there appears l<> be some awareness ol the Early Geometric ol Athens in lor example the slimmer and tauter shape of the amphora. By the conventional dating the span of Coan Protogeometric is 950-850, beginning and ending fifty years after Attic, it is divided into two parts of equal length, the earlier being called Late Protogeometric, since that is the stage of the Attic school to which it corresponds, and the later one perhaps best dubbed Subprotogeometric. 5 Cos is the only place m the East Greek region where the available material is sufficient to allow the recognition of a school. On Rhodes at lalysus, Camirus and Lindos (which partitioned the island before the city ol Rhodes was founded in or about 408) a little late Protogeometric has turned up m graves and the debris of a settlement: in general it looks much like Coan and adds the krater to the repertory of shapes. Rhodian and Coan Protogeometric are often lumped together as Dodecanesian. 12

— I'rotogeometrh

I'igure 4.1 Conn Late 1'iotogoineuic oinochoe: Cos 440. lit 22.7 cm. 950-900.

Figure 4.2 Co.iil Late Ptotogeometnc skyplius: Cos 495. lit 7.9cm. 950 900.

I')ot

ogctim

ct l i t

—

Figure 4.3 Late Protogeometric amphora from Dirmil, Caria. Bodrum. Ill 45.8cm. c. 900.

On the mainland near 1 lalicai nassus at Asarlik, Dirmil (Figure 4.3) and Comlekcj some Protogeometric has been found in tombs, of an earlier stage than that found on Cos and Rhodes and, even though East Greek peculiarities occasionally slip in, so much influenced by Attic that settlement from Athens has been suggested. At Miletus the published sherdsappear to go back to Early Protogeometric and show a more persistent dependence on Attic models, evident for example in the conical feet of cups and the preference for circles in their decoration. The Protogeometric of Smyrna too is said to be close to Attic, ami the few pieces published support the claim. To sum up, not much is known about East Greek Protogeometric. The clay, as usually in Protogeometric, is in general brownish, with a finer coating on the visible suiface; some local differences are apparent to the niked eye, but no laboratory analyses have yet Been made. The paint is blackish or, il diluted, hi own. '4

CHAP IT. R 5

GEOMETRIC

The first properly Geometric style of the East Greek region, so it seems at present, was of the Middle Geometric stage, as defined in the well documented anil influential Attic sequence?.1 It was followed Hy ,\n inventive, though often clumsy, Late Geometric, which continued to flourish after more enterprising Greek schools had turned to Orientalising styles. Fillets are generally much more numerous than those ot I'rotogeometric, increasingly so as time goes on, and they are reported from more sites. Admittedly the duration of the Geometric style was roughly twice as long and objects in higher (and younger) strata are likely to come to light sooner than the older ones below them, but the East Greeks were evidently prospering and so one might expect a bigger demand for painted pottery. Even so, the material available is restricted. The cemetery on Cos- continues until near the end of Geometric and Rhodes' lias provided good graves, many of them recorded. There are also useful batches of sherds from sanctuaries on Santos4 and Chios and complete pots as well as sherds from Carian sites.'' But only small samples have been published of the (mils at Smyrna,7 Miletus8 and lasos,9 and the occasional illustrations of pieces from other places are ot little help.

MIDDLE GEOMETRIC Middle Geometric, tlwt is the first Geometric style of the region, is not much Better known than its I'rotogeometric predecessor. The potters of Cos were conservative, still clinging to I'rotogeomctric habits, but they adopteil some Attic innovations, whether directly or not. the amphora, though rare, has the narrow shape of contemporary Attic. The oinochoe remains popular, with broad or, more often narrow, neck and tall or squat. For the skyphos, often still decorated with a set of small concentric circles, the SuHprologeometric shape persists. Some mugs, though, are of Attic type. A novelty which appears at the beginning of Middle Geometric and becomes common on Rhodes and Cos, but on present evidence nowhere else, is a lekythos with Bulbous body and a ridge halfway up the neck, where the handle joins on (Figure 5.1): this is a faithful imitation ol a standard Cypriot shape. There is also the kantharos, a form of cup with High vertical Handles, again derived from Attic and with at first sedulously 15

G e o }>i

y', til .

ctric

Figure 5.1 Coan Middle Geometric lekytlios: Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology 461. I k 22 cm. 800-750.

Atlic decoration. The graves on Rhodes are more generous with larger pots; the stemmed krater (Figure 5.2), which appears towards the end of Middle . Geometric, is notable. In Ionia Atticismg shapes are perhaps less rare. In the decoration of then pottery the Coans tended to pettiness and sometimes lack of comprehension, although the result can be modestly . . pleasing. The hatched meander, the characteristic ornament of the canonical i Geometric style, never became popular and its most regular use was on the new lekyllios, which being new had no traditional system of decoration; but since it was put on the shoulder, according to the local principles" of composition, and that was a field that narrowed greatly inwards, so big a rectangular motive >vas unhappy and the Coans soon reverted to bands of narrow ornament, substituting for the meander proper the lower battlement version or the zigzag, both hatched. There was also the attractive innovation of triangles filled with a lattice of hatched lozenges which, set out in a row, fitted neatly round a shoulder; 1 this motive was an East Greek speciality and presumably invention, whether by Coans or (more probably) others. The Middle Geometric of Rhodes is similar to that of Cos, but more robust and towards its end takes more note 16

(J

co tn ctn c —

Figure 5.2 Rhodian late Geometric kratcr: Berlin Inv. 2941. lit 34.5cm. 750-700. of Attic developments, although again without always understanding them. Whether Ionia did belter is not clear from the evidence yet available, but both in Ionia and on Rhodes Attic forms and syntax were not sacrosanct: for instance near the end of Middle Geometric the meander may be lined with solid hooks or be contorted into the meander fork. About the same time two more important ornaments appear — the cross-hatched triangle with hooks sprouting from its apex (the 'tree oi nament') and a lozenge, also crosshatched, with similar paired hooks at each coiner. In Late Geometric these inventions, wherever made, became characteristic of the East Greek region.

LATE GEOMETRIC The Late Geometric style is showier. At its beginning it picks up, directly or not, the Attic metope system, in which a long held is divided into squarish panels, separated by narrower strips, and there is also some limited borrowing from Corinthian - directly, since Corinthian pottery was imported. By now, if not before, distinct East Greek schools are discernible, although they share enough common peculiarities; even so, for want of available material, only those of Cos and Rhodes can be studied in any detail and Cos, where the finds stop before the end ol the style, was also backward. So generally Eest Greek Late Geometric is thought ot in Rhodian terms and perhaps the importance of Rhodes is exaggerated. To start with Rhodes, the more imposing shapes are the stemmed krater (Eigure 5.2) - the stem flaring - and various kinds ol oinochoe, of which '7

— Geometric

Figure 5.3

Rhodian Late Geometric oinochoe: Berlin Inv. 2940. lit 48 cm. Bird and Zigzag painter: 725-700.

the most typical has a plump body and a tall narrow neck with trefoil lip (Figure 5.3), although later a type with squat body and round mouth becomes fashionable (Figure 5.4). 1 he lekythos remains popular. So too does the kantharos, which is deeper than Before and sometimes has a high loot, and the skyphos (Figure 5.5), although both are soon outnumbered by (he koiyle (Figure 5.6). Decoration of closed shapes is more ample than before, although it is slill concentrated on the shoulder and does not often go below the middle of the pot, so that the lower part with its extensive area of paint still gives the effect of a dark-ground style. The metope system is soon modified by the narrowing or elimination of the strips between the panels, and often the central panel is divided horizontally into strips; the old practice of horizontal division without panels persists as well. Typical choices for panels are quatrefoils, usually not hatched, the tree ornament, the hooked lozenge (and more elaborate hooked confections) and, though rarely, a sort ol palm tree. In longer fields of some depth meanders are common, often cross-hatched, and there is a varied assortment ol meandioids, not always happily contrived. The familiar triangles and lozenges ol course continue to flourish, and there are still concentric circles, 18

— Geometric

Figure 5.4 Rhodian Late Geometric oinochoe: Munich 455. [It 22cm. Bird kotyle workshop: 700-675. sometimes stuffed with dots and sometimes linked. Occasionally the cable proper appears. The only creatures represented at all regularly are birds, drably Geometric but of no standard type. Rhodian Geometric is sophisticated enough to encourage the detection of differences between localities and workshops. There seeiri to be minor stylistic peculiarities in the products of the west and east coasts of the island, and the Bird-and-Zigzag painter (Figure 5.3) is a recognisahlc individual, neat though dull, who uses a small repertory of motives, tightly packed in numerous panels. A claim has been made also for a Bird kotyle workshop, which begins towards the end of Middle Geometric, but its formula, bolder if no more inspired, is found throughout the East Greek region and beyond (Figure 5.6), and it is not yet certain where it originated. Besides the property Geometric pottery there was also on Rhodes - and elsewhere on present evidence only in the Black-on-Red ware of Crete — a flourishing manufacture of imitations of Cypriot and Phoenician or Syrian closed pots, usually taken to be containers for unguents.10 There are three main varieties. The Red-.slip ware specialises in a sagging lekythos with a spreading lip; there is no" decoration. A second line has a lugger range of shapes, of which the comirs&ncst is an aryhallos, at first with ridged neck and handle attached to the ridge, but soon conforming to the Early 19

— G e o rn etnc

Figure 5.5 Rhodian Subgeometric skyphos: Birmingham University. I It 12.8 cm. c. 650.

Figure 5.6 Carian Late Geometric kotyle: Cambridge, Museum of Classical Archaeology 463A. Ht 9.3 cm. Related to Bird kotyle workshop: 700-650. 1

Protocol inthian model; characteristic ornaments are small concentric circles, groups of wavy lines and sets of spiral hooks, all done with a multiple brush (liguie 5.7); the clay tends to be yellowish with a highly burnished surface, and the paint is matt and friable. There are also imitations of bigger Cypriot Black-on-lied oinochoai, with globular body and narrow neck and decorated with large or small concentric circles, often intersecting. In general these wares had no influence on the local Geometric style 20

— Geometric —

l i g t i r e 5.7 R h o d i a n S u H g e o i n e l i ic a i y b a l l o s : 1 m i d 6 1 . I l l c. V e i n . S p a g h e t t i g r o u p ( K r c i s - u i i d - W f l U ' i i h a n d style). 700W>50. n o r it o n t h e m . They c o n t i n u e d III p r o d u c t i o n well d o w n t h e s e v e n t h century. On Cos the local Late Geometric can at present bo followed only .is far, to judge by Rhodian parallels, as about the middle ol the style. The shapes mainly represented are oinoehoc, squat Ickythos, skyphos with low conical loot and mug. On closed pots the decoration still emphasises the shoulder and rarely goes Helow the widest diameter ol the hody. I lie metope system is ignored and there is still a londness lor narrow hands ol ornament, and on the skyphos sets ol little concentric circles survive. Still, Cos was not entirely isolated; both the new cable and the palm tree make their apppearance. O n Samos the Geometric finds are from a major sanctuary, the I 1 era cum. They are fragmentary and the little stratification noted hardly helps, but much has been published, l o r the decorated pottery the regular shapes are stemmed kiater, kantharos (sometimes stemmed), koiyle and more frequently skyphos, and ol closed pots a round mouthed oinoehoe, the Hody ol which (as elsewhere in the region) in time becomes low and broad. The Altic metope system is used with comprehension, at least initially, and with it

— (icornel ru — several Attic motives, although not necessarily learnt at lust hand. Meanders, Liter sometimes dismembered, .11 e usually hatched, occasionally and again later cross-hatched; quatrefoils too are Hatched; and there are concentric circles (large and small), the tree ornament, hooks, chevrons and, especially on skyphoi, yig/ags. Birds arc frequent; horses, with the apparently Samian peculiarity of mane running Hallway along the back, are not rare; and there is a version of the prothesis. Towards the end the use of a whitish slip comes in. It is often difficult to distinguish Suhgeometric from Geometric unless it incorporates Orientalising motives, which occur here relatively early relatively that is to other known East Greek communities. Samian Geometric gives the impression (if a school less costive than that of Rhodes. For Chios there is material from three sanctuaries. The two at Emporio, which begin with Late Geometric, had some useful stratification and are published admirably; at the other, Phanai (Kato Phana), the finds begin rather earlier, but they are unstratided and publication is scrappy. Unfortunately, as so often in sanctuaries, there are very few complete pots and tlie range ol shapes is limited. Even so, it is clear that the Chiots, while genetically East Greek, were already going their own way. Many of the Late Geometric pots have a slip, even under the paint covering the inside ot open shapes, a procedure unknown in other Greek schools; during the seventh century this slip becomes finer and its colour progresses from cream to the pine while that makes Archaic Clnot ware so easy to recognise. The clay too is often distinctive with a pinkish tinge. Of the shapes the most important is the krater, stemmed and of more or less standard East Greek type. The skyphos is common, during the seventh century gradually evolving into the chalice. Mugs, mostly decorated with nothing more elaborate than simple bands, are of various forms; two are peculiarly Chian, one with a High splaying wall and a short foot, the other more normally proportioned but narrower at the lip than near the base. The most elaborate decoration is on kralers; Figure 5.8 is typical, with the central panel divided horizontally. Of the ornaments the broken cable (at the top in the illustration) is unusually common and the lozenge sprouting triangles (in the end panel) is at present hardly known outside Chios. Zigzags too, vertical as well as horizontal, are favourites, especially on kraters. Figures of men, animals and birds are perhaps more frequent than in other East Greek Geometric schools, but no more accomplished. There are also examples of the Bird kotyle type, presumably home-made. Chian Geometric (or more pedantically Subgeometrie) continued to flourish, while gradually relaxing its rules, until the third quarter of the seventh century: there does not seem to have been competition from any local Orientalising style. For Miletus the few dozen published sherds give no coherent idea of the local Late Geometric style. There are orthodox meanders, which continue to flourish in Subgeometrie, meandroids, both large and small concentric circles and, especially later, the row of panels each containing a

— G e o met r i C

I'igure 5.8 Cliian Late Geometric krater (restored): Chios, from Emporio. lit 34 cm. c. 700. diagonal cross. For narrow bands the ladder pattern - horizontal bars between uprights - seems to He a local speciality, the broken cahle becomes common and still more so the loop pattern, and there is the usual assortment of squiggly lines. There are also Bird kotylai, most probably local; these seem to be the only bearers of metopal decoration. A few fragments show figures, some human, Hut their cheerful, if clumsy, variety suggests that standard forms did not develop. Fiven less of the plentiful Geometric from Smyrna has seen publication." I lere Attic and Corinthian imports have been noted and these had some effect on the local style, hut without reforming its East Greek character. A couple of fragments of kraters offer a bewildering mosaic of Hands and panels (Figure 5.9); a Suhgeometric krater, more restrained in its composition, has the earliest depiction of a seven-stringed lyre; and there are the inevitable Bird kotylai. I low far the peculiarities of the pottery from Smyrna are original cannot be determined until we know more of its neighHour Clazomenae which, later at least, was an important producer. Further north, in Aeolis, there is so far no evidence for the making of Geometric painted pottery: at 'Larisa' (Buruncuk), some 16 miles (25 km) north of Old Smyrna, what little there is was imported, although the SuHgcometiic is said to He local. To come finally to Caria, what is available from lasos is unhelpful. Elsewhere Geometric pots are known from graves in the coastal parts near 23

— Cl eorni'lnt

—

Figure 5.9 North Ionian Late Geometric krater, fragment: Izmir, from Smyrna. Width ol fragment c. 35 cm. 725-700.

/

I lahcarnassus (Bodrum), a few sherds come from the sanctuary of Siliuri near Mylasa (Milas) and some complete pots, mostly broad trefoil oinochoai, have turned up in graves a little further east at Turgut (Lagina); and for Subgeomenic there are several broad oinochoai, both trefoil and round-mouthed, probably trom the cemetery near Milas'2 and also a couple of pieces from Stratonikeia (Eskihisar) further up-country. This Carian Geometric is Hast Greek in style, sometimes provincial but without noticeably extraneous features, although the composition lends to be erratic, especially in SuHgeometiic. Shapes recorded are amphora (of both neck and shoulder-handled varieties), krater, treloil oinochoe, skyphos, kotyle (liguie 5.6) and k.mlharos; in Subgeonietnc the broad oinochoe of both varieties is a lavounle. In decoration the mam peculiarity seems to be a reluctance to use the tree ornament, although a more tree-like ornament, with drooping tendrils or volutes attached to its apex, is rife in Subgeometric, which seems to continue well down the seventh century, perhaps till us end, but there is not enough lor dogmatism. Some East Greek Geometric went to Lydia, as excavation at Sardis has shown, and local imitation is reported." Overseas there was a trickle of exports to the Cyclades in the Middle period, but Late Geometric was more successiul, especially with its Bird kotylai. Examples have turned up not only in the Cyclades, but also across the Aegean, though only at Aegina and there not until the seventh century is the quantity at all significant;1'1 there is more Irom Al Mina near the mouth of the Orontes15 and a few *4

— Geometric — scraps from Tarsus in Cihcia;"' and Ul llie West .1 respectable amounl has turned up at Pithecusae (lschia), some at Cumae and ,u\ odd piece or two elsewhere. The Lydian finds one might expect to have come Irom northern Ionia, Hut the others are generally taken to he Rhodian or mostly so (although it does not necessarily follow that their carriers were Rhodians). The dating of East Greek Geometric in terms ol llie general system lor Greek pottery depends partly on stylistic comparisons with Altic and partly, especially later, on comparisons and contexts with Corinthian. On this evidence the division between the Proiogcomeiric and the Geometric of the region is, as has been said, about the lime ol the transition Irom Early to Middle Attic Geometric. Por Laic Geometiic the East Greek version is thought to begin a hllle later than tlie Attic and even the Corinthian: its end, that is when it is considered to pass into Subgeoinetric, conies after the beginning of Middle Proiocorinthian and before the end of Early Protoattic. For Subgeonietric, comparisons and, as it happens, contexts are less useful; Hut it is likely that the the style continued vigorously for at least a generation, since there seems little else to lill the gap until the Wild Goat style was established; and some particulai lines, such as Bird bowls and the little kotylai with cross-hatched triangles between the handles, 17 continue long enough to He found in graves alongside Early Corinthian. Translated according to the conventional system into calendar years (which are of course rather notional) the duration ol East Greek Middle Geometric is from 850 to 745 and ol Late Geometric bom 745 to 680; tor Cos the end of the cemetery is put at 715. It should, however, be remembered that this chronology is based on the material bom Rhodes and for other schools it is assumed thai the stylistic development was identical; the assumption may not He altogether sound. As for Subgeomen ie, it was still flourishing at Miletus and on Chios in the third tju.n tci ol the seventh century and in some places probably longer.'" Mention may as well be made of G 2 - G 3 ware,1'' notable mainly lor its name, which comes from the excavators' labelling ot sectors at Troy. This is a minor group, not particularly Hast Greek in character, but perhaps made in the far noiih ol the region. Clay is brownish and there is no slip. Shapes so far noted are a large open Howl (whether dinos or krater) amphora and cup. The modest decoration, which may be called Subgeonietric, relies on simple ornaments, notably the zigzag, the row of brackets (like rectangular Zs) and for variety the spiral hook, widely spaced on the upper part of the pot. Although the style is unambitious, execution is excellent. Its certain distribution is limited — at Troy, Antissa on Lesbos, l.emnos, Samothrace and Tlusos and along the I'll racial! coast; for lack ol exploration one cannot tell whether it had any currency in the Pioponiis. Presumably it was made somewhere in the north-east of the Aegean. The dale according to stratification at Samolhrace is the first half of the seventh century.

•*5

CHAPTER 6

~

BIRD BOWLS AND ROSETTE BOWLS

The Bird bowl1 - 'bowl' is an unhappy but now hallowed description - is the most elegant product of East Greek Subgeometric, using traditional Geometric motives in an increasingly mannered and eventually careless way (Figure 6.1). It evolved from the Bird kotyle (Figure 5.6) during the first quarter of the seventh century, simplifying the decoration and flattening the shape. A regular size is of 15 cm diameter at the rim. The earliest true Bird bowls Have a nicked rim, there is a band of dots under the decorated field, and below them the bowl is covered with dark paint. Next the nick and the dots are given up. In a third stage the lower part is reserved and ornamented with five or so outlined rays and in the main panel smaller rays often replace the cross-hatched triangles. Finally the boundary line below panels is eliminated and the drawing of the birds, wheh has steadily been getting slacker, is now distressing: sometimes too the ring foot is replaced by a disk with a small central cavity. There is also development in the composition, perhaps more positive, with the continual widening of the central panel. Except sometimes for a shiall reserved band or a tondo containing outlined rays or some other simple motive, the inside is covered with the dark paint, from the third stage onwards often embellished with a band of narrow white, purple and white stripes. The clay of standard Bird bowls is fine and usually of a lightish brown colour, occasionally there is a whitish slip, and the paint is blackish or intended to be so. From contexts with Protocorinthian and Corinthian pottery a fairly precise chronology has been obtained - 700-675 for the first stage, 675-640 for the second, 650-615 for the third and 615-600 for the fourth: the earlier dates may be a little too high, there may well be more overlapping, and the decadent fourth stage may have dribbled on a little longer. The Bird bowl, like the Bird kotyle, is generally thought to have been a Rhodian invention, but there was evidently manufacture in other parts of the East Greek region, and until more is known about them it is well to be cautious. Bird bowls were exported to much the same places and in the same relative frequency as the Bird kotylai and also to the new East Greek settlements overseas, although of course these do not have the earlier versions. Local imitations have turned up at Sparta. For the Rosette bowls (Figure 6.2), which replaced the Bird bowls, there is no detailed study. They began, it seems, in the last quarter of the seventh century and lasted well into the second half of the sixth. The shape is that 26

Bird bowls and Rosette bowls

Figure 6.1 Bird bowl: Copenhagen ABc 899. I It 5.5 cm. Mid 7th century. of the Bird Howl, usually with a ring loot; dimensions are often larger. The standard system of decoration is simple - in the field between the handles a blobby rosette of seven dots and at each end a group of strokes (or inverted rays), and below this field outlined rays or, regularly later, simple bands of dark paint: sometimes, presumably early, there are three rosettes, which may He enclosed in panels. The inside is covered with the dark paint, usually relieved Hy white or purple stripes and often a reserved circle at the centre. Clay tends to He coarser than that of the Hud Howls; and a whitish slip is less rare. Execution tends to He clumsier. Distribution is similar. According to clay analysis2 most of the Rosette Howls and the late Bird bowls exported overseas were made in North Ionia, at or near Clazomenae, as also were some of those found in other parts of the East Greek region. What have Heen called 'Lotus Howls' are a variant: on these instead of the central rosette a clumsy lotus flower of three petals hangs from the rim. Fragments from Smyrna show the use of a big meander as the principal 27

— Bird

bowls

and

Rosette

bowls

Figure 6.2 Rosette bowl: lost (from Vroulia). 1 It 9 cm. Early 6th century. decoration. There are also many bowls that do without rosettes or lotus (lowers: these are mostly latish. A larger version of the shape was a favourite , of the Late Wild Goat style. More enterprising are the Eye bowls,3 which usually have a pale slip. Here the handle field is filled with a pair of large eyes, complete with arching eyebrows and a short nose with nostrils twirling into spirals. Below there are bands, widely spaced. Some of these Eye bowls are stacked - that is constructed to look as if one bowl was stood inside another - usually two but sometimes three deep. According to clay analyses Eye bowls belong to the assemblage called South Ionian 3.4 They are not common, but were exported widely. Their floruit may be the early sixth century.

28

CM API III7

EARLY ORIENTALISING

It is usually assumed, though without direct evidence, that it was about 680 that pottery in a definitely Orientalising style began lo appear throughout the East Greek region. In practice there is not always a sharp distinction between SuHgeometric, which often admits Orientalising ornaments (such as the cable, true or broken), anil Early Orientalising, which still cherishes that most characteristic o( Geometric motives, the hatched meander. Here the qualification for Early Orientalising is the use ot burgeoning plant forms, especially volutes stuffed with dots, killer and more natural shapes of animal and human figures, or outline thawing (instead of silhouette) for heads and sometimes bodies. The number ol specimens is small and none has a useful context. A creaiuish slip is normal. A favourite shape on which^ Early Orientalising occurs is the round mouthed Oinochoe (of the type of Figure 5.4). I his, a creation ol East Greek Late Geometric, is frequent in SuHgcomctric too. From Rhodes there is also a slim amphora. The Rhodian pieces,' still unslipped, are decorated with figures - man, centaur, bearded siren, griffin - with outlined heads and drawn in a clumsy ami generally uniform style (Figure 7.1); all may well be products of the same workshop. I'rom Miletus fragments ol two pots are noteworthy. One lot shows parts ol an archer anil the horses ol a chariot, with reservation ol the head and arms of the man and heads and other parts of the horses;2 this is an ambitious subject and the style, unlike that of the Rhodian pieces, is sober and lor its time competent. As for the other pot, an amphora, the single sherd from its neck has a file ol grazing deer, unambitious but neat (Figure 7.2). There is more published from Samos.3 Nos 342-8 are examples of rank Orientalising vegetation; nos 363-6, 369 and 525 display clumsy lions and other animals, but there is more skill and spirit in those of 373 anil 377; anil 349 anil in a different way 334 are very near the Wild Goat style. Most, if not all, ot these pieces have a yellowish slip over the brownish clay. Smyrna has provided a more varied assortment/ There are several fragments with hophtes and others show a chariot, a rider and perhaps a siren. Remarkably on some of these pieces a white paint is used for flesh and to embellish ornaments (Figure 7.3) and one sherd, signed by Istrokles, looks as if decorated in white on a dark ground.5 The Orientalising bestiary is present too and even includes an owl. Some of the pieces from Caria too may be classified as Early Orientalising, though belated.* 29

-— Early

Orientalising

Figure 7.1 a Rhodian Early Orientalising oinochoe. fragment of shoulder: British Museum 61.4—25.48. Scale c. 2:3. Second quarter or middle of 7lh century. h Rhodian Early Orientalising fragment, perhaps from neck of very big amphora: British Museum 64.10-7.1237. Scale c. 2:7. Second quarter or middle of 7lh century.

|

•*

Figure 7.2 Milesian Early Orientalising amphora, fragment ol neck: lialat (Miletus). Ht of neck c. 10 cm. Second quarter or middle of 7th century. 3O

— Early Orientalising —

Figure 7.3 North Ionian Early Orientalising fragments Izmir (from Smyrna). Third quarter ol 7ih century.

On so little material it is risky to be dogmatic, lint provisionally it seems that, although the Geometric and even the Suhgeometric of the local East Greek schools had much in common, their Orientalising ventures did not. It is worth noting too that, although human figures were attempted and sometimes in complex scenes, they were discarded in the next stage of East Greek pottery, the Wild Goat style, which concentrated on decorative and not narrative effects. I'or close dating of Early Orientalising there are no useful contexts; the second quarter or mid seventh century is likely enough, hut it presumably went on a good while longer in places where the Wild Goat style was not adopted till in its Middle period. This, on the evidence at present available, seems likely for North Ionia and also for Caria. Chios apparently missed this stage.

3'

CHAPTER 8

THE WILD GOAT STYLE

'Wild Goat style' is the most innocuous name for the style which emerged from the Early Orientalising medley and dominated the decoration ol East Greek pottery for around a hundred years.1 The old name 'Rhodian', still used occasionally,2 is misleading; Rhodes was the place where it was first found in quantity and it was natural to assume that it was made there, but clay analyses argue that that island only imported the ware. Other names found in earlier publications are 'Camiran', 'Rhodian-Milesian' and 'Milesian', but these never caught on; and although (as it turns out) Miletus was an important producer, it was not the only one, nor was Wild Goat pottery its only product. And 'East Greek Orientalising", which some current studies use,1 is not by itself sufficiently specific. ; At present there arc two systems for classifying the Wild Goat style. One, which is used here, divides it into Early, Middle and Late, though the Middle style does not end when the Late begins. The other system, used mostly in Germany, has three (in the first version two) approximately contemporary groups - the Kamiros group, the Euphorbos group and the Vlastos group, corresponding more or less to Middle, the plates from the Dorian region and Late in the other system.4 The Wild Goat style is easy to recognise. Generally the clay is rather coarse, firing from a light brown to a reddish colour; local differences are not usually obvious to the naked eye. Normally the visible surface is covered with a cream to whitish slip, at first thick, but in the North Ionian Late style often no more than a thin wash, and towards the end even this may be omitted. The paint is blackish to darkish brown, sometimes misfired to red. Purple enhancements become regular during the Middle style, and in the Late there is also some white. In its decoration the Wild Goat style is an animal style, and human figures are very rare; but although not the only Greek school of the time that practised an animal style, its choice of fauna is distinctive and so too in continuous fields is the arrangement in file instead of small groups. It differs also in its types of floral ornaments and its preferences in abstract ones. That there were Oriental models for some of these features is likely, but what they were is still unknown. The heads of sphinxes, for instance, and the lotus flowers and buds have some resemblance to those on Syrian or Phoenician tridachna shells (Figure 8.1), which were imported into Greek lands, though the closest parallels are not before the Middle II style (Figures 8.8 and 8.13a); perhaps the East Greek potters used similar models and were now lapsing into 3^

The Wild Goal style —

Figure 8.1 Syrian or Phoenician tridachna shell: private collection. Width 12.7 cm. 7th century. a similar Negligence, but anyhow the jrid.ichn.i shells cannot account for the components ol the Wild Goat style.

SOUTH IONIA Early Wild Goat style In its Early stage the Wild Goat style was a small venture, finding a form without very adventurous experiment.'' Shapes were taken over from the cm rent Subgcomcli ic stock, notably the broad round-mouthed oinochoc and the krater. For the omochoe the tendency is to a lower body wnh a more symmetrical curvature and eventually, in imitation of metalwoik, the handle, now composed of three ribs instead ol the old Hal strip, is embellished with rotelles which, being only decorative, do not need to clip onto the neck. For the krater the surviving fragments are uninformative about any development. In the decoration the bolder experiments ol the Early Orientalising style are ignored. Of the fauna tiie goat becomes the most frequent species, but there are also dog, lion, sphinx, griffin, hare and more rarely boar, ram and fox. Though lions may threaten and dogs chase, they keep their distance and poses other than ol standing or i tinning, such as that ol the rearing goat on the Brussels oinochoe (Figure 8.2), are abnormal. Exceptionally there is a scene of human action on an oinochoe in Laon, a curious kind of hare hunt, tucked away among the running animals on the 33

— The Wild Co.it style

Pigure 8.2 South Ionian Eaily Wild Goat style oinochoe, detail of shoulder: Brussels A1960. Scale c. 3:5. Mid 7th century.

belly (Figure 8.4); but such excesses were contrary to the soberly decorative spirit of the new orthodoxy. In drawing animals outline soon comes to be the tegular technique for Heads, the edges of shoulder blades and finally a stripe along the belly; on heads this is at first hesitant and the contour is so thick as to give a piebald effect (Piguie $.2). To set off the animals neat and usually small filling ornaments are scattered thinly about the field, but do not yet adhere to the frame. For decoration outside the figure field or fields the illustrations show most of the regular ornaments. Florals, it seems, weie acceptable only as a centrepiece between animals in a shoulder field. Though some Early pieces - those from Rhodes and Caria - presumably come from graves, no useful contexts have been recorded. But since the total number of specimens is small - anyhow at present — and their style does not seem to require a long period of development, the Early style may not have taken more than ten or fifteen years. Further, the first stage of the Middle style, which also lacks useful contexts, may for similar reasons have lasted no more than fifteen or twenty years; but its end is fortunately fixed by graves on Rhodes to the time when Corinthian pottery was passing from its Transitional to its Early Corinthian stage, that is - according to the chronology used here — about 625. By this reckoning, which is of course speculative, the Early Wild Goat style should be put in the years around 650 or, perhaps better, in the 640s. This would, for instance, make the Bochum oinochoe (Figure 8.3) contemporary with Late Protocorinthian. To judge by places of finding - Rhodes, Samos, Miletus, probably Mylasa and perhaps Calymnos - the home of the Early Wild Goat style was in the southern pan of the East Greek region; and the uniformity of the 34

— Ib e Wild

Figure 8.3

C;<>,i< s t y l e —

South Ionian E.uly Wild Go.it style oiiuK'hiic: Boclnmi S985. I It 23 2 cm. t. 6S0-640.

LAOH 3178t

F i g u r e 8.4 S o u t h I o n i a n E a r l y W i l d G o a t style o i n o i h o c , detail o l b e l l y : I a o n 3 7 . 7 8 6 . Scale <. I I . (. 6 5 0 - 6 4 0 .

35

— The

Wild

(ioiit

style

Figure 8.5 South Ionian Middle 1 Wild Goat style oinoclioe: Si Petersburg TGI2. lit 27cm. 640-630. succeeding Middle I style suggests that one workshop or closely related group ol workshops must have been dominant. On general grounds one would expect the location to have been Sainos or Miletus but, since according to clay analyses Miletus dominated the Middle 11 style, it is tempting to infer that n dominated the Middle 1 and Early styles too. Middle Wild G o a t style 1 The pioneers of the Early style had rejected the bolder Orientalising experiments, preferring a neat and decorative effect, and their successors were able ami content to work with formulas. In the lust part ol the Middle style, which may be called Middle I,* the principal shape seems to have Been initially the broad round-mouthed oinochoe, around 30 cm high (Figure 8.5), and later the trefoil-mouthed oinochoe (Figure 8.6), thanks to its raised handle a little taller (around 35 cm) but a much narrower pot, although still generously proportioned. Other shapes, known mostly from fragments, are the stemmed dish7 (in one instance with a high rim)," the krater' and, surprisingly, the cup of Bird bowl type.10 For the system and details ol decoration the two types of oinochoe give the clearest information. On both one finds figures on shoulder and belly, and with the broad oinochoe occasionally on the neck as well." The fauna is that approved in the Early style, with the addition - unless Early examples turn : »

36

— The Wild dual

style —

Figure 8.6 South Ionian Middle I Wild Goat style oinochoe: Richmond (Va) 82.203. Ill 32.3 cm. c. 630. up, as they well may — <>l spoiled deer (.1 convenient alternative to ihe goal), hull, pamher and eventually and more importantly the goose, 1 ' .ind iheic is also the little swallow, which perches whimsically on rosettes or even tails. Both goals and deer normally have a reserved stripe along the belly, often containing a row of dots; anil deer have long horns when grazing, short knobs when limning wilh head up. Generally the poses and details ol the fauna are strictly Standardised and there is a tendency to standardisation also in the placing of filling ornaments, now growing denser ,\i\t.\ coarser and before the end admitting triangles and scalloped roundels (oi halt-roselles) which sprout from the frame. Remarkably the big Moral ornament which often takes the centre ol the shoulder field was never standardised, although it was constructed ol more or less standard components. Its base is usually a pair ol fat voluies supporting, lor example, another pan ol volutes or .1 lotus flower (which may have a more complex Idling) or a palmeUe, and .ingles are filled with roundels. C Mien loo the volutes are slulleil wilh dots. 37

— The Wild Coat style — In composition there was limited, though diminishing freedom. For the principal held, that ol the shoulder, which was bordered by the handles, the centre was inaiked by .1 static antithetical gioup, usually centred on a (loral oinamenl; heie one Imds lor instance a pair of seated griffins, a brace ol geese or a lion and a bull, these last very occasionally in action; behind on either side stand one or two unconcerned creatures, the further ones usually turning their backs on the central group. On the belly, unimpeded by the handles, fields are continuous. At the beginning of Middle I hunts are common-dogs after goats, deer or hares - and although the direction is generally from left to right, the scene may be enlivened by having one or two of the participants running the opposite way and lor further variety an occasional goat turns its head to look back at its pursuer. But generally subjects become staider - a file of grazing goats or, il there is a second field on the belly, goats above and deer below, both files grazing and moving from left to right. There are also the fields that are not decorated with figures. On the broad oinochoai the lowest part of the body is encircled by rays or tongues, but this area is more conspicuous on the trefoil sjhape and here a chain of lotus (lowers and buds becomes regular, of the type found on the tridachna shells (Figure 8.1). Separating these fields are bands of minor ornament, especially the loop pattern, and the shoulder field is topped oil with a row of simple tongues. 1 he broad omochoe had a tall neck and this gets some emphasis, on one from lioltyska" a dog chasing a goat, which looks back, and on another fiom Temir Gora (Figure 8.5) a big hatched meander. This survival of a characteristically Geometric motive suggests that the Subgeometiic style was still active. For the trefoil oinochoe, where the neck was short, a simple cable was usually enough. There is a striking dilference between the animals of the Middle 1 Wild Goat style and those of the more or less contemporary Transitional style of Coiinlh. At Corinth the ideal was a precise outline and fine and exactly incised detail, with purple used freely to relieve the dark silhouette. In the Wild Goat style the drawing, though careful, is woolly and inner details aie rendered by reserved areas and broadish stripes; nor do purple enhancements appear till near the transition to Middle II. Corinthian suggests inciakvoik, the Wild Goat style textiles as its inspiration; but if so, the textiles may have been local.H Much more survives of the Middle 1 than the Early style and its distribution is much wider. There are a fair number of fragments from as far afield as Al Mina at the mouth of the Orontes1'' and native sites in the interior of Ukraine,"' but very little went westwards - some oinochoai and stemmed dishes to Aegina,17 a lew oinochoai to Crete and an odd piece or two'to Italy and Sicily." These all look orthodox Milesian.19 The success of this Middle 1 style stimulated the making of Wild Goat pottery in other places too, eventually extinguishing any surviving Early Orientalising endeavours. Such secondary schools are apparent from finds at Ephesus and on Chios and others may turn up as exploration proceeds. 3«

The

Figure 8.7

Wild

Coal

style

South Ionian Middle II Wild Goat stylo oinochoe: L o u v r e A 3 12. l i t 3 0 . 5 c m . c. C.2fS-6l5.

O N the evidence of giaves in Rhodes about the same time as the Transitional Its beginning, as has been said, need not years earlier, to judge by the quantity of of development in its style.

Middle I, as defined here, ends ol Corinth, lliat is about 625. be more than d'I teen or twenty it that is known and the degree

Middle Wild Coat style II In its way the Middle I style was one ol the more salislactoi y achievements ol Greek ceramics. But its decorative excellence rested on slock arrangements of a few stock units, drawn neatly and patiently, and it ollered no obvious opportunity for improvement. The aim of the Middle 11 style was to obtain a similar effect with less labour and not much rethinking. The change was rapid, but not abrupt, so that the boundary between Middle I and II is arbitrary; here it is taken roughly as the replacement of Hands ol ornament Hy simple hands for the separation of the main fields. The change was not uniform either; from grave groups in Rhodes it appears (as one would expect) that some painters were more old-fashioned or conscientious than others.' 0 The progress can be seen in the comparison ol the three tieloil oinochoai Figures 8.C>, 8.7 and 8.8. The first is ol t lie end ol Middle I, already showing Y)

— The

Figure 8.8

u

Wild

(;<>.n style

—

South Ionian Middle II Wild Goat style oinochoe: Karlsruhe 72.133. lit 35cm. c. 615-600.

some signs ol haste. The SCCOtuI is early and the third well on in Middle il. In the allocation of decorative lie-Ids there is no change, but the hands that separate them are reduced to narrow snipes of dark paint, often with a purple core. More blatantly the goats on the belly grow longer and, since they keep their heads down, larger, so that instead of six or seven it eventually needs only lour to make the circuit ol the pot, which also is rather narrower than before. The sphinx on the shoulder of the third oinochoe shows a similar lengthening, facilitated by its crouching pose, and generally the drawing ol figures becomes hastier, (hough partly camouflaged by large patches ol purple on shoulders and rumps. The filling ornament too coarsens; in particular the roundel tends more and more to have an unbroken rather than a scalloped edge and triangles lose the loop at the apex. Further the number of lotuses is reduced, partly by opening the flowers more widely and partly by increasing the relative height of their field and so their size. As lor the neck, the meander or more often the meander and square is soon preferred to the cable, which needs more careful planning to look passable. ( In time there were more radical economies. One produced what the Germans call 'Gurlclbandkanncn'. 1 lere the tired goats round the belly of 4°

The

Figure 8.9

Wild

Uoal

style

•—

South Ionian Middle II Wild Gtvni style oinochoe: Louvre AilO. Hi 33 cm. (. MS-600.

tlie oinochoe are discarded and the space filled by two broad bands of the dark paint, enlivened by stripes ol purple, and between them another band decorated wall a hook meander (as on Figure X.9) or less often some other simple motive; and the held below, i.nhei taller than before, lias long rays instead ol the old lotuses. Another novelty was (he substitution ol a row ol pendent lotus flowers and buds for the animals and their appuitenain.es in the shoulder field: this lotus is ol a new type (l'igure 8.13b), smaller and solid and with a palmelte replacing the central petals of the flower. Sometimes these two new schemes are combined. There is also a new, squatter version ol the trefoil oinochoe (ligute 8.10), which becomes common about the same time, although it does not replace the standard type. It tends to have a sharp angle at the shoulder, Us base is broad and its handle has two instead ol three reeds. I he decoration is simplified — around the neck a rough zigzag or simple snipes, on the shoulder between inverted rays a panel with a small group or a head or merely ornaments, around the belly a band in Iwo of dark painl or on more careful pieces a broad band with purple stripes on it, and below around the loot anothei narrower band or a group ol careless rays. •4'

I ht

Figure §.10

Wilil

(,<>
style

South Ionian Middle It Wild Goat style oinochoe: lost (fiom Viouha) I It 27 S cm c. 600.

A moi e alliactive pioduct o( Middle 11 is the stemmed dish or 'huit dish' with Hat oi cuivcd nm and noimally 30—"V5 cm in diamctet (1 iguie li.ll) 1 he shape goes back to Middle I, hut NOW becomes much moie populai 1 he decoi uion, which is ON the inside, is concentric In the staodaid version the ccnlic is taken by a IOUIKI palmetto or a eioss formed l>y lotus lloweis ami buds, then comes a pan ol daik bands, icheved Hy pin pie snipes, ,md between them some simple continuous ornament, and the outei luld is divided by mveiled lays into six oi moic panels, containing alternately some sizable ornament and the head of a goat or a goose or a sphinx (nioie piobalily than a woman) oi even a pan ot eyes Similar heads, flanked by nivcitcd lays, appeal sometimes in the panel on the shouldei of omochoai, not only those of the squat type Anothei sou of dish or deep phle, which does not appeal as early as the fruit dish, has a nng foot and a pan ot slots in its hioad rim. I ypK.il decoration of the bowl is a cential msctte, surrounded by a quartet ot lotus flowets with palmctte filling and, sepainting them, single nanow buds, heads and figures are not pcinutted Aiound the i im me.indei and squat c is usual I he lcculcnt that most ol the complete pots come fiom the graves on Rhodes makes it appeal that the lieloil oinochoe and the stemmed dish 42

—

F i g u r e 8.11

1 he

Wild

(io.it

j/y/i'

—

S o u t h I o n i a n M i d d l e II W i l d G o a t s t v l e s t e m m e d

lost ( l i o m V i o u l i a )

I)iam

t

M

tin

t

dish:

6 2 "i—600

w c i e almost the o n l y shapes I hey vveie c u t a u i l v i i n p o i t m l , as is cleai h o r n the finds at I l i s l i i a and N a u c i a l i s , wlm.li ate not l i o m giaves, hut the d i n o s t o o had some p o p u l a n t y ami a low looicd ktatei oceiiis, anil these o l l e n had lids I he a m p h o i a , l i m v i v u , seems i n c , whclhci of the r u n o w v a n e t y with handles joining the neck oi llic Hioadci o n e with handles set o n the sliouldci, and o d d examples ol o i l u i shapes u n n up D u n k i n g vessels with Wild G o a t d c c o i a t i o n aie veiy l a i c tin liitd howls and Handed c u p s , m a d e of hnet clay, w e i e kuidei to the lips The M i d d l e II fauna is that ol its piedeccssoi I he goat t c n u i n s the c o m m o n e s t animal w i t h the g o o s e a good second, and the sphinx is m o i e p o p u l a i t h a n Heloie As foi poses, goats on the Bcllv l e g u l u l v g i a / e and sphinxes o n t h e sliouldci e i o u e h N o w and llien in the sliouldei lielil a goose will peck, o r a s p h i n x pin d o w n a goose, oi a gnat oi deei tin n its head r o u n d , b u t such fiivohties d o not disguise the genetal dullness and eletenoiation of the style I his delci l o i a l i o n was a c c o m p a n i e d and piesuniaHlj caused Hy ineicascd p i o d u e t i o n at Miletus, w h e t e clay analysis locales the piincipal school Its

4\

— The Wild Goat style — success is evident from finds at the eastern overseas settlements, where again according to clay analysis - nearly all the Wild Goat imports were Milesian until the North Ionian Late style took over. Since Middle II is no longer found in graves on Rhodes after about 600 - that is when Middle was replacing Early Corinthian - and stratification at I listria and Tocra gives a roughly similar result, it is reasonable, at least provisionally, to date the Middle II style to the last quarter of the seventh century, making it the more or less exact contemporary of Early Corinthian. Middle II pottery is common throughout the southern part of the East Greek region and certainly not rare in Caria. It was not, so it seems, imported in any quantity in the north of the region, although some has turned up at Sardis. In the East Mediterranean there is a fair amount from Al Mina and a sprinkling elsewhere - Cyprus, interestingly, had little taste for Greek pottery - and there is the curious deposit from Mes,ad I.lashavyahu in Israel. Naucratis has provided more and there is a little from Tocra. A lew pieces come Irom the Cyclades and it is not too rare on Aegina; it occurs too, though with what frequency is not clear, ON Thasos and along the north coast of the Aegean. The Propontis is still unexplored, but in the l'oiuus Berezan—Olbia and I listria have been moderately productive — as with Naucratis and Tocra one must remember the late date of their foundations. In the West and on the Greek mainland Middle II pottery is extremely rare.21 What happened next is uncertain. Either Miletus gave up making pottery in the Wild Goal style or it continued to make it, Hut only for the home market and perhaps lor export to the nearer parts of Caria. Although the evidence is mostly indirect, continued production is perhaps more likely. Pottery ol the North Ionian Late Wild Goat style, it seems, turns up very rarely, if at all, at Miletus nor is there any significant amount ot other imported painted wares; the Iikellura style, which is primarily Milesian, owes much to the Middle, but not to the Late style; and from Danilibogaz near Mylasa in Caria, where Greek fashions were imitated, there are pots on which the Iikellura and the Wild Goat styles are juxtaposed, and the Wild Goat style is not the Late style ot North Ionia. One might then postulate that the Middle style lingered on at Miletus till near the middle ol the sixth century, generally decadent, although occasionally a painter may have taken more care, and preferring ornaments to animals for the principal decoration: a few fragments from Miletus look likely candidates for what might be called the Middle HI style (Figure 8.12). There is much to be said for accepting Hopper's modified chronology (Table 3.1) and putting the end of Early Corinthian and so of Middle Wild , Goat II at 590; this would reduce the interval before Fikellura to some thirty years. Not much is known ot other schools in South Ionia. Ephesus has been disappointing in its yield of pottery, but to judge by clay analyses some

j

.. 44

— The Wild

doitt

style —

Figure S. 12 South Ionian Middle III Wild (ioat style oinoclioc, fragment ol shoulder: H.il.u (Miletus) KH9.506.J. Width i)l fragment 9.5cm. Mist quaitei ol dih century.

ol ii was imported and .sonic may have IK'CH made locally. CM the likely local products one small group is remarkable loi us elegant decoration ami the use of two ground paints, the regular blackish and a clear red (I'igure H.I')),--' a technique .sometimes used in the local wares ol A col is and Lydi.t: often too the slip is a brilliant while. A lew examples have turned up at Sardis iinii one or two at Miletus, but u is a r.ne group, presumably the product ol a single exceptional workshop. There is also whal has provisionally been dubbed 'South Ionian 3',~' a group stylistically close to Milesian Middle II, but differing significantly in the composition of its clay, the source ol which has not yet been identified. I he favourite shape is the stemmed dish. I Ins group is not necessarily South Ionian and might well be Aeolian. The main finds, according to analyses ol clay so far made, are from the I 'road and ihe Hlack Sea colonies, where the quantity is respectable, though much less ihan that ol Milesian; it has been noted at N.uicratis loo. Straiilication at Ilisina suggests that it continued into the second quarter ol the sixth century.

— I be Wild Cio.it style

Eiguie 8.13 1 otus flowers and buds. Middle 1 and 11 Wild Goat style, c 630-600. l» Middle II Wild Goat style, c 615-600 L-il I Ate Wild ( n u t style, eaihei 6th ccntuiy. c I ikellm.i, mid and later 6tli century.

.\

,

CHIOS

The lusi lug find ol Aichaic C h u n potteiy was at Naucratis in Egypt in the mid 1880s, and not suiprismgly it was thought to have been made there and w.is named 'Nauciatite'. Some thuty years later excavation at Kato I'han.i (Phanai) on Chios produced earlier examples of the same school, evidently local, and giadually the theoiy of manufacture at Naucratis was abindoned' 4 and the name 'Naucratite* replaced by 'Chiot' and moie icccnlly 'Chi.m' ">s I'his C hian silmol is the best undeistood of the East Greek schools of us nine its pioducts ,uc m gencial easy to recognise by the whiteness 46

—

F i g u r e 8.14

I be

Wild

dottt

iiylc

M i d d l e Wild G o a l style s t e m m e d dish,

fragment ( p i o b a h l v F p h e s i a n ) Bntish M u s e u m 1907 \2 I ii7V W i d t h of fragment I L S u n Pcili.ips t 625

of then slip ( w h i i h b e c o m e s still whitei in the sixth l e n t i n v ) , the use of this slip u n d e i the d a i k paint that coveis the sin lace inside open pots, and often the pinkish coloui of the clay 2(l The dating t o o is assured t o u g h l y by the stratified d e p o s i t s , p i o p e r l y published, ol I ' m p o n o o n ( liios' 7 and T o c r a m Libya,-" 1 s o m e c o n t e x t s at Smyrna-"' and a vciy few giavcs >0 In C h i o s , it is fairly cleat, S u b g e o m e t i ic flourished well ino the t h u d quartet ol the seventh c e n t m y anil there is no sign ol serious O t rentalising expetimcnl lie for c the Wild G o a t style was i n t r o d u c e d from South Ionia about the time of the transition from Mrddle 1 to Middle II " The bull's head o m o c h o e f i o m I' m p o n o ' J is a g o o d example, its (iguies aie elegantly c o n c t t — coirect, that ts, a c c o i d i n g to S o u t h Ionian o i l h o d o x y — and the roundels are still lelatrvely low. I he m u c h illustrated o m o c h o e Irom S m v m a " looks stylistically a little later. Soon a l t e r w a r d s , the m a t e n a l becomes m o r e plentiful, partly because of rich finds of s h e i d s at N a u c r a t i s in Lgypt and B e r e / a n - O l h r a in the U k i a m c ; b u t it seems also that only n o w , in the last quaitci of the seventh c e n t u i y (that is the per rod ol I ailv ( o i m t h i a n ) did a Cliian Wild G o a t school establish itsell l o i this Wild (Jo.it style a chalice m W u i / b i n g (I'lgure 8 15) is a g o o d example, a l t h o u g h m o i e .ulmiiaHle lot its state of picser vatron t h a n artistic quality The Cliian p o l t e i s , having noted the main features of the S o u t h Ionian Middle style, developed then o w n v e i s i o n C o m p a r e d with the S o u t h Ionian models the W i n / b i n g goats are c l u m s y , t h o u g h r o b u s t , the icsetvcd p a u h o n the b o d y of the bull on the other side is fanciful in shape; the Idling o r n a m e n t , winch includes the

47

n

— The Wild Coal ityle —

|

Figure 8.15 Chian Middle II Wild Goat style cluhce: Wiiizlnug I.12S. l i t 15.4cm. End of 7th century. 4«

mi

— The Wild (io.u style — now Horseshoe-shaped roundel, is Heavier ami less thoughtfully placed and above the bull clusters in a continuous fringe; and on goats and comparable creatures dotting of the belly stripe persists, though I>y now gcncially abandoned in South Ionia. Ol the (.uina goals are very numerous, but deer are rare; there are also dogs, lions, bulls, boars, geese ol course, and occasionally sphinx, griffin, ram, fox anil panther. Ol independent ornaments meanders and double cable are notable. The shapes show an insular independence. Much the commonest is the chalice, a sturdy vessel with lowish foot and well articulated bowl. Next come the dinos, the large bowl (often with straight, out-turned wall) and oinochoa\ ol various kinds, some with an animal's head instead ol a trefoil lip. There are also fragments ol dishes and plates, a few shallow cups and a votive shield; and laiger shapes sometimes sprout plastic female heads, especially near handles, a practice continued in the Black-figure style." Added purple is not used and there is as yet no decoration on the dark inside ot chalices. Around 600 - when Early Corinthian was ending - changes are visible. The chalice, still the favourite decorated shape, grows a higher lip, the transition from lip to bowl is slurred, and the loot becomes taller anil almost conical (as on ligvne 8.16). As for its decoration, the held ol the hp, except on some conservative pieces, is no longer divided into panels, but continues without interruption round the pot. The fauna too changes; goat, goose and dog become rare and are replaced by lion, sphinx, bull and boar, and occasionally a siren or griffin or even a human figure puts in an appearance. Increasingly now there are purple patches on bodies ol animals and some deliberate use of dilute paint tor details. The inside too ot open pots gels embellishment - lotus flowers and p.dmcites or rosettes and encircling stripes, painted in white anil purple over the dark paint. Other shapes decorated in the new manner are pluale, kanthaios, plate, dish, lid and omochoe or hydiia; but they are not common. This Animal Chalice style, as it has been called, flourished — to give a rough date - throughout the first quarter of the sixth century. Another development, which began r.uhci later, is the so-called Chalice style. I lere the use of filling ornaments is abandoned anil there is a comparable economy in the other decoration, l o r the mam held a single ligure, or less often a pair o( figures, is enough tor what is now the front (liguie 8.16) and on the Hack there is only a rosette or nothing. The repertory is small; lion and sphinx are commonest, but there are also human figures, whether preliminary to or derived from the Grand style; occasionally a male partner is in the black-figure technique. 3 ' On a tew sherds the principal field has a row of lotus flowers and buds, how continuous is uncertain. The other decoration too is simplified; rim patterns become leeble or disappear; in the handle field the saw pattern, an old Chian motive, becomes obligatory or almost so; and inner decoration becomes more perfunctory. The chalice, as time goes on Hecoming squatter, is much the commonest 4y

I be Wild Coat style —

Figure 8.16 Chian Chalice style chalice: Louvre A330.1. lit 15cm. First quarter of 6lh century or a little later. shape ol this style; there arc a few examples of the phiale and fewer of the kanih.uos. The date ol this gioup should be from some time in the first quarter lo the middle ol the sixth century or a little later. The Animal Chalice style very evidently and the Chalice style rather less so are continuations ol the Chian Wild Goat style of the last quarter of the seventh centuiy. II that is called Middle II, then these might be consideuil lo he Middle 111: there is no Chian Late Wild Goat style as the term 'Late' is used here. Chiaii pottery m these styles has a wide, though patchy, distribution. In the East Greek region it is frequent at Eiythrae on the mainland opposite Chios, and there are appreciable quantities from Pitane and perhaps Cla/omcnae and Smyrna; in the south it is very rare. On Thasos and along / the southern toast ol Thrace it is again frequent and so too on Aegina; in the other Aegean islands it seems to be rare and in mainland Greece almost unknown. Round the Ponius it is reported at Berezan and Olbia, and there is some Irom other sites. At Naucratis it was plentiful and there is a respcitahle amount Irom Tocra And Cyrene. In the West it is again rare, peihaps lather less so at Tar.inlo, Caiana, Sybaris and Marseilles. 50

— The Wild Coat style- — There was also some imitation. This is cei tilled hy analysis ol the clay for Eryllirae, where the local product is undistinguished,"' and Hy style lor I hasos (or perhaps some oilier place in that direction), where the imitations

NORTH IONIA liy 'North Ionia' is meant here the mainland east of the Mimas peninsula (which lies west of Clazomenae); ceramically Chios was going its own way, with Erythrae following, and so they are excluded. I'or the pottery of North Ionia in this limited sense analysis, particularly of sheids trom I lislria anil Smyrna, lias shown at both sites two rather different compositions, one matched at Clazomenae and the other not yet assigned to a source; their style, however, looks homogeneous. 1*' it tier then there should have been two major centres of production in close touch with each other Clazomenae and perhaps somewhere in the direction ol I eos - or else what is certifiahly Clazomcnian and the unlocated 'North Ionian 2' (as it has Heen named provisionally) were Hoth made at Cla/omenae, but using different -- and for North Ionian 2 still unidentified — sources of clay. Smyrna, though prolific ol finds, seems to have heen negligible as a pioducei.'" Systematic stylistic study lias not advanced lar. Hclore the I,ale style the material available is very scanty, and although then it becomes plenlilul — perhaps too much so to encourage research — there are other obstacles. Much has heen found at Smyrna and now more is turning up at Clazomenae; overseas there is a fair amount from N.uicratis, I listria ami Beiezan- Olbia, Tocra and Cyrcne and some lioin other sites. Hut only a few scraps I mm its homeland have been published and at the overseas sites, where publication has been generous, 1 '' the import ol North Ionian pottery did not begin till the Late stage and peihaps not at its very beginning. Dating too is difficult: very few grave contexts aie available,40 and little help comes I mm stratification — at Ilistna and Tocra the relevant stiata have ,m inconveniently long span, and at Smyrna what Has been reported is useful only for a few sherds Irom deposits sealed when Alyattes besieged and sacked the city.41 Lastly, complete pots are not common and the Latestyle relies on total effect rather than on detail. There is so far as I know no certain sign ol an Early stage ol the North Ionian Wild Goat style. A fragment ol a dinos from Smyrna 4 - looks like Middle I, but might perhaps He an impoil from South Ionia; and the use of a loop pattern on later pieces does not necessarily imply indebtedness to South Ionian Middle 1, but could well be a legacy Irom the local Subgeometric, which I .suppose lasted well into the second hall of the seventh century. The impression I have is that during most ol the currency 5'

— I he Wild Coat style —

Figure 8.17

North Ionian Late Wild Goat style luster, fragment: Izmir (horn Smyrna), c. 610-600.

of the South Ionian Middle style in its I and II phases the more adventurous of the Norlli Ionian potters, though aware ol it, were still experimenting.41 A more uniform and orthodox style seems at last to have been established not long before the end of South Ionian Middle 11, to judge by finds at Smyrna in the siege mound and destruction levels; the reserving goats of Figure 8.17 are not so far from their South Ionian counterparts. It is as well, however, to remember that this reconstruction, based on the little 1 have seen, is very speculative. The Late Wild Goat style may be defined as that branch of the Wild Goat style which makes regular use of the black-figure technique, though concurrently with the old one of reservation. It is peculiar to North Ionia that is Cla/omenae and its possible associate - and perhaps in some part to Aeolis: in other Wild Goal schools incision is exceptional and unsystematic. A few pieces are obviously early and some obviously late, but attempts to classify the material and trace a development have had only limited success:4'1 this is an open, but difficult held for some devoted student. The common shapes of the North Ionian Late style differ considerably from those of Middle South Ionian, but it is not clear how far they were

The Wild Gout style —

Figure 8.18 North Ionian Late Wild Goal style dish: Tocra 636. Di.im. 21.5 cm. c. 575.

new developments or continuations ol established kical lorms. Then: are oinochoai, .some more globular llian the South Ionian (Figure 8.20), some narrower with egg-shaped rather than pear-shaped bodies, and commonly 30 to 35 cm high. I he olpe too is known. Aniphoras are numerous, both of the necked and one-piece varieties; they too Have narrow egg-shaped bodies and the lip is simple; heights are generally 25 to 30 cm. The dinos survives, but gives way to the krater, both ol column type and ol a footless one with imitation ring handles (Figure 8.19), and these in turn are outnumbered by what is called a hemispherical Howl, though the segment is less than half a sphere. Many of these open pots had lids. There is also the stemmed dish and, especially in small unpretentious versions, the plate and the shallow bowl (Figure 8.18). In the reserving style much the most frequent animal is tile goat, more so relatively than in the South Ionian Middle style, since the shoulder held, where the mixed groups are usual, is often given over to the more modish black-figure confections. The old grazing posture - straight long back anil lowered head (Figure 8.19) - survives throughout, but is soon overtaken in popularity by a prettier model with head turned round, concave 53

_ •(!> H I P (Up^h W < < * ^ P
Figure 8.19 North Ionian L.uc Wild Goat style kraur (the handles arc oru.imcni.il): lost (Irom Vroulia). lit 31 cm. c. 600-575. hack and laised rump; ollen too the head is short and lounded and in a tunning pose only one loie and one hind leg are shown (Figure 8.20). The deer is moie consei vative since, if it has horns, it has to be grazing to fit into ihe held. Geese are not common and there seems to he no recognised loimula for them. Boar, hull, lion, dog, sphinx and griffin occur, done in a more ot less degenerate Middle manner. Generally ill awing of figures is econoniic.il, with thick rapid lines, and purple, when used, is applied generously - in splashes on shoulder and rump or in a leclangular patch across the middle ol the body. The filling ornament too is degeneiate Middle Myle, with a londncss lor scalloped and, later, heavily dotted edges to totmdels .w\d losctlcs. Olher tavounles aie short strips ol stubby tongues, often simplified into ,i row ot stiokes, which are attached to upper and lower holders and, handy lor the space below the belly of a running goat or dog, the double spiial (a smallish example on Figure 8.24). As the Late style pidgresscs, filling ornament sometimes, but not always, becomes thinnei .ind may even be omitted. Interestingly, the reserving style is very little influenced by its black-figure partner: the pairs of incised lines across the goat's body on liguic 8.17 are in early deviation that was not followed. Mack-figure was evidently considered the superior medium: where, as often happens, the two styles are used together, the black-figure one takes 54

«Jf

' « / - '4/

'^

'^

I'igure 8.20 Ninth Ionian Late Wil
the more important field or fields. It staits with lanly tail lit ii 1 imitation ol Corinlhian, in choice anil details of fauna and in lorms and disposition of filling ornaments (Figure 8.17 lop) though not in the shapes ol pots; hut direct study of Corinthian models did not last long and this Ninth Ionian black-figure decayed on its own, without any consistent development, so far as present knowledge goes. In lime there was some contamination Irom the lorms of the reserving style, as very obviously in the mtitision ol leserving filling ornaments; and in lields Hounded Hy handles the figures are often flanked Hy fat leaves sprouting from a volute, while in the centre there may be a big rosette or elaboiate (|uatreloil — ornaments taken from the reserving style. Purple, of course, is applied ticely; and towards the middle of the sixth century there are ftagments which make a showy use of white as well, to dapple bodies and emphasise anatomical markings. By now a more model n veision of the Wild Goat style was emeigmg, although the Cla/omenian sarcophagi show the tenacity ol the old tradition. In subsidiary fields the stock ornaments aie cable, lotus and meander. The cable, frequent on necks ol aniphoias and oinochoai, is most often single and has big dots IN its external corneis; the broken cable too occurs, though less frequently. The meandei soon hciomcs heavy and generally is 55

'•

— The

j. si S.' i

\, ; 'X £

Wild

Coat

style

—

simple, wliethcr broken or continuous; the smaller and neater versions are probably early. There is more variety in the forms of the lotus, although again they are simple and heavy. The flower often has one instead of three inner petals or is filled with a palmette (Figure 8.13c-d), and palmettes may replace Buds. Some of these forms had occurred in South Ionian towards the end of Middle II, although there they are more delicate, but its standard (lowers were tot) light in effect and laborious in structure for the Late painters ol North Ionia. Dividing bands tend to be narrow, as in South Ionian Middle II, but now are often enlivened with stripes of purple and white. Around the foot rays are usual. Inside open shapes - that is shapes where the inside is easily visible white and purple stripes are common, as on the later Bird bowls ami the Rosette bowls. Sometimes lot) what is grandiloquently called the Black Polychrome technique is employed, with lotus flowers and buds • or palmettes incised on the dark paint and filled with purple and white: occasionally too such decoration occurs outside on shoulders. Outside the East Greek region the distribution of North Ionian Late Wild Goat pottery is much like that of the South Ionian Middle II style, although [here is more of it; it was made for a longer period and settlement overseas was flourishing, hinds are known of in Aeolis and at Ephesus, a few pieces went to Samos and Rhodes, and some was imported at Sardis. There is a thin scatter round the east coast of the Mediterranean - Al Mina comes to a halt about 600 - relatively much from Naucratis, Tocra and Cyrene, some on Aegma, a little from the Cyclades, perhaps more round the North Aegean, and much from the Black Sea colonies, especially (since they h;wc been the most excavated) 1 listiia and Olbia-Berezan; in mainland Greece and further west it is very rare. The Late style began, so finds in the destruction deposits at Smyrna show, before the end of Early Corinthian, say around 610. For its end there is HO directly uselul context; but presumably the black-figure style continued till 1 near the middle ol the sixth century and the reserving style rather longer.4''

AEOLIS That Aeolis had a distinct Wild Goat school was recognised nearly a hundred years ago;4'1 there may indeed have been more than one. The most productive sites have been 'Lansa' (Buruncuk), inland in the south, and Pilane (Candarli), up the coast to the north. For the 'Larisa' finds, which have been published, there are almost no useful contexts;47 those from Pitane had good contexts, but are not yet published,48 although some specimens - perhaps the better ones - are on display in Istanbul, Izmir and Bergama. In what place or places this Aeolian pottery was made is not yet known; but it cannot have been on Lesbos, which stayed faithful to the

— The Wild Coat style — old Grey ware, and claims lor I'hocaca are based mainly on Us h.ivmg been Ionian and therefore progressive, though analyses suggest thai the local I'hocaean clay was not used lor Archaic panned pottery. A start has been made at sorting out workshops, 1 '' Hut the course ol the style is still unclear. It is easiest to look first at 'l.ansa', since besides being the best studied its pottery is the most extravagantly Aeolian. After some wild Subgeometric there comes a reserving style with primitive wild goats and big heavy filling ornaments; but although the effect may suggest that this is a version of the Early Wild Goat style, the models lor the ornaments look later and the stage may He no earlier than the transition from South Ionian Middle 1 to 11. Its successor certainly recalls Middle II. The principal shapes here are the trefoil omochoe, sometimes witli extra rotcllcs, and the kolyle-krater (or skyphos-kratcr), up to 50 cm in height and width. There are also stemmed dishes, plates, low bowls, lids and model shields. Except ON a lew late pieces a cream slip is regular. In the decorauon two ground paints were often used, a red one as well as the standard blackish (which misfires to a different red), and there are purple enhancements, sometimes - on the bodies of animals - in spaces specially reserved lor them. Ot the fauna goats are much the commonest species, geese and deer seem rare, ami one sherd shows part of a sheep; more surprising aie Ides ol horses (with a sizable meander as a belly stripe) aiitl human hgines, apparently in action, Pilling ornament is generally dense anil heavy; the hook square and the cross wall angles filled with chevrons aie favourites, as is the curved mangle, which fits between striding legs, and roundels, sometimes with a double border. Lotus flowers anil buds are popular too, often ol enormous size, and sometimes the inner petals are replaced by a heart-shaped motive, composed ol an inward-lacing pair of spiral hooks; such hooks are also used unilaterally and unseithngly round the base ol pots. In dividing hands a rectilinear loop pattern is frequent, MU\ SO loo are simple meanders. In general the thawing is angular and clumsy and the niceties ol the orthodox Wild Goat style are ignored, although sometimes there is a rough grandeur or an inconsequential charm, figure 8,21 is a fair example ol the reserving style. There are also from 'Larisa' fragments decorated in the Corinthiamsing black-figure technique, although the Idling ornament is often reserving. Again human figures occur, here lighting, riding and processing. Characteristically the North Ionian rule ol precedence is ignored anil a reserving held may be placed above a black-ligure one. Pieces comparable to the typical reserving work from 'l.arisa' have not - so far — been lound elsewhere, anil one would expect thai they were made locally. Dating is hazardous — perhaps the last quarter ol the seventh century and the first hall of the sixth. I'itane is tantalising and the finds displayed may not be a typical selection. Clay anil slip are in appearance like those ol the 'l.arisa' pots, anil again there is the use ol both blackish and red ground paints wiih purple

— I'bc

' I a

Wild

Coat

ityle

—

Figure 8.21 Aeolian Middle Wild Goat style oinochoe fiom 'I ai isa', fiagment Gottmgen I k of ftagment c 30 cm. I1 nd of 7lh oi eaily 6th centuiy

enhancements often applied dncclly on the slip In contrast to ' L a m a ' (,wheie die finds ,nc mostly horn a sanctuary and not a cemeteiy) the kotylc-kr.uei is absent and the pnncipal shape is a broad amphora, 40 to SO cm high, with ll.ning neck and handles, often double, on the shoulder (ligiiie 8 22), Us foot may be flanng too oi shoit or even omitted. Stemmed dishes also rue common, with feet of vaiying height, and there are dinoi, bowls and lids These seem mostly to be Aeolian, although there are also Noith Ionian imports, which include nairow-necked amphoras and omochoai of the Late style. The bioad amphoras in paiticular and the dishes aic distinctive, the amphoia being the majoi shape. Typically its neck takes the rettiline.il loop pattern, the shouldei has figures or, especially at the back, lotus flowers and buds; below thete aie bands, plain or with simple ornaments, which include the spn.il hook, used lound the fool The fauna 5«

V«/

F i g t n e 8.22 Aeolian Middle Wild Go.n style a m p l i o i a li(»m Pit.uic l / m i i S625 Pet haps fnsl quaili'i ol 6th l e n l i n v .

is n o t a b l y vaned — goat, d e e i , goose and also hoi se, lion, g n l l i n , sphinx, s n e n and on snnil.u n m p h o i a s lioin M y n n a and slieids of o p e n pots fiom Phocaea busts oi c o m p l e t e h u m a n liguies 1 o t u s flowcis and b u d s aie laige and angtilai, and s o m e t i m e s the heai t-sliaped design i opiates innei petals. I oi filling o i n a m e n t , w l u t l i is less heavy anil m o i c vaned than at ' L a n s a ' , h o o k squares and ciosses filled with t h e v i o i i s a i e c o m m o n and between the legs of animals" the t n a n g l e i c t m s , thougli h e i c sliaight sided and less c r a m p i n g . I oi dishes the s t a u d a u ! l o n m i l a is a i c n l i a l lotus u o s s oi a stai, s u i i o u n d e d liy a c h a i a t t e i i s t i t . i l l y uneven meandei In gcneial the style is m i n e restrained than at '1 a n s a ' , a l t h o u g h e x e i u l i o n is \ c i y v a n e d : s o m e times, as w i t h the h o i n s ol d e e i , iheio is a t o u c h ol elegante oi even of lantasy, Hut m o i e o l t e n the elfect is tltimsy oi dull I'lns g i o u p seems to Have i g n o i e d the H l a t k - h g u i e tetlinii|ue A m p l i o i a s ol this shape, Hut 59

— 'the Wild Goat style —

Figure 8.23 Aeolian Middle Wild Goat style dinos: Izmir 5018. London Dinos group. I'irst quarter of 6th century. h with

simple decoration, are reported from the I lerimis valley and Smyrna. •I'uriher afield lliay are very rare - a couple oil Nisyros And several fragments at llistria.*0 l i o m tJie excavator's statements and available contexts lor dishes the heyday of this group - or ol us members so far found - should He the lust lull ol ilie sixth century, although a tew pieces look as il they might He ol the late seventh. The 'Larisa' pieces and the amphoias liont Pitane are obviously akin to one another, but a relationship is much less noticeable m the London Dinos group (1'iguie 8.23)." Examples ol this group have been fount) at Pitane, but it was exported in respectable quantity outside Aeolis. The favourite shape, so far as present knowledge goes, is the dinos, but there are plates too anil an askos. Decoration is sober and disposed to be orthodox and although there are some Aeolian peculiarities, these are not blatant. Goats grazing are ihe commonest ol the fauna with dogs a poor second; there are also goose, boar, a speckled hare and an inept little man. The Idling ornament tends to be large and thick, considerably more so than in South ' Ionian Middle II; it makes much use of the hook square, the cross with chevrons and, in place ol the roundel, a big mangle, which is sometimes 6o

TV

"P

— The Wild Cioal uylc — heavily bordered and once at least curved, as it nestles between the iorclegs ol a goat, Hut besides these Aeohcisms there arc North Ionian connections — the strips ol small strokes hanging Irom .111 upper border MU\ occasionally the double spiral. Ol other ornaments the most noiable aie ilie band ol tongues, large and doubly outlined, and the drill though rather rough meanders; the rectilineal loop pattern loo occurs. Purple is used freely, often directly on the clay. In general the drawing is tidy .\n<-\ respectable, but without finesse. This London Dinos style owes much lo South Ionian

Middle II, although it could be indirectly. Direct borrowing from Chios has been proposed, but this seems dubious; similar inlelicilies in the rendering of animals may well be independent and (he absence in Aeolian of the horseshoe roundel is telling. Contact with North Ionian is clearer; it is presumably the provider ol the short strokes M\d the double spiral and also of the running goat with raised rump and looking back. Still, there is no need lo expect a single source ol inspiration lor this Aeolian group. Whether it also attempted the black liguie technique I do not know. Comparisons with the South Ionian Middle II MH\ the North Ionian Late styles suggest that the floruit ol the London Dinos gioup was the lust quarter ol the sixth century — that is contemporary with Middle Corinthian - with perhaps a slight extension each way. The relationship ol these three assemblages is not clear. I he sly le ol the I'ilane amphoras might well be the descendant ol a model clumsily copied by the 'Lansa' potters. But the London Dinos group does not lit in easily; it might be an offshoot ol the same style that was intent on being orthodox and unprovincial, it might represent an earlier Aeolian style which had kept its purer standards, or it might be a distinct school, only slightly contaminated by its neighbours. II the group designated bv analysis ol us clay as 'South Ionian i"*2 should turn out to be Aeolian, as appears possible, there would be lurtlui complexities; it seems even closer to South Ionian orthodoxy. One may hope that further exploration in Aeohs will provide luller series.

DORIAN REGION Down south, in the Dorian territories, Rhodes apparently imported all its Wild Goat pottery, but a lew casual finds from Calvimu>s'n and Cos'' 1 show provincial variants of the South Ionian Middle style; presumably they were made for local consumption at some place or places ihereaHouts. More important, but hardly more inspired, was what is often called the Nisyros group (though the appellation is tendentious).^ This consists mainly ol plates, with otitcurving rim anil flat base and generally 25-30 cm in diameter, but there are also oinochoai and kraters. l o r the plates the commonest system ol decoration is to divide the circular field into two unequal parts, the upper one containing a solitary animal M\d the lower radiating tongues (liguie 8.24) or

^^^^

61 *^^^A -^^^^

'^^^M

BH^tf

IH^HI

H g u r e 8.24 DOII.IN Wild Goal style plate British Museum (SO 4-4 1 H u m 2S cm l u s t tlind of 6th century

,

less ollui a palmitic with volutes spimgmg liom its sides; and the Hand betwun the segnuiits is enihelhshed with some simple niotivt, usually a / i g / i g o i chevioiis oi a biokcn cable (which tends to be angulai), although

[

< ' ,

i ' ' t> tt ^* i \ 1 1

*

I ' /

soiiKtmies on moie ambitious pieces a pamper goes to the tumble of doing a u ui cable An occasional elaboration is the addition ol an outei nng, conl\inmg lotus llowcis and buds or even a line ol dogs chasing hares or goUs Vei v i.ucly the exergue is omitted Of the animals, the favour rtes aie sphm\ anil dog, but lion, pantliei, boar, goat, horse, haie, bud and even a chimn i maki appealanees, and there are a few repiesentations of human liguics With veiy laic exceptions the technique is rcseivation and not miision, ,\\\<\ some use is made of purple enhancements. In general the di uving is eaicless and often dcpiaved, and the filling ornament Heavy and couse, until at the end in the 1 lail gioup it dissolves into a shower of sliokes A few ol the pieces which attempt human hguies are of better quality, notably the I uphoibos plate,s<> the Gotgon plate'1'' and the 'Peiscus' plate (I igure X 2S),S1> but how they hi into the gioup is not cleai The source of (he style seems to be South Ionian of the Middle 11 stage, as is suggested by the ornamenls ol the 1 uphoibos plate and the regular retention of the leserving technique, but a Iwouiite filling ornament — the double spiral, usually with loops in the angles - looks like a boi rowing from the Noi th Ionian Late style I or dating there aie giavc contexts wheie these plates occur with Middle Corinthian, ihis puts them secuiely in the first quaitei of the sixth century, although soim aic likely to be lathci latei and a few, the more careful ones, might be a little eaiher A lew plates have tinned up on 'llic'ia" and on 6a

— 1 he Wild (.lottt it vie —

l i g u r e 8.25 Donan Wild Go.u style plate Ikilm IO9I7 Wain. 27 S cm ( 1 He details on the ligtnes aie mused ) I'cillaps c 575. " Thasos/ 0 and the odil piece oi two is iccoiikd horn I phestis,''1 N.HICI \tis, Tocta''- and Selmus/' 1 but the Hulk o! the finds ionic liom Rhodes ami Nisyios Yet the chiel place of oiigm seems to he neither Rhodes nor Nisyros They aie, so it happens, the only parts ol the Dotian legion, wluie tlieie lias Hecn pioductive excavation ol e.nly sixth tcntiny deposits; analysis ol the clay of one typical plate fiom Rhodes showed a composition unknown in that island/' 1 and Nisyios was handy iinpoilani enough to He the home oi at least the pnncipal home ol the gionp I hat this was in the Dorian pail of the East Greek legion is a icasoniHIv sale INICICIKC, Hut precisely wheie is at present not wot ill eon|cctuiing ''s Suipiisingly theie stems to have Heen some imitation - on I hasos, in a eieative spuit, or perhaps m the Cyelaeles6'1

CAR1A '1 he cemetery at Damlihogaz near Mil is (Mylasa) has provieled most of the C.tn.tn Arcliaic potleiy tli.it we have ' 7 I hough South Ionian of the I'.arly f>3

The Wild Goal style —

Figure 8.26 Carian Middle Wild Goat style oinochoe: liochuni S987. 1 It 30.3 cm. End of 7ih century or early 6th. stage lias tinned up there (liguie 8.3), imitation ol the Wild Goal style does not seem to Have begun much before f>00; presumably, as the Idling ornament on sonic examples suggests, the local Subgcomcttic persisted till that lime. Cai'ian potters had managed well enough with simple linear patterns, Hut were bewildered by the more elaborate repertory of the Orientalising style. An oinochoe in Bochum (Figure 8.26) looks early in the series;'"" note tlie postures and details ot the geese, the details ol the goats, die palmellery in the middle oi the shoulder field and the pendent triangles transformed into lotus (lowers. Some seemingly later works are staider, but Still deviant.'1'' The hulk, however, of the Carian Wild Goal finds appear to be of the second quarter and middle of the sixth century, when a more uniform style is visible; the dale is fixed by the juxtaposition of l'ikellura and Wild Goat elements on the same pots (Figure 8.27). The lllOSt striking characteristics are a filling ornament constructed ol two, or more often three, thick uprights with another thick bar across then tops 64

— The Wiltl Coal uy/c —

Figure 8.27 Carian mixed Wild Goat .uul I'ikcllura style olpc: Tampa 97.1. 1 h 27 cm. Mid 6th century.)

('stumps*), single small meander units thai sprout from iho frame ol the mam held, and the heavy Hars in groups alternately solid and void thai form a belt round the belly; no standard, I hough, was established for the feathering of geese, which with goals and dogs make up the regular fauna. I lie sources ol this Cinaii style appear to be in South Ionian ol the Middle II stage, dud Miletus was the nearest important Greek cily to Mylasa as well as the home of likcllura. There is IUI obvious influence ol the Late style ol North Ionia, except perhaps in the use ol the double spiral as a filling ornament. Whether direct South Ionian influence was continuous is debatable; but though the Bochum painter, /0 the dominant ('.man painter round the middle of the sixth century, had a robust personality, it seems to me unlikely that his Wild Goal style* came from a local tradition without support from contemporary South Ionian models. Interestingly, to judge by the different repertory ot filling ornaments, there was no connection with the late plates made somewhere in the adjacent Doiian region. O l the Carian Wild Goat pots so far known — and it must be remembered that nearly all come from graves - the commonest shape is the trefoil oiuochoe,

—

I hi

Wild

(,oaL

style

—

liitcih i 11 lit i dumps, lun then. .110 dso lotind mouthed niruu.lio.11 (not of tin old bio.ul kind), amphoias and stemmed dishes 1 ess fiequou .11 e the dinos, koule, deep slcniimd cup, howl ,ind pyxis 1 he slip is described as hiowmsh I lieu is sonic use ol put pic, Hut not of white IVtlups 1 w lining is 1m.ess.11y It is e isy to assume that Myl.\sa w is the liomt ol this C ,111111 school One should, however, icmcmliei that Rhodes not so long mo w is considcied the home of the Wild Goat and 1 lkelluia styles since linds lioni othei p u t s of the 1 ast Gieek legion weie laic 01 little known Similulv linds limn oiliu pirts of Cana aie few or, as at l.isos, still univail iblc

•,

IYDIA

f I I;

At Sudis, IIIL capil il ol I \dia, c\ca\auon has produced 1 ast Gieek unpoits lioni (icomctnc on, ihotigli not 111 gieu qtmitity The I ydians had no ti.ulition ol ligmcd (luoi.uuiii on thin pots, Hut unlike the C.uians did not sine tinib lo O u i k styles uul, alihough they nude some use ol 1 ast d u c k models, it \v is cclecticalh I his is evident in then u n d o i n g s of the Wild (10H style (I iguie X 28)'' 1 leie the clay is lathei solt with a whitish slip and, is 111 Aiohin, two gimiiul punts aie sometimes used — a Hlickisli one with i pin pit tinge which is not shiny and an mange led one which is Vile diawmg ol lnimals is caieless, with bodies that often look like bully stufled sacks, and lillmg ornament is generally light The elfeet is cheeifully cngiguig ,\nd theie is no hesitation about using the Wild Goat style on one pait ol \ pot and on anothei the tiaehtional tumbling (that is the eoveiing of a sin Luc with sets ol wavy lines of diffeung density) I ydian Wild Goal polio y seems lo chaw moie on the Middle than the I ate 1 ast CiTcek st\ Ic and, to |udge by whit has been published, had no interest 111 incision, though it in iv all be ol the sixth centui y '1 here is not the evidence to tell which school 01 schools piovuled the models Some maibled waie, whethei imitative 01 unpoited, tinned up at Smyrna

J

1

1

J I i

, > ' 5

y,'

I \

j, ! ,

COLONIAL IMITATIONS Greek colonies natuially enough made most of the coaise waie they needed and, il then potleis sometimes attempted fine waie, that is not suiprising We know most aboul such attempts lioni 1 listna, wheie the clay of several hunched she ids h is been anilyscd I 10111 this it appeals that there weie a few modest mutinous of the 1 ate and even the Middle II Wild Goat styles, which did nol ventuu beyond lloial motives 7 ' I hcic may be imitations, some lathei bolclci, at O l b n and Bcie/m as well, to ]udge by the odd appeal mice of \ moils 1 ale Wild (10.1t sheids I omul llioe 71 I in thei, a ftagnient of a I ate 66

I In

Wild

(.lout

ityh

Figure 8.28 1 ydian Middle Wild Goat style dmos, fiagment Manisa 5494 (fiom Saidis, P63 332 3732) Ht of fiagment 24 cm Decotation in matt black and shiny ted paint red foi paits ol lions, spots on cleei, filling ornaments and dividing hands I list hall of 6th centiuy Wild Goat style stemmed dish found at Nauciatis, igam with floial dccoia lion, looks as il it was made of Nile clay '* Such oceisiond and geneially unoiiginal imitation may have been widespnad in the I ast Gicck colonies

THASOS A lew pieees found on Delos and Thasos, appaicntly fiom one woikshop, offer a peculiar vcision of the Wild Goat style " 1 hey may he divided into three lots I'nst, theie are plates deeoiateel in a fanly oithodox style with eoncentiic lows of grazing goats and deer 7U Otliei moie pietentiotis plates prefei the system of a single field with exeigue, familiar fiom the pi ucs of the Donan legion, but the composition is ciowded and novel, here lions take piecedence ovei dogs and goats 7 7 Mindly, thtie aie some pointed aiyhalloi of largish size - neatly 20 cm High - which follow the Wild Goat 67

%

style more tamely and only in the principal fields.711 The first lot might pass as East Greek, although it would He hard to assign it to any known school, but the oilier two are markedly deviant. The likeliest explanation is that these are the products of a workshop on Thasos: Delos was a great sanctuary, to which offerings were brought from round the Aegean, and Thasos had observant and inventive potters, who little if any later were doing their own versions of Chian7* and then of Attic Black-figure. In the style of this group there are resemblances to both the Middle II and the Late Wild Goat styles and although in Corinthian the pointed aryballos is a rare shape after the Transitional stage, it does survive. 1 would dale this workshop about the end of Early Corinthian, that is little if at all before 600.80 A more prolific Thasian venture, which began a little later, was a revised version of Chian, which also shows independence and invention.8' I lere the white slip may be reduced to a thin wash or be omitted altogether. Of the shapes the chalice is still the favourite (though perhaps less so than in - native Chian), but there are differences in the rest of the repertory; besides oinochoai and plates we have lekanai, kraters with offset lip and even a column krater. Decoration generally follows that of the Chian Animal Chalice style, but tends to be busier, with more crowding of the ornament, and among the fauna goats are still very frequent. So far there is no uselul evidence lor dating except that ol style, and this suggests that this Thasian Wild Goal series began during the lust quarter of the sixth century and lasted into the second. There were also Thasian versions of the Chian Black. figure and G r a n d styles. 8 2 W h e t h e r t h e w o r k s h o p s that m a d e these wares : were founded o r r u n b y C h i a n emigrants is u n k n o w n , t h o u g h likely enough.

jf \\ ,i

',

| •'•'

;

?•'

ETRUR1A (THE SWALLOW PAINTER)

:

i f, **•

— The Wild Goal style —

In Etruria and more precisely at Vulci (to judge by hndspots) there is the curious phenomenon ol the Swallow painter (Figure 8.29).si The clay of his pens is brownish, but unusually lor Etruscan work has a creamy slip. The shapes — omochoe, olpe, amphora, krater, dinos and alabaslioii — are of Etruscan types and primarily Etruscocorinthian. But, except on one side ol the krater, the principal decoration is provided by animals from the repertory of the Wild Goat slyle and m a familiar arrangement. Grazing goats are the most frequent species and they stay fairly true to the Middle II standard. So loo do the geese, but in die griffins there is some deviation and in die sphinxes more, since like the human figures they have Etruscocorinthian heads. The floral and abstract decoration comes mostly from the Wild Goat style, though the staple filling ornament is the Etruscocoi inlhian dot-rosette. Sources of this painter are evidently in South Ionian Middle 11 and an omochoe conveniently narrows the date, since it 68

— I be Wild Com style —

Figure 8.29

Middle Wild Goat style i>lpe by the Swallow painter: Bochutn. I it 25.3 cm. I-ml ol 7tli century.

misrepresents the formula of the banded ninochoai ('GiirteJbandkannen') and these do not appear nil the later part ol Middle II - say around 615, according to the chronology used m tins book. The one recorded grave group has too wide a span to be helpful. The Swallow painter's origin is disputed. Some think him an Etruscan imitating East Greek models, others - rightly IN my opinion — that he was an immigrant who had trained in a Wild Goat workshop: his goats and geese look too purely East Greek for an Etruscan, il one considers contemporary Etruscan renderings ol Corinthian fauna. But either way the contamination ol the Easi Greek style is easy to explain; Wild Goat pottery is very rare in liruiia anil the Swallow painter is unlikely to have had many or indeed any examples from which to learn or refresh his memory. 1 lis influence on Etruscan pottery was minimal - at most a new type of goose

~ - - *

ami a rcseiving wini; lor sphinxes, adopted for Etruscocorinthian By the Bended Sphinx painter.

'MELIAN' 'Melian', as it is called, was probably made on Paras.81 It is roughly contemporary with the Wild Goat style, flourishing in the second half of the seventh century and the first quarter of the sixth. Decoration is heavy and ciude and the formulas, once established, changed little. It shares with the Wild Coat style the use of volutes and the use and general structure cil lotus llowers and buds and of much of the filling ornament. 'Melian' is piesumably the borrower: it is a clumsy style.

C I I A I ' T I . R ')

CHIAN: GRAND AND BLACK-FIGURE STYLES

THE GRAND

STYLE

The Chian Wild Goat style persisted till about the middle of the sixth century. In its Animal Chalice stage, to judge Hy the initial use of rilling ornaments, H had an ol(shoot that can no longer He considered part of the Wild Goal family. This is what is known as the Giand style, in which human figures replace animals and a more polychrome effect is attempted (Figure 9.1).' Almost the only shape on which this style appears is the c/iafice/ though some examples with diameters o/ 30 cm or moie might be reckoned kraters. The degree of polychromy vaiies. Men's flesh is sometimes a light to medium brown, sometimes just outlined on the white slip, and women's is often distinguished hy a white paint (what in Attic a century later is called a 'second white'). Purple is used not as a casual enhancement, but for whole areas, such as sections ol drapery or the inside of a shield; and the light-coloured dilute paint, with which the close folds of light fabrics is often rendered, makes ellective contrasts. The quality ol the drawing is mediocre, as is obvious in heads, Inn since almost all our material is small fragments, it is difficult to judge the original elicit. It is hard too to He sure of the subjects. There are processions anil drinking parties and battle scenes, to which ridden horses anil the team ol a chariot may or may not belong. Mythology also lias a part; though the only certain identification is the ambushing ol Troilos on a fairly complete chalice from Pitane, 1 leracles is twice recognisable, a .sprawling hairy creature looks like a fabulous monster, and there are such oddities as a woman can ying a severed head (Figure 9. Ic), which cannot be explained as a conventional incident of human lite.' Outside the main field, which is continuous, rim patterns are usually light, in the handle /.one a double cable is regular, and interiors have then purple anil white ornamentation, occasionally with figures. Almost all the known specimens come from Naucratis; elsewhere an odd piece or two has turned up - at Tocra, C'yrene, Aegina, Athens, Pitane and Herezan in the Ukraine. 'The date ol the Grand style should he roughly the second quarter of the sixth century. There was sonic presumably Thasian imitation.4 The Grand style, it is generally claimed, is indebted to free painting, that is painting on wooden or terracotta panels and on walls. This claim, made for any Archaic pot that, like the surviving examples of tree painting, uses 71

— Cbian: Grand arid Black-figure

styles

l'igure 9.1 Chi.in Grand style, fragments of chalices: liiitisli Museum Scale C. 3:4. Light brown for male llesli, except on e; on c purple on parts ol dress that show white in the illustration. Second quarter ol 6ih century.

— Chian:

Grand

<
slyivi

—

a Brownish colour lor male flesh, is reasonable, hut docs not mem much, since at that lime (so far as we know) ilic only significant difference between free painting and normal pot panning was in (he range of colours. Anyhow, the Chian Grand style is the most sustained attempt by Archaic Greek potters at this sort ol emulation; its only precedent in East Greek pottery is on the Euphorbos plate, an isolated and puzzling piece. s As has been said, it was once thought lli.it all Archaic Chian pottery was made at Naucratis. This opinion has been revived in a modified form,' especially for the Grand style and lor the inscribed plain ware, mostly small, simple kantharoi witli dedicatory inscriptions painted before hi ing and naming the dedicator as well as the deity - lor example '/.olios dedicated me to Aphrodite'. 7 Por the Grand style the argument is that Naucratis is much the most prolific source ol the fragments we have, while none has been found — so far—on Chios; further, the enigmatic subjects oi some sherds can be interpreted as particularly Egyptian. I'oi the inscribed plain ware it is considered improbable that such cheap little objects would be bespoken in Chios to be dedicated in Naucratis, especially as one ol the dedicators and very possibly a second was a woman." Admittedly analyses ol the clay ol a tew specimens of the Grand style and the inscribed plain ware show a composition characteristic ol Chios, but clay could have been imported for expatriate Chian potters, l'lie countc!-argunients
Lastly, the Chian character ol the clay favours manufacture on Chios; although clay can be shipped, no Archaic Greek instance of such export is known, anyhow at present, anil it is hard to credit that it would have been worth while to do so for making the inscribed ware (though it could ot course be contended that this clay was only what was surplus to the requirements of the Grand style). At present certainty is not possible, but on balance manufacture on Chios ol these two lines seems to me likelier than at Naucratis.

BLACK-FIGURE CROUPS About the time when the Animal Chalice style was beginning some Chian potter or potters turned to the black-figure technique, incited evidently 7}

('bitiii:

'

(iiiUiil

.mil

lilttik-Jignri'

styles

—

Figure 9.2 Chian Black-figure style, fragment of lid: I/mii 930 (tiom I'.rythiae). Width of fragment 14 cm. Sphinx and Lion group: lust quarter of 6th century.

by the success ol Early Corinthian. Tl>e first venture was the Sphinx .uind Lion group (Figure 9.2).' It sets out to He different. In us repertory 'of shapes the chalice is very rare. Instead there are bowls, often with stemmed fool, lids, oniochoai, plates, dishes, as well as a few oddities. One fragment admits a goat in the reserving Wild Goat style and another keeps the corresponding Idling ornaments, but these are exceptional and probably eaily experiments. Tlie standard decoration is of a row of Hsmall animals ol die same species, in the same posture and facing the same way; they are surrounded by rosettes of Corinthian type and, attached to [the hordeis ol the held in the old Wild Goat way, half (or in coiners quarter) rosettes. Lions and sphinxes are the most popular species, the lions (usually with ham-hill collars) seated and facing right, the sphinxes also sitting but lacing leit; on larger pots they are often in alternate rows. There are also bulls, sirens and geese, again in homogeneous rows. Scenes of action are rare - lion facing bull, a rider, men in various postures (although because they appear on Iragments the action is obscure) and perhaps a centaur. On suitable shapes there is often a chain of lotus flowers and buds at the base: these are sometimes of the old Wild Goat type, but usually they .no of the new simplified version (as those of Figure 8.13e, but with two small extra petals). Puiple is used freely on figures ,\ni\ filling ornaments, Although the planning is careful, the quality of the figure drawing 74

^ ^

..(±I^A*I

,,

^M^^IJ

- (.'I'iiin:

^^^.->m.> ^^u-

-i^^^u

( 1 1 it n i l t i n (I l i l i n k

^^^JM>

^ ^ b — 'f+mmlLL

/I^IIIC » / y / o

is miserable, bin the well calculated balance ol dark and light is cllcctivc, il one docs not look loo closely. The polling, however, shows skill. A Sphinx and LION sherd was noticed in the siege mound at Smyrna, so that the group should have begun by about 600, ili.il is Uelore the end ol Early Corinthian. It is thought to continue till the 560s or a little later, though one would not expect so static a style to persist loi a good loity years. The distribution is unsurprising. Specimens turn up on Chios, there is much from Naucratis and also from Here/an and Olbia; some was found at Erytluae ami Pitane; a little went to other places in (he eastern ambit, and a couple of sherds are reported from ("orevia and Sybaris. Theic was too a I Hasian version, rather freer in its choice and use ol components; 10 it is less common than the Reserving I hasian one. The Comasl group," which is connected with the Sphinx and Lion group, sticks to chalices. I lere the external decoration is ol comasts, occasionally partnered by women. The comasts (Elgine lJ.3), in extended poses, usually wear a turban ('mitra'), but il is hard to make sense ol the fringed band across the chest and the cap coveimg the buttocks. The women are usually in hiack-ligurc technique like the men, but unlike them are hilly dressed and stand staidly, ollciing garlands. Tilling ornament, at first of Sphinx and Lion type, soon degenerates into loinul blobs with incised ring or rings inside. As a variant theme the Poultry group oilers cocks and hens. Rim ornaments are simple and the saw-tooth pattern is regular m the field between the handles. There is some use of pin pie retouches, but not — on the exterior - ol white. The general effect ol these chalices is lively, although except tor a lew, presumably early, lowls the drawing is slapdash. The inside, when the shape is an open one, usually has respectable lotus flowers and rosettes, done in purple ami while on the dark ground. I'or dating some stratification at Smyrna and Tocta and a couple ol giaves at I5oeolian Rhitsona and on Rhodes give lough guidance - the 570s to the 540s lor the Comast group, with the Poultiy gionp starling a little later, say in the 560s. Distribution, as recorded so lar, is similar to thai ol the Sphinx anil Lion group, though rather wider and thinner. As might be expected there is a little liner work.1-' Ibis includes Iragments of cups, indebted for shape and some details ol decoration to Laconian of around 570. Except for one sherd liom Here/an, the only place where this group has been found is, at present, Naucratis; and since also Laconian was lairly common at Naucratis, but has not, at present, been reported from Chios, once again manufacture by Chiots in Naucratis has been propounded. The argument seems to me unconvincing. Here/an is very remote from Naucratis and arguments I mm absence are not conclusive; though East Greek Bird bowls were imitated in Laconia, no imported examples are recorded.' 1 After the middle ol the sixth century Chian decorated pottery fades away. H Among vauous ploys the most notable is that ol a small black-figure 75

|UM,

— Qbiun: Grand and Black-figt$re

Figure 9.3

styU-i —

Chian Black-figure style, fragments of chalices.

a Chios (iron) Enipoilo). b Chios (from Rizari). c British Museum 88.6-1.1072 d Kcggto di Cal. 19148. Scale c. 1:1. Comast group: second quarter of 6th century. group, mainly of kanthnroi, where there is no slip and isolated figures provide the decoration, supplemented (if the field is not continuous) by small palmettos at the sides. Dispirited Arrangements of ivy leaves go on longer. The diversity of Chian styles in the earlier sixth century is remarkable. Still, if the products of other East Greek cities could be recognised as easily, this diversity might not be quite so abnormal.

76

C H A P II. R

10

FlKliLLURA

METROPOLITAN SCHOOL Iikellura 1 takes its name from a locality al ancient Canurus on Rhodes, where one ol the first linds ol this ware was made by Bdiotti ami Sal/mann. An alternative, Samian, had a long currency, especially in Germany, Hut is now obsolete. The style is easy to recognise, but less easily defined since, although it has distinctive shapes and ornaments, composition vanes remarkably and so loo docs the character ol (lie drawing. Its home, il is now clear, was Miletus; analysis indicates thai tlic clay is Milesian .\nd excavation is demonstrating its frequency and diversity there. There is no evidence, anyhow at present, lor manufacture in oilier I asl Greek cities. Clay, slip and paint are as in the Soil I h Ionian (Milesian) Wild Goat style. In the decoration details are ri'Sl'1'ved and incision is very rare, but in contrast to the reserving Wild Goal style heads ol figures are not drawn in outline. Purple enhancements appeal modestly at the beginning, but gradually are given up. While is used only lor eyes M\A rosettes on the lips ol oinochoai and occasionally lor dots on dresses or [lie body ol a snake. 1 He throwing ol pots was or soon became remarkably careless, so that lew I'ikellura amphoras even look symmetrical and often they are dented; tins is probably from sell confidence and not incompetence. The principal shape is the amphora, a broad poi with ll.itush shoulder and three-reeded handles (Figures 10.1, IO.C> and 10.8). lis height is usually 25—35 cm, although a few examples are bigger. An amphora ol this type appears once or twice in llie Middle II stage ill the South Ionian Wild Goat style,' although at present there is no sign ol a continuing tradition in painted pottery, 1 and the spreading body is paralleled in the Aeolian amphoras from Pitane (Figure 8.22); bin the North Ionian Late Wild Goat amphoras are very different.4 Second in popularity is the amphoiiskos, which sometimes and especially at the beginning is moderately stout, but later and much more often spindly (ligurc 10.9). Presumably it is derived from the amphora, and the better examples have well modelled lip and foot and reeded handles; most though are simpler, and eventually the lip is reduced to ,\ roll and the handles to Hal snips ol clay. In two or three instances one handle is omitted, bin there is mi need to call the result a 'lekythos'. Other shapes are much less common and mostly early. There are several oinochoai, ol two varieties. The more imposing, 9 which may be

up to 10 cm high, li.is sonic .illmity in shape to the standard Middle II type ol tin1 Sou ill Ionian Wild (io.it style, although the neck is stronger and ollrn more veitical; it has no lesemblance to the Noith Ionian Late type. Tlu- olhei I'ikclhna oinochoc is wide and low, like a cream jug;6 the norm is pel haps 13-14 cm to the top of the relatively high handle. Cups too have liitiK'd up, mostly in small Iragments. [he standard type lias a short oltset lip, a shallow howl and a ring loot; a diameter of 13-14 cm at the rim seems iioim.il. It is dccoiated hoth inside and outside. 7 1 here are rarities too. Vaiianls on the amphora are the hydiia, 8 differing only in its handles, and the stamnos,'' which has a curtailed neck as well. Besides the big oinochoe there is the so-called olpc, 10 a plump, round-mouthed jug unlike the olpai ol othci schools; a cup ol Little Master shape," a globular aryballos (Figuie 10.11),'- a m u g n and a plate with a handle 11 have turned up; and even a dinos has been claimed.1"' luilher excavation at Miletus may well add more. Dccoiation varies more in composition than components. The fauna is that ot the Wild Goat style with the addition of the partridge, popular too on the lei racotta revetments of South Ionia;16 but heads are no longer leseivcd. 1 luimn figures aie now frequent and active. The stock ornaments are lew and simply constructed. Necks usually have double cable, meander and squaii', oi meander cross. The cable, of the type of the Middle II Wild Goal style without the ring round the cenlial dot, is generally eaily; the mc.uidei .\ni\ squate, which continues throughout, is also traditional; the meandct cioss, a Flkclluta innovation, becomes common later. On the boilv the staples aie volutes, crescents and lotus. The volutes have their appropriate place on the belly in a broad field, whether or not enclosed, ami spring from the handles. Crescents occupy narrower bands on the bellv ami there may be more than one row of them, alternate rows facing < opposite ways; this oi nanient, which lor long had Been more or less icstricted to whiiligigs, appears about the same time in Clazomenian Blackfigure, though there moie highly coloured. The lotus flowers and buds are legularly of the type shown in Figure 8.13c; this occurs, though rarely, in ' the Middle 11 Wild Goat style (where the related form of Figure 8.13b is not uncommon). Simple diagonal arrangements of crosses, lozenges, blobs oi doited lines are liequcnt on amphoriskoi and occasionally used on other shapes. Of minor ornaments very simple tongues are often put at the top of the shoulder and sometimes, like rays, round the base; and ivy, usually in a single spray, had a vogue on shoulders. For dividing bands blobs or slum strokes are commonest. The pioneer ol the likellura style was the Altenburg painter. 17 The fiagmentary amphora illustrated here (Figure 10.1) is an early piece, if not quite tin1 earliest, and shows that the new style, though much indebted to the Milesian Middle II Wild Goat style (as is evident from a general consideration of his lepertory) has made radical innovations. One is in the drawing ol the animals. Instead of outlined heads and broad reserved details 7«

— / ik vll

ID

a

Figure 10.1 likellura amphora: ISiilish Museum 8S.2-K.54. Scale ratliei under 1:3. AhenHuig painter: c. Sf>0. on bodies and legs we have imitation of the black-figuie technii|uc, hut with meticulous iestivation instead ol incision. The l.uma and composition, though, are u.ulitional, as too is the emphasis given to the shouldci field: the belly Has a less caieful die o! iiinnmg dogs and Haies (oi, on olliei examples of this painter's work, goals). The filling ornaments too ai e inhei lied, though sparsei and smaller in conformity with the delicacy ol ilie drawing of the animals; compare the shoulder and belly lielils ol the amphoia illustrated. The other novelty is the Hand ol descents. Thcie is another band ol crescents below the chasing animals on the belly, and below thai tongues like those at the top of the shoulder. Very soon (if his stylistic development has been reconstiucted conectly) the AltenHuig paintei made another innovation, adding human hgures to his repertory; these appeal mostly m comos scenes, though fragments show that sometimes he was moie ambitious (I'igure 10.2). The next step was to shilt the dccoi.uive emphasis lo the belly, enlaiging the principal field theie and replacing the liguies on the shouldei with a hand or 79

It hell

II iti

—

Figure 10.2 Fikcllura amphora, fragments of shoulder: Nicosia 1960/X-29/2. Scale rather under 1:3. Altenburg painter: c. 550-540

Figure 10.3 lukeltura amphora: Ahenburg 191. lit 31 cm. Alteiiburg painter: c. 550-540.

— I'ikcll

itra

—

bands of simple ornaments (t'igurc 10.i). A fuuhef economy WAS to reduce

the number of figures in the belly lichl tti two or still better one, placed centrally between big volutes sprouting from the base ol the handles.18 The Allcnlnug painter Had at the outset shown notable care, especially ill the drawing of the figures of the shoulder field, ami though as tune went on Ins style became more cursory, He continued to decorate his pots compactly and the subsidiary decoration does not become slovenlyContemporaries of the Altenburg painter were inventive too. Broad fields, such as those on the belly of amphoi as and omochoai, might be Idled with two rows of lotus flowers and buds in mirror image'9 or ol enclosed palmettes similarly disposed20 or with scale pattern,-1 reticulation (standard on amphonskoi — Figure 10.9), rows ol short inverted rays'' or, more agreeably, star pattern (Figure 10.ll).2' There are also the omochoai of Group S (Figure 10.4), where the most plausible excuse for the decoration of the body is that it was meant to recall the plumage ol a bird. In all the groups so far considered the decoration normally remains compact and covers the visible surface ol the pot closely, but there was also another trend, which found empty space attractive and knew how to exploit it. Here there was a forerunner and perhaps .\n ancestor in the oinochoai of Group R (figure IO.f>), to which a krater from Tarsus may be added.24 None of these has a useful context, so that their dating depends on stylistic judgment. The well preserved oinochoe in the British Museum2* looks distinctly less advanced than the early work ol the Altenburg painter: the cable complex, which alternates with stalked rosettes on the shoulder, is loo elaborate and old-fashioned. liui the oinochoe illustrated here has a normal f ikellura lotus chain and a typical fikellura cable. The explanation may be that Group R is the creation ol another experimental painter who, however he started, found a home in the fikelhna school. Perhaps the delicately sparse decoration of a few cream jugs and cups is indebted to Ins example.2' It was, however, the Altenburg painter's prescription that was accepted and the tendency to less precise and exacting workmanship continued. In particular in the drawing ol animals, now mostly dogs and hares, the reservation of detail becomes no more delicate than in the Wild Goat style, though there is no return to the reserving ol heads. Generally too figures become rare. The Altenburg painter in his later work had been satisfied with a single comast between volutes for the decoration of the main field on the belly of his amphora*. It was an easy step, whether or not he look it himself, to dispense with the comast and extend the volutes. Group N' 7 still keeps the compact system of decoration and takes some care, but in the Volute Zone group (Group P: Figure 10.8a), which lasts till the end ol fikellura, such virtues are disregarded. It is templing to suppose that it was from Group R (figure 10.5) that some later Elkellura painters got the idea ol free held decoration, but the

-

/ the l/ii) ii —

I'igine 10.4 I dulluia oinochoe- Louvie AT21 1 h 29 cm Gioup S nud 6th centuiy.

intctval seems to he too long This kind of denotation now leappears in thice lot ins, ptih.ips At moie oi less the same time. The paintet of the aniphoi.is of (iiotip M was old-fashioned in his liking for animals on the shouldei - dogs chasing h.uc, goat or deer oi, less ambitiously, a file of nondesuipt hnds, but the mam field on the belly, which again in an old-fashioned way is nanow, is usually left empty 2 8 The drawing, though economical, is adequate and the effect stuking A couple of amphoras of tins gioup Have an cxtia low of crescents in the belly held, but this may be a failute ol neive t.itlict than an evolutionaly stage The experiment seems to have been shoil-hved «2

/ i k ell in a —

Figure 10.5 I'lkelhna OIIIOLHOC liunimgliani Umvcisily. lit 29 5 cm Group R second I)U.IIUM ol (>th iiiituiy

The Running Man pamtci (Gtoup I ) was less inhibited, rejecting comprehensively the oideilmess ol his I ikelhn.i .md othei coniempoianes. Ilis woi k lias an appeaiance of spontaneity, lo some (.xtml tontiivcd, on the pot illustrated (l'lguie 10 6) the mcgidai stiokes on the lip and the buckled fiamewoik of the cable aie not necessaiy conse(|iienies of i.ipid woik, Hut they do paitly disguise the use of conventional ornaments Similaily the upturn at one side of the lip suggests conscious (il not dehherate) negligence, since the generous volume of the body shows competence in potting In the use of empty space this pamtci is exemplaiy At the top ol the shoulder there is a light floral chain and on the belly a single figure (repealed on the other side) and a large but not heavy volute below each handle By contempoiaiy standards the anatomy of the i tinning men of his namepiece was not correct, but they give a icmai liable impiession of movement; even the volute complexes have a spi.uvlmg liveliness I he hate on anothei of this painter's amphoias (1'iguie 10 7) gives the same impiession «3

Figure 10.6 Fikellura amphora: British Museum 64.10-7.156. lit 34 cm. Running Man painter: c. 530.

Figure 10.7 l-'ikelhua amphora, detail from belly: British Museum 67.5-S.S5'>. Scale c. 1:3. Running Man painter: C. 530. 84

Ilk ell u ra

«rt\TllTT?Ji7J/>

a

1'igiire 10.8 I ikc.lhu.1 amphoras. Basle 1906.252. Ill 31 cm. Group 1': second hall ol 6th century b Louvre A327. l i t 4^cm. Group O: laicr <>th century.

ol speed but willi more grace, and there is a still more sinuous version ON an amphora in Rhodes. 2 ' Both the figures and ihe volute complexes look as if they had been dashed ofl and probably they had; often enough his figures — men, dogs, hares, goat, deer anil birds — do not come oil, and there is variety too in the rendering ol the volutes. A couple ol amphoias ol this group add a band of crescents ill the lower part ol the body, an unhappy compromise, since it cramps the volute complexes. Another and more modest use ol empty space appears on the amphoias of Group O (Figure 10.8b). 1 lere the main decoration is the girdle ot volutes of the Volute Zone group, but they are not confined and the pot is unpairued below them; the shoulder too is not decorated oppressively. The Running Man group and Group O are apparently connected, but there is not the evidence to say which began lust, though Group C) seems to have lasted to the end of I'ikellura. The Painter ol the Running Satyrs (Figure 10.10), another ol the second generation ol the I'ikellura school, had a character the opposite of that ol the Running Man painter, with whom he must have been in part at least contemporary. I le was a precise draughtsman and not only in the admirable detail of his figures (which in its elaboration is indebted to Attic Blackligure); his cables and lotus chains are neat and regular, and the two halves «5

/ ikelluia —

Figuie 10.9 I ikelluia amplionskoi* Bittisli Museum a 60 4-4 V) lit 26cm Second half of 6lh centuiy 1) 64 10 7 n">0 I It 28 em I ate 6th century of' Ins voltile complexes match 1 le had no set system of decoration On sever.d ol his pots he lias 7ones, sometimes with what looks like the piincipat held on the shouldei; on otlieis he prefeis a free field; and he may have painted omoehoai of Group S Like his eontempoiaiies elsewhere who woiked in the black-figure technique he prefened human to animal , figuies All in all, he was the most accomplished of Pikellura painters and, it seems, the last of any note It is a pity that only three of his pots, a stamnos anel two amplionskoi, can be said to be complete 1 he numei ous amplionskoi ai e mostly late. The shape has been desci ibeel already. 1 leights lange from 15 to 40 cm A few are decorated in nanowish /ones, a couple - by the Painter of the Running Satyrs - have a free field system, but most make do with some simple ornament, often ivy leaves, on the sliouldci and on the body a deep band of reticulation of one type oi aiuitliei and two uai rower bands of descents and tongues (l'igure 10 9a) 86

/ ikcllura —

Figure 10.10 l'ikelluia amplionskos, detail horn Belly Rhodes 12396 Scale t 2.3. Pamtei of the Running Satyrs c S20 On the neck the commonest decoiation is a snippet ot meandei u o s s I lieic aie also some amplioiiskoi with the usual di'coiation of neck and shoulder, but only sparse bands ol paint on the body (I'iguie 10 9b) A fuithei simplification dispense!) with the ornaments ol neck and shouldei too this class of amphonskoi - 'Sub l'lkellura' - is geneially moie carelessly shaped and often there is no slip Piesumably amphonskoi, except the few Hioad ones, were contameis loi toilet oil Unlike their Wild (.oat piedecessois likelhna pamteis made much use ol human hguies Most aie wildly dancing tomasls, but theie aie also banquets (one enlivened by wasps IIKI a mouse) nicl i lew mytliological sub|Lcts — cenlauis, satyis and maenads, pygmies and cianes, lleiacles ,\m\ IUISIIIS (to judge by the man with seipeiit he.ulgeai on a sherd in Oxloid) and a possible Potnia Iheion lheie aie dso winged figuies, male and female, a haie-headed man and a winged male with dog's head and diawing a swoid, these last two in isolation and vety possibly spoits ot then pamteis' imagination By the middle of the sixth centuiy Attic IJlack figuie had become the dominant style of painted Greek potteiy and connections with it might be expected in l'lkelhua There aic remaikahly few of them Piesumably the figuie style is indebted at the beginning lot the fineness of its linear detail, though reservation is lelamcd instead of incision and female flesh is dark like that of men, m this omblackmg Hliek figuie 1 atei the Painter ol the Running Satyis follows Attic ptecepts foi innei details, paitictilaily 87

— I'ikellura

-*-

ft

—

Figure 10.11 I ikcllura aryballos: Bochum S1030. Ht 7.3 cm. Mid 6th century.

'on legs. It has been claimed that the Altenburg painter's big handle volutes inspired the handle ornaments ol some mid-sixth century Attic amphoras and also [hat they were inspired by them,10 but at present it is not possible to decide which appeared fust: that they were connected is likely and, since related volutes had appeared in earlier East Greek pottery, my guess at present is that Attic was the borrower. A further claim that the shape of the likellura amphora served as a model lor some Attic potters seems unnecessary," nor is the shift of decorative emphasis from shoulder to belly surprising in the mid sixth century. With other schools too connections are tenuous. Crescents and scales appear in Clazomenian Black-figure, though then treatment is different and at present it is not possible to say which style used them first; and presumably the pomegranate chain, which sometimes substitutes for buds, was borrowed from Laconian, which in return took the band of crescents. But likellura was and remained a self-sutficient style. The distribution ol l'ikellura is much like that of South Ionian Middle 11, hardly surprising since both were Milesian. Very much has been found a.t Miletus, much on Samoa and Rhodes, and a fair number of pieces probably come from Damhbogaz near Milas m Cana: future discoveries are likely to show that it was popular generally throughout the southern part of the East Greek region. In the north, anyhow beyond Ephesus, it is rare. Some went to Delos and Aegina, but in mainland Greece it is almost unknown.'2 So too in Italy and Sicily. There is a little from Cyprus, much

— Ilk ell ii > ,1 - -

from N.iiuT.uis, relatively more from IVII DcfcniK'ti, SOUR- frtmi Cyicnc and a scattering of isolated (mils elsewhere in the I'last. Along the mirth coast of the Aegean it seems lo He ran-, the Piopontis is unknown. Hut in the Ponius, where excavation has Heen busy, I d u l l u i a is again plentiful. In general there was a decline in distant cxpoits in later yens, presumably because ol Attic competition. Graves on Rhodes give many contexts lot ihc last third ol the sixth century. The Running Man painter and the Painter ol the Running Satyrs are represented and so are Groups M, N, O and P \w\ reticulated amphoriskoi, But there is nothing useful for the Allcnhurg painter nor does the one context lor the mid sixth century give much help. I Us work, (hough, both early and late, is freijiient in a deposit at IVII Defenneh, probably closed in 525, where there are two examples ol Group N ,\nd one ol Group P, but none of the other painters ami groups. Admittedly the 'I'ell Deleiuieh deposit is a small one and odd in its constitution, and the supplying ol Greek pottery to the site, which was a frontier post, may have been infrequent and was certainly selective; but u is reasonable to conclude ihat the Aitenburg painter was still working in the laic 530s, iliough risky to go further and argue that the Running Man painter .\m\ others could not have begun much before the 520s. When ihc Allcnhurg painter began is disputed. A sherd from Sard is by or near bun was louiul in a stratum thai is reasonably thought to have been sealed by the Persian capture in 5-17 (give or take a couple ol years). There is also the comparison ol the Allcnburg painter's animals with those ol some Ionian Little M.tslci cups, but these cups are not precisely datable nor is it clear whetllei they or I ikelluia should have priority. So 560 still seems lo me a reasonable date lor the beginning ol likellura, ami for Us end I'M, when Miletus was destroyed by the Persians."

COLONIAL IMITATIONS Analysis ol the clay of pottery from 1 hsti la gave ,\n unexpected result, that of 62 J'ikelhua sherds 13 were ol a composition unknown at Miletus or elsewhere in the East Greek region, but fairly well matched in beds at I lisiria.14 Most ol these sherds were decorated only with abstract or floral ornament, which required no great skill, and stylistically arc indistinguishable from metropolitan work; but one more ambitious piece attempts comasts, awkward and underdeveloped figures, which show the painter's limitations. There is also a sherd from Olbia, which is similar in ilie composiiion ol us clay and is decorated with a respectably drawn goat ol likellura type, although unorihodoxly it is incised and there is a fringe ol dots along the borders of the field.55 Unfortunately the composition of the clay available at Olbia is not yet sufficiently known, but the geological context seems much

— File ellny/t

—

the same as that of I listna. If the clays too are similar, the imitations at I listna may after all lie imports, chough from Olbia. Olhia was a bigger place than Histiia, and some of the Clazomenian Black-figure that has been found there looks abnormal enough to be local, though of course not much is known about Cla/omenian norms. Still, imitation of imported wares need not have been confined to a single city.

CARIA (AND SOME ODDMENTS) Pots confidently said to come from Damlibogaz near ancient Mylasa show that the l'lkellura style was imitated in Caria in varying degrees of impulity."' (There may also be some true copies, but to detect them analysis of the clay would be needed.37) The first borrowings, it appears, are by the Boehum painter. His presumably earlier work had been wholly in a version of the Wild Goat style; but on an ovoid trefoil oinochoe in Tampa (Figure 8.27) - pei haps better described as an olpe - there are Wild Goat style goats (in the shoulder, but on the belly two rows of crescents and below them long tongues. On another oinochoe of his, in Bloomington, with dogs chasing goats and three tows of crescents, the dogs no longer have reserved heads, though the goats still do. Yet later the fragment of a bowl in Botlrum fiom Turgut (Lagina) shows a better assimilation of the Fikellura style and also intioduces the partridge. After this painter the Wild Goat style was forgotten and, though oinochoai continue, the amphora becomes more usual; it copies the I'ikellura shape with fair accuracy except that the foot is more spreading. As for the decoration, volutes tend to be spindly and crescents streaky, meanders may be heavy and old-fashioned, and the lower p'art of the body usually gets no more than one or two broad bands of paint. Occasionally a comast of I'ikellura type cavorts between volutes, and an amphoia in Berne Has a lion and a bull drawn in outline and of no known ancestry. So fai as I know, there are no amphoriskoi. To sum Up, the Bocluim painter with his strongly individual style used Fikellura innovations' disci iminalingly, but the later practitioners, though more whole-hogging, were ready to disregard the principles of their models. " Carian I'ikellura kept some independence. A lew sheids of similar character have turned up at the sanctuary of Sinuri and at Labraunda, both near Mylasa. No useful contexts are recorded, but by stylistic comparison the Boehum painter's pieces should be of the middle of the sixth centuiy and the rest of the later third and probably the fourth quarter. Two other pieces may as well be mentioned here since, although it is unlikely that they are Carian (if only because they were exported), they show a similar relationship to standard I'ikellura. One is a fragment probably ol an amphoia, lound at Tocra m Libya in a stratum closed about 90

— Vikclhtui — 520-10;"* the woikmansliip is competent, but the white enhancements, the rows of dots used for dividing bands and the - in the illustration unintelligible decoration at the bottom set it apart. Much more remote is a roughly decorated amphora from Tell Delenncli, with a cable on the shoulder and big scales on the belly.1'1

!M

C H A P I L K II

IONIAN

LITTLE MASTERS

Towards the middle of the sixth century some East Greek pocters began to take note ol the new types ol cup that were being produced at Athens and set out to emulate them. They procured a clay that in fineness and • colour was close to Attic, usually rather paler, but sometimes indistinguishable to the eye; so too with the black panit, though this (it is said) tends to have a greenish tinge. For decoration they were usually satisfied with simple bands ol paint, not always placed according to Attic precepts, and they made the distinctive innovation of multiple fine lines running round the lip or the Howl and especially lavoured on the inside. A rare variant embellishes the handle field with small plastic ornaments, such as knucklebones, bulls' heads and even human hands.1 There are tot) a few more ambitious cups and lo their painters the name ol 'Ionian Little Masters' Has been given ('Little Master' being a mistranslation, now hallowed, ol the German 'Klemmeister').2 These little Master cups are lew and probably always were so, since they .ne objects that excavators are likely to notice and publish. There is no sign of any coherent school, and it may well be that the painters were not only isolated from each other, but also did not paint such cups as a regular job. One ol the first ol these Little Masters used a purely I'lkellura style., evident on his lions (Figure 11.1) and dog, which are almost line for line identical with those ol the early Altenburg painter and similarly have reserved and not incised detail — finer admittedly, although this can be explained by the use of more refined clay and paint: only in rejecting even light filling ornament does the cup painter follow Attic rather than I'lkellura practice.1 It is hard to doubt that he and the Altenburg painter were close associates, il not in lact the same person. Another link with l'ikellura is "the man on the Vineyard cup (Figure 11.2), which looks a little later. This is one ol the very rare Archaic paintings that survive in which a natural selling gets more than perfunctory treatment, although it is still as much a decorative pattern as a study of nature, liven so, the claim sometimes made thai this sort ol subject is characteristically Ionian seems to me at least unproven. Except on the cups related to Eikelluia incision is normal. At first this may be meticulous and fine, even feathery, but later painters took less trouble over inner detail. In style the incised cups show no close connection with any other group of East Greek pots, nor much with each other: some-

Ionian

l.illlc

Aliiitcn

—

Figure 11.1 Ionian Little Mastei cups, fragments: Santos and Athens (luil lion sherd is losi). Sc.de c. 2:3. Mid 6lh century. tunes the most one can say is lh.it a figure or ornament has an last Greek look, sometimes only that ii is un-Attic, and towards the vnd, as quality fell, there are pieces of which it is haul to say whether ihey ace Atticising East Greek or deviant Attic. Rules of composition arc lax. There may be decoration on the outside or the inside ot the lip or on both, in the Handle field, or inside on the Howl - and here Idling the whole Howl with a single composition, or with a central tondo surrounded by another figured field, or with just a small tondo. The repertory includes human and subhuman figures in various kinds of activity, animals confronting or in file, geese processing, and dolphins swimming in line. Ivy anil myrtle leaves are the commonest ornaments: they are used sprouting on each side ol a stem, to decorate lips. A 93

,t,i

fV

<*\


—

',

lonicin

I it llv

Alaslets

—

Figure 11.2 Ionian Little Master cup: Louvre Ff>8. Di.im. ol howl 23 cm. Mid (Sib century. (Photo E..A. Lane.) lew held vases, with geese ot dolphins on the inside of the lip, go with I he nips. Places of finding arc scatteied - Samos, Nnucratis and Etruria - ami there .lie odd fragments from Miletus, Smyrna, Aegina, Perachoia and Apollonia Poiuica (So/opol) and, li one includes fiagmcnts of lips with ivy oi myitle leaves, Ilisciia, Kcic/.in and Toera can He added. The general opinion is that these Ionian Little Masters worked ON Samos, and the evidence of clay analysis gives some but not conclusive support.4 Yet the connection ol some early pieces with likellura suggests Miletus as the work plate ol their painter or painters.s It is not, of comse, necessary to suppose that all these Little Masters woikecl in one city, and their lack of coherence suggests thai they did not. Some indeed may not have Been Ionian: copying of Attic Black liguie was fanly widespiead. No useful contexts aie iccoided, so that dating has to be by style. The eailiesi ol these cups should be contemporary with early I'ikellura, which lieie has been put at about 5(>0. Piobably they continued throughout the t h i i d i | t i a i l e i ol t h e s i x t h c e n t u i y .

94

.<JU •riur ^ • • t f / a a a ^ c; 11 A I* 11

CLAZOMENIAN

K

12

BLACK-FIGURE

D u r i n g the second quaiter of llie sixth century some painlcts ol the I Me W i l d Go.H stylo attempted t o enliven the we.tiv tradition liy studding animals w i t h white blobs oi rows of dols (I'iguie 12.la) oi liv replacing them w i t h himi.m liguies in an elemeniaiv hl.it k-ligmc III.IIIIKI ( l i g u i e 12.lb). 1'iom this initiative a more p i o p e i l y blaik-ligut e st\ le developed, which has l o i the last hiindied years been called Cla7omciiian and this tune lightly - at least l o r pait o l the matei ial - so clay analyses testily. A l l the same ,\t^ iinrcgcnerate W i l d Goat style persisted beside it l o i a time, il one can judge f i o m its protracted sin vivaf on the Cla/omciiian salt opfiagi.' Tin's Clazomeman Black-figure Has been studied only patchily' and the account which follows is laigely speculative. ('lay is h m w n i s h , in geneial rathei lighlei than is usual in Attic. A lew eaily pieces have a whitish slip, b i n noim.illy tbeie is none. The paint is mostly a goodish black, sometimes nnslned to led Puiple and white enhancements are frequent; and white, often put duectly on the clay, is used mote freely than in Attic; cianes, crescents anil tongues may be altogethei while, and sometimes male llesli too. Innei details and some outlines are usually incised o n dai k sui laces, but on white more olten painted. Unlike its W i l d Goat picdece.ssor thi.s is a deieimincdly bl.ickfiguie style. The earliest group o l what seems to he the main line o l development is the Tubingen group, a lather loose assemblage o l laige pots. Commonest is a bioad amphora w i t h shoulder handles (I'iguie 12.2), not unlike the Aeolian type, but more caiefully made and sometimes at least embellished with moulding ol the lip and handles anil w i t h a ndge high up on the neck; the m o i c complete specimens aie about 5 0 c m high. Tlieie aie also seveial examples - mostly small liagments - o l what is called a pyxis, a shallow ciiculai box w i t h lid, and again w i t h some mouldings; diameleis w o i k out at about 50 cm. The kiater too is k n o w n anil, since there seem l o have been some detached pedestals, the dmos is likely; again diameters aie as much as 50 cm. Some of these pots had plastic female heads attached to the sides of handles, a fancy presumably copieil l i o m Cluan. Decoration is claboiatc and covers the whole exposed suiface o f the pot, even the edge o l the lip and the foot. T h e main field most olten has a file ol high-waisted women, holding hands f o r a dance and w i t h o i without accompaniment l>y 3 musician, also female; hut a lew fiagment.s show moie ambitious- subjects 95

— C.la/.o»ictiia)i Black-figure

&

—

(a)

P

Figure 12.1 a North Ionian dish, fragment: Izmir (from Smyrna). Original diameter c. 42 cm. Whitish slip: purple and white retouches. Precursor of Clazomenian Black-figure: c. 560. b North Ionian krater, fragment of neck: British Museum 88.6-1.520. 1 ll of figures r. 6.3 cm. Washy slip: purple on hair (or cap), white spots on dress. Precursor ol Clazomcnian Black-figure: c. 560. 96

C.lazomouan Black-figl

i l l »-l-

Figure 12.2 Clazomeni.iN Black-figure amphora: Berlin Ihv. 4530. I It (.is restorcil) 54 cm. Purple anil white retouches. TUbingen group: r. 550-540.

_')Z_

' IBB

••§

••§

• 1 ' ••r —

*

.

'

'

' '

1 , *

C l
niitn

••I IIliiik-jis^u

M'

MB

Ic —

.is will, including ndeis ,\ud a chaiiot I xeept on a few late pieces, pcihaps nillticiKcd b\ tlie l'c'tii|c g'otip, which show an incipient tiend towaids st.vi.ms, laces aie fleshy, with shelving fotehead I'oi second \iy fields — on nick and shouldei ind, below the main field, on the belly — sneiis and sphinxes ,m frequent, foimtunes, especially on the lowei pail of a pot, with dai k laces, cianes feeding m line are moie speetaeulai, when as often tluie is the eoniiast of black and white specimens, 01 iheie may be swans with outsiieteheel wmg^ oi cocks of Attic type 01 old-fashioned animals, which show then Wild Go.il ancestiy, and these sometimes pose on each side- ol a lotus and palmcitte cross, again of Attic derivation ['tiling ornament has been ahindoncd lot dividing bands descents are populai, white or altoinuels while- and puiple, lotus (lowers and buds occui less frequently, and at the lop ol the shouldei ol amphoras tongues aie noim.il, eolouied in sequence daik, purple, daik and white As might be expected, bioad bands ol I he daik paint .11 e icheved by puiple stupes CLi/omenae and Sinyi 111 have been the pimcipal finding places, Naucratis comes next, ind odd pieces Have tinned up elsewheie in l'gypt, on Lesbos and at Beievan Iheie .lie no useful contexts, so that dating has to be by stylistic compansons, mostly vague, and geneial likelihood this suggests the middle ol the sixth 11 nun y, say S60-540 It would be interesting to know what sin ill pots supplemented this group I he Petne gioup is denved from the Tubingen gioup, but instead of picttiness aims at something grandei A fanly compact batch, it should 'be the pioduct of a single woikshop 01'even a single painter Most of the known pieces come b o m slim amphoras of vaiying heights, 4S L m being about the mean (liguies 12.3a and 12 3b), the shape is much moie unpicssive than the 1'ikelluia amphoiiskos, which appeared at about the same nine but, whatever the initial lelationship, developed chlfeiently There ale also fragments ol two amphoras of more ordinary girth and of cbnoi [he modelling ol the shape is caieful, but simple. Theie is a broad necking ling and sometimes the lip is gioovcd, but the mouldings of the Tubingen gioup have been 1 ejected Handles (on the one specimen I know with enough pieseived) weie simple strips ol clay Decoration too is more sober I he lip is painted dark The neck has a solitary figure on each side - sphinx, SUCH 01 cock On the belly - the slim amphoia can haidly be said to have a shouldei - iheie is a row of fat tongues, then a deep mam field, next sepaiated bv a nanow stnp of ornament - a shallowei minor field, and below that and on the foot dark paint The use of colour is eaiefully consideied 'the necking nng is purple, the tongues are usually in a sequence of daik, white, daik, puiple, and thin purple stupes are disposed neatly on the lip and the lowei pait of the body Foi the main field a procession ,, of clocked women is a favourite sub)eet; satyrs appear too, with maenads 01 even a boy, and iheie .11 e youths iiding — these are white' — battle scenes, men in pioeession and eomasts Altci natively the field is filled with small 9«

f

TMr"

•

* md\*>

>«/

<*-. — Cla/omcnian

'M/ ,

liltit k-Jigm c —

Figure 12.3:1 Cla/omenian I5lack-hguie slim amphoia Hntish Museum 8K 2-8 7\a III 46cm IVtiic pamtei 5-IO-S2S scales, each containing a white hloh with d.ti k centie (oi a ilaik Hloh with white centie) and cuiiously icsemblmg hog spawn '1 lie mmoi held may have sphinxes, snciis, .inimals, Hnds or even comasts (like most of the I'etue males with jutting, bushy beaids) 4 Hut its infenoiitv is emphasised by the icstnction here of white to lows ol fine dots, even sphinxes ami snens having daik faces Dividing Hands, which occur only between the ni.i)nr and the mmoi field, are naiiovv, their coniinon ornaments aie open cable with the cential dot white, white blobs with d.uk centies, and alternate little dots. 1 he 1'etrie pamtei, the pimcipal il not the only p.unlei ol this gioup, had a fan knowledge ol Attic I5laek liguie I Ins is evident in the W

T

it

— Cltizottienittn Muck-figure

—

Figure 12.3b Clazomenian Black-figure slim amphora: British Museum 88.2-8.74. Ht of fragment 28 cm. Petrie painter: 540-525.

' , " - ' •

profiles of his human heads, no longer of the standard East Greek type, in ., the dress of some of his women and in such details as the markings of knees; but lie kept a robust independence, refreshingly unusual in East Greek black-figure. One has only to look at his satyrs, whose normally 1 comic aspect is replaced by brutality, or even at his sturdy females. Unhappily his influence was superficial. Specimens of the Petrie group have • been found at Tell Defennell, where they were remarkably numerous, and at Naucratis; one is known from Clazomenae and another has turned up at Smyrna. II, as seems likely, the deposit at Tell Defennell was closed in 525, the floruit of the group may be troin the 540s to the 520s: compar• isons with Attic give some support to this dating. The Urla group also has its origins in the Tubingen group, though perhaps at least in part by way o! the Petrie group, with which it is largely contemporary and, though its style is weaker, has close connections. It might even be the product of less accomplished members of the same workshop. The communes! shapes are broad amphoras and hydnas with curving or angular shoulder; both measure about 30 cm in height. There are fragments too of krater, dinos and big lids. The decorative system is simple. On the hydna, of which a complete example survives, the neck is black; the shoulder lias a row of sirens or less often cocks (with or without hens)

1 !*• f ) mm . * T, '*[*=?_. &z*

''I f

t)

— Clazumenian

fflack-figiire

—

or even cranes or a myrtle branch; oil the Hclly there is .1 deep held wall figures or sometimes scales; anil below thai the suilace is again black. Al the top of the shoulder tongues may occur, hut more often these arc reduced to dols or disappear completely. The amphoias in general are less carelully painted than the hydrias. On the neck a palmette shaped like a busby is standard (Figure 12.4); a main field occupies the shoulder and much ol the belly; and below that there are rays.5 The main held regularly has groups of figures. The most common are the file of women, holding hands lor a dance or cloaked tor a procession, and comos scenes with or without women; satyrs too perform and white youths rule horses. These subjects are reminiscent of the Pcmc group, from which as well some details of the figures are taken, but the Urla group goes further by venturing into mythology. A certain example is Odysseus threatening Circe; possibles are Oedipus and the Sphinx (Figure 12.4) and conceivably Prometheus with Ins hands tied behind him and 1 lephaesttis escorted back to Olympus, and a female mounting a chariot is unlikely to be a mortal.'' This enterprise in choice of subject is not matched by quality of execution. Sometimes, especially on the hydrias, the drawing is neat though tame, bin more often it is careless anil scrabbly. The principal places from which finds have been reported are Tell Defenneh, Naucialis, Cla/omenae and Smyrna; there is also a fragment from Thera and one or two pieces from sites on the north of the Black Sea. From stylistic comparison one might suppose the Urla group rather later than the Pctrie group, but the circumstances of the deposit at It'll Defenneh argue that they are more or less contemporary of the 530s and 520s. Some column krateis from Smyrna look related to the Urla group.7 lor one group it is reported (hat clay anil paint are duller, lor the other that the clay is pinkish (although this perhaps is due to difference in firing rather than in composition). The most notable piece, in the fust group, is decorated on one side with a camel, perhaps the lust in Greek art. Sherds ol this first group have Heen found ai Clazomeuae and Phocaea, anil contexts suggest a date in the 540s and 530s. The second group the excavator was inclined to date to the last thirty years ot the sixth century: I should be surprised it it continued much after the 520s. The Knipovitch group consists principally ol amphoias, which arc an uneasy cross between the necked anil one-piece types: the undercut lip is concave, the body tends to baggmess and the loot is a wide disc. The height is usually 25-30 cm. There is also, it seems, an askos. On the amphora lip and neck are painted black, a deep panel takes up most ol the body, below come painted bands, and the loot is black except for its edge. Three varieties of decoration are known. The most spectacular is the forepart of a winged horse, with alternately white and purple terminal feathers and a lavish supply of white dots on its harness (Figure 12.5): it is a detached wing of tins son on each side of the handle that suggests that the askos

'*> —

C/ii/oiiivnuiti

Hltii k-jigtt) e

(a)

(b)

I'iguie 12.4 Cla?omenian BUck-figuie amphoias, ti.igments: British Museum. a neck 88 2-8 82. Diam at lip 17 cm H uppci pan ol b o d y 88 2-8 110 l i t (as made up) 19.6cm. Uila gioup: 540-525. IxJongs heie. Scales, usually with white centies, .lie the second choice Less commonly the painlei makes do with big ivy leaves Tlicie have been several finds at Cla/omenae and two oi tin cc have been published fiom Smyrna; OIK Lomes liom Rhodes, seveial fiom Rhencia and a couple horn Saniotluace, Nauciatis and Cyicne have been moie prolific and two examples turned up at Tell Defenneb, and I iistna and colonial sites on the north shoie ol tlit 15lnck Sea Have conttibutcd nioic l i o m its presence at Tell Dili muli it seems hkclv lli.it (lie Knipovitch gioup began in the 530s, one might guess that it lasted until the 510s This is a compact gioup, the

—

( ht/omoiiiin

llla<.L'-jtgit) c

JfFigure 12.5 Cla/omeiiian (') Black-figine amphoia; Athens 12713 I It 26 S t i n Knipovileh gtotip: 540-S2Q.

ptoduct of one woikshop oi i lose gioup ol woikshops

It is likely enough

that it w.ts made at Cla/omenae, Hut anyhow it must Have been at some plan which expoitecl polleiy I he so tailed Inmann class is a makeshill asseinHlage, not connected closely with the gioups aheadv desciihed

I he pimnpal shape is a modest

amplioia with egg-shaped Hody and aioimd 10 cm high; theie aie also the one-piece amphoia, hydua, oinothoe, askos (I iguie 12.6), lid and perhaps a Hat stand. O n the amphoia the dccoialion is i c s t i a t i d to a panel on the uppei pait of the body; the lip and neck aie painted daik, lheie may He tongues at the top ol the sliouldci, a nil the lowei p.nt ol the hody is handed

The panels display

a liguie oi t w o , lathei

weanlv posed,

or stales with white tenties, oi occasionally a lotus palmette cioss. The figuie subjects, winch aie vancd, include suvts with amphoia, satvi with deei, toniasts, man Heading giapes, cloaked woman with leaping haie and coy siien, snen, sphinx, lion (in one mstnue mauling a hull), pamlui io\

I

— Clrtzomenian

Black-figure

J ••••

Figure 12.6 Clazomenian (?) Black-figure askos: Kiev. Ht 15.4 cm. Enmann class: 540-520. (sometimes ostentatiously female), spotted deer, goat, cocks, octopus," and perhaps a winged female and a Triton; sometimes a. Hud on a long stalk or some simple ornament helps to fill out the field. The drawing] rarely more than respectable, makes little use of white embellishments and is usually economical with details, so that it is in effect more or less anonymous and attempts to identity painters have not had general acceptance. Specimens of the Enmann class have turned up at Smyrna, on Rhodes and Rheneia, at Luxor perhaps and Gyrene, and along the north coast of the Aegean, but the most numerous finds have been in the Greek settlements in the Ukraine; less certain members of this class are known from Cla/.omenae, 'Lansa', Naucratis and Italy. A context of the third quarter ol the sixth century is reported from Berezan: my guess is that most of these pieces are of the 530s and 520s. As with the Knipovitch group, the place or places of manufacture are not yet known, but provisionally the hnmann class may be called Clazomenian. A few pieces from the Ukraine are deviant or untutored enough to be considered as the work of colonial imitators; there are, though, examples of no better quality in the museum of Izmir, one of them from Phocaea. Some of the figures and 104

— Ctazomenian Black-figure —

Figure 12.7 Clazomenian (?) amphora, from Rhodes: British Museum 63,3-30.4. lit 44 cm. 530-500. paimette complexes of the Enmann class arc very like those ol the Noil Hampton and Campana groups. Many fragments with white-centred scales, from most o! the places mentioned in this chapter, are loo small lo he assigned to any particular one of the these groups. At Smyrna one ol the excavators suggested that this kind of decoration persisted until the end ol the sixth century,'' and that is likely enough; scales were easy to draw anil might well have continued when the figure style was dying or dead; also, Hecau.se they were easy, they could have been used lor decoration in lesser places of production. A complete amphora from Rhodes (Figure 12.7), with the silhouetted palmeue on its neck and the lussy Handing on the lower body, may be an example. A number of miscellaneous pieces, although related, do not lit tidily into any of the groups just described. They vary in date and quality and also in subjects. Some have the familiar sirens and sphinxes, others use white for male 105

— Clay o me man li link-figure

—

Figure 12.8 Cl.i7i>menian Black-figure hydria, fragment: Athens 5610. Widtli ol haginent c. 9.5 cm. c. 540.

4

flesh, and most make play with rows of white dots to enliven their figures. Fragments of a dinos from Naucratis show a multitude of tiny deer and riders, drawn with painstaking neatness; this looks eaily, perhaps about 560.l0 Two sherds from a hydria, said to have been picked up at Clazomenae and of about 540, have on the body part of a colourful arrival of a herald (Figure 12.8) and on the shoulder Achilles with 1 lector's body tied to his chariot." The remains of a Hig amphora bought at Luxor and of much the same date are remarkable for their subjects, on one side (presumably the back) figures dwarfed in a vineyard - more so even than on the Little Master cup, Figure 11.2 - and on the other side men carrying a ship in a procession:12 here, as on some other miscellaneous pieces, there are close resemblances to the Northampton and Campana groups. Fragments of an amphora from Smyrna of finer quality of diawing have a late type of palmette on the neck and on the body part of the head ol a man labelled '. . . yses' and the head and outstretched arm of a lad 106

— Clazomcman

lthu.k~jigm e —

'Per . . .', plausibly interpreted as Camhyses and his Peisian charioteer:" Camhyses died in 522, nut this painting cannot on style lie much eailier. Less 'Clazomenian' in style is a fragmentary amphora Irom Egypt with a cartouche of the Egyptian king Apries on its neck, on (he Hotly Hoxeis ON one side and cloaked women on the other, and below them descents, scales and lays: 14 the inept diawing of the figures, the double spirals and meander of the dividing bands and the cartouche — Apries was killed in 570 or 569 - suggest that this is a transitional experiment, of loughly the 560s. Since so much Clazomenian lias been I omul in Egypt, it is only natural that some students have claimed that it was made by Greek potters who had emigrated there. 1 '' The Petrie group, it is argued, is hardly known outside Tell Defenneli and must have been made in thai locality, but this frequency can be explained in another way."' l o r a lew pieces the critenon has been the subject, appropriate to an Egyptian inteipretation, although not exclusively so. All these claims seem to me mistaken. It will be interesting to see what the excavations at Smyrna and Cla/omenae produce or have produced.

107

C I I A P T T R \[l

NORTHAMPTON AND CAMPANA GROUPS AND CAERETAN HYDR1AS

An Ionian origin used to he claimed for the Pontic school1 (so named from the conjecture, wild even at the time it was made, that its home was one ol the Greek colonies of the Black Sea). This claim has now been discredited ,' anil the school is recognised as Etruscan, nor is there much in its style or 1 components that suggests East Greek inspiration. But there are groups that may well be the work of East Greek potters settled in Etruna.

NORTHAMPTON AND CAMPANA GROUPS The Northampton group consists of four amphoras, one of them of onepiece type.2 The first three arc evidently by the same painter (Figure 13.1). Potting is excellent, both in the quality of the clay and the paint, which matches Attic, and in the modelling of the shapes, similarly based on Attic models; so too is the disposition, though not the character, of the careful and elaborate decoration. The subjects of main fields are lively - Dionysus with satyrs, pygmies riding cranes, an owner watching his horses drinking at a bowl, battles, copulations and on the one-piece amphora, more economically, I lermes rescuing lo from Argus and on the other side a pair of centaurs. The physical types are familiar from the I'.nmann group and its relatives; so too is the use of purple and the white lines and rows of white dots, which supplement the weak detail of the figures, and the exuberant palmette developments on two of the amphoras. Direct borrowing of forms from Attic is rare - chains ol lotus and palmette and of doubled buds. This is a group of notable elegance, and it required much careful work. The Campana group is larger - some sixteen dinoi (Figure 13.2) and a couple of hydrias.3 The clay is brownish, in appearance like Clazomenian. Purple and white are used lreely, though the white has often perished. Two painters are recognisable, the Ribbon painter and the Painter of Louvre H676 (or, because of his stylisation of the human ear, the 8-painter). The dinoi, around 30 cm in diameter, are a standardised product, simple in shape and interacting in decoration, which provides a mam field, often bordered above by tongues, and below it two minor fields, usually filled by ornaments that do not require much care, in the mam field the commonest 108

Nurthaml>ton

and ('auipillttt

groups

I'igure 13.1 Northampton group amphora (the 'Northampton amphora'): private collection (formerly Castle Ashby). Ill 32.-J till. MO-530. subjects are comasts or satyrs, twice escoiting I icphaestus; there are also a battle scene, centaurs, youths with sirens or man-sized cocks, animals, and simple scales with while centres. Of the ornaments the favourites are lotus (lowers and buds, ribbon pattern (big and preferably doubted) and a band of boxed lozenges wall boxed triangles Idling the angles. Poses tend to be extended, to give an impression ol liveliness and to cover more space. Detail is scamped, especially by the Fainter ol Lou Vie E676. Again there is the use of while lines to reinforce the careless incision which, however, is not omitted lor hair or rolls ol flesh along chests and bellies. The style is unambitiously E.tst Greek, as in the Enuiann group. In contrast the hydnas, broad pots nearly 45 cm t.tll and neatly though not elaborately shaped, are decorated with care; both are by the Ribbon painter. One in Bonn4 has the fight of the l.apiths and the Ccntauis mi its shoulder M\il riders hunting deer on its belly. The other, in the Villa Giulia5 MM\ better 109

— Not tfuitnplttn and Ctimpana gtotips —

Hgure 13.2 ( ampann dmos. Wui7butg I IS352. lit 20 8 cm. Pimtu ol 1 ouvie I 676: 540-520

Ml

r

Aiescived, is muii enteipiising I he shouldei displays vaiious incidents of *a saciilicc undci a canopy ol vines; on the body the main field offets 1 ill llii. liont l l c i u l e s ' tianslation to Olympus and at the back, running fielow the vciiii.il handle, a duel ol Heroes and their motlieis beseeching '/(.us, A\I<.\ below this is a IOW of animals, conventional but not c.ueless -Vlnple \nd while .ire used ficely, white sometimes even for male flesh 'I he style, neii enough to that of the Lnmann group, is ,ignm undcmnbly >'$ ast Ciie-ck, though on the Villa Giuli.i hydua the block of mcandei undernoath the side handles, the motley legs of the animals, and perhaps the head ot I lei icles seem to owe something to Etruscan and especially Politic fheie is no attempt licit to emulate Attic in coloui of clay or system of decoiation I'm the diniii uniloinnty ol style and deeoiative system suggest that the two painteis woi ked in the same woikshop I uitlicr the painter of I ouvie 1 676 appeals lo Have painted the one piece amphoia of the Northampton

-— Not tbampton

and

( antpana

gtottp*

—

g m t i p e o m p a i c in p,\i licul.ii the Iliads ol s i n i s and c u l l m i s ' ' ( N o i shotikl I he s u i p i i s c d if the othci d m o s p u n t e i t u r n e d out to have painted the icst of the N o r t h a m p t o n a m p h o i a s ) I \ i d c n t h llicn a p u n t u might d o wot k in a veiy wide lange ol quality, l i o m lapul l i . u k w o i k lo w l n t one may call conMileied m.isteipieces 7 the i m l v ol m i s t e i p i e e i s suggests ilut haekw o i k paid b e t t e r A numHei of pieces (not from d m o i ) tli.il lie of oi neai the I m m n n g i o u p have f i o m time to time Been attiibute'd to one oi othei ol these d m o s p i i n l e i s a l t h o u g h , since the eh a w i n g ol del id is t o o pi i luneloi v to He diagnostic, thei e is litlle a g i e e m e n l a b o u t p i i t i e u l a i alti ihutions s Some ol tin in m t v well be light 1 his alfects the p i o b l e m ol w h e i e the N o i l h a n i p t o n anil ( i i i i p t n i p a m l e i s w e i e w o i k m g So fai as is k n o w n , none ol then leeepted pioeluets Has been lounel o u t s i d e I t r u i i a , while the c o n t e n t i o u s uti ibutions c o m e m o s t l y fiom Egypt ot the* U k i a m e , w h c i e e x p o i t fiom I t i u t n is m i l i k i l y '' O p i n i o n s aie of c o u i s e divided Some maintain that the w o i k s h o p was and i c i n a m e d in Ionia, tisu illy the 1101 t h e i n p u t , the Hasie a i g u n u n t is that w o i k so p u i e l y f a s t G i e e k m u s t Have been made m an I ast G i c c k e n v u o n m e i H O t h e r s (of w h o m I am o n e ) think that the N o i t h i n i p t o n and ( a m p a n a p a m t e i s staiteel in Ionia - at oi neai ( l a / o m e n a e - bin emigiateel lo 1 liini.i, the m a m icason is that, since d e c o t a t e d 1 isl G i e t U p o l t e i y is so l a i c in [ ti in i.i, it is meieeliHIe that the d m o i in p m i e u l a i weie so sedulously i m p o i l e d It may also he noted that anal\ sis ol the e h y ol one ol the N o i t h a n i p t o n .iniphoi.ts sliowed a c o m p o s i t i o n that elilleied significantly I torn that ol a sample ol genuine I \ 1 ist G i c c k pi od nets l0 A l e l m e m e n t l i n t seems to me u n n e e e s s u v is t o extend tlusc emigi a n t s ' j o i n n e v b) a visit to 1 gypl Si 111, n o one has yet suggi steel an ulditional cxi ut sion to the noi lliei n s h o i e ol the lilack Sea, t h o u g h one ol the d m o i does l u \ i a i e h e i s in Scytln in dress and, to )uelge by its a b e i i a n l s t ) l c , s o m e p o l l c i y ol ( l a / o m e m i n type was m a d e thei e 'I he N o i t h a m p l o n g i o u p is u s u i l l v i h l e d i b o u l S JO, but p e i h i p s the 530s w o u l d He satei F oi t h e ( .impana g i o u p a i i a s o n i h l e guess is that p i o d i i c l i o n began at the same lime, that is in the S^Os, and lisleel till aBout 520 oi a little later

CAKRFTAN HYDRIAS T h e C a e t c t a n h y e h i a s " aie a g i o u p ol s o m e loitv p o t s , the w o i k - it appeals - e>f a pan of painters The clay is Hiownish with an oi ingy still ice, which has olten w o r n away I'm pie and white aie uscel vei v l i e e l ) , in ihotit ee]tial balance with black the effect is unusually coloiitfuf I he shape, w h i e h also ehffeis m a i k e d l y l i o m the h y d n i s of othei ( j i e e k schools, is H i o u l anil m o i e eomfoitahle than elegant, the height is usually Hetwien 40 and 45 i m I echmcally the pots aie not well made bodies sag oi aie d e n t e d , and olten l i i

— Northampton

,1 .

jsR ''Y

; J: , . >>V

and Campana groups

Figure 13.3 Caeretan hydria: Zurich, private collection. H t 42 cm. c. 515.

'the firing is poor. The system of decoration is shown on Figure 13.3. The •ornaments are bold and fat: it is said that some of them were done with a template, a practice otherwise not noticed in GreeK pottery. For figures there is a broad field on the front and narrower fields on each side of the back handle. Subjects are varied, taKen from mythology and human life: the best, which Wave more than a touch of burlesque, are unrivalled in Archaic Greek art. T o come to details, men may have black or white or even red flesh, nudes are rare, heads are of the fleshy type familiar in East Greek sculpture. In general the decorative effect is a little old-fashioned with its fondness for antithetical grouping. That the painters' style is basically East Greek is evident, but there is no close connection with any particular school. So far as is known, none of the hydrias has been found outside Etruria and there the principal finding place is Caere (Cerveteri). Their date, to judge by stylistic comparisons with Attic and some imprecise burial contexts, is the last thirty or so years of the sixth century. Where the painters worked is disputed. Some still think it must have been in a Greek city, preferably of the East Greek homeland; Phocaea, about whose art conveniently little is known, is of course a favourite. Others, more reasonably in my opinion, conclude that they painted in Etruria, but 112

— Northampton

and Campana groups —

without agreement on their antecedents: they m.iy have emigrated young, before they were hilly trained in the potter's craft, or they could be second generation immigrants. That they were Greek is, however, clear enough: apart from their familiarity with a wide range of Greek myths one of their hydiias with a representation of the embassy to Achilles gives the obscure herald his correct name of Odios, good evidence of the painter's access to the Iliad. The Caeretan masters tot) are sometimes credited with a visit to Egypt. It is commonly supposed that the Persian conquest caused many East Greek craftsmen to emigrate. This is not by any means certain. Among the potters the number of such emigrants so far inferred is not large, nor need their emigration have been the result of Persian rule.

"3

CM APT I. II 14

VROULIAN

* 1

* " * I ;

'Viotilian' is the name given to a small group, most notable for its cups (I'iguie 14.1),' Vrouli.i at the south end of the island of Rhodes being a site where several were found. To take the cups first, their clay is Hi own and line, the paint (which covers most of the surface) is a brownish Mack, and puiple is spread ficcly on the ornaments; white is not used, and incision is icgular for outlines and inner details. The shape is elegant with its short oflset lip, nairow conical foot and very thin wall: diameter at die lip varies from 10 to 30 cm or more. On some of these cups the narrow handle held is icserved and in an old-fashioned way decorated with opposed triangles, separated by vertical strokes; it is tempting to think these earlier than the one illustrated here. On the outside the lip usually has a tooth pattern, the Handle field a cable or comparable ornament, the main held on the belly a band of floral units (which may be lotus flowers, buds - sometimes framed in a circle - or palmettes) and lound the foot rays or tongues. Inside there may be a big star or, moie showily, lotus and palmette, sometimes with a Aisette in the centre; the whirligigs of I'iguie 14.1 are so far unique. With pioper restraint the foot is left without decoration. A lew amphoras, both necked and one-piece, stamnoi (some at least with lids), bowls anil pel haps a hydria are decorated in the same technique, although moie simply.2 On some of these pots Vroulian decoration is only ol the uppei part, on others it covers all the available surface. The ornaments used aie lotus flowers, palmettes and buds, which may be encircled; subsidiary ornaments are not used. Similar decoration appears on some of the situlas described in the next chapter, although there with one exception it is subsidiary to a black-figure panel (Figure 15.1). . Rhodes is the principal place of finding, both for cups and other shapes. Cups are known also from Mersin, Tell Sukas, Naucratis and Cyrene,3 and the other shapes from Naucratis and Tell Defenneh. Of the corresponding situlas three come from Rhodes, the rest from Tell Defenneh, Hut this dispropoition may not He so significant.4 Anyhow, for Vroulian clay analysis as well as distribution makes Rhodes the likeliest home. Its date is perplexing. The finds at Vroulia tail off around 600 (that is when Early Corinthian was ending), but at Tell Defenneh the situlas should be of the 'third quartet of the sixth century, and graves on Rhodes give contexts of the mid sixth century for a cup and the third quarter or later for other 114

Vroulittn

(a)

Figure 14.1 Vrotili.in cup: lieilin Inv. 2960. l i t 15.5cm. Mid 6th ccniuiy.

shapes. 5 Yet one would m>t expect so small .i group with so little stylistic development to have been piodticed over a long peiiod. The pioMcm is h.it illy important.

"5

CHAPTER 15

SITULAS

What is known as ,i Simla is a sizable tubular jar, swelling towards its base, witli a flat lip and a low loot (Figure 15.1a); on decorated specimens there is a small ridge below the lip. Sometimes, perhaps regularly, there was a ltd. The shape is obviously useful and may well be frequent in kitchen ware, d one silted ihrough the plain sherds from domestic debris. In fact fragments of five were found in such contexts at Vroulia, decorated simply with bands of the dark paint and between the handles a wavy line crossed by oblique bars.1 These were presumably made on Rhodes. Their date may be late seventh or early sixth century. As a decorated pot die situla is rare. The earliest, preserved only in its upper part, turned up on Santos.1 Its original height was probably about 40 cm. The main field, between the handles, is decorated in an orthodox Middle Wild Goat style, and below there are broad bands of paint. This is at present a unique piece, evidently South Ionian; it is very unlikely that if was made on Rhodes. On ihe situlas of what may be called Groups B and C3 the system of decoration is more considered. The body is divided into three fields of about equal height with a smaller field at the base. Although the uppermost is the most important, there need not be a direct connection with the S,»mos situla, since (his is an obvious solution for the shape. Group H consists of five pieces. The clay is fine and brownish; purple is used for enhancements; details on figures are incised. The shape of the pot is sturdy, With ihickish wall and three-reeded handle; heights seem to be about 50 cm. The lower fields, separated Hy reserved bands, are painted dark. The ' upper, on each side ol the handles, are sometimes divided into three panels, the central one containing a single figure - Typhon, winged youth (accompanied by small (.anna), draped man with staff, griffin - and the flanking fields filled with a lozenge or diagonal ornament: where the handle field is undivided, only animals are known. Filling ornament is used erratically and can be coarse, framing bands too occur, not always happily contrived. The effect can be pleasing, although the style is neither assured nor very competent, and the side panels have a curiously Subgeometric look. Group B looks like the work of a painter or workshop without much contact with other contemporary schools of painted pottery. The finding places have been Tell Defenneh, Memphis and Rhodes, where I imagine they were made; the clay loo looks suitable for Rhodian. There are no contexts and u6

— Si I II la j

(..)

Figure 15.1 Situlas: British Museum. 1) c

a H8.2-8.1 I. l i t 4 6 c m . {Jill 10 | IS95|, 37 lig. I) 88.2-8.7 + 22. Scale c. 1:2. Late in t h u d quarter ol 6th century. 88.2-8.13 + 30 + 41. Scale c. 1:2. Third quarter til 6th century.

Tell Defennch gives no help, since neither ol us contributions can be included in the main deposit: vague stylistic comparisons suggest a date near the middle ol the sixth century. Group C (l'lgure 15.1) is better represented with more than thirty examples. The clay is generally paler in colour ami tends lo flake oil and the paint, usually a dark brown, was unevenly applied and not very durable: whether these defects were due to poor materials or poor workmanship is not clear, but the Iikellura and Clazomenian pottery in the same deposit at Tell Defenneh did not suffer as much damage. Purple is frequent, according to convenience on a dark undercoat or directly on the clay; there is no white; and incision is used for inner details and some outlines. 1 he shape varies in its proportions: those silulas that are well enough preserved for certainty have a slimmer Hody than is attested in Group 1J, but (he splaying of the sides o/ "7

— Sit ill in

—

some less complete pieces suggests a dumpier version. W.ills ARC thin. 1 l.mdles, u.sii.iily four-reeded, are mostly ol the lug kind, although sometimes - pei haps later - ring handles are preferred. 1 leiglits seem to have been rather less tli.in in Group B, peiliaps ranging around 40 cm. l'or the decoration the tripartite system continues, Init the two lower fields - and on one exceptional piece all three delds - have adopted the Vroulian mode with palmettes, lotus (lowers (with inner petals or palmette filling) and occasionally buds. In the principal fields between the handles figures are a requisite, but composition rarely goes beyond a quadruped, solitary or sometimes mauling another, or an antithetical human pair. Besides the usual repertory of beasts and monsters there are also a fleecy ram, felines carrying small game in their mouths (one with blood dripping from the victim), and birds of various species which pticli, usually on volutes, strut or fly. From human and mythical life come Hdlerophon and his chimera (on opposite sides of the pot), a pair of confronting winged youths, a Gorgon, a winged horse and, more originally, two satyrs nuking music on either side of a mixing Howl and a pair of men lighting with clubs; one of the two latest situlas adds a woman with a flower, the other on its two sides a crouching soldier and a bearded rider who brandishes ,t spear (so that this can hardly He Achilles and Troilos). Occasionally an incised rosette appears m the field. The style is basically East Greek, but the quality ol the drawing is very uneven, ranging from good (I'igure 15.1b) to poor (figure 15.1c), and on two late pieces it is execrable. These two come I mm lalysus on Rhodes from contexts of 500-490, the rest - except for one Iragment from lalysus - arc from Tell Defenneh and so .should not be later than 525. This suggests that the duration of Group C is from the 530s to about 500; stylistic comparisons, such as they are, do not disagree. It is likely, both from their rarity and the uniform system of decoration, that these Group C situlas were the product of a single workshop, hut students are divided on whether that workshop was on Rhodes or in Egypt (and, if in Egypt, at or near fell Defenneh, since no fragment of a si tula w«s found at Naucratis). The arguments for Egypt are, first, the nearly complete1 restriction of finds to Tell Defenneh; next, of course, Egyptian subjects have been claimed - a hawk sitting on a Neb basket and men, perhaps fcfrcumcised, lighting with clubs; and perhaps too the poor quality of the fired "clay ,\nt.\ paint could he added. None of these arguments is decisive. The number of situlas at Tell Defenneh can be explained in another way;4 Egyptian subjects, even if deliberate, could be painted outside Egypt (especially il intended lor sale there), and technically poor potting occurs in Greek lands. What seems to me at present to tip the halance in favour of Rhodes is the couple of late specimens from lalysus, although admittedly it is surprising that no earlier ones have turned up on the island,5 and also the result of clay •analysis, though only of a single fragment of Group C, which showed a composition acceptable lor Rhodes. More analyses would be helpful.

n8

C l IA I ' l l I I 1 6

LATE BLACK-FIGURE

There has been little study of late East Greek black-figure, nor is there much to study. A few amphoras from Rhodes have such Clazomenian features as sirens, scale pattern anil rows of while dots on their figures, although the drawing of those figures is feeble; on others it is too abject for close comparisons, although I here may be some vague relationship with the Cla/omenian sarcophagi.' Such a relationship is more evident on an incomplete krater from Cyme in Aeolis with in the main fields revellers

-Hi

Figure 16.1 Late East Greek Mack-figure oinochoe: Cherson (?) (from Berezan). Last quarter ol 6th century. Ml)

— Late lilack-jigtire — - one at least a sort of satyr - and riders and in the subsidiary field below a youth among animals; like the sarcophagi it substitutes painted white lines lor incision and its ambitious, though mediocre, painter has attempted a three-quarter view ol a torso.2 The pieces from Rhodes, some of which have contexts, are presumably all of the last quarter of the sixth century, the Cyme krater hardly earlier than 500. There are also a number of small pots, competently potted but with decoration which dispiritedly imitates inferior Attic.3 Examples have been noted on Rhodes and at Berezan (Figure 16.1) and may well have been overlooked or ignored elsewhere. Youths in conversation groups are a stock formula, though sometimes they enact 1 leracles wrestling with the lion; or their place may be taken by an execrable panther. One would hardly expect work of this quality to be exported (although perhaps one expects too much of ancient taste) and the greater depravity of some Berezan examples may well indicate their manufacture there. Contexts from graves on Rhodes are of the last third ol the sixth century.

120

).

CHAPTER 17

CLAZOMENIAN

SARCOPHAGI

Where and when Greeks practised inhumation, collins ol tired day were sometimes used. These were usually simple, plain boxes, but at Clazomcnae there was for a time a fashion for versions with painted decoration of the rim and exceptionally other parts too;' the rim, of course, w.is ihe only part properly visible, when the coffin had been put in the gi.ive, ready for the luneral. Naturally this meant some enlargement ot die rim and, as decoration became more elaborate, there were some consequent changes in its proportions and shape. The clay is brownish and very coarse, like that ol tiles or architectural revetments. The outside of the box, which was not meant to be seen, was left rough and unpamted; the inside, which could be glimpsed, had some smoothing and was daubed with the dark paint, at least in the more developed series.2 l o r the rim or face, which was to have decoration, a better surface was needed and this was provided by a thick application ol a cream or yellowish slip. The decoration it sell was done m dark paint, presumably the same as that used for pots, but because ol the size ol the saicophagi it was difficult to keep the firing even and often the black has been oxidised to red. The hist stage in the development from plain to painted sarcophagi required a modest widening of the top ol the wall — H-1) cm is a usual diameter. The commonest decoration was ol broad wavy lines,1 doubled at the ends and single at the sides; but a meander ol simple type was sometimes prelerred, especially lor the ends, and there is also egg and dait, this perhaps only at the ends. Saicophagi ol this Monasnrakia type have turned up in great number, but they are very rarely exhibited or even acquired by museums. Ihe development from the Monastnakia model can be followed in the work of the Borelli painter, who was presumably its pioneer, lirst if a logical sequence is justified for so lew examples — rectangular projections were inserted at the inner corners of the face with a narrow band of ornament running across to frame the end fields, but the rest ol the decoration remained of Monastirakia type: these projections, incidentally, had no structural or practical value and their purpose must have been aesthetic. The next innovation was momentous, the introduction ol figure decoration for the fields at the ends, that is the head and lool of the sarcophagus, and these fields were deepened to give them more importance, as to

^^^

, _ - . ' <e~a^

«|&

|«n

JHB

JI^B

Jfl

( Ui/ o»i cruan sarcophagi

—•

i..r,

i

(b)

ligure 17.1 122

— (Aa/onu

man

Sin lofhiigi

—

a lessei extent wcic the fields ol the sides At lust, d lic.ul ,md foot fields both H.id ammils in icseivtng tcehnii|ue, these lulds weie of .ihout equal dimensions and the fate lemaincil iect.mgnl.ii Bin when human (lgines in a son ol black-figuie technique w u c intioduced into the head held, tins field was enlarged luithei and the lace k i . i m o liapc/oulal (1 iguie 17 2), a refinement that m a milder foim eventually Became usual foi saieophagi with only reserving decoiation Ilicic weie otlici impiovcnients too I oi the side fields the standitd dccoiation was now a L \l>le, noimally spiouting palmettes, and at eaih end a small panel was mttiposed to make a liansinon to the touier snips and the end fields I lit' edges too ol the late wt'it moie distinctly modelled and given then oi namem Uion Usually, d the sucophagus has only leseivmg dccoiation, the innti edge gets a meandti oi latci slug l/ke blobs, while the outei one is ltd plain, lot hl.itk rigmed s.ntophagi the lnsiele has a meandei or less oltcn egg ind ilut, and the outside egg and dait The only fuithei development was the elahoi xtion, eluelly on hi ick-/(gti;e SAttopUagt, of siibwcli.uy l>.m/ (Ictoi.itioii, I igwe 17 3 shows a npe example l o r their reserving animals the saicophagi peipetnate the Wild Goat style, though the veisions used by dif/tient p.utiteis do not suggest a common immediate soutie On headpieces mil footpicees the nniiii is a group of three, a herbivoie Between two felines, though oce isionally the centie is taken by a palmette complex, especially il (he flanking cieKiites aie sphinxes, anel on footpieces anil sonulimes liculpiiL.es lack ol space oi planning may reduce the combatants to two I ion and goat tie the commonest species, though the goat has an mfeiioi status, being veiy raie on headpieces, but a favourite for side panels, wheie theie is room only for a single animal l o r the black-figuie style white lines aie used instead of inusion, for which the suiface was hatdly suitable, theie is also much pmple and white enhancement, which has usually peiished, Hut female flesh is always Black Scenes of human and superhuman hguies icgularly occupy the Headpiece and olleii the uppei panels loo Mythology is late - the amlnislung of 'Iioilos (twice) and the sacnfice of Polyxena aie the only ceitanities - and theie aie two representations of the soldici's depaiture and one of a deer hunt with one of the hunters on hoiseBack and the other in a chanot But noimally compositions are symmetiiL.il - hoise inces and chanot laees, in which half the competitors go one way and half the other, and especially battle scenes, in which eventually the action is often limited to a pan of Figure I7.l C la/omenian sarcophagi a headpiece Athens 13939 Width at top 77 5 em fragment of heatlpieee and left uppei eoi nei stnp British Mtisium 86 3-26 I lit of Headpiece 33cm Boiclh painter, c 540-530 I23

— Clazomenian

surcopbagi —

I

J V

j

1 j

!

^iS £m

! i i

5M i i !

lal

j 1 I

1 I

I

1JJI

!

i

i i i1 •

^

^

^ ^ - ,

Figure 17.2 Clazomenian sarcophagus. Berlin Inv. 3145. Length 2.37 metres. Albertinum group: 500-480. 124

— Clazomenittn

Figure 17.3

sarcophagi —

Ciazomenian sarcophagus, detail u! figure 17.2.

hoplites in the centre, flanked by such supernumeraries .is idle hoptites, youths, female figures and chariots. A lew details perhaps deserve mention; females and youths and even hoplites may have wings, horses are regularly accompanied by dogs, and riders may wear foreign dress. Students have spent much time and ingenuity on interpreting the scenes of block-figure headpieces'1 but, while the components are appropriate to heroic and aristocratic conceits, 1 doubt if in general there was any clearly defined meaning. I here is also a small black-figure style, convenient for subsidiary Hands: mostly this is used lor rows of sphinxes and sirens or lor animals, preferably 12 5

I(»VI

(

8

I* '} r \, ^ s

• }

*

,

I

I a/it

111 en i a >i sd)

topbttf>i

—

IN gioups o! IIULC, as m the leseivmg style, horn which the types ton .11 c taken A lew ol the lalei saicophagi expeument, not very successfully, with w h u may be called icd-liguie, though the giound is cream There aie also some laigc piolile heads, diawn summaiily in outline, which occasionally lill uppci 01 lowci panels, hoplttes, bearded men, youths and women aie u picsenttd 1 he Boitlh pamtei (l'iguic 17 1) looks the earliest of the hguie pamtcis Ilis icscivmg woik is in a fanly conventional Wild Goat style, which was still being used on potteiy, there aie in fact fragments of a bowl and lid detot ucd in his pecultai mannei s 1 hs black-figure too is substantially 1 ast (jictk 111 chai.ulci, lesemblmg most that of the Cl.i7omeni.in I'etnc painter I he liotelli paintei's rtseiving style, neat and manneied, is mildly attiactive, Ins bhck-figuie, manneied too, is lathei wooden The Ilanovei pamtei, a vounge'i contempoiai v, is heavy-handed, but innovative I hs leseiving animals suggest that he may not have been familial with any oitliodox veision o( the Wild Goat style and certainly not that of the Boielh pamtei, 111 his blaek-figuie, known only fiom a single saicophagus, theie aie East d i n k details, but Attic inlluenee is evident 'the Dennis painter in Ins 1>1 ick liguie woik is 1 elated to the Doielli pamtei - there is the same spaeiousmss and ailieulation of human bodies - but foi his leseiving animals he uses ddleient and moie degeneiate models A nunibei of othei liguied saicophagi aie appaiemly contempoiaiy with these pamteis, they 1 mge fiom skilful to incompetent I he •Mbeituumi painter (1'iguies 17 2 and 17 1), who lollowed, established a near monopoly foi figured saicophagi I le was ,\n accomplished diaughtsman, but gives me at least the r impiession that he was often boied with his woik His black figuie style eonuins some 1 ast d e c k elements, but owes much 11101c to Attic Poi leseiving animals lie ihew on the same source as the Dennis pamtei, Hut tidied them up 1 le also lncd Ins hand at led-hguie (01 rather wlnte-hguie, since leseivation was on the whitish slip), but did not pel severe, peihaps because the daik giound of the icd-liguie parts contiasted too starthngly • with the light giound ol the test of the lace l'oi the shape of his saicophagi he tended to a moic stiongly trapezoidal face, and theie aie a few moie eliboiale specimens, modelled on chests with panelled sides and with gabled lids lhe Ilopkinson panitei who followed had little talent and wisely simplified the deeoialion and - on piesent evidence - did not attempt blackfiguie, though some of the outlined heads 111 his side panels have a naive nieiit With Him the manufactuie of painted sarcophagi peteied out, though two 01 thiee ecccntiie pieces show a painter's 01 customer's nostalgia at the end ot the fitih centuiy Most of the known painted saicophagi have been found (11 the temtoiy o! ( la/omen le and theie aie a Tan iiumbei liom Smyrna and I cos'' None is lecoided liom 1 lythiae itscll, although a few turned up at Moulogan 126

1

4U*'-. C la/omciium

stino/ibtigi —

ON the east of the Mimas peninsula auoss the watei horn Cla/omenac. CM two specimens liom Ephesus one is of Monastuakia type, the othci has abeirant decoiation which suggests local inantil ictuie 1'ive sucophagi fiom lalysus and Camntis ON Rhodes aie all By ihc I lopkmson pamtei So too is the one from Acanthus on the noith coast ol the Aegean I'tntliei east theie arc OIK liom Galcpsos and loin liom Ahdeia, one of which is evidently by tlie AlHertinum pamtei the icst may have been made locally I rom Methymna on I eshos conies a piece ol the end of the Idlli centiny, unique and especially at that time unlikely to have been impoited At 1'ilane on the mainland five Monastnakia sircophagt Have been found, then decoialion is standaid, but the loimula is easy so that style is not a sine indication o( place of ongin 1 istly t h i n aie saicopHagi liom Saidis, decoiated in sometimes deviant veisions ol the Monastnakia style and leasonablv considered I ydian pioducts I Ins distnbution points to Cla/omenae as the home of the painted saicopliagi with a Ian dillusion into the imnudiatcly ad|oinmg tcmtoiies Moie distanl expoit was laie, as might he expected loi such heavy anil cumbeisome aitilacts - ,\n aveiage black-figuie saicophagus weighed about 9 cwt (4")0 kg) - but the finding places of the 1 lopkmson pamtei are puzzling, since only one ol his ceitam pioducts is at all likely to have been lound at Cla/omcnae, wheie piesumably lie had his tiaming, Hut wlielliei he lonlinucd to woi k theic oi tiavelled lonnd is a question that only city analysis lias much Hope ol answei ing In then home temtoiies the painted ( la/omemaii saicopliagi weie veiy laiely accompmied by giave olfeimgs, at leist dtnaHle ones, noi weie these a regular featuie elsewhcie 1 vulcntly a decoiated saiiophagus was consid cied to show siilficient lespect lor the dead and loi lamily honotii At Pilane a siicopliagus ol Monastnakia type contained a Cm intluan pot of the thud quartet ol the sixth century At 1 pliesus a piohablv local saicophagus with lesciving animals had in it a I ikelhua amphonskos of the late sixth century At" lalysus an Atlic lekylhos ol 470-60 was found in a saicophagus by the I Iopkinson pamtei At Galepsos the simple and piohably local saicophagus had m it a torn assigned lo the end ol the (ifth centiny So, unless moie contexts become available, one must lely on stylistic compansons and general piobabihties The Boielh pamtei, because of some similanty to the Petrie pamtei, should have been active aioinul the 510s anil, to judge by the ntimbei ol his suiviving saicopliagi anil the lack of development in his style, can haidly have begun much bcfoie S40 The Hanover and Dennis pamteis look lathei youngei I he Albertmiini paintei shows in occasional twisted poses anil piolile eyes that he was awaie ol innovations visible on some Attic woik ol the veiy mil ol the sixth centiny, most of his woik may He assigned piovisionally lo the lust thntv yeai s ol the lilth ccntui y The I lopkinson pamlei has a context ol the second quailei ol that eeiHuiy and some ol his panel heads suggist a sunilai date


— C.lii/.oineniiin

sarcophagi

—

The Monastirakia group, much mure numerous than die hguied ones, began before them, according to the Pitanc context and reasonable likelihood, continued alongside them - this is evident in the stratification of the big cemetery at Clazomciue - and may well have outlasted them. Tedious though this exposition is, it is as well to stress how shaky is the chronology of the Clazomenian sarcophagi. These ungainly creations had no more influence than they deserved. As has been said, outside Clazomenae and its neighbourhood painted decoration was very rarely adopted for clay sarcophagi and then it was mostly ol Monastirakia type. There was, though, some copying of the trapezoidal shape of the face with the projections at the inner corners. This is attested for Chios, Santos, Lesbos, Abdera and Oisyme, and may be more widespread, since excavators do not always describe plain clay coffins. As for pottery, the Morclli painter himself painted pots and his black-figure is related to that of the Clazomenian Petrie painter, but his successors do not appear to have had any regular connections with East Greek schools of pottery/ although the Albertinum painter was a considerable personality; presumably by his time those schools were dead or too decayed to learn from his sophisticated style.

- ';

I,

128

^fPB/?) « P t ) " * W"-t)«W flP% H0f9)*R

rtP

CHAP I IR 18

IONIAN CUPS

• |

)

]

'

East Greek cups with painted ornaments and figures Have been mentioned in Chapters 11 and 14. Much more numerous are the plain cups, decorated only with simple horizontal bands, painted or reserved, and there are others that are completely covered witli the dark paint, except usually under the foot.1 Clay analysis has shown that Samos anil Miletus were important producers in the later seventh and sixth centuries, but these so-called Ionian cups were probably made widely m southern workshops, not only ol Ionia; and il South Ionian 3 turns out to lie Aeolian, in Aeolis loo. North Ionia concentrated on the lipless Bird anil Rosette bowls and their relatives. Ionian cups were exported to the Fast Mediterranean and the Black Sea, where significant local manufacture has not yet been detected, and to the West, where it has and on a scale that is still often underestimated: cups were easy enough to shape and» banded decoration still easier lo apply nor docs it necessarily need models. I I ere the old I'tutionisl doctrine, rife a century ago, still lingers on. A large-scale investigation by clay analysis would be salutary. The basic shape is that of the Geometric t u p (I'iguic S.5), and though ol course there is development, it is not uniform!. Lips generally remain short, even alter the second quarter ol the sixth century, when some enterprising workshops began to evolve the Little Master shape. Bowls differ in depth and curvature, bin not consistently, leet vary from highish and flaring to very low, anil that low leet are not necessarily early is very evident from their survival in I'ikellura. Sizes range widely, but a diameter ol 12-16 cm at the run may be taken as normal. l o r the decoration of the outside a reset veil band at the level ol the handles is regular, though its depth vanes. The lip too may be reserved, with a narrow painted band separating it from the handle held; anil somelimes this reservation is enlivened by narrow stupes. The lowei p u t ot the Howl is at first usually covered by the dark paint, which may He relieved by a narrow reserved band about halfway down. 1 lie loot is panned. An alternative system, already current by t>20 (that is about the start of Early Corinthian) was lo increase the area ol reservation on the lower pan of the Howl. Inside, the edge ol the lip is usually reserved, there may be a reserved band about halfway down the bowl and sometimes a reserved ring at the centre and, where the outside is largely reserved, the inside may He too. O n e .small group (Figure IS.la) makes effective use of bands ol 129

I

1

,:

N-fc (a)

(b)

(d)

Q'::-

Figure 18.1 *

i

— Ionian

c«/»i —

white, purple and white, and there is a larger group which lias a liking lor thin purple lines (Figure 18.1 li). Ol the six examples illustrated th.il of Figure 18.1a is exceptionally dm.1 and, although widely distributed, not very common. The shape, with a wall in some examples no more than 1.5 mm thick, is a little precious and a sideline rather than a mam stage ol development Perhaps the use ol white, purple and while bands on later Bird Howls and on Rosette Howls was copied from these cups. Their floruit seems to be the last third of the seventh century, more or less contemporary with Kaily Corinthian, though a more conventional version persists a little longer. Cups of the type of Figure 18.1b arc much more numerous. The shapeis simpler, although the wall is still thin, Mid the decoration, although allowing purple stripes, is less exacting. It appears in the last quarter ol the seventh century, but is most popular in the e.nly sixth. Figure 18.1c, also a popular type, is heavier and some of the .smaller examples are clumsy. The decoration varies, not so surprisingly, since it had a long run - the last quaiter of the seventh and the first oi the sixth century. It was exported much to the Mack Sea, less so to the West. Figure I8.le, a variant recognisable by its busily striped lip, is found particularly on Samos, but is raie outside South Ionia. Commonest of all, both at home anil aluoad, is Figure 18. Id, rather more elegant though serviceable enough, which appeared perhaps about 600, but Nourished in the second quarter and the middle of the sixth century, and a related type with shorter foot, which survived Irom the late seventh into the fifth century. Figure 18.11 is ;i cup ol Little Master — and specifically Lip cup — shape, current .\roimd the middle of the sixth century. Classification is still rather subjective.

Figure 18.1 Ionian cups. The types quoted are those of Vallet and Vdlard and of Hayes (see chapter 18, n.l). loci a. a 2267 (AI/III). b 1197 (151/V). c 1218 (A2/IX). d 1204 (B2/VIII). e 1299 (A2/Samian). f 1288 (H3/X). '}'

CHAPTER 19

BANDED AND PLAIN WARES

Pots decorated with bands or squiggles of paint or without even that decoration were always much commoner than the classier ones and were produced almost everywhere in the Greek world. 1 In general they were made for local use, but some had a wide distribution. The coarser wares are not photogenic and finds are mostly fragmentary, so that it is not surprising that they have hardly been studied, although conscientious excavators have published a fair assortment from several East Greek sites. There are, however, some striped and plain pots of fine quality, which turn up in graves and are a little less unknown. On these I give some scrappy notes. 2 The so-called 'lydion' (I'igure 19.1b) is a small jar, presumably for ointment. The shape is found earlier in Egypt and is usually assumed to Have come to the Greeks hy way ol Lydia, though this has not been proved. The clay is usually a good lightish brown and there is no slip. Some, presumably earlier, examples have a straight or slightly concave profile of the stemmed foot; 10 cm is a usual height. The decoration is normally bands of paint; though some - in part, at least - are marbled; anything more elaborate is rare. These lydia are frequent and were made in the southern part ol the East Greek region, in Lydia and in Sicily and Italy, but often it is not clear what is local and what imported; indeed the one illustrated may well be Etruscan. Contexts are mostly of the middle and later sixth century. There are also line-ware amphoras, of similar clay and unslipped and again decorated simply with bands. Some are large, in shape and size much like those of Fikcliura, with which they are likely to be contemporary. Others, much more common and continuing longer, are smallish and tend to have long necks and sometimes a short pedestalled foot (Figure 19.Id): in fifth-century vanants there may be a ring of black and white dots where Figure 19.1 Banded and Plain wares. a alabastron: from Samos. b lydioii: Munich 532. c lekythos: from Samos. d amphora: Munich 463. e llask: from Samos. Scale- 1:3. Middle and second half of 6th century.

Handed and Plain wares -

(c)

(a)

V

(b)

(e)

Figure 19.1

- -

liiinttctl

and

1'latn

ivata

—

the shouldci joins llie neck. Alahaslia too, ol the same quality (Figure 19.l.t), .no 1101 unusual. These are all common 111 the East Greek region and m Eli 1111.1, where many ai c likely to have been made. Some coarser pots loo occur in graves, presumably because ol their conu'iils. Ring vases, like l.u doughnuts with an upright spout and usually striped, and askoi are probably North Ionian and were widely exported and probably copied in the sixth century. To end tins shabby selection, there is also a numerous family ol narrow flasks, undecoraied or roughly p.micolonied. The commonest type (Figure 19.le), with a mean height of peihaps 15 cm, seems to have been current throughout the sixth and fifth centimes. There are also fancier Masks, often - without good reason dubbed Samian, which Have an angular shoulder and often noticeably concave belly: one version is illustrated (I'igure 19.1c), another inverts the cmve and is widest at the the shoulder. These are attested at least tor the sixth Lenturv.

1 . < ' 0 I

'34

)

i

i

>

>

CIIIAM'I R 20

GREY WARE AND BUCCHERO

(•'or lii ing their painted pottery the Greeks normally used a three-stage process. In the first, oxidising, stage the clay Hecamc Hrown and the paint a strong red; in the second, reducing, stage the blown turned giey and the red Black; in the third, re-oxidising, stage firing continued till the clay was again brown, but the denser paint still black. l o i Giey waie and Buechcio firing stopped at the second stage. In the East Greek legion such reduced waie was made regularly in Aeolis and in very much smaller quantity further south.

AI'OI.IAN CRF.Y WAR I' In what became Aeolis and iurlhei inland Giev ware had been m common use for cenluiies when the Greek settlers ai lived early in the Iron Age and the settlers, rather unusually, adopted the native practice. (It is, incidentally, because of this continuity that 'Grey ware' has more or less superseded 'Bucchero' as the name lor the Greek pioduu.) Not much is known about this Iron Age Aeolian Grey ware. In general it is not decorated aiul, where there is decoration, it is usually simple; finds are mostly ol fragments; exploration ol sites in Aeolis has been patchy; and with one exception publication ol major finds has so lai been pel lunctoi y.1 Grey ware has been found at various places on Lesbos anil, to |udge from excavation at Antissa,' was almost the only line ware there till the late sixth century, when Attic imports became appreciable; horn then on its popularity seems to have diminished, although production continued at least into the I lellenistie period. There is no good evidence that painted pottery was made on the island. O n the mainland Grey ware is widespread, but not (it appears) as dominant. At Troy, usettled about 700, it accounted for about two thuds of the pottery of the seventh and sixth centuries, 1 and it is reported from other sites in the Troad. At Pergamum it was still in use in the I lellenistie period, but there is not the evidence to determine its frequency.4 fragments have turned up at Myrina too, s but at 'L.irisa* (Buruncuk) a rich dump of dedications was more intoi mative:'' here Grey ware was as liequent as painted ware in the seventh century, but quantity and quality both fell olf in the sixth. There is a similar report on I'hocaea. Lastly, at Smyrna Grey waie was plentiful belore the seventh century, but "3 5

— Grey ware and Bucchero — alterwards disappeared. One would expect that there were distinct local versions, if not schools, of this Grey ware - it is hard to believe that 'Larisa' with its provincial Wild Goat style was not provincial in its Grey ware too, and differences in clay have been noted - but present knowledge is too slight to confirm this and description has to be general. The clay is as a rule fairly fine and fired a lightish grey; often the exposed : surface is polished or has a wash of finer clay. There is a full range of shapes, mostly of standard East Greek types, though they tend to be less precisely articulated than the painted wares. Decoration - on the comparatively few pieces that are decorated - is by incision or less often in relief and usually is sparse. For incision the staple is a wavy line or set of wavy lines; a few pieces, presumably of the eighth and seventh centuries, have big hatched meanders and smaller hatched triangles; and a pair of rather later sherds from Mytilene show economically drawn animals.7 Relief , decoration is known best at "Larisa', partly because the deposit there was of showy dedications, but it may also have been a South Aeolian speciality. Ridges and grooves and little bosses are commonest, but at 'Larisa' there are also elaborate designs with figures, moulded and sometimes reworked, and a few impressions from seals. Very little Aeolian Grey ware was exported, and perhaps mainly from Lesbos. Some has been found on Chios and Samos, on Thasos, and at Al Mina and Naucratis.8 From other sites odd pieces have been reported, but H identification is not always easy, since unpretentious Grey ware could be made locally, as for instance is claimed for Thasos and Histria.9 The Grey ware common in southern France was neither imported nor related to Aeolian, but an indigenous product.10 'RHODIAN' BUCCHERO There is also what is caHed 'Rhodian' Bucchero - 'Rhodian' because of finds ON Rhodes, then considered a major producer of East Greek pottery, and 'Bucchero' since it has no Bronze Age pedigree to induce a change of name. It is a very minor product, technically similar to Aeolian Grey ware but, to judge by distribution, made in the southern part of the East Greek region. In older studies the two are sometimes conflated. As a rule 'Rhodian' liucchero is, at least on its surface, considerably darker than Aeolian Grey ware. The principal shapes, modelled with some precision, are the aryballos, small and round, and the fusiform alabastron, often 20 cm long:" the aryballoi may be vertically ribbed, the alabastra usually have lines incised sparsely round the body. There are also some larger bucchero pots, mainly oinochoai and plates or stemmed dishes, which are sometimes decorated in white and purple with lotus buds and other simple motives;12 shapes and ornaments recall the Middle II Wild Goat style. These two i

136

— Cjrcy ware

ami

iiiiiibero

—

groups, the small plain pots and the larger decorated ones, may well come from different workshops. 'Rliodian' Buccherci is lound sporadically in the southern parts of the East Greek region and there was a little, although far-flung, export of the first group, alabastia in particular being relatively numerous in Sicily. Its floruit should be late seventh and early sixth century, contemporary roughly with Early and Middle Corinthian.

LIZ

C11AITIK 2 1

R E L I E F WARE

J „ 1 f j jl jj

* '

Relief waie, that is waie on winch lehef is the d o m i n a n t and not, as on some Geomcti ic p o t s (Liguie S 3 ) and a few cups of Little Mastei shape, a suhsidiaiy foi m of decoiation, is liable to turn u p at any time and place It v a m s widely m quality and ehaiaetci — ichcf is a technique and not a slyle - and in the d e c k woild did not become c o m m o n till the I Iellenistic pcuod the best k n o w n eaihei I ast Greek veision and the only one that can he studied salislactoiily is that ol the Rhodian Relief pithoi' ('pitlios' in tins context is a big neck amplioia) These, some m o r e than 2 meties high, weic made to sci vc as stoiage bins, but occasionally were reused for h u i y i n g t* clnldiui in, so that a few have survived more or less complete T h e y were made of coaise i l a y , foitilied with giog, the suiface was smoothed and sometimes slipped, and then coloui after filing was b l o w n to lcddish Difteienccs have been noted on Rhodes between those found at I mdos and ( m i n u s and lalysus, although it is perhaps excessive to talk of local schools » What look the eaihest members of the sei les come fiom L m d o s These include fiagmenls of other shapes besides the a m p h o i a and this is relatively small, nevei m u c h m o i e than a metie high and with its parts not cleaily defined 1 oi tlie next stage examples come fiom C a m n u s and lalysus too. by now the shape is sharply aiticulated, with a tall neck and elahoiate tieatmLNt ol the s u p p o t l s between it and the vertical handles In the third stage some of the tautness goes Since presumably these big pithoi were set against a wall and sunk to some d e p t h in the ground, it was normal, if decoration ' wis wanted, to icstiict it to the front of the neck and of the uppei pait of the body I he system followed was one of n a n o w bands of simple repeated motives, not vaiying much in depth and running horizontally on the body and in the mam vertically on the neck Execution was mostly by roller stamps with units of the design cut into them, but sometimes a punch was pieteiied and occasionally, especially for chevrons, free-hand modelling I he stock ol motives was limited Spuals of one sort or another were the favomius, theie aic simple zigzags with hooks projecting from their upper apices and stiaight lines fiom their lower ones, and a rough step pattern is not u n c o m m o n , but the meander is little used Figuies occur too, although allowed no m o r e importance than the ornaments and indeed, when in vertical bands, set sideways on Besides animals - sphinx, griffin, hoisc anef 138

Relief

U'dIV

bull - theie aie soldieis, war chanots and ilucls, sometimes with ccntauis and mildly notable for the double axe wielded By one ol the combatants (of human, of couise, not equine toim) In geneial the appeaiance of the ornaments is Geometnc or Eaily Oiientahsmg; so too with the figures, though a lew aie more advanced 'I licit" is vei y little stylistic connection with the painted pottei y of the legion, rat tic i mine with I ale Geometnc and SuHgeometiic metalwoik, where spnals aie familial Students have spoken of Mycenaean survivals, peihaps tashly, smce cuivilnieai ornament might have been leintroduced from the I'ast oi even been i cm vented Dating is less secure than might be expected foi objects ol which a do/en oi so Have contexts Unfoi tunately, as wcai and even icpaus show, some ol these pithoi weie old when lcquisilioncd foi Inuials, so that we have only a lowei limit foi then date I he stimps as well may have had a long lile and those used on one pithos need not all have been ol the same age To give a lough estimate, the fust Mage ol these lehel pithoi began peiliaps hetoie the end of the eighth centuiy, but llounshed in the eaily seventh; the second stage occupies the lest of tint centuiy, and the thud stage continued till neat the end of the sixth 'Iheie need be no doubt that these pithoi were made on Rhodes, and fiagments liom Daea (Datelia) on the Cnidian peninsula look as if they too tie Rhodian, whethei expoited liom Rhodes oi made locally by tiavelhng Rhodian pottei s It is said also that siiiiil.ii pithoi weie found at Smyrna, although the hagments published aie not vei y inloimative; 2 theie may well be moic linds liom othei I ast Gieek sues In Sicily a tiagmeni decoiated liom moulds ol Rhodian type turned up at Gela ' A very dilfeient iclief style appeals on liagmcnts lound on Chios M\L\ Th.isos. 4 Ileie loutciia oi peiinhanteila - shallow peilestalled bowls like fancy gaiden bird-baths - aie eommonei than pithoi, mil theie aie a lew pieces ol othei shapes, including sarcophagi I he style, much grander than that of the Rhodian pithoi, is that of the aichiteetuial tenacottas of their time, which in some instances evidently weie made in the same woikshops. 1 gg and dait, or eggs alone, aie especially fieqiient, and the occasional figuies aie of a standaul compaiable to tint of othci blanches of contempoiaiy ait None of these Cln.iii pieces looks e.nliei than the sixth centuiy Besides these laige oh)ects a few small pieces ol potteiy with icliel decoration have turned up here and theie in the I'ast d e c k icgion These look like copies of more expensive woik in metal, ivoiy oi wood Theie are also what aie called plastic vases, that is figmmes oi othei objects adapted for use as flasks, but these belong to figiiiincs s

'39

CHAPTER 22

FAIENCE

v,

; fi j :

What archaeologists misguidedly call 'faience' is a glazed frit, composed of natron and silica with a little fine clay as a binding agent. Faience, so defined, was an old speciality oi Egypt, though at times there was manufacture elsewhere loo. It had been made on Crete and the Greek mainland in the Middle and Late Bronze Age, but after that there was only very occasional import in the Aegean, till about the middle of the seventh century workshops were set up in the East Greek region and particularly, to judge by distribution, on Rhodes.1 Although its products travelled widely, the industry remained a very minor one. The common forms of this East Greek faience were figurines, pots, amulets and scarabs. They were small objects, the largest rarely more than 10 cm high or wide. The principal colour was green; yellow and dark brown c.ime next; and sometimes effective use was made of the whitish ground. Some figurines were moulded, others and the pots were modelled by hand. The quality varies Irom fine and meticulous to crudely negligent. i Production began with moulded containers, especially in the form of a figure kneeling in front of a jar. This series probably lasts till near the end of the seventh century (that is till the end of Early Corinthian). More or less contemporary is a series of straightforward little pots - pyxis with lid, long alabastron, pointed aryballos and miniature trefoil oinochoe, the first two of Oriental and the others of current Greek type. The decoration, kwhich is incised, favours a row or two of figures - lions and herbivores in familiar postures, sometimes with intrusive herdsmen - and in other - registers floral ornaments; the style is unassimilatedly Egyptian or Oriental •Egyptianising. As this first stage was ending, production turned to figurines, 'human and animal, generally crude in workmanship; their style too is 'Egyptianising, unmodified by contemporary Greek. These seem to have persisted till about the middle of the sixth century. Lastly, apparently in the second quarter of that century, spherical aryballoi appear and plastic pots, some imitating (not always accurately) East Greek terracotta types. The industry was dead by 500. The first workshops making East Greek faience were most probably on Rhodes. Whether it was ever made at other places in the region is not known, but after Greeks were established at Naucratis it is evident that manufacture flourished there too and in fact a faience workshop was discovered on the site. It is tempting to attribute to Naucratis those plastic 140

— Faience

—

pots tint show misunderstanding ol E.ist Greek details and the pieces with cartouches of Egyptian kings, But in distinguishing Rhodian and N.uicratite products students have still to rely on their preconceptions. Greek and also Oriental and true Egyptian faience was exported widely. It was popular in the West, including Carthage, and in the sixth century round the Black Sea too, but in mainland Greece it is hardly (mind except in frequented sanctuaries.

141

*V

. ^ ^ < * \ "TT7

•n

K> J U ^ ^ A * ^ v ^fa-PmJfa %/^F A*-* oft ^ *fcaf' C MAI1 I I R 2 3

ARCHAIC EAST GREEK TRADE AMPHORAS

INTRODUCTION Until not so long ago, the unsuitable appellation 'Ionian' amphoias was common I \ used to design ue a laige and heteiogcneous i ange ot containcis, oidy a pait ol which w u e actually maNiifactuied in I ast (jieece, the tenumdei oi igmating cithci lioin mainland d e c k centies (e £ 'SOS' series) oi liom Western Medilei 1 ancan colonial wot kshops (e g Tonian-Masiahote' seucs) I oday, actual pioducts liom last Greece are mort lestrictively icicnccl to by scholars as '1 ast Gieek' Ihcsc 1 asi dicck lianspoit amplioias, used foi foodstulfs such as wine, oh\c oil and, piobihly loo, pickled sei lood, have been found fiom the AulniL penod on wauls thiougliout the Meditei lanean countiies and cs.pi; cially iioiuul the Blick Si a the laltei aiea did in fact piovide the highest density ol linds and the most complete range of shapes, which can piohahly H he explained l>y us geogiaphical pioximity, a high density of settlements in close contact with tlicn mcliopolis aud a Husk, though seemingly ovcre'stinuled, ti ade with the natives It seems also that 1'gypt constituted anotliei pole ol atti action, Hut of lesser impoi lance 1 he rest of the niatenal . appois lalhei scallered, fiom 1 luelva to Mcsad Hasliavyahu, from foeia

'

' | J B

I

' J

to Aegina

It is thcicloie no accident thai the two pioneers who initiated the studying ol Aiehaie I ast Gieek contameis vveie both working on the Black Sea Maieelle I anibnno in the IV30s' anel especially Iieida /eest IN the i IVSOs ' I he nn|oi connihution ol Vuginia Grace ON Sainian amplioias did not appi.ii until a little lalei l Since that time, om knowletlge Has progiessed gieatly as a result e>f the 'recent excavations IN the Hlack Sea with the woik of the Histna expedition4 ,^and of the amphoiologieal school of the late Soviet Union,'' as well as in Itiuna,' 1 Sicily7 and immland Giecce (Athenian Agoia and Keiameikos, Aegina island) k One must also point to the new finds made in I ast Gieece piopei, at Cl i/omenae,'' at Miletus10 and on Samos " In the same way, lahoiatory analyses have contributed to solving some piovenaNce piohlems, and have led, unoug otliei icsulls, to the identification of Clazomenian and Milesian lypes ol conlameis u It lollowed thai, in spite of a complete lack ot any elaboiate epigiaphical stamping, the till then undiflci euliated bulk ol Archaic 'Ionian' amphoias >

t

142

—

Archaic

I ast

Chtik

ttaili

iiniffjoitii

—

could He split up into several distinct classes, icpicscuimg as many identilied, picsumed oi still undetci mined aieas ol p i o d u c t i o n We aie now able to distinguish C Hun, C l a / o m c n i i n , 1 esht.m, Milesian and Sannui senes, to be complemented - (oi icasons explained He-low - w i t h t l i u e Itntliei units of M i s '/eesl's classification hei tjpes 3 ('Saini in'), I S ( ' I ' l o l o l l n s i a n ' ) and IS ('1 h.isi.in uiele') n I h e i e is i stiong dispanty m (he disd i l w t i o n ol the last Gieek contameis in the d i t l e i c n l m.it kcis In l l i t Hl.it. k Sei, the y oliviously c onstilulc (lie ovciwhelinmg m.i|otity ol the finds, while llie impoiis t i o m Giecce (Atliens, C o i m l h ) aie leduccd to a lew licit logtncous putes " Inveiselv, in Weslein Mcchteiianean aicas, llie last Gieek | \ i s aie in a m m o i i t y in tlic I tec ol the competition ol Athens, ( o i m l h .\nc\ I l i u i i a , inel llien, l i o m the mid sixth centmy o n w i i d s , ol the western colonial Mile gioweis ('Ionian (VI issahote' sencs) In the same w i y , the lelative p i o p o i t i o n s ol llie chlleieiit pioducmg centics i c v c i l stiong elispaiilics foi instance, I N Sicily and 1 H u m , the so-called 'Sainian' i m p h o i is - actually Samian plus M i l e s t u i ones — repicsent SO to (>0 pel cent ol (he consignments l i m n Ionia, the impoits l i o m ( hios aie I N second pi lee, and those l i o m the olhei eenties lai Behind ls the situalion is chlfcient louiicl llie Mlack Sea, whcie (he C lnot pioducts (c 30 pel cent ol the whole) genei illy take the lead, though closely lollowed l>y those l i o m I eshos and iclaled scnes (<. 2S—30 pei cent) and those h o r n Cla/omenae (c 20-30 pci cent), wheicas the Milesian and especially the Samian aic \ c i v much in a nunoiitv " A likely explanation lot sueti dispamies could He that in the Western Meditei lane in the competition w i t h the 1 liusean wines must have been a senous impediment lo the diffusion of I ast Gieck ones, whcieas the olive oil f i o m M i l i t u s and Samos did not a p p i i e n l l y meet llie same ohsiaeles, tlie Meditei i me an customeis lavishly using this lood staple thai was cssent n l foi them " Inveisely, in the I5lack Sea, the linlfie ol Ionian wines met no lundiance, Hut theie was piohahly little inleiest in oil eoiiiameis except among the G i eek colonists,"* piohably He cause the i n lives pi e lei i eel imm.il lats foi cooking " I oi these t w o reasons - appuent alisencc o) icstiiction on the tialfic of goods coming l i o m Ionia, uicl lowci impact ol the native element - the amplioia impoits in the Ulick Se i legion w i l l constitute the Hest telcience sotiiec foi Jtulgmg the compai.itive impoilancc ol the thlfeient I ast Gteek ccnties of p i o d u e l i o n M o t e o v c i , although the fiec|ueuey data now avail ihle icc]uue cautious mlci p i e l a l i o n , theie weie oliviously sometimes eonsideiaHle ehspaiitics between the consignments ol amphoias on the chlleieiil sites w i t h i n the same aiea In the 'colonial w o i l d ' , the v i n o u s ongms ol the Gieek settleis, the specific demand ol the native custom, .is well as the ha/aids connected w i t h the gcogiaphie.il distance, the political and economical situation in the metiopolis and the absence ol any i c g u l i i c o i n m e i c n l connections could not Hut geneiate as many specific situ Uions I veil when a 111,11 ket

M3

r — Archaic East Greek trade amphoras — was relatively well served, as for instance the Black Sea area, the extent of these discrepancies has led students to evoke the 'pulsatile' (sic) character ol the commercial traffic in that region/ 0 In fact, we are still in a large part ignorant ot the way this emporoi trade of the Archaic period really functioned, in spite of substantial progress in the study of trademarks.21 Most of the deliveries towards the Black Sea were probably made directly from the Ionian harbours through various exporting agents; on the other hand, in other directions, if direct forwarding of goods is attested, both by literary sources2' and archeological finds,23 one can also suppose that in | most cases, the freight could Have been forwarded by relay ports of call (Acgina, Gravisca, Rhodes etc.), where it was handed over to other Hellenic .or foreign transporters.2'1 Possibly too, some East Greek cities, not necessarily disposing ol exportable surplus of their own, already specialised in the resale of goods produced by other cities in the hinterland, as perhaps Colophon or Cyme, or even by some of their own colonies (a role possibly played by Chios in the distribution of Maroneia wines). In East Greece, it goes without saying that at every one of the production centres a prevailing amphora shape shows up in the finds, generally corresponding to the products of the local or neighbouring workshops: this is ' ; the case, for instance, at Clax.omenae, famous for us wine and oil, and ' ' ((whose needs for amphoras were probably considerable. At other places, Ion the other hand, the range of the finds can lead to misinterpretations, as in Miletus where, beside genuine Milesian amphoras used for the local olive o, 'oil packaging, one also meets in still larger quantities sherds related to : Zeest's 'Saininn' and 'Protolhasian' types and very likely tallying with wine < amphoras; yet the chemical composition of Zeest's 'Samian' jars looks neither Samian nor Milesian, which suggests that the wine usually drunk at Miletus WAS imported from other regions than the Traditional' purveyors 5 of the time (Chios, Lesbos etc.),25 probably from the North Aegean. As concerns Samos, the local finds so far published do not allow one to establish any coherent amphoric lineage. *' / • Beside tliese geographical disparities, other fluctuations show an evolution s jn time. For instance, in the Black Sea area, the late emergence of the North P r Aegean products (Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' amphoras), no doubt favoured by the decline of some continental Ionian cities under Persian 1 A pressure, involved a redistribution of shares in this market during the last '••" quarter ot the sixth century.2'1 On the other hand, neither the supposed •, I ravages of the Lydians under Alyattes on the Milesian chora at the end of the seventh century,27 nor the long stasis period related by Herodotus,28 seem to have particularly affected the exports of.oil towards the Black Sea in the first 1 'f half of the sixth century. So large an export capacity of East Greece in agricultural staples such •' as wine and olive oil was undoubtedly based on flourishing vine and olive growing, both attested by many literary sources.2'' Unfortunately, we have '44

;«•* • ""fl

— Archaic

East Greek trade d>nfiboriii —

not so far been able to identify vviih certainly the original contents ol the different types of containers, their reuse probably having lx.cn piactically systematic (,\l least (or wine jars). Various Hypotheses Have indeed been put forward, based on the interpretation of (he marks applied before lirmg> on the general shape or on the profile ol the rim, but none of these assumptions is really convincing.30 Even laboratory endeavours to determine these contents remain limited for the present. Hardly anywhere except in Clazomenae have there yet Heen lound definite traces {e.g. misfired pieces) of any amphora manufacture dating back to the Archaic period (and even at Clazomcnae the kilns still visible on the island all look appreciably later). We are in tact ill-informed on the mode of production ol the containers at that time. In Easi Greece, the probable division ol the arable lands — especially vine and olive trees most often occupying the lull-sides - lead one to suppose that independent pottery workshops, specialised or not in that type ol shape, had to provide for all the kinds ol demand from the agricultural producers, or perhaps even of merchants. As the case might be, these workshops could He set up either in the country near to clay beds and sources ol fuel, or in the outskirts ol cities, where such a product as olive oil often came in temporary containers, such as goatskins, from the producer to die haibour." Large workshops were possibly already working in that period in the main /.ones of production, namely on such islands as Chios and Lesbos, or in the outskirts ol Clazomenae. I5y the way, it is to be noticed tli.u, as concerns amphoras, the concept of workshop certainty does not lake on the same meaning as for painted pottery: a standard type ol amphora may have been made by workshops scattered around the same region, hut using different clays (for instance an island and its continental pcraca). In that case, the notion of workshop is obviously less important than that ol production area. Finally, at the present stage, it is still difficult to say whether, as in the 1 lellenistic-Ronian period, some manufactures hail already had their containers imitated by others,'-' or even had been able to open branches, near or distant." In any case, amphora production was at thai lime already perfectly suited for mass production, to judge by the approximate harmonization ol the capacity standards (already combining different sizes)" ami the existence ol homogeneous ranges ol shapes proper to each centre; in the same way, we should be able to equate with a kind ol 'marketing' process the way each of them tried to distinguish itself from its rivals by original containers, some of them bearing specific painted decoration;3'' at the level ol the workshops too, one finds ilns desire to distinguish onesell from one's neighbour by the addition, before firing, of distinctive marks ol all kinds, even il this practice seems to have concerned only a small proportion ol the output. As lor the amphora stamps, we now know that they appeared unobtrusively at the end of the Archaic period, in the form of ornaments or single letters. '4$

— Artbitu

Hast (Ireek

trade aniphoras —•

CHIAN AMPHORAS The whole i.mge of well diversified Chian amphoras stands out as landmarks thioughout the Aichaic period, and is attested from the Par Western Meditenanean to the Northern Black Sea region. They are so widespread and have been so licquently leporled that it is impossible to give a detailed account of them vvitlim the present frame. Moreover, their general development looks less piohlematic than for the other categories. For these reasons, we will confine out selves to a sketch. At first glance, this range of containers can be split up into two distinct successive series only slightly overlapping one another. •i The older seiies consists of white-slipped amphoras, displaying specific painted decoration, which combines horizontal bands (on the rim, the lower 1 pail ot the shoulder, at the widest diameter and on the lower part of I the belly), veitical ones (down the handles, between the lim and the >., lowest band of the belly) and others around handle attachments, and a large | ^ <•' horizontal S <»" iJic .shoulder'6 (Figure 23.1b). Tlie commonly accepted '•' dating puts them at the end of the seventh century and at the beginning of the sixth, but in I ait they cover a longer period, dating back at least to the ihiid ojiiaitci ol ihe seventh century' 7 and down to the third quarter , of the sixth. Dining this period of almost one hundred years, the shape of these while-slipped amphoias kept evolving. At first, they were large broad-bellied vessels, with squat necks, rims sometimes half-round, sometimes beak-shaped in section, and cylindrical ring-teel. Such specimens have been lound in Etruria, in funerary contexts i of the yeais 650-6303* (Figure 23.1a), and also on the island of Chios and at a few other .sites. One also finds a smaller squat-bellied variant of these amphoras (height about 55 cm) (Figure 23.1c) resting on a wider foot (so-called 'table-amphora'), the currency of which seems to have come to an end dm ing the last years of the seventh century. Although much less 1 widespread, this variant has been found in places as far apart as the Ukraine" and Sicily.40 Whether it was produced by some minor workshop • ' oi 'intended for specific contents remains unsolved. On all these eaily specimens, the decoiative pattern has not yet reached its definitive form. Figure 23.1 Chian white-slipped amphoras a Thiid quaiter of the 7th century b Last quaiter of the 7th century c Second half of the 7th century d End of the 7th-beginmng of the 6th century e First quaiter of the 6th century I Second quarter of the 6th century g Thiid quaiter of the 6lh century 146

ta^ ^k-^^wt^- 'atai^

U>,

if

J

(j.

»

— Archaic East Check trade amphoras — The amphoras found in lururia are said to have been covered with 'colourless' slip, and an additional Hand of glaze encircles the foot. The Ukrainian specimens, seemingly of the same period, are slipped and bear additional decoration (band around the foot, X pattern crossing the neck, 'moustaches' slanting down from the lower attachments of handles). From the last quarter of the seventh century onwards, one already notices some slight tightening of the belly, which becomes ovoid, and of the neck, which is less massive than before41 (Figure 23.1b), Then, towards the end ol the century, a real mutation of the general profile begins in which it takes on a straighter and more slanting profile of the shoulder, ••and tins involves a noticeable lengthening of the handles (Figure 23.Id). The containers of that stage, contemporaneous with the Early Corinthian style, are also scattered around the Mediterranean12 and the Black Sea.43 The trend increases during the first half of the sixth century, the neck .gets more slender, the diameter of the belly and of the foot becomes smaller, and the total height increases (to about 70cm) (Figure 23.le and f). In the meantime, the fine, thick, cream-coloured slip degenerates into a thinner chalky-while wash, and the broad painted bands turn into thin ones. A good number of spindle-shaped specimens from Cyprus, Egypt44 and Sicily45 probably date Irom this period. The series finally comes to an end towards the end of the third quarter of the sixth century with specimens excessively elongated (up to 85-90 cm), by the extension of neck, belly and foot (Figure 23.lg). The distribution in Cyprus, Egypt46 and Sicily is the same as before, supplemented by a couple of finds at Thera and i Xanihos.47 We still know very little about the capacities of these containers: those of the oldest type were probably about 37-38 litres (supposedly corresponding to 12 hypothetical Chiot chocs); those of the most recent type were noticeably smaller, about 29 litres for a Cerveteri specimen, and a fractional jar found in Cyprus was even of only about 10 litres. Before ihe extinction ol the white-slipped series, a new range of ,• amphoras appears towards the end of the second quarter of the sixth century with a hist type (Figure 23.2a), attested from the Black Sea to the western • Mediterranean, of which the mam feature is a slender neck (height about 15 cm), constricted at the base, hence the Russian appellation of 'funnelnecked' amphoras;48. the belly is ovoid, and the foot deeply hollowed out. There is almost no longer any white slip and, of the former elaborate painted decoration, there survive only a single or double band around the shoulder (plus sometimes a single one around the lower part of the belly) and the rim band slightly overlapping onto the upper part of the neck. Moreover, ' the line of the handles slants inwards towards the base. The floruit of these 'funnel-necked' amphoras of Zeest's, alias Lambrino's Al type,49 is especially the third quarter of the sixth century, but their distribution seems to continue down to the years around 510 (Figure 23.2b). At the turn of the

.

^

'•*"

.

' '

' * •

•

.

•

•

\

•

1 4 8

*

frvf— <*Z3> wm<*wm "*•» ••••>

— Archaic

East Cireek trade ampboras

—

century, however, the tendency is obviously to a shortening ol ilie neck (to about 12 cm), as observed, (or instance, in 1 listria, where it constitutes

Lambrino's type A2 (Figure 23.2c).so 1 he transition from Lambrino Al and A2 types to the so-called 'swollennecked' type seems to occur at the end ot the sixth century. In comparison with Lambrino A2 type, the neck becomes more and more bulging, the belly gets squatter and assumes an almost biconieal profile, the handles rise and arch from the upper attachment before slanting in downwards and the cavity under the foot curves in towards the base. At first (c. 500-475), the former painted decoration — band around rim, lillets on belly and handles - generally survives (Figure 23.2d). Later (c. 480-470), the rim band disappears completely as a return to more slender shapes emerges (Figure 23.2c), foreshadowing the classical undecorated specimens ol the second (Figure 23.21) and thud quarter of the fifth century. These 'swollen-necked' amphoras, found on most of the Black Sea sites,''' constitute indeed the most widespread Cluan category; they are also attested in Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt and Athens.52 The capacities of the different types ol this second series*3 are better known than those ol the white-slipped ones: about 2V-30 litres lor the Lambrino A and for a fair number of 'swollen-necked' specimens. Yei, towards 470, the standard capacity seems to come down to about 25 litres, with a <\ 10 litres smaller model. Another significant feature of ibis later Chiail series is the frequent presence ol single special marks applied before firing. These marks lall into two distinct groups: small, simple or concentric circles, and crosses. The general rule is that there is only the one or the other ol these marks on the upper part ol the neck, though they are olten repeated elsewhere: on the shoulder, by the lower attachment of the handle, ami even on the foot. They were, at first, painted; then, as painted decoration grew less frequent, one finds occasionally painted and impressed marks on the same amphora. Al the end of the Archaic period, only the latter survive, distributed more irregularly (the small circle on the neck often trespasses on the run). It has been suggested that these two marks — circle and cross - could well be indications of contents - wine or olive oil - but in al least one ease (on a fragment from Mirmekion) both marks are applied, one above the other. Moreover, a row of two or three small circles sometimes appears on containers of other cities than Chios. Finally, a fragment from Chios of a 'swollen-necked' amphora ol the type illustrated (Figure 23.2e), bears instead ol a circle or cross, a painted alpha, which may be compared with the epsilon ol some specimens of the third quarter ol the filth century. The purpose of such marks may have been to identify the potter, the wine producer, or the dealer. In addition to these basic marks, special mention must be made of an exceptional find from the l'auiic Chersonese, the neck of which bears a 149

H mk^rnir "fa^ jWwtifcVmft

J^

^r^wj§^^a^

UH

• ;

*

— Aribaic

East Gieek trade ampboias —

l.ii ge stamp mark in the shape of a swastika. The excavator dated it to the end of the sixth or the first quarter ol the filth century, hut it might lie a little later (second qnaiter or middle of tlie tilth century). Laige painted marks applied alter tiring anil olien extending over the whole shoulder and sometimes even the lielly, might have been diawn either Hy the vine-growers, or Hy the wine-merchants, linally, one also Inuls a large lange of graffiti of various sizes, meanings and locations, which could as well have been scnlihled Hy the sellers as hy the customers. The first attribution to Chios of the specimens described above i ests on the woik ol B.N. Grakov, 54 followed by Ccdric Boulter," ).-K. Anderson1*' and Vnginia Grace.''7 Since then, new finds made on the island, as well as a few series ol laboratory analyses,SR have supported that atli ibiition; but there may also have been secondary manufactures on the opposite mainland and especially in the territory of F.rythrac, where the geological context is very close to that of Chios and where the island's slipped pottery also was imitated. Considering the very large diffusion ol these Chian amphoras, the wine trade must have represented quite an impoitant contribution to the island's economy, all the more so as its wines were famous (Aiiusia, Phanai) s '' and so easy to export, at least when the vintage was abundant enough to yield surplus stocks. However, it would be inleiestmg to know to what extent these wines bad aheady in the Archaic pel tod gamed the high esteem with non-1 lellenic customers that they had with Greek connoisseurs; loi instance in the Scythian territories where the wine expoits from Chios were certainly not important enough to counterbalance the island's endemic cereal shortage.

CLAZOMLNIAN AMIMIORAS The Clazomenian amphoias are piincipally distributed in the Black Sea area, where they form a category of containers less well known than that of Chios, with which they have often been mistakenly confused. 1'iist described as early as 1938 by Lamhrino,'' 0 they weie properly classified only in 19C>0 by Zeest, under the very evocative geneiic term of amphoras 'with broad bands',' 1 ' still regularly used by our ex-Soviet colleagues.''2 Figure 23.2 Chtan 'Lambrino A' and 'swollen-necked' amphoras a 'Lambiino A I1, c. 560-530 b 'Lambiino A I'. t. 530-510 c 'Lambrino A 2". c. 510-490 d 'Swollen-necked' with painted rim. c. 500-480 e 'Swollen-necked' with unpainled rim. i. 490-470 f 'Swollen-necked' unpaiiited. Second quailer ol the 5th century

— Archaic East Greek trade amphoras — These Clazomenian containers (Figure 23.3) generally have a cylindrical neck, with a torus rim, the belly is ovoid, at least m the advanced specimens, and the loot shows special characteristics: compared with that of the later Chian series, it is taller and much broader, and flares out instead of curving in. Most of the time, these vessels bear a typical decoration consisting of broad painted bands (about 2-4 cm wide): one around the rim (not overlapping onto the neck), a double one round the shoulder, a single one round the lower part of belly and, like Chian ones, vertical bands running down the handles to the lowest horizontal band on the belly. However, the handle attachments are not glazed around. The place of origin of these amphoras was identified only recently, ., through laboratory analyses which revealed that their composition was Clazomenian.''' Since then, this attribution has been confirmed by the results of the new excavations on the very site of Clazomenae.6'1 There is ' also further supporting evidence, for example a votive ampborelle from Olbia, of related shape, decorated in the North Ionian black-figure style, namely that called 'Clazomenian'.65 During the Archaic period, the principal family of these amphoras (type A) evolved continuously, and one can follow its principal stages. At first (end ol the seventh—first quarter of the sixth century) one finds broad containers (height 60-65 cm) characterised by a squat neck, nearly -S-shaped arching handles, bulbous belly (max. diameter 40-45 cm) and broad, "almost vertical ring-foot wilh a protrusion in the centre of the low cavity (Figure 23.3a). These specimens generally have an additional band of glaze round the broadest part of the belly. Two complete jars are known from a Vulci tomb, dated to the end ol the seventh or the first third of the sixth century.'1'' Others have been reported from the Camarina necropolis and the Bulgarian coast.''7 The upper part ol a similar piece has come from the cargo of the Gigho Island shipwreck (oil Tuscany), dated around 600, and fragmentary . feet ol the same period have been found at Emporio and Tocra. Perhaps too, one should identify such shapes in the couple of amphoras clumsily drawn on the shoulder ol a Late Wild Goat Style oinochoe found at Paiuicapeum, seemingly too ol North Ionian manufacture and dated around 580.'8 Figure 23.3 Clazomenian amphoras Type A. End of the 7th-first quarter of the 6th century b Type A. Second quarter of the 6th century c Type A. Third quarter of the 6th century d Type A. Last quarter of the 6th-beginning of the 5th century e Type B. c. 600-525 . f Type C. Last third of the 6th-beginning of the 5th century g Type D. c. 600-525 Type E. Last quarter of the 7th—first quarter of the 6th century (?) a

»5*

W

* {" *>{-> d ••."> (i-

4 »

60

- 1g

(f\

M«I
(f>

mi

(»>' tm\ (f^^^G\

iW>

<1t>

(•^

iwT

iW>

(iis

rtrt "^^»

%m* riflr^wi- Kim* H^'mH- ^ # Mm-

V

•/

— Aftbitii

f

I.ail

Cheek

Hade

amphorai

JL,

—

In a second stage (second third ol the sixtli century) the belly becomes more ovoid, the maximum diameter diminishes (down to c. 35 cm) and the loot Hares outwards (diameter 7-8 cm) as the Hollow beneath gets deeper. The neck is now about as broad as it is High, .ind the handles are set vertically ON ;i . ihe shoulder (Figure 23.3b). A few scattered pieces from Clazomenae, Olbia •'• and Patiasvs, tinlorttinately ill-dated, seem to belong to tins stage. Alter the middle of the sixth century, the proportions get more slender. K. The neck becomes higher than its width, and the ovoid profile ol the belly ? is moie elegant. The loot undergoes almost no change, but the handles are olten broader ih.w belore (Figure 23.3c). An almost complete vessel from lhe Eastern Nile delta, from a context contemporary with the Persian invasion ol 525, provides a landmark for the thud quarter ol the sixth century.''' Such specimens as Agora P. 24872, or that of the Bon Porte wreck (Cote i- d'Ay.ur, oil Saint Trope/.) still with a rounded belly, should date to about 520. The Mack Sea complete pieces (Olbia, Torikos etc.) are not so precisely ' dated by context. ' Then, by the end of the sixth and at the beginning of the fifth century, the general outline gets slimmer: the shoulder slopes down more steeply, the lower belly profile is more conical, and the foot narrower (diameter (>-£>.!> cm). The neck looks more slender, and the nm less prominent; the V , " longer handles slant slightly outwards from their base (Figure 23.3d). »•''• Among the characteristic examples of that period, mention should be jj »• made ol Agora P. 24871/° and ol another complete piece from the Sacred , !«•„ • i" Area in 1 listria,71 both dated by context; a further find from Salamis in '• <» • J Cyprus is vaguely attributed to the Cypro-Archaie 2 stage. This same type ., '•'$• dT spindle-shaped belly is also to be seen on a fragmentary amphora from i. Egypt and on another one found at Clazomenae itself.72 Of course, the development of shape was certainly not so linear. In • the "same way, many variations appear in the details (such as the profile \ i ' ', til' the rim and ol the neck, the arching and section of the handles, the :j*# ( ./I M outline ol the loot, or the width of the painted bands, etc.), which i ; give evidence ol a large number of workshops established throughout the 1 area ol manufacture. Sometimes, these variations are real variants, proper to a particular workshop or, less probably, intended for different contents, ' but no-one knows. The most important of these variants (type B) is characterised Hy a downward flaring neck (Figure 23.3e), a feature that persisted throughout the sixth century, the other parts of the shape evolving like type A. A lew squat-necked early specimens (second to third quarter , of the sixth century), unloi tunately still unpublished, are attested in I listria r i ' and Olbia, while a complete one from Panticapeum, with slender neck and •< * * conical belly, comes from a context of the end of the sixth century.7' i Another scarcely attested variant (type C) is higher (height c. 70-75 cm), with lunnel-shaped neck (height c. 20 cm), elongated ovoid belly and narrow loot (diameter c. 5.5 cm); it was perhaps inspired by Chian '

'54

«.

ii^{

)d)

- 'U

'*->

*>

'A^^dl

— Archaic

East

mMlm

Cncek

'*/-

tiatic

a»i/>hoias

—

containers o! Lambrino's type A I, hut it is still dilhcull to judge since only two aic known 1mm contexts o( the last lliiitl ol the sixth century 71 (Figure 23.31). Anyhow, since the dating ol these last specimens is not secure, we could also imagine that this slender shape might have represented a later stage of development, possibly at the beginning ol the filth century. Anyway, the 'Dorian' origin, as suggested by Grakov" and others after him (Zeest, Diinitriu), seems hardly convincing. A last shape with Handed decoration (type I)) stands apart, both because ol us original character (Figure 23.3g) and also because it was distributed in two different sizes. The lower pan ot the conical belly presents a strongly concave profile, leading it to be sometimes contused with another Samian model of the same general appearance. In tact, the other cliai actei islics — namely, the same decorative system ol broad bands, and the same type ot loot — confirm that these amphoras actually belong to the Clazomenian sphere. This rather early-looking shape, attested m Old Smyrna, can be traced back as tar as the beginning of the sixth century on such sites as Bcre/an, 7 '' Ccrvelcri 77 or Camarina, ami lasted at least down to the third quarter of the century in the Black Sea (Anapa) 7 " as well as in Egypt (Tell Delemieh, Gtirna, Migdol, ()edua) 79 without any noticeable change. Beside the standard size (height c. 55—58 cm; max. diameter c 35-38 cm), thcie is also a fractional one, strictly identical in shape but smaller (height t. 40—45 cm; max. diameter c. 3 1-34 cm). We probably owe these deviant models to some secondary and rather conservative centre ot manulacluic, also situated in the area of Clazomcnae, presumably rather near to Teos, according to the surface finds and preliminary analyses. Another typical feature of the Clazomenian amphoras in general is the range of large dipinli occasionally applied before firing on the neck or the shoulder, which should be labels, though whether of potter, producer or local wine-merchant is uncertain. These marks are sometimes single letters, sometimes decorative patterns (cross, crescent. Hunch ol leaves). I he other mai ks applied Before firing are very scarce, and limited to the small circle, single or multiple, painted or impressed. Most of these containers were probably used for the packing ol the dillerent wines ol the region, such as the Smyrnaean, anil especially the famous Clazomcnian, seasoned with sea-water at that time.110 The country was also well known for its olive plantations, still dense nowadays,1" and the round-bellied, undecorated specimens, presenting a ridge at the top of the neck.*' (Type E) (Figure 23.3b) might well have been intended for olive oil. Some data are available concerning the capacities of these containers: 8 ' c. 28-34 litres for the early models with bulbous belly; about 25 litres lor those with ovoid belly from the second and third quarter ot the sixth cenlury, and about 20 litres for the late ones, with a fractional variant of about 10 litres. '55

— Archaic Last Check trade ampboras — IN Claxomenae proper, the sm.ill island where the Quarantine Llospkal stands was obviously an important pottery centre. A fair number of kilns and dumps of wasters from die 1 lellemstic-Roman period are visible in the cliil along the shore, but the presence of a batch of misfired fragments belonging to Ionian bowls shows that production had already started as early as the Archaic period.KH I lowever, misfired pieces, undoubtedly belonging to Archaic trade amphoras, have been collected only on the mainland in the southern suburbs of the ancient city.8S The diffusion overseas of these Clazomenian containers, although widespread from Saint-Blaise in Provence to the Caucasus, was more irregular and less abundant than that of the Chian amphoras. Whereas in the Mediterranean (except ol course in North Ionia) finds are in general rather sparse, the Black Sea seems to have been the principal outlet for these containers. Yet, the scanty available data on their frequency are still too incomplete to allow any precise interpretation of their rate of penetration ' and of their distribution around the Pontic basin. What can be said is that, , on key sites like 1 listria, Olbia and its chora, or the Taman peninsula, these Clazomenian containers represent between 20 and 30 per cent of the amphoric material throughout the sixth century, before getting noticeably rarer in the first quarter of the hhh century, a probable consequence of !the great upheavals connected with the Ionian Revolt.

LESBIAN AMPHORAS The generic term Lesbian amphoras was at first used only for a highly characteristic range of containers (Figure 23.4), of which the outstanding ifeatures are grey clays and massive cylindrical handles, the lower attach['menis ol which are tapering down the shoulder into a 'rat-tail'.86 The attribution of these amphoras to Lesbos arose in the fifties, from the simplistic assumption that the island had the monopoly of grey pottery since the Bronze Age."7 In (act, the regional distribution of this pottery is not so simple. On the one hand, the island seemingly produced either grey Figure 23.4 Lesbian grey amphoras a Second half of the 7th century b First half of the 6th century c Third quarter of the 6th century d

c. 520-490

e c. 480-460 f 'Table-amphora'. Clinkenbeard's Shape A g 'Table-amphora'. Clinkenbeard's Shape B. First half of the 6th century h-i 'Phi' type. Second half of the 6th century t

156 nri

Ti

rwi



*>i

<9\

nt

<#» <9s

*W\ /•>

nt\

ti>

-J sz

3

r>

(Tv

— A>ibtiu

" 1 n

. i '

\ * i * •j • 1

' i

i 1

V

J

'* >

(neck

Dailc

amphoi

as —

oi ied-u>loiiied pots, on the otliei hand, the situation in mainland Aeolis - w h a t 1 csbos also li.u) .1 laige pciaea - does not seem to Have been very tlillcitnt Of tomse, I csbos levelled, it not piedominantly, at least in sutficient t)uaiitity, gicy amphoias piescniing the ehaiacteiistics mentioned above, wliii-H coultl suppoit the idea of a producing aiea either on the island .done, oi on the adjacent mainland, oi on both Anyway, the distribution of these contamcis thiougliout the Mediterranean and the Black Sea can only have come lioni a fust tank pioducei of wine and olive oil, as 1 esbos ceitamly was s s Solving this vexed pioblem of origin is all the moie impoitant m that these gicy amphoias aie in lact only the head of a laiger family, which includes anolhei sei ics ol containers i elated in shape (especially by then cylindrical Handles) but piesenlmg oxidised clays. This is the reason why, altei the woik of 1 /cest*'' and, more recently, of \\ Chnkenbeard, it became the habit to leserve I lie teim T esbian amphoras' foi the grey series, winch had also olhei pecuhat lties such as a um often flattened on top and slanting inwards, nelge below, and lower belly neatly truncated At the base As concerns the oxidised vaiunts, they are known under two thffeient names we owe the hist to '/test, who named them 'tumbler-bottomed' amphoias,''0 and the second one to Clmkenbeaid, who preleis the term 'liactional icd' '" Neithei of these teims is completely satisfactoi y the first one is a bit vague (the tianslation 'tumble)' peihaps does not make it cleai enough that thtie is no distinct foot, and the term is appiopnate only foi the pointed bottom of late Aichaic fctage); the second one, although moie tonvemeni, is inappiopnate, because the capacity standards of these containers do not always correspond to a fiaction of those of the giey seiies,'12 and also, because the clay colour does not always constitute a decisive tiitenon. Among then otliei distinctive features, the shape of

i!

I

I itii

the 11in diffeis bom that ol the grey specimens: it is lounded, and often beak-shaped in section Hut most of all, what diffeientiates the oxidised specimen is its foot, systematically much nattower than that of the grey I'one Nowadays, some Ukiainian specialists (I eipunskaia, Ruban) actually piclei to call them 'conical-fooled red-clay' amphoras'" I he origin of these Zeest's 'tumbler-bottomed' amphoras or Chnkcnbeaiel's 'liactional led' has already been the subject of sharp controveisy At fust, Zeest, basing her opinion on tepresentations of such containers on Attic led-figuied potteiy, suggested Athenian manufactuie, .m idea icvived m the seventies by V V Ruban, but at once refuted by I.B. Brasliinskn1'4 and, latei, by N A I eipunskaia '" Recently, a new hypothesis evolved Hy Chnktnbeard claimed that 'a type of amphora, with basically I tsbian leatuies did exist separately fiom the grey amphoras, and was being nuiuif.utured on I hasos, but that it piesumably carried Lesbian wine because ol the 1 esbian identifying chaiactenstics' " Ilowevei, if we admit that that sample was really a misbied piece - a fact which has not been 15S

rf- ibi(W ^ ^

{

m^^>

^ ^ ^

— /Irc/jrtfc

Last

^ ^ <»,. Cj)cck

I) it t i c n m p h i ) } a s —

foimally piovi-d - it is haul to undei stand what piolil I eshos wotili! have diawn fiom the 'suhcontiaiting' of a p.nt ol us wine packaging l<> 'I Ji.tsi.m polteis Ol couise, in the I lellcnistii pt'iiod, m.iny L.ISLS ol sevct.il centies pioducmg the same shape aic attested, Hut tins concerns eilhei woi kshops set up m the foiien of an island state oi IN laige vine-giowing aieas, oi copies oi forgenes pioduced in moie oi less icmole second-iatc woikshops In the piesent case, it is difficult to imagine that oxidised amphoras of Lesbian type, manufactuied in I hasos, would have Hem used loi the tians poit of I eshian wine, as Clinkenbeaid suggested (luithei, such a lamous wine centre as I hasos would have gained nothing liom packaging its own piodticls in jais emblematic ol anothei city) liesides, the tange of containcis named 'h.utionil icd' by Clinkcnlieaid, and ptesented by Her as Thasian valiants — nioicovci episodic (lust quartet ol the filth and last quarter of the fotiith centuiy) - of giey-ilay ones, tan be found on I esbos itself This is why we still piefei the moie plausible idea ot a pioduction aiea, centied on I esbos and its fivtava, and manulacluting the (wo types o/ amphoias, the giey .\\u\ the oxidised, piohably m two distinct groups ol woikshops, each with its own technological ttaditions Oui dullest sectiie evitlence of giey shapes dates back to the seventh ceiiiniy' 7 (I igtue 25 4a), with two significant pieces the one, coming fiom a context of the thud qu.irlci of the seventh ceiitiuy in the Athenian Agoia, vs is the uppei pan ol a bioacl-bclhed amphoia anil aheady piesents the chaiactei istic cyhndiica) Handles with then 'iat lad', mil a sijuat neck sin mounted by a concave, haidly piott tiding inn with bevelled edge, the othei, almost complete (Height 72 cm, max. diametei •ISnn) was lound at Metapontum'' and, although thcie is no evidence loi its date, it belongs veiy piobably to the seventh centuiy, to |udge by Us veiy squat neck and stocky handles, the base, testing on a wide img-lool (diametei 10 5cm) with a deep depicssion beneath, is also a veiy i.uly leatme, yet, the nm pi of lie, (larmg shaiply outwaids above a Hioad, concave, slightly pi oti tiding iiclge at the top of the neck, may occui down into the (ilth centuiy and is piobably only a woikshop's peciihaiity. We can also see it on a neck fragment fiom Tocra, 100 dated to the end of the seventh centuiy, Hut not on anotlici fiom Mes.ad I Iashavyahu,101 a loll in Palestine allegedly abandoned towaids 609 oi 601 I wo other smaller 'table' valiants could also date to that penod They were classified as A and B shapes by Clmkenheaid, 10 ' aftei the Antissa finds I he first one is a small bulhous daik giey amphoia (height 45 cm; diameter c. 35 cm) with a squat neck and cvhndiital handles (I iguie 2\ 4f), the second one (height 55cm; diametei < V e i n ) has daik-icddish clav, ovoid belly, a neck ol tiuneated cone type downwaul flaimg and flattened handles without any 'tat-taiC (f'lgtne 23.4g) riolli of them icst on a bioad ring-loot (diametei c V—10 cm) I he 15 shape should date back to the fust half of the sixth, oi even the second htlf ol the seventh centuiy On the •5V

— Archaic East Greek trade ampboras — *

[ -

V

'

'

t

j* '

i

•L

other hand, they hardly seem to have been distributed outside Lesbos, except perhaps for some more developed examples from Olbia, dated there to the second hall of the sixth century.103 A complete shape from Camanna (Rifnscolaro necropolis, Tomb 1O25)104 could well represent the archetype ot the first half of the sixth century grey products (height c. 60-65 cm; max. diameter c. 45 cm) characterised by a massive downward slanting neck, an emphatic bulbous belly and a broad ring-loot (Figure 23.4b). Such shapes continue to be made down to the third quarter of the sixth century, with minor variations, namely a slimming of the belly and of the neck, and especially a new type of Hal base in place of the former ring base (Figure 23.4c). This shape is represented by specimens from Olbia-Berezan,105 Bulgaria,106 Gurna107 and Camarina. ' Yet, around 525, the finds point out a growing tendency to lengthen the neck, which becomes less slanting downwards, and to lighten the lower part of the belly. Sometimes, this process of extending the extremities becomes overemphatic on a peculiar variant with what one would call a 'phi' outline: this is attested in Egypt108 as well as around the Black Sea,10'' and seems to have been in circulation throughout the second half of the sixth century in two different standards of capacity (Figure 23.4h and i). Towards the end of the sixth century, it seems that there was a return to less emphatic shapes, foreshadowing the classical models. The lower part of the belly loses its concave profile, and the neck regains better balanced proportions. 1 lowever, even il these containers are, on the whole, more slender (height about 68 to 70 cm), they keep broad flat feet (diameter about 8 cm) (Figure 23,4d). This stage is well illustrated by several complete specimens from llistria" 0 and the Athenian Kerameikos." 1 The development of the Archaic grey series comes to an end with pearshaped models, which are still taller (height C. 7-7.5 cm). The foot gets narrower (diameter c. 5 cm) anil blunt. The neck is more slender and a bit swollen, and the handles slant in downwards (Figure 23.4e). A few other pieces from the Athenian Kerameikos"2 and the Black Sea"3 illustrate this series. It is not before the mid fifth century that the Lesbian grey amphoras assume more modern features, close to the 'tumbler-bottomed' ones, combining slender neck and narrow blunt foot. Besides some obvious conservatism in the workshops, this late development confirms with certainty the existence of long-established links with those which manufactured the 'tumbler-bottomed" ones. As a matter of lact, these 'tumbler-bottomed' series started earlier than is generally claimed. So, a fragmentary jar from Salamis in Cyprus," 4 with bulbous belly,and narrow ring-foot (diameter 4cm) was found together with an Ionian bird-bowl of the end of the seventh century. Besides, similar 160

1 mm • • ! H i • •

••

Mi • • • '^ B ^m]

— Archaic

liasi

Greek

iiadc

anijiboras

—

complete specimens from Camarilla"* anci the Bulgarian coast," 6 although undated, probably give us an idea oi ihc specimens in circulation in (he first half of the sixth century (Figure 23.5a). Compared with the grey shapes of the same period, their neck flares downwards and is more slender, the belly a little narrower (max. diameter t. 37-38 cm) but more tapered at the apex; although narrower (max. diameter c. 4 cm, instead ol 7 cm), the base still rests on a ring toot; the profile ol the rim, supported by a broad ridge, looks not very different, and the clay often retains a broad grey core because ol the incomplete reoxidisaiion at the end ol the hung process, all evidence fitting well with the idea ol a technological derivation from the grey series. In the course of the third quarter of the sixth century, Hoth series lollovv the same evolution, and are especially characterised by the heightening and the narrowing of the neck, but at the same time a new beak-shaped rim appears, underlined by a narrower ridge, while the base gels narrower and thicker (Figure 2.3.5b). This stage is illustrated by a series ol finds in the Black Sea,'" and a tew scattered pieces around the Mediterranean."* 1 lien come what one would call canonical 'tumbler-bottomed' amphoras (Figure 23.5c), in circulation at the end ot the sixth and in the lust quarter of the tilth century, throughout the Black Sea,"'' but also in Athens 1 - 0 and on Aegina, m AIHI even in Etruria. 1 '' The height ol these vessels does not change much (height c. 60-65 cm) Hut the belly gets narrower (max. diameter c. 30 cm). The general outline reminds one o( the 'phi' variant ot the grey series, but it is more slender, the lower part ol the neck is swollen, the handles slant in downwards, and the massive toe is much more tapered, so that, of the original ring loot, only a small cavity remains. The clay is from this time onwards uniformly orange, although paler on the surface, and more refined than that of the giey series. In the second i|tiarter ol the filth century, [he neck is more bulging throughout and thus acquires a barrel shaped look, the lip is Higher, almond-shaped in section and offset, and the massive loot grows higher. At this stage, we must point out a risk ol confusion with another ol Zeest's categories: that ol the high swollen-necked amphoras, corresponding to her types 27 a—b.12^ The general outline is very much alike, but the rim profile is different, the handles are oval in section and the base is neatly truncated and more deeply hollowed (Figure 23.5d). Zeest dated them to the second quarter of the filth century, but some evidence suggests that in the Black Sea, their distribution started as early as -ISO—(70. The centre of manufacture is not yet precisely located Hut should prelcrably be in the Northern Aegean. As for the contents ot these amphoras, we know that the two different series - the grey and the tumbler-bottomed - weie not especially designed lor different food staples. Two exceptional documents leave no doubt about this. They consist of two filth century necks: one of them, ol grey clay,

— Archaic East Greek trade amphoras —

i

. [ '

> \"'\ I I ( f

* I

" <'

was louiul in Olbia,124 and the other, from a 'tumbler-bottomed' shape, comes from Varna.'1" Both pieces are decorated on each side, with a Silenus mask in applied relief, suggesting that these amphoras could contain nothing Inn wine. In the same way, clear remains of resin-coating are preserved on several fragments of both Lesbian grey and 'tumbler-bottomed' vessels from Simagre (Colchis). I lowever, the island of Lesbos and its peraea were not only suited to wine growing: olive oil also had an important part in its economy and, Here again, such containers are very likely to have been used for more than one purpose. The other matks occasionally found on these Lesbian amphoras do not provide .my more information about their contents. Those applied before Miring consist mostly of single signs incised at the top of the neck: either letters or simple designs (cross or small circles). Seemingly, these letters appear no earlier than the beginning of the fifth century, and especially on the tumbler-bottomed series. It seems also that some handles bear a circular stamp representing a rosette with ridged radii.12* Marks located on the lower part of these containers are still rarer: a tumbler-bottomed specimen from r I listria shows, for example, a row of three small impressed circles. As for the murks applied aller firing, they of course consist of graffiti of various kinds, and, according to Abramov,127 the shape of the letters is very similar on both grey and tumbler-bottomed pieces; one also meets occasionally .1 large painted signs on the neck or on the shoulder. As regards capacities, good information is provided by the Black Sea material.'2" The standard grey bulbous specimens of the third quarter of the sixth century should have contained a little more than 30 litres, and '• L those of the first half of the fifth century, a little more than 20 litres. But r we are still ill-informed about the capacities of the different variants, some of which were obviously fractional. I he biggest, of about 30 litres, is only attested lor the third quarter of the sixth century, so was another of about J5 litres. The more recent specimens had, it seems, smaller capacities whence the term 'fractional red' - of 18 to 20 litres, with even a version of about I I litres. As for the 'tumbler-bottomed' series, several standards lifceem to have been in use.

Figure 23.5 Zeest's 'tumbler-bottomed' amphoras a End of the 7th-first half of the 6th century b Third quarter of the 6th century c End of the 6th - first quarter of the 5th century d Zeest's 'High swollen-necked' amphora. Second quarter of the 5th century 162

m tto^ ^t-^wtit- ' ^ M ^ iph^^Mh W i Mpto^

u

— Archaic

East Cheek trade amphoras —

SAMIAN AMPHORAS At present our reference typology lor the amphoras attributed to the island of Santos remains the one established some twenty years ago Hy Virginia Grace.'** In the meantime, many new finds have been made throughout the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, requiring a somewhat different approach to then development It must be pointed out that actually we owe to Ireida Zeest'50 the first identification ol a 'Samian' type ol container, illustrated by a complete specimen from Nymphaion. Based solely on the appearence of its clay, this attribution concerned a shape of the turn of the sixth century, with protruding cornice rim, cylindrical neck, ovoid body and bevelled ring-fool, which V. Grace included in her own classification through the very similar specimen P 24869 of the Athenian Agora.111 The extensive inquiry carried out by this American scholar, grounded on multiple criteria - among them coin devices, amphora stamps, papyiological sources and, of course, finds excavated on Samos itself - led her to reconstruct a detailed lineage of Samian containers extending over more than three centuries (end of the seventh-beginning of the third century). According to her, the Archaic sequence of shapes would he as follows: an earlier series (end of the seventh—first half of the sixth century) ol globular or pear-shaped models with echmoid rim, short neck and rounded-oil ringfoot, produced in two standards ot capacity; then, a new one (end of the sixth-beginning ol the (ifih century), with ovoid belly, slenderer neck and straight-profiled or bevelled i ing-loot. This later series occurs in two variants: ; a (supposedly) main one with cornice rim is the counterpart of Zeest's Samian type and another one with high convex lip, attested by an isolated find from the sea oil Samos island. At the same lime, smaller'table' models with conical belly and sharp angle at the shoulder are proposed 'first ol all because ol their rather emphasised feet' and similarly dated around 500. lor the classical period, a further series of reference marks is available. Among them are three shapes, respectively dated from the second quarter and from lite end ol the lilth century and from the lust hall ol the fourth century. As lor the interval around the middle of the fifth century it is conveniently filled by a series ol representations of amphoras on Samian coins ol similar date. Then, at the end ol the fourth and beginning of the third century, models with 'mushroom' rim are reported, and also a series of stamps with a prow device, the Samian origin ol which has recently been much debated. Anyhow, the main contents of all these containers would have been olive oil, a statement that V. Grace carefully supports by various arguments, mainly numismatic and papyrological. Is such a skillul reconstruction still valid today? The answer will differ according to whether one considers the period before or after the middle 164

I

— Archaic

last

Greek

trade

ampboras

—

ol the sixth century. In the first case, 11 seems in lad ih.it the globular or pear-shaped models put forward by Grace do in with the N.imi.in amphoric facics its attested by the recent finds from the I leraton. On iHc opposite mainland they arc little attested, except perhaps in Melie." 3 On the export markets they occur in large quantities, but with great disparities Irom one region to another: they seem to be rather rare in the Black Sea - except some scarce finds Irom Hislria,'^ OlHia—Bere/.an|ls and lagoilyk IJ '' - hut very frequent in Etnirta (Gravisca," 7 Cei vctei i, l>s Giglio island shipwreck' 1 ''), South Italy (Nocera, Metaurus, Capua, 110 Melapontum) anil Sicily (MiUzzo, MI Megara Hyblaea, Ikitera, 14 ' Gela, Naxos, C a n u r i n a m ) . In the Eastern Mediterranean, they are attested at the Athenian Agora, I H Abdera, 1 ^ on Rluulos (Vioulia),'" 1 Cyprus (Salamis,117 Mai ion1"1), in Syria (Tell Sukas"'), Palestine (Mesad 1 lashavyaliu,'110 Tell keisau) and Egypt

J

|

(Naueratis,151 Tell Defenneh,1" Giirna'"). Noticeable differences of fabric appear Irom one specimen to another: the clay, either micaceous or not, is ol variable texture ami ranging in colour Irom light bult to orange-brown. Moreover, two closely related series ol shapes, evolving side by side, i:.\n be distinguished, though somewhat artificially, for intermediate specimens are also attested. The lust series (Figure 23.6a-d) contains pieces ol massive fabric, with protruding echinus rim, short flaring or straight n#ck, oval handles, swollen belly and suaigluprofiled ring loot slightly bevelled at llie base. The stoutest shapes (height c. 50 cm; ratio - diameler:hciglil - c. 0.75) (Figure 23.6b), attested at Berezan, IM Camarina, l s s Capua, 1 *' on C y p r u s , " ' and perhaps also on Santos itself,'58 may have stalled this series at the turn ol the seventh century; later on, these containers get progressively more slender (ratio — di.unetei :height - c. 0.70) ami their height increases a little (to c. 55 cm) (Figure 23.6c), as on some specimens Irom Vulci, lv ' ol the hist i|iiaiier ol llie sixth century. Yet, a find Irom Gurna (Upper Egypt), Irom a context probably contemporary with the Persian invasion ol 525, suggests that then manufacture lingered on until alter the middle ol the sixth century."' 0 The proportions ol this Gurna container are a little more slender (ratio - dian»eter:height — C. 0.66) and, to judge by the scale ol llie plate, its height should be c. 60 cm. Very close seems to be an amphora Irom Camaiina."' 1 A not her one Irom Cerveieri"'-' (Figure 23.6d), dated to the first quarter ol the sixth century, occupies a place apart: it imghl be an intermediate shape with the second series. This second series (Figure 23.6e—g) consists ol pear-shaped vessels (height c. 55—60 cm) of less massive fabric, most often with short swollen flaring neck, surrounded by a less protruding rim; the junction between neck and shoulder is marked off by a thin lillet slightly overlapping the shoulder; the handles are thinner and short-arched, with upper attachments set hallway down the neck; the ring-loot shows more rounded outlines. Seemingly, shapes with broad, gently slanting shoulder (ratio - di.unetei :height - c. 0.65)

'

|

I

^^

___

^^

^^

^^

^_

_—|

m

i

K dU-^

l

U ^ Ifcrf w&i"*m£k "^^ ^.-^Hi'.

\"

3 be

^i-^M" fm* tfe^qtal— Archaic

East Greek trade innphoras —

(Figure 23.6f) occur concuiicntly with otheis which are more slender and have a steeply slanting shoulder (ratio - diametci:height - c. 0.60) (Figure 23.6g). The former are already attested at Me.fad IIasliavyalui,"a the Greek occupation of which is admittedly dated towards the end ol the seventh century. As concerns the latter form, a specimen from Mylai164 also dates Hack to the end of the seventh centuiy. Both types occur in Southern Etruna in funerary contexts of the first quartet,16'' and at Giavisca'6'1 dining the second and third quarters of the sixth century. In 1 listiia too, a lew sherds from the Sacred Area were found in contexts of the second quattei or middle of the sixth century; yet two other fiagments horn the piewar l.amBnno excavations, the neck of which Hears a waveline ornament fingerdrawn Before firing, seem earlier. Very little information is available concerning the capacities of these two series of Samian containers of the fust half ol the sixth century. Supposedly they contained a little ovei twenty hues. At the same time, smallei models (height c. 40-50 cm), with conical belly, slightly slanting shoulder anil thickened ring-foot are attested167 (Figure 23.6g), possibly coiiesponding to half-amphoias. Most of the models leviewed above seem to occur on Samos itself and fit in quite satisfactorily with the liagmeiit.u y finds fiom the lleiaion oi the complete specimens from the sea neai the island. 1 lowever, their presence tlieie might be misleading indeed: admittedly, (lie main food staple exported by the island was olive oil, a statement also suppoited by some mid fifth century coin devices associating in the same field an amphora and an olive branch,168 but the local wine consumption must have been much more important, and so it would be of gieat interest to know mote about the wine containers present on the spot. In this lespect, it is worth noticing that a good part of these supposed Sanuan containers of the fust half of Figure 23.6 Giace's Samian amphoias. Early types a Early type, massive echinus rim. Detail ol uppei pan b Early type, massive echinus rim. End of the 7th-beginning of the 6th centuiy c Early type, massive echinus rim. First quarter (or half?) of the 6th century d Early type, massive echinus lim. First and second thirds of the 6th century e Early type, pear-shaped. Detail of tippet part f Early type, pear-shaped, gently slanting shoulder. End of the 7th-first half of the 6th centuiy g Eaily type, pear-shaped, steep slanting shoulder. End of the 7th-first half of the 6lh century 167

— Archaic liast Greek trade amphoras —

' , I I

i

•'•

:•

f

the sixth century are pointed amphoras, a shape generally agreed to have been intended lor wine."'1' Besides, it must be pointed out that one specimen ol early Samian amphora occurred, together with a Chian white-slipped jar of the end of the seventh century, among the offerings of a kurgan burial at 'Kr.isnogovorok 111' (lower Don basin), thus suggesting a wine rather than olive oil content for at least a part of those containers.170 Yet, even if viticulture was attested on Samos in ancient times,171 the island did not rank among the major producers of this staple and must very likely have imported the greater part of its needs in fine wines. For the latter part of the sixth century, the information now available leads us to reconsider the sequence put forward by V. Grace. The model with thickened rim anil its alleged variant with high convex lip, which she assigned to the turn of the sixth century, prove not to fit in with the amphoric iacies of the island, as we will see further on; moreover, recent finds have provided us with a series of new shapes which constitute more plausible intermediate stages prior to the fifth century models. First, there are some pieces from Elrui'ia'7^ and Campania173 found in funerary contexts of the second half of the sixth century: these are massive vessels, a little taller than before (height c. 60-65 cm; ratio - diameter:height c. 0.55-0.60), with thickened rim, rather short neck and steeply slanting shoulder, giving the belly in some cases a nearly hiconical outline; the longer handles had to be strengthened and are therefore broader and thicker; the ring-loot is also more massive (Figure 23.9a). A related specimen from Gurna'7H probably dates from around 525, and in Histria too some fragmentary pieces occurred ill levels of the latter part of the sixth century. Similarly, the shipwreck 1 A olf Pointe Lequin (French C6te d'Azur, off Poiqueiolles Island), precisely dated about 520, according to the accompanying Attic pottery, earned a whole batch of a more advanced version of these containers:'7'' now the outline is nearly spindle-shaped as in the filth century models, but both neck and foot still retain more ancient features (Figure 23.9b). Two other fragments from similar shapes were associated with material ranging from 520 to 480 in a well of the Athenian Agora.17'' The series continues in the fifth century with models still more elongated at both ends (height c. 70 cm; ratio - diameter:height - c. 0.50-0.55) (Figure 23.9c). In particular the neck lengthens and the fillet around its base, now replaced by a ridge, moves gradually halfway up. The thickened rim gets much thicker and sometimes squarish in section. The broad, thick handles arch outwards. The toot grows higher and develops a kind ot socket at its base. Our first evidence is a complete amphora from the Athenian Kerameikos, dating back to the second quarter of the fifth century.177 In contrast to the Pointe Lequin specimens, the neck joins the shoulder in a conlinous curve and the horizontal ridge is set high above it; further, the handles rise vertically from the shoulder. A more developed stage, though

i

%0

fft

'»/

w

'/*

w> 1^

Tin 'T* *V

W* <•>


— Archaic East Qreek trade amfiboras — still anterior io the mid filth century, is represented l>y .1 I r a g m e n t a r v piece

from the 'Punic Amphora Building' in Corinth,'" 1 winch can He compared with two less precisely dated complete containers from Cervetcri'^'' and perhaps with another from Claz.omenae."10 All these vessels have a Hroad torus rim, handles slanting downwards and 'socket' loot. Last of all, some specimens with disproportionately elongated neck and conical belly from Chersonesus 11 " and Forcetk) (Northern Italy)"1-' most likely give an idea of the next stage of development towards the end ol the lilih century. The standard capacity ol this later series ol Sami.in amphoras may have Been ol twenty litres or so, compared wuli then Milesian spindle-shaped counterparts. I8J As yet, we have no evidence ol any Iractional container, although they probably did exist.184 The spindle-shaped models ol the second hall ol the sixth and ol the tilth, century do not seem to be really attested on Samos, but the fact that they obviously derive from antecedents ol the lust hall ol the sixth century, which are well represented there, suggests a common origin, though not necessarily Samian as suggested above, Furthermore, complications arise owing to a range ol closely related products ol similar general development, attributable to mainland workshops ol the Miletus area."" Pie-firing marks are not very frequent on Samian aniplioias. I'or the lust half oi the sixth century, the most noticeable is an exceptional stamp, applied on both handles ol a complete amphora from Camarina:""' within A^ oval frame a man is lacing a horned animal Surmounted by a solar symbol. This Egypuamsing scene is probably inspired by the sacrifice of the oryx. The other marks ot that period are confined to linger impressions or simple patterns (cross, V) incised in the wet clay at the base ol the handles. On containers ol the second hall ol the sixth century, except lor a simple palmette on one handle from the Poinie Lequin shipwreck 1 A, only pairs ol stamped circles are attested at the top ol the neck or ol the handles. The Western Mediterranean was in lact the main outlet ol these amplioras: from Samos up to Spain (I luelva, I oscanos) the route is marked out by such finds (Abdera, Thasos, Athens, Corinth, Albania, Provence), but they are especially numerous in Etruria, Southern Italy ami Sicily, which incidentally raises the problem ol the role the I'hocaeans may have played in the distribution ol the Samian olive oil in this area. Another important route led to Egypt (Naucratis, Tell Dclcnneli, Tell E l l len, Gurna) via a series ol intermediary hnds on Rhodes (Vrouha) and Cyprus (Marion, Salamis), in Syria (Tell Sukas) and Palestine (Mesad I lashavyalui, Tell Keisan). Samian amphoras are also to be found in the Black Sea, but, as noted above, it was a market ol minor importance, to judge by the far greater frequency ol the other series ol Easi Greek containers.

i<5i>

f\


'•>

<•"> >•>

— Arcban

Hint ijieek

trade ampboras —

MILESIAN AMPHORAS In her icview ol the Sanuan amphoras, Beside the above mentioned shape with thickened lim, iliicctly borrowed from Zeest's classification and supposedly constituting the Samian standard shape of the beginning of the fifth century, Viigmia Giace still distinguished what she thought to be a valiant with high lip, attested By a find from the sea, off Samos island.1"7

Figure 23.7 Milesian amphoras a Ovoid belly. Eaily type. End of the 7th—first quailci of the 6th ccntuiy b Ovoid belly. Middle type. Second—thiid quatlcrs of the 6th century t Bioad belly. Latei type. Thud quarter of the 6th century, d Ogiv.il belly. Later type. Second half of the 6th century c Ovoid belly. Later type. Second half of the 6th century I Gonii.d belly. Later type Second half of the 6th century g 'Table' .imphoia. Larly type. First half of the 6th century h 'Table' amphot.1. Later type. Second half of the 6th century

, ,

S

} • ,j ')

' i • '

. *

Figure 23.8 Milesian amphoras. Details of shapes a Early type. End of the 7th century b Standaid lype. Second-third quarters of the 6th century c St.ind.ud type. c. 560-500 d Standard type. Last quarter of the 6th century e Standaid type. First half of the 5th century I Variants of rims g Valiant model. Second half of the 6th century h Vaiiant with thickened lim. Last third of the 6th century i-m Foot profiles Figure 23.9 Samian and Milesian amphoras. Later types a Samian. Thiid quarter of the 6th century b Samian. Last quarter of the 6th century c Samian. First half of the 5th century d Milesian (high lip). First half of the 5th century e Milesian (thickened rim). Mid 5lh century f Milesian? (thickened lim). First half of the 5th century g Milesian (thickened lim). Mid 5th century 170

K riife^l

w

1^

u u

3

re r ^ bo

3=

]B

I >»<

^ ru» r«h

7! T Ti ^ 1 *

t)

rm

•

•

AV

— A)(.btiic Hast (Jreek trade ampboras

\

' i 4

), .u I

—

l.aboraioiy analyses in (act revealed Milesian and not Samian compositions,'88 a result also suppoited Hy a comparative study of the finds made respectively on Sanios and in Miletus.18'' It is indeed a type of shape of its own, which evolved scpaiately over a long period and was widely distiibutcd throughout the Mediterranean and, still more, the Black Sea. The 'canonical' Milesian amphora (Figure 23.7a-f) is above all characterised hy its lip profile, at once high (height c. 3-3.5 cm), thin and convex, usually suppoiled by one or seveial ridges overhanging each other round the lop of the neck (Figuie 23.8a-h). Sometimes straight but most often flaiing out, the neck is set off from the shoulder, either by a gorge (Figure 23.8b), or by a vertical folding as on the painted amphoras of the Fikellura style1'10 (Figure 23.8c). Dependent on the workshop, the handles are sometimes oval in section, sometimes double-reeded (exceptionally three-reeded); in some rare cases even the association of one oval handle with a double one on the same pot has been reported (Figure 23.8c). The belly is ovoid, more or less bulging, and tests on a low ring-foot, flaring out and sharply bevelled at its base (Figure 23.8j-m) The clay, generally dcsciibcd as micaceous, is not always so in fact. With a few exceptions,m the exported specimens have neitliei slip nor painted decoration. In East Greece, this type of amphora with high convex lip can be traced back to the very beginning of the sixth century (Figure 23.8a). Some comparand,! are already to be found among the pottery of the Wild Goat style ,. belonging to R.M. Cook's 'Middle IT stage,192 also recently reattributed largely to Milesian workshops by laboratory results. The scarcity of such decorated specimens and, more generally, of the amphora shape in the South Ionian Wild Goat style1'" leads us to assume an influence of the trade containers on the Wild Goat pots - and, later on, those of the Fikellura style - rather than the leverse. In any case, the early origin of these Milesian containers is beyond doubt: around the Black Sea, they already occur in the first levels of Histria194 and, very probably loo, of Berezan.1'" At this stage (last quarter of the .i seventh-fust quarter of the sixth century), they are of average size (height c. 50-55 cm), with slightly convex lip, hardly flaring neck set off from the shoulder by .1 neat gorge (Figures 23.7a and 23.8b); the handles slant in upwards and their upper attachments are set well below the rim while the diameter of the foot varies according to that of the belly (about 7 cm on the slim ovoid-bellied models). A few other finds from the Black Sea,1''6 Chios, w Cyprus1'-1" and Magna Graecia,199 although from less secure contexts, very probably date from the same period. For the later part ol the century, the morphological development is less clear, because ol the small number of securely dated finds. The total height seems to inciease slightly (height c. 55-60 cm) and so does the diameter of the belly: especially on a round-bellied vessel from the Sinai200 (Figure 23.7c), dating back to the third quarter of the sixth century, and on another •74

,'*'^^^l_ ' ^ ^ M ^ ^^m W'^^y

<^^^f ^ ^ B *>

— /lrc/jrtic E<1St Cheek

trade

iiin/tboi as —

one from Ukraine;201 at the same time too, a broader and Halter shoulder profile emerges, close to that of the amphoras ni the 1'ikelkii.i style, giving the belly an ogival outline (Figure 23.7d). lioth neck and mouth get more flaring and, if the handles .still slant in upwards, their upper attachments now reach the top of the neck. The foot diameter becomes wider (up to 10cm). This stage is well attested almost anyvvhcie, especially in Italy,202 on Cyprus203 and the Northern lilack Sea coast.204 Yet, this tendency to heavier shapes is not without exceptions: thus, we can observe heie and there some specimens belonging to the same pei iod, but much more slender, with a conical beUy20S (Figure 23.71). In the same way, liagmenls of a peculiar variant with funnel-shaped neck, constricted at the base, are attested both in Salamis in Cyprus20'' and I listria207 (Figure 23.8h)Seemingly not long before the mid-sixth century a new device appears at the junction of neck and shoulder: the neck tapers downwards to an offset fold (Figure 23.8c-e) which, combined with the high lip and the lionzontal ridges below, possibly had a functional purpose. Like Samos, the Miletus chora and, more generally, Caria were said to be mainly devoted to olivegrowing208 and consequently the most probable contents for these Milesian amphoras would be olive oil. If this assumption is right,209 the practical purpose of the folding at the base of the neck would have been to prevent the trickling of oil. Yet, this gutter system did not completely supplant the former simple gorge which still persists concurrently, showing that all workshops were not equally inventive. In the same way, during the last quarter of the sixth century, models very close to those of the third quarter (Figure 23.7d-f), attested for example in Athens,210 on Aegina2" and in Etruria,212 seem to Have coexisted with others, already foreshadowing those of the fifth century. 7'liese new models, attested by a fragmentary find from Didyma,2" are characterised by a more slanting shoulder profile (Figure 23.8d), connected with the elongation of the belly; the other features staying unchanged, at least as concerns the upper part of the vessel. During the first half of the fifth century, the transition to spindle-shaped models (Figure 23.9d and 23.8e) becomes evident on several complete specimens from the Black Sea,214 Fratte215 (Campania) and Tell lil-Flerr (Sinai),216 and on numerous fragmentary pieces from Miletus217 and Didyma.2'8 The height of these amphoras then reaches 70 cm or so, while the diameter of the belly decreases appreciably to under 40 cm. Then, the tendency to neck-elongation is obvious, while the gutter-folding, previously marking the junction of neck and shoulder, moves well upwards; moreover this gutter-folding is most often reduced to a simple ridge or groove. The flaring lip gets noticeably thicker, displaying an almond-shaped profile, and the previous ridges at the top of the neck disappear. The handles get longer and broader (c. 4 cm by 2 cm in section) and the former ring-foot gradually gives way to a bulging hollowed toe (Figure 23.9d-e). There is '75

Avch'tu Eatl Greek trade amfthoras —

>'•

m

>'

1 a*

also a variant with thicker, squarish rim (trapezoidal or parallelogram shaped in section) and massive toe, Hardly hollowed beneath21' (Figure 23.yi-g). The development continues until at least the beginning of the fourth century, to judge by two finds from Athens220 and Phanagoria,221 both Iroin late fifth century deposits, and another complete one from the sea ofl SainoS island,222 seemingly slightly later. Two other close specimens from Chersonesus,221 with conical belly and very high tapering neck, should logically represent a more advanced stage (first half of the fourth century?). As lor capacities, the scanty data at our disposal point to 33-34 litres tor two sixth century specimens from the sea off Samos22'* and from Novoalexandrovka (Rostov-on-Don district),225 and to 23.8 litres for a fifth century spindle-shaped container from Olbia.22'' Seemingly, some smaller sixth century related models, with broad ring-foot, squat belly partly glazed or with band decoration, which occurred too on several sites (Athens,227 Rhodes,228 Cerveteri229) may have been fractional containers rather than 'table' ampborctlcs of common pottery230 (Figure 23.7g-h). Such seems to be, in the present slate of research, the sequence of development of this main line of Milesian containers over the Archaic and Classical periods. Their morphological features - especially their High lip — generally distinguish them from their Sanuan counterparts reviewed above. Indeed such a distinction will last - not necessarily according to the same morphological features - at least into the Hellenistic period, to judge by the terms ol Xenon's papyrus no. 59015 (recto). Attention must be called to the fact that the continuous development of these Milesian containers with high lip from the end of the seventh to at least the mid filth century leads us to refute the new reconstruction put forward by V.V. Ruban,-11 where these high lipped models would have been succeeded towards 550 by new ones with thickened rim, corresponding to Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' types. Moreover, the large variety ol synchronous differences observed within the range ol Milesian containers with high lip, concerning the clay (micaceous or not), the belly (ovoid, ogival or conical), the junction oi neck and shoulder (gorge, ridge or gutter folding) or the moulding system at the top ol the neck, points to the existence of several centres of manufacture presumably scattered all over Cana, each having developed its own version of the original shape, rather than the linear development of a single original shape. As usual, only some of these centres - presumably here the ones sealed in the vicinity of Miletus - did supply the exporting agricultural estates with then containers. Anyhow, differentiating between Milesian and Samian amphoras is far from obvious in every case. In Miletus itself, the amphora finds show a very large diversity, and thickened rims close to the Samian ones do occur too212 (Figure 23.8i). On the export markets, intermediate rim profiles are 176

4JA w»*!?f> Vfr~"T>^W rt^^h f> **» t>r*>

•+>

— Archaii

Emi ilreek

irtide atn/'hnytii —

also frequent, especially Irom the cud ol llu- sixth ccnlinv (inwards. In the course ol the lust Hall ol the lilili century, tlie- general development seems to have Hcen the same in both centres, the lypical spindle-shaped models ol tli.it period having inuch m coniinon except lor details. I here is obviously some kind ol South lom.ui amphoric kitiui', perhaps partly linked to the tact that Sanios also owned a penica on the continent north ol ('ape Mycale, and to the possible interaction with the local products ol other cities ol the Latminn Gull (lMiene?) about which we still know nothing. We arc actually not much belter informed about the Milesian ibimt and, as proved to be the case with painted pottery, Carian workshops of the hinterland COtlld very well have produced hybrid shapes. This problem ol individual discrimination between Mdcuis ami Sanios is all the more acute in that the spindle-shaped mid fifth century models h.ive already revealed a lew exceptional cases ol stamping. The most Famous is a single specimen from Olbia,'" the handle ol which Hears a circular anepigraphical stamp with an amphora representation that Ikasluiiskii has connected with the same device found ON some Samian coins, already referred to by V. Grace and 11. Maiiingly-'" The second type ol stamp is far from being unique, since a dozen are already reported from the Black Sea,-'"1 the Athenian Keraniejkos,-'11' Cyprus,- 1 " KgypCJM and, particularly, Palestine (seven specimens);-1'' it is rectangular anil bears the monogram upsilon-plii-alpha or alpha-phi upsilon, the meaning ol which is not yet explained. A p a r t from these lew exceptional s t a m p s , the o t h e r marks applied before firing are not particularly original: we .lie still laced with the same small s t a m p e d circles set in pairs o n the upper part ol the neck (I lislria, Phanagoria'10). A l t h o u g h their frequency there appears to be, on the whole, relatively small, the Black Sea, the 'Milesian l a k e ' , has proved to He ellcctivcly the main outlet lor these c o n t a i n e r s , especially the n o r t h - w e s t coast (I lisina, Berezan, O l b i a , lagorlyk). T w o reasons may be advanced to explain this fact: first, these a n i p h o r a s were very likely containers loi oil, a staple usually consumed m u c h m o r e sparingly than wine, and secondly, ilns Milesian category stilt r e m a i n s ill-identified by o u r ex-Soviet colleagues, despite s o m e clumsy recent advances by N . A . I c i p u n s k i i r " and V.V. Kuban.- Mi

In the Mediterranean, they arc especially attested on Cyprus (Kition, Marion, Snlamis) and in Sicily (Megara I lyblaea, Naxos, C'ani.irma) but occur almost everywhere else as well: in I tiuiia (Giavisca, Regisvilla . . . ), on 1'ithekoussai, al the Athenian Agora, Acgina, I heia. In East Greece proper, except in then homeland - Milcius-Didynia region and C.arui — they seem to He quite rare on S.unos,-'" in North Ionia and on Chios. Inversely, several complete specimens occurred in Rhodian cemeteries (l.indos, lalysus).

>77

— /ln/;d;c Last Greek trade ampboras —

ZEEST'S 'SAMIAN' AND TROTOTHASIAN' AMPHORAS We decided tentatively to tieat Zeest's 'Samian' containers separately from the Sami.in ones pioper, because, on the one hand, of the doubts hanging ovei then genuine Samian origin and, on the other hand, of then obvious relationship with the 'Protothasian' models of the same scholar. As alieady pointed out ahove, this 'Samian' type of Zeest's244 (Figure 23.10a-d), lefening to ovoid-bellied vessels, with cylindrical neck, protruding cornice-shaped rim (Figure 23.12J), and ring-foot bevelled at its base (Figuic 23.12c—j), does Not really fit with the local pattern of S.unos.24'' In spite of a certain resemblance in the general outlines, their type of nm and, tor some of them, their double-bevelled foot, are still un.ittested on the island. Moreovei, we Have seen that the lineage of Samian containers may have developed in a different way from that in Gi ace's reconstruction, within which '/cost's 'Samian' type corresponded only to an intermediate stage around 500. M

'.

I

f-g

Figure 23.10 Zecst's 'Samian' amphoras a-d Staudaid types. Second hall of the 6th century e Pithoid valiant. Last qu.itter of the 6th century (?) liiiermedi.il y types between Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian'

' '

Figure 23.11 '/cost's 'Protothasian' amphoras ,\ L.iige model with ogiv.il belly. End of the 6th-

'

lirsi <]tiailer of the 5th century l.aige model with conical belly. Beginning of the 5th century c-g Standaid models. End of the 6thInst thud of the 5th centiny b

^ '?'

/

. ' •.

t

[I _• 1 * | 'i

! \ •i.

!4

Figure 23.12 Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' amphoras. Details of shapes . a-d Zeest's 'Samian' models. Rim piofiles: standard (d) and variants (a-c), e-) Zeest's 'Samian' models. Foot profiles: simple- (e-g) and double-bevelled (h-j), k-m Zecst's 'Samian' models. Pithoid variant. Last quarter of the 6th century * n—p Zeest's Samian'/'Protothasian' models. Intermediary types q-t Zeest's 'Pioioiliasian' models. Fiist thiid of the 5th century I7<S

U-'

l

*J

I** I

I

i •

}.

•

• •k

'• :

•

I • '

S

*

ro>

i] i

©

*r

la

M

I\ 3

—— .*:

)

f'

'

— A> t.hitu

I > *• I i •

.i, *' g r'

I list

(J) eek

trade

amphora*

—

1 nvci scly, nioi phologieal li inn cs such as die pi oti tiding eoi ince-i 1111 and the double hevcllid loot ait loimd, .done 01 in Association, ON smaller \ Lssi Is with nun c 01 less t ipci mg conical helly, icfci i ed to as 'Piotolliasian' In / t e s t ' 1 7 (I igtnc 21 I k g), w h o based Hei assumption fust of all on the <J \\ appeaiance mil on the special piofilc of the foot, iclaled to that of the I hasian containers of the louitli centuiy l'urthei suppoiting evidence has been le'ecntly piovided by the new finds made on 1 hasos 248 and at AHdiia, 1 '' 1 both ilanng to the- fnsi Half of tlie fifth centuiy 1 m all these icasons, it seems bettei today to considei '/eest's 'Sanuan' M\<.\ 'I'lolothasian' types as loimmg two ic-lated langes of eontameis, secm, ingly oi igmatint; fiom the same geogiaplucal aiea, that one would be inclined, ahei the available data, to locate i athei in the Noithein Aegean »t than on Samos II so, one would have to deal, in both eases, with wine* containers, and NO longei with oil ones In ancient times indeed, these Noith Aegean eountnes were cspc'iiilly lainous lor then vineyards2''0 and those of the cities ol Macedonia and Thiace devoted to vine growing had suiely pioduceil then own amphoias foi packaging then expoit-wines as eaily as- the Aiehaic pi nod. Most mstiuelive is, loi example, the compaiison with the small, pointed amplunas, closely iclatcd to the 'Piotothasian' type, lound both among the finds and on some numismatic issues of Abdera, dating to the sicond i|Liaitei ol the fifth century' 2 ''' Such pointed conlaincis similarly ocelli in the banquet-scones of the Attic potteiy of the late sixth and of the beginning of the fifth centui les i'lZ In the same way, lound-bellied vessels closely iclateil to /.eest's 'Sanuan' type seivc as emblems, suriounded by vine blanches, on several Chaletchan mints - namely those of Toione 2 5 ' and ol the Pangaoum legion2''1 - all of them dated c 520-480 It also seems i that vei y close spec miens are still to be identified in ceitam comos seenes21S5 and even in the very icpeiloiy of shapes of the Attic pottery of the same pel lod '"''' I uithetmoie, lem.uns of lesm-eoating aie well pieseived on some specimens of both 'Sanuan' and 'I'rolothasian' containeis of /eest's 2 " • ' I ist ol all, llu high hequeiKy of'/eest's 'Saniian' and 'Piotothasian' types ^ in llie Black Sea eluiing the late Aiehaic peuod (up to 30 pei cent m the Ollmn ihota) suggests indeed that we aie confronted with wine containers Yet, the commonly accepted opinion still stantls for a Sanuan ongm, not only foi the 'Samian' type of /eest, Hut also foi those of hei 'Protothasian' specimens displaying micaceous orange clays 258 Such a connection with Samos, based only on the aspect of c l a y - b u t on what leference clays' -seeins quite simplistic Hut fuithei seemingly suppoiting evidence may be put foiward fust ol all, the fact that the icpeitory of the Sanuan shapes of the first half of the sixth centui y is also a double-ranged one, with both ovoid bellied and, often smillci, conical oi pcai sli iped vessels, secondly, disci immating between the Sanuan shapes of the lust half of the sixth centuiy and some 1X2

1.L

— Aicbiiu

I ml

Check

tutdi

ani/ibm


variants ol '/eest's 'Simian' amphoias with ethmoid inn MM\ oiangc clay is not always easy, especially fiom liagmentai y pieces, and lastly, the coinicemii that the laltei have in Lonimon with the 'I'lotothasnn' type is lie<|iient, in South Ionia itself, among tlie Miletus (mils >v' Hill, in (his case, llie aiguiiient is not really conclusive the city ol Milclns, as we saw .lhove, already pioduccd a ddfeient type of containei foi its olive oil and does not seem to have tanked among the gieat wine pioduteis in anli<|intv, theuloie, the numcious iim and foot fiagmcnts collected on the spot, close to those ol '/test's 'Samian' and 'Piotolhasran' ty|H's, ma\ wtll in lcihty coiuspond to imported wine-containeis, 2f '° even if then pievalence in comparison with some laie Chilian, 1 cshian and 'I hasian eiicle' specimens is i c illy impressive Depending on whetHei one opts loi a Noitli Aegean oi a South Ionian origin, the implications, of com se, will not He (he same In the loimti case, How to explain the affinities between Giaci's Namtan shipes ol tin hist Hall ol the sixth century, and /eest's 'Sanuan' ones, belonging to the second half of the sixth eenluiy, Hoth being chronologically compleiiKiitai y> In the latter case, one docs not understand tiurte well why the fust ones aic distributed piedonimanily in the Western Mediterranean and the otheis in the Black Sea. I et us hope that the caiiying on ol the excavations on Sainos - of which, incidentally, we aie still ill-mloimcd about the finds ol wine containcis — will soon provide us with new evidence loi the second hill of the sixth century I lowevei, it is moie likely thiough systematic, laboiatoiy investigations that these keen piovenance pioHlems will be solved As a mattei ol lact, the available typological data allow us nowadays to improve appreciably /eest's succinct account, concerning both the lange of shapes and then main stages ol development l l u y give us a moie contrasted oveiview ol these pioducts, which obviously involved numerous workshops, the identification ol which one would expect to be a long and exacting task, not at all confined to a simple alleinitive between Samos and the Noithein Aegean /eesl's stanelaid 'S.inmn' type is i epi escnlcd by a complete specimen h oni Nymphaeum (Cnmea), dated to the end ol the sixth centm v ''' It is made up ol moie 01 less bulging vessels (height c S4—57 c m, n u \ diameter c 36—39 em, exceptionally up to 43 cm, latio — diametei height — 0 64—0 71), piesenlmg, as said heloie, a ehaiaclei istie coi nice-i mi, almost veitically walleel on its edge and grooved undeiiuath I he neck is most olten sin rounded by a hoii/ontal gioove at the level ol the uppei handle attachments 1 he handles are oval (about 4 em by 2 cm in section), wide lulling, and they frequently bear a hngeipimt at then lowei attachments The ovoid belly tests on a neatly iletaihecl nng loot flaung outwards (height c 2 cm, diameter 6—8 cm), narrow-bevelleil at its base ( lavs ate ol vanous kimls, gentially oiange-beige, micaceous oi not, the smlace is olten bullslipped With a few exceptions (Olhia, Salanns in ( ypius, Miletus, Athenian Agora), the specimens met on the oveiseas mai kels elo not usually bear any

f: '

i;' I I

\ V

:,. ' •Sj

/,i '»y; , ' i

^

— Archaic F.ait Greek trade amphorat — pre-ln ing handed decoration, Zcesi's 'Samian' amphoras are most widespread throughout the Black Sea, generally associated on the same sites with the later 'I'rotollusian' ones: along the Bulgarian coast,-1''2 in I listna,2''3 Oil the Dnestr liinan (Nadlimanskoc 111),'M in the Olbia-Berezan region and Dnepr basin,265 the Crimea,-'1'' the Asiatic Bosporus2''7 and Colchis.2611 But they are also to be found in some quantity in the Mediterranean, especially in Athens26'' and on Acgina,'70 on Cyprus (Salamis, Kition),271 in Etruria (Regisvilla, Gravisca)272 and in Egypt (Tell Dclenneh, Gurna, Naucratis).273 Judging Hy the finds of the Black Sea, Zeest's 'Samian' type seems to .occur just belore the middle ol the sixth century and lasts at least down to the turn ol the century. In the meantime, a certain evolution of the foot can be observed: the earliest specimens have a flaring ring-loot, proportionally low ami broad, close to that ot the Milesian amphoras (Figure 23.12e); then, very rapidly, the general outline becomes straighler and more slender (figure 23.121-h); and finally (last quarter of the sixth-very beginntng ol (he filth century), the foot displays a more elaborate profile with an addition.il bevel, vertical or slanting (Figure 23.12i) like that of Zeest's 'Proiothasian' models; and in the same way, the break between belly and ^.foot gives way to a continuous curve (Figure 23.12J), thus emphasising the {parallel with the 'I'rolothasian' type. As lor the rim, things are more intricate. Difficulties of attribution occur on account ol the existence, beside the standard cornice-rim (Figure 23.lid), pi echinoid profiles (figure 23.12a-c), intermediate with those of the Samian amphoras ol the first half ol the sixth century, and thus possibly misleading when examining fragmentary pieces. Moreover, the early types of ring-fool (Figure 23.l2e-h) can be associated ' as well with echinoid rims (Figure 23.12a—c) as with standard cornice-rims (Figure 23.12d). In the same way, echinoid rims are sometimes associated with double-bevelled feel ot late type. 1 One also knows, as in the case ol the "J hasian circle', which we will review further, a pithoid variant ol these 'Samian' amphoras of Zeest (Figures 23.10e and 23.12k), attested in the Black Sea (Olbia),27'1 in the Athenian Agora*75 and pn Cyprus.276 Slightly smaller in size (height c. 52 cm; max. diameter c. 34-36 cm), these pithoid models present, between themselves, minor differences, mostly concerning the loot profile, always double-bevelled (Figure 23.121—n). Only the two specimens from the Agora are dated by their context to the years 520-480. Furthermore, a find from Camiros,277 quite close, but smaller (height 36 cm) might be a fractional shape. Incidentally, this late Archaic pithoid variant might also reflect, lor at least a part of Zeest's 'Samian' class, K general development of shape parallel to that of the series classified above as Samian and Milesian. This would explain the frequency among them of cornice or thick cchinqid rim-profiles associated with a horizontal groove round die neck (instead of the normal gutter-fold or ridge) and also the not very coherent range ol foot-profiles. Those of the specimens displaying such

5 i 84

— Arcban

F.asl (.heck Inutc a /up/xn .n —

features (e.g. Fig. 23.9c) would then no longer he reinterpreted .is Souih Ionian products, but .is the C classical stage ol development ol /ecsi's 'Sanuan' class. As concerns the 'IVotothasi.in' amphoras, ol which Zccsi lllusii ales — quite approximately indeed - various shapes, they arc admittedly smaller than her 'Samian' models (Height c. 45-50 cm; max. diameter i. 27- iO cm; ratio — diameierrheiglu — c. 0.52—0.64), with a conical belly, tapering down into a narrow double-bevelled tool (diameter c. 4.5-5.5 cm) ihiougli a continuous curve (Figures 23.1 le-g and 23.l2o—u). Moieover, compared wall /.eest's 'Samian' specimens, I lie- neck is proportionally more slender (Figure 23.l2o, r—s) lilt Handles arch closer to the neck and drop vertically onto the shoulder (Figure 23.1 Id-g). These 'I'lotothasian' containers are mostly attested in the Black Sea, where they appear m the last quarter ol the sixth century.""1 Then widespread distribution throughout this region conspicuously contrasts with their scarceness in the Mediterranean (Chios, Naueratis), with the notable exception ol the above-mentioned new finds from "limns and Alnlera. The diversity ol the clays, together with ihe numerous differences in tlie details ol shape — especially as concerns the rim and the loot — (Figure 23.12o-u) show that we are deaiing with (he products til a large number ol workshops. But this type ol shape also evolved in lime. The models will) protruding cornice-rim (Figure 23.J2r) and moderately Hroad fool (Figure 23.I2(|) are anterior to those with hardly protruding rim (Figure 23.12s) and narrow knob-foot (ligure 23.121- u). Ihe former date in the end ol the sixth and the lust quarter ol the lihh century, the lattei lo the second quarter of the filth century. I luis, Xeest's 'Samian' type was lollowcd by Her '1'iotolhasi.in' one, tile former extending over the second hall ol the sixth century, the taller over the fust half of the fifth century. Besides, fai from constituting distinct entities, the two ranges ol shapes show obvious links. On the one hand, certain standard models of both types have common features: lor example,

the double-bevelled foot ol the 'I'rotothasian' containers already appears on the late 'Samian' ones (Figures 23.l2i-j and 23. lOd). In the same way, the cornice-rini of the 'Samian' vessels also appears on the early 'Protothasian' ones (Figures 23.l2r ,\nd 23.1 le). O n the othei hand, and most significantly, there exists a whole series ol intermediate shapes, some of them closer to the 'Samian' type (Figure 23.10 I—g), the others already opening the way to the 'I'rotothasian' one (Figure 23.He—d). Further supporting evidence is provided by some epigraphical stamps and trademarks. First ol all, one meets on ihe 'I'loiolhasian' as well as on the pilhoid 'Samian' containers, and very likely loo on ihe standard 'Samian' ones, the small oval or rectangular stamp enclosing an epsdon.' 7 ' Ol special interest loo is a circular sianip displaying an heraldic eagle, which is attested on Tliasos on a series of containers related lo /.eest's 'Samian' and

— Anbiiic

linl

(heck

it title

a»i/)hotai

—

'Piololliasi in' types,' s 0 ,ind also IN the Black Sea on an mdetetmmatc liagniiiH IIOIII Nullim\nskoc III (l)ncsli liman) 2SI Concei mug tiadcmai ks, • ccitain associations ol Ictteis icctii scvcial times, piobably m>t loittntously toi insunce, a ligaltne delta-alpha, which occuis Both in the lomi of laige post liinig ili/'inti on the sliouldei ol two 'Piotothasian' vessels,2"2 and in a single instance, as a gtajjito, on a 'Samian' one " " As foi the pre-firing maiks, ihcy seem ol lessci inteiest, Being limited to the well known small cucle, single oi multiple, painted on the top ot the neck, and, on one of the 'Piotothasian' senes, icpeated on the sliouldei2811 (I iguic 23 Ifg) I he capacity slandaid ol /.cost's 'Samian' type was c. 24—25 litres, with a simlki model of 12 lilies oi so (1 lgme 23 10b), and peihaps too a "table' model SS AS loi the 'Piotothasian' contameis, they seem to couespond to two li iclional slandaids, one ol c 17-IV hues, the olhei of < 8-11 hues {i c ven close to the smallei 'S.imiiu' one) Moieovei, a laiger standaid, i supposedly a little ovei 30 htics, is likely to be found m a tall shape (height '" t (>Vli8 em), wall ogival belly (max diametei t 38-41 cm), piesent in Pantie ipeum s '' uul, mostly, in Milcltis,2117 dated to the beginning of the lihh eeniuiv (I igmc 23 I la) Anothei tall specimen horn the Athenian Kciamukos' s s (height 61 cm), but with conical Belly, lepiesenls peihaps an intciiikdiatc smidaid \ little ovei 20 hues (I iguie 23 l i b ) I o sum up, one cannot lad to lemam pu/zled by the lalhei late emeigence "* ((. nel ol the second quailti ot the sixth centuiy) ol this 'Samian'u'l'ioiotliasian' lineage ol containeis, eompaied with the olliei tategones of °Aiih.iie I asi (iieik tiaele amplioias. less onmceount of the chionological gap t% pi ope i, (lian because ol i lice ounce lion wilb tlieeaily lange of Gi ace's Samian | _ eoniaineis, |usl covei ing the lust pail ol the sixth centui y All things consul 5 eied, linlhti investigations - both typological and laboiatoiy ones - aie

(

tugenllv icc|uucd

'

, *

'

t ' ,

?, |

t

I

i j * '

_

} '

Zhl'ST'S "1IIASIAN C1RCLL'

l o i the s u n c icisons as loi ihe pieeeding '1'iototliasian' seues, the speeinu'iis that we aic now giouping undei the label 'Tliasian ciiele' aie to be set apait IIOIII the genuine Ionian eoniaineis We aie again indebted to Mis / i t s l ' s sagieity loi this appellation, which she used to desciiHe a senes ol shipes ol the C lassical penoel, ehfleiing liom the fifth eentuiy unstamped I liasnn sltndaid models, but yet close to them in some moiphologieal lcatuies - mmely a shai p n m scl olf by a gioove - and by the chiractei DI the cl.is v l Meanwhile, new evidence has appealed, which allows us to li ace them Hack to the Aichaic penod Until iccciitlv indeed, the possibility of precuisois to tins pen I II.IM.II] i uige ol pioduels had been only i.uiliously envisaged I h e late Aichaic ICVLIS ol sivcial sites ol the N o i l l u m Black Sea - moie paiticulaily 186

*'

—

1

|

'

I

I I

' ' I '

Archaic

I ast

(iii'i'lc

liadv

am

/'hot

<Ti

—

I Itstua290 and Olbia-Ueiezair'" - h.ul loi a long time olfcred a good numbei ol ielated specimens, but, seemingly Because ol then lack ol homogeneity, the excavators weie puzzled and leluclant 10 consulci them as eailiei than the oklest I hasian stamped specimens (last quaitei of the fifth ccntuiv) identified by V Giace, oi those, tmstamped, ol /eest's oiigiual "I hasian cnclt' IN the meantime too, a Hold new hypothesis ol I 15 lii-tshmskn's Had thrown students into conlusion Hy shilling the giound data ol the piohlem This Soviet scholai suggested that the untie stamp on the handle of a fiagmentaiy amphoia, belonging to '/eest's 'THasian cnclc' and I omul in Olhia in a context of the end of the sixth oi lust hall ol the filth centuiy, was in fact Aeginetan.2'' Although at fust glance alti.ic.tivc, his aigument, based on numismatic compansons, is by no means suppoitcd by facts 1 ven il such shapes ate indeed not at all laic on Aegina,"" they aie lai liom forming the piedominant amphoric lacies theic ami, in .Miy else, it is haul to conceive what food-staples this island would have packaged in them for expoit, when many of the wines of I hi ace and Macedonia had at .w eaily date acquned a flatleung icputatiou -"'' I in thei moic, the tmlle design is by no means exclusive to Aegina, but appeals on piodticts horn othei ceuties, fust of all I hasos itsell 2<)5 Finally and most nnpoitantly, the city of Acanthus in ( haleidice has iccenily given us a iiumbci ol amphoia fiagmenls, many of them with stamps that show then local manufactuie,-"' the most icpiesentative shape,2'7 conjccttn illy dateil to the louith ceniiiiy by the excavatoi, looks veiy close indeed lo the late Aiehaie specimen liom Olhia published by Biasmskn I oi all these icasons, it theiefoie seems Heltei to stick to the oldci and moic plausible .illiibutioii ol '/eat, .Hid to extend the scope ol hei ' I Hasian cnele' to possible Aiehaie pi cc in sots That theie weie such pieeuisois can no longer be doubted, because of a senes of well dated new finds made mostly at Athens, Acgma, Miletus ,\in\ m the Black Sea Typologically, it seems that we may, at least piovisionally, put loiwaid a division of the shapes into thiee main types The fust one (type A I'igure 23 13a—J), by f.u the most fieciuent,""1 is made up of eontameis with gloluilai lo ovoid belly (height < SO-SS cm, max diametci c 37-40 cm, i.itio - dianutci height - 0 69-0 7K), squat neck (height c 7-8 cm), sometimes well detached .wd slightly llamig upwaids, sometimes stiongly dating downwaids, shaip nm eithei tiiaiigul.ii oi tiape7oidal in section and set off Hy a wedge Hevelleil gioove, oval handles with fingei impression at then base and slanting out down lo the shouldei, loot most often img-shaped and almost vci tieal-walled (diametei c 6-7 em), with a shallow depression beneath and ccntial piotiusion (1 igiue 23 13a-b), but sometimes plain with just a slight hollow (1'iguie 23 13d) In the lattei ease, H seems that we arc confionled wild a specific valiant, piovided with a second thinnci gioove around the uppei put ol the neck and tentatively connected with the later Menelacan models " " 1 he clays ol out type A aie •»7

\

3 60

fH

(P

— Archaic

East

Greek

trade

antjthnriti

—

generally described as somewhat orange and micaceous, paler on the surface (sell-slipping effect). The standard capacity was itl v. 23-25 lines, but there was also a much smaller 'table' model (Height 45 cm; max. diameter 31.5 cm), with wide ring-loot flaring outwards (diameter II cm), suitable for standing (Figure 23.13c); this is attested at the Athenian Agora.' 00 The floruit of Type A containers covers the hist quarter ol the fifth century; but within this period, the squattest shapes are not necessarily earlier than the ovoid ones, for their direct descendants might well have been distributed, as the later Thasian products ol the second Hal! ol the century, in a double range of containers, both 'puhoid' and ovoid bellied f/.eest's type 16).501 The second type (Type 1J: Figure 23.13c—f) consists ol very bulging broad-bellied specimens (height c. GO cm; max. diameter c. 43 cm; ratio — diametenheight - 0.71-0.73); these have a well detached slender cylindrical necK (height c. 10-11 cm), and a rim triangular in section (rim diameter C. 12 cm), also set off by a bevelled groove. The handles are sometimes flattened, sometimes oval, and bear the same linger impression at the base. The ring-foot is at once large and Oaring, more massive, with a deep depression beneath which protrudes at the centre. The fine, orange-beige clay is laiully micaceous. The capacities, obviously larger than those ol type A, are of about 30 litres. Our c\"y hesi precisely dated evidence seems to be a fragmentary find from shipwreck IA oil the I'omte Lequin (Cote d'Azur), 402 dating back to 520 or so. Most ol die recorded pieces, horn Athens' 0 1 tall within the period 520-470, but the series went on later in the lillh century. 1W Seemingly, this type is hardly attested in the Black Sea. ios The last type (Type C: Figure 23.l3g) seems to He a precursor ol Zeest's type 18b ('with large belly'),>0'' finds ol which around the Mediterranean suggest a continuous development all through the lihh century. Compared to types A and 1$, the features ol type C are definitely more slender (height c. 59-64 cm; max. diameter c. 37-39 cm; ratio - diamelei :lieiglit - 0.62-O.M). 1 he neck is narrower and tapering upwards, with a liapc/oidal run (diameter c. 9-11 cm) no longer set oil by any groove. The broad bandies (c. 4.4 cm by 2.4 cm) bear the usual finger impression at either lower attachment and are longer Hecau.se of the steeper shoulder. The ovoid belly rests on

iSy

— Atcb,iic

I |

\x ('

j ,,

j i

t

* JT k

f

liasl

Greek

amphoras

—

an outward flaring loot (diameter c. 6-7 cm), sometimes ring-shaped, sometimes massive with a small depression beneath. The clay is buff, more orange near the centre, and micaceous. Available capacity data (Classical period only) point to 30 litres or so. It seems that the Archaic series starts at the beginning of the fifth century (Miletus, 507 Black Sea108) but really expands only from the second quarter onwards. 309 On the inside of these three types, traces of a daik, supposedly resinous coating have been frequently reported, so confirming their presumed use as wine containers." 0 Further supporting evidence lies in a very small number of anepigraphical stamps. These include the turtle mentioned above on an Olhian container of type A, which, as one now knows, is no longer an isolated find, and the double device (phiale? and spear-head?) applied at the top of a neck fragment from Histiia,' 11 seemingly from a jar of type C. Mention must be made loo of a third interesting stamp, also ciicular but much larger, the device of which - a heraldic eagle - is puzzling: it is attested both on Thasos, on complete containers related to Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' types and considered as local products by the excavators,112 and in the Black Sea (Dnestr liman), 113 where it rather seems to be associated with vessels i elated to the 'Thasian circle', Zeest's so-called 'plain-bottomed' aniphoras. iM If .so, we would hereby have at our disposal a direct link between Zeest's 'Samian' and 'Protothasian' types and Her 'Thasian circle". ,i The I act that we are confronted with so diveise a range of shapes suggests some constellation of regional workshops wather than a single centre of manufacture and no doubt several distinct cities were in fact involved. Still, cjur local references icmain too incomplete to allow accurate attributions, even if some evidence already points in particular directions. So do, for our type A, the latei finds at Acanthus or, for the specimens with a rim set off by a double groove and a plain foot, the connection cited with the Classical models o! Mende. Inversely, if the new excavations on Thasos have indeed revealed a good number of fragmentary pieces from contexts of the first Half of the fifth century,""' their comparison with the late Archaic shapes of the 'Thasian ciicle* does not prove conclusive enough for the moment. The evidence now available would therefore rather point to Chalcidice and to die lower Strymon valley as the most probable home of the workshops of the 'Thasian circle', t.e. an area extending for a good part over the Thasian peraca. In any case, we are dealing with the products of a major wine region, the exports of which had a widespread, though still quantitatively small, distiibution as far as the Western Mediterranean as early as the end of the sixth ccntuiy. Most significant seems to be their appearance in the Black Sea, in association with the properly Ionian products, a fact seemingly connected with the close links between East Greece (especially Miletus and Chios) and the regions of Tin ace and Macedonia. 316

i f

trade

'90

i*

*»•'*'

c o '5b va

C/5

CQ

6 a.

u !-•

3

in

i NOTES

CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION 1 A li.uuly collection in G. Huxley, The liarly Jonittns (London, 1'aber, 1986), noi.ible equally lor erudition and simple faith. 2 11ns Smyrna was at modern liayrakh, north of the Hellenistic and modern city. 3 Sumo students prefer much earlier dates for Politic colonies, relying on late traditions, hut the archaeological finds do not support them: see for instance A.J. Graham in J.-P. Dcscocudres (ed.), Creek Colonies and Native Populations (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990), 52-54 and contra J. Boardman, OJA 10 (1991), 387-90. Boaidman's explanation of the sherds supposedly from Histria (though discreditable to me) must, 1 think, be right.

;

CHAPTER 2: THE EVIDENCE

i I Sec chapter I, n.S. 2 Witli the exception ot A. Biliotti's campaign ol 1863-4, when lie kept a record and sent it with the finds to the British Museum. Ironically no use was made ol it until about 1950; the contexts had been thought unreliable, since they did not conform to the synchronisms then fashionable. 3 K..1-. Kinch, Vnmiiir, C. Blinknibcrg, Lindas I (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1931); G. |acopi, Clara Rboilai 3, 4, 6/7; L. l.aurenzi, Clara Rhodos 8; K.K Johansen, I'xocbi (Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1958). 4 Jacopi, Clara R/iodos 6/7, 469-552. 5 L Morriconc, ASA 56 (1982), 9-427. 6 W. Technau, AM 54 (1929), 6-64; R. F.ilmann, AM 58 (1933), 47-145; H. Walter, Samos 5; L. Walter-Karydi, Sttinos 6.1. 7 J. BochLui, Am iomschen uncl ittliiscbcn Nckrapolcn (Leipzig, Teubner, 1898), which incidentally is the first publication of Last Greek contexts. 8 J Boanlinan, Creek i.itiporio. 9 W. Lamb, USA 35 (1934-5), 138-63.

10 A.A. l.cuius, Archaic Pottery of Chios (Oxlord, Oxford Univ. Com. lor Archaeology, 1991). 11 W. Lamb, HSA 32 (1931-2), 41-61. Cf. JUS 52 (1932), 1-12 for sherds mainly from Mciliymna. 12 J. Bochlau and K. Schefold, Lansa am Hermos 3 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1942). Unfortunately the finds from Assos are unhelpful, although published with exemplary promptness, in Asia Minor Stmlien 5, 10, 21 (1992, 1993, 1996). 13 J.K. Anderson, USA 53-54 (1958-9), 138-51; Emporio, 152-81; J.M. Cook, HSA 60 (1965), 114-53. More Atlic Black-figure lias now been published by Y. TunaNorling, 1st. i'orsth. 41 (1995), [hough she did not have access to the contexts. She also published the Attic Black-figure from Pitane, with the same restriction.

— Notes

—

14 Most DI the finds from G.P. Oikononios's campaigns ol 1921-2 w n t abandoned and lost; M.-C T/.inuis has studied tlie records .mil surviving material from the c e m e t e r y . H e r results await publication hy ilic authorities in A t h e n s .

15 Enough at tlicni arc published in R.M. Cook, (l.izowoiiiui Zabern, 1981). 16 In lit. Mill.

Sanop/Mgi (Mainz,

17 A few illustrations in ASA 39/40 (1961-2), 5 0 5 - 7 1 ; 47/48 ( ! % 9 - 7 0 ) , 4 6 1 - 5 3 2 . 18 A c c o r d i n g t o T u r k i s h archaeologists (J. boys.il in II. U. Cain (•"( il/. (ctl-), Festschrift f&r N. Hitnmelmann [ M a i n z , Z a b c r n , 1989), 81 n.l) t h e cemetery was at Darnlibogaz near Milas (Mylasa), t h o u g b nearer Bccin, which might h i v e hcen the- original site of Mylasa (J.M. C i i o k , USA 56 | I 9 6 I | , 98 101). I assume thai lliis c e m c l c i y is [he s o u r c e ol virtually all ihe complete Carian MHI genuinely Last G r e e k pots of tlic period from tin 1 mid seventh to the laic sixth c e n t u r y that have c o m e on die m a r k e t since t h e late 1960s. S o m e reference*, in H A . I l e m e l i i j k , BABesch. (.2 (1987), 33 n.l a n d in An.iloli.i 21 (1987), 74 n.H, .\nd in OJA 12 (1993) 109-15. 19 C.I I. G r e c n e w a l t , CSCA

3 (1970), 5 5 - 8 9 ; 6 (1973), 9 1 - 1 2 2 . Also r c p o i i s in

BASOR. 20 E. Walter-Karydi, Ait-Agina 2.1 (M.iin/, / i i m i , l9(->2), 9-18; 1). Williams, AA 1983, 155-86. 21 M. Robertson, JHS 60 (1940), 2 - 2 1 . 22 Ci. Biichner and I). R i d g w a y , Pitbekonssm I (Rome, lirctschncider, 1995), pi. 126-7. 23 L. Gh.ili Kahil, Etudes Thasicnnes*7 (Paris, d e Hoecanl, 1966), also I1. S.iKiat in

24

25

26 27 28

29

Lei C 'eramiquei 'Ic lit Grccc dc I'Est el tew diffusion en I'tii'ddeM (I'ans, C!NKS, 1978), 87-92. P. Alcxandiescu, Unhid 4 (Bueuresti, Acacl. Rep. Soc. Rom., 1978); S. nimitriu, Histria 2 (1966); M.I-'. Lambrino, Les Vasesarchahfuei d'tiistria (Huc.irest, lund. Keg. Carol 1, 1938). V. Y. * Skudnova, JI\llV(llt(Vil, .Soy. I / W I Ark. fltlf* 1 1957, ' .H i I128-39; ttfj—•' ' y II960, XMW, I153 . ' . ' " '67; "', II . I V l ) | l l ' l k l l l . l Ii n S. lioriskovskaya (cd.), Khnda2bestvcnnye l/.ttcliiit Anlichnyhh Mitslvnn' (St Petersburg, Iskusstvo, 1982), 6-35; V.N. Korpusova in S.I). Kiy/liitskii, KttftiiM Ndselenija Ol'vii ieeokrugi (Kiev, Academy ol Sciences ol Ukraine, 1987), 35-53. J. liiuiclnun ami J. t layes, Excavations at !<ji>~t< I and 2 (London, Thames and Hudson, 1966 and 1973). G.I'. Scluus, The extramural Sand tuny of Doncto and 1'i'rsepbtme at C.'yrcnc 2 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Univ. M u s , 1985). Much ol n m various museum catalogues and special articles: foi .i list SCLM. Venn, Greek Painted Pottery from Namratn in Egyptian Museums (WiniMia Lake, Lisciihrauns, 1988), ix n.2-3. W.M.I"'. Pctric, Jann 2 (London, Irubnci, 1888), separately paginated section

'Dcfennch (TaJipanhes)";CV/4 British Museum 8 (1954), 57-60 ami plates passim. 30 J. Naveh, Israel Exploration journal 12 (1962), 89-113

31 P. Dupont, Hist'ia 5 (1973), 63-165; IXiu.i \7 (198.!), |9 43; hi. Milt. Heiliefl 31 (1986), 57—61. Also R.E. Jones, Greek and Cyprinl Pottery (Adieus, British School at Athens, 1986) - a more general study.

CHAPTER 3: CHRONOLOGY I For tlic system see R.M. Cook, duck- Painted Pottery (3rd edn) (London, Routledgc, 1997), 259-69; JHS 109(1989), 164-70. I'M

— Notes

—

2 The loundaiion dates given by l'scudo-Skymnos and Eusebius for H,\st Greek colonies .seem to me unreliable. 3 J.C. W.ildh.uim and J. Manners, AJA 101 (1997), 23-40: their conclusions arc based on a carclul examination ol destruction deposits at scvtr.il Palestinian sites ami scent incontrovertible. 4 Assuming that the Persian capture ot Sardis was in 547, which cannot be more than a year or so out. 5 O H . Kalctscli, Historic! 7 (1958), 1-47. He suggests 607 for the beginning of Alyattes' reign. This is, .is it happens, near the 604 of the Parian Chronicle and the 609 of Kuscbius, though neither of these sources is especially trustworthy. Sec also A. Fuitw.iugler, AM 96 (1981), 127-33, a judicious survey; and A.J. Spalinger, JAOS 98 (1978), 400-9, where the death of Gyges is put in 644. It is woitli noting that, though 1 lerodotus's dates are rejected, his account of events is 11m. , 6 |.M. Cook, USA 53/54 (1958-9), 25-27; J.K.. Anderson, ib., 143-8; J.M. Cook, !| USA 80 (1985), 25-28. 7 l k l t i, 95.

8 Conk (1985), above n.6, 28. 9 C.I I. Greencwalt ct <
CHAPTER 4: PROTOGEOMETRIC I V.R. Dcsboroiigh {Protogeometric Pottery [Oxfoicl, Clarendon Press, 1952], 215-33 and 323-4) and J.N. Coldstrcam {Greek Geometric Pottery [London, Metluien, I96H|, 261-7) have discussed the material found on Cos (then unpublished), on Rhodes, and at Dirniil and Asarlik: references for the last two can be found there and lor Cos there is now a full publication, though without discussion, by L. Moiiicone in ASA 56 (1978), 9-247. For Dirniil see also Y. Boysal, Kiitiilog'. . . liodrum (Ankara, Dil-vc-Tarih-Cografya Fak., 1969), pi. 37-38 and lor Ciinilckci pi. 34.3. Samples fiom Smyrna have appeared in Alt-Smyrna I, pi. 7-9; Irom Samos in Samnt 5, pi. 1-2 nos 1-14; from Mcha in G. Kleiner ct al., Jdl Liuli 23 (1967), fig. 104-14; from Miletus in 1st. Mitt. 7 (1957), pi. 36; 9/10 (1959-60), pi. 52.3-4, 53.1-3; 23/24 (1973-4), pi. 17.1-4, 22.40, 41.46; 29 (1979), pi. 23.4-6. l)cshoioii)'h has useful comments on Miletus and also on Lesbos and Chios. Some ot the sherds liom lasos illustrated in ASA 39/40 (1961/2), 537 (ig.50a go back to Subprotogeometric, but all in 47/48 (1969/70), 472-4 lig.12-14 are Geometric. Mentions of other finds conic mostly from AR - 1959/60, 40 Mordogan, 41 - Pygcl.i, Phoc.ica; 1970/1, 41 - Teas, 54 - Ciunus; 1978/9, 70 Fry tin ac; 1984/5, 83 - Claiomcnac; 1989/90, 99 and fig.20 - CUros. A few sherds fiom Tcichiussa are shown in AA 1986, 653 dg.25 and 1988, 607 fig.39, and a liagmcnwiy cup from Sardis in AJA 71 (1967), pi. 57.13. 194

— Notes

—

2 This is the usual name for a two-handled sh.ipc th.it later in its development most students call a 'cup'. Confusiu|Jy, 'cup' is also .\ Ircouent name for an early oncliaiulled dunking vessel, lieie railed a 'mug'. 3 Gold.stic.ini (above, n.l, 265) prcfcis the tcim 'Harly Geometiic' lot synchronism with Attic ILiily Geometric, hut the Coan style is still doniinaiitly Protogcomctiic m chaiacler. 'I..lie Protogeometiic I I ' might lie mote accurate.

CHAPTER 5: GEOMETRIC 1 Coldstieam (chapter 4, n.l, 267-74) gives the hest gencial analysis. See also Joliiinscn (chapter 2, n.3), publishing a cemetery near Lindos on Rhodes. 2 ASA 56 (1978), 9-427. 3 Johansen (chapter 2, n.3); Clam Rhodos 3, 4 and 6/7 pasum. There are also fimis from unrecortlcd excavations in many Kuropcan MM\ American museums. 4 Samos 5, pi. 2-49, nos 17-300: see also W. Tcchnau, AM 54 (1929), 16-64 and R. Lilmann, AM 58 (1933), 47-145. 5 Boardman, Empotio, 102-47 (including some I.Her pieces), with a good analysis of the style; W. Lamb, USA 35 (1914-5), 157-K, pi. 34-36. 6 A. Akarca, Hellcten 35 (1971), 1-37 - from Hocin (Pecin); C. Ozguiicl, AA 1977, 8-13 - from Huromos (Selinuye) - and (.'aruin (iconwlnc Pottery (Ank.ua, Turkish [list. Soc, 1979); Y. Uoys.il, Anatloln 12 (1968), 61-91 - from Tuigut (I.agina); P. Devambez, l.c Samtttatre de Siniiti 2 (Paris, Maisonncuve, 1959), pi. 22.1-22; P. CJerckc, lioulc am tier Antikc (K.isscl, Dieiichs, 1981), nos 4-5 - from Damlibogaz. 7 C. Ozgunel in l.cs Ceratmques ... (ehaptei 2, n.2i), 17-26; Alt-Smyrna I, pi. 15, 24-25, 108.1; Samos 5, pi. 51.299-300 and 85.455. 8 In. Mitt. 9/10 (1959-60), pi. 52.5-61; 23/24 (1973-4), pi. 17.5-2!; 29 (1979), pi. 33. 9 ASA 39/40 (1961-2), 537 fig.50b; 47/48 (1969-70), 472-4 lig.12-14. 10 See Johansen, chapter 2, n.3, 148-64. 11 C. Ozguncl (above, n.7) is the best guide so l,n. 12 See chapter 2, n.l8. I'or a useful preliminary study of C.iiian (geometric see C. Ozgtincl, Carian Geometric Pottery (Ankara, l i i i k 'I'aiih Kuiuinu Basinicvi, 1979). 13 HASOR 154(1959), 28-30 fig.13; 186 (1967), 34 n.6, fig.S, 11-13. 14 I!. Walter Karydi (chapter 2, n.20), 9-10 nos 1-42. 15 JUS 60 (1940), 9 ftg.4g-j and 15 fig.7 16 H. Goldtnan, Excavations at Oozlit Kitlc, la)stts 3 (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963), pi. 98-9. 17 Several examples arc illustrated in Vroulhi, that on pi. 36(2.35) in a context with lurly Coiiiitlnan. 18 Chios - Emporto, 148; Miletus - W: von Gracvc in l.cs ('.eramnjiics . . . (chapter 2, n.23), 35. 19 C.W. Blcgen et nl., Troy 4 (Princeton, Piinccton Univeisity Piess, 1958), 253 5, 281-3, fig.304-5; P. Bernard, BCfl 88 (1964), 88-105; M.I). Moore, Samothuuc 5 (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1982), 317-94; I I . KoukouliChrys.inthaki, P)ototstotike Tbasos 2 (Athens, TAPA, 1992), 572-5; L. Bcschi, Quaderrn del CNR 112 (1985), 51-64. I am grateful to Professor A.J. Giah.im for lefetences. Against ,i claim for a lind at I listria J. Boardman, OJA 10 (1991), 389.

•95

I.

— Notes

—

CHAPTER 6: BIRD BOWLS AND ROSETTE BOWLS 1 2 3 4 ;

Coldstrcani chapter 4, n.l, 298-301; limporio, 132-4. Dupom, 40-41. Samos 6.1, pi. 125.1024-5 (1024 is stacked). Dupont, 35. There is a possibility thai South Ionian 3 might alter all be Aeolian (see p. 45).

CHAPTER 7: EARLY ORIENTALISING 1 This batch corresponds to Kardara's 'Iiarly Orientalising Rhodian style'. For illus(rations.Schicring, pi. I and 2.2; Johansen, chapter 2, n.3, fig.5-7, 198, 201-2; Samos 5, pi. 87.489 and 491, 88.493-5; Kardara, fig.2-5. 2 1st. Mitt. 21 (1971), pi. 33. 3 References are to Samos 5; all are illustrated there. 4 Some examples in Alt-Smyrna 1, pi. 109a; Bayrakli, pi. l l a ; Kardara, fig.31. 5 Alt-Smyrna 1, pi. 124f. 6 Examples illustrated aril Kassel Alg 42, 247 and 51 (Gereke, Chapter 5, n.6, nos 4, 6 and 33) - the filling ornament shows lateness and on no.33 there is other influence from the Wild Goat style; Utrecht 596 (BABesch 62 [1987], 34 fig.l-3, 46 (ig.22-23); Bochum S986 (Antikcn aits rheinischern Privatbeiitz [Bonn, Habelt, t 1983], pi,196). These probably all come trom a cemetery near Milas (see Chapter ; 2, 11.18). From Aphrodisias further inland there is a sort of lidded box in a drier, '•> less Greek style {AJA 74 11970), pi. 43.17.

, '

l:

CHAPTER 8: THE WILD GOAT STYLE There arc two important general studies. C. Kardara, Rodiaki Angeiographia (Athens, Estia, 1966) with useful lists of workshops and many illustrations (review in Gnomon 37 [I965J, 502-7); and W. Schiering, Werkstdtten Orientalisincndcr Keramik an) Rhodos (Berlin, Gebr. Mann, 1957), helpful especially on shapes, launa and ornaments. For grave groups on Rhodes and Nisyros see Clara Rhodos 3, 4, 6/7 anil 8. Por illustrations of iinds on Samos and much other material Samos 5 and 6.1 are invaluable. The last important use was by Kardara. Used by Schiering, Walter, W.dter-Karydi and Akurgal. For the first version A. Runipf, JdJ 48 (1933), 61 n.l 1, 69-83; for the second Schienng, above n.l. Some Iiarly pieces arc listed here, according to place of finding. Rhodes: Brussels A I960, oinochoe (CVA Bruxulles 3, pi. 104.6; Schiering, pi. ' 3.1, 12.1; Samos 5, pi. 90; detail here Figure 8.2). Rhodes, oinochoe (Clara Rhodos 10, 187-99, fig. 1-4; Samos 5, pi. 87-88 no.492; Schiering, pi. 16.1; Kardara, fig.6). Louvre S 1708, oinochoe (Schiering, pi. 3.2; Kardara, fig.34). Laon 37.786 {Mcdanh. Suppl. 1 [1990), 55-6. pi. 9.2; detail here Figure 8.4) Samos: Samos, fragments {Samot-5, pi. 57-59 - except no.350; pi. 64.369 and 65.371 - both aberrant; pi. 66-68.377). Miletus: Miletus, fragments (/if. Mitt. 9-10 [1959-60], pi. 80.2; 2I[I971], pi. 36; 23/24 11973-4J pi. 26.80; pi. 28 - some of these sherds should be Early). 196

p l * M f wm^D mm-iwm mm^wm:

—

Notes

—

Mylasa (probably):

6

7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22

23 24

IJoclmin S 9K5, oinochoc [Alltiken atti rbeiniscbem Privatbesilz (Bonn, I labclt, 1973, pi. I%j lure l ; igure 8.3). Calymnoi (perhaps): St. Petersburg, fragment (l.Kopojkmn, Soul/, linn 37 [ IV73), 36-40, tig.2). The l-.iily Wild Goat style, as defined here, corresponds more o r less lo Kard.ua's 'Orientalising Rhoilian style' and Sclnei ing's ' I-i iilnn icntalisici ciidcr Sill. A convenient batch of illustrations is in Samw 5, pi. 91-97, 100-10 (no.525 looks Early), 112-13. Middle 1 corresponds roughly to Kaidara's 'Later Orientalising Rhodian siyle' plus her Arkadea school; slie also provides a good number ot illustrations. JUS 60 (1940), pi. le. Vroulia, fig. 102. Sarnos 5, pi. 105-10. JUS 60 (1940), pi. I m, n, p-r. N.A. Onajko, Anticnyj Import v Pndneprov'e i I'obn/.'e v Vll-V vekith do n.e. (Moscow, Nauka, 1966), pi. 1-2; E. Bclin de Uallu, Olbia (Leiden, Hull, 1972), pi. 25.1-2. Incidentally the goose has been identified - nghily or wrongly - as the Nile goose and llie goat as caper negngnis. Above, n . l l . K. Brown, Jbe Question oj Near Eastern textile Decoration of the Early lint Millennium BC tis a source for Greek Vast' Piunting oj the < Orientalising Si yle (Ann Arbor, U.M.I., 1989); she argues reasonably thai Near Eastern textiles had no effect on the annuals ot the^Greek Orientalising style. JUS 60 (1940), pi. la-j, m, n; 2d, e, j-p, i. Onajko, above, n . l l , pi. 1-3, I lie Si Petersburg oiimchoe (Figure 8.5) is also horn a native settlement; it was lound at Tctnir Cora near Kerch in the Crimea. These and several other pieces from native sites are earlier than any certain finds from the Greek colonies round the Black Sea, except for a fragmentary oinochoc from Berczan (Korpusova, chapter 2, n.25, (i^. 14): trade evidently began before settlement (on mistaken objections see J. Board man, OJA 10 (1991), 387-90). Waller-Karydi, chapter 2, n.20, 11-12, pi. 3. /:.g. 1st. Mitt. 31 (1986), pi. 4; it also has a hatched meander, set diagonally. R.K. Jones concluded from Ins analyses ol Elie clay ill Middle 1 sherds from Al Mina that they were not Chian, Sainiau, Rhodian, 'North Ionian' or Milesian (Greek and Cypriot Pottery [Athens, British School .it Allans, 1986], 696-8 and also 667: Ins reference groups ol local clays were, however, less complete than he would have liked. Representative batches ol illustrations in Samos 6.1, pi. 62-65, 73-75, 77-80 (except no.673); anil Samos 5, pi. 120-2. 602-7. Relcrences for these sites can be lound in Chapter 2. C.H. Grecnewalt jr, CSCA 6 (1973), 91-122, describes and illustrates a number of specimens, l b s suggestion that they may be l.ydian seems unlikely because of the purity ol their style and the matching ol then clay with that horn a deposit near Lpliesus (Dupont, 29 n.23). That Hphesus was not an important produce! of fine pottery in the Archaic period is suggested strongly by the finds made there (A. Gasser, BC1I Suppl. 23 |1992), 189-93). Dupont, 35-6. l i e tells me that he is now less certain that the composition ot the clay could not be Aeolian. For a limited leasseition ol manufacture at Naucratis see chapter 9.

•97

«•_

MM

tmm wmm.

— Notes —

| ti,

25 Curiously the chief sponsor of the form 'Cluan' also sponsors some manufacture at Njucralis, though at least lor the products of potters expatriated from Chios, 'Chiot' might He more appropiiatc. 26 A.A. Lemos, Archaic Pottery of Chios (Oxford, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1991) gives a detailed, very fully illustrated account; hut Uoard man's Empurto, which does more than report his excavation, remains important.

p-

27 Sec Emporw.

!

28 29 30 31

,

32 33 34 35 36 37 38

j • • f !«• j " I'

39 40 41 **

J. Hayes, chapter 2, n.26, 37-63. J . M . C o o k , USA 60 (1965), 141. Lemos, above, n.26, 182-3. I.cmos's identification of three pieces as of Early W i l d G o a t style (ahove, n.26, 64-67) n o w seems t o me mistaken, though I once upheld it f o r t w o of them: tor her no.2 the addition of another fragment suggests a much later date and the other t w o arc not diagnostic enough. Emporio, no.634, f i g . 9 9 - I O I , p i . 53-54; Lemos, above, n.26, p i . 42-45. Alt-Smyrna I, p i . B, C , 38-39; Samos 5, p i . 124, no.612. Lemos (above, n.26, 11 n.35) thinks it n o t C h i a n . Lemos, above, n.26, p i . 24-25 ( M i d d l e I I ) , 178-9, 188-9 (Black-figure). O n Chian HIack-figurc see Chapter 9. D u p o n t , 25. Sec pp. 67-68. D u p o n t , 25-26, 31—33. W a l t e r - K a r y d i i n Santos 6.1 had already made a generally coirc.il localisation of the N o i t h Ionian W i l d Goat styles. See chapter 2, n.24 and 26-28. C/Virvi lihodos 3, grave 45; 6/7, grave 2. There may be more f r o m Pitane. What happened alter the sack is not yet clear. T h e first o p i n i o n was that the site was unoccupied f o r t w e n t y or t h i r t y years (E. A k u r g a l , Bayrakli, 65; J . M . C o o k , BSA 53/4 (1958-9), 31), but after renewed excavation immediate rcoccupation is asserted, t h o u g h at what rate is not made clear ( A k u r g a l . AltSmyrna 1, 72-75. V r o m what little 1 have seen I t h i n k there may be a gap i n the sequence of p o t t e r y , but not o f as much as t w e n t y years.

. / 42l$ill-Smyrna >. -. ,}

I

1, pi. 36c.

4^ £' g. il>., pi. 36b (carlyish), 40c; Bayrakli, pi. 1 Ib. The remarkably fine fragment • t from Daskylcion is a puzzle (E. Akurgal, Griechische und Romische Kunst in da Tiirkei |Munich, Mirmer, 1987], pi. 3a) 44 Sihicring, whose Vlastos group is rather wider than what is here called the Late Wild Goat style, is informative about shapes and the units of decoration, but reticent on stylistic associations. Kardara in her Transition and Mixed Technique styles has put together some groups of varying consistency, but is too logical in making Late pots without black-figure decoration earlier than those with. For illustrations the most useful conspectus is again Walter-Karydi's in Samos 6.1, pi. 105-15 (excluding 923, 930-1, 976 and perhaps 996).-

45 See p. 128. 46 Boehl.ni, chapter 2, n.7, 86-89. 47 A late Wild Goat style dish was found in a grave with a Late Corinthian ai yballos (Larisa 3 [chapter 2, n.12], 158 fig.66). Less helpful is a grave recorded by L. Kjellberg in 1902 {ib., 59, pi. 15.4 and 47.9), which contained a Trotocorintlnan alabastron and fragments of the same style'; but the definition of 'Protocol inthian' was not precisely the same then as it is now, and an alabastron is not likely to be earlier than the third quarter of the seventh century.

198

— Notes

—

48 M. Manyas (Akurgal) has set out the contexts of the dishes (but not the more distinctive amphoras) in a sadly unpublished dissertation (in Tuikish) for Ankara University. 49 Schefold in Larisa 3 (chapter 2, n.12) arranged the 'Larisa' finds in a generally convincing sequence, though I think Ins dating of the early groups too high. Walter-Karydi (AK Beili.7 (1970], 3-18) put together a moie orthodox group, which she assigned optimistically to l'hocaca, hut is too hold in her identification of other groups. There are other useful illustrations, especially of finds from Pitane, in Akuigal, above, n.43, pi. 3b, 4, lOd, 17, 21b, 102b, 103-5. 50 Smyrna (J.M. Cook, USA 80 [1985 ],28, pi. -She); found wiib an Attic fragment by the Heidelberg painter, which suggests a dale in the 560s or 550s). Nisyros (Clara Rhodos 6/7, 506-10, fig.34-35); the context looks about the middle of the first half of the sixth century. 51 A preliminary list in Walter-Karydi, above, n.49, 3-4: an e.uliei grouping in Kardara, 271-6. 52 See above, n.23. 53 Samos 6.1, pi. 134.1056; Kopejkina, above, n.5, fig.l-4 (fig.2 might be F.aily Wild Goat style). 54 Samos 6.1, pi. 137.1049-51, 1065, 1110. 55 This comprises Kardara's plates of her Later Orientalising style, her Group of the Gorgon plate, and her Nisyros and I lail Groups; for Schiering it is the liuplioibos group; and Walter-Karydi puts them in her 'Ostdoris' (in Samos 6.1). l o r illustrations see S.vnos 6.1, pi. 130, 131 (1044-5) 132-3, 134 (1045, 1069, 1075 - perhaps a Thasian imitation - and 1076), 135 (except 1060), 136 (1121), 137 (1073), 138 (1079, 1099, 1102), 139 (1094 is one of two eccentric pieces from Cuidos with a ship in the exergue), 140 (except 1057). 56 Samos 5, pi. 129.623; a light brown is used lor flesh and there is incision on f lector's shield device. 57 lb., pi. 130.626; incision on the skiit. 58 Samos 6.1, pi. 136.1 121; exceptionally the technique is black-hgiiie throughout. 59 E.g. Ergon 1968, fig.121-2. 60 Samos 6.1, pi. 134.1075. 61 lb., pi. 89.680. 62 lb., pi. 133.1077, 139.1117. 63 lb., pi. 135.1067, 139.1097. 64 Louvre A3O4 (CVA l.oHvre I, pi. 19.10): information fiom 1'. Dupont. See also Dupont, 29. 65 K. Schefold (/9

— Notes

—

69 /:'.j; Columbia 71.113 (W.G. Moon and E. Beige (eds), Creek Vase-painting in Midwestern Collections |Chicago, Art Institute of Chicago, 1980], no.11); Sydney 72.68 (A. Cainbitoglou (ed.), Classical Art in the Nicholson Museum [Mainz, ZabcrA, IVJ5J, pi. 17-18 - this paper was written in 1989 and some of my opinions have changed; Kassel Alg 52 (Gerckc, chapter 5, n.6, no.26). 70 Some notes on this painter in OJA 12 (1993), 109-15. 71 C.H. Greenewalt, CSCA 3 (1970), 55-89 and, for a tamer group with neater rilling ornament, CSCA 4 (1971), 153-80 and W. Schiering, Berliner Museen 18 (1968), 2-6. Sonic other pieces, not from the Sardis excavation, in K. Dielil, AA 1964, 593-8; Greenewalt, CSCA 1 (1968), 139-54. 72 Dupont, 36. ,73 O n the home of such imitations see pp. 89-90. 74 Duponi, 36 n.3H.

,

..

75 p. Salviat and N. Weill, liCtl 85 (1961), 98-122. 76 Ib., hg.ll-14. 77 ll>., lig.l-5, 8, 10, 17; Delos 10, pi. 14.72, 59 (inaccurate drawing); Vll Olympia Kcmbt (Berlin, dc Gruytcr, 1961), 188 (ig.102. 78 Salviat and Weill, above, n.75, fig.15-16; Delos 10, pi. 15. 79 Leinos, it may be noted, suggests Maroneia rather than Tliasos as the home of this version of Chian, but I do not know if she would make the same claim for the versions of the Wild Goat style and Attic Black-figure. 80 This date is rather lower than has been proposed (for references see Salviat and Weill, above, n.75, 121-2). 81 Lemos, above. i\.26, 209-22, pi. 226-34, 238-9 and in subsidiary use 222-5; and further HC.lI Suppl. 23 (1982), 157-73; F. Salviat in Let Ce'ramiqucs . . (chapter 2, n.23), 87-92, pi. 47-52. As place of manufacture Lemos prefers Maroneia, r which was a colony of Chios. Admittedly the common opinion, that this school is Tlusian, is based in part on the accident that the finds from Tliasos are numerous and known, and it is salutary to remember that for a similar reason Archaic Chian was once thought to have been made at Naucratis; but Thasos still seems to me likelier. 82 See chapter 9, 83 Much lias been written Oil the Swallow painter and illustrations are scattered: A.Giuliano, Jdl 78 (1963), 183-99 and AA 1967, 7-11; J.G.F. Mind, AA 1970, 131-5; W. Schiering, KA 1974, 3-14; A. Giuliano, Prospetuva 3 (1975), 4-8; N. Kunisch, Anltken aus Sammlung Funcke (Bochum, Ruhr-Universitat, 1972), no.54; Xenia 3 (1982), 12 fig.13; J.G. Szllagyi, St.Etr. 1984, 3-17; Pill' 246 (1989), 164 lig.1; M. I'.indolfini in Anheologia clella Tuscia 2 (Rome, CNR, 1986), pi. 46.1, wiih context. The dinos was on the London market in 1996. 84 P. Zalciropoulou, Ihovlemata tis Miliakis Angeiographias (Athens, Archaeological Society, 1985), a good and well illustrated study of 'Melian', although some of her dates seem to me too high.

CHAPTER 9: CHIAN: GRAND AND BLACK-FIGURE STYLES 1 Lemos, chapter 8, n.26, 94-118, pi. 92-112 and colour pi. 1-4 (except the tirst five pieces on pi. I and nos 470 anil perhaps 803 and 806 on pi. 4). 2 Leinos, 95, lists a few fragments of other shapes, but her nos 803, 805 and 806 seem to me doubtful attributions. 2OO

— Notes

—

3 This has been interpreted as a Dan.tut ctcnttMistnuitig iili.il utK'dicucc, as A|*ave ami I'cntheus and as ISM icisscinhling Osiiis, though not \ci as Jinlitli and 1 lolopheincs. 4 l i o m Kavala, on tlie DI.IIIII.UHI opposite Tliasos (I ciuos, nos 798, 804 and inure certainly die column krater shown on pi. 221-5). O n i hasian manutuiiuic see p. 68. 5 Chapter 8, n.56. 6 J. Boardman, USA 51 (1956), 55-62; further modilicd In |. ISoaulnian and C.E. Vapliopoulou-Richardson (eds), Chios (Oxloiil, Clarendon IVcss, 1986), 251-8. 7 R.M. Cook and A.G. Woodhcad, USA 47 (1952), 159-70, with a lisi of inscriptions: important corrections and additions by Bo.u ilni.tn, above, n.6 (l)oth items), and by 1). Williams, AA 1983, 155-86. A kanduios ill tins shape appeals on Figure 9.lh. 8 'Aiguptis' and 'Mikis' (or '-inikis'). 9 l.emos, chapter H, n.26, 133-52, pi. 161-92. 10 I'. Salviat in La Cent/nit/ua . . . (chapter 2, n.21), pi. 53; I.enios, chapter 8, n.26, 220, pi. 235-7 (pi. 231.1 is bastard in us black-figure). See also p. 68. 11 I.enios, 163-75, pi. 194-207. 12 l.cmos, 154-62, pi. 193; she calls it the tilack-ligurc Grand style. 13 1 am grateful to I LW. Catling and R.W.V. Catling lor eon tinning this observation. 14 li/npono, 168-9; Lcmos, 177-80 (she includes some doubtfully Cluan pieces).

CHAPTER 10: FIKELLURA 1 For a general account of the style USA 34 (1933-4), 1-98, now in pan superseded or revised by G.P. Schaus, USA 81 (1986), 251-95. l-'oi luller illustration see Homos 6.1, pi. 2, 4-14, 40, 68-72, 83-88 (the nssigninent to different places ol manufacture is brave, but mistaken); also CVA Ihttish Museum 8, pi, 568-81. References in this chapter are to USA 81 Joi ilie Altenbuii^ paintei ami die Painter ot the Running Salyi.s, to USA 34 tor the other groups (designated by a capital letter). 2 Louvre N2342 (Santos 6.1, pi. 65.537). 3 Though the upper part ol the shape is paralleled in Milesian trade aniplioias, which go back to the beginning ol the sixth cenluiy (Figure 2i.8c). 4 //'., [>l. 11 I - the liist six. 5 / / A , pi. 4-5. 6 /A., pi. 10. 7 Les Ciratnitfiit'S . . . (chapter 2, n.23), pi. 37.26 28 - unusually elaborate: USA 34 (1933-4), 58 lig.7 - lor the shape. 8 Delos 17, pi. 50. 9 Samos 6.1, pi. 68.550 and 88.640 (with fancier handles). 10 JO., pi. 88.642. 11 lb., pi. 40 and lig.27. 12 N . Kunisch, AA 1972, 553-67. 13 Schaus (above, n.l), 253 no.4, 270 (but I douln the Kiev example). 14 lb., 284; 1st. Mitt, 23-24 (1973-4), pi. 27.93 ami 25 (1975), pi. I 1.55: it looks as if these sherds join (Schaus, above, n.l, 289 n.l27). 15 Schaus (above, n.l), 270 anil 284. There is now a lid ol ,i dinos or kratei (1st. Mitt, 42 11992|, pi. 19.2). 16 A. Akersironi, Die Anf)itektonisj,he/i Tvrrakotten Kleiihisiens (Lund, Gleenip, 1966). 2OI



«ri

«.

*

— Notes

If 1 s, i *

t ' ". | >

«

('

!

5 ' / i

i, )• 5 (

j \

—

17 This Altcnbtirg painter was constituted by Sch.ius out of my Altenhurg painter (Group |) .uul pait ol my Lion group (15) with various additions trom other groups as well as some new finds. The connection became evident with the discovery ol a fragmentary amphora at Histria in 1960 {Histria 2 [1966J, pi. 23.388; 4 11978|, pi. 15). 18 £.g. Sapios 6.1, pi. 86.627 and 631. t 19 lb., pi. 68.540, 85.624. 20 lb., pi. 12.108 (as it happens, by the Altenburg painter). 21 lb., pi. 11.107. Also on oinochoai of Group S (Figure 10.4). 22 Of the type lotnul the base ol Figure 10.5, but the other way up. For a startling example see Soilieby (London), Catalogue of Stile, . . . J May 1991, lot 308 (from, I should guess, D.imlibogaz). 23 On this, which he calls 'net pattern', li.B. Shefton, Creek Vases in the J.Paul Getty-Museum 4 (M.ilibu, J. Paul Getty Mus., 1989). 45-57. 24 Samos 6.1, pi. 20.166. Perhaps also cups like ib., fig.25. 25 lb., 2.14; CVA British Museum 8, pi. 573.4. '!,, 26 Santos 6.1, pi. 10.94; 38.299. 27 USA 34 (1933-4), 26-29, fig.3-4. . 28 CVA Cambndge I, pi. 7.1; Clara Rbodos 4, fig.48-49, 181-2. 29 Clara Rhodos 3, fig.164. 30 I'm Attic boi rowing - D A . Jackson, East Greek Influences on Attic Vases (London, Society for Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 1976), chapter 2; against - Schaus, above, n.l, 283. 31 Jackson, above, n.30, chapter 2. 32 Yet a h.uidlclcss and footless cup, found near Thebes and of Boeotian manulactuic has very passable imitations of Fikellura comasts (P. Wolters, Das Kalnrenhediglum bet Tbeben 1 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1940J, pi. 35.1-3; BSA 34 11933-4J, 96 tig.2 I). Such sports can be very misleading about contacts. 33 Schaus, above, n.l, 284-8: in general he is right in his corrections of my dating ol graves in USA 34, above n.l, but I am not persuaded by his date of 550 for the earliest Fikellura (see OJA II 11992|, 263). 34 Dupont, 36 (with references; 1 am doubtful, though, if Histria 4 no.80 should be classed as likellura). lie now tells me that more refined analysis shows some discrepancies, which suggest manufacture elsewhere in the loess region of the west and noith-wcst coasts of the Black Sea. 35 Korpusova, chapter 2, n.25, hg.19.2. Another unorthodox fragment in Belin de Ballu, chapter 8, n.l I, pi. 19.1: this was found with Chian trade amphoras of "! 480-70, but cannot (I think) be so late. I 36 OJA 12(1993), 109-15-for the Bochum painter; later examples in Gei eke, chapter , n.6, nos 3, 9, 32 (30 and 31 look to me true Fikellura, and I should not care to .(! specify the models for no.20). See also E.A. Hemelrijk, BABesch. 62 (1987), lig.13-15, 30, 31 (the cup, fig. 16-18 and 32, is pretty certainly indebted). The Berne amphora is published by H.-U. Cain,/fc Bern Hist. MHS. 53-54 (1973-4), 43-56. For Iragmcnts Irom the sanctuary of Sinuri and Labraunda - P. Devambez, I.e Sanctuaire de Smiiri 2 (Paris, Maisonneuvc, 1959), pi. 23 and 24.1-9; J.J. Jully, Labraunda 2.1 (Stockholm, Paul Astrom, 1981), pi. 2.40. 37 Discouragingly P. Dupont tells me that clay deposits are often much the same from Miletus to Milas. 38 Bo.udman and I Iayes, chapter 2, n.26, pi. 29.586 and p.42. Hayes proposed a date around the 580s and considered it contemporary with early Fikellura or a predecessor. (This was in 1966, before the Carian versions became known.) 39 CVA Butisb Museum 8, pi. 606, 3.

— Notes —

CHAPTER 11: IONIAN LITTLE MASTERS 1 /..£. Samoi 6.1, pi. 42.346, 353-7. 2 !•. Kunze, AM 59 (1934), 81-122; Walter-K.irydi, S.tntus 6.1, 21-31. The lullest set of Illustrations is il>., pi. 45-57, hut Kuuzc's, though fewer, are better. 3 Though there is tilling ornament with the animals on another cup that is close to Fikellura (//>., pi. 47.424). 4 Dupont, 27 ,\m\ M. 5 The implication was seen by Scliaus (chapter 10, n.l, 292); but his suggestion that Samian painters of Little Mastei cups moved to Miletus and there founded the Fikellura style seems to me too complex.

CHAPTER 12: CLAZOMEN1AN BLACK-FIGURE 1 See Chapter 17. 2 USA 47 (1952), 123-52 - tentative classification and lists (without the finds from Smyrna); J.M. Cook, USA 60 (1965), I 14-53 (finds from Smyrna; more has been found since); CVA lititiih Museum 8, pi. 582-94 - for illustiations mostly of I'etrie and Urla groups; Santos 6.1, pi. I 13.923, 930-1 (Knmann gioup or near), 119.976 (miscellaneous), 127.919 and 965 (Tiibingen gioup), 128.934 (Petrie group), 935 (miscellaneous), 129.936-7 (miscellaneous); 1..V. Kopejkina, Soi>hsicni)a C7os. Enmtaza 1979, 7-25 - a selection of finds, mostly of the Knmanii group, from Berczan and Olbia. 3 I liese riders arc not Greek Godivas, as some have suggested. White is used in other Clazomcman groups for the flesh even of bearded men (Figure 12.8); and the protuberant shoulder is paralleled in undeniably male figures of this Pctrie group. 4 I lie kind of beard had appeared already in the Tubingen gioup (Figure 12.2, in the lower field of the neck). 5 So far as 1 know, there is no complete amphora of this ^ioup. Unfoitunatcly at Tell Defcnnch, whcic it seems likely that, when the pots were broken, the fragments were not dispersed, the excavators raiely kept shcids without substantial decoration on them. 6 These arc illustialed in CVA Ihitish Museum 8, pi. 590.20-21, 593.1, 590.17, 594.1 and I'Ali 1973, pi. 147a (also AR !>)7.}-74, 31-32 fig.60). 7 J.M. Cook, above, n.2, 122-8 - 'North Ionian Column Kratcrs' and 'Column Kraters of Lydian Class'. I know them only from this publication. 8 As pointed out by Kopejkina (above, n.2), the octopus appears on ainphoras of Knmann type as well as on askoi. I had once assigned these askoi to the Knipovitch group. (For knowledge and translation of Kopejkina's paper I am indebted to Dr J.G.F. Hind). 9 J.M. Cook, above, n.2, 134.

10 CVA Cambridge 2, pi. 498.1-6. II 12 13 14

For the sherd from the shoulder CVA linissch 3, pi. 106.5; AM 23 (1898), pi. 6. J. Bo.mlm.in,//ft" 78 (1958), 4-12. pi. 1. J.M. Cook, above, n.2, 136-7, fig.16, pi. 40.137. B. Kreu/er, Ituhe Zeitbner 1500-500 vt» (Jin, (Catalogue of Exhibition, I'leiburg i/Br., 1992), no.51; J. Bo.udman, I'be Greek's Oi'erseas (2ml cdn) (London, Thames and Hudson, 1980), fig. 164. 15 For example, Boardman, above, n.l2. 16 See chapter 15, n.4. 203

— Nutes —

CHAPTER 13: NORTHAMPTON AND CAMPANA GROUPS AND CAERETAN HYDRIAS

t,

•j •

B

I J

\\- , ;'

i'

1 I . H.innestad, I be Paris Painter (Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1974) - esp. 30-31; and The Followers i>) the Paris Painter (Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1976). 2 Study ol the Northampton group is patchy. The recognised four aniplioras arc all well illustrated and references to discussions listed in CVA Castle Ashby, pi. A .uul 1-3; CVA Mtmchen 6, pi. 297-300; E. Langlotz, Griecbiscbt Vasen in Wiiry.bmg, pi. 16-17. Some illustrations also in Samos 6.1, pi. 129.922—3. 3 lor the Campana group there is a useful general discussion hy F. Villard, Mori, 1'ial 43 (19-19), 33-57, and modification* and additions by R.M. Cook and J.M. I IciiK'Irijk in Jb lierlnier Mm. 5 (1963), 107-20; at least two more dinoi have come to light more recently (CVA Wiirv.burg I, pi. 26-28; J.P. Getty Mtis. J 12 (I9K4), 250). See also J.M. Ilcmchijk, Caeretan Hydnae (Mainz, Zabern, 1984), I«•>—7; and M. Manclh, I'rospettiva 27 (1981), 2-14, with a markedly different allocation to painters. A hydria and three dinoi are illustrated in Samos 6.1, pi. 127.977 and 128.954-6. 4 Cook ,\ni\ 1 Iciucli i|k, above n.3, fig.1-8. 5 G. Kicci, ASA 24/26 (1946-8), 49-57, pi. 3-6. 6 This was pointed out to me hy J. Boardman. 7 Thin is relevant lor the l'.nmann group and its relatives. 8 See above, n.3 and Boaidm.in, chapter 12, n.12, 9 - 1 1 .

9 Though a lew lUruscan Buixhcro kantharoi reached Berezan. 10 Reported by lioaidman, CVA Castle Asbby, p.2. II J.M. riemelrijk, Cavrctan flytlriae (Mainz, Zabern, 1984) - a detailed and excellently illustrated study.

CHAPTER 14: VROULIAN

t

'

|

,

I

'•'

I Vroulin, 168-88 wilh good illustration, simic of it in colour; Kinch's Class A is no* usually excluded. Also Samos 6.1, pi. 76. l!,.l, 2-> References, unlikely to be complete, in Vroulia, 185-8, supplemented in CVA British Museum 8, p.31 n.3-6. 3 Mersin - I.AAA 26 (1939-40), pi. 49.34; Sukas - G. Ploug, Sukas 2 (Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1973), 73; Cyrenc - J. Boardman, USA 61 (1966), 152. Berezan is sometimes included as a finding place, but the fragments cited (Vroiitin, 182 mi.21) arc from a cup of Kinch's Class A, that is without incised decoration. The fragments from AmatluiS (J.P. Thalmann, AlARS 26 [1972], 158-60. pi. 15.6-9) aic not Vioulian as defined here, since they use while as well as purple 4 See chapter 15, n.4. 5 Chini Rhados 3, grave IV (fig.11-12); 8, Manuaro graves 19 and 42 (fig.123 and 148).

|

i \'

CHAPTER 15: SITULAS 1 Vronlia, 125-6 (with illustrations): in the reconstruction the handles should, 1 ilnnk, be more like ki^s. 2 Samot 5, pi. 115.591.

—

No I a

—

3 l ; oi the situ las ol Groups B and C see (..VA HntiJ/ Miucum 8, p.29—37, pi. 596-605.3, where most ot them are illustrated; to die lists ^ivcn there .uld a Group B situla in Philadelphia (Univ. Mm. Bulletin 6.1 IJM5J, pi 14 15) ami fragments of a Group C situla liom lalysus (A. di Vila, ASA 47 | 11>K5|, 368). Two examples of Group 15 are illustrated in Santos 6.1, pi. 135-6.1060 and 1061. 4 The demand lor fine Greek pottery at Tell Dctcnnch must have been relatively small, requiring only occasional supply, so thai choice was more than usually dependent on the taste or connections ol a particular supplier. So it is not surprising that the Clazonicman lound [here is mostly ol the i'ctrie and Urla groups, the products ol two or perhaps only one workshop. I lie Group C suulas too might have been a job lot. 5 Except possibly the fragmentary silula from laivsus (above n.3); I have not seen it and no illustration is published.

CHAPTER 16: LATH BLACK-HGURl1 CVA British Museum 8, pi. 606.1-2 and p.38 loi references. 2 Ik, pi. 595. 3 E. Kunze, AM 59 (1934), 119-20 with briet commentary ami a short list.

CHAPTER 17: CLAZOMENIAN SARCOPHAGI 1 R.M. Cook, Clitzomcnian Sarcophagi (M.iin/, Zabcni, I 981), copiously illustrated, but more have been found since: some errors are corrected ill lliis chapter Two studies, important especially for the simpler sarcophagi, arc expected soon M.-C. Tzannis on the excavation in the public cemetery ol Clazomenac by G. Oikonomos in 1921-2 and I. Baku on her recent excavation ot another part ol that cemetery. 2 I have no record about the inside ol the simpler sarcophagi, but tliink they were unpainted. 3 There is no need to interpret these wavy lines as chtliomc snakes; there was room enough for heads and tails 4 The latest and sanest of these studies is lh.it by l\. Knchiiei, Jill 102 (1987), I 19-61. for meaning in the reserving animals !•'. I lolschcr, Die lied cutting archaistber 1 lerkiunpjbildcr (Wur/burg, Trilisch, 1972), wnh which I disagree. 5 Discovered and identified by G. Baku, who also saw that there was a join with an obscure sherd in the Louvre, picked up at Gl.i/omcnae more than eighty years earlier. 6 At Teos besides the three examples recorded in publications there are, M. Uz kindly told me, fragments ot more than a dozen from near the temple ol Dionysus. 7 1 know of only two or three isolated exceptions - a krater from Cyme in Aeolis (chapter 16, n.2), a fragment of a big pilhos said to be from <'la/oineiiae (Cook, above n.l, pi. 104.4), and another fragment, again said to be from Clazoincnae (Bonn 1120.6, unpublished), although this might conceivably be from a sarcophagus lid. There are faint rcsenibfanccs too on a (ate, probably Kfuuhan amphora {CVA Knlish Museum 8, pi. 606.1-2).

205

"•.-J

^

^

t

—»

.»

^

^

^

^

^

^

— Notes —

CHAPTER 18: IONIAN CUPS Publications arc numerous, especially of finds in the Western Mediterranean, and vaiiou.s systems of classification have been put forward (for important references ami a concoiilance, and some sane comments, R.W.V. Catling anil D.G.J. Shipley, USA 84 119891, 197-9 and n.5). Of these systems the two most generally used are those o! G. Vallet and V. Villard, MEl'R 65 (1955), 18-33; and J. Hayes (chapter 2, n.26) 1, 111-16 and 120-5; 2, 55-56. Vallet and Villard distinguish five types - A I, A2, HI, B2 and 113 (this last being cups of Little Master type): re.ulcis should note that in the Table on p.29 the references to the plates are wrong. 1 laves in liis subtler but more speculative analysis proffers Types I-XI plus a Samian group: Ins illustrations are good. See also Dupont, 40.

i

CHAPTER 19: BANDED AND PLAIN WARES

',

; i
I E.g..V. Sluidnova, Arhvologija 10 (1958), 1-11, on a kiln at Nymphaeum in the Ci imca. 2 I;or a useful selection and references E. Pierto, Mat. Aim. Arch. Naz. di Tatqutnia 6 (Rome, Brctschncidci, 1984); tor banded olpai from Samos A. ! ; intwangler, Samos 3 (Bonn, llabelt, 1989), 90-92. On Wavcline ware (from Tarsus) G.M.A. llanfimnn in S.S. Wciubeig (ed.), The Aegean and the Near East (Locust Valley, AiiRiistin, 1956), 176-82.

„

j. .f' ;• { r, I •. < t. ' I |

j *,

.

1

'.' X | '"• < ., if ,> , K ,• ' * . ' |t •, , »! ' •

/

'

CHAPTER 20: GREY WARE AND BUCCHERO

1 The only general account that lias been published is W. Lamb,///.? 52 (1932), 1-12 and this is very preliminary: supplementary information can be found in itie excavation repoits listed below. There are also two unpublished dissertations, the second ol which I have not seen - N.I'. Uayne, The (irey Wares of Notth-West Anatnliit in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron '•' Age and their relation to the early (Jreek settlements (Oxford, 1963), which is useful tor shapes .\\v\ distribution, and M. Manyas, Hati Anadolu da alti ve yedinti yiixyil monochrome gn Seramik (Ankara, 1978) - 'Monochrome Grey '.,# t'ntteiy ol the sixtli anil seventh centimes [I5CJ in Western Anatolia.' .} \V. Lamb, HSA 31 (1930/1), 166-78; 32 (1931/2), 51-56. i ]Troy 4 (chapter 5, n.18), 252-3. 4 J. Siliafer, Hellenististhe Kcramik aus Pergamon (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1968), 29-30. 5 Dupont, 30. 6 J. Uiiehlau and K. Sehcfold, Larisa am f/ermos 3 (Berlin, de Gruyter, 1942), 99-128 - an admirable account. 7 l-xhos du Monde Classique, 35 (1991), pi. 6.1. 8 Em/xmo, 135-6; P. Bernard, BC11 88 (1964), 109-15. 9 Bernard, above n.8; Dupont, 30. 10 (.'.. Arcelin-Piadellc, Revue Anheologique de Narbonnaise, Suppl. 10 (1984). 11 l-.g. Vrouha, pi. 31.7, 32.bb3, 33.p4; Samos 6.1, pi. 35; Boehlau (chapter 2, n.7), pl. 9.6-7. 12 lloehlau, pl. 9.1-4 and 8; Samos 6.1, pl. 36.227 and fig.23. 2of>

'

— Notes —

CHAPTER 21: RELIEF WARE 1 D. Peytmans, HCfJ 74 (1950), 135-80, detailed catalogue and groupings: J. Sclufcr, Sludien 7.ii den gnecbiscben Riliefpilhoi des 8-6 J bis v.Cbr (Kallmunz, Michael l.asslcbcn, 1957), 45-66, ,i closei examination of the style and revised dating. 2 I-'eytnuns, 179, citing Ojb 27 (1932) Bcihlatt, 171-4. 3 NSc 1956, 313 fig.3O. 4 11. SimaiHoni-Bouniia(s), Hasp. 59 (1990), 193-200; and in detail La ceraimque a reliefs an Musee de Chios (Athens, Archaiologikc Ktaireia, 1992). 5 J. I )uc.it, I.es vases plastiques rhocltens archaiques en lene cnite (Palis, de Boccard, 1960); R.A. Higgins, Catalogue oj Terracottas I, 43-60 and especially 2 (London, British Museum, 1954 and 1959).

CHAPTER 22: FAIENCE 1 V. Webb, Archaic Greek Faience (Warmiiistcr, Aris and Phillips, 1978), a detailed study.

CHAPTER 23: ARCHAIC EAST GREEK TRADE AMPHORAS 1 M. l.ambrino, Les vases arcbaiqiies tl'Ilistrta (Bucarcst, Fundatia Regele Carol 1, 1938), 100-132, 211-229. 2 IB. Zeest, 'Keramiclieskaia tara Bospora', MIA 83 (I960). 3 V. Grace, 'Samian amphoras', Haperia 40 (1971), 52-95, pi. 12-15. 4 S. Dimitriu, V. Zirra, E. Condurachi, in Histriix I (Bucarcst, Kdhura Acad. Rep. Pop. Rominc, 1954), 363-378; S. Diinltriu, injlistua II (Bucarcst, lUlitura Acad. Rep. Soc. Romania, 1966), 48-50, 54, 89-91 nos 148-372, 96-97 nos 421-427, nos 431-435, 103-105 nos 518-527, nos 531-515, nos 537-562, 126 nos 842-848, pi. 21, 52-57. 5 l.B. Brashinskii, Metoily i issledovaniia antiibnoi torgovlr (Leningrad, Nauka, 1984); N.A. l.cipunskaia, Keramichesknia tara 17. Ol'vii (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1981); cad., 'Amfoiy', in KuVtura naseleniui Ol'vii t ee okrugi v arkhaiiheskoe vremia (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1987), 87-102; A. P. Abramov, 'Novyc dannye o torgovykh sviaziakli Bospora v Vl-V vv. do N. E.', in Ochctki arkbeologii i istoni liospora (Moscow, Nauka, 1992), 247-259; id., 'Antichnye amfoiy. Periodizatsiia i klnonologiia', in Hosporskii Sbornik 3 (Moscow, Arklie, 1993), 4-37; A.P. Abramov - Ia.M. Paromov, 'Ranncantichnye poseleniia Tamanskogo polyostrova', in Rosporskii Sbornik 2 (Moscow, Atkhe, 1993), 25-98. 6 1'. Boitani, 'Ccnni sulla distribuzione delle anfore da trasporto arcaicbe nelle necropoli dell' F.truria meridionale' in // commercia etmsco arcaico (Rome, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerclie, 1985), 23-26; M. Slaska, 'Le anfore da trasporto a Gravisca,' ibid., 19-21; M.A. Rizzo, Complessi tombali daW F.truria meiidionale, I.e anfore da trasporto e il commcrao etrusco arcaico I (Rome, Dc Luca Edizioni d'Aric, 1990). 7 P. PeLigatti, Kokahn 22-23 (1976-77), II.I, 525, pi. 76.5, 10-15; cad., Kokalos 26-27 (1980-81), II.1, 721-722 (Camarina). 2O 7

— Notes

—

8 U. Knigge, Der Siiilbiigcl, Kerameikos 9 (Berlin, Walter de Gruytcr, 1976), 20-25, catalogue, passim, pi. 44-46, 48-49, 51-55, 62, 86-87, 92 (Kerameikos); S.R. Roberts, llesperm 55 (1986), 62-72, pi. 15-19 (Agora); A.W. Johnston, AA 1990, 17-64 (Aegifia). 9 \L. Doger, HCH Suppl. 13 (1986), 461-471. 10 W. Voigtlandcr, 1st. Mitt 31 (1981), 123-125, 128-129 nos 4-8, fig.14, pi. 42; id., 1st. Mitt 32 (1982), 42, 117-120 nos 33-52, 136-139 nos 167-193, fig.6-7, 27-29 (Miletus); K. Tucheh, 1st. Mitt 13-14 (1963-64), 53 nos 50-51, fig.16, pi. 20; T. Schattner, AA 1989, 202 lig.85 (Didyma); 1*. Hoinmel, in Pamomon mill Melie, Jill Suppl. 23 (1967), 144-148, (ig.82-83, pi. l-II (Melie); \V. Voigilander, AA 1988, 619, rig.44, 46, 48 (Akbiik - Tcichiussa). • 11 A. liirtwangicr, AM 95 (1980), 186-187, fig.20, pi. 56; id., Samos 3 (Bonn, R. \ llahelt, 1989), 92-94, 100-101, fig.16, 21, 32, pi. 24, 26, 37-38. : 12 l>. Dupont, PP 204-207 (1982), 194-208. 13 Zeest (1960), above n.2, 70, pi. 1.3; 79-80, pi. V.l5a-b, V1.15v-g; 81, pi. Vll.lSb. 14 At the present stage, there are no reliable comprehensive statistics of frequency lor the Black Sea and it is impossible here to review all the sites where available quantitative data actually confirm the supremacy of the East Greek transport .imphoras in the Black Sea. Inversely, recording the few scattered imports from Greek lands outside Ionia is not easy, because many of them still remain often c unidentified by the excavators. i ; or a fuller account of these distribution problems of the Greek containeis in the Black Sea, see P. Dupont, 'La circu„ l.uion amphonquc en Mer None a I'epoque aichaique', in Actes du Colloquc

I

(

•

' i 15

' •\ 16 17

I

18 19 20

international C N R S Production et commerce des ampbores anciennes en Mer Noire (Istanbul, IFEA, 1994) (in the press). Boitani (1985), above n.6, 23-26; Slaska (1985), above n.6, 19-21 (Etruria); Peiagaiti (1980-81), above n.6, 721-722 (Camarina). T h e only noticeable exception is die s h i p w r e c k IA of the Pointe Lcquin ( C o t e d ' A z u r , otf Porquerolles island), lite- C
keramuheskii import na Nizhnem Donu (Moscow, Nauka, 1980). 21 A.W. Johnston, Trademarks on Greek vases (Warminster, Aris & Phillips, 1979); ul., 'Greek vases in the market-place', in Looking at Greek vases (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991), 220-224.

— Notes — 22 Strain) 17, I, 13 (transport ol Icsbian wine ui NaticiJlis bv S.ip|>lu> s brother, Gharaxos ol Myiilcnc); Plutaich, Solon, M, I (concerning I he way Plato provided lor the expenses ol his stay in I'gypt by selling liwrc Greek olive ml). 23 It is probably die case lor the shipwreck I A ol ilic I'oiinc l.ci|iiin (above n IS), the cargo ol winch was predominantly ul Ka.il (neck itrigin, winch incittcntally does not necessarily imply that the ship was B»SI Greek too. O n lorcign sea-lradc during the Archaic period: G.M. Reed, 'M.uiumc liadcis in die

Archaic Greek World", Ancient World 10 (1984), 31 43. 24 Hirst ol all, one recalls the role ol intermediaries played by the Ltruscans in the redistribution ol Greek goods throughout 'he Western Mediterranean, as in the case of Giglio Island (oil Tuscany): see lastly P. Rendini, "(sola del Giglio: acquisi/ioni sul conuncicio cliusco' in llottc el loiiiinene gWi, carthapnoii el etrmsqites en Mer Yyrrbenmmt, 1'iui 20 (1988) | 19931 191-201. 25 These are represented among the luuls onlv hy a vei y small mimher ol fragments ol C h u n 'swollen necked' and LvsUian grey aniphoras. O n local consumption ot wine restricted to men see Alhcnacus x, 420a; Aelian, VII ii.38. 26 I'or instance, in the Olbian fbortl, Ghian, Gla/omcnian and Zecst's lumhlerbotlomed (i.e. Lesbian circle) containeis each form c. 30% ot ilie imports during tlie last third of the sixth century; in die lust quarter ol the 5ih ccininy, die Cluan shaie increases up to 40%, llie tumbler bottomed one iet;resses down to 20%, while the sudden emeigcnce ol Xcesl'.s 'Samian' t\'pe ot amphoias up to 20'X» is noticeable (information kindly piovidcil by V. Olicsliko, Kiev Archaeological Institute). 27 I leiodolus i, 17. < 28 /, the oil was still sold 'delivered on board', the producers taking charge ol the transport in goatskins down to the harbour, where it was poured into barrels: (!h. de Stlicr/cr, SinyyHt!

consideree an point de VHC gcognipbiqiic, ccononiu/nc ci intellectuet (Leipzig, G. Knapp, 1880), 114-115. 32 The diagnosis is often not so easy: lor instance, it is not at all obvious that the Massahote amphoias have an 'Ionian' look, as suggested by M. G'l.is, DAtcb (1987), 2, 41. Models related to K-Ochler's Corinthian type 15 and possibly manufactured somewhere in Mayna Graeci.i or Sicily (C. Koeliler, llc'SfU'rid SO (1981), 453-454, pi. 99a b, d-f), seem to have been a more plausible source ol inspiration. On the Massahote amphoias, see the recent monograph by G. lieitucchi, Lei mn/t/jorfi i-t Ic vin tie Marseille, HAN Suppl. 25 (1992) 33 Well attested during the Roman period, such distant branch workshops do not seem to have been widespread as early as the Archaic period, except pel haps in the case ol the above-mentioned Massahoie amphoias, probably imitated from other Western types ol containers. 2oy

— Notes —

'

, 1 \ | '• i j '

1

, «\

^

»' \ \* I, ^ v-

1

' ,

'

34 The erudite inelrologic.il reconstructions already put fotw.nd .lie ollcn deluding: this is the c u e , tor instance, when I B . Brnsliinskii (1984), above n.5, 101-102, basing Ins assumptions on obviously erroneous data (reference to two C.l.i7omenuii containers of caily type together wilh the bron/e .unphor.i from Pcsclunoc | Ukraine], ilie Samian origin of wliicli is highly questionable), claims to have identified a quite hypothetical Samian capacity standard. 35 Concerning the specific connection between a city and a particular type of amphora, and the problems ol mutual influences between centres of manufacture, see M. Gras (1987), above n.32, 41-50. 36 Lamhrino (1938), above n.l, 100-106, fig.62-70, pi. I; Zecst (I960), above n.2, 70, pi. 1.2a-h; 1". Bernard, HC11 88 (1964), 137-140, fig.50; Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 88, (ig.32.l. 37 Yet .some allegedly eailier specimens have been reported: J.M. Cook, HSA 53-54 (I95X-59), 14 (Old Smyrna, 2nd half of the 8th century); P. Durando, Annali. Anbcologut c Storiit Atilica XI (1989), 64, 80 (so-called 'Proto-Chian' amphoras h'oni Pilhekoussai, dated to I.G II). 38 Ri//o (1990), above n.6, 22 Table I, hg.3-4, 8, 10, 43, 55, 346-347. 39 V.I':. Rad/ievskaia, SA (198.5), 1, 257-260, fig.3-4 (from Kolomak, Kharkov icginn). Another specimen finm the Krasnogorovka III necropolis (Lower Don region) has been found together with an eaily Samian container. 40 B. Brea and M. Cavalier, Mylai (Novara, Istituto Geografico De Agostini, 1959), 42, pi. L.I, 3 (from Milaz/o, end of the 7th century). 41 Bern.ml (1964), above n. 36, lig.50. 42 U.e.i and Cavalier (1959), above n.40, 51, pi. XL1X.I-2; J. Boardman and J. ll.iycs, loua II, USA Suppl. 10 (1973), 62 no.2258, fig.25. 43 lamhiino (1938), above n.l, 100, lig.64. 44 W.M.I-. Pctric, Naitknitis 1 (London, Tiubner & Co, 1886), pi. XV1.4; I). Oicn, HASOR 256 (1984), 24-25, 19 fig.22.1, 4, 2fr fig.32. 45 P. Pclagatti (1976-77), above n.7, pi. LXXV1.5. 46 W.M.I'. Pctric, Tunis II (London, Triibner & Co, 1888), pi. XXXIII.2, XXXVI.5 (stamped with a cartouche of pharaoh Amasis, who reigned 568-526); O. l l a n ^ a , CCI: 5 (1997) pi. xv fi K .l4 1-2 (Qedua). 47 If. Met7ger, Xanlhos IV (Paris, Klincksieck, 1972), pi. 25.

48 /ccst (1960), above n.2, 74, pi. 111.10b; Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 88-90, fig.32.2. Lxcept in the Black Sea, finds are scattered all around the Mediteiranean: in Macedonia (Acanthus), mainland Greece (Corinth, Athens), ' Utiuiia (Gravisca, Kcgisviila), Gaul (Pointe Lequin 1A wreck) and Egypt (T.21, . Qeilua). 49 l.ambrino (1938), above n.l, I 10-1 12, fig.71-72. ' " 50' Ibid., I 12-1 13, fi^.73-74; P. Alexandrescu, in Histria II (1966), above n.4, 159 iio.ll, pi. 73 (r. 510-490). 51 M. l.a?.arov, 'Targoviiata na Khios sas zapadnopontiiskite gradove', Izv Varna 18 [33J (1982), 8-10, pi. 1.3-4; Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 90-91, fig.32.6. 52 Knigge (1976), above u.8, pi. 45.8, 48.2, 49.4, 51.6, 86.3; Roberts (1986), above n.8, 67 nos 419-420, fig.42, pi. 18 53 Brasliinskii (1984), above n.5, 92-98, Appendix I, Table 1; H.B. Mattingly,/WS 101 (1981), 78-80. 54 B.N. Grakov, IGAIMK 108 (1935), 177-178, fig. 17. 55 C. Boulter, Hvspcua 22 (1953), 104-105 nos 150-152, pi. 39-40. ' 56 J.K. Anderson, RSA 49 (1954), 168-170, fig.5, 8-9. 57 V. (jracc, Amphoras and the Ancient Wine I'radc (Princeton, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1961), fig.44, 48-49; end., in Delos XV11I (Paris,

4 -i.v

— Notes — De llocc.ml, IM70), 359-361; e.i
58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 71 73 74

An and Archaeology.

a mbiiiv

to I'll,

von lilamkenhagen

(New

York, J.|. Augustin Publishes, 1979), 121, 125, pi. X X X V : 5-7 I'. Dtipom, /),r\V I I I , 2291 (Chios). Lamhrino (1938), .lhove n.l, 114-118, lig.76-80, 87, 89.1, 901). Zccst (I960), above n.2, 69-72, pi. I.I, ll.fia-b. Lcipunsknia (1987), above n.5, 91-93, fig.32.4, 8, 10. Dupont (1983), above, n.58, 25-26, 31, lig.18. Dogcr (1986), above n.9. E.I. Lcvi, in Ol'vua, teiiwnos i ai>ora (Moscow-Leningrad, Nauka, 1964), 155 "B-23. Rizzo (1990), above n.6, 23, fig. 197-198, 357. M. l.a/arov, 'Anlichui amloi i ( V I I v. p i . N. I1..) ol lialgaiskolo C l u i noinoi ie', lzv Vaina 9 |24] (1973), 17-18 nos 70-71, pi. V I I . N. Sidorova, O. Tugushcva ami V. '/abcliiia. Antique fainted pottery in the Pushkin Slate Museum oj Fine Am (Moscow, Iskussivo, 1985), pi. 2} (al so illustrated in AR for I962-6J, 46 lij;.26). Oren (1984), above n.44, 24-25, lig.24.1, fig.U-34. Roberts (1986), above n.8, 67 no.42l, fig.-12. pi. 18. H. Coiuhuachi el al., MCA IX (1970), 180 fig.3.1. I h m z i (1997), above n.46, 85, pi. xvii fig.lf>.'l (( v Vdu.i, t. 525); Doger (1986), above n.9, 465 fij^.K (Clayomenac). '/cost (I960), above n.2, pi. II.6b (the MCI k is ailu.illv bi);liei). Ibid., pi. II.6a (Ironi P.inticapcum); V. Oan.naelic, lin/toilul iini/mi'lur slampilate la htna (Hikarcst, lulitura Acadenmi K.I'.K., 1957), 353 fig.5^A (honi ibe 1 listi ian C/JOIVI).

75 Grakov (1957), above n.30, 17, fig.I. 76 Hermitage 15. 85-341 (unpublished). Besides lieie/an, the shape is also attested in the lower Don basin and the Crimea, possibly too in I listria (c.£. /lisliia I I , pi. 54 no 518, assigned to the second archaic level, i.e. ol llie lust hall ol the 6th century). On the Southern Mack Sea slioie, a complete specimen I mm the sea is stored in the museum of Samsun. 77 Monte Abatone necropolis, T. 273 = Museo dclla Villa Giulia, Amphoia no. 124 (unpublished). 78 E.M. Alekseeva, KSIA 197 (1990), 28 lig.4.36. 79 A.W. Johnston, in Papers on the Amasis Painter and his is>orUI, (Malibu, |. Paul (ietty Museum, 1987), 130, fig.la-b (Tell Delenneli?); W.M.I'. IVtiic, ()mneh (London, BSAM & 11. Qtiaritch, 1909), pi. l.V: 851 (Gurna); Oien (I'J84), above n.44, 19 fig.22.6 (Migdol) I lam?a (1997), above n.46, 84 pi. Niii Hg. 12.1-2, pi. xiv fig.13.1-2. 80 Pliny, UN. xiv, 73. Thick remains of nsin-coating ate preserved in several sherds of Clazomenian containers from Siiuagrc ((-olclus). 81 Aristotle, Oeconomica, ii, 2, 16. See also: Schciver (1880), above n . i l , I 14-1 16; E. I'ickcndcy, Der Olbaum in Klewasicn (l.cip/.ig, Koehlcr Vcrlag. 1922), 19-20, 24. Moreover, the discovery of an olive oil lactory dating back to the third quaitcr ol the 6th century has been recently uporteil (A/A 100, 1996, 320), in which amplioras of unspecified type have been lotind in significant numbers. Clazomcnae was also famous for its garum (Pliny, Nil X X X I . X l . l l . 97), for which adapted containers were certainly needed loo. 82 Ooger (1986), above n.9, 468, fig. 13. 83 Abraim.v (1992), above.n.5, 248, Table- I.II. 21 I

— Notes

—

84 85 8f> 87

Duponi (198.1), above n.5N, 25. I*. Duponi, PI' 204-207 (1982). 200, iig.4. Grate (IV6I), above ».S7, fi^.53. H. ClinkenHe.ird, 'Lesbian wine and storage ainphoias', Hcsperia 51 (1982), 252, nn.2y.-30. 88 Ibid., 254-256 (lesbian wine); Stheizer (1880), above n.3l, 114-115, 246 (Mylilcne's olive oil); I'ickendev (1922), above n.81, 19+ map (olive growing on I lie- mainland opposite Lesbos). 89 Zeesr (I960), above n.2, 72-73, pi. 11.7-8. •>o\/i»;. 91 o. C.linkcnbc.ml, Lesbian and Thasian wine ampkoras: questions concerning

:

aHahuratiun, liCIl Suppl. 13 (1986), 354.

92 Sic below n.128. •93 I.eipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 99-100, fig.34.9-10; V.V. Ruban, ' O khronologii kiasnoglinykli am for s konjclicskimi nuzhk.inii Vll-V vv. do N. !£.', KSIA 197 (1990), 12-19. 94 l.li, MiM.shinskii, 'K pioblcine lokali/atsii gruppy amfor s tak nazyvaemymi stakaiioDbia/.iiyini don'ianii', KSIA 174 (1983), 8-10. .95 Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 100. 96 Clinkciibeard (IV86), above n.9l, 354. 97 I lowcver, grey fragnu'nts possibly belonging to Lesbian containers arc reported from sliala ol the second ball nl the 8ili century in C^ld Smyrna by J.M. Cook, USA 53 54 (1958 S9), 14. 98 Clinkciibeard (IV82), above n.87, 249, 264-265 no.l (Agora P. 117^), pi. 70.1, '• 71.1. ;99 / Una snl Hnuiilo (Comn, Kd, New Press, 1986), pi. 39.4. 100 |. ISo.mlman and |. Hayes, Hxatvnliotis ar Tocra I, USA Suppl. 4 (1966), 139 "no. 14 16, pi. 90.

101 J. Naveli, IE] 12 (l%2), 105 fig.6.4. •102 103 104 105 ( I 106 107 108

109 I 10 111 112 113 114

Clinkcnhcard (1982), above n.87, 258-259, pi. 69a-d. I.eipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 98, li K .34.5. I'clagatti (1976-77), above n.7, 525, pi. L X X V I . I 5 . Brasliinskii (1984), above n.5, 99, pi. X l . l , X I I . I , Appendix 1, Table 2, n o . l , 3 (Bcrczan), 2 (C)lbia). l.az.uov (1973), above n.67, 19-20 n.90, pi. X X I U . IV-tiic (1909), above n.79, pi. 1.V.852, 856. Ibid., pi. LV.853-854 (Guina); Peuie (1888), above n.46, pi. XXX11I.12 (Tell Dclenneli); J.H. Quilicll, Ramesseum (London, Tnibnci, 1898), pi. 12.8 (Tliches); W.M.I1'. I'elnc and li. Mackay, Heltopulis, Kitjr Aintnar and Shu>
no.3, pi. CCXXUI.3. 115 l\laK.mi (1976-77), above n.7, 525, pi. LXXVI.13 (Rifriscolaro Necrop., T. 1026). 212

—

Nota

—

116 l.a/arov (1973), above n.67, I1*--20 mw 77-86, pi. V I I V I I I . 117 Ibid., 19-20 n.74, 76, pi. V I I , X X I I I ; die uppci pan ol .imnhei (unpublished)

118

119

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

133 134 135

136 137

specimen from Kcpoi (Taman peninsula) comes from .i well ilntcil lo the lliird quarter of the 6th century; see also (?) Zcest (I960), above n.2, 74, pi. 111.9a (Caucasus). Another complete piece and a mure tapering Iragmemaiy one from K utsevolovka (Dnepr r. hank) have heen Kmtul together will) two complete amplioras ol /test's 'Saiman' type ( N . M . Boku and VS. Ol'khovskii, Ron. AM. (1994), 2, 11)5-156, lig.3: 2-3). First ol all, by a complete well dated specimen from I'hocaca, recently discovered in the Persian destruction level (O. O / y ' g ' 1 . KF.A 96 (1994), 88-90, 89 fig.5, 104 pi. 29-30; id., in Phocec el la jamlation de Mitneille, Inhibition cat., Musee d'l lijjtoirc de Marseille, 1995, 52-54. Another piece horn Cuiiaiin.i lias been found in the Rihiscolaro Necrop. ( I . 398). See also Long, M i n i and Volpc (1992), above n.15, 22i, 226 fig.45.5 (lower part ol belly from the I'oinie Leouin IA shipwreck). Zeest (I960), above n.2, pi. 111.9b (Moscow, Historical Mus.); Urashinskii (1984), above n.5, 104, pi. X I . 5, X I I . 6, Appendix I, Table 4 no.I (IScie/an), pi. XI.6, X1I.7, Table 4 nus 2-i (Nympliacuin); l.eipunskai.1 (I9S7), above n.5, 100, iiy.34.9 10; V.V. Rub.ni (I990), above n.*W, 17 li^.l (Type II). Roberts (I986), above n.8, 63-65 nos 408-4II (P. 24875 878), lig.4l, pi. 15. Johnston (1990), above n.8, 40 42, Iig.2-J. G. Coloiina, 'Anloie da traspono arcaiche: il contribulo

— Notes

i. S" % t\. i

Editions ilu CNRS, 1978), 224, pi. XOV.ng.5-10, pi. XCIX table 2; cad. (1985), .ibove n.f., 19-20. 138 Ri/7o( 1990), above n.6, 22, fig. 14, 125, 137,213-214,238,241,245-246,351-355. 139 M. Bound, 77K' GYg/m « W I * , I.NA1.IA Suppl. I (Athens, Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology, 1WI), 24, ti^.43-45; Rendini (1988) |I993|, above n.24, ' IV3 (ig.2. ' 140 C. Alhore-Livadie, in II commercio ttrusco arcaico (Rome, Consiglio Nazionale Jelle Ricerchc, ,1985), 138, 142 fig.17. 141 Urea and Cavalier (1959), above n.40, pi. 1.1.5. 142 I). Adamcsteanu, Mon. Ant. 44 (1958), col.394-395, fig.126. 143 I'clagatti (1976-77), above n.7, 525, pi. LXXV1. 10 (T. 1069); ead., in Anhacologia nella Suilia sud-orientiile (Napoli, Centre Jean Berard, 1973), 147 ' no. 438, pi. XLV. Several lurthcr complete specimens came out from the Rihiscol.uo necropolis (T. 169, 1053, 1208, 1235, 1375 . . .). 144 Grace (1971), above n.>, 69 n.46 (Agora P. 14694), 71 fig.2.2 (another specimen is .Agora I>. 3609); C. Roebuck, I lesperia 9 (1940), 257 no.335, fig.6l (A-I». 1491, lioni the Acropolis). 145 Kxcavalion deposit, unpublished. 146 K.I'. Kinch, Vmiilm (Kerlin, G. Reimei, 1914), pi. 29z. 147 Y. Calvci .\m\ M. Yon, in (jreck Geometric and Atihaic Pottery found in Cyprus (Stockholm, I1. Astroms I'iirlag, 1977), 19 nos 115-116, pi. XI. 148 1'. (jjcist.ul, SC.l'. I (Slockholm, Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1935), pi. I.XXXIV.4 (T. 94), CXXXII.I1 (T. 83.3) = Grace (1971), above n.3, pi. 15.1. 149 C Plotig, Siikas 1 (C:openhagcn, Munksgaard, 1973), 84-85 nos 387-389, 89 lig.l.3S7, pi. XX.387-389. 150 Naveh (1962), above n.101, 105 lig.6.1-3, 6. 151 I'etiie (1K86), above n.44, pi. XVI.2. 152 /(/. (1888), above n.46, pi. XXXIV.39. , 153 /(/. (1909), above n.7'), pi. I.IV.850. 154 llermii.i t ;c 15. 63-290. 155 IVlagatti (1973), above n.143, pi. X1.V.438 (Rifriscolaro T.23O). 156 Above n.140. 157 Gjcrstad (1935), above n.148, pi. C X X X I I . l l (Marion, T. 83).

% !l X fe F I I • ! * ! >

:

J

» 1 . ' j

5 :,,.'' ' ' '• r ' • I ' 1:.J "> " H I "

, .

'

158 J Koehlau, Aus wmsihcn and italischen Nekropolen (Leipzig, I'eubner, 1898), 21* l'iH.16. 159 Ri/yo (1990), above n.6, (ig.213, 241, 351-352. If.O I'ctrie (1909), above n.79, pi. I.IV.850. l-'or the dating of the context, P. Dupont aiul J.C. (ioyon, 'Ainphoics greccjiies aichaiques de Gurna' in VI Congressa j . ' mtan,u.ion,tle ill igitlologia. Am 1 (Torino, Italgaz, 1992), 153-166. 161 Pclagatti (1976-77), above n.7, pi. LXXVI. 10 (T. 1069). H62 Rizzo (1990), above n.6, lig.353. 163 Naveh (1962), above n. 101, 105 fig.6.1. T64 lirea and Cavalier (1959), above n.40, pi. LI.5 165 Rizzo (1990), above n.6, fig.245, 355 (Montalto di Castro), 354(Cervctcri). 166 Slaska (1985), above n.6, 19. 167 Hound (1991), above n.139, fig.43, 45 (Giglio shipwreck); Petrie (1886), above n.44, pi. XVI.2 (Naucratis); C^race (1971), above n.3, pi. 15.2 (SamosI'ythagoiion, from die sea); 1 i. I loffmaun, Ten centuries that shaped the West: deck and Roman Ait in iexas Collections (Houston, Institute for the Arts, Rice Univ., 1971), no.208 (Samos-Valliy, from the sea). 168 Giacc (1971), above n.3, pi. 15.6-8 . The dating of these silver coins has been recently slightly readjusted byJ-P Banon, in Kraay-Morkholm Essays (Louvain214

— Notes — I.i-Ncuve, Institut Sup. d'Arclicologie et d'l listoire de I'Arl, 1989), 14-Id. 169 11. Gericke, (iefassdarstelliingen aitj gtietbiscbcn Viisen (Berlin, Vcrlag 15. llessling, 1970), d4-d8. 170 I owe tins information to S. Monakhov, Saratov Univ. 171 G . Shipley, A llntoty of Santos S00-1XS HC ( O x l o i d , Cl.irendoii Press, 1987), 16-17. 172 Riz?o (1990), above n.6, fig. 144, 356 (Cci vcleii, Monte Ah.uonc, T . 546); another related specimen from the same neciopolis (Museo dell.i Vill.i Giulia, Amphora 126) h.is been discovered in T . 155>. 173 Alborc-l.ivadie (1985), above n.140, 138, 142 Iij;.l8 (Noceia, Parctti necmp., T. 75). 174 Petrie (1909), above n.79, pi. I,IV.849. 175 Long, M i i o and Volpe (1992), above n.15, 225 fig.43, 226 lin.44, 45.1. Incidentally, a similar profile is to be lound on a tiagmentary piece Iroin Mcsad Ilashavyalui (R. Reich, Eref/.-htael 20 | I 9 8 9 | , 230 fig.4.9); the dating ot this key site for the Archaic Greek chronology is not as secure indeed as genei.illy supposed. 176 Roberts (1986), above n.8, 70 no.435 (P. 24883), 72 no.419 ( I ' . 24901), fig.44, pi. 19. 177 Kniggc (1976), above n. 8, 25, pi. 64.8. 178 C.K. Williams, llespevia 48 (1979), 123 n o J I , pi. 44. 179 G . Ricci, Mon. Ant. 42 (1955), 1017 nos 120-121, lig.259 (H.uuliiaccia necrop., T. 430). 180 Dogcr (1986), above n.9, 468-69, fig. I I . 181 S.Ju. Monachov and F..N. Abiosimov, in Antubny/ nut t aycheologua (Saratov, Univ. Pi ess, 1993), 123, 143 p i . 2.5-6. Sec also I1CII I . X X V (1951), 180, 179 lig.98 (Thasos). 182 R. De Marmis, 07; Etnisihi a nord del Po, 1 (Mautova, Campauotto Hditorc, 1988), 217-218, 223-24 no.272, fig. 110.3. 183 See below: Section 'Milesian amphoras 1 . 184 Samian hcmikadia are attested indeed as Luc as the 3rd cciitiny ttC by a Ptoleni.iic papyrus already cited by Giace: sec C.X.. lulgar, /.vnon Pap\}i 1, (.'dialogue general des iintiqitite'i egypttenncs tin Mnsc'r dn (.'am' ((^aiio, I I ; A ( 1 , 1925), no.59015 (lecto); see also D. Hi cue Sandy, l'l'c production and use «/ vegetable oils in I'toleniau Egypt, HASP Suppl. 6 (1989), 25, 17. 185 See below: Section 'Milesian amphoras'. 186 Grace (1979), above n.57, 118, pi. X X X V . I - 2 . 187 Grace (1^71), above n.3, 74-75, 93-94, pi. 15.4. 188 1 )upont (1982), above n. 12, 203-206, fig. 11), 6-7; id. (198 5), above n.58, H , fig. 19. 189 '1 Ins type with high convex lip appeals to be almost completely missing on Samus island, whereas it is particularly well represented In Miletus and in C-ana (information kindly provided by both P. I lommel lor Miletus and A. I'urtwangler for Samos). 190 R.M. Cook, 'I ; ikellurn Pottery', USA 34 (1913-34), 55: see especially lig.3, 5, pi. 13, 15a. 191 E.g. Karageorghis (1970), above n.l 14, 25 no.2 (T. I I ) , pi. I.XX, C G I X (Sal.imis in Cyprus). 192 K. Walter-Karyili, Santos 6.1 (Homi, R. I labelt, 1973), pi. 65.537 (Irom Caiiiiros); Dupont and Cioyon (1992), above n. 192, 166 fig.2a ( f i o n i Cjuina). 193 Walter-Karydi, ibid., 5, 58. 194 D i m i t i i u (1966), above n.4, pi. 54: 511, 511. Auothci almost complete piece has just been found in a well dated to the fust qtiaiter of the 6th cciuuiv in

•2'5

— Notes

—

the Sacred .Area (I ain indebted lor this information to K. Zimmeinunn, Rostock Univ.). 195 Unfortunately, only a sm.il I part ol the finds seems securely dated by context. I lowcver, many sherds, scattered between the I lennitage and the archaeological museums in Kiev and Odessa look quite early; the most characteristic piece is probably the almost complete amphora Ber. 85-346 in the Hermitage collection. 1% V.V. Kuban, SA (1983), 286 fig.! (lagorlyk). I 197 J. ISoardman, Creek Emporio, USA Suppl. 6 (1967), 140 no.507, fig.87 (c. 660-630?).

. 198 Calvet and Yon (1977), above n.147, pi. XI.117-119 (Salamis, first half of the , 6th century); Gjerstad (1935), above n.148, 393 no.6, pi. LXXV.l (Marion, Necrop., T.7I, 'Cypro-Archaic II, later part'). 199 N. l)i Sandio, l.v anforu anaiihe dallo scarico Gosetti, Pithvcusa: Cahien du Came J. Beranl 12 (Napoli, 1986), 121: SG 327, pi. 27 (Pkhekoussai); M. L.entmi, in Am del 26. Convcgno di Studi mlla Magna Grcaa (Taranto, 1987), 423, pi. Xl.1.5 (Naxos, Northern necrop., T. 232). 200 Oren (1984), above n.44, 20 fig.23.5, 29 fig.36-38 (Sinai, site T.2I'). 201 V.A. H'insk.ua, V.N. Mozolcvsku, A.I. Tcrenozhkin: 'Kurgany VI v. do n. e. U s. Matusov', in Skifiui i Kiivktiz (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1980), 53 fig.27.1, 28 ('Rcpjakhovataia Mogila' kuigan, near Matusov, on the right bank of the Dnepr, second half of the 6th century). 202 Pelagatii (1976-77), above n.7, pi. LXXV1.12 (Camarina, Rifriscolaro Necrop., T.6II); G. Geiilili, /V.SY 8 (1954), 98 no.l, 97 fig.21.1 (Megara 1 lyblaea). In {'trut'M, several liaynieiuai'y specimens have been fount! in Giavisca (1 am indebted to M. Sl.iska tor permission to look through her finds). 203 Gjcrslad (1935), above n.148, 416 no.17, pi. LXXIX, CXXXM (Marion, necrop., 1.80, 'Cypro-Aich.iic II, later part'); V. Karageorghis, Salamis 3 (Nicosia, Department ol Antiquities, 1967), 72 no.5, pi. LXV, CXXXV.5 (Salamis, necrop., I 1", 19, 'beginning of the 6th ecnl.'); A. Johnston, in Excavatiom at Kitiun 4 '; (Nicosia, Department of Antiquities, 1981), pi. XXVIU.38-40, XXXU.38, 40. 204 Lambrino (1938), above u.l, 175 fig.127; Dimitriu (1966), above n.4, pi. 53.425-427, pi. 54.523, pi. 55.532 (llistria). Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 93-95, fig.32.5 (Olbia); V.V. Kuban, 'Opyt klassificatsii tak nazyvaemykh ' Milctskikh .unlor iz Niy.hnego 1'obuzb'ia', SA (1991), 2, 183 fig.l (lagorlyk), 184 lig.2 (Berczan), 2,05 A. Maiuri, ASAA VI-VII (1923-24) (1926], 319 fig.12 (r.) (lalysos, necrop., T. j LXVII, together with a Droop cup c, 540). Another complete piece has been lound in Bcrc/.an (1991) in a mid 5lh century well (information S. Monakhov, ' ; Saratov Univ.). 206 Calvet and You (1977), above n.147, pi. 11.120 (first half of the 6th century). 207 .Unpublished, from the Sacred Area. Here, the junction neck-shoulder is preserved. 208'Aristotle, Pulitict I, 4, 5; Scherzer (1880), above n.31, 114-115 (Aydin); W.R. ul I'.HOII and J.I.. Myrcs, 'On some Canan and Hellenic oil presses', JUS 18 (1898), 211-214; 1'ickendey (1922), above n.81, 20 and map. 209 As in the case of the Sami.in containers, one must take care not to generalise as concerns the contents of the Milesian ones: the two above-mentioned 6th century specimens with high lip irom Novoaleksandrovka, on the lower Don basin, and Rcpiahovataia, on the right bank of the Dnepr, have been found in Scythian kurgans, where .in offering of wine would be expected instead. 210 Roberts (1986), above n.8, 72 no.443, lig.44 (Agora P.24902, c. 520-480). 21 I Johnston (1990), above n.8, 49 no. 107, fig.7, 10 (c. 500). 216

— Not a

—

212 C. Morsclli and K. 1 ortoi ici, in II tvnimerciu clnisai iiroiiai (Rome, Consigho Naziumk delle Riccrchc, 1985), 35 rig.8.7- N (Rcgisvifla, l.isi quajiei iH die (>ih century). 213 K. Tuchclt, ht. Mill 13-14 (1963-64), 53 no.50, fig.16 (Iclt), pL 20.1 (l.uier pan of 6lh century). 214 l.B. Brashinskii, 'Novye danuye o toi^ovle Ol'vn c S.unosoin', KSlA 109 (1967), 23 fig.2; Leipttnskaia (1987), above n.S, 97, fig.34.3 (Olbi.i); I. H. Braxliinskii, Grecheskti kentmiibakii import >ni ni'ibnem Ihmu (Leningrad, Naukt, 1980), 107 no. I, pi. 1, Vll (EU?.avctovskoe); S. Ju. Monakhov and li.N. Abiosunov, in Antichnyi mir i iirkbculogiiii (Saratov, Univ. Press, 1991), 122-123, pi. 1.3, t.ibl. pi. 15 (Chersom-sus). 215 N . I)i Sandro, A1ON, Arch. St. Ant. 3 (19X1), 7-8, lig.3.3. 216 B. Gr.uien, CCE 5 (1997), pi. ii tig.2.a (hclow). 217 Dupunt (1982), above n.12, 204-205 fi K .6-7. 218 Tuchelt (1963-64), above n.213, 53 no.51, lig.16 (nglu); T. Sch.vllner, AA I9H9, 2, 202 fig.85.l. 219 Monakhov-Abrosiinov (1993), above n.214, 122, pi. 1.4, pi. 15 Tabl. n.i.H (ChtTsonesiis); A.I. Meliukova, 'I'osclciiie N.idlim.uisUoc 111 n.i iK'rt'gu Dnestrovskogo Innana', in IssL'ttovittuiii ]>o tvilubnai iirkfot'oiogii }it\*i*-/tipiida Ukmmskoi SSR (Kiev, Naukova Dumk.l, 1980), 12, lig.3.fi (Natllmunskoe III, Dnestr estuary); the specimens mini Tell I'.l I Icrr belong n> a Liter stage ol development. 220 Grace (1971), above 11.3, 77-78, 76 flR.3.3 (Agor.i I'. 27530, plausibly connected w i t h ilic lower p a n ol belly I'. 27531) A . A . Z a v o i k i n , A W Arkh. ( 1 9 9 2 ^ 5, 44 fig.l.l ( w i l d hulluwcd foot), 50 l i g J J , Grace (1971), a b o v e n . 3 , 77, 94 n o . 9 , pi. 15.9. M o n a k h o v and A b r o s i m o v (1993), above n.2l I, 123, 111 p|. 2.5-6. G r a c e (1971), a b o v e n . 3 , 9 3 - 9 4 iu>.4, pi. 15.4. V K o r e n i s k o a n d S. L u k ' i a s h k o , .S/l (1982), >, 157, li^.S. B r a s h i n s k i i (1984), a b o v e n . 5 , 103 A p p . I, Tabl. 3 n,>. I. IS.A. Sparkca a n d L. T a l c o t t , The Athenian Agont 12 ( P r i n c e t o n , I b e A i n c r k a n S c h o o l of Classical S t u d i e s at A t h e n s , 1970), 189, 338 no.I 170(1'. 10752), pi. 62. 228 A. M a i m i , ASAA 6 - 7 ( 1 9 2 3 - 2 4 ) , 264 Ii;;. 164 (ccnire) (l.ilvso.s, rirsl li.il/ »l 6ih c e n t u r y ? ) , 285 fij;.l83 ( u p p e r n i w , i ) (l.ilysos, sii'COltd ball ol 6th n - i i l u i ) ) ; G . Jact>pi, in Clara Rbodia IV ( R h o d e s , I s t i t u l o SIOIIL'O A i c h e o l o j j i c o , 1931), 221 222 223 224 225 226 227

229 230

231 232 2ii 234 235

190 fig.198 (Camiros, Macri l.anguni, T. I.XXXIV, togelhei wiili an A n n polychrome phialc ot the end ol the 6th century), Rizzo (1990), above n.6, 69-70 iu>4, jiK.M, Fractional containers need to be taken into acount as well is standaul aniphoias. The greater part ol the oil shipment registered in the / c n o n papyrus 59015 (recto) (see above n.184) was carried in Milesian containers namely 459 kertlttIM and 115 hemikadia., i.e. a high proportion ol fractional containers. During ibv Archaic period, we may assume that the situation was approximately the same. Ruban (1991), above n.204. I am indebted to Prof. V. von Graevc (Boclnun Univ.) for permission to look through the finds in the excavation deposit. Brashinskii (1967), above n.214, 24 fin.4.1-2; «<•• Archcoiogia (Warsaw) 19 (1968), 55, lig.14. Grace (1971), above n.3, 75-76, 94 no.6-8, pi. 15.6-8; Mailing!)- (1981), above n.53, 81, pi. I.e. h, j . V, I'ndik, hivcntarnyi katrtktg klcnn tui inuftHiiykh ruchkiikb i ftartythkakb i mi iberepitsakh Ermilazlmoga sobr
*«7 /»

,-».

,#-

<w>

w>

*\

,-trs

•>

»>

#>

«>

— Notes —

0

2U> U. Kniggc, A A 1975, 457 hg.4. 237 l i o i n Kiilon, uiipuHli.shed (inloiin.uion kindly piovided by I)r Y. Calvct, Mai.son de I'Oticni, I.yon Univ.).

'

v

•

, • k

f

2 IS | . ( I . Milne, (.'.,it. (l')')2), 3, 51 tig.4.2. 241 l.tipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 91, lin-32: 5 ('Aniplioras with funnel-shaped iiuuiilr, type 3), 95 ('Aniplioins will) ellipsoid rim', type I). 242 KiiUan (1991), above n.204, 182-195. 24 i The two specimens illusliated by Ciiace (1971), above n.3, pi. 15.4 anil 9, and t|iioted bv her as Samian linds, arc both Irom the sea off the island. 244 Zicsl (I960), above n.2, 70, pi. 1.3. 245 I owe tins inlot inalion to A. l ; urtwangler (Saarbiiicken Univ.), to whom I subjected a batch ot diawmgs representative of all Zeest's 'Samian' and

'1'iototliasian' types.

I \ • 'f

* *

I

;

:

' •* ' " t« i * , / h-j_'. ' '/

• \ •

l»tr. Ci.u-c (1971), above u.3, T\, li(;.2.4, pi. 15.3. 247 /ei'M (I960), above n.2, 79-80, pi. V.15a-b; Vl.l5v-g; sec also 107, pi. XXV. 5f.a b. 24S Ch. Koukouli - C'.liivsantliaki, AD 34 (1979) [1987], 1V2, pi. 142; cad., AD 35 | (IVS0) |I988|, l i ' 2, 419, pi. 249b-g (Thasos-Liinenas). 149 ('. I'eiisteii - ( ) l a t / i , 'Ampluiies ct timbres amphoiiques d' Abdcie', BCItl 1 Suppl. H (I9K6), 496, (ig.13-14. , 150 I-. Salvial, 'l.e vin dc Thasos. Ampliores.vin et sources ecritc", BCII Suppl. 13 (I9S6), US-196; id., Vigncs ct vins ancicns dc Maronee a Mende, Kcthcnbcs JiAimo-bi'lli'iiif/nci I, Mimni D. l.tr/.aridi (Thcssaloniki, F'lench School at Athens i ' and Kavala Auhaeologicil Museum, 1990), 457-476. J51 l'ensteri (1986), above n.249. 151 I I . (K-iicke, Cu-jtiisdMstclliingcn auf gncchisibcn Vasen (Heilin, Vcrlag B. llesslin^, I 970), 65-66, 67-68. A53 V. R. l i anke ,\\u\ M. I lit nier, Die (Inccbisibc Miinzc (Miinchen, Dinner Vei lag, I • !%!«), pi. 130 (lop Iclt). 25-1 Ibid., pi. 123 (lop Ich). 255 C. Kocblei, 'Dandling ol Creek ii.msport aniphoras', HCll Suppl. 13 (1986), 5«Hig.lO. ' 256 I'.l'.. Arias and M. Ilirmer, Die griccbische Vase (Miinchen, Dinner Vcrlag, I960), pi. 122-123 (Kleopluadcs Painter). inside sevci.il 'Samian' .specimens Irom Mesembria (Athenian Agora) (Bulgaria) 257 Kohcits (1986), above n.8, 65 nos 412-413. I noticed myself the same practice and on both Samian and Protothasian ones from Simagre (Colchis). Incidentally, the presence of rcsin-coating inside a storage-vessel is not always conclusive about a wine content: not so long ago in Portugal, oil-containers wcie similarly coaled (I owe this infoimation to M. Picon, Lahoratoirc de Cctamologic, Lyons). 258 l.eipiinskaia (1987), above n.5, 94 ('aniphoras of Protothasian type' [type 4]), 95, 97 ('Samian amplioias' [types 2-31; sec also A.W. Johnston (1990), above n.8, 47. 259 W. VoiKtl-inder (1981), above n. 10, 125 fig.14.2-3; id., (1982), above n. 10, 45 2lX

— Notes

260

261 262 263

264 265

266

267

—

fig.7.39, 47-49; 69 fig.27.167; 70 fig.28.172. The icl.itivcly sni.ill number of puhlished examples badly represents the true piopoitiou ot these matciials amon^ the hiuls stored m the excavation deposit. I'lsewhcrc in Ionia, the shape seems to he scarcely attested: J. de la (icnitie, ('ithicrs tic (.ADOS I (Paris, Kditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1992), 47 lig.l I.! I l-l 12 (Clams) (Zecsl's 'Samian'); A.N. Tsaianopoulos, Horns 4 (1986), pi. 31.5 (Chios) /.rest's 'Piotothasian'); two necks of 'Prototliasian' containers aic also attested among the finds of Old Smyrna (I am indebted to R.M. Cook lor having placed at my disposal Ins late brother J.lvt. Cook's records on the amphoiic material of the site); in Clazomenae too, I noticed myself some ' Piolothasian' nm fragments among the surface finds. Possibly combined with some local imitations. On Milettis's special interest in I hrace in the late 6th century, I lerodotus, v, I I (Myt kuios J;I anted lo 1 itstiacus by Darius). Zeest (i960), above n. I, 70, pi. 1.3. l.a/arov (1973), above n.67, pi. VI.64, 66 68; VII.72; XXIV: 65, 68. Lambiino (1938), above n.l, 215 fig.173, 218 hg.180, 224 fig. 196b; Dimilriu, Zirra and Condtirachi (1954), above n.4, 175 fig. 150; Dimilriu (1966), above n.4, pi. 55.539; pi. 56.551-552, 554-556; seveial lurihei specimens came out in the Sacred Area and in the cboiii (Nuntasi, T.uivcule). Meliiikova (1980) above n.219, fig.3.2; S. B. Okliotnikov, Nixhncc Podncstrov'c v Vl-^vv. do N. I-. (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1990), 22 h'g.10.3, II. l.eipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 95, 97, lig..M.I-2; S.I). Ki y/liitskii, S.U. Buiskikh, A.V. Kurakov and V.M. Olreshko, Scl'skiii* oknigii OI'vit (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1989), 59 fig. 19.1-4 (Tiotoiliasian'); Rulun (1991), above n. 204, 185 fig.3.2-4 (Bere/an), 186 fig.4.4, 7, 9-15 (Keikusb), 187 fig.5.1-5 (Cheitovatoe II), 6-16, 18 (Chertovatoe Vll), 17 (Olhia) ('Samian' ,\m\ 'Piotothasian'); In. Kozub, Pcrctlmisttiti Ol'vii, Arkhcolngiiii (Kiev) 29 (1979), 23 I I J ; . I 7 . I - 2 (Olbia) ('Prototliasian'); numerous ollui unpublished specimens from the Olbia-Betezan region are stored in the I lei milage, in Kiev and Odessa. From Kutsevolovka (l)nepi i. bank), two complete pieces have been recently reported (N.M. Bokii and V.S. Ol'khovskii, «<>». Aik-b. (1994), 2, 155 fig.3.1). V.A. Kutaisov, Antkhnyi goroii KcrkbiiiiiLt VIII vv. do N /:'. (Kiev, Naukova Dumka, 1990), 36 fig. 12.4, 37 fig.13.23 (Ke.kinitis) ('.Samian'); V.I". Gaidukcvicli, MIA 25 (1952), 83 fig.104.3 (Tiritakc) ('Proiothasian'), 143 lig.16 (Mimickion) ('Prototliasian'); id., Mirmckii. Sovctskic raskopki v I1)id g. (ti)34-1956) (Warsaw, Nauka, 1959), = Sovctsko pul'ikic i-nko/'ki Mirmckua, vol. 2, 47 (Minnekion) ('Prototliasian'); A.P. Abramov - A.A. Maslennikov, 'Amfory V v. do N. ]•'. iz raskopok poseleniia iu Myse /.ink', S/l 1991.3, 235 fig.1.3 (Cape Ziuk) ('Samian'). A.P. Abramov and Ja.M. Paromov, 'Ranneaniichnye poselenii Tamanskogo poluostrova', in liosporskii Sburnik 2 (Moscow, Arkhc, 1993), 31-33, 40 fig.3.28-40 (Taman) ('Samian' and 'Prototliasian'); V S . Dolgorukov and A.B. Koleshnikov, Ross. AM. (1993), I, 122, 121 fig.8.10, II, 17 (Plianagoria) ('Samian'); Zeest (1960), above n. 2, pi. VI. 15v (Kepoi) ("Pi otothasian', fractional): numerous other specimens came out in recent excavations; II.M. Alckseeva, Grechcskaia kolomzatsua sevcro-ziipadtiogo Kavkaza (Moscow, Nauka, 1991), pi. 20.18-26; 22.7-11; 23.10-16; 24.15-24; 26.23-24; 28.17-21; 29.1 I-12; 32.13-15; 59.11-29 (Anapa); N.A. Onaiko, Arkhaitbcshii Ionk untulmvi gnrodna scverovoslokc Pont* (Moscow, Nauka, 1980), 69, 71, 12?- 124 iu>s 38-44, 65, 125 nos 70-73, pi. IV.38-44, 65, V.77, VI11.38, 4 I, 70-72, IX.70-72, 77-82 (Torikos). 2 19

— Notes — 268 (X l.ordki[>.\i>id/c, 'Colchis in the early antique period and her relations with the Greek WoiUf, Artbeoio%in (Warsaw) 19, 1968, 39-40, fig.21a-b (from Sim.igrc near 1'II.IMS).

269 Sp.irkes and Talcolt (1970), ..hove n.227, 347-348 nos 1582-1583, fig.13.1583, pi. 70.1582-1583 CSanii.ni1); Roberts (1986), above n.8, 64 ng.41.412-413, pi. 17.412-413 ('Samian'), 71 hg.44.442 ('Samian' with double-bevelled foot), fig.44. 440-441 ('Sainian', pithoid variant); Grace (1971), above n.3, 76 fig.3.1 ('Piotothasian', upper part only); Kmggc (1976), above n.8, pi. 49.3 ('SamianV 'Prolotliasian', imermediate shape). 270 Johnston (1990), above n.8, 48 fig.7.99-105, 114; 49 fig.8.115-117, 121; 50 hg.9.99-100; 51 hg.10.102, 105, 122. 271 Calvel and Yon (1977), above n.147, pi. XI.II3 (Salamis) ('Samian', fractional); I V. tCaragCM-ghis (1970), above n.114, 80 no.4, pi. CXXXI, C C X X X (Salaniis, nt-crop., T. 52, 'Cypio-Arcliaic II'); A.W. Johnston (1981), above n.203, pi. XXVI11.4I, XXX1.4I (('Saniian'), XXIX.48, XXXII1.48 ('Prototliasian'); I. Nicolaou and J.Y. Kmpeicui, 'Aniphores rhodicnnes du Musee de Nicosic', HCII Suppl. 13 (1986), 531 no. 16, 530 Iig.l5a-L> (Cyprus, uncertain origin) ('Samian', pithoid variant). 272 C. Morsclh and K. Tortoiici, ' l a siiu.r/ione di Regisvilla', in / / commercia etrttsca ttrcaico (1985), above n.6, 35 fig.8.1-6 ('Samian'); G. Camporeale, in Let lit)toques et VEimipe (Paris, 1992), 119 no. 50 (Gravisca). 273 Petrie (1888), above n.46, pi. XXXU1.I (Tell Defenneli) (Samian); id. (1909), above n.79, pi. 1.V.855 (Gurna) ('Samian', fractional); C.C. Edgar, JUS 25 (1905), 125-126, hg.6 (Naucratis: 'Protolliasian'?). 274 Odessa, Archaeological Museum, O A M 24907 (unpublished, said to be from ; Olbia). 7p5 Roberts (1986), above n.8, 72 nos 440-441, fig.44.440-441, pi. 19.440 Agora Museum, P.24K84-24885). 276 Nicolaou and limpcreur (1986), above n.27l, 531 no.16, 530 fig.I5a-b (Nicosia, Arcliacologic.il Museum, CMC. 205). 277 G. Jacopi, in Clara Rhmlos IV (Rhodes, 1931), 178-179 (T.1.XXV1I) no.4, 182 li£. 1X8 (loinul logctht'l1 with a likclhna amphora ol the 'Volute zone g r o u p ) . 378 Sec above n.262-267, passim. 279 Nicolaou and Knipcrcui (1986), above n.271 (Cyprus, pithoid variant) - see also Y. Calvct, Salainine tic Cby/irc J.. I.es timbres amphorujttcs (Paris, De

H

1 e

j I I

1

280 281 282 283 ' 21J4

285

Boccaul,l972), no. I 18, lig. 129; unpublished stamp O. 71/1160 in Kiev Archaeological Institute (Olbia, upper part ol 'Protoihasian amphora') - other stamped 'Protolliasian' specimens are attested in lasos and in Tyrambe (Tainan peninsula) (here double-lambda or sigma?); Johnston (1990), above n.8, 51 fig.10.122 (Acgnia, very probably from a 'Samian' vessel); several other epsilon stamps on isolated handles aie known from the Northern Black Sea: E.i. Levi, in Ol'viui, TemeiHH i A^ora (Moscow, N.uika, 1964), 136 fig.3.2 (Olbia); Hermitage B. 70-219 and IS. 70-220 (Here/an) (very likely honi 'Protothasian' containers). Above n.248. A. Meliukova (1980), above n.219, fig.3.1. Kozut) (1979), above n.265, 23 lig.17.1 (Olbia); Hermitage U. 90-210 (Berezan). Johnston (1990), above n.8, 50 fig.9.99 (Aegina). Dimitriu, Zina and Condutachi (1954), above n.4, 375 fig.180 (Histria); Hermitage B. 67-174 (Berezan); Olbia, excavation deposit, O. 72/86.11 (Olbia, sccteui A CD). L. Gliali-Kalnl, /uncles Ibiisienna 7. I it ciramique grecqHe (Paris, De Boccard, 196,0), pi. XIX.6, pi. C (1'hasos).

I

— 286 287 288 289 290 291 292

293 294 295

296 297

Notes

—

MOSCOW, Pushkin Museum, M. 65 607/3 N.4MI. Voigtlandci (1981), above n.10, 125 IIJ;.I4.2;!(/. (1982), above n.10, 69 lig.27.167. K n i ^ e (1976), above n.8, 25, 101 no.SO, p|. 49.1 (<. 490-480). /.can (I960), above u.2, 81-82, pL Vl.|7a-v (Monde), Vtl.lSj-b, 19 ('Bioadbellicd1). D i m i u i u (1966), above n.4, 48, 96-97 IMM 431-435, pi. 5J.431-435, Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 94—95 ('Amphora wiih trapezoidal inn'). fig.32.9, 33.2; 101 ('Aeginetan amplioras'), fig.34.S. l.B. Brashinskii, 'K voprosu o torgovych svi.iyiai'h Ol'vii s Luiooi', KM A 95 (1963), 20-24; til., 'Novye nialerialy k izucheniill ckmiomiclicskicli svia/ioi O r v i i v Vl-JV w . do N. [•:.' Arcbeulogia (Warsaw) 19 (1968), 51-53, fig.7-8; see also Leipunskaia (1987), above n.5, 101, fig.34.8. Johnston (1990), above n.8, 52-54, Kg.11.128-130, 12.129, 133, 13.133-135. See above n.250. 1*. Puponi, Ampkores cotnmercidies urcbaii/twi tie la (luxe tie I'Est: pfoblimn tit itiipcns. Seininar on 'Ancient 'iml tratiiti<>nLites les unities giec(|ues nc sum |>as d'i'lginc*, m Alt Mtvoir dc la culture antique. Atclaiigci R. Maraihe (Kenncs, Presses Univcisiiaiivs, 1992), 243-249. C. lUuiiniopiuilou, Attlpbom tie la netm/Kile ti'Aawlhc, HC'.ll Suppl. 13 (1986), 479 -4Xi. IL>UL, 480

fi|>.I-2.

298 Knigge (1976), above n.8, 85 no* 5, pi. 44.7; 171 no.l ; 9 (c 26), pi. 85.2; 172 no. K I I (d 49), pi. 85.3; 173 no.E 14 (c 24), pi. 88.6; 177 no.l- }7 (h 21), pi. 89.3 (Athenian Kci.uneikos); Roberts (1986), above n.8, 68 no.424-428, (itt.43, pi. 17 (Athenian Agora); Johnston (1990), above- n.8 (except perhaps fin 13 no. 133): (Acgina); Voigdander (1981), above n. 10, 125 tin.H.I, 5 (Miletus); SB. Okhotuikov, 'l'oselenua Vl-V vv. do N. \i. v m/hiicin I'oiliasMuv'e', in hilcttovarWii po atuuljfiot (irkbeologii jii^it-/,ip,itLi UkrrfinsktH S.S/\ (Kiev, Naukova D.nnka, 1980), 90, fig.3.8 (t)nfsli liiii.ui); «/., (1990), above n.264, plu.io 2.8 (Naillimanskoe 111); Onaiko (1980), above n.267, pi. IV.75-76, 1X.67--69 (Toiikos); Abiamov and Masleilllikov (1991), above n.266, 238 lig.3.7-8, 14 (Cape Ziuk, Crimea) . . . 299 Roberts (1986), above n.8, 69 (ig.43.424, pi. 17.424. lirsi attribution ol mid Sih century models to Mende: C. Boulter (I95i), above n.55, 106-107 no.161, 101 fig.5.161. On later Mendean aniplunas: I B . Itiaslunslui, 'Ainloiv Mcndy', in Kbiulozbeslvcnnaia knl'tnra i arkbeoiogiid miticbiiogt) >>ur,i (Moscow, Nauka, 1976), 67-74; id. (1984), above n.5, 35-36. 300 Roberts (1986), above n.8, fig.43.431, pi. 19.431. 301 Kniggc (1976), above n.8, pi. 61.7 (Aihcnian Kci.uncikos, t . 460 450); lioulter (1953), above n.55, pi. 39.157 (Athenian Agora, mid 5ili ceniury); Brasliinskii (1984), above n.5, pi. V.I (Nymphaeuni, second hall ol the 5(h century), X V I I . 1-6 (Thflsian, second liall ol the 5th-licj;uiniiig ol the 4ih century). 302 Long, Miro and Volpc (1992), above n.15, 223, 226 hg.45.4. 303 Roberts (1986), above n.8, 69 fig.43.429-430, pi. 17.429, pi. 18.430; Kiliggc (1976), above n.8, 88 no.16, pi. 44.6. 304 Knigge (1976), above n.8, pi. 61.7 (Atlieman Keramcikos, second i|tiarter ot the 5th century). 305 Except perhaps in Tonkos: Onajko (1980), above n.267, p|. V I I I 64, IX.64. 306 Zeest (I960), above n.2, 82, pi. VII.1Kb 307 Voigtlandcr (1981), above n.10, 125 lig.14.3, pi. 42.1. A possible sligluly earlier 221

w

«-

•

«^

#•<

— Notes

"308 309

310

(!4 '

^

311 312 313

| 314 f* j<> ? * ; • J*1* t * ' ! <(i

315 316 i

iintcecdcnt in.iy he an almost complete jar from Kition published by Johnston (1981), above n.2O3, 41-42 no.43, pi. XXIX, XXXII. Oklioimkov (1980), above n.298, fig.3.8; id., (1990), above n.264, 21,22 fig. 10.15 (Dneslr liman). Kni);ge (1976), above n.8, 121 no. 132, pi. 53.2 (Athenian Keiameikos, c. 470); A.I'. Abramov and In. S. Sazonov, 'Kompleks amfor vtoroj chetverti V v. do N. K. iz Palrcja', in Drcvnosli Severnogo Kavkaza i Pnchernomor'ja (Moscow, Museum of Oriental Arts, 1991), 68, pi. 1.7-8 (Patrasys, second quarter of the 5th ccntuiy); I.cipunskaia (1987), above n.5, fig.32.9, 33.2 (Olbia, well 421, second quaitcr of the 5th century; A. Zemer, Storage jars in ancient sea trade (Haifa, The National Maritime Museum, 1977), pi. 8.23 (from the sea, probably second half of the 5th century); Knigge, AM 81 (1966), 49 no.99, Beil.38.2 (Athens - Hridanos, end of the 5th century). Robeits (1986), above n.8, 68 nos 424-427, 429; 70 nos 430-431, 433. Other possible contents arc olive oil and the famous "lhasian pickle', made from hi oiled fish (Athenacus vii, 329). Lambiino (1938), above n.l, 227 no. 39, 225 fig.198. Koukouli-Chrys.uith.iki (1979), above n.248; see also Y. Garlan, Quelques noitveaux ateliers arnpboriques a Ihasos, BCH Suppl. 13 (1986), 267. Meliukova (1980), above n.219, fig.3.1; Okhotnikov (1990), above n.264, 21, photo 2.3 (Nadlimanskoe III, c. 480-460). Zeest (I960), above n.2, 71, pi. Iv. Today, these 'plain-bottomed' containers may be connected cither with some "lhasian circle' (Mendean?) shapes of our type A (Robeits [1986], above n.8, 69 fig.43.424) or with some 5th century lhasian products (Y. Grandjean, 'Contribution a I'etablissement d'une typologic des amphoies thasiennes. I.e materiel amphorique du Quartier de la Poitc du Silcnc', BCH 116 (1992), 548 fig.3.16-18, 572 fig.16.16. Grandjean (1992), above n.314, 541-584, p0ssitn\ see also A.W. Johnston, 'An Archaic amphoia of Th.isian type", Hesperia 60 (1991), 363-365, pi. 96. C M . Danov, Altthrakien (Berlin, Dc Gruyter, 1976), 174-222 (Greek coloni7.mon on the Thracian coast); B. Isaac, The Greek settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian conquest (Leiden, Brill, \')S6), passim.

I X •i

—

'

222

|4tH*> dfe *Mf. t-i^

INDEX

Aegina 24, 26, 38, 44, 50, 56, 71, 73 Aeolian, Grey ware 135-6; Suhgeoinctric 23; Wild Goat style 45, 56-61 alabastron xxv Albertinua painter 126-7 Al Mina 6, 24, 38, 44, 56 Altenburg painter 78-81, 89 Alyattcs 9 amphora xxv amphoriskos xxv, 77, 86 Animal Chalice style 49, 50 Antissa 5 Apries 107 aryballos xxv Asarlik 14 askos 25

Prntogcomctiic 14; Subgeomctric 29; Wild Goat style 63-6 chalice xxv, 49, 75 Chalice .style 49, 50, 71 Chun, Animal Chalice style 49, 50; Chalice style 49, 50, 71; Coniast group 75; Gcometnc 22; Gland style 71-3; I'oultiy group 75; Sphinx and Lion gioup 74—5;

trade amphoras 146-51; Wild Goat style 46-51 Chios 5 Chiot sve Chilian chora xxv chous xxv cluonology 7-10, 25, 44 clay analyses 7, 27, 43, 45, 51, 52, 66-7, 7i, 77, 89-90, III, 142, 151, 152, 154, 174 Cla/omenac 6 Cl.t7omenian, U.I 95-107; s.ncopbagi 121-8; trade amphoras 151-6; Wild Go.u style 51-6 closed shapes xxv colonial woikshops 66-7, 89-90, 104 colonies 4 Colophon 6 column kiatet xxv, 53 coniast xxv, 75 Comast group 75 rnmns xxvi Coan, Geometric 16, 21; Piotogcometiic 12 Comlckci 14 Cos 5 crane 95 cup xxvi cylix xxvi Cyme 5 Cypriot influence 12 Cyrcne 6, 50, 51, 56, 71

Banded wares 132-4 fierczan 6, 44, 47, 50, 56, 66, 71, 73, 74, 75, 104, 120 Bird and Zig?ag painter 19 Bird bowls 26 Bird kotyle woikshop 19, 22, 24 bird vase xxv, 12 Black-on-Rcd ware 20 black polychrome 56 .Borclli painter 126-7 Buccbero 136-7 Buruncuk sec 'Larisa' butterfly motive xxv cable xxv Caeretan hydrias 111-13 Cambyses 106—7 . camel 101 Campana group 108-11 capacity, trade amphoras 148, 149, 162, 167, 169, 176, 186, 187, 189 Caria 6 Carian, I'ikellura 90; Geometric 23-4; "3

Index — Damltbogaz 6, 63 Dennis painter 126-7 Didym.i 6 dmos xxvi dipinto xxvi Dinnil 14 Dodec.inesian 12 Dorian plates 61-3, 65 Early Orientalising 29-31 East Greek Orientalising 32 Empoi io 5 empoioi 144 Enmann class 103-5, 11 Ephcsiaii 38, 44-5 liplicsus 6 Erythyrac 6 Erythraean 51 E t r u r i a , local w o r k s h o p s 6 8 - 7 0 , I I I , I 12-13

Eupliorhos group 32 Eye bowls 28 faience 140-1

Fikellura 64, 79-91 fox 49

Fractional Red amphoras 158 Funnel-necked amphoras 148 G2-G3 ware 25 Galepsos 127 Geometric 15-25 glaze xxvi gloss xxvi graffito xxvi Grand style 71-3 Grey ware 135-6 Giiriclbaiulkanncn 40-1 Hail group 62 Hanover painter 126—7 head vase 62 Hernios Valley kraters 60 Histria 6 Histria, colonial ware 66, 89-90 hook square xxvi Hopkinson painter 126-7 * hourglass xxvi hydria xxvi Iasos 6 'Ionian' amphoras 142

Ionian cups 129-31 Ionian Little Masters 92-4 Ionian migration 1 lschia sec Pitliecusae Kainiros group 32 kantharos xxvi kilns 145, 156 Knipovitch group 101—3 kotyle xxvi kotyle-krater xxvi krater xxvi kyhx see cylix Laconian 75 'Larisa' 5, 56-7

Iches xxvn lekane xxvii lekythos xxvii Lesbian, Grey ware 135-6; tiade aniphoras 156-63 Lesbos 5 Little Master cups 78 London Dinos group 60—1 loop pattern xxvii, 38, 57-8 lotus xxvii, Fig. 8.13 Lotus bowls 27 lotus cross xxvii louteiia 139 Lydia 1-2, 6, 9 Lydian, marbled ware 66; sarcophagi 127; Wild Goat Style 60 lydion 132 Marbled ware xxvii, 66, 132 meander and square xxvii meander cross xxvii mcandroid xxvii 'Mclian' 70 Meijad Hashavyaliu 6, 9

metope system 18 Milesian, Fikellura 77; Geometric 22-3; Piotogeometric 14; trade aniphoras 170-7; Wild Goat style 36, 46 Miletus 6 Monastirakia group 121, 127-8 mug xxvii Mytasa 6, 63 Mytilene 5 Naucratis 4, 6; local wares 67, 73, 75, 107

— Itulcx — 'Naucratite' 46 necking ring xxvn Nisyros 5 Nisyros plates sec Donan plates North Ionian, Wild Goat style 51-5 'North Ionian 2' Northampton group 108-11

ring v.ise xxvin Riz.iri 5 Rosette bowls 2(> 7 rolclle xxvui

oinochoe xxvii Olbia see lierezan olpe xxvii open shape xxvii opposed triangles xxvii

Sami.xn, cups 94; Geometric 21-2; liarly Orientalising 29; trade amphoias 164-9; Wild Goat style 36; /.test's group 178-86 Samos 5 S.udis, CApuuc of 9, K9 saw pattern xxviii, 49 scale decoration 108 siren xxviii Siiulas I 16-18 skyphos xxviii slip xxviii Smyrna fi, 9, 51 (.\nd 19K ch8, n.4l) Smyrnaean, liarly Orientalising 29; GcDiiietric 23; kraters 101; Proiogeoinetric 14 'Si>uili Ionian 3' 45 Spaghetti group 19-20 Sphinx and I.ion group 7-1-5 spiral, double xxvui

loundcl xxvui

Running Man painter 83-5, 89 Knniuii); Satyrs painter 85-6, 89

Orientalising XXVII

Painter of Louvre E676 108-9 palmette xxvii panther xxvii partridge 78 peraea xxvii Persians 2-4, 9, 106-7, 113, 144 Petrie group 98-100 Phanai 5

phiale xxvn Phocaea 5 * Phocaean 57, 112 Piiane 5; sarcophagi 127; Wild Goat style 57-60, 61 l'ithecusae 6 pithoi (relief) 138-9 Plain wares 132-4 plastic vase xxvii Politic 108 Poultry group 75 'Prototliasian' trade amplioras 178-86 proiliesis xxvin, 22 Piotogconietric II-1-) pyxis xxviii

spiral hooks XXVIII M.IIIIIIOS

XXVlii

star pattern xxviii Sub-likcllure 87 Subgcomctiic 22—5, 38, 47 Swallow painter 68-70 Swolk-n-ncckctl amplioras 149, 161 table amphoias 159-60, (64, 186 lea cup xxix Tell Dciciinch 6, 9; local wares 107, I 18, 204 Tcos 51, 155 textiles 38 Thasian, circle 186-90; Cllian 75; Dorian plates 63; Wild Goat style 67-8 Tliasos 6 Tocra 6

Reel-slip ware 19 Relief ware 138-9 reservation xxvui retouches xxvui Rhodes 5, 7 'Rhodian' 32

Rliodian, Bucchero 136—7; Kaily Orientalising 2-'); Geometric 16-21; Protogeometric 12; Relief pithoi 138-9; Siiulas 116-20; Vroulian 114-15 Ribbon painter 108-10 ribbon pattern xxvui

t o o d i p a t t e r n xxix tree o r n a m e n t xxix, 17 lieloil lip xxix tiidaclma shells 3 2 - 3 , 38

Tubingen group 95-8

225

-— Index tuniMcr (>oitomcd amphoras 1S8, 160-2 Ukraine, native sites 18 Urla group 100-1 Vlastos group 32 Vroulian 114-15

—

wash xxix waster xxix Wavclme ware 206 (th19, n 2) Wild Goat style 32-70 Zeeu's 'Piototlusian' 178-86, 'Sanmn' 178 86, 'Thasian circle' 186-90

226